^ THE ^ 
 
 O UBRARtES ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 Sitv cf ** 
 
AUTHORITATIVE CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 THE SIX SYNODS OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH, ITS ONLY UTTER- 
 • ANCES : " THOSE SIX COUNCILS WHICH WERE AL- 
 LOWED AND RECEIVED OF ALL MEN." 
 
 (SECOND PART OF THK CHURCH OF ENGLAND HOMILY AGAINST PERIL OF 
 IDOLATRY, WHICH IS APPROVED IN ITS ARTICLE XXXV). 
 
 THE THIRD WORLD COUNCIL; 
 
 THAT IS, THE THIRD COUNCIL OF THE WHOLE 
 
 CHRISTIAN WORLD, EAST AND WEST, 
 
 WHICH WAS HELD A. D. 431 AT 
 
 EPHESUS IN ASIA. 
 
 TTOIL.- I. 
 
 WHICH CONTAINS ALL OF ACT I. 
 
 —TRANSLATED BY — 
 
 This Act embraces the condemnation of Nestorius the heresiarch for his 
 denial of the Incarnation, and for what St. Cyril calls his worship of a man, 
 (^'AvdpuKoTiaTpela), and for what he terms his Cannibalism {'Avdpo)7ro(payia) on the 
 Eucharist, and for his other errors therein specified. 
 
 255 Grove Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, U. S. A. 
 
 1895. 
 
 Sold to Subscribers at $3 a Volume ; to others at $4* 
 
m 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1894, by 
 
 JAMES CHRYSTAIv, 
 
 In the Ofi&ce of the Librarian of Congress. 
 
 at Washington, D. C. 
 
 Right of translation reserved. 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED TO THE 
 GERMAN EMPEROR WIELIAM II., 
 
 — AND TO— 
 
 THE GERMAN PEOPLE. 
 
 THOSE WHO OBEY THE SIX SYNODS OF THE CHRISTIAN WORLD 
 AND MAINTAIN THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THE TRUTHS 
 THAT GOD THE WORD REALLY BECAME INCAR- 
 NATE, THAT WE MAY WORSHIP NO 
 CREATURE, BUT GOD ALONE. 
 (Matt. IV., lo), 
 AND THAT WE MUST REJECT ALL TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND 
 ALL CONSUBSTANTIATION, AND ALL OTHER ERRORS WHICH 
 RESULT IN WHAT ST. CYRIL BRANDS AS CANNIBALISM 
 {.h0paj7:o(paYia)^ HAVE MUCH TO BE GRATEFUL FOR TO 
 GOD THAT HE RAISED UP THE NOBLE HOUSE 
 WHICH CHAMPIONED THESE DOCTRINES AND 
 ADHERED TO THEM IN EVERY STRUGGLE 
 AGAINST HEAVY ODDS, WHOM FOR THAT 
 FAITHFULNESS GOD HAS MADE 
 GREAT AND IMPERIAL AND 
 HEAD OF GERMANY. 
 And the God-alone-Worshippers have had cause to be thankful to 
 God that he called the Teutonic race to contend for those 
 truths by pen and tongue and sword, and that so manj^ 
 millions of them heard and obeyed, and have 
 been blessed and made strong therefor. 
 May both Emperor and people be 
 faithful now and ever, and 
 so get endless 
 bless inofs. 
 
il. J. DDAN, Printer, 
 
 JERSEY" CITY, N, J. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I here present to the reader the first volume of the Adls of the 
 Third Ecumenical Council, held at Kphesus in Asia, A. D. 431. It 
 comprises all of Act I., which makes up about one-half of the whole 
 bulk of the Minutes. It is now translated for the first time into 
 English, or indeed into any modern language. It follows the 
 original Greek, which happily is still preserved to us. On certain 
 points the Old Latin translation which is ascribed to the century in 
 which the Synod was held has been of service. 
 
 Perhaps no Council has been so much misrepresented and so 
 httle understood; and the same remark applies to St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria, its great leader under God. To take but one example: the 
 Synod to guard the dodlrine of the Infiesh of God the Word, and 
 against Man- Worship, used Bringer-forth-of-God of the Virgin. But 
 how often have I seen it stated in the pages of some ignorant, or at 
 best half -read Romish controversialist that the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod called the Virgin Mary Mother of God, whereas Nestorius 
 would not use that expression. And the general idea was conveyed 
 that the Council was favorable to the Worship of the Virgin and 
 Nestorius was not, and that to promote her worship was the chief 
 ^business of the Synod. And some ignorant Protestants have ac- 
 cepted such misrepresentions as true and condemned the Synod and 
 Cyril on the basis of them; whereas, as we shall see, the Council, 
 and Cyril its leader, in their abhorrence of the sin of Creature- Wor- 
 ship went further than Luther, than Calvin, than Cranmer, than 
 Ridley, than Latimer. For the Synod deposes every cleric, and 
 anathematizes every laic, who gives even bowing, or prayer, and by 
 necessary implication any other act of religious service to the perfect 
 humanity of Christ, the highest of all mere creatures; and of course 
 by necessary implication, much more (a fortiori) does it depose every 
 cleric and anathematize every laic who worships any creature less 
 than that perfect Man, be it the Virgin Mary, any Apostle, or 
 Prophet, any martyr, any archangel, any angel, or any other crea- 
 \ure whomsoever, and much more any inanimate thing, be it a cross 
 
ii Preface. 
 
 painted, or graven, an image painted, or graven, relics, a communion 
 table, an altar, the Bible, or any part of it, or any other inanimate 
 thing whatsoever. In notes 156,160, 173, and especially in notes 
 183, 582, 677, 679, and 680, I have shown how thoroughly both 
 Cyril and the Third Synod and the Fifth condemned and anathema- 
 tized the Nestorian co-worship of the Ma7i taken with God the Word 
 who took him. See especially Cyril's Anathema VIII., approved 
 by Kphesus, and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and 
 its Definition, and compare the penalties in the first VII. Canons of 
 Ephesus against Bishops and other clerics and laics who contravene 
 its teachings and enadlments, and the penalties in the Definition 
 of the Fifth- World Synod against all Bishops, other clerics, and 
 laics who oppose its teachings. Indeed Cyril goes so far as to teach 
 that 
 
 "Th^duty op being bowkd to beIvOngs only to the 
 Divine and Ineffable Nature," (pages 79 and 80 below, note). 
 
 And again he writes: 
 
 "The right to be bowed to belongs to and befits 
 God AlyONE," (pages 225, 226 below). 
 
 And he brands the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity as 
 "A^^epioTzolarpeia^ that is, as Ma7i- Worship, that is, as the worship of a 
 human bei^ig. And surely if it be the sin of Mayi- Worship to wor- 
 ship Christ's mere separate humanity, much more is it the sin of 
 worshipping a hnniayi being to worship any lesser creature, be it the 
 Virgin Mary, an Apostle, or a Prophet, or a martyr, or any other 
 creature whomsoever. For the ever sinless humanity of Christ is ' 
 higher than any other creature whomsoever. 
 
 Yet how few know these fadls well, or appeal in the controversy 
 with idolatrous Rome to the Decisions of the Third Council of that 
 whole Church, West and East, which Christ commands us to hear 
 if we would not be to all His flock '' as a heathen man aiid a publi- 
 can'' (Matt, xviii., 17); and which, under the leading of the Holy 
 Ghost condemned every form of creature invocation, image-worship, 
 and all other creature worship, more than a thousand years before 
 Euther or Cranmer v/ere born; and the condemnation of those 
 heresies by the whole Church in that Synod is more full, more 
 thorough, and more exact than Luther's or Cranmer' s. 
 
 And long centuries before the rise of Two Nature Transubstan- 
 
Preface. iii 
 
 tiation and Two-Nature Consubstantiation, and their sequences of 
 the real presence of the Two-Natures of Christ in the Thanksgiving, 
 that is, the Eucharist {Eoy^apiaria)^ and of their w^orship there, the 
 Holy Ghost in the Third Council of the Undivided Church at Ephe- 
 sus, A. D. 431, infallibly led the Universal Episcopate, to antece- 
 dently condemn them. Nestorius had advocated the error of a one- 
 nature Consubstantiation, that is, a Consubstantiation of the sub- 
 vStance of Christ's real humanity with the still unchanged bread and 
 wine, and their real eating in the rite, and his partisan and chief 
 champion, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, had gone so far as to assert 
 the worship of the consecrated and yet unchanged elements as being 
 those things, the body and blood of Christ, which they represent and 
 of which they are types. And his language implies that as denial 
 of the Incarnation and Man-Worship, that is, the worship of Christ's 
 separate humanity, had, as we know, entered the Syrian Church iu 
 the fourth century and become established there by his time, sa 
 probably in the fourth century there had entered into it the heresy 
 of a Consubstantiation of Christ's humanity, not His Divinity, with 
 the bread and wine in the Rite, and the worship of the bread and 
 wine as being not only bread and w4ne and types of Christ's body 
 and blood, but also His real body itself and His real blood itself, 
 both which, according to him, are really and orally taken by the 
 communicant in the Sacred Rite. Cyril meets this plain assertion 
 of a real presence and a corporal manducation and condemns it as 
 'Avdpio-ocpayia^ to use his owu term for it, that is. Cannibalism, and 
 asserts with Nestorius a real absence of the Substance of God the 
 Word's Divinity from the rite; and, against him, a real absence of 
 the substance of Christ's humanity from the rite; and of course, 
 against him, he denies, as he was logically forced to do, any worship 
 of Christ's separate humanity there or anywhere else, and au}^ and 
 all eating of the substance of his flesh, and any and all drinking of 
 the substance of His blood there, and uses strong language, stronger 
 than is found to-day in most Anglican writers against that disgust- 
 ing and absurd tenet and heresy. 
 
 In note 606, and in those on Nestorius' Blasphemy 18, pages 
 472-475 below, I have shown how St. Cyril, and the Universal 
 Church in the Third World-Synod, following him, have condemned 
 all Eucharistic heresies past and present. Surely when these fadls 
 become known the creature worship of Rome and that of the Greeks, 
 
Iv. Preface. 
 
 and that of the Monophysites, and that of the Nestorians, and all 
 their real presence and Cannibal errors on the Kncharist and all 
 their worship of it will be seen by all fair men to be anathematized 
 by that ^^One, Holy, Uriiversal ajid Apostolic Church,''' which is, ''the ^ 
 pillar a7id groimd of the truth " (I. Tim. iii., 15), which Christ, our 
 Master, commands us to " hear, ' ' or else to be regarded as not 
 Christians but '' as a heathen man and a publican,'' ' (Matt, xviii., 17). 
 And we shall all see also that the deposition by the Third World- 
 Synod of all Bishops and all other clerics who hold to those errors or 
 to any of them should be respecfted and enforced by the removal cf 
 all such heretics from their sees, and that its anathema against all 
 laics who hold to such errors should also be obeyed, and no man 
 should commune with them or fellowship them in any way as Chris- 
 tians till they repent, reform, and submit to the Six Councils of the 
 whole Church, West and East. These and all other questions decided 
 by the Third Ecumenical Synod, or by any other of the Six World- 
 Councils have passed out of the category of disputable questions and 
 must be accepted and enforced by all, or the present ecclesiastical di- 
 visions and anarchy must forever continue, contrary to Christ's prayer 
 injohnxvii., 20-24, to His grief and the grief of every true Christian, 
 and to the delight of His foes and the loss of souls. Hence we must 
 reject all Synods which contradict any of its decisions against invoking 
 and otherwise worshipping creatures, and against all image worship 
 and relic worship, be it the Christ insulting and blasphemous conven- 
 ticle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, under Tarasius of the God cursed death, 
 Trent, or any other. And we must firmly hold to every thing in the 
 Six Councils which has had Ecumenical Sandlion, and look forward 
 to a fast coming Seventh . May these translations and annotations en- 
 lighten all who claim to be Christians and help powerfull}^ to pre- 
 pare the way for it. If the writer in his dying hour can see things 
 moving on towards it and towards a godly union and towards the 
 reign of Christ on this earth, he will deem that he has not lived 
 and labored in vain, and will be comforted and strengthened at his 
 departure, to what he humbly hopes and believes will be by God's 
 unmerited favor, not by his own deservings, a blessed home with 
 Christ for Whom he has toiled for so many years supported and 
 guided by His grace and mercy. * 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The following are the all important facfts as to the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod: 
 
 I. As TO ITS AUTHORITY AND RECEPTION: 
 
 It is one of "Those Six Councils which were allowed 
 AND RECEIVED OF ALL MEN," to use the language of the Second 
 Part of the Church of Englaiid' s Homily against Peril of Idolatry. 
 That Homily is among those approved in its Thirty-Fifth Article 
 as containing " a godly a7id wholesome do^rine and necessary for these 
 times;'' and therefore is ordered by that Article ^' to be read i7i 
 Clmrches by the 77iinisters, dilige7itly a7id disti7i^ly^ that they 77iay be 
 n7idersta7idcd of ilie peopled This language of a dodlrinal formulary 
 tells how highly that Communion respe(5ls the authorit}^ of the Third 
 of those Six Synods. 
 
 Those Six Councils are as follows: 
 I. Nicaea, A. D. 325. 
 II. First Constantinople, A. D. 38 1. 
 
 III. Ephesus, A. D. 431. 
 
 IV. Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 
 
 Y. Second Constantinople, A. D. 553. 
 VI. Third Constantinople, A. D. 680. 
 These are the only Synods of the Universal Church before it 
 split into two parts in the ninth century; and therefore are the 
 
 only AUTHORITATIVE DECISIONS OF ALL CHRISTENDOM: and among 
 
 all the later disputes and divisions, the great bulk of the theological 
 scholarship of the Christian World still regards them as next in 
 AUTHORITY TO THE BiBLE ITSELF, and looks upon their decisions as 
 guided by the Holy Ghost according to the promises of Christ to the 
 Universal Apostolate which defined in them. 
 
 Indeed the formularies of the following Communions expressly 
 profess at least to receive this Third vSynod, namely those, 
 
 1, of the Greek; 
 
 2, of the Latin; 
 
 3, of the Anglican; 
 
VI. 
 
 Introduction, 
 
 And 4, even those of the Monophysite se(5ls, that is the Copts, 
 the Syrians, and the Armenians. 
 
 5. Besides the formularies of the bulk of the Trinitarian Prot- 
 estants, who are not Anghcans, such as the Lutherans, Presbyter- 
 ians, etc., profess to agree with Kphesus on the Incarnation. 
 
 The Synod is formally rejeded by the Nestorians alone among 
 the older heretical communions; and they are not one eight hun- 
 dredth part of the professedly Christian world. 
 
 Among later denominations it is rej edled by the Anti -Trinitarian 
 secfts; a very small proportion of all who claim to be Christians. 
 
 It is not too much to say that of perhaps 450,000,000 nominal 
 Christians, the aggregate of se(5ls who formally profess to reject the 
 Third Synod and its dodlrines does not amount to 10,000,000, not 
 more than about one forty-fifth of the whole! 
 
 As to reception then we see that no other Christian documents 
 are so universally received among those who claim to be Christians, 
 as the Six Councils are, except the Bible. So widely are they ad- 
 mitted. 
 
 Moreover, no person who claims to reject this Third Synod could 
 get communion in any of the older organizations of professing 
 Christendom, except among the mere handful of Nestorians, whose 
 communion is reje(5led by all. It is true indeed that there is much 
 io-norance as to what their decisions are, but nevertheless little of 
 
 o 
 
 professed rejedlion of them. 
 
 It is true indeed that in times posterior to the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod the very points settled in it were lost sight of among the un- 
 critical mass and that in the middle ages and in modern times even, 
 in the creature-invoking Communions, it was supposed that the 
 Council had even sanaioned the worship of the Virgin. Indeed that 
 utterly false and absurd notion still exists among some of the less 
 learned of the Roman Communion and of the Greek, and I presume 
 among the Nestorians and the Monophysites also. 
 
 As time wore on another evil came in; that is the use, especially 
 in Western Christendom, of the expression ''Mother of God " of the 
 Virgin instead of the expression " Bringer Forth of God," 6zot6xo<s 
 in Greek, which the older Latins had rendered exa^ly and excel- 
 lently by Deipara, which means Bringer Forth of God. This was the 
 
LitroductLOiL. 
 
 Vil 
 
 more to be regretted, i , because the expression Mother of God is un- 
 authorized by the Third Ecumenical Council and, so far as I know, 
 by any other of the Six. 
 
 2. Because it does not guard the doc5lrine of the acftual Incar- 
 carnation of the Eternal Substance of God the Word in the womb of 
 the Virgin and His birth out of her, so well as * 'Brmge7' Forth of 
 God'' does, for children call a step-mother, mother; and so a son-in- 
 law often calls his mother-in-law, "mother;" yet the woman ad- 
 dressed is in neither case the bri7iger forth of those who so call her 
 ' ' mother. ' ' 
 
 Furthermore, 3, the expression ''Mother of God'' in the minds 
 of the unlearned mass came finally to be connedled wnth the worship 
 of the Virgin, and it became customary for them to suppose that she 
 could as a mother command her son, and so she was made in their 
 depraved system a Mediatrix with Him, and was invoked to ''com- 
 mand" Him to do what the petitioner wished. And the facfls that 
 the Third Synod had not used ' ' Mother of God ' ' at all, had not in- 
 voked or worshipped her at all, but on the contrary had by neces- 
 sary implication condemned all creature-worship by anathematizing 
 even ' ' bowing' ' to the separate humanity of Christ, and had author- 
 ized ' ' Bringer Forth of God ' ' only to guard the Incarnation of God 
 the Word, and to guard against Man-Worship, were generally lost 
 sight of, indeed almost wholly. 
 
 This was the state of things at the time of the Reformation in 
 the sixteenth century. Hence while the better informed of the Re- 
 formers spoke with respect of Ephesus, and while the second part of 
 the Homily of the Church of England against Peril of Idolatry 
 quotes Cyril as " an old and holy doHor" against creature service, 
 nevertheless some in their ignorance of the Third Synod, then un- 
 published, supposing that the Romish representations of it as favor- 
 ing the w^orship of Mary w^ere true, used wrong language of the 
 Council. 
 
 In note 21, page 360 of Vol. I of Murdock's Mosheim' s Ecclesias- 
 tical History we read that Luther was the first among moderns to 
 condemn Cyril of Alexandria, and that he "inveighed bitterly" 
 against him, and that ' ' he was followed by innumerable others ' ' of 
 whom that note specifies quite a number. 
 
 But now that the Synod has been published, we can readily 
 
Viii. Introditdi 
 
 correct the mistakes of the Romanists on the one hand, and ol 
 Luther on the other, and show from the Acfts that the Synod in effect 
 anathematized every creature worshipper in the Eighth of the XII. 
 Chapters of Cyril, which it approved. And to show this from the 
 Council itself is all important if we would have Church Authority 
 duly respecfled, a thing necessary among the anarchies and heresies 
 of the present. For the great argument of the opponents of Ephe- 
 sus among the Protestants is that it favored creature- worship, an as- 
 sertion, one of the most slanderous ever uttered by mortal man. It 
 did just the opposite. Yet it is still done injustice to by those who 
 should be its friends. And, alas! not two Bishops of any communion 
 know it thoroughly, and the ignorance of it among the lower 
 clergy is simply tearful and appalling. And yet the Orthodox 
 Clergy are all bound to teach and to maintain these Holy-Ghost-led 
 Creeds, Definitions, and Canons. For on them the soundness, the 
 true order, the true unity, and the safet)^ of the whole Church rests. 
 Even under the Mosaic Dispensation, God said, " The pn'esf s lips 
 should keep knowledge, aiid they should seek the law at his mouth, for 
 he is the messeiiger of the Lord of Hosts,'' (Malachi ii., 7). If this 
 was so of the duty of the priest to the limited and inferior knowledge 
 of the Mosaic Law, how much more is it the duty of God's priests 
 (I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. i., 6), under the 7iew and better covenayit 
 of Christ (Heb. xii., 24; viii., 6, 8, 13), to guard for the Christian 
 people the fuller and more spiritual and higher knowledge of two 
 things which are joined together in Christ's Law, and which ought 
 never to be p2tt asunder (Matt, xix., 6), that is the sword of the 
 Spirit, which is the word of God ^' (Eph. vi., 17), and the Decisions 
 of that Universal Church which Christ has commanded us to hear un- 
 less we would be regarded ^' as a heathe^i man a7id a publican ' ' (Matt, 
 xviii., 17). The true minister of God, therefore, be he Bishop, or 
 Presbyter, or Deacon, will always join together God's Word and 
 God's Church's Utterances in its Synodically sound, undivided 
 period when in ages of controversy^ there rose different forms of in- 
 fidelity on some themes, and that Holy-Ghost-led Church anathe- 
 matized them, as for instance, Arius', on Christ's Divinity and Nes- 
 torius' on His Incarnation, as the Universal Church anathematized 
 also others against the fundamental truth that God alone is to be 
 worshipped (Matt, iv., 10), such as Arius' in favor of worshipping 
 a created Son, Macedonius' in favor of worshipping a mere created 
 
hitrodudion. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Holy Ghost, and Nestorius' against worshipping a mere created 
 human Christ, and as that same Universal Church anathematized 
 Nestorius' and his disciple Theodoret's heresy of Cannibalism and 
 Man-Worship in the Thanksgiving, that is, in the Eucharist. And 
 he will not only join together the Bible and the utterances of the 
 Universal Church in name but in fact and in execution, and there- 
 fore as the Universal Church deposes all Bishops and other clerics 
 who receive any of those heresies, or any other errors condemned 
 by the VI. Synods, he will do all he can to depose them and will shun 
 them; and as it anathematizes all laics who receive any of those errors, 
 or any others condemned by any of the VI. Ecumenical Coun- 
 cils, he will also anathematize them and, as the Holy Ghost warns, 
 will " avoid thejn " (Rom. xvi., 17; I. Cor. v., 11; and II. Thess. iii., 
 14, 15). And he will regard as disobedient to the Universal Church 
 all who try to make out that its Holy-Ghost-led World Synods were 
 wrong in condemning as heretics Nestorius, Origen, Pope Hon- 
 orius or any others. For that sort of talk ends in anarchy. For if 
 any one assert that the Holy-Ghost-led Undivided Church went 
 wrong in an Ecumenical Synod, when it especially needs the Spirit's 
 guidance and has it, and condemned Honorius of Rome, for instance, 
 or Nestorius, unjustly, then all the surety of the decisions of the Six 
 Ecumenical Synods is swept away, for another may assert as some 
 do even now that Nicaea wrongly condemned Arius, and I. Con- 
 stantinople Macedonius, and Chalcedon Eutyches, and II. Constan- 
 tinople the Three Chapters, and so we shall all be at sea, and 
 Christ's promises to be with his church to the end of the world, and 
 by His Spirit to guide His Apostolate, that is, Episcopate, into all 
 truth will be nullified and falsified. 
 
 God, by His prophet Isaiah, ascribes the woes of his people to 
 lack of knowledge: " The7'efore my people are gone into captivity^ be- 
 cause they have no knowledge " (Isaiah v., 13). And, again he writes, 
 '' The priest and the prophet have erred'' (Isaiah xxviii., 7). And 
 on the other hand when rebuking his people Israel for their spiritual 
 whoredom of idolatry and invoking creatures, for which they had 
 been carried away captives to Assyria, he promises them teachers 
 who will feed them with knowledge if they will reform; " Turn, O 
 backsliding children, saith the Lord ; for I am married unto you; ayid I 
 will take you one of a city, and two of a family, ajid I will briyig you to 
 
X. Introduction. 
 
 Zw7i : and I will give you pastors according to fnine heart, which shall 
 feed you with knowledge and undei^staiiding,'" (Jerem. iii., 14, 15). 
 
 But in the middle ages evil Empresses and Emperors, and " the 
 great whore that sitteth on many waters,'' Rome (Rev. xvii., 1,15 and 
 18), corrupted ''all nations,'" for they drank ''of the wine of the 
 W7^ath of her fo7'nication ' ' of creature worship, ' ' a7id the Kings of the 
 earth conwiitted fornicatio7i with her (Rev. xviii., 3), and ignorance of 
 the decisions of the Six Councils spread like blackness and prevailed, 
 and the accursed conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, enadled dogmas 
 in favor of invoking saints and worshipping images and relics rela- 
 tively after the heathen sophism and attempted excuse of relative 
 adoration, and soul-damning idolatry, like a nightmare, rested on 
 the bosom of the Church, and God, as the blessed English Reformers 
 teach, sent the Mohammedan curse on it for those sins, which wasted 
 it, and, as the idolatrous Christians would not repent, wiped out 
 immense parts of it, and controls the East to this day, and holds 
 fast the great bulk of the people of the Barbary States to this hour. 
 And the present corruption and decadence of the Church of England 
 is owing to the fact that neither Bishops, nor lower clergy, nor 
 people knew the Six Synods accurately, had no zeal for them, and 
 permitted Pusey, Keble and others to teach against their docftrines. 
 And because the professedly Christian world does not know them, 
 and violates them, therefore is so much of it creature invoking, 
 image worshipping, and Host-worshipping, and therefore are some 
 other parts of it opposed to its dodlrine, discipline, rite, and custom, 
 as set forth in said Six Synods, and therefore have w^e so many 
 heresies, divisions, and se<5ls. The way to restore 7mity in truth, 
 (and God will never permit any other union), is to fall back on the 
 Scripture, as authoritatively set forth in the Six Ecumenical Coun- 
 cils, and to follow all primitive dodlrine, discipline, rite, and custom, 
 where they have not spoken. There was unity on all that once. Be- 
 fore a hundred years there will be again. Meanwhile we must 
 maintain it all and sternl}^ refuse all compromises. 
 
 We must then never forget that these Six Synods were the sole 
 Conciliar bond and basis of unity in the Church till it fell apart by 
 the attempt to add to the faith of the Church what contravened them 
 in the local Synod in A. D. 787 at Nicaea, under Tarasius of the 
 horrible death, and Irene, the Jezebel of her age. All the attempts 
 to reunite the Greeks and Latins and Protestants, on bases which 
 
In trodiiciio}i . xi . 
 
 contradict any thing in the VI. Synods have been signal failures. 
 Any future union must necessarily begin by receiving them and re- 
 jecting all that contradidls them. This is the faith of all Orthodox 
 scholars of every name. 
 
 While there was unity, Bishops at their ordination and Emper- 
 ors at their coronation promised to obey and maintain them. 
 
 They were of Universal Authority twelve hundred years ago; 
 and so they are to-day, and so they will be while the world shall 
 stand and the Church be militant. 
 
 II. As TO THIS TRANS I.ATION OF THK ThIRD COUNCIL. 
 
 Not one-twentieth part of its Acfls has ever been put in 
 an English dress. Hammond in his work on the Canons, (again and 
 again republished), has given us only its canons and some excerpts 
 besides; not a fiftieth part of the bulk of the whole work. 
 
 P. E. Pusey has given us in pamphlet form, a version of the 
 two Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria approved in it. But the bulk of 
 the Synod has never been Englished. It still exists, but only in the 
 original Greek and in an old I,atin translation. The Third Synod 
 is the first of the Six whose A<fls, that is, Minutes, have reached us. 
 We have only the decisions and formal utterances of the first two. 
 
 The failure to English it is the more remarkable as our own day 
 has witnessed the translation and wide circulation of works of ad- 
 mittedly vastly less importance and authority, that is, the mere 
 opinions of individual writers, in the Oxford Library of the Fathers 
 and in Clark' s A^ite-Nicene Christian Library, There is as much 
 difference between them and the Six Synods, so far as authority is 
 concerned, as there is between the mere testimo?iy or opinions oi private 
 individuals as to what a law of the United States should be, and that 
 law itself ena(5led by the Congress of the United States and every- 
 where enforced. In the one case the utterance or testimony is i7idi- 
 vidual; in the other it is the sound and irrevocable verdict of the whole 
 Christian Church after the evidence pro and con., has been presented. 
 These Synods did indeed profess to follow that written transmission 
 in docftrine, discipline and rite which had come down from the be- 
 ginning; but they expose and brand all wanderings from it in times 
 after the beginning in individual writers, as for instance in Theodoret, 
 and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Diodore of Tarsus, as heretical and 
 to be avoided; so that they most savingly teach us where the stream of 
 ancient truth is pure, and where men have tried to mingle the poison 
 
xii . In troduction . 
 
 of error and heresy with its clean waters. An instance of the need 
 and value of these Ecumenical Decisions in such matters is seen in 
 the fact that Ephesus condemned the error of Theodoret on the 
 Eucharist; which John Keble, not knowing, made Theodoret' s con- 
 demned heresy the basis of his own errors on that sacred rite. And 
 the heresiarch and idolatrizer, E. B. Pusey, being ignorant of parts 
 of the Decisions of the Council fell into the same heresy. 
 
 Years ago, as far back as 1 864, the translator began his work 
 of turning these inestimably precious tomes into his mother tongue, 
 and has proceeded according as he had time and opportunity 
 till he has finished all of the Third Council and much of the other 
 Five. He has been often hampered by the fact that his parish or 
 teaching duties required his presence, and that at times he did not 
 live near enough to the large libraries to consult their treasures. 
 He has toiled on without the aid of the fellowships which at Oxford 
 and Cambridge have enabled clerical scholars to devote themselves 
 wholly to the work of sacred learning and have furnished them the 
 means of acquiring information in their large libraries and of pub- 
 lishing their works when written. Yet he has persevered and after 
 many interruptions has been enabled, by God's undeserved mercy, 
 to finish his task on Ephesus, and not only to translate that, but 
 also large passages from ancient writers which serve to explain it. 
 His aim has been to make it what long years ago a most learned 
 American prelate, Bp. Whittingham, exhorted and encouraged him 
 to make it, a xTjj/ia i? dst, *' a possession forever /' an exhortation 
 which it was the more easy to fulfil because, as being the voice of that 
 whole Church which Christ commands us to hear, it was that by 
 very necessity already ; so that all the translator had to do was to 
 make it known to the English-speaking reader in his own noble 
 Saxon speech. 
 
 To translate it had become the more necessary (A.), because of 
 the mistaken and sometimes even absurd notions which were circu- 
 lated regarding some of its Decisions, and the total ignorance of 
 others of them among the masses of the clergy of all Creeds ; aye, 
 even now some of the godly decisions of the Whole Church in it are 
 pra6tically as much forgotten as was the book of the Eaw when Hil- 
 kiah the high priest found it in the temple and brought it to the 
 notice of the pious reforming King Josiah (II Kings, chapters xxii. 
 and xxiii). 
 
Introduction. xiii. 
 
 (B). Because so few of the clergy were ever good scholars in 
 Christian Greek and Latin; and because most of the few who were 
 skilled in those tongues have largely lost their knowledge amidst 
 daily cares and struggles for a livelihood; so that even if they now 
 became possessed of the original Greek, they could not readily read 
 it, nor readily find time to do as much study as they wish. 
 
 (C). Because of the cost and rarity of the works which con- 
 tain the original of the Six Councils. Their cost on this side of the 
 water may be inferred from what a New York book dealer told me 
 within a few years. He stated that he had sold a set of Mansi's 
 Co7icilia for twelve hundred dollars or more, and Hardouin's for about 
 two hundred or two hundred and fifty. In Mansi there are thirty- 
 one volumes, in Hardouin twelve. One may readily see therefore 
 how hard it is in a land like our own, where there is so little of prac- 
 tical appreciation and advancement of learned men, for a poor scholar 
 in some out of the way and poor charge to get the means for such 
 an outlay. For as nothing pays among us where the unthinking 
 multitude are the choosers, except mere popular oratory, which is 
 seldom combined with learning and solidity, the consequence gener- 
 ally is that the scholars are compelled to live on small and insuffi- 
 cient incomes in places remote from the daily privileges of libraries. 
 
 III. Furthermore as to the form in which this work 
 
 IS PUBLISHED. 
 
 The aim has been to gtt it up in a more scholarly and perfect 
 way than some translations of other documents; for on points of in- 
 terest we have given the original Greek or Latin in the notes. This, 
 while vastly enhancing the value of the work to the scholarly class 
 who will be its chief purchasers, will necessarily entail a higher 
 price for it; but it is believed that very few will begrudge the increase 
 in cost, or be willing to purchase an inferior presentment of the 
 originals. If a man wants this work at all, he wants it next to his. 
 Bible, and wants it in the best and completest form. 
 
 It is a book to be used for a life time, and to be constantly ap- 
 pealed to for information, and in such cases the best is always the 
 cheapest in the long run. 
 
 IV. I use as the basis, from which to transi<ate, Coleti's 
 Greek, compared with that in the Colledlio Regia or Kditio Regia 
 of Paris, A.D. 1644, and that in Hardouin and that in Mansi. 
 
xiv. Introduction. 
 
 Sometimes I have found the Colledio Regia or Editio Regia very 
 useful in enabling me to correct a- misprint in Coleti; and I have 
 found Hardouin critical and useful. Mansi often incorporates into 
 his ediiion of the Councils the remarks of Hardouin. 
 
 Mansi mentions two Latin Versions of these A<5ls, that is, the 
 old one, and the new one of the Jesuit, Pelte. He gives both («). 
 
 I had hoped to give in this volume the Greek text of the two 
 Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria which were approved in the first Act 
 of the Third Ecumenical Synod, as well as the Greek of the Twenty 
 Blasphemous Passages of Nestorius, so far as found, which were 
 condemned in the same Act, as well perhaps as the sentence on him 
 at its end. But those things must be deferred to a final volume of 
 Ephesus, or at least to farther on in another volume of this Council. 
 For this volume is large already: and the Greek of those documents 
 w4th the notes on them, would increase its size and cost more than 
 the buyer might care to give. 
 
 [a). Mansi, Concilia, tome 4, col. 1123, 1124, writing of the Latin Version 
 given by him of the AAs of the Third Ecumenical Synod says: 
 
 " Versio est Theodori Peltani Soc. Jesu allata etiam ab Harduino, qui Graeci 
 textus margini nonnuUas apposuit varias leAiones e Cod. Reg. 524, propriasque 
 conjedluras; Latini vero, quasdam voces notata dignas e vetere versione, ac no- 
 tulas. Haec omnia (licet integram veterem versionem daturi simus ex Baluzio), 
 hue transtulimus, ac utrique textui substravimus," 
 
RIvSE AND SPREAD 
 
 — OF THE — 
 
 NESTORIAN HERESIES, 
 
 ON THE INMAN, ON THE WORSHIP OF CHRIST'S HUMANITY, ON 
 
 THE EUCHARIST, AND ON THE KINDRED THEMES ; WITH 
 
 AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONTROVERSY ON THEM 
 
 WHICH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE THIRD 
 
 ECUMENICAL COUNCIL AND LED TO IT. 
 
 The story of all this is briefly told. Diodore, who was a pres- 
 byter of Antioch, and about A. D. 379, Bishop of Tarsus, laid the- 
 foundations of the Nestorian heresy {a). He had struggled man- 
 fully against the Arian heresy, and the Manichean, and the Apolli- 
 narian, and had won deserved renown therefor, and, so, had been 
 elevated to the See of the Metropolis of the First Cilicia, and as such 
 had sat in the Second Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 381. On the 
 Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost he was sound. 
 But the quotations from him which are preserved in the Fragments 
 of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Treatise against him which have reached 
 us incontestibly prove that he denied the Incarnation, and w^or- 
 shipped his mere human Christ, relatively to the Logos, and gave 
 him the name Sole-Born, which is prerogative to God the Word, and 
 asserted that that mere creature shares the Sonship and the Dignity 
 which belong only to the Logos, and was made a " Complement of 
 the Holy Con substantial Trinity:' These are chief Nestorian 
 errors, and constitute their creature-worship and its basis: see those 
 Fragments in the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the 
 Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 320-337, especially pages 328- 
 335, and page 321, note, outer column, where Cyril speaks of him. 
 
 (a). The article on Diodore, ("Diodorus I,"), in Smith and Wace's Dic- 
 tionary of Christian Biography contains some references to the originals which 
 are worth looking at, but is too favorable altogether to the heretic. St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria, in his Ep- I. to Succensus, calls Nestorius a " disciple " of Dio- 
 dore, and tells us that he was " darkened by Diodore' s books:'' see the place 
 translated in a note, on page 321 of the Oxford translation of 5, Cyril of Alex 
 andria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 
 
xvi. Events Before the Council. 
 
 In those Fragments I find no mention of the Nestorian one-nature 
 Consubstantiation on the Lord's Supper. But that is no wonder, 
 for only a small part of Diodore's writings have reached us, and 
 even of Cyril's reply to him we have only Fragments. But even 
 from the few remains of Diodore's writings which we have it is clear 
 that he held to and taught two out of the three great errors of what 
 was afterwards termed Nestorianism, that is 
 
 1, Denial of the hicarnatioji ; aiid 
 
 2, The relative worship of Chris f s separate humanity^ that is of 
 a mere creature, and that hence he was what St. Cyril termed Nes- 
 torius, a Man- Worshipper {av6pa)TzoXdrp-q<i)^ that is a Worshipper of a 
 Man; and hence that he had slumped through into the fundamental 
 error of paganism. 
 
 On the 3d great error, the Nestorian Cannibalism QAvdpioTiofpayia^'y 
 as St. Cyril terms it, on the Eucharist, I have seen nothing of Dio- 
 dore which is definite either way, as I have just said. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom were Diodore's 
 pupils and disciples, and Nestorius, and Theodoret, Bishop of Cy- 
 rus, were among his disciples and shared his errors {a). Indeed the 
 influence of Diodore was very great in the Patriarchate of Antioch 
 as we now term it, in which nearly his whole life seems to have 
 been spent, for his family was of Antioch, and his see. Tarsus, was 
 under it. On pages 1 12-128, note, I have shown that Diodore, 
 Theodore, Nestorius, Theodoret, and Andrew Bishop of Samosata, 
 all of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and Eutherius of Tyana, all held 
 to what is termed the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, and 
 to his denial of the Inman; and in note 606, pages 240-313, and on 
 page 472-474, text and notes on it, we see that Nestorius is de- 
 nounced by Cyril for holding to what Cyril calls Cannibalism 
 (^AvdpajTtotpayia) on the Eucharist. And in note 606 we see that Theo- 
 doret taught one-nature Consubstantiation in the Lord's Supper, 
 that is the co-existence of Christ's humanity with the bread and 
 wine of the Eucharist, that is His body with the bread and His blood 
 
 {a). See note "a," pages 320, 321, and note " a," page 337 of the Oxford 
 Translation of 6*. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius 
 and in the note on pages 1 12-128 in this work above. Pusey in his heretical 
 and idolatrous Do^rine of the Real Presence, page 544, states that Chrysostom 
 " studied under Diodorus (afterwards Bishop of Tarsus ).^^ 
 
Events Before the Council. xvii. 
 
 with the wine in the rite after consecration, and to their worship 
 there. And his language seems naturally to imply that such wor- 
 ship had been for some time established in Syria, his home, and the 
 home of the One Natureite against whom he is writing: whether it 
 was originated by Diodore or Theodore of Mopsuestia we cannot 
 say, but as they were worshippers of Christ's separate humanity, 
 and also held to relative worships they could with their creature- 
 serving notions worship it in the Eucharist; whereas St. Cyril 
 who agreed with Nestorius in denying the real presence of the 
 Substance of God the Word's Divinity in the Eucharist; and 
 who differed from Nestorius by denying the real presence of the sub- 
 stance of Christ's humanity there, and also by rejedting the worship 
 of Christ's separate humanity there as Man- Worship QA^^dpioTzoXazpeia)^ 
 and who confines all worship to God, in accordance with Matthew 
 iv., lo, could not worship that creature anj^where (b). Compare 
 notes 691, 692 and 693. 
 
 It can not, indeed, be said that the Syrians had gone so far into 
 creature worship as Rome and the Greeks have since. For whereas 
 both the Greeks and the Latins now worship angels, the Syrian 
 did not, even as late as Theodoret's day in the fifth century, if his 
 opinion on it was shared by them. For, as Bingham in his A7itiqiii- 
 lies, Book XIII., Chapter iii., sedlion 3 shows, Canon XXXV. of 
 the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, brands that sin of in- 
 voking angels as ' * hidden idolatry, ' ' and anathematizes those who 
 were guilty of it, as Theodoret himself as there quoted testifies, and 
 he himself condemns it (<:), and, presumably, expresses the Syrian 
 opinion on it. And Chrysostom before him had denounced that 
 God-insulting and Christ-deriding sin, as though a creature could 
 share the One Mediator's office of mediation and intercession on 
 high, or as though His intercession were not all-sufiicient (Heb. 
 vii., 25), and alone authorized (John xiv., 6; I. Tim. ii., 5, and I. John 
 ii., I, 2). See the same secflion in Bingham. 
 
 (d). See Cyril's language above, in note 183, page 79 and pages 102-107, 
 and in note 582, page 225. 
 
 (c). See on that Canon, and Theodoret's language on it, in Bingham's 
 A7itiquities of the Christian Church, Book xiii., Chapter iii.,Se(5lion 3. Theo- 
 doret's words are quoted in Greek and English on page 140 of Treat's Catholic 
 Faith. He is also cited by Whitby on Colos. ii., 18. As the Canons of Lao- 
 dicea were made of Ecumenical authority by Canon I. of Chalcedon it also is 
 part of the faith of the Universal Church. 
 
xviii. Events Before the Council. 
 
 But we shall find further on, from one of the Nestorian party, a 
 confession of what seems much like the worship of relics. Few of the 
 Syrians of St. Cyril of Alexandria's day were deemed Orthodox. 
 And, whatever was the cause, he refused to insert even Chrysostom's 
 name in the diptychs of his church (<?), a position which some think 
 he maintained to the last, and which implies a severe judgment on 
 Chrysostom's Orthodoxy, perhaps also on his salvability. And as 
 some editions of Chrysostom have in places intercession of saints, we 
 
 {z). Porphyrius, Bishop of Antioch, A. D. 404-408, would not put Chry- 
 sostom's name into the diptychs. That was first done by his successor Alexan - 
 der, consecrated in A. D. 408, and dead in 418 (Theodoret's Eccl. Hist, v., 35). 
 He tried to persuade Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 406-426, but he re- 
 fused till he was, so to speak, forced by the people and the emperor. When he 
 did he tried to induce Cyril of Alexandria to do the same, but failed. I quote 
 Venable's account of this incident in his article on Atticus in Smith and Wace's 
 Di5lionary of Christian Biography, vol. i, page 209, inner column : 
 
 "The apology of Atticus, mean, insincere, cowardly, extenuating the im- 
 portance of his act, laying the responsibility of it on others -the people so 
 violent — the emperor so urgent — lamenting that a sense of expediency should 
 have compelled him to take a step his judgment disallowed, contrasts most 
 forcibly with the incisive severity and bitter irony of Cyril's reply, while with 
 pitiless hand he dissects Atticus' excuses, and with withering scorn exposes 
 their futility and dishonesty, ' He would as soon be induced to place the name 
 of Judas on the rolls as that of Chrysostom, Atticus must retrace his steps, and 
 remove it at all hazard. ' ' ' Theodoret, as was natural, takes sides with his fel- 
 low patriarchan, Chrysostom, (See his Eccl. Hist. v. 34). It shows his strong 
 dislike of the Egyptians. In the chapters preceding he lauds Chrysostom to 
 the skies. In the same book, Chapter 40, he extravagantly praises the heresi- 
 arch Theodore of Mopsuestia: I quote part of it as in the English translation 
 in Bohn^s Ecclesiatical Library; Italics mine : 
 
 "During the time that the holy Theodotus governed the church of Antioch, 
 Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, the teacher of all the churches ; and the oppo- 
 nent of all the seBs of heresy departed this life. He had been a disciple of the 
 celebrated Diodorus, and the associate and fellow-labourer of John, bishop of 
 Constantinople. During the space of thirty-six years he fulfilled the duties of 
 the episcopal office, and zealously opposed the heresies of Arius, Eunomius, and 
 ApoUinaris ; and he led his flock to excellent pasturage ^ 
 
 This is said of a heretic, whose errors St. Cyril of Alexandria, approved by 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod, condemned : and whom the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council anathematized with his heresies, and their defenders, of whom Theo- 
 doret was one, in its Anathemas XII., XIII. and XIV. Inasmuch as Theo- 
 doret had such a high opinion of Theodore it was no wonder that he was led 
 astray by him and became a champion for his heresies. 
 
Eve7its Before the Council. xix. 
 
 can save his reputation for soundness, only by regarding them as 
 interpolations, as some scholars do, and as ma}^ well be the case. 
 On the whole subject of the creature- worship of the Nestorians see 
 above, notes 183, 582, 679, 680 and 688. And so likewise on the 
 Eucharist his language is sometimes so suspicious, especially when 
 we remember that he was of Antioch, and had studied under the 
 heretic Diodore of Tarsus {d^, that we are compelled to remember 
 his rhetorical and passionate style and his wont to use even stilted 
 and extreme language as an orator or writer, before we can make it 
 accord with the anti-real-presence dodlrine of St. Cyril which was 
 approved by the whole Church at Kphesus. Whereas, at Alexan- 
 dria the do(5lrine and certain externals of the Lord's Supper had 
 been preserved with wondrous faithfulness and adherence to New 
 Testament example, when they had been altered in most other 
 peaces. For some of the Egyptians still took the Eucharist after a 
 full meal and at evening {e), as Christ and his apostles did at the 
 first Eucharist (Luke xxii., 20). And so Paul celebrated the rite at 
 night at Troas on the first day of the week, and presumably after a 
 full meal, for fasting was always forbidden on the Lord's Day, the 
 day of the joyful resurredlion of our Redeemer and Surety (/). 
 But Chrysostom, who was ordained Deacon at Antioch about A. D. 
 380-1, and Presbyter there in A. D. 386, and who served there as 
 such till A. D. 398, when he was made Bishop of Constantinople ^ 
 protests that he had never given the communion to any one who had 
 eaten just before it, and that he had never baptized just after eating 
 (^), which means that on such an occasion he always received the 
 communion fasting, for then Baptism and the Communion were given 
 
 (rf). Sozomen's EccL Hist., Book VIII., Chapter 2 ; Socrates' Eccl. Hist., 
 Book VI., Chapter 3, and Theodoret's Eccl. Hist, Book V., Chapter 40. I 
 have quoted the last raentioned place in the last note above. Pusey states the 
 same fact on the basis, I presume, of the above references, on page 544 of his 
 idolatrous, Anti-Cyrillian and Anti-Third Council DoHrine of the Real Pres- 
 ence. 
 
 (e). Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History, Book VII., Chapter 19; Socrates' 
 Ecclesiastical History, Book V., Chapter 22. 
 
 (/). See Bingham's Antiquities, Book XVI. Chapter viii., Sedlion 3; 
 Book XX., Chapter ii., Sedlion 5 ; and Book XIII., Chapter VIII., SeAion 3. 
 
 (jo-). See Bingham's Antiq., Book XV., Chapter vii., sedliou 8, where 
 Chrysostom 's words are quoted. 
 
XX. Events Befoj^e the Council. 
 
 at the same service Qi). And how pure the Alexandrian Church 
 was on doc5lrine in Cyril's day in contrast with the Syrian is told in 
 note 606, pages 240-313, below, and especially pages 250-313, in 
 his own words, and in those of his Syrian opponents, Nestorius and 
 Theodoret, and on pages 472-474 below, text and notes. The Alex- 
 andrian Church as represented by St. Cyril was entirely free from 
 all Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation views of every kind, 
 and from the Consubstantiation sequence of worshipping the bread 
 and wine as, according to Theodoret, containing not indeed Christ's 
 Divinity, but His real human flesh and .blood, which is therefore 
 termed 07ie nature Consubstantiatio7i, and from the Transubstantiation 
 sequence of worshipping the transubstantiated bread and wine, or 
 wafer and wine, as actually whole Christ, body and blood, soul and 
 Divinity. And, so far as appears, no one at that time held to Two 
 Nature Consubstantiation, that is to the Consubstantiation of Christ's 
 two Natures, the Divinity and the humanity, with the bread and 
 wine. 
 
 These wide divergences between Orthodox, God-alone wor- 
 shipping Alexandria, and creature worshipping Antioch prepared 
 the material for the conflict between God's truth and man's error, 
 though the elevation of one of the Syrian School, Nestorius, to the 
 throne of Constantinople transferred the scene thither. He was 
 consecrated Bishop of that chief see of the East on April 10, 428. 
 His episcopate was destined, through his own fault, to be very short. 
 A presbyter, holding to the anti-incarnation heresy of Diodore of 
 Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, was to start the controversy by 
 denying the Inman in denjdng that the expression ^eorozo?, that is, 
 Bringer Forth of God, may be used of the Virgin: for that expression 
 guards and defends the truth that Christ is very God, and not a 
 mere man, and so does away with Nestorius' worship of His mere 
 separate, created humanity. There was then no worship of the Vir- 
 gin Mary. St. Epiphanius ascribes the Collyridian heresy, which 
 first advocated it, to the devil (Epiph. on Heresy LXXIX., Sect. i). 
 
 I will first quote the account of it given by one who was an ad- 
 
 {K). Bingham's ^«/fzV., Book XII., Chapter i., sections i, 2, 3, 4 and 5; 
 and Book XV., Chapter iv., se6liou 7, where, at the end, however, he is unwise 
 and opposed to the primitive custom in arguing against the restoration of infant 
 communion. He tells us there that " Bishop Bedel and some others have de- 
 clared entirely for it," which is vastly to their credit. 
 
Events Before the Cotmcil. xxi. 
 
 vocate, and a native of Constantinople, and who was a resident of it 
 when the controversy rose: but who is deemed by some to have 
 been a Novatian, a charge which seems likely to be true. In his 
 Ecclesiastical History , Book VII., Chapter 32, he writes : 
 
 ''There was with him [Nestorius] Anastasius, a presbyter, who 
 had come with him from Antioch. He [Nestorius] held him 
 in much honor, and made use of him as an adviser in his affairs. 
 And once Anastasius while teaching in the Church said, 'Let no 
 one call Mary Bringer-Forth-of-God (/). For Mary was a human 
 being; and it is impossible for God to be brought Jorih by a human be- 
 ing.'' When that was heard it troubled many clerics and laics at 
 the same time. For from of yore they had been taught to say that 
 the Anointed One (/) is God, and by no means to separate him as 
 Man in the Economy from His Divinity, for they were persuaded by 
 the language of the Apostle which says, * Yea, though we have knowii 
 Anointed after the fleshy yet now he7ice forth know we him no more' {k). 
 And [again he writes], * Wherefore, leaving the doftriiie o?i Anointec:, 
 let us go 071 unto the perfe5lion^ (/). Therefore, as I have said, 
 trouble having arisen in the Church, Nestorius hastened to ratify 
 the dodlrine of Anastasius, for he was not willing that the man who 
 had been honored by him should be convic5led of being a blasphemer; 
 and he taught continually before the Church on that matter, and, 
 with too great love of strife, made the controversies regarding it, 
 and everywhere rejecfted the expression Bringer-Forth-of-God (771). 
 Wherefore the controversy on that was understood by some in one 
 way and by others in another, and division arose in the Church; and, 
 like men engaged in a night-battle some said one thing and others 
 another, and at the same moment they assented and they denied. 
 And among the most Nestorius had the reputation of asserting that 
 the I^ord is a mere man, and of bringing into the Church the doc- 
 trine of Paul of Samosata and of Photinus. Moreover, so great was 
 
 (/). Greek, 6 'AvacTciGLo^ SiddaKov e<pr], QeoroKov ttjv M-apiav Kale'iTO injdeiq. 
 
 (j). Greek, Tov Xptarov 
 
 (k). II Cor. v., 16. 
 
 (/). Heb. vi., I. Bright's Greek text of Socrates has not here the Greek 
 for " the principles " of our Common Version. The omission may be due to a 
 slip of Socrates' memory or to the carelessness of a copier or a printer. 
 
 {in). Greek, Qeotokoc. 
 
xxii. Events Before the Council. 
 
 the controversy and trouble which arose on that, that even an Ecu- 
 menical Synod became necessary " («). 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Five-Book ContmdiSlio7i of the 
 Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book I., Chapter 6, shows what the Ortho- 
 dox Champion, Busebius, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum, meant 
 when he began in open church his opposition to a sermon of Nes- 
 torius in defence of his heresy; he was not striving about the wor- 
 ship of the Virgin Mary, nor was Nestorius, but was contending for 
 the Incarnation, which Nestorius attacked, and he began to defend 
 {a). Cyril after contending for the truth that God the Word by his 
 eternal Substance took flesh in the womb of the Virgin, and put on 
 a man there, and in that man was born out of her, and that it is 
 right therefore to speak of her as Bringer-Forth-of-God {U) to guard 
 the Incarnation and the verity of His Divinity, comes to give an 
 account of how Nestorius struggled against that truth of thelnman, 
 and that expression which guards it. I translate Cyril here : 
 
 " The God-inspired Scripture therefore has witnessed that we 
 have been wont to think aright when we afl&rm that God was 
 brought forth in the flesh for the salvation of all. But forasmuch 
 as the Symbol {c) of the Church's faith sets forth the truth against 
 his (^) most novel dogmas, which Symbol the Fathers gathered 
 aforetime in the city of the Nicaeans defined through the illumina- 
 tion of the Spirit, he, fearing lest some educated in the truth by 
 their utterances (^) might nevertheless in some way preserve 
 through [everything] the sound faith, tries to slander [it], and he 
 
 («). I have translated the above from Bright's Hussey's Greek text of 
 Socrates' Eccl. Hist., Book VII., chapter 32. 
 
 {a). On him see a note below. 
 
 {b), Greek, QeoroKog. 
 
 {c). Greek, rb ^viiliolov, that is the Creed. The particular Creed here 
 meant is that of the First Ecumenical Synod which St. Cyril recites in full in 
 his Longer Epistle above on pages 213 and 214. He explains the Orthodox 
 sense of it against Nestorius in what follows there. It is recited in Act I. of the 
 Council, pages 50, 51. Both that, and the only other Ecumenical Creed, that of 
 the Second World Council, were read in the Fourth Synod. 
 
 {d). Nestorius'. 
 
 (<?). That is, the utterances of the Nicene Fathers in that Creed. Perhaps 
 he may mean also their utterances in their Synodal Epistle and in their XX. 
 Canons. See them all in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. P. E. Pusey's English 
 
Events Before the Council. xxiii. 
 
 alters the reference of the words (/), and dares to falsify the very 
 
 translation here has a bad blunder, for it brings in a sense dire(5lly contrary to 
 the true. He renders the Greek, ETTeidr] 6e rolg vsuTdroi^ avrov 66y/xaai ttjv akf/dtLav, 
 Koi avrb TTJq kKKlrjaLacriKiiq niareug avTE^dyet Th cvfi^oTiov^ k. t. A., as follows : " but 
 since to his most novel dogmas he opposes the truth and the very Symbol of the 
 Church's faith,"' etc. But that makes utter contradidlory nonsense. For, a?' we 
 see in Nestorius' Epistle, pages 155-166 above, Nestoriusdid notc'/>/^(95^«'//e/;'«//t 
 to his most novel dogmas; but Cyril of Alexandria did that. Nor did Nestorius 
 oppose ' ' the very Symbol of the Church's faith to his . . most novel dogmas. ' ' On 
 the contrary, in his Epistle to Cyril on pages 155-166 above, he strives to make 
 out that it agrees with " his most novel dogmas.'' The true translation is that 
 given in the text above, which agrees with all the fadts, viz., '' But forasmuch 
 as the Symbol of the Church' s faith sets forth the truth against his most novel 
 dogmas." On page 166 above after the reading of Nestorius' heretical Letter 
 to Cyril, Cyril asks the Ecumenical Council, 
 
 "Does this seem to be in harmony with the Faith defined in the Holy 
 Synod of the Holy Fathers assembled aforetime in the city of the Nicaeans. or 
 not?" 
 
 And their answer in effect is, It does not, but the explanation of the Faith 
 by Cyril does. See the responses of the prelates there. Indeed, just before, 
 after the reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, he says to the Council 
 regarding it : 
 
 "This Holy and Great Synod have heard that which in advocating the 
 right faith I have written to the most religious Nestorius. And I think that I 
 am not convidted of straying in any respect from the right doctrine of the 
 Faith, that is of transgressing the Symbol put forth by the Holy aud Great 
 Synod aforetime colle6led in the city of the Nicaeans. And I implore your 
 Holiness to say whether I have written such matters correctly and blamelessly 
 and in harmony with that Holy Synod, or not." 
 
 fuvetial. Bishop of ferusalem, said: "The holy Faith put forth by the 
 Synod in Nicaea being read [that is, he means the Nicene Creed just read], the 
 Epistle of the most holy Archbishop Cyril and those things which were put 
 forth by the Holy Synod are found to agree, and therefore I assent to these 
 pious dogmas and approve them." And so Bishop after Bishop testifies and 
 votes, and the Epistle of Cyril is approved. 
 
 (/). Nestorius divided the expressions and names used of Christ in the 
 Scriptures and in the Nicene Creed between His two natures, some to His Divin- 
 ity, others to His humanity, and still others to both natures : whereas Cyril 
 attributes all pertaining to His Divinity to It as of natural right pertaining to It, 
 and those referring to His humanity he ascribes Economically to God the Word 
 to avoid invoking and otherwise worshipping a creature, that is the Man put 
 on, as is told on pages 237-240, volume I. of Nicaea in this Set : see there. 
 Nestorius, on the contrary, would give to the Man, the mere creature put on. 
 the names and the worship of God the Word relatively y after that Pagan excuse 
 
xxiv. Eve7its Before the Council. 
 
 force of the ideas {g). For when he himself was using profane and 
 vain babbli7igs (h) in the midst of the Church (/), a certain man of 
 the very seemly class and as yet reckoned among laics, but who had 
 gathered within himself admirable learning was moved with fervent 
 and God-loving (/) zeal and with piercing cry said that the Word 
 Himself who was before the world has undergone a second birth 
 also, that is to say the one in flesh and out of a Virgin {k). And at 
 
 and evasion, and so fell into what St. Cyril again and again calls the worship of 
 a Mail {avOpuTToTiarpeia), (see for examples of Cyril and Nestorius on that in the 
 note on pages 81-98, 109-112, 113-115), for which Man-Worship Cyril anathema- 
 tizes him in his Anathema VIII., page 331 above. He pronounces the Church's 
 curse on him in his Anathemas IV. and XII. for, in efifect, denying the do6lrine 
 of Economic Appropriation, and for dividing the Son's names and the expres- 
 sions used of Him between His two Natures : see above pages 325, 355-358, 
 text, and compare pages 241-268, text. 
 
 (g). The meaning here is much the same as is mentioned in the last note, 
 for when Nestorius altered the referetice of the words of the Creed of the 318, he 
 at the same time thereby dared to falsify the very force of the ideas, that is the 
 sense of the Creed. 
 
 [h). I. Tim. vi., 20: II. Tim ii., 16. 
 
 (/). Whether the words " midst of the Church " refer to the middle part of 
 the Church I am not sure. But the ambon or pulpit was in some of the Eastern 
 Churches a raised platform in the middle of the Church as it is still, I think, in 
 some Nestorian Churches. I have seen the same thing in an old-fashioned 
 Jewish Synagogue. Perhaps the Jewish Christians of the first century brought 
 that custom into the Church from their former use of it. 
 
 (7 ). Or '^ dear to God.'" The Greek is cpiT^odeo) Cv^w. 
 
 (k). This defender of the Incarnation was Eusebius, a layman. On him 
 and on his opposing Nestorius in open Church, see note "r," page 25 of the 
 Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incar^iation against Nes- 
 torius. It is on tne above passage. I quote a part of it : " Eusebius, an Advo- 
 cate at Constantinople ; he afterwards put out a protest addressed to the Clergy 
 and Laity of that city (Cone. Eph. part. I.. Cap. 13, t. iii , 888, ed. Col.) that Nes- 
 torius was reviving the false teaching of Paul of Samosata, condemned nearly 
 two centuries before; (Marius Mercator, whose translation into Latin of S. Cyril's 
 Defences of his 12 Chapters or Anathemas against Nestorius' errors, and of his 
 Scholia on the Incarnation, has come down to us, likewise put out a paper of 
 like kind, Opera, pp. 50 sqq. ed. Baluz. 1684). Many years on we read of 
 Eusebius, as Bishop of Dorylaeum in Phrygia, as a friend of Eutyches, but 
 after fruitless efforts to reclaim him, also his accuser before S. Flavian, Arch- 
 bishop of Constantinople." A Council at Constantinople with Flavian as 
 President, by right of his see as the first of the East, dealt with that matter 
 It met in November, 448. *' Before this Synod the Bishop Eusebius accused 
 
Events Before the Council. xxv. 
 
 that the crowds burst into an uproar, and the most and understand- 
 ing part honored him with no mean praises as pious and most full 
 of understanding, and not imparticipate in corredlness on the dog- 
 mas(/), though the others raged against him: but [Nestorius] him- 
 self, interrupting, straightway approved those whom he had destroyed 
 by teaching them his own errors, and he whets his tongue both 
 against him who endured not his heresies (w), and moreover against 
 the holy Fathers who made the pious Definition of the Faith iri) as 
 a law unto us, ' which we have as a?i anchor of the soul, both sure a7id 
 steadfast' (o). 
 
 " 'For / rejoice,' said he, 'in beholding your zeal: but from the 
 thing itself is a clear refutation of the foubiess of what has been said by 
 the wretched 77ia7i {p ): for if we assert two births of Imn we make him 
 
 Eutyches, who was condemned " [as a One-Natureite]. "The August of the 
 next year, 449, the Robber Council of Ephesus deposed S. Flavian (whose mar- 
 tyrdom followed immediately, for he was driven into exile to Epipa in Lydia, 
 and died there), and Eusebius. Eusebius was likewise ejedled from his see. and 
 stayed at Rome as Pope S. Leo tells the Empress Pulcheria in a letter (S. Leo 
 ad Tulch. 59 [79, col. 1037, ed. Ball.] cited by Fleury 27, 49 English transla- 
 tion): Eusebius was at the Council of Chalcedon, he was vindicated at the 
 close of the ist Session (t. iv. 1189, Col.). In the third Session he presents to 
 the Council a petition against Dioscorus (ib. 1249, 1251). In the fifth Session 
 he was one of those engaged in the handling concerning the holy faith 
 TpaKTaiaavTuv Trepl rfjg dylag Trlareug (ib. 1452): he signs in the sixteenth Session 
 (ib. 1737). A rescript of the Emperor Marcian annuls all that had been done 
 against him .... Eusebius' brave and loyal conduct on this present occasion 
 while yet a layman, is mentioned in the Council of Chalcedon itself; for when 
 that Council had heard the Letter of S. Cyril to John, Archbishop of Antioch, 
 to which they gave the Ecumenical sandlion of the Church, some of the 
 Bishops called out, Ev(ye(3ioc l^eoropiov KaBeile, Eusebius deposed Nestorius. It is 
 likewise mentioned by Evagrius (Eccl. Hist, i., 9) who says, ttjv sttiokott^v tov 
 Aopif?iaiov dtETTOvTog, bg kqI 'pijTup eti rvyxcivcdV-, TTfxoTog tt/v '^EOToplov [S'/MacpT^/niav (he?iey^EV^ 
 exercising the Bishop's office at Dorylaeum, who while yet an advocate first 
 convi5led the blasphemy of Nestorius. Leontius (in the 7th century) writing 
 against Nestorius and Eutyches (contra Nest, et Eutych. lib. 3 in Galland. 
 Bibl. Vet. Pair urn xii., 697) speaks of it loo." 
 
 (/). That is, the dogmas of the Christian faith. 
 
 {m) Eusebms, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum. 
 
 (;/). The Nicene Creed. 
 
 {p). Heb. vi. , 19. 
 
 (J>). Eusebius. 
 
xxvi. Events Be/ore the Council. 
 
 two Sons. But the Church knows [only] one Son, the Master 
 A7iointed^ " ( q). 
 
 This plainly shows that Nestorius did not believe that God the 
 Word was born out of the Virgin, a denial which he makes else- 
 where, as we see in other parts of this work (r), whence it neces- 
 sarily follows that his Christ was a mere Man, and that all worship 
 of him was therefore what St. Cyril again and again brands it as be- 
 ing, that is mere Man-Worship QAvOpionoXazptia) that is the worship 
 of a mere Man, that is a returntothefundamentalerror of paganism. 
 Creature- Worship. Nestorius believed in one birth only of the Con- 
 substantial Logos, that is his birth out of the Father before all the 
 worlds, as the Nicene Creed has it. 
 
 Here then Nestorius and his presbyter Anastasius were the at- 
 tacking parties. And the quotations from his Sermons in St. Cyril's 
 Five Book Co7itradiflion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius prove con- 
 clusively that the heresiarch denied the Incarnation, held to the 
 worship of the separate humanity of Christ, and therefore to 
 Creature- Worship, and that he held to one-nature Consubstantia- 
 tion, and consequently to what St. Cyril terms Ca7i7iibalism 
 QAvepioTzoipayia) on the Lord's Supper, and to the other heresies at- 
 tributed to him {s). 
 
 {q). Greek, rbv ilecTrdrfjv Xpiarov. 
 
 (r). See above, especially pages 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163 and 164, 
 where Nestorius denies the Incarnation in his own Epistle to Cyril which was 
 condemned by the Ecumenical Council: and pages 404-418, text. It should be 
 well remembered that the Universal Church has anathematized every one who 
 refuses to anathematize Nestorius, and every one who asserts that the Third 
 Ecumenical Council condemned Nestorius without examination or inquiry, or 
 that it was unjust in condemning him and his fellow heretics, Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and the rest of them: see anathemas XI., XII., XIII., 
 and XIV. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 (5). It is strange how men who are learned in some things blunder in 
 others. For instance, Hefele, in the English translation of his History 0/ the 
 Church Councits, Vol. III., page 15, tells us that a *' fragment " of one of Nes- 
 torius' sermons "is diredled entirely against the commiinicatto idiomafum,'' as 
 though St. Cyril of Alexandria or any other of the Orthodox held that heres}^ ! 
 Nestorius held to the error that God the Word's name and worship may be 
 given to the Man put on for the sake of the Word, that is, relatively to the 
 Word, which is the idolatrous and creature worshipping part of the heresy of 
 the Communication oj Properties , which paganism St. Cyril, moved by the 
 Holv Ghost, curses in accordance with Galatians 1 , 8, 9, in his Anathema VIII., 
 
Events Before the Co7i7idl. xxvii. 
 
 Nor did he stop with maintaining them. He went further and 
 
 which is approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. It is also condemned in 
 his Long Epistle, which was also ratified by that Synod : see page 225 above. 
 And it was condemned with Passages 6, 7 and 8 of Nestorius on pages 459-462 
 above ; and by the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Definition and in its Anathe- 
 ma IX. So that it is most clear that both Cyril and the Universal Church have 
 condemned and anathematized that part of the dodlrine of the Communication 
 of the Properties of each of Chrisfs tzvo Natures to the other. And according 
 to Dr. Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I., page 320, that was the only 
 kind of Com.municaiion of Properties that '^ the Form \_of Concord'] and the 
 Lutheran Scholastics" taught. For he says there that they ' rejefied'' '■^ the 
 comynunication of the attributes of the human nature to the divine 7iature.''' 
 They believed therefore only in the communication of the attributes of the 
 divine nature to the human nature, which inevitably leads to the Nestorian 
 creature worship of calling a mere man God, and of bowing to that mere man, 
 praying to him, and giving him other a6ls of worship which are, in effect, ex- 
 plained on page 321, as relative to God the Word. As I have shown further on 
 in a note, the Lutherans did worship his humanity. On pages 317-328 of that 
 volume Schaff points out the great difference between the Theology of the 
 Lutherans and that of the Reformed on the matter of the Communication oj 
 Properties. The Reformed, on that matter, came much closer to the position of 
 Cyril and of the Universal Church in the decisions of Ephesus. Winer, in his 
 Confessions of Christendom, page 118 of the English translation, gives a state- 
 ment of the controversy on the Cofnmuntcation of Properties which is clear 
 and useful. He shows that the Lutheran position on that point was Nes- 
 torianism. I have shown that more fully in a note in this volume further on. 
 Winer adds on the same page 118 ; 
 
 " The Roman Catholic Church, as such, took no part in the controversy; 
 only a few of her polemical divines have expressly declared against the Com- 
 municatio Idiomatum : Bellarm. de Christo. iii., 10, seq. ; Becan. Man. Cont. ii., 
 I ; Klee, Kath. Dog. i. 445." Hefele seems therefore to imply that the Frag- 
 ment of Nestorius' Sermon, in making against the dogma of the Communication 
 of Properties, agreed with some of his own Roman theologians. If so they 
 were heretics and opposed to Cyril and to Ephesus. The fact is that Hefele did 
 not understand some parts of the controversy between Nestorius and St. Cyril. 
 St. Cyril denied that the name, the attributes, or the worship of God the Word 
 can be ascribed to the mere Man, the mere Creature put on by Him. On the 
 other hand he held that all the things of God the Word and all those of the 
 man put on must be ascribed to God the Word alone, the divine things as be 
 longing naturally to his Divine Nature ; and the human things of the man put 
 on, are to be ascribed to him Economically only, to avoid worshipping that Man 
 {' AiHj)nn-o?MTi)€!(i), which he denounces again and again as opposed to Christ's law 
 in Matthew iv., 10, and to other texts of Holy Writ Strangely enough, Luther, 
 while Nestorian in ascribing the things of God the Word to His humanity. 
 nevertheless, according to Dr SchafI in his Creeds of Christendom, vol. I-, page 
 
xxviii. Events Before the Council. 
 
 deposed clerics and persecuted laics for defending the sound doc- 
 trines which in his ignorance he hated and despised, for he would 
 not endure God's truths opposed to those infidelities and pagan- 
 izings. 
 
 The news of the controversy and the persecution of the Ortho- 
 dox travelled rapidly and reached Cyril at his home in Alexandria. 
 The wrong done by Nestorius to his opponents among his clergy 
 and people called for help. The Faith itself was at stake. Nes- 
 torius was vehement and acftive. He had a zeal for God, but not ac- 
 cording to knowledge (a). Socrates, his contemporary at Constanti- 
 nople, tells us how when he was ordained on April lo, 428, to the 
 throne of that city, ''straightway, whe^i preaching ,'' he said, '' to the 
 Empe7^or before all the people ; Give me, O Emperor, the earth purged 
 of the heretics, and I will give thee the heaven i7i retur?i. Assist me to 
 destroy the heretics, a7id I will assist thee ifi destroying the Persians ' ' 
 {b). On the fourth day after his ordination (f) he destroyed an ora- 
 tory of the Arians. He moved against the Novatians, to whom 
 Socrates is thought by some to have belonged, but his impetuosity 
 was checked by the counsel or exhortation of the authorities. He 
 did much against the Quartodecimans, that is the Fourteenth- 
 dayites, of Lydia and Caria, though an insurre(5lion or riots were 
 the result, in which some died (^). He induced by his example, 
 according to Socrates {e), Antony, Bishop of Germa in Hellespontus, 
 to crush the Macedonians, but they killed him : on which account 
 Nestorius persuaded the authorities to take away their churches, 
 when some of them came over to the faith of the Consubstantiality. 
 In this disposition to get rid of the heresies which infested some 
 places and were disturbing and disorganizing elements against 
 
 320, " boldly uses such expressions as ' God suffered,' ' God died,' " See the 
 German there quoted in a note, which accords with Cyril's Anathema XII., ap- 
 proved by the Third Council, and with his do(5lrine of Economic Appropriation, 
 made Ecumenical by the same Synod, for it approved Cyril's two Epistles 
 which contain it. 
 
 {a). Rom. X., 2. 
 
 {J}). Socrates' Eccl. Hist., Book VII., Chapter 29. 
 
 {c). The Greek has ' ' on the fifth day,^* but according to our way of reckon- 
 ing it was the fourth. 
 
 {d). Socrates' Eccl. Hist., Book VII., Chapter 29. 
 
 {e). Id., Chapter 31. 
 
Eve7iis Before the Council. xxix. 
 
 Church and State, Nestorius adled as the good kings Josiah and 
 Hezekiah adled against error, such as idolatry, and its maintainers, 
 and as the blessed Reforming King Edward VI., and Elizabeth, the 
 greatest of queens, acfted against the Romish idolaters, the Anti- 
 Trinitarians, the Anabaptists, and other wild sec5ls whose devotees, 
 if successful, would have ruined Church and State in England. 
 They may ruin it yet, the more especially as the Orthodoxy then 
 enforced against ignorant idolatrous Romanizers and wild and ignor- 
 ant and anarchizing sedlarianizers inside the Church of England is, 
 alas ! enforced no longer by the wretched and utterly unworthy 
 Bishops of it now. The Church has never faulted, therefore, Nes- 
 torius for doing his duty in suppressing heresies {a). His fault lay 
 
 {a). De Pressense in his article on Augustine of Hippo in Smith and 
 VCsiC&'s Di^ioiiary of Christian Biography, Vol. I., page 218, inner column, 
 has a good passage from him in favor of the duty of the civil magistrate to sup- 
 press heresy from which De Pressense unvidsely dissents. The Universal Church 
 in her VI. Councils is committed to the principle that it is his duty to suppress 
 all creature invocation and image worship, etc. The Great Reformers of the 
 Continent, Luther, and Calvin, as well as the English Reformers, all admitted 
 the principle and adled on it, as the pious Reforming Kings Josiah and Hezekiah 
 had done before them. That man who would let idolatrizers, Mormons, Mo- 
 hammedans and others propagate their errors in Christian lands and seduce and 
 ruin the souls of the simple, (alas ! always a numerous class and easily gulled), 
 and stir up civil war, is guilty of a false and traitorous liberalism which is really 
 treason to Christ and to souls. God's ancient law forbade marriage with such 
 and permitted them not to have part or lot in the governing of Israel, and pro- 
 hibited them from ever being regarded as a part of the nation and from own- 
 ing any land in it. But alas ! under the teaching of infidels we are permitting 
 the contrary to all these laws of God, and so, many of our people are being per- 
 verted by such and they are ruining Church and State. We should for our own 
 safety at once oust all such elements from our midst and keep them out. Our 
 country is ours as much as our homes are. Indeed, it is the common home of 
 us all. We may therefore keep out of it whom we will. It was settled by men 
 who worshipped the Triune God alone. They alone governed it, and were 
 therefore blessed. But God has promised to curse the idolater and the creature- 
 invoker, as he always has. And the more of them and of Mormons and Mo- 
 hammedans we admit, and the more we let them vote and so govern, the more 
 of God's curse we admit on ourselves and on our government. Rome and the 
 Mohammedans are taught by their religion to crush us. Both of them have 
 been the cause of the deaths of vast numbers of Christians. So will they do 
 again if they can. And the Mormons look forward to the time when they shall 
 subjugate and rule us. Such elements therefore should have no place among 
 us. Nor should the blasphemous, Christianity -hating, Christ-blaspheming 
 
XXX. Events Before the Coicncil. 
 
 in going so far as to attempt to destroy the Orthodox and saving 
 
 Jew. See the fake bread riots he raises in New York, and his demand that the 
 State or city shall furnish work at his own rates of pay, though most that 
 make this demand have been but a few years in this land. Their demand 
 in effect means that the Christian people of New York State shall pay for allow- 
 ng them to live among us, when they can go back to their own country 
 but will not so long as we let them vote and rule us. There is said to be 
 250,000 of them in New York City alone. The riotous, anarchic, socialistic, 
 nihilistic, and other disturbing elements among us are nearly all from Romish 
 or Jewish homes, and most of them are foreigners, and will compel us to in- 
 crease our police and military force to rule them. They force us now to pay for 
 the property which they destroy in their riots and disorders, and to pay also for 
 the militia who are called out to suppress them. In this way they have saddled 
 debts of millions on us in places, under which our patient and peaceful people 
 groan. Yet the New Testament forbids us to intermarry with them (II. Cor. 
 vi., 14-18 ; I. Cor. vii., 39); and they also forbid marriage with us, so far apart 
 are we in heart and aims and hopes : and we are taught that idolaters and the 
 iinbaptized can not be saved (I. Cor. vi., 9, 10 ; Galat. v., 19-22 ; and Rev. xxi.. 
 S). We are taught that if we receive into our houses or even bid God speed to 
 an opponent of the Trinity and the Incarnation, we sxq partakers " of his evil 
 deeds'' (II. John xi.). Does not this principle apply to the Mohammedan and 
 the idolater also ? Does it mean that w^e should not only receive them into our 
 national house, but make them partakers of its property and of rule over us ? 
 
 But it may be said that this principle that the civil magistrate should pre- 
 vent the spread of the poison and curse of Anti-Christian error and Anti-Chris- 
 tian rule and tyranny over us, is liable to abuse ; that it may be applied by 
 errorists to the crushing of the truth. I answer, that is true, but so long as we 
 follow the decisions of the Holy-Ghost-led Six World Councils we shall not go 
 astray, but shall preserve our homes, our families, and our country from curs- 
 ing spiritual and material. For ''Righteousness,'' taught by God's ministers 
 of the spirituals, and enforced by God's ministers of secular things (Rom. xiii., 
 1-8) in law and in Government as in Solomon's earlier days, and as in the days 
 of pious rulers in all times, '' exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any 
 people" (Prov. xiv., 34). " Godliness," so taught and enforced, " is profitable 
 unto all things^ having promise of the life that now is," &.v^^\\i2A. now as ever 
 both in Church and State, " and of that which is to come. Oh ! that we had an 
 Orthodox Six Councils party in this land to so rule and govern it to God's best 
 pleasing and to our best good, and to the best good of all our people, that it 
 may be made Immanuel's land ! God grant it soon. For it will come. For it 
 is prediS.ed th&t the /kingdoms of this world are to become the Kingdoms of 
 our Lord and of his OitHst (Rev. xi., 15), and he and his saints are to reign on 
 this earth a thousand years (Rev. xx., 1-7). We should leave therefore the in- 
 fidel Tom Jefferson's theories of government without God and Christ and His 
 Church, and follow the higher constitution of God's Word and God's Church in 
 our State no less than in our Church. God grant it soon, and that every day 
 
Eveyits Before the Coimcil. xxxi. 
 
 Faith itself, as is told above. If, as is thought by some, and as I 
 myself also incline to think, Socrates was a Novatian, his dislike of 
 Nestorius for suppressing heresies and attempting to suppress his 
 schism is easily explicable on the ground and principle that 
 
 " No rogue e'er felt the halter draw, 
 With good opinion of the law." 
 
 Nestorius' Book of Sermons or Expositions on the matters in- 
 volved in the controversy went forth. It created havoc with the 
 faith of some. It reached Egypt, and might have affected the minds 
 of some of Cyril's monks. This led him as a faithful pastor to 
 WTite his valuable Epistle to the Monks of Egypt in which he defends 
 the do(5lrines of the Inman and that God alone is to be worshipped, 
 against Nestorius' assault on them. For he saw at once that Nes- 
 torius' denial of the Incarnation necessarily resulted in the worship 
 of Christ's mere humanity, which, of course, is Creature- Worship, 
 that is the Worship of a creature. And hence, at the very outset, on 
 his entering the lists as a Champion for Christ's Orthodox}^, he de- 
 nounces both errors and warns against them. He writes to the 
 Monks especially, because in the Nicene Controversy and before him, 
 the Monks who preserved bodily chastity had ever been foremost to 
 defend spiritual chastity, and to reject the spiritual whoredom of 
 worshipping creatures {a). 
 
 Probably, about that time Cyril put forth his Five Book Co7itra' 
 diflio7i of the Blasphetnies of Nestorius. At the beginning he tells us 
 that he had " met with a certaiii book by the person who put it together 
 {U) which has a large collecflion of Homilies, which are arranged 
 consecutively [as to time] and, so to speak, in order. ' Cyril goes on 
 to say that if he had deemed what its author had written would come 
 
 we may by our own eflforts, votes, and prayers,, come nearer to it, and get farther 
 every day from the vile Tammany politics and vile political sheets which rule 
 and waste and ruin. 
 
 {a). See on that page 115, Vol. I, ofNicaeain this Set, where Hooper va. 
 hue 13 from the foot of the page should be y«?z£/^// and Gloucester should be 
 Salisdtiry. 
 
 (d). Nestorius. Cyril speaks in this indefinite way. perhaps out of charity 
 to Nestorius, that he might draw him to repent by gentleness in suppressing 
 his name. What precedes is largely an exhortation to keep the faith and to 
 avoid error, which Nestorius might well take to himself. 
 
xxxii. Events Before the Council. 
 
 to naught he would have deemed it wise to hold his peace and to 
 counsel others to do the same, lest wider publicity should be given 
 to the evil in it. His motives have been grievously slandered by 
 should be friend and foe. His resistance to Nestorian errors has 
 been ascribed to jealousy of the great see of Constantinople, and I 
 know not to what else. But his own story told in his own words 
 in the same place on that book shows the prudence, and at the same 
 time the self-sacrifice of his own soul. The see of Constantinople 
 was a strong foe to fight against, The Second Ecumenical Synod 
 in its third Canon had made it the second see of the Christian World, 
 and the first of the East. And Wiltsch in his Geography and Statis- 
 tics of the Omrch, English translation, Vol. I., pages 145-154, shows 
 that Ne(5larius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople, A. D. 381-397, 
 exercised Appellate Jurisdidlion not only in the Dioceses of Asia 
 Minor and Pontus but also, in one case at least, in the Patriarchate of 
 Antioch ; and, if he could interfere in the jurisdidlion of Antioch, 
 there was no power to hinder him from interfering in the Patri- 
 archate of Alexandria. So that Cyril had cause to dread lest Nes- 
 storius might interfere with him and deprive him of his rights and 
 of his see if he o^3posed his errors. Indeed as the Court Patriarch 
 he had great power with the Emperor. Theodosius the Second's 
 dislike to Cyril and his threat against him in a letter of this period 
 shows how much and how unjustly he had been influenced against 
 him. Cyril therefore in taking the side of God's truth perilled for 
 it his rank and honors. Indeed, further on during the session of 
 this very Council, we shall find the Emperor depriving him of both 
 for a time, and indeed of his liberty besides, till he was induced by 
 others to be less severe. Wiltsch, as just referred to, shows how 
 Chrysostom, Arsacius, and Atticus, who were Bishops of Constanti- 
 nople between Necftarius and Nestorius, enlarged the power of their 
 see against the Canons, and got the Emperor to help them : so that 
 they had about as much power over the Bishops of the Eastern Em- 
 pire as Rome had over those of the Western. Indeed it may be 
 justly said that each of th \se great sees advanced at about an equal 
 pace (pari passu) in their struggle to secure the headship and con- 
 trol of the bishops of its own Empire and to get the power of receiv- 
 ing Appeals from them, in other words the power of Appellate Juris- 
 di(ftion over them. In the West we find Hilary, Metropolitan of 
 Aries in Gaul, resisting Leo I. of Rome in that matter as he hrid a 
 
Events Before the Council. xxxiii. 
 
 right to do by the Canons of the first three Ecumenical Councils. 
 But, in A. D. 445, I,eo induced the Western Emperor, Valentinian 
 III., to issue an edict overriding their Canons and giving him the 
 power of Appellate Jurisdic5lion there and in those parts of the West 
 to which the secular power of the Empire still extended, and so 
 Hilary and Gaul were subjugated by force {a). In I^atin Africa, as 
 will be told elsewhere in this Set, Leo's predecessors, Zosimus, 
 Boniface, and Celestine, met with stout resistance on the part of the 
 Bishops, and utterly failed to get it {U). In Britain, in the period of 
 Augustine's life there, towards the end of the sixth century or the 
 beginning of the seventh, we find the British Christians refusing to 
 submit to Rome, to the Patriarchate of which indeed they had never 
 belonged, but were always, as now, autocephalous (r). For origin- 
 ally Rome's Patriarchate did not extend outside of Italy nor even 
 include all of it {d). 
 
 But while Rome was thus trying to subdue parts of the West 
 and was violating the Canons of the Ecumenical Synods, to concen- 
 trate all Western Ecclesiastical power in Rome by getting the 
 authority to receive appeals from it all, and to that end trying to get 
 the Emperor to back it with his secular forces, how fared it with the 
 attempt of the Bishop of Constantinople to subdue all parts of the 
 East by getting the powder of Appellate Jurisdidlion over it all, and 
 to violate the Canons of the first three Ecumenical Synods in order 
 to effect it, and to induce the Eastern Emperor to back up his de- 
 signs by the civil and military power ? Wiltsch, in the place last 
 cited, tells us. Canon III. of the Second Ecumenical Synod, as 
 understood at Constantinople, gives him the same power in the East 
 as Rome had in the West. And although it does not state the 
 exact limits of his Patriarchate, and though its Canons II. and VI, 
 forbade him to exercise jurisdi(5lion outside of Thrace, nevertheless 
 
 {a). See the article in Smith and Wace's DiBionary of Christian Biogra- 
 phy on Leo I. of Rome and that on Hilary there. 
 
 ib). See id., the articles on Popes Zosimus, Boniface, and Coelestine I., 
 and more fully in Chrystal's Articles in the Church fournal of New York for 
 1870, (Aug. 10 and after), on the Struggle in Centuries V. and VI. of Rome to 
 get Appellate Jurisdidlion in Latin Africa. 
 
 (<r). See Bingham's AntiquitieSy Book IX., Chapter i., sedlions 9-12 in- 
 clusive. 
 
 {d). Ibid. 
 
XXXI V. 
 
 Lvoiis Before the Council. 
 
 we find before Ephesus, its Patriarchs exercising it in the Dioceses 
 of Asia, Pontus, and the East : and, as Wiltsch states, Atticus, its 
 Bishop, *' obtained from the younger Theodosius, in 421, the law, 
 ' ' that 710 Bishop should be ordained in the dioceses of Asia, Thrace^ 
 and Po7itus, without the sanation of the Bishop of Constantinople, ac- 
 cording to which law, also, Eastern Illyricum was added to the pri- 
 mateship of Constantinople " (Wiltsch' s Geography and Statistics of 
 the Church, English translation, vol. I., page 150). Boniface, Bishop 
 of Rome, however, got back Eastern Illyricum, and Rome held it till 
 A. D. 730, when Leo the Isaurian, Emperor of the East, gave it to 
 the See of Constantinople, together with parts of Italy which had 
 always appertained to the jurisdi<5lion of Rome, that is Calabria and 
 Sicily {b). Finally, only about twenty years after the Third Ecu- 
 menical Council, that is in the Fourth World Council in A. D. 451, 
 against the protests of the Roman legates, it got by its Canon 
 XXVIII., the three great Dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and 
 the Churches among the barbarians, and by its Canon IX. it secured 
 the right of Appellate Jurisdi(5lion over every Patriarchate and 
 Province of the Eastern Empire, which indeed it had at least in great 
 part exercised before Nestorius. For the same general law applied 
 then as ever since, that is that all ecclesiastical appeals in every Em- 
 pire naturally gravitate towards the Bishop of its Capital. For often 
 men carried such appeals to the Emperor, contrary to the Canons, 
 and he referred them to the Bishop of the capital city, to whom he 
 was nearest, and under whose influence he was. Constantinople 
 was therefore a powerful see for an Eastern to oppose. Every sel- 
 fish motive would dissuade Cyril from so doing. His own story as 
 to how he came to take part in this contest shows how reluctantly 
 he went into it, and the purity and nobility of his motives in so do- 
 ing. Duty, not passion, shines forth as the ruling motive in the 
 whole simple narrative. I quote him here. After the words last 
 quoted from him, in which he speaks of having met with Nestorius' 
 Homilies, he continues, 
 
 ** And if something had been said by its author which was pass- 
 ing into oblivion and disappearing, I would have deemed it a duty, 
 both that I myself should hold my peace, and that I should advise 
 others to do the same, in order that what has been said by him so 
 
 (h^. Wiltsch, id., vol. I., page 150. 
 
Events Before the Coimcil. xxxv. 
 
 out of place and so carelessly might not become known to many 
 others, and to those after us. But forasmuch as a multitude of 
 blasphemies has been heaped up in the book, and some great accu- 
 sation has been made which barks against the dogmas of the truth, 
 why was it not necessary that we should, so to speak, strip for com- 
 bat, and should fight in behalf of its readers, that they may not suf- 
 fer any hurt thence, but, on the contrary, may know how to repel 
 bravely the damage from what has not been rightly said ? " {c.) 
 
 In his Five Book Co7itradicfi07i of the Blaphemies of Nesioriiis Cyril 
 quotes nearly all or all of the twenty chief Blasphemies in the Sermons 
 or Homilies of Nestorius which were afterwards quoted against him in 
 Act I. of Ephesus, on the basis of which he was deposed. Those 
 quotations assert not only his three chief errors, that is his denial of 
 the Inman, his Worship of Christ's separate humanity, and his 
 Cannibalism on the Eucharist, but also all his other heresies. Dur- 
 ing the days and weeks of waiting at Ephesus we may be well 
 assured that copies of that work served to enlighten and strengthen 
 the Bishops against the various heresies of Nestorius, so that they 
 were well prepared when the time came, towards the close of the first 
 Act, to depose him on account of them, as they did. We have a 
 translation of this important work into English, but it fails to give 
 the corredt sense in places. It should be revised and republished. 
 
 Besides, the Orthodox clergy put out at Constantinople a pro- 
 test and a statement against Nestorius in which they asserted that 
 he taught the errors of Paul of Samosata. 
 
 Besides, Basil the Deacon and Archimandrite, and Theosebius, 
 a Reader and Monk, and the rest of the Monks set forth a petition 
 to the Emperors against Nestorius and for an Ecumenical Council. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria wrote three Epistles to Nestorius. The 
 first was called forth by the anger and violent expressions of Nesto- 
 rius when he learned the contents of Cyril's Epistle to the Monks. 
 In the first letter to the heresiarch Cyril justly asserts that he was 
 not the cause of the controversy which was disturbing the Church, 
 but Nestorius or his friend was, and he informed him that some, led 
 astray by his error, would not call Christ God but merely an 
 inspired Man, a thing which, we may add, would lead, of course, to 
 
 (/:). P. E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril of Alexandria's Works, vol. VI., pages 
 57, 58. 
 
xxxvi. Events Before the Council. 
 
 the Worship of a mere man. And Cyril informs him of the 
 agitation in the Church, West and East, regarding his errors, and of 
 the unfavorable reports regarding his Orthodoxy. Nestorius' reply 
 was brief and haughty, and showed that he still clung fast to his er- 
 rors. The next two letters of Cyril are of memorable worth, and 
 were made of Ecumenical authority in A(5l 1. ofEphesus. In the 
 first of the two which is found, with the call for its reading, on 
 pages 52-121 above, Cyril sets forth the true dodlrine against 
 Nestorius' denial of the Inman, against his Man-Worship, and 
 against his denial of the do<5lrine of Economic Appropriation. It is 
 termed Cyril's Shorter Epistle, shorter, that is, as compared with 
 Cyril's Longer, which followed it. It was confirmed by a formal 
 vote of the Synod on pages 129-154 above. 
 
 Nestorius replies, repeatedly denies the Incarnation, and rejedls 
 the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation. His letter, with the call 
 for it, is found on pages 154-166 above. The formal voting in 
 condemnation of it is found on pages 166-178. 
 
 Meanwhile Nestorius had writen to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, 
 in regard to some Pelagians who had gone to Constantinople for 
 help against their condemners in the West, and he endeavors to win 
 him to his own side against Cyril. Cyril also writes to Celestine, 
 instrudls him regarding the vital do(5lrines involved, and endeavors 
 to win him to his side and to the truth. He sends with his 
 Epistle a memorandum on Nestorius' errors. Celestine takes sides 
 with C3^ril. John of Antioch and his Patriarchate are strong against 
 Cyril and for Nestorius. Two of his ablest prelates, Andrew of 
 Samosata, and Theodoret of Cyrus, write against Cyril's XII. 
 Chapters. Cyril replies to each separately. Many letters pass 
 hither and yon of which, with those just mentioned, we will give a 
 fuller account in another volume on Ephesus. There is no room 
 here. Finally it becomes clear that outside of the Patriarchate of 
 Alexandria the whole Church is almost unanimous for Cyril and 
 Orthodoxy. The Emperor Theodosius the Second, at the solicita- 
 tion of many, is induced to call an Ecumenical Council to meet at 
 Ephesus on Pentecost, June 7, A. D. 431. The decree is dated 
 November 19, 430, and bears the name of the Western Emperor, 
 Valentinian III., as well as his own. See it above, with the call for 
 it, on pages 178-203, and compare pages 5-8. Before that a Coun- 
 cil had been held at Rome, and a Sxnodal letter of Celestine and 
 
Events Before the Coimcil. xxxvii. 
 
 it, dated August ii, A. D. 430, had been sent to Nestorius warning 
 him, at its end, as follows : 
 
 ' ' Know therefore clearly, that our sentence is this, namely, 
 that unless thou preach those very dodlrines concerning our God 
 Anointed, which both the Church of the Romans and the Church 
 of the Alexandrians, and all the Universal Church holds fast, and as 
 the holy Church in the great city of Constantine very well held fast 
 until thee, and unless within the tenth day reckoned from the time 
 that this admonition comes to thy knowledge, thou put away by a 
 clear and written confession that unbelieving novelty and innovation 
 of thine which attempts to separate the very things which the holy 
 Scripture joins together, thou art cast out from the communion of 
 the Universal Church. We have sent this very decision of our 
 judgment on tliee by our son aforesaid, Posidonius the Deacon, with 
 all the papers to theholy man, our Fellow-Bishop, the Priest of the 
 aforesaid Alexandria, who has given us a very complete account 
 regarding this very matter, in order that he may hold our place and 
 attend to this thing, that so what has been decided by us may be 
 made known to thee and to all the brethren ; because all ought to 
 know what is done, as often as the investigation is on a matter of in- 
 terest in common." Cyril was therefore authorized to represent 
 Celestine and all the Bishops of the Roman Council, whose Con- 
 ciliar Epistle the above is part of. After that, in the same year, St. 
 Cyril assembles another Synod at Alexandria of his Patriarchate, and 
 in conne6lion with it puts forth in his Long Epistle a full Statement 
 of the do(5lrinal points involved, and accepts and approves the 
 decision of the Synodal Epistle of Celestine and his Synod, and to 
 it adds his own authority and that of his Diocesan Council, and tells 
 Nestorius what he must do within ten days after the reception of his 
 Epistle if he would not be excommunicated by the whole Church. 
 The place especially pertinent is on pages 209-213, text, in this 
 work above. Cyril's four messengers, with the Long Letter and the 
 documents from Rome reached Constantinople, and gave them to 
 Nestorius, according to Professor Bright' s article Cvrilhis in Sir.ith 
 and Wace's Didioyiary of Christian Biograpliy, vol. I,, page 767, 
 inner col., on Lord's Day, November 30, or December 7, A. D. 430 
 after the Eucharistic service. The tenth day after that would at 
 the latest be December 16, or 17. But what follows shows that 
 though in the Appeal to the Whole Church distributed in sees, that 
 
xxxviii. Eve7its Before the Coiuicil. 
 
 is not assembled in an Ecumenical Council, the majority were 
 evidently against Nestorius, he held his see after that excommunica- 
 tion by the Patriarch of Rome and by the Patriarch of Alexandria, 
 and by their Synods, till he was fairly tried and deposed by the 
 Third Ecumenical Council ; and noteworthy also is the fact that he 
 was not condemned and deposed because both those great prelates 
 had excommunicated him from their communion and from the com- 
 munion of all who agreed with them and went so far as to ratify 
 their act before the Synod met, but because on examination of all 
 the points involved in the two Epistles of Cyril, and in Nestorius' 
 Epistle, and in the Twenty Blasphemies of Nestorius, the}^ found him 
 heretical. For after giving him summons after summons to come 
 and defend himself, the Bishops proceeded to approve Cyril's ut- 
 terances as in accordance with the true sense of the Nicene Creed aiid 
 Faith, afid to condemn a7id depose Nestorius on the ground that his 
 were 7tot. See especially above, pages 129-154, the language of 
 Cyril in asking whether his Shorter Epistle does not agree with 
 the Nicene Creed, and that of the Bishops in answer when voting 
 on that Epistle; and above, page 154, when Palladius, Bishop 
 of Amasea, states the question to be decided, that is, as to the agree- 
 ment of Nestorius' Epistle to St. Cyril with the Nicene Creed; 
 and page 166, where St. Cyril of Alexandria puts the question to 
 the Council, as to whether Nestorius' Epistle agrees with the Faith 
 defined at Nicaea, and pages 166-178, where the Bishops answer 
 his query. No man then deemed that the decision of the Bishop of 
 Rome settled the question, nor that he and a Roman Council by 
 themselves, and Cyril of Alexandria and the Synod of his Diocese, 
 by themselves, or all of them together, could settle the matter, and 
 that an Ecumenical Synod was unnecessary, or that all it had to do 
 was to ratify their local decisions without any examination of the 
 writings of Nestorius and of Cyril, and without allowing Nestorius 
 a fair trial. All that Celestine and his Council could do alone was 
 to testify that they condemned Nestorius for his errors and put him 
 out of their communion ; and all that Cyril and his Synod could 
 testify to was that they condemned him for the same errors and put 
 him out of their communion. But the other Metropolitans, Juvenal 
 of Jerusalem, Memnon of Ephesus, Firmus of Caesarea, and all the 
 rest of the Metropolitans, and their Bishops who came with them, 
 demanded also that their judgments be taken, and they were, as we 
 
Events Before the Cowicil. xxxix. 
 
 see by their utterances and votes above. And so, as Christ in Matt. 
 xviii., 1 8, and in John xx, 19-24, had given the power of bind- 
 ing and loosing to all the Apostolate, and not to one only, all bound 
 Nestorius justly. To the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the 
 truth (I. Tim. iii., 15), represented by that Apostolate to whom 
 Christ promised His Spirit forever to guide them into all truth 
 (John xiv., 16, 17 : compare Matt, xxviii., 19, 20), He made good 
 His promise, and by the Spirit's aid they formulated infallibly and 
 forever. He condemned by them Nestorius' denial of the Inman, his 
 worship of a mere creature, and, by necessary implication, any and 
 all other worship of any other creature whomsoever, and any and all 
 worship of any mere thing ; and the Synod formulated also the 
 Holy Ghost's condemnation of Nestorius' Consubstantiation, and, 
 by necessary implication. His condemnation of the later heresy of 
 Transubstantiation, of both kinds, the Latin, and the Greek,andof the 
 worship of the Host. The doc1:rine of Cyril and of Ephesus is that 
 of the real absence from the Eucharist of the Substance of Christ's 
 Divinity and the substance of His humanity, as opposed to the real 
 prese7ice of both there, and of one of them there. This guards well 
 and thoroughly against the idolatry of worshipping any sort of an 
 alleged real presence of Christ's Divinity or of His humanity, or of 
 both of them in the rite, for neither of them is there. See Cyril to 
 that effect above, pages 232-241, text, and pages 250-313, note. 
 But if the Apostolate had deemed Celestine's act of Excommunica- 
 tion wrong, they would have refused to ratify it, as they refused to 
 ratify his predecessor Victor's excommunication of the Asiatic 
 Churches w^hich clung to the observance of the Fourteenth Day 
 Pask, and they w^ould have censured him with the same severity 
 with which some had censured Vi(5lor. For in Eusebius' Ecclesi- 
 astical History, Book V, Chapter 24, we read that Polycrates, Bishop 
 of Ephesus, contended for his own Fourteenth Day Pask in a letter 
 which he wrote to Vi(5lor, w^ho was Bishop of Rome, A. D. 185-197. 
 Polycrates derived his local custom from the Apostles Philip and 
 John, and from Polycarp and others before him. I give a translation 
 of what next occured after Polycrates' defence of his custom and 
 the custom of other churches in that part of Asia: 
 
xl. Events Before the Cou7iciL 
 
 '* Upon this, Vidlor, the Bishop of the Church of the Romans, 
 forthwith attempted to cut off the parecs ( ^ ) of all [Proconsular] 
 Asia, together with the neighboring Churches, as heterodox, from the 
 common unity. And he denounces them by letters, and proclaims 
 that all the brethren there are wholly excommunicated. But that 
 was not pleasing to all the Bishops. They therefore urged him, on 
 the contrary (Q, to think of those things which make for peace and 
 for unity and love towards those who are near [to us]. And there 
 are extant the utterances of those who assailed Vi(5lor very 
 smitingly ( <:). And among them was Irenaeus, who, in the name of 
 those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, wrote an epistle in 
 which he maintains on the one hand that we ought to celebrate 
 the mystery of the resurredlion of the I^ord on the day of the Lord's 
 resurrecftion only {d')\ but, on the other hand, he fitly admonishes 
 ( ^ ) him in very mau}^ other words that he should not cut off w^hole 
 Churches of God, who guard the tradition of an ancient custom" 
 (/) . And so Vi(5lor failed in his atte7npt to put the Churches of 
 
 {a). Greek, rz/c 'kaiaq Trda7jg. . .rac trapoiKiaQ. I have rendered wapoiKiac here 
 hy parecs which is derived from it, because parish, the other word derived from 
 it, has come in the later times to signify not what we in the West now 
 call a diocese, the meaning of Trapomiag here, but a single congregation in a dio- 
 cese. I might have used diocese, only that it is often used in this work in the 
 Greek sense of a civil diocese which included two or more provinces. 
 
 (d). Greek, ^ AvTnrapaKf:?ievovTai, which may be also rendered, ** They there- 
 fore commanded kiin on the contrary,'''' or " They therefore exhorted him on 
 the contrary,'' though K£?.evo) means often or generally, to did, command, order. 
 
 (c ). That is, severety. 
 
 (d). The reference is to the annual commemoration of Christ's resurredlion, 
 not to the weekly, which occurs every Lord's Day, for it is the resurredlion day. 
 The Fourteenthdayites kept it on whatever day of the week it fell. 
 
 {e). Or, "advises.'" 
 
 (/). Eusebius' Ecct. Hist. Book V., Chapter 24, page 169 of Bright's 
 edition of the Greek : 'Erl tovtolq 6 /lev Tijq "Pujualiov TrpoeaTojg BiKTup dOpocog rfjg 
 Wciag TTdGJjg aua ralq ojuopoig kKKlrjciaig rag Tzapoimag {nroTE^iveiv, ox; erepodo^ovaag^ rfjg 
 KOLvrjg tvidaecjg TreipciTac Kal GTiiTiirtvEL ye 6ia ypa/iua.Tuv, aKOivovrjrovg irdvrag dpdrjv rovg 
 eKEtae avaKTjpvrrov ddeTicpovr. 'A/IA' ov Tzdai ye rolg eTrioKOTToig ravr' r/peaKsro. 'Avrnra- 
 paKe/.evovTa/ ()^ra ahrib^ rd rrjg elprjvrjg Kal T?)g irpbg Tohg Tr?j^Giov evuaeug re Kal dydnTjQ 
 <ppovEiv. ^epovrai 6e Kal at tovtuv (puval, TrXrjKTiKUTepov KaOaTZTOfxtvuv tov BiKTopog, 'Ev 
 <)ig Kal 6 'ElpTfvalog e/c TrpoauTzov uv rjyuro Kara tt/v VaXkiav dde?i<po)v eTrioreiTiac, -rraplaTarai 
 fiev tC) 6elv ev fiovy ry Tr)g KvpiUKTJg rjfiepa to TTJg tov Kvpiov dvaardaeug eTnTeXetadaL 
 livdTTjpiov' tC) ye juijv BiKTopc TrpoGTjKovTug^ cjg fx^ diroKorrToc b2.ag EKKXTjalar Geoi), dpxaioy 
 sRnvr Tcapdi^oaiv £T/.rrjpovaag, K/nara erspa irapaive'i. 
 
Events Before the Council. xli. 
 
 Proconsular Asia and the neighboring Churches out of the com- 
 munion of the Universal Church ; and they remained in good stand- 
 ing in it, and kept to their local custom of the Fourteenth Day 
 Pask. We see in this instance, that a Bishop of Rome may 
 attempt, to use Eusebius' term, to excommunicate Churches, and he 
 may denounce them by letter , and proclaim that they are wholly excom- 
 7nunicated,2in6. yet any Bishop, East or West, may exhort and rebuke 
 him, and may assail him veiy smiii^igly, that is, very severely, and the 
 opposition of a majorit}^ of them utterly defeats his attempt to ex- 
 communicate and brings it to nought. So that he is under them and 
 their authority, though he be ** the first among his equals'' {a). And 
 
 {a). In speaking above of the Bishop of Rome as being ike first among his 
 equals, when he was equal to them in purity and soundness of do(5lrine, discip- 
 line, and rite, I do not intend to imply that Leo XIII., the present occupant of 
 Peter's Western see (Antioch is his Eastern) is to be deemed either equal to 
 sound Bishops who worship God alone, and anathematize all invocation of 
 creatures and all image worship, or a Bishop at all. For in determining a 
 Bishop's right to that title and his standing, the Church has always asked, first. 
 Does he defend, maintain and propagate all the dodlrine, discipline, rite und 
 custom of the Six Ecumenical Synods, and, where they have not spoken, all the 
 dodlrine, discipline, rite, and custom of the primitive Church, especially of the 
 Ante-Nicene period, when they were purest: in other words. Does he maintain 
 what has been held always, everywhere and by all? Tried by those standards 
 the present so-called Bishop of Rome is sadly wanting. For, to mention only 
 a few of his errors against the VI. Synods, 
 
 1. He contradicts the Sixth Ecumenical Council in claiming Infallibiuty 
 for every occupant of his see : whereas the Fifth Ecumenical Synod censured 
 his predecessor Vigilius for lack of duty regarding matters of doBrine, that is, 
 his course on the Three Chapters; and the Sixth condemned Honorius, Bishop of 
 Rome, as a heretic: Vigilius afterwards repented and submitted himself to that 
 Council and withdrew all his writings which disagree with it. 
 
 2. Leo XIII. contradidls the utterances and the Decisions of the Third 
 Ecumenical Council, which, in forbidding the worship of Christ's separate hu- 
 manity, which is confessedly the highest of all mere creatures, on the ground 
 that it is sinful to worship a creature, by necessary implication forbade the wor- 
 ship of any lesser creature, be it the Virgin Mary, a martyr, or any other saint, 
 an archangel, or any angel, or any other creature whomsoever. Much more 
 (a fortiori) did it necessarily forbid any act of worship to mere inanimate things, 
 such as relics, images, both pidlure, and graven, and every other inanimate 
 thing. For Leo XIII is the chief fosterer of all such creature-worship. Rome 
 is the spiritual Harlot, the great spreader of that creature worship which is 
 spiritual whoredom (Rev. xvii., i8, and all that chapter and chapter xviii.). 
 
xlii. Events Before the Council. 
 
 Polycrates, whom Vi6lor tried to get the Christian world to excom- 
 
 3. On the Eucharist he holds to and teaches the Romish form of the 
 tenet of Transubstantiatiou and the worship of the wafer and the wine as God, 
 he asserting that they have been transubstantiated into God. And so he con- 
 tradi(5ls the Third Ecumenical Council which approved the teaching of St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria against the heresiarch Nestorius, that there is no Transub- 
 stantiation of the substance of the leavened bread (wafers were not used in 
 Cyril's day) into the Substance of Christ's Divinity, nor into the substance of 
 His body, and that there is no transubstantiation of the substance of the wine 
 into the Substance of His Divinity or of His blood: and that the Substance of His 
 Divinity is neither eaten in the rite nor present there, and that the substance of His 
 humanity is neither eaten in the rite nor present there; and that if it were there 
 eaten it would be what St. Cyril calls dv6po)7To<pa}'ia, that is, CannibaIvISM. And 
 as there is no real presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the Euchar- 
 ist, there is there, according to Cyril, nothing to worship. Hence all worship of 
 what is really, notwithstanding all the notion of Leo XIII. to the contrary, 
 only wafer and wine still, is soul destroying idolatry. For all admit that the 
 idolater shall not inherit the kingdom of God (i Cor. vi., 9, 10 ; Galat. v., 19-22; 
 Rev. xxi., 8). 
 
 These are his errors on three points only, but they are all fundamental and 
 saving. And what is vastly important, the Ecumenical Councils which set 
 forth the truths above opposed to them, at the same time pronounce deposition 
 on every Bishop and Cleric who opposes them, and anathema on every laic 
 who does. See the Anathema at the end of the Definition of the Sixth Ecu- 
 menical Council, and the Preface to the Canons of Ephesus, and its Canons ; 
 and the Definition and the Canons of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the 
 end of its Canon XIV. 
 
 Leo XIII. and all the Bishops of his obedience are therefore clearly deposed 
 and anathematized by that otie, holy, universal and apostolic Church which we 
 confess in the Creed. 
 
 The sooner there comes. East and West, a perfect Restoration of all the 
 dodlrine, discipline, rite, and custom of the Six World Councils, and all those of 
 the Ante-Nicene period, and the sooner there comes with it a Seventh Ecumen- 
 ical Synod to depose him and all his so-called Bishops and to put sound men 
 into their places, the better for the whole Church and for the salvation of the 
 more than 200,000,000 of souls whom he and his fellow so-called prelates are 
 leading down to the hopeless death of the idolater. 
 
 Though the Greek Church to-day is idolatrous, it is a remarkable fact that 
 it denies both the baptism and the orders of Rome. Oh ! that it would reform 
 and restore and obey the Six Synods, to which it still professes allegiance 
 nominally, and anathematize the idolatrous conventicle of II. Nicaea which op- 
 poses them, and has so long nullified them and does still, and has wrecked 
 Church and State, and been their bitter curse, as it was of all the West also till 
 the time of the Blessed Reformation in the sixteenth century. 
 
Evejits Before the Council. xliii 
 
 municate, falls back among other things in his reply to him on 
 
 Aud as the Anglicans in their formularies brand the Roman Communion as 
 idolatrous, and, as all admit that by the Decisions of the Six Councils of the 
 whole Church, every idolatrous Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon is deposed aud 
 anathematized, and that the sheep who are in the hands of such wolves must be 
 <lelivered from them and saved, they must therefore, logically, for their part, and, 
 so far as they can, with the rest of the Church, depose them and anathematize 
 them and put faithful shepherds in their place, or else be eternally damned 
 themselves for-their faithlessness aud traitorousness to Christ and to His Church. 
 But first they must square themselves on the Six Ecumenical Synods, that they 
 be not rebuked in return. And common sense teaches that Rome's reform is 
 hopeless. All the passages descriptive of the final fate of the Harlot of the 
 Revelations, who is explaine'd by the Holy Ghost to be ''that great city'' 
 which in John's day reigned ''over the Kings of the earth " (Rev. xvii, i8), 
 agree not with her reform but with her utter desolation and depopulation for- 
 ever. Read on that Revelations xviii., 1.24, and especially verses 21, 22, and 23. 
 In any future union therefore Rome can not be considered. 
 
 I have here spoken only of some^great heresies and idolatries of Rome 
 which are condemned by the VI. Synods of the Universal Church. 
 
 But there are other errors of that kind and of other kinds in which she has 
 erred from the way of truth and which make her guilt darker and blacker. 
 I find some of them mentioned under Romish Church in the General Index to 
 Bingham's Antiquities, vol. VIII. of the ten volume Oxford edition of A. D. 
 1855. I refer to them here not to approve them all, because there is reason to 
 doubt whether some of them are well put, but only to call attention to such of 
 them as are certainly faults of Rome, contrary to the New Testament and to the 
 Six Synods of the Christian World. See there. We must remember that 
 Rome to-day is worse than she was at the time of the Reformation. For at her 
 Vatican Council in A. D. 1870 she committed herself definitely and irrevocably 
 and forever against the Sixth Ecumenical Council, of A. D. 680, by rejecting 
 its condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, as in others of her pseudo-Ecu- 
 menical Conventicles, held after A. D. 680, she had committed herself against the 
 Third Ecumenical Council by rejecting its prohibitions of Man- Worship 
 (AvfipuTTolaTpeui), and of Cannibalism {'Avepo)7TO(payia) on the Eucharist. So that 
 Rome is irreformable, as we are taught in Rev. xvii. and xviii., and by the fa(5ls 
 of the last twelve centuries. And the man who proposes union with the Harlot 
 is a traitor by that very fact to Christ and to his Church, and should be at once 
 deposed if a cleric, and excommunicated if a laic. The Church of England 
 should have a Catechism of the Six World Councils, and of all Ante-Niceue 
 Doctrine, Discipline, and Rite, where they have not spoken, that even its plainest 
 people may know exadlly what that Universal Church which Christ commands 
 us to hear, if we would not be deemed as a heathen man and a publican, has 
 said, and what has been held always, everywhere and by all. To-day its people 
 know not these things, but are at the mercy of every hobby rider who brings 
 
xliv. Eveyits Before the Council. 
 
 the fact that he ''had conferred with the brethren of the [Christian] 
 ivorld ' {a), that is, he meant he knew they would not excommuni- 
 cate him, no matter what the Bishop of Rome and some others 
 with him might think. And therefore, he adds, '' I am not scared at 
 what is threate7ied'' {U). 
 
 For other attempts of Bishops of Rome to arrogate to themselves 
 and their see the authority of the whole Episcopate, and their defeat 
 and failure, see Guettees Papacy, and Barrow on the Pope's Su- 
 premacy. But, when the whole Church spoke in the First Ecu- 
 menical Council, held A. D 325 at Nicaea, the Proconsular Asia 
 Fourteenthdayite Churches obeyed, and if any of their people re- 
 fused, he was refused communion by all {c). So we see that when 
 Vicf or, the fallible Roman successor of poor fallible Peter, spoke, the 
 Bishops of Proconsular Asia withstood him to his face, as Paul had 
 withstood his erring Fellow- Apostle Peter at Antioch (Galatians ii., 
 11-21). And the great bulk of the Bishops of the Universal 
 Church, though differing from t^em on a merely local custom, 
 backed up the Proconsular Asiatics in that position. But when that 
 Church which Christ commands us to hear unless we would be re- 
 garded '-as a heathen ma7t and a publican''' (Matt, xviii., 17), 
 spoke through its whole Apostolate at Nicaea, all obeyed. For 
 Peter had never been the whole Apostolate, nor could he alone 
 speak for it all. It was the whole Apostolate which spake in the 
 gathering at Jerusalem in Ac5ls xv. Peter's voice was only one 
 among all. He was merely first among his equals in the ruling 
 body of the Church where each Apostle has the same promise of 
 
 in heresies contrary to the Six Synods, or of every Miss Nancy of an effeminate 
 Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, who never should have been admitted to the min- 
 istry, and who changes the primitive table to a Jewish or pagan altar, and puts 
 on (t a tabernacle, contrary to his own rubrics, for the reservation of what Roman- 
 ists term the Host, and for its worship, and contrary to his own Homily against 
 Peril of Idolatry, puts on his altar, in the windows, or elsewhere in the Church, 
 :dols pictured or graven, which things provoke the jealous God to jealousy, and 
 lure women into idolatry. 
 
 {a\ Eusebius' Eccl. Hist., Book V., Chap. 24, Greek, kyh ovv, d^e^ol.., 
 ovu(3e^?iTiKug Tolq anb rfj^ oiKovuhv^ d6e?i(})oic . . .ov Trrvpo/iai enl toi^ KaTanlrfaaofievoig, 
 
 {b). See the note last above. 
 
 {c). The Quartodecimans, that is Fourteenthdayites, are branded as her- 
 etics in Canon VII. of the Second Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 3S1. 
 
Events Before the Council. xlv. 
 
 guiding by the Holy Ghost in the great work of teaching the Church 
 and the world (Matt, xxviii., 19, 20 ; John xiv., 16, 17). Anicetus, 
 Vigor's predecessor in the see of Rome, about 157-161, differed from 
 St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, on that same matter of the Pascha! 
 day, and when neither could persuade the other they communed in 
 the Eucharist and separated as brethren (ft). So Cyprian and an 
 African Council of A. D. 254 (see Cyprian's Epistle 67) supported 
 the Spanish Christians in their opposition to Stephen, Bishop of 
 Rome, in the matter of Basilides and Martialis. So in instances too- 
 many to be here recited, the Episcopate of the Universal Church 
 lias acfled when any Bishop of Rome has assumed to himself to be 
 lord and master of his Fellow- Bishops, and has presumed to exercise 
 sole jurisdidlion outside of Italy. So the Fifth Ecumenical Council 
 in A. D. 553 censured the unstable and tricky Vigilius, for lack of 
 duty in a very important matter affe(?ting fundamental faith, the 
 Three Chapters; and the Sixth in A. D. 680 anathematized his suc- 
 cessor, Honorius, as an instrument of the Devil and a Monothelite 
 heretic : see its Definition and its Adls. And, as though God 
 would warn us against the usurpation by the Bishop of Rome of the 
 authority of the Apostolate of the whole Church, Scripture tells us 
 more of his fallibility than it does of that of all the rest of the 
 Apostles put together. For he went so far, as Christ warned him 
 that he would, as to deny him thrice in a few hours of one night {U)^, 
 and he even went so far as to deny that he was one of his disciples, 
 (r), which, of course, means a denial of the faith, a complete apos- 
 tasy from it ; and he even went further and swore with an oath 
 that he did not even know the man (^), thus adding perjury to utter 
 apostasy, and then, when accused again, he even began to curse and 
 to swear (^ ). And afterwards at Antioch he was rebuked for such 
 
 {a). Eusebius' Eccl. Hist.y Book V., Chapter 24. Irenaeus relates the fact 
 above. 
 
 {b). Matt, xxvi., 34, 35; Mark xiv., 30, 31; Luke xxii., 31-35; John xiii., 38. 
 
 {c). John xviii., 17; compare Matt, xxvi., 69, 70; Mark xiv.. 66, 67, 68, and 
 Luke xxii., 56, 57. 
 
 {d). Matt, xxvi., 71, 72; compare Mark xiv., 68, 69, 70; Luke xxii., 58, and 
 John xviii., 25. 
 
 {e). Matt, xxvi., 73, 74, 75; Mark xiv., 70, 71, 72; Luke xxii., 59, 60, 61. 
 and John xviii., 26, 27. Sedlions 136 and 144 in Robinson's Harmony oj thy 
 
xlvi. Events Before the Council. 
 
 recreancy to duty as amounted to fallibility certainly, aye to tem- 
 porary apostasy on a fundamental article of faith, the freedom of the 
 Gentile, aye and the Jewish Christian also from obedience to the law 
 of Moses («), a point infallibly decided by the assembled Apostolate 
 
 Gospels give these texts in their places in parallel columns : see there for all 
 the references above in these notes. 
 
 {a). A(5ls X., and xi., 1-19; Adls xv., 1-32; Rom. vi., 14, 15; Heb. viii., 13. 
 Christ's New Covenant, that is New Testament, came of force the moment he 
 died (Heb. ix., 15. 16, 17), when the Old was abolished and passed away forever 
 (11. Cor. iii., 13, and Heb. viii., 13). The tables of that Covenant were the Ten 
 Commandments, Heb. ix., 4 : compare Deut. x., 1-6; I. Kings viii., 9. Hence 
 they are called the Tables of the Covenant, Heb. ix., 4; compare Exod. xxxiv., 
 I, 28; xxxi., i8;xxxii., 16; I. Kings viii., 9, 21; Bxod. xxxiv., 28. 29; Deut. iv., 
 13; Deut. ix., 9, II, 15. All the moral law parts in them are binding on us, not 
 because they were in the Ten Commandments, which were given to the 
 Israelites, not to us, but because they are all ena(5led expressly or impliedly 
 in the New and Better Covenant of Christ (Heb. viii,, 13; vii., 22; viii., 6). 
 I'y moral law parts I mean such as the enlighted and sandlified common sense 
 of men in all ages has deemed binding, such, for instance, as the law which forbids 
 theft, the law which forbids more gods than one, the law which forbids image 
 worship, the law which forbids adultery, the law which forbids murder, etc. 
 The parts of the ten commandments which are positive laws as contradistin- 
 guished from moral, are the prohibitions of even making a graven image, or a 
 likeness, that is a pi(5lure, and the keeping of the seventh day, or any other par- 
 ticular day; for such things are not moral laws, for God who prohibited in the 
 Law in Exod. xx. , 4, the making of statues and pi(5lures, ordered two statues, 
 the cherubs, to be put over the mercy seat in the holy of holies into which the 
 high priest alone could enter, and the embroidered cherubs on the vail which 
 separated the holy place from the most holy (Exod. xxvi., 31, xxxvi., 35); and 
 the outer curtains had cherubs on them, but whether on the inside or outside 
 does not appear from any thing I have seen. At any rate none of the people ever 
 saw the ark-cherubs or the inner curtain which separated the holy place from 
 the most holy. And it is not clear that they ever saw the cherubs on the outer 
 vails ; but it is clear that they were forbidden to worship them. The meaning 
 of God's allowing statuary and embroidered figures in one strucflure onl}-, 
 where the people might not see them, and the forbidding them else- 
 where, was to teach them that sculpture and painting are not in them- 
 selves sinful, but are to be forbidden in places of worship where they 
 may be seen by the people, lest they begin to worship them relatively 
 as the Israelites did the calf in the Wilderness, and the calves at Bethel 
 and at Dan. Hence we see that outside of the temple, in which God 
 made exceptions to his prohibition of statuary and embroidered figures, the 
 Jews have ever regarded the prohibition as of force, for no statue or likeness of 
 anything in the heavens above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters undei 
 
Events Before the Council. xlvii. 
 
 against Peter's dissembling to please heretical Jewish Christians, 
 whose Legalistic errors were condemned in that Council ( a) . Read 
 the whole story in Galatians ii., 1 1-21, in the words of the inspired 
 Paul : " Whe7i Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the/ace^ 
 because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from Jarnes, 
 he did eat with the Gentiles : but when they were come, he withdrew, 
 a7id separated hijnself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 
 A?id the other fews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Bar- 
 nabas also was carried away with their dissimulation ( b). But when 
 I saw that they walked not tiprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, 
 I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the 
 mafiner of Geiitiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the 
 Gentiles to live as do the Jews,'''' etc. (Galat ii., 11-15). The Mosaic 
 Law had been abolished at Christ's death and the Gospel had taken 
 
 the earth (Exod. xx., 4), has ever been allowed in their synagogues. And this 
 same rule, as has been so ably shown by Tyler in his work on Image Worshi' 
 was the feeling and custom of the primitive Church. Witness the prohibitio 
 of picflures in Church by the Council of Elvira in Spain about A. D. 305-309, in 
 its Canon XXXVI., and the adlion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cy- 
 prus A. D. 367-403, in tearing up a veil in a Church in Anablatha in Palestine be- 
 cause it had on it an image, that is a painting representing Christ or some other 
 saint : Seepages 163 to 167 of that work of Tyler. 
 
 Another positive law, as distinguished from a moral law, is the observance 
 of the seventh day of the week, as has been said, for it is not clear that any one 
 da}' is holier than another. Such positive laws are not re-ena6led in the New 
 Testament expressly or impliedly. Hence they are not binding on us of Gentile 
 blood. Until Christ came we were under the last covenant given to universal 
 humanity, that is that of Noah (Gen. ix., 8-18). The seventh day passed 
 away with his death (Heb. ix., 15-18). We have no law in the New Testament 
 to keep the first day of the week, but we have Apostolic example for it, 
 which amounts to the same thing. See A6ls xx., 7, and I. Cor. xvi., 2. ** The 
 Lord's Day'' in Rev. i., 10, has always been understood by Christian writers 
 from the first to mean the First Day. 
 
 {a). A(5ls XV., 1-32. 
 
 {b). Greek, nvruv rfj vTvoKpiaec, literally ''with their hypocrisy." Pan" 
 therefore, speaking by the Holy Ghost, condemns Peter's conduct here as hy- 
 pocrisy, and himself of course as a hypocrite. In one respect, that is in the de- 
 itberateness aLtioi persistency of his sin, Peter's conduct here was worse than his 
 conduct in the Gospels. There his triple denial was inspired by sudden and 
 powerful fear for his own life. Here that motive was not so powerful, and his 
 iall into Legalistic Anti-Christian heresy was more calm and deliberate, and his 
 repentance seems to have come more slowly. 
 
xiviii. Events Before the Council, 
 
 its place. The old Covenant had lost all authority, and the New 
 and better Covenant had superseded it {a). The Council of Jeru- 
 salem, where Peter was present and on the right side {U), had so 
 decided, and yet after that Holy-Ghost-inspired decree Peter falls 
 away from the faith again, and by example teaches the heresy, so 
 dear to some of the Jewish heretical brethren, for which they 
 are censured in the New Testament, that the Law of Moses with its 
 meats and drinks is still binding ; and that too after God had taught 
 him the contrary dodlrine in a vision and verified it against the Cir- 
 cumcisers and Legalists in the case of Cornelius, who contended with 
 him for their heresy when he returned to Jerusalem, as they did at 
 Antioch against Paul and Barnabas (r). And so, in the same 
 Chapter ii. of Galatians, Paul tells Peter that no man can be justified 
 by that Law of Moses which Peter, to please the heretical Jews, 
 pretended to obey, calls his conduct a sin, and a building up again 
 the things of an effete Judaism which they had destroyed by their 
 preaching of Christ, and a transgression: see Galat. ii., 15-21 Peter 
 therefore was decidedly fallible, as his successors, Vigilius (d), and 
 Honorius {e) were. In the case of these two the Universal Church 
 has settled the matter forever in the Fifth Ecumenical Council and 
 the Sixth, so that a man who asserts Papal Infallibility is by that 
 very fact branded as a heretic. For. after the decision of the Sixth 
 Ecumenical Synod on Honorius. the matter has been removed from 
 disputable questions. We can no more discuss that question with a 
 heretic than we can the fallibility and justness of the condemnation 
 of Arius by the First World- Synod, with an Arian ; or the condem- 
 nation of Macedonius by the Second Synod, or the con- 
 
 (fl). See note a, page xlvic 
 
 {b ). Adls XV., 7-12, and 14- 18, 
 
 ( c\ AAs xi., 1-19 ; AAs XV , 1-32. 
 
 {d). See proofs of his erring course in Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy un- 
 der his name in the Index, in the Abb6 Guett^e's work on the Papacy, English 
 translation, Index under Vi^Ur.is, and the article on him in Smith and Wace's 
 DiHionary of Christian Biography. 
 
 {e ). See proofs of his heresy in Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy, in the 
 Abb^ Guett^e's work on the Papacy, English translation, Index under Honorius, 
 and Barmby's article on Honorius va.Svox'Ca. and Wace's DiBionary of Christian 
 Biography, 
 
Events Befoi'e the Council, xlix. 
 
 demnation of Nestorius by the Third, or that of Eutyches 
 by the Fourth, or that of Origen, and Theodore of Mop- 
 suestia, and the Three Chapters by the Fifth. For the very 
 moment that we regard such decisions as debatable we land in 
 ecclesiastical and dodlrinal anarchy. So we land in the same thing 
 if we admit any other Synod as sound or Ecumenical if it contradi(5ls 
 any of their decisions on do(5lrine, discipline, or rite : instances of 
 such contradi(5ling Synods are the Image-Worshipping and Creature- 
 Invoking, and Real Presence Council of A, D. 787 at Nicaea which 
 idolaters call Ecumenical, which on all those points opposes the 
 Third Ecumenical Synod; the Vatican Council of A. D. 1870, which 
 contradi(5ls, on Honorius, the Sixth; and all the other so-called Ecu- 
 menical Councils which have been held in the East or West since 
 A. D. 680. For he who receives any of them, by that very fact 
 rejecfts Ephesus, or some other of the Six World Councils, and, if he 
 be a cleric, subjedls himself to deposition, and if a laic to anathema, 
 according to their Decisions. 
 
 The Third Ecumenical Council therefore did not accept Celes- 
 tine's opinion alone as settling the question of the heresies of 
 Nestorius. They accepted the assents of all the Bishops of the 
 Universal Church, and on the basis of a fair trial in which those 
 assents were pronounced they deposed Nestorius. 
 
 And what is very important, in their Canon VIII. they decided 
 against Celestine's claim to Appellate Jurisdi(5lion in Africa, and for 
 Carthage's contention and that of the 217 Bishops of the North 
 African Sjmod which had rejecfled it. 
 
 Some documents alleged to have been delivered as Sermons at 
 Constantinople A. D. 429, and to be produ6tions of Proclus, are 
 made much of by Garnier the Jesuit in his Marias Mercator, and by 
 John Mason Neale, the Romanizer and Mariolater and traitor to his 
 own Communion and to the Six Ecumenical Synods : see his Eastern 
 Church, Alexayidria, Vol. I., 239-243. For such men, moved by 
 the perverted and false statements of Romanists and by their own 
 creature-worshipping tendencies and crimes against the infallible 
 law of Christ that God alone is to be worshipped, which shall judge 
 us all at the last day (Matt, iv., 10; I^uke iv., 8, and John xii., 48).. 
 are prone to lug in somewhere and to attribute to some of 
 the Orthodox something that approaches in some or in any 
 
1. Events Before the Cotmcil. 
 
 way to their worship of the Virgin. But those documents are 
 spurious. None of them is earlier than the sixth century. They 
 will be spoken of more at length in the volume of the Forematter to 
 Ephesus, where they are Documents 57, 58 and 59. I have room 
 only to say that though Socrates and Evagrius both mention 
 Proclus, neither of them mentions his preaching any sermon on the 
 Virgin or taking any very prominent part in the Nestorian contro- 
 versy. Neither Theodoret nor Sozomen mention him in their 
 Church Histories. On pages 550, 551, below, I have referred to the 
 fact that Garnier's headings, or those in tome 48 of Migne's 
 Patrologia Latina, in which it is said that some of Nestorius' Ser- 
 mons were preached against Proclus, are mere late things and of no 
 historic value at all: and that in Galland's edition the headings are 
 not the same as in Garnier's. The fact is that Garnier being a 
 Romanist, and therefore a Mariolater, and accustomed to the utterly 
 false notion that Ephesus favored the worship of Mary, and never- 
 theless finding nothing in the original A<5ls and genuine documents to 
 base that slander on, welcomes these spurious producflions, which are 
 falsely alleged to be Proclus' , and then makes up headings to Nes- 
 torius' Sermons, some of which he supposes without any proof to be 
 against Proclus, and so asserts in those headings. 
 
 The Emperors had summoned the Metropolitans of the Chris- 
 tian world to choose each some of his Bishops and to come to Ephe- 
 sus. As has been said, the day appointed for the opening was 
 Pentecost, our Whitsunday, June 7, A. D. 431. Nestorius with six- 
 teen Bishops of his party, were among the first to arrive. And he 
 came panoplied in the friendship and the military forces of Count 
 Candidian, the Emperor Theodosius the Second's representative. 
 Cyril came about June 2 with about fifty of his suffragans. Juvenal 
 of Jerusalem and Flavian of Philippi came with some of their prel- 
 ates. Memnon of Ephesus was on hand with about forty of his 
 suffragans. John of Antioch had not come, but with Metropolitans 
 and Bishops was on his way. The Synod waited for him and them 
 fifteen days after the time set by the Emperor. What modern Synod 
 would wait so long ? I give Hefele's brief summary here on John's 
 delay, on pages 44, 45 of Vol. III. of the English translation of his 
 History of the Church Councils ; 
 
 "There was still wanting one of the superior metropolitans 
 
Eve7its Before the Council. 
 
 (patriarchs), namely, John of Antioch. His Bishops, he said, could 
 not leave their dioceses before Renovation Sunday (^Dominica in 
 Albis), and then it would take them twelve days to travel to An 
 tioch, and from thence to Ephesus thirty-nine, so that they could 
 not arrive until some days after Pentecost. At last, (just about 
 Pentecost), John came into the neighborhood of Ephesus, and sent 
 to Cyril a letter, which is still extant, full of friendliness, setting 
 forth that the length of the road and the death of several of their horses 
 had delayed the journey, but that nevertheless he was close at 
 hand, and would appear at Ephesus in five or six days. In spite of 
 this they waited sixteen days; and then two of the metropolitans of 
 the patriarchate of Antioch, Alexander of Apamea and Alexander 
 of Hierapolis, came and repeatedly declared that 'John had bid them 
 say that they were no longer to defer the ope7tmg of the Sy7iod on his 
 account, but in case it should be 7iecessary for him to delay lojiger, they 
 were to do what was to be dojie. ' From this they inferred that the 
 Patriarch John was intending to avoid being personally present at 
 the condemnation of his former priest and friend Nestorius. Cyril 
 and his friends now decided therefore on the immediate opening of 
 the Synod, and assembled for that purpose on the 28th day of the 
 Egyptian month Payni (June 22), 431, in the Cathedral of Ephesus" 
 {a). The rest is told in the Ac5ls and in the notes in this work on 
 the Council. 
 
 We may be well assured from what we know of St. Cyril that 
 he, with the better informed men of the Orthodox, would wisely 
 utilize the fifteen days of waiting to instruct and fortify the less 
 scholarly among them not only on the great themes of the Inman, 
 Man- Worship, and the Eucharist, but on all points contested by 
 Nestorius in his Twenty Blasphemies, for all which he was con- 
 demned and deposed in Act I. of the Synod {h). Cyril had with 
 him his two Epistles which were destined to be formulated as Ecu- 
 menically approved explanations of the Nicene Creed and also of all 
 the points involved in the Nestorian Controversy, and his still fuller 
 Five Book ContradiSlion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. He would 
 
 (a). Hefele, iu the notes on the above, gives the references to the original 
 sources for his statements. 
 
 {b). They are found on pages 449-479 below. 
 
lii. Events Before the Council. 
 
 naturally circulate them among his fellow prelates to their enlight- 
 enment. Besides we have still a brief but excellent, ' ' Explanation 
 of the Twelve Chapters spoken in Ephesus by Cyril, Archbishop of 
 Alexandria, the Holy Syjiod having requested him to set forth a clearer 
 explanation of them to them' ' {a). Whether this was said in the long wait 
 before the First Act or between some of the after A(5ls, or after them 
 all, we cannot say. At any rate the forecited works were abundant 
 to profit all and to set forth entire Orthodoxy on the points involved. 
 On pages 30-32 below, Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, in 
 stating and opening the business of the Council, makes no mention 
 of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia,Nestorius' teachers, 
 but confines his statement of the causes of the difficulty to Nestorius 
 and his heretical Sermons and writings. With them and their refuta- 
 tions by Cyril the Council deals. Later on in the period after the Third 
 Council, Cyril becomes aware of the fact that Diodore' s and Theodore' s 
 teachings had corrupted not only Nestorius but more or less the 
 great bulk of the Episcopate of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and he 
 therefore assails and exposes their errors. I judge that the errors 
 were stated most fully by Theodore. For in the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Synod, which condemned the relics of Nestorianism, and its founders, 
 he is named in its Anathemas IV., V., VI., XII., XIII., and XIV., 
 and is anathematized, and there is no mention of Diodore in them. 
 But their errors are condemned in the Definition of the Fifth Synod 
 and in its Anathemas, and in its approval of all that had been done 
 at Ephesus. Fragments of Cyril's writings against Diodore and 
 Theodore are found, translated into English, in Pusey's 6*. Cyril of 
 Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 320 — 362. 
 Most of Diodore' s and Theodore's writings are lost. 
 
 {a). They are found on pages 240-258 of vol. vi. of the Greek of P. E. 
 Pusey's edition of Cyril's works. 
 
List of Donors to the Publishhig Fund. liii. 
 
 XIST OF DONORS TO THE FUND TO PUBI.ISH THE VI. 
 
 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, WHO HAVE HELPED 
 
 TO PUBLISH THIS VOLUME. 
 
 I have again to record my heartfelt gratitude to those patrons 
 of Christian lore, by whose kind and invaluable assistance this work 
 has been printed and electrotyped and published. I had not the 
 means necessary to do it. They came to the help not only of my- 
 self but, of what is vastly greater, of Christ speaking through His 
 Universal Church, that these inestimably precious and indisputably 
 authoritative utterances of it might be made known to clergy and 
 people. May He most richly reward them in both worlds. For 
 what is the use of the Church defining and deciding on matters of 
 salvation and of order, if those Definitions and Decisions are to be 
 locked up in dead languages forever ? 
 
 I ought to add here injustice to the givers to the Fund that for 
 all opinions expressed in the notes on this work I alone am respon- 
 sible. As the donors belong mainly to the different parties in the 
 Anglican Communion, some of them may differ from some of them 
 as they differ from each other.' 
 
 The following is the list of donors to the Fund to Publish the 
 5ix Ecumenical Councils, on this Volume : made up this 12 mo. i, 
 1894: 
 A FRIEND ^1,260 00 
 
 BISHOPS. 
 
 HiGHT REV. HENRY CODMAN POTTER, D. D., L. L. D., Bishop of 
 
 New York $50 00 
 
 Right Rkv. ABRAM NEWKIRK I^ITTLEJOHN, D. D., L. L. D., 
 
 Bishop of Long Island 2000 
 
 Right Rev. OZI W. WHITAKER, D. D., Bishop of Pennsylvania 1000 
 
 Right Rev. WILLIAM C. DOANE, D. D., L. L. D., Bishop of 
 
 Albany 10 00 
 
 Right Rev. PHILLIPS BROOKS, D. D., Bishop of Massachusetts. 10 00 
 
]iv. List of Donors to the Publishing Fjmd. 
 
 Right Rev. THOMAS F. GAILOR, D. D., Assistant Bishop of 
 
 Tennessee |io oo 
 
 Right Rev. DANIEL S. TUTTI^B, D. D., Bishop of Missouri lo oo 
 
 Right Rev. ALEXANDER C. GARRETT, D. D., L. L. D., Bishop 
 
 of Northern Texas lo oo 
 
 Right Rev. THOMAS U. DUDLEY, D. D., D. C. L., Bishop of 
 
 Kentucky lo oo 
 
 Right Rev. WM. F. NICHOLS, D. D., Bishop of California lo oo 
 
 Right Rev. BOYD VINCENT, D. D., Assistant Bishop of Southern 
 
 Ohio lo oo 
 
 Right Rev. EDWIN G. WEED, S. T. D., Bishop of Florida lo oo 
 
 Right Rev. ELLISON CAPERS, D. D., Ass't Bishop of South Caro- 
 lina lo oo 
 
 Right Rev. WM. E. McLAREN, D. D., D. C. L., Bishop of Chicago- lo oo 
 Right Rev. THOMAS A. JAGGAR, D. D., Bishop of Southern Ohio. 6 25, 
 Right Rev. HENRY B. WHIPPLE, D. D., L- L. D., Bishop of Min- 
 nesota 5 00 
 
 Right Rev. JOHN F. SPALDING, D. D., Bishop of Colorado 5 00 
 
 Right Rev. WILLIAM A. LEONARD, D. D., Bishop of Ohio 5 00. 
 
 PRESBYTERS. 
 
 Rev. morgan DIX, D. D., D. C. L., New York __ _ 50 00 
 
 Rev. JOHN W. BROWN, D. D., New York 50 00 
 
 Rev. CHARLES F. HOFFMAN, D. D., L. L. D., New York 25 00 
 
 REV. PHILIP A. H. BROWN, New York 20 00 
 
 Rev. DAVID H. GREER, D. D., New York 20 00 
 
 Rev. WM. R. HUNTINGTON, D. D., D. C. L-, New York 20 00 
 
 Rev. JAMES MULCHAHEY, D. D., New York 10 00 
 
 REV. ARTHUR BROOKS, D. D., New York 10 00 
 
 REV. ISAAC H. TUTTLE, D. D., New York 10 00 
 
 REV. HENRY Y. SATTERLEE, D. D., New York 10 00 
 
 Rev. W. ALLEN JOHNSON, Middletown, Conn 10 00 
 
 REV. E. W. DONALD, D. D., Boston, Mass 10 00 
 
 REV. ARTHUR C. KIMBER, S. T. D., New York 5 00 
 
 REV. OCTAVIUS APPLEGATE, Jr., Ellenville, N. Y 5 00 
 
 REV. EDWARD A. BRADLEY, D. D., New York 5 00 
 
 REV. G. W. DUMBELL, D. D., Castleton, N. Y 5 00 
 
 REV. WM. R. ESHER, Jersey City, N. J 2 00 
 
 Rkv. E. R. KNOWLES, L. L. D., Worcester, Mass 45 oo 
 
Notes on EpJiesus. Iv. 
 
 OF THE LAITY. 
 
 JAMES J. GOODWIN, Esq., New York I50 oo 
 
 Mr. FRANCIS G. DUPONT, Wilmington, Del. 25 00 
 
 JAMES FIvEMMING, Esq., Jersey City, N. J 10 ©o 
 
 EFFINGHAM H. NICHOLS, Esq., New York 10 00 
 
 Mr. SOLON J. VLASTO and WIFE, New York 10 00 
 
 Miss KATE INGMIRE, New York 5 00 
 
 Mrs. ISBISTER, Jersey City, N. J 5 00 
 
 Mrs. BENSON, Brooklyn 500 
 
 Mr. JOHN BRENAN, Jersey City, N. J 5 00 
 
 Mr. LITCHFIELD, Brooklyn, N. Y 100 
 
 ADDITIONAL NAMES. 
 
 Right Rev. CORTLANDT WHITEHEAD, Bishop of Pittsburg, Pa.- |iooo 
 
 REV. CHAUNCEY B. BREWSTER, Brooklyn, N. Y 2000 
 
 Rev. THOMAS M. PETERS, D. D., New York 1000 
 
 Rev. LOUIS S. OSBORNE, Newark, N. J 1000 
 
 Rev. p. G. ROBERT, St. Louis, Mo 500 
 
 REV. LEA LUQUER, Bedford, N. Y 5 00 
 
 TEXT LEAPS, 
 
 On the following pages the text is separated by a long note, so 
 that it must be read by a leap from page to page as below noted to 
 preserve the consecution: 
 
 From page 13 leap to page 16. 
 
 From page 19 leap to page 21. 
 
 From page 120 leap to page 129. 
 
 LOCATION AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MOST IM- 
 PORTANT NOTES ON EPHESUS. 
 
 Much of the matter in these notes is drawn from the A(5ls of the 
 Third World Council and from the other World Councils, and from 
 the Orthodox Cyril and his teacher and predecessor in the see of 
 Alexandria, Athanasius, and from Cyril's opponent, Nestorius, and 
 from the originators of his heresy, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia, and from Nestorius' partisans, Theodoret, Bishop of 
 Cyrus, Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, Eutherius of Tyana, and from 
 others. Such material has an interest of itself as bearing on the 
 Council and serving to explain many things in it, independent of the 
 translator's work of Englishing many of the passages cited. 
 
Ivi. Notes on Ephesus. 
 
 Perhaps he should explain that note 183, pages 79-128, and 
 note 606, pages 240-313, are Dissertations rather than notes. But 
 he has deemed them so important and so necessary in these days 
 when the blessed decisions of the Holy Ghost at Ephesus are so 
 Httle known, and as a consequence so much misrepresented and so 
 much maligned, that he has connedled them with those places in the 
 Ecumenically approved documents to which they belong, that every 
 man may see the closeness of their co-linking. The annotator has 
 endeavored to make them fuller and clearer than any other modern 
 producflion on the difference between Cyril and Nestorius, that is be- 
 tween the Orthodoxy defined by the Third Ecumenical Synod on 
 the one hand, and the heresies of the heresiarch and of his partisans 
 on the other, on the great themes of Man -Worship, that is of Crea- 
 ture-Worship, and of the Eucharist. On those topics the Holy 
 Spirit guided the Universal Church at Ephesus to decide infallibly, 
 once for all, and its decisions are an unstormable rampart against all 
 the assaults of later errors. The notes, in order to profit, should be 
 read in connecflion with the places in the text to which they pertain 
 and are attached. And the two Dissertation notes 183 and 606, not 
 because of the translator, but because of the quotations from the 
 Ecumenical Councils, and from their teachers Athanasius and Cyril 
 in them, will live and do good for centuries to come, as the annota- 
 tor hopes that all will. He here mentions some of the longer notes, 
 their subjedls, and their location; and then, below, the ^^ Location 
 of Notes which do not begin on the Page to which they belong y They 
 are, for the most part, displaced by the longer notes, some of which 
 run over many pages : 
 
 Begins on Ends on 
 Note No. Page. Page. Its Subject. 
 
 156 61 69 The difference between Cyril's and the 
 
 Church's dodlrine of the Substance 
 Union, and Nestorius' heresy oi Rel- 
 ative Union, which includes his se- 
 quence o f Relative Worship of 
 Christ's humanity^ that is, the wor- 
 ship of a creature. 
 
 173 74 76 Economic Appropriation : it guards, ac- 
 
 cording to St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, 
 against worshipping a creature, the 
 sin of the heathen. 
 

 Begins on 
 
 Ends on 
 
 Note No. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Page. 
 
 183 
 
 79 
 
 128 
 
 Notes on Ephesus. Ivii. 
 
 Its Subject. 
 
 This long note is in fact a Dissertation on 
 the differences between Cyril and 
 the Third Ecumenical Council on the 
 one hand, and Nestorius and his 
 partisans and other heretics on the 
 other, as to worshipping Christ's hu- 
 manity. Some of these quotations 
 are gathered in it, translated, and set 
 in contrast for the first time, from the 
 original. 
 
 364 170 172 The Tradition of the Universal Church; 
 
 some parts of it. 
 
 3S8 176 178 Deadly nature of Nestorius' denial of the 
 
 Inman, his worship of a mere crea- 
 ture, etc. 
 
 502 197 201 Stand of the great Diocesan Sees on the 
 
 Nestorian Controversy. 
 
 520 204 208 Cyril's Longer Epistle to Nestorius, its 
 
 authority; its text. 
 
 533 210 212 The Protest of Cyril and his Synod against 
 
 Nestorius and his heresy of creature- 
 worship, etc. ; the Protest of the Re- 
 formers against Rome's creature- wor- 
 ship, etc. 
 
 580 221 225 Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ's 
 
 humanity. 
 
 599 229 238 The Eucharist an Unbloody Service. 
 
 606 240 313 The dodrine of St. Cyril and of the Third 
 
 Council on the Eucharist. Nestorius' 
 heresies on it. 
 
 679 332 362 It is on Cyril's Anathema VIII.; in which 
 
 he curses the worship of Christ's 
 separate humanity. Nestorius' Rel- 
 ative Worship of Christ's humanity; 
 Cyril and the Church's condemnation 
 of it. Kenrick's absolute worship of 
 Christ's humanity, and his defence of 
 the worship of the Sacred Heart of 
 Christ; remarks on Kenrick's crea- 
 ture worship. The Monophysite 
 worship of Christ's humanity. The 
 Church do<5lrine on that whole topic. 
 Habib the Martyr's testimony. 
 
Iviii. Notes on Ephesus. 
 
 Note 688, to page 346. It begins on page 363, aud ends on page 406. It is on 
 Cyril's Anathema X., which is on Christ's High Priestly and Mediatorial 
 Work. God the Word, and no creature our Mediator. The Son is our 
 Sole Advocate and Intercessor in Heaven. Cyril for it. The dodlrine 
 blurred in later forms of Liturgies; was maintained in the Alexandrian 
 Church before Cyril; is Scriptural; Augustine on; Clement of Alexandria 
 for it; Julius Africanus for it; St. Athanasius for it; St. Cyril for it; New- 
 man's inexact statements on it; Stancari, or Stancaoro and Osiander on; 
 Theodoret against it; St. Cyril for it; Augustine on it; Leo I. of Rome on; 
 too much lost sight of in the Middle Ages, owing to invocation of saints; 
 the English and other Reformers restore it; the Second Part of the Hom- 
 ily of the Church of Efigtand Concerning Prayer for it. The Homily of 
 the Church of England on the Nativity for it; Article XXXI. for the sole- 
 ness * oi the one Oblation of Christ finished on the Cross^ Christ's one 
 sacrifice absolutely propitiatory; the Eucharistic propitiatory only rela- 
 tively to that; Christ's intercessory work prerogative to the Son; it can- 
 not be shared by Saints. How Cyril's Anathema VIII. and X. and 
 Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod against the worship of Christ's human- 
 ity and against those who deny that God the Word is our Mediator, are 
 maintained in professing Christendom in the Greek Church; in the 
 Latin; among the Monophysites; among the Nestorians. in the Reformed 
 Communions; among the Socinians; Stancaro on; Osiander the Lutheran 
 against him; Francis David, Budnseus and Socinus and other Anti-Trin- 
 itarians on. Difference between the Nestorian and the Sociuian worship 
 of Christ's humanity; in England and America most Anti-Trinitarians 
 now renounce it altogether; Nestorian language of Peter Lombard on 
 Christ's Mediatorship; some Lutheran documents Man-worshipping; 
 Lutheran heresy aud form of Continufiication of the Properties of ChrisV s 
 Divinity to his humanity, Cyril against that error; adls of relative 
 worship given by Nestorius or his partisans to Christ's humanity. Cyril 
 condemns such adls as insulting to God, and makes them all prerogative 
 to Him; Schwenkfelder's heresy on; Spread of Saint worship in the An- 
 glican Communion; Newman's wicked and dishonorable course on; 
 Keble, Pusey and Neale also against Cyril and Ephesus, scoundrelism of 
 Blunt; where Cyril explains his Anathema X. 
 
 Note 694, to page 356. It is on pages 409-413. Economic Appropriation. 
 
 Note 759, page 424-428. On a Passage of Felix of Rome. 
 
 Note 763, to page 424. Page 428-433. On a Passage of Felix of Rome. 
 
 Note 949, to page 461. Pages 461-463. Relative Worship of Creatures. 
 
 Note 1007, to page 474. Pages 474-477. On a Passage of Nestorius on the Eu- 
 charist. 
 
 Note 1023, to page 481. Pages 479-483. Metropolitans and Patriarchs, 
 
Notes on Ephesns. 
 
 lix. 
 
 XOCATION OF NOTES WHICH DO NOT BEGIN ON THE 
 PAGE TO WHICH THEY BELONG. 
 
 JVoie 
 
 Belongs to 
 
 Begins on. 
 
 Note 
 
 Belongs to. 
 
 Begins on. 
 
 143 
 
 Page 
 
 54 
 
 Page 
 
 58. 
 
 200 
 
 Page 120. 
 
 Page 128. 
 
 144 
 
 Page 
 
 57 
 
 Page 
 
 58. 
 
 365 
 
 Page 171. 
 
 Page 172. 
 
 145 
 
 Page 
 
 57 
 
 Page 
 
 59- 
 
 389 
 
 Page 177. 
 
 Page 178. 
 
 157 
 
 Page 
 
 61 
 
 Page 
 
 69. 
 
 492 
 
 Page 195. 
 
 Page 196. 
 
 158 
 
 Page 
 
 63 
 
 Page 
 
 69. 
 
 503 
 
 Page 198. 
 
 Page 201. 
 
 159 
 
 Page 
 
 64 
 
 Page 
 
 70. 
 
 504 
 
 Page 198. 
 
 Page 201. 
 
 160 
 
 Page 
 
 65 
 
 Page 
 
 71. 
 
 505 
 
 Page 199. 
 
 Page 201. 
 
 161 
 
 Page 
 
 67 
 
 Page 
 
 72. 
 
 506 
 
 Page 200. 
 
 Page 202. 
 
 162 
 
 Page 
 
 70 
 
 Page 
 
 72. 
 
 507 
 
 Page 200. 
 
 Page 202. 
 
 163 
 
 Page 
 
 71 
 
 Page 
 
 73. 
 
 508 
 
 Page 201. 
 
 Page 202. 
 
 169 
 
 Page 
 
 73 
 
 Page 
 
 74- 
 
 509 
 
 Page 201. 
 
 Page 202. 
 
 174 
 
 Page 
 
 75 
 
 Page 
 
 76. 
 
 514 
 
 Page 203. 
 
 Page 202. 
 
 175 
 
 Page 
 
 75 
 
 Page 
 
 76. 
 
 519 
 
 Page 205. 
 
 Page 204. 
 
 176 
 
 Page 
 
 76 
 
 Page 
 
 78. 
 
 520 
 
 Page 205. 
 
 Page 204. 
 
 177 
 
 Page 
 
 76 
 
 Page 
 
 78. 
 
 521 
 
 Page 206. 
 
 Page 208. 
 
 178 
 
 Page 
 
 76 
 
 Page 
 
 78. 
 
 522 
 
 Page 207. 
 
 Page 208. 
 
 179 
 
 Page 
 
 78 
 
 Page 
 
 78. 
 
 523 
 
 Page 207. 
 
 Page 208. 
 
 180 
 
 Page 
 
 77 
 
 Page 
 
 78. 
 
 581 
 
 Page 222. 
 
 Page 225. 
 
 181 
 
 Page 
 
 77 
 
 Page 
 
 78. 
 
 582 
 
 Page 223. 
 
 Page 225. 
 
 182 
 
 Page 
 
 78 
 
 Page 
 
 79- 
 
 583 
 
 Page 223. 
 
 Page 226. 
 
 183 
 
 Page 
 
 85 
 
 Page 
 
 79. 
 
 584 
 
 Page 225. 
 
 Page 227. 
 
 184 
 
 Page 
 
 86 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 585 
 
 Page 225. 
 
 Page 227. 
 
 185. 
 
 Page 
 
 93 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 586 
 
 Page 225. 
 
 Page 228. 
 
 186 
 
 Page 
 
 96 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 587 
 
 Page 226. 
 
 Page 228. 
 
 187 
 
 Page 
 
 98 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 588 
 
 Page 226. 
 
 Page 228. 
 
 188 
 
 Page 
 
 99 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 589 
 
 Page 227. 
 
 Page 228. 
 
 189 
 
 Page 
 
 ICX) 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 590 
 
 Page 227. 
 
 Page 228. 
 
 190 
 
 Page 
 
 lOI 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 591 
 
 Page 227. 
 
 Page 228. 
 
 191 
 
 Page 
 
 104 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 596 
 
 Page 230. 
 
 Page 229. 
 
 192. 
 
 Page 107 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 597 
 
 Page 232. 
 
 Page 229. 
 
 193 
 
 Page 
 
 no 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 598 
 
 Page 233. 
 
 Page 229. 
 
 194 
 
 Page 
 
 III 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 599 
 
 Page 236. 
 
 Page 229. 
 
 195 
 
 Page 
 
 III 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 600 
 
 Page 236. 
 
 Page 238. 
 
 196. 
 
 Page 
 
 116 
 
 Page 
 
 [28. 
 
 607 
 
 Page 241. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 197 
 
 Page 
 
 116 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 608 
 
 Page 242. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 198 
 
 Page 
 
 117 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 609 
 
 Page 245. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 199 
 
 Page 
 
 119 
 
 Page 
 
 128. 
 
 610 
 
 Page 246. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
Ix. 
 
 Azotes on Ephesus. 
 
 Note. 
 
 Belongs to. 
 
 Begins on. 
 
 Note. 
 
 Belongs to. 
 
 Begins on. 
 
 6ii. 
 
 Page 246. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 656. 
 
 Page 314. 
 
 Page 320. 
 
 612. 
 
 Page 247. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 657. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 Page 320. 
 
 613. 
 
 Page 247. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 658. 
 
 Page 317. 
 
 Page 321. 
 
 614. 
 
 Page 248. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 659- 
 
 Page 317. 
 
 Page 321.. 
 
 615. 
 
 Page 253. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 660. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 Page 322. 
 
 616. 
 
 Page 254. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 661. 
 
 Page 320. 
 
 Page 323. 
 
 617. 
 
 Page 254. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 662. 
 
 Page 320. 
 
 Page 323. 
 
 618. 
 
 Page 255. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 663. 
 
 Page 321. 
 
 Page 323.. 
 
 619. 
 
 Page 255. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 664. 
 
 Page 322. 
 
 Page 323. 
 
 620. 
 
 Page 255. 
 
 Page 313- 
 
 665. 
 
 Page 325. 
 
 Page 324. 
 
 621. 
 
 Page 256. 
 
 Page 313. 
 
 680. 
 
 Page 332. 
 
 Page 362. . 
 
 622. 
 
 Page 258. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 681. 
 
 Page 337. 
 
 Page 362. 
 
 623. 
 
 Page 258. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 682. 
 
 Page 340. 
 
 Page 363. 
 
 624. 
 
 Page 259. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 683. 
 
 Page 340. 
 
 Page 363^ 
 
 625. 
 
 Page 261. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 684. 
 
 Page 341. 
 
 Page 363. 
 
 626. 
 
 Page 263. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 685. 
 
 Page 344. 
 
 Page 363. 
 
 627. 
 
 Page 264. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 686. 
 
 Page 344. 
 
 Page 363. 
 
 628. 
 
 Page 264. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 687. 
 
 Page 346. 
 
 Page 363. 
 
 629. 
 
 Page 265. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 688. 
 
 Page 346. 
 
 Page 363. 
 
 630. 
 
 Page 265. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 689. 
 
 Page 351. 
 
 Page 406. 
 
 631. 
 
 Page 268. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 690. 
 
 Page 352. 
 
 Page 406. 
 
 632. 
 
 Page 269. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 691. 
 
 Page 353- 
 
 Page 407. 
 
 633- 
 
 Page 270. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 692. 
 
 Page 354. 
 
 Page 407. 
 
 634- 
 
 Page 272. 
 
 Page 316. 
 
 693. 
 
 Page 354. 
 
 Page 407. 
 
 635. 
 
 Page 274. 
 
 Page 317. 
 
 694. 
 
 Page 356. 
 
 Page 409. 
 
 636. 
 
 Page 274. 
 
 Page 317. 
 
 695. 
 
 Page 356. 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 637. 
 
 Page 275. 
 
 Page 3T7. 
 
 696. 
 
 Page 357- 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 638. 
 
 Page 276. 
 
 Page 317. 
 
 697. 
 
 Page 358. 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 639. 
 
 Page 281. 
 
 Page 318. 
 
 698. 
 
 Page 358. 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 640. 
 
 Page 285. 
 
 Page 318. 
 
 699. 
 
 Page 358, 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 641. 
 
 Page 287. 
 
 Page 318. 
 
 700. 
 
 Page 358. 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 642. 
 
 Page 288. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 701. 
 
 Page 358. 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 643. 
 
 Page 291. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 702. 
 
 Page 363. 
 
 Page 413. 
 
 644. 
 
 Page 294. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 703- 
 
 Page 365- 
 
 Page 414. 
 
 645. 
 
 Page 296. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 704. 
 
 Page 378. 
 
 Page 415- 
 
 646. 
 
 Page 297. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 705. 
 
 Page 381. 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 647. 
 
 Page 301. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 706. 
 
 Page 384. 
 
 Page 415- 
 
 648. 
 
 Page 301. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 707. 
 
 Page 388. 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 649. 
 
 Page 302. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 708. 
 
 Page 391. 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 650. 
 
 Page 305. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 709. 
 
 Page 394. 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 651. 
 
 Page 306. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 710 
 
 Page 395- 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 652. 
 
 Page 308. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 711. 
 
 Page 401. 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 653- 
 
 Page 310. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 712. 
 
 Page 406. 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 654. 
 
 Page 311. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 713- 
 
 Page 406. 
 
 Page 415. 
 
 655. 
 
 Page 312. 
 
 Page 319. 
 
 714. 
 
 Page 4C'.S. 
 
 P.ige4:.^. 
 
Notes 071 Ephesus. 
 
 Ixi. 
 
 Note. 
 
 Belongs to. 
 
 Begins on. 
 
 Note. 
 
 Belongs to. 
 
 Begins on. 
 
 715. 
 
 Page 409. 
 
 Page 416. 
 
 826. 
 
 Page 443. 
 
 Page 444- 
 
 716. 
 
 Page 411. 
 
 Page 416. 
 
 880. 
 
 Page 450. 
 
 Page 449. 
 
 717. 
 
 Page 412. 
 
 Page 416. 
 
 932. 
 
 Page 458. 
 
 Page 459. 
 
 718. 
 
 Page 416. 
 
 Page 417. 
 
 938. 
 
 Page 460. 
 
 Page 459. 
 
 719. 
 
 Page 416. 
 
 Page 417. 
 
 950. 
 
 Page 462. 
 
 Page 463, 
 
 722. 
 
 Page 417. 
 
 Page 418. 
 
 951. 
 
 Page 462. 
 
 Page 463. 
 
 738. 
 
 Page 419- 
 
 Page 420. 
 
 960. 
 
 Page 466. 
 
 Page 465- 
 
 739- 
 
 Page 419. 
 
 Page 420. 
 
 978. 
 
 Page 469. 
 
 Page 470- 
 
 759. 
 
 Page 423. 
 
 Page 424. 
 
 1008. 
 
 Page 475- 
 
 Page 477. 
 
 760. 
 
 Page 424. 
 
 Page 428. 
 
 102 1. 
 
 Page 479. 
 
 Page 478. 
 
 761. 
 
 Page 424. 
 
 Page 428. 
 
 1022. 
 
 Page 480. 
 
 Page 479. 
 
 762. 
 
 Page 424. 
 
 Page 428. 
 
 1023. 
 
 Page 481. 
 
 Page 479. 
 
 763. 
 
 Page 424. 
 
 Page 428. 
 
 1024. 
 
 Page 481. 
 
 Page 483. 
 
 764. 
 
 Page 431. 
 
 Page 433. 
 
 1025. 
 
 Page 482. 
 
 Page 483. 
 
 765. 
 
 Page 431. 
 
 Page 433. 
 
 103 1. 
 
 Page 483. 
 
 Page 484. 
 
 768. 
 
 Page 433- 
 
 Page 434. 
 
 1089. 
 
 Page 493- 
 
 Page 494. 
 
 802. 
 
 Page 438. 
 
 Page 439- 
 
 1 100. 
 
 Page 494. 
 
 Page 495. 
 
 820. 
 
 Page 441. 
 
 Page 442. 
 
 1 1 24. 
 
 Page 499. 
 
 Page 500. 
 
 825. 
 
 Page 442. 
 
 Page 443. 
 
 
 
 
 06^ 
 
 )/Be« 
 
Ixii. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesiis. 
 
 SPURIOUS COPTIC WRITINGS ON EPHESUS. 
 
 SliNUTI. THE MONK. 
 
 In our day an interest has been excited in Coptic Monophysite 
 literature, and Zoega and E. Revillout have brought to light an 
 account of Senuti, whose day, according to Professor Stokes in his 
 article on him in Smith and Wace's DiBio7iary of Christian Bi- 
 ography, is "July ist, in the ancient Coptic Calendar." But the 
 account of him at Ephesus is plainly a lie. For whereas, as we see 
 by the Adls below, Nestorius never came into the presence of the 
 Third Ecumenical Council, this Senuti is represented as hurling a 
 book at him in it. If Professor Stokes had known these fadls well 
 he would not, I am sure, have given so much credence as he seems 
 to do to the anti-historic legends regarding this wretched Monophy- 
 site heretic, and to Nestorianizers' false impressions against the 
 Third Synod. For he writes there of him: 
 
 ' ' Senuti was the name of an anchorite of the Fifth Century, 
 whose history was first brought to light by Zoega. It has been 
 investigated of late b}^ E. Revillout in a paper on the Blemmyes 
 contributed to the yW;;2. de V Acad, des hiscr., 1874, Ser. i., t. viii., 
 p. 395, and still more elaborately in a series of articles contributed 
 by him to the Revue de V Histoire des Religions, 1883, Nos. 4 and 5 
 ia). Senuti has strangely faded from the page of history, though 
 he seems to have been a leader of special power amid the distracfted 
 controversies attendant upon the Third and Fourth Councils. He 
 was called ' the prophet ' and invested with supernatural powers. 
 He was born about the middle of the Fourth Century. His father 
 was a farmer in Egypt, and Senuti fed his sheep in boyhood. But 
 this world's affairs had no charm for him. It was an age when 
 
 {d). On page 545 of the Revue de V Histoire des Religions, for 1883, note, 
 I fiud the following on E. Revillout's articles on Senuti, 
 
 **Ce recit estextrait d'un volume en cours de publication a la Hbrairie Le- 
 roux. et qui est intitule : Recits historiques sur les origines du schisme egyp- 
 tian." I presume from this that Revillout's work on Senuti has appeared in 
 print, but I have not seen it. 
 
Senufi, the Afo7ik. Ixiii. 
 
 every enthusiast devoted himself to the monastic life. His uncle 
 was a famous anchorite. Senuti was brought to him as a boy to be 
 blessed, when his uncle at once recognized his future greatness. He 
 attached himself to the monastery of Panopolis, near the town of 
 Athrebi, in Upper Egypt, where he soon attained the greatest fame 
 for sandlity and orthodoxy. Cyril would not set out for the Council 
 of Ephesus till he had secured the company of Senuti and of Vicflor, 
 archimandrite of Tabenna. Zoega, Cat. Mss. Coptic M21S. Borg., p. 
 29, gives us Cyril's own account of this affair {a). Cyril travelled 
 in the same ship with Senuti and Vi(5lor, while he sent his attendant 
 bishops in another vessel. 
 
 " Senuti's conduct at the Council of Ephesus, as described by 
 his disciple and successor, Besa, fully justifies those charges of out- 
 rageous violence brought by the Nestorian party against their oppo- 
 nents. Besa describes a strange scene which happened at the open- 
 ing of the Council. A lofty throne had been placed in the centre 
 of the hall, and the four gospels placed thereon. Nestorius entered 
 with pomp, and flinging down the gospels on the floor, seated him- 
 self on the throne. Senuti, filled with rage, at once jumped into 
 the midst, and snatching up the book, hurled it against the breast 
 of Nestorius, accompanying the a(5tion with vigorous controversial 
 reproaches. Nestorius demanded who he was, and whence, and 
 what brought him to the Council, being * neither a bishop, nor an 
 archimandrite, ?ior a provost, but merely a simple monk. ' * God sent 
 me to the Council,' replied the undaunted Senuti, 'to co^ifoiind thee 
 a7id thy wickedness: Whereupon, amid the plaudits of his adherents, 
 Cyril at once invested him with the rank and robe of an archiman- 
 drite, and thus removed the technical objedlion raised by Nestorius. 
 His career was now marked by miracle. Cyril, by mistake, sailed 
 from Constantinople without him, but the sea was no obstacle to 
 Senuti. He was wafted on a cloud to Egypt." 
 
 Now let us point out a few of the falsities in this romance or 
 forgery of a Monophysite: 
 
 I. As has just been said, Nestorius never appeared before the 
 Council of Ephesus at all, as its Acts show. Consequently all this 
 
 (a). This alleged account by Cyril in a Sermon, and the Sermon itself 
 which contains it are a forgery as we show below. 
 
Ixiv. spurious Coptic Writings on Epliesus 
 
 yarn of Nestorius entering it with pomp, flinging down the Gospels 
 Oil the floor, and then seating himself on the throne from which 
 they had been taken, is mere invention. So is SenutishurUngthem 
 nt him ''with vigorous controversial reproaches," and the conversa- 
 tion between them. Hence Professor Stokes is too credulous and 
 utterly wrong and unjust to the Orthodox in his statement that, 
 
 "Senuti's conduct at the Council of Ephesus, as described by 
 his disciple and successor, Besa, fully justifies those charges of 
 outrageous violence brought by the Nestorian party against t'leir 
 opponents." For the Monophysite fidlion on which it rests is c.rn- 
 tradidled by the evidence of the Acfts themselves. The fact is th it 
 all the violence at Ephesus, as is shown elsewhere in this work, was. 
 perpetrated by Nestorius and his friends, Count Candidian and tlie 
 soldiers under his command, and Count Irenaeus; and thepro-Inman, 
 anti-creature-worshipping and anti-real-presence Third Council, 
 guided in their final decisions by the Holy Ghost, were entirely in- 
 nocent and faithful to Christ, and to His truth, and to his Church. 
 
 Since seeing the statement that St. Cyril took Senuti and Vi<flor 
 with him to the Council of Ephesus, I have seen Revillout's French 
 of it, and find that his alleged sermon of Cyril on which he bases 
 his faith in that stor}^ is spurious, for it makes Cj^ril and Senuti and 
 Vicflor and Cyril's Egyptian bishops go to Constantinople before 
 they go to Ephesus {a). It is from a Vatican manuscript, No. 66, 
 consulted by Revillout. But Cyril did not go to Constantinople, 
 nor did any of his Bishops, except the four deputed by him to attend 
 to his interests and those of the faith before the Emperor and others. 
 Revillout does not seem to be well acquainted with the fadts told us 
 in Cyril's genuine writings and in the a(5ls of the Ecumenical Synod. 
 For if he were he would have seen the spuriousness of such stuff at 
 once. Yet in one place he rejec5ls part of Besa's tales on Senuti, 
 as being too much for even himself to believe. Cyril has left us two 
 Epistles w^hich describe his voyage from Alexandria to Ephesus. 
 They are numbered XX. and XXI. in tome 77 of Migne's Patro- 
 logia GrcEca. In them he makes no mention of Senuti. 
 
 That the Sermon of Cyril, on which Revillout relies, is spur- 
 ious, is clear from the following fa<5ls: 
 
 {a). The French translation of the spurious sermon ascribed to C^'ril is on 
 page 551, tome 7 of the Revue de V Histoire des Religions, Paris. Leroux, 18S3. 
 
Senutiy the Monk. Ixv. 
 
 (A). It is not found anywhere in Cyril's genuine works. 
 
 (B). Its own internal evidence is against it. For it contradicSls 
 known historical facfts. I give a summary of it: 
 
 Cyril's alleged sermon goes on to assert what we know to be 
 false, that after his arrival at Constantinople before the Third World 
 Council, and after his Egyptian Bishops came shortly afterwards, 
 he sent to say to the Emperor that the Egyptian Bishops had ar- 
 rived ; that the Emperor told him to choose a place for the Bishops 
 of the Synod to meet, and asked Cyril to teach him the true, holy 
 and Orthodox faith ; then that after Cyril had come to an under- 
 standing on that point with the Archbishop of Rome, they chose the 
 city of Ephesus, and he (Cyril) sends the Bishops of his jurisdidlion 
 thither. But the spurious Cyril goes on to assert that he ordered 
 the archimandrite Vicflor to remain at Constantinople because he had 
 more boldness than any one else to speak to the Emperor. Cyril 
 remained with Senuti till his (Cyril's) departure from Constaiiti- 
 nople : the alleged Cyril then states that he remained two days in 
 the place of Theodosius, when two Eunuchs of the palace disobeyed 
 an order of the Emperor. The Emperor was very much irritated 
 against them, and one of them, named Jesinius, fled for refuge to a de- 
 pendency of the Sandluary where St. Cyril dwelt in company with Sen- 
 uti and the archimandrite Vidlor. He prayed Cyril very fervently 
 to get him restored to the Emperor's favor, and after some days the 
 Emperor granted him it. Jesinius a little after fell very dangerous!}^ 
 sick and made Saint Cyril sole legatee of his fortune to distribute 
 it in good works. The patriarch (St. Cyril) faithfully accomplishes 
 the mandate thus confided to him and richly endows the Church of 
 St. Theodore and many churches. On the next day the Emperor 
 orders them to depart for Ephesus, and there they condemned the 
 impious Nestorius, the cursed heretic. Then they saw that their 
 remaining so long at Constantinople was by the secret providence of 
 God and on account of the Eunuch Jesinius, and after they had well 
 confirmed the faith with the aid of our I^ord Jesus Christ, the Em- 
 peror, as jo3^ful as themselves, sends away in peace Cyril, the archi- 
 mandrite Vidlor and Senuti, and all the Bishops who were with 
 Cyril. Then the alleged Cyril states that Senuti who had been de- 
 layed in Constantinople could not re-embark in time to join St. Cj^ril 
 and the archimandrite Vi(5lor, and so was carried on a cloud to 
 Egypt. 
 
Ixvi. Sp2irio2ts Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 
 
 Of course, all this is unhistoric trash except the condemnation 
 of Nestorius. Revillout protests against the cloud story and deems 
 it an interpolation, but the whole document is an anti-historic 
 romance or forgery. It is all of a piece. 
 
 Another thing should be noted. According to the Senuti 
 romance that monk came into conflict with Nestorius in the Council; 
 whereas, according to the spurious Sermon fathered on Cyril, he 
 did not go to Ephesus at all, but went straight from Constantinople 
 to Egypt on a cloud, with no mention of stops for wood or water or 
 provisions — unless, indeed, we reconcile both yarns by understand- 
 ing the spurious sermon to teach that Cyril, Vidlor, Senuti, and all 
 the Bishops who were with Cyril went back to Constantinople again 
 after the Council, and were then dismissed in peace by the Emperor, 
 and then, and not after the first visit, Senuti got left there, and so 
 went home not exac5lly by a balloon but on a cloud to Egypt. But 
 as Cyril was not at Constantinople in A. D. 430 or 431, to put him 
 there twice makes two lies instead of one. 
 
 2. Another anti-historic thing in the spurious sermon relates to 
 time. It says that after Cyril's arrival at Constantinople the 
 Emperor asked him to fix on a place for holding the Council, and 
 that then he (Cyril) came to an agreement with the Archbishop of 
 Rome on that, and so they fixed on Ephesus. 
 
 Now, not to mention the fact that Cyril was not at Constanti- 
 nople then, the diflBculties as to time are as follows: The Emperor 
 called the Council, as his edict shows, on November 19, A. D. 430; 
 see page 41 below. In that month Cyril held a Synod of the Egyp- 
 tian Diocese at Alexandria, and in conne(5lion with it drew up his 
 Long Letter to Nestorius, and forwarded it by four of his Bishops. 
 According to Professor Bright, it was given by them to Nestorius at 
 Constantinople, either on Lord's Day, Nov. 30, or Dec. 7, 430. 
 Cyril remained in Alexandria till the time approached for holding 
 the Council, when he set out from Egypt and reached ''Ephesus 
 with fifty Bishops about June 2, 431" (Smith and Wace's Did. of 
 Christ. Biogr. vol. i, page 767). After the Council and his re- 
 lease from custody, Cyril went straight home to Alexandria, which 
 he reached on Oct. 30, 431 (Id., page 768). Consequently he did 
 not visit Constantinople at all. And the story that the place of the 
 Council was fixed by him while residing in Constantinople, and by 
 Celestine while residing at Rome, with many a long day's journey 
 
Senuti, the Monk. Ixvii. 
 
 between them, is simply a myth clear and plain. And of course, 
 all that he is said by this spurious sermon and by Senuti to have 
 done in Constantinople never occurred there. 
 
 3. Another yarn is that '''Cyril,'" after the Council, '' by mis- 
 take, sailtd from Constantiriople witho2iV Senuti. The fact is that 
 Cyril did not go to Constantinople at all in A. D. 430 or 431, before 
 or after the Council, and hence he did not sail away from it at all. 
 As Professor Bright tells us on the inner column, page 768 of vol- 
 ume iv. of Smith and Wace's Di^lionary of Christian Biography, 
 Cyril was under arrest by the Emperor's order for some time after 
 the Synod. He adds, " On Oct. 30, Cyril returned to Alexandria." 
 
 4. Another yarn, of course, is his being carried on a cloud to 
 Egypt. 
 
 5. Another lie mentioned in Stokes' article above is that '' His 
 fame was now everywhere established." For no mention is made 
 of him by the Orthodox. And if he had been " wafted on a cloud to 
 Egypt,'' they would have known of it and reported it. St. Cyril 
 does not even mention this ignorant man of whom this legendary 
 story tells us he thought so much. I have looked at all the Indexes 
 in Migne's ten volume edition of Cyril, and do not even find Senuti' s 
 name. 
 
 6. Then there comes the following stuff (I am quoting the 
 Coptic account mentioned by Professor Stokes) : 
 
 "Roman Commanders waging war against those mysterious 
 but most pertinacious enemies of the Roman State, the Blemmyes, 
 sought diredlion and assistance from him. Thus about the year 450 
 there was a terrific invasion, and the dux of Upper Egypt, Maximinus 
 hurried to repel the Blemmyes, but before he would advance he sought 
 the presence of Senuti. He had, however, retired into the desert for a 
 period of spiritual retreat, charging his followers to let no one know of 
 his hiding place. Maximinus would, however, admit of no excuse, 
 and was led to the saint, who was very angry on account of the in- 
 terruption, but yet admitted the plea of urgency. He gave Maxi- 
 min his blessing and his girdle, which he was to wear whenever he 
 joined battle, if he desired success." This sort of fi(5lion is found 
 among the most silly class of monks and of non-monks in the mid- 
 pie ages and in the fifth century even. This Senuti is exalted to do 
 the work which pertains, as here, to Christ, our Sole High Priest 
 
Ixviii. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesics. 
 
 and Sole Intercessor above, who is all sufficient (Heb. vii., 25). 
 And he is exalted by a miracle similar to the one that took Christ 
 up to heaven, (Adls i., 9), for he is borne aloft by a cloud. This 
 lying and extravagant laudation of a creature would naturally lead, 
 as the ages rolled on, to his invocation and to making him share 
 Christ's prerogative of being the sole Mediator in Heaven, that is, 
 the sole Intercessor there. Peter the Fuller, the Monophysite Patriarch 
 of Antioch, A. D. 471-488, led the way to the worship of saints; see 
 vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, pages 316, 317. But St. Athanasius 
 shows that every Orthodox Christian invokes no creature, but God 
 alone: See id., pages 237-240, where St. Cyril agrees with him. 
 Indeed in his Ecumenically approved Epistle to John of Antioch he 
 professes that he follows the opinions of Athanasius, ' ' refusing to 
 be swerved i?t anything at all''' from them. See also id., pages 217- 
 240 for 13 testimonies of St. Athanasius against giving any act of ser- 
 vice to a creature, be it even bowing. And see id., pages 240-247, 
 for passages from St. Epiphanius, the greatest heresiographer of the 
 whole Church, against all creature- worship. 
 
 7. Then we are told that Revillout ^ * * "supports the tradi- 
 tion that Nestorius was summoned by the Emperor to the Council of 
 Chalcedon, but died before the mission reached him." 
 
 This is most improbable, for his case had been settled by the 
 Third Ecumenical Council, and was not opened again. The tradi- 
 tion referred to is not historic, but merely legendary. It is not 
 therefore, a Church tradition at all. Indeed, I have seen no Church 
 writer quoted for it. 
 
 8. We are told further in the same article of Professor Stokes 
 that, 
 
 " Senuti was now about one hundred years old. He would 
 have been fortunate had he died then. But he lived to be a heretic 
 in the opposite extreme from Nestorius. After the Council of Chal- 
 cedon he became a Monophysite and a violent partisan of the pat- 
 riarch Dioscorus, of Alexandria. Senuti died under Timotheus 
 Aelurus, aged 118 years. The authorities for his life are Zoega and 
 Revillout in the works mentioned above. ' ' But no ancient writer 
 mentions him; and we have no proof that St. Cyril or any of the 
 Orthodox ever knew or heard of such a man. And what stuff and 
 nonsense is mingled by the Monophysites with the lives of their 
 
Victor, the Archimandrite. . Ixix. 
 
 Saints, or rather reputed Saints, any one can see who examines. 
 The accounts of this Senuti are therefore of no historic or certain 
 value, even if it could be proven that he ever really existed. And 
 so we dismiss him. 
 
 VICTOR, THE ARCHIMANDRITK. 
 
 ^^The Court and City of Constantinople during the Council of 
 Ephesus: MS. Bib. Nat., Paris," is the title of a work which I find 
 mentioned on page 91 of the English Church Quarterly Review for 
 October, 1891. On page 95, top, a hope is expressed that its pub- 
 lication will not long be delayed, and it seems to be implied that 
 steps are to be taken thereto. It is described on page 93, as "An 
 unpublished Coptic manuscript of the Bibliotheque Nationale at 
 Paris. >i< * * This document is not, strictly speaking, a history 
 of the Council of Ephesus; it is an account of what passed in the 
 town and city of Constantinople during the days immediately pre- 
 ceding and following the first session of that Council. It only con- 
 tains the A6ls of the Council incidentally. But it informs us merely 
 by its existence of a fact of which we were up to the present time 
 completely ignorant. Cyril, not content with being represented at 
 the Court of the Younger Theodosius by the official representatives 
 of the Council, had taken care to secure the presence of a faithful 
 and trustworthy private agent. It is the report or memoir of this 
 agent that is contained in the document in question. That agent 
 was Vicftor, archimandrite of Faou (in Coptic, Pheboou). >!^ ^ * 
 But a question that will naturally be asked is. What guarantee is 
 there for the genuineness of these documents ? Even a cursory ac- 
 quaintance with Oriental literature is sufficient to show that of the 
 documents preserved in these languages, a large number cannot for 
 a moment resist a critical examination. There is probably not one 
 of tlie Coptic lives of the mart5^rs v/liich is not almost entirel}^ 
 apochryphal. Even genuine texts have suffered from extensive in- 
 terpolations. However, without being unduly dogmatic, it is pos- 
 sible to assert that the documents before us are of a totally different 
 character. In the first place they are translated from Greek orig- 
 
Ixx. Spuriotis Coptic Writings on Ephesiis. 
 
 inals. Their style, their manner, their literary form are not Coptic. 
 In the next place, they bear on their face the appearance of genuine- 
 ness. They are dated, and their dates harmonize with those 
 contained in the ordinary narratives. So far as they follow known 
 events they are consistent; so far as they are independent they are 
 probable. We are not at present undertaking a criticism; we present 
 to our readers a summary of their contents, stating WiSit prima facie 
 they have all the appearance of being genuine; and we shall leave a 
 more thorough examination of the subject until the publication of 
 the documents themselves, a publication which we hope will not long 
 be delayed. 
 
 "We ask our readers, then, to accept provisionally this narrative 
 as the genuine recital of the monk Vicftor, written for the benefit of 
 the members of his own monastery in Upper Egypt, and incorpor- 
 ating incidentally a number of original documents, some known, 
 some unknown, including the A6la of the Council, and adding many 
 interesting personal details. * >K * The first leaf of the manu- 
 script is absent, but an idea may be formed of its contents. Besides 
 the title it probably contained the preamble mentioning the name of 
 Vi(5lor, archimandrite of the great convent of Faou, and also the 
 summons which Cyril addressed to him. In fact, the second leaf 
 begins with the end of this summons. From it we see that the 
 Archbishop of Alexandria entreated— we may almost say ordered — 
 Vicftor to give up any business that might retain him, for God 
 would care for that, in order that he might at once come to Alex- 
 andria. Some few words at the beginning of the leaf lead us to 
 suppose that Cyril had spoken in the first part of his letter of the 
 imperial commands to all bishops to proceed to Ephesus for the feast 
 of Pentecost, to watch over matters of faith. This letter exists in 
 the first part of the Ac5ls of the Council of Ephesus, and may be 
 read in the various Conciliar colledlions. The letter of Cyril to 
 Victor is unknown." 
 
 Then this article of the Church Quarterly Review goes on to say 
 that this Victor, in response to Cyril's letter, left Faou {a) on March 
 22, 431, and arrived at Alexandria on March 3«i, stayed there with 
 
 (a). Note I, page 95 of the Oct., 1891, number of the Church Quarterly 
 Review, states that "Faou still exists. It is a little village situated to the 
 north of Keneh and Denderah, on the east bank of the Nile." 
 
Victor, the Archimandrite. Ixxi. 
 
 Cyril until April 27, "on which day he started for Constantinople 
 where he arrived after a passage of twenty-four days, * * -!< 
 that is, on May 20." On that day Nestorius departed from Con- 
 stantinople for the Council at Ephesus. On May 21, Victor has an 
 interview with the Emperor. So he has on May 22. Below it is 
 said that, 
 
 ' ' When our narrative begins again we find a letter of Cyril to 
 the bishops Komarius and Potamon, and to the archimandrite 
 Victor. This letter is not contained in the documents published in 
 the A(5ls of the Councils." 
 
 Then follows an account of the exciting scenes in Constantin- 
 ople before and after the first Act of Ephesus. The rest of the 
 manuscript is lost. Most of the cries alleged in this document to 
 have been raised by the people in Constantinople are Orthodox, but 
 the following, on page iii of the Oct., 1891, number of the Church 
 Quarterly Review, border on creature -worship. I give them: 
 
 " Nestorius has fallen; the Holy Council, a7id she who is mother 
 of God according to the flesh have overthrowji Nestorius. Mary, the 
 Holy Virgin, has excommunicated Nestorius.''' 
 
 It would be doing injustice to the Orthodox of Constantinople 
 to suppose that even the lowest of them was guilty of such folly, 
 especially on the basis of a work which bears in places the marks of 
 being a forgery or a romance, perhaps by an Egyptian Monophysite. 
 But, as we shall see, this account of the alleged Victor does not 
 agree wdth w^hat are known from the original records in Greek to 
 have been the fadls of the case. The original letters of Cyril to his 
 Bishops at Constantinople make no mention of any Victor at all. 
 
 Let us compare the account of things in the genuine Greek 
 documents with those in the Coptic manuscript; that is, let us ex- 
 amine whether the genuine mention this Victor as at Constantin- 
 ople at all, and how they describe the demonstration of the monks 
 to the Emperor's palace, and the reception of the archimandrites 
 by him, and their march thence to the Martyry of Mocius and the 
 events which there occurred. 
 
 I^et us examine the genuine Greek documents first. 
 
 There is a letter of Cyril ' ' to the Bishops Comarius and Pota- 
 mon, and the Archimandrite of the monasteries, Mr. Dalmatius, and 
 Timothy and Eulogius, Presbyters," in which he warns them that 
 
Ixxii. Spurious Coptic Writings ou Ephesus, 
 
 the official account by Count Candidian was not complete (Cyril's 
 Hpist. XXIII., vol. 77, Migne's Patrologia Grcsca, page 131). They 
 were then at Constantinople to guard Cyril's interests and the faith. 
 The contents show that this Epistle was written after the condem- 
 nation of Nestorius, consequently after Act I. of the Council. It 
 makes no mention of any Victor. 
 
 It is followed by two letters, Epistles XXIV. and XXV., 
 which are addressed by Cyril of Alexandria '' to the Presbyters and 
 Deacons and laity of Alexandria. ' ' They mention the condemnation 
 and deposition of Nestorius by the Third World Synod, but do not 
 mention Victor. Letter XXVI. is addressed by St. Cyril, '' to the 
 Fathers of the monks, and to those who with us prac5lice the mon- 
 astic life," but it has not a word of Victor. It was written evidently 
 when Cyril was in custody for the part he had taken in the deposition 
 of Nestorius. 
 
 Epistle XXVII. is addressed to the clergy and people of Con- 
 stantinople. In it Cyril tells them what was done at Ephesus by 
 the Emperor's command after the arrival there of Count John. It 
 does not mention any Victor. According to Hefele's Hist, of the 
 Church Couucils, III., 84, note, Count John did not reach Ephesus 
 till August, that is, after Act VI. See this vol., page 6. 
 
 Letter XXVIII. is addressed by Cyril " to the most religious 
 Bishops Theopemptus and Potamon and Daniel at Constantinople in 
 regard to the plots from which he had suffered on account of the 
 sentence passed upon Nestorius and John of Antioch. It was 
 written after the arrival of Count John at Ephesus, which it men- 
 tions, and therefore relates to the latter part of the Council, a fact 
 which is evident also from Theopemptus being addressed in its title, 
 for he had taken part in its Act I., and was now at Constantinople. 
 It makes no mention of Victor. Letter XXIX. among Cyril's is an 
 Epistle of Alypius, the presbyter of the Apostles, to him. It is 
 silent as the grave as to any Victor. Then comes an Epistle of 
 Maximian, Nestorius' successor in the Episcopate of Constantinople, 
 which was some little time after the Council, and therefore beyond 
 the limits of our inquiry. It says not a word of any Victor. 
 
 These are the only letters cf Cyril of about this time which bear 
 on the state of things at Constantinople. But the matter relating to 
 the Councils contain others. Thus tome IV. of Mansi, col. 1257- 
 
Victor, the Archimandrite, Ixxiii. 
 
 1260, contains an Kpistle of the archimandrite Dalmatius to the 
 Third Synod, and an Epistle of the Council to him in response. His 
 monastery was near Constantinople, and he had advocated their 
 cause before the Emperor, and inclined him to favor them and their 
 deposition of Nestorius. On pages 142 7- 1430 of tome IV. of Mansi's 
 Concilia we find ''An Aiiswer of Bishops who were found at Constan- 
 tinople to the Commonitory from the Holy Synod'' of Ephesus. This 
 tells how the Nestorian party at Constantinople had kept everything 
 favorable to the Ecumenical Council from reaching that city, how 
 a beggar had bound in a reed the Epistle of the Third Council to the 
 Bishops and Monks, and so had gone his way begging, and had 
 brought it to Constantinople. Straightway on its contents becoming 
 known, " All the monasteries arose, together with their archiman- 
 drites, and went out to the Palace singing antiphons." Among 
 them was the Archimandrite Dalmatius, who had for fortj^-eight 
 years refused to leave his monastery. Eet us believe most charitably 
 that he gave himself not to idleness, but to labor such as befitted his 
 station, and to prayer there, as a good monk should," as sound 
 monks, like St. Epiphanius on the Massalian heretical and idle pre- 
 tenders to monkery, advise all monks to do. 
 
 ' * But while he was praying on this matter, there came down a 
 voice from Heaven to him, which said that he should go forth, for 
 God was not willing that his flock should perish at last. And there 
 was a great crowd of the Orthodox with them. So when they 
 reached the palace, the Archimandrites were invited in by the Em- 
 peror and went inside. And the multitude of the monk^ and of the 
 people remained outside singing antiphons. Then the Archiman- 
 drites got a righteous answer from the Emperor and came out. All 
 cry out, Tell us the commands of the Emperor ! Then the archi- 
 mandrites reply, Let us go to the Martyry of the holy Mocius, and 
 read the Epistle. And ye shall learn also the answer of the 
 Emperor. Then all departed, monks and people, for the way was 
 one mile («); and when they were singing the last Psalm, at the last 
 
 (a). Greek, fjv yap rj b^oq Kt^akri fiia. This is rendered in the Latin of the 
 parallel column in Mansi, " erat enim via, qua incedebant, ex capitalibus una." 
 In English the expression is literally, " J^or the way was one head,'' which 
 seems to make no perfect sense. I have supposed that the mile-stones of that 
 place had a capital or head of some sort, and that so in time the expression 
 
Ixxiv. Spurious Coptic Writings on EpJiesus. 
 
 part of the city, the people met them, and the monks sang, with 
 wax tapers [in their hands]. And when they saw the multitudes 
 they shouted against the enemy [Nestorius]. They come to the 
 Martyry {a) of the holy Mocius, and the Epistle is read to them. 
 
 The people in Constantinople all with one voice shouted, 
 Anathema to Nestorius." 
 
 Answer of Dalmatius [to the people]. 
 
 The holy Dalmatius went up on a high place (^), and said, If 
 ye wish to hear, be still, and learn, and hinder not those who read; 
 but be patient that ye may hear the words accurately. The most 
 religious Emperor read the Epistle which has been just read to your 
 
 came to mean a mile or such other distance as was measured by it. There were 
 several palaces at Constantinople, but which is referred to in this narrative I 
 can not tell. On them see the work of the Greek Patriarch, Constantius, in 
 Greek and French. The French translation bears the title Constantiniade ou 
 Description de Constantinople Ancienne et Moderne. Constantinople, 1846. 
 Constantius' name does not appear on the title page, but on the second pa^e 
 after it he is mentioned as the author. Chapter X., page 51, mentions the pal- 
 aces : and page 44 tells us that the Church of St. Mocius was in the Twelfth 
 Region or Part of the city. But so many changes have occurred in Constanti- 
 nople since A. D. 431, and the mention of the palace is so indefinite, that I find 
 it difficult to trace the exact route from the palace to it. I do not find the Mar- 
 tyry of St. Mocius in our day. Like most martyries it was probably more or less 
 abused, but after this time, to the spiritual whoredom of worshipping and in- 
 voking creatures, and so by God's providence was given up to be destroyed. 
 We read however of nothing of that kind done by any body on this occasion, 
 and it would be likely to be mentioned if it had been done. See how strongly 
 St. Athanasius denounces the sin of invoking any but God on page 238 of vol. i. 
 o^ Nicaea in this Set, and compare Cyril's Anathema VIII., and Anathema IX. 
 of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, in both of which by necessary implication the 
 Universal Church condemns all worship of anything but Divinity. 
 
 {a). Greek, to Mainvpioi' tov ajiov MukIov. A martyry was a church built over a 
 martyr's remains. In that age when a man's name was given to a martyry it 
 implied therefore that it was the only one in the world which bore his name. 
 Whether the Mary Church at Ephesus was an exception to that rule will be 
 treated of hereafter in another volume, if God will. Oh! that all churches 
 were named after God alone as in the Ante-Nicene Church, none after a mere 
 creature. Naming them after saints has often been associated with creature- 
 worship, and has sometimes led to it. 
 
 {d). Or, "into the pulpit," or "into the bema;" Greek, cf v^prfAov. 
 
Victor, the Archimandi'ite. Ixxv. 
 
 Piety («), and he was persuaded [by it]. For I was saying to the 
 Emperor, when he came to me, that he otight to write to the Holy 
 Synod what things were said to him and [yet] were not written [to 
 it] {b). And he sent [them] to me, {c) and they were read. And 
 (that I may not grieve him), he did send forth [to the Synod] what 
 things were right [to be written to the Synod], but those who took 
 them away did not show them, but they secretly showed another 
 writing instead of them. Therefore I said to him those things 
 which are fit and right, but it is not permitted to tell them now 
 before your Piety (^). For think not that I am some lifted up or 
 boastful man; for God will crush the bones of the hypocrites. For 
 the Master [that is, the Emperor] heard all things that have been 
 done [in the Council] in [their] order, and rejoiced with thanks- 
 giving to God and agreed with the [whole] series of the utterances 
 of the Holy Synod, as behooves his Imperialness, not following my 
 words but the faith of his grandfathers and fathers. Moreover, as 
 was fit, he received and read [the Epistle of Cyril to the Bishops and 
 Monks], and was persuaded, and said as follows: If things are so, 
 let the Bishops who are to come to me [from the Council] come. 
 And I said to him, No one suffers them to come. And he said, No 
 one hinders. And I said, that they have been seized and hindered 
 from coming. And I said furthermore, that many of that party 
 [the Nestorians] come and go unhindered ; but no one permits the 
 A(5ls w^hich have been done by the Holy Synod to be brought to 
 your Piety; moreover in regard to the other party, that is, that of 
 Cyril, I said to the Emperor himself, before all. Whom dost thou 
 wish to hear, the Bishops, six thousand in number, or one impious 
 man ? The six thousand, I meant, who are under the holy Metro- 
 politan Bishops {e). That was done in order that he might send 
 
 {a) . The Epistle to the Bishops and Monks above mentioned. Was it 
 Cyril's Epistle XXIII. just mentioned? 
 
 {b). Greek, on Ix^uTit ypaxpai ry dyia Lwddcj^ a eIex^V avrut^ Kal ovk kypa<pT], 
 This may also be rendered, "what things were chosen by him and [yet] had 
 not been sent." 
 
 (r). Or, " He sent for me. " 
 
 {d). A Byzantine title given to Bishops, the Emperor, etc., and here to the 
 people. Such Byzantinism is not to be approved nor imitated. Happily we 
 are free from that particular form, though we use others wrongly. 
 
 {e). Greek, T/'wf dklEiq aKovaai, t6)V e^aKiaxi^iuv dpcft/u<j eTriaKd-jruv, tj ivcx; avdpurrov 
 dvaaEJBovQ:^ tuv E^aKiaxi^-i^f^v eIttov, ol tive^ elalv vko tt)v k^ovaiav tuv MtitpottoXltuv^ tcjv 
 
Ixxvi. Spurious Coptic Writings on Ephesus. 
 
 for the Bishops and that those of them who are to come may come,, 
 and that so those who have performed the Adls may make them 
 clear. I meant the most holy Bishops who are now coming from 
 the Holy Synod. And he said, Thou hast made a fair request. And 
 moreover, he added one word and said, Pray for me. And I know 
 that the Emperor has followed in preference God and the Holy 
 Synod, and no longer the perverted men. Pray therefore for the 
 Emperor and for us. 
 
 The people in Constantinople all with one cry said, Anathema 
 to Nestorius." 
 
 But now, secondly, what shall we think of the genuineness of 
 this Coptic manuscript, and the conclusions of the reviewer in the 
 Church Quarterly regarding it ? In reply to this I summarize not 
 all, but a few of the facfls against it : 
 
 I. As to the statement above that, 
 
 '* Cyril, not content with being represented at the Court of the 
 younger Theodosius by the ofl&cial representatives of the Council, 
 had taken care to secure the presence of a faithful and trustworthy 
 private agent. It is the report or memoir of this agent that is con- 
 tained in the document in question. That agent was Victor, archi- 
 mandrite of Faou." It is not true that the Council of Ephesus had 
 any representatives at Constantinople till after its Act I. 
 
 But Cyril had representatives of his own at Constantinople, not 
 a mere archimandrite, but four Bishops, Theopemptus, Potamon, 
 Daniel and Comarius, before the Council, and two of them, Potamou 
 and Comarius, remained at Constantinople, and the other two, Theo- 
 pemptus and Daniel, went to Ephesus and reported to the Council, 
 as we see on pages 359-385 below, the result of their mission. Af- 
 ter that, we find Theopemptus again in Constantinople adling with 
 Potamon and Comarius as Cyril's representative at the Court. And 
 Cyril writes to them there and makes no mention of any Victor. 
 His Letter is addressed "- to the ^w/z^/.? Theopemptus, Potamon, and 
 Daniel." The fact that Victor's name is omitted makes against the 
 genuineness of Cyril's alleged letter to him and them, as does the 
 fact also that it is not mentioned in the matter relating to the Coun- 
 
 dy/uv £7ri(TKd7r«v. Here, as in the letter above on page 38 summoning the Third 
 Council, the highest Bishops are all included under the apptllation "Metro- 
 politans." 
 
Victor, the Archimandrite. ' Ixxvii. 
 
 cil. I have examined as to Victor's name in all the indexes of the 
 ten volumes of Cyril of Alexandria's works in Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca, and the result is told below. 
 
 I have looked over the names of Cyril of Alexandria's repre- 
 sentatives at Constantinople, mentioned at the heads of his letters,, 
 but find no Victor mentioned as among them. Those letters which 
 are not far from the time of the close of Act I. of the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod are as follows : 
 
 (A). Epistle X. The Greek heading of this letter is not found. 
 The Latin, translated, is, ** Cyril to his Clerics who are at Constanti- 
 nople ^ The alleged Victor, Cyril's friend, is not found in it. The 
 translation into Latin by Marius Mercator of that Epistle in Migne's 
 tome 77, col. 69 and after, and the Commonitory subjoined to it con- 
 tain nothing of Victor's name or deeds. 
 
 (B). Cyril's Epistle XXVIII. is addressed ''to the Bishops 
 Theopemptus, Potamo7t, and Daniel.'' There is no mention of Victor 
 in the heading or in the body of the Epistle. 
 
 (C). Cyril's Epistle XXXII. is sent to Juvenal of Jerusalem 
 and the other Legates of the Third Ecumenical Council who had 
 been sent to Constantinople. Their names there specified in the 
 heading are "Juvenal, Flavian, Arcadius, Projecftus, Firmus, Theo- 
 doret, Acacms, and Philip a presbyter." Victor's name occurs no- 
 where in this letter. 
 
 (D). In columns 371-374 of tome 77 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca we find three fragments of Cyril addressed ' ' to the Monks 
 who are in Phua {-npo^ rob? iv (Poua pLova^ou?). Victor's name does not 
 occur in them. 
 
 (E). Nor, finally, do I find it in the Index to the volume (voL 
 77 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca) in which they stand, nor in any 
 other index of the 10 tomes of Cyril in Migne's Patrologia Graeca. 
 
 (F). I do however find in Cyril of Alexandria's Apologeticus 
 to the Emperor Theodosius (Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 76, page 
 485), a Victor's name mentioned, as I do also in P. E. Pusey's edi- 
 tion of that work in the same place. I translate what is said of this 
 Victor in Pusey's Greek of Cyril, Volume VII., Part i, page 455 : 
 
 "And the beloved monk Victor has been tried, with me, by the 
 arrows of an unbridled tongue. For some of those who, I suppose, 
 are wont to speak falsely brought the accusation against him, that 
 
Ixxviii. Spurmcs Coptic Writings o?i Ephesus. 
 
 he himself also had prated certain things out of place against me, 
 so that when he came into the city of the Ephesians to me some of 
 the Holy Synod vehemently accused him [of so doing]; and, further- 
 more, all turned away from him, as hating one of the unholy. So 
 they continued to apply to him the names murderer of his father 
 and murderer of his brother and whatsoever names are similar to 
 those. And the old man learning of that, when very many holy 
 Bishops were standing around him, raised up his hands to heaven: 
 and swore in an unusual manner, [that is] by the holy Dipping {a) 
 and the august mysteries of the Anointed One, that he knew no 
 such thing: and so, with dif&culty, both I and he himself were able 
 to conciliate the souls of those w^ho were grieved [at him]." 
 
 Is this the Victor mentioned in the work criticized in the Church 
 Quarterly Review f I know not. But nothing is here said of his 
 fulfilling any mission for Cyril at Constantinople or of his having 
 been there at all. Nor does Cyril say when he came to Ephesus. 
 If he came at the beginning of Act I., or during it, he could not have 
 been at Constantinople when the narrative in dispute makes him to 
 be. He might however have come later, but the fact is we are not 
 told when he came. But it is plain that Cyril does not here corrob- 
 orate this Romance of Victor being his representative at Constanti- 
 nople, or his being there at all. 
 
 2. The Victor mentioned above in the article on Senuti was 
 archimandrite of Tabenna. This one was archimandrite of Faou, 
 as the Reviewer tells us. 
 
 3. In this account of Victor in the Church Quarterly Review I 
 find no mention made of Senuti as his colleague in labor at Constan- 
 tinople for Cyril. Here Senuti has no place nor name even. 
 
 4. Remembering the just remark above of the Reviewer of this 
 alleged work of Victor, namely, that, 
 
 (a). Greek, buufioKev aawijduq, Kara tov dyiov jia-KTiafiaToq koI tuv aetTrCiV tov 
 XpioTov fivcTTjpiuv. I have rendered oe-rruv here by august. It cannot be ren- 
 dered adorable because, as all admit, Cyril held, as we show in note 606 below, 
 that there is nothing to worship there, and that to worship Christ's humanity is 
 Man-Worship. See pages 250-278. The Nestorians admitted with Cyril that 
 the Substance of Christ's Divinity is not in the Eucharist, but differed from him 
 in holding that the substance of Christ's humanity is there and that it is to be 
 worshipped by bowing: see for their views, id., pages 250-313. 
 
Victor, the Archit}ta7idrite. Ixxix. 
 
 ' ' There is probably not one of the Coptic Lives of the Martyrs 
 which is not almost entirely apochryphal,'^ and that ''Even genuiyie 
 texts have suffered from exte?isive interpolations,'' and the internal 
 evidence furnished by the work itself, I must for the present at least 
 set down the work as spurious, or as a mere romance, which however 
 makes some use of genuine documents or historical fadls here and 
 there as the authors of historic novels do in our time, mingling them 
 with their own fi(5lion to make them more interesting because more 
 akin to real history, as for instance Sir Walter Scott's, and Wallace's 
 Ben Hur. The motives however of these stories regarding Victor 
 and Senuti were the glorifying of two monks dear to the Monophy- 
 sites of Egypt, one of whom at least, Senuti, was ranked as a Saint 
 among them. Whether Victor also was I know not. 
 
 I would add that few religious parties have produced more fal- 
 sifiers of genuine documents than the Monophysites, and few a 
 larger number of forgers of wholly false documents. Anastasius the 
 Sinaite tells us: 
 
 ' ' Those of the Universal Church in Alexandria told us that after 
 the times of the blessed Kulogius, the Pope (a), there was a certain 
 Imperial Prefect of Egypt there who was a Severian {b), who for 
 time enough had fourteen copyists of the same mind as himself sit- 
 ting at his command and falsifying the books of the dogmas of the 
 Fathers, and especially those of the holy Cyril:" see the Greek in 
 Goode's Divi7ie Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. i., page 196, note 2. 
 See id., pages 193-213. 
 
 The account of the state of things in the Coptic manuscript on 
 Victor is quite different from the Greek. The Coptic Victor makes 
 Cyril write to the Bishops a7id Victor: whereas the genuine Greek 
 documents do not mention Victor's name at all. 
 
 Another discrepancy lies in the statement of the Victor account 
 that the monks in going to the Emperor's palace uttered a number 
 of cries there mentioned, of which the Greek says not a word. 
 
 (a). He was Pope, that is Bishop of Alexandria, according to Neale, from 
 A. D. 579 to 607. /*<?/!>^ simply means /TzM^r and, as Bingham shows, was once 
 a title of every Bishop, as it is now of every presbyter in the Greek Communion 
 and in the Latin ; in the latter in the English translated form Father in the 
 English speaking countries. 
 
 {b). That is a follower of Severus, the notorious Monophysite heretical 
 leader, the intruding Patriarch of Antioch, A. D. 512-519, who was afterwards 
 condemned in the Definition of the Sixth Kcumenical Svnod, A. D. 680. 
 
Ixxx. spurious Coptic Writings Ofi Ephesus. 
 
 According to the Greek the Emperor seems to have received 
 the Archimandrites without much delay: and all of them were in- 
 vited by the Emperor into the palace : and all went thence to the 
 Martyry of Mocius to hear an Epistle read, and the report of Dalma- 
 tius on the Emperor's course, and after that Nestorius was anathe- 
 matized and the demonstration ended. 
 
 But the Coptic account makes the monks weary out the Emperor 
 by their shouts and persistency, and then he admits not all the 
 archimandrites, but Dalmatius alone, and then Dalmatius comes 
 out and the demonstration at once ends. So these accounts do not 
 at all agree on those points. I quote the Coptic account regarding 
 Victor, on page no of the Review ; 
 
 ' ' In spite of these cries ' ' [of the monks to the Emperor ask- 
 ing for the reception of their leaders, the Archimandrites], "the 
 gate of the palace did not open to the fathers ' ' [of the monks, 
 that is their Archimandrites], " and the representatives of Cyril and 
 the Council were not admitted to the presence of the Emperor" 
 [But the Archimandrites and their monks were not official represent- 
 atives of Cyril nor from the Council, but only their friends]. " The 
 monks did not show themselves discouraged ; they continued their 
 cries, and at length, wearied out, Theodosius ordered Dalmatius the 
 Archimandrite to be brought before him. He made representations 
 to him; the Emperor replied by making him read the letter he had 
 sent to the Council, then he dismissed him, and so this first demon- 
 stration came to an end." But what letter is here meant by this 
 romancer ? Is it a letter of Dalmatius to the Ecumenical Council, 
 or is it one of the Emperor's ? If the latter be intended it is due to 
 remark that no letter of the Emperor at this time favored Cyril or 
 Orthodoxy, or even permitted Bishops to come to Constantinople 
 from the Council. Compare Dalmatius' account above. 
 
 Then we are told that ' ' some days afterwards ' ' Victor enters 
 the presence of the Emperor and deUvers what is, in substance, the 
 same message as Dalmatius had given him before, to the effect that 
 the utterances of the Third Ecumenical Council were kept from the 
 Emperor, whereas those of the Nestorians were admitted to him. 
 The Greek records make no mention of Victor or of that alleged 
 scene at all. Then the Coptic Victor manuscript tells us that, ''four 
 days" later still, another scene occurred in the great Church of Con- 
 
Victor, the Archimandrite. Ixxxi. 
 
 stantinople on this matter when the people and the clergy raised 
 shouts of approval of Cyril and the Third Council, and the A<5ls 
 of its first session are read, and in the course of them the manuscript 
 ends. 
 
 The reviewer towards the end (page 115 of the Oct. no. of the 
 Church Quarterly Review), admits that 
 
 ' ' There are difl&culties in the story, as he tells it, but in many 
 points a reader of the * A<5la ' will find it harmonize with known 
 authorities and supplement them. ' ' 
 
 There are certainly '* difficulties^' in this Coptic story, for out- 
 side of the original documents which its author uses in making up 
 his romance, he contradidls, as we see, other documents known to be 
 genuine, and we have seen no proof that anything in it is true ex- 
 cept the original documents which its author inweaves into his novel 
 or romance, as our historical novelists do to-day. Indeed we can- 
 not prove that the Victor whom it makes its hero was ever in Con- 
 stantinople in his life, or that he ever even existed. 
 
 MANUSCRIPTS OF THE THIRD WORLD SYNOD. 
 
 P. B. Pusey in Volume VII., Part I. of his edition of the 
 Greek of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Works, pages vii. and viii. of the 
 Praefatio tells us where some codices of the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil are to be found. 
 
Ixxxii. 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME. 
 
 FOREMATTER TO THIS VOLUME, AND TO 
 ACT I. OF EPHESUS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Dedication, ........ 
 
 Preface, i-iv. 
 
 Introduc5lion, v-xiv. 
 
 Rise and Spread of the Nestorian Heresies on the Inman, 
 on the worship of Christ's humanity, on the Eucharist, 
 and on the kindred themes; with an account of the 
 Controversy on them which immediately preceded the 
 Third Ecumenical Council and led to it; all this comes 
 under the general head of Events before the Coimcil, xv-lii.. 
 
 lyist of Donors to the Fund to Publish the VI. Ecumenical 
 
 Synods, on this volume, liii-lv. 
 
 Text-Leaps, Iv. 
 
 Location and subject matter of the most important Notes on 
 
 volume I. of Ephesus, Iv-lviii. 
 
 Location of Notes which do not begin on the pages to which 
 
 they belong, Hx-lxi. 
 
 Spurious Coptic documents on Ephesus — 
 
 1, Senuti, the Monk, Ixii-lxix. 
 
 2, Victor, the Archimandrite, .... Ixix-lxxxi.. 
 Where some manuscripts of the Third Ecumenical Council 
 
 may be found Ixxxi. 
 
 Table of Contents of this volume, . . . Ixxxii-lxxxix. 
 
 What were the A(5ls of the Third Ecumenical Synod in the 
 
 Ninth Century ? 1-4. 
 
 The Dates of the Sessions of the Third Ecumenical Council, 5 
 
 The Circular Letter and Decree of the Emperors, Theo- 
 dosius II. and Valentinian III., to each of the Metro- 
 politans, convoking them to the Third Ecumenical 
 Council, 5-8 
 
 Second Decree of the Emperors, addressed to the Bishops of 
 
 the Third Ecumenical Council, 8-18. 
 
 RXD OF THE FOREMATTER. 
 
Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod. Ixxxiii. 
 
 THE ACTS OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Act 1 19 
 
 Date of the Synod, 19 
 
 Its Opening, 19-21 
 
 Names of the Bishops present and their Sees, . . . 21-29 
 Statement by Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, on the con- 
 troversy between Cyril, his Bishop, and Nestorius, the 
 matter which led to the calling of the Council, and his 
 offer to read the papers pertaining to the affair, . . 30-32 
 Order of the Synod by Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, that 
 the Emperor's letter summoning the Synod be read 
 
 and put in front of the Adls, 32 
 
 Reading of it by Peter, . . . , . . . 32-41 
 Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, asks Memnon, 
 Bishop of Ephesus, to state how many days had passed 
 since their arrival there. Memnon testifies that the 
 Council had already waited sixteen days, according to 
 Roman time, (fifteen, according to ours), beyond the 
 date mentioned in the Emperor's Decree just read, for 
 
 the Prelates to appear, 42 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria proposes that the Council proceed to 
 business, and that the papers pertaining to it be read in 
 their order, and states that a Second Decree of the 
 Emperors had been read to the Synod by Count Can- 
 didian, urging action without any delay, . . . 42-43 
 At the suggestion of Theodotus of Ancyra, the reading of 
 the papers is postponed. Theodotus proposes that 
 instead they proceed to summon Nestorius to appear 
 before them and give an account of his opinions. The 
 
 Synod assents, 44 
 
 Three summonses sent to Nestorius; he refuses them; ill- 
 treatment of the messengers of the Council by the 
 Nestorian party, 44-49 
 
Ixxxiv. Table of Contents 
 
 Nestorius having thus received the three canonical citations, pagk. 
 and refused to appear, the Council, at the suggestion 
 of Juvenal of Jerusalem, proceeds to examine the 
 dogmas of Nestorius; and, first, the Creed of the First 
 Ecumenical Synod is read at Juvenal's suggestion, and 
 they proceed to settle the dispute between Cyril and 
 Nestorius as to its meaning, ..... 49-51 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, submits to the Council 
 Cyril's Short Letter to Nestorius, which teaches that 
 the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod proclaims 
 that God the Word Himself did really become incarnate 
 in the Virgin, and that therefore the Virgin Mary did 
 bring forth God the Word in His second birth. Cyril 
 also disclaims " co- worshipping a Man with the Word," 
 teaches the Substance Union, and the do(5lrine of the 
 Economic Appropriation to God the Word of the things 
 of the Man put on by Him, to avoid, as is explained on 
 pages 237-240, vol. I of Nicaeaxn this Set, worshipping 
 Christ's humanity, 52 
 
 At the suggestion of Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, it is read, 52-129 
 
 Then Cyril of Alexandria submits to the Synod the question 
 whether his Letter just read is not in harmony with the 
 First Ecumenical Synod and its Creed just read, . 129 
 
 Decision of the Synod, given by vote, that it is. The vote 
 
 was unanimous for Cyril, . , . . . 129-154 
 
 Next, on motion of Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, the Epistle 
 of Nestorius in reply to Cyril is read in order that the 
 Synod may ascertain whether it agrees with the Creed 
 and the other utterances of the First Ecumenical Synod 
 or not. Nestorius' Epistle plainly denies the docflrine 
 of the Incarnation, and Cyril's dodlrine of the Economic 
 Appropriation of all things of the Man put on to God 
 the Word, errors which reduce his worship of Christ to 
 mere Man- Worship (AvdpwTToXarpeta), as St. Cyril brands 
 it, that is, to Creature- Worship, .... 154-166 
 
 Cyril then asks the Ecumenical Council to decide whether 
 Nestorius' Letter is in harmony with the Creed of the 
 First Ecumenical Synod, 166 
 
Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod. Ixxxv. 
 
 The Council in reply vote and unanimously decide that it is PAGE, 
 not. At the end of the vote they burst forth into shouts 
 of anathema against Nestorius, his Letter and dogmas, 
 and brand him as a heretic, and they anathematize him 
 who does not anathematize Nestorius, and him who 
 communicates with him; and call for the reading of the 
 Letter of Celestine, Bishop of Rome, on the Faith, 166-178 
 
 On motion of Juvenal of Jerusalem it is read. It is addressed 
 to Nestorius; and after condemning the Pelagian heresy 
 and the heresy of Nestorius, it warns him that after his 
 two warnings from Cyril of Alexandria and one from 
 himself, he will be excluded from the Episcopate and 
 the communion of the whole Church, unless he returns 
 to the right way; and definitely tells him further that 
 unless within ten days after he gets that Letter he re- 
 nounces his heresies, he will be cast out from all the 
 communion of the Universal Church, . . . 178-203 
 That Letter of Celestine' s was deemed Synodal by Cyril in 
 his Long Letter to Nestorius just below. See it towards 
 the beginning. It represented what of the West was 
 then under Rome, though written by Celestine, whom 
 Cyril there calls its '' President," .... 209-213 
 At the end Celestine states that he had sent that document 
 to Cyril of Alexandria, who in the matter would act in 
 
 his place, 202-203 
 
 We shall see that Cyril presented it to Nestorius with his 
 Long Letter, which has the Twelve Anathemas and 
 which has the same demands on the part of Cyril and 
 his Patriarchate for renouncing heresies as Celestine' s, 
 and that within the same limit, that is, within ten days 
 after its reception, ...... 209-212 
 
 Then Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, proposes to read his 
 Bishop Cyril's Long Letter to Nestorius which has the 
 Twelve Anathemas, which he asserts to be '4n har- 
 mony with those things which have been read," that is, 
 with the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod and with 
 Cyril's Short Letter just approved as in harmony with 
 it. To admit this claim is pra(5lically to approve the 
 
Ixxxvi. Table of Conte7its. 
 
 Long Epistle as in accord with the Creed of Nicaea. page. 
 
 Its very title shows it also to be Synodal, that is, from 
 
 Cyril and his whole Patriarchate of Alexandria, . . 204 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, moves that it ''be read, and be 
 put into the AAs." It was accordingly read by Peter 
 and inserted in the Acfls, which both parties at the time, 
 Orthodox and Nestorians, understood to be an approval 
 of it by the Ecumenical Council .... 205-358 
 
 Both these documents are here put together as expressing 
 the decision of the chief see of the West and its Synod, 
 and the chief sound see of the East with its Synod 
 against Nestorius and his heresy: aye, the bulk of the 
 Church West and East as the result showed, 206, 209, 212, 213 
 
 Both these documents had been presented to Nestorius in 
 his palace at Constantinople after the Eucharistic serv- 
 ice on Lord's Day, November 30, or Lord's Day, 
 December 7, A. D. 430, by four bishops deputized by 
 Cyril to that errand; namely, Theopemptus, Daniel, 
 Potamon and Comarius. The latter two were still at 
 Constantinople to represent Cyril, and to care for his 
 interests and those of the truth. But Theopemptus and 
 Daniel were present at Ephesus in the Synod, on this 
 June 22, 431, Roman time. Next the Presbyter Peter 
 of Alexandria states that the Letter of Celestine above 
 and that of Cyril had been delivered to Nestorius. He 
 begs the Council therefore that the two Bishops present 
 who had delivered the Letters from Cyril be questioned 
 on that matter, 359-3^6 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, tells them to state whether they 
 had delivered the Letters, and whether Nestorius had 
 satisfied their demands, .... 367-368, 373 
 
 In reply, Theopemptus and Daniel, the Prelates meant, 
 state that they had delivered the letters to him and how 
 he had disregarded them and the warnings and threats 
 of excommunication in the letters, and still preached his 
 errors, 369-372, 374-384 
 
Ac^s of the Third Ecumenical Synod. Ixxxvii. 
 
 Kext the Council, at the suggestion of Fidus, Bishop of pag:e. 
 Joppa, and Cyril of Alexandria, hear the sworn testi- 
 mony of Bishops Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of 
 Melitine, who testified that only the ' ' day before yes- 
 terday," that is on June 20, 431, Nestorius had persisted 
 in teaching his heresy, therefore about six months after 
 the expiration of the ten days limit for repentance and 
 renunciation given him by Synods in the West and East 
 through Celestine and Cyril, ..... 385-417 
 
 Then Peter of Alexandria at the suggestion of Flavian, 
 Bishop of Philippi, submits passages from Fathers. 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, orders that they be read 
 and inserted in the Adls. The Synod approves. So 
 there were read at the demand of the Council 2 1 Ex- 
 cerpts from 12 different Orthodox writers, on the Incar- 
 nation, and on other matter in dispute to guide the de- 
 cisions of the Council. They are Peter, Bishop of 
 Alexandria and Martyr ; Athanasius, Bishop of Alex- 
 andria ; Julius, Bishop of Rome ; Felix, Bishop of 
 Rome and Martyr ; Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria ; 
 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and Martyr; Ambrose, 
 Bishop of Milan ; Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus ; Basil, 
 Bishop of Caesarea; Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa ; At- 
 ticus, Bishop of Constantinople ; and Amphilochius, 
 Bishop of Iconium ; 4 Westerns and 8 Easterns ; or, 
 reckoning by their sees, 4 of two African sees, Alexan- 
 dria and Carthage ; 4 of four Asiatic sees, Nazianzus, 
 Caesarea, Nyssa, and Iconium ; and 4 of three Euro- 
 pean sees, Rome, Milan, and Constantinople, . 417-449 
 
 Next Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the 
 Secretaries, submits to the Council proofs of Nestorius' 
 ** blasphemies " taken out of his own writings, . 449 
 
 At the order of Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, and all the Bish- 
 ops, they are read and inserted in the A(5ls to show the 
 fairness and good faith of the Synod in dealing with him. 
 They are most plainly heretical, and are 20 in number. 
 They oppose Cyril's teachings in his Epistles above 
 approved by the Council, for, i, they deny the Incar- 
 
Ixxxviii. Table of Conie?iis. 
 
 nation ; and, 2, the docflrine of Economic Appropria- pagk. 
 tion; and, 3, assert the paganism of worshipping Christ's 
 separate humanity; and, 4, affirm CannibaHsm (Avdpa)' 
 Ttoipayia) in the Eucharist, and one-nature Consubstantia- 
 tion there, and of course the real presence of one nature 
 of Christ, that is his humanity, there ; and Nestorius' 
 disciple, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, atfling on Nes- 
 torius' own teaching of the lawfulness of worshipping 
 Christ's separate humanity, worshipped it there, as 
 probably Nestorius himself did, .... 449-480 
 
 Peter next submits to the Synod another document from the 
 West, a letter from Capreolus, Metropolitan and Bishop 
 of Carthage, to the Synod, sent by Besula, one of his 
 deacons, in which he exhorts them to maintain the 
 ancient faith and to condemn novelties. Impliedly at 
 least he condemns the Pelagians, .... 481-486 
 
 On motion of Cyril it is inserted in the Ac5ls, . . . 486 
 
 Then with all the testimony on both sides in, and with the 
 fullest proof of Nestorius' denial of the Incarnation, and 
 of guilt in Relative Worship, and Creature Worship, 
 and CannibaHsm, and one-nature Consubstantiation on 
 the Eucharist, they depose him, and add their subscrip- 
 tions to that act, 486-504 
 
 Next comes the sending of the Sentence of Deposition by the 
 
 Ecumenical Council to Nestorius, .... 504 
 
 End of Act I., 504 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON ACT I. OF THE THIRD 
 ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 
 
 Note A, on pages 1 1-19 of this volume. On the attempt of 
 the Emperor Theodosius II. to govern the Decisions of 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod, and to crush Cyril and to 
 favor Nestorius 
 
 Note B, on page 19 of this volume. On the expression 
 "Eternal August Ones," being an addition to Note 
 20 there, 505- 
 
 505 
 
Additional Notes. Ixxxix. 
 
 Note C. On Cyril's language on page 42 of this volume, page. 
 text, 515 
 
 Note D. On the expression of * ' Peter, the Presbyter, ' ' on 
 page 418, text, " books of the most holy and 7710 st conse- 
 crated Fathers and of Bishops and differe7it martyrs, ' ' and 
 on the note on page 427, which states that the Ecumenical 
 Council must not be understood to approve anything in a 
 writer's works which they have not passed on, and in- 
 deed which they may not even have seen, . . 513-517 
 
 Note K. On Nestorius' Blasphemy 18 on pages 472-474 
 
 above, and on its absurd and blasphemous sequences, 517-528 
 
 Note F. The Twenty Passages from Nestorius, for which 
 he was condemned and deposed by the Universal Church 
 in its Third Ecumenical Synod, .... 529-551 
 
 In memory of a Miracle of God's mercy to me and to this 
 Set and to the Donors to the Fund to Publish the Six 
 Synods, ......00. 552 
 
 Index I. Index to the Names of the Bishops present in 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus, or represented in it, . . . 553 
 
 List i. Comprising those Prelates who were present in 
 person or were represented at its opening, or took part 
 in its Act I., 553-565 
 
 List 2. List of Bishops who were not present at the begin- 
 ning, and took no part in its Act I., but who neverthe- 
 less subscribed at its end, ..... 565-568 
 
 Index II. General Index, 569-666 
 
 Index III. Index to Texts of Holy Scripture, . . 667-690 
 
 Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expres- 
 sions, 691-766 
 
 Errata, 767 
 
WHAT WERE THE ACTS OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAI^ 
 SYNOD IN THE NINTH CENTURY? 
 
 The following is the account of the Acts of Ephesus given by 
 Photius in the ninth century. It occurs in Codex or Se(5lion XVI. 
 of his work, entitled ''Myriad of Books or Library,'' and is the 
 whole of that sedlion : 
 
 ''SECTION XVI. 
 
 ACTS OF THE THIRD SYNOD. 
 
 A Book of the A5ls of the Third Synod has been read [by mej. 
 It is made up almost wholly of epistles of the godly Cyril to Nesto- 
 rius and of that impious man to him " (*). 
 
 Does this description apply to the Ac5ls as we have them in the 
 printed editions now ? Let us see. If we regard the Epistles of 
 Cyril to Nestorius, and Nestorius' to him, without including the mat- 
 ter in the present Adls relating to the said Epistles, it can not be 
 said that they form ' ' almost wholly ' ' the present Adts as they have 
 reached us. 
 
 But if we take Photius to speak only in general terms from his 
 recoUedlion of the work, and to include with them the matter on 
 them, his remark applies mainly, though probably not exadly, to 
 the A(5ls in their present form, though they contain such a spurious 
 document as a creature-worshipping Homily, of which we will speak 
 further on, which is later than Ephesus, and was added to them 
 between the time of the anti-creature-serving Cyril, in the fifth cen- 
 tury, and that of the creature- serving Photius in the ninth, for the 
 times between them were corrupting. 
 
 (*). Col. 56, tome 103, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, Cod., XVI.: llpa^c- 
 riKov Tfiq TphiK SwdfJov. ' kvsyvciaei] YlpaKTiKov rfjq Tphr/c Ivvodov ax^^ov ri 60 kiriaToluiv 
 £ Oeiov Tzpoq mearopiov KvpiXAov nal tov dvaacSovg ekuvov npbq avrbv awre^etfievov. 
 
 TOV 
 
Introductory Matter. 
 
 But such additions aside, let us ask, Do Cyril's Epistles to Nes- 
 torius, and Nestorius' one to him, and the voting on them and other 
 matter on them ' ' almost wholly ' ' make up these Acts now ? 
 
 It is true that the First Act of the Synod, which is much the 
 longest of the whole, is mainly taken up with the two letters of Cyril 
 to Nestorius, and Nestorius' one to him; and the votes on the shorter 
 of Cyril's two, and on that of Nestorius to him, and the matter in 
 reference to them taken from the Fathers, and from Nestorius him- 
 self, and the final sentence of deposition against Nestorius, which 
 was based on the whole matter. Act I. of Ephesus, which has the 
 said Epistles, and the other A6ls of that Council, occupy the follow- 
 ing spaces in Tome III. of Coleti's Concilia: 
 
 Act I., col. 991-1120, omitting the spurious Homily attributed 
 to Cyril, on pages 1111-1118; 121 columns, or more exadlly about 
 127 columns, less about 4)^ columns, say about 122^ columns. 
 
 This mainly accords with Photius' description of the Adls in 
 his day. 
 
 Act II., col. 1139-1150, — a little more than 12 columns. This 
 Act ends before Celestine's Epistle to Theodosius. 
 
 Even in this Act Cyril speaks, though it mainly refers to a letter 
 of Celestine of Rome. If we subtract two Epistles of Celestine, 
 which are not part of this Act but are merely added for information 
 after it in Coleti, then this Act II. is reduced to about 10 columns. 
 
 Act III., col. 1151-1164, — 12 columns. 
 
 Two Epistles of the Council signed by Cyril occupy about four 
 columns. If they are subtra<5led the Act contains only about eight 
 columns outside of them. 
 
 Act IV., which is wholly occupied by a Memorial of Cyril and 
 Memnon to the Council, and matters connedled therewith, occupies 
 columns 1163-1176; that is, about 12 columns. 
 
 Act v., which follows up the business of Cyril and Memnon 
 mentioned in Act IV. above, and in which, so far as the Acfts proper 
 are concerned, Cyril is a chief speaker, occupies columns 11 75-1 200, 
 or more exacftly, less than 25 columns, of which nearly the whole of 
 the last four are occupied by a Homily of Cyril of Alexandria against 
 John of Antioch, which, from the context, does not seem to be part 
 of that Act proper. 
 
The Acts 171 Photius' Time. JT 
 
 Act VI., columns 1 199-1230, or more exacflly less than 30 col- 
 umns, treats of the matter of the Nestorian Creed, brought to the 
 notice of the Synod by Charisius. Somewhat less than four pages 
 at the end are occupied by a Homily of Cyril, which occurs after the 
 subscriptions, and seems to be no part of this Act, though it may 
 possibly be; subtradled, they leave but about 26 columns. 
 
 As Peter, Presbyter of Alexandria, was merely the mouthpiece 
 of Cyril, whose presbyter and notary indeed he was, this whole Act 
 may be said to be Cyril's in a special sense. Besides there is, not in 
 this Act, but after it, quite an amount of matter given in the Epistles 
 of the Orthodox, that is between A(5ls VI. and VII., in part of which 
 we find matter from Cyril's pen also. This body of epistles and 
 writings occupies columns 1 277-1 321, or more accurately about 43 
 columns, of which two Epistles of Cyril occupy about 3^ columns^ 
 and a letter of Alypius to Cyril nearly two columns more. 
 
 Act VII., and what follows it, occupy columns 1 321-1334, about 
 13 columns, and deal with the matter of guarding the rights of 
 Cyprus and other Churches, the Canons, etc. 
 
 To resume. There are in Act I., say i22>^ columns. The 
 other A(5ls are reckoned as follows : 
 
 Act II., columns 10 
 
 Act III., columns 8 or 12 
 
 Act IV., columns 12 
 
 Act v., columns 25 
 
 Act VI., columns 26 
 
 Act VII., columns 13 
 
 94 or 98^. 
 
 So that, according to that, Act I., which deals mainl3r with 
 Epistles of Cyril and Nestorius, and matter on them, outnumbers 
 the other six by about 28>^ or 24 >^ columns. 
 
 But if, to the above Cyril-Nestorius epistolary matter, we add 
 A(5ls IV. and V., which are wholly occupied by business relating to 
 the Memorial of Cyril and Memnon, and Act VI., where Cyril, by 
 his presbyter Peter, leads every thing; and Ac5ls II. and III., which 
 are really the complement of A(5l I. and of the business regarding- 
 Cyril's and Nestorius' Epistles treated of in it, the total of Cyril- 
 Nestorius, or merely Cyrilliau matter, will be as follows* 
 
hitrodudoyy Matter. 
 
 Afts. Columns, 
 
 I., 121 
 
 II., lO 
 
 III., 8 or 12 
 
 IV., 12 
 
 v., 25 
 
 VI., 26 
 
 202 or 2o6 
 
 In the 13 columns of Act VII., it is not clear who voices the 
 utterances expressed in the words, '* The Holy Synod said:'' if it was 
 Cyril we must therefore add part of those 13 columns to the 202 
 above. 
 
 There are other documents now printed between the Acfls, such 
 as those emanating from the Apostatic Conventicle at Ephesus, from 
 its legates to Constantinople, etc., which swell the whole matter in 
 the A(5ls of the Orthodox Synod, and of those of the hostile Con- 
 venticle, together, etc., to about 342 columns in Coleti. 
 
 In all the enumerations I have counted the Greek and Latin 
 parallel columns together. If we wish to get the exact amount of 
 the Greek, we must, in most cases, take only half of each of the 
 estimates of columns above. 
 
 From the above we can see that in the broad sense, the Third 
 Ecumenical Synod is nearly all made up of Cyril's and Nestorius' 
 letters, as Photius says, if we include what relates to those letters as 
 well. 
 
 But I much doubt, however, whether the documents of the 
 Apostatic Conventicle at Ephesus of John, or of its legates to Con- 
 stantinople formed in Photius' day, or at any time before, a part of 
 the Book of the A Sis of the Third Synod, for they are no part of the 
 Council but are diametrically opposed to it. Even now they are no 
 part of its Ac1:s, though, for the sake of fuller information probably, 
 they are put between its Acfts, as other matter also is. 
 
 The documents in the Forematter to Ephesus were, in all proba- 
 bility, not put before its A(5ls in Photius' day. One of them, Cyril 
 of Alexandria's Five Book Contradi^ion of the Blasphemies of Nesto- 
 rius, is a volume of itself. Indeed, in the printed editions they vary 
 in number according as the fancy of the editors determines. 
 
Dates of the Sessio7is. Decree Convoki)ig the Council. 5 
 
 II. 
 
 THE DATES OF THE SESSIONS OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL, COUN- 
 CII. WERE AS FOI.I.OWS : 
 
 Session I., Monday, June 22, 431. 
 
 Session II., Friday, July 10, 431. 
 
 Session III., Saturday, July 11, 431. 
 
 Session IV., Thursday, July 16, 431. 
 
 Session V., Friday, July 17, 431. 
 
 Session VI., Wednesday, July 22, 431. 
 Session VII., Monday, August 31, 431. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE CIRCUI.AR I.ETTER AND DECREE OF THE EMPERORS, THEO- 
 
 DOSIUS II. AND VAIvENTlNIAN III., TO EACH OF THE 
 
 METROPOLITANS, CONVOKING THEM TO THE 
 
 THIRD ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 
 
 Theodosius II. was Emperor of the Kast and lived at Constantinople. 
 Valentinian III. was Emperor of the West and lived at Rome. Valentinian 
 III. was a mere boy. His parents, Constantius III. and Galla Placidia were 
 married in January, A. D. 417 (i). Gibbon says that ''when he received 
 the title of Augustus,'" he ''was no more than six years of age'' (2). He was 
 made Augustus in A. D. 325. Hence he was now only about 12 years old. 
 Hence the other associate Emperor, Theodosius II., really did, practically at 
 least, the whole work of representing both regarding the Synod. He was bom 
 A. D. 402, and so was about 29. The decree is dated at Constantinople, a fact 
 which shows the greater influence of the Eastern and older monarch. 
 
 In passing it should be said that none of the Six Ecumenical Councils was 
 convoked by any Bishop of Rome, but by the Christian Emperors; though, of 
 course, at the suggestion and recommendation of Bishops of different sees. This 
 has been shown of Nicaea (3). It is shown in this document as to Ephesus. It 
 will be shown in the proper places of the four others. May we soon have re- 
 formed and thoroughly Orthodox Bishops and Emperors, and may the latter, 
 urged by the former, call a sound Seventh Ecumenical Council to do away with 
 all the creature invocation, image worship, cross worship, relic worship, altar 
 worship, and all the innovations, and errors and anarchies and abuses, in doc- 
 
 h). vSee the article Galla Placidia iu Smith aud Wace's Diclionary of Christian Biog- 
 ■yaph V. 
 
 (2). Gibbons' Rome, Chapter XXXIII. (page 527, vol. 3, of the seven-volume edition of 
 Bohn. A. D. 1854. London). 
 
 13 ) Chrystal's Vol. I. of Nicaea, pages 257, 258. 
 
Introductory Matter. 
 
 trine, discipline, rite and custom of the middle ages and of modern times, and 
 to perfect and unite the Church again. God grant it for the sake of our sole 
 and all sufficient Intercessor and Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen. 
 In times after the Six Councils, that is in the eighth century and the ninth, 
 we shall find ignorant and idolatrous women like the Empresses Irene and Theo- 
 dora doing all they can to corrupt and idolatrize the Church, as Jezebel and 
 Athaliah had tried to do the same for the Mosaic Church be-fore them. Indeed, 
 Constantius and Valens, the Emperors, had tried to wreck it by Arianism, even 
 in the fourth century, though their efforts signally failed. 
 
 But, on the other hand, the Emperor Constantine had been a niirsmg father 
 to it (Isaiah xlix., 23), in calling the Council of Nicaea, and in putting the 
 pubUc vehicles at the service of the Bishops, in enforcing their attendance, and 
 in aiding the efforts of the sound Bishops at it and for some time after, though 
 his latest course was darker. So Theodosius I. had been a nursing father \.o it 
 in convoking the Second Ecumenical Council, in gathering Bishops to it, and in 
 enforcing its decrees as is the duty of the civil powers always and everywhere; 
 for as God's ministers they are bound as the merely secular, and therefore subor- 
 dinate power, always to help the spiritual and therefore the higher ministry, 
 and to enforce its decisions, and to take away the Churches from all idolatrous 
 episcopal successions, and from all successions which permit idolatry or infi- 
 delity in their pale, and to give them to the sound successions which crush out 
 those sins by depositions and excommunications, as Constantine took away the 
 Churches from Arian prelates who were, on their own professions, creature- 
 invokers and so creature-servers; and as Theodosius the Great, took away Churches 
 from the heretics who invoked the Holy Ghost as a creature, and so, on their 
 own profession, were creature-servers. 
 
 And now Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. gather the Metropolitans of 
 the Christian world and fit suffragans in a Third Council, and force them to be 
 present. And they come to decide all matters before them, with the Christ- 
 promised aid of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 And let us well remember that the Emperor Constantine did not at Nicaea 
 usurp the fun6lions of the Episcopate, but recognizing the fact that his own min- 
 istry was in the temporals only, while theirs was in the spirituals, when he en- 
 tered the Council, as Eusebius tells us in his Life of Constantine, Book III., 
 Chapter X. (Bagster's translation), "At first he remained standing, and when 
 a low chair of wrought gold had been set for him, he waited until the Bishops 
 had beckoned to him, and then sat down; " surely an edifying spedlacle of hu- 
 mility and of proper deference for the due prerogatives, Christ-given, of God's 
 ministers. Oh! that it may e^er be so on the part of the temporal powers 
 towards every God-alone-invoking and Orthodox Episcopate; and towards no 
 other. For we are commanded not even to eat with an idolatrous brother (4), 
 and so, much less with an idolatrous Bishop, that is. Apostle. And Christ impli- 
 edly commends the Church of Ephesus for clinging to their own Bishop, that is 
 
 (4). I Cor. v., II. 
 
Imperial Decree Convoking the Council 
 
 Angel, that is Messenger of Christ to them, and for rejecfling false apostles; for 
 in Rev. ii., i, 2, we read: 
 
 "Unto the Angel of the Church of Bphesus, write: These things saith he 
 that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the 
 seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works and thy labor, and thy patience, 
 and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; afid thou hast tried them 
 which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars y 
 
 For it is not enough for any Bishop to have a lineal tadlual succession and 
 ordination from the Apostles. He must hold to all Orthodox truth also, and be 
 free from the sin of worshipping anything but God. No man doubts that the 
 Bishops of the Arians, the Nestorians, and the Monophysites had a tadlual suc- 
 cession from the Apostles. But they were all creature-worshippers, and so erred 
 on fundamentals. And so they were justly deposed by the Six Ecumenical 
 Councils, and since that their ordinations were ever deemed invalid, so that 
 when they came over to the Universal Church they were always reordained. 
 Rome alone, but only in later times, has admitted -their orders as valid, but 
 contrary to the plain decisions of the Six Synods of the Christian world. Her 
 aim is to gain retainers in the East. But her plan will result finally in failure. 
 
 There is a good deal abroad of what may be termed the heresy of holding 
 that a mere tactual succession, luithout holding to the doHrine of the Six Coun- 
 cils, constitutes a valid succession. Quite a number of the more ignorant or 
 partisan clergy of the Anglican Communion hold it, consciously or uncon- 
 sciously. The Greeks, though idolaters, nevertheless hold to the decisions of 
 the VI. Councils on such matters, though most of them seem to be unaware 
 that their paganism of creature-invocation, image-worship and relic-worship 
 are condemned by those God-guided decisions. 
 
 But to return to the document here following. The Emperor Theodosius 
 II. was, as we shall see further on, a favorer of Nestorius and an enemy of St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria, and of the Orthodox. Yet he had done well in convoking 
 the Council. And the Synod recognizes his kindness on that matter, towards 
 the very beginning of its First Act. For when one stated to the Council that 
 the Holy Synod had been convened by the Emperors, and that he had the 
 papers on that and other matters, at the service of the Council, we read that, 
 
 "Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said, Let the dear-to-God Letter of our 
 most religious and Christ-loving Emperors, which was written to each of the 
 Metropolitans, be read, and let it shine forth in front of the Records of the 
 A(5lions of the present time." Hence we put it here. Act I. proceeds, 
 
 "■ It was at once brought forward by the most religious Peter, Presbyter of 
 Alexandria, and read as follows: 
 
 ** DECREE OF THE EMPERORS CONVOKING THE THIRD 
 
 COUNCIL. 
 ''The Autocrats, Caesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Vicflors, 
 Trophy-bearers, Greatest, Ever-Revered, August Ones, to Bishop 
 
 Cyril. 
 
Introductory Matter. 
 
 *' The condition of our Empire has been made dependent on piety 
 towards God, and the rest [of it] (5)." 
 
 IV. 
 
 SECOND DECRKK OF THK EMPERORS, ADDRESSED TO THE BISHOPS 
 OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAI. COUNCIIy. 
 
 The following is the document sent by Count Candidian to the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod, which Cyril, of Alexandria, in its first Act, speaks of as the 
 ^^ Second Decree'''' of the Kmperors, which had been read to the Synod before 
 that Session I. began, and which in that session is mentioned as urging them 
 on to a decision on the matters for which they were convened. Cyril then pro- 
 posed the reading of certain papers, "which," he adds, "complete the whole 
 statement as to the business before us." It is not clear to me that this letter 
 was among them. At any rate it was not read after that. 
 
 The first imperial Decree was read in Act I. See that Act for the particu- 
 lars. The following is the Second Imperial Letter. 
 
 A GODLY LETTER (6) SENT TO THE HOLY SYNOD THROUGH 
 CANDIDIAN, CHIEF OF THE BODY GUARDS, WHO WAS 
 ENTRUSTED WITH THE WORK OF PRESERVING 
 GOOD ORDER IN THE SYNOD. 
 
 *'The Autocrats, Caesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Vi(5lors, Pos- 
 sessors of Trophies, Greatest, ever revered August Ones, to the 
 Holy S3mod. 
 
 ' 'We have much care for all things which contribute to the com- 
 mon welfare, but especially for those which relate to piety; and 
 through them comes the supply of the rest of the good things to^ 
 men. So, for that reason we wrote, a short time ago, those things 
 which are proper in regard to your Godfearingness' coming together 
 into the metropolis of the Ephesians. And since it was a matter 
 of necessary obligation that we should care for both the fitting good 
 
 (5). See the rest of it below, a little after the Bishops' names, in Act I. of 
 the Council. 
 
 (6). Qnov ypdfiiJin, literally, ''divine letter,'" a slavish, unchristian way of 
 speaking, if taken in the common sense. But as it is best to take the charitable 
 si^le, I have used ''godly,'" because I presume it was used and understood iu 
 that sense by the author of the heading. 
 
Second Imperial Decree to the Council. 9 
 
 order and quiet of your most Holy Synod in its investigations, we 
 did not omit that either, so that its freedom from disorder has been 
 guarded on every side. And though we are persuaded that your 
 Godfearingness needs no outside aid in order to furnish peace to 
 others also, nevertheless, it was a part of our concordant foresight 
 for piety not to overlook even that thing. 
 
 "Therefore Candidian, the most magnificent Chief of the devoted 
 Body Guards, has been commanded to go to your (7) Holy Synod, 
 and [yet] not to take any part in the investigations which are to be 
 made regarding dogmas, for it is a thing contrary to God's law (8), 
 
 (7V Coleti has here ''our" (^/^wv), but the Editio Regia gives ''your'' 
 {vfi^v), which seems preferable, because that person is used by the Emperor else- 
 where in this document. 
 
 (8). adquTov. This is the hteral signification of this term here. That had 
 been the doclrine of the Church from the beginning. The violation of it in the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in this country has resulted in doArinal anarchy, 
 and the relegating the Bishop, for the most part, to the position of a mere 
 Moderator, a confirming and ordaining machine, and has wrecked that body. 
 So that it is of small account, and claims in the whole United States, by one of 
 its almanace for January, 1892, (the Living Church Quarterly, page 266), but 
 531,535 communicants, out of a total population of about 65,000,000 of people. 
 It permitted the innovation of a Lower House, composed of presbyters and of 
 laymen, who have very few theological scholars among them, and yet actually 
 sit as co-ordinate with Bishops, contrary to the New Testament, and to the Canons 
 of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (the only ones that made canons), and to 
 the custom of the whole Church from the beginning. It was definitely wrecked 
 in A. D. 1 87 1, when the House of Bishops, in the General Convention of that year 
 attempted by their enaaments to crush the idolatrous heresy of worshipping an 
 alleged Real Presence of Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist, which was long ago 
 condemned by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
 It had been originated, in our time, in the Church of England by the heresi- 
 archs Pusey and Keble, and was championed in the Lower House against the 
 Bishops by James De Koven and others. That house, after a struggle, refused 
 to coincide with the Bishops' attempt to check and crush that form of idolatry, 
 and having been wrongly made co-ordinate with the Upper House, so defeated 
 it. Since that time it has been much more diffieult than it was even before to 
 c'.ieck any form of heresy or infidelity, so that many are now guilty of that 
 sort of idolatry and pagan sacrilege on the Lord's Supper, of the pagan error of 
 bowing relatively to the altar, to the cross, to images, etc. ; invoking the Virgin 
 Mary and other saints; while others, disgusted with such forms of creature- 
 worship, have fallen into another, that of Arianism, Hke R. Heber Newton, for 
 example. Let this be a warning to us all not to permit any house of presbyters 
 and laymen, but to give the sound Bishops that authority over both the spintu- 
 
10 Introductory Matter. 
 
 for any one who is not in the Hst of the most holy Bishops to mix 
 
 alities and the temporalities which is given them in the New Testament and in 
 the Ecumenical Canons. Those canons, so far as they received the approval of 
 the whole Church, West and Bast, (and with the exception of some things in 
 Canons on Constantinople's rank nearly all of them have), were made with the 
 Christ-promised aid of the Holy Ghost; whereas the co-ordinating of presbyters 
 and laics with Bishops is a part of the mere irreligious, and, often, anti-Chris- 
 tian, democratic Windbagism of modern times, which has given us one of the 
 most extravagant and corrupt governments the world has ever seen; which does 
 not even recognize Christianity in its Constitution, and, in our large cities, has 
 resulted in the rule of the grog-shop and the brothel over the Church; of vicious 
 and plundering rings and their heelers over virtuous men, and in an ignorant 
 mass, largely composed of Romish Irish, Italians, Polanders, Bohemians and 
 such like, and their sons, and Christ-rejecting Jews, alien to us utterly, over 
 inteUigent Americans. Oh! when will this tyranny be overpast! When shall 
 we have Christian, virtuous and intelligent government? Will the night of our 
 present slavery in our own land last for centuries? Or shall rational, Christian 
 freedom soon dawn on us, when the glorious King of Kings and Lord of Lords 
 shall set up his perfect government of virtue and holiness on this earth, and the 
 evil who now so often rule us become our servants (Rev. xx., 1-7) ? Newman 
 in a writing specially on the topic of the Protestant Episcopalian system of 
 making presbyters in a Lower House {the Church Taught, Ecclesia DoAa, or 
 Ecclesia Discens) co-ordinate with Bishops {the Church Teaching, Ecclesia 
 Docens), has well condemned it as an anti-Catholic novelty; and so has Pusey, 
 on page 25, and after, of his Councils of the Church. Creature-worshipping 
 heresiarchs as they were, as were Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius and his teachers 
 Diodore of Tarsus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, nevertheless, like them, amidst 
 all their errors they well contended for some truth. I quote Pusey as above: 
 
 " If faithful. Bishops have, by virtue of Christ's promise, a Presence in 
 Synod beyond what attends their ordinary acts. Why should this seem a 
 strange thing to believe ? Nothing is outwardly changed by the inward Pres- 
 ence of God. Accordingly, until the unhappy precedent, made in very evil 
 times by the Church of the United States, when struggling for life, the question 
 of lay-representation was consistently confined to bodies who rejected the Apos- 
 tolic succession, the Continental reformers, and the dissenters in Great Britain. 
 It must be said plainly, that the precedent set in the United States is radically 
 wrong, and, in fact, is, so far, the adoption of a principle belonging to bodies 
 who reject the Apostolic succession and the whole principle of a deposit of 
 faith, and of a commission, transmitted from the Apostles and part of the mind 
 of Christ. * * * She has abandoned a bulwark of the faith, a fundlion of 
 the of&ce inherited by her Bishops, not the faith itself nor the Apostolic succes- 
 sion. Through our neglect she became what she became; and we owe her there- 
 fore not sympathy only, but a respeAful and humble sorrow. Still, while we 
 own our own share in the sin, and that through God's mercy alone we have 
 been preserved, it were thanklessness for our own mercies, not to own, that she 
 
Second hnperial Decree to the CoiuiciL 11 
 
 liimself up with those ecclesiastical consultations; and he (9) is com- 
 manded by all means to remove from the same city those laymen (10) 
 and monks, who are already colle(5led there on account of that affair, 
 and those who shall be gathered; and that for the very reason that 
 it does not behoove that those who are not at all needed at the exam- 
 ination regarding dogma, should excite tumults (11) and thereby be 
 a hindrance to the peaceful deciding and formulating by your Holi- 
 ness of those things which should be decided and formulated. And 
 he is commanded to take care that no discord arising from hostile 
 feehng shall extend too far; in order that the examination by your 
 Holy Synod be not hindered by it, and that the accurate search 
 regarding the truth be not drowned by the disorderly din which may 
 perhaps occur [in the Council]; and he is to see to it that each one 
 ^hall hear forbearingly the things said, and put forward what shall 
 seem good to himself, or oppose the opinion of another; and that so 
 by proposition, and solution [of it] (12), the investigation regarding 
 the true dogma may be settled without any trouble, and may receive 
 by the common vote of your HoHness, a formulated Definition which 
 shall be both tmfadlious and pleasing to all (13). And as a primary 
 thing, the same most magnificent man Candidian is commanded by 
 our Serenity to by all means see to it that no one of your most holy 
 
 has undergone loss. * * * It is plain, then, that in the future history of the 
 Church, either we must be the instrument of God in upholding their faith, or 
 they, if we enter into closer relations with them, will lower ours. Not then in 
 reproach, but in self defence it was said, that a Church which had * * * 
 bracketted the Nicene [Creed], was no model to be safely copied." 
 (9). Candidian. 
 
 (10). rove KoaiuKovq, literally * 'worldly men, ' ' as distinguished from the clergy 
 and from monks; hence, as we say in English, laymen. 
 (11). eopt'/3ovf, which means uproars, and tumults. 
 
 (12). Kara Trporaaiu re kuI I'vaiv^ which may, perhaps, be rendered ''by ques- 
 tion or answer,'' or ''by proposition, and anszuer to it.'^ 
 
 (13.) The use of the expression luifaBious {(iGraclaarov) is, perhaps, evi- 
 dence of the influence of Nestorius on the mind of the Emperor, for. to gain 
 his own ends, he would naturally represent the Orthodox as a fatflion only. 
 
 The folly of the Emperor, in hoping to secure a unanimous verdict from 
 creature-serving and unbelieving heretics like Nestorius and his party, and 
 the Orthodox Cyril and his, is evident from this language. When oil and 
 water mix, and truth and error, then there can be agreement between Ortho- 
 doxv ar.d heresv, anti-creature service and creature service, but not till then. 
 
12 Introductory Matter. 
 
 Synod shall leave the place appointed for making the examination, 
 whether it be on the plea of returning homewards, or of wishing ta 
 come to our godly court, or because he prefers to go elsewhither; 
 i.or, moreover, may any other ecclesiastical question not pertaining 
 to the aforesaid examination of holy dogma, be at all put forward 
 (whether any persons ask such question, or the affair spring up in 
 any way whatsoever by any one,) before all the dispute on them at- 
 ter in question be settled, and the things which are profitable towards 
 the true investigation be accurately searched into and receive a ter- 
 mination which shall agree with the Orthodox religion. 
 
 ' ' Moreover, let your Godfearingness know, that it has seemed 
 good to our Serenity, that no accusation in regard to money or crime 
 (14) be brought forward against any one, either in your Holy Synod, 
 or in a pubHc Court of Justice there (15); if any one perchance may 
 think of doing so; but all the examination of those matters is to be 
 celebrated in the city of great name (16). And the most magnificent 
 man Irenaeus will go with Nestorius the most dear-to-God Bishop 
 of this city of great name Ciy), but only for the sake of friendship, 
 
 (14). Coleti Cone, tome iii., col. 989, at the bottom: YividGKhid de i/juv rf 
 QeoaejSeia, deSox'&ai ~y riuertpa ya7ir]v6TTiri^ /nr^dejuiav f/ errl rr/g dyiag vficov cvvoihv^ y kol ev 
 drjfj.ooiu) avTO-Qi 6iKaGT7/pl.o) ;j;p7//mri/f^v ij kyahi/jaTtKi^v kuto. nvog KLVir&fjvai alriaaiv, el tlvi 
 Tvxov ravTrjv elvai GV/njSalvoi.' Trdoav 6s rrjv Trepl tovtup (hdyvuaiv avyKpoTJ]-&7]vaL /card tt/v 
 /neyaAuvvjiiov ■noltv. The Latin in the parallel column in Coleti translates 
 GvyKpoTTj'&fjvaL by *'reservatam,'^ "reserved," showing, as, indeed, the Greek in 
 effect does, that all accusations as to civil and as to criminal cases (and under 
 one of these came accusations of heresy), must be reserved for Constantinople 
 to decide; and whether this means that Nestorius was to be judge alone, or 
 with the Emperor, or that the Emperor alone was to be the arbiter, it amounted 
 to the same thing, for all things would be decided by Nestorian influence, for 
 the Emperor was under his influence, as documents from him show. So that 
 as charges could be trumped up against any Bishop, and he could be deposed 
 against justice by the Nestorian party there, this clause contains a covert threat 
 against every Orthodox Bishop. Tlie Latin of it in Coleti reads as follows: 
 Ouin et hujus quoque admonita sit vestra pietas, nempe, serenitati nostrae 
 visum esse, ut nulla omnino in sacra vestra synodo, aut etiam in publico Ephes- 
 :orum judicio, pecuniaria aut criminalis causa adversus aliquem agitetur. 
 Ouod si quid ejusmodi extiterit, cuipiamve usu venerit, hujus integram cog- 
 nitionem magnae huic nostrae civitati reservatam volumus. 
 
 (15). Ephesus. 
 
 (16). Constantinople. 
 
 (17). Constantinople. 
 
Second hnperial Decree to the Council. 13 
 
 and he is not to take part in the investigations made by your most 
 Holy Synod, nor moreover may he, on any account, take part in 
 those matters which are entrusted to the most glorious man, Candi- 
 dian, who is sent by us " (i8). 
 
 (i8). The Irenaeus nere meant is the notorious Count Irenaeus, the friend 
 and partisan of Nestorius, who, at Ephesus, did all he could to nullify the adlion 
 of the Orthodox Council against him. Venables' article on Irenaeus, in Smith 
 and Wace's DiElionary of Christian Biography, is simply infamous in its injus- 
 tice to the Orthodox and in its favoritism towards the Nestorians, He v/as 
 probably sent, notwithstanding the Emperor's statements regarding him above, 
 as the lay theological helper of Nestorious and his error, as Count Candidian, 
 as a mere soldier, was to help him in merely military matters by using, as he 
 did, the soldiers of his command against the Synod and for Nestorius. The 
 appointment of Irenaeus was probably secured by Nestorius and his party to 
 compass their ends. That would be the more easy because the weak Theodo- 
 sius II. was so much under Nestorius' influence. 
 
 Venables, in his bilious and utterly prejudiced account, shows that, not- 
 withstanding what the misguided Emperor writes of Irenaeus' going to 
 Ephesus only as a friend of Nestorius, and notwithstanding the fact that Theo- 
 dosius II. writes to the Council that ''He is not to take part in the investiga- 
 tions made by your most Holy Synod, nor, moreover, may he on any account 
 take part in those matters which are entrusted to the most glorious ma?iy Candi- 
 dian, who is sent by us,'' he does become a chief actor regarding the affairs of 
 the Council, for even Venables writes that when, five days after the righteous 
 deposition by the Ecumenical Council of the denier of the Incarnation, the 
 Man-Worshipper (o avd-puTroMTp/jc) Nestorius, as the ancients justly termed 
 him, the approach of John of Antioch and the Bishops of his patriarchate, all of 
 them partisans of the heresiarch, was announced, " Irenaeus, accompanied by a 
 guard of soldiers, hurried out to apprise them of the * * * proceedings of the 
 Council. He was followed, at an interval, by deputies from the Council, who, as 
 Memnou relates, zuere, at the Count's instigation, maltreated by the soldiers, a^id 
 preveyitedfroni having an audience withJoJui. (Labbe, ibid, [that is, his edition 
 of the Councils] 764; Mercator II., praef. xxvii.)" 
 
 That is impartiality and non-interference with a vengeance! 
 
 But that is not all, for Venables goes on to show, but with many prejudiced 
 assertions added, that the small facflion of Nestorian Bishops at Ephesus, who. 
 with John of Antioch, had the brazen-faced eff"rontery to call themselves the 
 Council, deputed this very Irenaeus to Constantinople to the Emperor to get 
 him to undo the Holy-Ghost-led work of the Third Ecumenical Council, and 
 to recognize their own little conventicle and its heretical acts instead; and Ven- 
 ables shows how near he came to attaining his evil aim at one time by his mis- 
 representations, addressed to the weak and vacillating, and probably then 
 heretical Theodosius II. ; but he was finally defeated by the representatives of 
 the Orthodox Synod. To speak of such a man as taking no part in the pro- 
 
14 hitroduciory Matter. 
 
 ceedings of the Council, is therefore a joke. For he did his utmost, by such 
 misrepresentation as amounted to lying, to persuade the poor stick of an Em- 
 peror that a mere handful of Bishops, separated from the Church and its doc- 
 trine, were the Third Council. On his statement, and the saying of such as he, 
 Cyril was persecuted by the deceived Emperor. At last, however, Irenaeus' 
 outrageous iniquity was exposed, and he was stripped of all his honors, his 
 property was confiscated, and he was deported to Petra in Arabia. There he 
 spent his time in composing a work which bore the title, The Tragedy of 
 Ireefiaeus, which we have, at least in part, at this hour. It is a glorification of 
 Nestorius, his partisans and their heresy. 
 
 At the expiration of his twelve years of banishment, under the patronage of 
 the bitter Nestorian, Theodoret, he was made, we know not why, Metropolitan 
 of Tyre in that patriarchate of Antioch which had been the source and chief 
 seat of the Nestorian heresy, where, indeed, it seems, to some extent at least, 
 though perhaps in a slightly modified form, to have been retained by many, 
 even as late as that event. But objection arose at once. Domnus, Bishop of 
 Antioch, had consecrated him; but the Orthodox at Constantinople uttered their 
 protest, justly "asserting that the ele6lion of a convidled heretic and a digamus 
 was ipso facto null and void, and charging him under severe threats to proceed 
 to a fresh election." Domnus, who was perhaps never fully Orthodox, though 
 to save his honors and to avoid deposition he had professed, after a long strug- 
 gle, to be so, applied to the heretic, Theodoret, the best scholar of the Nestorian 
 party, for help to defend his act. Theodoret took up his pen for the view that 
 a twice married man may be lawfully made a Christian Bishop, and against the 
 general opinion of Christians from the beginning, and against what the common 
 sense of the Church had always held, and still holds, to be the true meaning of 
 I. Timothy, iii., 2, that is, that among the qualifications of a Bishop, he can 
 never have been married more than once, {fiiag ywaiKoq avSpa), '■^husband of 
 [but] 07ie wife.'' The same qualification is demanded of the deacon in i Tim- 
 othy, iii., 12, and again of the Elder (used as synonomous with Bishop), in Titus 
 i., 6; compare verse 7 there. Compare the precisely similar expression used of 
 a widow in I. Timothy, v , 9, that she shall have been 'Hhe wife of [but] one 
 ^man" {yeyowla evu^ avcSpoQ yw/j); where no one would suppose a prohibition of 
 polyandry, or of being the wife of two or more men at one time, but a forbid- 
 ding to put any but a monogamous widow on the list of the Church for support. 
 So, by parity of reasoning, the precisely similar expression in I. Timothy, iii., 2, 
 "husband of [but] one zidfe/' is not a prohibition of a man having two wives 
 at the same time, but of his ever having been married more than once. 
 
 The ablest modern Protestant commentators, like Bp. Ellicott and the con- 
 tinuator of Olshausen so interpret those passages. 
 
 Van Osterzee, in Lange's Commentary on that place, writing on the words 
 ''husband of one ivife,'' gives, first, the view of those who understand that ex- 
 pression to prohibit nothing but polygamy, and then he gives the reply of those 
 who took it "as forbidding any man who had been married more than once to 
 be a Bishop, or Elder, or Deacon." I quote his statement of the latter view, 
 which is renllv that of the Universal Church embodied in its law and pradlice. 
 
Second Imperial Decree of the Council. 15 
 
 "The champions of the other view maintain that Timothy hardly needed 
 the warning not to choose an episcopus who had several wives, since the unfit- 
 ness of so sensual a man for this spiritual ofi&ce would be self-evident; that, on 
 the other hand, a second marriage might not have been approved by the Greeks, 
 that Paul did not prescribe this abstinence as a general rule (the opposite is clear 
 from I. Cor., vii., 8, 39), but that this [law] may rightly have been enjoined on 
 such officers, who were to set an example of the highest self-restraint; and that, 
 finally, in chap, v., 9, it is required of a widow, chosen as deaconess, to have 
 been once only married," Van Oosterzee adds, "the last reason seems of the 
 greatest weight; and we therefore agree with those who hold this command of 
 Paul to be directed against a second marriage, as unseemly for the Episcopal 
 office. ' ' So Bloomfield takes it in his Greek Testament. 
 
 More Protestant testimonies, to the same purport, might be added, did space 
 permit; but these must suffice. 
 
 There was a notion among some in the ancient Church that a digamist 
 might be ordained, provided his two marriages did not occur after his baptism. 
 But the Apostle Paul's language in the texts above quoted excludes every diga- 
 mist from the ministry, and that law, always the common one, finally prevailed 
 everywhere. 
 
 The historical testimony is given in one edition of the Oxford translation of 
 part of TertuUian (Oxford, Parker, A. D. 1854, pages 420-433); and in Ludlow's 
 article on Digamy in Smith and Cheetham's DiBionary 0/ Christian Antiqui- 
 ties. Compare his article Bigamy in the same work. 
 
 Bingham, who, contrary to the Canons, married after taking presbyter's 
 orders, writes on the theme of clerical digamy, but with too much indulgence 
 to digamists in his Antiquities, Book IV., Chapter V., SeAions i to 5. His own 
 position as so far irregular would, we might suppose, naturally incline him to 
 the loose view on I. Timothy iii., 2. His marriage is mentioned on page xxi. 
 of the Prolegomena in Volume I. of the Oxford ten-volume edition of A. D. 
 1855 of his entire works. 
 
 But to return to the digamist Irenaeus. Theodoret's defence of the notion 
 that a man twice married may be a Bishop, was unavailing. The sequel is told 
 by Venables himself in the same article. He shows that Irenaeus was Bishop 
 in A. D. 446; but he did not hold the office long. For he adds: "An edict was 
 issued" [by the Emperor Theodosius II.] "(February 17, A. D. 448), renewing 
 those formerly published against the Nestorians, which, after commanding that 
 all their writings should be burnt, and making the possession of any of them a 
 capital offence, proceeded, in order to prove his detestation of these dodlrines, 
 to order that Irenaeus, who, though he had previously incurred his displeasure 
 on that account, and was, moreover, a digamus, had, he knew not how, got 
 ordained Bishop of Tyre, should be deposed from his see and deprived of the 
 dress and title of priest, and be compelled to live as a layman in his own coun- 
 try, and never set foot again in Tyre. * * * Photius was made Bishop of Tyre, 
 September 9, 448. After this Irenaeus disappears entirely from the scene." 
 
16 Introductory Matter. 
 
 There is more contained in this document than appears at first 
 sight. 
 
 For, I . It pracflically put into the hands of Candidian, a sym- 
 pathizer with Nestorius, the Man-Server, the control of the business 
 of the Synod. And he could so arrange it that Nestorian paganiz- 
 ing should triumph there by the aid of secular power, as Arianism 
 had at Aries, Milan and Ariminum by the same sort of help; for 
 Candidian in connedlion with Nestorius could so manage matters 
 that the Orthodox Bishops should be worn out by interminable dis- 
 cussions, or be forced to leave from lack of funds, and then when 
 the Synod had been depleted, and he knew that by his tricks he had 
 secured a majority he could put his heresies to vote and make them 
 the creed of the Church. 
 
 2. Besides the reservation of all civil and criminal accusations 
 to Constantinople, under one of which heresy could be included, 
 would enable Nestorius and his party to throw out any accusation of 
 heresy against any of themselves ; and the more easily because the 
 Emperor's command to decide the faith first could readily be so inter- 
 preted by them and their friends as to exclude any accusation against 
 them till it had been settled, and with the guiding reins of the Coun- 
 cil in their own hands, and with permission refused to any of the 
 Orthodox Bishops to go to Constantinople to the Emperor, and with 
 the way thither, so to speak, in the hands of Candidian (and we know, 
 from what occurred after Act I. of the Ecumenical Synod, how 
 ready he was to choke them ofi" from any appeal to the Court for 
 common fairness and justice), and with the soldiers at Ephesus 
 under the orders of Candidian and his fellow partizans of Nestorius, 
 we see in what evil case the Orthodox would have been had they 
 submitted to the provisions of this crafty letter. 
 
 Cyril was a man of firmness, raised up by God for this occasion, 
 and the Orthodox Bishops of the Third Council stood by him and 
 with him for God's truth, and the country and the city people of 
 Memnon's jurisdicftion, stood up for them and it, and must have, to 
 some extent, awed Candidian and the Nestorians by their very num- 
 ber into abstaining from much of violence and injustice. 
 
 So the people of Milan had stood up for Ambrose against the 
 attempt of Justina, the Emperor Valentinian II. 's mother, to take 
 
Second Imperial Decree to the Council. 17 
 
 one of the Churches of the Orthodox in Milan for the Arian worship, 
 and so afterwards the people of England stood up for their Bishops 
 and Church against James II. 's attempts to Romanize and idolatrize 
 their Church and State, and so to corrupt and ruin both. 
 
 Few things in the history of Christ's Church are nobler than 
 the stand of Cyril of Alexandria, Memnon of Kphesus, and the rest 
 of the 200 Bishops of the Third Council of the whole of Christen- 
 dom against the design and the misguided and despotic a(5lion of an 
 absolute monarch, by his agent Count Candidian, to control the 
 Synod, for heresy, and to keep them from doing their duty to God 
 and to His truth. They were weak and defenceless, save in God's 
 blessed help. Their opponent was an Autocrat who had at his 
 mercy their homes, their churches, their liberties, and their lives. 
 And the man whom he sent to carry out his wishes against God's 
 truth was the commander of his Household Troops, and at his beck 
 and nod was a military force capable of crushing all their resist- 
 ance. Yet they did resist that soldier who would have controlled 
 them and interfered with their freedom and with their work. His 
 own witness tells how nobly they did it. For when John of Antioch 
 reached Ephesus and held a conventicle against the Ecumenical 
 Synod, "Count Candidian" appeared before them, his friends, and 
 ' ' related how Cyril and his friends ' ' [that is the Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil], "in spite of all warnings, and in opposition to the Imperial 
 Decrees" [this Second Decree especially], " had held a session five 
 days before, had contested his (the Count's) right to be present, " 
 etc. (Hefele's History of the Church Cotmcils, Enghsh translation, 
 Volume III., page 56). Cyril and the Council resisted a layman's 
 misguided usurpation of Bishops' Christ-given rights, and so saved 
 the faith and the Church. Well, therefore, and with the best of rea- 
 son, did the Bishops of the Fourth Ecumenical Council shout together 
 ''Eternal be the memory of Cyrils For not only did he, under God, 
 save the Faith at Ephesus and safeguard then the Church against 
 the incoming waves of Denial of the Incarnation, and its sequence 
 the Nestorian worship of a mere man by bowing, invocation, and by 
 the other acfts of religious service, but he also guided the three Ecu- 
 mencial Councils, which were held after the Third, against those and 
 kindred errors. Indeed, a part of the Definition of the Fifth Ecu- 
 menical Council is in his very words. 
 
18 Introductory Matter. 
 
 In some things there is a paralleHsm in the noble record of San- 
 croft, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Six Knghsh Bishops whO' 
 stood with him, on the one hand, and the record of Cyril, Arch- 
 bishop of Alexandria, and the rest of the 200 Bishops of the Third 
 Synod on the other; for both sets of prelates contended against the 
 same sin, that is against creature- service (y.rt(T!xaroXarpiia) ; Cyril and the 
 Council contending against the Nestorian worship of a mere man 
 (^a-^hjjm-oXarpeia)^ and hence of couirse of a mere creature; whereas 
 the seven English prelates contended against a lower form of man- 
 service, that is the worship of the Virgin Mary and the saints, and 
 against a lower form of creature- service, that is the worship of angels 
 forbidden in Rev. xxii., 8, 9, and in Colos. ii., 18. For surely Christ's 
 humanity is confessed by all to be the highest and best of all created 
 things, and if we may not worship that creature, much less can we 
 any other. Both therefore contended for the first law of all true 
 religion laid down by our Great lyawgiver, Himself, ** Thou shalt 
 bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,'' Matt, iv., 10. 
 
 2 . Both at the peril of their honors, property and lives resisted 
 an unorthodox tyrant. 
 
 3. Cyril and Memnon were imprisoned for their a(5lion and so 
 were the seven English prelates. 
 
 4. Both sets of prelates excited the sympathies ana best efforts 
 of Orthodox men which finally secured their release and the vidlory 
 of the truth; Cyril and the Synod in Ephesus, Constantinople and 
 elsewhere; the Seven English Monk-Bishops in all England, and in 
 Scotland and Wales, and among the Reformed in Ireland. 
 
 5. Both sets have ever since been held in honor by all sound 
 men as resisters of evil, Confessors of the Faith, and, under God, 
 its rescuers from appaUng dangers. Eternal be the memory of 
 them all! 
 
Ad I. 19 
 
 THE ACTS OF THE HOLY, GREAT, THIRD 
 
 ECUMENICAL SYNOD, HELD AT 
 
 EPHESUS, A. D 431- 
 
 ACT I. 
 
 In (19) the Consulship of our Masters, Flavins Theodosins, Con- 
 sul for the thirteentl* time, and Valentinian, Consul for the third 
 time the ever August Ones (20), on the tenth day before the Kalends 
 
 (19). The Greek here is, Merd rfjv v-rrareiav tojv AeGTTOT0)v tjuwv, ^kavlov Qeodoalov^ 
 etc. Peltan's Latin translation, col., 1354, tome i, of Hardouin's Concilia has, 
 Post Consulaiuni dominoriim nostrorum, Flavii, etc. The old version, ac- 
 cording to Coleti {Co7icil. Tome 3, col. 991, note\ has ''Post Coiisulatu:' The 
 question is, does the Greek here mean that the Council began in the thirteenth 
 Consulship of Theodosius the Second, or after it? Is the literal Greek, " after 
 the Co7isulship,'' an idiom for ''During,'' that is "in the Consulship'^'' On 
 page 181, of vol. 3, of the English translation of Hefele's History of the Church 
 Councils we see that scholars differ as to the meaning of that Greek idiom, some 
 taking it in one of the above senses, others in the other. But a late edition of 
 Ividdell and Scott's Greek Lexicon gives instances where that constru6lion some- 
 times has the force of in, during, in the course of. So I take it here. 
 
 (20). The Greek here is rLv alcjviuv Ahyovarov, literally, '' the eternal August 
 Ones," one of those "flattering titles" which are rightly condemned in the Scrip- 
 tures again and again. Pious men had to endure in the Church such relics of 
 the pagan worship of the heathen Emperors. They should not be endured now. 
 Such expressions smirch documents under the Roman Emperors. As Sophocles 
 in his Greek Lexicon under anovLorrjc states, the word "Eternity" was "a title 
 given to the Emperor, or to the Empress. Chal. 829, A. 'H rjuETepa aluvioTrjg 
 \_"otir Eternity," literally] says Theodosius to Placidia." 
 
 But although custom and law favored the worship of the Emperors and the 
 use of titles for those monarchs which should be given to no other than God 
 alone, some faithful men at their own peril rebuked such sins; as, for instance^ 
 Jerome, on Daniel iii., says that the sin is the same if men worship the Em- 
 peror's images as it was to worship Nebuchadnezzar's. And St. Athanasius, in 
 Section 3 of his Epistle on what was done in the Synod of Ariminum in Italy, 
 and in that ofSeleucia, in Isauria, censures the Arians for using the term audinov, 
 that is Eternal of the Emperor Constantius. For, speaking of their in consist^ 
 encies and faults, he there writes: 
 
:20 Ad I. of Ephesus 
 
 *' Besides, while pretending to write about the Master, they name another, 
 Constantius, their own Lord; for it was he who btstowed on them this lordship 
 of impiety. And those who deny that the Son is everlasting have called him 
 Eternal Emperor. Such fighters against Christ are they, on behalf of impiety. " 
 The Greek here in Bright's St. Athanasius' Historical Writings, page 247, is as 
 follows : 
 
 Ilpbg TovToig, Ttepl Tov Kvplov TrpoaToiovfievoi ypd(j)eiv^ a?iAni> " AeaTTorrfv " bvofidC,ovGLV 
 iavToig KuvardvTiov avTOQ yap tjv 6 Ti]v dvvaarelav Ti]g dae'^eiaq avTolq Tzap^x^'^' '^"^ " ^''■^- 
 vcov^' 6e avTov "jSaatXia*' e'lpijKacLV ol tov Tldv aidiov apvovfievoi' ovrtog slal irpbg daefSeiav 
 XpiaTOjudxoi. 
 
 Athanasius, in effect, here states that the Arians used the strong term Lord 
 {AecTTOTrjv) of Constantius, which denotes a more absolute mastery sometimes 
 than Kvpioc. For lyiddell and Scott in their Greek Lexicon, Harpers, New 
 York, 1850, under Kvpioc, say: 
 
 * ' The head of a family, niastet of a house * * * was Kvpioq of wife and 
 children, dtaTiorriq of slaves." 
 
 Yet, great as was the fame of Athanasius and his influence, only about sixty 
 years after his death we find this word diuvtoq, '' Eter?ial,'' applied to the Emper- 
 ors b}' the Scribe or Secretary who drew up the beginning of Act I. of the Third 
 Ecumenical Council. So strong was the force, perhaps we may say the de^nand 
 of custom, under the absolutism of Christian autocrats who still clung to blas- 
 phemous pagan titles of their deified heathen predecessors. 
 
 We even find that some of the Emperors, untaught and unterrified by the 
 punishment of King Uzziah, for intruding into the place of the priests under the 
 old law (2 Chron., xxvi., 16-22), did the same against the higher ministry of the 
 new Law of Christ. But Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, nobly stood up against the 
 abuse and sacrilege, as Azariah, the priest, and his fellow priests had stood up 
 against Uzziah, and he rebuked the Emperor, Theodosius the Great, for it, and 
 the Autocrat had the grace to submit to God's law in the matter, and so honored 
 himself and his memory (Gibbon's Rome, chapter xx., note on page 368, vol. 
 2, of Bohn's seven volume edition, London, 1854). See Theodoret's Eccl. Hist, 
 V. 18. 
 
 One of the best short accounts that I have seen of the deifying of the 
 Roman Emperors is that given by Gibbon in chapter 3, pages 90 to 93, text and 
 notes of vol. i of that edition. See in his index, under Apotheosis, Emperors, 
 «tc. Oh! that the Emperors had remembered Herod's fate for permittmg men 
 to give him a title which belonged to God only (Acts xii,, 22, 23). 
 
 Under " Gfiof, «, ov, divine, as a title," we find that that term was applied 
 to the Roman Emperor, to the Emperor's letters, to his private matters, to his 
 palace, etc ; and that even ''Divinity'" (Ge/dr??^) was "« title applied to Kings 
 and Emperors,'''' as, for instance, to " Constantine and his sons,'' " their Divin- 
 ity. ' ' See under those words in Sophocles. 
 
 Possibly, as Sophocles implies, the term *■' divifie " was used as an equiva- 
 lent for, or in the sense of ''imperial,''' and "Divinity " in the sense of " sacred- 
 ness," "sacred majesty," but the Christian West, with all its faults, revolted 
 
Names of the Bishops, 21 
 
 :yl July (21), the Synod being assembled in the Metropolis of the 
 Bphesians, in accordance with the decree of the most dear-to-God 
 and Christ-loving Emperors, there sat down in the most holy Church, 
 which is called the Mary (22), the [following] most dear-to-God, and 
 
 against the use of ^'divine'' and '■'Divinity'' of the Emperors and their wives 
 and children; but as the Roman Kmpire continued in the East for about a thou- 
 sand years longer than it did in the West, this slavish and profane use of those 
 two words for those dignitaries contmued there for some time. The Church 
 may be said to have had these things forced on her, by the Emperors in their 
 pride and vanity, and by her unwise and time-serving sons, who should have 
 rebuked that pagan use of terms, which had seemingly arisen from the heathen 
 custom of deifying their Emperors, and afterwards applying to them appella- 
 tions which can be rightly applied to no other than God Himself, and which are 
 His prerogative, and which it is evil to give in their original se7ise of really 
 ^'divine'' and "Divinity'' to a creature whose breath is in his nostrils, and who 
 will soon be judged by that God who is no respecfter of persons. A Greek Arch- 
 bishop once told me that the Greeks had suffered from the evil influence of the 
 Empire, as the Westerns had suffered from the Pope of Rome. If it seem a 
 slight thing to get rid of flattering terms, let any one consider how difficult it 
 would have been in the middle ages, or in Henry the Eighth's time in England, 
 to refuse him or any other monarch any of his usual titles, whether he deserved 
 them or not; and how, even in our day, even in this democratic country and 
 age, we are expected to call every profane teacher of creature-service, and of 
 heresy. Revere fid. Most Rev., etc., and every Congressman HoJiorable even when 
 we know him not to be so. The true remedy for this is to call men by the titles 
 of their offices, and stop there; such as Emperor, President, Bishop, Elder or 
 Presbyter, and Deacon, etc. In conclusion I would say that as the whole Church 
 in Anathema VIII. of St. Cyril's XII., adopted by the Third Synod, anathema- 
 tizes every one who applies the name God to Christ's separate humanity, much 
 more does it by necessary implication anathematize every one who applies the 
 word God, Divi?iity, or any other name of Jehovah to an Emperor or any other 
 mere creature. But some writers of the A(5ls did not always obey that law. 
 
 (21). That is, June 22, 431. 
 
 (22). Bingham, in his Antiquities 0/ the Christian Church, Book VIII., 
 Chapter IX., Sections 8 and 9, has shown that anciently from the beginning 
 Christian Churches were always dedicated to God, and not to saints ; though 
 sometimes a Church where a saint or martyr was buried, was distinguished in 
 common parlance by his or her name from that fact. There was no such evil 
 custom as existed later and exists now of calling many Churches after St. Peter- 
 or St. Paul, or St. Mary, or any other saint. So it has been thought by some 
 that the Virgin Mary was actually buried in this Church, called " the Mary " 
 [Church], or it would not, in that early age, have been so named. I will treat 
 of that point in a separate Dissertation, and will endeavor to give such fa<5ls as 
 are accessible. In Se(5lion 10, id., Bingham has shown that all altars were con- 
 secrated to God, none to any saint or other creature. 
 
22 Act I. of EpJicsus. 
 
 most devout Bishops, namely: 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, who filled the place (23) of Celestine 
 also (24), the most holy and most devout Archbishop (25) of the 
 Church of the Romans (26); and 
 
 Alas ! that we fiud the abomination of altars to creatures in Latin Churches 
 now, as for instance to Mary. 
 
 Alas ! also that we find the Latins devoting a month every year to Mary, a 
 mere creature ! And that too when God tells us to bow to God and to serve Him 
 alone (Matt, iv., 10); and when the Third Ecumenical Synod adopted the Vlllth 
 of Cyril's XII. Anathemas, which is so strong against man -worship; and when 
 the Fifth Ecumenical Synod set forth its IXth Anathema, against that error, 
 and so both those Councils of the whole Church impliedly cursed all creature- 
 service, and anathematized all guilty of it. 
 
 (23). Or ' ' discharged the duties of the place. 
 
 (24). Kvpi/l/lov 'A/lefavJpe/af, ^ik-Kovroq Kal tov tottov tov dyLordrov Kal oaiurdrov 
 dpx'-^T^i'OK.oTTOV Tfjg 'Pufiaiov EKKXyfulag KeXeoTivov. 
 
 The "also'' here means that Cyril not only representea his own See of Alex- 
 andria, but also that of Rome. The language is similar to that used of Flavian 
 of Philippi below, who represented not only his own See of Philippi, but also that 
 of Thessalonica. 
 
 (25). On this term "Archbishop," dpxt£7rlcK07Toc, E. A., Sophocles, in his 
 Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, remarks: " In the fourth 
 and fifth centuries this title was given to the Bishops of Alexandria, Rome, 
 Antioch, and Constantinople ; in the sixth century, also to the Bishop of Jeru- 
 salem; and in the seventh, to that of Cyprus." They were what the word lit- 
 erally means, ''chief Bishops,'' for each was autocephalous, and had a separate 
 set of suffragans, and a separate territory under him. 
 
 (26). According to the learned Bingham, the jurisdidlion of the Bishop of 
 Rome, at the First Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 325, was the seven provinces of 
 South Italy, and the three islands— Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, at the most. 
 See his Antiq., Book IX.. Chap. I., Sections 9-12. 
 
 Gradually, however, it was extended as the centuries rolled on, till finally 
 it included all Western Christendom. But it grew only in times of ignorance, 
 and later on of idolatry, but by usurpation and contrary to the Canons of the 
 First Four Ecumenical Councils, so that as the Revelations teaches, Rome was 
 able to make all nations drink of the "golden cup " of the "abominations and 
 filthiness of her fornication " (Rev. xvii., 4), that is of her spiritual whoredom 
 of invoking the Virgin Mary and saints, of the worship of images, painted and 
 graven, crosses, etc., relics, and the worship of an alleged real presence of the 
 aclual substance of Christ's Livi.iity in the Eucharist, which St. Cyril, approved 
 by the Third Synod, teaches, is not there at all. But it never included the East- 
 ern Church, which remained subject to its own patriarchal and autocephalous 
 thrones of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, etc. Still 
 Rome helped to corrupt the Greeks by giving her strength to the image-wor- 
 shipping party among them before the break. 
 
Names of the Bishops, 23 
 
 Juvenal of Jerusalem; and 
 
 Memnon of the [Metropolis of the] Ephesians; and 
 
 Flavian of Phihppi, who held the place of Rufus also (27), the 
 most reverent Bishop of [the Metropolis of] the Thessalonians; and 
 
 Theodotus of Ancyra in the First Galatia; and 
 
 Firmus of Caesarea, in Cappadocia Prima; and 
 
 Acacius of Melitene in Armenia; and 
 
 Iconius of Gortyna in Crete; and 
 
 Perigenes [or, " Peregrinus "] of Corinth in Greece; and 
 
 Cyrus of Aphrodisias in Caria; and 
 
 Valerian of Iconium; and 
 
 Hesychius of Parium; and 
 
 Hellanicus of Rhodes; and 
 
 Donatus of Nicopolis in Old Kpirus; and 
 
 Bucharius of Dyrrachium in New Kpirus; and 
 
 Perecius [or, ** Perrebius "] of Pharmalus; and 
 
 Eudoxius of Choma in Lycia; and 
 
 Silvanus of Chaeretapa [or Chaeretopus] in Phrygia; and 
 
 Berinianus of Perga in Pamphylia; and 
 
 Amphilochius of Sida in Pamphylia; and 
 
 Epiphanius of Cratia in Honorias; and 
 
 Gregory of Cerasus in Pontus Polemouiacus; and 
 
 Prothymius of Comana [or "of Cacona"]; and 
 
 Palladius of Amasia in Helenopontus, [or "in Hellespontus "]; 
 and 
 
 Senecio of Codra [or "of Scodra "] and 
 
 Dalmatius of Cyzicus; and 
 
 Acacius of Area; and 
 
 Docimasius of Maronia in Thrace; and 
 
 John of Proeconnesus; and 
 
 Daniel of Colonia in Cappadocia Secunda; and 
 
 Romanus of Rhaphia; and 
 
 (27). See note 24 above. 
 
24 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 Paulianus of Maiuma ["of Gaza," or, "in Gaza," the Ivatin adds. 
 The place, according to Bingham, ''Index of Episcopal Sees,"" at the 
 end of Book IX. of his Antiquities, was "in Palestina Prima"]; and 
 
 Paul of Anthedon; and 
 
 Fidus of Joppa; and 
 
 Aeanus [or "John"] of Sycamazon; and 
 
 Theodore of Gadara; and 
 
 Letoius of Libyas; and 
 
 Ampela [or, "Theodulus"] of Klusa; and 
 
 Theodore of Aribela [or "of Arbela," or "of Arbdela," or of 
 *' Aribdila"]; and 
 
 Peter of Parembola; and 
 
 John of Augustopolis; and 
 
 Saida of Phaenes; and 
 
 Rufinus of Tabae; and 
 
 Anysius of Thebae; and 
 
 Callicrates [or " Halicrates "] of Naupacflus; and 
 
 Domnus of Opus; and 
 
 Nicias of Megara; and 
 
 Agathocles of Colonia (28); and 
 
 Felix of Apollonia and of Bellias [or "and of Hellias," or "and 
 of Cecellis "]; and 
 
 Theodore of Dodone; and 
 
 Cyril of PyU, [or "of Pylae"] in the Chersonesus; and 
 
 Anderius of Chersonesus in Crete; and 
 
 Paul of Lampa [or "of Lappa"]; and 
 
 Zenobius of Gnossus; and 
 
 Lucian of Toperus [or " of Toperius "] in Thrace; and 
 
 Ennepius of Maximianopolis; and 
 
 Secundianus of Lamia, [or "of Lama," or "of Lame"]; and 
 
 Dion of Thebae in Thessaly; and 
 
 (28). There were several places of the name of Colonia. One is mentioned 
 above. That was in Cappadocia Secunda. Where this last one was is not speci- 
 fied in the text. The word in Latin means a "Colony." 
 
Names of the Bishops. 25 
 
 Theodore of Echinaeus; and 
 
 Martyrius of Helistri; and 
 
 Thomas of Derbe, [or, "of Zerba" or "Zerbe"]; and 
 
 Athanasius of Parosithus; and 
 
 Themistius of Jassus; and 
 
 Aphthonetus of Heraclea; and 
 
 Philetus of Amazon; and 
 
 Apella of Cibyrrha; and 
 
 Spudasius of Cerami, [or "of Ceramus"]; and 
 
 Archelaus of Myndus; and 
 
 Phanias of Harpasa; and 
 
 Promachius of Alinda; and 
 
 Philip of Pergama in Asia; and 
 
 Maximus of Cuma; and 
 
 Dorotheas of Myrrhina; and 
 
 Maximus of Assos; and 
 
 Aporus [or " Euporus "] of Hypepa; and 
 
 Alexander of Arcadiopolis; and 
 
 Entychius of Theodosiopolis; and 
 
 Rhodon of Palaeopolis; and 
 
 Eutropius (29) of Aegea (30); and 
 
 Aphobius of Colon (31) [or "of Colona"]; and 
 
 Nestorius of Sion (32); and 
 
 Heracleonof Tralles, [or "of Trallis"]; and 
 
 Theodotus of Nyssa; and 
 
 Theodore of Aninetum; and 
 
 Timothy of Briula; and 
 
 Theodosius of Mastaura; and 
 
 (29). The marginal note here, translated, is " Eutropius of Etenae of Cinte; 
 and Strategius of Andraponta," or "of Andraponte " in Helenopontus. 
 
 (30). The margin here has " Euaza," or " Euazae." 
 
 (31). The margin here reads, " Coloa, " or " Coloe. " The Latin is '' Col- 
 onae,** in the genitive, which would give the nominative " Colona" or "Colone." 
 
 (32). This see was in Asia Minor and suffragan to Ephesus. 
 
26 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 Eutychius of Krythra; and 
 Eusebius of Clazomenae; and 
 Euthalius of Colophon; and 
 Modestus of Anea (33); and 
 Theodosius of Priene; and 
 Eusebius of Magnesia; and 
 Sapricius of Paphos in Cyprus; and 
 Zeno of Curium (34); and 
 Rheginus of Constantia (35); and 
 Evagrius of Soli;* and 
 
 Caesarius, a '* Chorepiscopus," [that is, as *' Chorepiscopus" 
 means, "a country Bishop "]; and 
 
 Tribonianus of Aspendus in Pamphylia; and 
 
 Nunechius of Selga; and 
 
 Solon of Carallia; and 
 
 Acacius of Cotena; and 
 
 Nesius (36) of Corybrassus; and 
 
 Matidianus of Coracisia; and 
 
 Ne(5larius of Synea (37); and 
 
 Eutropius of Etena (38); and 
 
 Taurianus of Lyrbae; and 
 
 Eusebius of Aspona in Galatia; and 
 
 Philumenus of Cinna; and 
 
 Astrapetus (39); and 
 
 Eusebius of Heraclea in Honorias; and 
 
 (33)- O^' according to the margin, "Arnea." See page 438, tome 5, of 
 the editio Regia of the Concilia^ Paris, 1644.. 
 
 (34). Or "of Cyrium." The margin has **of Cyrene in Cyprus." 
 
 (35). Margin, " of Cattania." 
 
 (36). Or "Nisius," according to the Latin. 
 
 (37). Margin "of Sesennia," or "of Sesennii," 
 
 (38). Or " of Ktenna," or " of Etenni," or " of Eteni." 
 
 (39). Neither the Greek nor the Latin gives anything more than the name 
 here as above. I am here translating from page 438, of tome 5, of the Collectio 
 Regitty or Editio Regia^ Paris, A. D 1644. 
 
Names of the Bishops. 27 
 
 Paralius of Andrapa on the Hellespont (40); and 
 
 Silvanus of Ceratapa; and 
 
 Hermogenes of Rhinocurura; and 
 
 Evoptius of Ptolemais in Pentapolis; and 
 
 Kusebius of Pelusium; and 
 
 Eulogius of Terenuthis; and 
 
 Adelphius of Onuphis; and 
 
 Paul of Flavonia; and 
 
 Phoebammon of Coptus; and 
 
 Theopemptus of Cabassus; and 
 
 Macarius of Metelis; and 
 
 Adelphius of Sais; and 
 
 Macedonius of Xois; and 
 
 Marinus of Heliopolis; and 
 
 Metrodorus of Leonta (41); and 
 
 Macarius of Anteum; and 
 
 Pabiscus of Apollo (42); and 
 
 Peter of Oxyrinchus; and 
 
 Strategius of Athribis; and 
 
 Athanasius of Paralus; and 
 
 Silvanus of Coprithis; and 
 
 John of Hephaestus; and 
 
 Aristobulus of Thmuis; and 
 
 Theon of Sethroetus (43); and 
 
 Lampo (44) of Cassium (45); and 
 
 (40). Or "of Hellespontus," or '* of Helenopontus," or "in Heleno- 
 pontus." 
 
 (41). Or " of Leonti," or " of Leontes." Was this Leontopolis ? 
 
 (42). Is this the same as Apollonis Fanum in Lydia, or what had been 
 that? Bingham mentions it in the " Index of Episcopal Sees," at the end of his 
 3ook IX. 
 
 (43). Or, "Sethroetum." 
 
 (44). Or "Lampetius." 
 
 (45). Or "Casium." 
 
28 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Cyrus of Achaei (46) ; and 
 Publius of Olbia; and 
 Samuel of Dysthis; and 
 Zenobius of Barca; and 
 Zeno of Teuchira (47); and 
 Daniel of Darnis; and 
 Sosipatrus of Septimiaca; and 
 Eusebius of Nilopolis; and 
 Heraclides of Heraclea; and 
 Chrysaorius of Aphrodita (48); and 
 Andrew of Hermopolis (49); and 
 Sabinus of Pan (50); and 
 Abraham of Ostracina; and 
 Hierax of Aphnaeum; and 
 Alypius (51) of Sela (52); and 
 Alexander of Cleopatris; and 
 Isaac of Taua (53); and 
 Ammon of Butus; and 
 Heraclides of Thinis (54); and 
 Isaac of Klearchia; and 
 Heraclitus of Tamiathis; and 
 
 (46). Or " of Achaea. " 
 
 (47). Or "of Teucri," but the text reading seems better, for all those or 
 almost all those here mentioned in this part of the list of Bishops seem to be 
 Egyptians; and there were two Sees called Teuchira in Egypt, but Bingham 
 mentions no see of Teucri. Instead of Darnis in the next name below, the 
 margin has, mistakenly, I think, '' Dardanorumy 
 
 (48). Or * ' of Aphroditae. ' ' 
 
 (49). " Of Great Hermopolis," marginal reading. 
 
 (50). Was this the same as Panopolis ? 
 
 (51). Or^Elypius." 
 
 (52). Or"ofSele." 
 
 (53). Or "of Taba." The Greeks then, as now, seem to have pronounced 
 the Beta much like Upsilon, in connedlions like this; and this has given rise to 
 the difference of spelling this name here. 
 
 (54). Or "of Thynus." 
 
A^ames of the Bishops. 29 
 
 Theonas of Psychis (55); and 
 Ammoniiis of Panephesus; and 
 Bessula (56), a Deacon of Carthage (57). 
 
 (55). Or "of Psychus." or " Psychois," or ''Psyches." 
 
 (56). Or "Besula," or "Messula." 
 
 (57). The above list, as any one can see by counting it, comprises only 158 
 Bishops as a(5lually present at the opening of the Council. Three others, how- 
 ever, were represented in it by proxies; that is, Celestine of Rome, by St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria; Rufus of Thessalonica, by Flavian of Philippi; and Capreolus of 
 Carthage, by his Deacon Bessula, he himself not being able to be present nor to 
 send any of his suffragans on account of the terrible Vandal invasion, as he 
 explains in a letter to the Council. If these three Bishops, represented but not 
 present in person, be added, the whole number is 161. But that is not all who 
 really came to the Council, as we shall see stated further on, for in the long 
 period of waiting, 15 days, according to our way of reckoning. r6 by the Roman, 
 after the date appointed for the opening of the Council, to which must be added 
 whatsoever number of days they were there before June 7, 431, the date ap- 
 pointed for the opening, some had sickened and others had died. Besides, more 
 kept coming in, the late arrivals, till the number who finally subscribed, and 
 whose names are given, was 198. Others subscribed afterwards, so that the 
 whole number was over 200. 
 
 As to the names of sees, it should be remarked, 
 
 I. That as Bingham shows, they were very numerous in the ancient Church, 
 much more numerous than they are to-day, because then small towns and cities 
 had each its prelate, whereas now they are generally found in most countries in 
 large cities alone. Besides, then the territory conne6led with each Bishoprick 
 was small, whereas now, in most Christian countries, it is quite large. Hence 
 there were more Bishops in the fifth century, when, if we may trust Sharon 
 Turner's tables, there were not more than 10,000,000 of Christians, than there 
 are to-day, when five hundred millions are computed to profess the Christian 
 name. Haddan. in his article. Bishop, in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of 
 Christian Antiquities, Vol. I., page 235, outer column, states: 
 
 "The a(5lual number of Bishops in the time of Constantine is reckoned by 
 Gibbon as 1,800, of whom 1,000 were Eastern, 800 Western." In the century 
 following, that in which the Third Synod was held, as the number of Christians 
 is reckoned by Turner as 15,000,000, if we suppose the number of the Bishops 
 increased in the same proportion, there were 2,700. I think I have seen it com- 
 puted to have been 3,000, or even 6,000. One of the 13 civil Dioceses of the 
 Roman Empire, Asia Minor, which Bingham reckons to be 600 miles in length, 
 and 300 in breadth, had 388, according to Carolus a San6lo Paulo's reckoning; 
 and later, in the eighth century, there were 403 (Bingham's Antiquities, Book 
 IX., Chapter III., Sedion i). In the ancient limits of Italy he reckons about 300 
 {Antiq,, Book IX., Chapter V., Se(5lion i). In the civil Diocese of Africa in 
 
W Act I. of Ephcsus. 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter (^S) of Alexandria, and Chief of the Secretaries, 
 said : The most religious (59) Bishop Nestorius was lately 
 ordained Bishop for the holy Church of the Const antinopolitans, and 
 before many days had sped Expositions (60) of his were brought by 
 
 the time of Augustine of Hippo, about A. D. 431, there were about 466 Bish- 
 opricks (Id., Book IX,, Chapter II., Se(5lion 5). 
 
 But iu the East especially, through the idolatry and creature-worship of the 
 degenerate Christians, and God's wrath in the form of the Mohammedan scourge 
 for it, the bulk of the Christian dioceses have been wiped out, so that in the jur- 
 isdi6lion granted to Constantinople by Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth Ecumen- 
 ical Council, the three civil Dioceses of Thrace, Asia Minor and Pontus, there 
 was in 1867 not one-third of the number of sees which had existed in one of 
 them alone. The article, Constantinople, Patriarchate of, in McClintock and 
 Strong's Cyclopaedia, states on that what here follows : 
 
 " In 1867, the Patriarchate of Constantinople had 135 sees, of which 90 are 
 metropolitical and 4 archiepiscopal" Alas! the large number of metropo- 
 litical sees and the fewness of the suffragans implies what we know to be the 
 fact, that hundreds of suffragan sees have been utterly extirpated. How thor- 
 oughly large parts of the Dioceses of Pontus, and Asia Minor, have been wiped 
 out can readily be seen by examining pages 55-89 of Volume I. of Neale's 
 Eastern Church. See pages 89 and after, to see how Thrace has. So other parts 
 of the East have been devastated, and sees destroyed. Consequently it was not 
 always easy for the unlearned annotators of the middle ages to tell in their 
 ignorance exactly what the spelling of the name of an extinct see should be 
 Indeed, they often blundered as to existing sees. For instance, the margin of 
 this Council above makes Rheginus, of Constantia, a well known see, to be 
 Rheginus of Cattania, a strange blunder. See note 35. 
 
 The learned reader will find much information on the ancient Episcopates, 
 their names, etc., in the ninth Book of Bingham's Antiquities, with a list of the 
 names of the provinces and sees at the end of Vol. III. of the ten-volume edition 
 of 1855. See also Baudrand's Novum Lexicon Geographicum, Isenaci, A. D. 
 1677, Anthon's Classical Diftionary, and the fuller work of Smith, his Diction- 
 ary of Greek and Roman Geography, London, Murray, 1878. Neale's Eastern 
 Church, Vol. I., pages 19-163, is especially valuable on the Geography of the 
 Eastern Chmxh. 
 
 For some account of many of the Bishops present at Ephesus, see McClin- 
 tock and Strong's Cyclopoedia, and more fully in Smith and Wace's DiHionary 
 of Christian Biography, under their names. 
 
 At the end of Act I. we will give a summary as to the number of Bishops 
 that came fi-om each part of the Christian world to the Council. 
 
 (58). That is *' an elder," as the Greek word here used is rendered in the 
 English New Testament. 
 
 (59). Or " most reverent." 
 
 (60). Or "statements," or "expoundings," 
 
Peter' s Account of the Origm of the Controversy. 31 
 
 certain persons from Constantinople which out and out troubled 
 those who read them, so that from it much tumult was occasioned in 
 the holy churches. Cyril, the most reverent and most God-fearing- 
 Bishop of Alexandria, having learned of it, wrote a first Epistle and 
 a second Epistle to His Reverence (6i), both of them full of advice 
 and exhortation. He answered those letters, rejed;ing them, and 
 opposing himself to the advice and exhortation sent to him. And 
 besides those things, the same most religious (62) Bishop Cyril having- 
 learned furthermore that both Nestorius' Letters and Booklets of his 
 (63) Expositions had been sent off to Rome by him (64), he himself 
 also wrote to the most God-revering Bishop of Rome, Celestine, by 
 Possidonius, the Deacon, charging him that if he find that Nesto- 
 rius' Booklets of Expositions and his Letters are delivered to him 
 (65), then [said Cyril] deliver the Letters from me also; but if [Nes- 
 torius' be] not [delivered], bring mine back hither not delivered. 
 He (66), having found that Nestorius' Expositions and Letters had 
 
 (61). Or, "to His Piety," that is to Nestorius. We shall find much of this 
 frequent and often extravagant and faulty use of titles to Emperors and to others 
 among the Secretaries and others, for it was the custom of that time. See note 
 20 above. 
 
 St. Cyril wrote three letters to Nestorius before the Council met. The sec- 
 ond of them was approved by vote in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod. 
 The third Epistle, that is that of Cyril and the Synod of Egypt to Nestorius, is 
 sometimes called the Long Epistle. It has the famous and gloriously Orthodox 
 XII. Chapters at the end. It also was approved by the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil. These last two, therefore, being confirmed by the Third Synod, are part of 
 the faith of the whole Church, and may not be contradi(5led or rejecfted under 
 pain of deposition in the case of clerics, and of excommunication in the case of 
 laics. See the strong and richly deserved language of the. Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council in its Thirteenth Anathema against every man who " defends the impi- 
 ous writings of Theodoret against the right faith, and against the first and holy 
 Synod of Ephesus, and against Cyril who is among the saints, and his XII. 
 Chapters," etc. The do6lrine of both the Ecumenically approved Epistles is the 
 same, though the latter on some points is fuller than the former. And the above 
 anathema is therefore against any contradidler of either. See it in full in Act L 
 of the Third Council, below. 
 
 (62). Or " most reverent. " 
 
 (63). Nestorius', that is, the Greek is koI ^i(ilia rwv e^Tjy^aeuv avrov. 
 
 (64). By Nestorius, that is. 
 
 (65). That is, to Celestine. 
 
 (66). Possidonius. 
 
32 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 been delivered [to Celestine], as a matter of necessity (67) delivered 
 Cyril' s Letters also. And those things which were befitting were writ- 
 ten by (68J the most holy (69) Bishop of the Church of the Romans, 
 Celestine, and they contained a clear type [of doctrine]. Since, 
 therefore, by the imperial and dear-to-God Decree (70), your Holy 
 Synod has been convened here, we [hereby] inform you, as a matter 
 of necessity, that we have now in our hands (71) the papers on these 
 matters, and that they are at the service of your God-Re vering- 
 ness (72). 
 
 Juve7ial, Bishop of Jerusalem, said, Let the dear-to-God Letter 
 of our most religious and Christ-loving Emperors, which was written 
 to each of the Metropolitans (73), be read, and let it shine forth in 
 front of the Records of the Adlions of the present time (74). It 
 
 (67). 'Avay/fa/wc, ** necessarily," that is necessarily in order to do justice to 
 the Orthodox side of the question, as opposed to Nestorius. This looks as 
 though St. Cyril was loth at tirst to appeal to the whole Church on the contro- 
 versies involved, and hoped that it might be settled in the Orient, where it had 
 risen, by the crushing of the evil there; but as Nestorius by writing to Celestine 
 had made the controversy universal, and so had in effect appealed to the West 
 on it as well as to the East, Cyril, notwithstanding his love of peace, was pra<5li- 
 cally compelled to follow him, and to warn Celestine against his errors. 
 
 (68). Or "from." 
 
 (69). oGiiordrov. 
 
 (70). veii/jaTo^. 
 
 (71). Or, "at our hands," 
 
 (72). A colledlive title of the Synod. 
 
 (73). The patriarchal sees, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc., seem 
 at first to have been metropolitical. See on this Bingham's Antiquities of the 
 Christian Church, Book II,, Chapter //, and especially Section 6 and after ; 
 and Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book V., Chapter 8, who evidently regards 
 Canon VI. of the Second Ecumenical Synod as establishing them by making 
 each civil diocese a patriarchate and allowing an appeal to its Synod, the Chief 
 of which would, of course, be the Bishop of the chief city of that civil Diocese. 
 Sophocles in his Lexicon defines 'Karpiapx'K as follows: ''Patriarch, the highest 
 ecclesiastical dignity, introduced near the close of the fourth century;" he refers 
 to Fathers and others and to Chalcedon in proof. See also the article Patriarch 
 in Smith and Cheetham's DiBiofiaiy of Chris tiati Antiquities 
 
 (74). This was a compliment to the Emperor, and also a token of the 
 legality, in the eyes of the civil authorities, of the assembling of the Synod, and 
 of their duty to carry out its enactments. The Church seems to have regar;lcd 
 the Emperors at that time, if they were Orthodox, much as the Jewish Church 
 
The Emperors' First Decree, Convoking the CounciL 33 
 
 was at once (75) brought forward by the most reUgious Peter, a Pres- 
 byter (76), of Alexandria, and read as follows: 
 
 ' ' The Autocrats, Caesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Vidlors, 
 Trophy-bearers, Greatest, Ever-Revered August Ones, to Bishop 
 Cyril (77). 
 
 ** The condition of our Empire (78) has been made dependent on 
 piety towards God (79); and there is much that is cognate and con- 
 ne(5led between them. For they are upholders of each other, and 
 each is increased by the advance of the other; so that the True ReUg- 
 ion shines forth by right doing, and the State shines forth (80) welded 
 together (81) by both [true reUgion and right doing]. Foras- 
 much therefore as we have been appointed by God to reign, and 
 are bonds of union for the piety and well being (82) of our sub- 
 je(5ts, we always keep the conne(5lion between them unbroken, [so] 
 a(5ling as agents and go-betweens for God's Providence (83) and for 
 
 before Christ regarded David and Hezekiah, that is, as protedlors, though they 
 could not usurp the functions of the ministry in God's Church, and the Emper- 
 ors, being mere laymen, belonged themselves to the Church Taught and not to 
 the Church Teaching. The Greek here is, '\ov'(itvaLLoq, 'ETiV/coTrof 'lepoao/d'fzov elrrsv. 
 ' Avay/.VLjaKeado) to dEO(jnA£^ to)v evaelSEardruv aal (pikoxpiarcjv rjfiuv Baai?.eo)u ypdfi^a to -pbq ' 
 ''EKaaTov t/ji' M?jTpo7ro?.iTcjv ■ypa(j>ev, Koi TrpoXafiKETO to)V irpaTTOfMevuv vvvl 'YTro/xvTffidTow 
 'oTzep TzpoKOfiLodev fkd tov evXal^eardTov UsTpov, etc. 
 
 (75). The " at once " is in the Latin, but not in the Greek. 
 
 (76). That is "an elder. ' ' 
 
 (77). This word Bishop, to so great a Metropolitan as Cyril, accords with 
 Christian simplicity. 
 
 (78). Or, "State." 
 
 (79). The Greek here adds, "And the rest" [of it], but does not give the 
 rest of the epistle in full, because in the common arrangement of matter per- 
 taining to the Council it is put in full, not in the Adls but in the preliminary 
 part, that is in the matter de/07'e the Council, which we will make a separate 
 volume. I give it in full in its proper place here. For it was evidently read in 
 full in the above part of the First Act. 
 
 (8o\ Or "becomes illustrious." Compare the teaching of Holy Writ that 
 " Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." — Prov. 
 xiv., 34. 
 
 (81). Or "firm." 
 
 (82). Or, "well doing." 
 
 (83). Or, "God's government.** 
 
34 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 men. And we act as under-servants for that Divine Providence in 
 the increase of the State, and on the other hand we become sub-ser- 
 vants, so to speak, for all our subjeAs, that is we provide that they 
 shall both be rehgious and shall behave as becomes religious citi- 
 zens, and, as a matter of obligation, we care for both those things; 
 for it is not possible that he who watches over one of those matters 
 should not care for the other likewise. We are zealous, before every- 
 thing else, that the condition of the Church shall be (84) such as is 
 fitting towards God, and that its usefulness shall continue in our 
 times, and that it shall have, by the unanimity of all, freedom from 
 troubles; and, by peace in ecclesiastical affairs, freedom from fa(5lions; 
 and, moreover, we so act that the pious Religion may be blameless, 
 and that those in the Clericate, and those who discharge the [duties 
 of the] Great Priesthood (85) may be freed from all blame in regard 
 to evils of life. Considering that these aims can be firmly and 
 strongly attained by the love towards God and by the mutually 
 loving judgment of those who are rehgious, we have oftentimes 
 already deemed necessary the dear-to-God Meeting of the most 
 holy Bishops from all sides, on account of the events occurring 
 at different times (86). But, nevertheless, we have been the more 
 
 (84). Or, "Before everything else we put zeal for the condition of the 
 Church, that it shall be," etc. Oh, that all Christian rulers did that now, and 
 that we were saved from the false liberalism which teaches to the contrary. 
 The brightest treasure of any Christian nation is Six Synods primitive Chris- 
 tianity, the source of all its blessings, and its highest and only hope. 
 
 (85). That is, the Episcopate. The Greeks of the fourth century and 
 since have been wont to call each of their Bishops a High Priest [apxi^ptvo)^ and 
 the expression High Priesthood {apxispojovvfj) is found used of the office of Chris- 
 tian Bishops in Cyril of Alexandria, according to Sophocles' Gree/^ Lexicoyt of 
 the Roman and Byzantine Periods, See under both those Greek words in it. 
 
 (86). What those events were we know not. The language of the Emperor 
 implies that he deemed it his work and duty to assemble the Synod of the 
 Christian world, of course in conjundlion with his colleague, the Emperor of the 
 West. But while the Synods were gathered by the decree of the Emperors, who 
 could force the Bishops to attend or to stay away, nevertheless the Bishops, 
 v;here they are free, may assemble of themselves as the Apostles did in A6ls xv. 
 Yet the co-operation of the civil powers is always desirable to enforce their de- 
 cisions as to the possession of Church property, to remove heretics frc^m pees. etc. 
 
The Emperors' First Decree^ Convokmg the Coiineit, 35 
 
 slow [in assembling such a Synod], because of the trouble it would be 
 for theh: God-Reveringness (87). But the question of the present 
 necessary ecclesiastical needs, and of the public [civil] needs connecfted 
 with them, has shown that it (88) is a thing most useful and most 
 unrefusable. Wherefore, lest by negledling the thmgs which per- 
 tain to the present examination of such useful matters, they take a 
 turn to the worse (a thing which would be alien to the piety of our 
 times), thy God- Worshippingness will take, care (with God's help, 
 let it be said) that after the coming holy Pask (89) has passed, on 
 
 (87). r^f avruv QeoaE^elag. This is the title of the Synod of Bishops of the 
 whole Church. For it will be noticed that it is so called by Theodosius II., Em- 
 peror of the East, and Valentinian III., Emperor of the West, who at this time had 
 under their sway the great majority of the Bishops of the Christian world. The 
 title, it will be noticed, is in the singular, not the plural, as are also other titles 
 of the Synod of the Whole Church, East and West, then not divided. 
 
 (88). That is, ''a meeting'' of the Synod of the Bishops of the whole 
 Church, East and West. For in the days of Orthodox anti-creature-serving 
 unity all the sound Bishops of the Christian world constituted the Ecumenical 
 Synod which, however, met only six times, that is, in the Six Councils. When 
 it became idolatrous, God, as the EngUsh Reformers well teach in that golden 
 Homily of theirs Against Peril of Idolatry, which the English Church approves 
 in its Thirty-Fifth Article, split it into two parts, the West and the East, for that 
 sin, as He split the Israelitish Church before it into two parts, Judah and Israel, 
 for the same sin of creature-invoking and image-worship. And as those two 
 parts of the Twelve Tribes never came together till after the Assyrian Captivity 
 and the Babylonian (for they were together after that, A6ls xxvi., 7; and 
 James i., i), so there will be no union between the West and the East until both 
 get rid of their creature-invoking and their image-worship. Then will come 
 release for those parts of the Church which are captive to the Turk and the 
 Moor and the Arab. Then, and not before, will both meet in a Seventh Council 
 of all the sound and valid Bishops of the whole Christian world. God hasten 
 that blessed day, and bless everv true Reformer and Restorer. 
 
 (89V Or "holy Passover." We are wont to call it by the heathen expres- 
 sion, Easter, which is against the command of the old Law which forbade the 
 Israelites to take the names of the gods of the heathen into their mouths. The 
 primitive Church was careful in this matter. We should be so too. A little 
 time and trouble, which should be dear to all, would rectify this abuse. 
 
 In Webster's Unabridged Di^ionary, Springfield, Mass., 1868, under 
 Easter, we find that that term is derived from the Anglo-Saxon Eastre, old 
 High German Ostara, " a goddess of light or spring, in honor of whom a festi- 
 val was celebrated in April, whence this month was called A. S." [that is by the 
 Anglo-Saxons], 'Eastermd?iddh, O. H. Ger." [that is in old High German], 
 " Ostermanoth.^' 
 
"Se Ad L of Ephesus. 
 
 the very day of the holy Pentecost (90), it be present in the city 
 
 But what a sacrilege to call the festival of Christ's resurrection by the name 
 of a pagan goddess! Suppose the Israelites had called the Lord's Passover 
 (Exod. xii., II, 27; Levit, xxiii., 5; Numb, xxviii., 16), Baal's Passover, or Ash- 
 taroth's Passover, (Judges ii., 13), should we not be horrified ? 
 
 And so we English-speaking people call every day in the week after a 
 heathen god or goddess. Thus, instead of calling the first day of the week by 
 its primitive Christian name of Lord's Day, the name applied to it in Revela- 
 tions i., 10, ri) KvpiaKTi Tjfxipa, which is the Domiiiica Dies, that is. Lord's Day, 
 of the primitive Latins, that is the Lord Jesus Christ's Day, that is the joyful 
 Day of his resurre6lion, we term it Sunday, after the heathen deity the Sun, the 
 Baal of the Old Testament, according to some. So instead of naming the re- 
 maining days of the week as the primitive Greek and as the primitive Latin 
 Christians did, Second Day, Third Day, Fourth Day, Fifth Day, Sixth Day, and 
 Seventh Day, as is the case in service books among the Greek and Latins, even 
 jet, we call them by their pagan names — Monday, that is Moon-day, "that is, 
 day of the Moon, day sacred to the moon," as Webster tells us; Tuesday, that 
 is day of the pagan Anglo-Saxon god Tiw, ' ' the Mars of our ancestors, the god 
 of war" (Webster); Wednesday, that is Wodan's day, that is the day of the 
 Old Saxon God, Wodan, "the highest god of the Germans and Scandinavians" 
 (Webster); Thursday, that is Thor's day, the Saxon god of thunder. Webster 
 writes on it, "This day is called so from its being originally consecrated to 
 Thor, * * * the god of thunder, answering to the Jove of the Romans." 
 Friday is named after Frig, the Anglo-Saxon " goddess of marriage (equivalent 
 to [the] Lat[in] Juno), the wife of Odhin or Wodan " (Webster), and, lastly, Sat- 
 urday means Saturn's day, the day of the Anglo-Saxon god Sater, the Roman 
 Saturn. See Webster on all those days. 
 
