Skip to main content

Full text of "Authoritative Christianity. The third world council ... which was held A.D. 431, at Ephesus in Asia"

See other formats


^tcU^ 



^a^v^L•^^ ^''U" 



γ Jf f έ r ^ L• • 



■^ 



^D 



f 



AUTHORITATIVE CHRISTIANITY. 



THE SIX SYNODS OP THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH, ITS ONLY 

UTTERANCES, "THOSE SIX COUNCILS WHICH WERE 

ALLOWED AND RECEIVED OF ALL MEN," 

SECOND PART OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ΗΟΜΙΙ,Υ AGAINST PERIL OF 
IDOLATRY WHICH IS APPROVED IN ITS ARTICLE XXXV. 



THE THIRD WORLD COUNCIL; 

THAT IS THE THIRD COUNCIIv OF THE WHOI.E 
CHRISTIAN WORLD, EAST AND WEST, 
WHICH WAS HELD A. D. 431, AT 
, EPHESUS IN ASIA. 

VOLUME III. 

WHICH CONTAINS A TRANSLATION OF ALL OF ACT 

VII., AND ARTICLES ON TOPICS CONNECTED 

WITH THE THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD, 

BY 



Act VII is noteworthy as guaranteeing with the rest of the utterances 
and canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils (the only World Synods 
which made canons) the rights of every national Church, including its 
autonomy, so long as it holds to the faith and discipline, of the VI sole 
Ecumenical Synods, and rejects the creature worship and image worship 
of old Rome, Constantinople the new Rome, and all the other creature 
invoking and idolatrous Communions, all whose bishops and clergy are 
deposed and all whose laics are excommunicated by Ephesus for those 
paganisms. " 7/ he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a 
heathen man and a publicans^' Matt, xviii., 17. With such a deposed or 
excommunicated " idolater'' we may not even eat, i Corinthians v. 11. 



JAMIBS CHnYSTJLI^, PUBLISHER, 
Jersey City, New Jersey, U, S. A. 

190 8. 



493106 



ii^^i^i 



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1907, by 

JAMES CHRYSTAIy, 

In the Office of the Eibrarian of Congress, 

at Washington, D. C, 



Though in Volume I. of Nicaea, Volume I. of Ephesus, and Volume 
II. of it, it is said in the copyright, "All rights of translation reserved," 
the James Chrystal aforesaid is perfectly willing that anyone may trans- 
late any or all of those volumes into any language provided that he neither 
adds to nor takes away from the sense and the work as in English. And 
after his death anyone may republish this set in English on the same 
conditions. 



■SN^^ji;^^ 



DEDICATION. 

το THE CHRIST-LOVING RUSSIAN PEOPLE, WHO HAVE SO 
LONG BEEN AN EASTERN BULWARK AGAINST THE ATTACKS 
OF THE FOLLOWERS OF THE FALSE PROPHET OF MECCA. AND 
HAVE DONE SO MUCH TO LIBERATE CHRISTIANS FROM THEIR 
YOKE. MAY ALL RUSSIA'S SONS. AMONG THE CONFLICTING 
POLITICAL THEORIES AND EXPERIMENTS OF THE HOUR, SOON 
LEARN THAT WHAT SHE MOST NEEDS IS TO THROW AWAY ALL 
THE IDOLATRY OF THE IDOLATROUS SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA, 
HELD A. D. 787, AND OBEY STRICTLY AND FULLY THE HOLY 
SCRIPTURES. AND ENFORCE ON ALL AND SPREAD EVERYWHERE 
OBEDIENCE TO THE ORTHODOX SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS WHICH 
THAT HERETICAL CONVENTICLE CONTRADICTS, AND WHICH 
TEACH US TO WORSHIP GOD ALONE. AND MAY ALL CHRIS- 
TIANS SHUN THE ECUMENICALLY CONDEMNED SINS OF INVOK- 
ING CREATURES AND WORSHIPPING IMAGES AND CROSSES AND 
OTHER MATERIAL THINGS. AND ALL HOST WORSHIP, FOR ALL 
WHICH GOD CURSED US ALL IN THE MIDDLE AGES, AND BE 
AGAIN UNITED IN NEW TESTAMENT ORTHODOXY AS THEY 
WERE BEFORE, AND THEN WITH GOD'S BLESSING, WITH THEIR 
RESISTLESS ARMIES BANISH THE TURK AND THE MOOR FROM 
ANCIENT CHRISTIAN LANDS, DEPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 
THE DECISIONS OF THE VI. SOLE ECUMENICAL SOLE SOUND 
SYNODS OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH. EAST AND WEST, ALL 
CREATURE WORSHIPPING AND IMAGE WORSHIPPING BISHOPS 
AND CLERGY, AND EXCOMMUNICATE ALL LAICS GUILTY OF 
ANY SUCH WORSHIP. OR OF HOST WORSHIP, AND RESTORE 
SOUND CHRISTIANITY EVERYWHERE. AND HASTEN ON THE DAY 
PREDICTED WHEN THE KINGDOMS OF THIS WORLD SHALL 
BECOME THE KINGDOMS OF OUR LORD AND OF HIS CHRIST^ 
AND HE SHALL REIGN FOR EVER AND EVER (Revelations 
xi., 15). THEN CHRIST'S PRAYER WILL BE ANSWERED AND HIS 
KINGDOM WILL HA VE COME AND HIS WILL WILL BE DONE 
ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HE A VEN (MaTXHEW vi., 10.) 



PREFACE 

AND 

LESSONS TO SOUND CHRISTIANS FROM 
EPHESUS. 

This volume concludes the Acts of Ephesus, which now, for 
the first time, appear in English or, so far as the translator knows, 
in any other modern language. 

The translation was greatly needed. 

1. To expose and to refute the old lies and mediaeval slanders 
on the noble Synod to the effect 

(a) That it called the Virgin Mary Mother of God (1). 

(b) That it approved and authorized her worships a most 
baseless atid infernal misrepresentation, which his been the means 
of luring tens, aye hundreds of millions into that sin of creature 
worship contrary to Christ's law in Matthew IV., 10, and sending 
them down to the hopeless grave of the creature worshiper and the 
idolater, for the Redeemer has warned us all in that passage against 
all worship of any but God, " Thou shall worship the Lord thy God^ 
and Him only shalt thou serve, ^^ Matthew IV., 10, That was a 
favorite text of Cyril against the Nestorian worship of Christ's 
humanity, as was also Isaiah ΧΙ,ΙΙ, 8: '* / am fehovah; that is my 
navie: and viy glory will I not give to ajiother, neither my praise unto 
graven images;' ' and Psalm LXXXI. , 8, 9, which is Psalm LXXX. , 
8, 9, in the Greek Septuagint translation, which reads, as there 
translated, " Hear Ο my people, and I will speak to thee Ο Israel; 
and I will testify to thee; if thou wilt hearken to me, there shall 
be 710 new god in thee, neither shalt thou worship a foreig7i god.'' 
And surely any man of any intelligence can see at once that to 
worship Mary is to worship one who is not God, but a creature, 
and so to disobey Christ's law above. To take but one act of wor- 
ship, prayer, which all admit to be an act of religious service; a 
common rosary of Rome, in use among her poor, deluded and idol- 

NoteI. — Which, in Greek, would be r^ μ-ήτ-ηα rov Θίου. 



ii Preface. 

atrous people, has ten prayers to the Virgin Mary to one ** Our 
Father ' ' and not one to Christ ! That is owing largely to the fact 
that her unlearned clergy do not know that there is not a solitary 
word in that Third Synod of the undivided Church, nor in any of 
its VI. Synods which even mentions her worship, much less favors 
it; but that, on the contrary, it forbids the new fangled Nestorian 
heresy of worshipping the mere humanity of Christ, the highest of 
all created things, in which God the Word is incarnate, under pain 
of deposition for all Bishops and clerics and of excommunication 
for all laics who do. Indeed, as we see by Article XIII. below, 
pages 341-362, Cyril expressly repudiates the Nestorian slander 
that he might worship her, and St. Ep'phanius, as we see by 
Article XIV., pages 363-423 below, when her worship first appears 
in history, about A. D. 374 to 376 or 377, ascribes its origin to the 
craft of the devil and the folly of women. 

And yet that soul-damning sin of creature worship has sa 
spread in these late days that many idolatrous and unlearned Angli- 
can clerics have been led astray by it and are leading silly women 
into that sin of spiritual whoredom. As one instance, I saw in 
Jersey City, N. J., a few weeks ago, on a Lord's Day night, a cleric 
and a congregation of women saying the Hail-l\Iary together, he 
saying the first part and they the second. A few men were 
present. Oh ! the soul-damning work of such deposed clerics. 

(c) Another ignorance of Romanists, Greeks, and others 
exposed by publishing this translation of Ephesus, is that the rea- 
son why the Ecumenical Synod authorized the expression Bringer 
forth of God (2) to be used of Mary not to her, was not to worship 
her but to guard the truth of the Incarnation of God the Word in 
her womb and His birth out of her that He may be worshipped as 
God, and so to do away Nestor ius' denial of the Incarnation and 

Note 2.— In Greek, Qi.OT«KO<i, the word authorized by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
The exact Laiin for it and the Euglish above as given by Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of 
the Romayi and Byzantine periods is Detpara, Bringer Forth of God, uox. Mother of God. To 
guard the Incarnation Bringer Forth of God is a much more exact and much stronger expres- 
sion than Mother of Godior we often use the term mother where there has been uo bringing 
forth, as, for example, of a stepmother of a child, and as a title of respect to an aged woman, 
etc. Besides Bringer Forth of God is approved and aiithorized by th»» whole Church in an 
Ecumenical Council at Ephesus wbeeas Mother of God is not. Let us therefore prefer and 
stick to the term adopted by the Hulyyihost-led Synod of the whole Church. 



And Lessons to Sound Christians from Ephesus. iii 

his worship of a mere man, which, of course, is the worship of a 
creature contrary to Matthew IV., 10. 

2. As the work of reform is spreading and the day of unity 
In the whole of Christendom seems to be drawing near, the trans- 
lation of Ephesus and the rest of the VI. Ecumenical Synods is 
absolutely necessary to teach men what the ^'Ofte Holy, Universal 
and Apostolic Church " has defined in them aed what she has not. 
For certain great and fundamental and saving and necessary 
truths which she has defined with all authority are denied by 
infidels and by idolaters, and, on the other hand, certain great and 
soul-damning paganisms and infidelities which she has clearly 
condemned are nevertheless said to be hers. And the masses of 
the clergy and people are ignorant of the facts, and, as a conse- 
quence, millions of them are led astray to their ruin. 

The translation of the Third Synod, Ephesus, and the rest of 
the VI. Ecumenical Councils will do great good, 

3. By showing that all the invocation of the Virgin Mary and 
of other sainls, and of angels and all other creature worship, and 
all the wafer and water and wine worship of Rome, and all the 
bread and wine and water worship of the Greeks ; and the error of 
the Real Presence in the Eucharist of the Substance of Christ's 
Divinity, and the real presence of the substance of his humanity 
or any part of it there, on which those heretical worships are 
based, and all the image worship and cross and relic worship, and 
all the relative worship of those Communions are condemned, 
and all guilty of any of them, who if Bishops or clerics are 
deposed, and if laics are excommunicated by the " 0?i€, Holy, 
Universal^ and Apostolic Church,'^ which we confess in the Creed, 
and 

4. These translations of Ephesus and the rest of the VI, 
world-councils, will do good by showing to all that those Synods 
maintain the autonomy of the Anglican and all other Western 
Churches and all their rights against the idolatry, the usurpations, 
amd the tyranny of Rome. And in like manner they maintain the 
rights of all sound and Orthodox Eastern Christians against the 
two great idolatrous sees of Rome and Constantinople, the Old 
Rome on the Tiber, and the New Rome on the Bosporus. 



iv Preface. 

5. This translation will do a necessary work as preparatory 
to a fast approaching Seventh Ecumenical Council by teaching all 
what every one must believe before he is allowed to sit in it, that 
is the only decisions of the ' ' one, holy, universal and apostolic 
Church'' in the VI. previous Holy Ghost guided Synods. For 
nothing that contradicts those utterances can be admitted by any 
Orthodox man, or, to put it in other words, 

The great value of the decisions of the Third Ecumenical 
Council to all the Reformed, including all true Anglicans, Presby- 
terians and Lutherans, and all Methodists and all Protestants of 
conservative type is as follows: 

It condemns with the authority of the "one, holy, universal 
and apostolic Church,' ' under penalty of deposition for all Bishops 
and clerics and of excommunication for all laics, the following her- 
esies and all who hold them or any of them: 

(i.) Nestorius' de^iial of the hicarnation, and ayiticipatively and 
by necessary logical inclusion therefore all such deyiials since by which 
he made his Christ a mere inspired Mail. Such forms of unbelief 
abound among Jews, Arians,',Socinians, and infidels of other types. 
See on that whole matter pages 77-85 of this volume, especially 
pages 80-85; and in volume I. of Ephesus in this set, pages 637- 
639, Nestorius' Heresy I., his deyiial of the hiflesh and the Invia?i. 
See, also. Article II., pages 77-11 6 below, and fit references to the 
Indexes of this volume. 

(ii.) The Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity alone or 
,^ in God the Word; and by necessary logical inclusion, the con- 
demnation under the above penalties of all worship of any creature 
less than that spotless humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, or any 
other saint, or any archangel or angel, and all creatures are infe- 
rior to that ever sinless humanity of Christ in which God the Word 
is incarnate. See on that whole topic Articles II. to XII. inclu- 
sive, pages 77-341 inclusive; and in volume I. of Ephesus in this 
Set, notes 183, pages 79-128, and for Ecumenical decisions pages 
108-112, under Section II., and note 679, pages 332-362 of the 
same volume, and pages 639-641 of it under Nestonus' Heresy 2, his 
Man Worship, and under Man- Worship, pages 631-635, and page 
580, and, indeed, all under Christ, pages 577-581 , and Cyril of 



And LessoYis to Sound Christiayis from Ephesus. ν 

Alexandria, pages 586-601, and similar expressions in the other 
General Indexes in this Set, and under appropriate words in the 
othes Indexes. 

(iii.) Another Nestorian Sin condemned by the Council was 
the excuse that it is right to worship Christ's humanity, a crea- 
ture, if it be done relatively to God the Word. That is contained 
in several of his XX. Blasphemies, pages 449-480, 486-504. See 
especially his Blasphemy 8, page 461, and note 949, pages 461-463 
there, and note F., pages 529-552; and Articles II. to XII. inclu- 
sive, pages 77-341. See, also, under Relative Worship in the Gen- 
eral Index to this volume and in the other volumes of this Set. 

(iv.) Ephesus condemned the one Nature Consubstantiation 
of Nestorius and his fellow heretics, that is the Consubstantiation 
of Christ's humanity with the leavened bread and wine, with their 
worship there, as being according to Nestorius, His flesh and 
blood, and branded the worship of Christ's humanity as the worship 
of a hitman being (άιθρωπολατρίύι)^ and the eating of Christ's human- 
ity there as Cannibalism (ανθρωποφαγία). Both Cyril and Nestorius 
held a'nd taught that the eternal substance of Christ's Divinity is 
not in the rite but is really absefit from it. Their only difference 
was as to the real substance presence of His humanity there, the 
worship of it there, and the eating of it there, all of which Nesto- 
rius asserted and St. Cyril denied, as did Archbishop Cranmer, 
the Scholar, the blessed Reformer and Restorer and Martyr for 
Christ, and for the doctrine of the Universal -Church at Ephesus 
in his work on the Lord's Supper. The Ecumenical Council, in 
condemning Nestorius' Blasphemy 18 in its Article I., of course 
thereby approved Cyril's doctrine on all those three points and 
condemned Nestorius'. 

(v.) And in approving Cyril's aocirme oi the real abse?ice oi the 
substance of Christ's Divinity and the real absence of the substance 
of His humanity from the sacrament, and only that which we need, 
the real presence of His grace to sanctify, it therefore by necessary 
inclusion forbade and condemned under strong penalties the 
Pusey-Keble heresy of Two Nature Consubstantiation, that is, 

(1 .) The Consubstantiation of both natures of Christ with the 
bread and the wine. 



vi Preface. 

(2. The worship of both natures there, and 

(3.) After that ecumenically condemned worship, the Cannibal- 
ism of eating and drinking them there, all which heresies of course 
follow their error of the real substance presence of both of His 
natures there. And indeed Two Nature Consubstantiation means 
that new fangled sort of real substances presence. 

(vi.) And as all who hold to the Greek Transubstantiation and 
all who hold to the Latin form of that heresy hold to the real sub- 
stances presence of both Natures of Christ in the Eucharist, to their 
worship there, and to the Cannibalism of eating them there, they 
also, with their doctrine, are condemned in the condemnation of 
Nestorius and his doctrine, for they hold all of his three errors, 

(1.) The real substance presence of Christ's humanity there. 

(2.) Its worship there, and 

(3.) To the Cannibalism of eating it there, and more errors 
which neither CyriJ nor the Synod held, nor, indeed, the arch 
heretic Nestorius himself ; for example : 

(1 .) The real substance presence of Christ's Divinity in the rite; 

(2.) Its worship there, where its substance is not but is in 
heaven till the restitution of all things ; Acts III., 20, 21 . 

(3 ) Its being on the table at all. For Cyril writes to Nestori- 
us : " But thou seemest to vie to forget that what lieth forth on the 
holy tables of the Churches is by no means of the Nature op 
Divinity," see pages 254, 255, volume I. of Ephesus, note. 

(4.) Its being eaten there, which St. Cyril denounces as a 
"blasphemous thought," as not ''on the holy tables of the 
Churches'' and he says again, plainly: " The Nature of Divin- 
ity IS not eaten." And again he writes, "And that the 
Word is not to be eaten ... is clear to us by as many 
AS TEN thousand REASONS." See more to the same effect in 
Section F, pages 250-260 in note 606, volume I. of Ephesus, and 
under Eucharist in its General Index and Nestorius' Heresies, 2, 3, 
4 and 5, pages 639-644 in it, and under ανθρωποφαγία, page 696 of 
that volume, and under άνθρωποΧατρύα and άνθρωτΓολάτρη<; on pages 
694-696, and under Christ and Cyril of Alexandria and Tetradism in 
its General Index, and similar terms where found in the Indexes to 
this volume. 



A7td Lesso7is to Somid Christians from Ephesus, vii 

(vii.) In addition to what is said above on the action of the 
Third Ecumenical Synod in defending and protecting Cyprus 
against the attempts of St. Peter's See of Antioch, as it is called 
in an Act of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, to deprive it of its 
liberties, I would say that I have an article or work on the attempt 
of Rome in centuries V. and VI. to usurp the power of getting 
Appellate Jurisdiction in Latin Africa, and its failure. I had 
hoped to embody it in this volume, but, as there is no room for it, 
it must be deferred till another. 

But see under Cyprus, page 432 of this volume, and the action 
of the Council in its favor. Both articles show the autonomy of 
all the Orthodox National Churches, and that the VI. Councils 
favor and guarantee their rights. See volume I. of Ephesus in this 
Set, page 573, under Appeal and Appellate Junsdictioyi, and under 
Church Governvie7it, on page 582. See, also, in this volume under 
Appeals, and under Appelhnits to Rome, on page 426. 

(viii.) The Third Ecumenical Council set forth the very impor- 
tant and necessary doctrine of the Economic Appropriation of the suf- 
ferings and and other human things of the Man put on by God the 
Word to God the Word to guard against the worship of that Man, in 
accordance with Christ's command in Matthew IV., 10. Alas! it 
was almost forgotten in the Middle Ages, and is still in the Roman 
and in the Greek Communion and hence the Nestorian error of 
worshiping a human beiyig {άνθρωπολατρύ'ΐ) so much denounced by 
St. Cyril and condemned by the Third Synod came in and spread 
and became the faith of all the creature-worshipping communions 
so that, like Nestorius, they worshipped the mere humanity of 
Christ, but also went further into that error than he did by wor- 
shipping the Virgin Mary and other saints, and what is equally 
the sin of creature worship contrary to Matthew IV,, 10, they 
worshipped archangels and angels. Rome has even invented the 
new heresy of worshipping the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the 
Sacred Heart of Mary, which is surely the worship of a human 
being. See under Economic Appropriation, and Appropriation in 
the General hidex to this volume and under the same terms in the 
General Lidex to volume I. of Ephesus in this Set. 
In brief, with the exception of the anti-simple and flattering and 



viii Preface. 

anti-sincere, and anti-New Testament titles bound by Roman law, 
seemingly, on all, and those used by the Roman Emperors of them- 
selves, such as '•'our Divinity'' not by the Synod, all this noble 
Council is Scriptural, primitive and Protestant in the sense that 
God protests, in Jeremiah XI., 7, and in the sense that the Eng- 
lish Reformers of blessed memory were Protestants, that is thor- 
oughly opposed to all worship of a human being {άνθρωπολατρύα) and 
to all Cannibalism (ανθρωποφαγία)^ in the Eucharist and to its concom- 
itant heresies of real substances presence of Christ's Divinity and 
humanity and to either of them there, to their worship there, and to 
the worship of either of them there, and of course to their reserva- 
tion there to be worshipped, either or both of them. And, besides, 
the action of the Council against the attempt of the Bishop of Anti- 
och to usurp jurisdiction over Cyprus is Protestant, in connection 
■with all the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Synods, in limiting 
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, even when he was Ortho- 
dox, to seven provinces of Italy and to the three Italian islands of 
Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica (3) ; and now that he is a manwor• 
shipper (άνθρωπολάτρψ) and guilty of Cannibalism (ανθρωποφαγία), that 
is, is a Cannibalizer on the Lord's Supper, by the decisions of the 
whole Church at Ephesus he, with all his Bishops and clerics hold- 
ing the same heresies, are deposed, and all his laics holding the 
same errors are excommunicate ; and all the Bishops and clerics of 
the Greek Church, as well as all those of the Nestorians and all 
those of the Monophysites are likewise deposed for the sins just 



Note 3.— That is the largest computation of the original sway of the Bishop of Rome, as 
is ably shown by Bingham in his Antitjuiltes of the Christian Chureh. book IX., Chapter I., 
feectious 8 to 12 inclusive, and, indeed, section 6, and the whole chapter. What he gained 
beyond that was not by any Ecumenical canon, but against their general and definite law and 
tenor, and Rome was a curse to all those Western lands to which her usurpation finally 
extended for it corrupted their faith and by that and by forcing on them the dead I^atin, 
kept back the development of their own languages and national churches till the Harlot's 
harmful tyranny and idolatry and its result God's wrath, were done away from the Protes- 
tant nations at the Reformation, in the sixteenth century, when, by God's mercy, we restored, 
in effect, the decisions of Ephesus against her worse than T>:esiorian Tt/oiship of a human 
being (άνθρωποΧατρεία) and her worse .than Nestorian Cannibalism (ανθρωποφαγία) 
on the Lord's Supper. For we must remember ttiat in those respects and in others the 
Anglican Rtformation was in large part a Restoration also, as was that of the Reformed in 
Scotland, and on the Continent also. What the Anglican Communion needs I have tried to 
point out in volume I. oiNicaea in this Set, pages 95-128. 



And Lessons to Sound Christians from Ephesus. ix 



mentioned, and all the laics of those Communions are excommuni- 
cated for them by the decisions and canons of the Third Ecumen- 
ical Synod. 

A word more. Whatever Communion any man belongs to, 

(1.) Let him not follow any of its writers or any school 
in it against the sole decisions of the VI. Ecumenical Councils, 
and 

(2.) Where they have not spoken, let him follow the doctrine, 
discipline and rite of the whole Church in its first three centuries, 
always preferring if there be a difference, the earlier to the later, 
as, for example, the African 40 hours Lent of Tertullian'a day in 
the second century to any longer one in the third or fourth. 

Had Archbishop Laud, in the seventeenth century, and his 
fellow corrupters followed the VI. Synods and the Ante Nicene 
doctrine, discipline and rite, the fields of England would not have 
been drenched by the blood and cursed by the woes of civil war, nor 
would he and King Charles I., his backer, who had married an idol- 
atrous woman, have died on the scaffold, and the Stuarts been ban- 
ished from England for a time, till they had promised fidelity to the 
nation's sound faith, the faith of its Church. And when afterwards 
the Stuarts forsook the doctrine of the VI. Synods they found woe, 
for after bringing on bloodshed in Ireland they were driven forever 
from the throne, and the last of them died in exile. 

And if Pusey, Keble, and Newman had known thoroughly and 
followed the VI. Synods and the first three centuries, the Anglican 
Communion would not be what it is now, a doctrinal, disciplinary 
and ritual wreck, where unlearned men are made Bishops by deistical 
Freemasonry, but are stripped of all the Episcopal control over 
their clergy which is guaranteed to Bishops by the VI. Synods, and 
where every ignorant or half read or effeminate clergyman is free 
to Romanize or infidelize at his own sweet will and to hear confes- 
sions without the authorization or leave of his Bishop and so to lead 
simple confiding women into the sins of spiritual ''whoredom,'^ the 
invocation of the Virgin Mary, and of other saints, and into the 
worship of the "Sacred Heart of Jesus," and the " Sacred Heart 
of Mary," sins of the worship of a human beings {άνθοωποΧατραα), 



χ Preface. 

condemned under the strong but rigliteous penalties of deposition 
and excommunication above, nor would so many of the clergy have 
apostatized to that sin and to the other apostasy of Cannibalism 
(άι/^ρω-οφαγία), which was also Condemned by the '■'one, /loly, 7i7n- 
versal and Apostolic Church " at Ephesus under the same penalties, 
and being justly bound on earth by Christ's agent, the sound 
apostolate and Church, they are bound forever in heaven, Matthew 
XVIII., 17, 18. 



Names of Contributors. xf 



A MEMORIAI, OF GRATITUDE TO GOD, 

For raising up the following benefactors to Church and State from among- 
His servants to enable the translator to publish this third volume of the 
Sound and Orthodox Third Synod of the whole Church, East and West, 
held at Ephesus A. D. 431, now first translated in its entirety into English, 
and, so far as the writer knows, the first into any other modern tongue. 

May God most richly bless the givers and bless it also to the dispelling 
the darkness and ignorance of all who worship the Virgin Mary or are 
guilty of any other form of worship of a human being (άν6'ρ(υ7Γθλατρ£ΐα) 
as Cyril calls it, and all who believe what its great leader, Cyril of Alex- 
andria, calls Cannibalisn), in the Eucharist and the logical sequences of 
that Christ insulting heresy. 



Gifts to publish ^'^ those Six Councils which were allowed and received of 
all tnen,^^ (Homily against ^^ Peril of Idolatry,") in the period June 13, 1904, 
to January 10, 1908. 

BISHOPS. 

Right Rnv. HENRY CODMAN POTTER, D.D., L.L.D.. Bishop of 

New York I50 00 

Right Rev. G. HORSFALL FRODSHAM, D.D., Bishop of North 
Queensland, Australia ^2 

Right Rev. D. S. TUTTLE, D.D., LL-D., Bishop of Missouri and 

Presiding Bishop |io 00 

Right Rev. GEO. F. SEYMOUR, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of Springfield, 

Illinois (since departed in the Lord) 1 lo 00 

Right Rev. OZI W. WHITTAKER, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of Pennsyl- 
vania 10 00 

Right Rev. FREDERICK COURTNEY, D.D , L.L.D., late Bishop of 

Nova Scotia 10 00 

Right Rev. A. HUNTER DUNN, M.A., D.D-, Bishop of Quebec, 

Canada 10 00 

Right Rev. BOYD VINCENT, D.D., Bishop of Southern Ohio 10 00 

Right Rev. EDWARD G. WEED, D.D. , Bishop of Florida 10 00 

Right Rev. THOMAS AUGUSTUS JAGGAR, D.D., late Bishop of 

oouthern Ohio 5 00 

Right Rev. ALEXANDER C. GARRETT, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of 

Dallas, Texus 5 00 

Right Rev. WM. A. LEONARD, D.D., Bishop of Ohio 5 00 



xii Names of Contribuiors . 



PRESBYTERS. 

Rev. AUGUSTUS VALLETTE CLARKSON, D.D., New York, since 

departed in the Lord I50 00 

Rev. JOHN HENRY WATSON, New York __ 50 00 

Rev. ERNEST M. STIRES, D.D., New York 10 00 

Rev. LOUIS S. OSBORNE, Newark, N. J _ 10 00 

Rev. ARTHUR C. KIMBER, D.D., New York 5 00 

Rev. J. LEWIS PARKS, D.D., New York 5 00 

Rev. L NEWTON STANGER, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa 3 00 

Rev. GEORGE R. VANDEWATER, D.D., New York... 3 00 

OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLB. 

FRANCIS G. DU PONT, Wilmington, Del., (since departed in the 

Lord) ^50 00 

Mr. AUSTEN COLGATE, B. Α., Orange, N. J 50 00 

JAMES RUTHERFORD, Carbondale, Pa ί 5 oo 

•' " " not previously reported, 25 00 

30 00 

WILLIAM GALWAY, Jersey City, N. J 15 00 

A FRIEND who does not wish his name known 1.670 00 



Without counting anything for the support of the editor and 
annotator for 3 or 4 years, about $1,600 were needed for the cost 
of the whole volume, including the pay of the printers, electro- 
typers, paper makers and binders. A volume of this set, of 500 
pages, costs about $1,600, for much of the type is fine print, and 
the Greek costs extra, and the translator needs and asks about 
$500 a year on which to live while giving himself wholly to this 
work. And at his death the set will be given into the hands of 
any society which may be formed before to continue their publica- 
tion without addition or subtraction or any other change. And 
he earnestly asks that such a society be formed at once and that he 
be advised of it. 

Certain facts must ever be borne in mind. 

1. Because of the lack of accurate knowledge of the contents 
of these priceless documents, the leaders of the Oxford Movement 
of A. D. 1833, Pusey, Newman and Keble, fell into the idolatry of in- 
voking saints and the worship of the Host and favored the worship 
of images, and, not heeding the command of God in Revelations 



Facts to be borne in mind. χίϋ 



XVII., 18, and XVIII., 4, to come out of Rome, they led hundreds 
of the clergj; and thousands of the laity back into her sins and 
brought the Church of England into such disrepute that hundreds 
of thousands, aye millions of the English people are no longer with 
her, and she is threatened with disestablishment. If she is to be 
saved, therefore, her clergy and people must know these sole decis- 
ions of Christ's ^' otie, holy, U7iiversal ayid apostolic church.'''' And 
this is the only translation of them into English. 

2. If ever orthodox Protestants, and, indeed, all Christians, 
are to be united, it must be on these former bases of union, the sole 
possible way to godly unity, for since the church forsook them, in 
the eighth century and the ninth, and became idolatrous, it has 
split into East and West and remains divided till this hour and will 
till it all reforms; just as the Israelitish church before it, was split 
for like idolatry into Judah and Israel, as the blessed Reformers 
teach in the Second Part of the Homily of the Chiirch of England 
against Peril of idolatry. 

3. Of "1,285,349," though one other account gives it as 
"something mere than 1,400,000" immigrants who came to us 
last year, perhaps not more than 150,000 were Protestants. And 
if this land of ours is to be saved from being swamped by a vast 
influx of Christ-hating Jews, Romanists, Mohammedans and other 
non-Christians, or rather Antichrists or Antichristians, the Protes- 
tants must get together on the basis of the VI. Synods of the 
Christian World, A, D. 325-680, and, on matters not decided by 
them, on the Scriptures as understood in the pure period of the 
church, the first three centuries — that will be to perfect and crown 
our Reformation of the sixteenth century by a perfect Restoration, 
as the reformed Jews perfected their Reformation made in Baby- 
lon, by a complete Restoration at Jerusalem in the days of Ezra 
and Nehemiah. Some facts necessary to a full Restoration were 
not well known then. Theji are now. 



Table of Contents. xy 



TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME IIL OF 
EPHESUS. 

FOREMATTER. 

PAGE. 

1 . Dedication 

2. Preface i . 

3. Contributors to the Fund to Publish the VI. Ecumen- 

ical Councils xi. 

4. Note on the Set of these volumes and their needs and 

their benefits to Church and State xii. 

5. Table of Contents xv. 

6. Act VII. of the Third Ecumenical Council, which 

guards the rights of Cyprus and those of other 
national Churches, and those of Dioceses (Civil and 
Ecclesiastical), and those of autonomous Church 
Piovinces ". i -20 

7. A Letter sent by the Ecumenical Synod to every Metro- 

politan and to every Suflfragan Bishop, to the Elders, 
the Deacons, and Laics in regard to the Oriental 
Bishops, that is, those of the Patriarchate oi Anti- 
och, who were partisans of the heresiarch Nestorius, 
their countryman and fellow heretic. At its end 
are found the Canons of Ephesus, Greek and Eng- 
lish, but Canon VII. is really the decision of the 
Council in its Act VI. against the Anti-Incarnation 
and Man-Worshipping Creed of Theodore, etc., and 
Canon VIII. is the decision of the Synod on 
Cyprus, etc , 21-33 

8. Epistle of the Third Ecumenical Synod to the local 

Synod of Pamphylia concerning Eustathius, who 

had been their Metropolitan 34-37 

'9. Decree of the Third Ecumenical Synod against the 
Massalians, who are also called Euchites or Enthu- 
siasts 37-39 



xvi Third Ecumenical Synod, 



10. A Petition from Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya and 

Arcadiopolis, and from Cyril, Bishop of Coele, 

which was offered to the Third Ecumenical Synod, 39, 40 

1 1 . The Synod's Answer to it, page 40. That ends the 

Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod 40, 41 

12. Penalties pronounced by the Ecumenical Synod, 

speaking for Christ, and in the name and with the 
authority of the '' one^ holy, u?iiversal and apostolic 
Churchy' against all who try to unsettle any of the 
Decisions of the Council 41 

Articles on Topics Connected with the Third 

Ecumenical Synod 42 

Article I — The Dioceses and Provinces, from which Bishops 
came to the Third Ecumeyiical Council, a^id how many 
came from each 43-76 

Article II. — That is Article I. on the Decisions of the Third 
Ecumenical Synod against the Three Chief Heresies 
of Nestorius, and Quotations from those Decisions, 
and References to places where they may be found, 77-1 16 

Article III. — A Second Article on Nestorius' Heresies. 
Vastly important Decisions of the Third Ecumen- 
ical Council against all Nestorian Forms of Apos- 
tasy from Christianity, and against all Bishops, 
Clergy and Laity, guilty of them or any of them. 
Whrt those Forms are, as referred to in its Canons 
II., III., and IV., and impliedly in its Canons V. 
andVI • 116-126 

Article IV. — How the Orthodox Cyril of Alexandria would 
have us worship Christ's Divinity and apply to 
God the Word alone all the human as well as all 
the Divine names of Christ 1 27-1 32 

Article V — On the Ecumenically approved Use of the 

Fathers 132-141 



Τα ble of Conten ts. xv i i 



Article VI.— On Cyril of Alexandria's worship of God the 
Word, /ϋ€τά T^s ίδιας σαρκός, in the midst of, that is 
within his own flesh, and his anathematizing any one 
who co-worships his flesh with his Divinity 142-212 

Article VI/.—The Ecumenical Authority of Cyril's XII. 

Anathemas : 21 3-230 

Article VIII. — The Use of the terms Mayi-Worship 

(άν^ρωπολ'Ζτρει''>() and Mau-WorsMpper (άνθρωπολάτρψ), 

after Ephesus, A. D. 431, and what is implied in 

them, and how long that use appears 230-234 

Article IX. — The alleged opinion of Gregory of Nazianzus 
in favor of worshipping both Natures of Christ: in 
other words, Gregory of Nazianzus on the worship 

of Christ's humanity and on creature worship 234-242 

Article X. — Additional Matter from Theodoret, the Nes• 
torian Champion, for the Creature- Worship of wor- 
shipping Christ's humanity 243-246 

Article XI. — Some Spurious and Some Genuine Passages 

ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria 246-253 

Article XII. — The Sins of Idolaters; that is 

(1). The worship of created persoyis by invocation and 

other Acts of worship, and 

(2). The worship of mere inanimate things, such 

as pictures, graven images, crosses, painted, 

printed, or graven, altars, communion 

tables, sepulchres, graves, the Bible, or 

any part of it, etc., and 

(3). How they are forbidden in God's Word and 

by the ''one, holy, toiiversal and apostolic 

Clmrch'' in its Six Sole Ecumenical Synods. 