 But the Israelites were forbidden to make mention of the names of false 
 gods, as for example, in Exod. xxiii., 13; Numb, xxxii., 38; Deut. xii., 3; Josh, 
 xxiii., 7; Psalms xvi., 4; Hoseaii., 7, and Zech. xiii., 2). 
 
 (90). Commonly called Whitsunday in English; a very defective and ob- 
 jedlionable expression. 
 
 1. Because it is comparatively late, and displaces in places the primitive 
 term Pentecost; and in all things the primitive is to be preferred to what is later. 
 *' Let the ancient customs prevail;'''' well says the Sixth Canon of the First Coun- 
 cil of the Christian World. 
 
 2. Because it makes the Lord's Day the day of the pagan Sun god, by 
 using the heathen expression Sunday. 
 
 In passing I would add that the learned Bingham, in his Antiquities of the 
 Christian Church, Book XX., Chapter VI., Section 6, mentions two reasons 
 for the name Whitsunday, as follows: 
 
 "i. Some learned men think it was hence called Whitsunday, partly because 
 of those vast diffusions of light and knowledge, which upon this day were shed 
 upon the Apostles, in order to the enlightening of the world. 
 
The Etnperors' First Decree, Co7ivoki7ig tJie Council. 37 
 
 of the Ephesians in Asia, th}^ God-Worshippingness providing a 
 few most holy Bishops of the Province which is under him, as 
 many as he (91) may approve, to run together to the same cit}^ 
 
 "But [2], priucipally, because this being one of the stated times of baptism 
 in the ancient Church, they who were baptized put on zuhite garme^its, in token 
 ■of that pure and innocent course of hfe they had now engaged in." 
 
 According to the former understanding of the word Whitsunday, it should be 
 written Wit Lord's Day, that is Wisdom Lord's Day, because the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost was poured out on that day, that is, His gifts of heavenly wisdom, 
 and knowledge, which is part of wisdom, and included in it, by which the 
 Apostles, according to Christ's promise, were * ' endued with power from on 
 high:' (Luke xxiv., 49; John xiv., 16, 17, 26; John xvi., 7-16). Up to that time 
 they were to remain in Jerusalem, (Luke xxiv., 49). But on that day their mis- 
 sion from God and authority were attested by miracle, and the gift of tongues 
 was given, and thereafter we find in the Church all other miraculous as well as 
 ■ordinary gifts of the Spirit (i. Cor. xii., xiii., and xiv). So the Church was en- 
 abled to proclaim the Gospel to all the nations, according to Christ's command 
 in Matt, xxviii., 19, 20; to each in their own tongue. 
 
 While, therefore, I do not deny that the fact that the newly baptized wore 
 white robes on Pentecost may have given rise to the name IFhit in Whit Lord's 
 Day, yet as that was a mere incidental thing, not at all peculiar to that day, for 
 Mie Pask Lord's Day was the greatest time for baptizing and wearing white gar- 
 ments in the whole year, I prefer to spell the word Wit, and so to say IVii 
 Lord's Day, or Wisdom Lord's Day, which is even better, because now better 
 understood than Wit Lord's Day, for the word Wit in modern times has come to 
 mean not wisdom so much as a capacity to make and utter funny sayings. P'or 
 to commemorate the outpouring of the Spirit and his gifts on that day is the 
 main and original import of that festival. We see in Ac^ls ii. that basic idea. 
 And so Bingham in his Antiquities, Book XX., Chapter VI., Sedlion 6, in 
 the context of the above quotation, well writes of the ancient Christians, 
 
 "They kept it [Pentecost] not as a Jewish feast, but only as a commemo- 
 ration of the glorious effusion of the Spirit in the gift of tongues, and other 
 miraculous powers, made at this time upon the disciples. Hence it had also the 
 name of ijiikpa Uvevimror, the day of the Holy Ghost, as we find in Nazianzen and 
 others. ' ' To conclude : 
 
 1. It is best to use the common primitive and Scriptural expression Pente^ 
 cost, which is well used in the Emperor's edict above. 
 
 2. We may use Wisdom Lord's Day at times; and 
 
 3. At times Day of the Holy Ghost or Day of the Spirit. 
 
 (91). Literally "it," that is Cyril's God-Worshippingness, or, in other 
 words, Cyril himself. This superabundance of title is nauseating and is the 
 language of the, in some respedts, non-exemplary Byzantine Emperor, Theodo- 
 
38 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 (92), so that there may remain a sufficient number of most holy 
 Bishops for the most holy Churches in the same Province, and that 
 there be in no wise lacking a fit number (93) for the Synod. 
 
 ' ' For copies [of this decree] of our Serenity in regard to the afore- 
 said most holy Synod have been written to the dear-to-God Bishops 
 of the Metropolitical cities everywhere, so that when this thing is fin- 
 ished the trouble which has arisen from the matters in dispute may 
 be settled in accordance with the Ecclesiastical Canons, and that 
 corre(5lion may be given to those things which have occurred not as 
 they should have done; and that piety towards God may be made 
 firm, and that firm profit may result to the public civil interests. Of 
 course, no innovation may be made by any persons of their own pri- 
 vate fancy before the most holy Synod, and the Decision which is to 
 be given by it by a vote in common (94) on all matters. And we 
 
 sius the Second, and not ours. The Western Roman Empire died in the fifth 
 century, and with it much of such flattering and pompous and often insincere 
 stuff which had been derived from paganism, and its deification of its Bmperors, 
 whom it named gods. Hence, such trash never became so common in the West 
 as in the East, where, under the influence and force of the corrupting Empire, it 
 was developed in Church and State, and became worse and worse till the rotten 
 Eastern Empire fell in K. D. 1453. May such language never be used among 
 us. For it leads to insincerity and lying. Let us remember the words of Elihu 
 in Job xxxii., 21, 22, " lyCtme not, I pray you, accept any man's person, neither 
 let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; 
 in so doing my Maker would soon take me away." Happily, among the more 
 intelligent and wiser in the East as well as in the West, there is a growing disap- 
 proval of Byzantine titles and a preference for those which are Scriptural and 
 Ante-Nicene. 
 
 Page 492 and after of tome v. of Ralle and Potle's Syntagma show how 
 Ecclesiastical titles were amplified among the Greeks about A. D. 1379- 1389, 
 when Urban VI. was Patriarch of Rome, and Nilus Patriarch of Constantinople, 
 for their names occur on that page as contemporaries. The present titles of the 
 Patriarch of Constantinople, such as your All Holiness, which is blasphemous, 
 and Ecumenical Patriarch, which no Russian Bishop, no Servian, no Bulgarian, 
 no Roumanian, (which nations together constitute nineteen-twentieths of the 
 Eastern Church), admits in its natural and full sense, nor indeed does the Epis- 
 copate of Free Greece, should be laid aside. 
 
 (92). Or "to the same Synod." 
 (93)- Or, "enough." 
 
 (94). Here the original idea of gathering the Synod is plainly stated. It 
 is that a decision be given by a com,m,on vote, that is, by a vote in common {Koiv'tf 
 
The Emperors' First Decree, Convoking the Conncii .')9 
 
 are persuaded on the one hand that each one of the most dear-to- 
 God Sacerds (95), (who know that the most holy Synod is hastened 
 
 i/;//(/)(j). Of course this is radically contradi6lory to the Roman heresy that Rome 
 alone may decide on do<flrine for the* whole Church. And the Easterns never 
 admitted the Roman view. The Church had taught this do6lrine to both Em- 
 perors, and they merely embodied it in this their Decree. The Sixth Ecumen- 
 ical Council, A. D. 6S0, having condemned in its Definition and Adls, Pope Hono- 
 rius as a heretic and 7^^ instruinent to work out the devil's will in raising up the 
 Monothelite heresy, has anticipatively condemned Papal Infallibility, and 
 taught us to look to the assembled Episcopate, that is Apostolate, of the world,- 
 that is, to an Ecumenical Council, as Christ does in Matt, xviii., 15- 19, and not 
 to Peter alone, of whose fallibility we have more examples than we do of any 
 other Apostle's (Matt, xxvi., 31-36, 57, 58, 69.75, inclusive; Mark xiv., 27.32, 53, 
 54, 66-72, inclusive; Luke xxii., 31-39. 54-62; John xiii., 36-38, inclusive; John 
 xviii., 13-19, 25-27 inclusive, and Galatians ii., 10-21, inclusive). If the Em- 
 peror or the Bishops had believed Celestine, Bishop of Rome, to be infallible, 
 thev need not have met in Ecumenical Council, but have let him alone settle the 
 Nestorian heresy. But no one thought of doing that. Indeed, St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria's Letters had vastly more to do with formulating the dogmas of the 
 Council than a dozen Celestines could have, for he was their teacher, as the A6ls 
 show, on the dodlrines involved in the controversy, some of which are not even 
 mentioned in Celestine's Epistle, read in the Council. Aye, we shall find the 
 Six Provinces of the Latin African Church under Carthage resisting this same 
 Celestine's attempt to secure Appellate Jurisdi6lion over them. But that claim 
 is a part of Rome's Dogma of her sole Universal Jurisdidlion. See Chrystal's 
 articles on that in the Church Journal for 1870. 
 
 (95). I use sacerd from the Latin sacerdos, here, because priest is ambig- 
 uous, because being derived from presbyter it originally meant ''elder.'" Herv, 
 from ifpei^c, is a shorter word, and "performer of holy adlions," gives the full 
 meaning. With an adjedlive Hervic, it might be preferred as shorter than 
 Sacerd, and its adje6live Sacerdotal. The word is here used for Bishops, and 
 very properly and very scripturally, for as every Christian is a Sacerd {kpevg in 
 the Greek of the New Testament; I. Peter ii., 5, kpdrev/ia, that is sacerdhood; 
 I. Peter ii., 9, iepdrevfia, the same in meaning; and Rev. i., 6, lepeic, that is 
 sacerds, that is hervs), therefore every Deacon is a herv [l^pek), in a higher 
 sense; a presbyter in a sense higher yet; and a Bishop, by virtue of his office, in 
 the highest sense of all. Under the Mosaic Covenant, there was also a Herv- 
 hood {lepdrev/xa) of the people, Exodus xix., 6, as well as a higher Priesthood of 
 the Sons of Aaron, and between those two was what we may term another grade 
 of Priesthood, the Levites. But though hieratic, that is hervic worship was the 
 duty of the people, in common with the Levite and the Priest, yet there were 
 certain ministerial fundlions which were peculiar to the Levites into which the 
 people could not intrude; and there were still other ministerial fundlions into 
 which neither the people nor the Levites could intrude, as we see by the fate of 
 
40 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 in assembling by this our Decree, for the sake of both Ecclesiastical 
 and Ecumenical \_oixouixevu(bi\ affairs), will earnestly co-run (96) to do 
 all he can for things so necessary and [so] anticipatively pleasing to 
 
 Korah, the Levite, and the two Reubenite laymen, in Numbers xvi., for their 
 attempt to do that very thing. So no Christian laic, male or female, can usurp 
 the fundlions of the Deacon, nor can any laic or Deacon usurp the fundlions of 
 the Presbyter, nor can any person of any one of these three classes usurp the 
 peculiar functions of the Bishop, Of course it is understood that no obedience 
 or honor is to be granted to a creature-invoking or image-worshipping Bishop or 
 cleric of any grade, be he Arian, Macedonian, Nestorian, Butychian, or Romish,, 
 or of any other such Communion, for the Decisions of the Six Councils forbid 
 us to regard such men as clerics while they continue in their present errors and 
 consequent disabilities, and till they have satisfied all the requirements of 
 Christ's laws. We must have sound Six Synods Bishops or none till we can get 
 them. 
 
 Another remark should be made here; that is, that the Christian Hervhood 
 of the people are a Priesthood, that is a Hervhood in a higher sense than ever 
 were the Israelites, because their sacrifices, \i€vi\% spiritual (II. Peter ii.. 5), are 
 fur that very reason higher than the merely carnal that is fieshly ordinances. 
 imposed on the Israelites till the time of Reformation (Heb. ix., 10), when they 
 were to be displaced by the spiritual sacrifices of the New Covenant of Christy 
 as they have been for more than 1800 years; the offerings of blood on one nar- 
 row spot, Moriah, have been changed for the unbloody sacrifices of Christ's 
 religion, the Eucharist of which has always borne the non-carnal, glorious 
 name of the Bloodless Sacrifice [avaifiaKroq Ovaia). But there are some thick- 
 headed men yet who can not see that precisely because a sacrifice is spiritual it 
 is therefore higher than one which \% fleshly, which consists in killing a bullock 
 or sheep or goat, etc. Hence they changed in the middle ages by transubstan- 
 tiation the Bloodless Sacrifice into one that was Bloody, and they brought in the 
 heresy which St. Cyril condemned as Cannibalism {avdpcoTroipayia). And Nesto- 
 rius' utterances looking towards that error were part of the heresies which led to 
 his condemnation by the whole Church in the Third Ecumenical Synod, for that 
 infallible Council condemned by necessary implication all such heresies for- 
 ever. And the controversy cannot be reopened again. It is a ruled case. 
 
 Moreover, as our Sacrifices because spiritual are higher than the fleshly 
 oflFerings of the carnal Israel, so the offerings of praise and thanksgiving of the 
 saints in heaven being presented with more spiritual minds than ours constitute 
 them a higher Priesthood than we in our imperfect spirituality are. 
 
 So that the Priesthood, that is Hervhood, is progressive, each step being 
 higher than the last till the highest is reached before God's throne among the 
 blessed saints of all ages. And so is the Holy Spirit glorified. 
 
 (96). Or "concur," avv6paiizlv. The word has both meanings, though the 
 former, in the text, is the original one. 
 
The EfJtperors' First Decree, Convoking the Coiutcil. 
 
 God; and we, on the other hand, who take much care of these 
 things, will not suffer with patience any one to be absent. And he 
 who does not at once go in haste at the aforesaid time to the ap- 
 pointed place will have no defence before God nor before us. For 
 he who is called to a Sacerdotal Synod and does not earnestly and 
 speedily co-run to it, is [by that very fact] shown not to be of a 
 right conscience. God guard thee through many years, most holy 
 (97) and most reUgious Father. 
 
 ' ' Given the thirteenth day before the Calends of December, in 
 Constantinople, in the Consulship of our Lords (98) Theodosius and 
 Valentinian the Eternal August Ones (99), Theodosius being Consul 
 for the thirteenth time, and Valentinian for the third" (100), (loi). 
 
 Firmus, Bishop of Caesar ea in Cappadocia, said: ' 'As to this matter 
 (102) let the most-dear-to-God and most holy Bishop of the City of 
 
 (97). OGLUTaTE. 
 
 (98). rc)v AeGTTOTCJV ^/uuv. 
 
 (99). The Greek is, ruv a'uovluv Avyovaruv. 
 
 (100). The Greek as in the matter before the Synod here adds: " And this 
 Decree being read, those things which are written in the A6ls were done in Ephesus 
 by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod on account of the impious Nestorius . " But 
 this last sentence, of course, is not in the Adls themselves. 
 
 (loi V This date in our computation was November 19, 430. That was more 
 than six months before the day appointed for the opening of the Ecumenical 
 Council. Neither John of Antioch, therefore, nor any other of Nestorius' 
 friends could plead that he had not sufficient notice of the time and place of its 
 meeting. And yet it pleases some still to talk as though their delay was not 
 their own fault, and as though the Council passed a snap judgment on the here- 
 siarch: though they waited 15 days over the set date for him and his friends. 
 What majority in our time in any ecclesiastical Council or political Convention 
 will wait so long for a small minority of recalcitrants ? 
 
 (102). That is, as to the matter of meeting on Pentecost in accordance with 
 the imperial mandate just read, to decide on the faith. Pentecost in A. D. 431 
 was on June 7 (Hefele, History of the Church Coicncils, English translation, 
 Vol. III., page 44). Firmus wishes to show how ready the Orthodox had been 
 to meet the imperial order, though Cyril and his Egyptians had to come a greater 
 distance than John of Antioch, and many other supporters of Nestorius. This 
 public witness was wisely called for in the interest of the Orthodox Council in 
 the aAion which they were about to take, should the Emperor, who, to some 
 extent at least, favored Nestorms, oppose the anti-creature-worshipping deci- 
 sions of the Council. The date of this first session of the Synod is, according 
 to Hefele, June 22, 431. The Bishops in reckoning sixteen days since they came 
 
42 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Kphesus bear witness for us how large a number of days have passed 
 since our arrival [here]." 
 
 Memnon, Bishop of the City of Ephesus, said: "Sixteen days 
 have passed since the decreed and fore-appointed day mentioned in 
 the pious and dear-to-God-Letter [of the Emperors just read]." 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said: ''This Holy and Great Synod 
 has endured sufiQcient in waiting for the arrival of the most dear-to- 
 God Bishops who were expe(5led to come. And since many of the 
 Bishops [have suffered]; [for] some have fallen sick, and some have 
 died (103), and it is in consonance [with our aim in coming here] 
 that we should do what shall satisfy the purposes mentioned in the 
 Decree (104) [of the Emperors], and define on (105) the matters re- 
 garding the Faith for the profit and help of the whole world (106), 
 let the papers which complete the whole statement as to the business 
 before us be read in their order; especially because a second Decree 
 also, of the most-dear-to-God and most Christ-loving Emperors has 
 been read (107) to the Synod by Candidian, the most magnificent 
 
 to Ephesus seem to mean since the Council should have opened. In reckoning 
 sixteen days between June 7 and June 22 they include, in accordance with the 
 usual Roman method of computing dates, both the day, June 7, from which 
 they start to reckon, and the one at which they stop, in this case June 22, so 
 making sixteen. I have referred to that above in Note 57. 
 
 (103). Or " departed;" Qre^^ aTroyeyovacL. 
 
 (104). This refers to the First Decree of the Emperors to the Council, 
 which had been just read. 
 
 (105). 6ia?iaj3eiv. 
 
 (106). Literally, " of all under heaven. " 
 
 (107). Or "has been read by way of preface," as the word here used, vTrave- 
 yvuGdrj is rendered in the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, 
 published by the Harpers, of New York, in 1883. But in its plain use by Flavian, 
 Bishop of Philippi, below (col. 1009, tome 3 of Coleti's Cone), the same Greek 
 word means merely ''read,'' and the Latin for it there is r^a/?a/a. The Latin 
 here has not the words "to the Synod," but merely says that the decree had 
 been "fore-read." I quote it here: " Proinde Chartulae illae, quae ad praesens 
 institutum faciunt^ ordiue recitentur, maxime.quod alterum jam piissimorum 
 Christianissimorumque Imperatorum nostrorum decretum per Candidianum 
 magnificum illustremque devotorum Domesticorum Comitem praele6lum est, 
 quod praecipit, ut quae ad fidei questionem spedlant, discutiantur, ac citra 
 omnen cundlationem definiantur. See it in Coleti Cone , tom. 3, col. 999. The 
 reference is to the Second Decree of the Emperors to the Council. See it in 
 this volume in the Forematter, number IV. 
 
The Emperors' First Decree, Convokmg the Coicncil. 43 
 
 and most glorious Count of the devoted Household Troops [of the 
 Emperor], which commands that the matters on the Faith be 
 searched into and a Decision pronounced by us without any delay." 
 
 In any case the reading of the Letter seems not to have been in this first 
 official and open Act of the Synod, but before it. This document seems to for- 
 bid impliedly the Synod to depose Nestorius, and seems, arrogantly enough, to 
 wish to reserve that question to a gathering not specified in Constantinople itself, 
 where of course Nestorius could the more readily manage affairs for evil. There- 
 fore the Synod did well to give such an absurd claim the go-by as it did here. 
 For it would not do to fetter its adlion and to hinder it from deposing Nesto- 
 rius as a heretic and Man-Server, and therefore a creature-server; for that would 
 have been pra6lically to let the leaven and virus of that pagan error poison 
 gradually the whole Church. It was necessary to cut out the spreading tumor 
 to save the Church's life, and the Church did it wisely and well, and not a mo- 
 ment too soon. In that document the Emperor assumes too much of the Dicta- 
 tor, and the Master of the Bishops, in laying down the law he would have them 
 follow in things which v/ere purely in their ecclesiastical province and not iji his; 
 and so was tyrannical towards them, and would limit their God-given liberty in 
 their own spiritual sphere, and substitute his own private will and fancy for the 
 guidance of the Holy Ghost promised by Christ himself to the Universal Apos- 
 tolate in Matthew xxviii., 20, in John xiv., 16, 17; John xv., 26; John xvi., 
 13; I. Tim. iii., 15. And the Episcopate and the Apostolate are the same, for 
 Judas' office is called by both names; see in proof A6ls i, 20, 25. And there 
 are no less than eight new Apostles mentioned in the New Testament besides 
 the first Twelve. See under (n:6crokoq in the Euglishman's Greek Co7icordance 
 to the New Testament. 
 
 Besides, the general tenor of the document was to reserve to the Emperors 
 pradlically supreme Episcopal power over the Bishops, and the presence, (author- 
 ized by the Emperor), in the Council of Candidian, and Count Irenaeus, his 
 associate, friends of Nestorius, looks as though the matter were arranged at the 
 intercession of Nestorius, the Emperor Theodosius' own Bishop, to keep him 
 from being tried, and to bully and frighten the Council into doing what the 
 Emperor wished, though the language of this other decree of the Emperor is 
 specious, and therefore the more dangerous. But the Bishops nobly refused to 
 allow him the rule over them which belongs to God alone. 
 
 There is still another letter of Theodosius II. written before the Synod 
 met, to St. Cyril, the great Teacher on the Inman. It is largely a scolding 
 of Cyril by the Emperor for his defence of God's truth. It is a plain con- 
 demnation of Cyril in advance by the misinformed E^mperor, whose \\\ vA 
 seems to have been warped on this whole matter by Nestorius, who was no -.r 
 him always, whereas Cyril was in far distant Alexandria. It even threatens 
 Cyril, whom it is clear that the Autocrat then hated. I will give it, God willing, 
 in another volume containing the Forematter to the Third Synod. No man 
 who has not read it can fully understand the nobleness of Cyril and his rare 
 
44 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, said: "The reading of the papers 
 shall be done at the necessary time (io8). Now, however, it is in 
 order that the most-dear-to-God Bishop Nestorius also shall be pres- 
 ent at the a(5lions, so that the matters which pertain to piety may 
 stand by the common judgment and assent." 
 
 Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinociirora, said: "We were sent yes- 
 terday by your God-worshippingness to admonish (109) the most 
 religious Nestorius to co-sit in the Holy Synod; and we went to him, 
 
 courage in defending God's truth against Nestorius, the Man-Worshipper's vio- 
 lation of the first law of Christianity, " Thou shall bow lo the Lord thy God, 
 and Him only shall thou serve,'' Matt, iv., 10. Few men have been so misun- 
 derstood and slandered as the great Cyril; aye, even by the Reformed, who should 
 have known better. None of the Reformers of the sixteenth century had a. 
 head more clear, a logic more incisive and decisive, and a heart more firm against 
 every form of creature-service and image- worship than he. Indeed, it is very 
 •loubtful whether any of them was his equal in such matters. And very rarely 
 in history can be found an instance of a whole Synod or nearly a whole Synod 
 of Bishops standing so firmly by a leader as the 200 Prelates at Ephesus stood 
 by him even when he was arrested and in durance for his and their faith, and 
 when he was deprived by the Emperor of his see, and when they all stood in 
 peril of the same loss and of exile. Neither he nor the great bulk of them seem 
 to have quailed even for a moment. They put duty to God first, and found 
 help in Him. 
 
 (108). "■ The papers which complete the whole statement as to the business 
 before its'" I suppose to be the documents read in this Act I. afterwards, such as 
 the Epistle of Nestorius to Cyril, Cyril's two Epistles to him, the Passages from 
 the Fathers, and the Passages from Nestorius' writings, the Epistle of Celestine, 
 Bishop of Rome, and that of Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage. 
 
 Theodotus, a clear-headed business man, proposes first that the accused, 
 Nestorius, be summoned to appear before the Council before anything else was 
 done. Then he could make no complaint of unfairness if the verdict of the 
 Church was against him. The law of the three summonses to a Bishop before 
 trial by a Synod of Bishops is in Matt, xviii,, 15 to 21, and from that in the so- 
 called Apostolic Canon LXXIV. , which though not from the Apostles is, never- 
 theless. New Testament in Spirit, and expresses a very ancient custom of the 
 Church, at least so far as the number of times the accused is to be summoned is 
 concerned. From Robinson's English Harmofiy of the Gospels, Secflion 79, we 
 see that the words of Christ, in Matthew xviii., 15 to 21, were spoken to the 
 Twelve Apostles. See in that Section, Mark ix , 35, which is one of the parallel 
 places to Matt, xviii., 1-35. 
 
 (109). Or, "to remind." The term is courteous and polite; vTrofivijaat, 
 
The First Summons to Nestoriiis. The Second. 45 
 
 admonishing him on this matter, but he persisted in sajang, ' / will 
 see [about it]. If it may be needful for me to go, I will go' " 
 
 Athanasius, J^ishop of Paralus, said: "We were sent yester- 
 day by your God-Worshippingness to admonish the most rehgious 
 Nestorius to co-sit in this Holy Synod, and we went to him, and 
 admonished him on that matter; but he kept persistently saying, ' T 
 will see [about it]; and if it may be necessary for me to gOy I will go.' " 
 
 Peter y Bishop of Parembola, said: "We were sent yesterday by 
 your God-Worshippingness to the most religious Bishop Nestorius to 
 admonish him that the Holy Synod will sit on this very day. And 
 he answered saying, ' / will see [about it], and if it may be necessary 
 for me to go, I will go.' And moreover, the most rehgious and most 
 dear-to-God Bishops who were there, who were few in number, about 
 six or seven, were admonished also; and they also said: * We wilt 
 see about it, and if we approve, we will go to-morrow.' " 
 
 Paul, Bishop of Lampe, said: "In accordance with the com- 
 mand of your Holy and Blessed Synod for us to go to the most relig- 
 ious Nestorius to admonish him to come to-day to your Holy and 
 Blessed Synod, I also went w4th the holy brethren who have just 
 made their statements, and I admonished him to come to-day to your 
 Holy Synod and to co-sit [with the rest of the Bishops]. But he 
 said: ' If I shall approve' (says he), ' the7i I will be prese?it.' 
 Moreover, we admonished not only him, but also some other most 
 religious Bishops whom w^e found with him. There were only a 
 small number of Bishops [with him], about six or seven.' " 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: "Some of the most religious 
 Bishops shall go and admonish him again to come and co-sit with 
 the Holy Synod." 
 
 And there were sent by the Holy Synod Theodulus, Bishop of 
 Elusa in Palestine; Anderius, Bishop of Cherronesus in Crete; The- 
 opemptus, Bishop of Cabassus in Eg^^pt; and Epaphroditus, a Reader 
 and Secretary of Hellanicus, the most religious Bishop of the City 
 of the Rhodians. And they bore a document to be read from the 
 Holy Synod to the most religious Bishop Nestorius himself. And it 
 contained the following: 
 
 * * It w^as indeed behooving thy God-Worshippingness when 
 admonished yesterda}^ through the most religious and most God- 
 
46 Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 Worshipping Bishops that he should co-run to the Holy Synod which 
 is to-day celebrated in the Holy and Universal Church (no); not to 
 be absent and lacking to it. But since the Holy Synod is assembled, 
 and thy HoUness is absent and lacking, we again necessarily exhort 
 thee by Theopemptus, and Theodulus, and Anderius, the most rev- 
 erent and most God- worshipping Bishops; and by Epaphroditus, a 
 Reader and Secretary, of the City of the Rhodians, to be present, 
 and not to be absent and lacking to the matters which may be trans- 
 a6led; especially as the most religious and most dear-to-God Emper- 
 ors have commanded us to lay aside everything else, and to settle 
 firmly the matters concerning the faith." 
 
 And after they returned, Peter, a Presbyter (in) of Alexandria, 
 and Chief of the Secretaries, said: ''Since the most reverent and 
 most dear-to-God Bishops, who were sent by the Holy Synod, have 
 returned and are present, we will deem it an honor if they will state 
 (112) what sort of an answer they have received. 
 
 Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabassus, said: "Being sent by this 
 Holy and Great Synod to the most reverent Nestorius, we went to 
 his house (114). And seeing a multitude of soldiers with clubs, we 
 begged that he be notified [of our presence]. But they held us off 
 saying, ' He is alone and is resting, and we have been commanded to 
 permit no one to enter and to be with him.' But we said: ' It is 
 impossible for us to depart, unless we receive an answer; for the 
 Holy Synod has sent a document to be read to him, in which they 
 exhort him to co-sit with them. Therefore his clerics came out and 
 gave us the same answer as the soldiers [did].' 
 
 ' ' But inasmuch as we persisted and sought to get an answer 
 [from the soldiers on the same matters (115)], there came out Flor- 
 
 (lio). Or, "convened," avyKpoTovakvrjv ev ry 'Ayla kol Ka^oA//c^ 'E/c/c/lTycr/a. 
 
 (ill). That is, * ' elder, ' ' Trp£a[3vT£poc. 
 
 (112). Or, " We ask them to state." Greek, a^covfiev avrolc KaraOeadai. 
 
 (114). The Greek here is eyi'vo/ieda ev ry tovtov oiKia, which in classic times 
 would mean, "we came in his house," or "we were in his house. " But Sopho- 
 cles, in his Lexicon of Later and Byzantine Greek, under iv, shows that it is 
 used in the sense of "to" (fir). That must be the sense here, for below we 
 read that the messengers of the Synod were not permitted "to enter " {tLCEWnv'). 
 
 (115). The words " from the soldiers on the same matters" are lacking in 
 the Latin translation; and as they are exa(ftly the same as in the last sentence 
 above in the Greek, they may be an inadvertent repetition of them by the copy- 
 ist, though on the other hand they may be not. 
 
The Second Sii7nmo7is to Nestorius. The Third. 47 
 
 entius, the most devoted Tribune, who is with Candidian, the most 
 magnificent and most glorious Count of the devoted Household 
 Troops, and induced us to remain, on the ground that he would 
 bring us an answer. 
 
 ''And now we accepted that proposition with pleasure (ii 6). 
 Afterwards (117) he came out with Nestorius' clerics (118), and 
 said to us: 'I have not been able to see him; but he gave diredlions 
 to say to your God-Worshippingness, After all the Bishops have 
 come together, we will meet with them, but we made protest [against 
 his delay] both before him and all the soldiers there present, and 
 his clerics, and departed.' " 
 
 Theodidus, Bishop of Elusa, said: '*I also heard the same 
 things, and state the same things." 
 
 Anderius, Bishop of Cherronesus in Crete, said: ''I also, in 
 accordance with the decree of the Holy and Blessed Synod, went 
 there, and said and heard the same things, just as the most God- 
 worshipping Bishops with me have stated, without leaving out any- 
 thing." 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: ''Forasmuch as it behooves 
 us to omit none of those things which pertain to Ecclesiastical Order, 
 and forasmuch as it is clear that the most dear-to-God Nestorius was 
 admonished (119) to appear yesterday, and a second time to-day, and 
 has not come, he shall be admonished (120) again a third time, and 
 by a citation to be read. Therefore let Anysius, Bishop of Thebae 
 (121), in Greece (122), and Memnon (123), Bishop of the same 
 Greece (124), and John, Bishop of Hephaestus, in Augustamnica, 
 
 (116). Or, "And then we received " [an answer], koX 67j ede^dfieda. 
 
 (117). Or, "later,"' vGTEpov. 
 
 (118). The Latin translation has here, instead, " he came out together with 
 a certain cleric of Nestorius," Tandem una cum quodam Nestorii clerico foras 
 egressus. 
 
 (119). Or, "cited." 
 
 (120). Or, "cited." 
 
 (121). Thebes is the English name. 
 
 (122). Or, "Hellas." 
 
 (123). The Latin translation has " Domnus " instead of Memnon; and so 
 has the Greek, but in its margin only. I translate from Colet4. 
 
 (124). Or, " Hellas." 
 
48 Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 and Daniel, Bishop of Darnis in Libya, our most God-worshipping 
 Fellow-Ministers, go and admonish him the third time. And they 
 went away with Anysius, the Secretary and Reader of Firmus, the 
 Bishop of Cappadocia, who bore the citation to be read, which con- 
 tained the following: 
 
 ''The most Holy Synod, in obedience to the Canon (125) and treat- 
 ing thee with forbearance and long-suffering, co-calls thy Piety by 
 this third call. Deem it therefore a worthy thing even now at last 
 to meet with us and to defend thyself in regard to the heretical dog- 
 mas which they say that thou hast uttered before the Church, before 
 the common assembly of the Church. Knowing that if thou dost 
 not meet with us, and make a stand and defence against the unwrit- 
 ten and the written charges which are made against thee, the most 
 Holy Synod will hold it necessary to decree against thee those things 
 which are enacfled in the Canons of the Holy Fathers." 
 
 After they returned, Peter, a Presbyter (126) of Alexandria, and 
 Chief of the Secreta7des, said: "And now since the most reverent 
 Bishops who were sent have returned, we beg them to state what 
 sort of an answer they met with." 
 
 fohn, Bishop of Hephaestzis, said: "Having been sent by this 
 holy and dear-to-God Synod to summon (127) by the third summons, 
 to be read, the most God-worshipping Nestorius, to co-run even now 
 at last to the Holy Synod, that the matters (128) on the faith may 
 be examined while his God-Worshippingness is present; in accord- 
 ance w4th the commands given us by your God-Worshippingness, 
 we went to his abode (129). And when we came to the space before 
 the doors of the gate, we found a multitude of soldiers with clubs, 
 standing in the very space before the doors of the gate. And we 
 begged to be admitted into the gateway of the house where the same 
 most God- Worshipping Nestorius is staying, or that they w^ould at 
 least give notice that we were sent by the Holy Synod with a third 
 summons, to be read, which gently calls him with all mildness to the 
 Holy Synod. And we remained much time, but we were not per- 
 mitted by the soldiers to stand in the shade, but they pushed us inso- 
 
 (125). Or, "to the rule," roj /cai^dvf. 
 
 (126). That is " an elder, " TrpfCT/^repof, 
 
 (127). Or, " to admonish, " i'7ro//v7/(Taf. 
 
 (128). Tovq ire pi Tfjq Tzlareug Kare^eraGft^vai Tioyovg. 
 
 (129). Or, "stopping place," /carajwy^oj;. 
 
The TJiird Summons to Nestor ius. Juvenal on a Fourth. 49 
 
 lently (130) and sent us away from those places and gave us no kind 
 (131) answer. And when we had continued there for a long time 
 (132), entreating and saying that we are Bishops four in number, 
 that we had been sent not to insult, not to do any thing insulting, 
 nor anything unbecoming, but now again with all due observance of 
 •order to admonish him to come to this sacred Church and to co-sit 
 with this Holy Synod, at last the soldiers sent us away, saying 
 that we should receive no other answer, even though we should wait 
 until evening in the spaces before the doors of the gate of the house. 
 And they added furthermore the statement that they stood in the 
 spaces before the doors of the gates, for the very purpose of not per- 
 mitting any one from the Synod to enter; and that they had received 
 those commands from him [Nestorius] . ' ' 
 
 Afiysius, Bishop of Thebae, said: "The very things which the 
 most holy brother and fellow-minister John has stated, are true. 
 For we stood a long time in the space before the doors of the gate of 
 the most reverent Nestorius, and saw and heard those things." 
 
 Do77i7ius (133), Bishop of Opus in Hellas (134, said: "The very 
 things which the most holy and most dear-to-God brethren and Fel- 
 low-Ministers John and Anysius have stated, I also saw and heard." 
 
 Daniel^ Bishop of Darnis, said: "I heard those very things 
 w^hich the most God- Worshipping Bishops have stated, and they are 
 true." 
 
 From this point the godly Synod begins to examine the dogmas 0/ 
 Nestorius. 
 
 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said: "Although the Church's 
 established laws determine it to be sufficient, if persons accused be 
 summoned a third time to make their defence regarding those things 
 of which they may be accused, we were ready over and above this 
 by a fourth citation, to be read, through Bishops most dear-to-God 
 again to call the most religious Nestorius. But because he has 
 placed a body of soldiers about his dwelling, so that the most God- 
 fearing-Bishops who went to him were kept without, for he did not 
 
 (130). Or, "arrogantly." 
 
 (131). Or, ** no civil answer." 
 
 (132). Or, **formuch time." 
 
 (133). The margin has " Memnon " instead of " Domnus." 
 
 (134). Or, in " Greece." It was in the province of Achaia. 
 
50 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 permit them to enter, it is evident that he does not, with a good con- 
 science, decHne to come to the Holy Synod. Wherefore let matters 
 be transadled in order according to the rule of the Canons, and what- 
 ever may happen to be of use for the establishment of our correct 
 and religious (135) faith. And in \^i^ first place, let there be read 
 the Faith (136) put forth by the 318 most holy Fathers and Bishops 
 who assembled in the city of the Nicaeans, so that utterances (137) 
 regarding the faith being compared with that Forthset, those which 
 are in harmony with it may be approved, and those not in harmony 
 with it may be cast out. And the Symbol was read thus: 
 
 The Synod in Nicaea set forth this Faith; 
 
 We believe in one God (138), the Father Almighty, Maker of 
 all visible and [of all] invisible things: 
 
 And in the one Lord Jesus Anointed, the Son of God, born 
 out of the Father, Sole- Born, that is out of the substance of the 
 Father, God out of God, Light out of Light, Very God out of Very 
 God, born, not made, of the same substance as the Father, through 
 whom all things were made, both those in the heaven, and those on 
 the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and 
 took on flesh, and put on a man. He suffered, and rose up on the 
 
 (135). 7r/crrfwc. 
 
 (136). That is Creed. The Greek is TTiGxtq. 
 
 (137). Or, "doArines" or "words," loyi^v. 
 
 (138). The Greek of the A(5ls here in Coleti reads as follows: " We believe- 
 in one God; and the rest of the Symbol in order." I have given the whole 
 Creed here (see it in one form in Hs^in'sBibliothek derSymbole, edition of 1842, 
 pages 105, 106, 107), because it was here said in the Council. Coleti, Cone., 
 tom. 3, col. 1007, 1008, note i, states of the Creed here: " It is the Nicaean 
 Symbol, which is found, tome 2, page 31," he means of his Concilia. I have 
 given it above, word for word, mainly as in the form transmitted by Athanasius. 
 
 On the difference between the two forms of the Nicene Creed see Volume I. 
 of Nicaea in this series, pages 306, 307, and after, where I have given the Greek 
 and English of both forms. It is not necessary to repeat the Greek here. One 
 of those forms is given us by Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian, and the other by 
 St Athanasius, the Orthodox leader. In the second edition of Hahn's Biblw- 
 ihek der Symbole, Breslau, A. D. 1877. pages 78, 79 and 80, there is a shght 
 chan-e here and there in the text as compared with the first, but no dogma is 
 involved. The differences are merely verbal, and seem to have come fro«i the 
 carelessness or mistakes of copiers. 
 
Reading of the Nicene Creed. 51 
 
 third day, and went up into the heavens; and cometh to judge 
 the living and the dead; 
 
 And I beheve in the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Moreover the Universal and Apostolic Church anathematizes^ 
 those who say that there was once when the Son of God was not, 
 and that before He was born He was not, and that He was made out 
 of things not existing, or who say that He is out of another sub- 
 sistence or substance [than the Father], or that He is created, alter- 
 able or mutable (139). 
 
 (139.) The scholar will notice a peculiarity of the Nicene Creed, its 
 Anathema. The Constantinopolitan has additions in place of it. Compare 
 Mansi, Concilia^ torn. 4, col. 1137, and notes in the margin of id. col. 1138 
 and at the foot of the page. The above form of it, that of Athanasius, has 
 ''and Apostolic'''' before ''Church.'''' See in this series Volume I. of Nicaea, 
 page 305, and after, as to the difference between his form of it and that of 
 Eusebius of Caesarea. About twenty years later, in A. D. 451 in the Fourth 
 Ecumenical Council, we shall find both the Ecumenical Creeds, that is that 
 of the First Synod and that of the Second, recited, and made a joint crite- 
 rion to judge dodlrine by. In the sixth century the latter became the more 
 common. 
 
 For the Third Council of Toledo, in 589, in its Second Canon, ordered " that 
 in all the Churches " throughout all the Spanish dominions of that day, " in ac- 
 cordance with the form of the Oriental Churches, the Symbol of the Faith of the 
 Council of Co7istantinople must be recited, that is that of the One Hundred and 
 Fifty Bishops.^'' It is there specified that it be said by the people in a clear voice 
 before the Lord's Prayer and the Eucharist, which would mean, of course, its 
 recitation every Lord's Day, and whenever the Lord's Supper was celebrated. 
 Since then it has been in much more common use in the whole Church, West 
 and East, than the Creed of Nicaea. Indeed, among both Latins, and Greeks, 
 and Protestants there is now little or no recitation in service of the Creed of the 
 318. But it should be said, for the sake of its testimony as an utterance of the 
 whole Church to God's truth, on some Lord's Days every year. But in 431 at 
 Ephesus the Nicene Creed was still in more common use in the East, and, as 
 the Bishops in the Fourth Council testify, was still the Baptismal Creed there. 
 See also Vol. I. of Nicaea in this series, page 315, and note 472, id., regarding 
 its use there. 
 
 It is a memorable circumstance which seems to show the high place as- 
 signed by the assembled Prelates to that Universal Symbol that at the very 
 threshold of their examination of the opinions of Nestorius they fix that Creed 
 as a criterion of their decision. An old Greek writer, of the Middle Ages, 
 truthfully says that the Six Ecumenical Synods defined on the Symbol or Sym- 
 bols of the Faith. For the First formulated the Nicaean, and explained it 
 against the professedly creature-serving Arians; the Second formulated the 
 
•S^ Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 That Symbol being read, Peter, a Presbyter of Alexa7idria and 
 Chief of the Sea^etaries, said: " We have in our hands an Epistle of 
 the most holy and most God-fearing Archbishop Cyril, written to 
 the most religious Nestorius, full of counsel and exhortation, based 
 on the belief that Nestorius did not hold correct opinions, which, if 
 your Holiness (140) will command, I will read." 
 
 Aeacius, Bishop of Melitene, said: " Because the most religious 
 and most dear-to-God Presbyter, Peter, who has made a beginning of 
 the statement of the case, and in it has said that certain matters 
 were written by the most dear-to-God and most holy Bishop Cyril 
 to the most religious Nestorius, on the ground that Nestorius did 
 not teach correct doctrine, it fitly follows that these matters also be 
 read. 
 
 ConstantinopoUtan Creed against the professedly creature-serving Macedonians; 
 the Third explained the Nicaean against the Man-serving heretic, Nestorius ; 
 the Fourth explained both against the creature-serving Monophysites; the Fifth 
 reenforced the work of the Third, against the creature-serving Nestorians, and 
 the Sixth the work of the Fourth against the Monothelites. So that all Six 
 anathematized the creature-servers who perverted the sense of those two sole 
 Ecumenical Creeds. So that we may say justly that the chief work of the Six 
 Ecumenical Councils was not only to define on the two Creeds, but also to de- 
 fine on them against deniers of the Trinity and of the Incarnation, all of whom 
 ended at last in creature-service. The Council of A. D. 754, at Constantinople, 
 -and that of 787 at Nicaea, undertook to oppose the work of the Six, and to undo 
 them; that of A. D. 754, if it be corredlly reported, by favoring creature-invo- 
 cation, and that of A. D. 787, by favoring creature-invocation and image-wor- 
 ship, but their work will utterly fail, because all-creature service is antecedently 
 anathematized by necessary implication in the Six. For surely if they anath- 
 ematize every one who worships by itself the humanity of Christ, confessedly 
 on all hands the highest and best of all created things, much more do they 
 anathematize every one who worships a lesser creature, be it the Virgin Mary, 
 or any saint or angel or any image painted or graven, or any cross, or anything 
 except God; and so accord with Christ's law in Matt, iv., 10. 
 
 If any one depraved by idolatry reply that they have not condemned the 
 relative worship of picflures, crosses, graven images, relics, angels, saints, and 
 the Virgin, I reply that they have by necessary implication, because, as we shall 
 see further on in this very Council, that was one of the sins of the heresiarch 
 Nestorius, for which among his other heresies the Synod deposed him. For his 
 own words quoted against him there show that he strove to excuse his worship 
 of Christ's mere humanity on that very plea, which is the common plea of the 
 heathen in all ages and of apostate Christians now. 
 
 (140). A collective title of the whole Council. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 53 
 
 And the Epistle was read and lies among the documents pre- 
 ceding (141). Its beginning contains the following, thus: 
 
 Copy of the Epistle written by Cyril to Nestorius (142). 
 £Section I. — Cyril exposes and denoujices some wicked men who had 
 circulated false reports conceryiiiig himself \ 
 
 "Certain persons, as I learn, chatter nonsense, concerning my 
 
 (141.) That is among the Documents in the Forematter to the A(5ts of Ephe- 
 sus. This expression shows that whenever this Recension of the A6ls was made 
 there was a Forematter. Now the number of those Documents varies in the 
 different editions. What the original number was I know not. 
 
 (142). The Epistle of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, which here begins, 
 is approved by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus as being in consonance with 
 the Symbol of the 318. It is, therefore, very valuable on account of its greater 
 fulness regarding the subject of the Hypostasis, that is the Personality of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ in explaining that Symbol, and against the Nestorian bowing 
 to the man put on by the Word, and hence against Man-Service, that is Crea- 
 ture-Service. 
 
 For the Greek see Mansi, Concilia, torn, iv., col. 888-892, and Migne's Pat- 
 rologia, Gracea, tome 77, columns 44-49, and Coleti's Concilia, tome iii., col. 
 umns 868-872. 
 
 We must remember always not only that St. Cyril of Alexandria's Shorter 
 Epistle to Nestorius was confirmed in a general sense, but that it was adlually 
 approved in the most solemn and definite manner, without excepting any thing, 
 by vote in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council. The Greek text above is 
 taken from it as it was read in the local Council of Constantinople under St. 
 Flavian against the heresiarch Eutyches, A. D. 448, read again in the Robbers' 
 Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, when the aclion of the former Synod was re-ex- 
 amined, and finally read again in the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 
 451, when the a(5lion of both those Councils on Eutyches was examined again. 
 I give it in the only place in the A(5ls proper of the Six Ecumenical Synods, 
 where it is printed in full, that is in Act I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. 
 I give it as it is in Hardouin and Mansi, especially as in Hardouin. At the same 
 time I compare in the Appendix, P. E. Pusey's Greek text of the same Letter 
 as on pages 2-10 of his Three Epistles of St. Cyril, Archbishop oj Alexan- 
 dria, Parker, Oxford, 1872. See that comparison in the notes there. 
 
 And as this Epistle, as is said above, is sealed with the approval of the 
 whole Church, as a norm of Authoritative Definition on the Creed of the First 
 Ecumenical Council, and as a fuller development of its teachings on the Inflesh 
 and the Inman, and the Hypostatic, that is the Sulistance Union of the Two 
 Natures in Christ, and on the doctrines of the Economic Appropriation to God 
 the Word of the Sufferings of the Man put on by God the Word, and against 
 the Nestorian worship of that Man; for it was approved and adopted in its 
 entirety by another Ecumenical Council, the Third, and was appealed to as 
 
54 ' Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 reputation before thy God-Worshippingness (143); and this they do 
 
 authoritative in the Fourth and the Fifth; it is therefore of the same authority 
 as that Ecumenical Creed itself, for it is approved in an Ecumenical Synod just 
 as formally and just as fully. The kind of approving authority is the same. 
 Hence it is all-important to know exadlly what it is, and why we follow the text 
 of it in the A(5ls of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. For if anything has been 
 interpolated into it, it is of no authority, and must be rejedled. And if anything 
 in it, as approved by the Third Synod, has been purposely rejedled by any indi- 
 vidual or by any local Church, or has been accidentally omitted by any copier 
 or printer, it must be restored. For it is still Ecumenically approved, and hence 
 is still the voice of the whole Church which Christ has commanded us to hear 
 under pain of being regarded '^as a heathen man and a publican,'^ Matt» 
 xviii., 17. 
 
 We discuss here, therefore, 
 
 1. The question, Which is the most correct and authoritative text of the 
 shorter Epistle of Cyril to Nestor ius .^ and 
 
 2. We treat of the matter of its authority. 
 
 Now, I, which is the most correct aud authoritative text of the Shorter 
 Epistle of Cyril to Nestor ius f 
 
 In Labbe and Cossart's Concilia, tomeiii,, (IvUtetiae Parisiorum, A. D. i67i)» 
 column 462, where we read in Act I. of Ephesus that Acacius, of Melitene, 
 called for the reading of St. Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, which was 
 approved by vote in the same Act I. of that Ecumenical Council, we find the 
 following in Greek which shows that whenever the Adls were drawn up in their 
 present form, whatever time that was, no part of that Epistle, except the be- 
 ginning, was in the Act-Records, but all of it was in the Forematter; for we 
 read in response to his suggestion, 
 
 "And it was read and lies among the documents preceding. The beginning 
 of the Epistle reads as follows: *' Copy of an Epistle written by Cyril to Nesto- 
 rius. ' Certain persons, as I learn, are chattering stuff before thy God-Wor- 
 shippingness against my reputation;' and the rest of it.''' 
 
 That means, of course, that it was all read in that Act I., but was not then 
 written out in full in it. I have examined as to that in Act I. of Ephesus aud 
 in the Sixth Conference of the Fifth Ecumenical Council as in Hardouin, Coleti, 
 Mansi, and Labbe and Cossart, aud have examined it as in the Second Act also 
 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and find in them all only about twelve 
 words of the Greek of the beginning of the shorter of the two Epistles of Cyril, 
 which were approved by the Tl.ird Ecumenical Council. But it is given in full 
 in Greek in Act II. of the locd Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, and is 
 copied thence in full into Act I. of the Robbers' Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, 
 and into Act I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council also. 
 
 In those four places alone do we find it read in any of the Six Ecumenical 
 Councils. And, as has been said, in only one of them, that is in Act I. of the 
 Fourth Synod, is it given in full in the ABs. The only other place where it is 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestoriiis. 55 
 
 often, and they watch especially the meetings of those in authority 
 
 given in full in the published editions of the Councils is in the Forematter to 
 Ephesus, which is no part of the Council proper. 
 
 It is all-important then to every translator and to every editor to ask which 
 is the most genuine, correct and authoritative text. 
 
 In reply to that inquiry I would say that if we knew the exact date of the 
 present arrangement in the printed editions of Ephesus and Chalcedon, of Fore- 
 matter first and the Adls after them, and could be assured that the copy of the 
 Shorter Epistle of St. Cyril in the Forematter to the Third Ecumenical Synod 
 is exadlly like the original, it of course would be the most authoritative form of 
 it. But I have not seen any well founded statement as to when that arrange- 
 ment was made, nor as to whether the copy now in the Forematter to Ephesus 
 was at first an exact copy of the original, nor whether, if it was, it has escaped 
 the corrupting touch of Monophysite adulteration, which, as we shall show else- 
 where from old writers has affedled so many of the writings of St. Cyril. But it 
 is reasonable to suppose that the Records of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 
 which the One-Natureites rejedled and spurned, would not be tampered with by 
 them. Their motive in corrupting the writings of Cyril was to make utterances 
 which all deemed Orthodox speak in their favor. But they did not deem Chal. 
 cedon Orthodox nor authoritative, and hence would have nothing to do with it. 
 Hence we may feel sure that the full text of that Epistle, in Act I. of the Fourth 
 Ecumenical Synod, may be said to be at least as old as A. D. 448, for it was 
 read in the local Council of Constantinople in that year which condemned 
 Eutyches. It was read again in A. D. 449, with the part of that Council in 
 which it stands, when Eutyches' case was reinvestigated again in the Monophys- 
 ite Robbers' Synod of A. D. 449, and was requoted again in the Ecumenical 
 Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, with the Adts of the two Councils aforesaid 
 relating to it, and in none of those Councils was its text questioned; so that we 
 may safely say that it is thrice proved, and so, authoritative. It was not faulted 
 by either party, the Orthodox or the heretics. But there are other documents 
 in the Forematter to Ephesus, which seem to have been adulterated by the 
 Monophysites— a fact which the editor of it did not possess sufficient critical 
 ability to see. Therefore I will follow it mainly, as most authoritative, and will 
 bracket some words in P. E. Pusey's Greek of this Epistle which are not in it, 
 though in the case of one or two words so bracketed, it may be that they were 
 originally in the authoritative text aforesaid, and were well restored from good 
 manuscripts by Pusey. I will also endeavor to note every difference worth 
 noticing. The English text above is then that of Cyril's Shorter Epistle as in 
 the local Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, which was read in the Robbers' 
 Synod of Ephesus in A. D. 449, and in the Fourth Ecumenical Council in A. D. 
 451. I have followed Hardouin's reading mainly. 
 
 That P. E. Pusey in his Three Epistles of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexan^ 
 dria, Preface, pages iv. and v., tells us that in making up the Greek text which 
 he gives, he has collated several manuscripts, one of which is of the Fourth 
 Ecumenical Council, and is of the eleventh century. The other manuscripts. 
 
56 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 as a fit time for their purpose, supposing perhaps that they can 
 
 so far as dated by him, are given as follows, one of the eleventh century, one 
 of the twelfth, and two of the fourteenth. These are late, therefore. 
 
 I have seen no date ascribed to the manuscript or manuscripts of the Fourth 
 Ecumenical Council, from which the editions have been printed. 
 
 I would add that there is no difiference of note between the readings of the 
 Epistle as in Act I. of Chalcedon, and the form of it given in the Forematter to 
 Ephesus, if we except one part, where one has //v tovto uq (pdvraa^a, and the other 
 has fiij TOfim (pavTcwia. On that we will speak more at length in a note below 
 and in the Appendix when we come to it. Most of the other differences seem 
 to be copyists' or printers' errors. 
 
 Hardouin's text of St. Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, approved at 
 Ephesus, seems the most correct. Some of the differences between him and 
 Mansi on this Epistle seem to be mere printers' errors in the latter' s edition of 
 the Councils; for example, to make Pusey's numbering of the lines available for 
 a comparison, where in Pusey's, line 20, page 4, Hardouin has, like Pusey, rd 
 <mc, TO kn Tov (pcjTog, Mansi has to ouq tov en tov (puTog, which is not good Greek. 
 So in line 17, page 10, of Pusey, we find aycnrj/g Tfjq h XfuoTu; but the copyist, I 
 suppose, followed a reader; and, because in the later, perhaps in the ancient 
 Greek also, T^g and Tolg are pronounced alike, hence blunderingly wrote Tolg for 
 Ti/g and Mansi' s text follows him. For sometimes in the writing room of a mon- 
 astery, where two or more of the brethren wrote to earn their bread, one dictated 
 the work which they were copying. Sometimes that would be the case where 
 but one wrote; for such a division of labor between reader and copyist saved 
 much time. Otherwise if the copyist had to read, as well as copy, his attention 
 would be constantly occupied by the manuscript which he followed, and the 
 one which he himself was writing, and so much time would be lost in constantly 
 turning from one to the other and back again. 
 
 We come now: 2. To the question of l/ie Authority of this Epistle. 
 That is evident (A), from the fact that it was examined and then approved 
 by vote in the Third Ecumenical Council. That of course gives it Ecumenical 
 Authority. 
 
 (B). As the Adlions of that Synod were received and approved and main- 
 tained by the three Ecumenical Councils after it, as we see by their Definitions, 
 this Epistle has therefore received their approval, by necessary implication, four 
 times in all. It was adlually read as an authority in the Fourth World-Synod, 
 and the Fifth. It was twice read in the Fourth, first in its Act I. , and the second 
 time in its Act II. I quote a part of Act II., which shows how highly the 
 Bishops esteemed it. I translate, from column 343, tome iv. (Lutetiae Paris- 
 iorum A. D. 1671), of Labbe and Cossart's Concilia. It is preceded in column 
 342, of the same tome, by the reading, by the Archdeacon Aetius, of the Creed 
 of the Second Ecumenical Council and the acclamations of the assembled. 
 Bishops for it. Then comes the following in that Act Second of Chalcedon: 
 " Aetius, the most reverent Archdeacon, said: 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 57 
 
 please thy ears (144); and they spread baseless (145) reports, 
 
 * ' There is also the Epistle which was written by the most holy Cyril [now] 
 among the saints, who was Bishop of the great city, Alexandria, to Nestorius, 
 which was both approved by all the holy Bishops who came together aforetime 
 in Ephesus for [or "at," fTrt Kadaipioei^ the deposition of the same Nestorius, and 
 was confirmed by the subscription of all. And there is the Epistle of the same 
 Cyril [now] among the saints, which was written to John of holy memor}', who 
 was Bishop of the great city of Antioch, which was likewise confirmed. And 
 if it be pleasing [or '' since it is at hand,'''' Kal eI Trapiararai, "et si placuerit,'* 
 Latin in the parallel column], I will read them. 
 
 The most glorious Archons and the most ample Senate said, Let the Epistles 
 of Cyril of holy memory be read. 
 
 Aetius, Archdeacon of the imperial city of Constantinople read [them as 
 follows]: 
 
 "To the most reverent and most God- worshipping Fellow-Minister, Nesto- 
 rius, Cyril wisheth joy in the Lord. 
 
 * 'Certain persons, as I learn, are chattering stuff against my reputation before 
 thy God-worshippingness, and this they do often, and the rest 0/ the Epistle as 
 it is written above [or "which is" /}' rcr TTpoyeypmrratl in the Council held in 
 Constantinople against Eutyches, where it was read in the Second Act. 
 
 [In like manner the same Archdeacon Aetius read (as follows):] 
 
 An Epistle of the same Cyril of most holy memory written to John, Bishop 
 of Antioch, on the Peace [between the two] : 
 
 "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad [Psalm xcvi., 11.]; for the 
 fniddle wall of partition hath been broken down [Eph. ii., 14], and that which 
 causeth grief hath been made to cease, and every form of disagreement hath 
 been done away; and the rest [of the Epistle] as it is all written above in the 
 same Council which was held against Eutyches after the Epistle [of Cyril] above 
 wi-itten.^'' 
 
 *' And after the reading the most religious Bishops shouted out. We all so 
 believe! Pope [that is "Father''] Leo so believes! Anathema to him that puts 
 apart [from each other the two Natures of Christ], and to him that mingles 
 [them] together! That is the faith of Leo the Archbishop ! Leo so believes I 
 Leo and Anatolius so believe! We all so believe! As Cyril believed, so we 
 believe! Eternal be Cyril's memory! As the Epistles of Cyril teach, so we 
 hold! So we have believed! So we believe! Leo the Archbishop so thinks, so 
 believes, and has so written! 
 
 •'The most glorious Archons and the most ample Senate said, Let the Epistle 
 of the most holy Leo, Archbishop of the imperial and elder Rome, be read." 
 
 I should add that the words, " In like manner the same Archdeacon Aetius 
 read " are in the Latin translation but not in the Greek. 
 
 Then was read Leo's famous Epistle to Flavian against the Eutychian 
 heresy, which was then examined and approved by the Council. 
 
58 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 although they have been wronged by me in nothing, but have been 
 
 From the foregoing utterances of the 630 Bishops of the Fourth Ecumenical 
 Council we may readily see the high esteem in which the two Epistles of Cyril 
 above meant were ever held by the whole Church, and their vast authority. The 
 same thing is evident from other parts of the last four Ecumenical Synods, the 
 Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth as to his Epistle which has the XII. Chapters 
 
 What we have just quoted from Labbe and Cossart on the aforesaid two 
 Epistles of Cyril, etc., is found in the same Act Second of Chalcedon, in tome 
 second of Hardouin's Concilia^ columns 288 and 289; and in tome vi. of Mansi, 
 col 957-960.] 
 
 (143). Greek, kid rrjq afjq deoaefSeiac, **God-Worshippingness" is an exact 
 rendering of this peculiarly Byzantine and Oriental title. The Greek here 
 reads, ** Certain persons, as I learn, chatter nonsense as to my reputation before 
 thy God-Worshippingness and the rest " [of the Epistle]. But I give the whole 
 of it here, where it evidently belongs, instead of putting it with the documents 
 before the Synod, as is often done. For though it was written before the Synod, 
 nevertheless it was not passed upon and authorized b}' the whole Church as a 
 norm of Orthodox definition as to the true sense of the Creed of the 318, before 
 Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, as in the context above. 
 
 (144). The reference is to the intrigues of the Alexandrian clerics or laics, 
 who had been rebuked or disciplined by St. Cyril, and full of malignity and 
 revenge, had betaken themselves to the imperial Court at Constantinople to 
 slander him and to work him woe. By so doing they might hope for restora- 
 tion, especially if they could procure his deposition. Such justly censured and 
 unworthy men would naturally avail themselves of the religious controversy 
 which had just arisen, and for malice sake and their own selfish interests, would 
 naturally ally themselves with Nestorius, though at heart they may have cared 
 but little for him or the controversy itself, except as means to gain their own 
 ends. How far Nestorius egged them on to injure Cyril we can not exadlly say; 
 but we do know that the Emperor Theodosius the Second's mind was so 
 strongly prejudiced against Cyril that after this, and before the Council met, he 
 wrote him a censuring and threatening letter, which we will give in the Fore- 
 matter to Ephesus, and that when Nestorius went to the Synod, he sent along 
 with him the strong Nestorian partisan, the Count Irenaeus, and Count Candi- 
 dian, and placed the military force at Ephesus under the latter, which he used 
 for Nestorius and against Cyril and the Synod, as we see in its Adls and in those 
 of John of Antioch's conventicle there. And Count Irenaeus was the instigator 
 and approver of insults and wounds infli(5led on the Bishops and Clergy, who 
 were sent by the Ecumenical Council to inform John of Antioch, on his arrival 
 at Ephesus, of their adlion in deposing Nestorius for his heresies (Hefele, His- 
 tory of the Church Coimcils, English translation, volume 3, page 55"). More of 
 his hostility to the Council is told in the same volume, pages 79, 81 and 82. 
 
 Besides, the second letter of Theodosius II., above given, to the Council, 
 attempted to govern it and even to order it in the interests of Nestorius. To all 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. r>9 
 
 rebuked, and that too only for their benefit (146); one because hj 
 was wronging the blind and the poor; another because he drew a 
 sword upon his mother; a third because in connection with a maid 
 servant he stole another's money, and in consequence fell into such 
 continual disrepute as one ^vould not wish to happen to 'any, even of 
 his bitterest enemies. But the word of such is not much to me, for 
 I would not stretch out the measure of the littleness in me either 
 beyond the Master and Teacher, or indeed beyond the fathers. 
 For it is not granted to any one to escape the rudenesses of the 
 wicked, as any one would prefer to in passing through life (147). 
 But those who have ' mouths full of ciirsi7ig and bitterness'' (148) shall 
 be called upon to make their defence before the Judge of all men." 
 
 these a6ls of prejudice and hostility on the part of the Emperor and his subor- 
 dinates, the lies of the wicked and unworthy men whom Cyril mentions above 
 as his enemies may have contributed. 
 
 ( 1 45 ) . Or " irlisome, " or " inconsiderate, "or * ^forced. ' ' 
 (146). It was Cyril's right and solemn duty as a Bishop to rebuke such of 
 his clergy or people as committed the grievous sins which he specifies abov?. 
 His predecessors, the Apostles, had so done, as we see by the New Testament, 
 again and again. Paul, for instance, rebuked drunkenness and disorder at the 
 Lord's Supper in the Church of Corinth, and excommunicated the incestuous 
 person at Corinth from the church for immorality, and Kymenaeus and Alex- 
 ander for heresy (I. Cor. xi., 17-34; I. Cor. v.; I. Tim. i., 19, 20). So he rebukes 
 his brethren again and again in his Epistles for other follies, sins and heresies. 
 Every Bishop must, as God's watchman, so act, or be eternally lost (Ezek. iii., 
 16-22, and Ezek. xxxiii., i-io). He must do what Paul tells his fellow-Apostle 
 Timothy to do (I. Thess. i, i, compared with I. Thess, ii., 6), that is, " be instant 
 in se:iso?t, out of season; reprove, rebuke^ exhort with all long suffering and 
 doHrine,'' and that even though the time come when, as now, many " luill not 
 endure sound do^rine^^ (II. Tim. iv., 2, 3), as many would not in Cyril's day. 
 If any Bishop proves an unfaithful watchman and lets evils in docflrine, rite, 
 discipline and custom, come in, or exist, and sees his clergy or people becoming 
 vile, God will curse and damn his soul for it, as he cursed Eli, the high priest of 
 yore, for similar false and doting affeclion and carelessness. Read by all means, 
 I. Sam, iii., 11-15, and see I. Sam.ii., 27-36, and I. Sam. iv., 11-22; and I. Kings 
 ii-> 27, 35, and I. Kings xxix., 22; compare Ezek. xliv., 10-17. 
 
 (147). The Latin translation here, pages 3 and 5 of P. E. Pusey's ''Three 
 Epistles of St. Cyril;' is somewhat different. Translated, it reads, "For it is 
 not an easy thing for any man, though he may live a circumspect life, to 
 avoid the evil speakings of bad men " (non enim facile est cuiquam, licet 
 vitam suam habeat circumspecflam, nequam hominum maledicta vitare), Puscy, 
 on page v. of the Preface makes the above Latin to be Marius Mercator's of the 
 fifth century. 
 
 (148). Romans iii., 14. 
 
GO Ad I. of Epliesus 
 
 [Section II. — Cyril warris Nestorius against the sin. of leading men 
 astray, a)id urges him to cleave to the true sense of the Fathers 
 as set forth in the Nicerie Creed. He explains it against the' 
 Nestorians' denial of the hiflesh and the Inman of God the Word, 
 and against their co7isequent worship of a mere Man by bozving.. 
 He explaijis also the Orthodox doctrine of the Economic Appro- 
 priation of the sufferings of the humanity of Christ to His Diviyi- 
 ity, and sets forth the true sense of the expression, " B ringer 
 Forth of God,'' iised of the Virgin Mary, as designed to guard 
 the doctrine of the real Incarnation of God the Word\ 
 
 But I will turn again to that which most befits myself and w411 
 admonish thee even now, as thou art a brother in the Lord, to set 
 forth the word of instrucflion and the sense of the Faith with all 
 unerringness to the peoples, and to remember that the causing even 
 one only of the little ones who believe in Christ to simiible (149) offers 
 [to God] unbearable provocation. But if the multitude of those who 
 are aggrieved [by thee] be so great, in what need do we stand of 
 every good art for the duty of prudently removing thy stumbling 
 
 )locks. and of making plain the sound doctrine of the Faith to those 
 who are seeking the truth! And that will be achieved, and that toO' 
 very rightly, if, when we meet with the words of the holy Fathers, 
 we be in earnest to make them of much account, and if, trying our- 
 selves whether we are in the faith, as it is written (150) we very well 
 conform our thoughts to their right and blameless opinions. 
 
 The holy and great Synod [in Nicaea] (151) said therefore that 
 He who, as respecfts His [divine] nature, was ' ' born out of God the 
 Father,'' the " Sole-born Son," the " very God out of very God," the 
 
 ■ Light out of the Light," He " through IVhom the Father hath made 
 all things" "'came down, and took on flesh ayid put on a man," that 
 He '"suffered, rose up on the third day, and went up into the heavens'," 
 
 (149). Matt, xviii., 6. 
 
 (150). II. Cor., xiii., 5. 
 
 (151). There is no mention of the Second Ecumenical Comicil or of its 
 Creed in the A6ls of this Third World-Synod, for it was not much known, or if 
 known at all was not made much of in any place outside of the jurisdidlion of 
 the Patriarch of Constantinople till about the time of the Fourth Ecumenical 
 Council, A. D- 451. in which its Creed was read and appealed to as authoritative. 
 as its Third Canon also is in the Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon. After that 
 the Ecumenicity of the Second Synod was universally admitted, though Rome 
 obje(^led for a time to its Canon TIL; and Hammond, on its Canon V., shows 
 that some have doubted whether its Canons V., VI., and VII. were really made 
 by it. Of that we hope to treat when we come to that Council. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 61 
 
 and we ought to follow those things, both the words and the doc- 
 trines, considering what is meant by the expression that the Word 
 who came ' ' out of God took on flesh and put on a man, ' ' for we do not 
 say that the [divine] Nature of the Word was changed and became 
 flesh (152), nor do we assert that It (153) was changed into an entire 
 man compounded of soul and body (154). But we say on the con- 
 trary (155), that the Word, having united to His own Substance 
 flesh animated (156) by a rational soul (157), became man in a way 
 
 (152,) This was somewhat akin to the heresy or to one of the heresies of one 
 wing of the Apollinarians, who made but one Nature out of the Two Natures of 
 Christ, in such a sense as to make both flesh, or both a Third Thing which is 
 neither wholly God nor wholly man, or both God; so changing the substance 
 of the Creator into the creature, or, vice versa, of the creature into the Creator, 
 or mixing the Two infinitely distinct things in an impossible union, the very 
 assertion of which is an insult to the unchangeable God. Then, after thus mix- 
 ing the two Natures into a Third Thing, they worshipped It as God, and by wor- 
 shipping It as God, they in fact, whatever may have beejt their intention, wor- 
 shipped as God the created humanity of Christ, which, notwithstanding their 
 heresies against it, still remains, and so were Man-Worshippers, that is Creature- 
 Worshippers. The Apollinarians are condemned by name in Canons I. and VII. 
 of the Second Ecumenical Council, and their heresies in the utterances of the 
 Fourth, and in Canons VII., VIII. and IX. of the Fifth. 
 (153.) That is the divine Nature of God the Word. 
 
 (154). The Orthodox, like Cyril, held that Christ's humanity was a whole 
 man. He wrote against the Synusiasts, that is Cosubstancers, who, like the after 
 Monophysites, made but one substance of the Two Natures; and against the 
 Dimoerites, that is the Two Partites, who asserted that though there are three 
 parts which compose a whole man, that is bod}', soul and mind, Christ's 
 humanity had only the first two, and so wholly lacked a mind. 
 
 (155O O^ ^'rather,'" iiaXkov, but the reading in the text conveys the sense 
 better to the English reader, for our rather does not express the opposition 
 between what precedes and what follows the " rather'' above. 
 
 (156). Literally, ** having united to Himself siibstancely (Kad" vTrdcTaaiv) 
 flesh," etc., as above. That Substance- Union is the Union of the aclual sub. 
 stance of God the Word's Divinity with the a(5lual substance of the entire Man 
 whom He took on in the womb of the Virgin Mary, where that Union began, 
 and in that man thus put on He (God the Word), came out of her at his human 
 birth. This real Substance Union, which is the Personal Union, which is the 
 Hypostatic Union, which, of course, necessarily implies the Incarnation, is 
 opposed to the Nestorian denial of it, and of course to their denial of the Incar, 
 nation also; for he who denies the Substance Union must necessarily deny the 
 Inflesh. The Nestorians instead of the Substance Union made many other 
 kinds which are cursed in Anathema IV. in the Definition of the Fifth Ecu- 
 menical Council. I quote the whole of it as in Hammond's translation; and, it 
 
,2 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 both ineffable and incomprehensible, and took the title ' Son of Man' 
 
 •God will, will comment on it somewhat when I come to publish it as part of the 
 Fifth Ecumenical Council. 
 
 Chapter or Anathema IV. in the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Councily 
 held at Constantinople, A. D. jsj: 
 
 ** If any one says that the Union of God the Word with a man was made 
 According to Grace, or According to Operation, or According to Equality of Honor, 
 or According to Authority, or According to Reference, or to Relation, or to Power, 
 or According to Good Pleasure, on the ground that God the Word was pleased 
 with the Man from His thinking well and good of him, as Theodore" [of Mopsu- 
 estia] " in his madness says; or" [if any one asserts a Union merely] "According 
 to the Sameness of Names, according to which the Nestorians calling God the 
 Word, fesus and Anointed {XpiaToi'), ahd naming the Man separately Anointed 
 {Xpiarov) and Son, and plainly asserting two Persons, do merely in title, and 
 honor, and dignity, and worship (jTpocKwycLv), pretend to assert" [only] "one Per- 
 son and one Anointed (Xp^ardv); but does not confess the Union of God the Word 
 with flesh animated by a rational and intelledlual soul, made According to 
 Putting Together, that is According to Substance, as the holy Fathers have 
 taught, and in that sense His" [but] "one Person, who is the Lord Jesus Anointed 
 (Xp/(7rof), one of the Holy Trinity, let such a one be anathema. For inasmuch 
 as the Union is understood in many ways, those who follow the impiety of Apol- 
 linaris and Eutyches, evidently desiring to cause to disappear the Things which 
 came together" [that is, the Council means, the two distinct Natures, the Divinity 
 and the humanity, and to substitute for them a Third Thing which is neither 
 God nor man, but an impossible and blasphemous mixture of the Two] "advo- 
 cate the Union by Mixing them Together; but those. who hold the opinions of 
 Theodore [of Mopsuestia] and Nestorius, delighting in the taking apart" [of the 
 two Natures from each other] "bring in the Relative Union; whereas the holy 
 Church of God rejedling the impiety of each heresy, confesses the Union of God 
 the Word with His flesh by Putting them Together, which very thing is the 
 Union according to Substance" [that is the Union in one Person, of the Substance 
 of God the Word to the Substance of the complete Man put on by Him in Mary's 
 womb, in which Man, God the Word's Substance, has ever since remained]. * * For 
 the Union by Putting Together in the mystery of the Anointed, not only pre- 
 serves, unmixed with each other, the things" [that is the Two Natures], "which 
 came together, but also refuses to admit any separating " [of them]. 
 
 We see then that the Nestorians denied the a<flual Union of God the Word's 
 Substance to His humanity. They made Him to indwell their were human 
 Christ by His Spirit only, much as He indwelt the prophets, in which case, 
 of course, Christ would have been a mere man, and his indwelling by God the 
 Word relative only, not aBual. It would have been relative in the sense of 
 being indwelt by the mere sanctifying influence, not by the afltcal subsistence, 
 that is not by the actual substance of that Holy Spirit which is related to God 
 the Word in the sense of being His Spirit as sent by Him according to John xv.. 
 
Readi7ig of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 6^ 
 
 [158], not being such in will alone, nor, in good pleasure [alone] 
 
 26; John xvi., 13-16, and so as being His Agent. From all this Nestorianism 
 St. Cyril shows that it would follow that no part of the real substance of God 
 was in the man born of Mary, and hence that the Nestorian Christ is a mere 
 Man, that is a mere creature, and hence that all the Nestorians, who worshipped 
 that mere creature, are creature-worshippers. And they all worshipped him 
 relatively {ax^riKug); that is they held to his relative worship, that is to his wor- 
 ship relatively to God the Word who, they said relatively [Kara axi^oiv) indwelt 
 that mere man, that is by His Spirit only Who is related to the Word as being 
 His Spirit (Galat. iv., 6; Philip i., 19; II. Thess. ii., 8; compare John xiv., 26; 
 John XV., 26; John xvi., 7-16). 
 
 So that there is a close connexion between the two heresies of Relative 
 Indwelling only and Relative- Worship. Indeed, in the mind of the Nestorian 
 the two were indissolubly linked together. Sometimes he used the expression 
 Relative ConjmiElion as opposed to the Substance Union, and as another equiv- 
 alent for Relative Indwelling. 
 
 I have not space here to give all the passages of the Orthodox and the Nes- 
 torians which I have gathered on those themes, but must leave that for the 
 future when, if God stir up his servants to help me by giving to the Fund to 
 Publish the VI. Councils, I shall hope to give them in separate Dissertations. 
 
 It will sufl&ce here to quote or mention a few out of many which will serve 
 to help the reader to grasp the controversy more fully. 
 
 And, I, as to the Nestorian deniai, of the Incarnation and their doc- 
 trine of mere Rei^ative Union which goes with it. 
 
 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, the ablest scholar of the Nestorian party, in 
 his Censure of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema I., plainly denies the reality 
 of the Incarnation, for he writes: 
 
 "And we call that holy Virgin " [that is Mary] '' Bringer Forth 0/ God, 
 not that she brought forth Him who is God by Nature, but that 
 SHE brought forth a Man united to the God who formed him." 
 The Greek is in P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of the Works of Cyril of 
 Alexandria, Vol. VI., page 392. The above means that the Union of the Man 
 mentioned is not a Substance Union, but a merely moral and spiritual one 
 such as every good man has with God, only Christ's humanity as being per- 
 fect is more closely joined to God the Word than ours. So that even, accord- 
 ing to Theodoret here, it is of the same kind, only closer than ours. 
 
 To show how close the Nestorians came to the Orthodox use of terms, when 
 the context shows that their sense of them was, nevertheless, heretical, I quote 
 more of the last mentioned place of Theodoret. Speaking of God the Word he 
 writes: 
 
 "He was before the Worlds, and was God, and was with God, and was coex- 
 istent with the Father, and was acknowledged and bowed to with the Fathes; 
 but He thoroughly formed for Himself a temple in the Virgin's womb, and war 
 
64 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [159], nor in the sense of taking to a man's person merely " [as he 
 
 with that which was formed, and carried in the womb, and shaped and brought 
 forth; and on that account we call that holy Virgin Bringer Forth of God, not 
 THAT SHE BROUGHT FORTH HiM WHO IS GoD BY NATURE," [He means God 
 
 the Word] "but THAT SHE BROUGHT FORTH A MAN UNITED TO THE GOD WHO 
 FORMED HIM." 
 
 Here the union is merely relative, and the a6lual Incarnation is denied. 
 For God the Word ''was with " the Man formed in Mary's womb only as He 
 was with John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb, that is by His Spirit to sandtify 
 him; in which sense the angel who proclaimed John's birth said of him: ''He 
 shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb,'' Luke i., 15. 
 
 Such a quasi-Orthodox use of terms often marks the writings of Theodoret 
 and others of his party; so that it is no wonder that years after, that is in A. D. 
 451, when he wished to take a seat in the Fourth Ecumenical Council, though 
 he had by hook or crook persuaded Pope Leo I. of Rome that He was now 
 Orthodox, the Eastern Bishops, who knew his craft and twistings well, would not 
 admit him till they had forced him much against his will to anathematize Nesto- 
 rius, his fellow heresiarch. Even then they had to threaten him with anathema 
 for his refusal before he would. I here quote the Greek of the passage of Theo- 
 doret just given. It is on pages 391, 392 of tome vi. of P. E. Pusey's edition of 
 Cyril of Alexandria's works, and is part of his argument against Cyril's Anath- 
 ema I., and is as follows: 
 
 '0 Trpo T6Jv aiiivuv vTrdpx(^v koI Geof uv Koi irpbg tov Qtbv uv kuI rtj TlaTpl avvliv 
 Kal fitrd TOV Uarpbg yv(jpcl^6fj.ep6g re Kal TTpoaavi'ovjUEvog' d?JJ eavru vabv kv ry Trap^evmy 
 yaarpl diaTzldaag avv^v tu Tzlaa^kwi aal KVTj^evTi Kal juopipo^ivrt Kal ■yevvT/d-£i>Ti. ov xap'-'^ 
 Kal TTjv dyiav EKeivrjv rrap^ivov, QeoroKov irpoaayopevo/iiev, ovx ^C ©^ov (pvast ytwrjaacav, 
 hW (jf av^piji'Kov TGJ Sia'K'kdGavTi avrbv Tjvufxkvov Gecj. 
 
 Cyril in his response in defence of that Anathema I., denounces the above 
 statement of Theodoret as a denial of the Inflesh of the Eternal Word. 
 
 And so, in his rejoinder to Theodoret's censure of his Anathema X., after 
 stating that the Nestorians denied the real indwelling of God the Word's Sub- 
 stance in the Man taken out of Mary's substance by Him he rebukes their error 
 as follows: 
 
 " But those who depart from such right dogmas and oppose to the Scrip- 
 tures of God their own harsh and arbitrary sense regard in them only what 
 seems good to themselves, and assert that a" [mere] "man has been taken {avsi,- 
 ?.7/<p8ai) by the Word of God, perhaps somehow in the sense that one of the holy 
 prophets is said to have been taken " [in the following passage]; " / was not a 
 prophet, nor a prophet's son, but I was a goatherd munching mulberries, and 
 the Lord took me (dve?.af3e pt) out of the flocks" [Amos vii., 14, 15, Septuagint]; 
 " or even as the blessed David says, * The Lord taketh "' [to Himself] ** 'the 
 meek {'Avalap(3dvojv Trpaelc 6 Kvpiog), [Psalm cxlvi., 6, Septuagint]; **that is, 
 
 plainly, REIyATIVELY AND AS REGARDS SPIRITUAI^ INTIMACY IN WII^I^ AMD 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 65 
 
 does to every good man] (i6o); ''but we say that " [Two] "different 
 
 GRACE AND SANCTIF I CATION just OS we also oursclves being joitied unto the 
 Lord are 07ie spirit, as it is written [I. Cor. vi., 17]. 
 
 "But that is not the dodtrine that God has put on a man, nor moreover is it 
 the dodtrine that He hke us has partaken of blood and flesh; but on the con- 
 trary it is the dodlrine that He has" [merely] "appropriated to Himself a man, 
 and that too in no other way than He can be said to have appropriated to Him- 
 self prophets and apostles, and all the other holy men " (P. B. Pusey's edition 
 of the Greek of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Works, Vol. VI., pages 471, 472). The 
 Greek of the part last above is as follows: 
 
 '"Ava?Mfil3dvtJV Trpaelc 6 Kvpiog-'* [Psalm cxlvi. 6, Sept.] Kara cx'^atv drjlovoTL Kal 
 OLKUOTTjTa TTjv TTVEVfiaTiK^v, TTjv (jf £v de^CEt Koi x^piTC Kal dyiaafiQ, Kadd Kal rjfielq avrol 
 KoAX6juevoi " rti Kuptw ev Trvev/xa " ea/nEV^ Kara, to yeypa/ifievov. 'AAA' ovxl tovto kari to 
 evavdpuTTfjaai Qeou, ovre jui/v TrapaTrl^aicog yfiiv iiEraaxEiv al/xarog Kal aapKog' oiKeicjaacOat 
 de /ud?.2,ov dvOpuTTOv^ Kal oh Kad^ krepov rpoTZOV fj Kad' bv dv liyoiro Kal Ttpo^rj-ag Kal diroc- 
 ToTiOvq Kal rovg a/./Lovf d-KavraQ dylovg. 
 
 St. Cyril in his Defence of his Twelve Chapters against Theodoret con- 
 demns again and again that errorist and heretic's notion of a mere Relative 
 Union between God the Word and His humanity, which consists in His in- 
 dwelling that man by His Spirit only, in which way He is relatively united to 
 every spiritually-minded man. See P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of Cyril's 
 Works, Vol. VI., pages 406, 416, 418, 440, 442, 472, top. 
 
 Therefore, as holding that error, Theodoret, notwithstanding Cyril's rebuke, 
 calls Christ an inspired man (id., pages 438, 440, 442). For at bottom he re- 
 garded him as nothing else, though, like others of his party, he sometimes 
 used language which might deceive those who did not understand his use of 
 terms, and lead them to deem him Orthodox. 
 
 Cyril's doArine, in his Anathema III., as opposed to the Relative Union of 
 Nestorius is that of the Nature\^ot ''Naturaf\Union,(KaB^ hcjacv (pvaiK^v), that is 
 the union of the Nature, that is Substance of God the Word to flesh. Andrew 
 of Samosata censures it in his remarks on that Anathema, as we see in Cyril's 
 Defence of his Chapters Against the Orientals, Andrew of course spoke there 
 as a Nestorian. 
 
 I have said that we must render, Kad^ kvoaiv (pvaiKi/v, not by "JVatural Union," 
 but by "Nat lire- Union; " and the reason for that is that no Union between God 
 and a creature can be said to be natural in the sense of coming of itself but is 
 ■made by God himself, for the Nature of God and that of man are not the same. 
 Cyril's meaning in the expression is that it is a Union in that the Nature, that is 
 the Substance, of God the Word indwells and has indwelt the human nature, that 
 is His humanity, since He put it on in the Virgin's womb. 
 
 So, St. Cyril, in his Defence of his Anathema V. Against Theodoret, speaks 
 of the denial of the Incarnation by the Nestorians as resulting in a mere Rela- 
 tive Indwelling, so that, according to their notion, God the Word indwelt His 
 
66 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 Natures were brought together in the real unity, and that from both 
 
 humanity only as He indwells all other good men, that is by His Spirit only. 
 His reasoning on that matter, on pages 440 and 442, of Vol. VI., of P. E. Pusey's 
 edition of Cyril's works, is well worth reading. I quote a part of it, for my 
 limits forbid more: 
 
 "But I am astounded that although he" [Theodoret] "everywhere strongly 
 aflfirms that the Emmanuel is God, he is found in them to attribute to Him " 
 [only] "the prophetic measure; for he says that He is a" [mere] "inspired Man 
 in order that He may appear like us who have the Lord of the Universe indwell- 
 ing us by the Holy Spirit. For He A^n^Ws in our hearts'" [II. Cor. i., 22; Gal. 
 iv., 6], "and we are temples of the living God'' [I. Cor. iii., 16, 17; I. Cor. vi., 
 19]. "But it is not the same thing to say that the Word was made fnan " [John 
 i., 14; I. Cor. XV., 47; 1. Tim. iii., 16; Heb. ii., 14-18], "and to think that God" 
 [merely] "dwelt in a man. For the blessed Paul's saying is true, that ^ All 
 the fulness of the Godhead bodily' was well pleased to dwell in him " [Colos. ii., 
 9], "that is, not relatively {oh (rx£riK(b^); and yet " [he does not confound the 
 Father and the Son there] "for he says that there is" [duti "one God, the 
 Father, and" [but] ''one Lord fesus Christ through whom are all things " [I. 
 Cor. viii.. 6]. 
 
 Then he goes oh further to argue against the Nestorian heresy of a mere 
 Relative Indwelling, and at the end concludes as follows: 
 
 "And we remember that He" [God the Word] "called His own body a 
 temple, but He has not made His indwelling" [of it merely] "relative {oh 
 cx^iKT/v iiroLTjoaTo ttjv kvoLKijGLv), for in that sense He dwells even in us by the 
 Spirit, but He is deemed but One Christ and Son and Lord in a union." 
 
 Cyril again refers to the Relative Conjun5lion of the Nestorians, in his reply 
 to Theodoret's censure on his Anathema X., for after a train of reasoning against 
 his heresies, he concludes there as follows as to those errorists: 
 
 " It is clear therefore that they only pretend to acknowledge the Union to 
 deceive the minds of the simpler sort; but they hold to a conju?i^ion which is 
 both external and relative, such as we also have" [to God the Word] "inasmuch 
 as we have been made partakers of his divine Nature through the Spirit [II. 
 Peter i., 4]. 
 
 " We must therefore pay no heed to their babblings, but to the correct and 
 blameless faith, and to the Evangelic and Apostolic Oracles." 
 
 I quote the Greek as on page 484, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey's edition of St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria's works in the Greek original. 
 
 '^pbi^ifhov ovv on TrMrTovrac fikv ofioTMynv rtjv evioaiv, rag tuv a-jzlovcr^puv vTzorpe- 
 Xovre^ yucjuag- cvvcKpeiav 61 (ppovovai^ ttjv e^uBh re nal cx^riKyv, yv kcI TjfLclg eaxwafiev^ 
 Koivuvol TTJq Oelag avTov ^vaeug avadedeiyfievoi 6ta tov Uvevfiarog. 
 
 Cyril in his Anathema XI., on the same page, 484, in strict accordance with. 
 
 the use of the Anathema in Galatians i., 8, 9. curses the Nestorians because they 
 
 denied the Inman and held to what they termed a mere "divine indwelling 
 
 alone" of their mere human Christ by God the Word {rov U etov nn-;H>g X6yov 
 
 "^ * ^ ug n6vt]v Oe'iav evoiKr^a/v tax'/Koroc.) That curse was approved and. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 67 
 
 there is " [but] ''One Christ (i6i), and " [but] "one Son. Not that 
 
 adopted as an utterance of the whole Church at Ephesus in its Third Council, 
 when they approved and adopted the long Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, which 
 contains it. 
 
 And now, 2, to come to another Nestorian sequence of their heresy of mak- 
 ing Christ, not God at all but a mere Man, that is the relative worship of that 
 mere Man for the sake of God the Word or with reference to Him, who, they 
 said, indwelt him by His Spirit's influences only as He indwells other men. The 
 Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity was relative to His Divinity as in effect 
 is shown in Cyril's Defence of his XII. Chapters Against Theodoret, under 
 Anathema II., pages 404-406, of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria's Works; that, as has been said, is the outcome of holding that 
 Christ is a mere Man, so that there is nothing in him to worship but a mere man, 
 that is a creature; in other words it is the result of believing in a mere Relative 
 Indwelling of Christ's humanity; that is an indwelling of it not by the Sub- 
 stance of his Divinity but by the influences of His Spirit only. 
 
 I quote Cyril's words in that place: 
 
 "Forasmuch therefore as Nestorius everywhere does away the birth of God 
 the Word in flesh, and brings in to us a unity of dignities only, and says 
 that a Man has been conjoined to God the Word, and honored with The 
 SAME NAME Son " [with God the Word] ; " we are compelled to contend against 
 the errors of that " [heretic] ** and to assert that the Union has been made Sub- 
 stancely {KaO' v-oaTaaiv); the expression suhstancely {jo'v KaO' vTrooTaoLv) meaning 
 nothing but that the Nature {(pi'oig), that is the Substance {y-Koaraoir) of the Word, 
 which is the Word Himself, has been really united to human nature, without 
 any change and without any mingling together," [of the two], *'as we have 
 said very often; and so Christ is deemed and is" [but] "one, the Same One 
 being God and Man. 
 
 " And that thing, as I at least think, seems good to Theodoret himself also, 
 for he says that God is not to be separated from " [the] "human nature, nor 
 moreover, is the human nature to be deemed to be without" [the] "Divinity. 
 Therefore we say that '' the form of the servant'' and ^' the form of God'^ 
 [Philip ii., 6. 7] "have been united, and that not without their" [two] "sub- 
 stances; and, furthermore, we do not define that a common man, honored 
 
 WITH EQUALITY ONLY OF HONORS has beeU RELATIVELY CONJOINED to the 
 
 Word, but we do define, as I have been saying, that the Son Himself of God, the 
 Sole-born, really took on flesh, which was united to Himself, and has a rational 
 soul, and so He became Man and nevertheless remained God also." 
 
 I quote the parts of the Greek most important to our purpose and theme: 
 (^VKOvv ovre Sixa tcov vrroaraaeoyv dovTiOV te Kal Qeoii fiopcpt/v yrucrOai ({>auEV ovre uyv 
 Koivov avdpoTTov, Ig6ti]tl iJ.6vy ruv a^iu/mTuv Ten/irffxhov^ ax£~iKCJC avvycpdai t<j AoyiA 
 ihopiCd/xE'&a, alV avrhv^ wf Icprjv^ rbv Tidv rov Qmv, ruv Movoyev?}^ etc. 
 
 Here the honoring of the Nestorian Christ, a mere man, "with equality 
 
08 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 the difference between the Natures has been done away by the Union, 
 
 OF HONORS," that is with honors equal to those given to God the Word includes 
 the honor of worship, as Cyril so often explains elsewhere. 
 
 In passing I would add that by the words, " And that thing, as I think, 
 seems good to Theodoret himself," Cyril does not mean that Theodoret was 
 Orthodox on all things, but only on the truth that the Two Natures are not 
 mixed together, nor is either of them changed. That heresy all the Nestorians 
 rejedled. But, as the context shows, Theodoret held to the Nestorian heresies 
 and championed them. Therefore the Fifth Synod, in its Definition and in its 
 Anathema XIII., justly condemned his writings against the XII. Chapters of 
 Cyril. 
 
 The Eighth of Nestorius' Counter-Anathemas against Cyril of Alexandria, 
 bases, in effect, the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity on the heathen 
 principle of Relative- Worship and defends it by it. I quote it all as on page 
 244 of the second edition of Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole. It is as follows: 
 
 Nestorius' Counter Anathema VIII.: 
 
 ** If any one says that 'the form of a servant' (Philip, ii., 7) is to be wor- 
 shipped for its own sake, that is with reference to its own nature, and that it is 
 Lord of all things " [in its own nature], "and does not on the contrary worship 
 it because of its being associated, conjoined, and connedled with the blessed, and 
 of itself naturally Lordly Nature of the Sole-Born, let him be anathema." 
 
 So the Creed attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia makes the worship of 
 Christ's humanity Relative only. As found on pages 231, 232 of the second edi- 
 tion of Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole, where it is given as from Act VI. of this 
 Third Ecumenical Council, and from the Council of Chalcedon, and from a 
 Council of Constantinople, it has the following concerning Christ's humanity, 
 and the reason and kind of its worship: 
 
 "It [Christ's humanity], as having the inseparable conjundlion with ihe 
 Divine Nature [of the Word''], " receives worship from all the creation; all the 
 creatiott givittg bowing to it, BECAUSE OF ITS rei^ation to God and in con- 
 sideration OF God." 
 
 {Tf}v Trapa iraariq rfjq KTtaecog dex^Tfii- TrpodKvvTjaiv, ug ax^piOTov npog rrjv -ddav (j>vaiv- 
 f;\;wv T^v cvvhi^Eiav, a.va(j)opg Qeov Kal kvvoia Tidarj^ avrCy rfjq KTiceio^ tjjv TrpoaKvvjjaiv airo- 
 vEuovar/g). The Theodore Creed continues; 
 
 And we do not assert two sons or two Lords, for there is but one Son, who 
 is God, as respecls His substance, God the Word, the Sole-Boru Son of the 
 Father, to whom that Man being united and partaking of Divinity" [or "with 
 Divinity "], "shares in common with God the Word both the name and honor 
 of Son. And forasmuch as God the Word is Lord by Nature, and that Man is 
 conjoined to Him, ^^ " [the man] "shares His" [the Word's] "honor" [zvith 
 Ilivi]. And therefore we neither assert two Sons nor two Lords; for inasmuch 
 as, I, He who as respects His [Divine] Substance is both Lord and Son, has the 
 inseparable conjundlion with him" [that is, the man] "who was taken for our 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestoriics. 69 
 
 but on the contrary that the Divinity and the humanity constitute 
 
 salvation, he'' [the man] ''is coexalted'' {with God the Word] ''with the name 
 ■and the hofior of Son and Lord; not that he " [the man] " is a Son in the sense 
 that each one of us by himself is a Son (in which sense we are said by the 
 Apostle Pauljtobe ' many sons,' (Heb. ii., lo), but he" [the man] ** alone has 
 that special distindlion in the conjunction with God the Word, and sharing the 
 Sonship and the Lordship" [with God the Word], "enables us to have all faith 
 and thought and contemplation of him, in the conjundlion with God the Word. 
 On account of which things therefore he" [the man] "receives 
 from ai.i. the creation the worship and exai.tation of god." 
 
 {oXka fiovoq e^aipsrov exi^v tovto ev r/) irpug tov Qeov Aoyov avvatpda, T^g re v'lottjtoq 
 Kol KvpiorrjTog /j.tT£xo)Vj avaiptl /nev Tzacav Ivvoiav 6va6og v'luv rt Kol Kvpiuv^ napexat Si: 
 fjulv EV TTj Trpof TOV Qeov Aoyov Gvva(pet.a Tzaaav ex^tv ahrov rfjv ttIgtiv kuI Tr/v evvoiav Kal 
 TTfv Oeupiav, vTrep o)V dfj kol ttjv TrpooKvv^aiv Kal avacpopav Qeov irapd iraci^Q dex^Tai rfig 
 
 KTlGEuq. 
 
 Hahn in his note 1186, page 232, tells us that Hardouin for kol avacpopav above 
 conjectures Kar' avacpopdv. In that case we should have to translate the last part 
 above "THEREFORE HE [the Man] RECEIVES from AI.1. THE CREATION WOR- 
 SHIP REi^ATivEivY TO GoD." That does not differ materially in sense from the 
 other rendering. And xal dm(i>opdv, makes good sense without Hardouin's 
 conje(5lure. 
 
 We shall see further on how sternly the Third Synod of Christendom con- 
 demned that Creed of Theodore, and how it made its famous Seventh Canon 
 against it. 
 
 Cyril's Long Epistle which has the XII. Chapters, as we shall see, condemns 
 in effect statements of Nestorius in which in effect he teaches the Relative- Wor- 
 ship of Christ's humanity. And that Epistle was approved by that Council, 
 
 We shall see further on in this very Act I. of Ephesus that one of the rea- 
 sons for which Nestorius was deposed was his plain advocacy of worshipping 
 Christ's separate humanity relatively to God the Word. That idea and cavil of 
 Relative- Worship is the very excuse of the heathen so often put forward by 
 them to defend their paganism, and rebuked by the early Christian writers. 
 
 In another note below on this Epistle will be found quotations from St. 
 Cyril, from the Nestorians, and Decisions of Ecumenical Councils on the wor- 
 ship of Christ's humanity. 
 
 (157). Or, "ensouled," Greek adpKa e^pvxo/tepr/v ipvx{i Aoy^/cy. 
 
 This the Apollinarian heretics denied. And yet the Nestorians 
 slandered him by calling him an Apollinarian. 
 
 (158). Instances where God the Word is called Son 0/ Man are Matt, xvi., 
 13, compared with xvi., 16, and John vi., 62. In the former place Peter con- 
 fesses Him to be the *' Son of the Living God,'' and the reference, as all the 
 Orthodox admit, is to the Logos who by birth ''came out of the Father before 
 all thezvorlds," as the Creed of the Second Synod of the Christian World words 
 
70 Act I. cf Ephesus. 
 
 completely for us the one Lord and Anointed (162) and Son, by 
 
 it. In John vi , 62, in the statement that ''the Son of Man " was to ^'ascend up 
 where he was before,''' that is to heaven, the " where He was before,'' can not 
 mean that His humanity had been in heaven then, but must mean His Divinit}'^ 
 So He teaches in the context, John vi., 33, 38, 51. 
 
 So in John iii., 13, the same meaning is conveyed in the words, ''No man 
 hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son 
 of Man which is in heaven;" for only God the Word had been in heaven before 
 that. The doArine of the Economic Appropriation set forth in Cyril's two 
 Epistles (the above one and the one which has the XII. Anathemas), which 
 were approved by the Third Council, is based on such and similar texts. 
 
 (159). These are Nestorian heresies on the Union. P'^or while denying the 
 Divine Substance Union, that is the actual indwelling of the Man, taken from 
 Mary's Substance, by God the Word's Divine and Eternal Substance, they 
 wished to make up some sort of a Union, and so they said that God the Word 
 was united to their mere Man born of Mary, that is their mere human Christ, in 
 the sense of a union of their two wills, the divine will of course governing the 
 human; or of [mere] good pleasure, ''on the ground that God the Word'' (as 
 the Fourth Anathema of the Fifth Council words it), " was pleased with the 
 [mere] Man [who was the whole of the mere human Nestorian Christ] in that 
 He [God the Word] thought well atid good of him [that is, of the mere Man] 
 as Theodore [of Mopsuestia] in his raving says." That is, according to that, 
 there was no union of the Substance of God the Word to the substance of the 
 Man by a real Incarnation, but merely such a union of that Man's mere will to 
 God as exists more or less in every good man's will to God the Word; or merely 
 such a union of mere good pleasure as is consequent on any man's will having 
 become subject to God; that is, according to that, God the Word is well pleased 
 with the Man because of the Man's having first pleased him by obedience in 
 faith and works. All that is merely a moral and spiritual, and external Union, 
 such as exists between every truly Christian, pious soul and God the Word, only 
 a more intimate moral and spiritual Union so far as Christ's humanity is con- 
 cerned, because its obedience is perfect, whereas our obedience is imperfect at 
 the best; for Christ's humanity is a sinless creature, and ours is sinful. 
 
 P. E. Pusey, in his Three Epistles of S. Cyril, page 56, refers, on the above 
 words will and good pleasure in the Epistle, to Psalm xviii., 19, of the Septua- 
 gint, "And He brought me out into a wide place; He wilt deliver me because 
 He wished me, ' ' pvaeral fie, bn rj^eTirjak fit. 
 
 A clearer reference to Christ's human will as subject to the Father's divine 
 will, occurs in Matthew xxvi., 39, where Christ as Man dreading that suffering 
 from which His Divinity is ever exempt and which His humanity only must 
 ho^sir falls on his face and prays, " O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup 
 pass away from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt,'* ovx ^^ f}" 
 ■&klu), alA' cjq ah. Now, as Cyril of Alexandria teaches, Christ prays as man, for 
 as God He is prayed to. Hence the posture, prostration, and the words of the 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nes tomes. 71 
 
 means of their iueflfable and secret coming together in unity (163). 
 
 prayer, iucluding the reference to His will which He submits here and in verse 
 42 to His Father's divine will, all refer to His human will. And so that passage 
 was a strong one against the One-Willites in the seventh century, and aided the 
 Sixth Ecumenical Council in forming its decision against them. 
 
 On the vforAs good pleasure Pusey in the same note refers to the Septuagint 
 of Isaiah Ixii., 4, where God, addressing Jerusalem or Judah, says: ''And thou 
 shall no tnore be called Forsaken; and thy land shall no more be called Desert; 
 for thou shall be called My Desire {ptTirjiia k/uov)^ and thy land Inhabited: for 
 THE Lord hath taken pi^easure in thee {otl £v66k7jge Kvpiog h col), and thy 
 land shall be inhabited.'''' 
 
 That text is pertinent; but the Nestorians may have had in mind as the 
 basis of their use of the expression good pleasure {ehdoKia) the words of the 
 Father to the Son after His baptism in the Jordan, ** Thozc art my beloved Son 
 in whom I am well pleased'' iv 9 ehdoKr/aa, (Mark i., 11; Matt, iii,, 17; Luke iii., 
 22). For as their Christ was a mere man, they would hence understand those 
 words of his mere humanity. I would add that the words, in whom I am, well 
 pleased," are equivalent to, ''with whom I am well pleased," in our English 
 idiom. Bloomfield, in his New Testament, on Matthew iii., 17, explains the kv in 
 the expression, ev cj evoK/joa, as follows: "The use of the h in this phrase is a 
 Hebraism, occurring also in the Septuagint." 
 
 (160). Or, perhaps better, "nor yet as though He adopted a human person 
 merely." The Greek here as in P. E. Pusey's text reads, aAA' ohSe uc h irpoa- 
 Tiij-ipeL TTpoa^TTov fiovov. The Latin Version given by Pusey, he says in his Preface 
 to his edition of the Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, "is 
 believed to be Marius Mercator's^ and so to be of coeval antiquity with the" 
 Letter of Cyril itself. That, as on page 7 of Pusey's edition, renders the above 
 Greek, nee sicut in personae tantummodo susceptione. God the Word accepts 
 the person of every man who truly turns to Him; for He says, " Come Ufito Me 
 all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest " (Matt, xi,, 28); 
 and so there is, in that sense, Union between God the Word and every devout 
 Christian. But the Union of God the Word is of a very different nature from 
 that; for, whereas God the Word indwells every Christian, not by His Eternal 
 Substance but by the sancflifying and saving influences of His Holy Spirit, He 
 indwells the Man whom He put on in Mary's womb by the adlual Substance of 
 His Eternal Divinity. And this, it is all -important to remember, for if we do 
 not, we can not see the magnificent logic of Cyril and the Wisdom of the Church 
 in approving it in the Third World-Council. For we may and must worship 
 God the Word's Eternal Divinity who dwells in Christ's humanity as in a temple, 
 as by and by we shall find Athanasius teaching; but we may not and must not 
 worship a merely spiritual and sandlifying influence of the Holy Ghost, or else 
 we should be compelled to worship it in every devout Christian man, woman 
 and child. We do indeed worship the Eternal Substance of God the Holy Ghost, 
 but not his world-wide influences which are in every man; in the evil to rebuke 
 him for his sins and to woo him to repentance even though the singer may do 
 
72 Act I, of Ephesus. 
 
 And so it is said that, although He had His existence before the 
 
 despite to the Spirit of Grace (Heb. x., 29), and in the good man to rebuke him 
 for his shortcomings and falls, and to approve him for every good thought and 
 word and deed which, by the Holy Spirit's aid, he willingly and obediently 
 does. God the Spirit's i7ifluence in us is not His Substance, that is it is not God,- 
 and we must remember that Christ's fundamental and binding law on that topic 
 is, "■Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve, ''^ Matt, 
 iv., 10. If we begin by bowing as an act of religious service to any thing other 
 than His Substance, to which that and every other act of religious service are 
 prerogative, we rouse the just anger of the God who calls Mwas^Xi Jealous (Exod. 
 XX., 5, 6; Deut. vi., 15; Exod. xxxiv., 14; Isaiah xlii., 8), by violating His law, 
 and so are lost. For while we must heed and follow the blessed leadings of 
 God's Spirit, we must avoid the many absurdities and idolatries and man-wor- 
 shippings which would be the inevitable consequence of mistaking and con- 
 founding His Z^zVzw//;/ and His influences. Let us remember that another sort 
 of mixture, that is the confounding the Divinity of the Word and His humanity 
 has resulted in that Monophysitism which the Universal Church in the Fourth 
 World-Synod, the Fifth and the Sixth has anathematized. Anathema IX. of the 
 Fifth Council is especially plain against that error. See it. 
 
 I prefer to translate the Greek as I have given it in the text or above. But P. 
 E. Pusey here renders on page 56 of his Three Epistles of S. Cyril, '' Nor yet 
 by appendage of person only. ' ' But we must remember carefully and very clearly 
 the fact that the Nestorians did not regard God the Word's Substance as indwell- 
 ing the Man, but only the iiifluences, not the divine Substance, of His Holy 
 Spirit, and that the relation therefore of God the Word and the Man so far as 
 the Substance of each is concerned, was and is wholly external to each other; so 
 that the merely human Nestorian Christ was, according to their heresy, an 
 appendage to God the Word in the sense that every other godly man is, that is- 
 they and Christ are appendages to God the Word in the sense that He indwells 
 each one of them, not by His Substance but by the sandlifying influences of His 
 Spirit, only that in the case of Christ's perfect humanity the sancftification is. 
 much more complete than it is in other creatures. We are indeed taught that 
 Christ's humanity was sandlified by the Spirit (John iii., 34; Heb. ix., 14); but 
 we, as Orthodox Christians, believe also that it was indwelt not merely by the 
 sandlifying influences of the Holy Ghost but also by the adlual Substance of 
 God the Word, who put on that Man in the womb of the Virgin, and has ever 
 since indwelt him. I would add, lest I may be understood to teach that the 
 Nestorians admitted the perfect sinlessness of Christ's humanity from the very 
 first, that Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council seems to show that 
 one of their founders and leaders, Theodore of Mopsuestia, did not, but believed 
 that he progressed from a morally imperfect to a perfect moral state. See it. 
 
 (161). Xpftrrdf, literally ''Anointed One.'^ 
 
 (162). Greek, Xp/arov, 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 73 
 
 worlds (164), and was born out of the Father (165), He w^as also 
 born according to flesh, out of a woman (166). Not that his Divine 
 Nature took the beginning of Its existence in the holy Virgin nor 
 indeed that it absolutely needed, on Its own account, a second birth 
 after that which was out of the Father. For it is both a rash and at 
 the same time an unlearned thing to assert that He Who was before 
 every world, and was co-eternal with the Father (167), needed a sec- 
 ond beginning in order to exist. But because ''for us'' and 'for our 
 salvation'' (168), the Word united to Himself Substancely the 
 humanity, and came forth out of a woman (169); in that respect 
 
 (163). Here Cyril confesses the crucial point against the error of the Apol- 
 linarians, and against the Synusiasts, that is Cosubstancers, and antecedently 
 against the later One-Natureites; that is he teaches as to the Two Natures, the 
 Divinity and the humanity, that the difference between them has not ''been done 
 away by the Union.'' Since therefore that remains they are two Natures still; a 
 fact which of course destroys the Monophysite heresy, whether it be in the 
 Apolhnarian form or the Eutychian. This Epistle, as we shall see, was approved 
 by a direct vote of the Third Ecumenical Council in A. D. 431, about twenty 
 years before the Fourth Ecumenical Council (held A. D. 451), following out the 
 teaching of the Third, condemned Eutyches and One-Natureism. Some men 
 who do not understand St. Cyril forget this fact when they slanderously or 
 ignorantly accuse him of Monophysitism. 
 
 (164). John i., I, 2, 3, 10; John xvii., 5; Colos. i., 16, 17: Heb. i., 2; Heb. 
 xi., 3. 
 
 (165). John viii., 42, 1 came out of God, £>« yap kn rov Qeov k^fjMov; and John 
 xvi., 28, in Tischendorf s Greek Testament, Bdztio OElava Critica Major, e^t/7.^ov 
 €K Tov Ilarpof, / eaifte out of the Father. Those texts mean, of course, that He 
 came out of God the Father's Substance, and hence is of one substance with 
 Him. Wherefore in Hebrews i., 3, He is termed '* CharaBer of His Substance 
 {XapuKTT/p Tf/^ vTTocTdaecog avrov). But alas! those strong texts for the consubstan- 
 tiality of the Son with the Father are almost wholly blurred in our Common 
 Translation. But St. Athanasius and the other champions of Orthodoxy used 
 them, in the senses I have given, with great power and success against the 
 Arians. 
 
 (166). Galat. iv., ycvonevoD ek yvvaixor, '^ made out of a woman,''' that is His 
 humanity was taken out of her substance; "Ma7y, out of whom was bornfesus 
 who is called Christ," Maplag, t^ 7)g kyEvvi'i&j] 'Itjgovc^ etc. Matt, i., 16. 
 
 (167). That follows necessarily from His having come out of the Father as 
 he teaches in John viii., 42, and John xvi., 28; and of His being therefore what 
 He is termed in the Greek of Hebrews i., 3, CharaBer of His Substa^ice {XapaKzi/p 
 Tfjq vTToaTUatuq avrov), and hence, of course, of one substance luith Him. And 
 hence as God's Substance is eternal, aye the Sole eternal Thing, and as the 
 Logos has it. He is co-eternal with the Father. 
 
 (168). Cyril here quotes the Nicene Creed which he is explaining. 
 
74 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 therefore He is said to have been born in the flesh (170). For it is 
 not true that He was first born a common man out of the holy Vir- 
 gin, and that then the Word descended upon Him (171), but being 
 united to flesh in the womb itself (172), He is said to have under- 
 gone a birth in the flesh, because He claims as His own the birth of 
 His own flesh (173). So we say that He both ''suffered'''' and ''rose 
 
 (169). Greek, kvdaaq eavTiJ 6 Adyof Kad' vTToaTaatv to avBpcjinvov^ literally ** l^he 
 Word having united to Himself Substancely the Human thing came forth out 
 of a woman.'*'' The Greek says here "out of a woman,''' Trpof/Adsv ek ywaiKog. That 
 is a close following on Cyril's part of the literal sense of Holy Writ in such 
 passages as Matt, i., 16, "out of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ,'' 
 Greek e^ m kyevvr]dri Irjaovg, etc. The same idea is in Luke ii., 7, "she brought 
 forth {ereiiev) her first brought forth Son; " and in other passages. Cyril makes 
 much of Mary's having adlually brought forth God the Word in flesh taken out 
 of her substance {"fnade out of a woman,"" yevoaevov kn ywaiKog, Galat. iv., 4), of 
 Abraham's and of David's seed and line according to the prophecies, because it 
 was necessary to guard the fundamental truth of the Inflesh of God the Word, 
 and to avoid the Nestorian worship of a mere Man. See notes 156, 173. I should 
 add that inasmuch as in Christ there is but one Person, not two, when we speak 
 of the Personal Union, we mean the Union of the Person of God the Word to 
 the Man taken by Him in Mary's womb; though since His Incarnation He and 
 His humanity are called One Person in Two Natures. So when we use the 
 expression Hypostatic Union, as vTrocraaig has two meanings in theology; i, Sub- 
 stance, and 2, Person, we mean in the first case the Union of the acSlual Substance 
 of Christ's Divinity to the human substance of the Man put on by Him; and in 
 the second case we mean the Personal Union as just explained above. 
 
 (170.) John i., 14; Luke xxiv., 39; Acts ii., 30, 31, 32; Rom. i., 3; Rom. 
 viii., 3. 
 
 (171). As has been said above, Nestorius denied any real, Personal indwell- 
 ing of the divine Substance of the Word in the Man put on by Him, and taught 
 in effect that He dwelt in that Man by His Spirit only, as He did in the 
 Prophets and other holy men. This is called relative indwelling, as opposed to 
 the Substance indwelliiig. It is called relative also because the Holy Spirit is 
 related to the Word as His Spirit. That do6lrine of Nestorius Cyril opposes 
 above. And, notwithstanding all efforts to clear Nestorius from the charge of 
 maintaining that heresy, the fadls show beyond all peradventure that he did 
 maintain it, and not only it, but also the error of relative service to Christ's 
 separate humanity which in his mind went with it, and is Man-Worship, as Cyril 
 calls it, that is Creature-Worship, that is Paganism. See what I have written in 
 notes 156, 159 and 160 above on that matter. 
 
 (172). Greek, as in P. E. Pusey's text, H "i'"'?? p)"P«f huBelg, literally " out 
 of the womb itself;'' that is, God the Word, as has been said above, united to 
 Himself a Man in Mary's womb, and came out of her, God and Man, 
 
 (173). Or, "because He appropriates to Himself the birth of Plis 07Vfi 
 flesh ;" wf TT}(; \6iaq aapKor rrjv yivv/i'jtv oiK£U)i'jU£i>oc. This is the docSlrine of Ttco- 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nest on us. 75 
 
 again " (174), not that the Word of God suffered in His own [Divine] 
 Nature either the stripes or the piercings of the nails or the other 
 wounds, for His Divinity did not suffer, and that because It was 
 without a body (175); but because that which had been made His 
 
 nomic Appropriation {olKovnjuiii?/v oiKeiumv), of the sufferings and death of the Man 
 put on, to God the Word, to keep us, as St. Cyril explains, in Athanasius' words, 
 in his reply to Andrew of Samosota and the Orientals, on the XII. Chapters, from 
 the Nestorian crime of worshipping a mere Man, as the Definition of the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Council also has it, following Cyril. For in its Anathema IX,, it 
 curses every one who " asserts that Christ is to be bowed to in Two Natures,'^ 
 and commands us to ''bow with but one bow to God the Word fleshed with His 
 OW71 flesh."' In what follows the above in Cyril's short Letter, the dodlrine of the 
 Economic Appropriation is elaborated and stated at some length. So it is in the 
 longer Epistle of Cyril which has the XII. Anathemas. In approving them the 
 Third Christian-World-Council of course approved that dodlrine. Some, ignor- 
 ant of that decision, hold to the dodlrine which is its direct contradidlion, and 
 mere Nestorianism, namely, that the prerogatives of God the Word, such as 
 omnipresence, and worship, may be given to His humanity, as they say, in the 
 Eucharist. That error is part of the doclriue of the Coninmnicatio Idioniatum, 
 Commimication of Properties. That is, in effect, condemned in Anathema VIII. 
 of Cyril's XIL, which were approved at Ephesus. It is also, in effect, con- 
 demned in Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical vSynod, and in the part of its 
 Definition before the Anathemas. The other part of the dogma of the Commu- 
 nication of Properties (if it be a part of it), that the sufferings and death of the 
 Man put on may be Economically ascribed to His Divinity is, in effect, the 
 Orthodox dodlrine of Economic Appropriation. 
 
 St. Athanasius, as quoted with approval, and as a proof against Nestorian 
 error by St. Cyril in his Defence of his XII. Chapters against the Orientals, 
 attributes all the sufferings of Christ's humanity to God the Word, but Econom- 
 ically only in accordance with the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, and 
 teaches in effect that this is done to avoid the idolatry of creature invocation. 
 For after mentioning those sufferings, such as to be condemnated, to be beaten, 
 to thirst, the cross and death and the rest of the sufferings, as belonging to that 
 body which God the Word had put on, and which was therefore His and not 
 another's, and after Economically ascribing them to Him, inasmuch as they be- 
 longed to that body w^hich was His, though He Himself being God did not suffer 
 at all, he proceeds to tell the reason for this Economic Appropriation: 
 
 " For that reason therefore logically and fitly such sufferings are said not to 
 be another's but the Lord' s, in order that the grace also [of redemption] may 
 be from Him \_God the Word], and that WK may not become idoi^aters, but 
 
 TRULY WORSHIPPERS OF GOD, BECAUSE WE INVOKE NO CREATURE, NOR 
 ANY COMMON Man, BUT THE REAL SON who as to Ilis Nature has come out 
 of God, and has been made Man, and yet is none the less Lord and God, and 
 Saviour" (A/.d nwro Toivw aKo/Mbt'ur, kuI Trperzovruq ovk aAlnv, a7JA rov Kvoiov /Jyerat 
 
76 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 own body suffered these indignities, He Himself (176) is said furth- 
 ermore, in that sense, to have suffered [those things] for us. For 
 the unsuffering [Word] was in the suffering body. And in the same 
 way also we understand that He died. For in His Nature, the Word 
 of God (177) is immortal and incorruptible, and He is Life [178] and 
 
 TO. rotavTa ttcl-^t}' Iva Kol ^ j^fap^f irap' avrov elri, koc fifj tl^iAolarpat yivofie^a [al. yivufi- 
 E^a], alia alrj'&ibg'&eoae^eig, on fi7j6eva rciv yevvrjTuv, firi 6e kolvov rtva avOpuKov d'AXardv 
 EK Qeov (pvoei Kal alrjBLvbv Tlov, tovtov yEvofiEvov av^ptiirov^ ov6ev tjttov tov Kvpiov avrov, Kal 
 Sedv, Kal Zcjrrjpa ETTiKalov/iE^a). Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 76, col. 384, D. 
 
 In Volume I. of Nicaea, in this series, I have quoted the above passage and 
 several others from St. Athanasius to show his strong contending against Man- 
 Worship and Creature- Worship, and for the Worship of God alone. See there, 
 pages 236 to 240, and the eleven passages of Athanasius preceding, on pages 217- 
 236, and the passages from St. Epiphanius on pages 240-247, and those from 
 Lucifer of Cagliari and Faustin the presbyter, and Chromatins, on pages 
 
 247-253- 
 
 Cyril in accordance with his dodlrine of the Economic Appropriation to 
 God the Word of the sufferings of His humanity, condemns in his Defence of 
 his Vlth. Chapter agaijist Theodoret, the following sayings of Nestorius: 
 
 "Therefore the merciful High Priest who suffered is not the life-giving God 
 of him who suffered." 
 
 "He himself was both the new-born babe and the Lord of the new-born 
 babe." 
 
 Cyril would have the suffering and the birth of the Man put on ascribed 
 Economically to God the Word, to avoid Nestorian Man-Worship, as he explains 
 above in his teacher, Athanasius' words. 
 
 (174). Cyril here quotes again the Nicene Creed, which he is explaining. 
 
 (175.) Greek, a-a^lc, yap to t&sIop otl Kal aau/iaTov. The reference here, I 
 think, may be, not to the Father's Divinity, but to the Divinity of the Logos. 
 So I have rendered above the exo)v ttjv hnap^iv, not as it literally is " having the 
 existence," but '' having His existence," as is common in translating the article 
 in parts of Cyril's writings when it refers separately to Christ's Divinity, or to His 
 humanity. In other words, I prefer to understand him as asserting that God 
 the Word has no body of Divinity since He came out, by birth, of the Father's 
 ''form " (Phihppians ii., 6), that is out of His body of Spirit, that is of Divinity, 
 the sole body of God. Cyril was a nephew of that Theophilus, Bishop of Alex- 
 andria, who, after being suspedled of Origenistic heretical notions, that is of 
 denying that God the Father has a body, came out strongly, and became, with 
 St. Epiphanius of Constantia in Cyprus, a champion for the view that God has 
 a body, against Chrysostom as I show elsewhere in a special Dissertation on that 
 question of God's having a body. And I presume that Cyril would naturally 
 hold, as did his uncle, not to coarse materialistic views, but to the dodlrine that 
 He has a body of Spirit. See Volume I. of Nicaea in this series, page 199. At 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestor ins. 11 
 
 Life-Giver (i 79). But, because His own body ' ' by the grace of God, ' ' 
 as Paul says (180), tasted '' death for every man,'' He Himself (181) 
 is said to have suffered that death for us, not that it belongs to His 
 [divine] Nature to experience death, for to say or to think that 
 
 least I do not feel sure that he opposed the do<5lrine of Tertullian and some 
 others of the ancients that God the Father has a body of Spirit, that is of 
 Divinity, which, of course, is incapable of suffering, for it is a part of God. 
 The ancients sometimes use Spirit for Divinity, as we show elsewhere. See 
 Cyril's work against the Anthropomorphites, and Tertullian 07i Christ's Flesh, 
 Sedlion XI., Against Praxeas, Sedlion VII., and Against Marcion, Book 2, 
 Sedlion XVI. 
 
 Besides different expressions of the Nicene Creed teach that God the Father, 
 to whom we pray, is not, as some would have it, a formless, shapeless cloud or 
 mist or vapor floating about in endless space, but that He possesses substance, 
 and a body of Spirit of course. For it speaks of the Logos as " of the same sub- 
 stance as the Father,'' and as ''born out of the Substance of the Father, God out 
 of God, * * * Very God out of very God, born not made, ' ' and the Anathema 
 at its end curses those who say that the Son of God has come "■out of another 
 Subsistence or Substance,'' than the Father's. To avoid contradidling such ex- 
 pressions I should prefer to understand Cyril here as asserting, what was his 
 main scope, that God the Word, of which Part of the Divinity He is here speak- 
 ing, has no body of Divinity. For the only body of God is that of the Father 
 in which ''form of God" {kv iuop(l)y Bfoi', Philippians ii., 6), the Word was till He 
 came out of Him by birth. The Holy Ghost too was in that same form of the 
 Father who, as all admit, is the sole Fountain of Divinity. When the Son 
 would come to earth He shrouded that Divinity which no man can see and live 
 (Exodus xxxiii., 20; John i., 18; I. Tim. vi., 16), in the body which He took on 
 Him in Mary's womb; and when the Holy Ghost came down after the baptism 
 of Christ in the Jordan He also shrouded His in the form of a dove (Matt, iii., 
 16; Mark i., 10; and Luke iii., 22). For what the Father says of the impossi- 
 bility of man's seeing Him is true of seeing His consubstantial Word and His 
 consubstantial Spirit, for they are God also. "There shall no man see me, and 
 live," Exod. xxxiii., 20. And so when God the Word before His birth of Mary 
 appeared in flesh, as the ancient Christian writers understood it, He always 
 shrouded His Divinity in a human or other form, as for instance when He ap- 
 peared as a Man to Jacob. And yet Jacob knew that it was God, for we read, 
 "And facob called the name of the place Peniel [that is, ' the face of God'] ' for 
 I have seen God face to face, and 'my life is preserved, " (Genesis xxxii., 24-32). 
 And yet he had not seen the Substance of God the Word's Divinity, but only the 
 face of the human form which He had put on for that occasion; and Jacob may, 
 perhaps, have understood that much even in that early da}-, when there had not 
 been so full a revelation of God as there is now in the New Testament. So 
 when Elijah stood at the mount and heard the voice of God, "he -wrapped his 
 face in his mantle," for he feared to look upon Jehovah lest he might die ( L 
 Kings xix., 13). And so deep-seated and general among the Israelites was the 
 
78 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 would be madness, but that, as I have just said, His flesh tasted 
 death. So also again, because His flesh was raised, that resurrec- 
 tion is attributed to Him [the Word], not that He [the Word] fell 
 under the power of corruption (God forbid!); but because His body 
 was raised again (182). 
 
 remembrance of God's utterance in Exodus xxxiii., 20, that «o man shall see 
 His face, afid live, that Manoah, who seems to have mistaken the created sub- 
 stance of the Angel's face for the uncreated Substance of God the Father's face, 
 tells his wife, " We shall surely diCy because we have seen God'' (Judges xiii., 22). 
 Bishop Patrick, of Ely, on that place teaches that the Angel there was God the 
 Word within a human form. See his Commentary, on Judges xiii., 18, 19. Per- 
 haps Gideon in Judges vi., 22, meant God the Word by ''Angel of the Lord:' 
 Compare Hosea xii., 4, with Gen. xxxii., 24-32. 
 
 Yet he allowed Moses to see his ''back parts,'' where the splendor would 
 not perhaps be so great and dazzling and overpowering as on His face. See 
 Rosenmiiller to that effect on Ex. xxxiii., 23. A description of the Father's body 
 which can not be explained away, notwithstanding every effort, is found in 
 Daniel vii., 9 to 23. There things are mentioned which refer to His body, for 
 He sits, and how can a man sit without a body.^ ' ' The hair of His head ' ' is men- 
 tioned, and the " garm,ent white as snow," which covers His body. 
 
 But of course we must not suppose that the self-existent God has digestive 
 organs for he needs no food nor drink; nor may we ascribe to Him generative 
 organs for Jehovah does not generate of women as man does, nor may we think 
 of anything else as belonging to His Body of Spirit, that is of Divinity, which 
 belongs to finite man's imperfections, such as pain, sickness, and death. 
 
 I would add in passing that Cyril does not here mean to deny that God the 
 Word had a human body; for he has been teaching that above as a part of the 
 Incarnation. 
 
 (176). That is, God the Word. 
 
 (177). Or, according to another reading, U Oeov, "the Word who came out 
 of God." This is Mansi's marginal reading. His text here has, o rov Qeov AoyoQ. 
 
 (178). John xiv., 6; Col. iii., 4; I. John i., i, 2; John vi., 35, 48. 
 
 (179). John v., 21; I. Cor. xv., 22, 45. 
 
 (180). Heb. ii, 9. On this Economically ascribing the sufferings and death 
 of the man put on by the Word to the Word Himself, see what I have written 
 in notes 142, 156, and especially 173, in this work on the dodtrine of Economic 
 Appropriation. I hope to publish a special Dissertation on that topic. How- 
 ever strange it may appear at first, this language, adopted by the whole Church 
 in the Third Ecumenical Synod, is well chosen and sound, if taken in Cyril's 
 sense as approved by the Third Council. 
 
 (181) That is, God the AVord. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, 79 
 
 So will we confess [but] one Anointed One and L,ord, not that 
 
 Cyril is here explaining still and enforcing the dodlrine of Economical Ap- 
 propriation which the Third Synod approved of course in approving the above 
 Epistle. 
 
 (182). Here Cyril ends on Economic Appropriation. Next he comes to 
 denounce the Nestorian error of worshipping a mere man, their mere human 
 Christ. That sin is called elsewhere by Cyril and the ancients avOpcoTroAa-ptla^ 
 Man-Worship. 
 
 (183). Greek, as in Act I. of Chalcedon in full, in Hardouin's Concilia^ 
 Oi»TW Xpiarbv eva Kai Kvptov o/xoXoyf/aofiev ovx <»>? av&pojwov cv/j.irpoGKvvovvTeg rcj Adycj Iva 
 fiTj Toi'TO £tf (pavraafia TrapecGKpivrjraij 6ta rov Tikyeiv to 2w* d/l/l' (jf eva Kal tov avrov 
 TzpoGKWovvTeg^ on fifj aXkorptov rov Aoyov to aijfia avTOv, fied^' ov Kal avT(l) awedpeveL rci 
 Ilarpr ovx <^r ^v(^ izdliv ovvedpevovTuv vio)v^ a?i?J wf evbg Ka6' evcjuiv fiETo. T^g [I6iag'\ 
 aapKog. 
 
 The term Idlag is found in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome Ixxvii., column 
 48, and in Mansi's Concilia, tome iv., column 889. Compare Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca, tome Ixxvii., column 45. 
 
 We see above that St. Cyril denies that the Orthodox " Co-bow to a Man 
 with the Word, lest that thing be secretly brought in for a phantasm.'' 
 
 This is strong and plain language. 
 
 Let us then inquire here briefly: 
 
 1. What his teaching on that point is; 
 
 2. How far the Third Synod of the whole Church and the Three after it 
 have followed him, and what the do^rine of the Six World Councils 07t that 
 point is; and 
 
 3. Lei us quote some Nestorian writers on it against Cyril and the Or- 
 ihodox. 
 
 Of course, in a note we can merely summarize. We must defer a fuller 
 treatment of the subject and other quotations till we publish a Dissertation on 
 that subject. 
 
 And, I. What was Cyril's teaching as to bowing to, that is worshipping, 
 the humanity of Christ ? 
 
 (A). An important passage is found on page 67 of the Oxford translation 
 by P. E. Pusey of Cyril's Five Book Contradi^ion of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
 torius, Book 2, SeElion 8. In his rendering it reads as follows: 
 
 "Why, tell me, do you insult the Divine flesh? Albeit, you refuse not to 
 worship it, while THE duty of being worshipped BE1.0NGS oni,y to the 
 Divine and Ineffable Nature." 
 
 Here St. Cyril makes religious worship prerogative to the Divine Nature 
 alone. 
 
 The Greek of Cyril as above translated is as follows in P. E. Pusey's edition 
 of the Greek of Cyril of Alexandria's Works, Vol. VI., page 119: 
 
80 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 we bow to a Man together with the Word, lest that thing be secretly 
 
 Ei likv yap TjvdaSaL (p?/^ Ka6^ vTzoaTaatv t<I) ek Qeuv (pin'Tt Aoyu to avdpuTTivov, ri r?/v 
 T^eiav EiTTE fiot TztiHvjipi(,Eig napKa; Kairot irpoaKwelv avTy /i/) Trapatrovjuevog, TrpeTzovrog juopyj 
 T^ T^eia re Kal arropp^Tu (piaei rov TzpoGKVveio'&aL deiv. 
 
 But to go into more detail; in the context just before, Nestorius, evidently- 
 supposing that St. Cyril held the Apollinarian heresy that Christ's flesh had 
 undergone deification {drroOeuotv) by its Union with God the Word, contends on 
 the contrary that the Union between the Two Natures has been made relatively 
 only ((T.v^r^Kwr), which would be such a Union as would leave the Two Natures 
 external to each other, and the Nestorian Christ a mere man. To that Cyril 
 replies in effect that that notion amounts in substance to a denial of the a6lual 
 indwelling of the Human Nature of Christ by the Substance of His Divinity, 
 and so to an a(5lual denial of the Incarnation. And then he continues, address- 
 ing Nestorius, as follows: 
 
 "And what then forsooth is the mode of what is called by thee Conjunn.io7v' 
 [of the Two Natures] "conceived to be? For if indeed thou say est that the 
 Humanity has been united to the Substance of the Word who was born out of 
 God, why, tell me, dost thou exceedingly insult the flesh of God, even indeed 
 [by] not refusing to bow to it ? Whereas To BE bowed to befits and is due 
 [that is, is prerogative] To THE divine and ineffabi^e nature ai.one." I 
 have translated -KpocKwnv literally, as it means, bow, for Cyril, as all admit, refers 
 here to religious bowing, that is to bowing as the most common act of religious 
 service, which, with every other act of religious service, is prerogative to God's 
 Substance alone, according to Christ's law, " Thou shall bow to the Lord thy 
 God, and Him only shall thou serve,'' Matt, iv., lo. In other words Cyril uses 
 bowing here for every act of religious worship, for in prayer we bow when we 
 kneel, when we prostrate ourselves, and when we stand. Hence in the New 
 Testament and in the Christian Fathers it is so often used: 
 
 1. For acceptable religious service, that is to the true God. It is used also, 
 
 2. For forbiddeji worship, as to idols, for instance; and 
 
 3. For mere 71071-religious bowing, done as an act of fnere human love or 
 respect to the good and bad alike. 
 
 (B.^) Cyril, in view of the infinite superiority of the Creator Word, God the 
 Son, to His created humanity, just before speaks of the Two Natures as follows: 
 
 " They are parted from each other by incomparable differences. " Compare 
 Pusey's translation on page 66 of his S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
 Against Nestorius. 
 
 (C.) So in SecTiion 2 of his Scholia, page 187 in Pusey, id., he writes: 
 '' hicomparable is the dijfere7ice between Godhead and Majihood, and ex- 
 ceeding great the difference between the Natures " [jiiv cpvaeuv). 
 
 That is a thought that he dwells on again and again. See under '* Nature 
 of God the Son Incarnate " in Pusey's Index. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestoriiis. 81 
 
 iDrought ill for a phantasm, cii account of our saying together 
 
 with 
 
 And indeed every sound man can at once see the infinite difference between 
 the divine Nature of the Word and the created humanity which He put on in 
 Mary's womb. And he makes it a chief duty reverently to preserve to the 
 divine Nature every act of religious Worship, be it bowing, prayer, kneeling, 
 prostration, incense, or any other, for none of them can be shared by any crea 
 ture, no not even by the Nestorian separated humanity of Christ,much less by any 
 other creature, lower down in the scale than that separated humanity, be it the 
 Virgin Mary, archangel, angel, martyr or saint, or any other creature whosoever. 
 
 The Nestorians agreed with Cyril that all a6ls of worship belong to God, 
 hut like the heathen and the present Greek Church, and the Roman commun- 
 ion, and the Nestorian, and the Monophysite, they held that they can be given 
 to Christ's humanity, and the Eucharist, relatively {ax^riKi^q) to God the Word, 
 that is for His sake. 
 
 (D. ) Nestorius had taken Cyril for an Apolhnarian. Indeed, on page 69, id. , 
 of Pusey, he addresses him, or one of his Orthodox belief, as " Apollinaris:' 
 And so he accuses him of ''the deification of the holy flesh {airo^euaiv * * * rr/g 
 dy'm oapKoc), of Christ. Cyril justly denies that charge and shows in effect that 
 Nestorius was guilty of that sin in making the Magi bow to, that is worship 
 Christ's mere separated humanity (id., pages 68, 69). For such bowing was, of 
 course, an act of worship. 
 
 (E.) So, just below, Nestorius, speaking of Christ's humanity alone as hav- 
 ing suffered, writes: 
 
 <* That Man endured the three days' death; and / dow to that Man together 
 with the Divinity inasmuch as he is a co-speaker of the divine authority;'' TrpocKwCi 
 <j£ cvv T7I ^eoTfjri tovtov, cjq rf/g &elag cvvip/opov av^evriag. He seems to mean that the 
 Man, the mere creature, is co-speaker (and as he says below) co-worker also 
 with God Himself. So that God the Word's peculiar utterances are as much a 
 creature's as God's. 
 
 (F.) In Section 5, Book 2, of his J^ive Book Contradi^ion of the Bias- 
 pheinies of Nestorius (pages 58, 59, of Pusey's translation, Cyril quotes 
 Nestorius' own words which show that the heresiarch gave a creature the rank 
 of the Creator. I quote the place, corredling the translation: 
 
 "Now therefore thou wilt be proven to have blasphemed even against the 
 very Nature of the Word, for thou saidst again: 
 
 " 'Say of Him [God the Word] who took [a Man.] that He is God; add of 
 bim who was taken that he is the form of a servant [Philip ii., 7]; bring in 
 after those things the dignity of the Conjun^ion {rfjr (jwacpeiag), that the sway of 
 the Two may be common, that the dignity of the Two may be the same; and 
 the [Two] Natures remaining, acknowledge the unity of their rank.' " 
 
 In response Cyril blames Nestorius' separation of the Two Natures, and 
 then adds: 
 
82 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 but that we bow as to One and the Same; for the body of the Word is. 
 
 (G.) " Why therefore dost thou deem it a worthy thing to gather into one 
 sway, as thou thyself say est, and to crown with equal honors the [Two] Things 
 [that is Christ's Divinity and His humanity] which are so far apart by their two 
 different Substances from participation with each, other, and, moreover, from 
 equality also? For where a nature is wholly inferior [like, the Man's], and the 
 other Nature [God the Word's Divinity] is above it how can there accrue to it 
 [the Man's] an equality of honors, and a sharing of [the same], dignity, and 
 the manner of its glory be not different from the other's. The Greek of the 
 above is in P. E. Pusey's edition of the original of Cyril's Works, Vol. VI.^ 
 page iii. Compare his translation of S. Cyril on the hicarnation, page 58. 
 
 (H.) Yet so illogical was the mind of Nestorius that after giving the divine 
 honors of God the Word to a mere creature, he could not see that by worship- 
 ping that Man he in effect was making him a god, for he speaks of that crea- 
 ture as being ''brought hito exact ConjunBion, not deification.'''' Compare 
 Pusey's translation, page 64. Cyril shows in the context that the heresiarch 
 pra6lically deified that creature. See Pusey, id., pages 68, 69. 
 
 (I. ) Again in Sedlion X., Book 2, of his Five Book Contradi5lion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nestorius, St. Cyril blames him for opposing the do6lrine of Eco- 
 nomic Appropriation in that he referred Christ's sufferings to His humanity only, 
 whereas Cyril would have him refer them Economically to God the Word; and 
 then proceeds to censure him for worshipping Christ's separate humanity, thus: 
 
 " But he [Nestorius] confesses that he bows to that Man together with the 
 Divinity [of God the Word] {-nrpoaKwdv de bfioloyel cvv ry ^eorr/Ti rovrov)^ and what 
 is still more impious, as though He were not, it seems, really God and Son, but 
 had been made [merely] an advocate [or "co-speaker"] of the authority [or 
 "of the sway"] of the Word. For that he clearly severs [the Two Natures] he 
 furthermore makes plain by his confession that he [Christ's humanity] ought to 
 be co-bowed to, together with the Divinity {pvv ry ^torrjTi npooKwda^ai). For that 
 which is co-bowed to with another thing {ro yap hepu cvfnrpocKvvobiitvcv)^ is other 
 than that with which (//f^' ov) it is said to be bowed to. But we have been wont 
 to honor the Emmanuel [that is as Emmanuel means, the God with tis] with but 
 one bow {luq 'npoaKwr/aci), not separating from the Word the body which has been 
 united to Him Substancely. " 
 
 (J.) In the same Section, further on, Cyril referring again to Nestorius' use 
 above of the term owrp/opoc^ that is advocate or co-speaker of the divine authority 
 or sway, again accuses him of making Christ's humanity a God by bowing to it. 
 I quote: 
 
 " And when thou sayest advocacy that is co-speakitig, thou, moreover cou- 
 fessest, even though thou art not willing to, that it is nothing else than to speak 
 with another [or " for another "], thou who mentionest to us ConjunHion [avva- 
 ^iiai^), and cuttest the one Christ {XpcoTov) and Lord into two, and then worship- 
 pest {TTpoaKvvelg) them, or rather co-worshippest {(7vu-pocKrrr.(] them; and Uiou 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 83 
 
 not [a thing] foreign to Himself; [for] within [or "with "] it He Him- 
 
 thinkest to free the Church from the accusation of making a god, when thou, 
 thyself ma/iest a Man to be God ; and thou wilt not say that the Son is but One;, 
 though He should not be thought of as without His own flesh; for then wilt thou 
 bow {npooKvvrjcecg) to Him and be irreproachable; and thou wilt know where thou., 
 wast, as it is written, departing from the dogmas of the truth." 
 
 (K.) After all that, Nestorius, as quoted at the end of Section X. of this 
 Book 2 of St. Cyril's Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphetnies of Nestorius^ 
 falls back on the old heathen plea of Relative Worsliip to defend his bowing to 
 his mere human Christ, and mis-alleges for that error, as his party did after him, 
 Phihppians ii., 5-12; whereas, as Cyril elsewhere shows, the worship there given 
 is to Him who was 'Hn the form of God'' before He took on flesh in Mary's 
 womb, as is clear from verse 6 there. So the exaltation and the name above 
 every name in that passage belong, as he shows, to God the Word. I quote: 
 Nestorius writes, of Christ's mere humanity, the Man, to use his terminology, 
 conjoined to the Word: 
 
 " I worship him as an image of Absolute Divinity (2£/3w avrbv, ug r?/g rravTOKpa- 
 Topoc tiKova OeoTfjTor)^ for He [God the Father] 'hath highly exalted him and 
 given him. a name which is above every name, that at (or ' in') the name offesus 
 every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under 
 the earth and that every tongue should confess that fesus Christ is Lord.'' " 
 
 (Iv.) To this St. Cyril replies: 
 
 " And who, again, will he be conceived to be, whom he confesses that he at 
 least thinks to worship and pretends to honor for his likeness to God, but that 
 Man surely whom he but just now mentioned to us, and calls, I know not why,, 
 a co-speaker or a co-worker of the divine sway? Whom he senselessly kept say- 
 ing ought to be co-bowed to with the Divinity [of the Word] [hv -y ^eorrp-t cv/u- 
 irpoaKvvelGdai delv avoijTuq efaoKsv) as being another and peculiar son aside from the 
 Word of God. And he says that he [the Man] has been exalted by the God and 
 Father; and moreover that he has also received the name which is above every 
 name, in order that every knee tnay bow to liim of things i?i heaven, and things 
 on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue shall confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord (Philip, ii., 9, 10, 11). Since indeed therefore the Father 
 hath placed on high Him [the Word] who v/as God by Nature even before the 
 here mentioned exaltation, on investigating the mode of the intervening abase- 
 ment we shall find a certain wise Economy, according to which He [the Word] 
 having been dishonored for that intervening period, returned again into [the pos- 
 session of] those things which were always His and which are inherent in His 
 very Substance, and into His own exaltations. But if that be not so, as he 
 [Nestorius] therefore thinks and asserts, and has made another besides the Word 
 of God [that is] THE Man conjoined to Him, to be bowed to {-poaKwrjTov') 
 
 BY HEAVEN AND EARTH AND BY THE THINGS STILI, I,OWER,HE HAS, THEREFORE, 
 
 MADE A God out of a man, and, as no other cavil in the world was left to him„ 
 
84 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 self co-sits with the Father, not however that two Sons are sitting to 
 
 he will accuse us of wishing to deify one who is not God, although it was 
 [logically] necessary for him [in that case] to fasten on the God and Father 
 Himself the accusations of the sin in that very matter. [Cyril means that Nes- 
 torius charged God v/ith the sin of teaching in Philippians ii., 9, 10, 11, the 
 worship of a mere Man, whereas Cyril asserts again and again elsewhere that 
 the exaltation and worship there mentioned by kneeling, etc. , belonged to God 
 the Word]. See now, therefore, O, thou learner of the do(ftrine of Christ, where 
 his [Nestorius'] reasonings have at last burst forth; and in what sort of a se- 
 quence the contrivances of that very sheer miscounsel of his have resulted. 
 Whereas we [on the contrary] assert that the Son who is God by Nature, that is 
 the Word who came out of God the' Father, came down in a voluntary emptying 
 [Philippians ii., 7, literally, ' 'He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,'' 
 etc.]; and went up again, and that too with flesh into the God-befitting dignity 
 of the pre-eminence which is inherent in Him, for He [the Word] is wor- 
 shipped EVEN WITHIN [or "with "] FLESH, AS HE WAS TO BE WORSHIPPED ALSO 
 before it [flesh, existed] {TrpoaKweirai yap kqI fierd capabg, ug Kai -rrpb avTi/g virdpxiov 
 7Tf)ooKvvr/Tdc, iiv yap kuI etl Kara (j)VGiv 9f of , Kal irpo rf/g Kevcoaecjc, etc. ), for He was and 
 still remains God by Nature, both before the emptying, and when He is said to 
 have endured the emptying and to have been made a Man like us. But he 
 ^Nestorius] despising those dogmas, so deserving of respect and unadulterated, 
 conjoins {awdTrret) a man to God according to his [Nestorius'] merely external 
 relation {aara yt tt]v e^u^ev cx^oiv), and IS NoT ASHAMED To Co-WORSHIF {(rvjuirpoa- 
 Kvvelv) HIM [that mere Man] IN an equality of rank and as one [Person] 
 WITH Another. And he maintains and asserts that he [Nestorius' merely 
 human Christ] received as something unwonted and strange and as a matter of 
 favor, that to him every knee shall bow, and, moreover, that every tongue shall 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. And since he [Nestorius] says that he was not 
 God by Nature, he has plainly blasphemed by saying that the Nature of the Di- 
 vinity is a creature! And if he [Nestorius' mere human Christ] received his dig- 
 nity [of being worshipped] not at all by [his] nature, but as a gift and from with- 
 out, and so to speak by an utterance only [of God in Philip, ii., 9, 10, 11], is that 
 NOT TO SAY PLAINLY THAT WE HAVE SERVED [lET^arpEVKafifv) THAT WHICH BY 
 NATURE IS NOT GoD ? And with us, as it seems, the sober carefulness of the 
 spirits above has been also led astray, and the Father Himself is both source and 
 pretext of those things to us! Why then should He still blame those who have 
 chosento bow to the creature besides Him? [rovg Trap' avTov ry kticci TTpoaKvvtlv ypme- 
 vovq). And why is it written [in Holy Writ] that He punishes those who have 
 gone astray, if the going astray has been in accordance with His own commands, 
 He Himself having declared to us [in Philip, ii., 9, 10, 11] that he who is not by 
 Nature God is to be bowed to [jTpoGKvviirov) by us ? But since he [Nestorius] has 
 adduced that passage on those matters, I mean that which is in our hands, 
 namely, that every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue shall confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, but, (with what design I know not), has passed by the last 
 part of it, which has been added by the blessed Paul as a necessary part of the 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus . 85 
 
 gether, but that He sits as one; in union with His flesh (183). But 
 
 whole conne<5lion, come let us add that and say, For every tongue shall con- 
 fess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father [Philip, ii., 11]. 
 Therefore IK Hk is not God by Nature, and He [the Father] says that 
 because: of his [that Man's] having a relative conjimElion [dtd owdcpeiav (5s 
 cx£TiK7]v), I mean to the Word who has come out of God, he [that Man] is To be 
 
 BOWED TO {TrpoaKwda^al) BOTH BY OURSEIvVES AND BY THE HOI^Y ANGEI^S, 
 WHAT SORT OF GI.ORY HAS BEEN INVENTED THEN BY THE FATHER THAT 
 
 THE CREATURE [Nestorius' mere human Christ] shoui^d be made a God 
 Al^ONG WITH HiMSEivE (rtj ■&eo-n:oiHG-&aL ahv avru rijv kt'igiv) ? And [it will follow 
 that] He [the Father] has BEEN aggrieved without any cause at some 
 FOR doing that thing [of worshipping a creature]. And if That Thing 
 [of worshipping a creature] WERE TO His [the Father's] GI.ORY, why should 
 
 WE NOT DEEM THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO DO THAT THING WORTHY OF 
 recompense AND PRAISE AND GI^ORY? 
 
 (M.) " But perhaps they may say, In what way will it be to the Father's 
 glory that every knee shall bow to the Emmanuel? [that is, as Emmanuel 
 means, to the God with us. Matt, i., 23]. 
 
 (N.) " [I reply]. Because the Word being God by Nature and having come 
 out of Him, that is, out of His Substance, was made flesh [John i., 14], and is 
 bowed to [TTpoaKwelrai) as I have been saying, as one and sole and real Son, with 
 [or ' 'within"] His own flesh {/nerd -fjg Ulag avrov oapKog). And moreover the Father 
 is glorified as God by having the true Son who was born out of His Substance. 
 And He gave Him, made flesh, for us in order that by His suflering in flesh He 
 may save all under heaven, tfi order that he that believeth in Him may not per- 
 ish but have eternal life [John iii., 16], that every one that seeth Him 7nay see 
 the Father [John xiv., 9]. And the Son Himself has shown that that thing is 
 really life-giving to us, for He has said, This is the eternal life, that they may 
 know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent [John 
 xvii., 3]. And this and no other is the path to the straight and most unerring 
 line of thought; but he [Nestorius] mixing up all things above and below, 
 says: 
 
 (O. ) " For the sake of Him [God the Word] who wears, I worship him [the 
 Man] who is worn; because of Him [God the Word] who is hidde7i, I bow to htm 
 [the Man] who is seen.^ [A/d tov mpovvTa^^i]a\^ tov (popovjuevov Gi(3cj' did tov KeKpvufie- 
 vov TTpooKwo) TOV (paivo/jevov']. Notice again, I pray, how he [Nestorius] everywhere 
 flees from the Union, and fears the truth, and avoids the correctness of the dog- 
 mas of God. He who wears is not another besides him ivho is worn^ but, on 
 the contrary, the Same One conceived of as in a meeting of Divinity and hu- 
 manity, and as really One and Sole Son of the God and Father. Therefore 
 WORSHIP God the Word, who came out of the Father, as one with 
 
 [or "ze^z'M/w"] His own FI,ESH [im -KpooKvvu //fro r?}f 'uVtaq avrov oapKog tov ek. 
 Qfov Aojov]. For tell me if I do not seem to thee to think those things which 
 are seemly, when I thrust aside thy dry talk on those matters as feeble ? For 
 
86 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 if we reject the Substance Union (184) either as incomprehensible or 
 
 suppose some one should choose to say of any one whosoever of men like us, or 
 of any one of the Kings on earth, For the sake of the King's Soul I reverence 
 his body ; because of him who is hidden I bow to him who is seen [Ata ryv rod 
 BaacAeug ipvxvv G£J3o) to GO)fJ.a ahrov did tov KeKpvfifj-ivov izpoanvvC) tov (f>cuv6jucvov] would 
 not some one straightway chide him; O thou there, what art thou doing? One 
 man surely is the Ruler even though he be evidently made up of two things; I 
 mean of a soul and a body. 
 
 Why, therefore, art thou babbling in a random way to us by naming a 
 Wearer and a worii, a Hidden One, and a seen one, and by professing to co- 
 bow [To them] as one person with another [/cat wc frfpov er/pw cvfiTrpoanvvdv 
 ojnoloyuv'], and [so] dishonoring the mode of the Union ? Whereas the God-in- 
 spired Scripture reveals to us [but] one Christ and Lord, the Word Who came 
 out of God the Father, with [or "within"] His own body [rdv ek Gcov Harpug 
 Aoyovjfierd tov ISiov trw/iarof]. Knowest thou not that He healed in Jerusalem the 
 man who had been blind from his birth, and that afterwards finding him on the 
 holy place, He put into him a firm and settled faith in Himself? For He came 
 to him and asked. Bost thou believe on the Son of God? And when to that he 
 cried out Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him, He Himself again said. 
 Thou hast both seen Him and He it is that talketh with thee [John ix., 35, 36 
 and 37]. Thou seest how He showed him not the Wearer, not the Hidden 
 within, but rather Himself, as One with [or ** within"] His flesh {oXk' wc £va 
 p.a}Ckov eavTov fiETo, ttjc capKog]. And so indeed the wise John says: What was from 
 the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we 
 have gazed upon, and our hands have handled about the Word of Life [I. John 
 i., i]. And yet the Divinity is not touchable; but it has become touchable, so 
 to speak, through its own flesh. It is invisible by Nature, but it was manifest 
 through the body. 
 
 But thou on the other haMd separatest [the Natures] in every way, and deal- 
 est craftily with the truth, by separating the Natures, and uniting, as thou 
 say est, THE worship {riiv irpoaKvvriGiv, the bowing]. But if thou partest the 
 Natures, the peculiar things which belong naturally to the Nature of each will 
 also separate and go with its own Nature; and the count of the difference [be- 
 tween the Two] will drive through everything. In that case there will be con- 
 fessedly Two [Persons]. [Cyril means that if Nestorius denies the Inflesh he 
 must make Two Persons of Christ, and separate the Natures, and so to be logical 
 he must separate their attributes, and so agree with the Orthodox in worship- 
 ping in Christ God the Word, not a Man. See the passage A above.] 
 
 But tell me, for I ask it, what is it that separates the Natures from each 
 other, and what is the mode of their difference. But thou wilt, I suppose, surely 
 answer that one thing by nature is man, that is humanity, and another God, 
 that is Divinity, and that the One [God the Word] is incomparably exalted above 
 the other, and, moreover, that the other [the Man] is as much inferior to It as 
 Man is to God. How then, tei.Iv me, dost thou deem it a worthy thing 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nest onus. 87 
 
 as unbefitting, we fall into the error of saying that there are two 
 
 TO HONOR WITH [butj ONE BOW [^«ff TrpoaKwr^aei'] THOSK THINGS SO UNI^IKE 
 EACH OTHER IN NATURE, and parted as regards their mode of being by incom- 
 parable differences ? For ie thou put about a horse the G1.0RY of a Man, 
 
 WII.T THOU DO ANYTHING PRAISEWORTHY? WlI^T THOU NOT RATHER OUT 
 AND OUT INSULT THE SUPERIOR BEING BY DRAGGING DOWN HIS BETTER 
 NATURE INTO DISHONOR ? [Cyril mcaus that if a man gives any act of religious 
 service to Christ's separate humanity after the Nestorian fashion, he thereby c*/^/ 
 and out insults the superior Nature, that is the Divinity of God the Word, by 
 dragging It down into dishoftor by giving what is prerogative to Divinity alone 
 to the mere created nature of the Man put on, which he writes above is as infe- 
 rior to the Word as a man is to God. If this principle of its being an insult 
 to God the Word to bow to Christ's humanity as an act of religious service, be- 
 cause as Cyril teaches in A, all religious service is prerogative to God, how much 
 more is it an insult to God if we give bowmg or any other act of religious ser- 
 vice to any creature less than Christ's humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, any 
 angel or saint or martyr! And how much greater an insult to God is it to give 
 worship to inanimate things, such as pidlures, graven images, crosses, relics or 
 altars, or any other mere thing. 
 
 Cyril without any break proceeds]. But he [Nestorius] has invented some- 
 thing wise in his own defence, for he subjoins, 
 
 (P.) 'Not by itself God is that which was formed in the womb; not by itself 
 God is that which was formed by the Spirit; not by itself God is that which was 
 buried in the tomb; for if we had thought so, we would have been manifestly 
 worshippers of a Man and worshippers of a corpse [o/rw yap dv r^^ev dvdpuTTuAdr- 
 pai Kal vtKpoMrpat aacpeJg']. But since God is in the Man who was taken, from 
 Him [the Word ] who took, he who was taken [the Man] as being conjoined to 
 Him [the Word] who took him, is co-called God with Him:' 
 
 [This is plain Man- Worship and Relic Worship on the heathen plea of Rel- 
 ative Worship. 
 
 St. Cyril at once replies] : 
 
 (Q.) *'Lo, again he [Nestorius] who everywhere uses the expression 'the 
 Conjunction ' [r/)v Gvvd<ii>zLav'\ and fears ACCUSATIONS of worshipping a Man is 
 CAUGHT AND PROVEN TO BE A WORSHIPPER OF A MaN {Kai Ta rf/g dvdpuTTolarperag 
 kyKlr]jiaTa dedtiog, rjlu yeyovuq dvdpuTroXaTpTfgl, and is held fast in the meshes of his 
 own ill-counsel, and detedled as having fallen into a reprobate mind. For, says 
 he, that which was brought forth for thee out of the womb, is not by itself God. 
 How I wonder at thy shrewdness and thy so subtle mind! For who has dared 
 to say that at all? Or who does not know that what is born out of the flesh is flesh 
 [John iii., 6]. But it was the own flesh of the Word, and He is deemed [but] One 
 with [or "within"] it(//er' ai;r//f), just as we have just plainly said that the soul 
 of a man also is one with [or "within "] his own body [//^ra tw l^lov cCma-o^]. If 
 therefore any one should say of us too. The body by itself is 7iot a Man, would 
 he not in all fairness, be named superfluous in words and a talker at random ? 
 
88 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Sons. For [in that case] there is every necessity that we separate 
 
 For no one will deny that the body by itself is not a man, but on the contrary 
 will admit that it should be called a body of a man. Nevertheless no one would 
 cut apart and place separate from each other the soul and the body, and say that 
 the body is co-called a soul with the soul in order to exhibit one Man; for such 
 a statement would not be a seemly one, but on the contrary would be full of 
 ignorance; but bringing both together into a natural Union in order to make up 
 [but] one man, will then name them a man; and so he will not seem to say 
 what is both low and unseemly. If, therefore, any one be wholly wise and 
 possessed of understanding, he must say that that which has come out of a 
 woman [Mary the Virgin] is a body, and must confess besides that it, having 
 been brought together with the Word in the Substance Union [-?/ Kai9' vnoaraaiv 
 evGJoei], has made up the one Christ {XptoTov) and Son and Lord, the Same One 
 being God and man. But now abandoning that and FAI.1.ING away from The 
 
 ROAD TO WHAT IS RIGHT HF HASTENS ALONG HIS PERVERSE WAY, AND OUT 
 AND OUT PROCLAIMS TWO GODS, ONE WHO IS SUCH IN NATURE AND IN 
 REALITY, THAT IS THE WORD WHO HAS COME OUT OF GOD THE FATHER, 
 AND ANOTHER BESIDES HiM WHO IS CO-NAMED GOD WITH HIM. And yet, 
 
 as to that way of speaking, no one would say of any man like us that he co- 
 lived with himself alone, but on the contrary that he co-lived with another. 
 And if any one should say of some one of the Kings on earth that he co-reigns 
 with himself, he would, in all fairness, deserve to be laughed at, and would be 
 babbling by ascribing what was said of one Person only to two, and by assert- 
 ing it of them as though it belonged to two. So it would be utterly senseless to 
 suppose that the expression co-named can be used of but one, Sole Person. For, 
 if it could properly be used, they would by all means be two; and one would be 
 God by Nature, and the other would be co-named God with Him, only in an 
 external sense, and in the sense that his Godship had been acquired from outside 
 of himself, and He would be exhibited to us as a new God. Does then He who 
 is by Nature and in very truth God of all things lie when he says, If thou wilt 
 hearken to me, there shall be no new god in thee, nor shall thou bow to a foreign 
 god \ohK EoraL kv aol Qebg 7Tp6a(paTo^, ovSe 7rpuaKvv//Geig QecJ d/.XorpM, Psalm Ixxx., 9, 
 Sept.] Besides why have we bowed to the Christ, and why shall every knee 
 bend to Him [Philip ii., 10], and why dost thou profess to worship him, although 
 Though fearest as thou hast been saying, to seem to be a wor- 
 shipper OF a Man [dra Trur TrpoaK.eKvvrjKafJiev t(I) Xpiaru, kul avT(I) Kd/uijiei ndv yovv ; 
 TTCjg de Kal GEfSEiv aiiTov dfiO?.oyelg ; Kairoi dsSccjg, cjg e(l>7jg^ to dv^poyTToXdrprf^ tlvat Jo/ifiv]. 
 
 (R.) But he has, as he supposes, a sort of wise answer, besides to all those 
 questions, namely, that he {the mere Man'\ is co-named God [with the Word} 
 because he has been conjoified to Him [the Word] who took him [the Man]. 
 
 (S.) How, tell me, was he [the Man] taken, or in what way was he conjoined 
 [to the Word] ? If it was by a real Union, I mean the Substance Union [r/)y Kad^ 
 vTooTaGtv'] cease to part that which has been united. And I deem it a seasonable 
 thing to say to thee who cuttest apart that which can not be cut apart, IVhat God 
 
Readiiig of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 89" 
 
 [the Two Natures] and that we say that one who is properly a [mere] 
 
 hath joined together, let no man put asunder [Matt, xix., 6]. But if thou say- 
 that the taking, that is the Co?tjun^ion was external and relative {px^riKrjv), how 
 comes it that thou knowest not that God is in us also and that we are conjoined 
 to God relatively, and have been va.2idi^ partakers of the divine Nature [II. Peter 
 i., 4]. Indeed the God-inspired David sings, My soul is joined fast behind thee 
 [Psalm Ixii., 8, Sept]. Shall we also therefore, according to him [Nestorius], 
 be co-called gods with Him who is God by Nature, and shall every knee bend to 
 us also? What the God and Father hath enjoined on the Spirits above let the 
 God-inspired Paul come forward and teach. For he saith, When He bringeth 
 in the First Brought Forth into the inhabited world {t?)v otKovfiev^v), He saiih^ 
 And let all God's angels bow to Hifn [Heb. i., 6]. Since therefore thy wise 
 notion [of the relative co-worship of Christ's humanity with God the Word] has 
 not been added in those words [of God the Father], but as He [the Father] hath, 
 on the contrary, commanded that He [God the Son] be worshipped {~poaiivvelG-&fu) 
 surely as one only, and not as one Person [the Nestorian mere Man] together 
 with Another {aw eriVjw)"[God the Word] ; who then is He who is bowed to by 
 the angels, though the Scriptures of God call Him the First Brought Forth 
 Ijbv UpoTOTOKov Heb. i., 6, etc. ]? But we say that the Word who hath come out 
 of God the Father hath been named First Brought Forth because He hath been 
 made Man, and First Brought Forth {Vipi^roTOKov) amo7ig many Brethre^i [Rom. 
 viii., 29] ; though He is God by Nature and Son and Sole-Born, and is not to 
 be deemed of the same order as the creature as respe6ls His Divinity. One 
 therefore is He who is bowed to by the spirits above [Heb. i., 6, that is] the 
 Word who came out of God the Father, within [or "with "] His own flesh (Elf 
 ovv apa rrpbg tuv avo) TrvevuaTCJv 6 TrpooKwovuevo^ ^ 6 £k Qeoi) Tlarpbg Aoyo^ fiera rfjq uVLaq 
 capKoq); for then did He [the Father] bring Him [the IvOgos] forth [or ^' cause 
 Him to be brought forth "] and He [the Word] is deemed First Brought Forth 
 as being the First in all things {rore yap tstoks, koI uq Tvpurevuv h Traai^ voelrat 
 Tzpu>r6TOKoq, Col. i., 18). 
 
 (T.) But whereas the God-inspired Scriptures proclaim that there is [but] 
 One Anointed {XpioTov) and Son and Lord, this here superfluous fellow [Nesto- 
 rius] on the contrary, proclaims that there are two, and adds a worshipped 
 Man to The H01.Y and consubstantiai. Trinity, and is not ashamed 
 {koI TrpooKWOvfiEvov avdpuTTov Tij dyia koI ounovaiu TpLd6L TrpoaTt'&Etq, ovk aiGxvv£~ai), for 
 he says: 
 
 'But this kinsman, according to the jlesh, of Israel, he zvho as to his appear- 
 ance is [only] a Man, he who as Paul expresses it, was born of the seed of David 
 [Rom. i., 3], is, by reason of the conjun^ion. Almighty God.' Then to those 
 words he [Nestorius] adds: 
 
 'Hear Paul proclaiming both. He confesses first the Man; and the^i he 
 calls that which is seen God, by reason of his conjunBion to God, that no man 
 may suspect the Christian of being a worshipper of a Man {koI tote Ty tov Qtov 
 avva(bEia QeoloyEt rb (patvouEVov Iva u?/(klg avBpuTTo7.dTpriv rbv Xpiariavbv vnoTTTEvri). 
 Let US guard therefore tlie cofijunHion of the Natures without mixing them. 
 
90 -^^i I- of Ephes^is. 
 
 man is [nevertheless] honored with the appellation of ' the Son], and, 
 
 Let us acknowledge the One God. Let us worship the Man who is co-bowed to 
 with Almighty God [the Word] because of the divine conjun^ion ' [of the Two] 
 {ae^ufieu tov tij Qelg. awaipeia rw TravroKparopL Q£(I) cvfiKpoaKVvovjxevov dv&puTTOv). 
 
 (U. ) [To conclude], If then indeed when thou namest a Man, thou acknowl- 
 edgest that with him also is He who is God Himself by Nature, all will be well, 
 and I will cease. But if thou partest the Natures, not only in respect of know- 
 ing, which is the human nature, and which, on the other hand, is the divine, 
 but also on the contrary in such a way as to separate them from their concur- 
 rence in unity, thou art confessedly a worshipper OF a Man, and we will 
 say to thee, Thou shall eat the fruits of thy labors [Isaiah iii., lo]. And being 
 hard and spurning admonition go alone on the perverted way. But we seeking 
 out the pious and blameless path of the holy Fathers, and being very well in- 
 strudled in both the Apostolic and Gospel writings, [the Epistles and Gospels ?] 
 will honor together with the God and Father and the Holy Ghost, the one Lord 
 Jesus Christ with [but] one bow {jnq 'KpocKwijatC), though Whom and with Whom 
 to the God and Father, together with the Holy Ghost ' {pvv tQ> 'Ay'nf) TlvevfiaTi) be 
 glory for ever; Amen." 
 
 And so ends the Second Book of St. Cyril's Five Book Contradi5lion of the 
 Blasphemies of Nestorius. I have followed P. E. Pusey's Greek in Vol. VI. of 
 his edition of Cyril. 
 
 As we see in the long quotation from Cyril last above, he contends that the 
 Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity results in a worshipped Tetrad, that is a 
 Quaternity, that is a Four, instead of a Trinity; that is in the worship of 
 
 1. The Father ; 
 
 2. His consubstantial Word ; 
 
 3. His consubstantial Spirit; and 
 
 4. The merely human Nestorian Christ. 
 
 The outcome would be (A), so far as the Three divine Persons are con- 
 cerned, the Worship of God {e(o?MTpeia); and, (B), so far as the mere Man is con- 
 cerned it would be the worship of a Man {av&pcjTro?.aTpeia), that is the worship of 
 a creature {Kncfiaro/.arpeia), in direct opposition to Christ's fundamental law of 
 religious service, Thojc shall bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou 
 serve (Matt, iv., 10). 
 
 Whereas the dodlrine of Cyril, approved by the Third Council, A. D. 431, is 
 the Worship of God alo7ie, that is: 
 
 1. The Father : 
 
 2. His consubstantial Word ; and 
 
 3. His consubstantial Spirit, in strict conformity to Christ's command in 
 Matt, iv., 10, as above quoted. 
 
 To show St. Cyril's condemnation of Tetradism, that is oi Fourisin I quote 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestor ins. 91 
 
 again, that we say on the other hand that He Who is properly the 
 
 three passages only, and refer to others on Man-Worship, for the Hmits of an 
 already long note forbid me to do more : 
 
 (V.) Passage /., from Se^ioft VL, of Book IV., of St. CyriV s Five -Book 
 ContradiHioti of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 
 
 Cyril is here contending against the Nestorian heresy that Christ's human- 
 ity is to be worshipped in heaven, and is answering their perversion of INIatt 
 xxiv., 30, " They shall see the So7i of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with 
 great glory ;'' and Zech. xii., 10, ''TJiey shall look on Him whom they pierced;' 
 and their questions anent those texts, namely, 
 
 " Who then is he who was pierced? The side. But does a side belong to 
 a body, or does it belong to Divinity ? " Nestorius evidently believed here, as 
 elsewhere, that St. Cyril was an Apollinarian and denied that Christ has a human 
 body; and he makes Christ out, after the Nestorian wont, to be a mere Man, and 
 hence it necessarily follows, that all worship of Him must be mere Man- Wor- 
 ship. Cyril replies to such blasphemy at some length, and then concludes on 
 ihat matter as follows: 
 
 "He [God the Word] therefore will come, who suffered the death in a 
 liuman way, but has been raised in a divine way, and has ascended into the 
 heavens ; and He sitteth in all state on the thrones of the ineffable Divinity, 
 and co-sitteth with the Father, the vSeraphim standing around, in a circle, that 
 is, and the highest powers, not ignorant of the measure of the service due by 
 them [to Him], every authority and power and lordship worshipping Him {-pua- 
 Kvvo'vaiK "^e AiTw Ka\ i^ovaiaq andcrjq dvvaueuq re ml Kvpior/jroq, for every knee shall 
 bow to Him, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of 
 God the Father [Philip ii., 10, 11]. But He will come, as I have been saying, 
 and will appear not in that state which befits littleness, like ours ; but, on the 
 contrary, in the most God-befitting glory, heaven and the spirits above encom- 
 passing Him, like a spear-bearing body guard, as their God and King, and 
 standing [in attendance] by the Lord of all. But if, on the contrary, the Word 
 of God the Father is not in flesh, that is, if He has not been made Man, but 
 Christ was a mere God-inspired Man, who had a side of a body, and endured the 
 piercing, how comes it that he is seen in the thrones of the highest Divinity, 
 and exhibited to us as a new God [77p6a(^aroc Ofo?, Psalm Ixxx., 9, Sept.], as a 
 sort of Fourth God [or ** a sort of Fourth Person"] after the Holy Trinity? 
 Hast thou not shuddered [at the thought of v/orshipping] a common 
 Man, when thou contrivedst the worship to that creature ? Are 
 WE then held fast in the ancient snares [of creature-worship] ? Has 
 the holy multitude of the spirits above been deceived with us, and 
 has it given drunkards' insults to God? [The reference is to Heb. i., 
 6, where we read, ''And again when He [the Father] bringeth in the First 
 Brought Forth into the inhabited world He saith, And let all the angels of God 
 bow to Him, which the Nestorians so outrageously perverted as to insult God 
 by making Him command the sin of worshipping a creature, their mere human 
 
92 A^i /• of Ephesits. 
 
 Word come out of God has both the name and the reahty of Sonship 
 
 Christ ; whereas Cyril and the Orthodox held that the worship there done was 
 to God the Word alone, in strict accordance with Christ's command in Matt, iv., 
 lo. The reference is also to the worship commanded in Philip, ii., 9, 10, 11, to 
 be done to the Son, and the name above every name, that is God's name there 
 given Him, which is a part of worship, and to give it to a creature is to worship 
 him. The Nestorians held that both referred to Christ's humanity and there- 
 fore authorized creature-worship; whereas Cyril in consonance with Matt. iv.» 
 10, limits the worship there to God the Word.] Since we have been ran- 
 somed FROM THE ANCIENT DECEIT [the sin of worshipping creatures, the sin. 
 of the heathen], and have refused as a blasphemous thing to worship 
 
 THE CREATURE, WHY DOST THOU WHELM US AGAIN IN THE ANCIENT SINS AND 
 
 MAKE US WORSHIPPERS OF A MAN ? [that is of a mere human Christ]. For we 
 know and have believed that the Word who came out of God the Father came 
 in a taking of flesh and blood. But forasmuch as He has remained God, He 
 has kept through all the dignity of the pre-eminence over all which is inherent 
 in Him, albeit He is in flesh as we are. But being God even now no less than 
 of old, although He has been made Man, He has heaven as His worshipper and 
 the earth as His adorer \7Mr\niv ex£t- rbv ovpavbv aal -pooKwovaav tt/v yvv']^ for it is 
 written ''The earth is full of Thy praise ; Thy excellency, O Lord, has covered 
 the heavens.'" 
 
 I here append the Greek for the above translation from "But if on the 
 contrary" to "worshippers of a Man" inclusive. It is found on page 204^ 
 volume vi., of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of Cyril's works: 
 
 EeTTE/o ovv ioTiv ovK iv aapKi fia7<,7iov r/yovv av&punoq yeyovcoq 6 tov Qeov Uarpbg Adyof, 
 dvdpioTTog 6e ■&eo^6pog Tzlevpdv kx^v ocjfiaTog nal VTro/ielvag ttjv diaKevrrjoiv^ nuq kv -QpovoLQ 
 opdrai, rijq dvoTara) ^eoTTjrog TerapToq (oaTrep rig ^ffiv fierd ttjv ay lav Tpidda npoa^arog 
 Qebg dvadeder/^uevoc; oh KaraTrecppiKag koivov dv&puTrov, Ty kt'lcel to ce^ag eTivofov; dpa rolg 
 dpxciloig hvLGxviJ-i^^o, (3p6xoig; dpa TzeTrapCivijKEV ng Qebv^ Kal TTen'kdvrjTaL jueO^ ^/ncjv ij dyla 
 ro)V dvo) TcvevfidTiov TrTirj'&vg) el rf/g dpx(iio.g dirdr/jg eKlcTiVrpdy/xed^a, ro ry Kviaci AarpEVEiv ug 
 ()vaaE(ikg 7rapaiTOVfj,evoi^ t'l ixaXiv iijidg roig dpxa'ioig kyK7JjfiaaiV hvnlg d-o(paivei.g dv&puTTO- 
 /MTpag. 
 
 (W.) Passage 2, against Tetradism. It is 'from the First Book of Cyril 
 of holy Memory entitled Christ is One, against Theodore " [of Mopsuestia], as 
 the Latin of the title has it on page 523, of Vol. III. of P. E. Pusey's edition of 
 Cyrilli in D. foannis Evangelium. It is given there in a Latin translation ; I 
 translate that Latin : 
 
 ' ' For there are, there are [persons] who deny their Redeemer and Lord, and 
 assert that He who in the last times of the world endured for our sakes birth in 
 flesh out of a woman, is not indeed the real Son of God the Father, but, on the 
 contrary, that A RECENT and late GOD has appeared to the world, and 
 that he has the glory of a Sonship which has been acquired from without as ours 
 also has, and that he glories in certain adulterous quasi honors, so that it is now 
 the worship of a Man and nothing else, and a certain Man is adored with the 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestor ins. 93 
 
 by His very Nature (185). The One Lord Jesus Anointed must not 
 
 Holy Trinity, as well by us as by the holy angels [the reference iu angels being 
 to Heb. i., 6, Aiid when He [the Father] bringeth the First Brought Forth into 
 the inhabited world He saith, And let all Gods angels bow to Him; which 
 Nestorins and his partisans perverted into a command to worship Christ's 
 humanity, whereas, as St. Cyril rightly teaches, in accordance with Mat-t. iv., 
 10, it is a command to worship God the Word, not a creature]. Some persons 
 who are very proud and wise in their great knowledge of the Scriptures of God, 
 have inserted those heresies into their writings, and so, as the Lord of all says. 
 by one of the holy prophets, They have set a trap to corrupt men [Jerem. v., 26]. 
 For what else than a snare and a stumbling block is a tongue which utters 
 things which are perverse and abhorrent to the Holy Scriptures, and which 
 shamelessly oppose the tradition of the Holy Apostles and Evangelists ? We 
 must therefore repudiate those men who are guilty of such wicked crimes, 
 whether they are among the living or not; for it is necessary to withdraw from 
 that which is injurious, and not to have regard to any one's person, but to what 
 pleases God." 
 
 The Latin for the above is in P. E. Pusey as above. The reference to those 
 who are '' a^yiong the living'' is to Nestorins and his partisans then living ; the 
 reference to those not living is to Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
 who had taught in their writings Nestorins and his the errors which wrecked 
 them. But the Nestorians then as now greatly esteemed those founders of Nes- 
 torianism and would not part from ♦^^hem, notwithstanding the wise and needed 
 warnings of Cyril. For they had died in the outer pale of the Church and had 
 by Cyril's time acquired much authority in Syria. 
 
 I quote a part of the Latin of the above : ''Ex primo Libro safiHae mem- 
 oriae Cyrilli de eo quod Unus est Christus, contra Theodorum : 
 
 Sunt enim, sunt qui Redemptorem et Dominum suum negant, et Filium 
 quidem verum Dei Patris non dicunt eum esse, qui in ultimis seculi temporibus 
 ex muliere secundum carnem nativitatem propter nos sustinuit ; apparuisse 
 autem magis orbi terrarum Deum recentem et posterum, filiationis gloriam ex- 
 trinsecus acquisitam habentem sicut et nos, et quasi habentem adulterinis glori- 
 antem honoribus, ut jam anthropolatria et nihil aliud esset, et adoretur homo 
 aliquis cum sandla Trinitate tarn a nobis, quam a sandlis angelis. Haec quidam 
 valde superbi, et magna sapientes in divinarum Scripturarum scientia, suis scrip- 
 tis inseruerunt, et sicut dicit omnium Dominus per unum sanctorum Prophet- 
 arum, 'Laqueum statidt ad corriimpe^idos homines: Quid enim aliud sit, quam 
 laqueus et scandalum, lingua loquens distorta et sacris literis abhorrentia, et 
 tradition! sandlorum Apostolorum et Evangelistarum impudenter resistentia. 
 Recusandum igitur eos, qui tarn malis culpis obnoxii sunt, sive in vivis sunt, 
 sive non. Ab illo enim quod nocet, recedere, necessarium est, et non ad perso- 
 nam respicere, sed ad quod Dei placet. 
 
 (X.) Passage HI. on Tetradism. It is from Cyril Against Diodore of 
 Tarsus, a Founder of Nestoriauism. It is found in a Latin translation on page 
 
94 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 therefore be divided into two Sons. Moreover, if it were so done, it 
 
 309 of Volume III. of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of Cyril on the Gospel 
 according to John. Its end is mistranslated by Pusey, on page 335 of his 
 translation of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. I 
 therefore translate it here. It is as follows : 
 
 " Thou darest also to clothe in the Master's forms him, whom thou sayest 
 to be a Man from Mary, and who at first was not at all different from us nor supe- 
 rior to us, but afterwards by much effort merited the name and the divine glory 
 of the Son, that is after he had come out of the womb. Therefore, according 
 TO THY OPINION, there are two Sons, and Christ is a new God who was 
 endowed with supernatural honor from God somewhat more than the rest of the 
 creatures; so that He [God the Word] is co-adored with a mere Man ; even that 
 Man who in the course of time, and only towards the end [of his earthly career] 
 got possession of glory and was made a compIvKment oe The Trinity and 
 in nature equai, to it." 
 
 Against the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, Cyril's utterances are 
 many. His holy soul, zealous for the truth that God alone is to be worshipped 
 Matt, iv., 10], and jealous for Jehovah, like Elijah and Athanasius before 
 him, could not but speak out against the Nestorian heresy of Man-Worship 
 [av^puKoTiarpeia). I can refer here only to some of his utterances in P. E. Pusey's 
 English translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria o?i the hicarnation Against Nes- 
 torius. They are as follows, pages 39, 46, 47, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 
 67, 68, 69, 70 to 80 inclusive ; most of pages 70 to 80 is given in my translation 
 above; 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 97, 119, 120, 162, 168, 169, 175, 176, 197, 199, 208, 
 212, 213, 229, 230, 231, 232, 255, 256-257, 259, 260, 273, 310, 264, 266-320, 326, 332, 
 335, 345, 353, 354, 355, 358, 362. 
 
 These utterances are in that volume. But there are others in other works 
 of St. Cyril. See the indexes to them under proper terms. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, in Section 35 of his Scholia on the Incarnation, 
 makes the fact that worship is done to Christ a proof of His Divinity, (pages 
 224, 229 of P. E. Pusey's translation). In other words, he shows that he held 
 that every act of religious service is prerogative to Almighty God. In that re- 
 spect he follows the doctrine of Christ in Matt, iv., 10, (which he quotes in place 
 after place as forbidding the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity) and of 
 Christ's champion against Arianism, St. Athanasius, Cyril's predecessor in the 
 see of Alexandria and his teacher, and the doctrine of Epiphanius and the De- 
 cisions of the VI. Councils: see Volume I. of Nicaea in this series, pages 217. 
 256. 
 
 We have seen under (A) above, that St. Cyril teaches that ''To be bowed 
 to befits and is due to the Divine a7id ineffable Nature alone.''' 
 
 That is his uniform and noble teaching as against the Nestorian worship of 
 Christ's humanity. 
 
 (X. ) Three texts are urged especially by him again and again as the basis 
 for that doctrine. I mention them here with a quotation from him under each: 
 
Readi7ig of CyriP s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 95 
 
 would in no respect serve as an aid to the right do(5trine of the faith, 
 
 (i.) Psalm Ixxx., 9, Septuagint; (Psalm Ixxxi., 9, of our Common English 
 Version:) ''There shall be no new God in thee, and thou shall not bow to a for- 
 eign god.'^ 
 
 We have an instance of the use of that text against the Nestorian worship 
 of Christ's humanity in this note under Q above, on page 88. See it there in 
 full. See others on pages 259 and 273. 
 
 (Y.) (2.) Isaiah xlii., 8, ''I am the Lord; that is my name; I will not give 
 my glory to another, nor -iny praises to graven images.'^ 
 
 In Section i, Book 2 of his Five Book CoJtiradiction of the Blasphemies 
 of Nestorius, Cyril refers to Nestorius' Man Worship as opposing that Law of 
 God. For he writes as follows in refutation of the Nestorian error that Christ's 
 humanity has been elevated to the rank and name of God with the Word: 
 
 "And tell me this too, for I will ask it as a matter of necessity, what good 
 did the rank [of equality with God the Word] do to the [mere] Man who, as 
 thou thyself hast been saying, was born out of a woman and conjoined to God 
 the Word ? Did it make him equal in glor J' and pre-eminence [to God the 
 Word] and did it make him to be as great as He himself [the Word] should be 
 believed to be ? How then will He [God] not speak falsely when He says. My 
 glory will I not give to another [Isaiah xlii. , 8] ? And the inspired Psalmist also 
 . [if that be true] has spoken nonsensically and falsely to us when he says some- 
 where as follows : ' Who among the clouds shall be made equal unto the 
 Lord? Or Who amofig the sons of God shall be made like to the Lord?' 
 [Psalm Ixxxix., 6]." 
 
 Then St. Cyril goes on to show that no creature can share the honor and 
 glory and worship of God even relatively {^x^<^^i) according to the Nestorian 
 error of Christ's humanity being relatively honored and worshipped by what 
 they called its conjundlion to God the Word. See the context on pages 46 and 
 47 of P. E. Pusey's translation of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
 Against Nestorius. 
 
 Cyril again uses Isaiah xlii., 8, against the Nestorian Worship of Christ's 
 humanity, in his work entitled Christ is One. The place is on pages 262, 263 of 
 P. E. Pusey's translation oi S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarjiation Against 
 Nestorius. 
 
 (Z.) (3.) St, Cyril argues that Christ's own words in Matt, iv., 10, " Thou 
 shall bow to the Lord thy God, and him only shall thou serve,'' forbid the Nes- 
 torian worship of Christ's humanity. For in his Scholia on the Inman of the 
 Sole-Born, Sedlion 25, he writes: " If Christ is the end of the Law and the 
 prophets, but is a [mere] God-inspired Man, would it not be permitted us to say 
 that the end of the prophetic preachings has brought THE CRIME OF WORSHIP- 
 PING A Man upon us? 
 
 " Moreover the Law was indeed proclaiming. Thou shall bow to the Lord thy 
 God and Him only shall thou serve [Matt, iv., 10]. By which teaching it led 
 
96 Ad I. of Epkesus. 
 
 even though some may evilly allege a Union of [Two] Persons (i86). 
 
 us unto Christ as to a knowledge more excellent than they had who were in the 
 shadow. Shall we therefore spurning the worship of God [alone], worship a 
 Man who has God indwelling Him [by the influences merely of His Spirit] ? 
 For where were it more preferable that God should be understood to be? in 
 heaven, or in a man ? in the Seraphim, or in an earthly body." 
 
 In another passage in his Christ is One, St. Cyril shows that the Orthodox 
 dodlrine that in Christ we worship God the Word and not a mere human Nesto- 
 rian Christ, results as follows : 
 
 " For I hold that so thinking and so believing we shall rid heaven and earth 
 from the accusation of worshipping a Man. For it is written, Thou shall bow 
 to the Lo7'd thy God, and Him 07ily shall thou serve.'" 
 
 See the Greek on page 413 of Vol. VII., Part I., of St. Cyril's Works by P. 
 E. Pusey. See the English of the context on page 310 of his translation of 6". 
 Cyril on the Iticarnation Against Neslorius. 
 
 Indeed the whole drift of Cyril in his entire works on the Nestorian contro- 
 versy is to show that all Scripture is against the Nestorian worship of Christ's 
 humanity, and, of course, a fortiori, against all worship of any lesser creature 
 than it. 
 
 (A A.) As Nestorius made Christ to be a mere Man, and as he admitted 
 that to worship a creature for its own sake is wrong, he therefore worshipped 
 Christ's humanity, as is shown by St. Cyril above, relatively to God the Word. 
 Relative Worship is utter and plain paganism, its most common argument for 
 the defence of its image worship and its worship of relics, altars, etc. Alas ! 
 some of those forms of Nestorian idolatry or creature-service exist among a few 
 ill-read and heretical Anglicans, who, alas! are not deposed for it, but suffered to 
 remain in that Communion to corrupt and ruin simple souls. What can their 
 unfaithful Bishops look for but eternal damnation ? How unlike Athanasius 
 and Cyril is their traitorism to their bounden and vowed duty ! As to the rela- 
 tive indwelling mentioned in (S) above, page 89, I would add that : 
 
 St. Cyril teaches that the Trinity dwells in us relatively by the Spirit {Ox- 
 ford translatio7i of Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, 
 page 282). Compare pages 79, 160, 215. Cyril denounces the Nestorian relative 
 worship of Christ's humanity in id., pages 255, 258, 259, 260, 74, 79, 276, and 
 305 to 310. 
 
 Any one w^ho desires proof that Nestorius denies the real indwelling of God 
 the Word's Substance in the Man born of Mary, and makes Him to indwell him 
 relatively only, that is by the influences, not the Eternal Substance of His Holy 
 Spirit, can find it on pages 39, 155, 229, 230, 231, 234, 235, 236, 255 of P. E. 
 Pusey's translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnatio7i Against Nes- 
 torius. See also in the Index of Greek Words in Pusey's translation under 
 nxiir^u and gx^tiktjv, for example, pages 14, 35, 41, 67, 105, and 305; and under 
 proper words in the indexes to St. Cyril. Pusey should in all those places have 
 rendered axf^<yi-q by relation, gx£tik/} by relative, and (7 vf-^/vwf by relatively. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestoriiis. 97 
 
 For the Scripture hath said, not that the Word united a man's per- 
 
 Nestorius makes Christ a mere inspired Man, pages 128 and 140 (seethe 
 Greek); 153, 157 (Greek). 
 
 (BB.) We shall find Cyril further on in the above Epistle, and in his long 
 Epistle which has the XII. Chapters, condemning the worship of Christ's 
 humanity together with {cvv) His Divinity, and teaching us to worship God the 
 AVord with {uera) His humanity, that is as within His humanity, but not to wor- 
 ship His humanity together with the Word, as the Nestorians did. 
 
 These are vastly important documents because they have been approved by 
 the Third Ecumenical Council and the Three after it. 
 
 (CC.) Besides we shall find the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema 
 IX., cursing those who bow to both Natures of Christ and limiting worship of 
 Him to His Divinity ^itra^ that is with or within His flesh. Similarly they speak 
 in another part of their Definition. And the Ecumenical Synods fi-om the 
 Third to the Sixth inclusive followed Cyril on such themes; for he was the 
 greatest teacher, under God, on them. As Cyril of Alexandria again and again 
 in all his writings on our topic teaches that we must worship God the Word 
 ^'with " His flesh {utTa capKOi), but forbids to worship His flesh ''together with " 
 {ovv) His Divinity, we hence find the Orientals who sympathized with Nestorius 
 objecting by their spokesman, Andrew of Samosata, to his condemnation in his 
 Anathema VIII. of their Man-Worship, and saying in reply: 
 
 "We do not assert the expresssion 'co-bow' and 'co-glorify^ [to av,uirpoaKvv- 
 ela^ai kul cvv6o^dCea{^a/) as of two Persons or Hypostases or Sons, as though one 
 [sort of] bowing [that is, " o?ie sort of worship "1 were to be done in one way 
 to His flesh, and another [sort of] bowing [that is, of "worship''] in another way 
 to God the Word; but, on the contrary, we offer but one [sort of] bowing [that 
 is, of " worship "] and the rest of the a6ls of worship as to One Son, and we use 
 the expression " together with" {avv) * * * 
 
 Then, after quoting Cyril in a wrong sense as though he contradicSted him- 
 self, his opponent adds ; 
 
 " In addition to the foregoing we say that he has very unlearnedly and very 
 unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the one and the same Son to- 
 gether with his flesh STziaKrj-ijie roig civ Ti) aapKi Trpoaavve'iv tu evl Kal rcj avru Ylcl) y3ov- 
 ?Mfievoic)^ as though the [preposition] /nerd [with] were some thing other than 
 the [preposition] cvv [together with]; which very assertion he himself has made, 
 as has been said before, by his saying that He [God the Word] must be bowed to 
 with flesh and by forbidding His flesh to be co-bowed to with His Divinity {?iey- 
 liv avrov fierd aapKoq 6elv TzpoGKvvelc^ai^ dnayopevuv 6e avjU'!TpoaKvvela-&ai ry QeorrjTi rf/y 
 cdpKa.)." The Greek of Pusey's text has what means " scientifcatty " instead of 
 *' unlearnedly and unskilfully " which is the reading of the old fifth centur>' 
 Latin translation, which some will think the context proves to be the only right 
 sense here. Yet commonly or often in Greek avv with the dative means the 
 same as ,u^Td with the genitive. But it is clear that Cyril in the above passage, 
 and commonly, uses them in different senses, and that he rejedls the ovv with 
 
98 Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 son to Himself, but that He ''was made flesh'' (187). But ''The 
 
 the dative as favoring the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, and approves 
 the use of //frd with the genitive in the sense of worshipping not the humanity 
 of Christ together with the Word, but God the Word zuiih it, in the sense of 
 within it as in a temple, as his teacher Athanasius sets forth in a passage below. 
 
 In some quotations below on worship to Christ's humanity we shall find a 
 prominent Nestorian understanding Cyril of Alexandria to teach that Christ's 
 humanity is not worshipable at all, and opposing him for so teaching. 
 
 Before dismissing the matter of Cyril's testimony as to the worship of 
 Christ's humanity, I should add that he always professed to follow St. Athana- 
 sius as his teacher. 
 
 It will be apposite here then to quote on the worship of Christ's humanity 
 Athanasius' Epistle to Adelphius, which we may be well assured Cyril followed. 
 St. Athanasius wrote it against a new sect of Arian heretics who denied the In- 
 carnation and so would not worship their created God the Word as within his 
 humanity but outside of it, and who charged the Orthodox with worshipping it 
 with the Word. 
 
 Athanasius replies in Se<5lion 3 and after of that document as follows: 
 
 "WE DO NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE. GOD FORBID ! FOR SUCH AN ERROR 
 as that belongs to THE HEATHEN and To THE Arians. BuT WE BOW TO THE 
 Lord oe the creation who has put on flesh, that is to the Word of 
 
 God. [Oi KTLOjxa TTpooKwovjuev fi^ ykvono. 'Et&vikuv yap kuI 'Apeiavuv rj Toiavrrj irlavri' 
 a'k'Aa Tov Kijpcov rriq Kriatuq anpKcjT&evTa rbv tov Qf:ov Aoyov TrpocKvvovuev, Migne's 
 Patrologia Graeca, tome 26, col. 1073, Athanasius' Epistle to Bishop Adelphius^, 
 And even that flesh in itself is a part of the creatures [that is, is one created 
 thing among other created things, and so is not to be worshipped], though it 
 has been made a body of God. And [so] we neither separate that body [from 
 the Word] and put it by itself and bow to it on account of the Word ; nor [on 
 the other hand] do we when we wish to bow to the Word remove Him from His 
 flesh; but knowing, as we have said before, the expression, 'The Word was 
 made flesh ' [John i., 14], we acknowledge that same Word, even while He is in 
 flesh, to be God. For who is so senseless as to say to the Lord, Depart from the 
 body in order that I may bow to thee ? Or who is so impious as, on account of 
 His body, to say with the senseless Jews, to Him [that is to God the Word], Why 
 dost thou, being a Man, make thyself God [John x., 2)2>] ? 
 
 " But not such was the case with the leper. For he was bowing to the God 
 who was in a body, and kept acknowledging that He was God by saying, 'Lord, 
 if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean ' [Matt, viii., 2; Mark i., 40; Luke v., 12; 
 npoGEKWEi yap tov Qcbv ev au/iarL ovra, koL kyivtdGKev on Qtbg tjv, Tieyuv^ Ki'piF, etc.] 
 And he neither deemed the Word of God a creature because of the flesh [which 
 He had put on]; nor, because the Word is the Maker of all the creation was he 
 despising the flesh with which He [that is the Word] was clothed; but he was 
 bowing to the Creator of the Universe as in a created temple, and he was made 
 clean." [Then after citing other texts to prove that God the Word was m n linniTn 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 
 
 99 
 
 Word was made flesh " (i88) means nothing other than that, like us, 
 
 body and operated in it, Athanasius adds]: "And these things occurred, and 
 no one doubted, as the Arians dare to do now, whether the Word Who has put 
 on flesh is to be beUeved in and obeyed, but even when they saw the Man,. 
 they recognized Him [that is God the Word] as being their Maker ; and 
 when they heard His human voice, they were not on that account saying- 
 that the Word is a creature ; but on the contrary they were even trembling 
 and were knowing nothing less than that He [God the Word] was uttering 
 His voice out of a holy temple [that is out of the temple of his body. Compare 
 John ii., 19, 21]. Why therefore do not the impious men fear, forasmuch as 
 they have not liked to retain God in their knowledge, that they may be delivered 
 over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not becoming [Rom. i., 
 28]. For the creature does not worship a creature, nor on the 
 other hand, was the creature decIvINING to worship its i.ord because 
 of the flesh [which He wore], but it saw its own Maker in the body; and in the 
 name [or ''at the name "] oi Jesus Anointed every knee was bending, and will 
 bend of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and 
 every tongue shall confess; though it may not seem well to the Arians, that Jesus 
 Anointed is Lord to the glory of God the Father [Philip ii., 10, 11]. For His 
 flesh did not bring dishonor on the Word. God forbid! but on the contrary it 
 has received honor from Him [that is from God the Word] ; nor because the Son 
 who existed in the form of God took upon Him the form of a servant [Philip ii., 
 7], did He [the Word] therefore suffer any loss of His Divinity, but on the con- 
 trary He Himself [God the Word] became the Liberator of all flesh and of every 
 creature. ' ' 
 
 Then after showing that the heretics against whom he is writing denied the 
 Incarnation of God the Word, Athanasius shows that they must also deny the 
 salvation brought by His Inman, and adds: 
 
 "Do not those therefore who despise that flesh which was taken on by the 
 Word for the purpose of liberating all men, and of raising all from the dead, and 
 of redeeming them from sin, or those who because of that flesh bring an accu- 
 sation against the Son of God of being a thing made or a creature, seem to be 
 destitute of gratitude ? For they all but cry out to God saying, Do not send in 
 flesh thy Sole Born Son. Do not let hin; take flesh out of a Virgin lest He re- 
 deem us from death and sin. * * * These expressions of theirs are uttered 
 with devilish audacity, through which audacity they contrive evil for themselves. 
 For those who are not willing to bow to the Word made flesh are ungrateful ; 
 and those who separate the Word from the flesh do not hold that one redemp- 
 tion has been made for sin, nor that one freeing from deatk has been accom- 
 plished. 
 
 But ivhere at all will the impious men find any reason for daring to say, 
 also in regard to the flesh itself which the Saviour took, we do not bow To the 
 Lord within the flesh, but we separate the body and serve Him [God 
 
 the Word] AI.ONE \^ov 6e b?.o)^ oi aoe^eiq Kal /cai^' iavrr^v evprjaovai tt)v cdpKa^iiv kla^ev 
 
100 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 He took part of flesh and blood (189), and made a body like ours, 
 
 o 'Zurr/p^ iva kuI rcl/icjai "keyeiv. Oh TrpoaKwovfiev ?}fxelg tov Kvpiov fiETa. tFiq oapKog- h'/2a 
 ihaipov/iev ro cu/ia, Kal /j.6v(f) tovtu Aarpet'o/zev]. * * ^ And finally since the 
 flesh is indivisible from the Word, why is it not a necessity that they lay 
 aside the error [of asserting that it is] and then worship the Father in the name 
 of our L/ord Jesus Anointed; or if they will not bow to nor serve the Word who 
 is in flesh, that they be cast out from every side, and no longer be numbered 
 with Christians, but either with pagans or with the Jews." 
 
 Then after condemning their heretical renunciation of the dodlrine of the 
 Inflesh of the Word as a renunciation of Christianity, he comes to rebuke them 
 again for making out Christians to be worshippers of a Man, for he writes : 
 
 "And let them know that though we bow to the Lord inflesh, nevertheless 
 
 WE DO NOT BOW TO A CRKATKD THING, BUT TO THE CREATOR WHO PUT ON 
 THE CREATED BODY, AS WE HAVE SAID BEFORE. 
 
 * 'Se^ion 7. And we were wishing that thy Piety had asked them this [ques- 
 tion, namely], When Israel were commanded to go up to Jerusalem to worship 
 in the temple of the Lord, where was the ark, and above it the Cherubim of 
 glory overshadowing the mercy seat, were they doing well or or to the contrary ? 
 If they were doing wrongly why were the negledters of that law [to go up to 
 Jerusalem to worship in the temple] subjected to punishment ? For it is written, 
 Whosoever despiseth [that law] and goeth not up shall be utterly destroyed /rom 
 among the people [Deut. xvi., 16]. But if they were doing well [in going up to 
 Jerusalem to worship in the temple], and were in that thing well pleasing to 
 God, why do not the foul Arians, the most abominable even of all heretics, de- 
 serve to have been destroyed many times, because while they approve the former 
 people [of God] for the honor [manifested by them] for the temple, they are 
 ^levertheless unwilling to bow to the Lord\y!\xo is] inflesh as in a temple. And 
 yet the old temple was constructed of [mere] stones and gold, as a shadow [Heb. 
 viii., 5 and x., i]; but since the Truth [John xiv., 6] has come, the type [Heb. 
 viii., 5] as a consequence [of that coming] has ceased, and in accordance with 
 the Lord's utterance, not one stone in it has remained on a stone, which has not 
 been thrown down [Matt, xxiv., 2]. And when they saw the temple of stones 
 they neither thought that the Lord who spoke in that temple was a creature, 
 nor [on the other hand] did they despise the temple and go away afar off" and 
 worship; but entered into it and worshipped, according to the Law, the God who 
 gave oracles from the temple And since that was so done, why is not the body 
 of the Lord truly all-holy and all-sacred, forasmuch as the glad tidings in regard 
 to it were proclaimed by the archangel Gabriel, and forasmuch as it was formed 
 by the Holy Spirit [Luke i., 26, 34, 35], and was made a garment of the Word; 
 [though] IT IS NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED \o\) 7TpoGKVP7/T6v'[? '* 
 
 I have followed here the reading of the manuscripts, which, as we learn 
 from a note in Migne's edition here, is not, on one or two all-important points, 
 that of the editors, I hope to publish a version of this Epistle to Adelphius, 
 now done, which gives the Greek readings of this place. It has, I think, like 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Ncstoriiis. 101 
 
 His own (190), and came forth a man out of a woman, not having 
 
 so many other passages which did not please Monophysite or other creature- 
 serving copyists or editors, been lacerated by them in different ways. 
 
 I would only add that the internal evidence makes for the le6lion that 
 Christ's human body ''is not to be worshipped,'' because as above in Se(?tion 3, 
 of this document, Athanasius says, " We do not worship a creature. God forbid! 
 [Oi; /cncr//a TrpodKvvovjLtev. M?) yhocTo]. For such an error belongs to the pagans 
 and the Arians; but we worship the Lord of tlie creation [that is] the Word of 
 God who has put on flesh:' See the passage in full above. Indeed the whole 
 drift of the above Epistle is against every form of creature- worship, without any 
 exception. And therefore to make Athanasius deny worship to the Arian God 
 the Word, as he really does, because He was a creature ; and nevertheless to 
 teach the Arians, whom he is addressing, to worship a lesser creature, on their 
 hypothesis, that is His mere created humanity, would be a self-evident absurdity 
 on its very face, and one which would have brought a crushing retort from them 
 for its manifest inconsistency. 
 
 In this Letter, below, St. Athanasius adds: 
 
 "Wherefore let them not lie against the Scriptures of God, nor cause the 
 simple ones among the brethren to stumble; but, if indeed they are willing, let 
 them even change their minds, and no i^onger serve the creature con- 
 trary TO THE God who created ai,i, things. But if they wish to persist in 
 their impieties, let them alone be filled with those impieties and let them 
 gnash their teeth like their father the Devil, because the faith of the Universal 
 Church acknowledges the Word of God [to be the] Creator and Maker of all 
 things, and we know that 'In the begi7ining indeed was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God [John i., i]; and WE bow to him IVho has also become matt 
 for our salvatio7i, not as to an Equal in an equal [now that He is] in the body 
 [that is, Athanasius does not assert that the Word's body is equal to his Divinity], 
 but as to a Master who took on Him the form of the servant and was the Maker 
 and Creator in a Creatwe, in order that in it [that is, in the creature, that is, in 
 the humanity put on by the Word], having liberated all things, He might lead 
 the world to the Father, and might bring all things to peace, those in the heav- 
 ens and those on the earth [Coloss. i., 20]. For we thus acknowledge His 
 Paternal [or "His Father's "] Divinity [that is, in Him, the Word of the Father], 
 a7id we bow to His [that is the Word's] Preseiice in flesh [or " to His, " that is, 
 the Word's " incarnate Presence"] even though the Arian maniacs split them- 
 selves. ' ' 
 
 If at this point some one object to us that however much St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria may oppose the Nestorian relative worship of Christ's humanity, he is 
 inconsistent, for his A^. Books Against fulian the Apostate show that he him- 
 self was guilty of the sin of relatively worshipping mere things much lower 
 than Christ's perfect humanity, I reply that as I show in a special Dissertation 
 on that work which I hope to publish if means be given me, it is not his at all, 
 but what is left of the tedious and voluminous work of Philip of Sida, of which 
 
102 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 cast away his being as God, and His [former] birth out of God the 
 
 Photius of the ninth century speaks in so condemnatory a tone in his Biblio- 
 theca. Inasmuch as Philip was but Httle known, and St. Cyril was, and was 
 famous, some unscrupulous dealer in manuscripts, in order to enhance its mone- 
 tary value, and so to line his own pockets with money, probably erased Philip's 
 name and put St. Cyril's in its place. That, alas! was done so often in the case 
 of hundreds of writings which were in a similar manner falsely fathered on dif- 
 ferent Orthodox men, that men often quote to this very hour such spurious pro- 
 du6lions as really theirs. The Benedi6line editors and some others have done 
 somewhat to separate the wheat from the chaff by putting some works attributed 
 to a Father in the class of Genuine writings, others in the class of Doubtful, 
 and others in the class of Spurious, but many productions are still classed as 
 Genuine, which are really Spurious. Oh! for a good, critical edition of Cyril, 
 and of Athanasius, and of every other old Christian writer! During the middle 
 ages and even in our own day thousands and millions have died in deplorable 
 and soul-damning idolatry or other sins because they relied upon some bastard 
 work or works or quotations as genuine. Indeed, the systems of theology put 
 forth by the Schoolmen which governed the minds of hundreds of millions 
 were admixtures of spurious passages with those which were genuine. And the 
 spurious so modified the genuine that often the force of the truth was blurred 
 and weakened, and the force of the lie was made all powerful. 
 
 Another remark should be here made, and that is that Cyril was perfectly 
 sound on the Two Natures to which he refers above as still existing, and there- 
 fore to charge him with Monoph3'sitism is outrageously unjust. Indeed, he 
 wrote against the Synusiasts, that is, Co-Substancers, who were the precursors of 
 the Monophysites. Indeed they were Monophysites, that is. One Natureites. 
 And he received the expression Two Natures used by John of Antioch and em- 
 bodied it in his Epistle to him which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical 
 Council. And in other documents Cyril accepted the expression. See f. H. 
 Newman's Tra^s Theological and Ecclesiastical, pages 311, 322. On page 311 
 he writes : 
 
 "Nor must it be forgotten that Cyril himself accepted the Two ^vaeig [that 
 is, the Two Natures. Chrystal]; vid. some instances at the end of Theod. 
 Evan. ii. Vid. also C. Nest, iii., p. 70, d. e., and his Answers to the Orientals 
 and Theodoret." 
 
 One thing more: What did St. Cyril of Alexandria mean by his profession 
 of worshipping God the Word, '' ivithin [or 'with''\ Kis fes/i," {uerd Trjq oapKoc 
 avTov)? Did he mean that he worshipped the flesh together with the Word, 
 thus worshipping both Natures at the same time; or did he mean that he wor- 
 shipped God the Word with His own body, in the sense of worshipping God the 
 Word within it as in a temple as Athanasius as above does in his Epistle to 
 Adelphius ? See pages 98, 99, 100 
 
 In answer to those questions I would state that my limits in a note are too 
 confined to permit the full discussion of the dogmas involved. I must therefore 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestoriiis. 103 
 
 Father, but He has remained, even since His taking of flesh, exactly 
 
 confine myself to the mere matter of the historical fact. I reply then that there 
 are two views which I will here give, as i and 2: 
 
 I. One holding the First view would say as follows: 
 
 From all that I have seen of his genuine writings I judge that in Christ St. 
 Cyril worshipped God the Word alone; and that his position against the oppo- 
 site heresies of the Co-Substancers and the Nestorians was as follows: 
 
 (i.) He held to the worship of God the Word alone in Christ; and refused 
 to worship His humanity or any part thereof, either relatively or absolutely, on 
 the ground that it is Man-Worship, that is, the Worship of a Man {av&pcdTrolaT- 
 peia, to use his own word for it) that is. Creature- Worship, that is, the Worship 
 of a Creature; contrary as he so often affirms to his favorite three texts: 
 
 (A.) The Septuagint Greek Version of Psalm Ixxx., 9, the common Ver- 
 sion of the Old Testament in use among the Greeks of his day and now; it 
 reads : 
 
 •' There shall be no new god in thee; neither shalt thou worship {j: (iooKwiiazLq) 
 a strange god. ' ' 
 
 (B.) Isaiah xlii., 8. ''I am the Lord God: that is my name: my glory will 
 I not give to another^ neither my praises to graven images.^'' 
 
 And (C.) Christ's own unalterable law in Matt, iv., 10, ''Thou shalt bow to 
 the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. ' ' 
 
 He opposes in the strongest terms in the quotations from him above and in 
 the references to him there the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity as Man- 
 Worship, as a crime, and as a return to creature-worship, that is, to paganism. 
 He nowhere in any of his genuine writings professes to worship His humanity; 
 and his whole drift is to denounce so doing by the Co-Substancers and by the 
 Nestorians as an error and a most perilous sin. And, as we shall see, they rep- 
 resented the only two possible ways in which Christ's humanity can be wor- 
 shipped, that is, absolutely as transubstantiated into God as the Co-substancers 
 held; or relatively to God the Word, as the Nestorians held. 
 
 Let us examine those two heresies as to the way in which they worshipped 
 Christ's humanity: 
 
 (2.) We begin with the Apollinarians who developed their heresy in the 
 last half of the fourth century. On certain details in regard to them there has 
 been some doubt, and some different statements. Blunt in his Dictionary oj 
 Se^s has an article on them which contains some truth and some thing inexadl. 
 
 John Henry Newman has an essay on '' The Heresy of Apollinaris, from 
 Notes dated August 22, 1835;' and therefore years before he left the English 
 Church for Rome. It is in his Essays, Theological and Ecclesiastical, page 255 
 and after. The Notes are brief but valuable, because of the citations of old 
 writers in them. I will make some use of them here. To begin: 
 
104: ^<:i I- of Ephesus. 
 
 what He was before (191). This, the dodlrine of the exact faith. 
 
 The Apollinarian heretics were divided into two parties, the Valentinians, 
 the more moderate sect; and the Timotheans, the more radical. Newman, on 
 page 277, of his Tra^s Theological and Ecclesiastical, says of them: 
 
 " (4.) Both parties taught that our Lord's body was originally consubstan- 
 tial with ours, and that it was made divine. But it was debated between them, 
 whether by being made divine, it was changed merely in properties, or was 
 changed into the divine substance. 
 
 "Valentinus says: ' He [the Son] is coiisiibstantial with us as regards His 
 flesh. The unioii honored the [human] nature; it did not make the body con- 
 substantial with God' [Leontius], page 703, C. (Nobis consubstantiahs est 
 secundum carnem; unio honoravit naturam, non fecit corpus consubstantiale 
 Deo). 
 
 " Timothy says: 'The Nature of the Son was consubstantial with us as re- 
 gards flesh itideed, but by the union it is divine [Leontius], page 704, B,' [Natura 
 quidem consubstantialem nobis esse carnem, unione vero esse divinam. 
 
 "(5.) Valentinus, of the moderate party, maintained that its properties 
 alone were afifedled by the presence of the Divine Word, not its substance. 
 
 "He writes his Apologia ' AgainstThose who say that we say that the body is 
 consubstantial with God,' Leontius, page 701, B. [Contra eos qui dicunt dicere 
 nos esse corpus consubstantiale Deo.]. 'The flesh is worshipped together ivith 
 the Word of God,' page 702, C. D., [Cum Verbo Dei simul adoratur caro]. 'By 
 the Union He is held to be God, not by naticre,' ibid., [Unione Deus habetun 
 non natura]. 'It [that is, flesh] continues to exist in the Union,' ibid., [In 
 unione esse perseverat]. His formula was 'Union is not Consubstantiality,^ 
 page 703, A. [Unionon est homoiision]." 
 
 The ApoUinarians, therefore, of the moderate or Valentinian School, wor- 
 shipped Christ's flesh relatively. For Valentinus himself in his Apology writes 
 on Christ's flesh what proves him to have been a Man-Worshipper, that is, a 
 creature-worshipper of that kind, namely: 
 
 "The flesh is adored together with the Word of God." See Sections 4 and 
 5 of J. H. Newman's TraBs Theological and Ecclesiastical, page 277, as above. 
 
 Newman, on page 278 of his work, adds, (Se(5lion 8): " Now to turn to those, 
 as Timotheus, who adopted the extreme views to which the [Apollinarian] heresy 
 led. They maintained [that] our Lord's body became, on its union, consub- 
 stantial with the divine nature; else it was idolatry to worship Him as incarnate. 
 Hence they were called avvovcia^Tal" [that is, Co-Subs lancers, that is, they were 
 Monophy sites, that is, One-Natureites\ 
 
 Newman there makes the following quotations regarding them: 
 
 Leontius, page 703, E, page 704, and page 707, A, describes them as hold- 
 ing that: 
 
 " The body of a Man which was born out of Mary is of the same substance 
 as the Divinity of the Word {jmoo'vaiov to £k Maplag cuua ry tov Aoyov QtoTTjri)." 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 105 
 
 ever}^ where sets forth and maintains. So we shall find the holy 
 
 Newman next quotes St. Athanasius to Epi(5letus, 2, as describing them as 
 believing in ''flesh which was before the world and consubstantiaV [with God the 
 Word] [adp«a Trpoaicjvwv Tiva kcu Gvvovaicjii^vijv]. So he quotes Nazianzus, Theo- 
 doret, and Facundus as testifying. See Newman there. Newman adds: 
 
 "That our Lord was not in his human Nature consubstantial with us, was 
 one of the two points of Eutychianism, though he wavered about it. Vid. Con- 
 cilia. [Whose? Newman does not say], t[ome] 2, p[age] 164, 5." He quotes 
 in proof Flavian, as in Leo's Epistles 26 and 30. 
 
 In Se<5lion 11 of the same Essay, pages 279, 280, Newman quotes certain 
 passages from old writers which show that Apollinaris at last came to deny that 
 Christ's body was originally human, and to assert that it was not taken out of 
 the substance of the Virgin, and so was not of Adam's race, but passed through 
 her as water passes in a brook or channel. These fadls show how different men 
 in the fourth century and the fifth wrestled with the question of the right or 
 wrong of worshipping Christ's humanity. Of course if it was a part of the sub- 
 stance of God the Word it was no creature, and so, by the verdict of all, could be 
 worshipped absolutely, that is, as God. 
 
 Newman, id., page 280, quotes Athanasius on the Apollinarians, Book 2, 
 Se(5tion 12, as describing Apollinaris or an Apollinarian as asserting that ''The 
 Word remodeled flesh out of Himself'''' \k^ kavrov iJ.e-a-oi>iGar onpKa b Aoyof]; and 
 so Athanasius in his Epistle to Epi<5letus, 2, represents an Apollinarian as assert- 
 ing that Christ's flesh was taken " not from Mary, but out of His own Sub- 
 stance " [ovu k^ Mapio^. aZA' f/c rye eavTov ovalag'\. Gregory of Nazianzus represents 
 an Apollinarian as asserting that: 
 
 "That flesh-like nature was in the Sonfrotn the beginning " [ff apxn^ ^^ ^"9 
 y'lCi -rjv GpK6)6rj eKeiv7jv (pvaiv elvni']. 
 
 Valentinus, the Gnostic, of the second century, asserted that, "The Word 
 zuas made flesh out of Himself '^ [Verbum ex se caro fadlum est, TertuUian on 
 Christ's Flesh, 19-21]. 
 
 Eutyches said, "He remodeled Himself''' [Seipsum replasmavit, Vigilius of 
 Thapsus Contr. Eut.'\ 
 
 Hence Athanasius writes in his work Against the Apollinarians, i, 2, that 
 "They said that the flesh of Christ is uncreated ajid heavenly'" \hKTLGTov koX emw- 
 pdviov 2.iyoi'Tcg t?/v rov X.p/c!Tov GapKa], 
 
 In Se(5lion 7 of the same book Athanasius represents them as saj^ing that, 
 "The body [of Christ] came out of heave^i " [f.f ovpavuh to G(daa\. 
 
 Another writer speaks of them as maintaining that " Christ is not earthly, 
 but heavenly'''' [X/Jiarof oh xotnog, n/JJ iKovpavior, Incert. Dial. V. 4]. 
 
 Leontius writes to them, " His flesh is neither from heaven, nor eternal, as 
 you assert,'' [Neque caro e coelo nee aeterna, ut vos dicitis [Leont. p. 703. Vid. 
 Naz., Ep. 202, p. 168: Nyssen, Antirrh, 13: Epiph. Haer. 77, 2]. 
 
106 Act I. of Ephes2cs. 
 
 Fathers thought. So thej^ became bold to say that the holy Virgin 
 
 These quotations I take from Newman there. They show how widely the 
 heretics differed from each other and from the Orthodox in their vagaries as to 
 Christ's humanity, which, of course, would affect their worship of it, and make 
 it absolute or relative^ according as they regarded it as God's adlual substance, or 
 human, or something different from either. 
 
 (3). We come now to the Nestorian heresy. Its worship of Christ's hu- 
 manity was relative. This is abundantly clear from Nestorius' own words in 
 this note on page 85 above, under " O," which St. Cyril there so strongly con- 
 demns; and which were read in this Act I. of the Third Council, and made one 
 ground for Nestorius' condemnation and deposition by it. 
 
 II. We come now to the Secofid view as to what Cyril's opinions were as 
 to worshipping Christ's humanity. 
 
 One who holds this view would say: 
 
 I hold that jUfrd n)^ aapKog, means together with the flesh, and therefore I 
 understand Cyril to worship one creature, at least, that is, the created humanity 
 of Christ, together with God the Word with bvit one worship {uig TrpocKwyaei), 
 that is, with but one sort of worship, and that divine and absolute; that is, I 
 worship both Natures with the worship due to God alone. A representative of- 
 another class of worshippers of Christ's humanity would sa}', I worship both 
 Natures; the Divinity of the Word with absolute worship, because it is God; and 
 the Humanity relatively to God the Word. 
 
 The difference as to worshipping Christ's humanity would, of course, pow- 
 erfully affect men's views as to worshipping Christ's humanity in the Euchar- 
 ist, where they hold that it is reall}' present on the holy table together with the 
 actual Substance of the Divinity of God the Word. 
 
 Those who hold that the humanity is not worshipable at all anywhere would, 
 of course, refuse to worship it there and would brand the act as one of Man- 
 Service, that is, of creature-service; that is, of paganism forbidden in Matt, iv., 
 10; Isaiah xlii., 8, etc., and anathematized by the Third Council of the whole 
 Church in Anathema VIII. of St. Cyril approved by it, and in Anathema IX. 
 of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 Whereas those who hold that Christ's humanity is worshipable either abso- 
 lutely or relatively, and that it is present on the Lord's table with the Divine 
 Substance of the Word, would worship both Natures there. This class em- 
 braces all or at least the bulk of all who hold to the heresies of transubstantia- 
 tion and consubstantiation; that is, the unreformed Greeks, Latins, etc.; though 
 the Greeks and Latins differ from each other by mutuall}' destru(?tive theories 
 as to when and how and by zvhat words the transubstantiation takes place; the 
 Latins holding that it is effeAed by the Words of Institution, This is viy body; 
 and the Greeks utterl}- denying it, and holding that it is eflecled by the prayer 
 for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the elements. 
 
 Of course those who deny any acflual presence of the body of Christ in the 
 Eucharist on the hoi}- table would not worship it there. 
 
• Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestoriiis. 107 
 
 was Bring er Forth of God (192). Not that the Nature of the Word, 
 
 Cyril's teaching on the Thanksgiving, that is, the Eucharist, as we shall see 
 when we come to treat of that subject and to quote him is plain and distinct to 
 this efifect, namely, that God the Word's Divinity is not on the Holy Table in 
 the Rite and is not eaten there; consequently, according to his teaching, there is 
 nothing to worship there either absolutely or relatively; for all admit that he 
 teaches that Christ's Humanity can not be worshipped separate from His Divinity. 
 What he teaches as to any presence of His Humanity there will be treated of in 
 its proper place, and his own language will be quoted. 
 
 Even Nestorius' language shows that he did not believe in the manducation 
 of Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist, though he held to a theory of eating 
 Christ's flesh which St. Cyril in Section 5, Book IV., of his Five Book Co7itradic- 
 tion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius (pages 141, 142, of P. E. Pusey's transla- 
 tion of 6". Cyril of Alexandria on the Inca^^nation Against Nestoritcs), brands 
 as dvdpo)7ro(t)ayl.a; that is, eatifig a man, that is, cafinibalism. The Greek of the 
 place is found on page 194 of Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of 
 St. Cyril's Works. 
 
 What Nestorius held as to worshipping the Eucharist I know not, for I have 
 not seen any clear statement from him on that point; but we do know that his 
 chief champion, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, held to the relative worship of the 
 symbols there as we see by his Dialogue 2, Inconfusus, page 125, edit. Sch., 
 where he writes, as follows [see Rev. G. S. Faber's Difficulties of Romaftism, 
 page 273 of the Third Edition, London, 1853, where the Greek is found]: 
 
 ^For the mystic Symbols do not pass out of their own nature after their con- 
 secration. For they re^nain i?i their former substance and shape and appear- 
 ance, and they are visible and touchable, such as they were before. But they are 
 thought of as what they have become. And they are believed on and are wor- 
 shipped {TcpnGKvvt.raL, literally '''bowed to''] as being those things which they are 
 believed to be.'' 
 
 Faber, though one of the ablest, and, in nearly every thing, most loyal and 
 most Orthodox Anglicans of his time, seems from his remarks there not to have 
 perceived the utterly pagan cliara6ler of the passage which he there quotes, nor 
 to have realized the Nestorianism of it and of its perverse author. 
 
 And, alas! what is vastly worse, the heresiarchs Keble and Pusey, contrary 
 to the thoroughly Cyril! ian and Orthodox and Catholic rubric at the end of their 
 own Eucharistic Office, started in that Communion that Nestorian heresy which 
 was condemned by St. Cyril and by the Third Ecumenical Council. They are 
 anathematized with their heresy in the Ecumenical utterances quoted below. 
 
 On page 79, at the commencement of tliis note, after first treating of St. 
 Cyril's words in the above Epistle, "Not that we bow to a Man together 2uith 
 thelVord, lest that thing l)e secretly brought in for a phantasm, "etc., and giving 
 some of his utterances auent that expression, and on the Nestorian worship of 
 'Christ's humanity, I promised: 
 
108 Act L of Ephesus. 
 
 that is His Divinity, took the beginning of Its existence out of the 
 
 II. To inquire how far the Third Synod of the whole Church and the 
 Three after it have followed that statement and doFtrine of Cyril, as to the wor- 
 ship of Christ's humanity^ and to state what the do^rine of the Six World Coun- 
 cils on that point is. 
 
 I come uow to redeem my promise. 
 
 At the beginning I would say that we find Cyril in the above Epistle, and in 
 his long Epistle, which has the XII. Chapters, condemning the worship of 
 Christ's humanity, together with {a'w) His Divinity, and teaching us to worship 
 God the Word with {/xera) His humanity, that is as ivithin His humanity. These 
 are vastly important documents because they have been approved by the Third 
 Ecumenical Council and the Three after it. Besides we shall find the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Council in its Anathema IX., cursing those ''who bow to the Christ 
 in Two Natures,''' and limit iug worship of Him to His Divinity within His flesh. 
 Similarly they speak in another part of their Definition. And the Ecumenical 
 Synods from the Third to the Sixth inclusive followed Cyril on such themes ; 
 for he was the greatest teacher under God on them. But to go more fully inta 
 this matter: 
 
 I. We have seen above on pages 103-106 that the Apollinarians were 
 divided into two parties : (i.) The Valentinians, who held that the flesh of 
 Christ has not been transubstiated into the Divinity of the Word, and hence 
 worshipped it relatively only to God the Word, and so were the precursors of the 
 Nestorians so far as that point is concerned; and, (2.) The Timotheans, or 
 Polemians, who held that the flesh of God the Word has been transubstantiated 
 into the Divinity of the Word, and hence worshipped it absolutely as God. On 
 the Polemiatis see in Blunt' s Dictionary of Sefis, under Poletnians and Sy7i- 
 usiastae. 
 
 Both se<5ls were Apollinarians, as I have said. 
 
 Now the Second Ecumenical Council in its Canon I. mentions ''the heresy 
 of the Apollinarians,'''' without making any exception, as "to be specially anath- 
 etnatizedy 
 
 That condemnation smites all its parties. 
 
 Both wings of it denied to Christ a rational mind and admitted only the 
 animal soul; and so were Dimoerites, that is, Two Partites, for they admitted 
 in Christ only two parts out of the three which make up an entire Man. 
 
 And both seels were, as I have just said, Man- Worshippers, that is, Creature- 
 Worshippers, that is, pagans. 
 
 The same Ecumenical Council in its Seventh Canon, while brandmg them 
 as heretics, nevertheless admits their baptism as valid, (for they are never ac- 
 cused of having forsaken at all the trine immersion, then universal, or the proper 
 form of words in its administration), and receives them with the Chrism, that 
 is. Confirmation. That means, of course, that their orders conferred after their 
 excommunication would not be received. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestor ins. 10[^ 
 
 holy Virgin, but that His holy body was produced out of her, and 
 
 Heretics, like the Eunomians, who had altered the ancient trine immersion 
 into the single, and the form of words, were to be received as unbaptized. See 
 the same Canon, and Theodoret on Heretical Fables, Book IV., Chapter 3. 
 Theodoret is found, Greek and English translation, in Chrystal's History 0/ the 
 Modes of Christian Baptism, page 78. See also Bingham's Antiquities of the 
 Christian Church, Book XI., Chapter 3, Se<5lions 10 and 11; and id.. Book XI., 
 Chapter 11, Sedlions 4, 5, 6 and 7. 
 
 Here then in the fourth century, before Nestorius broached his Man-Wor- 
 shipping heresy, we find two different Man-Worshipping Apollinarian sedls con- 
 demned and anathematized by the Universal Church. 
 
 I quote other Ecumenically approved utterances against the Nestorian Wor- 
 ship of Christ's humanity. 
 
 2. Anathema VHI. of Cyril of Alexandria, approved by the Third Coun- 
 cil, A. D. 431: 
 
 "If any one dares to say that the Man taken on [by God the Word] ought 
 to be co-worshipped with God the Word and to be co glorified and co-called God 
 [with Him] as one with another (for the expression co always added, will force 
 us to think that), and does not, on the contrary, honor the Emmanuel [that is, as 
 Emmanuel means, the God with US'] with but one worship, and send up but one 
 glorifying to Him on the ground that the Word has been made flesh let him be 
 anathema." 
 
 In other words, St. Cyril here means that we must worship the Emmanuel, 
 that is, as Emmanuel means, the God with us, on the ground that He has come 
 in flesh, not on the ground nor on account of his mere created humanity, which 
 being a creature, he teaches, is therefore not capable of being worshipped by 
 itself or for its own sake or relatively. The " 07ie worship ' ' here meant is divine 
 worship and absolute, that is to God the Word alone as in a temple as Athanasius 
 as above shows, and as Christ commands in Matthew iv., 10. 
 
 3. Nestorius' profession of the Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity was 
 read in Act I. of the Third Council, as we shall see, and made one of the grounds 
 for his condemnation and deposition. It is found under O, page 85, above, and 
 begins, ''For the sake of Him [God the Word] who wears I worship him [the 
 Man] who is worn,'' etc., as there. See it. 
 
 4. In Act VI. of the Third Ecumenical Synod the Creed attributed to The- 
 odore of Mopsuestia which teaches the Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ's 
 humanity was condemned by the whole Catholic Church. See it in this note on 
 pages 68 and 69 above. 
 
 5. The Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople, 
 A. D. 55J, part before its XIV. Anathemas. 
 
 That part of the Definition after stating that the Third Ecumenical Council 
 in condemning Nestorius for his errors, had by necessary implication condemned 
 every one like Theodore of Mopsuestia, whether living or dead, who held the 
 same errors, then proceeds: 
 
110 Ad I. of Epiiesus. 
 
 gifted with a rational soul (193); to which body also the Word having 
 
 "For it was a consequence of once condemning even one person for his so 
 profane vain sayings, that we should advance not only against that one, but, as 
 I may say, against every heresy or calumny of theirs, which they have made 
 
 AGAINST THE PIOUS DOGMAS OF THE CHURCH, BY WORSHIPPING TWO SONS, 
 
 and by dividing the undivided [Person of Christ], and by introducing THE 
 CRIME OE Man-Worship into heaven and on earth. For the whole multitude 
 of the spirits above, with us, adore [but] one Lord Jesus Christ." Those who 
 held view i on pages 103 to 106 above would explain the above as follows: 
 
 By ^* zvorshippifig two Sons," is meant the worship of what is forbidden in 
 Anathema IX. , put forth by this Council below, that is the Nestorian worship of 
 Christ *' in two natures ;'' that is, the worship of his created humanity as well 
 as of his uncreated Divinity, the latter being demanded, as Cyril in effect shows 
 again and again, by Matt, iv., 10; whereas the former as being Man-Worship is 
 forbidden by Christ himself in that text. 
 
 By ^'dividing the Undivided One'^ is meant the denial of the Incarnation, 
 and of the true Union, that is, the indwelling of the Man born of Mary by the 
 adlual divine Substance of God the Word, who put on that Man in her womb, 
 and was born after the flesh in him out of her. 
 
 By *' introducing the crime of Maii- Worship into heaven and on earth " is 
 meant the introducing the worship of Christ's Humanity, a mere creature as all 
 admit, into heaven and on earth. That, of course, would be plain Man-Wor- 
 ship; that is, Creature- Worship, that is, the worship of a creature contrary to 
 Christ's law in Matt, iv., 10, ''Thou shalt boiv to the Lord thy God, and Him 
 ONI.Y SHAi,T THOU SERVE." The Nestorians alleged for their separate worship 
 of the humanity of Christ, and for their co-worship of it with God the Word, 
 such passages, for instance, as Philippians ii., 10, it, where all are to bow ''in 
 ihe name'" {ev t<^ bvofinr/.) of Jesus, or according to our translation "at" His 
 name. For every knee is to bow, and every tongue is to con/ess that He is Lord. 
 While they adduced such places for the worship of His humanity, St. Cyril, on 
 the contrary, made them refer to the worship of His Divinity as demanded by 
 the context; for instance, in Philippians ii., 5, 6, and 7, where God the Word, 
 the subject of the whole passage, including verses 9, 10 and 11, is meant as the 
 one who was "in the form of God" before His Inflesh, and who in that form 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God," language which all may see can 
 not be asserted of His mere created humanity. And Cyril adduces against such 
 Nestorian Man-Worship, such texts as Matt, iv., 10, and Isaiah xlii., 8, and the 
 Septuagint of Psalm Ixxx., 9, (in our Version Ixxxi., 9), which reads, "There 
 shall be no new God in thee: neither shall thou zvorship a strange god." We 
 see in our quotations from St. Cyril above, in this note, how he condemns and 
 refutes the Nestorian perversion of Philippians ii., 9, 10 and 11. Compare his 
 language in note 156, pages 67, 68 and 69, and note 171, page 74, and St. Athan- 
 asius as quoted in note 173, pages 75 and 76. 
 
 6. Anathema IX. towards the end of the Defnition of the Fifth Ecumen- 
 ical Council, A. D. ^53- 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. Ill 
 
 been substancely (194) united, is said to have been born according^ 
 to the flesh (195). 
 
 "If any one says that the Anointed One [jov Xpiarov), is to be worshipped 
 in two Natures, by which assertion two worships are brought in, one peculiar to 
 God the Word, and the other peculiar to the Man; or if any one to the doing 
 away of the flesh or to the mingling of the Divinity and of the humanity, asserts 
 the monstrosity of but one Nature, that is, of One Substance of the Things 
 which have come together, and so worships the Anointed One [rdv Xpiarov'l ; but 
 does not [on the contrary] worship with [but] one worship [that is with divine 
 and absolute worship] God the Word infleshed within His own flesh, as the 
 Church of God has received from the beginning, let such a man be anathema." 
 
 Those who held to view i on pages 103 to 106 above would say as follows: 
 The one worship here means what is divine; that is, what belongs to God. 
 The two worships mean that kind, for one, and the Nestorian relative-worship 
 of Christ's Humanity for the other; for this part of this Anathema is directed 
 against those heretics, In other words the Church in this Anathema forbids us. 
 to worship in Christ anything but God the Word infleshed within His own flesh 
 as in a temple. See Athanasius as on pages 98-101 above. For if we worship 
 the Man it is not God- Worship, that is it is not the worship of God, but Man- 
 Worship, that is, creature -worship; and both sorts of worship can not rationally 
 be united in one act of worship, like bowing for instance, the act here specified 
 by the Greek, but used, as is common, as a generic term for every act of worship. 
 
 7. The Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema XII. anathematizes Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia for his relative-worship of Christ's Humanity, and all who 
 defend him in that error. Theodore, as we see by that Anathema, taught that 
 his mere human Christ who, according to him, had progressed from what is 
 worse to what is better is ^^ to be bowed to for the sake of God the Word' s Persott 
 in the same way as the Emperor's image is bowed to for the sake of the Em- 
 peror"" {kuI Kar' laoTTjTa (iaatXiKfj^ sikovoq^ elg Trpoau-ov rov Qeov Aoyov TrpoaKwdaOai). 
 
 Here he lands in the relative service argument by which the heathen strives 
 to maintain the sinlessness of his image-worship. 
 
 I quote some parts of this place which are most apposite to our theme. 
 
 Anathema XIL of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: 
 
 "If any one defends Theodore the Impious, of Mopsuestia, who said that God 
 the Word is One, and that the Christ {rji> XpKyrov) is another who was troubled 
 by the passions of the sduI and the desires of the flesh, and that little by little 
 he separated himself from the m^re evil things, and so was rendered better by 
 progress in works and was made spotless in conduct, and as a mere Man was 
 baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and 
 that through the baptism [literally '' through the dip!>inor''^ He received the 
 grace of the Holy Spirit and was deemed worthy of adoption, and IS To Bii; 
 Boweo To \T:poaKvvnaOai^ that is, "iS TO BE worshipped"] For THE SAKE OF God 
 The Word's Person in the same way that an Emperor's image is for 
 THE SAKE OF THE Emperor'S PERSON, and that after his resurredliou, he waa 
 made blameless in his thoughts and entirely sinless. ******** 
 
112 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Section III. — CyriV s final exhortatio7i to Nestorius beseechmg him 
 
 " If any one therefore defends the aforesaid most impious Theodore, and his 
 impious writings, in which he poured forth the above mentioned and number- 
 less other blasphemies against our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and does 
 not anathematize him and his impious writings, and all who accept or defend 
 him or who say that he was an Orthodox expounder, and those who have written 
 in his favor and in favor of his impious writings, and those who hold like senti- 
 ments, or who at any time have held such sentiments and continued in such 
 heresy till the last, let such a one be anathema." 
 
 One thing should be remarked here, that is, if the Universal Church in this 
 utterance anathematizes those who give relative-worship to the highest of all 
 mere creatures, Christ's sinless and perfect humanity, much more does it by 
 necessary implication anathematize all who give relative-worship to any lesser 
 creature, be it the Virgin Mary, any archangel, angel, or saint, or martyr, or to 
 any relics, or to any image, painted, or graven, or to any cross, or to any other 
 symbol, or to any altar, holy table, or any thing else. In fact, by this canon 
 all relative worship is anathematized, and only the other kind of worship, is al- 
 lowed and approved and required, that is, the absolute, all of which is preroga- 
 tive to God alone, and so may not be given to any animate creature or to any 
 mere inanimate thing. 
 
 III. We come now, according to the promise on page 79, to quote some Nes- 
 torian writers on the Worship of Christ's Humanity against St. Cyril a7id the 
 Orthodox. 
 
 But here I must be brief, for this note is already very long. I will therefore 
 limit myself to quoting or referring to some passages out of many from the fol- 
 lowing Nestorian writers, including under that name the founders of the Nesto- 
 rian heresy who were before Nestorius, namely: 
 
 1. Diodore of Tarsus. 
 
 2. Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
 
 3. Nestorius. 
 
 4. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. 
 
 5. Andrew, Bishop of Samosata; and 
 
 6. Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana. 
 
 I must limit myself here mainly to their opinions in favor of the Relative 
 Worship of Christ's Humanity. 
 
 As to the Nestorian heresies on the Union, their denial of the Substance 
 Union aud the Incarnation, and the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, their 
 error of mere Relative Indwelling, etc., see in this note 183 above, and in notes 
 T52, 154 and 156, on page 61 and after; notes 157 and 158, page 69 and after; 
 note 159, page 70; note 160, page 71; note 163, page 73; notes 169, 171 and 173, 
 on page 74 and after. 
 
 I. We come, then, first, to THE UTTERANCES OE Diodore of Tarsus on 
 worshipping Christ's Humanity. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorms. 113 
 
 to hold to and to teach the soimd doclrines that the peace and 
 unity of the Church 77iay be preserved. The saliitation\ 
 
 St. Cyril's witness on pages 93 and 94 above shows that he held to worship- 
 ping Christ's Humanity, and so was what St. Cyril there makes him, not a Trin- 
 itarian, but a Tetradite; that is, a Fourite, that is, a Quaternarian. See there. 
 
 St. Cyril wrote a Treatise against him, some few quotations from which 
 alone remain. They are translated into English in P. E. Pusey's St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, pages 320-337. They 
 should be read, as well as the quotation on Diodore in the note on page 321 from 
 St. Cyril. I quote in Pusey's translation, on page 330, Passage 20 (j/DiodorE: 
 ** For while the Lord was in the bowels of the Virgin and of her essence, he had 
 not the honor of Sonship; but when he was fashioned and become a temple for 
 Cod the Word, in that he received the Only Begotten, he took the honour of the 
 name and was participant with Him in the honour." 
 
 Passage 22 of Diodore, on page 332 of Pusey's 5. Cyril of Alexandria on 
 the Incarnation Against Nestorius, and Cyril's answer to it in Passage 23 I pre- 
 sume to be translations from the Syriac, the Syriac translator being a Mon- 
 ophysite. From that I suspect both and do not rely on them, for it is admitted 
 on all hands that One-Natureites have corrupted St. Cyril's writings, and that 
 from ancient times. 
 
 It will suffice to say then that Diodore of Tarsus denies in effect the Inflesh 
 of the Word in the Virgin's womb, and ascribes to Him a share of the honor, 
 that is of the Worship of God the Word, pages 330, 331, 332-336, P- K. Pusey's 
 translation of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarfiation Against Nestorius. 
 See Cyril's answer on those pages. Diodore evidently held the Man-Worship 
 afterwards anathematized in Anathema IX. of the Fifth World Council. 
 
 2. We come now to Theodork of Mopsuestia on our theme. 
 
 See pages 68, 69, 70, 72, and 92 of this note, where there is clear proof that 
 he worshipped Christ's humanity relatively to God the Word. 
 
 In S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, pages 337 
 .363, are found extracfls from lost writings of St. Cyril Against Theodore. 
 Passage 9, page 340, shows that he was a Man-Worshipper; so Cyril shows again 
 in a passage on page 345, and in another on page 349- I liave given it on page 
 92 of this note. So Cyril shows on pages 353, 354, 355, 358. 359, 360, 362. 
 
 St. Cyril speaks of ''the ungodly Nestorius'' as following Theodore; 
 page 361. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius' teacher, denies the reality of the Incar- 
 nation, pages 344, 345. Compare page 347. 
 
 3. Nestorius comes next. The proof of his denial of the Incarnation is 
 clear. The proof of his Man-Worship is abundant; but we can give only a small 
 portion of it here. 
 
 (A.) His heresies of mere Relative Indwelling and Relative Co7ijunBion, 
 and his other heresies on the Union of the Two Natures are mentioned in this 
 
114 Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 And these things now I write, from the love which is in Christ, 
 
 note on pages, 67, 70, 71, 72, 74, 82, 83, 88, 89, 96, and the pages of P. E. Pusey's. 
 translation of S. Cyril on the Incarnatiott Against Nestorius, which are men- 
 tioned on page 96 of this note. 
 
 On the closeness of the connedtion between the Nestorian heresies of mere 
 Relative- Indwelling and Relative- Worship, see note 156, pages 61-69 above. 
 
 Nestorius denies the birth of God the Word in flesh, that is the Incarnation; 
 see in proof page 26 of P. B. Pusey's translation of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on 
 the Incarnation Against Nestorius. The passage is found at the end of Se6lion 
 5, of Book I., oiSt. Cyril's Five- Book ConiradiHion of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
 torius. There we read that Eusebius, then a lavman, but afterwards Bishop of 
 Dorylaeum, was present in the Church when Nestorius was profanely babbling 
 on the Incarnation; which Eusebius understood him to den^, and therefore 
 cried out that: 
 
 "The Word Himself who was before the Worlds has undergone a second 
 birth also, that is that birth which was in flesh and out of a woman." 
 
 The question is, Did Nestorius admit that, and confess the birth of God the 
 Word in flesh ? Not a bit of it. He promptly denies it and abuses the excel- 
 lent man who had uttered it, for he says to the people who had heard Eusebius 
 and sympathized with him : 
 
 " I rejoice on beholding your zeal; but from the very thing itself is a clear 
 refutation of the foulness of what has been said by this wretched man; for 
 where there are two births there are two Sons, but the Church knows [but] One 
 Son, Christ the Lord." 
 
 The Definition and Canons of the Third Council, the Definition of the 
 Fourth, and that of the Fifth with its XIV. Anathemas, tell us with absolute 
 certainty what Nestorius' heresies were and how the Church has condemned 
 them. See them all. 
 
 (B.) His Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity is set forth on pages 67, 
 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, and especially and fully on page 81; page 82 (contains 
 Cyril's reply) ; page 82 (Nestorius fails to see that by bowing to Christ's Humanity 
 he makes it a god); 82 and 83 (Cyril rebukes him for so doing, and for his doc- 
 trine of a mere ConjunAion instead of a real Union of the Two Natures); page 
 83 especially, where Nestorius again proclaims his Relative- Worship of Christ's 
 Humanity; 83-87 (Cyril rebukes him again for his Creature-Worship, and for 
 his attempted evasion, on page 86, of " uniting the worship " of the Two Na- 
 tures, that is, for worshipping the creature, the Humanity, with the Creator ; 
 that is, God the Word); page 87 (Nestorius' confession of Man-Worship again); 
 pages 87 and 88 (St. Cyril's rebuke of that error as resulting in making a new 
 god of Christ's Humanity, and so in effect of adding that God to the Trinity 
 which alone Christians worship, and making It a Tetrad, that is, a Four to be 
 worshipped); page 88 (another confession of Nestorius that He was a Man-Wor- 
 shipper, that is, a Creature-Worshipper; and another pagan argument for it); 88 
 and 89 (St. Cyril's refutation of that error and that argument); page 89 ^Nesto- 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 115"' 
 
 exhorting thee as a brother [to us] and beseeching thee before the 
 
 rius again confesses his error of relatively worshipping Christ's Humanity and 
 advances the error of a mere Conjundlion of the Two Natures, as opposed to 
 their real Union, to support it); 89, 90 (St, Cyril brands his error again as Man- 
 Worship and refutes the evasion of Nestorius); page 91 (Nestorius adds a new 
 argument for his denial of the Incarnation and for his Relative- Worship of 
 Christ's Humanity); 91, 92 (St. Cyril refutes his argument and brands his wor- 
 ship of Christ's Humanity as a return to Creature-Worship and Paganism, and 
 as Tetradism); 94, 95, 96 (St. Cyril's strong texts against the Nestorian Worship 
 of Christ's Humanity); 95 (St. Cyril again rebukes Nestorius for his worship of 
 the humanity of Christ); 98-ior (St. Athanasius, Cyril's teacher, whom he pro- 
 fesses to follow, proclaims that Christ's body is not to be worshipped). 
 
 For many utterances of St. Cyril against the Nestorian Worship of Christ's 
 Humanity, see the pages of P. B. Pusey's translation of his works 07t the Incar- 
 nation against Nestorius, which are mentioned on pages 94, 95 and 96 of this 
 note. 
 
 Nestorius makes the worship of Christ's Humanity to be relative only, to 
 God the Word, page 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261-284, 290, 292, etc.; (compare 
 Cyril's answer in those pages and the context); pages 255-320. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Explanation of the XI L Chapters delivered 
 at Ephesus, under Anathema V., opposes the Nestorian worship of Christ's 
 Humanity; it is in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 76, col, 304, C. ; and in P. 
 E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril's Works, Vol. VI., page 250. 
 
 So he does in Chapter VIII., id., col. 308, B. C, in the same tome; and in 
 P. E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril's Works, Vol. VI., pages 253, 254. 
 
 (C.) His denial of the dodlrine of the Economic Appropriation of the suf- 
 ferings of the mere Man to God the Word to avoid worshipping a creature, that 
 is, that mere Man, is seen from the notes on pages 74, 75, 76, 78, 79 of this vol- 
 ume. Cyril, under his Anathema XII., in his Defence of his XII Chapters 
 Against the Orientals, column 384, C. D., tome 76 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, 
 quotes St. Athanasius as, in effect, teaching that we must Economically ascribe- 
 to God the Word the Sufferings of His Humanity to avoid worshipping a Man. 
 I have quoted it on page 75 of this note. It is given in Greek in Vol. VI. of P.. 
 E. Pusey's edition of the original of Cyril's works, page 378. 
 
 4. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. 
 
 (A.) Theodoret denies the reality of the Incarnation, on pages 63 to 68 of 
 this work, in the note there, and instead brings in the heresy of a mere Relative 
 indwelling, makes Christ a mere inspired Man, and gives him worship with God 
 the Word; for all which errors St. Cyril there rebukes him. See them especi- 
 ally where the master mind of Cyril speaks. And we must well remember that 
 Anathema XIII. of the Fifth Council anathematizes Theodoret's writings 
 against Ephesus and St. Cyril's XII. Chapters, and all who do not anathematize 
 those writings of Theodoret. Those things are of chief moment and importance: 
 and are perfectly clear in their decisions. 
 
116 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Anointed One (196), and his chosen (197) angels, to hold and to 
 
 Yet I add two passages which may be useful. 
 
 (B.) Theodoret, contrary to the doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria's An- 
 athema VIII., which was approved by Ephesus, and to Anathema IX. of the 
 Fifth Ecumenical Council, worshipped a Man with God the Word, that is, he 
 worshipped both Natures in Christ, that is, the Divine in which he is approved, 
 and also the human in which he is condemned in those enunciations and pro- 
 nouncements and decisions of the whole Church. For in his Censure of St. 
 Cyril's Anathema V., he writes: 
 
 ''We worship as one Son Him who took [that is God the Word] and that 
 which was taken,'' [that is, His Humanity]. See the Greek in P. E. Pusey's 
 edition of the Greek of the Works of St. Cyril, Vol. VL, page 436, foot. The 
 Greek there is, wf £va fiev vlbv TrpoaKvvovfj.£v rbv 'AajSopra kui to ?i//(f)6ep. 
 
 (C.) So in his Censure of Cyril's Anathemas VII., and VIII., he argues that 
 Christ's Humanity may be glorified and worshipped, whereas Cyril contends 
 that all worship and glorifying to Christ must be, done to God the Word alone 
 within His own flesh. 
 
 Theodoret in response to Cyril's Anathema VIII. which condemns the co- 
 worshipping and co-glorifying of Christ's Humanity with His Divinity, writes 
 what shows that he did that very thing; for he replies: 
 
 ''We offer but ofie glorifying as I have often said to the Lord Christ, and 
 we confess the Same One to be God and Man at the savie time.'" This well con- 
 fesses the Two Natures, but judging from the last and other passages of Theo- 
 doret it means that he co-worshipped them both. 
 
 Like others of his party Theodoret professed to unite the worship of the 
 Two Natures of Christ in one act of bowing {npoaiiiwTjGiv), and to make that act 
 convey absolute worship to God the Word, and relative worship to the Man con- 
 joined to him externally as the Nestorians said. That is the dodlrine of Two 
 Worships (c5yo irpoaKvvf/Gttg) which was anathematized in Anathema IX. of the 
 Fifth Ecumenical Synod. See it above. 
 
 We shall have to refer to his favoritism for Man- Worship again. 
 We shall find further on a Document emanating from John of Antioch, 
 Theodoret, and others, forming the committee sent to Constantinople by the 
 Apostatic Conventicle of the Nestorians at Ephesus, which is evidently aimed at 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema VIII. , and its denial of co-worship to Christ's 
 Humanity with the Word. 
 
 We must not forget that the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Definition and 
 XIV. Anathemas has condemned the errors of the four Nestorian heresiarchs 
 above. 
 
 5. Andrew, Bishop of Samosata. 
 
 This prelate was put forward by the Nestorian party as one of their cham- 
 pions against St. Cyril of Alexandria's XII. Chapters, and against the Third 
 Ecumenical Council which he strongly opposed for some time after its close. 
 We know him from his own utterances and from Cyril. I have referred, on page 
 75 of this note, to St. Cyril's reply to him in which he shows from St. Athanasius 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nes tonus. 117 
 
 teach with us these doc5lrines (198), in order that the peace of the 
 
 the profit of the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation to guard against the Nes- 
 torian error of worshipping Christ's mere humanity. We have found Andrew 
 of Samosata, on page 97, witnessing that St, Cyril forbade men to co-worship 
 Christ's flesh with His Divinity. Let us go into this latter passage somewhat 
 more fully. 
 
 As Cyril of Alexandria again and again in all his writing on our topic 
 teaches that we must worship God the Word " within " [or " with "] His flesh 
 {ixera aapKog), but forbids to worship His flesh ''together with'' {ovv) His Divinity; 
 we hence find the Orientals who sympathized with Nestorius objedling by their 
 spokesman, Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, to his condemnation in his Anathema 
 VIII. of their Man-Worship, and saying in reply: 
 
 " We do not assert the expression 'co-bo2v' and 'co-glorify' {to av/LnrpooKw^ 
 €ia6ai Kal awdo^di^eaftai) as of two Persons or Hypostases or Sons, as though the 
 bowing [that is, "the worship "] were to be done in one way to His flesh, and 
 in another way to God the Word; but, on the contrary, we offer [but] one bow- 
 ing [that is, but one kind of worship], and the rest [of the a<Sis of worship] as 
 to One Son, and we use the expression " together with " {p'vv)^ as even he him- 
 self [Cyril] says in his first tome [as follows]: 
 
 * And indeed as He [God the Word] always co-sits (cryi^fdpfiiwi;) as the Word 
 with His own Father, and has come out of Him and is in Him as regards His 
 [Divine] Nature, hear Him [the Father] saying [to the Word] even with flesh 
 {pLETo. aapKog)^ Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot- 
 stool (Psalm ex., i).' So we also say that He is bowed to both by ourselves and 
 by the holy angels. In addition to the foregoing we say that he has very un- 
 learnedly and very unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the One and 
 the same Son together with His flesh [ovv ry crap/c/] as though the [preposition] 
 fierd [that is, "with "] were something other than the [preposition] ovv [that is, 
 *^ together with"\ which very assertion he himself [Cyril] has made, as has 
 been said before, by his saying that He [God the W6rd] must be bowed to ' with 
 flesh,' and by forbidding His flesh to be co-bowed to with His Divinity." 
 
 The Greek of P. E. Pusey's text has what means "very scientifically,'* 
 instead of "unlearnedly and unskilfully," which is the reading of the old fifth 
 century Latin translation, which the context seems to favor. 
 
 Andrew of Samosata evidently takes iit-a with the genitive in a very com- 
 mon sense of it, that is with ; yet it has also the meaning within in which sense 
 Athanasius and Cyril seem to use it when they profess to worship God the Word 
 ^lETo, Tfjq oapKor, that is, within His flesh. 
 
 The Greek of the above as in P. E. Pusey's edition of Cyril of Alexandria's 
 works. Vol. VI., page 316, is as follows: <l>a//tt' itq irai^v i-iarr/aoviKcjc krreaKrjxIte 
 [Cyril] Tolg aiiv rij aapnl TrpocKvvdv rcj tvl kcu ru avru Ti(I) i3ov?>.oij.hoigj cjf irrpov tivo^ 
 bvToq Trapd t6 Hvv tov Merd- brrep avTog idrjKtv^ wf Trpoelprjrni^ Aeyuv avTov /ueTO. aapKog delv 
 trpouKirveiadaij aTrayopevuv de avfiTTfioaiivveladat ry QtoTTjri ttjv adpKa. 
 
118 Act I. of Ephesus 
 
 churches may be Dreserved, and that the bona of concord and love 
 
 Cyril's Answer to the above passage has undoubtedly oeen interpolated, for 
 it contains towards the very beginning the Spurious Monophysite Confession on 
 the Inflesh of God the Word, which has been so often falsely ascribed to St. 
 Athanasius, but which, according to Hahn, Hypatius denied to be his, and which 
 the Emperor Justinian, Leontius of Byzantium, and Anastasius the Presbyter 
 ascribed to the heretic Apollinaris (Hahn's Bibliothek der Synibole, second edi- 
 tion, Breslau, A. D. 1877, pages 191-195, and especially note 962, pages 191, 
 192). Hence I do not feel sure that other parts of Cyril's reply here ma}' not be 
 interpolated also. Hence I will not treat of it here at length but confine myself 
 to what in it is of special interest as to our inquiry. 
 
 Cyril in his reply to the above passage of Andrew shows that he had misun- 
 derstood and misrepresented him (Cyril) to teach that a Man is to be co-bowed 
 to with Gcd the Word. For he begins by condemning Nestorius as ''■choosing to 
 war against Christ's glory, and [asj having let loose against Him an unbridled 
 tongue " by saying: 
 
 ''Let us [or "We may''] worship the Man co-bowed to in the diviiie Conju7ic~ 
 tion with God the Word ' ' {rov rij dda awacptia -cj 0ecj A6y(f) ovfi-pooKwovfiEvov avOpu- 
 -nv). That utterance, he asserts, ends in making Christ "a" mere '' inspii'ed 
 Man,'' and "the divine Conju7i5lion" mentioned by Nestorius will be only, 
 therefore, such a union between God the Word and the Man born of Mary as 
 Paul refers to when he writes, that "He that is joined unto the Lord is One 
 spirit" (I. Cor. vi., 17). That Cyril calls a Relative Conjuji^ion [axf^riKyv avud- 
 (peiav), as distinguished from the actual dwelling of the Substance of God the 
 Word in the Man whom He took in Mary's womb. For the Relative Conjunc- 
 tion is not an Incarnation of God the Word at all but is such an indwelling, not 
 by God the Word's Substance, but by His Spirit only, of the Man born of Mary, 
 as occurred in His dwelling in the prophets by His Spirit. 
 
 Then Cyril, as here, goes on as follows: 
 
 " But I think that thou shouldst say, without peril and without liability to 
 be blamed, that the Word of God having put on flesh, as being [but] one Son, is 
 to be bowed to [TzpooKwrjTog'] not apart from His own flesh, but on the contrary 
 within it [wfr' av-yq]; just as, certainly, the Soul of a man is honored within His 
 own body {ueto. rov Wiov trw/ia-of], and that which is from both is indicated as 
 [but] one living being by one appellation [by the Word Man, for instance]. 
 When therefore thou art ready to discourse concerning Christ, the Saviour of us 
 all, and thou partest the One into two and showest forth a Man conceived of as 
 by himself and separate; [and] then darest to say that That man ought 
 TO be co-bowed to and co-called God as though Christ, the Son, who as to His 
 Nature has come out of God, were another besides that Man, who can patiently 
 endure and pass swiftly by in silence such very clear tongue-paining stuff" against 
 Him? For it was behooving [thee] on the contrary to say, We worship the 
 Word oE God made Man and called God and bowed to in humanity, and that 
 because He is God by Nature and has come out of God the Father and made His 
 appearance [i<5« yap aakXov d-dv, ^tSu/uu rov rov Qeov Aoyov ytvouEvov avOpu-ov kqI. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 119 
 
 between the Hervs (199), [priests] of God, may continue unbroken. 
 
 XprnJ-aril^ovTa Qebv Koi ev dvOpLjiroTT/Ti irpoaKwov/nEVOv, on nal (p'vaeL Qeoq eon kol (k Qeov 
 7ri:(j)7jV6 riarpdf]. 
 
 Yes, say those of the opposing party, bnt thou thyself also I think art 
 caught, for thou hast written in an Epistle that the Son co-sits with His Father 
 with His own flesh [aw^Spevaev 6 Ttof roi Uarpl fxera ri/^ ISiag capKoc); then how 
 canst thou blame the one who says that the Man ought to be co-bowed to [that is, 
 *'to de co-wors/iipped'^'] with God the Word, and to be co-called God with Him ? 
 For the I-vv [that is, "the together with] and the Mfra mean the same " {elra ttwc 
 €TTt?M/ii(3dvy Tov leyovTog on XPV cv/LnrpooKwe'iG6ai tov dvOpurov rcj Gfw Aoyu Kal avyxpvi^o-' 
 Tii^Etv 6c*j; ravTov yap kanv eiTtelv Kal ro "Lvv Kal to Merd. 
 
 [Cyril replies]: **Now in answer let us prove that ye are ignorant of the 
 sense of the said terms and do not see into the nature of the things." Then, 
 according to P. E. Pusey's text, Cyril goes on to dilate on the diflferent uses of 
 the two prepositions, ^vv and Mcrd, in a way neither clear, nor consequential, 
 nor very coherent, nor relevant, which is so unlike Cyril that I suspect that part 
 also to be interpolated or tampered with in some way. But I hope to examine 
 the manuscripts some day and see more definitely. His words there, as in 
 Pusey's text, do not bear to any considerable extent on the question of worship- 
 ping Christ's Humanity. I suspect also the genuineness of the words above, 
 "just as,'' to "one appellation " inclusive, but reserve my judgment on it, till 
 I have examined further. 
 
 Just below Cyril charges Andrew in his quotation above from him with cor- 
 rupting the sense of his words and making him to believe that two Sons are 
 co-sitting with the Father, whereas the truth is he believes in but one as so co- 
 sitting, and that One God the Word within His flesh. He denies also the con- 
 clusion that he ever taught that the Man is to be co-bowed to with God the 
 Word and to be co-called God with Him. 
 
 Venables in his article Andreas Samosatensis, in Smith and Wace's Dic- 
 tionary of Christian Biography, is in some things too favorable to this Andrew. 
 But yet he calls him Nestorius' "zealous defender;' and [states that he] "re- 
 mained firm to him when his cause had been deserted by almost all. For his 
 zeal in the defence of an heresiarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita, o Spdn^v, 
 [that is, " the Dragon "]. The reputation of Andreas for learning and contro- 
 versial skill caused John of Antioch to select him, together with his attached 
 friend Theodoret, to answer Cyril's Anathemas against Nestorius (Labbe III., 
 1 150; Liberatus, C. IV., p. 16). Cyril replied and wrote in defence of his An- 
 athemas, which called forth a second treatise from Andreas (Labbe III., 827). 
 When Rabulas, Bishop of Edessa, had gone over to the ranks of Cyril's sup- 
 porters, and published an anathematization of Nestorian writings, he included 
 Andreas by name." Further on in the same article Venables tells us that when 
 Acacius and John amicably received "Cyril's letter written in answer to the 
 rescript of" the Council of Antioch in A. D. 433, which had been held to unite 
 the Orientals to the Church, Andrew "fully sympathized with his aged metro- 
 politan Alexander's distress and indignation," at their approach towards an 
 
120 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Salute the brotherhood by thee. The brotherhood with us salutes 
 thee in the Lord]" (200). 
 
 Orthodox reunion, and how Andrew, in his letters to that bitter Nestorian, "la- 
 ments the gradual weakening of the opposition (lb. 764, 765, 796) " to the doc- 
 trines of Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council. "These feelings were much 
 heightened when peace was reestablished between Cyril and the East. Andreas 
 deplored the recognition of Cyril's Orthodoxy by so many Bishops, and desired 
 to bury himself in some solitude where he might weep (lb. 784, 785, 796, 797)." 
 He finally, however, came over to the side of the Orthodox, but not till it be- 
 came evident that he would lose his see if he did not. After that he did not 
 render himself so odious to them as Theodoret did, for thelatter's trimming and 
 ambiguous course made him suspected by the Bishops in the Fourth ^ynod in 
 A. D. 451. By that time Andrew seems to have passed away. 
 
 In St. Cyril of Alexandria's Defence of the XII. Chapters Against the Ori- 
 eftials, Chapter 2, Col. 324, B., tome 76 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, he opposes 
 the error of worshipping the Nestorian separated humanity of Christ. 
 
 And he points out the logical result of that heresy by asking them, or rather 
 this Andrew, their spokesman: 
 
 *' Is our faith then in one of those like us, even a common Man, and do we 
 no longer worship the Word who has appeared in human form for us ? [ovkitl 6e 
 Tuv ei> dvOpuireia fj^ofxpy -rrtcpr/vora Ai' j/fiac; TrpooKwov/utv Aoyov ; the Greek is here 
 given from page 272, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of St. Cyril's 
 Works]. 
 
 Below on this same Anathema, St. Cyril quotes St. Athanasius as condem- 
 ning those who denied that the Christ who suffered and was crucified in flesh is, 
 Lord and Saviour and God and Son of the Father, and as refusing the name of 
 Christians to those who asserted that the Word came down on a holy Man, a 
 mere human Christ, as He did on one of the Prophets, and who do not admit 
 His Incarnation. 
 
 In that work, under Chapter III., Cyril condemns the Nestorian relative 
 worship of Christ's Humanity; his words on that are in the same tome, col. 328, 
 C. D., and column 329, A. 
 
 I quote: Cyril writes: 
 
 "Again in another Explanation he [Nestorius] says: 
 
 'That at the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, and 
 things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord [Philippians ii., 10, 11]. On account of Him [God the 
 Word] Who wears, I worship him [the Man] ivho is worn. On account of 
 Him [God the Word] who is hidden, / worship him [the Man] who is seen. 
 God is not to be separated from him [the Man] who is seen. For that reason 
 I do not separate the honor of Him who is not separated. I separate the Na-^ 
 tures, but I unite The worship [Xwp/:^ rhq <pvG£ic, all' hu rfjv 7rpoGKvv7/aiv, page. 
 2S2, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of Cyril's Works]. 
 
Readijig of Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 121 
 
 [Remark. — P. F. Pusey, in his Three Epistles of S, Cyril, 
 Archbishop of Alexandria, here states in a note, "Editor's add, [I 
 translate the Greek — Chrystal] ' Salute the Brotherhood who are with 
 
 Here then we have plain Nestorian Man-Worship, because, as a Nestorian 
 would word it, of the relative co7ijim5iion of that Man to God the Word, that is, 
 it is the worship of a creature relatively to God the Word. 
 
 6. EuTHERius, Bishop of Tyana. 
 
 Butherius, an unworthy Bishop of the city of Tyana in the Second Cappa- 
 docia, who was a bitter and irreconcilable Nestorian heretic and leader, and died 
 in his errors, wrote a letter after the Third Ecumenical Council to John, Bishop 
 of Antioch, to dissuade him from the union with St. Cyril of Alexandria which 
 he saw was then likely to ensue, aud in it he complains much of St. Cyril's XII. 
 Chapters as heretical, and shows as against his Chapter, that is. Anathema VIII. 
 that he (Eutherius)heldtothe worship of Christ's separate humanity and teaches 
 that Cyril rejecfled it. The passage is found in that Epistle, which is Chapter 
 LXXIII. in the Synodicon Casiitense, which is a Latin translation from the 
 work called the Tragedy of his fellow-heretic. Count Irenaeus, column 682, 
 tome 84 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, and is as follows: 
 
 " But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, and takes away due adora- 
 tion [from it] ashe\yiyx\\ of Alexandria] has commanded [us to do], for he says: 
 
 " ^Ifafiy one presume to say that the Man taken [by God the Word] ouglit to 
 be co-adored with God tlie Word and to be co-glorified with Him, let him be 
 anathema.' " (Quis vero incidit a Verbo carnem, et sic fert adorationem debi- 
 tam, sicut jussjt iste qui ait: 
 
 "Si quis praesumat dicere assumptum hominem coadorari oportere Deo 
 Verbo, et conglorificari, anathema sit." 
 
 Just before in the same column 682, this Eutherius shows that he did not 
 believe that the Virgin had brought forth God; for after insisting that St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria must ''utterly reject by his own voice and subscription those things 
 which they, especially [Cyril's XII. Chapters], contain, which are blasphemy 
 (blasphemiam)," and after further denouncing them vilely, he adds: 
 
 "But the incongruity also of the Chapters will be apparent to any one who 
 is endowed with sense. Wtio admits that the holy Virgin was Britiger FortJi 
 of God ifi flesh? Quis carnaliter Dei parti cen Sanctam Virginem suscipiat ?" 
 The expression, Dei particen is late Latin for QtoroKcq. This language plainly 
 implies that this Nestorian leader who, as Davids shows in his article on him in 
 Smith and Wace's Dictioftary of Cliristian Biograp/iy, had been one of the 
 foremost men of the Nestorian party and who knew them well, believed that not 
 one of them held that the Virgin brought forth God the Word in flesh. His 
 reference here is to Cyril's Anathema I. 
 
 Next, in column 683, he attacks other Anathemas of St. Cyril, as for in- 
 stance his Anathema X., where Cyril proclaims that it is God the Word, and 
 not a mere creature who is our Mediator; for Eutherius writes: 
 
122 Ad I. cf Ephes7is. 
 
 thee. The Brotherhood who are with us gj^eet thee i?i the Lord.'' " But 
 lie does not give it in his text, nor is it found in this Epistle as in 
 Act I. of Chalcedon in Hardouin or in Labbe and Cossart, which we 
 
 "Who indeed dares to pronounce in accordance with his abominable and 
 novel expression that God the Word has been made our Apostle and High Priest, 
 so that by that assertion he proclaims that He is a creature also, for the thrice 
 blessed Paul cries, ' Consider the Apostle atid High Priest of our profession^ 
 fesus Christ who is faithful to Him that made Him'''''' [Heb. iii., i, 2]. 
 ("Quis vero pronuntiare audeat, circa hujus ineffabilem vocum novitatem, Deum 
 Verbum apostolum fatflum, ac principem sacerdotum, ut per hoc eum fa(5luram 
 quoque pronuntiet, ter beato Paulo clamante, Conside^-are apostolum et pontiji- 
 cem confessionis nostrae fesum Christian, qui f delis est ei, qui fecit eum .^" 
 
 * ' Circa ' ' in the text reading here seems to be a rendering for the Greek 
 Kara with the accusative, and so is to be rendered, " in accordance with.'" 
 
 Butherius' conclusion that the Scripture which he quotes proves that Cyril 
 made God the Word to be a creature is, of course, slanderous, as he could easily 
 have learned if he had been willing to study his writings, for he would have 
 found that Cyril would take made to refer to the humanity which he put on, 
 though, in accordance with the docflrine of the Economic Appropriation he 
 refers the sufferings, etc., of that Man to God the Word. 
 
 Next Eutherius attacks St. Cyril's Anathema XI., which may be called 
 his Eucharistic Anathema, where Cyril asserts that the flesh of Christ (which 
 he elsewhere teaches we eat in the Eucharist) is not life giving as a man's, but 
 is as the flesh of God the Word. For Eutherius writes: 
 
 " Or who is there that chooses to say or to hear that the flesh o. the Lord 
 was not taken from our nature, but is the own flesh of the Word Himself, as 
 though it had derived its existence from somewhere else?" (Aut quis est qui 
 Domini carnem non ex nostra natura sumptam, sed ipsius Verbi propriam, tan- 
 quam si aliunde substiterit, dicere eligat vel audire ?) 
 
 At the end of tome 84 of Migne's Patrol ogia Graeca, col. 1284, we find 
 mention o^ Eutherius of Tyana's Sermons as also extant among spurious works 
 falsely ascribed to St. Athanasius. We are there told that they are in column 
 i357> tome 28, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, where they are not mentioned 
 however as sermons, but with the following heading: 
 
 'An Epistle of the same, having the fo7re of a Preface and a Tragedy of 
 the trouble of the Churches.'" 
 
 For after the fashion of the Nestorian Count Ireuaeus' Tragedy, in which 
 he tries to make out the righteous expulsion of Nestorian deniers of the Incar- 
 nation and Man-Worshippers from their sees to be wrong and tragical, the 
 author of this Epistle, evidently referring to the same depositions for heresy 
 and the strong and yet perfectly justifiable because necessary measures taken to 
 keep the flock from creature-service, brands them unjustly as a tragedy. Any 
 modern man who talks that way should not forget the persecutions and slaugh- 
 ters of the Orthodox in Persia where the Nestorians had the government on 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestor his. 123 
 
 follow in our translation above. It is, however, found in this Epistle 
 as in the Forematter to the Third Ecumenical Council, in column 
 1277, tome I, of Hardouin's Concilia, and in it in the same Forematter 
 
 their side, nor their usurpation of their sees, and their inducing the unbelieving 
 Persian monarch Pherozes to expel them all from his Empire; nor should he 
 forget the duty of the Orthodox civil ruler, on the other hand as God's minister 
 in mere secular things for good (Rom. xiii., 4,) to enforce the mandates of the 
 Holy Ghost by an Ecumenical Council. The civil magistrate has no higher 
 obligation than so to enforce with the secular arm the saving and elevating de- 
 cisions of the spiritual power in the VI. Councils, and to suppress all that is 
 opposed to them, as Christ will when He sets up His perfect form and adminis- 
 tration of government on earth as we read in Revelations xi., 15, when ''great 
 voices ifi heaven " shall say, '^ The Kingdoms of this world ai-e become the 
 Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ ; and he shall reign forever and 
 ever:' See also Revelations xx., 1-7. Then the secular ministry of civil mag- 
 istracy, always secondary and subsidiary to the spiritual, shall wholly give place 
 to it, and instead of earthly monarchies and republics we shall have a Theocracy 
 again, for Christ shall then reign in His Church and with His Church over all 
 "the wicked. God speed that blessed day. — Amen. 
 
 The said Epistle is followed by 17 Propositions or Arguments against the 
 Orthodox or those who sided with them or submitted to them. They are mani- 
 festly heretical, and Nestorian. Photius ascribes them to Theodoret, and Marius 
 Mercator to Eutherius of Tyana. 
 
 Photius, in his Bibliotheca, Cod. XLVI., mentions the fact that he had read 
 twenty -seven Aoyo^, that is. Sermons of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Against 
 Different Assertions. Now the seventeen in the spurious work above men- 
 tioned as among the documents wrongly ascribed to Athanasius, correspond in 
 ;sense though not always in words to the titles in Photius of Sermons VIII. to 
 XXIV. inclusive; and the Seventh is the Epistle which precedes the seventeen 
 Assertions in the spurious work. 
 
 Now as to the rest of the 27 Sermons of Theodoret not found in the spurious 
 work. They are Sermons I. to VI. inclusive, and XXV. to XXVII. inclusive, 
 and, from the headings to each of them preserved by Photius, they are plainly 
 part and parcel of the same work. The 17 and the Epistle before them are evi- 
 dently then only a part of the entire work. Perhaps, as sometimes occurs iu 
 the case of such manuscripts, the first leaves and the last had been worn away 
 by time and handling, or else torn off and lost, and some dishonest book dealer, 
 it may have been a Jew or a heretic, wishing to turn a penny, put Athanasius' 
 or some other Orthodox man's name on them, which, of course, would greatly 
 increase their value. Indeed, if they had been known as the produ(5lions of the 
 dead Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana, their circulation would have been forbidden 
 by the imperial laws, which commanded the destrucflion of all heretical litera- 
 ture. See Venables' witness on that in this work, page 15. If they were known 
 to be Theodoret's the case might be a little better for them, because, though as 
 
12 J: Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 in column 322, tome 3, of Labbe and Cossart's Concilia (I^utet. Paris, 
 A. D. 1671). But both those editions have '' will greet,'' in the 
 future tense, instead of Pusey's ledlion, ''greet'' in the present; that 
 difference, however, is slight. 
 
 vile a Man-Server as Eutherius of Tyana, he at last made his peace with the 
 Church, at least outwardly; and when it was not known whether the work was 
 heretical or not (and Photius does not seem to have known that their Man-Serv- 
 ing utterances are Nestorian, for he was a Man-Server, aye worse, an image- 
 worshipper himself), their circulation might be permitted as some of his sounder 
 works were, such for instance as his Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 Yet it should be said that though they follow Spurious works ascribed to- 
 Athanasius, in column 1337, tome 28, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, they have 
 no other heading even there in Migne's edition than the one above given, ''An 
 Epistle of the same,'' etc., but who ''the same''' was, is not specified. Conse- 
 quently if stuck in any where in the writings of any author, Athanasius, or any 
 body else, they would naturally be deemed his by those who did not understand 
 the wide difference between Athanasius' Orthodoxy and the Nestorian heresy of 
 Theodoret and of Eutherius. 
 
 On the other hand Marius Mercator is deemed to have ascribed those Ser- 
 mons of Theodoret to the obstinate Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana. For that 
 view we have in column 1087, 1088, tome 48 of Migne's Patrologia Latina, the 
 heading of a Fragment of one of his discourses, which reads " A Eragmetit of 
 a Sermon of Eutherius the Nestorian against St. Cyril, in the [Latin] transla- 
 tion of Marius Mercator,'' which, with certain omissions, is much like a part of 
 the Vllth Sermon of the XVII., attributed to him by the editor of tome 28 of 
 Migne's Patrologia Graeca. The corresponding place of all of it is found in 
 column 1307-1360 of that tome 28, in Greek and Latin, though in a different 
 Latin rendering from that given us by Marius Mercator. 
 
 Gamier, the Jesuit, in his Preface to the Second Part oj Marius Mercator' s 
 JVorhSy gives his opinion that the Sermons ascribed by Photius, in Codex XLVI. 
 of his Bibliotheca, are Eutherius'; but he errs in making them only XX.,. 
 whereas Photius makes them XXVII. there. See that Preface, columns 739, 
 740, tome 48 of Migne's Patrologia Latina. Compare also columns 1287, 1288,. 
 in tome 28, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, where we find a Monitum or Warn- 
 ing on those Sermons. Its author seems to incline somewhat to Garuier's opin- 
 ion that Eutherius was the author of the XVII. Sermons, in tome 28 of the 
 Patrologia Graeca, which are wrongly ascribed to St. Athanasius; but states, 
 nevertheless, that the proof is not conclusive because Photius, in Codex XLVL 
 of his Bibliotheca, mentions them as Theodoret's. 
 
 Whatever by the decision as to whether Eutherius of Tyana was the author,, 
 or Theodoret, they are certainly the produdlions of a bitter Nestorian, for both 
 those men were such, only that Eutherius died in his heresy; whereas Theodoret 
 to save himself from Anathema, with his lips at least professed at last to submit 
 to the Third Ecumenical Council, though it may well be doubted whether he 
 really did in his heart. Possibly they may be Eutherius', but if they were such 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Ne storms. Vl'^ 
 
 It can hardly be said that the absence of the salutations at the 
 end in the form of the above Epistle, in Act I. of Chalcedon, is at all 
 
 they would bring but httle money, and they could not be circulated, but must 
 be burnt, see page 15 above; whereas as Theodoret's they could, and would 
 bring more. Those fadls may have led to the change of Eutherius in the title 
 to Theodoret between the time when Marius Mercator is alleged to have writtea 
 in the fifth century and the ninth century when Photius wrote. 
 
 I quote a part of the XVth of those Sermons of Eutherius, or of Theodoret, 
 among the XVII., which brings in the doctrine of Nestorius of a mere external 
 conjunction of God the Word and His Humanity, instead of the actual indwell- 
 ingof that humanity by God the Word's Substance; and direAly contrary to 
 Cyril's Eighth Anathema, the paganism of co-glorifying that mere creature 
 with God the Word. The blasphemy of some part of this creature-worshipping 
 passage is so horrible, in that it ascribes in effect the utterances of St. Cyril as 
 approved by the Third Ecumenical Council to the devil, that at first I thought 
 of omitting it; yet afterwards concluded to translate it, that men might see the 
 misrepresentations, and the vileness, and the plain Man- Worship of this justly 
 deposed and bitter creature-worshipper; justly deposed I mean for co-glorifying 
 Christ's Humanity with the Word and for co-worshipping it with Him, contrary 
 to the Vlllth Anathema of Cyril. I quote it: 
 
 ''Sermon XV. of Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, column 1385 of tome 28, ofMigne's 
 Patrologia Graeca, whence ive translate it; Sermon XXII. of Theodoret, 
 BisJiop of Cyrus, as mentio7ied in columns 80 and 81, of tome 103 of tJie 
 same Patrologia Graeca.'' 
 
 Eutherius, or Theodoret, whichever of the two was the author, evidently 
 supposing St. Cyril and the Bishops of the Third Council and all the Orthodox, 
 to be Apollinarians, and to hold to only One Nature, and that the Divine, first 
 falsely represents them all as denying that He had humanity, a thing which was 
 inexcusable considering how before the Council in his Five-Book ContradiHion 
 of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, in the Synod itself, and in the two Epistles 
 approved by it, and afterwards, he had uniformly repudiated any such inference 
 from his writings. Then he goes on to prove, what no one denied, that Christ's 
 Humanity suflfered, and that we have hope because of His death and all bless- 
 ings, though he denies impliedly St. Cyril's teaching and St. Athanasius' that 
 we must economically ascribe those sufferings of the Man to God the Word to 
 prevent men from falling into the sin of creature-service by worshipping a mere 
 Man. He then proceeds, as follows, to excite hatred against the Orthodox, 
 and to set forth the dodlrine of the Nestorian mere external conjuudlion as 
 opposed to St. Cyril's of the real Incarnation of God the Word, and the Nesto- 
 rian Man- Worship against Christ's prohibition of rehgious service to any crea- 
 ture in Matthew iv., 10, as maintained by St. Cyril and the Third Synod of the 
 whole Church East and West. 
 
 ** Of how much hatred therefore are they deserving who, for the sake of 
 their own evil belief [or ''through their oivn evil belief:' (5m r//f o'lKan^ KaKOiSo-^:ac\ 
 
126 Ad I, of Ephesus. 
 
 conclusive against their having been in the original; for the address 
 at the beginning is also omitted there. I mean the words, ' ' To the 
 most religious a7id most dear to God, our fellow -minister Nestorius, 
 
 strive to envy us on account of so many and so great benefits [of Christ], and 
 forbid the [human] race to be honored {a) [in Christ's Humanity], and separate 
 the flesh which the Word in a marvellous manner co-joined {awki^zv^tv) to Him- 
 self, and withstand Paul when he cries, What God hath joined together, let no 
 ma7i put asunder {b), and who let out their tongues to the devil for pay to hide 
 the things which they have done against Him ! {jc). For there is nothing so 
 heavy and unbearable to him as to see the nature [of man] which had been led 
 astray by him, lifted up in the First Fruits [d ) by the King of the heavens, and 
 living nobly and above praise (^), and made superior to death, and having de- 
 stroyed his tyranny (/") and been taken up into heaven and deemed worthy of 
 the glorious seat, and recognized by all the creation as one in the supreme con- 
 junction with Him who took him up, and as onk with Him in the indivisibi^e 
 
 SHARING OF THE GI.ORY [and] OF THE DIGNITY WHICH IS ABOVE AI,I. EXPRES- 
 SION. " The Greek of the latter part of this, as in column 1385, tome 28 of 
 Migne's Patrologia Graeca, is as follows: avalrjc^dnGav 6e elg ovpavdv, Kal t?)^ hdo^- 
 ov Kadedpag a^iuBelaav, kv [ev seems to me a better reading than ev. — Chrystal.] re 
 
 TcpoQ Tov dvaTiafSovra Trdayj ry kt'igel ycvcjcTKOnevTjv ry UKpa cvvacpeta, ri) rfjq 66^7/q noivuvig rcj 
 nfiepiGTif), T?]^ vTvep navTa Tioyov d^iag. 
 
 Here we have the Nestoriau creature-worship, "in the ijidivisible sharing'^ 
 of the prerogative '■'glory'''' and ''dignity''' of God the Word by a mere crea- 
 ture, the Man not indwelt by the Substance of God the Word in a real Incarna- 
 tion, but joined to Him according to the Nestorian Co7iju7t^io7i as the prophets 
 were joined to Him and as every good Christian man is joined to Him in the 
 sense that He indwells them by the sanctifying and leading influences of His 
 Hoi}' Spirit, not by Its Eternal Substance, only that it was a higher kind of 
 such an indwelling of the Spirit than occurs in other men; for it is denominated 
 a supreme conjundlion, in that the spirit indwells Christ's Humanity more fully 
 
 {a). Greek, /cat kuAvovte^ juev to ykvoq cefuvvveaftai. 
 
 {b). Matt, xix., 6. Christ, not Paul, said that. 
 
 (c). Literally, " io hide the things done against Him.''' 
 
 {d). Christ's Humanity, he means, with reference to I. Cor. xv., 20, 23. 
 
 (e). It is not clear from this whether Eutherius held to the notion of one of the real 
 founders of Nestorianism, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Anathema VI. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council), of an imperfect Christ being "gradual!)' draivn off from evil, and so rendered better bv 
 the progress of works, and made spotless in his conversation,'" etc, (Anathema XII. of the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Synod, Hammond's translation). Yet, as a strong Nestorian, it may be presumed 
 that he held that blasphemy. 
 
 (/). St. Cyril well held that the conquest of death was wrought by the only Nature of 
 Christ which was capable of it, that is, by His Divinity. No mere creature can overcome 
 death. But Cyril ascribes all the human things mentioned by F;utherius and all the divine 
 things to God the Word to avoid our worshipping a Man, the former Economically, the latter 
 because they could be wrought by Divinity only. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 127 
 
 Cyril wisheth joy hi the Lord.'' It is also omitted in Hardouin's 
 Co7icilia in Act I. of Ephesus, though it is found in the Forematter- 
 to it, and may have been read in Act I. of it; but it is found in Act 
 
 than It does other men, and, so, more intimately joins him to God the Word, 
 and therefore more intimately to the Father and the Holy Ghost also. 
 
 And here we have, as a consequence of this Nestorian making a mere crea^ 
 ture, a mere inspired man, share the glory and the dignity of God Himself, the 
 basis of what St. Cyril of Alexandria so accurately brands as dvdpuTroTiarpeia, that 
 is, t/ie worship ofaMaji; for such KTiauam/nrpeui, that is, creaticre-worship, is the 
 natural and logical outcome of giving the glory and dignity of God to a crea- 
 ture; an error condemned by the whole of the Old Testament in such passages 
 as Isaiah xlii., 8, ''lam the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not 
 give to another; " Isaiah xlviii., ii, etc.; and by Christ Himself in the New, for 
 He says, in Matthew iv., lo, ''Thou shall bow to the Lord thy God, attd Him 
 only shall thou serve.'' Hence such co-glorifying of a man, that is, a creature, 
 with God the Word, is anathematized by St. Cyril in his noble Anathema VIII., 
 and by the Universal Church which in its Third Synod received that Anathema 
 with the Synodal Letter in which it stands, and in its Fourth Synod received it 
 again with the Synodal Epistles of Cyril, of one of which it is part, for all of them 
 are approved by its Definition; and in the Definition and Anathemas of the Fifth 
 Council it condemned the writings which had attacked Cyril's XII. Chapters: of 
 which it is one. Such writings condemned in the Anathemas of the Fifth are 
 those of Theodoret and Ibas. See Anathemas XIII. and XIV. 
 
 Further on in Sermon XVII., column 1393, B, this Eutherius or Theodoret, 
 whichever of the two was its author, opposes the teaching of Anathema X. of 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria that God the Word is our High Priest and Apostle before 
 the Father, and argues that He can not pray for us as God but as Man; for he 
 writes: 
 
 ' ' How does the Master, Christ, intercede for us ? As the Word only ? And 
 wnere [then] are the proofs of His equality in honor and dignity with the Father, if 
 He intercedes as one inferior [to Him], and does not act with authority as hav- 
 ing the same omnipotence [as the Father] ? Or, will you assert plainly that it 
 belongs to the First Fruit to intercede for His own lump [that is for the mass of 
 his brethren] in order that He may show how closely He is related to the nature 
 of flesh ? [Eutherius may mean this as a sarcasm, as though St. Cyril held to but 
 one Nature, and that mixed of Divinity and flesh]." Then in reply, Eutherius 
 tries to prove what no one denied, that in Adls xvii., 30, 31, and in John xix., 37, 
 Christ IS spoKcn of as being a Man; only he goes wrong and makes His Christ 
 a mere Man, after the Nestorian heretics' wont. 
 
 Cyril teaches that Christ prays as Man (see his Epistle on the Right Faith 
 to PiUcneria anu Eudoeia, page 309, Vol. VII., Part i, of Pusey's Cyril). He is 
 prayed to as Goa. Cyril teaches also that Christ worships as Man, but is wor- 
 shipped as God; for instance, in Section i of Book III. of his Five Book Con-. 
 iradiRion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, and in Seaion 36 of his Scholia. 
 
128 Ad I, of Ephesus, 
 
 II. of Chalcedon, and in Conference VI. of the Fifth Council of the 
 Christian world. In that Conference it is quoted from the Acts of 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod. In Act II. of Chalcedon it is not so 
 given, but is quoted merely as an Epistle of Cyril, without special 
 mention of Ephesus. 
 
 We can readily see why those parts may have been omitted in 
 one or two places. It may have been in consonance with a common 
 custom in reading documents to read only such parts as are pertinent 
 to the matters under investigation and to omit the rest; or it may 
 
 But Christ could not be a fit Mediator and High Priest for us if he were not 
 God as well as Man. For how could a mere man hear milUons of prayers at 
 the same moment and intercede for each one's particular needs unless he knew 
 the needs of each one of those millions, and knew whether he prayed wisely or 
 unwisely ? And how could He know all this and what it was best to ask for in 
 each one's case unless He had the exclusively divine prerogatives of omnipre- 
 sence and omnipotence. And to God the Word therefore as Mediator and 
 Intercessor may justly be attributed, according to the Ecumenically approved 
 doclrine of Economic Appropriation, to keep us from worshipping a mere Man, 
 all the things of His Humanity, as well as those which belong perseto His 
 Divinity. So that Cyril's Anathema X. is correct. 
 
 (184), page 86. Greek, ttjv kgO' vTroGTaotv evuaiv. 
 
 (185), page 93. That is because He is God by Nature. 
 
 (186), page 96. The Nestorians did so. 
 
 (187), page 98. John i., 14. 
 
 (188), page 99. John i., 14. 
 
 (189), page 100. Heb. ii., 14. 
 
 (190)) P^g^ 1*^1' Greek, ldi6i> re aufia rb ^juuv tTZOiijGaTO, 
 
 (191), page 104. That is, God the Word. 
 
 (192), page 107. Greek, Qeotokov. 
 
 (193), page no. Here Cyril again condemns the Apollinarian heresy that 
 Christ's humanity was destitute of a rational soul. 
 
 (194), page III. Greek, Kaff vTcoaTaaiv. 
 
 (195), page III. Greek, /card oapKa. 
 
 (196), page 116. Greek, tov Xpiarov. 
 
 (197), page 116. Or, "elect," as it is translated in the New Testament. 
 
 (198), page 117. Greek, ravra^ literally, ''these things." 
 
 (199), page 119. roic upevai, that is, ** the sacerds of God." Our ^'priesV 
 being a contraction from presire, presbyter, that is, elder, did not originally 
 mean hierev, that is (shortened) herv. 
 
 (200), page 120. Pusey omits in his text (3 Epist.) the bracketed words. 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Ales tori us. 129 
 
 have been that those two parts were considered inappropriate now 
 that Nestorius had refused to be corrected and persisted in his here- 
 sies, even when called before an Ecumenical Council, and because 
 he had practically spurned its authority by refusing to appear before 
 it in response to its three summonses. 
 
 I have said before that the address of St. Cyril's shorter Epistle 
 to Nestorius, approved in the Third Synod, may have been read 
 there. The language on it there is so indefinite as not to forbid it. 
 See it above.] 
 
 And after the reading of the Epistle, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 
 said: This Holy and Great Synod have heard that which in advo- 
 cating the right faith I have written to the most religious Nestorius. 
 And I think that I am not convi(5led of straying in any respecfl from 
 the right doArine of the Faith, that is, of transgressing the Symbol 
 (201) put forth by the Holy and Great Synod aforetime coUedled in 
 the city of the Nicaeans. And I implore your Holiness to say 
 whether I have written such matters corredlly and blamelessly and 
 in harmony with that holy Synod, or not. 
 
 fuvenal, Bishop of ferusalem, said: The holy Faith put forth 
 by the Synod in Nicaea being read; the Epistle of the most holy 
 Archbishop Cyril and those things which were put forth by the Holy 
 Synod are found to agree, and therefore I assent to these pious dog- 
 mas and approve them. 
 
 Firmus, Bishop of Ccesarea in Cappadocia, said: Those things 
 which were proclaimed in an Epitome and Summary by the Holy 
 Synod in Nicaea, thy God-Worshippingness having explained subtly 
 and plainly, has made more clear and forcible to us the sense of the 
 Faith there put forth; so that in the dodlrines expressed there is 
 nothing ambiguous; all are in harmony, and the faith is made firm. 
 These explanations therefore being accurate and certain, and intro- 
 ducing no novelty, I also assent, for I received the same dodlrine 
 (202) from the holy Bishops, my Fathers. 
 
 Memnon, Bishop of the City (203) of the Ephesians, said: The 
 
 (201). Greek, ro eKreOev Trapa rf/^ dyiar Knl ueyciXrjg (yvvochv, TTJg Kara Kaipovg h> 
 
 T7I 'NiKaeuv GvveileyiuvriQ avuf^oTiov: Act I. of Ephesus, in Mansi's Concilia, tome 
 iv., col. 1 140. 
 
 (202). Or, "opinion," or, "sentiments," 66^av. 
 
 (203). The Latin translation in Coleti Cone, tom. III., col. 1008, has " met- 
 ropoleos, ' ' metropolis. 
 
130 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 Epistle just read of the most holy and most God-fearing Father, the 
 Bishop Cyril, contains what agrees with the Faith put forth by the 
 318 holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, to which we assent and which 
 we approve, finding in them nothing defedlive nor discrepant. 
 
 Theodoius, Bishop of Aiicyra, said: The admirable and most 
 pious and correct Exposition of the holy Faith composed by the 318 
 holy Fathers collecfted at Nicaea, is made more clear and more plain 
 by the Epistle of our most dear-to-God and most God- worshipping 
 Father and Bishop Cyril (which in no respect differs from the Expo- 
 sition (204) of that Faith) for what in the Exposition was proclaimed 
 in an epitome, it has treated more fully. Wherefore, knowing the 
 agreement between the Epistle, and the mind and the Faith of the 
 318 holy Fathers, we assent and give our approval, as to them, so 
 also to our Father Cyril who has made their meaning plain. And 
 we believe those things which they set forth and which the Epistle 
 of the before mentioned most holy Bishop has clearly explained. 
 
 Flavimi, Bishop of Philippi, said: The Faith which was put 
 forth at Nicaea by the 318 holy Fathers assembled in that city being 
 read to us, and the Epistle of the most holy Father and Bishop Cyril 
 which was written to the most religious Nestorius concerning the 
 Faith being afterwards read, we find it clearly and expressly con- 
 cordant with the Faith put forth at Nicaea and shedding much hght 
 for understanding the sense of the doctrines proclaimed in it. Where- 
 fore I myself also assent to the Epistle written by Cyril, our most de- 
 vout and most dear-to-God, Father and Fellow Minister, which, in no 
 respect, differs from the right faith, but is in harmony with the apos- 
 tohc preaching and with the Orthodox Faith put forth by the holy 
 Fathers in Nicaea. 
 
 Moreover I affirm that our most holy Father, Rufus, Bishop of 
 the Metropolis of the Thessalonians, approves of those [two docu- 
 ments]. For w^hen I was starting to come to this Great and Holy 
 Synod he gave me these commands, and begged on account of sick- 
 ness to be excused from coming hither. And I am persuaded that 
 all the Bishops of Illyricum hold the same sentiments as I do, and 
 that they have no doubt regarding the matters which have been 
 read. 
 
 (204). Greek, r7]v zkOeglv -fjq Trioreuq kKeivr/r. 
 
The Voting o7i Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 131 
 
 Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, said: Seeing the Hpistle of the most 
 holy and most God-worshipping Bishop Cyril, to be full of piety, and 
 of harmony with the faith put forth by the 318 Fathers in Nicaea, I 
 receive gladly its sense. And I acknowledge that the Church from 
 aforetime and from the beginning thought the same ; and from the 
 works of the holy Fathers, and from the Holy Scriptures, and frorm 
 the traditions of the faith, I know that it has held the same dodlrines- 
 
 Iconius, Bishop of the City of Gorty^ia, the Metropolis of Crete, said: 
 The Faith and the Exposition of the most holy Fathers who came, 
 together in Nicaea being read, and the Kpistle of the most holy 
 Father and Bishop Cyril, being also read, I perceive that this Expo- 
 sition of Cyril is accordant with them, and I therefore assent and 
 approve, glorying in like manner in them in the name of the Father 
 and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And those who do not so 
 think I know the Holy Synod will cast out 
 
 Hellanicus, Bishop of the Metropolis of Rhodes, said: I follow 
 the Exposition of the Orthodox faith of Nicaea, and because the 
 Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril is ac- 
 cordant with it, I keep to this Epistle also [as] containing the true and 
 Orthodox faith. And God Himself also opposes Himself to those 
 whose opinions are hostile to this faith. And let him be anathema 
 who does not believe the holy Virgin Mary to be Bringer Forth of 
 
 God, ((9£oroxf>v). 
 
 Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, said: The Epistle just read of our 
 most hoi}" and most dear-to-God Father Cyril turns out to agree in 
 all respects with the Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who were 
 collected in the city of the Nicaeans. Because therefore it is cor- 
 rect, and, as I have said, it agrees with the Faith put forth by the 
 holy Fathers, I both admire it and assent to it. In like manner also 
 I glory both in it and in the holy Fathers who, as I said, w^re col- 
 lected in the city of the Nicaeans. 
 
 Cyrus, Bishop of the city Aphrodisias, in the provi^ice of Carta, 
 said : I also seeing the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to- 
 God Cyril which he wrote to the most religious Nestorius, to be in 
 harmony with and of the same force as the Faith put forth by the 
 most holy Fathers who were collected in the city of the Nicaeans do 
 assent to the same things as the Fathers who have spoken before me. 
 
 Perigc7ies, Bishop of Coriyith, said : I also hold and think con- 
 
132 Act I. cf Ephesus. 
 
 cerning the Faith now well put forth by our most holy and most 
 devoted Bishop Cyril, that it is the same as the Faith put forth by 
 the most holy and most devout Fathers in the holy Synod at Nicaea. 
 I desire therefore to preserve without hesitating the established 
 doctrines handed down from the beginning and until now preserved 
 among us. 
 
 Amphilochius, Bishop of Sida, said: Because the Kpistle of the 
 Archbishop Cyril, who is in all respects most dear to God and most 
 devoted, exactly preserves the apostolic traditio7t (205), and accords 
 with the Exposition of the Faith of the holy Fathers who were col- 
 lected in the city of the Nicaeans, I admire its right Faith, and I agree 
 with and approve the piety of its doctrines. 
 
 Prothymius, Bishop of Comana, said : Having found that the 
 exposition of the faith last read to us through the whole extent of 
 the Epistle of our holy Father and Bishop Cyril is in no respect less 
 or more, except in bare words alone, than the Faith which was put 
 forth by the 318 Fathers, I confess that in it was I baptized, and 
 that in it I grew up, and was ordained and was accounted worthy of 
 the priesthood. And in this faith I pray that my life may end and 
 that I may keep it at the resurrection for the Eord Christ (206). 
 
 folm, Bishop of Proecoiiesus, said : I also assent to the same 
 views as the most pious Bishop Prothymius, and so do I believe. 
 
 Constantine, a Bishop of PJuygia Pacatiana^ said: I also assent 
 to the same views, and so do I believe. 
 
 Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, said : In the different words we 
 find one and the same Rule of the Faith, since both have beeyi diSlated 
 by the same Holy Spirit. Perceiving therefore, that the Epistle of our 
 most holy, and most dear-to-God Father and Bishop Cyril, is in 
 harmony, and is concordant with the doctrines which have been 
 orthodoxically and with precision pronounced and set forth by the 
 Holy Synod in Nicaea, we also approve these and assent to them, for 
 
 (205). Greek, ri/v dTvoaroliKyv Trapddoaiv (iKpiSuq GuL,nvaj]q. Amphilocliuis by 
 this, of course, implies that the Personal Union and the Personal Indwelling of 
 the Word's divine Substance in the Man put on by the Word, and the refusal 
 to worship that mere Man, and the dodtrine that the Word is to be worshipped 
 within His flesh are parts of that Apostolic Tradition of Christian dodtrine which 
 had been held by the Church from the beginning. 
 
 (206). Or, " for the Anointed Master." 
 
The Voting on Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestor ins. 133 
 
 we find that the Kpistle, like the scented oil, renews the fragrance 
 of their faith. 
 
 Theodulus, Bishop of Elusa, said : In conformit}^ with custom 
 (207) I follow the right faith of this Holy and Great Synod, and the 
 Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril, and the 
 Faith (208) put forth in Nicaea by our most holy Fathers, the 318. 
 
 Fidus, Bishop of Joppa, said : I admire the faith of the 318 
 holy Fathers who were in Nicaea. And I no less admire the Epistle 
 also on the Faith, just read, of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Bishop Cyril, which is in harmony with the Nicene Faith, as though 
 written by the Holy Ghost. And I believe that he who remains not 
 
 (207). Or, "like the rest." 
 
 (208). The v^or^ Faith [jt'iotl() here and ofteu in these short speeches seems 
 to be used in the sense of Sy^nbol (ai'/z/JoAov), that is, Creed. Yet I have kept to 
 the literal translation. Faith, became sometimes Wiq faith of Nicaea, maybe 
 intended to include the Faith in its Canons and Synodal Epistle as well as in its 
 Creed. For certain points of Faith are treated of in its Canons as well as in its 
 Creed; and the Quartodecimans are mentioned as heretics in Canon VII. of the 
 Second Ecumenical Council, though they did not oppose the Creed, but only 
 the decision of Nicaea on Easter, which is found in the Synodal Epistle. And 
 the Canons of Nicaea treat matters of faith, as for example. Canons IV., V. and 
 VI., treat of certain matters of faith on Church government; Canon VIII. con- 
 demns the Catharists, that is, the Novations; and Canon XIX. the Paulianists, 
 and brands their baptism, not that of the Catharists, as invalid. 
 
 Yet it can not be denied that the chief matter to be decided here by the 
 Bishops of the Council was whether St. Cyril's Explanation of the Creed of 
 Nicaea is correct or whether Nestorius' is. If Cj^ril's is right, then the Creed 
 teaches a real Incarnation of God the Word and all its concomitants; whereas 
 if Nestorius is, then the Creed teaches no Incarnation, and leaves Christ only a 
 mere Man, and in that case all worship of Him is mere Man-Worship, that is. 
 Creature- Worship. Cyril had put forth his interpretation of the Symbol in his 
 Five Book Contradi^io7i of t tie BlaspJiemies of Nestomis and in his Two Syn- 
 odal Epistles to Nestorius, etc., and Nestorius had put forth his interpretation 
 of the Creed in Sermons, etc., and the Bishops now decide in the Council that 
 Cyril's Explanation of it is right and Nestorius' wrong; and their speeches have 
 reference to that point. The Bishops, however, vote only on one of Cyril's pro- 
 ductions here, that is, his short Letter to Nestorius just above; and but one of 
 Nestorius', his Epistle in reply to Cyril, which comes below. 
 
 Yet Cyril's long Letter was approved by them. And we must remember 
 that in that St. Cyril embodies the Nicene Creed, and explains it and its concom- 
 itants more fully against Nestorian errors on the Incarnation, on the Relative- 
 Worship of Christ's Humanity, on His Mediatorial and High Priestly dignity, 
 on the Eucharist, on Economic Appropriation, etc. 
 
134 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 in the same faith of the Holy Ghost, should be cast out from the 
 Holy and Universal (209) Church. 
 
 Paulia7ius, Bishop of Maiuma, in the first Pale sti^ie, said : Recog- 
 nizing that faith which was written by the most God-worshipping 
 Bishop Cyril, to be the faith of the Fathers which we have learned 
 from the 318 who met in the Synod at Nicaea, we admired that 
 which was dictated by him as like the Oracles of the Holy Ghost, 
 and we hold it fast and follow it. 
 
 Daniel^ Bishop of Colo7iia iyi Cappadocia, said : Recognizing the 
 very words, and, so to say, almost the very syllables contained in 
 the Exposition of the Holy Fathers who aforetime made up the 
 Synod in Nicaea, and the sense of its unwritten dogmas, in the 
 Epistle of our most holy and most devoted Father Cyril, as certain 
 characteristics of the Fathers ; inasmuch as I have taught the same 
 doctrine, and have received it, and have known moreover, that in 
 the holy Church committed to me this teaching has been rooted, and 
 believed in, and that the seeds of it were sown by the holy Fathers, 
 I therefore confess that the Epistle of the most devoted Archbishop 
 Cyril accords with the Exposition of the holy Fathers. This is both 
 my belief and the belief of the holy Church under me, in the name 
 of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Anysius, Bishop of Thebes, said : As I am co-joined to this com- 
 mon presence of all the most holy Bishops, and to their belief, so 
 also recognizing the right counsel of the most holy and most 
 devoted Archbishop Cyril, I assent to it, for it is like the Exposition 
 of the holy Fathers who were collec5led at Nicaea, and in harmony 
 with it. 
 
 Callicrates, Bishop of Naupadus, said : I assent to the Epistle 
 put forth by our most holy Father and Archbishop Cyril, which is 
 in harmony with the do6lrines put forth by the holy and blessed 
 Fathers who were colledled in the holy Synod at Nicaea. 
 
 Dom7ius, Bishop of Opus, said : If those who are ignorant of 
 the exact faith have in any respect or at any time thought otherwise, 
 they thought not rightly. But we declare that what has now also 
 been formulated justly by the most holy Archbishop Cyril is in 
 
 (209). Greek, Kado?uKT^c- 
 
The Votijig on Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 135 
 
 agreement with the holy Nicene Synod of the 318 inspired (210) 
 Fathers, which Synod together with these matters now formulated by 
 Cyril, we deem it by all means just to observe. And I believe in the 
 Father, and Son, and the Holy Ghost. And I pray that in this I 
 may remain so long as the time of my life lasts, and that in this I 
 may die. 
 
 Nicias, Bishop of Megara^ said : As we have come hither think- 
 ing one and the same thing, so also we have been taught to speak 
 one and the same thing. Because therefore what has been written 
 by the most holy Archbishop Cyril, and what was long since put 
 forth by the holy Fathers at Nicaea are in harmony, we also vote in 
 approval with the rest, not having even one doubt in regard to what 
 has just now also been so well formulated. 
 
 Romanus, Bishop of Raphia, said : I also agree with what was 
 put forth by the 318 holy Fathers who met in Nicaea. And more- 
 over I assent to the Kpistle of the most holy and most devout Bishop 
 Cyril, for what it contains is in accordance with the Faith of the 
 holy Fathers. 
 
 Gregory, Bishop of CerasuSy said : What the Epistle of the 
 most holy Archbishop Cyril contains is in harmony with the Faith 
 of the holy Synod at Nicaea. I am pleased with the Epistle, which 
 is in harmony with the Ecclesiastical Faith, and I assent to it and 
 approve it. I came hither not only on my own behalf, but also on 
 behalf of the most religious Eleusius Bishop of Neocaesarea the 
 metropolis. From him I received these commands. 
 
 NunechiuSy Bishop of Selga i7i Pamphyliay said : Because the 
 Epistle last read to us of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, 
 Archbishop Cyril, is in harmony in all respects with the Faith com- 
 posed (211) at Nicaea by the 318 holy Fathers, I also assent and 
 thus I believe. And I pray that having lived in this Faith I may 
 at last stand with boldness before the tribunal of Christ preserving 
 still this Orthodox Faith. 
 
 Solon, Bishop of Carallia i7t Pamphyliay said : In the same faith 
 regarding Christ which the most religious and most God-fearing 
 Archbishop Cyril has handed down, and still hands down, which is 
 
 (210). Iviterally, "God-borne," d£o<p6pu)v narfpuv. 
 
 (211). Greek, Ttiarei ^ * * yeyevr/uhr). The Latin has "fide * * * 
 €dita ' ' as the rendering of the two Greek words above. 
 
136 Ad L of Ephesus. 
 
 in all respects in harmony with the holy and great Synod of Nicaea, 
 was I baptized, and this I believe, and I pray that I may keep it to 
 my last breath. 
 
 Acacius^ Bishop of Cofena in Pamphylia^ said: I have heard the 
 Epistle of our most holy Father and Archbishop Cyril, which is in 
 harmony with the Synod of the holy Fathers who assembled at 
 Nicaea, in all points of the Orthodox Faith, and I also confess that 
 I so hold and so believe, and I also pray that I may keep it to the 
 end. 
 
 Taurianus, Bishop of Lyrba in Pamphylia, said: Having heard 
 the Epistle of our most holy Father and chief Bishop (212) Cyril 
 which is in harmony in all points of the Orthodox faith with the 
 Synod of the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, I also confess that 
 I so hold and believe, and I pray that I may keep it to the end. 
 
 Nectarius, Bishop of Synea (213) in Pamphylia, said: I also be- 
 lieve the same, and I approve the doctrine of our most holy Fathers 
 and Bishops and the Epistle of the most pious and most God-fearing 
 Archbishop Cyril. 
 
 Matidianus, Bishop of Coracisia in Pamphylia, said: I also 
 agree with the confession concerning the right and sound faith made 
 
 (212). The Greek term here used, apxcETriGKOTTov means literally "chief over^ 
 seer,^^ and is used in a complimentary sense to Cyril, as is Bishop, (eTriaKOTroc)^ lit- 
 erally "overseer,'' in these Adls a little further on by a Bishop. Of course none 
 outside of the boundaries of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, ascribed by Canon 
 VI. of the First Ecumenical Synod to Alexandria was in Cyril's province. 
 Romish writers make much of similar complimentary terms used of Rome. 
 But we must remember that such expressions are never to be stretched beyond 
 the Canons, which, in this instance for example, forbid Alexandria to exercise 
 provincial, that is what is now called, in the case of Alexandria, and some 
 other great sees, patriarchal jurisdiction, outside of her own province, that is, 
 outside of her own patriarchate. 
 
 It should be added also that Cyril was the chief Bishop present at Ephesus. 
 For, following what many Easterns term the Ecumenical principle affirmed in 
 Canon III. of the Second Ecumenical Synod, and in Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth 
 that the civil preeminence of the city determines the relative order of its Bishop 
 in the Church, the Bishop of Alexandria was the chief Bishop there present, for 
 the two who alone preceded him in order, the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop 
 of Constantinople, were both absent. 
 
 Cyril could, moreover, bespoken of as a chief overseer, and as an overseer 
 because, under the Holy Ghost, he was the guide and leader of the Council. 
 
 (213). Or, "Sesennia" or "Sebennia. " 
 
The Votijig on Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestor ius. 137 
 
 by the holy Fathers now present, and with the Exposition concern- 
 ing the faith, made aforetime not without God's aid in the city of the 
 Nicaeans, for I recognize it as apostoHc, and in it I pray that I may 
 remain, and that I may guard it entire to my last breath. 
 
 Nesius, Bishop of Cory bras sus in Pamphylia, said : The Epistle 
 of the most holy and most dear-to-God Archbishop Cyril, to-day 
 read, is in harmony with the holy Faith which was put forth by the 
 holy and blessed Fathers who met in the city of the Nicaeans. And 
 this Faith I pray that I may keep to my last breath. 
 
 Epiphanius, Bishop of Cratia, said: I also approve the dodlrines 
 of the holy Fathers, and Bishops and the Epistle which was written 
 by the most holy Archbishop Cyril, and I pray that I may abide by 
 them to my last breath. 
 
 Eusebius, Bishop of Heraclea in the Province of Honorias, said: 
 I assent to the Epistle of our most holy and most devoted Father 
 Cyril because it follows in every respect fhe Faith of the 318 Fathers 
 who met at Nicaea. And so holding we pray to remain during the 
 time appointed us by God [on earth]. 
 
 Silva7ins, Bishop of Ceratapa i7i Phrygia Pacatiana, said: Al- 
 though at a late period I was deemed fit for holy baptism, notwith" 
 standing, I have baen baptized into that Faith which was set forth 
 at Nicaea by the holy Fathers, the 318 Bishops, and into that fuller 
 Explanation of it this day made to us by the Epistle of the Arch- 
 bishop Cyril, which Explanation agrees with the Faith first men- 
 tioned (214). And into this have I baptized very many. And this 
 I pray that I may keep spotless until the day of the resurre<5lion, 
 and that then I may present it to Christ. 
 
 Eutropitts, Bishop of Etena in Pamphylia, said: Because the 
 Epistle of our most holy and most devoted Father and Archbishop 
 Cyril which has been read is in harmony in all respedls with all that 
 was put forth by the 318 holy Fathers who were assembled in Nicaea, 
 I also assent and approve. And in this confession I pray that I may 
 stand before the Master Anointed (215.) 
 
 Secicndiayius, Bishop of Lamia, a city in the Proimice of Thessaly, 
 said: This I have believed and I do believe, and so have I thought 
 and will think, in accordance with the Faith put forth by the holy 
 
 (214). That is, with the Faith of Nicaea, 
 (215). Greek, nh dtn-iWri XpiarC). 
 
138 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 and spiritual Fathers, the 318 Bishops who met at Nicaea. And 
 the Kpistle just read of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father 
 and Bishop Cyril, is in harmony with that Faith. 
 
 Theodosius, Bishop of Echinaeus, a city in the Province of Thessaly, 
 said : I also assent to the same documents and approve them. 
 
 Rzifinus, Bishop of Tabae, said : I also have the same mind as 
 the most holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, and I assent to 
 the Kpistle of our most holy and most devoted and most dear-to- 
 God Father and Bishop Cyril, which is beautifully and correctly 
 composed, and is in harmony with the same Faith. 
 
 Theodorus, Bishop of Arbela (216), said: I also give the same 
 judgment, and I approve with my vote the Kpistle of the most holy 
 and most devoted Bishop Cyril as being beautifully and orthodoxic- 
 ally composed. 
 
 Paul, Bishop of Anthedon, said: I also assent to the Kpistle of 
 the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril as being beautifully 
 and orthodoxically composed, and as being like the Faith of our holy 
 Fathers who met at Nicaea. 
 
 Letoius, Bishop of Libyas, said: As our holy Fathers who 
 assembled at Nicaea have arranged, (for they put forth the Faith in 
 a manner befitting the Orthodox Faith) I also believe, and I assent 
 to the Kpistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril. 
 
 Peter, Bishop of Parembola, said : I also have the same mind, 
 and I assent to the Kpistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop 
 Cyril as being beautifully and piously composed. 
 
 fohn, Bishop of Augustopolis, said: In conformity with the 
 Faith of our holy Fathers, so do I also believe, and I assent to the 
 Kpistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril, which is in 
 consonance with that Faith. 
 
 Saidas, Bishop of Phaenis, said: The Kpistle of the most holy 
 and most devoted Bishop Cyril is in accordance with the Orthodox 
 Faith, and I assent to it. 
 
 Theodorus, Bishop of Gadara, said: Because the Kpistle just 
 read of the most holy and most devoted Bishop Cyril is composed 
 beautifully and religiously and in conformity with the Faith put 
 
 (216). Or, "Aribela." 
 
The Voti7ig on Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestomcs. 139 
 
 forth by the holy Fathers who assembled in the city of the Nicaeans, 
 I also assent to it. 
 
 Aeanes, Bishop of Sycamazon, said: I also, in like manner, 
 assent to the Epistle of the most holy and most devoted Bishop 
 Cyril, which follows throughout the Orthodox Faith put forth by 
 our most holy Fathers. 
 
 Theodosius, Bishop of Mastaura in Asia [Minor], said: The 
 Exposition of the Faith of the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, I 
 mean the 318, I have believed from the beginning until even now. 
 And because the Epistle written by the most holy and most dear-to- 
 God Bishop Cyril to the most reUgious Bishop Nestorius, is in con- 
 sonance with it I abide by it ana approve it, because as I have said, 
 it is in harmony with the soul-profiting Teaching (217) of the 
 Fathers. 
 
 Alexander, Bishop of Arcadiopolis in {Proconsular] Asia, said: 
 The Epistle of the most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril being in harmony 
 with the Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who w^ere gathered in 
 the city of the Nicaeans, that is the 318, and being of the same sense 
 as that put forth [at Nicaea,] I both believe and have beUeved it, 
 and so I pray to think [ever]. 
 
 Maximus, Bishop of Cyme (218) in Asia {Minor\ said: The 
 Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and Arch- 
 bishop Cyril being in harmony with the right Faith put forth by the 
 318 holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, I approve it and assent 
 to it, and I confess that this is the Orthodox Faith. 
 
 Theosebius, (219) Bishop of Prie^ie in Asia {Mi7ior\ said : I be- 
 lieve in the Faith put forth by the 318 holy Fathers, which I have 
 also passed on to the holy Churches of God. And at the same time 
 I beUeve in the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Archbishop Cyril which w^as written to the most religious Nestorius, 
 because it is in harmony with the Faith of the holy Fathers who met 
 in Nicaea. 
 
 Eutropius, Bishop of Evaza, said : In accordance with the Faith 
 
 (217). 'E///w/vw Kol avvTiOefiai, ovu6uvu) ovarj, wf f<i;'v rij ruv Tzarepuv ibvxufpe^^l ^'■<^' 
 
 (218). Or, "Curna." 
 
 (219;). The margin has, "Theodosius." . 
 
140 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 of the 318 Bishops (220) who came together in Nicaea, I myself alsa 
 have believed and do believe in the Epistle of the most dear-to-God 
 Bishop Cyril, because it agrees with it, and so do I pray that I may 
 die. 
 
 Euthalius, Bishop of Colophon in Asia \Minor\ said: Inasmuch 
 as the Epistle of the most consecrated and most God-worshipping 
 Bishop Cyril, [written] to the most religious Nestorius, is in har- 
 mony with the holy Faith of the holy Fathers who came together in 
 Nicaea, I also am persuaded and approve, and believe in accordance 
 with this Transmission (221). 
 
 Docimasius, Bishop of Maro7iia, said : Seeing that the Letter 
 of our most dear-to-God and most consecrated Father, Archbishop 
 Cyril, is in harmony with the Faith, piously and Christ-lovingly put 
 forth by tlie holy Fathers in the city of the Nicaeans, I co-stand by it 
 and am co-pleased with it, because I have [always] been so minded, 
 and pray that I may keep it safe and sound to the end. 
 
 Lucian, Bishop of Toperius, (222) said: The Epistle of our 
 most holy and most dear-to-God Father Cyril which he sent to the 
 most religious Nestorius, having been read, I am co-pleased with 
 its docflrine, and I find it in all respedls in accord with the Exposi- 
 tion set forth by the Holy Synod in the metropolis of the Nicaeans, 
 and I am co-pleased with it, and will keep it entire to the end. 
 
 Ennepius, Bishop of Maximianopolis, said: Having found the 
 Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, Bishop Cyril, 
 written to Nestorius the most religious, to be in harmony with the 
 Faith set forth by the most consecrated Fathers in the city of the 
 Nicaeans, I am co-pleased with it, and co-confess that I so think. 
 And I trust that I shall keep it unshaken. 
 
 Stephen, Bishop of Dium, said: We have read the Epistle of 
 our most holy and thrice blessed Father, Bishop Cyril, and it is in 
 harmony with the Faith put forth by the holy and God-inspired 
 Fathers in Nicaea. Wherefore I also approve it, and have believed 
 and do believe it. 
 
 (220). The Latin translation has ** Fathers," instead of " Bishops " here. 
 (221). Or, "deliverance," or "tradition;" that is, Cyril's "deliverance," 
 that is, his statement of dodlrine in this Epistle to Nestorius. 
 (222). Or, "Toperus," according to the Latin. 
 
The Votbig on CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 141 
 
 Modestus, Bishop of the city of the Ayiaeaiis (223) in Phrygia, 
 said : I also abide by the Faith put forth by the 318 holy Fathers 
 who met in Nicaea, and, furthermore, by the Epistle just now read, 
 which was written by our most holy Father Archbishop Cyril to the 
 most religious Nestorius, because it is in harmony with the Faith of 
 the aforesaid holy Fathers. 
 
 Aphobius, Bishop of Colon, said : Because the Kpistle of the 
 most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril which has been read 
 to the Holy Synod, is in harmony with the Faith set forth by the 
 318 holy Fathers in Nicaea, I assent to it and believe it. 
 