'* Take . . . the Sword of the Spirit, which is 

the Word of God, ' ' Ephesians VI. , 17 253-341 

Article XIII. — Slander against Cyril and Ephesus to the 
effect that he worshipped the Virgin Mary, and 
that the Third Ecumenical Synod authorized her 
worship 341-362 



χ ν ί i i Third Ecumenical Synod. 

Article X/F. — St. Epipbanius against the worship of the 
Virgin Mary, as he writes in his Article on the 
Heresy of the Antidicomaria^iites ^ and on that of the 
Collyridians' : tra7islations 363-423 

Index I. το Volume II. of Ephesus, and to Act. VII. 
and last op the council in volume iii. 
Names and Sees of the Bishops who were pres- 
ent IN Acts II. to VII., inclusive, or in 
any op them 424 

Index II. to Volume II. op Ephesus, and to Act 
VII. OP THE Council in Volume III. General 
Index 425-470 

INDEX III. 

Index of Scripture Texts in Volume II. op Ephesus, 
and to pages 1 -76, inclusive, op Volume III 
op Ephesus, including the rest op the Synod, 471-481 

INDEX IV. 

Index to Greek Words and to Greek Expressions in 
Volume II. op Ephesus, and to pages 1-76 inclu- 
sive in Volume III. of Ephesus, which includes 
THE rest op the Council 482-500 

A Last Word on Nestorius' Worship op Christ's 
Humanity (άν^ρωπ^λατρεια), on his worship of a 
Tetrad (τετρά?) that is his worship of a Four, that 
is of the Divinity of the Father, and that of God 
the Word and that of the Holy Ghost, and of 
Christ's humanity, that is on his Tetradism and on 
his Cannibalism {ανθρωποφαγία) on the Eucharist 501 

The Translator's Confession of Faith 502, 503 

Errata 504 



ACT SEVENTH (i). 



Copy of the matters brought forward by the Bishops of Cyprus in 
the Council at Ephesus: 

" //i (^) the Consulship of our Masters, Flavius Thcodositts, 
Consul for the thirteenth time, and Flavius Valentinian, Co7isulfor the 
third time, the ever August Ones, on the day before the Calends of 
September (j), the holy Synod being congregated by God' s favor and 
by the edict of our most pioics and Christ-loving Emperors in the 
metropolis of the Ephesians (/), in the holy Church, which is called 
Mary (j), Rheginus, Bishop of the holy Church at Co7istantia, in 
Cyprus said; 

"Since certain persons trouble our most holy Churches, I pray- 
that the written statement (6), which I bear in my hands, be 
received and read. 

"The holy Synod said, 'lyet the written statement (7) offered, 
be received and read.' 

"Zb the most holy, the glorious, and the great Synod con- 
gregated by the favor {S) of God and the nod {p) of oiir most pious 

NoTK 1. — All that here follows up to the " I'ote of the same Holy Synod," WnX. is canon 
VIII, as it is often called, is preserved in a Latin translation alone in Cukti and the CoUeclio 
Rpgia, from which we translate it into English. It is in Latin alone in Cap. xxxiii of 
Iryaeus' Synodicon also. The Greek is not in Hardouin nor Mansi, but the Latin is. 

Note 2. Or "after." Latin, Post Consulatum, etc. See on this expression, note 19 
page 19, vol. I, of Chrystal's Efihesus. 

Note 3.— That is August 31, 431. But Hefele in his History of the Church Councils^ 
English translation, vol. III. page 71, tells us that Garnier and some others think that 
July 31 is the right date, though the Acts have the above. 

Note 4. — That is, Ephesus. 

Note 5. — It will be seen that the St. is not used here, nor the evil expression, so common 
in our day, St. Mary s Church, St. Peter's, St. PauTs, etc. See on that, vol. I of Chrystal's 
translation οί Ephesus. page 21, note 22, and Bingham, as cited there. No church should be 
named after any creature, but after God alone. All saints' names for them should be 
abolished at once and forever. The perfect restoration of all New Testament and Ante- 
Nicene Christianity will never be accomplished till that is done. In Rome and among the 
idolatrous Greeks saints' names for churches are accompanied by their worship, contrary to 
Christ's law in Matt. IV. 10; Colos. II, 18; Rev. XIX, 10, and Rev. XXII, S, 9, and the 
decisions of the whole church at Ephesus. Some have supposed tuat Mary was buried there» 
But of that elsewhere. 

Note 6. — "Libellus." 

Note 7. — "Libellus." 

Note S.—Ot grace (gratia). 

Note 9.— Latin, "nutu," that is here, decree. 



Ad ΙΊΙ of Ephesiis. 



Emperors in the most loyal to God (^lo) metropolis of the Ephesians; 
(^ii); a petition from Rheginus, and Zeno, a7id Evagrius, Bishops of 
Cyprus {12). 

"Even some time ago Troilus, who was our holy father and 
Bishop, suffered 77tany things fro7n the Clergy of Aiitioch, and the most 
pious Bishop Theodore eJidured wicommo^i violejice, eveii as far as to 
stripes, such as it does 7iot befit 7ne7i who are slaves and liable to the 
lash, to bear; and that forbiddenly, tmreasonably , and unlawfully. 
For when he we7it away''* \to A7itioch\ 'for a7iother cause, he succeeded 
indeed in finishing it happily, but they, abusing his goi7ig away*'' 
[from us a7id his visiting A7itioch ] , '' wished to coi7tpel hi7n by violence 
eve7i to subject to themselves the holy Bishops of the isla7id co7itrary to 
the Apostolic cano7is (^13) ■, and to the decisions of the most holy Synod of 

Note 10. — Latin, in Epheslorum metropoli Dei observantissima. 

Note 11. — That is, Ephesus. 

Note 12. — According to Wiltsch's Geography and Statistics of ths Chjtrch, vol, i, page 
248 of the English translation, there were no less than fourteen suffragan Bishops in Cyprus 
about this time, whose sees are there named. The cause of the absence of all but two may 
be found in the Emp>eror's First Decree, convoking the Council, in which each Metropolitan 
is ordered to provide "a few most holy Bishops of the province which is under him, as many 
as he may approve, to run together to the same city, so that there may remain a sufficient 
number of most holy Bishops for the most holy churchesjin the same province, and that there 
be in no wise lacking a fit number for the Synod." See that Decree, pages 32-11, vol. I, of 
Chrystal's translation of Ephesus. Professor Bright, in his A'oies o>r the Canois of the First 
Four General Councils, page 118, states that "Cyprus ... had at this time some fifteen or 
sixteen bishoprics in cities, and, according to Sozomen, some of its villages had Bishops 
over them (VII, 19) " But were some of the fourteen bishoprics mentioned by IVillsch abo\^ 
in villages or not? The reference to Sozomen is to chapter 19, book VII, of his Ecclesiastical 
History. Bright's little work, pages 118-122, has some valuable matter on Cauon I'lII of 
Ephesus. 

Note 13. —The Greek is lost, but the Latin is : contra apostolicos canones et definitiones 
sanctissimae synodi Nicaenae. But does this mean, "contrary to apostolic rules," in the sense 
of being contrary to the rules of conduct laid down by the Apostles in the New Testa- 
ment, that is, the rules which teach us to respect the rights of our brethren, not to 
domineer over them, as. for example, some understood i. Peter V, 3 ; as did the African 
Synod just before this in resisting a similar attempt of Rome against them? Or does it 
mean the generally deemed spurious documents, which are now called the Apostolic Canons, 
and form part of the generally deemed spurious work called the Apostolic Constitutions? If 
these last be meant, the reference may be to Canons xiv, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxv, most of all to 
the last mentioned one. Hefele thinks this last is here meant. See pages 455, 456 and 457, 
vol. I, of the English translation of his History of the Church Councils. That Canon XXXV is 
as follows: 

"Let no bishop dare to perform ordinations outside his own boundaries, for the cities and 
country places not subject to him, but if he be con\-icted of having done that against the 
judgment of those who have those cities or those country places, let both he himself be 
deposed and those whom he has ordained"— But so far as appears, though the petition of 
Hheginus may mean that canon. Canon VIII of Ephesus makes no allusion to it, but to 



The Apostolic Canons. 



Canons iv and vi of Nicaea. On page 457 Hefele adds as to the so-called Apostolic Canons: 
"In the ancient collections they generally number eighty-five, corresponding to the number 
found in the copies employed by Dionysius the Less" [?] "and Joannes Scholasticus. On the 
other hand, when they are collected in the manuscripts of the Apostolic Constitnttons, they are 
■divided into seventy-six canons. For it must not be forgotten that in ancient times the num- 
ber of canons, and the way in which they were divided, varied greatly." 

But while Hefele thought that the above canon and the others just specified may be meant 
by the expression " Apostolic Canons," he did not, however, admit that the Apostles made 
those Canons, but held that they were parts of an old code drawn up some time in the first 
three centuries, in which he seems to follow Bishop Beveridge's view. See on that whole 
matter the Engli.sh translation of Hefele' s History of the Christian Councils, volume I, pages 
449^9'.!. Speaking on page 4.52 oi "the Anglican Beveridge,'' &s\\c \.^τια%)Λ\η\\ HcieW wxiiss: 

"Beveridge considered this collection" {"the so-called Apostolic Canons " as Hefele there and 
on page 449 terms them] "to be a repertory of ancient canons given by Synods in the second 
and third centuries. In opposition to them, the Calvinist Dallaeus (Daill6) regarded it as the 
work of a forger who lived in the fifth and sixth centuries; but Beveridge refuted him so con- 
vincingly, that from that time his opinion, with some few modifications, has Iseen that of all 
the learned. Beveridge begins with the principle, that the Church in the very earliest times 
must have had a collection of canons; and he demonstrates that from the commencement of 
the fourth centurj•, bishops, synods, and other authorities often quote, as documents in com- 
mon use, the ΚαΓωι• ά~οητολίΚ()%, or έκκ/.ησιαστικυί or af>;:(aioi" [that is the apostolic or 
ecclesiastical or ancient rule]; "as was done, for instance, at the Council of Nicaea, by 
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and by the Emperor Constantine, etc. According to 
Beveridge, these quotations make allusions to the Apostolic Canons and prove that they 
■were already in use before the fourth century. 

Next Hefele turns to "Dr, von Drey, who," he thinks, "is the author of the best work 
upon these Apostolic Canons, and also upon the Apostolic Constitutions." (id. page 440). After 
"fourth century" just above he goes on to compare his work with Bishop Beveridge's: 

"Dr. V. Drey's work, undertaken with equal learning and critical acuteness, has produced 
new results. He has proved 

1st. That in the primitive church there was no sp>ecial codex canonum" [Code oj 
Canons']" in use; 

2nd. That the expression κανών ά~οσ~ο7.ίκοί " [apostolic rule, or apostolic canon] 
"does not at all prove the cxistenee of our Apostolic Canons, but rather refers to such 
commands of the apostles as are to be found in Holy Scripture (for instance to what they say 
about the rights and duties of bishops), or else it simply signifies this: I'pon this point there 
is a rule and a practice uhich can be traced bad to apostolic times, but not exactly a written 
law. As a summary of Drey's conclusions, the following points maybe noted: Several of 
the pretended Apostolic Canons are in reality very ancient, and may be assigned to apos- 
tolic times; but they have been arranged at a much more recent period, and there are only a 
few which, having been borrowed from the Apostolic Constitutions, are really more ancient 
than the Council of Nicaea. Most of thera were composed in the fourth or even in the fifth 
century, and are hardly more than repetitions and variations of the decrees of the 
synods of that period, particularly of the Synod of Antioch. in .341. Some few are even 
more recent than the fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, from the canons of 
which they have been derived. Two collections of the Apostolic Canons have been made; the 
first after the middle of the fifth century; the second containing thirty-five more than the 
other, at the commencement of the sixth centurj'." 

Von Drey then attempts to show that eighteen of those canons were derived from the 
first six books of the spurious Apostolic Constitutions, one. Canon 79, fron• the eighth book 
of them, four or five from the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, twenty from the locil Council 
of Antioch, of A. D. 311, four from the local Synod of Laodicea. in the fourth century, one 
from the sixth canon of the First Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, the vSecond Ecumeni- 
cal, one from a local Council of Constantinople, of A. D. 394, five from the Fourth Ecumenical 



Ad VII. of Ephesus. 



Niccea {14), And now'^ [ again ] ' 'because they have ascertained that 
ike blessed man has viigrated from this life, they have siibornei the 
most viagyiificent Duke Dio7iysius to write a Tnandate to the governor 
{ij) of the province {16), and to the clergy of the most holy Church of 
Constantia (^ ιγ). The letter is public and we have it at ha7id, ajid 
are prepared to show it to your Holi^iess ( 18 ). On account of it, we 
ask and beg that m,en who will dare to do any thing, be 7iot permitted 
to brijig in ayiy innovation; for aforetime and from the beginiiing {ip} 
they have wished, contrary to the Church canons and decisions set forth 
by the most holy Fathers congregated in Nicaea, to impose on the great 



Council, Chalcedon, A. D. 451, one from a canon of the local Synod of Neocaesarea, of the fourth 
century, two from Basil the Great, who died in A. D. 379, two others from the pretended letter 
of .S. Ignatius to the Philippians; and he deems that rather less than a third of the Apostolic 
Canons are of unknown origin. But λ'οπ Dre3• professes to be able to tell, as above, exactly 
whence every other of the other about two-thirds of those canons is derived, but it seems to me, 
often or generally, without any solid reason. That derivation is largely or wholly mere guess 
work or supposition. Indeed it would be just as provable in some cases to assert that the canon 
said to be derived from another is older than that other is, and hence was never derived from 
it. Because a dozen codes of different nations use similar language on any crime, it does not 
follow that they are all derived from each other. And it is not clear that the so-called 
Apoitolic Canons were not the work of one author, either orthodox or heretic, some time in 
the first four centuries of the Christian era. But more on this matter when we come to 
Canon VIII of Ephesus below. 

Note 14. — The reference is, seemingly, to its Canons rv. and VI. It is noteworthy that no 
reference is made to the canons of the Second Ecumenical Synod, two of which, the Ilnd and 
the Vlth, are pertinent and in favor of the autonomy of the Cypriote. But that Council is 
not mentioned in the Acts proper of the Third Synod. It is, however, in the Fourth in its 
Definition and is there approved. Rome held out against two or three of its canons for a long 
time, but, as even the Romanist Hefele confesses, finally received the Synod. See the English 
translation of his //ίί/οί,τ o/ /Λί (ΓΛ;/γ<:Λ Co?/nc/7i, vol. II, section 100, pages S70-374. So the 
Bishops of Rome contended against Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon because of the place which 
it gave the See of Constantinople and also because it put the ecclesiastical rank of Rome on 
the basis of its prominence in the civil notitia, a position which, for selfish reasons it still holds 
to, though Hefele admits that in A. D. 1215 Pope Innocent III gave the intruded l,atin 
Patriarch of Constantinople the rank next after Rome; see pages 448, 449, volume iii of the 
English translation of his Histmy of the Church Councils. He there admits alsc that the 
Patriarchs of Constantinople have ever used the canon and the great power which it gives 
them in the East. 

Note 15, — I<atin, "provinciae^rin«]^i." 

Note 16. -That is, "the province" of Cyprus. 

Note 17. — The metropolitical see of Cyprus, of which Rheginus was Bishop. Here we 
have, as often, more Anti New Testament Byzantine superlatives. 

Note 18. — l,atin, vestrae sanctitati. A collective title of the Ecumenical Synod, Byzan- 
tine and to be shunned. 

Note 19. — If a document mentioned and quoted elsewhere in this work be genuine 
Bishop of Antioch had written to a Bishop of Rome some time before this his desires as;ain^ 
Cyprus, and that Bishop of Rome had promised to write to the C3'priots on that matter, 
the document be authentic and he did write, his advice was unheeded. 



The Apostolic Ca72o?is. 



and holy Synod (20) also with their own decisiofis which are not at 
all useful {21). For, as we have said, the most mag^iificeyit Duke 
Dionysius, who has the care of the afflicted Chzirch (22), would not 
have usurped those thiyigs which do 7iot become him, nor would he have 
mixed himself up with ecclesiastical matters , if he had not been deceived 
by the vtost holy Bishops who were there (2j) congregated and by their 
clergy, and supposed that thing {2^) to be canonical, {as his orders also 
testify) , and which by their advice ( ^5 ) he has ' ' [ in handy ^ against 
the Bishop of Constantia the metropolis of Cyprus. Bid we* ^ \_on the 
other hand'] "pray that both that {26 ) letter of the 7nost 7nagnificent 
Diike be read, and his commands, and all tilings at the sa7tie time 
which have been committed and done in this tragedy (^7), so that yoiir 
holy and great Synod may ascertai?i from those very things the laien- 
durable violence that has been done. For 710 co7nmon tu7nult has arisen 



Note 80. That is, the Ecunifnical Synod of N'icaea. Tlie Bishops of Antioch in their 
unholy ambition were going to pervert the Canons of the Kcunienical Synod of Nicaea, as they 
long had, and especially its Canon VI, in which Antioch is mentioned, but not the exact limits 
of its jurisdiction, to make its sway to include Cyprus, and so the Antiochian prelates, by thtir 
useless enactments, would take from Cyprus and from its Metropolitan and his suffragans, 
the autonomy guaranteed to it as to every other province by the Nicaean Canons IV, V and 
VI. Compare Canon VII of that Synod. 

Or perhaps the meaning may be that they were going to try and impose by that perver- 
sion of the Nicene Canons on the Third Kcunienical Synotl, as they had perverted them long 
before against Cyprus. The context shows that it also is included. 

Note 21. — Or "not at aU profitable." 

Note 22.— That is, the metropolitical Church of Constantia, afficted by the death of its 
Bishop, Theodore. 

Note 23. — That is, at Antioch. 

Note 24. — Or "that tiinovation." 

Note 25. — The l,atin here reads: nisi . . . . piitasset earn canonicam (quod etiam prae- 
cepta ejus testantur) quam absque eorum consilio adversus episcopum Constanliae Cypri 
metropolis habuit; but I judge that absque is a mistake for abs and que; unless we take 
"i/iar" (eorum) to refer to the Cypriot prelates suffragan to Constantia; and so render "which 
wilhonl their advice" and so "against their advice;" but the former view may seem to some 
perhaps the more probable of the two. 

Note 26. — It is given below in the document referred to. 

Note 27.— The murder of the rights of Cyprus by Antioch would have been an acccm- 
pli.shed tragedy. But it was defeated. Alas! how many nations' rights have been mur- 
dered by Rome in the West and by Constantinople in the East, by fastening the nightmare of 
their idolatries, of image and cross and relic worship and saint worship, and all their creature 
serv-ice, including also their Cannibalism and bread or wafer and wine worship in the 
Eucharist, on them, and, in the case of Rome, in depri\4ng them of the use of their own 
language in the ser\-ice, and so keeping them from rendering a rational and acceptable 
service to the I<ord. Compare note 814, page 403, vol. u, of Chrystal's Ephesus. 



Ad VII. of Ephesus. 



171 the whole vietropolis {28). Moreover, we make kyiowri ίο your holy 
Synod that a Deacon of the holy Church of Aiitioch was also sent with 
the letter of the most glorious Duke {2p). Therefore we entreat by 
all that is holy, and fc II forward to your holy k7iees, that by a canoiiicat 
sentence^^ [from yo7i'\ ^^ even now our Synod of the Cypriots may 
remainuninjured and superior to plots and power, as it has from the 
beginniiig froyn the times of the Apostles, aiid'^ [that too'\ ^' by the 
decisio7is a7id ca7i07is of the most holy a7id great Sy7iod at Nicaca (30). 
And so 7iow also, we desire that justice be done us through yo2ir i7icorrnpt 
a7id most just dccisio7i a7id by your e7iact77ient . 

Note 28. — Constantia in Cj-prus. The Cypriots were evidently not disposed to submit 
tamely to have their autonomy wrested from them and to bend to a foreign j-oke at Antioch. 
Perhaps also the matter of nationality had something to do with it, for the Cypriots were 
Greeks, and Antioch was the capital of the Syrians. 

Note 29. — As the Deacons of Antioch were subordinate to its Bishop and at his orders, the 
presence of one of them in the Island of Cyprus with Duke Dionysius' letter would implj' the 
Bishop's complicity with the secular power to enslave it to his see; and indeed would imply 
that the Bishop had the chief hand in the plot. 

Note 30. — The canons of Nicaea referred to are Canons IV, V and VI. They guard the 
rights of Great Britain, Ireland, America, North and South, and every land outside of Italy 
against the claims of Rome to jurisdiction, even were Rome now Orthodox, but being idola- 
trous, she has no claims either to baptism or orders, judged by the Holy Ghost led decisions of 
the Six Synods of the whole Church. Here again there is no mention of the Second Ecumeni- 
cal Synod, (I Constantinople, A. D. 381), whose canons equally well defend the rights of all 
sound Churches against Rome and against Antioch also. See its Canons II, IV, and VI. 
It has been supposed that the non-mention of the Second Ecumenical Synod in the Acts of 
the Third was owing to the fact that in its Canon III it made Constantinople the second see 
in the Universal Church, a place which Alexandria had held before, and that Cyril and the 
Egyptians present in the Council and strong and influential, with such othe.s of the Orientals 
as disliked that canon, purposely ignored it. Indeed, Juvenal of Jerusalem in the Synod 
wished to claim for his see the first place in the whole Church, but was not gratified on that 
point. But the place of Constantinople and the Ecumenicity of the Second Ecumenical 
Synod, there held, were recognized by the Fourth Ecumenical and the Fifth and Sixth. And 
in so doing they acted in accordance with the thus Ecumenically approved old oriental 
principle, that not the founder of the see, be it Peter the Apostle or any other, determines the 
rank of the see in the Church, but its rank in the ci\nl notitia. That is in effect confessed by 
the Romanist Hefele in his ///i/oi-y o/ifAi CAurcA Cmo/c*, English translation, volume II, 
page 358, where, speaking of Canon III of I Constantinople, he writes: 

"With the Greeks it was the rule for the ecclesiastical rank of a See to follow the ci\-il 
rank of the city. The Synod of Antioch in 311, in its ninth canon, had plainly declared this 
(cf. supr., p. 69), and subsequently the Fourth General Council, in its seventeenth canon, 
spoke in the same sense." Then he goes on to show how Rome opposed the principle. She 
did so because it sweeps away her claim to primacy in the whole Church on that principle, 
for she no longer is a seat of Empire, and the principle refutes all her claims to be the first 
see on account of the Apostle Peter. The soreness of Alexandria in passing down from the 
second place to the third, on the basis of that Oriental, but now Ecumenically approved 
principle, was not wise nor well grounded therefore, and not long after she finally accepted the 
precedence of Constantinople in the East. But the Roman Empire, on which and in which 
those precedences were based, has long since passed away, and tcKiay Constantinople is a larger 



The Case of Cyprus. 



**/, Rhegimis, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus , have subscribed 
with my own hand. 

"/, Zeno, BisJwp of the holy Chtirch of God at Curium in Cyprus, 
have subscribed with my own hand. 

" /, Evagrius, the least, Bishop of tJie holy Church of God at Soli, 
in CvprtiSy have subscribed with my own hand. 

"Bishop Rheginus said: Since we present the command also of 
the Most Magnificent Commander Dionysius written to the Most 
Illustrious Governor of the province (3i), I pray that it also be 
read." 

" The Holy Synod said, ' Let the command of that most 
magnificent Dionysius be read. 

''Flavins Dionysius, the Most Illustrious and Most Magtiifce?it 
Master of both armies , {32) to Theodore, the Most Illustrious Presideiit 
of the region of the Cypriots. 

" The Imperial authority, for mayiy and especially ecclesiastical 



city than Rome, but not the seat of a sound Christian but of a Mohammedan Empire, and its 
population is largely or mainly Mohammedan, while Rome is the capital of a paganized and 
apostate Christianity, and Alexandria is a city of a largely or mainly Mohammedan popula- 
tion and of a Mohammedan realm, the result and curse on it for its idolatry also. 

But the common sense principle embodied in the seventeenth canon of the Fourth Coun- 
cil of the whole Church, would make I,ondon the first see of the Christian world, and its 
Bishop the first of its Patriarchs, for it is the largest Christian city of the whole world, and 
the capital of a Christian Empire, whose ruler sways his sceptre over 400,000,000 of the human 
race, more than three times as many as were subject to the mightiest of the Roman Emper- 
ors. And the rank of the other greatest sees of the Christian world are now New York, Ber- 
lin. Paris, St. Petersburg and Vienna. The former great sees of the Roman Empire have 
passed awaj• by their own idolatries and creature invocation, which are antecedently con- 
demned by the VI Synods, and by God's curses on them for them. And the great sees in a 
future Seventh Ecumenical Synod will be those of the reformed nations, among which, let us 
hope, will be France, and Russia, and Austria, as well as Great Britain, and Germany, and the 
United States. And, in accordance with Canon VI of the Second Synod, every orthodox God 
alone invoking Christian nation should be autonomous and under its own Patriarch, and not 
under Rome nor Constantinople. 

Note 31. — That is, of Cyprus. The Duke was a military officer. The governor of Cyprus 
w^as subject to the Duke Dionysius. Dionysius is spoken of as "o/" 6o//i arwiiii," by which 
seems to be meant both the army of Antioch and that of Cyprus, or both the land army and 
the naval army. Gibbon, in chapter XVII of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 
(pages 209,215, 216 of vol. II, of the seven-volume edition of Bohn) gives an account of the 
offices of the counts and dukes, and of the proconsuls, on pages 209, 210; and of those of the 
governors of provinces who were called /rfiz'rfiw/j, as he of Cyprus is in this Act VII of the 
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Here we have again extravagant Byzantine titles. 

Note 32. — On this expression, see the last note above. The I<atin is utriusque cxercitus 
Magister. 



Act VII. of Ephesus. 



causes ^ has by a divine Cjj), open, and signed letter commanded the 
viost pious Bishops to meet in Ep/iesus. But since we have ascertained 
that tJie Bishop of the city of Constantia (j^) has migrated from tJie 
present life , and has fulfilled the day predestinated for him, we have 
judged that this ?iecessary order should be sent across^ ^ {the water] (jj) 
"to thee, that no one vtay dare to name anotlier in place of the defunct, 
without tlie decree or letter of the m,ost pious Synod. For it is a thing 
befitting to wait for the form which tlie agreemeyit of such most pious 
Bishops (j6), shall prescribe , for , as we have said, tlie most pious men 
aforesaid have beeji ordered to ■rjieet for those matters. Therefore if 
quarrelsome persons excite disorders, let thy Gravity for its part , and 
the army that obeys it {;^f) for its part, study to avert tlietn, and let it 
prohibit them in every way, a?id, as I have said, permit no 07ie to be 

Note 33. — I<atin, "divinis" etc., literally "divine "hnt used slavishly, after the pagan 
Roman fashion, for imperial letters, etc. 

Note ϊ4. — Theodore mentioned above. 

Note 35. — Cyprus, of course, is across a strip of water from Antioch. It may also be ren« 
dered "transmitted," but in the same sense. 

Note 36. — Those of the Third Ecumenical Synod; an Ecumenical Synod being the sole 
supreme court of judicature in the whole Church of God, provided it be composed wholly 
and only of God alone invoking and in every respect orthodox bishops. For all others are 
deposed and excommunicated by the decisions of the Six Ecumenical Synods. 

Note 37. — That is, that obeys thy gravity (tua Gravitas). Gibbon, Chapter XVII. in his 
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, mentions '^Gravity" as one of the authorized titles in 
the imperial system of appellatives (page 198, vol. II, of Bohn's seven-volume edition, Ι,οη- 
don, 1854). The reader who, like myself, is disgusted with the high-sounding and anti-New 
Testament and flattering titles of bishops and secular rulers and others, should by all means 
read pages 196-234, where quite a long account is given of those which are secular and which 
are found in the Theodosian Code in the first half of the fifth century, the very age in which 
the Third Ecumenical Council was held. Their use was regulated and enforced by law. To 
take but one instance: In a note on page 198, of his volume II, Bohn's edition, London, 1854, 
Gibbon states (I translate his Latin): 

"The Emperor Gratian" [who ruled A. D. 367-383] "after confirming a law of precedency 
published by Valentinian" [I. who ruled A. D. 364-375] "the father of his Divinity, thus con- 
tinues" [I translate his I,atin]: 

"//" anyone there/ore shall usurp a place not due to himself, let hint not defend himself by" 
[the plea of ] "any ignorance" [on his part] "and let him be clearly condemned for sacrilege 
because he has neglected divine commands" {iha^i is, blasphemously enough, the Emperor's 
orders] "the Theodosian Code, book 6, title 5, law 2," (leg. 2). 

The same enactment is continued in the Justinian Code, book XII, title 8. Its date there 
given, in Herrmann's edition, is A. D. 384, therefore about 47 years before Ephesus. 

The imperial Roman law fairly stinks in its ascriptions of divinity to Roman Emperors 
and to things pertaining to them, and in its use of creature worshipping language. A Greek, 
Alexander I,ycurgus, Archbishop of Syros and Tenos, to some extent a reforming prelate, 
now dead, told me about as follows: "We" [the Greeks] "have suffered as much from the 
imperial rulers at Constantinople as you" [Westerns] "have from the Bishop of Rome." When 
we remember the Roman law, and such Empresses as Irene and Theodora, the favorers and 



The Case of Cyprus. 



promoted {^sy [to the vacant place of Metropolitan of Cyprus], 
'^'^ before the 7nost pious Bishops (jp) have approved him by their author- 
ity. But if the ordinatio7i oj a not surely Bishop be performed before this 
lettef arrives com^nand him, ΐ7ΐ accordance with the heavenly Rescript 
(juxta caeleste responsum) of the Emperors to go to Ephesus like other 
Bishops; and be not ig^iorant that if thou opprove any thiiig being done 
otherwise, thou indeed shall be compelled to pay five pounds of gold 
to the imperial treasury, and tJie army the sa77ie a77iount to it. And so, 
moreover, let these things which have been decreed i7i accorda7ice with the 
petitio7i of the most piotis Bishops be writte7i, a7id get swift fulfihnent. 
We have co?n)7iandcd Maturius a7id Adelphius to be sc7it for this thing 
to thci7i from the ar77iy. Given 07i the twelfth day before tJie Kale7ids 
of June {40) at Antioch.' 

''Bishop Rhegimis said, 'There is also another order of the 
same most Magnificent Dionysius, written to the most pious clergy 
of Constantia the metropolis, and I pray that it, too, be read.' 

"The Holy Synod said: 'Let it be read and inserted in the 
Records of the Acts. ' 

"Elavius Dio7iysius the Tuost Magnificent a7id 7)iost Glorious 
Cou7it, and Duke of both ar77iies, {et Dux utriusque exercittis) and 
Proco7isul, to the 7710s t pious clerics ΐ7ΐ the 77ietropolis of Consta7itia in 
Cyprus. 

" Your Piety also knows hozv the Atigust and gloriously triu7nphani 
Masters of the world, have com7}ia7ided the 77iost religiotcs and most holy 
Bishops to 77ieet m Ephesus for 7nany other, a7id especially for ecclesias- 
tical causes. A7id so si7ice we have learned from the 77iost holy Bishops 
themselves, who have 77iet here, {41), that your i7iost blessed Bishop has 
fallen asleep accordi7ig to tho. divifie will, I have dee7ned it worth while 
to i7iform a7id to ad77wnish your piety, to be 07i your guard, and to see to it 
that 710 07iebe elected Bishop by a7iy 07ie, 7ior 07-dai7ied {for afo7-m (/2) 

patrons of saint worship and image worship and relic worship and their restoration of those 
idolatries, in Centuries VIII and IX, and Emperors of Constantinople of similar paganizings 
his words seem most true. 

Note 38. — I,atin. progredi, '7ο advance." 

Note 39.— Those of the Third Ecumenical Synod seem to be meant. 

Note 40.— That is, May iX^ 431, according to the modern English way of computing 
time. 

Note 41. — At Antioch. 

Note 42. — Latin, "forma " here corresponding, I presume, to τντΐος, a decree. 



ΙΟ Act VII. of Ephesus. 



will be plainly prescribed on that matter); but wait for the decision 
which is there to be given. It is certaiyily a worthy and just things for 
holy Fathers to observe those things which Fathers commayid. But if 
it shall happen that ayiy one shall be placed in the see before our letter 
arrives, {which we do not suppose will be the case), admonish him to go 
with the most pious men to Ephesus in accordance with the divine {43) 
edict; arid be not ignorant that praise shall follow the obedient, and 
that, furthermore, the present writing will fitly correct the disobedient. 

The Holy Synod said: 'But because the cause which has 
moved the most Magnificent and most Glorious Commander Diony- 
sius to write those things, is deemed too obscure in the things set 
before us; let the here present most pious Bishops of the holy 
Churches which are in Cyprus, tell (44) us more clearly, what has 
moved the Most Magnificent Commander (45) to send forth those 
orders. 

Zeno, Bishop of the City oj Curium in Cyprus said: 'And Sapri- 
tius of blessed memory, who came hither with me, came hither for 
that purpose. But since he has departed from this life, we neces- 
sarily inform your Holy and Universal Synod, that it was at the 
suggestion of the Bishop and Clergy of Antioch that the Mos; 
Magnificent Commander (46) wrote to the Governor and Clergy" 
[of Cyprus] . 

"The Holy Synod said, What did the Bishop of Antioch 
wish? 

Evagrius, Bishop of Soli, i7i Cyprus, a7tswered: He is trying to 
subject our island and to snatch to himself the right of ordaining," 
[therel "contrary to the canons and to the custom which now 
prevails and has prevailed" [there] ' aforetime. 

Note 43.— "/M^/a divinum edictum;' that is merely imperial; more blasphemous lan- 
guage. And notice 'Hhe heavenly rescript of the emperors" a little before. And wonderful is 
the fact that even in such a degenerate imperial age the Holy Ghost guided the Bishops of the 
Council into all truth in the matter of its decisions against Nestorius' Denial of the Incarna- 
tion and against his worship of a human being ( άνθρωπολατρεία ) , and against his cannibalism, 
[άνθρωτΓοφαγια) on the Lord's Si'pper; and all that, too in spite of the opposition of the 
emperor and his officers. May a Seventh Ecumenical Synod soon meet and restore all their 
sound doctrine. 

Note 44.— Literally "teach us" (doceant), a courteous expression. 

Note 45. — Capitaneum. 

Note 46.— Capitaneus. 



The Case of Cyprus. 1 1 



The Holy Synod said, Has the Bishop ot Antioch never been 
seen to ordain a Bishop in Coustantia ? 

Zeno, BisJiop of Curium in Cyprzis, said, From the" [days of the] 
"holy Apostles, they can never show that the Bishop of Antioch 
was present and ordained, or that he ever communicated the favor 
(47) of ordination to the island, nor has any other" [foreigner] 
"communicated it. 

The Holy Synod said: Let the Holy Synod be mindful of 
the canon of the holy Fathers congregated in Nicoea, which pre- 
serves to each Church its ancient dignity. Let that Bishop of 
Antioch also be mindful of it (48). Tell us therefore, whether the 
Bishop of Antioch has the right of ordaining among you by old 
custom. 

Bishop Zeuo said. We have already affirmed, that he was never 
either present, nor has he at any time ordained, either in the 
metropolis, or in any other city, but the assembled Synod of our 
province has been wont to constitute the Metropolitan, and 
we pray that your Holy Synod by its decision may agree with us, 
and establish those usages, so that the old custom may now prevail 
as it has hitherto prevailed, and that it (49) permit no innovation 
to be made in our province. 

The Holy Synod said, 'Let the most pious masters show also 
whether that Bishop Troilus of holy and blessed memory, who 
is now at rest, or Sabinus of holy memory, who preceded him, or 
the venerable Epiphanius, who was before them, were ordained by 
any Synod ? 

Bishop Zeno said, Those Bishops" [whom ye have] "just men- 
tioned, and the most holy Bishops who were before them and tho«5e 
who were from" [the times of] "the holy Apostles, all orthodox, 

Note 47. — Or "grace'" (gratiam). 

Note 48.— Coleti Cone, torn. Ill, col. l'»24: Sancta Synodus dixit; Memor sit sancta Syno- 
dus canonis sanctorum Patrnm in Nicaea congregatorum, qui conser\at unicuique ecclesiae 
priscam dignitatem. Hie etiam memor sit Antiochiae. Docete igitur, an non jus ordinandi ex 
more veteri apud vos habet Antiochenus. The canon referred to is Canon VI of Nicaea. 
Compare its Canon IV also. See below the defense by Carthage, in Century V and after, of 
its rights under those canons against the attempt of Rome to secure Appellate Jurisdiction in 
Latin Africa. 

Note 49. — That is, the Third Ecumenical Synod. 



1 2 Ad VII. of Ephesus. 



were constituted Bishops (50) by those Bishops" [who belonged] "in 
Cyprus, and never did the Bishop of Antioch nor any other" 
[foreigner] "have any right (51) to ordain in our province (52). 

Vote of the Same Holy Synod (53). 
The Holy Synod said : 

The most dear to God Fellowbishop Rheginus, and Zeno and 
Evagrius, the most dear to God Bishops of the province of the 
Cypriots, who are with him, have brought us tidings of a thing 
which is an innovation contrary to the Church laws and to the 
canons of the holy Fathers (54), and which touches (55) the liberty 
of all (56). Wherefore, since the common sufferings (57) require the 
greater remedy, because thej' bring the greater damage, and especi- 

NOTE 50. — That is, were ordained, for a Metropolitan was ordained by the Bishops of his 
own province. That is commanded by Canons IV and VI of Nicaea. 

I'oteSI. — Literally, "place," (locum). 

Note t2.— That is, Cyprus. 

Note 53. — This is now often or generally in some editions of the canons put with them 
as Canon VIII of Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical Synod. It is preserved in Greek. I have 
translated it from I,ambert's handy little volume. Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae, Lon- 
don, Dickinson: there is no date on the title page, but his preface gives A. D. 1868. In that 
preface he writes that \\\s "Greek text" \& "that given in tlie Paris edition of Zonaras, i6i8. 
compared throughout -with the text of Justellus and Bishop Sever idge, as reprinted in Migne's 
Series. . . , The Latin is that contained in the works of Zonaras, as above specified." 

Note 54. —See below the matter "On the so-caXl^a Catiotis of the Holy Apostles " oxx the 
above. 

Note 55. — That is, assails. Greek, άτττόμεί'ον. 

Note 56. — Canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils, the only Canons of the whole 
Church, have in a few cases been modified; but by the only power which can modify, change 
or abolish them, an orthodox, anti-image worshipping Ecumenical Synod, and where it has 
been or is impossible to gather such a Council and necessity or great profit demands it, by an 
orthodox local, that is a Council of the nation deeming itself oppressed. Examples of such 
changes occur in the case of Constantinople and of Jerusalem; in the case of Constantinople, 
when it became the chief city and capital of the Eastern Empire. For when it was Byzan- 
tium it was suffragan to its metropolitan at Heraclea, whose rights over it were guarded by 
Canon VI of Nicaea; but when, by the will of Constantine the Great, it became the capital 
of the province of Europa, its Bishop became the Metropolitan, and Heraclea became a see 
suffragan to it. And as at the same time Constantinople became the capital of the civil 
diocese of Thrace, its Bishop became the head of the whole Diocese with what was afterwards 
termed Patriarchal power. And all that system was put into the form of Ecumenical law by 
Canons IV and VI of the Second Ecumenical Council, A, D. 361, a fact which led the Chnrch 
historian Socrates to remark in his work, book V, chapter S, that that Council had constituted 
Patriarchs. And Canon XXVIII of the Fourth Synod of the whole Church, A. D. 451, gave 
Constantinople jurisdiction over the great Church Dioceses of Pontus and Asia, which Rome, 
and, perhaps we may say, the West so far as her influence extended, resisted. And certainly 
the non-Greek races, the Armenians, and others of those lands did not relish the sway of the 



The Case of Cyprus. 13 



ally since (58) no ancient custom has come down for the Bishop of 

Greek see of Constantinople over them then, and do not now. And to-day the non-Greek 
parts of Thrace, and the Roumanians, and the Bulgarians, Ser\-ians, Montenegrins Bosnians, 
Herzegovinians and the Russians resent as an insult any attempt on her part to rule them, 
though she did in the Middle Ages, and each of those nations has its autonomous national 
Church in accordance with the law of common sense and of strict justice, and hightstgood 
and absolute needs. 

And so bitter is the hatred in Macedonia to-day between those nations and the Greeks, 
that a Greek paper tells us that they have organized guerilla bands which fight and slay 
each other and in a few cases have slaughtered each others priests. And now Constantinople 
has become almost wholly a Greek see, and rules in Europe hardly any but Greeks, while 
the Bulgarians have their Exarch, and the Bulgarians stick by him notwithstanding that 
Constantinople has branded them as schismatics and had tried to excite their fears and to 
subdue them by excommunicating them, the result of which has been only greater hate and 
a wider schism between the two. They care nothing for Canon ΧΧΛΊΙΙ of Chalcedon, A. D. 
451, made therefore in the very century when they crossed the Danube, and they are right in 
so doing for they wish to preserve their language in the service which they assert the 
Greeks abolished here and there where they could, and they assert that Constantinople had 
endeavored in different ways to rule them by Greek Bishops and to denationalize them. See 
on such matters the article on Bulgaria in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia. 

Jerusalem is another instance of change in accordance with the Oriental principle made 
Ecumenical by the VI Councils of the whole Church, that is, its elevation from being a 
suffragan see to being metropolitan and patriarchal. The Seventh Canon of the First 
Synod of the whole Christian world recognized it as the first suffragan see of its province, 
but preserved to the Metropolitan at Caesarea his rights over it. But, when Jerusalem grew 
and in Christian times became the metropolis, its Bishop became the Metropolitan, and 
Caesarea became suffragan. And at the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 451, by an arrange- 
ment, approved by that Council, between Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, whose diocese had 
included all Palestine as being in the Roman Diocese of Syria, and Juvenal, Bishop of Jeru- 
salem; Juvenal and his successors were to have the three provii-.ces of Palestine, and Antioch 
was to have the rest of Syria. 

But the Patriarch must now be a Greek, for the Greeks control it, and have fur- 
nished the Patriarch to Antioch which the Syrians now resent and, it is said, helped by 
Russia, have elected one of their own for that see. 

Now to state the case in other words, at the risk of repetition: 

Canons λ'Ι of Nicaea, VIII of Ephesus, and II of the Second World-Synod were modified 
afterwards, we repeat, as to the three Church Dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pont us by the 
friends of Constantinople in her favor in Canon XXVIII of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, 
but without the consent of Rome, which has never fully admitted the Oriental principle that 
the rank of the see in the civil notitia determines its rank in the ecclesiastical notitia; though 
at Florence in 1439, and indeed long before, she admitted the fact of Constantinople's prece- 
dence of all other sees in the Eastern Church, a fact which rests for its justification wholly 
on that principle and on Canons IX. XVII and XXVIII of Chalcedon, which embody it, 
as does also Canon III of the Second Ecumenical Synod, at which there was no representative 
of Rome. Indeed it is, in effect, the Ecumenical principle, as we have said, for it is the only 
one recognized as supreme in the only Ecumenical Canons, that is, those of the first IV 
Christian World Sj-nods. 

Professor Bright in his Notes on the Canons of the first Four General Councils, page 122, 
asserts that the "Ephesiue prohibition'' [in its Canon VIIIJ "was set aside by the Council of 
Chalcedon when it formally subjected three Dioceses, including twenty-eight metropolitan 
Churches (Bingham 1. c. )" [Bingham IX. 1, 6, 10. J "to the see of Constantinople (Chalc. 28)." 
That is true if he means on that matter only. But thatdoes not prove that Canon VIII was set 
aside as it regards any other see than Constantinople, or any furthei as to Constantinople 



14 Act VII. of Ephesus. 



the city of the Antiochians (59) to perform the ordinations in 

than is specified in the canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. It has never been set 
aside, even in the practice and belief of the Eastern Church, so far as to subject Cyprus to 
Antioch, for that island maintains its autonomy under the canons to this hour. Nor did the 
Council of Chalcedon do it away as it regarded the usurpations of Rome in the West. Its 
provisions are unmodified to this very hour, by any Ecumenical Synod, as to all the West, 
and in all the vast extent of t he Eastern Church, except as to Constantinople's jurisdiction in 
Canon Til of the Second Ecumenical Synod, and more definitely still in Canon XXVIII 
of the Fourth. The fact, as we have just seen, that when Constantinople became the me- 
tropolis of the Pro\-ince of Europa, its Bishop became Metropolitan, whereas before it had 
been suffragan to the former Metropolitan at Heraclea, was strictly in accordance with the 
Oriental principle made Ecumenical by the canons of the first four Ecumenical Synods, that 
ecclesiastical precedences shall follow the rank of the sees in the civil notitia, which is 
explained by Bingham in his Antiquities of the: Christian Church; hook. Y5i. See especially 
Canon XVII of Chalcedon, And so, when it became the capital of the Eastern Empire, its 
Metropolitan, following the same principle, embodied also in Canons II and VI of the 
.Second Synod, became Patriarch of the whole Diocese of Thrace. See Socrates' Ecclesiastical 
//w/orj', book V, chapters, and compare book VII, chapter 31. The Council of Nicaea had 
held so fast to that principle that while in its seventh canon it honored the Bishop of Jerusa- 
lem as seemingly the chief suffragan of the Province, it nevertheless preser\-ed to his Metro- 
politan at Caesarea his proper dignity. Afterwards, when Jerusalem became the civil me- 
tropolis of the province, its Bishop became the Metropolitan and the Bishop of Caesarea 
became one of his suffragans. But by Canon IX of Chalcedon a person might appeal at his 
own option to the Exarch that is Patriarch of his Diocese, or to that of Constantinople, 
though Constantinople never had any canonical jurisdiction in anj^ part of the West, it.^ 
intrusion into Sicily and part of Southern Italy lasted only so long as it was supported by the 
Greek Emperor at Constantinople, See the English translation of ΛViltsch■s Geography a. id 
Statistics of the Church, vol, I, pages 4;i4, 4-35, and 468, and in Wiltsch's vol.2, pages 24, 25, 
259, 260, 268, 278, 286-288, 305, 306. 

Note 57.— ra κοινά πάθη. The term πάθη means both suffering and (hence) disease. 
Compaie the language of the same Spirit, who aided the Bishops of Ephesus to make this 
canon, in 1 Cor., XII; 26: ''And if otie member suffer (ττάσ^γη), all the members suffer 
(ανμτζάσχίΐ) with it." 

Note 58.— Or, ''and especially if no ancient custom has come down for the Bishop of the Cityof 
the A7itiochians to perform the ordinations iii Cyprus," etc., as above. For the Greek here see as 
in this note below. The rendering of Hammond here is "««fi." Lambert gives "?/." The 
worshipper of the Virgin Mary, and Azymite corrupter of the Eucharist, John Mason Neale. 
an apostate in heart and mind from the anti-creature ser^-ice of the English Church, asserts 
(page 267, vol. I, of his History of the Holy Eastern Church, Alexandria), that, "The Council 
guardedly decreed, that if the assertions of the Cypriot Bishops were true, they should 
remam, as in time past, free. The fact was, that the claims of Antioch in this instance were 
well founded." If Neale is right, then Rheginus and Zeno and Evagrius were terrible liars! 
But Neale's assertion that they lied is rash and uncharitable, for there is no sufficient reason 
for belie\dng that Antioch had governed Cyprus "from the beginning:" and that is the point 
involved. Nor, moreover, is it likely that, if it had been the case, the alleged lie of the 
Cypriot Bishops would have gone unpunished, or that their autonomy, secured by such 
lying, would have been tolerated by the Ecumenical Synods afterwards when .\ntioch was 
represented \n them by Orthodox prelates. 

And so, because the Cypriots had told the truth and not the barefaced and inexcusable lie 
that Neale says they did, their freedom was preserved for them by the principle laid down in 
the canon that every Province and [civil] Diocese of Provinces, should preserve the liberty 
which it had from the beginning, and that if any other see had subjugated any such Province 



The Case of Cyprus. 15 



Cyprus, as the most religious men who have come to the Holy 

or Diocese it must "restore it," This is a law forever and condemns the usurpations of Rome 
in the West as it did the usurpation of Antioch in Cyprus. 

It has sometimes indeed been asserted on the authority of a passage in an alleged letter 
of Innocent I Bishop of Rome, A. D. 402 to 417 to Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, that Alex- 
ander asserts that the Bishops of Cyprus had always been ordained by the Bishop of Antioch 
till the times of the Arian troubles. The passage is found in an epistle of Innocent I to Alex- 
ander, column 549, of tome 20 of Migne's Patrologia Latina, not in the words of Alexander, 
but in Innocent's alleged statement of his ideas on that point. What is said is as follows: 

"Thou assertest indeed that the Cypriots. wearied some time ago by the power of the 
Arian impiety have not held to the Nicaean Canons in ordaining Bishops for themselves, 
and that up to this time they hold it as a thing taken for granted that they may ordain of 
their own free will, consulting no one. Wherefore we" [will] "persuade them to take care to 
be wise in accordance with the Catholic faith of the canons and to agree with the other 
Provinces, so that it may appear that they themselves also are governed by the grace of the 
Holy Spirit as all are." 

Allowing, for the sake of the argument, this letter and passage to be genuine, there is no 
clear assertion here on the part of Alexander that Cyprus at any time belonged to the juris- 
diction of Antioch nor does Innocent I dearly say that he will persuade them to submit to it, 
but only to the canons of Nicaea, though, if the document be genuine, both may and probably 
do mean that, and we may grant that Antioch's claim was that it had held jurisdiction over 
Cvprus till the Arian troubles rose, and besides that Cyprus was then claimed by Antioch as 
U-ider it by Canon VI of Nicaea. Yet even this claim is not supported by any facts, whereas the 
Cypriots themselves in the Third Ecumenical Synod, while showing that before this. Bishops 
Tvoilus and Theodore of Cyprus had been vexed by the Antiochians with the idea of making 
them subject to it (and one of them must have lived about Alexander's and Innocent's time), 
nevertheless deny the assertion that they had ever been under Antioch; for to the Third 
Ecumenical Synod, they say: "We humbly beg (that) our Cypriot Synod, which has hitherto, 
since the lime of the Apostles, and also by virtue of the Nicene decrees, remained free from the 
encroachments of foreign pozver, may be also protected and maintained in the possession of 
this freedom by means of your just ordinances" ( If^iltsch's Geog. and Statistics of the Church, 
vol. I, p, 240). .See the exact words translated above. Even if Alexander had asserted that they 
were under Antioch by the Nicaean decrees, his single assertion would be offset by the three 
Cypriot Bishops who were in the Ecumenical Synod at Ephesus. And it would be very un- 
just to accuse them of lying when, so far as appears, no one of the hundreds of Bishops 
pre.sent contradicted them, and, as nearly all of them were Easterns, some of them wouid be 
likely to know the facts. The course of the Bishops of St. Peter's and Paul's See of Antioch, 
was e\-idently similar to that of the Bishops of St. Peter's and Paul's See of Rome, when 
desirous of subjugating the Africans to her sway about the .same time, in century V, and with 
as little fairness and reason as they had when they claimed that Carthage was under Rome 
by the Canons of Nicaea, although Antioch was not guilty of the cheat and trick of trj-ing to 
piss off the canons of the local council of Sardica as those of the Ecumenical Council of 
Nicaea, as Rom•? tried to do. All that Alexander of Antioch definitely complains of is that 
the Cypriot Bishops ordained for themselves, without consulting any one e'se, which he 
deemed contrary to the canons of Nicaea. That charge that they had acted contrary to the 
Canons of Nicaea would not be true unless they belonged to the jurisdiction of Antioch, which 
they deny, and prove. 

I would add that if Innocent's letter be genuine and uninterpolated, and if he wrote to 
the Cypriots to submit to the jurisdiction of Antioch, they did not regard his wish in the mat- 
ter, but maintained their autonomy nevertheless; and, what is very noteworthy, the Third 
Ecumenical Synod sustained them in that refusal against both St. Peter's See of Rome, and 
St. Peter's .See of Antioch as the latter is called in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Coun- 
cil; and so has the whole Church, and so does it to this very hour, 



1 6 Act VII of Ephesiis. 



Synod have shown (60) in their written statements and by their own 
voices; the prelates of the holy Churches in Cyprus shall have the 
unassailable and inviolable right (61), in accordance with the canons 
of the holy fathers and the ancient custom, of performing by them- 
selves the ordinations of their most religious Bishops (62). And the 

Besides we miist remember how many alleged letters and decretals of Bishops of Rome 
are now well known to be wholly spurious, or interpolated. We must not forget the stu- 
pendous forgery of the False Decretals of Isidore, and that for many centuries in the Middle 
Ages they were received in the West as genuine, and that their bastard teaching is now, to 
a greater or less extent, part and parcel of Rome's Canon I,aw, nor maj' we forget the 
ambition of the great sees to subjugate others to themselves, as for example the attempt of 
Bishops of Rome, Zosimus, Boniface I, and Celestine I, to subdue Carthage and all Latin 
Africa, and the outrageous conduct of Leo I, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 440-4G1, in subjecting by 
the aid of the ci\nl power, Hilary of Aries and all Gaul to his see, and the conduct of Con- 
stantinople in subduing to itself by Canon ΧΧΛ'ΙΙΙ of the Fourth Synod, the great Dioceses of 
Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. And it would be too long to tell of the quarrels between Rome 
and Constantinople for sway, how^ Constantinople for a time held even a part of Rome's 
peculiar jurisdiction, Sicily and part of Southern Italy, and how after a long contest she 
got control over Bulgaria against Rome's attempts to secure it, and how Rome subjugated 
Britain and all the West against the Nicene Canons, and of struggles for precedence among 
Bishops of the same nation even. 

A word as to the translation of fi here. As Liddell and Scott show in their Greek Lexi- 
con, it has both the meaning of "if" and "since." Indeed they say that "In Att' [ic], "tl 
with indie"- [ative]" is used not only of probable, but of aclual events, to qualify the positive 
assertion, and so much like ''"ότι," because, that is: See the Harpers' New York edition of 
1850. So it is used in the New Testament as Robinson in his Lexicon of the New Testament 
shows under fi, I,i,g, where instances are given. But I do not contend on the matter as to 
the rendering "?7"," or "i/nci"," for, whichever way we translate, it does not affect the prin- 
ciple set forth in Canon VIII of Ephesus, nor indeed the application of that principle to 
Cyprus, for it has preserved its autonomy after all struggles till this hour, and that from the 
beginning. 

Note 59.— That is John of Antioch, who, as the facts show, was bending his efforts to 
maintain the heresiarch Nestorius in his former see, even though he was now deposed by the 
whole Church, and to advocate his Man-Worshtp and his Cannibalism on the Eucharist and, 
on the other hand, to crush the autonomy of the Orthodox Bishops of Cyprus and to bring 
them under his usurped sway. 

Note 60.— Literally "have taught," {έδίόαξαν) : this being a courteous expression for 
"have showed." 

Note 61. —The troubles which Cyprus had suffered from the ambition of the Bishops of 
Antioch and the final result are told in Wilisch's Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
English translation, vol. I, pages 245-'-'49: see there. Peter's See of Antioch, as it is 
called in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, and Paul's, (Galat. II, 11-2L compare Acts 
XIV, 26; XV, 1-41, and XI, 20-;i0) resorted to violence, by meansof the secular powers, to gain 
her ends, but deser\'edly failed. Though Cyprus was in the civil diocese of the East, the 
head of which was Antioch, there was excellent reason why it should not be in the Ecclesias- 
tical, for the Cypriots were deemed Greeks, and therefore Japhetic, whereas the dominant 
race in Syria was Syrian and so Shemitic. For we must respect national and race feelings 
and interests while preserving love for all. 

Note 62. — We find the following note on this in Lambert's meritorious Codex Canonum 
Ecclesiae Universae, pages 44,45: '"From this it is clear how little the Council of Ephesus 



The Case of Cypnis. 17 



same right shall be carefully preserved regarding the other Dioceses 
(63) and the provinces everywhere; so that no one of the most 
dear to God Bishops shall seize upon another province which has 
not been under his hand, aforetime and from the beginning, that is 
to say which has not been under the hand of these before him" [in 
his own see]. "Moreover, even if any one has seized upon" [an- 
other province], "and brought it by force under himself, he must 
give it back (64); lest the Canons of the Fathers (65) be trans- 
regarded the judicial sentence (sententiara decretoriani) of the Roman Bishop. Innocent I., 
who about twenty years before this, in an epistle to Alexander. Bishop of Antioch, had 
claimed for this same Alexander the power of ordaining Bishops in the island of Cyprus. 
See the Decrees of Pope Innocent, ch. Xi,V, XL,VI.' Routh, p. 4Β1. The Decrees of Innocent 
referred to may be seen in Patrol [ogia] I,atina], vol. LXVII, col, 255. See Stillingfleet's 
Orig. lint., pages 100-8. and note 5 on 6th Can. Cone. iVic. sup." 

Note 63.— Greek, -dv u/7.uv oiotK'/ntui/. The dioceses meant are the civil dioceses of the 
Roman Empire, of which Bingham reckons 13, See his Antiquities of the Christian Church, 
book IX, chapter I. sections 3 to 7. The rights of each one are guarded in this canon. See 
below. Britannia formed one of them. Each diocese had two or more provinces in it; 
and each province had several paroeciae or parecs or parishes in it; and every paroecia, 
or parec, or parish, (for these three last terms mean the same thing, that is what we now 
commonly term a diocese,) was a sulTragan Bishop's jurisdiction, and had several congrega- 
tions in it. The Church adopted the division of dioceses and provinces from the civil 
divisions of the state of the same names. At first no Bishop ruled more than one of the civil 
dioceses, but Rome, contrary to this canon, finally subjugated the following Western dioceses, 
the Italic, the Spanish, the Gallic, the British, and extended its limits even beyond. But her 
attempts on Africa failed. Rome's original jurisdiction was confined to a part of Italy. See 
Bingham's Antiq.. book IK. chap. I, sect. 9 and after. Constantinople, notwithstanding the 
opposition of her jealous rival Rome got three, namely Thrace, Asia and Pontus, and finally 
the power of receiving appea s in certain cases from the whole Eastern Church: see in proof 
Canons IX XVII and XXVIII of the Fourth Ecumenical Sj-nod, which are modifications or 
even utter changes from this canon. She finally subjugated the dioce.ie of Macedonia, and at 
one time had under her sway Bulgaria Servia, Montenegro, Roumania and the vast domain of 
Russia, and what is now free Greece but all these are now not under her• patriarchal 
dominion, though she still claims the Bulgarians, who however, utterly renounce as Slavs 
and as a distinct nation any dependence on her. and in that stand are supported by the other 
Slavic Churches. 

Alexandria kept the Diocese of Eg:ypt and extended her rule after Egypt was guaranteed 
her by Canon VI of Nicaea. over Abyssinia. The Coptic Monophysite Patriarch of A lexan- 
dria exercises sway over it now. Antioch, which is mentioned in that canon, has lo••! much 
territory by Nestorian and Monophj'site schisms, and most of her once teeming population by 
Mohammedan persecution, for her soul damning creature worship and image and relic wor- 
ship In her case the civil Diocese of Antioch was not the same as the ecclesiastical, for she 
had under her sway three provinces of Asia Minor, Isauria and the two Cilicias, (see in proof 
Bingham's Antiquities book IX, chap. 1, sections 1-8 inclusive; book IX. chap. 2, sec. 9; and 
book IX, chap 3. sec. 16. Compare also IFi/tsch's Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
English translation, vol. I. pages 208 209. 213, 4'i5, 461. 4T8, and vol. 2, page 161. And, on the 
other hand, Wiltsch shows that the sway of Antioch extended in other directions outside of 
the Roman Civil Diocese of the East. See his vol. I, pages 61-63 200-203. 

Note 64. — If Rome had used the secular powers to enable her to force the Africans under 
her yoke, as Augustine or Hippo mentions tearfully and fearfully that he had heard they 



18 Ad νΠ. of Ephesus. 



gressed, and lest under the pretence of sacred function (66) the 
pride oi" [worldly (67) ] "authority slip in by stealth, and we lose 
unawares little by little the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ 
(68), the Liberator of all men, gave us by His own blood (69). It 

were going to do, this enactment commands her to restore the stolen property. I have given 
Augustint's letter in English in the part below on the struggle of Rome to acquire appellate 
jurisdiction there. It was first published in the Church Journal oi New York City for 1870 
under the head of "Zii/ince in Centuries V and VI by the Diocese of Northwest Africa of its 
Rights as guaranteed by Ecumenical Canon against the claim of Rome to Appellate Juris- 
diction there y 

Note 65. — There is no mention here of ^^Canons of the Apostles" wh&n there naturally 
would if the Council as a whole believed in the myth that the Apostles made any canons, 
because Apostles are more authoritative than Fathers; that agrees with the lection, "77;^ 
Canons of the holy Fathers" ahovs in the first part of this Canon, and not so well with the 
readings preferred by some Greek Church writers, ^'the Canons of the holy Apostles." 

Note 66. — Under the pretence of caring for the interests of the churches and countries and 
lands which they wnsh to gobble up, and that in subjugating them they are acting by the 
authority of Peter whom they claim to succeed; to whom Christ gave power, they falsely assert- 
to, in effect, override the Canons and Decisions of the whole Church, in its VI Synods, as the 
crafty Bishops of Rome have been wont to talk with increasing arrogance since the last half of 
the fourth century or the first half of the fifth. Their bulls, epistles, decrees, etc., are full of 
such Ecumenically condemned error and stuff. There are feet and yards of it. And since 
Rome's approval of the invocation of saints and of the relative worship of images, crosses, 
and relics, and of the worship of the Host, at the idolatrous conventicle, II Nicaea in A. D. 
787, she has done all she could to nullify and reverse the decisions of the Yl Synods of the 
whole Church, East and ΛVest, against those sins, and against the heresy of Papal Infalli- 
bility in condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic. 

Note 67. — Bright in his A'ote on this canon well calls attention to the noteworthy simil- 
arity between this language and the language of the African Council, of Carthage, in resist- 
ing and in rebuking the attempted usurpation by Celestine I, Bishop of Rome. See the latter 
Document translated in the N. Y. Church Journal for November 30, 1870, and inserted in this 
volume below. 

Note 68. — l,iterally "oiir Lord Jesus Anoitiled" (Xptffrof). The reference to freedom or 
liberty here seems to have been derived from Galatians V. 1, and Rev, I. 5, and Y. 9. 

Note 69. — A noble utterance for true liberty, not license, and, antecedently against 
Rome's usurpations over other nations, and her tyranny, and against Constantinople's over 
the Bulgarians, etc. 

Note 70. — As the call issued by the Emperor is to the Metropolitans who were ordered 
to take along some of their suffragans, such as they should approve; and as the manner of 
the age still was; "Metropolitan" is here used for those now called ''Patriarchs" as well as for 
those whom we now call "Metropolitans." But some Metropolitans, like him of Cyprus, were 
autocephalous, and others, two or more, were under another Metropolitan, who became 
thereby a Patriarch, like, for example, him of Antioch, him of Carthage, etc. The Patriarch 
was generally the Bishop of the capital of a civil diocese, atid every Metropolitan under him 
was Bishop of the capital of a Province. Compare Canons II and VI of the Second Synod. 
The Patriarch was often or generally the head of a people or nation, as, for example, Alexan- 
dria of Egypt and the Egyptians, Antioch of Syria and the Syrians, Rome of her. part of 
Italy and a part of the Italians, the suburbicarian Churches, that is, at the farthest lawfully, 
the seven Provinces of South Italy and the three Italian islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Cor- 
sica. So London must he of England, and the English, Washington of the Americans, Paris 
of the French, Berlin of the Germans, st. Petersburgh of the Russians, and similarly in the 
case of each nation. 



The Case of Cyprus. 19 



has therefore seemed good to the Holy and Ecumenical Synod that 
there shall be preserved pure and inviolate to each province the 
rights which have belonged to it aforetime from the beginning, in 
accordance with the ancient prevailing custom; each Metropolitan 
(70) having permission to take off copies of this Action (71) for his 

Note 71.— Greek τα Ίσα των νεν pay μίνων; which literally means "copies of the things 
done." It seems, from the context above that the reference is to the whole Action of which 
Canon VIII is part. Of course, each Metropolitan might, for that matter, take a copy of the 
whole proceedings of the Synod; but the utterances of Cyril, and the decision of the Council 
here constitute, by parity of reasoning, an antecedent decree that every Metropolitan who 
was assailed by Rome in the AVest, or by Constantinople or by St. Peter's see of Antioch, in 
the East, might present this enactment to the usurper to guard its own rights against him, as 
Carthage had gotten from Cyril and Proclus a few years before, the genuine Canons of 
Nicaea and pleaded them and their rights under them against Rome in resisting her 
attempted usurpation of the power of appellate jurisdiction in Africa. See Chrystal below 
on the struggle of Rome in Century V and VI to obtain Appellate Jurisdiction in I,atin 
Africa. And this enactment authorizes and dematids that everj' Metropolitan in the West 
and every one in the East guard and preser\-e now and ever the rights of his own Pro- 
vince and Diocese, that is nation, against any and all claims of Rome to get appellate 
juri.sdiction there, aye, and equally against such a claim by any other see or nation. So 
that Cranmer and Ridley and Latimer and all the English Reformers and the other 
Trinitarian Reformers of the Continent in throwing off the yoke of the usurped jurisdic- 
tion of Rome from their necks acted in strict accordance with the decision of the Uni- 
versal Church ill this Canon, and their decision was rendered doubly urgent because 
Rome had fallen away from the faith long before and held to the worship of creatures, 
and to transubstantiation and its wafer worship, here.sies and idolatries, condemned ante- 
cedently and by neces.sary inclusion by its decisions against e\'en the Nestorian worship 
of Christ's humanity, and much more '(a fortiori) against the worship of any creature less 
than that perfect humanity, (and all other creatures are less than that ever spotless hu- 
manity in which dwells God the Word), aad against all real substance presence of 
Christ s divinity and His humanity in the Eucharist, and the error of worshipping them or 
either of them there, or His humanity anywhere. And those decisions of the whole Church 
in its Third Council are enforced by its canons on every Bishop and on every cleric under 
penalty of deposition, and on every laic by excommunication. See its Canons IV and V^I. For 
its decisions against the worship of Christ's humanity and by necessary and logfical inference 
against all creature worship see Chrystal's Epiiesus, vol. I, note 18.3, pages 79-128, and especi- 
ally for the decisions of the whole Churcn, pages 10S-U2; see also note 664, pages .32.3,334; 
notes 676-079, pages 3'3l-362• and for the decisions of the whole Church against the dodge of 
relative worship for that error, see note 949, pages 401-463, and note 150, pages 61-69, and see 
also note 582, pages 225, 226. 

On the decisions of the %vhole Church, on God the Word as the only Mediator by his 
humanity see pages 36.3-400. 

See the Orthodox champion Cyril's utterances and the decisions of the whole Church at 
Ephesus on the Eucharist, that is Thanksgiving as Eucharist means, in note 000, pages 240-31?; 
note i99, pag-.s 229-. 38, and note E, pages 517-52S; note 692, page 407, and note 693, pages 
407, 408. 

We must therefore, in accordance with the aforesaid decisions of the whole Church at 
Ephesus regard all Rome's idolatrous Popes and other Bishops and clergj- as deposed and 
all her laics as excommunicate; and in accordance with Canons of Ephesus we must regard 
them as utterly without authority and as without the Church, till they reform and obey those 
decisions of the Universal Church, and we must also enforce those enactments against all 



Act J 77. 0/ Ephesus. 



own security. But if any one adduce an)'" [other] "enactment 
which conflicts with the things now decreed, it has seemed good to 
all the Holy and Ecumenical Synod that that enactment be of no 
authority" {12), (73). 

who hold to her errors and against all the Bishops and Clerics and laics of all the creature 
invoking and Host worshipping communions, for the Canons of Ephesus smite them all on 
those themes. And Ephesus' decisions are approved by the three World Synods after it. 
And we must regard as guilty and deserving of deprecation, aye mui^t depose and shun, all 
Bishops and clerics who, like Pusey and other corrupters, fault Trinitarian Protestants 
who rebuked and left such Bishops and clergj' at the blessed Reformation in the IGth Cen- 
tury, and we must finish the Reformation by a full Restoration in our day of all that was 
lost in the time of idolatry as Ezra, Nehemiah and the High Priest Jeshua restored at Jeru- 
salem after the Reformation in Babj-lon all that had been lost in the times of Judah's 
idolatry. 

Note 72. — The reference here is undoubtedly to the action of Rome in quoting canons 
of the local Council of Sardica as being those of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in order 
to get appellate jurisdiction over the Diocese of Africa which included six provinces. The 
Africans in noted councils mentioned by Chrystal on that topic in this work below, had 
resisted the usurpation and had refused to receive the said Sardican canons as those of the 
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea because they could not find them in its enactments, but wrote 
to this very Cyril of Alexandria, and to the Bishop of Constantinople, and to the Bishop of 
Antioch, to get the genuine Canons of Nicaea. Cyril had answered synipathizingly and 
courteously and sent the Africans the twenty original Greek Canons of Nicaea and Proclus 
of Constantinople had done the same: and the Africans, thus fortified bj• their brethren of 
the East, courteously but firmly and peremptorily in their Council of C.irthage, A. D. 4i6, 
rejected Rome's attempt to get appellate jurisdiction in Africa. Neither CyxiX nor the 
other Orientals, nor Besula of Carthage, had forgotten that attempt to assail or "touch." as 
this Canon words it," "the liberty of all;" and so, to avoid any claim of Rome on the basis of 
those Canons or on any others to appellate jurisdiction out of her own proper jurisdiction in 
Italy, they and the Universal Church in this, its Third .Synod, added this last peremptory 
and strict clause against anj' such tyrannical innovation. And we maybe sure that Besula, 
the representative present in the Ecumenical Synod from Carthage, would not forget his 
duty to remind all of it. And, remarkably enough, there is no protest from Rome's repre. 
sentatives in the Synod. See further, on Philip a Roman representative in this Council, and on 
this Canon Λ'ΙΙΙ, in vol. II. of Ephesus in this set, pages 131-134. See further on the attempts 
of Rome to secure Appellate Jurisdiction in I,atin Africa and elsewhere. Smith's Gieseler's 
Church History, vol. I, pages 37~-39B, and as to Africa its pages 393, 394, where important 
quotations from the original documents are given in the notes, against Rome's claim there, 
and the Nicene Canons quoted by the Africans to guard their rights, which guard equally 
the rights of Britain, America, and all lands outside of Rome's original jurisdiction in 
part of Italy. For an account of the original independence of the British Church and its 
subjugation by Rome see id , pages 188, note 4; 4G;J, note 11; 529-533; 5.5ί-5δ7. And see also in 
vol. Λ'ΙΙΙ. of Bingham's Antiquities, under Britain, and British Church in the General Index', in 
R. Bingham's ten volume edition, Oxford, A. D. 1855. 