 Maximus, Bishop of Assos in Asia, said: I also believe that 
 Faith and abide in it, just as our most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Bishop Memnon has set forth. 
 
 Dorotheus, Bishop of Myrrhina, a city in Asia (224), said: For- 
 asmuch as the Epistle, already read, of our in all respedls most holy 
 and most dear-to-God Bishop and Father Cyril agrees with the Faith 
 set forth by the 318 holy Fathers, I also beheve it, and am so 
 
 minded. 
 
 Eucharius, Bishop of Doraciimi (225), said : Having examined 
 the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God chief Bishop 
 (226) and Father Cyril, written to the most religious Nestorius, and 
 having seen that it is correct and very just, I find it to be in har- 
 mony with the Faith set forth by our holy Fathers who came to- 
 gether aforetime in Nicaea ; and I so think, and so believe, and I 
 pray that I myself also may live and die in the Lord. 
 
 Theodore, Bishop of A^iinetum, said: I myself also approve the 
 statement of the holy Fathers on the Faith set forth in Nicaea, and 
 the Epistle written by the most consecrated and most dear-to-God 
 Bishop Cyril to the most religious Bishop Nestorius. 
 
 Eudoxius, Bishop of Choma, a city of Lycia, said: I admired 
 the things written by our most consecrated and most holy Father 
 Cyril to the most religious Nestorius, because they are in consonance 
 with the Faith set forth by the holy Fathers in Nicaea. And I assent 
 to them, and confess that I am so minded, just as our most holy 
 Fathers have also stated. 
 
 (223). Bingham, in the Index of Episcopal Sees at the end of the ninth 
 book of his Antiquities, mentions a city of Anaea in Asia. 
 (224). "A city " is in the Latin, not in the Greek. 
 (225). Dyrrhacium, according to the margin. 
 (226). Greek, dp;^:<e7ri(TK07rou, that is, "archbishop.'* 
 
142 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Philip y Bishop of Pergamiis, said : I assent to the Faith set 
 forth by the 318 holy Fathers who were assembled in Nicaea, and in 
 accordance with these very canons (227) which they themselves set 
 forth ; and I assent to the Epistle of the most holy Archbishop Cyril 
 because it is in consonance with the same canons (228). And so do 
 I think and believe. 
 
 Eusebius, Bishop of Magnesia, a city in Asia (229), said: I assent 
 to the Faith put forth by the 318 holy Fathers who met in Nicaea, 
 and to the Epistle of our most holy Father, Archbishop Cyril, be- 
 cause its contents are in harmony with it, and I so think and believe. 
 
 Euiychius, Bishop of Erythra, a city of Asia ^ said: Being per- 
 suaded by my organs of sight and by the utterances of the holy 
 Fathers who came together in Nicaea, and of the Metropolitans from 
 different provinces, I profess and believe the Epistle written to the 
 most religious Nestorius by the most holy Bishop Cyril. 
 
 Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis, in old Epirus, said: Having lis- 
 tened to the Epistle this day read before this Holy and Great Synod, 
 which our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and Fellow-Min- 
 ister Cyril wrote to the most reverent Nestorius, and having found it 
 to be in harmony with and co-professing wnth the Faith put forth by 
 the Holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea, and who set forth 
 the Orthodox Faith, I have deemed the text of the Epistle worthy 
 of all acceptance, and so I also believe and co-assent to its Orthodox 
 
 Faith. 
 
 Dorotheus, Bishop of the city of Dodo7ia (230), said: I also ap- 
 prove and assent to what Donatus, the most holy Bishop of my 
 Metropolis, has stated. 
 
 Heracleon, Bishop of Tralles (231), said: I follow the steps of 
 the Holy Fathers and I stand by the Exposition of the Synod of the 
 
 (227). Greek, Tovq Kavovag sKelvovg ovoTrep avrol e^ldevro. 
 
 The Latin in the parallel column in Coleti renders Kavova^ by san5liones; and 
 I am not sure but that '* rules " in the sense oi enaElments on faith may be meant. 
 For Kavovoc, means " rules," as well as what we call Canons, I take it here to 
 include especially the Creed as being a chief norm, that is, rule of faith there 
 laid down. 
 
 (228). See the last note above. 
 
 (229). " A city " is lacking in the Greek, but is in the Latin. 
 
 (230). Or, *'Dodone." 
 
 (231). Or, ''Trallis." 
 
The Voting on CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 143 
 
 318 Bishops, which was held at Nicaea, who preached the Orthodoxy: 
 and having heard the most holy and most dear- to- God Bishop, our 
 Father Cyril, preaching the same do(5lrines again, or rather enlight- 
 ening us, in his Epistle in this Holy Synod held in the Metropolis of 
 the Ephesians, and perceiving that those utterances are in harmony 
 with the 318, I also approve and pray to abide in this faith, and pray 
 by your prayers, so to end my life. 
 
 Par alius, Bishop of the city of Andrapa, said: Having been 
 brought up in the Faith set forth by the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, 
 I also so believe, and approve, and co-pray (232). And I find the 
 things written by our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, Arch- 
 bishop Cyril, in the longer Exposition which has been just read to us 
 (233), to be consonant in all respedls with the same Forthset (234); 
 and I approve, and pray that I may end my days in this faith. 
 
 Archelaus, Bishop of the city of Myndus in Carta, said: The 
 Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father, Archbishop 
 Cyril, is of the same charadler as the Faith piously and savingly 
 handed down to us by the holy and most dear-to-God Fathers and 
 Bishops who were gathered in the city of the Nicaeans, and is in 
 harmony with that faith, and so I beHeve; and so do I pray [to be- 
 lieve forever] (235). 
 
 Apellas, Bishop of Cibyrrha in Caria, said: I assent to the same 
 things (236) and approve them. 
 
 Thomas, Bishop of Derbe in Lycaonia, said: I myself cheerfully 
 assent to the Faith of the Holy Fathers, and to the Epistle written 
 by the most holy and most God- worshipping Archbishop Cyril, and 
 I am of one mind and of one faith with it. 
 
 (232). Paralius means that he makes the same prayer as Heracleon and 
 others who had just spoken. 
 
 (233). That is, Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius, which is really a longer exposi- 
 tion on the faith than the Creed of Nicaea; and indeed is an exposition, that is, 
 an explanation, of that Symbol itself. 
 
 (234). That is, the Symbol, that is, Creed, set forth as Paralius had just 
 said at Nicaea. 
 
 (235). The Greek has nothing after "I pray," but the Latin has, " et in 
 posterum credere." 
 
 (236). Greek, ra avra, which refers to the documents mentioned and to the 
 statements foregoing of Bishops in approving them. 
 
144 Ad /. of Ephesus. 
 
 Themistius, Bishop of Jassus m Caria, said. I believe the same 
 sentiments, and give my assent to the same sentiments, in accordance 
 with the sound faith of the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and in ac- 
 cordance with the Epistle read of the most dear-to-God Archbishop, 
 our Father Cyril. 
 
 Spudasitis, Bishop ofCeramus (237) m the Province of Ca7'ia, said: 
 I nave lived in the Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who were 
 gathered in the city of the Nicaeans, and I pray that I also may live 
 in it And in like manner I receive the Epistle written by the most 
 holy Cyril, our chief Bishop (238) and Father, to the most God- 
 worshipping Nestorius, because I regard it as of the same tenor 
 (239), and I receive it because it differs in nothing from the Faith. 
 Wherefore I also believe in both of them and co-vote [on the same 
 Orthodox side]. 
 
 Aphtho7ietus, Bishop of Heraclea hi Caria, said: The Epistle of 
 our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and chief Bishop (240) 
 Cyril is an explanation of the pious Faith (241), transmitted to us 
 by the most holy Fathers and Bishops [who met] in Nicaea; and is 
 fundamental; and [accordingly] I make acknowledgment of my be- 
 lief in both, and pray to believe so forever. 
 
 Philip, Bishop of Amazo7i in Caria, said: I both assent and 
 believe, in consonance with the heavenly and glorious Faith set forth 
 by the 318 most pious and most dear-to-God Bishops who came to- 
 gether in Nicaea, and in accordance with the Epistle written by the 
 
 (237). Or, " Cerama;" or, "Cerami," 
 
 (238). Greek, ap;t7e7r/o-/cd7roj;, that is, as being the chief Bishop present, or 
 more probably as being the chief Bishop in the maintenance and defense of 
 Orthodoxy against Nestorius. The remark of a writer in the Vin661iov, Athens 
 edition of 184 1, page 94, that Cyril was the " Leader " of the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod is true; and the repeated commendations of him and witness to him by 
 the assembled Bishops attest his just worth and claims as God's champion 
 against Nestorian Man-Service and Relative-Service. 
 
 (239), Greek, djuuvv/uop; or, *'of the same sense;" or, "kind," with the 
 creed of the 318. "Exposition," is often used of that Symbol in these A6ls. 
 
 (240). This expression is explained by me in a note a little above. See it 
 there, 
 
 (241). The term "Faith " is used here, especially, as often in such places 
 in these A6ls, of the Creed of the 318; though not, of course, to the exclusion 
 of the rest of the faith, which was not defined at Nicaea in it, or in its Canons, 
 or in its Synodal Epistle, but afterwards in other documents. 
 
The Voting 07i CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 14iS 
 
 most holy and most dear-to-God Father, the Archbishop Cyril, be- 
 cause it is in harmony with the same Holy Exposition; and I am a 
 -co-voter with His God-worshippingness (242) on the same side with 
 him. 
 
 Phanias, Bishop of the city of Arpasa in Caria^ said: In accord- 
 ance with the Exposition of the heavenly Faith, which Exposition 
 was set forth by the 3 1 8 Holy Fathers who came together in the city 
 of the Nicaeans, and in accordance with the Epistle written by the 
 most holy and most dear-to-God Bishop our common Father Cyril, 
 which was written to the most religious Bishop Nestorius, which has 
 been read to us, and which is of the same tenor (243), as the Faith 
 of the Holy Fathers, I acknowledge that I think the same, and I 
 assent to the same. 
 
 Promachius, Bishop of Alinda in Caria^ said : I myself also 
 knowing that the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Father, and chief Bishop Cyril agrees with the Faith set forth by 
 our most holy and most dear-to-God Fathers and Bishops who came 
 together in Nicaea, do [therefore] believe and think [the same] and 
 co-assent to the same things. 
 
 Saidas, Bishop of Phaenis in Palestina Salutaris^ said: I assent 
 to the Epistle put forth by our most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Father, Archbishop Cyril, for I know that it is in agreement with 
 the Faith set forth by the holy and God-inspired '(244) Fathers, who 
 met together in Nicaea; and I believe and think in accordance with 
 it, and I co-vote and co-approve what has been said by our most 
 devout and most dear-to-God Bishop Juvenal because it is in har- 
 mony with the Exposition of the Fathers. 
 
 Sejiecion, Bishop of the city of Cordia (245), said: In accordance 
 with the Faith defined by our Holy Fathers, the 318 at Nicaea, who 
 were filled with the Holy Ghost at Nicaea, aye, and moreover, in 
 consonance with the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Father Cyril, which has just been read to us, I believe, and I co- 
 approve. 
 
 (242). That is, with Cyril. 
 
 (243). Or, "of the same force," 6fio6vva/xov. 
 
 (254). Greek, ^eo^dpwv, that is, "God-borne;" that is, "God-inspired.'* 
 
 (245). Or. "Codra." 
 
146 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 John, Bishop of Hephaestus in Augustam7iica, said: Because the 
 Faith set forth by the Holy Synod, which was celebrated by the 
 holy Fathers in the city of the Nicaeans, and the Kpistle written 
 to the most religious Nestorius by our most holy and most dear-to- 
 God Father and Bishop Cyril, have [but] one sense throughout and 
 one Faith in different syllables, I also assent to both of them (246), 
 and hold the same sentiments (247), and pray that by the grace of 
 the Holy Trinity I may hve in them (248). 
 
 Athajiasius, Bishop of Paralus, said: I also assent to the same 
 things, and I approve the right faith of our Father Cyril, the Arch- 
 bishop. 
 
 Eusebius, Bishop of Aspona (249), a city of Ancyra (250;, said: 
 Having discovered the great agreement which there is between the 
 Faith throughout the Epistle put forth by our most God- worshipping 
 and most dear-to-God Father and Bishop Cyril, and the Faith which 
 was set forth of yore (251) by the holy Fathers, I co-approve and 
 receive and believe the same things, and I glorify (252) the same 
 things and teach them. 
 
 Theon, Bishop of Sethroetus (253), said: I co-approve the Epistle 
 of our most holy Archbishop Cyril, which teaches (254) in conso- 
 nance with the Faith set forth by the most holy Fathers who were 
 once gathered in Nicaea. 
 
 Daniel, Bishop of D amis, said: I co-approve the Epistle of our 
 most holy and most dear-to-God Father Cyril which has been read, 
 because its teachings (255) are in consonance with the Faith of our 
 most holy Fathers in Nicaea. 
 
 (246). Greek, raira^f, which the Latin in the parallel column renders 
 utrique, which I follow. 
 
 (247). Or, " and co-glorify " (both). 
 
 (248). Or, "by them." 
 
 (249). The margin reads, Kvcovciv. 
 
 (250). The Latin note on this in Coleti means "Perhaps Galatia," instead 
 of Ancyra. 
 
 (251). Greek, Tzdlai. 
 
 (252). Greek, So^a^a, which may be rendered " / think.'' 
 
 (253). Margin, 'OdpoLT7]<;, 'AdpolTuv. 
 
 (254). Greek, eKdefiofievr},- margin in Coleti, Udefievv, literally, " Having given 
 forth," or, "Having set forth." 
 
 (255). Or, "because it sets forth in consonance," etc.; owcji^a fKftt/jhi? 
 
The Vothig 07i CvriV s Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus, 147 
 
 Macarius, Bishop of Anteum, said: Finding the same grace of 
 the Holy Spirit, both in the Faith put forth by the most holy Fathers 
 at Nicaea, and in the Epistle of the most holy and most devout 
 Archbishop Cyril I admire it and remain in it, and I pray to keep 
 ever this which guides and saves the race of men (256). 
 
 Sosipater, Bishop of Septimiaca, said: To speak at much length 
 and to declare the wonders (257) of the holy Fathers, is not in my 
 power, but belongs to some other who boasts the greatest learning. 
 Therefore I say [in brief] that forasmuch as the contents of the 
 Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God Father and Arch- 
 bishop Cyril, which was written to Nestorius, and which has been 
 read, are in harmony with the Synod which was held in the city of 
 the Nicaeans, I also so believe, think, and co-approve, as our holy 
 Fathers have also thought and believed. 
 
 Samuel, Bishop of Dysthis in Pe?itapolis, said: I believe (258) 
 as did the holy Fathers who were gathered in the Synod of the 
 Nicaeans, and having listened to the Epistle of our most holy and 
 most dear-to-God Father and Archbishop Cyril, I so think and be- 
 lieve [as he does]. 
 
 Strategius, Bishop of Athribis in the Province of Augustamjiica, 
 said: Because the contents of the Epistle of the most holy and most 
 dear-to-God x\rchbishop Cyril written to the most religious Nestorius, 
 which has been read, is in harmony with and is of the same faith as 
 our holy Fathers, the Three Hundred and Eighteen Bishops who 
 sat together in Nicaea, I necessarily have so thought and so think, 
 and I have believed and do believe it, and by the favor of the Holy 
 Trinity and of this holy dear-to-God Synod, I will abide in that 
 faith. 
 
 Eusebius, Bishop of Nilopolis, in the Province of Arcadia, said: I 
 have received the Epistle because it agrees with the Faith of the 
 holy Fathers, and I beheve in accordance with its sense. 
 
 (256). Ma«dp/oc ETriGKOTTOc 'Avteov elrrev Evpuv rfjv avrrjv to'v 'Aylov Uvevfiaroc 
 Xapiv EV T£ Tf] EKTEdEiari irapa tuv dytoraTcov izaTtpuv h 'NiKaia nicTEi^ h te ry ETTiaroXy rob 
 dyiGTdrov Kal oaioTaTov dpxicT^iOKOTTov Kvpi?i/\.ov, davjudi^G) Kai Ep-iiEvu, kul Evxofiai ravTyv 
 i^MTripElv, Kv^Epvuaav kol au^ovaav to rdv dv&pid7T0)v yhog. See Mansi, Concilia, toni. 
 IV., col. 1 160, E. 
 
 (257). Or, " the admirable things," Ta Oavfiara. 
 258). Or, "I believe in consonance with the holy Fathers," etc 
 
148 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 Marimis, Bishop of Heliopolis in the Province of Augustavmica, 
 said: I have received the Kpistle of our most holy Archbishop 
 Cyril, because it is correct and in agreement with the Faith of the 
 holy Fathers [who met] in Nicaea. 
 
 Paid, Bishop of Flavonia, said: I hold and believe one and the 
 same radiant (259) Faith, which was set forth aforetime by the holy 
 Fathers who met at Nicaea, and is now shown to be in harmony with 
 this great Synod, and heralded forth with more brilliancy and clear- 
 ness by the Epistle itself of our most holy Father Cyril, and I assent 
 to that Epistle, through which [Epistle] also I trust to be saved, by 
 confessing it in Anointed (260). 
 
 Metrodorus, Bishop of Leonta (261), said: Inasmuch as the holy 
 Faith put forth by our holy Fathers in the city of the Nicaeans, and 
 the Epistle just now read of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Father and Archbishop Cyril, written some time ago to the most 
 God-worshipping Nestorius, contain [only] one faith and meaning 
 throughout in different syllables, I also necessarily assent to it, for I 
 believe and think (262), and co-confess the same things, by the grace 
 of the Holy Trinity. 
 
 Theopemptus , Bishop of Cabassus, said: It is superfluous to ask 
 the Bishops from Egypt a reason (263) on the right Faith, for it is 
 easily understood by all that we follow out thoroughly and co-ap- 
 prove the faith set forth by our most holy and most devout Father 
 and Archbishop Cyril, for it is in harmony with the Faith of the 
 holy Fathers. 
 
 Heraclides, Bishop of the Heracleans in Arcadia^ said: Because 
 the Faith of our holy Fathers, who were formerly assembled in the 
 city of the Nicaeans, and the Epistle of our most holy and most 
 dear-to-God Father and Archbishop Cyril, preach and confess [but] 
 one harmonious faith, I who have been born and reared in it, pray 
 to be of the same judgment forever, by the grace of the Holy 
 
 Trinity. 
 
 (259). Greek, diakafi'KovGav Triariv. 
 (260). Greek, ev Xpitrrcj, that is, *'in Christ. 
 (261). Or, "Leonti,"or, "Leontes." 
 (262). Or, "glorify," So^d^uv. 
 
 (263). Greek, nepl t?/c bpfty^ TTiareo( airaiTeiadai loyov. It may also be ren- 
 dered, "to ask an account concerning the right faith." 
 
The Voting on Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nes tortus. 149 
 
 Sabinus, Bishop of Pan in the Provi7ice of Thebais^ said: As the 
 Faith of the holy Fathers which was set forth in old time in the city 
 of the Nicaeans, and the Epistle of our most God-worshipping and 
 most religious Father Cyril have the same harmonious faith, I also 
 [therefore] necessarily, by the grace of the Holy Trinity, assent to 
 that faith. 
 
 Heraclitus^ Bishop of Tamiathis, said: Because there is no dif- 
 ference between the Epistle of our most holy and most God-worship- 
 ping Father and Archbishop Cyril and the Faith set forth in old time 
 in the city of the Nicaeas by the holy Fathers, I also necessarily 
 assent to that Epistle, by the Anointed' s grace (264). 
 
 Isaac, Bishop of Elearchia, said: I confess that there is entire 
 harmony between the Symbol (265) of the holy Fathers, and the 
 Epistle of the most holy Cyril, and I also necessarily assent to that 
 Epistle by the Anointed One's grace (266), (267). 
 
 Eutychius^ Bishop of Theodosiopolis in Asia, said: In the Epistle 
 written by the most dear-to-God Archbishop Cyril, which was sent 
 to the most religious Nestorius, we find nothing foreign to what we 
 believed from childhood, for it has been found to be in harmony with 
 the Faith set forth by the Three Hundred and Eighteen who came 
 together in the city of the Nicaeans, and I so believe, as the holy 
 Fathers also have stated in this Great Synod. 
 
 Adelphius, Bishop of Sais, said: Inasmuch as the Faith of the 
 holy Fathers, w^hich was set forth in old time in the city of the 
 Nicaeans, and the Epistle of our most dear-to-God and most rever- 
 ent Father Cyril have [but] one harmonious Faith, I also, by the 
 grace of the Holy Trinity, necessarily assent to that Epistle. 
 
 Rhodo7i, Bishop of Palaeopolis in Asia (268), said: Because the 
 Epistle of the most holy and most devout Bishop Cyril is not at all 
 
 (264). That is, •' by Christ's favor." 
 (265). Greek, ru 2v/z/36A6j, that is, " the Creed." 
 (266). Greek, x^P'-'^'- to^ Xpiarov, that is, " by Christ's favor." 
 (267). 'I<Tad/c e7ri(jK07rog 'ETieapxia.^ a'nrev 'OfioAoyu rijv nvrfjv tlvai aofK^uviav kv re 
 T6l 'Ev/x[i6X(f) Ttjv ayiiov TraTsptJv, Kal ep r?) eniaro'kiji rob dynorriTov Kvp/A^ou, k. t. A. See 
 Mansi, Concilia, torn. IV., col. 1164. 
 
 (268). The Church province of Asia is here meant. Ephesus was its me- 
 tropolis. On it see Bingham's Antiq., Book IX., Chapter 3, Se(5lion 9. I should 
 have mentioned before that this term Asia is used of that Church province often 
 in these Adls. 
 
150 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 out of harmony with the holy Fathers who came together in the city 
 of the Nicaeans, I myself so believing, assent in accordance with the 
 Faith put forth by them. 
 
 Nestorius^ Bishop of Sio7i i7i the Provmce of Asia, said : I also 
 having believed in accordance with the Exposition made by the holy 
 Fathers in Nicaea, and so holding, have found the contents of the 
 Epistle of the most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril to be in harmony with 
 it. And I also myself assent to that Faith, and to the Exposition 
 of the holy Fathers, and I pray that I may pass the rest of my life- 
 time in that faith, by the Anointed One's grace. 
 
 Anderius, Bishop of Cherronesus, a city of the Province of Crete^ 
 said : The Faith of the holy Fathers who came together in the city of 
 the Nicaeans, has been opened to us like very costly myrrh-oil, and has 
 sent forth a still greater fragrance, by means of the Epistle of our 
 most holy and most God-worshipping Father Cyril, which is of the 
 same sound and of the same sentiments with it, and I myself assent 
 to that Epistle, and I pray so to believe all my life time. 
 
 Paul, Bishop of the City of Lampa (269), ijt the Province of Crete y 
 said : Inasmuch as I have listened to the Epistle of the most holy 
 and most dear-to-God Bishop Cyril, and have found it of the same 
 sound and of the same sentiments as the Faith set forth by the holy 
 Fathers who met in the city of the Nicaeans, I assent to it, and I so 
 believe, and I pray that I may continue forever in that (270) Faith. 
 
 ZenobiuSy Bishop of the City of Gfiossus, iii the Province of Crete, 
 said : Forasmuch as the Orthodox Faith of the holy Fathers who 
 met in the city of the Nicaeans, is clear to all, and it has been made 
 plain that the Epistle of the most holy Father and Bishop Cyril is 
 of the same sentiments and of the same sound with those things 
 which were then rightly set forth as to the Faith, I assent to that 
 [Epistle] and approve it, and pray that I may continue in that Faith. 
 
 Macarius, Bishop of the Metelitans (271) in Egypt, said : Because 
 the Epistle of our most holy Archbishop Cyril which has been read, 
 
 (269). Or, "Lampe." 
 
 (270). Or, "this faith." The Greek and Latin often use /A /^ where our 
 idiom requires that, and so I often follow our idiom to make better English. 
 
 (271). That is, as I understand it, the inhabitants of the city of Metelis in 
 Egypt. For Bingham gives Metelis in the ''Index of Episcopal Sees'' at the 
 end of Book IX. of his Antiquities, 
 
The Voting on CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorins. 151 
 
 is in harmony with the Faith put forth through the Holy Spirit, by 
 the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea, I assent to that one 
 and the same Faith, because its do(5lrine is not alien to the Faith 
 which has been handed down to the most holy Church of God, by 
 the most holy Fathers, but, as I have said before, it agrees with it. 
 
 Lampetius, Bishop of Casium in the Province of Augustamnica, 
 said : I assent to the Epistle of the most holy Archbishop, our 
 Father Cyril, which has been read, because it is in agreement with 
 the Synod in Nicaea, and with the Faith set forth by the holy 
 Fathers. 
 
 Macedonius, Bishop of Xois (272), said : In accordance with the 
 Faith of the holy Synod, held in Nicaea by the most devout Fathers, 
 which has been this day read to us, and moreover in accordance 
 with it as strengthened by our most holy Archbishop, who is of the 
 same sentiments with it, I also approve it, and I trust that I shall 
 adhere to it as long as I live ; and I have been so taught to teach. 
 
 Ammon, Bishop of the City of Butus, said : I agree with the 
 holy Synod celebrated (273) at Nicaea by the holy Fathers, and 
 with the Epistle of our most holy Archbishop Cyril, and I myself am 
 CO- well pleased to guard it (274) to the last day of my life. 
 
 Ammonius, Bishop of the City of Panephysus, in the Province of 
 Augustamnica, said : I both believe and abide in that Faith of the 
 318 Bishops, and I assent to the Epistle written to Nestorius by the 
 most holy Archbishop Cyril because it agrees with the holy Fathers; 
 and I so believe, and pray that I may die in that Faith. 
 
 Alypius, Bishop of Sela in the Province of Augustamnica, said : 
 I have heard the Epistle of our most holy and most dear-to-God 
 (275) Father, Archbishop Cyril, which was written to Nestorius 
 the most religious, and that Epistle is in agreement with the 
 Faith put forth by the holy and God-inspired (276) Fathers. And 
 
 (272). Or, "Xoes." 
 
 (273). Or, "made." 
 
 (274). Greek, rai^rw, literally **this." The reference is to Cyril's Epistle. 
 
 (275). efo0fAf<Trdrov. Sophocles in his " Greek Lexicon of the Roman and 
 Byzantine Periods " renders eto^/Az/c, beloved 0/ God. But the Latin translation 
 sometimes renders it by words signifying " God loving." 
 
 (276). Greek, ^£o<p6po)v. 
 
152 Ad /. of Ephesus. 
 
 I also so believe in that Orthodox Faith, and I pray that I may end 
 rny life in it, and stand in it at the tribunal of the Anointed One. 
 
 (277)- 
 
 Perrebius, Bishop of the Thessalian Forests (278), said : Inas- 
 much as the Faith put forth in Nicaea by the holy Fathers, is 
 unbreakable and unswerving, and because the faith set forth by the 
 Epistle of the most holy Bishop Cyril is in harmony with it, I [there- 
 fore] like that [Epistle] and assent to it, as all the holy'Fathers also 
 before us have stated and done. 
 
 Philumenus, Bishop of the City of Ci7ina in Galatia, said : Hav- 
 ing found the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God (279) 
 Bishop Cyril to be in agreement with the Exposition of the Faith of 
 the 318 holy Bishops at Nicaea, I assent to them, and I believe just 
 as the -holy Fathers themselves also have stated, and just as the 
 contents of the Epistle of the most holy Bishop Cyril explain. 
 
 Hermogeyies, Bishop of Rhinocurura, said : Because it is one 
 and the same Holy Spirit Who taught the Fathers at Nicaea on the 
 Faith, and Who taught by the soul and the tongue of the most holy 
 and most devout Father and Archbishop Cyril, when he dictated 
 (280) that Epistle to correct those things which were not well said 
 before the Church by the most God-worshipping Nestorius, and be- 
 cause I see that it contains no innovation nor change, therefore I 
 admiring the agreement between them, and becoming myself a co- 
 voter for the opinion of the Fathers [on it] do assent to the same 
 things with the most holy Synod. 
 
 Evoptius, Bishop of Ptolemais in the Pe7itapolis, said : I have 
 admired the harmony which exists between the Epistle of our most 
 holy and most dear-to-God Father and Archbishop Cyril, which was 
 written to the most God-fearing Nestorius for the corredlion of those 
 things which were spoken not rightly, and the Symbol of our most 
 holy and most God-fearing Fathers who were assembled at Nicaea 
 (281), and seeing nothing in it of innovation or change, I assent 
 
 (277). Greek, tov Xpiarov, that is, "o/the Christ.'^ 
 (278). The Greek here is, tg)v Qerra^iKuv 2a/irwv. 
 (279). Or, " most God-loving. " 
 (280). Greek, vrvayopsvaavTog. 
 
 (281). See Mansi's Concilia, tome IV., col. 1168: Kal tov I,vfzj361ov tov napa 
 Tcjv dytordruv Kal dtoaejSeGTdruv Tlartpuv rjfiuv tuv kv 'NiKaia ovvax^^vTCJV, k. t. X. 
 
The Voti7tg on CyriV s Shorter Epistle to Nestorius. 153 
 
 with all the Synod to it because it is in harmony with the right 
 Faith. 
 
 Phoebammon, Bishop of Coptus in Thebais, said : The Epistle of 
 our most holy Father Cyril, which has been read, is of the same 
 tenor, (282) as the things set forth by the Synod in Nicaea and in 
 nothing differs from them, as respedls the setting straight of the 
 Orthodox and the overturning of the heretical dogmas ; and I also 
 believe and assent. 
 
 Ze7io, Bishop of the City of Cyriiim in Cyprus , said : Because the 
 things defined and decreed by the holy Fathers at Nicaea and those 
 written by our most holy Father and Archbishop Cyril are in agree- 
 ment, we also assent, and confess the same faith. 
 
 Martyritis, Bishop of Helistra (283), said : We have been 
 brought up from the beginning, and from our ancestors, in the 
 Canons (284) of those at Nicaea, and we trust that we shall guard 
 them until the end ; and, moreover, having heard the Epistle of the 
 most devout Archbishop Cyril, and having found it to agree with the 
 holy Canons, we trust that we shall guard and keep the flocks com- 
 mitted to us till the end [in it]. 
 
 Hesy chilis, Bishop of Paritim, said : Although I seem alone 
 from my province (285), and have come by request (286) in regard 
 to these matters, nevertheless I myself consent to be of the very same 
 faith which the most holy and most God- worshipping Fathers, who 
 came together in Nicaea, set forth ; and the most holy and most 
 dear-to-God Archbishop Cyril has strengthened it by his Epistle 
 written to the most religious Nestorius. 
 
 (282), Greek, bfiofivva^d. 
 
 (283). Margin, Greek, 'llTilcTpcdv. Latin text Helistrorum; Latin margin, 
 Hele^lrensis. 
 
 (284). Greek, roZc Kavoa tuv Kara Nt/camr. As Kav6v means "rule," the ref- 
 erence includes not only the rules on discipline but the rules on faith also put 
 forth by the First Ecumenical Synod, and indeed all its utterances, Creed, 
 Canons, Synodal Epistle and all. See a note above. 
 
 (285). Parium, as the margin here states, was in the Province of Helles- 
 pontus. As it was near Constantinople, Nestorius, as its Bishop, might have 
 had, as early as this, some power there, as Hefele in his History of the Church 
 Coiuicils shows, in effect. See that work, English translation, Volume III. , page 
 412, and the references there. See alsoWiltsch's Geography, etc., of the Church, 
 
 (286). Or, "by entreaty," or, "by prayer," or, "by wish," 6C eivp/v tldhv. 
 The Latin translation in Coleti, here renders it "ex voto." 
 
154 ^^^ I' ^f EpJiesus. 
 
 Helladius, Bishop of Adramytium, said : I believe the Exposi- 
 tion of our Three Hundred and Eighteen most holy and most dear- 
 to-God (287) Fathers and the Epistle of the most devout Archbishop 
 Cyril, and I will keep and guard that Faith all through. 
 
 Dion, Bishop of the City of Thebae, said: My Faith is that of 
 the holy Fathers [who met] at Nicaea, and I profess it ; and I know 
 that the most holy Father and fellow-minister, Archbishop Cyril, 
 has set forth and spoken in the same sense through his holy Epistle 
 written to Nestorius. 
 
 Andrew, Bishop of Hermopolis in the Thebais, said : I believe in 
 and glorify the Faith of the Orthodox in accordance with the things 
 voted on the right and saving faith by the holy Fathers who were 
 gathered together in the city of the Nicaeans, that is the Three 
 Hundred and Eighteen Bishops, and in accordance with the Epistle 
 of our most holy and most devout Archbishop Cyril which has been 
 read, and which was sent to the most religious Nestorius, and 
 which is in harmony with the things decreed of old by the same 
 most holy Bishops who were gathered in the city of the Nicaeans. 
 
 And all the rest of the Bishops who have been mentioned before 
 in their own order say the same and so believe, just as the holy 
 Fathers also have set forth, and as the Epistle of the most holy 
 Archbishop Cyril written to Nestorius the Bishop has declared (288). 
 
 Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, said: It is in order that the 
 Epistle of the most religious Nestorius, of which the most religious 
 Presbyter Peter at the beginning made mention, be now read ; so 
 that we may know whether that Epistle also is in harmony with 
 those things which were put forth by the holy Fathers in Nicaea. 
 
 And having been read as follows (289), it was put below as it 
 here follows, and its contents are : 
 
 (287). Greek, Oto^ilzc-aruv. 
 
 (288). Coleti's Concilia, torn. 3, col. 1137, and before. 
 
 (289). The Greek margin reads instead, ''And it was read as it is above, in 
 its order:' But the text seems the preferable reading and shows that in the 
 original AAs the Epistle of Nestorius came here in its proper place, and tnat the 
 present arrangement by which it is put in the Preliminary Matter is a later one. 
 And the same remark is probably true of every other document read in the 
 Synod which is now in the Preliminary Matter. 
 
Reading of Nestorius' Epistle to CyriL 155 
 
 '' To the most religions and most dear-to-God, our Fellow Miiiister 
 Cyril, Nestorius wishes joy in the Lord'' (290). 
 
 [Section I. Nestorius brands St. Cyrils Epistle as insulting to him' 
 {Nestorius), defers some matters in it to a fit time, and sets 
 out to refite Cyril's explanation of the words of the Nicetie 
 Creed on the Incarnation, without cause rebukes him for 
 superficial knowledge of the 7neaning of the Symbol, wrongly 
 accuses him of making God liable to s7iJFeri7ig, and then flatly 
 denies the birth of God the Word in flesh, and, of course. His 
 Inman also.'\ 
 The insults direcfled against us in thy admirable (291) Letter, I 
 dismiss as worthy of a physicians' long suffering, (292), and I defer 
 the answer to them on account of the matters themselves to a fit 
 time. But in regard to what does not permit silence, because it 
 would be produ(5live of great danger if silence were preserved, on that, 
 as I may be able, not extending my remarks to prolixity, I w^ill 
 'endeavor to make a brief statement, avoiding at the same time pro- 
 ducing disgust by a dark verbosity hard to digest, and I will begin 
 from the all wise expressions of thy Love, quoting them w^ord for word. 
 What then are the words of the admirable (293) instruction con- 
 tained in the Epistle? '* The holy and great Synod [at Nicaea] says 
 that the ' Sole-Born ' Son Himself, Who, as it respects His Divine 
 Nature, was born out of the Father, [that is] the ' Very God out of 
 very God; the ' Light 07it of the Light,' [that is] He through Whom 
 ike Father has made all things (294), ' came down, took on flesh, put 
 (290). The Greek heading of this Epistle, given on page 316 of tome 5 of 
 the Colleaio Regia of the Coimcils, Paris, A. D. 1644, lias, in the matter before 
 the Synod, this Epistle with the additional words, ''A Copy of aft Epistle of 
 Nestorius to the Pope'' [that is, " Father"] " Cyril, which displeased all in the 
 Holy Synod:' In the matter before the Adls in Coleti, Cone, tom. III., col. 872, 
 the same Epistle bears the same heading. On the term '* Pope " see Sophocles' 
 Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, under the word -Ka-Kaq, 
 which he explains as follows : ' ' Papa, father, a title given to Bishops in general, 
 and to those of Alexandria and Rome in particular." See the examples there 
 
 given. 
 
 (291). Or, "wonderful," Greek, Bavfiaarcjv. 
 
 (292). The Greek here adds, ''afid the rest,'' but the words, " and the rest" 
 were probably not in the original make-up of these A6ls. The present arrange- 
 ment of the published editions, by which the Epistles and other documents read 
 in the Synod, are not given in their own proper places in the A6ls but in the 
 Forematter, was not the first one, nor is the Forematter the most natural place 
 to give them, and therefore I place them in their proper places iu these records. 
 
 (293). Or, "wonderful," t>uL'/zaar//r 
 
 (294). John i., 3; Heb. i., 2. 
 
156 Act I. of Ephesics. 
 
 on a man,' 'suffered' [and] 'rose again:'' These are the words 
 of thy God-Worshippingness. And thou probably knowest them to 
 be thine own. But hear also what we have to say. Hear a 
 brotherly advising on behalf of piety, even the advice which the 
 great Apostle Paul addressed solemnly before God to his beloved 
 Timothy: ''Give aite7ida7ice to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine 
 ^ * ^ for 171 doing that thou shalt save both thyself and those that 
 hear thee" (295). But what meaning does this expression, "Give at- 
 tendance, ' ' convey to me ? This : that thou, superficially reading the 
 tradition (296) of those holy men, hast erred through a pardonable 
 ignorance, when thou thoughtest that they said that the Word co- 
 eternal with the Father is liable to suffering. But examine more accur- 
 ately, if it please thee, the words, and thou wilt find that that godly 
 choir of the Fathers, have not said that the consubstantial Divinity is 
 liable to suffering, nor that thk Divinity which is co-eternai^ 
 WITH THE Father was lately born (297), nor that the Divinity 
 which raised up the temple which had been destroyed, Itself arose. But 
 ifthouw^ilt listen to a brother's remedy, I will produce to thee 
 the very words of those holy men, and will remove the slander 
 against them, and against the Scriptures of God through them 
 (298). " We believe" therefore "hi" our " Lord fesus Anointed" 
 " His Son" \\v^ " Sole- Born Son." Notice, that placing first as 
 foundation-stones the words ' ' Lord, ' ' "fesus, " " Aiwinted, " (299), 
 and "Sole-Born" (300) and "Son" the names common to the 
 Divinity and the humanity, then they build [upon these names] the 
 tradition (301) of the Inman (302), and of the suffering, and of the 
 
 (295). I. Tim. iv., 13, 16. 
 
 (296). Or, ''Delivery,'' or " transmission,''' rijv irapadoaiv. The reference is 
 to the Niceiie Creed. See Cyril's letter above. ''The Holy and Great Synod\ 
 of course refers to Nicaea and the expressions quoted by Cyril and Nestorius are 
 from the Symbol of the 318. Compare Cyril's quotation and the Greek of that 
 Symbol. 
 
 (297). Mark Nestorius' denial of the truth that God the Word was born out 
 of the Virgin. 
 
 (298). Greek, Kdv //oi rag amaq elg aSsTjpLKtjv laTpelav irapdaxm^ avrdq aoi rag to)v 
 dyiuv eKelvuv cpcjvac napaOs/j-Evog, ttjc Kar' SKetvov a7ra?ild^o) GVKO(pavTiaq, nal Tfjq Kara tojv 
 deiwv ypa(puv, 61 eKehov. This language is noteworthy as showing that even Nes- 
 torius deemed that not only the question of the sense of the Nicaean Creed but 
 also of the Scriptures was involved. 
 
 (299). Greek, Xptordg. 
 
 (300). Greek, nal Movoyevfjq, 
 
 (301). Greek, tote Tip T^g hav&pionrjGEoq, koX tov Trdi^ouc, '^^'i- "^VQ dvaardaeug 
 iiroLKofiojiovGi TrapddoGiv. 
 
 (302). See the note last above. 
 
Reading of Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. 157 
 
 resurre(5lion, in order that, certain significant names being set forth 
 as common to both Natures, neither those quahties which belong to 
 the Sonship and the Lordship may be separated, nor that those which 
 belong to the Natures, may be brought into the danger of disappear- 
 ing by being confounded in the oneness of the Sonship. For in 
 respect to that, Paul himself had become their Instrucl;or, who mak- 
 ing mention of the divine Inman, (303) [that is the putting on of a 
 man by God the Word], and being about to add those things which 
 belong to the suffering, first laying down the term ''Anointed,'' the 
 common appellation (as I have just said), of the Two Natures, he 
 continues his discourse with reference to both Natures. For what 
 says he ? ''Let that mind be in you which was also in A7ioi7ited Jesus: 
 who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God'' (304). But, lest I may be too particular, I will omit the rest 
 as far as to the words : ''He became obedie7it to the extent of death 
 (305), even the death of the cross " (306). But when he was about to 
 makementionof that death, lest any one should thence infer that 
 God the Word is capable of suffering, he uses the term " Anoiyited" 
 (307) as an appellation expressive of the Non-Suffering Substance, 
 and of the suffering substance, in but one Person. So that with 
 out any danger, the Anointed might be called incapable of suffering 
 and capable of suffering : incapable of suffering that is m his 
 Divinity, but capable of suffering in the nature of His body. But 
 while I can say much concerning that, and especially concerning 
 the fact that THOSE holy Fathers make mention of no birth 
 in the [Christian] Eco7iomy, but 07ily of the bei7ig in a man {2>'^^), I 
 perceive that my promise, in the beginning, of brevity, bridles the 
 course of my statement and moves me toward the second head of 
 thy Love. - ^ 
 
 (303). Greek, r^f kvavBpioTTTjGEuq r^c OeiaQ. I have coined a term to express 
 ivav6pcd7ri]GEU^. 
 
 (304). Philip, ii., 5, 6. 
 
 (305). In the Common Version translated ** unto death." 
 
 (306). Philip, ii., 8. 
 
 (307). Greek, Xpiarog. 
 
 (308). Greek, iroXka Uyuv Trepl tovtov dvvdfievoc Kal Trporepov ye to fiv(^E yevv^aeoQ 
 kirl T^c oiKomfiiaCj a2,V Evav^pcj7rr/aeo)Q Tovg dyiovg eKeivovg fivnfiovevaat Traripag, etc. 
 
 We must well remember in judging of this language that both St. Cyril and 
 Nestorius used the term havepunr/ac^, that is, Inman, that is, being ifi a Man, 
 but in widely different senses; Cyril meaning by it that the acflual Substance of 
 God the Word put on a Man in Mary's womb and is in him now; whereas Nesto- 
 rius denied all that and admitted only that God the Word was in his mere human 
 Christ by His Spirit only as He was in the prophets and the apostles, so that Ins 
 Christ was merely an inspired Man. That is his sense of " the being in a Man'' 
 above. 
 
158 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Skction II. Nes tortus again charges Cyril with makijig God the 
 Wo7^d liable to suffer iJig^ notwithstanding Cyril's disclaimer of 
 that heresy in his Letter^ and again denies the Incarnation^ the 
 soul of the Christian Religion^ 
 
 On this second head I was praising thy distinguishing between 
 the Natures, in accordance with the true doctrine of the humanity and 
 of the Divinity, and of thy connedling of those in One Person (309) ; 
 and because that thou hast affirmed that God the Word did not need 
 a second birth, [that is that] out of a woman (310) and because thou 
 hast confessed that it is impossible for the Divinity to suffer. For 
 such statements are truly orthodox, and opposed to the wicked 
 opinions of all the heresies concerning the Lord's Natures (311). 
 
 But whether indeed, the remaining statements introduce some 
 hidden wisdom incomprehensible to the ears of those who read them 
 or not, it is the office of thy Exactness to know. But, to me at 
 least, they seemed to overturn the first part of thy statement. For 
 He whom in the first part [of thy Letter], thy Exacftness proclaimed 
 to be incapable of suffering, and as not admitting of a second birth 
 (312) thy Exa(5lness has introduced again as capable of suffering 
 
 Surely after such language as this, both Cyril and the Universal Church 
 were justified in believing that Nestorius denied the actual birth of the Sub- 
 stance of the Eternal Word out of the Virgin; and it is plain that they were 
 right in so thinking and acfling. And let us remember that just above Cyril had 
 stated that the " Very God out of Very God, took flesh and put on a Man.'' And 
 Nestorius in reply pointedly denies it. The notion therefore of some later 
 writers that that heresiarch was innocent, and that the Universal Church, guided 
 by the Holy Ghost, according to Christ's promise, was wrong, is outrageously 
 and inexcusably unjust. Nestorius followed in this heresy his teachers, Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia aud Diodore of Tarsus. On the word oiKovoiiiaq^ Sophocles 
 in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, says that it is ^'ap- 
 plied to the Bicarnation a7id the concomitants thereof'' It literally means 
 ^^ management, dispensation,'" but is used as Sophocles says above in Christian 
 Greek. 
 
 (309). The Greek is as follows: 'Ev w Ka\ rrjv tcjv ^{/o-twt^ h-ijvovv Siaipeatv Kara 
 Tov rijQ av&puTTOTrjTog Kai Qeottjtoq Aoyov^ koI rrjv tovtuv elg ivbg TzpoauTTOv avvd<peiav. 
 
 See Mansi, Cone, tom. IV., col. 893. We must remember that Nestorius by 
 GvvcK^ELav means not the adlual dwelling of the Substance of God the Word in 
 His Humanity, but only such a conjunction as there is between God the Word 
 and a mere inspired man. 
 
 (310). Here Nestorius squints towards his denial of the birth of God the 
 Word out of the Virgin, which he utters above, and fully as plainly below. 
 
 (311). Here, in effect, that is, by necessary implication, Nestorius brands 
 the Orthodox do(5lrine of the Incarnation as a heresy. 
 
 (312). Kat devrepag yevvrjaeug ddsKTov. Here certainly, beyond all cavil, Nes- 
 
Reading of Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. 159- 
 
 (313) and as 71 ewly created {2i\ii^, I know not how, as if the things 
 which belong to the [divine] Nature of God the Word were destroyed 
 by the joining of the temple [to It], or as though thou thinkest that 
 it is only of some small account to men that the temple sinless and 
 inseparable from the divine Nature, underwent both birth and death 
 for sinners, or as though the voice of the Lord ought not to be 
 believed when he cries to the Jews : * ' Destroy this temple, ayid in 
 three days I will raise it up (315)." He said not, Destroy my 
 Divinity, and in three days it shall be raised tip (316). 
 
 But, again, while wishing here also to extend my remarks, I am 
 checked by the remembrance of my promise. Therefore I must 
 speak but briefly. 
 
 [Section III. Nestorius again denies that God the Word was bo7'n 
 out of Mary, and so of course denies the Incarnation also. He 
 adduces texts which prove what no Orthodox man dc7iies, that 
 Chrisf s humanity was born out of her ; but they do not mili- 
 tate at all agahist the truth that God the Word also was, as is 
 clear from John i., 14., " The Word was made flesh,'' that is 
 came in flesh; and the statement in Matt, i., ^3, that He who 
 was born out of Mary was * ' Emmanuel, which being tra^islated 
 is, God with us ;'' that is, of course, God The Word with 
 us; and fro7n the stateme7it i7i i Timothy Hi., 16, ''God was 
 manifested in flesh.'' Those texts St. Cyril tises to prove that 
 God the Word was incar7iate in Mary a7id was bor7i out of her. 
 See the Indexes to Scripture i7i S. Cyril of Alexa7idria 07i the 
 Incar7iation Agai7ist Nestorius, tra7islated by P. E. Pusey, etc. 
 
 torius denies the second birth of the Word, that is that out of the Virgin. What 
 excuse after this clear language can there be for his apologists who vilify the 
 Third Synod in order to glorify that wretched heretic ! Of course he errs in 
 stating that Cyril denied that second birth. 
 
 (313). Nestorius evidently mistook the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation 
 for Theopaschitism. 
 
 (314). It is thus that Nestorius misrepresents Cyril's dodlrine of the birth of 
 God the Word in flesh. 
 
 (315). John ii, 19. 
 
 (316). Here while again implying his own denial of the a(5lual birth out of 
 Mary of God the Word's Substance in the Man put on, Nestorius impugns 
 Cyril's do(5lrine of the Economic Appropriation of the suflferings of that man to 
 God the Word. St. Athanasius, quoted with approval by St. Cyril on page 75 
 above, explains that do6lrine as intended to guard against Man-Service. That 
 Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity Cyril denounces as contrary to Isaiah 
 xlii., 8, and to Matt, iv., 10, and to Luke iv., 8. I will, God willing, treat of 
 that dodlrine in a separate Dissertation. 
 
160 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Besides Nestorius does not hesitate to accept the co7isequence of 
 his view that Christ is a mere Man, that is Man- Worship with 
 which St. Cyril often charges him. See note i8j in this work 
 above and Cyril' s works passim. 
 
 Furthermore, Nestorius does not seem to see, or if he does see, 
 does 7iot quail at the seqicefice of his de7iial of the hica7'natio7i, 
 and his ajfirmatio7i of Man- Worship, that is, he does not see 
 that by worshippi7ig the mere created hu77ia7iity of Christ, he is 
 maki7ig, what St. Cyril charges hi77i with doi7ig, a " 7iew God"" 
 in addition to the Holy Tri7iity, that is to say Nesto7'ius wor- 
 shipped a Tetrad instead of a Tri7iity 07ily; a7id his Tet7'ad was 
 composed of the Three Divi7ie Persons, the Father, the co-eter7ial 
 and consubsta7itial Word, a7id the co-eternal a7id co7isubstautial 
 Spirit, a7id besides a mere creature co7itrary, as St. Cyril teaches, 
 to Matt, iv., lo; Isaiah xlii., 8; a7id the Greek Septuagi7it of 
 Psabn Ixxx., p {Psal77t Ixxxi., p, in the King James Version), 
 Next Nestorius adva7ices his heresy of a mere moral a7id spirit- 
 ual u7iio7i between God the Word a7id his {Nesto7'ius') 77iere 
 human Christ born of Mary, as opposed to the Orthodox doSlri7ie 
 of the Substance Union, that is, the doflri7ie that God the Word's 
 Divine Substa7ice put 07i that Ma7i in Marf s wo77ib, a7id was 
 born out of her i7i hi77i, a7id has ever since i7idwelt that Ma7i by 
 the adlual S2cbsta7ice of His Divi7iity. Nestorius' heresy made 
 that ma7i to be dwelt i7i by Christ' s Holy Spirit 07ily as the 
 prophets, the apostles, and other inspired men were. 
 
 Nestorius then de7ties St. Cyril's do5lri7ie of Economic Appro- 
 priation, which he U7ijustly bra7ids as Apollinaria7iism a7id 
 Aria7iism, a tlmig that was inexcusable forasmuch as St. Cyril 
 guards it most clearly agai7ist those heresies i7i the very Epistle 
 which he here prete7ids to a7iswer. Then he insists that the doc- 
 trine results in ' ' lies ' ' and will become the cause of the ' fust con- 
 demnation" of St. Cyril and the Orthodox '' as sla7iderers." 
 
 Next he contends that his heresies, which Cyril shows to be de- 
 nial of the Incar7iatio7i, Ma7i Wo7'ship, and Tetradis7n, are the 
 *• traditio7is of the holy Fathers," by whom he seems to mea7i his 
 teachers, Diodore of Tarsus, a7id Theodore of Mopsuestia, the 
 heresiarchs; and he asserts that his errors are ' ' the an7tounce- 
 me7tts of the Scriptures of God," a7id lastly, sec77ii7igly zvith 
 
Reading of Nestorms' Epistle to Cyi'iL 161 
 
 implied arrogance and contempt, he commends St. Cyril to the sttidy of 
 the ScripticreSy as though he knew them not because he did not agree 
 with the aforesaid heresies of Nestorius\ 
 
 Everywhere the Scripture of God, when it makes mention of 
 the Lord's Incarnation, transmits to us a bii'th and a suffering not of 
 the Divinity, but of the humanity of the Anointed One, so that the 
 holy Virgin is to be called by the more accurate appellation ' ' Bringer 
 forth of the A7ioi7ited Otie,'' not ''Bringer Forth of God'' (317). 
 Hear then the Gospels crying aloud the following teachings: ''The 
 book,'' it says, " of the birth of fesus Anoiyited (318), the Son of David, 
 the Son of Abi^aham' ' (319). But it is evident that God the Word was 
 not a Son of David. Receive also another testimony, if it please 
 thee: * ' A7id facob begat foseph the husbaiid of Mary, out of ivJiom was 
 born fes2cs, who is called A7ioi7ited" (320). Again, consider another 
 utterance which thus protests to us: "The birth of fesus A7ioi7ited 
 was 071 this wise: Whe7i His ?7tother Mary was espoused to foseph 
 ^ ^ ^ she was, foimd with child of the Holy Ghost" (321). 
 But who believes the Divinity of the Sole-Born to be a creature of 
 the Spirit ? And what should be said to this passage: "The mother 
 of fesus was thei^e" (322); and this again; " With Mary the i7iother of 
 fesus" (323); and this; " That which is co7iceived i7i her is of the Holy 
 Ghost" (324); and this; "Take the you7ig child a7id his mother, and 
 flee i7ito Egypt" (325); and this; " Co7icerni7ig his So7i ^ ^ ^ 
 who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh " (326); and 
 this again regarding His suffering; " God sendi7ig His ow7i So7i i7i 
 the like7iess of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned si7i i7i the flesh" 
 
 (317). The Greek as in column 55 of tome 77 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, 
 reads: Uavraxov r^g T^siag Tpa(p7)c, r/v'iKa av fivTjurjv r^g AeaT:oriKf/g ulnopufiiag Troa/rai, 
 yEVVTjcig ijfilv koI Tzadog ov Trjg ■&s6T?/Tog, d/lAd T^g av&pcjTorrirng tov Xpiarov TzapadUhrar 
 cjg Ka/ela&ai Kara. aKpi/SeGvepav TTpoaTjyopiav ttjv ayiav TTap-Qhov XpiaroroKov, ov OeoroKou. 
 
 Here again Nestorius plainly denies the birth of the Divinity of the Word 
 out of the Virgin. This is the third plain denial of that important truth so far 
 in this Epistle. And besides he implies that denial in one other place above as 
 mentioned in notes there. 
 
 (318). XpiGTog is here translated for the better understanding of the ques- 
 tions involved. 
 
 (319). Matt, i., I. 
 
 (320). Matt, i., 16. 
 
 (321). Matt, i., 18. 
 
 (322). John ii., I. 
 
 (323). Acls i., 14. 
 
 (324). Matt, i., 20. 
 
 (325). Matt, ii., 13. 
 
 (326). Rom. i., 3. 
 
162 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 1^327); and again; ''Anointed died for our sins'' (328); and; '' An- 
 ointed hath suffered H^ * * in the flesh'' (329); and; ''This is" 
 (not my Divinity, but) , * * 7ny body which is broke?i for you for the re- 
 mission of sins" (330). And there are countless other expressions 
 which testify to the human race that they should not think that the 
 Divinity of the Son is a new thing (331), nor that it is susceptible of 
 bodily suffering, but that the flesh, which is joined to the Nature of 
 the Divinity, is. Whence also the Anointed One names David him- 
 
 (327). Rom. viii., 3. 
 
 (328). I. Cor. XV., 3. 
 
 (329). I. Peter iv., i. 
 
 (330). I. Cor. xi., 24. Compare Luke xxii., 19. We shall see further on 
 in this Act that the question of the Real Presence of the Divinity of God the^ 
 Word in the Eticharist comes up again as does also the question of the a5luat 
 eating of a Mati' s flesh there. In a Dissertation on that subject I show from 
 Cyril's oWn statements that he taught that the Divinity of the Word is not on 
 the Holy Table in the rite, and that it is not eaten there, and that Nestorius agreed 
 with him on the last point, and probably on the former; but that they differed 
 to some extent as to what sort of a body is eaten there, Cyril asserting that it is- 
 not a Man's body but the body of God the Word, whereas Nestorius held a view 
 on that matter which St. Cyril calls dvepo)7ro<payia^ that is, Man-Eating, that is, 
 Cannibalism. 
 
 On those Matters see St. Cyril's Five Book ContradiHion of the Blasphemies 
 of Nestorius, Book IV., Sedlions 4, 5 and 6 (Pusey's translation, pages 140-154); 
 and see also Nestorius, as quoted below in this Act among the passages adduced 
 to prove him a heretic and to demand his deposition, and as a fact producing it; 
 and see also Eutherius of Tyana on page 122 in this volume, in the note. A 
 passage of Theodoret the Nestorian shows that he worshipped the bread and 
 wine of the Eucharist after consecration as in one sense the acftual flesh and 
 blood of Christ, though he admits that the bread and wine remain in their 
 former substance and shape and appearance. See his Dialogue II., InconfusuSy 
 page 123 in Schulze's edition. As Cyril holds that the Divine Substance of God 
 the Word is not in the Eucharist, and as he denies that the separate humanity of 
 Christ can be worshipped, therefore, according to him, there is nothing in the 
 Lord's Supper to be worshipped. That is the fact, whatever sense he may take 
 Christ's assertion in that the bread is His body and the wine His blood. 
 
 The Third Council followed Cyril on the Eucharist as they did on the Incar- 
 nation and against Man-Service. Of this whole theme, I will treat more fully 
 when I come, God willing, to publish a Dissertation on the controversy between 
 Cyril and Nestorius on the Eucharist, that is, as Eucharist {Evxai>ioTta) means^ 
 the Thanksgivitig. 
 
 (331). That is, that God the Word was not lately born out of the Virgin's- 
 womb as Cyril says. This is another proof that Nestorius denied that funda- 
 mental tenet of the Scriptures and of Orthodoxy. Indeed it is the fifth time 
 that he makes that denial in this Epistle so far. 
 
Reading of Nestor ius' Epistle to Cyril. 163 
 
 self Lord and So7i, For, ' ' What ' ' says he, ' ' thirik ye of the Anoi?tted 
 Ofief Whose So?i is he? They say imto him. The Son of David. 
 Jesus answered ajid said u7ito them, How then doth David in Spirit call 
 Him Lord, sayi^ig, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thoic at 77ty right 
 ha7id f" (332) So that He is certainly the Son of David in respect 
 to the flesh, but in respect to the Divinity He is Lord. It is a thing: 
 right therefore and worthy of the Gospel transmissions to confess 
 that the body is the temple of the Divinity of the Son, and a temple 
 united by a certain lofty and divine conjuncftion (333), so that the 
 Nature of the Divinity appropriates [to Itself] the things of that 
 body (334); but to charge therefore upon that expression, ''appro- 
 priation,'' the properties also of the flesh conjoined, I mean birth 
 
 (332). I have followed the quotation as it stands in Nestorius. It is from 
 Matt, xxii., 42-44. 
 
 (333)- It will be noticed that awd^eiav, conjun^ion, or merely connexion, 
 as opposed to Cyril's and the Church's Personal Union, is the term preferred by 
 Nestorius to express his views. For the Greek see Mansi, Co7ic., tome IV., col. 
 896. The Personal Union and the Substance Union are the same thing. 
 
 (334). The Greek, as in Coleti, Coftc, tome III., col. 876, 877, is as follows: 
 Wivai niv ovv Tfjq [margin, Xpmrot)] Tlov Qeorriroq to ac)[ia vadv, kuI vaov kut^ uKpav riva 
 Kal deiav ypcofiivov Gvvdoecav [margin, oiKeiovo^ac 6e] c)g olKtiovG^ai ra tovtov ttjv rrjg 
 QtoTTjTOQ <l>vGiv ofiohv/nG^ai, Ka?ibv Kal to)V eva-yy£?UKO)v napadoGECJV a^iov to 6k 6i] tui Tf/g 
 OLKEiOTrjTog TTpoGTpi(i£iv ovojuaTi Kal Tag T?)g GvvTjfifihrjg GapKog UiorriTag, yevvvoLv Myu, Kal 
 irdSog, Kal vcKpoGiv, rj Tr/iavcofiivvg hcTtv a7.v^o)g KaB' "^T/.rjvag, dde?i(p£, dtavoiag, rj to, tov 
 ^pevo^laftovg 'Arro^itvapiov, Kal 'Apelov, Kal tcov ciTJmv voGovGTjg alpiGsuv, ixdllov 6k, OTt 
 KaKEivcdv (iapvrepov, etc. 
 
 If we take iog as it stands, and render as the Jesuit translator Theodore Pel- 
 tanus has (see Coleti, Cotic, tome III., col. 991, note i), in effect, "So as to 
 confess that the nature of the Divinity appropriated [to Itself] the properties of 
 that body " [or, " of that temple "], we make Nestorius agree with Cyril so far 
 as to admit that God the Word appropriates to some extent the things of His 
 humanity; but in the next clause Nestorius modifies his idea of appropriation 
 by God the Word of "the things of that body," so far as to deny any appropri- 
 ation of birth, suffering and death to Him. 
 
 But we may take the passage in accordance with Nestorius' constant doc- 
 trinal teaching by translating the clause in question as follows: 
 
 "So that the things of the body [or 'of the temple'] have appropriated 
 [or, 'made their own'] the 7iature of the Divinity.'' For Nestorius did give 
 what is prerogative to the Divine nature, worship, by bowiiig, for instance, to 
 the body put on by the Word, not that the body is worshippable of itself, but 
 because of God the Word, as he, in substance, confesses in the Vlllth of his 
 XII. Anathemas, and in a passage or passages quoted from him by Cyril on pages 
 81 to 90 above, note. The chief objection to this translation is that it does 
 not so well agree with the sentence next following. 
 
 Or we may suppose that a transcriber or an editor has mistaken the ligature 
 for ovK for the ligature for wc, which are not so very unlike, and has mistakenly 
 
164 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 (335), and suffering, and death, belongs truly, brother, to the erro- 
 neous opinions of the heathen, or the errors of Apollinaris who was 
 smitten in mind, and of Arius, and of a mind sick with the other 
 heresies, or rather with whatever is worse than those (336). For it 
 will necessarily happen that such will be hurried away by the term 
 ' ' appropriaiio7i, ' * and on account of that ' ' appropriatio7i ' ' they will 
 make God the Word a partaker in sucking the breast, and a sharer 
 in gradual growth and of the fear at the time of the suffering, and 
 one who needed angelic aid (337). And I will be silent as to cir- 
 cumcision, and sacrifice, and sweatings, and hunger, and thirst; 
 which things, inasmuch as they happened to His flesh for our sake 
 are to be joined together to be worshipped (338). But these state- 
 ments concerning the Divinity will be received as lies and will also 
 become the cause of our just condemnation as slanderers. These 
 are the traditions (339) of the holy Fathers. These are the an- 
 
 given the latter. I have translated according to the first of those three views of 
 this clause. 
 
 It must be remembered that Nestorius' idea of appropriating the things of 
 the body by God the Word does not include a real Incarnation, a real dwelling 
 of the Eternal Substance of God the Word in that human body, but only an 
 indwelling of it by His Holy Spirit as He indwelt the Prophets by It. 
 
 (335). Here, for the sixth time in this short letter, Nestorius denies that 
 the Word was born out of the Virgin. He certainly did not hold the Personal 
 Union, that is, the Substance Union, of the Word with a man in the womb of 
 the Virgin; but held to a more relative indwelling in that man by His Holy 
 Spirit, as God dwelt in the Prophets. 
 
 (336). See the note before the last above for the Greek. 
 
 (337). Luke xxii., 43. 
 
 (338). Greek, TrpoaKwr/rug (jwaTTTo/ueva. The margin reads -rrpoaKW^To, npaamz 
 Tofteva. See Mansi, Cone, tome IV., col. 897. Another reading in tome 77 of 
 Migne's Pairologia Graeca, columns 55, 56 is, TrpoaKstTat irpooaTTToueva. We see 
 here how Nestorius, the Man-Server (o avdpo)7To?iaTpt/c), as the ancients called him, 
 charges that St. Cyril and the Orthodox who did not hold to his Man-Worship, 
 must, by their dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, accept that error, though 
 Cyril's letter with its explanations and teachings should have convinced him 
 that nothing in their belief involved that heresy, but that on the contrary they 
 refused all Man-Worship of his kind and of the Co-substancer kind. 
 
 (339)- Greek, al * * TrapaSocuc. He means the written statements on 
 belief transmitted from the Apostolic age and from the ages after it to his, not 
 mere lying legends which are wrongly called Church traditi07ts by some ignor- 
 ant Romanists and others. Passages are quoted below from such writers as a 
 basis oitraditioned, that is, transmitted faith on the points involved in the con- 
 troversy between St. Cyril and Nestorius. And in accordance with such tradi- 
 iionSy that is, as iraditiofis mean, transmissions, that is, deliverances, the Holy- 
 Ghost-led Council condemned Nestori«us' denial of the Incarnation and his 
 JNIan-Worship. 
 
Reading of Nestorius' Epistle to Cyj'il. 165 
 
 nouncements of the Scriptures of God. So a certain one theologizes 
 concerning both what relates to the divine love towards man, and 
 what relates to His absolute sway, as follows: *' Meditate upon these 
 t/migs; give thyself wholly to them; that thy pi^ofiting may appear for 
 all, and to alV (340); so says Paul. 
 
 [SECTION IV. Nestorius tha7iks Cyril for thoiightfulness regarding 
 divine things and for his carefulness regar-ding his {Nestorius') 
 affairs; but tells him that he {Cyril) had been deceived by clerics 
 of his 0W71 {CyriV s) disposition of viind who had been deposed by 
 a Synod for holdijig the opi^iions of the Manicheans. It is thus 
 that Nestorius slanders those of his Orthodox clerics whom he had 
 deposed for their opposition to his envrs and heresies. Then he 
 boasts that the affairs of his Church and those of the Empii-e were 
 prospering , and that all heresies were wanirig, intimates that if 
 Cyril wished to coiiteiid with him it would be vain for hi?n to do 
 so, and ends with the usual salutations^ 
 
 But in exercising care for those who are made to stumble thou 
 doest well, and [I render] thanks to thy soul which is so thoughtful 
 of divine things, and so careful of our affairs. But know that thou 
 thyself wast led astray by the clerics who are probably of thy dispo- 
 sition of mind, who were deposed by the Holy Synod here for hold- 
 ing the opinions of the Manicheans. For the affairs of the Church 
 so advance every day, and the affairs of the people, in so great an 
 increase, which is owing to the grace of God, are so blest, that those 
 who see the multitudes are moved to cry out in the words of the 
 prophet: ''The eayth has becJt filled ivith the knowledge of the Lord as 
 the waters cover the seas'' (341). And the affairs of the Emperors 
 who have been enlightened by the docftrine are in unwonted joyous- 
 ness (342). And to sum up briefly, any one may daily find that the 
 following passage is fulfilled among us concerning all the God-fight- 
 ing heresies and the Orthodoxy of the Church, ' ' The hotise of Saul 
 waxed weaker and weaker, and the house of David waxed strojiger and 
 stronger' ' (343). These are cotinsels from us as brethren to a brother 
 (344). But if it seem good to any one to be contentious, Paul will 
 cry out, even through us, to such a one. " We have no such custom. 
 
 (340). I. Tim. iv., 15. 
 
 (341;. Isaiah xi., 9. Another reading of the Greek agrees in sense with 
 our Common Version. 
 
 (342). Or, according to another reading, ''And the affairs 0/ the Emperors 
 are in exceeding joyousness^ because the doBrine has been made clear.'' 
 
 (343). II. vSam. iii., i. 
 
 (344). Or, ''to brethren,'" according to another reading. 
 
166 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 neither the churches of God'' (345). I and those with me most cordi- 
 ally salute all the brotherhood who are with thee. May you con- 
 tinue strong, and continue to pray earnestly for us, O brother, by 
 me in all respects most esteemed, and to God most dear " (346). 
 
 And after the Epistle was read Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said: 
 What seems good to this Holy and Great Synod (347) concerning 
 the Epistle' j ust read ? Does this seem to be in harmony with the 
 Faith defined in the Holy Synod of the holy Fathers assembled afore- 
 time in the city of the Nicaeans, or not ? 
 
 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusale77i, said: It is by no means in har- 
 mony with the pious Faith put forth by the holy Fathers who met in 
 Nicaea. And I anathematize those who thus believe, for all these 
 things are alien to the Orthodox Faith, 
 
 Flavia7t, Bishop of Philippi, said: The contents of the Epistle 
 read taken together, are, in all respedls (348), hostile to and alto- 
 gether foreign to the Faith set forth in Nicaea by the most holy 
 Fathers; and we judge those who so beheve to be aliens from the 
 right faith. 
 
 Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea i7i Cappadocia, said: Nestorius has 
 put a semblance of piety into the beginning of his Epistle, but in 
 the onward movement of his argument, he has in no way been able 
 to screen his naked purpose, for he has laid aside the vail over it, so 
 that we can see that it is not in harmony with the Faith of the Three 
 Hundred and Eighteen holy Fathers; and moreover // is hostile (349) 
 also to the Epistle of the most devout (350) Archbishop Cyril (351). 
 
 (345). I. Cor. xi., 16. 
 
 (346). For the Greek of this Epistle see Mansi, Cone, tome IV., col. 892; 
 and Hardouin, Cone, tome I., col. 1277; and tome LXXVII., of Migne's Patro- 
 logia Graeca^ columns 49-57; and Coleti, Cone, tome III., col. 872-877. It 
 contains only a little over three columns of Greek in Coleti. 
 
 (347)- Or, "What is the pleasure of this holy," etc., as above. 
 
 (348). Or, ''entirely.''' 
 
 (349). Or, ''contrary.'' 
 
 (350). "Most devout," tov baiurciTov, is in the ColleHio Regia of the Coun- 
 cils here, tome V. (Paris, 1644), page 482, but is lacking in Coleti in this place. 
 
 (351). It will be noticed that Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea, in the words ital- 
 icized above, states that the Epistle of Nestorius is hostile * * * " to the 
 Epistle of the most devout Archbishop Cyril." He makes the Epistle of Cyril 
 an authoritative document. For it had just become authoritative by being 
 sealed by the imprimatur of this very Council. It possesses then the seal of the 
 
The Voting on Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. 167 
 
 Valerian, Bishop of Iconium, said: It is easy for all to see at 
 once the opposition of the Epistle of the most religious Nestorius; 
 for it is not only not in harmony with the Faith of the holy Fathers 
 who met in Nicaea, nor with the Epistle of the most dear-to-God 
 and most holy Archbishop Cyril, but it does not even agree with 
 itself. 
 
 Ico7iius, Bishop of Gortyna, said: The Epistle now read of the 
 most rehgious Nestorius agrees in no respect with the Exposition of 
 the holy Fathers who were gathered in Nicaea, nor, moreover, with 
 the Epistle of our most holy Father and Bishop Cyril. Wherefore, 
 I reject (352) that [Epistle of Nestorius], and I anathematize those 
 who so believe; and I assent to the Exposition of the holy Fathers 
 who met in Nicaea, and to the Epistle of the most holy Father and 
 Archbishop, Cyril. 
 
 Hellanicus, Bishop of Rhodes, said: I have even already stated 
 that I follow the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Three 
 Hundred and Eighteen holy Fathers, who assembled in the city of 
 
 same kind of an authority as an explanation of the Symbol, that is Creed, of 
 the Three Hundred and Eighteen as that Symbol does itself, that is, the seal of 
 an Orthodox Ecumenical Council. They must both therefore remain valid for- 
 ever, the Creed as a Creed, the Explanation as an Explanation of it. As to the 
 words which compose them there is this difference: All the words of the Nicene 
 Creed, with very few exceptions, are those of Scripture, that is, nearly all the 
 words of the Symbol are taken from Scripture; while, as might naturally be 
 expelled in an Explanation, the Letter of Cyril does not so closely limit itself 
 to use no other than the words of Holy Writ, for it deals not only with dogma, 
 but also with the circumstances of the controversy, and covers much more 
 ground than the Creed, to make the Scriptural terms of the Creed more clear. 
 In other words, the aim in both is to express Scriptural ideas. And in the Creed 
 the idea is couched nearly always in the very words of Scripture. But this 
 course regarding the words would not be necessary in an explanation. For 
 common sense would teach us that in explaining the words of Scripture we can 
 not be tied up to explain one Scriptural word by another Scriptural word, for 
 this would, in some cases, take from us a rich means of elucidating the sacred 
 text. And any man can see that it would be unjust to Cyril and to the Univer- 
 sal Church, which has adopted his Explanation in the Epistle foregoing of the 
 Symbol of the Three Hundred and Eighteen as her own, to tie up that Explan- 
 ation to quote set passages of Scripture without connedlives or elucidation 
 when we do not require this of the preacher or the commentator, the work of 
 both of whom is in great part that of exposition, that is explanation, as was 
 that of Cyril. 
 
 (352). Or, "denounce," cnroTaaadfievog. 
 
168 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 the Nicaeans. And I confess the holy virgin Mary to be Bringer 
 Forth of God (353), and anathema be he who does not so believe. 
 
 Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, said: The Epistle of the most relig- 
 ious Bishop Nestorius read to us has shown that he was troubled by 
 a no means senseless fear about coming into this Holy and Great 
 Synod. For it was fitting that he, who was reproved by his con- 
 science, and had put a false sense on the Scriptures of God, and had 
 endeavored to shake the Definitions of the holy Fathers, should be 
 hampered by such a fear as to wall his house in by a multitude of 
 soldiers (354). For his Epistle, which has been read, has most 
 clearly shown that he has taken away the expressions concerning 
 the Sole-Born Son of God (355) in the Faith (356) of the Three 
 Hundred and Eighteen holy Fathers and God-inspired Bishops, by 
 attributing those relating to the saving Economy of the Incarnation 
 to the flesh [of Christ] alone, and saying that God the Word's mere 
 temple [alone], underwent both birth and death. And he falsely 
 pretends also that the Scripture teaches that the birth and the suffer- 
 ing pertain not to the Divinity but to the humanity (357). And he 
 
 (353)- Q^OTOKOV. 
 
 (354). This is au allusion to the manner in which Nestorius received the 
 Bishops who had been sent by the Synod to summon him to appear before it. 
 
 (355). ''The Sole-Born Son of God'' means, as the Nicene Creed explains 
 it, God the Word. For it reads, ''And we believe in oiie Lord, Jesus Christ, the 
 Son of God, born out of the Father, Sole-Born, that is, out of the Substance of 
 the Father:' 
 
 God has many adopted sons of human substance, like us for instance who 
 are of his flock, for we have been born to Him "out of Water and the Spirit" 
 [e^ vdarog kgI Kvev/xarog^ John iii., 5), but He has only One Son, the co-eternal and 
 consubstantial Word who was born out of His Substance. And that is what the 
 Fathers of Nicaea meant in that expression. And Cyril maintains that the 
 "suffered" of that Creed pertains Economically only to Him, as Acacius of 
 Melitine well says above. On Economic Appropriation see note 173, pages 74, 
 75, 76 above, and note 182, page 79, and the text referred to by those notes. 
 
 (356). That is, the Nicene Creed. 
 
 (357). Here Acacius shows that Nestorius denied in his Epistle the birth of 
 God the Word out of the Virgin, and consequently His Inflesh and His Inman. 
 In ascribing to God the Word the death of the Man put on by Him, we must 
 remember that he does so Economically only in accordance with the dodlrine of 
 Economic Appropriation, for he shows in the last part of the above passage that 
 neither he nor St. Cyril attributed either suffering or death to God the Word in 
 any other than an Ecofiomic sense. In note 173, pages 74-76, Athauasius 
 and Cyril show that it was done to avoid worshipping a mere Man. See there. 
 
The Voting on Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. 169 
 
 slanders also the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to-God 
 Bishop Cyril by asserting that it calls God passible, which neither 
 he himself (358) nor any other of those who think piously has either 
 thought of saying or dared to say. And through all that he (359) 
 has put forth he has shown that though he confesses the union of 
 God with flesh in mere name only, nevertheless in fad he has in every 
 way denied it (360). And, moreover, he has convicted himself of 
 teaching a strange dodlrine by asserting that the doArines have in 
 the present day been made clear by himself (361), all of which doc- 
 trines being foreign to the truth, and containing much impiety, I 
 reject them, and make myself an alien from the communion of those 
 who say such things. 
 
 Mem7io7i, Bishop of Ephesus, said: The Epistle which has been 
 read is full not only of slander but also of blasphemy; wherefore it is 
 all opposed to the Faith put forth by the Three Hundred and Eigh- 
 teen holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea. 
 
 Theodotus, Bishop of A^icyra, said: We have found that the 
 Epistle of the most religious Nestorius agrees in no respect with the 
 Exposition of the holy F athers, the holy and God-inspired Bishops, 
 
 (358). St. Cyril of Alexandria. 
 
 (359). Nestorius. 
 
 (360). See note last above. 
 
 (361). That is, as I understand it, Nestorius taught that the correct doc- 
 trines had never been made clear before himself, but that he succeeded in the 
 effort. This would imply that the explanations by which he made the doArines 
 clear were novel. And this would make against him. As a matter of historical 
 fact Nestorianism could boast no higher antiquity than Diodore who was made 
 Bishop of Tarsus about A. D. 379, and Theodore, his pupil, who was made 
 Bishop of Mopsuestia A. D. 392, and died A. D. 428. See the articles '' Dio- 
 dorus (3) " and ''Theodorus of Mopsuestia'' in Smith and Wace's Diclionary of 
 Christian Biography. But probably the writings of Diodore and Theodore were 
 not much known outside of the patriarchate of Antioch when Acacius said the 
 above. When St. Cyril learned of the poison in them he wrote against them. 
 Nestorius' assertion that the doArines had been made clear in his day by him- 
 self may have been meant by him in the sense that the heresies of Diodore and 
 Theodore on the Incarnation, and in worshipping a mere human Christ, were 
 first set forth by himself outside of the patriarchate of Antioch, where he had 
 been reared and where he had learned them. 
 
 Such pretension of superior knowledge has been common to many creature- 
 worshipping heretics. St. Alexander of Alexandria shows that the Arian pa- 
 ganizers, for example, claimed a new and superior knowledge better than that 
 of the ancients. See page 167, vol. I. of Nicaea in this series. 
 
170 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 who were gathered in Nicaea. Wherefore we assent to their Expo- 
 sition; and, on the other hand, we decide that the Kpistle of Nesto- 
 rius is foreign to the right faith, and we judge those who hold to its 
 teachings to be aliens from the faith of Christians. 
 
 Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, said: I do not delay to stop even 
 my ears at (362) the blasphemy which is written in the Epistle; and 
 I became almost like stone from faintness so that I could not utter a 
 word, because I was held fast by so great a faintness. And I beheve 
 that all the dear-to-God and holy Council have the same judgment 
 with me on the Epistle just read. So much as this only do I say; 
 that the Epistle read is very contrary to the Exposition of the holy 
 Fathers on the Faith. Wherefore we in no way recognize it to be of 
 [the Faith of] the Universal Church (363). 
 
 D(fnahis, a Bishop of Old Epirus, said: The Epistle of the most 
 religious Nestorius, which has been read, expresses no docftrine of 
 truth, nor do we recognize it as in harmony with the Exposition 
 of the holy Fathers who met at Nicaea, nor with the tradition of the 
 Universal Church. And moreover if any other person so thinks, he 
 follows not the Faith of the Universal Church (364). 
 
 (362). Or, ''on account of instead of ''at:' 
 
 (363). " The Faith of' is not in the Greek. 
 
 (364). OvTt Tij 'E/ti5>fcrfi TC)V dyiov Trarepuv rijv kv '^LKaia avv'aSeiv avrr/v kKiyivuGKO- 
 UEVj ovre tij -TrapafioGSi rrj^ Ka6n?iiK?)<; "E,KK7.rjciaq. 'A?t/ld Kol el rig erepog ovro <ppovei^ ovk 
 CLKolov^el ry rfjc Kadn?uii?)c 'EiiK?.rjoiag tzigtei. 
 
 We see here, in two of these speakers, the primitive and Universal Church 
 idea of its Tradition. 
 
 The truths of the Nicene Faith are represented by Donatus as being those 
 of CathoUc tradition, by others as being those of the Scriptures. There is 
 no necessary antagonism between Scripture and the tradition of the Universal 
 Church. The Scriptures are a part of the tradition (that is, what is handed 
 down, as the Greek linpadoGu:, the Latin iradiiio, and the English tradition mean) 
 of the Universal Church. I can in all fairness approve the definition of Catholic 
 Tradition made by an opponent, a late Latin Archbishop of Baltimore, Kenrick, 
 in his Vindication of the Catholic Chmxh, page 47. "Divine tradition, as 
 maintained by the Catholic Church, is not a revelation distinct from the written 
 word, but in its amplest and most correct sense, it includes the Scriptures since 
 it is the whole revealed dodlrine as handed down in the Church from Christ and 
 his apostles. "^ * * It is properly the entire deposit of docftrine as it comes 
 down from the beginning. " We would amend this last clause between "doc- 
 trine" and "as" by inserting the words "and discipline and rite," so as to 
 make the last sentence read: " It is properly the entire deposit of do6lrine, and 
 
The Voting 07i Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. 171 
 
 Prothymius, Bishop of Comana, said: I believe the Letter put 
 forth by thy HoHness, and I anathematize him who does not say that 
 the holy Virgin was Bringer Forth of God (365). 
 
 discipline and rite as it comes down from the beginning. ' ' Thus the Tradition in 
 the Symbol of the Three Hundred and Eighteen and in the Symbol of the first 
 Ecumenical Council of Constantinople is all in Scripture in set terms, or by just 
 and logical inference. But some parts of Tradition, though not in Scripture, 
 are plainly not repugnant to it, as for instance to stand in prayer on Lord's Days, 
 and during the whole period from Pask to Pentecost. 
 
 See on this beautiful and expressive custom Canon XX. of Nice and Ham- 
 mond and Bright on that Canon. And see the Tlvi'taXLov or Canon Law of the 
 Greek Church on the same Canon. " IVe consider it imlazvful,'' says Tertullian 
 at the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, " to fast, or to 
 pray kneeling on the Lords day; we enjoy the same liberty from Pask to Pente- 
 cost; " On the Soldier's Crown, sections 3 and 4. There is no reason why a man 
 in his private devotions should not follow this Canon at the times indicated. 
 Although it has for centuries been in desuetude in the West it is in full force in 
 the East. Sooner or later it must be restored with the other Canons and primi- 
 tive traditions in Western Christendom, as the now idolatrous East must restore 
 the Scriptural and primitive and Six Councils Tradition of worshipping God 
 alone. 
 
 Besides the Apostolic tradition of standing on those days, there are certain 
 Scriptural truths, such as the three orders, the trine immersion in baptism, the 
 baptism of children and their reception of the Eucharist, and the anointing of 
 the sick with oil, which are sufficiently evident from ''reading Holy Scripture 
 and ancient authors;' to be Scriptural, but which might not be so deemed by 
 any one who was ignorant of ancient authors without whose historical witness 
 (not their mere private and dififering opinions) there can be no intelligent and 
 safe Biblical criticism on those points. All these, and I have taken them only 
 as instances, to the candid and learned reader, will illustrate the benefit of Uni- 
 versal Christian Tradition regarding rites. And this same earlier CathoUc Tra- 
 dition makes clear other fa(5ls as, for instance, 
 
 I. That the substance of the bread and wine remain in the Eucharist after 
 consecration, and that there is nothing there to worship. 
 
 II. That the early Christians invoked God alone and worshipped God 
 alone. 
 
 III. That they abhorred the relative worship of images (and relative wor- 
 ship is the highest worship paid even by a heathen to an image) and that they 
 had them not in their churches, but were opposed to their use there. 
 
 IV. Their uniform use of a language '' understanded of the people'' in 
 worship. On some of these last points the reader is referred to Crakauthorpe's 
 Defejisio Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ^n^ to Vs-h^v's Difficulties of Romanism (last 
 edition), and to Tyler on '^ Imacre Worship:' on '^ Primitive Christian Wor^ 
 
172 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Gregory, Bishop of Cerasus, said: The most religious Bishop 
 Nestorius has written to the most holy and most dear-to-God Arch- 
 bishop Cyril things contrary to the pious religion of the Three Hun- 
 dred and Eighteen Bishops who met in Nicaea. Wherefore, because 
 he holds those errors (366;, I do not assent to his dogmas, but I 
 approve the Explanation of the aforesaid Archbishop Cyril and of 
 the aforesaid holy Fathers. 
 
 Romanus, Bishop of Rhaphia, said: The most religious Nesto- 
 rius has put forth an adulterated faith contrary (367), to that of the 
 holy Fathers. Wherefore we anathematize that faith of his accord- 
 
 ship,'' and ''On the Worship of the Blessed Virgin;'' and on the former the 
 reader is referred to " ancient authors " and to the earlier Offices of all parts of 
 Christendom. 
 
 And, moreover, the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils are a most 
 important part of this tradition, for they settle many questions of docflrine as* 
 well as rite. On the whole subject of Tradition see under Hapadoaff in Suicer's 
 Thesaicrus. 
 
 But as we propose hereafter to treat of this subject of Tradition we here dis- 
 miss the subject, with the remark that no part of the Church, Greek, or Latin, 
 or Anglican, has preserved all the Tradition of the Universal Church, though 
 each has some of it. In the Church of the Future purged of creature worship 
 and schisms they will all be restored. 
 
 (365). Kfii iiva&eaar'isi^ tov lifj Myovra QeoroKoi^ rfjv aylav izap^evov. 
 
 (366). "O-^tv Tavra avTov (j)povoi!i'T()g. 
 
 (367). TTapa Tfjv [rrlaTiv understood from above in this same sentence] tuv 
 dytuv Tvarepuv. Here is an instance of the use of Trapd with the accusative in the 
 sense of contrary to, and so should it be rendered in that part of Canon VII. of 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod which forbids any one to offer or to write or ta 
 compose any Faith contrary to (not besides), that of the Three Hundred and 
 Eighteen of Nicaea {Trapa ttjv opia^daau irapa rcbv dy'nop TzaTtpuv tuv ev t^ N^/cafwv 
 avveMovTuv gov 'Aylip IlvevjuaTi). For that would forbid matters of faith in the 
 Twenty Canons of Nicaea, the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod and the 
 matters of Faith in its Canons, and the Definitions and the Canons of this very 
 same Third Ecumenical Synod and all its other Decisions on dodlrine and all the 
 Decisions of the other three Ecumenical Synods on Faith. 
 
 So should Trapd tov KrlaavTa be rendered in the expression in Romans i., 25, 
 ''zuorshipped and served the creature contrary to the Creator,'" for the expression 
 " more than the Creator'' might be understood to mean that it is no sin if men 
 serve the creature with the Creator, provided they serve the creature less than 
 they do the Creator; whereas the fact is that the Scriptures condemn all service 
 to any but God. For Christ, in a passage often quoted by Cyril against crea- 
 ture-service, says: " Thou shall bow to the Lord thy God, and Him 0NI.Y SHAI.T 
 THOU SERVE," Matt, iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8, 
 
The Voting on Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. 173 
 
 ing to that expression of the apostle which says: ''If ayiy man 
 preach any other Gospel unto you than that (368) ye have received, let 
 him be anathema'^ (369). 
 
 Theodidus, Bishop of Elusa (370), said: I reject the Epistle 
 written by the most religious Nestorius to the most holy Bishop 
 Cyril, because it was composed lawlessly and contrary to the 
 Church's decisions, and I hold the faith [settled] in Nicaea to be 
 firm. 
 
 Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocurura, said: The things dicflated 
 (371) by the most religious Nestorius are utterly aUen to the Ortho- 
 dox faith and to the Forthset of the holy Fathers, and, besides, to 
 the things written by the most devout and most dear-to-God Cyril, 
 for they are in harmony with the sense of the holy Fathers on the 
 faith. 
 
 Evoptius, Bishop of Ptolemais, said: As those who counterfeit 
 the imperial coin are liable to (372) the extreme (373) punishment 
 by the laws, so also the most religious Nestorius who has dared to 
 put forth a counterfeit of the docflrine of the Orthodoxy is deserving 
 of all (374) punishment before God and men, and the very dogmas 
 which he has introduced are not in harmony with the Universal 
 Church, but are to the pollution (375) and thk ruin of the men 
 who have followed him (376). Wherefore I make myself an alien 
 from his communion and from all who hold the same errors with 
 him. 
 
 (368). Trap' o 7rap£?M[3£Ts. Here is an instance of the use of rzapd with the ac~ 
 cusative in the sense of contrary to, as well as of ''besides:' 
 
 (369). This is in imitation of the language and the aAion of the inspired 
 Paul in Galatians i., 8, 9. 
 
 (370). Or, **Helusa." 
 
 (371). Or, "written." Probably every one of the Bishops of the great sees 
 like Constantinople, Alexandria, etc., was able to keep an amanuensis, to 
 whom he needed only to dictate what he would have written. 
 
 (372). Or, "subjedledto." 
 
 (373). Or, " the severest. " 
 
 (374)- 7rd(Tw . . . TLiioplac/, or, '' of every pimishment. 
 
 (375). Or, "detriment." 
 
 (376). npoc IvfiTjv Koi a-KuAEiav tuv dKo2,ov^7/odvTO)v av&puTTov avT(l). This im-^ 
 plies, of course, that Evoptius held that the errors of Nestorius on the Inman, 
 among which was what the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod calls 
 Man-Service, resulted in the ruin of the deathless soul. And the same is true. 
 
274 -^^^ ^' of Ephesus. 
 
 Fidiis, Bishop of Joppa^ said: What co77ti7ni?tio7i hath light with 
 aarknessf Or what agree^neiit hath Christ with Belial f {zil) For 
 the Kpistle now read of the most religious Nestorius has departed 
 ver}^ far from the truth, and it is very much in agreement with the 
 lawless judgment of Paul of Samosata; wherefore it is unacceptable 
 to all because of the infamous expressions (378) which it contains. 
 
 Theodore, Bishop of Arbdela, said: The contents of the Kpistle 
 of the most religious Nestorius are not right, nor in harmony with 
 the Orthodox faith, nor with the Exposition of the holy Fathers 
 who came together in Nicaea, but they are utterly out of harmony 
 with them. Wherefore I also anathematize him who holds such 
 errors. 
 
 Theodore, Bishop of Gadara, said: I also anathematize the most 
 esteemed (379) Nestorius, because he has not thought corredlly in 
 regard to the dodlrines of the holy Fathers who came together in 
 Nicaea, as his Kpistle which has been read has shown. 
 
 Riifi7ius, Bishop of Tabae, said: The Kpistle of the most relig- 
 ious Nestorius which has been read has shown that he holds opin- 
 ions which are opposed to the Faith set forth by the holy Fathers 
 who came together in Nicaea. Wherefore I anathematize him, and 
 I reject the infamies and blasphemies put forth by him. 
 
 PauliaTtus, Bishop of Malum a, said: I also likewise anathema- 
 tize him, because he holds wicked dodlrines, for his Kpistle has 
 proved the very fact that he holds opinions which are contrary to 
 the Orthodox faith (380). 
 
 Aeanes (381), Bishop of Sycamazon, said: The judgment of the 
 most religious Nestorius has been shown forth not in a simple man- 
 
 of all service to creatures now as then. For surely if to worship Christ's hu- 
 manity has the effect here mentioned by Evoptius, worshipping creatures less 
 than Christ's humanity like the Virgin, saints, and others will much more de- 
 serve and will have the same sad and mournful result. 
 
 (377). II. Cor. vi., 14, 15. 
 
 (378). Or, "the infamies." 
 
 (379). Tov rifjLLura-ov y^EGTopiov. 
 
 (380). The margin here in the Paris edition of the Concilia, tome V., page 
 488, states that the words "the very fact that he holds opinions which are con- 
 trary to the Orthodox faith ' ' are not in one manuscript or edition. 
 
 (381). The Latin has ^^a««^. 
 
The Votijig 07i Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. 175". 
 
 ner, nor in a casual way, but with all clearness, throughout (382) 
 his Epistle which has been read, and it is evident that he holds, 
 opinions hostile to the Orthodox faith; wherefore I also in like man- 
 ner anathematize him. 
 
 Peter, Bishop of Parembola, said: Since those who have dedi- 
 cated themselves to God (383) must needs thoroughly follow the 
 Orthodox Faith which was set forth by the holy Fathers who came 
 together in Nicaea; and since the most religious Nestorius has been 
 found not to believe as it teaches (384), for that reason I also anathe- 
 matize him, judging him from his Kpistle which has been read. 
 
 John, Bishop of Augustopolis, said: It has been seen from the 
 Epistle which has been read that the most religious Nestorius holds 
 opinions which are opposed to the Orthodox faith. Wherefore I 
 also anathematize him. 
 
 Pa2d, Bishop of Anthedon, said: It especially behooves Chris- 
 tians not to be yoked together (385) with those who do not hold to 
 right do6lrines, but to be [just] the contrary. Wherefore, inasmuch 
 as it is clear from the contents of the Epistle of the most rehgious 
 Nestorius which has been read that he holds dodlrines opposed to 
 the Orthodox Faith which was set forth by the holy Fathers who 
 came together in Nicaea, I anathematize him. 
 
 Letoius, Bishop of Libyas (386), said: The sense of the most 
 rehgious Nestorius is very contrary to (387) the Orthodox faith, as 
 is evident from the things which have been read, wherefore I also 
 anathematize him. 
 
 Saidas, Bishop of Phaenis, said: I also anathematize him be- 
 cause he holds wicked opinions, and because he does not agree with 
 the Faith of the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea. For 
 the reading of his Epistle has shown his judgment. 
 
 (382). Or " by " (Jm T^f . , . t-KLGTolJ^q. 
 
 (383). Peter seems to speak as a monk, or perhaps by ''dedicated them- 
 selves to God'" {jovq Geu) avaKnfievavc),he means only the pious. At that time 
 probably a large part of the Bishops were monks as before that. 
 
 (384). ovx ofioio)^ (ppovcjv. 
 
 (385). Or, " not to be joined together,'' Ov XPV ^oi-c fidTnoTa Xpionavovg ovvvtc-. 
 dyeoT^ai rolg ov Kalcjg (ppovovaiVj akla Tovvavriov. 
 
 (386). Or, '' Libias:' 
 
 (387"). Ox,'' very dissonant from.'^ 
 
176 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 Eusebhis, Bishop of Pelusmm, said: All the contents of the 
 Epistle of the most religious Nestorius, which has been read, are 
 alien to the Faith set forth in Nicaea by the holy Fathers, and I 
 necessarily anathematize them, and those who hold to them. 
 
 Macarhis, Bishop of Antae2im, said: The contents of the Epistle 
 of the most religious Nestorius are very contrary to the Faith set 
 forth by the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea; and I an- 
 athematize those who so think, for they are outside the Orthodox 
 faith. 
 
 Phoebammo7i, Bishop of Coptus, said: The Epistle of the most 
 religious Nestorius is in no wise in harmony with the Faith set forth 
 by the holy Fathers who came together in Nicaea; and, moreover, it 
 does not agree with the Epistle of the most holy and most dear-to- 
 God Cyril; wherefore anathema to those who so believe. 
 
 Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasa, said: It is clear from the Epistle 
 which has now been read, that the most religious Nestorius holds 
 dogmas other than the Faith of the holy Fathers; and I anathema- 
 tize him, and those who hold the same errors. 
 
 Aristobulus, Bishop of Thmuis, said: We have learned from the 
 most religious Nestorius' Epistle which has been read that he holds 
 dodlrines which are opposed to the right Faith; and for that reason 
 I anathematize him. 
 
 Avtphilochius, Bishop of Sida, said: The alien and very con- 
 tentious charadler of the dogmas which are made thoroughly clear 
 throughout the Epistle of the most religious Nestorius, not only 
 rasps on the hearing of the pious and wearies it, but also shows that 
 he is hostile to the right faith. 
 
 All the Bishops shouted out together, Let him be anathema, who 
 does not anathematize Nestorius! The right faith anathematizes 
 him! The Holy Synod anathematizes him! Let him be anathema 
 who communicates with Nestorius! And we all anathematize the 
 Epistle and the dogmas of Nestorius! We all anathematize the 
 heretic Nestorius! We all anathematize those who communicate 
 with Nestorius! We anathematize the impious faith of Nestorius! 
 We all anathematize the impious dodlrine of Nestorius (388). We 
 
 (388). As " all the Bishops shouted out together, Let him be anathema who 
 does not anathematize Nestorius,'' we see how very different they felt and 
 believed from such Romish, and such not well informed Protestant writers, 
 
The Voti7ig on Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril. Vll 
 
 all anathematize the impious Nestorius! All the inhabited World 
 (389) anathematizes his impious religion! Let him be anathema 
 who does not anathematize him! The right faith anathematizes 
 
 as attempt to whitewash the heresiarch Nestorius and assert that there was uo 
 great difference between Cyril and him, that the controversy between them was 
 all a mere logomachy, that the Third Ecumenical Synod did wrong in condem- 
 ning Nestorius, etc. ; whereas the truth is that the very essence of Christianity 
 was involved, that is: 
 
 1. The truth of the Incarnation of the Word; and 
 
 2. The questiofi of servi^ig a Man, a creature, that is, the Man put on by 
 the Word, contrary to the fundamental law laid down by Christ Himself in 
 Matt, iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8. For he who denies the Incarnation and the 
 truth that God alone is to be served, that is, that every act of reUgious service, 
 be it bowing, prostration, prayer, thanksgiving, or any other form of invocation, 
 that is of calling to, or incense, or any thing else, is prerogative to Divinity 
 alone, that is to the Father, to his uncreated Word, and to the Holy Spirit ; he 
 who denies these truths, I say, has ceased to be a Christian ; he has forsaken 
 that divine Redeemer who came in human flesh to abolish all creature service, 
 because he has forsaken, as did ancient and creature-serving Israel, God's teach- 
 ing. And as God did not spare the Israelites because, with all their creature 
 service, they still prayed to and, after their own fashion, served the true God, 
 neither will He spare those who are guilty of mixing creature-service with God's 
 service now, Indeed the latter are the worse of the two classes because they 
 have more light than had the Israelites who did the same things, or similar 
 things. And the curses which came on Nestorius and his followers, and on the 
 Greek and Latin Christians when they also afterwards fell into the sin of in- 
 voking and otherwise serving creatures, have been as terrible as those which 
 fell on the Israelites. For if the Israelites were cursed by Assyrian and Baby- 
 lonian wars and by defeat, and being wasted and plundered, and by being car- 
 ried into captivity, from which they did not return, some of them for about 70, 
 others of them for about 133 years, to rebuild their city, Jerusalem, and its 
 temple, the Nestorianized Christians have been even worse cursed. For the 
 bulk of the Nestorians of the lowlands, once so numerous, has been utterly 
 wiped out and only about a hundred thousand who have been driven up into 
 the mountains of Koordistan, with perhaps 40,000 in the lowlands still main- 
 tain their name, and even in our own day they have been subje(5led to a fierce 
 and cruel massacre by the Koords, and they are poor and subject to Mohamme- 
 dan tyrants, and they are indebted for what little liberty they possess not to 
 their own power, but to that Protestant England which reje(5ls the service of 
 creatures and believes in the Incarnation, and so believes like Cyril in the main, 
 on that fundamental theme, and not like Nestorius. And in large parts of the 
 world, the Christians of the Eastern Church and those of the Western have suf- 
 fered the loss of property, brutal tyranny, and all evils from their Saracen, or 
 Turkish, or Tartar masters, and that not for 70 years like the Babylonian cap- 
 tivity, but for periods of iioo or 1200 years as in Palestine and North Africa, 
 
178 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 himl The holy Synod anathematizes him! I^et him be anathema, 
 who communicates with Nestorius! Let the letter of the most holy 
 Bishop of the Romans be read! 
 
 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said: I^et the Letter of the most. 
 
 Indeed in that part of North Africa, which was once under the sway of the 
 Metropolitan or Patriarch of Carthage, Christianity was almost utterly extir- 
 pated for more than a thousand years, and the Christians who exist there now 
 do not claim to be descendants from the former Christians there, but are French, 
 Italians, and other non-Africans, And so Christianity has been as thoroughly 
 extirpated from large portions of Syria and Asia Minor, and Egypt, and some 
 other places as it was in Africa. And all the Greek Church, all Monophysites, 
 and all the Nestorians have at some time been under the Mohammedan yoke. 
 And, as I have said, all Latin Africa, including ail under the ecclesiastical sway 
 of Carthage has been utterly wiped out, and parts of Sicily, most of the Span- 
 ish peninsula, and parts of Italy, were held by the oppressors of Christendom 
 from Africa or elsewhere for long periods. And for whatever of continued free- 
 dom from that curse in our day the Greek, or Latin, or other creature-serving 
 and therefore Nestorianized Christians possess, they owe to the influences of the 
 Reformation which has affedled them or their leaders to a greater or lesser ex- 
 tent. Every nation, which was of the Christian faith in the eighth century and 
 received the image-worshipping Pseudo-Seventh Ecumenical Synod of Irene 
 the accursed, and of Tarasius of the horrible death, finally became subject to 
 Mohammedans if it was not then. And England, France, and Germany which 
 rejected it were saved at last from them. And wherever there still remains 
 creature-service in any nation there remains in some form the curse still — 
 God is not a liar. 
 
 The conclusion then is that wherever any form of creature-service spread 
 among Christians it brought down God's curse among them as before among 
 the Jews. And so the anathema of " all the Bishops'' of the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod against Nestorius and his fellow creature-servers has been amply fulfilled 
 by Almighty God Himself, the Giver of vidtory or of defeat, who has com- 
 manded us to bow to God and to serve him alone, Matt, iv., lo, and who has 
 promised his curse to all creature-servers from generation to generation; and his 
 blessing to all who serve Him alone. But alas! the Nestorian is often as yet 
 incorrigible, for he still worships, contrary to Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecumen- 
 ical Council, both Natures in Christ, and besides invokes the Virgin Mary and 
 Saints, and gives relative-worship to the cross, and, I judge, still follows the 
 Nestorian Theodoret's heresy of worshipping the consecrated elements in the 
 Eucharist, and so rejeAs the teaching on such matters of St. Cyril as approved 
 and formulated by the Third Council, and the Fifth. See the articles Nestorius 
 and Nestorianism in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopoedia, and see Badger's 
 Nestorians and their Rituals. But remember that he is too partial to their 
 claim to be sound, to be relied on here and there. 
 
 (389). "0^;; r] o'lKOViihr] avaSefxarHl^ei ryv aat:i3?j QpijOKnav avTov. 
 
Reading of Celestiiie' s Epistle to Nestorius. ITS 
 
 holy and most dear-to-God Archbishop of the Romans, Celestine, be 
 read, which he has sent concerning the faith. 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, and Chief of the Secretaries, read' 
 [as follows]: 
 
 A Translation (390) of an Epistle of Celestine, Bishop of Rome, to^ 
 Nestorius, 
 
 Celestine to the beloved brother Nestorius (391): [i.] The Uni- 
 versal Faith (392) had peace for some days of our lifetime, after the 
 unholy and often condemned doarine of Pelagius and Celestius (393), 
 for both the Bast and the West, had smitten them with the follow- 
 ers of their opinions with the dart of a unanimous sentence. 
 Straightway (394) Atticus of holy memory, the teacher of the Uni- 
 
 (390). As the Greek is the only form in which the letter was understood, 
 and approved by the council, I translate from it, but refer to the Latin where 
 the sense is doubtful. 
 
 (391). This is a greeting of unpompous and unflattering Christian courtesy. 
 How different from many of the flattering titles of that day and ours! 
 
 This letter, we are informed by St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Synodical 
 Epistle of himself and his Patriarchate which follows the above in the AAs, 
 was Synodical; that is, it represented not only Celestine, but also the Roman 
 Synod of A. D. 430. See a note on Cyril's long Epistle to Nestorius which has 
 the Twelve Chapters or Anathemas, below. Note i, col. 903, 904 of tome III.,. 
 Coleti's Concilia, adds matter of much importance as bearing on its Ecumen- 
 icity. It states as follows (I translate from the Larin into English): ''It ts 
 in the Fifth Council in Conference VI. Moreover it is recited [or ''read'''\tn 
 Act I of the Coimcil at Ephestis. The [Latin] Version published by Labbe is. 
 the Old, which we give with Baluze in a more correct form." 
 
 (392). The note on the above in column 469, tome 50 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Latina, states: "The printed editions, the Greek agreeing, have * The Cath- 
 olic Faith had quiet: but manuscripts of this Epistle as well as manuscripts of 
 the ancient [Latin] translation of the Council of Ephesus oppose" [that 
 ledlion]. I have seen Church instead of Faith. But the Greek is authoritative.. 
 (393). The Greek as in the Adls here in Coleti Cone, tome III., col. 1048, 
 merely adds here, koX -a Xoura tjarrfp TrpoAd/zTrff, that is, ''and the rest [of the 
 Epistle] as it shines forth'' [in the Forematter] and omits the rest of the Epistle, 
 which is given in the same volume before the A6ls in the matter preUminary to 
 the Council. The Latin translation in the parallel column in Coleti has here, 
 -And the whole Letter was read as it is found above," that is in the Forematter 
 to the Council, * * Et lecta est tota, prout supra posita est. " But I have preferred 
 to give it here in its proper place. 
 
 {394). The Latin has " denique," "finally.'' 
 
180 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 versal Faith Tsqs), and verily successor of the Blessed John, in that 
 same course of thinking and ac5ting also, so pursued them on behalf of 
 the Common King (396), that no permission was granted them to 
 stay there (397). After his departure we were held in suspense by 
 a no ordinary anxiety as we waited to see whether he who succeeded 
 him would succeed him also in the faith; for it is difficult to make 
 good things continue, for oftentimes opposites succeed each other 
 alternately. But after him we had another who was quickly to leave 
 us behind; that is, the holy Sisinnius, a colleague (398) of good re- 
 pute for his simplicity and sincerity and holiness (399), who preached 
 the very faith which he had found. Surely that simple piety and 
 pious simplicity had read that it behooves us to fear rather tha^i to 
 have recourse to the depth of our own U7iderstanding (400); and, else- 
 where, that we ought not to search into the deeper things (401); and 
 again, If any one preach and e7iact ajiy law contrary to what we have 
 preached, let him be anathe^na (402). And, furthermore, when he 
 departed out of the world, inasmuch as our care extended itself to as 
 great an extent as the Lord permitted (403), the narration of the 
 messengers who came [to us] gladdened our soul; which the report 
 of our colleagues (404), who were present at thy ordination straight- 
 way confirmed. For they gave such good testimony to thee as was 
 necessary in the case of one who had been chosen from another 
 
 (395). The Greek is, 6 ^tdacsKako^ Tfjq KadolLKfjg TiiareuQ] the Latin is Cathol- 
 icae magister fldei. Venables in his article on Aiticus in Smith and Wace's 
 Ditlionary of Christia7i Biography censures him too severely; and yet he states 
 that ' * his writings were quoted as those of an Orthodox teacher both by the 
 Council of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon (Labbe III., 518, IV., 831)." 
 
 (396). That is, God. 
 
 (397)- That is, Constantinople. 
 
 (398). /coivcjvdv, that is, "■ companion ^^^ "■ comrade,'" fellow-partaker,^^ '^pati- 
 ner, ' ' that is, in the cares of the Episcopate. 
 
 (399). The ColleBio Regia Concil., tome V., Paris, 1644, page 348, has 
 Kal dyioTTiTL here. It is lacking in Migne's Patrol. Latina, tome 50, col. 47. 
 
 (400). Rom. xi., 20; Rom. xii., 16; Prov. iii., 5. 
 
 (401). Ecclesiasticus iii., 21.25. 
 
 (402). Galat. i., 8, 9. In our Common Version the avd-^efia earu), is trans- 
 lated, "Let him be accursed."" And as the Greek above is exactly the same, so 
 far as those two words are concerned, as the New Testament here, they may be 
 so rendered. 
 
 (403). The Latin here is, "permisit." 
 
 (^404). kolvuvCjv. See note 398 above. 
 
Reading of Celestine' s Epistle to Nes tortus. 181 
 
 place (405). For thou (406) hadst lived before in such good repute 
 that a city not thine own (407) envied thee to thine own [fellow citi- 
 zens] (408). But now thou livest and condudlest thyself in such a 
 very strange and unsuitable way that thou hast made thyself to be 
 shunned, so that thine own [original fellow-citizens] can see in the 
 inhabitants of another city (409) how they (410) have been delivered. 
 [2]. We received thy letters a little time ago, but could not 
 reply to them in a brief time (411), for their contents needed to be 
 translated into Latin. And as we were doing it slowly, because of 
 necessity, we received a letter regarding thee, from my holy brother, 
 and fellow-Bishop Cyril, the most approved Priest (412), by my son, 
 Posidonius the deacon, a letter of such a charadler, that we were 
 very much grieved to learn from it that the testimony which the 
 messengers had borne in regard to thee was rendered of no worth. 
 For, as we see, an evil outcome has succeeded thy fine beginnings; 
 fine beginnings I repeat, which were so celebrated among us that in 
 our answer to the Report of the brethren we showed how [thor- 
 oughly] we were partakers of the joy. But now in considering the 
 complaint of the aforesaid brother concerning thee, and thy trans- 
 lated Epistles which contain plain blasphemies, we see that we ought 
 to utter the apostolic saying which here follows: I was wishing to 
 cha7ige my voice because I atn ashamed for you (413). Indeed I have 
 changed it, unless the impious preacher (414) recalls himself from 
 the precipice. For it is a necessity for us to remove froin ourselves the 
 evil, as we are commanded (415). We have read therefore the text 
 
 (405). Nestorius had been called from Antioch, where he belonged, to be 
 Bishop of Constantinople. 
 
 (406). The Greek in Coleti begins here, ^era Toaavrrjq yap Kal irpdrepov, etc. 
 See his Cofic, tome III., col. 904. 
 
 (407). Constantinople. 
 
 (408). That is, the Antiochians. 
 
 (409.) That is, the inhabitants of Constantinople 
 
 (410). The Antiochians. 
 
 (411). Greek, £v crrevcT. 
 
 (412). Greek, tov 6oKi/xo)Tdrov lepeug. 
 
 (413). That is, " to alter my tone,'' Galat. iv., 20. 
 
 (414). 6 doe[^T/c TTpoaofjLilrjTTj^. The Latin in the parallel column in tome 50 
 of Migne's Patrologia Latina has "impius disputator." 
 
 (415). I. Cor. v., 13. 
 
182 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 of thy Epistles and have received the books (416), which were de- 
 Uvered by the most magnificent (417), man, our Son, Antiochus. 
 In them, when thou art tracked out, found, and held fast, thou 
 hast wriggled out (418) [of the difficulty] by a sort of verbosity, by 
 hiding things true in things which are dark, and again thou con- 
 foundest both sorts, by confessing, on the one hand, things which 
 are denied, and on the other by attempting to deny the things which 
 are confessed. But in these thy Epistles thou hast not so much 
 produced a plain sentence regarding our faith, as regarding thyself, 
 because thou wishest to preach concerning God the Word otherwise 
 than the faith of all holds. 
 
 [3]. Behold, therefore (419) w^hat sort of a sentence we are 
 called on to pronounce concerning thee ! Behold what are the re- 
 wards of thy innovations (420) ! When thou wast unknown thou 
 wast eledled. But when thou hadst become known thou wast ac- 
 cused. Therefore with the Teacher of the Gentiles we must say. 
 For we know not what we should pray for as we ought (421). Do not 
 those words befit that Church which despised tried men in it, to fol- 
 low thy fame, not thy knowledge ? The expedlation of those w^ho 
 believed well of thee was deceived. For who would suppose that a 
 ravenous wolf was hidden inside a sheep's wool ? It is the voice of 
 the same apostle which says, There must be heresies also that those 
 who have been approved may be made ma7iifest (422). Open thine ears 
 and hear the words of that apostle to Timothy (423) and Titus (424). 
 What does he command but that they should avoid the profajie iriJio- 
 vations (425) of expressions ? For those innovations (426) result in 
 
 (416). Probably the Sermons of Nestorius which contain his heresies. 
 
 (417). Greek, rov iityaXoTrpz-KzcTaTov av6poq. The Latin for this in the paral- 
 lel column in Migne is illustri viro. This is the stilted Byzantine style of that 
 day. 
 
 (418). Or, "slipped out," or "evaded," or "hast attempted to evade,'* 
 
 (419). Migne's text has vvv^ Coleti's roivvv, 
 
 (420). Or, " novelties," A-a/vor^rwv. 
 
 (421). Rom. viii., 26. 
 
 (422). I. Cor. xi., 19. 
 
 (423). I. Tim. vi., 20, 21. 
 
 (424). Titus iii., 9. 
 
 (425). Or, "novelties," naivoTrjra^, 
 
 (426). See the last note above. 
 
Readi7ig of €616511716' s Epistk to N6storius. 183 
 
 impiety (427), and they always produce thorns and burrs (428). 
 And he says that he himself (429) had exhorted Timothy to r6main 
 at Ephesus a7id to charg6 C6rtai7i persons that 710 07i6 should preach any 
 other do5lri7i6 (430) . The words of Jeremiah the prophet are before my 
 eyes, where he says, Fearful things are do7ie on the earth; the prophets 
 prophecy unrig hteous7iess (431). Tell me, did those passages escape 
 thee because they were not known by thee, or didst thou know them, 
 and yet despise them ? If indeed they escaped thee because thou 
 didst not know them, do not be ashamed to learn what is correct, as 
 thou didst not fear to teach that which is wrong. But if thou 
 knowest them and then despisest them, remember that thou wilt be 
 without excuse, when He asks from thee for an account of the talent 
 entrusted to thee, Who always expedls for Himself gain (432) by 
 us from that holy loan. See what sort of punishment remains for 
 that man who has hidden what he has received, and who, moreover, 
 has not [even] returned entire what he has received (433)- Where- 
 fore plainly understand how great a danger and what sort of a dan- 
 ger it is not to give back what thou hast received. Wilt thou say 
 to our Master, I have kept those who7n thou hast given rne (434) » when 
 we hear that His Church has been so [slaughtered and (435)1 split 
 into parts [by thee as it is] ? With what sort of a conscience dost 
 thou live when thou art abandoned by nearly all in that (436) city ? 
 I would that they were more safe and unshaken than they are now, 
 when they seek aid for themselves (437). Whence ca me it to thee 
 
 (427). Literally ''proceed to impiety,'" tlq aaz^uav Tzpox^p^'i- 
 
 (428). Or, ' * water caltrops, "or, " land caltrops, ' ' 
 
 (429). Migne has eavrov, Coleti avrov. 
 
 (430). Or, " an other thing,'" aXko. The reference is to I. Tim., i., 3. 
 
 (431), Jerem. V., 30, 31: Septuagint. 
 
 (432). ' Kkp6oq, which may be rendered ''usufy," also. Matt. xxv. 27; Luke 
 xix., 23. 
 
 (433). Matt. XXV., 15, 18, 24-31. 
 
 (434). John xvii., 12. 
 
 (435). Coleti has afpal^eGdaL /cat, but Migne has not. Migne implies that it is 
 not in the manuscripts. 
 
 (436). The Greek is hv ravrij rif TzoTiei^ and the reference might seem to be to 
 Rome were it not for the words which immediately follow which must refer to 
 Constantinople. 
 
 (437). I have omitted tots, in this sentence, because from a note m Migne 
 here (note h, col. 474 of tome 50 of his Patrologia Latma), we learn that man- 
 uscripts omit it, and it makes better sense to omit it. 
 
184 Act L of Ephesus. 
 
 to form discourses on those questions which it is a blasphemous 
 thing even to have in mind ? Whence came it to a Bishop to preach 
 to the people those things by which respect for the Virgin's bringing 
 forth is wounded ? (438) There ought not to be blasphemous dis- 
 courses against God to thoroughly disturb the purity of the ancient 
 faith. 
 
 [4]. Who that has, as yet, taken away anything from the faith or 
 has added any thing to it, has not been judged worthy of being anath- 
 ematized ? For the things which have been fully and plainly handed 
 down to us from the Apostles admit neither addition nor diminution 
 We have read in our books that we must ?ieiiher add to nor take aivay 
 (439). For the greatest vengeance and punishment bind both him 
 
 (438). That is, she did not, according to Nestorius, bring forth God the 
 Word, but only an inspired man, and so the bringing forth was not so import- 
 ant a matter, that is, the scheme of the Incarnation is not; and the Word was. 
 not made flesh (John i., 14). Indeed her bringing forth would not have been sa 
 greatly superior to her Kinswoman Elizabeth's bringing forth of John the Baptist, 
 for at birth, according to the Nestorian error, the divine Substance of God the 
 Word was not in the Man. And, of course, if the Word was not made flesh, 
 Christianity is false and we are lost. This is Nestorianism. While therefore we 
 should thoroughly sympathize with St. Cyril's implied anathema on the wor- 
 ship of any creature and so on the worship of the Virgin Mary, in his Anath- 
 ema VIII., which is approved by the whole Church in the Third Synod, and 
 with his express denial in his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius, Book I., Sec. 4, of the sin of making her a goddess, as does i7i effect 
 every one who gives her any act of worship, be it invocation, bowing, etc., we 
 should, nevertheless, remember on the other hand not to deny that she bore 
 God the Word and so is Theotocos, that is, Bringer Forth of God, for to deny 
 that, is to deny the necessary doArine of the Incarnation. We must remain 
 firm by Christ's law in Matthew iv., 10, Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God^ 
 and Him only shalt thou serve. We must, like St. Epiphanius, his loyal ser- 
 vant, of the fourth century, say, '' Let Mary be in honor; but let the Father ^ 
 and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be bowed to. Let no one bow to Mary.^^ 'Ev 
 TL\iiji kcTO) Mapta^ 6 de Raryp^Kal 'T/bc, kciI ' Ayiov Uvevfia TTpoGnvvelG^o)' tjjv Maplav fXT^Sel^ 
 TrpocKvvelTu^ St. Epiphanius on Heresy 79, sedlion 7. See Treat's Catholic Faith, 
 pages 78-80 for more from St. Epiphanius Against the Worship of Mary. In 
 none of the Six Councils is there any worship of the Virgin. On the contrary 
 they anathematize all creature-worship, in anathematizing the Nestorian wor- 
 ship of Christ's mere humanity. 
 
 For surely if, by the voic« of the whole Church, every one is anathematized 
 who worships that mere separate humanity, which all admit to be the highest 
 of all mere created things, much more is every one anathematized who wor- 
 ships any creature inferior to that sinless humanity of Christ, be it the Virgin 
 Mary, or any saint, or angel, or any other creature animate or inanimate. 
 
 (439). Rev. xxii., 18, 19; Dent, iv., 2; xii., 32; Pro v. xxx., 6. Oh! what 
 
Reading of Celestine' s Epistle to Nestorius. 185 
 
 who adds to and him who takes away (440). Wherefore we have pre- 
 pared a cauterizing iron and a knife, because wounds which deserve 
 to be excised (441) are no longer to be treated with fomentations 
 (442). For we know that the greatest defects are always cured with 
 the greater pain and labor. Moreover, among many things, which, 
 preached impiously by thee, the Church in its entirety rejects (443), 
 we weep especially over the fact that those words which promise to 
 us the hope of all life and all salvation have been removed from the 
 Symbol (444) by thee. Thy Epistles tell the very reason why that 
 
 miseries the Church would have avoided had there been no innovation in doc- 
 trine, discipline, or rite. 
 
 (440). See note last above. 
 
 (441). ra rpavjua-a. 
 
 (442). Or, ^' deserve to have the knife applied to them,^^ cnrnKOTr^c «s'«. Or 
 the last part of this passage may be rendered, perhaps better, "because those 
 wounds which are not otherwise to be formentedy deserve therefore to be cut 
 away.'^ Does wound here mean tumor? 
 
 (443). Or, *^ the Church utterly rej'e^s ;'" a-rzep . . . y Ka^oAov aTztj&nrat 
 "EKKkrjaia. 
 
 (444). That is, the Creed. The Council in this First Act decides, as above, 
 that Nestorius' views were not reconcilable with those assertions of the Creed 
 that " very God out of very God * * * came down, and took flesh, and put 
 on a fnan, ' ' etc. ; and that Cyril of Alexandria's views do agree with it. 
 
 The Latin here as in column 475, tome 50, of Migne's Patrologia Latina^ 
 has " Sj^mbolo ab apostolis tradito," the Creed handed down fro^n the Apos- 
 tles,'" which seems to show that Celestine held to the legend that the Apostles 
 had made the shorter form of the Roman local Creed which became, in time, 
 spread over all the West, and in the increased and longer form remains in more 
 or less use there to this day. In a work on this point which I hope to get 
 money to publish by God's mercy, I have shown the utter untruth of the legend, 
 and to that on its publication I must refer the reader. That Creed was never 
 used in the East, and therefore the Bishops of the Synod to avoid approving the 
 local myth of Rome, changed this part of Celestine's letter to suit themselves as 
 they did other parts of it slightly; and, in their own form of it only, had it read 
 in the Council. The striking out of the allusion to the fable of the Apostles 
 having transmitted any Creed shows that they did not believe it. The myth 
 was as early as Rufinus in the fourth century, and we know not how long before 
 him; but it was alwa3^s peculiarly Western, and the Roman Creed in its shorter 
 form as mentioned by Rufinus in his work On the Apostolic Symbol has never 
 been received by the Orient as a Creed of the whole Church, nor has it ever 
 been used among any of the Greeks in any of their services. Of course, as most 
 of the Apostolic Sees are in the East, if the Apostles had made such a creed as 
 the legend asserts they did, those sees would have known it and preserved it. 
 The fact that they have never known it, and that when it first came to them in 
 this letter of Celestine they refused to translate his implied assertion of tlie 
 
186 Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 was done. Regarding those Epistles there is no doubt, for thou thy- 
 self didst send them. We have wished that they had not come to 
 our hands, for if they had not, we should not have been compelled 
 to judge regarding the form of so great and so abominable a crime 
 
 truth of the myth, and passed it by shows that they rejedled it. The truth is, 
 that short Creed was that of the ApostoUc See of Rome, whence, or because it 
 contains Apostolic dodlrine, it may have been called Apostolic and the Apos- 
 tles', but even in the Roman Church, and in the Church of England, it is not 
 the Eucharistic Creed; that supreme honor is given to the Creed of the Second 
 Ecumenical Synod in its altered and interpolated form. As to the shorter form 
 of the Roman Creed, and the steps of its gradual enlargement till about A. D. 
 750, when it took its present form, see Heurtley's Harmonia Symbolica, Creeds 
 of the Western Church (Oxford, 1858). Xystus, Celestine's successor, mentions 
 Nestorius as having taken away from ''the Creed at first haiided down among 
 the Apostles','' that is, as he shows, by denying the Incarnation asserted in it. 
 Acacius of Melitine, an Oriental, makes Nestorius deny the Incarnation as as- 
 serted in the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen. See these fa6ls men- 
 tioned on Xystus and Acacius, in note "a," col. 475, tome 50 of Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latina. The Council of Ephesus itself, however, makes no mention of 
 the so-called Apostles' Creed, but condemns him for not agreeing with the Creed 
 of the Three Hundred and Eighteen of Nicaea. We see from this, 
 
 1. That w^hatever Ecumenical authority any letter of any Bishop of Rome, 
 read in an Ecumenical Synod possesses, it possesses because of the agreement 
 of East and West in approving it in said Synod; and, 
 
 2. That unless that approval is expressed by said Synod, we must not take 
 it for granted that every thing in said letter is Ecumenically approved; though 
 it may still have Western approval or may not. 
 
 3. Sometimes such letters are so translated into Greek as to leave out cer- 
 tain notions of a Roman Bishop, as for instance, this letter of Celestine is so 
 rendered for the Council as to omit all reference to the Roman local tradition of 
 a Creed made by the Apostles. 
 
 There is, however, a statement in an Epistle of Celestine to the Third World- 
 Council which is so ambiguous that it may or may not be taken as in favor of 
 the worship of relics. We will treat of that in its proper place; and will only 
 remark here that the Synod guarded against the latter sense by forbidding all 
 worship of any creature animate or inanimate, and hence they forbade all relic- 
 worship. 
 
 No writer quoted in an Ecumenical Synod is to be considered as vouched for 
 by said Synod except so far as they expressly approve his utterances. For in- 
 stance, we must not suppose because Celestine's defence of the Incarnation was 
 approved by the Third Council, therefore his tyrannous and anti-Nicene course 
 in trying to usurp Appellate Jurisdi<5lion over North Africa was. In the Church 
 Jourftal of Nov. 30, 1870, and Dec. 7, 1870, I have shown how North Africa re- 
 sisted that usurpation, by appeahng to the authority of the Nicene Canons. 
 
Readbig of Celes tine's Epistle to Nestomcs. 187 
 
 (445). A short account of them has closed the ways of all thy 
 arguings; thou hast extended thyself very widely; and hast turned 
 •and twisted with many turns; but, nevertheless, at last, thou hast 
 reached, by diflferent roads, thy impious aim (446). We know what 
 
 (445). Cyril of Alexandria, as we shall see when we come to his Epistle 
 which has the Twelve Chapters, teaches that this Epistle of Celestine is that of 
 himself and his Synod of Rome. 
 
 Celestine and the Bishops of his Province, or Patriarchate, could judge Nes- 
 torius in the sense that Cyril and the Bishops of his Patriarchate judged him, 
 and as the Bishops of any other Patriarchate could have judged him, that is, 
 he gave his own i7idividual judgment, and his suffragans gave theirs, and it 
 was by the aggregate and e?itirety of such judgments, that Nestorius was pro- 
 claimed to be a heretic and was deposed and excommunicated. No one Bishop 
 -could usurp the power which Christ had put into the hands of all the Apostolic 
 -order. Celestine, in this very Epistle, shows that this was his own view, 
 although he was the first Bishop of the Universal Church; but, as the Easterns 
 held then and hold now, with no other jurisditlio7i over Constantinople than 
 Cyril of Alexandria, and every other Bishop had. For every Bishop has his 
 own peculiar jurisdidlion, with which no other Bishop can interfere except as 
 set down in the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Synods, which alone made 
 universal Canons. And according to those Canons Rome is limited to her own 
 jurisdidlion in Italy, unless an appeal be taken, as in Nestorius' case, to the 
 Church Universal; and then every Bishop gives his own vote, Rome with the 
 rest, and every local Synod gives its; and the majority of votes decides and set- 
 tles the question. We see this idea carried out at Ephesus where each Bishop 
 gives his own separate vote on the question whether Cyril's Epistle was in ac- 
 cordance with the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen or not, then on the 
 question of Nestorius' Epistle being in agreement with it or not; then the voice 
 of the chief city of the West is heard in this Epistle above, then that of Alex- 
 andria, then a further examination of Nestorius' writings is made, and then, 
 with representatives of the East and the West present, the vote is taken, and he 
 is deposed. It was therefore not the act of Rome alone but of all the Bishops 
 together. In other words, it was the act of the Universal Church, not of one 
 Bishop alone, deciding like an absolute monarch over the rest. So the Church 
 judges Peter in A6ts xi., and Peter and all the Apostles, not Peter alone, decide 
 in A6ls XV. 
 
 Cyril, moreover, and Celestine, speak, each in the name of his Province, 
 that is, his Patriarchate, in two letters above, that is, Celestine in the above to 
 Nestorius, and Cyril in his Epistle to Nestorius, which has the Twelve Anath- 
 emas, for each voices a Synod just held in his own jurisdielion. 
 
 (446). If any one thinks this language harsh, let him read the writings of 
 Nestorius himself and he will be convinced. Above all let him read his Man- 
 Worship, and his denial of the Incarnation on which it is based, and let him 
 remember his persistent maintenance of his soul-destroying heresies. 
 
188 ^<^i ^- of Ephesus, 
 
 (447) he has ordained who has commanded to fiee strifes and fight- 
 ings co?icerning the Law; for they are, says he, tmprofitable and vain 
 (448). What therefore is adjudged improfitable a7id vain, no one 
 doubts to be far from being an advantage. 
 
 [5]. Therefore, since also brother Cyril says that thou hast 
 been warned according to the usual method by two (449) Epistles, 
 in which he wishes thee to do that, know thou t hat after his first 
 
 (447). Coleti has here r/, Migne 6 tl. 
 
 (448). Titus iii., 9. 
 
 (449). That is the shorter one above voted on and approved in Act I. of 
 Ephesus and another written before it. The annotator in column 476, tome 50 
 of Migne's Patrologia Latina thinks that the reference here is to the three cita- 
 tions of an offending brother or Bishop in Matt, xviii., 15-18; and shows that 
 Cyril, m his long Epistle, translated below in Act I., which has the famous XII. 
 Chapters, unites his Synodal Epistle with the above of Celestine to form the 
 third citation. I quote the annotator: 
 
 " Cyril himself in compliance with that Epistle [above] of Celestine * ^ * 
 joins one of his own, meets Nestorius, and addresses him in the following 
 words: Behold therefore that together with the holy Synod which met in the 
 great city of the Romans, the Bishop, our most holy and most reverend brother 
 and Fellow-Minister Celestine, presiding [in it], we now, for the third time, 
 call thee to witness a?td entreat thee by this Letter, etc. That custom [of cita- 
 tion] rests on the precept of the Lord in Matthew xviii., 15, where diredlions 
 are given as to how a brother is to be tried, as Celestine himself sets forth in his 
 Epistle XXIV., Seaion 9." Then the annotator shows that in the Civil Law 
 also three summonses were sometimes used, and that they are commanded in 
 Church matters by Canon LXXV. of the Apostles so called. He adds, 
 
 ' ' But Celestine so follows custom in regard to that command of the law, as 
 to wish that the two Epistles of Cyril to Nestorius written before he [Nestorius] 
 was reported to the prelate of Rome should be reckoned as two monitions " [out 
 of the three]. Cyril, in consonance with Matt, xviii., 15 to 18, had gone to 
 him alone, so to speak, in his first letter; in his second had, so to speak, taken 
 with himself two or three more Egyptian brethren; and finally tells it to the 
 whole Church East and West, that is, to Rome in the Occident, to the Ortho- 
 dox of all the great Oriental Sees, and then, gathering up Celestine's authority 
 with his own makes in the name of the two chief Orthodox Sees West and East, 
 and their Synods his third summons to Nestorius; and when that failed to move 
 Nestorius, he makes his final appeal not to Rome but to an Ecumenical Council 
 in which Rome has such a position as Peter had in the gatherings at Jerusalem 
 in Adls xi. and xv., that is, she had one voice and one vote, as every other see 
 had, and no more; and as at Jerusalem in those gatherings each Apostle, that 
 is Bishop, expresses his own sentence and gives his vote freely, and the majority 
 of the votes decides and settles it, so it was at Ephesus. When an Orthodox 
 occupant is put into the see of Rome, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council is 
 gathered that mode of procedure will be followed again. 
 
Readi7ig of Celestme' s Bpistle to Nestorius. ISD 
 
 Epistle and his second Epistle and after this our censure, which is 
 therefore plainly the third warning, that thou art wholly shut out 
 from the assembly of our Co-sitters [as Bishops] (450), and from the 
 assembly of the Christians, unless thou straightway correct what 
 thou hast wickedly said, unless thou return to that Way which 
 Christ testifies that He Himself is (451). Thou hast wickedly and 
 hopelessly wielded arms against Him, though He formerly permitted 
 thee as a faithful and prjident servant to be over those of his household 
 (452). Thou hast lost the blessedness promised for such service 
 (453). For not only dost thou r).o\. give food in djie seasoji, but thou 
 even killest by poison those whom He purchased a7id gained by His 
 0W71 blood and by His own death (454). For poison is under thy lips, 
 those lips which we s^^ full of cursing ayid bitter?iess (455), when 
 thou attemptest to dispute against Him who is sweet and kind. 
 Where is thy diligence as a shepherd ? The good Shepherd layeth dowjt 
 his life for his own sheep, a7id he is but a hireli7ig ivho forsakes the7n a7id 
 gives them over to the wolves (456). And what wilt thou do therefore 
 (457) O Shepherd, for thou thyself, like a wolf, dost rend the Lord's 
 flock in pieces? Moreover, in what sort of enclosures can the Lord's 
 flock take refuge, since it is wounded within the enclosures of the 
 Church ? Or under what sort of guard will it be safe, when it suf- 
 fers by thee, a ravener (458) instead of a protedlor ? A7id other sheep 
 I have, says the Lord, ivhich are not of this sheepfold; tlmn also I must 
 bririg back (459). He promises to bri7ig other sheep; but thou hast 
 lost the sheep whom thou hadst. Though it is clear in regard to 
 such matters especially, as often as they happen, that the sheep are 
 not lost for the shepherds, but rather the shepherds for the sheep. 
 A7id they shall hear, He says, 7ny voice (460). Why ? That there may 
 
 (450). Txav-tKuq (nrb rrjg Tov cwedpiov Tjfioiv, kul r^f rwy XpiGTiavibv ovvoSov 
 
 (451). John xiv., 6. 
 
 (452). Matt, xxiv., 45. 
 
 (453). Matt, xxiv., 46. 
 
 (454). A(5ls XX., 28; Bph. i., 7; Col. i., 14; Rev. i., 5. 
 
 (455). Rom. hi., 13, 14. 
 
 (456). John X., 11-16. 
 
 (457). hravOa. The Latin translation gives "hie,'' here, for this, but it 
 seems not to make good sense here. So I have rendered it by " therefore.''' 
 
 (458). apiraya. This term means both 7'apacious, robber, and " a species of 
 wolf' (Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, sixth edition, Oxford). 
 
 (459)- John x., 16. I have rendered Karayayelv in this passage by bring- 
 back, because it has that meaning sometimes, but it may be rendered bri^ig. 
 But Coleti's text has here ayayelv, lead, or bring, instead of Karayayelv. 
 
 (460). John X., 16. 
 
190 Act I, of Ephesus. 
 
 be one flock (461). At His voice the flock becomes one; but at thine 
 it is injured and is scattered in flight Uke fugitives. 
 
 [6]. It is a hard thing that the words of the blessed Paul, taken 
 from the Adls of the Apostles, may be fitly used regarding thee: / 
 know, saith he, that after my departure grievous wolves shall come in 
 'against you, riot sparing the flock. Front you shall arise men speaking 
 perverse things to draw away the disciples after them, (462). We 
 would that those words were said by thee in regard to others, rather 
 than that they were applied by others to thee. For these very 
 things which we say should have been taught by thee, not learned 
 by thee. For who endures the thought that a Bishop is to be taught 
 how he ought to be a Christian? Diligently consider to what sort of a 
 heresy (463) thou hast been called. Thou art reproved, thou art ac- 
 cused, thou art brought to trial (464) . Which of these things befits 
 a Priest (465) ? It is a hard answer, if it be indeed any defence, that 
 thou vindicatest and avengest thy blasphemies with hard words. Dost 
 thou suppose that we will spare thee when thou thyself dost not 
 spare thine own soul, for thou wishest to take away the benefit of 
 salvation from all those before us, from all those now existing (466) 
 and from all those who will be. It is plain that I am following up 
 as a faithful servant, the enemies of my good Lord; for the prophet 
 says that he hates them with a perfect hatred (467). I remember, 
 moreover, that another says that / may 7iot spare (468). To whom 
 shall I have respect, or whose honor shall I guard, when I see thee 
 doing what thou canst to take away from me the basis of all my 
 hope ? There are words of the Lord Himself in the Gospel, in which 
 he says, that 7ieither father, nor i?iother, nor children, nor any kindred 
 ought be preferred to Him (469). For there is often such piety as 
 
 (461). John X., 16. Coleti adds here elf Tro^/^^yy, "■one shepherd,''' as at the 
 end of that verse. 
 
 (462). A(5ls XX., 29, 30. 
 
 (463). alpeaiv. The Latin original has '' conditionem,^' that is, condition. 
 At least I take it to be the original ledlion. If it was, the translators seem to 
 have purposely substituted a word of diflferent meaning for it in Greek. 
 
 (464). TTpoKoXy, 6iaiid7CXri liarijyojyij. This may be rendered, "Thou chal- 
 lengest, thou accusest, thou speakest against" [others]. But the Latin render- 
 ing in the parallel column in Migne best agrees with the text above. 
 
 (465). Th.a.t is a. hierev,t\ia.t IS, sl herv. The Greek is tfpeZ. It is often used 
 of a Bishop as being a priest in a high sense, for every layman is a priest in a 
 lower sense, I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. i., 6. See note 491, below. 
 
 (466). Migne's edition here adds that, "the words all those now existing, 
 are not in [certain ?] manuscripts. ' ' 
 
 (467). Psalm cxxxix., 22. 
 
 (468). Deut. xiii., 8; I. Sam. xv., 3, 
 
 (469). Matt. X., 34-38; xix., 29; Luke xiv., 33. 
 
Reading of Celestijie' s Epistle to Nestorius. 191 
 
 produces impiety when the fleshly relationship prevails, and bodily 
 love is deemed preferable to that Love who is God (470), for the 
 sake of which bodily love we often honor certain persons. But 
 when that bodily love is against Him who is Love itself, then there 
 is a necessity that we should cast out those considerations (471) also, 
 for the Author of all such relationships of kindred is called into the 
 case. 
 
 [7]. Awake out of sleep at last. For those vigils which thou 
 devotest not to guarding but to ravening are not to be called vigils. 
 We would that thou hadst been asleep in regard to that which thou 
 preachest, and hadst been [really] awake [and intelligent] in regard to. 
 what thou warnest against. But what shall (472) I say ? It would 
 have been more endurable to us, if thou hadst been asleep m regard 
 to both. [In that case] thou wouldst have destroyed no one; thou 
 wouldst have gained no one. The Church would not have been sad- 
 dened by any loss of souls; she would not have rejoiced at any gam. 
 It would have sufRced her if thou hadst given her back to her own 
 Bridegroom as thou hadst received her. But why do I dwell on 
 these matters at length, when the master-builder Paul says that I 
 seek in vain anything built up by thee on the foundation, when I 
 see not the (473) foundation in thee (474). I hear that the clerics, 
 who hold the universal faith (47 s), with whom we are in commun- 
 
 (470). John iv., 8. 
 
 (471). That is, we should lay aside all such considerations as earthly love, 
 etc. , when we deal with what concerns God. 
 
 (472). Literally, *' What do I say .? " T/ 61 Uyu>. 
 
 (473). Or, ''afomtdation,'' QeixfktQv, without the article. But the refer- 
 ence is probably to Christ the one foundation (I. Cor. iii., 11), to whom in the 
 sound sense Nestorius did not hold. For he denied his Incarnation, as his own 
 writings show, and he served by bowing His separate humanity as his own writ- 
 ings, quoted by Cyril of Alexandria, prove, against Christ's own edict, that we 
 must bow to the Lord our God and serve him alqnB (Matt, iv., 10, and Luke- 
 iv., 8), an utterance quoted by Cyril against him so often. 
 (474). See the last note above. 
 
 (475). Tovq Ka&o-ALKuq <ppovovvTaq, literally, ''those thinking universally.'' 
 Celestine's Latin, as in the corresponding column in Migne's Patrologia Latina, 
 tome 50, col. 479, has " cathoUce sentientes," which he meant in the sense of 
 '^thinking orthodoxicallyr for the Latins, and many Westerns have been wont 
 to use caiholice, Catholically, in the sense of Orthodoxically, as they often use 
 Catholic in the sense of Orthodox, for they do not always adhere to its original 
 sense of universal. But the use of Catholic for Orthodox, as has been said be- 
 fore, is Western and local for the most part or always, for the Greek theologians 
 have always been prone to stick to the literal and exact use of the original terms, 
 which are a part of their own tongue; that is to say, they have used Kado-kcKuq m 
 the sense of universally, and /ca^oZ^K-.) in the sense of Universal, so that they 
 
192 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ion, endure the greatest violence, so that it is said that they have 
 even been shut out from the city (476). We rejoice because they 
 have gained the prize which belongs to those who have made the 
 good confession; but we grieve because their persecutor is a Bishop. 
 The blessed Apostle Paul was changed from being a persecutor into 
 being a preacher; but now, O greatest impiety! to have been changed 
 from being a preacher into being a persecutor! Number up the 
 former heretics who brought such questions into the Church. Who 
 [of them] at any time as yet has returned (477) vi(5lorious from such 
 a strife ? Thou hast an example in the case of thine own city (478). 
 Paul of Samosata got possession of the Church of the Antiochians 
 and was over it, but when he was preaching certain errors, he gath- 
 ered the harvest of his own sowings (479). The same firm sentence 
 
 have not generally been wont to call a man a Catholic, because that would be 
 calHng him a Universal which, if taken literally, would be untrue, for no man 
 is a Universal; but they called a man Orthodox bpOodo^o^, that is, of right opin- 
 ion, and the Church and the faith Ufiiversal, that is, in Greek, na&olLKi]. 
 
 (476). That is, Constantinople. For Nestorius persecuted the Orthodox 
 because they would not agree to his denial of the cardinal and fundamental 
 truth of the Incarnation, and because they would not agree to his Man-Sei-vice 
 in bowing to the mere separate Man put on by God the Word. He used the 
 same vigor towards them so long as he had the power, as he did towards the 
 heretics. See on the latter point, Socrates' Eccl. Hist., Book VII , Chapters 29 
 and 31. It would have been a sad thing for Cyril of Alexandria and the Ortho- 
 dox had they fallen into his clutches. But though the Emperor and some or 
 most of his court favored Nestorius, and though Cyril and Memnon were im- 
 prisoned or held in durance at Ephesus for a time, nevertheless, God, at last, 
 delivered them and the faith out of that peril. 
 
 (477)- Or, " come off, " dv£;i;w/o;i?(Tev. 
 
 (478). Nestorius was originally of Antioch, in the sense of being made 
 presbyter there, and winning his first fame as a preacher there. According to 
 Socrates, he was a native of Germanicia which in McClintock and Strong's 
 Cyclopaedia (article, "Nestorius") is put down as in Northern Syria, and in a 
 note on Chap. 29, of Book VII. of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Bohn's edi- 
 tion, it is said to be in Cilicia, "on the Western border of Syria." 
 
 (479)- Paul of Samosata, seems according to the account of him given by 
 Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book VII., Chapters 27 to 31, and according to 
 others, to have denied the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, to have made 
 Christ therefore a mere inspired Man, as Nestorius after him did, and like him 
 to have worshipped him, but he held, however, that he had been deified. He 
 was proud, immoral, and crafty, but was finally stript of his disguises, and de- 
 posed and excommunicated at a council of Antioch held A. D. 269, or 270. See 
 on him and his heresy the article Samosateiies in Blunt's DiBionary of Se5ls. 
 Their baptism is rejedled in Canon XIX. of the First Ecumenical Council and, 
 in effect, in Canon VII. of the Second. On it more anon. 
 
Reading of Celestine' s Epistle to Nestor ins. 193 
 
 always overthrew the rest of the inventors of evil things who had 
 possession of the Churches. 
 
 [8]. And furthermore, in relation to those heretics, regarding 
 whom thou, as not knowing [thyself] the matters concerning them, 
 hast w^ished to ask us (480), [we would say that] a righteous con- 
 demnation and decision has thrust them out from their own thrones, 
 on the ground of their having spoken unrighteous things, but we 
 do not wonder that they have found rest there (481); for they found 
 impious preaching, in comparison with which they deemed them- 
 selves innocent. At this point, inasmuch as the proper time to speak 
 has demanded it, we can not be silent in regard to that at which we 
 are amazed. We have read how thou believest well in regard to 
 original sin (482), and how thou showest that our nature itself is 
 whelmed in debt (483), and that thou rightly imputest that (484) 
 debt to him who is descended from the race of the debtor (485). What 
 are those who have been condemned for denying those truths doing 
 with thee ? Things which contradict each other are never in agree- 
 ment with each other without suspicion being excited. Moreover, 
 they would have been expelled if they had been similarly displeas- 
 ing to thee also. Furthermore, why do ye now search for the 
 Acftions against them, when it is clear that the Minutes [of those 
 
 (480). The reference is to the Pelagian Bishops, Julian of Eclanum, Florus, 
 Orontius, and Fabius, who after being justly deposed in the West, fled to the 
 East for help and were then at Constantinople seeking aid from the first see of 
 the Orient, and the second in the whole Church. Nestorius gives their names 
 in his first Epistle to Celestine, and refers to their case in his second Letter 
 to him, 
 
 (481). That is, at Constantinople. 
 
 (482). That is, birth-sin, which some Greeks call ancestral or forefather s 
 sin, TTpoTzaropiKov dfidpTT]jj.a. 
 
 (483), This the Pelagians denied. 
 
 (484). Coleti has tovto . . . to xp^og, but Migne's text has tovtov for the 
 
 TOilTO. 
 
 (485). This the Pelagians reje<5led. Nestorius in professing thus his faith 
 seemed to be sound, but his adlions belied his professions, for he entertained 
 men who had already been deposed in the West for denying those tenets of 
 Orthodoxy. Rev. T. W. Davids, in his article, '' fuliamis of Edana,'' in 
 Smith and Wace's DiHionary of Christian Biography, states that ''he [that is 
 Julian] with other Pelagians seem to have accompanied Nestorius to the convent 
 of Ephestis, A. D. 431, and took part in the * Concitiabulum,^ which was held 
 by Joannes of Antioch {Relat. ad Coel. in Mansi, IV., 1334). The reading 
 * Thessalia ' is a clerical error for * Italia ' (Noris, Opp. I., 361, 363). Baronius 
 {s. a. 431, LXXIX) infers from a passage in one of the letters of Gregory the Great 
 (lib. IX., ind. II. ep. 49 \nPat. Lat., * * * LXXVII., 981), that the 'Concilia^ 
 
194 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 A(5lions] were sent thence (486) to us by the then Bishop, the Cathohc 
 (487) Atticus. Why did not Sisinnius of holy memory have to seek 
 for them ? Undoubtedly because he approved of the righteous con- 
 demnation of those [heretics] by his predecessor. I^et those wretched 
 men weep that they have failed of their hope in men, for they cart 
 
 bulmn' absolved Julian and his friends, but Cardinal Noris (Opp. I., 362) has. 
 exposed his error. The Council in their Synodical Letter to Celestine declare 
 their approval of all that had previously been done in the case of the Pelagians, 
 and repeat their condemnation, expressly mentioning Julianus by name {Relat.. 
 U.S.; Mar. Merc. Nestor. Tract, praef. 2]." The Report of the Ecumenical 
 Synod will be found further on translated by me. By "cofive?ii'' above I presume 
 that Davids means ''gathering,'' if it is not a typographical error for ''Council.'^ 
 Another thing bears on this matter as to Nestorius' sympathy with the 
 Pelagians. 
 
 John Henry Blunt, himself not sound on creature-service, in the article on 
 the ''Pelagians''' in h.\& DiBionary 0/ SeBs, Heresies, etc., writes that "Theo- 
 dore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, * * * appears * * ^ before his death to- 
 have inclined to Pelagian views, and to have been the author of a book, of which 
 an abstract is given by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople [A. D. 858-891], 
 entitled, ' Against them that say men sin by nature and not by will,' and from 
 a careful analysis of whose system Neander proves its identity in many points, 
 with Pelagianism [Vol. IV., 420-427]." His pupil, Nestorius, might naturally 
 sympathize, to a greater or less extent, with his teacher's errors on that point as 
 on others. And judging from Celestine's account of his actions, there is too 
 much reason to believe that he did, and if Julian did really sit in the Nestorian 
 Conciliabulum at Ephesus, as David thinks, it has a bad look for Nestorius' own 
 Orthodoxy on Pelagianism. And it should be remembered that it occurred after 
 the above warning of Celestine. 
 (486). From Constantinople. 
 
 (487). Trapa tov tote tTnaKOTTov rov Kado/icKov "Attlkov. The Latin in the parallel 
 column in Migne is " a catholico tunc antistite Attico." Celestine evidently- 
 used Catholico in the local Western sense of Orthodox, but it was rendered lit- 
 erally for some reason into Greek. Celestine, who was resisted by Augustine of 
 Hippo, and by what we may term the Patriarchal Synod of Latin Africa, for his 
 uncanonical attempts to obtain the power of Appellate Jurisdidlion over the said 
 Patriarchate, would, naturally, some might suppose, feel a little jealousy, as 
 some think his successors did of the great see of Constantinople, and might not 
 be disposed to call one of its Bishops "universal" in any sense. Was this ex- 
 pression "universal" so understood by the Orientals of Constantinople as after, 
 wards to furnish a sort of precedent for that unscriptural and abhorrent title of 
 " Universal Bishop," which was afterwards applied to the Bishop of that see by 
 some Orientals, as Ecumenical Patriarch is now? The whole West was one 
 with Rome in opposing both, and will ever so oppose. Augustine's letter to 
 Celestine and that of the Council of Latin Africa are in tome 50 of Migne's 
 Patrologia Latina ; col. 417-427. I have translated them., one in the Church 
 
Reading of Celestine' s Epistle to Nestorius. 195 
 
 be aided towards communion only (488), by changing their minds. 
 Lo! thou hast begun to learn in regard to them, if thou wast ignor- 
 ant in any respect before. 
 
 [9]. But heal by a Catholic (489) and rapid refledlion, thy 
 own wound rather than that of others, for we say to thee appositely. 
 Physician heal thyself (490), thou who aimest to help others. The 
 charadler of thy disease neither admits nor permits the granting of 
 delay. We have held and do hold the tried and approved faith of 
 the Priest (491) of the Church of the Alexandrians (492). And do 
 
 Jotirnal of New York City, for Nov. 30, 1870, and the other in its issue for Dec. 
 7, 1884. The letter of the Council of Latin Africa to Celestine and the African 
 Code in which it stands were adopted by the Trullan Synod of A. D., 691, or 
 692, and are now part of the Canon Law of the Greek Church. 
 
 (488). The Greek here as in Migne's Patrologia Latina^ tome 50, col. 481, 
 has oi nveq t\q fiovrjv ttjv KOivtoviav 6ia iieravolaq (SoT/deladai TjdvvavTo. The Latin is 
 somewhat different, for it reads, quibus jam potuit propter communionem sola 
 penitentia subvenire. According to the Greek it looks as though the deposed 
 Pelagians could never get back their episcopal dignity again; according to the 
 Latin, the sense is that they could be admitted to communion " dy repentance 
 alone, '^ where nothing is said of its being impossible to reach the episcopate 
 finally. But the author of note "h," in the above specified column of Migne, 
 states in effect that the sense is the same because a penitent could not be made 
 a Bishop. He refers in the same note to Prosper, to Augustine, to Innocent and 
 to Zosimus. The heretics named above had for years been persistently troubling 
 the Church, and the feeling of the Orthodox was strong against them. 
 • They had made the Appeal to the Church Distributed, that is, to the great 
 sees East and West and had been condemned, and were soon to be condemned 
 by the whole Church together in the Third Ecumenical Council. But they came 
 to it with no such strong backing as Nestorius had, for the bulk of the Patriarch- 
 ate of Antioch was at his back and so were the majority of the Bishops of 
 Syrian race and nationality. 
 
 (489). Kado7uKy . . . (TK€fei. Here KadoTuKti is to be taken in the sense of 
 Orthodox, or less probably in the sense oi universal, that is, a refle6lion on one's 
 whole ways. The Latin here is "(r(2M<?/zVa * * * deliberatione ;^^ Q^lesim^ 
 using ' * Catholica ' ' in the sense of Orthodox ; as the Latins then did. 
 
 (490). Luke iv., 23. 
 
 (491). rov lEpeog. Inasmuch as every Christian is a Priest (I. Peter ii., 5, 9; 
 Rev. i. , 6), a Bishop must be a Priest also, or else he is not even a Christian and 
 is less than the Christian people. He is a Priest in an excellent sense, because 
 he exercises the functions of that part of the Universal Priesthood of Christians, 
 to which belong the peculiar prerogatives of the Apostolate, that is, the su- 
 preme spiritual sway over the other, the lower orders of the ministry, and over 
 the people, and the supreme control over all the temporalities of the Church as 
 laid down in the New Testament. Just as, under the Mosaic dispensation, all 
 
196 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 thou who hast been admonished by him, again hold the same opin- 
 ions as we do, if indeed, O brother, thou wishest to be among us 
 (493). If therefore understanding has been given thee, condemn all 
 the errors which up to the present time thou hast held, and straight- 
 way preach, as we wish, those truths which thou seest him preach- 
 ing. For we (494) endure beyond what is fitting that even the 
 Priests (495) should be allowed to correct themselves; but as we 
 show care for them, by warning them at first after the Church's 
 method (496), so if they abuse that sound admonition, it will be a 
 
 the people of Israel are called "a Kingdom of Priests'' (Exod. xix., 6), and yet 
 the Sons of Aaron were priests in a higher sense than the rest of their people, 
 because certain fundlions in that priesthood were /<?a^//ar to them, as laid down 
 in their Law, which fundlions God vindicated for them and for order and disci- 
 pline against Korah, Dathan and Abiram, who attempted to usurp them. See 
 the sixteenth chapter of Numbers. So God has vindicated the peculiar rights 
 of his God-alone-invoking Apostles and Bishops again and again. But these 
 fundlions do not belong to heretical and idolatrous Bishops. 
 
 The term priest is often applied to the Bishops especially^ in the early 
 writers, though it is applied also to Presbyters, that is Elders, for they, of 
 course, as being Christians 2s^ priests also, priests that is in a higher sense than 
 the Deacons, or the Christian people, because they have higher fundlions than 
 they have, but they are priests in a lower sense than the Bishops because their 
 fundlions are not so exalted as theirs. The term priest is applied in all liturgies 
 to the Presbyter in an eminent sense as leading the devotions and the offerings 
 of his priestly people. 
 
 (492). Cyril of Alexandria. 
 
 (493). Or, ^* with us,'' [itO' ijiiibv. 
 
 (494). Celestine is speaking as the representative of the Orthodox part of 
 the Church, West and East on this matter, as its first Bishop, or as the repre- 
 sentative of the Roman Council of August, 430, for this letter is dated August 
 II, 430, like the other Synodal letters. See a note below on them. 
 
 (495). See what is said on this word priest, in the last note but three above. 
 
 (496). Coleti, " were caring, " f©^ov-tCo//ev, but Migne has fpovui^ofXEv. The 
 Church method is in effect laid down by Christ himself in Matthew xviii., 15-19. 
 This method of discipline is set forth by the Master to be used by the Apostles 
 alone and the Bishops their successors. For it was said by Him to the Twelve 
 only. See in proof this passage in Robinson's English Harmony of the Gospels, 
 Se^ion /p, and especially the parallel olace there, Mark ix., 35. And it was 
 from the beginning applied only to that order, as in this dodlrinal struggle be- 
 tween Cyril of Alexandria the original rebuker, and Nestorius of Constantinople 
 the rebuked, who after the third of the three steps, tha^ is, the telling the mat- 
 ter to the whole Church, at Ephesus became by its just decree, ^^ as a heathen 
 inan and a publican" to it (Matt, xviii., 17). The sentence of binding there 
 given against this apostate denier of the Inman and Man-Server, and therefore 
 creature-server, if he never repented, remains ratified in heaven (Matt, xviii., 18). 
 
Reading of Celes tine's Epistle to Nes tortus. 197 
 
 necessity for us to confirm the sentence of condemnation against 
 them (497). But that [corredlion of a Priest by himself] will take 
 place, when thou shalt have condemned thy base do<5lrine, when 
 thou shalt have given a testimony full of corredlion [of thy errors], 
 and if all those shall have been recalled to the Church, who, it is 
 clear, have been excluded from it on account of the Anointed One 
 (498), who is its Head (499)- I^et them all be recalled. If what 
 we say is not done in regard to them, he (500) must be cast out who 
 has cast out, especially because those against whom such a man as 
 thou hast appearedst (501), are certainly in our communion. 
 
 [10]. And, as the necessity has demanded, we have sent letters 
 [502] to the clergy of the Church which is at Constantinople and to 
 
 But we must remember that the third step was by Christ's order in Matt, xviii., 
 15-18, to tell it to the whole Church, that is, to the whole Church Teaching, the 
 Apostolate, not to Peter's Western see only. And that Cyril did at Ephesus, 
 and they gave the supreme and final decision, not Celestine. 
 
 (497). Alexandria had already condemned Nestorius, and so were minded 
 the Orthodox in that East of which Cyril was the chief Orthodox Bishop after 
 Nestorius' fall. Rome as the then head of the West now adds her vote against 
 him that the condemnation may be seen to be universal. And, as Cyril shows, 
 in his letter that has the XII. Anathemas, the Roman Synod's A(5lion is voiced 
 in Celestine's letter above. Yet though Celestine had spoken, nevertheless no 
 Eastern, and indeed so far as appears, no Western deemed the case to be decided 
 till the Ecumenical Council had spoken at Ephesus. 
 
 (498). Greek, 6ta rov Xpiarov. 
 
 (499). Eph. i., 22; iv., 15; v., 23; Col. i., 18; and ii., 19. 
 
 (500). Nestorius. 
 
 (501). Coleti has here cj^^?7f, thou appearedst, Migne w«/»^^, he appeared. 
 According to the last reading we must render, "especially because those 
 against whom such a man as he has appeared are in our communion." 
 
 (502). Or, "a letter," ypdfiiiara. The above letter is Synodal as St. Cyril 
 testifies in his long letter which has the XII. famous and glorious Chapters 
 and which follows this. It is in response to the Appeal made, not to Rome alone 
 but to the whole Church East and West distributed in its great Diocesan sees, 
 and in its great Diocesan Councils. When we come to the opening of the Third 
 Ecumenical Council we shall find that of the great Diocesan sees of the Eastern 
 Empire, the following had taken the Orthodox side as against Nestorian errors. 
 
 1. Alexandria, the head of the Egyptian Diocese, represented by St. Cyril 
 and his Bishops. He had written most largely of all before the Third Synod, 
 in his three Letters to Nestorius, one of them Synodal, and in his Five Book 
 ContradiHion of Nestorius' Blasphemies. 
 
 2. Ephesus, the head of the Asian Diocese, represented by Memnon and 
 his Bishops. 
 
198 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 all who are marked [503] with the name of the Anointed One [504], 
 in order that if thou continue in the obstinacy of thy perverted argu- 
 ing and dost not preach those very things which brother Cyril 
 preacheth with us, they may learn that thou hast been separated from 
 
 3. Caesarea, the head of the Pontic Diocese, represented by Firmus and his 
 Bishops. 
 
 The other two Dioceses of which, with the three above, the Eastern Empire 
 was composed, were: 
 
 4. Thrace, the head see of which was Constantinople, the Bishop of which, 
 Nestorius, was on trial. As his heresy met with opposition there as soon as it 
 was broached, and the Bishops and people were warned, Nestorius' following 
 from it was very small. 
 
 5. The Diocese of Syria, which was called the Diocese of the East, where 
 the controversy had risen, was almost wholly on Nestorius' side. Its chief pre- 
 late, John of Antioch, and its two chief scholars, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 
 and Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, voiced in writings their hostility to Cyril and 
 to Orthodoxy before the Third Council met. 
 
 In the Western Empire, according to Bingham's Division in his Antiquities 
 of the Christian Church, Book IX., Chapter I., Sedtions 4, 5 and 6, there were 
 eight Dioceses, four of which, Britain, Gaul, Spain, and Africa, for their pagan- 
 izings, were at this time hard beset by invading hordes of pagans as in Britain, 
 and by Arians in the case of the other three. Besides, at this time, parts of 
 Britain were still heathen. Of the other four Western Dioceses, 
 
 1. Rome, with its sway in Italy, took the Orthodox side in its Council of 
 A. D. 430, in which Celestine presided, and from which the above and other 
 letters emanated by Celestine. 
 
 2. Africa was represented by a Deacon only, Besula, with an Epistle from 
 its Patriarch, Capreolus of Carthage, its head, and took the Orthodox side. 
 
 3. The Diocese of Macedonia, followed Orthodoxy. 
 
 4. The Diocese of Dacia was weaker, and we shall find how it was repre- 
 sented further on. 
 
 None of those letters or writings before the Council, Cyril's, Celestine's, 
 Capreolus', John of Antioch's, or any writings of Theodoret or Andrew, or of 
 any other, finally settled the question. That was finally and forever to be 
 decided by the Third Ecumenical Council. Nevertheless, as it is of interest to 
 know what the chief sees and their Councils did, I have mentioned and the 
 A6ls of Ephesus tell us much of the part played by Cyril and by Nestorius. 
 And I here summarize the correspondence on the Nestorian controversy which 
 is found among Celestine's Epistles in tome 50 of Migne's Patrologia Latina, 
 columns 437-558. 
 
 First come two letters of Nestorius to Celestine. They give his own warped 
 side of the controversy. As Celestine replied to them on Aug. 11, 430, after 
 slow work, as he testifies in Section 2 of his answer, in translating his Greek 
 into Latin they must have been some time before that. Indeed they had been 
 
Reading of Celestine' s Epistle to Nestorius, 199 
 
 our college [of bishops], with whom thou canst have no communion, 
 and that when they learn that, they may thereafter be unshaken 
 by thy [evil] example, and may know how they ought to provide for 
 their own souls by a well matured and w^ell digested judgment (505)- 
 
 presented, as St. Cyril testifies, before his own Letter to Celestine which, accord- 
 ing to a note in column 447 of that tome of Migne, was written about the 
 middle of A. D. 430. That letter of Cyril next follows and gives the Orthodox 
 side of the question as does Cyril's Commonitory to his deacon Posidonius, 
 which follows it, whom he sent to Rome with his Epistle to Celestine, and 
 ^^ tomes containing the heads of Nestorius' blasphemies,'' as Cyril words it at 
 the end of his Commonitory. Next comes a Fragment of a Sermon delivered 
 in a Roman Council, probably, as the article " Rome (Concile de) Pan 431 " in 
 Migne 's Di5lionnaire des Conciles, states, in the Synod there held in August of 
 that year, where the documents pertaining to the Nestorian controversy were 
 examined and Nestorius was condemned and Cyril approved. 
 
 On August II, 430, the letters were written to all the chief sees of the East, 
 and probably to those of the West, and so through them, as Celestine words it 
 above, ''to all who are marked with the name of the A7iointed One.'' The 
 letters were Synodal, for they emanated from that Council of Rome, but as 
 Cyril's long letter to Nestorius, which has the XII. Chapters, is Synodal and is 
 often so termed, while it is also often called Cyril's without any mention of his 
 Council, so the Epistles emanating from that Roman Council of A. D. 430, are 
 sometimes mentioned as Conciliar, sometimes as Celestine's, as a writer ex- 
 plains in note **a," column 465, tome 50, of Migne's Patrologia Latina. One 
 of those Epistles next follows, and is addressed by Celestine to Cyril of Alexan- 
 dria, and is strong against Nestqrius for his heresies and at the end pronounces 
 excommunication against him unless he repent and profess the faith held 
 by the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the whole Church. It is dated August 
 II, 430- 
 
 It is followed by an Epistle " to John" of Antioch; or, according to the Latin 
 heading, to John [of Antioch], Juvenal [of Jerusalem], Rufus [of Thessalonica], 
 and Flavian [of Philippi] . The Greek heading has ''tofohn " only. But there 
 is no discrepancy here; for it is merely a copy of a letter which was sent to each 
 of the aforesaid separately. At the end Celestine states that he had written to 
 Cyril of Alexandria that unless Nestorius, within ten days after his reception of 
 the warning, condemned his sacrilegious preachings on Christ's birth, and pro- 
 fessed the faith held to by the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the whole Church, 
 he was to be removed from the assembly of the Bishops. It was dated August 
 II, 430. Next comes the above one of Celestine to Nestorius, of Aug. 11, 430. 
 Next, in Migne's edition, comes an Epistle of Celestine to the clergy and the 
 people of Constantinople. It is also dated August 11, 430. It exhorts them to 
 stand fast against Nestorius' errors, declares that he regards Nestorius' deposi- 
 tions and excommunications of the Orthodox to be void, announces that he 
 (Celestine) had made Cyril of Alexandria his place-holder, and then informs 
 them of the sentence of deposition pronounced against Nestorius unless he 
 
200 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [i i]. Know therefore, clearly, that our sentence is this, namely, 
 that unless thou preach those very do(5lrines concerning our God 
 Anointed (506), which both the Church of the Romans, and the 
 Church of the Alexandrians, and all the Universal (507) Church 
 holds fast, and as the holy Church in the great city of Constantine 
 
 renounce his errors against the faith of the Roman, the Alexandrian, and the 
 whole Church, and of the Church of Constantinople up to Nestorius' time. Next 
 comes a letter of Nestorius to Celestine in which he explains his views on the 
 terms Qzotoko^, that is, Bringer Forth of God, XpioToroKoc, Bringer Forth of the 
 Anointed One, and avOpuTtoTdKog, Bringer Forth of a Man. It is a weak letter 
 and contains no renunciation of his heresies on the Incarnation and on Man- 
 Service. According to note "d," column 499, tome 50 of Milne's Patrologia 
 Latina, it was written about the end of November, A. D. 430. Then comes a 
 letter of Celestine to Cyril which was written May 7, A. D. 431. Celestine 
 advises him to offer pardon or indulgence to Nestorius if he would correct him- 
 self, so that if he proved obstinate he might be regarded as the author of his 
 own ruin, and asks him to proceed with very much caution regarding him and 
 the suspects. The next is a Commonitory of Celestine to his legates to the 
 Council of Ephesus as to how they should act. It is dated May 8, 431. The 
 next Epistle is one of Celestine to the Third Ecumenical Council, which bears 
 date May 8, 431. It will be found in the A6ts further on. Next comes a letter 
 of Celestine to the Emperor Theodosius. It is dated May 15, 431. It urges him 
 to permit no novelties in religion, and to put the care of the faith before that 
 of the Empire. Then follows a Report of the Synod of Ephesus to Celestine, 
 which we will give further on in English. It gives an account of their Actions. 
 Next comes an Epistle of Celestine to the Council after the deposition of 
 Nestorius. It is dated March 15, 432. It apprpves the deposition of the here- 
 siarch and the putting of Maximian into his place. It urges that Nestorius be 
 sent far away from Antioch, and that unless John of Antioch and his other sym- 
 pathizers repented and condemned their errors, they be deposed; but if they 
 became Orthodox they were to be pardoned. Next comes Celestine's Epistle to 
 the Emperor Theodosius II. , in which he praises him for helping the Church 
 against its Nestorian enemies, praises the eledlion of Maximian to the see of 
 Constantinople, and asks that Nestorius be removed from troubling the Church. 
 This letter was written March 15, 432. Then comes Celestine's Epistle to 
 Maximian, Bishop of Constantinople, written after the Third Ecumenical 
 Council, March 15, 432. He expresses his joy at his ordination, urges him to- 
 repair the damage done to the Church of Constantinople by Nestorius, and to 
 watch against Pelagian errors. Finally comes a letter of Celestine, dated also 
 March 15, 432, addressed to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, in which he 
 denounces the false docSlrine, obstinacy and pride of Nestorius, and shows that 
 his condemnation was just, professes his zeal for the Constantinopolitans and 
 commends their firmness in the faith, and praises their new Bishop Maximian. 
 We must praise Celestine and his local Roman or Italian Council for the 
 support given by him and them to St. Cyril and the Orthodox, though he was 
 vastly below St. Cyril as a theologian and in grasp of all the matters involved 
 
Reading of Celestine' s Epistle to Nestoritcs. 201 
 
 (508) very well (509) held fast until thee, and unless within the tenth 
 day reckoned from the time that this admonition comes to thy 
 knowledge, thou put away by a clear and written confession that 
 unbelieving novelty and innovation of thine which attempts to sepa- 
 rate the very things which the Holy Scripture joins together, thou 
 
 in the controversy; but we must blame him for his tyrannous course in trying^ 
 contrary to the Canons of Nicaea, to usurp under local Sardican Canons falsely 
 adduced as those of Nicaea, Appellate Jurisdidlion in the Diocese of Africa, of 
 which Carthage was the chief see. How nobly Augustine of Hippo resisted 
 him and his claim, and how he besought him not to subjugate the Africans by 
 the aid of the secular powers which were at his disposal, is told in Augustine's 
 Epistle to him in columns 417-422, tome 50 of Migne's Patrologia Latina; and 
 how firmly and grandly Aurelius of Carthage and the Council of the African 
 Diocese withstood his arrogance and attempt at usurpation is told in their Epistle 
 to Cclestine, in columns 422-427, and in their Canons which forbade such Auti- 
 Nicene Appeals to Rome, under pain of deprivation of communion to the 
 appellant. They are found in English with other matter connected with them 
 in The Church Journal of New York City, for 1870, Aug. 10, Aug. 17, Aug. 31, 
 Sept. 7, Nov. 30, and Dec. 7. God willing, they will appear in a future volume 
 of Nicaea in this set. 
 
 (503). Do Celestine and his Synod use the above expression as a general 
 appellation for a Christian, or for the signing with the cross the candidate in the 
 initiatory rites ? Of the signing the forehead of the catechumen, or the bap- 
 tized infant with the sign of the cross, as in the Church of England Baptismal 
 Ofi&ces, I hope to treat more fully either in the Appendix at the end of Act I. of 
 this Council, or elsewhere on the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, in 
 a note too long to be inserted here. The Greek is rovq eTri-ypacpofihovg to tov Xpi- 
 GTov dvo/j.a. The Latin, as in the parallel column in tome 50 of Migne's Patro. 
 logia Latina (col. 483), is "qui censentur nomine Christiano," which is deemed 
 the original, which means *' who are reckoned under the Christian name.''' In 
 Harpers' Latin Di^ionary of 1882, under Censeo, I., B. d., end, I find it trans- 
 lated ''marked'''' once, though that sense is rare for it. Besides it does not 
 mean a mark on or over the forehead there. Hence it does not naturally refer 
 to the signing with the cross; nor does the Greek emypacpofievovg necessarily; but 
 it may be rendered ''marked with the name of the Anointed One,'' as in the 
 translation above, or more freely but not widely different in sense ' ' who bear 
 the name of Christ,''' that is, "who are called Christians," which seems, con- 
 sidering the sense of the Latin original, which it is fair to presume the trans- 
 lator endeavored to give in Greek, the more natural meaning. On the whole 
 then there seems no clear proof that the sign of the cross is here referred to 
 either by the Latin original or the Greek translation. 
 
 (504), That is Christ. 
 
 (505). Or, according to another manuscript reading, "with whom thou 
 canst have no communion, and they being about to learn that, and being there- 
 after unshaken by thy [evil] example, ought with reference to that very thing 
 to provide for their own souls by a well boiled down and well cooked decision." 
 
202 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 art cast out (510) from [all] (511) the communion of the Universal 
 Church. We have sent this very decision (512) of our judgment on 
 thee by our son aforesaid, Posidonius the deacon, with All the papers, 
 to the holy man our Fellow-Bishop, the Priest of the aforesaid Alex- 
 andria, who has given us a very complete (513) account regarding 
 
 (506). TTfpi rov Qeov Xpiarov ^juuv. Here is Economic Appropriation. 
 (507). The Greek here as in Migne is, Kal Tzdaa rj KaQoliKij 'EKKlijala Karixec; 
 but the Latin in the parallel column is, " et Universalis Ecclesia Catholica." 
 
 (508). Constantinople. The Latin has " sacrosandla Constantinopolitanae 
 urbis Ecclesia," at least as in the parallel column in Migne. If that represents 
 exactly Celestine's Latin, the translator or translators gave it a slight change, 
 in compliment to the greatness of the city of Constantinople. The Greek is, of 
 course, the only form of this Letter which comes with the seal and formal ap- 
 proval of the Third Ecumenical Synod. 
 (509). Kd/Juara. 
 
 (510). The Greek here, as in Migne, is cnrb Trdar/g Koivuviag r^.f KadoliKTJg 'EkkTitj- 
 c'm eKl3e^?i7^aat. Note " i.," column 483, tome 50 of Migne's Patrologia Latina, 
 informs us, however, that, "In manuscripts [or, 'in the manuscripts'] there 
 is no aTTo 7rd(Tr/c." I have therefore put " all " in brackets to denote that it is 
 doubtful. 
 
 (511). See note 507 above. 
 (512). Latin, "formam; Greek, tv-kov. 
 
 (5I3)- "^^ 7r/30f riiidq Trepl tovtov avTov EvreliGTepov dveveyKdvTa. 
 (514). 'iva roTTOTTjpuv ijfuv tovto Tvpd^ri^ cjcte to Trap' i^fiuv upiGjuevov, etc. A note 
 in column 484, tome 50 of Migne's Patrologia Latina, on the Iva of the clause 
 here quoted, states that "Manuscripts [or 'The manuscripts'] have ^ofus 
 place holders,'' " MSS. TOTTor}]p7]Tuv ijuuv. According to that reading we must 
 render that place as follows, ''in order thai he may perform that fufiHion of us 
 place-holders [that is, of us who hold the two chief places in the Church, Rome 
 the first see of the West and of the whole Church, and Constantinople, the first 
 see of the East and the second see of the w^hole Church], so that what has been 
 decided by us may be made ktiown both to thee and to all the brethren.'' It is 
 not clear from Migne's statement above whether this reading is the ledlion of a 
 few manuscripts, of the majority, or of all of them. The Latin original, as in 
 the parallel column, is, "ut agat vice nostra, quatenus statutum nostrum vel 
 tibi vel universis fratribus innotescat; " which means, ''that he may act in our 
 stead, to the end that our decision may become known both to thee and to all the 
 brethren.'' The two Greek ledlions above differ in sense. 
 
 Rome of course had a right to one place only among the great sees of the 
 Church, and one vote only. But Cyril with the aid of that then greatest see of 
 the West, with Carthage, and with the aid of his own see, which, after Constan- 
 tinople, was the greatest see of the East, with the Bishops assembled from every- 
 where, would represent the whole Orthodox Episcopate. And we shall find 
 
Readiyig of Celestine' s Epistle to Nestorms. 
 
 203 
 
 this very matter, in order that he may hold our place (514) and 
 attend to this thing (515), that so what has been decided by us may 
 be made known both to thee and to all the brethren; because all 
 ought to know what is done, as often as (516) the investigatiom is on 
 a matter of interest in common (517)." 
 
 Carthage, the next greatest see of the West after Rome, represented, and with 
 C}ril farther on. And the other Western sees were at this time of not so much 
 account as they are to-day, for their people were inferior at that time in knovN^l- 
 edge, civilization and religious influence to those of Italy, of which Rome was 
 the head, and to that North Africa of which Carthage was the Patriarchal see. 
 
 • But oh! what a grand sight would an Ecumenical Synod present to-day, 
 -with a Patriarch of London sitting in it, with one of Paris, another of Berlin, 
 -another of Vienna, another of St. Petersburg, another of Moscow, another of 
 Madrid, another of New York or Washington, etc., and a Patriarch of each 
 nation in Europe and in America, or several Patriarchs where the nation is very 
 large. God grant us to see a true Orthodox Christian- world-representing 
 Council before we die, to do away all service to created or made things and per- 
 sons, and all infidelity, and all abuses, that the Church after her long division 
 into East and West, the result, as the Homily Against Peril 0/ Idolatry of the 
 Church of England teaches, of its idolatry, may be without spot or wrinkle or 
 any such thing, a fit bride for her heavenly Bridegroom, that the Christian 
 nations may fly upon the shoulders of the Philistine idolatry of Rome in the 
 West, and that they may reduce to obedience the Turk and the Arab who have 
 ravaged the East, and that the Kingdoms of this world may become the King- 
 doms of our Lord and of His Christ. But we shall never see an Ecumenical 
 Council till the sees West and East are filled with Orthodox Men, not Mariolaters 
 and Image-Worshippers. The first thing to be done therefore is to depose all 
 such paganizers. 
 
 (515). That is to so attend to the Nestorian controversy in the East, as to 
 make known to all there the decision of Rome and its local Council against 
 Nestorius and his heresies, which with Carthage spoke for the chief parts of the 
 then West, and so with Cyril and the other Orthodox Prelates of the East really 
 showed that a clear majority of the Episcopate was against his errors and con- 
 demned them before the Third Synod met. See note 514. 
 (516). Greek, baaKiq. 
 
 (517). The Latin as given in Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome 50, col. 483, 
 485, has here what I add, but translated into English: 
 
 '' And in another hand, 'God keep thee safe and sound, dearest brother. 
 Given on the third day before the Ides of August, Theodosius and Valentinian, 
 the August Ones, being Consuls, the former for the thirteenth time and the latter 
 for the third.' " This date is August ii, 430- Note e, column 469, tome 50 of 
 Migne's Patrologia Latina states that the above Epistle was received in Con- 
 stantinople on November 30, 430, and therefore more than six months before the 
 day (June 7, 431), appointed for the opening of the Third Council, and nearly 
 seven berfore it adlually began on June 22, 431. 
 
204 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, 
 said; The Holiness of our most God-revering Bishop Cyril has 
 written things which are in harmony with those things which have 
 been read, and we have them in our hands (518), and, if your God- 
 Worshippingness will command, we will read them. 
 
 (518). Or, "at our hands." 
 
 (519). Coleti Condi., tome 3, col. 1048. ^laviavh^ i-KicmiToq (^i?u7nro)v elirev 
 ' Avayvuadevra kuI Tavra £fj.(l>ep£a6u rolq TrpaTTOfievoiq. The margin has vTrojuv-fffiaai. 
 The Latin has "Flavianus Philippensium episcopus dixit: L,egantur haec quoque, 
 le6laque in a(5lorum commentaries referantur. " 
 
 (520). The Epistle of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and of his 
 Synod to Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, which follows above, 
 has the Twelve Chapters, and is one of the most important that has ever 
 been written, because it condemns the Nestorian denial of the Incarnation, all 
 creature-service, the error of the Presence of the Divinity of the Son on the Holy 
 Table, all worship of It there, the error that we eat It there, the error that we 
 may worship His separate humanity there or elsewhere, and all cannibal views 
 on the Eucharist, and because it is Ecumenically approved. So that a note- 
 worthy thing is that before there was any decision in any local Council in favor 
 of any of those errors, there was a condemnation of them in an undoubted 
 Ecumenical Council which spake by the Holy Ghost, in conformity with the 
 promise of Christ that He would be with the Universal Apostolate to the end of 
 the world to guide tliem into all truth. So that the blessed Reformers of the 
 English Church were Restorers, so far, of the faith of the Universal Church 
 which had been contradicted by divers local idolatrous conventicles, such as that 
 falsely styled Seventh Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea, A. D. 787, the Fourth 
 Lateran of A. D. 12 15, and others, which in fact opposed the Third Ecumen- 
 ical Synod. And we should add that as the falsely called Ecumenical Council 
 of the Vatican of A. D. 1870, which represented only a part of the West, and 
 not one valid episcopate of the East, which contradiAs the decision of the really 
 Universal Sixth Ecumenical Council of A. D. 680 by saying that its condemna- 
 tion of Pope Honorius was wrong, has never been able to undo and abolish that 
 Decision of the Sixth Council of the whole Church, East and West, so neither 
 will all the efforts of creature-invokmg and image-worshipping and Host-wor- 
 shipping Synods, ever be able to do away with the God-led decisions of the 
 Third Council of the whole Church, East and West, against those errors. This 
 Epistle of Cyril, with the shorter one approved by vote above, and the condem- 
 nation in this Act I. of Ephesus of Nestorius' teaching of such errors, will live 
 for ever and will at last universally prevail. But to go on with this Long Epistle 
 of St. Cyril. 
 
 The following is a 
 
 SUMMARY OF ITS CONTENTS. 
 
 Cyril 0/ Alexandria begins by saying that he dared not, in view of the Day 
 of fudgment, be longer silent, that he and his Synod write in conjun^ion with 
 
Command to Read Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 205 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: I^et them be read and be put 
 into the Ads (519). 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, 
 read (520): 
 
 the one holden at Rome, and thai the Sy^iod at Rome and that at Alexandria 
 have assented to his former Letters to Nestorius. He states that they do 7iot 
 admit the validity of his deposition and excommtmication of Orthodox clerics 
 and laics for their Orthodoxy, tells him that it is not enough for him to confess 
 the Symbol, that is Creed, which he admits only in a perverted sense on the 
 Incarnation, and that he must condemn his owft heresies and admit that se?ise of 
 the Creed which the Whole Church East and West did. Cyril then recites {as 
 he always does) not the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod [the Coiistantino- 
 politan), but that of the First {the Nicaean), in full with its Anathema; states 
 that we must refer every thing in the Son, what belongs to the Man as well as 
 what belongs to the Word, to the Word alone; condenms the relative bowing to 
 the Man because of the indwelling Word, which was the doElrine and Man-Ser- 
 vice of Nestorius, and the applying to that Man the name of God which was a 
 part of the same Nestoriaii service to a creature; condem.ns the cannibal error 
 of eating the flesh a7id blood of that man in the Eucharist, as abhorrent and 
 God forbidden; teaches that all expressions of Holy Writ used of the Son, those 
 pertaining to the Ma7i as well as those pertaining to the Word, -must be referred 
 Economically to the Word, the infinitely superior Nature of the two, in order 
 to preserve the unity of His Person, and His due preemineiice and prerogatives 
 as God, and to save us from co-worshipping a Man with God the Word, that is 
 from creature-worship. He is High Priest and Sacrifcer, but for our sins, ?wt 
 for a7ty of His own, because He was without si7i. The Spirit glorifies Hviu, 7iot 
 as though He were Its i7iferior, but because It is His ow7i Spirit. God the 
 Eternal Wo7^d, brought forth out of the holy Virgin i7i flesh, and i7i time, has 
 blessed the huma7t race a7id has re7noved frorn it a7id huma7z birth their former 
 curse. The do5irine of this Letter is sum7ned up at the end i7i Twelve A7iath- 
 emas against the errors co7itrary to if]. 
 
 To the above summary of Contents I would add that I have followed in part 
 only the summary of this Letter given by P. K. Pusey, in his " Three Epistles of 
 S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria," page 59, but have brought out more fully 
 certain points in the Letter which he blurs, because he did not, I think, hold to 
 St. Cyril's and the Universal Church's dodlrine against Man-Service. 
 
 Two things deserve to be noted on the magnificent and precious Long 
 Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Synod of the Egyptian Diocese to 
 Nestorius. They are: 
 
 I. The Authority of the docufne7it itself. 
 
 A. It was read and approved in the Third Ecumenical Council. On that 
 point, Hefele in his History of the Church Councils, English translation, Vol- 
 ume III., page 48, after stating that it was read in the above place in its Act I., 
 adds in Note 2 on the same page: 
 
206 Act 1. of Ephesus. 
 
 "To the Most Reverent (521) and Most Dear-to-God Fellow- 
 Minister Nestorius, Cyril and the Synod assembled in Alexandria, 
 out of the Egyptian Diocese, wish joy in the Lord. 
 
 "This is the Synodal letter to which the twelve anathematisms were ap- 
 pended. We were formerly of opinion that these anathematisms were read at 
 Ephesus, but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardly anything on the subject 
 in the A6ls. But in the fifth Ecumenical Council (Collatio VI.) it is said: 
 
 * Chalcedonensis sandla Synodus Cyrillum sandlae memoriae dodlorem sibi 
 adscribit et suscipit synodicas ejus epistolas, quarum uni 12 capitula supposita 
 sunt" (Mansi, t. IX., p. 341, Hardouin, t. III., p. 167).'" [In English this 
 is, " The Holy Sy7iod of Chalcedoyi calls Cyril of holy memory its teacher 
 and receives his Synodical Epistles, to one of which the XII. Chapters are 
 annexed'' Chrystai,. Hefele goes on as follow^s]: " If, however, the anath- 
 ematisms of Cyril were expressly confirmed at Chalcedon, there was even more 
 reason for doing so at Ephesus. And Ibas, in his well known letter to Maris, 
 says expressly that the Synod of Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, 
 and the same was asserted even by the Bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letter 
 to the Emperor, of w^hich mention will hereafter be made in Sec[tion] 145 
 (Hardouin, t. II., p. 530)." 
 
 P. E. Pusey in his Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, 
 Preface, page III., adds the important fact, 
 
 ''The Council in the account sent by them to the Emperors of that memor- 
 able day (lb. [Coleti's Concilia, tome III.], col. iioo), say: 'And first compar- 
 ing the Letters on the Faith of the most pious and most holy Archbishop Cyril 
 with this Exposition [the Nicene Creed], we found them consonant both in their 
 doctrines and in their conceptions, and that his teaching was in nought estranged 
 from that pious Exposition.' " 
 
 B. The Fourth Ecumenical Council received that Epistle of Cyril as an 
 authoritative Explanation of faith, and as a guide to it in making up its own 
 decisions. On that P. E. Pusey as just cited adds: 
 
 "In the Second Aclion of the Council of Qhalcedon (t. IV., col. 1212), 
 the former Epistle to Nestorius, and the one to John of Antioch were read, the 
 Council acclaiming its agreement therewith. By the acceptance therefore of 
 this Council by the whole Church, the Letter to John of Antioch received, in 
 addition to the two others, the Authority of the Church. In the fourth Adlion 
 of this Council very many of the Bishops in giving their Sandlion to the Tome 
 of Pope S. Leo, said that they did so because it agreed with the Nicene Creed 
 and that of Constantinople, and what was settled by the Holy Cyril in the 
 Council of Ephesus." 
 
 And the same Fourth Ecumenical Synod in its Definition testifies that: 
 
 " It has received the Synodal Letters of Cyril of blessed memory, Pastor of 
 
 the Church of Alexandria, to Nestorius, and [that to] those of the East [as] 
 
 being suitable for the refutation of the frenzied imaginations of Nestorius, and 
 
 for the instruction of those who with godly zeal desire to understand the sa\'ing 
 
Readmg of Cyrils Lo7ig Epistle to Nestoritis. 207 
 
 "[A] (522). Forasmuch as our Saviour plainly says: 'He that 
 loveth father or mother more than me is not ivorthy of me, and he that 
 loveth son or daughter more thari me is not worthy of me' (523); what 
 
 faith" (Hammond's translation, page 96, New York edition of 1844). This 
 includes therefore the Long Epistle to Nestorius; for only two of Cyril's letters 
 to Nestorius ever came before any Ecumenical Council, that is that and the 
 shorter one which was approved by a vote in the Third Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 And in conformity with custom each Ecumenical Council professes to 
 receive every Ecumenical Council before itself. And so, before in this same 
 Definition, the Fourth Synod says: 
 
 "We therefore preserving the order, and all the forms concerning the faith 
 of the holy Synod, which formerly took place in Ephesus, of which Celestine 
 of Rome, and Cyril of Alexandria of holy memory, were the leaders, declare," 
 etc. (Hammond's translation in his Cano7is of the Church, page 95, New York 
 edition of 1844). 
 
 C. The Fifth Ecumenical Council accepted as Authoritative Cyril's Long 
 Epistle which has the XII. Chapters, 
 
 In the same Preface of P. E. Pusey, mentioned above, he continues: 
 
 " The Two Letters to Nestorius " [one of which is the Long One which has 
 the XII. Chapters, Chrystai.], "were again read over in the Sixth Collation of 
 the Fifth General Council, and recited as Authority. The Bishops said of the 
 Letter attributed to Ibas, which they were condemning. Whoso receives it, 
 receives not Cyril (CoUatio VI., fin., t. VI., col. 176). 
 
 The former Letter to Nestorius as well as the latter " [that is the one with 
 the XII. Chapters, Chrystai,], "was written by S. Cyril in Synod, as he him- 
 self says of it (p. 16) that the Synod at Rome had approved the Letters writ- 
 ten to thy Piety by the Church of the Alexaridrians.'' 
 
 This same Fifth Council, in its Definition, accepts the Long Epistle of Cyril 
 to Nestorius, and anathematizes those who wrote against it or its XII. Chapters. 
 After speaking words of praise of Cyril of Alexandria and of the Third Council, 
 and condemning Pope Vigilius for not doing his full duty against heresy, it 
 professes to receive that Council and the Fourth, and what they defined, with- 
 out mentioning. any exception, and condemns those who do not receive their 
 doings, one of which is their approval of this Long Epistle of Cyril, and tiien 
 condemns by name Theodoret's and Ibas' utterances and writings against the 
 XII. Chapters which are at its end, and form part of it. I quote: 
 
 "We again confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is the 
 Nicaean, the ConstantinopoHtan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon, 
 and we have preached and do preach those things which they have defined for 
 the one and the same faith. 
 
 Moreover, we judge those who do not receive those things to be aliens from 
 the Universal Church. 
 
 Moreover we condemn and anathematize * * * those things which 
 
208 Ad /. of Ephesus, 
 
 punishment should we suffer if we yielded to the demand of thy Piety 
 to love thee more than the Anointed Saviour of us all (524) ? If we 
 do so, who will be able to profit us in the day of judgment? Or 
 what sort of an apology shall we find, if we shall have so honored 
 
 Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the Twelve 
 Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the first Synod of Ephesus," etc. 
 
 "In addition to these, we also anathematize the impious Epistle which Ibas 
 is said to have written to Maris the Persian, which * * * criminates Cyril 
 of holy memory, who taught the truth, as a heretic, and as writing like ApoUi- 
 naris, and blames the first Synod of Ephesus as though it deposed Nestorius 
 without examination and inquiry, and calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy 
 Cyril impious and contrary to the right faith. ' ' 
 
 The same Council in its Anathemas XIII. and XIV. uses similar language 
 again in favor of this Long Epistle of Cyril and of the XII. Chapters at its end, 
 and anathematizes those who impugn it or them. But the place is too long to 
 be quoted here. See it in Hammond. 
 
 D. The Sixth Ecumenical Council in its Definition accepts the work of the 
 Third Ecumenical Council and that of the Fourth, and Cyril's Letters to Nes- 
 torius of which that with the XII. Chapters is one, and the condemnation 
 passed by the Fifth Synod against ''the writings of Theodoret against the 
 Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril and the Epistle which was said to be 
 writte?i by Ibas to Maris the Persian.'' 
 
 See it as on pages 142, 143 of Hammond's Canons. The Sixth Synod 
 there professes to follow the preceding five Synods, in all their utterances, and 
 makes no exception. 
 
 This Epistle, and the XII. Chapters which form part of it, are most clearly 
 of Ecumenical Authority, and he who rejects them is therefore a heretic. We 
 must then be on our guard against loose men who speak ill of them. The last 
 Ecumenical Synods depose their rejectors if clerics, and anathematize them if 
 laics. 
 
 We come now, 2, to say a few words as to the Text of the aforesaid Long 
 Epistle of Cyril. 
 
 As it was approved in the form read in the Third Council and in the Fourth 
 only, we will follow that, as being the sole type sealed with Ecumenical 
 authority. We will follow it as in Coleti, mainly 
 
 (521), Or, '' tnost religious,'' tvla^EOTdri^. 
 
 (522). These seAions A to K inclusive are found in this Letter in Coleti 
 Cone, tome 3, col. 944-956, though I have not met with them elsewhere; and for 
 convenience sake, I have thought best to preserve them. 
 
 (523). Matt. X., 37. 
 
 (524). The Greek at this point adds, " and the rest [of the letter] /w^/ as it 
 shines forth before" [the A6ls]. The Latin reads, ''A7idit [the Epistle] was 
 read just as it is above." I have preferred to give it here in its natural place, 
 where it was read, not in the Forematter where it is now printed. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 200 
 
 thee by long silence on the blasphemies (525) contrived (526) by 
 thee against Him? And if thou, by holding and teaching such 
 things, wert doing injury to thyself alone, there would be less rea- 
 son to care. But inasmuch as thou hast put stumbling blocks in the 
 way of all the Church, to cause it to stumble (527), and hast cast 
 the leaven of an unusual and strange heresy among the people (528); 
 and that not only among those there [in Constantinople where thou 
 art], but among all everywhere, for thy Expository Books are in cir- 
 culation; what sort of a reason would suffice for our longer silence? 
 Or why is it not necessary to remember that the Anointed One (529) 
 says: ' Think 7iot that I came to send peace 07i the earth. I came not 
 to setid peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against 
 his father, arid the datighter agaitist her mother' (530). For when 
 wrong is done to the faith, let respect for parents disappear, for it is 
 unseasonable and likely to cause men to fall; and moreover let the 
 law of affecflion for children and brothers be still, and thenceforward 
 let the godly deem death preferable to living, that, as it is written, 
 * they Tnay obtain a better resurrection ' (531). 
 
 "[B]. Behold, therefore, that we, together with the holy Synod 
 which was colle(5led in great Rome in which our most devout and 
 most God-fearing brother and Fellow- Minister Celestine, the Bishop, 
 was President (532 j, do hereby, even for the third time, by this Letter 
 
 (525). Or, '' the infamous uttermices,'" 6va<^r]iiiaLq^ 
 
 (526). Greek, ralq izapa gov yevojievai^ Kar* avrov 6va(l)rjiu.iaig. 
 
 (527). The Greek as in Coleti Cone, tome z, col. 945, omits "all," and 
 reads, translated, ''hast caused a Church to stumble,''' or ''hast scandalized a 
 Church.'' 
 
 (528). Or " the congregations," rolg laolg, 
 
 (529). That is Christ, tov Xpiarov. 
 
 (530). Matt. X., 34, 35. 
 
 (531). Heb. xi., 35. 
 
 (532). TrpoeSpevovTog; that is, being Foresitter; that is, President. The above 
 language with its context shows that the Letter of Celestine to Nestorius, read in 
 the Third Synod just before this of Cyril to that heresiarch, was Synodal, that is 
 the w^ork of the Synod of the Roman Patriarchate, at which, as we know, 
 Bishops not canonically of his Patriarchate were present at least in later times. 
 For his Patriarchate did not include even all Italy as Bingham has shown. See 
 his Antiquities, Book IX., Chap. I., Sedlions 9, etc., to the end of that chapter. 
 In a Romish Didlionnaire des Coiiciles, published by Migne, a Council of Rome 
 in A. D. 430 is mentioned; but, according to its editor, Celestine wrote the letter 
 to Nestorius above mentioned at its close. Cyril, however, dwells on the fact of 
 its being the utterance of the Council at Rome, because that of course would 
 make it more authoritative than if it were the mere individual utterance of 
 Celestine himself So that, according to Cyril, the Orthodox party, though 
 
210 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 protest against thee (533) and counsel thee to forsake those dogmas 
 so sinister and perverted which thou holdest and teachest, and to 
 choose instead the correct faith which has been handed down to the 
 
 opposed by the Bishop of Constantinople and by some of his friends, neverthe- 
 less entered the Third Ecumenical Synod with weighty documents in their 
 favor, that is the Synodical utterance of Celestine and the Bishops of his Patri- 
 archate, and with the Synodical utterance of Cyril of Alexandria and of his 
 Patriarchate, in the two Letters above read in the Synod; both of them condem- 
 ning the errors of NCvStorius and threatening him with excommunication. 
 
 (533)- Cyril and the Egyptian Synod here enter their solemn Protest 
 against the creature-serving and Anti-Incarnation views of Nestorius. And this 
 has always been the adlion of the Orthodox and Reforming party every where. 
 All the Reformers of the sixteenth century though they lived in an age when 
 they did not know the facts of primitive practice, nor the decisions of the Six 
 Ecumenical Synods, as well as we do to-day, nevertheless did nobly in Protest- 
 ing against the creature-service of the corrupt and apostate and worse than 
 Nestorianized church of their time. For God, in effect, calls Himself « Protest- 
 ant in the sense of opposing all idolatry and creature-service, and all disobedi- 
 ence, when He speaks of Himself, in his anti-creature-serving Prophet Jeremiah 
 as " rising early and protesting , saying, Obey my voice,''' (Jerem. xi., 7), in 
 which connexion he rebukes the idolatrous Jews for disobeying him in the very 
 matter of idolatry and serving creatures. Furthermore, no man can be truly 
 Orthodox who does not as intensely hate every form of those sins and the 
 refuges of lies by which men attempt to excuse them, such as relative service, 
 etc., and shun them, as God Himself does. The Third Ecumenical Synod 
 speaks of the Nestorian bishops and their following as an '■'Apostasy,^'' for that 
 very sin of relatively worshipping the perfect humanity of Christ. See its 
 Canons, and see also the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod against 
 that Man-Service. How much worse than the Nestorians are those who 
 relatively bow to the Virgin Mary, the angels, and saints, all of whom are 
 creatures less than Christ's humanity. How much worse still are those who 
 worship images pictured or graven, crosses, relics, and other mere inanimate 
 things. The doctrine of the Scriptures and of the Universal Church in the 
 Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth is that all worship is prerogative to 
 Almighty God (Matt, iv,, 10, and Luke iv., 8), and that it must all be direct to 
 Him towards heaven where he is, not indirectly and in a roundabout way 
 through any image of Him, like the golden calf in the wilderness or like the 
 calves at Dan and at Bethel. For because of such relative worship of Him he 
 was about to destroy guilty Israel in the wilderness, and because of it he gave 
 the Ten Tribes to wasting, to poverty, to slaughter and to captivity. See on this 
 whole topic. Exodus xxxii., Psalm cvi., 19-24; Nehemiah ix., 18. and I. Kings 
 xii., 25, to I. Kings xiii., 6, and II. Kings xxiii., 15-21, and II. Kings xvii., 1-41 
 inclusive, and Isaiah xlii.,8, and Isaiah xlviii., 11, and those many passages where, 
 with reference to such sins, he calls Himself Jealous, and Ezekiel viii., 3, 5; Exod. 
 xxxii., 16, 21; I. Kings xiv., 1-31, inclusive, Dent, xxix., 17-29; Psalm Ixxvi.,. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 211 
 
 Churches from the beginning through the holy Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists, who were also eye-wit7iesses and miiiisters of the Word 
 
 58; Ezek. xvi., 38, and the context which is directed against the spiritual harlotry 
 of worshipping images and mere things and persons other than God, and see in 
 the Concordances many more passages undi^r Jealous, Jealousy , Idols, etc. 
 
 I would add that the common appellation of the Church and the faith from 
 the beginning has been Christian, and Catholic, Ka6/oA<K^, that is Universal, and 
 Orthodox; but as to the individual Christian, the custom in the East as to day 
 has ever been to call him Orthodox ('Op^ddo^of) that is rightly believifig, but in 
 the West Catholic is used in the sense of Orthodox. In the Fourth Ecumenical 
 Council we shall find the Bishops shouting out regarding a sound thing, " This 
 is the faith of the Orthodox.'' As no man can be called Universal, the Greeks 
 have never been wont to call a man a Catholic, that is a Universal, for the word 
 KaSoliKog, that is Catholic, is Greek, and was understood ; whereas in Latin it 
 was at first a foreign word, and so was applied to an individual not in the sense 
 of Universal but of Orthodox, that is a member of the Universal Church. 
 
 But how shall we regard the term Protestant ? 
 
 I answer that it has two meanings, one original and conservative, and the 
 other later and anarchizing. In the original sense, as used of the English 
 Reforming Prelates it meant one who imitated God and his faithful servants 
 Elijah, Hezekiah, etc., in protesting against all creature worship and image-wor- 
 ship and so agreed with the Six Councils of the whole Church, and professed to 
 respect the authority and doctrine, as in the Homily against Peril of Idolatry, 
 of " those Six Coimcils which were allowed and received of all men,'' in other 
 words it was applied to men who aimed, like the Jewish Reformers under the 
 Old Testament, to restore all that had fallen into desuetude during the fall into 
 idolatry, though they did not understand some fadls in the matter as we do 
 now, for on some points we have fiiller information than they had. 
 
 The second sense of Protestant is later and anarchizing, and signifies a 
 person who has no respect for the authority of the Universal Church, and 
 indeed is so ignorant that he generally confounds it with Rome, and its idolatry, 
 which is condemned by necessary implication in the Six Councils of the 
 Undivided Church, and believes that he may take the Bible in his own ignorant 
 and heretical sense as his empty noddle may suggest ; the result of which is 
 that there are about 240 such kinds of Protestant Sects in England and about 
 120 in our land. As to the Bible and the Sound Church, we must remember 
 not to put asunder what God has joined together in His Word, for the Universal 
 Church is the God-appointed interpreter of Holy Writ. 
 
 I would add that the Orthodox have in past ages been called by different 
 names, such as Homoousiasts (see under oiioGvcLaoTrjg in Sophocles' Greek 
 Lexicon), Two-Natureites, etc., and as they are now called, Protestants, but 
 the Church ever remains Catholic, and Orthodox, and only such as are Protestant 
 in the first sense above accord with it. Part of it may be called as in the above 
 Epistle, the Church of Alexandria or of the Alexandrians, the Church of the 
 Romans, the Church of the Constantinopolitans ; or we may add, the Church 
 
212 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 (534). Or, if thy Pietj^ will not do that before the day specified in 
 the Letter of the aforesaid most devout and most God-fearing brother, 
 our Fellow-Minister, Celestine, Bishop of the Church of the Romans 
 (535), [then] know [hereby] that thou wilt have no lot with us, nor 
 place nor reckoning among the Priests of God and Bishops (536). 
 
 * ' For it is not permitted us to disregard the Churches which are 
 so disturbed, and the peoples who have been made to stumble, and 
 the faith which is set aside, and the flocks which are scattered by 
 thee, and which thou oughtest to preserve, if indeed thou wert Hke 
 us, a lover of correct opinion, and a follower of the godly path of 
 the holy Fathers. Moreover, we all commune with all both laics 
 and clerics, who have been separated or deposed by thy Piety on 
 account of their attachment to the faith. For it is not just that 
 those who have known how to hold right opinions should be wronged 
 by thy decisions, on account of their having done well by speaking 
 in opposition to thee. For thou hast indicated that very thing in 
 the letter written by thee to our most holy Fellow-Bishop, Celestine 
 of the great Rome. And it will not sufiice that thy Piety co-confess 
 
 ef E7igland, or of Ireland, etc., but it should never bear the name Protestant 
 Episcopal, for that displaces the name of the Church in the Creed to which we 
 all profess to belong. 
 
 The Unreformed Communions are called by diflferent names also, such as 
 Ivatins, Papists, Romanists, Greeks, etc. 
 
 It is a remarkable fact, in itself a witness for the idea of the Universal 
 Church as the sole final teacher, that though it broke into two parts in the 
 ninth or eleventh century, and parts of it have reformed since, yet none of the 
 parts, Greek, Latin, Anglican, or any other professes to believe in any other than 
 the '' One Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church'' whose sole utterances, it 
 should be added, are in the Six Councils. 
 
 I have spoken of the term Protestant as being taken in two senses. I ought 
 to add that Catholic is taken in more. For the Latin so understands it, as to 
 leave the Greek out in the cold as a schismatic and heretic and as lost . which 
 compliment the Greek returns with interest by calling him not only a heretic 
 and schismatic but unbaptized and unordained and lost. 
 
 And the Anglican in his Formularies, and in the Homilies approved by his 
 Thirty Fifth Article brands both as idolaters, and so as incapable of salvation. 
 
 Besides the Nestorian has his own perversion of the term and the Monophy- 
 site his. 
 
 The same thing may be said as to the differences on the word Orthodox. 
 
 But after all there is no Catholicity or Orthodoxy without the Six Councils 
 of the Undivided Church or contrary to them or to any of their decisions. 
 
 (534). Luke i., 2, and Adls i., 20-23. 
 
 (535). I have followed here the Greek text in Coleti Cone, tom. 3, col. 945. 
 
 (536). Or "among God's Priests and Bishops." 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 213 
 
 the Symbol of the Faith only, which Symbol was put forth in due time, 
 in the Holy Spirit by the holy and ^rreat Synod colle(5led aforetime 
 in the city of the Nicaeans. For thou hast understood and inter- 
 preted it not rightly, but rather pervertedly, although thou professest 
 with thy voice the wording. Accordingly thou art to confess in 
 writing and on oath that thou anathematizest on the one hand thy 
 own foul and profane dogmas (537^ and on the other that thou wilt 
 hold and teach those things which we all also do, I mean, we the 
 Bishops and teachers, and leaders of the people throughout the West 
 and the East. And the holy Synod in Rome, and all of us, have 
 agreed that the Letters written to thy Piety by the Church of the 
 Alexandrians are correct and irreprehensible (538). And we have 
 subjoined to this our Letter, what things thou oughtest both to hold 
 and to teach, and what things it is becoming to abstain from. For 
 the following is the faith of the Universal and Apostolic Church, 
 w^hich faith all the Orthodox Bishops in the West and in the East 
 co-praise, namely: 
 
 " [C]. ' We believk in one God, the Father Ai^mighty, 
 Maker of ali. visible and of ale invisible things. 
 
 " 'And in one Lord Jesus Anointed, the Son of God, born 
 OUT OF THE Father, Sole-Born that is out of the substance 
 OF THE Father, God out of God, Light out of Light, very 
 God out of very God, born not made, of the Sx\me sub- 
 stance WITH the Father; through whom all things were 
 
 MADE, BOTH those IN THE HEAVEN AND THOSE ON THE EARTH, 
 WHO FOR US MEN, AND FOR OUR SALVATION, CAME DOWN, AND 
 TOOK ON FLESH, AND PUT ON A MAN, SUFFERED, AND ROSE UP ON 
 THE THIRD DAY, WENT UP INTO THE HEAVENS, AND (539) COMETH 
 
 (537). Strong language to apply to Nestorius' denial of the Incarnation 
 and to his creature-service, but not stronger than John appHes to the former sin 
 in II. John 7-12; and than God Himself applies to all creature service again and 
 again in his Word. What can be a plainer prohibition of service to Christ's 
 separate humanity, than His own language in Matt, iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8 ? 
 
 (538). This includes all of Cyril's Epistles to him before this, one of which 
 was the short Letter approved in Act I. of Ephesus by vote. But if the notes of 
 time given in Migne's Dictiojinaire des Candles, and in the article on Cyril of 
 Alexandria in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christiaii Biography, be exact, 
 there does not seem to have been enough time between the date of the Council of 
 Alexandria which approved Cyril's long letter to Nestorius which has the XII. 
 Chapters, to go to Rome and to get back before the date of the presentation of 
 this letter, that is Nov. 30, or Dec. 7, 430, so that it is not included. Indeed the 
 words above have reference to what had been approved when it was written. 
 Yet as the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth formally approved it, it has 
 Ecumenicity in the fullest sense. 
 
 (539). The ''and,'' is not in Coleti Cone, tome 3, col. 948. 
 
214 Act 1. of Ephesus. 
 
 to judge the i.iving and the dead; and [we believe] in thk 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 * ' * Moreover, THE Universal and Apostolic Church anath- 
 ematizes THOSE WHO SAY THAT THERE WAS ONCE WHEN THE SON 
 
 OF God was not, and that before he was born he was not, 
 
 AND THAT HE WAS MADE OUT OF THINGS NOT EXISTING, OR WHO 
 ASSERT THAT HE IS OF SOME OTHER SUBSISTENCE OR SUBSTANCE 
 
 [than the Father], and That he is mutable or convertible.' 
 
 ' ' Following everywhere (540) the confessions of the holy Fathers 
 which they made, the Holy Spirit speaking in them (541), and track- 
 ing ont and following the aim of the thoughts in them, and advanc- 
 ing even as by a royal way, we assert that the very Sole-Born Word 
 of God, Who was born out of the Substance of the Father Itself, the 
 very God out of very God, the Light out of the Light, He through 
 Whom all things were made, both those in the heaven and those on 
 the earth, came down for our salvation, and lowered (542) himself 
 to be made of no reputation, and took flesh, and put on a man, that 
 is having taken flesh out of the holy Virgin, and having made it His 
 own from the womb. He underwent that birth, which is like ours, 
 and came forth a Man out of a woman, yet did not cast away what 
 He was before; for although He was in that taking of flesh and blood, 
 nevertheless, even so, He remained what He was, that is God in 
 Nature and in truth. But we neither say that the flesh has been 
 changed into the Nature of Divinity, nor on the other hand that the 
 ineffable Nature of God the Word has been changed into the nature 
 of flesh (543). For the Same One ever remains, according to the 
 Scriptures, unchangeable and entirely inconvertible. And even 
 when he was visible as a babe in swaddling clothes, and yet on the 
 bosom of the Virgin who brought Him forth, He was, nevertheless, 
 
 (540). Or ^ ''in every respect. '' The Greek is Travra;^:^. 
 
 (541). This follows from such promises to the continuous Apostolate as Matt, 
 xxviii., 20; John xiv., 16-19; John xvi., 13; and i Tim. iii. 15, 16 (for the Church 
 teaching is the Apostolate, Matt, xxviii., 19, 20). Their power to bind and loose, 
 given to them exclusively, is in Matt, xviii., 15-19; John xx.. 23; i Cor. v., 3-6; 
 II. Cor. ii., 1-12. 
 
 (542). Or, '' abased himself y 
 
 (543). This utterance, of course, condemns ApoUinarianism, and Mono- 
 physitism, its daughter heresy; and 7iecessarily implies a belief in the Orthodox 
 dodlrine of the Two Natures after their ujtion, because if each remains, as he 
 here plainly teaches, unchanged and what it was, of course there still remain 
 two unchanged Natures. So in passage after passage elsewhere Cyril speaks of 
 the Two Natures after their Union as God the Word and the humanity which 
 He put on. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 215 
 
 as God, filling all the creation (544), and was Co-Sitter with Him 
 who brought Him forth (545). For the Divinity is unquantitied 
 and unsized, and admits not of being confined to any bounds or 
 limits (546). 
 
 [D]. Moreover, confessing that the Word has been Substancely 
 (547) united to the flesh, we bow to [but] (548; one Son and Lord, Jesus 
 Anointed, and we do not put apart and put boundaries between the 
 man and God, (549) on the ground that they have been co-joined 
 with each other in a union of dignity and authority, for that is 
 [mere] empty talk and nothing else. Nor, moreover, do we name 
 
 (544). Does this language of Cyril teach that God is everywhere by His 
 Substance or by his attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence ? 
 I answer, It can not be understood of the Substance of God, for no one will assert 
 that It fills the same space which our substance occupies, the substance occu- 
 pied by heathen images, and by ash-barrels, and garbage, and water-closets, and 
 the vilest places which, out of reverence, I will not mention. We must then 
 make a broad distinction between the Substance of God and his attributes. His 
 Substance has its limits, and so far as we know is in heaven alone, where alone 
 Christ teaches us to pray to It, Our Father who art ifi heaven, where alone the 
 Substance of the Logos and the Holy Ghost are. But by His infinite attributes 
 of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, He is everywhere to see, to 
 know, and to sway. 
 
 (545). That is with the Father, out of Whom He came. 
 (546). We must not understand by this that Cyril was a Pantheist, or that 
 the Universal Church approved Pantheism by making God's Substance omni- 
 present, and to fill all things, or that the Substance of the Divinity can not be 
 quantitied, sized, and limited to heaven for instance, by God himself, even when 
 He is everywhere not by His divine Substance but by His infinite attributes of 
 omniscieiice, omnipreseiice and omnipote7ice ; but only that we cannot quantity 
 or size God's substance or prescribe the bounds in which alone It shall move 
 and be. 
 
 (547). Greek, naQ' vtroaraciv, that is, by His [divine] Substance. Cyril 
 explams in this same Section D, at the end, the Union to be like the union of soul 
 and body in man, that is not exactly the same of course, but so that they are 
 one, the difference between God and man being preserv-ed of course. 
 
 (548). Greek, 'Rvaadai ye fi^v aapal kqO' vTvoaraaiv o/io/.oyovvTe^ rov Aoyov, kva 
 TtpoGKvvovfjLEv Ttov Kal Kvplov 'iTjGovv XpiGTov. It is noteworthy that St. Cyril here 
 bases all bowing to the Son, that is all worship to Him, for bowing is the most 
 common of the a6ts of worship and stands for all of them, on the fact that the 
 Divinity of the Logos is there. This is strikingly in accordance with Anathema 
 VIII. in this Epistle towards the end. See there. 
 
 (549). That is, God the Word. Nestorius put a vast space between the Man 
 and the Word, during his Incarnation on earth, for the Man, according to him, 
 was on earth, whereas the Word was in heaven, 
 
216 Ad I. of Ephestis. 
 
 the Word who came out of God, Anointed, by Himself, and the Man 
 who came out of the Virgin, Anointed by Himself in like manner; 
 but we know only one Anointed, the Word who came out of the God 
 and Father, within His own flesh (550). For then was he Anointed 
 as man, as we are, although He Himself gives the Spirit to those 
 who are w^orthy to receive it; and [He was anointed], as the blessed 
 Evangelist John says, not by measure (551). But we do not say that 
 
 (550). Greek, fitra Trjg Idiaq aapaog. This may also be rendered " wilk His 
 own flesh,'" but not in such a sense as to imply any co-worship of the flesh with 
 the Divinity. For Andrew of Samosata says plainly that Cyril forbade the flesh 
 to be co-bowed to with the Divinity. See his language quoted on page 97 above, 
 in the note, and Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema VIII., which was approved by 
 the Third Council, and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Council, and note 183, pages. 
 79 to 128, and notes 580, 581 and 582 below. See also Vol. I. of Nicaea in this 
 ^Qtundier Economic Appropriation, Creature-Service, Relative-Worship, Man- 
 Worship, Arius, Bowi?tgy Invocation of Saints, Eucharist and Real Presence. 
 
 (551). John iii., 34. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria in his Address '^ on the Right Faith to Arcadia and 
 Marina,'' explains the anointing in the expression in Hebrews i., 9, God, even 
 thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, of Christ's 
 humanity; see the Greek on page 193 of Part I., Vol. VII. of CyriVs Works, P. 
 E. Pusey's edition. Cyril there writes, ''As God He creates angels, but as Man 
 He is anointed,'" xp'i-^'^^i- ^^ "^ avdpcjTrog. To refer that anointing to God the Word 
 is in accordance with the do(?trine of Appropriating everything of His humanity 
 as well as everything of His Divinity to God the Word. 
 
 Cyril states the same do6lrine at the end of his work, ''That Christ is One '^ 
 (page 423 of Part I., Vol. VII. of Cyril's Works, P. E. Pusey's edition). I quote, 
 "We believe therefore that the Son of the God and Father is [only] One, and 
 that our Lord Jesus the Anointed is to be thought of as in [but] One Person, 
 who as regards His Divinity was born out of the God and Father as the Word 
 {Aoyov) before every world and time, and that He, the Same One, was born in 
 the last times of the world in flesh out of a woman, and to Him we ascribe both 
 the God-befitting and the human things, and we assert that to Him belong the 
 birth in flesh and the suffering on the cross, for he has Appropriated to Himself 
 all the things of His own flesh, but has nevertheless remained impassible in the 
 Nature of His Divinity. For so bends to Him eveyy knee: and every tongue 
 shall confess that Jesus Anointed is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philip, 
 ii., 10, II)." 
 
 Because the anointing of Christ's humanity is Economically ascribed to- 
 God the Word we find in Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius, SeAion 11, the Word 
 spoken of as "our God Anointed," that is, "our Anointed God." See, for the 
 Greek, note 506 above, on page 202. It is strange how much forgotten this doc- 
 trine of Economic Appropriation is in our day. See on it, page 74, note 173, 
 and page 79, note 182, above. See also in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, in Index 
 I., under Economic Appropriation, where we see, as in the last references above. 
 
Reading of CyriVs Long Epistle to Nestorius. 217 
 
 the Word who came out of God dwelt in the Man born out of the 
 holy Virgin, as in a common man, lest Anointed (552) be deemed 
 [merely] an inspired man (553). For although the Word tabernacled 
 among us (554) and although 'all the fuhiess of the Divinity' (555) is 
 said to have 'dwelt bodily i7i Anointed' (556), yet we understand by all 
 that only that He was made flesh, but we do not define that that 
 indwelling in him (557) was made in the same manner in which He 
 [the Word] is said to have dwelt in the saints, but that [the Word] 
 having been united as respe(5ls His [Divine] Nature (558) [to the 
 Man put on], and not having been turned into flesh, efiedted that 
 indwelling [in the man] in such a way as the soul of a man may be 
 said to dwell in its own body (559). 
 
 [B]. Anointed and Son and Lord is therefore One, not, how- 
 ever, that a Man has a mere [external] conjuncftion with God as in a 
 unity of dignity that is of authority; for equality of honor could not 
 unite the Natures (560); for example, Peter and John were of equal 
 
 that St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria wisely held that the dodlrine is 
 necessary to avoid Man- Worship, avOpu-olaTpEia^ as the Definition of the Fifth 
 Synod calls it, that is the Worship of Christ's humanity, a noble creature, the 
 highest of all mere creatures, but, nevertheless, a mere creature, and therefore 
 not worshippable, for Christ so teaches in Matt, iv., 10. So St. Athanasius 
 teaches on page 100 of this Vol. I. of Ephesus in the note. 
 
 (552) . That is * * Christ, ' ' which means * 'Anointed. ' ' 
 
 (553). QeocpSpog avdpuTTog. 
 
 (554). John i., 14. 
 
 (555)- Greek, r^c OeoTTjro^ 
 
 (556). That is in Christ's humanity; Col. ii. 9. 
 
 (557)- Greek, rfjv Karokrjaiv, that is in the Man. 
 
 (558). Greek, evudelg Kara ^vaiv. 
 
 (559). The Natures are united like one Person, though, of course as Cyril 
 teaches, the Word remains God, and the Man, Man. 
 
 (560). Or, " does not unite the natures,'''' ov yap hoc rag (pvaeiq /; laoTifj,ia. The 
 word evol may be found in both the indicative present and in the optative present. 
 Notice the plural '' the Natures,''^ rag (pvaeig. Here Cyril and the Council of 
 Ephesus use the very expression approvingly and, as a matter of course, against 
 which the Monophysites afterwards so much kicked; and which they so wrongly 
 reject, even while professing to receive all the decisions of this Third Ecumen- 
 ical Synod. They are either ignorant of the use of the expression here, or if 
 they do know it, they are dishonest in professing to receive all that was approved 
 by this Synod, and yet at the same time reject this Decision on the Two Natures. 
 
 If they attempt to limit Cyril's use of it to the time before their union, I 
 reply that Cyril's language in this very document necessarily implies that the 
 Two Natures still exist though united like one Person, for, in places elsewhere 
 
218 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 honor, forasmuch as they were Apostles and holy disciples (561); but, 
 nevertheless, the two were not one; nor, furthermore, do we under- 
 stand the manner of the conjunc?tion to be that of placing the two 
 NATURES BESIDE EACH OTHER (562), for that is not Sufficient for a 
 nature union; nor, moreover, do we deem it to have been as by 
 RELATIVE PARTICIPATION (563), as we, [for instance], being 
 
 noted, he confesses that they remain unchanged. And of course, if they remain 
 unchanged, they are Two Natures still, as all fair-minded men can see at once 
 without any argument. 
 
 (^561). Here Cyril confesses the equality as Apostles of John and Peter. 
 And this language is approved by the Third Synod. This impliedly condemns 
 the Roman dogma of their inequality. Peter was only the first among his 
 equals; primus inter pares. Though Peter was first, yet, as he was rebuked for 
 his error at Antioch by his fellow Apostle Paul (Galat. ii., 11-21), so was Peter's 
 Roman successor, Vigilius, by the Fifth Kcumenical Council — Aye, his Roman 
 successor, Honorius, was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical 
 Council See note 94, page 39 above. 
 
 (562). Greek, ward Trapddeciv, that is, by juxtaposition. 
 
 On Nature Union, kvuaiv (pvaiKT/v^ in the next line below the above, see page 
 65 of this volume, note. 
 
 (563). Greek, wf Kara /nedegcv gx^tlktjv. 
 
 By that expression the Nestorians meant, first, that the humanity of the 
 Son shared, with other good men, only in a fuller measure, the sandlifying influ- 
 ences of the Spirit which is related to the Logos as being His Spirit, and that as a 
 consequence of that sandlifying, that mere humanity, a mere creature, came to 
 share the rank, the dignity, the name, and the worship of God the Word, in 
 direct contradidlion to Christ's prohibition of all creature-worship in Matthew 
 iv., 10. See on all the Nestorian heresies on the Union, note 156, pages 61-69 
 of this volume, and especially, on the expression in the text above, pages 61, 62, 
 63, 64, and 65, where the Nestorian sense of Relative-Sharing and Relative- 
 Union is explained by St. Cyril; and pages 67-69 where their sequence of Rel- 
 ative-Worship of Christ's humanity, that is the Nestorian Man-Worship (avOpuiro- 
 larpka) is explained by Cyril and by a Nestorian Creed which was condemned 
 in the Third Council. That Nestorian Man-Worship is constantly denounced 
 by St. Cyril. I would add that in all those texts where the Holy Ghost is called 
 Christ's Spirit (Rom. viii., 9; Philip, i., 9, and I. Peter i., 11), and the Spirit of 
 the Son (Galat. iv., 6), Whom He sends (John xv., 26, and John xvi., 7), Cyril and 
 the Third Council with him understood the Spirit of the Logos, even 'Cii2i\. Spirit 
 Which goeth out of the Father (John xv., 26), Which is given by Him (John xiv., 
 16), and is also sent by Him (John xiv., 26, and Galat. iv., 6), and is therefore 
 spoken of as His Spirit (Galat. iv., 6), though the Spirit is the Vicar of Christ 
 under the New Dispensation of the Spirit (John xiv., 16-19, 26; John xv., 26, and 
 John xvi., 7-16. Compare II. Cor. iii., 8). 
 
 I wish here to notice a perversion of Pusey on the word relative {ox^tlktjv) ^ in 
 this expression. In order, I fear, to do away with the evidence of this word 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestoriics. 219 
 
 'joined tinto the Lord,' as it is written, 'are 07ie spirit' with Him 
 (564); aye more we avoid the term Conjujieiion on the ground 
 that it does not suffice to express the union (565). Further- 
 more, we do not name the Word Who came out of God the Father, 
 either God of the Anointed One (566) or Master (567), of the Anointed 
 
 against the Relative- Worship {pxtriKri npoaKvvTiaig), of the Greek Church, and of 
 the Latin, of images, relics, etc., he translates it '' external ;' so that he renders 
 the whole expression above *' in the way of an external participation,'' page 63 
 of his translation in his Three Epistles of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. 
 But in looking at the term cr^teri/cdc in Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, Sixth 
 Edition, Revised and Angmented, Oxford, A. D. 1869, 1 do not find ' ' external " 
 given among its meanings, nor do I find that signification in Sophocles' Greek 
 Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, Boston, A. D. 1870, nor does it 
 express the exact and literal meaning here. In Liddell and Scott's the second 
 meaning given is, "in Eccl. writers, relative." That is the meaning here. 
 They add, '' 7i07t-esse?itial, accidental," but neither of those terms fits the con- 
 text nor Cyril's common use of cx^riKoq in such connedlions. The Latins rightly 
 render the Greek ax^riKy irpoaKim/aig by Relativa Adoratio, that is Relative- Wor- 
 ship. In Migne's Maigne d' Amis' Lexicon Manuale ad Scriptores Mediae et 
 Infimae Latinitatis, I find Relativus defined as follows: " Relationem habens 
 ad alterum; relatif ;" that is "having a relation to another; relative." It is the 
 only meaning there given for that word. If the term ax^riKbq ever means ' ' 7wn- 
 esse7itial, accideiital," it is rather in philosophy than in theology. 
 
 (564). I. Cor. vi., 17. 
 
 (565). Cyril means that the term conjunnion {pvva<^ELd) which the Nesto- 
 rians used to express their heresy of a mere external conjundlion of God the 
 Word with His humanity does not suffice to express the full sense of the Ortho- 
 dox Scriptural Union which teaches that God the Word adlually took on Him 
 that Man in Mary's womb, and has indwelt him ever since. The Nestorian 
 do<5lrine of a mere external conjun(5lion of Christ's humanity, a mere creature, 
 in a U7iity of dignity and authority with the uncreated God the Word is mere 
 blasphemy, as Cyril again and again teaches. So is a mere conjunBion of jux- 
 taposition, and so is a relative participation, for no creature, not even the high- 
 est of all creatures, Christ's own spotless and perfect humanity, can share the 
 dignity, the authority and the worship of Almighty God the Word; but the 
 Nestorians said that that Man, that mere creature could, and are therefore justly 
 termed Man- Worshippers {dvdpoiTroUrpai) and creature -worshippers {KnafiaroU^ 
 rpai). In other words Nestorianism ended in one Jewish heresy, denial of the In- 
 carnation of God the Word; and in the great pagan heresy of worshipping a mere 
 creature relatively. Hence not only the Third Council but the Fifth also con- 
 demns its Man-Worship, the former in the Eighth Anathema of St. Cyril approved 
 by it, and the latter in its Ninth Anathema, and in the Definition of which it 
 form's part. See on that whole matter of Man- Worship, note 183, pages 79-128, 
 above. As to Nestorian heresies on the Union see note 156, pages 61-69. 
 
 (566). Greek, rov Xptarov. 
 
 (567J. Greek, d£(y7r6rnv. This term though often rendered Lord means 
 
220 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 One, lest we clearly cut the one Anointed, and Son, and Lord (568) 
 into two, and fall into the crime of blasphemy, by making Him God 
 of Himself and Master (569) of Himself. For, as we have said 
 before, the Word of God having been united to flesh by His Sub- 
 stance (570) is [nevertheless] God of the universe, and Master of 
 every man (571), and He is neither slave (572) to Himself, nor Mas- 
 ter (5 73) to Himself. For even to think or say so, would be silly, 
 aye rather even impious. For although He Himself, being God by 
 Nature, and out of the Father's Substance, did say that the Father 
 was His God (574), nevertheless we are not ignorant that while 
 He was God, He was also made a man who was (575) under 
 God, in accordance with that law [of subje(5lion to God], which 
 befits the nature of the humanity. But how could He be made 
 God of Himself or Lord of Himself? Therefore, as man, and so 
 far as befitted the condition of one who h«ad made Himself of no 
 reputation (576), He says that He Himself, with us, is under God 
 (577)- ^<^ -^^ ^^^ made ufider the law also (578), although He 
 Himself uttered the Law, and was [the] Law-giver, forasmuch as 
 He is God (579). 
 
 properly Master. Cyril just below uses its correlative term "slave" {pov'koq\ 
 which is often rendered servant in the King James' Version. 
 
 (568). Greek, ^Lvptov. 
 
 (569). Greek, deoTrdrtjv. 
 
 (570). Greek, Kad' vTroaraaiv. 
 
 (571). Greek, deaTro^ei. . . rov TravToq. 
 
 (572). Greek, dovldq. 
 
 (573). Greek, deGTroTTjg. 
 
 (574). Matt, xxvii., 46. 
 
 (575). Or, ^^ Subject to God,^^ koL avBpuKoq yiyovev 6 vtto Qeu. 
 
 (576). Philip, ii., 7, literally, "and so far as befitted the measures of the 
 emptying. ' ' 
 
 (577). That is, "subject to God,'' viro Qeu). 
 (578). Galat. iv., 4. Greek, vTrb vofiov. 
 
 (579). I do not understand from this whether Cyril means that the Logos 
 was in the Father, and so adled with Him in giving the Law to Moses, or 
 whether he means that God the Word adled alone as the Lawgiver as the Repre- 
 sentative of the Father to Moses and to Israel. On the manifestations before 
 the Law and under it see note 309, page 231, Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Series, 
 and Passage 3 quoted from St. Athanasius on pages 222-225. On pages 222-236, 
 Athanasius argues, as in the third Passage, that religious bowing belongs to God 
 alone, and that therefore wherever it is given under the Old Testament to a 
 seeming angel, he was really the Logos. So he reasons on page 240, 241, 242. 
 So St. Epiphanius writes on page 242, 243, 244, 245, 246. So Faustin well argues 
 
Readi7ig of Cyril's Lo7ig Epistle to Nestomis. 221 
 
 " [F]. Furthermore, WE decline To say of Anointed, 'I wor- 
 ship him who is worri ' [the mere man put on by the Word], ' for the sake 
 of Him ' [the Word] ' Who wears him. I bow to him who is seen ' 
 [the mere Man] 'on account of Him' [the Word] 'who is unseen] ' and 
 it is A HORRIBLE THING, to Say also, in addition to that, 
 
 * * 'He who is take^i' [the mere man] Hs co- called God with Him' [the 
 Word] 'who has taken him ' (580). For he who says those things 
 
 on page 251. It is of fundamental importance and absolutely necessary to 
 Orthodoxy and to salvation that we always maintain the teaching of Athanasius 
 and the primitive Fathers that whenever any seeming angel, or seeming man, 
 appeared in the Old Testament and either demanded or received any act of wor- 
 ship, from God's sound servants, be it bowing, prostration, prayer, or any other, 
 he must have been God, because, as they reason, all adls of religious service are 
 prerogative to God alone, and therefore can not be given to any creature. Cyril 
 may in this case have gone farther, and where there was no appearance of a 
 seeming angel or man, may have meant to teach that the Lawgiver of Sinai was 
 not the Father but His Coeternal and Consubstantial Word. Indeed his words 
 above seem to show that he took that view. 
 
 (580). Greek, Uapairov/xeda 6e Ikyeiv ettI Xpiarov, " Am tov <^opovvra rbv cpopov- 
 fiEVOV Gtj3o), did TOV 'Aoparov rrpoGiivvo rbv 6p6/itvov" (ppinTov de TzpoQ rovru kciksIvo urrdv 
 " '0 ln(l)d£ic T(I> Xa^ovTi cvyxprniarl^EL Gcof." This Nestorianism is plainly the same 
 in principle as that which now prevails in all the creature-serving Communions, 
 the Roman, the Greek, the Monophysite, andtheNestorian; that is, it is relative- 
 worship. The worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is, beyond all suc- 
 cessful cavil, a worship of a part of His humanity, and is anathematized, by 
 necessary implication, in Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema VIII., and in Anathema 
 IX. of the Fifth Synod, exists in the Roman; and other forms of relative wor- 
 ship, relative that is to God, exist in all the rest of those Communions, in the 
 form of cross-service by kissing, etc., and in the form of kissing, burning lights, 
 incensing, kneeling, prostration, bowing, etc., to pictured images of the Father, 
 Son, or Spirit, to altars, communion tables, and the Bible, in the Greek, the 
 Roman, and Monophysite, and of all these and of graven images in the Roman. 
 
 Aye, worship, relative even to mere saints, angels, archangels, and the 
 Virgin Mary, is found in all those communions, except as to images only in the 
 Nestorian, in the form of kissing their images, bowing to them, burning lights 
 to them, incensing them, etc., their relics, etc. The Latins bow also to altars 
 of the Virgin, and of St. Joseph. 
 
 Furthermore, direct worship is paid to creatures in all those communions, 
 which, however, is occasionally put on the ground of worship to them for the 
 sake of God; that is, such paganizers claim that it is done relatively to God. 
 
 On the whole topic of the condemnation of the worship of the separate 
 humanity of Christ by the Ecumenical Councils, see note 156, pages 61-69, 
 above, and note 173, pages 74-76, and note 183, pages 79-128. On page 120, the 
 very language of Nestorius above is quoted. See also notes 581, 582 below, and» 
 on Relative worship, note 156, page 61. 
 
222 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 cuts [the Son] again into two Anointeds, and places the Man sepa- 
 rately by himself, and God [separately by Himself] in like manner. 
 For, confessedly, he denies the [true] Union, in accordance with the 
 doHiriyie of which [Union] no ONK is co-bowed-TO (581) AS ONE 
 
 St. Cyril treats of the above plain confession of Man- Worship by Nestorius 
 and denounces that error and sin again and again. I refer to some of the places 
 in the Oxford (P. E. Pusey's?) English translation of "5. Cyril of Alexandria 
 on the Incarnation Against Nestorius,'" but at the same time warn the reader 
 that that translation is not always exact, for if it was done by P. E. Pusey, it 
 should be said that he was only a layman, not a theologian, and was the son of 
 the notorious heresiarch and idolatrizer E. B. Pusey, and that it should be read 
 with caution as that of a suspect. But whoever was the translator, it should be 
 compared with the original where he translates passages of St. Cyril which con- 
 demn the Nestorianized views of the editor, E. B. Pusey, in favor of creature- 
 worship and of the worship of an alleged Real Presence of Christ's body and 
 blood in the Eucharist. Some part of P. E. Pusey's translation on such themes 
 is positively wrong. I would recommend therefore the reader who can to 
 examine the original Greek always. 
 
 Especially would I warn against Pusey's failure to bring out sufficiently in 
 his translation the difference between St. Cyril's profession of worshipping " the 
 Word within His Jiesh,'' or at least ''with His flesh " {ii^Ta aapKog), in such a 
 sense as not to co-worship His flesh with His Divinity, and his condemnation of 
 the error of ''co-worshipping- the fie sh with the Divinity.'" See on that the 
 language of Andrew of Samosata as quoted in the note on page 97 above. Com- 
 pare Nestorius' language in the Eighth and the Fourteenth of his Twenty Pas- 
 sages below as read in Act I. of the Third Synod. 
 
 Another mistranslation of P. E. Pusey, and a very bad one is his rendering 
 of O£0(l)6pov duOpuTTov, as for instance in St. Cyril's Anathema V. towards the end 
 of the above Epistle and elsewhere by "God-clad man." See on that P. E. 
 Pusey's Three Epistles ofS. Cyril^ Archbishop of Alexandria, page 68 com- 
 pared with page 36. From that rendering no man can understand Cyril's 
 meaning, there and in such places. It should be " inspired man.'" It bears on 
 the doctrine of the Incarnation. 
 
 So he constantly mistranslates QeoroKor, Bringer-Forth-of-God, by Mother 
 of God, as though it were f] Mf/rr/p tov Qeov, an expression not authorized by the 
 Third Council. The two expressions are not exa6lly the same in sense, as will 
 be shown elsewhere. The old Latins rendered QeoroKog exa(5lly by Deipara. 
 But it was like the Latinizer and mediaevalizer Pusey to prefer the mediaeval 
 and modern Mother of God to the exact translation of the expression used by 
 the Holy-Ghost-led Synod, Bringer-forth-ofGod. E. B. Pusey, in his scoun- 
 drelly Eirenicon in his desire to Romanize and idolatrize the Anglican Church 
 actually favors image-worship and the invocation of saints. See pages 105- 108, 
 of Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Series. Alas! alas! the tendency of much better 
 men than the traitor Pusey has resulted in doing away in the Anglican Commun- 
 ion the ancient and apostolic trine dipping, which it had retained till some time 
 in Elizabeth's blessed reign. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 
 
 223 
 
 WITH ANOTHER, NOR IS ANY ONE CO-CALLED GOD, AS ONE WITH 
 
 another; hvX Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole- Born,is understood to be [onlyj 
 one, and is ko7iored with [but] ONE bow (582), within his own fiesfi 
 (583). 
 
 Passages which bear on the topic of Relative Worship in St. Cyril are very 
 numerous, for his clear intellect at once saw that that Nestorian makeshift was 
 a plain return to the old pagan argument of Relative Worship, and his holy 
 soul hated it because he loved God who forbids all creature-worship, whatever 
 bethespeciousnessandcraftoftha paganizer's plea for it, and his conscience 
 moved him to do his duty as a Bishop and Watchman against it, and his pity, 
 and zeal for the salvation of the deathless souls confided to him bv Christ forced 
 him to speak and act on all occasions against that Nestorian error. 
 
 I have room here for only a few out of scores of references in his works 
 against it. I will refer therefore only to a part of those in one volume, that is 
 in the Oxford translation oi S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
 Nestorius. They are, 
 
 1. Pages 75—81: compare pages 63—75, and indeed all of the Second 
 Book of which those passages form part in Cyril's Five- Book Contradiaion of 
 the Blasphemies of Nestorius. The passage on pages 75—81 is in Sections XI. , 
 XII., XIII. and XIV. of that book. It is found in P. B. Pusey's edition of the 
 Greek of St. CyriVs Works, vol. VI, pages 127—133. On page 129, id., St. 
 Cyril speaks of Nestorius' error of the Relative Worship of Christ's humanity, as 
 resulting in Man-Worship {avdpunoTiarpelag.) 
 
 2. On Nestorius' error of Relative- Worship see in that Oxford translation 
 of 5. Cyrilof Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, in the Index 
 of Greek Words under axtczi and ax^riKnv, not however in that bungling trans- 
 lation of them but in the original Greek of places there referred to. 
 
 I have a Dissertation on the whole theme of the Nestorian Relative Wor- 
 ship of Christ's humanity, which, if God will, I hope to publish. In it I try 
 to give a goodly number of patristic and also heretical passages on that theme. 
 
 In the Three Synodical Epistles of Cyril, including the two approved by the 
 Third Council, and in the Definition of the Fifth and in its Ninth Anathema we 
 have utterances of the whole Church against the Nestorians' Relative- Worship 
 of Christ's separate humanity. The Long Epistle of Cyril above even quotes 
 the words of the heresiarch and condemns them. So does this very Third Synod 
 farther on in this its Act I. These are Ecumenical and therefore not disputable 
 Decisions forever. I here go somewhat into detail as to the charadler of such 
 of Nestorius' heretical utterances on the theme of the Relative- Worship of 
 Christ's humanity as are quoted to prove that he held that error and are con- 
 demned in said Act and made the basis of his deposition. First, and what is of 
 vast importance, the words of Nestorius above, '' I worship him who is worn " 
 [themereMan] 'for the sake of Him'' [God the Word] ''who wear shim. Ibowto 
 him who is seen-" [that is the mere Man], ''on account of Him'' [God the Word] 
 " Who is unseen," are found in the Eighth of those Twenty Passages which were 
 culled from his writings as proofs and specimens of his heresies and read further 
 
224 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 * 'And we confess that the Son Himself, and God Sole-Born, born 
 out of God the Father, although in His own [Divine] Nature He is 
 not liable to suffering, [nevertheless] suffered in flesh for us, accord- 
 on in this Act I. On the basis of those Passages he was condemned and deposed 
 as a Man-Serving heretic {avQpo-KoJvarp'qq). It is noteworthy that in the said 
 Eighth Passage of Nestorius the above words are followed by a further profes- 
 sion of his Ma7i -Worship, as follows: ^^ God is tmseparated from him' ^ [the 
 mere Man] " who appears. For that reason I do not separate the honor of the 
 unseparated One. I separate the Natures- but I unite the bowing." 
 
 The above words, taken in conne(5lion with other utterances of Nestorius, 
 mean that he believed in a mere moral inseparability of God the Word and the 
 Man born of Mary whom, according to him, God the Word indwelt not by his 
 Eternal Substance as the Orthodox believe, but by his Spirit only as He indwelt 
 the Apostles and Prophets as the Nestorians believe. So he bowed to the two 
 Natures contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema VIII. which was ap- 
 proved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and contrary also to Anathema IX. 
 of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 So in the Tenth Passage quoted from Nestorius among the Twenty afore- 
 said, he again professes to worship Christ's humanity; for he writes: 
 
 '' Let us worship the Man co-bowed to with the Almighty God in the divine 
 conjunction y 
 
 So in the Fourteenth of the Twenty Passages of Nestorius aforesaid, he 
 shows again that he worships Christ's humanity with reference, that is Rela- 
 tively to God the Word; I quote, 
 
 ''I co-bow to him'' [the mere Man] ''with the Divinity^'' [oftheWord], ''inas- 
 much as he is a co-worker with the divine authority * * -s^- that which was 
 formed from a womb is not God by itself; that which was created by the Spirit 
 is not God by itself: that which was buried in the tomb was not God by itself: 
 for" [if we had] "so'' [said and worshipped that Man as being himself God,] "we 
 should have been plainly worshippers of a Man, and worshippers of a corpse. 
 But precisely because God is in the Man taken," [Nestorius means by His Spirit 
 only, not by His Substance] "the Man taken is co-called God" [with God the 
 Word] "from Him"' [the Word] " Who has taken him, inasmuch as that Man is 
 co-joined to God the Word Who has taken him." 
 
 Forasmuch as giving the name God to a creature is giving what is preroga- 
 tive to God to a creature, and is an act of religious worship, therefore St. Cyril 
 anathematizes it in his Anathema VIII. See it in the Letter above towards 
 the end. 
 
 Such worship of created things or created persons relatively to God the 
 Word is a return to the pagan principle of relative-worship, and therefore 
 Cauon I. of the Third Synod calls John of Antioch's Nestorian Conventicle at 
 Ephesus " the Sanhedrim [or "the Council "'\ of the Afos1!asy {ru r?/g 'ATvoaraalac 
 IvusdpLG)); and in its Canon 11. it repeats the same appellation of it, and speaks of 
 l<iesionsinism as the Aposlasy {r?j ■ArroaTaclg); and in its Canons III. and IV. it 
 
Readiyig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestoriics. 225 
 
 ing to the Scriptures (584), and He, though He did not suffer, [never- 
 theless] was in the crucified body, appropriating to Himself the suffer- 
 ings of His own flesh (585), and by the grace (586) of God, He tasted 
 
 speaks of those who leave the Church for Nestorianism as Apostates (Canon 
 III. has aTTOGTaTTjcaaiv, and Canon IV. has cnroaTaTT/tyaiev). 
 
 (581). Greek, av^npoaKweiTai. 
 
 (582). That is no bow is to be given separately to Christ's humanity. 
 Andrew, of Samosata, the Nestorian, in commenting adversely on St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria's Anathema VIII., as we see by his language in note 183, page 97 
 above, states that Cyril ''said that the Son [that is, the Logos evidently, 
 Chrystal], must be bowed to with flesh, but Jorbids the flesh to be co-bowed to 
 with His Divinity; " as the Greek has it, /'i^wv avTov utra capKoq delv TrpoaKi'vtladni, 
 ■a-ayopevuv 6e cvfinpocKweladaL ry Qeottjtl rijv odpaa. Andrew evidently, according 
 to that translation, understood St. Cyril to deny any worship to Christ's hu- 
 manity at all; that is, he seems to have understood him so to worship the Word 
 zvith His flesh {fiera capKoq) as not to worship the flesh at all. See the place in 
 Cyril of Alexandria's Defence of his XII, Chapters Against the Bishops of the 
 East, that is, of the Patriarchate of Antioch, of which John of that see, Nesto- 
 rius' supporter, was head. I have quoted it as I find it in P. B. Pusey's edition 
 of Cyril of Alexandria's Works, Vol. VI., page 316. See on that particular 
 point pages 102-128 of note 183 above. On ix^ra and cvv above see page 97, 
 note. To that I would add another passage which I have since found; it is in 
 Cyril of Alexandria's Address on the Right Faith to Arcadia and Marina, 
 where he is arguing against the Nestorian assertion that Christ is a mere Man, 
 and contending that He is God, because religious bowing is given to Him 
 which, being prerogative to Divinity alone, and being given to the Son in the 
 New Testament proves that He must be God. I quote the passage as I find it 
 on page 193 of Part I., Vol. VII. of P. E. Pusey's edition of Cyril of Alexan- 
 dria' s Works: 
 
 ''From the Epistle to the Hebrews : 
 
 '"And when He bringeth in the First Brought Forth into the inhabited 
 world. He saith, A?td let all God's angels bow to Him.' 
 
 "The Word who has come out of God the Father has been named Sole Born 
 with reference to His [Divine] Nature, because He alone has been born out of 
 the Father alone. And He was called Fij^st Brought Forth also when having 
 been made Man He came into the inhabited world and [became] a part of it. 
 And besides He is so bowed to by the holy angels, and that too when The right 
 TO BE BOWED TO BEIvONGS TO AND BEFITS GoD AI^ONE. How then is Christ not 
 God, seeing that He is bowed to even in heaven ? " 
 
 ""Orav 6e Eiaayayy rbv YlpororoKov eiq ttjv oiKovjuivT/v, Xeyet, Kal npooKwr/aaTucjav 
 uvtC) TzavTEQ ayyeTJiOL Qsov.' 
 
 Mowyevr/f /card (pvatv 6 ek Qeov liarpbg livoiiaarai Is.6yoq^oTi {lovog ek jiovov yEyivvTjTai 
 Tov Uarpoc ElpVTai 6e Kal Ilpwroro/cof , ote koI eIgtjWev Elq t^v oIkovhevtjv avdpunog yEyovcjg 
 ml HEpoc ai'TT^g. U^v Kal ovtu npoGKVVE'irai napd ruv dyiuv dyyiXXtov, dvaKEtfiivov te koI 
 
226 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 death for everyman (587) [by] giving for him His own body, although 
 in His [Divine] Nature He Hijnself is Life, aiid the Resurre^lion 
 (588). For in order that, by His unspeakable power, He might tread 
 death under foot, and so, in His own flesh first, might become [the] 
 
 TTpeTTOvTog //dvcj Qeo) rov koX npnaKweiadai 6eiv. Hug ovv uv Qeog 6 Xpiardg, 6 koL kv ovpavut- 
 TzpocKVVovjievog. ' ' 
 
 In making all worship by bowing, the most common of the adls of religious 
 service and standing for them all, prerogative to Almighty God, Cyril follows 
 tlie teaching of his instructor and predecessor the great Athanasius, and others. 
 See in this set, Vol. I. oi Nicaea, A. D. 325, pages 217-255, and under Athanasius 
 and Bowing in its Index. 
 
 Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, the Nestorian, seems to have held that St. 
 Cyril denied all worship to Christ's humanity; see note 183 above, pages 98, 
 121, 125 and 126. 
 
 (583). Greek, hXK tig votlrai Xpiorbg 'Irjaovg^ Tibg Movoyev^g, fiig ir-poGKVVTjaEi 
 rificofievog juera rfjg Idiag oapKog. The last four Greek words are often used by Cyril 
 in connedlion with the topic of worship to the Word. They may mean " with 
 His own flesh," or " within His own flesh." In note 183 I have treated of that 
 matter historically only, on pages 102-128. See there. I reserve any fuller dis- 
 cussion of it until I come to a Dissertation on the subject where I may express 
 my own judgment. See the note last above. Those who believe in the worship 
 of both Natures of Christ understand the worship of the Word iitra Tijg Uiag aap- 
 Kog^ to be equivalent to cv/iTrpocKwelaOai. ry deoTTjrt rip adpKa. 
 
 Those who deny any worship to Christ's Humanity, but confine all worship 
 to Him to His Divinity, claim that the language of Andrew on page 97 above, 
 makes against that view, and say in effect about as follows: 
 
 "The words fj-£ra rfjg Idiag aapKog do not imply that the flesh is worshipped, 
 but only that we bow to the Word who is always with His own flesh. The case 
 is somewhat similar to my non-religious bowing to a friend. Whenever I see 
 him he has clothing on. And I bow to him with that clothing on, but never to 
 the clothing. So with my non-religious bowing to a woman. Cyril does not here 
 say, * / bow to the flesh with the Word, ' nor does he say, '/ bow to the Word and 
 His flesh,' nor does he say, '/ bow to the Word, TOGETHER v^YfB. His flesh' {avv ry 
 aapni). On the contrary, in his books against Nestorius, he, in effect, condemns 
 all such expressions as Ma?i-Serving, that is creature-serving, and approves the 
 credal expression, * / bow TO THE Word, within his flesh. ' Cyril in his Scholia 
 shows that by the expressions ''Anointed,'' ''Jesus," "Son," and "Sole-Born," 
 he means the Word alone, who, however, has put on flesh and is in a Man. 
 And those who deny worship to Christ's Humanity adduce against it Anathema 
 VIII. of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which was approved by the Third Synod, and 
 Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and an expression in the Defi- 
 nition of that Holy Synod against " the crime of Man- Worship." 
 
 I reserve my own judgment till the proper Dissertation appears. It would 
 be anticipating to speak now. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius, 227 
 
 First Brought Forthfrom among the dead {^^g\2in6. [the] First Fruits of 
 those who slept (590); and in order that He might make for the nature 
 of man, a road back to incorruption, He, by the grace of God, as we 
 have just said, tasted death for every man (591), and returned to life 
 
 (584). I. Peter iv., i. See also Paul's language in Acts xx., 28, where we- 
 read, ''Feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with Hisozmt blood,'' 
 which is a plain New Testament example of the doctrine of Economic Appro- 
 priation, for here the bloodshedding of the Humanity is appropriated to God 
 the Word to Whom that humanity belongs. 
 
 It is noteworthy that " God " in the above text is the reading of the two 
 oldest manuscripts of the New Testament, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, a fact 
 admitted by Tischendorf in his Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Octava^ 
 Critica Major, Lipsiae, 1869-1872; though with the same (shall I say Arian 
 or Socinian?) animus, exhibited by him elsewhere, he argues for '' Lord'^ 
 instead of ''God'' there. See on I. Tim. iii., 16, where his arguments for " who '* 
 instead of " God" do not shake the testimonies of writers of the fourth century- 
 like Gregory of Nyssa and Didymus of Alexandria, and writers even earlier^ 
 there adduced. It should be added that even with the lection "Lord," (rov 
 Kvplov, in Acts xx., 28, the sense is still the same according to Cyril's and the 
 Third Synod's understanding of that expression, for they take it to mean God. 
 For as we see in Cyril's three Epistles which were approved in Ecumenical 
 Synods and in Cyril's Scholia he, and those Councils, who followed him as their 
 teacher, understood every name of Christ of God the Word. 
 
 There is still another reading of that place, namely *' the Lord and God'^ 
 {jov Kvpiov Kat eeoi'), which of course also makes the reference to be to God. 
 
 (585). Greek, Kal rjv ev rcj oravpcjftivri au/aari to, t^c tdlag aapubg aTvaOug oiKELOvfxe- 
 vogTcdd?/, that is " claiming as His own the sufferings of His own flesh," on the 
 ground that the flesh which suffered was His and not another's. This is St. 
 Cyril's do6lrine of Economic Appropriation. This is not Theopaschitism, for 
 Cyril here denies that God the Word suffered, and explains his utterances which 
 might, without that explanation, seem to teach it. And, so explained, the 
 Universal Church approves those utterances in this Letter. On this Dodlrine of 
 Economic Appropriation see above, page 74, note 173, and page 79, note 182, and 
 Cyril's Anathema XII., which, in effect, asserts it and anathematizes those who- 
 deny it. 
 
 The Greek at the head of this note, literally translated, is ''And He was in 
 the crucified body un suffering ly Appropriating to Himself the sufferings of His 
 own flesh." 
 
 On the dodlrine of the Economic Appropriation to Himself by God the 
 Word of the sufferings, including even the crucifixion and death, of the 
 Man put on by Him, see the pages referred to under o'lKeiuaiv and oIkslc)- 
 aerai in the Index of Greek Words in the Oxford translation of 5» Cyril of 
 Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius; St. Cyril's Defence of the 
 Xllth of his XII. Chapters Against the Eastern Bishops; his Defence of the 
 same Chapter against Theodoret; Chapters VIII. and XXXVII. of his Scholia, 
 
228 ^^^ ^' ^f ^phesus. 
 
 again on the third day, having spoiled Hades (592). So that even 
 ^liough it is said that by a mail came the resurreHion of the dead (593), 
 nevertheless we understand that the Word who came out of God was 
 that man (594), and that the power of death has been dissolved by 
 
 on the Incarnation; his Dialogue entitled That Christ is One, pages 296-306 in 
 the Oxford translation of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
 Nestorius; his Short Letter to Nestorius, on pages 74-79 above, and the notes 
 on them; and in his Letter to John of Antioch which was approved by the Fourth 
 Kcumenical Synod. The last place is on page 74 of P. E. Pusey's Three Epis- 
 tles ofS. Cyril. See also in the aforesaid Oxford translation of S. Cyril, pages 
 5, 6, 10, 116, 158, 159, 163, 166, 169, 170. 174 and note, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 193 
 and note, 225, 226, text and note "n," 227, 228, 229, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 249, 
 300, 301, 302, 303, 304 to 308, 312, 313 to 318, 319, 336, and in the Index to that 
 volume, page 383 under " His Passion.'' Indeed St. Cyril's assertions of the 
 important dodrine of Economic Appropriation are very numerous, even in that 
 one volume. See also all his works passim. See their indexes under proper 
 terms. St. Athanasius, St. Cyril's teacher and his predecessor on the throne of 
 Alexandria, taught the same dodlrine of Economic Appropriation. See some 
 statements 'adduced from him on that theme in .S". Cyril of Alexandria on the 
 Incarnation Agatiist Nestorius, page 291, note "r," Oxford translation. 
 
 And see also especially Anathema XII. at the end of the above Ecumeni- 
 cally approved Epistle. It is Cyril's and the Universal Church's Economic Ap- 
 propriation Anathema, that is their Anathema on all heretics who deny that 
 necessary dodlrine. See also page 130, Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 (586). That is, "favor." 
 (587). Heb. ii., 9- 
 
 (588). John xi., 25. Compare John v., 26, and John vi., 35-41. 
 (s8q). Col. i., 18. Greek, Tlpwrdro/cof zk tuv vsKpuv. See on page 225 above, 
 note 582, where St. Cyril well explains the difference between Sole-Bom (Mow- 
 yevrjg) and First Brought Forth (J\pu>t6toko^). 
 
 (590). I. Cor. XV., 20; see page 126 above, noted. 
 (591). Heb. ii., 9- 
 
 (592). Col. ii., 15; I. Cor. xv., 54-58, and Eph. iv., 8. 
 (593). I. Cor. XV., 21. 
 
 (594). It is plain that no mere creature, not even the highest of all mere 
 creatures, the spotless and perfect Man put on by God the Word in Mary's 
 womb, could effect the resurredlion of the dead. That is the work of the Logos 
 alone.' He is the Agent of the Father in that prerogatively divine operation, 
 (John v., 19-31). St. Paul therefore in the expression above (I. Cor. xv., 21) 
 uses the term Man as referring to God the Word. This accords with the funda- 
 mental dodlrine of Orthodoxy by which all the names and sufferings of the 
 Man put on are ascribed to God the Word who put him on. For God the Word 
 is the infinitely superior Nature of the Two, and unless we bear this in mind 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 229 
 
 Him (595). And in due season, He will come as one Son and Lord 
 
 there is great danger that we run into the fundamental heresy of Man-Worship 
 as St. Athanasius and St. Cyril show; see above, page 74, note 173; page 79, 
 note 182; and page 75, note. 
 
 (595)- John i., 14; II. Tim. i., 10; I. Cor. xv., 54, 55; and Heb. ii., 14. The 
 context in Chapter I. of Hebrews shows that it was God the Word who destroyed 
 death. 
 
 (596). Matt. xvL, 27; Mark viii., 38; John v., 19-31; and Acts xvii., 31. 
 
 (597)- That is in the Congregations.'''' Greek, r^v avaifiaKTov h rale kKKlrjaiai(: 
 Te?^ov/uev "kaTpeiav. 
 
 (598). The Greek expression KarayyellovTEQ (see I. Cor. xi., 26), should be 
 rendered telling on, that is by those symbols of bread and wine. For " tell on'' 
 is the literal meaning of that verb. And in I. Cor. xi. , 26, it should be trans- 
 lated '' ye do tell on. ' ' Compare the texts under KarayyrA'Au} in the Englishman'' s 
 Greek Coficordance of the New Testatnent, where out of seventeen instances of 
 it, it is ten times rendered by ''preach,'" thrice by ''shew,'" once by "teach,'" 
 twice by "declare,'''' and once by " spoken of ." All those renderings coincide 
 with the literal sense, * ' tell on. ' ' 
 
 (599')- Or&€^,riiv avaljiaKTov *** Afxrpemt^, that is "service without blood," 2in 
 expression which makes for the Symbolic view of the Eucharist against both Con- 
 substantiation and Transubstantiation. For, of course if there is actual blood 
 there, as the Consubstantiationist and the Transubstantiatiouistboth hold, the sac- 
 rifice is bloody; not unbloody. This expression Unbloody Sacrifice, has been used 
 from primitive times to mark a principal point of difference between the sacri- 
 ficial service of Christianity and that of Judaism, that is to contrast the unbloody 
 aftertypes of the leavened bread and wine of the great sacrifice of Calvary, with 
 its bloody foretype in the Passover Lamb under the Mosaic Dispensation. The 
 Roman and Creature-serving interpretation here is that when the writers of the 
 primitive Church used the expression "ujibloody service," and unbloody sacri- 
 fice, ' ' and when the Universal Church approved, in its Third Synod, the former 
 expression in this Letter of Cyril, they all meant the exact opposite to what 
 they said! that is, that they meant bloody sacrifice ! This after all their twistings 
 and dodgings is what the Consubstantiationists and the Transubstantiationists 
 mean. And so they, in effect, reject this part of the Decisions of the Universal 
 Church, and are heretics, in order to maintain their own bloody sacrifice and 
 idolatrous and creature-serving errors of Consubstantiation and Transubstantia- 
 tion, and their logical consequence, the worshipping of Christ's Divine Substance 
 as there present ; whereas Cyril, as we shall show elsewhere, confesses that the 
 Substance of the Word is not there, and both he and the Universal Church 
 following him have defined and taught that Christ's separate humanity is not to 
 be served, because it is a creature, and that in the Eucharist there is no real 
 flesh and blood of a man like us at all, and that neither is eaten or drunk there. 
 And, in passing, I would say that there are some men so thickheaded and 
 unspiritual as to suppose that unless they make the Christian Sacrifice in the 
 
230 ^<^i I' of Ephesus. 
 
 in the glory of the Father, to judge, as it is written, the world in 
 righteousness (596). 
 
 Eucharist one of actual blood it is not so lofty a one as the bloody ofiferings of 
 the Mosaic I^aw, whereas it is superior to them precisely because it is a spiritual 
 offering, inasmuch as the spiritual, as all wise men admit, is in its very nature 
 higher than the merely carnal, that is, as carnal m^d^w.^, fleshly. Hence the Holy 
 Ghost, by the Apastle Peter (I. Peter ii., 5, 9), speaks of the priesthood of 
 Christian clergy and people as being a spiritual one and their sacrifices spirit- 
 ual, and so more noble than the carnal, that \% fleshly sacrifices of the Jews, 
 sucn as the oflfering of lambs, bullocks and goats. For, addressing his Christiaa 
 brethren; Peter writes (I. Peter ii., 5, 9). 
 
 " Ye also as living stones, are built up a spiriTUAI, house, a holy priest- 
 hood, to offer up SPiRiTUAi, sacrifices well pleasing to God through Jesus: 
 Anointed. * * * But ye are a chosen race, a royai, priesthood." And 
 well therefore does John the Apostle glorify Christ that ''He hath made us 
 * * * PRIESTS to his God and Father " (Rev. i., 6), a glory of which an early 
 writer, Tertullian, reminds his brethren, in his work On the Soldier's Crown, 
 Sedlion 15, and in that On Monogamy, Sedlion 7, in both which places he quotes 
 the last named text. And because the Christian clerics who lead in the offering 
 (for all Christian laics offer with them, as the language of the Anglican Liturgy 
 and other lyiturgies shows), offer spiritual sacrifices such as the Bloodless Sacrifice 
 {avalfxaKTog dvaia) and prayer and praise, and alms, therefore are they priests in a 
 higher sense than the sons of Aaron ever were. For the Holy Ghost by Paul 
 teaches us that /?/z^ ^//*^^ and sacrifices of the Mosaic Law could not make hint 
 that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience, which stood only in 
 articles of food and drink, end divers washings, and cardial ordinances imposed 
 on them until the time of Reformation (Heb. ix., 9, 10), that {^ordinances of 
 flesh, that is commands in the Mosaic Law to offer the flesh of lambs, bullocks, 
 goats, etc., in sacrifice, until the Christian Dispensation, the Ministration of the 
 Spirit, should take the place of the Mosaic Dispensation, the Ministration of 
 the letter and of death (II. Cor. iii., 6-12), that is when the Spiritual, and because 
 Spiritual therefore higher Dispensation of Christ, should take the place of the 
 Mosaic Dispensation oi fleshly ordinances, and h^zan^^ fleshly therefore inferior. 
 For since Christ ''offered one sacrifice for sins forever'' (Heb. x., 12), there 
 remain no more bloody sacrifices, which were merely foretypes of His one all 
 sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world on Calvary (Rom. vi., 10, 
 ''For in that He died He died for sin o?ice for all," as the Greek there is; see 
 also Heb. vii., 27; Heb. ix., 12, 28; Heb. x., 1-19; L Peter iii., 18, etc.), and they 
 derived their whole efficacy to pardon from it as foretypes of it, not from any 
 virtue in themselves; and now remain the nobler aftertypes of that great sacri- 
 fice of Calvary, the bread and wine of the Thanksgiving {KvxapLGTla), so-called 
 from the giving of thanks by Christ at the Lord's Supper [tvxapLarrjGaq in Matt. 
 xxvi., 27; Mark xiv., 23; Luke xxii., 19, and I. Cor. xi., 24; compare Gardner's 
 Greek Harmony of the Gospels, Se<5lion 134 ; and Suicer's Thesaurus under 
 <' Ei),Yap«(Tri'a, II.," where early writers are quoted to show that Eucharist, that is 
 Thanksgiving (Ey;j:a/3i(7ria), is derived from the expression having given thanks. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 231 
 
 And we will, necessarily, add that thing also. 
 
 (ei'xapiaTT/aag), in the Gospels); as it is often called t/ie Blessing iEvXoyla), and 
 both elements together the B/essings, as in St. Cyril's Epistle above {rui^ 
 HVGTLKalq evXoyiacq) from the fact that Christ blessed in the Lord's Supper in Matt, 
 xxvi., 26, and Mark xiv., 22. Wherefore Paul in I. Corinthians x., 16, calls the 
 Eucharistic, that is the Thanksgiving cup, ^'^ the cup of the Blessing {tu TTorf/piov 
 riiq Ev?t.oyiag b EV?ioyovuev). 
 
 The leavened bread {apror, not dCi'ua) and wine of the Eucharist are also 
 called the Communion, as in I. Cor. x., 16, ''The cup of the Blessing which we 
 bless is it not a Communion of the blood of the Anointed One {ovxt Koivuvla -ov 
 aljaaToq tov Xpiarov kauv) ? The leavened bread which we break is it not a Com- 
 munion of the body of the Anointed One {rdv aprov dv k?.cjiliev, ovx't Koivuvia tov 
 aufiaroq tov XpccyTov koTiv) ? 
 
 Suicer in his Thesaurus, under the word 'Ev'koyia, that is Blessing, Sedlion 
 IV., shows from Cyril of Alexandria, and Chrysostom, that the ancient Chris- 
 tians used it of the Eucharist, a usage, by the way, which has fallen into too 
 much disuse as Thanksgiving for it also has. 
 
 As we shall see below, one of the Twenty heretical Passages adduced from 
 Nestorius' writings as causes for his condemnation and deposition asserts that 
 the real body and blood of Christ's humanity are in the Eucharist, so that he 
 made it in some sense a bloody sacrifice. See on priesthood and sacrifice there 
 and note 95, page 39 above, and id., page 195, note 491. For instances where 
 the ancient Christians used avaifiaKToq Ovala, wibloody sacrifice, of the Eucharist, 
 see under avaifiaKTog and dvcia in Sophocles' Greek Glossary and also in his Lex- 
 icon, as well as Qvala in Suicer' s Thesaurus. It would be a sad blunder to forget 
 that the bloodless offerings of the New Testament are higher offerings than the 
 bloody sacrifices of the Old Testament because they are Spiritual, not carnal 
 that is not of flesh. Many radical so-called Protestants forget this and lay 
 themselves open to a crushing reply by any competent scholar. They do not 
 help us against Roman idolatry and Roman errors on the Thanksgivifi^ 
 {Evx(ipi(^'!'^o-). 
 
 1 here quote a few passages out of many to show how prominent the ancient 
 Christians made the New Testament truth that in the Christian Dispensation 
 sacrifices are no longer of flesh, and bloody like those of Moses and those of the 
 heathen, but spiritual and unbloody. I will refer to others, for the narrow 
 limits of a note forbid me to do more. For more on this topic I must refer to 
 my Dissertation on the Eucharist, to be published hereafter if God by His 
 servants gives me the means. 
 
 I would say that the ancient Christian writers were fond of quoting Malachi 
 i., 10, II, as predidlive of the Christian Unbloody Offering of the Thanksgiving 
 {^vxapioTia) as preferred by God to the bloody offerings of the Jews and as sub- 
 stituted for them by Christ in the Gospel. 
 
 Some of these references, for the sake of those readers who do not under- 
 stand Greek are given to the pages of Clark's Ante-Nicene Christian Library^ 
 
232 Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 '' [G]. For in the Churches (597), tellifig on the death as regards 
 
 published at Edinburgh, Scotland, in 24 volumes. The Greek-reading scholar 
 can by them readily find them in the original. 
 
 My limits here will not allow me to refer to many authors outside of the 
 Ante-Nicene period. 
 
 In a note on the whole of the above Bucharistic passage, I will quote St. 
 Cyril's predecessors in teaching, who belonged to the School of Alexandria, 
 whom probably he best knew, and whom he would naturally most incline to 
 follow. Indeed, in his Epistle to John of Aniioch which was approved by the 
 Fourth World-Council, he professes to follow St. Athanasius in all things. 
 
 I will put each of the following references, under the century in which its 
 writer flourished. The limits of a note do not permit me to quote them in full: 
 
 Century I. 
 
 The New Testament utterances on our theme are referred to above in this 
 note. 
 
 I do not adduce the alleged Epistle of Barnabas here, because its authen- 
 ticity is now generally denied. On it see the article Barnabas in Hackett's 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible; the article Barnabas, Epistle of, in Smith and 
 Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, the author of which (Milligan) has 
 (strangely enough) blundered so far as to deny that Barnabas was an apostle, 
 contrary to the plain statement in Adls xiv., 14, that he was; and the Introduc- 
 tory Notice to it on pages 99 and 100 in Volume I. of the Ante-Nicene Chris- 
 tian Library. 
 
 In Chapter 2 of that Epistle its writer, whoever he was, speaks of the 
 Jewish sacrifices of flesh, incense, etc., as abolished, and the Christian sacrifices 
 of a broken spirit, and a heart that glorifies God as acceptable to Him. The 
 passage is on pages 102- 104 of the Apostolic Fathers, Volume I. of the Ante- 
 Nicene Christiafi Library. 
 
 Century II. 
 
 Justin the Martyr teaches the priesthood of Christians in his Dialogue 
 with Trypho, Sedlion XIvI., pages 120 and 121 of the Oxford translation ; and 
 Se<5tion CXVI., page 214, id., where Christians are called ''the true high- 
 priestly family of God,'' predi6led of in Malachi i., 11, and Section CXVII., 
 pages 215 and 216, id. In Sedtions XIvI. and CXVII., he applies Malachi i., 
 10, II as a predidlion of the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices and the substitu- 
 tion for them of the Christian — the pure sacrifice of the Eucharist. Compare 
 Sedlion XXVIII., page 104, id. See also under ''Sacrifices'' in the Index to 
 that volume, and " Sacrificia" in the Index to tome 6 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca. 
 
 Still more clear for spiritual sacrifices is Chapter XIII. of his First Apology, 
 page 9, id. See also under Eucharist in the Index to that volume for the 
 simple spiritual form of it then. The article Justinus Martyr in Smith and 
 Wace's Di5lionary of Christiafi Biography, Vol. I., gives as an approximate 
 date for the First Apology A. D. 148, and for the Dialogue with Trypho, A. D. 
 142-164; see id., page 563, and 570. 
 
Readiyig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nes tortus, 233 
 
 His flesh (598), of the Sole-Born Son of God, that is of Jesus An- 
 
 Century II. 
 
 Section XIII. o^ the ''Embassy'''' or '' Intercession of hn^^^hGo^KS'^^^ 
 Athenian Christian Phii^osopher /^r //z^ Christians.''' It is addressed '''to 
 the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus.'" 
 Maiisel in his article " Athettagoras" in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of 
 Christian Biography, vol. i., page 205, concludes that the work "was written 
 between the end of A. D. 176 and that of A. D. 177." That brings its date to 
 about 76 or 77 years after the death of the Apostle John, and, so, within a com- 
 paratively short distance of the Apostolic age, while the Church was still pure. 
 I quote this place: 
 
 " But since most of those who charge us with atheism, have not even the 
 dreamiest knowledge of God and are unlearned and unobservant of the physical, 
 and the theological matter [involved], and measure piety by the law of sacri- 
 fices, and [therefore] charge us with not acknowledging the same gods as the 
 cities do, consider here I pray ye, O Emperors, both those points. And first as 
 to our not sacrificing : the Maker and Father of the Universe does not need 
 blood, nor the odor of burnt sacrifice, nor the fragrance of flowers and incense, 
 forasmuch as He Himself is the perfect Fragrance having no need nor lack; but 
 the greatest sacrifice to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted 
 the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a centre, who gathered the 
 water into seas, and divided the light from the darkness, who adorned the sky 
 with stars, and made the earth to bring forth seed of every kind, who made 
 animals, and formed man. When, holding God to be the Maker who holds 
 them together and superintends them all by that knowledge and skill with 
 which He guides all things, we lift up holy hands [I. Tim. ii., 8] to Him, what 
 need has He further of a hecatomb ? 
 
 " 'And men, when any one has transgressed and sinned, intreat the gods by 
 sacrifices and gentle prayers, and with a drink-offering and with the odor of 
 burnt sacrifice, and tur7t away their wrath * [Homer's Iliad, ix., 499, sq.]. 
 
 " But what have I to do with whole burnt sacrifices, which God does not need ? 
 Although it is necessary to offer an unbi^oody Sacrifice and to bring the 
 reasonable service^' [Romans xii., i]. The Greek of this last part is, Kairot 
 7rpoG(pepeiv deov avaifiaKTov BvaiaVj koL tijv Tioymijv Trpoadyeiv larpelav. The aval/xaKrov 
 dvaiav^ that is the Unbloody Sacrifice is probably the Eucharist, for that is its 
 common name among the ancients. And nvaifj.aK.Toc, we must remember, means 
 without blood, and the Eucharist, that is the Thanksgiving, is unbloody in that 
 sense therefore. 
 
 The expression reasonable service is used by Paul in Romans xii., i, of pre- 
 senting our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. 
 
 It should be said that in the New Testament the term sacrifice {Ovcla) is used 
 not only for Christ's sacrifice on Calvary, but also for different kinds of spir- 
 itual sacrifices also; for instance in Philip, ii., 17, of the sacrifice of faith ; in 
 Philip, iv., 18, the things sent to him by the Philippians to relieve his want ; in 
 
'234 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ointed, and confessing His coming to life again from the dead, and 
 
 Hebrews xiii., 15, 16, it is used for " the sacrifice of praise to God continually, 
 that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name,'' an)i for doing good 
 aud for communicating of our means to others ; and in I. Peter ii., 5, for ''spir- 
 itual sacrifices acceptable to God through fesus Anointed,'' our Great High 
 Priest, who receives them from us and offers them to His Father, and at the 
 same time ail-prevailingly and all-suflBiciently intercedes for us, which interces- 
 sion is a part of his prerogatively mediatorial work and office. 
 
 Century II. 
 
 Tertui^lian, a presbyter of Carthage, according to Arbp. Benson, on page 
 822, volume iv. of Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, wrote 
 his work Against thefews about A. D. 197, 198. In chapters V. and VI. of it he 
 takes Malachi i., 10, 11, to be a predidlion of the substitution of the spiritual 
 sacrifices of Christians for the abolished fleshly sacrifices of the Jews; and so in 
 his work On Prayer, Chapter XXVIII. ; both pertinent and excellent passages. 
 Compare his work Against Marcion, Book III., Chapter XXII., and id.. Book 
 IV., Chapter I.; and his work Against Marcion, Book II., Chapters XVIII. 
 and XXII. 
 
 To show how thoroughly opposed the primitive Christians were to the idea 
 that we eat real human flesh or drink real human blood in the Eucharist, I 
 quote here but one passage out of several: that is an utterance of ST. Irenakus, 
 Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, A. D. 177-202. It is a fragment preserved to us by 
 Kcumenius, a Greek Commentator of the tenth century, in his remarks on I. 
 Peter iii. He was Bishop of Tricca in Thessaly. I quote it as in column 1236, 
 tome VII. of Migne's Patrologia Gt^aeca, and follow mainly, though not wholly, 
 the English translation of it on pages 164, 165, Part I., of Volume IX., of the 
 Ante-Nicene Christian Library. It is as follows: 
 
 Passage I ^/ IrENAeus : "For when the Greeks [that is, the pagans] 
 having arrested the slaves of Christian Catechumens, then used force against them 
 to ascertain some hidden secret forsooth ccncerning the Christians, those slaves 
 not having any thing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, 
 [and] inasmuch as they had heard from their masters that the godly Communion 
 is Christ's blood and body, they themselves supposing iT To BE REAI.LY bi,ood 
 AND Fl^ESH told that to their inquisitors. Then the inquisitors assumed that 
 thing to be reai^ly done by the Christians in the rite, and, so, exultingly told 
 it to the other Greeks, and by tortures sought to compel the martyrs Sandlus 
 and Blandina to confess [that the thing was so], to whom Blandina replied very 
 admirably and frankly in the following words: How should those persofis endure 
 such things, zvho Jor the sake of ascetic praBice did not even give themselves the 
 pleasure of partakiitg of the different sorts of flesh permitted to them." 
 
 Passage 2 from Irenaeus . 
 
 This is a fragment found in column 1253 of tome Vll. of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca. It is translated on pages 176, 177, Part I. of Volume IX. of the Ante- 
 Nicene Christian Library, and is as follows: 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 235 
 
 His being taken up into the heavens, we perform the Unbloody Ser- 
 
 " Those who in the second [rites] have followed closely the commands of 
 the Apostles know that the Ivord instituted a new oblation in the New Covenant, 
 in accordance with the following predidlion of Malachi the Prophet: For from 
 the rising of the sun even unto the goiiig dozvn of the same, fuy 7iame has been 
 glorified among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense is offej'-ed to my name 
 and a pure offerifig [Mai. i., ii] ; and as John says in the Revelations, The in- 
 cejise is the prayers of the saints [Rev. v., 8]. And Paul exhorts us to present 
 our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable 
 service [Rom. xii., i]. And, Let us offer a sacrifice of praise, that is the fruit 
 of the lips [Heb. xiii., 15]. Now those oblations are not according to the Law 
 [of Moses], the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by 
 cancelling it, but they are according to the Spirit, for we fnust worship God in 
 Spirit a7id in truth [John iv., 23]. And therefore The obi^aTion OF THE 
 Eucharist [that is, the Thanksgiving] is not a fi.eshi,y one, but a spirituai, 
 ONE AND BY THAT FACT IS PURE. For we make an oblation to God of the 
 leavened bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks, because He has 
 commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment; and then, 
 having finished the oblation, we pray for the Holy Spirit that it may show forth 
 this sacrifice [to be], the leavened bread the body of the Christ, and the cup the 
 blood of the Christ, in order that the partakers of these Antitypes [that is 
 '" Aftertypes,"] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those there- 
 fore who bring these offerings i7i remembrance of the Lord [I. Cor. xi, , 24] do 
 not follow the dogmas of the Jews, but by performing the service spiritually 
 they shall be called sons of wisdom." 
 
 Century II. and III. See also The Miscellanies of Ci,Ement of 
 AiyEXANDRiA, Book v., page 299, of the translation in Vol. XII. of the 
 Ante-Nicene Christian Library. 
 
 Third Century. See Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 248-258, in his 
 Testimonies Against the Jews, Book I., Chapters XVI. and XVII. 
 
 Suicer in his Thesaurus under Gmia, that is Sacrifice, II., 2, a, tells us that 
 that term is used of "The Holy Supper of the Lord, which is called a Sacrifice 
 even plainly, and that frequently by Chrysostom in his Homily XVII. on the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. ' The Sacrifice,' says he, 'is [but] 07ie. There is no 
 other sacrifice, but we always perform the same one, or rather we perform a 
 remembrance of a sacrifice.'' 
 
 Again he writes, 'Many partake of this sacrifice once only during the whole 
 year ' [a fault then come in which he strongly rebukes, as Bingham shows in his 
 Antiq., Book XV., Chap. IX., Sedlion 4, and against which Canon IX. of the 
 so-called Apostles'' is aimed, and Canon II. of the local Council of Antioch 
 which was made of Ecumenical authority by Canon I. of the Fourth Ecumen- 
 ical Synod. See how strongly the early Church favored frequent Communion 
 in that Chapter IX. of Bingham and in his Book IX., Chapter VIII., Section 5. 
 Indeed some Egyptian monks took it every day, often before a meal. For 
 Bingham in his Book VII.. Chapter III., Section 17, writes: 
 
236 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 vice (599); and so we go to the secret blessings (600) and 
 
 ' ' And not only on Sundays, but on Saturdays also, it was customary for the 
 Egyptian monks and others of the East to communicate, for the first and last 
 days of the week were so appointed by Pachomius, the father of the Egyptian 
 monks, to be Communion days among them, as appears from nis Rule in Sozo- 
 men \_EccL Hist., Book III., Chap. 14], and Palladius {^Hist. Lausiac, cap. 38]; 
 and Cassian [Collat. 18, c. 15], frequently speaks of it as their constant pra(5tice. 
 Some were more strict, and let no day pass without receiving the Eucharist. 
 Palladius IHisL Lausiac, cap. 3], says the Egyptian monks, under Apollo, 
 observed this rule; for Apollo was used to instil this notion into his disciples, 
 that a monk, if he had opportunity, ought to communicate every day ; and 
 accordingly he, with his fraternity, communicated every day at nine, or three 
 o'clock in the afternoon, which was the time of their solemn assembly, before 
 they went to their ordinary refreshment." 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Explanation of his XII. Chapters, under 
 Anathema XL, terms the Eucharist ''the holy and life-producing and unbloody 
 sacrifice ; " see P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of the Works of St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria, Vol. VI., page 257. I quote and translate: 
 
 "We perform in the Churches the holy and life-giving and unbloody sacri- 
 fice, not believing it to be a body of one of those like us and of a common man, 
 and so we teach in regard to the precious blood also ; but receiving it on the 
 contrary [or ''rather''^ as having been made an own body [or ''a peculiar 
 body^''\, and of course an own blood also [or "« peculiar blood also'''\ of the 
 Word who giveth life to all things. For common flesh can not make alive, and 
 of that the Saviour Himself is Witness, for He says, The flesh profiteth nothing, 
 it is the Spirit that maketh alive [John vi., 63]. For since it has been made 
 [or "since it is made"] an own flesh [or "a peculiar flesh"] of the Word, for 
 that very reason it is deemed and is life-producing [that is "and is quickening"] 
 as the Saviour Himself says, As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by 
 the Father, [so] also He that eateth Me, even He shall live by Me [John 
 
 vi., 57]- 
 
 "And since Nestorius, and those who think as he does, unlearnedly do away 
 with the force of the mystery, for that very reason and very justly has this 
 Anathematism [XI. J been made" [against them]. 
 
 So Cyril teaches again in his Defence of his XIL Chapters Against the 
 Orieiitals, under Chapter XI., and in his Defence of them Against Theodoret, 
 under the same Anathema, and in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Book IV. of his Five- 
 Book ContradiBion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 
 
 See also more fully in the Dissertation on the Eucharist in this Set when it 
 is published. 
 
 The foregoing quotations and references (a few only out of the many which 
 might be given) amply prove that the Eucharist is not a bloody but an unbloody 
 sacrifice, and are against the Nestorian dodlrine of the real presence in the 
 Eucharist and the adlual manducation there of a man's body like ours, and the 
 real presence of human blood like ours there and of our a6lual drinking it. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 237 
 
 are made holy, becoming partakers of both the holy flesh and 
 
 That would indeed be what St. Cyril in the last reference to him above calls it, 
 that is avOpcjTTocpayia^ that is eating a man, that is cannibalism; and surely that 
 would make the Thanksgiving [^hxapioTia) any thing but what St. Cyril calls it 
 in the text of the Ecumenically approved Epistle above, that is an avaiiiaKToq 
 6vaia, that is an Unbloody Sacrifice. 
 
 It will be noticed by the Orthodox reader that St. Cyril above justly brands the 
 Nestorian error of ^^cannibalism,'''' {avdpuT:o<payia) as he calls it in Section 4 and 5, 
 Book IV. of his Five-Book ContradiHion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, as an 
 *^ unlearnedly doing away the force of the mystery^ 
 
 And yet, alas ! the creature-worshipping parts of Christendom deem that 
 part of Nestorius' heresy on the Eucharist sound, and so alas! do, in effect, the 
 partisans of the heresiarchs Pusey and Keble, who died not only traitors to their 
 own formularies, but also to the doctrine of the Universal Church in the Third 
 Synod. 
 
 Compare page 50, Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, and under ''Eucharist'' 
 and ''Real Presence'' in Index I. to that volume. A tendency to what Cyril 
 calls Cannibalism, in the Eucharist has generally been associated in the history 
 of the Church with a tendency to idolatry and to creature-worship; whereas the 
 sound view has generally been held by men who worshipped God alone in 
 accordance with Christ's command in Matt, iv., 10. 
 
 I would add that even the spurious Apostolic Constitutions, which some 
 deem an Ante-Nicene Work, agree with the genuine works in teaching the 
 docSlrine of the Bloodless Sacrifice. For in Book VI., Chapter XXIII. , where 
 the writer explains "How Christ became a Fulfiller of the Law; and what parts 
 of it he caused to cease, or changed, or transferred," he says rightly: 
 
 " Instead of the sacrifice which was by blood He hath appointed the reason- 
 able and unbloody and mystic one of His body and blood which is performed by 
 Symbols to represefit the death of the Lord." 
 
 The Greek is, 'KvtI dvaiaq rfjc, 6C al/naTov^ loycKr/v Kal dvaijuaKTov kuI ttjv fivoTiKtjv 
 ■t]TLg fif Tov ddvQTov Tov Kvplov avfi^oT^cdv x^P'-'^ ETZLTelelTaL rov acofiarog avrov /eat tov 
 ai/narog. 
 
 On the words "by Symbols" Cotelier, a Romanist, as quoted in column 
 973, tome I., of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, writes as follows: 
 
 " By Symbols, because what is Symbolic and sacramental in the Eucharist 
 is a sign of the Lord's death; according to the following passage of St. Chrysos. 
 tom on Matt, xxvi., 28; 'For if Jesus did not die, of whom are the consecrated 
 things Symbols ? ' (Ei yap ^fj cnredavevo 'Ir/aovg, Tivoc cvu^oXa rd r£?.ovueva;). And 
 Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, Book X., Chapter III. [mentions,] 
 
 " The secret Symbols of the Saviour's suffering' {luTtjplovTrdftovg andpprjra 
 cvfiftcjla)." 
 
 So in id,. Book II., Chapter XXV., we read as follows: 
 
 "Ye, therefore, at the present day, O Bishops, are to your people Priests and 
 Levites, who minister in the holy tabernacle, the holy Universal Church; 
 
^238 -^ct I. of Ephesus. 
 
 the precious blood of the Anointed Saviour of us all. And WK do 
 
 NOT RECEIVE IT AS COMMON FLESH. GOD FORBID ! NOR, MORE- 
 OVER, DO WE RECEIVE IT AS THE FI.ESH OF A MAN SANCTIFIED AND 
 
 and stand at the altar of the Lord our God, and offer to Him the reasonable 
 ■and unbloody sacrifices through Jesus, the Great High Priest.'' The Greek of 
 the last part is as follows: Kai -Kpoaayovrtq avrui Taq loyiKaq koX avac/xaKTovc dvalaq dia 
 'Irjaov, Tov /ieydXov'Apxi£p£(J^, Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome I., column 66i. 
 
 In the Liturgy of St. Basil, towards the beginning, the Priest, addressing 
 God, the Father, says: " O God * * * turn not away from us sinners, who 
 undertake [to perform] this fearful and unbloody sacrifice, to Thee " {iyx^ipovvTaq 
 COL T7)v (pojSepdv TavTTjv Kal dvalfiaKTov dvalav; Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 31, 
 col. 1630. 
 
 The English Communion Office, the Scottish, and the American derived 
 from them, have several instances of the use of Sacrifice in a Spiritual sense, 
 but would be improved by adding unbloody sacrifice in a fit place. I quote some 
 clauses in the American Book in the Oblation : 
 
 *' We earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our 
 sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. * * * And here we offer and present 
 unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, 
 and living sacrifice unto thee. * * * And although we are unworthy, 
 through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee 
 to accept this our bounden duty and service," etc. 
 
 Just before, the Scriptural doctrine of the Soleness of the one bloody ofiFer- 
 ering by Christ on the cross is confessed and the Eucharistic Oblation is pro- 
 nounced to be a Memorial of it, all of which accords with the dodlrine of the 
 Unbloody Sacrifice as set forth by St. Cyril in the above Long Epistle and 
 approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
 
 The Anglican type of Liturgy is probably the most Scriptural and grandest 
 ■of all in setting forth the Soleness of Christ's one sacrifice for sins forever. 
 
 I would add that the Greek order of the above is as follows : 
 
 ** And we will necessarily add that thing also [or, " this thing also "]. For 
 ■telling on the death, as regards His flesh, of the Sole-born Son of God, that is of 
 Jesus Anointed, and confessing His coming to life again from the dead, and His 
 being taken up into the heavens, we perform [or ** complete "] in the Churches 
 the Unbloody Service." 
 
 The Greek for the first clause of the above is dvayKaluc 6e kclkeIvo wpoaBTjaofiev. 
 As Liddell and Scott in their Greek Lexicon teach us under zKtlvoq, that term 
 " generally refers to what has gone immediately before," I have therefore so 
 translated it above. Yet it may here possibly refer to what follows it on the 
 Eucharist, and is so taken in the Latin translation in P. E. Pusey's Three 
 Epistles ofS. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. 
 
 (600). That is, to the Lord's Supper. As its rites were anciently reserved 
 for the baptized alone, and as the Church jealously guarded its mysteries from 
 the eyes of the profane, Cyril's language, as a designation of it, is very appro- 
 priate. To this day the Greeks have a memento of the secrecy observed in all 
 
Reading of CyriPs Long Epistle to Nestorius. 239^ 
 
 CO-JOINKD WITH THE) WORD IN A UNITY OF DIGNITY, THAT IS AS 
 
 The; flesh of a man who has a [mere] godly indwelling (6oi) 
 but as being truly life-producing and \as'\ a peculiar flESH of the 
 Word Himself (602). For being Life by Nature inasmucli as He 
 is God, since he has became one with His own flesh. He has appointed 
 (603) it to be life-producing. So that even though He says to us, 
 
 the ancient rites of Christianity in the term applied to them, which is Mystery, 
 and no\.Sacrament,\^iQ.\ is Sacred i^zV^, which we use in the West. For proofs of 
 the reserve and secrecy observed by the Universal Church in its rites see in 
 Bingham's Antiquities o/t/ie Christian Church, Book I., Chapter IV., Section 
 8; and id., Book X., Chapter II., Section 10; and especially id.. Book X., Chap- 
 ter V., all of it; see also id.. Book XIV., all of Chapter V., and Book XV., 
 Chapter I., Section I. On Romish misstatements as to the Secret Discipline 
 {Disciplina Arcani) of the ancient Church see id., Book VIII., Chapter VIII., 
 Section 6. See also on this last topic Haddan's article Disciplina Arcani in 
 Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, and Plumptre's 
 article Catechumens in the same work. 
 
 I would add that I was once present at a baptism of an adult in Greece 
 where the confession of faith was made in the Church before a large congrega- 
 tion, and that then the candidate, a man, retired with the Archbishop officiating 
 and a few Clergy, (Presbyters and Deacons), and perhaps a dozen other men, to the 
 Baptistery on the Church grounds where the candidate disrobed behind a sereen 
 separate from the rest, and that then he came out, a sheet first being thrown 
 around him by the Clergy or assistants, was led to the Bishop, received the ante- 
 baptismal anointing and all the other rites which immediately precede Baptism, 
 and was then thrice totally immersed, the sheet being all this time held around 
 him till he had descended into the font, when most of his body was under the 
 water, w^hen it was removed, and the Archbishop then came to the side of the 
 font and with his hand on the candidate's head thrice plunged him totally 
 under the water. That he could easily do for the font was high. After that thq 
 sheet was thrown around him again, and then he came up out of the font, 
 received the rites usual after baptism, robed again, returned into the Church, 
 where the Congregation had waited during the whole time of the baptism, and 
 there the service was finished. So the ancient secret discipline was observed, 
 and all things were done, modestly, decently, and in order. 
 
 (601), This is aimed at the Nestorian tenet that the Word did not in His 
 own Divine Substance, divr^W. in the Man cofij'oined to Him (to use their favorite 
 expression), but that He was in that Man relatively only as he was in the proph- 
 ets, and as He is in other holy men, that is by His Holy Spirit alone, which 
 is related to Him as being His Spirit, and in that sense the Nestorians held the 
 indwelling to be relative only. 
 
 (602). Or, ^^ an own flesh of the Word Himself:'^ Greek, aP.A' wf ^uottoiov 
 akriduq Kol Idiav avTov rov Aoyov. 
 
 (603). Or "has declared,'* or has explained,'' or ^^has made," Greek, Zw;) 
 yap liv Kara (j>vaiv wf Geof , kitudrj yeyovEV ev irpog t^v 'Eavrov aipKU^ ^uottoiov diviipffvev, 
 avrijv. 
 
240 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Verily, Verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
 Man and drink His blood (604) WE do NOT reckon it to be THE 
 FLESH OF A MAN, LIKE ONE OF US, FOR HOW WILL THE 
 FLESH OF A MAN BE LIFE-PRODUCING BY ITS OWN NATURE ? 
 
 But we consider it as having become truly a peculiar flesh (605) of 
 Him who for us has both become and is called the Son of Man (606). 
 
 (604). John vi. ; 53. 
 
 (605). Or "as having really become an own fie shy Greek, dAA' (I»f Idtay 
 alrjOuq ysvoutvrjv tov di' /)//ac nai Tlov 'AvdpcjTTov yeyovorog re kuI xPVH'^'^'-'^o.'^'^oq. 
 
 (6o6\ Cyril teaches here again that we must not understand God the Son's 
 words in John vi. ; 53, as meaning that we must eat the flesh and drink the 
 blood of a human being such as we are, and such as the Man He put on was, 
 but the flesh and blood of the Word, that is the bread and wine of the Eucharist, 
 the typical body and blood, by which he communicates the grace of eternal 
 life to us, according to His own teaching in John vi. ; 47 to 69 inclusive. The 
 ancients like Cyprian, Pope Innocent I., and Augustine of Hippo, seem to have 
 held that no infant even can be saved unless he partakes of the bread and wine 
 of the Eucharist. See the Oxford translation of Cyprian's Treatises, pages 36, 
 90, and 187, and 168 to 170. See also Bingham's Antiquities, Book XII., 
 Chapter I., SeAion 3, and Book XV., Chapter IV., Sedlion 7, and Scuda- 
 more's article Ifi/ant Commmiion in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Chris- 
 tian Biography. In what sense we receive the body and blood of the Word 
 I will inquire in the Dissertation 07i the Eucharist. Neither Bingham nor 
 Scudamore have pleaded so strongly for the restoration of Infant Communion 
 as they might, though they show its great antiquity and primitiveness. It 
 should be restored wherever it has fallen into disuse. See also on that theme 
 Zom' s Historia Eucharistiae In/antium. 
 
 By the Twelfth Chapter of Exodus the whole of a Hebrew family, including 
 every circumcised male, partook of the foretype of Calvary, the Passover Lamb 
 (Exodus xii. ; 3-5 and 47, 48); and why should not every baptized Christian child 
 partake of its aftertypes, the leavened bread and the wine of the Lord's Supper ? 
 No good reason can be given against his so doing. The early Christians under- 
 stood Christ's words in John vi.; 53, 'Except ye eat thefiesh of the Son of Man, 
 and drink his blood, ye have no life in you,'' to mean that no one, infant or 
 adult, can be saved without it. 
 
 The whole Church, East and West, practiced Infant Communion for at least 
 800 years after Christ, indeed more or less till the 12th century or even later, 
 and the Eastern part practices it, though corrupt in some other things, till this 
 very hour. 
 
 Later Scholars like ** Bishop Bedel and some others have declared entirely 
 for it," as Bingham shows in his Antiquities, Book XV., Chapter IV., Section 7. 
 
 And we must remember that every unbaptized infant who is deprived of it, 
 and dies without it, by that very fact dies out of the Communion of the Church, 
 that is he dies in fact excommunicate. And why should we excommunicate 
 any innocent infant, who in his very guilelessness presents not the slightest 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestoritcs. 241 
 
 [H]. But we do not distribute the expressions used of our 
 Saviour in the Gospels either among two Subsistences (607), or, 
 
 barrier to its reception, which can not be said of some gray haired sceptics and 
 some immoral persons who take it regularly ? I. Corinthians xi., 28, sometimes 
 adduced against it, is not at all opposed to it, for the apostle is not there blaming 
 infants who partook of it, but grown persons who got drunk at it. And, on the 
 principle that we must not interpret Holy Writ in such wise as to make it con- 
 tradict the belief and pra6lice of the whole Church from the beginning, that 
 objedlion must be at once rejecTied as a perversion of Scripture. 
 
 Besides no infant is in the Communion of the Church of Christ, the fold of 
 the saved, until he has been confirmed and then communed in both kinds, the 
 leavened bread and wine. 
 
 And, as the heretics who oppose the baptism of infants allege, the argu- 
 ments which would sweep away the Scriptural and Universal Tradition Supports 
 for Infant Communion would also sweep away those from the same sources for 
 Infant Baptism also. So that it is favoring that soul-ruining heresy to oppose 
 the necessity of communing infants as well as adults. 
 
 As this is a very important passage, as being an Ecumenically ap- 
 proved utterance on the Eucharist, and as Scholars may desire to see the 
 original Greek, I here append it as on page 26 of P. E. Pusey's ''Three Epistles 
 of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria,'" Oxford, 1872, Parker: 'KvayKa'^qde 
 KaKEivo TipoaBijGOjXFv KarajyelovTeq yap rbv Kara adpKa Odvarov tov Movoyevovg Tloi) tov 
 ■Geov, Tovrtariv, 'Irjaov Xpiarov, rijv re ek venpoyv 'ava^'iuait^, Kal r^v elq ovpavovg dvaTiTjipiv 
 ■ofioXoyovvreg, rfjv avaifiUKrov ev ralq kKKlrjaiaig reXovjuev larpeiav TrpdaifiEv re ovru ralg 
 fiVGTiKalQ EV?.oyiaig Kal dyia!^6/LtEda, jxeroxot ytvo/xEvoi rfjq re dyiag aapKoq Kal rov rifiiov 
 ulfiaroQ rov Trdvrov ijiiuv lur7)pog Xptarov. Kal ovx wf odpKa kolvtjv Sexo/uevoi, fifj yevoiro' 
 ■ovre fi^v (jf dvSpbc yyiaa/xhov Kal Gvva(pB£vror rCt Aoycp Kara rr/v honjra rfjg afiac, rjyovv 
 ag Oeiav EvoiKfjaiv eaxv^orog' dZA' oig ^cjo~oibv d^.TjduQ Kal ISlav avrov rov Adyov Zuij yap 
 ■ijv, Kara cpvaiv «? 6eof, ETreid^ yeyovev ev irpog r^v eavrov adpKa, Co}07roidv dnE<l>T}vev avrrjv 
 ciore Kav lEyrj rrpbg ^judg " 'A/uijv, djuyv 7.Eyu vfuv, kdv //^ (pdyrjrE rfjv adpKa rov vlov rov 
 ■avdpuTTov Kal TTiijre avrov rb alua ' ' ovx ^C dvdpoTvov ruv Kad* rjfidg ivbc Kal avr^v elvai 
 TioyiovfiEda^ nug yap rj dvdpuirov adp^ i^uoTToibc earai, Kara (^vglv r^v savr^c ] a2,V 6c ISiav 
 akrjduq yevofievijv rov 6i' rjixdg Kal vlov dvOpanrov yeyovoroq re Kal xPVI^o-T''-(^o,vrog. 
 
 Ta? de ys kv ro'ig Evayyelioiq rov ^urT^pog ?}u(Jv ^cjvdf, ovre viroardaeoi dvalv ovre afjv 
 TrpoouTToig KaraLtepi^o/nev' etc. 
 
 The above passage on the Eucharist, and Anathema XI. below, are the only 
 things on that theme in any of St. Cyril's three Ecumenically approved Epistles. 
 But there is a very important passage in Se(5lion« 5, 6 and 7 of Book IV. in 
 Cyril's Five Book Conlradi^ion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, where Cyril 
 refutes Nestorius' error on the Eucharist. Language of Nestorius on that subject 
 there quoted is quoted again in the Eighteenth of the Twenty Heretical Passages 
 of Nestorius which were read further on in Act I. of Ephesus and were made 
 the ground of his deposition. Besides St. Cyril in his two Defe?ices and in his 
 Explanaiio7i of his Eucharistic Anathema, Anathema XI., reverts to this topic 
 again and again. See the part of note 599, which is on pages 236 and 237 above. 
 
242 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 furthermore, among two Persons (608); for the one and sole Anointed 
 is not a Double, although He is thought of as [composed] of two differ- 
 
 These are the chief places which bear on the controversy between Cyril and 
 Nestorius, on the Thanksgiving {EhxapiGrla). 
 
 For a fuller citation of those documents, so valuable on the much disputed 
 questions regarding the Lord's Supper, and so little known, and so little under- 
 stood even by many who have written on the Eucharist, I must refer the learned 
 and Orthodox reader to the Dissertation on that Sacred Rite in this Set, which 
 is to appear hereafter, if God will. 
 
 For the present I limit myself, as the small compass of a note compels me, 
 to state the chief isi^s in the controversy. And these I will put under two heads;, 
 that is, I will tell: 
 
 1. How far Cyril and Nestorius agreed on the Holy Supper, and 
 
 2. How far they disagreed on it. 
 And, I. As to how far they agreed. 
 
 Both were Bishops in the Eastern part of the Universal Church; and, it may 
 be safely assumed, did not differ in the Externals of the Rite from what had up 
 to their time been the common customs of Oriental Christendom, as Bingham 
 and others have shown them to have been; that is, 
 
 (A). They used the leavened bread, and the mingled cup, that is the wine 
 mixed with water. See Bingham's Antiquities, Book XV., Chapter II., Sec- 
 tions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9; compare Book XV., Chapter III., Se6lion 35. Even the 
 Romanizer J. M. Neale admitted that the Greeks ''always used leavened breads 
 and leavened bread only; " see Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, pages 124 and 125. 
 
 (B.) They gave both kinds to the people as well as to the clergy, that is they 
 gave to every one first the bread separately, a7id then the cup separately ; " see 
 Bingham's Antiquities, Book XV., Chapter V., Sedlions i and 2; and Book 
 XVI., Chapter VI., Sedlion 27. 
 
 I here specify a few fa6ls as to the custom of Nestorius' Church, Constanti- 
 nople; and Cyril's, Alexandria. 
 
 In the episcopate of John Chrysostom at Constantinople A. D. 398-407, the 
 laic still received the bread in his hand and put it to his own mouth, as appears 
 from Chapter V., Book VIII., of Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 By the Alexandrian Liturgy, called St. Mark's, the communicant took first 
 the bread and after that the cup. See J. M. Neale's History of the Holy Eastern 
 Church, General Introdu5iio7i, page 680. And Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical 
 History, Book VII., Chapter IX., has preserved to us a letter of Dionysius, Bishop 
 of Alexandria, to Xystus, Bishop of Rome, which was written about A. D. 257 
 or 258. In it Dionysius describes a communicant of the Church of Alexandria, 
 as " listening to the Thafiksgiving, and uttering with the rest the Amen [to it], 
 and standing near the Table and stretching out his hands to receive the holy food,, 
 and receiving it, and partaking of the body and the blood of our Lo?'d.'' 
 
Readi7ig of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 243 
 
 ent things which have met in the Inseparable Unity; as man also, for 
 instance, is thought of as [composed] of a soul and a body, and yet he 
 
 (C). The people received both kinds standing as they had from the begin, 
 ning; see Bingham, id., Book XV., Chapter V., Sedlions 3 and 6. That was 
 probably the custom of the whole Church, East and West, at first. It was cer- 
 tainly the ancient as it is the present custom of the Greeks. Aye, I have read 
 in some work of John Mason Neale that in some old (mediaeval, I think) pic- 
 torial representations of the Eucharist in a Western Church or Churches the 
 communicants are portrayed as standing. Though Bingham in the above 
 place gives it as his opinion that kneeling was sometimes used -he gives no clear 
 testimony of any ancient writer to that effect. 
 
 Of those whom he quotes, Easterns and Westerns, not one is clear for any 
 other posture than standing. That was probably the posture of the Apostles 
 when Christ gave thanks and blessed at the original institution of the Lord's 
 Supper. It is still the posture at the blessing at the beginning of the memorial 
 of the Passover which the modern Jews celebrate. I quote an account of it in 
 the article Passover, Vol. VII., page 742, outer column, in McClintock and 
 Strong's Cyclopaedia. 
 
 " Each one has a cup of wine, over which they, all standing up, and holding 
 their respedlive cups in their hand, pronounce the blessing for the juice of the 
 grape, welcome the festival, and drink the first cup leaning on the left side." 
 So probably the Apostles stood at Christ's Eucharistic blessing, for that was and 
 is the ordinary posture of the Orientals in addressing God. There is no record 
 of their sitting after it. At any rate that is the only posture found in early 
 Christian writers in receiving the bread and wine. See Bingham as above and 
 Bright as below. The burden of proof rests on him who would bring in any 
 other posture at it. And no such proof is possible for there are no facts to base 
 it on. Tyrwhitt in his article Eucharist {in Christian Art) in Smith and Cheet- 
 ham's Di^ionary of Christian Antiquities, Volume I., page 626, inner column, 
 tells us that, 
 
 "In the Laurentian MS., A. D. 556, our Lord is represented as administer- 
 i>"ig a small rounded object, evidently bread, to one of eleven standing figures. 
 (See woodcut)." It represents evidently the first administration of the Lord's 
 Supper to His eleven faithful Apostles, and the observable thing is that He and 
 they all stand, though, as there is a little space between Christ and the recipient^ 
 the upper part of both bodies are bent towards each other, but yet both stand. 
 As the painters of such scenes were not generally learned in Christian Arch- 
 aeology, and generally contented themselves with portraying such rites in the 
 way they saw them administered in the Church in their day, we may therefore 
 naturally infer that in A. D. 556 the old custom of standing in the delivery and 
 in the reception of the Eucharist still remained in the home of this painter. 
 The passages quoted in the ten volume edition of Bingham's Works (Oxford, A. 
 D. 1855), show that the clergyman who delivered the bread stood as well as the 
 recipients. Bingham in Section 3, Chapter V., Book XV. of his Antiquities^ 
 speaking of the testimonies adduced by him on the subject of standing at the 
 reception of the Lord's Supper, writes: 
 
244 Act 1. of Ephesus. 
 
 is not a double, but one from both. Furthermore, if we think rightly 
 we shall see that the human as well as the divine expressions were 
 
 "There is sufficient evidence from the foregoing testimonies, of their stand- 
 ing to receive the Eucharist at the Lord's table. And this is further confirmed 
 by a collateral argument, which is, that on the Lord's Day, and all the days of 
 Pentecost, they were obliged to pray standing, and in no other posture, as has 
 been shown at large above [Book XIII., Chapter VIIL, Sedlion 3], therefore it 
 is very reasonable to believe, that at all such times they received the Eucharist 
 in the same posture they were obliged to pray in, that is, standing at the altar." 
 In reply to this I would say, first, that, as Bingham states, the testimonies, 
 adduced by him show that in ancient times Christians received the Eucharist 
 standing. But the argument that they received it standing because they prayed 
 standing is not pertinent, for the two things, prayer and the reception of the 
 Eucharist, are not the same. 
 
 So he is weak and rests upon not a single written testimony but upon mere 
 guess and surmise when he adds, in the same place, 
 
 "But then the usual custom was, on all other days, and particularly on the 
 Stationary Days" [Wednesday and Friday] "for the whole Church to pray 
 kneeling, as has likewise been fully evinced before [Ibid. Sedlion 4], and 
 therefore it is no less reasonable to believe that they received the Communion 
 in the same posture as they prayed, though there are not such positive evidences 
 of their pradlice." Then after refuting two alleged proofs for kneeling at the 
 Communion, one drawn from a corrupt and false reading of Tertullian in one 
 place; and the other from Cyril of Jerusalem which he shows means ''not 
 kneeling,'' but ''standing in a bowing posture,'' he comes to a passage of 
 Chrysostom which he thinks "seems more nearly to express" kneeling at the 
 reception, which however says not a single word on the topic of posture at the 
 reception. Finally, as if aware on sober second thought of its weakness as a 
 proof, he reverts to his argument above : 
 
 * ' But if there were none of these expressions, the very custom of kneeling 
 at prayers on these days, is a sufficient indication of the posture in which at 
 the same time they received the Communion," that is he infers, illogically 
 enough, that because they knelt in prayer on certain week days therefore they 
 must have knelt at the reception of the bread and wine of the Eucharist on 
 those days : and this supposition he puts forth without a single passage of any 
 ancient writer to back it. And indeed the Orientals do not commonly kneel 
 but stand generally on all week days, when we Westerns kneel. And this 
 seems to have existed always. Of the three passages adduced by Bingham then, 
 one is from a Western, Tertullian, of Latin Africa. It is found in Chapter XIX. of 
 his Work " On Prayer," which was written while he was still Orthodox (Oxford 
 translation of Tertullian, page 299, top, preliminary note, and Fuller's article 
 TertiUlianus, in Volume IV. of Smith and Wace's Didiofiary of Christian 
 Biography, page 822, outer column. ) Fuller in the last named place ascribes 
 it to about A. D. 197-199- It is therefore a description of Orthodox custom in 
 the African Church. Let us see what it says on the theme of posture in the 
 reception of the Eucharist. I translate: 
 
Reading of Cyfil's Long Epistle to Nestoriiis. 245 
 
 said by [but] One. For when in language which pertains to God 
 (609), He says of Himself, He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father 
 
 Tertullian On Prayer, Chapter XIX ; (Col. 1181, Tome i of Migne's 
 Patrologia Latina) : "In like manner also very many think that on the Days 
 of Standing Guard we ought not to be present at the prayers of the sacrifices 
 because the Guard-Stand is to be ended when the Lord's body is received. Doth 
 then the Eucharist break off a service devoted to God ? Doth it not the more 
 bind to God ? Will not thy Stand-Guard be more solemn if thou stand at the 
 altar of God also. When the body of the Lord hath been received and reserved, 
 both things are observed, both the partaking of the sacrifice, and the fulfilment 
 of the service. If the Stand-Guard taketh its name from the example of a 
 soldier's standing guard (for we are even God's soldiery) " [II. Tim., ii., 3, 4 : 
 I. Tim., i., 18 : II. Cor. x., 4 : and Eph. vi., 10-18], "surely no joy or sorrow 
 that Cometh upon the camp, cutteth short the guard-stands of the soldiers. For 
 joy will the more cheerfully, sorrow the more anxiously, maintain the dis- 
 cipline." By ''reserved^' here, Tertullian means the custom of the com- 
 municant's keeping the consecrated bread to eat at home after his fast was over 
 as is shown in note " (^," page 313 of the Oxford translation here. Compare the 
 article Eucharist, Sedlion 5, in Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian 
 Antiquities. 
 
 Bingham {Antiq., Book XV., Chapter V., SeAion 3,) thinks that to ''stand 
 at the altar of God'' here does not mean really to 5/««^, which confli6ts with the 
 assertion of Tertullian. Indeed the only posture here mentioned is standing 
 and that at the receiving " the Body of the Lord:' His argument for the view 
 that Tertullian's ''stand at Gods altar" means kneel at God's altar is that 
 Tertullian, in that place, is speaking of the Stand-Guard days, Wednesday and 
 Friday, and that on those days all Christians must have knelt. And in his 
 Antiquities, Book XIII., Chapter VIII., SeAion 4, he shows that kneeling was 
 used in both branches of the Church, the West and the East, though some of 
 the passages there cited relate to prostration not to mere kneeling. And 
 Bingham does not prove there either that all his kneeling passages there refer 
 to kneeling on the two Stand-Guard days aforementioned, nor that kneeling 
 alone was universal on them, though it was much more common in ancient 
 times, as it is now, in the West than in the East. Indeed the Orientals now as 
 of yore use kneeling but seldom. They generally pray standing on the Stand- 
 Guard days as they do on Lord's days. And the custom of the African Church 
 seems on those days to have been similar, only on those two days kneeling 
 and prostration might be used and were used in accordance with Canon 
 XX. of Nicaea. See on the posture of standing, of bowing down the head, 
 and on that of prostration Bingham, id., Se(5lions 3, 5 and 6. And as in 
 the East men sometimes knelt or prostrated themselves on the Stand-Guard 
 days, and yet, as we know from ancient writers, stood to receive the Com- 
 munion on those days and at all other times as they do still, so in Latin 
 Africa they did as Tertullian's words above show, "Will not thy Stand-Guard 
 be more solemn if thou stafid at the altar of God also?" (Nonne solennior 
 erit statio tua si et ad aram Dei steteris?). And Bingham himself in Sedlion 
 
246 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 (6io) ; and / and the Father are one (6i i), we recognize His divine and 
 ineffable Nature, in which, by identity of Substance, He is 07ie with 
 
 12, Chapter VL, Book VIII. of his y^«//^«z7z>5 understood this last expression 
 as referring to the reception of the Eucharist on the said Stand-Guard days, for 
 he explains it as follows, " Will not your station or fast * * "^ be more 
 solemn, if you stand at the altar of God f that is, receive the Communion on 
 a fast day. ' ' 
 
 There is therefore not the slightest clear proof that any of the ancients 
 knelt in receiving the bread and wine of the Communion. The only posture 
 at it distin(5lly mentioned is standing. 
 
 Bright in his Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, page 
 75, so understands it, and gives quite a number of passages from early writers 
 and Liturgies which show that in both the West and the East, standing was 
 the ancient custom in receiving the Eucharist. I quote it : he has been speak- 
 ing of Canon XX. of Nicaea which commands standing in prayer during all the 
 Lord's Days in the year and during the whole period from Pask to Pentecost. 
 Then he goes on as follows : 
 
 "The Canon does not mention, but goes far to imply, that custom of standing 
 at the Holy Communion to receive the Eucharist, which to all appearance was 
 taken for granted on all hands. It was indeed usual for the faithful to kneel 
 during the first prayer said after the dismissal of the ordinary penitents; see 
 Chrysostom (on II. Cor., Horn, xviii., 3), that during this prayer they were pros- 
 trate on the pavement: and in the * Clementine ' liturgy the deacon proclaims at 
 this point of the service, ' Let all of us, the faithful, bend the knee,' But from 
 the offertory onwards, all stood : so the * Clementine ' represents the deacon as 
 saying just before it, 'Let us stand upright to offer to the Lord.' Compare the 
 similar diredlion in the Liturgy of St. James, 'Upright all!' (Hammond's 
 Liturgies, p. 32): and St. Mark's (ib. p. 179), and there are, later on, repetitions 
 of ' Let us stand,' as in St. James's Greek and Syriac, St. Chrysostom's, the 
 Armenian, the Coptic, etc. The very title of the owiard/LLevoi tells us enough, 
 and the Roman canon still describes those who are present at the Mass as 
 ' standing around ' ('Memento * ^ ^ omnium circumstantium.') 'It was 
 thought the proper position for all who offered sacrifice ' (Scudamore, Notit. 
 Euchar. p. 183), as the faithful did in their own way, not only by contributing 
 the elements, but by sealing the great 'oblation' with their Amen, And as 
 sacrifice was consummated by participation (see Scudamore, p. 400) they kept 
 the same posture at the moment of communion : thus Tertullian speaks of 
 ' standing at God's altar ' and 'receiving the Lord's Body' (de Orat. 19), and 
 Dionysius of Alexandria tells a remarkable story about a man who had long 
 been accustomed to ' stand beside the table, and stretch forth his hand to 
 receive the holy food ' (Euseb. vii, 9 ; laymen were wont to come up to the 
 altar for Communion, compare Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. xvii. 12, Chrys. in II. 
 Cor., Hom. xx. 3, and Martene, de ant. Eccl. Rit. i. 430). Rather more than 
 twenty years after the Council, Cyril of Jerusalem instrudled his catechumens, 
 when they made their Communion for the first time, to ' receive the Body of 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 247 
 
 His own Father (612), and is His Likertess, a7id Chara^et , and the Efful- 
 gence of His glory (613). But when, not dishonoring the measure of 
 
 Christ ' in the palm of the right hand, to 'draw near to the cup, not stretching 
 out the hands, but stooping {Kxmri^v), and saying the Amen in token of worship 
 and reverence' (Catech. xxiii. 21, 22). To this day, communicants in the 
 Eastern Church thus stand bending forward (compare an old Ethiopic form, 
 * Ye who stand, bend your heads,' before the prayer of access ; Hammond, p. 
 236). In the Latin Church 'some traces of the ancient pradlice remain' 
 (Scudamore, p. 636), notably in the case of the priest's own communion at 
 Mass, and of the deacon's at a solemn papal celebration." 
 
 Bingham, in his Antiquities, Book XV., Chapter V., SeAion 3, refers to 
 two other passages as having been cited to show that sometimes the 
 ancient Christians received the Eucharist on their knees. Both are from 
 Easterns, that is one from Cyril of Jerusalem, which teaches hawing at 
 the reception not kneeling, and all should bow to the Father in heaven 
 to whom alone the Unbloody Eucharistic-Memorial of His Son's Bloody 
 Sacrifice on the cross is offered, to Whom an excellent African Canon, 
 Canon XXHI., of the Third Council of Carthage, A. D. 397, direAs all prayers 
 at the altar to be always addressed, for as the original sacrifice of Christ on the 
 cross, was offered by the Son not to Himself, nor to the Holy Ghost, but to the 
 Father alone, so must we offer its Aftertypes, the leavened bread and wine of 
 the Thanksgiving. Hence any address in prose or poetry to the Son or the 
 Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic rite is out of place, and at the least shows most 
 lamentable ignorance of the fact that it is a sacrifice to the Father. Often in 
 later times addresses to the second person of the Blessed and Adorable Trinity 
 are meant as addresses to Him as really present by His Eternal Substance on 
 the Holy Table, which is manifest idolatry ; for as St. Cyril of Alexandria 
 teaches in passages quoted from him below, the Substance of Christ's Divinity 
 is not there, nor is It eaten there. Such addresses to the Son at the rite have 
 come to be used idolatrously even by some perverted and perverse later Angli- 
 cans to testify their belief in the heresy of the real presence of the Substance of 
 His Divinity there, contrary to Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Synod. For 
 instance, Bp. King, the unsound Bishop of Lincoln, is reported to have used at 
 the rite the expression ''Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, 
 have mercy upon us.'' Arbp. Benson in not deposing him for that act, if it was 
 done with intent to worship any alleged real presence of the Substance of Christ's 
 Divinity there, has done violence to the Formularies of his own Communion, has 
 been false to the faith, has negledled his vowed duty, has aided the spread of 
 idolatry where he should have checked it, and so has done what he could to 
 damn the souls of thousands of his people to the eternal flame, has proved a wolf 
 to destroy where he should have been a shepherd to save, and has proven him- 
 self the most infamous occupant of the throne of Canterbury since the days of 
 the corrupter Laud who brought God's curse on Church and State, as Benson is 
 doing. If the Church of England is to be saved, he should be at once deposed 
 and Bp. King with him. For the adlion of the Third Council of the whole 
 
248 A^i I' of Ephesus. 
 
 His humanity He says to the Jews: ' But now ye seek to kill me, a man 
 who hath told you the truth' (614), we recognize none the less again 
 
 Church against the Nestorian heresy on the Eucharist requires that. So should 
 be deposed Arbp. Benson's co-assessors if they were partners in his sin of toler- 
 ating soul-damning error. 
 