This enactment. Canon VIII, pronounces without authority also all those anti-canonical 
privileges which were gotten by different prelates from the secular i owers, such as the 
power gotten later, that is in A. D. 445, from the vicious Emperor of the West, A'alentinian 
III. by I,eo I of Rome, to crush Hilarj', Metropolitan of Aries, and the liberties of the Galilean 
Church with him; and any such powers as .Augustine, in a letter to I,eo's predecessor Celestine» 
feared that he might get from the secular powers to bring Africa under his yoke, on which 
see below; and such exercises of the right of appellate jurisdiction outside his own jurisdic- 



The Case of Cyprus. 



A Letter (74) Sent by the Holy Synod to Every Bishop 
OF A Province (75), and to Evkry Bishop of a City (76), το 

tion by the Bishop of Constantinople as were not in conformity to the canons, and all 
similar usurpations everywhere; on which see the English translation of Wiltsch's Geogra- 
phy and Slatislics of the Church, volume I, pages 145-154, 431-4;J8, 461-4G5. 

Note 73. — I give the Greek here of this whole Canon VIII: Kai'ojf H'. Πρά}«ο τταρά 
Tois έκκλησιασηκονί βίομηνς και τους κανόνας τών ayiuv ΤΙατέρων [according to the critical 
and learned Beveridge's Sytiodicon, with which agrees the Latin translation in Lambert. 
Chrystal] καηοτομονμενον^ και της ττάντων ί/.ίνβερίας άτζτόμενον^ ~ροσ//•γ}ει?.εν 
ό θεοφύ.εατατοί σννεπίσκοτζος ''Ρτηϊρος, και ηΐ συν αντώ θΐοφΓλεστατοι έττισκο—οι τής Κν-μίων 
επαρχίας, Ζήνων και Ένάγριος. Όθεν, ίττειότ/ τα κοινά πάβη μείζονος όεϊται τής θεραττειας 
ΰς και μείζονα ττ/ν βλάβην φέροντα^ και μάλιστα [καϊ μά/.ιστα is not in Lambert's Greek, 
and Ralle and Potle in a note here sta e that it is not in the edition of Zonaras' Exposition 
by Quintinus, nor in the edition of Balsamon's Exposition by Hervetus, nor in the Trebizond 
manuscript. The note is found on page 203 of the second tome of their Σνντηγμα (Athens, 
A. D. 1852). Compare page 16 of their preface to tome I. Chrystal.] el μ?/δε έθος άρχαϊον 
παρακολο'υβησεν, ώστε τον έτζισκο-ον τής Άντιοχέων ττό/.εως, τας 'εν Κί'~ρω ποιείαβαι 
χειροτονίας, κάβα δια τών ?.ιβέ?./.ωρ κιΐ των οικείων, φωνών έύίόαξαν οΐ εν/.αβέστατοι άνδρες 
οΐ την πρόσοδον τ^ ayig. σννόόφ ποσ/σάμενοι, εξονσι το ανεπημέαστον και άβίαστυν οι τών 
αγίων εκκλησιών, τών κατά την Κνττρον, προεστώτες, κατά τους Kavavas τών οσίων ΐΐατέρων 
και την άρχαίαν σννήθειαν, όι' εαυτών τάς χιιροτονία^ τών εν?.αβεστάτων έπισκόττων 
ποιούμενοι το όέ αντο και ίπΐ τών άλλων διοικήσεων, και τών απανταχού επαρχιών 
ηαραών?.αχθήσεταΐ' ώστε μηδενα τών θεοόι/.εστάτων επισκόπων έπαρχίαν έτέραν οϊικ ονσαν 
άνωθεν και έξ αρχής inrb τ^ν airoi•, ή-γονν τών προ αντον χείρα, καταλαμβάνει ν ά/Λ' ei και 
τις κατέλαβε, και νψ' έαΐ'τόν πεποίηται, βιασάμενος, ταντην άπηδιδόναι ϊνα μη τών Πατέρων 
οΐ κανόνες παραβαίνων ται, μι/δέ εν Ιερουργίας προσχ-ήματι, εξουσίας τίφος κοσμικής 
παρεισδνηται, μηδέ λάθωμεν την έλ.ενθερίαν κατά μικρόν άπο/.έσαντες, ήν ήμίν ίδωρήοατο 
τω Ίδίφ α'ιματι ό Κί'ριος ημών Ιησούς 'Κριστος, ό πάντων άνβρώπων έλ.ενθερωτής. 'Έδοξε 
τοίννν TiJ άγί^ και οΊκονμενικι] σννόδω, σώζεσθαι έκαστη επαρχία καθαρά και αβίαστα τά αύτη 
προσόντα δίκαια έξ αρχής και άνωθεν, κατά το πά/.αι κράτησαν εθος, άδειαν έχοντο$ 
έκαστου μητροττολ.ίτου τά Ισα τών πεπραγμένων προς το οΊκεϊον άσφαλ.ές έκ7.αβεΊν. Έ'ι δε 
τις μαχομενον τύπον τοις ννν ώρισμένοις προκομίσοι, άκνρον τούτο είναι έδυξε τι) dyia πάση 
και οικουμενική σννόδω. 

Ι have translated the above Canon from the Greek in Lambert's Codex Canonum 
Ecclesiae Universae, pages 44-47, where a Latiu translation also is found, and from Ralle and 
Potle's "Σύνταγμα τών θείων και 'Ιερών Κανόνων, tome II. (Athens. 1852), pages 203 and 204. 
In the few places where their texts differ I have followed what I deem the best lection. 

Note 74. — This heading is a marginal reading in column 1325, tome III, of C jleti, Instead 
of it. we find here in his test. "Ca/ions of the Two Hundred holy and blessed Fathers -,vho 
met in Ephesus.''' I have removed this l.^st mentioned heading lo just before the canons 
because I deemed that the marginal reading would most naturnlly come in where I put it. 
Yet I state the fact that the reader may judg • for himself as to that point. 

In Ralle and Potle I find nothing here, hut Fulton has in Latin "Epzstola Synodica," that 
is Synodical Epistle, and in the heading to his English translation, "Encyclical Letter of the 
Synod." 

Note 75. That is, the Metropolitans. 



2 2 Ad VII. of Ephesus. 



THE Presbyters (Jl), the Deacons, and Laics (78), in Regard 
TO THE Oriental (79) Bishops. 



Note 76. That is, to the Bishops who were suffragan to the Metropolitans, Though Canon 
VI of the Second Ecumenical Synod, creates Exarchs, that is. Patriarchs, by putting the 
Metropolitan of the chief city of a -whole Diocese composed of many provinces, above all the 
other Metropolitans in that Diocese, nevertheless the Ecumenical Synod here makes but two 
classes of Bishops in the whole world, that is Metropolitans and suffragans: though not, of 
course, in such a sense as to deny that canon. Such differences among Metropolitans were a 
matter of development and of convenience, and of national proSt, For the Diocese was often 
or generally of one nation or race. And it became necessary for the sake of Church unity in 
every nation that the Metropolitan of its chief city should be a sort of centre to all the 
ecclesiastical forces of the nation. Hence in Canons II and VI of the Second Synod of the 
Christian World, the Bishop of the capital city of each Diocese, -Cvho at first was a 
Metropolitan, it might be, and generally was the case, one of several, was wisely elevated 
above the other Metropolitans to preside in the National Council, to call all the Metro- 
politans together to a Synod in case of an appeal from a Metropolitan and the Synod of 
his province, as is provided for in Canon λ'Ι of the same Second World-Council, and for 
other necessary purposes. For, much as in our present form of government, there lies an 
appeal in civil cases from the lower courts to the highest court of each State, and thence 
to the Supreme Court of the United States, so in the Church there lies an appeal in all 
ecclesiastical cases from the action or decision of a parish, that is, a suffragan Bishop, to 
the Metropolitan and Synod of the Province, which by Canon V of Nicaea and Canon 
XIX of Chalcedou must be held twice every year, and thence to a council of Bishops of 
the whole Diocese, in accordance with canons IX and XVII of the Fourth Synod of the 
Christian World. 

Another but an optional appeal lay by Canons IX and XVII of the same Council to 
the Patriarch of Con.-,tantinople in the Eastern Empire. 

But that is first mentioned in those canons, and authorized, with the option instead of 
appealing to the Exarch, that is, Patriarch of the Diocese. It has never been allowed in the 
W^est, whichin the Middle Ages was tyrannized over by Romeinstead. No appeals were allowed 
thence to Constantinople. In the XXVIIIth Canon of Chalcedon the Exarchs of the three 
great Church Dioceses of Pontus, Thrace, and Asia were subjected to Constantinople. All 
Asia Minor, except the three Provinces of Isauria, CiHcia Prima and Cilicia Secunda.was 
under the Exarch of Ephesus. See Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, book IX, 
chapters, section 9, and book IX, chapter 3, section 16. The Bishop of Caesarea of Cappa- 
docia Prima was Exarch of Pontus. See Bingham, book IX, chapter 2, section 6, and book 
IX, chapter 3, section 2. 

The only encroachment of Constantinople in the West, was later in Rome's jurisdiction 
in Italy when the Emperors of Constantinople helped her to get sway in Southern Italy and 
Sicily, which, however, passed away whea that imperial sway ended and Rome got back her 
domiuion there. Whether after the conquest of Africa by the Byzantine Belisarius in the 
sixth century, appeals were enforced thence to Constantinople by Canon XXVIII of Chalce- 
don, I know not. But its Bishops might get them by that canon, though after resisting 
Rome's claim to Appellate Jurisdiction it must have been galling to have to admit it in the 
case of Constantinople. But for her idolatry and creature worship Carthage and the Diocese 
of Africa were not long after given up by the just God to the cruel Mohammedans, 
who exterminated Christianity from it in the eighth century. 

Of course an appeal lay to an Ecumenical Synod from any Patriarch and from any Bishop 
and from any Synod whatsoever. 

In the Ecumenical Canons we sometimes find that an Exarch is only a higher Metro- 
politan. The Exarch of the Diocese is mentioned ii\ Canons IX and XVII of Chalcedon; and 



The Case of Cypnis. 



The Holy and Ecumenical S\nod Congregated in Ephesus 
BY THE Decree of the Most Religious (80) Emperors, to the 
Bishops of each Province (81), and of each city (82), to the Pres- 
byters (83), Deacons, and to all the laity (84). 

When we assembled in accordance with the pious letter (85) in 
the metropolis of the Ephesians (86), certain persons, being in 
number a little more than thirty, apostatized from us (87), having 
as teacher of their own Apostasy (88) John, the Bishop of the 
Antiochians, and their names are as follows: 

First, that (89) John of Antioch in Syria, and John of Da- 
mascus; 

Alexander of Apamea; 

Alexander of Hierapolis; 

Himerius of Nicomedia; 

Fritilas of Heraclea; 

Helladius of Tarsus; 

its Canon XXVIII evidently reckons the Exarch as one of the Metropolitans of the Diocese, 
though the first of them, for the Metropolitans of the said Dioceses, in it, includes them, be- 
cause they also were ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as the other 
Metropolitans. 

Note 77. —Literally, elders, [πρισβυτέροις). 

Note 78.— Greek, \α-ι•κο'ις. 

Note 79. — The Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch. 

Note 80. — Or, "most reverent," ενσββεστάτων. 

Note 81.— The Metropolitans. 

Note 82. — The Suffragans. 

Note as.- Literally, "/Λί ^/rfirj," as the Greek term here used is well translated in the 
New Testament. 

Note 84.— Literally, "to all the people," {και παντί τω λαω), that is to all the Christian 
people, that is, as we say, "to all the laity." 

Note 85. — The Emperors' Edict summoning the Ecumenical Council. 

Note 86. — Ephesus. 

Note 87. — Or, "stood off' from among us;" Greek, άττεστησαν. Their action was both an 
apostasy and a standing off as its result. 

Note88.— Greek. άτοσ7ασ/αζ• The language and decision of the Council abundantly 
prove that they did not regard Nestorianism as a separation merely but as an Apostasy from 
fundamental and essential and necessary doctrines of the Christian faith, that is from ihe 
Incarnation, from the worship of God alone, and from what is, in effect, the real absence of 
the substances of Christ's flesh and blood from the Eucharist to their real material sub- 
stances presence there, and to the pagranism of worshipping them there, and to what St 
Cyril calls the cannibalism of eating and drinking them there. 

Note 89. — Or, "first John of Antioch in Syria himself." 



24 Ad VII. of Ephesiis. 



Maximinus of Anazarbus; 

Theodore (90) of Marcianopolis; 

Peter of Trajanopolis; 

Paul of Emesa; 

Polycbronius of the City of the Heracleans; 

Eutherius of Tyana; 

Meletius of Neocaesarea; 

Theodoret of Cyrus; 

Apringius of Chalcedon (91); 

Macarius of Eaodicea the Great (92); 

Zosys of Esbus; 

Sallust of Corycus in Cilicia; 

Hesychius of Castabala in Cilicia; 

Valentinus of Mutloblaca; 

Eustathius of Parnassus; 

Philip of Theodosiana; and 

Daniel; and 

Dexianus; and 

Julian; and 

Cyril; and 

Olympius; and 

Diogenes; (93) and 

Theophanes of Philadelphia; 

Graiauus (94) of Augusta; 

Aurelius of Irenopolis; 

Musaeus of Aradus; 

Helladius of Ptolemais: 
who have no permission of Church Communion that they should be 
able to hurt or help any by sacerdotal authority; for some of them 
had been already deposed, and all of them were most clearly con- 



NOTE 90. — Or "Dorotheus." 

Note 91. —Or "Chalcis;" note there in Harduin., tome I, col. 1621, margin. 

Note 92. — No less than four Laodiceas are mentioned in the "Index of Episcopal Sees" at 
the end of book IX of Bingham's Antiquities. 

Note 93.— A marginal note in Coleti here states that "Polius" is here inserted in the ms. 
Seg. 

NOTE 94. — Or, according to another reading, Tarianus ' 



The Case of Cyprics. 



victed before all of promoting the opinions of Nestorius and of 
Celestius, by the very fact that they were unwilling in connection 
with us to condemn Nestorius by their votes: whom the Holy 
Synod by a decree in common has made aliens from all Church 
Communion, and has stripped them of all sacerdotal power, by 
which they were able to hurt or help any persons (95), (96). 

[Canons of the Two Hundred Ηοι,υ and Blessed Fathers 
Who Met in Ephesus (97)."] 

Preface to the Canons: 

"And (98) forasmuch as it is necessary that those who were left 
off from the Holy Synod (99) and have remained in country or in 
town for some cause churchly or bodily, should not be ignorant of 
what was formulated in it, in regard to them (100) we [hereby] 
make known to your Holiness and Love that : 

Note 95. — The Greek, as in Fulton's Codex Canonum, page 150, reads as follows: 
0Ϊ Τίνες ττ/ς έκκλτ/σκιστικής κοινωνίας μτ/όεμίαν έχοντες a<hiav ώς έξ ανθΐνηας Ιερα'ΐκΐ/ς, 
ε'ΐΓ το όυνασβαί τινας έκ ταντης βλάτττειν η ώφε/.είν, όιά rb και τινας εν αντοις είναι 
καθιιρημένονς, προ πάντων μεν τα ΈεστορΊον και τα Κε?.εστίου ψροντιματα επιφερόμ€νοι 
σαώέστατα απεδείχθησαν, ίκ τοϋ μί) ελέοθαι μΐβ" r /μών Ί^εστορίον κατατρηφΊσασΜαι ονς 
τινας ό6}ματί κοινώ η άγια συνοδός νάσης μεν ίκκ7.ησιαστικής κοινωνίας άλλοτρίονς 
εποίησε πάσαν δε αυτών ένέργειαν Ιερατικών περιεϊλε, δι' τ/ς ήδΰναντο β?.άπτειν η ώφελείν 
τινας. 

ΝΟΤΕ 96. — I,ambert in note 1, page 46 of his Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae quotes, 
on Canon VIII of Ephesus below, the following from Johnson's Vade Mecum: 

"By this canon our divines have fully established the exemption of the British Churches 
from subjection to any Patriarch whatever; for it cannot be made to appear that either the 
Bishop of Rome, or of any other see, had any manner of jurisdiction over us before this 
canon was made; and whatever power he has assumed since was contrary to this canon." 

That is well said. Furthermore the sway of Rome over us was idolatrizing and corrupt- 
ing, and degrading. She is "the great whore which did corrupt the earth with her fornica- 
tion^'" Rev. XVII, 1-18; XVIII, and XIX, 1-4, that is the spiritual whoredom of praying to 
creatures contrary to Chrisfs law in Matthew IV, 10, and worshipping images, crosses, and 
other mere things. In the Old Testament the term "whoredom''' is app'ied to such sins again 
and again. In Rev. XVII, 18, the Babylonian Harlot is explained in words which can mean 
Rome only, as Christian writers have explained from the beginning. 

Note 97. — On this see note 74 on the first part of this Circular I,etter a little above. All in 
brackets is perhaps an addition of a copyist. I mean the words, "Canons of the Two 
Hundred Holy and Blessed Fathers who met in Ephesus." 

Note 98. —The "and" here connects the Canons with the Circular I,etter just before 
them, for with it they evidently formed one document. 

Note 99. — The Emperor's I,etter convoking the council was addressed to the Metropoli- 
tans onlj•, each of whom is directed by it to bring with him "a few''' of his suffragans, "as 
many as he max approve." This expression implies of course that the rest of his suffragans 
were to be "left off." See it on page 37, vol. I, of Chrystal's translation of Ephesus. 



26 ΚΑΝΟΝΕΣ 

Της εν Έφέσω Τρίτης ΟΙκουμενικής Συνόδου. 



CANON Ι. 



Επειδή^ έχρήν και τους άπολειφΰ^έντας της αγίας συνόδου, 
και ^μείναντας κατά χώραν ή ττόλιν διά τίνα αΐτίαν η έκκλησια- 
στικήν, η σωματικήν, μη άγνοήσαι τα ^έΐ' amfj τετυπωμένα, 
γνωρίζομεν τι] υμετέρα άγιότητι καΐ άγάπΐ], ^δτιπερ εΐ τις μη- 
τροπολίτης της επαρχίας άποστατήσας της άγιας και οικουμενι- 
κής συνόδου, προσέϋ^ετο τω της αποστασίας (^^ συνεδρίω, ή μετά 
τοϋτο προστεϋ^είη, η τά ^Κελεστίου'-^) έψρόνησεν η ^φρονήσει, 
ούτος κατάτώντής ^επαρχίας επισκόπων διαπράττεσ^αί τι ούδα- 
αώς δύναται, πάσης εκκλησιαστικής κοινωνίας έΐ'τεϋϋ^εν ήδη 
υπό τής συνόδου έκβεβλη μένος και άνενέργητος υπάρχων. 'Αλλά 
και αύτοϊς τοις τής επαρχίας έπισκόποις, και τοις πέριξ μητρο- 
πολίταις τοις τά τής όρϋοδοξίας ^φρονοϋσιν ύποκείσεται εις το 
πάντη καΐ τοΰ βα'&μοϋ τής επισκοπής έκβλη'&ήναι. 



CANON Π. 



ΕΙ δέ τίνες έπαρχιώται επίσκοποι άπελείφ^ησαντής άγιας συνό- 
δου και τή αποστασία προσετέϋ'ησαν, ή προστε'&ήναι πειραϋ^εΐεν, 
ή και ύπογράψαντες τή Νεστορίου καΰ'αιρέσει έπαλινδρόμησαν 
προς το τής αποστασίας συνέδρων τούτους πάντη κατά το δόξαν 
τή άγια συνόδω αλλότριους είναι τής ίερωσύνης και τοΰ βαϋ•μον 
^έκπίπτειν. 



27 



CANONS 

OF THE THIRD WORLD-SYNOD, EFHESUS, A. D. 431. 



Canon I. 

Pimishment of Nestorianidvg and Pclagiayiizing Meiropolitans. 

If any Metropolitan of a Province has apostati/ed from the 
Holy and Ecumenical Synod, and has joii.ed himself to the Fan- 
hedrira of the Apostasy (101) or may hereafter join himself to it, 
or has held or may hold the opinions of Celestins, he can in no 
wise effect anj^ thing against the Bishops of the Province, for he 
is henceforth cast out of all ecclesiastical communion by the Synod, 
and is rendered incapable of doiug anything. And, moreover, he 
shall be subject to the Bishops of the Province themselves and to 
the Metropolitans round about who hold the sentiments of Ortho- 
doxy, in order that he may by all means be cast out from the grade 
of the episcopate also. 



Canon II. 



Punishment of all Nesiorianizing suffragan Bishops. 

But if any of the provincial Bii-hops (102) have been left off 
from the Holy Synod, and have joined themselves to the Apos- 
tasy, or have attempted to join themselves, or if they have even 
subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius, but have afterwards run 
back to the Sanhedrim of the Apostasy (103), they shall, by all 
means, in accordance with the decree of the Holy Synod, be aliens 
from the priesthood (104) and shall fall out from their grade. 



28 Canons of the Synod of Ephesus. 

CANON III. 

El δε τινες^ και των εν εκάστη] πόλει η χώρα, κληρικών νπο 
Νεστορίον και των συν αντω δντων της ίερωσύνης έκωλνϋ^ησαν 
δια το όρχεως φρονεΐν εδικαιώοαμεν και τούτους τον 'ίδιον άπο- 
λαβείν βα'&μόν. Κοινώς δε τους zfj όρ'&οδό^ω και οίκονμενικτ} 
συνόδω σνμφρονοϋντας κληρικούς, κελεύομεί' τοις άποστατήσα- 
σιν ή άφισταμένοις έπισκόποις ^ μηδόλως νποκεΐσϋαι κατά μη- 
δένα τρόπον. 



CANON ΙΛ^ 



Ει δε τίνες άποστατήσαιεν τών κληρικών, και τολμήοαιεν η 
κατ Ιδίαν η δημοσία τα Νεστορίον (^) η τά Κελεστίου φρονήσαι, 
και τούτους είναι κα^ηρημένους, νπο της αγίας σννόδον δεδι- 
καίωται. 



CANON V. 



'Όσοι δε έπι άτόποις πράξεσι κατεκρί&ησαν νπο της άγιας 
σννόδον η νπο τών οικείων επισκόπων και τούτοις άκανονίστως 
κατά την εν άπασιν άδιαφορίαν αντον, δ Νεστόριος και οι τά 
αντον φρονονντες, άποδονναι έπειράΰ^ησαν, η πειραΰ^εΐεν κοινω- 
νίαν ή βαϋ'μδν, άνωφελήτονς είναι και τούτονς, καΐ μένειν ονδεν 
ήττον καϋ^ηρημένονς '^ έδικαιώσαμεί'. 



CANON ΥΙ. 



'Ομοίως δε και ει τίνες βονλη'&έϊεν τά περί ^ εκάστων πεπραγ- 
μένα εν τη άγια σννόδω τη εν Έφέσω οιωδήποτε τρόπω πάρα- 



Ca7i07is of the Third Ecumenical Council. 29 



Canon III. 

Restoration of all Orthodox clerics unjustly deposed. They must not 
be S2ibject to Nestoriaji Bishops. 
But if any of the clerics in any city, or country place, under 
Nestorius and those who are of his party, have been hindered from 
the functions of the priesthood (105), on account of their believ- 
ing rightly, we have deemed it just also that they should recover 
their own rank. And, in common, we command the clerics who 
agree in opinion with the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod, to be 
not at all subject in any way to the Bishops who have apostatized 
or are apostatizing (106). 



Canon IV. 

All Nestorianizing and all Pelagianizing clerics to he deposed. 

But if any of the clerics have apostatized and have dared 
either in private or in public to hold the errors of Nestorius or 
those of Celestius, it has been deemed just by the Holy Synod 
that they also be deposed (107). 



Canon V. 
Nestorian restorations of heretical or immoral clergy invalidated. 
Furthermore, we have deemed it just that all those who have 
been condemned by the Holy Synod or by their ov/n Bishops for 
actions which were out of place, and to whom uncanonically and 
in accordance with his "[wonted] "lack of discrimination in all 
things, Nestorius and those who hold his opinions have tried or 
may try to restore communion or rank, that 'all such shall remain 
without profit" [from such action of Nestorius and his partisans] 
"and that they shall be none the less deposed (108). 



Canon VI. 
Punishment of all who try to disturb any oj the decisions of Ephesus. 
And in like manner, moreover, if any persons wish to dis- 
turb in any way whatever, the things done in regard to each and 



30 Canons of the Synod of Ephesus. 

σα?^ύειν' ή αγία σύνοδος ώρισεί', εΐ μεν επίσκοποι εΐεν η κληρι- 
κοί, τοϋ οικείου παντελώς άποπίπτειν βαϋ^μοϋ' ει δε λαϊκοί, άκοι- 
νωνήτονς ύπάρχειν. 



ΟΑΝΟΝ VII. 



Τούτων ^άναγνωσ'&έντων, (^^ ώρισεν ή αγία σύνοδος, έτέραν 
πίστιν μηδενΐ έξεΐναι προφέρειν ήγουν συγγράφειν ή σνντί'&έναι, 
παρά την όρισ'&εΐσαν παρά των άγίωγ πατέρων των εν ττ] ^Νι- 
καέων συναχϋέντων πόλει, συν άγίω Πνενματι. Τους δε τολμών- 
τας ή συντιϋέναι πίστιν έτέραν ήγουν προκομίζειν ή προφέρειν (-) 
τοις ϋ^έλουσιν έπιστρέφειν εις έπίγνωσιν της άλη'&είας, ή έξ 'Ελλη- 
νισμού, ή έξ Τουδαϊσμοϋ, ήγουν εξ αιρέσεως οιασδήποτε' τούτους 
ει μεν εΐεν επίσκοποι ή κληρικοί, αλλότριους εΐναι τους επισκόπους 
της επισκοπής, και τους κ?α]ρικούς τοϋ κλήρου' ει δε λαϊκοί εΐεν, 
άνα'&εματίζεσϋ^αι. Κατά τον ίσον δε τρόπον, ει ψωραϋεϊέν τίνες 
είτε επίσκοποι είτε κληρικοί, είτε λαϊκοί, ή φρονοϋΐ'τες ή διδά- 
σκοντες τά εν τή προκομισ'&είση εκθέσει παρά Χαρισίου(^^ τοϋ 
πρεσβυτέρου, περί της έναν&ρωπήσεως τοϋ μονογενούς Υίον 
τοϋ Θεοϋ, ήγουν τά'' μιαρά και διεστραμμένα τοϋ Νεστορίου 
δόγματα, α και ύποτέτακταΐ' ύποκείσϋωσαν τη άποφάσει της 
άγιας ταύτ7]ς και οικουμενικής συνόδου' ώστε δ7]λονότι τον μεν 
έπίσκοπον άπαλλοτριοϋσΰ^αι της επισκοπείς και είναι καϋ^ηρημέ- 
νον, τον δε κληρικόν ομοίως έκπίπτειν τοϋ κλήρου' ει δε λαϊκός 
τις εΐη, και ούτος άνα'&εματιζέσ'&ω, ^ καϋ^ά προείρ^μαι. 



CANON VIII. 



Πράγμα παρά τους εκκλησιαστικούς ΰ^εσμούς και τους κανό- 
νας τών άγιων ^ πατέρων καινοτόμου μενον και της πάντων έλευ 



Canons of the Third Ecumenical Cou7icil. 31 

every matter in the Holy Synod at Epbesus, the Holy Synod has 
decreed, that if they are Bishops or clerics they shall utterly fall 
from their own grade, but if they are laics they shall be without 
communion (109). 

Canon VIL 

Piinis/imcnt of all who dare io offer a faith cojitrary to that of 
Nicaea to co?ivcrts to the truth, and of those who hold the Ncstorian 
denial of the Incarnation and to the Nestorian relative worship of 
Christ's separate hnmanity as in a Nestorian Forthset. 

Canon VII \s really a decision of the Council in its Sixth Act repardinii the Man-Wor- 
shippiiiii CreC'l of The dore of Mopsnestia, and is found in volume II of Epliems. on 
pajies it-i.-iih. S e the context. The Greek i> iu note 32tj, page :i25 there. See it also in the 
parallel column here. • 

Decisio7i of the Synod on the Fiiith, in -which it also decided in re- 
gard to those ?nattcrs which the aforesaid Charisius reported: it is as 
foUoius: ' 

"These things, therefore, having been read, the Holy Synod has 
decreed that no one shall be allowed to offer or to write or to com- 
p ..^e another faith contrary to that decreed by the Holy 
Fathers gathered in the city of the Nicaeans with the Holy 
Gliost. But those who dare either to compose or -to bring for- 
ward or to offer another faith to those wishing to turn to the 
acknowledgment of the truth, either from heathenism or from 
Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever; these, if they are Bishops 
or clerics, are to be aliens, the Bishops from the episcopate and the 
clerics from the clericate; but if they are laymen they are to be 
anaibematized. In the same manner, if any are detected, whether 
they be Bishops or clerics or laics either holding or teaching 
those things which are in the Forthset bi ought forward by Cha- 
risius the Elder in regard to the Inman of the Sole Born Son 
of God, that is to say, the foul and perverse dogmas of Nestor 1 us, 
which are even its basis, let them lie under the sentence ot tins 
Holy and Ecumenical Sjnod, that is to say, the Bishop shall be 
alienated from the episcopate and shall be deposed; and the cleric 
in like manner shall fall out of the clericate; but if any one be a 
laic, even he shall be anathematized, as has been said before." 



Caxox Vin. 
/decision to Protect the Rig]its of Cyptus and of every Province and 
Nation against usurpers. 



32 Canons of the Synod of Ephesiis. 

ϋ^ερίας άπτόμενον, προσήγγειλεν δ 'θεοφιλέστατος σννεπίσκοπος 
'Ρηγινος και οι συν αντω 'θεοφιλέστατοι σννεπίσκοποι της Κυ- 
πρίων επαρχίας Ζήνων καΐ Ενάγριος' δ'&εν^ έπεώή τά κοινά 
πάθί] μείζονος δεϊται τ'ής 'θεραπείας, ώς και μείζονα την βλάβΊ]ν 
φέροντα,^ και μάλιστα ει μηδέ ε'&ος άρχαΐον παρηκολού'θ7]σεν, 
ώστε τον έπίσκοπον της Άντιοχέων πόλεως, τάς εν Κύπρω ποιεΐ- 
σϋαι χειροτονίας, κα'θά δια των λιβέλλων και των οικείων φωνών 
έδίδαξαν οι ευλαβέστατοι άνδρες οι την πρόσοδον τη αγία 
συνάδω ποιησάμενοι, εζουσι το άνεπηρέαστον και άβίαστον οι τών 
αγίων έκκλΊ]σιών τών κατά την Κνπρον προεστώτες, κατά τους 
κανόνας τών οσίων πατέρων και την άρχαίαν σννήθειαν, δι 
εαυτών τάς χειροτονίας τών ευλαβέστατων επισκόπων ποιούμε- 
νοΐ'(-) το δε αϋτο και έπι τών άλλων διοικήσεων και τών απαν- 
ταχού επαρχιών παραφ/υλαχβήσεται. ώστε μηδένα τών 'θεοφι- 
λέστατων έτΗοκόπων έπαρχίαν έτέραν ουκ οϋσαν άνωθεν και 
εξ άρχης "υπο την αύτοϋ, 'ίίγουν τών προ αύτοϋ, χείρα κατα- 
λαμβάνειν άλλ' ει καί τις κατέλαβε, και νφ' έαντώ πεποίηται 
βιασάμεΐ'ος,^ τα'ύτην άποδιδόναι, ίνα μη τών πατέρων οι κανόνες 
παραβαίνωΐ'ται, μηδέ εν Ιερουργίας προσχ^)ματι εξουσίας τύφος 
κοσμικής παρεισδύηται, μ7]δε λάθωμεΊ' την έλευ'θερίαν (^^ κατά 
μικρόν άπολέσα'ντες, ην ήμΐν έδωρ7]σατο τω ίδίω αϊ μάτι δ Κύ- 
ριος ημών Ίησοϋς Χριστός, ό πάντων ανθρώπων ελευθερωτής. 
'Έδοξε τοίνυν τή αγία και οικουμενική συνάδω, σώζεσ'θαι εκά- 
στη επαρχία καθαρά και αβίαστα τά αυτή προσόντα δίκαια εξ 
αρχής και άνωθεν, κατά το πάλαι κράτησαν εθος' άδειαν εχοιπ:ος 
εκάστου Μιμροπολίτου τά ίσα τών πεπραγμένων προς τό οί- 
κεΐον ασφαλές έκλαβεΐν. Ει δε τις μαχόμενον τύπον τοις νυν ώρι- 
σμένοις προκομίσοι, άκυρον τοΰτο είναι εδοξε τή αγία "πάση 
και οικουμενική συνόδω. 



Canons of the Third Eaimenicc I Council. 33 

Canon VIII \s the decision of the Synod in its Seventh Action, which guards the 
autonomy and other rights of Cyprus, Britain, and every other national Church. See it 
above, pages 12-20 of this volume, where it will be found with the explanatory context. 

Vote of the Same Holy Synod. 
The Holy Synod Said: 

The most dear to God Fellow Bishop Rheginus, and Zeno and 
Evagrius, the most dear to God Bishops of the province of the 
Cypriots, who are with him, have brought us tidings of a thing 
which is an innovation contray tc the Church laws and to the 
canons of the hol^' Fathers, and which touches the liberty of all. 
"Wherefore, since the common sufferings require the greater rem- 
edy, because they bring the greater damage, and especially since 
no ancient custom has come down for the Bishop of the city of the 
Antiochians to perform the ordinations in Cyprus, as the most 
religious men who have come to the Holy Synod have shown in 
their written statements and by their own v^oices; the prelates 
of the holy Churches in Cj'prus shall have the unassailable and 
inviolable right, in accordance with the canons of the holy 
fathers and the ancient custom, of performing by themselves the 
ordinations of their most religious Bishops. And the same right 
shall be carefully preserved regarding the other Dioceses and 
the Provinces everywhere, so that no one of the most dear to 
God Bishops shall seize upon another province which has not 
been under his hand, aforetime and from the beginning, that is 
to say which has not been under the hand of these before him" 
[in his own see.]. "Moreover, even if any one has seized upon" 
[another province], "and brought it b}' force under himself, he 
must give it back; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed, 
and lest under the pretence of sacred function the pride of" 
[worldly] "authority slip in by stealth, and we lose unawares little 
by little the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator 
of all men, gave us by His own blood. It has therefore seemed 
good to the Holy and Ecumenical Synod that there shall be pre- 
served pure and inviolate to each province the rights which have 
belonged to it aforetime from the beginning, in accordance with 
the ancient prevailing custom; each Metropolitan having permis- 
sion to take oflF copies of this Action for his own securit}'. But if 
any one adduce any" [other] "enactment which conflicts with the 
things now decreed, it has seemed good to all the Holy and 
Ecumenical Synod that that enactment be of no authority." 



34 -^(^ VII. of Ephesus. 



"Epistle of the Same Holy axd Ecumenical Third 
Synod TO the Holy (Π0) Synod of Pamphylia Concerning 
EusTATHius Who Had Been Their Metropolitan." 

With counsel he doetii all things {\ 1 1), says the God-inspired vScrip- 
ture. It behooves therefore especially those whose lot it is to be 

Note 100, p. 25. — The expression 'Vo them" relates to Nestorius and the other deposed and 
excommunicated Bishops who are mentioned in the Circular Letter of the Council, just 
above. It is given in the text of Bruns' Canones, but not by Fulton in his Index Canonum. 
Ralleand Potlein their Σί'ΐ^ταγμα Καιόνω)', tome 2, Athens, A. D., 1852, do not give it in 
their text, but in a note tell us that it is found in four editions of these canons by different 
writers. 

Note ICl, p. 27 — Or, "i/ie little Synod of the Apostasy" τω της ή~οστασίας σννεί^ρίω The 
Jewish Sanhedrim is called in the New Testament a συυεόριον. See Jlatt. XXVI, 59, and in 
Josephus as quoted under σννέί^ηον in .Sophocles' Greek Lexicon. 

Note 102, p. 27. — That is any of the Bishops suffragan to a Metropolitan. 

Note 103, p. 27. — Or, "the hllle Council of the Apostasy." 

Note 104, p. 27.— or "the hervhood" (coined from ιερείς to express the sacerdotal rank and 
title). 

Note 105, p. 29. — Or "hervhood." 

Note 100, p. 29. — This, like the decisions against other heretical Bishops, that is the Arialis, 
Macedonians, Eutj'chians and others, is not only a gviarantee for sound Protestants not to 
submit to any creature invoking or image-worshipping Bishops, but a command for them 
not to do so. They should, however, submit to a sound Bishop and follow the Six Syuods 
under him, where such a man can be found. Of course to submit to a creature-server is to 
give up Christ's sound faith, for such heretics crush it wherever they can, and to damn 
one's soul: see God's teaching regarding Rome in Rev. XVII, i8, and Rev. ΧΛΊΙΙ, 4, and their 
contexts. The position of the God alone worshipping Trinitarian Protestants to day is like 
that of the Reformed Jews in Babylon. Thence they went up to Jerusalem to complete 
their Reformation by a full Restoration of all their Mosaic Economy. So shall we complete 
our Reformation by a full Restoration of New Testament Christianity. B;it whereto we 
have already attained, let us in loyalty to God and as his chosen people (Rev. XVIII, 4; I Peter 
II, 5, 9, Greek, "chosen race") hold fast. 

Note 107„ p. 29. — The errors of Pelagius and Celestius astolJ by Marius Mercator, who was 
of the filth century and therefore contemporary with their authors, in the Preface to his 
Subnolalions on the IVords of Julian &τ& as ioWov^s: 

[I]. "Adam was made mortal, and must have died, whether he had sinned or not 
sinned. " 

[2]. The sin of Adam injured himself alone, and not the human race. 

[3], Infants who are born are in that state in which Adam was before his transgression. 

[4]. The whole human race does not die by the death of Adam because the whole human 
race does not rise again by Christ's resurrection. 

1 5]. Infants, even if they be not baptized, have eternal life. 

These five heads breed one most impious and abominable opinion." 

He adds [6], that "a man can be without sin, and easily keep God's commands, because 
before Christ's coming there were men without sin. 

And so [7] the law sends" [men] "to the rest of heaven just as much as the Gospel does." 
See Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome XLVIII, col. 114, Marius Mercator, lib. subnet. 

Any one well acquainted with the Bible can readily find passages there to refute those 
heresies, See further on them and their authors in Blunt's Dictionary of Doctrinal and 



The Synod's Decisio?i on Eustathiiis. 



Priests (112) 1o examine with all strictness what is to be done in 
every thiug. For ihey wish to pass their lives in such a way that 

Historical Theology, under Pclagianism, and under Pelagia?is and Celesiians in his Dictionary 
of Sects, and in McClintock & Strong's Cyclopaedia vmacT Pelagiatiism and Pelasi'ts,&nA 
Coelestius. What Jerome writes of him in an Epistle to Ctesiphon, A. D. 41S, r.s quoted in 
the article Coeh'stnts there, may serve to explain why he figures so prominently in the 
Canons of the Third AVorld-Synod and in the preface to them: it is as fcl'ows: 

"Although a scholar uf Telagiu^i, he is yet leader and master of the whole host." 

See also Augustine's works against his and Pelsgius' heresies. 

According to Β unt in his Dictionary of Sects, pa^e 417, outer co'.wmn. wnder Pelagians, 
the heresiarch Theodore of Mopsu'^stia, though at first opposed to Pelagian views, neterthe- 
less before his death inclined to them. See there. 

Note 108, p. 2a.— Tlie Universal Church has never known any false liberalism except to 
condemn it. She always in her sound rormal .«-tate, before the lap e into creature service 
made verj' short work of putting out creature ser\-ing heretics, like the Aii ins and Nestori- 
ans, for instance, and puttii;g anti-creature servers into their places. So should every nation 
do now. For such creaturc-invokers are murderers of souls. The sound English Bishops 
did that very justly and wisely Λvith idolatrous prelates in England at the Reformation, and 
the result was national bles-ing. 

Note 109, p. 31.— These penalties of course smite all who deny the Incarnation of God the 
Word in the womb of the Virgin, ami the birth of His two natures out of it, and all 
who worship the mere separate humanity of Christ even relatively as did the Nestorians, 
and much more all who worship in any way, be it by bowing, invocation, or in any other 
•way, any lesser creature than that spotless humanity, (and all other creatures are less 
than it), be it the Virgin Mary, archangel, angel, or saint, and all who, like Romanists, 
Greeks, and others relatively worship images painted or graven, crosses, altars or communion 
tables by bowing to them; or kis.siug them, or by incensing them, or in any other way; for 
surely, if, by this canon I may not relatively worship Christ's humanity in which God the 
Word dwells, much less may I such things. And it smites all who, like the Pelagians, deny 
the necessity of baptizing infants, and all their other heresies. Alas! these facts were for- 
gotten in the Middle Ages, and are not known to millions now or those sins would be the 
sooner forsaken. Dr. Wall, in his learned History of In/ant Baptism, shovrs that as God 
under the Mosaic Covenant made, in Genesis XVII, 14, circumcision necessary for every 
male infant, so the ancieut Christians held, lie has made baptism necessary for all of every 
age and sex under the new and better Covenant cf Christ for, in John III, 5, He has said in 
warning language: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, 1/ any one be not born out of water and 
cf tl-.e Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." The Greek as in the text cf 
Tischendorf's "Eighth critical larger edition" of the Greek Testament, (Lipsiae, 1869), is as 
follows: 'Aur/v, autjv, /.έγω σοι, εάν μη τις γη-νηθή ίξ νόατοσ και ΐΐνενματος ού όίναται 
e'tctf?Meiv εις την βαοιλείαν των ovpavibv. But see the exhaustive work of Wall. But the 
Pilagians baptized infants neverthele.ss. Antipatdobaptism, ΛVall states, began in sect form 
in the Xllth Century. The first volume of Wall before me has the Antipaedobaptist 
Gale's Reflections and Wall's Defence. It was printed at the University Press. Oxford, in 
A. D. 1844. The work contains quotations from all or nearly all writers of the first 400 years 
on Infant Baptism. 

Note 110, p. 34.— Or "pure." 

Note 111. — This seems to be the sense of several texts taken together rather than a 
reference to anj• particular one, a way of quoting full as common in earlier times when 
Concordances did not abound, if there were any at all, as to-day when they do. 

Note 112. — As every Christian is a priest, that is, a performer of sacred functions, as 
the Greek means, much more is a Bishop. Cotnpare volume I of Ntcaea in this set, pages 
3, 4, 6 and 124; and on the whole doctrine of the Christian priesthood see Volume I of Ephesus 



36 Ad VII. of Ephesiis. 



their affairs shall be of good hope, and that they may obtain 
whatever is fitting and prosperous in their prayers: and the plan so 
to live has in it much that is seeml}'. 

But when a piercing and unendurable grief falls upon the 
mind, it knows how to perturb it terribly, and to take away the 
prey [or "game"] "already taken from those who need it, and to 
persuade it to do wrong to a present condition of affairs, in order 
to see something advantageous" \as the result. 1 "We have seen 
the most religious and most reverent Bishop Eustathius suffering 
some such thing. For he has been canonically ordained as has 
been testified: but being troubled, as he says, by certain persons, 
and having gotten into unexpected circumstances, he then, owing 
to his very quiet disposition, renounced resistance to the cares laid 
upon him, although he was able to clear himself from the evil 
reports alleged by his assailants, and, we know not how, he 
presented his written resignation. For it was behooving him 
when he had once undertaken the hieratic care, to hold on to it 
with spiritual strength, and, so to speak, to strip for conflict with 
the toils 0/ its functions, and willingly to endure the sweat for 
which he was paid. But since he has once shown himself to be 
heedless, having sufiered this thing owing to his quiet disposition 
rather than from sloth and laziness, your Godfeariugness in 
accordance with the necessity of the case, has ordained the most 
religious and most God-fearing our brother and Fellow-bishop 
Theodore, who is about to undertake the care of the Church: for it 
was not a reasonable sequence that it should remain widowed and 
that the flocks of the Saviour should continue without a chief 
pastor. But since he has come weeping, not quarreling regarding 
the city or the Church with the aforesaid most God-fearing Bishop 
Theodore, but only asking for a time the honor and appellation of a 
Bishop, we were all grieved for the old man, and, considering his 
tears to be a matter of common interest to all, we hastened to learn 
whether the aforesaid Eustathius had endured a lawful deposition, 
or whether indeed he had been accused of certain unbecoming 

on it, Index II, under Pi'iest and Piteslhood. and Priestly, jcaa in Index III under I Peter 
II, 5; II. 5, 9, and II, 9, and Rev. I, C; and in Index IV, Ίΐράτενμα, ieptiif, ίίμονργών 
and ΐ€β(οσυν?/ς. 



The Synod's Decision on the Messa/ia7is 37 



things by those who were chattering away his reputation. And 
now we have learned that no such thing has been done, but rather 
that the resignation of the aforesaid was the ground of the action 
against him instead of an accusation. Wherefore we have not 
found fault with your Godfearingness which properly ordained in 
his place the aforesaid most religious Bishop Theodore. 

But since it was not fair to quarrel vehemently with the quiet 
disposition of the man, but it was behooving us rather to pity the 
old man, who was without a city which had maintained him witliin 
it, and who had been for so long a time aΛvay from his hereditary 
dwelling places, we have deemed it right and have decreed that, 
without any contradiction, he shall have the name and the honor 
and the communion of the episcopate; in such wise, however, that 
he shall not ordain, nor moreover shall he take possession of a 
Church and minister by his own authority, but he shall be 
taken along with one, or he shall be permitted io officiate, if it 
so happen, by a brother and Fellow-bishop in accordance with 
some arrangement and in accordance with Christian love. But 
if ye determine any thing more useful for him, either now, or 
hereafter, this also will be pleasing to the Holy Synod. 

Decree of the Third Ecumenicai, Synod, Held at 
Ephesus a. D. 431, AGAINST THE Messalians, Who Are Also 
Called Euchites, or Enthusiasts. 

The most pious and most religious Bishops Valerian and 
Amphilochius have come to us, and have proposed that we consider 
in common the matters in regard to the Messalians, that is 
the Euchites or Erithusiasis, or whatsoever be the name by which 
that most contaminated heresy is called, and who live in Pamphy- 
lia. But while we were considering the affair the most pious and 
most religious Bishop Valerian brought forward a Syuodical docu- 
ment composed regarding them in great Constantinople under 
Sisinnius of blessed memory: which, when it was read, was ap- 
proved by all, because it was well put together, and was right. 
And it has pleased us all (1 13), and the most pious (1 14) Bishops 

Note 113. — This Docuiueiit is given in Latin alone here in Mansi, and Hardouiti. The 
Greek for all from "It has pleased us all," to "admitted to com mum 071" inclusive is found 
ill Act I of the Idolatrous Council of Nicaea A. D. 7fa7, which the image-worshipping Greek 



38 Act VII. of Ephcsus. 



Valerian and Amphilochius, and all the most pious Bishops of 
Pamphylia and L,ycaonia (115), that all things, which are contained 
in that Sy nodical document, have validity, and that they be 
neglected in no way (1 16); and that those things which were done 
in Alexandria remain firm; so that all who are Messalians or 
Enthusiasts (1 17) anywhere in that province, or who are suspected 
of being diseased with that heresy (118), whether they are clerics, 
or laics, must be gathered together, and if indeed in writings 
they anathematize in accordance with those things which are pro- 
nounced in writing in the Synod aforesaid, if they are clerics, let 
them remain clerics, if laics, let them be admitted to com- 
munion (119). 

But if they• refuse to anathematize, if they are presbj-ters or 
deacons, or in any [clerical] grade (120) of the Church, let them 
fall out of the clericate, and from their grade, and from communion, 
but if they are laics let them be anathematized. Moreover, those 
who are convicted may not be permitted to have monasteries, lest 
the tares be diffused and increase. That these things be so done, 
let the most pious Bishops Valerian and Amphilochius, and the 
rest of the most reverend bishops of the whole province, exert all 
their strength. Wherefore, in regard to these matters, it has 
pleased us that the polluted book of that heresy, which is called 
' Asceticon,'' and which the most religious and most pious Valerian 
has brought forward, be anathematized, as composed by heretics. 

In like manner if among the great mass" [of the people] "any- 
thing savoring of their heresy be found, let that also be anathema. 

Moreover, while they are convened, let them plainly commit 
to writing those things which are useful, and necessary for concoid 

and Roman Communions caU the Seventh Ecumenical. See the Greek in Coleti's Concilia, 
tome 8, col. 717. 

Note 114. — Greek, "most dear io God." 

Note 115. — Greek, "most pious bishops of ike provinces of the Pamphylians and of the 
Lycaonia7is." 

Note 116.— The Greek translated reads, "-'and that they be transgresifd in no -vny, that 
is thai t/iey remain firm, and those things which zvere done 7« Alexandria (remain firm.]" 

Note 117. — Greek, ''ίΛαί those mho are of the heresy of the Massalians or linlhusiasts." 

Note 118. — Greek, "or who are suspected of such a disease." 

Note 119. — Greek., "if lares, let them remain iu the communion of the Church." At this 
point the Greek quotation ends. 

Note 120.— Or, "rank." 



The Synod's Decision on Euprepius' Petiiion. 39 



and communion and discipline. But if a question arise in regard 
to those things which are involved in this business, and if any- 
thing isdiflScult and ambiguous, which is not approved by the most 
pious Bishops Valerian and Amphilochius and by the other Bishops 
throughout the whole province, let the written documents be 
brought forward, and then they ought to cast out of them all such 
things. And if most pious Bishops, either of the Lycians or of the 
Lycaonians, are lacking, nevertheless, let not the Metropolitan of 
any province be lacking. 

Let these things be recorded, that if any may need them they 
may find them, by which record also they may explain them more 
diligently to others, 

A Petitiox from Euprepius Bishop of Bizya and Arcadi- 

OPOLIS, AND FROM CVRIL, BiSHOP OF COELE, WhICH WaS OFFERED 

TO THE Third Ecumenical Synod (121). 

"Ti? the holy and Universal Synod, congregated by i he favor of 
God and the assent of the most pious Emperors in the metropolis Ephe- 
sus. From Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya and Arcadiopolis, ayid from 
Cyrif Bishop of Code. 

An old custom prevails in the Province of Europa" [in the 
civil Diocese of Thrace,] "that every Bishop should have two or 
three episcopates under himself: wlierefore the Bishop of Heraclea 
has under himself Heraclea and Panium: moreover the Bishop of 
Bizya has under himself Bizya and Arcadiopolis: in like manner 
the Bishop of Coele has Coele and Callipolis: furthermore, the 
Bishop of Subsadia has under himself Subsadia and Aphrodisias. 
And so, aforetime and from the beginning, each Bishop' ' [as aforesaid; 
of the Province] "of Europa" [in Thrace,] "was accustomed 
to administer those two Churches: and the cities aforesaid never 
had their own" [separate] "Bishops: but the others" [above men- 
tioned] "were under Heraclea" [as their metropolis] "from the 
beginning; moreover, the Bishop of Bizya was the Bishop of 
Arcadiopolis; in like manner the Bishop of Coele was Bishop of 
Callipolis. But since, at this present time, Fritilas, Bishop of 
Heraclea, has been declared a7i apostate by the holy Synod, and has 

Note 121.— This Document is given in I<atin alone here in Hardouin and in Mansi. 



4ο Act VII. of Ephesus. 



surrendered himself to Nestorius and to those who hold his" [Nes- 
torius'] "opinions, we suspect either that he in order to punish us 
as enemies to him, or those who with him administer the episco- 
pate of Heraclea, may come to ordain Bishops, contrary to old and 
prevalent custom, in the cities mentioned, which have never had 
Bishops of their own; and so old manners (122) and a custom 
which has prevailed aforetime and from the beginning, will be dis- 
turbed by reason of those who are planning novelties. 

We therefore pray your Pietj^ that a decision be pronounced 
on this thing by your Holy and Great Synod, and that it be ratified 
with your own seal; so that we may not be deprived of our 
Churches in which we have labored verj' much: and so that a cus- 
tom already confirmed by length of time, may not be disturbed by 
any one of those forementioned, and so that contentions and inor- 
dinations (123) may not be made, especially among the Bishops of" 
[the Province of] "Europa" [in Thrace]. "If we gain this our 
request, we will return thanks to the God of all, who has congre- 
gated 3^our Holiness here to correct the Churches of the world. 

The Holy and Universal Synod said, The request of the most 
pious Bishops Euprepius and Cyril, which their petition exhibits, 
is honorable. Wherefore, inasmuch as it is an old custom (124) in ac- 
cordance with the holy canons, and with external laws, and inasmuch 
as it now has the force of law, no innovation shall be made in the 
cities" [of the province] "of Europa" [in the diocese of Thrace,] 
"but let them, in accordance with the old custom, be governed 
bj'the Bishops by whom they were governed aforetime, since as yet 
no Metropolitan has taken away their povv'er, nor hereafter in future 
times can any innovation be made in old custom," (125)." 

Note 1-2. — I,atin, itaque priscos mores et consuetudioein, etc. 

Note 123.- — The lyEtin here is "inordinationes," ■«•hich may be rendered ^'irregular 
ordtiialions" or disorders. So we have transferred the vsord. Such ordinations would of 
course be invalid, for by Canon VI of Ephesus and its other enactments and decisions, Friti- 
las, like the rest of the Nestorian Bishops and clerics, would be degraded f : om their orders. 

Note 124.— The Greek of this document I do not find in Coleti's Concilia, and the I atin 
there given is corrupt. In the margin of column 1333 of tome IV of his Concilia two readings 
are given which we have followed in our translation. And in column 13.34 of the same tome, 
referring to some things in the I,atin of this document, it reads, " These things seem mutilated 
and corrupted.' (Haec mutila et depiavata videntur.) We have endeavored to do the best 
■we could under the circumstances. 

Note 135. — Bingham, in h.s Antiquities of the Christian Church, hoo\i IX, chapter IV, 



Eyid of the Ads — Penalties for Unscttlers. 



41 



Here End the Acts op the Third Ecumenical Synod, That 
IS the Third Council of the Whole Christian World. 

Its decisions we profess to believe and to obey when we say in 
the words of the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod, "/ believe 
in one holy, Uiiiversal and Apostolic Qniixh.^'' 

He who rejects or even tries to unsettle these Decisions or any 
of them, be it their condemnation of the Nestorian denial of the 
Incarnation, their condemnation of the Nestorian sin of Worship- 
pi7ig a human being ('A-O/jajTroXarpeia) , or of Relative Worship, 
or of Ca)mibalisi?i {Ά^Οηω-ηφαγία) iu the Lord's Supper, or 
their condemnation of all those who try to rob any Christian 
Province or Diocese of its Freedom, or to unsettle any of their 
other Decisions, be he a Man- Worshipping, Creature Worshipping, 
or Host Worshipping, or Cannibalizing Romanist, or Greek, or 
Nestorian, or Monophysite, or a degenerate and apostate so-called 
Anglican, is by their Canons deposed if he be a Bishop or a 
cleric, and excommunicated if he be a laic. See the said 
Canons. And by Christ's command, he is to be unto us "as a 
heathen man and a pnblieafi" (yiatt. "KYlll, 15-19); and we are to 
"refef" him (Titus III, 10). 

section 2, shows that this enactment was disregarded in times not long after Ep/iesus, In 
that respect it has shared the fate of different canons when profit or necessity called for it, 
and when no wrong was done. Aye, decisions of Ecumenical Synods on saving and neces- 
sary doctrine have been violated, as, for example, all those decisions of the Third Council 
which depose all Bishops and clerics guiltj' of Άιθρωττο/.ατμεία, that is, "i/.e worship 
of a human being," and the excommunication of all laics guilty of the same sin of 
creature vjorsliip; and the same penalties, imposed by the same Council on those guilty of 
the disgusting and degrading error of 'Ανθι>ω~ηόαγιη have been practically done away 
in the Latin Communion, the Greek, and the Monophj-site, as well as in the Nestorian, 
iu which Λve first find that sin, that is l/ie eaiing of a human being, that is, Christ's humanity 
in the Eucharist, that is iu plain Englih, the error and heresy, condemned in that .Synod- 
that Christians are guilty of cannibalism in that sacred rite^ See on that error note 600, 
pages 240-313, vol. I of Ephesus in this set. and note 599, pages 229-3'-'8, and note E, pages 517, 
52S, notes 692, 693, page 407; under 'AiOpuTTOipayia, on page GO'J, Άττοστασια, on page 6i7. 
' Αρχΐτίττω there, and σί•μβη2.ον, the Euchayistic Symbol, on page 75.5,aU in the same volume. 
On the sin and heresy of worshipping a human being see the s ime volume, note 183, 
pp. 79-128; note 582, pp. 22.'), 226; note 6G4, pp. 323, 324; note 679, pp. 332-362; and on the relative 
worship of Christ's humanity, and the Universal Church's condemnation of it, and, by logical 
and necessary inclusion, of all other rel-irive worship, note 949, pp. 461-403; note 156, pp. 61- 
69, and notes 580-58', pp. 221-226. On God the Word as the Sole Mediator by His Divinity and 
His humanity, see Cyril's Anathema X, pp. 339-316, text and notes 682-GS8 on it inclusive, and 
especially note 688. pp. 363-406, and Nestorius' Heresy 2 on pp. 639-641, and pp. 694-696, under 
' λνθρωπολατρεία and Άνθρωπολάτρης, 



ARTICLES ON TOPICS 



CONNECTED WITH THE 



THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 



43 



ARTICLE I. 

Thb Dioceses and Provinces, from Which Bishops Came to 

THE Third Ecumknicai. Council, and How Many 

Came from Each. 

I would here redeem my promise on page 30, in note 57, 
volume I of Ephesus, to "give a summary as to the number of 
Bishops that came from each part of the Christian world to the 
Council." It was omitted in volume I for lack of room. 

Hefele, page 44, of the English translation of volume III of 
his History of the Church Councils, tells us that Cyril of Alexandria 
"arrived with fifty Bishops, about one half of his suffragans;" and 
that "Archbishop Memnon of Ephesus, too, had assembled around 
him forty of his suffragans and twelve Bishops from Pamphylia." 
That is all that he there says definitely as to numbers from diffei- 
ent parts of the Church. 

As we see in volume I of Ephesus in this set, there are two 
lists of Bishops present, that on pages 22-30, and that which be- 
gins on page 489. The latter is the fullest and, what is very 
important, is a list not merely of those who came to the Council, 
but of those who actually signed Act I. I examine both there- 
fore. Some of the sees are not well known. Perhaps some of 
them are misspelled by the blunders of copiers; and there are a 
few omissions of the name of the episcopate, probably from a 
similar error. 

The following are Metropolitical or Patriarchal jurisdictions 
to which they belonged. In ascertaining their exact locality I 
have been aided by the Councils, and the notes and lists of Epis- 
copates in them, as well as by the Index of Episcopal Sees at the 
end of Book X of Bingham's Antiqxdties of the Christian Churchy 
and by the Indexes in the English translation of Wiltsch's Geogra- 
phy a?id Statistics of the Church. The name of Bingham below 
cited means his Antiquities and the name of Wiltsch his work just 
mentioned. This will save the quoting of the full titles of those 
works. 



44 Whence the Bishops of the Synod came. 

In addition, we have in volume II of Ephesus, now published, 
and in this volume III further lists: 

1. Of some Orthodox Bishops on page 162; and a fuller on 
pages 187-193, and still another on pages 225-234, volume II. 

2. Besides in volume II on pages 160, 161, we find the 
names of the Nestorian Prelates who were condemned by the 
Third Synod, and in volume III, pages 23, 24, another list of 
them. The names are mainly the same, but there are some dis- 
crepancies as the reader can see by comparing them. The 
discrepancies between the lists of the Orthodox, and those between 
the lists of the Nestorians are probably copyists' mistakes. 

From the West, the representation was very small. In 
Act I Rome was represented by Cyril of Alexandria, as we see on 
page 22,^ volume I. In the Second Act it was represented by Cyril 
and by two Bishops, Arcadius and Projectus.and one presbyter, 
Philip. 

From the great Dioceses of the West, Britain, Gaul, and 
Spain, came not a single prelate, for they were then worried by 
the invasions of barbarians or by the Arian Teutonic tribes. 
From the Diocese of Africa, under Carthage, came only a deacon, 
Besula, to represent Capreolus of Carthage and his Council. In 
A. D. 426 the Romans had forsaken Britain. The Arian Teu- 
tonic tribes ruled a large part of Spain, and had effected a lodg- 
ment in France, and were masters of much of Africa, and were 
soon to have it all, including its capital Carthage. Rome itself 
had been plundered by the Goths in A. D. 409. If we ask why 
these curses came on the West, (and similar plagues ravaged 
much of the East also), we must regard it as a visitation of God 
for that worship of martyrs which Julian the Apostate had 
reproached some Christians with in the last half of the fourth 
century, and the worship of the cross, and of relics, and in 
Africa at least the worship of pictures and of sepulchres which 
Augustine condemns in his Morals of the Catholic Church, Section 
XXXIV, (al. 75), page 47, of the volume of Augustine on the 
Manichaea7i Heresy in Stothert's translation, published by the 
Clarks of Edinburgh. It was written in 388 (page 1, id., note). 



Condemnation of Paganizings. as 



But, if certain things in his City of God be really his, he 
was an invoker of creatures, and was, in effect, so far anathe- 
matized by the Third Ecumenical Council. See page 107 
volume I of Nicaea, in this set. 

The worship of martyrs' relics is condemned in the Second 
Canon of the Council of Carthage in A. D. 348, and the lan- 
guage in which all the Bishops reprove it there admits the 
inference that the same enactment had been made in Councils 
before it, whose canons, alas! have not reached us. They were 
not suffered to run the gauntlet of the creature worshipping 
copyists of the Middle Ages. They would net preserve them. 
But that glorious canon, in such grand and Orthodox accord 
with the decisions of Ephesus, will live forever. In every local 
church it should be fully enforced. Before Ephesus, A. D.431, 
and indeed for some time after it, I have seen no account of 
any worship of pictures in the West or East. But I do find 
in the XXXVIth Canon of the Council of Elvira in Spain, at 
which the great Hosius was present, a prohibition even of their 
use in Churches. And the XXXVth Canon of the Local Synod 
of Laodicea in the fourth century condemns as ^'secret idolatry the 
invocation of angels and anathematizes those who are guilty of it; 
an anathema which with equal reason {pari ratione) applies to those 
who invoke martyrs or any other creatures. And that canon, some 
or all of the Greeks hold, was made Ecumenical by canon I of the 
Fourth Ecumenical Synod, A. D. 451 . See Bingham's Antiquities, 
Index, tinder Relics, Prayers, Saints, Martyrs, Images, Angels, and 
Worship. 

And what settles the whole matter of creature-invocation, 
cross worship, relic worship, picture worship, and all other such 
sins, is the fact that the Third Ecumenical Council, as we have 
seen, led by the Holy Ghost, according to Christ's promises, 
deposes every cleric and anathematizes every laic who gives bowing, 
invocation or any other act of religious worship to Christ's humanity, 
which is confessedly the highest of all mere creatures; and, a for- 
tiori, that is for a stronger reason, or much more, as we say, it 
deposes every cleric and anathematizes every laic who gives any 



46 Piinishments for Creature- Worship. 

act of religious worship, even though it be relative, to any other 
creature. For Nestorius' worship of Christ's humanity, for 
which among other things he was deposed, was relative as we see 
by page 221, volume I, text and note 580, pages 459, 461, and the 
notes on them, and pages 463, 464, 466, 467, and the notes on 
them. Indeed as I have shown in my articles on Creature- Worship 
in the Church Journal oi New York City, for 1870, the heathen 
have ever defended their worship ofimages on that plea: see them be- 
low on all forms of creature worship, and under ' ' Cross, Relic Worship, 
Relative Worship, Creature- Service, Invocation of Saints, hnage 
Worship, Idolatry, and Worship, in the General Index to volume I 
of Nicaea in this set, and a note on pages 316, 317, id., and in 
Chrystal's work on Creature Worship, and in all the indexes to the 
other volumes of this set. The worship by the idolatrous Isra- 
elites of the Golden Calf in the Wilderness, and of the Calves 
at Bethel and at Dan was also relative to Jehovah, as I have 
shown in the articles on Creature- Worship just mentioned, and on 
page 109 oi Nicaea , 2Μά. in Creature- Worship. Because of such 
sins, the British Celts were given up by God to be exterminated 
from most of England and the Lowlands of Scotland by the pagan 
Saxons, and Spain and Gaul were delivered to subjugation and to 
confiscation and alien tyranny under Teutonic tribes. Those woes 
and punishments should be a warning to us to avoid those and all 
similar sins, for God will curse us similarly if we do not. 

The parts of Europe outside of the Roman Empire were 
pagan, and, of course, were not represented in the Council. Such 
lands were Holland, Germany, the Scandinavian lands, Poland, 
Russia, Finland, Bohemia, Moravia, Roumania, Servia, and what 
is now Austria. God grant them and all other parts of Christen- 
dom to be sound and to meet soon in an Orthodox Seventh Coun- 
cil to do away all creature invocation, relic-worship, cross-worship, 
picture worship and all other image-worship and creature-worship, 
for the sake of Christ who came to abolish all such trash, and to 
teach men to worship God alone in the Trinity (Matt. IV, 10); a 
teaching which by the Holy Ghost's guidance is set forth in the 
Six Ecumenical Councils, with which the future Seventh must 
therefore agree if it be guided by the Holy Ghost, for He never 



Keblc s Citatio7is for Host Worship, etc. 



47 



contradicts Himself. His truth never becomes a lie. And any 
decision of any Council, past, present, or future, which contradicts 
any dogma of the Six World Synods is therefore, ipso facto, a lie, 

I have referred to certain forms of creature worship as having 
brought God's curse on the West before A. D. 431. If certain 
passages quoted by the creature-worshipping heretic John Keble 
from Ambrose and Augustine in his work on Eiuharistical Ador- 
ation (pages 108-1 18, Fourth edition) for his heresy of worshipping 
both Natures of Christ in the Eucharist, be their genuine unin- 
terpolated productions, we must object, first, that they do not 
mention Two Nature Consubstantiation, but only the worship of 
Christ's flesh or humanity, though, even so, they certainly were 
guilty of what Cyril calls ^Κ•^Οι,ω-ολατι,ιία^ that is the worship of a 
human being, and so far were Nestorians and condemned by Ephe- 
sus. And Ambrose is accused of invoking angels and Augustine 
of Hippo of invoking martyrs. That also is Nestorianism and 
condemned by the Third Synod. Neither should therefore be 
spoken of as a saint. 

But Keble's third witness for Two Nature Consubstantia- 
tion, Theodoret, was the chief Nestorian champion, and held to 
that heresiarch's worship of Christ's humanity, and also to 
what Cyril calls his ^Κ•^Οι>ω-„φαγία, that is his blasphemy of 
eating Christ's humajiity atid drinking his blood in the I^ord's 
Supper. But he was, as we have seen in note 606, pages 240- 
313, volume I of Ephesns, not a Two Nature Consubstantia- 
tionist, but a One Nature Consubstantiationist, that is, he held to a 
Consubstantiation of the Christ's human nature oulj^, (not at all 
his Divinity), with the bread and wine. And, as we have seen, 
he was condemned and deposed for those sins. See also under 
his name in the indexes to this set, and especially in volume I 
of Ephesns under it and Christ and Nestorius and Ma?i- Worship and 
Eiccharist. 

Bishops Present in the Council from the East, From the 
Diocese of Thrace under the Patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, Nestorius, came the Following: 

1 . Docimasius , Bishop of the city Maronia in Rhodope. 



48 Bishops present in the Synod. 



2. Lucian, Bishop of the city of Toperus in Rhodope. 

3. "Ejmepius, Bishop of Myxa in R/iodope.'^ But no such see as 

Jlfyxa is found in Bingham or in Wiltsch, or in Baudrand. 
Mercator has I\Iaxirnianopolis ^ which is a see of Rhodope 
and seems to be the one meant. Perhaps Myxa was another 
name for it or a copyist's error. Indeed in volume I of 
Ephestis we find the name clearly written, ''Ennepius of 
Maxiniia7iopolis,^' which is therefore the true reading: see 
page 24, towards the foot, and page 140. But it is Myxa 
on page 492. 

4. Athanasizcs, Bishop of Dueltus ajid Sozopolis. If one be Bishop 

of two sees we may generally look for them in the same 
Province. Now we find in Bingham that Sozopolis, and 
Develtus, as he spells the name, were in the Province of 
Haemimontis in Thrace. They seem therefore to be the 
sees of this Athanasius. 

5. Timothy, Bishop of [Tofnif] in the Provi^ice of the Scythians^ 

Diocese of Thrace, Bingham IX, I, 6. There is a lacuna 
in the text here where the name of the see should be. But 
as Bingham, (Book IX, chapter IV, section 1), shows from 
the testimony of Sozomen and Theodoret, both of whom 
lived at the time of the Third Ecumenical Council, the 
Province of Scythia had but one see, Tomi, I have supplied 
it in brackets above. 

6. Euprepius , Bishop of Bizya, i?i the Provi7ice of Europa, in the 

Diocese of Thrace. 

From the Diocese of Asia, under Memnon, Metropolitan of 

Ephesus and Exarch, by Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon, 

A. D. 451, made a part of the Patriarchate of 

Constantinople, came the following: 

1. Memnon, Bishop of EphcsiLs in Asia Proconsularis, Metropoli- 

tan and Exarch. 

2. Amphilochiiis , Bishop of Sida in the First Pamphylia, Metro- 

politan. 

3. Hellaniciis, Bishop of Rhodes, and Metropolitan. 

4. Cyrus, Bishop of Aphrodisias in Caria, and Metropolitan. 



Bishops present in the Synod. 49 

5. Themistius, Bishop of Jassus (spelled also lassus and lasus) in 

Caria, as on page 144, vol. I of Ephesus. 

6. Spudasius , Bishop of the Ceramans, that is of the inhabitants 

of Ceramus. A Latin manuscript here adds "in the Pro- 
vince of Caria." So we read on page 144, vol. I of Ephesus. 
There was another Ceramus in the Province of Hellespontus 
in the same Diocese. 

7. Philetiis, Bishop of Amyzon, in Caria. 

8. Archelaiis, Bishop of Myndiis in Caria. 

9. Apellas, Bishop of Cibyrrha in Caria. 

10. Aphthofietiis, Bishop of Heraclca in Caria, as on page 144, 

vol. I of Ephesus. 

11. Promachius, Bishop of the Alindayis, that is of the inhabitants 

of Alinda, in Caria, as on page 145, id. 

12. Heracleofi, who is also Theophilus, Bishop of Tralles or Tral- 

lis, in Asia Proconsular is. Bingham adds a second Trallis 
or Tralles, which was in Eydia; but Wiltsch on page 170, 
volume I of his Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
English translation, spells the name of that see Tralla, and, 
in note 8 on the same page, states that it is "not to be con- 
founded with Tralles," and adds that the first Bishop of 
Tralla is found in the Fifth General Council at Constanti- 
nople. A. D. 553. Hence there was no Bishop of that see 
at Ephesus, A. D. 431. 

13. Euporus, Bishop of Hypaepa in the Province of Asia. 

14. Rhodon, Bishop of Palacopolis, in the Province of Asia, that 

is in Asia Proconsularis. 

15. Tychiais, or Eutychius, Bishop of the Erythracans, that is of 

Erythrae (in Asia Proconsularis), But on page 142, vol.1 
of Ephesus, Eutychius is set down as Bishop of Erythra, a 
city of Asia," 

16. Nestonus, Biihop of Sion, in Asia Proconsularis. 

17. Eutychius, Bishop of Thcodosiopolis, in Asia, that is in the 

Province of Asia Proconsularis, as we see by page 149, 
vol. I of Ephesus. 