 Bingham's reference to Chrysostom does not prove any kneeling at the 
 reception of the Communion. 
 
 Furthermore, no ancient Greek Father mentions kneeling at the Communion. 
 But, as Bingham shows, they mention standing at it again and again. And to 
 this very hour though the Greeks use dififerent postures in prayer, standing, 
 kneeling, and prostration, they use only one at the reception of the Lord's 
 Supper, that is standing as they have done from the beginning. They kneel 
 at Pentecost only. At other times they stand, but sometimes prostrate 
 themselves, but never on Lord's Days, nor during the whole period between 
 Pask and Pentecost. They often use bowing. 
 
 In the same sedlion, just below, Bingham adds as to posture in receiving 
 the Eucharist, 
 
 ' * As to sitting, there is no example of it, nor any intimation leading toward 
 it in any ancient writer." 
 
 To conclude, all the testimony which exists in the ancient writers makes 
 for the standi7ig posture in delivering and in receiving the bread and wine of 
 the Lord's Supper. To that custom all Westerns will return at last. Indeed 
 some of them so receive now, as, for instance, the German Lutherans. 
 
 And all the Easterns should return to primitive pradlice in other things 
 where they are astray. 
 
 (D.) Infants as well as all others received the Communion in both kinds : 
 see the references to Bingham in this note above. 
 
 (E.) Both Cyril a7id Nestorius consecrated the Thanksgiving {Evxapi-oTia) 
 in both kinds on a table after the example of Christ itt the Gospels and of the 
 Apostles (Luke xxii., 21 ; John xiii.. 28 ; and I. Cor. x., 21.) For that was the 
 custom of the whole Church, West and East, in their day as it had remained 
 from the beginning, and as it remained long after, and as it remains in the 
 Greek Church till this very day, for every altar in Greece and in Constantinople 
 which I examined in A. D. 1869, by raising the cloth which covered its front 
 and sides, I always found to be, according to the New Testament example, a 
 table. Formerly, a? we see by Paul the Silentiary's account of the Holy Table 
 in the Cathedral Church of Holy Wisdom at Constantinople, the Table stood 
 on four legs (pages 63, 64, of Vol. I. of Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of 
 Christian Ayitiquities) ; but in every instance that I saw in Greece and Con- 
 stantinople it stood on but one placed under the centre of the table like the 
 altar on page 63, id., which was found near Auriol in France, which is thought 
 as old as the fifth or sixth century ; it left all the under part of the table, open. 
 In the top of the leg or under the table must be put relics now by the ena(?lment 
 of the idolatrous conventicle held at Nicaea in A. D. 787 under Irene the 
 
Readbig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 249 
 
 Him who is God the Word in the equahty and Hkeness of the Father, 
 even though He is in the measures of His humanity. For since it is 
 
 Jezebel of idolatrizing, and Tarasius, of the God-cursed death. So its Canon 
 VII. orders. Balsamon and Aristenus, Greek Canonists of the twelfth century 
 ridiculously enough make what in Ralle and Potle's ^vvTayjia is Canon LXXXIII. 
 of Carthage to favor the same evil pradlice of placing dead men's bodies or bones, 
 which the Old Testament brands as defilements («), under Christian Holy 
 Tables where the Pure Sacrifice of Malachi i., lo, ii, the Unbloody Sacrifice, 
 is offered, whereas the aim of that Canon was to stop superstition and idolatry 
 and relic-worship so far as perverted and wilful mobs of ignoramuses would 
 allow. Before that Canon was made, the Second Canon of the First Council 
 
 (a). Levit. xxi., ii; Numb, xix., 11-22; Numb, v., 1-5; Numb, ix., 6-15; Numb, xxxi., 19; 
 Lam. iv., 14, 15; Haggai 11, 13. God in thus forbidding priests and people to touch a dead 
 body or its bones or blood rendered relic worship impossible to the Israelitish people (Deut. 
 xxxiv., 5, 6). He buried Moses away from them for the same reason, for doubtless they 
 would have worshipped his body or bones by kissing, incense, etc., as the Greeks, Romanists, 
 and pagans do to-day with their relics. Indeed with one thing which some might call a relic, 
 the brazen serpent, they committed idolatry by giving it the relative worship of incense; and 
 therefore the God-blessed, pious, reforming, and restoring King Hezekiah brake it in pieces 
 and called it Nehiishtan, that is "a piece of brass" (II. Kings xviii., 4 and the context). Here 
 the relic worshippers might have said, God commanded Moses, to make it, and you have no right 
 to break it. Others not relic worshippers, but Reformers less zealous than Hezekiah, might 
 \\s.\eiia\6.. Remove it far from the deluded who incense it a^id so ruin themselves, but do not 
 destroy it. But that glorious monarch, so loyal and faithful to God, the Jealous One, who will 
 not give his praise to graven images, saw that it might, after his death, be again worshipped, 
 and he therefore broke it, and God commends him for it and for his other adls in reforming 
 in most commendatory terms (II. Kings xviii. 1-9). 
 
 So in the Old Testament we read that God's prophet in foretelling His vengeance against 
 the idolatrous altar of Bethel, where Jehovah was relatively worshiped through a calf, declares 
 that men's bones shall be burnt upon it. Compare on that relative worship there of a calf I. 
 Kings xii., 28, where the Hebrew should be rendered, "Behold thy God," [that is, in 
 an image], " O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt," that Is 
 Jehovah. Similar language is used in Exodus xxxii., i, 8; "Make us a God." " This 
 is thy God, O Israel, who hath brought thee up out of the land of Egypt," that is 
 Jehovah, in an image. That the reference is to Jehovah here and not a false God 
 is made clear by the Hebrew of verse 5, " To-morrow is a feast to fehovah." And let 
 u8 remember that Jehovah is never used for any but the true God. And the idolaters were 
 celebrating that feast to Jehovah when the L,ord cursed them for it (Exod. xxxii.. the whole 
 chapter). So the noble and blessed reforming King Josiah defiled the places of idolatrous 
 worship by filling them " with the bones ofynen," etc. (II. Kings xxiii., 13 to 21). Compare II. 
 Chron. xxxiv., 5. It is observable that though Cod wrought a miracle by the bones of Elisha 
 to attest his mission (II. Kings xiii., 21), it was not when his Law which required their burial 
 was violated, but when a dead man was let down info his autirelic-worshipping prophet" s 
 sepulchre, and that the Israelites did not therefore take up EHsha's bou-es and scatter thera 
 hither and yon to work miracles, as Christians who fell into the paganism of relic-worship 
 did, nor did they, like those worshippers of the relics of Saints, worship Elisha's relics. 
 
 I presume it likely that the wretched man who first buried the defilements of dead men's 
 bones in the top of a leg supporting a Communion Table had in mind the fact that under the 
 altar in the temple of Heaven are the souls of the martyrs, who cry for vengeance on those 
 evil men who dwell on the earth (Rev. vi., 9-12). But surely he should have seen that sandti- 
 fied and purified and spotless souls are one thing, and dead men's stinking and unclean 
 bones another and widely different thing, and that the souls of the martyrs are in Heaven 
 where that altar is and not on earth. 
 
Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 necessary to believe that He, being God by Nature, has become flesh, 
 that is a man animated by a rational soul, what reason have any to 
 
 of Carthage, A. D. 348, had commended the burial of martyrs' bodies, and 
 in effect had condemned their worship. 
 
 But none of the above five points. A, B, C, D, and B., was called into dispute 
 in the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius on the Eucharist. Both dispu- 
 tants would agree on them. 
 
 But the following points are mentioned, and I dwell on them the more partic- 
 ularly, as they bear on, and, taken together, settle forever the question as to the 
 worship of the alleged real presence on the Holy Table of the Substance of 
 Christ's Divinity and the alleged real presence of the substance of His Humanity 
 there; a heresy newly put forth in our time in the Anglican Communion, against 
 its own Formularies and against the Decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council, 
 by two of its thoroughly traitor presbyters, E. B. Pusey, and John Keble of the 
 sad death; on both of whom as convidled antecedently by the Third Synod we 
 must pronounce Anathema, or be ourselves traitors to God, and be condemned 
 as idolaters if we approve that heresy, or as guilty of such false liberalism, and 
 disobedience as cost our first parents temporal death, and King Saul his crown^ 
 and will lead to our own damnation as failing to do our full duty as watchmen 
 upon the walls of Zion. St. Paul in Galatians i., 8, 9, has antecedently anathe- 
 matized them and all who teach like them on that theme, and we must do the 
 same or be condemned. Christianity is a militant faith, not a mere uncertain 
 mistiness fit only for weaklings and dawdlers. I go on. 
 
 [F]. {a). As to the alleged real presence of the a5lual Substance of Christ's 
 Divinity on the Holy Table i?i the Eucharistic rite, St. Cyril plainly denies it^ 
 and I think that Nestorius agrees with him. 
 
 [b). Both St. Cyril and Nestorius very plainly deny any eating of the 
 Divifiity of Christ in the Eucharist. 
 
 For the full text of all the places of St. Cyril which are most pertinent on 
 this matter, see the Dissertation on the Eucharist which I hope soon to pub- 
 lish, if the means be sent to me for that purpose. I shall simply quote the most 
 definite utterances in Cyril, and the Third Council on this theme. They com- 
 prise not only his own words but those of Nestorius also. 
 
 As a necessary preliminary, in order to learn exactly what the Universal 
 Church has decided once for ever on the Eucharist, we must first understand 
 the questions on it regarding which Nestorius and St. Cyril of Alexandria dif- 
 fered. Nestorius supposed Cyril to be an Apollinarian, that is a One-Natureite: 
 that is, he thought that Cyril held that Christ's human nature had been changed 
 into His Divinity, and so that he held that we eat Christ's Divinity only in the 
 Lord's Supper, whereas Nestorius held that we eat and drink Christ's humanity 
 there, and he therefore brings Christ's assertion in John vi., 56, 57 that we eat 
 His flesh and dritik His blood as a proof that His humanity was not transub- 
 stantiated into Divinity but still exists. His argument has no meaning unless 
 we understand him (as Cyril did, as we see below;) to take Christ's words literally, 
 
Readiiig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestoriiis. 251 
 
 be ashamed of any of His expressions, though they befitted His 
 humanity ? For if any one reje(5ls those words which befit the Man, 
 
 in which case we must understand him as Cyril and the Third Council did to 
 teach cannibalism {av6puTT0(}>ayLa), and must condemn him for such errors, as 
 they did. Nestorius' words show that he did not beheve that we eat Divinity 
 at all in the rite. 
 
 That Nestorius deemed Cyril an Apollinarian is clear from Cyril's Five 
 Book Contradi5lion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book II., Chapter lo, 
 page 43 of Pusey's translation, and from the passage below. As yet no party 
 held that both Natures of Christ, that is the adlual Substance of His Divinity 
 and the adlual substance of his humanity are on the Holy Table in the rite and 
 are taken into the mouth and swallowed. That was to come in with the later 
 heresies of Consubstantiation and of Transubstantiation. Yet it could be said 
 that the corrupting Antiochian School were gradually veering towards what St. 
 Cyril calls below the error oi Eating a Man {avOpuirocpayia), whereas the Alex- 
 andrian School as yet was entirely free from such errors as it had been from 
 the beginning. 
 
 To show Nestorius' own ideas and errors, I here anticipate and quote the 
 particular places of his writings which are two in number, and are quoted below 
 in this Act I., as heretical, and were made part of the criteria and basis for his 
 deposition. 
 
 [ "Passage i8/^ of the 20 Heretical Passages quoted in Act /. of Ephesus 
 from Nestorius^ Writings, which were made the criteria and causes for his 
 deposition in it /I 
 
 "Another Passage, likewise from the same [Work of Nestorius]; tetrad iv. 
 ' Hear therefore and give heed to the things which I am about to speak. 
 He says, He that eateth my flesh [b). Remember that this is said regarding the 
 flesh, and that the expression the flesh is not added by me, lest I seem to them to 
 misinterpret. He that eateth my flesh aftd drinketh my blood {c); he did not 
 say. He that eateth my Divinity and drinketh It, but He that eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him ' {d), 
 'And after some things more [Nestorius adds] : 
 
 * But with reference to the point before us. He that eateth my flesh and 
 drinketh my blood, abideth i7i tne and I in hitn {e)\ remember that this is said 
 REGARDING THE FI.ESH. As the Living Father hath sent me if); me [he means], 
 who am visible to you {g). But I sometimes misinterpret [thou sayest]. Let us 
 hear [then] something from the words which follow : As the Living Father 
 hath sent me {h); HE [Cyril ?] says That ' me ' here means The DIVINITY ; 
 
 (b). John vi., 56. 
 
 (c). Ibid. 
 
 (di. Ibid. 
 
 <^). Ibid. 
 
 </). John vi., 57. 
 
 (g). That is Christ's humanity, which is visible; not his Divinity, which is invisible. 
 
 (A). John vi, 57. 
 
252 ^^^ ^' ^f EpJ^^siis, 
 
 who is it that forced Him to become a man like us ? And forasmuch 
 as He [the Word] abased Himself to a voluntary 7naking Himself of 
 
 BUT I ASSERT THAT IT MEANS THE HUMANITY (z). Let US see who the 
 misiiiterpreter is ; Christ says, As the Living Father hath sent me (7), and the 
 heretic [Cyril ?] says that He means the Divinity [by " me "] here. For in the 
 clause, He hath sent me [k), he says, that "w^" means God the Word. In 
 that sense he [the heretic] understands the ''me'' in the expression, As the 
 Living Father hath sent me (/). And according to them the word • ' / " in the 
 clause, And Hive (;«) means, God the Word ; so that he understands the whole 
 passage to mean. Arid /, God the Word, live by the Father. Then forasmuch as 
 after that expression it says, And he that eateth me, he also shall live [n) I ask 
 WHAT DO WE EAT, THE DIVINITY, OR THE HUMANITY? (o)." 
 
 St. Cyril in his Five-Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, 
 Book IV, Section 3 and after, page 140 and after in the Oxford English transla- 
 tion, replies at length to the above quoted passage of Nestorius, denies that we 
 eat Divinity in the Eucharist, or that It is on the Holy Table in the rite, and 
 accuses Nestorius' error of eating the aAual flesh and drinking the actual blood 
 of a Man as resulting in '' Cattni balls m."" See the Oxford translation of S. 
 Cyril of Alexaiidria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, page 142, and the 
 context. Even Pusey in his note " s," on pages 143, 144, quotes Cyril as deny- 
 ing that we eat Christ's Divinity, in the rite, and as charging Nestorius with 
 ''Cannibalism;' and in the Index to that volume, under Eucharist on page 380. 
 he refers to Cyril again as teaching that "we eat the Son's flesh, not Godhead.''' 
 To be more exact he should have said that, in the places there referred to, Cyril 
 teaches that we eat not the flesh of a man like one of us, but the flesh of God 
 the Word. It is strange how after admitting that Cyril teaches that, and having 
 before him Cyril's teaching in the very places adduced and quoted by him that 
 Christ's Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the rite, he should have fallen 
 into the idolatry of worshipping His humanity there, since all admit that St. 
 Cyril's Anathema VIII., approved by the Third Ecumenical Synod, and Anath- 
 ema IX., of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and the Definition of which it forms 
 part forbid any worship of the separate humanity, even were it there as Nesto- 
 rius held. Humorously enough the Romanizing E. B. Pusey, who opposed 
 essential parts of St. Cyril's doctrine on the Lord's Supper and did so much to 
 foster that idolatry of worshipping both Christ's Divinity and humanity as 
 substantially present in it, in id., Preface, page CIV., claims Cyril as his "early 
 teacher" on the Eucharist, whereas St. Cyril shows that Christ's Divinity is not 
 there at all, and that His separate humanity cannot be worshipped. 
 
 (?■). On this see below, at the end of this passage of Nestorius. 
 
 O). John vi., 57. 
 
 (k). Ibid. 
 
 (/). Ibid. 
 
 {m). Ibid. 
 
 (m). Ibid. 
 
 (ft). See the Greek in Passage 18 in the proper place further on in Act I. 
 
Readiyig of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 255 
 
 no reputation for us, for what cause should He reject the expressions 
 which befit that 7naki7ig himself of no reputation (615) f Therefore 
 
 On page CIII., of the same Preface, Pusey gives as one rendering oiQtQ<^6por, 
 ''bearing God,'" whereas its meaning is '' God-bor?te,'' that is " God-inspired'' 
 where Cyril mentions it as used by the Nestorians as, for instance, in his 
 Anathema V., in the above Epistle where he condemns and anathematizes the 
 expression that Christ is a mere ' * God-inspired Man. ' ' See it translated below. 
 
 We come now to summarize results as set forth in St. Cyril's replies to the 
 above language of Nestorius, and the Council's condemnation of Nestorius for 
 it. Cyril teaches : 
 
 1. That Christians do not eat the Divinity of God the Word in the Eucha^ 
 rist, and says that it is impossible to do so; and 
 
 2. He denies that It is on the Holy Table. Of course this shows, 
 
 3. That he worshipped nothing on the holy Table ; not the Divinity of the 
 Word because It is not there; nor the humanity of Christ, because, being a crea. 
 ture, it can not be worshipped as he again and again teaches. I quote: 
 
 (A.) Passages of St. CyriIv of Ai^exandria in which he teaches 
 
 AGAINST NESTORIUS THAT WE DO NOT EAT THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IN THE 
 
 Eucharist. 
 
 Passage I. of St. Cyrix, of Ai^exandria against the heresy of eatiiig the 
 Divinity of God the Word in the Lords Supper; from his Five Book Contra- 
 diction OF THE B1.ASPHEMIES OF Nestorius. 
 
 ''But we eat, not consuming the Divinity (away with the bi^asphe- 
 MOUS thought); but the own flesh of the Word which has been made life-giv- 
 ing, because it has been made His wholiveth because of [or " through,'' or " bfl 
 the Father," (Cyril of Alexandria's Five Book ContradiElion of the Blasphe- 
 mies of Nestorius, Book IV., SeHion 5). 
 
 Passage II. against the blasphemy of asserting an eating of the Divinity of 
 the Word in the Eucharist. 
 
 Cyril in his Defense of his Twelve Chapters Against the Orientals, expressly 
 treats of the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, in definite answer to Nestorius' 
 taunting references in favor of the literal flesh-eating and blood-drinking sense 
 of John vi. 
 
 "Did He say. He that eateth My Divittity and drinketh My Di- 
 vinity ? ^ "5^ * * * 
 
 " After this He [Christ] says even again, He that eateth Me, he also shall 
 live (/>). What do we eat, the Divinity, or the Fi,esh ? " 
 
 To this Cyril answers, 
 
 "The Nature of Divinity is not eaten." 
 
 This passage and its context are the more remarkable and noteworthy be- 
 cause Cyril's language occurs in reply to the very language of Nestorius which 
 
 {p). John VI., 57. 
 
^54 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 all the expressions in the Gospels are to be ascribed to [but] one 
 Person, to [but] one infleshed Subsistence (6i6) of the Word. For, 
 according to the Scriptures, Jesus Anointed is [but] one Lord (617). 
 
 forms the Eighteenth of the Quotations from him in the First Act of the Third 
 Ecumenical Synod ; and as this reply to the Orientals, and Cyril's Five-Book 
 Contradi5lion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, above quoted on this theme, had 
 both been published and circulated prior to the Council, and were of chief and 
 indeed necessary importance in order to understand the great dodlrinal questions 
 involved in the controversy between Cyril and the heresiarch Nestorius; it is 
 therefore fair to presume that they with the other writings of Cyril up to that 
 date were read by the Bishops before the Council met, or in the long wait for 
 John of Antioch before it began business, and that they furnished tho criteria 
 and proofs of his heresy, and were the bases on which he was condemned and 
 deposed. These fadls are all-important, and yet are but little known; and they 
 serve to make clear the fact that the Synod approved Cyril's denial that the 
 Divinity of God the Word is eaten in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Passage III. of Cyrii, of Alexandria against the heresy of believing 
 that the Divitiity of the Word is eaten in the Eucharist ; frotn his address on 
 
 THE RIGHT FAITH TO THE EmpEROR ThEODOSIUS II : 
 
 "And that the word is not To be EaTEn * * * is ci.ear to us by 
 
 AS MANY AS TEN THOUSAND REASONS." 
 
 As this letter, as Professor Bright states {q), was written some time before 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod met, it is fair and reasonable to presume that it 
 formed, with the two documents last cited above, part of the basis and criteria 
 for Nestorius' condemnation and deposition ; and therefore with them also it is 
 especially valuable and authoritative. 
 
 Passage IV. of St. Cyrii. of Ai^exandria against the blasphemy of sup. 
 posing that any one can eat the Divinity of God the Word : from his genuine 
 ADDRESS ON THE RIGHT FAITH TO THE EMPRESSES, which is sometimes termed 
 the SECOND ; seElio7i 56; 
 
 He puts the following poser to some heretics : 
 
 '^ If therefore it is the Word who came out of Him, bare and by Himself 
 
 HOW IS HE EATEN BY US IN ORDER THAT WE MAY I,IVE BECAUSE OF HIM, 
 
 FOR DIVINITY IS INCORPOREAL, BY ITS [vcry] NATURE?" And therefore of 
 course, Cyril means, it can not be eaten. 
 
 fB). Passages of St. Cyrii. of Ai^exandia in which he denies the 
 REAi, Presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist, 
 THAT is in the Thanksgiving, as Eucharist means. 
 
 Passage I. ofSr. Cyrii, of Ai^exandria in which he denies absolutei<y 
 The ReaIv Presence of the substance of the Divinity of God the Word 
 
 {q). In his article on Cyril of Alexandria in Smith and IVace's DiFtionary of Christian 
 Biography, Vol. I., page 765. P E. Pusey also assigns the above work to a time before the 
 Council of Ephesus. See page vii. of the Praefatio to Ft. I. of Vol. VII. of his edition of the 
 Greek of the Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. 
 
Readijig of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 255 
 
 [I]. And though He is called (6i8) both Apostle, and High 
 Priest of our prof essio7i (619) as performing the priestly work (620) of 
 presenting to the God and Father the profession of faith offered by 
 
 ON THE TABi,B IN THE EUCHARIST, in ov with the bread and wine : in other 
 words his denial of both Consubstantiation a7td Tr an substantiation : from ST. 
 
 CyRII, of AI^EXANDRIA'S five book contradiction of the BI.ASPHEMIES OF 
 
 Nestorius, Book IV., SeElion 6, where, writing with reference to one of Nes- 
 torius' objections to Gods truth, he tells him : 
 
 "But thou seemest to me to forget that what i.ieth forth on 
 the hoi.y tabi^es of the churches is by no means the nature of 
 divinity." 
 
 Nestorius had asserted that Christ's humanity is eaten in the Eucharist, not 
 his Divinity, supposing that by the assertion that His Divinity was eaten he 
 would hit Cyril because he deemed him an ApoUinarian and a denier of the 
 truth that Christ has humanity. And so, speaking on the Eucharist, he asserts 
 that Christ has humanity and proves it by Zechariah xii., 10, where it is said, 
 " They shall look upon him whom they pierced,'" which refers of course to Christ 
 as ''pierced'' and then triumphantly asks, ' Who theft is He who was pierced ? 
 The side. But a side belongs to a body, not to Divinity.'''' Hence, Nestorius 
 means, there is a humanity of Christ in the Eucharist to be eaten. We do not 
 eat Divinity there. 
 
 To this Cyril replies, 
 
 "Petty therefore as I said, is the profit of the unbi^oody SACRIFICE, (r) because 
 perchance it hath not become possible to consume the Nature of the Divinity 
 along with the flesh, because we are not in possession of impossibilities [by] 
 having the bare Incorporeal to eat. But thou seemest to me to forget that what 
 
 LIETH forth on THE HOI,Y TABI^ES OF THE CHURCHES IS BY NO MEANS THE 
 
 NATURE OF DIVINITY yet it is an own body of the Word who was born out of 
 God the Father • and the Word is God by Nature and in truth. Why therefore 
 dost thou confound all things and jumble them without understanding, all but 
 mocking at our Bread which has come out of heaven and giveth life to the 
 World, because it is not called Divinity by the voice of those who have dis- 
 coursed on God [ridv Oer^yopcjv) but rather a body of Him who hath put on a Man 
 for us, that is, of the Word who has come out of God the Father ? And why 
 (tell me) dost thou call it the Lord's Body at all, unless thou knowest it to be a 
 thing pertaining to God, and God's? for all things are subject to their Maker, - 
 (St. Cyril of Alexandria's Five- Book Contradi^ion of the Blasphemies oj 
 Nestorius, Book IV., Sedlion 6). 
 
 (r). Cjrril uses this Orthodox expression again and again. See another instance of it on 
 page 236 above in note 599; and see examples of the use of the same expression in other writers 
 in that note. See also instances of its use by Cyril again in Sections 5 and 6, Book IV. ot his 
 Five Book. Contradi6lion of the Blaspheynies of Nestorius, pages 146 and 150 of P. E. Pusey's 
 translation. The expression, notwithstanding the cavils of Romanists and of others who 
 believe in the adlual presence of blood in the rite and of its being drunk there, is prohibitive of 
 those errors and irreconcilable with them. 
 
^56 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 US both to Him and through Him to the God and Father, and more- 
 over in the Holy Spirit also (621), nevertheless we say that He is 
 
 Under the last A. above, I have adduced Passages of St. Cyril of Alex an - 
 dria^ in which he teaches against Nestorius that we do not eat the Divinity of 
 Christ in the Eucharist. Under B, I have shown that he teaches that the 
 Divinity of Christ is not on the Holy Table in the Rite. I come now: C. To 
 
 show that HE DENIES THAT WE RECEIVE IN THE EUCHARIST THE DiVINE 
 
 Substance of God the Word; that is the Substance of His Divinity. 
 All under this last A, B and C come under head F, on page 250 above, and are 
 a summary of what belongs to it. 
 
 (C). Passage I. of Cyrii, of Ai^exandria in which he denies that we 
 receive in the Eucharist the divine Substance <?/" Cc*^ the Word; that is the 
 Substance of His Divinity. 
 
 In his Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke, Cyril expressly teaches 
 that the Substance of God the Word is not in us by the Eucharist, but that God 
 the Word is in us relatively only, that is, as he explains the expression, by His 
 Spirit only which is related to Him as being His Spirit A great difference 
 between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius was as to how God the Word dwelt 
 in the Man united to Him, Cyril asserting that the very Substance of the 
 Divinity of God the Word was in that Man and abode in him from his concep- 
 tion in the womb, came into the World with him out of the Virgin's womb, and 
 has abode in that Man ever since; but Nestorius denied this and asserted that 
 God the Word dwelt and dwells in that Man relatively oviXy , that is by His Spirit 
 only, as He dwelt in the inspired Prophets and Apostles. 
 
 This is a very important question, for if God the Word dwelt in the Man 
 united to Him, by the grace of His Holy Spirit only, as He did in the inspired 
 Prophets and Apostles, of course there was nothing in the Son to be worshipped, 
 because the Substance of the Divinity of God the Word was not in that Man any 
 more than it was in the inspired Apostles and Prophets, and hence the Son 
 could no more be worshipped than they could be. It would be the sin of Man 
 Service {avdpu7ro7.aTp£ia)^ and therefore of Creature Service {KTiaiLaro}.arptia), to bow 
 or pray to him, a mere inspired creature according to them, as much as it would 
 be to bow to or to pray to the inspired Apostles and Prophets, who were certainly 
 mere men. 
 
 Cyril, in passage after passage denounces those errors and heresies of 
 Relative Indwelling which denied the Incarnation of God the Word, and gave 
 Relative Service to a mere inspired Man, to a mere inspired creature; which, of 
 course, is paganism; and is the principle on which to this day the heathen 
 attempt to defend their worship of images painted, and graven, altars, relics, 
 and other created things, and created persons ; the passages of Cyril are in a 
 blurred and, on those points, mangled translation in the Oxford English render- 
 ing of .S". Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. See 
 in the Index of Greek Words, page 405 in that tome, under ax^on which means 
 by relation, and ax^riKrjv which means relative, and (under the last term) 
 (T;^eri/cwf, which means relatively. The Oxford translator, (to hide his own pagau- 
 
Reading of CyriV s LoJig Epistle to Nestoriiis. 257 
 
 the Sole-Born Son Who as respects His [Divine] Nature has come out 
 of God; and we will not assign to a man, another besides Him, 
 
 izing and to help on an impossible union of England with idolatrous and partly 
 Nestorianized Rome?) has there wilfully or unlearnedly mistranslated those 
 passages. But the impartial reader who will render the Greek faithfully as the 
 words mean will have no difficulty in understanding Cyril's deep detestation of 
 the Apostatic {s) twin heresies of the Relative Indwelling and Relative Wor- 
 ship of that man. We deal here in treating of the Eucharist with the former. 
 
 Nestorius tried to get over the difficulty by bringing in again the heathen 
 principle of relative bowing, that is by asserting that it is right to bow to the 
 Man united to the Word, because though THE Substance of The Divinity of 
 God the Word was not in that Man, nevertheless He was in him relatively by 
 His Holy Spirit. Cyril's reply to that is that if we may bow relatively to the 
 mere Man. the mere creature united to God the Word, because the grace of the 
 Holy Spirit is in him, then inasmuch as the grace of the Holy Spirit was in the 
 inspired men of the Old Testament and of the New it would be right to bow 
 relatively to them also, and so creature worship would be right. 
 
 Cyril in his Commentary on Luke had been making clear two sorts of 
 Indwelling by God the Word not by His Spirit in His Humanity, but in us, which 
 is another thing altogether, as follows: 
 
 ''He [Christ] dwells in us, first, by the Holy Ghost, and we are His abode, 
 according to that which was said of old by one of the holy prophets, For I will 
 dwell in them, He says, and lead them a?td I will be to them a God, and they 
 shall be to Me a people {t). 
 
 " But He is also within us in another way by means of our partaking in the 
 oblation of the unbIvOody offerings, which we celebrate in the Churches, hav- 
 ing received from Him the saving pattern of the rite, as the blessed Evangelist 
 plainly shows us in the passage which has just been read («). For he tells us 
 that He took a cup and gave thanks, and said. Take this and divide it with one 
 another " iv), etc. 
 
 (^.) Canon I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, speaks of any metropolitan who might 
 leave that Holy Synod and go over to the Nestorian Conventicle there as " apostatizing " 
 [oLTZoaTaT'nGag) and as joining himself ' to the Council of the Apostasy'' (rw ri]q cnroGTadar 
 avveSpio)). Canon II. speaks of provincial Bishops who might leave the Holy Synod and join 
 themselves "to the Apostasy'' {ri) ciTroaraaia) of Nestorianism, and deposes those who go over 
 to the Nestorian Synod as running back ' to the Council of the Apostasy" [rorf^g aTToaTaaiaq 
 avvedpiov). Canon III. forbids the Orthodox to subject themselves to Nestorian Bishops whom 
 it stigmatizes as having "apostatized" {a-oGraTTjaaaLv). And Canon IV. speaks of clerics 
 who fall into Nestorianism as having ''apostatized" [diroaraTyaaiEv) . 
 
 And surely Nestorianism is creature service, and surely falling into creature service is an 
 apostasy from Christ; and so the Synod spake by the Holy Spirit in so deciding, 
 
 (/), Ezek. xxxvii.,.27. 
 
 (m). Luke xxii., 17-23, where the institution of the Lord's Supper is mentioned. 
 
 {v). Luke xxii., 17. 
 
258 Act L of Ephesus. 
 
 the name and the ofl&ce of the Priesthood (622), for He (623) has be- 
 come a Mediator between God and men and a Reconciler unto peace, 
 
 As to the first sort of Indwelling ; Cyril here refers to his own belief and 
 that of the ancients that by Baptism a person becomes a temple of the Holy 
 Spirit and that the Spirit is given to him daily as he will receive it. 
 
 The second sort of Indwelling by God the Word in us is by the Eucharist. 
 
 Both of these Indwellings, it will be seen from the above, are of God the 
 Word by His Holy Spirit, and so are relative. For, as to the first , Cyril writes, 
 " He [Christ] dwells in us by The Hoi,y Ghost," etc. 
 
 As to the second he adds: 
 
 " But He is also within us in another way, by means of our partaking of 
 the oblation of the unbi^oody offerings," etc. And just below Cyril tells us 
 that we receive in the Eucharist '■'life-giving blessing, * * ^ for every 
 GRACE and every perfect gift cometh unto us from the Father by the Son in the 
 H01.Y Ghost." 
 
 The Holy Ghost the Quickener, that is the Giver of Life (John vi., 63; II. 
 Cor. iii., 6) is then given to all the baptized daily as they will receive it, accord- 
 ing to Cyril and according to Scripture. 
 
 But he has stated above that " He [Christ] is also within us * * * by 
 means of our partaking of the oblation of the unbloody offerings.'^ 
 
 Then the question would naturally arise, How is He within us, by His divine 
 Substance,as He dwells in the man whom He took out of the Virgin ; or relatively, 
 that is by His Holy Spirit ? 
 
 And Cyril answers relatively, not by the Substance of His Divinity as the 
 Romish Transubstantiationist teaches who says that in the Eucharist ''are 
 verily, really and substantially contained the body and blood, together with the 
 soul and Divinity of our Lord fesus Christ, and consequefttly the whole Christ {w),** 
 and that "the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every 
 part of each species when separated (:r);" of course according to this frightful 
 blasphemy, if " whole Christ " is under each fragment on Pask, that is on what 
 is called Easter Sunday, for instance, as there are at least a million such frag- 
 ments, for at least that number of communicants in the Roman Communion, 
 there must be at least one million Second Persons of the Trinity ; and more- 
 over in each of one million stomachs there must be "verily^ really ^ and 
 substantially contained the body and blood, together with the soul and Divinity ^ 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,''' so that when 
 Paddy Pagan or Biddy Idolatry, after worshipping creatures comes out of 
 Church with the said "whole Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity (jj/), 
 inside of him or her it is plain that God the Word is incarnated, that is, is 
 
 [w). Buckley's Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, (London, Routledge and Co., 
 1831,) page 77: Session XIII., Chap. VIII., Canon I. The same docftrine is taught in the 
 Catechism of the Council of Trent (^s&& page 231 of Buckley's English translation). 
 
 {x). Ibid., Canon III. 
 
 iy). Ibid., Canon I. 
 
Readhig of Cyril's Lojig Epistle to Nestorius. 259 
 
 by oifering himself for 'an odor of a sweet smell' (624) to the God 
 and Father. And therefore he said, * Sacrifice and offering thou 
 
 infleshed, in Biddy's stomach as much as He ever was in the Virgin Mary's 
 womb; and, furthermore, since all agree that wherever the Substance of Divinity 
 is there it is to be worshipped, it is impossible to give any good reason why we 
 should not fall down and worship Christ's Divinity in Paddy's stomach and 
 in Biddy's. Such are the ridiculous and abominable and blasphemous and neces- 
 sary results of the Romish heresy of the adlual reception of the Substance of the 
 Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist by the mouth, and in the stomach. 
 
 But Cyril had discussed this matter more than eleven hundred years before 
 the heretical local Council of Trent, and by making the Indwelling of God the 
 Word in us relative, that is by the sandlifying influences of His Spirit only, not 
 by the Substance of His Divinity, had avoided all such blasphemous absurdities, 
 as did the Third Ecumenical Synod also which he led. 
 
 I quote therefore Cyril here on this all important matter ; 
 
 " And let none of those whose wont it is to disbelieve, say, Since therefore 
 the Word of God^ being by Nature Life, dwells in us also, is the body of each 
 one of us too endowed with the power of giving life ? 
 
 ' ' Rather let him know that it is one thing to have the Son in us by a rela- 
 tive PARTICIPATION AND ANOTHER AND A DIFFERENT THING IN EVERY WAY for 
 
 Him to become flesh, that is to make that body His own which was taken out 
 of the blessed Virgin. For when He comes into us. He is not said to put on a 
 fnan and to become flesh for that was done once for all when He came [forth 
 out of the Virgin's womb] a man, without ceasing to be God. Therefore the 
 body taken out of the holy Virgin and united to Him became the Word's own 
 body ; but how or in what way it is not in us to say, for it is untold and utterly 
 uncomprehended, and the manner of the Union is known to Himself alone. 
 It was behooving Him therefore to come into us in a God befitting manner 
 
 BY HIS HOLY SPIRIT," etc. 
 
 Here then, the Divine Substance of God, the Word, is not in us. It was 
 in the blessed Virgin alone of all creatures, and that Indwelling was the 
 Incarnation. And if It were to dwell in any other human being that would be a 
 new Incarnation. 
 
 But though God the Word is not in us by His Divine Substance, He is by 
 His Holy Spirit which is related to Him as being His Spirit; and so He is in us 
 relatively, that is, by His Holy Spirit. 
 
 Therefore when any Transubstantiationist or Consubstantiationist asserts to 
 us that we do not believe that God the Word is in us if we do not believe He is 
 in us by His divine Substance, that is in the heretic's Ecumenically condemned 
 sense, we must remember to say in the Words of the Orthodox Cyril: 
 
 ''Rather let him know that it is one thing to have the Son in us by a relative 
 participation and another and a different thing in every way for Him to be- 
 come flesh, that is to make that body His own which was taken out of the blessed 
 Virgin ; " in other words it is one thing for God the Word to dwell in us by the 
 
260 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 'wishedst not; m whole buriit offeriiigs and sacrifices for sin thou hast 
 had no pleasure^ but a body hast thou prepared 7ne. Then said /, Lo, 
 
 sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, and another and an entirely different 
 thing for Him to become incarnate of the Virgin {z), that is for Him to enter 
 her by His Divine and Eternal Substance, and for that Divine and Eternal 
 Substance to wrap Itself in flesh and to put on a Man in her womb and to dwell 
 in that Man there, to be in him at birth out of her, and to dwell in him ever 
 since. 
 
 Here then in no less than four pi^aces, St. Cyril of Alexandria plainly 
 teaches that God the Word can not be eaten. 
 
 And in another passage he even goes further and denies That The sub- 
 stance OF God the Word wes on the hoi.y tabi.es at ai,i„ by which ex- 
 pression he radically negatives both Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, for 
 both those errors necessarily include that and the eating of real flesh and blood, 
 for the strict Consubstantiationist holds that the real flesh and blood and the adlual 
 Substance of the Divinity of God the Word are in the bread and wine and re- 
 ceived by the mouth in them: and the Transubstantiationist holds that after the 
 consecration there is no bread nor wine there, but only the adlual flesh and 
 blood of Christ with the adlual Substance of God the Word, all of which are re- 
 ceived in the mouth by the communicant. 
 
 And in still another passage,to make the condemnation of Transubstantiation 
 and Consubstantiation still stronger, if it be possible to make it stronger, he 
 plainly denies that we receive the divine Substance of God the Word in the 
 Lord's Supper. This ends head F, which begins on page 250 above, which treats 
 of the Question of the real presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the 
 Eucharist. 
 
 We come now G, to the Questions as to the real presence of the a5lual 
 human flesh and human blood of Christ i7t the Lord's Supper, of their being 
 eaten there, and of their bemg worshipped there. 
 
 What are Cyril of Alexandria's teachings on those points ? 
 
 The Transubstantiationist and the Co7isubstantiationist, both hold that 
 Christ's real flesh and real blood are present in the Eucharist, are to be wor- 
 shipped there, and are eaten there. 
 
 As to the worship of Christ's humanity or any part of it, in the Eucharist, 
 Cyril settles the matter at once by his teachings that the Man put on by God 
 the Word is not at all worshipable by himself, because he is a creature, that God 
 alone may be worshipped, and that in the Son the Substance of God the Word 
 only may be worshipped, within [or, with\ His own flesh, {jxt-a rrjg [6ia^ avrov 
 f7ap/cof),and that the Substance of God the Word is not at all present in the 
 Eucharist. Hence, according to him, there is nothing of the Son to be wor- 
 shipped there. And the whole Church at Ephesus ratified that view. 
 
 We come then, to consider the remaining two questions : 
 
 (^) Some thing akin to the error above, though not the same, is mentioned in the fourth 
 century. For, according to Peltier, among the statements of the heretic Arius before the Alex- 
 
Reading of Cyril s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 261 
 
 I come {in the volume of the book it is written of me,^ to do thy will, O 
 God'' (625). For He has offered His own body as 'an odor of a 
 
 1. As to the a<5lual presence of Christ's real flesh and real blood there ; and 
 
 2. As to their being really eaten and drunk by the communicant. 
 
 (D). Passages in which St. Cyrii, denounces what he terms the 
 Cannibawsm of Nestorius' heresy of eating actuai, human flesh and 
 drinking actual human blood in the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Cyril teaches the truth, 
 
 {a). That we do not eat the flesh or drink the blood of a common m,an like 
 one of us. 
 
 (d). That to do so would be cannibalism, that is man-eating, that is eating 
 a man. 
 
 {c). That what we eat and driiik is the body and blood of God the Woj'd, 
 which he explains, in efifect, to mean not the flesh and blood of a man like one 
 of us, but a peculiar flesh and blood of God the Word, that is the bread and 
 wine filled with ^^the energy of His own flesh.'''' 
 
 {d). That God the Word imparts Himself to us Divinely by His Spirit, 
 humanly by His body and blood. Or as St. Cyril expresses it in Section 5 of 
 Book IV. of his Five Book Contradictio7i of the Blasphemies of Nestorius; 
 "And as the body of the Word Himself is life-giving, He having made it His 
 own by a true union which is above understanding and language, so we also in 
 partaking of His holy flesh and blood are made alive in every way and alto- 
 gether, the Word remainiiig in us Divinely by the Holy Spirit, and humanly 
 besides by His holy flesh and His precious blood. ' ' By the expression ' ' humanly 
 besides by His holy flesh and His precious blood,''' he shows that he does not 
 mean cannibalism, but that God the Word operates through or with " the 
 
 andrian Synod of A.D 315 or 320, was the assertion, " That Jesus Christ is not true God, or that 
 He. is called god by participation only like others." The expression "others'' seems to refer to 
 Psalm Ixsxii., 6, I have said. Ye are gods, etc., and John x., 34, 35, which, properly under- 
 stood, convey no such error as Arius with his wonted perversity drew from them. The place 
 of Peltier referred to is in his "Dictionnaire des Conciles," under ''Alexandrie * * * 1' an 315," 
 etc., Migne, Paris, A. D. 1846. 
 
 The Arians asserted of their mere created Word that he could be called ^orf in the sense 
 that the word godis applied to Moses in Exodus vii., i, and to mere civic magistrates and 
 judges in Psalm Ixxxii., 6, and John x., 34, 35, that is as representatives of God. 
 
 See Bp. Patrick in his Commentary on those texts, and Rosenmiiller in his Scholia in I'etus 
 Testavientiim on them. But the word there used is noi Jehovah but Elohim, the inferior term, 
 But Athanasius shows, against the Arians, that the term God is given to the Word as being such 
 by his eternal and divine Nature. See on that Newman's Euglish translation of S. Athan- 
 asius' Treatises against Arianism, page 236, note "c," and pages 427, 433,434, and passim. The 
 Church in approving St. Cyril's Anathema Vlll.has declared God's curse on everyone who 
 asserts that the perfect humanity of Christ, which is confessedly the highest of all mere 
 ctediinves,"' ought to be co-called God with God the Word * * * as one with Another." See 
 the whole of that Anathema in the above Epistle further on. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria devotes part of a Chapter of his Commentary on the Gospel according 
 to John to showing, ''that the Holy Ghost is in the Son not by participation, * * * ^j^^ 
 Essentially and by Nature." See the Oxford English translation of it, Vol. I., pages 134 to 147. 
 
262 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 sweet smeir for us, and not for Himself, For what sort of an offer- 
 ing or sacrifice did He need for Himself, Who, forasmuch as He is 
 
 things which lie before us,'^ that is the leavened bread and the wine, His body 
 and blood not carnally, but in ''energy''' to purify and to san6lify our bodies. 
 
 Passage I. Where Cyrii, o^ Ai^exandria denounces the eating of human 
 flesh and drifiking of human blood in the Eucharist as Cannibai^ism : 
 
 From his Five Book ContradiBio?i of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book 
 IV., Section 4. 
 
 Nestorius, speaking of the Jews mentioned in John VI., who were scandal- 
 ized at Christ's language as to the necessity of eating His flesh and drinking His 
 blood, says : 
 
 " The hearers endured not the loftiness of what was said : they imagined of 
 their unlearning that He was bringing in the eating of a man." 
 
 To this Cyril at once replies : 
 
 ''And how is the thing not plain eating of a man [evapyy^ avOpcjTrocpayia), and 
 in what way is the Mystery yet lofty, unless we say that the Word who came out 
 of God the Father has been sent, and confess that the ^node of that sending was 
 the Inman. For then, then we shall see clearly that the flesh which was united 
 to Him, and not another's flesh, avails to give life, and that too because it has 
 been made an own flesh {aa) of Him Who is mighty to quicken all things {bb). 
 For if the visible fire sends the power of its natural inherent energy into 
 those substances to which it approaches, and changes water itself though cold by 
 nature into that which is contrary to its nature and makes it hot; what won- 
 der, or how can one disbelieve that the Word who came out of God the Father^ 
 being the Life by Nature, rendered the flesh which is united to Him life-giv- 
 ing? For it is His own and not that of any other conceived of as apart from 
 Him and as one of those like us . But if thou remove the life-giving Word of God 
 from the mystical and true Union with the body and sever them utterly, how 
 canst thou show that it is still life-giving ? And Who was it Who said, He that 
 eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me ajid I in him?[cc) If, 
 then, it be a man by himself {dd) and the Word of God have not rather been made 
 as we, THE DEED WERE EATING A Mx\N {ee) and \vhoi.i.y unprofitabi^e 
 THE partaking (for I hear Christ Himself say. The flesh proflteth nothing, 
 it is the Spirit that quickeneth) iff), for so far as pertains to its own nature, the 
 
 {aa). Or,'' a peculiar flesh. '^ 
 
 (bb), That is, of God the Word. 
 
 (cc). John vi., 56. 
 
 (dd). In the fore-quoted passages Cyril denies that the Substance of the Divinity of God the 
 Word lies before us iu the sacrament. And in other passages also, quoted in this work, ha 
 denies that the acStual flesh and bloc J of a man like one of us lie before us on the holy table. 
 
 Nestorius agreed with him on the first point, but held to what St. Cyril brands as can- 
 nibalism, that is to the adlual eating of Christ's human flesh and to the adlual drinking of His 
 human blood. 
 
 (ee). That is, cannibalism. 
 
 (ff) John vi., 63. 
 
Reading of Cy fit's Lo7ig Epistle to Nestorius. 263 
 
 God, is free from all sin ? For although all have si7i7ied and come 
 short of the glory of God, (626), inasmuch as we have become prone to 
 
 flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, for it is itself diseased 
 with the corruption which belongs to its own nature ; but if thou say that it is 
 the own body of the Word Himself [gg), why dost thou set forth a monstrosity 
 {hh) and talk at random [by] contending that not the Very Word Who has come 
 out of God the Father has been sent, but that some other besides Him has been 
 sent, that is he who was visible (n), that is the flesh, albeit the God-inspired 
 Scripture everywhere proclaimeth one Christ, full well affirming that the Word 
 was made a man like us, and defining in those words the tradition of the right 
 faith." 
 
 Passage II. of Cyril of Alexandria, against the real presence of the a(5tual 
 flesh and the a6lual blood of a Man like one of us in the Eucharist on the holy 
 table, and the cannibai,ism of eating them there : and his advocacy of the 
 doctrine that instead He ''sends the power of life into the things which lie before 
 us;'' that is into the bread and wine; ''and changes them to the energy oj 
 His own flesh,'" etc. 
 
 From his Commentary on the Gospel according to Ltcke. 
 In this work, while Cyril plainly teaches that the Lord's Supper is a means 
 of grace and blessing, he does not attribute the blessing to cannibalism, but in 
 effect to the life giving power of God the Word, which is sent " into the things 
 which lie before us,'' so that it quickens through them. It is the grace of the 
 Word by His Spirit for, as we see by the passages quoted from him above, he 
 shows that we do not eat God the Word. 
 
 We have seen that Cyril blames Nestorius for not holding that God 
 the Word's Divine Substance indwelt the Man united to Him, and for 
 teaching that the Word indwelt him relatively only, that is by his Holy Spirit 
 only, as He dwelt in the prophets and other holy men. This fixes the sense of 
 relatively in such passages in Cyril. In other words Nestorius held that God 
 the Word indwelt that Man by the Spirit only, which is related to Him as being 
 His Spirit. 
 
 And in connection with this theme, Cyril puts and answers a question as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 {gg ) . Or, " the peculiar body of the Word Himself. ' ' 
 
 {hh). The " monstrosity'' referred to by Cyril here is the assertion of Nestorius that we are 
 cannibals in the Eucharist! For of course we are such, if we eat the adlual flesh and drink 
 the adlual blood of the Man put on by the Word. 
 
 Cardinal Du Perron, an apostate from the Reformed to the creature-service of Romanism, 
 seems on his dying bed to have confessed that his do^rine of transubstantiation. which im 
 plies and indeed necessarily includes Man-eating, that is Cannibalism, is what Cyril terms 
 Man-eating " a monstrosity; '• for it Is said that when one asked him then what he thought of 
 transubstantiation. he replied Monstrxim est; ''It is a Monster," or "//! is a Monstrosity." 
 
 (ii). That is the mere man united to God the Word according to Nestorius' hypothesis, for 
 he denied that the Substance of God the Word was in that Man. He admitted only His 
 Spirit's influence in him as in one of the inspired Apostles or Prophets. 
 
264 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 stray, and man's nature is diseased with sin (627), nevertheless 
 He (628) is not so; and therefore we come short of His glory 
 
 "And let none of those whose wont it is to disbelieve, say, Since therefore 
 the Word of God being by Nature life [jj ) dwells in us also, is the body of each 
 one of us too endowed with the power of giving life?''' 
 
 To this Cyril, without any break, at once replies : 
 
 ** Rather let him know that it is one thing to have the Son in us by a rei^a- 
 
 TIVE PARTAKING [kk'), AND ANOTHER AND A DIFFERENT THING IN EVERY V/ AY 
 
 FOR Him to become fi^esh, that is, to make that body His own which was 
 
 TAKEN OUT OF THE HOI.Y VIRGIN. FOR WHEN HE COMES INTO US HE IS NOT 
 
 SAID "TO put on a Man and to become flesh ; for that was done once for all when 
 He came forth [out of the Virgin's womb] a Man without ceasing to be God. 
 Therefore the body taken out of the holy Virgin and united to Him became the 
 Word's own body; but how or in what way it is not in us to say. for it is untold 
 and utterly uncomprehended, and the manner of the union is known to Himself 
 alone. It was behooving Him therefore to come into us by The H01.Y Spirit, 
 God-befittingly, and, so to speak, to mingle Himself with our bodies by His holy 
 flesh and His precious blood; which things we have also for a life-giving Bless- 
 ing as in leavened bread and wine. For that we may not be stupefied [with hor- 
 ror] by seeing flesh and blood lying before us on the holy tables of the churches, 
 God, condescending to our weaknesses, sends The power of i,ife into The 
 things which we before us (//) and changes them to The energy of 
 His own FI.ESH, in order that we may have them for a wfe-giving 
 partaking and that the body of the Life may be found in us as a i,ife- 
 GiviNG SEED. And do not doubt that this is true, for He Himself says plainly, 
 This is my body {mm), ain6.This is my blood {nn), but rather receive the word of 
 the Saviour in faith; for, being Truth, He does not lie {00). And so wilt thou 
 honor Him; for as the very wise John says, He that receiveth His witness hath 
 
 (jj). That is as God. Compare John i., 1-15; John vi., 26-64, and John xiv. 6. 
 
 [kk\ Cyril just below explains a Relative Partaking of Christ to be a partaking of Him by 
 His Spirit which is related to Him as being His vSpirit. and by the leavened bread and the wine 
 which are related to the Word as being His body and blood in the sense that the Word ener- 
 gizes them by His Spirit and makes them life-giving. These area Relative Indwelling of us by 
 Christ because they are by His .Spirit and by the leavened bread and wine only, and not at all 
 by the adlual Substance of His Divinity, and by the adlual Substance of His human flesh and 
 blood which were born of Mary, all of which substances are locally present now in heaven 
 alone at the right hand of the Father in our Mediator there. 
 
 The Virgin Mary alone of mortals was indwelt by the a<5lual Substance of the Word's 
 Divinity and by the adlual substance of His humanity which indeed he took from her, and 
 that indwelling constituted the Incarnation. This explanation of Cyril is strong and decisive 
 against any acflual reception of the Substance of the Word's Divinity, or the Substance of His 
 humanity by any other human being. 
 
 (//) That is, of course, the '' leavened bread and wine" just mentioned by Cyril. 
 
 {mm). Matt, xxvi., 26. 
 
 (n«). Matt, xxvi., 28. 
 
 loo). Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 72, col. 909. S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep. Co»t- 
 tnent. in Lucam. 
 
Readmg of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorms. 265 
 
 (629). How therefore can it be longer doubtful that the true Lamb 
 (630) has been sacrificed on our account and in our behalf ? And to 
 
 set his seal that God is true. For He whom God sent speaketh the words of God 
 {pp). For the words of God are of course true, and in no manner whatsoever can 
 they be false; for even though we understand not in what way God worketh a<5ls 
 such as these, yet He Himself knoweth the way of His works. For when Nico- 
 demus could not understand His words concerning holy baptism, and foolishly 
 said, How cati these things be {qq), he heard Christ in answer say, Verily I say 
 unto you, that we speak that which we know, and testify that which we see, and 
 ye receive not our testimofiy. If I have spoken unto you the earthly things, and 
 ye believe not, how will ye believe if I tell you the heavenly things ? {rr). For 
 
 (PP). John Hi., 33, 34. 
 (,qq). John iii,. 9. 
 
 Irr). John iii., 11,12. The above passage is found in the Syriac translation also, and is ren- 
 dered into English from it by Dean R. Payne Smith. See his " Commentary upon the Gospel 
 according to S. Luke, by S. Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, now first translated into English 
 from an ancient Syriac Version, by R. Payue Smith, M. A.. Sublibrarian of the Bodleian 
 Library" (Oxford Univer. Press 1859). pages 668, 669. It may be instructive and profitable at 
 this point as serving to show how careful we should be not to accept too rashly and incau- 
 tiously any doubtful statement of an old Christian writer, to state that R. Payne Smith shows 
 that two passages of the Greek, not of the above part but of another, on Luke •■ are not ac- 
 k7iowledged by the Syriac" translation, which is ancient. One of them he seems not to have 
 placed in any author the other he shows to be from Cyril's work DeAdorat., and consequently 
 it seems to have been taken by some Catenist thence and placed in its present position in the 
 collection from Cyril and others which is called his Commentary on Luke. See R. Payne 
 Smith's English translation of the Syriac translation of Cyril's Commentary on Luke. vol. 2, 
 page 663. note ' 1." And on page 629, note " o," Smith tells us that •• the Syriac otnits several 
 short sentences found in the CatencE interesting chiefly as showing the nature of the remarks 
 occasionally inserted by the Catenists, wherever they imagined that explanation was required.'^ 
 
 Then he gives some instances and then shows that a passage of four lines in Cyril on Luke 
 there is from Theophylact, who by the way. lived in the eleventh century and then confesses 
 that he was "unable to traced' another of those extradls. For Cyril's statements, in his Com- 
 menlary on Luke's Gospel, on the Eucharist, quoted in this work. I rely especially on such 
 as are preserved to us as his by both the Syriac translation and by the Catenist's Greek of the 
 Commentary on Luke From the Greek as in the Commentary on Luke, xxii., 17-22, part of the 
 passage above which professes to represent Cyril of Alexandria on a similar place on Mat- 
 thew, seems to be taken. Smith in his Preface to his translation of the Syriac of St, Cyril of 
 Alexandria's Commentary on Luke tells us that he had rejedted ' nearly a third" of the Greek 
 extracts of St. Cyril on that Gospel which Cardinal Mai had found in the Catenists. As he 
 ■ tells us that those fragments gathered by Mai ' from twelve different CatencB, together with a 
 Latin translation, occupy more than 30c quarto pages" 'in the 2d vol. of his [Mai's] .ffz*. Pat. 
 //07va" he must have rejedled nearly a hundred quarto pages of them. Smith compliments 
 Mai for his assiduous labor in gathering those extracts from so many different Catena;, but 
 adds : 
 
 " But the critical acumen of Mai was by no means commensurate with his industry. With 
 the usual fault of colledlors.tVie smallest amount of external evidence was sufficient to override 
 the strongest internal improbability; nor apparently did his reading extend much beyond 
 those Manuscripts, among which he labored with such splendid results. At all events, though 
 Cyril was an author whom he greatly valued, not only does he ascribe to theCofnmentary " [on 
 Luke] " a vast mass of matter really taken from Cyril's other works, but even numerous ex- 
 tracfts from Theophylact, Gregory Nazianzen. and other writers, whose style and method of 
 interpretation are entirely opposed to the whole tenor of Cyril's mind. 
 
266 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 say that He offered Himself both for Himself and for us, is without 
 doubt to share in the crimes of impiety; for He erred in no way, nor, 
 moreover, did He commit sin. What sort of an offering there- 
 how indeed can a man learn those things which transcend the powers of our 
 mind and reason ? Let therefore this our mystery of God be honored by 
 faith (5J)." 
 
 Although it scarcely belonged to my undertaking to sift these extradts, yet, as it might 
 have thrown a suspicion upon the genuineness of the Syriac Version to find it unceremoniously 
 rejedting nearly a third of what Mai had gathered. 1 have in most cases indicated the work or 
 author to whom the rejecfled passages belong. A few still remain unaccounted for; but as the 
 principle of Niketas the compiler of the chief Catena upon S. I,uke, confessedly was to gather 
 from all Cyril's works whatever might illustrate the Evangelist's meaning, and as in so doing 
 he often weaves two or even three distinct extradts into one connedled narrative, it is no 
 wonder if it was more easy to gather such passages than to restore the dtsje£la membra [that is 
 " members torn apart "] to their original position. Several extradts also which escaped me at 
 the time have since met my eye, of which the only one of importance is the remarkable explan- 
 ation of the two birds at the cleansing of the leper, conf. Com. on Luke v., 14, and which is 
 taken from a letter of Cyril to Acacius." See Smith's Preface to his translation of Cyril's Com- 
 mentary on Luke, pages xvii. and xviii. 
 
 These fadts may ser^'e to stimulate investigation as to what may be Cyril's in his Commen- 
 tary on Matthew, and what is not. One would think that the Commentaries are sometimes 
 more interpolated than some other works of Cyril : though as we shall see in the proper place, 
 ancient writers testify that Monophysites had in their day corrupted the Greek text of some 
 of them Yet where the Greek and the Syriac of Cyril's Commentaries agree we feel surer. 
 
 It should be remembered also that Smith, on page xvii. of the same Preface, states that he 
 had translated Greek remains of the Commentary on Luke, "wherever the MS. of the Syriac 
 was unfortunately defedlive.'" See instances mentioned in note "a," page i, of that Commen- 
 tary. Note "t," page 39, id., shows that the Catenists sometimes added something of their 
 own to a quotation, as may be the case some may think, with some few words in a quotation 
 from Cyril on Matthew above; I mean those which say that the bread and wine of the Kucha- 
 rist are not a type. 
 
 I would add that in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 72, columns 365, 366, the beginning of 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria's Comment, on Matthew, bears the following heading. I translate the 
 Latin : " Supplement to the edition of J. Aubert, " What remains of the Comments of St. Cyril 
 on Matthew picked out of the Catense of Corderius and of Possinus, with which are intermixed 
 fragments which J. A. Cramer has published from the Coislin Codex [ex Codice CoislinianoJ. 
 and Angelo Mai from Vatican Codexes." 
 
 In the same columns the author of a note tells us that the comment at the beginning of the 
 Commentary of Si. Cyril on Matthew is taken " from a Vatican Catena in which it is attributed 
 to Origen." 
 
 Another fragment of that Commentary, in columns 391, 392, we are there told in a note, is 
 attributed to Nicetas in the Catena of Corderius, but in a Vatican Codex to Cyril of Alexandria. 
 
 Again, in a note in column 395, id., we are informed as to another part of this Commentary 
 on Matthew, •' This long passage is read below on Luke vi., ij," [that is, in St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria's Comments on Luke], "where it is said to be taken from a certain Homily of Cyril.'^ In 
 columns 455-458, id., the annotator tells us that '• a historic fragment of the genealogy of Christ 
 the Lord" has been variously attributed both to Cyril of Alexandria and also to Hippolytus 
 Thebanus." 
 
 In the same tome 72 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, the editor at the beginning writes : 
 "Lectori. Post absolutum hunc tomum, compertum habuimus, I.oudini, curls viri doctissimi 
 Payne Smith, bibliothecae Bodleianae praefecti, nuper prodiisse textum Syriacum Commen- 
 
Reading of Cyril s Long Epistle to Ncstorius. 267 
 
 fore did He need, seeing that He had no sin ? Though if he 
 had sin it could have been offered for it, and that with very good 
 reason. 
 
 Passage III. of Cyrii< of Ai^exandria against the eating of the Lord's 
 liunian flesh and against drinking His human blood in the Eucharist. 
 
 From his Apology for the Twelve Chapters Against the Orieiitals, under 
 A7tathe7na XI. 
 
 Cyril writing of a passage from Nestorius on the Eucharist in which that 
 heresiarch pleads for the eating of Christ's humanity in the sacrament, and 
 refuting it, says that the Nestorians by representing '' our Sacrament to bean 
 EATING OF A MAN'S FI.ESH, " are guilty of ''\5-ii-H.o-L,ihY bringing the mind of 
 ■believers to notions of wickedness. " In " notions of wickedness {tt), ' ' he includes 
 ''the eatmg of a Man' s flesh,'" of which he had just spoken, that is cannibal- 
 isfn {av6puTT0(payia). 
 
 The passage of Nestorius is the eighteenth of the Twenty of his in Act I. of 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod, on the basis of which he was condemned and 
 deposed by the Universal Church in that Council. 
 
 See it and Cyril's Answer on pages 251, 260. 261, and 262, Passage I. above. 
 See further in the Apology of Cyril against the Orientals, that is in his Defence 
 of his XI I. Chapter's, under Anathema XI., below quoted. 
 
 Passage IV. of CyriIv of Ai^exandria against cannibai^ism, that is 
 against eating Christ's real human flesh and drinking His real human blood, in 
 the Lord's Supper; and his denunciation of Nestorius' Man-Eating in the rite as 
 " doing away unlearnedly the force of the Mystery,'' that is Sacrament; and his 
 teaching that ''for that very reaso?t and with great justice has the Anathema- 
 tism (XI. ) been set forth. ' ' 
 
 From his Explanation of the Twelve Chapters spoken at Ephesus. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria here says : 
 
 tarii S. Cyrilli in Lucam in quo depre henditur primigenia operis forma, contra quam in 
 Maiana editione, in qua, ut judicarunt viri dodli, multa leguntur a Theophylacto et aliis deri- 
 vata. Translated, the above is as follows : 
 
 '• To the Reader.— K^^r this tome was completed, we found that by the care of the most 
 learned man, Payne Smith, Sublibrarian of the Vatican, the Syriac text of St. Cyril's Commen- 
 tary on Luke had lately appeared at London, in which the original form of the work is discov- 
 ered, contrary to that form which is in Mai's edition, in which as learned men have judged, 
 many things are read which have been derived from Theophylact and from others." 
 
 (ss). Ibid. 
 
 (//\ Or "fading thoughts,'' or " thoughts of perdition," or ''perishing thoughts," or " non- 
 nourishing thoughts," or "dead thoughts." The Old Latin translation, on page 361, of tome 
 VI. of the Greek of Cyril, Puseys edition, renders here, '• hominis manducationem nostrum 
 dicit esse mj-sterium, in perditas cogitatioues scelerate convertens animos auditorum, et 
 humanis ratiocinationibus easubjiciens quae * * * et inexquisita fade creduntur ? Neque 
 enim, quod Deitas non manducatur, ideo sandlum Christi corpus dixeris esse commune." 
 
2C8 ^^^ ^' of Ephestis. 
 
 rjl And when He says of the Spirit, 'He shall glorify me' 
 (631), we perceive correaiy and assert that the one Anointed and 
 
 ''Explanation XL 
 We perform in the Churches the holy and life-giving and unbloody sacri- 
 fice NOT BELIEVING WHAT LIES BEFORE US TO BE THE BODY OF ONE OF THOSE 
 
 LIKE US and of a common man, and so likewise we hold as to the precious blood; 
 but receiving them rather as having become a peculiar body (trJiov ai^iia) and a 
 peculiar blood {uiC) of the Word Who giveth life to all things. For common 
 flesh CAN ^otigive life. And to this the Saviour Himself is witness when He 
 says, " The flesh profiteth nothing: it is the Spirit That giveth life'' {yv). 
 For 'because it has become a peculiar (i(3ia) flesh {ww) of the Word, for 
 that very reason it is deemed and is life-giving, as the Saviour Himself says, 
 As the living Father hath sent Me and I live by the Father, so also he that eateth 
 Me he also shall live by Me {xx). But since Nestorius and those who hold his 
 opinions do away unlEarnedly the force of The mystery {yy), for that 
 very reason, and with great justice has the Anathematism (XL) been set forth." 
 
 Passage V. of Cyril of Alexandria Against Cannibalism in the 
 Lord's Supper, that is against the error of eating real human flesh and drink- 
 ing real human blood there; from his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. 
 
 In this Commentary which may be somewhat interpolated, as R. Payne 
 Smith shows us that the Commentary on Luke is [zz), nevertheless enough of 
 Cyril is found to show that he teaches that Christ's real human body and His 
 real human blood are not on the holy table at all, nor are they eaten, but the 
 bread and wine into which the Word sends His own sandlifying energy are. And 
 we must remember in this connexion Cyril's own doArine that, ''God the 
 Father therefore giveth life to all things by the Son in the Holy Ghost." See 
 these words quoted elsewhere in this work from Cyril on Luke xxii., 17-22, 
 where also is found the further statement that " Every grace and every perfect 
 gift Cometh unto us from the Father by the Son in the Holy Ghost," words, as 
 the context shows, used in this last place of the Thanksgiving, that is the 
 Lord's Supper itself. 
 
 Cyril uses the expression body and blood for the symbols as does Christ 
 and his Apostle Paul, and as the whole Church has done from the beginning. 
 Yet he shows that he does not forget the chief importance of the spiritual grace 
 which they convey to the worthy recipient. For he writes that, ''He gave to 
 us both His own body and blood that the might of corruption might be dissolved 
 through them, and that He might dwell in our souls by the Holy Spirit and 
 
 (mm). Or, "as having been made an own body and an own blood." 
 {vv). John vi., 63. 
 {ww). Or, "an own flesh.'' 
 {xx). John vi., 57. 
 
 (yy). That is by doing away with its pre-eminently spiritually-forceful charaHer, and by 
 bringing cannibalism into it and so degrading it. 
 (zz) . See note " cr " above. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 269 
 
 Son has received glory from the Holy Spirit, not that He needed glory 
 from another, for His Spirit is neither better than Himself (632), nor 
 
 that we might become SHARERS OF sanctification a^id might be called 
 heavenly and spiriTUAI, men:' 
 
 And just below he writes : 
 
 " Wherefore we also placing the things aforesaid [that is the bread and 
 wine above-mentioned by Cyril] ''under Gods sight, pray earnestly thai tliey 
 may be remodeled [or ' remoulded, ' iiETaT:laGQrivaL\ for us into THE spiriTuai. 
 BLESSING in order thai when we partake of them we may be sanctified bodiIvY 
 
 AND spirituality." 
 
 Then comes the assertion that the bread and wine are not a type. But is 
 this strange language Cyril's or a Catenist's; or some writer's quoted here by a 
 Catenist without naming him as is not unusual, as Dean R. Payne Smith as 
 above shows. However that may be, if the words be shown hereafter to be 
 Cyril's I should prefer to understand his meaning to be that they are not a mere 
 type, but as he shows in this very passage below are made the containers of the 
 ''energy'' of His body. And this interpretation accords with the rest of the pas- 
 sage which speaks of the bread and wine, and denies that Christ's real human 
 flesh and real human blood are on the table at all, which, of course, amounts in 
 effect to a denial that they are received by us, for all Transubstantiationists and 
 all real Consubstantiationists hold that they are on the Holy Table and are 
 thence received into our mouths. 
 
 Besides the learned George Stanley Faber in his invaluable Difficulties of 
 Romanism (Third Edition, 1853, London, Bosworth, pages 244 to 254), shows 
 that writers before Cyril had spoken of the bread and wine by the synonyms 
 types or symbols; that is Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria 
 and Tertullian, all of whom were born in Century II.; and so spoke Macarius, 
 Cyril of Jerusalem or the writer under his name, and Gregory of Nazianzus; 
 all of whom lived in Century IV., except perhaps the writer under the name 
 of Cyril of Jerusalem; and Augustine of Century IV. and V., who died just 
 before Ephesus. And in the same work Faber has shown that even much 
 later the bread and wine were called types or symbols. See page 291 and after. 
 
 And against the false assertion of the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. 
 D. 787, that the Fathers did not so name them after consecration, he shows that 
 • 'Irenaeus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John" did (id., page 
 245), and that Gregory of Nazianzus did (id. page 254-256). 
 
 Then below St. Cyril explains his assertion that Christ is mixed " 7vith our 
 bodies through His holy flesh attd His precious blood,'' as follows: 
 
 "We have those things /or a life-giving Blessing as in both bread and 
 wine in order that we may not be struck numb [with horror] by seeing flesh and 
 blood lying before us on the holy tables of the churches. For God accommo- 
 dating Himself to our weaknesses sends the power of life into the 
 
270 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 superior to Himself, but forasmuch as He (633) used His own Spirit 
 to do great works in order to show forth His own Divinity, He there- 
 
 THINGS WHICH IvIEJ BEFORE US, AND CHANGES {fiediaTTjaiv) THEM TO THE EN- 
 ERGY OF HIS OWN WFE («)•" 
 
 The words from * * // was necessary that He should be mixed up, "to " energy 
 of His own life,'" inclusive, seem to be merely a modified form of words quoted 
 above from Cyril on Luke xxii., 17-22, See it in R. Payne Smith's English 
 translation of the Syriac of Cyril's Commentary on Luke, page 668. I suspect 
 therefore that the Catenist on Matthew took them from Cyril on Luke, but do 
 not feel absolutely certain. The passage in Luke has more which he did not 
 quote on Matthew. 
 
 Passage VI., Of Cyril of Alexandria Against Cannibalism in the Thanks- 
 giving; that is the Lord's Shipper, that is against eatifig real human flesh and 
 drinking real hum-afi blood there. From his Commentary on the Gospel accord- 
 ing to fohn. 
 
 Cyril in commenting on "John vi., 62 : ''Doth this offend you? If there- 
 fore ye see the Son of Man ascending up to where He was before,''^ shows how 
 fundamentally and grievously the Jews erred by understanding Him in the lit- 
 eral cannibal sense of eating his human flesh and blood. For he writes: 
 
 "From their very great i,ack of learning, some of those who were 
 being discipled under the Saviour Anointed were offefided at His words, For 
 BECAUSE THEY HEARD HIM SAYING, ''Verily, Verily, I say unto you, unless ye 
 eat the flesh of the Son of 3Ian and drink His blood, ye have no life in you, they 
 supposed that they were called to some savageness befitting a wii,d Ani- 
 mal, AS though they were commanded INHUMANLY TO EAT FLESH AND TO 
 SUP UP BLOOD AND [as though they were] TO BE COMPELLED To do THINGS 
 WHICH ARE HORRIBLE EVEN TO HEAR OF. FOR THEY KNEW NOT THE BEAUTY 
 
 OF THE Mystery and that most beautiful Economy devised for it.'* 
 
 And then below, Cyril after thus showing that we are not canftibals, states in 
 effect that our eating of Christ's flesh and drinking His blood are spiritual. 
 See what I have written in explanation of this passage above. 
 Five documents of St. Cyril of Alexandria appeared before the Third Ecu- 
 menical Council met, and must have powerfully influenced it in making up its 
 Decisions against the first two of the three great errors of Nestorius, namely, 
 
 1. His denial of the Incarnation of God the Word. 
 
 2. His Man- Worship, that is his Creature- Worship, that is his Co-Worship 
 of a merely human Christ with God the Word; and 
 
 Three of them are definite also against what St. Cyril calls his Cannibalism 
 \avdp(o7ro<f>ayla] on the Eucharist, which is the third Great Nestorian heresy. 
 Those documents are: 
 I. Cyril's Shorter Epistle approved by vote in Act I. of Ephesus above. 
 
 {a). Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 72, col. 452. The Greek will be g^iven in full, God 
 willing, in the Dissertation on the Eucharist in this Set. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 271 
 
 fore says that He was glorified by It ; just as any one of those like 
 us for instance, might say of the strength in him, or of his scientific 
 
 2. His Lo7iger Epistle above which has the XII. Chapters, which was also 
 approved by Ephesus. 
 
 3. His Five-Book Condemnation of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 
 
 4. His Defence of his XII. Chapters Against the Orientals; and 
 
 5. His Defence of His XII. Chapters Against Theodoret. 
 We may add, 
 
 6. His " Explanation of the XII. Chapters spoken in Ephesus by Cyrily 
 Archbishop of Alexandria, when the Holy Synod asked him to explain their 
 sense -more clearly to them,'''' as its heading is on page 340 of Vol. VI. of P. B. 
 Pusey's Greek of Cyril. The part of it on the Eucharist, that is on St. Cyril's 
 Eucharistic Anathema, which is Anathema XI. of his XII. approved with the 
 above Epistle at Ephesus, is quoted in full in this note, on page 236 above. See 
 it there. 
 
 Document i, Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, has nothing very note- 
 worthy on the rite of the Thanksgiving (Ei>;^;a|0^crrm), but treats fully on heresy I 
 and on heresy 2, of Nestorius just mentioned. 
 
 Document 5, Cyril's Defence of his XII. Chapters Against Theodoret, has 
 something on Cyril's Eucharistic Anathema XI., but it does not treat of canni- 
 balism here under discussion. Insteac^ Theodoret accuses Cyril of holding to 
 the Apollinarian heresy that Christ's flesh is mere flesh without a real mind, 
 and that hence His humanity is ^' 7iot a perfect man.'' In reply Cyril denies 
 that slander, and in such a way as to show that he held the Orthodox do(?trine 
 against the Marcionite or Docetic error advocated by Pusey and by his disciple 
 Orby Shipley {b) in our time that Christ's body is not a real material body, but 
 that while in heaven it may be as large as a common man, yet in the Eucharist 
 it adlually exists entire in each particle of the wafer or bread, and His blood is 
 in each one of hundreds of millions of drops of the wine [c). I quote Cyril: 
 
 "But it did not seem to the holy Fathers that a man had been [merely] 
 adopted by God. For they did not so think. Why should they ? But on the 
 contrary they say that the Word Who came out of God was made a Man united 
 to flesh having the intelle(5lual soul, and that the Union was without mixture 
 [of the Two Natures] and entirely free from [any] change [in them], for the 
 Word of God is unchangeable; and so we believe (^)." 
 
 (J)). Shipley afterwards betook himself in body at last to Rome, whose idolatry on the 
 sacrament of theI,ord's Supper he had held for years in his soul while professedly an Anglican. 
 Shame on his Bishop that he suffered his traitorous and corrupting presence so long. 
 
 (c). See on that Harrison's Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge, Vol. I., pages 27 to 36, and 
 104-106. and 261-269, and 282 to 287; and Vol. II., pages 342, and 354, No. 12 and 13. 
 
 id). P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of the Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Vol. VI., 
 page 490. There is a passage of Cyril, at the end of his Shorter Epistle, on pages 107-111 above, 
 which plainly confesses the perfe<5tion of Christ's humanity and the Two Natures against the 
 Apollinarians. See also to the same effect the Longer Epistle above and Cyril's Five-Book Con* 
 tradition . 
 
272 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 knowledge on any topic whatsoever, They shall glorify me. For 
 although the Spirit exists in Its own Subsistence (634), and is also 
 
 But while the whole Six Documents aforesaid contain more or less on the 
 first two heresies we must look for fuller statements on the third, the Kucharistic 
 Heresy, to Documents 2, 3, and 4. 
 
 The Bucharistic teaching of Document 2 is given in full above. 
 
 That in Document 3 is found mainly in Book IV. of St. Cyril's Five-Book 
 Contradi5lion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. It is accessible in the Greek in 
 different editions of Cyril; and in an English translation in Pusey's.S. Cyril oj 
 Alexandria Ofi the Incar^iatioft Against Nestorius^ where Book IV. fills pages 
 125-154, and is therefore too long to give here. But I have quoted very perti- 
 nent and very important parts of it above in this note. See pages 251, 252, 253 
 to 256, 261, 262 and 263. 
 
 There remains the Eucharistic do(5lrine of Document 4, that is Cyril's 
 Defence of his XII. Chapters Against the Orientals. It quotes in full, though 
 in a somewhat diflferent form, the Eighteenth of the Twenty heretical Passages 
 culled from Nestorius' writings in Act I. of the Third Synod, refutes it and 
 states against it the Orthodox docSlrine of the Lord's Supper, embracing its two 
 great tenets, namely: 
 
 1. The Substance of the Divinity of God the Word is not on the Holy 
 Table in the rite, is not eaten by the communicant, aud is not in him. See 
 pages 250-260 of this note above. 
 
 2. The real flesh of Christ is not eaten in the rite nor is His blood drunk 
 there, but through the leavened bread and the wine the power and the energy of 
 His body are imparted to us to our quickening and salvation. See in this note 
 pages 260 and after. Compare pages 233, 234, 235, and 236. 
 
 I quote a long passage of it as being a summary of the whole controversy 
 on those points. After that I will, God willing, treat of the idolatry of wor- 
 shipping Christ's Divinity or Humanity in the Eucharist. 
 
 This place is as follows: 
 
 Cyrii, of Ai^exandria's Defence of his XII. Chapters Against the Ori- 
 entals, under Chapter XI., page 356, of Vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey's edition of the 
 Greek of Cyril. 
 
 ** But because the Word Who came out of God the Father is Life by Nature 
 He has made His own flesh (<?) life-giving; and for that very reason the Blessing 
 (y) has been made life-giving to us. And therefore Christ said, Verily, verily, 
 I say unto you, I am the Living Bread Who came down out of the heaven, and 
 
 (<?). Greek, rr^v kavrov aapKa. 
 
 (/). Ev^loy/'a, that is the Eucharist, because Christ blessed [tvkoyiiaaq) the loaf at the 
 Lord's Supper before He brake it; Matt, xxvi., 26, and Mark xiv., 22. And Paul speaks of 
 '■^ the cup of blessing which we bless''' (I. Cor. x., 16), for blessing God for his mercies has ever 
 been, after Christ's example, a part of the rite. In Luke xxii., 19, Christ is said to have given 
 thanks [evxapicrz/fya^) over the loaf before he brake it, as also in I. Cor. xi., 24; and this giving 
 of thanks was accompanied with blessing therefore. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nesto7'ius. 273 
 
 thought of as by Itself, forasmuch as It is the Spirit and not the Son, 
 nevertheless It is not foreign to Him, for It has been named Spirit 
 
 give life to the world {g); and again, A fid the Bread which I will give is my 
 flesh for the life of the world {h): and again, He that eateth my flesh and drink- 
 eth my blood abideth in me and I in him {i). See therefore how he everywhere 
 names His own (7 ) that body which was born out of a woman, because of the 
 most excellent union. Though this is the dodlrine of the Mystery (k), yet Nes- 
 torius again ( / ) in his Explanation says : 
 
 ' Hear therefore and give heed to the following utterances: He says, He 
 that eateth my flesh Remember that what He says refers to THE FI.ESH, and 
 that the expression flesh has not been added by me, lest I seem to them to mis- 
 interpret. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood (m). Did he say. He 
 that eateth My Divinity a«fi? drinketh My Divinity? He that eateth My flesh 
 and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me and I in him (n). Remember that this is 
 said regarding THE FivESH. But I sometimes misinterpret [Cyril says]. Let us 
 hear then what follows: As the living Father hath sent me; {0) he [Cyril] says 
 this means THE Divinity, I say [it means] The humanity. Who is it that 
 misinterprets? As the living Father hath sent me {p), the heretic [Cyril] says 
 means THE Divinity. Does He [Christ] say The living Father hath sent me, 
 God the Word as they interpret ? Does And I live mean And / God the 
 Word live by the Father ? Then after this He [Christ] says even again, He that 
 eateth me, he also shall live ( q). What do we eat, the Divinity or the 
 FLESH ? ' 
 
 [To this I reply], 'That we have already treated at length of such absurd 
 and random nonsense uttered by him [Nestorius]. But what he means by 
 saying that it is not God the Word who has taken flesh and put on a man {r), 
 and has been sent ; and, again by putting that which is seen [the man], 
 to use his own language, by itself and apart, I can not say; rather I would say 
 that his sophism is even now evident. For he destroys the plan of the Union in 
 order that the Anointed One's body may be found a common body and no longer 
 in truth an own body {s) of Him Who is able to quicken all things. Small 
 
 ■ ig). John vi., 32, 33, 47 to 52. 
 
 (A]. Johnvi.,5i« 
 
 (t). John vi., 56. 
 
 (;■). Greek, eavTOv aujua. 
 
 ik). Or Sacrament. Where the West has generally used Sacrament, which means Sacred 
 Rite, the Greeks have used the word Mystery (juvari/piov), as in this passage. 
 
 (/). Or, "on the contrary." 
 
 {m). John vi., 54, 56. 
 
 («). John vi., 56. 
 
 (o). John vi, 57. 
 
 (/>). Ibid. 
 
 {g). Ibid. 
 
 (r). Nicene Creed. 
 
 {s). Or, " a peculiar body," idiov. 
 
274 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 if Truth, and Anointed (635) is the Truth (636; And the Spirit 
 
 indeed, confessedly are all human things to God the Word, but since for our 
 sakes He deigned to endure the being made of no reputation [t) which is salva- 
 tion to the world, even though He is said to have been sent to preach deliver- 
 ance to captives and recovery of sight to the blind (u) He is the more glorified for 
 having endured the abasement of the Economy with flesh, and no one of those 
 who think aright {v) will (I suppose) find fault because He lowered Himself for our 
 sakes in our conditions. Does he [Nestorius] not therefore by affirming that he 
 who was seen [that is, Christ's mere humanity], to whom alone he has allotted 
 the thing of being sent, is some other Son and Christ than the Word who came 
 out of God, show our Sacrament to be an eating of a man's fi.esh, [so] un- 
 
 HOI.II.Y BRINGING THE MINDS OF BEI.IEVERS TO WICKED NOTIONS (Z£/) AND ENDEAV- 
 ORING TO SUBJECT TO HUMAN REASONINGS THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE GRASPED 
 BY UNQUESTIONING FAITH AI.ONE ? FOR NO ONE SHOUI^D SAY THAT THE HOI.Y 
 
 BODY OF Christ {x^ is a common [body] because the Nature of Divinity is 
 NOT EATEN [^y). For it is necessary to know, as we said before, that it is the 
 own body of the Word who quickeneth all things; and because it is the body 
 of Life {z\ it is also life-giving, for through it does He [the Word] infuse life into 
 our mortal bodies, and do away the might of death. And on equal wise, the 
 Holy Spirit also of the Anointed One [a] gives us life. For, according to the 
 utterance of the Saviour himself, it is the Spirit Who giveth life, {by 
 
 The traditional belief of the Alexandrian School on the Eucharist had 
 always been against what St. Cyril terms Eating a Man {(ivBpoTrocpa-yla) ; see 
 Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Athanasius, as quoted in Treat's Catholic 
 Faith, under their names on pages 574 and 575, and in Vinch' s Sketch of the 
 Romish Controversy. The last mentioned Alexandrian especially, as the greac 
 
 [t). Philip, ii., 7- 
 
 (m). Luke iv.. 17, 18; Isaiah Ixi., i. 
 
 (v). P. E. Pusey's Greek text here reads what, translated, is as follows : " and no one oj 
 ihose who are wont to think aright,'' instead of-' and no one of those who think aright." 
 
 (z£/). Or, "dead notions." The Latin translation on page 361 of Vol. VI of the Greek of 
 Cyril favors the reading of the text above, for it is '' perditas cogitattones." I have quoted tl.« , 
 Latin of this place more fully in note tt, page 367 above. See it there, Pusey's edition. 
 
 (r). That is '■' of the Anointed One.'' 
 
 (y). Here is a plain statement that Christ's body, which we eat in the Eucharist, is not . < 
 common body, as Cyril elsewhere also teaches as quoted in this work, for he shows plainly an 1 
 clearly that we are not guilty oi eating a man; (.a7>6po)iTO(payi'a is the term used by him to brar i 
 that disgusting heresy), but only in effect the symbols, which Cyril on Luke above calls ^' lea:\ 
 ened bread and wine," which become to us channels of grace if we receive them aright, fot 
 they constitute a body not for the Substance of God the Word to be eaten by us, but for the 
 grace of His Spirit and for the "energy" oi His body, to use Cyril's own words. 
 
 And Cyril then adds the equally plain assertion that " the Nature of Divinity is not eaten,** 
 a remark true of course of the Divinity of God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy- 
 Ghost, but meant here more especially to teach that the Word is not eaten in the Eucharist. 
 On that see pages 250-260 of this note above. 
 
 {z). Thatis,ofGodthe Word, John i., 1-5; John v., 26; John vi., 32,33. 42,48, 50.51.58,62,63.. 
 
 (a). That is, of Christ. 
 
 (b). John vi 63. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nes tortus. 275 
 
 is poured forth by Him, (637), as It is certainly [poured forth] out of the 
 
 theologian of that School, and as the glorious defender of the Faith of Nicaea,. 
 was Cyril's teacher. Cyril makes that clear in his Epistle to John of Antioch, 
 which was made of Ecumenical authority by the Fourth Council of the whole 
 Church, held at Chalcedon in A. D. 451, for in it he writes to John, 
 
 ** And let thy holiness be persuaded that we every where follow the opinions; 
 of the holy Fathers, and especially those of our all-well-famed Father Athan- 
 asius, and refuse to deviate at all in any thing from them, and let none of the 
 others " [the bishops of John's jurisdi6lion] "doubt" [this]. If in any point 
 therefore Cyril may not seem to be as clear as usual, or if any passage of his 
 seem not to utter a certain sound, we are greatly helped to explain it by some 
 passage of his great teacher, whom he professed to follow ^^ every where. ' ' Hap- 
 pily, we have such a passage of that great Instrudlor of the whole Church, and 
 not of Cyril only, which I here give. 
 
 Athanasius, Cyril's Master, in a passage given in Greek and English in 
 George Finch's Sketch of the Romish Controversy (London, 1831), pages 196, 197, 
 explains Christ' s7^(?^/z, in John vi., to mean, ''heavenly nourishment aiid spiritual 
 food given to them. fro7n above. Eor the words which I speak unto you, they 
 are spirit and life.''''' He denies what his successor and pupil, St. Cyril, calls 
 av6po)7ro(payia, that is, the eating of a Man' s flesh and the drinking of a Man's 
 blood, and expressly testifies for the spiritual sense of Christ's words there and 
 against the carnal, that is against 'Cue fleshly. 
 
 See that place. And this, when we reach the bottom facts, was Cyril's 
 teaching. I quote this whole passage : 
 
 " I saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning 
 the eating of His body, and seeing many offended thereby, the Lord said, ' Doth 
 this offend you ? What if ye shall see the Son of Maii ascend up where he was 
 before? It is the Spirit That quickeneth [that is, That maketh alive\ the flesh 
 profiteth nothing : the words that I have spoken unto you, thjy are spiHt a7id 
 life [John vi., 61, 62, 63]. And there he spake both of the Spirit and the flesh 
 regarding Himself; and He made a distin^ion between His Spirit and that 
 which relates to flesh; that they, not only believing in that which was visible to 
 their eyes, but also in His Invisible Nature, might also learn that the things 
 which He said were NOT fi,eshi,y, but spirituai,. For, for how many would 
 His body have sufficed for food, that it might become nourishment for all the 
 world also ? But He mentioned the Son of Man's ascension into the heavens, 
 for the purpose of drawing them azuayfrom the corporeal 5<?;z5<?, and that then 
 they might understand that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly nourishment 
 AND SPIRITUAL FOOD given to them from above by Him. Eor, saith he, the 
 vjordis which I have spoken tmto you, they are spirit and life [John vi., 63]. 
 As if He had said, This my body, if) which is shown to you and is given for the 
 world shall be given as food, so that that food shall be digested spiritually 
 
 (c). Literally, " [that is] equal to saying. This my body,'' etc., as above- 
 
276 Ad 1. of Ephesus. 
 
 God and Father also (638). And therefore the Spirit glorified Him, 
 
 within each, and become to all a safeguard unto a resurredlion of eternal life :" 
 upon that passage of the Gospel, " Whosoever shall say y Most of the above pas- 
 sage is found in Greek and English on page 263 in George Stanley Faber's 
 Bifficulties of jRo7nanis7n,\h\r6. QdiitioUy London, 1853, and on page 200 of Treat's 
 Catholic Faith. 
 
 Above under F, I have shown that Cyril teaches, i, that the Substance o^ 
 Christ's Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the Thanksgiving {^vxapiaTiay, 
 nor 2, received by the mouth there; nor 3, in us at any time : and that therefore, 
 according to his teaching, adopted at Ephesus, there is nothing to worship in 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 Under G, I have shown that St. Cyril teaches that we do not eat human flesh 
 and drink human blood in the Rite, and that to do so would be Cannibalism 
 {avdpu)TTO(l)ayia). 
 
 I turn now, H, to the difference between St. Cyril and Nestorius as to the 
 worship of the Eucharist. As has been shown above, both of them denied any 
 real presence of the actual Substance of Christ's Divinity on the Holy Table, any 
 eating of It in the Rite, and any existence of It there. 
 
 We have seen also that Cyril denies that the separate humanity of Christ, 
 separate that is from the Substance of His Divinity, can be worshipped, and that 
 in his writings, as is shown in note 183 in this volume, page 79 and after, he 
 brands that error as Nestorian worship of a Man, that is as creature-worship, 
 and that therefore, even if he had believed Christ's humanity to be really 
 present on the Holy Table, he must have condemned its worship. Indeed, pas- 
 sages of Cyril, as for instance his Anathema VIII., approved by the Third Council 
 of the whole Church, condemn in the strongest terms any co- worship of the 
 Man put on by the Word, with God the Word ; and others of them, seem, like 
 utterances of St. Athanasius, to show that they both made every act of religious 
 service prerogative to God alone, and that they so understood Matt. . iv, 10, and 
 hence worshipped in the Son only his Divinity. But on this last point I hope to 
 treat more fully in my Dissertation on that theme, and hence pass it by without 
 further remark here. It is therefore clear that St. Cyril's own utterances quoted 
 in note 183 above, page 79 and after (compare note 330, page 162, and notes 581, 
 582 and 583, pages 225 and 226), prove that he deemed all religioxis bowing to 
 be prerogative to Divinity alone, that he regarded all worship of Christ's alleged 
 humanity in the Eucharist as maintained by the Nestorians, then its only main- 
 tainers, as Ma7i- Worship, that is. Creature- Worship and Idolatry, and that he 
 must therefore have held, in accordance with i Cor,, vi, 9, io;Galat., v., 19, 20, 21 ; 
 and Rev. xxi., 8, that no man guilty of it and dying impenitent in that sin can be 
 saved. For those texts proclaim that as the end of the idolater. For Cyril was 
 no man to explain away the plain threatenings of Almighty God. 
 
 We come more fully in conclusion to show exactly what the Nestorian error 
 of Host Worship was. 
 
 Nestorius himself in the eighteenth of the heretical Passages quoted from 
 
Readmg of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nei^torius. 277 
 
 by working through the hands of the holy Apostles the miracles 
 
 him in Act i of Ephesus implies that he did not beUeve that the Substance of 
 Christ's Divinity is eaten in the Eucharist, but only His Humanity. See it on 
 pages 251 and 252 in this note. 
 
 He does not there speak, however, definitely of the worship of that Human- 
 ity there. But as St. Cyril shows in his quotations from him, in notes 183 and 
 582 above, Nestorius worshipped relatively Christ's separate Humanity else- 
 where, and so, I presume, did in the Lord's Supper. We might be able to find 
 a statement to that effect if all his writings had reached us. 
 
 In the lack of anything further from him on this particular, let us turn to 
 his greatest champion, the most prominent scholar of his heretical party, Theo- 
 doret. Bishop of Cyrus, the bitter foe of the Third Ecumenical Synod, of Ortho- 
 doxy, and of St. Cyril, its great and able exponent. 
 
 Two facts are clear from the following extracts; 
 
 1. That Theodoret, like his master and leader, Nestorius, denied any real 
 presence of the Substance of God the Word's Divinity on the Holy Table, and 
 Its being eaten in the rite. 
 
 2. He did believe that the consecrated elements '' remain in their former 
 SUBSTPii^c^ and shape a7id appearance,'' as he expressly testifies, but that they 
 have become in his sense the body and blood of Christ, separate of course from 
 the Substance of Christ's Divinity, for, as has been shown above, both Cyril and 
 Nestorius agreed that His Divinity is not eaten in the Rite. 
 
 And 3. Theodoret held that the Symbols, as being in his sense the body and 
 blood of Christ, are to be worshipped by bowing. That worship of the conse- 
 crated and still remaining bread and wine was in strict accordance with the 
 principle oi the relative worship of Christ's humanity advocated by Nestorius 
 and refuted by St. Cyril. See notes 183 and 582 above, where their language on 
 that theme may be found. 
 
 I will quote passages of Theodoret which prove that he held that we do not 
 take the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, but Christ's body and blood ; and 
 that they were worshipped by his Nestorian party, for in his day, Syria, his 
 birthplace and home, had become thoroughly corrupt. They are all from one 
 work, his ** Eranistes or Polymorphtis,''' that is, his " Beggar or Multiform,'' so 
 named with reference to the ApoUinarian and Eutychian One-Natureism of his 
 time. It consists of Three Dialogues, between EranistesX\ia.t is, the Beggar, 
 who begs the materials of One-Nature heresy from old and present heresies, 
 and Orthodoxus, that is, the Orthodox man, by which appellation the Nestorian 
 Theodoret egotistically and wrongly means himself, and his heresy. Of course 
 we shall find each of the speakers in some things agreeing with Orthodoxy, and 
 in others with his own particular heresy ; and so we shall find Theodoret, like 
 his master, Nestorius, holding that we do not eat God the Word's Divinity in 
 the Eucharist, but nevertheless asserting the existence there, by a kind of con- 
 substantiation, of " the body of Christ and the blood of Christy" with the sub- 
 
278 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 after the ascension of our Lord Jesus the Anointed into the heaven. 
 
 stance of bread and wine. But it is not Pusey's and Keble's Consub- 
 stantiation, because there is no Divinity of Christ there. For Theodoret 
 denies that expressly, below. And we shall find him following out the Nestor- 
 ian principle of worshipping creatures, that is, of worshipping what alone he 
 deemed to be in the Rite after consecration, that is, ^^ the symbols,'''' as he 
 expressly calls them, which he tells us still "■remain in their former substance 
 a7td shape and appearance,'' but ''are bowed to," that is, '' worshipped," sls. 
 being deemed to be those very things which they have become, that is ''the 
 body of Christ and the blood of Christ" as Theodoret explains just before. 
 
 The work, as has been just said, is in Three Dialogues, whose contents are 
 largely indicated by their titles. The first is entitled, 'ArpeTrrof, the Unchangeabley 
 that is, that Christ's Humanity can not be transubstantiated into Divinity, nor 
 His Divinity into Humanity, but that the two Natures remain unchanged after 
 their Union. The second is termed 'AcrL'/x^rof, Without Mixture, that is, that 
 the two Natures are not mixed together. The third is termed ' krca^q, that is, 
 the Non-Suffering , that is, that God the Word, is not liable to suffering. So 
 far, that is, on those three last points, the Nestorian and the Orthodox would 
 agree with him against the One-Natureite. 
 
 I quote the following passages, some of them in my own translation, some 
 of them mainly as in the English version of the heresiarch E- B. Pusey, in his 
 Do5lrine of the Real Presence, pages 674, 675, or mainly as in Harrison-'s rendering 
 on pages 215, 216, and 217, Vol. II, of his Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge 
 respeBing the Doctrine of the Real Presence. Harrison's extracts from Theo- 
 doret as he informs us just before page i of Vol. II. of his work, are made from 
 Theodoreti Opera, ed. Schiilz., Halae, i']6(^-i'j'j^;^vols., 8vo. Pusey gives only a 
 part of them. Harrison gives them in full. In the discussion below quoted we 
 see evidences of the care which still existed to guard any full knowledge of the 
 Christian Mysteries, that is Sacraments, that is Sacred Rites, from the Heathen 
 and Jews and others who might abuse it. 
 
 The following quotation is from Vol. IV of Schulze's edition. 
 
 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, the Nestorian : 
 
 Passage i, from his Dialogue i, Without Change; 
 
 "Orthodox. Since it is agreed that the Lord's body was called, by the 
 Patriarch, both ' a robe,' and ' a wrap ' {a), and we have come to the argument 
 about the Mysteries of God, tell me, by the Truth, whereof thinkest thou the 
 all-holy food is both a symbol and a type ? Of the Divinity of the Lord Christy, 
 or of His body and His blood ? 
 
 Eranistes. Plainly of those things whose names they have received. 
 
 Orthodox. Dost thou mean the body and the blood? 
 
 Eranistes. I do. 
 
 (a). Gen, xlix., 11, Sept. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 279 
 
 For it was believed that He Himself is God by Nature, operating 
 
 Orthodox. Thou hast spoken as a lover of truth. For the Lord, when He 
 took the sytnbol, did not say, ' This is my Divinity,' but ' This is tny body ' {6). 
 And again, * This is my blood'' [c). And in another place, [He said] ' And the 
 bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the 
 world' {d). 
 
 Eranistes. These things are true, for they are utterances of God. 
 
 Orthodox. If then they are true, the Lord certainly had a body ;" 
 Schulze's Theodoret, tome IV., pages 26, 27: and Col. 56, in tome 83 of Migne's 
 Patrologia Graeca. 
 
 Here Theodoret, calling himself Orthodox, implies that Christ did 
 not make the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper symbols of His Divinity, but of 
 His body and blood only, separate from His Divinity, according to the Nestorian 
 heresy. His argument indeed in this and the following passages is that the 
 symbols of bread and wine in the Eucharist do not represent Christ's Divinity 
 at all nor contain It, but represent and are only His body and blood ; that is, 
 they represent and contain those parts of His humanity ; and that hence the 
 Apollinarian contention that He has no humanity at all is wrong. I quote a 
 part of the Greek of the above : '0P9-4>i/laA?/(?wf elprjKag. Kal yap 6 Kvpiog to 
 cvfil^oXov /la/Swv, ovK elire' TovTo eartv ^ dedr^g /lov 6.2,2.0, , Tovto eari to oojjud juov Kal 
 Trd/liV Tovto k(TTi to al/id fio'v Kal STepudi, '0 Sk dpTog bv kyo) Stjau,, rj adp^ juov egtiv^ ijveyo) 
 66go) vTcep TTJg tov KOOfiov !^o)?]g. 'EPAN. 'A2.rjd^ TavTa^ dela yap hoTi 2.6yia 
 
 Passage; 2 of Theodorkt, Bishop of Cyrus, the Nestorian : from his 
 DialogueW, Without Mixture, tome IV of Schulze's Theodoret, pages 125-127 ; 
 col. 165, 168, tome 83 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. 
 
 * Eranistes. It is necessary to remove every stone, according to the proverb, 
 so as to find out the truth, especially when the question is concerning dodlrines 
 of God. 
 
 Orthodox. Tell me, therefore, as to the mystical symbols offered to God 
 by the priests, of what things are they symbols ? 
 
 Eranistes. Of the Lord's body and blood. 
 
 Orthodox. Of that which is truly a body, or not ? 
 
 Eranistes. Of that which is truly. 
 
 Orthodox. Very right For there must be an archetype {e) of an image, 
 for painters imitate nature, and draw the images of visible things. 
 
 Eranistes True. 
 
 Orthodox. If, then, the Mysteries of God are antitypes of the true body, 
 then the Lord's body is a body still, not changed into THE Nature of the 
 
 {jb). Matt, xxvi., 26. 
 
 (c). Matt, xxvi., 28. 
 
 (f/). John vi., 51. 
 
 (e). That is " an original.^* 
 
280 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 through His own Spirit; and therefore He said, He shall receive 
 
 Divinity, (/) but is filled with the divine glory " ('Op^. El roivw tov ovtcoq 
 ci)ixaTOQ avTiTVTra kari rd Oela /ivaTr/pia, au/ua apa earl Kal vvv tov AeaTToruv to auf^a, ova 
 elg deoTrjToq (t)vatv jUETaPir/dsv, aXkd Oelag do^rjq dvaTrlrjaf^h.) 
 
 Eranistes. Thou hast seasonably brought in the matter of the Mysteries 
 of God ; for I will thence show to thee the change of the Lord's body into another 
 Nature. Answer therefore my questions. 
 
 Orthodox. I will. 
 
 Eranistes. What callest thou the offered gift, before the sacerdotal invo- 
 cation ? 
 
 Orthodox. I must not speak distin(5lly ; for likely some of the uninitiated 
 are present. 
 
 Eranistes. Ivet thy answer, then, be enigmatical. 
 
 Orthodox. The food that is made from such and such grains [or "seeds"]. 
 
 Eranistes. But how dost thou name the other symbol ? 
 
 Orthodox. That also is a common name, denoting a kind of drink. 
 
 Eranistes. But after the consecration what dost thou call those things > 
 
 Orthodox. Christ's body and Christ's blood. 
 
 Eranistes. And dost thou believe that thou partakest of Christ's body and 
 blood? 
 
 Orthodox. I do so believe. 
 
 Eranistes. As therefore the symbols of the Lord's body and blood are 
 one duad of things [that is, mere leavened bread and wine] before the sacer- 
 dotal invocation, but AFTER the invocation are changed and become another 
 duad of things [that is, Christ's body and blood], so the Lord's body after He 
 took it was changed into the Divine Substance. 
 
 Orthodox. Thou art caught in the nets which thou hast woven. For the 
 mystic symbols do not pass out of their own nature after the consecra- 
 tion. For they remain in their former substance and shape and ap- 
 pearance ; and they are visible and are touchable and such as they were before. 
 But they are thought of as those things which they have become, and are be- 
 lieved [to be] ; and THEY are bowed to as being those things which they are 
 believed [to be]. Compare therefore the image with the archetype, and thou 
 wilt see the likeness. For it is necessary that the type should be like the reality. 
 For that body has its former appearance and shape and circumference, and in a 
 word, THE SUBSTANCE of the body. For it became immortal after the resurrec- 
 tion, and incorruptible, and was deemed worthy of the seat at the right hand [of 
 
 (/). Here we see that Theodoret refers to the Apollinarian error that after the union of 
 the Two Natures of Christ, the human was changed into the Divine, so that only one Nature 
 remained, and that the Divinity of the Word. That, of course, involves the blasphemous 
 assertion that a creature can become changed into God's Divine Substance ; an absurdity which 
 is plain to all. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 281 
 
 of mine ^ and shall show it unto you (639). And we by no means say 
 
 the Father] and is worshipped by ai^i, the creation as being entitled the body 
 of the Lord of Nature {g) . 
 
 Eranistes. But the mystical symbol changes its former name, for it is no 
 longer named what it was called before, but is termed body {h). So then the 
 reality must be called ' God, ' but not * body ' {i). 
 
 Orthodox. Thou seemest to me to be ignorant. For it [the consecrated 
 symbol of bread] is called not only * body ' but also bread of life (/). So the 
 Lord Himself called it {k). But we also name that very body God's body, and a 
 lifegiving body, and the Master's body, and the Lord's body, teaching that it is 
 not a common body of some man, but is [a body] of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who 
 is God and Man. Voxfesus Christ [is] the sarne, yesterday, and to-day, and for- 
 ever.'' (/) 
 
 I here append the Greek of the most important part of the above passage as I 
 
 {g). Here we have that Nestorian Man-Worship which is condemned in St. Cyril's shorter 
 Epistle above, pages 79 to 85 ; in his longer Epistle above, pages 215 to 224, and its Anathema 
 VIII.; and in the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and in its Anathema IX. 
 
 {h). Matt, xxvi., 26. 
 
 {{). Ibid. 
 
 (;■).. John vi., 48, 51, 53. 54, 55 ,56, 57, 58, 63. Cyril understood " bread of life" in John vi., 
 48, etc., of God the Word as the Quickener in the Eucharist by his life-giving Spirit, by Which 
 He sends into the things which lie before us, the leavened bread and wine, the energy of His holy 
 body, which is at the Father's right hand only so far as its substance is concerned, through 
 which the Spirit energized when it was on earth and made its touch to heal the sick, etc. 
 Theodoret, like Nestorius his Master, understood the eating and drinking referred to, to be of 
 the humanity alone, or perhaps we may say more exadlly, of two parts of His humanity alone, 
 that is, of His body and blood, not of His human mind nor of His human soul. Compare Nes- 
 torius' condemned language on pages 251, 252 above, note, with which Theodoret seems to 
 agree in every respect. It will be noticed that while Nestorius held that the '' me " in the ex- 
 pression of Christ in John vi., 57, ''As the living Father hath sent me, " means his "humanity,'' 
 nevertheless he thought that another utterance of His, namely, " I/e thateateth my flesh and 
 drinketh mybloodabidethin me and I in him." "is said regarding the flesh." It is not clear, there- 
 fore, that he held to the manducation of Christ's entire humanity in the rite. His language, liter- 
 ally taken, would not necessarily imply that he held to the eating of any other part of the 
 humanity than the flesh, or to the drinking of anything more than the mere blood. Indeed, 
 it is difficult to see how any one can literally eat Christ's human soul and his human mind ; 
 but we can readily see how, in accordance with St. Cyril of Alexandria's dodlrine adopted by 
 the Third Ecumenical Council, God the Word can send the energizing power of His Holy 
 Spirit into the things which lie before us that is the leavened bread and the wine, and so make 
 them vehicles of his quickening and saving grace. All cannibal views of the Sacrament end 
 in disgusting absurdities ; whereas the sound view of Cyril and the Church Universal is per- 
 fectly free from every such folly. 
 
 I would add that Nestorius and the Nestorians worshipped, relatively, the whole of Christ's 
 humanity at the right hand of the Father ; relatively, that is, to God the Word. See on that 
 worshipof Christ's ^«/i><? humanity a notea little below. That, ofcourse.is the old heathen plea 
 of relative worship and is part of a Nestorian Creed which is condemned by this Third Council 
 in its Act VI. The error of the relative worship of Christ's humanity is condemned again by 
 the Fifth Ecumenical Synod in its Anathema XII. as a Nestorian Heresy, 
 
 {k). Ibid. 
 
 (/). Heb. xiii.,8. 
 
282 Act 1. of Ephestis. 
 
 that the Spirit is wise and powerful by partaking, so to speak, 
 
 find it in a note on page 273 of the Third Edition oi ^^'t Difficulties of Romanism. 
 by an able advocate of the worship of God alone (Matt, iv ., 10), Rev. George 
 Stanley Faber, who deserves well of the Universal Church, East and West, for 
 acting as God's champion against the idolatrizers, Newman, Keble, Pusey, 
 Manning and Trevern. 
 
 OP0OA. 'EdAwf aiq v^rivtq apKvaiv. OvSi yap, juera rbv dyiao/ibv, to, /ivariKd avfijioTia 
 r^f o'lKeiag e^iorarac <}>vaeu)C. Mivei yap eTri Tfjq Tcporipac ovaiaq Kal tov ax^/^aTog Kal rot) 
 eidovg' Kal opard ecTC Kal dTrra, ola Kal Trpdrepov tjv voelrai 6e drrcp eyivero' Kai iriaTeveTat^ 
 Kal TrpooKWEiTai, oi? SKeiva ovra dnep ■mcrevETai. HapdBeg roivvv tu apx^TvTro) T7]v eUovaj 
 Kal oipei TOV ofjLoioTTjTa. X/37 yap koiKEvai ry d2,?]deia tov TVTrov. Theodor. Dial. ii. 
 Oper. vol. iv. p. 84, 85. Paris. 1642. 
 
 Passage 3 of Theodoretof Cyrus; from his Dialogue i. Unchange- 
 able, col. 56 of tome 83 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. 
 
 Speaking on the Eucharist there, he teaches against transubstantiation as 
 follows : 
 
 *' He [Christ] honored the visible symbols with the appellation the body and 
 
 blood, NOT CHANGING THEIR NATURE BUT ADDING THEIR GRACE TO THEIR 
 NATURE," (Greek, ovToq Ta opuueva ovfil^o^a Tff tov atojiaroq Kal alfiarog TTpoaTjyopia 
 reTL[i7jKEV^ ov T7]v (pvaiv fj.eTa(3a?iuVj dA/ld t^v ^dpcv r^ (pvatt npoaTedeiKuq. ) 
 
 Passage 4 OF Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus; from his Dialogue III., which 
 is entitled Unsuffe^'ing, tome IV. of Schulze's edition of his Works, pages 190, 
 191. 
 
 ** Eranistes. a body then hath obtained salvation for us. 
 
 Orthodox. The body of no mere man, but of our Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 Sole-Born Son of God. But, if this appear to thee small and worthless, how dost 
 thou suppose that its type is worshippabi^e and saving ? But since the type 
 OF IT IS TO BE BOWED TO \7zpoaKvvT]roq^ that is, '' is an obje5l oj worship'*'\ a?id 
 is venerable, how can the archetype itself (w) be despicable and mean ?" 
 
 Here the Nestorian Theodoret certainly teaches the worship by bowing, the 
 most common act of worship, of the type as a Type, that is of the bread and 
 wine of the Eucharist as untransubstantiated bread and wine still, even after 
 consecration, as he expressly teaches in Passage 2 above. See it. 
 
 What without any break follows, seems to show how the ApoUinarians 
 mixed the Natures of Christ, and how the Nestorians, like Theodoret, did not. 
 I quote and translate : 
 
 " Eranistes. I do not deem the body a cheap thing, but I can not endure 
 to distinguish it from the Divinity [or " to separate it from the Divinity."] 
 
 Orthodox. Nor, good friend, do we separate the union, but recognize the 
 peculiarities of [each of] the Natures. ' ' 
 
 I quote the Greek of this last part as I find it in column 237 of tome 83 of 
 
 (w). That is, Christ's body which was offered on Calvary. 
 
Reading of Cyril' s Lo7ig Epistle to Nestorius. 283 
 
 "[those qualities from another]; for It is all perfect and lacks no good 
 
 Migne's Patrologia Graeca, 'Opd. Ovk avUpciirov aufia ipt?.ov, aXka tov Kvpiov rjuoiv 
 ^Itjguv Xpiaroi', tov [lovoyevovq Tlov tov Qeov. Ei 6e tovto aot vo/nil^sTai fiLKpov te koX evreT^eq^ 
 TTioc; tov tovtov ye tvttov oetztov Tjyij kol auTtjpiov \ Ov 6e 6 Tviroq TrpoGKvvrjTog Kal oefSdofiiog, 
 ■TTioc avTo TO apx£TV7rov EVKaTa<pp6vr]Tov Kal CfiiKp6v\ 
 
 'Epav. Ovk. evTEAeg yyovjuai to ccjfia, a?.?ia Staipelv (nrb Tyg '&e6TTjToc ovk avexo/uai. 
 
 'Opd. Ovde jy/^eZf , o) ayafte, Siaipovuev t?/v evuaiv, aXka 6e(j)povfj.ev to. tcjv cpvaeuv Idia. 
 
 Passage 5 of Theodoret, Bishop of Cvrus; from his Dialogue III., en- 
 'titled Unsuffering, Volume IV. of Schulze's edition of his Works, pages 219-221; 
 ■col. 269, 272, of tome 83 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca\ 
 
 "Orthodox. Dost thou thoroughly remember those Gospel oracles in 
 •which the Lord made a comparison between the manna and the true or real food? 
 
 Eranistes. I do remember [it]. 
 
 Orthodox. In that place^ when He had discoursed in many words con- 
 >i:x:rrn.n%\jQ.^ bread of life {n), he r.dded these words also: '' The bread which I 
 .give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world ' {0'). And in these 
 words is seen both the munificence of the Divinity and the gift of the flesh. 
 
 Eranistes. To solve that question one testimony does not suffice. 
 
 Orthodox. -J^- * * Thou knowest that place of the Gospel history in 
 which, eating the Passover with His disciples. He showed the meaning of 
 the typical lamb, and taught what the body of that shadow is? 
 
 Eranistes. I know that history. 
 
 Orthodox. Therefore call again to memory what the Lord took and broke 
 and by what name he called that which He took. 
 
 Eranistes. On account of those who are uninitiated, I shall speak more 
 mystically. When He had taken and had broken, and had distributed to the dis- 
 ciples, He said, ' This is my body which is given for you ' [p); or ' broken ' (q), ac- 
 cording to the Apostle ; and again, * This is my blood of the New Testamefit, 
 which is shed for m,any'' {f). 
 
 Orthodox. Therefore He did not mention His Divinity when He showed 
 the type of His suffering ? (Greek, 'Opi^. Ov toIvvv d^eoTT/Tog e/j-vij/xdvevae, tov nddovg 
 TOV TVTTOV eTTideiicvu^]) 
 
 Eranistes. Certainly not, (^ Greek, Ov dfjTa). 
 
 Orthodox. But He did indeed mention His body and blood ? (Greek, 'AXka 
 vcj/xaTog ye kol al/uaToc), 
 
 Eranistes. True, (Greek, 'Alrj^Eg), 
 
 Orthodox. Was a body therefore nailed to the cross ? 
 
 {«). John vi., 48. Compare verses 33 and 51 to 64. 
 (<3). John vi., 51. 
 \P). Luke xxii., 19. 
 {g). I Cor., xi., 24. 
 (r). Matt, xxvi., 28, 
 
284 Ad I. of Epiiesus. 
 
 thing. And since It is the Spirit of the power and the wisdom of the 
 
 EraniSTES. It so appears " 
 
 Then Theodoret goes on to argue further from Scripture against his Apol- 
 linarian opponent that it was Christ's body which suffered, rose again and 
 appeared to his Apostles. 
 
 Here again we hear the echo of Nestorius' teaching in the Eighteenth of the 
 Extracts from him in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council, that we do not 
 eat Divinity in the Eucharist, but Christ's body and blood. So far as not eating 
 Divinity in the rite is concerned, Cyril, as we see above, agrees with him, but 
 denounces Nestorius' error of eating real flesh and blood as cannibalism. See 
 clearly on those points page 250 and after in this note. 
 
 Passage 6 of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus ; from his Epistle 130 {ad 
 Timoth.), page 1218, tome IV. of Schulze's Theodoret. 
 
 " So an angel of the Lord called the body Lord, since it was the body of the 
 Lord of the universe. But the Lord Himself promised to give, not His invis- 
 ible Nature (5), but His body for the life of the world. For He saith, ' The^ 
 bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world' [t). 
 And, when delivering the Mysteries of God, He took the symbol and said : 
 ' This is my body which is given for you' {u)\ or 'broken' {v), according to the 
 Apostle. And no where in discoursing of His Suffering, did He men- 
 tion His unsuffering Divinity." 
 
 This plainly teaches the dodrine of Cyril as well as of Nestorius, that the 
 Substance of Christ's Divinity is not in the Eucharist. But it denies the dodlrine 
 of St. Cyril's Anathema XII. below, approved by the Third Council. 
 
 I quote the most important part of the Greek of the above. Kai avrbg 6e 
 6 Kvpiog, oh rr/v aoparov <S?vciv, a72.a to oufia 6o)Gtcv vTreax^To vwep Trjq rov Koafiov C^^f * 
 * * * Kal ovdafiov nepl Trd^ovg dia/iex'^ek TV? d-rra^ovg kfivrjG-&T] ^toTrjroq. 
 
 To sum up the teaching in the foregoing Passages of Theodoret on the 
 Thanksgiving, that is the Eucharist. 
 
 A, as to whether the Substance of Christ's Divinity is in the rite. 
 
 In this note above on pages 251 , 252, we have seen that Nestorius denies the 
 real presence of the Substance of God the Word's Divinity in the rite. On pages 
 252-260, we see that Cyril, in no less than four places, plainly teaches that God 
 the Word can not be eaten, and that in another passage he even goes further 
 and denies that the Substance of the Divinity of God the Word lies on the Holy 
 Tables at all in the Eucharist. 
 
 Theodoret also agrees with them in denying any real presence of the Sub- 
 stance of the Divinity of Christ in the rite. See in proof passages i, 2, 5 and 6, 
 in all of which that denial is implied, and is made a part of Theodoret's argu- 
 ment. 
 
 [s). That is, not His Divinity. 
 (/). John vi., 51. 
 («). I,uke xxii., 19. 
 (v). I Cor., xi., 24. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nes tortus. 285 
 
 Father, that is of the Son, It is, in very truth, Wisdom and Power, 
 (640)- 
 
 B, As to cannibalism in the Thanksgiving. 
 
 2. Theodoret, Hke Nestorius on page 251, 252 above, held that Christ's 
 flesh is eaten and His blood is drunk in the Lord's Supper ; that is he held in it to 
 what St. Cyril as above on pages 261-270 of this note calls cannibalism {av^pu- 
 7ro(payia). See in proof Passage 2, where we read that before consecration the 
 gifts are called bread and wine. Then comes the following as to what occurs 
 after consecration: 
 
 " EranistES. But after the consecration what dost thou call those things > 
 Orthodox. Christ's body and Christ's blood. 
 
 Eranistes. And dost thou believe that thou partakest of Christ's body 
 and blood? 
 
 Orthodox. I do so believe." 
 
 That is definite Nestorian cannibalism; that is avOpuTzocpayia, as St. Cyril 
 
 terms it. 
 
 This same sense is made clearer by Theodoret's statement in Passage 2 above 
 that after consecration the bread and wine "«r^ thought of as those things 
 which they have become, and are believed to be,''' that is the body and blood of 
 Christ, not in energy as Cyril teaches, but really and a<5lually according to 
 Theodoret's Nestorian idea. 
 
 C, As to Creature-Worship in the Lord's Supper. 
 
 3. Theodoret plainly teaches the error, as we see under the last head, head 
 B, that the real flesh and the real blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist 
 and are there separate from His Divinity, and so believing and so holding he 
 worshipped that separate humanity, ot, perhaps, to be more exact, those separate 
 parts only of Christ's humanity there, which is one form of the very error and 
 sin condemned by Cyril as dvdpcoTro'Aarpeia, that is, Man-Worship there. See 
 passages 2 and 4 of Theodoret above. In passage 2, Theodoret, it will be noticed, 
 first testifies that he worships real flesh and blood in the Eucharist, as well as 
 the unchanged bread and wine which he held to be with them in the rite, and that 
 then he speaks of the body as being worshipped in heaven, separate from the 
 Eucharist. Its worship above he speaks of as follows : 
 
 ** For that body has its former appearance and shape and circumference, 
 and, in a word, the substance of the body. For it became immortal after the 
 resurrection and incorruptible, and was deemed worthy of the seat at the right 
 ^««af [of the Father], and is worshipped by ai.1. the creation as being en- 
 titled THE BODY OF THE LORD OF NATURE." 
 
 Theodoret does not here mention the worship of Christ's entire humanity, 
 but as he was a Nestorian, and as all the Nestorian party worshipped Christ's 
 entire humanity at the right hand of the Father, he probably did also. 
 
 I come now, in concluding this long note 606, long necessarily because the 
 adlion of the Third Ecumenical Council is so wofully unknown even to the 
 
286 Ad I. of Ephestis. 
 
 And forasmuch as the holy Virgin brought forth in a fleshly way 
 
 mass of scholars, to a matter which should be added, that is for the sake of fuller 
 information to Contrast the Orthodox DoElrine of the Eucharist as set forth by 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, and in effect approved by the Universal Church, East 
 and West, in the Third Ecumenical Council, with divers heretical local views on 
 the Lord's Supper. 
 
 The Orthodox do(5lrine may be summed up under four heads, as follows : 
 
 1. The Substance of the Son's Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the 
 Rite, is not eaten there or elsewhere, and is never in us at any time, and never 
 was in any human being except the Virgin Mary, and in her during the period 
 of gestation only. See, in proof, head F, pages 250-260 in this note, above. 
 
 2. The real substance of Christ's human flesh and of His human blood born 
 of Mafy are not present in the Eucharist, and are not eaten in the Sacrament, 
 and if such a thing were done, it would be what St. Cyril expressly calls 
 avOpuKocpay'ia, that is cannibalism, and if we really ate Christ's human flesh, "the 
 deed were eating a man, and wholly unprofitable the partaking,'''' as he well puts 
 it; see page 262, above, note, and pages 260-276 of this note. 
 
 3. The Substance of Christ's Divinity being absent from the Eucharist, 
 according to the Do6lrine of St, Cyril in both his Epistles approved by the Uni- 
 versal Church at Ephesus, can not be worshipped there. 
 
 And, according to their teaching, even were the substance of tke Humanity 
 of Christ separate from His Divinity really present in the Sacrament, it would 
 be the Nestorian error, condemned by St. Cyril and the Third World-Council, 
 of Man-Worship to worship it there or elsewhere. See in proof head H, pages 
 276-285 of this note above. 
 
 4. In the Thanksgiving, that is the Eucharist, we relatively partake of 
 God the Word by receiving in the rite exactly what we most need, that is His 
 sanctifying Spirit (page 264 of this note). Which is related to Him as being His 
 own Spirit; and though God wills that there shall be seen no "'flesh afid blood lying 
 before us on the Holy Tables of the Churches,'^ He does what is better for us, 
 for, as He shows on page 264 in this note, ''condescending to our weaknesses. He 
 sends the power of life i7ito the things which lie before us, and changes them to 
 the ENERGY of His own flesh, in order that we may have them for a life-giving 
 partaking, and that the body of the Life [that is of God the Word, not of His 
 humanity] may be found in us as a life-giviftg seed.''' 
 
 And '' the things which lie before us,'" he explains before to be ''leavened 
 bread and wine.''' Inasmuch as God the Word indwells them as vehicles of grace 
 by His Spirit, they are therefore called the body and blood of the Word; for the 
 Word may relativel}^ indwell a body of bread by His Holy Spirit as He relatively 
 indwells our bodies of flesh by the same Holy Spirit. And therefore, speaking of 
 the Word, Cyril says, " It was behooving Him therefore, to come into us by the 
 Holy Spirit, God befittingly, and, so to speak, to mingle Himself with our bodies 
 by His holy flesh and His precious blood; which things we have also for a life- 
 giving blessing as in bread and wine." See page 264 above, note. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Lo7ig Epistle to Nes tortus. 287 
 
 God united, as respects His Substance, to flesh (641), for that very 
 
 And Cyril again and again shows that there is a real absence of Christ's 
 human flesh and blood born of Mary from the Rite, and that what we receive is 
 \hQ Jlesh and blood of God the Word, the '' leave fied bread and wine,'' ''the 
 things which lie before us.''' 
 
 Or, as he writes in his Explanation of his Chapter XI., delivered at Ephe- 
 sus. 
 
 " We perform in the Churches the holy and life-giving and unbloody sacrifice 
 not believing what lies before us to be the body of one of those like us, a7idofa 
 common man, and so likewise we hold as to the precious blood, but receiving them 
 rather as having become an own body and an own blood of The Word who 
 quickeneth all things. For common flesh can not give life." But if Christ's 
 human blood is there the sacrifice is not without blood (am///a/frof); and Cyril 
 on pages 235, 236 above calls it as does all Christian antiquity, "■the un- 
 bloody service," in Greek, rr/v avaijiaKTov ?MTpelav; and if Christ's humanity is. 
 there, *'the body of one of those like us " is there, for Paul again and again teaches 
 that Christ became a man like us for our salvation (Heb. ii., 14-18, etc.) See 
 page 268 of this note. 
 
 Cyril, in Anathema XI., towards the end of the above Epistle, teaches the 
 same Eucharistic do6lrine that it is the Word's flesh, that is, Christ's grace in- 
 fused into us in God the Word's body of ^' leave^ied bread," that we eat, 
 and that that quickens us, not that we eat the mere flesh of the man born of 
 Mary, for that would be to make Christ in John VI. to teach " plain cannibal- 
 ism " {kvapyfiq dv6f)cj7TO(payia), and in that case, "the deed were eating a Man, and 
 wholly unprofitable the partaking, for I hear Christ Himself say, The flesh 
 profit eth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth, for, so far as pertains to its 
 own nature, the flesh is corruptible, and will in no wise quicken others, for it is 
 itself diseased with the corruption which belongs to its own nature," (Cyril on 
 page 262 of this note above.) 
 
 Cyril says this of the Nestorian belief that they ate the real human flesh of 
 Christ in the Eucharist and that they drank His real human blood there. And 
 while he seems to speak strongly as to the corruptibility of Christ's flesh, yet we 
 must remember that Christ as Man was liable to sickness, to disease, to pain, 
 and to death, and to that corruption which follows death; and that he adlually 
 suffered agony on the cross and died, though he was exempted by the Father 
 from corrupting, for He would not suffer His Holy One to see corruption (A(5ls 
 ii,, 27 and 31). And indeed Holy Writ makes much of his having been tempt- 
 ed, that is tried, by suffering, to encourage us to go to him: " For in that He 
 Hi^nself hath suffered being tempted. He is able to succor them that are tempted ' ' 
 (Heb. ii, 18). ''For we have not an hi^h priest which can not be touched with 
 the feeling of our iiifirmities; but was in all points tevipted like as zue are, yet 
 without sin," (Heb. iv., 15), etc. Cyril means here therefore that Christ's mere 
 human flesh, born of Mary, a mortal, was mortal, was liable to disease and to 
 death, and to corruption, and that, if it were possible for us to do the cannibal, 
 act of eating it, it would not spiritually profit us. 
 
288 Act L of Ephesus, 
 
 reason, we also assert that she w2iS Bri7tger-Forih of God (642); not 
 
 On page 263 of this note he calls the eating of it '' a monstrosity:' 
 
 On page 264, he teaches that we ''have the Son in us by a relative partaking'* 
 only, not that he Incarnates or himans Himself in us by the Substance of His 
 Divinity and by the substance of His Humanity. And just below he goes 
 on to show how Christ comes into us, and teaches that God the Word 
 does not enter us by the eternal Substance of His Divinity, but relatively only, 
 that is, ''by the Holy Spirit,'' which is related to Him as being His Spirit. 
 
 Next he goes on to tell how it behooves Christ " to come into us " relatively 
 as regards His Humanity, " a7id, so to speak, to mingle Himself with our bodies 
 by His Holy flesh and His precious blood, which things we have also for a life- 
 givifig Blessing as in leavened bread and wine." 
 
 But how are they " in leavened bread and wine ?" If they are there, they 
 are there of course to be eaten. And if we eat "His holy flesh," and drink 
 " His precious blood" " in " the " leavened bread and wine," we are guilty of 
 cannibalism, according to St. Cyril's plain teaching above and below. He 
 can not mean that therefore. Besides, that would be, in effect, the Nestorian 
 Cousubstantiation of the actual substance of Christ's flesh and blood, with the 
 substances of " leavened bread and wine," or with six things, that is. His flesh 
 and blood, and human mind, and human soul, and the leavened bread, and the 
 wine. But that is exadlly what Cyril brands as false and as cannibalism, and 
 opposes with might and main. But Cyril well explains himself, and that without 
 any break, for at once he shows that God the Word is in us humanly, not by 
 His flesh and blood born of Mary, but relatively only as he says above, that is, 
 not by sending His flesh and blood born of Mary " into the things which lie 
 before us," that is, the "leavened bread and wine," as he explains above, but 
 "the power of life * * * and changes them [not into the substance, but] to 
 the energy of His own flesh, in order that we may have them for a life-giving 
 partaking ;" that is, the leavened bread a7id wine, are now no longer mere signs, 
 but to him who receives them aright, they are filled with the power of life:* 
 In that sense alone are they changed. 
 
 But if we partook of Christ's flesh born of Mary, that could not give life as 
 Cyril shows above. He does not mean that, therefore, but the saving influences 
 of the Spirit which energized that flesh, and energizes us by the vehicles of 
 bread and wine. 
 
 He adds, "and that the body of the life, [that is, of God the Word] may be 
 found in us as a lifegiving seed," that is, that God the Word's body of leavened 
 bread and His blood of wine, may be mingled with our bodies, and may be found 
 in us as a life-giving seed. I quote this explanation of Christ's relative infusing 
 Himself into us hiimanly. We have seen that His infusing Himself into us 
 Divinely was by His Spirit. 
 
 ' ' For that we may not be stupified [with horror] by seeing flesh and blood 
 lying- before us on the Holy Tables of the Churches, God, condescending to our 
 weaknesses, sends the poiver of life into the thitigs which he before us aul 
 
Readhig of CyriT s Long Epidle to Nestonics. 289 
 
 that the Nature of the Word had the beginning of Its existence from 
 
 changes them to the energy of His own flesh, in order that we may have them 
 for a life-giving partaking and that the body of the Life [that is, of God the 
 Word,] may be found in us as a life-giving seed:' Cyril then goes on to show- 
 that he is contemplating spiritual effedls in the Sacrament, not mere cannibal- 
 ism, by bringing in what Christ says of analogous spiritual influences and bless- 
 ings connedled with the Rite of Baptism. 
 
 He does not, of course, limit the workings of God's Holy Spirit to these 
 Rites, for all admit that It is given to us all daily, and that we cannot think one 
 good thought, speak one good word, or do one good deed without It; nor can any 
 heathen or Jew even, though he be out of the covenant of salvation. For what- 
 soever of good there is in any man is from God. Glory be to Him. 
 
 Nevertheless, we must well remember that Baptism and the Eucharist are 
 necessary to full membership in the Church of the Saved, and to eternal life, 
 and instruments of special blessings. (For the blessings of baptism see John iii., 
 5; Mark xvi., 16; Acts ii., 38; and Acts xxii., 16; Tit. iii., 5; and I. Pet. iii., 21. 
 For the blessings of the Lord's Supper see John vi., 26-64.) 
 
 To go on with Cyril's remarks on the Nestorian Cannibalism in this note. 
 On page 267 he calls it an " tmholily bringing the minds of believers to notions 
 of wickedness,'' [that is, to cannibalism,] ^«^ a '' doing away unlearnedly the 
 force of the Mystery," that is Sacrament, [that is by changing its spiritual 
 profiting to material flesh-eating and blood-drinking which profit not,] "and 
 that for that very reason and with great justice has the A7iathema been set 
 forth:' Cyril refers to his Anathema XI. in the Epistle above which was ap- 
 proved by the Third Ecumenical Council. For the Nestorians' do^rine of the 
 Eucharist rested in their minds on the denial of the Incarnation, and on the 
 consequent parting of the Two Natures. For they supposed that if they ad- 
 mitted the Inman of the Substance of God the Word, they must admit the 
 eating of both Natures in the Eucharist. And if they had deemed Cyril a 
 Two-Natureite they would have deemed that he held to eating the Two Natures 
 there; but as they supposed him to be a One-Natureite, they also supposed him, 
 as Nestorius' Passage 18 above shows, to be an eater, according to his belief, 
 of the only Nature they supposed him to beheve that Christ has, that is, the 
 Divinity. 
 
 Cyril, as we see, in reply tells them that we do not eat God the Word, and 
 that what we receive in the Lord's Supper is not the flesh and blood born of 
 Mary, but the body of God the Word, that is the ''leavened bread," and the 
 blood of God the Word, that is the " wine," both of which are to us channels of 
 His sanctifying grace by His Spirit and pledges of eternal life. 
 
 On pages 268 and 269, Cyril shows that the design of the Sacrament was to 
 confer not a rite of cannibalism, but spiritual blessings. 
 
 On page 270, he speaks of the cannibal sense as arising from ''a very great 
 lack of learni7ig," and censures the folly of those of Christ's disciples, who were 
 offended at His words in John \n., 53; because they understood them in the 
 
290 Act I. of Ephestis. 
 
 flesh ; for He was in the beginning, and the Word was God, a7id the 
 
 cannibal sense. Alas ! how many of those called disciples in mediseval and 
 modern times have understood His words in the literal cannibal sense, because 
 like them, to use Cyril's words on page 270, this note, ''They knew not the 
 beauty of the Mystery, [that is Sacrament], and that most beaut ful Economy 
 devised for ity That is, they were not spiritual like Cyril (I. Cor. ii., 15), and 
 therefore, like the carnal Jews and carnal disciples in John VI., they took Christ's 
 words there in the sense of the real presence of the substance of Christ's flesh 
 and blood, and of their oral manducation. For, if they were there, they could 
 be taken and eaten by no other organ than the mouth. For that which is flesh 
 is taken in a fleshly manner, whereas that which is really in the sacrament, in 
 the vehicles of God the Word's body of ''leavened bread'' and His blood of 
 "wine,'' is the energy of the Spirit which energized Christ's body on earth 
 (Cyril's Anathema IX.), and which is taken spiritually by us. For as Christ 
 concludes His teaching on the Eucharist in that Chapter, "It is the Spirit that 
 quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothifig" (John vi., 63). 
 
 Cyril's language against the Cannibal, Nestorian, Transubstantiation and 
 Consubstantiation sense is so strong that no man really holding any of those 
 errors can in his heart really accept it, but begins at once to explain it away, 
 or, what is more honest, to openly reject it. I give it in full : 
 
 "From their very great i.a.ck of i^earning, [that is, Cyril means, 
 because they did not understand the spiritual sense of his words], some of those 
 who were being discipled under the Saviour Anointed were offended at His 
 words. For because they heard Him saying, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, 
 unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man {a) and drink His blood, ye have no 
 
 (a ). I should add that the Nestorians understood in the above passage of Cyril, the words 
 SonofMati, quoted from John vi., 53, to mean Christ's human nature only, and that in order 
 to prove their tviro positions on the Eucharist, namely, 
 
 1. That the Substance of Christ's Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the Eucharist, and 
 is not eaten in the Rite; with which position, as we see above on pages 250-260, Cyril fully 
 agreed; and, 
 
 2. That in the Sacrament the substance of Christ's flesh and the substance of His blood, 
 both boru of Mary, are both present, and that the first is actually eaten and the second act- 
 ually drunk. 
 
 For in his Christ is One, Cyril represents the Nestorians as saying, 
 
 " It has been said by Him [Christ], and that too very clearly, Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
 except ye eat the flesh of the Soft 0/ Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in yourselves[ John 
 vi.. 53]. We understand therefore, say they, that the honored body and the blood are not 
 [those] of God the Word but of the Son of Man who has been conjoined to him " (P. E. Pusey's 
 Greekofthe worksof St. Cyril of Alexandria, Vol, VII., part i, pages 421, 422). 
 
 But Cyril in reply, though he does not there say much on the Lord's Supper, nevertheless 
 does say that mere flesh can not give life; but that it must come from God the Word. He 
 shows above how it comes from the Word, that is by His Spirit, and hy the leavened bre3.d and 
 wine filled by the Spirit with the energy and power of that holy body which is at the Father's, 
 right hand only. For that body born of Mary, as being a mere creature, is not the Infinite 
 Source of sandtifying grace, never had any power to sancflify of itself, and has not now, but 
 all saudlification comes, as Cyril elsewhere teaches, /r6>»z the Father through the Son, that is, 
 through God the Word, by the Holy Ghost. For let us well remember that it was the. Holy^ 
 
Reading of Cyril's Lo7ig Epistle to Nestoritis. 291 
 
 Word was with God, and He Himself is the Maker of the Worlds (643), 
 life in you [John vi., 53], they supposed that they were called to some savagK- 
 
 KESS BEFITTING A WII.D ANIMAI,, AS THOUGH THEY WERE COMMANDED 
 INHUMANITY TO EAT FI,ESH AND TO SUP UP BLOOD AND TO BE COMPELIvED TO 
 DO THINGS WHICH ARE HORRIBI.E EVEN TO HEAR OF. FOR THEY KNEW NOT 
 THE BEAUTY OF THE MYSTERY AND THAT MOST BEAUTIFUI, ECONOMY DEVISED- 
 FOR IT." 
 
 And surely the literal sense of eating the substance of Christ's human flesh 
 and drinking the substance of His human blood, is what Cyril terms \\.,"'savage- 
 ness befitting a wild animal;''' it is ''inhumanly to eat flesh and to sup up 
 blood, and * * * to do things which are horrible even to hear of .'" And if 
 any have held that sense it was because, as St. Cyril here writes, " They knew not 
 the beauty of the Mystery [that is, Sacramenf] and that most beautiful Economy 
 devised for it,'' that is, its design is to strengthen us spiritually, not by eating 
 human flesh and drinking human blood, but by the quickening and sanctifying 
 influences of the Holy Ghost (John vi., 63), and to tell on on by the symbols of 
 *' leavened bread'' and ''wine" the Lord's death till He come (I. Cor. xi., 26). 
 This is the Spiritual sense, and because spiritual therefore the higher and God- 
 glorifying sense. For the Spiritual is in its very nature higher than the merely 
 cardial. And the carnal sense of Christ's words is that of the Nestorian, the 
 Transubstantiationist, and the Consubstantiationist. 
 
 Of course those of any of the three last classes will at once cry out, " We also 
 hold to the influences of the Holy Spirit in the Lord's Supper." But that will 
 not undo the fact that on their own showing they hold to what St. Cyril calls 
 
 Ghost that came upon Mary at her conception to sancftify that holy human thing that was to be 
 born of her (lyuke i., 35), and that so became a fit tabernacle for the Substance of God the Word 
 to dwell in, in her womb, and to come into this world in, out of her. And let us also well un- 
 derstand that as God the Word, by that Spirit which is His (Rom. viii., 9, and I. Peter i., 11), 
 sandlified the body and blood born of Mary which He wore, and kept His whole Humanity 
 without spot {'H.&b. ix., 14), and quickened and raised it up by the same Spirit {Rom. viii., 11), so 
 He promises quickening and eternal life by the same Spirit sending into " the things which lie 
 before us", "the leavened bread and wine," the same spiritual force and power and energy 
 which he ever infuses into that mere created body which is at the Father's right hand only. 
 
 Elsewhere Cyril teaches that the title Son of Man and every other title of Christ's human- 
 ity must be Economically Appropriated to God the Word who put on that Man in Mary's womb 
 (see his Anathemas IV., XI., and XII., and his Scholia on the Incarnation, Oxford translation^ 
 pages 188, 189,202, 206, 199, 200, and his Christ is One, page 317, id.; compare pages 186, 191, 
 where Emmanuel is shown to be God the Word, with page 233, where He is called Son of Man, 
 the very expression used by God the Word of Himself in John vi., 53, just quoted, and page 
 236 where the dodlrine of the Economic Appropriation to God the Word of the names andsuffer- 
 ings of His Humanity is distin(5lly set forth, as it is in the above Longer Epistle also on pages 
 224-268 of this work, where on page 228 we shall find the expression Man applied to God the 
 Word, and pages 23S, 239, 240, where Cyril teaches that the flesh of Christ which we eat in the 
 Eucharist is not a Man's, but is a flesh of God the Word, hy which he means what elsewhere, 
 as we have seen, he definitely calls " leavened bread." And on page 240 he teaches that the 
 expression Son of Man used of" the flesh of the Son of Man " in the Eucharist in John vi., 53, 
 does not mean the flesh of a man like one of us, but of God the Word, and that the expression 
 Son of Man there, by Economic Appropriation, means God the Word. 
 
292 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 is coeternal with the Father and is the Framer of the Universe; but, as 
 
 Cannibalism, and prostitute the Sacred Rite to Idolatry to the damnation of their 
 own souls by worshipping it. For Holy Writ teaches that no idolater shall 
 inherit the kingdom of God ; I. Cor. vi., 9, 10 ; Rev. xxi., 8. 
 
 On pages 273-274 St. Cyril goes on to teach that the Nestorian interpretation 
 ofjohn vi., makes '' our sacrament to be an eating of a Man's fiesh [so] unholily 
 drifigifig the minds of believers to wicked notions, and e^ideavorifig to subject to 
 Jimnan reasojiings those things which are grasped by unqnestioning faith alone 
 [that is denying the spiritual sense and reducing the whole Rite, as the Nes- 
 torians did, to a cannibal, material, feast on a mere common body, that is, a 
 body of Christ without the Substance of His Divinity in it, as they maintained]. 
 Eor 710 one should say that the holy body of Christ is a common [body], because 
 ihe Nature of Divinity is not eaten. [That Cyril and Nestorius agreed that 
 **' the Nature of Diviftity is not eaten'' in the Eucharist is shown above in their 
 own words on pages 250-260, and 273, 274 in this note]. 
 
 Then Cyril proceeds to show that it is not the mere human body bom of 
 Mary that quickens us, but the body and blood of God the Word, which, as we 
 see above, is the '' leaveiied bread aiid wine'' changed not in su^bstance but in 
 spiritual efficacy by the Word's seiiding into them the energy of His body which 
 is at the right hand of the Father by His Spirit's influences, not the eternal Sub- 
 stance of His Spirit. I quote : 
 
 ''For it is necessary to know, as we said before, that it is the own body of 
 ihe Word who quickeiieth all things; and because it is the body of Life [that is, 
 of God the Word who is called Life in John xiv., 6; compare John i., 1-5, 14; 
 John xi., 25; and I. John v., 20], it is also life-giving, for through it does He 
 [the Word] infuse life into our mortal bodies, and do away the might of death. 
 And on equal wise, the Holy Spirit also of the Anointed O^ie gives us life 
 [For the Word indwells us relatively by it; pages 258, 259 and 260, above]. For 
 ■according to the utterance of the Saviour Himself, " IT is the spirit that 
 •GiVETH iviFE" [John vi., 63]. For the Word is in us in the Lord's Supper in 
 two ways, " Divinely by the Holy Spirit, and humanly besides by His holy flesh 
 <and His precious blood," [pages 261 and 264], " which things we have also for a 
 iife-giving blessing as ift leavened bread and wine" [page 264], which are 
 changed not as to their substance\i\x\. as to their efficacy, because God the Word 
 "* sends into " them, "the things which lie before us " [page 264], not the sub- 
 stances of His natural flesh and blood, but '' the power of life, * * * and 
 changes them," the '' leavened bread and wine," not \.w\.o \}oiQ: substance of that 
 ilesh and blood which He took of Mary, but ''to the eiiergy of His own flesh,'' 
 not that we may cannibalize by feeding on raw flesh and drinking adlual blood 
 Avhicli we are commanded to abstain from by A(5ts xv., 29, but " ifi order that 
 we may have them," that is, " the leavened bread and wine," vehicles now of 
 the energy of Christ's own body, which was born of Mary and energized by the 
 Holy Ghost, "for a life-giving partaking a7id that the body of the Life [that is, 
 of God the Word], may be found in us as a life-giving seed." See above, pages 
 261-267, note. " The power of life," is the quickening influence, not the Sub- 
 
Readhig of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nestorius. 293 
 
 we have already said, because He united to Himself, [that is] to His 
 
 stance of the Holy Ghost, which operates in and through the things that lie before 
 us, that is, the leavened bread and wifie, and changes them, mere bread and 
 wine, to the energy of His own body, in that by that spiritual influence we are 
 made stronger spiritually, if we receive aright. As God the Word sent spiritual 
 influence into His Apostles when with the mouth of His human body and with 
 the breath of His human body, '' He breathed on them, and saith unto them, 
 Receive ye the Holy Ghost'' (John xx., 22), so he operates on us by sending 
 spiritual influences of life and energy into us by the instruments and vehicles of 
 leavened bread and wine, the body and blood of the Word in the Eucharist. 
 And as Cyril teaches, as he mingles that body of bread and wine with ours he 
 mingles also His grace by the Spirtt with us soul and body and sancSlifies us as we 
 are willing to receive His grace, as He does in the case of an infant also, for 
 he puts no obstacle of sin in the way. 
 
 And as the spirit energized through Christ's human body by its touch to 
 heal the sick (Matt, viii., 15; ix., 29, 30; xiv., 36; Mark vii., 33 to 36; Luke 
 xsii., 51), and as the gift of healing was wrought by the indwelling Word operat- 
 ing through His Spirit (I. Cor. xii., 9, 11), so does the Word also operate by His 
 Spirit in the leavened bread and wine, the body not of a commoft man but of 
 God the Word, Who indwells them not by His Substance, nor by the Substance 
 of God the Spirit, but by Its sandtifying influences, and does avail to benefit us 
 and to heal by Its help our spiritual maladies. 
 
 On pages 274, 275 and 276 we see that St. Athanasius, St. Cyril's teacher, 
 whom he professed to follow in every thing, was strong against the cannibal 
 sense of John vi., and strong for the spiritual. 
 
 To sum up St. Cyril's dodlrine against Nestorius: We do not eat Christ's 
 Divinity, nor the substance of his human flesh and blood in the Eucharist, but 
 God the Word relatively enters us by His Spirit, that is ' * Divinely ' ' in that 
 sense,and we feed on Him spiritually by cherishing His spiritual influences; and 
 He enters us '' humanlf by sending the energy, not the substance, of His body 
 into " the things which lie before us,'' that is the ''leavened bread and wine," 
 which in the Rite by that sending are made the flesh and blood not of His human- 
 ity born of Mary but of God the Word Himself. For the flesh and blood, aye the 
 whole humanity born of Mary are in heaven above at the right hand of the 
 Father, where they are indwelt by the Substance of God the Word. So that 
 when Christ says. This is my body. This is my blood, it is God the Word who 
 speaks, and who by those words signifies His body of leavened bread, and His 
 blood of wine, not the body born of Mary. For God the Word does relatively 
 dwell in bread and wine, not by His Substance, but by the quickening energy of 
 His Spirit, as Cyril teaches on page 264 of this note, and by the energy of His 
 body, as He did dwell and still dwells by His Eternal Substance incarnate, as 
 Cyril there teaches, in His human body taken of the Virgin. By this saving 
 doctrine of the great teacher Cyril, approved at Ephesus, all cannibalism is 
 avoided, and the Word's quickening, sandlifying and saving influences in the 
 
294 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Substance (644), His humanity, and underwent a fleshly birth out 
 
 Rite are glorified, and the teaching of Christ's Holy-Ghost-led Universal 
 Church shines as bright as the sun, in contrast with the Man-eating heresies 
 which degrade and lower Christ and His Church and His doclrine with a host 
 of absurd discussions and consequences, such as the Stercorian controversy for 
 instance, and others too numerous to mention here. 
 
 Outside of the Orthodox Dodlrine there are three other main views, that is, 
 Transiibstantiatio7i, Co7i substantiation, and the merely Symbolic. 
 
 I will treat of these in their order. And first of Transubstantiation, which 
 we will call Class A. 
 
 (A). Of this there are two kinds, which ^re destructive of each other; that 
 is the Latin error, and the Greek. 
 
 Both expressly contradict the first three points of St. Cyril's dodlrine above, 
 namely: 
 
 1. The real absence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity from the Rite: 
 
 2. The real absence of the substance of His flesh and blood which were 
 born of Mary, and the denial that they are eaten there: 
 
 3. That there is nothing in the Rite to worship. 
 
 Besides, there are wide and irreconcilable differences between those two 
 idolatrous Communions: 
 
 («) As to the use of the leadened bread in the Eucharist, the Greeks making 
 it essential, the Latins asserting that unleavened wafers must be used by all 
 of the Latin Rite: 
 
 (<^), As to the recipients, the Greeks asserting that in accordance with prim- 
 itive belief and usage, infants must receive it in order to salvation; the Latins 
 forbidding infants of the Latin Rite to partake of it: 
 
 {c), As to the celebrant, the Greeks of the four Oriental Patriarchates and of 
 Greece insisting that the Latin priest is without baptism or ordination, and 
 therefore that he cannot celebrate a valid Eucharist; whereas the Latins, while 
 admitting the validity of the Greek priesthood and Eucharist, brand the Greeks 
 as schismatics; an expression which the Greeks retort on the Latins and call 
 them heretics also. 
 
 Leaving Transubstantiation Heresies, we turn now to the second class, de- 
 signated. Class B, Of CONSUBSTANTIATION -HERESIES there are at least three, 
 which differ irreconcilably from each other and more or less negative each other. 
 
 They are as follows : 
 
 I. The oldest, which is that of Nestorius and his disciple Theodoret, which 
 asserts, like the Orthodox, that the Substance of Christ's Divinity is not on the 
 Holy Table in the Rite, is not received by the Communicant, and is not in him 
 at any time. But it teaches that at least four things are consubstantiated by 
 consecration, that is, 
 
 (i). The substance of the leavened bread, and. 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestoriiis. 295 
 
 of her womb, not that He needed as a matter of necessity, that is on 
 
 (2). The substance of the wine ; 
 
 (3). The substance of Christ's human flesh, and, 
 
 (4). The substance of Christ's human blood. 
 
 It is therefore a Four Things Consubstantiation. Possibly, though I am not 
 certain, both those heretics may have held to the Consubstantiation of Six 
 Things, that is, 
 
 (i). To the substance of leavefied bread ; 
 
 (2). To the substance of the wine mixed with water according to the Ortho- 
 dox view ; 
 
 (3). To the substance of the human flesh of Christ; 
 
 (4). To the substance of His human blood ; 
 
 (5). To the substance of His human mind, and 
 
 (6). To the substance of His human soul. 
 
 In that case they were Six Things Consubstantiationists. 
 
 We come to the Ilnd kind of Consubstantiation heresy, that is the Lutheran 
 error, which holds to the Consubstantiation of seven things in the Rite, hut only 
 during its use, namely: 
 
 (i). The substance of the unleavened wafer ; 
 
 (2). The substance of wine unmixed with water, generally ; 
 
 (3). The eternal Substance of Christ's Divinity ; 
 
 (4). The substance of His human flesh born of Mary ; 
 
 (5). The substance of His human blood taken from Mary and born of Mary; 
 
 (6). The substance of His human mind ; 
 
 (7). The substance of His human soul. 
 
 This is a Seven Things Consubstantiation therefore. Many Lutherans in 
 our time do not hold it. It includes also the additional heresy of Conimuiiica- 
 iio Idioniatuni, which contradicfts the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation, 
 of all the sufferings and other things of the Man put on, to God the Word Who 
 put on that creature, but foibids us to Appropriate anything belonging yVa/?«r«//j/ 
 to God the Word before the Incarnation, that is His Name, God, His Worship, 
 or His Divine Attributes, to the mere creature put on, the human nature, the in- 
 finitely inferior nature of His Two. See Cyril's Shorter Epistle above, Secliofi 
 II., pages 60-112, and the Longer Epistle, pages 217-241, and the XII. Anathemas 
 at its end. Those Epistles, of course, as being approved by the whole Church 
 at Ephesus, have all authority, and any dodlrine which contradidls them is by 
 that very fact heretical and anathematized. Every Protestant should reject the 
 heresy of Coimnunication of Properties, for it necessarily leads to creature-wor- 
 ship. And every Protestant should carefully guard the Ecumenically approved 
 do6lrine of Economic Appropriation, because it guards against that sin. See in 
 the Index to Vol. I. o{ Nicaea in this Set under Ecofiontic Appropriation. 
 
296 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 account of His own [Divine] Nature (645), that birth also which 
 
 Those Lutherans who hold to Consubstantiation hold also to the heresy of 
 Ubiquitarianism, that is, Every whereism, that is, the error that the body of 
 Christ is everywhere, and especially in the Eucharist, a folly which the English 
 Church well and Orthodoxically condemns in the noble and very valuable 
 Rubric and Declaration of DoArine against adoration of Christ's flesh and blood 
 in the Eucharist, where it says that, 
 
 " The natural body aiid blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not 
 here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in 
 more places than one^ 
 
 I judge that, so far as Protestants are concerned, the heresy exists among 
 Lutherans alone, and is not held by some of them. Webster's Di^ionaty de- 
 fines as follows on that matter: 
 
 " Ubiquitarian * * * One of a school of Lutheran divines; — so called 
 from their tenet that the body of Christ is present everywhere, and especially in 
 the Eucharist, in virtue of his omnipresence." 
 
 The heresy arose on the basis of a strange and plain blunder, the confound- 
 ing God the Word's infinite attribute of oinjtipresence, with the Substance of 
 His Divi7iity, and with the finite substance of His Humanity. For the Sub- 
 stance of His Divinity is now confined to heaven (Adls iii., 21), at the Father's 
 right hand, where Stephen saw Him (Adls vii., 55, 56), where He constantly 
 pleads for us as our Great High Priest and Sole Mediator and Sole Intercessor 
 (Heb. vii., 24, 25, and viii., i; I. Tim. ii., 5; I. John ii., i, 2). There alone the Sub- 
 stance of the Divinity of God the Father is, where alone Christ tells us to invoke 
 Him when we say, " Our Father who art in Heaven'" (Matt, vi., 9; Luke xi., 2). 
 God the Word is everywhere by the i7i finite attribute of oimiipresence^ not 
 by the Substance of His Divinity. Any one of any fair logical mind can see at 
 once that if He were present by the Substance of His Divinity everywhere. It 
 must be in every garbage heap, and in every water closet, and must also occupy 
 just the same space that the garbage and the excrement do, and inasmuch as His 
 Divinity is to be worshipped wherever It is, therefore, in that case. It must be 
 worshipped as in the garbage, and as in the excrement, and as in the smallest 
 part thereof. To such absurd and blasphemous conclusions are we brought by 
 such confounding of God's Substance with His attributes. Aye, it sanations 
 idolatry, for if God's Substance is everywhere, It is in the idols of the heathen 
 and must be worshipped in them. But away with premises which force us to 
 such God-forbidden sins and conclusions. 
 
 And if the whole Substance of Christ's Divinity and the whole substance of 
 His Humanity are together in every such garbage heap and in every water 
 closet and in every idol, and occupy exadlly the same space as the garbage does, 
 and as the excrements do, and as the idol does, we can easily see the silly and 
 absurd and blasphemous conclusion that every piece of the garbage and every 
 piece of the excrement has in it whole Christ, body and blood, soul and Divin- 
 ity, by a sort of Cou'^ubstantiation, and so has every idol. I need not dwell on 
 
Reading of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nestorius. 297 
 
 was in time and in the last periods of the world (646) ; but that He 
 
 such blasphemous drivel longer. It is too bad even for an idiot asylum or a 
 lunatic asylum. 
 
 We come now to the Illd kind of Con substantiation heresy, that is to the 
 Keble-Pusey error, which teaches the Consubstantiation of Seven Things, but 
 dififers from Luther's kind of Consubstantiation in holding that Christ's Divinity 
 and Humanity are with the consecrated elements, not only in use but always 
 after consecration, and so they reserve it and adore it in their idolatrous places 
 of assembling which they misname Churches. 
 
 Those Seven Things are 
 
 (i). The substance of the unleavened wafer often, sometimes the substance 
 of leavened bread; for some of the sect practice one way and some another on 
 that point, though the general tendency, I think, is to Latinism on that matter, 
 for from the start the drift of those heretics has been towards Rome and its cus- 
 toms, that Rome in which so many hundreds of them, clerics, and so many 
 thousands of silly men and silly women, led into idolatry by such wicked clerics, 
 have finalVy landed. 
 
 (2). The substance of wine, generally, I think, mixed with water. 
 
 (3). The Eternal Substance of Christ's Divinity, 
 
 (4). The substance of His real flesh taken from Mary and bom of Mary. 
 
 (5). The substance of His real blood taken from Mary and born of Mary. 
 
 (6). The substance of His human mind. 
 
 (7). The substance of His human soul. 
 
 Every one of this new-fangled sect therefore is a Seven-Things Consubstan- 
 tiationist, and so differs from the Nestorian, who was a Four- or Six-Things Con- 
 substantiationist, as Theodoret, the notorious champion of that school shows. 
 And every Keble-Pusey heretic differs, as has been just said, from the Lutheran 
 Consubstantiationist in holding that the Seven Things Consubstantiation abides 
 not only 171 the tise, but always after consecration, and hence, contrary to His 
 own Eucharistic Rubrics, which require the consumption of the unused conse- 
 crated bread and wine after Communion, he reserves them for adoration and so 
 turns what he calls God's holy Sacrament into a means of bringing in idolatry 
 ^nto his own Reformed Communion, and, so, of damning his own soul and of 
 incurring the added and fearful guilt of damning the souls of others. 
 
 The Bishops of the Anglican Communion everywhere should either depose 
 every one of their prelates, presbyters, and deacons, guilt}' of the Consubstanti- 
 ation heresy and its idolatry of worshipping Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist, 
 where It is not, or His body and blood there, or guilty of suffering such error 
 within his jurisdiction, or guilty of not openly denouncing them and doing his 
 full duty zealously of guarding his flock against them. So they should excom- 
 municate every laic guilty of such idolatry. 
 
 In case any bishop fails to do his full duty in deposing and excommunicat- 
 ing such heretics, he should himself be deposed and excommunicated at once. 
 
298 Act J. of Ephesus. 
 
 might bless the very beginning of our existence, and that by His 
 
 So will they act after the example of Athanasius and of St. Cyril of Alexandria 
 against creature-serving heretics and their aiders and abettors, like John of 
 Antioch, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others. If there be only one sound bishop 
 (and there are many more), he cannot be disciplined by any heretical creature- 
 worshippers, as the Canons of the first Four Ecumenical Councils show; for, 
 from the beginning, it has been a God-required duty of all, clergy and people, 
 to act like the A^igel, that is, as Angel means. Messenger, that is in this case 
 Messenger to Men, that is Bishop, of the Church of Ephesus, to try them which 
 say they are apostles and are not, a7id to Jind them liars (Rev. ii., 2). Blessed 
 is every Bishop in every National Church and in every Race Church to whom 
 Christ will say at the last solemn day as he said to the Bishop of Ephesus: * ' Ufito 
 iheafigelof the Church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth 
 the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden 
 candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou 
 canst not bear them which are evil; and thou hast tried Them which say 
 
 THEY ARE APOSTI^ES, AND ARE NOT, AND HAST FOUND THEM LIA«.S " (Rev. 
 
 ii., I, 2). 
 
 The Bishops of the First Ecumenical Synod tried Arian Bishops who un- 
 doubtedly had the Apostolic succession in orders but uot in dodlrine, and found 
 them creature-servers on their own profession, anathematized them in their 
 Creed at its end, and thrust them out of the society of the faithful. So did they 
 in their Canon XIX. with the Paulianists, the disciples of the heretic and 
 creature-server, Paul of Samosata, who had the succession in orders in the epis- 
 copate but not in do6lrine. 
 
 Aye, in its Canon XI. it puts those who had fallen into the sin of worshipping 
 an image, or invoking a creature to twelve years of public penance, and Canon 
 XII. puts another class of such offenders to thirteen years. 
 
 And in every Communion possessing valid baptism and valid orders that 
 should be done with every baptized man who falls into such sins by going to 
 Rome or to any other idolatrous Communion and sharing such sins, unless, on 
 his sincere amendment, the bishop oi\s:\^ Paroecia may, according to Canon XII., 
 dispense with the penalty. For baptized Paganism is apostasy from Christ, as 
 the Nestorian worship of His mere separate human nature is termed in the 
 Canons of Ephesus, and it is the worst kind of idolatry because the transgressor 
 has light and the heathen has not. 
 
 The Second Ecumenical Council in its Canon I. anathematizes various sedls 
 of heretics who on their own confession were creature-worshippers, who had 
 Bishops who had the succession from the beginning but who had forsaken the 
 succession in do<ftrine. Its Canon VII. openly rejeAs the orders of six such 
 se(5ls, namely, the Arians, the Macedonians, the Sabbatians, the Novatians, the 
 Quartodecimans or Tetradites, and the ApoUinarians. It admitted only their 
 baptism because they had not altered the design of baptism, that is, the do6lrine 
 that it is ''for the remission of sins " (AAs ii., 38), a doctrine confessed by the 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nes tortus 299 
 
 being united to flesh and then being brought forth by a woman, the 
 
 whole Church in the Creed of the Second World-Council in the utterance. " We 
 acknowledge one dipping for Thk remission of sins;" nor the mode, trine im- 
 mersion; nor the form of words, that is the formula, " in the name of the Father, 
 ■and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost*' (Matt, xxviii., 19). Other heretics 
 who had the succession in the episcopate, but had forsaken the succession on the 
 Trinity and in addition on one or more of the aforesaid three things in baptism, 
 were to be received by that Canon not only as without orders but also as uubap- 
 tized. Such sedls were the Eunomians, whom that Canon VII. brands as bap- 
 tized '■^ with one immersion'''' (Hammond's translation), who, as Theodoret tells 
 us in his work on Heretical Fables, Book IV., Chapter III., changed the trine im- 
 mersion into single immersion, and abolished the Christ-given form of words, 
 that is, baptism i^i the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, and substituted for them one only dip into Christ's death, a heresy as to 
 the form of words, by the way, in which they were followed by Pope Nicholas I. 
 in the ninth century, in his Answers to the Bulgarians. The place of Theo- 
 doret is translated into Knglish in Chrystal's History of the Modes of Baptism, 
 page 78. 
 
 The Third Ecumenical Synod in its canons deposes all Nestorian Bishops 
 and Clerics and excommunicates all their laics. The Fourth Council, in its 
 Definition, deposes all Monophysite Bishops and Clerics, and excommunicates 
 all Monophysite laics. So the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, in its Definition at 
 the end, deposes heretical Bishops and Clerics, and excommunicates heretical 
 laics; and so does the Sixth at the end of its noble Definition. And yet it is 
 clear and admitted by all that the Bishops and other Clerics so deposed, that is, 
 those of the Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites, had the succession in 
 the episcopate, but had lost that in dodlrine, and had all become creature-wor- 
 shippers; for the Nestorians worshipped relatively to God the Word, that is as 
 they said, because of God the Word, and for His sake, their mere human, crea- 
 ted Christ, and so were guilty of the sin which St. Cyril charges them with, that 
 is, avOpuno/M-pELa, that is, the Worship of a Ma7i, which of course is Creature- 
 Worship, that is, an apostasy to the fundamental error of paganism. See Cyril's 
 answer to their evasion of Relative Worship on pages 221-224 above, and notes 
 580 to 584, and Cyril's utterances on page 87, note, and all of note 183. 
 
 And the Monophysites are also, /« fact, creature-worshippers, whatever 
 may be their intention, for inasmuch as they worship the humanity of Christ as 
 now transubstantiated into Divinity, and as making but One Nature with God 
 the Word, they are really, without intending it, Man-Worshippers. They 
 sometimes explain the change somewhat as the Romanists explain their Tran- 
 substantiation in the Eucharist, by saying, in effect, that the appearance, or 
 species, or accidents, of His humanity remain, but not its substance; that, they 
 say, has been transubstantiated into I^iviuit}-. 
 
 All these three Consubstantiation heresies, except the first, that of Nes- 
 torius, contradict all four of the Orthodox Eucharistic positions above. The 
 Nestorian contradicts the last three only. 
 
300 Act I. of Ephesics. 
 
 curse against all the race, which sends to death our earthly 
 
 We turn now to another class of views on the Eucharist which we may de- 
 nominate Class C. 
 
 They are, i, the Zwinglian, which some call the merely Symbolic, or tnerely 
 Memoj'ial. 
 
 This agrees with positions i, 2 and 3 of St. Cyril above specified, which 
 were adopted, in effect, by the Universal Church in the Third Ecumenical 
 Council; but is more or less different from Cyril's point 4 above. For Cyril, 
 in accordance with the custom of the whole Church in his time and from the 
 beginning, gave the bread and wine to infants. But infants can not have faith. 
 Consequently Cyril could not have held that in their case at least faith is the 
 means by which they receive the sacrament, though of course it is admitted by 
 all that in the case of children who have come to years of understanding, and in 
 the case of all others, faith and love and hope are such means and necessary. 
 
 Zwinglianism would seem to hold that the Lord's Supper is not universally 
 necessary to salvation, for it generally, I think always, or nearly always ex- 
 cludes infants from it on the ground that they can not have faith, an argument 
 which would exclude them from Baptism also. 
 
 2. The Calvinistic view, which, like the Zwinglian, agrees with points i, 
 2 and 3 of St. Cyril's doctrine above, but like it differs more or less from his 
 point 4, much as Zwinglianism does, by not making it essential to salvation for 
 infants as well as for adults. It agrees, however, mainly otherwise with Cyril's 
 dodtrine, as does, less closely, Zwingli's on point 4. 
 
 Indeed the idolatrizer and creature-worshipper, John Henry Blunt, in his 
 Dictionary of DoHrijial and Historical Theology under Real Presence says- 
 that inasmuch as Calvin "asserts that our L/Ord's human nature can only be 
 present at the right hand of God, and can not in any sense whatever be present 
 under Eucharistic signs," and held "that the words of Institution are to be 
 explained figuratively or metaphorically," therefore his view and Zwingli's 
 "are really identical.'' Blunt adds as a clincher, "Indeed, only two rational 
 opinions on the subject are possible — a real presence or a real absence." St. 
 Cyril differs from him in the passages above quoted from him, by teaching in 
 effect that only one opinion on the subject is rational, that is the real absence 
 of the Substance of Christ's Divinity ni the rite, and the real absence of the sub- 
 stance of His Mary-born flesh and blood, which is Cyril's dodlrine as advocated 
 in works written by him before Ephesus and presumably known to the 
 assembled Prelates, that is, in his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies 
 of NestoriuSy and in the above Long Epistle to Nesiorius, where, in effect, 
 Christ's flesh in the Eucharist is proclaimed to be not the flesh of His humanity 
 but of God the Word, that is as Cyril explains above, the things which lie be/oj'e 
 us, that is His body of leavened bread and His blood of wine which become to 
 all who receive them worthily, including infants, means and instruments of 
 eternal life, and resurredlion, and salvation (John vi. , 33, 48-64). For an infant 
 receives worthily because he is by his baptism and confirmation a member of 
 
Reading of Cyril s Long Epistle to Nestor ius. 301 
 
 bodies (647) might therefore cease (648), and that the, ' hi sorroiv 
 
 Christ's covenant and therefore has a right to partake of the aftertypes of the 
 great sacrifice of Calvary as the IsraeHtish infant had a right to partake of the 
 Passover Lamb, the foretype of that sacrifice under the Mosaic Covenant; and 
 he presents no barrier in the way of wilful rejecftion of those saving rites. For 
 it is wilful rejection and continual and perverse habits of sin, and not the 
 innocent years of baptized infancy, which bar from Communion and its promises 
 of resurredlion and eternal life and of grace as we can receive it. 
 
 The do<5lrine of the real presence of God's sandlifying and saving grace 
 only in the leavened bread and wine on the one hand and the real absence of 
 the Substance of Christ's Divinity and the real absence of His human flesh and 
 blood on the other (all of which, Divinity and humanity, are in heaven alone), 
 are the watchwords of the Orthodoxy of St. Cyril and of Ephesus, which, under 
 God, he led. 
 
 The use of the expression Real Presence to assert the actual presence of the 
 Substance of Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist and the a6lual presence of the 
 substance of His humanity there, or of His Mary-born flesh and blood alone 
 there, is utterly unknown to primitive Christian writers and is purely mediaeval. 
 
 We do indeed find in the writings of Nestorius and of his strong partisan 
 Theodoret, in the first part of the fifth century the doBrine of the real presence 
 and real manducation there, not of His Divinity at all, but of His humanity 
 only, or of His flesh and blood only; but not, so far as I have seen, the expres- 
 sion Real Presence. And the noteworthy thing is that they were heretics, not 
 Orthodox, and that, so far as appears, they were the first to promulge that 
 heresy of the adlual presence of His Mary -born flesh and blood there, or of His 
 Mary-born whole humanity there. 
 
 Besides, and this fact is all important and decisive, St. Cyril's docflrine of 
 the Real Absence from the Lord's Supper of the Substance of Christ's Divinity 
 and of the substance of His humanity is approved by the Third Ecumenical 
 Council, and Nestorius was deposed, among other causes, by it for denying it: 
 and so by necessary implication the do6lrine of the real presence of the Sub- 
 stance of his Divinity and of the substance of His humanity is there condemned, 
 and of course the expression Real Presetice, used by heretics, such as Transub- 
 stantiationists and Consubstantiationists, to enshrine their idolatry in, in 
 worshipping either or both those substances there is likewise condemned by 
 necessary implication, and forbidden. 
 
 We should therefore scrupulously avoid it. In Post-Reformation time?, 
 when even some scholars, able in other things, did not know well the ques- 
 tions involved in the struggle between St. Cyril and Nestorius on the Eucharist, 
 nor the Holy Spirit guided, final, and irreversible Decision of the Third Council 
 of the whole Church on the matter, they some times used the expression Real 
 Presence but not in the Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation sense. This is 
 shown by Rev. Wm. Goode in his citation of Anglican authors in chapter VII., 
 Vol. II. of his work On the Eucharist. But now it should cease forever, for 
 
302 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 shall Ihou bring forlh children ' (649), might be abolished through 
 
 that use is perverted by Romanists to favor their idolatry in the Rite. Indeed 
 the expression was invented by them in the middle ages to signify their error 
 and should be left to them. It is enough for us to know that it has been con- 
 demned by necessary impUcation, with the Transubstantiation or Consub- 
 stantiation which it stands for. That it has been used incautiously by great 
 Anglicans should not surprise us, for we must remember that the Schoolmen of 
 the middle ages and the idolatrous local Councils of the West and similar Con- 
 venticles in the East had opposed and overset and practically nullified and 
 abolished the Decisions on the Eucharist and on Creature-Worship and on some 
 other matters of the Six World-Synods, and had substituted for them their own 
 heresies on those themes; and that, after the Reformation even, men did not at 
 once get to know what the Six Councils had said on those dogmas, and still 
 used some of the Shibboleths of a corrupt and corrupting idolatrous scholasti- 
 cism, the expression Real Presence among them. [a). 
 
 (a). Among the XLII. Articles of A. D. 1552 of the Church of England, in Article XXIX., 
 now XXVIII., "Of the Lord's Supper," occnrs the following condemnation of the dodlrineof /A^ 
 Real and Corporal presence, and of that expression which embodies it. I translate it from the 
 Latin, as found in The Prayer Book Interleaved,\)y Campion and Beamont (Cambridge, Eng., 
 and Pott and Young, New York, 1869, page 388): 
 
 " Forasmuch as the reality of human nature requires that the body of one and the same 
 man can not be in many places at the same time, but that it must be in some one definite 
 place, therefore the body of Christ cannot be present in many different places at the same 
 time. And since, as the Sacred Scriptures teach, Christ was taken up to heaven and will re- 
 main there to the end of the world, none of the faithful ought either to believe or to profess the 
 Real and Corporal Presence, as they term it, of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist." 
 
 " This," writes Bishop Harold Browne on ArticleXXVIII. (page yisof the American edition 
 of his work on the XXXIX. Articles), " nearly corresponds with the statement of the rubric at 
 the end of our present Communion Service. Both the clause in the Article [just translated 
 above] and the rubric were omitted in Elizabeth's reign, lest persons inclined to the Lutheran 
 belief might be too much oflfended by it ; and many such were in the Church, whom it was 
 v/ished to conciliate. The rubric was again restored in the reign of Charles II. The meaning 
 of it is * * * to deny * * * o.'' corporal presence of ChrisVs natural flesh and blood,'' 'and 
 a consequent adoration of the elements, as though they did not remain still in their very natural 
 substances. " 
 
 That glorious and noble Rubric, so thoroughly Cyrillian and Ephesine in its condemnation 
 of both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Real Presence in the Eucharist of Christ's 
 human flesh and blood, their worship there, and their cannibal -use there by being eaten and 
 drunk, was wrongly and unwisely left out of the American Book of Common Prayer. It reads 
 as follows as it is now in the English Book: 
 
 " Whereas it is ordained in this Office for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, thatthe 
 Communicants should receive the same kneeling ; (which order is well meant, for a significa- 
 tion of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all 
 worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy Communion, 
 as might otherwise ensue); yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of ig- 
 norance and infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved ; it is 
 hereby declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the 
 Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto an3' corporal presence of Christ's 
 natural flesh and blood. For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natu- 
 ral substances and therefore may not be adored; (for That were Idolatry, to be abhorred 
 OF ALL FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS); and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in 
 
Reading of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nestorius. 303 
 
 Him, and [so] that He might show the truth of the following expres- 
 
 Another thing should be avoided. Many writers, not knowing the heresy 
 
 heaven, and not here ; it being against the truth of ChrisVs natural body to be at one time in 
 more places than one." 
 
 In the Prayer Book Interleaved, page i8i, we read a further explanation of the above as 
 follows : 
 
 " The declaration concerning kneeling was added as a rubric by order of Council in 1552, 
 was omitted in 1559, and restored in 1662, when the words ' corporal presence of Christ's natu- 
 ral flesh and blood, ' were substituted for ' real and essential presence there being of Christ's 
 natural flesh and blood.' " 
 
 This last Rubric and Declaration of Dodlrine is also decidedly Cyrillian and Ephesine and 
 should have been retained and perfedled. It must be restored. I quote the whole Declaration 
 as it stands in the Second Prayer Book of Ediuard VI., A. D. 1552. As the work of martyred 
 Reformers and Restorers of Christ's true religion who are now with Him in heaven, it deserves. 
 to be well remembered. It is as follows : 
 
 *' Although no order can be so perfedlly devised, but it may be of some, either for their ig-. 
 norance and infirmity, or else for malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and inter- 
 preted in a wrong part, and yet because brotherly charity willeth that, so much as couven- 
 iently may be, offences should be taken away ; therefore we, willing to do the same, [do hereby 
 declare that]. 
 
 Whereas, it is ordained in the Book of Common Prayer, in the administration of the I^ord's 
 Supper, that the communicants kneeling should receive the same, which thing being well 
 meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, 
 given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder which about the 
 Holy Communion might else ensue ; lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken 
 otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby that any adoration is done, or ought to be 
 Joue, either unto the sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any real or es- 
 sential presence there being, of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the sacra- 
 mental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may 
 not be adored, for that were idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. And as con- 
 cerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in heaven, and not here, 
 for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural body to be in more places than one." 
 
 One other expression in the Prayer Book, in the Catechism, which page 199 of the Prayer 
 Book Interleaved tells us was no part of it originally and was not added indeed till A. D. 1604, 
 and has been attributed to Overall, should be conformed more to the mind of St. Cyril and of 
 Ephesus ; I refer to the assertion that " the body and blood of Christ * * * are verily and 
 indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord' s Supper,'' which may mean Transubstan- 
 tiation orConsubstantiation. Some of St. Cyril's explanatory language about sending the 
 power of life into the things which lie before us ?,\iO\xl^ be substituted for it. 
 
 The learned Anglican, Rev. William Goode, in his work On the Eucharist, page 757, 
 speaking of the expression, Real Presence, says : 
 
 " The ambiguity of the phrase, and its misapplication by the Church of Rome, have in- 
 duced many of our divines to repudiate it ; and our Church, as Dean Aldrich has observed, has 
 wisely forbornt its use ; but others for the similar purpose of preventing misconception and 
 meeting the mi.srepresentations of the Romanists, have maintained and contended for its use. 
 
 "The real docftrine of our divines, therefore, is not to be sought in their use or rejedtion of 
 this phrase, but in the meaning they attach to it. and their accompanying statements." 
 
 On the same expression .^^a/ Pr^.y^w^:^, the same Rev. Wm. Goode. on the Eucharist, pages 
 36.38, quotes "Dr. Aldrich. Dean of Christ Church in i6S7"(page 36]. who writes as on page 38, id., 
 that it is not so easy to conceive how a natural substance can be said to be '" really present 
 when at the same time it is locally absent." He then adds, 
 
 " Therefore the Church of England has wisely forborne to use the term of Real Presence in 
 all the Books that are set forth by her authority. We neither find it recommended in the Lit- 
 urgy, nor the Articles, nor the Homilies, nor the Church's nor Nowell's Catechism. For al- 
 
304 Act L of Ephesiis. 
 
 sion of the prophet : ' ' Death prevailed a7id swallowed [men] up; ' ' and, 
 of Theodoret, have quoted some of his Nestorian utterances above cited as 
 
 though it be once iu the Liturgy, and once more in the Articles [" he means in the Liturgy and 
 Articles of 1552 " Goode] it is mentioned in both places as a phrase of the Papists, and reje<5led 
 for their abuse of it. So that if any Church of England man use it, he does more than the 
 Church directs him ; if any reject it, he J:as the Church's example to warrant him: and it would 
 very much contribute to the peace of Christendom if all men would write after so good a copy.''* 
 The italics are in Goode's quotation. 
 
 In refusing to admit the phrase Real Presence the blessed Reformers of the Church of Eng- 
 land are at one with the Universal Church in the Six Ecumenical Councils, for it never uses 
 the heretical words, nor authorizes any one to use them.but by its approval of St. Cyril's teach- 
 ing on the Eucharist, it in eflfect forbids them. 
 
 Some idolatrizers of our day, traitors to their own Anglican Communion, try to evade the 
 condemnation of their worship of Christ's body in the above Declaration of the Church of 
 England, by saying that they do not worship His '■'■natural body,'" but His spiritual body, which 
 is at the Father's right hand and in thousands of Eucharists at the same time. 
 
 But this is a mere makeshift, for the English Church shows that by Christ's natural body it 
 means His body of human nature, for it certainly is not of God's Divine Nature, and there is 
 now only one sort of body of Christ, audit is that very body of Christ which the crafty Jesuiti- 
 cal and Puseyite evader calls the spiritual body, for the Anglican Communion explains the 
 meaning of its expression " /m^wra/ ^ocTy " in the very Declaration which forbids its worship 
 by defining as follows : " And as concerning the ?iatural body and blood of our Saviour Christ, 
 they are lu heaven, and not here, for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural body to be 
 in more places than one." Here we see that this Declaration and Explanation of A. D. 1552, 
 makes Christ's natural body to be the only body of Christ now existing, that is. His spiritual 
 body which is " in heaven and not here;" and then follows a denial of the Ubiquitarian heresy 
 held by some Lutherans, which asserts that it may be in the Eucharist. That Declaration, 
 the present Declaration at the end of the English Church Communion OflSce, and the XXIXth 
 Article of A. D. 1552, all agree that Christ's body and blood are in heaven alone, and the sum 
 of their teaching is that the spiritual body and the natural body are the same, the one sole body 
 now existing, and all these are aimed specially against all Consubstantiation and all Tran- 
 substantiation notions of a real presence of many bodies of Christ in the Eucharist and against 
 their worship there. 
 
 But in reply it may be said that the Church of England is certainly wrong in identifying 
 the spiritual with the natural body, for in I. Corinthians xv., 42, 43, and 44, the body which we 
 use on earth and which is put into the grave is called " a natural body," whereas the body 
 which is raised again is t&vm.&d"' a spiritual body." Hence Christ's body on earth was "a 
 natural body," and as such was buried, but was raised " a spiritual body." Those verses are 
 as follows : '' So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in 
 incorruption It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised 
 tn power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, arid 
 there is a spiritual body." 
 
 To this I reply that the passage alleged from I. Cor. xv., 42, 43, and 44, is a plain mistrans- 
 lation, and has been the cause of a great deal of bungling. The error lies in translating by 
 natural body, what does not mean that but soulish body; that is, in those two verses Paul 
 contrasts the human body governed by the fallen human soul with the spiritual human body, 
 that is, the body governed not by the fallen human soul but by the Spirit of the living God. 
 And indeed all admit that our bodies are more or less governed by the fallen sinful human 
 soul here, but after their resurredlion are governed by God's Holy Spirit. But though Christ 
 had a human soul it was not like ours, a fallen soul. For as Cyril well says, on page 262 above, 
 of Christ, " Who, forasmuch as He is God, is free from all sin. For although all have sinned 
 audcome short of the glory of God [Rom. iii., 23], inasmuch as we have become prone to stray, 
 and man's nature is diseased with sin, nevertheless He is not so, and therefore we come short 
 of His glory." Consequently His real natural body, that is. His human-nature body, never 
 
Reading of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nes tonus. 305 
 
 again, ^^God wiped away every tear from every face ' ' (650). For that 
 
 though they expressed the voice of Orthodoxy. That fault has not been con- 
 was Q.soulish body in the sense that ours are, that is, in the sense of being governed by the sin- 
 ful human soul, precisely because His human soul was always a holy and sinless soul, for it 
 and all of His humanity was ever spotless, because always sanctified by the Holy Spirit (I^uke 
 i., 35; Heb. iv., 15, and Heb. ix., 14). Hence His body could never be called a soulish body in 
 the fallen sense, as ours can; for at least in the sense of being governed by the Holy Ghost it was 
 always on earth, as it is now in heaven, a spiritual body, though it was taken from Adam and was 
 and is material like ours, and was and is now of one substance with ours, as the Universal 
 Church has well and clearly defined in the Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and 
 in that of the Sixth also, and in the letter of Leo, approved by the Fourth Council, and in effect 
 In St. Cyril's Letter to John of Antioch, approved by it. Christ's is no Docetic body therefore, 
 but one that is real and genuine; and as Man He is as thoroughly consubstantial with us men 
 as in His Divinity He is Consubstantial with His Father, as the aforesaid Definitions teach. 
 For His risen spiritual body could be felt, and seen, for He said to His disciples, ' Behold my 
 hands and tnyfeet, that it is /, Myself; handle Me, and see, for a spirit hath not fiesh and bones ^ 
 as ye see me have. And when He had thus spoken. He shoived them Hts hands and His feet,'' 
 (Luke xxiv., 39, 40). And after doubting Thomas wished proof that Christ's real body had 
 risen, and said : Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into 
 the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe, the Lord appeared 
 unto him and said, Reach hither thy finger, and behold My hands, and reach hither thy hand, 
 and thrust it into Mv side, and be not faithless but believing (John xx., 25-30). With that risen 
 spiritual body He ate and drank, and that in order to show them that Plis risen spiritual body 
 was still material (Luke xxiv., 36-44; compare Acts x., 41). Aye, to make it still stronger, if it 
 could be made stronger, that His risen spiritual body is material He promised to drink the 
 fruit of the vine with His Apostles in His Fathers Kingdom (Matt, xxvi., 29; Mark xiv., 25, 
 and Luke xxii., 18). Compare the noble Article IV. of the Church of England. 
 
 So that Christ's risen spiritual body was, and is, like ours, a body of flesh and bones just 
 as material as it ever was, and, so far as appears, just as tall and as large as it ever was. The 
 only difference now is that it is immortal (Rom. vi., 9). So that the Church of England 
 Article XXIX. of A. D. 1552, in identifying the /ra/ with the corporal presence of Christ was 
 perfectly right. For corporal means bodily, and if His body is really present there, it is present 
 bodily. And if it is all there under each crumb of bread, and is all taken with each crumb of 
 bread, there is a full grown body with each crumb, and that full body h as 7?/?^/^ a7id bones (Luke 
 xxiv., 39;. And the Declaration of A. D. 1552 was right in identifying the " real" with the 
 ■" essential'' [that is substance] presence * * * of Christ's natural flesh and blood in the Eucha- 
 rist, and in forbidding that error and the error of worshipping them there. How much better 
 than such errors is the Orthodox dodlrine ot St. Cyril and of Ephesus on the Rite ? 
 
 One can show further absurdities of all real presence and corporal manducation heresies 
 If he will. For instance, if whole Christ, as the Romanist alleges, be under each crumb or 
 particle of the bread or wafer, he who takes twelve such crumbs or particles has twelve whole 
 Men inside of him, each of them full grown. But surely another miracle must be wrought for 
 one stomach to contain them. If it be said that all this is mystery, and must be received as 
 such, I answer that it is contradidlion, and therefore not a mystery at all, for it not only con- 
 tradicts common sense and our own eyes and taste and feeling, but atsothe Holy Spirit guided 
 teachings on the Eucharist of St. Cyril, as approved by Ephesus. It is not even as probable as 
 Docetism, for it admitted a body in appearance. But here there is not even the appearance of 
 a body. And time and space fail me to push the error that we may eat twelve or more whole 
 Christs in the Communion to its logical result, as men did in the Middle Ages, in Stercorian- 
 ism, etc. To sum up, all Real Presence talk ends at last in mistiness, cannibalism, and contra- 
 didling the dodtrine of the whole Church at Ephesus, and in utter absurdity. 
 
 We see then that Christ's sinless body, though sown a soulish body in the sense of having 
 a sinless human .soul, nevertheless was a sinless body in life, in death, after its resurre<5lion and 
 always. So that Christ's body is as really a material body like ours so far as its human sub- 
 
306 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 reason we assert that Economically (651) He blessed marriage itself 
 
 fined to any one party or Communion. For instance, the Romish Archbishop- 
 Francis Patrick Kenrick in his Theologia Dogmatica, Vol. III., Philadelphia, 
 A. D. 1840, page 197, argues perversely enough and humorously and twistingly 
 enough that Passage 2 of Theodoret on pages 279-282 above means the very 
 thmg it denies, that is Transubstantiation, and he asserts that Theodoret was a 
 Catholic! {b) Thesame passage is mentioned by Goode ott the Eucharist, page 583 
 
 stance is concerned now as it was on earth, and so to eat it now and to drink its blood would be 
 as much what St. Cyril calls avdpuTTO(l)ayia, that is, Cannibalism, (St. Cyril's Five Book Contra- 
 diction of the Blasphemies o/Nestorius, Book IV., Sections 4 and 5), as it ever was. 
 
 I would add that we must remember that some things said of our fallen human bodies in 
 I. Cor. XV., 42, 43 and 44, can not be said of His unfallen human body, that is, though every 
 sinful soiilish body is sown in corruption, because corruption is the result of sin (Rom. v., 12), 
 yet Christ's sinless soul-endowed spiritual body saw no corruption (.^cts ii., 27, 31); and 
 whereas the sinful body is sown in dishonor, ioT we die because of sin, and so death is the 
 proof and dishonoring punishment of our sins, yet His death was honorable and glorious, be- 
 cause it was the death of a sinless Vi<flim to save all men. He died for sin, not that He Himself 
 sinned. Sinful man's body is sown a soulish body (_i/;vji/v6i'), soulish, as opposed to TTvevfiaT^ 
 IKOV, spiritual (I. Cor. xv., 44). The word, (pvacKOV, natural, is not there at all. 
 
 It is admitted on all hands to be a mistranslation. On looking over the Versions in Lee's 
 Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, I find the same error in the German, but not in Jerome's Vulgate, 
 which well renders the Greek fvxtKOV by animate, which signification is found in the French, 
 Italian, and Spanish. 
 
 But, objection: Jesus' body is so immaterial that it can pass through doors after they are 
 shut, for in no other way could He have entered to His disciples in John xx., 19, 26. For it 
 reads, "the doors having been shut," dvpcbu KtK7.ELGuevu}V. 
 
 Answer. Scripture does not say that His body went through the wood or iron or other 
 matter of doors. He may have entered in the common way by opening and shutting the doors 
 miraculously, as God opened the prison doors for Peter in Acts xii., 10; and their eyes might 
 have been holden that they might not recognize Him till He chose to make Himself known, as 
 was the case with the disciples on the way to Emmaus, Luke xxiv., 13-36. And there are other 
 ways in which He might enter to them without passing through wood or iron. For God is 
 Almighty, and can not be limited to act in the way we may choose to have Him act to save 
 our argument. All such reasonings are against the reality of His body and tend to Docetism, 
 as do all Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation heresies; for all of them do, in efiect, deny 
 that His body is consubstantial with ours. 
 
 [b). As instances of the extent and way in which the Holy-Ghost-guided testimony of the 
 Third Council against the real preseyice of Christ's human flesh and his human blood in the 
 Eucharist are perverted, belied, and nullified, and the heresies opposed to them are put into 
 their places, it should be said that Francis Patrick Kenrick, who died the Romish Archbishop 
 of Baltimore in A. D. 1S63, in his Theologia Dogmatica, Vol. III., Philadelphia, A. D. 1840, 
 adlually has the partisan eff"rontery to adduce as a proof of the heresy '■'that there is a true, 
 real and Substance Presence of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist^* 
 (id., pages 159 and 166), the following passage from the longer Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius 
 above translated, (.1 first quote Kenrick's Latin and then translate it, premising that this Epistle, 
 as its heading on page 206 above shows, emanates not only from Cyril but from all the 
 Bishops of his Diocese, that is, as we say now, from all the Bishops of his Patriarchate): 
 
 Concilium Alexaudriuum, S. Cyrilli tempore habitum, in epistolaad Nestorium eucharistiae 
 dogma aperte tradit; et contra Nestorium sic decernit: ''■ Sanflum ac vivificum incruenlumque 
 in Ecclesiis Sacrificium peragimus; corpus quod proponitur , similiter et pretiosum sangumem. 
 non communis, nobisquesimilis hominis cuju^piam esse credentes, sed potius tamquam proprium 
 corpus effeclum, sanguinem eiiam Verbi, quod omnia vivificat, accipienles.'^ 
 
Readi?ig of CyriPs Long Epistle to Nes tonus. 307 
 
 also, and attended one in Cana of Galilee, when He was invited,, 
 and after, where he argues, in effect, that it agrees with his own view which is. 
 
 * * * Concilium Ephesinum Generale anathematismum hunc inter caeteros probavit, 
 et ita demonstravit hanc fuisse totius orbis fidem. Below, in a note, Kenrick gives all the 
 above, in my italics, as from "Anathematismo XI." He evidently did not know the mean- 
 ing of his quotation. 
 
 The English translation of the above adulterated passage quoted by Kenrick as St. Cyril's^ 
 with Kenrick' s remarks on it, are as follows : 
 
 " The Council of Alexandria held in the time of St. Cyril, in its Epistle to Nestorius trans- 
 mits plainly the dogma of the Eucharist, and decrees as follows against Nestorius: 
 
 ' We perform in the Churches the holy and quickening and unbloody sacrifice ^ not believing 
 the body which is set forth, and likewise the precious blood to be [those] of some com.mon tnan like 
 us, but receiving them rather as having been made an own body and blood of the Word who is able 
 to quicken all things.' " " From [St. Cyril's] Anathema XI." 
 
 Kenrick continues, on page 173: 
 
 " The General Council of Ephesus approved that Anathema among others, and so showed 
 that it was the faith of the whole world." 
 
 Now let us examine this passage of Rome's ablest champion ever in this land against the 
 worship of God alone, and test his accuracy and reliability. 
 
 In the first place he has made a blunder in adducing it as from St. Cyril's Anathema or 
 Anathematism XI., as any one can see by examining that Anathema towards the end of the 
 above Epistle. 
 
 In the second place he has not given the passage exadlly, but has altered it so as to make it 
 agree with his own heresy of the Real Presence, and then has alleged it as a proof for it. 
 Whether he himself was guilty of that adulteration of it, or merely quoted it from some other 
 idolatrizer who did that wicked work I know not. In either case he is not without fault, for 
 even in the latter case he should either have mentioned the writer from whom he took the 
 quotation, or should have verified it if he wished to give it as his own citation from the or- 
 iginal. 
 
 What he pretends to quote is really a farrago, made up partly out of Kenrick's or some 
 other idolatrizer's own head, and partly from the text of the above Epistle of Cyril and his 
 Council, on pages 232-240 in the translation in this work. The original Greek there translated 
 does not prove Transubstantiation, but, on the contrary, contradidls it flatly on page 240, 
 where he explicitly states that we do not eat ' the flesh of a Man like one of us, for how will the 
 flesh of a matt be life-producing by its own nature ?" 
 
 And Christ in common with us is a man, and his natural flesh born of Mary was flesh, as 
 the New Testament over and over again teaches, ^^ the flesh of a Man like one of us,'* 
 and not the flesh of an angel ; Heb., ii., 16, " For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels ;^ 
 but He took on Him the seed of Abraham." 
 
 And like ours it was liable to weariness, disease, and death. See what is said above on that 
 matter in note 606, page 287, and in the last subnote, "a." The only thing in which His flesh 
 diflfered from ours was in its being sinless like Adam's flesh when first made and before he 
 fell, only that Christ's flesh ever remained sinless (Heb. iv., 15, ''yet without sin,") and Adam's 
 did not. otherwise both had that flesh and blood which is common to us and to all humanity 
 and in that sense Christ's flesh was so literally human flesh that if any man adtuallj* ate it, he 
 would eat common flesh, and there is no getting away from that conclusion. 
 
 Aye, so literally is it common, though sinless ^^^/z yet, that even after His resurre<flion He 
 ate and drank with it. For in Luke xxiv., 41, 42, 43, we read that " He said unto them. Have 
 ye here any food ? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He 
 took it, and did eat befon' them." And Peter in .'\cts x., 40, 41, writes. "'Him God raised up the 
 third day, and showed Hun openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God. 
 even to us, who did rat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead." See, for further 
 proofs that Chri.st's spiritual b.idy is also a material body, the last subnote "a,''^ and note 606, 
 page 287 above. 
 
308 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 together with His holy Apostles (652). We have been taught to 
 nearly that of Cyril. So the able George Stanley Faber in ''the third edition, 
 
 Let me add further against Kenrick's perversion and falsification of Cyril's docflrine in his 
 Synodal Long Epistle above, i, that on pages 250-260 above, Cyril shows that Christ's Divinity 
 is not on the Holy Table in the Eucharist, is not eaten by us at any time, and is not in us at 
 any time. 
 
 2, That on pages 260 to 276 Cyril teaches most plainly in passage after passage that Christ's 
 flesh'and blood which were born ofMary are not in the Eucharist, are not eaten by us, and 
 that if we could eat them it would be cannibalism, and could do us no good, and that the 
 notion of a literal "^a^2«^o/a7J/a«'5/^^/i" is an '' unholily bringing the minds of believers to 
 notions 0/ wickedness" (page 267 above) ; and " an unlearnedly doing away the force of the mys- 
 iery (page 268), etc. 
 
 3, That God indwells the elements as means of grace to worthy recipients, (a), divinely, but 
 ■relatively only, that is, not by the Substance of His Divinity, but by the infltiences of His Holy 
 Spirit, and (*). humanly also, but relatively only also, that is, by sending " the power of life into 
 the things which lie before us and" changing ''them to the energy of His own flesh," [not to 
 its substance], " in order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking." See page 264 
 above, note, and compare pages 258, 259, 260, and 261. 
 
 And, 4, Cyril's doarine on pages 276 and after, as well as above, is against all worship of 
 any alleged real presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity on the Holy Table, for he denies 
 that it is there at all (pages 250-260 above, note); and against all worship of Christ's humanity, 
 or any part of it there, for he denies that it is there at all. and teaches that neither Christ's 
 separate whole humanity, nor any part of it, may be worshipped there or elsewhere, (pages 
 260-278 above). 
 
 Furthermore, the reader who will take the trouble to compare Kenrick's quotation with 
 the original of it as translated on pages 232-240 inclusive above in the text, and with the Greek, 
 will see how inexact he is. 
 
 So much on that alleged quotation from Cyril. Now let us turn to another, which is still 
 tnore altered and falsified. 
 
 On page 187 of the same Volume III. of his Theologta Dogmatica, Kenrick adduces the fol- 
 lowing alleged passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria as from his Epistle to Coelosyrius, Chapter 
 IV., on Faith {Ep. ad Coelosyrium, c. IV., de Fide). It is adduced by Kenrick as one of 
 several passages to prove his Proposition on page 185, id., that " In the Sacrament of the Euch- 
 arist there remains no substafice of bread and wine, but there is made a wonderful and singular 
 conversion of the whole substatice of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine 
 into the blood, the species only of the bread and wine retnaining, which conversion is most fitly 
 called Transubstantiation by the Catholic Church." 
 
 Now let us turn from this Proposition to the passage which is alleged to be Cyril's, and is 
 quoted to prove it. Translated, this alleged testimony of Cyril as given in Kenrick's Latin, 
 Englished, is as follows : 
 
 " St. Cyril of Alexandria. ' That we may not be horrified at the flesh and blood put upon 
 the sacred altars, God condescending to our weaknesses, causes to flow into the things offered the 
 force of life, converting them into the reality of His own flesh, that the body of the 
 Life, as a sort of seed, may be found in us." 
 
 Now let us see as to this passage. Kenrick gives it as we see, as from St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria's Epistle to Coelosyrius, Chapter IV., on Faith. There is no Epistle of Cyril to Coelosy- 
 rius. but there is one to Calosyrius. In tome 77 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, columns 375 and 
 376, I find it numbered as Cyril's Epistle LXA'AV//.,hut it is not given there among his 
 Epistles; but a remark there tells us that " It is prefixed to the Book [of Cyril] Against the 
 Anthropomorphites, although it has very little connedlion with it." It then refers to tome 76 
 of that Patrologia Graeca for it. There I find that Epistle in columns 1065-1078; but the pas- 
 sage just given above from it by Kenrick is not there at all, nor is it in the work Against the 
 Anthropomorphites which follows it. Nor in Migne's edition is the Epistle divided into Chap- 
 ters, and hence there is no Chapter IV. at all On Faith. And Chapter IV. in the work Against 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 309 
 
 hold these do(5lrines by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and by 
 
 revised and remoulded'' of his Difficulties of Romanism, London, 1853, page 273, 
 
 the Anthropomorphttes is not on Faith, but, as its heading is, ''Against those who say. Are 
 Angels also tnade in the image of God f" See it in column 1084, tome 76 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca. The only chapter in the work on the Eucharist is Chapter IV., which has not Ken- 
 rick's passage, and merely teaches that," The Eucharist should be celebrated in the Catholic 
 churches alone," as the heading reads. 
 
 Kenrick's alleged passage from Cyril seems to be an adulteration of part of that from 
 Cyril's Commentary on Luke, which is given in this work on page 264, note. Whether Ken- 
 rick was guilty of the scoundrelism of adulterating it, or merely took it from some scamp who 
 had, I know not. But I do know that he owed it to God and to His truth to examine it before 
 he endeavored to seduce souls into soul-damning idolatry by it. To show the great difference 
 between Cyril and the alleged Cyril I here parallelize the genuine quotation and the adulter- 
 ated text, which we must remember is given by Kenrick as a quotation in quotation marks. 
 
 The Adulterated Passage as given by 
 Kenrick in his Latin translation: 
 
 " That we may not be horrified at the flesh 
 and blood put upon the sacred altars. God, 
 condescending to our weaknesses, causes to 
 flow into the things offered the force of life, 
 converting them into the reality of His own 
 flesh, that the body of the Life, as a sort of 
 seed, may be found in us." 
 
 The Genuine Passage, from Cyril on 
 Luke, as in the original Greek • 
 
 ' 'That we may not be stupefied [with horror] 
 by seeing flesh and blood lying before us on 
 the Holy Tables of the Churches, God, conde- 
 scending to our weaknesses, sends the power 
 of life into the things which lie before us, and 
 changes them to the energy of His own flesh, 
 in order that we may have them for a life-giv- 
 ing partaking, and that the body of the Life 
 may be found in us as a life-giving seed." 
 
 Here in this short passage we find the following errors and changes: 
 
 1. The title of the work from which Kenrick professes to take the passage is wrongly 
 given, as though the adulterator would take the investigator off the right scent and put him 
 on a false one where he would never find it, and so never discover the adulteration. 
 
 2. The adulterator puts' flesh and blood upon the sacred altars." Cyril denies that they 
 are on th& Holy Tables of the Churches,'' and does not in this passage use altars at all. 
 
 3. Cyril, speaking of what he had just termed in this passage '■ leavened bread and wine,''* 
 mentions them here as ' the things which lie before us;" see page 264 above. 
 
 The corrupter omits the first expression, and changes the last to " the things offered." 
 
 4. What is very important, Cyril, to show that the bread and wine are made vehicles of 
 the quickening and life-giving influences of the Holy Spirit, writes that. " God. condescending 
 to our weaknesses, sends the power of life into the things which lie before us, and changes 
 them to the energy of His own flesh in order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking 
 and that the body of the Life may be found in us as a life-giving seed," that is that the quicken- 
 ing influences of that Spirit by Which He relatively indwells us, may abide in us to sanctify us 
 and to save us, and that His body of leavened bread, and His blood of wine may, so to speak, 
 become part and parcel of our bodies. 
 
 But this Cyrillian and spiritual sense would not do for our carnally minded Romish alterer, 
 and so in order to unholily britig the minds of believers to notions of wickedness (page 267 
 above), that is. to what St. Cyril calls cannibalism (page 262. 263 above\ from his very great lack 
 of learning {■p&gt. 270), he unlearnedly does atvay the force of the mystery (page 268), and in 
 order to attain his ends of deceiving the guileless, he changes '' the energy oi Yl\s own flesh" 
 into '' the reality oiYiA^oviW. flesh," and omits the reference to spiritual partaking in the words, 
 "in order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking." This is quoting with a ven- 
 geance for the alteration of ^w^^Xj/ into r<'a/?/'v alters the whole sense. The context, as in the 
 note on pages 263, 264 above, which is unfavorable to Transubstantiation the adulterator 
 finds it convenient to omit altogether. 
 
 I have given in parallel columns above the English rendering of Kenrick's adulterated 
 
310 
 
 Act I. of Ephestis, 
 
 all the God-inspired Scripture, and out of the true Confession (653) 
 
 adduces the same passage well against Transubstantiation. So far lie is right, 
 but he evidently did not know that its doctrine is the Nestonan Consubstantia- 
 tion and the Nestonan worship of Christ's separate humanity, or of His separate 
 flesh and blood, which St. Cyril and Bphesus condemned as being a part of the 
 Nestonan Apostasy as the Canons of Ephesus style Nestorius' heresy. And had 
 the learned William Goode known that, he would not have tried, as he does, to 
 make out that they are not Consubstantiation and Creature- Worship, for his 
 effort was, so far, a failure. We must, therefore, so far as the witness of Theodo- 
 ret is concerned, remember that he was a Nestorian heretic and creature-wor- 
 shipper and never quote his Nestorian utterances as favoring Orthodoxy, or as 
 other than condemned by the whole Church in its Third Council. We may, 
 however, quote his anticipative witness against Transubstantiation, which did 
 not then exist, and is also anticipatively condemned in that Synod. 
 
 In brief, while in the great Anglican champions against Rome's errors on 
 the Eucharist we shall find still very much that is very valuable because it is in 
 thorough accord with St. Cyril and Ephesus, nevertheless, with fuller light on 
 Ephesus and its decisions than they had, we must in some few things improve 
 by laying aside such expressions as Real Presence, which happily is mot in the 
 Anglican formularies, and maintain all the Four Heads above of Cyril's dodlrine. 
 If we do, we shall agree in the main with the English Reformers whom the 
 Holy Ghost guided in their struggle against Rome's idolatry into a most remark- 
 able degree of agreement with the Eucharistic teachings of St. Cyril of Alexan- 
 dria and the Decision of Ephesus for them. Most clear in the Long Epistle 
 above is St. Cyril's condemnation of Nestorius' Cannibalism^ and in Passage 18, 
 
 ]l,atin translation and my English of the Greek original. I here append the Latin of Kenrick 
 and the Greek of Cyril side by side, that the Scholar may see how vilely St. Cyril has been mis- 
 represented by the falsifier. 
 
 The Adulterated Passage of Cyril as 
 ^iven by Kenrick in his Latin trans- 
 lation, on page 187, Vol. III. of his 
 Theologia Dogmatica. 
 
 S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. "Ne 
 horreremus carnem et sanguinem ap- 
 posita sacris altaribus, condescendens 
 Deus nostris fragilitatibus, influit ob- 
 latis vim vitae, convertens EA in 
 VERITATEM PROPRiAE CARNis, ut Cor- 
 pus vitae, quasi quoddam semen, inven- 
 iatur in nobis." I have here given capi- 
 tals only where Kenrick has. As has 
 been said, he gives this passage on the 
 same page 187, in note 3 as from Cyril's 
 ^'Ep. ad Coelosyrium, c. IV., de Fide.^^ 
 
 The Genuine Passage from Cyril on 
 Luke, as in the original Greek, column 
 909, tome 72 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca. "\va yap nfj aTrovapKr/oufiev, 
 adpKa re koL aijia TrpoKtl/neva ^TieTzovre^ kv 
 dyiaig rpairs^aig hKiOiTjGMv^ cvyKaOiOTafxevog 
 6 Qeog ralg ^juererepai^ aaBevdaiq, hvlrjaL 
 Tolg TTpoKecjuevoig dvvajuiv (of/q^ koI fiedlaTT/aiv 
 avra Trpbg evepyetav rijg savrov aapKoq 'iva elg 
 fiWe^iv ^cooTTOLOv £;\;cj//ev avTa, /cat olov 
 CTzkpfia l^cjoTToiov ev rjfilv evpedy to cufia rfjq 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius, 311 
 
 of the blessed Fathers (654). And it behooves thy piety also, with- 
 
 quoted from his writings, it is made one of the grounds for his condemnation, 
 as is his charge against the Orthodox of eating Christ's Divinity. Those two 
 things, of themselves, condemn all Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation 
 views, and the worship of Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist, for Cyril, as on 
 pages 250-260 of this note, shows that It is not Substancely present in the Rite at 
 all. And let us remember that part, if not all of Cyril's four denials of Its real 
 presence there were public before the Bishops at Ephesus decided, and that at 
 least two of them must have been known to them, and in all probability guided 
 their decision on the matter, as was the case with other utterances of his against 
 Cannibalism, on pages 260-276. Christ hath therefore spoken through the whole 
 Apostolate East and West, and the do(5lrine of Ephesus abides forever. 
 
 I would add as to the Originators or Formulators of the aforesaid views, and 
 the dates of their formulation as follows: 
 
 The Dodlrine of Ephesus was originated by Christ Himself, and set forth 
 by the whole Church there in A. D. 431. 
 
 As to the Eucharistic Heresies which oppose it, but nevertheless differ end- 
 lessly among themselves, I would say that the authors of both the Transubstan- 
 tiation views were image worshippers and creature invokers and Host worship- 
 pers. 
 
 So were the authors of all the Consubstantiation views, except Luther, who 
 however, I judge, worshipped the Host, that is, if he continued to hold a view 
 to that effect, asserted by him in his Lib. ad. Wald, and quoted by Pusey on page 
 53 of his work on The DoElrine of the Real Presence. 
 
 The advocates of the Symbolic View, and those who pleaded for the Calvin- 
 istic, were free from those sins of Image Worship, Host Worship and other Crea- 
 ture-Worship. 
 
 The dates of the Formulation of the Real Presence yie^vis are as follows: 
 
 View. When Formulated. By Whom. 
 
 The Roman Transubstantiation. A. D. 1215. The Fourth Lateran 
 
 Synod, which was 
 merely Western and 
 local. 
 
 The Greek Transubstantiation. A. D. 1643. Goreek Patriarchs and the 
 
 Russian (page 126, Part 
 I of Kimmel's Mo7iu- 
 menta Fidei Eccl. Ori- 
 ent.')'^ and by the Synod 
 of Jerusalem, A. D. 1672 
 (Kimmel, id., Part i, 
 pages 458-462); both 
 which were merely 
 Eastern and local. 
 
312 ^<^i I' of Ephesus. 
 
 out any guile, to agree with all these things (655). And we have 
 
 The Nestorian Consubstantiation. About A. D. 430. By Nestorius and his dis- 
 ciple Theodoret. 
 
 Luther's Consubstantiation. After A. D. 15 17. By Luther and some 
 
 Lutherans. 
 
 Keble's Consubstantiation. After A. D. 1852. By Denison (who was con- 
 
 demned for it by the 
 Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury in A. D. 1856 or 
 1857), by Keble, Pusey, 
 and by Bishop Forbes 
 of Brechin, who was 
 condemned for it by the 
 Scotch Bishops in A. D. 
 1858. 
 Real Absence views, which approach much nearer to Cyril's teaching on 
 
 the Eucharist: 
 
 View. When Formulated. By Whom. 
 
 Zwingli's Symbolic. After A. D. 1517. By Zwingli and others. 
 
 Calvin's Symbolic and Energy view. After A. D. 1517. By Calvin and others. 
 
 We see then that one Real Presence view and the idolatry of worshipping 
 the Host came in as early as the Fifth Century. And when we first find it in 
 Theodoret clearly as above quoted, it seems to have been as firmly seated in 
 then corrupt Syria as the other Nestorian heresies of denial of the Incarnation, 
 and tne worship of Christ's separate humanity were. They began with Diodore 
 of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the heretics, and so possibly did Theo- 
 doret' s heresy on the Eucharist, though it does not appear till the Fifth Cen- 
 tury. Ambrose and Augustine also are quoted by Keble for that Nestorian 
 idolatry, but I am not as yet convinced that the passages quoted from them are 
 genuine. If they are, we must class them as so far Nestorian against St. Cyril 
 and Ephesus, and therefore as so far condemned and as heretics. If other pas- 
 sages quoted from them be genuine, they were invokers, that is, worshippers of 
 creatures, and so were heretics on that also, and apostates from Christ to 
 Creature-Worship, and condemned by Cyril and by Ephesus. But we must 
 always follow Ephesus and anathematize every individual writer who opposes 
 it by his private or local opinions. They can not bind the Church — Ephesus 
 does. 
 
 And always after Theodoret's time, a tendency to creature-worship in other 
 matters was accompanied by a tendency to Real Presence heresies and to the 
 Worship of the alleged Host; whereas a tendency to worship God alone, and to 
 abominate all idolatry, has been accompanied generally by a tendency to reject 
 all Real Presence errors and Host worship, and to draw near to the dodtrines on 
 the Lord's Supper enunciated by St. Cyril of Alexandria, and approved by the 
 
Reading of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nestorius. 313 
 
 subjoined to this, our epistle, those things which it is necessary that 
 thy piety shall anathematize." [They are as follows]: 
 
 Third Ecumenical Council; for the paganizer naturally takes to the paganizing 
 of the Kucharist as the Orthodox as naturally takes to the sound decisions on it 
 enunciated by the whole Church at Ephesus, A. D. 431. This is the more 
 remarkable because, so far as appears, the English Reformers and Restorers 
 (now enjoying their reward in Heaven with the Reformers and Restorers, Elijah, 
 Elisha, Josiah, and Hezekiah), and the other Reformers of the Sixteenth Cen- 
 tury, were not aware of the precise nature of the Eucharistic controversy be- 
 tween Cyril and Nestorius, nor of the Decision of Ephesus on it. 
 
 I had hoped to contrast the impious and absurd consequences of Real Pres- 
 ence views with the pious and rational consequences of the Orthodox dodlrine 
 of St. Cyril and of Ephesus, but must leave that for the Dissertation on the 
 Eucharist in this Set, or refer to some of them on Passage 18 of Nestorius, 
 quoted in the above Act I. of Ephesus further on. See Note E, page 517. 
 
 (607), page 241. Gxeoky viroG-aaeai] that is, ** Beings,^^ or '^Hypostases.** 
 (608), page 242. Greek, TzpoaoiTToiq. 
 (609), page 245. Or, "befits God.'' 
 
 (610), page 246. John xiv., 9. \ 
 
 (611), page 246. John x., 30. 
 
 (612), page 247. John x., 30; John xvii., 11, 21, 22, 23. 
 (613), page 247. 11. Cor. iv., 4; Col. i., 15; Heb. i., 3, Greek, 
 (614), page 248. John viii., 40. 
 (615), page 253. Philip, ii., 7. 
 
 (616), page 254. Greek, ''Evl roiyapovv rrpoauTTG) rd^ kv Tolg EvayyelioLq iraaa^ 
 dvadereov (fxjvdg^ vTroardaei fiig rri tov Koyov GEGapKtojuevrj. Kvpiog ydp elf 'IrjGovg XptGTogy 
 Kara Tdg Tpa(pdg. It is clear from this that Cyril uses Person and Subsistence in 
 this passage for God the Word alone, and for nothing but his Divine and 
 Eternal Substance, not at all for the Man whom He put on. For the Person 
 and Subsistence here mentioned is He Who has infleshed Himself in the flesh 
 put on; that is the Person and Subsistence Who has put on flesh, is the Divine 
 and Eternal Word. And of course the Eternal Word was a perfect Person, that 
 is Subsistence, before He put on flesh. 
 (617), page 254. I. Cor. viii., 6. 
 (618), page 255. Or, '^ should be called,'" KokolTo. 
 
 (619), page 255. Heb. iii., i. The Greek word ap;t^fpfi'c, here used, 
 should be rendered, as it means chief herv, that is, chief sacreder, that is, 
 chief performer of sacred a(5ls, that is, Chief Priest. 
 
 (620), page 255 — Greek, kpovpyiii), that is "performing the sacred adl 
 of," etc. 
 
 (621), page 256— Note 28, page 29 of P. E. Pusey's " Three Epistles of S. 
 Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria,''' informs us that the Greek for the words, 
 
314: Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Thk TweivVK Chapters, that is, the Twelve Anathe- 
 
 MAS"I I 
 
 l'. If any one does not acknowledge that the Immanuel (656) 
 
 ''And moreover to the Holy Spirit also,'' are omitted in the Version of 
 [Marius] Mercator, but are found in Greek Codexes. I quote his utterance 
 there: "Verba koL firjv koL elq to ayiov irvevjua Mercatoris versione forte non sine 
 ratione omissa, exhibent codices Graeci nostri et ed. Comm. et (ut videtur) 
 Versio Latina in codice Cassinensi. " 
 
 Origen in his work against Celsus speaks of the Christians of his time as 
 sometimes offering their prayers to the Son the Mediator, and asking Him to 
 present them to the Father. I have quoted passages on this point from it 
 elsewhere in this work. See below on Anathema X. 
 
 The above Greek may, however, be rendered, ** And moreover to the Holy 
 Spirit also." It may also be rendered as in the text, "And moreover 
 [offered by us] in the Holy Spirit also," and may then mean that we offer to the 
 Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit, that is, by Its aid. Robinson in his 
 Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testame7it, under cif, 4, shows that 
 ^Iq with the accusative is often used where we expect to find h with the dative. 
 The first rendering might make the Son a Mediator between the Holy Ghost 
 and Man, which is perhaps the reason why Pusey says in the Latin in this note 
 above that "The words, * A7id moreover to ' (as he may have taken them) ' the 
 Holy Ghost also,' are omitted in the [Latin] translation of Mercator, perhaps 
 not without reason. ' ' He seems to deem it a confounding the office- work of the 
 three Persons of the Trinity, on the ground that the Father sits on the throne, 
 that the Son alone of all in heaven intercedes for us (I. Tim. ii., 5; Heb. vii., 
 25; Heb. ix., 24; Rom. viii., 34; and I. John ii., i, 2), whereas the Holy Ghost, 
 sent as His Vicar by the Son after His ascension to heaven again, is on earth to 
 strengthen us spiritually and physically and to help us to pray (John xiv., 16, 
 17, 18, 26; John XV., 26, and John xvi., 7-16; Rom. viii., 26; and Eph. vi., 18, 
 where we 'read of a Christian's praying on earth always with all prayer and 
 supplication in the Spirit, and watching in It [or, for If] {ev nvevfiarc, Kai ek ahro) 
 with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints. ' ' On Romans viii. , 26, 
 see Whitby in his Commentary, who makes Intercession in heaven for men pre. 
 rogative to the Son, and Rom. viii,, 26, to refer to the Spirit's help given to us 
 on earth. Perhaps the avrh to nvevfxa vTvepevTvyxdvet there may be best rendered, 
 ''The Spirit Itself pleads in us for us with unutterable groani7igsr which 
 would make the sense clear for the idea that the Spirit's work is on earth, and 
 in our hearts, and by miracles now as of old (I. Cor. xii., 10, 11), and for the 
 dodlrine that all intercession for men in heaven is prerogative to the Son. The 
 cry of the martyrs under the altar in heaven for vengeance on their murderers 
 (Rev. vi., 9-12), does not make against the doArine that Christ is the only 
 Intercessor in Heaven for us which follows from the fact that He is the only 
 Mediator (I. Tim. ii., 5), for that cry is not a plea for mercy, but a petition for 
 vengeance; and moreover, it did not succeed in getting instant punishment on 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nes tortus. 315 
 
 is really God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin was Bringer- Forth - 
 
 those murderers, nor will it till Christ shall come in judgment. As the High 
 Priest alone could enter the Holy of Holies to intercede for Israel, so no one can 
 intercede in heaven, the Holy of Holies above, for the Israel of the New and Bet- 
 ter Covenant, except our Great High Priest (Heb. ix. ; Exod. xxx., lo; I^evit. 
 2vi., 17 and the whole chapter). It is prerogative to God the Son, as the Uni- 
 versal Church teaches in the Xth Anathema of Cyril of Alexandria, which was 
 approved by the Third Ecumenical Council with the above Epistle, of which it 
 forms part. See below where that Anathema is explained against the idea of a 
 mere Man being our Intercessor. 
 
 A private notion of some Fathers, not that we should invoke the Saints, but, 
 nevertheless, that after their deaths they pray for us is false, therefore, and con- 
 demned; and so is the error that we may go further and pray to the Father or to 
 the Son to hear their prayers for us, an evil custom which at some later time 
 gained admission to one or more Eastern Liturgies, for it is in effect dishonoring 
 to the all-sufl&ciency of Christ's intercession on high (Heb. vii., 25); and presup- 
 poses the lie that mere creatures can share it. We must not be surprised at 
 finding in Eastern and in Western Liturgies invocations of creatures, for those 
 liturgies are corrupt, and the oldest manuscripts of them which have reached us 
 belong to the corrupt middle ages. On that point Warren, in his article Sigfi of the 
 Cross, page 1897, outer column, of Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Chris- 
 Han Antiquities^ remarks, 
 
 "Most of the ritual writers and most missals and manuals, at all events in 
 their present form, are of a later date than the 9th century." No copy of any 
 liturgy with such invocations in it belongs to the early Church. Much less does 
 any copy of any liturgy which has direct invocation of saints in it. 
 
 As to still another non-primitive custom, that of invoking saints themselves 
 -diredlly, it is in effect anathematized in Cyril's Anathema VIIL, and in An- 
 athema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod and in its Definitio7i, for if it be 
 what that Definition terms the cri^ne of worshipping a Man, to bow to the sepa- 
 rate humanity of God the Word, which is the highest and best of all mere 
 creatures, it is a fortiori Man- Worship to give the act of prayer, a very common, 
 aye, the most common act of religious service, to any lesser creature. For by 
 Christ's own blessed law in Matt, iv., 10, all adls of religious service are prerog- 
 ative to God alone. 
 
 Besides, there is a glory in the Sole Mediator which is not in a mere creature, 
 for He is the omniscient God to hear millions of prayers offered to him at the 
 same moment, and to know the hearts and motives and wants of His invokers, 
 and to judge of the wisdom or folly of their petitions, and to do his work of 
 intercession wisely and perfetflly accordingly; and at the same time He is Man 
 to be touched with the feeling of our infirmities (Heb. iv., 15), and to sympath- 
 ize with us. And no creature can have His Divine and infinite attributes, and 
 therefore no creature can be such an intercessor as we need. 
 
316 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 of God (657) for she brought forth in a fleshly way the Word, Who 
 
 I would add that Nestorius, as quoted by St. Cyril in Se6lion 2, Book IV. of 
 his Five-Book Contradidlion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, asserts in effect 
 that his mere human Christ ''chose out'' the apostles, that " the Father sancti- 
 fied ' ' them, and * * the Spirit made them orators. ' ' See the context fully. 
 
 But Cyril, jealous for the preeminence of the Logos as God in that Man, 
 denies that any creature, even that perfect Man, may do any work prerogative to 
 God and contends that whatever was done by Christ was done ''by the Father, 
 through the Son, by the Spirit, eKaara ruv Spofievcov 7re7rpdx6ai 6iaf3E(3aiovfievo^ napd 
 Uarpbg 61' Ttov ev JIvev/iaTi. This, of course, makes against the giving of any 
 part of the Intercessory, that is, Mediatorial work of Christ in heaven to the 
 Virgin Mary or any other creature. For Christ's Intercessory work in heaven is 
 as much prerogative to the Logos in heaven as His sacrifice on Calvary was, and 
 is prerogative to Him. See on such points Cyril's XII Anathemas at the end of 
 this Epistle, and especially Anathemas VIII., X. and XI. These fadls are too 
 much forgotten. Those Anathemas, with all the above Bpistle, being approved 
 by the Third Council, are part of the infallible dodtrine of the Universal Church,, 
 and it is heresy to contradict them. 
 
 (622), page 258. Greek, kpucvvTjg. 
 
 (623), page 258. That is the Word. Compare Anathema X. below in this 
 same Letter, and Cyril's Five Books Against Nestorius. 
 
 (624), page 259. Greek, evodiaq^ literally, " a pleasant smell,'" or "an agree- 
 able smelV It is quoted from Philip, iv., 18. 
 
 (625), page 261. Heb. x., 5-8. The Greek of verse 6 is b7.0KavT6)fiaTa koI irepl 
 dfiaprlag ovk ijvdoKrjaag. That is the lecSlion of Tischendorf in his Greek New 
 Testament, Editio O^ava Critica Major. The Latin Vulgate as in Lee's 
 Biblia Sacra Potyglotta renders it, Holocautomatapro peccato non tibi placuerunt. 
 But the German, Italian and French versions there given agree with the English. 
 The Greek admits either rendering. 
 
 (626), page 263. Rom. iii., 23. 
 
 (627), page 264. Greek, Kai KaTifppuaTrjcev 1) dv6po)Trov (piiaig ttjv d/xaprlav.. 
 The Latin translation of Marius Mercator, page 31 in P. E. Pusey's Three Epistles 
 of S. Cyril, is "et peccatis aegrotavit humana natura." 
 
 (628), page 264. That is, God the Word. 
 
 (629), page 265. Rom. iii., 23. 
 
 (630), page 265. The Word, to Whom Cyril ascribes the suflferings, etc., of 
 the Man put on by Him. 
 
 (631), page 268. John xvi., 14. 
 
 (632), page 269. " Himself,'''' here means God the Word. 
 
 (633), page 270. That is, the Divine and Eternal Word. 
 
 (634), page 272. That is, ** in Its own Substance;'''' that is, "in its own Hy- 
 postasis," that is, " in Its own Person;" Greek, tv i'TTocTdaec * * * iSiKy. 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 317 
 
 had come out of God and been made flesh (658), let him be anath- 
 ema (659). 
 
 (635), page 274. Greek, Xpicrrdf, that is Anointed, an appellation which, 
 though it refers to the Man put on by the Word, is nevertheless applied, as all 
 the expressions relating to that Man are, to the Word, the dominant and infi- 
 nitely Superior Nature in the Son. That is in accordance with the dodlrine of 
 Bconomic Appropriation. 
 
 He calls Himself " the Truth " in John xiv., 6. 
 
 (636), page 274. See the last note above. 
 
 (637), page 275. Adls ii., 33; Eph. iv., 8. 
 
 (638), page 276. John xv., 26. Cyril's Greek here is, koL TrpoxslTai nap* 
 avTov^ Kaddnep a/i£?ieL Kal sk Qeov koL liarpoq. Pusey has tov before Qeov. 
 
 The Greek, literally translated, is as follows: ^' And It [the Spirit] is poured 
 forth from Him [God the Word] as [It is] certainly out of the God and Father y 
 P. E. Pusey, with the Romanizing leaning common to him and his father, and 
 with a desire seemingly to please Rome by favoring her do6lrine of the Double 
 Procession of the Spirit, renders the above place, ^^ And He proceedethfrom 
 Him, just as from God the Father,''' P. E. Pusey 's " Three Epistles of S. 
 Cyril,''' page 67. But the Greek there is not sKTropevETai,, proceedeth, that is, goeth 
 out, as in John xv. , 26, which many think refers to the coming of the Spirit out 
 of the Father before the creation to act as the agent of God the Word in making 
 the worlds (Genesis i., 2; Psalm xxxiii., 6; compare Isaiah xl. , 12, 13, 14, and II. 
 Peter iii., 5). God the Father is mentioned as pouring out His Spirit in time on 
 men long centuries after It had first gone out of the Father; as, for instance, in 
 the Old Testament period, in Isaiah xliv., 3; Joel ii., 28, 29; compare Peter's 
 application of that passage in A6ls ii., 4, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39; Zech, xii., 10; Isaiah 
 xxxii.. 15; and Ezek., xxxix., 29. So in the New Testament, Christ predicfled 
 that the Father would send the Holy Ghost in His name (John xiv., 26); and the 
 Redeemer explained this more fully when He promised His Apostles to ''send 
 unto ' ' them * 'from, the Father the Spirit of Truth which goeth out of the 
 Father, ' ' 6 ITapd/i/l^y-of ov kyh Tre/itxpo) vfuv napa tov Ilarpog, to Uvevfxa ttj^ 'Alr^Oelag Tzapa 
 TOV HaTpbg EKTropevsTai (John xv., 26). 
 
 The Father is the sole source of Divinity, the Spirit comes out of Him, and 
 is sent in time by the Son, in the Gospel Dispensation; compare John xvi., 7 
 and A6ls ii., 33, to the same eff"ect as to the sending from the Father by the Son 
 in time. And Christ's promise to send the Spirit and to endue them, "ivith 
 power from, on high" (Luke xxiv., 49) was fulfilled at Pentecost when He shed 
 forth the Spirit for the first time under the New Testament and Covenant, after 
 He had sealed it by His blood (Heb. ix., 15, 16 and 17; Adls ii., 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 
 33), when the Spirit, promised by the Father in Joel under the Old Testament 
 was, in fact, sent from the Father by God the Son adling as His agent; and the 
 Holy Ghost thus sent, then and after wrought all the miracles (I, Cor. xii., 1-13). 
 This is easily explained by Cyril's didlum, which is based on a careful examina- 
 tion of Scripture, that whatsoever the Father does He does through the Son by 
 
318 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 II. If any one does not acknowledge that the Word [who came] 
 
 the Spirit. The pouring out of the Spirit by the Father, if we supply, as I have 
 in the text, '' poured forth,'" may be taken as referring to what occurred under 
 the Old Testament and under the New, and perhaps also to Its going out of the 
 Father before the worlds. If we omit poured forth, and supply as I have " // 
 f^, " the meaning may be made a little different, and may refer to Its coming 
 out of the Father before all the worlds to make them. 
 
 To conclude: the pouring- out by the Son was done after His ascension: the 
 coming of the Spirit out of the Father was before the worlds were made and to 
 make them. See Tertullian's testimony on that matter in the Dissertation on 
 Eternal Birth to be issued hereafter, if God will. As Tertullian, like all the 
 Ante-Nicene Christian writers, outside of the Alexandrian School, rejects the 
 notion of the Eternal birth of God the Word out of the Father, so he rejedts the 
 idea of the Eternal Procession of the Spirit out of the Father, and the dodtrine 
 of the Double Procession. 
 
 (639), page 281. John xvi., 14. ''He shall receive'' refers to the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 (640), page 285. Cyril here ends his treatment of the dodlrine of God the 
 Word's use of the Holy Spirit's office work, which is summed up in his Anath- 
 ema IX. below. On the office work of the Spirit see I. Cor. xii., where the 
 Apostle explains it at length. What next follows is a setting forth of the 
 Bri7iger-Forth of God do6lrine, which is summed up in Anathema I. below. On 
 page 282 of the text above, on the expression " by partaking;' ItqtK fieroxm, 
 compare note 563, page 218 above, on the similar expression, wf KaTo. fieOe^Lv 
 GxeriK/'/v, "as by relative participation," or ''as by relative partaking," and note 
 156, pages 61-69, and especially pages 64, 65, where I. Cor., vi. 17 is quoted 
 again. See also page 66. Those notes, however, speak specially of the Nes- 
 torian errors on the Incarnation and their sequences. 
 
 The meaning in the text above seems to be that the Holy Spirit does not 
 derive His wisdom and power from the Logos, but that they inhere in His 
 Divine and Eternal Nature as Very God, the Coeternal and Consubstantial 
 Spirit of the Father. 
 
 (641), page 287 above. Greek, Ka& vTroaTaatv. That union of God the Word's 
 Divine and Eternal Substance to the Man whom He put on in Mary's womb, is 
 sometimes called the Personal Union, because the Person of God the Word put 
 on that Man, and since then we speak of One Person and Two Natures. Before 
 the Word took flesh He was One Person and is still, but in flesh. It is 
 called also the Hypostatic Union, because the Eternal Substance {y-Koaraaiq) 
 of the Logos put on that Man in Mary's womb and came into this world in him 
 out of her. And therefore, to guard the truth of the Incarnation, she is spoken 
 of not as "Mother of God " (7) l^irnp rov Osov), but as " Bring er- Forth of God " 
 {QmroKoq'). That expression is designed also to guard against Man-Worship 
 {av^puTTo'haTQtki) by teaching, as Cyril does, that the Magi worshipped not a mere 
 human babe (Matt, ii., 11), but the Emmanuel, which the Holy Ghost explains 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 319 
 
 out of God the Father has been united by His Substance (660) to flesh, 
 
 in Matt, i., 23, to mean " God with us,'' that is God the Word with us. The 
 Nestorian interpretation made their act mere worship of a creature, con- 
 trary to Chrisit's immutable and infallible law in Matt, iv., lo,- Thou shalt bow to 
 the Lord thy God, and Hifn only shalt thou serve. Hence Nestorius, deeming 
 that God was not born out of the Virgin (Cyril of Alexandria's Five-Book Con- 
 tradition of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book i., Sedlion i., page 11 of the 
 Oxford English translation), denied that " 77^^ Zc^^j * * * (as a child) 
 was wrapped in swaddling clothes,''' and exclaimed, ** Never will I call a child, 
 two or three juonihs old, God," {See Hefele's History of the Church Councils, 
 English translation. Vol. III., pages 15 and 44). The inevitable outcome of his 
 position, therefore, was mere creature-worship on the part of the Wise Men from 
 the East, in Matt. ii. 2. Hefele, however, being a Romanist, and therefore a 
 creature-worshipper, does not always state the full truth as to the doctrine of 
 St. Cyril and the Third Synod against that sin. 
 (642), page 288. Greek, QtoroKcq. 
 (643), page 291. John i., i, 2, 3, 14; Heb. i., 2. 
 (644), page 294. See note 641 above. 
 (645), page 296. Greek, <5m rrjv Idlav (pvaiv. 
 (646), page 297. Heb. i., 2; Galat. iv., 4; Eph. i., 10. 
 (647), page 301. Gen. iii., 19. 
 (648), page 301. II. Tim. i., 10. 
 (649), page 302. Gen. iii., 16. 
 
 (650), page 305. Isaiah, xxv., 8. Cyril quotes the Septuagint, the common 
 translation in his language. It dififers slightly from the English. According to 
 the Septuagint here, there seems to be a contrast intended between the ravages 
 of death on the one hand, and the mercy of God on the other in wiping away 
 tears and in comforting. The meaning would be that though men die, yet death's 
 ravages shall forever cease and joy take the place of tears in the case of every 
 Christian. The sense is, therefore, not widely different from our Common 
 English Version. Compare Hosea xiii., 14; I. Cor. xv., 54, where the aforesaid 
 passage of Isaiah is referred to; Heb. ii., 14, 15, and Rev. xx., 14. 
 (651), page 306. Greek, olKovofj.iKcjg, 
 (652), page 308. John ii., 1-12. 
 (653), page 310. Or, " by the true Confession." 
 
 (654), page 311. The Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod is meant, but 
 perhaps that and the whole dodlrine of the Fathers on Christ are included. 
 Cyril, it will be remembered, gives the Creed of the 318 in full above, and 
 reasons against Nestorianism from its Orthodox sense. 
 
 (655), page 312. Or, according to P. E. Pusey's Greek text, "And it 
 behooves thy piety to co-praise all these things a?id to agree to them without any 
 guile.'* 
 
320 ^'^^ ^- ^f £^pfi^sus. 
 
 and that He is One Anointed (66i) within His own flesh (662), that 
 
 (656), page 314. Greek, tov '^[imvovrjl, that is, a.s the Emmanuel means, the 
 " God with us:' Matt, i., 23, that is, God the Word. See on Emmmiuel, page 
 291, above, subnote "«." 
 
 (657), page 316. Greek, Qzotokov. On this expression and Anathema I. see 
 the text above, pages 286-313, and the notes there. Compare also in St. Cyril's 
 Shorter Epistle, text above, pages 60-112, and the notes there, and the Epistle 
 ofNestoriustoCyril, pages 155-166, and the Counter Anathema I. among the 
 XII. which are ascribed to Nestorius. They are to be found on pages 242-245 
 of the second edition of Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole, Breslau, 1877. 
 
 As I have already prepared much matter on St. Cyril's Ecumenically 
 approved XII. Anathemas, which is altogether too voluminous to quote here, I 
 must defer it to a separate volume or volumes. Those Anathemas form a 
 most important and most interesting theme. I will quote below a set of Counter 
 Anathemas ascribed to Nestorius. On them Hefele, in his History of the 
 Church Councils^ Vol. III., page 34, English translation, remarks: 
 
 ''Nestorius published, on his part, twelve anathematisms, representing 
 Cyril as a heretic. These have been preserved for us only by the Western lay- 
 man, Marius Mercator, who took a great interest in both the Pelagian and tbe 
 Nestorian controversies, on the Orthodox side, and employed his residence for 
 the transadlion of business in Constantinople, in translating the sermons and 
 writings of Nestorius into Latin, so as to make them more accessible to the 
 Westerns." Hefele adds that each number of these Counter Anathematisms 
 corresponds with the same number of Cyril's. They are found in Latin only. 
 See them in the second edition of Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole, pages 242- 
 245, whence I translate them. 
 
 I confess that, inasmuch as they are deemed to be before the Council, and as 
 I find no mention of them in the Council, I have been incHned to have my 
 doubts as to Nestorius being their author. And, furthermore, if Marius Mercator 
 translated them into Latin, the question occurs, Were they a work of some other 
 Nestorian or not ? I reserve these matters for further investigation, and hope to 
 give the results in time. The Latin text seems almost hopelessly corrupt. I 
 give below the first of them. I have sometimes preferred the readings in Hahn's 
 notes to those in his text. 
 
 Nestorius' Counter Anathema I: 
 
 " If any says that He who is Emmanuel is God the Word, and not rather 
 God with us [Matt, i., 23I, that is, that He [God the Word] dwelt in that nature 
 which is like ours, inasmuch as He was united to our lump [Rom. xi., 16] which 
 He took from the Virgin Mary, and names the Holy Virgin, Mother of God the 
 Word, and not rather of Him who is Emma^iuel, and [asserts] that God the 
 Word Himself was turned into flesh, which He took for the showing of His own 
 Deity, that He might h^ found in fashioii as a Man [Philip ii., 8], let him be 
 anathema." 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nesto^dus. 321 
 
 is, that the same One is both God and Man together, let him be 
 anathema (663). 
 
 Mother of God the Word I suppose to have been Oeord/cof, Bringer-Forth of 
 God, in the Greek. Emmanuel, that is, God with us, in Nestorius' sense leaves 
 Christ a mere human being, indwelt, as the Prophets and Apostles were, not by 
 the Substance of God the Word, but by the influences of His Spirit only. 
 
 (658), page 317. John i., 14. 
 
 (659), page 317. This language is perfe<5lly Scriptural. The Greek is 
 avddefxa earo), and is rendered in Galatians i., 8, 9, by " tet him be accursed,'' as it 
 really means; and is there a proclaiming anticipatively by the inspired Apostle, 
 Paul, of God's curse on Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Kutyches, Pope Honorius, 
 and on every other heretic who has been condemned by any of the Six Holy- 
 Ghost-led Councils of the Whole Church, West and Kast. And Paul, in order 
 to warn men against unbelief and heresy, not in hatred but in love, writes again 
 by the Holy Ghost, in I. Cor. xvi., 22, ''If any one love not the Lord Jesus 
 A7wi7tted, let him be anathema" [that is 'Het him be accursed''^ ''Maran-atha,'' 
 [that is, ''the Lord cometh''\ The Universal Church, guided by the Holy 
 Ghost according to Christ's promises, has always used the anathema rightly and 
 in love to warn men of the doom of the errorist who resists the just decisions of 
 the God-appointed and Holy-Spirit-guided Supreme Court of Sound Christen- 
 dom, the Ecumenical Synod of Christ's God-alone-invoking Orthodox Bishops, 
 for no creature-invoker, host-worshipper, or image-worshipper may sit in it. 
 
 And if any man would see how often God has cursed sinners to warn them, 
 lethimlookin any Concordance under a/r^^, etc. Take, forinstance, Deut.xi., 29; 
 and Deut. xxviii. , 15-68 inclusive. We are not to confound God's cursing and the 
 Church's to warn and save, with profane and unauthorized cursing by wicked 
 men, in mere malice and hatred and revengefulness. This last is condemned in 
 God's Word in the Old Testament and in the New, for example in Exod. xxi., 
 17; Ps. X., 7; and Rom. xii., 14. The ignorant and foolish sometimes wickedly 
 make both kinds of cursing, that of God and of the Church on the one hand, 
 and that of wicked men on the other, the same. 
 
 Still worse than common profane cursing are the anathemas uttered by 
 mere idolatrous conventicles, like the God-cursed conventicle of Nicaea in A. 
 D. 787 (to which be anathema, in accordance with Galatians i., 8, 9, where the 
 Holy Ghost, by Paul, antecedently curses that and every other conventicle of 
 idolatrizing corrupters), for it profanely tried to apply God's anathema to all 
 who, believing that no idolater shall inherit the kitigdom of God (I. Cor. vi., 9, 
 10; Galat. v., 19-22, and Rev. xxi., 8), and that no creature may be invoked 
 (Matt, iv., 10. compare Colos. ii., 18: Rom. i., 25, 26; Isaiah xlv., 20-25; Psalm 
 Ixv., 2; Deut. xxxii., 21 and after; Isaiah xlii., 8; and Psalm Ixxxi., 9; the last 
 two texts, with Matt, iv., 10, are Cyril's favorite texts against the Nestorians' 
 worship of Christ's humanity; see his works passim), refused to commit the 
 sins of image worship and of creature worship, for praying and bowing are cer- 
 tainly represented all through the Scriptures as adls of religious service, and 
 
322 ^^^ ^- ^f Ep^i^sus. 
 
 III. If any one separates the [two] Substances (664) in the one 
 
 therefore as prerogative to God alone. To give them or any other act of relig- 
 ious service, be it incense, kissing, prostration or any other to any creature 
 departed, or to any image, painted or graven, is always represented in Holy 
 Writ as bringing down His burning wrath on those guilty of such sins. And 
 how that terrific vengeance came down on Tarasius and Theodore of the Studium 
 in their deaths is told us by their own friends and fellow-idolaters, remarkably 
 enough. 
 
 So we say anathema to the merely local Western Fourth Lateran Council 
 of A. D. 1215, miscalled Ecumenical, because it set forth the heresy of Transub- 
 stantiation, contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria's doctrine vindicated against the 
 cannibal heresy of Nestorius by the Holy-Ghost-led Third Ecumenical Council. 
 So we anathematize the idolatrous merely local Western Conventicle of Trent in 
 the sixteenth century, because it approved all the idolatrous and creature worship- 
 ping decisions of all the merely local Western or Eastern Synods which contra- 
 dict the God-inspired and infallible decisions of the Six Ecumenical Councils 
 against those soul-damning iniquities. For the Holy Ghost never approves a 
 lie. He approves the truth once for all in those Great Councils, led and guided 
 by Him, according to Christ's promise, made not to one Apostle only, like 
 Peter, but to the Universal Apostolate (Matt, xxviii., 19, 20, John xiv., 16, 17, 
 and xvi., 13 and I. Tim. iii., 15), and any decision against anything decided in 
 any of the Six is by that fact null and void and anathematized, whether it be against 
 any of them on the Trinity, on the Divinity of Christ, on His Person and Wor- 
 ship, on the Two Natures of His. on the Eucharist, in condemning Honorius of 
 Rome as a heretic, on the sins of Creature-Worship, or on anything else on which 
 the Holy Ghost has decided in the VI Councils. They have the ground, and 
 noising has ever succeeded in dispossessing them, and nothing ever can. Christ 
 and the Holy Ghost are with them, and everything that opposes them is against 
 Him and It. Even in such matters as Image-Worship, and Transubstantiation, 
 opposed to them, and nevertheless accepted against them by some local Council 
 of the East or West, misnamed Ecumenical, by the Greeks and the Latins, or by 
 one of them, the difiference between these errorists is so great that they call 
 each other idolaters and lost. For God does not will that men shall ever agree 
 except on the basis of His infallible truth in the Six God-led and thoroughly 
 Scriptural Councils of His One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church, 
 
 (660), page 319. Greek, /ca^ vTrucTaaiv. This expression is intended to 
 crush the Nestorian assertion that the Siibsislence, that is Substance, and real 
 Person of God the Word was not in the Man put on; the result of which Nestor- 
 ianism is that all worship done to Christ is done to a mere man. and hence is 
 mere Man-Service, that is, mere Creature-Service, that is, a return to the chief 
 pagan error. The Greek word vTrdaramv, has both the meaningof Subsistence and 
 Substance, and also Person, and hence is of somewhat wider significance than 
 TrpocTovTov, Person, though they are often used as synonymous. On page 254 
 above, St. Cyril speaks of but " (9«^ /{?r50«, * ^ * One infleshed Hypostasis 
 of the Word,'' to Whom ''all the expressions in the Gospels are to be a^cribe-i.^''^' 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 323 
 
 Anointed after the union, and conjoins them in a co7ijunS2io7t alone of 
 
 Greek, tvl roiyapovv UpoauTro) rag kv toIq evayyE?uoig iraGog avaderiov ^wvdc, 'XTrooTdaet 
 fitg tt) tov Adyou oeaapKu/ievy. Kvpiog yap elf 'Irjaovg Xpiarbg^ ward rag Tpacpag. Here, 
 evidently, the Person and Substance of the Word are considered to be the whole 
 Person of the Logos, His Humanity being His mere tabernacle and wrapping. 
 See notes 6i6 and 617. 
 
 (661), page 320. Greek, cm * * * Xpiarov. 
 
 (662), page 320. Greek, /J-era Tijg Ulag aapKog, which may be rendered, either 
 as above in the text, or ''with His ownjlesh:'' Compare note 660 above, and 
 Cyril's use of Person there. 
 
 (663), page 321. On Anathema II., see Cyril's Longer Epistle above, pages 
 214-221, his Shorter Epistle, pages 60-80, and the Epistle of Nestorius to Cyril, 
 pages 155-166 above, and the Nestorian Counter Anathema II, It is as follows: 
 
 Nestorius^ Counter Anathe^na II: *' If any one in that [merely external] 
 conjundtion of God the Word which was made to flesh, asserts that a change of 
 the Divine Essence from place to place has been made, and that flesh is capable 
 of containing His Divine Nature, and that It was united to flesh in birth; or, 
 again, infinitely and uncircumscribedly coextends flesh to the Divine Nature to 
 contain God, and says that the very same nature is both God and Man, let him 
 be an£.thema." 
 
 Here, by covertly ascribing old heresies to Cyril, such as Apollinarianism 
 and Sabellianism, the Nestorian anathematizer tries to bring Cyril's belief into 
 disrepute. But Cyril as above, pages 250-294, shows that even in the Eucharist 
 where the above reproach would apply, if anywhere, he did not " infinitely and 
 uncircumscribedly coextend flesh to the Divine Nature.''' and there and else- 
 where makes it clear that he did not believe in a mixing of the Two Natures 
 into One, and that a Third impossible Nature compounded of Divinity and. 
 humanity. But he did believe that God the Word actually " took flesh and put 
 on a Man'''' in the womb of the Virgin, as the Nicene Creed expressly teaches,, 
 and that He was born in that Man out of her womb, and that as He is incarnate 
 in that Man, that Man must be capable of containing Him, even His Divine 
 Substance, and that in that Man He journeyed from Bethlehem to Egypt, and 
 from Egypt to Nazareth, from Nazareth to Galilee, to Jordan, Jerusalem, and 
 other places in Palestine, and went up from the Mount of Olives in that body to 
 the right hand of His Father, and is in it now, and will come in it to reign on 
 this earth, and finally, in it to judge the world. 
 
 (664), page 322. Greek, rag vTroardaeig fierd t?/v kvuaiv. ''The [two] Sub- 
 stances " of course are God the Word, the Divine Substance, and the Man put 
 on, the created and human substance. So that it is clear that while Cyril did 
 not believe in the Nestorian separation of the Natures, he nevertheless plainly 
 implies that he believed that they still exist after their union, and hence he was 
 a Two-Natureite, and not a One-Natureite. If it be asked. What was the Nes- 
 torian separation of the Two Natures in Christ, I answer, as I have before, that 
 
324 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 dio-nitv, that is, of authority, or power, and not rather in a coming 
 
 it consisted in denying the Incarnation of the Substance of the Eternal Word in 
 the Man, and the belief that the Two Natures were separated so widely that the 
 Man was on earth, and the Substance of the Eternal Word was in heaven at the 
 same time; and that God the Word dwelt in that Man only as He dwelt in the 
 prophets, that is, by His Spirit only. And the Union was deemed by them to be 
 not Personal, because they held that the Person of the Word did not dwell in 
 the Man; but they deemed it relative only, because they held that the Eternal 
 Word dwelt in that Man by the Holy Spirit only, which is related to Him as 
 being His Spirit. Compare notes 156 to 161, page 61-72 above. 
 
 This Nestorian separation of the Two Natures in Christ therefore resulted in 
 X-^o fundamental errors, namely, 
 
 I, in denying the Incarnation of the Substance of the Word in the Man; 
 And 2, as a necessary consequence of the first position, in asserting that all 
 the a6ls of religious service given to Christ during his stay on earth were to the 
 BTan dire^ly and to God the Word indiredlly only, that is, relatively. Hence 
 they were Man-Servers, that is, Creature-Servers, and Apostates (as canons of 
 this Third Ecumenical Synod in effect call them), from the Christian Faith. And 
 in bringing relative service into the Christian Church, to excuse their service to 
 a creature, they were using the argument by which, in effect, Aaron 
 sandlioned relative service to Jehovah through the golden calf in the 
 wilderness; by which, in effect, Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, made 
 Israel to sin by giving relative service to the calves at Dan and 
 Bethel, and by which the heathen in the days of Cyril of Alexandria, and 
 always, have defended their idolatry and their service to creatures, and by which 
 unreformed Greeks, Romanists and others still defend their image-worship, and 
 their invocation of saints and of angels, and their bowing to them, and their 
 other a(5ls of service to them. 
 
 For a further explanation of the expression, '' by His Substance,'' sqq a. 
 note on Anathema VII. below. 
 
 Nestorius made another attempt to evade Cyril's charge of worshipping a 
 mere man, by stating that while he parted Christ's Two Natures, nevertheless he 
 worshipped them together. See him, to that effect, in the Oxford translation of 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, pages 75, 76, 
 69, 72. On page 77 and the context Cyril retorts that even so, he (Nestorius) 
 was a worshipper of a Man. 
 
 (665), page 325. I add here the alleged Nestorius' Counter Anathema III.: 
 " If any one does not say that Christ is One by a [mere external] conjun^ion, 
 who is also Emmanuel, [Emmanuel is explained in Counter Anathema I. to be 
 a mere Man], but that He is one by a Nature which is made up of each of the 
 two Substances, that is, that of God the Word and that of the Man taken by 
 Him, and does not at all confess the one [mere external] connexion of a Son, 
 which even now we preserve without any mingling [of the Two Natures], let 
 him be anathema." 
 
Reading of Cyril's Lo7ig Epistle to Nestor lies. 325 
 
 together in a Nature Union, let him be anathema (665). 
 
 IV. If any one divides between two Persons, that is, Subsist- 
 ences, (666) the expressions in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, 
 whether the said expressions be uttered of Anointed by the Saints 
 (667), or uttered by Him concerning Himself, and applies some of 
 them as to a Man separately considered, as aside from that Word 
 Who has come out of God, and applies others, as befitting God, to 
 the Word alone. Who has come out of God the Father, let him be 
 anathema (668). 
 
 But, as has been said, Cyril did not mix up the Two Natures into a Third 
 Thing, nor did he, on the other hand, like this Nestorian curser, deny the 
 Inman and put in its place a mere external connexion of them, in the sense 
 that the Man was indwelt, not by the Eternal Substance of God the Word, but 
 by the influences of His Spirit merely. For that, after all his verbiage, is what 
 this Nestorian means. 
 
 Cyril's Anathema III. is explained above in this Longer Epistle on pages 
 215-221. Compare the Shorter Epistle, pages 61-79. See also the drift of Nes- 
 torius' Epistle to Cyril on pages 155 to 166. See also pages 84 and 126 above, 
 note — very important. 
 
 Cyril, in his Anathema III. condemns the Nestorian idea of a mere external 
 conjoining of Christ's two Natures, and granting them, the Eternal Word, the 
 Creator, and the mere Man, the mere creature, a connedlion "z« dignity, that 
 is, in authority or power,'" a,s though a mere creature, a thing so infinitely dif- 
 ferent from, and so infinitely inferior to God the Word, could have the same 
 dignity and authority and power as He ! As though such a blasphemy should 
 not be clear at once to all ! The error condemned by Cyril here involves, as 
 held to by the Nestorians, the giving that mere creature relatively worship 
 by bowing {TrpoaKvvfiaig), and by the other adls of service, all which are prerogative 
 to the uncreated Divinity alone; in other words, it involves the worship of a mere 
 Man, that is, the worship of a creature, contrary to Christ's own inviolable 
 law in Matthew iv., 10, and the wreck of Christianity's fundamental tenet there 
 enunciated. Nestorius' relative worship of Christ's humanity is set forth by 
 him as quoted in St. Cyril's Five Book ContradiBion of the Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius, Book II., Sedlion XI., at the end. See it further on in this Act I. 
 among the utterances of Nestorius, cited as evidence of his Man-Worship 
 [avdf)0)'jTo/MTp£ia), on the basis of which, as well as for his other errors, he was de- 
 posed. See in the same work of St. Cyril, Book II., Se(flions7to 14 inclusive, where 
 St. Cyril charges him with making a God {^fo-miaq) of that Man. The place is 
 on pages 63-81, and the mention of God-makitig on page 71. See note 183. 
 
 (666), page 325. Greek, -rrpoaioTmiq 6voli> yyow l-oaraatai. The Latin ren- 
 dering, which is said to be by Marius Mercator, is personis duabis vel subsist- 
 entiis. 
 
 (667), page 325. Greek, sttI Xfuaro}. 
 
 (668), page 325. Cyril, in his two Epistles, approved in the above Act I., 
 
326 ^^^ I' of Ephesus. 
 
 V. If any one dares to say that the Anointed One is an 
 
 insists that the Two Natures yet exist in Christ. But in this Anathema IV., he 
 insists also that out of respect to the Divine, the infinitely superior, the control- 
 ling and guiding nature in the Son, we must ecoftomically ascribe to Him, God 
 the'^Word, all the human names and human expressions used of that Man in the 
 New Testament, in order to guard against our being led, as were the Nestorians, 
 to worship a mere creature, contrary to Matt, iv., lo. See on this point under 
 Economic Appropriation, in the Getieral Index to Volume I. oi Nicaea in this 
 Set, where St. Athanasius and his successor, St. Cyril, teach this necessary 
 do(?trine, now alas ! too much forgotten, though approved in those two of Cyril's 
 Epistles which were adopted by the whole Church at Ephesus, and which there- 
 fore are eternally unchangeable and binding. The part of Cyril's Longer 
 Epistle which serves to explain his Anathema IV. is found above on pages 241 
 to 255, or to 268, text. Compare pages 60-1 12 of the text of the Shorter Epistle, 
 and Cyril's Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-born, passim, and especially, Sec- 
 tion 13, pages 200 to 203. Compare with Counter Anathema IV., Nestorius' 
 condemned Epistle above on pages 155-166. The author of Counter Anathema 
 IV shows at once that he understands Cyril to set forth a part of his dodlrine of 
 Economic Appropriation in his Anathema IV., that is, the appropriation to God 
 the Word not only of the expressions which belong to His own Divinity, such as 
 God the Word, etc., but also all those relating to his humanity, such, for 
 instance, as those which speak of suffering and death. I quote that Counter 
 Curse: 
 
 The Nestorian Counter Anathema IV.: 
 
 " If any one understands as though they belonged to [but] One Nature, those 
 expressions in the Gospels and in the Apostolic Epistles which were written con- 
 cerning Christ, who is of Two Natures, and tries to ascribe the sufferings of flesh 
 as well as of Divinity also to the Word Himself of God, let him be anathema;" 
 
 Here, as usual, the Nestorian implies that Cyril was a One-Natureite, and 
 that he held that God the Word was the only Nature after the Union, and that 
 hence God the Word suffered in birth, at the crucifixion, in hungering, thirst- 
 ing and in weariness, where we read in Holy Writ that Christ sufi-ered. But to 
 refute the slander one has only to read the condemnation of One-Natureism in 
 Cyril's two Epistles above. The two great Alexandrians, Athanasius, whom 
 Cyril, in his ecumenically approved Epistle to John of Antioch, especially pro- 
 fessed to follow everywhere, were very clear for the Two Natures and the doc- 
 trine of Economic Appropriation. I have room here only to remark that Athan- 
 asius was prescient in antecedently condemning the Nestorian and the Eutychian 
 heresies; see the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius' Later Treatises, Observa- 
 tions in front, page xi., text and notes, and pages 10, 11, 12, and notes there. 
 
 See Athanasius' plain confession of the Two Natures and his description of 
 them, id., page 11, 12, and notes there. 
 
 Athanasius approves the docflrine of the Economic Appropriation, embodied 
 afterwards in Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema XII.; see Athanasius' Orations 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 327 
 
 inspired man (669), and not rather that He is really God, as [being 
 
 against the Avians^ Oxiora ..ranslation, se(5lions 31, 32, and especially 34, pages 
 443, 444, 445-447, 448-451. On page 446 St. Athanasius shows that this tenet 
 keeps us from being Man-Worshippers. I have quoted part of the passage in 
 volume I of Nicaea in this set. 
 
 (669), page 327 Greek, Et na Tokjiq leyeiv 6eo(l)6pov avdpwrrov rbv Xpiarov. 
 Hammond, who deserves credit for his translation of some things on the Six 
 Synods, errs here badly by translating Qeocpopov avdpcoTrov, ** only a Man Oeariftg 
 Gody''' an expression which might be taken to mean that Nestorius held to the 
 dodlrine that the Substance of the Word was in the Man and that Cyril denied 
 it, whereas the contrary was the fact. For Nestorius held that the Word dwelt 
 not in that Man except by His Spirit, and that the Son was merely an inspired 
 Man therefore. See Hammond'' s Canons of the Church, New York edition of 
 1844, page 90. In the Latin translation, on page 37, of P. E. Pusey's Three 
 Epistles of S. Cyril, occurs a similar blunder in rendering the expression, by 
 "hominemBeo^opov, id estDeum ferentem." And so it is misrendered in the 
 Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestor- 
 ius, page 128, where we find Nestorius' Greek, as in Cyril's Five Book Contra- 
 diEli07i of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book IV., Sedlion I., Qzod^opoq ovv 
 hvbpwKoq 6 Xpiaro^, rendered by "« God-clad maji therefore is Christ.'' It should 
 be translated, ^'The Anointed One is therefore a [mere] inspired Man.'' What 
 •* a God-clad man " means would be a puzzler to any one. Who can make any 
 sense of it ? An iron-clad ship is a ship clad with iron. But does any one be- 
 lieve that the human body of Christ was really clad with the Substance of God 
 the Word's Divinity? In the same translation, page 157, the same term, 
 Qeo<p6pov, is rendered " God-bearing," but that does not bring out the full sense. 
 St. Cyril is there, in Sedlion I. of Book V. of his Five Book Con tradition of 
 the Blasphemies of Nestorius, conirsiSiing his Orthodox belief regarding Christ 
 with that of Nestorius, and he writes, 
 
 ^^For we indeed do not say ■merely that a vian is ifispired, but thai the Word 
 Who came out qf God has been united to flesh in fact and in truth. ' ' The Greek, as 
 on page 210 of Vol. VI. of P. B. Pusey's Cyril is as follows: Oy yap rot Qeotpopov 
 thai (pauev avOpuwov aTzlidg, d/lXd av-oxpvi^o- k^o-t^ alrjOetav rbv en Qeov Aoyov Tjvua^ai 
 capd, etc. Such blunders render it impossible to get at Cyril's meaning in the 
 places affedled by them. That translation should be revised and perfedled. 
 
 On the above Anathema v., see above, text of the Longer Epistle, pages 
 215-217, especially pages 216 and 217. Compare page 115, note. 
 
 We add The Nestoria?i Counter Anathema V: 
 
 " If any one dares to say that after the taking of the Man there was [but] 
 One Son of God by Nature, when Emmanuel also is a Son, let him be anathema." 
 
 Here the Nestorian implies again that Cyril was a Mouophysite, and implies 
 also that the Emmanuel was a mere Man, as is shown by his Counter Anathema 
 I. He implies also what Cyril charges him with, that is, that there are Two 
 
328 ^<^^ ^' ^f ^P^i^stis. 
 
 the] One Son by [His Divine] Nature, forasmuch as the Word was 
 
 made flesh, and hke us shared blood and flesh, let him be anathema. 
 
 VI. If any one dares to say that the Word Who came out of 
 
 God the Father is God or Master (670) of the Anointed (671) One, 
 
 Sons, God the Word, and a mere Man; and both to be worshipped, as we shall 
 see under Anathema VIII. See on this Anathema V., pages 214, 215, 221-230, 
 in the Longer Epistle above, and compare the Shorter, pages 60 to 114, andNes- 
 torius' condemned Epistle on pages 155-166, text. It seems impossible for any 
 fair man to read those two Epistles of St. Cyril, and what remains of his work 
 against the Synousiast Monophysites, and to believe him a One-Natureite. If 
 those two Epistles were not plainly, as they are, Two-Natureite, the Universal 
 Church would never have approved them at Ephesus. 
 
 (670), page 328. Greek, 6eGn6rrjv. 
 
 (671 ), page 328. Greek, tov Xpiarov, that is, the Christ. But Cyril, in his 
 Scholia on the Incarnatio?i of the Sole-Born, page 186 of the Oxford translation 
 of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius, defines Christ 
 as follows: 
 
 " Christ therefore is THE Word of God called. Who because of us and as 
 we is Man and in servant's form [Philip ii., 6, 7,] both Anointed as Man after 
 the Flesh, and anointing Divinely with His own Spirit them that believe on Him." 
 That is, Cyril always applies all the expressions in Holy Writ in regard to God 
 the Word, and those on the Man put on by Him to the Word. In the case of the 
 human things^ such as suffering, death, etc., these are ascribed to God the Word 
 Economically only, as Cyril explains again and again. See for example Anath- 
 ema XII. below. St. Cyril explains this Anathema VI., in the text above, 
 pages 215-221. Compare the drift of the Shorter Epistle, text of pages 60-112 
 above. See also Nestorius' condemned Epistle, pages 155. 166. His illogical 
 and, on theological questions, incompetent mind is there apparent. He lacked 
 acumen to understand and appreciate the vastness of the points involved, though 
 Cyril, in the very letter to which the above of Nestorius is a reply, had made 
 them suf&ciently clear to every fair mind. 
 
 I here append The Nestorian Counter Anathema VI.: 
 
 " If any one, after an [alleged] Incarnation, names any other besides Christ 
 God the Word, and endeavors to assert that ' the form of a servant ' [Philip ii., 
 7,] did not have its beginning from God the Word, and that that 'form ' is 
 uncreated as He Himself is, and does not rather confess that it was created by 
 Himself as its natural Lord and Creator and God, which He promised to raise 
 again by His own power, when He said to the Jews, Destroy this temple, and in 
 three days I will raise it tip [John ii., 19], let him be anathema." 
 
 The first clause is so obscure in sense that I suspect here a corruption of the 
 text. Indeed, these Counter Anathemas have been badly mangled either in the 
 translation or by copyists or editors. The passage, however, may be understood 
 as an assertion against what he deemed St. Cyril's One-Natureism and his con- 
 sequent holding to the Transubstantiation of the human nature of the Man into 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 329 
 
 and does not rather confess that the same One is both God and man 
 together, forasmuch as the Word has been made flesh according to the 
 Scriptures (672), let him be anathema. 
 
 VII. If any one says that Jesus, as [being] a [mere] Man, was 
 [merely] energized (673) by God the Word, and that the glory of 
 the Sole-Born (674) has been put about him [that mere Man] as 
 
 the Substance of the Divinity of God the Word, that is, Nestorius held that, so 
 far as Substance is concerned, there was but One Nature in Christ after the 
 Union, (Nestorius believed in no real Incarnation), and that it was the human, 
 that is the mere Man, and that to Him can be properly applied the expression 
 God, a sort of creature-worship which St. Cyril condemns in Anathema VIII. 
 bglow. Next, the Nestorian, supposing St. Cyril to hold that Christ's flesh was 
 not taken from the Virgin, but had appertained to the Logos from the begin- 
 ning, and that it merely passed through her as water passes through a pipe or 
 canal, without taking anything from her, and that Cyril held also to the error 
 that His flesh was uncreated, condemns both those errors. Cyril, of course, 
 admitted that Christ's flesh was created by the Father through the Spirit (Heb. 
 X., 5-10; Luke i., 35; and Matt, i., 20). But Gregory of Nazianzus is cited as 
 stating that Apollinaris taught that '^ the flesh of Christ had come down from 
 heaven,^'' and he and Pope Martin at the Lateran Council, A. D. 649, Act III., 
 are adduced for the statement that Christ's body passed through the Virgin " as 
 water through a pipe.'" See Blunt in his article, Apollinarians, page 41 of his 
 Di^ionary of Se5ls, outer column. 
 
 The fact is, Cyril always sees in the Son ''one i7ifleshed Nature of God the 
 Word,^'' and the Man in whom He is, as being by nature infinitely below Him, 
 is merely His wrapping for the human things. According to Cyril that mere 
 wrapping is no part of His Consubstantial Person, for It is all God. Nor is that 
 Man a distinct person, as the Nestorians asserted, but a distinct nature, and that 
 human. 
 
 (672), page 329. John i., 14. See this idea in the passage from the Scholia 
 in the last note above. It occurs again and again in Cyril. 
 
 (673), page 329. Or, " was operated on,'' or " was inworked, evr/pyf/adai, 
 
 (674), page 329. Greek, rov Movoyevovg. " The Sole-Born," always in Cyril 
 means God the Word, Who is ''Sole-born out of the Substance of the Father," 
 as the Creed of the First Synod words it. Such is its meaning here. See Cyril 
 of Alexandria's Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-Born, Sedlion 13. 
 
 The heresies condemned in this anathema are, 
 
 I. The Nestorian error that Jesus was a mere inspired Man, like the Apos- 
 tles and the Prophets, and that the Substajice of God the Word was not in Him 
 to work the miracles which He did, but only that the influe7ices of the Holy 
 Spirit energized that mere Man to perform them, in the same sense as they en- 
 ergized the Apostles and the Prophets to perform miracles also; only, according 
 to Nestorius, his mere human Christ was energized to a fuller degree and extent 
 by the mere influences of tbe Spirit than they were. 
 
J30 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 being another besides [the Sole-Born Word] Himself (675), let him 
 be anathema. 
 
 2. The other error condemned is 'Hhat the glory of the Sole-born,'' that is, the 
 glory of God the Word, which of course includes worship, ''has been put about" 
 Jesus as Man, ''as about another besides [God the Word] Himself:' Cyril's con- 
 demnation of that Man-Worship is, of course, in strict accordance with God's 
 own utterance in Isaiah xlii., 8; " I am the Lord; that is my name; and MY 
 GI.ORY WII.1. 1 NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER." Cyril, as is shown in this work, note 
 183, page 79, and note 582, page 225, held that all religious service is prerogative 
 to God; and hence that none of it can be given to the Man put on by Him. And 
 this he deemed to be in strict accordance with Christ's own command, " Thou 
 Shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him ONI.Y shall thou serve " (Matt, iv., 10, 
 and Luke iv., 8). For he so argues again and again. See the whole of notes 
 183 and 582 on that topic. 
 
 I here add The Nestorian Counter Anathema VII.: 
 
 "If any one asserts that the Man who was created out of the Virgin is the 
 Sole-Born, who was born out of the inside of the Father before the morning star 
 [was made. Psalm cix., 3, Septuagint], and does not rather confess that he 
 [that Man] was dignified with the appellation of Sole-Born on account of his 
 Union to Him Who is, by [His Divine] Nature, Sole-Born of the Father, and 
 that he [the Man] has been made sharer [of Divine honors with Him, God the 
 Word], and says that fesus was some other one besides Emmanuel, let him be 
 anathema." 
 
 Of course Cyril, as his works abundantly show, did not hold that Christ's 
 humanity was born out of the Father before the morning star was made, but 
 that God the Word was. In what follows we see that this Nestorius or Nestor- 
 ian gives God the Word's name of Sole-Born, that is, Sole-Born out of the 
 Father, as Cyril understands it, and His Divine honors to a mere creature, his 
 merely human Jesus, his merely human Emmanuel, his merely human Sole- 
 Born. For his use of Emmanuel see his Counter Anathema I. Cyril makes all 
 those names prerogative to God the Word; see his Scholia on the himan of the 
 Sole-Born, Oxford translation, Sedlions 2, 7, and 37, pages 186, 191, and 234, on 
 Emmanuel; and Section 3, page 188, and SeAion 13, page 200, on Jestis; and 
 seAion 35, page 228, and seAions 4, 13, 27 and 32, pages 189, 200. 213 and 221, 
 as to Sole-Born, that is, as it is there translated inexadlly. Only Begotten. See 
 also in the index to that volume under Immanuel, fesus, and Oiily Begotten. 
 
 Cyril explains his Anathema VII. in his Long Letter above, pages 214-217. 
 Compare the Shorter Epistle, pages 60-112, and Nestorius' condemned Epistle. 
 
 (675), page 330. Either "the Word" or "the Sole-Born" must be under- 
 stood by " Himself" and pra6lically both mean the Word. See the last note 
 above. 
 
 Y>y fesus Cyril means the Word. He applies that name as he does all the 
 names of the Son, to the Word. I quote here only one out of all the places in 
 Cyril to show how he understands and uses the term "fesus." It is found on 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestor ins. 331 
 
 VIII. If any one dares to say that the man taken on [by the 
 Word] ought to be co-bowed to (676) with God the Word, and to be 
 co-glorified, and to be co-called God [with the Word], as one with 
 Another, for the term " r^ " always [thus] added, of necessity, 
 means that; and does not rather honor the Emmanuel (677), [that is, 
 
 •page 188 of the Oxford translation of "5. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarna- 
 tion against Nestorius.'" It is as follows: 
 
 ** What is Jesus ? By the force of the ideas whereby we are bound to speak 
 •of One Son of God, Christ [that is Anointed\ and Emmanuel [that is, God 
 with us\ and Jesus {that is Saviour'] are the Same, and this name too from 
 the fact, {or he shall save (it says) His people from their sins (Matt, i., 21). 
 Bor just as the name Etnmanuel meant that the Word of God through His Birth 
 of a woman was made with us; and Christ again, that made man. He is said to 
 be afiointed as we in human wise; so too Jesus, that He saved us. His people, 
 which specially proves Him to be truly God and by Nature Lord of all. For the 
 ■creature is not said to belong to a mere man, but rather it wall befit to say that 
 all things are the Only Begotten's, even though He was made Man." Onty 
 Begotten is here an inexact translation of Unigeniti, the Sole-Bortt, the Eternal 
 Word. For we have this part of the Scholia in a Latin rendering only. See 
 further page 200 of the same Oxford translation of St. Cyril Against Nestorius, 
 where we see that all the human as well as all the divine names of the Sou are 
 ascribed to God the Word, the human, Kconomically. 
 
 (676). That is, '■^ ought to be co-worshipped,'''' bowing, the most common of 
 the acfls of worship, being here used by Cyril for them all, as he often does. 
 
 (677). The Greek here /i^a irpo'jKvvTjaeL, means first, ^^ with [but] one bow,'" 
 and then as bowi^ig is the most common act of religious worship (for we bow 
 even when we stand, kneel, or prostrate ourselves), and as it is therefore often 
 put for them all, the expression comes, secondly, to mean, ** with [but] one luor- 
 ship,'' which is the sense here. In other words, Cyril here means that in 
 addressing the Son we use but one sort of worship, and that absolute and divine, 
 that is, to God the Word alone, not relative and human, that is, to the creature, 
 the mere Man whom the Word took. This Anathema, by necessary implica- 
 tion, forbids all worship to any creature whomsoever and whatsoever. For 
 surely if any one be anathema for worshipping the mere humanity of Christ 
 because it is a creature, aye, as all admit, the highest of all mere creatures, 
 much more is he anathema if he worships any creature less than that perfect 
 Humanity, whether that inferior creature be animate, as for instance the Virgin 
 Mary or any other saint or angel, or inanimate, like a corpse, or any part of a 
 dead body, as for example, a bone, or head, or tooth, or hair, or some other^ 
 part ot a martyr's or other saint's body. 
 
 Much more still are we anathema by this Ecumenically approved Decision 
 if we relatively worship any graven image, picture, cross, painted or graven, 
 altar, the Bible or any part thereof, any ecclesiastical building or any part 
 thereof, any clerical vestment, or any other mere inanimate thing, whether such 
 
332 ^^^ ^' of Ephesus. 
 
 as ''the Emma7iuer' means, ''the God with us''] with [but] one 
 worship and (678) send up [but] one glorifying to Him, on the 
 ground that the Word has been made flesh, let him be anathema 
 (679), (680). 
 
 act be bowing, prostration, kneeling, incensing, invoking, kissing or any other 
 act of religious service whatsoever. That these are aAs of religious service used 
 by the ancient idolaters I have shown in a series of Articles in The Church 
 Journal of New York City for August, 1870. I hope to embody them in a little 
 enlarged form in this Set, in one of the volumes pertaining to Ephesus. 
 
 (678). As Emmanuel means ' * God with us, ' ' the honor is therefore to Him. 
 
 (679). As this is a very important enactment, we give it in full: Et tlq To7ifiq 
 leytLV Tov ava/iTjfdevTa avQpuTzov avfiirpocKWElaOai ddv tCj Qeu) \6yu nal avvSo^d^ecdai mt 
 Gvyxpr]fiaTi(,Eiv Qebv, c)g krepov hepu, to yap Ivv ael npooTiOejuevov tovto voecv avayKaaec 
 Kal ovxi ^V P-aT/MV fiLq TzpoaKwrjOEL^ ripa tov '^jjipavovijl, kqI fiiav AvtC) ttjv 6o^o?ioyiav 
 avaTTeuTrei, Kadb yeyovE oap^ 6 Aoyog, avddepa egto). 
 
 In a note on this place, in my remarks on the different forms of this Anath- 
 ematism VIII.. in a work on the XII. Chapters, to be published, if God will, I 
 have shown that in the other two places where Cyril sets it forth, the reading 
 after ojg above is not etepov ev etepg), but etepov irEpto^ and that the old Latin ver- 
 sion of it, said to be by Marius Mercator of century V., has alterum cum altero, 
 (P. E. Pusey's Three Epistles of Cyril, page 37, and id.. Preface, page v.) and 
 that the Nestorians, against whom it is aimed, did not bow to the Man put on by 
 the Word, as ''one in another,'' but as '' one apart from another,'' which there- 
 fore is, beyond all doubt, the orighial reading. The ev may be an interpolation 
 of some Nestoriauized person who did not think that Cyril could refuse to wor- 
 ship both Natures, and so to bow to the humanity which the Word put on, with 
 the Word. Nevertheless ev, with the dative, is sometimes rendered with. So 
 that even with that reading, since no one supposes that the Man put on is " ^■« " 
 the Word, we should have to render it also by the words, ''as one with Another.'' 
 
 I have shown elsewhere in this work that Cyril's dodlrine, which, by the 
 way, is approved by the Universal Church, is that we may not give bowing or 
 any other act of religious service separately to the Man put on by the Eternal 
 Word, but must serve God alone as Christ commands in Matt, iv., 10, and in 
 Luke iv., 8. See especially the Dissertation on Anathema VIII. of Cyril, in a 
 work on the XI I. Chapters, to be published, if God will, in this Set. 
 
 Cyril explains this Anathema VIII. in his Longer Epistle above, pages 221- 
 224, and in the Shorter on pages 79-106. See also the notes in those places, 
 where quotations from Cyril will be found. 
 
 To show the contrast between Cyril's condemnation of the worship of 
 Christ's Humanity, and the Nestorian approval of it, I here append The Nes- 
 torian Counter Anathema VIII.: 
 
 " If any one says that the form of a servant itself [Philip ii., 7] is to be wor- 
 shipped for itself, that is, by reason of its own nature, and that it is 
 Lord of all things [A6ls x., 36; compare Rom. xiv., 9], by reason of its own 
 nature, and does not rather worship it {the form of a servant^ on account of the 
 
Reading of Cyrils Lo7ig Epistle to Ncs tortus. 33a 
 
 IX. If any one says that the One Lord Jesus Anointed was 
 
 association with which it is conjoined and connected with the Blessed and of 
 Itself by Nature Lordly Nature of the Sole-Born, let him be anathema." 
 
 Here the Nestorian, while confessing that Christ's humanity, being a crea- 
 ture, cannot be worshipped for the sake of its own nature, nevertheless falls 
 back on the heathen and Nestorian excuse of Relative Worship, and contends 
 that it can on account of its being associated externally with God the Word. 
 Cyril denies that it can be worshipped at all; see on that point note 156, pages 
 61-69 above for more of that Nestorian Relative Union and Relative Worship; 
 and for Cyril's view that all worship of the Son must be to His Divinity alone, 
 see note 183, pages 79, 80, and in note 582, page 225; and indeed all of those 
 notes. Compare notes 580, 581, on pages 221-225. 
 
 At this point let the reader by all means turn back and read in the part of 
 note 183, which is on pages 108-112 above, the Ecumenically approved utter- 
 ances against the Nestorian confessed, and I will add also, against the Mono- 
 iphysiiQ aHual, though not confessed, Worship of Christ's Humanity; and see 
 especially there Anathemas IX. and XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and 
 the other language of that Synod against all worship of Christ's Humanity. See 
 also pages 112-128 for quotations from some chief Nestorian writers for the Wor- 
 ship of Christ's Humanity against St. Cyril and the Orthodox. See also notes 
 5S2 and 583, pages 225 and 226 above; and page 114, note, and page 115, note, 
 and pages 61-69, notes 152 and 156. 
 
 Presuming therefore, that the reader has read all those places, I come to re- 
 mark that in brief, the difference between St. Cyril and the Nestorians on the 
 one hand and the One-Natureites on the other as to worshipping the humanity 
 of Christ may be stated as follows : 
 
 First, All agreed in worshipping the Divuiity of the Word. 
 
 But, secondly, they differed as to worshipping the Man, that is, the Creature 
 put on by Him in Mary's womb ; as follows : 
 
 A. The Nestorians worshipped Him relatively only to God the Word, Who, 
 they alleged, indwelt that creature not by His divine Substance but by the in- 
 fluences of His Spirit only as He indwelt the Prophets and Apostles. Hence, as 
 Anathema IX., of the Fifth World Council teaches, the Nestorians, by asserting 
 iCusA. '' Christ is to be worshipped in two Natures,'' * * * introduced '' two 
 worships, one peculiar to God the Word, and another peculiar to the Man,'' that 
 is, they brought in two sorts of worship by bowing, as the Greek here means 
 (that being the most common act of worship and so standing for them all), one 
 God-commanded and acceptable, that is, the worship of God the Word : and an- 
 other, God-forbidden and non-acceptable, because it was given to a Man, that is 
 to a creature, and so is Creature Worship. See Isaiah, xlii., 8, quoted against it 
 by St. Cyril in the Oxford translation oi St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incar- 
 nation Against Nestorius, pages 47 and 263. So he adduces Matthew iv., 10 
 against the Nestorian worship of Christ's created humanity, as for instance, in 
 his, Scholia on the l7tma?t of the Sole-borfi, section 25, page 544, Vol. VI,, ofP» 
 
334 Act L of Ephesus. 
 
 glorified by the Spirit, as using, through It, Another's power, and 
 
 E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Works. In the 
 second section St. Cyril, with reference to the logical connection between the Nes- 
 torian denial of the Incarnation, and the Nestorian merely external Union of the 
 Two Natures, says that to make Christ a mere inspired Man is to bring in the 
 crime of worshippi7i^ a Mamipoyi us. I translate from the Latin version, the 
 Greek of this place being for the most part lost : 
 
 ' ' God alone is free and absolute. For, so to speak. He demands tributes 
 from all, and so to speak, receives worship as due from all [or "as in place of 
 debts from all."] And if Christ be the end of the Law and the Prophets, [Rom. 
 X., 4], but is a [mere] inspired Man, may we not say that the end of the pro- 
 phetic predictions has brought THE crime of worshipping a man to us ? 
 
 Moreover, the Law indeed was proclaiming. Thou shall bow to the Lord 
 'thy God, and Hifn ofily shall thou serve, [Deut. vi., 4, 5, 13: compare Matt, iv., 
 10], with which teaching it led us to Christ as to a knowledge better for those 
 who had been in the shadows. Shall we then scorn to worship God and worship 
 a [mere] Man who has God indwelling him [by the influences of His Spirit 
 only]?" The mere Man is Nestorius' merely human Christ. The Latin, with 
 one important Greek word in it, is given by P. E. Pusey here and reads as fol- 
 lows : (I correct a little of the punctuation and capitalizing, etc.): Solus enim 
 Deus liber atque solutus est : Solus enim quasi tributa omnium exigit, et tam- 
 quam loco debitorum ab omnibus recipit religionem. Et si exitus legis et pro- 
 phetarum Christus est, est autem homo theoforus ; nonne dicere liceat quod pro- 
 pheticarum praedicationum exitus avOpcj-oAarpeiag nobis crimen induxerit ? 
 
 Deinde lex quidem praedicabat, Dominutn Deum tuunt adorabis, el Ei soli 
 ^ervies, qua nos eruditione perduxit ad Christum quasi ad agnitionem illis qui 
 in umbris fuerant potiorem. Spernentesne igitur Deum adorare, adorabimus 
 hominem habentem Deum inhabitantem ? 
 
 Let us examine more closely Anathema VIII. of Cyril approved by the 
 Third Synod, and such parts of Anathema IX. of the Fifth Council, as condemn 
 the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, that we may see at once what the 
 Universal Church has said on those matters, which settles the whole question 
 forever. 
 
 Anathema VIII. , of St. Cyril and of Ephesus : 
 
 '' If any one dares to say that the Man taken on is lobe co-bowed-lo with 
 God the Word and to be co-glorified and co-called God with Him as one with 
 Another^ {for the CO always added, forces us to infer that), and will not, on the 
 ■contrary, honor the Ejumaimel, and send up [but] the one glorifyifig to Him, 
 ■on the ground that the Word has beeii made flesh, let Him be anathetna.'" 
 Here all the Worship is given to God the Word, and expressly on the basis that 
 He is in the Man put on, to receive it. Here, as in the Anathema below quoted, 
 is a prohibition of co-worshipping a Man with the Word, and of co-glorifying him 
 with the Word, as for instance when we say, '* Gloty be to thee, O Christ,'^ and 
 of applying the name of God to that creature, for, as Cyril as quoted in this note 
 
Readmg of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 335 
 
 that He received from It the power to operate against unclean 
 
 above, teaches, God has said in Isaiah xUi., 8, I am the Lord Qehovah, in He- 
 brew] : that is My 7iame : and my glory will I not give to another. And bowing 
 here used for all acts of worship, glorifying, and His name, are all parts of that 
 glory which no creature can share. 
 
 Anathema IX., of the Fifth Ecumenical Council^ A. D. 553, which follows 
 Cyril's teachings : 
 
 " If any one says that the Anointed One is to be bowed to in Two Natures, by 
 which two worships are brought in, one peculiar to God the Word, and another 
 peculiar to the Man ^ * * but will not bow to God the Word injleshed with- 
 in His own flesh, with [but] one worship, as the Church of God has received 
 from the begin fiing, let such a one be anathema.'^ 
 
 Here two worships are referred to, i, that to God the Word, which is com- 
 manded in Holy Writ because He is God (Heb. i., 6, 8). This is God-Worship 
 and is approved. 
 
 2, the worship of Christ's Humanity is referred to. It, of course, is what St. 
 Cyril in the passage just quoted in this note calls avQpu-Kolarpda^ that is the wor- 
 ship of a Man, and is held by Cyril, as he teaches in passages mentioned above 
 in this note, to be forbidden in Psalm Ixxxi., 9, Isaiah xlii., 8, and in Matthew 
 iv., 10. See pages 94, 95, 96 and 103 above, note. For other passages of Cyril 
 against the Worship of Christ's humanity see page 94. For instances of Nes- 
 torius' relative worship of Christ's Humanity, and of St. Cyril's condemnation 
 of that error, see pages 114, 115 above, note. 
 
 In other words the Two Natures referred to in this Anathema IX. are, i, 
 Christ's Divine, and 2, His human. The latter, it forbids us to worship. We 
 are to worship One Nature only in the Son, and that the Divine. Anathema 
 is its penalty for worshipping the created nature. This enactment is very 
 clear. According to it, every Orthodox Christian is a One Nature Worshipper 
 and he who is a worshipper of Two Natures is anathematized. This utter- 
 ance of Universal Christendom is strong and decided. 
 
 Further on in Act I of Ephesus, Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, and Chief 
 of the Secretaries informs the Council that he has ''books * * ^ ofthcBi^xs- 
 PHEMiES <?/" * * * Nestorius, from one book of which,'' Siddish.e, '' we have 
 chosen out short Chapters, which, if it please this Holy Synod, we will read.'' 
 
 The Council orders them to be read. 
 
 Then Peter proceeds to read 20 Passages ''ofthe Blasphemies" of Nestor- 
 ius. As I am treating here of the Nestorian relative worship of Christ's Human- 
 ity, I refer to those only which relate to it, and which show his plain Man 
 Worship, that is his Creature- Worship, and that like that of the heathen it was 
 relative. The Passages which set it forth are the 8th, 9th, loth, and 14th. 
 Compare Passage 15th. 
 
 Especially clear as showing (i) Nestorius' worship of Christ's Humanity, a 
 mere creature ; and (2) as showing that it was relative only like the heathen 
 
336 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 spirits, and to accomplish the God-wrought miracles for men ; 
 
 worship of their images, that is, that he did not worship Christ's mere Human- 
 ity, which all admit to be a creature, for its own sake, (for he seems to have 
 perceived that that was a return to the paganism of creature worship), but on 
 account of Us relation to God the Word, that is, not that God the Word indwelt 
 that creature by His Eternal Substance, but because He indwelt him by the in- 
 fluences of His Spirit only as He indwelt the Apostles and the Prophets. This 
 also is plain creature worship, but Nestorius' head was so thick that he saw it 
 not. I quote some of the clearest of those Relative Worship Passages, leaving 
 the reader to examine the context more fully. 
 
 Passage 8 of Nestorius' " Bi^asphemies. " 
 
 "I WORSHIP HIM [the mere Man] who is worn, for the sake oe him 
 [God the Word] Who wears. I bow to him [the mere Man] who is SEEN, for 
 THE SAKE OF Him [God the Word] Who is hidden, God is unseparated from 
 him [the mere Man] who appears. For that reason I do not separate the 
 honor of the unseparated One. I separate the Natures, but /unite The wor- 
 ship." That is, he gave the same one worship to both Natures together, that 
 is. he gave worship to the creature along with its Creator, the same honor to 
 one as he did to the Other, only that it was given to the Word absolutely as His 
 right by virtue of His being God ; and to the Man relatively only, not that as a 
 creature he had any right to be worshipped, but he worshipped him on account 
 of his relation to God the Word, as a Man inspired by the influences of His 
 Spirit. 
 
 Passage lo of Nestorius' Blasphemies. 
 
 " Let us worship the Man co-bowed to with the Almighty God in 
 the divine conjunction." 
 
 Passage 14 of Nestorius' Blasphemies : 
 
 "This is he [Nestorius' mere Man] that said, My God, My God, why hast 
 thou forsaken me ? This is he [the mere Man] who endured the three days 
 death, and I Bow TO him [the mere Man] TOGETHER with The Divinity [of 
 the Word] inasmuch as He is a co-worker with The divine authority." 
 In Passage 5th, Nestorius argues that Christ's mere Humanity may be called 
 God " by reason of its [external] conjunction with God," and in Passage 6th, he 
 contends that that mere Humanity may be called Godxn the sense that Moses was! 
 Compare Passage 7th and 14th. See the note there. That giving the name of 
 God to a creature, which is in itself a sort of act of worship, is anathematized by 
 Cyril in his Anathema VIII. below. 
 
 It is remarkable how the Holy Spirit by the Third Ecumenical Council for- 
 bade all relative worship of the highest of all mere created things, the perfect 
 Humanity of Christ, before the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, 
 sandlioned the invocation of saints, the relative worship of the cross, of images, 
 of relics, of the Scriptures, or any part of them, in its abominable and paganiz- 
 ing and idolatrous Definition. It had the profane rashness and self evident im- 
 piety in effect to r.r.atheniatize Christ, His Apostles, and the Six Ecumenical 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestor tus. S37 
 
 and does not rather say that the Spirit is His (68 1) own Spirit, 
 
 Synods for not giving '^Salutation and honorary worship (aaTraa/nbv kqI TiixTjriiifjv 
 TrpnaKvvTiaiv), (as though there could be any worship which is not honorary), to 
 crosses, images, and the other material things above mentioned, that is by kiss- 
 ing, bowing, incense, and the burning of lights before said images, etc., as that 
 document specifies. All that is, of course, a lower form of 7'elative worship than 
 that of Nestorius which is set forth in the above mentioned Passages of his, 
 quoted as his '"blasphemies,'''' on the basis of which he was condemned and de- 
 posed ; for I have seen no proof that he so degraded himself as to worship images, 
 or to invoke any creature, except the highest of all mere creatures, the perfect 
 Humanity of Christ. Nestorius' relative worship expressions are quoted and 
 condemned by St. Cyril in his Longer Letter, pages 221-224 above ; and an ex- 
 pression embodying and affirming that sin is found in the Creed ascribed to 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia which was condemned in Act VI. of the Third Ecu- 
 menical Council in the Decree, now Canon VII. there set forth, which imposes 
 the penalty of deposition on every cleric holding its heresies, and of anathema 
 on every laic who does. One of those heresies is the assertion that the merely 
 human Nestorian Christ ''receives worship /ro7n all the creation, as having the 
 inseparable [external] comjnn5lion with the Divine Nature [of the Word], all 
 the creatiofi giving him worship with reference to God and in consideration of 
 God : " Greek, ~^iv Tzapd irao/jg tt/c KTiGscjq dex^'at rrpoaKvvTjciv^ ug ax^pioTov npbg tjjv 
 Selav <f)i)aiv ex(^v ttjv avvdipeiav, dva<popg Qeov Kal kvvoia rrdaT/g avT(p r^g Krloeug rrjv Trpoa- 
 KvvTjGiv airoveiJLovGTjg. 
 
 It is strange how the prejudices of early education move many, and keep 
 them from impartial investigation and judgment. For instance, on our topic, 
 Francis Patrick Kenrick, who died Latin Archbishop of Baltimore, in A. D. 1863, 
 in his Theologia Dogmatica, Vol. II., Phila., 1840, Tractat. VII., cap. IX., page 
 258-261, adlually goes so far as to assert that the error of the Nestorians as to wor- 
 shipping Christ's Humanity was that ^' they denied to the Man Christ the divine 
 worship which they gave to the Word: but the Church adores the one Persofi of 
 the Word in the Two Natures.'" (Nestoriani homini Christo divinum recusabant 
 cultum, quern tribuebant Verbo: sed Ecclesia unam Verbi personam in utraque 
 natura adorat). Just below he remarks : 
 
 ' ' It must indeed be carefully noticed that the flesh of Christ is to be regarded 
 as existing in hypostatic conjoinment with the divine Word, and it is to be adored 
 not for its own sake, but for the sake of the diviiie Subsistence Whom it co?itains. 
 But it is adored in itself, that is, itself is worshipped though the adoration is 
 based not on it but on the Word," Latin, Equidem id sedulo animadvertendum 
 carnem Christi spectari prout divino Verbo hypostatice conjuncta subsistit, et 
 adorari non propter se, sed propter divinam quam liabet Subsistentiam. Adora- 
 tur tamen iii se, scilicet ipsa colitur, tametsi adoratio in ilia non sistatur, sed in 
 Verbo. 
 
 Diredtly after he states the following " Proposition.''' 
 
 " The hum,an nature of Christ is to be adored with one and the same su- 
 preme ivorship of I atria with the divine Word with Whom it is Hypo'staticatty 
 
338 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 through Which also He wrought the miracles of God, let him be 
 
 anathema. 
 
 conjoined : lyatin, Propositio : Uno eodemque supremo lairiae cultu humana 
 Christi natura adoranda est cum Verbo divino cum quo est hypostatice C07i~ 
 juncta.^'' 
 
 Here are several falsehoods in a few lines. Let us see what they are. 
 
 I. As to the statement that the fault of the Nestorians was that, ' ' They denied 
 to the Man Christ the divine worship which they gave to the Word:' This is a 
 mere assertion without a solitary fact for it in the two Epistles of Cyril above which 
 were approved by the Third Synod, or in the Acts of the Council itself. I do 
 not think that Kenrick could have ever read much of Cyril or of Ephesus, of 
 which, under God, Cyril was the leader and mind, or he could hardly have ven- 
 tured such an utterly false statement. See notes 156, 183, 580, 581 and 582 
 above, where we see, 
 
 (i). That Cyril's charge on that point is that they gave Christ's Humanity, 
 being a creature, any worship at all, even what was relative, and anathematizes 
 them for so doing. Much more, by necessary inference, does he anathematize 
 any one who, like Kenrick, gives absolute worship to a mere creature. Cyril 
 never faults Nestorius for refusing such worship to Christ's Humanity. Nobody 
 did. That question is not even mentioned. In Cyril's day, the Co-substancers, 
 that is, the Synousiasts, came the nearest to Kenrick's notion, but their error 
 was not the same, for though in fact they gave the same sort of worship to 
 Christ's Humanity that they did to His Divinity, nevertheless they did not in- 
 tend to, for they alleged that Christ's Humanity had been absorbed into His 
 Divinity, and so what they worshipped in Christ was all God. Cyril condemns 
 that sect in some fragments of a work against them which still remain, and are 
 translated on pages 363-378 of the Oxford rendering of St. Cyril of Alexandria 
 on the Incarttation against Nestorius. 
 
 (2). Cyril makes all worship prerogative to Divinity, and therefore denies it 
 to Christ's Humanity where he is speaking expressly of it : see above, pages 79 
 and 225, notes. Those utterances being approved by Ephesus are now necessary 
 parts of the faith of the Universal Church. 
 
 (3). To worship Christ's Humanity with God the Word results in worship- 
 ping a Tetrad instead of a Trinity, see above, note on pages 89, 90, 91, 94, 114. 
 
 (4). Cyril teaches that to worship Christ's Humanity is to adore two Sons, 
 page 94, note. 
 
 (5). That it is a thing to shudder at, page 91, note. 
 
 (6). That to worship Christ's Humanity is to make it a God, pages 82, 83, 85, 
 88, 92, 94 and 114, note. So Cyril teaches in his Christ is One, pages 259, 26c 
 of the Oxford translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against 
 Nestorius. 
 
 (7). With reference to the Nestorian plea that they gave but one worship to 
 Christ's Humanity and Divinity, Cyril teaches that to worship Christ's Ilntn^iu- 
 
Reading of CyriV s Lo7ig Epistle to Nestorius. 339 
 
 X. The Scripture of God says that Anointed has been made 
 
 ity is to out and out insult God the Word, and to give drunkards'' insults to God; 
 see in this work above, pages 87, 91, note ; and 
 
 (8). To dishonor the mode of the Union, page 86, note ; and 
 (9). To deal craftily with the truth, page 86, note: 
 
 (10). Cyril teaches that the worship of Christ's Humanity is forbidden by- 
 Scripture, pages 94-96 above, note: 
 
 (11). That it is a trap to corrupt men, page 93, note: 
 
 (12). That it is " very clear tongue paining stuff ^^ against God, page 118, 
 note: 
 
 (13) . That it is a crime to 7Vorship Christ's Hiimanity,-^aigQs 95, 96, 109, 1 10, 
 note-: the reference on the last two pages proves that that sentiment is now ap- 
 proved and embodied in the Definition of the Universal Church in the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Council and so must be received: 
 
 (14). That to worship Christ's Humanity is to be held fast ifi the meshes of 
 Nestorius' own ill counsel, and to be detected as having fallen into a reprobate 
 m,ind, page 87, note : and 
 
 (15). Is the a7tcient deceit of creature worship and "« blasphemous thing,'^ 
 page 92, note : and 
 
 (16). A heresy a^id calumny against the pious dogmas of the Church, page 
 no, Hote. 
 
 (17). The Nestorian worship of Christ's Humanity is perverse and brings 
 punishment, page 90, note. 
 
 (18). Cyril teaches that if it be right to worship Christ's Humanity, then the 
 Father was inconsistent and wrong for blaming the creature-worshipping Israel- 
 ites and the heathen for doing the same thing of worshipping a creature, page 
 85, note. 
 
 (19). The utterances of the Universal Church in the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil and in the Fifth, in effect condemn all worship of Christ's Humanity. See 
 above pages 108-1 12. And the two Epistles approved by the Third Council, both 
 of which condemn absolutely and without any limitation the worship of Christ's 
 Humanity, were Cyril's. 
 
 (20). The Nestorians understood Cyril to deny all worship to Christ's Hu- 
 manity ; see above, pages 11 2-1 28, note. 
 
 II. The assertion that ^' the Church adores the Ofie Person of the Word in 
 both Natures,'' if meant of the Universal Church, is not true, for it most point- 
 edly forbids " Christ to be worshipped in two Natures," and anathematizes everj' 
 one who does it ; and instead orders all to *' worship with [but] one worship 
 [that is, with divine and absolute worship] God the Word inflcshed withiii His 
 0W71 flesh, as the Church of God has received from the begi7ini7ig ." See that 
 Anathema on pages no, in, note, of this volume, above. And for all the Ecu<- 
 menical Decisions on that matter see pages 10S-112. 
 
340 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 High Priest and Apostle (682) of our profession (683), and has 
 
 III. The next quoted expression of Kenrick plainly teaches, after all his 
 floundering about, what is in effect the Nestorian relative worship of Christ's 
 Humanity, though, unlike Nestorius, he admits the Hypostatic Union. 
 
 "The flesh of Christ * * * is to be adored not for its own sake, but for 
 the sake of the divine Subsistence [that is divine Being, that is God the Word] 
 Whom it contains. But it is adored in itself that is to say, itself is worshipped, 
 though the adoration is based not on it, but on the Word.'' On pages 108-112, 
 above, we see how the Universal Church in written utterances has condemned 
 all relative worship of Christ's Humanity, that is, all worship of that per se not 
 worshipable Man, because of the ;^^r 5^ worshipable Word to whom that Crea- 
 ture is related. See also the Nestorian utterances in favor of that error on 
 pages 1 12-128, above, note. The Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity is 
 condemned above most clearly in Cyril's Longer Epistle, pages 221-224 above. 
 And what must be well remembered, that is approved by the Third Ecumenical 
 Council, and so stands forever. There Cyril says that ''it is a horrible thi?ig'' 
 to co-call \.\\& Humanity of Christ, ''God with Him [God the Word] Who has 
 taken him'' [the Man.] 
 
 But, IV. Kenrick puts forth the "Proposition," that 
 
 " The human nature of Christ is to be adored with one and the same supreme 
 worship of latria with the divine Word with whom it is Hypostatically con- 
 j'oined. ' ' 
 
 Kenrick here refers impliedly to the merely factitious and mediaeval dis- 
 tindlions in worship of /^/rm, service, the highest, to be given to God alone, and 
 two lower kinds which they allege may be given to creatures, that is, hyperdulia, 
 more than slavery, given by them to the Virgin Mary, and dulia, slavery, given 
 by them to other saints. See under those words in McClintock and Strong's 
 Cyclopaedia, and under Idolatry in Hook's Church Dictionary, and under Dulia 
 in Staunton's Ecclesiastical DiElionary. 
 
 But such manufactured to order distinAions to excuse and to foster creature 
 worship and image worship are not only utterly unknown to Holy Writ but ab- 
 solutely contradictory to it; for in it God proclaims, " Thou shall bow to the 
 Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve," Matt, iv., 10: and He speaks 
 definitely in Isaiah xlii, 8, against all relative worship such as that of Kenrick 
 here (for after all his darkeni7ig counsel by words without knowledge. Job 
 xxxviii, 2, his worship of Christ's Humanity is merely relative). For God there 
 proclaims, " I am the Lord ; that is my name; and my glory will I not ^ive to 
 another, neither my praise to graven images." See St. Cyril's adducing of 
 those passages against the relative worship of Christ's Humanity in this volume 
 on pages 94-96, note. 
 
 Perhaps I should say that relative worship, that is, the relative worship of 
 things or created persons, for the sake of God to Whom they were 
 supposed by the creature-servers to have some sort of relation, is as old as the 
 worship of the golden calf in the wilderness and the calves at Bethel and at 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Lo/ig Epistle to Nestoriiis. 341 
 
 offered Hunself for us (684), as an odor of a sweet smell to the God and 
 
 Dan, Yet though these were worshipped as r(?/a^2V<? to Jehovah as His images 
 (a purely facflitious and God-forbidden relation, by the way), nevertheless the 
 term relative is not used of that idolatry, at least not in Holy Writ. 
 
 The diflference then on worshipping Christ's Humanity between Nestorius 
 and his partisans on the one hand, and Kenrick on the other, is little more than 
 nominal ; for both, on their own showing, were creatine worshippers. Nestor- 
 ius, fearful of being called a worshipper of a Man (see note on page 88 above), 
 says in the note on page 224 above, " I separate the Natures, but I unite the 
 
 BOWING," that is, "THE WORSHIP," 
 
 Cyril brands that as " very clear tongue-paining stuff against Him " [God]. 
 See page 118, note. 
 
 Theodoret, and Andrew of Samosata, Nestorius' champions, and Cyril's op- 
 ponents, profess like Nestorius, to unite the ivorship and glorifying of Christ's 
 Two Natures : see the note on pages 116 and 117 where Theodoret goes so far as 
 to say of his party, the Nestorians, 
 
 " We worship as one Son Him Who took [that is God the Word] and that 
 which was taken [that is, His Humanity]." ''We offer but 07ie glorifying, as 
 I have often said, to the Lord Christ, and we confess the Same One to be God and 
 Man at the same time. ' ' 
 
 Similarly speaks Andrew of Samosata on page 117, note. See it there, and 
 the words of a Nestorian in the note on page 127, where the heretic opposes St. 
 Cyril's prohibition of v/orship to Christ's Humanity in his Anathemas III. and 
 VHI. 
 
 Pradlically then, so far as worshipping Christ's Humanity is concerned, 
 Kenrick and Nestorius agreed, though on the Incarnation and the Union they 
 differed. 
 
 The agreement continues as to understanding certain texts of Scripture in 
 dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, Cyril holding that they teach the worship 
 of God the Word, Nestorius that they teach the worship of Christ's Humanity. 
 The texts are, Heb. i, 6; Philip, ii, 10, and John ix, 38. Strangely enough, Ken- 
 rick sides with Nestorius against Cyril as to their meaning, and, like him, claims 
 them and other texts for Man-Worship. See on those texts in the Index of 
 Texts in St. Cyril of Alexandria On the Incarnation against Nestorius, and in 
 the Index to Texts of Holy Scripture in volume I. oi Nicaea in this Set. Cyril, 
 of course, denies that any text of Holy Writ teaches Man-Worship. 
 
 Kenrick then adduces alleged passages of Ambrose and of Augustine for the 
 Worship of Christ's Humanity. It is enough to reply that, even if they were 
 genuine, they are condemned by necessary implication in the two Epistles of St. 
 Cyril, which were approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and by the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Synod in its Definition and its Anathema IX. He also quotes the 
 antecedently anathematized idolater John of Damascus of the eighth century. 
 He is welcome to all such witnesses for paganism and opposers of Christ. 
 
342 Act 1. of Ephesus. 
 
 Father. If, therefore, any one says that the Word Himself, Who 
 
 The same Kenrick in the Third volume of his Theologia Dogmaiica, page 
 232, (Tra<5lat. XI., cap. XII.,) sets forth the Proposition that 
 
 " Christ is to be adored in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, even outside of 
 the Sacrartienial a^ion^ with the worship of latria, both internal a7id external."' 
 That is plain heresy. It rests on his doctrine of Transubstantiation which asserts 
 that after consecration whole Christ, body and blood, soul a7id Divinity, are in 
 the wafer, and in every part of it when broken. 
 
 But as is shown in the note on pages 250-313, above, Cyril teaches that there 
 is no real presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the rite, and hence 
 there is nothing there to worship, and that the substance of His Humanity is 
 not there, and those views were approved by the Third Council of the w^hole 
 Church, East and West ; and hence stand forever. And so Kenrick 's views and 
 those of the Latin Communion for the worship of Christ's Humanity are not al- 
 lowable, but plainly heretical because Ecumenically condemned by the Third 
 Synod. 
 
 So is his worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus which is plain Nestorian 
 relative worship of Christ's Humanity, as even Kenrick himself is logically forced 
 in effect to explain it on pages 260, 261 of vol, II. of his Theologia Dogmaiica. 
 He also tells there how when that revived form of Nestorianism arose in the 
 seventeenth century, " very many tumults were excited^' in the Roman Commun- 
 ion because of it ; and adds that the Roman see '^favored it,'' but that the Ro- 
 man " Congregation of Eites hesitated in the years iSg'j, 1727 and 172^, and de- 
 cided that it should abstain from conceding an Office and a Mass for the Worship 
 of the hearty taken in the strict sense. But Clem,ent XIII. approved it in the 
 year J 765. ' ' Since that date this new form of Nestorian Man-Worship has gained 
 strength in that creature- worshipping Communion. I quote some of the Latin 
 of the above of Kenrick; '' Animadversio de ciiltu Cordis lesu * * * Sep- 
 timo decimo exeunte seculo festum Sandtissimi cordis lesu coepit celebrari, 
 unde plurimae enatae sunt turbae. Ei favit sedes Apostolica * * -^^ Haeserat 
 tamen sacra Rituum Congregatio an. 1697, 1727, et 1729, et abstinendum censuit 
 a Concessione Officii et Missae pro cultu cordis proprie sumpti : sed Clemens 
 XIII. an. 1765 eum probavit." 
 
 On page 260, volume II. of his Theologia Dogtnatica Kenrick attempts to 
 answer three Obje^lions from a Romish standpoint to that worship of a created 
 thing, but fails utterly. The first is, " The human nature of Christ has not 
 ceased to be a creature, although it is Hypostatically [that is ^^ Substancely'''] co- 
 joined to the Word ; but it is 7vrong to give supreme worship to a creature.'" 
 
 The second is that, '* Therefore the Worship done to the human nature of 
 Christ is relative,'*'* 
 
 The third is that '* Cyril of Alexandria teaches that it is wrong to co-adore 
 with God the Word, the Man whom, He took.''' 
 
 The first proposition, if amended according to St. Cyril's doctrine, would 
 read at the end. It is wrong to give any worship to a creature. 
 
Reading of Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius. 343 
 
 came out of God, was not made our High Priest and Apostle when 
 
 The second exa<5lly expresses Nestorius' view, and in effect Kenrick's, for 
 in reply to it he admits that Christ's human nature " is worshipped, though noto7i 
 its own account, but on account of the divine Subsistence,'" that is God the Word: 
 Latin, " non propter se, sed propter divinam Subsistentiam colitur." Whatever 
 verbiage Kenrick may use, and howsoever he may twist and turn, he in fact admits 
 that that worship is relative, when he admits that Christ's human nature "is 
 worshipped, not on its own account, but on account of the divine SubsisieJice,'' 
 that is the divine Being, God the Word, to Whom that nature is related in the 
 sense of being His tabernacle {koKTjvuaev kv rjulv, John i., 14), or temple, as Epipha- 
 nius puts it below. For when a man gives any act of religious service to any 
 created person or to any inanimate thing, not for its own sake, but for the sake 
 of God, that is, by the very definition, relative worship. The only object of ab- 
 solute worship is Divinity Itself, for He is worshipped not on account of any 
 other, but because every act of religious service is prerogative to God alone. 
 
 Kenrick's reply to the third objedlion shows utter ignorance of some fadls 
 involved in the struggle on Man- Worship between Cyril and Nestorius, and is so 
 weak therefore, as hardly to deserve notice. He does not seem to have noticed 
 the fact that Cyril again and again denies all worship to Christ's Humanity, 
 makes it Tetradism to worship it, and makes all religious service prerogative to 
 the Consubstantial Trinity alone ; see notes 183, 580, 581 and 582. 
 
 We come now, B. to show how the Monophy sites worshipped Christ's created 
 huma^iity. At the start I should do them the justice of saying that they pro- 
 fessed, in accordance with St. Cyril's teachings on Isaiah xlii., 8, and Matt, iv., 10, 
 not to worship Christ's human nature at all. For Eutyches said, when sum. 
 moned by two clerics, the presbyter John and the deacon Andrew, to appear and 
 answer for his faith before the local Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, as we 
 read in its Act ///, and as John testifies that, ''Since the Inman of God the Word, 
 that is, since the birth of our Lord fesus Anointed, he [Eutyches] worships 
 [but] One Nature, and that the Nature of God Who took flesh and put on a 
 Man;'' (Greek, asintome2ofHarduin. Condi., col. 141, A., fiera Se r^v evavBpunr/mv 
 Tov Oeov Aoyov, tovteotl, fiera t^v yivvrfaiv tov Kvpiov rmuv 'Iijcov Xpiarov uiav <f)vatv 
 'KpoOKwelv, Koi rdvTTjv Qeov aapKudivrog Kal ivavOpunrjoavTOQ), 
 
 Compare Hefele's History of the Councils of the Church, English translation, 
 vol. III., page 192. Further on, after Eutyches had called in question the truth 
 of some things (not however his words above) in the Acts, the presbyter John 
 aforesaid testifies that Eutyches had really used that language as to worshipping 
 but one Nature in Christ : see Harduin. Concilia, tome 2, col. 186, C. , and cof 
 188, E. 
 
 The Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, before which Eutyches then 
 came, had great difiicnlty in drawing out of him his real opinion on the chief 
 thing for which they faulted him, his denial that Christ's humanity is of the 
 same substance as ours. He vacillated, and only seemed to endure the asser- 
 tion of the consubstantiality of Christ's humanity with ours when he was forced 
 
344 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 He was made flesh (685) and a man like us (686); but that another, 
 
 by fear of consequences. It was then that, as Hefele writes, "The imperial 
 Commissioner Florentius * * * asked with precision and insight into the 
 matter, Dost thou believe that our Lord, who was born of the Virgin, is of one 
 substance with us, and that after the Incarnation He is Ik 6vo (pvaeuv ["of two 
 Natures "] or not ? " 
 
 And Eutyches answered before the Council, '' I conjess that before tJie Union 
 our Lord consisted of Two Natures, but after the Union 1 confess [only] One 
 Nature:'' (Greek quoted on page 202, volume III. of the English translation of 
 Hefele's History of the Councils of the Church, onoloyo) i/c 6vo (pvaeuv yeyevfiadai tov 
 Kvpiov rjuuv npb rfjq evuaeug, fiera 6e rrjv evuoiv /niav ^miv d/xo/\.oy cj). 
 
 Eutyches therefore not only believed in but One Nature after the Union 
 but actually worshipped but One Nature. No one faulted him then, or in the 
 Robbers' Council at Ephesus in A. D. 449, or at Chalcedon afterwards in the 
 Fourth Ecumenical Council when the proceedings of that local Council of Con- 
 stantinople were reviewed, for his assertion that "After the Ininan of God the 
 Word, that is, after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, he worshipped 07ily Otie 
 Nature, that is, that of God Who took flesh and put on a Man.'' This is a note- 
 worthy fact. What they faulted him for was his denial of the doctrine of the 
 Two Natures of Christ, and especially his denial of the existence of Christ's 
 humanity after the Union, and his implied assertion, of course, that it had 
 either become transubstantiated into Christ's Divinity, or had been made a 
 Third Thing, which was neither Divinity nor Humanity. Of course in either 
 case it was no longer consubstantial with ours ; and so he did away with the 
 Christian Economy in flesh. Besides, inasmuch as, according to all the 
 Orthodox, Christ's Humanity still remains unchanged, and as Eutyches 
 seems to have worshipped all there is of Christ, he was 7^eally a worshipper of a 
 Man, that is of a creature, and so was, in fact, a creature-worshipper notwith- 
 standing his disavowal of it. 
 
 And so all the other Monophysites, who differed from Cyril in transubstan- 
 tiating Christ's human Nature into Divinity after the Union of the Two Natures, 
 and by admitting only one Nature after that, and that Divinity alone, and then 
 worshipped all of that as God, in fact worshipped Christ's unchanged human 
 nature as God, and so were as thoroughly Man- Worshippers as the Nestorians, 
 though in a different way. For they did not, like the Nestorians, worship \X.7'ela- 
 iively as still human, but absolutely as God, having been made God, they asserted, 
 at the Union of the Two Natures. From Hefele's summary of that scene it would 
 seem that Eutyches held that the body which Christ had at birth ' ' was not of the 
 same substance with ours, ' ' (Hefele id. , page 192). According to the Acts, one had 
 well said to Eutyches, "If thou dost fiotachiowledge two Natures after the Union 
 also, then thou acceptest a niingliyig and confusion [of the Natures]," Hefele id., 
 page 203. If he had accepted that inference from his premises, he would have 
 worshipped not that Logos, all of Whom is *'ofone Stcbsiance with the Father,'* 
 as the two Ecumenical Creeds teach, but a Third Something (Tertium Quidj, 
 
Readi7ig of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 345 
 
 besides Him, a mere man who came out of a woman, [was made 
 our High Priest and Apostle] ; or if any one says that He 
 
 which is neither wholly God, nor wholly Man, an impossible Mixture of the 
 Substance of God, the Creator, with the Substance of a Man, a creature ! The 
 Fifth Ecumenical Council, following out the teaching of St. Cyril, condemns 
 both kinds of Monophysitism, that is, the Transubstantiation of flesh into Divin- 
 ity kind, and the mixing up the Two Natures into one Nature kind : for in its 
 Anathema IX. it decrees, 
 
 ^' If any one to the doing away of the flesh, or to the mixing of the Divinity 
 and of the Humanity, asserts the tnonstrosity ^[but] One Nature, that is, Sub- 
 stance of the thifigs [that is, the Two Natures] zvhich have come together, and so 
 worships the Anoiiited Ofie, but does not worship with [but] one worship God 
 the Word infleshed within [or "with"] His own flesh, as the Church of 
 God has receivedfrom the beginnijig, let such a one be anathema. ' ' In this Anathe- 
 ma we must understand the Synod to mean God the Word by the Aftointed One, 
 XfMG-og, in accordance with the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation of the 
 sufferings and the other things of the Man put on, to God the Word who put 
 Him on, a doctrine approved by the Universal Church at Ephesus : See above 
 in this volume pages 74-104 in the Shorter Epistle; and in the Longer Epistle, 
 pages 215-217 where Anointed is explained to be a title of God the Word. 
 Compare pages 221-224; and as to Economic Appropriatio7i, pages 224-232, 253, 
 254. Cyril in hisScholia on the Inman of the Sole-Borjt, sections i, 12, 13, 17, 
 19, etc., again shows that by Christ, that is by the Anoifited One, we must 
 understand God the Word, in accordance with the do(5lrine of Economic 
 Appropriation. Compare pages 185, 208, 210, 211, 230 of the Oxford 
 translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
 Nestorius. On that doctrine see especially the language of St. Athanasius, 
 quoted by St. Cyril with approval, which teaches that it is necessary to avoid 
 what he terms '"idolatry"" by worshipping ''acomman Man,'' that is, as he there 
 explains, Christ's mere Humanity by invoking it. See also, under Economic 
 Appropriation in the General Index to volume I. of Nicaea in this Set, and 
 under that expression in the Index to this volume. 
 