18. Modesties, Bishop of the Aneans, or Anaeans, in Phrygia, as 

we see on page 141 there. 



^o BisJi ps present in the Synod. 

19. Tkeosebius, Bishop of the city of Priene in Asia Proconsularis. 

I have supplied in brackets, ^zVzi'r after Asia on page 139, 
vol. I of Ephesus. I should have supplied Proconsidaris. 

20. Theodoius, Bishop of Nyssa, (in Proconsular Asia?). I judge 

this Nj'ssa, or as Wiltsch spells it in the Index to the first 
volume of his Geography and Statistics of the Church, Nysa 
Asiana, not Nyssa, to have been in Proconsular Asia 
because it occurs among the signatures of Bishops of that 
Province. There was a Nj^ssa in Cappadocia. Wiltsch 
tells us that the Bishop of N3'sa Asiana was at the Council 
of Ephesus in 431: see his note 13, volume I of his wprk, 
English translation. 

21. Maxinms, Bishop of Assiis, that is Assos, in Asia Procon- 

sularis, as we see by page 141, vol. I of Ephesus. 

22. Maximus, Bishop of Cuma, or Cyme, in the Province of Asia, 

as we see by page 139, id., where Proconsularis should be 
supplied after the Asia, not Mi7ior as I have done there. 

23. Alexander, Bishop of Arcadiopolis, in Proconsular Asia, as we 

see by page 139, id. 

24. Theodore, Bishop of the Anenysians, that is of Aninetum, as 

spelled on page 141, id. Bingham, in the Index to his 
Ayitiquities, under Anenysia, thinks that it was the same as 
Anaea in Proconsular Asia. But, as we see, page 141, 
vol. I of Ephesus, that Modestus was Bishop of the Anae- 
ans. Hence Bingham is wrong. Wiltsch does not give 
any Anenysia in his Indexes, but Anineta, which he puts in 
Proconsular Asia; page 166 of vol. I of his Geography, etc.^ 
English translation, where in note 16 he tells us that its 
Bishop was at the Council of Ephesus in A. D, 431. At 
any rate, whether this see was Anenysia, Aninetum, or An- 
ineta, it seems to have been in Proconsular Asia. 

25. Eusebius, Bishop of the Clazomeiiiajis , that is of the inhabi- 

tants of Clazomenae in Proconsular Asia. 

26. Eusebius, Bishop of Magnesia, in Proconsular Asia, as we see 

by page 142, vol, I of Ephesus. There were two Magne- 
sias in that Province, one called Magnesia ad Maeandruni, 
that is Magnesia on the Maeander, in Caria, and Magnesia ad 



Bishops present in the Synod. 51 

Sipyhim, that is on Mount Sipylus in Asia Proconsularis, 
the one here meant. 

27 . Theodositis, Bishop of Mastaura in Lydia, according to Bing- 

ham, but better in Proconsular Asia, according to WiUsch: 
see page 139, vol, I of Ephesus, where Minor should be Pro- 
consular. 

28. Entropius, Bishop of Evaza, in Proconsular Asia. 

29. Philip, Bishop of the city of the Pergai?iia7is , that is of Perga- 

mus' in Proconsular Asia. 

30. Aphobins, Bishop of Colona, or as it is on page 141, vol. I of 

Ephesus, Colon, in Proconstdar Asia probably, for the name 
occurs here and on page 141, id., among the signatures of 
Prelates of that Province. 

31. Dorothcns, Bishop of Myrina, or as it is spelled on page 141, 

id., Myrrhina in Proconsular Asia. 

32. Euthalins, Bishop of the Cohphoniafis, or as it is on page 140 

id., Bishop of Colophon in Asia, that is in Proconsular 
Asia. "Minor" there in brackets should be "Proconsu- 
laris" in brackets. 

33. Heliotheus, Bishop of the Barjiditans. I find no city repre- 

sented by this term. Wiltsch gives a "Bargasa or Baretta 
in Asia Proconsul." and a "Bargyla, in Caria." In Har- 
per's Latiii Dictio?iary, ihe latter name is spelled "Bargy- 
liae," and two adjectives are given as connected with it, 
namely, "Bargylieticus" and "Bargyletae," which means 
"the inhabitants of Bargyliae." It is not so clear as might 
be where this town was, but as it stands among Asiatic 
names in these subscriptions, it seems most likely that it 
belonged to the Asiatic Diocese which was under Memnon. 
Mercator has here "Timothy of Brioula," or of the "Briou- 
lans." So "Timothy of Briula" is found on page 25, vol. I 
of Ephesus. 

34. Athanasius, Bishop of the island Parasus, (where? In the Dio- 

cese of Asia?). "Athanasius, Bishop of Paralus," is men- 
tioned on page 146, vol. I of Ephesjis. If "Paros" be the 
true reading, we must remember that it belonged to the 



52 Bishops present in the Synod. 

Diocese of Asia. Mercator in the Council of Chalcedon 
has "of the Island Paros." 

35. Hesychins , Bishop of the city of Pariuvi in the Province of 

Hellespontus. A note in Hardouin's margin here tells us 
that at the beginning of this Act we read "Parosithus," 
not "Parasus." But Athanasius of Parosithus was one and 
Athanasius of Paralus was another, for there were two as 
the lists show in vol. I of Ephesus. Compare pages 25 and 
26 there. On page 146 there we find an Athanasius, Bishop 
of Paralus, which was in Egyptus Secunda. But there was 
a Paralais or Paralaum in Pisidia in the Diocese of Asia. 

36. Tribonianus , Bishop of the Holy Church t?i Primopolis. Was 

this the same as Primopolis in Pamphylia Secunda? If the 
lection in note 1103, page 495, volume I of Ephesus be 
accepted, and we read "Aspendus, " we must remember that 
it was in Pamphylia Prima, according to Bingham. 

37. Niinechius, Bishop of the holy Church in Sclga, in the First 

Pamphylia: See Bingham's "Index of Sees," and page 135, 
volume I of Ephesus. 

38. fohn, Bishop of Praeconnesus in Hellespontus. He speaks on 

page 132, volume I of Ephesus. 

39. Nesius, Bishop of the Holy Church of God zVz Corybosyyia. 

This seems the same as Nesius, Bishop of Corybrassus in 
Pamphylia, on page 137, vol. I of Ephesus. The name of 
tb*^ see is misspelled in at least one of the above signatures, 
probably by a copyist's or editor's error: 

40. Acacius, Bishop of the Church of God in Catena, in Pamphylia 

Prima. 

41. Nectarius, Bishop of the Universal Church in Senea. This is 

evidently the same as Nectarius, Bishop of Synea in Pam- 
phylia, on page 136, id. 

42. Solon, Bishop of Carallia, in Pamphylia, as we see on page 

135, id. 

43. Matidianus, Bishop of the Coracisians, that is of the inhabi- 

tants of the city of Coracisia in Pamphylia, as we see by 
page 136, volume I of Ephesus. 



Bishops present i?i the Synod. 53 

44. Maria7ius, Bishop of the Church in Lyrba, in Pamphylia. On 

page 136, id., this address is given: Taurianus, Bishop of 
Lyrba in Pamphylia. We see from this how likely it is 
that other names in these subscriptions have been changed 
by the carelessness of copiers or editors, 

45. Theoctisius, Bishop of the city of the Phocaeans, that is of Pho- 

caea in Asia Proconsularis. 

46. Riifiyuis, Bishop of the city of the Taba)nans. Is this the same 

as Rufiniis, Bishop of Tabae, on page 138, id? It was in 
Caria. I do not find any "Tabania." There was a Tabunia 
in Mauritania Caesariensis in Latin Africa, but no Bishop, 
so far as known, was present from it. 

47. Helladiics, Bishop of the holy Chxcrch at Adramy turn, or, accord- 

ing to another spelling, "Adramyttium," in Asia Proconsu- 
laris. 

48. Stephen, Bishop of the city of the Teitans, that is of Teos in 

Proconsular Asia. 

49. Iddyas, Bishop of Smyrna, in Proconsular Asia. 

50. Aristonicus, Bishop of the Metropolis of the Laodiceans, in 

Phrygia Pacatiana Prima, I presume. In Theodorias, a 
province of the Patriarchate of Antioch, there was a L,ao- 
dicea mentioned, the first of four sees. Two other L,aodi- 
ceas are mentioned, but they were suffragan not metropo- 
litical sees. This see was metropolitical, and therefore 
seems to be the one referred to. 

51. Bcneag7is, Bishop of the Chnrch in Hierapolis, in Phrygia 

Pacatiana Secunda, I presume. That is explained by Bing- 
ham in his Atitigtiities, book IX, chapter 3, section 15. 

52. Silvanus^ Bishop of Ceratapa, in Phrygia Pacatiana, as 

on page 137, volume I of "Ephesus". 

53. Constayitine , Bishop of the city of the Diocletians , that is prob- 

ably of Dioclia in Phrygia Pacatiana, (Bingham's Aiitiqni- 
ties, book IX, chapter 7, section I), unless it be the Dioclea 
in Praevalitana in Eastern Illyricum, Wiltsch, vol. I, page 
136, English translation. 

54. Hennolaiis , Bishop of the Sattudians, possibly in Phrygia, 

though neither Bingham nor Wiltsch give us this name. 



54 Bishops present in the Synod. 

There was a Sattae, which was spelled Settae also, in Lydia. 
There was a Sestus in Hellespontus. Which is the- city 
meant? Mercator has Attudians, and in the Council of 
Chalcedon we read of one that he was an Attudian. That 
see was in Phrygia Pacatiana, according to Bingham. 

55. Asclepiades, Bishop of the Chicrch at Trapezopolis, which was 

in Phrygia Pacatiana Prima according to Bingham. 

56. John, Bishop of Lesbus, (in the Cyclades?). 

57. Peter, Bishop of Criisa. According to the "Appendix to the 

Indices," after the Tenth Book of Bingham's A7itiqniiies, 
page 588 of vol. Ill of the X volume edition of 1850, it was 
"an island of Doris, in the Sinus Ceramicus, " now the 
Gulf of Kos. It is on the coast of Caria. 

58. Eiis:ene, Bishop of Appolonias, in Caria. 

59. Callinicus, Bishop of Apaniia. There were several Apameas 

in different parts of Asia Minor and Syria. One was in 
Pisidia and is given by Bingham as "Apamea" or "Apa- 
mia," and is the only one spelled Apamia by him. Another 
was in Bithynia Secunda. Both were therefore in the Dio- 
cese of Asia. 

60. Valerian, Bishop of Iconium. It was the Metropolis of Lyca- 

onia. 

61. Pius, Bishop of the Pessi7iU7itians. Is this meant for Pessinus, 

that is for its inhabitants, the Pessinuntians? Pessinus was 
in Galatia on the borders of Phrygia Major, and was in the 
Diocese of Pontus. 

62. Thomas, Bishop of Derbe, in Lycaonia, as we see on page 141, 

volume I of Ep/iesus in this set. 

63. Martyrius, Bishop of Helistra. Is this the L,ystra (Acts XIV, 6) 

of Lycaonia? From Bingham's Book X, chapter IV, sec- 
tion 10, there is no sure proof that there was any other city 
of that name. 

64. A blavius, Bishop of Amorizim, in Phrygia Salutaris. 

65. Lciojus, Bishop of Libyas, in the First Palestine. His name 

is spelled "Letoius" on page 138, volume I of Ephesus. 

66. Severus, Bishop of Sy?i7iada, in the Province of Phrygia Salu- 

taris. 



Bishops presefit in the Sy7iod, ς ς 

67. Domninus , Bishop of Cotneicm, in the Province of Phrygia 

Salutaris. This seems the same see as the "Cotyaium" or 
"Cotyaeum" of Bingham's list. 

68. Eustaihitis, Bishop of Docimitim, in the Province of Phrygia 

Sahitaris. Bingham spells the name of this see "Docimaeum 
or Docimia." 

69. Dalmatiiis, Bishop of the Holy Chtirch of God at Cyzicus. 

It was the Metropolis of the Province of Hellespontus. 

70. Athanasius, Bishop of the city of the Scepsiaiis, that is of the 

inhabitants of Scepsis in the Province of Hellespontus. 

71. Meonius, Bishop of the city o/ Sardis, in Lydia. 

72. Theophanes, Bishop of the city of Philadelphia. Three Phila- 

delphias are mentioned by Bingham, one in Lydia, probably 
the one here meant, for it is among Lydiau sees; another in 
Isauria, and the third in Arabia. 

73. Phosais, Bishop of Thyatira, in Lydia. 

74. Timothy, Bishop of the city of the Thertnans, in the Province 

of Hellespontus. The city was Thermae Regiae; that is 
"Royal Warm Springs," or "Royal Warm Baths." 

75. Commodi(s, Bishop of Tripolis. Two cities of this name are 

mentioned by Bingham, Tripolis in Lydia, which from its 
standing among Lydian sees, I judge to be the one meant; 
and another in Phoenicia Prima. 

76. Ejitherius, Bishop of t/ie city of the Stratonicians, in Lydia, 

that is of Stratonicia. 

77 . Paul, Bishop of Dardana, in Lydia. 

78. Limeniiis, Bishop of the Holy Church of God at Sellae, in the 

Province of Media. In the "Appendix to the Indices," 
page 589, volume ΙΠ of the ten-volume edition of Bingham, 
Oxford, A. D., 1850, I find the locality of Sellae mentioned 
as "quite doubtful." Moreover, I find no mention of any 
"Province" of Media in the Roman Empire. It was a 
country outside of it. Sellae is here placed among Lydian 
sees. Can it be Settae or Setta in that Province? I know 
not. Is Media here an error for Lydia? Or was there a 
Christian Church at a Sellae in Media? 



56 Bishops present in the Synod. 

Γ9. Theodore, Bishop of Atala. I do not find Atala in Bingham 
or in Willsch. Can it be an error for Attalia, either the one in 
Lydia or that in Pamphylia Secunda? Wiltsch makes theii 
Bishops to be present at Ephesus in A. D. 431. See the 
English translation of his "Geography and Statistics of the 
Church," vol. I, page 170, note 14, and id., page 175, note 14. 

80. Ρα2ΐΙ, Bishop of the Church in Thrymnae. I do not find it in 

Bingham's Index, nor in Wiltsch's, nor in Butler''s. But 
Wiltsch, vol. I. page 174, note 5, makes "Thrymnae" an error 
for "Orymna," which was in The First Pamphylia. There 
was a see of the latter name there: see in proof Wiltsch, 
id., page 454, note 4. It was easy in a Greek word to. mis- 
take an Ο for a Θ, which would account for the difierence 
in the first syllable. 

81. Timothy, Bishop of the city Tennesus and Ettdocias. There 

was a Eudocias in Eycia. So there was a Telraessus there, 
for which Termesus might be a misspelling. But there was 
a Termesus, spelled also Telmessus in Pamphylia Secunda, 
and also a Eudoxias, which may be the two sees meant, 
Eudoxias in that case being a misspelling for Eudocias. I 
have followed in these latter spellings Bingham's Index. 
But Wiltsch spells difierently. For he tells us that there 
was a "Eudocias" and a "Termessus or Telmessus" in 
Pamphylia Secunda; and a "Telmessus" and a "Eudocias" 
in.Lycia, and in note 22, page 173, vol. I, of his "Geogra- 
phy and Statistics of the Church." he states that its Bishop 
was at the Council of Ephesus. 

82. Aedesizis, Bishop of the city Isioda. This looks very much like 

a misspelling for Isinda in the Second Pamphylia. Bing- 
ham in his "Index of the Episcopal Sees" gives the follow- 
ing different spellings for the name of that see: Isinda, 
Pisinda, and Sinda; and Wiltsch in his gives Isindus, and, 
on page 455 of his volume I, Isinda. The sees last men- 
tioned above were in Pamphylia. So is the see next follow- 
ing. That also would favor the belief that Isioda or Isinda 
also was. 



Bishops present in the Synod. 57 

83. Libaniics, Bishop of Palaeopolis. There were two cities of 

this name, one in Proconsular Asia, the other in the Second 
Pamphylia. The latter seems to be the one meant here. 
Each of the two Bishops, according to Wiltsch, was present 
at Ephesus, A. D. 431: see his vol, I, page 167, notes 36 
and 37, and page 174, note 7. 

84. John, Bishop of Atirelianopolis , in the Province of Lydia. 

Both Bingham and Wiltsch spell the name of this see 
"Aureliopolis." 

85. Daphmcs, Bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander, in Proconsu- 

lar Asia. 

86. Thomas, Bishop of Valentinianopolis , in Proconsular Asia. 

87. Berinianus, Bishop of Perga, in the Second Pamphylia. 

88. Eudoxiiis, Bishop of the city of Chojna, in the Province of 

Lycia, as on page 141, volume I of "Ephesus." 

89. Aristocritus , Bishop of Olympus, in the Province of Lycia. 

From the Diocese of Pontus under Firmus, Metropolitan 
OF Caesarea, in the First Cappadocia, 
put by Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon in the Patriarchate of 
Constantinople, came — 

1. FirjfiJis, Metropolitan of Caesarea, and Exarch. 

2. Acaciiis, Bishop of Mclitine, in the Second Armenia, and Metro- 

politan. 

3. Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Metropolitan. 

4. Palladius, Bishop of Aniasia, in Helenopontus, and Metro- 

politan. 

5. Daniel, Bishop of Colonia, in Cappadocia Secunda: see page 

134, vol. I of "Ephesus." 

6. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cratia, in Honorias. 

7. Eusebius, Bishop of Heraclea, in Honorias. 

8. Gregory, Bishop of Cerasiis, in Pontus Polemoniacus. 

9. Paraliiis, Bishop of Andrapa, in Helenopontus. 

10. Eusebius, Bishop of the Asponians, that is, as it reads on page 
146 id., "Eusebius, Bishop of Aspona, a city of An- 
cyra," where Ancyra is an error for "Galatia," of which 



58 Bishops present in the Synod. 

Ancyra was the Metropolis. We are now leaving the Dio- 
cese of Asia and are in that of Pontus, which was under the 
Exarch of Caesarea in the First Cappadocia. 

1 1 . Philumeyitis , Bishop of Cinna, in Galatia, as we read on pagie 

152, volume I of "Ephesus," 

12. Bosporius, Bishop of Gangra, the Metropolis of the Province of 

Paphlagonia. In the subscriptions on pages 22-30, vol. I of 
"Ephesus," we find Pamphylia, but it is a copier's or other's 
error. 

13. Argi7ius, Bishop of Pompeiopolis, in Paphlagonia. 

3. The Patriarchate op Alexandria, Comprising Egypt, 
Libya and Pentapolis. 
From Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis under St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria subscribed: — 

1 . Cyril of Alexandria, Aegyptus Prima. 

2. Evoptius of Ptolemais in Pentapolis. 

3. Eusebitis of Pelusium in Augustamnica Prima. 

4. Eidogiiis of Tarenuthis in Thebais Secunda. 

5. Adelphiiis of Onuphis in Aegyptus Prima. 

6. Paul of Flavonia, [Fragonea, or Phragenea in Aegyptus 

Secunda?] The above name is spelled Phragonea in the 
subscriptions at the end of Act I. 

7. Phoebamvio7i of Coptus, in Thebais Secunda. 

8. Theopemptus of Cabassus in Aegyptus Secunda. On pages 176, 

369, 377, vol I of "Ephesus" it is called "Cabasa." 

9. Macarius of Metelis, in Aegyptus Prima. 

10. Adelphius of Sais, iu Aegyptus Prima, 

1 1 . Macedonius of Xois [or Xoes] in Aegyptus Secunda. 

12. Marinus oi Heliopolis, in Augustamnica Secunda. 

13. Mctrodo)us of Leonta [or Eeontopolis] in Augustamnica 

Secunda. 

14. Macarius of Antaeum, [or with another speUing, Anteum] in 

Thebais Prima. 

15. Pabisais of Apollo or Apollinis Civitas Parva in Thebais 

Prima. On page 503, vol. I of "Ephesus" his see is called 



Bishops present i?i the Synod. 59 

"Apollonia," and so it is in Act VI, page 191, vol. II of 
"Ephesus." But compare note 347, page 233 there. 

16. Peter oi Oxyrinchus, in Arcadia. 

17. Strateghis of Athribis, in Augustamnica Secunda. 

18. Atha7iasius of Paralus, in Aegyptus Secunda. In the sub- 

scriptions at the end of Act I it is Paralius. 

19. Sitvanus oi Coprithis, in Aegyptus Prima. 

20. /f/s/i of Hephaestus, in Augustamnica Prima: compare page 

47 in vol. I of "Ephesus." 

21. Aristobulus of Thmuis, in Augustamnica Prima. 

22. Thco7i of Sethroetus [or Sethroeta] in Augustamnica Prima. 

At the end of Act I, the signature is "Theon, Bishop of 
Heraclea in the Sethroetum." See a note there. 

23. Lampo of Cassium, in Augustamnica Prima. His name is 

spelled Lampetius on page 151, vol. I of "Ephesus.". 

24. Cv7-iis of Achaei, [where? In Cyril of Alexandria's jurisdiction?] 

It is-not in Bingham nor in Wiltsch. In the subscriptions 
at the end of Act I, Cyrus signs his name as "Bishop of the 
Achaeans. " 

25. Publius of Olbia, in Pentapolis. 

26. Sanniel of Dysthis, [or Disthis] in Pentapolis. 

27 . Zenobius of Barca, [or Barce] in Pentapolis. 

28. Zcyio of Teuchira, in Pentapolis. 

29. Daniel of Darnis, in Libya Secunda. In the subscriptions 

at the end of Act I it is Darna. But see page 48, volume I 
of Ephesus," and page 192 in vol. II, id. 

30. Sosipalrus of Septimiaca. Not in Bingham nor in Wiltsch. 

In the subscriptions at the end of Act I, the address is given 
as follows: "Sosipater, Bishop of Libya Septimiaca." It 
was therefore in Cyril's jurisdiction. At the end of Act 
VI of "Ephesus" it is "Sosipater, Bishop of Septimiaca in 
Libya," page 231, vol. II of "Ephesus." 

31. Eusebius of Nilopolis, in Arcadia. 

32. Heraclides of Heraclea, called also Heraclea Superior, in 

Arcadia. 

33. Chrysaorius of Aphrodita, called also Aphroditopolis, in 

Arcadia. 



6ο Bishops present in the Synod. 

34. Andrew of Hermopolis, (Hermopolis Parva was in Aegyptus 

Prima. Hermopolis Major was in Thebais Prima, Compare 
page 154, volume I of "Ephesus." 

35. Sabi?iiis of Pan, in the Province of Thebais, as we read on 

page 149, volume I, of Ephesus. 

36. Abraham of Ostracine in Augustamnica Prima. 

37. Hierax of Aphnaeum (otherwise called Daphnis) in Augus- 

tamnica Prima. At the end of Act I, in the list his name is 
Hieraces. 

38. AJypius of Sela, in Augustamnica Prima. 

39. Alexander of Cleopatris, in Aegyptus Prima. 

40. Isaac of Tava, [or Tavlae] in Aegyptus Prima. 

41. Ainmo7i of Butus, in Aegyptus Secunda. 

42. Heradides of Thinis, in Thebais Secunda. 

43. Isaac of Elearchia, in Aegyptus Secunda. 

44. Heraclitus of Tamiathis, in Egypt; but where there? 

45. Theonas of Psychis. At the end of Act I, the name of the see 

is spelled Psynchis. 

46. Ammonms of Panephysus, in Augustamnica Prima. I find 

also the following Egyptian see among the subscriptions at 
the end of Act I: 

47. Hcrmogenes, Bishop of Rhinocorura. It was in Augustam- 

nica Prima. 

48. Was the Leontius, whose name is signed among the Egyp- 

tians at the end of Act I, an Egyptian Prelate? The name 
of his see is not told us. 

49. Helladius, whose name is in the subscriptions at the end of 

Act I between the Egyptians and Bosporius of Gangra was, 
Bishop of Adramytium in the Province of Asia under Ephe- 
sus, in the Diocese of Asia. I have looked over the Greek 
signatures at the end of Act Τ and the Latin translation, 
and do not find Publius of Olbia there. Why it is missing I 
know not. It is found at the beginning of Act I on page 
28, volume I of "Ephesus." It is found also at the end of 
Act VI, page 231, and at its beginning, page 192, volume 
II of Ephesus. Wiltsch puts it in Eibya Pentapolis. 



Bishops present in ihe Synod, 6i 



2. From thu Diocese op the East under Antioch and from 
Its Dependencies. 

Most of the Bishops of this Patriarchate were heretics like 
their fellow-Diocesans, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, and, lastly', Nestorius himself. See the names 
and sees below in the Conventicle of the Apostasy. Of 
course, they were no part of the Orthodox Council at any 
time. 

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, comprising Palestine. 

Palestine, in A. D. 451, at Chalcedon, was, by it, placed 
under Juvenal of Jerusalem. As part of the Diocese of the East 
it had been some time before under Antioch. But Juvenal was 
ambitious, and would be autonomous. The Universal Church 
made it then, in effect, a Patriarchate. Indeed, Juvenal, at Ephe- 
sus, in A. D. 431, had ranked just after Cyril of Alexandria, and 
before Memnon, the head of the Asian Diocese: see pages 22, 23, 
volume I of "Ephesus." 

1 . Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem. 

2. Theodulus, Bishop of Helusa, or, as it is written on page 45, 

id., "Elusa in Palestine." Bingham gives no "Helusa," but 
he gives an "Elusa in PalestinaTertia," which seems the one 
to be meant. It is put in Arabia Petraea in Butler's Atlas, 
Plate XVI. There was another Elusa in Gaul, but I have 
seen no proof that any Gallic Bishop was present at the 
Council. 

3. Romanus, Bishop of Rhaphia in the First Palestine. 

4. Fidus, Bishop of Joppa in the First Palestine. 

5. Ajanes, Bishop of Sycamazon in the First Palestine. His 

name is spelled "Aeanes" on page 139, volume I of "Ephe- 
sus." 

6. Paulia7ius, Bishop of Maiuma, in the First Palestine, as we 

see by page 134, id. 

7. Theodore, Bishop of Arbdela or of Arbela, or of Aribela, as we 

find it on page 138, id. There was an Arbela in Adiabene 
in later times among the Nestorians. But was not this see 



62 Bishops preserit in the Sy7iod. 

Arindela in the Third Palestine, or in that part of 
Arabia then attached to it? See Wiltsch's "Geography 
and Statistics of the Church," volume I, page 225, section 
159. At least it stands among the sees here subject to 
Jerusalem. 

8, Peter, Bishop of Parembola, in the Third Palestine. 

9. Paul, Bishop of Anthedon in Palestiua Prima. 

10. Netoras, Bishop of Gaza, in Palestina Prima. 

11. Saidas, Bishop of Phoenis in the Third Palestine, or as it is 

on page 145, volume I of "Ephesus," "of Phaenis in Pales- 
tina Salutaris," which is the same: see Wiltsch, volume I, 
page 225, note 14. 

12. John, Bishop of Augustopolis. Wiltsch gives us, in the 

Index to his vol. I, two sees of this name. The pages to which 
he refers show that the first was in the Third Palestine 
and therefore in what became the Patriarchate of Jeru- 
salem by the decree of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod 
in A. D. 451, and the other was in Phrygia Salutaris 
in the Diocese of Asia. According to Wiltsch, vol. I, page 
225, note 7, the Bishop of the former was at the Council of 
Ephesus, A. D. 431. As this name occurs with the Pales- 
tinian sees it is perhaps best so to take it. 

13. Theodore, Bishop of Gadara. Both Bingham and Wiltsch 

mention only one see of that name, and place it in Palestine, 
Bingham in the Second, Wiltsch in the First. On page 
138, vol. I of Ephesus, it occurs between two Palestinian sees. 

From the Diocese of Macedonia, under Rufus op Thessa- 
lonica, the patriarch, 

according to Canons II and VI of the Second Ecumenical Synod: 

compare Canon IX of the Fourth Synod. 

1 . FLAVIAN OF Philippi, Metropolitan of the Second Macedonia, 
who represented his Patriarch, Rufus, Metropolitan oi 
Thessalonica in the First Macedonia: see page 130, vol. I 
of "Ephesus" and note 4 of Hammond on the Synodal 
Epistle of Nicaea in his "Canons of the Church." 



Bishops present in the Synod. 63 



1 . Felix, Bishop of the cities of Apollonia, and Belis (spelled also 

Bulis and Bullidum in New Epirus. 

2. Pcrigenes, Bishop of Corinth in Greece, that is in Peloppone- 

sus, and Metropolitan. 

3. Vofiatiis, Bishop of Nicopolis in Old Epirus, and Metropolitan, 

4. Eiichaiiiis^ Bishop of Dyrrhacium in New Epirus, and Metro- 

politan. 

5. Anysiics, Bishop of Thebes in Hellas, that is in Greece: see 

pages 47, 49, volume I of "Ephesus." 

6. Dovimis, Bishop of Opus in Achaia. Compare note 123, page 

47, volume I of "Ephesus," and page 49, where he is called 
"Domnus, Bishop of Opus in Hellas." But Achaia was a 
Province of Greece. So there is no diflSculty. 

7. Agathodcs, Bishop of Corone in Pelopponesus, or of Corone or 

Coronea in Boeotia. But is this Agathocles, Bishop of the 
Coronaeans, the same as Agathocles, Bishop of Colonia, on 
page 24, volume I of "Ephesus?" As is stated in note 
1063, on page 491 there, Marius Mercator has here "of 
Coronia," which agrees best with the former reading. That 
Agathocles is the only Bishop of that name in the list on 
pages 22-30. Baudrand in his "Novum Lexicon Geographi- 
cum," places Coronia, (Pliny's spelling of the name) in 
Boeotia. He does not call it Corone. Baudrand mentions 
another spelling, that is Coronea for Coronia. 

8. Collicrates, Bishop of Naupactus in Achaia. 

9. Nicias, Bishop of Megara in Achaia. 

10. Pcrebitis, Bishop of the Thessalonian Woodlands, [in Thessaly?]. 

11. Anderins, Bishop of the city of Cherronesus in the Province 

of Crete. He was one of the Synodal summoners of Nes- 
torius as we see by page 45, volume I of "Ephesus.". 

12. ΡαΊίΙ, Bishop of the city of Lampe in the Province of Crete. 

13. Zenobiiis, Bishop of the city of Gnossus in the Province of 

Crete. 

14. Theodore, Bishop of Dodone in Old Epirus. 

15. Secundianus, Bishop of Lamia in the Province of Thessaly, as 

on page 137, volume I of "Ephesus." 



64 Bishops present in the Synod. 

16. Dion, Bishop of Thebes in Thessaly, 

17. Theodore, Bishop of Echinaeus in Thessal5^ This name is 

written Theodosius on page 138, volume I of "Ephesus." 

From the Diocese of Dacia, 

where, according to Bingham, Book IX, chap. I, sec. 6, the 
Exarch was perhaps first at Sardica, afterwards at Acrida or Jus- 
tiniana Prima, erected by Justinian, came the following: 
1. Senecio, (or Senecion), Bishop of Codra, or Scodra, (in Prae- 

valitana, and Metropolitan?) On page 145, volume I of 

"Ephesus" in this set it is written Cordia. 

From the Autocephalous, 

that is independent Province of CYPRUS, came the following: 

1. Rheginus^'Bisho^ oi the city of Constantia, and Metropolitan. 

2. Sapricius, Bishop of Paphos. The list on pages 22-30 id., 

adds "in Cyprus:" see on page 26 there." 

3. Zeno, Bishop of Curium in Cyprus. 

4. Evagrius, Bishop of Solia or Soli in Cyprus. 

Sees Whose Provinces Are Unknown. 

1. Caesarius, Chorepiscopus of the city Alee. It occurs after a 
Cyprian see and before the name of a Hellespontan see. 
Bingham gives an Area in Armenia, and an Area or Arcae 
in Phoenicia Prima. Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and 
Roman Biography" gives not Alee. It gives Area, in 
Greek "A/)Z7j, which it places in Phoenicia. The margin of 
Hardouin's "Concilia," tome I, column 1425, has Alee. 
In the first list on page 26, volume I of "Ephesus," the 
name of his see is not given. The signature there is merely 
"Caesarius, a Chorepiscopus." It occurs there just after 
four Cyprus sees and just before a Paphlagonian see, that is 
it comes between "Evagrius of Soli" in Cyprus and "Tribo- 
nianus of Aspendus in Pamphylia." And in Act VI it is 
found in exactly the same place, but the name of the see or 



Bishops present hi the Synod. 6 s 



locality where he operated is given differently and the spell- 
ing of the two other sees varies from that given on page 26, 
volume I of "Ephesus." I give the three in the order and 
form in which they occur at the end of chapter VI of "Ephe- 
sus:" Evagrius of Solona; Caesarius, Country Bishop of 
Arcesena; Tribonianus of Aspenda in Pamphylia. From 
this I have been inclined to surmise that Caesarius' see may 
have been in Cyprus, but do not feel sure. Or was it in 
Paphlagonia, or elsewhere? On the Chorepiscopus and his 
powers and functions, see "Chorepiscopus" in Bingham's 
Index. Canon LVII of the Local Council of Laodica for- 
bids them for its jurisdiction. And yet we see Caesarius in 
A. D. 431 , voting as such in the Third Ecumenical Council. 
According to Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Bishop of Cae- 
sarea in Cappadocia, had fifty Chorepiscopi, that is Country 
Bishops, under him, but it does not appear that any or every 
one of them had a see: see Bingham, book IX, chapter 3, 
section 2. 

Philadelphhis, Bishop of the Gratianopolitans. Bingham gives 
only one Gratianopolis, the present Grenoble in France. 
But it does not appear that any Gallic Bishop was present. 
Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Latin Geography" gives 
that Gratianopolis only. Wiltsch gives another see of the 
same name which was in Mauritiana Caesariensis in Latin 
Africa, but the letter of Capreolus of Carthage shows that 
the African Synod had sent no Prelate to the Synod. Har- 
douin's margin, col. 1427, tome I, here tells us that Merca- 
tor has Trajauopolis instead of Gratianopolis. The only 
see of Trajanopolis mentioned in Bingham's list was in the 
Province of Rhodope in the Diocese of Thrace. I do not 
find any Philadelphius in the list in Act VI of this Council, 
It may well be that there were two or more cities named 
after the Emperor Gratian, though we may not be able to 
locate more than one. And we must not suppose that we 
know either the names or the localities of all the ancient 
sees. It has been computed by one that at about this time 
there were about 1 800 Bishops in the v/orld, for the episco- 



66 Bishops presejit in the Sy7iod. 

pates were often of small extent, as Bingham shows. The 
two sees which occur next in the signatures at the end of 
Act I of Ephesus, are found next after the names of sees 
attached to Palestine, and just before those of Egypt: which 
might lead us to deem it not unlikely that they belonged 
either to the jurisdiction of Jerusalem or else to that of 
Alexandria, But as that is not clearly proven I put them 
here. They are as follows: 

3. Serenianus, Bishop of the cit}' of the Myrians. Was this city 

Myra in Lycia? Or was it Myrum or Merum in Phrygia or 
was it Myrum in the Second Palestine? Wiltsch, note 17, 
page 224 of his volume I, makes the Bishop of this last to 
have been at the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. Smith's 
Dictionary giv^es Myra in Eycia, but no Myrum nor Myrium. 
But among the subscriptions at the end of Act VI of Ephe- 
sus is found "Hereunianus, Bishop of Myra," which is 
probably, with an error in spelling, the same as "Serenni- 
anus, Bishop of the city of the Myrians" above, and the see 
was therefore Myra in Lycia. See page 226, volume II of 
"Ephesus" in this set. On page 224, note 17, vol. I of 
his work, Wiltsch speaks of "The first and last Bishop 
of the unknown Myrum at the Council of Ephesus in 431." 
No Serennianus is found at the end of Act VI, which 
strengthens the view that Herennianus is the same. 

4. Cyril^ Bishop of Pylae. As Pylae {ΤΙνλαι in Greek) means 

"Gates," and hence a Pass through a mountain chain, it 
is therefore applied to many places. What particular 
place is here meant is not evident therefore from "Pylae" 
alone. For there was a Pylae in Greece, another in Cili- 
cia, and a third between Syria and Cilicia. Smith's Dic- 
tionary mentions them. In Hardouin's margin here we 
find the addition "in the Chersonesus," which is in the 
list on page 24, volume I of "Ephesus," where the sub- 
scription is "Cyril of Pyli," [or "of Pylae"] "in the Cher- 
sonesus." This therefore is correct, the pronunciation of 
the Ei (-^0 ^^^ ^'^ I^^^ C'^"^) ill Greek in modern times, as 



Bishops present in ihe Synod. 67 



well probably as in the fifth century, not being very 
widely distinct, and, if read for a copyist to write, easily 
mistaken one for another. 

5. ''Philip, Bishop of Amazon in Caria," is found on page 144, 
vol. I of "Ephesus." Among the subscriptions at the end 
of Act VI it is "Philip." But in the subscriptions at the 
end of Act I, page 492, id., we read instead, "Philetus, the 
least, Bishop of Amj'zon." And so it is at the end of Act 
VI, page 228, vol. II of "Ephesus." There is here evi- 
dently a mistake, probably a copyist's or secretary's, of one 
name for another. Which of the two was the right name I 
know not. 

Hefele in his "History of the Church Councils, vol. Ill, page 
46, states that "sixty-eight Asiatic Bishops . . . in a letter to Cyril 
and Juvenal, had requested that they would be pleased to defer the 
opening of the Synod until the arrival of bishops from Antioch." 
The above document wnth its names is from the "Synodicon" of 
Monte Casino. The whole of it is in Hardouin in Latin only. 
One of the reasons urged by those sixty-eight Prelates for defer- 
ring the opening of the Council till the arrival of John of Antioch 
is that "some of the Western Bishops also will be present at the 
Synod." The Protest is vehement against the action of St. Cyril 
and the Bishops in opening the Council. Yet some of those who 
signed it may not have been Nestorian in doctrine, but merely 
misled into siding with the Nestorian demand for further delay, 
though the Council waited indulgently fifteen days beyond the time 
set in the Imperial Decree which summoned the Council. 

On the same page he adds that twenty of those sixty-eight 
went over to the side of the Orthodox Council, and that their 
names are subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius at the end of 
its Act I. See Hardoviin's "Concilia," tome I, page 1350, com- 
pared with page 1423; and Mansi's "Concilia," tome V, pages 
765, 766 compared with tome IV, page 1211, and after. Their 
names are as follows: I put in capitals those who went over to the 
Orthodox Synod, whose names are subscribed to the condemnation 
of Nestorius at the end of its Act I. Such of the eleven Bishops 



68 Bishops present ΐ7ΐ the Syiiod. 

as subscribed the protest against the deposition of Nestorius, and 
are found also among the forty-three, who deposed Cyril and Mem- 
non and excommunicated the Orthodox Council are put in italics. 
The others of the forty-three are in Roman. 

The names of the sixty-eight who subscribed the Protest 
aforesaid as in Hardouin's "Concilia," tome I, columns 1350-1352, 
are as follows: They are in Latin only in Hardouin. 

1. Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia. 

2. Alexander, Bishop of Apamea in Syria. 

3. Helladhis, Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia. 

4. BerEnianus, Bishop of Perga in Pamphylia. 

5. Fritilas, Bishop of Heraclea in Europa, who subscribed by 

Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya. 

6. Himerhis, Bishop of Nicomedia in Bithynia. 

7. Dalmatius, Bishop of Cyzicus. 

8. Severus, Bishop of Synnada in Phrygia Salutaris. 

9. Maeonius, Bishop of Sardis in Lydia. 

10. Maximianus, Bishop of Anazarbus in Cilicia Secunda. This 

name is spelled Maximus in the list next below. 

1 1 . Dexia7ius, Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria. 

12. Dorot/ieus, Bishop of Marcianopolis in Moesia Secunda. 

13. Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis in Euphratesia. 

14. Pius, Bishop of Pessinus in Galatia. 

15. Timothy, a Bishop from Scythia. The margin reads, "or of 

Tomi in Scythia." 

16. Eidherius, Bishop of Tyana in Cappadocia Secunda. 

17. Asterms, Bishop of Amida in Mesopotamia. 

18. Peter, Bishop of Trajanopolis in Rhodope, 

19. Basil, Bishop of Larissa in Thessaly. 

20. Diogenes, Bishop of lonopolis, who held also the place of 

Bosserius, Bishop of Gangra in Paphagonia. 

21. Julian, Bishop of Sardica in Dacia. 

22. Beunantius, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. 

23. Jacob, Bishop of Dorostolus in Moesia. 



Bishops present in the Synod. Cg 

24. Athanasius, Bishop of Dinela in Moesia Secunda. The mar- 

ginal note on Dinela in Hardouin here tells us that it is a 
corruption for Develtus. I give that for what it is worth. 

25. Theophanius, Bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia. On page 502 

this name is spelled Theophanes. 

26. Paul, Bishop of Daldus in Lydia. 

27. EuPREPius, Bishop of Bizya in Europa. 

28. John, Bishop of all Lesbos. 

29. Fascus, Bishop of Lydia. The margin here adds: "Read, of 

Thyatira in Lydia, from Act VL" 

30. COMMODUS, Bishop of Tripolis. 

31. EuTHERius, Bishop of Stratonicia in Lydia. 

32. John, Bishop of the city of the Aureli Dpolitans in Lydia. 

33. Nimenius, Bishop of Helenopolis in L3'dia. The margin tells 

us that, "Perhaps we should read Limenius as in Act I," not 
"Nimenius." 

34. Theosedius, Bishop of Cios in Bithynia. 

35. Peter, Bishop of Prusa in Bithynia. 

36. Eugene, Bishop of Apollonias in Bithynia. 

37. Anastasius, Bishop of Tenedos in the Cyclades. 

38. Cyril, Bishop of Adana in the First Cilicia. 

39. Hcsychiiis, Bishop of Castabala in the Second Cilicia. 

40. Severus, Bishop of Sozopolis in Pisidia. 

41. Aetius, Bishop of Piolita (Piolitensis) in Hellespontus. The 

margin adds, "Below, Phaenorum. In Smith's "Dictionary 
of Greek and Latin Geography" I find no Piolita, but I do 
find a " n:">;V/, Eth-Pionita," which, he tells us, was "a 
bishopric of the Helle '.pontine province:" see under the 
term there. 

42. Timothy, Bishop of the city of the Germanites [German- 

orum] or of Germana in Hellespontus. See "Timothy of 
the Thermans in List II, on page 502, vol. I of "Ephesus." 

43. Athanasius, Bishop of the city of Psima [Psimorum], 

44. Daniel, Bishop of Faustinopolis. 

45. Filtanius, Bishop of the Theodosianopolitans. 

46. Eustratius, a Bishop. 



yo Bishops present in the Synod. 

47. Theodore, Bishop of Attalia. Is this the same as "Theodore, 

Bishop of Atala" on page 502, vol I of "Ephesus?" If not, 
it should not be in capitals. 

48. Paul, Bishop of the Eutinnians, (Eutinnorum). 

49. Timothy, Bishop of Termesus and Eudocias. 

50. Aedisius, Bishop of the Isiodans [Isiodorum]. The marginal 

note adds "otherwise of the Sidans" [Sydorum]. 

51. Gerontius, Bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria. 

52. Aurelian, Bishop of Irenopolis in Isauria. 

53. Abrahaiuius, Bishop of Araoriura. The margin adds here 

that the name is read in Act VI not Abrahamius, bnt Abla- 
vius. 

54. Polychronius , Bishop of Heraclea in Caria. 

55. Zosis, Bishop of Echintus [Echinti] in Arabia. The marginal 

note here adds, "Read Esbuntis, that is, in the nominative, 
Esbus. 

56. Hermolaus, Bisnoji^of the Attudaeans [Attudaeorum]. 

57. AscLEPiADES, Bishop of Trapezopolis. 

58. Evadius, Bishop of Valentia. 

59. LiBANius, Bishop of Paula. The margin adds, "For Palaeas- 

polis, as in Act VI." See "Eibanius of Palaeopolis" in 
List II at the end of Act I, and that at the end of Act VI. 

60. Salustms, Bishop of Corycus in Cilicia. ' 

61. Valenii)ins,'Q\s\xo•^ oi Mallus. 

62. Pausianus, Bishop of Hypata in Thessaly. 

63. Theoctistus, Bishop of Caesarea in Thessaly. 

64. Maximus, Bishop of Demetrias, in Thessaly. 

65. Julian, Bishop of Larissa in the Second Syria. 

66. Diogenes, Bishop of Seleucobelus in the Second Syria. 

67. Theodoret, Bishop "of Cyrus (spelled also "Cyrrhus") in 

Augusta Euphratesia," [Theodoretus, episcopus Cyri Augus- 
tae Euphratesiae.] Perhaps, but I am not sure, an error (?) 
for Cyrrhestica Euphratesia. See Harper's Latin Dictionary 
under* 'Cyrrhestica," and Smith and Wace's "Dictionary of 
Christian Biography," vol. IV, page 906, inner column, and 



Bishops present in the Synod. η\ 



page 164 of Butler's "Ancient Geography," or Geographia 
Classica. 

68. Meletius, Bishop "of Caesarea Augusta in Euphratesia, or "of 
Caesarea in Augusta Euphratesia." [Latin, Meletius, epis- 
copus Caesareae Augustae Euphratesia.]. Is he the Meletius 
of Neocaesarea in the list of forty-three names below? Should 
the "Augusta" be "Cyrrhestica?" 
Twenty-four of these names are found in the list of the sixty- 
eight below. The rest, forty-four in alphabetic order, are as fol- 
lows: — 

1. Aetius, Bishop of Pionia in Hellespontus. 

2. Anastasius, Bishop of Tenedos in the Cyclades. 

3. Asclepiades, Bishop of Trapezopolis. 

4. Athanasius, Bishop of Dinela, [Develtus?J in Moesia Secunda. 

5. Athanasius, Bishop of the city of Psima. 

6. Abraham (or Ablavius), Bishop of Amorium. 

7. Aedesius, Bishop of the Isiodans. 

8. Berenianus, Bishop of Perga in Pamphylia. 

9. Bennantius, Bi.shop of Hierapolis in Phrj'gia. 

10. Coramodus, Bishop of Tripolis. 

1 1 . Dalmatius, Bishop of Cyzicus. 

12. Diogenes, Bishop of lonopolis, who held the place of 

13. Besserius, Bishop of Gangra in Paphlagouia. 

14. Eustratius, a Bishop. 

15. Eutherius, Bishop of Stratonicia in Lydia. 

16. Eugene, Bishop of Apollonias in Bithynia. 

17. Evadius, Bishop of Valentia. 

18. Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya in Europa. 

19. Filtauius, Bishop of the Theodosiauopolitans. 

20. Fuscus, Bishop of [Thyatira in] Lydia. 

21. Hermolaus, Bishop of the Attudaeans. 

22. John, Bishop of the city of the Aurelianopolitans in Lydia. 
2Z. John, Bishop of all Lesbos. 

24. Julian, Bishop of Sardica in Dacia. 

25. Libanius, Bishop of Paula. 

25. Maeonius. Bishop of Sardis in Lydia. 



η2 Bishops present ifi the Synod. 

27. Maximus, Bishop of Demetrias in Thessaly. 

28. Meletius, Bishop of Caesarea. 

29. Nimenius, (or Limenius), Bishop of Helenopolis in Lydia. 

30. Pausianus, Bishop of Hypata in Thessaly. 

31. Paul, Bishop of the Eutinnians. 

32. Paul, Bishop of Daldus in Lydia. 

33. Peter, Bishop of Trajanopolis in Rhodope. 

34. Peter, Bishop of Prusa in Bithynia. 

35. Pius, Bishop of Pessinus in Galatia. 

36. Severus, Bishop of Sozopolis in Pisidia. 

37. Serenus, Bishop of Synnada in Phrygia Salutaris. 

38. Theodore, Bishop of Attalia. 

39. Theophanius, Bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia. 

40. Timothy, Bishop of Termessus and Eudocias. 

41. Timothy, a Bishop from Scythia. 

42. Timothy, Bishop of the city of the Germaites in Hellespontus. 

43. Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia. 

44. Theoctistus, Bishop of Caesarea in Thessaly. 

After the First Act of the Third Ecumenical Council in which 

Nestorius was condemned and deposed, we find a document against 

it signed by the following eleven Prelates of the heretical party 

(Hefele's "History of the Church Councils" and the references to 

the originals there mentioned): 

Name of Bishop. See. Province. Diocese. 

Nestorius, Constantinople, Europa, Thrace. 

Fntilas, Heraclea, Europa, Thrace. 

Helladiiis, Tarsus, Cilicia Prima, Asia, 

but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch; Bing- 
ham's "Antiquities," Book IX, chap. Ill, section 16. 

Dexia7ius, Seleucia, Isauria, Asia, 

but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

Himerius, Nicomedia, Bithynia Prima, Asia. 

Alexander, Apamea, Syria Secunda, The East. 



Province. 


Diocese. 


Cappadocia Secunda, 


Pontus. 


Thessaly, 


Macedonia. 


Cilicia Secunda, 


Asia, 



Bishops present in the Synod. 73 

Name of Bishop. See. 

Eutherius, Tyana, 

Basil, [Larissa?] 

Maximus, Anazarbus, 

but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

The Synodicon of Monte Casino has Maximianus instead of 

Maxiimis. 

Alexander, Hieropolis, Euphratesia, The East. 

Dorotheas, Marcianopolis, Moesia Secunda, Thrace. 

Of these eleven, 5 were under Antioch, 3 of Thrace, 1 of 
the Diocese of Asia, 1 of Pontus, and 1 of Macedonia. So 
eight were influenced by Nestorius and Kestorianism. All 
these, with the exception of Helladius of Tarsus, signed the 
absurd deposition of Cyril and Memnon by the Nestorian 
Conventicle at Ephesus and its excommunication of the 
Ecumenical Synod. That deposition is subscribed, as 
Hefele states in his "History of the Church Councils," 
vol. Ill, page 58, (English translation), by all the forty- three 
members of the Nestorian Conciliabuhan. They are as 
follows : 

1. John, Patriarch of Antioch, Syria Prima, The East. 

2. Alexander, Metropolitan of Apamea, Syria Secuuda, The East. 

3. John, Metropolitan of Damascus, Phoenicia Libani, The East. 

4. Dorothcjis, Metropolitan of Marcianopolis, Moesia Secunda, 

Thrace. 

5. Alexander, Metropolitan of Hierapolis, Euphratesia, The East. 
^.DexiamiSy Metropolitan of Seleucia, Isauria, Asia, 

but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

7. Basil, Metropolitan [of Larissa], Thessaly, Macedonia. 

In the list of sixty-eight names, Basil's see, Larissa, is 
mentioned. 

8. Antiochus, Metropolitan of Bostra, Arabia, The East. 

9. Paul, Bishop of Emesa, Phoenicia Libani, The East. 

10. Apringius, Bishop of Chalcis, Syria Prima, The East. 

11. Polychronius, Bishop of Heraclea, ? ? 

12. Cyril, Bishop of Adana, Cilicia Prima, Asia, 

but under the Patriarch of Antioch. 



η A Bishops present in the Synod. 

Name of Bishop. See. Province. Diocese. 

13. Ausonius, Bishop of Himeria, Osrhoene, The East. 

14. Musaeus, Bishop of Aradus and Antaradus, Phoenicia Prima, 

The East. 

15. Hesychius, Bishop of Castabala, Cilicia Secunda, Asia, 

but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

16. Salustius, Bishop of Corycus, Cilicia Prima, Asia, 

but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. Bing- 
ham spells the name of the see, Coricus, 

17. Jacobus, Bp. of Dorostolus or of Dorostorum, Moesia Secunda, 

Thrace. 

18. Zosis, Bishop of Esbus in Arabia. It was under the Patriarch 

of Antioch. 

19. Eustathius, Bishop of Parnassus, Cappadocia Tertia, Pontus. 

20. Diogenes, Bishop of Seleucobelus, Syria Secunda, The East. 

21. Placon, Bishop of Laodicea, ? ? 

The Eatin margin prefixes "Great" to Laodicea. 

22. Polychronius, Bishop of Epiphania, (Syria Secunda in the East 

or Cilicia Secunda in Asia), 
but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

23. Fritilas, Metropolitan of Heraclea, Europa, Thrace. 

There were two Heracleas in Caria, and Wiltsch, vol. I, 
page 451 , makes their two Bishops to be present at Ephesus 
in A. 431. There were other Heracleas elsewhere. 

24. Himerius, Metroplitan of Nicomedia, Bithynia Prima, Asia. 

25. Helladius, Metropolitan of Tarsus in Cilicia, Asia, but ecclesi- 

astically under Antioch. 

26. Eiithcrius, Metropolitan of Tyana in the Second Cappadocia, 

Pontus. 
2Ί . Asterius, Metropolitan of Amida, in Mesopotamia Superior, 
The East. 

28. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Euphratesia, Diocese of the East. 

29. Macarius, Bishop of Laodicea Major. Where? 

30. TheosebiJis, Bishop of Cios, Bithynia Prima, Church Diocese of 

Asia under Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus and Exarch. 

31. Maximian, Metropolitan of Anazarbus in Cilicia Secunda, but 



Bishops preseiit in the Sy?iod. 75 

ecclesiastically under Antioch; for, as Bingham shows in his 
Antiquities, book IX, chapter 3, section 16, three provinces 
of the Civil Diocese of Asia Minor, Isauria, Cilicia Prima 
and Cilicia Secunda were reckoned to be in the Church 
Diocese under Antioch. Maximian's name is spelled Maxi- 
mus above where the eleven Nestorians are mentioned. 

32. Gerontius, Bishop of Claudiopolis, Isauria, Asia, but ecclesias- 

tically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

33. Cyrus, Bishop of Marcopolis, Osrhoene, The East. 

34. Aurelius, Bishop of Irenopolis, Cilicia Secunda, or 

Isauria, Asia, 
but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

35. Meletius, Bishop of Neocaesarea, ? ? 

36. Helladius, Bishop of Ptolemais, Phoenicia Prima, The East. 

37. Tarian, or Trajan, Bishop of Augusta, Cilicia Prima, Asia, 

but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

38. Valentine, Bishop of Mallus, Cilicia Prima? The East? 

39. Marcian, Bishop of Abrytus, or Abritum, Moesia Sec, Thrace. 

40. Daniel, Bishop of Faustinopolis, Cappadocia Secunda, Pontus. 

41. Julian, Bishop of Larissa, Syria Secunda, The East. 

As Basil above is set down as Metropolitan of Thessaly, of 
which Larissa in that province was the Metropolis, I have 
supposed the Earissa here mentioned to be the suffragan see 
of that name in Syria Secunda. 

42. Heliades, Bishop of Zeugma, Euphratensis, The East. 

43. Marcellinus, Bishop of Area, Armenia Secunda, Pontus. 
Of these forty- three, 32 were of the jurisdiction of then Nes- 

torian Antioch: of Thrace, 4; of Macedonia, 1; of Pontus, 
4; and of the Church Diocese of Asia, 2. One or two of 
those Bishops I have had some difi&culty in placing, but the 
above is correct or nearly so. 

Summary. 

Of the Bishops present in the Orthodox Council, there were 
from the West only two, both delegates of the Roman see: 

Philip, "a presbyter of Rome," signs himself "a legate" of 
Rome also; see volume II of "Ephesus" in this set, page 226. 



76 



Bishops present i7i the Synod. 



The only other Western see represented was Carthage, by the 
deacon Besula, 

Much of the West was then more or less invaded by the bar- 
barians, or troubled by them, and most of it was not yet Chris- 
tianized, and what was, was more or less infected with the growing 
heresy of creature worship, and the Western races and nations had 
not yet developed the Christian scholarship which they have since, 
and they were yet weak, though destined in time to become the 
strength and bulwark of Christendom. 

Hence the Dioceses of Brittania, Gaul, Spain, Italy, and 
Western IlljTicum were not represented at all in the Council; but, 
let us hope, they and the other nations of the North with America, 
the United States and British America, will form the bulk of a 
sound reforming and restoring Seventh Synod of the Christian 
World. 

From the Eastern Dioceses there were of sees whose exact 
locality is known as follows: 

1 . From the Diocese of Thrace, . . . " . . 6 

2. From the Diocese of Asia, . . . . . 100 

3. From the Diocese of Pontus, 13 

4. From the Patriarchate of Alexandria, embracing the 

Dioceses of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis . 48 or 49 

5. From the Diocese of the East, the Patriarchate of 

Antioch, 

6. From the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, embracing Pal- 

estine and part of Arabia, . . . . . 13 

7. From the Diocese of Macedonia, .... 17 

8. From the Diocese of Dacia, called also Eastern Illyri- 

cum, ......... 1 

9. From the Diocese of Western Illyricum, ... 

From the whole East, 198 

Total known sees and Bishops from the West and 

the East, about 200 

10. From the Italic Diocese, 

1 1 . From the Diocese of Spain, 

12. From the Diocese of Gaul, 

13. From the Diocese of Britain, . , . . . 

14. From other parts of the West 



77 



MATTER EXPLANATORY OF THE UTTERANCES OF 
THE "ONE, HOLY, UNIVERSAL AND APOS- 
TOLIC CHURCH" IN ITS THIRD 
SYNOD. 



ARTICLE 11. 

The Decisions of the Third Ecumenical Synod against the 

Three Chief Heresies of Nestorius, and Quotations 

FROM Those Decisions, and References to Places 

Where They May Be Found, Said Chiei- 

Heresies Being: 

1 . His denial of the I?ieaniaii07i. 

2. His 'cvrship of ChrisV s hiunanity, a7id Jiis plea ihat being 
only relative it xvas all right. St. Cyril brands that error as 
^Α-Όρω-ολατ/ϋία, that IS US ''the worship of a hiiman being J" 

3. His assertion of a real substances presence of Christ's hitman 
flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper, and that it is right to worship 

them there, and that they are eaten there, zvhich St. Cyril brands as 
^Α.Α>ι>(ϋ-ι>φΊγία, that is "the eatitig of a hiunan being,'" that is, in 
plain English, Cannibalism. 

Vi^STLY Important AND Ever to Be Remembered Decisions of 

THE 'Όνε, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church," 

Which We Confess in the Creed, against Denial of 

THE Incarnation, and against the Idolatries of Rome 

and of the Other Ckeature-Invoking Churches: 

In other words, the Decisions of the Third Ecumenical Synod 

on Theodore of Mopsnestia' s Forthset or Creed, and on its Heresies, 

and in the other Utterances of the said Third Syyiod, and the Decisions 

of the whole Church in other Utterances of other;', of the VI Ecu?ne7ii- 

cal Councils, as those Utterances bear on the stand of the Reformed 

Church of England and of the other God alone worshipping Churches, 

against the relative and the absolute worship of Christ" s huma7iity, 



78 Article II. 

and the worship relative as well as absohde of the Virgin Mary and 
other saints by kneeling, by Invocation or in any other way, and of arch- 
angels and angels; and against iherelctive and all other worship of 
images pictured or graven, crosses pictured or gr avert, altars, holy 
tables, relics, the book of the Gospels or any other pari of the Bible, by kiss- 
ing, bowing or in any other way , and against the Nestoriari one nature 
Consubstantiation worship of the bread and wine alleged by Nestorius 
to be Christ's real nesh and blood, and against the Nestorian Canni- 
balism of eating and drinking them. 

1. Prefatory Matter on the General Topic of the Nes- 

TORiANs' Denial of the Incarnation, and on Their 

Creature-Worship. 

At this point, when we have got to the end of the decisions of 
the Third Council of the whole Church East and West, on the 
points just mentioned in this heading, it will be well to sum up, for 
the Seventh Act deals only with the topic of preserving the rights 
of Provinces, and of Diocesan, that is what are practically National 
Churches, against the attempts of the greater sees to deprive them 
of their freedom and to subjugate them. 

The fact is too little known, even among anti-idolatrous Chris- 
tians, that in forbidding all forms of Creature Worship, such as 
invocation of angels and saints, and all other acts of worship to 
them, relative as well, of course, as absolute, which are worse still, 
and all relative and all absolute worship of crosses, pictures and 
graven images, and relics, and altars, communion tables and every 
thing else, and in forbidding us to submit to any and every Bishop 
and cleric who holds to them or any of them, and who is 
antecedently deposed for those errors by Ephesus, the Refor- 
mers of the sixteenth century were guided by the Holy Ghost 
not only to come out from Rome (126), the Harlot of the Rev- 
elations, as inspired Scripture explains her to be (127), as under- 
stood from Tertullian of the second century onward (128), and from 



KOTE 126.— Rev. XVIII, 4. 

Note 127.— Rev. XVII, 18. 

Note 128.— See in Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome III, the references under "Roma urhs" 
in the Index Generalis, and in col. 1330, tome I. And see one before him even the Bishop of 
Lyons, St. Irenaeus to the same effect, book V, chapter 26, page 510, Keble s translation, 
and the other Fathers /οίίΐ»». 



Decisions of EpJiesus against Nestorius' Chief Heresies. yg 

all her spiritual whoredoms of worshipping what is not God, but 
also in generally conforming their faith on those themes, to the 
decisions of that "one, holy, universal and apostolic Church," in 
its sole utterances, in the Six Ecumenical Synods; of that Church 
which we are commanded to hear, or else to be regarded "as the 
heathen man and the publican" (129). 

All the VI Ecumenical Synods, the sole Councils of the whole 
Church, East and West, were held chicfy agai?isi Creature- Worships 
and to guard and to promote the Worship of the Triune God alone, 
in accordance with Christ's own law in Matthew IV, 10: 

"Thou shalt worship the Eord thy God, and him only shall 
thou serve," and with God's command in Isaiah XLII, 8: 

"I am Jehovah; that is my name; and my glory will I not 
give to another, neither my praise unto graven images." 

The First Synod, held at Nicaea in Bithynia, A. D. 325, con- 
demned the creature worship of Arius, for he made God the Word 
a creature and worshipped him as such, and was therefore, on his 
own showing, a. creature-worshipper. 

The Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople A. D. 
381, condemned the creature-serving Arians again, the follow- 
ers of Paul of Samosata who made God the Word a creature, and 
the Macedonians, who made the Holy Ghost a creature and wor- 
shipped him as such, and were therefore, on their own theory, 
creature worshippers. 

But those heretics went astray by making God the Word and 
the Holy Ghost creatures and worshipping them as such. 

But Nestorius who led to the Third Synod, was sound on the 
Divinity of Christ and on the Trinity, but erred in worshipping 
the humanity of Christ, w^hich all admit to be a creature, and was 
therefore on his own confession guilty of worshipping a human 
being as the Orthodox Cyril of Alexandria accuses him, in other 
words, of creature service. And from him onward the error of 
anthropolatry faces us as a living issue. 

We must now therefore speak of the Third Synod. 

Nestorius' root heresy, from which his errors sprung, was his 

Note 129.— Matt. XVIII, 15-19. Compare I Timothy III, 15. 



8ο Article //. 

denial of the Inilesh of the Word of God, which made his Christ a 
mere man, the substance of God the Word not being in him at all. 

To that therefore \\e must come first. 

And, at the beginning, I would state that I will quote at first 
only the decisions of the whole Church on the topics involved, which are 
therefore the supreme atdhority and have settled forever all questions 
on which they have definitely spoken. Thej' were uttered while the 
whole church was sound and one and are in strict accord with Holy 
Writ. Such individual utterances of Cyril, Celestine, or of any other 
one man, and of any local Council, as were formally approved 
by the Third Synod or any of the Three Ecumenical Synods after it 
are, of course, of Ecumenical authority, because of that approval. 

Of secondary importance^ but yet of much value, are such of the 
individual utterances of the Orthodox champion, St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, St. Athanasius and others which have not be'en for- 
mally approved by any of the VI Ecumenical Councils, but are in 
strict accordance with them. 
11. Nestorius' Denial of the Incarnation of God the 

Word. 

The Third Ecumejiical Cou7icil formally condemned the Nes- 
torian denial of the Incarnation: 

(1). By approving in its Act I, the condemnation of it in 
Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, and that by a vote of the Coun- 
cil (130). 

(2), By condemning in its Act I by a vote of the Synod the 
Epistle of Nestorius to Cyril which contains and preaches it; 
which condemnation the Bishops at once followed by anathema- 
tizing Nestorius and his dogmas (131), including it of course, 

(3). By approving in the same Act I the Epistle of Celestine 
which condemns it (132). 

(4). By approving in the same Act Cyril of Alexandria's 
Long Letter to Nestorius, which ably condemns it and anathema- 
tizes it and its logical sequences of Man Worship, etc., in the 

KOTE 130 — Chrystal's Ephesus, vol. I, pages 52-154, and especially pages 52, and 129-154. 
Note 131.— Id., pages 154-17S, and, as to the decisions of the Council on it, pages lCC-178. 
Note 132 — "hrystal's Ephesus, vol. I, pages 178-203. See the approbative language use 
of that Epistle in id., pjge 4S7. 



Decisions of Ephesus agaiyist Nesioriiis' Chief Heresies. 8i 

XII Anathemas at its end (133); see especially on the Incarnation 
Anathema I. 

(5). By their course against Xestorius for his denial of the 
Incarnation to the messengers of the Synod (134), Theodotus, 
Bishop of Ancyra, and Acacius, Bishop of Melitine (135): 

(6), By taking as the criterion by which to decide as to Nes- 
torius' heres}' or Orthodoxy (136), 21 passages from the Fathers which 
teach the Incarnation and, of course, condemn its opposite. 

(7). By taking the 20 "Blasphemies" (137) of Nestorius (138), 
several of which, namely, "Blasphemy 1,2,3, and 4," are very 
clearly against the Incarnation, as "an accusation against him who 
has taught those things;" (139) for Flavian, Bishop of Philippi, 
after their reading in the presence of the Council, speaks of them 
as follows: 

"Since the things said by Nestorius are horrible and blas- 
phemous, and our ears do not endure to be polluted by them any 
longer, let every part of his blasphemy be inserted in the Acts, for 
an '^accusation against him who has taught those things'' (140). 

(8). By deposing Nestorius for all the twenty passages of his 
writings, which set forth his heresies, this denial of the Incarna- 
tion among" them, as mentioned in the Twenty Blasphemies just 
spoken of (141 ). 

(9). By testifying in their "Letter to the Clerics and Stew- 
ards of the Church of Constantinople," after their Act I, that "the 

Note 133 — Id., pages 204-358. Kor proof of the approval of that Epistle by the Third 
Kcuiuenical Synod, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth, see id., pages 204-208, note 520. 

Note 13t.— Id. pa^es 400-418. See al.so the references to them on pages 456,487, where 
their reports are referred to as, among other things, the basis for Nestorius' deposition: "And 
inasmuch as we found out . . . from the things lately said by him in this very metropolis and 
testified to in addition that he thinks and preaches impiously," etc. 

Note 135.— Id., pages 39i-418. See the ncte last above. 

Note 136— Chrysial's Ep:.\esus, vol. I, pages 417-449. 

Note 137.— They are so termed by Peter of Alexandria, when he proooses to read them to 
the Synod. See id., page 449. 

Note 138.— Id., pages 449-488, where tke 20 are found. 

Note 139.— Id , page 470. 480. 

Note 140.— Id., pages 479, 480 vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus. 

Note 141.— That is on page 449-480, of the same volume. The deposition on the basis cf 
» ho.se ••Blasphemies." as they are termed on pages 449, 488, and on the basis of his not receiv- 
ing t he Bishops sent to summon him to the Ccuncl, and on the basis of his utterances even 
at Kphesus. ison pages 4SG-504. \u analysis cf the 20 ".S/ai//ii>«ifj" is contained in Note K, 
pages 529-551. 



82 Article II. 

blasphemous Nestorius" had been deposed "on account of his im- 
pious preachings" (142), his denial of the Incarnation, of course, 
among them. 

(10). By witnessing even more in detail in their "Report" to 
the Emperors, that Nestorius had been deposed, among other 
things, for his denial of the Incarnation (143). 

(11). To the same purport, though not so full, is the "Epistle 
of the Synod to the Clergy and People of Constantinople" (144), 
though Nestorius is spoken of as "the renewer of impious heres}^," 
and his doctrine as a "stumbling block," "tares" and "foul and 
profane novelty," including, of course, his denial of the Inflesh of 
God the Word in the Virgin's womb. 

(12). To the same purport but briefly told is the copy of the 
Epistle of the Council to Dalmatius (145), for mention is made of 
"the deposition of the unholy Nestorius," and Dalmatius' utter- 
ance on him as "a wicked wild beast" is quoted, seemingly with 
approval, (146). 

(13). In Acts II and III, the legates of Rome, who had arrived 
late, gave the assent of tl^eir Church to the work of the Council in 
its First Act, including, of course, its condemnation and deposition 
of Nestorius for his heresies, including, of course, his denial of the 
Incarnation (147). 

(14). The Ecumenical Council in their Report to the Emper- 
ors regarding the Bishops and Ambassadors who had come from 
Rome, after the conclusion of Act I, and had expressed "the judg- 
ment of all the holy Synod in the West to the Council," and so had 
confirmed again the Ecumenicity of its Actions, write to the same 
purport of condemnation of Nestorius and his errors (148). 

(15). The Ecumenical Synod, in their Epistle to the Clergy 
and Laity of Constantinople regarding the deposition of Nestorius, 
emphasize his denial of the Incarnation as a cause for it (149). 

Note 142. — Chrystal's Ephesus, vol. II, Document I. pages 1 and 2. 

Note 143. — Id., pages 3-14, Document II, especially pages 7, 8 and 10. 

Note 144. — Id., pages 14-16, Document III. 

Note 145. — Id., pages 17-20, Document V. 

Note 146.— Id., pages 18, 19. 

Note 147. — Chrystai's Ephesus, vol. II, pages 67-113. 

Note 148.— Id., vol. II, pages 114-124. 

Note 149 — Chrys tal's Ephesus, vol. II, pages 124-127. 



Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius'' Chief Heresies. 83 

(16). In Acts IV and V the Council nullified the farcical depo- 
sition of Cyril and Memnon by John of Antioch and his small Nes- 
torian Conventicle for deposing Nestorius for his heresies, his 
denial of the Incarnation among them, and John's action against 
the Ecumenical Synod; and the Synod suspended him and his from 
communion and from ministerial functions for their guilty course 
in those things (150). 

And of their action against Nestorius the Council says: 

"The Synod, following the Church's established laws, sub- 
jected him to deposition; having accurately investigated the 
charges against him, and having fully ascertained that he is both a 
heretic and a blasphemer " (151). 

As has just been said his fundamental heresy and blasphemy 
was denial of the Incarnation, on which as sequences from it, he 
built his others of Man Worship (152), real presence of the sub- 
stances of Christ's humanity in the Eucharist after consecration and 
worship of it there (153), and the Cannibalism of eating it there, 
as well as his denial of Economic Appropriation, and his heresy of 
the communicating of the Properties and Prerogatives of God the 
Word's Divinity to His humanity, at least so far as worship is 
concerned (154), though he did not go so far as to worship Christ's 
humanity absolutely, that is as having any right in its own created 
nature to be worshipped, but only relative!}-, that is for the sake 
of God the Word as he says in his own Ecumenically condemned 
"Blasphemy" 8 (155). 

(17), The Synod in its Report ίο the Emperors regarding 
John of Antioch and his fellow Nestorians, which comes in after 
its Act V, state that some of. the thirty Bishops of Johnof Antioch's 
Conventicle at Ephesus had been anathematized before the Coun- 
cil (156) because they held "the opinions of Nestorius," and, at 
the close, say to the Emperors: 

Note 150.— Id., pages 138-162. 