 That there were Monophysites, who held to the Transubstantiation of the 
 flesh of the Man put on by God the Word into His Divinity, so that it became 
 Consubstantial with It, is clear from what St. Cyril writes against the Synousiasts, 
 that is, Co-substancers, as he is given on pages 368-372. id., for he says, 
 
 ''For come, let us with acute eye of the understanding investigate the idea 
 of the Conf users. They say that His flesh has been changed {I know not how) 
 into consubstantiality with God the Word.'" Then Cyril refutes that error as 
 doing away with the saving Economy of redemption. Just before, in the same 
 work, he shows that Christ's Divinity can not be changed into flesh, aud that, 
 on the other hand, His flesh can not be changed into His Divinity. 
 
346 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 offered Himself as an offering for Himself also, and not rather for 
 us alone, for He Who k7iew 710 si?i (687) needed no offering, let 
 him be anathema (688). 
 
 On page 372, he refers to some of those heretics who seem not to have held 
 to the Transubstantiation of Christ's flesh into His Divinity, but to a mingling 
 or mixture of the two Natures; for he writes, 
 
 " But haply they will say that the flesh did not wholly depart from bei?ig 
 what it was, but that it was, as it were, immingled with God the Word unto a 
 natural oneness.'^ Then he proceeds to refute that error as an impossibility. 
 
 To conclude, as to the One Natureite's do(5lrine as to worshipping the 
 Humanity of Christ. Whether they held to its transubstantiation into the Div- 
 inity of the Word, or to the mixing of both Natures together, since they wor- 
 shipped all of Christ after the Union, as God, (though in fact, according to the 
 dodlrine of the Universal Church in the Fourth Ecumenical Council, it still 
 remains flesh and an entire humanity consubstantial with our flesh and our 
 humanity), therefore they were, in fact, 7vorshippers of a Man, that is, Creature- 
 Worshippers. 
 
 C. We come now to state how St. Cyril, and the Universal Church follow- 
 ing him., differed front the Nestorians ofi the one hand and from the Monophy- 
 sites on the other as to worshipping the humanity of Christ. 
 
 On this there are two opinions, of which we have treated in this volume, in 
 note 183, pages 79-12^, and in note 582, pages 225, 226. We can only summarize 
 regarding them here. We hope, if God will, to publish a large amount of 
 matter from the Fathers, from heretics, and from others on that general topic of 
 Man-Worship, that is, of course, of Creature-Worship, in a special Dissertation 
 on that theme. For the present we shall content ourselves with giving both 
 opinions without expressing a final opinion ourselves. 
 
 The first opinion is that Cyril worshipped in Christ only His Divinity, and 
 regarded all worship of His Hutnanity as Man- Worship {avOpurroXarpela), that 
 is. Creature- Worship, and therefore asforbiddeti by Almighty God ifi His Holy 
 Word, and that that do^rine of Cyril in his Two Epistles and in Anathema 
 VIH. in the Longer of thetn has bee7i approved by the Third Ecimtefiical Synod, 
 and that the same teaching is incorporated into the Defi^iition of the Fifth Ecu- 
 m.enical Council, and ifito its Anathema IX; so that his dodlrine is now that of 
 the whole Church, and whosoever co7itradi5ls it is a heretic. 
 
 The second opinioti is that St. Cyril worshipped the Humatiity of Christ 
 and God the Word together, though in a different way from the matmer in 
 which the Nestorians did it, afid in a different maimer from the way in which 
 the Monophysites did it, and his opinion, being approved by the Third Council 
 and the Fifth, is now the doArine of the Universal Church. 
 
 To put the matter in a clear way and to bring out the contrast better, we 
 will parallelize the three views as to worshipping the Humanity of Christ under 
 each of the two opinions aforesaid, beginning with Opinion I. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to NeUoriiis. 
 
 347 
 
 XI. If any one does not acknowledge that the flesh of the 
 
 The Nestorian. 
 Both Natures in Christ 
 •are to be worshipped, His 
 Divinity absolutely, His 
 Humanity relatively only. 
 Each Nature is separate, 
 and yet the worship to 
 both is to be united. 
 
 The Orthodox. 
 One only of Christ's 
 Two Natures is to be wor- 
 shipped, that is, the Div- 
 inity, and that absolutely. 
 As an old writer puts it, 
 " There are Two Natures 
 in Christ — one Divine 
 and to be bowed to, and 
 one human and not to be 
 bowed 
 
 The Monophysite. 
 There is only One Na- 
 ture in Christ since the 
 Union, that is, the Divine, 
 and it alone is to be wor- 
 shipped. But the Orthodox 
 reply that, in fact, how- 
 ever, Christ's human 
 nature does remain, and 
 therefore,, in worshipping 
 all of Christ as God abso- 
 solutely, the One-Nature- 
 ite was in fact a Creature- 
 Worshipper. 
 
 The arguments for the first opinion are as follows: 
 
 (i). Cyril again and again makes the most common act of religious service, 
 TDOwing, (used by him for every act of religious service), prerogative to God, and 
 that, too, when he is contending against the Nestorian worship of Christ's 
 created humanity. I give two examples out of all: 
 
 In the long note 183, on pages 79-128, and in note 582, page 225, in this 
 volume, we have seen that St. Cyril of Alexandria makes all worship of the Son 
 to be given to His Divinity only in accordance with His understanding of Holy 
 Writ, for on pages 79, 80, he condemns the Nestorians for insulting the flesh put 
 on by God the Word by worshipping it, and adds that " It is a thing Jit ajid 
 obligatory to worship the Divifie and ineffable Nature alone, irpt-ovTog fiovij tTj 
 Qeia T£ Kal aTroppfJTG) tpvaec rov TrpoaKwelaCai delv. 
 
 And so on page 225, Cyril proves that the Son must be God, because bow- 
 ing, an act of religious service, is given to Him in Hebrews i., 6, which makes 
 against the worship of His created human nature: 
 
 "And besides. He is to be bowed to by the holy angels, and that too when 
 
 THE RIGHT TO BE BOWED TO BELONGS TO AND BEFITS GOD ALONE. HoW then 
 
 is Christ not God, seeing that He is bozved to even in Heaveii .^" See the Greek 
 on pages 225 and 226. See also the contexts of those two passages above. 
 
 But if it could be proved that St. Cyril bowed to, that is worshipped Christ's 
 Humanity, the Nestorians could at once have replied: Your facls and your 
 logic are decidedly weak. For a point involved is whether Christ's Humanity 
 is worshipable or not. We Nestorians say it is. You (Cyril and the Orthodox) 
 say it is not, and you prove that it is not because all religious bozuing ts prerog- 
 ative to God. But you yourselves bow to Christ's Humanity with the Word, that 
 is, you worship with one worship the Man, that is, as you admit, a creature, with 
 the uncreated Word. So that you violate your own principle that all a<5ls of 
 religious service, bowing, prayer and the rest are prerogative to Ahniglity God 
 
348 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Lord is life-giving, and is the own flesh of the Word Himself, Who 
 
 alone. And though, in your Vlllth Anathema, you anathematize us for co- 
 bowing to a Man, that is, Christ's Humanity, with God the Word, you yourselves, 
 do the same. And so, though we differ as to the Incarnation of the Logos, 
 nevertheless we both agree in worshipping a creature, Christ's humanity. But 
 the fact is, no Nestorian charges him with such inconsistency. Indeed, Eutherius 
 of Tyana quotes that part of Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema VIII,, and avers 
 that it proves that Cyril did not worship Christ's Humanity, for he writes, ^ 
 
 ''But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, and takes away due adoration. 
 [from it] as he [Cyril of Alexandria] has commanded [us to do]/6'r he says, 
 
 * If any one presumes to say that the Man taken [by God the Word] ought to be 
 co-adored with God the Word and to be co-glorified with Him, let him be anath- 
 ema.' " See the Latin translation on page 121 above, note. The Greek is lost. 
 
 (2). In accordance with that dodlrine that all religious worship is preroga- 
 tive to God, Cyril teaches that to worship Christ's Humanity by bowi^ig, and, by 
 necessary implication, by any other act of religious service, is to -tnake that 
 creature God, and a sort of Fourth Person after the Trinity, and in brief to 
 turn the Trinity into a Quaternity. For above, on pages 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 
 86, 87, 88, and 89, he condemns Nestorius for relatively co-worshipping Christ's 
 humanity with his Divinity, as serving '' that which by Nature is not God'''' 
 (page 84), as making a creature God along with the Father, a new invention 
 (page 85); and says that if God the Father has authorized such creature-worship he 
 has wrongly blamed the heathen for committing the error of worshipping crea- 
 tures (page 85); and St. Cyril most pointedly and aptly condemns Nestorius, 
 ' ' the Man- Worshipper, ' ' for deeyning it" a worthy thing to ho7ior with [but] one 
 worship those things so unlike each other in Nature, and parted as regards 
 their mode of being by i7icomparable differences. For if thou put about a horse 
 the glory of a man, wilt thou do anything praisezvorthy f Wilt thou not rather 
 out and out insult the superior being by dragging down his better natui^e into 
 dishonor " (pages 86 and 87). This is plain and strong language. For Cyril 
 here clearly teaches that the Nestorians' plea that they united the worship of the 
 two Natures was an unworthy thing, that inasmuch (as he teaches above), as all 
 worship is prerogative to God, therefore to give to the human Nature of Christ 
 the act of worship here specified in the Greek, that is bowing, and by implica- 
 tion any other act of religious service, be it prayer, prostration, standing, 
 incense, or any other, is as far from being " praisezaorthy " as to ''put about a 
 horse the glory of a man " would be praiseworthy, (an act which all at once see 
 to be absurd), and is to "out and out insult the superior bein^ by draggiiig 
 down his better nature into dishonor;'" that is, to give to a mere creature, 
 Christ's human nature, God's prerogative of worship, by any act of religious 
 service whatsoever, is to *^ out and out i^isult the superior being,'' (God the 
 Word, or the Father, or all the Trinity in this case), " by dragging down His 
 better Nature into dishonor.''' Surely nothing can be plainer against worship- 
 ping the created human nature of the Son, and for confining all worship of Him 
 to His Divinity. 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 343 
 
 came out of God the Father, but [regards it] as the flesh of some 
 
 Following out that teaching Cyril chides Nestorius as '' caught and proven 
 to be K WORSHIPPKR OF A MAN," and says of him that, ''Falling away from 
 the road to what is right, he hastetis along his perverse way, aiid out and out 
 proclaims two Gods, One who is such in Nature arid in reality, that is, the Word 
 who has come out of God the Father, and another besides Him who is co-named 
 God with Him " (page 88); and writes of him that he ''adds a worshipped Man 
 to the Holy a?id Cofisubstantial Trinity, and is not ashamed,'' so giving us a 
 Tetrad, that is, a Four, that is, a Quaternity to worship, instead of a Trinity; 
 and tells him plainly on page 90, " Thou art confessedly a worshipper of a 
 Man, and we will say to thee. Thou shall eat the fruits of thy labors [Isaiah iii., 
 10], and being hard and spurning admonition, go alone on the perverted way:' 
 
 Then Cyril professes his own view and that of the Orthodox that the Trinity 
 alone is to be worshipped. For we must remember that, by ' ' One Lord Jesus 
 Christ'' below, St. Cyril means only God the Word, as he explains in his 
 Scholia on the Inman of the Sole-born, sedlions i, 3, 13, etc.; they are in English 
 in the Oxford translation oi S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against 
 Nestorius, pages 185, 188 and 200; compare on Man- Worship page 230, id. I 
 quote Cyril's profession on page 90 above of what he and the Orthodox wor- 
 shipped, which follows, without any break, his reproach to Nestorius above of 
 being "a worshipper of a Man " (page 90) : 
 
 •'But we, seeking out the pious and blameless path of the holy Fathers, and 
 being very well instructed in both the Apostolic and Gospel Writings [the Epis- 
 tles, and A(5ls, and Revelations, and the Gospels], will honor together with the 
 God and Father, and the Holy Ghost, the one Lord Jesus Christ, with but one 
 worship, through Whom and with Whom to the God and Father, together with 
 the Holy Ghost, be glory forever; Amen." 
 
 So also on pages 91-94, in no less than three passages, Cyril charges Nes- 
 torius' denial of the Incarnation, and his w^orship of Christ's humanity as result- 
 ing in Tetradism, that is, in worshipping Four; that is, i, God the Father, 2, 
 God the Word, 3, God the Holy Ghost, and 4, the mere created Humanity of 
 Christ; instead of theConsubstantial Trinity alone, that is, i, God the Father, 2, 
 God the Word, and 3, God the Holy Ghost; and so as issuing in creature wor- 
 ship, the ancient snare; for example, on page 91, Cyril tells him that by such 
 denial and by representing Christ's humanity as worshipped in heaven, he 
 (Nestorius) has " exhibited tons a new God, as a sort of a Fourth God," [or "a 
 sort of Fourth Person "] after the Holy Trinity. And he asks him, "Hast thou 
 not shuddered [at the thought of worshipping] a Common Man, when thou 
 contrivedst the worship to that creature ? Are ive then held fast in the ancient 
 snares [of creature-worship] ? Has the holy multitude of the spirits above been- 
 deceived with us, arid has it given drunkards' insults to God" [that is, by w^or- 
 shipping Christ's humanity in heaven, as Nestorius asserted]. 
 
 On page 92, Cyril asks Nestorius, 
 
 "Since we have been ransomed from the ancient deceit [the sin of worship- 
 
350 ^^^' I' ^f ^P^i^^'i^^' 
 
 other oue besides Him, [which other besides Him has been] conjoined 
 
 ping creatures, the sin of the heathen], and have refused, as a bi^asphemous 
 THING, TO WORSHIP THE CREATURE, why dost thou whelm us agai7i in the 
 
 ANCIENT SINS AND MAKE US WORSHIPPERS OF A MAN " [that is, of Christ's 
 
 created humanity, which, though it be the best and highest of all mere creatures, 
 is not to be worshipped] . 
 
 On the same page Cyril tells Nestorius that, according to his doArine of 
 worshipping Christ's humanity, the logical outcome is that '' A recent and late 
 God has appeared to the world, and that he has the glory of a Sonship which 
 has been acquired from without as ours also has, and that he glories in certain 
 adulterous quasi honors [for Holy Writ teaches that it is spiritual adultery to 
 worship a creature, Jerem. iii., 9, and Ezek. xxiii., 37, and to honor any crea- 
 ture with worship is not true honor], so that it is now THE worship op a Man 
 and nothing else, and a certain man is adored with the H01.Y Trinity, as 
 well by us as by the holy angels r 
 
 On page 94, Cyril tells Nestorius, 
 
 "Thou darest also to clothe in the Master's forms him whom thou sayest to 
 be a Man from Mary, and who at first was not at all different from us nor su- 
 perior to us, but afterwards by much effort merited the name and the divine 
 glory of the Son, that is, after he had come out of the womb. Therefore, 
 according to thy opinion, there are Two Sons, and Christ is a new God 
 who was endowed with supernatural honor from God somewhat more than the 
 rest of the creatures; so that He [God the Word] is co-adored with a MERE 
 man; even that Man who, in the course of time, and only towards the end [of 
 his earthly career] got possession of glory and was made A COMPI.EMENT OF THE 
 Trinity and in Nature equaIv to It," 
 
 (3). Cyril again and again teaches that Scripture forbids us to worship 
 Christ's humanity. He especially quotes Psalm Ixxx., 9, Septuagint, (our Ixxxi., 
 9,) the Greek Version which he used; Isaiah xlii., 8; and Matthew iv., 10. I have 
 treated of that point in the note on pages 94, 95, 96. See also note 183 passim. 
 
 (4). Cyril, in his Epistle to John of Antioch, which was approved by the 
 Fourth Ecumenical Council, writes to him, '' But that we everywhere follow the 
 opinions of the holy Fathers, and especially those of our blessed and all-well- 
 famed Father Athanasius, and therefore refuse to be carried away from them in 
 any thing at all, let thy holiness be persuaded, and let none of the others 
 doubt." 
 
 And we have shown, on pages 98 to 102 of note 183 above, that Athanasius 
 ■opposes all worship of Christ's humanity, which Cyril also must have done if he 
 followed Athanasius, as he professed to. For on page 98 above, Athanasius 
 writes, 
 
 "We do not worship a creature. God forbid ! For such an error 
 as that belongs to the heathen and to the Arians. But we bow to the 
 Lord of the creation Who has put on flesh, that is, to the Word of God." 
 
Readmg of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius, 351 
 
 to Him in dignity (689), that is, as having a divine indwelling only 
 
 On pages 98 and 99 he speaks of worshipping the Word, who created the 
 Universe (John i., 1-4), in His human body, " as in a created temple.''' 
 
 On page 99 he lays down the principle that " The creature does not worship 
 a creature. ' ' 
 
 And on page 100 he proceeds as follows to rebuke those who charged 
 Christians with being worshippers of a Man, 
 
 " And let them know that though we bow to the Lord in flesh, nevertheless 
 we do not bow to a created thing, but to the Creator who put on the created body, 
 as we have said before.^'' 
 
 So on the same page in what I judge to be the true reading of a lacerated 
 passage, Athanasius says of Christ's human body, 
 
 " It IS NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED " (ov TrpoaKVVTiTov). 
 
 On page 95 Cyril again refers to the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity 
 as ** THE CRIME OF WORSHIPPING A MAN." For he writes: 
 
 ** If Christ is the end of the Law and the Prophets [Rom. x,, 4; Matt, xi., 
 13; Luke xvi., 16], but is a [mere] God-inspired Man, would it not be permitted 
 us to say that the end of the prophetic preachings has brought THE CRIME OF 
 WORSHIPPING A Man upon us?" 
 
 (5). If it be replied that neither Cyril, nor the Third Ecumenical Council, 
 which approved his Two Epistles to Nestorius, in which he and they condemn 
 Mestorius' worship of Christ's humanity, separate from God the Word, intended 
 to condemn the worship of the two Natures together, but only the humanity 
 when separate from the Divinity, those who worship the Logos only in the Son 
 reply that the utterances of St. Cyril against all worship of Christ's humanity 
 because it'is a creature, and his quoting such passages as the Septuagint of Psalm 
 Ixxx., 9, Isaiah xlii., 8, and Matt, iv., 10, as against any and all worship of it or 
 of any other creature (pages 94-96 above), and the absence of any limitation of 
 his words to the Man-Worship of the Nestorians, aye, his unlimited and unmodi- 
 fied condemnation of that worship of Christ's humanity and all other Man-Wor- 
 ship and all Creature-Service do not permit us to believe that he deemed any 
 form of worshipping Christ's humanity or any other Man-Worship to be allow- 
 able. 
 
 Indeed, in the Shorter Epistle, pages 79-81 above, Cyril, speaking from the 
 standpoint of an Orthodox Man, teaches that we do not ''bow to [that is, do not 
 ''worship "] « Man together with the Word, lest that tlmig be secretly brought 
 injor a phantasin.'" 
 
 And in the Longer Epistle, pages 221, 222 and 223, Cyril denies that he 
 bows to, that is, worships Christ's humanity, and teaches that " Anointed Jesus, 
 Son, Sole-Born, is understood to be [only] One, and is honored luiih [but] onr 
 WORSHIP WITHIN His OWN FivESH." And by Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole-Born, 
 is meant God the Word within His own flesh as St. Cyril teaches in his Scholia 
 on the Imnan of the Sole-Born, se6lions i, 3, 13 (pages 185, 188, 200, 212; com- 
 pare pages 229, 230, and 40. 40- 
 
352 Ad 1. of Epkestis, 
 
 {690) and does not, on the contrary, acknowledge it as life-giving, as we 
 
 And, what serves as a clincher on this whole matter, Anathema IX. of the 
 Fifth Council of the whole Christian World curses every one who says that 
 " The Anointed One [rbv Xpiarov) is to be worshipped in two Natures,'' and 
 states that by that ''assertion Two worships are brought in, one peculiar to 
 God the Word [that is, the God-Worship, that is, the Worship to God], and the 
 other peculiar to the Man " [that is, the Man-Worship, that is, the worship to a 
 Man, a creature]. And with this Decision agree the other Ecumenical Defini- 
 tions, which are found grouped together in the part of note 183 which is on 
 pages 108-112 above. In fact, in whatever way Christ's humanity is worshipped, 
 the act is, of course, by that very fact Man-Worship, that is, Creature- Worship, 
 and is therefore forbidden by Christ Himself in Matthew iv., 10, " Thou shalt 
 bow to the Lord thy God, and Him oni^y shai.T thou serve." 
 
 Moreover, if Cyril had worshipped the humanity of Christ, he would have 
 met a crushing retort when he rebuked the Nestorians as Man- Worshippers and 
 Creature- Worshippers for that error, and as following their ''perverse way'' with 
 the certainty of eating of the fruit of that fault (pages 88 and 90). They could have 
 justly turned on him and reproached him for his inconsistency in doing the same 
 thing in a different way. But they did not, a fact that shows that they could 
 not find him guilty of it. What they did fault him for was for not doing it. So 
 speaks Eutherius of Tyana below. And the language of the Nestorian cham- 
 pions, Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret of Cyrus, in response to Cyril's 
 Anathema VIII. takes it for granted that he did not co-worship Christ's Human- 
 ity with His Divinity, and that they so understood him to teach in his Anathema 
 VIII. And in order to do away, so far as they could, his rebuke of them for 
 their worshipping a creature, Christ's Humanity, they professed to unite the 
 worship, that is to worship both natures together with but one worship : so Nes- 
 torius attempts to excuse his Man-Worship on page 86 above, so does Theodoret 
 on page 116, and Andrew of Samosata on page 117. Cyril well scores that error 
 on pages 86, 87, as an insulting the Superior Nature in Christ, that is, His Divin- 
 ity, by dragging It down " into dishonor," that is, by giving what is preroga- 
 tive to It, an act of religious service, bowing, to a mere creature. 
 
 And the same thing could be said of St. Cyril, if he had worshipped Christ's 
 Humanity, by bowing, the act specified in his Anathema VIII., or by any other 
 act. 
 
 (6). The Nestorians, who should have knowfi St. Cyril's do5irine, under- 
 stood him to refuse all worship to Christ's Humanity; see pages 112 to 128 
 in note 183 above, especially page 121, where the bitter and irreconcilable Nes- 
 torian, Eutherius of Tyana, speaks, and pages 125, 126, where either he, or 
 Nestorius' fellow-heretic, Theodoret, utters his voice. On page 121 Eutherius 
 writes, 
 
 "But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, and takes away due 
 adoration [from it] as he [Cyril of Alexandria] has commanded [us to do], 
 for he says: 
 
Readmg of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 353 
 
 liave said (691), because it has been made the own flesh of the Word 
 
 '^ If any one presume to say that the Man taken [by God the Word] ought 
 to be co-adored with God the Word and to be co-glorified with Him, let him be 
 anathema.'' This is a reference to St. Cyril's Anathema VIII. below, which 
 was approved by the whole Church at Ephesus. See the Latin rendering of the 
 above passage of Eutherius on page 121 above, note. 
 
 On pages 125 and 126, the Nestorian speaker, whether it be Eutherius or 
 Theodoret, strives to excite hatred against St. Cyril because he refused to wor- 
 ship Christ's humanity, and blasphemously goes so far as to ascribe St. Cyril's 
 do(5lrine on Man-Worship to the devil ! ! ! I quote: 
 
 ** Of how touch hatred therefore are they deserving who, for the sake of 
 their own evil belief [or " through their own evil belief"] strive to envy us on 
 account of so many and so great benefits [of Christ], and forbid the [human] 
 race to be honored [in Christ's Humanity], and separate the flesh which the 
 Word in a marvellous manner conjoined to Himself, and withstand Paul when 
 he cries, what God hath joiiied together, let no man put asunder [Matt, xix., 6] 
 and who let out their tongues to the devil for pay to hide the things which they 
 have done against Him ! For there is nothing so heavy and unbearable to him 
 as to see the nature [of man] which had been led astray by him, lifted up in the 
 First Fruits [Christ's humanity he means, with referenoe to I. Cor. xv., 20, 23], 
 by the King of the Heavens, and living nobly and above praise, and made super- 
 ior to death, and having destroyed his tyranny, and been taken up into heaven 
 and deemed worthy of the glorious seat, and recognized by all the creation as 
 one in the supreme conjun<5lion with Him who took him up, and as one; with 
 Him [God the Word] in the indivisibIvE sharing of the gIvORY [and] of the 
 DIGNITY which IS ABOVE AI.I, EXPRESSION." See the Greek of part of the 
 above on page 126. This Nestorian denouncer of St. Cyril's God-alone-worship, 
 shows his ignorance of Holy Writ by ascribing Christ's own words in Matt, xix., 
 6, to Paul. 
 
 We come now to the 2nd opinion as to whether St. Cyril worshipped Christ's 
 Humanity or not. It is that he worshipped it and God the Word together 
 though in a different way from that in which the Nestoriafis did it, and in 
 a different way from that i7i which the Monophysites did it, atid that his doing 
 so is approved by the Third World Synod and the Fifth. And so {a) those who 
 hold that opinion would hold that the /if ra in the following expression in Anathema 
 IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council means Z£//M in the sense oi together with 
 {phv), not with in the sense of /« the midst of, that is, withiti : fiig irpoaKwr/aei rbi> 
 Qedv Aoyop aaoKuBevra fierd rfj^ Idiag capKog TrpooKwd. So that they would translate 
 it, " worships with [but] 07ie worship, God the Word infleshed, together 7uith His 
 own flesh." For although lexicographers like Liddell and Scott give the radical 
 sense oi [itra to be " /w the middle," and though the first meaning given there of 
 finTa with the genitive is " /;/ the midst of amo7tg, between, with plur. Nouns," 
 of which instances there follow, and though Robinson in his Greek and English 
 Lexicon of the New Testainent connects \1t7a with fikco^, which he defines 
 
354 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 who has power to give life to all things (692), let him be anath- 
 ema (693). 
 
 "(Kindr. with //era) mid, middle, midst;' and gives its first meaning with the 
 genitive to be "with, /. e. mid, amid, among, in the midst of, as where one is 
 said to sit, stand, or be with or in the midst of others with gen. plur. of pers. or 
 thing," nevertheless it does not generally mean ifi the midst of or within, but 
 with in the sense of ' ' together with, along with:' 
 
 Both Robinson and Ividdell and Scott give examples of each of those two 
 meanings. 
 
 {b). Cyril commonly uses iitra with the genitive in the sense either of with 
 or of together with. 
 
 In response to these obje5lions, one holding to the view that in the Son His 
 uncreated Divinity alone is to be worshipped, not at all His mere created Hum- 
 anity, would say, 
 
 1. That it is admitted on all hands that ii^ra with the genitive, in Cyril's, 
 assertion that God the Word is to be bowed to }xtra capKoq^ primarily means, " in 
 the midst of that is, " within flesh,'' and so that the words of the Fifth Ecu- 
 menical Synod in its Anathema IX., u^ra rf^q \6iaq avrov capKoq^ primarily mean, 
 " wtthifi His own flesh." 
 
 2. It is admitted also that sometimes iierd with the genitive means the same 
 as a'vv with the dative, that is, with. So Robinson in his Greek Lexicon of the 
 New Testament defines cvv with the dative; it may sometimes mea.n together 
 with, though not always. Since, therefore, 3. the mere expression fj^erd with the 
 o-enitive, as in //t"a aapKuq, may mean either '* within flesh," with flesh, or 
 too-ether with flesh, in those expressions where Cyril and the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Synod use that language, we must look to the/«^5 connected with the use of the 
 expression by them to determine the exact sense in which they used it. 
 
 And as to Cyril's use of the words where he speaks of the worship of 
 God the Word \iera aapKog ; 
 
 A. It shows plainly that he used them in the sense of within flesh, and in 
 such a sense as to exclude Christ's humanity from being worshipped at all. 
 
 (i), because when speaking definitely on the Two Natures he makes wor- 
 ship prerogative to Christ's Divine Nature alone; see in proof page 79, note 183, 
 and page 225, note 582, and page 87, note. 
 
 (2), he teaches that to worship Christ's humanity is to make it a God; page 
 85, note. 
 
 (3), To worship Christ's humanity, he says, is to worship a Tetrad, that is, 
 a Four, instead of a Consubstantial Trinity; the Trinity being the Father, His 
 coeternal Logos, and His coeternal Spirit, and the Four being those same 
 Three, and a mere creature besides, that is, the mere Man put on by God the 
 Word; the worship of that Man being branded by Cyril again and again as 
 dvdp(j'iTo?MTpeca, that is, the worship of a Man\ see above note on pages 87, 88, 89, 
 90, 9i> 92> 93> 94> 95> 9^, etc., and as contrary to Scripture texts, of which he 
 
Readi7ig of Cyrils Long Epistle to Nestorius, 355 
 
 XII. If any one does not acknowledge that the Word of God 
 
 specifies Psalm Ixxx., 9, Septuagint, Isaiah xlii., 8, and Matt, iv., 10; see page 
 103, note. ^ 
 
 Now, (4), whether men worship Christ's Humanity with God the Word, or 
 separate from Him, the act is, as all admit, the worship of a Man {avepoKolaTpeia),. 
 that is the worship of a creature {KriaiiaroXarpFla)^ and hence the denunciations- 
 and condemnations uttered by St. Cyril apply to both. There is, of course, a 
 point of difference, and a very important one between the Nestorian who wor- 
 ships Christ's humanity separate from His divinity, and the person who worships 
 that humanity and the Word as united in the true Inman-Union. But yet the 
 fact remains that both are creature-servers contrary to Christ's Law in Matt, iv., 
 10, according to Cyril. Indeed the twenty utterances of Cyril on pages 338, 339, 
 note above, apply to both. I have read in some author who was not perfedlly 
 informed as to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the satirical remark 
 that he did not understand "their sense or rather nonsense." And if we under- 
 stand the struggle between Cyril and Nestorius not to involve the fundamental 
 and all-important topic of creature worship, we take from the controversy one 
 of its greatest decisions and lessons, that is, that we must worship God alone 
 (Matt, iv., 10); a decision and lesson most valuable for the justification of the Re- 
 formers of the sixteenth century against the worse than Nestorian idolatry and 
 creature service of Rome. For the relative worship of Christ's humanity by Nes- 
 torius, and the worship of the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist by 
 his supporter and fellow-heretic Theodoret, were relative, according to their idea, 
 to God the Word Himself. Whereas Rome in the middle ages and since has 
 worshipped not only Christ's humanity, but also lower creatures, such as the 
 Virgin, martyrs, and other dead saints, angels, etc., and even dead men's bones 
 and other relics of them, their pictures, their graven images, etc., relatively to 
 those mere creatures, which is surely a lower sort of relative worship than the 
 Nestorian worship of Christ's perfect humanity, the highest of all mere crea- 
 tures, relatively to God the Word. 
 
 Nevertheless, even what all admit, the condemnation of the worship of the 
 humanity of Christ separate from His Divinity, under the penalty of anathema 
 in Cyril's Anathema VIII. which was approved by the whole Church in the 
 Third Ecumenical Synod, is much more {a fortiori), a necessarily implied con- 
 demnation, under the penalty of anathema by the whole Church in that Council,, 
 of the worship of any creature less than Christ's perfect humanity, be it the 
 Virgin Mary, any other dead saint, any archangel or angel, or any other creature 
 whomsoever, and much more such a condemnation of any thing still lower, be it 
 relics, any image painted or graven, any cross, any communion table, or altar, 
 or any thing else. 
 
 5. If one makes Cyril and the Orthodox worshippers of a creature, Christ's 
 humanity, he reduces, so far as Man-Worship alone is concerned, the difference 
 between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Universal Church on the one hand, and 
 Nestorius on the other to a mere logomachy, as indeed some not fully informed 
 
-356 -^i-'i I' of Ephesus. 
 
 ■suffered in flesh (694), and was crucified in flesh (695), and tasted 
 
 Latins and Protestants have made it, and so, in effect, favors and defends Nes- 
 torius and his creature worship and other heresies, and does injustice to the Third 
 Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth, he is condemned by them both. See their 
 canons, and especially canons XI., XXL, XIII. and XIV. of the Fifth and the 
 Definition of which they form part. 
 
 6. Cyril seems to me in a passage in the part of a note on page 84 above to 
 teach the worship of God the Word alone iitrh capKoq in the sense of " within 
 flesh," for he diredlly after blames Nestorius for co-worshippifig Christ's 
 humanity with God the Word. And so again and again, as for example on 
 pages 85 and 86, etc. But still clearer is his language as quoted by his Nestor- 
 ian opponent, Andrew of Samosata, on page 97 above, on this very Anathema 
 VIII. For Andrew there says of Cyril, 
 
 *' In addition to the foregoing we say that he has very unlearnedly and very 
 unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the One and the Same Son 
 too'Cther with His flesh {£-t:aK?/i})£ rnlg avv ry aapKi irpocKVvelv rC) evi kuI rCi avrCi Il'kI) 
 iSov/.ofitvoic), as though the [preposition] fi^rd [with or " ze/z7^z« "] were some- 
 thing other than the preposition civ \_'' together with " and " ro "] which very 
 assertion he himself has made, as has been said before, by his saying that He 
 [God the Word] must be bowed to within [or " with "] flesh and by forbidding 
 His flesh to be co-bowed to with His Divinity," {Tieyuv avrbv fiera capKoq dtlv 
 -KpooKvvelaBaL, aTzayoptvuv dh GVfj,7rpofjiivvEiG6ai ry Qeottjti rrjv cdpna.) 
 
 For farther instances of Cyril's condemnation of co- worshipping a tnan 
 with the Word {pvx <JC di-'ftpcoTTov avfiiz poaKwovvreq rcj Adyw), see the Shorter Epistle 
 to Nestorius, pages 79-85 above, where we find the gvv\ and see further under 
 £jim, in the Index \.o Volume VI. of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of Cyril. 
 (7). The Nestorians, who should have known, understood St. Cyril to deny 
 all worship to Christ's humanity; see pages 1 12-128 above, note. They tried to 
 excite feeling against him on that ground; see above the part of the note on 
 pages 121, 122, 125, 126. This fixes the sense in which they understood him to 
 use the expression lura aapKog; for they must have taken him to use it when 
 speaking of worshipping God the Word ucrd oapKoc, in the sense oi with flesh, in 
 such a way, however, as to exclude His flesh and His humanity from being wor- 
 shipped, in other words, in the sense of " within flesh:' 
 
 These considerations will persuade some to understand St. Cyril and the 
 Third Ecumenical Synod with him as condemning any and all worship of 
 Christ's humanity. 
 
 Still, as I have said, I defer for the present any final expression of my own 
 opinion, but will speak more fully, if God will, in a special Dissertation on the 
 worship of Chrisi's humanity, or in a work on Cyril's XII. Anathemas. 
 
 In some parts of the world, notably in the East, where the study of Greek 
 philosophy and logic and rhetoric had produced a trained class of pagan dis- 
 puters, the question of the right or wrong of worshipping Christ's created 
 liumanity would naturally come up often in the discussions between them and 
 
Reading of CyriV s Long Epistle to Nestorius. 357 
 
 death in Jlesh (696), and became ///^ y?;.?/ brought forth from among 
 
 the Christians. For when rebuked for worshipping creatures, their main line 
 of reply would be to show, if they could, that Christians also worshipped a crea- 
 ture, the humanity of Christ. 
 
 Among Christians themselves and among heretics that topic would natur- 
 ally arise again and again. How it was treated by the Apollinarians and by 
 some other heretics is told in the part of note 183 which is on pages 103-106 
 above. The Nestorians, who arose later than the Apollinarians, seem to have 
 all agreed in worshipping Christ's humanity relatively. But the Monophysites, 
 who forsook Eutyches, have developed at different times a number of sedls on 
 its worship, which, if God will, we will speak of under the times to which they 
 belong. 
 
 But, objedlion {c). Some writers outside of the Alexandrian School, before 
 Cyril, held to the worship of Christ's humanity with God the Word. 
 
 To this I answer that it is freely admitted that that was true of the unsound 
 Syrian School, which began with the heretics Diodore of Tarsus, of the fourth 
 century, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as by their opponents, the Co-Sub- 
 stancers, who were also Syrians, whose error is condemned by the Third Synod 
 and the Fifth. If, as is alleged, Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo 
 held to the worship of Christ's humanity, they are also included in the same 
 condemnation. For a heretical utterance of any school or any members of any 
 school is worse than worthless if condemned by an Ecumenical Synod. This 
 has been often too much forgotten, for in the middle ages, men largely laid 
 aside the study of the Utterances and Decisions of the God-led Six Councils of 
 the whole Church, and substituted for them the mere fallible opinions of indiv- 
 idual Fathers and individual writers, and sometimes quoted as Fathers those 
 who, on the points quoted, were heretics, for such quoted opinions had been 
 condemned by some one or more of the Six Ecumenical Synods, as, for 
 instance, the invocation of saints, that is, the creature-worship of Augustine of 
 Hippo in his City of God, and the invocation of angels by Ambrose of Milan in 
 his De Viduis, cap. IX., section 55 (as quoted in note 3, page 339, Vol. I. of 
 Smith's Hagenbach's//z.y/6>r_v of DoH-rines, N. Y., Sheldon & Co., 1S67). Besides 
 false and utterly spurious works were often quoted as genuine, as, for instance, 
 the False Decretals of Isidore, and many others. The Benedi<5lines in their editions 
 of certain Fathers, and other editors, have done some thing to separate the 
 spurious, as well as the doubtful, from the genuine, but the entire and full 
 work is still undone. 
 
 Furthermore, the number of perfe(5ll3' sound men among the Fathers is very 
 small, judging soimdness by their agreement with the Decisions of the Six 
 Ecumenical Councils. Judged by them we must brand some who stand well 
 with many as heretics on Creature- Worship. If certain passages ascribed to 
 them be genuine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose of Milan. 
 Augustine of Hippo, and others of note, were patrons of creature invocation or 
 creature-iVorship. The proof is found in the excellent and critical articles of 
 
358 Act I. of Ephesus 
 
 the dead (697), forasmuch as He is both Life (698) and Life Giver 
 (699), as [being] God (700), let him be anathema (701). 
 
 Scudamore on those subjedls; the first of which, on * * Patron Saints and Angels y'^ 
 is in Smith and Wace's DiHioJiary of Christian Biography; and the Second on 
 '' Patron Saints,'' is in Smith and Cheetham's Di5iionary of Christian An- 
 tiquities. 
 
 These articles are so valuable and so learned, and especially the first, if the 
 quotations in them be genuine, as to merit the dodlorate for their author. 
 
 We must as carefully, as zealously and as strenuously oppose the creature 
 invocation of Ambrose and of Augustine, so often quoted against the dodlrine 
 of the Six Synods on creature-worship, as St. Cyril opposed the Man-worship of 
 Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who then stood as high in Syria 
 as Ambrose and Augustine now stand among many in the West. The same 
 necessity is laid upon us as upon him in this matter, for such men are quoted 
 against the doctrine of the Six Councils by creature-worshippers, and so souls 
 are led into creature-worship and ruined eternally. If it be said that Ambrose 
 did a noble work against Arianism, and Augustine against Pelagianism, I 
 answer that Diodore also did a noble work against Arianism, and his 
 ''disciple,'" " Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia,'''' is called by his friend Theo- 
 doret in Chapter XL., Book V. of his Ecclesiastical History, " the teacher of all 
 the Churches, and the opponent of all the seBs of heresy;''' and further on in the 
 same chapter, Theodoret states that he " zealously opposed the heresies of Arius, 
 Eunoniius, and Apollinaris." And yet St. Cyril branded them as heretics, to 
 warn men against their evil influence for creature-worship. And so we must 
 not receive any man's erring creature-invoking opinion contrary to the faith of 
 the Scriptures as defined and interpreted by the Six Sole Synods of that Univer- 
 sal Church which Christ has commanded us to hear, if we would not be counted 
 *' as a heathen ma7t and a publican " (Matt, xviii., 17.) Cyril met strong oppo. 
 sition to his attempt to procure their condemnation, for the Syrians had long 
 regarded them as their teachers and were proud of them. Indeed, the whole 
 patriarchate of Antioch, the national Church of the Syriac race, stoutly stood up 
 for them, and many finally broke off for them and for their errors of Man-Wor- 
 ship and of Eucharist Worship from the Universal Church and became 
 Nestorians, and maintain their soundness against Cyril and Ephesus till this 
 hour. So, whatever be the difficulties, we must first examine whether the 
 passages of Ambrose, Augustine and others, for creature-invocation, be really 
 theirs, and if we find that they are, we must anathematize them. In every theo- 
 logical seminary there should be a professor to instruct the young men as to the 
 errors of each of the Fathers and early writers, and especially those which are 
 either expressl}^ or impliedly condemned by the Ecumenical Synods. 
 
 The fact is, the two great lights of the Alexandrian School, Athanasius and 
 Cyril, are worth more than all the other writers of the fourth century and the 
 fifth put together on the questions of Creature- Worship and Man-Worship, and 
 their dodlrines on those things being approved by the Six Ecumenical Synods 
 are ratified as Scriptural by the Holy Ghost, speaking through the Episcopate 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Ne storms. 359 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, said. 
 Not only have those things which were sent by Celestine, the most 
 holy and most devout Bishop of the Church of the Romans, been 
 
 of the Universal Church, and so are authoritative and binding forever. As 
 inspired by the Holy Ghost there is no appeal from them. 
 
 In other words we must, in examining any question, consider first what the 
 Scriptures say on it, and then, if there be dispute still as to the meaning of 
 Scripture, as there generally is, as for instance on the Divinity of Christ and of 
 the Holy Ghost, on the Eucharist, and the worship of Christ's humanity, on 
 papal infallibility and, on creature-worship, we must do what Christ commands in 
 Matt, xviii., 17, that is, ''Hearths Church,'''' speaking in the only place where 
 the whole of it has ever spoken, that is, in the VI. Ecumenical Synods. 
 
 But suppose the Six Synods have not spoken on some particular point, as, 
 for instance, on Infant Communion, what shall we do then? I answer; if they 
 really have not, then take the decision of God's Word as witnessed to by the 
 primitive Church, always, everywhere and by all. That is decisive for it. 
 
 In the Dissertation on the Worship of Christ's Humanity, many Fathers and 
 writers of different opinions will be quoted. There is no room for them here. 
 
 One very important remark should be made in conclusion, and it is that 
 whether men hold that Cyril and Ephesus rejected all worship of Christ's 
 humanity, or only condemned the worship of it separate from His Divinity, all 
 agree that their decision condemns all worship of a7iy creature less than His 
 humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs and other saints, or any archangel^ 
 or a7igel, or any other creature whomsoever. For if, as a cleric, I am deposed, 
 and if, as a laic, I am excommunicated, if I give bowing or prayer or any other 
 act of religious service to Christ's perfect humanity, confessedly the highest of 
 all mere creatures, much more (a fortiori) am I deposed and anathematized 
 if I worship any lesser creature. 
 
 I close on this Anathema VIII. of Cyril and of Ephesus by adding a few 
 Passages out of many which are in accordance with it. 
 
 St. Athanasius says that the leper who was cleansed by Christ (Matt, ix., 
 20) " worshipped the Creator of the universe [God the Word] as in a created 
 temple,''^ that is, in his human body. The place is found in St. Athanasius' 
 Epistle to Adelphius, se(ftion 3 (page 64 of the Oxford translation of his Later 
 Treatises and on pages 98, 99, above, note). 
 
 I find the two following passages quoted by Jeremy Taylor in The Second 
 Part of his Dissuasive from Popery, Book II., sedlion 6, page 607 of vol. VI. of 
 his " Works,'' (London, 1849). 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, in his Thesaurus, Book II., Chapter I., plainly teaches 
 that worship is prerogative to the Divine Nature alone, hence is not to be given 
 to any creature. Understood as it reads, it forbids worship to Christ's humanity, 
 for surely that is not Divinity, nor does any one except a Monophysite claim it 
 to be Divinity. I quote: 
 
360 Report on the Final Summons to Nestorms. 
 
 sent and delivered to the most religious Nestorius himself, but also 
 
 " But no one is ignorant that, BY THE Scripture, worship is to be given 
 To NO Nature at ai,i. except that of God " {a). 
 And again Cyril writes in the same work, 
 
 " There is [but] one nature of the deity, which ai,one ought to be 
 worshipped" {b). 
 
 In the Martyrdom of Habib the Deacon which took place in A. D. 312, 313, 
 or 315 according to note i, page 91 in the Syriac Docimients bound up with 
 vol. XX. oi'CD.^Aiite Nicene Christian Library ; (compare Hole's article "Hab- 
 ibus (2)" in Smith and Waco's Di^ionary 0/ Christian Biography), " which are 
 presumably of the Ante Nicene age'' (Vol XX., Ante Nic. Christ. Lib., In- 
 troductory Notice^ page 3), is found the following in the conversation of the 
 pagan Roman Governor with the martyr ; page 99 : 
 
 "The Governor said. How is it that thou worshippest and honorest a man, 
 but refusest to worship and honor Zeus there ? 
 
 "Habib said: I worship not a man, because the Scripture teaches me, 
 ' Cursed is every one that putteth his trust in man,' [Jerem. xvii., 5], but God 
 who took upon Him a body and became a man, [Him] do I worship andglorify." 
 The following is from the poetic Homily on Habib the Martyr which is by 
 Jacob of Sarug, of Century V. and VI., who has been charged with Monophy- 
 sitism, but the Anglican Ball's article on him in Smith and Wace's Dictionary 
 0/ Christiafi Biography tells us that it is, ''a charge which Assejnani and Ab- 
 betoos show to be unwarranted." He gives there the argument for his Ortho« 
 doxy. The following from the translation of the Homily, is Cyrillian and Or- 
 thodox. It is found on pages 112, 113-115 of the Syriac Documents bound up in 
 Vol. XX. of the Ante Nice7ie Christian Library. I quote : 
 But Habib, when questioned, was not afraid, 
 
 Was not ashamed, and was not frightened by the menaces [he heard]. 
 Lifting up his voice, he confessed Jesus, the Son of God — 
 
 That he was His servant, and was His priest, and His minister [Or " deacon "]. 
 At the fury of the pagans, roaring at him like lions. 
 
 He trembled not, nor ceased [Or "so as to cease"] from the confession of 
 the Son of God. 
 
 They taunted him: Lo ! thou worshippest a man; 
 
 But he said: A man I worship not, 
 But God, who took a body a7id became man: 
 
 Him do I worship, because He is God with Him that begat Him. 
 
 (a). Jeremy Taylor's reference on page 607, vol. VI. of his Works, London, 1849, here is 
 •' Thesaur., lib. II., c. i.[tom. II., p. 159 C— fol. Par. 1604,] et alibi." The Latin there reads: 
 " Nemo autem ignorat nulli prorsus naturae praeterquam Dei adorationem a Scriptura con- 
 tribui." He does not give the Greek. 
 
 {b). Jeremy Taylor's V/orks, vol. VI., page 607. The note there is as follows: " Una 
 Natura est deitatis quaiu solumiiiodo adorare oportet, [Ibid., p. 158, cj." 
 
Report on the Fi7ial Summons to Nestorius. 
 
 those which were sent by the most holy and most God-revering 
 
 The faith of Habib, the martyr, was full of light; 
 
 And by it was enlightened Edessa, the faithful [city]. 
 The daughter of Abgar, whom Addaeus betrothed to the crucifixion — 
 
 Through it is her light, through it her truth and her faith. 
 Her king is from it, her martyrs from it, her truth from it; 
 
 The teachers also of [her] faith are from it. 
 Abgar believed that Thou art God, the Son of God; 
 
 And he received a blessing because of the beauty of his faith. 
 Sharbil the martyr, son of the Bdessaeans, moreover said: 
 
 My heart is led captive by God, who became man, 
 And Habib the martyr, who also was crowned at Edessa, 
 
 Confessed these things: that he took a body and became man; 
 That He is the Son of God, and also is God, and became man. 
 
 Edessa learned from teachers the things that are true: 
 Her king taught her, her martyrs taught her, the faith; 
 
 But to others, who were fraudulent teachers, she would not hearken. 
 Habib the martyr, in the ear of Edessa, thus cried al6ud 
 
 Out of the midst of the fire: A man I worship not, 
 But God, who took a body and became man — 
 
 Him do I worship. [Thus] confessed the martyr with uplifted voice. 
 From confessors torn with combs, burnt, raised up [on the block], slain, 
 
 And [from] a righteous king, did Edessa learn the faith, 
 And she knows our Lord — that He is even God, the Son of God. 
 
 She also learned and firmly believed that He took a body and became man. 
 Not from common scribes did she learn the faith: 
 
 Her king taught her, her martyrs taught her; and she firmly believed them: 
 And, if she be calumniated as having ever worshipped a man, 
 She points to her martyrs, who died for Him as being God. 
 A maji I worship not, said Habib, 
 Because it is written: * Cursed is he that putteth his trust in a man ' [ Jer. 
 xvii. 5]. 
 Forasmuch as He is God, I worship Him, yea submit to be burned 
 
 For His sake, nor will I renounce His faith. 
 This truth has Edessa held fast from her youth, 
 
 And in her old age she will not barter it away as a daughter of the poor. 
 Her righteous king became to her a scribe, and from him she learned 
 
 Concerning our Lord — that He is the Son of God, yea God. 
 Addaeus, who brought the bridegroom's ring and put it on her hand, 
 
 Betrothed her thus to the Son of God, who is the Only [-Begotten]. 
 Sharbil the priest, who made trial and proof of all gods. 
 
 Died, even as he said, '^ for God who became man.'" 
 Shamuna and Guria, for the sake of the Only [-Begotten], 
 
 Stretched out their necks [to receive the stroke], and for Him died, foras- 
 inuch as He is God. 
 
362 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of the Church of the Alexandrians, and by the Synod 
 
 And Habib the martyr, who was teacher of congregations, 
 
 Preached of Him, that He took a body and became man. 
 For a man the martyr would not have {submitted to de] burned in the fire: 
 
 But he was burned ''for the sake of God who became man:' 
 And Edessais witness that thus he confessed while he was being burned: 
 
 And from the confession of a martyr that has been burned who is he that can 
 escape ? 
 All minds does faith reduce to silence and despise— 
 
 [She] that is full of light and stoopeth not to shadows. 
 She despiseth him that maligns the Son by denying that He is God; 
 
 Him too that saith ** He took not a body and became man." 
 In faith which was full of truth he stood upon the fire; 
 
 And he became incense, and propitiated with his fragrance the Son of God. 
 In all [his] affli6lions, and in all [his] tortures, and in all [his] sufferings, 
 
 Thus did he confess, and thus did he teach the blessed [city]. 
 And this truth did Edessa hold fast touching our Lord— 
 
 Evert that He is God, and of Mary became a man. 
 And the bride hates him that denies His Godhead, 
 
 And despises and contemns him that maligns His corporeal nature. 
 And she recognises Him [as] One in Godhead and in manhood— 
 
 The Only [-Begotten], whose body is inseparable from Him. 
 And thus did the daughter of the Parthians learn to believe. 
 
 And thus did she firmly hold, and thus does she teach him that listens to her. 
 
 (680), page 332. It is wonderful how much there is in St. Cyril and St. Atha- 
 nasius and others on the worship of Christ's Humanity. We have a large 
 number of quotations, but must defer most of them and put them under Anath- 
 ema VIII. of St. Cyril in a work on his XII. Anathemas. The Apollinarian 
 controversy before Cyril, and controversy with the Pagans as we see in the case 
 of the martyr Habib above, and with the Jews, had brought this matter to the 
 fore, as it does still with the same errorists and with the Mohammedans. It is 
 all important therefore for a cleric to know thoroughly the decisions of the Six 
 Councils on it, that he may defend the faith of the Universal Church, and his 
 own work for it. 
 
 (681), page 337. See Christ's language in John xvi., 14, 15. He says there 
 that '' all things that the Father hath are mine,'' consequently the Spirit also 
 Who goes out of the Father alone originally, that is, before the worlds were 
 made, but Whom the Son sends as His Vicar and Agent in time. See John xv., 
 26. 
 
 Any failure to bring out the fact that it is God the Word who Substancely 
 indwells the Man put on, and that He and not the mere Man works all the 
 miracles through His own Spirit, leads naturally to the Nestorian error of ascrib- 
 ing the prerogatively divine operations of the Word to the mere creature whom 
 He put on, and therefrom comes the custom of the Church of ascribing not only 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Nestorins. 363 
 
 of all the Egyptian Diocese (702): they have- been sent through the 
 
 allthe divine things, like miracles, worship, etc., but also all the human things, 
 of that sinless Man to God the Word. Because that Man was ever sinless, the 
 temptation to worship him would for that reason be the greater. Hence the 
 care of the great teachers of the Church like Athanasius and Cyril, to guard the 
 flock against that sin. 
 
 I here add, for the sake of the comparison. The Nestorian Counter Anathema 
 IX : " If any one says that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the form of 
 a servant [Philip, ii., 7.] and does not rather say that by Its [the Spirit's] medi- 
 ation which was with God the Word from the conception itself, he {the form of 
 a serva7it, the Man] had a coupling or conjunction, through which he some- 
 times wrought compassionate cures on common men, and that from that came 
 the power of putting [evil] Spirits to flight, let him be anathema." 
 
 Cyril in his Anathema IX. condemns the error that a mere human Christ 
 wrought miracles and put evil spirits to flight. Nestorins, or whoever was the 
 author of this Counter Anathema, asserts the contrary. 
 
 Cyril explains his Anathema IX. in his Longer Epistle, pages 268-286. 
 
 (682), page 340. 'Apx^^P^o. Kal aTroarolGv^ literally, in English, ''Chief Doer a;' 
 Sacred A5ls and Messenger. ' ' We would coin the term ' ' herv, ' ' from the Greek 
 itpzhq, as being less ambiguous than ''priest;' which is an abbreviation of the 
 Latin '' presbyter,'' from the Greek Tzpta^vrtpoq^ elder, which conveys a very 
 different sense. 
 
 (683), page 340. Heb. iii., i. 
 
 (684), page 341. Gal. i., 4; Tit. ii., 14; Gal. ii., 20; Eph. v., 25; 1. Tim. ii., 6; 
 I. John ii., I, 2. In the last mentioned place, in Heb. vii., 25-28, and in Heb. iii., 
 ' I, we see the connexion between Christ's prerogative and High Priestjy and 
 Mediatorial Work of sacrificing Himself to the Father for our sins, and His 
 continuing that work of propitiating the Father for our constantly occurring 
 sins bv his equally prerogative and High Priestly work of Intercession for us at 
 the Father's right hand in the Holy of Holies above. See note 688 below. On 
 the words on pages 341, 342 above ** an odor of a sweet smell to the God and 
 Father," see Eph. v., 2; compare Philip, iv.. 18. 
 
 (685), page 344. John i., 14; I. Tim. iii , 16; I. John i., i, 2; and Heb. i., i 
 to Heb. ii., 18, especially Heb. ii., 14. As Chapter i shows, it was God the Word 
 who took flesh. 
 
 (686), page 344. Heb. ii., 16, 17; Matt, xvi., 13; and I. Cor. xv., 47, etc. 
 
 (687), page 346. II. Cor. v., 21. 
 
 (688), page 346. Cyril's dodlrine in this anathema is that God the Word is 
 our INIediator, and not a mere man, as Nestorins held. This is a fundamental 
 and necessary truth to guard the prerogative glory of the Logos' mediatorial 
 work, of which intercer>sion is part, and to exclude from any share of it any 
 creature, be it the Virgin Mary, saints, martyrs, archangels, angels, or any 
 other mere creature. St. Cyril, in his Five- Book Contradiclion of the Bias. 
 
364 Act I. .of Epkes2is. 
 
 most religious Bishops Theopemptus, and Daniel, and Potamon, and 
 
 pheniies of Nestorius, Book III., sedlions i, 2 and 3, has much on that topic; seethe 
 Oxford translation, pages 81-125. On page 97 (id., sedlion 2) Cyril shows that 
 the result of making a mere Man our High Priest is Man Worship. For we 
 naturally worship our High Priest and Intercessor, and if He be a man, and we 
 worship him, we are beyond all doubt Worshippers of a Man. I quote part of 
 what Cyril here writes on that theme; he is arguing that our High Priest must 
 be God in order to fulfil the conditions of the Christian Economy, and proceeds 
 as follow^s: 
 
 " We have been justified by faith, and not by the deeds of the Law, as it is 
 written [Galat. ii., 16]. L^^t] by believing on whom, therefore, are we justified ? 
 Is it not on Him who suffered death for us after the flesh ? Is it not in one Lord 
 Jesus Christ ? Have we not been redeemed by telling on his death and confess- 
 ing His resurredtion? If indeed, then, we have believed in a Man, one of those 
 like us, and not, on the contrary, in God, the thing were worship of a Man, 
 AND, CONFESSEDLY, NOTHING ELSE, (Greek, as on page 149, Vol. VI. of P. 
 E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril, av&fuo-n/MTpeia rb xPW^i '^^^ erepov ov(]hv 6fio?iO-yov!ievo)g). 
 But if we believe that He who suffered in flesh is God, and that He was -made 
 our High Priest, then we have in no way erred, but we recognize the Word 
 Who came out of God and was made man. And thus is required of us faith in 
 God, who putteth out of condemnation and freeth from sins those who have 
 been caught in them. For the Son of Man hath also authority o?t the earth to- 
 forgive sins, as He Himself also somewhere saith [Matt, ix., 6; Mark ii., 10; 
 Luke v., 24]. Contrasting, therefore, the salvation and favor which are by 
 Christ, with the harshness of the Law's severity, so to speak, we say that 
 Anointed has been made a vierciful High Priest [Heb. ii., 17]. For He was 
 AND IS Qongood by His [divine] Nature and always prone to pity and merciful^ 
 and hath not become that in time, but was made known as such to us; and He 
 hath been named Faithful [Heb ii., 17, '' a merciful and faithful High Priest ''1 
 as remaining what He always is, according indeed to what has been said of the 
 Father Himself also. But God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted 
 above that ye are able [I. Cor. x. 13]. The Emmanuel [that is, as Emmanuel 
 means, the God with us. Matt, i., 23, that is, God the Word], has therefore been 
 vxa^diQ a fnerciful ajid faithful High Priest for us; for, (as Paul saith). Many 
 were made High Priests, because they were hindered by death from abidifig 
 (such); ivhereas He hath His Priesthood unchangeable because He abideth for- 
 ever; wherefore He is able to save also to the uttermost all those who go unto 
 God through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them [Heb. 
 vii., 23-25.] And that the Word who came out of the Father hath remained God, 
 albeit made Priest, as it is written [Heb. vii., 23-25, etc.] on account of the 
 fashion and measure which befit the Economy with flesh [or within flesh\ the 
 word of the blessed Paul hath been made sufficient unto our full assurance, for 
 he hath said again, Now, of the things which have been said this is the sum. We 
 have such a High Priest, who hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of 
 the Majesty in the heavens, a Priest of the Holy Places and of the true taber- 
 
Report on the Final Summo?is to Nestorius. 
 
 Comarius (703) ; I beg [therefore] that the most rehgious Bishops 
 
 nacle which the Lord pitched and not man [Heb. viii., 1,2.]. View therefore, 
 view the Word, who was born out of God, eminent on the one hand as God, in the 
 highest glories and in the seats of Divinity, and on the other view the Same 
 One performing priestly work as Man, and bringing to the Father no earthly 
 sacrifice but, on the contrary, one that is Divine and intellectual, and as having, 
 moreover, the heaven for a holy tabernacle. For He hath been made High 
 Priest not after a Law of a fleshly commandment, but after the power of an endless 
 life, as it is written [Heb. vii., 16]. And He is thexQiovQ faithful in this matter, 
 and those who go to Him may feel sure that He is able and very willing to save 
 them thoroughly; for with His own blood [A6ls xx., 28] and by one offering He 
 hath perfeEled forever them that are sanBified [Heb. x., 14]. For that, I think, 
 the holy Paul shows us when he says. For in that He Himself hath suffered [by] 
 being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted [Heb . ii. , 18]. Why then, 
 unrecking of those thoughts that are pious, and departing from right and truth- 
 ful words, does he [Nestorius] say, 'He who siffered was a merciful High 
 Priest; but it was the temple [Christ's humanity] which was liable to suffering, 
 not the life-giving God of him [the mere man] who suffered: 
 
 That the Word of God suffered voluntarily in flesh for us will be therefore 
 shown in its own time. ' ' 
 
 See all Cyril's Book III. on Christ's archieratic office. See especially in the 
 Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria On the Incarttation Against Nes- 
 torius, pages 84-97, 104, 105, 106-124, and in the Index to that volume on page 
 384 under "made man." 
 
 To show the contrast between St. Cyril's dodlrine and Nestorius', I here add 
 The Nestorian Counter Anathema X.: 
 
 " If any one says that that Word who was in the beginni7ig [Tohni., i, 2] 
 was made the High Priest and Apostle 0/ our profession [Heb. iii., i.], and that 
 He offered Himself for us, and does not rather say that the Apostleship belongs 
 to Emmanuel, and does not divide the offering in the same way between Him 
 who united, and him who was united, to one fellowship of the Sou. that is, by 
 ascribing to God those things which belong to God, and to the Man those things 
 which belong to the Man, let him be anathema." 
 
 The text here is very corrupt, but we are aided in elucidating it by the fact 
 that we know the differences between Cyril and Nestorius, Nestorius makes 
 Emmanuel, contrary to its literal meaning of God with us, to mean a mere 
 man, as we see by Counter Anathema I. above, and so his High Priest and 
 Apostle was a mere Man. But how can a mere Man possess the infinite attri- 
 butes of God, omnipresence and omniscience, to hear and understand the mil- 
 lions of petitions offered to him at the same moment from different parts of the 
 world, and to search and know thoroughly the hearts and lives of his invokers, 
 and the wisdom or folly, and the righteousness or unrighteousness of their 
 prayer?, and make up his mind at once as to whether he will present them ta 
 his Father and exactly what he should ask for them. 
 
368 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Theopemptus and Daniel who are here present, be questioned as to 
 this very matter. 
 
 God the Word alone can be a fit Mediator and High Priest. And the chief 
 fundlion now of His High Priesthood is to intercede for us [Heb. vii., 23-28; I. 
 John ii., I, 2.] 
 
 Nestorius denies here also St. Cyril's do<5lrine of the Economic Approprta- 
 Hon to God the Word of the sufferings and other things of the Man put on by 
 Him, and that in order to avoid Man- Worship; see under Economic Appropria- 
 tion in the General Index to Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 It is much to be regretted that the prerogative Office Work of God the Word 
 as the Sole Mediator, and the Sole Intercessor on high, has been much blurred 
 in the Western and in the Eastern I^iturgies which have reached us, all of which 
 are more or less corrupted ; a thing not to be wondered at when we consider 
 that, as Warren states in his article Sign of the Cross in Smith and Cheetham's 
 Diaionary of Christian Afitiquities, page 1897, outer column, ''Most of the 
 ritual writers and most missals and manuals, at all events in their present form, 
 are of a later date than the ninth century." The true Scriptural theory of the 
 Eucharistic spiritual memorial sacrifice is that it is offered to the Father, as a 
 commemoration of the one all sufficient sacrifice which was offered by Christ 
 Himself to the Father. But in one or two heretical Offices which I have seen it 
 is offered to the Son or to the whole Trinity, an error which was the result of 
 ignorance and of that saint worship which has pra^ically thrust Christ out of 
 his Mediatorial and Intercessory fuuAions, all of which are prerogative to Him, 
 and given them to mere creatures. The old Western Offices were kept purer so 
 long as men knew and heeded the golden Canon XXIII. of HI. Carthage, A. D. 
 397, which in effect forbids men to confound the Office Work of the Father with 
 that of the Son by naming the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father, 
 and commands all prayer at the altar to be always addressed to the Father, and 
 condemns the use of prayers written by ignorant brethren, who, by the way, 
 would be apt to err on those points of the soleness of the Mediatorial and Inter- 
 cessory work of the Son, and that it is prerogative to the Father to have the 
 spiritual sacrifice of the Lord's Supper offered to Him. The American office is 
 nearest to that canon and to Scripture and is therefore the best on those points. 
 
 Outside of the Lord's Supper probably, we find that in the Third Century, 
 God the Word was invoked in the Alexandrian Church, as our High Priest in 
 accordance with the do6lrine enunciated in St. Cyril's Anathema VIII. ''to offer 
 our desires, and sacrifices and prayers to the Most High.'' On this what Origen 
 writes against the pagan Celsus bears very importantly. The great Catechist of 
 Alexandria (whom I here cite on a point on which he was never accused of 
 heresy, for his historic testimony only, for with proper, precautions we may 
 quote heretics sometimes for their historic testimony as we cite the Arian heretic 
 Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Nestorian Theodoret for that), refers to a part of 
 the ancient Christian worship which seems to have been laid aside in the middle 
 aijes, and is now but too little used, I mean the invocation of the Logos as our 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 367' 
 
 Flavian^ Bishop of Philippi said, I,et our most religious fellow- 
 Mediator. I quote him as in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. XXIII. 
 pages 501 and 513. 
 
 Origen Against Celsus, book VIII., chapter 13 : 
 
 " We worship with, all our power the one God, and His Only Son, THE 
 Word and the Image of God, by prayers and supplications ; and we offer our 
 petitions to the God of the U?iiverse through His Only Begotten Son. To the 
 Son we first present them, afid B:ESKncH Him, as the propitiation for our sins 
 [I. John ii., 2,] and ova High Priest, to offer our desires and sacrifices aftd 
 prayers, to the Most High. Our faith, therefore, is directed to God through 
 His Son, who strengthens it in us," etc. 
 
 Origen Against Celsus, book VIII., chapter 26: 
 
 "Away, then, with this counsel, which Celsus gives us, to offer prayer to- 
 demons : it is not to be listened to for a moment ; for our duty is to pray to the 
 Most High God alone, and to the Only Begotten, the First-Born of the whole 
 creatio7t and To ask Him as our High Priest To present the prayers 
 
 WHICH ASCEND TO HiM FROM US, TO HiS GOD AND OUR GoD, TO HiS FATHER 
 
 AND THE Father of those who direct their IvIVes according to His 
 Word," [John xx., 17]. 
 
 Now, if men who followed this primitive custom of invoking God the Word 
 to pray for us (for, as Cyril teaches, as Man He prays for us, but as God He is 
 prayed to), had been led into the Nestorian error and separated the Man from 
 the Word, and invoked the Man to present their prayers to the Father, they 
 would have been guilty of giving an act of service, that is prayer, to the creature, 
 that is to the Man put on, and so they would be Man-Servers, that is Creature- 
 Servers. For that prayer is an act of religious service is not only clear from a 
 multitude of passages in the Old Testament and the New, but also from the 
 confession of Origen in the first of the two passages just quoted. For he dis- 
 tinctly states; 
 
 " We worship with all our power the One God, and His Only Son, the 
 Word, and the Image of God, hy prayers and supplications,''' etc. At that early 
 day the silly and heretical attempt to dodge the charge of idolatry and creature 
 service by inventing such comparatively late distinctions as dulia, hyperdulia, 
 latreia, and the rest of such devil's arguments to lead the unlearned and the 
 uncritical into a baptized but soul-damning paganism had not begun, and 
 Origen makes no other distinctions here than the Scriptures do. 
 
 And that prayer and all invocation are pre^'ogative to Almighty God is clear 
 from reason itself For He Who would hear millions of prayers from every 
 continent and sea of the globe, and plead intelligently for those who call upon 
 Him to remember their needs specified in prayer and unspecified, and to procure 
 them what they crave in express terms, and what they crave without putting 
 their petitions into express and definite form, but only in general language, 
 must have God's prerogative of knowing every man's heart (I. Kings viii.,39; 
 Jer. xvii.. 10; Adls i., 24; II. Chron. vi., 30; I. Chron. xxviii., 9), and must possess 
 
368 ^c/ /. of Ephesus. 
 
 ministers Theopemptus and Daniel who are present, state whether 
 they deUvered the Epistles. 
 
 the infinite attributes oi o^nniscience , omnipresence^ and omnipotence; and since 
 these divine attributes are prerogative to Almighty God, therefore He who pos- 
 sesses them must be God. Hence only God the Word in the Son can be 
 invoked, not at all the Man. And the tendency of the error condemned in this 
 Tenth Anathema would be finally to lead to the invocation of the Man, the 
 creature united to God the Word, and so to plain Man-Service, that is, to Crea- 
 ture-Service. Hence the reason for the Anathema, which is therefore solid, con- 
 vincing, and excellen For every form of service to any created person or thing 
 is a violation of Christ's own command to serve God alone (Matt, iv., lo). And the 
 Son in effect asserts His Divinity when He claims the Divine attribute of being able 
 to search the heart (Rev. ii., 23; compare John ii., 24, 25; Matt, ix., 4; Mark ii.,.8; 
 John vi. , 64) ; and His disciples were convinced that He had come out of God's 
 Substance as He claimed because he had shown again and again that He knew 
 the human heart and everything indeed; "/ ca^ne out of the Father y''' as the 
 Greek literally translated reads, ^^ and have come into the world. Again I leave 
 the world, and go to the Father. His disciples said unto Him, Lo, ?iow speak- 
 est thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are -dbe sure that thou knowest 
 all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee; by this we believe that 
 ihou earnest out from God'' {]o\in xvi., 28-31; see the context). Compare the 
 Greek of John viii., 42, '' I came out of God.'' 
 
 The dodlrine and custom of the primitive Church in appealing to God the 
 Son to act as High Priest, Mediator, and Intercessor, is eminently Scriptural. For 
 the Israelitish High-Priest who was His foretype in offering the foretypical sac- 
 rifice of blood and in interceding for the people on the day of Atonement, 
 " alone; " went into the most Holy Place " oftce every year" to plead for the 
 sins of his people, and that " not without blood which He offered for himself and 
 for the errors of the people ; the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way ijito 
 the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet 
 standing," Heb. ix., 7, 8, 9. To enter the Most Holy Place was the prerogative 
 of the High Priest. He ''alone" could intercede for Israel there. 
 
 And so it is prerogative to God the Word to enter with his own blood into 
 the true Most Holy Place of which the Most Holy Place of the Mosaic taberna- 
 cle was. as Paul explains, (Heb. ix., 24) q. figure. It is just as prerogative for 
 Him to intercede for all His people there as it was prerogative to the Aaronic 
 High Priest to intercede for Israel in its figure the ancient Most Holy Place. 
 And blessed be God, the Word's intercession is all sufficient, and needs not the 
 aid of any creature however blessed to make it perfect. For Paul writes, (Heb. 
 vii., 24, 25) that ''this [Priest] ^ * * hath aji imchangeable Priesthood. 
 Wherefore He is able also to save them To the uttermost that come unto God 
 BY Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such a 
 High Priest became us, Who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, 
 and made higher than the heavens." 
 
 ■ And therefore John writes (I. John ii., i, 2) of the value of His intercession : 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 369 
 
 TheopemptuSy Bishop of Cabasa^ said: We went up to the 
 
 ** I/afiy man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
 Righteous ; and He is the Propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but 
 also for the sins of the whole world.'' 
 
 And He is our only Mediator, and a part of His Mediatorial Work now is 
 Intercession, aye, now that the sacrifice on Calvary has been offered, and His 
 teachings left in the Scriptures, it is the chief part of His Mediatorial work. Paul 
 speaks of there being but one Mediator as there is but one God. His words 
 imply that there are no more two Mediators than there are two Gods (I. Tim. 
 ii., 5) ; and that He is the only Mediator, the Only Intercessor in the 
 Most Holy Place on high is implied in the fact that there could be but one High 
 Priest in Israel, but one Intercessor in the Most Holy Place on the Day of 
 Atonement. 
 
 And that same meaning is implied in the full and natural sense of John xiv. 
 6, where Christ says, " I am the Way, the Truth and the Life : no man cometh 
 unto the Father, but by Me.'' 
 
 God the Word therefore is the Sole Intercessor in heaven for men. The 
 New Testament never represents any creature as interceding for men there. 
 The only other intercession mentioned, that of the souls under the altar, is a 
 prayer noty6»r but against men, a cry for vengeance on the wicked : Rev. vi,, 9, 10. 
 
 Even as late as the days of Augustine of Hippo this truth, that Christ 
 Ai,ONE pleads for us above, had not been lost sight of. For that eminent moi 
 who, though not without some of the faults of his age, did nobly against the 
 Pelagian errors, and against the worship of pictures and sepulchres, and against 
 putting images into God's temples, has left us in a note on the Sixty-fourth 
 Psalm a testimony in favor of the docSlrine that Christ alone, our Great High 
 Priest, prays, that is intercedes for us above. He there says: 
 
 *' He Himself is the Priest who has now entered within the veil. HE ai,one 
 of those who have worn flesh intercedes [or "prays "] for us there. As a 
 figure of which things among the first people and in that first temple, one priest 
 was entering into the Holy of Holies, whilst all the people were standing with- 
 out." 
 
 I append the Latin as I find it in Finch's Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 
 page 159; " Ipse Sacerdos est, qui nunc ingressus in interiora veli, solus ibi ex 
 his qui carnem gestaverunt ifiterpellat pro nobis. In cujus rei figura in illo 
 primo populo, et in illo primo templo unus sacerdos intrabat in Sandla Sanctorum; 
 populus omnis foris stabat, In Ps. Ixiv., torn. 4, p. 633." Finch means the 
 Benedi(5tine edition, Paris, 1685. 
 
 And so the Universal Church at Ephesus in A. D. 431 teaches us not only that 
 Christ is our High Priest, but that we must always go to our Intercessor as pos- 
 sessing the attributes of God, not of a mere man, for no mere Man is omniscient 
 and omnipresent to hear us, to understand our secret thoughts and all our 
 words and deeds, and to intercede intelligently with infinite knowledge of every 
 
370 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Eishop's house on the Lord's Day, after service had been finished^ 
 
 fact in its beariugs on our salvation and usefulness and on the salvation and 
 usefulness of our fellow men. 
 
 So the sin aimed at and denounced in this Tenth Anathema is that which 
 degrades the Mediator by making His work capable of being exercised by a 
 mere man, and by ascribing to that man those infinite attributes and that wor- 
 ship of invocation which belong solely to God. Thus through St. Cyril and the 
 Third Council of the whole Church, East and West, did the Holy Ghost con- 
 demn all denial of the truth that God the Word is the Sole Interceder above by 
 His Humanity, and all making Christ's separate Humanity our High Priest, and 
 thus did It condemn all worship of Christ's separate humanity by bowing, 
 prayer, prostration, kneeling, incense, and in every other way; and so, by nec- 
 essary implication, did it anathematize every one who makes the Virgin Mary, 
 any martyr, or any other saint, or archangel, or angel, to share God the Word's 
 prerogative of interceding for us above; which, of course. He does by His hum- 
 anity, though, according to the do6lrine of Economic Appropriation, that inter- 
 cession is ascribed to God the Word. Yet the other, the chief part of His 
 Intercessory Office, the hearing of Prayer addressed to Himself (God the Word), 
 and the searching the heart and motives of His invokers, belong to His Divine 
 Nature as the omnipresent, the omniscient and the omnipotent Word. To 
 ascribe them to any creature is shocking blasphemy and creature-worship. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria in his Instru5lor makes the Word the Mediator, foi 
 in Book III. chapter i., of it he says : 
 
 " The Word is the Mediator, common to the two [God and Man] foi 
 He is Son of God, and Saviour of Men ; and His Minister [a) and our In- 
 structor," {])). 
 
 Century II : Clement of Alexandria exhorts to honor God ''through the 
 divine JVord.^* [^Exhortation to the Heathen, chapter XI. page 104, vol. IV. of 
 the Ante Nicene Christian Library). 
 
 Further on in Chapter XII of the same Exhortation, page 108, id., he speaks of 
 * * THE Word of God, ' ' and adds, ' ' This Jesus, Who is eternal, the one great High 
 Priest of the one God His Father ^ prays for and exhorts men. ' ' 
 
 In chapter X. he says that " The Saviour , the Clement, the Divine Word, 
 He that is truly most mafti/est Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of tht 
 universe because He was His Son, and the Word, was in God," " was in reality 
 adored,'' and is ''The Expiator of sin." Here the Word is the Expiator oj 
 Sin; that work of expiation He did as our great High Priest on Calvary. Hence 
 Paul in Acts xx., 28, speaking of God the Word, mentions ''the Church of God 
 which He hath purchased with His own blood.'' Here by the doctrine of Econ- 
 omic Appropriation, Paul ascribes the bloodshedding of Christ's humanity to 
 God the Word. On such passages is that doctrine based. We have seen that 
 
 (a). Rom. XV., 8. 
 
 (b). The Greek Is quoted in note 14, page 215, vol. I. of Smith's Gieseler's Church History. 
 
Report 071 the Final Summons to Nestorius. 371 
 
 and, all the clergy being present and nearly all the men of illustrious 
 rank, we delivered those Letters to Nestorius. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria in se<5lion 13 of his Scholia on the Inman of the Sole- 
 Born ascribes, in accordance with the doArine of Economic Appropriation, all the 
 names of both Natures of the Son to God the Word and the sufiferings of His 
 humanity to the Word also. And we see from what here follows that Clement 
 of Alexandria does the same long before him: for, as quoted in Smith'' s Gieseler's 
 Church History, Sheldon and Co., vol. I. N. Y. 1867, page 175, he applies to 
 God the Word the name Jesus, which as we see on page 161 above, Nestorius 
 applies there to Christ's human nature. Clement also ascribes Christ's blood- 
 shedding to God the Word. I quote and translate; in his Instructor, Book I. 
 chapter 7, Clement says, 
 
 " Our Instructor Jesus is the Holy God, the Word Who is the Guide of all 
 
 humanity, ^^ 6 6e yfierepog Traidayuybc ayiog Qebg 'Iijaovg, 6 Trdarjg r^f avdpa-KorijTOQ 
 Kadrryefiiiv ^oyoq. 
 
 In the same work. Book I. chapter 6, he writes : 
 
 " The Word shed His blood for us,'' 6 Koyog to avrov vTrep rificiv e^exeev al/xa. 
 This implies, of course, that the High Priest who offered that sacrifice was God 
 the Word ; which is Cyril's doctrine in Anathema X. above. 
 
 Tertullian Against Marcion, Book IV., chapter IX., speaking of the case of 
 the leper cured by Christ (Matt, viii., 2-5 ; Mark i., 40-45 and Luke v., 12-14) 
 and by Him told '' Go show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift which Moses 
 commanded,'' explains the priest as a type of Christ and the leper as a type 
 of the sinner going to the Father through Him. I quote that part: 
 
 "For He was yet guarding in their images the figurative proofs [of His 
 mission and works] inasmuch as they • came from the prophetic Law, for they 
 were signifying that man once a sinner, but afterwards purified thereof by the 
 Word of God, ought to offer a gift to God in His temple, that is, prayer and 
 thanksgiving in the Church, through Christ Jesus the Catholic priest of the 
 Father." {d). God the Word is therefore the Purifier of Men that is, by His. 
 High Priestly atonement. Compare Acts xx. , 28. All others are local priests, 
 who can not continue in their ofl&ce by reason of death (Heb. vii., 23), but God the 
 Word is the " Catholic," that is, *' the UniversalVr\^s\.oi\.\\,^ Father," in that He 
 hath offered the one all sufficient sacrifice of which we offer only the aftertypes 
 of bread and wine ; and in that His sacrifice is Universal, even ''for the sins of 
 the whole world," (I. John ii., 2), and He is the Catholic Priest of the Father in 
 that His Priesthood reaches to all times past, present and future, (Heb. ix., 15, 
 and Heb. vii., 22-28), and is of itself all sufficient (Heb. vii., 25). 
 
 In the Epistle of Julius Africanus to Aristides, which was written in the 
 third century, we find a clear statement that all Christians hoped in the Inter- 
 cession and Mediation of Christ as presenting our prayers to the Father. It 
 
 (d). Col. 376, tome 2 of Migne's Palrologia Latina. 
 
372 Act I. of Epkeszis. 
 
 And Dayiiel, Bishop of Darnis, stated the same things Hkewise. 
 
 occurs in a passage where he is reconciUng what some deemed the apparent dis- 
 crepancies in the genealogies of Christ given by Matthew and Luke. I quote : 
 
 " AFRICANUS ON THE GENEAI.OGY IN THE Hoi^Y G0SPEI.S. Some indeed 
 incorredlly allege that this discrepant enumeration and mixing of the names 
 both of priestly men, as they think, and royal, was made properly in order that 
 Christ might be shown rightfully to be both Priest and King ; as if any one dis- 
 believed this, or had any other hope than this, that Christ is the High Priest of 
 His Father, who presents our prayers to Him, and a supramundane King, 
 who rules by the Spirit those whom He has delivered, a Co-Operator in the 
 government of all things," {a). 
 
 See on page 127 above, note, a Nestorian's opposition to the doctrine of St. 
 Cyril's Anathema X. and what follows it on Cyril's view. His invocation of our 
 High Priest would be of course the invocation of a mere creature, in other words, 
 saint worship ! Well therefore and wisely did St. Cyril and the God-led Third 
 Council anathematize that return to Man-Worship, that is, Creature Worship. 
 
 St, Athanasius in his Treatises Against Arianism, Oxford English trans- 
 lation, pages 300, 301, Discourse or Oration II. section 14, has a very fit and very 
 important Passage which bears on Anathema X. of St. Cyril. I have quoted 
 it on page 237 top, volume I. oi Nicaea in this Set. The Greek is quoted there. 
 It is Passage 12 of Athanasius. I have given it in what I have aimed to make a 
 more exact translation than Newman's there. There Cyril contends that the 
 work of redemption, of course by Christ's archieratic sacrifice on Calvary and by 
 his present High Priestly Intercession above, must be accomplished by God the 
 Word and not by a mere man, lest we worship that man. I quote the English 
 of it again here : 
 
 " For it was not fitting that the redemption should be accomplished by an- 
 other, btit by Him Who is Lord by Nature [that is, God the Word,] lest though 
 we were created through the Son [God the Word, John i., 3 ; Coloss. i., 13-23,] 
 we should nevertheless name another, Lord, and fall into the Arian and Pagan 
 folly of serving a creature, contrary to the God who created all things.''^ And 
 that was exadlly what the Nestorians did, for St. Cyril and the Synod of the 
 whole Diocese of Egypt in their Anathema VIII. anathematize them according 
 to God's Word (Galat. i., 8, 9), for applying the term God to a Man, a creattire, 
 and for giving that mere creature two adls of religious service, bowing, and doxolo- 
 gizing, that is glorifying Him. See that Anathema. And so, in this place, St. 
 Athanasius shows that when men make Christ's humanity merelj% their Re- 
 deemer, that is, of course, their High Priest, their Sacrifice, and their Intercessor 
 on high, the outcome is very liable to be a falling ' into the Ariafi and Pagan 
 folly of serving a creature, contrary to the God who created all thi7igs,'' Rom. i., 
 25, Greek ; for He has forbidden it in Matt, iv., 10. And in that teaching, 
 Athanasius' disciple and successor, Cyril, has followed him. 
 
 St. Athanasius again and again teaches that it is God the Word Who is our 
 
 (a). Page 164, part 2, vol. IX. of the Atite Nicene Christian Library. 
 
Report on the Final S2cmmo?is to Nestorius. 373 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of PJiilippi, said : Did he therefore satisfy the 
 demands of the I^etters ? 
 
 High Priest and Intercessor, Who, however, as such uses His humanity to do the 
 human things, such as praying to God and su^e ring and dying. I have space 
 here to quote only a few more places from his works. In his Second Oration 
 Against the Arians, sections 7, 8, 9 and 10, he is meeting the Arian perversion 
 of the words " who was faithful to Him that made Him;' in the expression on 
 Christ's High Priesthood, " Wherefore, holy brethern, partakers of the heavenly 
 catling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, Who was 
 faithful to Him that made Him,'' [Heb. iii., i, 2). The Greek for the last part 
 is KaravorjaaTe rbv aTzoaTolov kol dpxiep^a ri/g d/noTioylag 7///wp 'Itjoovv, tzlgtov bvra rui 
 iroLTjoavrL ahrov. The Arians took made (rendered by appointed in our common 
 Version) to mean that God the Word is a creature, in accordance with their 
 creature-worshipping heresy. 
 
 To this Athanasius replies, as on pages 289-296 of the Oxford translation ot 
 his Treatises against Arianism as follows, (My revision) : 
 
 "Thus then we may meet these men who are shameless, and from the single 
 expression He made, may shew that they err in thinking that the Word of God 
 is a work. But further, since the drift also of the context is orthodox, shewing 
 the time and the relation to which this expression points, I ought to shew from 
 it also how the heretics lack reason; viz., by considering, as we have done above, 
 the occasion when it was used and for what purpose. Now the Apostle is not 
 discussing things before the creation when he thus speaks, but when the Word 
 became flesh; for thus it is written. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the 
 heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Jesus, 
 who was faithful to Him that made Him, {a). Now when became He Apostle, 
 but when He put on our flesh? and when became He High Priest of our pro- 
 fession, but when, after offering Himself for us, He raised His body from the 
 dead, and, as now. Himself brings near and offers to the Father, those who in 
 His faith approach Him, redeeming all, and for all propitiating God ? Not then 
 as wishing to signify the Substance of the Word nor His natural generation from 
 the Father, did the Apostle say. Who was faithful to Him that made Him,— 
 (perish the thought ! for the Word is not made, but makes,)— but as signifying 
 His descent to mankind and High-priesthood which did become,— ^^ one may 
 easily see from the account given of the Law and of Aaron. 
 
 I mean, Aaron was not born a high-priest, but a man ; and in process of time, 
 when God willed, he became a high priest ; yet became so, not simply, nor as 
 betokened by his ordinary garments, but putting over them the ephod, the breast- 
 plate, the robe, {b) which the women wrought at God's command, and going in 
 them' into the holy place, he offered the sacrifice for the people ; and in them, 
 as it were, mediated between the vision of God and the sacrifices of men. Thus 
 then the Lord also. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
 
 {aY Heb. iii., i, 2. 
 (b). Kxod. xxix., 5. 
 
374 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Daniel, Bishop of Darnis, said : He told us then to come on 
 
 and the Word was God; but when the Father willed that ransoms should be 
 paid for all and to all grace should be given, then truly the Word, as Aaron his 
 robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His body as if 
 virgin earth, that, as a High Priest, having as others an offering, He might 
 offer Himself to the Father, and cleanse us all from sins in His own blood, and 
 might rise from the dead. For what happened of old was a shadow of this ; and 
 what the Saviour did on His coming, this Aaron shadowed out according to the 
 Law. As then Aaron was the same and did not change by putting on the high- 
 priestly dress, but remaining the same was only robed,so that had any one seen him 
 oflfering and had said, "Lo, Aaron has this day become high -priest, " he had not 
 implied that he then had been born man, for man he was even before he became 
 high-priest, but that he had been made high-priest in his ministry, on putting 
 on the garments made and prepared for the high-priesthood; in the same way it 
 is possible in the Lord's instance also to understand aright, that He did not be- 
 come other than Himself on taking the flesh, but, being the same as before. He 
 was robed in it ; and the expressions He became and He was made, must not be 
 understood as if the Word, considered as the Word, were made, but that the 
 Word, being Framer of all, afterwards was made High Priest, by putting on a 
 body which was generate and made, and such as He can offer for us ; wherefore 
 He is said to be made. If then indeed the Lord did not become man, that is a 
 point for the Arians to battle ; but if the Word became flesh, what ought to have 
 been said concerning Him when become man, but Who 7vas faithful to Him 
 That made Him ? for as it is proper to the Word to have it said of Him, In the 
 beginning was the Word, so it is proper to man to become and to be fnade. 
 Who then, on seeing the Lord as a man walking about, and yet appearing to be 
 God from His works, would not have asked. Who made Him man ? and who 
 again, on such a question, would not have answered, that the Father made Him 
 man, and sent Him to us as High Priest ? 
 
 And this meaning, and time, and character, the Apostle himself, the writer 
 of the words, Who is faithful to Him that made Him, will best make plain to 
 us, if we attend to what goes before them. For there is one train of thought and 
 the passage is all about One and the Same. He writes then in the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews thus : Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood. 
 He also Himself likewise took part of the same ; that through death He might 
 destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them 
 who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily 
 He took not on Him the nature of Angels ; but He took oh Him the seed of 
 Abraham. Wherefore in all tilings it behoved Him to be made like unto His 
 brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful Hi^h Priest in things per- 
 taining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that 
 He Himself hath suffered beiftg tempted. He is able to succour them that are 
 tempted. Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly callifig, consider 
 the Apostle and High Priest of our prof essio7t, Jesus ; who was faithful to Him. 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 375 
 
 the following day, and to meet him alone ; but when we went thither 
 
 That made Hun {c). Who can read this whole passage without condemning the 
 Arians, and admiring the blessed Apostle who has spoken so well ? for when was 
 Christ made, when became He Apostle^ except when, like us. He took part in 
 Jiesh and blood? And when became He a merciful and faithful High Priest, 
 except when in all things He was made like unto His hrethreii ? And then was 
 He made like, when He became man, having put upon Him our flesh. Where- 
 fore Paul was writing concerning the Word's human economy, when he said. 
 Who was faithful to Him that made Him, and not concerning His Substance. 
 Have not therefore any more the madness to say that the Word of God is a work, 
 whereas He is Son by Nature, Sole-Born ; and then had brethren, when He 
 took on him flesh like ours; and He Himself offering it by Himself, He was 
 named and became merciful and faithful— m^xoMvl, because in mercy to us He 
 offered Himself for us, and faithful, not as sharing faith with us, nor as having 
 faith in any one as we have, but as deserving to receive faith in all He says and 
 does, and as offering a faithful sacrifice, one which remains and does not come 
 to nought. For those which were offered according to the Law, had not this faith- 
 fulness, passing away with the day and needing a further cleansing ; but the 
 Saviour's sacrifice taking place once has perfedled the whole, and is become 
 faithful as remaining for ever. And Aaron had successors, and in a word the 
 priesthood under the Law exchanged its first ministers as time and death went 
 on ; but the Lord having a high priesthood without transition and without suc- 
 cession, has become o. faithful High Priest, as continuing for ever ; and faithful 
 too by promise, that he may hear and not mislead those who come to Him. 
 
 This may be also learned from the Epistle of great Peter, who says, Let 
 them that suffer according to the will of God, commit their souls to a faithful 
 Creator {d). For He is faithful as not changing, but abiding ever, and render- 
 ing what He has promised. Now the so-called gods of the Greeks, unworthy the 
 name, are faithful neither in their essence nor in their promises ; for the same 
 are not every where, nay, the local deities come to nought in course of time, and 
 undergo a natural dissolution ; wherefore the Word cries out against them, that 
 faith is not strong in them, but they are waters that fail, and there is no faith 
 in them. But the God of all, being one really and indeed and true, is faithful, 
 who is ever the same, and says. See now, that I, evefi I am He, and I change 
 not ; [e) and therefore His Son \% faithful, being ever the same and unchanging, 
 deceiving neither in His essence nor in His promise ; — as again says the Apostle 
 writing to the Thessalonians, Faithful is He who calleth you, who also will do 
 it ; (/) for in doing what he promises. He is faithful to His words. And he thus 
 writes to the Hebrews on the sense oi faithful and unchangeable. If we believe 
 not, yet He abidcth faithful ; He cannot deny Himself. Therefore reasonably 
 
 (c\ Heb. ii., 14-18; iii., 2. 
 
 [d). I. Peter iv., 14. 
 
 («). Vid., Jer. ix., 3, and xv., 18; Deut. xxxii., 20. Sept.; Deut. xxxii., 39; Mai., iii. 
 
 (/). I. Thess. v., 24. 
 
376 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 accordingly, he shut the doors against us, and deigned us no 
 response. 
 
 the Apostle, discoursing concerning the coming of the Word in a body, uses 
 Apostle and faithful to Him that made Him, shewing us that, even when made 
 man, fesus Christy the same yesterday aftd to-day, and for ever (g), is un- 
 changeable. And as the Apostle makes mention in his Epistle of His being 
 made man when mentioning His High Priesthood, so too he kept no long silence 
 about His Godhead, but rather mentions it forthwith, furnishing to us a safeguard 
 on every side, and most of all when he speaks of His humility, that we may 
 forthwith know His loftiness and His majesty which is the Father's. For in- 
 stance, he says, Moses as a servant, but Christ as a Son ; and the former faith- 
 ful in his house, and the latter over the hoiise, as having Himself built it and 
 being its Lord and Framer; and as God sanctifying it {h). For Moses, a man by 
 nature, became faithful, in believing God who spoke to Him by His Word ; but 
 the Word was not as one of things generate in a body, nor as creature in creature 
 but as God in flesh, and Framer of all and Builder from that which was built by 
 Him. And men are clothed in flesh in order to be and to subsist ; but the Word 
 of God was made man in order to sanctify the flesh, and though He was Lord, 
 was in the form of a servant; for the whole creation is the Word's servant, which 
 by Him came to be, and was made." 
 
 To the same tenor writes Cyril again and again. See also for more to the 
 same efiect in the Index of Texts, and of Scripture in his works. 
 
 Newman, in note m, on page 292 of his translation of St. Athanasius*^ 
 Treatises Against Arianism, is misty and inexact. He classes writers who 
 treat of Christ's High Priesthood as follows : 
 
 1. Those who made God the Word High Priest, and 
 
 2. Those who made His Humanity High Priest. 
 
 And he even goes so far as to say that " Cyril adv. Nest., p. 64,'' ''may be 
 taken to countenance'' Nestorius' error ''that the Man Christ Jesus was the 
 Priest! !'' 
 
 Then he tells us that "The Catholic doctrine is that the Divine Word is 
 Priest i7i and according to His Manhood." 
 
 But these statements are not exact. For as we have already seen, Cyril's 
 High Priest is God the Word in a Man, both Natures, not one only. As God the 
 Word Our High Priest and Mediator is worshipped hy prayer to Him, bowing, 
 and the other acts ofi-eligious service ; as Man, He prays for us, suffers, and 
 dies. But by Cyril's and the Universal Church's doctrine of Economic Appro- 
 priation, all those human things are appropriated to God the Word to prevent 
 our worshipping His viere created humanity, as both Athanasius and Cyril 
 teach on this very point. See in ^^rooi Passage 13 of St. Athanasius, pages 237- 
 240, of Volume I. of Nicaea in this Set. The fact is that " The Catholic doc- 
 
 [g). Heb. xiii., 8; II. Tim. ii., 13. 
 Kh). Heb. iii., 5, 6. 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Nestorms. 377 
 
 Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasa, said : He [Nestorius] received 
 
 trine " on Christ's High Priesthood is Cyril's, for it is he who sets it forth in his 
 Long Epistle above, and in his Anathema X. The doctrine of His Sacrifice and 
 suffering is explained in his Two Epistles, which were approved at Ephesus, and 
 in that to John of Antioch, which was approved at Chalcedon. And it is ab- 
 surdly false to teach that St. Cyril " may be taken to countenance " Nestorius* 
 heresy *' that the Man Christ Jesus was the Priest,'" to the exclusion of God the 
 Word. For that seems to be Newman's notion. Whereas it was the very heresy 
 which Cyril was combatting as false, heretical, and as ending in the fundamental 
 pagan error of worshipping a creature, as we see above in this note in his own 
 words on page 364, and below. 
 
 Other inaccuracies in Newman's note should be mentioned, but the length 
 of this note bids me hasten to its end. Newman was able, but never fully 
 understood the Six Ecumenical Synods, nor did he thoroughly even know them. 
 Hence his fall into idolatry, and his hopeless death in it. Rev. xxi., 8; Gal. v., 
 19-22. 
 
 At the time of the Reformation, Stancari the Socinian, and Osiander the 
 IvUtheran, touched upon the question of Christ's High Priestly sacrifice again. 
 See the article Stancarists in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopcedia, and under 
 Osiander there. 
 
 On the Apostleship and High Priesthood of God the Word, see P. E. 
 Pusey's translation of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnatio7i Against 
 Nestorius, pages 85 to 124, inclusive, 165, 166; it agrees with his Anathema X., 
 and with Athanasius above. 
 
 On the kind of offering made by Him in heaven to the Father, see especially 
 page 98. It is quoted above in this note. 
 
 Cyril makes Christ as God the only Mediator, id., page 160, 200. Mediation 
 is, of course, part of His High Priestly Function and Office. 
 
 In St. Cyril of Alexandria's Defense of his XII. Anathemas, that is, Chap- 
 ters, Agaijist Theodoret, under Anathema X., Cyril asserts, as elsewhere, that 
 God the Word is our High Priest, that is, our Mediator and Intercessor, who, 
 however, works the huinati things by His humanity. 
 
 Theodoret, on the contrary, contends that Christ's humanity only is our 
 High Priest. The place is found on pages 464-484 of Volume VI. of P. E. 
 Pusey's Greek of St. Cyril. On page 484, id., Cyril speaking of Theodoret and 
 the Nestorians says that, 
 
 "It is therefore clear beforehand that while they pretend to confess the 
 Union [of the Two Natures of Christ] in order to deceive the judgments of the 
 simpler sort of people, they nevertheless hold to a [mere] external and relative 
 conjunllion, which we also have, in that we have been made partakers of the 
 divine Nature through the Spirit," (II. Peter i., 4). 
 
 That, of course, implies that the Nestorian High Priest was a mere Man, 
 who had only an external and relative conjun6lion to God the Word, for he 
 was not indwelt b}' His divine Sul)stance. 
 
378 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 the aforesaid documents (704) and arranged for us to meet him on 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria teaches that Christ worships as man, but is worshipped 
 as God. See his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, 
 Book III., Chapter I., page 136, d., of P. K. Pusey's Greek in Vol. VI. of his 
 edition of Cyril, and Section 18 of his Scholia on the Inntan of the Sole-Born. 
 In the first mentioned passage St. Cyril, speaking of God the Word's High 
 Priestly Office and Functions, writes : 
 
 "For if when He was made a man like us. He worshipped with us as a Man, 
 although the multitude above and the holy spirits worship Him [as God the Word] 
 and Moses saith concerning Him, Rejoice ye heavens with Him, and let all 
 God' s S071S worship Him,'' etc., [Deut. xxxii., 43, Sept.] The Greek of the 
 above in Pusey is as follows : d yap eTretTrep -yeyove Kaff rjfiaq TTpoaiieKvvijKe f^ed' ^fiov 
 4jg ai'OpuTTog' Kairoi TrpoGKVvovaTjg avrbv ri/q avu 7c7iri6vog koI roiv dyicjv TrvevfjaTuv, Myovrog 
 T£ Muvaiog nepl avrov " EixppdvdT^re ovpavol ana avrC), kol TTpocKvvTjcdTucav avru Trdvreg 
 -viol Qf.ov. Cyril teaches that God the Word prays as man : see in proof St. Cyril 
 of Alexandria Oft the Right Faith to Pulcheria and Eudocia, page 309, Part I., 
 vol. VII. of P. E. Pusey's Greek of St. Cyril's Works. To the same eflfect writes 
 Cyril in his Christ is One, pages 287, 288, 289, and notes k and n in the Oxford 
 translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incartiation against Nestorius. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Address on the Right Faith to Pulcheria and 
 Eudocia, has some excellent remarks on the High Priesthood of Christ, shows 
 that God the Word is our High Priest, and that if a mere Man were, as the Nes- 
 torians contended, the result would be Tetradism and Creature Worship. The 
 Passage is found on pages 305-316, Part I., vol. VII. of P. B. Pusey's Greek of 
 Cyril, and should all be read, for he well sets forth the soleness of Christ's one 
 Sacrifice, the Divinity of the Offe^-er, and thediUy of avoiding the worship of the 
 creature, that is, the Man put on by the Logos. I have room here only to quote 
 from pages 312, 313. Cyril there writes : 
 
 • ' ' Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum : We have such a 
 High Priest, Who hath sat down at the right hand of the th^'one of the Majesty 
 i7i the heavens, a Minister of the Holy Places and of the true tabernacle which 
 .the Lord pitched and not man,' [Heb. viii., i, 2]. The ancient tabernacle was 
 raised in the wilderness through the all-wise Moses and was made after the 
 fashion showed to him in the mount [Exod. xxvi., 30; Exod. xxvii., 8, and Heb. 
 viii., 5], and it was most suitable for those who were priests according to the Law 
 [of Moses]; but the fit and seemly dwelling place for the Anointed One (ra 
 X/j/(Tr(x.) is the beautiful city above, that is, the heaven, the divine and loftiest 
 tabernacle, and not a contrivance of human art but sacred and God-built. 
 Christ has gone there and brings to the God and Father those who believe in 
 Him, and who have been sanctified by the Spirit, of course. For * No one ' saith 
 He, ' Cometh unto the Father but by Me,' [John xiv., 6 ]. And this is the man- 
 ner of what is termed His ministry there : and the thing is prerogative to God 
 [or * God befitting,' QtQ'Kpz-n:ig\ even though it be signified in words such as we 
 use, that is, in human language. For why is it not prerogative to God {Qtoirp^-rkg) 
 to possess the power to sanctify by Ilis own Spirit those who believe and are 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 379 
 
 the following day. We [therefore] departed. Then when we re- 
 
 justified by mercy and grace, and to be such a one as to perform priestly acts for 
 those who are dead to the world, but made alive by the Spirit, and who shine 
 forth by a truly well-famed life ? And though he is said to minister, nevertheless 
 the fact that He is settled in the seats of God and that He is seated at the right 
 hand of Him who brought Him forth clearly proves besides that He is not in- 
 ferior to the Father, and that He does not come after Him as respedts the 
 glory which is inherent in Him. And since it is true that Every pnest ever 
 stood in ministering, and no one who worshipped God could at any time be 
 deemed Co-Sitter and of equal glory with Him [God], why is not the Anointed 
 One [6 Xpi(Troc] a Priest in an unusual sense forasmuch as He sits in the seats of 
 the Godhead as God, and ministers as man ? But if now any one by way of 
 slandermg the truth would say. Yes, He has sat down at the right hand of the 
 Fathermerely as a man conjoined to the Word, [6ut] only in an equality of dig- 
 nity ; no longer does he say that the loftiest throne above belongs to the Nature 
 of the holy Trinity only, even that throne which is prerogative to It alone, [or 
 " which befits It alone'''\ but there is at once brought in to us this here some 
 new and created God besides after the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity," The 
 Greek of this last part is as follows : d cJe 6ij ng leyot, cvKocpavrcjv rrjv aXifiuav^ bn 
 vai KEKadiKEv kv de^ia tov narpug IdiKug dvdpuTrog avvr^iiijuevog rC) Ad/cj, /card novrjv t?)i> 
 iGOTr/Ta TTJq a^iaq' ovketl /uovoyevug elvai (pt^ai rf/g ay lag Tptdchg tov dvcoraTu Kal juovtj Kal 
 avry TrpeTrovra Opovov, a7J: t]6tj Tig yjulv TSTapTog ovToal, 7rp6a(paT6g re Kal yevTjTog kneia- 
 KpivETai QEog, /HETa Trjv ofioovGiov Kal dyiav Tpidda. 
 
 The expression new God towards the end of the above quotation seems to 
 refer to the Septuagint Greek Version of Psalm Ixxx., 9, (our Ixxxi., 9), " There 
 shall be no new god in thee.''' 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria in a work against the Synousiasts, that is, the Co- 
 substancers, makes Christ the only Mediator. See P. E. Pusey's English trans- 
 lation of 5^. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnatio7t Against Nestorius, page 
 370, foot. But he makes His humanity necessary to His Mediatorship. Yet 
 God the Word is the Mediator there as elsewhere in Cyril, but does the human 
 things such as praying to God for us, suffering, and dying, in His humanity. 
 And Cyril tells the Synousiasts that if they do away His humanity they do away 
 the human part of His Mediatorial and High Priestly work. See there. 
 
 Besides, St. Cyril has matter which bears on his Anathema X. in his Thes- 
 aurus, Assertio XXL, column 355, and after in tome 75 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca. And see his works passim, for the theme of that Anathema was a 
 topic which he was fond of referring to. 
 
 Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in his City of God, Book X., section 3, wnies as 
 to Christ's Mediatorial office: 
 
 " The priest who intercedes for us is His [the Father's] Only Begotten,'' 
 page 386, vol. I of the English translation published by the Clarks, of Edniburgh. 
 This shows that Augustine deemed God the Word our High Priest ; for tlit- tenn 
 Only Begotten, that is Sole Born, (in Greek Mojv^jMV/r, iu Latin, UiiigeiiiLusJ 
 
380 • ^c/ /. of Ephesus. 
 
 turned on the following day he did not receive us, nor, moreover, did 
 
 has always been understood to mean God the Word, in accordance with the 
 language of the Nicene Creed, where it is explained as follows, " One Lord 
 Jesus Anointed, the Son of God, born out of the Father, Sole Born, that is out 
 of the Substance of the Father, God out of God, Light out of Light, very God 
 out of very God, born, not made, of the same Substance as the Father:' The 
 reference, as any one can see, is to the birth of God the Word out of the Father 
 " before all the worlds;' as indeed it is explained in the other of the sole twa 
 Ecumenical Creeds, the Constantinopolitan, as follows, "One Lord Jesus 
 Anointed, the Son of God, the Sole Born, Who was born out of the Father 
 before all the worlds:' Sole Born out of the Father means therefore only God 
 the Word, for no one is so blasphemous as to assert that His humanity was born 
 out of Him, but, on the contrary, all admit that it was born out of the Virgin 
 thousands of years after the worlds were made. 
 
 Leo I., Bishop of Rome, A. D., 440-461, did good work for Orthodoxy at 
 Chalcedon, so good that his Epistle to Flavian, Leo's Tome as it is called, was 
 approved by the whole Church there. Yet he did not know Greek (so Professor 
 Bright says on page xiv. of the Preface to his English translation of 5/. Leo on 
 the Incarnation), and in his attempts to secure Appellate Jurisdiction in the 
 West, was so perversely ignorant and ambitious, in regard to the Nicene Canons, 
 that he quotes the mere local canons of Sardica as being canons of the first Ecu- 
 menical Synod, even after his See had been informed by Cyril of Alexandria, 
 Constantinople and by the Council of Carthage ; of which we treat in a series of 
 articles on t\xQ Attempt of Rome to secure Appellate furisdidlion in Africa in 
 Centuries V. and VI., in the Church fournal of New York City for 1870, which 
 we hope to reproduce in a slightly enlarged form hereafter, if God will. Besides 
 Leo violated the canons of Nicaea in order to get and to exercise Appellate Juris - 
 di6lion in Gaul, and induced the weak Emperor of the West, Valentinian III., to 
 back up his ambitious attempts to get such jurisdi6lion by issuing an edict re- 
 quiring the secular powers to enforce Leo's summons to any bishop of the West 
 whom he wished to appear before him. It was thus that Leo secured the right 
 of Appellate Jurisdidlion in Gaul. Well therefore has he been censured by 
 Bright on page v. of his Preface to St. Leo on the Incarnation for " the faults 
 which can not but be discerned in what we may call his Papal policy, the hasty 
 injustice and absolutism with which he treated so eminent a bishop as Hilary of 
 Aries, — the employment of a worthless Western emperor as the instrument for en- 
 forcing his own supremacy throughout the West, — thepersistence with which, in 
 spite of evidence which must have been familiar to one who had been in the ser- 
 vice of the Roman Church from th e time of Pope Zosimus, he went on claiming the 
 warrant of the Nicene Council for an appellate jurisdi6lion in nisowu see, — such 
 things are too clear proofs that he did not rise above the temptations which beset 
 men born to rule," etc. As Bright there shows, Tillemont, a learned French 
 Romanist, but a Galilean, blames Leo for his adlion towards Hilary of Arles^ 
 and " indicates clearly enough that, in his opinion, * * * Leo had ' i7c'^r- 
 stepped the bounds of the canons:'' Cazenove in his article Hilarius Arela- 
 
Report on the Filial Summons to Nestorius. 881 
 
 he satisfy the demands of the Letters (705), but before the Church 
 
 iensis, in Smith and Wace's Di5lionary of Christian Biography, vol. III., page 
 70, outer column, shows that not only Tillemont, but also Quesuel and other 
 Galileans "stand up strongly in defence of Hilary ; and it is not too much to say 
 that the language of Tillemont against Leo is far stronger than that of Dean 
 Milman," an Anglican. In note i, page vi. of his Preface, Bright gives proofs 
 of Leo's dishonesty in adducing the local canons ofSardica as being the Ecu. 
 menical canons of Nicaea. 
 
 Leo's lack of knowledge of Greek would keep him from knowing much of 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, but he knew him to sorie extent and appealed to his 
 Epistle to Nestorius which had been approved at Ephesus, as authority: so states 
 Brighton page xv. of his Preface to his translation of S. Leo on the Incarnatio7i. 
 
 I have said this much by way of preface to what I may have to say as to 
 Leo's opinions on the High Priesthood and Mediatorship of God the Word. 
 Leo makes God the Word with His humanity our Mediator: see pages 3, 56, 57 
 of Bright's work just mentioned. Yet Leo believed that saints in heaven pray 
 for us ( article Leo I. in Smith and Wace's DiHionary of Christian Biography, 
 vol. III., page 670, outer column), though he does not pray to them. That view, 
 held in effect by some other writers, militates against the following facts : 
 
 1. Christ's Mediation as our High Priest and Intercessor in heaven is God- 
 authorized, and all other is forbidden (Heb. vii., 25; I. John ii., i, 2, and John xiv., 
 6). He gives gracious promises to him who asks favors of Him diredlly, and of the 
 Father in His name (John xiv., 13, 14; Johnxv., 16, and John xvi., 23, 26). 
 We may not ask in the name of any other (John xiv,, 6), nor may we invoke 
 any other, for that is an act of religious service, and all religious service is pre- 
 rogative to God (Matt, iv., 10). 
 
 2. If it be said that an Epistle of Cyril, that to Flavian, is approved by the 
 Fourth Ecumenical Council, that is true ; but we must not consider Leo's views 
 as passed on, or approved, by the Council, farther than they examined them. 
 They did not have before them Leo's private opinions that saints in heaven pray 
 for us, and hence did not approve them. Indeed, Cyril's Anathema X. cer- 
 tainly makes all Mediation in heaven prerogative to God the Word, and as Inter- 
 cession is now its chief part, it therefore makes that prerogative to Him and for- 
 bids as an error and heresy the notion that any saint there or any other creature 
 there can share it with Him. 
 
 Before dismissing this Anathema X. of St, Cyril and of Ephesus, I would 
 say that in the West, in the middle ages and even since, Cyril's and the 
 Church's way of ascribing to God the Word the whole Office and Functions of 
 the High Priesthood, the divine things, like hearing prayer and searching the 
 heart, as being prerogative to Him as God, and the human things such as pra}-- 
 ing, suffering, and dying, in accordance with the dodlriue of Economic Appro- 
 priation, has, alas ! been lost sight of too much, as a sequence of the invo- 
 cation of saints and of angels which had come in contrary to it ; for, as St. 
 Athanasius, followed by St. Cyril, states, the aim of the dodlrine is to prevent 
 
382 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 he preached the same dogmas, and even worse ones. And not only 
 
 the worship of a mere creature, the Nestorian Christ, that is, in effect, saint 
 worship. See in proof their language on pages 237-240 in passage 13 of Athan- 
 asius there. The English Reformers therefore and those of the Continent seem 
 not to have known much of it, though had they it would have been an impor- 
 tant and forceful weapon in their hands against that invocation of saints which 
 they so much opposed, and for that worship of God alone (Matt, iv., 10), for 
 which so many of them like St. Thomas Cranmer, St. Nicholas Ridley, and St. 
 Hugh Latimer, and other sainted prelates, presbyters and people gave their 
 lives and went up at once to heaven, as the martyrs of the Ante Nicene times 
 had died for the same truth and mounted by the same path to the glory of 
 heaven. 
 
 Yet the Reformers (to whom, now praising Him in heaven, God the Son 
 grant a blessed resurredlion when He comes to reign on this earth), though they 
 did not fully know, and hence did not follow Cyril's terminology on Economic 
 Appropriation as fully as might be desired, nevertheless did follow the great 
 idea embodied in that do6lrine, that we must pray to God alone, and hence in 
 Christ, not at all to His humanity, but to God the Word alone, for as Cyril and 
 they agree, every act of religious service, be it prayer, bowing, or any other is 
 prerogative to God. And in the Third Part of the Homily against Peril of 
 Idolatry they very justly condemn such excuses as dulia, and latreia, to excuse 
 idolatry as from the devil ( pages 240, 241 of the edition of the Society for Pro- 
 motifig Christian Knowledge). On account of their noble work in bringing 
 back the do6trine of Ephesus for the worship of God alone ( Matt, iv., 10), we 
 follow the example of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, who, in gratitude for 
 what Cyril had done against creature-worship, raised the shout, ''Eternal be 
 the memory of Cyril! " So we, in gratitude for that noble work of his and for 
 the noble work of the English Reformers against the invocation, that is, the 
 worship of creatures, and of images painted and graven, say. Eternal be the 
 memory of Cyril! " Eternal be the memory of the English Reformers, and of 
 all the Reformers and Restorers of true religion under all the covenants ! Cyril 
 was not without human failings, nor were the apostles, nor were any of the 
 God-alone-worshipping Reformers of the Christian Covenant, nor were those 
 of the Mosaic Covenant, nor were those under the Patriarchal Dispensations; 
 yet we do not expect men to be God. But we appreciate that good which Cod 
 called them to do, and their faithfulness in doing it. And if we did otherwise 
 w^e should be indeed base and wicked, for what we are in freedom from idolatry 
 and in blessings spiritual and temporal, we owe, under God, to our Reformers, 
 and we should go on and finish their work by restoring all the dodlrine, disci- 
 pline, and rite of the Six Ecumenical Councils and of the Ante Nicene Church. 
 For the end of a full Reformation is a full return to all that was in the beginning, 
 as in the case of the successive Reformations under ihe Mosaic Covenant. For 
 instance, the Jews reformed in Babylon, but they did not fully restore their 
 priesthood to their fundlions, and their religion to its former state fully, till they 
 returned to Jerusalem. So should we restore all that was lost in the ages of 
 
Report on the Filial Sitinmons to Nestorius. 383 
 
 did he teach those things before he received the documents, but he 
 
 idolatry. But we come now to quote the Second Part of the Homily of the 
 Reformers of the Church of England Concerning Prayer, to show how thor- 
 oughly they restored Cyril's and the Universal Church's doctrine in his 
 Anathemas VIII. and X., that we may pray to no one but God, nor give bowing 
 nor any other act of religious service to any but God. Perhaps the opinion of 
 Augustine below may be too favorable, but its dodtrine is correct. With the other 
 Homilies, it is approved by Article XXXV. as containing " a godly and whole- 
 some do5lrine and necessary for these times.'''' I quote : 
 
 •' THB SECOND PART OF THE HOMILY CONCERNING PRAYER. 
 
 In the first part of this Sermon ye heard the great necessity, and also the 
 great force, of devout and earnest prayer declared and proved unto you, both by 
 divers weighty testimonies, and also by sundry good examples of holy Scripture. 
 Now shall you learn whom you ought to call upon, and to whom ye ought always 
 to direct your prayers. 
 
 We are evidently taught in God's holy Testament, that Almighty God is the 
 only fountaiu and wellspring of all goodness, and that whatsoever we have in 
 this world, we receive it only at His hands. To this effect serveth the place of 
 St. James: Every good and perfect gift, saith he, comeih from above, and pro- 
 ceedethfrom the Father of lights {a). To this effect also serveth the testimony 
 of Paul in divers places of his Epistles, witnessing that the spirit of wisdom, the 
 spirit of knowledge and revelation, yea, every good and heavenly gift, as faith, 
 hope, charjty, grace, and peace, cometh only and solely of God {b). In consider- 
 ation whereof he bursteth out into a sudden passion and saith, O fnan, what 
 thing hast thou which thou hast not received? {c). Therefore, whensoever we 
 need or lack any thing pertaining either to the body or the soul, it behoveth us 
 to run only unto God, who is the only giver of all good things. Our Saviour 
 Christ in the Gospel, teaching his disciples how they should pray, sendeth them 
 to the Father in his name, saying Verily, verily, I say ufito you. Whatsoever ye 
 ask the Father in my name, he will give it unto you (d). And in another place: 
 When ye pray, pray after this sort, Our Father, which art in heaven, &c. {e). 
 And doth not God himself, by the mouth of his Prophet David, will and com- 
 mand us to call upon him? {f). The Apostle wisheth grace and peace to all 
 them that call on the Name of the Lord and of his Son fesus Christ : {g) as doth 
 also the Prophet Joel, saying, A fid it shall come to pass, that whosoever call on 
 the Name of the Lord shall be saved {h). 
 
 Thus then it is plain by the infallible word of truth and life, that in all our 
 
 (a). James i., 17. 
 
 {b). Rom. i., 7; v., 1-5; I. Cor. xii., 8; Eph. i., 17; ii., 8; I. Thess. iii., 12. 
 
 (c). I. Cor. iv., 7. 
 
 (rf). John xvi., 23. 
 
 (e). Matt, vi., 9; Luke xi., 2. 
 
 (/). PS. 1., 15. 
 
 (g). I. Cor. i., 2. 3. 
 
 (h). Joel ii., 32; .\cts ii., 21. 
 
384 Act I. of Ephes7is. 
 
 has taught things much worse from the time that he received them 
 till the present day (706). 
 
 necessities we must flee unto God, direct our prayers unto him, call upon his 
 holy Name, desire help at his hands, and at no other's. Whereof if ye will yet 
 have a further reason, mark that which foUoweth. There are certain conditions 
 most requisite to be found in every such a one that must be called upon, which 
 if they be not found in him unto whom we pray, then doth our prayer avail us 
 nothing, but is altogether in vain. . The first is this, that he to whom we make 
 our prayers be able to help us. The second is, that he will help us. The third 
 is, that he be such a one as may hear our prayers. The fourth is, that he under- 
 stand better than we ourselves what we lack and how far we have need of help. 
 If these things be to be found in any other saving only God, then may we law- 
 fully call upon some other besides God. But what man is so gross but he well 
 understandeth that these things are only proper to him which is omnipotent and 
 knoweth all things, even the very secrets of the heart, {i) that is to say, only and 
 to God alone ? Whereof it foUoweth, that we must call neither upon angel nor 
 yet upon saint, but only a7id solely upon God. As St. Paul doth write: How 
 shall men call upon him in whom they have 7iot believed? [j). So that invoca- 
 tion or prayer may not be made without faith in him on whom we call, but that 
 we must first believe in him, before we can make our prayers unto him : where- 
 upon we must o?ily and solely pray unto God. For to say that we should believe 
 either in angel or saint or in any other living creature were most horrible blas- 
 phemy against God and his holy word ; neither ought this fancy enter into the 
 heart of any Christian man, because we are expressly taught in the ^'ord of the 
 Lord only to repose our faith in the blessed Trinity, in whose only Name we are 
 also baptized according to the express commandment of our Saviour Jesus Christ 
 in the last of Matthew {k). 
 
 But that the truth hereof may the better appear, even to them that be most 
 simple and unlearned, let us consider what prayer is. St. Augustine calleth it 
 " a lifting up of the mind to God, that is to say, an humble and lowly pouring 
 out of the heart to God." (/). Isidorus saith, that " it is an afife6lion of the heart 
 and not a labour of the lips. " {m). So that, by these places, true prayer doth 
 consist not so much in the outward sound and voice of words, as in the inward 
 groaning and crying of the heart to God. Now then, is there any angel, any 
 virgin, any patriarch or prophet among the dead, that can understand or know 
 the meaning of the heart? The Scripture saith it is God that searcheth the 
 heart and reins, and that he only knoweth the hearts of the childre7i of men («). 
 As for the Saints, they have so little knowledge of the secrets of the heart, that 
 many of the ancient fathers greatly doubt whether they know anything at all 
 
 (z). I. John iii., 20; Ps. xliv., 21. 
 
 (7). Rom. X., 14. 
 
 (^k). Matt, xxviii., 19. 
 
 (/). De Spir. et Lit. Cap.'so. 
 
 {m). De Summo Bono, cap. viii., Lib. iii. 
 
 («). Ps. vii., 9; Rev. ii., 23; Jer. xvii., 10; 2 Chron. vi., 30. 
 
Report 071 the Final Summons to Nestorins. 3S.j 
 
 Fidus, Bishop of Joppa, said : The most God-fearing Bishops 
 
 that is commonly done on earth. And, albeit some think they do, yet St. Au- 
 gustine, a dodlor of great authority and also antiquity, hath this opinion of them 
 that they know no more what w-e do on earth, than we know what they do in 
 heaven {p). For proof whereof he allegeth the words of Esay the Prophet, 
 where it is said, Abraham is ignorant of us, and Israel krioweth us not (/>). 
 His mind therefore is this, not that we should put any religion in worshipping 
 them or praying unto them, but that we should honour them by following their 
 virtuous and godly life {q). For as he witnesseth in another place, the Martyrs 
 and holy men in times past were wont after their death to be remembered and 
 named of the priest at Divine Service, but never to be invocated or called upon. 
 And why so ? "Because the priest," saith he, "is God's priest, and not theirs:" 
 whereby he is bound to call upon God, and not upon them (r). 
 
 Thus you see, that the authority both of Scripture and also of Augustine 
 doth not permit that we should pray unto the^n. O that all men would studi- 
 ously read and search the Scriptures ! [s) then should they not be drowned in 
 ignorance, but should easily perceive the truth, as well of this point of do6lrine, 
 as of all the rest. For there doth the Holy Ghost plainly teach us, that Christ 
 is our only fnediaior aiid intercessor with God, and that we must seek and run 
 to no other. If any m,an sinneth, saith St. John, zve have an advocate ivith the 
 Father, fesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the propitiatiofi for our sins [t). 
 St Paul also saith, There is one God, and o?ie mediator between God and man, 
 even the man Jesus Christ {u). Whereunto agreeth the testimony of our Saviour 
 himself, witnessing that no ma7i cometh to the Father, but only by him, who is 
 the way, the truth, the life, {v) yea, and the only door whereby we must enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven, {w) because God is pleased in no other but in 
 him {x). For which cause also he crieth and calleth unto us, that we should 
 come unto him, saying, Com,e 7into me, all ye that labour and be heavy laden, 
 and I shall refresh you (jj/). Would Christ have us so necessarily come unto 
 him ? and shall we most unthankfully leave him, and run unto other ? This is 
 €ven that which God so greatly complaineth of by his Prophet Jeremy, saying, 
 My people have committed two great offences ; they have forsaken m,e the foun- 
 tain of the waters of life, and have digged to themselves broken pits, that can 
 hold no water {z). Is not that man, think you, unwise that will run for water 
 
 (o). Ivib. de Cura pro Mort agenda, c. 13. 
 
 {p). Is. Ixiii.. 16. 
 
 (q). De vera Relig. cap. 55. 
 
 (r). Lib. xxii., de Civ. Dei. cap. 10. 
 
 {s). John v., 39. 
 
 (/). I. John ii., I. 2. 
 
 {«). I. Tim. ii., 5. 
 
 (v). John xiv., 6. 
 
 (w). John X., 9, 1. Tim. ii., 5, and Heb. vii., 2S-28a 
 
 [x). Matt, xvii., 5. 
 
 iy). Matt, xi., 28. 
 
 {z\ Jer. ii., 13. 
 
386 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 Acacius and the lord Theodotus, who are present also, and who had 
 
 to a little brook, when he may as well go to the head spring ? Even so may his 
 wisdom be justly suspected that will flee unto Saints in time of necessity, when 
 he may boldly and without fear declare his grief and direct his prayer unto the 
 Lord himself. 
 
 If God were strange, or dangerous to be talked withal, then might we justly 
 draw back, and seek to some other. But the Lord is nigh unto the^n that call 
 tipon him in faith and truth : {a) and the prayer of the humble and 'ineek hath 
 always pleased him {b). What if we be sinners ? shall we not therefore pray unto 
 God ? or shall we despair to obtain any thing at his hands ? Why did Christ 
 then teach us to ask forgiveness of our sins, saying. And forgive us our tres- 
 passes, as we forgive them that trespass against us ? {c) Shall we think that the 
 Saints are more merciful in hearing sinners than God ? David saith, that the 
 Lord, is full of compassion and mercy, slow to anger, and of great kindness {d), 
 St. Paul saith, that he is rich in mercy towards all them that call upon him {e). 
 And he himself by the mouth of his Prophet Esay, saith. For a little while have 
 I forsaken thee, but with great compassion will I gather thee : for a moment in 
 mine anger I have hid my face from thee, but with everlasting fnercy have I had 
 compassion upon thee {/) Therefore the sins of any man ought not to withhold 
 him frorli praying unto the Lord his God, but, if he be truly penitent and stead- 
 fast in faith, let him assure himself that the Lord will be merciful unto him and 
 hear his prayers. 
 
 O but I dare not (will some man say) trouble God at all times with my 
 prayers: we see that in kings' houses, and courts of princes, men cannot be ad- 
 mitted, unless they first use the help and mean of some special nobleman, to 
 come unto the speech of the king, and to obtain the thing that they would have. 
 To this reason doth St. Ambrose answer very well, writing upon the first chap, 
 ter to the Romans: "Therefore," saith he, "we used to go unto the king by 
 ofi&cers and noblemen, because the king is a mortal man, and knoweth not to 
 whom he may commit the government of the commonwealth. But to have God 
 our friend from whom nothing is hid, we need not any helper that should 
 further us with his good word, but only a devout and godly mind," {g). And, 
 if it be so, that we need one to intreat for us, why may w£ not content ourselves 
 with that one Mediator, which is at the right hand of God the Father, 
 and there liveth for ever to make intercession for us ? {h). As the blood 
 of Christ did redeem us on the cross, and cleanse us from our sins, 
 even so it is now able to save all them that com.e unto God by it. For Christ, 
 
 (a). Ps. cxlv., i8. 
 
 {b). Ps. cxlv., i8; John iv., 23, 24; Heb. xi., 6. 
 
 {c). Matt, vi., 12. 
 
 ((f). Ps. ciii.,8. 
 
 \e). Ephes. ii., 4; Rom. x., 12. 
 
 (/). Is.liv.7,8. 
 
 (^). Ambros. super cap. i., Rom. 
 
 (//). I. Tim. ii., 5; Rom. viii., 34; Heb. vii., 25. 
 
Report on the Final Sumnioiis to Nestorius. 387 
 
 discussions with him, so that they were even in peril from them in 
 
 sitting in heaven, hath an everlasting priesthood, and always prayeth to his 
 Father for them that be pe^iitent, obtaining by virtue of his wounds, which are 
 evermore in the sight of God, not only perfect remission of our sins, but also all 
 other necessaries that we lack in this world : so that his only mediation is suf- 
 ficient in heaven, and needeth no other's to help him (/). 
 
 Why then do we pray one for another in this life ? some man perchance will 
 here demand. Forsooth we are willed so to do by the express commandment, 
 both of Christ and his disciples, to declare therein, as well the faith that we 
 have in Christ towards God, as also the mutual charity that we bear one towards 
 another, in that we pity our brother's case, and make our humble petition to 
 God for him (7). But, that we should pray unto Saints, neither have we any 
 commandment in all the Scripture, noryetexample which we may safely follow. 
 So that being done without authority of God's word, it lacketh the ground 
 of faith, and therefore cannot be acceptable before God {k). For whatsoever is 
 not of faith is sin : (/) and the Apostle saith, t\ia.t faith cometh by hearing, and 
 hearing by the word of God {m). 
 
 Yet thou wilt object further, that the Saints in heaven do pray for us, and 
 that their prayer proceedeth of an earnest charity that they have towards their 
 brethren on earth. Whereto it may be well answered, first, that no man knowetli 
 whether they do pray for us, or no. And, if any will go about to prove it by the 
 natuie of charity, concluding that, because they did pray for men on earthy 
 therefore they do much more the same now in heaven ; then may it be said by 
 the same reason, that as oft as we do weep on earth they do also weep in heaven^ 
 because while they lived in this world it is most certain and sure they did so. 
 As for that place which is written in the Apocalypse, namely, that the angel did 
 offer up the prayers of the saints upon the golden altar, {n) it is properly meant^ 
 and ought properly to be understood, of those saints that are yet living on earth, 
 and not of them that are dead; otherwise what need were it that the angel 
 should offer up their prayers, being now in heaven before the face of Al- 
 mighty God ? But, admit the Saints do pray for us, yet do we not know how^ 
 whether specially for them which call upon them, or else generally for all men,, 
 wishing well to every man alike. If they pray specially for them which call upon: 
 them, then it is like they hear our prayers, and also know our hearts' desire. 
 Which thing to be false, it is already proved, both by the Scriptures, and also 
 by the authority of Augustine. 
 
 Let us not therefore put our trust or confidence in the Saints or Martyrs 
 that be dead. Let us not call upon them, nor desire help at their hands : but 
 let us always lift up our hearts to God in the name of his dear Son Christ ; for 
 
 (z). Heb. vii., 24; ix., 12, 24, 25; x., 12, and John xiv., 6. 
 
 (j). Matt, v., 44; vi., 9-13; James v., 16; Col. iii., 3; I. Tim. ii., i, 2, 
 
 (k). Heb. xi., 6. 
 
 (/), Rom. xiv., 23. 
 
 (m). Rom. X., 17. 
 
 («). Rev. viii., 3,4. , 
 
388 Acf I. of Ephesus, 
 
 regard to certain matters (707), can say that he even persists to this 
 clay in the same teachings and doctrines. 
 
 whose sake as God hath promised to hear our prayers, so he will truly perform 
 it. Invocation is a thing proper unto God: which if we attribute unto the Saints, 
 it soundeth to their reproach, neither can they well bear it at our hands. "When 
 Paul had healed a certain lame man, which was impotent in his feet, at Lystra^ 
 the people would have done sacrifice to him and Barnabas ; who, renting their 
 clothes, refused it, and exhorted them to worship the true God {d). Likewise in 
 the Revelation, when St. John fell before the angel's feet to worship him, the 
 angel would not permit him to do it, but commanded him that he should wor- 
 ship God (/>). Which examples declare unto us, that the saints and angels in 
 heaven will not have us do any honour unto them that is due and proper unto 
 God. He only is our Father ; he only is omnipotent ; he only knoweth and 
 understandeth all things; he only can help us at all times and in all places ; he 
 siiffereth the sun to shine upon the good and the bad; he feedeth the young ravens 
 that cry unto him ; he saveth both man and beast ; he will not that any one hair 
 of our head shall perish, {q) but is always ready to help and preserve all them 
 that put their trust in him, according as he hath promised, saying. Before they 
 vail, I will answer ; and whiles they speak, I will hear (r). Let us not there- 
 fore any thing mistrust his goodness ; let us not fear to come before the throne 
 of his mercy ; let us not seek the aid and help of Saints ; but let us come 
 boldly ourselves, {s) nothing doubting but God for Christ's sake, in whom he is 
 well pleased, (/) will hear us without a spokesman, and accomplish our desire in 
 all such things as shall be agreeable to his most holy will. So saith Chrysostom 
 an ancient do(5lor of the Church ; (7^) and so must we steadfastly believe, not be- 
 cause he saith it, but much more because it is the dodlrine of our Saviour Christ 
 himself, who hath promised, that if we pray to the Father in his name we shall 
 certainly be heard, both to the relief of our necessities, and also to the salvation 
 of our souls, {tj) which he hath purchased unto us, not with gold or silver, but 
 with his precious blood {w) shed once for all upon the cross (;r). 
 
 To him therefore with the Father and the Holy Ghost, three Persons and 
 one God, be all honour, praise, and glory for ever and ever. Amen. ' ' 
 
 In the Homily of the Church of Efiglandon the Nativity, which is approved 
 by its Thirty-Fifth Article as containing " a godly and wholesotne do5lrine, and 
 necessary for these times, ' ' we find the following testimony for the do(5lrine that 
 the Word in his Divinity alone does the divine things of His High Priesthood 
 
 (o), Adls xiv., 8-18. 
 
 {p). Rev. xix., 10; xxii., 8, 9. 
 
 (g). Matt, v., 45; Ps. cxlvii., 9; xxxvi., 6; Luke xii., 7; xxi., 18. 
 
 ir). Isai. Ixv., 24. 
 
 {s). Heb. iv., 16; X., 19-23. 
 
 </). Matt, xvii., 5. 
 
 {u). Chrysost. viHom. de Prefect. Kvang. 
 
 {v.) John xiv., 13, 14; xv., 16; xvi., 23-27. 
 
 (w). I. Pet.i., 18, 19. 
 
 (x). Ac5ls XX., 28; Heb. x., 12, 14; Heb. xii., 12, and I. Peter ii., 24. 
 
Report on the Final Summo7is to Nestorius, 389 
 
 And we beg them and ask them to swear on the Holy Gospels 
 
 and Mediatorial work, such as hearing our prayers, searching and knowing the 
 heart, etc., and against the error of Nestorius that Christ's mere humanity, a 
 creature alone, is our High Priest: 
 
 " For, as truly as God liveth, so truly was Jesus Christ the true Messias and 
 Saviour of the world, even the same Jesus which, as this day, was born of the 
 Virgin Mary, without all help of man, only by the power and operation of the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 * 'Concerning whose nature and substance, because divers and sundry heresies 
 are risen in these our days through the motion and suggestion of Satan, therefore 
 it shall be needful and profitable for your instrudlion to speak a word or two also 
 of this part. We are evidently taught in the Scripture, that our Lord and 
 Saviour Christ consisteth of two several natures; of his manhood, being thereby 
 perfect man; and of his Godhood, being thereby perfect God. It is written: 
 The Word, that is to say, the second person in Trinity, became flesh {a). God 
 sending his own Son in the similitude of sinful flesh, fulfilled those things 
 ivhich the law could not {b). Christ, being in form of God, took on him the 
 form of a servant, and was made like unto man, beijig found in shape as a 
 man [c). God was shewed in flesh, justified in spirit, seen of angels, preached 
 to Ihe Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up in glory {d). Also in 
 another place: There is one God, and one Mediator betzveen God and man, eve^t 
 the man fesus Christ {e). These be plain places for the proof and declaration 
 of both natures united and knit together in one Christ. Let us diligently con- 
 sider and weigh the works that he did whiles he lived on earth, and we shall 
 thereby also perceive the self-same thing to be most true: In that he did hunger 
 and thirst, eat and drink, sleep and wake; in that he preached his Gospel to the 
 people; in that he wept and sorrowed for Jerusalem; in that he paid tribute for 
 himself and Peter; in that he died and suffered death; what other thing did he 
 else declare but only this, that he was perfect man as we are? For which cause 
 he is called in holy Scripture sometime the son of David, sometime the so7i of 
 man, sometime the S07i of Maty, sometime the son of foseph, and so forth (/). 
 Now in that he forgave sins; in that he wrought miracles; in that he did cast 
 out devils; in that he healed men with his only word; in that he knew the 
 thoughts of men's hearts; in that he had the seas at his commandment; in that 
 he walked on the water; in that he rose from death to life; in that he ascended 
 into heaven, and so forth; what other thing did he shew therein but only that 
 he was perfect God, coequal with his Father as touching his Deity? Therefore 
 he saith. The Father and I are all one: (g) which is to be understood of his 
 
 (a). 
 
 John i., 14. 
 
 
 (*). 
 
 Rom. viii., 3. 
 
 
 (c). 
 
 Phil, ii., 6,7,8. 
 
 
 (d). 
 
 I. Tim. iii., 16. 
 
 
 M- 
 
 I. Tim. ii.. 5. 
 
 
 (A 
 
 Matt, i., i; xvi., 13; Mark vi., 3; John vi. 
 
 .42. 
 
 (.?■). 
 
 John X., 30. 
 
 
390 Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 which lie before us, to tell, for the credit and confirmation of the 
 
 Godhead; for, as touching his manhood, he saith. The Father is greater than I 
 am {h). 
 
 " Where are now those Marcionites, that deny Christ to have been born in 
 flesh, or to have been perfect man? Where are now those Arians, which deny 
 Christ to have been perfect God, of equal substance with the Father? If there 
 be any such, ye may easily reprove them with these testimonies of God's word, 
 and such other: whereunto I am most sure they shall never be able to answer. 
 For the necessity of our salvation did require such a Mediator and Saviour, as 
 under one Person should be a partaker of both natures. It was requisite he 
 should be man: it was also requisite he should be God. For as the transgression 
 came by man, so was it meet the satisfacSlion should be made by man. And, be- 
 cause death, according to St. Paul, is the just 5-/z)!>^«^/ and reward of sin, {i) there- 
 fore to appease the wrath of God, and to satisfy his justice, it was expedient that 
 our Mediator should be such a one as might take upon him the sins of mankind, 
 and sustain the due punishment thereof, namely, death (/). Moreover, he came 
 in flesh, and in the self-same flesh ascended into heaven, to declare and testify 
 unto us, that all faithful people which steadfastly believe in him shall likewise 
 come unto the same mansion place whereunto he, being our chief captain, is 
 gone before {k). Last of all, he became man, that we thereby might receive the 
 greater comfort, as well in our prayers as also in our adversity; considering 
 with ourselves, that we have a Mediator that is true man as we are, who also is 
 touched with our infirmities, and was tempted even in like sort as we are (/). 
 For these and sundry other causes it was most needful he should come, as he 
 did, in the flesh. But, because no creature, in that he is only a creature, hath 
 or may have power to destroy death and give life, to overcome hell and purchase 
 heaven, to remit sins and give righteousness, therefore it was needful that our 
 Messias, whose proper duty and office that was, should be not only full and perfect 
 man, but also full and perfect God, to the entent he might more fully and per- 
 fectly make satisfaction for mankind. God saith This is my well beloved Son, 
 in whom I am well pleased {in). By which place we learn that Christ appeased 
 and quenched the wrath of his Father, not in that he was only the Son of man, 
 but much more in that he was the Son of God. " 
 
 Article XXXI. excellently and Cyrillianly guards the soleness ''Of the one 
 oblation of Christ finished upon the cross,'' and, by implication, the soleness of 
 His High Priestly Sacrifice there, and condemns the Romish dodlrine opposed 
 to it. We see from this how closely the right dodlrine on the Eucharist is con- 
 nedled with the right dodlrine on the sacrifice of Christ and of His High Priestly 
 
 (A). 
 
 John xiv., 28. 
 
 (0. 
 
 Rom. vi., 23. 
 
 (;•)• 
 
 Heb. ii. , 14-17. 
 
 (*). 
 
 Heb. vi. , 19, 20. 
 
 (/). 
 
 Heb. iv., 15. 
 
 (»«). 
 
 , Matt. iii..i7. 
 
Report 071 the Fmal Stunnio7is to Nes tortus. 391 
 
 Records of the Acts (708), what they heard day before yesterday 
 from Nestorius himself. 
 
 Office, I quote the whole of this ''Article XXXI. Of the One Oblation 0/ Christ 
 finished upon the Cross. 
 
 "The ofiFering of Christ ouce made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, 
 and satisfaAion, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and a6tual ; 
 and there is none other satisfa(5lion for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the 
 sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer 
 Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blas- 
 phemous fables, and dangerous deceits." 
 
 Now just as Scripture teaches that there is in the Christian Covenant but 
 one High Priest, God the Word, who as such gave Himself for us and in His 
 humanity suffered and died on the tree : just as there is but one Mediator (I. Tim. 
 ii,, 5), and but one Advocate and but one Intercessor now in heaven (I. John ii., 
 I, 2; Heb. vii., 25), our great High Priest, God the Word, who as God hears our 
 prayers, and as Man prays to His Father for us (see passages in this note above 
 from Holy Wiit and from Cyril and others in setting forth its dodlriue), so there 
 is but one sacrifice of itself absolutely propitiatory, that is the Son's on the 
 cross. The sacrifices of blood under the ancient covenants, the Adamic, the 
 Noachian, the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, were all foretypical of that, as the 
 New Testament teaches, and were not absolutely, that is, not in themselves pro- 
 pitiatory, but so relatively only , that is, as foretypes of the one absolute sacrifice, 
 and as antecendently applying to the offerers the pardon for sin which was to be 
 wrought by that '' 07te sacrifice for sins for ever'^ on Calvary (Heb. x.. 12). 
 And so Paul says that Christ died ''for the redemptio7i of the tra7isg7^essions that 
 we7'e U7ider the first testa7ne7it^^ (Heb. ix., 15). And John goes further and 
 writes that "He is the propitiatio7i,''' not merely for the sins under the 
 Mosaic Covenant, which was of special interest to the Jews to whom 
 Paul was writing in that passage of Hebrews, not merely "for the sins'' 
 in the three Covenants before it, but that "He is the propitiatiofi for 
 our sins, a7id not for ours only, but also for the si7is of the whole 
 world,''' I. John ii., i, 2. The proof that that archieratic and prerogative work of 
 God the Son by his humanity is sole is as clear in Holy Writ and in the Third 
 Council of the whole Church, as that His High Priesthood, and His Mediation, 
 and His High Priestly Advocacy and Intercession are all sole and prerogative 
 to God the Word. He is the One Mediator (I. Tim. ii,, 5), whose archieratic 
 work now, since He has entered the Most Holy Place above, is to intercede for 
 us. Acts XX., 28, ascribes to God the Word, by Economic Appropriation, the 
 sacrificial and archieratic bloodshedding of His Humanity. Paul brings out 
 the glory and soleness of His archieratic work in Hebrews vii., 15-28 inclusive; 
 Heb. ix., 1-28 inclusive, and Heb. x., 1-27. I have said that the foretypical 
 bloody sacrifices of all the Covenants before. Christ's sacrifice on Calvary were 
 only relatively propitiatory, relatively that is, to Christ's sole absolutely pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice on the cross, as being its foretypes and as applying by antici- 
 
392 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Interlocution of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 07i his [Nestorius'J 
 blasphemies : 
 
 pation to the offerers the forgiveness of their sins to be wrought by the one sole 
 absolutely propitiatory sacrifice on Calvary. 
 
 So we, under the Christian Dispensation, offer the leavened bread and the 
 mingled cup of wine and water as the aftertypes of that one sole absolutely pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice of Calvary; but the Eucharist is only relatively propitiatory, 
 relatively that is, to that sole absolutely propitiatory sacrifice as an aftertype of 
 it, and as applying to all who partake of it rightly the pardon of sins wrought 
 by it and all its other blessings. 
 
 And there is but one absolutely propitiatory High Priest, who propitiates 
 the Father for us by His Mediation, which includes two things, i. His offering 
 Himself to the Father ^' once for alV (Heb. x., lo, 12) on the cross: and, 
 
 2, His present Intercession for us which is all sufficient and is pre- 
 rogative to Him, as the sacrifice and intercession for Israel on the day of Atone- 
 ment in the Holy of Holies were both prerogative to the Israelitish High Priest. 
 The priests of the Aaronic ministry and the patriarchal priests before them 
 offered bloody offerings, *' carnal,'' that is, '■'fieshly ordinances imposed on them 
 until the time of Reformation " (Heb. ix., 10), when Christ should come, and do- 
 away sacrifices of blood and of flesh and substitute for them spiritual offerings, 
 which are higher and nobler and better because they are spiritual, and among 
 them that ''pure offering'' which Malachi prediAed should be offered in every 
 place among the Gentiles when he foretold the abolition of the offerings of the 
 Aaronic Priesthood (Mai. i., 10, 11), that unbloody sacrifice of Christ's priestly 
 people every where (I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. i., 6). Yet though there were 
 priests in the lower sense of offering foretypical sacrifices of mere flesh before 
 Christ, and though as offerers of spiritual sacrifices (I. Peter ii., 5, 9.) we are 
 priests in a much higher sense than the sons of Aaron or any other foretypical 
 priests were, nevertheless we are priests, as they were, relatively only, relatively 
 that is, to the sole Offerer of a sacrifice absolutely propitiatory in itself, even the 
 sacrifice of Himself on Calvary : for they were related to Him as offering the 
 foretypeof it, the Passover Lamb, and we the aftertypes of it, the leavened bread 
 and wine. As has been said, those foretypes, and those aftertypes draw all their 
 efficacy and blessing not from themselves but from that absolutely propitiatory 
 sacrifice of the Son on the tree : by which ''one sacrifice for sins for ever,'^ 
 • ' He, ' ' God the Word, who alone could offer it, * ' hath perfeHed forever them, 
 that are sanElified," (Heb. x., 12, 14). It can never be repeated bj^ any creature. 
 Well therefore do the blessed Reformers say in their XXXIst. Article that "the 
 sacrifice of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer 
 Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt were blas- 
 phemous fables afid dangerous deceits.'^ For that is an assault on the dodlrine 
 of the Third Council that God the Word is the Sole Offerer of Himself. And 
 well do they condemn in their XXIId. Article the Invocation of Saints, for it 
 blasphemously gives Christ's archieratic office of Intercession on high to mere 
 creatures, though it is all prerogative to the Word. So that our watchwords of 
 
Report 071 the Final Summons to Nestorius. 393 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said : Since our business is not on 
 
 the Orthodoxy of St. Cyril and of the Third World Council which he led, must 
 ever be in accordance with its Decisions^and with Anathema IX. of the Fifth 
 World Synod: God the Word is the Sole High Priest, in His Divinity to hear our 
 prayers and see our other a(5ls of worship to Him, and to search our hearts and to 
 know exactly what is best for us ; and in His humanity to intercede with the 
 Father for that, and to worship Him. And no creature, be it the Virgin Mary, 
 or any martyr, or other saint, or any archangel, or angel, can share the High 
 Priestly Intercessory Office Work and Functions and Dignities and Glories of 
 God the Word ! No creature can share the bowing, the invocation, and the 
 other adls of religious service ofifered by men to Him as High Priest and Inter- 
 cessor, for no creature has His mfinite attributes of omniscience, omnipresence 
 and omnipotence to hear and answer us; and all worship to Him is prerogative 
 to Him as God the Word, for His human nature can not share His worship 
 (Matt, iv., lo; compare Anathemas VIII. and X. of Cyril and of Ephesus, and 
 Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, which so decree in accordance 
 with that text: compare Cyril's language in note 183, pages 79-128 against the 
 worship of Christ's humanity, and notice how he quotes Scripture against it, and 
 for the worship in the Son of God of the Logos alone). So he says. One Sole High 
 Priest, God the Word in His humanity ! One Sole absolutely propitiatory 
 Sacrifice for sins forever, offered by the Word in His humanity, all sufficient 
 and never to be repeated ! One sole Object of Prayer in the Son, God the 
 Word in the temple of His humanity ! One sole Intercessor on High, God the 
 Word by His humanity ! And the Substance of God the Word's Divinity, 
 and the substance of His humanity are in heaven alone ! These are funda- 
 mental dodlrines of the Universal Faith as defined by the Third Council and 
 the Fifth, and the opposer of them if a cleric is deposed by them, and if a laic 
 is anathematized by them. But see pages 102, 103, 346 and 356, notes. 
 
 Before dismissing Cyril's Anathema X. let us state summarily how it and 
 Anathema VIII. of Cyril, and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod, (which are all 
 indissolubly linked together), are maintained in the Christian world and in that 
 which calls itself Christian. 
 
 And, I, as to the Unreformed Communions. 
 
 I. The Greek Church still nominally receives them, but has pradically 
 departed from the great principle of Anathema X. that God the Word is our 
 only Mediator and Intercessor above. Who, however, uses His humanity to do 
 the human things, such as praying to God, hungering, thirsting, suffering and 
 dying. For in its present corrupt state it has many Mediators and Intercessors 
 with God, that is, the Virgin Mary, martyrs and other departed saints, arch- 
 angels and angels, to whom it has blasphemously assigned Christ's prerogative 
 of Interceding in heaven for men. Athanasius and Cyril prove that the Son is 
 God, by the fact that He is bowed to and prayed to, for prayer and bowing are 
 • aas of religious service. See the 13 passages quoted from St. Athanasius on 
 pages 217-240 of volume I. oi Nicaea in this Set. St. Cyril approves the doclrine 
 of St. Athanasius on pages 237-240, id. Athanasius there sets forth the do(5lrme 
 
S94 Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 ordinary (709) matters, but on the chief matter of all, I mean on the 
 
 that in Christ we pray to nothing but God the Word, and that we are " truly 
 worshippers of God, because we invoke no creature, nor any common Man, btit 
 Him Who by Nature has come out of God [that is, God the Word] and is the 
 very So7i, even that very Ofie become man, but yet nothing less the Lord Himself , 
 and God and Saviour,'' page 238, id. So in his Epistle to John of Antioch, St. 
 Cyril professed to follow St. Athanasius every where. And see under proper 
 terms in the index for more from him against Man- Worship. Now the High 
 Priestly Works of receiving prayer and searching the heart, which, in the case of 
 the Son, are prerogative to His Divine Nature alone, and which do not at all be- 
 long to His humanity, are pracflically given by the degenerate unreformed 
 Greeks of our time to the mere creatures just mentioned above. Hence they 
 deny in effect and yet most clearh' the dodlrine of this Anathema X. of Cyril. 
 And that Anti-Cyrillian and Anti-Six-Councils party have been in full control 
 of the Eastern Church since the ninth century and have largely ruined it and 
 caused its being wiped out in large portions of Asia and Africa, aye, even in 
 some parts of Europe, as for instance, in parts of Albania and Bulgaria ; though 
 in time a Reform will come in that Communion and with it a Restoration of all 
 the dodlrine of the Six Councils, including St. Cyril's and Ephesus' Anathemas 
 VIII. and X. and Anathema IX of the Fifth Council. 
 
 2. The same Anti-Cyrillian heresies hold sway at present in The Latin 
 Church, though it also professes in name at least to receive the Third Ecu- 
 menical Council. 
 
 3. The same is true of The Monophysites, though they also profess to receive 
 Ephesus and the two Ecumenical Councils before it. They reject the last three 
 of the Six. 
 
 4. The Nestorians, against whom St. Cyril's Anathemas VIII. and X. 
 were aimed, still persist obstinately in the errors which those Anathemas con- 
 demn, including the worship of Christ's separate humanity, to which they have 
 added the lower creature worship of bowing to departed saints, invoking them, 
 etc. , as well as the relative worship of the cross. They reject the last four of 
 the Six World Synods. 
 
 We come now, II., to the Reformed Communions : 
 
 All these, without exception, restored to Christ His prerogatives of being the 
 Only Sacrifice for men, the Only Mediator, the Only High Priest, and now the 
 Only Intercessor on high. And they utterly abolished all invocation of creatures, 
 for it in every form, direct or indirect, interferes with those prerogatives of the 
 Sole Intercessor above. For those things the Reformers both of Britain and of 
 the Continent deserve to be had in eternal memory as they will ever be. Their 
 struggle against an idolatrous papacy and episcopacy was noble and in conso- 
 nance with Revelations ii., 2. For the Romish episcopate is not a true Aposto- 
 late in the sense of maintaining the faith of the Six Councils against idolatry, and 
 therefore has no claim to obedience or to rule any where. Short and righteous 
 and perfedlly Six Councils work was made with their claims in England and a 
 
Report 071 the Fmal Siwimons to Nestorius. 395 
 
 right Faith on Anointed (710), it is in order and proper for the 
 
 soimd anti-idolatrous Episcopate was put into their places. For the Church has 
 always thrown out creature serving episcopates and put sound anti-creature-wor- 
 shipping Bishops into their outraged and abused sees; for instance, the First 
 Ecumenical Council did so in the case of the confessedly creature-serving Arians; 
 tlie Second in the case of the creature-serving Macedonians; and the Third in 
 the case of the creature-serving Nestorians, all of which sedls had the Apostolic 
 Succession in orders but had lost the succession in do(5trine by turning creature 
 worshippers. And as it was never permitted to any Orthodox presbyter, deacon, 
 lower cleric, or laic to submit himself to such creature-serving prelates, or to 
 commune with them, or with their heretical clergy, or to acknowledge them as 
 Christian Bishops or clergy in any way, even where there was no Orthodox 
 Bishop, so may no Orthodox God-alone-worshipping Six Councils Christian, be 
 he cleric or laic, submit himself to any Romish or any other creature-invoking 
 and idolatrous prelates or clerics, nor may he commune with such Anti-Third 
 Council prelates, or with their heretical clerg}^ or acknowledge them as Chris- 
 tian Bishops or clergy in any way until they reform and obey the Six Councils, 
 and have it made clear that they have orders. This is the course already defined 
 in the Six Councils, and we may not deviate from it nor can we without sin. To 
 do otherwise would be to ruin the Reformation and the Faith. See to that effect 
 all the Decisions of the Six Synods; and their Canons, especially the teaching of 
 Canon VIII. of the First Council on the Novatians. and of its Canon XIX. on 
 the Paulianists, of Canon VII. of the Second Synod on the Arians and Macedon- 
 ians, and of the Canons of the Third Council on the Nestorians. So that when 
 any one claims the rank and honor of a bishop we must ask not merely whether 
 he has the apostolic succession in orders, but also, according to Rev. ii., 2, and 
 the Decisions of the whole Church in the Six Synods whether he holds to and 
 blamelessly and energetically and courageously maintains all the do6lrine, dis- 
 cipline, and rite of the the Six Ecumenical Councils. If he does not, regard 
 him as an enemy of Christ and of His Universal Church and of its Holy-Ghost- 
 led Decisions, and so will you act according to the law of God in Matt, xviii., 17, 
 and Titus iii., 10. And among those Decisions of the whole Church we must 
 guard the anti-creature-serviug Canons VIII. and X. of Cyril which were ap- 
 proved at Ephesus, and Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. He who 
 •opposes them, and makes Christ's mere humanity, a creature, our Intercessor on 
 high, and much more, {a fortiori), by necessary implication, any lesser crea- 
 ture, be it the Virgin Mary, any martyr, or other saint, or angel, robs Christ of 
 His prerogative of being our Sole High Priest, Whose chief work now is interces- 
 sion, and teaches the blasphemy that a mere creature may share the peculiar 
 office work of God the Word; and so, according to the anathema at the end of 
 CauDU VIII. and according to that at the end of Canon X. of Ephesus which we 
 are considering, is anathematized by this Holy Ghost led Council if he be a laic, 
 and by its Canons is deposed if he be a cleric. See them and the Introducflion 
 to them to that effect on pages 81 -85 of Hammond's Ca7wns of the Church, (N. 
 Y. editio!i of 1844). The man that would admit the claim of a creature-invok- 
 
396 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Bishops Theodotus and Acacius, who are truth-lovers and holy men, 
 
 irg Bishop to the obedience of the Orthodox God-alone- worshipper (Matt, iv., 
 ID), and to jurisdiction any where, so long as he continues in his heresies, is 
 himself a virulent heretic, and an enemy of Christ, of His Church, and of its 
 Six Synods. 
 
 While the Reformers restored the do5lrine of Cyril's Anathemas VIII. and 
 X. and placed again on Christ's head the crown of His High Priesthood and Sole 
 Intercessory Office in heaven, nevertheless because they knew not well his doc- 
 trine of the Economic Appropriation to God the Word of the names and things 
 of the Man put on by Him, they did not always use Cyrillian and Ephesine 
 language. Hence that matter of the wording should be attended to in the 
 future, in the revising here and there of the Formularies. 
 
 I have spoken sufficiently of the English Formularies above. I have no 
 space to go into full details as to the other Confessions of the Reformed for 
 Christ's Sole Mediatorial, High Priestly, and Sole Intercession above. I must 
 confine myself to mentioning a few of the most important matters in connexion 
 with this theme. 
 
 'Ih.Q Belgic Confession of A. D. 1561, by the martyr Guy de Bres, in its 
 Article XXVI. well defends the soleness of Christ's Intercession in heaven, and 
 condemns the error of invoking saints: and its Article XXI. defends the soleness 
 and all sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for sin and His High Priesthood, and in 
 Articles VIII. and IX. the doArine of the Trinity is set forth, while Article X. 
 teaches Christ's Divinity, and Article XI. the dodtrine that the Holy Ghost also 
 is God, though with some schoolmen's additions to the Six Councils' dodlrines on 
 those topics, such additions being the Eternal Generation of the Son, and the 
 double Procession of the Spirit. Article XVIII. sets forth the Incarnation, and 
 Article XIX. the Two Natures of the Son. That however to M-hich I would here 
 call attention is the statement of the Sole Intercession of the Son. 
 
 The SociNiANS, while differing from Nestorius on the Trinity, nevertheless 
 a^^reed with him in making our Mediator, Pligh Priest, and Intercessor, a mere 
 Man, and in making the exaltation mentioned in Philippians ii., 5-12 to mean 
 the exaltation of Christ's humanity; see in proof pages 132-136 of the English 
 translation of Winer's Confessions of Christendom (Clarks, Edinburgh, 1873). 
 As a result of the controversy between Osiander the Lutheran, and Stancari, or, 
 as the name is also spelled, Stancaro, the Socinian, the Third Article of the 
 Formula of Concord condemns the Socinian assertion that the Mediator and 
 Ilio-li Priest is a mere Man, and makes Him to be of Two Natures; see page 132 
 of Winer's work just mentioned. If we may trust the account given of Osian- 
 der's belief in the Article Stancarists in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopcedia, 
 he must have come very near Cyril's and the Universal Church's dccT:rine 
 on the sacrifice of our Great High Priest being offered not for His own sinless 
 humanity, but for our sinful hnmanity. That is Cyril's teaching in his Longer 
 Epistle above, on pages 261-267. In the article Stancarists the difference be- 
 tween Osiander and Stancari is stated as follows: 
 
Report on the Final Summoyis to Nestorius. 397 
 
 to tell, in accordance with the appeals of the most religious Bishop 
 
 " Osiander and his followers had maintained peculiar views respecting the 
 atonement of our Lord, alleging that it was as God alone He offered it, for that 
 as man Christ was under obligation to keep the divine law on his own account; 
 and therefore, that he could not, by obeying the law, procure righteousness for 
 others. The Stancarists went to the opposite extreme, and attributed the atone- 
 ment to our Lord's human nature alone, excluding from it altogether his divine 
 nature. Further they maintained that the divine nature in its propriety had no 
 existence in Christ, and that He was only called God the Word metaphorically." 
 The Stancarists' theory on Christ's offering and High Priesthood in some points 
 resembled that of Nestorius. Cyril in his Anathema VIII. curses the Nestorians 
 for applying the name of God to Christ's humanity, a mere creature. 
 
 The Socinians divided into two parties, on another question also, that is, as 
 to worshipping the humanity of Christ, a question conneCled with their error of 
 making Christ a mere human being. Cyril's High Priest was God the Word, 
 who does the divine things, that is, hearing prayer and searching the heart of 
 the invoker, and knowing all things, by His infinite and prerogatively divine at- 
 tributes of omnipresence and omniscience and Who does also the divine work of 
 answering and delivering His invoker by His prerogatively divine attribute of 
 omnipotence: and He does the human things, that is, hungering, thirsting, 
 sleeping, waking, fasting, suffering and dying by His humanity. 
 
 But Socinus' mere creature-Christ, his mere creature High Priest, could not 
 hear prayer and search the heart, nor answer it; and hence on their theory could 
 not be prayed to, for that .would be creature worship. And the more logical 
 of them saw it and refused to worship him. They reasoned, as St. Athanasius 
 writes, that if Christ be not God He can not be worshipped by bowing, prayer, or 
 in any other way. And they reasoned as St. Cyril of Alexandria shows in note 
 183 above, that the Nestorians should have reasoned, that if Christ be a mere 
 man, that is, a mere creature. He can not be worshipped by bowing, prayer, orin 
 any other way. But Socinus and others were as illogical from their own false 
 premise that Christ is a mere man, as the Arian was from his false premise that 
 His Divinity is a mere creature, and as the Nestorian was from his false premise 
 that Christ was a mere man: and hence a conflict came between the two wings 
 of Socinus' Anti-Christian Sect. I quote the account of it in Murdock's Mos- 
 heim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. III., pages 240, 241 and 242, sections 22, 23 
 and 24. 
 
 "Sec. 22. The Unitarians as soon as they were separated from the society 
 of the Reformed in Poland, became divided into parties; as has been already 
 mentioned. The subje(5ts of dispute among them were, the dignity of Jesus 
 Christ; a Christian life and behaviour; whether infants are proper subjects of 
 Christian baptism; whether the Holy Spirit is ?i person, or 2i(\.\\\w^ attribute; and 
 some other subjects. Among these parties two continued longer than the others 
 and showed themselves less docile and manageable to the pacificators; namely 
 the Budnaean and Favorian se(5ls. The former had for its founder and leader, 
 Simon Budnaeus; a man of acuteness, who perceiving more clearly than others. 
 
'U8 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Fidus, and with the oath which he has offered to them, exadlly 
 
 whither the principles of Laelius Socinus would lead, maintained that Jesus 
 Christ was not to be honored with our prayers, nor with any other kind of wor- 
 ship, and in order more easily to support this error, he declared that Christ was 
 conceived, not by virtue of any divine power, but in the way that all other men 
 are. These tenets indeed, harmonize very well with the first principles of the 
 Socinian scheme; but to the majority they appeared intolerable and execrable. 
 Budnaeus, therefore, who had many disciples in Lithuania and Russian Poland, 
 was deposed from his ministerial office in 1584, and with his adherents, was ex- 
 communicated. But he is said to have afterwards given up his opinion, and to 
 have been restored to the communion of the Sect (a). 
 
 " Skc. 23. Into nearly the same error which had proved disastrous to Bud- 
 naeus, a little while qS.\.^x i^W. Francis Davides, a Hungarian, and superintendent 
 of the Socinian Churches in Transylvania; for he resolutely denied that prayer 
 or any other religious worship should be offered to Jesus Christ. After Blandrata 
 and also Faustus Socinus himself, (who had been sent for into Transylvania for 
 this very object in 1573), had in vain employed all the resources of their ingenuity 
 in efforts to reclaim Davides; the prince of Transylvania, Christopher Bathor-- 
 aeus, threw him into prison; where he died at an advanced age, A. D. 1579 {b). 
 Yet his sad fate did not end the controversy, which he had commenced. For 
 Davides left behind him disciples and friends, who long contended strenuously 
 for the tenets of their master, and who gave no little trouble to Socinus, and to 
 his followers in Poland and Lithuania. Among them the following were most 
 distinguished, James Palaeologus of Chios, who was burned at Rome in 1585; 
 Christian Francken who held a dispute with Socimis \i\vsis,€i{ {c)\ John Sommer, 
 re6lor of the School at Clausenburg; and some others. This Sect was usually 
 called by the Socinian writers, the Sect of the Semi-Judaizers.'' [All parties of 
 the Socinians were not half hut full Judaizers. Chrystal]. 
 
 Sec. 24. Toward the Farnovians, the Socinians were much more indulgent; 
 for they were not excommunicated nor required to abandon the opinions they 
 held, but only to conceal them, and not advance them in their sermons. 
 The head of this party was Stanislaus Farnovius or Farnesius; who was induced 
 by Peter Gonesius, to prefer the Arian hypothesis before the Socinian; and who 
 maintained, that before the foundation of the world, Christ was either begotten 
 or produced out of nothing, by the supreme God. What he thought of the Holy 
 
 (a). The Socinian Crell thought that Adam Neuser, a German, was the author of Bud- 
 naeus' opinion: see note 43, page 241, ofthe same volume of Murdock'sTl/o^A^w. Neuser finally 
 went to Constantinople, apostatized altogether from Christ, turned Mohammedan, and died in 
 that Anti-Christian error, Oct. 11, 1576. See the article on him in McClintock and Strong's 
 Cyclopaedia . 
 
 [b . See note 30, page 236, vol. III. of Murdock's Mosheim. 
 
 (c). Francken left the Lutherans, turned Romanist and entered the order of the Jesuits 
 Afterwards he joined the Anti Trinitarians. As the Turkish war obliged him go to Prague, 
 which was under a Romish power, to avoid trouble he turned Romanist again. The article on 
 him in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia states that he "was surnamed the weathercock 
 from the instability of his religious opinions." 
 
Report on the Fi7ial Summons to Nestoidtis. 399- 
 
 what things they heard him [Nestorius] say in the city of the 
 Kphesians, when they disputed for the right Faith against him. 
 
 Spirit is less clear; but it is known that he forbid his followers to pray to the 
 Holy Spirit." [This would imply that he deemed the Holy Spirit to be a crea- 
 ture, as Macedonins of the fourth century also did], * * -h- "At last the 
 party, being bereft of its leader Farnovius^ who died in the year 1615, became 
 dispersed and extinct. " 
 
 In a note on page 241 of the same vol. III. of Murdock's Mosheim, on the 
 expression '^ Semi-Judaizers'^ above we read, 
 
 '* Faustus Socinus wrote a book, expressly contra Semi-Judaizantes [Against 
 the Half-Judaizers\\ which is in his Opp., torn, ii., page 804. Socinus and his 
 friends did not expend so much effort and care in the suppression of this faction 
 because they supposed it very pernicious and hostile to the Christian religion. 
 On the contrary. Socinus himself concedes, that the point in debate was of no 
 great consequence, when he declares, that it is not necessary to salvation that a 
 person should pray to Christ. In his answer to Wiijeck (Opp., tom. ii., page 538, 
 etc.) he says: But ifa?ty one is possessed of so great faith^ that he dare always 
 go dire5lly to God himself, and does not need the consolation which arises fro^n 
 the invocation of Christ his brother, tempted in alt things; such a one is not 
 obliged to pray to Christ [a). According to his judgment therefore, those have 
 a higher degree of faith, who negle(5ling Christ pray only to God himself. Why 
 then so severely avenge the crime of Davides, who wished to lead all Christians 
 dire6lly to the Father ? Ivubienieccius also in his Historia reform. Polonicae, 
 lib. iii., cap. xi., page 228, notobscurelydetradls very much from the importance 
 of this controversy when he writes, that in Transylvania, there were billows 
 raised in a teacup (fludlus in simpulo excitatos esse). From which it appears 
 manifest, that the Socinians made war upon Davides and his adherents, perhaps 
 solely for this reason, lest by tolerating his opinion, they should inflame the 
 enmity of other Christians against themselves, which they already felt to be 
 sufficiently great; while they deemed the opinion, in itself considered, to be one 
 that might be tolerated." 
 
 Such were the errors of the Anti-Trinitarians of the i6th century, on the sub- 
 ject of God the Word's being our High Priest, and on the worship of a creature, 
 His humanity. 
 
 In comparing the relative worship of Christ's humanity by Nestorius with 
 the relative worship of it by the Socinians, we must notice that Nestorius, as in 
 note 183, pages 79-128 in this volume, worshipped it relatively to God the Sou, 
 whereas the Socinians, not believing in God the Son, and yet like Nestorius, 
 making Christ a mere man, worshipped him relatively to God the Father. See 
 Nestorius' relative worship set forth on pages 81 to 90 of note iS^, The Socin- 
 
 (a). Latin as given on page 242, vol. III. of Murdock's Mosheim's Eccl. Hist.; Quod si qui.s. 
 tanta est fide praeditus, ut ad Deum ipsuni perpetuo recta accedere andeat, nee cousolatione, 
 quae ex Christi fratris sui per omnia tentati invocatioue, indigeat, hie non opus habet, iit 
 Christum invocet. 
 
400 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyi-a, said : I am indeed pained for my 
 
 ian sort is set forth in the Racovian Catechism. I translate passages relating to 
 it which I find on page 65 of Winer's Confessions of Christendom. I quote; 
 the pages refer to those of the Racovian Catechism: After teaching that Christ 
 is a mere man, and that all the power he has is given him by the Father, he 
 adds, 
 
 Page 164. ^^ Forasmuch as fesus himself has divine power over us, we are also 
 bound in that sense to acknowledge him as God * * *■ and to give him di- 
 vine honor. ' ' 
 
 Page 237. ** The divine honor due to Christ consists ifi this, that as we are 
 bound to approach him with divine ado7'ation, so in all our necessities, we cafi 
 implore his aid. But we adore him on account of his sublime and divi7ie power.^^ 
 
 Page 245. " That honor and worship is given to Christ, that the difference 
 between Christ and God may be very great. For we adore and worship God as 
 the first cause of our salvation, Christ as the second cause." The Latin is found 
 m Winer as above. I quote it: (The Racovian Catechism) p. 164: Primo prae- 
 cepto Jes. addidit id, quod ipsum Jesum pro eo, qui in nos potestatem habeat 
 divinam istoque sensu pro deo agnoscere * * * ac divinum ei honorem ex- 
 hibere tenemur. 
 
 lb. qu. 237. (Honor divinus Christo debitus consistit) in eo, quod, quemad- 
 modum adoratione divina eum prosequi tenemur, ita in omnibus necessitatibus 
 nostris ejus opem implorare possumus. Adoramus vero eum propter ipsius sub- 
 limem et divinam ejus potestatem. 
 
 lb. qu. 245: (Is honor et cultus Christo tribuitur, ut inter Christum et Deum 
 discrimen ) permagnum sit. Nam adoramus et colimus Deum tanquam causam 
 primam salutis nostrae, Christum tanquam secundam. 
 
 All that applying the name of God to a creature and all that worship of a 
 creature are anathematized by St. Cyril in his Anathema VIII. and its dodlrine 
 is reinforced by Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod. 
 
 Winer there adds, "A contention arose between Socinus and others, especi- 
 ally the Siebenburg Unitarians, as to the divine honor to be paid to Christ. On 
 this consult the tra(5lates of Socinus in the Bibl. Frat. Polon. II. 709 sqq. The 
 Summa theol. Unit, agrees generally with the views of Socinus." 
 
 Modern Anti-Trinitarianism in England and in America seems at last to have 
 ended largely in denying all worship to Christ's humanity, and so has reached 
 the opinion of Stancaro and of Christian David. That is asserted as to England 
 by Hase (see the reference on page 66 of Winer's Cofifessions of ChristeJidom) . 
 As to America, Lamson, a Unitarian minister, in his History of the Unitarian 
 Congregationalists, pages 595, 596, of Religious Denominatio?is in the United 
 Slates, (Desilver, Phila., 1871), writes, " Unitarians of the present day, as far 
 as lue knozv, do not think it lawful direHly to address Christ in prayer.'' Per- 
 haps Lamson means his words to apply to Anti-Trinitarians in every land. 
 Shippen, another Anti-Trinitarian minister, and ''Secretary of the Atnerican 
 Unitarian Association, Boston, Mass.,'' in his article Unitan'anism in McClin- 
 
Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 401 
 
 friend. Nevertheless I honor (711) piety before any friendship. 
 
 lock and Strong's Cyclopaedia shows that the American form of that heresy has 
 become a sort of ecclesiastical ^c> as you please, of the FIL believe as I blamed 
 please, a?id do as I blamed please kind, and if the Bible and Church differ ft^om 
 me, so much the worse for the Bible and the Church. It adlually sits down 
 severely on its hybrid, highly variegated, and ever mutually squabbling heretical 
 ancestry. For he says plainly in that article on page 646, left hand column, vol. 
 X. id. under the head of DoElrinal Views. " In seeking the present form of 
 Unitarian faith, it is needless to recount the speculations of earlier times. The 
 tenets of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata and Arius, also of Servetus and the 
 Socini, in their special forms sharing the crudities of contemporaneous thought, 
 have largely passed away. They are not to be quoted as authority. They are 
 simply in the line of historical progress, agreeing only in the single fundamen- 
 tal thought that God is one, and Jesus Christ a created and subordinate being. 
 Unitarianism is charadteristically not a fixed dogmatic statement." We should 
 say not after what we know of its history past and present. These are important 
 admissions. The Socinian leaders left Christ the Rock of Ages, they denied the 
 Incarnation and God the Word, and, like the Nestorians, they made a mere crea- 
 ture, the mere humanity of Christ, the Mediator, and High Priest, and like them 
 fell into the common sequence of those errors, the zuorship of a mere creature^ 
 and so became creature-worshippers, that is, Pagans so far as that great funda- 
 mental sin of the heathen is concerned. But in later times, the sharper of them 
 seeing that they had landed in that error, repudiated it and much of the Bible 
 and all the authority of the Six Councils of the Universal Church, and so are 
 not Christians, as Athanasius teaches that the Arians were not Christians, but 
 rather heathen or Jews. They refuse to believe in the Gospel and are lost (Mark 
 xvi., 16 and Rev. xxi., 8, etc.) 
 
 Smith's Gieseler's Church History, vol. IV. pages 354-371 has important 
 matter on the struggle between Socinus' party, the Adorers, as they were termed, 
 of Christ's humanity, and the Stancarists, who were termed in contradistindlion 
 the Non-Adorers. On page 362, he states, " the doElrine of Francis Stancaro.'" 
 (so he spells the name) was that " Christ is Mediator only in his human nature."' 
 The Latin of the note there given shows that to have been his view. It is worth 
 noting how in the corrupt and creature-worshipping state of the Roman Com- 
 munion some of its leading men fell into an error similar to it so far. For instance 
 Dr. Schaff in his Creeds of Christendom, vol. I. page 273, states that "■ Stancaro 
 * * * asserted, against Osiander and in agreement with Peter the L ombard that 
 Christ was our Mediator and Redeemer according to his human nature only. ' ' In 
 a note on the same page Schaff adds, ' 'Petrus Lombardus says: Christus mediator 
 dicitur secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem, that is, in plain 
 English ''Christ ts called Mediator with reference to His humanity not with ref- 
 erence to His divinity;'' a flat heresy anathematized by St. Cyril's Anathema 
 X. above, which, being approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, has Univer- 
 sal Authority and is unassailable by Peter Lombard or any other creature-invok- 
 ing heretic. 
 
402 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Therefore I hold it necessary, even though it be with much sadness,. 
 
 Among Lutheran documents The Saxon Visitation Articles of A. D. I5g2 
 are, alas! Nestorian in ascribing both the name of God and His ''divine maj- 
 esty, honor, power and glory'''' to a creature. I quote from them as I find them 
 in Schaif 's translation on page 183, Volume III. of his Creeds, of Christendom, 
 except that I correct a word or so. The place to which I refer is as follows:. 
 
 'Article II. Of the Person of Christ. 
 
 I. In Christ there are two distinct natures, the divine and the human.. 
 These remain eternally unmixed and inseparable (or undivided). 
 
 II. These two natures are personally so united that there is but one Christ 
 and one Person. 
 
 III. On account of this personal union it is rightly said, and in fact and 
 truth it really is, that God is man and 'tnan is God; that Mary brought forth the 
 Son of God, and that God redeemed us by His own proper blood. 
 
 IV. By this personal union, and the exaltation which followed it, Christ, 
 according to theflesli, is placed at the right hand of God, and has received all 
 power in heaven and in earth, and is made partaker of all the divine m.ajesly^ 
 honor, power and glory.'' 
 
 The heretical expressions are underscored by me. Cyril and the Third 
 Council in their Eighth Anathema curse the assertion that " fnan is God,'' as 
 does, in efifect. Anathema IX. of the Fifth World-Council also; as both do the 
 blasphemous averment that a tnere creature, " Christ, according to the flesh *^ 
 * * has received all power iii heaven and in earth, and is made partatzer of all 
 the divine majesty, honor, power and glory." This is the very heresy of relative 
 worship of Christ's humanity, which St. Cyril condemns above in note 156, 
 pages 61-69, and in note 183, pages 79-128. We can see that Aegidius Hunnius 
 and the others who composed the above article did not understand Cyril's doc- 
 trine of Economic Appropriation, which, approved by the Third Council, 
 ascribes, economically only, all the human things of the man put on by God the 
 Word, such as suffering and death, to God the Word; but strongly and definitely 
 anathematizes all who are guilty of the Nestorian sin of ascribing any of the 
 divine things of God the Word, such as His name, bowing, prayer, or any other 
 act of religious worship, or any other part of His " divine majesty, honor, power, 
 and glory ' ' to that mere creature, for that, as St. Cyril often teaches, is Man- 
 Worship, that is, Creature-Worship. 
 
 We see from the above language of the Saxon Visitation Articles that their 
 authors evidently agreed with Nestorius that the elevation and worship men- 
 tioned in Philippians ii., 5-12, is the elevation and worship of Christ's humanity; 
 against the doctrine of St. Cyril, approved by the Third Council of the whole 
 Church, that it is the elevation of God the Word to the place where He was be- 
 fore and His worship as there. Cyril's interpretation of the place is borne out 
 by the words " who being in the form of God," which can refer to God the Word 
 only, for Christ's humanity was never inside God the Father's form. See on 
 Philip ii., 5-12, in the Index to Scripture in this volume and in that in volume I. ol 
 
Report on the Filial Summons to Nestorius. 403 
 
 to show forth the truth on the matters regarding which I am interro- 
 
 Nicaeain this Set, and that in "S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against 
 Nestorius^'" Oxford translation, and in the Indexes to Scripture in the volumes 
 of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of St. Cyril, etc., Q.n6. ViXi^tr Scripturarutn 
 in vol. VI. id., and in Part I. of vol. VII. id. After reading such heresy it is plea- 
 sant to read on page i8i of the same volume of Schaff that "The Four Articles of 
 Visitation [of which the above is one] prepared by Aegidius Hunnius and other 
 Lutheran divines against Crypto-Calvinism in Bledloral Saxony, 1592, never 
 acquired general authority, and have now ceased to be binding even in Saxony." 
 See more against them in Schaflf there. 
 
 The Formula of Concord in its Article VII. teaches some Anti-Cyrillian and 
 Anti-Third-Council docflrine on the Eucharist, and in its Article VIII. sets forth 
 the heresy that Christ's humanity may be called God (page 150, sedlion vi., vol. 
 III. ot SchafF's Creeds of Christendom), uses the wrong language that it ''was as- 
 sumed into God,'" (page 151, id. sevSlionx.) in accordance with the spurious non- 
 Ecumenical so-called Athanasian Creed (sedlion 35, page 69, vol. II. in Schaff, 
 id.) which, if rigidly taken, would mean Monophysitism: and on page 152, vol. 
 III. id., the Formula adlually goes so far as to blaspheme by ascribing in effect 
 God the Word's infinite attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipres- 
 ence to His mere humanity; on page 153, id., it egregiously and iguorantly 
 blunders and falsifies by asserting that ** Nestorius -J^- * * denied a true com- 
 munication of the idiomaia or attributes of both natures in Christ, and in this 
 way separated the Person of Christ, which thing Dr. Luther has perspicuously 
 set forth in his book on the Councils." 
 
 If Luther said that, he blundered. For, i, Nestorinj separated the two 
 Natures in Christ in that he denied the Incarnation of the Eternal Substance of 
 God the Word in His humanity. 
 
 2. The fault as regards Comntunicatio7i of Properties ibr which Nestorius 
 was condemned was his asserting that the name of God, and the vv^orship of God 
 the Word by bowing, prayer, etc., may be given to His humanity: whereas the 
 do6lrine of Cyril and of Ephesus is that that is Ma7i- Worship, that is, Creature 
 worship, that is, Paganism. See notes 156, 183 and 582 in this work above, and 
 Cyril's Anathema VIII. approved by the whole Church at Ephesus. On 
 page 155, sedlion vi., the Formula of Concord blames those who censure 
 the heretical assertion that ''man is God,''' and (page 155, sedlion vii.,) 
 the heretical dodlrine of Commu?iicatio7i of Properiies, and the blas- 
 phemy that Christ's humanity " has become omnipotent^' and on pages 156, 
 157 and 158, it condemns those who deny the Lutheran heresy of the Ubiquity of 
 Christ's humanity and so it condemns the dodlrine of the Church of England in 
 the Declaration at the end of its Communion Office. The same Fonnula of 
 Concord, on pages 156 and 157, condemns those who deny the heresy that Christ's 
 humanity is "capable <?/" Omnipotence and other properties of the divine 
 nature! " And on pages 157 and 158, contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria's re- 
 peated explanation of Philippians ii., 5- 12, it agrees with Nestorius in ascribing 
 the exaltation of Christ and His worship there to His humanity, a mere creature; 
 
404 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 gated. [Though] I do not think that there is need of our testimony, 
 
 aud whereas St. Cyril's teaching refers the exaltation and worship to God the 
 Word, and shows that His ascension there means His going up to where He was 
 before His humiliation the Formula of Concord calls that do6lrine " a horrible 
 and blasphemous interpretation,'' id., page 158. Cyril's explanation of that 
 passage is clearly set forth on pages 198, 199, 271, 272 and 273, of St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. On page 308-311, Cyril 
 shows that the Nestorian idea of the exaltation of a mere man in that passage 
 results in mere Man- Worship, and in making Christ's mere humanity ''anew 
 and late-appearing god;' (id., pages 308, 309); so on pages 73 and 74 Cyril says 
 of Nestorius' interpretation of Philippians ii., 5-12, quoted by Cyril on page 72, 
 id., " He hath engodded a vian like us * * - How is he not openly saying that 
 zve worship him who is not by nature GodV etc. On page 273, he asks, with ref- 
 erence to the Nestorian idea that the exaltation and worship there refers to 
 Christ's humanity; 
 
 "For how will that be true. There shall be in thee no new god [Psalm Ixxx., 
 9, Septuagint; our Psalm Ixxxi., 9], if according to them a man is made god by 
 coune6lion with the Word, and is declared co-enthroned, and sharer of the 
 Father's Dignity ? " Of course Cyril does not deny that God the Word is inside 
 His Humanity: but he does deny the Nestorian heresy that that mere creature 
 can share either the name of God or His Worship. Both Cyril and Nestorius 
 understood Philippians ii., 5-12 to teach the worship of Christ, but differed in 
 that Cyril limited it there to God the Word, whereas Nestorius made it a relative 
 worship of his humanity. Nestorius' and Cyril's language on that matter is 
 given in notes 156, 183 and 582 above. See especially on that passage pages 81- 
 ^i, etc., and 120. On page 99-101 Athanasius agrees with Cyril on it. That per- 
 version of that place to Man-Worship was one of the causes of Nestorius' deposi- 
 tion: see id., pages 109-112. Eutherius of Tyana or Theodoret (both of them 
 Nestorians), evidently referring to that part of Philippians, maintains Nestorius' 
 view, and denounces Cyril for denying that the passage means the exaltation and 
 worship of Christ's humanity: see that creature worshipper's language on pages 
 125, 126 above in the note. 
 
 The particular acts of worship specified as given by Nestorius or his parti- 
 sans to Christ's humanity are as follows: 
 
 1. Bowing; see in this volume pages 81, 82, 85, 86, 88, 89, 109 (Greek), 118, 
 120, 121. 
 
 2. Bending the knee to that mere man as in heaven; id., pages 84, 88. 
 
 3. Calling him God, and giving him appellations which are used by 
 Nestorius in a certain place or places to mean God; id., pages 84, 88, 118. 
 
 4. Ascribing to that mere creature "equality oF rank " with God; id., 
 page 84; and asserting, as did a prominent Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana, or 
 Theodoret, that that mere creature is ''one with " God the Word "in the indi- 
 visible sharing of the glory [and] of the dignity which is above all expression,''' 
 that is, of course, the glory and dignity of God the Word; id., pages 125, 126. 
 
405 
 
 Report on the Final Summons to Nestorius. 
 for his mind has been made clear, by his Letter to thy God-fearing- 
 
 Such worship of Christ's humanity was relative, pages 89, 85, 86, 87, iii. 
 By such adls Cyril states that Nestorius made that man, a mere creature, a 
 god; id., pages 83, 84, 88, 89-98, and therefore he calls him " a worshipper of a 
 Man;' {dvdpcjTToAdrpT}^), and speaks of his sin as Man- Worship {dvdpo)iro?.aTpelac\ 
 id., pages 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92-98, 109, no. 
 
 As Cyril, like Athanasius, makes all ads of religious service, such as bow- 
 ing, prayer, etc., to be prerogative to God, he therefore makes the giving of them 
 to a creature a making that creature to be a god; id., pages 83, 84, 85, 86-98, and 
 page 103. 
 
 Cyril brands the Nestorian relative worship of Christ's humanity as an 
 insult to God; pages 85, 86, 87. It is anathematized by the whole Church in 
 Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council; id., page in. 
 
 On page 127 above, note, either Nestorius of Tyana, the irreconcilable Nes- 
 torian, or Theodoret, his companion in error, contends, (against the dodlrine of 
 St. Cyril and of Ephesus). that God the Word can not be our Intercessor, but 
 that His humanity alone must be. 
 
 On page 122 above, note, Eutherius of Tyana denounces Cyril's do6lrine 
 *' that God the Word has been made our Apostle and High Priest'' as " abom- 
 inable. ' ' 
 
 The Augsburg Confession \n\\.^YQs\. i, Article XXI., On the Worship of 
 Saints, nobly and Cyrillianly says, "The Scripture teacheth not to invocate 
 saints, or to ask help of saints, because it propoundeth unto us one Christ, the 
 Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. This Christ is 
 to be invocated, and He hath promised that He will hear our prayers, and 
 like^h this worship especially, to wit, that he be invocated in all afflidlions. 
 ' If any man sin, we have an Advocate with God, Jesus Christ the righteous,' 
 (I. John ii., i)," page 26, Vol III. of SchafTs Confessions of Christendom. 
 
 The Second Part has an excellent ''Chapter V., On the Adoration, Wor- 
 ship and In vocation of God through the Only Mediator, Jesus Christ. ' ' Among 
 other things it applies to the glory of Christ as the Sole Mediator God's utter- 
 ance regarding Himself in Isaiah xlii., 8, My glory will I not give to aiiother. 
 
 Remarkable is the blasphemy of the small sect of the Schwenkfelders, for it 
 reminds us of the Apollinarian and Monophysite heresies. According to the 
 description of their errors in the Formula of Concord, Article XII., Xhey con- 
 demn ''all those who affirm Christ, according to the flesh, to be a creature:' 
 And they assert "That the flesh of Christ through its exaltation has in such 
 wise received all the divine attributes, that Christ, as He is man, is altogether 
 like to the Father and to the Word [Logos] in power, might, majesty, in all 
 things, in grade and state of essence, so that henceforth there is one essence of 
 both natures in Christ, and the same attributes, the same will, and the same 
 glory; and that the flesh of Christ pertains to the essence of the Blessed Trinity!" 
 Here is blasphemy enough, surely! Had the do^rines of St. Cyril approved 
 at Ephesus and the teachings of the rest of the VI. World-Councils been known 
 
406 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ness (712). For there (713) he forbade certain things to be said 
 
 to Schwenkfeld he might have been saved from such sad blasphemies which end 
 in the worship of a creature as God after the Apolhnarian and Monophysite 
 error. 
 
 One thing more should I mention here, the disgraceful and appalling spread 
 of the sin of invoking saints and so-called saints in the Anglican Communion. 
 It constitutes such treason to its own Article XXIL, and to its own Homilies 
 above quoted, and to St. Cyril's Anathemas VIII. and X., as to call for the instant 
 deposition of every cleric guilty of it, and the instant excommunication of every 
 laic guilty of it. Specimens of it may be found in Newman's Tract XC, on In- 
 vocation of Saints, under the Twenty-Second Article, where he is crafty, decep- 
 tive, traitorous, and scoundrelly, for that rascal was receiving the pay of the 
 Church of England for the time he spent in betraying her. He was, before God 
 and man, simply a dishonorable scamp. He has gone to the bar of God to meet 
 the accusations of souls whom he led into idolatry and ruined forever. Like 
 Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, he ''made Israel to sin"" (I. Kings., xiv., 16, etc.), 
 and will stand at the last with him, with Tarasius of the horrible God-cursed 
 death, and all the other corrupters of God's people. Keble, Pusey and John 
 Mason Neale were also against the above Anathemas of St. Cyril and of Ephesus. 
 See under their names in the General Index to Nicaea in this Set. One of the 
 most dangerous scoundrels who opposed those priceless utterances and the 
 Formularies of his own National Church was John Henry Blunt. See as speci- 
 mens of his treason to Christ's prerogative of being the Sole Intercessor in 
 heaven, in his DiHionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, the article on 
 l7tvocation of Saints and that on Mariolatry. Besides, in his article Martyrs 
 there, he craftily sides with Rome against his own Church; and admits the man- 
 made Romish distinctions between Aarpela, dovleia, etc., made by Rome and 
 others to excuse their paganism, contrary to the use of those terms in the New 
 Testament and in the Six Synods. So under Image- Worship he opposes the 
 Formularies of his own Church and the voice of the primitive Church, and per- 
 verts fa6ls and conveys false views here and there. Surely the Anglican Bishops 
 should, after all primitive example, anathematize all such traitors and creature- 
 worshippers, and forbid their works to be read among their clergy and people, 
 for they have already had a most evil and traitorous effect, and undo the very 
 work and oppose the very arguments of Cyril, and of the great Anglican Theo- 
 logians, like Bishop Bull for instance, against such sins, and lure souls to crea- 
 ture-worship and to perdition. 
 
 St. Cyril explains his Anathema X. in the text of pages 255-268 above in the 
 Longer Epistle. 
 
 And here we leave this note on Anathema X. of Cyril, though much more 
 might be said were there room. Note 689, page 351. See Union, in Gen. Index.. 
 
 Note 690, page 352. Nestorius, as Cyril shows, denied that the Substance 
 of God the Word dwelt in the Man united to Him, and admitted only a divine 
 indwelling of God the Word in that Man in the same sense as there was a divine 
 
Report on the Final Summo7ts to Nestorius. 407 
 
 concerning God the Word, that is, the Sole-Born [out of the Father], 
 
 indwelling of God the Word in the prophets, as Peter testifies in effect, when he 
 writes, " Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently 
 who prophesied of the grace which should co^ne unto you; searching what, or 
 what manner of time the Spirit of Ch^-ist which was in them did signify, whe?i 
 it testified beforeha^id the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 
 Unto whom it was revealed, that 7wt unto themselves, but unto us they did min- 
 ister the thi7igs, which are now reported unto you by them, that have preached the 
 Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,'' (I. Peter i., lo, 
 II, 12). The Spirit of Christ thus operative in the prophets long before the Man 
 put on had any existence, was of course the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Such was Nestorius' conception and idea of the Word's dwelling in that 
 Man. That is to say, he admitted that the Word indwelt that Man by His 
 Spirit, not by His divine Substance. 
 
 (691), page 353. Cyril refers to what is said on the Eucharist not only 
 in this Anathema XI. but in this Epistle above. See there and note 606 on it. 
 
 (692), page 354. Under note 606, pages 240-313 above, I have shown at 
 length St. Cyril of Alexandria's teachings on the Eucharist. His writings put 
 forth before the Third Synod took a6lion against Nestorius and serving to guide 
 its adlion on the Lord's Supper as well as on the Incarnation, and on Man-Wor- 
 ship show, I, that he was free from the error of Consubstantiation; and 
 
 2. From that of Transubstantiation; and 
 
 3. From the error of the reception in the Eucharist of the Substance of 
 Christ's Divinity; and 
 
 4. From the error of what he terms Cannibalism (dv^pwrro^a^m), that is, the 
 eating of Christ's real flesh and the drinking of His real blood there; and 
 
 5. From the idolatry of worshipping Christ's Divinity or humanity there; 
 and 
 
 6. From the error of worshipping Christ's separate humanity any where, 
 for he condemns the sin of bowing to Christ's separate humanity there, a heresy 
 of the Nestorians, as Man- Worship, that is, Creature- Worship. 
 
 See on that whole topic note 606 above, and when it is published, the Disseji- 
 ation on the Eucharist in this Set. 
 
 It should be added, 7, that Anathema XI. deals mainly with the truth that 
 the Word quickens us in the Eucharist by His Life-giving Spirit, and by sending 
 the energy of His body which is at the right hand of the Father, " into the 
 things which lie before us,'' that is, ''the leavened bread and the wine," as Cyril 
 explains above in note 606, page 250 to the end of the note: where also he teaches 
 in accordance with Anathema XI. that to receive mere human flesh and blood 
 would not spiritually quicken any one, and that to eat flesh and to drink blood 
 is cannibalism and wickedness. 
 
 (693), page 354. For the sake of the comparison I here add 
 
 The Nestorian Counter Anathema XI: 
 
408 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 where he makes the human things (714) an insult to Him, and here 
 
 '* If any one says that the flesh united to the Word of God is quickening by 
 any possibihty of its own nature, when the Lord Himself proclaims, It is the 
 Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing [John vi., 63], let him be 
 anathema. It is proclaimed by the Lord that God is a Spirit [John iv., 24], 
 If any one therefore says that God the Word was made flesh as regards the Sub- 
 stance [of His Divinity] in a fleshly sense, and holds specifically to that mode 
 of the Union [of the Two Natures], especially when the Lord Christ after His 
 resurrecSlion said to His disciples, handle [Me] and see; for a spirit hath not 
 flesh and bones, as ye see me have [Luke xxiv., 39] let him be anathema." 
 
 This is intended as a reply to St. Cyril's famous Kucharistic Anathema XI., 
 and, as we see above in note 606, pages 260-276, to his charge that the Nestorian 
 error of a real presence of the human flesh and blood of Christ on the holy 
 table, and of their oral manducation there, results in cannibalism {'AvOpcoTrocpayla). 
 It denies that result of the Nestorian view, as Nestorius himself denies it, as 
 quoted in sedlion 4, Book IV. of St. Cyril's Five Book Contradiction of the 
 Blasphemies of Nestorius, (page 142 of the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of 
 Alexandria On the Incarnatio7i Agaiiist Nestorius^. Cyril, however, does not 
 accept that denial, but shows that the result of the Nestorian premises on the 
 Eucharist and of their denial of the Incarnation which is connedled with them 
 is logically cannibalism; in other words, that a man is logically responsible for 
 the conclusions which follow necessarily from his own premises, a rebuke 
 which, by the way, applies to every Consubstantiationist and to every Transub- 
 stantiationist who admits that he eats the real human flesh of Christ and drinks 
 His real human blood in the Lord's Supper, and then with less than the logic of 
 a ten year old boy, denies the necessary conclusion that he is a cannibal. Oh ! 
 how many of the drivellers who follow the new-fangled heresy of the heresiarch 
 Keble of the wretched death one sees who drule in denying the cannibalism 
 which is the logical outcome of their heresy ! In the place quoted by Cyril, 
 Nestorius, speaking of Christ's language in John vi., and of the Jews being scan- 
 dalized at it, remarks, 
 
 "And I will speak of the words of the scandal. The Lord Anointed [Xp<(Trdc] 
 conversed with them regarding His own flesh. Unless, saith He, ye eat the flesh 
 of the Son of Man and drink His blood ye have no life in yourselves [John vi., 
 53]. The hearers endured not the loftiness of the things said. Owing to their 
 .ignorance they supposed that He was bringing in Cannibalism: " Greek, as on 
 page 194 of vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey's Cyril, Oi;/c rjvtyKav to rwv Tieyouevuv v^tjaov ol 
 CLKovGavreg^ iv6u,i'C,ov vtto ajuadlag dv6 pure o^ay lav Eicdyecv. 
 
 But St. Cyril was too sharp a logician and too faithful a watchman against 
 fundamental error to permit Nestorius to shirk by such pretexts the Canniba] 
 View: For at once he replies, "And how is the thing not plain cannibalism,, and 
 in what way is the Mystery yet lofty,''' etc.; Elra rrwf ro xpvy-^ ^^^^^ oi/c evapy?)c 
 (u'6pu)Tro(payla; Tiva (5e rponov v'i}n/?Mv en to /uvcTrjpiov, etc. 
 
 St. Cyril explains his Anathema XL in his Longer Epistle, pages 231-241. 
 
Report 071 the Final Summo7is to Nestorius. 409 
 
 (715) he said the same things. He said that we must not assert 
 
 (694), page 356. I. Peter iv., i. Cyril explains in this Epistle and else- 
 where often that he does not mean that God the Word Himself in His own 
 eternal Divinity suffered, was crucified, and tasted death; but only that He did 
 so, as even in this Twelfth Anathema he says, " in flesh,'' that is, that the flesh 
 which God the Word put on suffered these human things, for God the Word is 
 impassible and immortal, as Cyril says again and again. But Cyril attributes all 
 those human things to God the Word that he may emphasize the infinite super- 
 iority of His Divinity to His mere created Humanity, and teach us to pray to God 
 the Word and not to the Man put on; for if we do we are creature-servers. And 
 in this sense was this Anathema and the whole Twelve and all this Epistle 
 approved and adopted by the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Three Ecumen- 
 ical Synods which followed it. 
 
 Athanasius was Cyril's teacher on this do6lrine, as any one can readily see 
 by examining his works. 
 
 Cyril explains this dodlrine of Economic Appropriation and in immediate 
 connedlion with it condemns the worship of Christ's humanity in his Shorter 
 Epistle, pages 60-88, and especially pages 74-88. So he does in the b^ov^ Longer 
 Epistle, pages 214-230, especially pages 220-230, and 247-255. See also page 366, 
 note, and page 115, note, under "(c)." And see his works, passim. See espec- 
 ially also note 585, pages 227 and 228 above. 
 
 I add here The Nestorian Counter Anathema XII: 
 
 "If any one, confessing the sufferings of the flesh, but making no distinc- 
 tion between the dignity of the Natures, ascribes those sufferings to the Word of 
 God and at the same time to the flesh which He was made [John i., 14], let him 
 be anathema." 
 
 This is aimed against St. Cyril's dodlrine of the Economic Appropriation 
 (Greek, oktiwcTiv oIkovo/j.i,k7/v), of the sufferings of Christ's humanity to His Divinity 
 to guard against worshipping a Man, as St. Athanasius, followed by St. Cyril, 
 tells us. See in proof Passage 13 of St. Athanasius on pages 237-240 in Volume 
 I. oi Nicaea in this Set; and under Economic Appropriation in the General In- 
 dex in that volume and in the General Index in this. But Cyril, while admit- 
 ting and teaching that God can not suffer, nevertheless Economically ascribes the 
 sufferings of his humanity to His Divinity for the reason just stated. 
 
 The expression Economize Appropriation is used in St. Cyril's Epistle to 
 John of Antioch, which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council. For 
 it reads, 
 
 "And, moreover, we all confess that the Word of God is not liable to suffer- 
 ing, even though He Himself in ail-wisely managing the mystery [of Redemp- 
 tion] is seen to ascribe to Himself the sufferings which happened to His own 
 flesh. And for that very reason the all-wise Peter saith, Christ then hath suffered 
 for us in the flesh [I. Peter iv., i], and not in the Nature of the ineffable Divin- 
 ity. For in order that He Himself may be believed to be the Saviour of all He 
 refers the sufferings of His own flesh to Himself by Economic Appropriation. A 
 
410 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ncurishing by milk in regard to God, nor the: birth out op a 
 
 thing implying that dodlrine is what was predicted through the prophetic utter- 
 ance, as from Himself, I gave my back to scourges^ a7id my cheeks to blows, and 
 I tu7'7ied not away fny face from [the] spittings of shame [Isaiah 1., 6]. I quote 
 part of the Greek: 'Arcadrj 6e npog tovtg) rov rov Qeov Aoyov vTcapxttv 6/j.o'Aoyov/iev 
 anavTEQ^ mv el TravGocpcjg AvTog oIkovo/j-cjv to iivarijpLOv^ 'EavrcJ npocvefMuv opCiTo to. ry Idia 
 capKC Gvu^e^TjKOTa Trddrj. Tavry roi Kal 6 7idvao(pog Ilfrpof, ^^Xpiarov ovv^ <j)7jcl^ TraOovrog 
 vTTEp rjjiuv capKi^*^ Kal ov^i 'V (pvoei r^f dpp^rov OeoTT/rog. ''Iva yap Avrbg 6 ruv b?Mv 
 XuTT^p elvai TciaTevTjrai^ Kar' olKeluaiv oiKovojuiKr/i> ng 'Eavrbv^ cjg £<priv, ra T^g Idlag aapKog 
 avac^epei 7:d6r], (Pusey's Three Epistles of Cyril, page 50.) 
 
 It will be noticed that Cyril takes Isaiah 1., 6, to bean instance of Economic 
 Appropriation to God the Word of the suflferings of His humanity. 
 
 So in the longer Epistle above, page 225, text, Cyril teaches that God the 
 Word " was in the crucified body appropriating to Himself the sufferings 
 of His own flesh ^^^ Greek, bixoloyoviiev 61, otl Avrbg 6 ek Qeov Jlarpbg yevvrjOelgtlbg 
 Kal Qebg Movoyevyg Kairoi Kara ^vglv \6iav V7rdpx(^v aTzaOi/g^ capid ttettovBev VTrep j;//a)V, Kara 
 Tag Tpa(j)dg' Kal tjv ev t(I) GTavpudEVTL aufiaTc Ta Tf/g ISlag aapKbg aTzaOug oiKeiovjUEVog Trddrj'. 
 P. E. Pusey's Three Epistles of Cyril, page 24. Similarly Cyril writes in the 
 same Epistle, page 214 above, and in his Shorter Epistle, pages 60 to 85, and es- 
 pecially pages 74-79 above. So we see that the dodlrine of Economic Appropri- 
 ation having been incorporated into every one of Cyril's Three Ecumenically 
 approved Epistles is therefore most plainly the dodlrine of the Universal Church 
 to guard against the Nestorian Man Worship as Cyril teaches. The context in- 
 deed in every Epistle denounces that Man-Worship. See also Passage 13 of St. 
 Athanasius, pages 237-240 of volume I. oi Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 St. Cyril teaches that Christ's Divinity did not suffer, but he Economically 
 attributes suffering to It; pages 158, 159, of P. E. Pusey's translation of ►$". Cyril 
 of Alexandria on the Incarnatio7i Against Nestorius; pages 166, 171, 172, 173, 
 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 182, 184, 231-236. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria has matter bearing on his Anathema XII. in his Thesau. 
 rus, Assertio XX. column 327 and after in tome 75 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca; and in his Book on the Holy and Co7isubstantial Trinity, Dialogue VI. 
 col. 1002 and after in the same tome; and in his Scholia on the In7nan of the 
 Sole Bor7i, chapter xxxv., col. 1408 and after in the same tome. See also under 
 Natura in the Index to the same tome. 
 
 For a reference to Nestorius' denial of the dodlrine of Economic Appropria- 
 tion, see page 115 above under C. 
 
 I here add a few more testimonies out of many of ancient writers to the doc- 
 trine of Economic Appropriation. 
 
 In section i of Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesia7ts, he speaks of Christians as 
 ** 7'ecalled to life by God's blood,^^ [dvai^uTrvp/'/aavTEg kv a'lpan Geor). 
 
 So in his Epistle to the Ro7nans, chapter vi., referring to his desire to die a 
 miartyr for Christ he says: 
 
Report on the Final Stimmons to Nestorms. 411 
 
 VIRGIN (716J. And so he often said here that we must not say that 
 
 " Permit me to be an imitator of the suflFering of my God." {'EircTpiipaTe fioi 
 .fiifi7/T^v elvai Tov -Kcidov^ rov Qeov juov) . 
 
 These passages are, however, from the longer recension of those two Epis- 
 tles. The Ignatius here meant was John of Antioch's predecessor in that see. 
 He died a martyr for Christ in A. D. 107 or 1 16. The latter passage is found in 
 theshorter recension of Ignatius' Epistles in the following form: '' Perviit me 
 to be an imitator of the passion of Christ my God:' See it in the Ante Nicene 
 •Christian Library. 
 
 Hefele, in his Index, page 453 of the fourth edition of his PaU'tim Apostoli- 
 .corum Opera (Tubingae, A. D. 1855), refers to the passages above as examples 
 of the Commimicatioldiomatum, ''Communication of Properties:' but wrongly. 
 Neither Irenaeus nor any other Orthodox man of the earliest centuries was 
 guilty of the error of attributing any of the properties of God the Word to a 
 mere creature. That is Nestorian heresy condemned by the Third Ecumenical 
 Council. But the above instances are cases of the Economic Appropriation of the 
 thino-s of the Man put on to God the Word, a dogma approved in that Synod. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his work on the XII. Chapters Against the 
 Orientals, under Anathema XII., teaches, as we have just seen, that the reason 
 of the Economic Appropriation was to keep men from worshipping a creature. 
 This had been a tradition in the church from the beginning. 
 
 Athanasius in his Book on the Holy Trinity as quoted by Cyril on his Chapter 
 XI. against the Orientals, confesses in effect the Two Natures and the do6lriue 
 of Economic Appropriation. See the place on page 363, vol. VI. of P. E. Pusey's 
 edition of the Greek of Cyril. 
 
 The following I do not rely on as genuine, but give it for whatever it may 
 be worth. 
 
 A sermon ascribed to Proclus, and alleged by Neale to have been preached 
 on the day of the Annunciation, March 25, A. D. 429, certainly teaches the doc- 
 trine of Economic Appropriation. For it ascribes to God the Word birth of the 
 Virgin and death. See it quoted on pages 239, 240 vol. I. oi^^oX^'s Alexandria. 
 I quote it as given by Neale there: 
 
 "God was born of a woman. If God had not been born, He could not have 
 died. We speak not of a deified man : we confess an incarnate God. ' ' Then he 
 confesses however the Two Natures in Him. And with reference to the Nes- 
 torian worship of the mere man whom God the Word had put on, Proclus, hold- 
 ing the view of St. Cyril of Alexandria against it, says in the same discourse: 
 
 " If Christ be one, and the Word awother, we have no longer a Trinity but 
 a Quaternity." For the Nestorians did worship Four, God the Father, God the 
 Word, God the Holy Ghost and a creature, that is, the mere Man put on by God 
 the Word, the two last as separate with but one worship, and so were, as St. 
 Cyril writes again and again, no longer Trinitarians, but Qnaternitaj'ians, thatis, 
 to use another svnonvtn for the same error, Tetradites, and hence were as the 
 
412 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 God is two months old or three months old (717). And not only did 
 
 ancients called them Man-Servers: whereas the Orthodox Cyril worshipped only 
 God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Ghost, though the Word was 
 with or within His flesh, according to his Anathema VIII., thus obeying Christ's 
 law in Matt, iv., 10, " Thou shall bow lo Ihe Lord Thy God, and Hi^n only shall 
 thou serve.''' 
 
 Neale adds on page 242, " There can be no doubt that this Sermon was not 
 without its effect: and Nestorius resolved on re-stating at greater length what he 
 had then briefly touched. The three statements of Proclus, that S. Mary is en- 
 titled to the name of Mother of God " [No ! that is a blunder of Neale's. He 
 should have said as Proclus says '' Britiger Forth of God.' '''\. "That God was 
 made a High Priest," [The Tenth of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas 
 curses any man who does not believe that God the Word is our High Priest], — 
 "that God suffered and died, — afforded Nestorius materials for three elaborate 
 sermons. In the first he endeavors to explain how the term * Mother of God ' *' 
 [No ! Briiiger Forth of God. Chrystal ] "may be used in an inoffensive sense, 
 while he alleges that its employment may lead the way to heresy and blasphemy. 
 'I havelearut,' he concludes, 'from Scripture that God passed through the 
 Virgin Mother of Christ; that God was bor7i of her, I have never leartil.'"' That 
 is a plain denial of the Incarnation. 
 
 "The next sermon of Nestorius founded on the text ' consider the Aposlle 
 and High Priest of our profession, Christ fesus,' vehemently attacked the state- 
 ment of Proclus, that God was made a High Priest. It contains little more at- 
 tempt at argument than the stringing together of several passages which the 
 author thought favorable to his views. * * * 
 
 Finally the third and most famous sermon contradicted the dogma of the 
 Birth and Death of God." That is, he contradidled the dodlrine of the Econo- 
 mic Appropriation. And by denying that God the Word is our High Priest he 
 made a mere man, a creature, our Mediator, and sow^ould bring in creature wor- 
 ship by leading men to attribute impliedly the infinite and prerogative attributes 
 of Jehovah to a mere creature by teaching them to address invocation and prayer, 
 a(5ls of religious service, to that mere creature, when they asked him, as did the 
 Christians of Alexandria in Origen's day to intercede with the Father for them, 
 as he shows, as quoted on page 367 above. 
 
 Neale tells us on a part of this sermon on page 243 that *' it suppresses the 
 7iame of Proclus.'''' This fact bears on the question whether the sermon is Pro- 
 clus', which we will treat of elsewhere on Ephesus. Neale's assertion on page 
 239 that it was delivered on the Festival of the Annunciation, March 25, is dis- 
 proved by the fact that that Festival is not mentioned till the seventh century, 
 as is shown in Meyrick's Article ''^ Mary the Virgin, Festivals of on pages 1141, 
 1 142 of vol. 11. of Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities 
 Meyrick sets down as spurious " sermons alleged to have been delivered on the 
 occasion of the festival [of the Annunciation] by fathers and early writers." 
 See there. 
 
Report on the Filial Summons to Nestorius. 41iJ 
 
 we hear him say those things but many others also besides heard 
 
 (695), page 356. I. Peter iii., 18, iv., i; Col. i., 22; Adls ii., 23-33, and I. 
 Cor. ii., 8, where in the expression, ''crucified the Lord 0/ glory,'' the words 
 •' Lord 0/ glory,'' naturally refer to God the Word, and so that text is a case of 
 Bconomic Appropriation. 
 
 (696), page 357. Heb. ii., 9, I. Peter iii., 18 andiv., i, and Col. i., 21, 22. 
 
 (697), page 358. Col. i., 18 and Rev. i., 5. 
 
 (698), page 358. John xiv., 6; Col. iii., 4; I.John i., i; John i., 1-5, where 
 the reference is plainly to God the Word as the Life, as in the other places also. 
 
 (699), page 358. John v., 21-30; Philip, iii., 20, 21; Col. iii., 3, 4; John vi., 
 33, 39, 40, 54, 57- 
 
 (700), page 358. John i., 1-5: see the end of note 698 above. 
 
 (701), page 358. Galat. i., 8, 9. 
 
 (702), page 363. Canon VI. of the First Ecumenical Synod mentions Egypt, 
 Libya and Pentapolis as subject to the Bishop of Alexandria. Afterwards Abys- 
 sinia was converted and added to it. " Diocese," used in the civil notitia for a 
 large section generally comprising several provinces, was adopted by the Church 
 in the sense of what we now call a Patriarch' s JiirisdiMion. But the patriarchs 
 at first seem to have been only the greater Metropolitans. The Bishop of each 
 provincial metropolis was a Metropolitan. A suffragan Bishop's jurisdi(5lion was 
 called a parish and consisted of many congregations. These terms have changed 
 their meaning in later times. 
 
 Under each Patriarch of a Diocese was the Council of the Diocese, which 
 met only occasionally. It is referred to in Canon VI. of the Second Ecumenical 
 Synod and in Canon IX. of the Fourth, where the chief Bishop of the Diocese is 
 called the Exarch of the Diocese (Greek, rhv e^apxov rf/g SioiKf/ccui-). 
 
 For originally, it is said, that Patriarch was the peculiar designation of the 
 Bishop of Antioch, the head of the Diocese of the East, the National Church of 
 the Syrian race. In Canon VI. of the First Council the head of each of the great 
 sees such as Rome, Alexandria and Antioch is called Metropolitan and his. 
 jurisdidlion a Province. 
 
 Under each metropolitan was the Synod of his province which met twice 
 every year to hear appeals and to decide on them. See Canon V. of Nicaea, 
 Canon VI. of I. Constantinople, XIX. of Chalcedon, etc. Canon IX. of the Fourth 
 Synod authorizes an appeal over the head of any Metropolitan or Exarch to the 
 Bishop of Constantinople, as so to speak, the head of the National Church of the 
 Eastern Empire. This as making a Greek see, Constantinople, supreme over 
 each national Church there, gave great offence to different Oriental nations, such 
 as the Egyptians, the Syrians, and the Armenians, and had probably much to do 
 with their final separation from the Universal Church. 
 
 By the Ecumenical Canons Bishops alone can sit in Synods; and they alone 
 constitute the Ecclesia Docens, that is, the Teaching Church, in accordance with 
 Matt, xxviii., 19, 20, the presbyters, that is, elders, having the right to teach 
 
414 Act I. of Ephestcs. 
 
 him, not many days ago when he was disputing with us in Ephesus. 
 
 mediately only, that is, derivatively, that is, by delegation from the Apostolate, 
 that is. Episcopate to whom Christ first gave it. The heresy of permitting the 
 lower clergy and people to sit in a house co-ordinate with Bishops resulted in the 
 wreck of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States in 1871, when 
 said Lower House defeated the attempt of the Bishops to crush Keble's new- 
 fangled heresy on the Eucharist, and to correct Romanizing tendencies. To- 
 day many of its clergy hold to invocation of saints, and worship of the 
 Eucharist, contrar}' to their own formularies, and are unchecked, and being 
 allowed to vote in the election of Bishops have chosen some idolaters of their 
 own kind to the Episcopate. 
 
 We should have several Dioceses in this land, each consisting of several 
 provinces with an Exarch over each, and a Patriarch at New York or Washing- 
 ton over all with a Synod of the whole nation under him. 
 
 See on the whole matter of the division of the Church into Provinces, Dio- 
 ceses, etc., Bingham's Afitigtiities, Book IX. and Appendix to it. There is no 
 appeal from a National Council to any thing but an Ecumenical Council. See 
 also pages 1 18-121 of Vol. I. of Nicaea in this set. No Exarch or Patriarch has any 
 right to usurp power and to exercise jurisdiction outside his own Diocese: see 
 Canon II. of the Second Ecumenical Synod. Yet by Canon IX. of Chalcedon the 
 Bishop of Constantinople may receive appeals from any Diocese of the East, and 
 so is an exception: but whether the West ever made that canon Ecumenical 
 by assenting to it will be examined in the proper place. Rome has by the 
 Canons of the whole Church no jurisdidlion outside of Italy. See Bingham's 
 AfitiguitieSy Book IX. chapter i, sedlions 9, 10, 11 and 12. Of course the ap- 
 peal to the judgment oi the whole Church distributed in sees is always in order 
 as well as the appeal to an Ecumenical Symod. But both appeals are in abeyance 
 owing to the idolatry aud creature-worship of the great bulk of the Episcopate, 
 so that it is sinful to make such men judges. The bulk of those who hold to 
 the do6lrines of the Six Synods on creature-worship are in the Anglican, Lutheran 
 and Presbyterian Churches. 
 
 (703) t page 365. Theopemptus and Daniel, together with Potamon and 
 Comarius, had been sent with the decision of Celestine of Rome and a Roman 
 Synod and with the similar decision of Cyril of Alexandria and a Synod of the 
 Diocese of Egypt, to Nestorius that unless he accepted the truth and renounced 
 his errors within ten days after receipt of those documents, he would be held by 
 them an alien to the Episcopate and to the Church. According to the article on 
 Cyjdl of Alexandria in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography the 
 four Bishops aforesaid presented those ultimatums to Nestorius on Lord's Day, 
 November 30, or December 7, 430, consequently full six months before that June 
 22, A. D. 431, Roman time, when the first session of the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod began. According to Migne's Di5iio7i7iaire des Conciles the Council of 
 Alexandria which approved the letter of Cyril which has the XII. Anathemas 
 \vas held on November 3, 430- 
 
Report 011 the Filial Summons to Nestorius, 415. 
 
 Acacius, Bishop of MeliteJie^ said, When faith and piety towards 
 
 (704), page 378. Or ^Hhe aforesaid papers,'^ Greek, ra uprjyikva xapTia. 
 
 (705), page 381. Those who fault the Third Ecumenical Synod's treatment 
 of Nestorius are not apt to notice the boorishnesss or at least discourtesy of that, 
 heresiarch on this occasion and before, and his violation of his own word and 
 engagement. 
 
 (706), page 384. Notwithstanding Cyril's clear explanation of his meaning 
 and of the Orthodox Faith in his Letters to Nestorius, and his plain rejedlion of 
 ApoUinarian error in both his Letters read in this First Act, Nestorius still per- 
 sists against light in his denial of the Incarnation, and in worshipping Christ's 
 humanity. 
 
 (yoy)} p9ge 388. Or ''in peril from a certain one of theni.^'' The Nestor- 
 ians were violent enough where they had the power. After this they induced 
 the Persians to drive the Orthodox faith from that land; and its light was 
 quenched there in the blood of hundreds of its professors. See the fa6ls stated 
 on those matters in Murdoch's Mosheim' s Ecclesiastical History, vol. I. pages. 
 362, 363, and in the article on '' Barsumas the Nestorian,'''' in Smith and Wace's 
 DiBionary of Christian Biography, and Gibbon's Rome chapter 47, who states 
 t\\sif the blood of 7,700 Monophysites or Catholics was shed,'' to secure the 
 sole sway of Nestorianis7n as the only tolerated fortn of Christianity in the Persian 
 Empire. Gibbon in the same connecftion informs us that it was a Nestorian 
 who instigated the Persian monarch to persecute the Christians who differed 
 from them, and that in that persecution, ''The Nestorians ^ * * were en- 
 couraged by the smile, and armed with the sword of despotism,." 
 
 (708), page 391. The Greek clause here itzI rfjq -rriaTtug tcjv vTrofivT^/idruv e'nrelv^ 
 is rendered in the Latin of Coleti Cone. tom. 3, col. 1050, ut in praesentium act- 
 orum fidem et confirmationem nobis exponant. 
 
 (709), page 394. Or " chance matters." 
 
 (710), page 395. '^pLOTov, that is, Christ. 
 
 (711), page 401. Greek, irpoTiftu, that is, "/ prefer piety to any friendship." 
 Surely this is a noble sentiment and one well worthy of a Christian Bishop ! 
 Piety is here used as often for Christ's true religion 
 
 (712), page 406. The Letter of Nestorius to Cyril which had already been 
 condemned by the Synod in this First Act seems to be meant. 
 
 (713), page 406. That is in that Letter. See it on pages 155-166 above. 
 
 (714), page 408. Nestorius' words here and elsewhere must be taken with a 
 full knowledge of his heresy, and of Cyril's explanation of the Orthodox terms. 
 Cyril asserts the human things, such as suffering and death of God the Word, 
 but Econofnically only iti order to preserve the supreme position of God in that 
 creature, and so to guard against JMan-Service. Whereas Nestorius perverts. 
 Cyril's language, notwithstanding his own repeated explanations of it, in such a 
 way as to make him assert those human things and the other human things No7i- 
 Economically of God the Word, and as an argument in favor of his own denial 
 
416 Act I. of Ephestis. 
 
 God are matters before us, it is necessary to lay aside every private 
 affe(5lion. Wherefore though I very much loved the lord Nestorius 
 above the rest, and was eager to save him in every way, it is neces- 
 sary now for me to tell, in a truth-loving way, the things which were 
 said by him, lest my soul be condemned for concealing the truth. 
 When I came to the city of the Kphesians I at once held a conversa- 
 tion with the aforesaid man (718); and having ascertained that he did 
 not think rightly, I zealously tried in every way to set him right and 
 to draw him away from his wicked opinions. And I perceived [at 
 length] that that very man himself did co-confess [the faith] with his 
 lips, and that he was now changed from such a mind [of misbelief]. 
 But after an interval of ten or twelve days, when a certain discussion 
 was started again, I stood up for the dodlrineof the truth; and I saw 
 that he resisted it, and learned that he had fallen into two absurdities 
 (719) at once. For the first was clear from his absurd question-di- 
 
 of the Word's Inflesh, and for his own Man-Serving theory. These fadls must 
 not be forgotten, as they too often are, 
 
 (715), page 409. That is, in Ephesus. 
 
 (716), page 411. Greek, a yap ekeI a-rrriyopEvaE TZEpl tov Qeov Aoyov MyEadaiy 
 Tovreari rov Movoysvovg^ bvEtdll^cov Avrib to. avOpcjiriva, ravra kuI Evravda diaXsyojUEvoc £(p?/' 
 fir/ 6eIv irepl Qeov ?JyEiv yaTiaKTOTpocpiav, fxjjdk yEWTjaiv ttjv ek ■KapBEvov ovtcj Kal kvTavda 
 TvolXciKic E(p>?, Si/i7ii>aiov rj Tpijur/valov /if] SeIv lEyEcdat Qeov. See the above in Harduin. 
 Condi, torn. I., col. 1397, D. 
 
 If any man wishes a plainer denial of the truth of God that the Word 
 was inade flesh (John i., 14), than this I can not give it. After this plain utter- 
 ance, testified to by one or two Bishops with the statement that many others be- 
 sides had heard it a few days before in that very cit}'- of Ephesus; after 
 the similar utterance cited further on in this very Act I. from Nestorius' 
 own writings, and after his own repeated rejedlion of the Orthodox utter- 
 ances of Cyril and of the Council accompanied on their part with fair 
 and just explanations to remove all Apollinarian cavil and misinterpretation; 
 after all these things there can be no just excuse for this Man-Worshipper, and 
 denier of the Incarnation of God the Word, nor for those who fight against 
 Christ and His Church Universal by defending him, and by slandering the God- 
 led action of the Third Ecumenical Council against him. See Anathemas XI., 
 XIII. and XIV, of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against all such apologists. 
 
 (717), page 412. On this misrepresentation of the language of the Orthodox 
 see the last two notes above. Nestorius would give the false impression that 
 they denied the eternity of God the Word. He himself was a type of the not 
 profound popular orator, who has power to crack the ears of the groundlings 
 and to turn them in wrath against a deeper, a sounder and a nobler theologian. 
 
Reading of the Opi7iion of the Fathers. 417 
 
 lemma, which he was wont to put to those who were answering him, 
 which consisted in asserting that it was necessary for them either to 
 deny utterly that the Divi7iity of the Sole-Born [out of the Father] had 
 put on a man, or to C07ifess what was impious, that the Divi7iity of the 
 Father, and the Divinity of the Son, and the Diviiiity of the Spirit were 
 co-incar?iated (720) with God the Word. Those utterances were in 
 every way the outcome of an evilly-artful mind, and of a mind which 
 had cast away the pious faith. Then a second matter was started, 
 for a certain Bishop who was with him [Nestorius] began to speak, 
 and said that the So?i who endured the suffering was one, but that God 
 the Word was another (j 21). I was not able to endure that blas- 
 phemy, and [so] took leave of all and departed. And another of 
 those with him kept taking the side of the Jews, by" making the plea 
 that they had not committed impiety against God but against a ma7t (722) . 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said, Inasmuch as the statement of 
 our most pious and most God-revering Fellow- Ministers Theodotus 
 
 (718), page 416. Nestorius. 
 
 (719), page 416. Or, '■'■ two things out of place.'^ 
 
 (720), page 417. There is no force in this obje(5lion. It serves to show the 
 shallowness of Nestorius' own knowledge. For all the Orthodox have ever con- 
 fessed that the Substance of God the Word was '''^ born out of the Father befoi'e 
 all the IFoi^/ds,"' as we confess in an Ecumenical Creed, and that It is now 
 locally in the Man put on. The Word and the Spirit are now outside of the 
 Father's body. A good illustration of the Trinity and the separate existence of 
 each of the Three divine Persons is given us at the baptism of Christ, where the 
 Father speaks from heaven, the Son is coming up from the waters of the Jordan 
 and the Spirit is coming down out of heaven in the form of a dove, Nestorius 
 failed to see that W\^ Substance of the Three Persons is now separate, though one 
 in operation often, and that while They are all as God, omniscient, omnipresent, 
 and omnipotent, nevertheless the Substance of Each is confined within the limits 
 in which It chooses to dwell and move. 
 
 It should never be forgotten that the Epiphany (Greek, 'E7r<0dvcm, that is, 
 the Showing) or, as it is better termed, the Q^oi^avna, and Qtocpdvia, that is, the 
 God-Shoiving is the most ancient and most fit Trinity Day of the Church, and 
 should ever be observed. See on those Greek words in Sophocles' Glossary and 
 2Xso'\x\\\\s Lexicon. If it be not convenient to observe it, allusion should be 
 made to the Trinity on the Lord's Day after it. Trinity Sunday is as late as A. 
 D. 1 305. The Greeks have it not. 
 
 (721), page 417. Let us remember that this was said by a man of a party 
 which held to Nestorius' denial of the Incarnation, and that it was meant to 
 affirm that infidelity. 
 
418 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 and Acacius is clear, it is next in order that the opinion which our 
 blessed Fathers and Bishops have expressed on the matters before us,, 
 be read and inserted into the A6ls. 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria and Chief of the Secretaries, said, 
 Inasmuch as we hold in our hands books (723) of the most holy and 
 most consecrated Fathers and of Bishops and of different martyrs. 
 (724), and have chosen a few chief passages out of them all; if it seem, 
 good to you, we will read them. 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said. Let those also be read and in- 
 serted [into the Adls]. And they were read as follows: 
 
 [Passage i]. A Passage ^ Peter the most holy bishop of 
 Alexandria and martyr: taken out of his Book on the Divinity 
 
 (725). 
 
 ' ' Because both the favor (jj /apt?) and the truth truly came through 
 
 fesiLs Anointed (726), therefore according to the Apostolic utterances. 
 
 We have been saved by favor {japiri); ajidthat, it says, 7iot of our selves, 
 
 it is the gift of God, not ofivorks, lest any mayi should boast (727). Yet 
 
 though by God's will the Word was made flesh (728) and w2iS fotmd' 
 
 (722), page 417. This would very naturally be understood by the Orthodox 
 in accordance with Nestorius' own statements to include not only the idea of a 
 difference between God the Word and the flesh put on by Him, which no one 
 doubted, but also a denial of the Incarnation. F*or we must not wrench these 
 words out of their context, but take them in connedlion with the plain denial of 
 the Inflesh of the Word which goes before and follows. 
 
 (723), page 417. ^t^'^'^a. 
 
 (724), page 418. Or, " of different witnesses.'^ 
 
 (725), page 418. This passage is given from Act I. of Ephesus in col. 509, 
 and after of torn. 18 ofMigne's Patrologia Graeca. The above Passages from 
 the Fathers as well as those from Nestorius further on are extant, in Latin only, 
 in Act I. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, in which the original Greek was. 
 quoted. But the Greek of that part of Act I. of Chalcedon is lost. It is found, 
 however in Act i. of Ephesus. 
 
 On the Sentences from the Fathers in Act I. of the the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod see Vincent of Lerins in his Second Commonitory, chap, iii., (or chap., 
 XXX.,) page 94 of the edition published by Joseph Robinson, Baltimore, A. D. 
 
 T847. 
 
 Hardouin in his margin gives some valuable information as to these pas- 
 sages cited from Fathers. 
 
 (726), page 418. John i , 17. 
 (727), page 418. Eph. ii.,8, 9. 
 (728), page 418. John i., 14. 
 
Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers, . 41^ 
 
 infashio7i as a man (729), He did not leave His Divinity behind 
 Him (730), for He Who was rich did not become poor (731) to depart 
 from the perfedlions of His power and glory, but to endure the death 
 for us sinners, the just for the unjust, that He might bri^ig us to God. 
 He was put to death in the flesh but was quickened by the Spirit (732)." 
 
 [Passage 2]. And after some other words, /e^ [Peter of Alex- 
 andria] says, "And therefore the Evangelist speaks the truth when 
 he says, The Word was inade flesh and taber7iacled a7nong us (734), 
 that is, from the very time that the angel saluted the Virgin, saying, 
 Rejoice (735), thou that art highly favored (736), the Lord is with thee. 
 For the expression, The Lord is with thee, of Gabriel, means the same 
 as the expression God the Word is with thee, for it signifies that He 
 entered the womb (737) and became flesh, as it is written. The Holy 
 Spirit zvill come upon thee, and the power of the Highest will over- 
 shadow thee, a7id therefore that Holy Thing that will be born [out of 
 thee] shall be called God' s Son " (738). 
 
 [Passage 3]. And again after some other words, he [Peter of 
 Alexandria] says, ' * But God the Word was made flesh in the womb 
 of the Virgin, without emission of a man's seed, but by the will of 
 God who is able to accomplish all things (739). And He did 
 
 (729), page 419. Philip, ii., 8. 
 
 (730), page 419. Or, ''He was not deprived of His Divinity.''^ 
 
 (731), page 419. 2 Cor. viii., 9. 
 
 (732), page 419. Or, ''in the Spirits (I. Peter iii., 18; CuoTro/TjOelc irvEvfiaTi is 
 the Greek. Zwo-o/^/^e/f may mean made alite, or preserved alive; Trvdjuan may 
 mean "by the Spirit,''^ or "in Spirit.'''' Our common English Version pre- 
 fers the former rendering. I have met several instances in ancient writers where 
 TtviiVfLa seems to mean the divinity of the Word: I do not feel sure as to the ren- 
 dering here. If we take spirit as some ancients do, in the sense oi Divinity be- 
 cause Christ says, that " God is a Spirit,'' then we must render, "He was put 
 to death in the flesh, but preserved alive in the Divinity. '' See what I have 
 written on this in this Set elsewhere. See, on the use of the term Spirit by 
 the ancients for the Divinity of God the Word, in the Oxford translation of 
 Tertullian, pages 322-325, note H. 
 
 (733), page 419. This Passage of Peter of Alexandria is given from the 
 above Act I. of Ephesus, in col. 1052 of tome III. of ColetVs Cottcilia. 
 
 (734), page 419. John i., 14. 
 
 (735), page 419. ,t«'Pf- This term means literally, rejoice, and is used as a 
 salutation in that sense. 
 
 (736), page 419. KEX(iptT0)iJ.EV7]. This term is also rendered by '*yaz/<7r(f^," 
 without the "highly,'' before it. 
 
 (737), page 419. This passage and that of Athanasius next following do cer- 
 tainly prove what the Synod takes them and other passages to prove; and what 
 Kestorius denied, namely, that God the Word Personally, that is, in his Sub- 
 
420 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 not need the operation or presence of a man. For the power of God 
 inwrought more effe(5lively than a man, by overshadowing the Virgin 
 with the Holy Spirit who came upon her. ' ' 
 
 [Passage 4]. A Passage of the most /^^/j' Athanasius, zvho ivas 
 Bishop of Alexandria, /«y^(?7/ otit of his Book Agai7ist the Aria^is 
 
 (740)- 
 
 ' ' Many indeed, have been holy, and clear of all sin. Aye, and 
 Jeremiah was sandlified from his mother's womb (741), and John 
 while yet borne as a foetus leaped for joy at the voice of Mary the 
 Bringer Forth of God (742)." 
 
 '' And nevertheless death reig^ied fro7n Adam to Moses, even over 
 those who had 7iot siiuied after the smiiliiude of Adam' s tra7tsgressio7i 
 (743), and so men remained none the less mortal and corruptible, re- 
 ceptive of the sufferings of their own nature. But now since the 
 
 stance dwelt in the Man put on from the time of that Man's conception in the 
 Virgin's womb: and that the Son is not therefore merely an inspired man, but 
 God the Word who took flesh in the Virgin's womb, and put on a man, or, as we 
 confess in the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council, " Who took flesh of the 
 Holy Ghost a7id of Mary the Virgin and put on a Man.^' 
 
 (738), page 419. Luke i., 35. 
 
 (739). page 419. Luke i., 37, etc. 
 
 (740), page 420, This passage is found in Athanasius' Four Discourses 
 Against the Avians, Discoui^se III., chapter 26, pages 446, 447 of the Oxford 
 English translation. In the same place, just before, Athanasius shows that the 
 reason for ascribing the human things to the Word is to avoid looking to a Man 
 and praying to a man and so becoming worshippers of a man, that is, Christ's 
 humanity. I give it from Coleti's Co7tcilia, tome iii., col. 1052, 1053. 
 
 (741), page 420. See note *' r" on this, in the Oxford translation, page 446. 
 One must however be cautious regarding some things in that Version, for they 
 are very defective, like, for instance, the translation of Qeotoko^, by Mother of 
 God, which is not correct, but Bringer Forth of God, as we render it above, is. 
 If the Council of Ephesus had wished to say Mother of God, they could easily 
 have done so by using the four words, ■>) iii]-rnp rov Qeov. As they did not we have 
 no right to insert into a passage used as a proof passage by them like the above, 
 that four-word expression, for the more exact one word which they did use. John 
 Henry Newman was ailing with idolatrous leanings when he made that version, 
 so that although it contains much valuable information in some of the notes, it 
 is, on the other hand, inexact and incorrect in the text in places and in some of 
 the notes and misleading to the imperfecftly informed. It needs therefore to be 
 revised by some Orthodox Scholar, and some of its notes purged of error and 
 new ones added. 
 
 (742), page 420. OeoTOKov. See note *'s" page 447, Oxford translation on 
 this. 
 
 (743), page 420. Rom. v., 14. 
 
Reading of the OpinioJi of the Fathers. 421 
 
 Word has been made man, and made the things of the flesh His own 
 (741.) those things no longer touch (745) the body, for God the Word 
 came in it, but they have been done away (746) by Him. And 
 therefore men no longer remain, in accordance with their own 
 passions, sinners and dead, but having risen by the power of the 
 Word they continue forever immortal and incorruptible. And there- 
 fore is He, Who has given to all others birth in order that they may 
 exist, said Himself to be born in flesh which was taken out of Mary 
 the Bringer Forth of God (r^? dsozoxoo Mapia^) in order that He might 
 transfer our birth to Himself, and that we might no longer, as being 
 earth alone, go away into earth, but that we, as having been con- 
 joined with the Word Who came out of heaven (747), might be led 
 up through Him into heaven. And so therefore He has not incong- 
 ruously transferred to Himself the other sufferings of the body (748), 
 that we may no longer as men die, but as belonging to the Word, par- 
 take of eternal life. For no longer according to that first birth in 
 Adam do we all die, but henceforth our birth and all our fleshly 
 weakness having been transferred to the Word, we rise from the 
 earth, for the curse on account of sin has been done away for the sake 
 of Him Who in our Ukeness (749), was made a curse for us." (750). 
 
 [PASSA.GE 5]. A Passage of the same [writer] taken out of his 
 Epistle to EpiH-etus (751). 
 
 But how (752) have those who are called Christians dared to 
 doubt whether the Lord who came forth out of Mary is God's Son 
 in [His] Substance and Nature; but that as regards [His] flesh He is 
 of the seed of David and out of the holy Mary's flesh? For who then 
 have become so rash and audacious as to assert that the Anointed 
 
 (744), page 421. This ascribing of human sufferings to God the Word, is as 
 Cyril explains Economical. It helps to avoid Man-Service, as d passage of 
 Athanasius quoted on pages 237-240 of vol I. of Nicaea in this Set shows. 
 
 (745). pag^ 421- Or- " ^^^ longer faste7i on,'' or " no lo?iger ding to.'" 
 
 (746), page 421. Or, '' destroyed y 
 
 (747)> pagG42i- Greek, aA")" wf rcj i^ ohpavov Aoyu avva^dtvreq. This last 
 Greek word is the conjoined of Nestorius, used by him to designate a ^6>;/;««/?/<7w 
 between the two Natures of Christ such as exists between God the Word and a 
 mere saint, that is, a mere holy man, as opposed to the Incarnation. Cyril uses 
 it in that sense here of the relation of the Christian to Christ. 
 
 (748), page 421. This is the do6lrine of Economic Appropriation. 
 
 (749), page 421. Or, " in us,'' " among ns." 
 
 (750), page 421. Galat. iii., 13. 
 
 (751), page 421. I have translated the above passage from Coleti's Concilia, 
 tome iii., col. 1052, 1053. It is found also in Migue's Patrologia Graeca, tome 
 26, col. 1053. 
 
 (752), page 421. Or ''why.'' 
 
4:22 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 One who suffered in flesh and was crucified was not Lord, and Savi- 
 our, and God, and Son of the Father (753)? Or why do those wish 
 to be named Christians who say that the Word came into a holy 
 Man (754), as He came upon one of the Prophets, and that He Who 
 took the body which had come out of Mary (755), did not become 
 very Man, but that the Anointed One is One, and the Word of God 
 Another Who was the Father's Son before Mary and before the 
 worlds ? Or how can those be Christians who say that the Son is 
 One, and the Word of God is another ? (756). 
 
 [Passage: 6]. And again after some other words, he writes (757): 
 But these things did not occur, as some have understood by way 
 of external relation and external presence (758). God forbid ! But 
 the Saviour having really and truly become Man, became the salva- 
 tion of the whole Man. For if the Word had been in the body by 
 
 (753). Here Athauasius teaches the doclrine of the Appropriation of the 
 human things, that is, of the perfect Man put on, to God the Word fully 
 and plainly. In a place in his Four OratioJis Against the Arians quoted by me 
 on pages 237-240 of vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, Athanasius shows that this 
 emphasizing the preeminence of the Creator Word who put on, over the Creature 
 who was put on, was done to avoid bringing in service to that Man. 
 
 (754). This is adduced in condemnation of the belief of Nestorius that 
 the Substance of God the Word was not in the Man, but that He indwelt 
 him as He indwelt the prophets, that is, by His Holy Spirit only; which indwell- 
 ing is called Relative because it was not done by the Word in the actual Sub- 
 stance of His own divine Person, but by the Spirit only which is related to Him 
 as being His Spirit. 
 
 (755 j. This is adduced in condemnation of the Nestorian error that 
 the Word was not in the babe in Mary's womb but was joined to him exter- 
 nally, that is by His Holy Spirit's indwelling that babe at some time after 
 his birth or at some time after he grew up. These passages of the Fathers are 
 very apposite and very conclusive. The Definition of the Fifth Synod condemns 
 the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia that the Son's humanity gradually grew in 
 holiness by the Spirit's indwelling. See its Anathema XII. 
 
 (756). This was a Nestorian error, and was a logical sequence of their view 
 that the Substance of God the Word was not in the Man conjoijied to Him, to 
 use their language. 
 
 (757). This is found col. 1061, tome 26 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. But 
 I have translated it from Act I. of Ephesus, in tome iii. of Coleti's Concilia 
 
 (758). Coleti Cone, torn. 3, 1053: Oh Ohn 6h ravrakyheTo, iifj yivmro, cjc nvec 
 ndXiv virkla^ov. The Latin for dtacL in the parallel column in Coleti is "extrin- 
 seca praesentia. " The meaning of the Nestorians, as is shown here and else- 
 where in the A6ts of the Third Synod, and in Cyril's writings, is that the Sub- 
 stance of the Word was not /« the Man conjoined, as they said, to Him but was 
 always outside of that Man. 
 
Readi7ig of the Opi7iio7i of the Fathers, 423 
 
 way of external relation and external juxtaposition as they suppose, 
 inasmuch as an assertion of an external relation and an external 
 juxtaposition is an assertion of a mere appearance [only of an Incar- 
 natian of God the Word], it will follow in accordance with the [misbe- 
 lief of the] most impious Manichaeus that the salvation and the res- 
 urrection of men are asserted in [mere] appearance [only]. But our 
 salvation is not a [mere] phantom, nor is it of the body alone, but 
 the salvation which has really been wrought for us is a salvation of 
 the whole man, soul and body ; for as the Scriptures of God teach, 
 the body which came out of Mary was human in its nature, and was 
 a real body of the Saviour. 
 
 [Passage 7]. A passage ofjtdius who was the most holy Bishop 
 of Rome, taken out of his Epistle to Docius {JS9)' 
 
 I would add that Q'tatq is sometimes rendered by adoption^ which comes to the 
 same sense. In that case we should have to translate above, ' ' But these things 
 did not occur, as some have understood, by way of adoption." But the text 
 translation makes the sense clearer. If Christ were God's Son not by Nature 
 but by adoption. He would be a Son in the same sense only as we creatures are. 
 For we are not God's Sons by nature but by adoption at and by baptism. See 
 on our adoption Romans viii., 15, 23; Rom. ix., 4; Gal. iv., 5 and Eph. i., 5. 
 The word used in the New Testament passages is not however Qkatq but vlodtaia. 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia, a chief Nestorian writer before Nestorius, as Anathema 
 XII. of the Fifth Synod shows held that Christ was a mere man at the time of 
 his baptism but " by his baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was 
 deemed worthy of adoption to Sonship; and just like an Emperor's image is 
 bowed to [that is, worshipped by bowiiig'] with reference to the Person of God the 
 Word.' Does this imply that Theodore did not believe his mere human Christ 
 to be worshippable till his adoption to Sonship by His baptism ? 
 
 I quote this whole part of Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod: 
 
 Anathema XII. * * If any one defends Theodore the Impious of Mopsuestia 
 who said that God the Word is one, and the Anointed One {rh\> Xpiarov) another 
 who was troubled by the passions of the [fallen] soul and the lusts of the flesh, 
 and was little by little parted from things which are more evil, and so was made 
 better by progress in works, and by his conduct became blameless; that as a 
 mere man he was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
 Holy Ghost, and by his baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was 
 deemed worthy of the adoption to Sonship; and just like an Emperor's image 
 he is to be worshipped with reference to the Person of God the Word, and that 
 after his resurrection he became immutable in his thoughts and wholly sinless." 
 I add the Greek of the part of the above which bears most on Theodore's doc- 
 trine of when his mere human Christ's adoption to Sonship occurred, and when 
 he became worshi]-»pa])le: EI nc di'TiToie'imt Oto^unor rov uatSovc; tov Moi/'ot-fdr/af, mi 
 
424 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 And for the completing of the faith the Son of God is preached 
 as having taken flesh out of the Virgin Mary, and as having taber- 
 nacled among men; (760) and not [merely] as having operated in a 
 Man. For that was done in the prophets and apostles (761) ; He 
 was perfect God in flesh, and a man perfect by the Spirit (762); not 
 two sons, one a real Son who took a man, and another a mortal 
 man who was taken by God, but one Sole-born in heaven. Sole-born 
 on earth, [that is] God. 
 
 [Passage 8]. A passage of Felix the 7?iosf holy Bishop of Rome 
 a?id Ilfartyr, take?i 02cf of his Epistle to Maximus the Bishop (763), and 
 to the Clergy of Alexa?idria. 
 
 f'nrovToc * '^ * wf Tpt/MV auOpwrrov /^aTrriaft^vai elg ovoina Uarpog, koL Tloi) Kai 'Aylnv 
 ni'cvuarnc; Kal did rov ^a-rlaiia-og Tt/v x^^pcv rov '■Ayiov JlvevfiaroQ Xafielv^ Kal vlodkciag 
 d:;iLJt^?)var Kal kut' laorrjra l3a(n7uK?}g fi/cdvof, elg irpoaidirov rov Qeov A.6yov TrpoaKvvEiaftaL^ 
 
 (759). A note on this in Coleti's Cone., torn, iii., col. 1055, 1056, translated 
 from Latin, reads as follows: 
 
 " This is cited by Leontius against Nestorius and Butyches in certain manu- 
 scripts as to Prosdodus; and in Marius Mercator and Facundus, as out of [an 
 Epistle] to Docius, as it seems. Anastasius the Presbyter in a manuscript of the 
 College of the Society of Jesus at Paris has to Dodus.'" The Greek of the above 
 is given in col. 958 of tom. 8 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. But the rest of the 
 ■Epistle as there given seems to be interpolated by some Apollinarian, and is not 
 the Epistle quoted by the Third Ecumenical Synod, for it contradicts Cyril and 
 that Council. Probably the genuine Epistle, with the exception of the fragment 
 above, is lost. The genuine is testified to, as is stated in the Mo7iituin on this 
 Epistle in col. 952 of tome 8 of Migne's /*^z/r6>/c7^/rt; Latina, by Act I. of Ephesus 
 as above, by Cyril of Alexandria in his Defence of his Twelve Chapters Against 
 the Orientals at Anathema VI. by Photius, Cod. 230, page 845, by Marius Mercator 
 in his Excerpts from the Council of Ephesus (see Migne's /fe^r^/o^/^ Latina, 
 tom. 48, col. 870 and 947); and by Facundus, Book I. chap. 5. The part of it 
 quoted in the Council of Ephesus is testified to as an Excerpt from Cyril of 
 Alexandria by Hypatius bishop of Ephesus in a conference wiih the Sever- 
 iansheld in A. D. 535, and by Eulogius of Alexandria in Photius, Cod. 250, 
 page 845, and it is plain that it was read in the hearing and with the approval 
 of the Council of Ephesus itself and was inserted in the Adls together with other 
 testimonies of Fathers. And hence it was regarded as an authentic writing of 
 Julius by Marius Mercator, Vincent of Lerins, Facundus, Hypatius of Ephesus 
 and by Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria. But on the other side Leon tins of Byzan- 
 tium of the seventh Century, is quoted in the same Monitum as against its 
 genuineness. And indeed in his work De Seclis he does ascribe this Epistle to 
 some Timothy. For after stating that the heretics who opposed the doctrine of 
 the Two Natures in Christ appealed to the so-called Epistle of Julius Bishop of 
 Px.ome to Dionysius Bishop of Corinth as favoring their heresy, he denies its 
 
Reading of the Opinio7i of the Fathers. 425 
 
 As regards the Inflesh of the Word and the faith, we beheve in 
 our L,ord Jesus Anointed, Who was born out of the Virgin Mary, that 
 
 genuineness and ascribes it to Apollinaris the heretic, as he does the whole seven 
 Epistles under the name of Julius. Then he comes to the further assertion of 
 those heretics that that Epistle to Dionysius of Corinth is in the Adls of Ephesus 
 and replies to it as follows: 
 
 ''They [the heretics] say that it lies among the A5ls of Ephesus in the time 
 of the blessed Cyril: and they plainly lie. Forno such thing lies there, but that 
 which lies there is another Epistle as frorn Julius, but it is not Julius' but 
 Timothy's as can be learned Jrom many copies. But forasmuch as it in no way 
 opposes us [the Orthodox] we are under no obligation to expend any care on it 
 even though they may say that it is Julius' :' See the Greek in col. 1253 of 
 tome 86, Part I. in Migne's Patrologia Graeca. The Romish editor of the 
 Monitum above mentioned, moved I presume by fear for the Roman See's 
 infallibility, and willing enough to prove that the Third Synod erred on fadls, to 
 save Rome pays heed to Leontius here but without sufficient reason. For as to 
 the first part of Leontius' remarks it does not affect the genuineness of the pas- 
 sage from Julius in Act I. of Ephesus, for he merely asserts that the Epistle 
 alleged to be of Julius to Dionysius of Corinth is not the same as the Epistle 
 from which was taken the passage of Julius which the whole Church in Ecu- 
 menical Synod assembled, approved and made, with other patristic passages, 
 the ground work and basis of its Definitions and its condemnation and deposi- 
 tion of Nestorius as a heresiarch. And this statement of Leontius is true, for he 
 quotes a passage which is found in the Epistle to Dionysius and not in that from 
 which the passage in Act I. of Ephesus is taken. 
 
 But as to his allegation that the passage in Act I. of Ephesus is taken from 
 an Epistle of some Timothy, not from an Epistle of Julius, it is sufficient to re- 
 mark that as is shown above it is quoted as above confessed in the Monitum as 
 Julius*, by Cyril of Alexandria in \\\s Apology for the Twelve Chapters against the 
 Orientals, by Marius Mercator and by Vincent of Lerins, all of whom flourished at 
 the time of the Council of Ephesus and therefore long before Leontius; and that 
 it appears in all the editions of the Councils, and its authenticity is admitted by 
 Facundus, Hypatius and Eulogius of iVlexandria, all of whom lived in the sixth 
 century. And, so far as appears, no writer denied its authenticity before Leontius, 
 who seems actuated by over partizan zeal and lack in this case of critical abilit}'. 
 Seethe Alonitiun, col. 952, tome 8 of Migne's Patrologia Latina and col. 961, id. 
 
 Besides, if we understand him to ascribe the passage to the heresiarch 
 Timothy the leader of one and that the worst wing of the Apollinarian heretics 
 and creature servers, then he actually believed that God the Holy Ghost had 
 guided the Bishops of the Third Ecumenical Synod to take it as authoritative and 
 as a basis, with passages of Orthodox Fathers, for an Orthodox Definition ! ! ! 
 But this is absurd. And as to copies containing Timothy's name instead of 
 Julius', we can not believe that any copyist himself Orthodox, ever so slandered 
 and misrepresented that glorious vSynod of the Universal Church. It looks very 
 much as though Leontius had made a bad bUinder here, if he means to assert 
 
42G Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 He Himself is the Eternal Son and Word of God (o too Qtoo dtdco? Tld^ 
 
 that he found Timothy's name in any copies of that Council. On further ex- 
 amination however, I see that he may mean that an Epistle under the name of 
 Timothy had the passage quoted in Act I. of Ephesus as from Julius. This is 
 very possible. For the ApoUinarians as Leontius himself shows, were guilty of 
 interpolating sound works or forging entire works to favor their heresy. Yet 
 probably he brands as spurious the Epistle of Julius which contains the pas- 
 sage in Act I. of Ephesus from him, which Epistle however the ApoUinarians 
 had interpolated in other places to favor their own heresy. They would natur- 
 ally in order to make the imposture more perfect retain the genuine passage 
 cited in Act I. of the Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus to procure credence for the 
 whole document. Or if the whole Epistle which Leontius saw was their own 
 figment, they would naturally as a matter of cunning, incorporate into it the 
 genuine passage in Act I. of Ephesus to make the rest seem more genuine. 
 Yet the Two Hundred Bishops of Ephesus quoted not a spurious but a 
 genuine document of Julius, which in its original form is now lost, except the 
 passage which they quote from it. 
 
 It will be noticed that Leon tins states as to the Orthodoxy of the Epistle 
 which the Monophysites alleged to be that from which the extract of Julius in 
 Act I. of Ephesus is taken, that " // z« no way opposes us,'' that is, the Orthodox. 
 Yet those heretics evidently quoted some part of it as favoring their error, for the 
 context seems to imply this. I think, therefore, that he refers to the interpol- 
 ated letter. 
 
 In concluding I would say that few things are much more dangerous to the 
 authority of the Universal Church than the teaching of some Romanists in 
 modern times to the effect that even an Ecumenical Synod can be so mistaken 
 as X.ofa5ls as to base its dodlrinal decisions as to what has been held always, 
 everywhere aiid by all, on a spurions document, a historic lie; even as in this 
 case, according to the author of the Monitiini above mentioned, on a writing of 
 a base and wild Synousiast heretic, Timothy. For, of course, if they can be 
 mistaken as to the stream, they can as to what they derive from it. If they can 
 lay down a rotten foundation, of course what they build on it must fall. And if 
 they can err as to oJiefact, they can err as to every fact, and so the foundations 
 of all their Decisions may be assaulted and their Decisions with them. But such 
 criticism and faulting of the knowledge and wisdom of the many Bishops and 
 Scholars at Ephesus, and in the other Five Ecumenical Synods has no warrant 
 nor reason. For none of the Six Ecumenical Synods ever quoted a spurious 
 document as an authoritative basis for a genuine Decision on faith. But the 
 image-worshipping and creature-invoking Conventicle at Nicaea in A. D. 787, 
 under Tarasius of the most frightful and God-cursed death, did base its Decisions 
 in favor of those sins on spurious documents and on late documents which con- 
 travene the earlier Universal faith, and these fadls are acknowledged to a greater 
 or less extent even by Romanists themselves, and by at least one Greek, Conto- 
 gouis. And the fact that it used such things as bases for its Decisions brands 
 those Decisions as heretical and null and void. 
 
Readi7ig of the Opiiiion of the Fcithe?'s. 427 
 
 ■ xai Aoyo^) and not a man taken by God in order that he might 
 
 And furthermore, we must remember that the quoting of one document of a 
 Father and the approving of it as Orthodox does not necessarily imply an ap- 
 proving of all his other writings as Orthodox. Indeed in the case of anv West- 
 ern that could not be, for the simple reason that his writings were in Latin alone 
 and nearly all of them untranslated into Greek, and hence nearly all of them 
 were utterly unknown to the Greek-speaking Bishops of the Six Synods, and 
 they constituted the great majority of all who were present, indeed almost 
 the whole. There were at Ephesus, for instance, only two Bishops from Latin 
 speaking Christendom, both sent by Rome. Carthage, the only other Western 
 See represented, had, in her distress from invasion, sent only a deacon. 
 
 So the error ascribed justly or unjustly by Keble the Nestorianizer and 
 others to Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo on the Eucharist, of believing 
 in a real presence of Christ's humanity there, and of its worship there, was not 
 approved by the Third Council merely because they approved certain passages 
 from Ambrose. For in approving St. Cyril's necessarily implied condemnation 
 of it, they condemned it. 
 
 Moreover we must not infer because an Ecumenical Council receives and 
 accepts with honor a letter of any bishop of Rome, that it accepts any claim of 
 that see to jurisdiction outside of Italy, as, for instance, the attempts of a Bishop 
 of Rome like Celestine I. to secure Appellate Jurisdidtion over Carthage and its 
 Patriarchate, as we now say, of Latin Africa, and thus to deprive the North Afri- 
 cans of the rights guaranteed them by the Canons of the First Ecumenical Coun- 
 cil; and the wrong and usurping and tyrannous a6lion of his successor Leo I. in 
 inducing the Emperor Valentinian HI. to rob the Gauls in the same way. That 
 claim to Appellate Jurisdi6lion in Afr-ica the North African Church stoutly re- 
 sisted, as is shown by the writer in a series of articles on that subject in the 
 Church Journal, a weekly of New York City, for 1870. That defence was em- 
 bodied by the Greeks in the TruUan Synod of A, D. 691 or 692 into their own 
 Canon Law; as it ought to be into the Anglican. And if we find Celestine and 
 Leo I. of the Roman Church using strong language in favor of the privileges of 
 their see, we must remember that the Greeks in Canons HI. of the Second Ecu- 
 menical Synod and XXVIII. of the Fourth base whatever privileges it had on 
 the fact of its being the capital city of the Roman Empire. And they passed 
 Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth Council right against the wish of Leo's legates, 
 and hold to it to this hour. And we have seen that by the Canons of the first 
 four Ecumenical Councils it has no jurisdiction out of Italy. And we know how 
 Avell the British Church resisted any claim of Augustine and the Roman mission- 
 aries for jurisdiction over them, and said that they owed no obedience to the 
 Pope of Rome. See on that whole matter and a!l those matters Bingham's 
 Antiq., Book IX. Chapter i, sedlions 9, 10, 11 and 12, where he shows that 
 Rome's ecclesiastical jurisdi6tion does not include all Italy even, and that the 
 above specified local churches were free from him as they are still by the 
 Canons, (the final appeal), of the first four Ecumenical Synods. 
 
428 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 be another aside from Him. For the Son of God did not take 
 
 I would say in passing that the unmanly and vicious Valentinian III. the 
 unworthy tool of Leo I. Bishop of Rome, in trampling under foot the Ecumeni- 
 cal Canons, murdered Aetius, his deliverer, and his friends, and came to a 
 wretched end at last, for he was assassinated for his mean rape on the chaste 
 wife of Maximus. See the account of that event and his worthless character in 
 Gibbon's Rome, chapter xxxv. , (pages 31-40, vol. IV. of Bohn's edition). And 
 a writer there justly blames Leo for his violation of the rights of other churches 
 to establish the supremacy of his own local Roman Church. And he uses the 
 following severe language of him which has a certain amount of truth in it: 
 
 "For fifteen years he [Leo I. Bishop of Rome] ruled with unbounded 
 sway the weak mind of Valentinian III., yet never checked in him a vice, im- 
 planted a virtue, nor stimulated one effort for the redemption of a sinking em- 
 pire. He used his influence only to establish the supremacy of his Church, and 
 for this he obtained imperial ediHs, which are not less justly than severely 
 condemned by the above named writers, [Dupin, Hallam and Neander, cited 
 just above]. Leo ranks foremost among the destroyers of the Roman empire 
 and the enslavers ^yEurope." He certainly did much to violate the Canons of 
 the whole Church and destroy the liberties under them of the Western Churches. 
 
 Though in opposing Eutyches and his heresy, he did well for Orthodoxy, 
 we must not make a god of him and conceal his tyrannous and grasping spirit, 
 nor the great wrong which he did to the Westerns in crushing their church rights 
 by imperial and secular power to make himself lord over them. In the East he 
 failed to do that, as his successors always have and always will. 
 
 (760) page 424. John i., 14. The faith was not fully complete under the 
 Patriarchs nor under the Law of Moses; but now is under Christ. It can receive 
 no additions. All additions to it and all subtra6lions from it are accursed by 
 God. See in proof Galat. i., 8, 9, and Rev. xxii., 18, 19. 
 
 (761), page 424. Julius means that if the Man put on by the Word had been 
 merely inwrought, that is, operated on, that is inspired by the Word through His 
 Spirit there would not be any thing so unusual in that, for prophets and apostles 
 had been so inwrought and inspired by the same Holy Spirit. 
 
 (762), page 424. Paul, Heb. ix., 14, says that " Christ * * * through 
 the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God " the Father. 
 
 (763) page 424. The note on the above in Coleti Cone, tom. 3, col. 1055, 
 1056, is as follows: I translate from the Latin: " So the Ms. Colbert has it, but 
 the Vatican and the Bellov. have Maximiiius. In another Maxiniia7ius is 
 found. Maximus is set down as having been Bishop of Alexandria in the time 
 of Felix I., on which account Vincent of Lerins, in citing these testimonies 
 again puts Felix before Julius," Hardouin. The Greek, copied from this Act I. 
 of Ephesus, is given in col. 156 of tome 5 of Migne's Patrologia Laiina, and is 
 there ascribed to Felix I. According to the Notitia Historica in the same tome, 
 he died a martyr for Christ in A. D. 274, or 275. The fact that his testimony is 
 
Reading of the Opijiion of the Fathers. 42& 
 
 a man in order that that man might be another aside from Himself 
 
 cited in the Act above after his successor JuHus has puzzled some; but it should 
 not, for the testimonies are not arranged in chronological order. In Migne's 
 edition this fragment is all that is preserved of the Epistle to which it belonged. 
 It is there very unjustly put under the head of " doubtful,'" though in a note in 
 col. 155. torn. 5, id., it is stated that it is found in Act I. of Chalcedon, and in 
 Cyril's Apology for his Twelve Chapters Against the Orie^itals. There appears 
 not to be any reason at all worth mentioning for branding it as doubtful. Two 
 hundred Bishops, and the representatives of Rome present at the Council made 
 no sign as to its being at all doubtful; and they should have known, for they 
 lived near Felix's time and were conversant with works since lost. We should 
 be on our guard against such destructive and unfair so-called criticism. 
 
 A few words more on two of the Epistles alleged to be Julius'. The Epistle 
 of Julius, Bishop of Rome, to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, as it stands in 
 the " Appe7idix " to the writings of that Julius under the heading, " Writings 
 of SuspeEled Genuineness.''^ is certainly Monophysite. For it denies the expres- 
 sion, " Two Natures'''' of Christ, and uses language which sounds dubious; for 
 speaking of some heretics it says that, 
 
 " They are impious if they bow to him whom they assert to be a servant and 
 a creature; and if they do not bow to Him who redeemed us by His own blood * 
 * * * For those who assert Two Natures must as a necessary consequence 
 bow to the one, but not bow to the other:' The first sentence here is Cyrillian, 
 but the condemnation of the dodlrine of the Two Natures in the second which 
 begins '' For those," etc., is heretical. But the writer's teaching that we may 
 not give worship to Christ's humanity is the dodlrine of Athanasius, and of 
 Cyril, as is shown in notes 183 and 582 above. Is it not ratified as Ecumenical in 
 Cyril's Anathema VIIL, approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and by 
 Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod ? The writer here, whoever he may have 
 been, seems to have assumed the non-worshipability of Christ's humanity 
 as a basis admitted by all, or at least generally, and uses it as an argument 
 against the dodlrine of the Two Natures by assuming that it involves it; whereas, 
 as is shown in notes 183 and 582 above, Athanasius and Cyril worshipped not 
 Christ's humanity, but God the Word within it, as within a temple: see above, 
 pages 98, 99, 100, note. But to return to the alleged Epistle of Julius of Rome 
 to Dionysius, and to the passage just Englished from it. I give the Greek. 
 
 Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome 8, col. 925. 926, 929: Appendix. Scripta 
 Suspe5lcB Fidei * * "^ Epistolajtdii Episcopi Romani ad Dionysium Alex- 
 andrinum, Episcopuni; dctjSovvre^, av re izpocKvi-umv, bv Ih/ovai 6ov7ov kuI kt/gtov, ai> 
 re jxij TrpuaKwcjaL ruv k^ayopaaavra rjjiaq rcj \i)n.) duiari * * * 'AvaynTj yap avToiq 6vo 
 7.iyovTaQ cpvaiK;^ tt/v fikv filav TzpnaKwuv, ryv 6h tripav py Trpoanvvelv, etc. 
 
 And again further on, the same document speaks of it as one of the results 
 of the Orthodox dodlriue, as the writer deems, to worship the creature; a thing, 
 by the way, which the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth show is neither .1 
 logical outcome of the Orthodox Two-Nature Dodlrine nor a tolerated inference. 
 
-430 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 (764): but being perfect God He became a perfect man at the same 
 time, by putting on flesh [taken] out of a Virgin. 
 
 from it; but, instead, the deadly and therefore anathematized error of serving a 
 creature, even the Man put on by God the Word. I quote this spurious letter: 
 
 " // is a 7iecessity for those who assert Two Natures, to bow to the One and 
 ftot to bow to the other,'' (Migne's Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 931, note i). 
 The Apollinarian who wrote this letter means, that if we believe in two natures 
 in the Son we must worship the Divine, because it is God and not worship the 
 human, because it is a creature. This was a favorite argument of the ApoUin- 
 arians and their offshoots the Monophysites. And the author of a note in 
 Migne's edition of this spurious letter gives expressions from Eutyches thehere- 
 siarch and Apollinaris as follows: 
 
 " Why is it not aft impious thing to hold one substance to be created or a 
 servant, and to give it the same adoration as is given to the Creator and LordP'' 
 {Migne's Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 931, note i). 
 
 2. ''It is impossible for the same one to be adorable and not adorable; there- 
 fore it is impossible for the same one to be God and Man; but [rather] in the 
 unity of the commixed Divine Nature infieshed (Migne's Patrol. Latina, tom. 
 8, col. 931, note i). 
 
 3. " // is a7i impiety to assert that one and the saine adoration belongs to 
 both natures, that is to the Nature of the Ci'eator and to that of the creature, of 
 God and of man. But there is only one adoratio7t of Christ, a7id the7'efoi'e i7i 
 that 07ie 7iame is understood God and 7na7t. There are therefore 7wt two Sub- 
 stances, God and i}ia7i, but 07ie Substa7ice, by compositio7i with a hu7nan body,^' 
 Migne's Patj^ol. Latina, tom. 8, col. 931, note i). 
 
 4. The author of the note just mentioned adds a fourth passage which is 
 from Apollinaris, of whom he writes that it was his familiar argument, that is, 
 against Orthodoxy. It is as follows: '■'If the same 07ie [Christ] is a7i e7itire 
 ma7i and God, the pious mmd, which does 7iot adore the tna7i i7ideed, but does 
 adore the God, will be found to adore a7id 7wt to adore the sa7ne one, which can 
 not be; a7id the satjie 7nan will 7iot deem hi7nself adoj'able, for he is not i77ipious; 
 but the God ivill know that He Hifnself is ado7-able. But it is i7npossible for 
 the same One to be adoi-able and 7iot adorable. And the7'efo7'e it is itfipossiblefor 
 the same one to be God afid a7i e}iti7^e 77ian, but [on the contrary] in a sole U7iited 
 nature divine a7id i7ifieshed,'" {Migne's Patrol. Lati7ia, tom. 8, col. 932, note i). 
 
 (As to the word " e7itire fnan," in this last passage I would explain by say- 
 ing that Apollinaris did not deem Christ's humanity to be perfect, because he 
 held that it lacks the rational soul, that is, the mind). 
 
 The Romish creature-server who writes this note attempts to meet this 
 Apollinarian and Eutychian argument by quoting some anonymous writer who 
 had fallen into the abyss of the Nestorian creature-service and who shows it by 
 contending for the worship of Christ's humanity on the ground that it has been 
 taken and united to the Word: a form of creature service condemned by the 
 Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth. 
 
Reading of the Opinio?i of the Fathers. 43!^. 
 
 [Passage 9]. A Passage from Theophilus the most holy Bishop 
 of Alexandria takeji out of his Fifth Festal {76^) Epistle: 
 
 Then 5, the author quotes Valentinus, the head of the milder wing of the 
 Apollinarian heretics as setting forth as his own what is now the view of Apolli- 
 narians and other Man-Servers: he is condemning the more radical wing of 
 his fellow heretics, the Timotheans who held that the Divinity of Christ and 
 what they thought He possessed of humanity had become one Stibstajice, from 
 which they were called Synousiasts, that is, Co-Substancers. Valentinus writes 
 against them as follows: 
 
 " Tirnotheus and Polemius his teacher and those who were their followers 
 ivere very ignorant of the fact that inasmuch as there is but one Person of God 
 tJie Word and of the flesh made by God the Word, the bowUig is to be done to 
 God zvho has put on flesh; the bowmg is not to be done to the flesh: for the Word 
 is not bowed to on account of the flesh: but the flesh is co-bowed to with the Word, 
 as a garment and wrapping, as I have said before.'' Then he anathematizes, 
 the Orthodox who did not hold to his Man-service, which he blasphemously 
 terms ''this true and apostolic and genuine faith.'' And then from Philip, iii., 
 23, he misapplies the expression ''dogs " and "evil workers " to the Orthodox: 
 (See Migne's Patrol. Latina, tom. 8, col. 932, note i, where a Latin translation 
 is found. I give the Greek original as in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 86, 
 Pars Posterior, col. 1957: l^al 6 [xaKapLog 6e 'Adavdaiog, 6 dyMrarog eiriCKOTrog ^fiav 
 eleyev wf k^ a6ov ava<pavevTag rovg Tolixrjaavrag eiKtlv ofioovaiov to U Mapiag co)fj.a tt) 
 deoTTjTi' iro?iV 6e riyvorjoav Ti/nodeog, kol 6 didaGKaloQ avrov JloMfitoc, nal ol gvv avTolg on 
 ivog bvTog tov wpoGUTrov rov Qeov Aoyov, Kal r^g capKog Tfjg yevofxevr^g vtto tov Qeov Aoyov 
 irpbg Qeov TjirpoGKvvrjGig GapKudevra, ov izpog cdpKa rj TrpoGKvvrjGcg- ovSe yap 6 A6yog 6cd r?jv 
 adpKa TrpoGKVveirai, hlV rj adp^ rw Aoyo) GVfnrpoGKvvElrai, cyg gto^t) Kal Tcepi^olaiov ug 
 npoEiTTov baoi ovv rcj Kavovt rovrCf), Kal ry dX?j6ivy Kal dwoaToXiKy ravry, Kal aTrapa-noiyTu 
 TTLGTei firj GTOtxcoGcv, EGTUGav dvddejua. BZfTrere ovv rovg Kvvag, ^leireTe Tovg KaKOvg kpydrag 
 fiTuTTETe TTjV KaraTOfirjv' rjfMElg ydp EGfiEv y nEpiTOfi^ ol nvEVjuaTi Qeov TiarpEvovTEg kv XpiGri^ 
 
 ^ItJGOV Kal OVK EV CapKl TTETTOtdoTEg). 
 
 Further on, this writer under the name of Julius in this same letter to 
 Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, has the following which may mean Man-Wor- 
 ship, or not: 
 
 " Christ confesses that as regards His flesh He bows to [that is "worships "] 
 the Father, when He says. We bow to [that is, "worship"^ what we know 
 [John iv., 22] ajid [yet] His Divinity is not separated [from His flesh]. He is 
 bowed to as regards His Divinity, and in the bowing to His Divinity, His 
 body is not separated from It. Nor do we separate His body for it is impossible, 
 when we bow to [that is, " when we worship" His Divinity]. And His Divinity 
 is not separated from the body which suffered, for it has been united to It." The 
 Greek of the last sentences seems corrupt. The punAuation of Migne, which I 
 follow below, is also very faulty, (Migne's Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 935, 
 UpoGKvvElv opoAoyel XpiGTog Kara n)v GapKa rov UuTepa "keyuv, yuEig npoGKvvovpEV a 
 oUafitv Kal ov Xf-^pt^^Tai t/ Qedr^g. TTpoGKVvuTai Kara ryv QEdrrjra^ Kal ov xi-}pi^(rai to Gufta 
 
432 Act 1. of Ephesus. 
 
 For there exist even now the remains of the miracles of that 
 
 rijTT/g QeoTf/To^ KpoaKwijcei. Qvtf. a(p/aTO)juev to Gcbfia {ovdi yap Swarbv) 'ore KpodKwoviiev 
 rov GcjixaTog rnv TrewovOoToc, kuI oh x^P^^^~o-t- V Q^oTTjg^ ^uurai yap). 
 
 According to the Orthodox of the VI. Synods, the true way to meet all Man- 
 Servers is to say with Cyril of Alexandria and the Third Synod and the Fifth 
 that we worship in Christ the Word only, though we believe that He is within 
 the temple of His own body. But nevertheless, we do not worship that body, 
 because we must obey Christ's words in Matt, iv., lo, and Luke iv., 8, to serve 
 God alone, hence no creature. The alleged Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to 
 Prosdocius, which is thought to be interpolated, may in the Greek of the pas- 
 sage following be taken in a perfectly sound sense, making the change mentioned 
 below, though the Latin of it does not so give it: I translate from the Greek: 
 
 "Likewise let him also be anathema who says that the flesh of the Saviour 
 did not come out of Mary ^ but out of heaven, or who asserts that the creature 
 and what was made out of things not existing, is [the] Uncreated by Nature, and 
 says that His body is Divine by its union with the Uncreated God, and that it 
 worships both [Natures] as one uncreated God. 
 
 Be not scandalized at His flesh and its sufferings; but bow to Him bodilessly 
 [I understand this to mean, do not bow to the body put on by the Word, but to 
 God the Word alone. ChrystaIv], Who is bowed to as being with [or "with- 
 in'''\ His own body, as one and sole Son of God from ete^'nity and to eternity.^' 
 
 But what the true original reading here was I can not say, and therefore 
 take no side in the matter. As it stands to-day it is heretical and Man-Serving 
 and some other parts of the Epistle are also heretical. 
 
 I append the Greek of the last passage above: 
 
 Migne's Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 959; Epistola beati Julii Romae ad 
 Prosdocium : 'Ofiolug avdOe/xa egtu kuI 6 rrjv capKu rov 'LoTrjpog fifj ItyDv ek Mapiag, aTJC 
 i^ ovpavov, fj aKTiarov (^vgel ryv ktigiv kui e^ ovk ovtov ry 6e npog rov aKTtGTov Qeov evgjgei 
 6 leyuv Qe'ckov to Gtjfia, koI TvpoGKVvovv kutcl to GvvajU(p6T£pov 0}g kva clktlgtov Qeov, fxaKopioc 
 EGTai. M/) GKavSaliGdyq ettI tij GapKi kol Tolg irddEGiv avTov- all' avTov aGUfiaTug KpoGnvvEi. 
 Tov fiETd rov iSlov GtjfiaTog TrpoGKyuov/nEvov, cjg ha Kal fiovov Tlov rov Qeov e^ aluvog Kal E'lg 
 aiuvaq. 
 
 This will make an orthodox sense as above intimated by making TrpoGKwovv, 
 TTpoGKvruv, and by omitting fxaKapLog egtoi, which looks somewhat like a copyist's 
 or editor's error. But the text is hopelessly corrupt as it now is. 
 
 But taken as it stands it will give a heretical sense by rendering the last part 
 as follows: 
 
 "But he will be blessed who says that His body will be Divine by its union 
 with the Uncreated God, and that it worships both Natures as one Uncreated 
 God." But this rendering seems to be contradidled by what follows, that is the 
 words, "Bow to Him bodii.essi.y," that is, without bowing to His body. 
 And it makes no sense. The Greek is untranslatable in places. 
 
Readhig of the Opinion of the Fathers. 433 
 
 time (766). Let them not disbelieve that the power of God has 
 strength to make a Virgin bring forth. The Living Word of God came 
 into her in order to be made in our likeness {j^i). For otherwise He 
 could not have associated famiharly with us (768). In order that He 
 
 And if we take Tcpoanwovv as a mistake or abbreviation (?) tor TrpoaKvvovfj.Evov 
 then it will give a heretical Man-Serving sense as follows: 
 
 "But he will be blessed who says that His body is Divine by its union with 
 the uncreated God, and that it is bowed to for both as one uncreated God." 
 
 By "for both " with this rendering may be meant that it is to be bowed to 
 for the sake of God the Word who dwells in it as well as for its own sake as 
 having become "Divine by its Union with the Uncreated Word." 
 
 But this sense, like the last above, seems to be contradicted by the exhorta- 
 tion not to bow to the body. 
 
 The annotator on this passage in Migne's Patrologia Latina, tom. 8, col. 
 959, 960, 961, 962, deems it the work of an ApoUinarian, but in order to cover up 
 his own Romish idolatry he mistranslates a passage of Athanasius elsewhere to 
 be given in this Set against Man-Service, to make it mean the contrary. It is 
 Athanasms agaifist Apollinaris, Book I. No. 6. 
 
 (764), page 431. Greek as in Hardouin's Concilia, tome i, col. 1404, Tnarevofisv 
 elg Tov Khpiov ijijmv 'Itjgovv XpiaroVj rbv ek r^g TrapOevov Maplag yi;vv?/tiEVTa, on avToc kariv 
 6 TOV Qeov aidiog Tlbg kol K6yog, Koi ovk avdpuTrog vtto Qeov ava'kri<pdElg^ 'iv' ETEpog ?/' irap* 
 iKElvov. Ov6e yap avdpuTTOv avEAajSev 6 tov Qeov Tibg, Iva tj ETEpog Trap avTov. 
 
 It is not clear to me whether ekeIvov means God the Word or the Man put 
 on. The Latin as in the parallel column is: Credimus in Dominum nostrum 
 Jesum Christum ex Virgine Maria natum, quod ipse est sempitemus Dei Filius 
 et Verbuni, non autem homo a Deo assumptus, ut alius sit ab illo. Neque enim 
 hominem assumpsit Dei Filius, ut alius ab ipso exsistat. 
 
 (765), page 431. That is the Fifth Paschal Epistle. The Latin translation^ 
 in the parallel column in Coleti is "ex quinta paschali Epistola." For Pask was 
 the great Festival of the Primitive Church, and the Paschal Epistles of the Bishop 
 of Alexandria particularly were of much importance at this time, for he announced 
 the date of Pask to much or most of the Christian World. See on that under Pask 
 in the Ge^ieral Index to vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set. The Greek of this place 
 is found in col. 60 of tome 65 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca; but it is taken from 
 the above Act I. of Ephesus, as is stated on the same page. Jerome translated 
 certain of Theophilus' Paschal Epistles. See this part mentioned and the place 
 where those translations are found referred to in id., col, 53, 54. 
 
 (766). It is probably not too much to say that neither in the age of 
 Theophilus nor in any other have miracles ceased to be wrought by God in re- 
 sponse to the prayers of those who invoked no other than He. I have known 
 of well attested happy visions in death to such. They are common to correct 
 the scepticism of this sceptical age. 
 
 (767V Rom. viii., 3; Philip, ii., 7. 
 
434 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 might not take a body by pleasure and sleep as the rest of men have, 
 He takes a body like ours out of a Virgin, is brought forth out of her 
 and appears as a man like us, iji thefotiyi of the serva^it (769). But 
 by His works He [the Word] shows that He is Maker and Lord of 
 all, for He performs God's works (770). 
 
 [Passage 10]. Another Passage from the same [Theophilus], 
 taken out of the 7iextfollowi7ig [that is the Sixth] Festal (771) Epistle: 
 
 For as the best artificers display their own art not only in costly 
 materials and are admired for so doing, but also often take cheap 
 beeswax and clay which falls to pieces, and show forth the power 
 and excellence of their own skill, and are much more praised for so 
 doing; so the Best Artificer of all, the Living and Active (772) Word 
 of God, who adorned and arranged the Universe with the harmony 
 of order, came to us not as having taken any costly material, that is, 
 a heavenly body (773), but He shows the greatness of His own art in 
 clay, for in restoring man formed out of clay. He Him.self came forth 
 out of a Virgin in a new and fit manner. And although the manner 
 of His birth diff"ered from ours, nevertheless He decided that He 
 would not shun to put on our likeness in all (774) things but without 
 ^^^^ (775)- For he was brought forth, w^as wrapped in swaddling 
 clothes, was nursed (776), was a babe, lay in a manger, accepted and 
 experienced the weakness of our nature on account of the aforesaid 
 sins and causes. But while he was yet a babe He troubled at the 
 
 (768), page 433. This follows from the fact that the Word is God (John i., 
 I, 14) aud that no man in the flesh can see God before that flesh is changed by 
 resurrection or at Christ's coming (I. Tim vi., 16; I. Cor. xv., 51, 52, etc.) 
 
 (769). Philip, ii., 7. 
 
 (770). John v., 19; X., 36-39; John ix., 4; John xiv., 10. 
 
 (771). A Paschal Epistle is meant. The margin has "Sixth.'' The Greek 
 of this is found also in tom. 65 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, col. 60. But it is 
 taken from the above place, as it states on the same page. 
 
 (772). Or, ''Energetic,'' or " In working," tvepy^q. 
 
 (773). This was the error of a wing of the ApoUinarians, who contended 
 that the body of Christ had existed long before the Virgin and merely passed 
 through her without taking flesh from her, as water passes through a canal or a 
 river, not deriving its waters from the canal or the channel of the river, but from 
 sources above both. Some or all of them seem to have made that body 
 eternal and, so, uncreated in order to avoid the charge of being servers of a crea- 
 ture. They were called Synousiasts and Timotheans. But their utterances seem 
 confused, naturally enough, because their premises were so absurd and contra- 
 didlory that their conclusions could not be otherwise than the same. 
 
 (774)- Or " in all vespers," Kara -rravra. 
 
 (775). Heb. iv., 15; Heb. ii., 9-18, and II. Cor. v., 21. 
 
 (776). Ox '' suckled," 7iff7jvovutvr,c. 
 
Reading of the Opi7iio7i of the Fathers. 435 
 
 same time both the Enemy (777) and His phalanx, [by] drawing 
 the Magians (778) to mind-change (779) and preparing tMem to de- 
 spise the King who had sent them. 
 
 [Passag:^ ii]. a Passage of Cyprian the most holy Bishop and 
 Martyr, taken out of his Work iySo) on Almsgivi7ig: 
 
 God's good deeds, beloved brethren, are many and very great. 
 By them the abundant and rich Man-lovingness of God the Father 
 has wrought and ever works our salvation, for the Father sent the 
 Son to safe-guard us and to make us alive, in order that He might 
 renew us, and the Son Who was sent wished to become Son of Man 
 
 (781) that He might make us Sons of God. He therefore humbled 
 
 (782) Himself in order that He might regain a people who had been 
 cast away (783). He was wounded in order that He might heal our 
 wounds (784). He made Himself a slave (785), in order that He 
 might lead us who serve Him out of slavery into freedom (786). He 
 endured death, in order that he might restore immortality to 
 mortals (787). 
 
 (777). That is, Satan. 
 
 (778). This word is rendered "wise men " in our Common Version. See 
 the Greek of Matt, ii., i, where (layoL is found. 
 
 (779)- Greek, uerdvoiav. The King referred to in the above sentence is 
 Herod. 
 
 (780). ?M-yov, rendered "tra<5latu " in the corresponding column in Coleti's 
 Concilia. Its Latin title, col. 601, 602 in tome 4of Migne's Patrologia Latina^ 
 is, " Liber de Opera et EleemosynisJ*'* The passage begins the book and is found 
 in those columns and after. 
 
 (781). Matt, viii., 20; Lukexix., 10; Adls vii., 56, and often, elsewhere in 
 Holy Writ. See under ** Man, son of,''' in Cruden's Concordance. 
 
 (782). Philip, ii., 8. 
 
 (783). Luke ii., 32; Matt, iv , 14-17; John x., 16; Rom. ix., 22-27. 
 
 (784). Isaiah liii., 5; Matt, x., i; Mark iii., 15; Luke ix., 11; Luke iv., 18; 
 1. Peter ii,, 24; Matt, iv., 23, et :. 
 
 (785). Philip, ii., 6, 7. I'he term here and there used generally means 
 slave, though it is generall}? translated by ^^ servant,''^ etc., in our Common 
 Version. 
 
 (786). Rom. viii., 21; II. Cor. iii., 17; Galat. v., i; James i. 25; John vii., 36; 
 I. Cor. vii., 22, etc. 
 
 (787). II. Cor. v., 15; Rom. v., 6; Rom., xiv.,9; I. Cor. xv., 3; I. Thess. v., 10; 
 A<5ls XX., 28, where occurs a case of the Economic attributing to God of the hu- 
 man things of the ]Man put on, in the words: '' Feedihe Church of God which 
 He hath purchased with His own blood.'^ Here the bloodshedding which be- 
 longs to the human nature is Economically ascribed to God the Word Who is 
 impassible, in order to preserve the pre-eminence of His divine nature in the 
 
•436 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Passage 12]. An Explanation on Faith by Ambrose who 
 was the most holy Bishop of the City of Milan {7S8). 
 
 If they do not believe me let them believe the apostle who says, 
 But whe7i the fulness of the ti^ne came, God seiit forth His Son made ont 
 ofiySg) a woman, 7nade under the Law {y^o) . He says, His Son, not o?ie 
 ofma?iy [sons]; not a common son but His So?i. But when He 
 says His So?i, He signifies the peculiarity of the Eternal birth (r^? 
 aidioo yevyrjrreioo:) (791) [of God the Word out of the Father]. He 
 arranged it that that Son should be made out of a woman after that 
 [Eternal Birth], in order that He might ascribe that bein^- made [out 
 of a woman] not to His [the Word's] Divinity, but to the body which 
 was taken. He was made out of a woman so far as relates to the 
 flesh which He took. He was 7nade under the Law, so far as relates 
 to His observance of the I^aw. For His most divine birth was before 
 the I^aw: but His birth in flesh was after the Law [had been given 
 on Sinai]. 
 
 Union and to avoid that Man-Service which Cyril so pointedly condemns, and 
 the Universal Synods with him. 
 
 (788). Or, "the city of the Milanese," or, to coin a term, " the city of the 
 Milaners." This passage is found in chapter 14 of that book. See it in col. 550 
 of torn. 16 of Migne's Patrologia Latina. A remark there adds on it ^^Conc. Chal- 
 ked on. Act I. in Expo sit. Fid. Nic.'' 
 
 (789). yivdjuevov en yvvaLKog. This f/c, out of literally, cuts up by the roots 
 the Mennonite heresy and that of some Apollinarians, who denied that the body 
 of the Word was derived from the Virgin Mary. It is queer how they could 
 deny this very important fact when so many texts of the Old Testament say that 
 the Saviour should be of the seed of Abraham, and of David, and when so much 
 depends on these fadls. For if the Redeemer be not of their seed, He can not be 
 the Messiah that was predicted. Hence the New Testament so much insists 
 that He has this mark of proof See for instance, Rom. i., 3; II. Tim. ii., 8; 
 Calat, iii., 16; Heb. ii., 16, etc. 
 
 (790). Galat. iv., 4. 
 
 (791). This allusion to Eternal Birth is among the mere obiter di^a, that 
 is, the things incidentally said, and can not be said to be a topic discussed by the 
 Council. The passage is adduced not on that theme but on the topics of the In- 
 carnation and Economic Appropriation, which it favors. Indeed the Anathema 
 at the end of the Nicene Creed curses all those who assert that the Son of God 
 was not before He was born, that is, all who held that He was eternally begotten 
 out of the Father. Some of the Alexandrian School and a few others however 
 <:lung to that error. The Six Councils go no farther than to teach that the Logos 
 Avas " born out of the Father before all the Worlds,'" as the Creed of the Second 
 Synod words it. See on this the Anathema at the end of the Creed of the First 
 Ecumenical Council, and under " Eternal Birth " in the General Index to Vol. 
 I. of iV/m^a in this Set. But one can see how much affedled Ambrose was by 
 
Readi7ig of the Opinioii of the Fathers. 437 
 
 [Passage 13]. Ajiother Passage from the same [Ambrose] taken 
 out of his Second Book 07i Faith {792). 
 
 Therefore let vain questions on words {a-o zu)'> Xoyio'^) cease and 
 be silent, for the kingdom of God, as it is written, is not in persuasion of 
 7nen' s words, but i7t 7nanifestation of power {yg^r)- I^et us keep the 
 distin(5lion between the divinity and the flesh. [But] One Son of 
 God speaks in both Natures for both Natures are in Him (794), 
 It is the Same One who speaks, and [yet] He does not always speak 
 
 the opinion of the great Alexandrian, Athanasius, for the Alexandrian error of 
 Eternal Birth. That view was originally confined to the Alexandrian School. 
 See on that volume I. of Nicaea in this Set, Preface, pages ii. and iii. ; and text, 
 pages 83, 84 and no. Athanasius went so far as to differ from the Creed of 
 Nicaea not only on Eternal Birth, but also as to the a(5lion of that Council re- 
 garding Meletius; see vol. I. oi Nicaea in the places just mentioned, and on page 
 III. Yet very often, even men who should have been wiser, have preferred the 
 private opinion of a great but admittedly fallible man— like Athanasius for in- 
 stance, and his local fallible Church, to a decision of the whole Church in an 
 Ecumenical Council. Such a course, if persisted in, tends to undo the work of 
 the Six World-Synods and to end in anarchy. We must never follow any Father, 
 however distinguished, against the clear decision of the Holy-Ghost-led Univer- 
 sal Church East and West in the VI. Councils. 
 
 The expression '' Etertial Son,'" in a quotation from Felix above may mean 
 Eternal Birth, but not necessarily so, because we often speak of the eternal life 
 of the righteous where we do not mean that they were from all eternity, but only 
 that they will enjoy an eternal life which is not sealed to them till they are 
 baptized and take the Lord's Supper. If Felix means Eternal Birth he alone of 
 all outside of the jurisdi<5lion of Alexandria held that private opinion before 
 Nicaea, A. D. 325. In all probability the Fathers of Ephesus did not take his 
 words in that sense, for the common view of Nicaea was still general outside of 
 Alexandria. Eternal Word in the context would guard the Son's co-eternity 
 with the Father. 
 
 (792). This passage is found in chapter 9 of that Book II. on Faith. See it 
 in M\^nes Patrologia Latina, tom.i6, col. 576, 571. I have translated it from 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 (793) I. Cor. ii.,4. 
 
 (794). Coleti Cone, tom. 3, col. 1057: <pvld^co[j.iiv tt/v 6m<l>opav rf/g Qeorr/roc /cat 
 rijg aapKog- Elg kv eKarepu XaXeZ 6 tov Qeov Tide, uri h nvru ?} iKarepa (pvai^ koriv. *0 
 AvTog lakel, Kal ovk iv evl navTore ^laMyerai Tporrco. 
 
 Ambrose means that it is God the Word alone Who speaks, though He has put 
 on flesh. This conforms to the celebrated Didlum of Cyril, " J^e bow to the 
 
 Word [who is] with [or " within "] His flesh,'' but Cyril refused the expressions 
 which speak of bowing to the Flesh with the Word. Notice this full and complete 
 confession of the Two Natures in the Son in this Passage deemed so Orthodox 
 by the Third Ecumenical Synod, that they use it as one of the bases for their 
 
438 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 in one way (795). Notice in Him now God's glor}-; hut now a 
 man's sufferings. For as God He teaches as to the tilings of God, 
 because He is the Word: but as a Man He speaks the things of a 
 man, because He was speaking in my substance. He is the Living 
 Bread {796), Who came dow?ifrom heave7i. That Bread is the flesh, 
 as He Himself also said: This bread which I will give is 7ny flesh 
 {ygy). This is He who came down (798). This is He whom the 
 Father sann-ified a7id sent into the world (jpp). But that letter (800), 
 itself does not teach us that His Divinity had need of being sanctified 
 but that His flesh had such need. 
 
 [Passage 14]. A Passage of Gregory the Great, (801) who was 
 the most holy Bishop of Nazianzus {802). 
 
 decision against Nestorius. And yet its leader, Cyril of Alexandria, and the 
 Synod itself are accused, by those who should know better, of Monophysitism. 
 So unfair and prejudiced is the world ! 
 
 (795). That is, as he at once explains. He speaks at one time what pertains 
 to His divine Nature, at another of what pertains to the humanity which He had 
 put on, the sufferings of which He Economically claims for Himself, God 
 the Word. 
 
 (796}. John vi., 50. 
 
 (797)- John vi., 51. 
 
 (798). John vi., 50, 51,58. 
 
 (799). Johnx., 36. 
 
 (800). Sometimes letter is opposed to the spiritual and deeper Christian 
 sense of a thing, or to the Law as distinguished from the Gospel. Compare 
 Johnvi., 63, and II. Cor. iii., 6; Rom. vii, 6. Ambrose seems to insinuate what 
 is so often taught by the Fathers, namely that we should not take Christ's words 
 in John vi., about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the literal, cannibal 
 sense, as the Jews did; and that even that letter of his utterance does not teach 
 that God the Word needs sandlification. See note 606 above, pp. 261-276. 
 
 (801). This title "Great " is much more fitly applied to this great opponent 
 of creature-service, than it is to the later and somewhat erring Bishop of Rome, 
 Gregory I., whom the Latins call Great and the Greeks the Dialogist, on account 
 of his Dialogues. But Gregory of Nazianzus, or Nazianzum has been faulted, not 
 without cause for his flowery and turgid oratory, in which he invokes poetically 
 and not really a temple, angels, apostles, etc. See an example quoted in 
 McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia under his name. Probably some works 
 ascribed to him however are not his and others may be interpolated. But his 
 writings prove that he was strongly opposed to all invocation of any but God. 
 Bishop Ridley in his farewell to his college addresses walks or trees, etc., in the 
 same poetic manner. This use of the figures of Rhetoric known as Ecphonesis, 
 Personification, Vision, and Apostrophe (see Gould Brown's English Grammar, 
 Prosody, Figures of Rhetoric), should be avoided where it is likely to be mis- 
 
Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 439 
 
 Let not the men (803) deceive nor be deceived by admitting a 
 man without a mind as the Lord's Man (804), as they say, but, 011 
 the contrary, let them admit our Lord and God. For we do not 
 separate the Man from the Divinity [of the Word]; but we hold to 
 
 understood by the unlearned, and to lead them into the great sin of invoking 
 created persons or any thing but God, or to lead them to invoke Him through 
 material things or created persons. 
 
 (802). This is from Gregory's Epistle I. to Cledonius. Compare Coleti 
 tom. 4, col. 1 142. It is against Apollinaris. See it in Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca, tome 37, col. 177 and after. The Apollinarians denied Christ a human 
 mind, and hence denied that the Word had put on a perfect man, though their 
 error is impliedly condemned by the natural sense of the clause of the Creed of 
 the First Synod of the whole Church, and of that of the Second Synod also, which 
 asserts that He ''put on a man,'' that is, not apart of a man, but a whole man. 
 When we consider how later heresies like Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and 
 Monophysitism, are anticipatively condemned by the natural sense of those two 
 Ecumenical Creeds we can readily understand how the Fourth Ecumenical 
 Synod could say of their Faith that it should be sufficient for the full acknowl- 
 edgment and confrmation of the true religion ; for it teaches completely the per- 
 fect do5lrine concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spij'it, and fully explaifis 
 the Incarnatiofi of the Lord to those who receive it faithfully. '' But it then goes 
 on, in effect, to state that it defines further on account of its perversion by the 
 heretic s of the different se(5ls aforesaid. See it in Hanmond's Canons of the 
 Church, pp. 95, 96, etc., N. Y. edition. 
 
 The above is the longest of the passages quoted from the Twelve Fathers in 
 this Act I. of Ephesus. As we show in treating of the opinions of Gregory of 
 Nazianzus in another part of this Set, his Epistle I. to Cledonius, from which 
 the above extract is taken, is divided by him into two parts; the first, which con- 
 tains his profession of faith against all Anti-Inman heresies generally, put forth 
 by him to remove all suspicion of his Orthodoxy; and a second which is directed 
 specifically and in detail against Apollinaris and his peculiar errors. The above 
 extract is from the first part; and was evidently chosen by the Synod as one of 
 the normal utterances of Orthodoxy to guide its own decisions, because of its 
 appositeness against them and more especially because of its denunciation of 
 those errors on the Incarnation which were circulated in Gregory's time not only 
 by his opponent Apollinaris, but also those set forth by Diodore of Tarsus and 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia and afterwards defended before the whole world b} 
 Nestorius against Cyril of Alexandria and the Third Ecumenical Council, 
 Gregory's references to Nestorian heresy are only incidental, but yet are appo- 
 site. He is the eighth of the Twelve Fathers quoted above. The original is 
 found in Coleti's Concilia, tome 3, col. 1057. 
 
 (803). That is the Apollinarians just mentioned by Gregory in the preced- 
 ing part of the above Epistle I. to Cledonius. 
 
 (804). Or "the Lordly Man." 
 
440 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 and proclaim [only] One and the Same; Who at first indeed was not 
 a Man, but was God and Sole Son and before the worlds, [and] was 
 unmingled with a body (805) and unmingled with those things which 
 belong to a body whatsoever they are, but at last was also a Man 
 taken (806) for our salvation, passible in flesh, impassible in Divinity, 
 circumscribed in body, uncircumscribed in Spirit (807); the Same 
 One is earthly and Heavenly, visible and Invisible, contained and 
 Uncontained, that the whole man who had fallen under [the sway of] 
 sin, might be remoulded and restored by one who is A wholk man 
 and at the same time God (808). 
 
 If any one does not admit Mary to have been Bringer-Forth-of- 
 God, he is an alien to the Divinity (809). 
 
 If any one says that [Christ's humanity] ran through the Virgin 
 as through a pipe (810) but was not thoroughly formed in her, di- 
 vinely and humanly at the same time; divinely indeed because with- 
 out a man, but humanly by the law of pregnancy and of being 
 brought forth [out of her], let him be anathema. 
 
 If any one says that the Man had been formed and that then 
 
 (805). aiiiyf] GufiaTog Kal rc3v baa aoiiiaroq, Gregory shows that he does not be- 
 lieve iu any mingling of the Substance of God the Word in the sense oi co 71 fu- 
 sion, or indeed in any other sense than the indwelling of God the Word in the 
 Man put on by Him. But some of the ancients, even Cyril of Alexandria him- 
 self, used terms which might be perverted from the sense of union in which they 
 took them to that oi confusioft. But after the rise of the Apollinarian, the Nes- 
 torian and the Monophysite heresies the teachers of the Church were more 
 exact in the use of language of that kind, and avoided words which those 
 heretics might pervert. 
 
 (806). Greek, avOpuTrov 7rpo(j/irj(p6evTa. 
 
 (807). Uvevfiari. As God is a Spirit, (John iv., 24), therefore we some times 
 find the ancients using "Spirit," as here, for His divinity. See Sophocles* 
 Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods under -v^vfia, 3. 
 
 (808). Notice Gregory's Confession here of the perfect humanity of Christ, 
 for which he contended against the Man-Serving Apollinarians. This language 
 smites also the Monothelites, for they denied that Christ is a whole man, by 
 denying him a human will, which is a part of a whole man; pages 103-105 above, 
 note, and pages 429-433; note. 
 
 (809). ''He is an alien to the divinity'' hy ^^nying His real Incarnation, 
 a denial which in the case of the Apollinarians and the Nestorians led to the 
 worship of Christ's humanity, and so to creature-service. 
 
 (810). This also was an error of Apollinarian heretics. For they denied,, 
 like some of the Mennonites, that God the Word took flesh from the Substance 
 of the Virgin, but asserted that the flesh which He had, existed long before her, 
 and merely passed through her as water passes through a pipe. The comparison 
 holds as to the source. For they held that as the water which flows through a 
 pipe does not derive its origin from the pipe, but outside of it, so the flesh of 
 
Rcadijig- of the Opuiiot of the Fathers, 441 
 
 God put him on (8ii), be he condemned: for that is not a bringing- 
 forth of God [out of a woman] but an avoiding of being brought 
 forth (8 1 2).' 
 
 If any one introduces two Sons, one indeed the Son Who came 
 out of the God and Father, and the second him who came out of the 
 mother, but does not [confess] One and the Same (813) Son, let him 
 also lose the adoption to sonship promised to those who believe cor- 
 re(5lly. For there ark Two Natures (814), God, and a Man be- 
 cause he is both a soul and a body (815). But there are not two 
 Sons nor two Gods. Nor are there two men here, even though 
 Paul so calls the internal part and the external part of man 
 (816). And, seeing it behooves me to speak briefly, The two 
 things [divinity and humanity] of which the Saviour is [composed] 
 are different from each other, for the visible is certainly not the same 
 thing as the Invisible, and that which is Independent of Time (8 1 7) 
 is surely not the same thing as that which is subject to [the limita- 
 tions of] time (818). But those two things [Divinity and humanity] 
 are not two different Persons. God forbid ! For both are one in the 
 union (819), for God has put on a man, and a man has been made 
 godly, or howsoever any one may name it (820). We say two 
 
 Christ did not derive its origin from her but from outside of her. As to the con- 
 sequences of this error see note 789 above. 
 
 (811). This was an error of the Nestorians, only that the "then" with 
 them would not mean till, it might be, his baptism or later. Consequently ac- 
 cording to them, the Word's divine Substance was not in the Virgin's womb at 
 all, but only His sandlifying grace by His Holy Spirit, and so the indwelling 
 was «c/f of God the Word's Substance but was relative only: that is, God the 
 Word dwelt in that man by the Holy Spirit only, which is related to Him as 
 being His Spirit. 
 
 (812). See last note above. 
 
 (813). That is, God the Word who is in flesh and in a man. 
 
 (814). Greek, (^vauq fdv yap 6vo. See on this matter the note above. 
 
 (815). Gregory shows elsewhere that Christ has also a mind. He brings 
 out this fact in his arguing against the Apollinarians who denied it. Indeed 
 among the ancients the term " soul " ('/'w^t//) is often used to include t/ie animal 
 soiily which we ordinarily call the soul; and the intelleHual soul, which we call 
 the mind. 
 
 (816). Paul's division of man, is into three parts, spirit, that is, mind, soul, 
 and body. Seel. Thess. v., 23. The ancients very often, aye, generally name 
 an apostle, as here, without the title saint. Some ignorant clerics suppose that 
 they must always use it and that it is a sign of Puritanism not to do so. But the 
 reference above seems to be to II. Cor. iv., 16. 
 
 (817). That is, God the Eternal Word. 
 
 (818). That is, the Man born of the Virgin in time. 
 
 (819). Or, " in the blending.''^ Greek, -ij av^Kpaoei, Qtov [j.ev kvavSpuTZTjaavrn^^ 
 
442 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 different things [in the Personal union of the Son] in contradistinc- 
 tion to the way it is in regard to the Trinity. There we say that 
 there are different Persons, in order that we may not mingle and 
 confound the Subsistences (821): but we do not say that there are 
 different things there, for the Three Persons are One and the Same 
 Thing in Their Divinity. 
 
 If any one says that the Son who came out of God operated in 
 the Man by grace, as He did in the Prophets, but that His [the 
 Word's] Substance was not co-joined to him [the Man] and united 
 to him (822), let him be empty of the better operation and be full 
 of the operation of the Adversary (823). 
 
 If any one does not bow to the Crucified [God the Word] let 
 him be anathema, and take his place in the ranks of the murderers 
 of God, (824), (825). 
 
 avBpcjTTov 6e deudivTo^^ t] b-rzuq av rig bvojLcdaets. See on the term avyKpdaec a note above. 
 GenftevTog may be taken in the sense oi'' filled with God,^^ that is, with God the 
 Word who dwelt in him. 
 
 (820). See the last note for the Greek. 
 
 (821). Greek, iva firj rag vTroardaetg crvy;n;fw//ev,that is, "Ihe Persons, ^^ for viroaraaig 
 is often used as here for Person, for as each Person exists separately now as being 
 Eternal God He can be called a Person and a Subsistence, that is, a Being. And 
 so in that sense many of the ancients spoke of Three Subsistences, that is Three 
 Beings: and that is perfe(5lly accordant with the literal meaning of the Greek 
 word vTToaTaa/g. Whereas others, for instance in the Nicene Creed, used vTrdaraaig 
 in the sense of Subsistence, Existence and Being, io designate the one kind of Sub- 
 stance and Existence of the whole Trinity, for there the Anathema at the end of 
 that Creed curses those who say that the Son of God, that is, the Logos, ** is of an- 
 other Subsistence or Substance''' {krkpag vTvoardaecog 7 ovaiag) than the Father, for the 
 Substance of both and of the Spirit is the same, and they are all co-eternal. 
 Though both of those uses of vnoaraatg are in strict accordance with its meaning, 
 some at first misunderstood and taking vTroaraGig in the sense of being were 
 scandalized at the idea of speaking of Three Beings, where there is only One 
 Being in Three Persons, that is, God, consisting of the Father, His Consubstan- 
 tial Word, and His Consubstantial Spirit. Yet as time wore on all saw that each 
 Person is a Being, and that as the Three separate Persons are all parts of One 
 Being, so the Three separate Beings are but parts of One Being, God, and all co- 
 eternal and consubstantial. 
 
 (822). This was precisely the error of the Nestorians. 
 
 (823). The better operation is, of course, the operation of the Holy Ghost. 
 The contrary operation is that of the Adversary, the Devil. 
 
 (824). Although the ordinary rule for a Christian is to ''bless, and curse 
 ??c>/', " as Paul commands (Rom. xii., 14), nevertheless there is a cursing by a 
 properly qualified authority such as an Apostle, or by the whole Christian Apos- 
 
Readijig of the Opi7iion of the Fathers. 443 
 
 If any one says that the Son who came out of God was perfedled 
 by works, or that after his being dipped (826), or after His resur- 
 
 tolate met in Ecumenical Synod, or in local Synod. Instances of such cursing 
 by an individual Apostle is Peter's curse on Simon Magus in A6ls viii., 20-24; 
 Paul's on all perverters of the Gospel and on all preachers of new Gospels in 
 Galatians i. , 8, 9; and on all who love not the Lord Jesus Christ, in I. Corinthians 
 xvi., 22. In later times individual bishops following their example, have cursed 
 heretics, as for instance, Gregory here curses the Apollinarians. 
 
 Instances of cursing by the whole Christian Apostolate are i, the Anathema 
 at the end of the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod; 2, the first Canon of the 
 Second Synod, not to speak of its seventh; 3, the seventh Canon of the Third 
 Ecumenical Synod against Man-Servers and other perverters of the Faith of the 
 Church; 4, the Anathema in the Definition of the Fourth Synod against the 
 Monophysites and other heretics; 5, the Definition of the Fifth Synod and its 
 Anathemas against Nestorian Man-Servers, and others; 6, the Definition of 
 the Sixth Synod of the whole Church against the Monothelites and others. 
 
 In all these instances the Apostle, or the whole Apostolate in Synod assem- 
 bled do not profess to utter their own curse, but God's antecedently proclaimed 
 by the Holy Ghost through Paul in Galatians i., 8, 9, which they merely apply 
 in God's name both to warn the heretic of his own damnation if he persists in his 
 creature-service or other error, and to warn and guard the Christian people 
 against the soul destroying chara6ler of the error anathematized. 
 
 An instance of cursing by a local Synod is found in the Epistle of Cyril of 
 Alexandria and of the Synod of the Egyptian Diocese which has the Twelve 
 Anathemas against Nestorian Man-Service, denial of the Incarnation, and 
 other errors. 
 
 Of course it should be added that while every Bishop and every local Synod 
 should anathematize every error, nevertheless this must always be done against 
 what is contrary to the Scriptures and to that do(5lrine, discipline and rite which 
 were from the beginning: otherwise the curser damns his own soul. The cursings 
 by all Arian bishops, all Macedonian prelates, and those of the Man-Serving 
 Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Image-Worshippers, and Creature In- 
 vokers, and all others who have opposed the Scriptures and primitive and once 
 universal dodlrine, discipline, rite and custom, have returned on their own 
 heads to curse them in this world and in that which is to come. The Third 
 Ecumenical Synod forbids us to regard such men as Christian bishops, but as 
 false apostles (compare Rev. ii., 2) and to have nothing to do with them but to 
 shun them. 
 
 But there is one blessed fact in this connedtion, and it is that all the ana- 
 thematizing of the Universal Church in its Six Councils is against heretics and 
 creature-servers and not against the Orthodox. 
 
 (825). Gregory in this whole passage Economically attributes, like Atha- 
 nasius and Cyril, the sufferings of the Man put on to the Word: hence like them 
 he would say that the Word was crucified. And so the worship here by bowing 
 
444 Ad I of Ephesus. 
 
 redlion from the dead He was deemed worthy of adoption to Sonship, 
 like the spurious and ficftitious Sons [of Jove] whom Greeks [that is, 
 "the heathen "] bring in, let him be anathema. For that which 
 lias a beginning, or progresses and improves, or is made complete is 
 not God, even though it be so termed, on account of its increase 
 Httle by little (827). 
 
 [Passage) 15]. A passage of Basil, who was the most holy Bishop 
 of CcBsarea i7i the First Cappadocia {S28); 
 
 For heaven and earth, and the countless spaces (829) of the 
 
 would be given to the Word alone, but as with, that is, i7i flesh, as He and they 
 explain in other places, in effect. Cyril of Alexandria in the last of his XII. 
 Anathemas, and the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Three Ecumenical Synods 
 after it which approved that and the rest of his XII. Anathemas, and the Fifth 
 Ecumenical in its Fifth and Ninth Anathemas, all teach, i, that God the Word 
 was crucified: 
 
 But, 2, the Third Ecumenical in approving Anathema VIII. of Cyril of 
 Alexandria; and the Fifth in its Anathema IX., in effect anathematize him who 
 worships in the crucified any thing more than God the Word: that is, they an- 
 athematize any one who worships His humanity; for it is a creature, and, hence, 
 to worship it would of course be creature service. This is one view, on which 
 see notes 183 and 5S2 above. Another is that both Natures of the Son may be 
 worshipped: in other words that it is not against Matt, iv., 10, is worship a crea- 
 ture with God the Word. See those notes. 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzus as above anathematizes him who denies that the 
 Word was crucified, and who refuses to worship Him as in the crucified human- 
 ity then and now. In another passage, that is, in his Discourse XLV. which is 
 on the Holy Pask, or Easter, sedlion 24, Gregory, addressing different classes of 
 persons in oratorical and stilted style, nevertheless brings out the idea that God 
 the "Word hung on the cross: '' If thou arf' says he ''Simon the Cyreniaii take 
 up the cross and follow [Him]; if like the thief thou art crucified with Him, 
 candidly recognize [thy] God * * * and suspended [on the cross] as thou 
 art, worship {jrpocKvvrjGov) Him who hung on the cross for thee." This passage 
 is in col. 656, tome 36 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. 
 
 (826). That is, after his baptism, which was then performed by trine im- 
 mersion as Bingham shows. 
 
 (827). Or, " its gradualincrease.'" Although Gregory's language here is 
 aimed at the Apollinarians, nevertheless it is so apposite to the Nestorians that 
 one might suppose, if he did not know the author or the date of this writing, 
 that it was aimed at the Nestorians. Those errors are condemned and with 
 them the Nestorian relative worship of Christ's humanity in Anathema XII. of 
 the Fifth Ecumenical Council. 
 
 (828). This passage is from Basil's work 07i the Holy Spirit, chapter 8. It 
 is found also in col. 100, tome 32, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. 
 
 (829). Ox.'' rnunlless things."" This place as in Coleti Ccw^., tom. 3, col. 
 
Reading of the Opmion of the Fathers. 445 
 
 seas, and the things which live in the waters, and the animals on the 
 dryland, and plants, and stars, and the air, and the seasons of the year, 
 and the varied arrangement and adorning of the Universe, do not 
 together display so much excellence of might as the boundless God 
 (830) was able to display when, by means of flesh assumed, He 
 without any suffering, wrestled with death in order that He might 
 by His own suffering (831) grant us the favor of freedom from 
 suffering (832). 
 
 [Passage 16]. A Passage of Gregory the most holy Bishop of 
 Nyssa {833). 
 
 Let this mind beinyoic saith he, which was also in Anointed fesus, 
 Who being hi God's for?7i {834) thought it not robbery to be equal with 
 God, but 7nade Himself of 710 reputation {83^) having takeji the form of 
 the servant (836), (837). What greater poverty can be asserted of 
 God than that He has taken the form of the servant ? What greater 
 lowliness can be asserted of the King of all than that He voluntarily 
 came to share our poor nature? (838). The King of Kings and the 
 Lord of lyords (839) put on the form of the servant ! The Judge of 
 
 1060, is ra fivp'ia ruv ireMycjv. But in column 100 of tome 32 of Migne's Patrologia 
 Graeca it reads to, [xeyEdj] rwv TzelayCiv: /leyeOTj is found in Coleti's margin here. 
 
 (830). Greek, rbv Q^bv rov axcdpijrov, which the Latin in Mansi's Conciliay 
 tome 4, col. 1 194, renders, immensum ilium infinitumque Deum. 
 
 (831). The wrestling of the Word by His flesh with death, refers to God the 
 Word's having put on flesh, and hence teaches the dodlrine of His Incarnation, 
 and agrees with Cyril. The Economic attributing of the sufferings of the passi- 
 ble man put on to the impassible God the Word Who put him on, agrees with the 
 dodlrine of Cyril and Athanasius on that subject. Hence this passage is adduced 
 before the Council in the controversy between Cyril and Nestorius as sustaining 
 the former and making against the latter. 
 
 (832). I. Peter ii., 24; Rev. xxi., 4, etc. 
 
 (833). This is from Gregory's First Oration on the Beatitudes. It is in 
 Migne's Patrologia Graeca^ tom. 44, col. 1201. 
 
 (834). That is, in God's body. That God has a body is taught in many 
 passages of the Old Testament and the New, and was the faith of the most an- 
 cient Christians. But, as Tertullian teaches, it is a body of Spirit. 
 
 (835). Literally ^^ emptied Himself,''' that is, abased himself, that is, by 
 taking on the form of a slave, (6ovlov) as it is literally. Notice that here and in 
 passages following Gregory ascribes the sufferings of the Man put on to God the 
 Word, that is. Economically only. 
 
 (836). The literal meaning is slave. 
 
 (837). Philip, ii., 5. 6, 7. 
 
 (838). Heb. ii., 9-18. 
 
 (839). Rev. xvii., 14. 
 
446 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 all (840) became subject to pay tribute and tax to earthly rulers 
 (841). The lyord of the Creation is brought down into a cave (842). 
 He who held every thing in His hand (843), finds no place in the 
 inn (844), but He is thrust aside in a manger belonging to the irra- 
 tional animals. The Pure and Un defiled admits the meanness of 
 human nature, and having experienced all our poverty, goes forward 
 to the enduring of death (845). See the measure of His voluntary 
 poverty ! The Life (846) tastes death ! The Judge [of all] is led to 
 the judgment of an earthly tribunal ! The Lord of the life of exis- 
 tences, is subjected to the sentence of an [earthly] Judge ! The 
 King of all the supramundane power does not thrust away the hands 
 of the executioners ! Let the measure of thy humility have respect 
 to that example, (847). 
 
 [Passage 17]. A Passage of Afticus, Bishop of Constanti- 
 nople {848). 
 
 To-day the Anointed One Who is also Lord, underwent His 
 birth [in the flesh], because of His love for man. For He existed 
 before as regards the birth of divine dignity (849) . 
 
 [Passage 18]. The7i he [Atticus] adds to those words what here 
 follows {836). 
 
 The Man-Loving Word is made of no reputation {8^1^, though 
 
 (840). John v., 22, 27, and after; A<5ls xvii. 31; Matt, xxv., 31-46, inclusive. 
 
 (841). Matt, xvii., 24-27. 
 
 (842). The idea from ancient times seems to have been that Christ was laid 
 in a cave. A tomb hewn in the rock is such. They are found in the East now. 
 
 (843). John i., 3; John iii., 35; Matt, xi., 27; John xvi., 15; I. Cor. viii., 6; 
 Col. i., 17; Heb. i., 3. 
 
 (S44). Luke ii., 7. 
 
 (845V Philip, ii., 8. Noteworthy is the fact that Paul ascribes the death 
 Economically to Him who before He took the form of the slave was in God's 
 form. And all these passages ascribe the human things of the Man put on to 
 the Word. 
 
 (846). Johnxiv.,6. 
 
 (847). Notice how the human things are here ascribed Economically to the 
 Word. 
 
 (848). This passage is not found in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tom. 65, 
 col. 637-652, where remains of Atticus are given. It seems to have escaped the 
 editor of that tome. I have given it from Act I. of Ephesus as in duty bound. 
 
 (849). That is, His birth " before all the worlds " out of God the Father. 
 
 (850). This passage is not found in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tom. 65, col. 
 637-652. It also seems to have escaped its editor's observation. 
 
 (851). Philip, ii., 7. 
 
Reading of the Opinio7i of the Fathers, 447 
 
 so far as His [divine] Nature is concerned He is not made of no re- 
 putation. For He 7nade Hi7nself of no repiitation, having taken 
 a servant' s form {832). He who is without flesh takes on flesh for 
 thee ! The Word was made flesh {853). He Who by reason of the 
 incorporealness of His Nature is not subject to touch, is touched ! 
 He Who is without beginning becomes subject to a bodily beginning, 
 (854) . The perfect One grows (855) ! The Unchanging One makes 
 progress (856)! He Who was rich (857) is brought forth in an inn. 
 He Who covefeth the heaven with clouds (858) is wrapped in 
 swaddling clothes (859). The King is laid in a manger. 
 
 [Passage 19]. Another Passage likewise from the same [Atticus, 
 Bishop of Constantinople] (860) . 
 
 If the Inman of the Sole-Born, and His being brought forth by a 
 Virgin and His communion with [human] sufierings (861) and [His] 
 cross, and death and resurredlion (862), separate any one from us, let 
 him learn and know that those things have to do with the world's 
 salvation; and let him not deem them unworthy of the Good and 
 Mighty God's love for man. For if it was disgraceful for God to 
 dwell in the Virgin, it was more disgraceful before all that to make 
 her. But if He incurred no ignominy by making her, He did not 
 judge it to be a thing deserving of shame to dwell in her. And if it 
 is an evil thing to suffer, how great a thing is it to relieve [man- 
 kind] from sufiering! Wherefore He who is immortal died (863) 
 
 (852). Philip, ii., 7. 
 
 (853). Jolini., 14. 
 
 (854). That is, the body which He, God the Word, put on, had a beginning 
 in the womb of the Virgin Mary. 
 
 (855). That is, the body put on by God the Word grows; see Luke ii., 52. 
 
 (856). That is, progresses in age and stature in his humanity, from a babe 
 to a man; not from sm fulness to sinlessness as the Nestorians said, for His 
 human nature was always sinless. 
 
 (857). II. Cor. viii., 9. 
 
 (858). Psalm cxlvii., 8. 
 
 (859). Luke ii., 7, 12. 
 
 (860). This is not found in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, torn. 65, col. 637- 
 652, where remains of Atticus are given. It also seems to have escaped the 
 editor's notice. 
 
 (861). Or "His sharing of [human] sufiferings." 
 
 (862). A Latin translation of this passage in Act I. of Chalcedon has " cross 
 and suffering and death, ' ' instead of ' * cross and death and resurre5lio7i . " ■ 
 
 (863). Philip, ii., 8, where Paul Economically ascribes the death of the 
 Man put on to the divine Word who had put him on. For He says, that He 
 *' being in God's form, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,'^ and yet 
 
448 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 in order that He might kill death (864), and rose up as a Prince to 
 procure our resurre(5lion. And He received all those things (865) 
 not in the Nature of [His] Divinity but in the flesh which He put 
 on, dwelling in it on the one hand in the inviolabilities of His own 
 unsufferingness (866), and, on the other, suffering and enduring 
 all those things [in the flesh which He put on], in order that He 
 might become both L^eader and lyaw-giver of the best polity (867). 
 
 [Passage 20]. A Passage of A^nphilochius , Bishop of Iconium 
 {868). 
 
 For since the Same One is King and God, and tasted death for 
 the sake of the Economy of the Suffering, the gifts of the mysteries 
 are riddles (869). The Magians offer gold, knowing Him to be King. 
 They offer frankincense, for they know that they are offering to God 
 (870). They offer myrrh on account of the death in the mystery of 
 the suffering. 
 
 [Passage 21], (871). Another Passage likewise from the same 
 [Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium]. 
 
 For if He had not been born in flesh, thou hadst not been re- 
 born spiritually (872). And if He had not borne and endured the 
 form of the servant {8yj) thou hadst not gained the glory of adoption 
 
 *^look upon Hitn the form of a slave, and was tnade in the likeness ofntefi. And 
 being found in fashion as a Man He humbled Himself and became obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the cross^ This is one of the plainest instances in 
 the Scriptures of the ascribing Economically the sufferings of the Man put on 
 and his human things to God the Word. Another instance is A6ls xx., 28, where 
 the man's blood is called God's blood. 
 
 (864). II. Tim. i., 10; Heb. ii., 14; Rev. xxi., 4. 
 
 (865). That is, the human sufferings. 
 
 (866). That is, in ''His own impassibility y 
 
 (867). That is, of Christianity. 
 
 (868). This is not found in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, so far at least as I 
 have seen. Amphilochius wrote much, but it has, most of it, been lost. See on 
 his writings Sevestre's Di^ionnaire de Patrologie, article, ''Amphiloque.^^ 
 
 (869). aiviyfiaTa. 
 
 (870). Amphilochius here implies that the offering of incense as an act of 
 religious service is prerogative to God. This is in strict accordance with Matt, 
 iv., 10; Luke iv., 8. 
 
 (871). This is not found in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, so far at least as I 
 have seen. See the third note back. 
 
 (872). That is, '* out of the water and of the Spirit,'' according to Christ in 
 John iii., 5. Compare ''bath of rebirth and of the Holy Ghost's renewing^''^ \r\. 
 Titus iii., 5. 
 
 (873). Philip, ii., 7. 
 
Reading of the Opinion of the Fathers. 449 
 
 to Soyiship {Sjyf). For the Heavenly One descended upon earth, that 
 thou who art upon earth mayst be carried up into heaven. There- 
 fore the Anoi7ited One made Himself of 7io reputation {87s) ^ that we 
 all might receive of His fulriess (876). By His death immortality 
 came to thee (877). The sufferings of the Master became the ser- 
 vant's uplifting and exaltation. But thou receivest that benefaction 
 as an occasion for blasphemy (878;. 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria a7id Chief of the Secretaries said, 
 And we have in our hands books also of the blasphemies of the most 
 religious Nestorius, from one book of which we have chosen out short 
 chapters, which, if it please this Holy Synod, we will read. 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi said, Let them be read, and be inserted 
 to show [the fairness and] the good faith of the Christian A6ls (879). 
 And all the Bishops said in like manner: We all say the same. 
 
 (874). Galat. iv., 5; Eph. i., 5. 
 
 (875). Philip, ii., 7. 
 
 (876). Eph. iii., 19. 
 
 (877). Col. i. 22; II. Tim. i., 10; Heb. ii., 14, 15; I. Cor. xv., 53, 54- 
 
 (878). The Testimonies of Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, and those of 
 Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, are lacking in Vincent of Lerins' Commentary 
 by mistake, for, as Mansi {Cone. tom. iv., col. 1193, 1194) shows, they are found 
 in Greek and in old Latin translations. 
 
 (879). Kai EfKpepeaduaav ry ttIctel tuv Xpiariavuv Treirpay/uhuv. To put a thing 
 as approved into the Adls of an Ecumenical Synod gave it an Ecumenical 
 characfler. But the putting of Nestorius' blasphemies into these Acfls was to show 
 that the Synod had condemned him for just cause, and not in passion, and so 
 they are put into them as disapproved, which shows that they are Ecumenically 
 condemned. 
 
 (880). The word Terpddiov used here and below in the text means fottr, and 
 then comes to mean in binder's language four sheets, that is, 16 pages in all. 
 Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon defines, as follows: rerpadiov * * * the num- 
 ber four * * * 2. Four-leaved pamphlet.'' 
 
 That and the following may serve to explain the expression ''quaternion " 
 {rtrpa^iov) in the language of the Council of Ephesus on the quaternions of 
 Nestorius. 
 
 Eusebius in his Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Book IV. chapter 
 37 of the English translation published by Bagster, tells how the Emperor 
 ordered him to have fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures written for use in the 
 Churches of Constantinople; that they were to be '* in a commodious aiid port- 
 able form,'' etc. In chapter 38 of the same translation (37 in Migne's Greek). 
 Eusebius tells us how he had the order executed as follows: 
 
 "Such were the Emperor's commands, which were followed by the im- 
 mediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and 
 
450 Act I of Ephesus. 
 
 [Passage i]. A Passage taken out of the seventeenth (886) tetrad 
 of the Book of Nestorius on Dogma. And it was read as follows: 
 
 Whenever therefore the Scripture of God is about to speak 
 either of the birth of the Anointed One (88 1) out of Mary the Virgin, 
 or of His death, it seems nowhere to use the term God (^(?^),but the 
 Anointed One {883), or So?i, or Lord, because those three expressions 
 (884) are significative of the Two Natures; at one time, for example, 
 of one of them; at another time of the other; at still another time of 
 both of them. When the Scripture sets forth (885) to us the birth 
 
 elaborate volumes of a three-fold and four-fold form." On this last expression 
 Valesius, as there quoted remarks: 
 
 "The parchment copies were usually arranged in quaternions, that is, four 
 sheets made up together, as the ternions consisted of three sheets. The quater- 
 nions each contained sixteen pages, the ternions twelve: Valesius in loc." I 
 append Eusebius' Greek here: Tavra fxkv ovv fiaat/.evc dieKe?LeveTo' avrtKa 6' epyov 
 k-TjKoTiOvdEL T(I> Myif), Ev 7ro2.VTeXo)g T/GKrj/j.e.voic tevx^cfi- rptaaa koI rerpaaGa diaTrefiipdvTov 
 yiiuv. On the words rpiaad Koi TETpaaca in the above, note 91, col. 1185, tome 20 
 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, remarks as follows, (I translate it from the Latin 
 into English): 
 
 "The translator renders [the three Greek words above] by ' terniones ' and 
 ^ quaterniones' " [that is, in English '' ternions a.nd quaternions,'' that is "threes 
 and /ours.''"] For the membrane Codexes were, for the most part, arranged in 
 quaternions, that is, in four sheets fastened together, as the ternions are three 
 sheets fastened together. And the quaternions were wont to have [each of them] 
 sixteen pages; and the ternions, each of them twelve pages. Moreover on the 
 last page of the quaternion was marked the number of the quaternion, for in- 
 stance, I, 2, 3, and so on in order, as I have observed in the oldest codexes, both 
 Greek and Latin. In a most ancient codex of Gregory of Tours, which was 
 written nine hundred years ago [or "before A. D. 900"], on the last page of 
 the quaternion I found the following mark, " q. I," that is 'quaternio primus,' 
 [that is, in English "Jirst quaternion/''] But the reader is to be warned that 
 there is an enallage in the above words of Eusebius. For he has used the ex- 
 pression TEvpaaad ev tevxeol [that is, ''quaternions in seHions;'" when he should 
 rather have said, rEvxn ev TErpacaolg, [that is, in English " in quaternion 
 se^ions."] 
 
 The TSTpdSiov of Act I. of Ephesus, and the TETpaaad of Eusebius above I take 
 to mean the same. 
 
 (881). TOV XptGTOV. 
 
 (882). eedf. 
 
 (883). XpccTog Tj VLOQ, Tj Kvpiog, ETTELdrj TavTu rd rpla ruv ^vcecjv eici tuv 6vo 
 crjuavriKd. 
 
 (884). Namely, Anointed One, Son, and Lord. 
 
 (S85). Or, ''explains." 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, 451 
 
 out of the Virgin, it says, God sejit forth His So7t, (886); it has not 
 said, God sent forth God the Word, but it takes the name [Son] which 
 shows the two Natures. For since the Son is Man and God, it says, 
 God sent forth His Son, made out of a woma7i (88'/), (888), in order 
 that when thou hearest the expression made out of a womaji, then 
 thou mayest see that inasmuch as the name [Son] which precedes, 
 in the clause signifies the Two Natures, thou mayest call the birth 
 out of the holy Virgin the son's birth. For the Virgin Bringer- 
 Forth-of-the-Anointed-One (889) brought forth God's son, but pre- 
 cisely because the Son of God is double as regards His Natures (890), 
 she did not bring forth the Son of God, but she brought forth the 
 humanity (891), which [humanity] is Son because of the Son con- 
 joined to Him (892). 
 
 (886). Galat. iv., 4. 
 
 (887). Ibid. 
 
 (888). Greek, ytvofitvov m ywatKoc. 
 
 (889). Greek, ?7 XpiaroTOKog TrapdevoQ^ 
 
 (890). Or, ''the Natures." 
 
 (891). Or, " His humanity. " 
 
 (892). clTJC k-retdr^TTEp 6 Yiof rov Qeov 6iir?.ovg eari Kara rdf (ftvoeic, ovk eyevvrjcrt firtr 
 Tov Tlbv Toil Qeoi), a7Ji eyevvT^ae rip dvOpioTroTTjra, tjt'l^ eariv Tibg did rov awTJUfikvov Ylov. 
 Here amidst much that is misty after his wont, Nestorius, 
 
 1. Plainly denies the true dodlrine of the Incarnation. For he says clearly 
 that the Virgin ''did not bring forth the Son of God, but she brought forth the 
 humanity. '' Consequently God the Word must, according to his misbelief, have 
 entered the Man at some time after that birth. In other words, He did not 
 dwell Personally in him before his birth out of the Virgin, that is, the Person,, 
 that s, the Eternal Substance of God the Word did not. 
 
 2. He goes on to tell us in what sense he regards that humanity as being^ 
 Son: " which [humanity] isSon because of the Son conjoitied to him,'' that is, as- 
 Cyril of Alexandria in his Five- Book Co7itradi5lion of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
 torius shows, Nestorius held that the Man, though a creature could receive both 
 the titles and the worship due to God the Word because of his relation to the 
 Word, that is, relatively, as the heathen held that their images could be relatively 
 called gods, and relatively worshipped as such, because each deity dwelt in his 
 own image by his power. Such creature worship is condemned by Anathema 
 VIII. of St. Cyril, approved by the Third Council, by Anathemas IX. and XII. 
 of the Fifth Council and by its Definition, of which they form part. 
 
 But in what sense then does Nestorius speak of the Son of God as ''double 
 as regards His Natures ? " Does He mean that the Substaiice of God the Word 
 dwelt in the Man, to use his own expression, "conjoined to Him,'''' or does he 
 mean that God the Word dwelt in that Man by His Spirit only as he dwelt in. 
 the prophets ? 
 
452 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Passage 2.] Another Passage takeri out of the same book; tetrad 
 xxi., (893). 
 
 See the upshot, (894) O heretic. I do not grudge the expression 
 to tlie Virgin B ringer forth of the Anointed One; hnt I know that 
 she who received God is deserving of respect (895), she through 
 
 I answer, he means the latter. For he denies that God the Word was born 
 out of the Virgin's womb in the Man " conjozjied" to Him, to use his own ex- 
 pression again. See the words just quoted under head i above. 
 
 The Son of God, according to Nestorius, is composed of Two Natures, but 
 according to him, the divine Nature, that is, God the Word's Substance, is not 
 in the Man, and so there is no Personal Union between them, but only a union 
 of will and affedlion, as there was between a prophet and an apostle and God. 
 Cyril in his work above mentioned unearths and exposes this foxy heretic, or 
 perhaps we may say misty heretic. Any one w^ho would fully understand the 
 matters involved should read those Five Books of Cyril at the beginning of the 
 investigation. The view of the ancients and of the Third Ecumenical Synod 
 and the Fifth that Nestorius was a denier of the Incarnation and a 3fan-Server 
 {auHi)cj-o'AdTp7}(.) is clearly and indubitably borne out by the fadls. The modern 
 notion that he was innocent, and that he differed from Cyril and the Orthodox 
 in words only, was not his own view and is opposed to all the data given. It 
 was first started in modern times by men who did not fully understand the con- 
 trovers}'. When it comes to be thoroughly comprehended, the mistake will pass 
 away, so far at least as the intelligent are concerned. 
 
 I would add that Pusey, note " O," page 49 of his Oxford translation of Cyrit 
 of Alexandria on the Ittcartiation against Nestorius, omits the ''not'' before 
 *' bring forth the Son of God"' above. But the sense seems to demand it, and it 
 is in accordance with Nestorius' misbelief expressed by him in other places also- 
 Pusey states in effect that Marius Mercator omits the "?/c/," but it is given in 
 the quotation above of the Third Council and by Commel., as Pusey owns. It 
 seems therefore to be the true reading, and it is likely that Marius Mercator 
 translated from a copy which was defedlive here, or that a "«(?/" has been 
 omitted by some copyist of his version. 
 
 (893). A note in col. 1063, 1064, of tome 3, of Coleti's Concilia, remarks on 
 the above numbering: ''So Mercator: but an old editor, and some manuscripts 
 have 'tetrad iv.' " 
 
 (894). TO Gv/iSaivov. The words " O heretic" next following show that Nes- 
 torius did not deem the difference between himself and the Orthodox a mere 
 logomachy as some moderns have made it. No sound ancient did, nor have the 
 Nestorians themselves at any time. Their writings contain Anathemas again.st 
 Kphesus and its doctrine. 
 
 (895) • ^^^' ol6a GEjiaGjiiav rr/v 6£^aui:vT]v Oeov, dt' yr '77pny?.dsv 6 to)v o'Acjv GfoCi '^<' 
 r/c avt/.o.fi-\i>£ 77ic 6iKaioa'vr>K o if/uoq. Badger's Nestoriajis and their Rituals shows 
 that the present Nestorians are degraded invokers of the Virgin Mary. See 
 their own words thej-e given by him, their friend. 
 
Keadmg of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 453 
 
 whom the God of the Universe went forth (896), she through whom 
 the Sun of Righteousness (897) arose and shone forth. Again I sus- 
 pect your applause (898). How did you understand the expression 
 ivejit forth? I have not used the expression '^ weiit forth " (899) in 
 the sense of '* was born " (900), for I do not so quickly forget my 
 own words. That God the Word went forth (901) out of the Virgin 
 Bringer Forth of the Anointed One I have been taught by the Scrip- 
 tures of God, but that God was bo7'n out of her (902) I have nowhere 
 been taught (903). 
 
 [Passage 3]. A7id after some other words Nestorius says: 
 Therefore the Scripture of God nowhere says that God was born 
 out of the Virgin Bringer Forth of the Anointed One (904) but it 
 says \\12Xfesus Anointed, diXidL So7i and Lord{go^) [was born out of her], 
 and we all confess these [last three] expressions, for he who does not 
 receive the things which the Scripture of God has taught is certainly 
 a wretched man. The expression used by the angels is, Arise and 
 take the young child (poS) and his mother {poy). And the archangels 
 certainly knew the matters pertaining to the birth better than thou 
 
 (896) . All that Nestorius means by this is that God the Word by His Spirit 
 only, was in the Man born of the Virgin, before, during, and after his birth. Ke 
 denied that God the Word's divine Substance was in the Virgin's womb at any 
 time in that Man; see the context. According to him the God of the Universe 
 went forth through her, that is, by her, as the Greek here means, in that He sancti- 
 fied Christ's humanity in the womb and was then and afterwards by His Spirit in 
 the body which had been born out of her, and used it by inspiring it by His 
 Spirit to do His will, and like a prophet, to reveal God to men. 
 
 (897). Mai. iv., 2, 
 
 (898). Or, "■ your clapping,'''' rov Kporov. 
 
 (899). Greek, tw^, to ^'izporj'kdEv^* evoijaare) ovk EipTjTai fioi to '^ irpo^Wev,^* avri 
 Tov '' tyevvr/Orj.'" 
 
 (900). Greek, see last note. 
 
 (901). Greek, rrpoeXOdv. 
 
 (902). Greek, yewrjdyvai. 
 
 (903). This seems contradidlory, if we do not remember that Nestorius held 
 that God the Word by His Spirit alone dwelt in her, and when It went out of 
 her in the babe born of her, God the Word is said, according to Nestorius, to 
 have gone out of her, because His Spirit, not Himself in his Substance, went out 
 of her. But, Nestorius did not mean that the Substance of the Spirit was in the 
 babe but Its i^ifluence only. 
 
 (904). Greek, rriq XpioroToKov -rrapOkvov. 
 
 (905). Greek, ^Irjaovv Xpiorui^, Kal vVov, kul Kvpinv. 
 
 (906). Greek, to Trat^iov, little child and so young child. 
 
 (907). Matt, ii., iq, 20; the Greek there has angel, not angels. 
 
454 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 dost. He said, Arise and take the little child {908) and his mother. 
 He did not say, Arise ajid take God and His mother (pop). 
 
 [Passage 4]. Likewise from the same tetrad XXIV. 
 
 What therefore we have been saying is of the tenor following: 
 Fear not to take Mary thy wife, for that which is generated in her (pio) 
 orismade(pii), (for whether thon usest one or both of those ex- 
 pressions I'' is generated,'' (rswrjOi'^) or '' is made,'' (yevrjOiv )] wor]^s 
 no injury to the thought and the sense) for that which is generated 
 in her is of the Holy Spirit. [But], if we say that God the Word 
 WAS GENERATED IN THE FLESH, [it is an injury to the thought and 
 to the sense], for it is one thing for God the Word to be with that 
 
 (908), Greek, to Tzatdlov. 
 
 (909). This is the clap-trap style of oratory and of writing common 
 to unlearned mere popular preachers in all ages. He tries to turn into ridicule 
 his opponent's dogma that he may render more acceptable his own denial of the 
 Incarnation and his own service to the humanity of Christ, that is, his own Man* 
 Service, that is, Man- Worship. 
 
 (910). Matt, i., 20. The Greek, yEvvr]Bh in this verse is best rendered rc'w- 
 ceived as in our Common English Version, or begotten. But it can be rendered 
 generated as Nestorius takes it. Natum, {born), is the Latin rendering of it in 
 the parallel column in Coleti, but it is not a good one here. Nestorius aims to- 
 prove that the y^wrfih of Matt, i., 20, refers to one nature of Christ alone, that is, 
 to the humanity. And he implies that he takes that yevvrjOev, conceived, as equiva- 
 lent to yzvri^h made. But we reply, first that we do not find the latter reading 
 in Tischendorfs Editio O^ava Critica Major, except in two late manuscripts, 
 both of the ninth century. All the older manuscripts are for yEvvrjdtv, conceived. 
 Second, John i. , 14, shows that the Word was madejlesh. And so the Church 
 has well decided in the Third Synod that at the conception Mary received God 
 the Word into her womb Who there put on flesh, and came in due time into the 
 worid, God to be worshipped, and Man to worship, and to suffer and to die for 
 us, and not one nature alone, the humanity, for that ends in denial of the Incar- 
 nation and in worshipping a Man. 
 
 (911). A part of a word meaning ''made'' seems to be omitted in Coleti's 
 text here. I have supplied it fi-om the Latin in his parallel column. The Latin 
 translation of this part preserved in Act I. of Chalcedon is more definite and 
 clear. It is as follows: Quod igitur dicebamus. Noli timer e accipere Mariam 
 conjugem tuam: quod enim in ea natum, vel faElum est (quod sive per unam 
 " w "literam, sive per duas scribitur, sensui nihil praejudicat) de Spiritu Sancto 
 est. The notes in the margin of Coleti there (col. 1154 of tome iv. of his Con- 
 cilia), make this still clearer as follows: " ytvvriBkvm^2.xi%born, but ytvv^tv means 
 made,'' \ytvvr]Bh, nattim significat; yevrjdh vero fa^um\ Then in the text 
 direaiy after that last quoted, Nestorius adds: Si vero dixerimus quia Verbum 
 natus est \zytvvifir] is the Greek in Act I. of Ephesus here, and the Greek is found 
 nowhere else],in carne, aliud enim estsimul esse cumillo qui natus est, et ahud,. 
 
Readiiig of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 455 
 
 which is born, and another thing to be born Himself (912). For 
 the angel says, that which is gejierated [or ''conceived''^ hi her is of 
 the Holy Ghost (913), that is, the Holy Ghost created it in her. 
 
 nasci. On this last passage a marginal note in Coleti {Cone, torn. 4, col. 1154) 
 gives an explanation from a manuscript which is as follows: Quoniam si duas 
 posueris non [the '' no7i " is evidently a mistake of some copyist who did not 
 know Greek, for the Greek letter v, that is Nu'\ literas apud Graecos '* natus " 
 intelligitur, si vero una [that is. one Nu] ''fadlus.'" But natum, born, is not a 
 good translation for yevvTjdev, in Matt, i., 20, for the reference isto the conception, 
 not at all to the birth which is mentioned in the following verse as still future. 
 I give the context. Matt, i., 20, " Behold a?i aftgel of the Lord appeared unto 
 him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou Son of David, fear not to take unto thee 
 Mary thy wife for that which is conceived in her [jo yap h avry yswr/Oiv) is of 
 the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shall call his name 
 Jesus. '^ The Greek of the last part of verse 20 may be rendered in such a way 
 as to make it refer to God the Word as conceived in Mary's womb, that is, if we 
 take Spirit there as some of the ancients commonly understood and used that 
 word, in the sense of Divinity. Thus, to yap h avTij yewrjdev ek Trvevfiaroc hriv dyiov, 
 may in that case well be translated, ^^ For that which is conceived in her is out 
 of Holy Divin ity. ' ' 
 
 The true reading of the defe6tive place above is given in note 920 below in 
 the original Greek; see there. 
 
 I would add that the translation of the clause yewrjUevTa, ov Ttoirjd^evTa in the 
 Creed of the First Ecumenical Council and of the Second, by begotten, not made, 
 is singularly unhappy and misleading. For we use the term beget in the sense 
 oi procreate a.ndi get a.n6. procure, and that of things that had neither birth nor 
 existence before, in which sense it is equivalent to make or create. But God the 
 Word was eternally immanent in the Father as a part of the consubstantial Divin- 
 ity (0 Adyof Evdiddtroq, the Word inside the Father) and was not born out of Him 
 till just before the worlds were made and to make them, when He became the 
 Word borne Forth, 6 Koyoq TvpocpopiKog, as St. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch about 
 A. D. 171-183 well explains. See in the General Index to vol. I. of Nicaea in 
 this Set, under " Theophilus St., of Antioch. " I hope to show these things more 
 at length in an Essay on Eternal Birth in this Set. The words yewr/^ivTa, oh 
 -Koirj^kvTa are well rendered natum, non fa<5lum, by Hilary of Poidliers in his 
 Latin Version of the Nicene Creed (see the second edition of Hahn's Bibliothek 
 der Symbole, page 81). So Dionysius Exiguus renders the same Greek words in 
 his Latin of the Creed of the Second World-Synod, natum non fadlum, (Hahn 
 id., page 83) which I have followed in my English of the Creed of the First 
 Council on page 307 of vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 (912). Nestorius admitted that God the Word was with the Man at his 
 birth, that is by His Spirit, but he would not admit that He (God the Word) was 
 incarnate in the Virgin's womb and born out of her in the Man taken from her 
 substance. 
 
 (913). Matt, i., 20. The Greek yivv'n-^kv,'Che common reading here, has two 
 
456 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Therefore the Fathers (914) who were skilled in the Scriptures of 
 God saw that if w^e use the expression borjt (915) regarding Him 
 ys:\io put on flesh (916), God the Word will be found to be the Son 
 of the Spirit, or to have two Fathers (917), or if we assert that God 
 the Word was made (918) then He will be found to be a creation of 
 the Spirit (919). Therefore the}^ shunned the expression, birth 
 
 chief meanings, i, of the Father, to beget; 2, of the mother, to conceive, to bear, 
 to bring forth. Our Common English Version gives here conceived, and in the 
 margin begotten. The reference is to Christ's humanity, but at the same time 
 the Divine Substance of God the Word put on that humanity in Mary's womb, 
 a fact which Nestorius here denies. See John i., 14, the great Orthodox text 
 against his heresy. 
 
 (914). Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, were the chief 
 teachers of the Nestorian party. Therefore Cyril in tracing the error and heresy 
 to its source deemed it his duty to write against both of them. Fragments of 
 his writings against them are still preserved, and are Englished on pages 320- 
 362 of the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
 against Nestorius. 
 
 (915). QfX^Q^s., Tov ytvvTi^kv-a. 
 
 (916). Greek, 'Eav '^kX top oapKoj^^evTa ^^cifiev rbv yEvvr]-&evra. See the Greek of 
 the context in a note below. The above expression may also be rendered, " If 
 we use the expression * begotten^ regarding Him who took flesh," that is, re- 
 garding God the Word. Nestorius, as his language in these Twenty Passages 
 from him shows, did not believe that the Substance of God the Word had put on 
 flesh, but only that His Spirit indwelt Christ's flesh as It had the prophets' flesh. 
 In that sense alone did He take flesh, according to his heresy. 
 
 (917). By " two Fathers,'' I presume that Nestorius means God the Father 
 and God the Holy Ghost. 
 
 (918). yevr]-&h, is the Greek word here meant. 
 
 (919). The Latin has ''of the Holy Spirit,'' instead of ''ofthe Spirit. " See 
 this place quoted at Chalcedon in Coleti's Concilia, tome iv., col. 1155. 
 
 The calibre of this man's mind can be seen from the above. He 
 makes y?.vvri"dkvra, conceived, in the passage above equivalent to yevrjdev, made. 
 But ytvvj^dtvra does not always have the sense of made, created, and certainly 
 not in the Credal expression y£vvj]'&hra, oh Koi.^'devTa, where bor7i, used of God the 
 Word does not mean that He was created, as even Nestorius himself would con- 
 fess. Indeed the whole Church in the First Ecumenical Synod and the Second 
 had used that very word yevv/j'&evTa in the sense of borfi in direct opposition to 
 created in the clause born, not made {yevvTi&lvra, oh vroLrj'&EVTa), said of God the 
 Word Himself. This clause is exadlly the same in the Symbol of the First 
 Synod and in that of the Second. Besides the Anathema of the First Synod, at 
 the end of its Creed, curses those who say, ''that the Son of God * * * was 
 not before He was born," which is an implied condemnation of the Arian error 
 
Readiiig of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 457 
 
 (920) and used the words ' * Who came dowfi for us men, and for our 
 salvation, took flesh " (921). What is took flesh f He was not changed 
 from Divinity into flesh. By using the expression 'took flesh of the 
 
 into which Nestorius seems to have fallen that born means made or created, in 
 the passage of which he is speaking. And Nestorius professed to hold to the 
 First Synod, and in all probability to the Second also, for we never read of his 
 rejecting It. Theophilus of Antioch, Nestorius' own former home, had spoken 
 of God the Word as the Word in atid through the Father (6 Koyoq kv6Ld-&eT0(j) be- 
 fore He became the Word boryie forth (0 Ao^oc TrpocpopiKOi^) out of him by birth just 
 before the worlds were made and to make them. I quote this part of the Greek 
 from the Cone. Colle^is Regia, tom. 5, Paris, 1644, page 510, where the Greek 
 is given more accurately than in Coleti: oiztp ovv D.eyoiiev M?) (l)olirj-&yq Tvapalajieiv 
 Mapia/n TTjv yvvalKa gov. To yap kv avry yevvjj'&ev, elre 6ia rov tvog v, e'Lte Slcl tuv 6vo t<1) 
 vot/liaTiovdev Tiv/naiverar to yap hv avryrex^^v ek livevfiaToq ectiv ' Ayiov kav eIttcj/xev, on 
 6 0fof Aoyog kyEvvrj^r] kv ry aapKi. 'Aa^io yap to avvEivai rtj ytwu^uivoj, Kal a?i?io to 
 )tvvaa-&aL. To yap hv avTy, (pTjal, yEvv7]-&Ev ek UvEVfiaTog egvlv 'Ayi.ov, tovteoti, to UvEVfia 
 TO "Ayiov EKTiGE TO Ev avTxi. Eidov ovv OL TtaTEpeg^ug EniGTr/fiovEg Tcbv Oeicjv Tpa(j)(ov oti iav 
 ettI tov GapKU)-&£VTa ^(bjUEV Tou yevvt]-&EVTa, EvpiGKETai Tj Tiog UvEv/uaToc o 0£«f Aoyog i] fivo 
 naTspag exo)V, tj 6l^ evoq v EvpE&r/GErai 6 Qebg Adyoc KTiG/m tov UvEVjuaTog iov. 
 
 The allusions to the two forms yEvv7j&£v and yEVTj^iv in Matthew i., 20, may 
 imply that those were readings in that verse then. But Tischendorf in his 
 Greek Testament {Editio OHava Critica Major, Lipsiae, 1869) P^ts yEvvtjdh in 
 the text, and gives the le(5lion yEvrj-dh as that of only two manuscripts, both of 
 the ninth century. 
 
 Above I have endeavored to make the sense of Nestorius as plain as I could 
 to the English reader. 
 
 But the Greek Scholar alone can understand Nestorius' linguistic argument 
 here. I translate it literally; 
 
 " What therefore we have been saying is of the tenor following: Fear not 
 to take Mary thy wife. For that which is (^/evvi]-&ev) begotten in her. Whether 
 we read yewyi^fv, made, which has but one Nu, oxyivvn^h, begotten, which has two 
 Nus, works no injury to the thought and the sense, for [the meaning will still 
 be] that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Ghost. [But] if we say that God 
 the Word was begotten {h/£vvr]^ri) in the flesh [it is an injury to the thought and 
 the sense]: for it is one thing [for God the Word] to be with that thing which is 
 born [rw yevvuuevio] and another thing to be born {yEvvaG^aL) [Himself]. 
 
 For the angel says that which is begotten {yEvv?/<^{v) in her is of the Holy 
 Ghost, that is, the Holy Ghost made (ektige) it in her. Therefore the Fathers 
 who were skilled in the Scriptures of God saw that if we use the expression be- 
 gotten {tov yEvv7]^fvTa) regarding Him who took fles/i, God the Word will be 
 found to be the Son of the Spirit, or to have two Fathers: or if we use only one 
 Nu and so say that God the Word was made {yEvr]-&Ev), then He will be foujid to 
 be a creature [that is, " a creation "] of the Spirit. 
 
 (920). Greek, Tr/g ytvvt/GEui,. 
 
458 Act I of Ephesus. 
 
 Holy GhosV (921;, they followed the Evangelist. For the Evange- 
 list when he came to the Inman (922) avoided the assertion of bir-th 
 <923) regarding the Word] and yxs^^ putting on flesh (924). Where? 
 Hear: 'And the Word was made flesh' (925). He did not say, ^The 
 Word was born in flesh (926). For whenever either the Apostles or 
 the Evangelists make mention of the Son, they use the expression, 
 ^He was borri out of a woma7i ' (927). Attend, I pray to what is said: 
 wherever they mention the name of the Son (928) and say that he 
 was born out of a woman (929) they use the expression, ' he was 
 born,' but wherever they make mention of the Word none of them 
 has dared to assert a birth [of Him, that is, of God the Word] in the 
 humanity (930). Listen: the blessed John the Evangelist having 
 come to the Word and His Inman (931), hear what sort of words he 
 litters, 'The Word was made flesh,' that is, took flesh, ^ and tabernacled 
 among us,' that is, put on our nature, and dwelt among us; and we 
 saw his glory (932), that is, the glor}^ of the Son. He did not say We 
 saw the birth of the Word. ' ' 
 
 [Passage 5]. Another Passage also from the same book [of Nes- 
 torius], tetrad XV., 07i Dogma : 
 
 (921). Took flesh is in the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod, and 
 m that of the Second. But the words, '' of the Holy Ghost,'' are in the latter 
 alone. And we must remember that the discussion here between Nestorius and 
 Cyril of Alexandria is as to the meaning of the Credal teaching of the Universal 
 Church on the Incarnation and on Christ. 
 
 (922). Greek, riiv kvavdpuTTTjaiv. 
 
 (923). Greek, yivvrjciv. 
 
 (924). Greek, adpKioaiv. 
 
 (925). Johni., 14; 
 
 (926). Or '' by flesh " {Sia capKog), that is, by the aid of o. human being, like 
 the Virgin for instance. 
 
 (927). Greek, tK. ywaiKoq. 
 
 (928). By the Word " S07i " here, Nestorius means evidently the Man alone. 
 The term ''So7i " was to him ''significative,'''' as he says above, ''of the Two Na- 
 tures,'"' only that it reminded him of his own idea of a connexion between that 
 Man and God the Word, not of the Orthodox idea. 
 
 (929). Greek, ta yvvaiKoc. 
 
 (930). Greek, yewTjoLv dia rr/g av^pioTzoTTjTot;. But Cyril shows elsewhere that 
 this is in substance said in John i., 14, and in Philippiaus ii., 5-9. And the 
 passages of the Fathers quoted above in this Act I. show that the Church had 
 ever held to the true dodlrine that God the Word Himself took flesh and put on 
 a Man in the womb of the Virgin, and in that Man was born out of her. 
 
 (q'^i). Greek, ryv kvav&poyiTrjGiv avTov. 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 459 
 
 So also we name the man who was Anointed according to the 
 flesh, God, because of his conjoinment with God, (933) though we know 
 that which appears as man. Hear Paul proclaiming both [those] 
 things; Of tiie fews, says he, is the Anointed One as it regards the flesh, 
 WIio is God over all (934). He confesses the man first, and then 
 calls that which appears God, by reason of its conjundlion with God, 
 in order that no one may suspect Christianity of serving a Man (935)- 
 
 [Passage 6]. Another Passage likewise from the sa7ne book\oi 
 Nestorius], tetrad XXV I I., (936).- 
 
 But as we have been wont to say that God is the Creator of all 
 things, and that Moses was a god; for it says, / have placed thee a god 
 to the Pharaoh (937) and [as] it calls Israel a Son of God; for Israel, it 
 
 (932). John i., 14. 
 
 (933). See against this Cyril's A.nathema VIII. 
 
 (934). Rom. ix., 5. 
 
 (935). As " that which appears'' of the Son is only the Man put on by God 
 the Word, of course to call that Man God, for the sake of the Word who in- 
 dwelt him, according to Nestorius, by His grace alone, is relative creature ser- 
 vice, as Cyril of Alexandria in effect shows, in his writings against Nestorius. 
 Hence the Eighth of his Twelve Anathemas curses it. And Nestorius was so 
 ^-ell aware that to call the Man put on God, is an act of service that he tries like 
 the heathen to fall back on the plea of relative service to defend service to a 
 creature. And he was so unlearned and foolish as to suppose that by that at- 
 tempt at evasion he had brought it to pass ''that 110 one f night suspect'' his 
 paganized kind of ''Christianity of Man-Service," that \s," of serving a Man." 
 See how Cyril of Alexandria refutes his relative service in the Oxford translation 
 of his works "on the Incarnation against Nestorius," pages 63 to 80 inclusive. 
 On page 67 in the margin we see that Cyril a(5lually used the term relatively 
 ((T;tf ''«"C) which is mistranslated by P. E. Pusey, who I fear, sympathized to some 
 extent with paganized Christianity, such as Romanism, etc. See his translation 
 oi Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius; Index of Greek 
 words under gx'^o^l and ax>^TiKr]v and cx^TiKidq. The Greek of the above is as 
 follows in Coleti Cone, tom. 3, col. 1065: Ovtu Kal rbv Kara adpKa Xfjiarbv en rfjq 
 TTpof Qtov Koyov avva<l>eiag Qebv bvo/idl^oiLiev, ipatvbfxevou eldoTeq cjc dvdpuTVov. 'Akovgov tov 
 Uav?.ov aju^orepa KTjpvrrovToq' 'Ef 'loviaiuv, cprjalv, 6 Xpiarbq rb Kafd aapKa, 6 uv e-l ttclvtuv 
 eeof bfioTioyei rbv avOpuKov tt port pov, Kal tote tij tov Qeoi) avva<peia deoXoyei Tb (paivofievov, 
 \va fiT)()ELq av6po)Tro?.aTpeiav Tbv Xptariavia/xbv vTzovrTEvari. 
 
 (936). "Rusticus the Deacon cites this place in his book adv. Aceph," (note 
 in col. 1067, tome 3, of Coleti's Concilia.) 
 
 (937). Exod. vii., I. On\.h.\ssQQ Rosenmiilleri Scholia in Vetus Testameji- 
 tum. Nestorius perverts the expression to make it favor his creature service. 
 Cyril of Alexandria well refutes him. 
 
 (938). Exod. iv., 22; Numbers iii., 12; Jerem. xxxix., 9. But God does not 
 say that Israel was born out of His divine Substance. 
 
460 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 says, is my first born So7i (938) : and as we have been wont to say- 
 that Saul was an Aiioiiited One, for it says, / will not lay viy ha?idup07t 
 him, for he is the Lord' s Anoi^ited (939), and [as] the same expression 
 A)wi7ited is used of Cyrus likewise, for it says, These very things 
 saith the Lord to Cyrus my Aiiointed; and as it calls the Babylonian 
 holy, for it says, / will ordaiii for them, They are sa7in:ified [that 
 is, ''made holy,"'] and I lead the7n (940). So we say that the 
 Master A 7iointed also is God, and So7i, and holy, and A7ioi7ited. But 
 though the use of the names (941) is common [to both Natures 
 alike], yet the dignity [of the Two] is not the same. 
 
 [PASSA.GE 7]. A7iother Passage also from the same Book [of Nes- 
 torius], tetrad XV. 
 
 Let this mi7id be in yoic which was also in A7ioi7ited fesus; Who 
 being in God' s form, made Himself of 710 reputatio7i, having taken a 
 servant' s form (942). It has not said, Let this 'mi7id be in you, which 
 ivas also i7i God the Word, Who bei^ig i7i God' s form, took a serva7it' s 
 for7n: but, having taken the expression A7ioi7ited (943) as an appel- 
 lation significative of the two Natures, it saj^s without any danger 
 [to souls] both that he took a servant's form and names him God 
 (944), the things aforesaid being separated blamelessly into the 
 duality of the Natures (945). 
 
 (939)- I- Sam. xxiv., 6, 10. Cyril refutes all these arguments in his works 
 against Nestorius. See the Oxford translation, pp. 54-58, 210, 271, 302, cp. 360. 
 
 (940). Isaiah xiii., 3, Septuagint; edit. Oxonii, 1859. Van Ess' edition of 
 1835, {Lipsiae), omits a part of what is in the edit. Oxon. in this verse. 
 
 (941). That is, the names God, and Son, and holy, and Anointed. Cyril 
 shows that all these appellations are to be applied to the Word alone, and that 
 no man can be called god in the proper sense. See what I have quoted else- 
 where in this work from him. And we must follow his views on this to avoid 
 serving the Man put on, for, if we do not, we violate Christ's law against serving 
 any but God in Matt, iv., 10, and in Luke iv., 8. And this is the sense of the 
 Eighth of his Twelve Anathemas, and of the First and Ninth of those of the 
 Fifth Ecumenical Synod. Just below instead of, ''yet the dignity [of the Two] 
 IS not the same,'' we may render, ''yet the dignity [of the names] is not the 
 same;'" that is, the name God, he may mean, refers to God, whereas in the pas- 
 sages just cited by him, he thinks So7i and holy and Anointed means Christ's 
 humanity. 
 
 (942). Philip, ii., 5, 6, 7. 
 
 (943). Greek, 6 Xpiarog. 
 
 (944). The virus of this is the calling of the mere creature God; for this, of 
 course, means that the humanity of Christ is called God which is an act of Man- 
 Service and hence of Creature-Service. 
 
 (945). This denies the Personal, that is the Substance Union of God the 
 Word to the Man taken; that is it denies that God the Word by His Eternal 
 Substance is infleshed in that Man. 
 
Readifig of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, 461 
 
 [Passage 8]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
 Nestorius], tetrad XV I. : 
 
 It says, ' ' That at the name offesus (p^^) every knee should boiv, of 
 things in heaveyi, and of thi^igs on earth, afidof thi7igs under the earth; 
 and that every to?igue should cofif ess that fesus Anointed is Lord ' ' (947). 
 I WORSHIP (948) HIM [the Man, that is, Christ's humanity] who is 
 
 WORN, FOR the SAKE OF HIM [God the Word] who wears. I BOW 
 TO HIM WHO IS SEEN, FOR THE SAKE OF HiM [God the Word] WhO IS 
 
 HIDDEN. God is unseparated from him [the Man] who appears. For 
 that reason I do not separate the honor of the unseparated 
 One. I separate the Natures, but I unite the bowing (949). 
 
 (946). The Greek may be rendered ^^ in the name," or ^^ at the name " as 
 in our EngHsh Common Version. 
 
 (947). Philip, ii., 9, 10. 
 (948). Greek, ck^ui. 
 
 (949). Coleti Cone, tom. 3, col. 1068, Am rhv (popovvra rbu <popovfiEvov akjiu. 
 Aid roi) neKOVfi/uevov TrpoaKvucj tov (paivo/uevov. 'Ax^jpiorog rov (paivojuevov Qeog. Aid tovto 
 
 TOV llfj ;i;Wp<^0//£yOV TTjV Tlfif/V OV Xf^pl(o). Xwp^O) TOC (pVGeL^^ d72.' evC) TTjV npOGKVVJJGlV. 
 
 The creature service of this passage which is full oi relative worship to Christ's 
 humanity, Cyril of Alexandria ably exposes and refutes in his Five-Book Con- 
 tradiElion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. See the Oxford translation of 6". 
 Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation agaifist Nestorius, especially pages 54 
 to 80 inclusive, where some of the very language of Nestorius above is quoted 
 and refuted. See also pages 85-87, note, in this volume. And when Cyril re- 
 futes that higher and most plausible kind of the sin of relative service, that is, 
 relative worship to the Man put on by God the Word, given to that Man because 
 of God the Word who dwelt in him, much more does he, by necessary implica- 
 tion, refute the lower and still more debased forms of relative service such as 
 bowing to altars, images painted, that is pidtures, images graven, to relics, or to 
 any other things or to any creature animate or inanimate, because of God. And 
 of course, he refutes also all those erroneous views on the Eucharist which teach 
 men to worship Christ's humanity as present in that rite, and also the error of 
 worshipping Christ's Divinity as there or any where but in heaven. 
 
 On the words above, "/ worship him [the Man] zuho is worn for the sake of 
 Him [God the Word] Who zuears: I bow to him [the Man] who is seen for the 
 sake of Him [God the Word] Who is hidden,'' Pusey, note " v," page 75 of his 
 English translation oi S. Cyril on the Incarnation agai^ist Nestorius states: 
 
 "These words are extant in Nestorius' first Sermon, page 55, Baluz., but 
 some phrases are repeated in Serm. 2, page 65 just following S. Cyril's last cita- 
 tion. The words Because of ihe zvearer I worship the worn, are not in this part 
 of the second Sermon, yet are quoted (pp. 114, 115) in a long piece extra(5led (all 
 but these words) from Serm. 2, and again in page 207 and in an extract from the 
 i6th quire in which this sermon was. The words here cited are likewise cited 
 by Cyril in his Great Letter to Nestorius. Three Epistles, page 64." I have 
 
462 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Passage 9]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
 Nestorius], tetrad XVI I. 
 
 For God the Word was Son and God even before the Inman, 
 and was together with the Father, but in later times He took the 
 form of a serva7it (950). But before that He was Son and was called 
 Son. Since that taking [of flesh] (951) [however], He [Ihe Word] 
 
 translated them above, pages 221-224. Because the Universal Church condemned 
 these words as in the above quotations from Nestorius, and by approving Cyril's 
 condemnation of them in the '■' Great Letter ^^ just mentioned, as it did at 
 Ephesus, A. D. 431, and in the Three Ecumenical Synods after it, therefore it may 
 be justly said that it has five times condemned all relative service to Christ's hu- 
 manity, and by necessary im,plication all relative service to any creature less than 
 ity and all other creature service no less than five iim,es, that is to say, 
 
 1. By condemning the above quotation as on page 449, and below; 
 
 2. By condemning it as in Cyril's Great Letter mentioned above; 
 
 3. By condemning it in the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, for it approved all 
 the work of the Third, and hence approved its condemnation of that error; 
 
 4. By condemning it in the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, which approved all 
 the work of the Third, and hence approved its condemnation of that error; 
 
 5. By condemning it in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which approved all 
 the work of the Third, and hence approved its condemnation of that error. 
 
 In two other instances at least worship of any kind to Christ's humanity 
 was in effect condemned by the ^^ one, holy^ universal and apostolic Chtirch'''' 
 which Christ Himself commands us to hear under pain of being accounted by 
 all his flock as "« heathen ma7i and a publican " (Matt, xviii., 17), that is, aliens 
 from His grace and salvation while we remain so disobedient; that is, 
 
 6. By approving by a ujianimous vote in the Third Ecumenical Synod the 
 Short Epistle to Nestorius which expressly and clearly rejedls it. See it above, 
 pages 79-93; and 
 
 7. By expressly condemning it as Man-Service and a crime in the Defi- 
 nition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod: its Anathema XII. also condems it. 
 
 To which I will add 8, 9, 10, and 11, the approval of the Eighth of Cyril 
 of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas with the rest of Cyril's ^^ Great Epistle'''' 
 which contains it, by the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Synods, 
 every one of said Synods always approving all the Ecumenical Synods before it. 
 
 And 12 and 13, The Ninth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod con- 
 demns it, which, with all the work of the Fifth, was approved by the Sixth. 
 
 I have translated and quoted much from the Third Ecumenical Council and 
 from the Fifth, and from St. Cyril and from St. Athanasius on all those themes, 
 in notes 156, 183, 580, 581, 582 and 583. Compare Cyril in the note on page 118 
 above, and see the advocacy by Nestorians of worship to Christ's humanity on 
 pages 120, 121, 125 and 126, id. 
 
 A few words on the Scripture passage which stands at the head of Passage 8 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 463 
 
 can not be called a separate Son, lest we bring in the dogma of two 
 Sons. But because the Man has been conjoined to Him Who was 
 Son in the beginning, for that reason. He can not admit of division 
 as it respe(5ls the dig7iity of soiiship; I say as it respedls the dignity of 
 sonship, not as it respe<5ls the [Two] Natures (952). For that reason 
 
 of Nestorius. 
 
 St. Cyril understood verses 9, 10 and 11 of Chapter Second of Philippians to 
 teach the worship not of Christ's humanity but of His Divinity, whereas Nes- 
 torius understood them to inculcate the worship of His humanity with God the 
 Word. Furthermore, Cyril understood the whole passage, Philippians ii., 5-1 1, 
 inclusive, of the humiliation and exaltation and worship of God the Word, even 
 that Word Who is mentioned in verse 6 as having been in God's form before His 
 Incarnation, and Who therefore, as being God, ''thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God'' (Philip, ii., 6). Nestorius, on the other hand, held the humil- 
 iation, the exaltation, and the worship there to mean the humiliation, exaltation, 
 and worship of His mere humanity, for as he denied any Incarnation of God the 
 Word, his Christ was therefore a mere Man, that is, a mere creature, and all wor- 
 ship of him was therefore, as St. Cyril shows, mere Man-Worship. Cyril makes 
 Nestorius' Man-Worship clear in his Five Book ContradiHion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nestorius, Book II., Secflions 10, 11 and 12 (pages 72-77 of the 
 Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against 
 Nestorius). The Greek is in P. E. Pusey's edition of Cyril, Vol VI., 
 pp. 121-129. Compare secflion 12 of his Scholia, (pages 198-200 of that 
 translation); and Book V., sedlions, i, 2, 3 and 4, of Cyril's Five-Book Contra- 
 di5lion (pages 164-174 of the said translation); and Cyril's Christ is One, pages 
 271-287, id., where pages 273 and pages 276, 277 and 278 are especially pertinent 
 against Nestorius' Man Worship and his perversion of Philippians ii., 9, 10 and 
 II to defend it, as pages 308, 309 and 310, 229, 152, 169, 319 and 354, id., also 
 are. Compare pages 242, 91, 183, 224, 366. Cyril on page 169 speaks of 
 Nestorian error as ''the most utter blasphemy, ''' and proves that Christ was God 
 because He is worshipped in Philip, ii., 10, 11. His predecessor, Athanasius, 
 God's noble Protester, that is Protestant, against Arian Creature-Worship, had 
 used the same argument to prove that the Logos is God. See Vol. I. of Nicaea 
 in this Set, pages 217-240, So Epiphanius on pages 240-247, id. For more re- 
 ferences to Cyril on Philippians ii., 5-11 inclusive, see that place in P. E. Pusey's 
 edition oftheGreek of Cyril, Vol. VI., and Vol., VII. Part I. mWi^ Index Rerum 
 under Scripturarum, and in his Index Locorum SS. Scripturae. He often refers 
 to it to refute the Nestorian perversion of it to Man- Worship. 
 
 (950). Phihp. ii., 7. 
 
 (951). Greek, [xtTo. rf/v avd?ir/ipiv. As there is no word for "fesh '' in the 
 Greek here, the expression might mean ''since his ascension.'' But as the Latin 
 Tenderer understands the expression in the sense of the text and as it seems 
 most probable, I follow it. See it in col. 1156 of tome 4, of Coleti's Concilia. 
 
 (952). The text of Coleti is very corrupt here, in part owing I think, to a 
 
4G4 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 God the Word is named Anoi7ited also, because He has the perpetual 
 (953) conjoinment with the Anointed One, [the Man]. 
 
 [Passage 10]. Another Passage likewise from the sa7ne Book [of 
 Nestorius], tetrad XV. On Dogma: 
 
 Therefore let us keep the unmixed conjoinment of the [Two] 
 Natures. Let us confess the God in a Man. Let us worship the 
 Man co-bowed to with the Almighty God in the divine con- 
 joinment (954). 
 
 [Passage ii]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
 Nestorius], tetj^ad VI . isSS)' 
 
 And consider what it straightway subjoins to those things: That 
 it says, He inight become a ^nerciful and faithful High Priest in those 
 tJmigs which pertain to God. For in that He Himself hath sufl'e7'ed, 
 
 repetition of some words by the copyist. I have preferred the reading of the 
 German edition given in his margin. Anathema IV. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council curses the Nestorian error of a union of the Word and a Man not by an 
 Incarnation of the Word in that Man, but in a mere union of * ' dignity or equality 
 of honor,'" * * * as though Christ's mere human, created, finite nature could 
 be exalted to the same dignity and rank as the divine, uncreated, and infinite 
 Nature of God the Word ! As though that claim were not a plain blasphemy ! 
 As though any Christian should not at once see it to be so ! The same Ana- 
 thema goes on to teach that, 
 
 "The Nestorians, quite clearly asserting two Persons, pretend to assert that 
 there is [but] one Person and one Christ in name and honor and rank [or, 'dig- 
 nity''] and worship alone." Then it goes on to say of such a Nestorian, 
 
 " But he does not acknowledge that the union of God the Word has been 
 made with flesh animated by a rational and intelle(5lual soul, by being put to- 
 gether, that is, by their substances." Here we have again not only the denial 
 of the Inman, but the giving the name of God the Word to a mere creature, 
 which is anathematized in St. Cyril's Anathema VIII. approved by Ephesus, and 
 the giving that mere creature the '' honor a7id rank [or, ''dignity''] and wor- 
 ship which belong to God the Word: See Passages 8, 9 and 10 of Nestorius above, 
 and see how Cyril denounces such Nestorian heresies in his Five- Book Contra- 
 diction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, and in Cyril's Scholia. 
 
 (953). Or ''continual,'" diTjvEKy. 
 
 (954). Coleti's Concilia, tome 3, col. 1068: aavyxv'^'^ -oivw t7)v tuv (pvaeuv 
 T7]pC)fLtv cvvdcpetav 6/j.o'Aoy(jfj.ev tov ev dvOpcjiro) Qeov Ge(3o)fiEV tov t?/ dslg ovvacpela tl> iravro- 
 KpciTopt OeC) avfj,7rpo(7Kvvov/uevov avdpuTTov. This is plain Man-Service, that is, service 
 to the Man put on by God the Word, and hence, it is Creature-Service, that is 
 Creature- Worship, for Man is a creature. Hence the Universal Church has 
 strongly condemned it, as did St. Cyril of Alexandria. I have referred to this 
 Passage on page 224 above, note. 
 
 (955). The Latin translation of this in Act I. of Chalcedon adds, " On 
 Dogma." See it in col. 1157, tome 4, in Coleti's Concilia. 
 
Reading of the Blasphe^nies of Nestorius. 465 
 
 bei7ig tempted, He is able to succor those who are tempted (p>5<5). There- 
 fore he who suffered is a merciful High Priest, But the temple (957) 
 is liable to suffering, not the God who gave life to him who suffered 
 (958). 
 
 [Passage 12]. Another Passage likewise from the same Book [of 
 Nestorius] , tetrad XX Vll. : 
 
 That ye may learn, it says, how exalted was the conjoinment of 
 the Divinity, and of the Master's flesh seen in an infant. For the 
 Same One was an infant, and lyord of the infant. Ye have praised 
 the expression, but do not applaud it without examination. For I 
 said The Same One was an infant and a dweller in the infant (959). 
 
 [Passage 13]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
 [of Nestorius], tetrad I. : 
 
 (956), Or, "tried." 
 
 (957)- Greek, 6 vaoq. This expression was applied by the Nestorians to the 
 body of Christ. I presume they followed in this use of terms Christ's words in 
 John ii., 21, 22. The Orthodox agreed with them in the propriety of using that 
 term, but faulted them, 
 
 1. For denying that God the Word's Substance verily dwelt in that temple, 
 and, 
 
 2. For worshipping that created thing, because by Christ's own utterance 
 in Matt, iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8, every act of religious service, be it bowing, the 
 most common of all, prayer, incense, prostration, or any other, is prerogative to 
 God alone, that is, to God the Father, to God the Eternal Word, and to God the 
 Bternal Spirit. 
 
 (958). Cyril and the Church meet this argument by admitting that God's 
 divine Substance can not suffer, but assert that inasmuch as the Man put on be- 
 longed to the Word, therefore all his human things are to be Economically 
 ascribed to God the Word, that men may be taught to pray still to God for help 
 and not to a creature, lest we become creature-servers, that is, servers of a crea- 
 ture. See on that page 237-240 in vol i. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 (959)- This way of speaking is condemned in the Twelve Anathemas of 
 Cyril and in his Five Books against Nestorius, and in the Anathemas of the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Synod. And undoubtedly its tendency is to teach men to divide 
 the Natures in the Son, and so to blur up the Infinite Nature's, that is, the 
 Word's Superiority, and to teach us to look to the man as well as to the Word for 
 help and so to bring in Man-Worship, whereas, Cyril teaches on pages 79 and 
 225 above, that we should, in the Son, worship the Word alone, Who however 
 does the human things by His humanity. 
 
 (960). '^■KoaractGL, that is, Persons. According to the faith of the Universal 
 Church from the beginning the Three Subsistences of the Trinity are of one and 
 the same Substance: those three Beings, the Father, the Word and the Holy 
 Spirit are but one Being, for they are parts of one whole complete Trinity. 
 
466 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 For the operations of the Trinity are common, and have a dis- 
 tin(ftion in the Subsistences (960) alone. Therefore the good glory 
 of the Sole-Born is some times ascribed to the Father; for, // z>, says 
 He, my Father that glorifieth me {961); sometimes to the Spirit, for 
 it says, the Spirit of Truth will glorify 77ie {962); sometimes to the 
 power of the Anointed One (963). 
 
 [Passage 14]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
 [of Nestorius], tetrad XVI., where he speaks regarding Anointed Ofte 
 [as follows]: 
 
 This is he that said, My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken 
 me f (964) This is he who endured the three days' death, and I 
 
 BOW TO HIM TOGKTHKR WITH THE DiVINlTY [of the Word] INAS- 
 MUCH AS HK IS A CO-WORKKR WITH THE DIVINE AUTHORITY (965). 
 
 (961). John viii., 54. The term rendered '^ honoreth " in our Common En- 
 ghsh Version, that is, (^o^aCwf, is generally rendered by ''glorifieth " as above. 
 
 (962). John xvi., 13, 14. 
 
 (963). ''Sole Born " i^ovoytvovq) in Cyril always means the Sole-Born out 
 of the Father, that is, God the Word, as do all the other names of Christ. 
 See in proof his Scholia Sedlion 12, page 200 of the Oxford translation oi S. 
 Cyril on the Incarnation. "Anointed'''' in the mind of Nestorius means here the 
 Man. So the last clause above which ascribes the good glory of the Sole-Born, 
 that is, God's glory, to Christ seems to ascribes it to the Man conjoined^ to use 
 his term, to the Word. And as to ascribe any thing prerogative to the un- 
 created Divinity to a creature, is a sort of creature service, and, besides, a robbery 
 of God, for which cause Cyril anathematizes it in his Anathema VIII., this pas- 
 sage of Nestorius seems to have been set before the Synod to reveal the charac- 
 ter of his creature-service. Compare Anointed, page 464, line 2, text above. 
 
 (964). Matt, xxvii., 46; Mark xv., 34. 
 
 (965). The Greek for "co-worker with the divine authority " is <if rfiq deiac 
 Gvvtpyov avBevTiag, and the whole expression is, n-poaKwo) 6e avv ttj Qeottjtl tovtov coq 
 rijc, ftela^ avvepyov avBevrlag. Here Nestorius plainly confesses that he worships 
 Christ's humanity,a mere creature, as he himself again and again confesses, but, 
 in effect, relatively to God the Word. He does not say merely that he is a co- 
 worker with the divine authority, that is, with God the Word, but " a co-worker 
 fT/the divine authority," that is, he makes that mere creature to share the divine 
 authority of God the Word! a blasphemy, which was connedled with Nestorius' 
 worship of that mere creature. But Cyril, in accordance with his dodlrine of 
 Economic Appropriation, would Economically refer all the work done by God 
 the Word through the Man put on, to God the Word Himself In note 183, 
 pages 81-85 in this work, St. Cyril refutes such language as resulting in exalting 
 a creature to the prerogatives of God the Word and in worshipping that mere 
 Man: see there. On pages 86-98 Cyril shows that Nestorius' worship of Christ's 
 separate humanity with God the Word, results in Tetradism, that is, in wor- 
 shipping Four instead of the Trinity, and is condemned in Scripture. See also 
 Cyril's Ecumenically approved language on pages 79-82, and 221-224. 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 467 
 
 And after some other ivords, [he says]; 
 
 ' That which was formed from a womb is not God by itself; that 
 which was created by the Spirit is not God by itself; that which was 
 buried in the tomb is not God by itself, for [if we had] so [said, and 
 worshipped that Man as being Himself God] we should have been 
 plainly servers op a Man, and servers of a Corpse. But precisely 
 because God is in the Man taken, the Man taken is co-called God 
 [with God the Word] from Him [the Word] who has taken him, in- 
 asmuch as that man is conjoined to God the Word Who has taken 
 him (966). 
 
 [Passage 15]. Another Passage, likewise from the sa^ne Book of 
 Nestorius, tetrad III., against Heretics, where he is speakiyig on the 
 Spirit: 
 
 (966). Coleti Concilia, tome 3, col. 1079, ^y Kad' eavrb Geoc to TrlaaBev airo 
 fiTjTpag- Oh Kaff eavrb Oebg rb KTiadkv ek tgv livevnarog- ov Kaff eavrb Qebc rb ra(pev enl 
 UVTjfiarog- bvro) yap av fjp.r]v avOpuKoMrpai, nal veKpoldrpat aacpelg^ dXX' eneidTj-rrep ev rut 
 2,T/<pdevri Qebg, Ik tov la^ovrog 6 TiTjcpdelg, c)g roj lajiovrt avvacpOelc, ovyxpfjmri(Et. Qeoc. St. 
 Cyril answers this in his Five-Book Contradi^ion of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
 torius. I have quoted his language on pages 87-90 above. The Man-Service of 
 this is too plain to need comment. It is relative indeed, that is, for the sake of 
 the Word ''conjoined,'' according to Nestorius, with Him, but this form of crea- 
 ture-service, this crafty readoption of paganism did not escape the God-given 
 insight of the Universal Church in this Ecumenical Synod, and it was justly 
 condemned by it. No wonder that the Fifth Ecumenical Synod in its Definition 
 brands that sin as avOpuTrolarpFia, that is, Man-Service, that is, 3fan- Worship, 
 and that it has set on Nestorius the Cain-Mark of being a murderer of the souls 
 of his brethren by calling him dv^^puTroldrpjK, that is, Man-Server, that is Server 
 of a Man. Nestorius did not believe that God the Word's Substance was in the 
 Man but only His Spirit. See Cyril on that above, pages 88, 89 and notes, 156, 
 159, 160, I69, 171, 580, 582. 
 
 Nestorius was superior to some in our own day who worship Christ's hu- 
 manity /^r its own sake, by admitting that it is wrong to worship the creature 
 for its own sake, but he thought to evade the guilt of Ma7i-Service by putting 
 forward the pretence that it is right to worship that creature because of its re- 
 lation to God the Word. But the whole Synod condemned this revival of the 
 dying paganism and the introduAion of it into the Christian Church. Yet some 
 in our day who wrongly call themselves Christians, commit the sin of Creature- 
 Service by bowing to altars, images, relics, and other things, or by invoking 
 martyrs, angels and other creatures relatively to God or more wrongheadedly 
 still by giving a6ls of relative worship, such as bowing, kissing, incensing, burn- 
 ing of lights, etc., to altars, images, relics, and to other things relatively to 
 some mere creature, as, for instance, in Romish so-called Churches by bowing to 
 St. Mary's altar as it is called, and to that of St. Joseph, and by eredling such 
 altars to a creature in God's house, dressing up the idol of the Virgin or that of 
 St. Joseph, capping to them, bending the knee to them, etc. 
 
468 ^^^ ^' ^f Ephestis. 
 
 For how, says he, can he be a servant (967) who operates in 
 conneaion with the Father and the Son ? And if any one shonld 
 inquire as to the fun^ions of the Spirit, he will find them not at all 
 inferior to those of the Father and the Son; not that the One 
 Divinity is parted, but that the Scripture of God divides the 
 funaions (968) of the One Power to each One of the Three Persons 
 (969) separately, in order to show the equahty, of the hke Trinity. 
 And consider, for my sake, the equality beginning from the works 
 done in time. God the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled a7nong 
 2is (Q-id). The Father made the humanity taken to sit down together 
 with Himself; for He said, The Lord said imto my Lord, Sit thou at 
 my right hand {()-]!). The Spirit came down and co-celebrated the 
 
 See how Cyril denounces as Man-Worship Nestorius' language above, in 
 the note on pages 87-90 of this volume, and indeed see that whole note 183, 
 pages 79-128, and note 582, page 225. 
 (967). Philip, ii., 7- 
 (968). Or, '' the things.'' 
 
 (969). Greek, na^' 'ekclgttjv * * * vizoaTaatv, 
 (970). John i., 14- 
 
 (971). Matt, xxii., 44; Mark xii., 36; Heb. i., 13; Luke xx., 42, and Adls ii., 
 14, 37- St. Cyril and the Orthodox make the above and similar texts to refer to 
 the exaltation and session at the right hand of God the Father of God the Word 
 after his voluntary self-abasement to the cross and to suffering for our sakes: 
 see in proof the Oxford translation of 5. Cyril oj Alexandria on the Incarnation 
 agaiftst Nestorius, pages 178-184, where Nestorius adduces this text and Cyril 
 answers his cavil; and id., page 269 where Cyril condemns the error that a mere 
 creature may co-sit with the Father and be co-throned with Him. St. Athana- 
 sius uses the same text, Psalm ex., i, against the Arians to prove ''that even be- 
 fore He was made Man He was Kifig afid Lord everlasting, being Image and 
 Word of the Father:' And then with reference to Peter's language in Acfts ii., 
 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know asstiredly that God hath made that 
 name Jesus, whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ, words which the 
 Arians had perverted to try to make Ged the Word to be a creature, St. Athana- 
 sius adds: 
 
 ''It is very plain again that Peter did not say that the Substance of the Son 
 was made, but spake of His Lordship over us, which came to pass when He was 
 ^nade man, aiid redeeming all men by the cross, because Lord of all and King of 
 all. ' ' See'passage 6 of Athanasius on pages 230, and 23 1 , of volume I. of Nicaea 
 in this Set. This is, in effect, St. Cyril's view. So he teaches on Philippians ii. , 
 5-12 that the exaltation and worship there meant is to be asserted of God the 
 Word not of the Man in whom He was and is: see in proof in the index to 
 Scripture in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set and in 5". Cyril on the Incarnation 
 against Nestorius, 2ind. under Scripture, y2.ge 39oin the General Index in the last 
 named work, and in the Index to Scripture in this volume. 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nesiorius. 469 
 
 glory of the Man taken; for, it says, Whe7i the Spirit of Truth is 
 
 come. He shall glorify m,e isi'^^- 
 
 [Passage i6]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
 
 [of Nestorius], tetrad VI., wherx he is speakhig in regard to Anointed 
 
 (973)- 
 
 For he was sent to preach release to captives a7id restoration of 
 
 sight to the bli?td (974). As the Apostle adds and says, that That 
 Ofte was made the faithful High Priest to God (975), he was made; 
 [therefore] he did not pre-exist eternally. He it was, O heretic, who 
 progressed little by little into the dignity of High Priest (976). And 
 hear a voice which shouts out this more clearly to thee: 
 
 hi the days, it says, of his flesh, when He had offered up prayers 
 and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able 
 to save Him from death, and was heai^d because of his revere7it fear; 
 though He was a So7i, yet learjied He obedience by the things which He 
 suffered; a7id being made perfect {c^l']), He beca77ie the Author {()']S) of 
 
 (972). John xvi., 13, 14. The great poison in this passage is the Man-Ser- 
 vice contained in the idea of associating in worship a creature with God on His 
 throne in heaven, and the Spirit's coming down to doxologize, that is, to worship 
 the mere creature, that is, the mere Man taken. God the Word should be sub- 
 stituted for Man in both places, (though God the Word is in that Man), and all 
 the human things of that Man are to be ascribed Economically to God according 
 to Cyril's teaching. See on pages 215-224, and 268-286, text, in this volume, 
 Cyril's teachings as to the Son's being glorified by the Spirit, and still more de- 
 finitely against Nestorius' error above in Cyril's Anathemas VII. and VIII. and 
 IX. on pages 329-333 in this volume. 
 
 (973). That is, ''Christ,'' ^ptoTov. 
 
 (974). Luke iv., 18. 
 
 (975). Heb. iii., i, 2. The ''appointed'' of our Common Version, is 
 *' made," in the Greek {ironjaavTL). But our common rendering gives the sense, 
 for God " made " the Word High Priest in the sense of appointing Him to that 
 high position. 
 
 (976). The Nestorian assertion that Christ was imperfect at first in morality 
 and that he progressed gradually in it is condemned by Anathema XII. of the 
 Fifth Ecumenical Council. 
 
 (977)- Greek, re AawiJftf. Compare reAc/wo-ai in Heb. ii., 10. " To make * 
 * * perfect" is in the English Version. It ma}^ mean " make complete." In 
 the Vulgate of this last text it is rendered cojisiunmare, and in Heb. v., 9, by 
 ** consummatus. ' ' The Vulgate is excellent on some points and accurate because 
 Jerome sometimes translated, so far as he could, to avoid the cavils and perver- 
 sions of such heretics as had appeared in his time. The pej'fe^ing here meant 
 is not a growth from sin to holiness in Christ, for he knew no sin II. Cor. v., 21 ; 
 Heb. iv., 15. but a more thorough and complete preparation by suflfering etc., to 
 be our High Priest. 
 
470 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 eternal salvation u7ito all those who obey Him (979); So he was per- 
 feAed (080) by progressing little by little, O heretic (981). And con- 
 cernino^ that point John (982) cries out in the Gospels, Jesus progresstd 
 (q8-^) in ao-e (984), a7id in wisdo7n, and in favor (985). And Paul 
 utters thino-s in accordance with those words when he says, Bei7ig 
 made perfect (986) He became the aiithor {^^-j) of eternal salvation to all 
 those who obey Him, being named by God High Priest after the order of 
 
 Melchisedec {()^^). ^ ,.^,77 tt- j r, • ^^^ ^ o \ 
 
 A7id after some other words, he says, ''Called a High Priest (989). 
 
 Why therefore, dost thou expound contrary to Paul by mixing up 
 
 the impassible God the Word with an earthly likeness, and makmg 
 
 Him [that is, God the Word] a passible High Priest (990) ? 
 
 (978). Or, ''the Cause:* 
 (979). Heb. v., 7-IO- 
 (980). Or, " completed:' 
 
 (981). Does he apply this epithet to Cyril of Alexandria here? He seems to 
 be arguing against his opinions. 
 
 (982) Notes in col. 1069, 1070 of tome 3, of Coleti's CoTicilia here state that 
 ^'Mss Regit '' have 'fohn'' a.s above; that Marius Mercator has ''andjohii,'' 
 as it is ^n the Greek: but that two Mss., Colbert and luron, have ^'Luke,'' and 
 that the Bellov. has "fohn mid Luke:' It is not in John but in Luke. Nestorius 
 committed an error herein quoting as to the name. 
 (983). Luke ii., 52, '^pohioizTEv. 
 
 (984). Greek, v'^iKia, which may be rendered ** in stature " also. 
 (985). Greek, jap^r^ Luke ii., 52. 
 
 (986). Or, ' ' beitig completed, " or " being consummated. ' ' 
 (987). Greek, air tog, which may be rendered by ** Cause " also. 
 (988). Heb. v., 9. 
 (989). Heb. v., 10. 
 
 (990). Nestorius here is attempting to prove, in accordance with the teach- 
 ings of his master, Theodore of Mopsuestia, that at first Christ was an imperfect 
 man morally and spiritually, but progressed so far as to become High Pnest. 
 The Twelfth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod exposes Theodore's 
 teaching on that point and anathematizes it. 
 
 Besides Nestorius aims to rob the Word of His prerogative of being our High 
 Priest and to ascribe that glory to the mere creature whom he put on. See the 
 fifth note below. 
 
 I did at first think that Nestorius might have used "an impassible High 
 Priest'' instead of the last four words above, " a passible High Priest:' for I 
 thought he was trying to accuse Cyril of denying to the High Priest the sympa- 
 thies of our human nature of which Paul speaks in Hebrews ii. , 9 to 18 mclusive 
 and Hebrews iv., 15, 16. But the text is, I think perfedlly correct, for tlie Nes- 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestoriiis. 471 
 
 [Passage 17]. Ayiother Passage, likewise from the same [Book 
 of Nestorius] , tetrad XVI I. (991)- 
 
 Wherefore, brethre?i, partakers of the heave^ily calling , co7isider the 
 Apostle and High Priest of our profession fes7is, Who was faithful to 
 Him that VI a de Him (992). 
 
 Ajid after so7?ie other words [he says], 
 
 Because therefore he is our Sole High Priest, of the same 
 [human] sufferings and of the same [human] family as we, and per- 
 manent [in his High Priesthood] , be not turned away from the faith 
 in him. For he himself, the promised blessing of the seed of Abra- 
 ham (993), was sent to offer the sacrifice of his body for himself and 
 for the family [of man] to which he belongs. We must note that he 
 [Paul], having confessed that every High Priest needs a sacrifice, 
 and having made an exception of the Anointed One [in that respect] 
 (994) as not needing one, says [nevertheless], in those utterances 
 that he offered a sacrifice for himself and for the [human] family to 
 which he belongs (995). 
 
 torians were rather wont to accnse him of such errors as making the impassible 
 divinity of God the Word subject to suffering and death, as here; for they were 
 either ignorant or else wilfully ignored the fact that Cyril ascribed those things 
 Economically only to God the Word to avoid serving the Man put on by God 
 the Word. The Greek here is as follows: koX Tza-^nrbv apxiepka ttolcjv. 
 
 (991). A note in col. 1071, 1072, tome 3, of Coleti's Concilia tells us that this 
 was numbered V. VII. in the old Version. 
 
 (992). Heb. iii., i, 2. The oldest manuscripts omit Christ in verse r. 
 
 (993). Heb. iii., 16. See the old Testament for other passages on this topic. 
 
 (994). Heb. viii., 3; Heb., iv., 15. The Greek here is rov Xplgtov. 
 
 (995). The error of Nestorius in this passage is in ascribing the prerogative 
 office work of God the Word to the man whom He put on and so leading men 
 to serve that creature, the Man. The Universal Church, on the contrary, refers 
 the things of that Man Economically to God to teach us to avoid Man-Service, 
 that is, worshipping a Man. Hence it has approved even in this Third Synod, 
 and in all the Synods after it the true do6lrine on this matter as contained in the 
 Tenth of Cyril's Twelve Anathemas. See for further information on that topic 
 what Cyril has written in defence of that Anathema. 
 
 That Anathema differs from Nestorius, by teaching that Christ having no 
 sin, did not need any offering. Hence He offered Himself for others, not for 
 Himself. Nestorius' notion implies one of two blasphemies- 
 
 1. He ascribes to his merely human Christ, a mere creature, the work of 
 redeeming men, which all Scripture teaches is prerogative to God the Word 
 alone. For no mere creature can atone for his fellow creature's sin. 
 
 2. He leads men by his do6lrine of redemption by a creature and of look- 
 ing to a mere human High Priest, Advocate, and Intercessor above for help and 
 -salvation, to worship that creature by invocation which includes, as the word 
 
472 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [Passage i8]. Ariother passage, likewise from the same [Book 
 of Nestorius] tetrad IV. 
 
 Hear therefore and give heed to the things which I am about 
 to speak: He says, He that eateth my flesh (996); remember that this 
 is said regarding the flesh, and that the expression the flesh is not 
 added by me, lest I seem to them to misinterpret: He that eateth my 
 flesh a7id drijiketh my blood (997); he did not say, He that eateth my 
 Divhiity and drinketh It, but, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh 
 vty blood, abideth in me, a7id I hi him. 
 
 And after some things more, [Nestorius adds:]; 
 
 But with reference to the point before us. He that eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood, abideth in 7ne a7id I in him (998), remember 
 that this is said regarding the flesh. As the livi^ig Father hath 
 sent me (999), me [he means the Man] who am visible to you (1000). 
 
 means, prayer to him, thanksgiving to him and every other form of address, all 
 which is creature v^^orship, for no one but God the Word can be our High Priest 
 and Intercessor on high to hear and answer our prayers and to receive our 
 thanksgivings, for He alone possesses the prerogative and infinite attributes of 
 God, omnipresence, omniscience ond omnipotence. Surely any man of ordinar}^ 
 common sense should be able to see at once that His mere created humanity can 
 not share these God-alone befitting and infinite attributes, and that Cyril's doc- 
 trine against that blasphemy and against Man-Worship is right, and that the 
 Church Universal in approving it at Ephesus was led by the Holy Ghost according 
 to Christ's promise to the Apostolate, that is, Episcopate. See on all those points 
 the Oxford translation oi S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation, St. Cyril's 
 Five-Book ContradiElion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, Book III., se(5lions 
 2, 6., id., pages 97, 119, 120. Compare pages 90 and 116. See further against 
 the worship of Christ's humanity page 212, Cyril's Scholia, se(5lion 25; page 349, 
 from Cyril's First Book against Theodore; page 355, from Cyril's Second Book 
 against Theodore. And see also pages 71, 73, 74, 78, 79, 152, 197, 198, 210, 211, 
 212, 340. It is wonderful how much there is in St. Cyril against the worship of 
 Christ's mere humanity, that is, against creature worship. One must however 
 be on his guard against Pusey's mistranslations in places as for instance, on 
 pages 212, 213, where he renders homo theoforus, {deocpopog evidently in the 
 Greek), by God-clad man, instead of by inspired man, as he should have done. 
 Compare the Latin Version (the Greek is lost) on pages 543 and 544, Vol. VI. 
 in P. E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril of Alexandria's works. In his Long Letter, 
 pages 255 to 268 above Cyril well argues that Christ, the Sinless One, offered 
 Himself not for Himself but for all other men. And that teaching being ap- 
 proved by the Ecumenical Council is binding forever. 
 
 (996). John vi., S6. 
 
 (997). Ibid. 
 
 (998). John vi., 56. 
 
 (999). John vi., 57. 
 
 (1000). Greek, rhv (paiuofisvov. The two words as the context shows, are 
 
Readmg of the Blasphe?nies of Nesioritis. 473 
 
 But I some times misinterpret [thou say est]. Let us hear [then] 
 something from the words which follow: As the Living Father hatk 
 sejitiue; hk [Cyril?] says THAT 'me' hkrb means the DIVIN- 
 ITY, BUT I ASSERT THAT IT MEANS THE HUMANITY 
 (looi). Let us see who the misinterpreter is; Christ says, As the 
 Livi7ig Father hath sejit vie (1002) and the heretic [Cyril ?] says that 
 He means the Divinity [by " w<? "] here. For in the clause, He 
 hath sejit 7ne, (1003) he says that ''me'' means God the Word. In 
 this sense he [the heretic] understands the "me'' in the expression, 
 As the Living Father hath se7it me (1004). And according to them 
 the w^ord "/"in the clause, Andl live (1005), means God the Word, 
 so that he understands the whole passage to mean. And I God the 
 Word live by the Father. Then forasmuch as after that expression 
 
 used by Nestorius to designate his merely human Christ. For God the Word is 
 invisible. And he would make out that all the eating and drinking in the 
 Eucharist is of Christ's mere humanity. As his own words show, he wrongly 
 understood Cyril to teach the eating of the acflual Substance of Christ's Divinity 
 in the rite. But Cyril in note 606 above, pages 250-313, explains very clearly 
 that he held no such error. But in response he justly charges Nestorius' view 
 of eating Christ's real flesh and drinking His real blood as resulting in 'AvOpu. 
 Tzoipayta, that is, in Cannidalism: see that note. And the noteworthy thing is 
 that the Universal Church in the Third Ecumenical Council approved St. 
 Cyril's teaching on that theme and condemned Nestorius' . So that the question 
 is settled forever. The Spirit of God can not be contradicted. And it guided 
 every decision of the Third Synod. And the attempt of the merely Western 
 and therefore merely local Councils, the Fourth Lateran in 1215, that of Con- 
 stance A. D. 1414 to 1418, and that of Trent A. D. 1545-1563, to annul and to 
 do away the Holy-Ghost-led decisions of Ephesus are utterly null and void. 
 The same is true of similar attempts against Ephesus which were made in local 
 Councils in the East; as for instance in the idolatrous Conventicle of Nicaea 
 A. D. 787 which represented only the idolatrous party in the Orient, and Rome 
 and Italy; and the Synod of Jerusalem held A. D. 1672. 
 
 Cyril especially answers the above passage 18 of Nestorius in the note on 
 pages 251, 252, 260, 261. 262 and 267 above. 
 
 (looi). On this see below note 1007, and above note 559, page 229, and 
 note 606, pages 240 to 313, and see especially pages 250-313 against the real 
 presence of Christ's Divinity or humanity in the Eucharist, and against the 
 error of eating Christ's Divinity, and against that of eating His real human flesh 
 and drinking His real human blood in that rite, and against the error of wor- 
 shipping Christ's Divinity or humanity there. 
 
 (1002). Johnvi., 57. . 
 
 (1003). John vi., 57. 
 
 (1004). John vi., 57. 
 
 (1005), Ibid. 
 
474 Act I. of Ephcsus. 
 
 it says, And he that e ate in me, he also shall live (1006); I ask what 
 DO WE EAT, THE DIVINITY, OR THE HUMANITY? (1007). 
 
 (1006). Ibid. 
 
 (1007). Ibid. Cyril in his Five-Book Contradi5lon of the Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius, Book IV., Sedlion 3 and after, page 140 and after in the Oxford En- 
 glish translation, replies to this very place, and shows that we do not eat adtual 
 flesh at all, and accuses Nestorius of holding to Cannibalism, (see the Oxford 
 translation, page 142), and advocates what is in effect the ancient Symbolic- 
 dynamic view of the Lord's Supper. But of this I will treat in a separate Dis- 
 sertation elsewhere in this Set. It was in effect restored by the blessed English 
 Reformers, so far as its prohibition of Cannibal views of eating Christ's a6lual 
 flesh and blood in the Rite, and of the idolatry of worshipping the Divinity or 
 the humanity of Christ there, are concerned, though an expression in the Cate- 
 chism added after the time of the Reformers, to the effect that " The body afid 
 blood of Christ * * * are verily and i7ideed taken and received by the faith- 
 ful in the Lord's Supper,'" needs to be changed for the language of St. Cyril 
 in note 606, pages 240-313 above. And indeed all Cyril's Eucharistic teaching 
 should be followed and all the Anglican formularies literally and in sense con- 
 formed to it. The Reformers did nobly, but on some matters we have fuller 
 light, and especially on the Ecumenical decisions of Ephesus on the Eucharist, 
 than they had, and we should profit by it. 
 
 The Greek of the first part of this is clear, but the last part is not so clear. 
 It is as follows: 'A2A errt ro TzpoKelfievov' 6 rpuyuv juov -?/v cdpKa, Kal nivuv fiov to 
 nijua, kv euol fiiuei, myi) kv avru. 'MvrmovtvtTe brt nepl r^c capub^ to ?.ey6ptvov' Kadcjq 
 aTZEGTeiTik fie 6 i^cjv YlaTT/p, efie tov (paiv6p.evov, 'A.AX kvioTS •KapepnTjveviJ' aKOvacjpev ek 
 TO)v f^^c* KaduQ aizkoTEi'XE pE 6 C,i)v TraTTjp- ekeivo^ Xiyei ttjv QEOT^Ta, kyu 6e tt/u avOpu- 
 TcoTijTa. 'iSupEV Tiq 6 TrapEppTjvEvuv' Kadc)^ arrkaTEiXE pE 6 ^6)v Ilar^p' ?^Eyei kqi 6 alpETi- 
 Aoc EVTavda ttjv QEOTTjTa IkyEL- CLTreGTELlk pE, (pfjciy '''ov Qeov Aoyov' aaOcj^ arrkcTEikk pE 6 
 L,C}V liaTTjp' KUT* EKE'tvovq, 'Kayid ^w 6 9f6f A.6yoq 6ia tov TlaTkpa' eItu to p.£Ta tovto, kol 6 
 Tpcjycov fie, KOKeifo^ ^r^CETac, TLva kadlopEv; ttjv deoTi/Ta, ij Tyv avdpuiroTijTa-^ This Greek 
 is given word for word exactly the same in the Colle5lio Regia of the Cou?icilSy 
 tome 5, col. 516 and after. Its date is 1644. 
 
 Cyril quotes this same passage in defending the Eleventh of his XII. 
 Anathemas against the Orientals. See it in col. 373, tome 76 of Migne's 
 Patrologia Graeca. The Greek however varies somewhat from that given in 
 Coleti as above. See the same place on page 358, Vol. VI., of P. E. Pusey's 
 Greek; it is translated in this work on pages 272-274: Compare pages 250-254, 
 267, and the Greek in Pusey. It looks very much as though some parts of 
 Cyril's reply there had been omitted in Migne's edition or in his authorities, 
 for it is shorter than the quotation in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 There is also a Latin translation of the above passage of Nestorius in Act 
 I. of Chalcedon, where the Greek of it was quoted but is now lost. It varies 
 verbally here and there from the above, but the sense is not materially different 
 
Reading of the Blaspheinies of Nestor ins. 475 
 
 [Passage 19]. Another Passage likewise from the same [Book 
 of Nestorius], tetrad XVI., {looSy. 
 
 so far as doo-ma is concerned. See it in col. 1159 of tome 4 of Coleti's Concilia. 
 I quote it in full as in Coleti, comparing also and corredling by pages 361, 362 
 of torn. 8, of the ColleElio Regia (Paris, 1644): 
 
 Audite igitur attendentes verba: Qui manducat, inquit, meant carnem. 
 Memorate, quia de carne est quod dicitur et quia non a me additum est carnis 
 nomen, ut non videar illis male interpretari: Qui manducat meant car7ieni, et 
 dibit meum sanguinem. Numquid dixit, Qui manducat deitatem meam, et 
 bibit deitatem meam ? Qui ntanducat meain carnem et hibit meum sanguinem, 
 in me manet, et ego in eo. Et post ai^ia. 
 
 Sed ad propositum redeamus; Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum 
 sanguinem, in me manet et ego in eo. Commemoramini quia de carne dicitur: 
 Sicut niisit me qui vivus est Pater, me, qui visibilis sum. Si forte male inter- 
 pretor, ex his quae sequuntur, audiamus: Sicut misit 7ne qui vivus est Pater\ 
 ille dicit deitatem, ego humanitatem. Videamus quis est qui male interpretatur: 
 Sicut misit me qui vivus est Pater. Dicit haereticus; Hie divinitatem dicit. Misit 
 me, inquit, Deum Verbum. Sicut misit me vivus Pater (secundum illos) et ego 
 vivo Deus Verbum propter Patrem: deinde quod posthaec est: Et qui me man- 
 ducat, et ipse vivet. Quem manducamus ? Deitatem, aut carnem ? 
 
 The Ancient Version (Antiqua Versio) gives this passage in briefer form, 
 but dogmatically of the same purport. It is found in col. 75 of tome 4 of Coleti's 
 Concilia. But the footnotes there show that in some manuscripts it is fuller 
 ^nd more closely corresponds to the Greek above. 
 
 The version of it by Marius Mercator is found in col. 216 of the same tome 
 4 of Coleti. I give these translations side by side. I will add notes to the 
 Antiqtia Versio ^\i\(i\i gives us various readings of it. I find them in Coleti 
 Co7ic., tom. 4, col. 75, 76, at the foot of the page. 
 
 Version of Marius Mercator. 
 
 Antiqua Versio. 
 
 Audite igitur intendentes didlis: Qui 
 mafiducat, inquit, [a) meant carnem et 
 Mbit meutn sanguinem. Non dixit: 
 ■Qui manducat meam deitatem. Qui 
 mianducatmeam carnem et bibit meum 
 sanguinem, in me w,anet et ego ifi 
 €um. 
 
 Et post alia: Sed ad propositum, 
 Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit 
 •meum sangiiinem, in me manet et eLio 
 in eunt {b). Meministis quia de car::e 
 est quod dicitur, Sicut niisit me 
 vivens Pater, (r) me visibilem. Sed 
 forte aliter interpretatur.? Audiamus 
 
 Audite igitur et dicta diligenter in- 
 spicite. Quiniandticat, inquit, carnejn 
 meant. Memento quod de carne 
 dicamus, et quod non a me carnis 
 nomen fingitur, ne videar illis falsus 
 interpres. Qui maiiducat, inquit, 
 carnem meam et bibit sanguinem 
 nieunt. Numquid dixit, Qui manducat 
 deitatem meam, et qui bibit deitatem 
 meam ? Qui manducat carnem meam 
 et qui bibit sa.ngui7ient nteunt, iit me 
 manet, et ego in ipso. 
 
 Et post at.ia: Sed ad procimenum 
 [npoKeiuEvov, marginal note here in 
 
476 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 And in brief, saith he, if thou search all the New Testament 
 
 Coleti] veniamus. Qui nia7idiicat 
 car7ie'tn meant, et dibit sanguinent 
 metini, in 7iie fnanet, et ego in ipso^ 
 Mementote quod de carne dicamus. 
 Sicut inisit me vivus Pater, me qui 
 appareo. Sed fortasse ego non redle 
 interpreter. Videamus ex his quae 
 sequuntur. Sicut rnisit me vivus 
 Pater: ille dicit deitatem, ego humani- 
 tatem. Videamus qui sit pravus in- 
 terpres. Sicut misit me vivus Pater: 
 haereticus dicit quod deitatem hie 
 misit me Deum Verbum. Sicut misit 
 me vivus Puter, juxta illos, et ego viva 
 Deus Verbum propter Patrem. Quid 
 postea. Quimanducatmey etillevivet. 
 Quid manducamus ? Deitatem an. 
 camem ? 
 
 de reliquis: Sicut misit me vivens 
 Pater. Haereticus hie deitatem dicit: 
 Misit me vivens Pater secxxndwm. illos, 
 et ego vivo Deus Verbum propter 
 Patrem. Deinde post hoc: Et qui 
 manducat me, et ille vivit. Quem 
 manducamus, deitatem, an carnem? 
 
 The notes to the above in Coleti 
 Cone, tom. 4, col. 75,76, are as follows: 
 I will here call them snbnotes to dis- 
 tinguish them from my notes. 
 
 SuBNOTE A. Meant carnem, Ita Codices 
 Colbertinus et Turonensis et editioContiana. 
 In Bellovacensi legitur, meant carnetn. Mem- 
 entote quia de carne est quod dicitur, et quia 
 a me non additur nomen carnis, ut non videar 
 illis contraria interpretari . Qui comedit 
 carnem meant et bibit meum sanguinem, 
 Numquid dixit. Qui manducat, etc. Consen- 
 tiunt autem haec cum textu Graeco et cum 
 interpretatione Marii Mercatoris. 
 
 SUBNOTE B. Meministis. Idem Codex; 
 Mementote. 
 
 SuBNOTE C. Me visibilem. Haec duo vo- 
 cabula desunt in eodem libro Bellovacensi; 
 male, cum habeantur in Graeco contextu. 
 Postea autem sequitur: Ille dicit deitatem, ego 
 humanitatem. Videamus qui male interpreta- 
 tur. Sicut misit me vivens Pater ;dicil haeret- 
 icus, hie deitatem dicit. Misit me, ait, Deum 
 Verbum. Misit me vivens Pater, secundum 
 illos; et ego vivo Deus Verbum propter Patrem. 
 
 From the above three notes we see 
 that the writer or writers of them 
 seem to regard this Antigua Versio 
 as an abbreviation rather than a full 
 and complete translation of the Greek. 
 The shortening of the passage makes 
 the sense clearer, for Nestorius was 
 verbose. Marius Mercator's Version 
 is nearer the Greek. 
 
 I quote the last part of the Latin translation of the above Greek passage as 
 
 it is in the parallel column in Coleti {Cone. tom. 3, col. 1071). It is by Theodore 
 Peltanus a Jesuit {Coleti Cone, torn. 3, col. ggi, note i), and reads thus: Verum 
 ad id quod propositum est, revertamur: Qui manducat 7neam carnem, et bibit 
 meum sanguitiem, in me manet, et ego in eo. Mementote, quod de carne 
 verba hie fiant, Sicut misit me vivens Pater: me, inquam, quem cernitis. Sed 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. 477 
 
 together, thou wilt in no wise find in it death ascribed to God, but 
 either to Anointed (1009) or to Son or Lord (loio), for the expres- 
 sions Aiioijited (loii) and Son and Lord (1012) when they are used 
 by Scripture regarding the Sole-Born (1013) are significative of the 
 Two Natures: and they show at one time the Divinity, at another 
 the humanity, and at another time both, as for instance when Paul 
 in an Epistle proclaims as follows: Whe?i we were enemies we were 
 reconciled to God by the death of his Son (1014), he shouts forth (1015) 
 the huma7iity of the Son. If again the same [Apostle] says to the 
 Hebrews, God hath spoken to us in the Son (1016), through whom 
 also He made the worlds (1017), he shows the Diviiiity of the Son: 
 for his flesh (1018) is not the Maker of the worlds, for it was made 
 many ages after the worlds were created. 
 
 ahquando perperam interpreter. Audiamus ex sequentibus: Sicut misit me 
 vivens Pater. Ille diviuitatem exponit, ego vero human itatem. Jam videamus, 
 quis perperam interpretatur. Sicut misit me vivens Pater. Haereticus etiam 
 dicit, Divinitatem hie exprimit: sensus est enim, Misit me Deum Verbum 
 secundum illos, vSicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego Deus Verbum vivo propter 
 Patrem. Deinde quod mox sequitur, Qui manducat me^ et ipse vivet. Quid, 
 quaeso, manducamus ? Divinitatem ne, an humanitatem ? 
 
 Cyril, in book IV. of his Five-Book Contradi^ion of the Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius, quotes nearly all, if not all of the passages in the heretical sermons. 
 of Nestorius which bear on the Eucharist. Those sermons in Latin translations 
 are in tome 48 of Migne's Patrologia Latina and in tom. VIII. of Galland. 
 Biblioiheca Vet. Patr., though the arrangement of the matter in them is not 
 the same in both. See note 606, pages 240-313, where I have treated of the dif- 
 ference between Cyril and Nestorius on the Lord's Supper. See also Passage 
 19, at the end, page 478 of this volume. 
 
 (1008). A note in col. 1071, 1072 of tome III. of Coleti's Concilia tells us 
 that this is numbered XXIII. in a Bellov. Ms., but that other Manuscripts as 
 well as Marius Mercator have the figures ''XVI." 
 
 (1009). Xpiaru. 
 
 (lOlo). Kvpio). 
 
 (lOll). Xpiarbg. 
 
 (1012). KvpLog. 
 
 (1013). MovojEvovg. 
 
 (1014). Rom. v., 10; col. I., 21, 22. 
 
 (1015). Greek, (3og. 
 
 (1016). Heb. i., I, 2. Greek, eUXjjaev rjulv hv Tiu). This clause may be 
 rendered, "in the Son,'' or '* by the Son.'' 
 
 (1017). Heb. i., I, 2. 
 
 (1018). Or, '' the Jlesh," v aap^. 
 
478 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 And after some things more, he adds. He did not hold James to 
 be a brother of Deity (1019); nor do we tell on the death of God the 
 Word when we feed on the Master's blood and body (1020). 
 
 (1019). This seems a reference to Galat. i., 19. 
 
 (1020). We have seen in note 606 above, pages 250-313, that neither Cyril 
 of Alexandria, the Orthodox, nor Nestorius, the heresiarch, held to the real 
 presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist. On the con- 
 trary, both expressly deny it, as they deny also the blasphemy that God the 
 Word died, and the further blasphemy that His Divinity is eaten in the rite. 
 The error of this passage of Nestorius consists in dividing the Natures by deny- 
 ing the Incarnation, as Cyril so often speaks, and so in laying the foundation 
 for worshipping the separate humanity of Christ, and so for bringing in Man- 
 Service. Cyril, of course, as he often shows, teaches that God the Word is not 
 subject to suffering or death, but he held that all the sufferings and death of 
 the Man put on should be ascribed economically to God the Word, both to 
 avoid leading the people to pray to that creature for help and so to avoid crea- 
 ture service, and to preserve to the infinitely superior because Divine Nature in 
 the Son, Its own rightful preeminence and prerogative. But Nestorius here 
 perverts the facts and tries to misrepresent Cyril, for he especially hated the 
 dodlrine of Economic Appropriation and the Orthodox. For instance, he 
 seems to imply that Cyril held that God the Word died. And again, wrongly 
 supposing that Cyril was a One-Natureite Apollinarian, and that he held that 
 all of His humanity had been changed into Divinity, he says, '' He did not 
 hold James to be a brother of Deity,'''' or ''of Divinity.''' But Cyril, as his 
 writings abundantly show, held to the Two Natures of Christ. Indeed, he 
 expressly receives that expression in his Epistle to John of Antioch, which was 
 approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. And he wrote against the Synou- 
 siasts, that is, Co-Substancers, and denounced their Monophysite error. See 
 Fragments of his work against them on pages 363 to 378 in the Oxford transla- 
 tion oiS. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation Against Nestorius. There- 
 fore Cyril did not hold that flesh can be a brother of Divinity, for the Natures 
 are dissimilar; but he did hold that the humanity put on by the Word was of 
 the same nature as James. 
 
 The Greek of the last part of the above is as follows: ov6e rbv tov Qeov Aoyov 
 KarayyeTJiOiMev ddvarov, to AeaTroTiKov aifid re kol oufia airov/itvoi. 
 
 (102 1). These words uttered in the hearing of the assembled Synod, show 
 how novel was Nestorius' denial of the Incarnation of the Word, and his service 
 to the Man put on by the Word, and his perversions of the Eucharist. No one 
 contradi6ls the speaker as though he had told a falsehood. And the bishops, 
 let us remember, had come from Europe, Asia and Africa, and there were deleg- 
 ates from the West as well as from the East. 
 
 Another thing maybe of interest to scholars, and deserves to be mentioned 
 here. It is that Rabi Baba, as he signs himself, a Protestant of Nestorian de- 
 scent who was in New York City, in August, 1893, trying to publish a Di(5lionary 
 
Reading of the Blasphemies of Nestoriiis. 479 
 
 [Passage 20]. Another Passage, likewise from the same Book 
 [of Nestorius], tetrad XXIII: 
 
 I notice, saith he, that our people possess much reverence and a 
 most fervent piety, but they err because of their lack of godly 
 knowledge on the dogma. But this should not be made a matter of 
 accusation against the people, but (how should I say it well and 
 fitly ?) it is owing to the fact that the teachers have no fitting time, 
 and do not put before you any of the more accurate opinions. 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria ajid chief of the Secretaries, said. 
 Behold, HE 0PEN1.Y SAYS in those Passages that none oe 
 
 THE TEACHERS BEFORE HIMSELF SPAKE TO THE PEOPLE THOSE 
 THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF HAS SPOKEN (l02l). 
 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said: Since the things said by Nes- 
 
 of the Syriac, told me, as did Rev. Mr. Labarree formerly of the Presby- 
 terian or Congregational Mission among the Nestorians, that there exists 
 in the Syriac a translation of Nestorius' writings which has never been pub. 
 lished. If it could be translated and published in English it might, if it faithfully 
 represents the Greek original, give us the contexts of the above 20 Passages and 
 serve to make still clearer Nestorius' heresies. Who will give it to us in the 
 S\'riac and in the English version? 
 
 (1022). Those twenty passages of Nestorius form his accusation. The 
 sentence follows a little farther on. The criterion of judgment is the historic 
 faith of the Church from the beginning as attested by Scripture interpreted by 
 the Fathers in the passages quoted above. See the Appendix on those Passages. 
 
 (1023). The extent of the jurisdidlion of Carthage was so great that it 
 might in later times be deemed Patriarchal, for it included all the provinces of 
 Latin Africa. But the Patriarchates were at first nothing but greater Metro- 
 political jurisdidlions. That which may be said to constitute each civil Diocese 
 into a Patriarchate is Canon VI. of the Second Ecumenical Synod. So Socrates 
 states in Chapter 8 of Book V. of his Ecclesiastical History. And yet from the 
 time of the First Ecumenical Synod and before, the See of Alexandria was over 
 the Diocese of Egypt. See its Canon VI. And Antioch was over the Diocese 
 of the East; and the Metropolitical rights of both Alexandria and Antioch are 
 guaranteed in that Canon as no new thing, but as long established and as com- 
 ing under the head of " anciejit customs,'' So as far back as Cyprian's time in 
 the third century the right of Carthage to ecclesiastical headship over all the 
 provinces of Latin Africa was a thing admitted there, and it is in general terms 
 approved and guaranteed in Canon VI. of Nicaea in the words, " hi the other 
 provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to ike churches.'' The summons to 
 attend the Council of Ephesus, as Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, says in its Act 
 I, "was written to each of the Metropolitans" (see page 32 above, text, and note 
 73, there). The Emperor's Letter of Summons to Cyril of Alexandria is 
 addressed '' to Bishop Cyril" (seepage 33 above, text), and he is ordered to 
 take with him " a few most holy Bishops o{ the Province which is under him, 
 as many as he ma}^ approve, to run together to the same city" (Ephesus). 
 
480 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 torius are horrible and blasphemous, and our ears do not endure 
 to be polluted by them any longer, let every part of his blasphemy 
 be inserted in the Adls, for an ACCUSATION against him who has 
 taught those things (1022). 
 
 Here is no mentiou of any Patriarch or ^Patriarchate, but only of Bishop, 
 Metropolitan, and the Province. And the jurisdidlion of each Metropolitan 
 was called a Province. So far as appears from the words on page 32 above, the 
 Imperial Letter of Summons was written to no others than "■each of the Metro- 
 politans.'" Hence when the Bishop of Rome was summoned, and the Bishop of 
 Carthage, and the Bishop of Constantinople, and the Bishop of Antioch, and 
 the Bishop of Jerusalem, he was summoned merely as a Metropolitan, not as 
 what in later times was termed a Patriarch. But in a document pertaining to 
 the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, we shall find the title Patriarch given to 
 some Bishops. And as a matter of fact at this time and long before, the Metro- 
 politan of Alexandria had under him, as we see by Canon VI. of Nicaea, 
 '^ Egypt, Libya, and Peyitapolis,''' but its bishop was then the only Metropolitan 
 in all Egypt, though Ammianus Marcellinus of the fourth century tells us that 
 " Egypt had at all times three provinces [he means civil provinces], Egypt it- 
 self, Thebais, and Libya, to which, in after times, two others were added; 
 Augustamnica, which was severed from Egypt, and Pentapolis from Libya. 
 After the time of Marcellinus the division into provinces was again altered, so 
 that the number of provinces rose to nine" (Wiltsch's Geography and Statis- 
 tics of the Church, English translation, vol. i, page 188). "Several Metropol- 
 itan seats arose at the beginning of the fifth century. Thus Synesius was 
 raised about 410, by the patriarch Theophilus, to the dignity of Metropolitan of 
 Ptolemais, and in the imperial proclamation at the Second Synod of Ephesus in 
 449, Dioscurus received the command to appear with ten metropolitans" 
 (Wiltsch, id., page 192). But as yet I have seen no definite proof on the point, 
 as to whether each of those metropolitans had his own provincial Synod usder 
 him, or whether they all met in the Council of Alexandria alone. On that see 
 Bingham's ^«/z^., Book, II., Chap. 17, Sedlion.S. The fact is that the whole 
 Civil Diocese of Egypt was under Alexandria, and it was one national Egyptian 
 Church. So each of the two other sees specified in Canon VI. of Nicaea, Antioch 
 and Rome, may be said to have been the head of a national or race Church, Anti- 
 och of that of Syria and the Syrians, and Rome of the Italian Church, in the seven 
 provinces of South Italy, and the three Italian islands of Sicily, Sardinia and 
 Corsica. See on Rome's original jurisdi<5lion Bingham's Antiquities, Book 
 IX., Chapter i, sections 9, 10, 11 and 12. Compare notes 25 and 26 above. So 
 in modern times London should be the Patriarchal see of all England, Paris of 
 France, Berlin of Germany, Washington or New York of the United States, 
 ^Mexico of the Republic of Mexico, etc. Sometimes we shall find a race Patri- 
 arch, like, for instance, him of Alexandria, extending his sway over part of 
 some race other than his own, as, for instance, in Arabia, but such unnatural 
 subje(5lion in ecclesiastical affairs of part of one nationality to another, has 
 generally been brought about — 
 
Readijig of the Letter of Capreolus of Carthage. 481 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexa7tdria, and chief of the Secretaries, 
 said. The most reverent and most God-worshipping Metropolitan 
 (1023) and Bishop of Carthage, Capreolus, has written by Besula 
 the Deacon, an Epistle to this Holy Synod, which, if your God-wor- 
 shippingness will command, I will read. And I will read also the 
 translation of it. 
 
 To the most God- worshipping and most blessed fellow-ministers, 
 come together from every quarter into the Synod, Capreolus (1024) 
 a Bishop, wisheth joy in the Lord. 
 
 I. By the fact that the subject aliens were of inferior civilization, as in 
 that case, and as in the case of the subje(5lion of Abyssinia to Alexandria; the 
 newly converted and uncivilized Saxons and Germans, etc., to Rome, the newly 
 converted and uncivilized Bulgarians and Servians, and Roumanians and Rus- 
 sians to Constantinople, but such unnatural subje(5lion of one people to another 
 in ecclesiastical affairs has generally lasted for a shorter or longer time only, 
 and the yoke has generally been shaken off when the subject nation became 
 civilized and powerful enough to realize the fact that Christ has made all 
 Christians equals and brothers and none of them slaves to another, and that 
 each people should best guard its own Metropolitical and Patriarchal rights in 
 religion, and in language, and its own race interests. 
 
 Or, 2, such unnatural and anti-national and oppressive subjedlion of one 
 nation to another in the Christian religion, and the supreme control and man- 
 agement of its own affairs by an alien Metropolitan or Patriarch has come from 
 the fact that one race has been brought under the secular sway of another, as, 
 for instance, when Spain, Gaul, Britain, or any other people outside of Italy 
 came under the secular sway of Rome, and the claim to Appellate Jurisdi(5lion 
 on the part of the Roman see was enforced by the Roman Emperor, as, for 
 instance, by Valentinian III., (see page 395, vol. i of Smith's Gieseler' s Church 
 Hist., and Gibbons' Rome, chap. 35, page 32, note, Bohn's 7 vol. edition), or, 
 on the other hand, when Sicily and Bari, for instance, which originally were 
 under the Roman see, came under the secular sway of the Emperors of Con- 
 stantinople, and the claim to Appellate Jurisdi<5lion of the see of Constantinople 
 was enforced by the Eastern Emperors. 
 
 Or, 3, sometimes a nation became subject to a Patriarch, foreign in race and 
 tongue to themselves when they settled in his Patriarchate and became Chris- 
 ians. For instance, in the seventh century the Bulgarians settled in Thrace, 
 one of the Civil Dioceses given to the Bishop of Constantinople by Canon 
 XXVIII., of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, in the ninth became Christians 
 and became subject to a greater or less extent to his see. But there was more 
 or less clashing between the two races, the Bulgarians and the Greeks, and 
 finally the Bulgarians with the spread of education and of race feeling, and with 
 the desire for independence from Turkey,have desired to be independent also of 
 the Greek See of Constantinople, and now have an autonomous national Church 
 of their own. 
 
482 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 I would, (1025) most reverent brethren, that your to be bowed to- 
 
 4. Sometimes a fragment of a conquered nation, as for instance North 
 Africa,?^ its weakness, to some extent seems to have lost its former independence 
 as for instance Carthage after its subjugation by the Mohammedans in its rela- 
 tions to Rome, and the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem in their rela- 
 tions to Constantinople, after their subjedlion to the Arabs. 
 
 5. Another cause of the subjedlion of a Christian nation to a foreign bishop 
 in their Church affairs was the fact that in an ignorant age the Western nations 
 were led to give Rome the power of Appellate JurisdiElion in their bounds, con- 
 trary to the Ecunietiical Canons, because they were deceived by the imposture of 
 the False Decretals, which from the ninth century till the sixteenth were gen- 
 erally regarded, but in the West only, as genuine; (see Smith's Gieseler' s Church 
 History, page 117, note 18 especially, and the whole context, pp. 109-119). They 
 bore down the opposition of Hincmar of Rheims who had stood up for the sway 
 of the Nicene Canons in France, {s&& Smith's Gieseler's Church History, vol. 2, 
 pages 1 21-125 and pp. 109-119). During the idolatrous middle ages both Rome 
 and Constantinople, the Old Rome and the New, corrupted with their spiritual 
 harlotry of creature worship and image worship the nations over whom they 
 exercised power, but Rome went further and by forcing on the deceived and 
 oppressed nations of the West, in the service her own tongue, which they did 
 not understand, kept them in ignorance and in spiritual and mental darkness, 
 and hindered the development of their native tongues, their knowledge of God's 
 Word that giveth light and understanding to the simple, and salvation, the de- 
 velopment of their literature and their civilization, and all those sciences and 
 trades which need a native literature in order to be well and profitably described 
 and understood. Surely if there is one lesson which every people ought to know 
 and to remember and to profit by it is that they should permit no foreign pre- 
 late to take away from their own native prelates their right and duty to judge 
 all cases iu dodlrine and in morals among their own people, and not to permit 
 any foreign bishop to exercise Appellate Jurisdi6lion over any of them, or to 
 substitute a foreign tongue for their own in the services or to introduce idolatry 
 and the worship of creatures among them. If the long centuries of superstition, 
 idolatry and degradation and woe under which we groaned, and the cost of 
 our emancipation are forgotten, and our blessings by it, we deserve the severest 
 punishments. 
 
 On the whole subject of Metropolitans and Patriarchs see in Bingham's 
 /w^^;r under those words Sind Primates. Under Primates he shows what the 
 powers of the Metropolitan, that is, as we say in later times. Patriarch of Carth- 
 age were. Smith's Gieseler's Church History, volume I., pages 371-397 has 
 valuable quotations from ancient documents on the Patriarchs. On pages 371, 
 372 he makes Canon VI. of Nicaea to be a confirmation of Patriarchal power. 
 See also id., pages 495-506. Wiltsch in his Geography and Statistics of the 
 Church, English translation, pages 56-59, and 138-145, shows that in the sense 
 of having several provinces under him the Bishop of Carthage was in effect what 
 we now call a Patriarch, till the almost complete destrudlion of the African 
 Church by the Mohammedans in the 7th and 8th centuries. 
 
Reading of the Letter of Capreolus of Carthage. 483 
 
 Synod (1026) might be celebrated (1027) in such a state of affairs^ 
 as that we also might send, not an excuse which deserves to be 
 lamented, but rather a delegation (1028) of our brethren and Fellow- 
 Bishops seledled by common consent and judgment; but different 
 causes have hindered our wish. For in the first place the Letter of 
 our Master and Son, the most religious Emperor Theodosius, which 
 has come to our hands is of such a tenor as specially asks for the 
 presence of our brother and Fellow-Bishop, Augustine of blessed 
 memory. But the letter aforesaid was not at all able to find him 
 alive (1029). Wherefore I, who received the same Imperial notifi- 
 cation which has been sent, although it seemed to be sent especially 
 to the aforesaid [Augustine], wished to gather, by suitable letters, 
 with the accustomed expressions, a fit (1030) Synod in all the prov- 
 inces of Africa (103 1) in order that some should be selecfted from 
 
 It is a curious fact that the Bishop of Constantinople in the middle ages 
 till the discovery of America in A. D. 1492, had a wider sway than Rome; for he 
 had not only Thrace, which is the only European Diocese given him in Canon 
 XXVIII. of Chalcedon, but also Eastern Illyricum, Macedonia, and Greece, 
 Servia, Roumania and all Russia: So that even in Europe he controlled more 
 territory, not more souls there, than Rome. Besides he had the Dioceses of 
 Asia Minor and Pontus in Asia, and pradlically controlled to a greater or less 
 extent all the other Eastern Patriarchates. And he adlually went so far as to 
 appoint for a long time Greek Bishops to some Slavic sees, a thing which was 
 not just nor right and which no Slavic people would stand to-day. 
 
 (1024). Capreolus was the successor of that famous Aurelius who defended 
 the liberty of Africa from the claim of Rome to Appellate Jurisdicflion there. 
 Here we see a second great Patriarchal See of the West represented as well as, 
 Ronje the first. In a future real Seventh Ecumenical Synod to do away with 
 idolatry and superstition, may we see all the great sees of the West represented, 
 and thoroughly Orthodox in all dodtrine, discipline and rite, that they may be 
 fit for it. 
 
 Capreolus seems to have been strong for the dodlrine of Orthodoxy against 
 Nestorian views. See the article on him in Smith and Wace's Di^lionary of 
 Christian Biography. 
 
 (1025). Or, '' I was wishing,'' or " I could wish,^^ or " would that,'' or "/ 
 would pray." Uhxofiijv is the Greek. 
 
 (1026). The bowing here meant is of course, not worship, but the bowing 
 of mere human respect, by living men to living men. So in every such mention 
 of the Synod in the above Letter. 
 
 (1027). Greek, avyKpoTijB^vai. 
 
 (1028). Greek, Trpeclidav. 
 
 (1029). Or, '' in this life." 
 
 ( 1 030) . Or, " a coucurriiig. ' ' 
 
434 Act I. of Ephes2is. 
 
 the number of our brethren and Bishops and should be sent to the to 
 be bowed to Synod of your Blessedness (1032). But inasmuch as 
 the entrance into the side roads is not open, for the hostile multitude 
 is spread abroad, and there is a wide ravaging of the provinces, 
 which, the inhabitants being either wiped out or fugitives, present a 
 miserable and extensive spedlacle of desolation long and wide, these 
 fa(5ls lessen opportunities of travelling and of communication (1033). 
 Owing to these hindrances therefore, the Bishops of the circle of 
 Africa have not been able to come together at all to one place. To 
 these fadls is to be added the fact that the Imperial I^etter came to us 
 in the days of the Pask, when an interval of hardly two months re- 
 mained before the meeting of all your to be bowed to Synod. That 
 period of time would hardly suffice even for the Synod in Africa 
 to assemble, even though no such difficulty from enemies as now 
 exists happened to be here. Hence although we have not been at 
 all able to send delegates (1034), nevertheless out of due respect for 
 ecclesiastical discipline, I have sent, O brethren to be bowed to, my 
 son Besula, the deacon, with this letter of excuse. Wherefore I ask 
 3^our Holiness, although I believe that by our God's special help 
 the Universal Faith will be unshaken and firm in all respecfts by 
 means of so great a Synod of to be bowed to Priests (1035), that by 
 the operation of the Holy Ghost, which we believe will be present 
 in all your hearts in the things to be done, ye thrust away by the 
 power of the ancient authority the new dodtrines which before this 
 time were unknown to Churchly ears, and that so ye oppose the 
 errors of whatsoever sort they be; lest, under pretext of a second 
 
 (1031). The six provinces under what we may term the Patriarchal throne 
 of Carthage were, Byzacene, Africa Proconsularis, Numidia, Mauritania Sitifensis, 
 Mauritania Caesariensis and Tingitana. 
 
 (1032). This title and several others in the singular are collective for the 
 whole Ecumenical Council. 
 
 (1033). The reference here is to the Vandals who at this time were devas- 
 tating Latin Africa and who finally conquered it, including Carthage itself. The 
 cause of this curse is to be found in the threats of God to punish idolaters, and 
 the fact that on the side of the Africans themselves there was grievous idolatry 
 at this time. Augustine in his work on the Morals of the Catholic Church, 
 Chap, xxxiv., states '■'I have known many worshippers ofpi^ures and of septd- 
 chres,'" and he laments the fact. And as he had seen the abuse and idolatry- 
 which followed the putting of images into the Church he might well say, ' 'It is 
 •a wicked thing to put an image into a temple of God.''' See page 25 of the Ox- 
 ford translation of Augustine's Short Treatises ^ and what is quoted from him in 
 ^y\er on Image-Worship y pages 198-206. 
 
 (1034). Greek, npicfSeic. 
 
 (1035)- On this term Priests see note 95, page 39 above, and note 1036 
 below. 
 
Reading of the Letter of Caprcolus of Carthage. 485 
 
 discussion, that way of [heretical] speaking which was disapproved 
 and aboUshed some time ago may seem to renew those against whom 
 the Church has warned aforetime, and in these times in which they 
 have sprung up again, whom both the authority of the Apostohc 
 See and the Priestly vote (1036) agreeing in one [aim and docflrine] 
 have crushed. For if, perchance, anj^thing arises which is new, 
 there is need of investigation in order that what is said may be either 
 approved, or that it may be condemned and repelled. But if any 
 one permits those matters regarding which a decision has long since 
 been given, to be discussed a second time, he himself will seem to 
 be nothing but a doubter in regard to the faith which has hitherto 
 prevailed (1037). Therefore for the sake of the example to poster- 
 ity, that those things which have already been decided on behalf of 
 the Universal Faith may be able to have perpetual confirmation, 
 those things which are already decreed by the Fathers are to be 
 kept and guarded. For whosoever wishes those things which he 
 would decree for the Universal Stability to remain perpetually, 
 ought to confirm whatsoever he thinks, not [merely] by his own 
 authority but also by the vote and sentence of those more ancient: 
 so that thus proving whatsoever he has asserted, as well by the 
 more ancient as by the newer decisions, he may make it clear that 
 he himself speaks and teaches and holds fast the sole-born (1038) 
 truth of the Universal Church which has come down in simple purity 
 and in unconquerable authority from the past times to the present, 
 that is, to ours. These things we suggest, at this time, to your to 
 be bowed to ears (1039) instead of [sending] a present delegation 
 from Africa, which the necessity aforesaid has not permitted us to 
 
 (1036), Priest is often used by the ancients for Bishop. Here Priestly 
 means Episcopal, for Bishops alone could vote in the Councils. The reference 
 is to the Pelagian and Arian heresies, the last of which was professed by the 
 Vandals then desolating Africa: both of which heresies had been condemned by 
 Rome and the bishops of the whole Church, East and West. Canon I. of Ephe- 
 sus condemns Pelagianism, for Celestius was a Pelagian. Rome is the Apostolic 
 see meant. \i Apostolic Sees were the original reading (and as we will show 
 elsewhere Romish editors have substituted Apostolic See for Apostolic Sees in 
 an Epistle of Augustine), the reference would be to all such sees. See on their in- 
 fluence TertuUian 07i Prescription, sedlion 36, pages 485-488 of the Oxford 
 translation. Apostolic See is the only le(5lion here given. 
 
 (1037). This was the sin of the creature invokers and image servers in the 
 eighth century who brought in those abominations after they had been con- 
 demned by the Third Ecumenical Synod and the Fifth, and so wrecked the 
 Eastern Church and much of the Western which adhered to those sins, and 
 wiped out so many hundreds of episcopates and so many millions of people. 
 
 (1038). Greek, iiovoyevfj rijq 'Kado7xK7ir 'EKK7ifjaiac rijv akifitiav. 
 
 (1039). This is not the wisest sort of an expression. But the Universal 
 
486 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 send; [at the same time] especially beseeching [you] to consider our 
 calamities in affairs and in the times, and not to ascribe our absence 
 to any pride or indifference, but rather to that foreevident necessity. 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, said, Let the Epistle [just] read of 
 the most reverent and most dear to God Bishop of Carthage, Capre- 
 olus, which has a plain meaning, be also inserted into the Records 
 [of the A(?ts] to [show their] good faith [and fairness (1040)]. For 
 he (1041) wishes on the one hand, the ancient dogmas of the faith 
 to be confirmed, and on the other, those things which are novel and 
 absurdly invented and impiously said to be disapproved and 
 cast out. 
 
 All the Bishops shouted out, These are the voices of all! We all 
 say these things. This is the wish of all. 
 
 Sentence passed upo?i Nestorius, deposing him: 
 
 The Holy Synod said: Forasmuch as in addition to the other 
 things, the most impious Nestorius was not willing to obey our 
 summons [to him], and besides did not receive the most holy and 
 most God-revering Bishops, who had been sent by us, we [therefore] 
 necessarily proceeded to the examination of the impieties committed 
 by him (1042). And inasmuch as we found out in regard to him, both 
 from his letters and writings and from the things lately said by him 
 
 Church is not to be held responsible for such obiter di^a, for she never approved 
 them, but only the dodlrinal clear sense of the letter as Cyril in eflfect says 
 further on above. 
 
 (1040). Greek, * * * kinaTolrj * * * £jbL(j)ep€a6o) rij irlareL tuv vtto/jlvtj- 
 fiaruv. I understand Cyril to mean by this that he would have Capreolus' Letter 
 to the Synod inserted into its Adls to show that the Council had adled in good 
 faith in claiming to be an Ecumenical Synod and to represent the whole 
 Church, ihe West as well as the East, and its belief on dodlrine. For it had 
 present a representation of the greatest part of the Orient, as well as written 
 utterances from the then two greatest Western sees, Rome and Carthage. And 
 we shall find Rome represented by its legates farther on. In this respect 
 the Synod forms a striking contrast with the Conciliabulum of the Nestorians 
 at Ephesus which did not have one Orthodox Bishop present from the West and 
 which represented only a small part of the East, and all those partisans of an 
 anti-Incarnation and Man-Worshipping heretic. 
 (1041). Or, "/7." 
 
 (1042). They '' necessarily proceeded''' according to Christ's express law 
 laid down in Matt, xviii., 15-21, as to matters between Bishops; for Bishops are 
 Apostles in order, as I show elsewhere in this Set. Besides that, the canons lay 
 down that mode of procedure. See note below. 
 
Sentence of the Council on Nestorius and His Impieties. 487 
 
 in this very metropolis (1043) and testified to, in addition, that he 
 thinks and preaches impiously; and forasmuch as we are necessarily 
 pressed both by the Canons (1044) and by the Epistle of our most 
 holy father and fellow-minister Celestine the bishop of the Church 
 of the Romans (1045) we have [therefore] come, often weeping, to 
 the sad sentence against him (1046). Therefore our Lord Jesus 
 
 (1043). Ephesus, where the Council was held. 
 
 (1044). Hefele {^Hii^cory of the Church Councils, English translation, vol, 3, 
 page 51) thinks that canon 74 of the so-called Apostolical Canons is here re- 
 ferred to. That is in effect a putting into Canon-form of what Christ said only 
 to the Apostolate, that is, the Episcopate, in Matt, xviii., 15-21, as the Church, 
 judged by its pradlice, understood it from the beginning. See what I have writ- 
 ten in this Set elsewhere on those points. 
 
 (1045). The Synod mean that the first Bishop of the Church representing 
 part of Italy, and the majority of the East having made a decision of the whole 
 Church, or the bulk of it, which pradlically amounts to the same thing, and the 
 Canons and whole Church thus calling upon them to check the spreading cancer 
 of Nestorius' errors and heresies, and to save the faith and the Church, they 
 deemed it obligatory to do so. 
 
 (1046). These words uttered by the whole assembly show how false the 
 charge is that these two hundred Bishops all adled from envy or mere personal 
 hatred of the heretic ; and, on the other hand, his own unbrotherly, rough and 
 unmannerly conduct towards them by their messengers, shows how much he 
 was swayed by what is wrong and forms an unpleasant contrast to the Council's 
 treatment of him, every step of which was stridlly canonical, and according to 
 the laws laid down and held fast to in the Church from the beginning. Notice 
 the fairness of the Synod and the unfairness of Nestorius and his friends and 
 partisans. The Metropolitans of the whole Empire were invited. That would 
 secure a representation of the whole Church and so the decision would be what 
 was aimed at, the voice of the Universal Church. Rome, taught by Cyril's and 
 Nestorius' writings, and the whole West were one, as we learn from the writings 
 of Capreolus of Carthage and Vincent of Lerins. The bulk of the East, represent- 
 ed by the Two Hundred Bishops, were of the same mind against the heresiarch. 
 Even with the Bishops of the Conciliabulum he had only about forty Episcopal 
 supporters at Ephesus and these represented only a small part of the Church. 
 If they had all sat in the Ecumenical Synod they could not have cast more than 
 about one-sixth of the whole vote. There would have been about five votes 
 against Nestorius to one in his favor, and that would not have altered the result. 
 Besides the local Council of Egypt and that of Rome had spoken against the 
 heresia/ch before. Hence he began from the start at Ephesus to hedge and to 
 dodge. He refused canonical citations knowing what steps according to the 
 Canons were likely to follow. He uses soldiers and the secular power to hinder 
 the Council's work. The Council tries him, as it was compelled to do by his 
 obstinate refusals to appear, in his absence. And everything was done fairly 
 
488 Act I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 Anointed Who has been blasphemed by him, has decreed, through 
 the present most holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is an alien 
 from the Episcopal dignity and from every Priestly assembly. 
 
 and canonically. The Creed of the First Synod is read. It is a criterion. The 
 faith of the Universal Church East and West is set forth in many quotations 
 from Twelve Fathers, representing both sedlious. Then Nestorius' own writ- 
 ings and utterances are examined and found to be heretical because 
 
 1. They denied the hicarnation of God the Word, and 
 
 2. Taught service to His humanity by bowiiig, etc., which, of course, is 
 CreaTurk-Service, and a return to the fundamental error of paganism, and, 
 as Cyril again a7id again teaches, a plain violation of Christ' s primary Law 07t 
 
 Worship, set forth in Blatthew iv., lo: see note 183 above, page 103 and the con- 
 text. See also under that text in the Index to Holy Writ in this work. 
 
 Passages of Nestorius above which deny the Inflesh are i, 2, 3, 4, and 7. 
 Compare Passages 11 and 12. Passage 7 seems to belong here and with the 
 Passages in the next sentence below. 
 
 Passages which teach worship to Christ's mere humanity either ^jj/^zVz«^ it 
 the name of God or by giving to it that dignity of Divine Sonship which is pre- 
 rogative to God the Word, or by giving bowing to it, the most common of the 
 adls of religious service and so standing for them all, are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 
 and 15. 
 
 3. Another error for which Nestorius was condemned was for what St. 
 Cyril, his opponent, terms his avdpon-oipayia, that is, his Cannibalism on the 
 Eucharist: See Passage 18 from him on page 472 above. This dodlrine of a 
 real presence and a real eating of Christ's flesh and blood in the rite was associated 
 in the mind of his chief champion Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and presumably 
 in his own, with their worship there by a one nature Consubstantiation, that 
 is, by that of the human nature alone with the bread and wine: see note 606 
 above, pages 240-313, and especially pages 250-313. On pages 276-313 I have 
 shown the difference between St. Cyril and Nestorius as to the Worship of the 
 Eucharist: see there. 
 
 4. Nestorius was condemned for denying the fundamental do(5lrine of 
 Economic Appropriation, that is, as St. Athanasius approved by St. Cyril ex- 
 plains it, the Economic Appropriatio7i of the suflferings, death and the other 
 peculiarly human things of Christ's humanity to God the Word to prevent the 
 worship of a mere creature, that is. His humanity, and to teach men to look in 
 Christ to the omnipresent and omniscient Word who is very God, and to wor- 
 ship Him alone in the Son, by prayer, and the other acfls of worship. See 
 Athanasius and Cyril as quoted on this matter in volume i of Nicaea in this 
 Set, pag^s 237-240, and all the utterances in the context there of St. Athanasius 
 and St. Epiphanius against Creature- Worship, and anticipatively against the 
 Nestorian worship of Christ's mere humanity. Those of the twenty blasphem- 
 ous Passages of Nestorius, which are against the dodlrine of Economic Appro- 
 priation are i, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19. 
 
Signatures of the Bishops. 489 
 
 /, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, have subscribed, defining to- 
 gether with the Holy Synod, (1047). 
 
 I, fuvenal, Bishop of ferusalem, have subscribed, defining to- 
 gether with the Holy Synod. 
 
 /, Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, have subscribed, defining to- 
 gether with the Holy Synod. 
 
 /, Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, have subscribed, 
 etc., (1048).. 
 
 /, Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 5. As a result of his denial of the Inman, and of his belief in the Scriptural- 
 ness of giving relative worship to Christ's mere humanity, and of his denial of the 
 dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, Nestorius made Christ's mere humanity 
 to be our High Priest and Apostle, our sole Advocate arid Mediator arid Inter- 
 cessor above, and so made our redemption on the cross to be achieved by a mere 
 creature, as though a creature could save a creature eternally. And so he taught 
 men to direct their prayers to a mere created Intercessor and so led them into 
 the error of worshipping a creature. Passages of Nestorius' Twenty which 
 make Christ's mere humanity our High Priest are 11, 16, 17 and 19. In Pas- 
 sage 17 Nestorius blasphemes, as Cyril shows, by making his mere human 
 Christ, a perfect and sinless Man, offer a sacrifice for himself, 
 
 (1047). On these subscriptions note i, columns 1077, 1078 in tome 3 of 
 Coleti's Co7icilia, states: "Hardouin compared these subscriptions with the 
 translation of Marius Mercator, which we will give below from Baluze. The 
 variation of the Codexes in these, says Hardouin, is incredible. The old trans- 
 lation, in the edition of Antonius Contius, and in Baluze's, which we ex- 
 hibit below, omits the rest of the names after Juvenal's, and has the follow- 
 ing annotation: Arid all the Bishops aforesaid, who were more than two hun- 
 dred in number, subscribed to the condemnation of Nestorius, for some filled the 
 places of other Bishops who were not able to come to the Ephesine Metropolis,'''^ 
 that is, to Ephesus. On these subscriptions compare pages 22-30, above. 
 
 It will be noticed that St. Cyril does not assume that because he represented 
 Rome and Egypt that that fact settled the controversy. On the contrary all 
 the fa6ls and these signatures which follow show that as in the other Ecumenical 
 Councils it was the majority of episcopal votes which settled everything. For 
 Christ had given the same power to bind and to loose and to baptize and to 
 Eucharistize and to teach to all the Apostles and had promised his Spirit to 
 guide them into all truth. None of those promises are limited to Peter the first 
 of the Apostles, of whose fallibility however, the Scripture gives us clear proofs. 
 And the power to teach on the highest themes of dogma and of discipline is 
 exercised in its highest and noblest manifestation in an Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 ( 1048). Etc. , stands for ' ' defining together with the Holy Synod.''' 
 
490 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 /, Acacius, by the mercy of God Bishop of Melitene, who agree 
 with the Holy Synod in the forewritten sentence, have subscribed. 
 
 /, Theodotus, Bishop of the holy Omrch of Ancyra (1049), agree 
 wdth the Holy Synod and have subscribed. 
 
 /, PalladhiSy Bishop of Amasia (1050), agree with the Holy 
 Synod in the sentence forewritten and have subscribed. 
 
 /, Amphilochius, Bishop of Sida (1051), have subscribed, defin- 
 ing together with the Holy Synod. 
 
 /, Ico7iius, Bishop of Gortyjia in Crete, have subscribed, defin- 
 ing together w^th the Holy Synod. 
 
 /, Felix, Bishop of the cities of Apollonia a7id Belts, have sub- 
 scribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Daniel, Bishop of Coio7iia (1052), have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Perigeyies^ Bishop of CoriTith (1053), have subscribed, de- 
 fining, etc. 
 
 /, Hellanicus {lo^^), Bishop of Rhodes, have subscribed, etc, 
 
 I, Cyrus the least. Bishop of Aphrodisias (1055), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 I, Donat2is {^10^6), Bishop of Nicopolis in Old Epirus, have 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Eucharius, Bishop of Dyrrhachitim (1057), have subscribed, 
 defining, etc. 
 
 /, Senecion, Bishop of the city of Codri7ie (1058), have subscribed, 
 etc, 
 
 (1049). The Latin translations of parts of this Synod differ widely; and 
 some things which they contain are evidently mere annotations of the transla- 
 tor. I give one of them in this note, and others of them in the notes below. A 
 manuscript adds, " of the First Galatia." 
 
 (1050). A manuscript adds, "of Hellespontus " for "of Helenopontus.'* 
 
 (105 1). A manuscript adds, "in Pamphylia." 
 
 (1052). A manuscript adds, " in the Second Cappadocia." 
 
 (1053). A manuscript adds, "in Hellas." 
 
 (1054). A manuscript adds, "of the metropolis of the Rhodians." 
 
 (1055). A manuscript adds, " in the Province of Caria." 
 
 (1056). A manuscript has Dynaius; Marius Mercator has Dinastus. In 
 the Council of Chalcedon we find Duiatus. 
 
 (1057). A manuscript adds, * ' of New Epirus." 
 
 (1058). Or, '' Codrus,'" or " Codra,'' or " Codri.'^ I do not find" Codrus," 
 
Signatures of the Bishops. 491 
 
 /, Epiphanitis, Bishop of Cratia (1059), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Eusebius^ Bishop of Heraclea (1060), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, A7iysius, Bishop of the holy Onirch of God at Thebes in Greece, 
 have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Domnus {1061), Bishop of the holy Church of God at Opus 
 (1062), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Agathocles, Bishop of the city of the Coronaeans (1063), have 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Gregory, by God' s favor Bishop of Cerasus (1064), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Paralius, by God' s mercy Bishop of the Andrapans (1065), 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Callicrates, Bishop of Naupactus, have subscribed, etc. 
 . /, Nicias, Bishop of Megai-a (1066), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Docimasius, Bishop of the city Maronia i7t the Province of 
 Rhodope, in the Diocese of Thrace, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Lucian, Bishop of the city of Toperus {io6y), in the same Prov- 
 ince, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 or "Codra," or "Codri," in Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
 English translation, nor among the Episcopal Sees mentioned by Bingham in the 
 Ninth Book of his Antiquities, nor in the Index of Episcopal Sees, at the end of 
 Vol. 3 of the ten volume edition of his works. Scodrus was the old metropolis of 
 the Province of Praevalitana in the Civil Diocese of Dacia. In Smith's Didlion- 
 ary of Greek and Ro7nan Geography, I find a ''Codrion " which was in Illyria. 
 Harpers' Latin Visionary mentions a "Codrio or Codrion " which was **a 
 /own in Greek Illyria.''' 
 
 (1059). -A. manuscript adds, " in Honorias." 
 
 (1060). A manuscript adds, "in the Province of Honorias." 
 
 (1061). A manuscript has "Domninus." 
 
 (1062). A manuscript adds, ** in Greece." 
 
 (1063). Marius Mercator has ** of Coronia." 
 
 (1064). "A manuscript adds, ^ i7i Pontus Polemoniacus.^ The same for 
 Eleusius of Neocaesarea;" note here in Harduini Concilia, tome i, col. 1423. 
 
 (1065). That is, of the inhabitants of Andrapa. A manuscript adds " in 
 Hellenopontus. ' ' 
 
 (1066). A manuscript has "of the Megarans." As Megaraisboth feminine 
 singular and neuter plural, therefore that or the reading in the text above may 
 be correct. 
 
 (1067). A manuscript adds, "of the Province of Rhodope." I should add 
 
492 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 /, Ennepius, Bishop of the city of My xa {1068) in the same Prov- 
 ince (1069), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Rheginiis, Bishop of the city of Constantia (1070), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Sapricius, Bishop of Pap ho s (107 1), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Themistius, the least, Bishop of fassiis (1072), have sub- 
 scribed, defining together with the Holy Synod. 
 
 /, Perebius, Bishop of the Thessalonian Woodlands (io73)> i^ave 
 subscribed, defining together with the Holy Synod. 
 
 /, Aphthonetus, the least, Bishop of Heraclea (1074), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Spudasius, Bishop of the Ceramans (1075), liave subscribed, 
 etc. 
 
 /, Philettis, the least, Bishop of Amy son (1076), have subscribed, 
 etc. 
 
 /, Archelaus, Bishop of Myndus (1077), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Apellas, the least, Bishop of Cibyrrha (1078), have subscribed, 
 etc. 
 
 that most of the remarks above on these subscriptions are from the margin of 
 Hardouin's Concilia here, from the readings of the manuscripts of the Latin. 
 
 (1068). Mercatorhas " Maximianopolis." 
 
 (1069). A manuscript adds, " in the Province of Rhodope." 
 
 (1070). Mercator adds, " in Cyprus." 
 
 (1071). Mercator adds " in Cyprus." 
 
 (1072). A manuscript has " of Jasus in Caria." 
 
 (1073). A manuscript has " Perebius of the Thessalian Woodlands," or 
 "Thessalian Passes." 
 
 (1074), 'A(p66vr]To^ eMxiGTO^ STriaKOTTo^ 'UpaKTiEia^ vn-eyparpa, KaiTde^t/c Whether 
 eMxioToc should be rendered here "the least " in the sense of very humble, or 
 ' ' least ' ' in the sense of being a bishop of a small Church, I leave others to j udge. 
 I have used the literal English here and in the places below and above. I take 
 the former to be the correct meaning. 
 
 (1075). Or, ''of Ceramusy A manuscript adds, "in the Province ot 
 Caria." 
 
 (1076). A manuscript adds, "in Caria." 
 
 (1077). A manuscript adds, * * in Caria. ' ' 
 
 (1078). A manuscript adds, " a city of Caria." 
 
Signatures of the Bishops. 493 
 
 /, Phanias, the least, Bishop of the city of Harpasa (1079), have 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Promachius, Bishop of the Alindayis (1080), have subscribed, 
 etc. 
 
 /, Anderius, (108 1), Bishop of the city of Cherronesus in the Prov- 
 ince of Crete^ have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Paid, Bishop of the city of Lampe (1082), i7i the Province of 
 Crete, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Zenobius, Bishop of the City ofGnossus hi the Provijice of Crete y 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theodore (1083), Bishop of Dodone in Old Epirus, have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Secmidianus, Bishop of the holy Church of Godiji Lamia (1084), 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Dion, Bishop of Thebes in Thessaly, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theodore, Bishop of Echinaeus (1085), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Heracleoji, who am also Theophiltis, Bishop of Tralles (1086), 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Euporus, Bishop of Hypaepa, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Rhodon, Bishop of Palaeopolis, in Asia, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Tychicus, Bishop of the city of the Erythraeans [or * * of the 
 Erythrans"] (1087), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Nestorius. Bishop of Sion (1088), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Eutychius, Bishop of the Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church 
 of God in Theodosiopolis (1089), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 (,1079). A manuscript adds, "in Caria." 
 
 (1080). A manuscript adds, *' in Caria." 
 
 (loBi). Mercator has "Andrew. " 
 
 (1082). A manuscript has " Lappa." 
 
 (1083). A manuscript has •" Dorotheus. " 
 
 (1084). A manuscript has " in the Province of Thessaly." 
 
 (1085). A manuscript has " of Bchineus in the Province of Thessaly." 
 
 (1086). A manuscript of the Latin has ** of Tralles," and another has "of 
 
 the Trallians. ' ' 
 
 (1087). A Latin manuscript has "of the Chytrorans in Asia." 
 
 (1088). A manuscript of the Latin translation has "of the Province of 
 
 Asia." 
 
494 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 /, Modestus, Bishop of the Aneans (1090), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theosebius, the least. Bishop of the dty of Priene (1091), have 
 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theodotus, Bishop of Nyssa, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Maximus, the least, Bishop of Assus, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Maximus, Bishop of Cuma (1092), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Alexander, Bishop of Arcadiopolis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theodore, Bishop of the Anenysians (1093), have subscribed, 
 
 etc. 
 
 I, Eusebius, Bishop of the Clazomenians {109^) , have subscribed, 
 
 etc. 
 
 I, Eusebius, Bishop of Magnesia (1095), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Theodosius, Bishop of Mastaura (1096), have subscribed, etc. 
 I, Eutropius, [the] least, Bishop of Evaza, have subscribed, etc. 
 I, Philip, Bishop of the city of the Pergamians (1097), ^ave sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 I, Aphobius, the least, Bishop of Colo7ia (1098), have subscribed, 
 
 etc. 
 
 I, Dorotheus, the least, Bishop of Myrina (io99),have subscribed, 
 
 etc. 
 
 I, Euthalius, Bishop 0/ the city of the Colophonians , have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 I, Heliotheus, Bishop of the Briulitans, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Athanasius, Bishop of the island Parasus (iioo), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 (1089). A manuscript adds, " of Asia." 
 
 (1090). In Asia. 
 
 (1091). A manuscript adds ** in Asia." 
 
 (1092). A Latin manuscript has '* of Cyme in Asia." 
 
 (1093). A manuscript has " of Anenysia.'' 
 
 (1094) . Or ''of Clazomenae. ' ' 
 
 (1095). A manuscript adds, "on Mount Sipylus," which was in Lydia in 
 Asia Minor, 
 
 (1096). A manuscript adds, " in Asia." 
 
 (1097). Or, '' of Pergaimis.'' 
 
 (1098). Mercator has " Coloes." 
 
 (1099). Another spelling is Myrrhina. 
 
Signatures of the Bishops. 495- 
 
 /, Hesychius, Bishop of the city of Parium in the Province of. 
 Hellesp07itus, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Eusebizis, Bishop of the Asponians (iioi), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, PhilumenuSy Bishop of Cinjia (1102), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Zeno, Bishop of the city Curium in Cyprus, have subscribed, 
 etc. 
 
 /, Tribonianus, Bishop of the holy Church in Priamopolis (11 03), 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Nunechius, Bishop of the holy Church in Selga, have sub' 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Evagrius, Bishop of Solia (1104), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Caesarius, Chorepiscopus (1105), of the city of Alee (1106), 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, fohn, Bishop of Praeconnesus, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Nesius, Bishop of the holy Church of God in Corybosyna^ have 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, AcaciuSy Bishop of the Church of God in Cotena, have sub' 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, NeHarius, Bishop of the Universal Church (1107) in Senea^ 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Solon, Bishop of Carallia, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, MatidianuSy Bishop of the city of the Coracisians (1108), have 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Marianus, Bishop of the Church in Lyrba, have subscribed, 
 etc. 
 
 (iioo). Mercator in the Council of Chalcedon, has ^^ of the island oj 
 Paros.^^ 
 
 (iioi). a manuscript adds "ofGalatia." 
 
 (1102). In Galatia, as we see on page 152 above. 
 
 (1103). Hardouin's margin has " otherwise of Aspendus." 
 
 (1104). Mercator has "of Soli in Cyprus." 
 
 (1105). Greek, .t'^pfTTicr/coTroc, that is, ^'Country Bishop.'''' See on those pre- 
 lates the Index to Bingham's Aniiguiiies under Chorepiscopi, and in Smith, 
 and Cheetham's Di5l. of Christ. Antiq. under Chorepiscopus. 
 
 (1106). Mercator has "Arce " In Act VI. it is Arcesena. 
 
 (1107). Greek, rijq iv ^evea KadoTiiKrjq EKKlrjaia^. 
 
 ( 1108) . Or, ^^ of the city of Coracesiu w . " 
 
496 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 /, Theodulus, Bishop of Helusa, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, PhiladelphiuSy Bishop of the Gratianopolitans {iio(^), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theo^istus, Bishop of the city of the Phocaeans, have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Rufiyms, Bishop of the city of the Tabanians (mo), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 I, fohn^ Bishop of Augustopolis, have subscribed, etc, 
 
 /, RomanuSy Bishop of Rhaphia, have subscribed, etc, 
 
 /, Fidus, Bishop offoppa, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Ajanes, Bishop of Sycamazon, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Paulianus, Bishop of Majuma, have subscribed, etc, 
 
 /, Theodore, Bishop of Arbdela, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Peter, Bishop of Par em tola, have subscribed etc. 
 
 /, Paul, Bishop ofAnthedo7i, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Netoras, Bishop of Gaza, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Saidas, Bishop of Phae^iis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, SerenianuSy Bishop of the city of the Myrians (mi), have 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Cyril, Bishop of Pylae. I Selenesp07idius, a presbytet [and] a 
 visitor (1112), have subscribed for him, because he suffers in his 
 hand. 
 
 /, Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocurora, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, EusebiuSy Bishop of Pelusium, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Evoptius, Bishop of Ptolemais, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Phoebammon, Bishop of Coptus, have subscribed, etc. ' 
 
 /, Paul, Bishop of Phrago7iea, have subscribed, defining together 
 with the Synod. 
 
 ( 1 109) . Ox '' of the city of Gratianopolis. ' ' 
 
 (mo). That is, ^' of the inhabitants of the city Tabae, or Tabia, (or 
 Tabana ?) 
 
 (nil). That is, "of the inhabitants of the city Myra," or, "Myrum," or, 
 **Myria." 
 
 (11 12). Or, "an itinerant." S&e Periodeutae and. Chorepiscopus in Smith 
 and Cheetham's DiH. of Cht'ist. Antiq. and under WEpiodtvTat and Chorepiscopus 
 in Bingham, where we see that the goer-about {7repio6£VT?jc) was a presbyter 
 only Uke our Rural Dean, not a Chorepiscopus at all. See Rural Deans in 
 Hook's Church DiHionary. 
 
Signattires of the Bishops. 497 
 
 /, Macedonius, Bishop of Xoes, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Peter, Bishop of Oxyrinchus, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Adelphius, Bishop of the Church of the Onuphites (1113), liave 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Athanasius, Bishop of Paralius, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Heraclides, Bishop of the Parish {napouia^) (11 14), of Thynis, 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Silvanus, Bishop of Coprithis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Cyrus, Bishop of the Achaeans {iiis), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Mariyius, Bishop of Heliopolis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Macarius, Bishop of the Metelitans (11 16), have subscribed, 
 
 £tc. 
 
 /, Adetphius, Bishop of Sais, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Metradorus, Bishop of Leonta (1117), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, /f7//;2, Bishop of the Hephaestians, have subscribed, ^/<:. 
 
 /, Leontizis, Bishop * * * (11 18), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 {1119). 
 
 (i 1 13) . Onuphis was in Aegyptus Prima. 
 
 (1114). napo//cm, from which our word /'a^'W-^ comes, was anciently used 
 among the Greeks, where among us diocese is used now. For the dioceses were 
 smaller generally among them than among us now, and there were, perhaps, 
 more bishops in the fifth century than there are now; though now, the number 
 of those who profess to be Christians is much larger than then. For anciently 
 many of the smaller episcopates had only a few presbyters and deacons under 
 a bishop. Where parish was used for the later diocese, the congregations in it 
 were styled churches or congregations. 
 
 (11 15). Or, "of Achaeus." 
 
 (II 16). That is, "Bishop of the inhabitants of the city Metelis." 
 
 (1117). Or, " of the Leontians," or " of the Leontopolitans." 
 
 (11 18). There is a blank space in Coleti here indicating that some thing is 
 lacking, that is, the name of the see, whether because the manuscript is injured 
 or not I can not say. 
 
 (11 19). There is much difiference in spelling some of the names of the sees 
 in the Councils, Much of it arises from the fact that the Greeks aimed to spell 
 as they pronounced and that different combinations of letters in Greek are now, 
 and probably were then, pronounced in the same way. Take for instance the 
 Greek see lava, which is also spelled Td/3a<. In Latin and in English these 
 would be spelled respe6lively Taua and labae and pronounced therefore quite 
 diflferently. But m. Greek the pronunciation would be Tava and Tavk. The 
 same sort of difference in spelling is preserved in other ancient writings. 
 
498 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 /, Strategms^ Bishop of the Church {1126) of the AthribiteSy 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Lampetius, Bishop of Cassium, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabasa (1121), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Eusebius, Bishop of NitopoliSy have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Chrysaorius, Bishop of the Aphrodita?is (1122), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Alexander, Bishop of Cleopatris, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theon, Bishop of Heraclea of the Sethroetum (1123), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Theonas, Bishop of Psynchis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 Another cause of the variations would be the ignorance of some copyists 
 on geography which would lead them to confound names of different places. 
 Besides, some of them did not know the ordinary spelling of names of places, 
 and so they spelled them as they fancied. Sometimes they wrote from dila- 
 tion and not knowing the spelling and not seeing the manuscript which they 
 were copying, they made bad blunders in spelling in their haste. Sometimes 
 they may have taken an abbreviation for the full name, as for instance, Leonto 
 for Leontopolis, as some foreigners might take our Mass. for Massachusetts to 
 be the whole name. 
 
 Still another cause is the fact that owing to the Mohammedan irruptions 
 and conquests the names of many sees in the East and in Africa have perished 
 with the sees and towns themselves, which are utterly wiped out. Hence we 
 can not always identify them or even their exact sites. Sometimes there is an 
 erasure in the manuscript as above. Sometimes the Bishop may have forgotten 
 to write the name of his see. 
 
 (11 20). Or, " of the city. " 
 
 (1121). Or, " of the Cabasites. " 
 
 (1122). Or, " Bishop of Aphrodita." 
 
 (II 23). Or, " the Sethroetus. " There were several Heracleas in different 
 parts of the world. There was one in the Province of Arcadia in the jurisdic- 
 tion of Cyril of Alexandria. Sethroeta is given in Wiltsch's Geography, etc., as 
 the name of a see in Augustamnica Prima under Cyril. But was the country 
 round about it called the Sethroetum, or the Sethroetis, and was the Heraclea 
 here meant situated in that country ? Wiltsch, in notez, page 194, Vol. I. of 
 his Geography and Statistics of the Oturch, states that Sethroeta was " to the 
 west of Pelusium. The first bish. at the Counc. of Eph. in 431, " and in note 3, 
 page 196 of the same volume, he tells us that Heraclea Superior was iii the 
 Province of Arcadia and so under Cyril, and was, "near Coma. The first bish. 
 at the Counc. of Nice, the last at the Counc. of Eph. in 431." But Bingham in 
 his Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book IX., Chapter 2, Sedliou 6. stales 
 
Signatures of the Bishops. 499 
 
 /, Heradides, Bishop of the Upper Heraclea, have subscribed, etc, 
 ly Aristobulus, Bishop of Thmuis, have subscribed, etc. 
 /, Ammojt, Bishop of the city of the Butinians (1124), have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 /, Andrew, Bishop of Hermopolis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Macarius, Bishop of Anteum, have subscribed, etc 
 
 /, Sabinus, Bishop of Pa7i, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Heraclius, Bishop of Tamiathis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Zenobius, Bishop of Barca hi Pentapolis, have subscribed, etc, 
 
 /, Isaac, Bishop of Elearchia, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Zeno, Bishop of Teuchira, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Abraham, Bishop of the city Ostraci?ia, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Hieraces, Bishop of the Aph7iaita7is, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Samuel, Bishop of Dysthis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Daniel, Bishop of Darna, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I Sosipater, Bishop of Libya Septimiaca, have subscribed, etc, 
 
 I, Alypius, Bishop of Sela, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 that there was a Heraclea Superior in the Province of Arcadia, and another 
 also which was called ** the little city of Hercules," in Latin, Herculis Civitas 
 Parva, which was ''in the name Sethroete'^ or *' Sethroetis,'' (in Sethroete 
 nomo). Liddell and Scott in their Greek Lexicon under vofioq tell us that that 
 word was used for " a district province, ^^ and that " voiiol was the name given ta 
 the districts into which Egypt was divided." I judge therefore, that the above 
 mentioned Heraclea was that in the Sethroetan Nome in Augustamnica Prima, 
 west of Pelusium. Donne in his article ^4*?^^^//^^, in Smith's DiHionary of 
 Greek and Roman Geography tells us that in the time of Augustus the Emperor, 
 Egypt was divided into three great distridls called Epistrategiae, that is, Upper 
 Egypt, Middle Egypt and Lower Egypt, and that each of them was divided into 
 nomes; see id,, Vol. I., page 47. Under Heracleopolis Magna, that is, the great 
 city of Hercules, or the Heraclea which was the Upper one, that is, the furthest 
 up the Nile, he shows that it was in Middle Egypt. Heracleopolis Parvay 
 the Little city of Hercules, which was called also the Lower city of Her- 
 cules, that is, the Lower Heraclea, was lower down the Nile, and in Lower 
 Egypt, and he shows that "It stood near Pelusium, in the Sethroite nome,, 
 and beyond the westernmost branch of the Delta." This, therefore, is evidently 
 the see mentioned above in the text. Since the above was written I have seert 
 Theonas' signature at the end of Act I. of Ephesus, which shows that the 
 Heraclea meant was in the Sethroetum. This is made still clearer from the 
 fact that just below at the end of Act I. Heraclides signs as "Bishop of the 
 Upper Heraclea. " 
 
500 A^i I' of Ephesus, 
 
 /, Ammonius, Bishop of Panephysus {112^), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I ^ Helladius, Bishop of the holy Church of God * * * (1126), 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Bosporius (1127), Bishop of Gangra, the Metropolis of the Prov- 
 ince of Pamphylia, have subscribed, defining together with the holy 
 Synod. /, Hypatius, A Presbyter deputed by him, have subscribed, be- 
 cause he himself is sick. 
 
 /, Arghitis, Bishop of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, have sub- 
 scribed. I, Synesius, a Presbyter, have subscribed for him because 
 he is unwell. 
 
 /, Helladius, Bishop of the holy Omrch at Adrarnytum (1128), 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Stephen, Bishop of the city of the Teitans (11 29) in Asia, have 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Iddyas, Bishop of Smyrna, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Aristonicus, [the] least. Bishop of the Metropolis of the Laodi- 
 ceansy have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Beneagus, Bishop of the Church in Hierapolis . /, Paul, a Pres- 
 byter, have subscribed for him, he being present and at his command, 
 
 etc. 
 
 I, Silvanus, Bishop of Ceratapa (1130), have subscribed, defin- 
 ing, etc. 
 
 /, Constantine, Bishop of the city of the Diocletia^is (1131), liave 
 subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Hermolaus, Bishop of the Sattudians, have subscribed, defin- 
 ing (11 32), etc. 
 
 I, Asclepiades, Bishop of the Church at Trapezopolis, have sub- 
 scribed, defining, etc. 
 
 (1124). Or, " of the city Butus." 
 
 (1125). Or, '^ of Pa7iaephysus,'' or '' of Panaephysis.'* 
 
 (II 26). There is something lacking here, shown by the lacuna in Coleti. 
 It is the name of the see. 
 
 (1127). Or, "Bosphorius." 
 
 (1128). Or, "at Adrametum," or "at Adramy ttium. " 
 
 (1 1 29). Or, "ofTeos." 
 
 (1130). Or, " of the Ceretapans," or " of Chaeretapa." 
 
 (1131). Or, "of Diocletianopolis." 
 
 (1132), Or, " decreeing." 
 
Sig7iatures of the Bishops, 501 
 
 I.John, Bishop of Lesbos, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Peter, the least, Bishop of Crusa, have subscribed, defining, 
 etc. 
 
 I, Eugene, the least. Bishop of Apollonias, have subscribed, de- 
 fining, etc. 
 
 I, Calli7iicus, Bishop of Apamia {ii^^z), have subscribed, defin- 
 ing, etc. 
 
 I, Athanasius, Bishop of the Church at Dzieltus ajid SozopoliSy 
 have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Valeriaii, Bishop of Iconium, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Pius, Bishop of Pessinus (1134), have subscribed, defining, 
 etc. 
 
 /, Thomas, Bishop of Dtrbe, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Martyrius, Bishop of Helistra, have subscribed, defining, etc, 
 
 I, Ablavitis, Bishop of Amorium, have subscribed, defining, etc, 
 
 I, Letojus, Bishop of Libyas, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Severus, Bishop of Symiada i7i the Province of Phrygia Salu- 
 taris, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Domninus, Bishop of Cotneum {\\2i^ , in the province of Phrygia 
 Salutaris, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Eustathius, Bishop of Docimium, in the province of Phrygia 
 Salutaris, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Dalmatitis, Bishop of the holy Church of God at Cyzicus, have 
 subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Timothy, Bishop of * * * (1136), /« the province of the 
 Scythia7is, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Athariasius, Bishop of the city of the Scepsians, in the provi7ice 
 of Hellesp07itus, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Meonius, Bishop of the city of Sardis in Lydia, have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 (1133). Better, "Apamea." 
 
 (1134). Or, "of the Pessinusites, " or "of the Pessinuntians.'* 
 
 (1135). Or, "of CotyaiutQ," or " Cotyaeum." 
 
 (1136). Something is lacking here, for there is a lacuna in the text of Coleti 
 in this place. 
 
502 • Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 /, Theophanes, Bishop of the city of Philadelphia, have subscribed, 
 etc. 
 
 /, Phoscus, Bishop of Thyatira, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Timothy, Bishop of the city of the Therma7is {1137), in the 
 provi7ice of Hellespo7itus, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Commodus, Bishop of Tripolis, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 /, Eutherius, of the city of the Stratcniciaiis i?i Lydia, have sub- 
 scribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Paul, the least, Bishop of Dardaiia hi Lydia, have subscribed, 
 defnifig together with the Holy Sy7iod, usi7ig the ha7id at my command 
 for writi7ig of the brother a7td fellow-77ii7iister, Phoscus, because I am 
 lyi7ig dow7i in sick7iess (1138). 
 
 /, Limenius, Bishop of the holy Chujxh of God at Sellae in the 
 province of Media, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Theodore, the least, Bishop of Atala (1139), have subscribed, 
 defining, etc. 
 
 I, Paul, Bishop of the Church in Thrymnae (1140), have sub- 
 scribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Timothy, Bishop of the dty Tefmesus and Eudocias, have sub- 
 scribed, etc. 
 
 I, Aedesius, Bishop of the city Isioda, (1141), have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, LibaniuSy Bishop of Palaeopolis, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, John, the least, Bishop of Aurelianopolis in the Province of 
 Lydia, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 (1137). Or, *'ofTherma,"or "ofThermae." 
 
 (1138). Or, "in infirmity." 
 
 (1139). Or, "of Attalia," or "of the Attalians." I find Attalia but not 
 Atala in Bingham's Index of Episcopal Sees after the Tenth Book of his Anti- 
 quities in the Ten volume Oxford edition of A. D. 1855. 
 
 (1 140). Not in Bingham's list of Sees, nor in the Index to Wiltsch's Geog- 
 raphy a7id Statistics of the Church. Bingham has a see of Thyinbria, or, 
 Thy'mbri, Tymbria, or Tymbra in Proconsular Asia. But see a note on this 
 Episcopate below where it is mentioned in my list among the Asiatic Sees 
 under Memnon. 
 
 (1141). Not in Bingham nor in Wiltsch. Bingham has Isindaa.nd.Pis- 
 inda or Sinda in the Second Pamphylia, and Wiltsch has Isindus. See a 
 note below on this in my list of Sees of the Diocese of Asia. 
 
Signatures of the Bishops. 503 
 
 /, Theodore^ Bishop of Gadara, have subscribed, defini?tg, /, 
 Aetherius, a deacon, have subscribed at his command, because he is un- 
 able, or does 7tot write (i 142). 
 
 I,Daphnus, Bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander,h.2iWQ. subscribed, 
 defining, etc. 
 
 I, Thomas, Bishop of Valentinianopolis, have subscribed, defin- 
 ing, etc. 
 
 I, Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya, have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 /, Berinianus, Bishop of Perga, have subscribed, defining, etc, 
 
 I, Pabiscus, Bishop of Apollonia, have subscribed, etc. 
 
 I, Eulogius, Bishop of Terenuthis (1143), have subscribed, defin- 
 ing, etc. 
 
 I, Isaac, Bishop of Tavlae {114^), have subscribed. I, Adelphius, 
 Bishop of Onuphis, at his jequest have subscribed for him, because he is 
 lyi?ig sick. 
 
 I, Eudoxius, Bishop of the city of Choma, in the Province of Lycia^ 
 have subscribed, defining, etc. 
 
 I, Aristocritus, Bishop of Olympus, have subscribed to the fore- 
 going sentence of the Holy Synod, and I assent. 
 
 And the rest of the Bishops who ca7ne to the Holy Synod after those 
 [above named] had subscribed the deposition of Nestorius, subscribed 
 the foregoing Sentence. So the Bishops who deposed Nestorius 
 himself are more than two hundred in number. For some were 
 place-holders for other Bishops who were not able to come to the 
 Metropolis of the Kphesians. 
 
 The Seyitence of Deposition sent to him on the day after his de- 
 position: 
 
 The Holy Synod gathered by God' s grace (jcdpizt 8soo) a7id the de- 
 cree of our most religious and Christ-loving Emperors in the Metropolis 
 of the Ephesians, sendeth [what here folio weth] to Nestorius, a new 
 Judas. 
 
 (1142). Coleti Cone, torn. 3, col. 1088: AlBipioq SiaKovog v7reypa\pa,eTriTpa7rElg 
 Trap' ai/Tov ddwdrov bvroi, ij /z^ ypd<povroQ. 
 
 (i 143). lu Wiltsch, not in Bingham. 
 
 (1144). Or, Tava, or Tabae. In the Greek the first syllable, Tav and Tab 
 though spelled dififerently, are pronounced alike. Tavlon is not in Bingham 
 nor in Wiltsch. 
 
504: Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Know that thou, thyself, on account of thy blasphemous 
 preachings (1145) and thy disobedience to the Canons, wast deposed 
 by the Holy Synod in accordance with the behests of the Church 
 Canons on the twenty-second of the present month of June, and that 
 thou art an alien from every ecclesiastical grade. 
 
 On the day following the deposition of the same Nestorius, that 
 missive was sent to him by the Holy Synod (1146;. 
 
 [knd of act I. OF ephesus]. 
 
 (1145). Greek, 610. ra SvacEpfj gov KJjpvyfiara. 
 
 (i 146) . This seems to be the end of Act I. The things which follow are not 
 mentioned in it, but most or all of them seem to have been written between 
 this First Act and the Second, though between those formal sessions there 
 would naturally be almost daily gatherings of the Bishops with Cyril, through 
 their common interest and common faith and common peril, in which the 
 documents between the first two Ads would naturally be drawn up and approved. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES 
 
 — ON- 
 
 ACT I. OF THE THIRD ECUMKNICAIv COUNCIL. 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 On pages ii-ip above. On the attempt of the Emperor Theodosius II. 
 to govern the decisio7is of the Third Ecumenical Synod and to 
 crush Cyril and to favor Nes tortus. 
 In the first letter of the Emperor Theodosius to the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod, written before it met, the Synodicon of Monte Casino 
 tells us that ' ' he gave command how the order of hearijig should be 
 observed^ if all who had already been summo7ted to it had convened^^'* 
 (Col. 581, tome 84 of Migne's Patrologia Graced). 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 071 page ig. On the expression ' * Etkrnai, August Onks, ' ' being 
 an addition to note 20 there. 
 
 The Emperor Theodosius II. in his Letter to the Third Ecu- 
 menical Council by Count Candidian, in which he undertook to 
 guide the Bishops on purely spiritual themes which were outside his 
 j urisdi(5tion and were their prerogative, terms his court divine, ro 
 deiov ijiiwv (Tzpardnedov, literally ** our divine court.'' ^ I have in charity 
 rendered it in line 3, page 12 'above, ^' our godly court,' ^ but I should 
 substitute ' ' divirie ' ' for * * godly, ' ' and so give the sense more ex- 
 a(5lly. And that edict bears the title ** a divine Letter;'' Greek, d^uy> 
 Ypd[iiia. See note 6, page 8. 
 
 In Ante-Nicene times Christians would not use such wicked lan- 
 guage. Tertullian, for example, in Sedlion 33 of his Apology, and 
 Sedlion 17, Book I. of his work To the Natio7is states that Christians 
 refused to call the Emperor god, and he defends them in so refusing 
 
506 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 (pages 112 and457of Vol. XI. oi ih^ A?ite-Nicene Christian Library) . 
 The first named passage is found also in the Oxford translation of part 
 of Tertullian, pages 73, 74, which I here quote with its notes. It is 
 noteworthy as showing how thoroughly loyal and obedient the 
 Christians were to their Emperors, even though they were pagans, 
 when such obedience did not contravene the higher law of God and 
 require them to give His name or any act of worship to them. For 
 they were commanded to worship God alone (Matt, iv., 10). They 
 were willing, according to Christ's command to render unto Caesar the 
 things which belo7ig U7ito Caesar ^ but they must re?ider unto God the 
 things which beloyig unto G^^^(Matt. xxii., 21; Mark xii,i7, and Luke 
 XV., 2 5). And God's name and every act of worship are prerogative to 
 Him. And indeed giving the name of God to a creature is a sort of 
 worship of that creature, and is therefore justly anathematized in St. 
 Cyril's Anathema VIII. w^hich is approved by the whole Church in 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod. This place of Tertullian is as follows : 
 T^'R.n::\Ji^i^iA.'^'S Book of Apology against the Heathen, addressed 
 to the Roma7i Emperors; Sedlions xxxiii. and xxxiv.: 
 
 XXXIII. But why should I say more of the Religion and the 
 reverential affection of the Christians towards the Emperor, whom 
 we needs must look up to as the man whom our Lord hath chosen ? 
 I might even say with good cause, Caesar is rather ours, being ap- 
 pointed by our God (j^). Wherefore in this also I do him more service 
 towards his welfare, not only because I ask it from Him, Who is 
 able to grant it, or because I that ask it am such an one as to de- 
 serve to obtain it, {z) but also because, by keeping down the majesty 
 of Csesar beneath God, I commend him the more unto God to Whom 
 alone I subject him. But I subject him to one to whom I make him 
 not equal. For I will not call the Emperor a god, both because I 
 cannot speak falsely, and because I dare not mock him, and because 
 he himself will not desire to be called a god. If he be a man, it 
 concerneth a man to yield to a god. He hath enough in being 
 'Called an Emperor: this also is a great name which is given him of 
 God. He who calleth him a god, denieth that he is an Emperor. 
 
 {y). On the principle that all civil authority by whomsoever wielded is 
 ■derived from Jehovah, (Rom. xiii., 1-8). Of course, if Christians could choose 
 the ruler they would naturally prefer one who is a Christian as in the very 
 nature of things more observant of Christ's laws and therefore a better ruler 
 than a non-Christian. And they can not be loyal to Christ and his religion and 
 Church unless they choose a Christian wherever they can. 
 
 {z). In that, as a Christian, I worship Him, see above, c. 29, 30. 
 
Additional Notes. 507 
 
 Unless he be a man, he is not an Emperor. Even when triumphing 
 in that most lofty chariot, he is warned that he is a man, for he is 
 prompted from behind, '%ook behind thee— remember that thou 
 art a man («)." And, in truth, his joy is on this very account the 
 greater, for that he glittereth with so much glory, as to need re- 
 minding of his proper nature. He were not so great, if he were then 
 called a god, because he would not be truly called so ; he is greater, 
 in that he is reminded not to think himself a god. 
 
 XXXIV. Augustus, the founder of the Empire, would not even 
 have himself called Lord {b) ; for this also is a name of God(^). I 
 will by all means call the Emperor lord, but only when I am not com- 
 pelled to call him lord in the stead of God. Nevertheless to him I am 
 a freeman, for there is One that is my Lord, the Almighty and eter- 
 nal God, the Same who is his Lord also. He that is the father of 
 his country, how is he Lord ? But a title of natural affection is 
 more pleasing also than one of power. Even of a family, men are 
 rather called the fathers than the lords (t/). So far is it from being 
 due to the Emperor to be called a god, (which cannot be believed), 
 with a flattery not only most disgraceful, but dangerous also, 
 as though when thou hast one Emperor, thou wert to call another 
 so. Wilt thou not incur the highest and most implacable displeasure 
 -of him whom thou hadst for thine Emperor, a displeasure to be 
 feared even by him to whom thou gavest the title? Be religious 
 towards God, thou that wouldest have Him propitious to the Em- 
 peror. Cease to believe any other to be God, and so likewise to call 
 him god who hath need of God. If flattery of such sort blusheth not 
 for its falsehood in calling a man a god, let it at least fear for its evil 
 omen: it is ill-augured to call Caesar a god before he be deified {e) (/). 
 
 {a). Juv. X. 42. Plin. 33. i. Jerome Ep. ad Paulam de ob. Blesillas. 
 
 {b). Suet. Aug. c. 53. Tertullian gives a further interpretation to Augustus' 
 act, which was in itself political , as Orosius points out another bearing, which 
 it had ; "he allows himself not to be called Lord, in whose reign the true Lord 
 of the whole human race was born among men." 
 
 {c). Martial, X. 72, uses them as equivalent, of Nerva, **I will not call him 
 Lord and God," and Philo ad Caium, of Augustus, " he willed not to be called 
 Lord or God." 
 
 {d). Pater-familias. 
 
 (<f). *' For divine honours are not given to the prince, before he ceases to 
 live among men.'' Tac. Ann. xv. 74. add Minuc. F. p. 216. Vespasian in his 
 last sickness, " I am about to be a god." Suet. Vesp. 23. 
 
 (/). Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome r, col. 448; Tertulliani Apologeticus 
 cap. xxxiii., * * * Non enim deum Iraperatorem dicam vel quia meutiri 
 nescio, vel quia ilium deridere non audeo, vel quia nee ipse se deum volet dici. 
 Si homo sit, interest hominis deo cedere; satis habeat appellari imperator. 
 Grande et hoc nomen est, quod a Deo traditur. Negat ilium imperatorem, qui 
 deum dicit. Nisi homo sit, non est imperator. Hominem se esse etiam 
 
508 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 In Section 17, Book I, of his work addressed to the Natio7is, that 
 is, to the GentileSy that is, to the heathen, (for Tertullian held the 
 New Testament doctrine that all the unbaptized are to be numbered 
 as outside of God's covenant of mercy, and that Christians alone are 
 what Peter calls them, " a choseji race, (ji'^o? ixXexrov)^ a royal priest- 
 hood, a holy 7iation, a people for a possessmi;'') after protesting the 
 loyalty of Christians, and giving good reasons why they would not 
 propitiate again the images of the Emperors and swear by their 
 genius, comes to the accusation made by the heathen that they (the 
 Christians) were rebellious because they would not call the Emperor 
 a god, and replies to it as follows: 
 
 ''Book I. SeS2io7i jy ^ ^ -^ '' But we do not call the Emperor 
 a god: for on that matter, as men commonly say, we make faces of 
 derision. 
 
 ' ' Section 18. Aye, ye who call Caesar a god deride also, by call- 
 ing him what he is not, and you speak wrongly, decause he does 
 not wish to be what ye call him; for he prefers rather to live than to 
 be made a god." {i). Tertullian means that the Emperor was not 
 deified by the pagan Romans till after death. 
 
 triumphans in illo sublimissimo curru admonetur. Suggeritur enim ei a tergo: 
 Respice post te, hominem memento te. Et utique hoc niagis gaudet tanta se 
 gloria coruscare, ut ilU admonitio conditionis suae sit necessaria. [Minor erat. 
 si tunc deus diceretur, quia non vere diceretur]. Major est qui revocatur, ne se 
 deum existimet. 
 
 Caput xxxiv. Augustus imperii formator, ne dominum quidem dici se 
 volebat; et hoc enim dei est cognomen. Dicam plane imperatorem dominum, 
 sed more communi, sed quando non cogor, ut dominum dei vice dicam. 
 Caeterum liber sum illi; dominus enim mens unus est. Deus omnipotens et 
 aeternus idem qui et ipsius. Qui pater patriae est, quomodo dominus est. Sed 
 est gratius nomen pietatis, quam potestatis, etiam lamiliae magis patres, quam 
 domini vocantur. Tanto abest, ut imperator deus debeat dici quod non potest 
 credi non mode turpissima, sed et perniciosa adulatione; tanquam si habens 
 imperatorem. alterum appelles, nonne maximam et inexorabilem offensam 
 contrahes ejus, quem habuisti, etiam ipsi timendam, quem appelasti ? Esto re- 
 ligiosus in deum, qui vis ilium propitium imperatori. Desine alium Deum 
 colere vel credere, atque ita et hunc deum dicere, cui dec opus est. Si non de 
 mendacio erubescit adulatio ejusmodi, hominem deum appellans, timeat 
 saltem de infausto. Maledictum est ante apotheosin deum Caesarem nuncu-^ 
 pare. 
 
 (/). Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome i, col. 583, Tertulliani ad Naliones, 
 lib. 7, cap. 17. Sed non dicimus deum imperatorem, super hoc enim, quod 
 
Additional Notes. 50^ 
 
 Such blasphemy do we find among the ancient pagans. But 
 alas! alas! it has been imitated by some who claim to be Christian! 
 On that point Edgar in his Variations of Popery^ Chapter iv., 
 Supremacy, gives four views current among Romanists in his day as 
 to the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. After mentioning the 
 first two he comes to the third and fourth as follows: (I quote him 
 as on pages 157-160 of the New York edition of A. D. 1848): 
 
 ' 'A third variety would raise the pope to an equality with God. 
 The Italian school, [as] one w^ould expect, confers a power on the 
 Roman hierarch calculated to satisfy the highest ambition. But the 
 Transalpine system does not terminate the progression. A third 
 description of flatterers have proceeded to greater extravagancy, 
 and vested his holiness with ampler prerogatives. These, in the 
 exorbitance of papal adulation, have insulted reason, outraged com- 
 mon sense, and ascended, in their impious progress, through all the 
 gradations of blasphemy. Preteiided Christians have abscribed that 
 Divijiity to the Ro7na7i pontiff, which the Paga7is attributed to the 
 Roma7i emperors. Domitian, addressing his subjects in his procla- 
 mation, signed himself their %ord God.' Caligula arrogated the 
 name of ' the Greatest and Best God;' while Sapor, the Persian 
 monarch, affected, with more modesty, to be only ' the Brother of 
 the Sun and Moon' (i) This blasphemy has been has been imitated by 
 the minions of his Roman infallibility. The pope, says the gloss of 
 the canon law, 'is not a man. ' This awkward compliment is intended 
 to place his holiness above humanity. According to Turrecrema 
 and Barclay, ' some Doctorlings wish, in their adulation, to equal 
 the pontiff to god.' These, says Gerson, quoted by Carron and 
 Giannone, * esteem the pope a God, who has all power in heaven 
 and earth.' The sainted Bernard affirms that, ' none' except God, 
 is like the pope, either in heaven or on earth. '(2). 
 
 "The name and the works of God have been appropriated to the 
 pope, by theologians, canonists, popes, and councils. Gratian, 
 Pithou, Durand, Jacobatius, Musso, Gibert, Gregory, Nicholas, 
 Innocent, the canon law.andtheLateran council have complimented 
 his holiness with the name of deity, or bestowed on him the viceger- 
 
 18. Imo qui deum Caesarem dicitis, et deridetis, dicendo quod non est, et 
 male dicitis, quia non vult esse quod dicitis, mavult enim vivere, quam deum 
 fieri. 
 
 (/). Suetonius, 322, 555. 
 
 {2). Papa non est homo. Sext. Decret. I^. I. Tit. VI. c. 18. 
 
 Doctorculi voluntadulando eos quasi aequiparare Deo. Barclay, 219. Turrec- 
 rem. Q. II. Aestiment Papam unicum Deum esse qui habet potestatem omnem 
 in coelo et in terra. Carron, 34. Giannon, X. 12. Pneter Deum, non est 
 similis ei nee in ccelo, nee in terra. Bernard, 1725. 2. Thess. II. 4. 
 
510 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ency of neaven. Pithou, Gibert, Durand, Jacobatius, Musso, and 
 Gratian, on the authority of the canon law, style the pontifif the Al- 
 mighty's vicegerent, 'who occupies the place, not of a mere man, 
 but of the true God. ' According to Gregory the Second, * The whole 
 Western Nations reckoned Peter a terrestrial God, ' and the Roman 
 pontiff, of course, succeeds to the title and the estate. This blas- 
 phemy, Gratian copied into the canon law. ' The emperor Constan- 
 tine,' says Nicholas the First, ' conferred the appellation of God on 
 the pope, who, therefore, being God, cannot be judged by man.' 
 
 ' 'According to Innocent the Third, 'the pope holds the place of tha 
 true God.' The canon law, in the gloss, denominates the Roman 
 hierarch, 'our Lord God.' The canonists, in general, reckon the 
 pope the one God, who hath all power, human and divine, in heaven 
 and in earth. Marcellus in the Lateran council and with its full 
 approbation, called Julius, ' God on earth'(i). This was the act 
 ot a general council, and, therefore, in the popish account, is the 
 decision of infallibility. 
 
 ''The works as well as the name of God have been ascribed to 
 the pope, by Innocent, Jacobatius, Durand, Decius, Lainez, the 
 canon law, and the Lateran council. ' The pope and the Lord,' in 
 the statement of Innocent, Jacobatius and Decius, ' form the same 
 tribunal, so that, sin excepted, the pope can do nearly all that God 
 can do.' Jacobatius, in his modesty, uses the qualifying expression 
 nearly, w^hich Decius, wiih more effrontery, rejects as unnecessary. 
 The pontiff, say Jacobatius and Durand, ' possesses a plenitude of 
 power, and none dare say to him, any more than to God, Lord, what 
 dost thou ? He can change the nature of things, and make nothing 
 of something and something out of nothing.' These are not the 
 mere imaginations of Jacobatius, Durand and Decius; but are found, 
 in all their absurdity in the canon law, which attributes to the'^pope, 
 the irresponsibility of the Creator, the divine power of performing 
 the w^orks of God. and making something out of nothing. The pope 
 according to Lainez at the council of Trent, 'has the power of dispens- 
 ing with all laws, and the same authority as the Lord.' This, ex- 
 claimed Hugo, ' is a scandal and impiety which equals a mortal to the 
 immortal, and a man to God.' An archbishop, in the last Lateran 
 synod, called Julius ' prince of the world:' and another orator styled 
 
 (/). Papa vicem non puri hominis, sed veri Dei, gerens in terra. Jacob. 
 VII, Barclay, 222. Pithou, 29. Decret. I. Tit. VII. c. III. Papa locum Dei 
 tenet in terris. Gibert, 2. 9. Durand. i. 51. Omnia Occidentis regna, velut 
 Deura terrestrem habent. Labb. 8. 666. Bruy. 2. 100. Constantino Deum ap- 
 peliatum, cum nee posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est. Labb. 
 9. 1572. Dominus Deus noster Papa. Extrav. Tit. XIV. c. IV. Walsh, p. IX. 
 Deus in terris. Labb. 19. 731. Bm. 9. 54. 
 
 Canonistse dicunt, Papam esse unum Deum, qui habet potestatem omnem 
 in coelo et in terra. Protestatem omnem, et Divinam et humanam Papae tri- 
 buunt, Barclay, 2, 4, 220. 
 
Additiojial Notes. 511 
 
 Leo, ' the possessor of all power in heaven and in earth, who pre- 
 sided over all the kingdoms of the globe. ' This blasphemy, the holy 
 unerring Roman council heard without any disapprobation, and the 
 pontiff with unmingled complacency. The man of sin then ' sat in 
 the temple of God, and showed himself that he w^as God.' * Some 
 popes, ' says Coquille, * have allowed themselves to be called omni- 
 potent.' (i) 
 
 A fourth variety, on this subject makes the Pope superior to 
 God. Equahty with the Almighty, it might have been expected, 
 would have satiated the ambition of the pontiff and satisfied the 
 sycophancy of his minions. But this was not the giddiest step in the 
 scale of blasphemy. The superiority of the pope over the Creator, 
 has been boldly and unblushingly maintained by pontiffs, theologians, 
 canonists and councils. 
 
 According to Cardinal Zabarella, 'the pontiffs, in their arro- 
 gance, assumed the accomplishment of all they pleased, even un- 
 lawful things, and thus raised their power above the law of God.' 
 The canon law declares that, ' the Pope, in the plenitude of his 
 power is above right, can change the substantial nature of things, 
 and transform unlawful into lawful ' (2). Bellarmine's statement is 
 of a similar kind. The Cardinal affirms that, ' the Pope can tran- 
 substantiate sin into duty, and duty into sin.' ' He can,' says the 
 canonlaw, ' dispense with right.' Stephen, archbishop of Petraca, 
 in his senseless parasitism and blasphemy, declared, in the council of 
 the Lateran, that Leo possessed * power above all powers, both in 
 heaven and in earth ' ( i ) . The son of perdition then ' exalted himself 
 above all that is called God.' This brazen blasphemy passed in a 
 general council, and is therefore in all its revolting absurdity, 
 stamped with the seal of Roman infallibility. 
 
 (/). Papa et Christus faciunt idem consistorium, itaquod, excepto peccato, 
 potest Papa fere omnia facere, quae potest Deus; Jacob. III. Papas iiullus 
 audeat dicere, Domine, cur ita facis? Extrav.; Tit. IV. c. II. ^ Sicut Deo dici 
 non potest, cur ita facis ? Ita nee in iis, quae sunt juris positivi, Papse potest 
 dici, Cur hoc facis ? Jacob. III. De aliquo facit nihil, mutaudo etiam rei na- 
 turam. De nihilo, aliquid facit; Durand, i. 50. Extrav.; De Tran. c. t. q. 6. 
 Coram te, hoc est, coram totius orbis principe; Labb. 19. 700. Tibi data est 
 omnis potestas in coelo et in terra. Super omnia regna muudi sedens: Labb. 
 19. 920, 927. Du Pin. 3. 602. 2. Thess. 11. 4. Aucuns ont endure d'etre ap- 
 pellez omnipotens; Coquille, 408. 
 
 (^"). Pontifices multa sibi arrogaverunt, et omnia se posse existiment, et 
 quidquid liberit, etiam illicita; sicque supra Dei praeceptum potestatem illam 
 extendisse; Zabarel. de Schism; Thuan. 6. 397. Habet plenitudinem potes- 
 tatis, et supra jus est; Gibert, 2, 103. Immutat substantialem rei naturam 
 puta faciendo de illegitimo, legitimum; Durand, i. 50. 
 
 (/). Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur 
 ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, et virtutes, malas; Bellarmin, IV. 5. Possumus 
 supra jus dispensare; Decret. Greg. III. 8. IV. Extrav. Comm. 208. Potestas 
 supra omnes potestates tam coeli. q.uam terrae; Labb. 19. 924. 
 
512 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 But the chief prerogative of the Roman hierarch seems to be his 
 power of creating the Creator (2). Pascal and Urban plumed them- 
 selves on this attribute, which, according to their own account, raised 
 them above all subjection to earthly sovereigns. This, however, is a 
 communicable perfection, and, in consequence, is become common to 
 all the sacerdotal confraternity. His holiness keeps a transfer office 
 at the Vatican, in which he can make over this prerogative to all his 
 deputies through Christendom. These in consequence can make 
 and eat, create and swallow, whole thousands of pastry-gods every 
 day. But these deities, in the opinion of their makers, are perhaps, 
 not new gods, but merely new editions of the old one." 
 
 Of course Christ's true Bishops and Presbyters, (who are priests 
 in a higher sense than the sons of Aaron were, because they offer 
 spiritual sac?ijices (I. Peter ii., 5, 9; Rev. i., 6), hold to the doctrine 
 of St. Cyril approved at Ephesus, and condemn that of Nestorius 
 the heresiarch which was condemned there), all condemn the heresies 
 of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and the Real Presence of 
 Christ's Divinity and of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist, that 
 is, in the Thanksgiving: see note 606, pages 250-313. Furthermore 
 none of the Six Councils ever gave the blasphemous title God to the 
 Bishop of Rome. If he who applies the term God to the humanity 
 of Christ, which is nevertheless the highest of all mere creatures, 
 is anathematized for so doing, much more (a fortiori) is he anathe- 
 matized who applies that term to any lesser creature, be it to the 
 idolatrous and creature-invoking so called Bishop of Rome, or any 
 other. 
 
 For the information of those who have no time to study such 
 matters it should be remarked that the Romish Canon Law referred 
 to above is largely made up of the Fals e Decretals of Isidore and 
 other spurious matter, and of mere local Roman enacftments, and of 
 decisions of mere local Western Councils, falsely styled General 
 and Ecumenical, which the Eastern Church has always reje(5led; 
 and that this spurious stuff has pradlically nullified and broken 
 down in the idolatrous Romish Communion the sole Ecumenical 
 Law, that is, the Canons of the first Four Ecumenical Councils, the 
 only ones which made Canons. 
 
 {2). Deum cuncta creantem creent; Hoveden; 268: Labb., 12., 960. Bl^- 
 ves a cet honneur supreme de creer le Createur; Bruy. 2. 535. 
 
Additional Notes. 513 
 
 NOTE C. 
 0)i Cyril' s language on page ^2, text. 
 
 Not only Cyril but the third Ecumenical Council itself in its 
 Report to the Emperors testifies to the sickness of the Bishops at 
 Ephesus; seepage xxix. of the Preface to Pusey's English transla- 
 tion of Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius. 
 
 NOTE D. 
 
 On the expression of * 'Peter the Presbyter' ' o?i page 4.18, text, ' 'books of 
 the most holy and inost consecrated Fathers and of Bishops and 
 of differe7it ma?iy7's'' a7id 07i the 7iote 07i page 42'j which states 
 that the Ecu77ie7iical Cou7icil must 7iot be u7iderstood to approve 
 anything i7i a writer' s wo7'ks which they have 7iot passed 07i, a7id 
 i7ideed which they i7iay 7iot eve7i have see7i. 
 We must understand that no passages of the Fathers quoted by 
 Peter of Alexandria are to be considered as Ecumenically approved 
 except such as were read in an Ecumenical Council and treated as 
 Orthodox. On page 427 I have said that certain matter on the 
 Eucharist, genuine or spurious, attributed to Augustine or to Am- 
 brose is not approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and it 
 should be added that it did not even come before them. So it can 
 easily be shown that certain matter attributed, rightly or wrongly, 
 to Gregory of Nazianzus, has never received the seal of an Ecu- 
 menical Synod. But I have time here to mention specially only one 
 more of the Fathers quoted as sound above in Act I. I mean Gre- 
 gory of Nyssa who is justly condemned by Hooker in his Ecclesiasti- 
 cal Polity, Book v., Chapter liii., Section 2, for Eutychianizing b)^ 
 in effect doing away the body of Christ by absorbing it into his Div- 
 inity as a drop of water is absorbed into the sea. See the quota- 
 tation from Gregory of Nyssa there. Eutyches, the heretic, who is 
 condemned in Anathema XI. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council spirit- 
 ualized or etherialized away Christ's body or transubstantiated it 
 into Divinity. 
 
 And in Smith's Hagenbach's Histo7y of Doctri7ies, volume i, 
 page 369, we read that, 
 
 " Though Methodius combated Origen's idealistic doctrine of 
 the resurrection, yet several of the Eastern theologians adopted it, 
 till the zealous Anti-Origenist party succeeded in the ensuing con- 
 
114 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 troversies in establishing their do(5lrine, that the body raised from 
 the tomb is in every respect identical with that which formed in this 
 life the organ of the soul." Origen also is condemned in the same. 
 Anathema XI. 
 
 On page 370 id., note 4, Hagenbach shows us that the "Eastern 
 theologians " above mentioned are three out of the Twelve Fathers, 
 some passages of whose writings are quoted above in the First Act 
 as authoritative: for he says: 
 
 ' ' Gregory of Nazianzum, Gregory of Nyssa, and partly also Basil 
 the Great, adopted the views of Origen." 
 
 On the same page, note 5, " Theophilus of Alexajidria,'' one of 
 the Twelve above is mentioned as opposed to the last named three 
 on that point of the resurredlion and the character of the risen body, 
 so that aside from what is quoted above from the XII. Fathers, we 
 shall find difierences even among them, and shall find the Church in 
 the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemning in Origen those errors 
 which on the resurrection, and on the character of the risen body 
 some of them shared with him. 
 
 On page 342, vol. i, of Smith's Hagenbach' s History of Doctrines 
 we read that, 
 
 * ' Gregory of Nyssa ventured — though with great caution — to 
 revive the notion of Origen, that there was still hope of the final 
 conversion of the devil. ' ' See his references to Origen in note 5 on 
 page 344 of the same volume. 
 
 The genuine remains of some of the Twelve Fathers aforesaid, 
 are so few that they do not give any one a chance to fault them. 
 This is true of Peter of Alexandria, Julius of Rome, Felix of Rome, 
 and Theophilus of Alexandria, who is faulted by some but perhaps 
 unjustly, for his course towards Chrysostom. But to run over rapidly 
 the rest of the Twelve Orthodox Fathers mentioned above; 
 
 Cyprian seems to have thought that departed saints pray for 
 those on earth {Tyler's Primitive Christian Worship, pages 162-170, 
 and 406, 407), and so share Christ's prerogative of intercession there, 
 which is the chief part of his present Mediatorial work, and which St. 
 Cyril's Anathema X. Economically Appropriates to the Divinity of 
 God the Word. And that Anathema, with the whole Epistle in 
 which it stands, was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
 So that error of his is condemned by the Universal Church. For iL 
 
Additional Notes. 515 
 
 is prerogative to Christ alone to intercede for us above. There is 
 bui one Mediator above (I. Tim. ii., 5); that is, but one Intercessor 
 there, to whom we are invited to go as our Advocate (I. John ii., i^ 
 2), and, blessed be God, His Intercession is all sufficient (Heb. vii., 
 25). And in the context Paul shows by the Holy Ghost that 
 Christ's Intercession is a part of His High Priestly fundlion, and 
 therefore, of course, prerogative to Him. It is a part of His " U7i- 
 changeable Priesthood'' (Heb. vii., 24). Here on earth while living 
 we may intercede for each other, that is, so far mediate, that is, as 
 mediate vii^2.vis, go betweeji for each other, but as on earth Christ's 
 foretype, the Aaronic ''High Priest alone'' (Heb. ix., 7), could enter 
 into the most holy place to intercede for Israel, as it was therefore 
 prerogative to him to intercede there, so the Holy Ghost teaches by 
 Paul that it is prerogative to Christ our Great High Priest to inter- 
 cede for us in the most holy place, heaven above, of which the old 
 Holy Place was a foretype (Heb. ix., 1-28). And we may no 
 more make other intercessors, that is, mediators, there, than we may 
 make other gods besides Jehovah there (I. Tim. ii., 5). The 
 Aaronic priests could enter the holy place to perform their minister- 
 ial fun(5lions, but not the most holy place. That was reserved for 
 the High Priest (Heb. ix., 6, 7). So, Christ's ministers can perform 
 Iheir high hieratic fundlions in the holy places, His churches on 
 earth, in offering spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus 
 Christ (I. Peter ii., 5, 9): higher sacrifices than the Mosaic precisely 
 because they are '' spiyitual:" whereas, those of the Mosaic dispen- 
 sation were merely " carnal," that is, ''fleshly ordinances imposed on 
 them until the time of Reformatio7i" (Heb. ix., 10). But they can 
 not sacrifice in the most holy place in heaven where our Great High 
 Priest alone intercedes for us (I. Tim. ii., 5; I. John ii., i, 2; and 
 Heb. vii., 25; John xiv., 13, 14; John xv., 16; and John xvi., 23, 24, 
 26, 27). These gracious promises of mediation above and interces- 
 sion above are all regarding Christ's sole Mediatorship (I. Tim. ii., 
 5), and in John xiv., 6, Christ settles this whole matter and pro- 
 claims Himself to be the Sole Mediator and the Sole Advocate and 
 the 6'<?/^ Intercessor above when he says and decrees: "I am the 
 way, the truth, and the life: no ma7i cometh imto the Father bid by Me. ' * 
 Consequently no one can do the prerogatively Mediatorial, that is, 
 the go-between-God-and-man work of interceding for us in heaven, 
 no departed saint, be it the Virgin Mary, the Apostles, or any other 
 
616 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 but Christ, who, as possessing the prerogatively divine attributes of 
 omnipresence and omniscience, can hear our prayers, and as man 
 can ''be touched with the feeliiig of our infirmities'' (Heb. iv., 15), 
 and as man can pray to the Father for us. 
 
 Of Ambrose's alleged idolatry on the Eucharist I have spoken 
 in the note on page 427 above. And an alleged passage of his 
 favors the invocation of angels and of martyrs (Smith's Hagen- 
 bach's History of Doflrines, volume i, pages 338, 339). But 
 both those errors are condemned impliedly by the Third Ecumenical 
 Council, for it, in effect, in its Anathema X. makes, like the Scrip- 
 ture (I. Tim. ii., 5), but one Sole Mediator in heaven, the Son, who, 
 as St. Cyril of Alexandria explains, as God hears prayer, and as man 
 answers it (a) . St. Cyprian therefore grievously erred in teaching 
 against that dodlrine. But all God's saints have been fallible men, 
 far from perfect. God alone is perfect. Moses erred and so did 
 Aaron and were punished for it (Numbers xx., 12; Deut. i. 37; 
 Deut. iii., 26; Deut. xxxii., 49-52; Psalm cvi., 16, 32, 33). So 
 Peter was rebuked for his temporary apostasy and for his hypocrisy, 
 (Matt, xxvi., 57, 58, 69-75; Matt, xiv., 53, 54, 66-72; Luke xxii , 
 54-62, and John xviii., 13-18, 25-27; Compare Matt, xxvi., 31-36; 
 Mark xiv., 27-32; Luke xxii., 31-35; and John xiii., 36-38 inclu- 
 sive; Galat. ii., 11-21 inclusive). Aaron and Solomon became in- 
 volved in the guilt of idolatry and were punished for it (Exod. 
 xxxii.; Deut. ix., 20, and the whole chapter in which it stands: I. 
 Xings xi., 1-43). Indeed often in Holy Writ we find God rebuking 
 His servants; and Scripture records their faults that we may shun 
 them. And there is hardly a Father who has written much whom 
 critics Anglican, or Greek, or Latin do not fault for some error in 
 doctrine, discipline or rite. They were fallible men as all admit. 
 But the Six Ecumenical Synods as guided by the Holy Ghost 
 taught only what is true and consonant with Scripture, and, as 
 being Holy-Ghost-led, were infallible. 
 
 Gregory the Great, that is, Gregory of Nazianzus, is accused of 
 being an Origenist on the resurrection of the body (Smith's Hagen- 
 \^2.Q!a! s History of Do^lriries, vol. i, pages 369, text, and 370, note 4, 
 quoted above). And if we may accept the text of him given in 
 
 {a). See his language iu the note on page 378 above, and in the context; 
 indeed all of note 688, of \vhich it is part. 
 
Additional Notes, 517 
 
 Migne's PatTologia Graeca, he held to the co-worship of Christ's 
 hutaanity with His Divinity contrary to St. Cyril of Alexandria as 
 approved by Bphesus, and to Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council, as we see in notes 183, 582, 676, 677, 678 and 679 above, 
 especially pages 79, 225, and the text on pages 78-85, 221-224, 33i> 
 332, and notes on pages 97, 108-112 and 356. 
 
 Basil the Great is accused of holding the same view as Gregory 
 of Nazianzus as to worshipping Christ's humanity with his Divinity 
 as just stated. I have referred to him in this note above as accused 
 by Hagenbach of Origenism on the resurre(ftion body. 
 
 In the same place I have mentioned errors of which Gregory of 
 Nyssa stands charged. 
 
 The remains of the two remaining Fathers, Atticus and Amphi- 
 lochius, are so scanty that we can not tell what they held on some 
 points and we therefore here dismiss them. 
 
 NOTE E. 
 
 0)i Nestorius' Blasph emy 18 07i pages ^^2-^^^ above, and on its abs2crd 
 and blasphemous seqiiejices. 
 
 It is a logical and fair principle that he who is responsible for 
 premises is responsible for their conclusion. Thus, for instance, if 
 a man should say* that there are two apples on a table in a room and 
 two more apples on another table in that room; and then one should 
 draw the conclusion that there must be four apples in all in that room, 
 the assertor of the premises must accept that conclusion as the logical 
 and necessary result of his premises. And if he should be so cranky 
 or foolish or partisan as to deny it because he holds to some favorite 
 doxy which demands that there shall be accepted the conclusion 
 that there are only one or two or three apples there, all would cry out 
 against him as absurd. But if he should go further and say: "/ 
 admit that appea7'ance?> may seem to teach that there are four, but we 
 7Jiust believe that there are 07ily three in all and accept it as a great mys- 
 tery because my pet theory or isin requires it to be so, ' ' would not every 
 intelligent and wise man at once say: You are talking nonsense and 
 absurdity a7id utter folly . You aj^e 7iot speaki7ig like a ratio7ial man; 
 for the7'e is 710 77iyste7y at all i7i the 77iatter, for two a7id tivo 7nake four, 
 not three 07ily: so that your assertion is a plai7i contradiSlion a7td falsity. 
 
 And logicians in all ages have admitted as legitimate and deci- 
 
518 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 sive the way of arguing which we coXX Redudio ad absurdiim, that is, 
 the showing that certain premises asserted by an opponent necessa- 
 rily result in an absurdity. 
 
 And so Nestorius uses it against Cyril. For supposing him to be 
 an Apollinarian and therefore to hold that Christ's humanity had been 
 swallowed up in his Divinity, and hence to hold that the adlual sub- 
 stance of Christ's humanity is not eaten in the Eucharist as he, Nes- 
 torius, maintained, but that we actually eat the Eternal Substance 
 of Christ's Divinity instead in the Rite, he argues as in note 606, 
 pages 251 and 252 above, that Christ in John vi., 56, 57, speaks not 
 of eating His Divinity but of eating His flesh. And he thinks he 
 has a clear case when he writes there that Cyril asserted an eating 
 of the Divinity of the Word in the Rite, whereas he, Nestorius, held 
 that we eat humanity; and, at the end, he triumphantly asks, 
 '* What do we eat, the divinity or the humanity f " 
 
 Here Nestorius attempts to show, 
 
 I, that in holding to the literal eating of Christ's humanity in 
 the sacrament, he held to the plain sense of John vi., 56, 57, and 
 that Cyril denied it; 
 
 And 2, and here comes in the Redudio ad ahsurdum, Nestorius 
 charges that Cyril by denying the actual eating of Christ's human- 
 ity was forced to hold on the Eucharist the utter absurdity that we 
 eat Divinity! that is, that a creature eats his Creator! 
 
 To this Cyril at once replies as in the note on page 253, above, 
 ' * The Nature of Divhiity is not eaten.' ' And this he repeats in place 
 after place. See the passages of Cyril on pages 253, 254 and 255 
 where he puts the eating of Divinity among the * ' impossibilities;' ' 
 see also pages 256-260. Compare pages 272-275. 
 
 So Nestorius fails to show that Cyril held to the absurdity that 
 Christ's Divinity is eaten, or to any premises which forced him to 
 that absurdity. 
 
 And further on, on pages 260-276, Cyril shows that Nestorius' 
 dogma that we eat Christ's real human flesh in the Eucharist results 
 in the blasphemous absurdity of Camiibalism. So the Redudio ad 
 absurdum applies to Nestorius' heresy on the Eucharist, not to Si . 
 Cyril's Orthodoxy on it. 
 
Additional Notes, 519 
 
 On pages 79, 80, 81-86, 87, 88, 89, 90, Cyril shows that Nes- 
 torius' worship of Christ's mere separate humanity results in oyO[>w- 
 TcoXazfjtia^ that is, in worshipping- a man, that is, in creature worship, 
 that is, \VL paganism. As Nestorius and his champion Theodoret, 
 held to the worship of that humanity as consubstantiated with the 
 bread and wine in the Eucharist, of course Cyril's condemnation of 
 its worship would apply there, as it would elsewhere also. 
 
 As Cyril in his writings shows, i, that he did not hold to any 
 real presence of the Substance of the Divinity of Christ in the Rite, 
 but only of His grace by His Spirit; and that he did not hold that 
 Christ's Divinity is eaten there, pages 250-260 above; 
 
 And 2, as he held that there is no real presence of the sub- 
 stance of Christ's humanity in the Rite, and that we do not eat it 
 there, pages 260-276 above; 
 
 He hence, 3, teaches that he can not be charged with the ab- 
 surdity of eating Divinity, or of the cannibalism of eating adlual 
 flesh and drinking adlual blood. And that ended Nestorius' attack 
 on him. 
 
 We have seen on pages 260-276 above how ably Cyril refuted 
 Nestorius' corporal real presence heresy and corporal manducation 
 heresy by showing that they result in cannibalism: and on pages 
 250-260 above how Nestorius falsely accused him of the absurdity 
 of eating God the Word's Divinity. No one at that time held to 
 the real presence of the Substance of His Divinity and to the real 
 presence of the substance of His humanity there, and besides to the 
 eating of both His Natures there. 
 
 But alas ! in later times men have invented a Two-Nature Real 
 Presence in the Rite, and a Two-Nature manducation there. For 
 both those heresies exist to-day among those w^ho hold to Transub- 
 stantiation and also among those who hold to Consubstantiation. 
 
 And as St. Cyril used the Redtidio ad absurduin against Nestor- 
 ius' eating of the substance of Christ's human flesh and drinking the 
 substance of Christ's human blood, by showing that that error re- 
 sults in cannibalism, let us imitate him and show some of the absurd- 
 ities which are the logical results of Transubstantiation and of 
 Consubstantiation. For though I may in places below mention only 
 Transubstantiation any logical mind can at once see that some at 
 least of my remarks apply as well to one as to the other, and that 
 
520 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 in some things the Reduction to a7i Absurdity applies to one as well 
 as to the other. I begin: Transubstantiation then results in absurd- 
 ities, for surely each of the following conclusions from it is a redudio 
 ad absurduni. 
 
 1. Rome professes to believe in the Infallibility of an Ecumen- 
 ical Council. And yet Rome reje(5ls the teaching of St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria in his Longer Epistle above, and in his Anathema XI. 
 which is a part of it. which are diametrically contradidlory of 
 Transubstantiation, and are approved by the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod, a true World-Council, because it represented the whole 
 Church, West and East. It therefore plainly rejedls the Infallibility 
 of the Universal Church speaking in an Ecumenical Synod. It re- 
 jects the Third Council, not by name but in effect, by approving the 
 error of Transubstantiation in two local Councils, the first, of all the 
 West, the Fourth Lateran of A. D. 1215; the second of a part of the 
 West only, that is, the local Synod of Trent, A. D. 1545 — 1563, not 
 to speak of other merely Western Councils. 
 
 2. The Apostle Peter in Acts ii., 27, 31, teaches that Christ's 
 flesh that lay in the grave saw no corruption. And all admit 
 that his present glorified and spiritual body can neither die (Romans 
 vi., 9, and Rev. i., 18), nor become rotten: for corruption is the re- 
 sult of death, which is the result of sin (Rom. v., 12). But all ad- 
 mit that Christ's body was sinless and is sinless. 
 
 But Rome strangely enough, confesses that the species of 
 Christ's transubstantiated and acftual body, that is, all that our 
 senses cognize of it, (and they cognize it to be exadlly what it was 
 before consecration), can become rotten! And Rome's doctrine that 
 the substance of the bread and wine have been changed by conse- 
 cration into the Substance of the actual Divinity of Christ, and into 
 the substance of His real flesh and blood is contradicted by St. 
 Cyril's Longer Epistle and its Anathema XI. as well as by our 
 senses. And the consecrated species therefore are the species of the 
 substance of a(5lual bread and wine, and proofs of the presence of 
 that substance, the Third Council of the whole Church being wit- 
 ness by necessary implication, for it teaches by approving Cyril's 
 teaching on the Eucharist that neither of Christ's Two Natures are 
 in the Rite, but that leavened bread and wine are. Consequently 
 there is no transubstantiation of them. 
 
Additional Notes. 521 
 
 Yet Rome in her Rubrics ' ' Regarding defects occurri7ig iji the 
 celebration of the Mass,'^ section x., " 0/^ Defects occurring in the 
 Ministration itself,'^ number 14, orders as follows: 
 
 *' If the priest vomit the Eucharist, and if the species appear 
 entire, let them be reverently taken, unless nausea ensue: in that case 
 indeed let the consecrated species be cautiously separated [from the 
 rest of the vomit] and laid up in some sacred place till they become 
 rotte?i, and after that let them be cast into the sacrarium. But if the 
 species do not appear, let the vomit be burned, and let the ashes be 
 thrown into the sacrarium. ' ' 
 
 I^ewis in his note on the above on page 371 of his work entitled 
 The Bible, the Missal, and the Breviary, remarks: 
 
 ' ' Even the vomited host is still to be worshipped. Questions of 
 corrupt, rotten, and musty hosts were the questions of the school- 
 men. We find them in Missals prior to the Reformation, though, 
 strange to say, this chapter, De Defe5libiis [from which the above 
 rubric is a quotation] has been enlarged rather than shortened since 
 then, as if this infatuation were permitted by God to brand Rome in 
 her Book of Public Worship with folly; and that the day may be 
 hastened when God and man shall arise in indignation at this filthy 
 mummery, and exclaim, ' I will spue thee out of my mouth.' " 
 In the same work, page 53, I^ewis exclaims on this rubric: 
 
 ''The body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ becoming cor- 
 rupt and vomited ! If the worst enemy of Rome had forged this 
 vile nonsense, we could have understood it; but what shall we say 
 of the Church calling herself Hhe mother ayid mistress of all Churches,'* 
 not only permitting but authorizing, from age to age, such filth to 
 pollute the book of her public devotions. No wonder Rome, in her 
 manuals for the use of the laity, leaves this chapter under the 
 bushel of a dead language. The laity, having no previous scholastic 
 training to mitigate this natural revolt, might find such rubrics un- 
 bearable. ' ' 
 
 I have seen in some Romish writer an attempted explanation of 
 the fact attested by the above rubric, by asserting that there is a 
 further mystery after consecration, that is, there is another transub- 
 stantiation back again of the body and blood of Christ into the wafer 
 and wine forasmuch as they are corruptible. I think the writer was 
 Lhc efieminate apostate to Romanism, Frederick William Faber. 
 
522 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 I would add that Prof. Philip Schaff, D. D., in his article 
 '''Patristic aiid Scholastic Theology,'" in the New York Indeperideyit oi 
 April 13, 1893, speaking of ''the Scholastic Systems'' of the Middle 
 Ages, writes: 
 
 ' ' They turned theology into a logical skeleton. They squeezed 
 the soul out of it and left it a mere corpse {corpus divi7iitatis) . They 
 neglected the study of the Scriptures, but discussed with great 
 seriousness such silly questions as whether an angel could dance on 
 the eye of a needle, and what effect the Sacrament would have upon 
 a mouse. Some answered that the sacred wafer would sanctify the 
 mouse; others that it would kill it; still others answered more wisely, 
 because less foolishly, that it would have no effect at all, because 
 the wafer was eaten accide7italiter, not Sacramentaliter.'' 
 
 3. There is still another blasphemy which is the result of tran- 
 substantiation heresy, and that is the impiety of asserting that the 
 One Christ of any one transubstantiatiated Host, that is, ''the body 
 and blood together with the soul arid Divinity of our Lord fesus Christ, ' ' 
 to use the language of the Romish Council of Trent, Session XIII., 
 on the Eucharist, Chapter viii.. Canon I., can be broken up into as 
 man}^ particles as the celebrant wills, and that each of those particles 
 immediately on the breaking of the wafer becomes a " whole Christ, 
 body a7id blood, soul and Divinity, ' ' so that while there is never more 
 than one Person of the Father, and never more than one Person of the 
 Holy Ghost, nevertheless on a day like Kaster when perhaps there 
 are 20,000,000 of communicants at the Romish altars, when accord- 
 ing to Rome's dodlrine, each one of them receives ''whole Christ, 
 body a7id blood, soul a?id Divinity,'' there are acftually 20,000,000 
 Second Persons of the adorable Trinity, each entire ! So that as Rome 
 as the great whore who sitteth on many waters (Rev. xvii., i, 15 
 and 18), is always somewhere in the round earth celebrating her 
 Mass and breaking her wafers, it is never exact, according to that 
 blasphemy, to say that there are only three Persons in the Trinity, 
 for there are always scores or hundreds of the Second Person alone. 
 
 I have space only to summarize the heresies of the lyatins as 
 well as those of the Greeks on this point and on other points con- 
 nedled with it, first premising that as both still profess to hold to 
 the Third Ecumenical Council, they in effect profess to reject the 
 mediaeval or modern Heresies below specified. 
 
Additional Notes. 623 
 
 (A). As to the Latin views: The Latin holds that the whole sub- 
 stance of the unleavened wafer of the Latin Mass is transubstantiated 
 by the words, This is my body, into the bodj^of Christ, and the whole 
 substance of the wine by the words, This is my blood, into His blood 
 and that ''the whole Christ is contained under each species and imder 
 every part of each species when separated'' and that ''Hn the * * ^ 
 Sacrame7it of the Eucharist, the only Begotteyi Son of God, is ^ ^- ^ 
 to be adored with even the worship extertial oflatida {a) , ' ' and condemns 
 those who deny that it is ''to be solemnly borne aboiit in processiojis,'" 
 and that it is "to be proposed to the people to be worshipped,'' and con- 
 demns those who charge Romanists with being '■^idolaters " for such 
 worship of the Host: Session XIII. of the Romish Council of Tre7it, 
 Canons I., II., III., and VI., pages 77 and 78 of Buckley's transla- 
 tion: compare the same Session, Chapters I., III., IV., and V., on 
 pages 71-74, id. In Chapter III., page 73, id., Trent asserts "that 
 immediately after consecratio7i, the very body of our Lord, and His very 
 blood, together with His soul and Divinity , exist ujider the species of bread 
 and wine, but the body indeed raider ihe species of bread and the blood 
 under the species of wine by the force of tlie worlds." According to 
 Trent here the Substance of Christ's Divinity is with them by the 
 iiclion of a necessary concomitance everywhere of the Substance of 
 Christ's Divinity and the substance of His humanity, all of which 
 is condemned by necessary implication in the foregoing extra(5ls 
 from Cyril: for the Two Natures are together, but in heaven alone, 
 where alone the substance of each of them is. 
 
 (B). As to the Greeks: Cyril Lucar, of blessed memor}^ in 
 his Confession comes the closest of the modern Greeks to the view of 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria and of Ephesus, for he rejecfts Transubstan- 
 tiation amd, in effect, seems to have held their do(5lrine, though he 
 used some of the scholastic terminology, such as real prese?ice, but 
 seemingly in the Calvinistic sense of a 7'eal presence not of the Sub- 
 stance of God the Word or of the substance of His humanity, but of 
 God's grace. See Kimmel's Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiae 07ie7italis, 
 John Mason Neale, an abominable traitor to Anglicanism and to the 
 
 (a). Buckley in his translation of The Canons and Decrees of the Council 
 of Trent, page 7a. note " ^, " explains latria to mean "worship of the highest 
 order. The Romanists make a distindlion between the degrees of worship. " 
 They do that contrary to the use of terms in God's Word to excuse their crea- 
 tnre-wor'^hip and idolatry. 
 
524 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 worship of God alone, in his infamous remarks on Cyril in his His- 
 tory of the Eastern Churchy for which he deserves anathema, shows 
 that Cyril was thoroughly sound on the Eucharist and in accord 
 with St. Cyril, his predecessor in the see of Alexandria, and with 
 Ephesus: see it, Vol. II., pages 424, 428, 432, 442, 445, 446, 451. 
 
 By the machinations, often repeated, of the Jesuits, and their 
 tools, certain Romanized Greeks, notably Cyril of Beroea and such 
 like, he was constantly worried, and at last most foully put to death 
 by the Turks at their instigation. God grant that Martyr for His 
 truth a happy resurredlion, and now and forever a blessed reward 
 for Christ's sake. Whose sole mediation and sole intercession on high 
 he championed in an idolatrous age and among an idolatrous people, 
 whom with much of pain and toil and to his own peril and loss, he 
 so zealously strove to reform and save, and whom he loved with an 
 undying love. In later ages, and in evil times, when the Eastern 
 Church and State were degraded under the Turks for their degen- 
 eracy, corruption of their faith, pra(5lical rejecftion of much of the 
 teaching of the Six Synods, idolatry, and creature- worship, Cyril 
 was "« bmning ajid a shining light'' and some of his people and 
 Church * ' were willing for a seaso7t to rejoice i7i his light * ' (John v. , 
 35). For alas! it might well be said of that part of the Christian 
 Israel that before him, it had ^^ for a lo?ig season been without the true 
 God, and without a teaching priest, ajid without law '' (II. Chron. xv., 
 3); for while neither was without some knowledge of the true God, 
 both were without Him in the sense of failing to worship Him as He 
 demands, but worshipped Him through images painted or graven, 
 and angered him to burning wrath by that and by their invocation 
 of creatures, and so brought on themselves, the one the curse of the 
 Assyrian and the Babylonian; the other, the Arab, the Turk, a^id 
 the Tartar. 
 
 Nevertheless, I believe that within a century the Greeks and 
 the Slavs and the Roumanians will anathematize the iconodulic 
 conventicle of Nicaea and all its aiders and abetters, and will march 
 back to the faith of their fathers, the Six Councils, and to God's 
 rich blessings in Church and State again. The Lord hasten it in 
 its time for Christ's sake. Amen. And so will the Orthodox part 
 of the West do, and we shall have a true Seventh Ecumenical 
 Council, and a formal deposition by it of the idolatrous so-called 
 Bishop of Rome, and a formal excommunication of all who hold to 
 
Additio7ial Notes. 525 
 
 him, and a sound prelate and sound clerics in his place and a reign 
 of Christ on earth. '''For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies 
 tender His feet,'" (I. Cor. xv., 25). 
 
 But other Greek Confessions, wnose authors were evidently in- 
 fluenced by late Romish Theology, teach bare Transubstantiation, 
 as for instance the so-called Orthodox Confession put forth by Peter 
 Mogila, who became Metropolitan of Kieff, A. D. 1632, and approved 
 afterwards by the Russians and Greeks, pages 126, 180, Parti, of 
 Kimmel; and the Confession of Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 
 A. D. 1672, pages 457, 458 and 460, Part I. in Kimmel. 
 
 So the consecrated Eucharist is to be worshipped according to 
 the so-called Orthodox Confessioji of Peter Mogila, page 126, Part I. 
 in Kimmel, and by the Confessio7i of Dositheus, page 460, Part I. in 
 Kimmel; and by the Synod of Constantinople, A. D. 1672, page 218, 
 Part II. in Kimmel. 
 
 The Confession of Metrophanes, well argues for infant Com- 
 munion from John vi., 53, Except ye eat the flesh of the Soji of maii 
 and drink His blood ye have fio life in you; see pages 125, 126, Part 
 II. of Kimmel. 
 
 The idolatrous Greek Dositheus, denies that Christ's body de- 
 scends from heaven to the altars at the consecration, but asserts 
 that by consecration the leavened bread on the altars is transubstan- 
 tiated and becomes one and the same with that body of Christ which 
 is in the heavens; page 460, Part I. of Kimmel. Yet the idolatrous 
 party among the Greeks hold, like the Latins that whole Christ, 
 God and Man, is received by each communicant: so that they are 
 about as absurd as the Latins because they so multiply the Second 
 Person of the Trinity. 
 
 But all these late Greek Confessions, except Cyril Lucar's, and 
 all the mediaeval and modern Roman utterances are utterly without 
 authority and heretical, because they oppose the decisions of Ephe- 
 sus in favor of Cyril of Alexandria on the Eucharist. 
 
 4. According to the dodlrine of Co7icomitance , every Romish 
 priest, who unlike their laity in later times, takes both the wafer and 
 the wine, and every Christian lay- communicant who took both 
 kinds in the long earlier ages when that was the custom, as it still is 
 among the Greeks, has in him, after partaking of both, two Second 
 Persons of the Trinity and two whole humanities of Christ. For 
 
526 Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 the CatecJiisni of the Coimcll of Trent, Part II., Chapter IV., Of the 
 Sacrame?it of the Eucharist, Question XXXII., page 230 of Buckley's 
 translation, says, 
 
 ' ' There are some tnmgs which we say are in the Sacrament by 
 the force and efficacy of consecration, for as those words [of consecra- 
 tion] effect what they signify, theologians have said that whatever 
 is expressed by the form of the words is in the sacrament by the 
 virtue of the sacrament. Thus, if it happened that any thing were 
 entirely separated from the rest, they teach, that in the sacrament 
 would be contained that thing only which the form would express, 
 and not the rest. But some things are contained in the Sacrament, 
 because united to those that are expressed by the form; for whereas 
 the form used in the consecration of the bread signifies the body of 
 the Lord, when it is said, This is my body, the body itself of Christ 
 the Lord will be in the Eucharist by force of the Sacrament. But 
 since to the body are united the blood, soul and divinity, all these 
 will be in the sacrament, not indeed by virtue of the consecration, 
 but as united to the body. And these are said to be in the sacrament 
 by concomita7ice, in which manner it is clear, that in the sacrament is 
 contained Christ whole and entire; for when any two things are 
 a(5lually united, where one is, there also of necessity must the other 
 be. It therefore follows that Christ whole and eyitire is so co7itained 
 as well lender the species of bread, as of wine; that even as under the 
 species of bread are truly present not only the body, but also the 
 \Aoo^ ^.n^L Christ e7itire , so also under the species of wine, are con- 
 tained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire.^' 
 
 Hence of course, there are two whole Second Persons of the 
 Trinity in every one who receives both kinds in the sacrament, each 
 being whole Christ, body, and blood, soul and Divinity; that is the 
 whole Substance of Christ's humanity and the whole Substance of 
 His eternal and Consubstantial Divinity. As the priest takes both 
 kinds this remark will specially apply to him. 
 
 It will also follow that inasmuch as wherever the Logos is. He is 
 to be worshipped, every communicant must therefore worship two 
 such whole Christs in the priest's belly after consecration and par- 
 taking, and he must worship also two more such whole Christs in 
 his own belly, and two more such whole Christs in the belly of each 
 communicant present. In other words, if there be a hundred present 
 
Additional Notes. 527" 
 
 who have received both kinds, as among the Romanized Greeks now, 
 for instance, he must logically and devoutly worship two hundred 
 such whole Christs in the one hundred bellies present, but only until he 
 thinks they are digested. Is not this logical outcome of Roman 
 dodlrine abominable trash and blasphemy ? And is it not criminal 
 to defend or dodge it ? What shall we think of a man who has no 
 more reverence for Christ and his religion and for the docftrine of 
 the Third Council of our authorized teacher, Christ's whole Church, 
 than to teach it! Does not such a wretch well deserve the penalty 
 laid on him by Christ, that we shall regard him as a heatheji man 
 and a publican bound by His Universal Church on earth and bound in 
 heaven (Matt, xviii., 17, 18) for turning our ''reasonable service'' {Xoyur^v 
 Xarpeiav^ Rom. xii., 4), into that sort of folly and ridicule and poly- 
 theism or worship of hundreds and thousands and on Easter even of 
 millions of Second Persons of the Trinity ? 
 
 The reader will see how St. Cyril and even Nestorius agree that 
 the Eternal Substance of Christ's Divinity is not present in the 
 Eucharist, and that so both agree against the Romish dodlrine of 
 Concomitance, and that Cyril goes further and denies that there is any 
 real presence of His humanity there; so the two Natures are not 
 concomitant in the rite but absent in heaven, that is, concomitant 
 there alone, that is, together there by their two substances. The 
 rise of the Romish docftrine of Concomitance seems to have been 
 somewhat as follows: First, some misunderstanding the words, This 
 is my body: This is my blood, fell into the error of beheving that 
 Christ's real body and blood were there. But they could see that 
 He had not said, This is my Divinity. Hence in order that they 
 might make a presence of Christ's two Natures in the rite, and so 
 make it more to their own liking, they forsook the faith of St. Cyril 
 approved by the whole Church at Ephesus, and invented the then 
 new-fangled dodlrine of Conco7nita?ice, (a) contrary to the Scripture and 
 to Common Sense, for it entails the indefinite and unhmited multi- 
 plication of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, so that it is not 
 the mere Tetradism which St. Cyril charges upon the Nestorians as 
 the consequence of their worshipping Christ's humanity (see above, 
 pages 90-94, note), but a worship of many Fours, even millions of 
 
 [a). Elliott ^« Romanism, vol. i, page 276 (N. Y. 1851), states that as late 
 SiS " the ninth century * ^ * no 07ie maintained that the sovi, and th- 
 ViNiTY 0/ Christ were contained in the Eucharist.'' 
 
528 Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 whole Christs, each body and blood, soul and divinity. Yet the 
 Homanist and the Greek Transubstantiationist were driven to the in- 
 vention of Concomitance, for if they had said that the bread and wine 
 could be transubstantiated into Divinity.they would have landed in 
 the ApoUinarian heresy that a created thing may be changed, that 
 is transubstantiated, into the uncreated God. 
 
 The Scriptures teach us that God the Word, His very and 
 eternal Substance, came out of the Father (see the Greek of John 
 viii., 42, and John xvi., 28, and of Heb. i., 3): and that dodlrine is 
 asserted in the Creed of Nicaea, and in the Anathema at its end. 
 And Holy Writ and the two Ecumenical Creeds teach that He has 
 ascended up to heaven in the Man whom He put on in Mary's 
 womb, where alone His Substance is to remain * ' imtil the times of 
 restitution of all things, ' ' (A(5ls iii. , 21), though He is with us always, 
 not by His Divine Substance but by the sandlifying and saving in- 
 fluences of that blessed and Eternal Spirit whom He sent as His 
 Vicar, and by His infinite attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, 
 and omnipotence. All that is Scriptural and easy to understand. 
 
 But, according to the Roman Transubstantiation, hundreds of 
 millions, aye, thousands of millions of whole Christs, body and 
 blood, soul and Divinity, have been eaten since the Eucharist was 
 first instituted. Now as the Father is admitted by all to be the sole 
 source of the Logos, that is, the Consubstantial Word, were they 
 born out of Him as the first Logos was ? Or did the first Logos create 
 uncreated Logoses out of His own Substance ? And where are all 
 those hundreds and thousands of millions of Logoses now ? If they 
 are co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father they can not perish 
 but must be somewhere in the Universe. And as they are so nu- 
 merous, according to the Romish idolater, there must by this time 
 be perhaps as many of them as there are human beings, and accord- 
 ing to Rome, their number is increasing at every Eucharist ! ! ! 
 
 And so there must be as many whole and perfect humanities of 
 Christ ! ! ! For they being sinless can never perish either. 
 
 Are not such logical and necessary consequences of Roman per- 
 version of the Lord's Supper enough to make its deluded votaries 
 stop and thmk, and to forsake it, and to go back to the infallible 
 dodlrine of the Third Council which is religious and sensible and ut- 
 terly free from all such absurdities and blasphemies ? 
 
Additional Notes. 529 
 
 NOTE F. 
 Thk Twenty Passages from Nestorius, for which he was 
 
 CONDEMNED AND DEPOSED BY THE UnIVERSAI^ ChURCH IN 
 
 ITS Third Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 At this point for the understanding and remembrance ol these 
 very important passages and their condemnation by the Universal 
 Church in its Third Synod, I will present in a table their salient 
 errors, and the places in Cyril of Alexandria's Five Book Co7itradic- 
 tio7t of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, where they are quoted and an- 
 swered, and also some other places in his writings where some of 
 them are referred to, and finally will tell what Anathemas of Cyril 
 or of the Fifth Council condemn them. 
 
 Column I, beginning at the left, is the number of the Passage. 
 Column 2, tells where in Nestorius' Sermons it is found. Most of 
 those passages of Nestorius are quoted in Cyril's Five Book Contradic- 
 tion of the Blasphemies of Nestoriiis. Marius Mercator has given us a 
 I^atin translation of parts of those Sermons. If any one of Nestorius' 
 20 Passages is not quoted in Cyril's Five Book Contradiction, the 
 space will be left blank. But Marius Mercator gives only the Latin. 
 His rendering differs in places from the Latin in Coleti Cone. , tome 
 3, col. 1063 to 1074. 
 
 Column 3 tells the error or errors taught by Nestorius in each 
 passage, and states what Anathema of Cyril or the Fifth Synod con- 
 demns it. And Column 4 tells where Cyril of Alexandria quotes 
 and refutes it, whether in his Five Book ContradiH^ion above mentioned, 
 or elsewhere on the Incarnation, outside of his XII. Anathemas, 
 though I do not profess to give every passage of Cyril elsewhere 
 against those heresies, but the reader can find them under their prop- 
 er heads in the indexes to those topics in tome 48 of Mig7ie's Patro- 
 logia Latina, col. 886 to col. 907; see also the indexes to Cyril's 
 voluminous writings, though I would kindly warn him that indexes 
 compiled by Pusey and by others of that school are not always ac- 
 curate in stating the contents of a work. 
 
 The capital letters in parentheses in the third column tell what 
 class of errors the one which follows each belongs to. 
 
 Class A means denial of the Incarnation of God the Word. 
 
 Class B means denial of the Church doctrine of ascribing the 
 
530 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 human things of the Man put on by God the Word to God the 
 Word Kconomically, that is, denial of the doctrine of Economic Ap- 
 propriatiori. 
 
 Class C consists of the passage or passages which assert the 
 relative sonship of Christ's humanity. 
 
 Class D comprises those passages which apply the term God 
 to the creature^ that is, to the Man put on by God the Word. This 
 is a form of Man-Service, that is, of worshipping a Man. 
 
 Class K consists of those passages which teach relative bowiivg 
 to the Man taken by God the Word, that is, because of his relatio7i to 
 God the Word as His temple. This of course is heathenish creature- 
 service, aye, worse than heathenish, because committed by Chris- 
 tians who have the light. Bowing is here an act of religious wor- 
 ship, and as the most common act of service, is used for all acts of 
 worship. 
 
 Class F putting the creature, that is, the Man taken by God 
 the Word, on the same level of divine dignity as the uncreated Word 
 of God, which is a form oiMaji- Service, that is, of Creature-Service, be- 
 cause it is giving honor prerogative to Divinity to a creature. 
 
 Class G means the passage or passages which ascribe God's 
 glory to a creature, that is, to the Man taken by the Word. This 
 also is a form of Ma?i-Service. Under this head I have put a pass- 
 sage which ascribes co-session with God to a creature. 
 
 Class H includes those passages which divide the One Christ 
 into the Nestorian Duality, and divide the names, etc. of the Son 
 between His Two Natures and do not come under any of the other 
 heads. Under this class come all the Passages of Nestorius which 
 deny Cyril's and the Church's doctrine of Economic Appropriation. 
 The result of all that is to make Christ a mere man and all worship 
 of him mere Man- Worship. 
 
 Class I includes those passages which deny that God the Word 
 is our High Priest, and assert that a creature is, and so tend to 
 Man-Service, that Is, to the fundamental error of worshipping a. 
 creature. 
 
 Class J consists of the passage or passages which teach the 
 absurdity that the sinless Man made an offering for himself. 
 
 Class K consists of the passage or passages which teach the 
 eating of the ac5lual flesh of Christ's humanity and the drinking of 
 
Additioyial Notes. 531 
 
 the actual blood of that humanity in the Lord's Supper. This is 
 branded by Cyril of Alexandria as ''Caniiibalisni:'' see note 606 
 above, pages 250-313. 
 
 Class ly consists of the passage or passages which assert that 
 all opposed to Nestorius' Man- Service and other errors are in ignor- 
 ance and error. 
 
 Every one of the foregoing passages from Nestorius either 
 teaches creature-service^ as for instance Class K, or in its re- 
 sults tends to it, as, for instance. Class I, which denies that God the 
 Word is our Sole High Priest, that is, our Sole Mediator in heaven, 
 the things of the Man being Economically ascribed to Him. 
 
 Or to divide them further they may be put into the following 
 classes: 
 
 1. Denial of the Incarnation of the Substance of God the 
 Word in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, and His birth out of her. 
 To this head belong Classes A and C. 
 
 2. Passages which teach service of some kind to the Man, that 
 is to the creature taken by the Uncreated Word of God: as, for in- 
 stance. Classes D, E, F and G. 
 
 3. Passages which have a tendency to end in worshipping the 
 creature, that is the Man united to God the Word. Under this head 
 belong Classes A, B, C, H, I, J, K, and L. 
 
 4. Passages which corrupt the true doctrine of the Universal 
 Church on the Eucharist, that is, the Thanksgiving. Under this 
 head belong not only Class K, but also Classes D, E, F, and G, 
 which anticipatively prohibit all service done in the Eucharist to 
 the humanity taken on by God the Word, by the unreformed Com- 
 munions, the Greek, the Latin, and the Monophysite, and by^ 
 the Nestorians also, for they worship the body and blood of Christ 
 in the Eucharist, and by the Pusey-Keble heresy of the same kind 
 so far, and all other worship of the Man put on, whether that 
 worship be given in the Eucharist or, according to Cyril above,, 
 anywhere else, (pages 79 and 225. Compare all of notes 183,, 
 582 and 606. Compare note 156, and pages 79-85, and 221-224). 
 
 Cyril, in his reply to passage 18 of Nestorius' Blasphemies, de- 
 nies that the Divinity of God the Word is with or in the bread and 
 wine at all on the Eucharistic table. See 6*. Cyril of Alexandria 07t 
 the Incarnatio7i agaijist Nestorius, Oxford translation, pages 151, 160. 
 On page 145, id., he speaks of it as '' folly ^' to believe that we 
 
532 Act I. of Ephes2is. 
 
 '' co7is2tme the Divinity''^ of God the Word in the Kucharist. See 
 also note 606, pages 250-260 above. Hence the Bishops of the 
 Third Ecumenical Council in approving and in following their 
 teacher, Cyril of Alexandria, condemned anticipatively the doctrine 
 of Transubstantiation held to by the Romanists and the Greeks, and 
 the doctrine of Consubstantiation held to by others, that we eat or 
 consume the Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist. Cyril 
 shows on pages 260-276 above, note, that if we ate Christ's real 
 human flesh and drank his real human blood in the Eucharist we 
 would be guilty of what he expressly terms Cannilialism; that hence 
 there is no real presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the 
 Rite, nor is there a real presence of the substance of His humanity 
 there; that instead He ''sends the power of life into the things which 
 lie before us, ' ' that is, into the leavened bread and wine ' ' a7id chaiiges 
 tJie7n to the ENERGY of Hi^ own flesh'' (see page 263 above, note), 
 whose touch was quickening and life giving. And so Christ's energy 
 is in the bread and wine now. He disowns '' can7iibalism,'" that is, 
 eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Man put on. See 
 St. Cyril's Five Book Contradilliojt, Oxford translation, page 142 
 and the context, and R. Payne Smith's English translation of S. Cyril 
 of Alexa7idria' s Comme7itary on the Gospel accordi7ig to S. Luke, Part 
 2, pages 664-670. On page 668 of this last work, Cyril teaches that 
 we have a * * relative participation ' ' of God the Word in the Euchar- 
 ist. Elsewhere he blames Nestorius for holding merely to a 7xlative 
 indwelling of God the Word in the Man in the Virgin's womb and 
 his denial of the actual indwelling of the Substance of God the Word 
 in that Man. See for instance 6*. Cyril of Alexayidiia on the hicarna- 
 tion agai7istNestorins, pages 282, 283, 345, 357, 160, 14, 35, 40, 41, 
 67, 74, 79, 105, 215, 258, 276, 303, in which passages ^/ercz^'v should 
 be rendered ''relative'' and ff/erwdi? " relatively ." {a) See also pp. 47, 
 73, and 248. Those passages serve to explain his sense of " relative 
 participation " here. He means that He enters us by \i\'B, grace in 
 the Eucharistic eating and drinking, not by his human flesh and 
 blood; by his grace in the Eucharistic body and blood, that is, by 
 his grace using the bread and wine as channels to bless the worthy 
 
 {a). When E. B. Pusey willed he could render axtriKri rightly, See in 
 proof page 54 of his "Z>^^rz«^ of the Real Presence,'' where he translates it 
 " relative " in a passage of Gerhard. 
 
Addiiio7ial Notes. 533 
 
 recipient {b). The Greek terms in the passages last referred to above 
 are specified under ax^att. and ffx^ruijv^ page 405 in the Index of 
 Greek Words in the Oxford translation of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on 
 the Incariiation against Nestorius. 
 
 Cyril again teaches on the Eucharist in his Commentary on St. 
 John. See the Oxford translation of it, vol. i. pages 361-454. But 
 see fully in this volume above, note 606, pages 240-313. Compare 
 note 599, page 229-238. And see the part of St. Cyril's Ecumeni- 
 cally approved Longer Epistle above on pages 232-241. 
 
 5. Passages which corrupt the true docflrine of the Universal 
 Church on God the Word as our Mediator and Great High Priest. 
 Of this kind are classes I, J. 
 
 At this point I ought to add that, as we know from Cyril of 
 Alexandria, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, Oxford translation, 
 page 4, those extracts are taken from ' ' homilies ' ' of Nestorius, 
 which serves to explain the use of the terms ' ' blasphemous preach- 
 ings ' ' {TCTjpoyixaTa) for them in the announcement to him of the Sen- 
 tence of Deposition by the Third Ecumenical Synod against him for 
 the blasphemies and heresies of creature service and other errors in 
 them. And the sentence refers to the fact that he ''preaches im- 
 piously." Pusey in a note, pages 48, 49, of his translation of Cyril 
 against Nestorius has given some account of those sermons, and in- 
 forms us that Marius Mercator has translated sermons of Nestorius 
 which contain a number of the extracts which are quoted above in 
 the First Act of the Third Ecumenical Synod. For details see that 
 note and column 2 in the table below. I would add that much mat- 
 ter may be found on all these topics in the notes on Cyril's XII. 
 Anathemas above where the alleged Counter Anathemas of Nes- 
 torius are quoted (pages 313-413), and in those on the twenty 
 heretical passages of Nestorius on pages 443-481 above. 
 
 {b). St. Cyril in his Five Book Co7itradi5lion of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
 torius, Book v., se(5lion i, writing on John xvii., 20-23, and telling how He is 
 in us shows that it is by His Spirit's influences to sanctify, not by His Substance. 
 I quote: 
 
 " He is in us both by His own flesh which quickens us by the Spirit, and by 
 our partaking of His holiness, and it is clear that that also takes place by the 
 Holy Spirit.'" See especially pages 250-260 above, on " His ownflesh.'^ 
 
534 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 No. 
 
 Where found 
 i n Nestorius' 
 Sertnons in 
 Marius Merca- 
 tor, torn. 4.8 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latin a. 
 
 In Sermon 
 second, col. 765 : 
 compare No. 2 
 ex libro 2, col. 
 903. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Fifth, Sections; 
 in column 787. 
 Compare c o 1 - 
 umn 903, No. 2, 
 "ex libro i." A 
 part of it is 
 found in col. 
 906: it is from a« 
 Epistle of St. 
 Cyril of Alex- 
 andria to Aca- 
 ciiis of Melitene. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 (A). Denial of the Incarnation of 
 God the Word in the Virgin and His 
 birth out of her; which is condemned 
 in Cyril's Anathema I.; compare the 
 Fifth Synod's Anathemas II. and IV. 
 
 (B). Denial of the dodlrine that ///^ 
 human things {ra avOpcjTnva, hutnana) 
 of the Man taken by the Word are to be 
 ascribed Economically to God theWord 
 This is condemned in Cyril's Anathema 
 XII. Compare his Anathema IV. 
 
 (C). Asserting the relative sonship 
 of the humanity taken by God the 
 Word, so that, according to Nestorius, 
 it is relatively Son of God, that is be- 
 cause of God the Word, This error is 
 connedled with another error, namely 
 the relative worship of the Man united 
 to God the Word and is one of its sup- 
 ports. This is Adoptionism, and is 
 condemned by Cyril's Anathemas II., 
 III., IV. and VIIL, approved by the 
 Third Council, and by Anathemas IV., 
 v., VI., VII., IX., XIL, XIII. and 
 XIV., of the Fifth Synod. 
 
 (A). Denial of the Incarnation of 
 the divine Substance of God the Word 
 in the womb of the Virgin, and His 
 birth out of her. His words imply 
 that he did not admit her to be the 
 Bring er Forth of God {Qto-oKoc). 
 
 (A). Calling Cyril, or whatsoever 
 Orthodox man opposed his errors, a 
 '^heretic,''' for that reason, which of 
 course is tantamount to branding the 
 faith afterward approved by the whole 
 Church in the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod as heresy. 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 This whole 
 passage is quot- 
 ed by Cyril in 
 his Five Book 
 Contradi B i on 
 of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius, Book II., 
 section i, pages 
 48, 49, in the 
 Oxford transla- 
 tion. See it re- 
 futed there and 
 elsewhere in 
 Cyril. 
 
 All this pass- 
 age is quoted by 
 Cyril in his /^tV^ 
 Book Contradic- 
 tion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius, Book /., 
 se^ion 7, pages 
 10 and II of 
 Pusey's Oxford 
 translation. It 
 is refuted in the 
 context and 
 
Additional Notes. 
 
 535 
 
 Where fotmd 
 in Mar. Merc. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Fifth, sedlion 9, 
 col. 787; a part 
 of it is found 
 also in an Epis- 
 tle of Cyril of 
 Alexandria to 
 Acacius of Mel- 
 itene, quoted in 
 col. 906. 
 
 In Se r m o n 
 Third, column 
 771. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 These errors are condemned in 
 Cyril's Ephesus-approved Anathemas 
 I., etc., and by Anathemas II., III., 
 etc., of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. 
 
 (A). Denial of the Incarnation of 
 the divine Substance of God the Word 
 in the womb of the Virgin, and His 
 birth out of her. 
 
 These denials are cursed in Anathe- 
 mas I., etc., of Cyril approved by the 
 Third Ecumenical Synod, and by 
 Anathemas 11. , III., etc., of the Fifth. 
 
 (H). Nestorius divides the names of 
 the Son between His Divinity and His 
 humanity, contrary to Cyril's Anathe- 
 ma IV., instead of giving them all to 
 God the Word in accordance with the 
 dodlrine of Economic Appropriation; 
 for which he is therefore condemned 
 by Cyril's Anathema XII., and it is 
 plain that he divides the Two Natures 
 also by denying the Incarnation, 
 which dividing is condemned by 
 Cyril's Anathema III. Such anti- 
 Incarnation dividing is condemned by 
 several Canons of the Fifth Synod. 
 
 (A). Denial of the Incarnation of 
 the divine Substance of God the Word 
 in the womb of the Virgin INIary, and 
 His birth out of her; and twisting the 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 elsew here b y 
 Cyril. 
 
 Cyril's Five 
 Book Contradic- 
 tion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius y Book /., 
 seElion i, (page 
 II of the Oxford 
 translation), 
 contains all this 
 quot a t i o n to 
 "and we all con- 
 fess." It is re- 
 futed in the con- 
 text. 
 
 The rest of 
 this quotation is 
 referred to by 
 Cyril in the 
 same place and 
 elsewhere. But 
 theOxfordtrans- 
 lation has two 
 very bad mis- 
 takes on page 
 II, for, I, it uses 
 ''Mother of 
 God*' continu- 
 ally where the 
 Greek is 
 ''Bringer Forth 
 ofGod,''2ind 
 
 2, it has ''God- 
 bearing man ' ' 
 wrongly for 
 " inspired 
 man.*'' 
 
 This passage 
 from " they fol- 
 lowed the Evan- 
 frelisV to ''hear 
 
536 
 
 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 No. 
 
 Where found 
 in Mariiis Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Second; column 
 766. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius i?i it. 
 
 Creed of the First Synod, or that of the 
 Second, or both, to his own heretical 
 sense and B. and H. distributing the 
 names of the Son between His Two 
 Natures, instead of ascribing them all 
 to the Logos. 
 
 These heresies are condemned in 
 Anathemas I., III., IV., XII., etc., of 
 Gyril approved by the Third Ecumeni- 
 cal Council, and by Anathemas II., 
 III., IV., v., VL, VII., etc., of the 
 Fifth. 
 
 "The Fathers " on whom Nestorius 
 here relies seem to be the Fathers of 
 the Nestorian heresy, Diodore of Tar- 
 sus of the Fourth century, and Theo- 
 dore of Mopsuestia of the Fourth and 
 Fifth. These men misled the Syrians. 
 Cyril therefore condemned and wrote 
 against both. Theodore is condemned 
 in Anathemas IV., XII., XIII, , and 
 XIV., of the Fifth Synod, and in its 
 Definition. 
 
 (D). That form of Man-Service, 
 that is of Creature-Service, which con- 
 sists in applying the term God to the 
 Man taken by God the Word, on ac- 
 count of his relation to the Word by 
 a "mere external con j ointment.'*'' This 
 is a form of the old pagan error of re- 
 lative worship, which was also one 
 form of the sin of the Israelites in wor- 
 shipping the golden calf in the wilder- 
 ness and the calves at Dan and Bethel; 
 for they called those things "6"^^" or 
 ''Gods.'' And that the applying of the 
 peculiar name of God to a man is an 
 act of religious worship Nestorius 
 himself in effect confesses in the last 
 words of this passage 5. For he in 
 effect put forth the plea of relatire 
 service of the creature conjoined, to use 
 his own term, to God the Word, ''in 
 order thai no one may suspect Christi- 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 what sort oj 
 words he titters, 
 The Word be- 
 came flesh," in- 
 clusive are quot- 
 ed by Cyril in 
 his Five Book 
 Cotitradi5lion of 
 the Blasphemies 
 of Nestorius, 
 Book I. , se5lio7t 
 7, pages 30 and 
 31 in the Oxford 
 translation. He 
 refers to the im- 
 portant ideas in 
 the rest, and re- 
 futes the whole 
 in the context, 
 and elsewhere. 
 
 Part of this is 
 quoted by Cyril 
 in section 13 of 
 Book II., of his 
 Five Book Con- 
 tradiction 
 of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius. See it as 
 there quoted in 
 the Oxford 
 translation, page 
 80. Cyril re- 
 futes its Man- 
 Service in his 
 Scholia on the 
 Incarn a tion, 
 (pages 210, 211 
 of the Oxford 
 translation): in 
 his Christ is One 
 
Additional Notes. 
 
 537 
 
 No. 
 
 6. 
 
 Where found 
 in Mar. Merc. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Second, col. 764, 
 765. Compare 
 column 904, no. 
 4 ex libro 2. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 a?iity of serving a Man;'''' which im- 
 plies that if his plea of, in effect, re- 
 lative service, is not valid, Nestoriau 
 so-called ''Christianity'' may justly 
 be suspedled ''of serving a Man.'' 
 And Cyril and the whole Church at 
 Ephesus in 431 and at II. Constanti- 
 nople in 553, defined in the matter of 
 these quotations from Nestorius and 
 in the matter of the Creed mentioned 
 by Charisius which teaches the same 
 relative service to the man taken by 
 God the Word, because of God the 
 Word's relation to him, that such re- 
 lative worship is wrong. And the 
 Bishops of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod 
 ascribed the authorship of that Creed 
 to "SATAN." See on that Act VI. of 
 the Council. See also the condemna- 
 tion of the error of applying the term 
 God\.o the Man put on, and of worship- 
 ping him in Cyril's Anathema VIII., 
 pages 331,332 above, and Anathema IX. 
 of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod and its 
 Definition. Besides, (B) Nestorius, in 
 accordance with his Anti-Incarnation 
 dividing of Christ's Two Natures, 
 divides His names also between them 
 contrary to Cyril's Anathemas III., 
 and IV., and to the dodtrine of Econo- 
 mic Appropriation in Cyril's Anathe- 
 ma XII. 
 
 (D). That form of Man-Service, 
 that is, of Creature-Service, which 
 consists in applying to the Man taken 
 by God the Word, the names of God, 
 on account of his relation to God the 
 Word by what Nestorius terms " co7i- 
 joinment." On this sin see the state- 
 ment and explanation above in this 
 column under passage 5. The error 
 is the same as there. 
 
 Besides Nestorius divides the names 
 of the Son between His Two Natures; 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 (pages 271-283 
 of the Oxford 
 translation, and 
 page 302). Theo- 
 dore of Mopsu- 
 estia, Nestorius' 
 Master, had used 
 the same text 
 (Rom. ix.,5) in a 
 heretical sense, 
 which Cyril re- 
 futes in his writ- 
 i n g s against 
 Theodore; (see 
 page 360 in the 
 Oxford transla- 
 tion). Pusey, 
 id., page 80, note 
 "/," states that 
 Cyril quotes 
 "the last por- 
 tion " of the 
 above as given 
 on his page 80 
 "in his letter to 
 Acacius of Mel- 
 it ine. Epp. p. 
 IIS, «•" 
 
 This passage 
 i s quoted i u 
 nearly the same 
 form by Cyril 
 in sedlion 3 of 
 the SecondBook 
 oilns, Five Book 
 ContradiHion of 
 the Blasphemies 
 of Nestorius. It 
 is found on page 
 54 of the Oxford 
 
538 
 
 Act L of Ephesus. 
 
 No. 
 
 Where found 
 in Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Seventh, sedlion 
 12; col. 793, 794. 
 Cyril of Alexan- 
 dria quotes it in 
 his Answer to 
 the obje6lions of 
 the Orientals to 
 his XII. Chap- 
 ters, under Ana- 
 thema III. See 
 tome 48 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latina^ 
 col. 905, where 
 this fact is stat- 
 ed. 
 
 I do not find 
 this passage 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 whereas Cyril gives them all to God 
 the Word only, those which mean 
 God, as for instance, God, Logos, as 
 belonging to God the Word alone, of 
 natural right, and those which refer to 
 His humanity such as Man, Anointed, 
 by Economic Appropriation. 
 
 The sin of applying the term God to 
 a creature, that is, to Christ's human- 
 ity, is condemned by St. Cyril's Ana- 
 thema VIII. ; and the error of dividing 
 the Natures, and the names of the Son 
 betweeu them, is anathematized by 
 Cyril's Anathemas III., IV., etc., and 
 in Anathemas III., IV., V., VI. and 
 VII., of the Fifth Synod. Of course 
 whenever the Two Natures are separ- 
 ated in these heretical Passages of 
 Nestorius, his Christ is left a mere 
 human being and all worship of him 
 is therefore mere Mafi-worship, that 
 is mere creature-worship. See Cyril's 
 Anathema VIII., and Anathema IX., 
 of the Fifth Council. 
 
 (D). The same error as in the last 
 two passages above. It is condemned 
 by Cyril's Anathema VIII. 
 
 (H). Dividing the one Christ into 
 the Nestorians' Duality which is con- 
 nedled with their Man-Service and is 
 a part of its basis. This is condemned 
 in Cyril's Anathemas III., IV., V., 
 VI., and VII. of the Fifth Ecumen- 
 ical Synod. 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 translation of S. 
 Cyril of Alex- 
 atidna on the 
 Incarna tion 
 against Nestor- 
 ius. It is refut- 
 ed i n the con- 
 text and else- 
 where by Cyril. 
 Compare Cyril's 
 Scholia on the 
 Incar nation, 
 page 185 in the 
 same Oxford 
 translation. 
 
 I have not 
 found exadlly 
 the same words 
 in Cyril's Five 
 Book Cofitradic- 
 tionof the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius, but they 
 are logically 
 connedled with 
 the next passage 
 which is found: 
 and Nestorius' 
 perversion o f 
 Philip, ii., 5, 6, 
 7, here is ably 
 refuted with his 
 Man-Wor sh ip 
 by Cyril in the 
 
Additional Notes. 
 
 5130 
 
 Where found 
 in Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 among Cyril's 
 quotations from 
 Nestorius in his 
 Five Book Con- 
 tradition of the 
 Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius^ a s 
 menti o n e d in 
 col. 903-906, in 
 tome 48 as a- 
 bove. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Seventh in a de- 
 fe<5live form, in 
 sedlions 35 and 
 36, col. 798, 
 tom. 48 as a- 
 bove; and in 
 Sermon 2, in 
 Baluze's edition 
 as in tom. 8, of 
 Galland. Bihli- 
 oth. Vet. Patr., 
 page 632. 
 
 But it is given 
 almost exa6lly 
 i n Sermon i, 
 sedlions 9 and 10, 
 col. 762 in said 
 tome 48 and in 
 Baluze's edition 
 as given in Gal- 
 land. Bibliothe- 
 ca Vet. Patr., 
 tom. 8, page 
 
 (B). The Nestorian mere Relative 
 Union of Christ's Two Natures; and 
 the Nestorian Relative worship by 
 bowing to the Man "■ conjoined'" \.o 
 God the Word, for the sake of God 
 the Word and on account of God the 
 Word. This form of relative service 
 was the siu of the Israelites in wor- 
 shipping Jehovah through the golden 
 calf in the wilderness and the calves 
 at Bethel and Dan; and the relative 
 service of images painted, that is, pic- 
 tures (Ezek. viii., 1-13, compare xxiii., 
 14), images graven, relics, and other 
 things among the heathen is defended 
 by them on the ground that the wor- 
 ship of any kind and of every kind so 
 given goes to the prototype represented 
 by it or to whom it is related. 
 
 A lower and baser kind of this Nes- 
 torian sin of worshipping Christ's 
 mere separate humanity, that is, a 
 viere creature, exists to-day among all 
 the unreformed Greeks, Latins, and 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 passages r e - 
 ferred to under 
 chapter ii. of 
 Philippians in 
 the "-Index oj 
 Texts''' pages 
 398. 399 of the 
 Oxford transla. 
 tion oi S. Cyril 
 of Alexandria, 
 on the Incarna- 
 tion against 
 Nestorius. 
 
 Those pass- 
 ages should all 
 be read by every 
 cleric and in- 
 deed by every 
 laic of learning. 
 
 A part of this, 
 that is the words 
 which express 
 the poison o f 
 Man-Service,'' I 
 worship h i vt 
 who is worn for 
 the sake of Him 
 Who wears: I 
 bow to him who 
 is seen for the 
 sake of Him 
 Who is hidden,'^ 
 is quoted by 
 Cyril in sedlion 
 II, of Book 2 of 
 his Five Book 
 Contradi c t ion 
 of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius, page 75 
 of the Oxford 
 translation of ^S". 
 Cyril of Alex- 
 
540 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 No. 
 
 Where found 
 in Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 632. In both 
 these last named 
 places, however, 
 the quotation 
 from Philip, ii., 
 10, is not found. 
 But in column 
 798 of torn. 48 
 of Migne's 
 Patrol. Latina, 
 and on page 632 
 o f torn. 8, o f 
 Galland. Bibli- 
 otheca Vetermn 
 Pat rum, that 
 text is found, 
 and it is there 
 preceded by the 
 creature serving 
 expression used 
 of Christ's hu- 
 manity, "Adoro 
 tamquam omni- 
 potentis imagi- 
 nem Deitatis," 
 Then without 
 any break 
 Philip, ii., 10 
 follows. 
 
 But in these 
 two editions of 
 Marius Merca- 
 tor, Nestorius' 
 Sermons are 
 numbered dif- 
 ferently. 
 
 The whole 
 passage Philip, 
 ii., 10 and all is 
 given together 
 in col. 900 of 
 torn. 48 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 Monophysites, in giving a6ls of reli- 
 gious service to angels, saints, the 
 Virgin Mary, painted images, (among 
 the Latins graven images also), relics, 
 communion tables or altars, and other 
 things. The Nestorians are guilty of 
 all forms of this sin, except worship- 
 ping images. Singularly enough, 
 though the first to fall into the sin of 
 Relative Service they have not de- 
 scended so low into it in some respedls 
 as the once sound Church which ex- 
 communicated them at Ephesus, A. 
 D. 431, for it. I call the relative ser- 
 vice of such created persons and things 
 lower and baser than the Nestoriaa 
 relative service of Christ's humanity 
 because such persons and things are 
 lower than Christ's humanity which 
 is the highest and best of all created 
 things. And if I may not worship that 
 by bowing, or, (by necessary implica- 
 tion), by any other act, much less may 
 I worship by any act of religious 
 service any other creature, or any 
 thing. The Third Synod and the Fifth 
 in so deciding a6led in loyal con- 
 sonace with Christ's unchangeable 
 and soul-saving law couched in the 
 words. Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy 
 God, and Him only shalt thou serve,'' 
 Matt, iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8. Cyril 
 and the Third Synod b}- their adlion 
 on this passage teach that we should 
 not worship the Man as did Nestorius, 
 but God the Word. To Him as the 
 infinitely superior Nature should all 
 our worship be directed. We should 
 not direct it to His wrapping, the 
 creature. 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 andria on the 
 Inca rn ati on 
 against Nestor- 
 ius, and the rest 
 of it is referred 
 to in the con- 
 text where it is 
 all nobly and 
 ably refuted b y 
 Cyril. Indeed, 
 his writings are 
 full of condem- 
 nation o f that 
 relative service 
 and Man-Ser- 
 vice. Cyril 
 quotes the w^ords 
 above quoted, 
 "/ worship,'"" 
 etc., and con- 
 demns them in 
 his Synodal 
 Epistle to Nes- 
 torius which 
 has the Twelve 
 Chapters and 
 which was a p- 
 proved in t h e 
 Third Ecumeni- 
 cal Synod and 
 in the three 
 Ecum en i c a 1 
 S3'nods follow- 
 ing, and hence 
 his opposition 
 to them was 
 there approved 
 also. 
 
 The applying 
 the name 
 ''God" to the 
 man put on is 
 condemned i n 
 
Additional Notes. 
 
 541 
 
 Where found 
 in Mart us Mer- 
 cator's Latin, 
 logia Latina, 
 and is there im- 
 mediately pre- 
 ceded by the 
 words, " Colo, 
 inquit [Nestor- 
 ius], eum [the 
 man united to 
 God the Word] 
 tamquam omni- 
 potentis imagi- 
 nem," which 
 shows his Man- 
 Service. See 
 part of this pass- 
 age in id., col. 
 906, in an Epis- 
 tle of Cyril of 
 Alexandria to 
 Acacius of Mel- 
 itene. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Second, col. 765. 
 Compare No. 8, 
 col. 904. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 (F). Putting the creature, that is the 
 Man ^'conjoined'' to God the Word, 
 on the same level of divine dignity as 
 the Uncreated Word of God, which is 
 a form of Man-Service, that is of Crea- 
 ture-Service, because it is an ascribing 
 of the dignity peculiar and prerogative 
 to God the Word to a Creature. All 
 such creature-worship is condemned 
 by Anathema VIII. of Cyril and by 
 Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumeni- 
 cal Synod. And the error of a relative 
 mere external conjmi^ion, and real 
 separation of Christ's Two Natures, 
 which is a basis of that Man- Worship, 
 is condemned and cursed by Cyril's 
 Anathema III. See the difference 
 between the Orthodox Substa7ice 
 Union and Nestorius* heretical re- 
 lative Union explained in note 156 
 above. 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 the same place 
 in that Epistle 
 and is hence 
 condemned by 
 the Third Synod 
 also. These 
 places ar e o n 
 pages 221-224 
 above. 
 
 This passage 
 is quoted by 
 Cyril in se(5lion 
 7 of Book 2 of 
 his Five Book 
 ContradiBion of 
 the Blasphemies 
 of Nestorius, 
 and is found on 
 pages 63 and 64 
 of the Oxford 
 translation, and 
 i s refuted b y 
 Cyril in the 
 context and 
 elsewhere. 
 
542 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Where fowid 
 171 Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 
 In Sermon 2 
 in Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin 
 translation ; (col. 
 766, in torn. 48 
 of Migne's Pat- 
 rologia Latina. 
 A part o f the 
 same language 
 of Nestorius i s 
 found under 
 Anathema VIII. 
 inCyrilof Alex- 
 aM^rxQ.' s, Answer 
 to theObjedlions 
 of the Orieiitals 
 to his XII. 
 Chapters, as is 
 noted in col. 906, 
 tome 48 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latina. 
 
 It is given in 
 col. 898, tom. 
 4 8 of Migne's 
 Pa t r o to g i a 
 Latina. It is 
 there ascribed 
 to the ''Eighth 
 Quat er7iio7i,'' 
 but the number 
 of the sermon is 
 not specified. 
 But it is found 
 i n Sermon 6, 
 se<5lion 5 in col. 
 788, tom. 48, id. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 (E). The Nestorian sin of serving 
 the mere Man taken by God the Word 
 relatively by bowi7ig, etc., because, 
 that is, of God the Word and for the 
 sake of God the Word. This is the 
 same as the sin mentioned in passage 
 8, in this column above, which see for 
 fuller information. 
 
 This error is condemned by Anathe- 
 ma VIII., of Cyril which is approved 
 by the Third World-Council, and by 
 Anathema IX. of the Fifth. It is 
 connedled logically with the denial of 
 the Incarnation which is condemned 
 in Anathema I., and with Relative 
 Union is condemned in Anathemas II. 
 and III., and with the rest of Nestor- 
 ius' errors which are condemned in 
 the rest of St. Cyril's Anathemas. 
 
 (I) Denying that God the Word is 
 our High Priest, and asserting that a 
 mere Man ' ' co7iJoi7ied ^ ' to Him is. 
 This error has a tendency to bring in 
 bowing to the Man put on and invoca- 
 tion of him, for we are taught in Holy 
 Writ to go to our High Priest for help. 
 Heb. ii., 9-18; iii., i; iv., 14-16; vi., 20; 
 vii., 24-28; viii., i; ix., 24; x., 19-24; 
 John xiv., 6, 13, 14; xv., 16, and xvi., 
 23, 24, 26. And if we forget the due 
 pre-eminence and infinitely superior 
 Nature of God the Word in Him we 
 may be led to serve the creature C07i- 
 trary to the Creatorhj going to a man 
 by bowing, invocation, or by some 
 other act of Man-service, that is, of 
 Creature-Service, Rom. i., 25; Matt, 
 iv., 10, and Luke iv., 8. 
 
 This heresy is condemned b}' Ana- 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 This passage 
 i s quoted b y 
 Cyril in se(5lion 
 13 of Book 2, of 
 his Five Book 
 Co7itradic tion 
 of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius, and is 
 found on page 
 89 of the Oxford 
 English transla- 
 tion, and is re- 
 futed in the con- 
 text and passiTU 
 by Cyril. As to 
 a slight vari- 
 ation in the 
 reading of the 
 last passage see 
 note "g," page 
 80, Oxford 
 translation. 
 
 This is quoted 
 by Cyril in sec- 
 tion I of Book 3 
 oi h i s Five 
 Book Co7ttradic- 
 tion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius, and i s 
 found on pages 
 91, 92 of the 
 Oxford transla- 
 tion. It is re- 
 futed in the con- 
 text there and 
 passim by Cyril. 
 
Additional Notes. 
 
 543 
 
 No. 
 
 12. 
 
 13. 
 
 14. 
 
 Where found 
 in Mariiis Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 
 This is given 
 by Marius Mer- 
 cator as from 
 Ouat ern i o n 
 XXXI., but the 
 number of the 
 S e rmo n to 
 which it belongs 
 is not specified. 
 It is found in 
 col. 902, tome 
 48 of Migne's 
 Patrologia La- 
 tina . 
 
 It is found in 
 Sermon 11, Sec- 
 tion 3, (col. 830, 
 tome 48 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latino). 
 
 In Sermon 10, 
 (col. 829, 830, 
 tome 48, of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latina, in 
 Marius Mercat- 
 or's translation. 
 Compare col. 
 904, No. 7. The 
 arrangement of 
 these Sermons 
 and their num- 
 bering leaves 
 much to be de- 
 sired yet of 
 order in them). 
 
 In Sermon 7, 
 Sections 23, 24, 
 37 and 38 (col- 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 thema X. of Cyril which is approved 
 by the Third Synod of the Christian 
 World. 
 
 (H). Like part of Passage 7 in this 
 column above, it divides the One Christ 
 into the Nestorian Duality which is 
 connected with their Man-service. 
 
 This error is condemned by Cyril's 
 Anathemas III. and IV., and by Ana- 
 themas III., IV., v., VI. and VII. of 
 the Fifth Synod. We must remember 
 also that Nestorius by the words ''The 
 same one was * * * a dweller in 
 the infant,^^ 6.\di not mean that God 
 the Word indwelt the infant by His 
 Eternal Substance but only by His 
 Holy Spirit. See also note 959 above. 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 I have not 
 found it in 
 Cyril, but the 
 error in it is re- 
 futed by him 
 passim. The 
 Sixth of Cyril's 
 XII. Anathemas 
 i s levelled a- 
 gainst it. 
 
 (G). Ascribing '' the good glory '''' 
 of God the Word Who is the Sole-born 
 out of the Father to a creature, that is, 
 to the Man taken by Him. This is a 
 kind of Man-Service, and hence of 
 Creature-Service. See this feature ex- 
 plained in a note on this passage 
 above. This is akin to the sin men- 
 tioned in Passages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, above; 
 in that it is a form of relative creature- 
 service. See under those passages in 
 this column above. 
 
 This heresy is condemned by Cyril's 
 Anathema VIII. and by Anathema IX. 
 of the Fifth Synod. 
 
 (E) and (D). Two passages and two 
 forms of Man-Service are included 
 under this quotation. (E), The first is 
 
 This is quoted 
 by Cyril in Sec- 
 tion 7 of Book 
 2 of the Five 
 Book Contradic- 
 tion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius:it is found 
 on page 61 of 
 the O X fo r d 
 translation, and 
 is refuted by 
 Cyril in the con- 
 text and e 1 s e- 
 where. 
 
 Both these 
 passages are 
 found in Cyril's 
 
544 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 No. 
 
 Where found 
 in Alarius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 umns 797, 798, 
 in tome 48 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latina in 
 Marius Merca- 
 tor'sLatin trans- 
 lation. Com- 
 pare No. 12 in 
 col. 904, id. A 
 part of these 
 words is found 
 in col. 900, id.) 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 bowing to the Man ''conjoined'''' to 
 God the Word '* together with the 
 Divinity'" of God the Word, on the 
 ground that that Man is '' co-worker 
 with the divine authority.'" This 
 worship is addressed to both Natures, 
 absolutely \.o the Divinity of the Word, 
 relatively to the IMan '' cofijoined." 
 This relative worship of that mere 
 Man is the sin o^ Man-Service, that is, 
 Creature-Service by bowing set forth 
 in Passages H and J above; which see. 
 
 (D). The second passage teaches 
 the sin of applying the name of God 
 to a creature, which is a form of crea- 
 ture-service, like that set forth in 
 passages 5, 6 and 7 above. It is rela- 
 tive VC&.e Wiq application of the name 
 God to images by many idolatrous so- 
 called Christians in our time, and their 
 relative worship of them is done on 
 the pagan and Nestorian principle of 
 relative worship. 
 
 Aye, even worse, a Romish Arch- 
 bishop, Kenrick of Baltimore, con- 
 tends that ''Ch7'isVs human Nature is 
 to be adored with the divine Word 
 with one and the same supreme wor- 
 ship of latria," that is, that Christ's 
 humanity-, a mere creature, is to re- 
 ceive the same absolute worship as 
 God the Word Himself!!! So he 
 teaches on pages 258-262, vol. 2 of his 
 Theol. Dogm. Surely if the Nestorian 
 worship of Christ's humanity is blas- 
 phemous, though it is only relative, 
 Kenrick's absolute worship of that 
 creature is more so. 
 
 Those errors are condemned in 
 Cyril's Anathema VIII., which was 
 approved by Ephesus and the Three 
 Synods of the Christian World after it, 
 and by Canon IX. of the Fifth Ecu- 
 menical Council and in its Definition. 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 Five Book Con- 
 tradi5lio7i of the 
 Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius: the 
 first in Book 2, 
 sedlion 9, and 
 the second in 
 Book 2, sedlion 
 12; they are on 
 pages 69 and 77 
 of the Oxford 
 translation, and 
 they are refuted 
 with their crea- 
 ture-service by 
 St. Cyril in the 
 context there. 
 
Additional Notes. 
 
 145 
 
 Whei'e found 
 in Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 
 In Sermon 
 Third, (col. 767, 
 768, tome 48 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latino). 
 
 In S ermon 
 VL, Seaions 7 
 and 8. (See it, 
 in col. 788, 789, 
 tome 48, in 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Latina, 
 but with some 
 (differ e n c e in 
 places, though 
 in the main the 
 same. Compare 
 id., col. 904, No. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 On the Relative Worship of the 
 Arians and Socinians, see under Rela- 
 tive Worship in the General Index 
 in this volume and in volume i of 
 Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 (G and D and G). The attributing 
 of co-session with God the Father to a 
 creature, that is, to the Man externally 
 ''conjoined'' to God the Word, ac- 
 cording to Nestorius. 
 
 (D), and making God the Spirit to 
 co-celebrate the glory of that creature 
 with God the Word, to Whom alone, 
 according to the Church dodlrine, all 
 the glory of both Natures in the Son 
 belongs. 
 
 (D). The giving the title Lord in 
 the sense of God to a creature, that is, 
 to Christ's mere humanity. 
 
 These forms of Man-Service are 
 similar to those mentioned in Passages 
 9 and 13 above, where see for fuller 
 information. 
 
 They are condemned in Anathema 
 VIII. of Cyril of Alexandria which 
 was approved by Ephesus, and in Ana- 
 thema IX. of the Fifth World Synod, 
 and in its Definition. 
 
 (I). Making a creature, that is, the 
 Man externally ''conjoined'' to God 
 the Word our High Priest, instead of 
 God the Word; and calling Cyril or 
 whatsoever Orthodox Man he is op- 
 posing a '■'heretic" for maintaining 
 the sound dodlrine, which is in effect 
 to apply the term heresy to the Anti- 
 Man-Serving doctrine of the Universal 
 Church since set forth by it in its 
 Third Council and in its Fifth. How 
 Nestorius* heresy on this point favors 
 a tendency to Man-service is told un- 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 These words 
 from ' ' God the 
 Word" to the 
 end inclusive 
 are quoted by 
 Cyril in seAion 
 I, Book 4, in his 
 Five Book Con- 
 IradiHion of the 
 Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius, and 
 the rest of them 
 are, in sub- 
 tance, referred 
 to there. They 
 are, as above 
 mentioned, on 
 page 127 of the 
 Oxford transla- 
 tion. Cyril re- 
 futes them in 
 the context. 
 
 Nearly all this 
 passage, or rath- 
 er nearly all of 
 both these pass- 
 ages, is quoted 
 by St. Cyril in 
 Sedlion 3, Book 
 3 of his Pive 
 Book Contradic- 
 tion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius, and the 
 rest of it is in 
 
546 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 No. 
 
 17- 
 
 Whej'e found 
 in jlfat^itcs Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 4, ex libro III. 
 The passage as- 
 cribed to John 
 in the text of 
 Coleti in this 
 passage, and in 
 the margin 
 there to Luke is 
 here ascribed to 
 Luke in the 
 I is 
 found in 
 ii.» 52. 
 ' is pro- 
 bably therefore 
 a copyist's error 
 for ''Luke''). 
 
 text, 
 really 
 Luke 
 'fohn 
 
 The first part 
 of it, except the 
 text from Heb, 
 iii., I, 2, is found 
 in Sermon VL 
 (col. 789, tom. 
 48 of Migne's 
 Patrologia La- 
 tina. The rest 
 of it I have not 
 found. The 
 part lacking be- 
 gins in Latin, 
 "Sed adverte, 
 cum omnem 
 pontificem sac- 
 rificio egere fa- 
 teatur." There 
 is however a 
 slight difference 
 between the La- 
 tin given by 
 Migne and that 
 in Coleti here. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 der Passage II above which contains 
 the same error; where see. This error 
 is condemned by Cyril's Anathema X. 
 
 Nestorius in effect here asserts that 
 Christ's humanity was imperfect at 
 first, but that he improved, that is, 
 progressed little by little. 
 
 That blasphemy is cursed by Ana- 
 thema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical ! 
 Council. Cyril in his Five Book Con- 
 tradi5lion of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
 torius. Oxford translation, makes 
 Christ's humanity perfect: see id., 
 pages 194, 242, 262, 263 and 336. 
 
 ' Where refuted 
 by Cyril. . 
 
 substance refer- 
 red to in the 
 context, where 
 these errors are 
 refuted also. So, 
 much of it is 
 found on pages 
 109 and no of 
 the Oxford 
 translation, and 
 the refutation is. 
 in the context. 
 Compare id., 
 page 86. 
 
 (I, J). This contains two errors, 
 first, the denying God the Word to be 
 our High Priest and putting a Man in- 
 to His place and so leading to Man-Ser- 
 vice that is, to worshipping a Man. (On 
 this sin see under Passage Ii above in 
 this column). 
 
 And secondly, the assertion that the 
 Son made an offering for himself, 
 which is absurd, and misleading, for 
 he who knew no si7i (II. Cor. v. 21) 
 needed no offering, as Cyril well states 
 in his Anathema X. 
 
 Both errors are condemned and 
 those who maintain either of them in 
 St. Cyril's Anathema X. which was 
 approved by Ephesus. 
 
 Part of this is 
 quoted by Cyril 
 in Se6lion 4, 
 Book 3 of his 
 Five Book Con- 
 tradition of the 
 Blasphemies of 
 Nesioriu 5, 
 where it is refut- 
 ed. Compare 
 Sections 5, 6 and 
 7. He explains 
 Heb. iii., i, 2, 
 again in Sec- 
 tion 27 of his 
 Scholia on the 
 Inc am ation 
 and in his Christ 
 is One. See all 
 those places in 
 the Oxford 
 translation, 
 pages 117, 216, 
 283. Compare 
 pages 84, 85, 
 and the context. 
 
Additiojial Notes. 
 
 547 
 
 Where found 
 in Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 
 In S e r m o n 
 IX., but with 
 some difiference 
 of meaning in a 
 few places; 
 though in most 
 places the sense 
 is the same. 
 (See it in col- 
 umns 828 and 
 829 of tome 48 
 of Migne's Pat- 
 rologia Latino) . 
 
 In Sermon 
 VII., the first 
 and 1 onger 
 part in Sedlion 
 40, the shorter 
 in Section 42. 
 See the first 
 part in col. 798 
 of tome 48 of 
 Migne's Patro- 
 logia Lati7ia, 
 and the second 
 in col. 799, id. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 (K). Asserting that in the Euchar- 
 ist we eat the flesh and drink the blood 
 of Christ's hutnaiiity^ which as Cyril 
 states in reply is Cannibalistn. And 
 to father such a disgusting heresy on 
 Christianity is an insult of a most 
 grievous character, and is a most vile 
 perversion and degradation of Christ's 
 holy and spiritual Sacrament. 
 
 This heresy is condemned in Cyril's 
 Anathema XI. which is approved by 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod. 
 
 (B). Denying that the sufferings 
 and death of the Man taken by God 
 the Word are to be ascribed Econo- 
 mically to God the Word. 
 
 And (B and H), parting the names 
 of the Son between His Two Natures 
 instead of ascribing them all to God 
 the Word. 
 
 The object of Cyril and the Church 
 in ascribing Economically all the hu- 
 man things of the Man put on, and 
 the names which specially refer to 
 that Man to God the Word is as Atha- 
 nasius and Cyril explain on pages 237- 
 240 of vol. I of Nicaea in this Set, 
 to avoid Man-Service, that is, worship 
 to the Man put on, and to teach man- 
 kind to look to what Cyril on pp. 79 
 and 225 above makes to be the only 
 object of religious service in the Son, 
 that is, God the Word alone; and so to 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. \ 
 
 Most of this 
 passage is quot- 
 ed by Cyril in 
 Sedlion 3 of 
 Book 4 of his 
 Five Book Con- 
 tradiction of the 
 Blasphemies of 
 Nestorius, and 
 is refuted in the 
 context there. 
 See it in the Ox- 
 ford translation, 
 pages 140, 141 
 and 142. Com- 
 pare the pass- 
 ages from Nes- 
 torius on the 
 Eucharist o n 
 pages 144, 145, 
 148, 149, 150, 
 151, 153, 154. 
 
 I do not find 
 exactly these 
 words in Cyril 
 of Alexandria's 
 Five Book Con- 
 tradidlion of the 
 Blasphetnies of 
 Nestorius, but 
 Book V. of it 
 has quotations 
 from Nestorius 
 of similar tenor. 
 See pages 158^ 
 159, 164. 
 
 168, 
 
 172, 
 
 178, 
 
 181, 
 
 in the Oxford 
 transl ation: 
 where and in the 
 
 167, 
 171, 
 174, 
 180. 
 
 165. 
 169, 
 173, 
 179-. 
 182, 
 
64a 
 
 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 No. 
 
 20. 
 
 Where found 
 in Marius Mer- 
 cator's Latin. 
 
 I have not 
 found it. I 
 would say, judg- 
 ing from the 
 difference of ar- 
 rangement of 
 the matter of 
 these sermons 
 between Gallan- 
 dus in tome 8, 
 Biblioth. Vet. 
 Pair, and Migne 
 in tome 48 of 
 his Patrologia 
 Latina, that it 
 looks as though 
 at some time 
 they had be- 
 come somewhat 
 mixed, and that 
 in places there 
 seem to be omis- 
 sions in one or 
 the other, or 
 both. 
 
 Errors taught by Nestorius in it. 
 
 obey Christ's law: ''Thou shalt bow 
 to the Lord thy God, and Him only 
 shalt thou serve, ' Matt, iv., 10, and 
 Luke iv., 8; and so to avoid the error 
 oi worshipping the creature contrary 
 /^ [or, '* besides''!^ the Creator {Kova. 
 i., 25) for which God cursed the heath- 
 en, and creature-serving Israel also. 
 
 The first named error is condemned 
 in Cyril's Anathema XII. and the Sec- 
 ond in his Anathema IV. 
 
 (K). Asserting in effect, that all 
 Christian teachers who do not hold 
 his Incarnation-denying, Man-Serving, 
 Cannibalistic, and other heresies are 
 at fault, and that the Christian laity 
 who do not hold said heresies of this 
 Man-Server {at^ftpcjTTo/MTp?/^) ''lack * 
 ^ * godly knowledge on the dog- 
 ma!!! " Surely this assertion is suffi- 
 ciently brazen faced and perverse. 
 And he is so modest as to speak of his 
 own paganized notions defended by 
 those who are rightly branded in 
 Canons of the Third Synod as those 
 oi" the Apostasy,'' SlS "the more ac- 
 curate opinions! !! "^ And in saying 
 that Cyril and the other Orthodox 
 teachers had "no fitting time'" to 
 learn and teach his paganism beseems 
 to teach that they were ignorant and 
 only himself and his followers were 
 wise ! ! ! 
 
 Nestorius' heresies are condemned 
 in Cyril of Alexandria's XII. Anathe- 
 mas, which are approved by the Third 
 Ecumenical Council, and by the first 
 VII. Canons of that Christian-World- 
 representing Synod, and by the Defi- 
 nition and the Canons of the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Council; and in the Ox- 
 ford translation of St. Cyril on the In- 
 carnation against Nestorius, passim. 
 
 Where refuted 
 by Cyril. 
 
 context they 
 are refut e d. 
 Compare Nes- 
 torius' language 
 on pages 155- 
 165 above. 
 
 I have not 
 been able to find 
 this passage in 
 Cyril's Five 
 Book Contradic- 
 tion of the Blas- 
 phemies of Nes- 
 torius. On page 
 156 above Nes- 
 torius accuses 
 Cyril of ignor- 
 ance, because 
 he did not agree 
 with his heres- 
 ies. 
 
Additional Notes. 549 
 
 All the foregoing Twent}^ Passages from Nestorius I deem to 
 be taken out of his Sermons. But as to the arrangement of the 
 Sermons there is much difference, as any one can readily see by ex- 
 amining the headings of those extradls in Act I. of the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod, and then comparing the arrangement of the matter 
 of those Sermons in Galland. Biblioth. Vet. Patr., tome 8, with that 
 in Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome 48. Things look very much as 
 though the sheets had got mixed or jumbled up in some queer way. 
 
 In note **n," pp. 48, 49 of his English translation oi S. Cyril 
 on the Incaryiation against Nestorius, Pusey states: 
 
 ' ' In the volume from which the extracfls were taken for the 
 Council of Ephesus, the Sen^ioii on Dogma seems to have nearly fol- 
 lowed that which Mercator gives us complete, pp. 56-70, and which 
 is there called Sermon 2, for the extracfls from this Sermon 2 are ex- 
 tracted from the 15th and i6th quires; see Mercator' s Opera, pp. 
 205, 207, 210, Bal.: while the two extracfls given from the Sermon 
 on Dogma are from the i6th and 17th quires, viz.: this one from the 
 1 6th (Merc. p. 201, or 17th as Greek edd.), and the extract at the 
 head of Sedlion 8 below from the 17th quire (Merc. p. 205). The 
 Greek editions of the Council however, agree with Mercator in styl- 
 ing this extract £^V o\Y/aa, [that is, '' on dogma, '"'\hvi\, omit the words 
 in the title to the other extract, appending it instead to two citations 
 from the 15th quire; one of which is in part at the head of Sedlion 
 14, the other is given by S. Cyril both there and in his letter to Aca- 
 cius of Melitene, written after the reconcihation with the Eastern 
 Bishops, Epp. p. 115, 1. 5-9." 
 Arrangement of the Twenty Passages of Nestorius for 
 
 WHICH HE WAS DEPOSED IN AcT I. OF THE ThIRD EcU- 
 
 MENicAi. Synod, according to the Sermons from which 
 
 THEY WERE TAKEN. 
 
 From Sermon i : Passage 8. 
 From Sermon 2: Passages i, 5, 6, 9, 10. 
 From Sermon 3: Passages 4, 15 
 From Sermon 5: Passages 2, 3. 
 
 From Sermon 6: Passages 11, 16, part of Passage 17. 
 From Sermon 7: Passage 7, part of Passage 8, Passages 14 
 and 19. 
 
 From Sermon 9: Passage 18. 
 
550 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 From Sermon lo: 
 
 Passage 13. 
 
 
 
 From Sermon 1 1 : 
 
 Passage 12. 
 
 
 
 Passage 20, I have not found. 
 
 
 
 To recapitulate: 
 
 
 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 2 are taken, 
 
 5 Passages. 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 3 " 
 
 ( 
 
 - 2 
 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 5 " 
 
 ( 
 
 2 
 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 6 '' 
 
 < 
 
 - 3 
 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 7 '* 
 
 ( 
 
 4 
 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 9 " 
 
 (( 
 
 - I 
 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 10 '* 
 
 ( 
 
 I 
 
 
 From Sermon 
 
 II " 
 
 < ( 
 
 - I 
 
 
 Total of Passages found, - - 19 
 
 The Latin headings of the Sermons from which one or more 
 passages are taken, as in Migne's edition, in tome 48 of his Patro- 
 logia Latina, are as follows: 
 
 Sermon i . ''On the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ' ' 
 
 Sermon 2. ''Ori Dogma or the knowledge of God, that is, on the 
 unconfused conjoining of the Two Natures in Christ ajid on the Com- 
 munion of their 7iames, as though against the Apollinarians y 
 
 Sermon 3. * 'Delivered by Nestorius as though against the Arians 
 and the Macedonians, biit in fact against Catholic defenders of the true 
 union of the Nattires in Christ ^ This title is evidently not Nestor- 
 ius', but from its use of Catholic for Orthodox is by a Western, at 
 least that use of Catholic is. 
 
 Sermon 5. "On God as born, a7id on the Virgin as Bringer 
 Forth of God, which is the Second against Proclus. ' ' 
 
 Sermon 6. "On the words of the Epistle of the Apostle to the He- 
 brews: ' Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our Profession, Jesus, * 
 etc. (Hebr. iii., i)." 
 
 Sermon 7. "Which is the Foiirth against Proclus. Agaiftst 
 those who on account of the conjoini7ig [of the Two Natures] , either 
 make dead the divinity (z) of the Word or deify the humanity.'' 
 
 (i). Or, ''make the Divinity to be mortal.'' This latter rendering more 
 accords with our English idiom. 
 
Additional Notes. 551 
 
 Sermon 9. ''On the following passage of Scripture: 'If thou 
 rememberest that thy brother hath any thing against thee, ' as though 
 against Heretics. ' ' 
 
 Sermon 10. "As though against the Macedonia7is, but in fact 
 against the Catholic defenders of the ti'ue hicarnation.'' An annota- 
 tor in Migne tells us that he added this title himself. See Migne's 
 Patrol. Latina, tome 48, col. 829, note "a." 
 
 Sermon 11. "Against the Arians, on the following words of 
 Isaiah, 'To us a child is given, and to us a So7i is born, ' (Isaiah 
 ix., 6)." 
 
 But these headings are for the most part not those of Nestorius, 
 but are simply additions of copyists or editors, and are of very little 
 authority or worth. They are not the same in Galland. Bibliotheca 
 Veterum Patrum, tome 8, which lacks any extended headings ex- 
 cept such as relate to the date; and the matter of the Sermons is 
 arranged very differently. I quote the headings there: 
 
 "Sermon i of Nestorius." 
 
 "Another Traaate: 
 
 Sermon 2 of Nestorius." 
 
 "Another Tradlate of Nestorius: 
 
 Sermon 3 of Nestorius." "Another Sermon of the same [Nes- 
 torius] delivered in Church, after he had received the letters of 
 warning from Celestine, Bishop of Rome, and of Cyril of Alexandria, 
 on the eighth day before the Ides of December (a), when the 
 Augusti, Theodosius, and Valentinian, were Consuls; Theodosius 
 for the thirteenth time and Valentinian for the third time, five days 
 after he received the same letters: Sermon 4 of Nestorius." 
 
 "Here begins another of the same [Nestorius], on another 
 day, that is, on Lord's Day: Sermon 5 of Nestorius." 
 
 The other sermons of Nestorius in tome 8 of Galland. Biblio- 
 theca Veterum Patrum are put down as against Pelagius. The Greek 
 headings seem to be mainly lost. Those of which I have been 
 writing are in Latin in diflferent editions of Marius Mercator. 
 
 (a). In our time this would be Dec. 6, 430. 
 
552 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 IN MEMORY OF A MIRACLE OF GOD'S MERCY TO ME 
 
 AND TO THIS SET AND TO THE DONORS TO 
 
 THE FUND TO PUBLISH THE SIX 
 
 SYNODS. 
 
 On Oct, lo, 1893, at about 10.30 or 11.00 P. M. a fire burst out 
 in a printery on the third floor of 41 Beekman street, New York 
 City, and destroyed property in it. 
 
 My elec5lrotype plates, pages i to 470 inclusive, were in See- 
 beck Brothers, the Eledlrotypers, on the floor above, in the same 
 building, the top floor of all, and were preserved by God from any 
 harm. If they had been destroyed it would have ruined me, and 
 this work of translating the VI. Councils, for others had given me 
 the money to pay 50 per cent, of composition and elec5lrotyping, and 
 might have been discouraged, and refused to do more. But God 
 brought the engines in time, and they put out the fire, though it was 
 dire(5lly under my plates with nothing but the floor between. Some 
 of the beams and some of the flooring below were burned. The 
 damages I was told were about 3,000 dollars. The cause of the 
 fire I was told was unknown. 
 
 With a heart full of gratitude to Almighty God for this new 
 evidence of His care and mercy and guarding providence, I thank 
 Him and take courage to go on with the work He has given me for 
 His Church and His people everywhere. May he bring it to a suc- 
 cessful end and completion. Let us all pray and work together to 
 this aim for the enlightment, the benefit, and the salvation of all. 
 
IKTDKX I. 
 
 XDEX TO THE NAMES OF THE BISHOPS WHO WERE 
 PRESENT IN PERSON OR BY THEIR REPRESENT- 
 ATIVES AT THE OPENING OF ACT I. OF THE 
 THIRD ECUMENICAE COUNCIL AND OF THE 
 FEW PRELATES WHOSE NAMES ARE 
 MENTIONED IN THAT ACT AFTER 
 THE OPENING BUT BEFORE THE 
 FINAL SUBSCRIPTIONS TO 
 IT, AND ALSO OF ALL 
 WHO SUBSCRIBED AT 
 THE END OF ACT I. 
 
 These names are gathered from the printed hsts above on pages 
 22-29 and 489-503, and from the Adls; and are here put in alphabet- 
 ical order in two Lists as follows : 
 
 IvIST I. 
 
 LIST OF BISHOPS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING OF 
 
 ACT I. OF EPHESUS; EITHER IN THEIR OWN PERSONS, OR 
 
 BY THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, AND ALSO TPIE NAMES 
 
 OF THE FEW PRELATES WHO ARE MENTIONED 
 
 AS TAKING PART IN THE ACT DURING ITS 
 
 COURSE, THOUGH THEY ARE NOT 
 
 MENTIONED IN THE LIST ON 
 
 PAGES 22-29 AS PRESENT 
 
 AT ITS OPENING. 
 
 Hefele, in \i\^ History of the Church Councils, Volume III., page 
 46, computes from the Lists below that, 
 
 ''No fewer than 160 bishops were prcseiit from the beginning'' [of 
 Act I.] cr, as he adds in a note on the same page, " More exaHly, 
 
554 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 there were i^g bishops and one deacon^ Bessula of Carthage^ as repre- 
 sentative of his bishop. And when^^^ he remarks in the text there, 
 ''(still at the first session) the document of deposition came to be sub- 
 scribed, their number had increased to ig8. ' ' 
 
 On the same page he tells us that ' 'sixty-eight Asiatic bishops^ 
 among whom were, in particular, Theodoret of Cyrus and the * * * 
 Tnetropolitans of Apamea arid Hierapolis, in a letter to Cyril 
 and fuvenal, had requested that they would be pleased to defer the open- 
 ing of the Syyiod until the arrival of bishops from Antioch.^^ At the 
 ^ndi oi Kctl., ^'Twenty of those sixty-eight Asiatic bishops * * * 
 had gone over to the side of the Synod, as is clear from a comparison of 
 their names with the subscriptions of the Synodal A ^s.'' In List II. 
 below I put in capitals all those of the 68 Prelates whose names are 
 not in the list of those who were present at the opening of the Ortho- 
 dox Council, but who subscribed at the end of its Act I. 
 
 Two other names found in the list of the 68 are found also in 
 the list of those Bishops who were present at the beginning of Act 
 I. They are Berhiiarius of Perga i7i Pamphylia (on page 23), and 
 Dalmatius of Cyzicus (on page 23 above). They are put in capitals 
 in List I. This makes 22, out of the 68, present and signing Act I. 
 One or two, however, I do not feel sure of, for there is a difference 
 in the spelling of the name or see. 
 
 The number of bishops a(5lually present at the opening of the 
 Council in their own persons was therefore 159. Three others, 
 Celestine of Rome, Rufus of Thessalonica and Capreolus of Carthage, 
 all Metropolitans, the first and the last among the greater Metropol- 
 itans, were represented by others; Celestine by Cyril of Alexandria, 
 Rufus of Thessalonica by Flavian of Philippi, and Capreolus by 
 Bessula, a deacon; making a total of 162 present in person or by 
 proxy at the opening. Besides, we find Constantine, a bishop of 
 Phrygia Pacatiana voting on page 132, and Helladius of Adramy- 
 tium on page 154, and Stephen of Dium on page 140. This swells 
 the number to 165. As to three others I am doubtful; that is, I do 
 not know whether Perrebius of the Thessalian Forests is the same as 
 Perecius of Pharmalus, nor do I feel sure whether Saidas of Phaenis 
 on page 138 and 142 is the same as Saida of Phaenes on 
 page 24, or whether they represent two or three different persons; 
 nor can I tell whether Theodore of the Anenysians is the same as 
 Theodore of Aninetum. 
 
Index I. 555 
 
 A, 
 
 Abraham of Ostracina, 28, 499. 
 
 yicacius of Area, 23. 
 
 Acaciiis of Cotena, 26; called also **Acacius, Bishop of Cotena in Pamphylia, " 
 
 136, 495- 
 Acacius of Melitene, in Armenia, 23, 52, 131, 168, 386, 396, 415-417, 418, 490. 
 Adelphius of Onuphis, 27; signs as "Adelphius, Bishop of the Church of the 
 
 Onuphites," on page 497. 
 Adelphius of Sais, 27, 149, 497. 
 Aeaties or Aeanus, Bishop of Sycamazon; Aeanus, 24; called also, "Aeanes, 
 
 Bishop of Sycamazon," 139 and 174; printed ^Ajanes, 496." 
 Aetheritcs, a Deacofi: see " Theodore of Gadara," in this List. 
 Agathocles of Colonia, 24; called also "Agathocles, Bishop of the City of the 
 
 Coronaeans," 491. Should Col. be Cor, ? 
 Alexander of Arcadiopolis, 25; called also " Alexander, Bishop of Arcadiopolis 
 
 in Asia," 139, 494. 
 Alexander of Cleopatris, 28, 498. 
 Alypius of Sela, 28; he is called "Alypius, Bishop of Sela, in the province of 
 
 Augustamnica," 151, 499. 
 Ammon of BiUuSy 28; he is called "Ammon, Bishop of the City of Butus," 151. 
 
 On page 499 he signs as "Ammon, Bishop of the City of the Butinians." 
 Ammoniiis, of Pauephesus [or of Panephysus], 29; he is called "Ammonius, 
 
 Bishop of the City of Panephysus, in the province of Augustamnica," 
 
 151. The see is spelled Panephysus on page 500. 
 Ampela [or " Theodulus "] of Ehisa, 24. See " Theodulus.^' 
 Amphilochius of Sida in Pamphylia, 23, 132, 176, 490. 
 Anderius of Che7'sonesus in Creto:, 24, 45, 46, 47. He is called "Anderius, 
 
 Bishop of Cherronesus, a city of the province of Crete," 150, 493. 
 Andrew of Hermopolis, 28; he is called " Andrew, Bishop of Hermopolis in the 
 
 Thebaid," 154, 499. 
 Anysius of Thebae [that is, "Thebes"] in Greece, 24, 47, 49, 134, 491. 
 Apella of Cibyrrha, 25; called also, " Apellas, Bishop of Cibyrrha in Caria," 
 
 143' 492. 
 Aphobius of Colon [or "of Colona''], 25, 141. He is called on page 494, 
 
 ' Aphobius, Bishop of Colona." 
 Aphthofietns of Heraclea, 25; called also " Aphthonetus, Bishop of Heraclea in 
 
 Caria," 144, 492. 
 Aporus [or "Euporus"] of Hypepa, 25. On page 493 he signs himself, 
 
 ** Euporiis, Bishop of Hypaepa.'^ 
 Archelaus of Myndus, 25; called also "Archelaus, Bishop of the City of 
 
 Myndus in Caria," 143, 492. 
 Arisiobulus of Thmuis, 27, 176, 499. 
 Astrapetus [of what see?], 26. 
 Athanasiiis of Paralns, 27,45, 146. On page 497 he signs as, "Athanasius, 
 
 Bishop of Paralius." 
 
656 List of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Athanasius of ParosithuSy 25. Is he the same as Aihanasius, Bishop of the 
 island Parasus, who is mentioned on page 494, but is not mentioned at 
 the beginning of Act I., unless he be the same as Athanasius of Paro- 
 sithus ? But neither in Bingham nor in Wiltsch do I find a see of Paro^ 
 siihus or Parasus Compare note iioo, page 495. 
 
 Bkrinianus of Perga in Pamphywa, 23, 503. He was present at the begin- 
 
 ning of Act I. 
 Bessula, a Deacon of Carthage, 29, text, and note 57, 481. See Capreolus of 
 
 Carthage^ whose representative he was. 
 
 Caesarius, a Chorepiscopus^ 26; called " Caesarius, Chorepiscopus of the City of 
 Alee,'* on page 495. 
 
 Callicraies of Naupa3uSy 24, 134, 491. 
 
 Capreoi^us of Carthage, 29, note 57; see Besula, 481, 486. 
 
 Cei,ESTinE op Rome, 22, 29, 31, 32, note 57; 179-203, 209, 212, 487. He was not 
 present in person but was represented in Act I. by Cyril of Al exandria. See 
 pages 22, 202 and 203, and note 57, page 29. It is observable, however, 
 that none of the three proxies mentioned in that note signs the name 
 of the prelate whom he represents, but only his own. Even Bessula, the 
 Deacon, who, as such, had no right to sign among Bishops, but only as 
 the representative of Capreolus, his Bishop, does not mention him in his 
 signature nor sign his name, but only his own. But in every such case 
 of proxies in this Synod, the representative who signs his own name, if a 
 Bishop, like Cyril of Alexandria or Flavian of Philippi, must be under- 
 stood to sign for himself and the one for whom he is a representative. 
 On page 496, Selenespondius, a Presbyter, subscribes for Cyril, Bishop of 
 Pylae, '■^because,'''' he adds, "'he suffers in his hand.'' But, as we see 
 from pages 21, 22 and 24, that Cyril was present and had taken his seat 
 among the Bishops; so that Selenespondius was not his place-holder, for 
 he held his own place, but merely his amanuensis. As a presbyter he 
 had no right to sit or sign as co-ordinate with Bishops, but only as an 
 amanuensis for one or more of them. For the Episcopate alone is the 
 supreme teaching and ruling order of the Church, and its members 
 alone may sit and vote in Councils. This is the only system known to 
 the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils, the only Ecumenical 
 Councils which made Canons. Aetherius, a Deacon, signs for Theodore, 
 Bishop of Gadara, but merely as his amanuensis, as his own words show. 
 See Theodore of Gadara. Bessula the Deacon alone, of the three non 
 Bishops, signs for an absent Bishop as his representative. 
 
 Chrysaorius of Aphrodita, 28; on page 498, he signs as ** Bishop of the Aphro- 
 ditans.** 
 
Index I. 557 
 
 Constantine y a Bishop of Phrygia Pacatianay 132. Is " Constantine, Bishop of 
 
 the City of the Diocletians " on page 500 the same ? There was a Dioclia 
 
 there, according to Bingham and Wiltsch. 
 Cyril of Alexandria, in the A6ls, etc., 22; 29, note 57; 31, and note 61; 42, 52, 
 
 53, 61, 129, 166, 181, 195, 202, 204, 206, 362, 392, 393, 393-399. 486, 489. 
 Cyril of Pyli [or of Pylae"], in the Chersonesus; 24, 496, where he is called 
 
 "Cyril, Bishop of Pylae." 
 Cyrus of Achaei, 28; called "Cyrus, Bishop of the Achaeans" on page 497. 
 Cyrus of Aphrodisias in Caria, 23; called also " Cyrus ^ Bishop of the City Aph~ 
 
 rodisias, in the province of Caria," 131, 490. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dai^maTius of Cyzicus, 23, 501. He was present at the beginning of Act I. 
 
 Da7iiel of Colonia in Cappadocia Secunda, 23, 134, 490. 
 
 Daniel of Darnis, 28, 48, 49, 146, 364, 368, 372, 374, 374-376; 499. where the see 
 
 is written '' Darna.'" 
 Dion of Thebae in Thessaly, 24, 154, 493. Thebes is the English for Thebae. 
 Docimacius of Maronia in Thrace, 23, 140; called also '' Docimasius, Bishop 
 
 of Maronia in the Province of Rhodope, in the Diocese of Thrace," 491. 
 Domnus of Opus in Hellas , 24, 49, 134; called '' Memnon, a Bishop of the same 
 
 Greece,''' or, ''of the same Hellas,''' on page 47; and ''Domnus, Bishop 
 
 of the Holy Church of God at Opus,''' 491. 
 Donatus of Nicopolis in Old Epirus, 23, 142, 170, 490. 
 Dorotheus, Bishop of the City of Dodona, 142. See " Theodore of Dodone,'" 
 
 who is evidently the same. 
 Dorotheus of Myrrhina, 25; called also "Dorotheus, Bishop of Myrrhina, a 
 
 city in Asia," 141; called "of Myrina " on page 494. 
 
 E, 
 
 Ennepiusof Maximianapolis, 24, 140. On page 492 he is called "Ennepius, 
 Bishop of the City of Myxa in the Province of Rhodope." 
 
 Epiphanius of Cratia in Honorias, 23, 137, 491. 
 
 Eucharius of Dyrrachiw^n in New Epirus, 23; " Eucharius, Bishop of Dora- 
 cium, 141. See note 225, 490. 
 
 Eudoxius of Choma in Lycia, 23; called also " Eudoxius, Bishop of Choma, 
 a city of Lycia," 141; and on page 503 this Prelate signs as "/, Eudox- 
 ius, Bishop of the City of Choma in the province of Lycia." 
 
 Eulogius of Terenuthis, 27, 503. 
 
 Euporus, Bishop of Hypaepa, 493. On page 25 this name is given " Aporus 
 [or Euporus'] of Hypepa." 
 
 Eusebius of Aspona in Galatia, 26; he is called " Eusebius, Bishop of Aspona, 
 a city of Ancyra," 146; but see note 250. On page 495 he is called 
 " Eusebius, Bishop of the Asponians." 
 
 Eusebius of Clazomenae, 26; called "Eusebius, Bishop of the Clazomenians,^* 
 on page 494. 
 
558 List I. of Bishops i7i Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Eusebius of Hei^adea in Honorias, 26; called also ^^ Eusebius, Bishop of Hera- 
 
 clea in the Province of Honorias,'' 137, 491. 
 Eusebius of Magnesia, 26; called also '■'Eusebius, Bishop of Magnesia, a city 
 
 in Asia," 142, 494. 
 Eusebius of Nilopolis, 28; he is called " Eusebius, Bishop of Nilopolis in the 
 
 Province of Arcadia," 147, 498. 
 Eusebius of Pelusiuni, 27, 176, 496. 
 Euthalius of Colophon, 26; Euthalius, Bishop of Colophon in Asia, 140; on 
 
 page 494 he is called " Bishop of the City of the Colophoniansy 
 Eutropius of Aegea, 25; called also '' Eutropius, Bishop of Evaza,'* 139 and 
 
 294; see note 30, page 25. 
 Eutropius of Etena, 26; called also ''Eutropius, Bishop of Etena in Pantphy- 
 
 lia, 137. 
 Eutychius of Erythra, 26; called also " Eutychius, Bishop of Erythra, a city of 
 
 Asia,'' 142. On page 493 he is called " Tychicus of Erythra.'' 
 Eutychius of Theodosiopolis, 25; he is called "Eutychius, Bishop of Theodosi- 
 
 opolis in Asia," 149; and on page 493, "Eutychius, Bishop of the Holy, 
 
 Universal and Apostolic Church of God in Theodosiopolis.''' 
 Evagrius of Soli, 26; called "Evagrius, Bishop of Solia," on page 495. 
 Evoptius of Ptolemais in Pentapolis, 27, 152, 173, 496. 
 
 Felix of Apollonia and of Bellias, 24 ; called "Felix, Bishop of the cities of 
 
 Apollonia aiid Belis," 490. 
 Fidus offoppa, 24, 133, 174, 385, 398, 496. 
 Firmus of Coesarea in Cappadocia Prima, xxxviii., 23; 41, note 102; 48, 129, 
 
 166, 489. 
 Flavian of Philippi, 1., 23, 29, note 57; 45, 47, 130, 166, 205, 367, 373, 417, 418, 
 
 449, 479, 489. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gregory of Cerasus in Pontus Polemoniacus, 23, 135, 172, 491. 
 
 H. 
 
 Helladius, Bishop of Adramytium, 154. On page 500 he signs as " Helladius, 
 
 Bishop of the Holy Church at Adraniytuni." 
 Hellanicus of Rhodes, 23; called also " Hellanicus, Bishop of the Metropolis of 
 
 Rhode,s," 131, 167, 490. 
 Heracleon of Tralles, 25, 142. On page 493 he signs himself"/, Heracleon, 
 
 who am also Theophilus, Bishop of Tralles." 
 Hei'aclides of Heraclea, 28; he is called " Heraclides, Bishop of the Heracleans 
 
 in Arcadia," 148. On page 499 he signs himself as *' Heraclides, Bishop 
 
 of the Upper Heraclea." 
 Heraclides of Thinis, 28, 497. 
 Heraclitus of Tamiathis, 28; 149; 499, where the name is spelled 
 
 "Heraclius." 
 
Index I. 559 
 
 Hermogenes of Rhinocurura, 27, 44, 152, 173, 496. 
 
 Hesychius of Pariuni^ 23, 153; called also "Hesychius, Bishop of the City of 
 
 Pariunt in the Province of Hellespontus,^'' 495. 
 Hierax of Aphnaeum, 28; on page 499 he signs as ''Hieraces, Bishop of the 
 
 Aphnaitans.^^ 
 
 I. 
 
 Iconius of Gortyna in Crete, 23; called *' Iconius, Bishop of the City of Gor- 
 tyna, the Metropolis of Crete,'' 131, 167, 490. 
 
 Isaac of Elearchia, 28, 149, 499. 
 
 Isaac of Tavay 28; 503, where the see is Tavla, or Tava. The latter and Tavae 
 seem to be the spellings preferred by the copyists. On page 503 the 
 reading is "I, Isaac of Tavlae [or Tava or Tabae'], have subscribed. /, 
 Adelphius, Bishop of Ouuphis, at his request have subscribed for him, 
 because he is lying sick." 
 
 /• 
 
 fohn of Augustopolis, 24, 138, 175, 496. 
 
 fohn of Hephaestus in Augtistamnica, 27, 47, 48, 146; 497, where he subscribea 
 
 as "John, Bishop of the Hephaestians. " 
 John of Praeconnesiis, 23, 132, 495. 
 Juvenal of Jerusalem, 22,, 32, 49, 129, 166, 178, 489. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lampo of Cassium, 27; he is termed " Lampetius, Bishop of Casium in the 
 Province of Augustamnica, 151." On page 498 he signs as " Lampetius, 
 Bishop of Cassium. " 
 
 Letoius or Letojus of Lihyas, 24, 138, 175, 501. 
 
 Lucianof Toperus in Thrace, 24; called also "Lucian Bishop of Toperus," 240; it 
 was, like Maronia, "in the Province of Rhodope," 491. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macarius of Anteum, 27, 147, 176, 499. 
 
 Macarius of Metelis, 27; he is called "Macarius, Bishop of the Metelitans in 
 
 Egypt," 150, 497. 
 Macedonius ofXois, 27, 151; 497, where the see is spelled Xoes. 
 Marianus of Lyrba; see Taurianus of Lyrba. 
 Marinus of Heliopolis, 27; he is called ^'Marinus, Bishop of Heliopolis, in the 
 
 Province of Augustamnica," 148, 497. 
 Martyrius of Helistri, 25; he is called "Martyrius, Bishop of Helistra," 153 
 
 and 501. 
 Matidianus of Coracisia, 26; called also " Matidianus, Bishop of Coracisia in 
 
 Pamphylia," 136; and on page 495, "Bishop of the City of the Cora- 
 
 cisians." 
 Maximus of Assos, 25; called also " Maximus, Bishop of Assos in Asia," 141, 
 
 494. 
 
S60 List I. of Bishops in Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Maximus of Cuma, 25; called also "Maximus, Bishop of Cyma, [that is, Cume] 
 
 in Asia, 139, 494. 
 Memnon of Ephesus, 23, 42, 129, 169, 489. 
 Memnon, a Bishop of Greece, probably for Domnus of Opus in Greece, 47; see 
 
 notes 123, 124. Compare Domnus of Opus in Greece on page 49 and on 
 
 page 24. Memnon of Greece is not in the list on pages 22-29. 
 Metrodorus of Leonta, 27, 148, 497. 
 Modestus of Anea, 26; called also **Modestus, Bishop of the City of the 
 
 Anaeans in Phrygia," 141, and " of the Aneans," on page 494. 
 
 N, 
 
 Ne^arius ofSynea, 26; called also, "Nedlarius, Bishop of Synea in Pamphylia," 
 
 136; 495, where the see is written *^ Senea.^^ 
 Nesius of Corybrassus, 26; called also '* Nesius, Bishop of Corybrassus in Pam- 
 
 phylia," 137. On page 495 he is called "Nesius, Bishop of the holy 
 
 Church of God in Corybosyna." 
 Nestorius ofSion, 25; he is called " Nestorius, Bishop of Sion in the Province 
 
 of Asia," 150, 493. 
 Nicias of Megara, 24, 135, 491. 
 Nunechius ofSelga, 26; called also " Nunechius, Bishop of Selga in Pamphy- 
 
 lia," 135, 495. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pabiscus of Apollo y 27; probably the same as '^Pabiscus, Bishop of Apollonia,** 
 on page 503. 
 
 Palladius of Amasea in Helenopontus, 23, 131, 154, 170, 490. 
 
 Paralius of Andrapa on the Hellespont, 27, 143, 491. 
 
 Paul of Anthedott, 24, 138, 175, 496. 
 
 Paul of Flavonia, 27, 148. See 'Paul of Phra^onea.^'' I do not find any see 
 of Flavonia in Bingham or Wiltsch. 
 
 Paul of Lampa, 24, 45; he is called " Paul, Bishop of the City of Lampa in the 
 Province of Crete," 150, 493. 
 
 Paul, Bishop of Phragonea, 496; perhaps the same as "Paul of Flavonia." 
 See it above, and see also in Bingham's Index of the Episcopal Sees at 
 the end of his Book X., under Fragonea, Phragonea and Flagonita. It 
 was in Aegyptus Secunda, according to Bingham there. *Paul of Fla- 
 vonia'' is mentioned among the Egyptian Prelates on page 27, and he 
 votes among them on page 148. Flavonia seems, therefore, a diflferent 
 spelling for the very diflfereutly spelled see of Phragonea. 
 
 Paulianus of Maiuma,2/^\ called also " Paulianus, Bishop of Maiuma in the 
 first Palestine," 134, 174; the see is written Majuma on page 496. 
 
 Perecius [or 'iPerrebius "] of Pharmalus, 23. 
 
 Perigines of Corinth in Greece, 23, 131, 490. 
 
 Perrcbius, Bishop of the Thessaliafi Forests, 152, 492. 
 
 Peter of Oxyrinchus, 27, 497. 
 
 Peter 0/ Parembola, 24, 45, 138, 175, 496. 
 
hidex I. 561 
 
 J^hanias of Harpasa, 25; he is called " Phanias, Bishop of the City of Arpasa 
 
 inCaria," 145, 493. 
 Philetus of Amazon, 25; he is called ** Philip, Bishop of Amazon iu Caria," 
 
 144, 492. 
 Ph Hip of A mazon. See * 'Philetus of A mazon. ' ' 
 Philip of Pergama in Asia, 25; called also " Philip, Bishop of Pergamus," 142* 
 
 and on page 494, "Philip, Bishop of the City of the Pergamians, " 494. 
 Philumenus of Cinna, 26; he is called " Philumenus, Bishop of the City 01 
 
 Cinna iu Galatia," 152, 495. 
 Phoebammon of Coptics, 27; he is called " Phoebammon, Bishop of Coptus in 
 
 Thebais," 153, 176, 496. 
 Promachius of Alinda, 25; he is called '* Promachius. Bishop of Alinda in 
 
 Caria," 145, 493. 
 Prothyrnius of Contana, 23, 132 I7»i. 
 Piiblius of Olbia, 28. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rheginus of Consiantia, 26, 492. 
 
 Rhodon of Palaeopolis, 25 ; he is called "Rhodon, Bishop of Palaeopolis in Asia, ' ' 
 
 149; so on page 493. See ''Limenius'* below in List II. 
 Romaiius of Rhaphia, 23, 135, 172, 496. 
 Rufinus of Tabae, 24, 138, 174; called ''Rufinus, Bishop of the City of the 
 
 Tabanians," 496. 
 RuFUS OF THFSSAI.ONICA, 23; 29, note 57; 130. He was represented by Flavian of 
 
 Philippi. 
 
 s. 
 
 Sabinus of Pan, 28; he is called ** Sabinus, Bishop of Pan in the Province of 
 
 Thebais," 149, 499. 
 Saida of Phaenes, 24; compare Saidas of Phaenis\ called ''Saidas, Bishop oj 
 
 Phaenis,'' 138 and 496. 
 *' Saidas, Bishop of Phaenis in Palestina Salutaris,'" 145. Compare under 
 
 "Saida." "Saida, Bishop of Phaenis " speaks briefly on page 138 in 
 
 this Act in the voting on the Shorter Epistle of Cyril. If he be the 
 
 same as Saida of Phaenes on page 24, he voted twice on that matter the 
 
 latter time, on page 145, more fully, perhaps to supply what was lacking 
 
 in his vote on page 138. 
 Samuel of Dysthis, 28; he is called "Samuel, Bishop of Dysthisin Pentapolis " 
 
 147, 499- 
 Sapricius of Paphos in Cyprus, 26, 492. 
 Secundiamis of Lamia, 24; called also " Secundianus, Bishop of Lamia, a city 
 
 in the Province of Thessaly," 137, 493. 
 Selenespondius, a Presbyter and Visitor, subscribes for Cyril, Bishop of Pylae 
 
 496. 
 Senecio of Codra [or of " Scodra "] 23; he is called "Senecion, Bishop of the 
 
 City of Cordia," on page 145, and " Senecion, Bishop of the city of 
 
 Codrine," or "of the Codrine City," on page 490. 
 
562 List I. of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Silvatius of Ceratapa, 27; called also "Silvanus, Bishop of Ceratapain Phrygia 
 
 Pacatiana," 137, 500. . 
 Silvanus of Chaeretapa in Phrygia, 23. 
 Silvanus of Coprithis, 27, 497. 
 Solon of Carallia, 26; called also "Solon, Bishop of Carallia in Pamphylia," 
 
 135, 495. 
 Sosipatrus of Septimiaca, 28; he is called on page 147 "Sosipater, Bishop of 
 
 Septimiaca." On page 499 he subscribes, "/, Sosipater, Bishop of Libya 
 
 Septiiniacay 
 Spiidasiusof Cerami [or "^/ Ceramus'''\, 25; called also " Spudasius, Bishop 
 
 of Ceramus in the Province of Caria," 144, 492. 
 Stephen, Bishop of Dium, 140. 
 Strategius of Athribis, 27; he is called "Strategius, Bishop of Athribis in the 
 
 Province of Augustamnica, " 147. He signs on page 498 as "Bishop of 
 
 the Church of the Athribites." 
 
 T, 
 
 Taurianus of Lyrbae, 26; called also "Taurianus, Bishop of Lyrba in Pam- 
 
 phylia," 136. He is called on page 495 " Marianus, Bishop of the Church 
 
 in Lyrba." 
 Themistius of Jassus, 25; called also " Themistius, Bishop of Jassus in Caria,'* 
 
 144, 492. 
 Theodore of the Anenysians, 494. See * ' Theodore of Aninetum. ' ' 
 Theodore of A ninetmn, 25, 141. Is "Theodore, Bishop of the Anenysians," on 
 
 page 494, the same ? 
 Theodore of Aribela, 24; called also "Theodore, Bishop of Arbela," 138; and 
 
 " of Arbdela;' 174; and " of Arbdela'' on page 496. 
 Theodore of Dodofie, 24 (see " Dorotheus, Bishop of the City of Dodona," who 
 
 is evidently the same); 493. 
 Theodore of Echinaeus, 25 (called also " Theodosius, Bishop of Echmaeus, a 
 
 city in the Province of Thessaly," 138); 493. 
 Theodore of Gadara, 24, 138, 174; 503, where he subscribes as follows : "/, 
 
 Theodore, Bishop of Gadara, have subscribed defining. I, Aetherius, a 
 
 Deacon, have subscribed at his command, because he is unable, or does 
 
 not write." 
 Theodosius of Mastaura, 25; called also "Theodosius, Bishop of Mastaura in 
 
 Asia," 139, 494. 
 Theodosius of Friene, 26; called also "Theosebius, Bishop of Priene in Asia,"^ 
 
 139; on page 494 he is called " Theosebius." 
 Theodotus of Ancyra in the First Galatia, 23, 44, 130, 169, 386, 396, 400-414, 
 
 418, 490. 
 Theodotus of Nyssa, 25, 494. 
 Theodulus of Elusa in Palestine, 24, see 'Ampela;'' 45, 46, 47, 133, 173; 496, 
 
 where we find ^'Helusa " for 'Elusay 
 Theon of Sethroetjis, 27, 146, 498, where he signs "Theon, Bishop of Heraclea 
 
 of the Sethroetum." 
 
Index L 563 
 
 Theonas of Psychis, 29; 498, where he subscribes as " Theonas. Bishop of 
 
 Psynchis." 
 Theopemptus of Caoassus, 27, 45, 46, 148, 364, 368, 369-371, 377-384; 498, where 
 
 the see is spelled "Cadasa;" 176, where he is called "Bishop of Cabasa.^*' 
 Theosebius oj Priene, 139, 494; see Theodosius of Priene. 
 Thomas of Derbe, 25; called also "Thomas, Bishop of Derbe In Lvcaonia," 145,, 
 
 501. 
 Timothy of Briula, 25. See ''Heliotheus, Bishop of the Briulitans " in the 
 
 List below. 
 Tribonianus of Aspendus in Pamphylia, 26. Is this the same as " Triboni- 
 
 anus. Bishop of the holy Church in Priamopolis, " on page 495? See 
 
 note 1 103 there. 
 Tribonianus of Priamopolis y 495; see Tribonianus of Aspendus. 
 Tychicus, Bishop of the City of the Erythraeans [or, "of the Erythrans '], 493^ 
 
 He seems to be the same as " Eutychius of Erythra " on page 26. See 
 
 also page 142, where Erythra is called **a city of Asia." 
 
 V. 
 Valerian of Iconium^ 23, 132, 167, 501. 
 
 z. 
 
 Zeno of Curium, 26; he is called "Zeno, Bishop of the City of Curium in 
 
 Cyprus," 153, 495. 
 Zeno of Teuchira, 28, 499. 
 Zenobius of Barca, 28. On page 499 he subscribes as " Zenobius, Bishop of 
 
 Barca in Pentapolis. ' ' 
 Zenobius of Gnossus, 24; he is called " Zenobius, Bishop of the city of Gnossus, 
 
 in the Province of Crete," 150, 493. 
 
564 List I. of Bishops in Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 The following is the summing up as to the number of Bishops 
 under each letter. 
 
 A. 27 Bishops, and Aetherius, a Deacon, or \i Ampela and Theodulus of Elusa 
 
 be the same, then there were but 26 Bishops. 
 
 B. I Bishop, and Bessula, a Deacon. 
 
 C. 10 Bishops ; of whom 2, Capreolus and Celestine, were not present, but 
 
 represented — 8. 
 
 D. 9 Bishops ; but Theodore of Dodona and Dorotheus of Dodona are seem- 
 
 ingly the same, hence there are only 8 Ds. 
 
 E. 19 Bishops ; but Euporus of Hypaepa seems to be the same as Aporus of 
 
 Hypeoa, so that there are only 18 Es. 
 
 F. 4 Bishops. 
 
 G. I Bishop. 
 H. 9 Bishops. 
 1 , 3 Bishops. 
 J. 4 Bishops. 
 L. 3 Bishops. 
 
 ]M 11 Bishops ; but Taurianus of Lyrba and Marianus of Lyrba seem to be the 
 same, and Memnon of Greece and Domnus of Opus are the same, 
 so that there are only 1 1 Ms. 
 
 N. 5 Bishops. 
 
 P. 22 Bishops ; if Philetus of Amazon and Philip of Amazon be the same 
 there are only 21 Ps, and if Paul of Flavonia be the same as 
 Paul of Phragonea, there are only 20 Ps. 
 
 R. 5 Bishops. 
 
 S. 15 Bishops; a Presbyter, Selenespondius subscribes for Cyril of Pylae. See 
 Cyril of Pyli or Pylae, And if Saida and Saidas are the same, 
 and Silvanus of Ceratapa and Silvanus of Chaeretapa are the 
 same, there are only 13 Ss present. 
 
 T. 22 Bishops; if Taurianus of Lyrba and Marianus of Lyrba be the same, and 
 Theosebius of Priene and Theodosius of Priene are the same, 
 there are but 20. Taurianus should be counted here, because 
 Marianus is not above. If Theodore of the Anenysians and 
 Theodore of Aninetum are the same, there are only 19. 
 
 V. I Bishop. 
 
 Z. 4 Bishops. 
 
 At the lowest computation, allowing for all mistakes and possible 
 repetitions of the same name, the count would be, of Bishops present 
 in Act I. in person or by their representatives: 
 
 As. 26 Bishops 26 
 
 Bs. I Bishop, I Deacon, Bessula, representing a Bishop 2 
 
 Cs. 10 Bishops, 2 of them by their representatives only 10 
 
 Ds. 8 Bishops 8 
 
 Es. 18 Bishops 18 
 
Index I. 665 
 
 Fs. 4 Bishops 4 
 
 Gs. I Bishop I 
 
 Hs. 9 Bishops 9 
 
 Is. 3 Bishops 3 
 
 Js. 4 Bishops . 4 
 
 Ls. 3 Bishops 3 
 
 Ms. II Bishops II 
 
 Ns. 5 Bishops 5 
 
 Ps. 20 Bishops 20 
 
 Rs. 5 Bishops 5 
 
 Ss. 13 Bishops 13 
 
 Ts. 19 Bishops 19 
 
 Vs. I Bishop I 
 
 Zs. 4 Bishops 4 
 
 Total (lowest computation) 166 
 
 I.ISX II. 
 
 NAMES OF BISHOPS AT THK END OF ACT I. OF EPHESUS WHO 
 
 ARE NOT IN THE FIRST LIST, THAT IS NOT IN THE LIST 
 
 OF PRELATES AT ITS BEGINNING, OR WHO ARE 
 
 NOT MENTIONED AS TAKING PART IN IT. 
 
 A. 
 
 Ablavius, Bishop 0/ Amorium ; 501. 
 
 Aedesius, Bishop of the City Isioda ; 502. 
 
 Arginus of Pempeiopolis. On page 500 we read, '' I Argifius, Bishop of Pom^ 
 
 peiopolis in Paphlagonia^ have subscribed. I vSjmesius, a Presbyter, have 
 
 subscribed for him because he is unwell." 
 Aristocritus, Bishop of Olympus, joj. 
 
 Aristonicus, the least, Bishop of the Metropolis of the Laodiceans, ^00. 
 ASCI.EPIADES, Bishop of the Church at Trapezopolis, 500. 
 Athanasius, Bishop of the Church at Dueltus and Sozopolis, ^01. 
 " Athanasius, Bishop of the Island Parasus," 494. See Athanasius of Parosu 
 
 thus, iu the list above. Are they the same ? W^e cannot say. 
 Athanasius, Bishop of the city of the Scepsians, in the province of Hellespontus^ 
 
 501. 
 
 B. 
 
 '' Beneagus, Bishop in the Church in Hierapolis. /, Paul, a Presbyter, have 
 subscribed for him, he being present, aiid at his command,'' etc., 500. 
 
 Bosporius of Gangra. On page 500 we read, " /, Bosporius, Bishop of Gangra^ 
 the Metropolis of the province of Pamphylia, have subscribed, defining 
 together with the Holy Synod. I Hypatius, a Presbyter deputed by him, 
 have subscribed, because he himself is sick." 
 
560 List IL List of Bishops not in List I. 
 
 C. 
 
 Callinicus, Bishop of Apamia[or, '' of Apamea'''\ ; 501. 
 
 CoMMODUS, Bishop of Tripolis ; 502. 
 
 '' Consfantine, Bishop of the city of the Diocletians,'' 500. See in the list 
 
 above under " Constantine, a Bishop of Phrygia Pacatiana.'' Were they 
 
 the same ? We can not tell. 
 
 D. 
 
 Daphfius, Bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander, 503. 
 
 Doinninus, Bishop of Qoineum [or "of Cotyaium," or " of Cotyaeum."] in the 
 Province of Phrygia Salutaris, 501. 
 
 £. 
 
 Eugene, Bishop of Apollonias, 501. 
 
 "EuPREPius, Bishop of Bizya, 503. 
 
 Eustathius, Bishop of Docijnium in the Province of Phrygia Salutaris^ 501, 
 
 " EuTHERius, of the city of the Stratonicians tn Lydia,'' 502. 
 
 H. 
 
 Ilcliotheus, Bishop of the Briulitans, 494. Is this the same as Timothy of 
 
 Briula ? We cannot say ; see it in the list above. 
 Helladius^ of an unknown see. On page 500, one subscribes as "I, Helladius, 
 
 Bishop of the holy Church of God * * * ." There is a lacuna in the 
 
 text where the name of the see should be. 
 Hermolaus, Bishop of the Sattudians, 500. Is this Hermotaus, Bishop of the 
 
 Atttidians in the list of the 68 Bishops, who would at first have deferred 
 
 the opening of the Third Synod till the arrival of John of Antioch? 
 Hypatius, a Presbyter; see ^^ Bosporius of Gangra.'* 
 
 L 
 
 IddyaSy Bishop of Smyrna, 500. 
 
 /• 
 
 It 
 
 John, Bishop of Aurelianopolis, in the Province of Lydia, 502. 
 
 John, Bishop of Lesbos^ 501. 
 
 L. 
 
 LeontiuSy Bishop, 497. A lucuna marks where the see should be mentioned, 
 
 497. 
 *'LiBANius, Bishop of Palaeopolis, 502. Bingham mentions two sees oi Paleo- 
 polis, one in Asia Proconsularis, (where Rhodon was Bishop ; see his 
 name in List I. above), and another in Pamphylia Secunda, which is this. 
 This Bishop appears to be the same as Libanius of Paula in the list of the 
 68 who wished the opening of the Synod to be deferred till the arrival of 
 John of Antioch and his Bishops. 
 
Index I. 5(J7 
 
 *' Limenius, Bishop of the holy Church of God at Sellae in the Province of 
 Media,'' 502. 
 
 M, 
 
 Meonius, Bishop of the city of Sardis in Lydia, 501. 
 
 N, 
 J^eioras of Gaza, 496. 
 
 /> 
 
 Paul, of Dardana in Lydia, 502. He subscribes there thus, "I, Paul, the 
 least, Bishop of Dardana in Lydia, have subscribed, defining together with 
 the Holy Synod, using the hand at my command for writing of the 
 brother and fellow minister, Phoscus, because I am lying down in 
 sickness. ' ' 
 
 ** Paul, Bishop of the Church in Thrytnnae,'''' 502. 
 
 Peter, the least, Bishop of Crusa, 501. Is this the same as " Peter of Prusa " 
 in the list of the 68 Bishops who wished the Synod to wait for John of 
 Antioch ? If not, he should not be in capitals. Crusa is not mentioned 
 in Bingham or in Wiltsch. 
 
 Philadelphius, Bishop of the Gratianopolitans, 496. 
 
 Phoscus, Bishop of Thyatira, 502. This name is spelled Fuscus in the Latin of 
 the list of 68 Bishops who wished the Council deferred till the coming of 
 the Orientals. 
 
 Pius, Bishop of Pes sinus, 501. 
 
 s. 
 
 Serenianus, Bishop of the City of the Myrians, 496. 
 
 Severus, Bishop of Synnada in the Province of Phrygia Salutaris, 501. 
 
 Stephen, Bishop of the city of the Teitans in Asia, 500. 
 
 Synesius, a Presbyter. See under Arginus of Ponipeiopolis. 
 
 " Theo5listus, Bishop of the city of the Phocaeans,'' 496. But can this be the 
 same as Theofias of Psych is on page 29 ? They are quite different. 
 
 Theodore, Bishop of Atala, 502. If Atala is not Attalia, his name should not 
 be in capitals. 
 
 ThEOPHANES, Bishop of the city of Philadelphia, 502. In the list of 68 names 
 of Bishops who wished the Synod deferred till the arrival of John of 
 Antioch and the Orientals this name is spelled Theopha7iius, if this 
 Philadelphia is the same. 
 
 Thomas, Bishop of Valentinianopolis, 503. 
 
 *' Timothy, Bishop of the city Tertnesus and Eudocias,'' 502. 
 
 *' Timothy, Bishop of the city of the Thermans, in the Province of Hellespont- 
 us," 502. If this see is not the same as Germa (on which see Bing- 
 ham. Book IX., Chap. HI., Sect. 8), Timothy should not be in capitals. 
 
(368 List II. List of Bishops not in List I, 
 
 "Timothy, Bishop of * '^ * in the Province of the Scythians, '" 501. There is a 
 lucuna here where the name of the see should be. If it was in Scythia 
 south of the Danube, it should be Tomi ; if in Scythia north of the Danube 
 the name of the see is uncertain. See Bingham's Antiquities, Book IX., 
 Chapter IV., Sections i and 15. 
 
 Here are twenty names which are found among the 68 prelates 
 who wished the opening of the Ecumenical Council deferred, till after 
 the arrival of John of Antioch and his Bishops, and were not present 
 at the opening of its Act I., but who sign at its end to what had 
 been done. And if one or two of them be doubtful, the twenty is 
 fully made up by Berinianus of Perga and Dalmatius of Cyzicus, 
 who were of the 68, but who were present at the opening of Act I. 
 Here are forty-nine names in all, and leaving out the Presbyter 
 Synesius' name, forty-eight of them were Bishops. As is explained 
 above, a few of them may belong to Prelates in the List next above, 
 for the same name is sometimes differently spelled, because copiers 
 once in a while made sUps in their work. At the end of Act I. 
 there were therefore present about 200 Prelates who subscribed. 
 
iniDKX IL 
 
 GENERAI. INDEX. 
 
 The figures in Roman refer to the pages of the Forematter; 
 those in Arabic to the body of the work. The Forematter really 
 extends to the end of page i8.. Page 19 begins the Adls. 
 
 The reader should consult each term in the General Index to 
 Volume I. of Nicaea in this Set, wherever it is found there. So 
 should he consult the General Indexes to the volumes of this Set 
 which, God willing, are to follow. The same article may be much 
 fuller in one volume than in another, so that the best way is to 
 search for the same expression in all the Indexes where it may be 
 found. The reader must not infer that because the General Index 
 of Vol. I. of Nicaea is referred to under some words, it is always. 
 It is not. References to Fathers and Councils and short quotations 
 may be found in that Index where no reference is made to them in 
 this Index. 
 
 Names of Bishops at the Council must be sought in Index I. 
 A few, like Cyril, for instance, are mentioned here also because of 
 their utterances and acts elsewhere. 
 
 A, 
 
 Abuses; in the Church, 5; should be done away, 5. 
 
 Adoption; the Nestorian heresy that Christ's humanity, their whole Christ, is 
 merely an adopted Son of God, as other men are; and that he was adopted 
 because of his progress in virtue, 71, note 160, and 168, note 355. 
 See under Christ, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of Nazianzus, 
 Cyril of Alexandria^ and Nestorius, Relative ConjunHion, Relative 
 Indwellings Relative Participation q.\\^ Relative Worship, the outcome of 
 the last three errors, and Union of Christ's two Natures. See page 764. 
 
 Africa North, that is, Latin Africa; resists Rome's claim to Appellate Juris- 
 diction over it, xxxiii.; 39, note 94; 483-485, and notes there; see Ephesus, 
 
670 Ad I. of Ephcsus. 
 
 and the note on pages 427, 428; the Letter of the Africans, and that of 
 Augustine to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, 194, note 487. See Chrystal: 
 the enadlments of the Council of Carthage against appeals from Africa to 
 Rome embodied by the Greeks in their TruUan Code, 427, 428, note. See 
 Chrystal and Capreoliis. God's curses on Latin Africa for its invocation 
 of creatures and for its worship " ofpi^ures and of sepulchres,'' 176, note 
 388. See Chrystal and Capreolus, and Augustine, and Image Worship, 
 PiHureSf Nestorius aiid his Heresies; Heresy 2; and see Worship, heads 
 . I, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11; see Image Worship, Relative Worship, Man Wor- 
 ship, and Relic Worship; and see under such of those heads as are found 
 in the General Itidex to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 A.ldrich, Dean, on real presence, expression and dodlrine, 303, subnote "a." 
 
 Alexander of Apamea; from John of Antioch tells the Synod not to wait, li. 
 
 Alexander of Hierapolis; says the same from John, li. 
 
 Alexandria, Patriarch of; his jurisdi(5lion, 413, note 702; announced the date 
 of the Pask at least to the East, note 765, page 433; see Theophilus. 
 
 Altar-worship, an error, 5; condemned by Ephesus, Preface, i., ii. All altars 
 anciently consecrated to God only, but Rome has now altars to the Virgin 
 Mary and to St. Joseph, note 22, pages 21, 22; and they are worshipped 
 by bowing or genufledling, 467, note 966. See Mary, and foseph, and 
 under Worship, and Nestorius and his Heresies, where a(5ts of worship 
 are specified. 
 
 Amanuenses, used by some Bishops, 173, note 371. 
 
 Ambrose of Milan; the Christian people nobly stand up for him against Arian 
 violence, 16, 17; he nobly rebukes the Emperor Theodosius' attempt to 
 intrude into the place of the ministers of God, 20, note; his witness on 
 the Inflesh, the Two Natures, and, incidentally and slightly only, on the 
 Eucharist, 436-438. See also page Ixxxvii. of the Forematter, and under 
 Ephesus in this Index. If it can be proved that he approved of creature wor- 
 ship he was so far condemned by the whole Church at Ephesus, note 
 on pages 357, 358, 359, and page 516. See Augustine of Hippo; well 
 spoken of for one utterance by an Anglican Homily, 3S6, note; for his 
 opinion on Eternal Birth see under that expression; and compare also 
 under it in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set; his refer- 
 ence to John VI. on the Eucharist in a passage read in the Third World 
 Synod, 438, note 800. Ambrose's alleged idolatry on the Eucharist, and 
 his alleged invocation of angels condemned by Ephesus, 514-517. 
 
 Americans, our dangers, religious and secular; 9, 10. 
 
 Am,philochius, Bishop of Iconium in 374 and after; his witness for the Inman 
 of God the Word, 448-449; his testimony for the Incarnation, for the 
 offering of incense (here used for every other act of worship also,) as pre- 
 rogative to God and therefore as proving that He to whom it is offered 
 (the Word) is God; (compare also, under Worship, head 7, Offering li- 
 cense, in Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set); and for the Do(5lrine of Economic 
 Appropriation, 448, 449. See also page Ixxxvii. in the Forematter and 
 under Ephesus in this Index. All the above docSlrines included by him in 
 
hidex II. — General Index. 571 
 
 his idea of Apostolic tradition, 132, note 205. See Economic Appropri- 
 ation; his testimony not in Vincent of Lerins, but in the Greek, 449, note 
 878; see further on him on page 517. 
 
 Anarchies, Ecclesiastical; must be done away, 5. 
 
 Atiasiasius, the Presbyter; the beginner of the Nestorian controversy, xxi. 
 
 Anastasius, the Presbyter; 424, note. 
 
 Anathema, the; 180, note 402; its proper use authorized by Scripture and the 
 VI. Councils, note 824, page 442; if pronounced contrary to them it 
 damns the soul of the anathematizer, ibid.; it is a duty binding on every 
 Bishop and every local Synod to use it properly, ibid. 
 
 Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, the Nestorian; writes against Cyril and Ortho- 
 doxy, xxxvi.; denied the Inman, 116-121; held to co-bowing to Christ's 
 flesh with God the Word, 1 16-121; which Cyril denies, ibid; see the Greek 
 there and under cvuTrpooKwdadai and fiera oapKog in the Greek Index 
 in this work; Cyril's answer interpolated, 118; Cyril answers his perversion 
 or misunderstanding of his (Cyril's) words, 119, note; Venables is too 
 favorable to Andrew, whom the ancients show to have been a determined 
 foe to Orthodoxy, 119, note; finally turns to it, 120; held that Cyril did not 
 co-worship Christ's humanity with his Divinity, 352, note. See Man- 
 Worship. 
 
 Angels; their worship forbidden by Ephesus, Preface, i., ii.; (see Laodicea); 52, 
 note; see Invocation, Creature- Worship, etc. 
 
 Anglican Church, v.; some of its clergy are idolatrous and efi"eminate, xliii., 
 xliv. It needs a Six Synods Catechism, xliii. ; is wrong and against the 
 Canons of the first Four World Councils in permitting presbyters and 
 laics to sit in Synods as co-ordinate with Bishops, 9-1 1, note 8; note 702; 
 the American Branch wrecked by the Lower House in 187 1; Newman and 
 Pusey on that house, ibid. Its Hom.ily against Peril of Idolatry on the 
 VI. Synods, v. What it needs now, 382, 383, note. 
 
 Anicetus, Bishop of Rome; xlv. 
 
 Ante-Nicene Library; xi. 
 
 Antioch, Patriarchate of; most of its clergy Nestorian, Hi., 192 and notes there. 
 
 Antiochus, a layman, 182. 
 
 Antitypes, the Eucharistic; 279, note. 
 
 Antony, Bishop of Germa in Hellespontus, killed by the Macedonians, xxviii. 
 
 Anysitis, the Secretary and Reader oi Firmus, Bishop of Cappadocia, 48. 
 
 Apollinarians; some of them held to the belief that Christ's humanity was 
 transubstantiated into God, and worshipped that creature as God, 61, 
 note 152; condemned by Ecumenical Councils, ibid.; were Co-substancers, 
 61, note 154; Cyril wrote against them, ibid.\ see Co-substancers and, 
 Synusiasts, and note 163, page 73; 102, note, and 214, note 543; differences 
 between their two divisions, the Valentinians and the Timotheans, 104, 
 note; their views as to the flesh of Christ as told by Athanasius, Nazianzus; 
 Theodoret, and Facundus. 105, note; (see Trine Imuiersion)', 108, 109; Nes- 
 torius falsely accuses Cyril of holding to Apollinarian heresy, 163, note 
 334; 329, note 671; Gregory of Nazianzus and Pope Martin at the Lateran 
 
572 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Council of A. D. 649, on the Apollinarian heresy as to Christ's flesh, ibid,; 
 examples of differing Apollinarian and Mouophysite teachings as to 
 the worship of Christ's humanity, note on pages 429-433; see note 680, 
 page 362; how the Orthodox doctrine on that point differs from them all, 
 ibid.; how the two Apollinarian seAs or fa(5lions, the Timotheans and 
 the Valentinians, differed from each other, ibid.; see on the whole topic 
 of Apollinarian errors of the Timothean kind and of the Valentinian, on 
 their Two-Partite heresy and their Man-Worship the following notes, on 
 pages 439-478; notes 802, 805, 808, 809, 810, 815, 816, 819, 821, 831, 854^ 
 855, 910, 911, 913, 916, 919 (in the last five references the allusions are 
 mainly to Nestorianism, but they are useful as serving to bring out the 
 peculiarities of each of the mutually conflicting heresies, that of ApoUi- 
 naris and that of Nestorius), 930, 949 (these last two references state the 
 Orthodox do6lrine), 952, 954, 957, 963, 965, 966, 972, 990, 995, looi, 1007, 
 1020; the last twelve references, in showing how the Third Council con- 
 demned the Nestorian worship of Christ's mere humanity both in the 
 Eucharist and elsewhere, show also how it by necessary implication 
 condemned what was in fact the Apollinarian, and Monophysite worship 
 of that humanity both in the Eucharist and elsewhere; for though they 
 denied that there is any humanity of Christ there or elsewhere, never- 
 theless it is a fact that it does remain, and now contains the Logos in 
 Heaven, where alone it is, and that the Apollinarians, in worshipping 
 their whole alleged one sole Nature Christ inHeaven, in fact worshipped 
 His two Natures there, for He has them still. In their worship of Christ's 
 Divinity alone in the Eucharist, they worshipped it where, as we see in 
 note 606, pages 250-313 above, Cyril of Alexandria and the Church 
 define that neither Christ's Divinity nor his humanity is. See Monophy- 
 siteSy Monophysitisni, Relative Worship, Worship, and Nestorius and 
 his Heresies in this Index. Compare Apollinarianism in the General 
 Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 
 
 Apostles' Creed, so called; Celestine, Bishop of Rome, refers to the old local 
 Roman and Western in the shorter form of his day as ' ' the Creed handed 
 down by the Apostles ;^^ but the Greek translator of it and the Third 
 Council omit that allusion, probably because they would not give credence 
 to that myth, and make the reference to be simply to the Creed {to'v 1v/j 
 pSTiov), evidently to the only one which appears in these Acts, that of 
 Nicsea, 185 ; the Greeks have never used the local Roman and Western 
 so-called Apostles', 185, 186, note 444. See Celestine in the Index to this 
 volume, and under " Creed, the so-called Apostles,^* in the General Index 
 to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Apostolaie, the; is the episcopate, ix.; 486, note 1042. See Bishops, and note 
 702, pages 413, 414. 
 
 Apostolic Constitutions; on the Unbloody Sacrifice, note on pages 237, 238. 
 
 Apostolic See, and Apostolic Sees; use of those terms among the ancients, 485, 
 note 1036; Romish editors wrongly substitute the singular for the plural 
 in an Epistle of Augustine, to favor Rome, ibid. 
 
hidex 11. — Ge7ieral hidex. 573 
 
 Appeal, the, to an Ecumenical Council; xxxv. See Church Government, 
 
 Appeal, the, to the whole Church distributed iti sees; xxxvii., note; 195, note 
 488. See Church Government. 
 
 Appellate Jurisdi5lio7i; see Africa, Britons, Nestorius, etc.; 414, note 702. See 
 Church Government. See under Appellate JurisdiBion in the General 
 Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 
 
 Appropriation; in what sense Theodoret the Nestorian held to it, 65, note; 
 See Theodoret. 
 
 Arab, the Mohammedafi; God's curse, 525. See under Arab, Mohammed and 
 Mohatnmedanism in this vol., and in Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Archangels; their worship condemned by Ephesus, Preface i., ii. 
 
 Archbishop; to whom anciently applied, 22, note 25; in what sense Cyril of 
 Alexandria is so called at Ephesus, 136, note 212; 141, note 226; 144, note 
 238; how it may be translated, 313, note 619; compare note 620. 
 
 Archons; rulers; at Chalcedon, 57, note. 
 
 Arians; xxviii., 6, 9, 16; their adulation of Constantius, the Arian Emperor, 19, 
 20. See 376, note; alluded to by Capreolus, 485, text, and note 1036. 
 
 Ariminum,; triumph of Arianism there by the aid of the civil power, 16. 
 
 Aristenus; for the use of relics under Holy Tables, 249, note. 
 
 Arius;\n\., ix., xlviii., justly and infallibly condemned for his infidelity and 
 creature-worship; Nestorius falsely accuses Cyril of holding to an Arian 
 heresy, 164, note 334. 
 
 Aries; triumph of Arianism there by the help of the civil power, 16. 
 
 Arsacius, Bishop of Constantinople; his great power and exercise of jurisdiction, 
 xxxii, 
 
 Athaliah ; a corrupter of the Mosaic Church, and an idolatrizer, 6. 
 
 Athanasius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D, 326-373 ; rebukes the Arians 
 for using flattering titles, 19, 20 : his witness on the Inman, etc., 420- 
 423; note 737, page 419. See also page Ixxxvii. of the Forematter 
 in this volume, and under Ephesus in this Index ; worshipped the Word 
 inside His flesh as in a temple, 71, note; 276, note ; witnesses for the doc- 
 trine of Economic Appropriation as necessary to guard against Man Wor- 
 ship, or as he words it, * ' that we m,ay not become idolaters, but truly wor- 
 shippers of God, because we invoke no creature, nor any common tnan, 
 but the real Son Who, as to His Nature has come out of God, atid has been 
 made rnan, and yet is none the less Lord and God and Saviour,'" 75, note 
 173 ; no, note; 276, note; 420, note 740; notes 744, 747 and 748 on page 
 421 ; need of a critical edition of Athanasius, 102, note; see Apollinarians. 
 Spurious heretical writings falsely ascribed to Athanasius ; see under 
 Eutherius of Tyana ; teaches on John vi. the anti-cannibal view, 274- 
 276, note ; Cyril professes to follow him in all things ; he does on that, 
 ibid ; the value and authority of his writings and those of St, Cyril of 
 Alexandria, as compared with those of all other writers of centuries IV. 
 and v., note on pages 358, 359; against creature service, 372, note; makes; 
 God the Word, our High Priest and Intercessor, 372 to 376, note. 
 
514: Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Atticus, Bishop of Co7istantinople, A.D. 406-426; his course on Chrysostom, 
 xviii., note; xxxii. Celestine calls him, ^'- the teacher of the Universal 
 Church,''' 180, 194; his witness for the Inflesh, the doctrine of Economical 
 Appropriation and for the atonement by Christ's suffering and death, 446- 
 448 ; it is not in Vincent of Lerins, but in the Greek ; Venables on him, 
 180, note 395 ; see further on him, page 517. 
 
 Augustitte, Bishop of Hippo, A. D. 395-430; specially invited by the Emperor 
 Theodosius II. to the Third Council, 483; uses /j/^ or 5yw3c>/ of the Euchar- 
 ist, 269, note; even after consecration, ibid.; if he was guilty of invoking 
 creatures, he was anathematized by the Decisions of the Third Synod, 
 357, 358, note; his testimony against the worship of pidlures and sepul- 
 chres, and, if the passage be his, for the do(5lrine that Christ is our Sole 
 Intercessor in heaven, 369, note; compare 379, note; and 485, note 1036; 
 compare page 514; commended by an Anglican Homily, 385, note; com- 
 pare 383, note. 
 
 Aus^ustus the Emperor; would not be called Lord in the sense of God, 507. 
 
 Aurelius, Bishop 0/ Carthage; in connexion with his Synod defends Latin 
 Africa from the attempts of Bishops of Rome to get Appellate Jurisdi6lion 
 there; see note 1024, page 483. 
 
 Azariah, the Priest; nobly stands up against King Uzziah when he attempts 
 to intrude into the place of the Priests, 20. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bdbd, Rabi; 478, note 1021; says that Nestorius' writings exist in Syriac, ibid, 
 
 Balsainon's perversion of a cano?i to tnake it favor the use of relics, 249, note. 
 
 Baptism; mystic rites still preserved in, among the Greeks, 239, note 600; see 
 Dippin<r; emersion a part of it, note 872, page 448. See Trine Inuner- 
 sion. 
 
 Barrow; his work on the Pope's Supremacy, xliv., xlviii, ; on Pope Honorius, 
 ibid, 
 
 Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in the First Cappadocia, A. D. 371-379; his witness to 
 the Inman, the atonement by Christ's death, and Economic Appropria- 
 tion, 444, 445. See also page Ixxxvii,, in the Forematter, and under 
 Ephesus in this Index; is said to have Origenized on the risen body, 514; 
 is charged with worshipping Christ's humanity, 517. 
 
 Basils the Deacon and Archimandrite; petitions the Emperors against Nestorius 
 and for an Ecumenical Council, xxxv. 
 
 Basilides, an idolatrizing Spanish Bishop, rejecfled by the Spanish Christians 
 even when he was supported by the Bishop of Rome. St. Cyprian, Bishop 
 of Carthage and Martyr, A. D. 248-258, backs them up against Rome in 
 rejecting him, xlv. 
 
 Bedel, Bishop; for infant Communion, 20, note; 240, note 606. 
 
 Benson, Archbishop; his guilt in Bishop King's case, 247, note. 
 
 Bingham.; the great writer on Christian Antiquities; his marriage uucanon- 
 ical, 15, note; is too indulgent to clerical digamy, ibid. 
 
Index II. — General Index. 575- 
 
 Bishops; 6,000 in the Christian World in A. D. 431, Ixxvi. ; 1,800 in Constantine's 
 day, note 57, page 29; they alone can sit in Councils, <S, 9, note 8; see 
 Priesthood and Church Government; and 479, note 1023; see Priests and 
 Priesthood; Bishops are Apostles in order, 486, note 1042 ; powers com- 
 mon to them all, 489, note 1047 ; when Rome was Orthodox, (not now in 
 its idolatry, etc.), its Bishop was ''first among his equals,'' but in what 
 sense, xli., note, and xliv.; but he was always subject to an Ecumenical 
 Synod, xli.-xlv., text and notes ; 39, note ; he could be judged and con- 
 demned by the Universal Episcopate for heresy, as Pope Honorius actu- 
 ally was ; see under Honorius, and note 1047, page 489. 
 
 Boniface, Bishop of Rome ; vainly tried to get Appellate Jurisdidlion over Latin 
 Africa ; xxxiii ; see Africa, North, 
 
 Bowing, as being the most common a(5l of worship, is used by Cyril for all 
 aas of worship, 215, note 548; 331, notes 676, 677; see Bowing in 
 the General Index io Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. Bowing mentioned, 
 not at all as an a5l of worship, but of mere human love and respe^, 
 483, note 1026. Other aAs of worship besides bowing specified, note 
 677, page 331; under Nestorius and his Heresies, and under Worship; 
 all a6ls of worship forbidden to any but God, and all Relative Worship 
 prohibited, ibid.; see Relative Worship, and Man Worship, and In- 
 vocation, and Image Worship, and Relic Worship; bowing and every 
 other a6l of religious worship prerogative to God alone, 226, note 582. 
 
 Bright, Prof.; references to his writings on Cyril and Nestorius, xxxvii. and 
 Ixvi 
 
 B ringer Forth of God; in Greek, Gsord/coc; Mother of God a mistranslation of 
 eeord/cof, i., vi. ; see Mary, Mother of God, and Qeotokoq in the Greek In- 
 dex, Preface i. Misconceptions of Romanists and Protestants on it, Pre- 
 face, i. , ii. , vi. ; the expression Bringer Forth of God (eeord/cof) opposed by 
 Nestorius and the Nestorians, xx., xxi., and in his Ecumenically con- 
 demned Epistle to Cyril, 154-166; Hellanicus of Rhodes anathematizes 
 him who receives it not, 168; so does Prothymius of Comana, 171; it 
 guards the dodlrine of the Inman and against Man- Worship, 286-308, 
 text; and note 641, page 318; denied by Nestorius, who held to both those 
 errors, ibid.; the fact of its guarding against Man- Worship not brought out 
 much by Hefele, the Romanist, ibid, see on the expression, note 657, 
 page 320; J. H. Newman's mistranslation of Gford/coc-; see note 741, page 
 420, and under Newman. Gregory of Nazianzus writes, ''If any one does 
 not admit Mary to have been Bringer Forth of God, he is an alien to the 
 Divinity,'' 440, text; why and how, 440, note 809; see Bringer Forth of 
 God in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 British Church, the; not originally subject to Rome, xxxiii. 
 
 C. 
 
 Caligula, the Roman Emperor; blasphemously arrogates to himself God's name^ 
 509- 
 
576 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Calvin; not so strong against Creature Worship as Cyril and the Third Ecu- 
 menical Council, Preface, page i. ; held, with the VI. Ecumenical Coun- 
 cils, and the English Reformers, that it is the duty of the civil magistrate, 
 to suppress all creature invocation, and image worship, and all other 
 heresies condemned in the said VI. Synods, xxix., note "a;" the pious 
 Reforming and Restoring Kings of the Old Testament, Josiah, Hezekiah, 
 etc., suppressed all idolatry and all creature worship, ibtd. 
 
 Candidian, Count; 1., i6, 42, 43, 58, note. The Emperor, a mere layman, 
 wished to boss the decisions of the Council by him, a mere layman, 505. 
 
 Cannibalism on the Eucharist; see Eucharist and Cyril, and 263, note; Cyril 
 calls it "a nt07tstrosity,'^ ibid., and subnote '' hh^' there. Cardinal du 
 Perron termed " transubstantiation " a Mo?tster,^' or " a Mo?istrosity,'^ 
 263, subnote "■ hh;''' Cyril and the Orthodox against Cannibalism and 
 against the worship of Christ's Divinity or humanity in the Eucharist, 
 473, note looi. See Eucharist, and note 1007, page 474; a phrase in the 
 Anglican Catechism needs to be corre<5led by the utterances of C^^ril and 
 of the Third Ecumenical Synod, ibid.; Nestorius' Blasphemy 18 is for 
 Cannibalism, text of pages 472, 473 and 474. Greek of it there in note 
 1007; Cyril on it; see references, ibid., and note 1000, on page 473. See 
 in the Greek Index under dvdpu7ro(l)a-yia', and page 284, note; 285, note; 
 293, note, and note 606, passim. 
 
 Canon; in what sense sometimes used, 142, note 227; 153, note 284. 
 
 Canons of the Church; authoritative, 487, 504; the Bishops at Ephesus acted in 
 accordance with them, 486, note 1042; Hefele's notion as to what Canon 
 is referred to in its Sentence of Deposition on Nestorius, 487, note 1044. 
 See " Canons " in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 
 
 Canon Law, the Ro^naii; specimens of its blasphemy, 510; some of its materials 
 spurious, 512. See " Rome " in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea 
 in this Set. 
 
 Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage in A. D. 431; his Epistle to the Council of Eph- 
 esus, 481-486; its tenor, page Ixxxviii. of the Forematter, and under Eph- 
 esus in this Index. See Capreolus in List I. of Bishops in Index I., and 
 in note 1024, page 483; his Letter put into the Adls at the suggestion of 
 Cyril, 486, note 1040; why? ibid. 
 
 Carthage; see Cotmcils of Carthage, Africa, and Chrystal, and Celestine, and 
 Leo L and Aiigustine, and note 1024, page 483. The jurisdidlion of Car- 
 thage, 484, note 103 1, and Carthage in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
 Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Catholic; sense and use of the term, 191, note 475; 194, text, and note 487; Cath- 
 olic in the sense of Orthodox, 195, text, and note 489; pages 210-212, note 
 533. The ancient Easterns did not use commonly Catholic of single 
 individuals, but of the Church, page 211, note 533. 
 
 Catholically ; in the sense of O^'thodoxly, 191, note 475. 
 
 Cave; Christ, according to Gregory of Nyssa, was laid in a cave, note 842, page 
 446 ; see Gregory of Nyssa. 
 
Index II. — General hidex. 577 
 
 Celestine, Bishop of Rome; wrongly seeks to gain Appellate Jurisdiction in 
 Latin Africa, xxxiii.; fails to get it, ibid.; his attempt condemned by the 
 Third Synod of the Christian World, xlix.; his proper jurisdiAiou, 22; his 
 course in the Nestorian controversy, xxxvi., xxxviii.; his Epistle to Nes- 
 torius, 179-203; it is epitomized under Ephesus; why we translate from the 
 Greek; it is Synodical, 179, notes 390, 391, 392, 393, 395; 187, note 445; 
 its date, 203, note 517; 209, note 532; its influence as an utterance of the 
 first See and of a Western Synod over the Ecumenical Council, 487, note 
 1045; Celestine weaves into his Letter to Nestorius his belief in the local, 
 the peculiarly Western myth, that the Apostles made a Creed, and that it 
 is the local Roman one of his own day; the Bishops of the Council refuse 
 to approve it and so change that part of the Letter as to make it refer to 
 the Nicene Creed, 185, note 444; lessons to us from this, ibid.; another 
 change made in translation into Greek, 202, note 508; Xystus, Bishop of 
 Rome, held to the same myth on the so-called Apostles' Creed, as Celestine, 
 his predecessor, 185, note 444; the Easterns did not, ibid.; sample of their 
 language in Acaciusof Melitine, who makes Nestorius to err not against the 
 Roman local Creed, but against the Nicene, ibid.; see Apostles' Creed ;QQ\es- 
 tine's faulty language on the worship of relics condemned in effect by the 
 decisions of the Third Council against all creature worship, 186, note 444; 
 his tyrannous and usurping attempt to procure Appellate Jurisdidion in 
 Latin Africa also condemned by it, ibid. The work of exposing and 
 condemning Nestorius and his heresies was done by the whole Church 
 and not by Celestine alone, 4S9, note 1047, and 187, note 445; he had no 
 canonical jurisdidlion outside of Italy, 187, note 445; he merely acled as 
 the first Bishop of the Church, the Jirst amo7tg his equals, 196, note 494; 
 197, note 497; his course on the Nestorian Controversy, note 502, on 
 pages 197-201; inferior to Cyril as a theologian, he nevertheless deserves 
 credit for that course, ibid.; noble stand of Augustine of Hippo and the 
 Latin Africans against his attempt to get Appellate Jurisdiction over them, 
 ibid., page 201. Celestine writes to the clergy of Constantinople and to 
 all, 199, note; his sentence and that of his local Council on Nestorius and 
 his heresies, 200-203; 187, note 445; 197, notes 497 and 502; see more under 
 Celestine in the list of Bishops; his wrong attempt to gain Appellate Juris- 
 diaion over Latin Africa, 427, 428, note; see also Africa and Rome. 
 Celestius, the heretic; 179, text. 
 Chalcedon, Council of; ix. See also Council, the Fourth. See Chalcedon in 
 
 Vol. I. of Nicaea, General Index. 
 Chorepiscopus; 495, text, and note 1105. 
 
 Christ; our Sole High Priest, Ixvii. ; Character of His Father's Substance, 247, 
 text. God the Word is the High Priest and Apostle of our Profession, 
 and our Sole Mediator, Who, however, does the human things such as 
 suflFering and dying by His humanity, pages 255-267, text, and 220-255, 
 text. In prayer, as God the Word, and therefore as omniscient and omni- 
 present. He hears our prayers and searches the hearts of tens of millions 
 of invokers at the same moment, their motives, their sincerity or insin- 
 
678 Act L of Ephesus. 
 
 cerity, and decides on the wisdom or unwisdom of each one of those 
 prayers, and the needs of the petitioners, and then by the mind and lips 
 of His humanity, guided by His infallible knowledge and wisdom as God 
 the Word, He prays for us to His Father, note 621, pages 313-316; St. 
 Cyril on those themes, 377, note; 378, note; 379, note; he sets forth the 
 soleness of Christ's one sacrifice, the Divinity of the Offerer, and teaches 
 that God the Word is our High Priest, and that if a mere man were, as 
 the Nestorians contended, the result would be Tetradistn and Creature 
 WorshiPy 378, note. Nestorius made a mere creature our Redeemer and 
 Atoner, 471, note 995. The Church of England Homily on the Nativity 
 agrees, so far as it goes, with Cyril's and the Church's dodlrine that God 
 the Word is our High Priest, who does the human things by His human- 
 ity, 389, 390, note; so does its Article XXXI., 390, note; the true dodlrine 
 on those themes stated, note on pages 391-393; different communions on 
 it, the Greek, the Latin, the Monophysites, the Nestorians, the Anglicans, 
 the Reformed of the Continent, 393-39^, note; the Socinians, 396-401; 
 Peter Lombard on, 401; Lutheran Formularies on, 402-405; grievous 
 errors in them, ibid.; pagan teachings of the Schwenkfelders on, 405; 
 new and terrible paganism in the Anglican Communion, in effect against 
 the do6lrine of the Soleness of Christ's High Priesthood, 406. Christ's 
 Mediation as our High Priest and Sole Intercessor in Heaven is God- 
 authorized, and no other is, 381, note; Scripture on, ibid. Absurdity and 
 blasphemy and paganism of Nestorius' doctrine that a mere creature is 
 our Atoner and Saviour, and our Intercessor above, 471, note. For fuller 
 explanation on this whole topic, I take the liberty here of referring ta 
 places in St. Cyril's other writings. For example, Cyril, as in Pusey's 
 English translation of his writings 6»« the Incarnation against Nestorius^ 
 where he treats on John xvii., 5, and the context, shows that Christ's 
 great High Priestly and Intercessory and Mediatorial Prayer for his dis^ 
 ciples in the seventeenth chapter of that Gospel was offered by God the 
 Word Himself within His humanity, as indeed is abundantly clear from 
 its fifth verse, ^' And now, O Father, glorify thou me, with thine own 
 self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was,'' for it 
 was God the Word's Divinity, not at all his humanity, which had glory 
 with the Father before the world was. See Pusey's translation of "5*. 
 Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius,'' on John 
 xvii., 5, and on the context, pages 160, 161, 162, 272, 273, 308, 309, 310. 
 To the same effect see Cyril on John xvii., 4, 5., and the context, the 
 Oxford translation. Vol. II., pages 491-524, and especially page 496, 
 where Cyril says that God in that prayer was "speaking the words " of 
 John xvii., 4, ''as Man," and on page 497, speaking of God the Word, 
 he writes that ''He prays therefore [in John xvii., 4, 5], even within flesh 
 {koX fiera capKog) for the recovery of his own glory. And [yet] He is 
 not wholly bereft 0/ His own glory [when he so spes-ks] ^ ^- * for the 
 Word, being very God, was 7iever without His own dignities,'" [Pusey's 
 Cyril, the Greek, vi., 677]. And on John xxii., 9-1 1, Cyril writes of 
 
Index II. — Geyieral Index. 579 
 
 God the Word, "Moreover, He, the Reconciler of God and men 
 and Mediator between them, and our truly great and all-holy 
 High Priest, mediates for us as man, and by His prayers (A^raZf) he 
 thoroughly propitiates the judgment of His own Father, sacrificing him_ 
 self for us. For He Himself is the Sacrifice, and He Himself is the Priest^ 
 He Himself is the Mediator, He Himself the all-spotless victim, Hhe Lamb 
 of God that taketh away the sin of the world ' * * * The High Priest and 
 at the same time Mediator Anointed, Who is above the types and figures 
 of the Law, having appeared in the last times asks [blessings] as Man for 
 • us, and as God is co-eager with the God and Father in distributing the 
 good things to those who are worthy. Paul showed us a most clear 
 example of this when he said, Grace be to you and peace from God our 
 Father and from the Lordfesus Anointed [II. Cor. i, 2] Therefore, 
 He Who asks as Man, on the other hand distributes to us as God. For 
 being a holy High Priest," etc. It is therefore not one nature only, that 
 is a mere creature, Christ's humanity, that is our High Priest and Inter- 
 cessor, as Nestorius would have it, but God the Word within His human- 
 ity and speaking and acting by it, doing the divine things by His Divinity 
 and the human things by His humanity. This it is, the combination of 
 the All-knowing, everywhere present God the Word, with that humanity 
 which can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, which makes 
 the Redeemer the High Priest and Intercessor Whom we need, which con- 
 stitutes the uniqueness of His fitness, and shows that no mere creature, be 
 it the Virgin Mary or any apostle, martyr, archangel, angel, or any 
 other mere finite creature, can share His prerogative of being our 
 Sole Mediator, that is our Sole Intercessor in heaven. Paul in 
 Hebrews iv., 12-16, dwells with joy and comfort on the fact that 
 ^' the Word of God''\b Aoyog rov Qeov), to whose sight every creature is- 
 manifest ( Heb. iv., 13), and Who as Man can be touched with the feeling 
 of our irifirmities (Heb. iv., 15 ), is our great High Priest (Heb. ii., 1 ).. 
 Anent this topic see Cyril's most remarkable and excellent explanation 
 of Christ's words ''My God, my God, why forsookest thou mef (Matt, 
 xxvii., 26) in the Oxford translation of his writings on the l7icarnation 
 against Nestorius, 287-294. Cyril teaches that God the Word bows, that 
 is, worships, as Ma?i, but is bowed to, that is, is worshipped, as God. 
 Compare Cyril's Scholia, section xxxvi., page 570, Vol. VI. of P. E. Pu- 
 sey's Cyril: "He [God the Word] boiveth as having taken the nature 
 that boweth; and, on the other hand, the Same [ Word ] is bowed to as be- 
 ing above the nature which bows, inasmuch as He [ the Word ] is deemed 
 God. But nevertheless the bow [that is, ''the worship*'] must not 
 be separated unto a Ma7i by himself and unto God by Hifnself; nor, more- 
 over, do we say that the Natures are parted, and that a Man has been 
 conjoined to God, so to speak, in an equality of dignity, and that he is to 
 be bowed to with Him [ God the Word \for that thing would be full of 
 SUPREMEST impiety; but that only One is to be bowed to, [that is} 
 the Word of God, Who has put on a Man and has taken flesh; 
 
680 Act I. of Epkesus. 
 
 and at the same time zee are to believe that the body taiited to hitn is 
 aniviated by a rational soul like oiirs.''^ Here the worship seems to be 
 giveu to the Word only, and so the context seems to show that St. Cyril 
 taught. Christ worships as Man, and is worshipped as God, 378, note. 
 Cyril, in the note on pages 79, 80, denies worship to Christ's 
 humanity and makes it prerogative to Divinity alone, where Cyril 
 rebukes Nestorius for his worship of Christ's humanity as fol- 
 lows: "Why, tell me, dost thou exceedingly insult the flesh of God, 
 even indeed [by] not refusing to bow to it; whereas To be; bowed to 
 
 BEFITS AND IS DUE TO THE DiVINE AND INEFFABI.E NATURE AI,ONE." 
 On page 225, note, Cyril proves that the Word must be God because he is 
 bowed to by the angels in Hebrews i., 6, which implies that he believed 
 all religious bowing to be prerogative to God alone, which indeed he then 
 asserts as follows: ''He [God the Word] ?5 * * * bowed to by the holy 
 angels, and that too when the right to be bowed to belongs to and befi,ts 
 God alone;'' and on page 360, note, Cyril writes, ''But 710 one is igfiorant 
 that, BY THE Scripture, worship is to be given to no Nature at 
 Aivi, EXCEPT THAT OF GoD." And again he says, "There is [but] one 
 Nature of the Deity, which ai<one ought to be worshipped." 
 See further the note on pages 338, 339, and indeed all of notes 183, 580- 
 583 inclusive, and notes 676, 677, 678, 679 and 680. So teaches Athan- 
 asius on pages 98-101, note. Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council curses every one who defends Theodore of Mopsuestia's relative 
 worship of Christ's mere humanity by teaching that "just like an Em- 
 peror's image (dKovoc)" that mere created humanity ''is to be bowed 
 to with reference to the Person of God the Word." God the 
 Word is our Reconciler and Sacrifice, 255-267, text ; but did not 
 ofifer for himself, for he was sinless, 265-267, text; compare page 471, 
 note 995; is God by nature, 279; see Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy i, 
 and the rest; God the Word was brought forth in flesh of the Virgin, 286- 
 317; decides through an Ecumenical Council, 487, 488; has two Natures, 
 57, note; and two wills, 70 and 71, note; strong texts for His Divinity 
 blurred in the English New Testament, notes 165, 167, page 73; as Man 
 He worships; as God He receives worship, 127; if He were not God He 
 could not hear or answer prayer, 128; see Eutheriiis of Tya7ta, and Theo- 
 doret of Cyrus; a bitter Nestorian assails the doctrine of St. Cyril approved 
 by Ephesus that God the Word is our Mediator, 124-128, note; logic and 
 necessity of the sound do(5trine, ibid.; see under Economic Appropria- 
 tion, and under Nestorius a7id his Heresies, Heresy j; Amphilochius 
 includes all the above sound dodlrines in the Apostolic Tradition, 132, 
 note, 205; Cyril makes them to be part of the Faith, 133, note 208; see 
 Faith. In what sense the Logos is everywhere, and unquantitied and 
 unsized, 215, notes 544, 545 and 546; Christ was anointed as Man, but 
 that anointing is Economically ascribed to God the Word, 216, note 551; 
 Economic Appropriation is to avoid the Nestorian Man-Worship, ibid., 
 the Law of Moses given through the Logos, according to Cyril, 220, note 
 
Index II. — General hidex. 581 
 
 579; Athanasius, Epipbanius, and Faustin, and primitive Fathers held 
 that wherever in the Old Testament worship is given to a seeming crea- 
 ture, that person was really the Logos, ibid.; this dodlrine necessary to 
 guard against creature worship, ibid. See Man- Worship, See Saifits, 
 worship of. St. Cyril of Alexandria uses Upucu-nv^ that is, Person, and 
 'TTToaraCT^f, Subsistence, Being, for God the Word alone, Who, however, has 
 put on flesh, 313, note 616; compare 328, note 671, end; " The Word of 
 God * * * Aiioifited as Man after the flesh, and anointing Diviiiely 
 with His own Spirit them that believe on Him," 328, note 671. See 
 Person. By ''07ie itifleshed Nature of God the Word'' and by the Person 
 of the Son and by His Hypostasis Cyril seems to mean God the Word only, 
 Who, however, has put on flesh, 313, note 616, and 329, note 671, end; what- 
 ever Christ did ''was done by the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit,'' 
 316, note 621; that does away with getting any answer to prayer through 
 the Virgin Mary or any other mere creature, ibid.; errors of the Timothe- 
 ans, that is, theSynusiasts, that is, the Co-substancers, on the Incarnation 
 and as to Christ's humanity, note 773; see Timotheans and. Apollinarians. 
 The Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematizes the blasphemy of Theodore 
 of Mopsuestia that his mere human Christ "was troubled by the passions 
 of the soul and the lusts of the flesh, and was little by little parted from 
 the things which are more evil, and so was made better by progress in 
 works, and by his conduct became blameless; that as a mere man 
 he was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost, and by his baptism received the grace of the Holy 
 Spirit, and was deemed worthy of the adoption to Sonship, and just like 
 an Emperor's image (ckoi'or), he is to be worshipped with reference to the 
 Person of God the Word, and that after his resurrection he became im- 
 mutable in his thoughts and wholly sinless," 423, note; compare notes 976, 
 977. Gregory of Nazianzus long before anathematized the view that 
 Christ was adopted at his baptism, as above, and also the view that he 
 was adopted after his resurredlion, 443, 444, text, and note 827; page 469, 
 notes 976 and 977, and notes 986, 990. See under Adoption, and 447, 
 note 856 ; see Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. See * ' Christ' ' 
 in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Chrysostom,fohn; studied under Diodore of Tarsus, xvi., text and note; and 
 xix. ; against the worshipping of angels, xvii. ; the discussion as to putting 
 his name into the diptychs, xviii.,text, and note; intercession of saints as- 
 cribed to him, xviii.; uses suspicious language on the Eucharist, xix. ; for 
 fasting communion; parts of Egypt otherwise, ibid.; his great power as 
 Bishop of Constantinople and Court Patriarch, xxxii., xxxiii., xxxiv. 
 See ''Chrysostom " in the General Index to Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 ChrystaVs Articles on the struggle of Rome to acquire Appellate Jurisdidlion 
 over Latin Africa, xxxiii.; 39, note 94; 3S0, note; 427, note. 
 
 Church, the Anglican; See Anglican Church; its formularies favor the VI. 
 Synods, v. See Afiglican Communion and Church of England in Vol. 
 I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
582 Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 Church, the Greek; nominally still receives the VI. Synods; but not in practice 
 in some things; misconception among the more ignorant of its people 
 that Ephesus favored the worship of Mary, vi. ; was never subjugated by 
 Rome, 22, note 26; see " Greek Church " in the General Index to Vol. I. 
 of Nicaea in this Set. 
 Church, the Mosaic; 6. 
 
 Church, the Roman; nominally receives the VI. World Councils, but in fact 
 rejeAs some of their decisions, v., vi.; see ''Latin Church'' in the 
 General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this set. 
 Church Government; the Patriarch, the Exarch, the Metropolitan, the Primate 
 and the Suffragan, the Patriarchate, the Diocese, the Province, and the 
 Parish or Paroecia, 413, note, and note 1023; the Synod of the Patriarch- 
 ate, that of the Diocese, and that of the Province, ibid.; Bishops alone 
 may sit in Synods, 413, note; they are the teaching part of the Church; 
 Ecumenical Canons on such themes, ibid.; power of Constantinople in 
 the East, 413 and 414, note; opposition of Rome, ibid.; presbyters never 
 sat as co-ordinate with Bishops as in the Anglo-American communion 
 now; its wreck by making them co-ordinate, 413, 414, note; its present 
 need in Church government, ibid.; a National Council, 414, note; appeals; 
 I, to a National Council; 2, to the Universal Church distributed in sees; 
 and 3, to an Ecumenical Synod, ibid.; what of them are now in abeyance, 
 ibid.; an account of the greater Metropolitical or Patriarchal sees, in 
 ancient times, Carthage, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome; need 
 of one or more Patriarchs in each nation; no race or nation should be 
 subject to a foreign patriarch; how this rule has come to be violated, note 
 1023, pages 479-483; great sway and power of the Patriarch of Constan- 
 tinople in the Middle Ages, ibid., page 483; ancient use of Parish and 
 Diocese, 497, note 11 14; see Metropolitans, Exarch, etc. 
 
 Churches not commonly named after saints nor dedicated to them anciently, 21, 
 note 22. 
 
 Civil rulers; their duty to protect and support the Church of the Six Councils 
 and to suppress error and immorality, xxix., note " a; " Universal Church 
 on, xxix., note "«;" pages 33-41, note 86; see Senate, Archons; and 123, 
 note; their authority derived not from the people but from God; note " jj' " 
 on page 506; duty of all Christians to choose an Orthodox ruler where 
 they can, 506. 
 
 Cledonius; 439, notes 802, 803. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria; 269, note; on God the Word as our Mediator, Inter- 
 cessor, and High Priest, and as "the Expiator of Sin," 370, note; 371, 
 note. 
 
 Clerics, Christian; see Priesthood. 
 
 Coniarius, Cyril's representative; Ixxvi., 365. 
 
 Cotnmunicatio Idiomatum ; see Communication of Properties. 
 
 Communication of the Properties of Christ's Two Natures to each other; 
 a heresy, xxvi., xxvii., note "s." Hefele's blunder on, /^/fl'.; Luth- 
 erans favor the error; the Reformed nearer Ephesus in that matter; some 
 
Index II. — General Index. 583 
 
 of the Latins against it; how it differs from the Orthodox dodlrine of 
 Economic Appropriation, 75, note, and note "s," pages xxvi-xxviii. See 
 in Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set, in the General Index under *' Communi- 
 cation of the Properties ' ' and * 'Economic Appropriation;^ \ and Economic 
 Appropriation in this Index. 
 
 Communion Tables; not to be worshipped, i., ii., 52, note. 
 
 Concomitance, the Eucharistic; 525-528; what the do6lrine is, ibid.; its aljsurd 
 and blasphemous sequences, ibid.; is part of the dodlrine of the Roman 
 Transubstantiation and also of that of the Greek, and of Two Nature Con- 
 substantiation, Note E., pages 517-528; Cyril, whose teachings on the 
 Eucharist were approved by the whole Church at Ephesus, condemns it, 
 ibid. 
 
 Conjunction; see Relative Conjunctiofi. 
 
 Constantine the Great, E^nperor; a nursing father to the Church, how, 6; takes 
 away churches from creature servers and gives them to the Orthodox, 6; 
 orders fifty copies of the Sacred Scriptures to be written for the Churches 
 of Constantinople, note 880, page 449. 
 
 Constantine and his sons; 20, note; blasphemous titles given to them, 20, note. 
 
 Constantinople, Second Ecum^e7ii cat Sytiod, 6; see Council, the Second Ecumen- 
 ical. 
 
 Constantinople, the Patriarchs of; their power, xxxiii., xxxiv.; loss by idolatry, 
 note 57, pages 29, 30; sinful titles given to, 38, note 91; their vast juris- 
 diction and great power in the middle ages, 483, note 1023. 
 
 Constantius, the Arian Emperor; 19, 20; the Arians sycophantically call him 
 " Eternal Emperor!'" but deny that the Son of God is everlasting, ibid. 
 
 Consubstantiation; three kinds of it, which contradict each other, 312, 313, 
 note; condemned by the Third Council of the Christian world, and the 
 Orthodox dodlrine of vSt. Cyril approved by it, xxxix., and 312, 313, note. 
 
 Copts; vi.; see Senuti, and Victor the Archimandrite, Ixxv. 
 
 Co-substancers; their distinguishing tenet, 61, notes 152, 154; see Apollinarians 
 and Synusiasts; 102, note; 104, note; 164, note 338; Cyril against them, 
 214, note 543. See Falentinian heretics. 
 
 Councils, the VI. Ecumenical; see Ecumenical, and Ephesus, and note 606, often, 
 note 183, etc. ; and see especially Councils, the VI. Ecumenical, in Vol. 
 I. oi Nicaea, General Index. 
 
 Council, the First Ecumenical, Nicaea, A. D. 325; ix. ; see Nicaea, A. D. 325, 
 and Ecumenical Councils, xlviii.; it decided infallibly and forever against 
 the creature-worshipping Arius, and that question cannot be reopened 
 again, ix. and xlviii.; in the General Index to Vol. 1. of Nicaea, see 
 Nicaea, A. D. 325, and Creed of the First Ecumenical Council and Six 
 Ecumenical Synods, and Councils, the Six. 
 
 Council, the Second Ecumenical; that is I. Constantinople, A. D. 381; ix. and 
 6; and see Constantinople, Second Ecumenical Council and Ecumenical 
 Councils; its canons II., III. and VI., see page xxxiii.; it infalli1)ly con. 
 denmed Macedonianism and its creature-worship, ix., xlviii. ; neither it 
 or its Creed mentioned in the A(5ls of the Third Synod, note 151, page 60; 
 Rome opposed at first its Canon III.; its Canons V., VI. and VII. denied 
 
584 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 to be its by some, ibid.; its Creed quoted, ''came out of the Father before 
 all the Worlds,'' 69, note; how the Fourth Council speaks of its Creed, 
 and perhaps also of that of Nicaea, 439, note. See Faith in this Index. 
 In the General Index to Vol. I. oi Nicaea, seel. Constantinople; Con stan- 
 tinopolitan Creed; Constantinople, the Second Council of; and Creed of 
 the Second Ecumenical Synod; Councils, the Six; and Six Ecumenical 
 Synods. 
 
 Council, the Third Ecumenical; A. D. 431; see Ephesus and Ecumenical 
 Councils, xlix., and 114, note. It tells us exaAly what Nestorius' heresies 
 were, ibid. In the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set see 
 Ephesus, the ''Third Ecumenical Cotmcil,'' and "Third Ecumenical 
 Synod,'' and "Six Ecumenical Synods.'^ 
 
 Council, the Fourth Ecumenical; held at Chalcedon, A. D. 451 ; see Chalcedon and 
 Ecum,enical Councils; condemned Eutyches, ix., xlix.; its canon xxviii. ; 
 Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius quoted in, 55, note; condemnsMono- 
 physitism, 72, note; and Nestorianism, 114, note; bases the privileges of the 
 Bishop of Rome on the ground of its being the capital of the Empire, and 
 passes its canon xxviii. against the wishes of Rome's legates and main- 
 tains it to this hour; note on pages 427, 428. Compare in the General 
 Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, under "Fourth Ectmienical Synod,'^ and 
 "Comicils, the Six," and "Six Ecumenical Synods." 
 
 Council, the Fifth Ecumefiical; that is, II. Constantinople, A. D. 553; see 
 //. Constantinople and Ecumenical Councils, ix., xviii., xlix.; decided 
 infallibly against the III. Chapters, etc., condemned all creature service 
 and Theodore and his heresies, lii. ; 22, note 22; condemns Nestorian 
 error on the Union, 70, note; condemns Monophysitism, 72, note; its An- 
 athema IX., 75, note; and 22, note 22; condemns, impliedly, all worship 
 of creatures, and Commimication of Properties; its XIV. Anathemas 
 against Nestorius' heresies, definitely and infallibly, 114, note; its Anath- 
 ema XI., page 513, condemns Eutychianism. Compare in the General 
 Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, "Fifth Ecumenical Synod," and "Councils, 
 the Six," and "Six Ecumenical Synods." 
 
 Council, the Sixth Ecumenical; that is. III. Constantinople, A. D. 680; see 
 Ecumenical Councils; infallibly condemned Pope Honorius; anarchical 
 to deny it, ix. ; on the two wills of Christ, 70, 71, note; condemns Mono- 
 thelism, 72, note. Compare in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
 Ephesus, "Sixth Ecumenical Synod," Coimcilsfhe Six," "Six Ecumen- 
 ical Synods" and "Honorius" and "Vigilius." 
 
 Council, a future Seve?ith; see Seventh Ecume7iical Synod, and 5, 6; 35, note 
 88; 483, note 1,024; it is to be desired to do away all invocation of any but 
 God, all idolatry, all Host Worship, and all other errors, 5, 6, note; will 
 never come till there shall be an episcopate to hold it which shall be free 
 from those idolatries, page 35, note 88; page 483, note 1024; it must define 
 in accordance with the truths defined by the Six Synods already held, 
 for truth cannot contradict itself, ibid. 
 
 Council of Alexandria, in A. D. 430; 179, note 391; 205, summary^ 213, text, 
 and note 538; 362, 363, text; 414, note 703. 
 
Index II. — General Index. 585 
 
 Council of Ariminum; i6; triumph of Arianism at, by means of the secular 
 
 power, ibid. 
 Council of Aries; i6; triumph of Arianism at, by means of the secular power, 
 
 i6. 
 Councils of Carthage; against the claim of Rome to Appellate Jurisdi(5lion in 
 
 Latin Africa, 39, note; their contention supported by Ephesus, xlix. 
 
 See Africa. See Carthage in the General Index to Vol. I. oi Nicaea. 
 Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448; against Eutyches, 55, note. 
 Council of Co7ista7itinople, A. D. 754; if it approved the invocation of creatures 
 
 it was opposed to the VI. Ecumenical Synods, 52, note; 357-360, note. 
 
 See under Ephesus and Ecumenical Councils. 
 Cou7icil of the Diocese; 413, note 702; 479, note 1023. 
 Council of Elvira in Spain; see Elvira. 
 
 Council of Ephesus of A. D. 449, the Robbers' Synod; 55, note. 
 Council of Jerusalem, A. D. \^']2\s^q Jerusalem. 
 Council of Laodicea; see Laodicea. 
 Council of the Lateran, A. D. 649; see Apollinarians. 
 Council of the Lateran, the Fourth; A. D. 12 15; defines against the Eucharistic 
 
 dodlrine of the Third Ecumenical Synod, 473, note 1000. 
 Councils, National; see under Church Government, and 413, note 702; and 479, 
 
 note 1023. 
 Council of Nicaea (local), in A. D. 787; see ''Nicaea, the idolatrous conventicle 
 
 ofy 
 
 Council of the Patriarchate, 413, note 702, and 479, note 1023. 
 
 Council of the Province; 413, note 702, and 479, note 1023. 
 
 Council of Rome, A. D. 430. See Rome, Cotmcil. 
 
 Council of Toledo, the Third, in 5S9; orders the Creed of the Second Ecumen- 
 ical Synod to be recited in Spain every Lord's Day and at every Euchar- 
 ist, 51, note; that was the custom then in the Oriental Churches, ibid. 
 
 Council of Trent, A. D. 1543-1563; opposes the do(5lrine of the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod on the Lord's Supper, 473, note 1000; and pages 522, 523; see 
 Eucharist; it opposes the decisions of Ephesus against invoking and 
 otherwise worshipping creatures, and against all image worship and 
 relic worship, iv. 
 
 Country Bishop; note 1105, page 495. See also Chorepiscopus, and note 11 12, 
 page 496. 
 
 Crajimer; Preface, i., ii.; and page 115, Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Creature- Worship; forbidden, Preface, i-iv. See Man-Worship, Eucharist, and 
 Invocation; Arius', viii. ; Macedonius', viii.; Nestorius', ix. ; Theodoret's, 
 ix.; all creature-worship condemned by the Holy Ghost, speaking 
 through the Third Ecumenical Council, xxxix. and 52, note; James II. 
 tried to corrupt England with it, 18; creature-worship, note on pages 5, 
 6, 7, 8 and 9; 41, note 102; God's curses for creature-worship on the Jews 
 and the Israelites, on the Nestorians, the Greeks and the Latins, and the 
 Monophysites, 175, note 388; 4S5, note 1037. 
 
 Creed, the so-called Apostles' ; see Apostles' Creed and Faith in this Index; and 
 
586 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, under ''Creed, the so-called 
 Apostles'.'' 
 
 Creed, the Constantinopolitan; see under Council, the Second, and Faith in this 
 Index, and Council of Toledo; and in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
 Nicaea, under " Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod." 
 
 Creed, the Nicene; see under Nicaea and under Faith in this Index, Council of 
 Toledo, and in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, ''Creed of the 
 First Ecumenical Council." 
 
 Cross, the; (the sign of?), 201, note 503. 
 
 Cross Worship; should be done away, 5; condemned by Kphesus, Preface, i. 
 
 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage A. D. 248-258, and Martyr; his witness on the 
 Inman, the Two Natures, and Bconomic Appropriation, 235. See also 
 page Ixxxvii. in the Forematter, and under Ephesus in this Index; he 
 backs Spaniards against Rome, xlv.; his jurisdidlion and power, note 
 1023, pages 479-483; his error that saints above pray for us condemned by 
 Ephesus as an intrusion on the prerogative intercession of Christ there, 
 516. See Fathers in this Index and in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
 Nicaea in this Set, and under "Councils, the Six Ecumenical," there. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria; his Letter to the Monks of Egypt, xxxi., xxxv. See in 
 the notes to this work, his Commentary on Matthew, subnote "rr," 
 pages 265-267; his Commentary on Luke, 256, note, and other places in 
 this volume; the Syriac of, subnote "rr," pages 265-267. Its lesson to us 
 not to accept rashly as Cyril's what is not his. Cyril of Alexandria's 
 Commentary on fohn, 261, subnote, and again and again in note 606, 
 pages 240-313; his Five Book Contradi^ion of the Blasphemies of Nes- 
 torius, xxvi., xxxi., xxxv., li., 113, 114; 162, note 330; see in the notes 
 to this work often; his Explanation of the XII. Chapters spoken at 
 Ephesus, 267, note; his Thi^ee Epistles to Nestorius, xxxv., xxxvi., li., 
 31, note 61; 55, note: see in the notes to this work often. His Shorter 
 Epistle, (the second of the three), read and approved by vote in the Third 
 World Council, 52-154; two of them mentioned by Celestine, 188; Cyril's 
 Shorter Epistle, on what themes it speaks,' 53, note 142; is Ecumenically 
 approved; which is its most correct and authoritative text, note on pages 
 54-56; authority of the Epistle, 56-58, notes 142 and 143; variations in 
 Greek readings in it, 56, note; the Latin translation, 59, note; teaches the 
 tenet of the two Natures, 73, note 163; condemns Man- Worship, 108, note; 
 what it approves and what it condemns, 133, note 208; explains the 
 Nicene Creed, 133, note 208; 143, note 233; mentioned by Firmus of 
 Ceesarea as authoritative, 166, note; its sense Scriptural, though part of its 
 language be not in Holy Writ, 167, note 351. Cyril's Longer Epistle, 
 which curses deniers of the Inman, was adopted by the whole Church at 
 Ephesus, 67, note; it condemns theNestorian worship of Christ's humanity, 
 108, note; it teaches that God the Word is our Mediator and High Priest, 
 and the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, and condemns Nestorius* 
 errors on the Eucharist, etc. , 214-268; most of its teachings against creature- 
 worship and Host-Worship and Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation 
 restored by the English Reformers of blessed memory, 204, note; no at- 
 
Index II. — Gcyieral Index. 587 
 
 tempts of Rome and others to do them away cau ever succeed, ibid.; sum- 
 mary of the couteuts of the Epistle, 204, 205, note; P. E. Pusey's summary 
 imperfect, seemingly because of his lack of entire faith in some teachings 
 of Ephesus, 205 note; authority of the document, 205-208; its text, 208; we 
 follow mainly Coleti's text, ibid.; the lettered sections of it, 208; its heading 
 shows it to be Synodal, 206, and note 532 on pages 209, 210; in it Cyril and 
 the Bishops of his Patriarchate ''protest" against Nestorius and his crea- 
 ture-worship and other errors, as the English Reformers of the Sixteenth 
 Century protested against Rome and her creature-worship and her other 
 errors, 210, note 533; in what sense God calls Himself a Protestant, ibid.; 
 the Nestorian Man-worship and other errors termed by Ephesus an 
 ''Apostasy,'" ibid.; the present Romish and Greek relative worship of 
 the Virgin Mary, saints, images, relics, etc., is relative commonly, like 
 that of the Nestorians, but much worse, ibid.; the worship of the golden 
 calf in the wilderness and that of the calves at Bethel and Dan was rela- 
 tive, ibid.; God's curses on the Israelites for it, ibid.; differences in the 
 use of the term (TaMoZ/V between the Greeks and the Latins, ibid., page 
 211; in what sense the term Protestant may well be used of the Orthodox; 
 in what sense it is heretical, ibid.; different names applied to the Ortho- 
 dox in different ages; different names applied to creature servers also, 
 211 212, note 533; hopelessness of any union between creature-invokers, 
 or of any union between any except on the basis of the Six Councils, 212, 
 note 533; the name Protestant Episcopal, 212, note 533; strong but 
 Scriptural language applied in Cyril's Long Letter to Nestorius' denial of 
 the Incarnation, to his Man-service, and to his errors on the Eucharist, 
 213, note 537; approval of Cyril's Letters to Nestorius before the Third 
 Council met, in that Council, and afterwards, 213, note 538; Cyril was 
 sound on the Two Natures of Christ, 217, notes 559, 560. 
 
 Writings of Cyril before the Third Ecumenical Council met which 
 must have powerfully instructed and influenced it against Nestorius' 
 denial of the Inman, against his worship of a mere man, and against his 
 real one nature presence in the Eucharist and against the cannibalism of 
 eating it there, 269-276; St. Cyril, addressing him in his Ecumenically 
 approved Long Epistle to him, speaks as follows of all those and all 
 other errors of Nestorius: "Accordingly thou art to confess in writing and 
 on oath that thou anathematizest on the one hand thy own foui, and 
 PROFANE DOGMAS," etc, as ou page 213, above, text. Cyril 0/ Alexan- 
 dria's XII. Chapters, xxxvi.; 70, note; 75, note; 116, note; 197, note 497; 
 see passim in notes on pages 314-358, on them and on other writings of 
 Cyril there cited; his De/efice of them against Theodoret, 67, note; 76, 
 note; his Defence of them against the Orientals, 75, note; his explanation 
 of them spoken at Ephesus, lii. ;his Chapter, that is. Anathema VIII., //., 
 viii.; 22, note 22; 116, note; 1S4, note 438; 215, note 548; his Anathema, 
 that is, Chapter X., 471, note 995; pages 5^4-5^6; his Chapter XII., note 
 "5. " Cyril of A lexa ndria ' s XI L Chapters, that is, h is KIT. A nathemas, 
 and their teachings; contrasted with Nestorius' XIT. Counter Anathemas 
 a7id their teachings, 314-359- If Nestorius' Counter Anathemas arc gen- 
 
688 Ad /. of Ephesus. 
 
 uine they were probably written iu Greek; but it is not now extant. The 
 Anathemas of Cyril and the Synod of the Egyptian Diocese, being 
 approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, remain valid and an essen- 
 tial part of the faith forever, ibid. English translation of CyriV s XII. 
 Anathemas, 314-359. 
 
 Anathema /,, and notes on it, 314-318, text, and notes 656 to 659, 
 inclusive; its teaching is that God the Word was incarnate in the Virgin 
 and was born out of her, and that therefore she can be called Bringer 
 Forth of God {QsoTOKot;), ibid. Cyril's ^'Let him be anathema,'^ uttered 
 against every denier of those tenets, is Scriptural, ibid., note 659; what 
 heretics are anathematized by the Universal Church; whom we also must 
 anathematize, note 659, pages 321, 322; all acts of image worship and of 
 creature worship cursed, ibid.; two kinds of cursing condemned by God 
 in His Word and by the Universal Church, that is, i, common cursing; 
 and 2, anathematizing by heretics, by creature invokers, and by image 
 worshippers, ibid.; specimens of idolatrous adls, ibid. 
 
 Nestoriics^ Counter Anathemas; Hefele admits them as genuine, 320, 
 note 657; doubt as to them, ibid.; their Latin text corrupt, ibid.; their 
 Counter Anathema /,, ibid.; it denies the Incarnation and the expression 
 Bringer Forth of God which guards it, ibid.; the English translation of 
 the Latin of it, pages 320, 321, note 657; Mother of God xn it probably a 
 mistranslation for Qf:oT6Koq, Bringer Forth of God, ibid. 
 
 CyriV s Anathema II. condemns all deniers of the Substance Union ; 
 what it is; the text is on pages 318-322; it forbids the Nestorian denial of 
 the Inman and guards against the Nestorian Man-Worship which is its 
 result, 322, note 660. Hypostasis used iu it for God the Word, ibid. See 
 also notes 660-663 inclusive. 
 
 Nestorius' Counter Anathema II. denies the Incarnation, and by 
 inuendo slanders the Orthodox docftrine, note 663, page 323. Cyril's 
 belief as to God the Word's human body, ibid. 
 
 CyriV s Anathema III. curses every one who separates Christ's two 
 Natures after the Union and conjoins them not by the Incarnation, but 
 in a mere union of dignity, that is, of authotHty or power, as though the 
 mere created nature, the humanity, could share the dignity, the authority, 
 and the power of God the Creator Word, a blasphemy on the very face of 
 it, 322-325, text; such a Nestorian union, relative and merely external, is 
 a denial of the Incarnation, and ends in Man-Worship, that is, in crea- 
 ture-worship, note 664, pages 323,324; Cyril meets Nestorius' cavil that 
 he (Nestorius) did not worship the humanity separately, but worshipped 
 both natures together with but one bow or with but one worship, with 
 the charge that even so he (Nestorius) was a worshipper of a Man, note 
 664, page 324. 
 
 Nestorius'* Counter Anathetna III. anathematizes Cyril's Anathema 
 IIL, and by inuendo slanderously implies that he mingled both Natures 
 together, note 665, pages 324, 325; further references on Cyril's Anathema 
 IIL and Nestorius' Man-Worship, and on his making a god out of Christ's 
 
hidex I L^— General Index. 58l> 
 
 humanity by worshipping that mere man, the Nestorian Christ, as Cyril 
 teaches. For his Christ was not God. 
 
 In his Anathema IV. St. Cyril anathematizes ,every one who does 
 not ascribe all the expressions used of Christ in the New Testament to 
 God the Word, the divine, such for example as God, Word, as belonging 
 to him as God, and the human, such, for example, as Man, Anohited, 
 is Economically Appropriated to God the Word to avoid the Nestorian 
 v^orship of His humanity, a mere creature, contrary to Matthew iv., lo, 
 325, text, and note 668, pages 665-667; Economic Appropriation for that 
 reason was Athanasius' do6lrine. See under Athanasius. 
 
 In his Counter Anathema IV. Nestorius curses what at Ephesus was 
 made the Universal Church's doctrine of Economic Appropriation, note 
 668; and implies that Cyril was a One-Natureite, ibid.; whereas both were 
 Two-Natureites, references, ibid. 
 
 In his Anathema V. St. Cyril condemns the Nestorian assertion that 
 Christ is a mere inspired Man, a mere creature, and insists that He is 
 God the Word incarnate, pages 326, 327 and 328, text. Hammond's and 
 P. E.Pusey's mistranslation of Q£o(p6pov avOpcoirnv, note 669, page 327; need 
 of a revision of Pusey's translation, ibid. 
 
 JVestorins' Counter Aitathema V., in somewhat sly language con- 
 tradicts Cyril's Anathema V., and implies that Cyril was a One-Natureite, 
 note 669, page 327; falsity of that accusation, references, ibid. Nestorius 
 held to Two separate Natures, both to be worshipped separately, the 
 worship of the Man therefore being mere Man-Worship, note 669, page 
 327, 328. 
 
 In his Anatheina VI. Cyril condemns those who separate the two 
 Natures, and insists on the fact of their Union by the Incarnation, 328, 
 329, text. Explanation of the not clear part of this Anathema from 
 other places in Cyril, note 671, page 328. 
 
 Nestorius^ Counter Anathema VI. applies the term God to Christ's 
 mere humanity, a thing which is anathematized by Cyril in his Anathema 
 VIII., mentions or confesses an Inoarnation in name only, and falsely 
 implies that St. Cyril was an Apollinarian, ibid.; conne(5lion of the error 
 of Nestorius here condemned with his denial of the Inman and with his 
 creature-worship, ibid. 
 
 In his Anathema VII. St. Cyril anathematizes what is, in effect, the 
 Nestorian denial of the Inflesh, and the making of Christ a mere 
 inspired Man, on whom God the Word, (outside of him, not inside of him), 
 operated as he does on other mere men, Prophets and Apostles for in- 
 stance, and the blasphemous creature-worship of putting about that mere 
 creature the glory of the Sole-Born, that is, the ascribing to that mere 
 creature the glory of God the Uncreated Word, for Cyril constantly uses 
 the Sole-Born (6 Islovoyrvlir) for God the Word, as he teaches in Pusey's 
 English translation oi S. Cyril 0/ Alexandria on the hicarnation against 
 Nestorius, page 200, where, however, Pusey translates ^lovoytvriq by Only- 
 Begotten; compare there pages 221, 228; see in this work pages 329. 330, 
 text, and note 674 there, and compare note 675. That co-glorifying a 
 
'590 Act I. of Iiphesus. 
 
 creature with God the "Word is anathematized by Cyril in his Anathema 
 VIII. , which the Third Ecumenical Council approved. 
 
 Nestorius in reply, in his Counter Anathema VII., applies the ex- 
 pression Sole Born to Christ's mere humanity, because of its relation to 
 God the Word, Whom he admits to be the Sole Born out of the Father, 
 and asserts, in effect, that that mere creature shares the honors and dig- 
 nities of the Uncreated Word, that is, contrary to Matt, iv., lo, he rela- 
 tively worships a mere creature, note 674, page 330. 
 
 In his famous and remarkable A7iathema VIII., Cyril condemns 
 three adls of creature-worship; that is, the co-bowing to the Man put on 
 by the Logos, with God the Word, the co-glorifying that creature with 
 the Word, and the co-calling that creature God with the Word; and then 
 Cyril anathematizes every one who does not honor God the Word with 
 but one bow, that is, with but one worship, and send up but one glorify- 
 ing to Him, on the ground that the Word has been made flesh; that is, he 
 mentions only Emmanuel, that is, ''God with us,'^ that is, God the 
 Word, as the object of the one bow, that is, the one worship, and of the 
 one glorifying, and that on the ground that He has been made flesh, 331, 
 332, text, and notes 676 to 680 inclusive. He does not mention the Man 
 at all as sharing the worship, but, on the contrary, the former part of 
 this Anathema and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council 
 anathematize every one who ''says that the Anointed One is to be bowed 
 to in two Natures,'^'' note 679; Cyril is for Divine and absolute worship to 
 God alone; forbids all relative w^orship, notes 677, 678, 679; things rela- 
 tively worshipped by Romanists and other idolaters, acfts of such worship, 
 ibid.; Chrystal's articles on that matter in the Church Journal, ibid.; a 
 faulty reading in Anathema VIII., note 677. 
 
 Nestorius^ Counter Anathema VIII. anathematizes every one who 
 worships Christ's humanity for its own sake, that is absolutely, as we say, 
 but avers that its relative worship is right, against Cyril, against the 
 Third Council, and against Christ in Matt, iv., 10; 332, 333, note 697; 
 references oti such matters, and on all Nestorian worship of Christ's 
 humanity, and on the real but unintended worship of it by the Mono- 
 physites, 333, note; the Orthodox and the Nestorians worshipped God 
 the Word, ibid., but they differed as follows as to worshipping his 
 humanity; Cyril seems according to one view and to the understanding 
 of him by Nestorians, not to have worshipped Christ's humanity at all, 
 whereas the Nestorians worshipped it relatively by bowing, etc., ibid.; 
 Cyril calls it "the crime of worshipping a Man,'" 334, note; Anathema 
 VIII. of Ephesus against it, ibid.; so is Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecu- 
 menical Council, note on pages 335, 336; parts of Nestorius' Ecumenic- 
 ally condemned XX. Blasphemies are for it, note on pages 335, 336; 
 wonderful mercy of God in defining anticipatively by the VI. Ecumen- 
 ical Synods against the idolatries and creature-worship of the idolatrous 
 conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, note on pages 336, 337; strange blunder 
 of Kenrick, the Romish antagonist of Christ's command to worship God 
 alone, 337, note; he misrepresents Nestorius and really held to the Rela- 
 
hidex II. — General Index 591 
 
 tive worship of Christ's humanity, for he admits ''that the flesh of Christ 
 * "* ^ is to be adored, not for its own sake, but for the sake of 
 THE Divine Subsistence Whom it contains, 347, note; refutation of 
 his false statements, note on pages 338-341; Kenrick agrees with Nestor- 
 ius against Cyril that certain texts teach the worship of Christ's human- 
 ity, 341, note; alleged passages from Ambrose, Augustine, and John of 
 Damascus, adduced by Kenrick for the worship of Christ's humanity, 
 condemned by the whole Church in Ecumenical Councils, ibid.; 
 Kenrick's worship of Christ in the Eucharist condemned by St. Cyril and 
 the Third Council, as well as the worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 
 which is Nestorian relative worship of a creature, 342; refutation of 
 Kenrick's pleas for them, 342, 343. 
 
 The Monophysite worship of Christ's humanity was not intended, 
 but in fact they did worship it, 343-346; two kinds of it, ibid.; both con- 
 demned in Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, ibid. How 
 St. Cyril and the Universal Church following him differed from the Nes- 
 torians on the one hand and from the Monophysites on the other as to 
 worshipping the humanity of Christ, 346; the first opinion is that Cyril 
 worshipped in Christ only His Divinity, and regarded all worship of His 
 humanity as Man Worship {avOpuTToXarpela), that is, Creature- Worship, and 
 therefore as forbidden by Almighty God in His Holy Word, and that that 
 dodlrine of Cyril in his two Epistles, and in Anathema VIII. in the longer 
 of them has been approved by the Third Ecumenical Synod, and that the 
 same teaching is incorporated into the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council, and into its Anathema IX.; so that his dodlrine is now that of 
 the whole Church, and whosoever contradidls it is a heretic; a parallel 
 view on that point of Cyril's do(5lrine, of that of Nestorius, and of that of 
 the Monophysites, 347; argument for the first opinion from Cyril's own 
 words; and from Nestorian statements, for they should have known how 
 he differed from them, 346-351; but objeElion, neither St. Cyril nor the 
 Universal Church intended to condemn the worship of Christ's two Na- 
 tures together, but only the worship of the humanity when separate from 
 the Divinity, 351, note. Answer, Cyril's own statements do not agree 
 with the objedlion but refute it as do those of the Nestorian Eutherius of 
 Tyana, note on pages 351-353. The second opinion as to whether Cyril 
 worshipped the humanity of Christ or not, is that he worshipped it and 
 God the Word together but in a diflferent way from that in which the Nes- 
 torians did it, and in a different way from that in which the Monophysites 
 did it, and that his doing so is approved by the Third World Synod and 
 the Fifth, 353, note; arguments from Cyril for this view, and answers 
 from Cyril and from Nestorian witness against it, 353-357, note. The 
 writer of this note reserves the final expression of his opinion on this 
 whole matter, 356; he wishes to be understood as merely stating the his- 
 torical facts and as giving the historical quotations and references, and 
 as being entirely silent for the present, as to his own views on these last 
 points. His work here he wishes to be merely that of the historian, not 
 of the giver of his own opinions. 
 
592 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 But objeElion; some writers outside the Alexandrian School and before 
 Cyril, held to the worship of Christ's humanity whit God the Word, 357, 
 note. Answer, it is granted that writers of the corruptSyrian School did 
 so, but Cyril wrote against them, and they are Ecumenically condemned, 
 
 358, note. 
 
 As to a certain passage from Athanasius quoted by Kenrick for the 
 worship of Christ's humanity, it does not prove it; and two other alleged 
 passages, one from Ambrose and the other from Augustine, for the wor- 
 ship of Christ's humanity in the Eucharist, are by necessary implication 
 condemned by St. Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council. Moreover, 
 to turn from the subjedl of worshipping Christ's humanity, the highest 
 of all mere creatures, to the topic of worshipping other creatures; and all 
 admit that all other creatures are inferior to him: 
 
 If certain writers, such as Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Gregory 
 of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa fell into the sins of invoking crea- 
 tures and any other sin of worship to creatures, those paganizings are 
 Ecumenically condemned and anathematized by the Third Council, 358, 
 note; Scudamore's citations from ancient writers; supreme value and au- 
 thority of the utterances of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria 
 on such themes as approved by the VI. Ecumenical Synods, 358, note; 
 principles on which we must act in deciding every theological question, 
 
 359, note; a future Dissertation in this Set on the worship of Christ's hu- 
 manity, ibid.; whether men hold that Cyril and Ephesus rejedled all wor- 
 ship of Christ's humanity absolutely, or only condemned the worship of 
 it separate from His Divinity, all invokers of the Triune God alone agree 
 that their decision condemns all worship of any creature less than His 
 humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs, and other saijits, or any arch- 
 angel, or angel, or any other creature whomsoever. For if, as a cleric, I 
 am deposed, and if, as a laic, I am excommunicated, if I give bowing or 
 prayer or any other act of religious service to Christ's perfect humanity, 
 confessedly the highest of all mere creatures, much more {a fortiori) 
 am I deposed and anathematized if I worship any lesser creature, 359, 
 note; a passage of Athanasius, and two passages of Cyril for the worship 
 of God's divine Nature alone, note on pages 359, 360; Habid the Deacon 
 at his martyrdom in A. D. 312 or 313, testifies against the worship of 
 Christ's humanity and for the worship of God the Word alone in the Son, 
 360, note; his witness put into poetic form by James of Sarug, who was 
 born A. D. 452, and died A. D. 521, note on pages 360, 361 and 362; large 
 amount of matter in Athanasius and Cyril on the worship of Christ's 
 humanity, 362, note 680. 
 
 Cyril, in his Anathema IX. makes God the Word the worker of the 
 miracles of Christ, by His Spirit. The Nestorian Counter Anathema IX. 
 makes a mere Man, (all there was of the Nestorian Christ), do them, text^ 
 pages 333-338, and note 681, there; the Nestorian assertion leads to the 
 ascribing of the prerogative attributes of God to a mere creature, and to 
 the worship of a mere creature, note 681, page 362, where Cyril explains 
 this Anathema, ibid. 
 
Index 11. — Gene7'al hidex. 593 
 
 In his Anathema X. St. Cyril teaches that God the Word is our High 
 Priest and Apostle, and the Offerer of Himself for us, and not at all the 
 Offerer of Himself for Himself, inasmuch as He had no sin, 339-346, text, 
 and notes 682-688 on pages 363-406. Nestorius teaches that a mere in- 
 spired man, that is a mere creature, has redeemed us, and that he is now 
 our High Priest and Apostle, the upshot of which is that when we invoke 
 him we invoke a mere creature, and so are guilty of giving prayer, an 
 act of religious worship, to a mere creature, and so are creature-worship- 
 pers; and he held that the Sinless offered for Himself, a blasphemy, 365, 
 note! Cyril's doc1:riue, approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, is 
 necessary to guard against the error that a creature can redeem a creature 
 or share God the Word's prerogative redemptive office; and to guard the 
 prerogative glory of the Logos' Mediatorial work, of which Intercession 
 is a part, and to exclude from any part in it every creature, be it the 
 Virgin Mary, saints, martyrs, archangels, angels, orany other creature, 363, 
 notes 684. 685, 686, 687 and 688; apassage from Cyril of Alexandria which 
 serves to explain this Anathema X., 364, 365, note; further references to 
 him, 365, note. Absurdity and blasphemy of making a mere man our 
 High Priest and Intercessor, 365, note; the Word, however, does the hu- 
 man things, such as suffering and dying and worshipping, by His humanity, 
 note 688, page 363-366; see Christ, Prayer, and Worship. The chief 
 fundlion now of Christ's High Priesthood is to intercede for us, 366, note; 
 Nestorius denies the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, 366, note; 
 blurring of the sound doArine of Christ's sole Mediatorship and sole In- 
 tercession in heaven in Liturgies, ibid. ; their present forms later than the 
 ninth century, ibid.; example of perversion in heretical Liturgies, ibid.; 
 a golden canon of III. Carthage, A. D. 397, on the Office Work of the 
 Father and on that of the Son, ibid. The Alexandrian Church wont be- 
 fore Cyril to approach the Father in prayer through the Son as in the 
 New Testament, ibid.; examples from Origen, ibid.; reason as well as 
 Holy Writ shows that all prayer and all invocation are prerogative to 
 God alone, because He alone possesses the infinite attributes of omnis- 
 cience and omnipresence to hear it, and to search and know the hearts of 
 millions of his invokers at the same instant, and omnipotence to answer 
 them, note on pages 365, 366, 367 and 368; besides, we are forbidden by 
 ChristHimselftogiveany act of religious service to any creature, and 
 prayer is an act of religious service, 367, 368; the act of the Aaronic High 
 Priest, Christ's foretype, on the Day of Atonement, in going alone into 
 the most holy place, and there alone interceding for Israel, was a fore- 
 type and proof of the soleness of Christ's intercession in the most holy 
 place above, 368, 369, note; an orthodox passage of Augustine teaches 
 this truth, 369. note; so does Ephesus, ibid.; Nestorianism, like the idol- 
 atrous churches of Rome and Greece, degraded the peculiariy divine 
 fundlions of God the Word's Redemptive Mediatorial and Intercessory 
 Office, and blasphemously gave them to a mere creature, 370, note: 
 Clement of Alexandria gives to God the Word all those fundlions, 370. note: 
 and 371, note; TertulUau teaches that we go to the Father through the Son, 
 
594 Ad L of Ephesus. 
 
 f(5zV.; Julius Africanus makes ''Christ * '^- * the High Priestof His Father, 
 who presents 07ir prayers to Him,'' note on pages 371, 372. Athanasius, 
 makes God the Word our Redeemer, High Priest, Apostle, and Inter- 
 cessor in heaven, 372-376, note; to the same effect Cyril again and again, 
 376, note; Newman's blunder in making Cyril favor Nestorius' heresy 
 'Uhat the Man Christ Jesus wast he priest ! .f' ibid. His ignorance of 
 ''what is Catholic doBrifie'' on that point, ibid. The Catholic dodlrine of 
 Christ's sacrifice, and High Priesthood, of which Intercession is a part 
 stated, note on pages 376, 377. Newman's dodlrine is in part that of 
 Nestorius, and ends like his in Man-Worship, 377, note. Newman never 
 knew fully the VI. Synods, and died in errors anathematized by them; 
 aye, died th idolater's hopeless death, 377, note; discussion between 
 Stancaro the Socinian and Osiander the Lutheran on Christ's High 
 Priestly sacrifice, ibid.; Theodoret held with Nestorius that Christ's 
 humanity only is our High Priest, ibid.; references to Cyril and quota- 
 tions from him on Christ's Sole Redemption, Sole High Priesthood and 
 Sole Intercession above, 377, 378 and 379, note; he shows that Nestorius' 
 making a mere man our High Priest ends in making a god of Christ's 
 humanity, and in turning the Divine and Consubstantial Triad, that is, 
 Trinity, into a Tetrad, 379, note. Augustine, even in a work in which 
 he favors saint worship, uses language in one place at least which may 
 betaken in an Orthodox sense as to Christ's Priesthood, 379, 380, note; 
 though, as is said above under his name, unsound passages are ascribed 
 to him, see Augustine of Hippo; Leo I. of Rome, a man of faults and 
 virtues, who in certain points deserved ill of the Church and in others 
 well, was unsound in believing that saints in heaven pray for us, and so 
 share Christ's prerogative of Intercession there, an error which has been 
 attributed truthfully or falsely to Cyprian of Carthage, 380, 381, note; 
 his errors not approved by Chalcedon nor by any other of the VI. Ecu- 
 menical Councils, 381, note; the Orthodox dodlrine approved by Ephesus 
 on the Soleness of Christ's Intercession in heaven was blurred and 
 denied in the Middle Ages, but restored by the English Reformers, 
 note on pages 381, 382; they perhaps did not know fully the doctrine 
 of Economic Appropriation, which had been abandoned and almost 
 forgotten in the ages of creature-worship and of idolatry, but they got 
 back to its great idea, 382, note; their great merits, ibid.; they reformed 
 and restored much; we should restore all Ante-Nicene Docflrine, Discip- 
 line and Rite, and all the Do6lrine, Discipline and Rite of the Six 
 World Councils, 382, 383, note. The Second Part of the Homily of 
 the Church of England concerning Prayer, restored Cyril's and the 
 Universal Church's dodlrine in his Anathemas VIII. and X., that 
 we may pray to no one but God, nor give bowing nor any other 
 a6l of religious service to any but God, nor regard any creature as 
 our Intercessor in heaven, note on pages 382, 383; the Second Part of 
 the Homily cojicerning Prayer quoted, note on pages 383-388. The 
 Homily of the Church of England on the Nativity, which is approved in 
 Article XXXV., testifies for the dodlrine that the Word in His Divinity 
 
hidex II. — General hidex. 595 
 
 alone does the divine things of His High Priesthood and Mediatorial 
 work, such as hearing our prayers, searching and knowing the hearty etc., 
 and against the error of Nestorius that Christ's mere humanity, a crea- 
 ture only, is our High Priest, note on pages 388, 389; the passage quoted, 
 389, 390; Article XXXI. excellently and Cyrillianly guards the Soleness 
 '^ of the one oblatio7t of Christ finished upon the cross,'' and, by implica- 
 tion, the Soleness of His High Priestly sacrifice there, and condemns the 
 Romish do<5lrine opposed to it, 390; it is quoted, 391 ; the true dodlrine of 
 the Scriptures and of the Universal Church stated on the One Sole all-suf- 
 ficient Sacrifice of Christ for sins forever, of His High Priestly fun(5lions of 
 Mediation now for us by intercession for us, and of the prerogative 
 Soleness of His intercession for us in heaven, and of the Eucharist, 
 and on all the dodlrine of Cyril's Anathema X., 391, 392, 393; summary 
 statement to show how Cyril's Anathema X., and his Anathema VIII., 
 and Anathema IX., of the Fifth Synod (which are all indissolubly linked 
 together), are maintained in the Christian world and in that which calls 
 itself Christian, 393, note; I., as to the Unreformed Communions; (i) the 
 Greek Church; (2) the Latin Church; (3) the Monophysites; (4) the 
 Nestorians; 393, 394, note; II., the Reformed Communions, 394, note; 
 (i) the English Church Formularies on them, 394, 395, 396, note; (2) the 
 Belgic Confession of A. D. 1561, 396, note; III., the Deformed; (i) the 
 Socinians, and the modern Anti-Trinitarians, 396-402; Stancaro's contro- 
 versy with Osiander, 396, 397, note; the conflict between the Adorers of 
 Christ's mere humanity and the Non-Adorers, the two Socinian partieS;^ 
 397-401, note; illogical character of Socinus' mind in making Christ a 
 mere creature, and yet w^orshipping him, 397, note; Socinian heresies on 
 infant baptism, and on the Holy Ghost, 397, note; the Budnaean and 
 Favorian Se(?bs; the leader of the former, a Non- Adorer, deposed by the 
 majority of the Socinians for his error, 397, 398, note; Farnovius forbade his 
 followers to pray to the Holy Spirit, 399, note; PVancis Davides, a Non- 
 Adorer, imprisoned by Socinians till his death, for refusing to worship 
 their merely human Christ, 398, 399, note; inconsistent conduct of Socinus 
 and his fadlion in so persecuting his fellow heretics, 399, note; compar- 
 ison between the Man-Worshipping Nestorians and the Man- Worshipping 
 Socinians on Man-Worship, ibid.; quotations from the Racovian Cate- 
 chism on Man-Worship, 400, note; controversy ''between Socinus and 
 others, especially the Siebetiburg Unitarians, as to the divine honor to be- 
 paid to Christ,''' 400; Neuser, a Socinian, turned Mohammedan and died 
 in that error, subnote "a," page 398; the turnings and twistings of 
 Francken, another of them, subnote '' c," page 398; late Anti-Trinitarians, 
 generally Non-Adorers, 400, 401; note; Stancaro the Socinian, and Peter 
 Lombard, the mediaeval Romanist, both oppose Cyril and Ephesus by 
 making Christ Mediator in His human nature only, 401, note; certain 
 expressions in Lutheran documents are clearly Nestorian, creature wor- 
 shipping, and blasphemous; their Consubstantiation and any worship of 
 the alleged real presence in the Eucharist condemned by Cyril and by 
 Ephesus, 402-405, note; Cyril's words, ibid ; Schwenkfelder starts an. 
 
596 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 error much like the Apollinarian heresy, on Christ's flesh and on its 
 worship, 405, 406, note; in the Anglican Communion, Newman, Keble, 
 Pusey, Neale, J. H. Blunt and others, have introduced creature invoking 
 ■error against St. Cyril's Anathemas VIII., and X., and against Ephesus, 
 and, they have brought in Consubstautiation and Host Worship against 
 Cyril and Ephesus and against their own formularies; duty of the Angli- 
 can Church against those corrupters, 406. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria' s Encharislic Anathema, the Xlth of his 
 XII., is aimed at the error of Nestorius that in the Eucharist we eat the 
 flesh of his merely human Christ, and so are guilty of what St. Cyril 
 expressly calls drOpcjTrocpayia, that is, Cannibai^ism ; see in proof Cyril as 
 quoted in the note on page 262 above, and Sedlions 4 and 5 of Book IV. 
 of his Five-Book Co?itradiElio7t of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, pages 
 141, 142 of the Oxford translation of "5. Cyril of Alexandria on the In- 
 carnation against Nestoritis.'" Cyril, on the contrary, contends in this 
 Anathema XI. that a mere man's flesh cannot give life, note on page 62 
 above (Sedlion 5, Book IV., id., page 142 of the Oxford translation), but 
 that Christ's flesh quickens us " because it has been m-ade an own flesh of 
 the Word,'' or ^^ a peculiar flesh of the Word " (or/ yh/ovzv \6ia rov Aoyoi;), 
 *' who has power to give life to all timtgs,'" see the text in this volume, 
 pages 347-354; Cyril, however, explains himself on pages 231-240, text, 
 above, and in the note on pages 250-313, to mean that the real Substance 
 of God the Word's Divinity is not eaten in the Lord's Supper, and that 
 It is not on the Holy Table at all; and that the real substances of Christ's 
 flesh and blood are not on the Holy Table in the Rite, are not eaten by 
 us, and that it would be ^^ ca7inibalisin'' (^avOpuirocpayia) and '^ savageness 
 befitting a wild aniinaV and "a monstrosity " to do so, note on pages 
 262, 263; see especially the text as above on the eating of Christ's flesh 
 and blood, and the note on pages 260-276; and against worship of the 
 Eucharist, 276 and after; and against the horrible error that we eat the 
 Substance of God the Word's Divinity, and that It lies on the Holy Table 
 in the Rite, see note on pages 250-260; and on page 264, note, Cyril shows 
 that he does not hold to what above he calls cannibalism, for he states 
 that the benefit of the rite is spiritual, and that the sight of Christ's flesh 
 and blood on the tables would horrify us, but that He ^' sends the power 
 €f life into the things luhich lie before us,'' (which he has just spoken of 
 as " leavened bread and wine") *' and chaiiges them " [he does not say 
 into the aAual substance, but] ''to the energy of His own flesh, in 
 order that we may have them for a life-giving partaking, and that the 
 body of the Life may be found in us as a life-giving seed." On page 267, 
 note, Cyril says that the Nestorians, by representing " our Sacrament to 
 be an "EATING OF a man's flesh," are guilty of " tj:<!iiol,ii,y bringing 
 the 7ninds of believers to notions of wickedness." And certainly Canni- 
 balism {avOpuTTo^ayia), as Cyril terms it, is such. And he there denounces 
 Nestorius' man-eating as ''doing away unlearnedly the force of the Mys- 
 tery," that is. Sacrament; and he teaches that ^' for that veiy reason and 
 with great justice has the Anathematism (XI.) beejt set forth." 
 
Index II. — Ge7ieral Index. 597 
 
 Nestorius, in his Cotmter Anathema XI., on page 408, note, anath- 
 ematizes '' any one'^ who "■ says that the flesh united to the Word of God 
 is quickening by a7iy possibility of its own natnre,'''' forasmuch as ^Hhe 
 Lo7'd himself proclaims, 'It is the Spirit that qui ckeneth, the flesh profit- 
 eth fiothi7tg,' " John vi., 63; but Nestorius, as in his Blasphemy 18 
 below, implies that Cyril denied any eating of flesh in the Eucharist, but 
 asserted an eating of Divinity alone instead after the Apollinarian or 
 Monophysite error. But Cyril shows, as above, that he rejected any 
 and all eating of flesh in the rite, and all drinking of blood there, and all 
 eating of the Divinity, and that he held to the real absence of the Sub- 
 stance of Divinity, and of the substance of Christ's flesh and blood from 
 the rite, and shows that, notwithstanding all Nestorius' denials, his pre- 
 mises of a real presence of the substance of Christ's body, and a real 
 presence of the substance of His blood result in Cannibalism, 408, note; 
 reference to Cyril on this, ibid. 
 
 Cyril, in his Anathema XII. , teaches that Divinity cannot suffer, but 
 nevertheless Economically Appropriates the sufferings and death of 
 Christ's humanity to God the Word to avoid Man-Worship, etc., 409, 
 note; this do6lrine explained in notes 694 to 701 inclusive, pages 409-413; 
 Nestorius anathematizes it in his Coufiter Anathefna XII. , 409, note. 
 Athanasius testifies for the dodtrine oi Economic Appropriation; the ex- 
 pression and dodlrine used in Cyril's Letter to Joh^i of Antioch, which 
 was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 409, note, and 411, 
 note; quotes Scripture for the dodlrine, 409, 410, note; Cyril referred to 
 and quoted on the expression and dodlriue, 409-413; the expression and 
 dodlrine in Cyril's Longer Epistle, which was approved by the Third 
 World Council, 410, note; passages from the Longer Recension of Iren- 
 aeus for it, note on pages 410, 411; sermons attributed to Proclus for it, 
 but not relied on, on account of doubts as to their really being his, note 
 on pages 4TI, 412; Scripture for it, notes 695-701 inclusive. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria misunderstood, Preface, i. ; confines all worship 
 to God alone, specimens of his language on that, ibid., ii. ; 184, note 438, 
 and pages 359, 360, note and subnotes, and under TrpooKwij, in the Greek 
 Index in this volume; see also Maty the Virgi?i; suffered imprisonment 
 for his faith, iS; was raised up by God for His work, 16; his firmness, 16, 
 17; see under Cyril in Index I.; is worried by some of his malicious 
 clergy or people at Constantinople, who intrigued against him with Nes- 
 torius or the civil rulers; he had disciplined or rebuked them, 53-59, and 
 note 144 on page 58; his right and duty to do so, 59, note 146. 
 
 He condemns errors on the Eucharist, Preface, ii.-iv.; see Eucharist; 
 wrongly supposed by Nestorius to be an Apollinarian, 251, note; 255, 
 note; Theodoret so misrepresents him, and Cyril denies the slander, 271, 
 note; and repels the Docetic or Marcionite error on Christ's body and the 
 Eucharist advocated in our time by Pusey and Shipley, ibid., and sub- 
 note ''a'," on page 271; for quotations from Cyril's writings see the notes 
 in this volume, especially notes 183 and 606. Cyril brands Nestorius* 
 heresy on the Eucharist as resulting in Cannibai^ism {avdpuTzcxpayia)^ ill.; 
 
598 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 the error that Christ's whole Person and both Natures are eaten in the 
 Eucharist was not in Cyril's day, ibid., and 251, note; Romish mistakes 
 on Cyril, vi.-ix. ; the Universal Church in the Third Synod approved 
 Cyril's dodlrine on the'Eucharist and condemned Nestorius', and antici- 
 patively all other Eucharistic heresy, ii.-iv. The Church of England 
 quotes Cyril as "an old and holy do^or^^ against creature-service, vii.; 
 Luther's mistake on Cyril, vii. ; it was the cause of others making the 
 same mistake, vii. 
 
 Cyril 0/ Alexandria against Diodore of Tarsus, xv., xvi. ; 113; his 
 great influence at Ephesus, note 94, page 39; his memory made eternal 
 by the Fourth Council, 57, note. 'As Cyril believed, so we believe ! 
 Eternal be Cyril's memory / As the Epistles of Cyril teach, so we 
 hold,''' etc., ibid.; writes against the Co-Substancers, 61, note 154; held 
 the doctrine of Two Natures, 73, note 163; 61, note 154; held Divinity to 
 be bodiless, 76, note 175; need of a critical edition of Cyril, 102, note; 
 spurious works ascribed to him, 102, note; mournful results of such 
 works, 102, note; against the Nestorian Andrew of Samosata; he con- 
 demns the worship of Christ's flesh along with His Divinity, and asserts 
 the worship of God the Word within His flesh (uera aapKog), 116, 117; the 
 Greek terms involved, 117; see ibid., and under fi£ra oapKog and cvv a.n6. 
 cvfiTrpooKwdaftai, in the Greek Index to this volume. 
 
 Cyril the Orthodox and Nestorius the Heresiarch; the controversy 
 between them; mistakes as to Nestorius' heresies among Protestants and 
 Romanists, i.-v.; what his heresies were and how the Universal Church 
 condemned them, i.-iv., v-xi., xv.-lii. ; he denied the Inman, and asserted 
 Man-Worship {av6pcj7ro?iaTpEia) and Cannibalism (avOpuTTocpayia) in the 
 Eucharist, i.-iv. See under ''Nestorius afid his Heresies," and under 
 "3Ian- Worship''' and 'Eucharist'' in this Index and in that to Vol. I. 
 of Nicaea. 
 
 Diodore of Tarsus was the originator of his heresies; this shown by 
 the quotations from him by Cyril, xv., xvi., text and notes; he denied 
 the Incarnation, and asserted the worship of Christ's mere separate 
 humanity; the Fragments oi him preserved by Cyril have nothing definite 
 on the Eucharist, xvi.; the same errors, including Cannibalism, shared 
 and maintained by his disciples, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, 
 and generally in the Patriarchate of Antioch, xvi. ; Nestorius and Theo- 
 doret for all those errors, xvi., xvii.; yet Theodoret condemns the wor- 
 ship of angels, xvii.; the Syrian leaders seem to have worshipped relics, 
 xviii.; St. Cyril refuses to put Chrysostom's name into the diptychs, xviii.; 
 meaning of that act, xviii.; invocation of saints in places of Chrysostom's 
 works now; his suspicions language on the Eucharist, xviii., xix.; Alex- 
 andria free from the Nestorian heresies, xix. ; it still maintained New 
 Testament faith and pradliceon the Lord's Supper, xix. ; the logical result 
 of those divergencies was conflict; it came at Constantinople when Nes- 
 torius of Antioch became its Bishop; Anastasius, a presbyter from 
 Antioch, begins it by denying that the term B ringer Forth of God, which 
 guards the Incarnation, can be used of the Virgin, xx.; there was no 
 
Index II. — General hidex. 599 
 
 worship of the Virgin Mary in the Church then, ibid.; when it first 
 appears among the Collyridian heretics, about A. D. 374-377, St. 
 Bpiphanius, the greatest heresiologist the Church has ever produced, 
 ascribes it to the devil and to weak-minded women, his dupes, xx. ; it 
 was impliedly condemned by Bphesus, ii.-iv. ; accounts of the beginning 
 of the Nestorian controversy; Socrates', xx., xxi., xxii.; Cyril of Alex- 
 andria's, xxii.-xxvi.; the Inflesh, and the expression QtoroKoq, that is, 
 Briitger Forth of God, which guards it, the source of the conflict, xxvi. ; 
 it developed into the sequences of the Nestorian denial of it, Man-Wor- 
 ship, to which One-Nature Consubstantiation and Cannibalism on the 
 Eucharist and other heresies were soon added, xxvi. ; Nestorius deposes 
 Orthodox clerics and persecutes Orthodox laics, xxvii., xxviii. ; Nestorius 
 had zeal against some heresies, but fell into the heresies above specified 
 himself, in other words into the paganism of worshipping a mere crea- 
 ture, and into cannibalism, xxvi.-xxxi.; Cyril of Alexandria enters the 
 lists for the faith, and writes to the Moftks of Egypt; and puts forth his 
 notable Five Book Contradi^ion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, in 
 which he exposes and refutes Nestorius' denial of the Inman, and of the 
 do(5lrine of Economic Appropriation, and his creature- worship and his Can- 
 nibalism, and his other errors, xxxi.; his prudence, and his self-sacrifice in 
 opposing the greatest Patriarch of the East, backed by the Emperor; tre- 
 mendous power of the See of Constantinople at this time, xxxii.-xxxv. ; 
 Cyril, in his Contradi^ion ]\xs,\. mentioned, quotes all or nearly all of the 
 XX. Blasphemies of Nestorius which set forth his errors, which are 
 quoted in Act I. of Ephesus, and made part of the basis of his deposition, 
 XXXV. ; the English translation of the ContradiHio7t needs revision, xxxv. ; 
 the Orthodox clergy of Constantinople put forth a protest against Nestor- 
 ius' heresies, xxxv. ; Basil, the Deacon and Archimandrite, and Theose- 
 bius and the rest of the Monks petition the Emperors against Nestorius 
 and for an Ecumenical Council, xxxv.; Cyril writes to Nestorius to dis- 
 suade him from his errors, xxxv., xxxvi.; Nestorius persists; Cyril writes 
 his second letter to him in which he explains the faith, and protests 
 against his denial of the Inman, Man- Worship, etc. ; Nestorius replies, 
 denies the Incarnation and Economic Appropriation, xxxvi.; Cyril at 
 first was chary of putting his Letters on the Nestorian controversy before 
 Celestine, Bishop of Rome, perhaps because he feared that he (Celestine) 
 was not fully sound, or because he feared that his influence would be 
 against him because a few years before he (Cyril) had helped the North 
 Africans under the great see of Carthage to maintain their stand against 
 the attempt of Celestine and his immediate predecessors to get the power 
 of Appellate Jurisdidlion over them. He had done so by sending them, 
 at their request, the original Greek of the Twenty Canons of the First 
 Ecumenical Synod, and so exposed the claim of Rome that local Canons 
 of Sardica belong to it; for her legate had quoted them as being those of 
 Nicaea, and tried to palm them off" on the Africans as such. See Chrys- 
 tal's Articles on that matter in the Church fournal for 1S70. They will 
 probably appear in the last volume of the Adls of Ephesus in this Set. 
 
600 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Hence Cyril orders his messenger, Possidonius the Deacon, not to deliver 
 his Letters to Celestine unless he finds that Nestorius had put his heret- 
 ical writings before him. Possidonius, finding that Nestorius had, then 
 delivers Cyril's, 31, 32. The different parts of the Church take sides, 
 most with Cyril, but the Patriarchate of Antioch stands by Nestorius. 
 Celestine of Rome and a local Council there against Nestorius; Cyril and 
 the Diocese of Egypt in a local Council are against him, and Cyril and 
 his Synod put forth his Long Epistle against Nestorius, xxxvi.-xxxviii.; 
 Theodoret and Andrew write against Cyril's XII. Chapters, xxxvi. ; Cyril 
 sends both those Synodal Epistles to Nestorius; each contained awarning 
 that unless within ten days after they came to him he renounced his 
 errors and condemned them, and professed the Universal Church's faith 
 against them, he would be excommunicate, xxxvi. and xxxvii. : they 
 were delivered to Nestorius on Nov. 30, or Dec. 7, 430. But on Nov. 19, 
 430, the Emperors had called an Ecumenical Council to meet at Ephesus, 
 on Pentecost, June 7, A. D. 431, to settle all the questions involved, 1.; 
 Nestorius arrives at Ephesus, 1., 7. 
 
 Second Decree of the Emperors addressed to the Bishops of the 
 Third Council, 8-13; reflections on its unfairness, 16-18; noble stand of 
 the Bishops against it; parallel between that stand and the stand of the 
 English Bishops against James the Second's attempt to Romanize and 
 idolatrize England, 16-18. But Alexandria alone did not settle the con- 
 troversy. Rome alone did not settle the controversy; that was done by 
 the Ecumenical Synod which, by the help of the Holy Ghost by a vote 
 in common (38, and note 94) condemned all the errors aforesaid and 
 all creature-worship and all real presence errors on the Lord's Supper and 
 their Nestorian and other sequences of worship of one or both Natures 
 of the Son as if there, and Cannibalism, xxxviii.-xxxix.; failure of an 
 attempt of Vi<5lor of Rome in the Second Century to put St. Polycarp 
 and certain Churches of Asia out of Communion because they kept the 
 Pask at a wrong time, xxxix.-xliv.; the same Churches submitted at once 
 to an Ecumenical Council, Nicaea, xliv. ; Spanish Christians and Cyprian 
 and the African Churches under him oppose and resist Rome in the 
 Third Century, xlv.; the Fifth Ecumenical Synod censures Vigilius, 
 Bishop of Rome, and the Sixth anathematizes his successor, Honorius, 
 xlv. ; we have more abundant examples of Peter's fallibility in the New 
 Testament than we have of any other Apostle's, xlv.-xlviii.; any man, 
 therefore, who asserts Papal Infallibility, by that fact is branded by the 
 Sixth Synod as a heretic, xlviii.; just as he is branded by the First Synod 
 as a heretic if he asserts the Orthodoxy of Arius; by the Second if he 
 asserts the soundness of Macedonius ; by the Third if he asserts the 
 Orthodoxy of Nestorius; by the Fourth if he asserts that its condem- 
 nation of Eutyches is wrong, etc., or if, with the Image- Worship- 
 ping and Real Presence Conventicle of II. Nicaea, he contradicts the Anti- 
 Image- Worshipping and Real Absence Decisions of the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod, and those of the Fifth, or if he agrees with the merely Latin and 
 Roman Synod of the Vatican of A. D. 1870 in contradi(5ling the Sixth 
 
hidex IL — General Index. 601 
 
 World Council's condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic, xlviii., 
 xlix. ; such Ecumenically decided points are not debatable, ibid.; the 
 Third Synod therefore did not look upon the questions regarding Nestor- 
 ius as settled by Celestine of Rome alone, but by the voice of the whole 
 Episcopate in an Ecumenical Synod; they condemned his attempt to 
 secure Appellate Jurisdiction in Africa, xlix. ; spurious matter falsely 
 ascribed to Proclus, xlix., 1.; John of Antioch's delay in reaching the 
 Council; blamelessness of Cyril and the Council in going on without him, 
 1., li.; how Cyril could utilize the delay by spreading his works against 
 Nestorius' heresies, li., lii.; not knowing much then of Diodore and 
 Theodore, he opposes Nestorius only, but afterwards, on learning of their 
 errors, writes against them also, and the Fifth Council anathematizes 
 their errors, and Theodore by name, lii. 
 
 Cyril defends the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation to avoid 
 Man-Worship, ii6, 117; Nestorius opposes, and maintains Man -Worship, 
 for which Cyril and the Church anathematize him, note "f," xxiii., xxiv.; 
 see Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2; Cyril defends the Inman, the 
 Substance Union, and the dodlrine of IVlatt. iv., 10, against Nestorius' 
 and Theodoret's denial of the first two dodlrines, and their worship of a 
 mere creature, the separate humanity of Christ, note 156, pages 61-69; see 
 Cyril, and Nestorius and his Heresies; Cyril is slandered as if an Apol- 
 linarian, 69, note; 80, note; compare 61, text, and 73, note 163; teaches 
 the dodtrine of Two Natures, 80, note; his authority and that of Athan- 
 asius on Creature-Worship and Man-Worship and on the Eucharist 
 greater than that of all the other writers of the Fourth Century and the 
 Fifth, 358, note; on God the Word as our High Priest, and against Man- 
 Worship, 376, note. See Cyril, St., of Alexa7idria in the General Index 
 to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria's letters to his representatives at Constantinople 
 during the sessions of the Third Council, Ixxi.-lxxiii.; answer of Bishops 
 there to the Holy Synod, Ixxiii. ; Cyril of Alexandria goes straight home 
 to Alexandria from the Council after his liberation, Ixvi., Ixvii. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem; 269, note. 
 
 Cyril Lucar, the noble Reforming Greek Patriarch; 523, 525; most foully mur- 
 dered, ibid. 
 
 D, 
 
 Daniel, Bishop; Cyril's representative at Constantinople before the Council, 
 
 Ixxvi. ; 414, note 703. 
 David, King; 30, note 74; Christian Emperors who protected the Church 
 
 likened to him, ibid. 
 Dedication of this volume; see in front. 
 Deification of Roman Emperors; 50.5-508, text and notes; instances of their 
 
 blasphemous language, 509, and 507, note "<?/" pra<5lical deification of 
 
 the Pope by his satellites and flatterers, 509-512. 
 
602 Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 Deipara; the Latin for Bringer Forth of God, vi. See Briftger Forth of God 
 in this Index, and in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, 
 and see Gford/cof in the Greek Index in both. 
 
 De Koven; wrecks the American branch of the Anglican Church in 1871, 9, 
 note 8. 
 
 Deposition of heretical clerics, i.; of Nestorius, 503, 504. 
 
 De Pressefise; in favor of unwise toleration error, contrary to the VI. Synods, 
 xxix., note "a." 
 
 Digamy, Clerical; see *^Irenaeus, Count.'''' 
 
 Dimoerites; see Two Partites, and 108, note; see also Apollinarians, Titn- 
 otheans and Valentinians, and Polemians. 
 
 Diocese; its meaning in the Greek Canons, xl., note "a;" 413, note 702. 
 
 Diodore of Tarsus, the heretic; xi. ; his history and errors, xv -xx., text, and 
 XV., note "«;" xvi., note "a;" xx.; lii. See under Cyrit the Orthodox; 
 Diodore denies the Inflesh and worships Christ's humanity, 112, 113; was 
 one of the originators of what were afterwards called Nestorian her- 
 esies, 169, note 361; 456, note 914; was opposed by Gregory of Nazianzus, 
 439, note 802; and by C3^ril of Alexandria, 456, note 914. 
 
 Diouysius, Bishop of Alexandria; for standing in the Eucharist, 242, note. 
 
 Diotiysius, Bishop of Corinth; 424, note; 425. 
 
 Dioscorus of Alexandria; a Monophysite heretic, Ixviii. 
 
 Dipping, the holy; Ixxviii., iii. See Baptism; the rebirth out of water is 
 referred to in the New Testament, 448, note 872. 
 
 Docins; 424, note. 
 
 Domitiafi, the Roman Emperor; his blasphemous assumption of God's name, 
 509. 
 
 Dositheus; for Transubstantiation of the Greek form, not the Roman, 425. 
 
 Dulia, that is slavery; the excuse of to salve over idolatry condemned by the 
 English Reformers as from the Devil, 382, note; used by Kenrick, 340, 
 note; 367, note; 406, note. 
 
 Du Perron, Cardinal; on Transubstantiation, 263, subnote "hh.'' See Can- 
 nibalism. 
 
 E, 
 
 Faster; the term heathen and wrong, 35, note 89; see Pask in this Index, and in 
 the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 
 
 Ecclesia docens; that is, the Teachirig Part of the Church, that is, the Episco- 
 pate alone; 10, note 8; note 74, pages 32, 33; note 702, page 413. 
 
 Ecclesia doila; that is, the Par* of the Church ivhich is taught, that is, the 
 presbyters and deacons, a^id all lower clerics and the laity, 10, note 8; 
 note 74, pages 32, 33. 
 
 Economic Appropriation; see under Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 3, and 
 note 173, pages 74-76; and under Atticus; page 112, note; 317, note 635; 
 376, note; Athanasius and Cyril deem the do(5lrine necessary to guard 
 against Man-Worship, 159, note 316. See Athanasius, Cyril of Alex- 
 andria and Nestorius, and pages 168 and 169, notes 355 and 357; and 228, 
 
Index II. — General Index. 603 
 
 notes 594, 595; and notes 714, 716, 717; Scripture proof for it, 227, note 
 584; and 447, note 863; Cyril and the Third Council for it; references to 
 them both; 227, note 585; Cyril and the Third Council anathematize all who 
 reject it, 228, note 585; note 965, page 466. All the human names of 
 the Son, such as Anointed, etc., are Economically Appropriated to God 
 the Word, 226, note 5S3; the divine names such as Sole Born (that is, out 
 of the Father's Substance), etc., belong to God the Word's Divinity alone, 
 ibid.;sQ& C//rzj//Nestorius denies Economic Appropriation, 366, note;woful 
 results of forgetting it in the Middle Ages, 381, note; it must be restored 
 as part of a full restoration, 382, note. See under Cyril of Alexandria's 
 XII. Chapters, under Chapter, that is. Anathema XII., and the text of 
 pages 355 to 358 inclusive, and the notes to them on pages 694-701. See 
 in the Creek Index under Trddoc, and oliwvojutK^v oIkeIuglv. Athanasius con- 
 fesses it, to avoid Man-Service, 421, notes 744, 747, 748; note 753; notes 
 958, 959» Cyprian confesses it, 435, text and note 787 there; the dodlrine 
 necessary to guard the divine preeminence of the Logos in the Union of 
 the two Natures and to guard against Man-Worship, errors condemned 
 by the VI. Synods (see above in this article), 435, note 787; Economic 
 Appropriation, 438, nbte 795; held to by Basil the Great, 445, text, and 
 note 831; Gregory of Nyssa teaches it, 445, 446, text, and notes 835, 845 
 and 847; so does Atticus of Constantinople, 447, 448, text, and notes 
 there; and Amphilochius, 448, 449, text; Cyril contends for it, 466, 
 note 965; note 972, page 469; note 990, page 471; compare notes 1020 and 
 1021, page 478, and note 1022, page 479; compare 465, notes 958, 959; note 
 990, page 470; note 995, page 471; how Nestorius misunderstood and mis- 
 represented Cyril on, 478, note 1020. 
 Ecumenical Cotmcils; their value on the Rornvsn ana other controversies, ii.; 
 see Ephesus and the rest of the Six Ecume7iical Councils; what they are, 
 v.; their Authority and Reception, v-xii.; this Translation of the Third, 
 xi.-xiii. Form in which this work is published, xiii.; Basis from which 
 to translate, xiii. ; the clergy must know and maintain them, viii. ; and 
 help to procure the deposition of clerics who oppose them, ix. See 
 Ephesus and Cyril of Alexandria; opposition to them ends in idolatry 
 and in anarchy, ix. ; evil Empresses and Emperors, and the partisans of 
 the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, broke them down in the 
 Middle Ages, and curses followed, x. ; the present woes of the Anglican 
 Church come from ignorance of them, x.; were the bond of unity, x.; no 
 union possible without them, x., and 35, note 88; Bishops and Emperors 
 vowed to obey them, x.; their authority perpetual, x.; and 322, note 659; 
 this translation of the Third, x.; are superior to the Fathers, x., note 791, 
 pages 436, 437,; note D, pages 513-5:7; they' judge and condemn some 
 deemed Fathers, X.; ignorance of their utterances the cause of Pusey's 
 and Keble's fall into a heresy worse than Nestorius'— that is, than Theo- 
 doret's Ecumenically condemned heresy of real presence and worship of 
 Christ's humanity in the Eucharist, for Pusey and Keble assert tlie pres- 
 ence of two Natures and their being eaten there, whereas Theodoret 
 
604 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 asserted the same presence and eating of one nature onl}^ that is, thft 
 humanity, xi. ; see Eucharist also. 
 
 The editor's work; Bishop Whittingham's exhortation to him, xi.', 
 reasons for Englishing them, xi., xii. ; their form and price in English, 
 xiii.; basis of this translation of Ephesus, xiii.; the Greek text of certain 
 documents to be given hereafter, xiv. 
 
 The VI. Ecumenical Councils on the duty of civil rulers, xxix., 
 note; convoked by Emperors, 5.; need of a Seventh to reform the 
 Church, 5. ; accursed work of the Empresses Irene and Theodora against 
 the dodlrines of the VI. Synods, and for idolatrous conventicles; good 
 work of Theodosius I., Theodosius II. and Valentinian (at last, not at 
 first), and by Constantine the Great, 6; Constantine's modesty; He did not 
 interfere with the Bishops' rights, 5, 6; heresy of supposing that anj^ one 
 has a just claim to be a Bishop from his possessing tactual succession 
 only, if he does not hold to, obey, and enforce the VI. Synods, 7; duty 
 of every nation to maintain the Six Synods, 33, note 80; 34, notes 84, 86; 
 Christ decides in them through the Universal Episcopate, 487, 488; they 
 are superior to any Bishop of Rome, 39, note 94; condemned Honorius, 
 ibid.; see under Church Government; danger of admitting that they can 
 err as to facts, 426, note; we must remember that the quoting of one doc- 
 ument of a Father and the approving of it as Orthodox does not neces- 
 sarily imply an approving of all his other writings as Orthodox, 427, 
 note; instances, Ambrose of Milan's errors and those of Augustine of 
 Hippo, ibid.; we must not infer that, because an Ecumenical Council 
 receives and accepts with honor a letter of any bishop of Rome, that it 
 accepts any claim of that see to jurisdi(5lion outside of Italy, ibid.; ex- 
 amples, Rome's attempt to get appellate jurisdidlion over Carthage and 
 the West, note on pages 427, 428. 
 
 Edgar's Variations of Popery; 509. 
 
 Editio Regia of the Councils; xiii., xiv. 
 
 Edward VI.; a blessed Reforming King, xxix. 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen; the greatest of Queens, xxix. 
 
 Elticott, Bishop; 14, note; interprets Scripture to f&rbid clerical digamy, ibid. 
 
 Elvira, Council of ; about A. D. 305-309 in Spain; forbids pidlures in Churches, 
 xlvii. 
 
 Emperors, the Roman; deified; blasphemous titles of, 19-21, note 20; ferome 
 against the worship of their images, 19; how the Church regarded the 
 Orthodox, 32, note 74; their duty towards the Church and true religion, 
 34; call the Third Council, 35-41, 503. 
 
 Empire; its condition made dependent on piety towards God, 33; a righteous 
 coune(5lion between a Christian state and Christ's Church, 33. 
 
 English Reformers; on the duty of the civil ruler, xxix., note. 
 
 Epaphroditus, a Reader; 45, 46. 
 
 Ephesus, Ecumenical Council of; see Cyril of Alexandria and Nesiorius. 
 Photius' account of its Acts, in Century IX., body of work, i.; how they 
 compare with the present Acts, i^ 2, 3, 4; were the Acts of the Apostatic 
 
Index II. — General Index. 605 
 
 Conventicle put between the Acts of Epliesus in Photius' day? 4; the 
 present arrangement of the Acts, not the original one in all respects, 154, 
 note 289; 155, note 292; 208, note 524. The Forematter to Ephesus, was 
 it put before the Acts then? 4; dates of the Sessions, 5. The Circular 
 Letter and Decree of the Emperors, Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. 
 convoking the Metropolitans to the Third Ecumenical Council, 5; who 
 the Emperors were, 5; Theodosius 11. acts for both, 5; why? 5; its date; 
 41, notes, 101, 102; delay of John of Antioch, 41, note loi. Its noble 
 stand against the misguided Theodosius II., 17 ,18; opening of the 
 Council, 19-22; list of Bishops at; whence they came, 22-29, and note 
 57; Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, states before the Third Council 
 the facts of the Nestorian Controversy which led to the Synod, 30, 31, 32; 
 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, calls for the reading of the Emperor's Let- 
 ter summoning the Council, and asks that it be put in front of the Acts, 
 32, 33; Peter the Presbyter of Alexandria reads it, 33-41; Firmus, Bishop 
 of Caesarea, calls upon Memnon of Ephesus to state how long the Council 
 had waited for delayers to appear after the date fixed in the imperial 
 proclamation, 41; Memnon replies 15 days, 42; Cyril of Alexandria states 
 that in the long wait the Bishops had suffered, and some of them had 
 fallen sick, and others had died, and he proposes that in accordance with 
 their aim in coming to Ephesus, and in compliance with a Second Decree 
 of the Emperors, urging a decision, they should go on with the business 
 and read the papers pertaining to it, 42, and note C. , page 513. Theodotus, 
 Bishop of Ancyra, asks that the said reading be postponed, and that they 
 proceed to summon Nestorius to appear before the Council, 43; four 
 Bishops testify that they summoned him yesterday to appear and that he 
 gave a conditional promise that he would come, 44, 45; Flavian of 
 Philippi proposes that other Bishops be sent to summon him again, 45; 
 three Bishops and a Reader are sent with a document to be read from the 
 Council to Nestorius; its text, 45, 46; on their return, Peter, a Presbyter 
 of Alexandria, asks them to state the result, 46; the three Bishops say that 
 they were not admitted to his presence, but that he said that after all the 
 Bishops came together he would meet with them, 46, 47; Flavian, Bishop 
 of Philippi, proposes that a third summons be sent to him with a citation 
 to be read, and names four prelates as the summoners; text of the cita- 
 tion, 47, 48. The summoners return. Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
 begs them to state what answer they had received. They state that Nes- 
 torius would not admit them, that a multitude of soldiers with clubs stood 
 before his gate, and that they gave them no kind answer, would not per- 
 mit them to stand in the shade, pushed them insolently and at last sent 
 them away, telling them that they would receive no other answer even if 
 they waited till evening at the door, and had told them that they had 
 orders from Nestorius to permit no one from the Synod to enter, 48, 49 
 After those three canonical citations, the Council now commences to 
 examine the dogmas of Nestorius, 49. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, 
 states that in giving the three summonses to Nestorius they had done all 
 
«606 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 the Canons called for, but that they were ready over and above to give 
 him a fourth, but that as he would not admit the summoners, but had 
 kept them without, it was evident he had not a good conscience, and that 
 therefore they should proceed to business in accordance with the Canons; 
 and proposes that first the Creed of Nicaea be read, to serve as a criterion 
 by which to judge the utterances which follow, and to approve or reject 
 them, 49, 50. It is read, 50, 51. Then Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
 states that he holds in his hands an Epistle of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 
 to Nestorius on the dodlrinal questions involved, and puts it at the com- 
 mand of the Synod, 50; it is Cyril's Shorter Epistle, 52; Acacius, 
 Bishop of Melitine, calls for its reading, 52. It is read, 53-129. In it 
 Cyril rebukes Nestorius for starting heresies, condemns his denial of 
 the Incarnation, explains the dodlrine of the Economic Appropriation to 
 God the Word of the sufferings of the Man put on by Him, shows that it 
 does not imply Theopaschitism, as the non-Economic Appropriation 
 dodlrine would; (he explains it further elsewhere; see pages 237-240, Vol. 
 I. of Nicaea in this Set) and denies that we co-worship a Ma7i with the 
 IVord, 53-120. At the end of the reading, Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, 
 puts the question to the Council whether his Epistle aforesaid is not in 
 accordance with the faith of Nicaea and with its Creed, and whether it is 
 not correct and blameless, 129; the Council then proceed to vote on that, 
 the result of which is that all approve it, and so answer yes to his ques- 
 tion, 129-154. Palladius, Bishop of Amasea, asks for the reading of 
 Nestorius' Letter to Cyril, of which the Presbyter Peter had spoken 
 towards the beginning of the Act, that the Synod may determine whether 
 it agrees with what was set forth at Nicaea, 154; it is read, 155-166; it re- 
 peatedly rejects the do6lrine of the Incarnation in the plainest terms, as it 
 does also the Orthodox do(5lrine of the Economic Appropriation of the suf- 
 ferings and death of the Man put on by God the Word, so necessary, as 
 Cyril elsewhere shows, to avoid the Nestorian worship of Christ's human- 
 ity (see pages 237-240 of Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, and Cyril's Longer 
 Epistle below, including its Anathema XII., and the explanation of it in 
 that Epistle). Of course, as Nestorius made Christ a mere man, that is, 
 a mere creature, it follows necessarily that his worship of him was what 
 Cyril calls it, that is, mere Man-W^orship {avOpuTzo/Mrpeta), that is, the 
 worship of a creature. And so he held, contrary to Cyril's Epistle above, 
 to the co-worship of a man with the Word, for, as we shall see when we 
 come to his XX. Blasphemies, in the Eighth of them, on page, 461, above, 
 Nestorius says, "■ I separate the Natures, but I unite the bowiiig.'' In his 
 Epistle Nestorius perverts the Nicene Creed to make it agree with his 
 Anti-Inman heresy, 155-166. 
 
 When the reading of Nestorius' Epistle is ended, Cyril asks the 
 Council, ''What seems good to this Holy afid Great Syjiod concerjiiiig 
 the Epistle just read? Does this seem to be in harmony with the Faith 
 defined in the Holy Synod of the Holy Fathers assembled aforetime in 
 the City of the Nicaeans, or notf' 166. In response thirty-four of the 
 
hidex II. — General hidex. 607 
 
 chief Bishops give their votes in the negative, each one making some 
 brief remarks, and then ''All the Bishops " burst forth into anathemas 
 against Nestorius, his ''impious faith,''' and his "impious do^rine,'' and 
 all who do not anathematize him, and all who communicate with him, 
 166-178. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, calls for the reading of the Letter 
 of Celestine, Bishop of Rome, to Nestorius. Peter, the Presbyter of 
 Alexandria, reads a Greek translation of it, 179-203. Celestine condemns 
 him for "plain blasphemies,''^ and for preaching "concerning God the 
 Word otherwise than the faith of all holds,'''' and as guilty of "innova- 
 tions,'''' which "restilt in impiety,''' 181, 182, 183; for his denial of the 
 Incarnation, 184; refers to the two warnings given him by Cyril's Two 
 Epistles, sympathizes with the Orthodox clergy whom Nestorius had 
 persecuted, blames him for scattering the Lord's flock, like a ravening 
 wolf, commends Cyril of Alexandria's course, and warns him that, unless 
 within the tenth day from the receipt of Celestine's Letter, he agrees with 
 the dodtrine of the Church of the Romans, and of the Alexandrians, and 
 all the Universal Church, and of the Constantinopolitan Church before 
 him, CNestorius), and puts "away by a clear and written confession " his 
 "unbelieving novelty and iimovatlon * * * which attem,pts to separ- 
 ate the very things which the Holy Scripttire joins together,'^ that is, 
 Christ's two Natures, by Incarnating the Divine, God the Word, in the 
 human nature, he will be "cast out from all the communion of the Uni. 
 ver sal Church,'" 183-203. Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, proposes 
 to read the Long Letter of Cyril of Alexandria, if the Council command, 
 204. Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, orders it to be read and to "be put into 
 the A^s,''' 205. Peter reads it, 206-358. It gives the true Incarnation 
 sense of the Nicene Creed, which it embodies towards the beginning, 
 against the perversions of Nestorius, condemns his denial of the Inman, 
 his denial of Economic Appropriation, his Man-Worship, his Cannibal- 
 ism on the Eucharist, and all his other heresies. As its beginning 
 shows, it is from "Cyril and the Synod assembled in Alexandria out of 
 the Egyptian Diocese,'^ 206; though Peter the Presbyter, in introducing 
 it, testifies that it was "written^' by Cyril, 204; and indeed, it is the master 
 hand of the God-aided Cyril, the great Doctor of the Church on the In- 
 flesh and the Inman, and the Eucharist, and, with St. Athanasius, one of 
 the glorious Duad, the two greatest teachers of the Universal Church for 
 the doArine of Economic Appropriation, for the Prime Tenet that God 
 alone is to be worshipped (Matt, iv., 10), and against the Nestorian wor- 
 ship of Christ's separate humanity, and much more, (a fortiori), against the 
 worship of any lesser creature, and against Cannibalism in the Eucharist. 
 Peter the Presbyter states that the Synodal Letter of Celestine and his 
 Council and that of Cyril and his had been sent to Nestorius [at Constan- 
 tinople] by four Egyptian Bishops, Theopemptus, Daniel, Potamon and 
 Comarius, and he begs that Theopemptus and Daniel then present in the 
 Synod be questioned on that matter, 359-366: Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, 
 asks them to state whether they delivered the Epistles, 367, 368: Theo- 
 
808 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 pemptus, Bishop of Cabasa, and Daniel, Bishop of Darnis, reply that they 
 had delivered them to Nestorius at his house [at Constantinople] on the 
 Lord's Day after service, before all the clergy and nearly all the men of 
 illustrious rank, 369-372. Flavian asks whether he had satisfied the de- 
 mands of the Letters, 373. They testify that he arranged to meet them 
 on the following day. But, on their going to him then, he refused to re- 
 ceive them or to satisfy the demands of the Letters, that is to give in a 
 written renunciation of his heresies, but before the Church he preached 
 the same dogmas, and worse ones, and that not only had he taught his 
 errors before the Synodal Letters reached him, but he had since he re- 
 ceived them and till the present day taught much worse things, 374-384. 
 Fidus, Bishop of Joppa, states that Bishops Acacius and Theodotus had 
 had discussions with Nestorius since he arrived at Ephesus, and that they 
 were in peril from them, and that they can testify that he persists in his 
 errors; he asks therefore that they swear on the Gospels which lie before 
 them to tell for the credit and confirmation of the A6ls what they had 
 heard the day before yesterday from Nestorius himself, 385-391. Cyril of 
 Alexandria asks Acacius and Theodotus to yield to Fidus' request and to 
 testify as to what they had heard Nestorius say when they disputed with 
 him for the right faith at Ephesus, 392-399. They answer and testify in 
 effect that at Ephesus they had had discussions with Nestorius in which 
 he denied the Incarnation and the do(5lrine of the Economic Appropria- 
 tion to God the Word of the things of the Man put on by Him, 400-417. 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, says that inasmuch as the statement of Theo- 
 dotus and Acacius is clear, 'Ht is next in order that the opinion which 
 our blessed Fathers and Bishops have expressed on the matters before us, 
 be read and inserted into the Acts.^' Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
 states, " JVe hold in our hands books of the jnostholy andfnost coftsecrated 
 Fathers and of Bishops and of differejit Martyrs, and have chosen a few 
 chief passages out of them all; if it seem good to you, we will read them. 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said. Let those also be read and inserted 
 [into the A(5ls.] A^id they were read,'' 417, 418. Then follow three pas- 
 sages of Peter, the Martyr, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300-311. They 
 plainly teach the dodlrine of the Incarnation, 418-420. Next are read 
 three passages of the great Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 326- 
 373, in which he witnesses for the Incarnation and the dodlrine of the 
 Economic Appropriation, 420-423. Next comes a passage from Julius, 
 Bishop of Rome A. D. 337-352. It is for the Incarnation and for other 
 do(5lrines afterwards embodied in Cyril's XII. Anathemas, as can be seen 
 by a comparison, and for the Two Natures, 423. 424. Next is read a pas- 
 sage of Felix, Bishop of Rome A D. 269-274, which is for the Incarnation, 
 and against the dodlrine of Two Sons, 424-430. The next passages are 
 from Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D., 385-412, Cyril's uncle. 
 They are strong for the Inman, 431-435. Passage 11 is from Cyprian, 
 Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 248-258, and is for the Incarnation and the 
 doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 435. Passages 12 and 13 are from 
 
Index II. — General Index. 609 
 
 Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, A. D. 374-397. and are for the Incarnation, and 
 the Two Natures; incidentally he speaks of Eternal Birth, 436-438. Passage 
 14 is from Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop A. D. 370-390, and is strong for the 
 Incarnation, the two perfect Natures of the Son, and against the error of His 
 adoption to Sonship after his resurredlion from the dead, 438-444. Pas- 
 sage 15 is from Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea in the First Cappa- 
 docia, A. D. 371-379, and is for the Inman and the dodlrine of Economic 
 Appropriation, 444, 445. Passage 16 is from Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, 
 A. D. 372 to about 395, and is for the Inman and the doArine of Economic 
 Appropriation, 445, 446. Passages 17, 18 and 19 are from Atticus, Bishop 
 of Constantinople, A. D. 406-426, and testify clearly for the Incarnation; 
 and Economic Appropriation, on this latter doclrine ascribing Economic- 
 ally death to God the Word, in his flesh hke Cyril's Anathema XII., 446- 
 448. Passages 20 and 21, the last of all these quotations from the Fath- 
 ers, are for the Inman, for the Worship of God the Word in the Man 
 and for the Economic Appropriation, 448, 449. Peter, the Presbyter of 
 Alexandria, said to the Council, " We have in our hands books also of the 
 blasphemies of * * ^ Nestorius, from one book of which we have chos- 
 en out short Chapters, which if it please this Holy Synod, we will read. 
 Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, said, Let them be read, and be inserted to 
 show [the fairness and] the good faith of the Christian A6ls. And all 
 the Bishops said in like manner, We all say the same," 449. Next fol- 
 low 20 Passages of the Blasphemies of Nestorius. They contain clear 
 proofs of his denial of the Incarnation, and of the dodlrine of Economic 
 Appropriation, and of his assertion of the heresy and paganism of the 
 relative worship of Christ's separate humanity, a mere creature, which 
 Cyril brands as Man- Worship {avdpuTToTiaTpEia in his own word for it), and 
 his assertion also of the eating of Christ's real flesh in the Lord's Supper, 
 which Cyril brands as Cannibalism (dv^pwrro^ay/a is his own term for it), 
 and his other heresies which are specified more fully in note 529-551 in 
 this volume, 450-479. At the end of the reading of the 20 Blasphemies, 
 Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, calls the attention of the Council 
 to the fact that in those Passages Nestorius confesses the novelty of 
 his do(5lrines. " Plaviafi, Bishop of Philippi, said. Since the things 
 said by Nestorius are horrible and blasphemous, and our ears 
 do not endure to be polluted by them any longer, let every part of his 
 BLASPHEMY be inserted in the A6ls for an accusation against him 
 who has taught those things." Then Peter, the Presbyter of Alexandria, 
 tells the Synod that Capreolus, Metropolitan of Carthage, has written 
 by Besula, a Deacon, an Epistle to the Holy Sjmod, which, if they 
 command, he will read, and will read also the Greek translation 
 of its Latin. He reads it. Capreolus begins by expressing a 
 wish that the state of affairs might permit the North African Council 
 to meet from all its provinces and to send a delegation of Bishops to 
 the Ecumenical Synod, but says that it was impossible owing to the Van- 
 dal Arian invasion. Besides, the Imperial Letter summoning to the Ecu- 
 
610 Act I. of Ephestis, 
 
 meiiical Synod did not reach them till the days of Pask, when an interval 
 of hardly two months remained before its assembling. He sends however 
 Besula, a Deacon, with that Letter of excuse; urges them to oppose all er- 
 rors, warns them against the Pelagian heresy which had been crushed in 
 the West, and urges them to regard the controversy on it as settled and 
 not to be reopened, and exhorts them to keep the faith as it had come 
 down from the past, and again excusing the unavoidable absence of the 
 Africans, ends, 481-486. Cyril of Alexandria suggests that the Letter be- 
 inserted into the Act- Records to show their good faith, "For he [Capre- 
 olus] wishes on the one hand, the ancient dogmas of the faith to be con- 
 firmed, and, on the other, those things which are novel and absurdly in- 
 vented and impiously said to be disapproved and cast out," 486. "All 
 the Bishops shouted out, These are the voices of all! We all say these 
 things! This is the wish of all!" (486). The Council then pass sentence 
 of deposition on Nestorius, recounting in it the fact that he had refused 
 to obey their summons, and to receive their messengers, the Bishops sent 
 to him; and that thereafter they had examined his impieties, and had 
 found out in regard to him, both from his letters and writings and from 
 the things lately said by him at Ephesus, and testified to, "■that he thinks 
 and preaches impiously;'''' and that inasmuch as they are pressed by the 
 Canons and by the Epistle aforesaid of Celestine of Rome, they had come, 
 often weeping, to the sad sentence against him. "Therefore," they add, 
 "our Lord Jesus Anointed Who has been blasphemed by him, has de- 
 creed, thorough the present most holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is 
 an alien from the Episcopal dignity and from every Priestly assembly," 
 4S6-488. Then follow the subscriptions of the Bishops. At the end of 
 them we read: "And the rest of the Bishops who came to the Holy Syn- 
 od after those [above named] had subscribed the deposition of Nestorius, 
 subscribed the forgoing sentence. So the Bishops who deposed Nestorius 
 himself are more than two hundred in number. For some were place- 
 holders for other Bishops who were not able to come to the Metropolis of 
 the Ephesians." Next comes " The Sentence of Deposition sent to him 
 on the day after his deposition. The Holy Synod gathered by God's 
 grace and the decree of our most religious and Christ-loving Emperors in 
 the Metropolis of the Ephesians, sendeth [what here foUoweth] to Nes- 
 torius, a new Judas: 
 
 Know that thou, thyself, on account of thy blasphemous preachings 
 and thy disobedience to the Canons, wast deposed by the Holy Synod in 
 accordance with the behests of the Church Canons on the twenty-second 
 of the present month of June, and that thou art an alien from every ec- 
 clesiastical grade. 
 
 On the day following the deposition of the same Nestorius, that mis- 
 sive was sent to him by the Holy Synod." And so Act I. of r'::)liesus and 
 the text in this volume end. Number of Bishops who subscribed to its 
 Act I. ; 503. See the Lists of Bishops in Index I. to this work, on pages 
 
Index II. — Ge?ieral Index. 611 
 
 553-568. What was probably done between the formal Sessions of the 
 Council; note 1146, page 504. 
 
 Ephesus, A. D. 431 ; Preface, i. Its Adl I. is about half the Minutes; first translated 
 into English in this work; its Greek; its Latin version; Ephesus and 
 Cyril of Alexandria much misrepresented; example, the expression 
 Bringer Forth of God; both, as well as the Fifth Council, opposed and 
 condemned all creature worship and Consubstautiation and Transubstan- 
 tiation more fully than the Reformers did; their penalty against those 
 guilty of those errors, i.-iv. We must understand and hold to the VI. 
 Synods. Their value on the Romish and Greek Controversy, Preface 
 ii. ; what they are, Introd., page v. : Ephesus, its Authority and ReceptioUy 
 id. v.-xi.; this Translation of it, xiii.; form in which this work 
 is published, xiii.; basis from which to translate it, xiii. and xiv.; 
 misconceptions on Ephesus, vi.-ix.; sympathies, position and adlion 
 of each of the greatest sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, 
 Antioch, Jerusalem, etc., on the Nestorian controversy, note 502, 
 pages 197-201; Ephesus, 202, note 514; 203, note 515. Five documents 
 of Cyril of Alexandria which must have powerfully influenced 
 the Council against Nestorius' denial of the Inman, and against 
 his Man-Worship; and three of which must have influenced them 
 against his Cannibalism on the Eucharist, etc., 270-276, note; Ephesus 
 condemns Nestorius, ix. ; decides against the claim of Rome to Appellate 
 Jurisdidlion in Latin Africa, xlix. ; see Councils of Carthage and Africa. 
 Ephesus condemns saint worship, and creature invocation, etc., which 
 have been attributed rightly or wrongly to Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory 
 of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, 357-359; compare 52, note. 
 
 Ephesus; blamelessuess of the Council in going on with its business after wait- 
 ing 15 days for delayers, 41, notes; the Forematterto its A6ls, when made, 
 53; its Definition and Canons define Nestorius' errors, 114, note; the Ecu- 
 menical Council represented the whole Church; the Conventicle of 
 John of Antioch and his friends there, only a small fragment of it, 486, 
 note 1040; spotless and rational conduct of the Third World Council in 
 dealing with Nestorius; his blameworthy and unreasonable course; note 
 1046, pages 487, 488, 489; heresies for which he was condemned, ibid. 
 Not Celestine of Rome alone, not Cyril of Alexandria alone, but the ma- 
 jority of the Bishops in the Third Ecumenical Council gave the xinal 
 decisions at Ephesus, 489, note 1047. 
 
 Ephesus, Text leaps; Iv. 
 
 Ephesus, Location and Subject Matter of the most important Notes on; Iv.-lviii^ 
 
 Ephesus, Location of Notes which do not begin on the Page to which they be- 
 long; lix.-lxi. 
 
 Ephesus; aim of this translation, Ivi. ; the translator alone responsible for 
 opinions expressed in the notes or text outside of the translation, liii.; 
 where some manuscripts of Ephesus may be found, Ixxxi. Table of Con- 
 tents of this volume, Ixxxii.-lxxxix. Great variations in Latin transla.- 
 tions, 489, note 1047; 490, note 1049, etc. 
 
612 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Mpiphanius, St.; tears up an image in a church because it is wrong to put such 
 a thing there, xlvii., note; compare ^/z>/mwz/^ J in the General Index to 
 Vol. I. of A7^rt^^/ ascribes a Virgin-Mary- Worshipping heresy to the Devil, 
 and to the folly of women, xx., and well says on that matter, ''Let Mary 
 be in ho7ior; but let the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be bowed 
 to. Let no one bow to Mary,'' 184, note 438. 
 
 Epiphany; was the old Trinity Day, 417, note 720. 
 
 Episcopacy Heresy; that is Anti-Six-Councils' recognition of Ecumenically con- 
 demned orders as valid, 7; 40, note 95. 
 
 Episcopate, the; is the Apostolate, ix. 
 
 Eternal Birth; Ambrose and the Alexandrian School teach it; 436, text, and 
 note 791 there; the bulk of the Ante-Nicene Writers, and the VI. Synods 
 of the Whole Church deny it; the Six Councils to be followed, note 791: 
 Felix's expression Eternal Son, ibid. 
 
 Eucharist; See under Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresies 4 and $. See also 
 under Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, and under Theodoret, and 
 Cannibalism, and Ambrose of Milan. 
 
 Two Nature Transubstantiation, and Two Nature Consubstantiation, 
 and one nature Consubstantiation, and worship of the alleged real presence 
 of the Divinity or humanity of Christ there, and worship of the bread 
 and wine before Consecration or after, and all other heresies on the 
 Kucharist condemned by St. Cyril and by Ephesus, Preface, ii., iii., iv., 
 XX., xxxix.; 106, 107, note; all this guards against idolatry in the rite, 
 xxxix.; the idolatrous Conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 787, is for the error 
 of the real, the substance presence, and so contradicts the Third 
 Council, xlix. 
 
 The do(5lrine of Ephesus is the Real Absence of the Substance of 
 Christ's Divinity, and the real absence of His humanity from the 
 Eucharist, xxxix.; 262, note, andsubnote "^^."; Alexandria much sounder 
 than Syria on the Eucharist in Cyril's day, xx; Nestorius' Blasphemy 
 18 on the Christian Eucharist, pages 472-474, text and notes there; con- 
 demned by Ephesus, Preface, iii. ; see under Nestorius afid his Heresies, 
 Nos. 4 and 5; and ''Note E., On Nestorius' Blaspheiny 18 on pages 
 472-474 above, and on its absurd and blasphemous consequences, ' ' pages 
 517 to 529. Every man is responsible for the necessary logical results of 
 his premises, 517; Nestorius, supposing Cyril to be an Apollinarian or a 
 Monophysite, and so to deny to Christ any humanity now, concludes that 
 he must hold to eating Christ's Divinity alone in the Eucharist, an 
 absurdity and blasphemy; he (Nestorius) contends that we eat his human- 
 ity alone, 518; in response Cyril denies that we eat Christ's Divinity or 
 humanity, and charges, justly, Nestorius with holding, on his own con- 
 fession, to Ca7inibalism, and teaches, in effe6l, that Nestorius' and his 
 disciple Theodoret's worship of Christ's humanity in the rite is Man- Wor- 
 ship; that is the worship of a creature, 519; hence Nestorius' view results in 
 three blasphemies, all of them the outcome of the Nestorian denial of the 
 
Index II. — General Index. 613 
 
 Incaruation, from which the Orthodox do(5lrine is entirely free, that is, i, 
 the worship of the bread and wine, just mentioned, as Christ's separate 
 humanity, which is justly condemned as Man-Worship by Cyril and the 
 Third Ecumenical Council approving him; and, 2, what they both brand 
 as Cannibalism {'AvOpioTzocpayia); and, 3, the absurdity, contrary to A<Sis 
 iii., 21, of the Ubiquity of Christ's body or of continuous and millions of 
 multiplications of it. That is the ascribing to a mere creature of some 
 thing which pradlically amounts to a prerogative attribute of God, that is 
 the almost omnipresence of Christ's humanity. Remarkably enough 
 there are to-day in the Anglican Communion hundreds, possibly a thous- 
 and or more clergy, who trample under their feet the clear and precise 
 statements of their own Church in the Do(5lrinal Declaration at the end of 
 their own excellent Communion Office that ' ' T/ie natural body and blood of 
 our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here; it being against the truth 
 of Christ's statural body to be at one time in more places than one. ' ' And 
 Christ's risen body has flesh and bones (Luke xxiv., 39), so that to eat it 
 would be what St. Cyril calls justly Can?iibalism; see under " Cannibal- 
 ism " in this Index. Aye, it is so literally a body that its hands and feet 
 can be seen, and it can be handled and seen (Luke xxiv., 36-44; John 
 XX., 19-29); and it could and did eat (Luke xxiv., 41, 42, 43; and 
 A6ls X., 40, 41); and Christ promised to drink the fruit of the vine 
 hereafter in the Kingdom of His Father with His Apostles (Matt, xxvi., 
 29, and Mark xiv., 25); so thoroughly is Christ's present spiritual body 
 a body! so that it will not do to try and break the force of the Church of 
 England's accusation of Cannibalism, and to dodge and evade it by assert- 
 ing, as does the false and traitorous Puseyite and Kebleite heretic, that he 
 is not guilty of Cannibalism and does not come under the anathema of 
 Cyril and of the Third Synod of the whole Church, nor under 
 the condemnation of the Eucharistic Declaration at the end of 
 the Anglican Church Communion Office, because he does not eat Christ's 
 natural body, but only his risen and spiritual body. For even it has 
 *' flesh and bodies'' (Luke xxiv., 36-44). It was "raised a spiritual 
 body,'' I. Cor. xv., 44, and so was spiritua^ when it had 'flesh and bones.'' 
 Absurdities and blasphemies which are the necessary and logical outcome 
 of the Roman Trausubstautiation: 
 
 1. It contradias the teachings of the Third Ecumenical Council, and 
 therefore makes it fallible and heretical, though Rome teaches the doc- 
 trine of the infallibility of the said Synod and of every other Ecumen- 
 ical Synod; 520. 
 
 2. Contrary to AAs 11, 27, 31, it teaches that Christ's flesh may 
 become corrupt, 520; quotation from the Roman Missal which confesses 
 that Christ's transubstantiated flesh can become rotten! 521 ; the vomited 
 Host to be separated from the rest of the vomit and eaten again! 521; 
 Lewis' remark on that rubric, 521; according to one Romish writer there 
 is a retransubstantiation of the acflual flesh and blood of Christ back again 
 into wafer and wine! 521. Prof. Schaff on such scholastic follies as 
 
614 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 whether an angel could dance on the point of a needle, and what effect 
 the sacrament would have on a mouse, 522. 
 
 3. Transubstantiation results in creating about 20,000,000 whole Sec- 
 ond Persons of the Trinity on some great day, Pask for instance, 522; 
 summary of the heresies of the Latins and also those of the Greeks, on 
 the Eucharist; they both in fact reject the decisions of the Third World 
 Synod on it, 522; (A.) as to the Latin views; they are stated, 523; (B.) as 
 to those of the Greeks; Cyril Lucar came very near to the Third Coun- 
 cil view, though he used some later terms of the Scholastic theology, 523- 
 525; John Mason Neale's infamous and traitorous remarks regarding him, 
 523, 524; Cyril Lucar was foully plotted against and murdered, 524; 
 his noble testimony against what were in reality departures from the doc- 
 trine of the Six Synods, 524; wretched corruptions in the Greek Church 
 in his day and now, and God's curses on them, 524, 525. It will reform 
 and return to the VI. Synods, 524. Other Greek Confessions teach the 
 Greek form of Transubstantiation, that is Peter Mogila's, who became 
 Metropolitan of Kieff, A. D. 1632, and that of Dositheus of Jerusalem, 
 A. D. 1672; 525; both teach the worship of the Host, 525; so teaches a 
 Synod of Constantinople A. D. 1672: the Confession of Metrophanes well 
 argues for infant communion, 525; Dositheus' idea of Transubstantiation, 
 525; the Greeks multiply, like the Latins, the Second Person of the Trin- 
 ity, 525; absurd results of the heresy of Concomitance in the Lord's Sup- 
 per; Trent quoted, 525-527; thatdodlrine and its blasphemous results con- 
 demned both by Cyril and Nestorius, 527; how the error of Concomitance 
 took its rise, 527, text and subnote "«;" its results more absurd and un- 
 scriptural than Tetradism, 527, 528; what they are, ibid. Nestorius' Eu- 
 charistical Blasphemy (Blasphemy iS) is therefore well included in the 
 Sentence of Deposition passed on him by the Third Ecumenical Council, 
 among what it expressly terms his ''blasphemous preachifigs,'' for, like 
 the rest, it is taken from his "Homilies;" and that Sentence well says 
 that he ''preaches impiously,'" 533, 504, 486-488; further references on 
 this matter, 488 note, and 533-549- 
 
 How denial of the Inman, and Apollinarian, and Monophysite, 
 and Nestorian errors regarding that primary and fundamental tenet 
 result in worshipping Christ; as, for instance, in the case of the Timo- 
 theans and the Monophysites, in worshipping only one Nature of Christ, 
 and that the Divine; and in the case of the Valentinians, and the Nes- 
 torians, in worshipping both Natures, the Divine absolutely and the 
 human relatively only, the Nestorians worshipping all His perfedl human- 
 ity relatively y and the Valentinians worshipping only two parts of it, that 
 is, the body and soul, for they denied it a mind; and how differences as to 
 worshipping only one or two Natures in Christ afifedl men's views as to the 
 worship of Christ's humanity in the Eucharist, 103-107, note; Theodoret 
 held to one nature Consubstantiation in the Eucharist, that is that of His 
 humanity, with the bread and wine, and to the worship of that one nature 
 as if there present, 107, note. George Stanley Faber's mistake in quot- 
 
Index II. —General Index. 615 
 
 iug him as Orthodox, 107, note. The Christian dodlrine of the Unbloody 
 Sacrifice and of the Priesthood of the Christian Ministry and people 
 shown from Scripture as against the error of a literal sacrifice of blood 
 held to by the Transubstantiationist, and the Con substantiation ist, note 
 599, pages 229, 230, 231, and note 606, page 255, and subnote "«' there; 
 called. Eucharist, that is Thanksgiving, and Communion, and Blessing; 
 ibid.; the spiritual Sacrifice without blood andthat of the Christian Priest- 
 hood, were the doArines of the early Church; references in proof to the 
 •old spurious work under the name of Barnabas, and to the genuine writ- 
 ings of Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irenseus, Clement of 
 Alexandria, Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria, 231-238. It is 
 in Cyril's Longer Epistle, which was approved by the Third Council, and 
 so was approved with it by Ephesus. 
 
 Nestorius' assertion of one nature Consubstantiation, and the eating 
 of Christ's real flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper, and their worship 
 there by the Nestorians areexpressly or impliedly condemned in that doc- 
 ument and consequently by the whole Church at Ephesus, note on pages 
 231-238. Ir^Vi'^Vi^ ^^rsx^^'' the godly Communio7i'' * * ^ o^'' Christ's 
 ■blood and body * * * to be ideally blood and flesh, '' 2^,^, note; and sscys 
 that, " The oblation of the Ejicharist is not a fleshly one, but a spiritual 
 one, and by thatfaEl is pure,'' 235, note; which implies that the receiving 
 of flesh would make it impure, and shows that after the oblation in the 
 Oallican Church of his day and after the prayer for the Holy Ghost to 
 " sho7jD forth this Sacrifice, the leavened bread the body of the ChiHst, aiid 
 the cup the blood of the Christ," the elements were still deemed Antitypes, 
 and hence were not transubstantiated, 235, note; 269, note; indeed it is 
 the partaking of the Antitypes which is a means of receiving blessings, 
 for the Holy Spirit is prayed for to '' shozv forth this sacrifice, the 
 leavened bread the body of the Christ, and the cup the blood of 
 the Christ, 271 order that the partakers of these Antitypes may 
 obtain remission of sins and life eternal," 235, note; Chrysostom 
 well sets forth, as follows, the dodlrine of the New Testament, 
 which is well embodied in Article XXXI. of the Anglican Church, 
 ** The sacrifice is [but] one. There is no other sacrifice, but we 
 always perforin the same one, or rather we perform a re7nembrance of a 
 sacrifice," 235, note. He rebukes the evil custom of communing only 
 once a year, ibid.; the ancients communicated often, 235, 236, note; St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria teaches that the do(5lrine of Nestorius which turns the 
 spiritual sacrifice of the Eucharist into a fleshly one, and makes it an eating 
 of literal flesh there is an unlearnedly doing "■away with the force of the 
 mystery,'" and '■for that very reason aiid very justly has this Anathema- 
 tism [XI.] been made" t.'^'o, note; 268, note and sub-note "jvjK."; against 
 those who hold that Cannibalism, as he elsewhere terms it, note on pages 
 236 and 237. And that Anathematism and the whole Epistle of Cyril in 
 which it stands and of which it forms part were made part of the faith of 
 the Universal Church by the Third Ecumenical Council, 237, note; Cyril 
 
616 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ascribes the fact that the Jews understood literally Christ's words in John 
 vi., 53, '' Except ye eat the Jlesh of the Soil of Man and driiik his blood, 
 ye have no life in you,'' to ''their very great lack of learning,'''' and he 
 blames them because, * Hhey supposed that they were called to some sav- 
 
 AGENESS BEFITTING A WII.D ANIMAI,, AS THOUGH THEY WERE COM- 
 MANDED INHUMANITY TO EAT FLESH AND TO SUP UP BI.OOD, AND 
 
 [as though they were] To BE C0MPE1.1.ED To do Things which are 
 
 HORRIBLE EVEN TO HEAR OF. FOR THEY KNEW NOT THE BEAUTY OF 
 THE MYSTERY AND THAT MOST BEAUTIFUL ECONOMY DEVISED FOR IT," 
 270, note. Cyril teaches that bread and wine are on our altars, not flesH 
 and blood, and that through them life is imparted to us; for he writes: 
 " We have these things for a life-giving Blessing as in both bread and 
 wine in order that we may not be struck numb [with horror] by seeing 
 flesh and blood lying before us on the holy tables of the Churches. For 
 God accomodating Himself to our weaknesses sends The power of 
 
 LIFE INTO THE THINGS WHICH LIE BEFORE US AND CHANGES THEM TO 
 
 THE ENERGY OF HIS OWN LIFE," 269, note; the heresiarchs and traitors 
 Pusey and Keble were idolaters on the Eucharist, though they held to 
 two-Nature Consubstantiation, ibid.; what Cyril calls Camiibalistn on the 
 Eucharist has generally been associated with image worship and cross 
 worship and with creature invocation; whereas Cyril's view against those 
 errors has generally been maintained by those who worshipped God alone, 
 ibid. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions, not genuine but ancient, 
 are for the dodlrine of the Unbloody and Spiritual Sacrifice, not the 
 fleshly, and for the Christian Spiritual Priesthood, 237, 238. So is a 
 place in the Greek Liturgy called St. Basil's, 238, note; and so are in 
 effect, the English, the Scottish, and the Anglo-American Eucharistic 
 Offices, though unbloody sacrifice should be put into them; excellence of 
 the Anglican Liturgy in setting forth the soleness of Christ's One Sacri- 
 fice for sins forever, ibid. Cyril's Ecumenically approved profession 
 of the Unbloody Sacrifice quoted, 236, note; references to Vol. I. of 
 Nicaea on the Eucharist, 237, note; Eucharist called Secret Blessings, 
 236, text, and note 600, page 238; secrecy of Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
 per in the early Church; Greek use oi Mystery where we say Sacrament; 
 Disciplina Arcani, that is Discipline of the Secret, Romish mis-state- 
 ments on; instance of Greek Secrecy in administering Baptism, note 600, 
 pages 238, 239; the Nestorians as a result of their rejecSlion of the Incarnation 
 and of their holding to a mere Relative Indwelliiig o^ Go6.t\iQWordi& 
 humanity, not by His divine Substance, but by His Spirit only in the 
 same sense as he indwelt the Prophets by It, (I. Peter i., 11.), and from, 
 their holding to the error that the Eucharist is the real flesh and the real 
 blood of Christ, held also that Christ's Divinity was not in that real flesh 
 and blood but only indwelt them relatively by His Spirit; Cyril de- 
 nounces that heresy of Relative Indwelling, 238-241, text, and notes 
 601-605; and their assertion of a real presence even of Christ's real flesh 
 and blood there, and of the Nestorian Cannibalism of eating them there 
 
Index II. — General hidex, 617 
 
 note 606, pages 240-313; he says of the Eucharist, ''We do not receive it 
 as common flesh. God forbid! Nor moreover do we receive it as the 
 flesh of a Man sanctified and co-joined with the Word in a unity of dig- 
 nity, that is as the flesh of a man who has a \v^^r€\ godly indwelling, but 
 as being truly life prodncing and [as] a peculiar flesh of the Word Him- 
 self ^ * "^ so that even though He says to us. Verily, Verily, I say 
 unto you, Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, 
 we do not reckon it to be the flesh of a Man, like one of us, for how will 
 the flesh of a Man be life-producing by its own nature,'' etc., 238-240. 
 Cyril was opposed to Cannibal views on the Eucharist, 240, note 606; 262, 
 note, and sub-note "dd;" he, St. Cyprian, Pope Innocent I., and Augustine 
 of Hippo held to Infant Communion as did the whole Church for 800 years 
 after Christ, ibid.; some or all of the Ancients seem to have deemed it 
 necessary to salvation, note 606; Bp. Bedel also held to infant com- 
 munion, ibid.; it is Scriptural and logical, ibid.; every infant dying 
 without it dies excommunicate, ibid.; the denial of Infant Communion 
 leads to the denial of Infant Baptism, 241, note; chief places of Cyril, 
 and of Nestorius on the Eucharist, ibid.; I. how far they agreed on the 
 Lords Supper; (A.), they used the leavened bread, and the mingled cup, 
 242, note; (B.), they gave both kinds to the people as well as to the clergy, 
 that is they gave to every one first the bread separately into his hand and 
 then the cup separately into his hand, 242-248, note; (C), the people 
 received both kinds standing, as they had from the beginning, note 
 on pages 243-248; (D.), Infants as well as all others received the 
 Communion in both kinds, 248, note; (E), Both Cyril and Nestorius 
 consecrated the Thanksgiviiig {EhxapiaTia) in both kinds on a table 
 after the example of Christ and His Apostles; note on pages 
 248-250; (F). (a). As to the alleged real presence of the adlual 
 Substance of Christ's Divinity on the Holy Table in the Eucharistic 
 rite, St. Cyril plainly denies it, and I think that Nestorius agrees with 
 him; (b). Both St. Cyril and Nestorius very plainly deny any eating of 
 the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, 250-254; Nestorius takes St. Cyril 
 for an ApoUinarian, and so to deny any humanity now to Christ, and so 
 to assert an eating of the Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist; 
 Cyril denies both charges, ibid.; according to Cyril approved at Ephesus, 
 there is nothing in the Eucharist to worship, but Nestorius, by denying 
 the reality of the Inman, fell into the idolatry of worshipping Christ's 
 separate humanity there, 252, note; and then after making a god of that 
 humanity by worshipping it as Athanasius and Cyril teach, (see under 
 Bowing and Prayer in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set, 
 and under Bowing and Worship in this vol.), he proceeds next to eat his 
 new Tetradic god (see under Tetradism and Fourism in this Index). For 
 as Cyril writes on page 89, note, "This here superfluous fellow " [Nestor- 
 ius] "adds A WORSHIPPED MAN TO THE HOLY AND CONSUBSTANTlAI< 
 
 Trinity and is not ashamed," and is, as Cyril says on page 90, ''con- 
 fessedly A worshipper of a man," and so, as he VvTitcs on page 91, Nes- 
 
618 Ad I. of Ephesiis. 
 
 torius has "exhibited to us a new god as a sort of fourth Person 
 AFTER THE Holy Trinity," and hence there adds to him, " Hast Thou 
 NOT SHUDDERED [at the thought of worshipping] A common Man when 
 
 thou CONTRIVEDST worship to that creature. Are we then HEIvD 
 
 FAST in the ancient SNARES [of creature worship] ? '* On page 92, 
 Cyril adds to him, ^^ Since we have been ransomed from the ancient 
 deceit " [the sin of worshipping creatures, the sin of the heathen], "and 
 
 HAVE REFUSED AS A BI.ASPHEMOUS THING TO WORSHIP THE CREATURE, 
 WHY DOST THOU WHELM US AGAIN IN THE ANCIENT SINS AND MAKE US 
 
 WORSHIPPERS OF A MAN?" Ou page 94, Cyril tells us that, according to 
 Nestorius, Christ's humanity, a mere creature, has been "made a com- 
 plement OF THE Trinity AND IN Nature equal To It." See much 
 more of the same tenor in the same note 183, especially pages 79-102, 
 indeed the whole note. But Nestorius, as has just been said, went further 
 and, after making that creature God, ate him, and, as Cyril writes, was 
 guilty of Cannibalism, (see in this Index under Ca?inibalisin). Humorous 
 claim of B. B. Pusey, the Nestorianizer on the Eucharist, to follow Cyril, 
 252, note; summary of Cyril's reply to the charge of Nestorius that he 
 (Cyril) ate Divinity in the Lord's Supper, 253 note; {a.), Passages of St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria, in luhich he teaches against Nestorius that we do 
 not eat the Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist, 253, note; four passages 
 of Cyril quoted in proof of that statement, 253, 254. 
 
 [b.') Passages of St. Cyril of Alexandria in which he denies the real 
 presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the Eucharist, that is in 
 the Thanksgiving, as Eucharist fneans, 254-256; (c.) he detiies that we 
 receive in the Eucharist the Divine Substance of God the Word, that is 
 the Substance of His Divinity, 256-258; Cyril teaches that Christ is in us 
 in the Eucharist not by the Substance of his Divinity or humanity, but 
 relatively, that is by His Spirit only, 256-258; that is that in that sense we 
 rff/^/Zz/if/y partake of him, 256-260, note, and 264, note; two ways in which 
 Christ is in us, ibid., and page 261; iioo years before the merely Latin 
 Council of Trent, the Third Synod of the whole Church defined that we 
 do not eat God with our mouths, 259. 
 
 We come now, II., to mention the points of difference betweeii Cyril 
 and Nestorius on the Eucharist, that is, (G.), on the questiofts as to the 
 real presence of the a5lual human flesh and human blood of Christ in 
 the Lord's Supper, of their beijig eaten there, and of Iheir being wor- 
 shipped there, 260 note; Passages in which St. Cyril dejiounces what he 
 terms the Cairnibalism of Nestorius' heresy ofeatifig aBual human flesh 
 and drinking allual human blood in the Lord's Supper, 261-276; the 
 documents containing his teaching on the Lord's Supper, ibid., es- 
 pecially pages 270-276. Cyril followed the traditional anti-cannibalistic 
 view of the writers of the Alexandrian School, 274-276; Athanasius also 
 had, ibid.; and Cyril professed to agree with him in all things, ibid.; in 
 what sense Cj^ril speaks of the bread and wine as not a type, 269, note; 
 other Fathers and so:no Anlc-.Ticcnc V/ritcrs on that, ibid.: refutes Nes- 
 
Index II. — General Index. 619 
 
 torius' Blasphemy iS, which is on the Eucharist, aud which teaches one 
 nature real presence, one nature Consubstantiation, aud the Cauuibalism 
 of eating that one nature, Christ's humanity, 272-274, note aud sub-notes; 
 Cyril denies also that we eat Christ's Divinity, 274, note *y ' So teaches 
 Athanasius whom Cyril professes to follow; 274-276. To sum up as to 
 the worship of God the Word in the Eucharist; Cyril teaches, i, that 
 the Substance of Christ's Divinity is not on the Holy Table in the Lord's 
 Supper; nor, 2, is it received by the mouth there; nor, 3, is it in us at 
 any time, 276, note. The differefice between St. Cyril and Nestoruis as to 
 the worship of the Eucharist, 276; as Cyril held that the Substance of 
 Christ's Divinity, as we see above, is not on the Holy Table nor eaten in 
 the Eucharist, therefore according to his teaching, adopted by the whole 
 Church at Ephesus, there is nothing to worship in the Eucharist, for even 
 were the separate humanity of Christ, as the Nestorians asserted, really 
 present there, it could not, according to Cyril and Ephesus, be worshipped, 
 because it is a mere creature, and to worship it would be mere Creature- 
 Service, 276. But Cyril and Ephesus teach the real absence both of the 
 Substance of Christ's Divinity from the rite, and the real absence of the 
 substance of His humanity from it, 276; and that all worship of Christ's 
 separate humanity is Man-Worship and Creature-Worship, and soul des- 
 troying, ibid. Nestorius agreed with Cyril as to the real absence of 
 Christ's Divinity from the Sacrament, and as to Its not being eaten there, 
 but held to the real presence of the body and blood there, and to their 
 worship there relatively to God the Word, and to their being really eaten 
 there, which St. Cyril brands as Cannibalism, 276, 277, 278;Theodoret, Nes- 
 torius' champion, is fuller than Nestorius in asserting the worship of the 
 bread and wine after consecration, and held like him, his master, to the 
 real presence of Christ's humanity there, and to their being really eaten 
 there; 277; proofs from Theodoret's writings on all those points, of the 
 difference between on the one hand St. Cyril and the Universal Church 
 which approved his teaching at Ephesus, and, on the other hand, 
 Nestorius and Theodoret, with quotations from the Orthodox and from 
 the heretics, 277-293 ; a summing up of Cyril's doctrine against 
 Nestorius, 293; reasonableness and beauty of Cyril's and the Uni- 
 versal Church's do6lrine as compared with all Consubstantiation 
 and Transubstantiation isms with their absurd discussions and con- 
 sequences, such as the Stercorian controversy, etc., 293-294. The 
 two Transubstantiation views and how they differ from the Orthodox, 
 294; how the Greek Transubstantiation and the Latin irreconcilably con- 
 tradict and mutually destroy each other, 294. The three Consubstan- 
 tiation isms, how they all contradict the Real Substances-Absence doc- 
 trine of the Universal Church and each other, 294-297; anti-rubrical 
 reservation of the Eucharist by some traitorous clergy of the Anglican 
 Communion fur purposes of idolatr}^, 297; duty of the Anglican Bishops 
 in every such case towards such Presbyters, and towards such of their own 
 Prelates as share that idolatrv or suffer such God-angering crimes, 297; 
 
620 Ad I. of Ephestis. 
 
 how the ancients rejedled such Bishops, and how the "VI. Ecumenical 
 Councils deposed such creature worshipping and criminal Prelates and 
 clerics, 297-299. Two Real Absence views which come nearer the doc- 
 trine of Cyril and of the Universal Church, i, the Zwinglian, and, 2, the 
 Calvmistic, 300; to what extent they differ from it and from each other, 
 300; an utterance of John Henry Blunt, the idolatrizer, that there are 
 "■'only two rational opinions''' * ■* * on the Lord's Supper, ''a real 
 presence or a real absence,'''' 300; the Universal Church at Ephesus and 
 St. Cyril, who was under God its leader, teach that there is only one, the 
 real absetice of both Substa7ices doHrine, 300; the expression real presence ; 
 different senses of it, 301; when understood as it generally is to assert the 
 real presence of the Substance of Christ's Divinity in the rite of the 
 Eucharist, or the real presence of the substance of his humanity there, or 
 the real presence of both Substances there, it is Ecumenically condemned 
 and must not be used, 301; reason why it has been incautiously used by a 
 few Anglicans, 302; was condemned and rejedled in the XLH. Articles of 
 the Church of England, and is now condemned formally by the English 
 Church in a Cyrillian and Ephesine and excellent Declaration at the end 
 of the Communion Office, 302, subnote "rt:." Harold Browne on its his- 
 tory, ibid.; that Declaration wrongly left out of the American Book, 
 ibid.; its wording, ibid.; it condemns the worship of Christ's natural 
 body in the rite as "idoi^atry To BE abhorred of all faithful 
 Christians," 302, subnote "«;" an expression in the Catechism which is 
 late and needs mending, 303, subnote "«/" Goode's remark as to the 
 cause of the non-use of the expression real presence by some Anglicans 
 and its use by others, ibid.; the testimony of "Dr. Aldrich, Dean of Christ 
 Church in 1687," that it is not mentioned in any of the Formularies of the 
 Church of England except to be condemned, 304, subnote "a;" the Angli- 
 can Reformers agree with the VI. Synods in not using the expression, 
 304, subnote "a;" cavil of idolatrizers in the Church of England on the 
 words ''natural body''' in the Declaration at the end of the English Com- 
 munion Service, answered, subnote on pages 304-306; see also in this 
 Article, above; another objedlion of the idolatrizers from John xx., 19, 
 26, answered, 306, subnote "«." But, caution, we must never quote 
 Theodoret's utterances as being Orthodox on the Eucharist, but only as 
 teaching his own Ecumenically condemned one nature Consubstantia- 
 tion, and one nature relative-worship there, note on pages 303-306; 
 instances of misquoting his heretical language; i, Kenrick quotes it as 
 favoring Transubstantiation, which it really contradicts and condemns, 
 306, note, and subnote "(3." Kenrick's mistakes or wilful perversions in 
 quoting Cyril, and a Council of Alexandria, subnote *'<^," pages 306-310; 
 refutation of his errors and perversions, ibid. A 2nd mistaken quotation 
 of Theodoret is by Goode, who erroneously cites him for the Church of 
 England Anti-Consubstantiation and Auti-Man-Worshipping view; note 
 on pages 306-308. A 3d instance of erroneous quotation of him is by 
 George Stanley Faber, as though that Nestorian Syrian favored the 
 
Index 11. — Ge7ieral hidex. 021 
 
 Orthodox view, note on pages 308-310; mistakes of Goode and Faber as 
 to Theodoret's heresies on the Lord's Supper, 3(36-310, note; the English 
 Reformers were guided by the Holy Ghost into a remarkable nearness to 
 the do6lrine of St. Cyril and of Ephesus on the Eucharist, though they 
 were not so fully informed on some points as we are, 310, note. We 
 must hold to them so far as they are in accord with the VI. Synods, and 
 must hold to Ephesus and Cyril on that theme in all respe6ls, note on 
 pages 310, 311, for Christ has spoken infallibly by Ephesus, and its teach- 
 ings abide forever, 311, note; Originators or Formulators of the different 
 Eucharistic views, and the dates of their Formulation, 311, 312, note; 
 origin of the Nestorian view on the Lord's Supper, 312, note; alleged 
 passages of Ambrose and Augustine for it, and others for invocation of 
 creatures, are condemned by the utterances of Cyril and the Third Qpun- 
 cil and are heretical; they can not bind the Church; Ephesus does, 312, 
 note; compare 52, note; a tendency to creature worship is accompanied 
 by a tendency to real presence heresies and to the idolatry of worship- 
 ping the Host; and, on the other hand, a tendency to worship God alone 
 and to abominate all idolatry has been accompanied generally by a ten- 
 dency to reject all real presence heresies and Host Worship, and to draw 
 near to the dodlrines on the Lord's Supper enunciated by St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria, and approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Remarka- 
 ble nearness of the English Reformers on such points; impious and ab- 
 surd consequences oi real presence views are to be treated of in a Disser- 
 tation on the Eucharist; some of them are mentioned in the notes on 
 pages 472-478 to Nestorius' Blasphemy 18, and in Additional Note E on 
 that Blasphemy on pages 517-528. Errors on the Eucharist from which 
 Cyril was free, 407, note; his Eucharistic Anathema XI., text of pages 
 347-354, and notes to it on pages 406-408. Passages among 
 the XX. Blasphemies of Nestorius which corrupt the true doArine 
 of the Universal Church on the Eucharist, that is the Thanksgiv- 
 ing, 531; how they corrupt it, ibid.; Cyril speaks of it as ''folly'' to 
 believe that we ''consume the Divinity'' of God the Word in the 
 Eucharist, brands the error of the eating of His flesh and blood in the 
 rite as " Cannibalism," condemns the heresy of a Real Presence of the 
 Substance of Christ's Divinity in the rite, and of a real presence of the 
 substance of His flesh and of His blood there, and the blasphemy that 
 they are eaten there, 531, 532; says that instead of such disgusting Can- 
 nibalism Christ ''sends the power of life into the things which lie before 
 US'' that is into the leavened bread and the wine, " a7id changes them to 
 the ENERGY of His own flesh f 532. The Bishops of the Third Ecumenical 
 Council in approving and following their teacher, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
 condemned anticipatively the dodlrine of Transubstantiation held to in 
 one form by the Romanists, and in another by the Greeks, and the doc- 
 trine of Consubstantiation held to by others, for both those heresies teach 
 that we eat or consume tlie Divinity of God the Word in the Eucharist, 
 as well as His flesh and bluo.l, 532. Cm-.Ts doclrhie i^ I'n-refo-e that 
 
622 . Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 God the Word enters us by YVis grace in the Eucharistic eating and drink- 
 ing, not by the substance of His human flesh and by that of His human 
 blood, and that we do not eat them nor the Substance of His Divinity, 
 and that none of these three substances is present in the rite, 532; but 
 that the benefit is spiritual, ibid.; words meaning relative and relatively 
 wrongly rendered in the Oxford translation of Cyril on the Incarnation, 
 ibid., and sub-note '*«" there; in what sense Cyril teaches that in the Eu- 
 charist we have a ''relative participation'" of QihriSyt, 532, text, and sub-note 
 "a", and 533, sub-note "<^"; teaching of Cyril elsewhere on the Eucharist, 
 
 533- 
 
 Nestorius held to one nature Consubstantiation only in the Eucharist, 
 xxi. ; Two Nature Consubstantiation not known in Cyril's days, xx. ; 
 Keble and Pusey start in the English Church an Ecumenically anathe- 
 matized heresy of Consubstantiation, the Two Nature kind, and the 
 idolatry of worshipping the Host, 107, note. Bishop Bedel and some 
 * others for infant communion, xx., note. Cyril in his Long Epistle denies 
 any Cannibalism in the Eucharist, and states the true, the sound dodlrine, 
 232-240; see also under Nestorius a?id his Heresies, Heresies 4 and 5; 
 Ambrose's allusion to John VI. on the Eucharist, in a passage read in the 
 Third World Council, 438, note 800. Nestorius' Blasphemy 18, which is 
 on the Eucharist, agrees with St. Cyril in denying the real presence of 
 the Substance of God the Word's Divinity in the Eucharist, but differs 
 from him in asserting a real presence of his flesh and blood there, and 
 the real eating of the flesh there, text of pages 472-474; the diff"erences 
 between Cyril, the Orthodox Champion, and the heresiarch Nestorius, on 
 the Eucharist further explained, notes 1000, looi, 1007, 1020, 1021, 1022, 
 with references to Cyril and to Nestorius; novelty of Nestorius' Eucharistic 
 and other errors, note 1021, 1022. •♦ 
 
 Theodoret, the Nestoriau, calls Christ's body the archetype and the 
 reality; and the bread of the Lord's supper, the type, and the likeness, and 
 the image, and the symbol of it; and he terms the bread and wine, the 
 antitypes and the symbols of Christ's body and blood. He terms the Eu- 
 charistic rite the Mysteries. See under those terms in this Index. 
 
 He is not faulted by St. Cyril nor by the Third Ecumenical Council 
 for such language, biit for his one nature real presence, for his worship 
 of it in the Eucharist, and for the Cannibalism, {avOpuTrocpayla, to use St. 
 Cyril's term for it"), of eating and drinking it there. 
 
 Eunomians; see Trine Immersion. 
 
 Eusebiiis of Caesarea; yiyi-s\i^.'^\\', xliv., note "«;" 366, note; his account of the 
 attempt of Victor of Rome to get Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, and the 
 Quartodecimans excommunicated by all, and its failure, xxxix.-xlv. ; was 
 an Arian, but is sometimes of value as a historic witness, 366, note. 
 
 Eusebiiis of Dorylaeum; begins the contest for the faith against Nestorius, and 
 against Eutyches; xxii., xxiv., note "k." 
 
 Eutherius of Tyana; a bitter enemy of Cyril and of the Third Council of the 
 whole Church; died in his errors, 121, note; censures Cyril for not wor- 
 
Index II. — GeJieral Index. 623 
 
 shipping Christ's humanity, 121-128; 352, note; Eutherius denies the 
 Inman, 121, and rejects the expression Bring er Forth of God which 
 guards it, 121-128; denied Kconomic Appropriation and held to a mere 
 Relative Conjundlion which is merely external, 125, 126, note; blames 
 Cyril for asserting in his Anathema X. that God the Word is our Medi- 
 ator, 121, 122; 127, 128; why Cyril was right in so doing, 128; misunder- 
 stands Cyril's Anathema XI. to teach that Christ's flesh is not consub- 
 stantial with ours, 122-127. Some of Eutherius' writings falsely ascribed 
 to St. Athanasius; why? 122-125. ^^^ Man- Worship. 
 
 Eutyches, the heresiarch; ix., xlix., 513; was justly condemned, ix., xlix.; what 
 his error was, 513; an utterance of his on Christ, 105, note. 
 
 Eutychianism; on Christ's flesh, 105, note. 
 
 Eutychianizing ; 513. 
 
 Evagritcs, the historian; 1. 
 
 Exarch of a Diocese, what? What is his power? note 702, page 413. See 
 Church Government. 
 
 F, 
 
 Faber, George Stanley; on the Eucharist, 269, note. 
 
 Facundus; 424, note, several times. 
 
 Faith; sometimes used for Creed, but may include in the case of Nicaea, all its 
 Canons audits Synodal Epistle, 133, note; 144, note 241; what dodlrines 
 Cyril's explanation of it included; what Nestorius' did, ibid.; the Church 
 decides at Ephesus for Cyril's, ibid. See -kIotlc, in the Greek Index; see 
 "Nicaea,'" and ''Council, the Second Ecumenical.'' 
 
 False Decretals of Isidore; 512; embodied in the Canon Law of Rome, 512. 
 
 Father, the; the Source of Divinity, note 640, page 318. 
 
 Father; a title of Bishops, 41. 
 
 Fathers; inferior to Ecumenical Councils, xi.; need of a critical edition of 
 them, 102, note; sad results of not having such an edition, 102, note. 
 Specimen of additions even to Cyril's work on Luke, 265, subnote. 
 Some ancient writers condemned expressly, others by implication by the 
 Universal Church in the Six World-Councils, 357, 358, note; others ap- 
 proved by them, ibid.; principles on which we must act regarding all 
 writers, 359, note; see Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria; see also 
 on page 513, Note D. On the expression of ''Peter the Presbyter" 
 on page 41 8, text, ''Books of the most holy and most consecrated 
 Fathers and of Bishops and of different Martyrs;" and on the 
 note on page 427 which states that the Ecumenical Council , 
 must not be understood to approve any thing in a writer's 
 works which they may not have passed on, and indeed which 
 they may not even have seen; errors in writings ascribed, rightly or 
 wrongly, to Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of 
 
624 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Nyssa. Eutyches condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for an 
 error on Christ's body similar to that in an alleged writing of Gregory of 
 iNyssa; Hooker on that place of Gregory of Nyssa, 513. Origen con- 
 demned by Methodius for error on the resurredlion, and by the Fifth 
 Council, yet Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and partly also 
 Basil the Great, are said to have adopted his views; Theophilus of Alex- 
 andria opposed the last mentioned three on the resurre<5lion and the 
 character of the risen body, 514; error of Origen that the Devil will be 
 converted said to have been held to by Gregory of Nyssa, 514; Cyprian 
 taught that departed saints pray for those on earth, an error condemned 
 by the whole Church in the Third Council, and by Holy Writ, 514, 515, 
 and 516; Ambrose's alleged idolatry on the Eucharist and an alleged 
 passage of his for the invocation of angels and martyrs condemned by the 
 Third Syuod, 516; God's saints, Moses, David, Peter, etc., have been fal- 
 lible men, and under the Old Testament and the New are rebuked for 
 their faults; and there is hardly a Father who has written much whom 
 critics Anglican, or other Trinitarian Protestant, or Greek, or Latin, do 
 not fault for some error in doclrine, discipline, or rite. But the Six 
 Ecumenical Synods, as guided by the Holy Ghost, taught only what is 
 true and consonant with Scripture, and as being Holy-Ghost-led were 
 infallible, 516; they condemned the Origenistic denial of the charadler of 
 our resurredlion bodies, which denial is said to have been more or less 
 shared by Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil, 514-517; 
 and some claim that they have condemned the co-worship of Christ's 
 humanity with His Divinity, which error it is alleged Gregory of Nazian- 
 zus and Basil the Great fell into, 516, 517; the remains of some others of 
 the 12 Fathers cited in Act I. of Ephesus are so meagre that we can not 
 say exactly what they held on some points, ibid.; the Second Ecumen- 
 ical Council in its Creed in the full sense of the clause, "'We look for a 
 resurrection of the dead, ' ' as ever understood by the Church, asserts the 
 literal resurre<5lion of the body buried in the grave; and its Canon I. 
 condemns the Apollinariaus who denied the perfection of Christ's 
 humanity; and the Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, that of 
 the Fifth, and that of the Sixth, accept that decision and all those of 
 Ephesus and proclaim the perfedlion of Christ's hnmanity and its con- 
 substantiality with ours; see those documents, and under Origen in the 
 General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. Fathers quoted as his- 
 torical witnesses to the faith which had come down from the beginning, 
 418-449; see under ''Ephesus, A. D. 431,'' and page Ixxxvii. of the Fore- 
 matter in this volume. 
 Felix, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 269-274, and Martyr; his witness on the Inman, 
 and the Two Natures, 424-430. See page Ixxxvii. in the Forematter and 
 under Ephesus in the Index; authenticity and genuineness of the passage 
 quoted from him in Act I. of Ephesus; note 763, pages 428 to 433. Other 
 Epistles alleged to be Julius', ibid.; see Eternal Birth; his literary re- 
 mains but scanty, 514, 
 
Index II. — Geficral hidex. 625 
 
 Fifth Ecumenical Council; its Anathema IX., ii.; its Anathemas XI., XII., 
 XIII., and XIV., page xxvi.; condemned and anathematized the Nes- 
 torian co-worship of the Man taken with God the Word who took him, 
 Preface, ii. ; anathematizes all who do not accept its anathemas, xxvi., 
 note "r." 
 
 Flavian, Pai)'2 arch of Constantinople; 105, note. 
 
 Florentius, the Tribune; 46, 47. 
 
 Fourism; <p-\2%. See Tetradisni, and Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2. 
 
 Fourteenthdayites ; see Quartodecimans, and xxviii. 
 
 Fund to Publish the VI. Ecumenical Councils; Donors to on this volume, 
 liii.-lv. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gamier, the Jesuit, on certain literary matters, xlix., 1.; 124, note. 
 
 Gift, the Eucharistic; 280, note, and note 606, here and there. 
 
 God; bodiless, according to Cyril, 76, note 175; Theophilus on, ibid.; did Cyril 
 hold to a body of Spirit like TertuUian ? ibid.; Tertullian's view, ibid.; 
 the Nicene Creed on, ibid.; Scripture on, ibid.; errors on this topic which 
 are to be shunned, ibid.; Nestorius' errors on, 417, note 420; some ancient 
 Christians held that God has a body, but of Spirit, 445, note 834. 
 
 Greeks; their practical rejection of the Six Synods while professing to receive 
 them, their idolatry and creature-worship; hopes of a reform among 
 them, 524, and the context. 
 
 Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop A. D. 370-390; called Gregory the Great, 438, 
 text, and note 801; his witness for the Incarnation, and for the expression 
 Bringer Forth of God which guards it, and for the two perfect Natures 
 of the Son, and against the Apollinarians' denial of the truth that the 
 Word took flesh of Mary, and against their assertion that He only M^ent 
 through her as water goes through a pipe, that is, without taking any 
 thing from it, and against the ApoUinarian denial of the truth that His 
 humanity has a mind, and against what was later the Nestorian assertion 
 of two Sons and their separation, and the Nestorian averment that His 
 humanity was made perfect by works and was at last made an adopted 
 Son of God as the heathen made human beings to be, etc., 438-444; see 
 under Christ and Adoption; see also page Ixxxvii. in the Forematter and 
 under Ephesus in this Index; uses types or symbols of the Eucharist, 
 269, note; wrongly quoted as Cyril of Alexandria, 265, sub-note; was he 
 a Man-Worshipper? note on pages 357, 358; if he was a creature invoker, 
 he is, so far, condemned by the Universal Church in the Third Synod, 
 note on pages 357, 358; called the Great with better reason than Gregory 
 I., Bishop of Rome, 438, note 801; his oratorical style not to be imitated 
 where it may lead men into the sin of invoking creatures, ibid.; against 
 the ApoUinarian Two-Partites, and against the forerunners of Nestori- 
 anism, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and against all 
 Anti-Inman heresies, 439, note 802; and note 822, and page 442, text; 
 notes 825, and 827; did not believe in aniinglingof Divinity and humanity 
 
626 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 in Christ, but in the Incarnation, 440, text, and note 805; and note 821^ 
 and page 442, text; used Spirit for Divinit}^ note 807; held to the perfect 
 humanity of Christ, note 808; hence was opposed to the ApolHnarians, 
 and the Nestorians, and to the Timothean worship of a creature as God, 
 as well as to the Nestorian Worship of Christ's separate humanity, ibid.; 
 443, note 825; held to Economic Appropriation, and rejected the Nes- 
 torian error of Christ's gradual withdrawal from evil and his progress by 
 works, 443, note 825, and notes 827 and 831; see in this article above; held, 
 against the Apollinarians, that Christ's humanity has a mind, 441, note 
 815. Paul's division of a man includes a mind, 441, note 816. Gregory 
 of Nazianzus held that God the Word was crucified, 442, 443, 444, note 
 825; Origenized as to the resurrection body, 513-517; and, if Migne's text 
 of him be correct, held to the worship of Christ's humanity, 516, 517. 
 
 Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, A. D. 372 to about 395; witnesses for the Inflesh of 
 God the Word, and for the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, 445, 
 446, and notes there; see also page Ixxxvii. of the Forematter and under 
 Ephesus in the Index; see under Fathers^ here and in Nicaea; 
 on the Apollinarian heresy as to Christ's flesh, 329, note 671; on 
 Man- Worship and on creature worship, 357, 358, note; for Economic 
 Appropriation, 445, 446, and notes there; Origenized or Eutychianized 
 as to Christ's body, 513; Hooker on, ibid.; Gregory held, like Origen, 
 to the error that the Devil might be converted, 514; such errors con- 
 demned by the VI, S3'nods, 513-517. See under "C«z/<?" in this Index. 
 
 Guettee; on the Papacy, xliv.; on Pope Vigilius, xlviii. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hagenbach; on the errors of certain Fathers, 513-517. 
 
 Hahn's Bibliothek der Syfnbole; on the text of the Nicene Creed, 50, note, etc. 
 
 Hardouin's Concilia; rare and costly, xiii., xiv. 
 
 Harrison; on the Eucharist, 271, subnote *V." 
 
 Hefele; an error of his, xxvi., note "^;" on John of Antioch's delay, 1., 11. 
 
 Herv, a more exact term than priest for one of sacerdotal rank, 363, note 682; 
 313, note 619. 
 
 Hezekiah, King; crushed idolatry and its maintainers, xxix., text, and note; 
 the Church regarded sound Christian emperors as being like him and 
 honored them in their own sphere, 32, note 74. 
 
 High Priest; Christ our, 470, note 990; see Christ. 
 
 Hilary of Aries; rightfully contended against the attempt of Leo I. of Rome 
 to get Appellate JurisdicSlion in Gaul, but is overcome by the secular 
 power, xxxii. ; wrong of Leo I. in that tyranny, 380, note. 
 
 Hilkiah, the High Priest; finds the book of the Law, xii. 
 
 Holy Ghost; in what sense He glorifies Christ, 268-285, note 640, page 318; His 
 Substance, not His influences, worshipable, 71 and 72, note; in what 
 sense He is poured out by the Son, 317, note 638; Pusey's perversion of a 
 place of Cyril to make it favor the Romish do<flrine of the Double Pro- 
 
hidcx II. — General Index. 627 
 
 cession, ibid. Office Work of the Spirit, se^ under Invocation and note 
 640, page 31S. His office work, notes 638, 639, 640. Compare Cyril's. 
 Anathema IX., pages 333-338; and note 681, which is on it; it is om 
 pages 362, 363. 
 
 Homily against Peril of Idolatry; for the VI. Synods, v. 
 
 Honorius, Pope; Ecumenically condemned, ix. ; xliii., note; xlv., xlviii.; the 
 Vatican Roman Conventicle of 1870, contradicts on that the Vlth Ecu- 
 menical Synod, xliii., note; 39, note 94; 218, note 561; the condemnation 
 of him by the Sixth World Council is infallible and irreversible, 322, 
 note 659. 
 
 Hypaiius, 0/ Ephesus, 424, note. 
 
 Hyperdulia, that is, more than slavery, 340, note; a term used by Romanists 
 and other creature worshippers and image worshippers to excuse their 
 paganism, 340, note, and 367, note; such excuses branded by the English 
 Reformers as from the Devil, 382, note. See Dulia and Latreia in this 
 Index. 
 
 Hypostases, the Three; meaning of the expression, 442, note 821; 465, note 960; 
 compare note 969. 
 
 Hypostatic Union; see Substance Union. 
 
 L 
 
 Images, the Eucharistic types anil symbols, 279, note; 280, note. 
 
 Images, in the Mosaic Tabernacle; xlvi., note "a"; forbidden in Synagogues, 
 xlvi., xlvii., note **«." 
 
 Image- Worship; should be don-; away, 5; forbidden by Ephesus, i.; 11, note 13; 
 52, note; see Relative Worship and Christ; The Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council in its Anathema XII. curses the relative worship of Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia who said that Christ's mere created humanity, ''just like an 
 Emperor's image [tinovnq) is to be bowed to with reference to the Person, 
 of God the Word;'' 423, note. 
 
 Dressing up idols of St. Mary and St. Joseph and capping and bend-^ 
 ing the knee to them, 467, note 966. 
 
 Worship of pictures and of sepulchres, s.n6. putting an image into a 
 temple of God denounced by Augustine, 484, note 1033; such sins ruined. 
 Christianity in Africa, 484, note 1033. See Augustine, and Africa; they 
 ruined Christianity, in much of the East and the West, 485, note 1037; 
 and page 524. 
 
 Christians would not worship the images of the Emperors, nor swear 
 by their genius, 508. See in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in 
 this Set under linages, and Image Worship; and in the Greek Index to 
 that volume under £l6ui7iol^, el6o)?^o?idrpai and tiKova. 
 
 Incense; prerogative to God, so Amphilochius teaches, 448, text,, and note 870 
 there; it is wrong to give it to altars, images painted, images graven, 
 relics, or to any person or thing but God's Substance, a-n d tb at directly., 
 not relatively, 467, note 966. 
 
628 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Indwelling; see Relative Indwelling. 
 Infant Communion; see Eucharist, and Metrophanes. 
 
 Invocation; invocation of Christ's humanity, and other a^s of worship to it, 
 opposed by Cyril of Alexandria, Preface, pages i., ii.; invocation of 
 creatures, should be done away, 5; see Peter the Fuller; forbidden by 
 Epbesus, ii.; 52, note; condemned by Athanasius and Cyril, Ixviii. 
 Christ alone, that is God the Word, by His humanity is our Sole Inter- 
 cessor in heaven, and He alone can be prayed to, to intercede for us there, 
 note 621, pages 313-316; 369, note; pages 514-516; the Holy Spirit's 
 office is not to intercede for us there, but to help us to pray on earth, 
 see Holy Ghost; the notion that any one but God the Word intercedes 
 for us in heaven is condemned by Cyril as approved by the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod as is all direct invocation of saints, see Holy Ghost and 
 the references in this article above; is condemned by Holy Writ also, 
 pages 514-516; late date of all missals and manuals which teach the con- 
 trary, 315, note. God the Word's chief function now as our High Priest 
 is to intercede for us, 366, note; and 5U-516; the invocation of creatures 
 has brought God's curse on East and West, 485, note 1037. See also in 
 the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set under Invocation of 
 Saints, and Invocation, and Prayer to Creatures, and see also in the Greek 
 Index to that volume under KnaimroAarpEia, and KTicro/JiTpTjg, and larpsko, 
 and TTpooKvvio), and TzpoaKvvrjroc, and larpeia. 
 Invocation of Angels; see Laodicea, Creature Worship, Worship, Ephesus, 
 Saints, Cyril the Orthodox; and 343, note 688; an alleged passage of Am- 
 brose which teaches the invocation of angels and martyrs, 516; its doc- 
 trine condemned by the Third Ecumenical Synod, ibid. Compare all the 
 references to the Indexes of Vol. I. of Nicaea under the article last above, 
 and Angels also in its General Index. 
 
 Invocation, ''the sacerdotal invocatio7i' ' at the Eucharist, 280, four 
 
 times, and note 606, here and there. Invocation to God the Word to pray 
 
 for us as our High Priest and Mediator, 366, note; see in Vol. I. of 
 
 Nicaea, in this Set, under Christ. 
 
 Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, xl.-xliv.; 269, note; uses type or symbol of the 
 
 Eucharist after consecration, 269, note. 
 Irenaeus, Count, afterwards Bishop of Tyre, a Nestorian; at Ephesus, for Nes- 
 torius, 58, note 144; instigates the soldiers to maltreat the deputies of the 
 Third Council, 13, note 18; 58, note 144; Venables prejudiced in his favor 
 and against the Synod, 13, note 18; 14, note 18; Irenaeus is banished; 
 writes his so-called Tragedy, ibid.; its partisan and false representations, 
 ibid.; is made Metropolitan of Tyre by Nestorian influence, ibid.; is 
 removed from his see for digamy, ibid.; opinions of different writers on 
 the digamy, for which among other things he was deposed, and on I. Tim. 
 iii., 2, 9, 12, and Titus i., 6; pages 14, 15, note 18; the historical testimony 
 on, 15, note; Bingham on digamy, ibid. 
 Irene the Empress, a curse, x., 6; 248, 249, note. 
 Pineraui: a Bishop's deputy, note 1 112, page 496. 
 
Index II. — General Index. 629 
 
 /• 
 
 James II. of EngCana, the idol atrizer, 17, iS. 
 
 Jefferson, Tom.; his Christless theories of government, xxx., note. 
 
 Jerome's strong language against the worship of the Emperors' images, 19; 
 Jerome's Ep. ad. Paulam de ob. Blesillae, 507, note "a." 
 
 Jerusalem, Council of, A. D. 1672; opposed the doctrine of the Third Ecumen- 
 ical Synod on the Eucharist, note 1000, page 473. 
 
 Jews; should not be permitted to share in the government of a Christian state, 
 xxix., XXX., note. 
 
 Jezebel; was imitated by the Empresses Irene and Theodora, x., 6. 
 
 John of Antioch; a champion of Nestorius, xxxvi., 116, note; his delay, 1., li., 
 41, note 102. 
 
 John Chrysostom, 180; praised by Celestine, Bishop of Rome, ibid.; see 
 Chrysostom, above. 
 
 Joseph, SI.; see A liars and Images. 
 
 Josiah, King; was a Reformer, xii. ; crushes idolatry and error, xxix., text and 
 note. 
 
 Jtilius Africanus, on Christ as our High Priest ''who presents our prayers to'' 
 the Father, 372, note. 
 
 Julius I, Bishop 0/ Rome, 337-352; on the Inman and the Two Natures, 423, 
 424. See also page Ixxxvii. in the Forematter in this volume, and under 
 Ephesus in this Index. Authenticity and genuineness of a passage 
 quoted from him in Act I. of the Third World Synod, note 759, pages 424- 
 428, text and notes; his literary remains but scanty, 514. 
 
 Justina, tries to take away a church for Arian worship, 16; is resisted, 16. 
 
 Juvenal of Jerusalem, xxxviii., 1., 23; see also under his Lame in Index* I.; he 
 took a prominent part in the Acts on the Orthodox side, ibid. 
 
 K. 
 
 Keble, John, the Heresiarch; paganizes the Eucharist, 107, note; 237, note; see 
 under Eucharist and Nestorius a7id his Heresies, Heresies 4 and 5; '250, 
 note; see Pusey, E. B.; and Cannibalism and dvdpco7ro(f>ayia, in the Indexes 
 to this volume and m those to Vol. I. of Nicaea. Keble is antecedently 
 anathematized by the Third World-Synod, 107, note; 250, note. See 
 ATedle in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Kenrick, the Romish Arbp. of Baltimore; argues for the «3W«/^ worship of 
 Christ's humanity, 337-343, "ote; and for the Ecumenically condemned 
 Worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, note on pages 342, 343. 
 
 KimmeVs Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiae Ori en talis, 523, etc. 
 
 King, Bp. of Lincoln; deserves deposition for Eucharistic heresy, 247, note; 
 (see Benson also); his idolatrous partisans wish the ''La^nb of God who 
 takes t away the sins of the World, have mercy upon us'' to be sung to 
 the Host after consecration in the Eucharist to foster their belief in the 
 Real Presence of both Christ's Natures, and their worship of the Host, 
 247, note; The Romish Archbishop Kenrick in his Theologia Dogmatica, 
 
630 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 vol. IV., Phila. A. D. 1840, page 377, tells us who the originator of the 
 custom was, which is so out of place and wrong in the Eucharist, because 
 as the memorial sacrifice is offered to the Father, as the original all- 
 sufiBcient propitiatory one was, the invocation of the Son or the Holy Ghost 
 is not proper in that rite. Kenrick there writes, (I translate), 
 
 "He" [SergiusL, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 687-701], " enacted that in 
 the Mass, the words, * Lamb 0/ God that takest away the sms of the worldy 
 have mercy upon us' should be said thrice by the clergy and people while 
 the Host was being broken. Afterwards, on account of the calamities of 
 wars, it came to pass that the words ^ Grant us peace' were said three 
 times." Kenrick on the same page tells us that this SergiusL was a 
 native of that Syria, where we find the first clear mention of the corrup- 
 tion of worshipping the Host; it was among Nestorians and Monophysites. 
 See Theodoret, the Nestorian. It was condemned by St. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria and by Ephesus. See them in this Index. 
 Kneeling at the Commu7iion; no proof for it anciently; whereas standing was 
 once universal, and was the ancient and is the present custom of the 
 Greeks, 243-248, note. 
 
 L. 
 
 Labarree, Rev. Mr.; on Nestorius' writings in Syriac, note 1021, page 479. 
 
 Laodicea, local Council of , made of Ecumenical authority by Canon I. of Chal- 
 cedon; brands invocation of angels as ^'hidden idolatry,'" xvii,, text and 
 note 'V." 
 
 Latitner, Preface, page i. 
 
 Latreia, or latria, service, and Dulia, slavery, distinctions made to defend idola- 
 try, 342, note; 340, note; condemned by the English Reformers, 382, note; 
 see also Hyperdulia, another of them, in this Index; and on page 367, 
 note; and 406, note. Buckley's definition of ^Eatria,''' 523, sub-note 
 
 Leavened bread in the Eucharist; see Eucharist, and 242, note; and page 264, 
 sub-note *7/. " Dositheus, a Greek, on, 525. 
 
 Leo /., Bishop of Rome; xxxii., xxxiii; his Epistle to Flavian against the Eu- 
 tychian heresy approved by Chalcedon, 57, note; did well in opposing Eu- 
 tyches, 428, note; his opinion as to Christ's Mediatorship, note on pages 
 380, 381; it is condemned by Ephesus, antecedently, 381, note; his wrong 
 course in making the Western Emperor Valentinian III. his tool to pro- 
 cure for him the power of Appellate Jurisdiction over other Western 
 Sees, 427, 428, note. 
 
 Leontius; 104, note; 105, note; 424-426, note. 
 
 Liturgies; oldest manuscripts of are late, 315, note; 366, note. 
 
 Liturgy, Anglican; forms of, on spiritual sacrifice, priesthood, etc., 238, note. 
 
 Liturgy, called St. BasiVs; on spiritual sacrifice, priesthood, etc., 238, note. 
 
 Logos, the; see Christ. 
 
 Luther; was not so full, thorough and exact against creature invocation, image- 
 worship and other creature worship as the Third Synod, i., ii; his mis- 
 
Index 11. — General Index. 631 
 
 conception as to Ephesus and Cyril of Alexandria, VII.; on suppressing 
 error, xxix. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macarius; 269, note. 
 
 Macedonians; kill Anthony, Bishop of Germa, xxviii. 
 
 Macedonius; who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, ix., xlviii.; his con- 
 demnation just, ibid. 
 
 Man-eating; that is Cannibalism; see under Eucharist, and Cannibalism in this 
 Index, and Eucharist in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea; and see 
 also in the Greek Indexes under dvdpuTrocpayia. 
 
 Man- Worship; condemned, Preface, i. toiv. See Nestorius and his Heresies, 
 Heresy 2; and Cyril the Orthodox, Eucharist, Christ, and Creature 
 Worship, Relative Worship, Relative Indwelling , and Relative Con- 
 jnnction, and in the Greek under av6pcj7ro?iaTpela^ that is Man- Worship, 
 and Nestorius in this volume. Cyril in his Shorter Epistle, pages 79, 80, 
 denies "that we bow to a Man [Christ's humanity] together with 
 {pvv) the Word, lest that thing be secretly brought in for a phantasm, 
 on account of our saying Together with, {pvv). Note 183, pages 79-128, 
 (which we here summarize, for it is a Dissertation rather than a note), 
 treats of that topic under the following heads, i. Cyril's teachiiig on 
 that point of Man- Worship: 
 
 2. How far the Third Synod of the whole Church and the Three 
 after it have followed him, and what the doctrine of the Six World 
 Councils is: 
 
 3. Quotations from some Nestorian writers on it against Cyril and 
 the Orthodox, page 79. 
 
 Head i, What was Cyril's teaching as to bowing to, that is worship- 
 ping, the hum,anity of Christ? pages 79-128; Cyril makes bowing, as an 
 act of religious service, prerogative to God, for, addressing Nestorius, he 
 says, ** If thou say est that the humanity has been substancely united to the 
 Word who was born out of God, why dost thou wantonly insult the flesh 
 of God, ' ' [that is by worshipping it, a mere creature, contrary to Matt, 
 iv., 10, Rev. xix., 10, and Rev. xxii., 8, 9, and so insulting it as though 
 it were so wrong as to accept from a creature-worshipping mortal that 
 which belongs to God alone,] ''even, itideed, by not refusing to bow to it? 
 whereas the right to be bowed to befits the divine and ineffable Nature 
 alone,'" 79; similarly Cyril writes in note 582, pages 225, 226; Andrew 
 and Eutherius understand him to deny worship to Christ's humanity, 
 pages 116 to 127, note; bowing, here used for every act of religious wor- 
 ship, 80; and note 582, pages 225, 226; in how many senses bowing may 
 be used, 80; Nestorius' relative worship of Christ's humanity condemned, 
 and the Nestorian Relative Worship of the Eucharist, 80; and the Nes- 
 torian Relative Conjunction, the basis of the Relative Worship of Christ's 
 humanity, 80, 81; the latter also condemned, 81-90; and Apollinarianism, 
 81; and dividing the honor which belongs to God the Word alone with. 
 
632 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 His humanity, and co-bowing to His humanity with His Divinity, 81-90; 
 the result of which is to make that humanity a god, 83, 84, and to end in 
 creature worship which is condemned by God, 85; with reference to the 
 Nestorian perversion of such texts as PhiHppians ii., 9, 10, 11, and Heb. 
 i., 6, to make them teach relative worship to Christ's humanity, on ac- 
 count of its mere alleged Relative Conjunction to God the Word, Cyril 
 teaches that inasmuch, (as he states on pages 79 and 225, following St. 
 Athanasius' teaching on pages 217-240, Vol, I. of Nicaea in this Set), as 
 all acts of worship, bowing, prayer, giving God's name, etc., are preroga- 
 tive to God alone (Matt, iv., 10), therefore wherever Scripture gives them, 
 or any of them, to any one we must understand that that one is God; and 
 so the bowing the knee, and the giving God's name, and the name Lord 
 in PhiHppians ii., 9, 10, 11, must be understood as acts of worship to God 
 the Word, not to a creature; but that if, as the Nestorians asserted, those 
 acts of worship in that passage, and the bowing ordered by God the 
 Father in Hebrews i., 6, to be given to the Sole Born, were to be given to 
 Christ's humanity, a mere creature, then it would follow that the Father 
 Himself is the inventor of Creature-Worship, and has made Christ's 
 humanity a god by ordering it to be worshipped, by bowing, etc., and 
 that ''He has been aggrieved without any cause at some for doing that 
 thing'' of worshipping a creature. ''And'' [Cyril asks] "if that thiiig" 
 [of worshipping a creature] "were to His" [the Father's] "glory, why 
 should we not deem those who have chosen to do that thing worthy of 
 recompense and praise and glory ?" [instead of the eternal damnation 
 which He punishes them with. Rev. xxi. 8, etc.], 84, 85; the Nestorian 
 excuse, that though they divided Christ's two Natures they united the 
 bowing to them, denounced, as an insult to God the Word "by dragging 
 down His better Nature [the Divinity] into dishonor," 86, 87; Nestorius 
 admitted that to worship Christ's humanity for its own sake would be 
 manifest worship of a Man, but contends that to worship it relatively to 
 God the Word is not, 87; Cyril refutes that error of relative worship of a 
 creature as from "a reprobate mind" 87; and as a proof that Nestorius, 
 "falling away from the road to what is right, * * * hastens along 
 his perverse way," 88, and that by worshipping Christ's separate humanity 
 he makes it "a new god," and is, after all his attempts to dodge it, "a 
 worshipper of a Man," 88, 89, 90; his applying the name God to Christ's 
 humanity condemned, 88; by bowing to Christ's humanity, he "adds a 
 worshipped Man to the Holy and Con substantial Trinity and is not 
 ashamed," 89; and so ends not in Trinitarianism, but in Tetradism, 
 that is in Fourism, that is in worshipping four and not the three uncreated 
 Persons only, 90-94; Nestorius should have "shuddered" when he con- 
 trived "worship to that creature," Christ's mere separate humanity; that 
 he who worships it is "held fast in the ancient snares" of creature wor- 
 ship, 91; that to understand Heb. i., 6, to teach worship to Christ's 
 humanity by the spirits above is to deem them "deceived" into that 
 error; and to represent the Father as commanding that worship to a 
 
Index II. — General hidex. 633 
 
 creature is to give "drunkards' hisults to God,'' 91; that Christians ''have 
 re/used as a blasphemous thing to worship the creature, "Christ's humanity, 
 and that Nestorius would ''whelm us again in the ancient sins and make 
 us worshippers of a Man;" that according to that Heresiarch "a rece^it 
 and late god has appeared to the world,'' Christ's mere humanity; that he 
 ''glories in certain adulterous quasi honors, so that it is now the worship 
 of a Man and nothing else, and a certain Man is adored with the Holy 
 Trin ity, ' ' 92, 93 ; that to teach that error is to ' 'set a trap to corrupt men , ' * 
 93; that it is to make that Man, a mere creature, "a complement of the 
 Trinity and in nature equal to It," 94; whereas God alone is to be 
 worshipped, 94; chief texts urged by Cyril against the Nestorian 
 worship of Christ's humanity, and for the worship of God alone, 
 94-96; no, note; Cyril's glorious and often expressed opposition 
 to the Nestorian Man-Worship and for the worship of God alone, 
 further quotations and references, 94-98; Nestorius' argument for 
 the relative worship, by bowing, of Christ's humanity, 85; condemned by 
 Cyril, 85, 86; co-bowing to both Natures of Christ condemned by Cyril, 
 86, 97, 98; Cyril's argument against the Nestorian Worship of Christ's 
 humanity is a fortiori, against any worship of any creature less than that 
 humanity, 96; Nestorius admitted that any absolute worship of Christ's 
 humanity is wrong, but contends that the relative is not, 96; similar 
 heresy of some late traitorous Anglicans, 96 fate of the unworthy bishops 
 who suffer them, 96; how his Relative Indwelling differs from the Sub- 
 stance Indwelling, 96; Cyril's formula, ^'We bow to the Word within His 
 flesh," or "to the Word with flesh" (jieto. capno^), but forbids the flesh to 
 be co-bowed to with the Divinity'^ {aiTayopEvuv 6e * * * ry Qeottjtl ttjv 
 capKa), 97, and 102-112; see2i6, note 550; and note 583, page 226; 260, note. 
 Did Cyril refuse all worship to Christ's humanity? notes 183 and 583; the 
 editor's judgment to be expressed hereafter, not now, note 583, page 226. 
 Nestorius' formula was, We co-bow to the flesh with the Word, and we 
 co-glorify the flesh with the Word, 82, 97, 98; that is we unite the bowing, 
 86; and 226, note 583. Athanasius (whom Cyril in his Ecumenically ap- 
 proved Epistle to John of Antioch always professes to follow) condemns 
 the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, 98-103, but worshipped God 
 the Word in the created temple of His body, 98, 99, 100, loi ; a Nestorian 
 understood Cyril to teach that Christ's humanity is not worshipable at all, 
 98 and 121, 125, 126 and 127; Athanasius writes, "We do not worship a 
 creature. God forbid! For such an error as that belongs to the heathen 
 and to the Arians. But we bow to the Lord of the c7raiion Who has put 
 on flesh, that is to the Word of God," 98; he seems to deny bowing, that 
 is worship, to Christ's humanity altogether and to worship God the Word 
 only in the Son, 98, 99, 100, loi; censures some heretics who would not 
 worship God the Word in flesh, as in a temple, 98-102; (on that passage 
 of Athanasius see further in the Greek Index under -rrpoanwovuev). But, 
 objection, Cyril's X. Books agaifist Julian the Apostate sandlion the Rela- 
 tive Worship of mere things: ans7juer; they are not Cyril's, but part of a 
 
634 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 work of Philip of Sida altered; loi. See also under Relative Worship, 
 and note 971, page 468, 
 
 Head II., we inquire as to how far the Third Synod of the whole 
 Church and the three after it have followed the statement and do5lrine of 
 {^yril of Alexandria as to the worship of Christ's humanity , and to state 
 what the doctrine of the Six World Councils on that topic is; 
 
 {a), in Cyril's two Epistles which were approved by the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod; 108; 
 
 [d). in the condemnation of the ApoUinarian Man- Worshippers by 
 the Second World Synod, before Cyril; 108; 
 (c). in Cyril's Anathema VIII. ; 109; 
 
 {d). in the deposition of Nestorius in Act I. of the Third Synod for 
 it among other things, 109; 
 
 (e). in the condemnation, in Act VI. of the Third Synod, of the Creed 
 ascribed to Theodore of Mopsuestia for its Relative Worship of Christ's 
 liumanity, 109; 
 
 (f). in the part of the Definition of the Fifth Synod which is before 
 its Anathemas, against it and against other Nestorian heresies, 109, no; 
 which calls it, 'Hhe crime of Man- Worship,'' 226, note 583; 
 (g). in its Anathema IX. ; no; 
 
 [K). in its Anathema XII. which condemns the Nestorian Relative 
 Worship of Christ's humanity; in, note; 
 
 (z). in these utterances the Universal Church condemns all the Nes- 
 torian relative worship of Christ's humanity, which is confessedly the high- 
 est of all mere creatures, and a fortiori, that is much more, all relative 
 worship and all absolute worship of any and all other creatures, and of 
 all mere things, 112. 
 
 Head III., We come now to quote some Nestorian Writers on the 
 Worship of Christ's humanity against St. Cyril and the Orthodox, 112; i, 
 Diodore of Tarsus, 112; 2. Theodore of Mopsuestia, 113; 3. Nestorius, 113; 
 4. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 115; 5. Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, 116; 
 6. Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, 121; end of the summary of note 183. 
 Cyril condemns the worship of Christ's flesh together with {cvv) His Di- 
 vinity, but worships God the Word with, that is seetningly within {fierd) 
 His flesh, 108, note; 226, note 583. 
 
 On 3Ta?i- Worship; see Cyril of Alexandria's XII. Chapters; large 
 amount of matter in Nestorius and Cyril on the Worship of Christ's hu. 
 manity, page 362, note 680; 363, note 688; how the ApoUinarian se6ls, 
 the Timotheaus, and theValeutinians, diff"ered from each other and from 
 Orthodoxy on that theme, 429-433, note; see Apolli7iaria7is; Man- Wor- 
 ship of the Apollinarians and the Nestorians, 440, note 809; What Peter 
 of Alexandria mentions to the Ecumenical Council as ^Hhe blasphemies 
 ^j- * ¥: * Nestorius" (page 449) are specified in Note F, pages 529- 
 551. They are included in what the Third Ecumenical Council, in its Sen- 
 tence of Deposition on Nestorius on pages 486-488, terms his ''impieties'' 
 (and it is surely an impiety to bring into Christ's God-alone-worshipping 
 
Index II. — General hidex. 635 
 
 religion, Ma7i-Worship (JiydpuKoKarptla^ as St. Cyril call it), that is the 
 worship of a creature) ; and it calls him ''the most impious Nestorius,'" 
 and declares that ''he ihifiks and preaches impiously'", that is in the XX. 
 Blasphemies ]ust read to them; and they are taken from his Homilies, 
 (compare page 533 above), and it adds, "Therefore our Lord Jesus 
 Anointed Who has been bIvASPhemed by him, has decreed, through the 
 present most holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is an alien from the 
 Kpiscopal dignity and from every priestly assembly.'* So also in "the 
 sentence of Deposition sent to him on the day after his Deposition" the 
 Ecumenical Synod tells him that it deposes him on account of his "^/a^- 
 phemous preachings'' ; 2MCii, as a traitor to Christ's anti-creature worship- 
 ing faith, it calls him, ''Nestorius, a new Judas,'' pages 503, 504. See in 
 the General Index to Vol. I. oi Nicaea under God, Logos, and Man- Wor- 
 ship, and in its Greek Index under av-dpuTro'kaTpeia, av&puiro'kaTpeoj and 
 
 CLV^pUKoTiClTpTjg. 
 
 Manuscripts of Ephesus; see Ephesus and Mansi's Concilia, xiii., xiv. 
 
 Mariolatry; 1. See Man- Worship, and Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2, 
 and Cyril, and Creature- Worship and Mary the Virgin; see also in the 
 General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea under Mariolatry and Mary the 
 Vi'gin. 
 
 Marius Mercator; 124, note; 424, note, several times. 
 
 Martialis; a fallen Spanish Bishop, xlv. See Cyprian. 
 
 Mary; the Mary Church at Ephesus; 21, text, and note 22. 
 
 Mary the Virgin, i. ; spoken of by Ephesus as Qeotokoq^ Bringer-forth-of God, 
 which is inaccurately rendered Mother of God, i., vi., vii., viii. ; 184, note 
 438; 222, note; well rendered Deipara, that is B ringer Forth of God, by 
 the old Latins, 222, note; she is not to be worshipped, Preface, ii. ; see 
 Mother of God, and Bringer Forth of God, and Georo/cof, 22, note 22; 
 184, note 438. See Creature- Worship, and Invocation; altars to her in 
 Romish churches, and a manth devoted to her worship every year by 
 them, 22, note 22; by Ephesus and all the VI. Councils neither the Virgin 
 nor any other creature may be invoked or otherwise worshipped, 363, note 
 688; 184, note 438; Cyril refuses to make her a goddess, as does everyone 
 who invokes or bows to her, ibid. ;\a.tQ date of her festivals, 211, 212; see 
 Proclus, and Altars, and Images; see also in the General Index to Vol. 
 I. o^ Nicaea in this Set under Mary the Viigin, Mariolatry, etc. Why 
 the Third Council uses Bringer Forth of God of her, (not to her), 184, 
 note 438; strange heresy of the Timotheans against the Incarnation and 
 the verity of Christ's humanity," note 773, page 434. Nestorius rejedls 
 the Incarnation and the expression Bringer Forth of God, {Qeoruno^), 
 which guards it, and prefers the expression Bringer Forth of the 
 A^iointed One, that is, he means, of an Anointed Man, (XptoTOTOKog) , 
 because it permits him to hide his own denial of the Inman, and to believe 
 that she brought forth a mere man only, and so to commit the paganism 
 of worshipping a mere man, Man- Worship, (av&po)77o?MTpEia) as. St. Cyril 
 calls it; 450, 451, 452, 453 (twice); and notes 169, 171, 172, on page 74. 
 
636 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Mediator; see Christ. 
 
 Memnon of Ephesus; xxxviii, 1., i6, 17, 18, 23. He was ac^live in the Adls on 
 the Orthodox side; see his name in Index I, above. 
 
 Metmonites; their heresy as to Christ's flesh anathematized by Gregory of Na- 
 zianzus, as read in the Third Synod, 440, text, and note 810. 
 
 Methodius; against Origen's errors on the resurredlion, 513. 
 
 Metropha?tes, and his Confession; for Infant Communion, 525. 
 
 Metropolitan, the, and his Council; note 702, page 413. 
 
 Metropolitans, 32, note 73; 38; notes 702, 1023. See Church Govern^nent; their 
 rights and offices, ibid.; and 413, note 702, and 479, note 1023; all 
 Patriarchal sees at first Metropolitical, 32, note 32; all Patriarchs invited 
 to form part of the Third Synod addressed as Metropolitans, not as Patri- 
 archs, ibid.; and page 38, and page 479, note 1023. Compare under Met- 
 ropolitans in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Milan, see Council of 16. 
 
 Mingliiig of ChrisV s Two Natures; 441, note 819; see Two Natures. 
 
 Miracle or Mercy of God in saving the plates of this volume so far as done, 
 from destrudlion by fire, 552; compare pages 484-487, Vol. I. oi Nicaea in 
 this Set. 
 
 Mohammed; see Mohammedanism in the General Index to this volume, and 
 in that to Vol. I. of Nicaea and Arab in this. 
 
 Mohammedanism, xxix., note God's curse for idolatry, 30, note 57; 35, note 
 88; compare note 680, page 362; and page 524 and under Arab. 
 
 Monk-Bishops; saved England, under God in James II. 's time, 18. 
 
 Moftks; 175, note 383; most bishops so anciently, ibid. 
 
 Mo7iophy sites; are heretics on creature-worship and the Eucharist, iv,, 104; 
 profess to receive only the first three World Synods, vi. ; have corrupted 
 Cyril of Alexandria's writings, 113 note see One-Natureites. 
 
 Monophysitism; mixes Christ's Two Natures- into One Nature; that mixture 
 Ecumenically anathematized. 72, note: Cyril confesses the Two Natures 
 against such heresies, 214, note 543; two kinds of, 345, note; results in 
 fact, in Man-Worship, and Idolatry, 345, 346, note. 
 
 Mormo7iism, xxix., note; a menace and curse, ibid. 
 
 Mosaic Church, 6 cursed like the Christian with women idolatrizers, ibid. 
 
 Moses, Law of , abolished; xlvi., note "a," and xlvii., "^." 
 
 Mosheim' s Eccl. Hist.; see Murdoch's. 
 Murdoch's Alosheim's Eccl. Hist., vii. 
 
 Mother of God; see Bringer-Forth-of-God, and Mary the Virgin; and, in the 
 Greek Index, QtoroKoq; vi.-ix. reasons why we should prefer the ex- 
 pression adopted by the Third Synod, Brifiger Forth of God, to Mother 
 of God, which was not approved by it ibid.; see under ^'Nestorius and 
 his Heresies;''' not authorized by the Third Council, 222, note; probably 
 used as a translation of Gtord/iof, Bringer Forth of God, in the present 
 corrupt Latin of Nestorius' Counter Anathema I., if it be genuine, 320, 321, 
 note; see Apollinarians; Neale's corrupt use, 412; J. H. Newman's 
 wrong translation of 6fo70Koc, note 741, page 420. 
 
Index II. — General Index. 637 
 
 Mysteries, that is Sacraments; used in the plural for the Eucharist, 279, note; 
 280, note; and note 606, here and there. 
 
 N. 
 
 Names of Sees and Bishops differently spelled in the manuscripts, 497, note 
 1 1 19; causes of it, ibid. 
 
 Neale,John Mason, the Romanizer and idolatrizer, xlix.; his infamous remarks 
 on Cyril Lucar, 523, 524; (see Neale in the General Index to Vol. I. of 
 Nicaea)', on Proclus' alleged sermons, 411, 412. See Proclus. 
 
 ^* Necessarily proceeded;''' sense of the expression, 486, note 1042. 
 
 Nectarius, Bp. of Constantinople; xxxii. ; exercises Appellate Jurisdidlion in 
 Asia Minor, Pontus, and in the Patriarchate of Antioch, ibid. 
 
 Nestorians; were creature-worshippers, and heretical on the Eucharist, iv. ; 
 see Cyril the Orthodox and Nestorius the Heresiarch; were bitter perse- 
 cutors of the Orthodox, 122, 123; Nestorian heretical relative Man-Wor- 
 ship expressions, 223, 224, note, and see under TrpoaKwib aud its different 
 derived forms in the Greek Index. The Nestorians receive only the first 
 two World Synods, vi. ; have been cursed by God for their worship of 
 Christ's separate humanity which is anathematized by Ephesus, but cling 
 to it still; for their invocation of the Virgin Mary and saints or alleged 
 saints, aud for giving relative worship to the cross, and also to the bread 
 and wine of their Eucharist, and for the other Nestorian heresies, 175, 
 note 388; Badger, their friend, shows that they are degraded invokers of 
 the Virgin Mary, 452, note 895. The blood of 7,700 Monophysites or 
 Catholics shed to secure their sway in Persia, 415, note 707. 
 
 Nestorius and His Heresies. 
 
 Their rise and spread, xv.-lii. See Cyril the Orthodox, and Nes- 
 torius the Heresiarch; and especially Nestorius, his XX. Blasphemies, 
 text of pages 449-480; and note F. , pages 529-551, where they are separated 
 into their proper heads. I specify the chief of them: 
 
 I. DeniaIv of the Inflesh and the Inman, and rejection of 
 THE Substance Union, that is the Union of God the Word's Sub- 
 stance, WITH THE substance OF HIS HUMANITY, BY THE INCARNA- 
 TION; AND THE EXPRESSION " BRINGER-FoRTH OF GOD, " WHICH GUARDS 
 
 Ai^i, THOSE TRUTHS, (see Under '^ Union of Christ' s Two Natures);'" and as 
 a consequence of his denial of the Incarnation, he and his followers, 
 Theodoret of Cyrus and others held to a merely ^^ external and relative 
 COnjunElion " {cwa^uav * * * r^v e^codev renal cx^tikt/v), as on page 66, 
 of God the Word with His humanity, that is, to a merely Relative In- 
 dwelling {ax^TiKijv * * * tvo'iKTioLv), as on page 66, of that humanity 
 by His Spirit as He indwells us by It. Compare 88, note; 113, note; 114, 
 note; 215, note 549; 217, note 557; note 892, pages 451, 452; notes 896 and 
 903 on page 453; notes 909, 910 and 911 on page 454, and the following 
 notes on pages 439-489; notes 802, 805; 892; and note 1046, pages 487-489, 
 On all these errors under head i see xxii.-xxiv., xxv., xxvi., xxxv., 
 
638 Act I. of Ephcsus. 
 
 xxxvi., xxxix., li. ; 155-166, and in his Ecumenically condemned Epistle 
 to Cyril where he repeatedly denies the Inflesh as there stated in the 
 notes. He rejects the expression ''Bringer Forth of God'' also, 161. 
 He gloried in his condemnation of Orthodox clerics who agreed with 
 Cyril, and falsely branded them as Manichaeans, 165; Celestineof Rome 
 refused to admit his depositions and excommunications of Orthodox men, 
 183, 188-193, and especially 197; so did Cyril in his Ecumenically approved 
 Long Epistle, 212. See the strong and sound testimonies of the Bishops 
 against the teachings of Nestorius' Epistle and against Nestorius himself 
 on pages 166-178; Nestorius admitted a Union of Christ's Two Natures in 
 name only, not in fact, 169; his denial of the Inman is witnessed to by 
 Theodotus of Ancyra, 409-411; so Acacius of Melitine witnesses, 415-417. 
 Nestorius' denial of the truth that God the Word's Eternal Substance 
 took flesh in the womb of the Virgin and was born out of her in it, ended 
 in making his Christ a mere Man, and his worship of him mere Man- 
 Worship, 61-69, note 156; 74, notes 169, 171, and 172; difference be- 
 tween the Orthodox Substance Union, and the Nestorian heresies on that 
 point and on Man- Worship, ibid.; Nestorius and his champion Theo- 
 doret's defence of his denial of the Inman, and of his dodlrines of Rela- 
 tive Conjun^ion, Relative Union, and Relative Worship of Christ's 
 separate humafiity, ibid., and Cyril's and the Universal Church's con- 
 demnation of them, ibid.; Cyril explains what Nestorius' dodlrine of 
 External and Relative Conjunction is, ''They hold to a ConjunElion which 
 is both external a7id relative, such as we also have" [to God the Word] 
 *Hnasm uch as we have beefi made partakers of His Divine Nature through 
 the Spirit" [II. Peter i., 4], 66, note, and 67, note; that Conjunflion 
 condemned by Cyril, ibid., and 67, note. Nestorius held that God the 
 Word indwells His humanity, not by His eternal and Divine Substance 
 but only by His Spirit as he indwells us, and makes his Christ merely an 
 inspired man, 66, note; those errors condemned by St. Cyril, ibid.; notes 
 169, 171, 172, on page 74, and 88, note. Cyril in his Shorter Epistle 
 teaches the dodlriue of the Inflesh, 60-74; that the Substance of God the 
 Word was not turned into flesh, 61; that the difference between Christ's 
 two Natures has not been done away by the Union, 67-73; ^.nd teaches 
 the Substance Union and explains the expression Bringer Forth of God 
 which guards it, 79-112. Cyril teaches two births of God the Word, one 
 out of the Father ''before all the worlds" as the Nicene Creed has it, and 
 the other in time out of Mary the Virgin, of whom we speak therefore as 
 Bringer Forth of God, that is of God the Word, 98-1 11; and exhorts 
 Nestorius to hold to and to teach the truth against his heresies, 1 14-120. 
 Nestorius' denial of the Inman is condemned in Cyril's Long Epistle to 
 him, 206-220, etc. ; and the expression Bringer Forth of God is explained 
 and defended in it, on pages 286-313, and the rejedler of it and the Incar- 
 nation, which it guards, is anathematized on pages 314-318 and in An- 
 athemas which there follow. On the above heresy of Nestorius, on those 
 which here follow, and on all his others see his XX. Blasphemies, pages 
 
Index II. — General Index. 639- 
 
 449 to 481, and Note F., pages 529-551. See under Mary the Virgin. 
 See especially Nestorius' Blasphemies, i, 2, 3, 4, and part of the end of 19, 
 Nestorius makes Christ a mere imperfect man at first, who, however, 
 ''progressed little by little itito the dignity of High Priest,'' or, as he 
 words it again, ''he was perfected by progressing little by little,'' Blas- 
 phemy 16, pages 469, 470. That heresy is anathematized in Anathema 
 XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod; Nestorian Union by good pleasure 
 merely, 70, note; 71, note; by taking to a man, or adoption, 71, 72; see 
 on all those errors, page 112, note; 113-128, note. "All the Bishops,'^ 
 in Act I. of the Third Council, after Nestorius' blasphemous Epistle had 
 been read, "shouted out together^ Let him be anathema who does not 
 anathematize Nestorius,'^ 176, note 388; this curse falls on those who 
 deny that he was a denier of the Inman and a worshipper of a Man, or 
 who share either of those sins or his condemned Eucharistic or other 
 heresies, ibid.; Nestorius is branded by the Third Ecumenical Council as 
 "a new Judas," and as "preaching impiously," and as guilty of "blas- 
 phemous preachings" for his treasonable utterances against Christ's In- 
 carnation, and for creature-worship, and Cannibalism on the Eucharist; 
 see pages 486-488, and 503, and 504, and see also under Man- Worship. 
 Compare page 449, Peter's words. 
 
 2. Nestorius and his Herksies, Heresy 2. His Man-Worship; 
 inasmuch as Nestorius, by denying the Incarnation of God the Word, 
 made his Christ to be a mere human being, that is, a mere creature, and 
 yet worshipped him, he necessarily became by that Man- Worship 
 (av6po}7ro?iaTpela), as Cyril calls it, A WORSHIPPER OF A Man {avdpuTroMTpTjg), 
 as Cyril brands him again and again, that is, a creature-worshipper 
 {KTio/naroldrpTjc), AND SO ENDED, AS CyrII^ WEI.I, ARGUES, IN TURNING A 
 WORSHIPPED CONSUBSTANTlAly TRINITY, THE FATHER, HiS CONSUB- 
 
 STANTiAi, Word and His Consubstantiai, Spirit, into a worshipped. 
 Tetrad, that is, into a Quaternity or Quaternary, that is into 
 a Four, by worshipping a mere Man, a mere creature, that is 
 Christ's humanity, with them; in other words, he ceased to be a 
 Trinitarian and became a Quaternarian, that is a Fourite. His Man- 
 Worship, That is Worship oe a Creature, iv., xxvi., xxxv., xxxvi., 
 xxxix., li., 16; Nestorius, in his Ecumenically condemned Epistle to Cyril, 
 asserts that **a5 * * * circumcision, and sacrifice, and sweatings, and- 
 hunger, and thirst" * * * *'^a/!>/^«d'^^6> ^zj" merely human Christ's 
 "flesh for our sake" they "are to be joined together to be worshipped !" that 
 is creature-worship, contrary to Matt, iv., 10; he gloried in his condemna- 
 tion of Orthodox clerics who agreed with Cyril, and falsely brands them 
 as Manichaeans, 165. Celestine of Rome refused to admit his depo- 
 sitions and excommunications of Orthodox men, 183, 188-193, and 
 especially 197. So did Cyril in his Ecumenically approved Long Epistle, 
 212. See how strongly and faithfully the Bishops of the Third Council 
 condemn Nestorius and his heresies in his Epistle, 166-178. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria in his Shorter Epistle condemns. Nestorius' wor-. 
 
640 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ship of Christ's mere separate humanity, 79-11 1; and exhorts him to hold 
 to and to teach as he (Cyril) does on that theme, 11 2-1 20. See also 
 especially note 183, pages 79-128; note 582, pages 225, 226; notes 676, 
 677 and 679, pages 332-362; and note 680, page 362; compare on the gen- 
 eral subject of Nestorius' Man-Worship, notes 892, 894, 895, 896, 903, 
 909, 910, 911, 933, 935, 937, 938, 939, 941, 944 and 948; 949 especially, 952, 
 954. 957, 958, 959, 963, 9^5, 9^6, 97i, 972, 990, 995, 1000, looi, 1020, 1021, 
 1022, 1040 and 1046; notes 909-1046 are found on pages 454-489. Some of 
 these notes refer to Relative Worship, Nestorius' pagan excuse for his 
 Man-Worship. See also under Worship, heads 2, 3, etc. 
 
 On Nestorius' Tetradism and Cyril's condemnation of it, see note 
 183, pages 79-128, all of that note, especially pages 79-98, and 113-115. 
 Cyril teaches that by worshipping Christ's humanity, he makes it a new 
 god, 79-98; especially pages 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 94; for Cyril held that 
 all a(5ts of religious worship, bowing and prayer included, are prerogative 
 to God alone, 79, 225; the learned Bishop Fell, whom even Romish Bene- 
 didline editors term ^ ' the most illustriotis Bishop of Oxford,'''' speaking of 
 departed saints well writes that, 'Hhe man who petitions them tnakes 
 them gods,''' {Tyler's Primitive Christian Worship, -page 166); Cyril's 
 language is even stronger against the sin of worshipping mere creatures, 
 for he extends his prohibition of it against the Nestorian worship of 
 Christ's separate humanity, which is confessedly the highest of all mere 
 creatures, 79, 225 and often in notes 183 and 679; and the Church has ap- 
 proved his utterances against it in his Two Epistles which were approved 
 at Ephesus, and has condemned Nestorius' assertions of the lawfulness of 
 his relative worship of Christ's separate humanity; see the text of pages 
 79-98; 221-224; 331, 332; 459-469; note 1046, pages 487, 488, 489. 
 
 Cyril in his Long Epistle to Nestorius, condemns his relative wor- 
 ship of Christ's separate humanity ; and his co-worshipping that humanity 
 with God the Word, and his co-calling that Man Cod with God the Word, 
 221-223; 69, note; and in his Anathema VIII. on pages 331, 332, he curses 
 those errors; and the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema IX. 
 curses the Nestorian Man-Worship, page ii. of the Preface. See most 
 clearly Nestorius' Blasphemies 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, pages 459-469, and 
 Note F., pages 529-551. See this whole topic of Nestorius' relative wor- 
 ship of Christ's separate humanity treated of in note 156, pages 61-69, and 
 notes 169, 171, 172; Cyril against Theodoret condemns the Nestorian 
 ^ 'unity of dignities,'''' and the giving the name Son (prerogative to God 
 the Word) to His humanity, relative co7ijunclion, and the giving equality 
 of honors to the mere created humanity put on with God the Word, 67, 
 68, note; Nestorius' Counter Anathema VIII. and the Creed ascribed to 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia are for Relative Worship, 68, 69; that Creed 
 condemned by Ephesus, and Nestorius' Relative Worship one cause for 
 his deposition, 69, note; see page 112, note; the Nestorian attempt to 
 dodge Cyril's charge of worshipping a mere man, Christ's humanity, by 
 saying that they worshipped both Natures together, used by Theodoret, 
 
hidex II. — Gerieral Index. 641 
 
 Ii6, note; condemned by Cyril, ibid., and on pages 79-86 and 221-224, 
 and in his Anathema VIII., all of which places are ratified by the whole 
 Church in the Third World-Council; that co- worship is anathematized in 
 Anathema IX. of the Fifth Council, 116, note; Cyril condemns it again 
 and again in note 183, pages 79-128; note 582, page 225, and in note 679, 
 pages 332-362; Nestorius' statement on page 461 of this work, ^' I separate 
 the Natures, but I U7iite the bowing,'' counted as part of his Blasphemies, 
 449; and made one of the grounds of his deposition, 449, 461, 486-489; 
 Cyril brands that uniting the bowing as an 'Hnsulf' to 'Hhe superior 
 being [God the Word] by dragging down His Better Nature into dis- 
 honor, 87; as perversely proclaiming ''two gods, one who is such in Na- 
 ture and in reality, that is the Word Who has come out of God the Father, 
 and another besides Him, [a mere creature, Christ's humanity,] who is 
 co-named [by the Nestorians] God with Him,'" 88; as nevertheless Man 
 Worship, 88, 90, and as addiftg ''a worshipped Man to the Holy and 
 Consubstantial Trinity,'' and that without shame, 89, and as Tetradism, 
 90-98. Cyril bases all worship of the Son on the fact that the Logos is 
 there, 215, note 548; Nestorianism by its denial of the Inman and by its 
 worship of a creature is branded by the Third World Synod as an Apos- 
 tasy, see 257, note, and subnote "5," and Relative Worship; see further 
 on its Man-Worship, note 892, pages 451, 452; the ancient belief that 
 Nestorius was a Man-Worshipper is testified to by the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod and the Fifth and by all the fa(5ls in the case; the modern view 
 that he was innocent, and differed from Cyril and from the Orthodox in 
 words only is condemned by both Synods, and by his own statements, 
 and is opposed to all the data given, 452, text, and notes 892, 894. 
 Nestorius and His Herksies; 
 
 3. His deniai, of the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 
 which was maintained by Cyril and Ephesus TO avoid worshipping a 
 Man, that is, to avoid creature worship; xxiii., xxiv., xxxv., 
 xxxvi. See Econom,ic Appropriation. Nestorius, in his Ecumenically 
 condemned Epistle to Cyril denies the dodlrine of Economical Appropri- 
 ation again and again, 156, 158, 159, 163-165, and ignorantly and slander- 
 ously makes it out to be Theopaschitism, and to * ' belong to the errone- 
 ous opinions of the heathen, or the errors of Apollinaris, who was 
 smitten in mind, and of Arius, and of a mind sick with the other heresies, 
 or rather with whatever is worse than these." Acacius of Melitine cen- 
 sures him for such slanderous language, 168, 169. Memnon of Ephesus 
 brands his Epistle as ^'fdl not only of slander but also of blasphemy," 
 169. Theodotusof Ancyra says of that Epistle, " We decide that the 
 Epistle of Nestorius is foreign to the right faith, a7id we judge those who 
 hold to its teachings to be aliens from the faith of Christians,'^ 170. See 
 much more to the same effect in the testimonies on pages 166-178. Theo- 
 dotus of Ancyra testifies that Nestorius denied Economic Appropriation, 
 400-414; so Acacius testifies of a Nestorian bishop, 417; Cyril and Athan- 
 asiusforit, 115, note; the Council condemns Nestorius for denying it, 
 488, note 1046. 
 
642 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, in his Shorter Epistle, explains and defends the 
 do(5lrine of Economic Appropriation, 74-78, and exhorts Nestorius to 
 hold to it and to teach it, 11 2- 120, as well as the other Orthodox dodlrines 
 specified by Cyril in that Epistle. Economic Appropriation necessary to 
 avoid Man-Worship, note 173, pages 74-76; 217, note 551; Economic Ap- 
 propriation, notes 180, 181, 182, pages 78, 79; how it differs from Com- 
 munication of Properties y 75, note. 
 
 Cyril, in his Long Epistle to Nestorius, teaches the do(5lrine of 
 Economic Appropriation, and explains it as against Nestorius' slanders 
 on it, 224 to 231. Cyril forbids to separate the names of the Son between 
 His two Natures, but ascribes them all to God the Word, the divine as 
 naturally prerogative to God, the human as Economically appropriated 
 to him, as he elsewhere explains to avoid Man- Worship (pages 237-240, 
 Vol. I. oiNicaea in this Set), 241-254, and Anathema IV. in Cyril's Long 
 Letter on page 325. Incidentally, Cyril teaches against the Apollinarians, 
 that Christ's humanity 'Hs a man animated by a rational soul,'' 250; and 
 while believing in Two Natures, he seems to confine the term Person to 
 God the Word, to the exclusion of his perfect humanity in which as in a 
 temple, according to Athanasius' simile on pages 98, 99, 100, God the 
 Word's Substance dwells and has ever dwelt since, as the Creed of Nicaea 
 has it, ''He took flesh and put on a man " in Mary's womb, 254, text, 
 (compare under Person), or since, as the Creed of the Second World- 
 Council has it, 'Eor our salvation he came down out of the heavens, and 
 took flesh of the Holy Ghost and Mary the Virgin and put on a man.'' 
 In his Anathema XII. Cyril curses every denier of the dodlrine of Eco- 
 nomic Appropriation, pages 355-358. Nestorius denies it in his Blas- 
 phemy 19, pages 475-478. See also all of Nestorius' XX. Blasphemies, 
 pages 449-480, and note F., pages 529-551; see note 159, (really 158, see 
 Errata), page 69, on Economic Appropriation as regards the expression 
 Son of Man; and page 112, note. 
 Nestorius and His Heresies; 
 
 4. His one nature Conswbstantiatign, and Cannibalism 
 {avdpuiTO(payia) ON THE EuCHARiST, xxvi., xxxv., li., 107, note; see heads 
 I and 2 above on his persecution of the Orthodox, and Celestine's and 
 Cyril's refusal to admit his depositions and excommunications. Cyril, 
 in his Longer Epistle, condemns the Nestorian one-nature Consubstauti- 
 ation and Cannibalism, 231-240, and their heresy, associated by them with 
 it, that the flesh of a mere Man can quicken, Anathema XI., pages 347- 
 354. See under Eucharist. See also Nestorius' Blasphemy 18, and 19, 
 end, pages472-474and478; pages Ixxxvii. andlxxxviii. of the Forematter, 
 and under Ephesus in this Index, and 58, note; see also Eucharist in the 
 General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. The Third Ecumenical Council 
 deposes Nestorius, among other things, for his Cannibal heresy on the 
 Lord's Supper, 488, note 1046. 
 
 Nestorius and His Heresies; 
 
 5. The Nestorian worship of the alleged real PRESENCE 
 
 OF THK SlTBSTAiNCE OF Cn.aST'S HUMANITY IN THE EUCHARIST, xxvi.; 
 
Index II. — Ge7icral hidex. 643 
 
 io6, 107, uote; aud under Theodoret. Nestorius held to the real absence 
 of the Eternal Substance of Christ's Divinity from the Eucharist, but to 
 the real presence of the substance of His flesh aud blood there; and to 
 the lawfulness of worshipping them relatively, 221-224, 459-469. Cyril 
 of Alexandria agreed with him in asserting the real absence of the Sub- 
 stance of Christ's Divinity from the rite, but differed from him in deny- 
 ing any real presence of the substance of Christ's humanity in that sac- 
 rament and consequently any worship of it there. Indeed Cyril every- 
 where denies any worship to Christ's separate humanity; see the Preface j 
 page ii., the text of 221-224, and his Anathema VIII., pages 331, 332, with 
 which agree Anathemas IX. and XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, 
 Preface, page ii.; and see in note 183, pages 109-112, where Ecumenically 
 approved language is found against such worship. See under Eucharist. 
 See also in note 606, pages 240-313, particularly pages 250-313; and note 
 F., pages 529-551; and note 1046, pages 487, 488, 489, where we see that 
 Theodoret, Nestorius' disciple and champion, held to the worship of 
 Christ's humanity, (not at all His Divinity), in the Eucharist, which pre- 
 sumably was Nestorius' view also; see Theodoret, and under Eucharist 
 in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 Nestorius and His Heresies; 
 
 6. Nestorius makes a mere man oni,y, that is a mere crea- 
 ture, OUR High Priest and Aposti^e and Mediator and Inter- 
 cessor, AND MAKES HIM OFFER A SACRIFICE FOR HIMSEI.F. That 
 would naturally lead to the invocation and worship of Christ's mere 
 humanity which would be what Cyril calls Man-Worship, that is Crea- 
 ture-Worship. See Nestorius' Blasphemies 16 and 17, pages 469-471, for 
 his making our High Priest a mere man, that is a mere creature; and 
 pages 459-469, where he makes that mere creature to be worshipable and 
 gives him the name of God; and page 471, where he makes him, the sin- 
 less, offer a sacrifice for himself See also note F., pages 529-551. Cyril 
 contends in eff"ect in his writings here and there, that our only Intercessor 
 and Advocate in heaven is God the Word by His humanity and that those 
 oflSces of intercession and advocacy there are prerogative to God the 
 Word to whom all the things of his humanity are to be Economically 
 appropriated; and he therefore sweeps away all invocation of saints and 
 all intercession in heaven by them; whereas Nestorius led the way to 
 the intercession of saints in heaven, and to the invocation of them there 
 by creatures on earth, by making a mere creature, his merely human 
 Christ, our Advocate and Intercessor there, and by invoking him to help; 
 see especially Nestorius' language on page 471 and note 995 there, and 
 page 489, note 1046, end. 
 
 Cyril on the contrary ascribes all the High Priestly and Medi- 
 atorial and Intercessory work of Christ to God the Word, though 
 he teaches that he does the human part of the work by his humanity; 
 and he denies that Christ offered for himself, for He had no sin, 255-267. 
 As to the very important and necessary part of God the Word in the 
 
644 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 work of High Priesthood, Mediation, and Intercession see in this Index 
 under Christ, and in an Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, under Christ, Invo- 
 catio7i, and Prayer. 
 Nestorius and His Heresies; 
 
 7. Cyrii, shows that the Words, ''He shall glorify Me,'*' (John 
 
 xvi., 14), UTTERED BY CHRIST OF THE SPIRIT, DO NOT SHOW THAT HE 
 WAS A MERE Man. He shows THAT THEY ARE PERFECTI^Y CONSONANT 
 WITH THE BEWEF THAT THE XJTTERER IS GOD THE WORD, 268-285. 
 
 Nestorius in his Blasphemy 15, pages 467-469, makes those words of 
 Christ to mean that God the Holy Ghost glorified Christ's mere humanity, 
 and asserts that 'Hhe Father made the humanity taken, [not God the 
 Word], to sit down with Himself,'" that is made a mere creature to share 
 that honor which is aye prerogative to the Logos, who is inside the Man 
 taken. See also note F., pages 529-551 of this volume, where the rest oi 
 Nestorius* Heresies, as well as the seven above, are more specifically 
 stated. 
 Nestorius; his Book of Sermons, xxxi., 31, 32; some new headings to them 
 made up by Gamier, 1. ; his great power as Bp. of Constantinople, xxxii. ; 
 refuses to heed Cyril's admonitions, and tries to win Celestine of Rome to 
 his side, xxxvi.; grounds of his deposition, xxxviii.; its justice, xxxviii., 
 xxxix., xlix. 
 
 At Ephesus Nestorius walls his house in by a multitude of soldiers, 
 168, note 354; ''co7iviHed himself of teaching a strange do^rine,'' 169, 
 text, and note 361; its originators, ibid.; this applies to his denial of the 
 Inman, to his Man- Worship, etc., ibid.; egotism and assumption as to wis- 
 dom and knowledge common to him and toother heretics, ibid. 
 Nestorius' Ecumenically condemned Epistle to Cyril; its contents, 155, 158, 
 159-161, 165; it is read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council, and is 
 branded as contrary to the Faith of Nicaea and to the Ecumenically ap- 
 proved Shorter Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, and is condemned and 
 anathematized and he with it, 154-178, where strong and clear and just 
 testimonies are borne against it and him by the Bishops in giving their 
 votes. Compare ''Nestorius and his Heresies'' in this Index. His 
 Epistle contains an alien Gospel and therefore is anathematized, 173; is 
 contrary to the Tradition and the Faith of the Universal Church, 170; its 
 ''dogmas" are "to the pollution and the ruin" of those who follow Nes- 
 torius, 173; its heresies are of darkness and of Belial, 174; are "wicked 
 opinions," 175; its teaching branded as "the impious faith'' of "the 
 heretic Nestorius;" "the impious do^rine of Nestorius;" as "impious 
 religion," I'jj, 178; every one who communicates with Nestorius, and 
 every one who does not anathematize him is anathematized, 176, 177, 178; 
 his mind clear from his Epistle, 404-414; in it he denies Economic Ap- 
 propriation and the Incarnation, 404-414; on the basis of "his letters aiid 
 writi7igs," etc., he is deposed, 486-488. Heading of his Epistle in some 
 editions, 155, note 290; its place in the arrangement of the A(5ls, 155, 
 note 292; he denies the Incarnation. 1-6, text, and note 297; held 
 
Index II. — Ge7ieral Index. G45 
 
 that the sense of the Nicene Creed and of Holy Writ was involved in the 
 controversy between him and Cyril, 156, note 297; how Nestorius diflfered 
 from Cyril and the Orthodox on God the Word's being in a Man, 157, 
 note 308; Nestorius denies the Inmau again, 158; in what senses he uses 
 Economy and Cotijun^ioti, 158, notes 308 and 309; again squints at denial 
 of the Inman, 158, text and note 310; impliedly brands the Orthodox 
 dodlrine on it as a wicked heresy, 158, text, and note 311; again denies 
 the Incarnation, 158, text, and note 312; injustice after all this of those 
 who vilify the Third Council for condemning him, 159, note 312; mistakes 
 the dodlrine of Economic Appropriation for Theopaschitism, 159, text, 
 and notes 313, 316; ^^^ Economic Appropriation; and note 334, page 163; 
 Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, blames him for denying Economic Appro- 
 priation, 168, notes 355, 3.57; Nestorius was a persecutor of those who 
 believed in the Inman and rejedled his Man- Worship, 192, note 476. See 
 also Pelagians. Nestorius misrepresents the Orthodox dodlrine of the 
 Inflesh, 158, 159, text, and note 314; again denies the birth of God the 
 Word out of the Virgin, 161, text, and note 317; he denies it for the fifth 
 time in one Epistle, 162, text, and note 331. How Nestorius and Cyril 
 diflfered on the Eucharist, 162, note 330; the Third Ecumenical Council 
 follows Cyril, ibid.; Nestorius admits acoiijun^ion, not a real union of 
 Christ's two Natures, 163, text and note; for the sixth time in one Letter 
 he denies the Inman, 164, text, and note; Romanus of Rhaphia anathe- 
 matizes his heresies in accordance with Galat. i., 8, 9; Evopti us brands 
 his heresies as resulting in ''the pollution and ruin of the mett who Jol- 
 lowed him,'' 173, note; that is true not only of those guilty of the Nes- 
 torian worship of Christ's humanity, but much more of those who wor- 
 ship the Virgin Mary, saints, pictures, graven images, crosses, etc., ibid.; 
 Nestorius persistent in his denial of the Inflesh, 187, note 446; 191, note 
 473. Evoptius pronounces his heresy "a counterfeit of the do5lrine of 
 Orthodoxy,'' and brands him as ''deserving of all punishment bejore 
 God and men," 173. 
 
 Nestorius, a worshipper of a Man, note 338, page 164; worshipped 
 Christ's sweatings, etc., 164, note 338; Cyril and the Orthodox refused all 
 Nestorian and Cosubstancer ]\[an-Worship, ibid.; his Man worship and 
 other heresies to "the pollution and rui?t of the men who followed him," 
 173, note 376; that is true of all who worship the Virgin Mary, saints, 
 angels, images painted or graven, or crosses, and of all who worship any 
 thing but God, ibid.; persistent in his Man Worship, 187, note 446; of 
 *Hmpious aim," ibid., text; the three summonses to him, 188, note 449; 
 191, note 473; 196, note 496; the sentence on him for his denial of the 
 Inman, and for his Man- Worship, etc., just and ratified by Christ, ibid. 
 Nestorius, his XX. Blasphemies; xxxviii., li.; is condemned and deposed for 
 them, ibid.; they are read in Act I., 449-479; are termed "blasphemies," 
 "horrible and blasphemous," "Blasphemy," and are made an "Accusa- 
 tion against him," 449, 480; is deposed for them. They embrace his 
 heresies in denying the Incarnation, in worshipping a mere creature. 
 
616 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Christ's separate humanity, as both in heaven, and in the bread and wine 
 of the Eucharist, in affirming one-nature Consubstantiation, etc.; see 
 them in full on pages 449-480, and see them specified under diflferent 
 heads in note F., pages 529-551; see also in this Index under Nestorius 
 and his Heresies. The Third Synod says that ''Our Lord Jesus 
 Anointed * * ^ has been blasphemed by him,'' ^^T, ^'li?). Nestorius' 
 XX. ''Blasphemies'' recorded in the A(5ls as such, 449, text, and note 
 879; 479, note 1022. Nestorius' heresies branded as "«^z^^//z>5, " 182; 479* 
 text, and note 102 1 on page 478; as the cause of the loss of souls, 191; 
 Celestinehas read that he is sound against Pelagianism, but if so does 
 not see why he entertains Pelagians, 193. See under Nestorius and his 
 Heresies. Latin translations of Nestorius' Blasphemy 18 (which is on the 
 Eucharist), note 1007, page 474; the Greek of it there; references to Cyril 
 of Alexandria on it, ibid.; the English translation oi Blasphemy 18, 472, 
 473 and 474, text; see Eucharist. On the whole subject of Nestorius* 
 XX. Blasphemies, see most fully on pages 529-551, ''Note F.—The 
 Twenty Passages from Nestorius, for which he was condemned and de^ 
 posed by the Universal Church in its Third Ecumenical Synod." The 
 matter regarding those XX. Passages is arranged in four columns; in 
 column I, the number of the Passage is mentioned; in column 2, we are 
 told where in Nestorius' Sermons it is found; in column 3, we are told 
 what error or errors are taught by Nestorius in each passage, and what 
 Anathema of Cyril or the Fifth Synod condemns it or them; and column 
 4 tells where Cyril of Alexandria quotes and refutes it or them, 529. The 
 capital letters tell us to which class of Nestorius' errors, a passage or a 
 part of a passage belongs. These are again included under five general 
 heads, i, 2, 3, 4 and 5; 529 to 531; next come the four column pages 534- 
 548; the XX. Passages are from Nestorius' Homilies, that is Sermons, 
 549; but there is a difference as to their arrangement, 549; Pusey on it, 
 549; Chrystal's ''Arrangement of the Twenty Passages of Nestorius for 
 which he was deposed in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, accord- 
 ing to the Sermons from which they were taken," 549, 550; the Latin 
 headings as in Migne's edition, 549; they are not Nestorius', but are sim- 
 ply additions of copyists or editors, and they differ in Galland from those 
 in Migne; and are of no authority, 550, 551. 
 
 Nestorius' Epistles; 185-189; at the end of the voting on his Epistle 
 to Cyril we read in Act I., "All the Bishops shouted out together, 'Let 
 him be anathema who does not anathematize Nestorius!' " This curses 
 all who defend him or any of his heresies, or share any of them, includ- 
 ing his denial of the Inman, his creature worship, his errors on the Eu- 
 charist, etc., 176-178; see Eucharist, Cannibalism, etc.; was anticipatively 
 opposed by Gregory of Nazianzus, 439, note 802. 
 Nestoriiis the Heresiarch; his name in the Adls, 30, 31, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52,. 
 53, 54, 129-154 repeatedly; Cyril's Long Letter to him, 206-358; 360, 391, 
 392, 399, 416, 417; 503, where he is called "a new Judas;" 504. 
 
Index II. — General Index. 647 
 
 Nestorius the Heresiarch; was called from Antioch to be Bishop of 
 Constantinople, i8i, note 405; his birth-place 192, note 478; his writings 
 said to be preserved in Syriac, note 102 1, page 478. 
 
 I^estorius; impious, 41, note 100; references to his heresies and Cyril against 
 them, etc., 113-115; 424, note. His invocation of his merely human High 
 Priest is a sort of saint worship, 372, note. The ultimatums to him from 
 Rome and Alexandria, note 703, page 414, his boorish treatment of 
 Bishops sent to him by Cyril of Alexandria, and his violation of his own 
 word and engagement, note 705, on page 415; his misrepresentation, 
 against knowledge, of Cyril and the Orthodox, notes 706, 714 and 717; 
 denies Economic Appropriation, and the Inman, and held to Man-Wor- 
 ship, note 714, page 415, and notes 716, 720, 721, 722; there is no excuse 
 for defending him, note 716; he was shallow, notes 717, 720, 721, and the 
 text on pages 416, 417; his wrong and unreasonable course at Ephesus, 
 and the heresies for which he was condemned, note 1046, pages 487, 488, 
 489; The Council's course towards him fair and wise, ibid. 
 
 I^euufnan^ J. H.; the Ronianizer; 10, note 8; 102-106, note; never understood 
 the VI. Synods; hence his fall into idolatry, 377, note; his error against 
 Cyril and Ephesus as to Christ's Priesthood, 376, note; his wrong trans- 
 lation of 0ford/coc, note 741, page 420. 
 
 Newton, R. Heber; an opponent of the Niceue faith, 9; see his name in the 
 General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea. 
 
 Nicaea, Ecumenical Council of , A, D. 325; convoked by an Emperor, 5, 6; helped 
 by him, 6; Cyril of Alexandria writes of its Symbol, that is Creed, that it was 
 ''defined through the illum.i?iation of the SpiriV by ^ 'the Fathers gathered 
 aforetime in the city of the Nicaeans, ' ' xxii, ; it is in Cyril's Longer Epistle 
 and was read in it in Act I. of Ephesus; 213, 214; Cyril there teaches that 
 the Holy Spirit spoke in the holy Fathers when they made it, ibid.; that 
 expression accords with Scripture, 214, note 541. See ^'Council, the First 
 Ecum.enical,^'' in this volume; and ''Creed of the First EcHm.e7tical Coun- 
 cily^^ and *' Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Synod, ^'' in the General Index 
 to Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set. The Nicene Creed is explained by Cyril 
 against the perversion of it by Nestorius, xxii.; xxxviii. ; it is termed 'Hhe 
 Symbol of the Church' s faith,''' ibid.; is recited in A(5t I. of the Council, 
 ibid.; and 50, 51; is termed by Cyril "the piotis Definition of the Faith,'''* 
 XXV.; quoted in his Shorter Epistle, 60, 61, 73, 74, and notes 151, 168, 174, 
 175, and referred to repeatedl}^ in the voting on it as a Criterion by which 
 to judge of its Orthodox}^, 129-154; 51, note 139; is perverted by Nesto- 
 rius to teach the denial of the Inman, 155, 156, 157; it is embodied in 
 Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius and is there explained at some length, 
 213, and after; the two forms of it, 50, note 138; 51, note 139; how the 
 VI. Ecumenical Synods vindicated and explained its true sense against 
 the perversions of Creature Worshippers, ibid. ; when it was displaced in 
 baptism and in the Eucharist by the Creed of the Second Synod, ibid.; 
 how the Third Synod explained it against the Creature-Server Nestorius 
 and against all forms of Relative Service to Christ's separate humanity, 
 
648 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 to saints, graven images, and pictures, relics, crosses, etc., ibid.; is mainly 
 in the words of Scripture, its sense wholly Scriptural, 167, note 351; see 
 on it note 654, page 319; and under Council, the Second Ecumenical^ 
 the teaching of the two Ecumenical Creeds on God the Word and on the 
 Holy Ghost, 528; absurd multiplications ofthe Logos against their dodlrine 
 on Him, 528. 
 J^icaea, the idolatrous Conventicle of in A. D. 787; iv., x., xlii., note; xlix.;it 
 opposed the dodlrines of the first VI. Ecumenical Synods on the invoca- 
 tion and worship of creatures, relics, images, etc., and on the Eucharist, 
 52, note; God cursed every nation which received it, and still curses all 
 who hold to it, 175, note 388; its ignorant and false assertion as to the 
 use of type or symbol for the Eucharistic bread and wine after consecra- 
 tion, 269, note; See Tarasius, its President, a.nd.Theodore of the Studium, 
 its idolatrous partisan; it contradidled the Holy-Ghost -led decisions of 
 the Third Ecumenical Council which forbid us to invoke, bow to, or in 
 any other way worship living creatures, and which forbid all worship of 
 images, pictured and graven, all crosses and relics, and all worship of 
 any person or thing except the Consubstantial Trinity, iv. 
 
 o. 
 
 Obiter diHa; things passingly said; the Universal Church not responsible for 
 them, 486, note 1039. 
 
 One Natureites; have corrupted Cyril of Alexandria's writings, 113, note; see 
 Monophysites, and Two Natures of Christ. 
 
 Origen; Ecumenically condemned, ix., xlix. ; his error on the risen body, 513- 
 517; well uses types or symbols or their synonyms of the Eucharistic 
 bread and wine, 269, note. 
 
 Osiander, the Lutheran; on Christ's High Priestly Sacrifice, 377, note. 
 
 Oxford Library of the Fathers; it contains the historic testimony and the 
 opinions of mere individuals ^ however eminent they may be; but this 
 Set of the Six Councils of the whole Christian World contains the sound 
 and irrevocable verdidis and filial and supremely authoritative decisions 
 of the Episcopate of the Whole Church, the Christ- Appointed Supreme 
 Court of all Christendom, on every subject on which they treat, xi. 
 
 Papal Infallibility; see Peter, and Honorius. 
 
 Parec, xl., text, and note "a." 
 
 Parish; how used anciently; 497, note 11 14. 
 
 Parium; 153, note 285. 
 
 Pask, that is Easter, that is, the Christian Passover; disputes before Nicaea, 
 as to the day on which it should be kept, xxxix-xlv. ; the term Easter 
 pagan and not to be used, 35, note 89. See under Pask in Vol. I. of 
 Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Patriarchs; only greater Metropolitans, 5; 32, note 73; 38, text. 
 
Index II. — Ge7ieral hidex. 649 
 
 Paul the Apostle; rebukes Peter for dodlrinal heresy, xlviii. ; quoted and referred 
 
 to by Celestine, 191, 192, 
 Paul of Samosata; his charadler and heresies and end; the last two similar to 
 
 Nestorius', xxi., xxxv., 192, text, and note 479. 
 Paul the Silentiary; his account of a holy table, 248. note. 
 Paulianists; 192, note 497; their baptism invalid, ibid. See Baptism. 
 Pentecost; 36, text; the day set by the Emperors in A. D. 431 for the Third Synod 
 to open, ibid.; the term Whitsunday used among us for it is wrong, page 
 36, note 90. 
 
 Periodeutes, that is an Itinerant; note 11 12, page 496; his order and fundlions, 
 ibid. 
 
 Person^ (Jlpoffwrrov), and Subsistence, Beings {'TTrdoraat^)^ used for God the Word 
 alone, Who, however, is inside His flesh, 254, text, and 313, note 616. 
 See Christ, and pages 329, note 671, end; and compare note 674, pages 
 329, 330, and note 675, pages 330, 331. Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecu- 
 menical Council in describing Nestorius' worship of Christ's separate 
 humanity uses Person (II/jdtKyTrov) of the Logos alone; see it, and page 580 
 of this Index. 
 
 Personal U?iion; see Hypostatic Union. 
 
 Peter the Apostle; his fallibility shown from Scripture, xlv.-xlix., and 39, note; 
 that his successors in the See of Rome are also fallible is shown from the 
 decision of the Sixth World Council on that point in the case of his suc- 
 cessor, Honorius, xlviii., xlix., and 39, note 94. Attempts of Peter's 
 Roman successors to get Appellate JurisdiAion outside of Italy resisted, 
 39, note 94. See under Africa, and Aurelius, and Hilary of Aries, and 
 note on pages 427, 428. 
 
 Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 300-311, and Martyr; /^i^-^2o\ see there his 
 witness on the Inman, etc.; see also page Ixxxvii. of the Forematter in 
 this volume, and Mwdier Ephesus A. D. 431 in this Index; his literary 
 remains but few, page 514. 
 
 Peter the Fuller, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch A. D. 471-488, led the way 
 to the worship of saints, Ixviii, 
 
 Peter Mogila, and his Confession, for the Greek form of Transubstantiation, 525. 
 
 Peter, a Presbyter of Alexandria, a7id chief of the Secretaries, lii.; his name in 
 the Aas, 30, 46, 48, 52, 179, 204, 205, 359, 418, 449, 479, 481. 
 
 Philip ofSida; loi, 102, note; a work of his against Julian the Apostate wrongly 
 ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria, ibid. 
 
 Photinus, the heresiarch, xxi. ; Nestorius accused of holding to his errors, ibid. 
 
 Phoiius, Patriarch of Constantinople; 102, note; 123, note; 424, note; an image 
 worshipper, 124, note, and creature worshipper, 124, note. 
 
 Pi^ures; worship of forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see under Images, and 
 Image- Worship, 52. See Augustine. See also Pi5lures in the General 
 Index to Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 Poleniians; 108. See Apollinarians, and Timotheans, and Synusiasts. 
 
 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna; his dispute with Anicetus, Bp. of Rome, xxxix., 
 xlv. ; called John's disciple, and Irenaeus' teacher, 269, note. 
 
650 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Poly crates. Bishop of Ephesus; Vidlor, Bishop of Rome, tries to get him excom- 
 municated by the whole Church, but fails, xxxix; see Victor, and Quar- 
 todecimanSy and Polycarp, 
 
 Pope; its meaning, 155, note. 
 
 Porphyrins of Antioch; on Chrysostom, xviii., note C. 
 
 Possidofiius, the Deacon; xxxvii.; 31, text, and note 66, 181, 402. 
 
 Potamon, Pp.; Cyril's representative at Constantinople, Ixxvi., 364. 
 
 Prayer; see under Worship, and Invocation here and in Vol. I. of Nicaea. 
 
 Priest; ws^^ for Bishop, 195, 196, 484, 190, note 465; 196, note 495; 485, note 
 1036; herv and hierev used for Priest, ibid.; see Priesthood, and Priestly, 
 and 484, note 1035. Christians, ministers and people, are the only true 
 priesthood, 508, 512; what dodtrines a Christian minister or laic must hold 
 to in order to be an offerer acceptable to God, 512; compare in the Index 
 of Holy Writ under I. Peter ii., 5, 9, and Rev. i., 6, in this volume and in 
 the Scripture Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea; every Christian a priest, 508, 512; 
 /VzV^^used for Bishop, 195, text, and note 491. 
 
 Priesthood, Christ's; 258. See Christ. 
 
 Priesthood, the doHrine of the Christian, 39, note 95; 195, note 491; Christian 
 clerics and people priests in a higher sense than the sons of Aaron and 
 the Israelitish people were, and their offerings higher because more 
 spiritual, 39, note 95; 195, note 491; what are the fundlions of the Epis- 
 copate in the Priesthood, 195, note 491; see Bishops. 
 
 Priestly; used for Episcopal, 485, note 1036, and probably, 488, text. 
 
 Proclus; spurious produ6lions ascribed to him, xlix., 1., 411, 412. 
 
 Prosdocius; 424, note, 
 
 Protestant; God calls Himself so, in effect, 210, note 533; in what sense, ibid.; 
 in that sense of condemning and crushing all image-worship and creature- 
 worship we all must be intense Protestants, ibid. ; two senses of the term 
 like Catholic and Orthodox; we must hold to the sound, the VI. Synods' 
 sense, and discard the bad sense, ibid.; different names applied to the 
 Orthodox in different ages, 211, note; different names of the unsound 
 communions, ibid. 
 
 Province, the, and its Synod; note 702, page 413; see also Church Government. 
 
 Provinces, Church; 479, note 1023. See also under Church Government. 
 
 Puritanism; wrong conception of, 441, note 816. 
 
 Pusey, E. B., the father, the idolatrizer; x., xii., 9, 10; corrupts the Eucharist 
 into paganism, 107, note; and is anathematized antecedently by the 
 Third Council, 107, note; 250, note; and 531, 532, 533, and all class 4 
 of Passages mentioned on page 531; they are found on pp. 529-551; his 
 misrepresentation of Cyril on the Eucharist, 252, note; 271, note, and 
 sub-note "^ " ; in his scoundrelly Eirenicon he favors image-worship and 
 the invocation of saints, 222, note; was a Latinizer and mediaevalizer, 
 not a primitivizer, ibid. 
 
 Pusey, P. E., the son of E. B., the editor of the Greek of Cyril's Works; xi. ; 70, 
 note; an instance of his mistranslation, note on pp. xxii., xxiii.; his 
 translation of Cvril's Works on the Incarnation faulty, xxxv.; 253, note; 
 
Index II. — Ge7ieral Index. 651 
 
 256, note; 472, note 995; instances of his mistranslation, ibid.; and 532, 
 text and sub- note *'a"; could translate cxtriKi] rightly when he would, 
 532, sub-note "a." 
 
 Q- 
 
 Quartodecimans; Nestorius does much against them, xxviii. ; Rome attempted 
 to put them out of the Church by the Appeal to the Church distributed 
 in sees, but failed, xxxix.-xlv.; they are condemned by the first Ecumen- 
 ical Synod and branded as heretics by the Second, and those decisions 
 are accepted by the whole Church, xliv., text, and note *V." 
 
 Quaternion, what? note 880, pages 449, 450. 
 
 R. 
 
 Rabi Bdbd; 478, note. 
 
 Real Presence; the expression and matter on it, 301, 302, note, and subnote 
 **«;" 284, note; and note 1020, page 478, and see note 606, pages 240-313. 
 
 Rebirth, the, of Baptism; see Regeneratio7i and Dipping. 
 
 Reformation , the; a source of blessings, xlii., note. 
 
 Regeneration, that is Rebirth; includes necessarily the emersion of Baptism, 
 448, note 872. 
 
 Relative ConjunHion; explained by Cyril in note 156; see especially, pages 64- 
 66 of that note; (see Nestorius a7id his Heresies, and Nestorius); 67. 
 See also under ox^oiv^ Gxermiiv, and axeriKQ)^, in the Inde:x: to the Greek 
 Words and Greek Expressions in this volume; and 69, note; 79-90, note, 
 where Relative Conjundliou is explained, as opposed to the Substance 
 Union. See Union of Christ's two Natures, and Man- Worship; and 
 113, note; and 114, note; Relative Conjundlion and denial of the Inman 
 the ground of the Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ's humanity, note 
 156, pages 61-69; iiote 183, pages 118- 128; and of Tetradism, 90-108; all 
 those errors condemned by the Universal Church in the Six Synods, 108- 
 112; 219, note 365; Nestorian writers for Relative Conjundlion and the 
 Relative Worship of Christ's humanity, 112-128; Cyril again explains the 
 Nestorian Co7iju7idlion, 219, note 365; both heresies condemned by Cyril, 
 note 156, pages 61-69, and note 183, pages 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119; 
 according to Nestorius' Relative Conjun(ftion idea, God the Word dwelt 
 in his humanity, not by His Divine Substance, but only by the influeiices 
 of His Spirit as He dwelt in the Prophets, 118, note; 164, note 334, 335; 
 263, subnote "zY;" note 747, page 421; results of Nestorian heresies on 
 the Union, 219, note 365. 
 
 Relative Conjun6lion ends in Relative Worship of a mere creature 
 Christ's separate humanity, notes 963, 965, 966, pages 466, 467; God-given 
 insight of the Universal Church iu forbidding it, note 966, page 467. See 
 also under Relative Worship in the General Index to Vol. I. ofNicaea in 
 this Set, and under Relative Worship in this Index. Relative Conjunc- 
 tion called by a Nestorian ''the supreme conjuit^ion,'' 126, note; and 
 
652 Ad I, of Ephesus. 
 
 "the divine ConjU7i£iion,'^ 90, note. See, further, all the references at the 
 end of Relative Indwelling in this Index. 
 
 Relative Indwelling; explained by Cyril, 66; (See Cyril and Nestorius a7id 
 his Heresies); see also under 0x^(^1^^^ ax^TiKriv^ and (T;i'fri/cwf in the Index to 
 the Greek Words and the Greek Expressions in this volume ; Relative 
 Indwelling connected with Relative Worship of Christ's separate hu- 
 manity, 67, note; 74, note 171; 114, note; 164, note; 256, note; See Union 
 0/ Christ's two Natures; how it differs from the Substance Indwelling, 
 96, note; 406, note 690; 440, 441, note 811; see Man- Worships and 96, 
 note; references on Relative Indwelling, 112, note; 113 and 114, note. 
 See Relative Conjun5lio7i; and note 601, page 239; how the error of Rel- 
 ative Indwelling affects the Nestorian view of the Lord's Supper; it is 
 rejedled by St. Cyril, 238-241, text and notes 601-605; 256, note; 257, 
 note; God the Word relatively indwells every Christian, 256-261; how, 
 ibid.; Relative Indwelliiig conjoined by Nestorius with Relative Wor- 
 ship, that is paganism, 256, note; both errors denounced by Cyril again 
 and again, ibid. On Relative Indwelling see Cyril's XII. Chapters, 
 Chapter XI.; Athanasius against the heresy, 418-423, text, and notes to 
 it, especially notes 754, 755, 756, 758; Cyril blames Nestorius for holding 
 merely to a relative indwelling of God the Word in the Man in the Vir- 
 gin's womb, and for his denial of the adlual indwelling of the Substance 
 of God the Word in that Man. See also Relative Conjimdiion, Relative 
 Participation, o^n^ Relative Worship, and Union 0/ Christ' s two Natures, 
 in this Index, and Relative Worship in the Index to volume I. of Nicaea 
 in this Set, and under ox^clv, gx^'ik-i'f, oxsTUia)^ in the Greek Index, and in 
 the Greek Index in the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria 
 on the Incarnation agaiiist Nestorius.'^ 
 
 Relative Participation; how it differs from the Incarnation, 259, 260, note, and 
 sub-note "z "; and 264, note and sub-note " kk;'' Arius held that Christ 
 is ''not true God,'' but ''is called God by participatiofi" [of God's Spirit] 
 "only like others,''' 260, note " z." Athanasius, Cyril, and the Third Coun- 
 cil condemn that blasphemy, 261, sub-note "z"\ 264, note, and sub-note 
 *' kk." Relative Partakifig, note 640, page 318. *' Relative Participation'* 
 of God the Word in the Eucharist, 532. See, further, all the references 
 at the end of Relative hidwelling in this Index. 
 
 Relative Worship; forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; 221, note 580; and by the 
 Vth Synod, ibid.; is heathen, ibid.; see Nestorius and his Heresies, 
 Heresy 2, and Worship; and 74, note 171; and Union of Christ's Two 
 Natures; see Man Worship, and notes 183, 582, and 679, especially pages 
 96, 106; Nestorius deposed for it, 107, note, and 221, note. See Saints^ 
 worship of; the connection between mere Relative Indwelling and Rela- 
 tive Worship, 114, and 120, 121, note; both condemned by Cyril, notes 
 183, 582 and 679; 125-127, note; 257-260, note; a Creed which teaches both 
 heresies condemned by Ephesus, 218, note 363; different forms of relative 
 worship which exist to-day among the Latins, the Greeks, the Nestorians, 
 or the Monophysites, 221, note 580; the worship of the Sacred Heart 
 
hidex II. — Ge7ieral hidex. 653 
 
 among Romanists, ibid.; Cyril and the Ecumenical Synods against the 
 Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ's humanity, references to them, 
 note 580, pages 221-225; Pusey's mistranslations on, ibid.; quotations 
 from Nestorius for the Relative Worship of Christ's humanity, ibid.; 
 Nestorianism, because of its denial of the Inman, and its relative worship 
 of Christ's humanity, a creature, branded by the Third Synod as an 
 ''Apostasy,'' 224, note; 257, note, and subnote "a;" 210, note 533; the 
 idolatrous Israelites worshipped Jehovah through the golden calf in the 
 wilderness, 249, subnote *'«;" that is they worshipped it relatively only, 
 ibid., and 210, note 533; as they did the calves at Bethel and at Dan, 210, 
 note 533; we must hate all such sins, ibid.; Relative Indwelliiig and 
 Relative Worship denounced by St. Cyril, note on pages 256, 257; both 
 heresies taught by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and anathematized in An- 
 athema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, pages 422, 423, 424, note 
 758; compare under Nestorius' Heresy 2, and under Worship, Head "2, 
 Co-glorifying a tnere creature, Chrisfs humanity, with God the Word,'* 
 and Head "3, Co-calling a mere creature, ChrisV s hutnajiity, God, with 
 God the Word.'' Compare all the other Heads under ''Worship;'' the 
 Relative Worship of Christ's humanity anathematized by the Third Ecu- 
 menical Synod and the Fifth; and much more all other forms of Relative 
 Worship, 467, note 966; Romish and Greek forms of it, some of which 
 are practiced by the Nestorians and the Monophysites, ibid.; the excuse 
 of uniting the Worship of the Creator Word and the created Man alleged 
 by the Nestorians refuted and condemned by Cyril and anathematized in 
 his Anathema VIII. and in Anathema IX. of the Fifth Synod, notes 183, 
 582 and 679; compare note on pages 114, 120, 121; 125-127, See, 
 further, all the references at the end of Relative Indwelling in this Index, 
 and under Relative Worship in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea 
 in this Set. 
 
 Relative Worship; by Nestorians? xviii.; forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see 
 Ephesus, A. D. 431, and Creature Worship; and 249, subnote, as to 
 Elisha's bones, and the souls under the altar in Rev. vi. Relics ought to 
 be done away, 5. Relics wrongly put under communion tables, 248-250, 
 and subnote "«" on page 249. 
 
 Revillout; on Senuti, Ixii.-lxix. 
 
 Ridley, Bp.; his reformatory tendencies warranted by Ephesus, Preface, i.; his 
 poetic language, 438, note 801. 
 
 RomCy Bishop of; subject to an Ecumenical Council, xli.-xlv., text and notes; 
 39, note; is fallible, 489, note 1047; heresies which are now maintained by 
 Rome against the VI. Ecumenical Synods, ibid.; they are anathematized 
 by them, xlii., note; how the Greeks, and the Anglican formularies regard 
 Rome, xlii., note; xliii., note; in what sense an Orthodox Bishop of Rome 
 (none other) was ''First among his equals," xli., note; and xliv. ; Rome 
 now the chief fosterer of creature-worship, xli., 22, notes 22 and 26; and of 
 cannibalism on the Eucharist, xlii., note; 22, note 26; itsjurisdiAion, 22, 
 note 26; Ecumenical Canons base its privilege on the fact of its being the 
 
654 Act I. of Epkesus. 
 
 capital city of the Romar Empire, 427, note; Canon XXVIII. of the Fourth 
 Synod passed against the wish of Rome's legates, ibid.; Rome cannot de- 
 cide dodlrine for the whole Church, 39, note 94; 40, note 95. The Western 
 Kmperoi Valentinian III. uses secular power to break down the Ecumen- 
 ical Canons and give the Bishop ofRome Appellate Jurisdiction in his Em- 
 pire 427, 428, note, ' 'Peter and John were of equal honor, forasfnuch as they 
 were apostles,'' etc., 218, text, and note 561; resistance of the British 
 Church to Rome's claims, 427, 428, note. See Leo I.; Rome was a 
 chief champion in centuries viii, and ix. against the Reforming party 
 and for image worship, 473, note 1000, end. Romish Canon I^aw is 
 partly made up of the False Decretals, and has done away in the West 
 with the sway of the Ecumenical Canons, 512. See under Rome, Church 
 of, and Rome, Bishop of, in the Ge^ieral hidex to Vol. I. of Nicaea in 
 this Set; blasphemous flattery of the satellites of the Pope of Rome in 
 ascribing to him the title and the works of God, 509-512. 
 
 Rome, Council at in A. D. 430, on the Nestorian controversy; xxxvi. ; its adlion, 
 ibid.; referred to by Cyril, 209, text, and note 532, and page 213, text. 
 
 Roum,anians; may reform, and restore the faith, 524. 
 
 Sacerdos, that is Priest; 39, note 95; see Priest and Herv, 
 
 Sacerds, 39; see Priest and Herv. 
 
 Sacerdotal Synod, 41; see Priest, Priesthood, Priestly, Sacerdos B.nd. Sacerds. 
 
 Saint; the term not always prefixed to a godly man's name, 441, note 816. 
 
 Saints, Worship of; forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see under Creature Wor- 
 ship, Worship, Relative Worship; invocation of saints, angels, and of 
 any and all other creatures forbidden by Ephesus, 52, note; see Invoca- 
 tion of Christ's humanity, and Invocation of Creatures, and Worship; 
 error that saints pray for us in heaven, 381, note; the English Homily on 
 Prayer on, 387, note; it is against invocation of them, ibid., note, and 
 pages 383-388, note. 
 
 Sancroft, Arbp., and the Six English Bishops who withstood the idolatrizer, 
 James II.; 18. 
 
 Sapor, the Persian Monarch; his folly and arrogance in taking a silly and 
 proud title, 509. 
 
 Saul, King; punished for false liberalism, 250, note. 
 
 Schoolmen; faults of their compilations, 102, note. 
 
 Scripture; "God-inspired," xxii. 
 
 Selenesp07idi2is, a Presbyter; 496; subscribes for "Cyril, Bishop of Pylae," 496. 
 
 Senate, the; at Chalcedon, 57, note. 
 
 Senuti, the Monk, and Monophysite; spurious, Ixii.-lxix. 
 
 Sessions of the Third Council; dates of, 5. 
 
 Sethroetum, Sethroetus, and Sethroete; note 1123, page 498; Sethroetis, ibid. 
 
 Seventh Day; abolished, xlvi., note "a." 
 
 Seventh Ecumenical Synod; a ti-ue one needed, 5, 6, 35, note 88; blessed work 
 
Index II. — General hidex. 65i 
 
 of, 203, note 514; will settle and abolish the idolatry and paganism of 
 
 Rome, 524. 
 Shipley; his heresy on the Eucharist, 271, note and subnote "^;" went at last 
 
 to Rome, ibid. 
 Sisinfiius, Bp. of Constantinople; commended by Celestine, 180, 194, text. 
 Sitting at the Communion, unknown in the primitive Church, 248, note. 
 Six Ecumenical Councils, convoked by Emperors, not Popes, 5; see Ecumen^ 
 
 ical Councils; they should be embodied in our Church Code, and in that 
 
 of the State for their best good, xxx., note. 
 Slavs; hopes of their reform, 524. 
 Sm-ith's (R. Payne) English translatioft of St. Cyril of Alexandria on Luke^ 
 
 532. 
 Socrates, the historian; his account of the rise of the Nestorian Controversy^ 
 
 XX., xxi., xxii,; his account of Nestorius' energy against heretics, xxviii.- 
 
 xxxi. ; was Socrates a Novatian ? xxxi; as to Proclus' alleged Sermons, 1. 
 Sole-Born, in Cyril always means the Sole-Born out of the Father, that is God 
 
 the Word, note 963, page 466. 
 Sozomen, the historian; as to Proclus' alleged Sermon on the Virgin Mary, 1. 
 Spelling; different, in manuscripts; a cause of, 28, note 53. 
 Spirit; used by Gregory of Nazianzus in the sense of Divinity, 440, text, and 
 
 note 807; compare note 732, page 419. 
 Slancaro, the Socinian; on Christ's High Priestly Sacrifice, 377, note. 
 Stephen, Bp. of Rome; opposed by Cyprian, xlv. 
 Stokes, Prof.; on Senuti, Ixiv. 
 Swearing on the Gospels; Bishops Acacius and Theodotus, called upon by Fidus 
 
 and Cyril to swear on the Gospels in giving their testimony regarding 
 
 Nestorius and his heresies in the Third Ecumenical Council, 385-400. 
 Symbol, Credal; see Creed. 
 Symbols, the Eucharistic; 277, note; 278, note; 279, twice; 280, note; termed 
 
 Symbols by Theodoret even after consecration, 278, note; 279, note; 280, 
 
 note; 281, note; 282, note; 284, note; 'Hhe m,ystical symbols,'' 279, note; 
 
 280, note; 'Hhe mystical symbol,'^ note on page 281; ''visible symbols,'^ 
 
 note on page 282; he bowed to, that is worshipped them, note on pages 
 
 280, 282 and 277. 
 Synusiasts; see Co-substancers, and Apollinarians, and Timotheans, and Val-' 
 
 entinian heretics. 
 Syrian Monophysites ; profess at least to receive Ephesus, vi. 
 Syrians; few of Cyril's day were Orthodox, xviii. 
 
 T, 
 
 Table, Communion; still preserved by the Greeks, 248, note. 
 
 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, the image-worshipper and creature-in- 
 
 voker; his God-cursed death, his corrupting and ruining work, iv., x., 
 
 249, note; 322, note 659. 
 Tartars, the; God's curse, 524; see under Arab. 
 
'656 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Temple; Nestorius uses that term of Christ's human body, note 957, page 465; 
 his errors iu denying the Inflesh of God the Word in it, and his worship 
 of it, 465, note 958. See Nestorius arid His Heresies. 
 
 Teriullian; 269, note; on God the Word as 'Hhe Universal Priest of the Father,'*'' 
 371, note; on the refusal of Christians to use the word god of the Em- 
 peror, 505. 
 
 Tetrad, a, of paper; note 880, pages 449, 450. 
 
 Tetradism; 90-128, note; see Nestorius and his Heresies, Heresy 2/ and Four- 
 ism; 379, note; who the Tetrad were, 349, note; Nestorius' worship of 
 Christ's separate humanity ends in Tetradism, instead of the Trinity, 466, 
 note 965. 
 
 Thanksgiving, the; see Eucharist. 
 
 Theodora, the Empress; a. curse, 6. 
 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia; xi., Hi.; see also Cyril and Ephesus; held to Nestorian 
 heresies; on denial of the Inman and on creature worship, xvi., xvii., 
 XX., 70, note; iii, note; 112, and 113, note; held that Christ's humanity 
 was made perfect by works, 72, note; 423, note; and to the relative wor- 
 ship of it, ibid.; see under Christ; condemned Ecumenically, xviii., 
 note; xlix., 70, note; 11 1, note; cursed by the Fifth World Council for 
 his errors, among them for his error that Christ was merely an adopted 
 son, imperfect in morals at first, and for his relative worship of Christ's 
 humanity, iii, note; and 423, note; 470, note 990; was one of the origi- 
 nators of the Nestorian heresies, 169, note 361, and 456, note 914; (see 
 also Pelagians); his error on the Inman anticipatively condemned by 
 Gregory of Nazianzus; 439, note 802; St. Cyril wrote against him, 456, 
 note 914. 
 
 Theodore of the Studium; the persistent advocate of image worship and the 
 worship of creatures, his sad death, 322, note 659. 
 
 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Nestorius' chief champion; his errors on the 
 Eucharist, and for the Worship of Christ's humanity, not His Divinity, 
 in it; and his creature worship, iii., xi., 115-116, note; 162, note 330; 
 falsely accused Cyril of ApolHnarianism, 271, note; refuted by Cyril, 
 ibid.; takes it for granted that Cyril did not co-worship Christ's humanity 
 with His Divinity, 352, note; (see Man-Worship)\ united the bowing to 
 Christ's two Natures, 115, 116; anathematized for it by the Fifth Synod, 
 116, note; see also Cyril of Alexandria and Ephesus, and xii., xvi., 
 xvii., XX.; his praise of Theodore of Mopsuentia, xviii., note; opposes 
 Cyril, xxxvi.; favors Irenaeus, the Nestorian and digamist, 14, 15, note; 
 his Nestorian errors condemned by the Fifth Synod, 31, note 61; 115, 116; 
 denies the Incarnation, and the Substance-Union, (see Union of the Two 
 Natures), affirms a mere Relative Union, (see Relative ConjunElion, 
 Relative Indwelling, etc.), and makes Christ a mere inspired Man, and 
 teaches Man- Worship, note 156, pages 61-69; 115, 116, note; his errors 
 condemned by Cyril, and by the whole Church, in Ecumenical Synods, 
 ibid. Yet he condemned the worship of angels, xvi.; xvii., text, and 
 note *V/" opposed Cyril's XII. Chapters, 116; heretical writings ascribed 
 
hidex II.— General Index. 657 
 
 to him, 123, note; submitted to the Third Council at last; his sincerity in 
 so doing doubtful, 124, note; blasphemous chara^er of a writing ascribed 
 to him, 125, note; was the chief champion of Nestorius on the Eucharist; 
 of his one nature Consubstantiation, one nature real presence, worship of 
 that alleged real presence of that one nature, Christ's humanity, and the 
 eating of the a6tual substance of Christ's human flesh and the drinking 
 of the aAual substance of Christ's real blood there, 277-286; Cyril sets 
 forth the Orthodox dodlrine against all such errors, 286-294; his dodlrine 
 is approved by the Third Synod, ibid.; Theodoret and his Apollinarian 
 opponent both held like Nestorius and Cyril that the real Substance of 
 Christ's Divinity is not on the Holy Table, and that we do not eat Christ's 
 Divinity in the Eucharist; but he differed from Cyril in holding that we 
 eat His flesh and blood, note on pages 277, 278, 279, 280, 283, 284; Theo- 
 doret held that the Eucharistic ''food is both a symbol and a typer not 
 ^^ofthe Divinity of the Lord Christr but ''of His body and His bloody' 
 and his Apollinarian or Monophysite opponent agreed with him, 278, 279. 
 Theodoret held that "the mystic symbols'' [the leavened bread and the 
 wine of the Eucharist] "do not pass out of their own nature after the 
 consecration. For tiiey remain in their former siibstaiice and shape and 
 appearance * * * and they are bowed to as being those things which 
 [they] are believed'' [to be], 280, note; that "He [Christ] "honored the 
 visible symbols with the appellation the body and the bi.ood, not 
 changing their nature but adding their grace to their nature," 282, note; 
 like Nestorius, his Master, he teaches that Christ's body "after the resur- 
 rection ^ * * was deemed worthy of the seat at the right hand" \pi 
 the Father] "and\s, worshipped by ali. the creation as being en- 
 titled the body of the Lord of7iature," 280, 281 ; that is the created body is 
 worshipped relatively to God the uncreated Word; or as Nestorius words 
 it in his Blasphemy 8, on page 461, text, "I worship him" [the Man, that 
 is Christ's humanity] "who is worn, for the sake of Him [God the Word] 
 who wears-I bow to him who is seen, for the sake of Him [God the 
 Word] who is hidden. God is unseparated from Him [the Man] who 
 appears. For that reason I do not separate the honor of the unseparated 
 One. I separate the Natures, but I unite the bowing;' ' (see in this Index 
 under Relative Worship). Like Nestorius, he made our High Priest a 
 mere man, 377, note. 
 
 He teaches, speaking of Christ's body, that "its type is worshippa- 
 BLE" in the Eucharist, 282; that "the type of it is to be bowed to," 282. 
 See under Ei^tap^arm -n the Greek Index for his errors on the Lord's 
 
 Supper. , , ^ J 
 
 Theodosius /., ^ri^Or^^V, 2. nursing father to the Church, convokes the Second 
 
 World Council, 6; submits nobly to Church discipline, 20. 
 Theodosius IL, Emperor of the East, in connexion with Valentinian III., 
 
 Emperor of the West, convokes the Third Council, xxxvi., 5, 6, 19, 503; 
 
 his folly. II, note 13; and unfairness, 12, note 14, and pages 15 and 16; 
 
 41 note 102; 58, note; his second decree, 32, 33-41, 42; its unfairness, 42- 
 
658 Ad I, of Ephesus. 
 
 44; nobleness of Cyril and the Council in resisting it, ibid.; his threaten- 
 ing letter to Cyril, 43, 44, 58, note, (see Valentinian III.), invites Augus- 
 tine to Ephesus, 483; his attempt to govern the decisions of the Third 
 Council, and to crush Cyril and to favor Nestorius, 505, note A. ; calls his 
 court ''divine''! his letter termed ''divine''! ibid. A copyist wrongly 
 calls him and the Emperor Valentinian III., "ever August Ones," or 
 rather "Eternal August Ones," page 19, text, and note 20, and note B. 
 on pages 505-512; the primitive Christians would not call the Emperor 
 "god" ibid. 
 
 Theodotus of Ancyra; 44, text, and note. See under his name in List I. of 
 Bishops, in Index I. ; prefers piety to human friendship, 401, text, and 
 note 711 on page 415. 
 
 Theopemptus, Bishop of Cabassus or Cabasa; Cyril's representative, Ixxvi.; 
 see also under his name in Index I., List I. of Bishops, and note 703, 
 page 404. 
 
 Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 385-412; his witness on the Inman 
 and the Two Natures, 431-435; and notes there; see also page Ixxxvii. in 
 the Forematter, and under Ephesus in the Index; as Bishop of Alexandria 
 he announced the date ofthePask to the East at least, page 433, note 
 765; Jerome translated his Fifth Paschal Epistle, ibid.; on miracles, note 
 766, page 433; his literary remains but scanty, 514; faulted, perhaps un- 
 justly, by some for his course towards Chrysostom, 514. 
 
 Theophylact; a passage of his in the interpolated Cyril on Luke, 2.(i^, sub-note. 
 
 Theosebius the Reader and Monk; with others petitions the Emperors for an 
 Ecumenical Synod, xxxv. 
 
 Three Chapters, the; IX.; (see Council, the Fifth Ecumenical); are infallibly 
 condemned by the Fifth Council of the whole Christian Church, ix. 
 
 Timotheans; held that Christ's humanity is now of one substance with His Di- 
 vinity; and worshipped it as God, and so were in fact, though perhaps 
 not in intention, creature-worshippers, 108, note; both those errors im- 
 pliedly condemned by the Third Council, 108, note; how their Man-Wor- 
 ship differed from that of the Valentinian Apollinarians, 108, note See 
 under Apollinarians, and Valentinian heretics, and Polemians. How 
 the Timotheans differed from the Valentinians as to the worship of 
 Christ's humanity, note on pages 429-433; how from the Orthodox, ibid.; 
 their errors against the Incarnation, note 773, page 434; {sqq Synusiasts, 
 Siudi Dinwerites); their error as to Christ's humanity not being of the 
 Virgin's substance, but that it came from without her, and merely passed 
 through her as water does through a pipe, without taking flesh from her, 
 anathematized by Gregory of Nazianzus in a passage of normal Orthodoxy 
 read before the Third World Council, 440. text, and note 810. Canon I. 
 of the Second Ecumenical Council mentions "the heresy of the Apollijia- 
 rians,'^ as "to be specially anathematized;" neither the Valentinian 
 wing of them, nor the Timothean is excepted from that just anathema. 
 
 Timothy Aelurus; was Monopliysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Ixviii. 
 
Index II. — Ge7ieral Index. 659 
 
 Titles, Byzantine, and not to be imitated; 37, text, and note 91; 38, text, and 
 note 91. 
 
 Titles, colleHive; of the Third Ecumenical Synoa, 35, text, ana noce 87; 52, 
 note 140, ''your Holiness;'' 58, note, 'your Godworshippingness;'' 484, 
 note 1032, "Your Blessedness;'" compare note 1039, page 485, "your to be 
 bowed to ears;'' folly of such language, ibid. \ 
 
 Titles, flattering and sinful, 19, note 20; 31, note 61; 37 and 38, note 91; note 
 B, on pages 505-512; see under Theodosius 11. , where examples of blas- 
 phemously flattering speech regarding Emperors will be found; the 
 primitive Christians would not call the Emperor a god; Anathema VIII. 
 of Cyril, approved at Ephesus, anathematizes every one who does so; 
 Note 20, page 19, and Note B., pages 505-512; Tertullian's testimony to 
 the fact that the primitive Christians refused to term the Emperor a god; 
 pages 505-508; the Emperor Augustus refused the title, notes "b" and 
 "c," page 507; Martial refused it to Nerva, the Emperor, 507, note "c;'* 
 Roman Emperors deified after death, note "e," page 507; horrible lan- 
 guage of the dying Emperor Vespasian, ibid.; ascription of blasphemous 
 titles and God's works and prerogatives to bishops of Rome, 509-512; 
 Romish statements to that effect, ibid. 
 
 Titles or expressions of humility used by Bishops; as for example, "/,. 
 Par alius, by God's mercy Bishop of the Andrapans," 491; "/, Gregory y 
 by God s favor Bishop of Cerasus," ibid.; "I, Themistius, the least, Bishop 
 ofJassus,"^^2; see several more instances of the use of "the least" by- 
 Bishops on that page and after; and compare note 1074, page 492. 
 
 Tradition, Apostolic; Amphilochius includes in it all the dodlrines of Cyril's 
 Shorter Epistle, 132, note 205; tradition, applied to the Creed of Nicaea, 
 or Cyril's Shorter Epistle, 140, note 221; applied to the Nicene Creed, 
 156, note 296; in what sense traditions is used on page 164, see 
 note 339 there; includes Scripture, the Nicene Creed, the Six 
 Synods, note 364, pages 170-172; definition of it by Kenrick, im- 
 proved, ibid.; includes freedom from fasting and kneeling on Lord's 
 Days, and from Pask to Pentecost, the three orders, trine immersion, and 
 the Confirmation and Eucharistizing of infants; the doctrine of Ephesus 
 on the Eucharist against Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, and 
 against the Worship of the Host; it includes the invocation and worship 
 of God alone, the prohibition of images, crosses, etc., in churches, and of 
 their worship there or anywhere; it includes the use of a language in 
 service which is "understanded of the people," and the canons of the first 
 four Ecumenical Councils, ibid.; no part of the Church observes all of 
 the Christian Apostolic Tradition, but all will in time, ibid. 
 
 Transubstantiation; condemned by Cyril and by Ephesus, xxxix., and note 
 606 especially on pages 240-313; mutually destrudlive theories of Greeks 
 and Latins as to when it occurs, 106, note; Cardinal du Perron's Confes- 
 sion on, 263, subnote "hh." 
 
 Treat's Catholic Faith^ xvii., note *V." 
 
660 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Trent, Latin Councit of; Preface, iv. ; it opposes and attempts to do away the 
 decisions of the Third Ecumenical Council against Creature Worship, 
 image worship, relic worship. Real Presence, and Host Worship, ibid. 
 
 Trine Immersion ; io8, 109, note; the Second World Council admits the bap- 
 tism of the Apollinarians because they retained it and the right form of 
 words, and rejedts that of the Eunomians because they altered both, 108, 
 109; 299, note; Pope Nicholas I. held to the Eunomian heresy so far as. 
 believing the Christ-commanded form of words to be non-essential, ibid.; 
 see Baptism, and Dipping. 
 
 Trinity, the; office work and peculiarities of each Person of It; notes 638, 639, 
 640; what it is, 442, note 821; compare Tetradism. 
 
 Turk, the; God's curse on Christendom for its forgetfulness of the faith and the 
 discipline of the Holy-Ghost-led VI. Synods, and for its creature-invok- 
 ing, image worship, and Host Worship, contrary to them, 524; see under 
 Arab also. 
 
 Jz«/o iVa/«r^5 ^ C7zr/\y/; Cyril of Alexandria sound on, 102, note; 214, note 543; 
 271, note, and sub-note "^." J. H. Newman's testimony on and his ref- 
 erences to Cyril in proof, ibid. When Cyril professed to worship God 
 the Word ''with,'" or ''within His flesh'' {jueTd rf/g capKog avrov) did he 
 mean that he worshipped in the Son God the Word only, or both Natures 
 together? 102, 103. The view that he worshipped God the Word only 
 historically considered; the arguments for it; 103-106; the argument for 
 the view that he worshipped both Natures, 106; how the difference be- 
 tween those two opinions aff"ects men's belief on the Eucharist 106, 107; 
 how the partisans of different heresies worshipped Christ's humanity; 
 the Apollinarian views, that is those of the Valentinians, and those of 
 the Timotheans, or Polemians, 103-106; how the Nestorians did, 106; 
 more about how the Valentinians and the Timotheans did, 429-433, note; 
 compare Mi7igiifig, Ambrose's confession of the Two Natures read in 
 Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council in a normal passage of Ortho- 
 ■doxy, 437, note 794; it was brought forward and read by Cyril's presbyter, 
 Peter of Alexandria, 418, text, and was probably chosen by Cyril him- 
 self, for Peter was merely his agent and under his orders; injustice done 
 to Cyril in charging him with Monophysitism, 437, note 794; in another 
 normal passage of Orthodoxy, read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical 
 Synod to guide it, Gregory of Nazianzus confesses the two Natures, 441, 
 text, and note 814 there. 
 
 Two Partites; their distinguishing tenet, 61, note 154; 108, note; (see also 
 Dimoerites); they denied to Christ's humanity a mind; Gregory of Naz- 
 ianzus and, what is greater, inspired Scripture, accord him a mind, notes 
 815, 816 on page 441; compare notes 808, 809, 810. 
 
 Tyler's excellent works against creature-worship and image-worship; xlvii., 
 note. 
 
 Types, the Eucharistic; note on pages 278-280; 282, type^ four times; etc. 
 
Index IL — Gejieral Index. 661 
 
 Union of Christ's Two Natures; denied by Nestorius; note 169; note 335, page 
 164. Cyril sound on, 102, note; (see Two Natures of Christ)\ the Substance 
 Union, 88, note; 215, text, and note 547; 464, note 952; the different Nes- 
 torian heresies against it enumerated, 214-220; Man-Worship, the out- 
 come of the Nestorian denial of it rejeAed, 221-224; and notes 169, 171, 
 and 172, on page 74; and 215, note 548, and note 641, page 318. Hypos- 
 tatic, Personal 2M(i Substance Union, the same, note 169, on page 74; 163, 
 note 333; 318, note 641; s^^ Relative Conjunction, Relative hidwelling, 
 and Relative Worship; and 112, note; 163, note 333. (See Nestorius). 
 Cyril's comparison to illustrate the Substance Union, 215, note 547; 
 Nature Union, 218, note 562. Union by juxtaposition, 218, note 562. 
 Union by Relative participation, or Relative Sharing; Relative Uniofi; 
 meaning of those expressions 218, note 563; associated with denial of the 
 Inman and Man-Worship, ibid.; Pusey's perversion of the sense of 
 Relative {gx^tlki/i) to favor Man-Worship, ibid.; see Relative Worship, 
 Relative Conju7i5lion, and Relative Indwelling, and Relative Participa- 
 tion. On pages 221, 222, 223, Cyril and the Egyptian Council in the 
 Long Letter to Nestorius, aftercondemninghisrelative worship of Christ's 
 humanity by bowing to it, and branding it as "a horrible thing'' to give 
 the name God to a creature, that is to Christ's humanity, add that in ''the 
 [true] Union * * - no one is co-boived to as one with another, nor is any 
 one CO -called God as one with another, but Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole-Born, 
 is understood to be [only] one, and is honored with but one bow [that is 
 ''with but 07ie worship''^ zvithin His own flesh.'" Cyril here uses, as the 
 context above shows, the namoiS Jesus, Son, Sole-Born, for God the Word, 
 as is his wont; see in proof the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 188, 189, 200, 201, 
 and note 616, page 313 in this volume. The Timothean and Mennonite 
 heresy, that Christ did not take his flesh of Mary, condemned, 436, text, 
 and note 789; page 440, notes 805 and 810. Compare Gregory of 
 Nazianzus and Ambrose; incautious language sometimes used on the 
 Union by earlier writers which was taken advantage of by ConfuserSy 
 notes 805, 819; corredled when the need of doing so was seen, ibid.; 
 the Nestorian union oi digiiity or equality of honor, 464, note 952; and of 
 mere name, ibid. The Cosubstancers mixed the natures, 282, note; see 
 Apollinarians, and Cosubstancers. See also notes 183 and 606 here and 
 there. 
 
 Union, Church; the only way to it is to receive the Six Ecumenical Councils 
 and to restore all Ante-Nicene dodlrine, discipline, rite, and custom, and 
 to do away every thing contrary to them, x. 
 
 Universal Bishop; a wrong title, 194, note 487. 
 
 Uzziah, King; 20; punished for intruding into the place of the priests, ibid. 
 
Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 V. 
 
 Valentinian Heretics; their worship of Christ's humanity and their views on 
 that humanity, 103-106; see under Apollinaria^is; were 31 a7i- Worship- 
 pers, and were ''specially anathematized'' by the Second Council, 108; 
 how their creature worship differed from that of the Timotheans, 108, 
 and note on pages 429-433; how from the Orthodox, ihid.; see under 
 Timotheans, and Synusiasts, and Dimoerites. 
 
 Valentinian III., Emperor of the West, one of the convokers of the Third 
 World-Council, xxxvi., 5, 19, 33-41, and 503; (see Theodosius II., and Em- 
 perors)'^ overrides the canons of Nicaea to gratify Leo I. of Rome, xxxii.^ 
 xxxiii., 427, 428, note. 
 
 Valentinus the Gnostic, 105, note. 
 
 Van Osterzee; 14, note; on ''husband of one wife,'' (I. Tim. iii.,2,) ibid. 
 
 Vatican Council, A. D. 1870; xliii., note; contradidls the Sixth Ecumenical 
 Synod, and the Third, ibid. 
 
 Victor, the Archimandrite; spurious, Ixix-lxxxi. 
 
 Victor, Bishop of Rome, his attempt to excommunicate some Asiatic churches, 
 xxxix. to xlv. ; it failed, ibid. 
 
 Vigilius, Bishop of Rome; censured by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for lack 
 of duty on matters of do5lrine, that is regarding the Three Chapters, xli., 
 note; xlv.; was tricky, vacillating and, as his contradi6lions on that 
 matter of faith show, he was very fallible, ibid., and xlviii., text, and 
 note "d" there; was rebuked by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for his 
 wicked and undutiful course on the Three Chapters, 218, note 561. 
 
 Vigilius of Thapsus, Cofit. Eut., 105, note. 
 
 Vincent of Lerins; on the Sentences from the Fathers quoted in Act I. of 
 Ephesus, note 725, page 418; 424, note. 
 
 Virgin Mary; those who deny the Incarnation of God the Word in her womb, 
 and His birth out of her, wound respect for that bringing forth, 184. 
 
 Vulgate, the Latin; excellent on some points, 469, note 977. 
 
 w, 
 
 Whitby, the Commentator; cites a canon of Laodicea against invocation of 
 angels. It brands it as "hidden idolatry;" xvii., note c. 
 
 White garments; worn for a time after baptism, note 90, page 37. 
 
 Whitsunday; used wrongly for Pentecost, note 90, page 36. 
 
 Whittingham, Bp.; xii.; a learned prelate, encouraged the editor when he 
 began a part of this Set, ibid. 
 
 Wiltsch; xxxii. 
 
 Wifidbagism; 10, note; its evil results, ibid. 
 
 Windows, Church; idols in, xliv. 
 
 Word, God the; see Logos and Christ; all Christ's names belong to Him, 226, 
 note 583; God the Word was crucified, 442, text, and note 825; is impassi- 
 ble, 448, note 886. Compare Christ and Logos in the General Index to- 
 Vol. I. of Nicaea in this Set. 
 
bidex II. — General Index. 663 
 
 Works; Theodore of Mopsuestia's heresy as to his mere human Christ's progress 
 
 in, see under Union. 
 Worship, that is religious service; see Man- Worship, Relative Worship; Cyril 
 of Alexandria, like his teacher, the great Athanasius, God's champion 
 against creature worship, makes all acts of religious service prerogative 
 to God, in accordance with Christ's own law in Matt, iv., lo, ''Thou 
 shall bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve.'' See his 
 remarks on that text in the Index to Scripture in this volume, and in the 
 Indexes to Scripture in the Oxford translation oi Cyril of Alexa?idria on 
 the Incarnation, and in the volumes of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek 
 of Cyril's works. See also his remarks on Luke iv., 8; on Isaiah xlii.., 8, 
 *'I am the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to an- 
 other; neither my praise to graven images;'' and on the Septuagint 
 Greek translation of Psalm Ixxx., 9, our Ixxxi, 9, 'Hhere shall be no new 
 god in thee; neither shall thou bow to a stra7ige god." See on them in 
 the Indexes to Scripture in the Oxford translation of his Orations against 
 the Arians, his Historical Tracts, and Later Treatises, and in the Indexes 
 to the original Greek, and to Holy Scripture in this volume and in Vol- 
 ume I. of Nicaea in this Set. See Relative Worship and Holy Ghost, and 
 Saints, worship of. Cyril, like his teacher Athanasius, seems to deny 
 worship to Christ's humanity, and to confine it to Divinity alone; see 
 four passages quoted under Christ in this work, and how Cyril speaks in 
 the note on pages 338, 339; the Romanist Kenrick teaches the error of 
 the absolute worship of Christ's humanity, a mere creature, note on pages 
 337-343- Yet, after all, in effect, he mak es it relative, ibid. Cyril on page 
 169, speaks of Nestorian error as 'Hhe most utter blasphemy," and proves 
 that Christ is God because He is worshipped, that is bowed to in Philip- 
 pians ii., 10, 11. His predecessor, Athanasius, God's noble Protester, 
 that is Protestant, against Arian creature-worship, (Jerem. xi., 7-23), had 
 used the same argument to prove that the Logos is God; see Vol. I. of 
 Nicaea in this Set, pages 217-240; so Epiphanius, id., on pages 240-247; 
 compare note 949, page 463. 
 
 Acts of Worship; most of the following are mentioned in the Scrip- 
 tures. As is shown in a series of articles by the editor in the Church 
 Journal of New York for 1870, every one of the following adls may be 
 used in three ways, i., to God as an act of acceptable religious service; 
 2., to false gods or creatures, or mere things such as images, relics, etc., as 
 an act of forbidden worship; and 3., as an act of mere human love or mere 
 human respect to our companions in life, in which case it is not an act of 
 religious worship at all. 
 
 A6ls of Worship; i. Bowing, the most common of all adls of worship 
 and commonly used by Cyril for them all. See his prohibition of co- 
 bowing to Christ's mere humanity with God the Word; it is in his An- 
 athema VIII. on pages 331, 332; and under Christ in this Index, and in 
 notes 183, and 679; see especially the note on pages 81, 82, 83, 84, 
 85. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, etc., where Nestorius argues for co-bowing 
 
664 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 to Christ's humanity and God the Word, he uniting the bowing, as he 
 writes in the note on pages 86, 87; and see St. Cyril's refutation of 
 his Man-Worship, that is Creature- Worship in the contexts of all those 
 pages. " Two worships " condemned by the Fifth Synod, 352, note; the 
 "two worships" here referred to are one, absolute to God the Word, and 
 another relative or absolute to His mere humanity, relative according to 
 Nestorius, 82-90, note, and his Blasphemy 8, page 461, text, and note 949;, 
 see also the rest of those blasphemies for other allusions on that topic. 
 Those references are tabulated in note F., pages 529-551. Nestorius, 
 however, professed to unite the bowing (jrjv Trpoanvvrjaiv) 86, 87, note; an ex- 
 cuse and evasion which Cyril there refutes, 86-90. Nestorius by one act 
 of bowing would express two different intentions, one to worship, by that 
 bow, absohitely God the Word, and to worship also by that same one bow, 
 relatively, the Man put on, a mere creature, so that the same act meant 
 God-Worship, and contrary to Matt, iv., 10, creature-worship. That 
 Nestorian error is condemned by Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Council, 109-112, note. 
 
 Under this Head I, of Worship by Bowing comes the crime of bowing 
 to the Communion Table and to the altar, 467, note 966; every one guilty 
 of it is by necessary implication anathematized by the Third Ecumenical 
 Council in Cyril's Anathema VIII., which it approved with the whole 
 Epistle of which it forms part; and it is impliedly anathematized by the 
 Fifth Ecumenical Council also in its Anathema IX., and in its condem- 
 nation of the Nestorian relative worship of Christ's humanity as "a 
 crinte,^^ ibid., and under Bowing in this Index and in the General Index 
 to Vol. I. of Nicaea; and in this Index under Creature Worship, and 
 Christ, and Nestoriiis and his Heresies, Heresy 2, and 5, and Man- Wor- 
 ship, especially page 634, Head II. (i). 
 
 2. Co-glorifying a mere creature, Christ's humanity, with God the 
 Word. This is forbidden under pain of anathema by the whole Church 
 in Anathema VIII. of Cyril, which, with the whole Epistle in which it 
 stands, was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Theodoret pro- 
 fesses to co-glorify Christ's humanity with God the Word, 116, note; 341, 
 note, and the references there. So does Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, 
 Theodoret's fellow Nestorian, 117, note, and 341, note. Compare, on the 
 Nestorian Man-Worship and Cyril's opposition to it, the words of 
 Eutherius of Tyana, or his fellow heretic Theodoret, on pages 125-127, 
 note. See notes 952 and 954, on page 464, and note 963, page 466. 
 
 3. Co-calling a mere creature, Christ's humanity, God with God the 
 Word. This is anathematized by the Universal Church, East and West, 
 in St. Cyril's Anathema VIII., 506. See to the same effect the Nestorian 
 plea for applying the name God to his mere humanity, and Cyril's reply 
 to it again and again, as for example in the note on pages 118, 119. See 
 also note 952, page 464. Tertullian witnesses that the primitive Chris- 
 tians would not call a creature, the Roman Emperor a god, 505-508, text 
 and notes; see also Deification in this Index. 
 
bidex II. — General hidex. 665 
 
 4. Kneeling, given as an act of religious worship to Saints, or to 
 mere things, such as altars. Communion Tables, relics, etc. See under 
 Kneeling in this Index and in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea, 
 afid under Worship in that, and page 467, note 966 in this volume. 
 
 5. Prostration. See also under Prostration, Bowing, and Worships 
 and Creature-Service in\o\. I. oi Nicaea in this Set, and under Creature- 
 Worship and Man- Worship and Bowing in this. 
 
 6. Prayer; see under Prayer to Creatures and Invocation of Saints 
 and Creature-Service in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea; to 
 receive prayer being prerogative to God, and to pray belonging to man, 
 Christ, as Cyril teaches, prays as man, and as God is prayed to, 70, note. 
 See in this Index under Creature- Worship, and yxnA^x Prayer to Crea- 
 tures and Invocation and Christ. 
 
 7. Offering incense. This act of worship is given in the Greek 
 Church and in the Roman to images, altars, communion tables, etc., 
 and in the Greek Church as an act of mere human respect, not worship, 
 it is given to the people present, for the censer is swung towards them. 
 See in the General Index to Vol. I. of Nicaea under Incensing, Creature- 
 Service, and in this volume under Incense, Creature- Worship, etc. An 
 instance of the Romish idolatry of worshipping by incense the Host is 
 found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, lib. ii., cap. xxxiii., section 
 19, end, where Roman prelates are commanded by it to '' thrice incense 
 the most holy Sacrament." Amphilochius implies that incense is prerog- 
 ative to God, note 870, page 448. But Cyril and Ephesus teach that 
 God's substance is not there; see Eucharist. 
 
 8. Kissing, as for example a cross, or an image, painted or graven, 
 or relics, communion tables, altars, the Bible or any part of it, or any- 
 thing else, as among the Greeks, the Latins, the Nestorians, the Mono- 
 physites, and as among the Israelites and the calves at Bethel and Dan, 
 through whom they worshipped Jehovah, and as among the Moham- 
 medans, in kissing the black stone of the Caaba at Mecca, which is a 
 relic of the former Arab paganism, etc, Every sincere Christian should 
 always refuse to kiss any Bible in taking an oath in court or elsewhere, 
 for it is a forbidden relic of the worship of the Gospels and of the Bible 
 in the Middle Ages, and is undoubtedly one of the many forms of idol- 
 atry. It is really unnecessary, and the oath is perfect without it; for it 
 consists in calling God to witness that you will tell the whole truth and 
 nothing but the truth, and that if you do not you imprecate damnation 
 on yourself, 467, note 966. See Kissing images in the General Index to 
 Vol. I. oi Nicaea in this Set. 
 
 9. Kissing the hand to; as in Job xxxi., 26, 27. Saluting images of 
 Washington, Lincoln, etc., or the colors of a regiment is pagan and 
 should be shunned. Salutation of created things and created persons is 
 not confined to kissing the hand to them. It may be of many kinds. A 
 very common Romish and Greek and Monophysite and Nestorian kind 
 is salutation to the Virgin Mary, a mere creature, in the use of the ex- 
 
666 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 pression Hail Mary, etc., which is manifest paganism. The Latins on 
 their rosaries say ten prayers to her where they do one to God ! ! ! 
 
 lo. Offering sacrifice, as for example, in the Old Testament, Mosaic 
 carnal sacrifices, and in the New, Christian spiritual sacrifices, as for in- 
 stance in I. Peter ii., 5, 9. Believers in Transubstantiation and in Con- 
 substantiation Judaize and Heathenize by changing the unbloody and 
 spiritual sacrifices acceptable unto God through Je,sus Christ (I. Peter ii., 
 5, 9) to a bloody and carnal ordinance, that is, one of real blood and of 
 real flesh, even the real flesh and the real blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 They forget that the Christian spiritual sacrifices are superior to those of 
 Moses' Law, precisely because they are spiritual; for the spiritual is by 
 its very nature vastly higher than the fleshly offering; see on this whole 
 matter note 599, pages 229-238. 
 
 I would add that as our word worship is a shortening for worthship, 
 and that as any and every act by which in religion men honor God 
 or a thing is an act of religious worship relative or absolute to God, or to 
 that thing, and as the expression cultus in Latin means a cultivation of 
 anything, as land, for instance, and so comes to mean to cultivate or care 
 for God or a creature or a thing by any religious act; we can at once see 
 that the />^55z<^ /^ a6ls of religious worship approved or condemned are 
 very many. The Reformers, for instance, in the Third Part of the Hom- 
 ily against Peril of Idolatry, speak of capping before an image, that is, 
 removing the cap before it as an act of worship to it, (page 239 of the 
 Christian Knowledge Society's edition of the Homilies, A. D. 1864). 
 Many more such a6ls might be mentioned, indeed, enough to very 
 largely increase this list. All worship of created or made things forbid- 
 den by Cyril and by the Church, 331, note 677. 
 
 Worship of the Consecrated Symbols in the Lord's Supper; note on pages 278, 
 280, 282, 285-287, and note 606 passim. 
 
 Worship of Christ's humanity in Heaven; 281, note, and note 606 passim; in 
 the Lord's Supper, see Eucharist. 
 
 Zoega; on Senuti the Monophysite. Ixii.-lxix. 
 
 Zosimus, Pope; attempts to get the power of Appellate Jurisdi<5lion in Africa, 
 but his attempt is resisted by the Africans and fails, xxxiii. 
 
IISTDEX III. 
 
 INDEX TO TEXTS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 
 
 EXPLANATION. 
 
 Where pages are referred to, the Roman letters refer to the 
 Forematter, the Arabic numbers to the body of the work. 
 
 The works of Cyril are especially rich in Scripture quotations 
 against the Nestorian denial of the Inman, and against their worship 
 of a mere Man, Christ's mere separate humanity, and for the doc- 
 trine that God alone is to be worshipped, and against all relative 
 worship, which is merely heathenism, and for his own anti-real-pres- 
 ence, but spiritually profiting do(5lrine of the Lord's Supper. Some 
 of the references below are in his writings. More may be found in 
 his full works. When a passage of Holy Writ is found in an 
 Ecumenically approved sense in any document emanating from a 
 Council of the whole Church, that sense is fixed forever and it is 
 heresy to contradict it. Among texts so explained, for instance, is 
 Matt, xviii. , 6, where Christ speaks of the sin of ' ' causmg eve7i 07ie 
 only of the little ones who believe in Christ to stumble,'' which St. Cyril 
 applies to Nestorius because he brought in the errors of denying the 
 Incarnation, the worship by bowing, etc., of a mere creature, 
 Christ's humanity, {dvdpioTzokarpeia^ as St. Cyril terms it), and what St. 
 Cyril calls Caimibalism (^w^dpuiTtoipayia^ on the Eucharist; so he ap- 
 plies it on page 60, above, in his Shorter Epistle, which was approved 
 at Ephesus. Of course his explanation smites all who deny the In- 
 man, all who worship any creature, be it the Virgin Mary, or other 
 saints, or angels or archangels or any other creature, and all who 
 profess to eat in the Eucharist the real human flesh of Christ and to 
 drink His real human blood as do all Greeks, Latins, and all sorts of 
 Consiibstantiationists, who profess to hold to the real presence of 
 His acflual flesh and blood in that rite; (on the attempt niaHe b>- 
 
668 Ad L of Ephesus. 
 
 Real Presencers to evade the charge of Cannibalism by saying, in 
 effect, that they eat mere Docetic flesh and drink mere Docetic blood 
 see page 613 in this volume). 
 
 Further on in the same Epistle, Cyril, with reference to II. Cor- 
 inthians, xiii., 5, teaches that those errors are outside of and contrary 
 to " the faith'' mentioned in that verse; see page 60, above. 
 
 Then on pages 6 1 and after Cyril goes on to teach that the ex- 
 pression ''Son of Man'' which we find in Matthew xvi., 13, and 
 elsewhere in the New Testament, must be taken to mean, not a mere 
 separate man, a mere creature as the Nestorians held, but God the 
 Word with His humanity, two Natures, not one. To God the Word 
 indeed that title is Economically Appropriated as are all the things 
 of His humanity; see on that the subnote on page 291 in this volume. 
 So Cyril teaches again on pages 85-98. On pages 77 and 78 he 
 shows that Hebrews ii., 9, teaches that Christ's own body ''by the 
 grace of God tasted death for every man," and that that suffering is 
 Economically Appropriated to God the Word. 
 
 On pages 97-112, Cyril explains that John i., 14, " The Word 
 was made flesh," means the dodlrine of the Inflesh of God the Word 
 in Mary's womb and His birth out of her ; and hence holds that it 
 teaches that she was the " Brmger Forth of God;" and against the 
 Apollinarians he holds that Christ's " body was produced out of her, 
 a7id gifted with a ratiojial soul," and that God the Word was united 
 to that body, and hence He is said "to have bee7i born accordifig to 
 the flesh." 
 
 The denial of Man-Worship on pages 79-85 in this Epistle and 
 on pages 221-224 inclusive in Cyril's Longer Epistle points to Mat- 
 thew iv., 10; Lukeiv., 8; Isaiah xlii., 8, and the Septuagint of Psalm 
 Ixxx., 9, our Psalm Ixxxi., 9, which Cyril so often refers to elsewhere 
 as against Nestorius' worship of Christ's separate humanity, a mere 
 creature; see especially the part of note 183 which is on pages 94, 95 
 and 96, and indeed that whole note, and the Index to Scripture in 
 this volume and in that to Volume I. of Nicaea in this Set. Compare 
 notes 676, 677, 678, 679 and 680. 
 
 Nestorius in his Ecumenically condemned Epistle to Cyril on 
 pages 155-166, in reply to Cyril's Shorter one to him, quotes differ- 
 ent texts of Holy Writ against the Incarnation and against the doc- 
 trine of Economic Appropriation, and his sense of them is condemned 
 
Index III. Index of Scriptiwe Texts. 66^ 
 
 with that Kpistle by Kphesus. See them there. So is his perversion 
 on page 162 above of Christ's words in I. Corinthians xi., 24, Matt, 
 xxvi., 26-29, Mark xiv., 22-25, ^^<i Luke xxii., 19, 20, the sense of 
 part of which, and to some extent the exact words of which, he 
 quotes as follows: 
 
 ' * This is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins ^ * * 
 to make it teach the real presence, not indeed, of Christ's Divinity 
 but of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist after consecration (note 
 on pages 279-282), and the Cannibalism of eating His human flesh 
 there and drinking his real blood there (note on pages 279-286 and 
 the context), and his dodlrine that a mere Man, that is a mere crea- 
 ture, has redeemed us, the Nestorian result of which is, as Cyril shows, 
 the worship of that mere creature (see Cyril's Anathema X, on pages 
 339-346, text; and note 688 on pages 363-406); indeed we find his 
 chief champion, Theodoret of Cyrus, teaching not only the real pres- 
 ence of Christ's humanity in the Lord's Supper, but its worship there, 
 and then its manducation there, which , of course, are rightly branded 
 by Cyril as the Worship of a Man (a'^dpcjr.oXazpsia)^ and the eating of 
 a Man {avdpiB-KO(payia). In other words, as Cyril teaches, the Nestor- 
 ians made Christ's separate humanity, a mere creature, a god by giv- 
 ing it adls of worship, that is, by bowing to it, and invoking it; for 
 Cyril, like Athanasius, held that every act of religious worship is pre- 
 rogative to God alone; (see pages 237-240 of Volume I. oi Nicaea in 
 this Set, and compare the language on such themes of St. Athana- 
 sius, St. Epiphanius, Lucifer of Cagliari, Faustin of Rome and St. 
 Chromatins on pages 217-253, of that volume); and then the Nestor- 
 ians acftually claimed to eat the flesh and to drink the blood of that 
 creature whom they had just made a god!!! Could any thing be 
 more absurd and unworthy of the sensible religion of Christ ? Well 
 therefore did the whole Church at Ephesus, following Cyril's teach- 
 ing, condemn both Nestorius and Theodoret and depose them both. 
 
 We turn now to a third document, which was approved by the 
 Third Ecumenical Synod, as was also Cyril's sense of certain texts 
 in it; that is to his Longer Epistle to Nestorius. It is on pages 206- 
 358, text. 
 
 Cyril commences by applying well Matthew x., 37, Matthew x., 
 34, 35, and Heb. xi., 35, to his duty to contend for the faith against 
 the errors of Nestorius (pages 207-209, text); and these texts may be 
 
670 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 justly urged for the duty of opposing such errors in St. Thomas 
 Cranmer's day, and in St. Nicholas Ridley's day, and in St. Hugh 
 Latimer's, and in our day; for denial of the Inman, Creature- Wor- 
 ship, and Relative Worship, and Host Worship, all existed in the 
 XVIth. Century; denial of the Incarnation among some of the Ana- 
 baptists, and among all the Socinians, and the other three errors 
 among the Romanists, and the Greeks, and the Nestorians, and the 
 Monophysites; and all four errors exist still. And eyery Bishop, 
 Presbyter, Deacon, or lower cleric, or laic, who is remiss in his duty 
 to oppose, and, so far as he may, crush those idolatries, and to maintain 
 God's truth, should be reproved by those texts and incited by them 
 irresistibly to acftion for God and His Church as St. Cyril was; for, 
 as Christ in those passages teaches. He sends the sword of His truth 
 on this earth, and there is ever an irreconcilable quarrel between it 
 and error, and he who forsakes not all for Him is not worthy of 
 Him. We must be read}^ to die for His truth. 
 
 On page 214 Cyril asserts against the Apollinarians that the 
 Divinity of Christ even in the Incarnation ' ' ever remains, according 
 to the Scriptures, unchangeable arid entirely inconvertible'' where 
 there is clearly a reference to many texts of Scripture which teach 
 that do(5lrine, though he does not specify any of them. The reader, 
 however, who has a Concordance can do that for himself. Then he 
 explains John iii., 34, to refer to the fact that God the Word's hu- 
 manity w^as anointed by the Spirit at His Incarnation, and that that 
 anointing consisted in pouring out the Holy Ghost on His humanity, 
 and that " not by measure'' (John iii., 34). 
 
 On page 217, the statement in Colossians ii., 9, that in Christ's 
 humanity '' dwelleth all the fulness of the Divinity bodily" is inter- 
 preted to mean theadlual Inflesh of God the Word's Substance in it. 
 
 On pages 218, 219, I Corinthians vi., 17, is used by the Nestor- 
 ians to teach, against the Incarnation, that Christ had no in- 
 dwelling of God the Word's Substance but only the influences of 
 His Holy Spirit as we have, but Cyril shows that the Logos Him- 
 self by His Eternal Substance indwells His humanity. 
 
 On page 220, Cyril teaches that Christ's words in John xx., 17, 
 "My God," and "My Father," were uttered as man, though, so far 
 as His Divinity is concerned, He is ''God by Natiire, arid out of 
 the Father s Substance. ' ' On that I have referred to Matt . xxvii. , 46, 
 
Index III. Index of Scripture Texts. ■ 671 
 
 in note 574 on page 220, in this volume. I should also have referred 
 to John XX., 17, because it is fuller on that matter, for it has not only 
 the expression ''My God'' but also '' My Father:' So also, on the 
 same page, Philippians ii., 7, and Galatians iv., 4, are explained to. 
 refer to the Word's humbling Himself to take our humanity upon 
 Him and to submit as Man to the conditions and results of that hu- 
 miliation for our salvation. That explanation accords, of course, 
 with Cyril's dodlrine of the Inman, not with Nestorius' denial of it. 
 
 Then follows on pages 221-223, as in the Shorter Epistle of Cyril 
 above a disownment of the Nestorian worship of Christ's mere human- 
 ity, where we see an implied reference to such texts of Scripture, so 
 often quoted by Cyril on that theme, as Psalm Ixxx., 9, Septuagint, 
 which is Psalm Ixxxi., 9, in the King James version; Isaiah xlii., 8, 
 and Matt. iv. , 10. See pages 94-96 on those texts, note, and indeed the 
 whole of that note 183, pages 79-128, and in this Index and in the 
 Lidex to Texts of Holy Scripture in Vol. I. of Nicaea under Isaiah 
 xlii., 8, and Matt, iv., 10, and under Creature Service, Humanity of 
 Christ, Invocation of Saints, Man Worship, Christ, Relative Worships 
 etc., in the General Index to that volume, and under similar articles 
 in the General Index to this. 
 
 Next Cyril explains on pages 224-230 certain texts of the Incar- 
 nation and the dodlrine of the Economic Appropriation to God the 
 Word ofthe things of His humanity; they are I. Peter iv., i; Heb. ii., 
 9, twice; Col. i., 18; I. Cor. xv., 20; I. Cor. xv., 21, and Acts xvii., 
 31. On page 226 John xi., 25, is referred to and applied to the Logos. 
 
 On pages 232-240, Cyril explains the words telling on the death 
 in I. Corinthians xi., 26, and the words in John vi., 53, *' Verily, 
 verily, I say u7ito you, wiless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and 
 drink His blood, ye have 710 life in you. ' ' At the start we must remem- 
 ber that Cyril and his Synod of the Egyptian Diocese are opposing 
 in this Epistle Nestorius' heresies, among them, that on the PvU- 
 charist which was afterwards brought before the Council in his Blas- 
 phemy 1 8 and condemned as a Blasphemy and made one ofthe grounds 
 for his deposition. In that Blasphemy 18 Nestorius quotes part of 
 the same Eucharistic passage of Christ, John vi., 56, 57, and infers 
 thence that we do not eat Christ's Divinity, but only his flesh, which, 
 of course, would be Cannibalism. Cyril, as we see in note 606 above, 
 denies, first, that we eat Christ's Divinity, and, so far, agrees with 
 
672 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 Nestorius; but, secondly, he denies that we eat His flesh and blood, 
 and brands the doing so by Nestorius as Cannil:^lism ; see pages 2 50- 
 276. So here Cyril explains a part of the same passage, that is John 
 vi., 53, (and, in effect, the whole of John vi., 25-71, for it is all of a 
 piece on the Eucharist), to mean that the rite \s>an * ' u7ibloody sacrifice, ' ' 
 a ''sacrifice without blood'' (pages 235, 236), a?idthat^' We do 710 1 receive 
 it as common flesh. God forbid! Nor moreover do we receive it as the 
 fiesh of a ma?i * * * but as ^ ^ ^ a peculiar flesh of the Word 
 Himself * * * so that even though He says to us, Verily, verily, 
 I say uTito you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Ma7i a7id dtink His 
 blood, we do not reckon it to be the flesh of a man like one of us, for 
 how will the flesh of a man be life-producing by its own nature? But 
 we consider it as having become truly a peculiar flesh of Him who for 
 us has both become and is called the So7i of Ma7i,'" 238-240. 
 
 Here is then 710 blood, and no flesh of Christ's humanity; for all 
 admit that His flesh was ' ' the flesh of a ma7i like 07ie of us, ' ' for it was 
 of David and out of Mary, and not Docetic nor Co-substance flesh. 
 Cyril therefore here proclaims such an explanation of the Eucharistic 
 teachings of Christ in John vi., as makes it in effect to necessarily 
 assert the dodlrine of the real absence of the Substance of Christ's 
 Divinity from the rite, and the real absence of the substance of His 
 human flesh and blood from the rite; and as the Substance of Christ's 
 Divinity is not present there, according to the view of Cyril as ap- 
 proved by Ephesus there is nothing to worship there. This last 
 point is shown more fully in the note on pages 276-313 above. So 
 as there is no flesh or blood of Christ's humanity in the rite, there is 
 no possibility of eating His human flesh there. Cannibalism (av<?/?w- 
 -ocpayia) Cyril calls it, nor of drinking His human blood there. Hence 
 Nestorius* Cannibalism is a false and lying tenet as well as a disgust- 
 ing one. See pages 260-313 above, note. On pages 260-276 St. 
 Cyril tells us how we eat the '' peculiar flesh of the Word'' (page 
 
 239)- 
 
 To sum up, he explains John vi., 53, and the context in such a 
 sense as to forbid all Real Presence views, be they Transubstantia- 
 tion or Consubstantiation, and all cannibal errors and all Host-wor- 
 shipping idolatry; that is he teaches the Real Absence view and 
 the Universal Church at Ephesus approved him. Yet he makes the 
 rite spiritually profitable, and unless he differed from the whole church 
 
Index riL Index of Scripture Texts. 678 
 
 in his day (and there is not the slightest trace of that) he deemed the 
 rite necessary to salvation, and that in the case of infants as well as 
 of adults and all. All this shows of course, that Cyril held that the 
 Eucharist is not a repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary but only a 
 saving remembrance and memorial of Christ's death and a spiritual 
 sacrifice, not a carnal one (I^uke xxii., 19; I. Cor. xi., 24, 25; Heb. 
 ix., 25-28 inclusive, and Heb. x., 11 -15). 
 
 Further on, on pages 241-255, Cyril in teaching that we must 
 ' 'not distribute the expressio7is tised of our Saviour in the Gospels ' ' be- 
 tween two Persons, shows that the words "in John xiv., 9, He that 
 hath seen Me, hath see7t the Father,'' and those in John x., 30, '' I and 
 ihe Father are one'' refer to Christ's /?m>zz/)/ naturally as do also 
 other words there mentioned from II. Cor. iv., 4; Col. i., 15, and 
 Heb. i., 3; whereas the words in John viii., 40, " But now ye seek to 
 kill me^ a tnan who hath told you the truth," mean His humanity 
 which alone can be killed, as do also all those which befit his making 
 Himself of no reputation (Philip, ii., 7), but all the things of Christ's 
 humanity must be Economically Appropriated to God the Word only, 
 or, as Cyril words it, on page 254, " Therefore all the expressions in 
 the Gospels are to be ascribed to [but] one Person, to [but] one in- 
 fleshed Subsistence of the Word." 
 
 Next Cyril on pages 255-267, teaches that the words in Heb. 
 iii., I., ''Apostle and High Priest of our prof ession" mean God the 
 Word, Who, however, does the human things by his humanity; and on 
 pages 256, 257, he applies to God the Word alone the expression Sole- 
 Bom So7i, Tidv Movoyevrj^ which occurs in the New Testament again and 
 again, as for instance in John i., 14, 18; John iii., 16, 18; Heb. xi., 
 17, and I. John iv., 9. For He alone was born out of the Father's 
 Substance. 
 
 Below, pages 259-262, in the same Epistle, Cyril explains Heb. 
 x., 5-8 of God the Word's offering "His own body" for us, so that we 
 are redeemed by God the Word, and not by a mere creature as Nes- 
 torius held; and directly he explains Rom. iii., 23, to teach that "all" 
 human beings except Christ's humanity ''have sinned and come short 
 of the glory of God," Q^2igQS 261-26-]), So he teaches again in his 
 Anathema X. on pages 339-346. 
 
674 Act L of Ephesus. 
 
 On pages 268-285, Cyril explains at length John xvi., 14, ''He 
 shall glorify Me, ' ' and ' ' He shall receive of mine and shall show it unto 
 jF^// "(John xvi., 14). 
 
 On pages 290, 291, he quotes and then explains John i., i, 2, 3, 
 14, and Heb. i., 2, as referring to God the Word who became Incar- 
 nate, and next he mentions some texts to show the blessed results of 
 Christ's Incarnation, and Christ's benedicftion on marriage at Cana 
 in Galilee. In the XII. Anathemas which follow, that is in Anath- 
 emas V. and VI., " The Word was made flesh'' of John i., 14, is ex- 
 plained of the Incarnation and the Two Natures. And in Anathema 
 XII., I. Peter iv., i, I. Cor. ii., 8, Heb. ii., 9, Col. i., 18, and Rev. 
 i., 5, are more or less distincflly referred to for the Incarnation and 
 the dodtrine of Economic Appropriation as also are the words or 
 sense of John xiv., 6, John v., 17-30, and vi., 33-64, and John i., 1-5. 
 
 And, to anticipate a little, what is pertinent here, as it seems to 
 show St. Cyril's mind more fully; his Epistle to John of Antioch, 
 which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, uses Isaiah 
 vii., 14, Matt. i. 23, Luke i., 30, 31, and Matt, i., 21, and explains 
 them as referring to the Incarnation and as proof texts for it. So it 
 uses for the same tenet I. Cor. xv., 47, Johniii., 13, Philippians ii., 7, 
 James i.. 17, I. Peter iv., i, and Isaiah 1., 6, which are cited to prove 
 in Christ, in effect, two unchanged Natures, and the dodlrine of 
 Economic Appropriation. 
 
 In the same Epistle, further on, Cyril uses language, which 
 shows that he held the Holy Ghost to be consubstantial with the 
 Logos, and which seems naturally to imply that he held to the doc- 
 trine that the Holy Spirit goes out of the Father alone. For he 
 writes: 
 
 * ' For it was not they themselves that spoke, but the Spirit of 
 the God and Father; Which goeth out indeed of Him but is not alien 
 from the Son, so far I mean as Its Substance is concerned " {oh ydp 
 
 r^<7av anrtn ol XaXoovre<$^ aXkd ro flveufia too Oeoo xai Uarpo^ o ixTropeuerai 
 ixk'^ i^ auTOL), eari Sk oux. dlXorpiov too Tioo xard ye rov t^? ob(Tia<i Xoyir^^ . 
 
 Celestine's Epistle to Nestorius, which is on pages 179-203, is not 
 so rich in explanation of the dogmatic points involved as Cyril's. 
 Yet it applies Galatiansi., 8, 9, to him as preaching an alien Gos- 
 pel, quotes I. Cor. v., 13, to enforce the duty of removing an evil 
 man from the flock, cites I. Cor. xi., 19. and applies it to him as the 
 
hidex III. Index of Scripture Texts. 675 
 
 author of " heresies^' and applies I. Timothy vi., 20, 21, to him as 
 \\L^2M'Civoxoi''profa7ie i7inovatio7is,'"2indi Jeremiah v., 30, 31, Septu- 
 agint, 2iS prophesyi?ig *' ujirighteousness;'' and Matt, xxv., 15, 18, 24- 
 31, as not having kept entire the deposit entrusted to him by God, 
 and mentions John xvii., 12, as against him for having so split the 
 the Church as he had, and warns him according to Rev. xxii. 18 
 19, against addi7ig to or takiyig aivay, and applies to his teachings the 
 language of Titus iii., 9, ''unprofitable a7id vain,'' and in the lan- 
 guage of different texts proclaims him a poisoner and a scatterer of 
 God's flock, a ravener, a grievo7is wolf, '' 7iot sparing the flock;' and 
 as ' ' speaking i)erverse things to draw away disciples after' ' him: quotes 
 texts which speak of the duty of opposing him and urges them against 
 him, and mentions, as do Cyril and his Synod, Christ's words that 
 ' ' 7ieither father, nor mother, nor children, nor any kindred ought to be 
 preferred to Him," and applies to Nestorius Christ's words, ''Physi- 
 cian heal thyself" (Luke iv.. 23). See the other texts alluded to in 
 that Epistle. 
 
 Celestine speaks as the Bisnop of the first see of the Church, 
 which, however, had no canonical jurisdiction outside of Italy, whose 
 attempt to gain Appellate Jurisdiction in Latin Africa, as we show 
 in another volume of this series, was resisted by Carthage and by all 
 the Council of Bishops subject to it, and was condemned in general 
 but plainly applicable 'terms in Canon VIII. of Kphesus. 
 
 The Letter of Capreolus of Carthage, (on pages 481-486), quotes 
 no text of Holy Writ definitely and is therefore here dismissed. 
 
 The Passages from the Fathers on pages 418-449, contain im- 
 portant quotations of Scripture. So do those from Nestorius on 
 pages 449-480. See them on all topics connected with the Nes- 
 torian Controversy. The Orthodox Fathers' explanations are re- 
 ceived; those of Nestorius are condemned. The doctrinal bearings 
 of particular texts are explained in the notes, which see. It would 
 be too long to remention them here. We have done so in the case 
 of the Epistles aforesaid. That may serve as a sample of the way in 
 which the earnest scholar should examine Cyril's sense of Scrip- 
 ture texts. For on the great themes of the Inman, Economic 
 A^ppropriation, Man-Worship, and Cannibalism in the Eucharist, 
 Cyril's docflrine, as set forth in his two Epistles, is approved by 
 the Third Ecumenical Synod. 
 
67a 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 GENESIS. 
 
 I., 2 317, note 
 
 III., 16 319, note 
 
 III., 19 319, note 
 
 IX., 8-18 xlvii.. top note 
 
 XXXII., 24-32 ---77, note; 78, note 
 XLIX., II, Sept 278, note 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 IV., 22 459, note 938 
 
 VII., 1--261, subnote; 459, note 
 
 937- 
 XII., 3-5, and 47, 48 --240, note 
 
 XII., II, 27 note 89, page 36 
 
 XIX., 6 39, note; 196, note 
 
 XX., 5., 6 72, note 
 
 XXI., 17 321, note 
 
 XXIII., 13 note 89, page 36 
 
 XXVI., 30 378, note 
 
 XXVI., 31 xlvi.,note "a" 
 
 XXVII., 8 378, note 
 
 XXIX., 5 373, note 
 
 XXX., 10 315, note 
 
 XXXI., 18 xlvi., note "a" 
 
 XXXII., the whole chapter ---210, 
 note; 249, subnote; 516 
 
 XXXII., I., 8 249, subnote 
 
 XXXII., 5 249, subnote 
 
 XXXIL, 16 xlvi., note "a" 
 
 XXXII., 16, 21 210, note 
 
 XXXIII., 20 77, note; 78, note 
 
 XXXIII., 23; 78, line 11 of the note 
 matter towards the top 
 of the page, where 
 '■^ Gen.'" should be 
 ''Exod.'' 
 XXXIV., 1-28 xlvi., note "a" 
 
 XXXIV., 14 72, note 
 
 XXXIV., 28, 29 xlvi., note "a" 
 
 XXXVI., 35 xlvi., note •'^" 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 XVI., 17, and the whole chapter 
 
 315, note. 
 
 XXI., II 249, note 
 
 XXIII., 5 note 89, page 36 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 III., 12 459, note 938 
 
 v., 1-5 249, subnote 
 
 IX., 6-15 249, subnote 
 
 XVI., the chapter 40, note 
 
 XIX., 11-22 249, subnote 
 
 XX., 12 516 
 
 XXVIII., 16 note 89, page 36 
 
 XXXI., 19 249, subnote 
 
 XXXII., 38 note 89, page 36 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 L, 37 516 
 
 III., 26 516 
 
 IV., 2 184, note 
 
 IV., 13 xlvi, note "<7" 
 
 VL, 4, 5, 13 334, uote 
 
 VI., 15 72, note 
 
 IX., 9, II, 15-- xlvi., note "«" 
 
 IX., 20 516 
 
 X., 1-6 xlvi., note "rt" 
 
 XI., 29 321, note 
 
 XII., 3 note 89, page 36 
 
 XII., 32 184, note 
 
 XIII., 8 190, note 
 
 XVI., 16 100, note 
 
 XXVIII., 15-68 inclusive-_32i, note 
 
Index III. Index of Scripture Texts. 
 
 677 
 
 XXIX., 17-29 210, note 
 
 XXXII., 20, Sept. 375, subnote 
 
 XXXII., 21 and after 321, note 
 
 XXXII., 39 375, note 
 
 XXXIL, 43, Sept. 378, note 
 
 XXXIL, 49-52 516 
 
 XXXIV., 5, 6 249, subnote 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 XXIII., 7 note 89, page 36 
 
 JUDGES. 
 
 II., 13 note 89, page 36 
 
 VI., 22 78, note 
 
 XIIL, 18, 19 78, note 
 
 XIII., 22 78, note 
 
 I. SAMUEL. 
 
 II., 27-36 59, note 
 
 III., 11-15 59, note 
 
 IV., 11-22 59, note 
 
 XV., 3 190, note 
 
 XXIV., 6., 10 460, note 939 
 
 II. SAMUEL. 
 
 III., I 165, note 
 
 I. KINGS. 
 
 n., 27, 35 59, note 
 
 VIII., 9 xlvi., note "a" 
 
 VIIL, 9, 21 xlvi., note *'«" 
 
 VIII., 39 367, note 
 
 XI., 1-43 516 
 
 XII., 25 to I. Kings xiii., 6; 
 210, note. 
 
 XII., 28 249, subnote 
 
 XIV., 1-31 inclusive — 210, note 
 
 XIV., 16 406, note 
 
 XIX., 13 77, note 
 
 XXIX., 22 59, note 
 
 IL KINGS. 
 
 XIII., 21 249, subnote 
 
 XVII., 1-41 inclusive-- -2IO, note 
 XVIII., 1-9 249, subnote 
 
 XVIII., 4, and the context 249, 
 
 subnote. 
 
 XXII. and XXIII xii 
 
 XXIII., 13-21 249, subnote 
 
 XXIII., 15-21 210, note 
 
 L CHRONICLES. 
 
 XXVIIL, 9 367, note 
 
 II. CHRONICLES. 
 VI., 30; 367, note; 384, subnote 
 
 XV., 3- — -'- 524 
 
 XXXIV., 5 249, subnote 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 IX., 18 210, note 
 
 JOB. 
 
 XXXIL, 21, 22 38, note 91 
 
 XXXVIIL, 2 340, note 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 VII., 9 384, subnote 
 
 X., 7 321, note 
 
 XVI., 4 note 89, page 36 
 
 XXXIII., 6 317, note 
 
 XXXVL, 6 388, note 
 
 XLIV., 21 384, note 
 
 L., 15 383, subnote 
 
 LXII., 8, Sept 89, note 
 
 LXV., 2 321, note 
 
 LXXVL, 58 210, note 
 
 LXXX., 9, Sept.-LXXXL, 9, Eng- 
 lish Version; 88, note; 
 91, note; 95, note; 103, 
 note; no, note; 160, 
 Summary; 321, note, 
 twice; 350, note; 351, 
 note; 379, note; 404, 
 note. 
 LXXXL, 9.-- See LXXX., 9, Sept., 
 335, note. 
 
 LXXXIL, 6 261, note, twice 
 
 LXXXIX., 6 95, note 
 
 cm., 8 386, subnote '' d'* 
 
678 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 CVL, 16.32.33 516 
 
 CVI., 19-^4 210, note 
 
 CIX.. 3, vSopl ; 330, note. Com- 
 paie Tsahn CX., 3., 
 English Version, 
 ex., I ---1 17, note ',468, note 971 
 
 CXXXIX., 22 190, note 
 
 CXLV., iS-- ---3S6, subuote "a" 
 CXLVT., 6, Sept. ;--64, note; 65, note 
 
 CXLVIL, 8 447, "ote 858 
 
 CXLVII., 9 3^"^^"^. subuote " ^/ " 
 
 PROVKRBS. 
 
 in., 5 180, note 
 
 XIV., 34- -XXX.. note; 33, note 
 
 80. 
 XXX., 6 184, note 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 III., 10 90, note 
 
 v., 13 ix- 
 
 IX.. 6 551 
 
 XI., 9 T65, note 
 
 XIII.. 3, Sept 460, note 940 
 
 XXV., 8 319. "ote 
 
 XXVIII., 7 IX 
 
 XXXII., 15 317. "ot.e 
 
 XL., 12, 13, 14 317. "ote 
 
 XLII., 8; 72, note; 95, note, thrice; 
 103. note; 106, note; 
 no, note; 127, note; 
 159, note; 160, sum- 
 mary; 210, note; 321, 
 note, twice; 330, note; 
 335, note, twice; 340, 
 note; 343, note; 350, 
 note; 351, note. 
 
 XLIV., 3 317. note 
 
 XLV., 20-25 321, note 
 
 XLVIII., II 127, note; 210, note 
 
 XLIX., 23 6 
 
 L., 6 410, note 
 
 LIII., 5 435, note 784 
 
 LIV., 7, 8 386,subnote"/" 
 
 tXI., I 274, note 
 
 LXIIL, 16 385, subnote "/'' 
 
 L/XV., 24 388, subuote " r" 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 II., 13 385, subnote 
 
 III., 9 350, note 
 
 III., 14, 15 X. 
 
 v., 26 93, note 
 
 v., 30. 31, Sept.; 183, textaud 
 note, 
 
 IX., 3 375, subnote "<f" 
 
 XL, 7 210, note 
 
 XV., 18 375, subnote 'V" 
 
 XVIL, 5 360, note; 361, note 
 
 XVII., 10--367, note; 3S4, subnote 
 
 XXXIX., 9 459, note 93S 
 
 LAMENTATIONS. 
 IV., 14, 15 249, subnote 
 
 EZEKIEL. 
 
 IIL, 16-22 59, note 
 
 VIII., 1-13 539 
 
 VIIL, 3, 5 210, note 
 
 XVI., 38 211, note 
 
 XXIIL, 14 539 
 
 XXIIL, 37 350, note 
 
 XXXIIL, i-io 59. note 
 
 XXXVIL, 27 257, subnote "/ " 
 
 XXXIX., 29 317, note 
 
 XLIV., 10-17 59. note 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 IIL, 1-30 19, note 
 
 VII., 9-23 78, note 
 
 HOSEA. 
 
 II., 7 note 89, page 36 
 
 XII., 4 78, note 
 
 XIII., 14 319, note 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 XL, 28, 29 317, note 
 
 IL, 32 383, subnote 
 
Index III. Index of Scripture Texts. 
 
 679 
 
 AMOS. 
 
 VII., 14, 15, Sept. 64, note 
 
 HAGGAI. 
 
 II., 13 249, subnote 
 
 ZECHARIAH. 
 
 XIL, 10 91, note; 255, note; 
 
 317, note. 
 XIII., 2 note 89, page 36 
 
 MALACHI. 
 I., 10, II— 231, note; 232, note. 
 
 234, note; 249, note; 
 392, note. 
 
 I., II 232, note; 235, note 
 
 II., 7 viii. 
 
 III., 6 375, note 
 
 IV., 2 453, note 897 
 
 APOCRYPHA. 
 KCCLESIASTICUS. 
 III., 21-25 180, note 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 MATTHEW. 
 
 I., I— 161, note; 389, subnote 
 
 -/" 
 I., 16--73, note; 74, note; 161, 
 
 note. 
 
 I., 18 161, note 
 
 I., 20 — 161, note; 329, note; 
 
 454, note 910, twice; 
 
 455, note 911, twice, 
 and note 913, once. 
 
 I., 21 331, note 
 
 I., 23 85, note; 157, Sum- 
 mary; 318, note; 320, 
 note, twice; 331, note; 
 364, note. 
 
 I., 25 331, note 
 
 II., I 435, note 778 
 
 II., 2 319, note 
 
 II., II 318, note 
 
 II., 13 161, note 
 
 II., 19, 20 453, note 907 
 
 III., 16 77, note 
 
 III., 17- -7 1, note; 390, subnote 
 
 IV., 10 viii., xlix., 18, 44, 
 
 note; 52, note; 72, 
 note; 80, note; 90, 
 note; 92, note; 93, 
 note; 94, note; 95, 
 note, twice; 96, note; 
 103, note; 106, note; 
 109, note; no, note, 
 twice; 127, note; 159, 
 note; 160, Summary; 
 172, note; 177, note; 
 178, note; 184, note; 
 191, note; 210, note; 
 213, note; 217. note; 
 218, note; 237, note; 
 276, note; 282, note; 
 315, note; 319, note; 
 321, note, twice; 326, 
 note; 330, note; 332, 
 note; 333, note; 334, 
 note; 335, note; 340, 
 note; 343, note; 350, 
 note; 351, note; 352, 
 note; 368, note; 372, 
 note; 381, note; 382, 
 
680 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 note, twice; 412, note; 
 432, note; 444, note 
 825; 448, note 870; 460, 
 note 941 ; 465, note 957; 
 488, note; 506, 540, 
 542, 548. 
 
 IV., 14-17 435. note 783 
 
 IV., 24, etc. 435, note 784 
 
 v., 23 551 
 
 v., 44 387, subnote "/" 
 
 v., 45 388, subnote *V" 
 
 VI., 9--293, note; 383, subnote 
 
 VI., 9-13 387, subnote "/" 
 
 VI., 12 385, subnote ''r" 
 
 VIII., 2 98, note 
 
 VIII., 2-5 371, note 
 
 VIII., 15 293, note 
 
 VIIL, 20 435> note 781 
 
 IX., 4 368, note 
 
 IX., 6 364, note 
 
 IX., 20 359, note 
 
 IX., 29, 30 293, note 
 
 X., I 435, note 784 
 
 X., 34-38 190, iiote 
 
 XL, 13 351, note 
 
 XI., 27 446, note 843 
 
 XI., 28--71, note; 385, subnote 
 
 XIV., 36 293, note 
 
 XIV., 53, 54, 66-72 516 
 
 XVI., 13--62, 69, note; 363, note; 
 389, subnote **/" 
 
 XVL, 16 69, note 
 
 XVI., 27 229, note 
 
 XVII., 5—385, subnote ";r/" 388, 
 
 XVII., 24-27 446, note 841 
 
 XVIII., 1-35 44, note 
 
 XVIII., 6 60 
 
 XVIII., 15 188, note 
 
 XVIII., 15-18 197, note 
 
 XVIIL, i5-i9__39, note; 188, note, 
 
 twice; 196, note; 214, 
 
 note. 
 XVIIL, 15-21— -44, note; 486, note 
 
 1042; 487, note 1044. 
 
 XVIIL, i7--ii., iv., xliv., 196, note; 
 358, note; 359, note; 
 395, note; 462, note. 
 
 XVIIL, 17, 18 527 
 
 XVIIL, 18 xxxix., 196, note 
 
 XIX., 6--viii.,89, note; 126, sub- 
 note "a;" 353, note, 
 twice. 
 
 XIX., 29 190, note 
 
 XXIL, 21 506 
 
 XXIL, 42-44 163, note 
 
 XXIL, 44 468, note 971 
 
 XXIV., 2 100, note 
 
 XXIV., 30 91, note 
 
 XXIV., 45 189, note 
 
 XXIV., 46 189, note 
 
 XXV., 15, 18, 24-31 i8s 
 
 XXV., 27 183, 
 
 XXV., 31 to 46 inclusive 446, 
 
 note 840. 
 XXVI. , 26-- 106, note; 272, subnote; 
 231, note; 264, sub- 
 note; 279, note; 281, 
 note, twice. 
 
 XXVL, 27 230, note 
 
 XXVL, 28.-236, note; 264, subnote; 
 279, note; 283, note. 
 
 XXVL, 29 305, subnote 
 
 XXVL, 31-36, 57, 58, 69-75 inclu- 
 sive 39, note; 516 
 
 XXVL, 34, 35 xlv., note "^ " 
 
 XXVL, 39 70, note 
 
 XXVL, 57. 58, 69-75 516 
 
 XXVL, 69, 70 xlv., note 'V^ 
 
 XXVL, 71, 72 xlv., note "flT" 
 
 XXVL, 73, 74, 75--xlv., note **^" 
 
 XXVIL, 46 220, note; 466, note 
 
 964. 
 XXVIIL, 19--109, note; 299, note; 
 
 384, subnote. 
 XXVIIL, 19, 20--xxxix., xlv., 214, 
 
 note; 413, note 702. 
 XXVIIL, 20 43, note; 214, note 
 
 MARK. 
 
 L, 10 77, note 
 
bidex III. Index of Scripture Texts. 
 
 681 
 
 I., II 71. note 
 
 I.J 40 98, note 
 
 I., 40-45 371, note 
 
 II., 8 368, note 
 
 II., 10 364, note 
 
 III., 15 435, note 
 
 VI., 3 389, subnote "/" 
 
 VIL, 33 to 36 293, note 
 
 VIII., 38 229, note 
 
 IX., 35 44, note; 196, note 
 
 X., 34. 35 209, note 
 
 X., 37 208, note 
 
 XII., 17 506 
 
 XII., 36 468, note 971 
 
 XIV., 22_-23i, note; 272, subnote 
 
 XIV., 23 230, note 
 
 XIV., 25 305, subnote 
 
 XIV., 27-32, 53, 54, 66-72 inclu- 
 sive 39, note; 516 
 
 XIV., 30, 31 xlv., note '' b " 
 
 XIV., 66, 67, 68 --xlv., note 'V" 
 XIV., 68, 69, 70--xlv.,note "oT" 
 XIV., 70, 71, 72--xlv., note "^" 
 
 XV., 34 466, note 964 
 
 XVI., 16 289, note; 401, note 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 I., 2 212, note 
 
 I., 15 64, note 
 
 I., 26, 34, 35 100, note 
 
 I., 35 291, subnote; 305, 
 
 subnote; 329, note; 
 420, note 738. 
 
 I., 37 420, note 739 
 
 II., 7 --74, note; 446, note 844 
 
 II., 7, 12 449, note 859 
 
 II., 32 435, note 783 
 
 II., 52.-447, note 855; 470, note 
 985; 546. 
 
 III., 22 71, note; 77, note 
 
 IV., 8 xlix., 159, note; 172, 
 
 note; 177, note; 191, 
 note; 210, note* 213, 
 note; 330, note; 332, 
 note; 432, note; 448, 
 
 IV., 
 IV., 
 
 v., 
 v., 
 v.. 
 
 IX., 
 
 XI., 
 
 XIL, 
 
 XIV., 
 
 XV., 
 
 XVI., 
 
 XIX., 
 
 XIX., 
 
 XX., 
 
 XXI., 
 
 XXII., 
 
 XXII., 
 
 XXII., 
 
 XXII., 
 
 XXII., 
 
 XXII., 
 XXII., 
 XXII., 
 
 XXII., 
 XXII., 
 XXII., 
 XXII., 
 XXII., 
 XXII., 
 XXII. , 
 XXIV., 
 XXIV., 
 XXIV., 
 
 XXIV. , 
 XXIV., 
 XXIV.. 
 
 note 870; 460, note 
 
 941; 465, note 957; 540, 
 
 542, 548. See Matt. 
 
 iv., 10. 
 
 17, 18 274, note 
 
 18 435, note 784; 469, 
 
 note 974. 
 
 12 98, note 
 
 12-14 371, note 
 
 24 364, note 
 
 II 435, note 784 
 
 2 296, note; 383, note 
 
 7 388, subnote "^ " 
 
 33 190, note 
 
 25 506 
 
 16 351, note 
 
 10 435, note 781 
 
 23 183, note 
 
 42 468, note 971 
 
 18 388, subnote ''q " 
 
 17 257, subnote 
 
 i7-22-_268, note; 270, note 
 
 17-23 257, subnote 
 
 18 305, subnote 
 
 19-- 162, note; 230, note; 
 
 272, subnote; 283, note; 
 
 284, note. 
 
 20 xix. 
 
 21 248, note 
 
 31-35 xlv., note "d/'* 
 
 516. 
 
 31-39, 54-62 39, note 
 
 43 164, note 337. 
 
 51 293, note 
 
 54-62 516 
 
 56, 57 xlv., note *V'* 
 
 58 xlv., note "^" 
 
 59, 60, 61 --xlv., note 'V" 
 
 13-36 306, subnote 
 
 36-44 305, subnote 
 
 39 --74, note; 305, subnote; 
 408, note. 
 
 39, 40 305, subnote 
 
 41, 42, 43 307, subnote 
 
 49 note 90, page 37, 
 
 twice; 317, note. 
 
682 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 I., I loi, note 
 
 I., I, 2 365, note 
 
 I., I, 2, 3, 10—73, note; 351, 
 note. 
 
 I., 1-4 351, note 
 
 I,, 3 155, note; 372, note; 
 
 446, note 843. 
 
 I., 1-5 274, subnote; 292, 
 
 note; 413, notes 698, 
 700. 
 
 I., I, 2, 3, 14 319, note 
 
 I., 1-15 264, subnote 
 
 I., 14—66, note; 74, note; 85, 
 note; 98, 99, text, 
 and 98, note; 128, 
 notes 187 and 188; see 
 the text as there re- 
 ferred to; 159, Sum- 
 mary; 184, note; 217, 
 note; 229, note; 292, 
 note; 363, note; 389, 
 subnote "a;" 409, 
 note; 416, note 716; 
 418, note 728; 419, 
 note 734; 428, note 
 760:447, note 853; 456, 
 note 913; 458, notes 
 925 and 930; 459, note 
 932:468, note 970. 
 
 L, 17 418, note 726 
 
 I., 18--77, note; 321, note; 
 329, note; 343, note. 
 
 II., I i6r, note 
 
 II., 1-12 319, note 
 
 II., 19 159, note; 328, note 
 
 II., 19, 21 99, note 
 
 II., 21, 22 465, note 957 
 
 IL, 24, 25 --368, note 
 
 III., 5 168, note; 289, note; 
 
 448, note 872. 
 
 III., 6 87, note 
 
 III., 9 265, subnote 
 
 III., II, 12 265, subnote 
 
 III., 13 70, note 
 
 III., 16 85, note 
 
 III., 33, 34 265, subnote 
 
 III., 34 72, note; 216, note 
 
 III., 35 446, note 843 
 
 IV., 8 191, note 
 
 IV., 23 235, note 
 
 IV., 23, 24 --386, subnote ''b " 
 IV., 24- -408, note; 440, note 
 807. 
 
 v., 19 434, note 770 
 
 v., 19-31— 228, note; 229, note 
 
 v., 21 78, note 179 
 
 v., 21-30 413, note 
 
 v., 22, 27 and after— 446, note 
 
 840. 
 v., 26--228, note; 274, subnote 
 
 v., 35 524 
 
 v., 39 385, subnote 
 
 VI., the Eucharisticpartof the 
 
 chapter 253, note; 
 
 290, note; 408, note. 
 VI., 26-64- --264, subnote; 289, 
 
 note. 
 VI., 32, 33, 47 to 52—273, note 
 VI., 32, 33, 42, 48, 50, 51, 58, 
 
 62, 63 274, subnote 
 
 VI., 33, 38. 51 70, note 
 
 VI., 33, 39, 40, 54, 57--413. note 
 
 VI., 33, 48-64 300, note 
 
 VI., 35-41 228, note 
 
 VI., 35-48 78, note 178 
 
 VI., 42 389, subnote *y" 
 
 VI., 47-69 240, note 
 
 VI., 48 283, note 
 
 VI., 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57. 
 
 58, 63 281, 
 
 note, twice. 
 
 VI., 50 438, text, and note 
 
 796. 
 VI., 50, 51, 58--438, text, and 
 
 note 798. 
 VI., 51--273, note; 279, note; 
 283, note; 284, note; 
 438, note 797. 
 VI., 53- -240, note, thrice; 270, 
 note; 289, note; 290, 
 
Index III. Index of Scripture Texts. 
 
 G83 
 
 note and subnote "a/" 
 291, subnote, twice; 
 408, note; 525. 
 
 VI., 54, 56 273, note 
 
 VI., 56--251, note, four times; 
 262, subnote; 273, note, 
 twice; 472, notes, 
 thrice. 
 
 VI., 56, 57 250, note; 368, 
 
 note; 518, twice. 
 VL, 57—236. note; 251, note, 
 twice; 252, note, five 
 times; 253, note; 268, 
 subnote; 273, note, 
 thrice; 281, subnote 
 *7;" 472, note 999; 
 473, notes, four times. 
 
 VI., 61, 62, 63 275, note. 
 
 VI., 62--62, text; 69, note; 70, 
 
 note; 270, note. 
 VI. , 63 236, note; 262, sub- 
 note; 268, subnote; 
 274, note; 275, note; 
 287, note; 290, note; 
 291, note; 292, note; 
 408, note; 438, note 
 800. 
 
 VI., 64 368, note 
 
 VII., 36 435, note 786 
 
 VIII., 40 313, note 
 
 VIII., 42—73, notes 166, 167; 528 
 
 VIII., 54 466, note 961 
 
 IX., 4 434, note 770 
 
 IX., 35. 36, 37 86, note 
 
 IX., 38 341, note 
 
 X., 9 385, subnote 
 
 X., 11-16 189, note 
 
 X., 16--189, note; 190, note; 
 
 435, note 783. 
 
 X., 30--313. note, twice; 389, 
 
 subnote "^." 
 
 X., 33 98, note 
 
 X., 34, 35 261, subnote, 
 
 twice. 
 
 X., 36 438, text, and note 
 
 799. 
 
 X., 36-39 434, note 770 
 
 XI., 25 228, note; 292, note 
 
 XII., 48 xlix. 
 
 XIII., 28 248, note. 
 
 XIII., 36-38 inclusive; 39, note; 
 
 516. 
 
 XIII., 38 xlv., note '' b " 
 
 XIV., 6— xvii.; 78, note 178; 100, 
 
 note; 189, note; 264, 
 
 subnote; 292, note; 
 
 317, note; 369, note; 
 
 378, note; 381, note, 
 
 twice; 385, subnote; 
 
 387, subnote *'/;" 413, 
 
 note; 446, note 846. 
 
 and page 515. 
 
 XIV., 6, 13, 14 542 
 
 XIV., 9 313, note 
 
 XIV., 10 434, note 770 
 
 XIV., 13, 14 381, note; 388, 
 
 subnote " z/;" page 
 
 515- 
 
 XIV., 16 218, note 
 
 XIV., 16, 17— xxxix., xlv.; 37, 
 
 note 90; 43, note; 322, 
 
 note. 
 
 XIV., 16-19 214, note 
 
 XIV., 16, 17, 26 37, note 90 
 
 XIV., 16-19, 26 — 218, note; 314, 
 
 note. 
 XIV., 26 --63, note; 218, note; 
 
 317, note. 
 
 XIV., 28 390, subnote "/^" 
 
 XV., 9 85, note 
 
 XV., 16--381, note; 388, subnote 
 
 "z^;" 515, 542. 
 
 XV., 26 43, note; 63, note; 
 
 218, note, thrice; 314, 
 
 njte; 317, note, thrice; 
 
 362, note. 
 
 XVI., 7 218, note 
 
 XVI., 7-16 --37, note 90; 63, note; 
 
 218, note. 
 XVI., 13--43, note; 214, note; 
 
 322, note. 
 
684 
 
 Act I. of Ephestis. 
 
 XVI., 13, 14--466, note 962; 469, 
 note 972. 
 
 XVI., 14 316, note; 318, note 
 
 XVI., 14, 15 362, note 
 
 XVI., 15 446, note 843 
 
 XVL, 23 383, note 
 
 XVI., 23, 26 381, note 
 
 XVI., 23-26 381, note 
 
 XVL, 23, 24, 26 542 
 
 XVI., 23-27 —388, subnote " z/ " 
 
 XVI., 23, 24, 26, 27 515 
 
 XVL, 28 73, note; 528 
 
 XVL, 28-31 368, note 
 
 XVIL, 3 85, note 
 
 XVII., 5 73, note 
 
 XVIL, II, 21, 22, 23 313, note 
 
 XVIL, 12 183 
 
 XVIL, 20-23 533, note 
 
 XVIIL, 13-18, 25-27 516 
 
 XVIIL, 13-19, 25-27 inclusive__39, 
 note. 
 
 XVIIL, 17 xlv., note "r" 
 
 XVIIL, 25 xlv., note 'V 
 
 XVIIL, 26, 27 xlv., note "^" 
 
 XIX., 37 127, note 
 
 XX., 17 367, note 
 
 XX., 19-24 xxxix. 
 
 XX., 19, 26 306, note 
 
 XX., 22 293, note 
 
 XX., 25-30 305, subnote 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 I., 9 Ixviii. 
 
 I., 14 161, note 
 
 I., 20-23 212, note 
 
 I., 20, 25 43, note 
 
 L, 24 367, note 
 
 II., 37, note 90 
 
 IL, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 33—317, 
 
 note. 
 IL, 4, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39—317, 
 note. 
 
 IL, 21 383, subnote 
 
 IL, 23-33 413, note 
 
 II. , 27-31 --287, note; 306, sub- 
 note; 520. 
 
 IL, 30. 31, 32 74, note 
 
 II., 33 317, note, twice 
 
 IL, 34, 37 46S, note 971 
 
 IL, 36 468, note 971 
 
 II., 38 289, note; 298, note 
 
 III., 21 296, note; 52S 
 
 VIL, 55, 56 296, note 
 
 VIL, 56 435, note 781 
 
 VIIL, 20-24 443, note 
 
 X., the whole chapter --xlvi., 
 note "rt." 
 
 X., 40, 41 307, subnote 
 
 X., 41 305, subnote 
 
 XL, 1-19 xlvi., note "«/" 
 
 xlviii., note 'V." 
 
 XIL, 10 306, note 
 
 XIV., 8-18 388, subnote "f?" 
 
 XIV., 14 ---232, note 
 
 XV., 1-32 xlvi., note " «;" 
 
 xlvii., note "a/" 
 xlviii., note " r." 
 
 XV., 1-34 xliv. 
 
 XV., 7-12 xlviii., note *'<5"' 
 
 XV., 14-18 —-xlviii., note " /^ " 
 
 XV., 29 292, note 
 
 XVIL, 30, 31 127, note 
 
 XVIL, 31 229, note; 446, note 
 
 840. 
 
 XX., 7 xlvii., note 
 
 XX., 28--189, note; 227, note, 
 twice; 365, note; 371, 
 note; 388, subnote 
 ";r;" 391, note; 435, 
 note 787; 448, note 
 863. 
 
 XX., 29, 30 190, note 
 
 XXIL, 16 289, note 
 
 XXVL, 7-- note 8, page 35 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 I., 3--74, note; 161, note; 
 436, note 789. 
 
 L, 7 383, subnote 
 
 I., 25 372, note; 542 
 
 L, 25, 26 321, note 
 
 I., 28 99, note 
 
Index III. hidex of Scripture Texts. 
 
 Goo 
 
 III., 13, 14 189. note 
 
 III., 14 59, note 
 
 III., 23 304, subnote; 316, 
 
 notes, twice. 
 
 v., 1-5 383, subnote 
 
 v., 6 435, note 787 
 
 v., 10 477, note 1014 
 
 v., 12 520 
 
 v., 14 420, note 743 
 
 VI., 9 305, subnote; 520 
 
 VI., 10 230, note 
 
 VI., 14, 15 xlvi., note **<2" 
 
 VI., 23 390, subnote "z" 
 
 VII., 6 438, note 800 
 
 VIII., 3 74, note; 162, note; 
 
 389, subnote " <5;" 433, 
 note 767. 
 VIII., 9—218, note; 291, subnote 
 
 VIII., II 291, subnote 
 
 VIIL, 15, 23 423, note 
 
 VIII., 21 435, note 786 
 
 VIIL, 26 182, note 
 
 VIII., 29 89, note 
 
 VIIL, 34--314, note, four times; 
 386, subnote '' h.'" 
 
 IX., 4 423, note 
 
 IX., 5— 459, note 934, and page 
 537- 
 
 IX., 22-27 435, note 783 
 
 X., 2 xxviii., note "a " 
 
 X., 4 334, note; 351, note 
 
 X., 12 386, subnote 'V 
 
 X., 14 3S4, subnote 
 
 X., 17 387, subnote "w" 
 
 X., 36 332, note 
 
 XL, 16 320, note 
 
 XL, 20 180, note 
 
 XII., I -—233, note, twice; 235, 
 note. 
 
 XIL, 4 527 
 
 XII., 14--321, note, and 442, 
 note 824. 
 
 XIL, 16 180, note 
 
 XIIL, 1-8 506 
 
 XIII. , 4 123, note 
 
 XIV., 9- -332, note, 435, note 787 
 
 XIV., 23 387, subnote "/" 
 
 XV., 8 370, subnote "n; '* 
 
 XVL, 17 ix. 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 I., 2, 3 383, subnote 
 
 II., 4 437, note 793 
 
 II., 8 413, note 
 
 IL, 15 290, note 
 
 III., II 191, note 
 
 III., 16, 17 66, note 
 
 IV., 7 383, note 
 
 v., 3-6 214, note 
 
 v., II ix. 
 
 v., 13 181, note 
 
 VI., 9, 10 XXX., note;xlii., 
 
 note; 276, note; 292, 
 note, and 321, note. 
 VL, 17--65, note; 118, note; 
 219, note; 318, note. 
 
 VL, 19 66, note 
 
 VII., 22, etc. 435, note 786 
 
 VII., 39 XXX., note 
 
 VIIL, 6_-66, note; 313, note; 446, 
 note 843. 
 
 X., 13 364, note 
 
 X., 16--231, note; 272, subnote 
 
 X., 21 248, note 
 
 XL, 16 166, note 
 
 XL, 17-34 59, note 146 
 
 XL, 19 182, note 422 
 
 XL, 24-_i62, note; 230, note; 
 235, note; 272, sub- 
 note; 283, note; 284, 
 note. 
 XL, 26_-229, note, twice; 291, 
 note. 
 
 XIL, the chapter 318, note 
 
 XIL, 1-13 317, note 
 
 XIL, 8 383, subnote 
 
 XIL, 9, II 293, note 
 
 XIL, 10, II 314, note 
 
 XIL, XIIL and XIV.— 37, note 
 90. 
 
 XV., 3 162, note; 435, note 
 
 787. 
 
686 
 
 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 XV., 20 228, note 
 
 XV., 20, 23— 126, subnote "^/" 
 
 353, note. 
 
 XV., 21 228, note, twice 
 
 XV., 22, 45 78, note 179 
 
 XV., 25 525 
 
 XV„ 42, 43, 44--304, subnote, 
 
 twice; 306, subnote. 
 
 XV., 44 306, subnote 
 
 XV., 47 66, note 
 
 XV., 47, etc 363, note 
 
 XV., 51, 52, etc 434, note 
 
 768. 
 
 XV., 53, 54 449» note 877 
 
 XV., 54 319* note 
 
 XV., 54, 55 229, note 
 
 XV., 54-58 228, note 
 
 XVI., 2 xlvii., top note 
 
 XVI., 22 321, note; 443, note 
 
 II. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 I., 22 66, note 
 
 II., 1-12 214, note 
 
 III., 6 438, note 800 
 
 III., 6-12 230, note 
 
 III., 8 218, note 
 
 III., 13 xlvi., note " a " 
 
 III., 17 435, note 766 
 
 IV., 4 313, note 
 
 v., 15 435, note 787 
 
 v., 16 xxi., 441, note 816 
 
 v., 21—363, note; 434, note 
 775; 469, note 977; 546. 
 
 VI., 14, 15 174, note 
 
 VI., 14-18 XXX., note 
 
 VIII., 9--419, note 731; 447, note 
 
 857. 
 
 X., 4 245, note 
 
 XI., 28 241, note 
 
 XIII., 5 60, note 150 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 I., 4 . 363, note 
 
 I., 8, 9-_xxvi., 173, text, and 
 
 note 369; 66, note; 180, 
 
 text and note; 250, 
 
 note; 321, note, twice; 
 
 372, note; 413, note; 
 
 428, note 760; 443, 
 
 note, twice. 
 
 I., 19 478, note 1019 
 
 II., 10-21 inclusive — 39, note 
 
 n., 11-15 xlvii. 
 
 II., 11-21 xliv., xlvii., 218, 
 
 note; 516. 
 
 III., 13 421, note 750 
 
 III., 16 436, note 789 
 
 IV., 4—73, note; 74, note; 220, 
 
 note; 319, note; 436, 
 
 note 790; 451, note 
 
 886. 
 IV., 5—423, note; 449, note 
 
 874. 
 IV., 6—63, note; 66, note; 218, 
 
 note, thrice. 
 
 IV., 20 181, note 
 
 v., I 435, note 786 
 
 v., 19-22 XXX., note; xlii., 
 
 note; 276, note; 321, 
 
 note; 377, note. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 I., 5 423, note; 449, note 
 
 874. 
 
 I., 7 189, note 
 
 I., 10 317, note 
 
 I., 17 383, subnote 
 
 I., 22 197, note 
 
 II., 4 386, subnote 
 
 II., 8 383, subnote '' e " 
 
 II., 8, 9 418, note 727 
 
 III., 19 449, note 876 
 
 IV., 8 228, note; 317, note 
 
 IV., 15 197, note 
 
 v., 2 363, note 
 
 v., 25 363, note 
 
 VI., 10-18 245, note 
 
 VI., 17 viii. 
 
 VI., 18 314, note 
 
Index III. Index of Scripture Texts. 
 
 687 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 I., 9 . 218, note 
 
 L, 19 ^^--63, note 
 
 II., 5, 6 157, note 304 
 
 n., 5, 6, 7 no, note; 445, 
 
 note 837; 460, note 
 
 942, and 538. 
 
 II., 5-9 458, note 930 
 
 IL, 5-11 463, note 949 
 
 IL, 5-i2_.83, note; 403, note; 
 
 404, note, twice. 
 II., 6 --77, note; 463, note 949 
 IL, 6, 7—67, note; 328, note; 
 
 435, note 785. 
 II. , 6, 7, 8—389, subnote "^" 
 II. , 7—68, note; 81, note; 84, 
 
 note; 99, note; 220, 
 
 note; 274, note; 313, 
 
 note; 328, note; 332, 
 
 note; 363, note; 433, 
 
 note; 434, note 769; 
 
 446, note 851; 447, 
 
 note 852; 448, note 
 
 873; 449, note 875; 
 
 463, note 950; 468, 
 
 note 967. 
 IL, 8 157, note 306; 320, 
 
 note; 419, note 729; 
 
 435, note 782; 446, 
 
 note 845. 
 
 II. , 9, 10 461, note 947 
 
 II. , 9, 10, II— 83, note; 84, 
 
 note, thrice; 92, note; 
 
 no, note, twice; 463, 
 
 note 949. 
 II., 10 88, note; 341, note; 
 
 540, twice. 
 II. , 10, II— 91, note; 99, note; 
 
 no, note; 120, note; 
 
 463, note 949. 
 
 IL, II : 85, note 
 
 IL, 17 233, note 
 
 IIL, 2, 3 431, note 
 
 III., 20, 21 413, note 
 
 IV., 18 316, note; 363, note 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 L, 13, 14 372, note 
 
 I., 14 189, note 
 
 L, 15 313, note 
 
 I., 16, 17 73, note 
 
 L, 17 446, note 843 
 
 L, 18—197, note; 228, note; 
 413, note. 
 
 L, 20 loi, note 
 
 I., 21, 22 413, note 
 
 L, 22 413, note; 449, note 
 
 877. 
 
 IL, 9 66, note; 217, note 
 
 IL, 15 228, note 
 
 IL, 18 xvii.; 18; 321, note 
 
 II., 19 197, note 
 
 IIL, 3 387, subnote "/ " 
 
 IIL, 3, 4 --—413, note 
 
 IIL, 4 —78, note 178; 413, note 
 
 I. THESSALONIANS. 
 
 I., I 59, note 
 
 IL, 6 59, note 
 
 IIL, 12 383, subnote 
 
 v., 10 435, note 787 
 
 v., 23 441, note 816 
 
 v., 24 375, subnote "/" 
 
 IL THESSALONIANS. 
 
 IL, 8 63, note 
 
 IIL, 14, 15 ix. 
 
 I. TIMOTHY. 
 
 L, 3 183, note 
 
 I., 18 245, note 
 
 I., 19, 20 59, note 
 
 IL, I, 2 387, subnote "7 " 
 
 IL, 5 xvii., 296, note; 314, 
 
 note, twice; 369, note; 
 
 385, subnotes, twice; 
 
 386, subnote '' h;'' 
 389, subnote "<?/" 
 391, note, twice; 515, 
 four times; 516. 
 
 IL, 6 363, note 
 
€88 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 IL, 8 233, note 
 
 III., 2 15 
 
 III., 2, 12 14 
 
 III., 15 Preface, iv., xxxix.; 
 
 43, note; 322, note. 
 
 III., 15, 16 214, note 
 
 III., 16 66, note; 159, Sum- 
 mary; 227, note; 363, 
 note ; 389, subnote ' W. " 
 
 IV., 13, 16 156, note 295 
 
 IV., 15 165, note 
 
 v., 9 14 
 
 VI., 16 77, note; 434, note 
 
 VI., 20 xxiv,, note "A" 
 
 VI., 20, 21 182, note 
 
 II. TIMOTHY. 
 
 I., io_-229, note; 319, note; 
 448, note 864; 449, 
 note 877. 
 
 IL, 3, 4 245, note 
 
 II., 8 436, note 789 
 
 II., 13 376, subnote 
 
 II., 16 xxiv., note " h " 
 
 IV., 2, 3 59, note 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 I., 6, 7 14 
 
 II., 14 363* note 
 
 III., 5 289, note; 448, note 
 
 872. 
 
 III., 9 182, note; 188, note 
 
 III., 10 395, note 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 I., I, 2 477, notes, twice 
 
 I., I to II, 18 363, note 
 
 I., 2 73, note; 155, note; 
 
 319, note, twice. 
 I., 3 73, notes 165, 167; 
 
 313, note, Greek; 446, 
 
 note 843; 528. 
 I., 6 89, note, twice; 91, 
 
 note; 93, note; 225, 
 
 note; 341, note. 
 
 I., 6, 8 335. note 
 
 I., 13 468, note 971 
 
 II., 9 77, 100, 78, note 180; 
 
 228, notes, twice; 413, 
 
 note. 
 
 II., 9-18—434, note; 445, note 
 
 838; 470, note 990; 542. 
 
 II., 10 69, note; 469, note 
 
 977. 
 
 II., 14 128, note; 229, note 
 
 IL, 14, 15 319, note; 363, 
 
 note; 448, note 864; 
 
 449, note 877. 
 IL, 14-17— -390, subnote "/" 
 IL, 14-18 —66, note; 287, note 
 IL, 14-18 and III., i, 2—375, 
 
 note, and subnote 
 
 "a." 
 
 IL, 16 307, subnote 
 
 IL, 16, 17 363, note 
 
 IL, 16, etc. 436, note 789 
 
 IL, 17 364, note, twice 
 
 IL, 18 287, note; 365, note 
 
 IIL, I 313, note; 363, note, 
 
 twice; 365, note; 542, 
 
 550. 
 IIL, I, 2- — 122, note; 373, note 
 
 and subnote; 469, note 
 
 975; 971, note 972; 546, 
 
 twice. 
 
 IIL, 5, 6 376, subnote 
 
 IIL, 16 471, note 993 
 
 IV., 14-16 542 
 
 IV., 15 315, note; 
 
 390, "/;" 434, note 
 775; 469, note 977; 
 471, note 994. 
 
 IV., 15, etc 287, note; 305, 
 
 note; 307, subnote; 
 516. 
 
 IV., 15, 16 470, note 990 
 
 IV., 16--— 388, subnote ".v" 
 
 v., 7-10 470, note 979 
 
 v., 9.-469, note 977; 470, note 
 
 988. 
 v., 10 470, note 989 
 
Index III. Index of Scripture Texts. 
 
 689 
 
 VI., I xxi., note "/" 
 
 VI., 19 XXV., note " o " 
 
 VI., 19, 20--390, subnote '' k " 
 
 VI., 20 542 
 
 VII., 15-28 inclusive--39i, note 
 
 VII., 16 365, note 
 
 VII., 22-28 371, note 
 
 VII., 23 371, note 
 
 VII., 23-25 364, note, twice 
 
 VII., 23-28 366, note 
 
 VII.. 24 387, subnote "z;" 
 
 515- 
 
 VII., 24, 25 368, note 
 
 VII., 24, 25, and VIII., i —296, 
 note; 368, note. 
 
 VII., 24-28 542 
 
 VII., 25 xvii.;lxviii.; 314, 
 
 note; 315, note; 371, 
 note; 381, note; 386, 
 subnote " h;" 391, 
 note, and page 515. 
 
 VII., 25-28-363, note; 385, sub- 
 note *'Z£/." 
 
 VII., 27 230, note 
 
 VIII., I 542 
 
 VIII., I, 2—365, note; 378, note 
 
 VIII., 3 471, note 994 
 
 VIII., 5 100, note; 378, note 
 
 VIII., 6, 8, 13 viii. 
 
 VIII., 13 xlvi., note "a," 
 
 twice. 
 
 IX., the chapter 315, note 
 
 IX., 1-28 inclusive— -391, note; 
 515- 
 
 IX., 4 xlvi., note "a" 
 
 IX., 6, 7 515 
 
 IX., 7 515 
 
 IX., 7, 8, 9 368, note 
 
 IX., 9, 10 230, note 
 
 IX., 10 40, note; 392, note; 
 
 515. 
 IX., 12, 24--— 25; 387, subnote 
 
 " z . " 
 
 IX., 12, 28 230, note 
 
 IX., 14—72, note; 291, subnote; 
 
 305, subnote; 428, note 
 
 762. 
 
 IX., 15 371, note; 391, note 
 
 IX., 15, 16, 17; xlvi., note "a," 
 xlvii., top note; 317, 
 note. 
 IX., 24 ---314, note; 368, note; 
 542. 
 
 X., I 100, note 
 
 X., 1-19 230, note 
 
 X., 1-27 391, note 
 
 X., 5-8 317, note 
 
 X., 5-10 329, note 
 
 X., 10, 12 392, note 
 
 X., 12--230, note; 387, subnote 
 
 <« ^-.M 291^ note. 
 X., 12, 14--388, subnote ";r/" 
 392, note. 
 
 X., 14 365, note 
 
 X., 19-23 — 388, subnote " s " 
 
 X., 19-24 542 
 
 X., 29 72, note 
 
 XL, 3 73. note 
 
 XI., 6—385, note; 387, subnote 
 
 XI., 35 209, note 
 
 XII., 12 388, subnote ";ir" 
 
 XII., 24 viii. 
 
 XIII., 8--281, note; 376, subnote 
 
 XIII., 15 235, note 
 
 XIII., 15, 16 234, note 
 
 JAMES. 
 I., I 35, note 88 
 
 1., 17 383, subnote 
 
 I., 25 435, note 786 
 
 v., 16 387, subnote "/'' 
 
 I. PETER. 
 
 I., 10, II, 12 407, note 
 
 L, II— 218, note; 291, subnote 
 I., 18, 19—388, subnote " z£/ " 
 
 XL, 5 234. note 
 
 II., 5, 9 viii., 39, note; 40, 
 
 note; 190, note; 230, 
 note, twice; 392, note, 
 twice; 512, 515. 
 II., 9 508 
 
690 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 IL, 24 388, subnote "^/" 
 
 435, note 784; 445, 
 
 note 832. 
 III., 18— -230, note; 413, note, 
 
 twice; 419, note 732. 
 
 III., 21 289, note 
 
 IV., I 162, note; 227, note; 
 
 409, note, twice; 413, 
 
 note, twice. 
 IV., 14 375, subnote '*^" 
 
 II. PETER. 
 
 I., 4 66, note; a very im- 
 portant explanation of 
 this difficult text by 
 St. Cyril; 89, note; 377, 
 note. 
 III., 5 317, note 
 
 I. JOHN. 
 
 I., I 86, note; 413, note 
 
 I., I, 2 78, note 178; 363, 
 
 note. 
 IL, I, 2— xvii., 296, note; 314, 
 note; 363, note; 366, 
 note; 368, note; 381, 
 note; 385, subnote; 
 391, note, twice; 515, 
 twice. 
 
 IL, 2 367, note; 371, note 
 
 III., 20 384, subnote 
 
 v., 20 292, note 
 
 IL JOHN. 
 I., II XXX., note 
 
 REVELATIONS. 
 
 L, 5 189, note; 230, note; 
 
 413, note; 512. 
 
 L, 6 viii. ; 39, note; 190, 
 
 note; 392, note. 
 
 L, 10 xlvii., top note 
 
 I., 18 52a 
 
 IL, I, 2 298, note 
 
 IL, 2 298, note; 395, note; 
 
 443, note. 
 IL, 23 368, note; 384, sub- 
 note. 
 
 v., 8 --235, note 
 
 VL, 9, 10 369, note 
 
 VL, 9-12 249, subnote; 314, 
 
 note. 
 
 VIIL, 3, 4 387, subnote "«" 
 
 XL, 15— -XXX., note; 123, note 
 
 XVIL, I, 15, 18 X., and 522 
 
 XVII., the whole chapter- --xliii. 
 
 XVIL, 4 22, note 26 
 
 XVIL, 14 445, note 839 
 
 XVIL, 18 xli., xliii., note 
 
 XVIIL, 1-24 xliii., note 
 
 XVIII. , the whole chapter xli. 
 
 XVIIL, 3 X. 
 
 XIX., 10 388, subnote "p " 
 
 XX., 1-7 XXX., note; 10, note; 
 
 123, note. 
 
 XX., 14 319, note 
 
 XXL, 4, etc.— 445, note 832; 448, 
 
 note 864. 
 XXL, 8--XXX., note; xlii., note; 
 276, note; 292, note; 
 377, note; 401, note. 
 XXIL, 8, 9 —.18, 184, note; 388; 
 
 subnote "/>." 
 XXIL, 18, 19 —428, note 760. 
 
ii^jdib::z: T\r. 
 
 INDEX TO GREEK WORDS AND GREEK 
 EXPRESSIONS. 
 
 The Greek is so much that we cannot attempt to index it all, 
 but only such words and expressions as are of special importance as 
 bearing on dogma, discipline, or rite. Our aim is to omit no such 
 word or expression. The words and expressions omitted are of very 
 little importance except as bearing on the corredtness of the transla- 
 tion, etc. 
 
 The English of single words of the Greek will be found with 
 them in this Index. The English of the Greek expressions, when 
 not found with them, will be found on the pages referred to. 
 
 dyia<T/x6v^ rov, the consecvation; 282, note. 
 
 ^' Ayiov Ilveuim^ ro, the Holy Ghost; see under Tlvtufia, 
 
 aSou, Hades; Valentinus the Apollinarian adduces Athanasius assay- 
 ing that the Cosubstancer heretics came from it, page 431, 
 note. 
 
 aX,utia^ unleavene^ oreaa: literally, '^ imleaveyied things;" 231, note. 
 See apTo^. The Greek of the New Testament does not apply 
 the name bread {apxoi) to unleavened things {a^ofxa). "Apro^ 
 is sometimes derived from afpo)^ to raise, that is, by the leaven, 
 and hence ancient usage distinguished between apro?^ raised, 
 that is, leavened bread, and a^op-a^ imleavened things, which 
 are not raised. Compare Bingham's Aniiq., XV., ii., 5, 6. 
 
 ^Adavdfftog, Atha7iasius, referred to by Valentinus, the Apollinarian„ 
 as against the Cosubstancers, 431, note. 
 
692 Ad I. of EpJies7is. 
 
 Woiii-'.Tir^^ lawless, godless, -ivroiig: 9, note 8. 
 
 aiiiutq^ eternal voi the expression, <' roo Osob ric'^ro? Tld? xa\ Aoyix;^ "■ the 
 eiejmal So7i and Word of God;'' 426, 427; see the context of 
 the Greek in the note on page 433: ai^ioo^ eternal, in the expres- 
 sion T^9 aibioo yevvijfTsw?^ the ete^mal birth; 436, text. Compare 
 note 791 there. 
 
 aiviyixara^ riddles; 448, note 869. 
 
 alpertyMy o, the heretic; applied by Nestorius to Cyril of Alexandria, 
 or to some other of his opponents; 474, note 1007. 
 
 uhc(K^, Author or Cause; 470, note 987. 
 
 a:6vu)v^ in the expression, ''al6vtov'' dk aordv " /Jao-rA^a," [the Arian 
 Emperor Constantius] sifjrjxafTCv ol rdv Tidv atdiov apvootxsvin, [the 
 Arians], 20, note; aiwviw^^ eternal, in the expression ra>y 
 aiioviiDv AbyooffTiov , 19, note 2o; 41, note 99. 
 
 alio'Ho-y^^, Eter?iitj/ in thQ expression, yj r^/isripa aioj'^corr]^, ^' our Eter- 
 nity; "19, note 20; blasphemously used by Theodosius to 
 Placidia. 
 
 ciy.xi<7ro\f Oeov, uncreated God; 432, note. 
 
 dlrjOeia^ t^, the reality; 282, note. 
 
 dixaprrifia; see -poTzaropuih. 
 
 avay/juiij^, necessarily; 32, note 67. 
 
 wAOtiia i(TTU) / Let him be a^iathema I Let him be accursed! 180, 
 note 402; 432, note; earioaav avddtpa, 431, note. 
 
 dvadeiiari^u)^ I anathematize, I curse; 172, note 365; the Bishops at 
 Ephesus after the reading of the Epistle of Nestorius which 
 denies the Incarnation and favors the worship of Christ's sep- 
 arate mere humanity shouted out, "Okri ij ohoopivri avadspariZei 
 rijv dfTs,37J Oprj^xtcav adroo, ^^ All the inhabited world anathema- 
 tizes his impious religioji I 178, note 389. 
 
 d.vaxe.i[iiv()u^^ in the expression, rohq dsw d'^axetpivou?, those who have 
 dedicated the7nselves to God; 175, note 383. 
 
 a.vai[iaxTo<s, imbloody, that is without blood, in the following expres- 
 sions: dvaipaxTo^s -^udia, 7i7ibloody sacrifice; 40, note; 287, note; 
 see wf^Z-t/JoAa ; dvac//azTov in the expression, rr^v dvaiiiaxrov iv raU^ 
 
 ixxXrjfTiac? rsXoopev larpziwj, that is, St. Cyril's Ecumenically ap- 
 proved words, ' 'hi the Churches we perform the wibloody service, 
 that is, " the service withoid blood,'' note 597, page 229; com- 
 pare notes 598, 599, where the expression is explained at 
 
hidex IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressi07is. 693 
 
 length; TTfj a'Miiiiay.ztr^ la-ptiav^ the u7ibloody service, 287, note; 
 d'^aifj.axTO'i^ uubloody, withoid blood, 231, note; 233, note; Kairot. 
 T.p()<T(pif)t'.\> dio\> w>>aiixax.T(rj {^0(ria^>^ xai r>yv ^o^cxijv Tvporrdyeiv Xarpeta'^, 
 that is, ''Although it is necessary to offer an unbi^oody sacri- 
 fice and to brhig the reasonable service,'" 233, note; avrj eo(7ia^ 
 T^9 dC aliidroj^j koytxrjvxdi d.>aiiJ.axxoj xa\ rr^v po(7Tt/.rjvr)Tc? et? zuv dd'^arov 
 TOO hopioo (Top-I^oliov ydpi^^ iTZtzeXslrat too (7U)riaro<iaoroo xat too altiazo^ 
 that is, ' 'Instead of the sacrifice which was by blood He hath ap- 
 pointed the reasonable and nnbloody ajid mystic one of His body and 
 blood which is performed by symbols to represent the death of the 
 L07'd, 237, note; xai TzpoffdyovTeis aijzdi ra? Xoytxd<^ xat d'^at/idxT<>u<^ 
 Ouffta? did 'Iifjffobj too ixeydkou 'Apy'.-piw^^ that is, " Arid offer to 
 Him the reaso7iable and ujibloody sacrifices through Jesus, the 
 Great High Priest,'" 238, note; iyyztpoTr^Ta^ aoi T-qv cpnfi^pdv Taox-qu 
 xdi dvaifiaxTov Ouatau, ' ' who undertake [to perform] this fearful 
 a7id u7ibloody sacrifice to Thee," 238, note. 
 dvaXap^wjiov ^ taki7lg ; 64, note. 
 dvaXri(pd£i<s^ taken up or adopted; 433, note. 
 <ivdXr^4'v^, taking [offlesli]; ascensio7i; 463, note 951. 
 dvaffzdffeo)^^ r?)?, of the res7i7'rectio7i; 156, note. 
 
 c.va<popdv^ reference to, or relation to; 68, note; 69, note; dvaipopa, in the 
 expression, ttiv izapd 7td(T-q<s ttj? xziaew? diyezac 7zpo<7xo^>rj(Tv^^ w^ 
 dymptffzirj 7r/>o? ttjv dsiav (fuatv eywv Tr^v ao^^dtpetav wjaipopa 0sou xat 
 i'^'^oca 7:dfrrj<^ adzai r^? xTifTscu? zr^v 7zpo(Txir^-q<nv d7:ovsiio6(Tq<;^ that is 
 
 the mere human Nestorian Christ, a mere creature, according 
 to a Nestorian Creed which was condemned by the Third 
 Ecumenical Council, '* receives bozving [that is, worship'\fro7n 
 all the creatio7i, as havirig the inseparable [external] co7i- 
 ju7ictio7i with the Diviyie Natiire [of the Word], all the creatio7i 
 giving him bowing [that is, worship'] with reference to God and 
 in consideration of God;" 337, note. That is, in effect, relative 
 worship. 
 
 o.vopa^ ma7i, husba7id; see !itd<$ and ysyovula under p.td<;. 
 
 d'>iXai3i ps, took me; 64, note; dAXa^ev^ took up, or adopted; 433, note. 
 
 d>dp6-Ki>a, in the expression, 6>etdt!^ojv Anzuj zd dyOp6-vja^ he [Nestorius] 
 makes the human thirigs a7i i7isult to Hi77i; 408, text. The 
 Greek context is found in note 716, page 416; d'>0p6-i>a^ zd^ 
 the hu77ia7i thi7igs; 534; w^y'^pujnvMiv, z6, the huma7iity^ 80, note. 
 
694 Act I. of Epkesus. 
 
 a\)dpii)TioXaTpiu)^ I worship a Maji; 635. 
 
 dvdpwnoXarpeia^ the worship of a Tfiaji, that is, the Nestorian worship 
 of Christ's humanity, condemned; Preface ii., xvii., xxiv., 
 note "//" xxvi.; xxvii., note; xliii., note; 18; 79, note 182; 
 90, note. On page 87, note, Cyril says of Nestorius, zaj rd 
 
 T^9 avdp(onoXarp£ia<s kyxXij[iara deSiU)?^ ^Xio y£)'ovuj? d^'dpiOTzoXdrprj'; : 
 dLvdpwr.oXarpeia^ Man- Worship, that is, the Worship of a Man, 
 103. Of course, the Church in condemning the Nestorian 
 worship of Christ's separate humanity, because it is^ the worship 
 of a Man, that is, of a creature, has much more (a fortiori) 
 condemned the worship of any lesser creature, be it the Vir- 
 gin Mary, martyrs, other saints, angels or any other creature; 
 for all admit that the ever-sinless humanity of Christ is the 
 highest of all mere creatures. The most common words used 
 by Cyril and Nestorius to denote the latter' s worship of 
 Christ's separate, mere humanity are izpoaxuvib, I bow, and 
 Tzpo<7xb\>f](7i<i, bowing, which, as being the most common act of 
 religious service, stands for them all, that is prayer, prostra- 
 tion, etc., and Xarpebo), which is also used for them all; Cyril 
 uses all those words for his own worship of God alone; 
 dvdpioTtoXazpeia, worship of a Man, 127, note; 217, note 551; 218, 
 note 563; 223, note; 256, note; 285, note; 318, note 641; 325, 
 note 665; 334, note; 335, note; 354, note; 355, note; 459, note 
 935. On page 364, note, Cyril writes that if we believed in 
 Christ as a Man and not as God, " the thing were worship of 
 a Ma7i and confessedly nothing else,'''' in Greek, w^^'ipionoXaxptia 
 TO ^pr^iia, xai irepov oodev o/ioXo/oupi'^coi^. On page 459, note 935, 
 we find d^i'^piOTtoXarpeiav used in the following plea for relative 
 worship of Christ's humanity by Nestorius, Ourw xai rw xard 
 ffdpxa Xpt.aTu\/ ix r^? 7r/>o? deov Aoyov GO\>a<ptia<; Seov dvo/xd!^op£v, 
 tpaivdixv^ov eldoTS? w<^ avf^pionov. ^' Axoocrov rou IJauX.ou d/i^orepa 
 xinpuTTOvTo<^' *^^E^ ^loodaiwv^ (fqdlv^ 6 Xptffrb^ rb xard adpxa, 6 a)v 
 ^TTt Trdvrojv 0£o?'" ofioXo^'el rov avi^pwTtov Trporepov^ xai tots t^ Ti)i> 
 0£ou GO'jaipzia ■H^oXoyzl to (pav^otitvov^ "va pi^ds)? d\'y^piOT%oXaT pziav rov 
 
 Xpt(TTiavt<7iJ.bv v7:t)7:Teh(T7]. In English that is, *'So also we 
 name the man who was anointed according to the flesh, God, 
 because of his conjoinment with God, though we know that 
 which appears as a man. Hear Paul proclaiming both 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Exp7-essions. 695 
 
 [those] tlikigs: Of the Jews, says lie, is the Anointed One as it 
 regards the flesh, Who is God over all. He confesses the Man 
 first, and then calls that which appears God, by reason of its 
 conjuncftion with God, in order that no one may suspect 
 Christianity of serving a Man;" a-^^'^poiT.oXar peia.^ Ma7i- Worship ; 
 467, note 966; pages 519, 591, 598, 606, 609, 631; 635, ^hrice; 
 
 639, 667, 669. Compare under xrcfffj-arokazpsia^ XTtfTzokdrfr/)^^ 
 
 dvi^pioTzoXazpico and d'^i^^poj-oXdroT]? in this volume, and under 
 those words and d-^^'^pio-oXarinid in the Index to Greek Wo?^ds 
 and Greek Expi^essions in Vol I. of Nicaea. 
 ^v^pw-KoXdrpri^, a worshipper of a Majt; xvi., 13; and on page 87, note, 
 
 in the expression of NestoriuS, ootid ydp av rj/xsv dvdpwr.okdrpai 
 xai vsxpoXdrpat (ta^s?? ; see under d-iUpdiT^oXarpzia above; dv^'i-pior.i)- 
 
 Xdrprj<; in the following passage of Cyril to Nestorius: el^a 7:0)9 
 
 7:po<Txexo'Jijxa.ixsv rai A'pcfTzuJ, xa\ auroi xdp.(^>ei rrdv yovo, ttwo ds xat 
 ffi^Siv aoTOV ofioXoysl^'^ xaizoi dsdccb<^^ 0/9 eV^?, zd d'>i^pa)7zoXdzprj<^ el'^ac 
 
 doxsTv, 88, note. See also under TzpufTxw^aj and ^=/5o>, and their 
 derived forms; d'^<ppuj7:oXdzp7j<i^ worshipper of a Man, in Nes- 
 torius* expression, zat zozs: r^ zou 6^00 <TUva<ps(a 6eoX.oye7 zd 
 ^atvofievov* ha iirjds\<$ o'^dpoiTzoXdzpri'j zov Xpiazia'^ov VTioizzebrj, 89, 
 note; w^dpioizoXdzpa^^ Worshippers of a Ma7i; 92, note, where 
 Cyril brands Nestorius' Man Worship as making Christians 
 Man- Worshippers; w>dpu}TzoXdzpri<i^ worshipper of a man, 163, 
 note 338; dvi'^pMTzoXdzpat, worshippers of a man, 219, note 
 565; w^dpioT.oXdipri^^ worshipper of a man, 224, note; w^dpu)- 
 TzoXdzpri^, Man-worshipper; a disgraceful epithet applied to 
 Nestorius, 467, note 966; 635. In the following in note 966, 
 page 467, Nestorius professes that form of creature- worship 
 which consists in applying to Christ's mere humanity the 
 name God, which can be given to no creature. It is anath- 
 ematized in St. Cyril's Anathema VIII., which is approved 
 by the Third Ecumenical Council. It is condemned also in 
 Cyril's Lo?iger Epistle on pages 221-223, ^^^ of which was ap- 
 proved by the same Council. It is there termed ** A hor- 
 RIBLK THING TO SAY," (page 221, text). I quote Nestorius' 
 language in note 966 on that theme: 06 xaO' iaozd Bsd^ rd 
 
 TzXaffdkv dizo p.7JTpa<^' 06 xaO* iaozd Sso^; zd xzKrdkv ix zoo nveb[xazo<s' 
 00 xad* iaozd 0ed^ zd zatpkv ^rr p'^rjpazo^' oozoj ydp av ^j/j-Tji* dvOpioTzo- 
 
696 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Xdrpat^ xa\ vsxpoXdrpai (Ta(pe\<;^ aXk' iTTeidrJTTep iv rui Xrj<p^ivrt Bed's ^ ix 
 TOO ka^3(hro(s 5 X7]<pi9e}? a>9 rai AajSovTi <Tova<pd^e\<;^ ffuy^pi^fxari^et Seog^ 
 
 that is, in English, * ' That which was formed from a womb is 
 not God by itself; that which was created by the Spirit is not 
 God by itself; that which was buried in the tomb is not 
 God by itself; for [if we had] so [ ' id, and worshipped that 
 Man as being himself God] we should have been plainly wor- 
 shippers OF A Man and worshippers of a corpse. But 
 precisely because God is in the Man taken, the Man taken is co- 
 called God [with God the Word] from Him [the Word] Who 
 has taken him, inasmuch as that man is conjoined to Him [God 
 the Word] Who has taken him; dv^pioTroXdrprj?^ Worshipper of 
 a man, 548, 639. 
 avd^ptoTZOv TZpoaX-qipr^ivra^ a Ma7l take7l^ 440, note 806. Seou pev ivavOpionij- 
 
 ffavTu?, dvy^pa>7:ou 8e i^eu)i>9ivTo?, 441, note 819. See the English 
 translation in the text there. 
 
 d'^i^pwTzoTT]?, huma7iity, in the following cases of it: dvi^pcDndrrjro^^ of 
 humaTiity, in this case rendered, *' in the humanity;'' 458, note 
 930; "^V-" dvf^pu)T,6rriTa^ the humanity, 474, note 1007, twice. 
 
 ^Av^poiTzoToy.o^i^ Bringer-Forth of a Man, 200, note. 
 
 d))^pu)Ttotpayia^ Eatijig a ma?i, that is, Ca7inibalism, iii., xvi., xxvi., 
 xlii., note; xliii., note; 40, note; 107, note; 162, note 330; 
 237, note, twice; 251, note; 267, note; 274, note, and subnote 
 "jK/" 275, note; 276, note; 285, note; 286, note; hapyrj^ 
 dv^^ioTzofayia^ plain eati7ig of a man, that is, plain ca7i7iibalism, 
 262, note; 287, note; 306, note. On page 408, note, Nestor- 
 ius, speaking of the Jews being scandalized because Christ 
 said, " Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Ma7i a7id dri7ik His 
 blood ye ha'^ie 710 life in you7'selves'' [John vi., 53], writes: ohx 
 ijveyxav ro rwu Xeyopivcuv u(J>r]Xdv ol dxou(7a>T£?, ivopt^ov ono dpai9ta^ 
 
 dvr9pw7:o<pay{av dftdyetv. In English this is: " Those who heard 
 endured not the loftiness of the things said. Owing to their ig- 
 norance they supposed that He was bringing in Cannibalism. ' ' 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria at once replies, Elra Ttw? rdxpyjp^d ianvobx 
 kvapyrjfs dv^^pinTtOipayia ; T£va dk rpoTzov 6<l>yjXdv ert to puffrijpcov^ etc. ; 
 
 that is, ' ' And how is the thing not plain cannibalism, and 
 in what way is the Mystery yet lofty," etc., page 408, note; 
 dvi^pwno<payia, Eating a ma7i, that is, Cannibalism^ 488, note; 
 
hidex IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. GOT 
 
 576; 596, twice; 597, 598, 609, 613, 622, 629, 631, 642, 667, 
 
 669, 672. 
 dvriTUTza^ antitypes, the Eucharistic, 280, note. 
 a=iou[ie\^, we will deem it aji honor, 46, note. 
 aTTaYopeuiov^ forbids, 633. 
 
 d-rtai^i?^ unsuffering, 76, note 175. 
 
 'Arra^'^ij?, Non-Sufferi7ig, 278, note. 
 
 d-iaztdz^ sent, 474; note 1007, five times. 
 
 d-oytyo^mat, dead, departed, 42. 
 
 d-oMiDGiv^ deification, 80, note; 81, note. 
 
 Tfj^Aizoffraaia, ''to the Apostasy,'' that is, Nestorianism, 224, note, 
 and 257, note; rw r^? 'ATzoffTaffia? luvedpio), " to the Safthedrim 
 [or "the Council"] of the Apostasy,"" that is, to John of 
 Antioch's Nestorian Conventicle at Kphesus, 224, note; 257, 
 note; ro t^? dnoaraffia? (TO'Adptov^ the Council of the Apostasy, 
 257, note. 
 
 dnoffTariu)^ the verb to apostatize; forms of : d-KixTrarrjffaniv and dizoff- 
 
 rarij^atev^ Apostates, that is, to Nestorianism, 225, note 580, 
 and 257, note; dTTOffTarrjfra?, apostatizijig , 257, note. 
 
 dr.oa-co'kov, Messe7iger, Apostle, 363, note 682; 373, note. 
 
 d7zoraa(T6iievo<;^ reject, denounce, 167, note 352. 
 
 dizmXeiav, ruin, destr7iSlio7i, said of Nestorian heresy; 173, note 376. 
 
 ap-naya^ ravener, applied to Nestorius; 189, note 458. 
 
 apzoq^ leavened bread, 231, note. See alvp-a-^ and see under both 
 words in the Greek Index to Vol. I. oi Nicaea. 
 
 dpyzTOTzui, with the archetype, 282, note; Christ's body is meant; dp^iru- 
 Ttov, roy the archetype, Christ's body, 283, note; Theodoret the 
 Nestorian, unorthodox in other things, is Orthodox in teaching 
 that Christ's body is '* the archetype " and ** the reality,'' and 
 that the bread and wine are its '' symbols " and " antitypes," 
 and that the bread is ''the type" and the *' linage" of the 
 body, 279, 280. See d'^rirur.a^ and " (rbp-fiohiv, the Eucharistic 
 Symbol," and tuttov, and dx6va^ in this Index. 
 
 dpxitruffxoTzoo, chief Overseer, chief Bishop, 136, note; 141, note; 144, 
 note. In all those instances it is used of Cyril of Alexandria 
 in a complimentary sense. 
 
698 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 apxtspeo^, High Priest, 313, note 619; 363, note 682; 373, note; 
 
 Tzadrjrdv dp^tspia^ * ' a passible High Priest, ' ' 470, text, and note 
 
 990, end. 
 dpxispoffovri^ High Priesthood, used of the Episcopate, note 85, page 34; 
 
 see [epdzsufxa and hpeu?. 
 dffii3etav^ impiety, 183, note 427. 
 drrnaaiiov, salutation, 337, note. 
 dffraffiaffTov ^ unfaSlious, II, note 13. 
 dauyiorii}^^ without mixture, 278, note. 
 daoiimxov^ without a body, 76, note 175. 
 d(TiD[xdTU)^^ bodilessly, 431, note. 
 "^ AxpzTzxo^^ the Unchangeable, 278, note. 
 audevria<s, of authority, 466, note 963. 
 dy^6p'f]ro\>, boundless, said of God; 445, note 830. 
 
 B 
 
 Bale\>x\vo<^, Valejitinus ; see 6[ioou(nov and ffibfia, 
 
 ^aT:xi(T[xaxo<$, dipping; in the expression <hixw[xox£v d<TovTJ0w<^^ xaxd xoo 
 dyioo ^a7zxiaij.axn<i^ xai rwv asTixibv xoo Xpiaxoo MuffXTjpicuv', Ixxviii., 
 
 note " «." See the English translation there. 
 ^i^Xia, books, 418, note 723. 
 fii^Xia xwv i^-qyyjaeujv aoxuu, 31, note 63. The English translation is in 
 
 the text there. 
 ^Xa<T<prifitav^ in the expression, xijv Ne<jxopioo ^laafprnxiav, XXV., note 
 
 " /^/" ra?? Tzapd aoo ye'^ofiivai^i xax' abxoo do(T(p'qixiat<s, *' the blas- 
 phemies contrived by thee against Him " [Christ]; Cyril's 
 rebuke to Nestorius for his errors against Christ, that is, for 
 his denial of the Inman, for his Man-Worship, etc., 209, notes 
 525. 526. 
 i3o5, shouts forth, 477, note 1015. 
 
 yaXaxxoxpixpiav^ nourishing by milk, 410, text. The Greek context is 
 found in note 716, page 416. 
 
 yaXfjvoxrjxt^ Serenity, 12, note 14. 
 
 yswdto^ I beget, I bri7ig forth; the following forms from this verb are 
 found in this volume: yewdaOat^ to be born, 457, noi&gig^y^'-'vrieiv^ 
 born, conceived, begotten, 454, note 910, several times; note 911; 
 
Index IV. Index to Gi^eek Words and Expressions. 699 
 
 455, notes 91 1, 913; 457, note 919; yevvriOivra^ born, 433, note 
 764; Y£vvy}divTa, born, 456, notes 915, 916, and 919; 457, note 919; 
 kyswrldrj , was bor?i, 453, note 899; see under Neffxopux;, 454, note 
 911; 457, note 919; ysvvridrivat, was bom, 453, note 902. See 
 NeffTopio^s, yswcujuLivu), rcD, wztk that thing which is born, 457, note 
 919. 
 Of the noun yiwyjfft^, birth, the following cases are found: yewfj/rsux^, 
 birth, in the expression, r^9 didioo yewyjffecu? the eter7ial birth, 
 436; ^evviyVew? used of Christ's birth in flesh, 157, note 308; 
 deoripa? yevvTjfreax^, denied by Nestorius, 158, note 312; 161, 
 note 317; 163, note 334; 457, note 920; yiwr^ffcv rijv ix -napdivou, 
 the birth out of a virgin, /!^\o, text. The Greek of the context 
 is in note 716, page 416; yiwrjfftv, 458, note 923; 458, note 
 
 930- 
 yivo^, TO, the race, in the expression of Kutherius of Tyana, the Nes- 
 torian, against the opposition of the Orthodox to the Nestor- 
 ian worship of Christ's humanity, xat xooXoovzs? pkv ro yivo^ 
 
 (Tefxvuveffdac; 126, Subnote "«." 
 ■^ivn^ ixhxTov, a chosen race, quoted from I. Peter ii., 9. 
 yivofxat^ to become, to be made, to be, forms of: ^ye^M'ttxzda, see iv below; 
 
 yevri^Hv, made, 454, notes 910, 911; 456, notes 918, 919; 457, 
 
 note 919. 
 Ypd[x[xa, t9£?ov, divine letter, 8; ypdfip.ara, letters, 197, note 502. 
 yuvatxo^, woman, wife; see under p-ia^, yi\>6p.e\>ov ix yu'muo<i, made out 
 
 of a woman, 436, note 789, and 451, note 888, and 458, notes 
 
 927, 929. 
 
 di'/^ixai, to receive; see ids^dfieiS^a. 
 diaka[^e~tv, to defijie, 42, note 105. 
 ^ibaaxaXia, teaching; see (rufi^oXov. 
 
 o'Jr.ovzo? ^ ^ ^^ zdv TOTvov, filed the place, 22, note 24. 
 d£(7T.6Xs:t * * * rno Travro?, is Master of every man, 220, note 571. 
 Ae(J7:oTrj<i^ Master, Lord; the following forms of it are found in this 
 volume: dsffiKnibv Tjij-u)'^, oiir Masters, in the expression, fisrd 
 
 TY]v UTraTetav rojv AsfTTTorcoy rjriu)-^ 0Xau{nr) Sso^onioo^ x, r. X,^ 19, note; 
 41, note; JetnzurTjv, ill the expression, '' Jemzorrjv ^' 6-^()p.d!^<>0(Tr^ 
 
700 Ad I. of Epkesus. 
 
 iauroi^ Kwvffrdvztov^ 20, note; deaTzorrj^^^ Master, 2 1 9, note 567; 
 
 220, notes 569, 573; and 328, note 671. 
 diTf^sx^^ continual Oil perpetual, 464, note 953. 
 difi-Qvaiov ^ ^ ^ 6e6v^ a two months old God, 412, text, and note 
 
 716, page 416, where the Greek and its context are found. It 
 
 is a Nestorian blasphemy. 
 dioix7^(7£o)<^, of the Diocese, 413, note 702. 
 doyiia, in the expression ei<s doyixa^ 071 dogma, 549. 
 do^dC(o, I glorify; see covdoH^io and Gvii-poaxDviu) in this Index. 
 
 Ao^d^u)^ I think, 146, note; So^a^^wv, think, note 262, page 
 
 148; do^d^wv, glorifying, honofing, 466, note 961. 
 36^ av^ opinions or sentime7its, 129, note. 
 duoXeia^ slavery, 406, note; see larpeia-^ compare in the General Index 
 
 under Dulia, Latreia, and Hyperdulia, 
 douXoo, slave, serva?it, 445, note 835. 
 dpdxiov, 6, the dragon^ said of the Nestorian, Andrew of Samosata, 
 
 119, note. 
 
 iSs^dixeOa, tve accepted or received, 46, note. 
 £idct)Xot<?, images, 627. 
 
 ^l^uiXoldTpai^ image- worshippers, 76, note, and page 627. 
 euaii/, image: tlxo^m, rrjv, the image, the bread of the Lord's Supper, 
 282; thma^ image; see under ai[iii), and 83, note; thwAx;^ 
 
 image, in the expression, y-a\ xaz laor-qza ^aaiXurj'i eixovo?, £i<s 
 
 7:p6(TCD7:ov zoo Seoo Aoyoo 7ipo(jxovei<Tdai, m, note; the expression 
 is that of the heresiarch Theodore of Mopsuestia, and in con- 
 demning it and him the Fifth Ecumenical Council, following 
 the mind and sense of the whole Church in the Third, antici- 
 patively condemned the relative image-worship of the idol- 
 atrous conventicle of Nicaea of A. D. 787, which is called 
 falsely by image- worshippers an Ecumenical Synod; 580, 581, 
 627, twice. Nestorius uses ehmv like Theodore, 83, note, 
 ^x, out of, in the expressions, kyu) ydp kx zoo Oeou k^7jXn<v^^ I came otit of 
 God; and ^^^A?9ov Ix zoo Tlazp6<i, / came out of the Father; and 
 ytv6ixv>o\t ixyovatxo?, made out of a woman, notes 165, 166, page 
 73; and 74, note 169; ^x yuvatx6<i^ out of a woman, 74, note 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 701 
 
 169, and Mapiaq i^ rj^ kysvvTjr^ 'Irjffou?, Mary, out of whom was 
 
 bor7i Jesus,'] 2)y note, and 74, note. 
 k^ auTTj? /jLijTpa? ivu)i%t?^ united [to flesh] in the womb itself, literally, 
 
 '''from, the womb itself;'' 74, note 172. 
 ixdedoixivrj, having given forth, 146, note, 
 ixi^£/ii>7j, having set forth, 146, notes, twice. 
 T^v "Exf^taiv r^? ni<7rea)^, the Expositio7i or Statement of the Faith, the 
 
 Nice7ie Creed, 130, note; 170, note 364, where it is called r^ 
 
 ''ExHiazL rwv ayiwv naripwv rd)> i'^ Nixata, ''the Exposition of the 
 
 holy Fathers who met at Nicaea'^ 
 ixTcopevtrai, "• goeth out,'' 3 1 7, note. 
 
 UfVj^i(Tro(;, iniffxano?, etc., ''the least, Bishop of,'' etc., 492, note 1074. 
 " EiJ.iia'M)uril, rov, "the God with us," that is, God the Word, 320, 
 
 note 656. 
 
 ilj.ipzpiaf^iOijav rrj niffzec raiv XpKTTtavihv TisTzpayiiiviDv, 449, note 879, where 
 see the English translation and context. 
 
 i-KTToli) [of Capreolus of Carthage] * * * irjL<pepi<Ti^(o ttj Tiiarst rmv 
 uTzoix\>7l!J.dTwv^ [Cyril of Alexandria said,] "Let the Epistle 
 * * * ^^ inserted i7ito the Records [to show] their good 
 faith," 486, note 1040. 
 
 kv iripw, in ayiother, or with another, 332, note 679. 
 
 h T^ oixia, in the expression kyevoiiei^a kv TTj TouTou oixia, 46, note, 
 where and in the text see the English. 
 
 iv rcD d'Mifxart, in the name or at the name, no, note. 
 
 hfrApu)-yj(TavTo<i, having p2d on a Man, 441, note 819. 
 
 vm'>dpaj-ri(Tzw^, r/7?, of the Imnan, 156, note 301; 157, note 303; used 
 by Nestorius to teach, not Cyril's do(5lrine of God the Word's 
 Substance being in a Man, but his own heresy that God the 
 Word indwelt that Man by His Spirit only as he did the 
 prophets, 157, note 308; see remarks there; 458, notes 922 
 and 931. 
 
 ivepyT^?, active or e^iergetic or inworking , 434, note 772. 
 
 i'^ripy7i(7i'^at^ " was Operated on" or " was inworked," 329, note 673. 
 
 hoixri<7iv, i7id:vclling, 66, note; see also under (T/jrtxTjv^ relative; hoixrj- 
 ffr^, 66, note, at the foot of the page, and page 637; see 
 xaToix7](nvy indwelliiig, 
 
 ivo? avdpo^^ ^ [but] one husba7id, 14. 
 
 i^7]y7j(T£iov, Nestorius' "Expositions," 31, note 63. 
 
702 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 fvw<?££? xaxa (fixjtv^ united as respe6ls [His] Nature, 217, note 558. 
 
 ^v6(Ta?^ having united, 74, note. 
 
 £vw(r£v, u7iion, in the expression r-ad" hwffiv tpufftxrjv^ by Nature Uuion, 
 6s, note; 66, note; rrj xad" oTidaraaiv ivaxrec, in the Substa7ice 
 Uyiion, 88, note; see vizoaraaiv in this Index, and ex: riyv xaff 
 brzofjzafnv hwfftv, the Substance Union, 128, note 184; %vu)giv 
 <pu(7uriv^ Nature TJyiion, 218, note 562; iWrt-rv, riy'v, the Union, 
 twice on page 344, note; hdxrst^ by union, 432, note. 
 There the heresy of holding that Christ's body has been 
 made divine by its union with the Uncreated God is con- 
 demned. That was the heresy of some ApoUinarians and of 
 the Monophysites. 
 
 e^apxov, Tov, r^9 dtou-^ffsio?, Exarch of the Diocese, 413, note 702. 
 
 k^odh, external; see under (7o^^d(psia. 
 
 i7Ttypa<po/jLivou?, in the expression, roO? iTttypatpofxivou? rd TOO XpiGToo 
 o^M>[xa, 201, note 503. 
 
 sTTtVxoTTo?, Overseer, Bishop, 136, note. Theodore, Bishop of Gadara 
 in the Second Palestine, subscribes by the deacon Aetherius; 
 who after that adds, " /, Aetherius, a deacon, have subscribed 
 at his command, because he is unable, or does not write,'' 
 Ah^ipw^ didxox)? uxiypail'a^ i7ziTpa7ze\<$ nap' avtoo dduvdrou 6\>ro<s^ r] 
 fiij ypd^ovTO'^, 503, note 1 1 42. 
 
 ^Ent(pdveia^ the showing, 417, note 720. 
 
 kfff^ioiiev, we eat [in the Eucharist], 474, note 1007. 
 
 Irepov h kripip, 07ie in another, and erepov iripo), one with another, 332, 
 note 679. 
 
 eudoxia^ good pleasure, 71, note. 
 
 eodoxTjfTa^ I am well pleased, 71, note. 
 
 ^bkaiSeffrdroi^ most reverent or most religious y 208, note 521. 
 
 &hXoyri(7a<^^ having blessed, 272, subnote ''/." 
 
 Ebkoyia^ the Blessing, the Lord's Supper, thrice, 231, note; 272, sub- 
 note; rai<i iwarixai? ebkoyiaii;^ to the mystic blessiugs, to the 
 secret blessings, that is, the Eucharist, and the blessings at- 
 tendant thereupon, 231, note. 
 
 zblojouiitv ^ we bless, 231, note. 
 
 iff b4>rfh>o] Ixxiv., note " ^." 
 
 €bxapi(TTrjfTa^, havi?ig given thanks, 230, note; 231, note; 272, subnote. 
 
hidex IV, Index to Greek Words and Expressions, 703 
 
 ebxapta-cta, Thajiksgiving , Eucharist; Preface, iii.; 162, note 330; 230, 
 note, thrice; 237; see the Greek of the long passage on the 
 Eucharist in Cyril's Ecumenically approved long Epistle, 
 241, note; 242, note; 248, note; 271, note; 617. See also the 
 very important Blasphemy 18 of Nestorius in note 1007 on 
 page 474, and indeed the whole of that note, which contains 
 faas on that Greek which should be known. The translation 
 of that Blasphemy is on pages 472, 473 and 474, text. Its 
 vast importance consists in the fact that it contains a profes- 
 sion of Nestorius' Cannibalism, which was condemned by the 
 Third Ecumenical Council, and made one ground for his con- 
 vidtion of heresy and for his deposition therefor. That verdid, 
 of course, amounts by necessary implication to a condemna- 
 tion of all Man-Eating heresies, be they of any of the Transub- 
 stantiation kinds or of any of the Consubstantiation kinds, and 
 to the approval of the Anti-Cannibalistic doarine which is 
 now that of the Universal Church. Of course the advocates 
 of the Cannibalistic heresies will try and twist out of their 
 guilt, but every such attempt lands them, after all their mul- 
 tiplying words without knowledge (Job xxxv., 16), in what 
 really amounts to a denial of the reality and verity of Christ's 
 body and blood, that is, in what is practically Docetism. See 
 further under Eiicharist, especially page 613, and Cyril of 
 Alexandria, Christ, etc. 
 
 On page 478, note 1020, Nestorius says: OUk thv too eeou Aoyoo 
 
 xaraYYilXoixev ddvanv^^ rb AetnzoTtxov al/id re xai awfxa airobfisvot 
 ' ' 7ior do we tell on the death of God the Word when we feed on 
 the Master's blood and body. ' ' See that note. 
 
 The Greek of St. Cyril of Alexandria's denial of the real presence of 
 Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist, and his statement 
 oi \.\i^ Energy dodlrine instead, is found on page 310, note. 
 Compare his whole teaching against the real presence and 
 against the worship of Christ's Divinity or humanity in the 
 rite, and against the Cannibal view there, and the true read- 
 ing of the Greek there, with the Romish corrupt Transub- 
 stantiatiou, and the false Latin translation of Kenrick there. 
 See also the context. Cyril's teaching is that approved by 
 
704 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 the whole Church at Ephesus, and to dispute against it is to 
 dispute against Ephesus, and the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Additional remark 07i this place: Since exposing in the subnote on 
 pages 308-311 above the adulteration of a passage of St. Cyril 
 on the Eucharist by some Romanist, I have found the follow- 
 ing on that passage on page 177 of the work on Real Presence, 
 by P. E. Pusey, the Consubstantiationist opposer of the 
 Eucharistic docftrine of Ephesus, who speaks of the difficulty 
 of reconciling Cyril's expression energy with the error of 
 Transubstantiation, and adds, *'The difference of the ex- 
 pression was felt by Aquinas, who, both in this passage of S. 
 Cyril and in one borrowed from it by Theophylact, substituted 
 the w^ord verity (veritatem) for ' efficacy. ' ' ' Pusey here ren- 
 ders the Greek hipystav^ energy ^ by efficacy. This exposure 
 of Aquinas' change of the text and sense of St. Cyril should 
 be a warning to all not to trust that notorious partisan of 
 idolatry, whom the Third Council and the Fifth anticipatively 
 anathematized. The Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, those 
 '' iyiventors of evil things,'' as one calls them, were all opposed 
 in matters of creature-worship to the VI. Ecumenical Synods, 
 which few or none of them knew well, and most or all of 
 them to their docflrine on the Eucharist, and built often on 
 spurious or interpolated materials. They are under the an- 
 athemas of the VI. Synods therefore, and must never be 
 quoted as Orthodox. I would add that Pusey, in the context 
 of the passage just cited from him, tries to make out that his 
 Eucharistic idolatrous heresy and St. Cyril's docflrine are 
 identical, but his attempt is false and vain. Indeed, he never 
 understood St. Cyril's Eucharistic teaching, and got farther 
 away from it than even Nestorius' chief champion, Theodoret 
 himself. For, whereas Theodoret held to the Consubstantiation 
 of one nature only of Christ, the humanity, with the bread 
 and wine, and that only it is to be worshipped and then to be 
 eaten in the Eucharist, Pusey went further and held to the 
 Consubstantiation of both His Natures with the bread and 
 wine, and that both are to be worshipped there, and then 
 after that that both are to be eaten there. Cyril held, as is 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions, 705 
 
 shown in note 606 above, that neither is present there, 
 neither is to be worshipped there, and neither is eaten there. 
 
 The following passages from Theodoret, Nestorius' champion and 
 fellow heretic, show that he, like Nestorius and St. Cyril 
 and the Universal Church, held that the Substance of Christ's 
 Divinity is not in the Eucharist; and that, unlike Cyril and 
 the Universal Church, he held that Christ's body and blood 
 are in the Eucharist; and that he worshipped them as Christ's 
 body and blood, and hence was guilty of what St. Cyril calls 
 the Worship of a Man {av^'^ptoTzoXarpeia)-, and that he held that 
 the flesh of Christ is eaten, and the blood of Christ is drunk 
 in the rite, and hence he was guilty of what St. Cyril brands 
 as avdpa)iio(payia^ that is, as the eatifig a ma7i, that is, as Can- 
 nibalism. 
 
 It should be added by way of explanation that Theodoret' s Orthodox 
 in the following Dialogues is Orthodox not in the sense of St. 
 Cyril and of the Third Ecumenical Council, but in his own 
 Nestorian sense; for he bitterly and persistently and long 
 opposed the Orthodox Cyril, and thai Council of the whole 
 Church, which condemned his errors on the Inraan and on the 
 Eucharist, and surrendered only when he had to lose his see 
 permanently or do so. It is not clear that at any time he 
 sincerely received the decisions of the Third Council and from 
 his heart renounced his own heresies and laid aside his enmity 
 to Cyril on account of his Orthodoxy. 
 
 His Eranistes represents an Apollinarian or a Eutychian, who held 
 the heresy of but one nature of Christ, and that the Divinity 
 only. Theodoret is arguing below, after the Nestorian fashion, 
 that He must be man only, for though, like Nestorius, he ad- 
 mitted two Natures of Christ, nevertheless he did not believe 
 in the Incarnation of God the Word in His merely human 
 Christ; so that, like his opponent, he also was a One-Nature- 
 ite, only that whereas his opponent held to a Christ who had 
 no Adamic humanity at all, but was God alone, all his hu- 
 manity having been transubstantiated into God the Word's 
 Divinity, or being a peculiar body, eternal, and not at all 
 from Adam, which had been changed into God; Theodoret, 
 on the contrary, held that Christ had humanity only, that is, 
 
706 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 that He is a mere Man, inspired, indeed, like the prophets, 
 but not indwelt by the real Substance of God the Word's 
 Divinity. The Orthodox differed from both in admitting 
 the Incarnation and the two Natures of Christ, but denied 
 that either of His natures is present substancely in the 
 Eucharist. 
 Passage i [on the Eucharist^ from Theodoretthe Nestorian: OPS. [Or- 
 thodox, that is, the Nestorian Theodoret] : ^daXrj^^w? eipy]xa<?. 
 
 KaX yap 6 Kupto? ro aoji^oXov Xa^cbv, oox elvre' Tnuro iffrtv ij Osor-q^; 
 fioW ct/lAa, TouTO iffTi to ffajfid fxoo' xai r.dkvy Touro i<TTi to alfid 
 fxoW xai iTipwi^i^ '0 6e apTo? ov iyu) daKTio, ij adp^ poo iffTiv, rjv ^ya)- 
 dmao) onkp Trj? too xoapou C«>^?. 'EPAN. [the Apollinarian or 
 Eutychian] : 'AXrjy^ TaoTa, Seta ydp i(7Ti koyia; that is, in 
 
 English, •* Orthodox" [that is, the Nestorian Theodoret] , 
 ** Thou hast spoken as a lover of truth. For the Lord, when 
 he took the symbol, did not say, ' This is my Divinity,' but, 
 • This is my body;' and again [He said], ' This is fny blood.' 
 And in another place [He said], 'A7id the bread which I 
 will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world' 
 Eranistes ' ' [the Apollinarian or Eutychian] : ' ' These things 
 are true, for they are utterances of God. Orthodox: If 
 then they are true, the Lord certainly had a body," 279, note. 
 Here then, what is not always noticed, Theodoret, in accordance 
 with Cyril's, the Church's, and Nestorius' own view, holds 
 that the Substance of Christ's Divinity, is not in the Euchar- 
 ist; but, against Cyril and the Universal Church, holds that 
 the substance of His flesh and the substance of His blood are. 
 And he cannot be understood to teach that Christ's words, 
 This is my body; this is my blood, are to be taken in a figurative 
 sense only. For passages which here follow show that where- 
 as Theodoret' s Apollinarian or Monophysite opponent held 
 that after the prayer of consecration the bread and wine are 
 so thoroughly changed that they may no longer be termed 
 bread and wi^ie, but God only, a view which comes, so far, 
 near Transubstantiation, Theodoret, on the other hand, held 
 that the bread and wine remain unchanged and may still be 
 called bread and wine. See Passage 3 below. And Theo- 
 doret' s own words below show that he held also that Christ's 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions, 707 
 
 words above teach that His real body and His real blood also 
 are in the Eucharist and are actually eaten and drunk there, 
 that is, he held to what St. Cyril says his Master, Nestorius[ 
 did, that is, Cannibalism (see under Caimibalism in the Ge7t- 
 eral Index to this work, and under d-vUpuiTzoipayia in the Greek 
 Index). Yet, as we shall soon see, Theodoret held that the 
 bread and wine remain in their own substances, but that the 
 real body and blood of Christ are consubstantiated with them. 
 Passage 2 on the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. 'OPO: El 
 roivov TOO ovTw? <7a>fiaTo^ ^vrirona ian rd. OeTa fiuffrrjpca^ ffu>ij.a ^pa 
 iffTi xai vov too AeffTrorou rd ffcupLa, oox et? dsoTrjro^s <pb(jiv fxeTa^XTjOkv^ 
 
 dXXd Oeta? do^-q^ dvanXaffdiv. In English this is, *' If, therefore,' 
 [or better, '' Since, therefore,' '"l the Mysteries of God are anti- 
 types of the true body, then the Lord's body is a body still, 
 
 NOT CHANGED INTO THE NATURE OF THE DiVINlTY, but 
 
 is filled with the Divine glory," 279, 280, note. 
 Passage on the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. 'OP8OA1 
 'EdXio^ ah 0<p7)V£? apxuffiv, Oode yap, fiszd tov dytafffxdv, rd fxuffzixd 
 ffbfi^oXa T7j^ oixeia<s yuffew?. Mivet ydp ir:} r^? Trporipa^ obffia? xa\ 
 rob ffxyjp.aro<s xa\ rob ddoor xa\ opard iffrc xa\ dnrd^ ola xai nporspov 
 ^v voelrai 8e aTzep kyivsro' xa\ Tztffrebsrai, xa) TrpoffxuueJrat, w? ixelva 
 o\'ra cLTZsp r.iffreberat. HapdOei ror.uu rai dp^erbiztp rr}v tlxova, xa\ 
 o(p£i Trj> 6pMc6rrjra. Xprj ydp totxhai r^ dXy^dda rov rbnoy. In 
 
 English this is, ''Thou art caught in the nets which thou 
 hast woven. For the mystic symboi^s do not pass out of 
 
 THEIR OWN nature AFTER THE CONSECRATION. FOR THEY 
 REMAIN IN THEIR FORMER SUBSTANCE AND SHAPE AND 
 
 APPEARANCE; and they are visible and are touchable and 
 such as they were before. But they are thought of as those 
 things which they have become, and are beUeved [to be]. 
 And THEY ARE BOWED Toas being those things which [they] 
 are believed [to be]. Compare, therefore, the image with the 
 archetype, and thou wilt see the likeness. For it is ne- 
 cessary that the type should be like the reality. For that body 
 has its former appearance and shape and circumference, and, 
 in a word, the substance of the body. For it became im- 
 mortal after the resurredlion, and incorruptible, and was 
 deemed worthy of the seat at the right hand [of the Father] 
 
708 Act I. of Ephesus, 
 
 AND IS WORSHIPPED BY ALL THE CREATION as being entitled 
 the body of the Lord of Nature." 
 
 Here then we have, i, the Consubstantiation view, the bread and 
 wine remaining bread and wine, but in the rite the real body 
 of Christ being put in, under or with the bread, and the blood 
 being put in, under or with the wine; and 2, we have Nestor- 
 ian Man -Worship, that is, the worship of Christ's body at the 
 right hand of the Father, and in the Kucharist also. 
 
 Passage 4. of Theodoret the Nestor ian 07i the Eucharist, In this Theo- 
 doret teaches that the nature of the elements is unchanged in 
 the rite: ohrofi to. oprnfieva ffbfx^oXa ttj too <7(t)[iaru<i xai a^fxazoi^ npoff- 
 eyopia reripiyjxsv^ ou rijv (puffiv [xera^aXcuv, dXXd r^v X^P^^ '^V ^^<^^^ 
 
 TzpoffTe^eu6r, that is, ' * He [Christ] honored the visible symbols 
 with the appellation the body and blood, not changing their 
 nature but adding their grace to their nature," [or, ''but 
 adding grace to the nature,"] 282, note. 
 Passage 5 071 the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. ' * Kran- 
 ISTES: A body then hath obtained salvation for us. Ortho- 
 dox: The body of no mere man, but of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the Sole-Born Son of God. But if this appear to thee 
 small and worthless, how dost thou suppose that its type is 
 WORSHIPABLE and saving. But since the type of it is to 
 
 BE bowed to [7r/>o<TZ6iv7yro9, that is, * IS AN OBJECT OP WOR- 
 SHIP '] and is venerable, how can the archetype itself be des- 
 picable and mean ?' ' 
 The Greek is found on page 283 above, note; I quote only the most 
 
 pertinent part here: Ei Se roord <7ot vo[iiZs:rai [iixpov re xat eoTeXkfi, 
 TZ(i><$ Tov TouTou ys TU710V ffeTTTow ijYTj xai (TWTTJpwv\ 00 8e 6 ruTto^ npoff- 
 xuvqTd<$ xai ffe^dff/Jiio^, ttcu? auro to dp^iTUTZov evxaTa^povrjTov xa} 
 Gfxupov. 
 
 Here the " type,'' the bread, " is ivorshippable,'' and " is to be bowed 
 to,'' that is, is an object of worship; but as the body is with, in, 
 or under that type, it, of course, is a fortiori to be bowed to. 
 
 Passage 6 of Theodoret the Nestoriari 07i the Eucharist. In the fol- 
 lowing passage Theodoret differs from every Transubstantia- 
 tionist and from every two-Nature Consubstantiationist in 
 denying that Christ's words of institution of the Eucharist 
 
hidex IV. Index to Greek Words ayid Expressions, 709 
 
 mean two Natures of Christ, and in asserting that He meant 
 
 one only, and that the humanity: 
 '^Eranistes: * * h< When He had taken and had broken, 
 
 and had distributed to the disciples, He said, ' This is my 
 
 body which is giveyi for you,' or 'broken,'' according to the 
 
 Apostle; and again, ' This is my blood of the New Testament, 
 
 which is shed for many. ' 
 Orthodox: Therefore He did not mejition His Divinity when He 
 
 showed the type of His suffering? (Greek, ^Opd. Oh roivuv 
 
 i^soTTjTo^ ifxvr)fj.6veu(T£, zoo 7tddou<s zov TOTZov intdetxvu?). 
 
 Eranistes: Certainly not, (Greek, Od d9;Ta) 
 
 Orthodox: But He did indeed mention His body a?td blood, (Greek, 
 
 Eranistes: True, (Greek, d?.7]di?). 
 
 Orthodox: Was a body therefore nailed to the cross ? 
 
 Eranistes: It so appears." 
 
 And so Theodoret's Orthodox, that is, his own Nestorian self, holds 
 that he has proven that his Eutychian or Apollinarian oppo- 
 nent is wrong in denying that Christ had a human body, and 
 in affirming that He had but one Nature and that the Divine. 
 Theodoret holds also that he has proven that Christ's Divin- 
 ity is not in the Eucharist, but only His humanity. This, he 
 means, accords with his own denial of the Incarnation and 
 with his making Christ a mere man, and in worshipping His 
 humanity in the Eucharist, and also at the right hand of the 
 Father. That he denied the Inman is clear from his own 
 language in the note on pages 63 to 68 of this work. See 
 also under Theodoret in the General Index to this work; and 
 see on the Nestorian view subnote "«," page 290 of this 
 volume. 
 
 Passage 7 on the Eucharist from Theodoret the Nestorian. Ka\ adrd^ 
 dk 6 Kdpio^ 00 TTjv doparov 0u(Tt>^ dXXd to (Tw/xa dofffsc^ o-Kia^^ero onkp 
 rrj? TOO x6(T/iou C^^?. * * * Kai oodafj.oo rrep) TzdOou? diaX£;(ee\^ 
 r^9 dTzadoo? kixvy^ffOrj i^e6Tr)To?', In English with part of the con- 
 text this is, • ' But the I^ord Himself promised to give, not His 
 INVISIBI.E Nature, but His body for the life of the world. 
 For He saith, ' The bread which I zvill give is my flesh, which 
 I will give for the life of the world: And when delivering the 
 
710 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Mysteries of God, He took the symbol and said, ' This is my 
 body which is ^iven for youl or 'broken,' according to the 
 Apostle. And no where in discoursing of His suffer- 
 ing did He mention His unsuffering Divinity," 284, 
 note. Here we have again Theodoret's implied denial of the 
 real presence of the Substance of God the Word's Divinity in 
 the rite, and his dodlrine of one-nature Consubstantiation, 
 that is, the Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread 
 and of His blood with the wine. 
 
 Theodoret the Nestorian terms Christ's body to dpyjru'ov the arche- 
 type, and -^ dXTjOeia^ the reality, and the apTo<^^ that is the dread, 
 6 T07zo<^^ the type, rj o/iotozT)?, the likeness, r) ehwv^ the image, and 
 TO aby-^ohr^^ the symbol oi it; and he terms the bread and wine 
 rd dvziroTza^ the ayitiiypes, and rd cbfi^oXa^ the symbols of Christ's 
 body and blood; and he calls the Eucharistic rites rd iioarrjpta, 
 the Mysteries. 
 
 He is not faulted by Cyril or the Third World Synod for such 
 language, but for his one-nature real presence, worship of it 
 in the Eucharist, and for the Cannibalism {dvepm-nofpayia^ to use 
 Cyril's term for it) of eating it there. 
 
 l<p vtpfjXob^ Ixxiv., note '' ^." 
 
 ^ijfferm, shall live, 474, note 1007. 
 
 t^(oo7:oiri^£i<s, made alive, 419, note 732. 
 
 ZiooTzoiov [ffdpxa)^ life-giving (^JlesJi), 239, notes 602, 603, several times, 
 
 H 
 
 ijXixia^ in age, or in stature, 470, note 984. 
 
 Hdxo/jLTjv, I would, or I was wishing, or I could wish^ or would that, or 
 I would pray, 483, note 1025. 
 
 e 
 
 ^aufxaffTrj?^ admirable or wonderful, 155, note; Oaotiaar&v admirable or 
 
 wonderful, 155, note. 
 ■^abftara, rd, the W07iders, 147, note. 
 ^e-qyopiJDv^ rdiv, " of tJiosc who have discoursed on God,'' 255, note. 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words a7td Expressions, 711 
 
 ^sw<:^ a ov, divine, used wickedly of Emperors, etc., 20, note; B^iov^ 
 t6^ the Divinity, 76, note 175; t^eiov ypdixixa^ 8, note 6, and page 
 505, note B; to d^sTov ijfxibv ffrparoTTedov, our divine court, page 
 505, note B. In the third and fourth examples the Emperor's 
 Letter is termed divine, and in the fifth example their court 
 is; all this blasphemously enough. 
 
 ^stoTTj^^ Divinity, "a title applied to Kings and Emperors,''^ 20, note. 
 
 Mhi^a^ will, 71, note. 
 
 MXu)^ I will, and -^M^^-qffe, He wished, 70, note 
 
 7%fxiXio\>^ a foundation, 191, note 473. 
 
 dsoddtpou * * * Mo(poue(Tria<s^ Theodore * * * of Mopsuestiay 
 423, note. Compare ulo^£aia<s. 
 
 •SeoXarpeia^ Worship of God, God- Worship, 90, note. 
 
 ^toloyti TO (patvofisvov^ ^^ calls that which appears Gody** 459, note 935. 
 
 '^so'Kotslay^ai^ to be made a god, in the expression, to ^eoTzoteTtr^^at ffhv 
 aoTtp TTjv xTiffiv, the creature to be made a god along with Him- 
 self, 85, note. 
 
 i%oTto(la.<i^ making a god, 325, note 665. 
 
 SsoTtoerrig^ God-befitting , prerogative to God, 378, note, twice. 
 
 ^£09, God, *' the boundless, ^^ 445, note 830. B^dh fih evavOpwTZTjffavTo?^ 
 *' God has put on a man,'* 441, note 819. 
 
 ^soffi^sta^ God-Reveri7igness, God-Fearingness, 12, note 14; 35, note 
 87; 58, note, a title. 
 
 t?£o<7e/3£??, worshippers of God, 76, note. 
 
 ^conjToy, Trj<s, of the Diviyiity, 83, note; 217, note 555; ^sottiti^ ttj, 
 with the Divinity, 633; rriv OeoTrjTa^ the Divinity, that is, as 
 is there explained, rdv Oedv Aoyov^ God the Word, 474, note 
 1007. 
 
 ^eoToxo?, that is, Bringer- Forth of God, vi., xx., xxi., notes **zV' 
 *'w/" xxii., note *'^/" 161, text, and note 317; 64, note. 
 See XpiGTOToxo^i. SeoToxo^^ 121, note. Ssotoxov, 128, note 192; 
 161, note 317; 168, note 353; 172, note 365; 184, note 438; 
 200, note (see <ii>^iOW7rordxo9) ; 222, notc; 318, note 641; 319, 
 note 642; 320, note 657; 321, note 657; 420, notes 741, 742; 
 T^9 StoToxou Mapia<;^ Mary, the Bringer- Forth of God, 421, text; 
 ^£OToxo9, Bringer-Forth of God, 534; 575, twice; 588, twice; 
 599. 635, thrice; 636, thrice. 
 
 Beo^dveta, the God-showing , 417, note 720. 
 
712 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Seoifdvia^ the God-showmg, 417, note 720. 
 
 etiupdri^, beloved of God, 151, note 275. 
 
 •&£0(fdt(TrdTov, most beloved of God, 151, note 275; ^eoipdeffzdTwv, of the 
 most dear to God, 154, note. 
 
 0go<p6po<s^ in the Nestorian expression, d-eo(p6po<; a^^dpwno?, an inspired 
 Man, said by them of Christ, 92, note. See the long passage 
 of Greek there, which is translated in the note on pages 91, 
 92; 217, note 553; Pusey's mistranslation of '9£o^o/>ov av{fpio-ov^ 
 222, note, and 253, note; and 327, note 669, where ^^ocpopw^ is 
 four times referred to, and erroneous translations of it by P. 
 K. Pusey, by Hammond and by a Latin translator. Cyril 
 
 there writes, Ob yap roc i^so^opov elvat (pafxev avd^pioTto'^ d7:Xu)(;^ dX/.a 
 amoyp-qixa xard dX-q^^eiav rdv h Oeou Aoyov rjvuxrf^at napxi^ etc., that 
 is, For we indeed do not say merely that a man is inspired, but 
 that the Word Who came out of God has been united to flesh in 
 fact and iji truth; Pusey's mistranslation of ^'^eo(p6po? again, 
 472, note; 589. Btoipopiuv Tza-vipoiv, of God-inspired Fathers^ 
 135, note; ^%o(p6pwv, God-inspired, 145, note; 151, note. 
 
 Ueti, by external relation, or by adoption, 422, note 758. See olo^^nia^^ 
 
 SecD^ivTo?, made godly, 442, note 819. 
 
 i^opo^oug, uproars, tumults y 11, note 11. 
 
 ^opibv xtxUiaixhutv, ''the doors having been shut,'" 306, note; the refer- 
 ence is to John XX., 19, 26. 
 
 ^uaia, sacrifice; see dva{fiaxTo^, unbloody, and 231, note. 
 
 Xbiov au>iia, a peculiar body, or ''an own body,'' 268, note; l^ia (ffdp^)^ 
 a peculiar flesh, 268, note; see cdp^ and Goip-a; fdiov, own, pecu- 
 liar, 273, subnote " 5/" on yiyovtv idia rod Aoyou, '' that it has 
 been made an own flesh of the Word,'' or " a peculiar flesh of 
 the Word," 596. 
 
 i8t6r7)ra?, properties, 163, note. 
 
 \diopsv. Let us see, 474, note 1007. 
 
 hpdT£oixa,p}iesthood, that is hervhood, 39, not; see &px^epoauvrj, High 
 Priesthood. 
 
 Upev?, pfiest, that is herv, that is sacerd, 39, note; toT? hpedfft, the 
 sacerds of God, 120, note 199; rod doxipwrdfroo Upiw?, " the most 
 approved pf test," applied to Cyril of Alexandria, 181, note 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Express iois. 713 
 
 412; so again 195, note 491; lepel^ Priest, applied to Nestorius, 
 
 190, note 465; the word explained in note 491, pages 195, 196. 
 iepoopydtv^ performing the sacred act of, 313, note 620. 
 
 Up(D(Tov7]?, '' of the Priesthood,'" 316, note 622. 
 
 Uri<T(wv Xpi(7T(')v^ Jesus Anoi7ited; see Nearopw^. 
 
 iaozrjTi, equality, in the expression, oure iJ.r,v xoivdv wApwnou^ i<j6zrirt /iovtj 
 
 ru)v d^iwfidTiov zeTifjLrjfxivov, etc., 67, note; See the English trans- 
 lation there. 
 laortfxia, equality of ho7ior, in the following expression, ob yap hoi rd? 
 ^uffet? i) L(TOTt;i{a, 2i'j,for equality of honor could not unite the 
 natures, 217, note 560. 
 
 K 
 
 xaff u-KoffTaffiv, according to Substance; see vnoaradiv, 
 xaf^atpiaei, for deposition, 57, note. 
 
 Ka^ohxTj 'ExxXfjfjia, i7i the U^iiversal Church, 46, note; xa^^Xixrj^, Uni- 
 versal, 134, note. See -a/>a^o^:? and TrcVrrf?; za'9oA£x>y, Universal, 
 
 191, note 475, twice, where the term and the differences be- 
 tween the Greek and the Latin use of it are explained; too 
 xar%)ltxoo 'Arrixou, the Catholic, that is, the Orthodox AtticuSy 
 194, note 487; xai%Xtxfj >lc j|i ^ (TyJ</>£i, '' by a Catholic,^ ^ 
 that is, ''by an Orthodox reflexion,' ^ 195, note 489; r^? kv 
 le^^ia xai%)Xixr,? ixxXrjaia^, '' of the Universal Church in Senea,'' 
 495, note 1 107. 
 
 xai9oXcxa>g, U?iiversally, Catholically , Orthodoxically , 191, note 475. 
 
 xaiv6Trira<s, innovations, 7iovelties, 182, notes 425, 420. 
 
 xaxodo^tag, evil belief, in the unjust and abusive expression, used by 
 Kutherius of Tyana, the Nestorian, against the Orthodox, on), 
 rr^? oixeta? xaxodo^ia?, 1 25, where See the English of the context. 
 
 xaviov, rule, cayion, 153, note 284; xa^^'m, to the rule, to the canon, 48, 
 note; x«vova?, in the expression, rou? zavovry.9 i/.tbuu^ oZa-zp 
 ahnn [the Fathers at Nicaea] sci'^/evr^, 142, note; /.'jyoya? occurs 
 thrice there; ro?? xa^om rwv xazd NUaiav, in tJie Canons of those 
 at Nicaea, 153, note 284; xavovi^ rule or norm, 431, note. 
 
 xard navra, in all thiflgS, 434, note 774. 
 
 xard TzapdOeavj, by juxtapositio7i, 2 1 8, note 562. 
 
 xaxayyiXovrtq, tellijig 071, explained in note 598, page 229. 
 
 xaraywyiov, stoppi7ig place, 48, uote 129. 
 
714 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 xaradiffdat^ to state ^ 46, note. 
 
 xare^eraffdrjvat, to be examined intOy 48, note. 
 
 r7)vxaTotx7](nv^ the indwellings 217, note 557. 
 
 xe(paX-q^ in the expression, rjv yap ij odd? xs(paXr) fxia^ Ixxiii., note ** a.** 
 
 xoivTj 4'VVH^^ by a common vote, 38, note 94. 
 
 xotvov a>i9pco7Tov, a common man; the Nestorians made Christ such, 
 92, note. 
 
 xoivu)via^ Comm^union^ 231, note. 
 
 xoivojvov^ colleague, 180, note 398, and xotvcjvibv in note 404. 
 
 xo(7fj.ixo6?, worldly me?ty 11, note 10. 
 
 xpoTov^ clapping, applause, 453, note 898. 
 
 xTi,ixa k? aei^ a possession forever, xii. 
 
 xTc's«>, / create; exrtffe, he created, 457, note 919. 
 
 xrc'<T£9, creature, in the following cases: xriaiv^ see ^eo-rroulff^at, and 
 page 85, note; xrtaet, rj, to the creature, 92, note; xriat-v, crea- 
 ture, 432, note. 
 
 xrifffia, creature, 457, note 919. 
 
 xTtfffxarokdrpat, worshippers of a creature, 219, note 565. See av^pojito- 
 Xarptia in this Index, and the references there. 
 
 xrifffiaroXaTptia, worship of creatures ^ creature-worship, 18; 90, note; 
 355, note. See the references under dvi^pwTtoXarpsia in this Index. 
 xTCfffxaroXarpeta^ creature-worship, that is, the worship of a crea- 
 ture, or of creatures, 256, note; 628. 
 
 xTiffToXdrprji^j Worshipper of a creature, 628. See d.v^p(iiT:oXdrpwi<i^ and 
 
 639. 
 Kvpiov, Lord, 20, note. Kbpiov^ Lord^ Master; see under N&aT6pw<i, 
 
 477, notes loio, 1012. 
 
 ToD Xa^6vTo<i^ who has taken, 467, note 966; rw Xaj36vTt, ibid.; Xaol?^ 
 To?9, the peoples, the congregations, 209, note 528. 
 
 Xarpda^ service, worship, 406, note; 628. See besides the references 
 under dooXeia. See Xoyixtjv, 
 
 Xarpeuoj, I se7ve, in the following forms: XeXarpsuxafxev, we have served, 
 84, note; Xarpeueiv, in the expression of Cyril on page 92, note, 
 where he says that * * we [Christians] have refused as a blas- 
 phemous thing to worship the creature'' See the Greek there. 
 It is too long to be quoted in full again here. See also a very 
 
Index IV, Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 715 
 
 important passage from Athanasius under Tzpoaxovoufxev in this 
 Index; UrpebouTe<s, serving, quoted by Valentinus from Holy- 
 Writ, 431, note; karpsou)^ I sejve, I worship, 628. 
 
 krj(pesi^^ o, the Man taken, 467, note 966. 
 
 Xofixifj larpdav^ reasonable service, quoted from Romans xii., 4; page 
 
 527. See karpeia. 
 
 Aoyo^^ the Word, Valentinus, the Apollinarian, on Him and His 
 worship, 431, note; koyou^ work or treatise, 435, note; Aoyog^ J, 
 see under didio?; 74, note 169; A6yo^, the Word, 216, note 551; 
 
 J * * >i< aYW<$ Oso^ ^Irjffoo<s, o * * * yld^o?, the ^ * * 
 
 Holy God Jesus, ihe * * * Word, 371, note; on page 
 371, note, 6 Adyo^s ro abroo uizep ijfi&v i^i^esv axfia, the Word shed 
 His blood for us; 6 Aoyo^s too Oeou^ the Word of God, 579. On 
 page 416, note, roh Osob ASyou * * * rob Movoyevcu?^ the 
 Word oj God * * * the Soleborn; 6 A6yo? iudidi^ero?^ the 
 Word in and through the Father, 455, note 911; 457, note 
 919; Tov Ssov Aoyou, God the Word, 474, note 1007; 6 A6yo<s 
 T:po(popu6^^ the Word borne forth out of the Father, 455, note 
 911; 457, note 919. 
 Xbs^v^ solution, answer, 11, note 12. 
 
 iia.yoi^ Magians, 435, note 778. 
 
 p.dUMv^ rather, on the contrary, 61, note 155. 
 
 Mapux<i, see OeoT6xo(^. 
 
 fxaprupiov, Martyry, Ixxiv. 
 
 (isyaXonpsTzeaTdrou, most magnificent, 182, note 417. 
 
 p.£yal(ovu[iov TtoXtv^ city of great name, 12, note 14, The reference is to 
 Constantinople. 
 
 [xtyidri, magyiitudes or depths, 445, note 829. 
 
 ixiH-t^iv ffxsTUTjv^ relative participation, 283, note 563; 318, note 640. 
 
 ixeMffTfjatv ^ changes, transfers, 270, note. 
 
 p.zrd, with the genitive, within or with, 97, several times, and 98. 
 note, and 117, note, several times. See (^bv with the dative 
 in expressions under sb\> and under tJ-trd in this Index. See 
 also Kponxovo)^ I bo2v, and its derived forms, and aoiir.poaxov- 
 eiffi^ai^ to be bowed to, and the other forms derived from it or 
 
716 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 connedled with it; Atera, within or with, io8, note; how Andrew 
 of Samosata understood cov and Atera, ny, note; 97, note; in 
 what sense Athanasius and Cyril and the Fifth Synod used it 
 in the expression, fj-ezd aapxo?^ 117, note; 97, note; 225, note: 
 
 fisr auTTJ?, within it, 118, note; Atera ToD Ibiov GOJixaro^, withiu or 
 with His own body, 118, note. See page 119, note, where 
 Andrew of Samosata writes that Cyril held that Guyr^dpsuffe^ 6 
 
 Tid? ru) IJarp) fxerd t^? idia? ffapxo?. See also under ffdpxa. 
 
 Andrew contends that Atera and (tuv mean the same m a certain 
 passage, for Cyril writes to him, elra ttoJ? ^TrtAa/x/Javjj too Uyir,- 
 
 TO? oTt ypi] Guixpoay.ove'KTi^ai rov oyhputizo'^ ru) Ocw Aoyw xat (Tuyyprjp.a- 
 Tt^er^ dew; zaoTov yap itTTtv drteTv xa) to Ihv xai to MsTa, 119, note, 
 
 where see the English translation. Cyril's reply as to <yov and 
 pezd corrupted, 119, note; a^^'^' W^"''^ among us or with us, 196, 
 note 493; pezd (japx6(s^ withifi or with flesh, 571, 578, 633; see 
 adpxa. ptTd, after, in the expression, p^Td tt/V u-azeia'^, 19; peO' 
 oh, with which, 82, note; peTd, withi7i or with, in the expression, 
 ptTd T7,<$ loia? auToo aapxoq^ 85, note; 354, note; SO, page 85, 
 note, where Cyril writes, s'va r^poaxmei psTd ttj? Ldia<; auToo 
 
 (Tapxd? T<r> ix Seoo Aoyo^-^ and 86, note, 'ov zx 0eou IlaTpd? Aoyov 
 psTd TOO idioo <jwpaTo<;; and on page 86, note. dW a>? eva pdXXov 
 iauTov psTd tt^? ffapxog; and on page 87, note, peT abT7j<;\ 
 
 and on the same page, note, pezd zoo idioo trwpaTo?; on page 
 89, note, in the expression of St. Cvril EU ouv apa -po? twv 
 
 a>iu Tvsopdzwv 6 Tzpoffxovobptvoq^ 6 kx Seoo naTod<; Aoyo? peTa r^s^ 
 
 idia<; (Tapxor, See under upo(Txuvo6pevo<s and its cognate forms; 
 peTd (Tapxo?, within or zvith flesh, 97; 222, note; 354, note; 356, 
 note, at least thrice; 598, twice; pezd aapxo?^ withi7i or with 
 flesh in the statement of the Nestorian Andrew of Samosata 
 regarding St. Cyril of Alexandria, Uywv ahzw peTd aaoxM de'tv 
 
 Ttpoffxove'KTx^at, dnayopeuwv 8h ffupTzpoffxuve'tffi^ai zfj deoTTjTt Ti> ffdpxa, 
 
 97, note. See the expression of heretics reported by Athan- 
 asius in the note on pages 99 and 100, for which he calls 
 them impious, especially their words. Oh 7:po<Txuvoopev rjpeT<s tov 
 
 Kbptov pezd T7j? <Tapx6<$ dXXd 8tacpobpe\> to awpa^ xat pvyw tootco 
 
 XaTpebopev. From this we see that ^tnanasius used the ex- 
 pression peTd T7j<s (Tapxo? in the same sense that St. Cyril, his 
 successor, did, that is, of bowing to the Lord within or with 
 
hidex IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. Ill 
 
 the flesh; i-i-^rd t7^<s Gapxo<s aurou, within or with His fleshy 102, 
 note: in what sense used by Cyril, 106, note; /^era aapx6<;^ 
 within or with flesh, 117, note; 225, note; 354, note; /^era 
 aapxoq^ in the following expression on page 117, note, the 
 words being those of the Nestorian Andrew of Samosata, 
 where, writing of St. Cyril of Alexandria, he says of him: 
 
 ^aixhj tt>? TTOCVO iTTlffTTj/JLOVlXO)? i7TifTX7](/>£ [CyHl] TO?? (TL)'^ TYj (Tapx\ 
 
 npoffxu.'e'iv rcD i'A xai ru> aurui Tlai jSouhtfiivoc^;, w? iripuu t£vo? ovto? 
 Trapd TO Ihv too Mezd' or.ep auro? e'^Tjxev, tw? r.poeip-qzat^ Xiyiov [Cyril] 
 avTov ixezd <Tapxb<$ deXv TzpoffxweTffi^at, dizayopeowv Sk ffUfJLTzpoffxuv- 
 
 £lff^at TYj 0e6T7]Tt rrjv adpxa. On page 2 1 6, note 550, St. Cyril 
 writes, p-s^rd r^? tdia<$ ffapxo?^ within His own flesh; and note 
 583, page 226, twice; there equivalent to <7uiJ-poGxu^^zUf^ai r^ 
 SedrrjTt rijv adpxa psrd Trjq idia<$ auzoo aapxo^^ with or withiyi his 
 own flesh, 260, note, and 353, note. In the last instance, 
 those who worship Christ's humanity would translate it, 
 ''together with His own flesh,'' 353, note. See also under 
 7:poffxuv£~iv and (Tuix7zpo(7xove'iv and their cognates in this Index 
 for further instances of perd with the genitive. ptzd zij? cap- 
 X09 avroo, ''within " or " with His own flesh,'' 660. ptzd^ in 
 the words of Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, 
 
 which approves him who p^a. Tzpoffxu^^yjaet zdv Ssdv Aoyov ffapxio- 
 ■^ivra ptzd t^? idia^ ffapxo? avzuo, that is, * ' who bows with [but] 
 one worship to God the Word i7ifleshed within His ow?t flesh." 
 pezd^ its connexion with pi(ro?, mid, middle, midst, 353, 354, 
 note; /xera, with the genitive, 353, 354, note, at least 5 times. 
 
 lisrd and (tu\>, 225, note; see ffo^ and ptzd-, and 634. 
 
 fierdvoia, cha7ige of mind, in the following cases: ptrdvoiav, change of 
 mi7id, 435, note; peravota?, change of mind, 195, note; 488, 
 note 779. 
 
 peraTzXaff^vat, remodeled or remoulded, 269, no+e. 
 
 ix p£zoxrj<s, by partaking, 318, note 640. 
 
 ij p-^zTjp zoo Seou, the mother of God, 222, note; 318, note 641; 420, 
 note 741. 
 
 pTjzpoTToXtzuiv, Metropolitans, Ixxv., note " e.'^ 
 
 ptag ywatxd? av8pa, husband of [but] one wife, 14, note; y^y'^voia hb<$ 
 dv8pb<s yuv-^^ wife of [but] one man, 14, note. 
 
718 Ad I. of Ephestis. 
 
 (lovoyevri, Sole Bom, used of God the Word, 67, note; Mouoyevij^, Sole- 
 Born, 156, note 300; TOO Movoy£vod(^, of the Sole-Born^ in Cyril 
 always of God the Word, as the Sole-Born out of the Father, 
 329, note 674; 379, note; 466, note 963: 589; rdb ^eoy Aoyoo 
 * * H^ T0UTi(TTi TOO Movoysvod?^ the Word of God * * * 
 that is, the Soleborn, 416, note; Nestorius' use of Movoytvobq^ 
 
 477, note IOI3; [JLOvoyevrj rrj? Kad^ohxrj<s ^ExxXrjfTia^ zijv dXiji^etav^ 
 
 ''the sole-born truth of the Universal Church,'' 485, note 1038. 
 fiopipfj, in the expression, iv fiop<p^ Ssoo^ in God's form, 77, note. 
 y.opia^ ''countless things" or "spaces," 445, note 829. 
 lioaxTipnov^ of mysteries, Ixxviii., note "a;" fiuffzijpiov^ Mystery, Sacra- 
 
 ment, 273, subnote " k;" xd. ^tla fioarrjpia^ " the Mysteries of 
 
 God," the Eucharistic, 280. 
 
 N 
 
 vaov, temple, used by Nestorius of Christ's body, ro awiia vabv xa\ vahv 
 xar axpav Ttvd^ 1 63, note 334; o vao?, the temple, 465, note 957. 
 See the English in the text of those pages. 
 
 vexpoXdrpat, worshippers of a corpse, 467, note 966. 
 
 vixpuxnv^ death, 163, note 334. 
 
 NeffTopco?, the heresiarch; rrjv Ne<nopioo ^\aa<priixia\)^ the blasphemy of 
 Nestorius, xxv., note " k;" complimentary titles used by indi- 
 viduals for him till he was convidled; for instance, he is 
 termed by Theodore of Gadara rbv ziin^rarov Neffzopiov^ " the 
 most honored Nestorius, ' ' as head of the Eastern Church, per- 
 haps, 174, note 379. The Greek of some of his Blasphemies 
 is found on page 416, note 716, and the English to it on page 
 411. 
 
 The following is a specimen of his heresy on the Incarnation: dXli: 
 
 liztibriTitp 6 Tid? TOO Oeoo 8i7:Xod^ iari xard rd<s (p6ffet<s, oux kyivvrjffe 
 pev rbv Ylbv roo 0eoo^ dXk' iyivvTjfXS ttjv dvy^ptDTroTYjra, r^Ti^ i(TTtu Ted? 
 
 Sid rbv ffO'^Tjiiixivov Ylov. Translated, this is as follows: ' ' For 
 the Virgin Bringer Forth of the Anointed One brought forth 
 God's Son, but precisely because the Son of God is double as 
 regards His Natures, she did not bring forth the Son of God^ 
 but she bro7ight forth the hiimayiity, which [humanity] is Son 
 because of the Son conjoined to Him" Here we have also two 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 719' 
 
 Sons, that is, i, God the Word, and 2, a mere Man, and that 
 relative applying of the name of the former to a creature, a 
 mere Man, which is in eflfect anathematized in Cyril's Anath- 
 ema VIII., which is approved by the whole Church at 
 Ephesus. See note 890, page 451. 
 On Mary, Nestorius writes on page 452, note 895, aXX olSa ae^afffxiav 
 
 T^9 dtxatoffuvTj? 6 riXio<s', * * / k7iow that she who received God is 
 dese? ving of respect, "or "'is venerable. ' ' 
 
 On page 453, in his Blasphemy 2, he admits that God the Word 
 " went forth " {nporjX^^v) from the Virgin, but denies that He 
 was '' bo7n (r^vvrj^^vm) out of her.'' See there and notes 899,, 
 900, 901 and 902 on that page. 
 
 On pages 450, 451, in his Blasphemy i, he takes the words Xpiaro^^ 
 Anointed One, Tlo^, Son, and Kbpuxs, Lord, to signify ''the 
 Two Natzires ' ' of Christ, ' ' at one time, for example, ^ ^ ^ 
 07ie of them; at another time ^ ^ ^ the other, at still 
 another tirne * * * both of them:' But there and in 
 his Blasphemy 3 on pages 453, 454, he denies that God the 
 Word was born out of Mary, and so understands those three 
 terms to designate nothing but Christ's humanity when it is 
 said in Holy Writ that Christ, the So7i, or the Lord was born 
 out of her; and in his first three Blasphemies he thrice denies, 
 that God the Word was born out of her. See all those pages, 
 text, and the Greek of the notes, especially notes 883 and 
 905. His Blasphemy 4 denies five times the birth of God the 
 Word out of the Virgin, and his Epistle to Cyril denies it six 
 times; see the former on pages 454 to 458, and on the latter, 
 note 335, page 164. That makes fourteen times in all. And 
 indeed, that denial is implied in others of his XX. Blas- 
 phemies. It is strange that, after all this, some will still 
 ignorantly and perversely maintain that the heresiarch was 
 wrongly condemned and deposed, and so refuse to anathema- 
 tize him. Such persons are justly anathematized themselves 
 in Anathemas XI. and XIV. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. 
 
 In his Blasphemy 4 Nestorius tries to so pervert the ye^^'VTp^iv of 
 Matt, i., 20, as to make it teach that Christ is a mere Man; 
 bee it on pages 454 to 458, and notes 910-932 there. 
 
720 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 On page 504, the Third Ecumenical Council, in their Sentence of 
 Deposition on Nestorius, say to him that it was done ''on 
 account of thy blasphemous preachings,'' Std to. duaas^rj ffotj 
 xfjpoj'fxaTa. 
 
 See furtner on Nestorius' heresies under the different forms of 
 Tzpoffxo'Aio^ and under avr^pmnoXarptia^ Man Worship, dvi'^pioizo- 
 ipayia^ eathig a Man, that is, Cannibalism; oUeiw(n<s oixovop.tx7j, 
 Economic Appropriatio7i; Ehy^apiaria^ Eucharist; truvdcpeia^ Con- 
 junction; (jdpxaxji^, putting on flesh, Incar7iation; aapxioMvra^ 
 infleshed; yivoixai^ become, made, be, in this Index. 
 
 vs6p.aTo<s, decree, 32, note 70. 
 
 V0//0?, Nome; vop-oi^ Nomes; distriUs in Egypt, 499, note. 
 
 vo(Tovari<s, sick in mind, doting, 163, note 334. 
 
 oixstdryjra rrjv Ttvsop.arcxyjv, spiritual intimacy, 64, note. 
 
 vixstoriqzo^, of appropriatioji, 163, note 334. 
 
 olxdwavj^ ocxovofitxTJ'^, Economic Appropriatioyi; see olxovofitxrjv olxeiwatv. 
 
 oixeiwffaaf^at^ appropriated to Himself , 65, note; oixBiovp.evo^^ appropriat- 
 ing to Himself in the expression, «>? r^? ma<s ffapxd? r-qv Yi)^vri<nv 
 oixewu/jLe>o^, appropriating to Himself the birth of His own flesh, 
 74, note 173; AV: riv iv T<p (TzaopcDi^ivTi a^iian rd rr^? tdiag ffapxo? 
 
 dna^o)^ oixscoofxevo? Tzdd-ri, ''And He [God the Word] was in the 
 suffering body without suffering, and yet appropriating to Him- 
 self [that is, " claimiyig as His own "], the S7ifferi7igs of His 
 0W71 flesh,'' 227, note 585. See under Trat^o? and oixovofxcxijv 
 oixeiiotjiv. See also in the General Index under Economic Ap- 
 propriatio7t. ohewva^^ai^ appropriates to Itself, 163, note 334. 
 
 otxovofiia^ used of the Christian Dispensation, 157, note 308; of the 
 Incarnation, 161, note 317. 
 
 olxovoptxriv oUeiw(Ttv, Economic Appropriatio7i, 75, note; 409, note; 410, 
 note; see also under 7rd»yo9 and under ouetoTT^ro?. See also in 
 the Ge7heral Index under Economic Appropriation, and 603. 
 
 olxovofuxw?, Eco7io77iically , 319, note 651. 
 
 olxoufii'^Tf^, TTjv^ the inhabited world, 89, note. 
 
 olxoofii^rj^, in the expression on page xliv., note "a." The reference 
 is to an appeal to the common sense of the Christian world in 
 
Jjidex IV. hidex to Greek Words and Expressions. 721 
 
 Century II. by Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, against the 
 
 threats of Vic5lor of Rome. 
 oixoo[j.evuw'^^ Ec2ime7iical, or, better in this place, worldly^ 40. 
 dfxodovaixe'i^ IS of the same tenor ^ 153, note 282. 
 6[xod6vafj.ov^ of the same tenor, 145, note. 
 oiioobnuyj, see ffapxa and Io'>ou(TiaffTai. 
 
 ofxoioTi^za, rov, the h'ke^iess, 282, note. 
 
 6/xoXoyia, profession, 373, note. 
 
 6fioouffca(TTTj?, Homoousiast, that is, a Same-Suds tancezte, 211, note. 
 
 The word, as Sophocles in his lycxicon states, was of Arian 
 
 coinage. It was intended as a reproach. 
 iSfiooufftov, in Valentinus' denunciation of the Timotheans for ' ' daring 
 
 to assert that the body taken otit of Mary is of the same Stib- 
 
 stance as the Diviriity ,^ ^ tou<^ roX/JL7J(TavTa<^ eimlv 6/ioou<Ttov to ix 
 
 Mapta<s (Tu)!ia rij deor-qzi. See the whole passage with its 
 
 English translation on page 431. 
 dfiwvupLov^ of the same name or tejior, 144, note. 
 6(Tiu}TaTou^ most holy, 32, note 69; m,ost devout, 166, note 350. 
 
 OuaXs'^rlvog, Valeiltinus; see ofxaoixnov and ffihiia. 
 
 6pi%do^o?, of right opinions, orthodox, 192, note 475; 211, note. 
 ohaia^, Substa7ice, 442, note 821. 
 
 77 
 
 Tzahfirw ap^tepia^ "■ a passible High Priest,'^ 471, note 990. 
 
 r.di^o<s, suffering, 163, note 334; 7taffo<;, suffering; -rtd^^ sufferings; 
 uTzai^?, without "suffering, and dTzaf^ut^, urisufferingly , in the 
 two following passages on Economic Appropriatiori; see under 
 that expression in the General Index, and under oUovopuijv oixei- 
 toffiv; see also under oUstozrjTo?, of appropriation. On page 
 410, note, we read in Cyril's Epistle to John of Antioch, 
 which was approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 
 
 ' Ar.aH^ dk TT^o? Tobzu) tov too Seoo Aoyoo orzap^^stv 6fxokoyoup.£v anavTs^^ 
 zav ££ Tzav(j6(pu)<^ AhTb<$ olxovopiwv to [lOffT-jpiov^ 'EaoTui Tcpoffvip-wv 
 6p<jiTo Ta T^ idia aapx\, aop^t^-qxoTa izdf^rj. TauTrj Tot xai 6 7:dv(TO(po<s 
 IliTpo^ " XpifTTob ouv, (pridi, izay'^ovTOf^ bizkp i)p.u>v <ra/?z«," xai obfi Tfj 
 <pbffst TYj? dpprJTou SeoTrjTo^. "Iva yap Auto? 6 twv oXtov Iwttjp 
 eluat TZifTTeoTjTat, xaT oixeiioffiv oixouofjuxi])/ e^? ^EaoTov^ a»9 ^9"^^, ^« '^^? 
 idia? aapxu^ dvatpipei izdffri, that is in English, 
 
722 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 * ' And moreover, we all confess that the Word of God is not liable 
 to suffering, even though He Himself in ail-wisely managing 
 the mystery [of Redemption] is seen to ascribe to Himself the 
 sufferings which happened to His own flesh. And for that 
 very reason the all- wise Peter saith, Christ then hath S2iffe7'ed' 
 for us in the flesh [I. Peter iv. i], and not in the nature of the 
 ineffable Divinity. For in order that He Himself may be be- 
 lieved to be the Saviour of all, He refers the sufferings of His 
 own flesh to Himself by Economic Appropriation, as I have 
 said. A thing implying that doc5trine is what was predidled 
 through the prophetic utterance, as from Himself, I gave my 
 back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows, and I turyied 7iot aivay 
 my face from the spittings of shame ' ' [Isaiah 1. , 6]. On page 410, 
 note, St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Long Epistle to Nestor- 
 ius, which was approved and made of Ecumenical authority 
 by the Third Council of the whole Church, and which must 
 therefore be accepted and believed by all under pain of anath- 
 ema, writes as follows: 
 
 ^OfioXoyovji^v Sk on Auto's 6 ix 6euu IJaTpo? ^evviyt^ej? Tlog xai 0£d? Movoy£vr](S 
 xaizoi xard (pbfftv idiav DT:dpyw)f d7ra»5'^9, aapxi TziTZovfi-tv bizkp ijixcbv, 
 xazd rd<s rpa(pa.<i' xa\ ^v h rip ffraopun^ivzi acoixart id r^? Ibia^; <Tapxd<s 
 
 dyra^^w? oixtu)b[xe^M)<; 7rd»>7;; that is, "And we confess that He 
 Himself, the Son born out of God the Father, and God 
 Sole-Born, although in His own [Divine] Nature He is not 
 liable to suffering, [nevertheless] suffered i7t flesh for us, ac- 
 cording to the Scriptures, and He, though He did not suffer, 
 [nevertheless] was in the crucified body, appropriating to 
 Himself the sufferings of His own flesh." On page 411, 
 note, is found the following, which has r.df^oo^ and bears ou 
 Economic Appropriation; it is found in the longer recension 
 of Ignatius' Epistle to the Roma^is, 'EizizpiipaTi fxot p.ip.rjzrjv eivac 
 zoo naHoo<? zoo 9eob fioo, " Permit me to be an imitator of the 
 stiff ering of my God.'' Page 410, note, also has a passage on 
 Economic Appropriation, which I place here for that reason; 
 it is from the longer recension of Ignatius' Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, and is as follows: d^^a%wT.opri<jw^zz<; h aiixa-i 6tob^ 
 ** recalled to life by God' s blood'' Ud^oq, suffering, 603. 
 
Inds-x IV hidex to Greek Words a7id Expressions. 72£t 
 
 Ttaidwv^ t6^ the little child oi Matt, ii., 20, interpreted by Nestorius to- 
 mean not God the Word Incarnate, but His merely human 
 Christ, 453, note 906, and the whole of Nestorius' Blasphemy 
 3 in the text there. 
 
 napd^ in the sense of cojitrary to in the expressions, Ttapa rrjv Ttifftiv^, 
 contrary to the faith, 172, note 367; Tzapa rijv optar^laav itapa twv 
 ayitov Tzaripu)'^ rwv iv rfj Ntxaioju (Tuvch^ovrtov gov ^Aytoj n>eu[iart^ 
 * * contrary to the faith decreed [or * ' decided "J by tiie holy 
 Fathers who came together with the Holy Ghost hi the city of the 
 Nicaeans^''^ 172, note 367. Tzapa zuv xriaa^ra^ in Romans i., 25, 
 ^^ contrary to the Creator,'^ 172, note 367; see remarks of ex- 
 planation there, -niap o izapzld^trz^ contrary to [or besides, \ that 
 which ye have received, 173, note 368. 
 
 -KapadidoraL, is transmitted, transmits, 161, note 317. 
 
 •Kapadoffiv^ transmission, tradition, in the phrase, rrfj aTzoffroXtxi^v izapd- 
 8o(Ttv, 132, note. TTjv Tzapddoffr^, the Delivery or Transmissio7iy 
 156, note 296; and itapddoavj in the expression of Nestorius, 
 
 Tort rijv riy? ivavd^pw7:7j<7tui<$^ xai rob Tzd^^ows^ xai t^? d>a(Trd(TS(jug 
 inoixoSu/xobfft -Kapddofftv^ 156, note; rr^v Ttapddofftv, the traditiony 
 the transmission, 156, note 296, and 156, note 301; rwy ebayysh- 
 xibv Tzapadoaeiov, the Gospel transfnissions, 163, note 334. Ttapa- 
 86<T£t?, traiismissions , traditiojis, 164, note 339; ^Xi '^^o.pa8<)(iti r/j? 
 Kar%)hxrj^ ^ExxXriaia^, the tradition of the Universal Churchy 170, 
 note 364; -apddo(7t<s explained, 170, note 364. 
 
 xard TzapdiUatv^ by juxtaposition, 218, note 562. 
 
 Ttaptpixri'jzuui^ I misinterpret, 474, note 1007. Tzapepin^veowv^ misinterpret- 
 ing, 474, note 1007. 
 
 e^ TzapiazaTai, if it be pleasijig or since it is at hand, 57, note. 
 
 Ttapoixia<^, Parish, Parec, what we commonly call a diocese now, 497, 
 text and note. 
 
 6 C">v Uarfip, the Living Father, 474, note 1007; IJarpd^y -rtapd, '^ by 
 the Father,'' 316, note 621. 
 
 T.arpidpyri^^ patriarch, 32, note 73. 
 
 r.zldyu}'^, of Seas, 445, UOtC 829, 
 
 TtXayw'^, of seas, 445, note. 
 
 7:spti36Xau)v^ a wrapping, said of Christ's flesh, 431, note. It is used 
 by Valentinus the ApoUinarian there. 
 
724 ^^^ ^' ^f EpJi^^'i^^- 
 
 r.tinodeoTTi^, a visitor, itinerant, literally, one who goes about, 496, 
 note 1 1 12. The plural is found in the 3ame note. 
 
 -TjddXtnv, rudder, 144, note 238. 
 
 r£vwv, drinking, 474, note 1007. 
 
 r£(xr£uo/^£v, We believe, 433, note. 
 
 TUGTi^, faith, Creed, 50, notes; 133, note; Tziaxti * ^ * Y^ye'^rifiivri, 
 the Faith composed [at Nicaea], 135, note; see ruipddoffKs, and 
 623; see also TrtVrec in note 256, page 147, and the long Greek 
 passage in which it stands, where the faith of Nicaea is lauded. 
 In note 259, page 148, itiscalled the diakdixnouaav niarvr, T.i<7ztw<: 
 
 in note 263, page 148; r^ r/)? KaffohyS,<s '£xx/.7j<Tia<s Tziaret, the 
 Jaith of the Universal Church; see under ?:«/>«. Atticus of 
 Constantinople is termed 6 di^daxalo^ rr)? Kaf^olixr^^ T/jVrety?, the 
 teacher of the Universal faith, 180, note 395; 7rc<rr£«»9, credit ox 
 good faith, 415, note 708; Trj^rrej, that of the Apollinarian 
 Valentinus, 431, note; r^ rdn-i rwv Xpianavw^^ T.tTzpariJ.hw^^,for 
 the good faith of the Christian A^ls, 449, note 879. 
 //veDpta, in the following cases: n^e^ixan, in the expression of Cyril 
 regarding worship of the Three Persons of the Trinity, on 
 page 90, note, gov r<p "Ayio) Tl'>sb[j.ari\ xa\ fxijv xai el^ 
 TO "Aytnv Ihs'Jixa, ''and moreover to the Holy Spirit 
 also;'' or, '' a7id moreover in the Holy Spirit also,'' 314, 
 note 621;-' //ve^Ataro? * * * 'Ayioo, '' of the Holy Ghosts 
 4«55 note 911; ^"^ izveutxazt^ xai ei? ahxo, ''in the spirit, aiid 
 [watching] in It,'' [or ''for It"\ 314, note 621; ahrb ro 
 meuixa vTzeptvzoyyd^ei, *' The Spirit pleads in us for us [or ''in- 
 tercedes for us'''] with unutterable groajiiiigs," 314, note 321; 
 TTveD/za, tI>, the Spirit, 316, note; xa) ^poy^^irai [the Holy Spirit] 
 
 T.ap aozoo, xaMr.ep aixiXtt xai ix 0£oo xa\ Ilazpd^^ " Arid It [the 
 
 Spirit] is poured forth from [or " ^j " ] Him [God the Word] as 
 [It is] certainly also out of the God arid Father, 317; note 638; 
 r.£6/aar£, by the Spirit or in Spirit, 419, note 732; UveOfxazt, in 
 Divinity, Gregory of Nazianzus so uses the term on page 440, 
 note 807. 
 nodo,Imake; forms of the verb; rojiyVavr:, made or appointed, 373, 
 note; 469, note 975. On page 373, -o,r,Go,zi is an error for 
 TzotrjGavTt. TzoiriMvza, made, 455, note 911. 
 
Index IV. hidex to Greek Words and Lxprcssions. 725 
 
 noXiiito^^ PolemiuSy the leader of the Cosubstancer wing of the Apol- 
 linarians. See on him aud his errors under 6/jlouu(tcuv and 
 (Tu>/j.a and (Tu/iTzporrxuvtirat^ and the Greek and its EngHsh trans- 
 lation on page 431. 
 
 TTOTTjptov^ x6^ the aipy 231, note. 
 
 flpaxTtxdv r^9 Tpirrj? lo-^ndoo^ Book of the A5ls of the Third Synod^ I, 
 note. 
 
 TO?? r,paTzoixivoi<s^ the things done^ the Afls 204, note 519. 
 
 'i:pe<Ti3tiav^ a delegation, 483, note 1028. 
 
 Tipia^zi^^ delegates, 484, note 1034. 
 
 Tzpea^orepo^^ elder, presbyter. 46, note: 47, note; 363, note 682. 
 
 ■EposdpsoovTo^^ presiding, being President, Foresitter, 209, note. 
 
 ■Kpoi-Kor.Tsv^ progressed, 470, note 983. 
 
 nporjXiUv^ we?it forth, 453, notes 899 and 901, where we find rrposX^e'tv; 
 
 see NearopLo^;, 
 
 ■Kpoxeiixevov to, the point before us, 474, note. 
 
 TzpokdiiTtei^ shi7ies forth, 179, note 393. 
 
 Ttpor.aropixov drxdpT-qrxa^ forefather' s sin, origi7iat. sin, 193, note 482. 
 
 Forms of the verb r.poijxwiui: r.poffxtxwijxaixtv^ zve have bowed to, 88, 
 note. See the whole passage in which it stands under du^^pio^ 
 TzoXdrpTj? in this Index. On page 378, note, we read, si yap 
 kntinsp yiyov£ xa-ff ijfxd<^ Tzpoaxexu^r^xs iitff ijiia)'^ uj<^ av^^piono'^' xairoc 
 TzpoffxuvovaTj^ avzoy r-^? aviu 7zXi^i^uo<;^ xa) rwv dyiioy Tt'^euixdriov^ Uyov- 
 T6(^Te Miouffio<; nep] aorou '* Eo^pd'^Ti^rjrs odpaxn a/xa aorw xa\ rcponxo'^- 
 
 Tjffdraxrav auzu) TzdvT£<$ ulo\ Osob. In Knglish this is, " For if when 
 He was made a man like us. He worshipped with us as a Man, 
 although the multitude above and the Holy Spirits worship Him 
 [as God the Word,] and Moses saith concerning Him, Rejoice ye 
 heavens with Him, and let all God's sons worship Him,'' etc., 
 Deut. xxxii., 43, Sept. upoffxwu), I bow, in the following 
 forms: Tzpoaxuvooptvo^^ bowed to, worshipped^ 64, note; npoa- 
 xuve'iv, to bow in Cyril's expression. El pkv /dp r^vwff^ai <prj<; xad* 
 
 VTz6<jTaatv to) ix 8tou <pbvTt. Aoyio to dvOpu)T:ivo:> r\ tt/V »I^£fav etni fj.ot 
 ■n£ptui3pi^£i<^ Gapxa\ Katzot Tzpoffxu'^s'tv aorfj fj.rj -rafjutz'^ofxevo^^ npi-rzov- 
 T09 fxovT) T^ Beta TS xa] dnoppTJzui tpoast z>ii) Tp()(jxuve''(jiiai 5e*y, 80, 
 
 note, and 347, note, See od^io, d.'i^pwnoXazpeia and dvf^pwTu- 
 XdzpTj^. Tzpuaxuveiv^ to bow, 80, note. See also under the fol- 
 lowing words: Aterd with the genitive, and aw with the dative. 
 
726 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 and do^d^io and (TU'>oo^d!^(o and their derived forms. izpuoxuvw^ 
 I bow to, in the expression of Nestorius. r.puaxovd) dk ahv rrj 
 i^eoTTjzi rouTo'^, ty? r^? deia^ ffw^rjyopov aw^svTiai^^ 8 1, note. rzpoa^ 
 xuvu>^ I bow to, in Nestorius' profession of relative Creature- 
 Worship 2iS io\6. us by Cyril, "Jed rdv ^o^oDvra," ^>;<T£, '* r(>> 
 aopoupevov ffii3w' did tuv x£xpu[iixi.vov TzpoGKovo) tu\> ^acvJaevov," 85, 
 
 note; and see 223, note; and tzpogkovu) in the expression on 
 page 86, note, where Cyril is ridiculing the above language 
 
 of Nestorius: ^t-d r-i^v too ^aacX-w? (pu^rju niiSuj to (Tu>fjLa aorou^ d'd 
 t6-^ xexpufifiivov Tzpoffxu'^aj tov <fatvuij.£-^ov. Ou page 221, St. Cyril 
 and the Synod of his Diocese, in their Ecumenically approved 
 Long Epistle to Nestorius say in response to some of Nestor- 
 ius' language above, IlapaiToo/ie^'^a dk Xiysiv ^TTt Apc<TTou, " Jia 
 TOV 4>opoovTa TOV (popoofievov aiiSw^ Sid tov Aoparov npoffxuvu) tov 
 dpiufievov^^' ippixTov de tt^o? toutcj xaxe'ivo ecTzelv "'0 Xrj^i^e](^ t(I> 
 AajSovTt (Tuy'/priixaTi^ei ^£09,'' '^Furthermore we decline to say of 
 f A7ioi7ited, * I WORSHIP Him who is worn [that is, the mere 
 
 '^ Man indwelt not by God the Word's Substance, but only by 
 
 the influences of His Holy Spirit,] FOR THE sake of Him 
 [God the Word] Who wears Him. I bow to Him who is 
 EEN [the mere Man, that is, the mere creature] on account 
 OF Him [God the Word] who is unseen; and it is A hor- 
 RIBI.E thing to say also, in addition to that. He who is 
 taken [the mere Man] is co-caleed God with Him [God 
 the Word] Who has taken him.' " See under Uyiion, and 
 what next follows the above on page 222, where Cyril shows 
 :. that in *' M^ [true] Unio7i * * * no 07ie is bowed to as one 
 ' with another, nor is a7iy co-called God as one with another, 
 but A7ioi7ited Jesus, Son, Sole-Bor7i, is u7iderstood to be 
 \only'\ one, a7id is honored with [but] one bow withi7i His 
 own flesh.'' See part of the Greek just below in note 583. 
 ^ By all these names of the Son Cyril means only God the 
 
 \ Word, Who has, however, put on flesh; see in proof page 
 
 313, note 616, and the Oxford translation of 6*. Cyril of Alex- 
 andria 071 the Inca}natio7i agai7ist Nestorius, pages 200-203, 
 Sedlion 13, of Cyril's Scholia, and indeed, all of St. Cyril's 
 Scholia on the bicar 7iatio7i of the Sole Bor7i there. I translate 
 Movoyev-q^ by Sole Bor7i, and the Oxford translator renders it 
 
Index IV. hidex to Greek Words and Ex{)ressions, 727 
 
 Oyily- Begotten. The Sole Bor?i out of the Father, that is, 
 God the Word, is meant by the expression, as it is in the 
 following very important passage of Cyril on page 225, note, 
 in this volume, where he is commenting on Hebrews i., 6, 
 and showing against the Nestorians that the Sole-Born 
 (Movoyevrj?), and the Inrst Brought Forth (npajroroxov) mean 
 God the Word alone, and that the worship there ordered by 
 the Father is to Him alone, within His flesh as in a shrine, 
 and not, as Nestorius falsely asserted, to a mere creature, 
 
 even His humanity; I quote it: '^"Orav dk daaydyrj rdv Upiororoxov 
 ££'? TTjv oixoufxivfjv Xiyet^ KaX Tzpoffxwqffdrwffav aoroi Ttdvre? ayyeXXoi 
 
 Movoysvr](^ xard fpbaiv 6 ix Seoo naTpo<s wvofxaarai A6yo<;^ ort [x6vo<s ix fxovou 
 ysyivuTjzat too IJazpo'^' el'pvjrai ds xai UpioToroxo?^ ore xai eiffr^Xi^ev e/? 
 ri]v olxou/xiv7)u avd^pcoTZix; ysyovcu^^ xai p.ipo? aor^?. TlXr^v xai ooriu 
 TzpoaxuvsTrat Tzapd rwv dyiwv dyyiXiov^ dvaxtifxi'Mm re xaX Tzpi7Z(rjTo<^ 
 IxovCp 0e<p TOO xai -Kpotrxovslfff^at dsTv. na><s ow 00 0zd<s 6 A'ptfftdg^ 6 
 
 xa\ h ohpw^ip 7:po(Txuvoo[ievo<$^ that is in English: "From the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, ' And when He bringeth in the First 
 Brought Forth into the inhabited world, He saith, A7id let all 
 God's ajigels bow to Him.'' 
 **The Word who has come out of God the Father has been named 
 Sole- Born with reference to His [Divine] Nature, because He 
 alone has been born out of the Father alone. And He was 
 called First Brought Forth also when having been made Man 
 He came into the inhabited world and [became] a part of it. 
 And besides He is so bowed to by the holy angels, and that 
 too when the right to be bowed to belongs to and 
 BEFITS God aeone. How then is Christ not God, seeing 
 THAT He is bowed TO EVEN IN HEAVEN ? ' ' Here again we 
 have the old Christian argument, Since all religious bowing 
 is prerogative to God alone, and since the Father commands 
 it to be given to the Word, therefore He [the Word] must be 
 God. In note 583, page 226, Cyril writes, d.X>^ el? voelzai 
 
 )(pi<Tro<^ ^Irjffou?^ Tlo? M()voye>ij<^, pta 7:po(Txw7JfT£i rtp.(urj.£'^o(^ perd r^? 
 idia? (Tapx6<^, In English this is, '' Bjit Anointed Jesus, Son, 
 Sole-Born, is understood to be [only] one, and is honored with 
 [but] ONE BOWING [that is, with but one worship, that is, 
 
728 Act I. of Ephesm. 
 
 God-Worship, not mere Nestorian Man-Worship] witJmi His 
 own flesh'' 226, note 583. On page 461, note 949, we find 
 the Greek of a passage of Nestorius above quoted again, but 
 more fully in his Blasphemy 8, with a profession in order to 
 escape the charge of worshipping a mere separate Man, a 
 mere creature, that is, Christ's mere humanity, that though 
 he separated the Natures, he nevertheless united the worship 
 of them, that is, he worshipped them with but one bowing, 
 that is, with but one worship, that is, with worship to God 
 the Word absolutely, combined with his own relative wor- 
 ship to His humanity. That excuse did net save Nestorius 
 from condemnation and deposition. Indeed, that Blasphemy 
 8 is adduced as one of the proofs of his Ma?i- Worship {fvjOpio- 
 TzoXarpzia)^ on the basis of which and other proofs and Blas- 
 phemies he is deposed at the end of Act I., in which it stands. 
 His creature worship in it is condemned by Cyril in his 
 Shorter Epistle, on pages 79-85, text, above; and in his Lojiger 
 Epistle, on pages 221-223, text, above, and in its Anathema 
 VIII. Both those Epistles, including that Anathema, are 
 approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. Nestorius* 
 Man-Worship is condemned again by the Fifth Ecumenical 
 Synod in its Definition, and in its Anathema IX. For his 
 excuse for it leaves it, nevertheless, Man-Worship still, and 
 that confessed by Himself. I quote here the whole of that 
 Blasphemy 8, as on page 461, note 949: ^ca rov (popoovra rbv 
 
 <popooixevo\> ffijSuj, Ud rov y.ty.puixiiho^j Tzpoffxmo) rov ipaivofxtvov, 
 '^Ayd)pi(7ro<s zoo (patvoiiivou 6e6?, Jid rouro rob jxij ^copc^o/iiyou rijv 
 rtjJiijv 00 ycDpi^oj, Xwpt^io rd? <pu<T£t<^^ dXX hw rr^v 7tpo(Ty.ovri(TV>, The 
 
 English is, " I bow to him [the Man, that is, Christ's human- 
 ity] who is worn, for the sake of Hint [God the Word] Who 
 wears. I bow to him [the mere Man, Christ's humanity] who 
 is seen, for the sake of Him [God the Word] Who is hidden. 
 God is 2mseparated from him [the Man] who appears. For 
 that reaso7i I do 7iot separate the honor of the unseparatcd One. 
 I separate the Natures, but I units The: bowing." As this, 
 question of Nestorius' Man-Worship, that is, Creature- Wor- 
 ship, in the mind of Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council 
 was a most important and burning one, as involving error 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 729 
 
 against Christ's law in Matt, iv., lo, and other texts (see note 
 matter on pages 94-96), we find it referred to again and again; 
 see in proof the passages quoted above and under all the 
 forms of T.po(7-Awu) and 7:po<yy.wri<n<; here, and in note 949, pages 
 461-463. This sin of Man- Worship is found in the following 
 of the XX. Blasphemies, on the basis of which, among other 
 things, Nestorius was deposed, Blasphemies 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 
 and 15; see them on pages 459-469. Nestorius, in note 965, 
 
 page 466, says, izpoaxwu) 8s <jw rfj deor-qri toutov w? t/)? 0eta? 
 
 Gwspyov aw%vTia<i^ that is, in English, " / bow to him'' [Christ's 
 mere separate humanity] ''together with the Divinity'' [of 
 God the Word] * ' inasmuch as he ' ' [the mere Man] '' is a co- 
 worker with the divine authority." Here we have relative 
 worship of the mere separate creature again. 
 Ttpoaxuvib^I bow to, I worship, 597, 628, 637; Tr^o^xt^voD/^ev, in the follow- 
 ing passage on page 98, note: Ob xriaiia Trpoffxuxw/ieV //^ yivoizo. 
 'E^vtxwv yap xai 'Apsiavcuv ij roiaur-q rLld^^fj' akXd zw Kbpiov r^? 
 xri(jeii)<$ aapxoiM'^ra xov too Geoo Aoyov 7:po<Txuvou/J.sv. The EngHsh 
 of this is, ' * IVe do not worship a creature. God forbid ! For 
 such an error as that belongs to the pagans and to the Arians. 
 But we worship the Lord of the Creation Who has put on flesh, 
 that is, the Word of God." The word '* worship" in this pas- 
 sage means literally to bow, but, as is common in Athanasius 
 and Cyril, is used for that and every other adl of worship, as 
 being the most common of them all. r.poaxw^ooiie^^, we bow to, 
 that is, we worship, in Cyril's reply to the Orientals, in which 
 
 he asks them, ouxirt Se rov h dv^^pwTLeia p.op(p^ Tzs(priv6-a St' 7j/j.d? 
 
 TTpoffxuyoufxev Aoyov ^ 120, note; in English, ''Are we no longer 
 to bow to the Word Who has appeared in human form for us?" 
 Tzpoaxuvovixev in the expression in note 548, page 215, "Hvuxr^^ai 
 
 ye: fiTjV (Tap/A xad' VTZoaraaiv 6iJ.oXoyoovre<; rov Aoyov ^ ha TVpoffxuvou/iev 
 Tidv xa\ Kbpiov "I-qffoov Xpi(7T(h'. "Moreover, confessing that the 
 Word has been Substancely united to flesh, we bow to but o?ie Son 
 and Lord, fesus Anointed;" Tzpo<7xovoT)jitv, we bow to, we worship, 
 633. 7zpo(TxovobiJ.sv, we boiv to, in Athanasius' expression, Uov 
 dk oXw<s ol dfTsiSel? xai xaO' iaurijv eup7J<T0U(Tt rijv adpxa, rjv eka^sv 6 
 IwTTjp, ha xdi roliiuxTi XiyetV Ob TrpofTxovoTjfjiev 7jfie~i<^ rov Abptov fierd 
 T7j? (Tupxo^- d)ld 8uxtpon/j.ev rd (7c7)fj.a xa\ fiovoj robroj ko-f>;bnfj.£v. 
 
730 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 This passage is found in Section 5 of his Epistle to Adelphius. 
 Here Athanasius uses y-^ra ri^? (Tapx6<i^ in the sense of within or 
 with the flesh, a use in which St. Cyril, his successor, follows 
 him, as we see under ixtra and Tzpoaxwu> and avinzpoaxovioi in 
 this Index. I translate: ''But where at all will the impious 
 menfiiid any reason for daring to say also in regard to the flesh 
 itself which the Saviour took, We: do NOT bow to the I^ord 
 
 WITHIN THK FLESH, BUT WE SEPARATE THE BODY AND SERVE 
 IT ALONE." 
 
 On the above passage I would add the following Remark: In the 
 translation of the Greek in the note on pages 99 and 100, above, 
 I have, in the main, followed the rendering of the latter part 
 of it, as I find it on pages 66 and 67 of the Oxford translation 
 of Saint Athanasius' Later Treatises. Yet I confess that I 
 doubt whether it is the most exact rendering. See both those 
 places. The question is whether the robro) in the last part of 
 the sentence does not refer to Christ's body instead of to God 
 the Word. I give it again, as on page 100 above: 
 
 Ou Tzpoaxovooixev t^/jlcJ? tov Kuptou /xsrd r^? ffapxo?- dXXd dtatpoufiev ro ff(op.a, 
 xai ixovo) rouTii) ^.arpeoofxeu. The natural sense would seem to 
 make roo-w refer to the body, in which case we must trans- 
 late: " We do not bow to the Lord within the flesh, but we 
 separate the body a?id serve it. ' ' 
 
 The common rule of Greek Grammar is that oi>to<s refers to what im- 
 mediately precedes it. But <TU)fia, that is '"body," is here the 
 nearer, and not rdv Kupiov^ ''the Lord.'' According to this, 
 the creature serving Arians here referred to, (and let us 
 remember that all the Arians worshipped, on their own confes- 
 sion, a created Logos), who went so far as to deny the Incar- 
 nation, could, on their own creature-worshipping principles, 
 worship Christ's humanity, as they seem to do here. Hence, 
 as we see in this Epistle to Adelphius, St. Athanasius argues 
 against giving any worship to it as wrong; see above, pages 
 98-101. 
 If we could know exactly what the heretics held to, whom Athan- 
 asius is here opposing, we might get at his meaning in the 
 above passage. He is not in every respect so clear as we 
 might desire, but we can gather the following: 
 
Index IV, hidex to Greek Words a7id Expressions. 731 
 
 1. Like the other Arians they denied the Divinity of the Son, and 
 
 made Him a mere creature; but, unlike them, they denied 
 His Incarnation, and hence made their Christ to be a mere 
 Man, as the Nestorians afterwards did theirs, and, Hke them, 
 made all worship of that mere Man to be mere Man- Worship 
 of course. This seems to be implied by Athanasius in Sedlion 
 I of that Epistle to Adelphius. I quote a part of it: 
 ■** Formerly, while denying the Divinity of the Sole-Bom Son of God, 
 they pretended that at any rate they acknowledged His com- 
 ing in the flesh; but now, taking a downward course little by 
 little, they have fallen away from even this opinion of theirs, 
 and are become godless at all points, so as neither to recog- 
 nize Him as God, nor to believe that He became Man." 
 Hence, as has just been said, their Christ was a mere Man, 
 like the Christ of the Nestorians, and their worship of him 
 was mere worship of a Man, like that of the Nestorians 
 
 2. While refusing to call the Son God, and to worship Him, they 
 
 did worship His body, for Christ's humanity was their sole 
 and only Christ. For Athanasius in Sec5lion 5 of the same 
 Epistle writes what implies all that. I quote: 
 ^* These sayings of theirs are being uttered with diabolical audacity, 
 through the evil mindedness which they have contrived for 
 themselves. For those who refuse to worship the Word made 
 flesh are unthankful for His Inman {ol yap ixri Oihv^re^ <sdpxa 
 
 yevofievov rdv Aoyov Trpoffxo'^elv, dyaptffzooaL r^ ivavi^pwTZTJfTsc aorou)'^ 
 
 and those who separate the Word from the flesh think that 
 no redemption has been made for sin, and that there has been 
 no undoing of death. But where at all will the impious men 
 find any reason for daring to say also in regard to the flesh 
 itself which the Saviour took, " We do not bow to the Lord 
 within the fiesh, but we separate the body and serve it alone.'' 
 Hence Athanasius throughout this whole Epistle devotes himself to 
 asserting and proving the Incarnation of God the Word, the 
 necessity of worshipping Him inside His flesh as in a temple, 
 and the wrong of worshipping His humanity, a mere creature. 
 Some of those points are made by him in the above quotations. 
 All of them are made in the Epistle itself. A translation of 
 it will, God willing, appear later on in this Set, which will 
 
732 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 bring out these fa(5ls. Meanwhile the reader is warned against 
 the translation of it in the Later Treatises of Saint Athanasius 
 for it errs grievously in places as do some of the notes on it. 
 In the note on pages 98-101 above I have translated a part of 
 it in which Athanasius shows that he held the flesh of Christ 
 to be non-worshippable. To it I refer the Scholar. I can do 
 no more in this Index. 
 
 The Admonitio on the Epistle of Saint Athanasius to Adelphius, in 
 col. 1069-1072, tome xxvi. of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, is 
 far astray in giving the scope of that Letter. It is by a blind 
 Romanist who could not see the truth on Creature Worship 
 because he himself was an idolater. Bright has followed him 
 too much. 
 
 7r/)o<7xuvoD/aev, in the profession of worship to the two Natures by the 
 Nestorian Theodoret, ** We bow to,'' that is to say, ** We wor- 
 ship as one So?i Him who took and that which was taken, ' ' a>? 
 eW iilv uldv TZpoffxuvoufiev rov XaSovra xai to Xrj(ff)iv^ 1 1 6, note. 
 7r^o<7z6v£C, bow to, in the expression, eva r^poaxmet pL£Td rr^? idia^ 
 
 aoTou ffapxd? tov ix Oeou Ao/ov, 85, note; in English, ''bow to 
 [but] 07ie, the Word Who has come out of God, within His own 
 fleshy r.poaxmzl^, thou bowest, thotc worshippest, 82, note. 
 7:p()(Txuvrj(T£t?, thou shall bow to, 83, note. ouU rzpoffxuvrjffsc?, thou 
 shall not bow to, in the expression, ohx tcrai ev co} Bed? T.p6(j<paro^^ 
 oodk Tzpoffxu'^Tjffei? dew dXhnptoj, 88, note, where see the English. 
 See also T.po<7(paxo<i 6to<i. ■KpoGxuWj<T£t<i, thou shall bow, 103, note. 
 Tzpoffxu^eiTat, is bowcd to, in Cyril's expression, r.pixjxwtirai ydp 
 
 xat //era ffapxu?^ wg xai izpb aurrj? vrApyojv 7:po(7xuv7)rd?^ ^v yap xai ere 
 
 xard <pofftv ^£09, xai izpo r/)? x£vtyfl-£<y?, etc., 84, note; where see the 
 English. TtpoGxwe'irat, is bowed to, 85, note: Tzpoaxovelrat.^ are 
 bowed to, 107, note, r^po^xovslrai^ is bowed to, is found on page 
 431, in a passage of Valentinus, the Apollinarian, where he is 
 arguing against Timothy, the leader of the other wing of the 
 Apollinarians, the Cosubstancers, and telling how his heresy 
 
 differs from theirs, t^oXu dk -^y^^oriffav Ti/ioOeo?, xa\ 6 didd(TxaXoi^ 
 aurou UoXi/jLio?, xa\ ol ahv aoro'i'^, ore fva? ovro? rou -pixjiu-oo too 
 Seoo Aoyoo xa\ r/)? ffapxu?, r/)? ys.'M)!xi^^r^^ or.o too 0eou Any 00 T,pd<i 
 Seov 7] 7cpo<Txu>ri<n<$ aapxwMvTa, oh 7:po<5 adpxa ij vpoaxovr^Gi'^' oodk 
 yap 6 Aoyog 8td ttjv adpxa TzpoaxovsTxat^ dXV ij adp^ Tip Aoyuj (Tu/i- 
 
Index IV. hidex to Greek Words and Expressions. 733 
 
 TzpoGxovzirai. In English this is, ''Timotheus, and Polemius, his 
 teacher^ a7id their followers ^ were very ignorant of the fact that 
 inasmuch as there is but one Person of God the Word a7id of the 
 flesh made by God the Word, the bowing is to be done to God who 
 has put 071 flesh; the bowing is not to be done to the flesh; for the 
 Word is 7iot bowed to o?i accoujit of the flesh; but the flesh is co- 
 bowed to with the Word, as a garment and W7'appi7ig, as I have 
 said befoje.'" 
 Here two differences of Valentinus from St. Cyril are to be noted. 
 
 1. Whereas, Cyril uses both Person QIpoacDTtov)^ and Subsistence, that 
 
 is Bei7ig (Tnoffrafft?) for God the Word alone, the heretic Val- 
 entinus applies /<fr^^72 (IIpoffajTzov) to God the Word and to His 
 flesh, that is to the two together. 
 
 2. Valentinus, after seeming, like Cyril, to deny bowing to Christ's 
 
 humanity, dire(flly contradicfts himself and makes the flesh 
 to be co-bowed to with God the Word, and so differs from St. 
 Cyril. See Cyril's dodlrine set forth in his Anathema VIII., 
 page 109. Compare page 82, and again and again in note 183. 
 On pages 82 and 109 Andrew of Samosata, the Nestorian, 
 shows what the Nestorians understood Cyril to mean. Com- 
 pare the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and its 
 Anathemas IX. and XII., pages 109-112. See also under the 
 different forms of (TuixTtpoffxuviio in this Index. 
 Tzpoffxuvou/j.ex)'?^ bowed to, in the expression of Cyril, Eh ouv apa rcpd^ 
 Twv avu) TT'^eu/xdriuv 6 7:po(Txowoo/x£)^o<^^ 6 ix Oeou IJarpo'^ Ad/o^ [lerd 
 
 r^9 idia<$ ffapxo?, 89, note, and in the same note on the same 
 page, in the expression of Cyril against Nestorius, xai rrpoff- 
 
 xovobixevov a-Ai-pu)T.ov tt] dyia xai ofxoouaio) Tptddc itpofrro^sl^^ obx ala- 
 
 ^bverat. See the English there. 
 Ttpoaxbvei^ worship, literally bow to, in the language of the alleged 
 
 Julius, on page 432, note, aXX* abrdv dnu>txdrw<$ Tzpoffxuvst 
 Tov fierd rou idioo ffmixarix; 7Tpof7xuvou/j.e>()v^ d><^ eva xai jllovov Tlov rob 
 Seob if aiwvo<^ xai ec'? ata>va<s. See the English there. 7r/vo<TZ6»v£rv, 
 
 to bow tOy and 'n:po(rxuve''T u, is bowed to, 431, note, 432, note; 
 where it is not clear whether both Natures of Christ are to be 
 worshipped or not. The passage is from the alleged Julius. 
 See the Greek and its English translation there; r.pixTxw^ir^^ to 
 bow, hence to worship because bowing is the most common act 
 
734 Act I, of Ephesus. 
 
 of worship, for we bow when we pray, and when we perform 
 the other acfls of religious service; it occurs in the expression 
 TZpoffx.u^^eTv de diioXoysT ffhv r^ SeoTTjTtrourov, 82, note; Tzpoaxuve'icrdac^ 
 to be bowed to, in the expression, am r^ OsdrrjTi -Kpoaxovt'iadat^ 82 
 note: TzpoffAo^sTadat^ to be bowed to, 85, note: 7zpoaxuv£~iadai, in the 
 expression of Theodore of Mopsuestia in favor of the relative 
 worship of Christ's humanity, anathematized by the whole 
 Church in its Fifth Synod, xa\ xar laoTr^ra Ba<Tdtx7i<s e£xovo9, ££? 
 
 Ttpoaojizov TOO Osoo Aoyoo izpoaxwtXadai, m, note. The English 
 translation is found there. More of the Greek with its En- 
 glish translation is found on pages 423, 424, note, where see 
 them. TzpoffxoveUdai^ to be bowed to^ hence to be worshipped, 89, 
 note; St. Epiphanius on Heresy 79, SeAion 7, writes, 'Ev rifiij 
 £(TT(o Mapta, 6 8k Uarrjp^ xai Ho?, xai "Ayiov Uvshixa Tzpoaxovslffdw 
 TTjv Mapiav /xTjds}? TzponxuvsTrco^ Let Mary be ill honor, but let the 
 Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost be bowed to; let no one 
 bow to Mary; 184, note 438. r^poaxwoh^j, worshippmg, literally 
 boiving, 433 note. The following is a Monophysite utterance, 
 which is ascribed to Julius, Bishop of Rome, but falsely; it is 
 
 found on page 429, note, a^re/Jouvrs?, «v re Tzpoaxovmaiv ov Uyoufft 
 dooXov xai xTtfTTov, av re fxi] xpoaxovuxn rov i^ayopdaavra rjiia<s rcD \dioi 
 aifxart * * * "A^Ayxri yap aoToo? duo Xiyovra^ <po<Tec?^ rijv 
 [ikv fiiav Tzpoffxovs'iv, ri]v 8k kripav pi] Ttpoffxuvelv, etc. 
 The English of the above on the same page reads, ' ' They are impious 
 if they bow to him whom they assert to be a servant and a crea- 
 ture; and if they do not bow to Him Who redee7ned us by His 
 own blood * * * For those who assert Two Natures must, 
 as a 7iecessary consequence bow to the 07ie, but not bow to the other. 
 But Athanasius answers this and still holds to two Natures 
 by saying that he bowed to God the Word in his body as in 
 a created temple. See the note matter on pages 98-101. TzpoG- 
 xuvslv, to bow, in the expression, rou? -nap ahxo\> r^ xziaei Tzpoffxo- 
 v£'iv fjprjrii'^oui- 84, note. See the English there. Ttpo^xwar^, to 
 bow, in the expression on page 343, note, perd 8k ri-jv kva>dpd>- 
 
 TTTjffcv TOO deoo Aoyoo ^ rooriffrt, p-sra rrjv yivvTjffiv zoo Kopiou ijpwv 
 'Ifjffoo XpLffToo piau <pb<JLv irpoaxove'iv, xa\ raozTiV 6eoo ffapxajdivzo? xa\ 
 
 k>avdpw7:rj<ravzo?. In English this is, * ' Sifice the Inman of God 
 the Word, that is, since the birth of our Lord fesus Anointed, he 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 735 
 
 [Eutyches] bows to [but] one Nature, and that the Nature of 
 God who took fiesh a?id put o?i a Man.''' 
 Butyches, notwithstanding the above language, was a creature-server 
 in fact, though not in intention, for he held that at the Inman 
 Christ's human nature was transubstantiated into Divinity, 
 and then worshipped it as God with the Word. See on this, 
 whole topic, and as to what Eutyches was condemned for on 
 pages 343-362. Tzpoffe-Aovet in the expression of Athanasius on 
 
 page 98, note, Tzpoffexuvsi yap rov 0£w iv <T(6/xart ovra, xai lyv^ioffxev 
 
 OTL Seo<i ^v, Xiywv^ Kupis, etc. See the English there. Tzpoaxb- 
 vT)<Tov, ** bow to/' that is worship, 444, note 825. iipoffxuvooffrj^,. 
 in the expression of Cyril on page 91, note, r^poaxovobayi^s re 
 Amip xat i^ouiTta? aTzdffTj? ouvd/ieax^ re xat xup^oTrjzo?. See the En- 
 glish there. 
 The noun 7Tpo(7xu'>rj(n?, bow, bowing, worship, and its cases: 7:po(Tx6>rj(n<Sy 
 bow, bowing, hence worship; in the following cases: p-ta izpo^xo 
 vTjffsi, with 07ie bow, with one worship, 82, note: p(a npoaxmriati 
 with one bow, with 07ie worship, 87, note; <jyjrr/.rj -Kpoaxu^^riffi^, 
 relative worship, 219, note 563: pio. 7:po(7xuyrj(7£i, with one worship 
 said of the worship of the Three Persons of the Trinity, 90 
 note: ina TrpocrxuvyjfTsc, with one worship, 106, note; explained in 
 note 677, page 331; 332, note 679; 353, note, where the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Council in its Anathema IX. approves him who. 
 
 pia Ttpoffxuyqffet rov deov Aoyov aapxiodivra pezd T7^<^ ld{a<^ Gapxo<s izpoff- 
 xuvel, that is him ' * who bows with [but] one worship to God the 
 Wordinfleshed withi^i His own flesh. ' ' 7:po(7xu^^ri<n<s, bowijig; Val- 
 entinus, the Apollinarian, and therefore Two-Partite, tells 
 how he cO'Worships Christ and His flesh, 431, note. See Two- 
 Partite and Dimoerite in the General Index to this Work. 
 npoffxw-qaiv, bowing, worship, 68, note; 69, note; 86, note; and 
 116, note. See Gyzzixr^vT.po<7xb'^r^aiv^ on page 337, note; and np- 
 TjTtxijv 7r/?o(rxov7j^£v, honorary worship , on page 337, note; ri^v r.poa- 
 xbvf]Giv^the bowing, the wot ship, 86, note. On page 120, note, 
 
 NeStoriuS says, XwpiXio r«9 <pu(T£t<;, dXX' hCo rijv 7:p()(Tx'j'^rj(7['^: *'/ 
 separate the natures, but I iinite the bowing, that is the worship: 
 ri)v napd 7:d<Trj<^ r^)? xzi<7s:u}<s di/ezai TzpixTxuvrjtri'^, w? dywptffzov npo^ 
 TTjv 6eia> (poffiv eywv zijv GO'->dife.ia>^ dvaifopa 0eob xai ivvoia TzdffTj^ 
 auzaj zrj? xz{<Teaj<s rijv rrpoffxu'^'rjfnv u7:()V£pooffrj<^; that is, the Nestor-> 
 
736 Act /. of Ephesus. 
 
 ian Creed here quoted asserts that their merely human Christ 
 ''receives bowing [that is, worship] from all the creation, as 
 havifig the inseparable [external] co7iju7iSIion with the Divine 
 Nat2ire [of the Word], all the creation givi7ig him worship with 
 refere7ice to God and in co7isideration of God,'' 337, note. This 
 is, in eflfect, relative worship, ^bo Tzpoaxu^ati^, two worships, 
 116, note: T.poay.wrj(n<$, bowi7ig, hence worship, 325, note 665; 
 664. 
 
 On Relative Worship see under rtii-qrurjv Tzpoaxmrioiv. 
 
 The adjedlive Tpoaxovriro^ and its cases: Tzpoa-Auvr^ro^^ to be bowed to, 118, 
 note; 628; -npoffy-uv-qrov^ to be bowed to y 83, note; 84, note; ob 
 ■npixry.ovrjTO'^^ not to be worshipped; said of Christ's huinan body, 
 100, note; and 351 , note. Both these last references are to the 
 same passage of St. Athanasius in his Epistle to Adelphius. 
 As it is a very important one as bearing on the question as to 
 whether he deemed the humanity of Christ to be worshippable 
 or not, and as it is not accurately translated into English 
 either in the Oxford version of Saint Athanasius' Later 7?ra- 
 tises, or in the version of it in Athanasius' Select Works a7id 
 Letters, published by the Christian Lite7'at2ire Co., of New 
 York City, I dwell a little on it here, limiting myself how- 
 ever to the question as to its trne readi7ig, for there is no space 
 in an Index to do more. I proceed: 
 
 oh Tzpo<j7.wi]T(h^ ** it [Christ's body] is not to be bowed to,'' that is, " is 
 not to be wo7'shipped," 100, note. This passage is wrongly 
 edited in the Greek of the Benedicfline edition of St. Athan- 
 asius' Epistle to Adelphius, and in Migne's reprint of it in his 
 Pairologia Graeca, and is wrongly translated in the Late} 
 Treatises of Saint Athanasius in the Oxford Library of the 
 Fathers, and in the Christian Literature Compa7iy's transla- 
 tion of " Atha7iasius' Select Works a7id Letters," because they 
 followed that altered text. We wish to show here briefly the 
 difference between the true text of the manuscripts and the 
 false one of both the editions just mentioned, and between 
 the true translation and the false one of both the English 
 versions aforesaid. 
 
 In columns 1080, 108 1, tome 26, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, sec- 
 tions 6 and 7 of St. Athanasius' Epistle to Adelphius, I find 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words atid Expressions, 737 
 
 the following. Athanasius has just been arguing against the 
 heretics who denied the Incarnation, and so refused to worship 
 God the Word inside His flesh as in a temple; and then con- 
 tinues in Se(5lions 6 and 7 as follows: 
 
 g :{c >lc >ic p^^^ ie|- them [the heretics aforesaid] know that when w^e 
 bow to the Lord in flesh, we do not bow to a creature, but to 
 the Creator who has put on the created body, as we have said 
 before [Aa: yivioaxiTiuaav^ ori^ zou Kbpiov iv aapxi TzpoaxuvuuvTS^y 00 
 XTifffjLari 7:po(Txuvoufiev^ dXXd tov Krifffqv ivduffdfjLevov to xtkttov <Twp.a^ 
 xa^d TtpoetTTOfxevJ. 
 
 7. But we were wishing that thy Piety would ask them the follow- 
 ing question: When Israel were commanded to go up to 
 Jerusalem to bow [that is, " to worship "] in the temple of 
 the Lord, where was the ark a?id over it the Cherubi77i of glory 
 shadowi7ig the mercy seat [Heb. ix,, 5], did they do well or 
 the contrary ? If they did amiss, why were those who ne- 
 gledled that law liable to punishment ? For it is written that 
 Whosoever should set at nought [that enadlment] a7id would 
 not go up, should be cut off fro77t the people [Deut. xvi., 16]. 
 But if they did well, and in that thing were well pleasing to 
 God, why are not the abominable Arians, the worst of all 
 heretics, deserving of many a death, because, while approving 
 the former people [of God] for their honor for the temple, 
 they [nevertheless] are not willing to bow to the Lord who is 
 in flesh as in a temple And yet the ancient temple was con- 
 strudled of stones and of gold as a [mere] shadow; but when 
 the Reality came, then the figure ceased, and, as the Lord 
 said, there jxmained 7tot one stone upon another that was 7iot 
 thrown down [Matt, xxiv., 2]. And when they saw the 
 temple of stones, they did not think that the Lord who spoke 
 in that temple was a creature, nor on the other hand did they 
 make nothing of the temple and go far off" and bow [that is, 
 *' worship"]; but they went into it and worshipped, accord- 
 ing to the Law, the God who gave oracles from the temple. 
 Since then this was so, why is the body of the Lord, the 
 [body] truly all-holy and all-sacred, announced as glad tid- 
 ings by the archangel Gabriel, and fashioned by the Holy 
 Ghost, and made a garment of the Word, not to be bowed to " 
 
738 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 [that is, " not to be worshipped^'\ I quote the Greek of the 
 above of sedlion 7 in full: 
 
 7. ^E6ouX6iieda dk rrjv ar^v sbkdSsiav Tzudiadai rzap^ abribv touto' i^vixa 6 "lapaijX 
 ixskeuzro a'^ipy^eaOat £i<s rijv '^lepouffaXi^jj. Tzpoaxo'^ev^ iv rcD vawKopioo^ e>6a 
 ^ xiSioTog xai OTzepw^io raoz7]<^ zd ^epoo6\ix r/)? do^y]? xaradxid^o^ra ra 
 UaffZTJptov^ xaXw^ iixoioov ^ robvavrUr^] Ei fxe> 00^ <pauka)<s eTrparro'^, 
 710)? 01 Tou vofxou rooTou xaT()Xc/u)podvT£? 07:0 ^Tttrifxiav iyivu\^zo' Fi- 
 YpaTzrat ydp' '^0<s kdv i^oui9evrjfTT^ xai [irj wja67j^ i^oXui^peuij^rjfferai ix 
 TOO laoo' el dk xaXwS eTzparrov^ xai iv toutu) eudp£(Troi rai Ocw kyv^o'^zo^ 
 Ttu)<s obx aTZoXwXivat 7:oXXdxi<$ £1(t}v a^ioi 01 p.iapo\ xaX yrd(T>^? aipiasux^ 
 al'(T^t(TTot ^Apetavoi^ ort^ tov 7:dXat Xaov aTiuSe^ofievoc did rijv rrpo^ ruv 
 vaov TC/iijv^ 00 ^obXovrai rov Kbpiov h aapxi^ 0/9 Iv vaoi ovTa^ Ttpoaxo- 
 velv; Kairoi u ndXat )^ad? ix Xb^iov tjv xa\ ^puffou xaTa<jxeuaffd^e\<$^ oj^ 
 ffxid' iXdouffrj<s de t^9 dXrji3-e{a?, Tcinaorai Xotnov 6rbno<s^ xa\ obx £/j.£iv£^ 
 xard TTjv Kuptaxrjv (piovi^v^ Xb%)<; irz). Xidov iv abrai, 09 ob xareXm^rj. Ka\ 
 o6t£^ tov vadv ^Xi7tovT£<$ ix Xb^iov^ iv6fxt!^ov xai rdv iv abrai vaai XaXouv- 
 Ta Kbpiov elvac xrifffia^ out£, tov vadu i^oud£vouvT£^^ d7:£p^6pL£vot [lax- 
 pdv npoffexbvouv dXX' et? abruv ip^6/i£vot vo/j.tp.a}? iXdTp£uov ru) 9£(ji d-rco 
 rob vaou ^prj/iari^ovrc. Tobroo 8s ootuk; ysvofiivoo^ :ra*9 rb aiofxa rob 
 Kopicio^ TO (11) Tzavdyiov xa\ 7:dvff£TZT0v dXTji^w?^ UTto fxkv too dp^ayyiXoo 
 raSptijX £bayy£Xt(Ti^kv ^ 07:0 dk too ayioo UvebfjiaTog TzXaffOkv^ xai too 
 Aoyoo y£yo'^d? (12) kvoojia^ ob TzpoffxovTjTov' 
 
 The above Greek from Secflions 6 and 7 of this Epistle is found, with 
 the exception of a few slight corredlions by Migne, word for 
 word, on pages 915, 916 of the Second Part of tome i of the 
 Benedi(5tine edition of Athanasius, Paris, A. D. 1698. They 
 are found word for word on page 161, tome i of the editio 
 Coloniae of A. D. 1686, which on its title page, professes to 
 follow the Paris edition of A. D. 1626. Professor Bright in 
 his article on Athanasius in Smith and Wace's Didioiiary of 
 Christlayi Biography, towards the end, mentions what I take 
 to be that edition, though there is a discrepancy of a year be- 
 tween them, which is perhaps explainable. He writes thus: 
 "The Greek text with a Latin version, Paris, 1627, 'threw 
 into the shade all previous editiojis, ' but the work was loosely 
 executed." In the same article Prof. Bright adds, "The 
 first Greek edition was the Commelinian, at Heidelberg, in 
 i6cx)." 
 
bidex IV. hidex to Greek Words and Expressions, 739 
 
 Kow, before I go further, let me quote notes ii and 12, referred to 
 by the figures in the text just quoted. 
 
 On the word to above before the '*(ii)," the Benedidline note 11 in 
 column 1 08 1, tome 26 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca is as fol- 
 lows: "Sic editi, sed manuscripti pro r6 habent ou, quam par- 
 ticulam Seguerianus infra ante Ttpoaxuv-qrov omittit. ' ' I translate, 
 this Latin into English. 
 
 **So the editions, but the manuscripts have 06 [that is ''nofl instead' 
 of TO [that is ''/-^^"], which particle the Seguier [manuscript] 
 omits below before Tzpoffxuvrjzdv,^' This note is found as note 
 **f" on page 915, in the Second Part of tome i of the Bene- 
 didline edition of Athanasius, Paris, A. D. r698. 
 
 The 1 2th note is of no docftrinal importance. It merely states that 
 the Basle and English manuscripts of the Epistle to Adelphius 
 have eTzldfrd^Ti xai zoo Aoyou yiyovev^ instead of the above reading 
 
 7tXa(Tf^ev^ xai zoo Aoyoo Y£Y(r>6<$. 
 
 The Coloniae edition of A. D. 1686 does not contain the notes just 
 quoted. So far as I know they were written for the Bene- 
 didline edition, and first appeared in it. It seems strange in 
 view of the fa(5ls which they themselves state in note 1 1 that 
 they did not conform their edition to the manuscripts. 
 
 We see here then that some editor before the Benedi(5lines, estimating 
 Orthodoxy from his own creature worshipping standpoint, 
 not from the standpoint of the Six Ecumenical Councils, and 
 wishing to save St. Athanasius from what he looked upon as 
 the heresy of denying worship to Christ's humanity, therefore 
 changed the text here. According to the Benedidlines' own 
 account in note 11 above; ''the manuscripts'' (except, so far 
 as appears, the Seguier), in the sentence above give the 
 following Greek text: 
 
 TooTou de ouzuj? ye\^orxivou^ TtoJ? zd (Toj/xa zoo Kopioo 00 Ttavdyiov xai 7rdv<r£7r- 
 zov dXfji^wi;^ UTto ixkv zoo dp^ayyiXou FaSpcijX ebayysh<7f^ev ^ orzo de zoif 
 ayiou flveup-azo^ TcXaaOkv. xa\ zoo Aoyoo •^eyovo'i evdjfia'^ Ob ■npoaxuvq-' 
 zov. 
 
 Hence we must translate this true text of ^' the manuscripts'' as fol- 
 lows and we have the correct reading, the genuine sense of 
 the great Athanasius, God's noble champion against Creature 
 Worship, including Man- Worship and ever}^ other sort^ 
 
740 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ""Since then this was so, why is the body of the Lord not truly all- 
 holy and all-sacred, announced [as it was] as glad tidings by 
 the archangel Gabriel, and fashioned by the Holy Ghost, and 
 made a garment of the Word ? It is not to be bowed to, 
 [that is, " It IS not to be worshipped."]" Then Athana- 
 siu9 goes on to show how God the Word used the hands and 
 voice of that body as His instruments in working His miracles. 
 The Latin translation of this place of Athanasius as on page 
 i6i, tome I of the edit. Coloniae of 1686 is as follows: '* Quod 
 cum ita se habeat, qui fieri posset, ut corpus Domini unde- 
 quaque sandlissimum, a Gabriele archangelo evangelizatum, 
 a Spiritu Sancflo formatum, amiculumque Verbi Dei, non sit 
 adorabile," etc. I find exacftly the same reading on page 104 
 of the edit. Basileae, A. D. 1564, with the exception of one 
 word, that is " Gabriele" which it has not. In the front of 
 that tome of the Basileae edition of A. D. 1564, just before 
 page I, we are told that the Latin translation of St. Athana- 
 sius' Epistle to Adelphius in it is by Peter Nannius (Alcmari- 
 anus) Professor of Latin in the College of Louvain. In 
 Phillips' Dictio7tary of Biographical Reference , London, A. D. 
 187 1, his date is A. D. 1500- 1557. Lippincott's Pronouncing 
 Biographical Dictionary, calls him Manning , and tells us that 
 he was born at Alkmaar, whence I presume comes his name 
 of ' ' Alcmariantis' ' above. In the article on him in the Noii- 
 velle Biographic Generate, tome 37, Paris, A. D. 1866, we are 
 informed that Cardinal Granvelle made him a Canon of the 
 Cathedral of Arras, and that he was a Latin in religion, and 
 that he published St. Athanasius' works in Latin at Basle in 
 1556 in four volumes, and that that translation has been often 
 reproduced. 
 
 In the Benedi(5line edition of St. Athanasius, Paris, A. D. 1698, 
 tome I, in a Syllabus in front, they state that Peter Nannius 
 translated the Bpistle to Adelphius in tome i of the Paris 
 edition of Athanasius in A. D. 1627, and that the Benedidlines 
 in their own edition of the same Epistle in A. D. 1698, used 
 the " Codice Segueriano, et lecflionibus Felckman. Codicum 
 Basil. Anglic. Gobler, et i." 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words ayid Expressions, 741 
 
 Xet us now, i, ask, What is the exter7ial evidence for the reading of 
 the Benedictines which makes this passage teach the worship 
 of Christ's humanity ? 
 
 The answer given by themselves in the above note is " editions,'' or 
 ''the editions'' (editi). So far as appears no manuscript favors 
 the view, for though the Seguier manuscript lacks the oh^ 
 * ' not, ' ' the Benedictine does not tell us its full reading. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we ask, What is the external evidence for the 
 reading which makes this passage forbid the worship of Christ's 
 humanity, the Benedic5tines in the note above reply, ''the 
 ma?iuscripts." (manuscripti). And the annotator seems to 
 imply that the testimony of the manuscripts is opposed to 
 that of the printed editions. For he writes, "So the printed 
 editions, but the manuscripts have ' not ' (ou) instead of Hhe ' 
 
 (to).- 
 
 We turn now, 2, to ask, what is the internal evidence as to the ques- 
 tion whether St. Athanasius favored or disfavored the worship 
 of Christ's humanity in this passage? 
 We answer, On that point his witness is clear against it. For in 
 speaking on that very topic, which runs through much of 
 this Epistle, he writes at the end of sec5lion 6 of it, as just 
 quoted: 
 * 'And let them [that is the heretics just mentioned by him] know that 
 when we bow to the Lord in flesh, we do not bow to a creature, 
 but to the Creator Who has put 07i the created body, as we have 
 said before. ' ' 
 In secftion 3, he teaches what is also plainly against Man- Worship 
 
 {ajOpior.oXarpsia^ St. Cyril calls it), as follows: 
 *' We do not worship a creature — God forbid! For such an 
 error as that belongs to the heathen and to the 
 Arians. But we bow to the Lord of the creation Who has put 
 on flesh, that is to the Word of God." See the note on page 
 350 above and the context, and pages 98-101, where more 
 matter to the same effect is found in the note. Particularly 
 pertinent there is Athanasius' commendation of the leper be- 
 cause in his worship of Christ ''he zvas bowing [not to Christ's 
 humanity, but] to the Creator of the Universe as in a created 
 temple, [that is in His body], and he was made clean." * * * 
 
742 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 For the creature does not worship a creature, nor, 
 on the other hand, was the creature deci.ining to 
 WORSHIP ITS Lord because of the flesh ' ' [which he wore], 
 etc. Here is worship of God the Word alone, not at all the 
 humanity which he wore. This is clear from the whole passage. 
 See it more fully on pages 98-101, note. Towards the end of 
 this Epistle Athanasius again professes that he worships God 
 the Word as in flesh. See there. He terms his docflrine on that 
 *■' the faith of the Catholic Churchy He urges the Ariomani- 
 acs, as he here terms them, as follows: 
 
 *'But if they are willing let them repent and no longer serve the 
 creature contrary to the God who created all things. But if 
 they wish to remain in their impieties let them alone be filled 
 with them, and let them gnash their teeth like their father, 
 the Devil, because the faith of the Universai. Church 
 knows the Word of God to be Creator and Maker of all things, 
 and [because] we know that hi the begi?i?iing was the Worc[ 
 and the Word was with God [John I., i], and we bow to Him 
 made man for our salvation, not as made an Equal in an equal 
 thing, the body, but as the Master Who has taken the form of 
 the servant, and as the Maker and Creator, who has come in 
 a creature, and in him has freed all things and has brought 
 the world to the Father, and has made peace for all things, 
 both those in the heavens and those on the earth. For so do 
 we acknowledge that His Divinity is from the Father, and 
 worship His Presence [that is His Divinity] in flesh even 
 though the Ariomaniacs may burst themselves." 
 
 I quote a part of the above: 
 
 ^ TZtffTt? Tr^9 Kaf^oXiX7j<$ '' Exxkrjffiaq Kxiarriv olde rov too Ssoo Aoyov xal A-qfiir 
 ovpyov rujv d-ndvTwv^ xal ol'dafiev, on ^ Ev dp^fj /ikv ^v 6 Aoyo?^ xai 6 
 A6yo<^ ^v Ttpo? rov dsov' yevofxevov dk Abrov xai w^d^pioTZov did ttjv "^/xer- 
 ipav ffioTTjpiav Tzpoffxavoojiev^ ou^ w? ^'/ffov iv 'iffw ys>6iie\/(», rcD ffcu/iarc^ 
 dAA' a>9 AsffTTOTTjv TrpotrXaSovTa rrjv ruu douXuo fiopipr^v^ xdX Arnxwupydv 
 xal Krinzfjv h xziff/iazc ys'^6/j.£vov. * * * Ourio ydp xa) ttjv tlar- 
 pix-qv aoTob Oeorrjza i-'.ytydxrxoixsv^ xal ttjV v^rjapxov uotoo napouaiav 
 -Trpoffxuvoofieu xav \4pei()fia'ATai diapprjyvuiotrtv iauroug. 
 
 See the rest of the above quotation, in English, on page loi, note, 
 above, and the context before it. 
 
Judex IV. hidex to Greek Words a7id Expressions. 743 
 
 T:poffy.uvrjTw<i^ the aJ.verb; Tzpoffxu'^T^zw^^ in a way to be bowed to, in a way 
 to be worshipped, to be worshipped, 164, note 338. 
 
 Remark. On pages 359, 360, above, and in subnotes " « " and ' * b 
 on page 360, will be found two passages quoted by the learned 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor from St. Cyril of Alexandria, for the 
 worship of the Divine Nature alone. I quoted Bishop Taylor' s 
 Latin alone, because he does not give the Greek original. He 
 quotes it from a lyatin translation in the Paris edition of A. D. 
 1604. I had some trouble in finding a copy of that edition, 
 but finally did so in the I^ibrary of the Union Theological 
 Seminary of New York City, which I was courteously and 
 kindly permitted to consult, for which I return my thanks to 
 its Librarian, Rev. Mr. Gillett, as I do for similar favors to the 
 Librarians of the General Theological Seminary Library of 
 the same city, to those of the Astor Library, and to those of 
 Columbia College Library. I here summarize results as to 
 the Greek reading of the aforesaid passages: 
 
 The first passage quoted from Cyril of Alexandria by Jeremy Taylor, 
 is found in tome Second of Cyril's Works, Paris, A. D. 1604, 
 page 159, inner column, C, and with its context is as follows; 
 Cyril says of God the Word: 
 
 *' Verus enim homo fadlus est nee idcirco verus Deus non est. Mer- 
 ito igitur modo ut homo, modo ut Deus loquitur. Quod 
 autem haec vera sunt, ipsum audias ad Samaritanam, quasi 
 Judaeorum loquentem, Vos, (inquit), adoratis quodnescitis^ ?ios 
 autem adoramus quod scimus, ut homo loquitur. Non enim ex 
 adorantibus Verbum est, sed cum Patre atque Spiritu Sanc5lo 
 simul adoratur. Adoreiit, inquit, ipsum omnes angeli Dei. 
 Nemo autem ignorat, nuUi prorsus naturae, praeterquam Dei, 
 adorationema Scriptura contribui. Scriptum est enim, Doyn- 
 inum Deum tuum adorahis et Ipsi soli servies. Sicut igitur 
 Filius quamvis vere adorabilis sit, tamen ut homo adorat; sic 
 quamvis Deus secundum Naturam sit, tamen Patrem ut homo 
 Deum suum appellat. 
 
 I translate this into English: 
 
 " For He [God the Word] was made very Man, and yet He has not 
 thereby ceased to be very God. Therefore He justly 
 speaks sometimes as Man, sometimes as Gcd. And that these 
 
744 Act I. cf Ephesus. 
 
 things are true hear Him saying as a Jew to the Samaritan 
 woman, Ye^ (says He), worship zv hat ye know not, but we worship 
 what we know, [John iv., 22]; [here] He speaks as Man. 
 For the Word is not a worshipper, but is worshipped together 
 with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Let all God's angels ^ 
 Scripture says, worship Him [Heb. i., 6]. But no one is 
 
 IGNORANT THAT WORSHIP IS PERMITTED TO NO NATURE AT 
 
 ALL BY Scripture but that of God. [For it is written], 
 Thou shall bow to the Loi'd thy God, and Him ofily shall thou 
 serve [Matt, iv., 10.]. So therefore though the Son [that is 
 the Word] is verily worshippable, nevertheless as Man He 
 worships: [and] so although He is God by Nature, neverthe- 
 less as Man He calls the Father His God [John xx., 17]." 
 
 The Greek original of the above is not found in the Paris edition 
 of A. D. 1604. It contains nothing but thel^atin rendering 
 of it and of the passage here following. 
 
 I find the Greek for the above Latin in column 117, tome 75 of 
 Migne's Patrologia Graeca, though the arrangement of Migne 
 is different from the Paris edition of A. D. 1604. I quote it 
 with more of the context: 
 
 The heading of the Greek of the sedion here, translated, is: 
 
 " That the Son is Consubstantial to the Father is proved by the fol- 
 lowing text, / go to my Father and your Father, and [to] my 
 God and your God,'' [John xx., 17]. Then, without any 
 break, comes the following, 
 
 ^O-zs. TYjv TOO dvdpWTTou fjLop^Tju 6 TOO Scoo Aoyo? 7t£pi£6dXsTo ^ xai dtd TijV 
 dnavTiov TjfxaJv ffwT-qpiav VTzdpy^w^j iv p-opfTj deoo^ xai^d yiypaTCTat^ 
 TSTarteivajxtv iaoTov, tots dij xai a>? dvdpiono'^ eff^V OTe dtakiyeTat, 
 oodev dduo6fj.e'^o? ei? tTjV do^av ttjv dsoTrpe--^ 8cd tootou. El yap ovTwg 
 avi^pwrco<^ yiyove, xai ob 8td tooto drriffTTj too ehat ^£09, xdv w? av- 
 ^pw7io<s yeyovu)'^ liyrj ra dvOpmito} TzpiTzovTa^ 00 dtd tooto to OeoTzpeTrk^ 
 d^twfia {^Tj/icw^^ffeTaC dXX* eaTat TzdXtv 6 awro?, <pepoixivrj<s km tyjv 
 oixovofMav r^9 iv Xoyot? TaTZztvoTTjTO?. "Oti 8e ocxovo/j.ixaJ<^ w? avi^pw- 
 7:o(s Td ToiaoTa <p-i](n^ xalib<^ oiztp dvdh](pt (ryy^ixa Xoyio re xa\ epya> 
 (fuldTTiov^ ivTeo^sv daojieda. Aiyti yap ttou Ttpd? ttjv iv t9j laiiapsia 
 yuvaJxa to ^looda'ixov OTzoxptvo/xevog rrpofftoTZOv' '* T/zeT? TrpotrxovelTS o 
 obx ol'daTS' T/fisIg Trpoffxuvoofxev o ofdafxev.^^ KaiToi twv Tzpoaxovoop-i- 
 vwv 6 Tld? ob TU)v TzpoaXfOvBovTiov i(7Ti. " Tlpoffy.ovqadTwGav yap auT<f^ 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 745 
 
 yrryoi, -avre? ciy^'eXot Oeou." Ka] 7Z£p\ fikv dyyiXXcov rj iripa? rrvo? r/)? 
 zar' aUToo<^ rd^eo}? oudh tpipsrai roiooro izapd ral? i^etacg Fpacpal?. 
 (Id yap dyyiXoi<s xsXeoerai rt? Ttpoffxovt'iv^ dXXd p.6>>a) 0£<p, FiypaTzrat 
 yap- '* Kbptov rov Seov aoo Trpoffxuvyjffsi?^ xai Abru) y.6.)ip XaTpeb(Tst<s.'^ 
 ''Q(T7r£p Toivuv r.puGxovobiJ.£vo<s 6 Tid?^ rzpixTxuveV^ (prj<nv ocxo'^upLCxdx;^ wg 
 w^}9pw7:o?, ouTio? orav 0ed<^ xard (puaiv viidpywv^ 6eov iaorob rov Ua- 
 ripa xaXfj, TtdXtv a*? avdpojTzo? oixovo[xtx<b<s^ ob dux rouro rob ehat Seo^ 
 ix^XrjdTJfferai' dAA' at? xard ipbaiv T[o<i^ ear at dk 6/jLoob(Tto?. 
 I translate the above Greek into English, premising that I am not 
 aware what the exact reading of the Greek was on which the 
 above Latin rendering of A. D. 1604 was based, though, if we 
 may judge from the Latin rendering, the translator must have 
 had a different text, at least in places, before him. 
 ''When the Word of God cast about Himself the form of the Man, 
 and though He was m the form of God as it is written, [Philip, 
 ii., 6], nevertheless humbled Himself for the salvation of us 
 all, then indeed He sometimes speaks even as Man, but in so 
 doing He does no wrong to His God-befitting glory. For 
 since He really became Man, and yet did not thereby cease 
 from being God, even though as having been made Man He 
 speaks the things which befit the Man, He will not thereby 
 damage His God-befitting dignity, but He will still remain 
 the same [Word], the humble expressions [that is His utter- 
 ances as Man] being referred to the Economy [of our Redemp- 
 tion]. And that He utters such expressions Economically 
 as Man, and so guards well both in word and deed the [con- 
 ditions of the human] form which He put on, we shall see 
 thence. For He says somewhere to the woman in Samaria, 
 where He speaks as a Jewish person, [or ''under a Jewish 
 mask," that is His body], Ye worship ye hiow 7iotwhat: we 
 luorship what we know; though the Son [by " So7i" Cyril here 
 means God the Word] is of those who are worshipped, not of 
 those who worship. For He [the Father] says. Let all God's 
 angels bow to Him, [that is to God the Word, as Cyril often 
 teaches]. And no such command is found in thk Scrip- 
 tures OF GOD REGARDING [WORSHIPPING] ANGELS INDEED 
 OR ANY OTHER ORDER LIKE THEM. For 710 One is com- 
 manded to bow to a7igels, but to God alone. For it is written. 
 
746 
 
 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thon 
 serve [Matt, iv., lo]. As therefore the bowed to Son [that 
 is, God the Word] says that He bows Economically as Man, 
 so when He [God the Word] being God by Nature, calls the 
 Father His God, He speaks again Economically as Man, but 
 is not thereby cast out of being God, but as Son by Nature, 
 [that is as God the Word] He will be of the same Substance' ' 
 as the Father. 
 £ here contrast the Latin translation of part of the above and the 
 Greek here: 
 
 Latin translation. 
 Nemo autem ignorat nulli pror- 
 sus naturae praeter quam Dei, 
 adorationem a Scriptura con- 
 tribui. 
 
 English translation of the above 
 Latin. 
 "But no one is ignoran^ that 
 worship is given by Scripture to 
 no Nature at all except that of 
 God." 
 
 Greek original. 
 
 Kai Tcepl fj.£v dyyiXlwv rj kripa^s tivo<; 
 r^9 xar^ abToh<^ rd^ew^ oodkv (pipe- 
 rat TotooTO Tzapd Tal<s i^£iac<s Fpa^aJ^. 
 Ou yap dyyikXot<s xeXeuerat rt^ npoffxu- 
 velv, dXXd povip 0ew, 
 
 English translation of the above 
 Greek. 
 *'And no such command is 
 found in the Scriptures of God 
 regarding [worshipping] angels 
 indeed or any other order like 
 them. For no one is commanded 
 to bow to angels but to God 
 alone. ' ' 
 The Greek differs in wording from the Latin here, but in sense they 
 
 both agree in forbidding worship to any besides God alone. 
 Jeremy Taylor's second quotation, from Cyril of Alexandria's The- 
 saurus as in the Latin translation of Vol. II. of his works, 
 Paris, 1604, page 158, inner column, C, I find in tome 75 of 
 Migne's Patrologia Graeca, in the Greek; I give it with the 
 immediate context as in the Greek in columns 113, 116, where 
 Cyril is answering an obje(5lion of followers of the heresiarch 
 Eunomius; Eunomius' objedlion to Christ's Divinity there is 
 as follows; it is prefaced by the following heading: '^9 i'^ d^^n- 
 eifftax; TU)v Eovoixioo. Ex Obje^-ione Eunoviii is the Latin ren- 
 dering in the parallel column there for the above heading. 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words a7id Expressions. 747 
 
 The English of the Greek is ' ' As from an obje£lio7t of Euno- 
 mius;'' Eunomius says, El 6ixoouai6'^ iffrt, ipr^aiv^ 6 Tcug TO) Ilazp}^ 
 t\ fiTj xal auro? ktrnv dYaf^d<$ ourw? ax; 6 Uaz-qp) Aiyst yap tzou -Kpcx^ 
 rtva 6 Xpi(7T6<^' *' Ti [is Xiy£C<^ ayad^ov^ Ohbti<^ ayaOo<^ ei /xij el? 6 i^eo?. " 
 '^Eva 8k eiTzwv^ iaurov e^at TiOsixev^ w^ ayaf^ov fikv ovra xai auzov^ ou^ 
 ooTio 8s uxTTzep av elifj xai 6 IJaTTJp. 
 
 That is the obj ecflion. Now comes Cyril' s * ' Solutio7i of the obje5lio7i , ' ' 
 or, as the Greek there is, Upb^ raora XOtri?. It is as follows: 
 
 JCupiov dTzoxakobffri<$ tov Ylbv r^9 r%La^ Fpayrj?^ 8cu(Tec<^ apa xai aurou ehat 
 Kupcovj xaX TouTo xard dXtjOeiav^ ^ Ttpd<$ ro?? aXXucg dpvijffrj xa\ rode. 
 Ei fikv yap ubx eivat Kbptov epsl?^ rdvavzca (ppoveX<s zal? d'£iac<^ rpa(paT<$ 
 xai zaj zabza XaX-jcravzL nv£u/j.azi, Zovz£d-£i[xivo<$ 8k xdt ipdaxwv auzbv 
 elvat Kupcov^ dff£6u)? iXsy^Orjffrj xai Kbptov Xiywv xa\ npoffxuvwv ov ob 
 ^ij? 6rjLOob(Ttov £lvat zw 0£a) xa\ Uazpi^ xai xzifffxazt p.dXXov ly Otai xazd 
 (pb<7iv Xazp£b£C?, To yap izipa<^ bizap^ov obffia<$ izapd zbv ovza dsov^ 
 obx uv £t7) (pbff£i 8£6^. Ka\ zobzou [idpzu<$ ij t^£ta Xiyoutra Fpaipij^ 
 " KbpLo<s 6 0£dg ^p-iov, Kbpio<s els i:(Tzc'^' fita ydp ^£6zrjzoi^ <pbffi^. 
 Ka\ ozi zabzTj pdvrj 8£l npoffxuv£tu^ dxobarj TzdXiv' ^^ Koptov zov 6£6v 
 (TOO 7rpo(jXOv-ij(T£i?^ xa) abzai pLOvo) Xazp£bff£t<$.^^ 
 
 I translate this into English. It is as follows: 
 
 *'Euno7nius, (who evidently has in mind, Christ's words in Mark x., i8, 
 " Why callest thou vie good? there is 7i07ie good but 07ie, that is 
 God, ' ' and is trying to pervert them into a proof that the Word 
 is not God, contrary to the plain assertion by the Holy Ghost 
 in John i., i, that He is), " If He says that the Son is of the 
 same Substance as the Father, why is not He Himself also [the 
 Son] as good as the Father [is]? For the Anointed One 
 (J Xptazo^) says somewhere to a certain one. Why callest thou 
 me good ? There is 7io7iegood but one, that is God. " And when 
 he said ''07ie,'" He put himself outside [of that One]; for 
 though He Himself is good also, He cannot be so good as the 
 Father is." 
 
 Cyril's " Solutio7i of the above difficulty.'' 
 
 ** Forasmuch as the Scripture of God calls the Son Lo7'd, thou wilt 
 therefore grant that He is Lo}-d, and that in accordance with 
 the truth, or thou wilt refuse to Him tliat title also as thou 
 dost to the rest. For if indeed thou wilt say that He is not 
 Loj'd, thou wilt hold an opinion which is contrary to the 
 
748 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Scriptures of God and to the Spirit which has said that He is. 
 But if thou agreest and sayest that He is Lord thou wilt be 
 convi(5led of impiety by applying [the titlej Lord to him whom 
 thou deniest to be of the same Substance as the God and 
 Father, and by bowing to [that is by worshipping] him [that 
 mere creature] ; and [so] thou worshippest a creature contrary 
 to Him who is God by Nature. For that which is of a sub- 
 stance other than God can not be God by Nature. And the 
 Scripture of God is a witness to this, for it says, The Lord 
 our God is [but] One Lord (M3.rk xii., 29; Dent, vi., 4); for 
 the Nature of Divinity is [but] One: and that wk must bow 
 TO THAT NATURE ALONE, hear again [the following words of 
 Christ], T/ioii shalt bow to the Lord thy God, ajid Him 07ily 
 shalt thou set ve,'' [Matt, iv., 10]. 
 
 I have rendered //aAAov rj above by * 'contrary to'' as making a Greek 
 idiom clearer to the English speaking reader. In Liddell 
 and Scott's Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1869, under i/a/la we read, 
 * * [laXhr^ ^ * * * is often followed by ob (where ob seems 
 redundant,) because in all comparisons, the very notion of 
 preference also implies refection or de7iial'\ But if any man 
 prefers ' ' rather than God by Nature " or " hi preference to God 
 by Nature;" the sense will not be widely different, for it wiL 
 mean that the Eunominan prefers to worship his mere created 
 Christ hi preferejice to the Orthodox uncreated Logos who is 
 God by Nature. 
 
 To conclude on this passage; Cyril in it teaches plainly again, i, that 
 all religious bowing, and, by parity of reasoning, every other 
 act of religious worship, is prerogative TO the Divine Nature 
 ALONE; and so is God's name. 
 
 And, 2, that to give bowing, or any other act of religious worship, 
 or God's name, to anything but the Divine Nature is an 
 ' ' IMPIETY ' ' . 
 
 3. This passage, which limits all worship to the Divine Nature 
 alone, of course agrees with the passage of St. Cyril on pages 
 79, 80, and with that on pages 225 and 226, in both which he 
 denies worship to Christ's humanity, and condemns it as 
 wrong. In the passage last above, both in the Greek and in 
 the English translation, he argues for the Divinity of the 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 749 
 
 Logos because He is bowed to, on the ground that all bowing 
 being prerogative to God alone, when it is ordered by God to 
 be given to any one in Holy Writ, it proves that that one is 
 God. See those two passages and the remarks there on them. 
 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus, Assertion X., col. 129 of 
 tome 75, Migne's Patrologia Graeca, writes: 
 
 E\ fxovu) Oeo) rcD zara ipuav^ to Tzpoay,Dvs.l.GOai Tzapd re yjuwv xai ayyiXXmv o^ec- 
 kerat^ iripoj 8e oode^A, xai i<p^ r^fiiov fxkv zideirat' ** Kopiov rov 0e6v 
 (TOO TTpoffxuvTJffst?,^^ dy/iXoi? 8k TO Jlveu/ia xeXeust Tzpoaxuvelv rbv Tidv, 
 xavd To^ ''^"OTav dk eiffaydyTj tov UpajTOTOxov si? rijv oixoofjLivTjv^ Xiyst' 
 KaX Tzpoaxovrjffdruiffav Aotu) Travre? ayyeXoc 0£ou.^* 0£d<^ apa iffrh 6 
 7:po(Txuvo6p.£vo<$ Tl6<^. riaj? ouv earai fxia deorrj?^ ei oox eaTt, xa6' 
 U[xd<$^ ofioouffio? Tip Uarpi J 
 
 I translate: 
 
 *' Since bowing is due, both from us and from the angels, 
 to God alone, Who is God by Nature, and to no other, 
 and since the obligation to bow" [to Him] "has been laid 
 upon us by the w^ords, T/ioii shall bow to the Lord thy God'' 
 [Matt, iv., loj, "and the Spirit" [evidently used here in the 
 sense of Divinity, and not of the Holy Ghost specially, for it 
 is the Father that speaks, Hebrews i., 6], "commands the 
 angels to bow to the Son, as we see in the w^ords, Ajid when 
 He bringeth i7i the First Broicght Forth i7ito the inhabited worlds 
 He saiih. And let all God' s angels bow to Him. The bowed-to 
 Son is therefore God. How then will there be [but] One Di- 
 vinity, if, as you say, He is not of the same Substance as the 
 Father?" 
 
 Here again Cyril argues that inasmuch as religious bowing is prerog- 
 ative to God, and is commanded by the Father in Heb. i., 6, 
 to be given to the Word, therefore the Word must be God. 
 The source of that argument is Hebrews i., 6, 8, and the con- 
 text, where the inspired Apostle Paul is proving, in effect, that 
 the Son, that is the Word evidently, is no creature, no, not 
 even a high creature like an angel, but is " Charaflcrof" the 
 Father's '' Snbsta7ice," is worshipped by bowing, and is called 
 God; in other words he is showing by all those facts that He 
 is God. Hence we find Athanasius arguing from " Character 
 of His Substance," Heb. i., 3, that the Word must be God; see 
 
750 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 the Greek of pages 325, 494, of the Oxford translation of Ath- 
 anasius* Treatises against Arianism, as an example, though 
 other mentions of it are found in that work, And the fact 
 that religious bowing is prerogative to God, and that it is 
 ordered by the Father to be given to the Word in Hebrews i., 
 6, is adduced by St. Athanasius, St Kpiphanius, and by 
 Faustin, a Presbyter of Rome, to prove that He must be God; 
 see the passages on pages 234, 235, 240, 251 and 252, in Vol- 
 ume I. oi Nicaea in this Set. See in the Oxford translation of 
 Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation in the Index of Texts, 
 under Heb. i., 3, and especially Heb. i., 6, and in P. E. Pusey's 
 edition of the Greek of Cyril, vol. vi., under those texts in the 
 Index Locorum * * * Scripturae, and in vol. vii., part 
 I, pages 98-106, 193, 240, 241, 270, and vol "Cn^ Index Locorum 
 * * ^ Scripturae. Inhis Anathema VIII. St. Cyril approved 
 by Ephesus, anathematizes every one who applies the name 
 God to Christ's mere created humanity, and much more does 
 he anathematize any and every one who applies God' s name to 
 any lesser creature, that is to any other creature, for Christ's 
 humanity is the highest and noblest of all created things. And 
 the third Ecumenical Synod approved the docflrine that every 
 act of worship is prerogative to God; see Ma?i Worship, 
 Worship, etc. , in the General Index in this volume. 
 
 But, alas ! in the middle ages men were given to the relative worship 
 of the Virgin Mary, martyrs, other saints, and alleged saints, 
 crosses, relics, pictures, and graven images, and they could 
 no longer argue that all adls of religious worship are preroga- 
 tive to God; and that wherever in Holy Writ any of them is 
 given to the Word, it proves that He must be God. But the 
 Reformation has restored that truth to us. Let us guard and 
 use it as a bulwark against all creature worship, for every kind 
 of it damns the soul of the deceived and misled to the ever- 
 lasting fires of hell. So God's Word infallibly teaches, and 
 the Holy Ghost led the Third Ecumenical Synod to formulate 
 it in effect as the do<5trine of the whole church, and to depose 
 Nestorius for denying it and for his relative worship of 
 creatures. 
 
hidcx IV. Index to Greek Words arid Expressio7is. 751 
 
 T.poffXriipet, taking to, in the expression t> -KpoaXr^^'ei -pondi-ou ixovoo 
 takifig to a man' s perso7i merely , 71, note. 
 
 -Kpociparoq 0e6?, new god; 9I, note. See also r^pocxuvriati^. r.pd(7(paTn^ 
 0e6?, again used of Christ's humanity, 92, note. See rirapro? 
 in this Index, and in that place. Cyril says that the Nestor- 
 ian Worship of Christ's humanity makes him a /ozirtk God 
 and changes the Trinity into a Tetrad. See also the English 
 and Latin of another passage of similar purport in the note on 
 pages 92, 93; another of like meaning is found in the note on 
 pages 93, 94, and pages 259, 260 of P. E. Pusey's translation 
 of 5. Cyril of Alexandria on the l7icarnatio?i against Nestorins. 
 
 izpoffwT.iv^ , Person, the conneH^ion of the two Natures of Christ in one 
 Person, not two Persons, confessed by Nestorius, 158, note 
 309. That connexion left the natures merely external to each 
 other and denied the Incarnation, ibid., and Nestorius else- 
 where: TzpoamTtoi^, Persons, 313, note 608. Ilpo^wnov is used 
 for God the Word alone, to the exclusion of His humanity, 
 in the following expression in note 616, page 313, 'E'A rotya- 
 
 podv TzpoffW-oj zd? h edayyeXtot? Trdffa? dvai'^eriuv <pu}vd?, UTtoardffet 
 pia TOO Aoyou ffeffapxwfxi.'Tj. Kopio?ydp el? 'Ir^ffoo^s Jptaro?, xard ra? 
 
 rpa<pd?. See more as to that use under ''Person'' in the Gen- 
 eral Index, and on page 649. Tzpo^mTzoi^ doffh ijyoov unoffrdasfft, 
 '* two Persons, that is Subsistences, that is Beings," 325, note 
 666. UpoaujTzov, Person, in the following expression of Valen- 
 tinus the Apollinarian, on page 431, where he is arguing 
 against Timothy, the leader of the other wing of the Apolli- 
 narians, the Cosubstancers, and explaining how his heresy 
 
 differs from theirs: ttoAw dk rjyvdyjffav Ti!i6f^£0<s, xai 6 8tddffxo.h>? 
 aoToo noXip.10?, xai ol ffhv aorol?, on fvo? ovto? too Tzpoa^r.oo too 
 
 Ssoo Aoyou, xai r^? Gapxd<;, etc. See the rest of this passage on 
 page 431 with its English translation. Compare also under 
 ffOfiTtponxuvtlTat. 
 
 nporaniv, proposition, in the expression xazd izpoTaub Tt xai Xbffiv, 11, 
 note 12, where see the English. 
 
 TzpoTtfiw, I prefer, 415. 
 
 iJptoT6Toxo,>^ Tov, the First Brought Forth, 89, note, thrice: UpwTOToxov, 
 in the expression of Cyril, where he explains the r()v UpwTOToxov^ 
 of Hebrews i., 6, ^ore ydp riroxt, xa). w^ TzpwTtvuiv h r.dai^ voe'iTat 
 
752 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Tpiororoyjx;^ 89, note: See under -poffxovio^ and note 582, pages 
 225, 226, where as above, Cyril explains the expression to 
 mean God the Word: note 589, page 228. 
 
 eapxtoMvxa^ put 071 flesh, 431, note; 456, note 916. On the difference 
 in meaning between ffapxdo) and ivaui^pwrziw^ see the article 
 next below. See also under i>a>i'^paj7irj(Tavzo^ in this Index. 
 
 <Tdpxw(rc<^^ Infleshy that is Incarnation, a case of: ffdpxuxTLv^ putting on 
 flesh, 458, note 924, where the Word which me2iiis l7icarnatio7i, 
 I7 flesh, is perverted into a denial of it by Nestorius. On the 
 same page that heresiarch twists himan, (in Greek havy^pm-t]- 
 3-jv), into a denial of the Inman of God the Word's real Sub- 
 stance in His humanity. Compare note 922 there. Kutyches 
 includes yh'^r^<yvj^ that is bii^th, in the I7ima7i, that is in the I71- 
 flesh {(jdpxoiGii) on page 343, note. See also under (pv(n<i in 
 this Index. The difference between <Tdpxio(n<s^ hflesh, and 
 kvavy^p(b-!:rj(n(;^ I7ima7i, is that the former asserts merely the p7it- 
 ting 071 of flesh, which is only part of a man, whereas the lat- 
 ter affirms the putting on of a whole man, that is of body, 
 soul, and mind, and is therefore much the stronger expression. 
 Just the same difference exists between aapxow^ I put 071 flesh, 
 and havi^pajTzioj^ / put 071 a 77ia7i. Compare also haW^pio-Tj(7zoj^ 
 in this Index. 
 
 <Tdp^ and its cases: adpxa^ flesh; see under <P^xXt\ and 80, note; 81, note; 
 and 633, under M^^a, and 85, note. See under lovooaiaaTai \n 
 this Index. 
 
 The following are Apollinarian heresies on Christ's flesh, some held 
 by the Valentinian wing, others by the Timothean wing, page 
 105, note; Christ's flesh was ohx i$ Mapia^s dXX' ix r^? iauroo 
 
 ovaia<;. ^ E^ iauroo fi£TaTzoi-q(Ta<^ adpxa 6 Aoyo^. ^E^ ^Pyft'S ^^ "^^ 
 Yl(p ri]v aapxwdy) ixst>7]v <p6<nv eTvat, axtKTTov xai k-Koopdviov Xiyo'^re'i 
 
 TTjv TOO Xpt(7ri)o ffdpxa. i^ oopavoo to (Tw/j.a. See the Knglish there. 
 JipcffTo? ou xoixo<?, dXX' £7rot»^ai/jo?, 105, note. See also the Latin on 
 that page. See more on Apollinarian views as to Christ's 
 flesh or body on pages 104, 105 above. See more on the Val- 
 entinian view of Christ's flesh and its worship, and on the 
 
Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 753 
 
 Timothean opinion, on page 431, note; 432, note, where dififer- 
 .ent errors on Christ's flesh are mentioned. (On the Nestorian 
 view as to Christ's flesh, its worship, etc., see gw ttj aapxi, to- 
 gether with the flesh, 117, note; and Cyril and Nestofius in the 
 General Index in this volume). 
 
 xa-za adpxa, according to the flesh, as regards the flesh, 128, 
 note 195: ^v T7j ffapxi, in the flesh, 457, note 919: l^ia-'^ 
 (ffdpxa), own, or peculiar flesh, 240, note, xard ffdpxa edvarou, 
 death according to flesh, 241, note, riyv iauroo adpxa^ His 
 own flesh, 272, subnote. y-^rd r^? Ibia^ aapxd?^'' with'' or 
 ''within His own flesh,'' 323, note 662: see also under 
 liezd. did (japxd?^ by flesh, that is in flesh, 458, note 926. 
 xard fTdpxa, according to flesh, 459, note 935, twice. v ^«/>^, 
 the flesh; 477, note 1018. See ?^£ov. rijv adpxa^ the flesh, 474, 
 note 1007, where the Eucharist is the topic, t-^^v ^a/^xo?, of 
 the flesh, 474, note 1007. 
 
 The verb (^i^oi and different forms from it; ai^oi, I worship, in the ex- 
 pression, aifjio aoTov, w? rrj? Tzavroxparnpo? eixova 6e6rrjTo<i, 83, 
 note; and in the notorious profession by Nestorius of his rela- 
 tive Man-Worship, and Cyril's refutation of it on page 85 and 
 after; I quote Nestorius as there, Acd rbv (popohvra^ <prj(7\, rdv 
 
 (popou[xv^ov (Ti6u)' did Tov x£xpufj.fJLivov Tzpoffxuvu) zov <paiv6p.£v(r^, 85, 
 
 note; and ffi^oj in the expression on page 86, note, ^td ri]v rob 
 
 ^affdiax^ 4>oyjf> ffi^o) to (Tojfia abroo, did tov xexpufifii^ov npo<Txov(b to<> 
 
 (paivoixevov. See also under Tzpotjxovm and its derived forms and 
 
 TtpoffxovTjffi?. (Ti6(OfjL£v TOV TYj Osia Govaiptio. Tip TzavToxpdTopi Oeoi (TUp.- 
 
 Tzpoaxovobixsvov ^vOpojnov, page 464, note 954: see the English in 
 the text on the same page. ffiSe^v, to worship; 88, note. See 
 also under dv{^pio-KoldTpri<$ in this Index. 
 
 trsrrrwv in the expression, ^^t.twv too XpiffTob pu(TTr)pi<uv, august mysteries 
 of the Anointed One, Ixxviii., note "a." 
 
 (TXT^vow, to tabernacle, to dwell, 343, note. 
 
 aToXri, a garment, said of Christ's flesh by an Apollinarian, 431, note. 
 
 The noun ^yMi<i and its cases: ^yMt^i, relation, 96, note: ^/^^^e^ by re- 
 lation, 223, note; 256, note; 459, note 935; 5331 n^^'""^ relation, 
 used in a heretical sense by the Nestorians in the followmg 
 expressions, xaTd ayiaiv^ by relation, that is relatively, 63, note; 
 65, note; and xard ye tyjv e^wOsv ayiffiv, according to the external 
 
754 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 relation, 84, note; (riiav^, relatio7i, 96, note; 651, 652, twice;: 
 fryjaei, by relation^ 95, note, and 96, note. 
 
 The adje(5live (ryjTu6<; and casesof it: <t/£t:xi^'v, in the expression, ob (jytz- 
 urr>>^ not relative, obffy. iTzon^naro rijv ivoix7]fTt'^, He has not made His 
 indwelling relative, 66, note, and page 637; (rx^ru-j and (rysTixyjv^ 
 96, note: 651; 652, twice, w? xazd fxide'^iv ayerui^v, as by rela- 
 ative participation, 218, note 563: cyzrixri Tzp<my.w7)<n<;, relative 
 worship, 219, note 563, twice. <7;ifeT£zo9, relative, Pusey's mis- 
 translation of, 219, note 563, thrice: o-/£r£x>yv, relative, 223, note; 
 256, note; 459, note 935; 532, text, and note " «" there. 
 Pusey, who mistranslates it, could render it correclly when he 
 would, 532, note ''a;'' (ryeru-qv, relative, 533. Compare under 
 Gwd<ftia, and ivoixTjfft?: (ryertxi^v, relative, 651; 661. 
 
 The adverb ffyenxwr. aysruux;, relatively ; 62,, note; 67, note; ob Gytxv/.S)^^ 
 7iot relatively, 66, note: aysruib^ auvr^fp^ai zai Aoyui, relatively 
 co7ijoined to the Word, 67, note. ayeTixu)^ relatively, 80, note; 
 81, note: 459, note 935. Compare under auvdtptm. ayeruuxs^ 
 relatively, 96, note. Pusey's mistranslation of those terms to 
 blunt the edge of their testimony against his own relative wor- 
 ship, and against Roman and Greek mediaeval and moderu 
 relative creature worship, which are Nestorian, 96, note. 
 Compare 532, note " «" there. See o-yva^esa, and auix-Kpoamvio)', 
 (Tyenxux;, 256, note. (TyeTuw<i, relatively, 532, and 651, 652. 
 twice. 
 
 GuyTcpacjei, 0eob fxsv kvav{^pwTn^<Tavro<s, d\>y^pUiTzoo 8k d'e(oi^ivro<s, 441, note, 
 
 where see in the text the English translation. 
 
 (TuyxpoTTj^vat, to be celebrated; 483, note 1027. ffoyxporooixivriv^ celebrated, 
 46, note. 
 
 (Tvyyp-qixari^zt 0£o?, co-called God; 467, note 966. 
 
 ai>xoipavxia<^, sla7ider; 1 56, note 298. 
 
 <Toii6avMrj, upshot; 452, note 894. 
 
 ab!i6oXov^ A Syfnbol, A Creed, xxii., note *'<:/" xxiii., note 'V/" 
 GbiJ.6ohy^, Creed, that of Nicaea, 129, note. See Ix^^^aiv^ Expos- 
 ition or Statement; and 133, note; 572. Theodosius, Bishop of 
 Mastaura, says of the Faith of Nicaea, "Eixp-ho) xai aw^zb^ixat, 
 
 GUix(p6^^a) oufTTj, oj? e<p7jy, ttj twv Flaripiov (/'uyuJcpsAe'i ^il^afrxalia^ 139, 
 
 note. See also the long Greek passage in note 256, page 147, 
 which praises the Faith of Nicaea and that set forth in Cyril's 
 
hidex IV. Index to Greek Words and Expressions. 755 
 
 Shorter Epistle to Nestorius; as does also note 267, page 
 149: iSt Iuii6dko)^ the Creed oi Nicaea, note 267, page 149: roD 
 Iuii66lov^ of the Cr^^^ of Nicaea, 152, note 281. 
 
 c6fi6oXov^ the Eucharistic Symbol, and aby-Sola^ the Eucharistic Symbols; 
 GO!x6okov^ Symbol, 279, note. Eiyap ix-^ aizidavsv 6 Vr](Tou(S, rivo<sff6{j.- 
 6oXa TOL rekoofxeva; ''For if Jesus did not die, of whom are the- 
 consecrated things SymbolsT^ 237, note: Iiorrjpiou Tzddoo<i ar.op- 
 p-fira (TopSoka^ that is ** the secret Symbols of the Saviour' s S2iffer- 
 ing,^' 237, note, rd poffzixd ai>p6oXa^ " the mystic Symbols,'" in 
 the Lord's Supper; 282, note: rd 6p6ptva <jbp6oXa^ ^' the visible 
 Symbols' ' of the Kucharist. 
 
 (Tupnpoffxuve'iv^ to co-bow to, to co-worship, 84, note; and 86, note, in the 
 
 following expressions, xai w<$ izepov iripip ffopnpoffxuvsJv opoXoywv^ 
 
 See (Tx^(Tt?, (TxertxTj^ and (Tuvd<psia. Andrew of Samosata, the Nes- 
 torian, states St. Cyril's position as follows, ki^'ojv [Cyril] aurd)^ 
 
 perd (Tapxo<s deJv Tzpoaxovslffd^at^ aTzayopeuiuv dk aup-KpoaxmtXad^at r^ 
 {^eoTqrt rijv adpxa, ** He [Cyril] says that He [the Son] must be 
 bowed to within flesh but forbids the flesh to be co-bowed to with 
 His Divinity,'" 225 note. See also under Tzpoaxwih^ where this 
 passage is found again, and on pages 97, 98, note, where some 
 of the words before it are given. Compare pages 102-128, 
 note, especially page 117 where still more of the context is 
 quoted. It is found again on page 356, note. I quote the 
 Greek as on page 117, where more of it is given, (papiv w? Tzd'^w 
 
 kni<7Tripovix(b<5 kniffxricps [Cyril of Alexandria] ro?? trhv T^ (Tapxl 
 Tzpoffxuvs'iv Tip h\ xai rip abrai Tlui l3oukopi>oi<^^ w? iripou rfvo? ovro?- 
 Tzapd TO Ihv TOO MeTa' onep auTo? h^rjxev^ w<$ Tzpo^ipr^Tai^ Xiyiov aurou- 
 p£Td (rapxo?, etc., as above. I translate this part: 
 '* In additio7i to the foregoing we say that he has very unlearnedly ajid 
 very tinskilfully ce?isured those who wish to bow to the One and 
 the same Soji together with His flesh as thoiigh the [preposition] 
 ptTd were something other than the [preposition] <7yv, which very 
 assertion he himself has made, as has bee^i said before;" then 
 comes as above " [by] his saying," etc. Compare page 633, 
 where part of the passage is quoted again, though GopT.po<Txo- 
 ve~i(T^^at and the rest of it should form part of the quotation there. 
 (TopnpofTxu^^el?^ thou co-bowest, that is co-worshippest, 82, note. 
 cn>i-nuay.o'jz~i(70(u, to be co-bowed to, in the expression, oV tt^ &e6~ 
 
756 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 TTjTi fTu/j.7:po(Txu>e~t(Tdat der^ ai/ojyrw? e^affzev, 83, note: andro <70in:poff- 
 xuvslffdai xai ao'^do^d'^tffi^ai^ the expression co-bow and co-glorify, 
 page 97, note; and 117, note; in both these cases the Nestor- 
 ian Andrew of Samosata speaks and explains his sense of 
 those expressions. Noteworthy is Cyril's Anathema VIII., 
 adopted by the whole Church at Kphesus, where auinzpoaxov- 
 
 £U6at occurs. I quote it all: E't rt? roXfia Xiyetv Tov avalfjip^Uvra 
 avd^pwTiov aop-Tzpoaxuvelffd^at dslv tcD deai Aoyoi xai ffwdo^d^sffi^ac xat 
 ffoyxpyj/iaTi^etv 0edv^ w? srepov iripoj^ to yap Zh\^ as). Tzpofni^^itj-V^ov 
 rooTO voelv dvayxdaet' xat od^\ dij pallov jxta Tzpoaxovrjaei rt/xa tov 
 '' EixfxavouTjX^ xa\ piav Auraj rijv do^oXoyiav dvaiziiir.et^ xar^o yiyo^^e adp^ 
 
 6 Aoyo^^ avdr'^tpa £(jtw; that is in English, as in the text of pages 
 331 > 332? where see it. (TupTzpo^xuvslffi^at^ to be co-bowed to ^ 57^5 
 598. <ToiJ.7:po(Txuv£lTai, is co-bowed to, page 225, note 581. ffufx- 
 7:po(Txu>e'iTai, in the expression on page 431 of Valentinus, the 
 leader of the milder wing of the Apollinarians, ^ ffdp^ rw A6yw 
 ffoinrpoffxovefTai^ the flesh is co-bowed to with the Word. See the 
 context where, illogically enough, he precedes the above state- 
 ment by the contradidlory one, ob Tzpd? cdpxa i) T:po(jxuvrj(n<;^ the 
 bowing is not to be done to the flesh. au!x7:puffxovo6[ievov^ co-bowed 
 
 to, in Nestorius' expression, ai6u)u.tv rdv r^ deU (Tuva<p£ia T<p Tzav- 
 roxpdropi deip (JuinzpiKTxovouiievov avf^pwiiov^ 90, note. This place 
 
 is found with some of the context on page 464, note 954, as 
 follows, where Nestorius says, dabyxoTov roivuv riju rwv ipbatw^ 
 
 Tf)p(i)ixzv ffovdcpsiav ofxuhtyw/xev rov iv dvdpWTTO) Oeov' ffiSiofxsv tov rfj 
 f^eia Gwa(pzia ru) r.avroxpdropi 0£<p (TU/JLTzpotrxuvou/ievov avOpajnov. In 
 
 English this is, "Therefore let us keep the unmixed conjoin- 
 ment of the [Two] Natures. Let us confess the God in a Man. 
 Let us worship the Man co-bowed to with the Almighty 
 
 God in the divine CONJOINMENT. ' ' GOintpoaxuvobiievov, in the 
 expression to ydp iripoj ffuinzpoffxovobixsvoy ^ 82, note, where Cyril 
 is speaking, ' ' For that which is co-bowed to with a^iother thing, ' ' 
 
 etc. autxr.po(jxovoovTe<s^ in the expression, ob^ o^? avd-pojr.ov Gup.- 
 r.poaxmoovTe<i rib Aoyoj iva pi] tooto ei? {pdvraGpa Ttapeiaxpiverat^ did 
 rod Xiyeiv to Ibv dXk' w^ £va xa\ rov abrbv T.poGxwoovTe<s^ art pij dl- 
 
 Xozptovrob Aoyoorb ffwpa aurou^ 79, note: the first six words are 
 quoted again on page 356, note. The above Greek and the 
 most important part of the context is found in note 183, page 
 
Index IV. hidex to Greek Words and Expressions. 757 
 
 79. The English translation constitutes the text of pages 79- 
 85, where see it. This passage is most important and wholly 
 authoritive as being part of a document which was approved 
 and adopted by the whole Church at Ephesus. 
 
 cw^ together with, 97, several times; see also tx^ra aapxo^^ and fxsrd 
 wherever it occurs with the genitive in this Index, and the 
 different forms of Tzpoaxuvib^ / l)ow to, and aoinzpoaxovio}^ / co- 
 bow to; and ^yv, page 108, note, and 117, note, several times; 
 aw zl ffapy.i^ together with the flesh, 117, note; and 226 note 
 583; <Jb^>^ together with; 598; 631, twice; 634. 
 
 aovdT.ru)\ forms of; o-yvarrret, conjoi7is, 84, note. <Tova<fMvT£<;, conjoined, 
 in the expression of St. Athanasius, a/A' J^? rw i'^ uupavoo A6yoi 
 (Tu^m<pynvrer, we, as having bee7i conjoined with the Word Who 
 came ont of heaven, 421, text. See note -47 there on that use 
 of auvdizTO), 
 
 aovdiptia, Conjun5lio7i, cases of in tne xOiiowmg expressions; aovdtp^iav^ 
 Conju7in.io7i, in the expression, <Tuvd<petav^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^ 
 i'=iodiv re xa\ (Tyenxyjv^ etc., 66, note; 68, note; 69, note; 637: 
 see the English there, did (ro^^dcpetav dk <7ysrurjv^ because of a 
 relative Co7iju7iS2ion, 85, note. Compare ffyeruTjv^ <^yM^'', and 
 ax^Tixibr. and in Nestorius' expression, on page 89, note, ^a\ 
 
 TOTS rri rou 0euu ffuvatpsca dsoXoyel rd ^ar^ofievov' ha fiT^ds]? d\>d-pu}- 
 
 TtoXdrpriv rov XpiffTiavov uTzoTtrsurj. See the English there. Com- 
 pare under i>oix7)<n>. (To>a<peta in Nestorius' profession of Man- 
 Worship on page 90, note, ffi^oj/isv rd> r^ 0eta ffo^mtpzia rcD Travro- 
 xpdropi 0£(p (ro[i7:poffxovo6{xsv(>v w^Opio-ov. See the English there, 
 <Tovd<ptta^ Co7ijiinaion, in Nestorius' profession of worshipping, 
 
 xbv rfi dtU (TO'>o.(ptia ru) Osoj Aoyip <TO[nzpo<Txovo6iisvov w^f^pujizov ^' the 
 Man CO- bowed to i7i the divine Co7iju7i5lio7i with God the Word,'' 
 118, note; <ju'^a<peia^ by conjn7ictio7i, 459, note 935; aytzixr^v <Tovd- 
 ^eca'^, Relative Co7ijim£lio7i, 118, note. See ^y//7r^o<Tzyv/f<> and 
 Gyiat.^^ (TxeuxTJ. Cyril on page 118, note, rebukes Andrew of 
 Samosata, one of his Nestorian antagonists, for the language 
 last cited above and tells him, edst ydp pdXXov eiTreiv^ liew/iev rd'^ 
 
 rod Seoo Aoyov yevofieuov av^'^pwrov xai xprj,'mriXo'^ra Otov xai iv djf^pio- 
 Tzorrixi 7:po(Txo'M)oiievov^ art xa\ <po(7ti 6z()^ irrrt xa\ ix 6toi> -i<pry^e IJar- 
 
 fi(k. See the English there. Nestorius uses (TO'^d<f£ca to express 
 his hc-esy, the root from which all his other heresies proceed, 
 
758 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 of a mere external connecflion of Christ's two Natures as 
 opposed to the truth that God the Word's Eternal Substance 
 dwells in that Man whom It put on in Mary's womb, (^o^a- 
 <peiaq^ T^?, of the Conju7in,io7i; 8i, note; 459, note 935. ^rovd- 
 ^££av, Conjun£lio7i; 82, note; 219, note 565. Nestorius 
 confesses the connedlion of the two Natures for [or "in"] a 
 conjoinment of one Person, rr^\> toutcuv ei^ivd^ itponwixou ffwd<f£tav^ 
 158, note 309: explained, 163, note 333; 163, note 334. a>9 
 
 ayiupiarov tt/jo? "^TjV ■&£{av ipbavj 'iyor^ ri^v <76>v«^££av, aS having the 
 inseparable [external] co7ijimS2ion with the Divi7ie Nature^'''' 
 Nestorian language, 337, note. amd^peia^^^ co7ijun^ion; 464, 
 note 954. 
 ffuvdo^d^w^ I co-glorify; see under aofxTtpoffxovw and its derived forms; 
 
 and 97, note, to ffu/nrpoffxuvelffd-at xai ffuvdo^d^effdat, 
 
 ffuvdpa/xe'tv, co7icur, co-ru7i, 40, note. 
 
 ffovedpeuwv^ co-sittiug, 1 1 7, note. <TuvTj3p£U(Tev^ 118, note: see under M^rd 
 
 ffapxu<$, 
 
 ffovedpiou^ assembly; 189, note 450. 
 
 (Tuvepyov^ co-worker; 466, note 965. 
 
 aw iriptp^ together with another^ 89, note. 
 
 ffuv-qyopo^^ co-speaker or advocate, 81, note; 82, note. 
 
 ffovKTzdixevoi^ Co-sta7iderSy 246, note. 
 
 Govodoo^ assembly; 189, note 450. 
 
 luvouffcaffvat, Co-substa7icers, 104, note; see G(i>p.a\ I^eontius writes that 
 
 they held, oiioobawv to ix Mapia<s ffibiia r^ too Aoyoo deorrjTi^ 104, 
 
 note, where see the English. Athanasius says that they held 
 of Christ's flesh, that it is a adpxa Trpoatmviov Ttva xaX (Tuuouaia). 
 
 fx^vrjv^ 105, note, where see the English. See their views fur- 
 ther explained in the note on page 431, where their leader, 
 Timotheus, is mentioned, and where Athanasius is cited by 
 the Apollinarian Valentinus, as saying that the Co-substancers 
 came out of Hades. See also page 432, note. 
 
 ZovTayfia, that of Ralle and Potle, 249, note. 
 
 auvcpdd^ i7i co7isona7icey 146, note. 
 
 o-aJjota, body, 128, in the expression, 'i5t6v re awfia to -fjixiov inotJJffaTo, 128, 
 note 190: see the English in the text of pages 100, loi, iau- 
 roo (T(u/j.a^ 273, subnote *'/:" The English is on the same page. 
 On the Timotheau error that the body taken from Mary is 
 
hidex IV. Index to G^-eek Words and Expressions. 759 
 
 Consubstantial with the Divinity see under oixoobaw^^ and on 
 pages 431, 432, note, aoiiiaro^ in the expression of Gregory 
 
 of NazianztlS, aixiyri (TWixaro<s xai Ttbv ona (TU)fxaTo<s^ 440, note 805. 
 
 See the English translation in the text there. 
 
 TO. aura, the same things, 143, note. 
 
 reXetwi^et?^ made perfect, made complete, 469, note 977; compare note 
 
 986, page 470. 
 rhapzo^^ a fourth (Person); said of the Nestorian belief as to Christ's 
 
 humanity in the expression of Cyril to Nestorius on page 92, 
 
 note, TTo}? Iv d-p6voi<s opdrai^ t^9 dvajzaTio i'^sottjto? riraprog axmsp zc? 
 -^fxlv fisra rijv ayiav Tptdda T:p6(r(paTo<; Oedg d>adsd£tyiJ.i>o(;'^ 00 xaxar.i- 
 <ppixa<i xotvov wApcoTzo'^^ rrj xrcffsi ro ffzoa<^ i~VM)U)v] a passage of 
 
 similar purport is given in Latin and English in the note on 
 pages 92, 93; and another on pages 93, 94 in the same note. 
 rirapTo?^ a fourth Person again: on page 379, note, we find, 
 
 el 8k d-^ Ti<s liyoi <juxo(pavTa)v Ti]v dXrp^eiav^ ore, vai^ xexdi^txtv h ds^ca 
 TOO TlaTpd<s iduuJ<s av»9/>a»7ro9 <7u>7}]j.p.i'^u(^ ro) Aoyuj^ xard p.6vqv rijv 
 iffOTTjza T^9 d^ia<$' obxiri fiovoyevcog ehat ^tj^tc rrj? dyia^i Tpiddo<i rbv 
 dviordrio xai pLO'^rj xai aor^ -Kpinovra d-po-^ov^ dkX* TJdr) rr? ^,a?y riTapTO<s 
 obzoffi^ Tzp6(j(paz6<s re xa\ ysvrjTd<^ ineiffxpivtrat 0edg, perd zrjv 6poo6<nov 
 
 xa\ dyiav Tptdda. In English this is, ' ' But now if any one by 
 way of slandering the truth would say, Yes, He has sat down 
 at the right hayid of the Father merely as a man conjoined to 
 the Word in an equality of dignity only; no longer does 
 he say that the loftiest throne above belongs to the Nature of 
 the Holy Trinity only, even that throne which is prerogative 
 to It alone [or ** which befits It alone"] but there is at once 
 brought in to us this here some fourth Person, a new and 
 created God, after the Consubstantial and Holy Trinity." 
 Pages 79-98, and indeed all of note 183 contain important 
 utterances of Cyril against Tetradism. 
 Athanasius is as strict as Cyril, his disciple and follower, in exclud- 
 ing Christ's humanity from being reckoned as a part of the 
 Divine Person of God the Word, and from being a part of the 
 Trinity. For in Montfaucon's Colleclio Nova Patrimi, tome 2, 
 
teO Aci I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Paris., A. D. 1707, page 106, and also on page 216, tome v. of 
 Galland. Biblioth. Vet. Pair., Venet., A. D. 1769, and in col. 
 1324, of tome 26, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca^ St. Athana- 
 sius gives the following judgment, which is interesting as 
 against Tetradism; that is, against the notion that the Divine 
 Person of the Word received any addition to its Personality 
 when the human nature was added to It. In other words he 
 includes, like Cyril, nothing in the Second Person but the 
 
 L/OgOS. 'H liivroi Tpuj.^^ xal Xa6<hr<><; amiia ix Mapta<5 too Aoyoo^ 
 Tpcd<s i(TTiv 00 de^ofxivY) napan^rjxTjv oods acpaipeffiv^ diXXa aei reXeia 
 i(TTt. Kai iv Tpiddi uia Osottj^ kTnytvioffxsrai, 
 
 In EngHsh this is, 
 
 ** The Trinity, even since the Word has taken a body from Mary, is 
 certaiyily [only] a Trinity, and receives no addition and suffers no 
 subtraflio7t, but is always complete, and [only] one Divinity is 
 acknowledged in a Trinity. ' ' 
 
 In columns 1321, 1322, tome 26 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, the 
 above fragment of Athanasius is set down as from ' ' Royal 
 Codex 2280, of silk (or ''cotton"), of the XlVth Century, 
 page 13." Nothing is said in Migne against its genuineness. 
 It is not given there among the doubtful nor among the spur- 
 ious works ascribed to St. Athanasius. They are in tome 28 
 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. 
 
 Here the human nature .which God the Word took in Mary's womb 
 is made no part of His Hypostasis, that is Divine Substance, 
 that is His Divijie Person, but only its wrapping, its temple, 
 as Athanasiu*^ terms it on pages 98-101. 
 
 The fully developed Ecumenical use and Ecumenically defined sense 
 of the expressions, Ix doo <pb(Teujv, from Two Natures, iv fJuo <pi>- 
 (T£fTt, in Two Natures, irpoffioiiov, Person^ and TTrd^ra^rf?, Subsist- 
 ence, Substance^ is found in the utterances of the Six World 
 Synods only, that is in their Two Creeds, their Definitions, 
 and the Epistles approved by them. Especially definite on 
 such themes are the XIV. Anathemas which form part of the 
 Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. God willing, 
 they will all appear in this work. The Creeds and parts of 
 the rest may be found in Greek in Hahn' s Bibliothek der Sym- 
 bole. Second Edition, Breslau, 1877. Anathema V. of the 
 
Index IV. hidex to Greek Words and Expressio7is. 761 
 Fifth World Council, has what is as strong as Athanasius 
 
 above, namely, Ovrt yap Tcpoff^^rjx-qv Tzpoatbizoo Tifouv VTinffTCLfTtio^ 
 irtedi^azo ij dyia Tpcdg xai frapxun^ivTo? zoo ivd<s r^? dyiag Tpiddo^^ 
 6eod Aoyou, that is, " For the Holy Trinity has received no ad- 
 ditio7i of a Person, that is of a Subsistence [or * Snbstance'^'\ 
 even though 07ie Person of the Holy Trhiity, God the Word, has 
 put on flesh.'''' 
 
 reTiiirjiiivov, honored, 67; note: see under 'lirdrr^Tt. 
 
 riroxs^ He brought forth, or caused to be brought fort fi; see under Upio- 
 TOToxov in this Index. 
 
 T£Tpd8iov, four sheets^ a tetrad, 449, note 880, and 450, note 480. 
 
 ztrpaaad, a four, a quaternion, 450, note 880. 
 
 reux^ai^ in se^ions, 450, note 880. 
 
 TtyJHv, begotten, 457, note 919. 
 
 Tv'^\)oi)ixt\>o<$^ nursed, suckled, 434, note 776. 
 
 zifxTjrtxijv Tzpoaxuvrjaiv, honorary worship, 337, note. 
 
 roTTov, place ^ 22, note 24. 
 
 roTzorrjp-qrwv^ place holders, 202, note 514. 
 
 TOTtozTjpwu yjijuv, holdi?ig our place, 202, note 514. 
 
 rpia, three; 450, note 883. 
 
 rpiixrjvaiov * * H« 6t6\i^ three mofiths old * * * G^fl?, 416, note 
 716. The English is found on page 412, text. 
 
 rpiffffd, three sheets, a ter^iion, 450, note 880. 
 
 TpmyuDv^ eating, 474, note 1007, twice. 
 
 zuTzov^ t6'^^ the type; 282, note: zutzov (tstztov r^yf^ xai <Ta)Z7jptov, ^' How dost 
 thou suppose that its type is worshippable and saving?'' Said 
 by a Nestorian to an Apollinarian or a Eutychian, 283, note, 
 o zonog 7tp()ffxuvrjzu<s xa\ (TeSdfTfxco?^ *' the type [is] to be bowed to ajid 
 venerable'' said by a Nestorian worshipper of Christ's created 
 and separate humanity and of its type, the bread of the Eu- 
 charist, to an Apollinarian or a Eutychian, 283, note, zoo 
 Tzdy^ouq zo\> zuTzuv inideixvu?^ ' * Showing the type of the suffering, ' ' 
 283, note. 
 
 obazo^, oj water in the expression, i$ o8azo? xa\ izveufxazu^^ out of water 
 and the Spirit, 168, note 355. 
 
762 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 ulo^&Gia^, adoptioji to sonship, in the Twelfth Anathema of the Fifth 
 Ecumenical Council, which anathematizes that heresy of 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia; see it in Greek and Enghsh on pages 
 423, 424, note 758. Adoptionism. as we see there, includes 
 denial of the Incarnation and results in relative worship of 
 Christ's mere humanity, and therefore is anathematized by 
 the Fifth Synod of the Universal Church in its Anathema XII. 
 Compare its Anathema IX., and Cyril's Anathema VIII., 
 which was approved at Ephesus. 
 
 r/09, Son, Nestorius on, 450, note 883; see under Ntax6pw^. See also 
 note 905, page 453: Ho?, o; see under d:lbi.o^\ Ylod, dtd, through 
 
 the Son in the expression, h^aara twv dpiufiiviov Tzenpa-x^ai dia6e- 
 6aiou{ievo<s Tzapa Jlarpd? 3t' Tiod h IlveufiaTi, Cyril "contends" 
 
 that whatever Christ did, ''was done by the Father, through 
 the Son, by the Spirit,'' 316, note 621. kldlria^v ijfxlv h Yiai^ 
 hath spoken to us in the Son, 477, note 1016. 
 
 UTzayopeuffavTo?, dictated; r52, note. 
 
 vnavtyvuxTr^^ has been read, 42. 
 
 uTrap^cv, existence: 76, note 175. 
 
 br.iXaSov^ have understood: 422, note 758. 
 
 br.oxpinzi, dissimulation, hypocrisy, of Peter, etc., in Galat. ii., 13. 
 
 bTiop.vyip.acsi, Records, 294, note 519: roiv bTzopvripdTiov, of the records, 
 415, note 708. 
 
 uTzopvriffei, to admonish, to remind, 44, note; 48, note. 
 
 vTzoGxaav^, Substance in the expressions, r-ad' bnoffzaaiv^ according to Sub- 
 stance, 61, note 156; oTzocfrdaeiov ^ used of the two substances, that 
 is the two natures of the Son, 67, note; and Xapaxrrip rrj? bizoff- 
 rdaeio? aurou, Character of His Substance, notes 165, 167, page 
 73. xayV br.oarant^, 74, note 169: bra'xrraGi?, substa7ice^ 74, note: 
 rrjv xarV br.odTaaiv evaj(Tiv^ 128, note 1 84. See ivtoffcv: xad' bizoa- 
 raatv, according to Substaiice, Substancely, 215, notes 547, 548: 
 220, note 570: bizoazdaeai duah ooze prjv TrpoddtTZot? xazapepi^opeu^ 
 241, note: '* We do not part the expressioiis used of our Saviour 
 in the Gospels either between two Subsistences, or further77iore 
 between two Persons," 241, note: bizoazdatiji, Beiftgs or Hypos- 
 tases 313, note 607: braxjzdffeffi. Hypostases, that is Perso7is, 
 
 4615 note 960: ^i'£ zoiyapoov IJpoffWTzaj ra? ^v z<n<^ eoayyeXcoc? Trarra? 
 dvaOeziov (pcovd^, br.offzdnei pta z^ zou Aoyou ai(7apxu)iiivT^\ In 
 
Index 11/, Index to Greek Words ajid Expressions, 763 
 
 English, ' ' Therefore all the expressions iii the Gospels are to be 
 ascribed to [but] Oiie Person, to [but] One Subsistence of 
 the Word Who has put on flesh/' 313, note 616. Here 
 TzpoffdiTKii and vnoffrdffe;, are evidently used for God the Word 
 only, Who, however, has put on flesh. So the same Greek is 
 used by Cyril in note 660 on pages 322, 323, with the addition, 
 
 Kupto<s yap el? 'Ir^ffou^ Xpiffzo^s, xazdrdi^ rpa<pd?; 649: rd^ OTZoffrdtrsc'^ 
 
 fierd Ti]v ivaxTiv, the Substances after the Union, that is the Sub- 
 stance of Christ's Divinity and the substance of His humanity, 
 323, note 664: here plainly Cyril, approved by the Third 
 Synod, confesses two substances, that is, of course, two Natures 
 of the Son after the Union, which opposes the Eutychians, 
 who acknowledged but one, and that the Divinity. Yet how 
 often is he slandered as a Monophysite by those who do not 
 understand him! How strongly he opposed those who would 
 deny the permanence of the Two Natures we can see even in 
 the Fragments of his Work against the Co-substancers (Synus- 
 iasts) which have reached us. h vr.oaxdau * * * £'<5:x^^ 
 *' in its 0W71 Perso7i,'' that is ''in its own Substance,'' 316, note 
 634; xa^V br.onraniv^ ''according to Substayice^' 318, note 641; 
 explained, 322, note 660; "va iiii xd^ o-o(TTd(Tei<^ <7oyxiio[x£v^ "in 
 order that we may not confoufid the Subsistences,'' ' that is ' ' the 
 Perso7is'' of the Trinity, 442, note 821, said against mixers of 
 the Two Natures by Gregory of Nazianzus and read as an 
 approved passage at Ephesus; oTzdaraffi?^ Subsisie7ice , 442, note 
 821, five times; iripa? oTzoardffew^ rj ouffia?^ " of a7iother Sub- 
 sistence or Stcbsta7ice" than the Father, 442, note 821; xaf/ 
 kxdnrriv ^ ^ -^ vizotsraavj, to each 0716 of the Three Persons 
 separately; 468, note 969. 
 vffrepov, afterwards or later; 47, note. 
 
 ipaiv6y.tvov , that which appears; 459, note 935, twice; rw <paiv6iievov^ he 
 who appears, that is Christ's humanity, 472, note 1000, where 
 Nestorius speaks; 474, note 1007. 
 
 fpdvra(Tii.a in the expression, p.ri rooro £f9 ydvzafffia, "lest this'' (be 
 brought in) "for a pha7itas77i," 56, note: ^ dvr a fr, ma in the ex- 
 
764 Ad I. of Ephesus, 
 
 pression, At^ TO//?;? (pdvra<T[xa^ '' lest a fancy of a cutihig,'''' that 
 
 is of a division, 56, note. 
 <ppt'M)6Xa6oo<;^ of an i?ijured or smitten mind, 163, note 334. 
 (fofruov^ statural, 306, note. 
 <po<n<s^ nature, and cases of it; fpixji'^^ nature, in the expression, xarrjp^ 
 
 pu)(Trrj(T£\> rj avd-pibizoo (fbffi^ rijv ap.apTiav^ 3 1 6, note 627; See the 
 
 EngHsh on page 264; (pbavj, used of the divine Nature of God 
 
 the Word, 319, note 645: p^ra dk r^v havi^pwizr^aiv too Osou Aoyoo^ 
 TooriffTi, peTO. ttjv yi'^vrjciv tou hupioo rjpibv ^/-^(too Apiffzoo ptav 
 ipoGiv 7:po(Txov£lv^ xai raurrjv 6e<)o aapxioOhro^ xai ha'^i^pio7:7]<7w>To<;^ 
 that is, ' * Si7ice the himan of God the Word, that is si7ice the 
 birth of 02ir Lord fes2is Anointed, he [Eutyches] worships [but] 
 07ie Nattire, and that the Nature of God who took flesh and ptd 
 on a Maji,'' 343, note; this utterance was not faulted when he 
 uttered it but only his denial of the dodlrine of the Two Na- 
 tures of Christ, for he admitted only His Divinity. Athan- 
 asius the Great, worshipped God the Word within the temple 
 of His body; see " Athanasius'' in the General Index to this 
 volume. ipb(Tv^ in the expression, hmf^ii^ xaxa ipuciv, united as 
 vespers [His] Nature, 217, note 558; ipoai^ in the expression, 
 
 oh yap ivol ra? ^ixrei? i] iaoripia^ for equality of honor could not 
 ujiite the natures, 217, note 560; ipixrv^^ Nature, in the expres- 
 sion of Butyches on page 344, note, opoXoyu) ix duo <p6atuiv 
 yeysvrjfTi^at tov Kbptov rjpwv Tzpb r^? fvcy^-cw?, ptra dk rijv evtofftv fiiav 
 <pb(nv opoXoyw. In English this is, " / confess that before the 
 Unio7i our Lord was of two Natures, but after the U7iio7i I con- 
 fess [only] Oney On page 344, note, ix dbo ^6^£wv, of two 
 Natures; on page 437, note 794, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, 
 confesses the Two Natures of Christ, and their difference; see 
 the Greek and English there. Noteworthy is the fact that it 
 was one of the passages of normal Orthodoxy read by Cyril's 
 Presbyter Peter to guide the Council in making up its decis- 
 ions on the Faith. It was probably chosen by Cyril, or at 
 least approved by him before being read, as it certainly was 
 afterwards. This serves to refute the slander of those who 
 accuse him of Monophysitism; ^t^Vef? p.k\> yap dbo^ ''For there 
 are Two Natures f this is the statement of Gregory of Nazi- 
 anzus in a passage of normal Orthodoxy cited from him in 
 
Index IV. hidex io Greek Words and Expressions, 765 
 
 Adl I. of the Third Ecumenical Council to guide it in defining; 
 which shows how free the Holy Synod was from the heresy 
 of One Natureism, and that Man Worship, that is Creature- 
 Worship, which is its logical and necessary sequence; -rmv 
 <puGtiD\>^ of the Natures, 450, note 883, where Nestorius con- 
 fesses the Two Natures, though he held them to be apart from 
 each other, and so denied the Inflesh of God the Word's Sub- 
 stance. So on page 464, note 954, he writes, dcoyxoTov roi>uv 
 TTjv Tu» <puffewv Tr]pibfjL£v o-uva^erav, etc., *' Therefore let us keep 
 the unmixed cojijomment of the Natures,'' eic:. Direcftly after 
 he professes to co-worship the humanity of Christ with His 
 Divinity. 
 ^a>9, TO ix zou ^wto?, the Light out of the Light, 56, note. 
 
 /aT/)e, Rejoice; 419, note 735. 
 
 Xapaxrijp^ character; see oTtoffzatrtv. 
 
 ;jfa>£9 and its cases: x^P^"^^ Seod, by the favor of God, or by God' s grace, 
 503, text; ;ifa/?£rt zoo Xpinzoo^ by the grace of the Anointed Oite, 
 note 266, page 149. ;^«>f9, ^, the favor, 418, text; x^P^'^^y by 
 favor, 418, text; 470, note 985. 
 
 Xapizou); one form of this verb is found on page 419, note 736, namely 
 x£'j^apLzw[ihri^ favored. 
 
 y^apzia^ papers; 4 1 5, note 704. 
 
 ;^/?^o9, debt; 193, note 484. 
 
 Xpiezai dk w<s civi^pajTzo?, bid as Man He is anointed, 216, note 55r. 
 
 Xptffzoixdxot^ fighters against Christ, 20, note. 
 
 Xpiaz6(s, Aiioiyited, and its cases: Xpiazbq^ 6, the A7iointed One, xxi., 
 note '*//" 62, note 156; 72, notes 161 and 162; 82, note; page 
 88, note; iii, note, thrice; 128, note 196; 317, note 635; 352, 
 note; 156, note 299; 200, note 529; l\> Xptazw^ in A7iointed, 148, 
 note 260: zoo Xpiazoo^ of the A?ioi7ited Oiie, 152, note; 219, 
 note 566: Fva * * ^li Xpi(Tz6.>^ ''one Ayiointed''' 323, note 
 661: ^TTj XptcTzw^ on or of Anointed, 325, note 668. See f^eofopo^ 
 in this Index: zoo Xpiazou, the A^iointed, explained by Cyril, 
 328, note 671; 450, notes 881, 883: Nestorius* explanation of 
 6 Xpi(Tz6<s, the Ayiointed One, 460, note 943; compare 471, note 
 
766 Ad I. of Ephesus. 
 
 994; 477, notes 1009, loii: ^ov Ae<jTJ)T-i)v Xpiarov^ the Master 
 Anointed; xxvi., note "^." tw dsff^zorrj Xpiffrui^ the Master 
 Anointed, 137, note: Xpiard^ used by Nestorius for both Na- 
 tures of the Son, whereas Cyril uses it, by Economic Appro- 
 priation, for God the Word, though the anointing was done 
 to the humanity only, 157, note 307. 
 
 Xpia-coToxo^^ '' Bri?iger Forth of an Anointed Man,'' preferred by 
 Nestorius to ^zotoxo^^ '•' Briyiger Forth of God,'* to help his 
 denial of the Incarnation, 161, text, and note 317: 200, note; 
 see Ssot6xo<; and d>i^pio7:or6xo^. On page 451, note 889, Nes- 
 torius calls Mary, ^ Xpiffroroxo^ 7ra/>t9^yo?, the Virgin Bringer 
 Forth of an Anoiyited [Man];" so he does in note 904, page 
 453 also; XpiGToroxo^^ Bringer Forth of an Anointed Man, 635. 
 
 XO)peru(TxoT:o<i, Chorepiscopus , that is " Country Bishop," 495, note 1105 
 
 W 
 
 i'rupip^ vote; see ^ov^r^ <p'n^V- 
 
 (poxri, cases of; 4>oxr[ , in the expression, adpxa i(pux<ofiiv7jv <pux^ ^(>r^^Vy 
 
 69, note: 4'oxrj, soul, 441, note 815. See there as to the Apol- 
 
 linarian error of denying to Christ a mind, 
 ^o/uov, soulish; 306, note, twice. 
 ipoxioweXeJ^ soul-profiting; see aop-Solov. 
 
 9. 
 
 (i)[x6iiuxev aau'^-qf^io^^ he swore i?i an unusual manner, Ixxviii., note '*«." 
 wp.(i)vu[xov, or 6/j.6'^u/j.ov^ of the same tenor, 144, note. 
 ajffKOTare, most holy, OX most devout, 41, note. 
 
Corrcclions and Additions. 767 
 
 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS. 
 
 Very great care has been taken with the proofs of this volume, nearly 
 every page having been read at least six times. But, nevertheless, a remark 
 often made is true of it, "No work is published without some errors." For 
 some will be found in the about 860 pages. All of any importance are given 
 below, though a large part of the following list are mere typographical errors, 
 in the way of misspelling, wrong pundluation, etc., which some would not put 
 into the Errata, because the intelligent reader might be expedled to correct 
 them himself, and because to mention them might give the inexperienced the 
 false idea that the proofs have not been carefully «ead. But, nevertheless, it 
 has been deemed best, as they are marked, to print them. 
 
 Furthermore, in strict justice, it must be remembered that part of what 
 here follows comes under the head of Additions, not Corrediions. 
 
 Page xvi., line 28, page should be pages. 
 
 Page xvii., line 19, Syrian should be Syrians. 
 
 Page 1., line 38, Metropolitan should be Metropolitans. 
 
 Page Iviii., line 8, Stancaoro should be Stancaro. 
 
 Page Ixxii., line 23, the quotation ends with Constantinople. 
 
 Page Ixxv., to note "c" add, "The Greek here seems corrupt. The Greek original and 
 the Latin translation do not agree in places." 
 
 Page 12, line 3, after " court,'' insert in brackets, " literally ' to our divine court;* " Greek, 
 -() flelov ijuoiV a-rpaTOTttdnv. 
 
 Page 13, note 18, line 7, Nestorious should be Nestortus 
 
 Page 14, line 9, Ireenaeus should be Irenaeus. 
 
 Page 18, line 6, KTioiiaTokarpkia should be uTiGfiaToTiaTpeia. 
 
 Page 18, line 29, appaling should be appalling. 
 
 Page 28, line 17, Taua should be Tava. 
 
 Page 47, line 9. the comma after " them " should be a semicolon. 
 
 Page ^2, note 140, collective should be colleCive. 
 
 Page 76, note 173, line 4, the period before " Mtgne's " should be a semicolon. 
 
 Page 79, note 183, line 2, Kvpiov should be Kvfuou; in line 6, a?^V should be dAA", and 
 £VOf should be ivdc. 
 
 Page 86, note, line 4, there should be a comma before i]id. 
 
 Page 86, note, line 21, a//.' should be d'A?i\ 
 
 Page 87, line 24 of the note, ov should be oij. 
 
 Page 92, line 27 of the note, kirivouv should be kmvocbv. 
 
 Page 92, line 33, Mem. should be mem. 
 
 Page 93, line 41 of the note, after "placet " add, " See also pages 259, 260 of P. E. Pusey's 
 translation of S. Cyril 0/ Alexandria on the Incarnation against Ntslorius.'' 
 
 Page 100, line i of the note, the period before oh should be a comma. 
 
 Page 100, line 7 of note, add, " But on the words ' serve Him [God the Word alone] ' com- 
 pare pages 729-736." 
 
768 Act I. of Ephesus. 
 
 Page 104, line 25 of the note, separate " unio " from " non." 
 
 Page 104, line 41 of the note, " o/a Man " should be in brackets. 
 
 Page 105, line 26 of the note, ai>KC)(^ should be aapKudr/. 
 
 Page 105. line 33. f-ov should be etzov. 
 
 Page 115, line 25 of the note. " Nzs " should be " JVeslorius'. " 
 
 Page 118, line 21 of the note. One should be one. 
 
 Page 1 18. line 52, Soul should be soul and Hts should be hts. 
 
 Page 119, line 3 of note, " dnt" should be " dut." 
 
 Page 119, line 9 of note, avBporov should be avftpuTrov. 
 
 Page 131, line 22 '" //oljy" should be " hoh'." 
 
 Page 145 lines 2 and 12, " Holy " should be " holy." 
 
 Page 149, line 10, Nicaeas should be Nicaeans. 
 
 Page 149, line 2 of note 267, read rcj before ^vuj36?i(f). The tj in ra> is broken. 
 
 Page 162, note 327, VLII. should be VIII. 
 
 Page 173, note 371, cous. should be cons. 
 
 Page 184, note 438, line 5, Kiyi. should be kin. 
 
 Page 220, note 574, add, " John xx., 17. See page 670." 
 
 Page 225, note 580, line i, put comma after Apostates. 
 
 Page 225. note 5S2, line 34, WpororoKov should be irpuroTOKOv. 
 
 Page 234, note, line 13, after "and" add "'so." 
 
 Page 235, note, line 20, after " Antitypes," add in brackets, "that is, AftertypeS." 
 
 Page 236, note, line 14, after " Chapters" add " delivered at Ephesus." 
 
 Page 267, subnote " r> ," deprehenditur is but one word. 
 
 Page 288, note, line 29, the quotation begins with " the power." 
 
 Page 329, note 671, line 15, after " statement " add " that Apollinarians held. " 
 
 Page 343, note, line 32, rdvrrjv should be Tcivrrjv. 
 
 Page 360, subnote ' ' a," line 2, " c. i " should be " c. 1." 
 
 Page 377, note, line 14, put comma after " it," not a period. 
 
 Page 379, note, line 16, after " here " should be inserted the words " Fourth Person." 
 
 Page 393, line 12 of note matter, after "and" and before "all" add, '•Cyril in effect 
 teaches that." 
 
 Page 415, note 714, line 3, put comma after "death." 
 
 Page 419, line 7, insert in parentheses " 733." 
 
 Page 422, note 755, line 3, insert after " time, " " before his death, or." 
 
 Page 429, note, line 38, e^ayoplx; should be k^ayopdq. 
 
 Page 431, note, line 16, " 23 " should be " 2, 3." 
 
 Page 439, note 802, line 11, the quotation should begin with " sufficient," and Hanmond^s^ 
 in line 16, id., should be Hammond's. 
 
 Page 450, note 880, line 6, avriKn should be avriKa. 
 
 Page 454, note 910, line 6, put a comma after yevvTjdEV, and another after " conceived." 
 
 Page 454, note 911, line 9, use parentheses instead of the brackets there. 
 
 Page 462, text, line 6, " Ihe " should be " the." 
 
 Page 462. note, line 13, " cou." should be " con." 
 
 Page 464, note, line 19, the quotation ends with " worship." 
 
 Page 465, note 960, line i, the " a " in vKoaTaceai should be " d." 
 
 Page 466, note 963, line 3, put a comma after "' Scholia,' and another after "conjoined," 
 in line 6, id. 
 
 Page 472, line 14, remove bracket from after " Man," and put it after " means." 
 
 Page 523, note "a," in line i, "awrf" should be ''and." 
 
 Page 590, note, line 29, change "t " to "1 " in the last syllable of "absolutely." 
 
 Page 596, line 8. " En" should be " Eu." 
 
 Page 628, line 4 from loot of page, put a comma after " 6. " 
 
 Page 666, above line 3 from foot, put " Z " as a heading. 
 
 Page 696, line 25, avf^u, should be avBpij). 
 
 Page 699, line 3 from top, put the semicolon before " 454 ," not the comma* 
 
 Page 701, last line, e^TjyijaEuv^ should be put after l^apxov. 
 
Corren,ions a7id Additio7is, 769 
 
 The following gift to the fund to Publish the VI. Ecumenical 
 Synods, from my highly esteemed namesake, who is now 94 years 
 old, and in active work, came to hand too late to be put in its 
 proper place in the List of Donors on pages liii.-lv. It is therefore 
 put here. 
 
 REV. JAMES CHRYSTAL, D.D., Auchinleck, Ayrshire, 
 Scotland. 
 
 N. B.— On pages 102, 103, 346 and 356, I have declined to 
 express my own opinion as to the lawfulness of worshipping Christ's 
 humanity with God the Word, that is, on the co-worship of His two 
 natures by some who admit the Incarnation. At the close of this 
 volume I repeat that declinature, and wish to be understood on all 
 that topic as speaking only historically of the opinions of St. Cyril of 
 Alexandria, St. Athanasius, and others, as I have said on page 103, 
 note, top, At some time in the future I may give my own personal 
 view. Of course, however, I condemn the Nestorian co-worship of 
 them. 
 
 For the present I deem it enough to say that, as all Orthodox 
 men agree that Ephesus has decided forever that Christ's perfect and 
 sinless humanity, the highest of all mere creatures, may not be wor- 
 shipped separately from the Divinity of God the Word (see above, 
 pages 108- 1 12); therefore much less may any lesser creature be wor- 
 shipped, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs and other saints, or any 
 archangel or angel, or any other creature whomsoever, and that no 
 mere thing may be, be it the cross, a picture, a graven image, relics, 
 a communion table, an altar, or any thing but God and that directly, 
 not through any of those alleged mediums, relatively or otherwise. 
 And any one guilty of any of those sins, if a clergyman, is deposed, 
 if a laic, is excommunicated and anathematized. This, in effect, is 
 the Holy-Ghost-led and irreversible decision of the Whole Church, 
 East and West, in its Third Ecumenical Synod. Compare pages 96 
 and 112 on that matter, and indeed all of pages 102-128, aye, all 
 note 183, pages 79-128. 
 
TO ALL CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS. 
 
 Note 7vell, the most important and most authoritative Christian documents next 
 to the Scriptures now tra?islated in full for the first time. A translation 
 into English of the Six Ecumenical Councils, the sole utterances of the 
 Whole Church before its division into East and West in the Ninth Cen- 
 tury. Translated by fames Chrystal, M. A., and others. 
 
 The terms are, Three Dollars a Volume to Subscribers to the Set; Four Dollars 
 to all others. Books sent Prepaid on receipt of price. All orders and 
 subscriptions should be forwarded by Money Order, Cheque, or Regis, 
 tered Letter, to James Chrystal, 255 Grove Street, Jersey City, New 
 Jersey, U. S. A. 
 
 VOLUMES ALREADY PUBLISHED. 
 
 Vol. I. of the First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea, A. D. 
 325. It contains all its Genuine Remains in Greek and English. 
 
 What Did the Whole Church Decide at Nicaea? 
 It decided: 
 
 1. That the Logos, that is, the Word (John i., i),is eternal God, of one Sub. 
 stance with the Father, and condemned the creature-worship and polytheism of 
 Arianism; and put forth a Creed in which that dodlrine is proclaimed; (Synodal 
 Epistle). 
 
 2. It fixed the time of keeping Pask, that is Easter, (Synodal Epistle). 
 
 3. Forbade self-castration, (Canon I.); and 
 
 4. The ordination of the newly baptized, (Canon II.); and 
 
 5. Forbade clerics to have synisact womeu. except close relatives, etc., 
 (Canon III.) 
 
 6. It orders the Provincial System to be maintained everywhere, and 
 guards the rights of Metropolitans, (Canons IV., V., VI. and VII.) 
 
 7. Diredls how the Catharist clergy are to be received and dealt with, 
 (Canon VIII.); and 
 
 8. Rejedls from the Presbyterate unworthy persons who had been ordained 
 without examination, (Canon IX.) 
 
 9. Fixes the time of Public Confession and discipline of those who had 
 fallen into the sins of invoking creatures and worshipping images, (Canons X., 
 XL, XII., XIII. and XIV.); and 
 
 10. Forbids the translation of Bishops, Presbyters, or Deacons, from one 
 diocese to another, under penalties, and invalidates the ordination of a man 
 belonging to one diocese by the Bishop of another, without his own Bishop's 
 consent, (Canons XV., XVI.) 
 
 11. Forbids any cleric to take usury, and filthy lucre, under pain of 
 deposition, (Canon XVII.) 
 
 12. Forbids the presumption of Deacons in the Eucharist, and in sitting 
 among Presbyters, (Canon XVIII.) 
 
 13. Orders how the Paulianist heretics are to be received, and commands 
 them to be baptized again and reordained, (Canon XIX.) 
 
 14. Commands all to stand in Prayer on the Lord's Day and from Pask to 
 Pentecost, that is, from Easter to Wliitsundav, (Canon XX.) 
 
Volume I. of Ephesus, A. D. 431. What does it contain ? All 
 of Act I. of the Council. 
 
 What did the Universal Church do in that Act? 
 
 It condemned, deposed, and anathematized Nestorius, because, 
 
 1. He denied the Incarnation. 
 
 2. Because he worshipped by bowing, etc., Christ's mere separate human- 
 ity, which is the Worship of a Man {avOpuirolaTpeia), as St. Cyril of Alexandria, 
 the leader of the Orthodox, terms it, that is, the worship of a creature,contrary 
 to Christ's law in Matt, iv., 10. 
 
 3. Because he held to one nature Consubstantiation in the Eucharist, that 
 is, to the Consubstantiation of Christ's humanity, not at all His Divinity, with 
 the bread and wine there, and to the eating of Christ's real human flesh in the 
 rite, and to the drinking of Christ's real human blood there, which St. Cyril 
 brands as avSpi^irocpayia, that is, Cannibalism. The Council approved St. Cyril's 
 teaching of the real absence from the Eucharist of the Substance of Christ's 
 Divinity and the substance of his humanity. 
 
 Of course, in condemning, deposing, and anathematizing Nestorius for the 
 error of worshipping by bowing, prayer, or by any other act, Christ's mere sep- 
 arate humanity, which all admit to be the highest of all mere creatures, the 
 Universal Church has much more {a fortiori) condemned by necessary impli- 
 cation all who worship by bowing, prayer, or by any other act of religious 
 worship, be it prostration, incense, or any other, any creature less than Christ's 
 sinless and perfect humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, martyrs, or any other de- 
 parted saints, or any archangel or angel or any other creature whomsoever, or 
 any inanimate thing, be it relics, crosses, picflures, graven images, communion 
 tables, altars, clerical vestments, the Bible or any part of it, or any thing in the 
 Universe except the Eternal Substance of God. 
 
 And in condemning, deposing, and anathematizing Nestorius for asserting 
 the real presence of the substance of Christ's humanity in the Eucharist, and 
 the Cannibalism of eating it there, and in asserting the real absence from the 
 rite both of the Substance of Christ's Divinity and the substance of His 
 humanity, the Universal Church has established forever the dodlrine of the real 
 absence as the Holy-Ghost-approved-and-guided and unchangeable faith of the 
 Universal Church, and has forbidden all real presence views, be they Consub- 
 stantiation or Transubstantiation, and all their results of Cannibalism, and the 
 idolatry of worshipping the bread and wine as God the Word and Man, or as 
 either God the Word, or Man, or any alleged real presence of one or both of 
 Christ's Two Natures in, under, or with the bread and wine. 
 
 What else did the Universal Church do in the Third Ecumenical Council 
 after Act I.? 
 
 That will be told in the proper place in another volume of Ephesus. 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 1010654151