Note 151.— Chrystal's Ephesus, vol. II, page 140. 

Note 152. — See the teachings of Nestorius' Twenty "Blasphemies" under A, B, C, D, Ε 
F. G, H, I, J, K, I,, in Note ' F," pages 529-551, vol. I of Ephesus. The lettering is explained 
ou pag^s 529-533. 

Note 153. — See under C,D,E,F,G, and K, in the same note, and indeed all of it. 

Note 154. — See there. 

Note 155.— Chrystal's Ephesus, vol. I, page 4G1. 

Note 150,- Id., vol. II, page 167 . 



Article Π. 

"We beg you to command that those things which have been 
formulated by the Ecumenical and Holy Synod for the approval 
and support of piety against Nestorius and his impious dogma, 
shall have their own proper force, and be strengthened by the con- 
sent and approval of your piety." (157). 

All that, of course, includes their condemnation of his denial 
of the Incarnation. 

(18). In their Report to Celestine, Bishop of Rome, after 
their Act V, or in it, the Synod are more definite still. For they 
refer to Cyril's Shorter Letter to Nestorius and Nestorius' Let- 
ter to him; to Nestorius' "unholy blasphemies" and "his most 
impious Expositions," that is his XX Blasphemies, and Celestine's 
Letter to him, and his anti-Incarnation utterances at Ephesus, as 
the basis on which they had deposed him (158); and we have 
already seen that the Epistles of Cyril and Celestine were approved 
by the Synod because, among other things, they approved the doc- 
trine of the Incarnation; and, on the other hand, that they con- 
demned Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril and his Twenty Blasphemies 
because they both contain matter against the Incarnation. 

(19). In Act VI the Forthset of Theodore of Mopsuestia is 
read and condemned, and is, in effect, pronounced to be contrary 
to the faith of Nicaea, and is forbidden under stern penalties; and 
afterwards we read as regards the In man, that is the Incarnation 
and themes connected therewith as follows: 

' 'In the same manner, if any are detected, whether they be 
Bishops or Clerics or laics, either holding or teaching those things 
which are in the Forthset brought forward by Charisius the Elder, 
in regard to the Inman of the Sole-Born Son of God, that is to 
say, the foul and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, which are even its 
basis, let them lie under the sentence of this holy and Ecumenical 
Synod, that is to say, the Bishop shall be alienated from the epis- 
copate and shall be deposed, and the cleric in like manner shall 
fall out of the clericate, but if any be a laic, even he shall be an- 
athematized as has been said before." 

(20). The Encj-clical Letter of the Third Synod at its end 

Note 157.— Id., volume II, page IGT. 

Note I.jS.— Chrystal's Ephesus, vol. II, pages 170, 171, 172. 



Decisions of Ephesus against Nestor ius' Lhief Heresies. 85 

speaks of the Conventicle of John of Antioch and his supporters 
at Ephesus as "their own Apostasy," and adds that "they were 
most plainly shown before all to be promoters of the opinions of 
Nestorius and those of Celestius, by the fact that they did not 
choose with us to vote the condemnation of Nestorius; whoin the 
Holy Synod by a vote in common has made aliens to all Church 
Communion, and has stript them of all their hieratic power by 
which they could injure or profit any" (159). 

And certainly any system which denies the fundamental 
Christian tenet of the Incarnation, even though it may claim, like 
Nestorianism, to be Christian, is in fact an Apostasy from Christi- 
anity. 

III. Now as to Nestorius' Relative Worship op Christ's 
Humanity and Its Condemnation by the Universal 
Church at Ephesus in A. D. 431, and His Deposition 
FOR It, and the Approval of Ephesus by the Fourth 
Synod, the Fifth, and the Sixth. 
His language in Anathema 8, quoted on page 461 , volume I of 
Chrystal's "Ephesus," implies that he did not deem it right to 
worship Christ's created humanity absolutely, that is for its own 
sake, but only relatively, that is because of its relation to God the 
Word and on account of God the Word. And that is made still 
clearer by his counter Anathema 8, which I translate from what I 
suppose is the Eatin translation, in which it has reached us. 
Nestorius^ counter Anathema agai?ist CyriV s Anathe7na 8. 
"If any one shall say that the 'form of a servant' (160) is to be 
worshipped for its own sake, that is by reason of its own proper" 
[human] "nature, and that by reason of that proper" [human] 
"nature it is Lord of all things, and does not, on the contrary, wor- 
ship it by reason of the association by which it is joined and con- 
nected to the blessed and of itself Lordly nature of the Sole 
Born" (161) [Word], "let him be anathema" (162). 

Note 159. — Fulton's Index Canonum, pages 150, 151, gives the Greek and English. Chrys- 
tal's translation is found above. 

Note 160. — The reference is to Philippians II, 7. 

Note 161.— That is, "the Son of God, born out of the Father, Sole Born, that is out of the 
substance of the Father, Go i out of God, " as is explained in the Nicaeau Creed: see Chrys- 



86 Article Π. 

The worship here is done to the mere man, not to God the 
Sole Born, that is God the Word, and is relative like the worship 
of images by the heathen, and like the worship of the Golden Calf 
in the Wilderness and the calf at Bethel and that at Dan by the 
idolatrous Israelites, For the heathen said, as told by the Chris- 
tian Arnobius in his work "Against the Pagans," book VI, 
chapter 9: ''We worship the gods through the hnages.^' And 
Arnobius well exposes and refutes that attempted dodge there. 
And, as to the Israelites, after Aaron had yielded to their demand 
for "a god" as the Hebrew means, and had made the calf, he did 
not tell them it was a representation of a foreign god, but said, as 
scholars have translated: This is thy God (163), Ο Israel, who brought 
thee up out of the land of Egypt. And they worshipped it as a repre- 
sentation of Him, when but for Moses' intercession he would have 
destroyed them, Exodus XXXII, 1-35; Psalm CVI, 19-24. And 
Jeroboam made only one calf at Dan and another at Bethel, so as 
to try and avoid polytheism, and then said to the people, "Behold 
thy God, Ο Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt," 
Jehovah, of course, as they all believed; that is Behold this repre- 
se7itation of him, I Kings XII, 26-31. 

Jeroboam had been down into Egypt (I Kings XI, 40, and 
XII, 2, 3), and had there learned the Egyptian type of idolatry, 
the worshipping of their gods and goddesses through animals taken 
to represent them, and he, like his fathers, who had come out of 
Eg5^t and would have a calf to represent the true God, (Exod. 
XXXII), made a calf for Bethel and another for Dan, (I Kings 
XII, 26-31), which finally led to their worship, as the blessed 
English Reformers above teach us in their "Homily Against Peril 
of Idolatry" that the use of images will always do. And because 
of his making those images Jeroboam is so often spoken of in 
Holy Writ as having ''made Israel to si7i,'' (II Kings X, 29, 31), and 

tal's Nicaea, vol. I, pages 305-307. See also other important matter, Cyril's language on 
pages 7i;6-729, id. 

Note 162 — I have translated the above from Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole, third edition, 
page 317. 

Note 163.— Indeed it is so translated in Neheraiah IX, 18: "Yea, when they had made them 
a molten calf, and said, This is thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt, and had wrought 
great provocations." 



Deasions of Ephesus against Nestorius' Chief Heresies. 87 

often. Let us remember his awful punishment for that sin, (I 
Kings XIV, 5-17, and I Kings XV, 29, 30), and that of all the dynas- 
ties who followed his sin of placing images in places of worship 
before the people, and the fearful curses which fell on us Christians 
after we fell into the sin in the last half of the fourth century or 
the beginning of the fifth of bringing images and crosses into 
churches, which led to their worship, and to the slaughter and sub- 
jugation of Christians and the wiping out of Christianity from large 
parts of Asia, Africa and even of some part of Europe, as the 
English Church well teaches• in its noble Homily against Peril of 
Idolatry, which again must be read in Churches as a warning 
to all. 

(1). The Third Ecumenical Synod A. D. 431, approved by 
vote Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius which rejects that Man 
Worship, pages 52-54, vol. I, Chrystal's "Ephesus." The rejec- 
tion of that form of Creature Worship is on pages 79-86. Com- 
pare note 183 there, and especially, pages 108-112, id., the note 
matter there where decisions of the Third Synod and the Fifth 
against Man Worship are found. It forms part of note 183, all of 
which should be read, for it contains much from Cyril and others 
on that topic. 

In other words, the Third Synod of the whole Church there 
condemns the worship of Christ's humanity, and by necessary im- 
plication, the worship of any other creature. That condemnation 
is found in its First Act. I quote it: 

"So will we confess" [but] "one Anointed One and Lord, 
not that ice eo-worship a A/an together with the Word, lest that thing 
be secretly brought in for a phantasm on account of our saying 
"together with," but that we bow as to One and the Same," God 
the Word, of course, as Cyril explains more fully in Anathema 
VIII of his Long Letter to Nestorius, which see below. There he 
condemns the worship of Christ's humanity with God the Word, 
under pain of anathema, which was approved by the Third Ecu- 
menical Synod and the three after it. 

(2). The same Council of the whole Church condemned by 
vote Nestorius' Shorter Epistle to Cyril which contains that Man 
Worship, and anathematized its author and its dogmas, Man Wor- 



88 Article II. 

ship of course among them, and every one who does not anathema- 
tize him; see in proof pages 154-178, volume I of Chrystal's 
"Ephesus." 

(3). The same Synod of the Undivided Church, East and 
West, approved Cyrils Longer Epistle to Nestorius which rejects 
that heresy of Man Worship under the penalties just mentioned 
above: see in proof Chrystal's "Ephesus," volume I, pages 204- 
35S. As to its approval four times by the Universal Church in its 
last four Ecumenical Synods see id., pages 205-208, note 520. 

Furthermore, The same Long Epistle, thus four times Ecu- 
menically approved, condemns the Worship of Christ's humanity, 
even though it be relative and not absolute: I quote: 

"Furthermore," We Decline to Say of Anointed, '/ze'i?^^/;/)^ 
him who is worn' [the mere Man put on by God the Word] ''for the 
sake of Hivi" [God the Word] ''Who wears Him. I bow to Him 
who is seen' ^ [the mere Man] " on account of Hint" [God fhe Word] 
^'who is unseen; and it is a Horrible Thing to say also, in addi- 
tion to that: 

"He who is taken" [the mere Man] "is co-called God with 
Him" [God the Word] "Who has taken him." For he who says 
those things cuts" [the Son] "again into two Anointeds, and 
places the Man separately by himself, and God" [separately by 
Himself] "in like manner. For, confessedly, he denies the" [true] 
"Union, ζ ?i accordaiice with the doctrine of which'''' [Union] "no one 
is CO- bowed to (164) as one with another, nor is any one co-called God, 
as one with another; but Anointed festts, Son, Sole Born, is inider- 
stood to be" [only] "one, a7id is honored with but one worship (i65) 
within his own flesh" (166). 

(4). The same Synod of the Undivided Church in approving 
Cyril's Long Epistle aforesaid to Nestorius, approved, of course, 
Anathema VHI in it, also, and that anathema pronounces a male- 

NoTE 164, — Greek, σνμπροσκννείται, that is, "is co-TiOtshipped," for bou-ing, as has 
been explained in this work elsewhere, being the most common act of religions service, and 
indeed being part of every other such act of worship came in Greek to stand for them all. 

Note 105. — Greek, μιά 'ττροσκννήσει, literally '^Tvilh but one bow," that is luith but one 
worship, and that not to His humanity relatively, but absolutely to His Divinity alone. 

Note IGC,— See on the above expression note 583, page 226, volume I of Chrystal's Ephe- 
sus, and notes 5S0, 581, and 582 on pages 2J1-226 there, and the text there. 



Dccisio7is Of Ephesus against Ncsiorius' Chief Heresies. 89 



diction in Christ's name against every one who co-worships by 
bowing Christ's humanity with his Divinity, or who co-glorifies it 
with His Divinity, or co-calls it God ^ν\\.\ι His Divinity, and who 
does not limit all worship and glorifying of Christ to His Divinity. 
See in proof pages 331, 332, volume I of Chrystal's "Ephesus," 
and compare note 679, pages 332-362 there. All worship of Christ 
must be "t»;/•?" only, and all glorifying of Him must be 'One' only, 
that is, of course, absolute to God the Word only, that is to 
the ''God with lis,'' on the ground that "the Word has been made 
flesh" (167), that is because He is no creature, but as the Creed 
says "very God out of very God," and therefore has a right to be 
worshipped, and must be (Matthew IV, 10). 

The second sort of worship, that is the relative offered by 
the Nestorians to Christ's hMm'SiXxu.y for the sake of the Word, as 
Nestorius has it in his Blasphemy VIII, on page 461, volume I 
of Chrystal's "Ephesus" is aimed at and forbidden by this An- 
athema. As is shown in note 949, pages 461, 462 and 463, the 
Universal Church has condemned no less than thirteen times the rel- 
ative worship of Christ's humanity, and by necessary and logical 
inclusion all relative worship of any lesser creature, be it the 
Virgin Mary, any saint, or archangel or angel, or any mere 
inanimate thing, be it a picture, graven image, crosses pictured 
or graven, relics or any thing else inanimate. In brief by this 
decision of our Christ-authorized instructor (168), the "one, holy, 
universal and apostolic Church" (169), we must worship , God's 
eternal Triune Substance alone; and that absolutely, and directly 
not relatively through any created person or image or any 
thing else. 

Aye, against the Man-Worship of Nestorius and of Theo- 
dore's "Forthsei" we must remember also, that the Vlllth A?i- 
athcnia in Cyril' s Long Epistle to Nestorius was approved with the 

XOTE 167.— John I; 1, 2, 3, 14. Compare the Anathema VIII aforesaid of St. Cyril. The 
Greek of the Coustantinopolitan Creed is θεόν αλφινον έκ θέον αληθινού, that is '■'very 
God out of very God." And God the Word in John VIII, 42, says: iyc) γαρ εκ τον θεον 
εξή/.θοί', "for I came out of God." See in Chrystal's Ntcaea, vol. I, page 473 under John VIII, 
42. 

Note 168.— Matt. XVIII, 15-19. 

Note 160 — The Creed of the Second Synod of the whole Church. 



90 Article Π. 

Epistle in which it stands not only by the Third Ecumenical 
Synod, but also by the three after it (170). It is as follows: 

"If any one dares to say that the Man put on" (171) [by 
God the Word] "ought to be co-worshipped with God the 
Word, and to be co-glorified and to be co-called God'' [with God 
the Word] "as one with another, (for the "co-" always added 
forces us to understand that thing), and does not on the con- 
trary honor the EnimamieP' [that is as Emmanuel means, the 
God li'iih us\ "with but one worship, and send up to him but 
one glorifying on the ground that the IVord has been made flesh 
(172), let him be anathema." 

Here the worship and glorifying are based "on the ground 
that the Word has been made flesh," that is on the ground that He 
is Emmanuel, that is "God with us," as "Emmanuel" means, and 
we are forbidden under pain of anathema to co-worship or to co- 
glorify His humanity with Him, or to co-call His humanity God 
with Him, in other words the Universal Church has commanded 
us in this Epistle to worship Christ's Divinity alone, that is to 
ofier but one worship and to send up but one glorifying to God the 
Word alone and not to apply the name ''God'' to a creature, for it 
is an act of worship, and that worship and glorifying must, of 
course, be absolute inasmuch as all worship and religious i>ervice is 
prerogative to God alone, (Matt. IV, 10, and Isaiah XLH, 8; Colos. 
II, 18, and Rev. XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9). On it see more fully 
the note matter on pages 109-128, vol. II of Chrj^stal's "Ephesus." 

(5). Nestorius' Blasphemy 8, which plainly teaches the rela- 
tive worship of Christ's humanity and is condemned and rejected 
by Cyril in his "Long Epistle to Nestorius," as we have just seen, 
is made one of the criteria for his condemnation and deposition in 
Act I of "Ephesus:" see in proof page 461, and note 949 there; 
and his condemnation at that session, on pages 479, 480, 486, 487, 

Note 170.— See in proof vol. I of Chrystal s Ephesus, pages 304-208, note 520. 

Note 171. — That is, of course, in Mary's womb. The Greek here, τυν ava/j](peirvra 
avOpuTTOV, may also be rendered, '7Ai man taken up" to heaven. Of course he was i -5 any 
event, a creature, and Cyril and the Universal Church therefore teach in accordance wiih 
Matthew IV, 10, can not be worshipped. 

Note 172.— John I; 1, 2, 3, and U. 



Dedsio7is of Ephesiis against Nestorius' Chief Heresies. g r 

488, 503, 504, of volume I of Chrystal's translation of "Ephesns." 
Compare Nestorius' Counter-Anathema 8 translated just above. 

His Blasphemies 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, all 
have more or less to do with teaching the worship of Christ's 
humanity, and therefore form, with Nestorius' Anathema VIII just 
mentioned, parts of the basis for his condemnation and deposi- 
tion: see them on pages 449-480, and in note F, pages 529-551. 
See his condemnation and deposition for them on pages 449-504, 
vol. I of "Kphesus" in this set. 

(6). As is shown in the note on page 212, volume II of 
"Ephesus, " the Canons of the Third Synod of the Universal 
Church brand Nestorianism as having ended in an "Apostasy" 
(173), as they again and again expressly call it there, and they 
speak of those who sided with it as having "apostatized" (174) 
and their Conventicle at liphcsns as the Sanhedrim of the Apostasy 
(175). If we ask, In what sense is Nestorianism an "'Apostasy '* 
or, as it is there called, ''the Apostasy'' (176), I answer: 

(A). By denying the Incarnation of God the Word. 

(B). By worshipping a human being (177) and 

(C). By degrading the Eucharist to the worship of bread and 
wine as Christ's humanity, and to the cannibalism of eating 
Christs real flesh and drinking his real blood in the rite (178). 
These are fundamental heresies subversive of the faith of Christ. 

The same canons depose every Bishop and every cleric guilty 
of that creature worship and anathematize every laic so guilty. 

Note 173.— Greek in Canon II of Ephesus, τϊ) Άΰοστασία, that is, "ihe ^posiasj." 

Note 174.— Greek ά-οστητήσας τί/ς (ij/af και οικουμενικής 'Συνόδου, "having apostatized 
from the holy and Ecumenical Synod," Canon I of Ephesus. 

Note 175. — Greek, τψ της α~οστααΊας σννεδρίφ, that is, 'Ίο the Sanhedrim of the 
Apostasy," Canon I; ~b ττ/ς 'Αποστασίας συνεδρίου, that is "the Sanhedrim of the 
Apostasy." Canon II. 

Note 176. — See the Greek in the third note above with its English rendering. 

Note 177. — Άιθρωττολατμεια, whicli means the worship of a human being, is the very ex- 
pression used by the Fifth Ecumenical S\-nod in its Definition to designate that error. See 
under that term and under \\.νθρΐι)~ο'/Λ'ιτρης, on pages 634, 635 of vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus, 
and under Man-lForship, pages 631-635, id. 

Note 178.— Άι-^/ιωΰοοα; ό, which means the eating of a man, is the very term used by 
Cyril of Alexandria, the Orthodox Champion, to characterize that disgusting and degrading 
tenet of Nestorius; see in proof, vol.1 of Chrystal's Ephesus, pages 250-313, note 606 there, 
and especially "G," pages 260-276. Compare id., page 576 under Cannibalism, and page 



92 Article 77, 

And besides they depose every Bishop and every cleric and 
anathematize every laic who holds any of the other Nestorian 
errors afore specified, on any other Nestorian error. 

But to go a little more into detail as to the teachings of that 
Definition and its Canons. 

At the end of that Definition in Caiion I of Ephesiis all Nes- 
torian Bishops are degraded from their episcopal rank, and so are 
all Celestian that is Pelagian Prelates; so. Canon II decrees, are 
all Bishops ''^who have forsaken the Holy Synod and joined or may 
attempt to join THE Apostasy" and so are all Prelates ''who have 
subscribed to the deposition of Nestorius and afterwards ran back to 
the Sanhedrim of the Apostasy.''^ And Canon III restores to their 
proper rank all clerics in any city or couritry place who have been 
inhibited by Nestorius or his partisans from their priesthood be- 
cause of their Orthodoxy. ''And'' it adds, "ive in common co?n- 
viand the clerics who agree with the Orthodox and Ecumeiiical Synod, 
not to be at all stibject in any way to the apostate Bishops or to those 
Bishops who hold aloof from iis. ' ' 

Canon IV oxaQ.rs: "But if any of the clerics apostatize and dare 
to hold either privately or in public the errors of Nestorius or 
those of Celestius, it is deemed by the holy Synod to be right that 
they also should be deposed. ' ' 

Canon V decrees: "As many as have been condemned for 
actions out of place by the Holy Synod or by their own Bishops, 
and Nestorius with his recklessness in all things, and those who 
hold his opinions have attempted or may attempt to restore to 
them communion or their rank, as to them we have deemed it 
right that they shall not be profited by such attempts but shall 
none the less remain deposed." 

696, under (ηθρωττούαγία, pages 612-622 under Eucharist, and pages 596, 597 on CyriTs 
Anathema XI on page 643 under Nestorius' Heresy 4; compare on pages 639-641 his Heresy 
2; and on his Man-lVorship note 183, pages 79-1^8, note 664, pages 323 and 824, and note 
67i}. pagis 332-362; and on the Eucharist, see note 606, pages 240-313; note 599, pages 22!l- 
238, and notes 692. 693, pages 407, 408, of the same vol. I of Ephcsus. Nestorius in his XWi 
Blaspbemv, on the basis of which, among others, he was deposed, teaches the real substances 
presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the .Sacrament, and that they are liierallv eaten and 
drunk there, (pages 472-474, volume I of Ephesus), and his chief champion. Theodoret. testi- 
fies, speaking for his own party, that they were worshipped by them before th( y were eaten; 
see on that his own language in volume I of Ephesus, pages 276-294, the note matter there. 



Decisions of Ephcsus against Nestorins' Chief Heresies. 93 



Now as every Roman Bishop, cleric, and laic, holds to the 
Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, as, for instance, their 
worship of the sacred heart of Jesus, done, like Nestorius' worship 
of a human being relatively (179) to God the Word (180), or abso- 
lutely according to Archbishop Kenrick, and as they always, like 
him, worship it in the Eucharist and elsewhere, they are so far 
Nestorians and creature worshippers, but they also go much further 
into error, and worship in addition what Nestorius never did, so far 
as appears, that is creatures inferior to that ever perfect humanity 
of Christ, such as saints, and angels, and mere inanimate things, 
such as images, crosses, relics, altars, etc., therefore all those 
utterances of the Universal Church on Man-Worship, that is Crea- 
ture Worship, apply still more to them as heretics and creature 
worshippers than they do to the heresiarch Nestorius himself, and 
his followers. 



Note 179.— See Nestorius' Blasphemy 8, page 461, volume I of Chrystals "Ephesus" in 
proof. 

Note 180. — The former head of the Romish hierarchy in this country, Francis Patrick 
Kenrick. who died Archbishop of Baltimore. Ju his Tlieologia Dogmattca ,vo\. II (Phila., A. D. 
1840), page 258 lays down the Proposition (I translate his I,atin): "The human nature of 
Christ ts to be adored with one and the same supreme worship of latria" [that is ser- 
vice, the highest of all worship, which belongs to God] "with the divine Word with whom tt is 
hyposialicalty" [or "substancely"'\ "conjoined." That, of course, is higher than hyperduUa that 
is more than slavery, which Romanists give to the Virgin Mary, and higher also than dulia, 
slavery, which is given to other saints. 

On page 200, he mentions a first objection to his position,: "I. The human nature of Christ 
does not cease to be a creature although it is hypostatically" [that is "substancely"J "con- 
joined to the Word, but it is wrong to give supreme worship to a creature." 

That objection is the position of Clirist Himself in Matthew IV, 10. Kenrick's reply is 
weak and misty enough: "The human nature of Christ is indeed a created thing, but since it 
exists divinely, the worship Λvhich is given to it goes to the divine Person by whom it is 
ruled and therefore it derogates in no way from the divine honor." In other words, like the 
worship of the golden calf in the wilderness by the idolatrous Israelites, and that of the calf 
of Jeroboam at Bethel, and like that of tliecalfatDan.it is relative to Jehovah, and there- 
fore does not derogate from His divine honor!!! But surely the woes which He sent on 
them for that sin, as told in Exodus XXXII, and in the books of the Kings, abundantly and 
terrifyingly show how he hatts it. But poor Kenrick had a hard time of it in trying to 
make right and acceptable Rome's soul-damning idolatry and therefore he ignorantly and 
painfully wobbles about to find arguments for his wicked and illogical pleading for God- 
angering paganism. 

Then comes another objection: 

'"2. The worship offered to the human nature of Christ is therefore relative. 

Answer: The worship which is offered to the human nature of Christ is absolute, for it is 
■worshipped in itself, though not en account of itself, but on account of the substance of The 
Divinity" [of God the Word.] More illogical and misty stuff. After all it is relative worship 
because it is worship not for itself, but because of God the Word to whom the worship is 



94 Article II. 

We may not therefore submit to them in any way whatsoever, 
or in any way recognize them, but must regard them as deposed if 
they are Bishops or clerics, or excommunicate if laics, and must do 
all we can to save the souls of their deceived people by calling 
them away from their idolatrizing and soul-damning influence and 
sway to the God alone worshipping faith of the New Testament as 
set forth by Christ himself in Matthew IV, 10, and, following it, 
by the whole Church at Ephesus in A. D. 431, which is God's in- 
fallible truth and will stand forever. 

alleged to go finally; which, in effect, is the sin of the Israelites in worshipping Jehovah 
through the calves as aforesaid. 

It will be well to remark here as sho-wing how the idolatry of creature worship is apt to 
return in some form that Kenrick's arguments for his Man-Worshippnig Proposition above 
are in effect the same as Nestorius' for his worship of Christ's humanity, for he quotes He 
brews I, 6; and Philippians II, 10; aud John IX, 38, and Matthew II, 11, and explains them 
like Nestorius to leach the worship of Chiist's humanity; see under those passages in the 
Greek Index to volume I of Chrystal's "Ephesus." and Cj'nl's refutation of that creature- 
worshipping sense there. His proofs from the Fathers are, 1, from Athanasius which proves 
nothing for Man-AVorship w^hich elsewhere he utterly condemns: see in proof page 573, vol. I 
of Chrystal's Ephe.sus'' under Athanasius the Great; 2, from Ambrose who was born A. D. 
340 and died A. D. 397, and therefore belongs to the corrupting Post Nicene period, and, if quo- 
tations from him be really his, he was an invoker of angels and a -worshipper of Christ's hu- 
manity in the Eucharist or elsewhere and is therefore condemned and anathematized by the 
Third Ecumenical Sj-nod, though, like his fellow-heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia, he did 
some good service against Arianism. 

nis only other witness for Man-Worship is the woe-bringer and curse, John of Damascus, 
the Ahab who struggled against Reformation and for image-worship in the eighth century, 
to whom Kenrick is welcome, for they are of the same paganizing mind, and both, for their 
Worship of a human being and for their Cannibalism m the Eucharist died under the an 
anathema of Ephesus. 

Kenrick on page 260, 261, of the same volume treats of that new-fangled form of Nes- 
torianism, which Rome calls the worship of tiie sacred heart of Jesus, and states: 

"The Feast of the most holy heart of Jesus began to be celebrated at the close of the 
seventeenth century; wherefore very many disturbances arose. But the Sacred Congrega- 
tion of Rites hesitated as to it in the years 1697, 1727, and 1729, and decided that they ought to 
abstain from conceding an Office and a Mass for the worship of the heart properly taken; 
but Clement XIII approved that worship in the year 1765 " 

All who celebrate it are, of course, deposed by Ephesus if they are Bishops or clerics, and 
excommunicate if they are laics. That fact was more or less known and accounts for the 
opposition to that new form of Nestorian Creature Worship. 

But Rome has sunk even deeper into the error of worshipping a created thing, a spotless 
human heart, but which, being a creature, may not be worshipped. For in ''The Raccolta, 
or Collection of Indulgenced P. ayers by Ambrose St. John of the Oratory oi St. Philip Neri, 
Birmingham, authorized translation," N. Y., SadlierSt Co., 1859, I find no less than 20 pages 
of prayers and devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, that is pages 183-202 inclusive, with 
indulgences for saying them. 

But still more mournful is the fact that Rome in out-Nestorianizing even Nestorius has 
in still later times invented new forms of paganizing and ruining poor simple souls who 
have never read the New Testament through, and among them prayers to the heart of Mary, 



Decisions of Ephesus agai7ist Nestoritis'' Chief Heresies. 95 

Finally, Canon VI of the Third Synod sweeps away all 
claim to ministerial rank or power, aye, even to membership in 
Christ's ^'one, holy, universal and apostolic Chnrch'" on the part 
of any and of all worshippers of Christ's perfect humanity and 
much more the claims to ministerial rank or authority, or even 
membership in it, of any and all who invoke, bow to, kneel to, or in 
any other way worship any lesser creature, (and all other creatures 
are inferior to Christ's humanity), and much more all who wor- 
ship relatively or absolutely any mere inanimate thing, be it a 
picture, graven image, cross painted or graven, relics, an altar, or 
a communion table, or the Bible, or any part of it, or any other in- 
animate thing, whether it be by bowing, kissing, genuflecting to, 
kneeling to, or incensing, standing to or at as an act of worship, or in 
any other way. Christ in accordance with his promises (Matt. 
XVIII, 15-19 and XXVIII. 19, 20; John XVI, 13; compare I Tim. 
Ill, 15), was by His Holy Spirit with the VI Synods of His Uni- 
versal Church and by them has done away all forms of creature 
worship, image worship, and all worship except the direct and 
absolute worship of the one, true, sole God, the Triune Jehovah. 
Rome has practically rejected those Holy-Ghost-led decisions; so 
has the corrupt Greek Church, the Monophysites, and the Nes- 
torians, and in our day Newman, Pusey, and Keble have, but 
those utterances of the Holy Ghost mediately through the sole 
sound Synods of the Universal Church will stand forever, and he 
who fights against them fights against God; and their enemies, 
with their enmity to them, will finally pass away to perdition. 

(7). Now we come to The Teachings of Theodore op 

Mopsuestia's Forthset or Creed 
071 Nestoritis'' Relative Worship of Christ" s Hiu)ia?iity, and 07i his other 
Heresies. He was Nestorius' master. And we must show how 

THEY WERE condemned BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 

an imperfect creature: see in proof that Raccolta, pages ;i!36-266 inclusive. Indeed Mary is tne 
object of religious service in no less than 122 pages together. Besides there are devotions to 
the Archangel Michael and other saints, the Angel Guardian so-called, St. Joseph. Pet.ir and 
Paul, etc., and indulgences are promis d to those who say such God-angering Ecumeni::ally 
condemned orisons, condemned in A. D. 431 by necessary implication. Surely in tempting 
her poor idolatrovis dupes to such paganizin'ijs she wrecks the bodies and souls of men Rev- 
elations XVIII. 13; compare her descrintion in Revelations XVII, 18, which has been under- 
stood from the beginning to mean Rome. 



96 Article II. 

(1). The parts of the Forthset of Theodore of Mopsuestia in 

capitals on pages 205, 206, 207, and 208 of volume II of "Hphesus," 

do most certainly teach the relative worship of Christ's humanity, 

and, on page 210, enforce it on the Orthodox on pain of anathema. 

But, on the other hand, every Bishop and every cleric holding to 

that error is deposed and every laic anathematized in the decision 

now called Canon VII of Ephesus. See in proof pages 222-234 

there. 

Remarks 07i the Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 

This "depraved symbol" from its beginning on page 202 to 
the words "m the sameness" [that is, the oneness'\ 'Of the Divinity,'" 
on page 204, treats as the reader sees, of the dogma of the Holy 
Trinity. On that it is mainly sound, except in the assertion on 
page 203, that God was always a Father, that is from all eternity, 
which most plainly denies the general statements of all or nearly 
all the Ante-Nicene Writers, as, for example, St. Justin the Martyr. 
Tatian, in his Orthodox time, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertul- 
lian and others, who make His birth out of the Father to have 
been just before the worlds were made and to be the Father's 
agent in making them, as is shown in ChrystaVs Six Synods Cate- 
chism, to be published if God will. That view is adopted by the 
whole Church in the Anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed, in 
the words: 

"And the Universal and Apostolic Church anathematizes 
those who say that there was once when the So7i of God was not, and 
that He was not before He was born." That Creed and Anathema 
while insisting that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father, 
and co-eternal with Him, nevertheless forbid the unthinkable 
doctrine that God the Word's birth out of the Father never had a 
beginning, but are satisfied with asserting that He was "■bornottt 
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 substajice as the FatJier," etc. And the other 
Creed of the Universal Church, that of the Second Ecumenical 
Synod, A. D. 381, steers wide and clear of the Ecumenically an- 
athematized error of Eternal Birth, and asserts what agrees fully 
with the Ante-Nicene writers aforesaid, when it declares of God 



Decisi&ns of Ephesus against Nesiorius' Chief Heresies. 97 

the Word and Son that He is ''the Son of God, the Sole-born, who 
was born out of the Father before all the worlds'' etc., much as in 
the Nicene. St. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, terms the Word 
or Son before his birth out of the Father, "The Word within the 
Falher" (ό Κόγο^ Ι^διάθετος), and after that birth "the Word 
borne forth" (ό Αόγος τ.ρυφοιιι/.ός). 

Let us glance at the teaching of this decision which now we 
call Canon VII of Ephesus. 

In the first place by occasion of Theodore's Creed, and 
speaking of it, it brands it as ''another faith contrary to that decreed 
by the Holy Fathers gathered in the city of the Nicaeans with the 
Holy Ghost:' 

Then deposition is pronounced against all who dare ' 'to offer 
or to write or to compose" such a faith, and deposition is decreed 
against all Bishops and clerics "who dare either to compose, or to 
bring forward, or to offer aywther faith (181), to those wishing to turn 
to the acknowledgement of the truth, either from heathenism, or from 
fudaism, or from any heresy whatsoever; and every laic so doing 
is to be anathematized." 

That, of course, smites every creature worshipping Nestorian, 
as well as every Greek and every Romanist, and every Monophy- 
site worshipper of Christ's humanity. For they all profess openly 
to worship Christ's humanity, except the Monophysite, and, with- 
out intending so to do, he nevertheless does the same. For though 
he claims that Christ's humanity has been transubstantiated into 
His Divinity, nevertheless it abides, so that in worshipping all 
there is of his Christ he, in fact, worships that humanity as part 
of His Divinity. 

And now comes the distinct mention of the "Forthset," that 
is the Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the penalties for either 
holding or teaching the errors of that Incarnation-denying and 
Man- Worshipping document. I quote: 

"In the same manner, if any are detected, whether they be 
Bishops or clerics or laics, either holding or teaching those things 
which are in the Forthset brought forward by Charisius, the 

Note 181.— Greek ίτίραν πίστιν, another faith, not another σνμβο?ιον. Creed. 



gS A?'iide II. 

Elder, in regard to the Inman of the Sole-Born 6on of God (I SI), 
that is to sa}-, the foul and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, which 
are even its basis, let them lie under the sentence of this holy and 
Ecumenical Synod, that is to say, the Bishop shall be alienated 
from the episcopate and shall be deposed; and the cleric in like 
manner shall fall out of the clericate; but, if any one be a laic, 
even he shall be anathematized, as has been said before." 

Now, certain facts, very seldom noticed, must be remembered, 
or we lose the full meaning and value of this decision, so important 
for a God-alone worshipping Trinitarian Protestant to know; 

(A). The question in it is not merel}^ the right of the "one, 
liL'ly, universal and apostolic Church" to make a new Creed 
besides the Nicene, for that had been already done by the Second 
Ecumenical Council, in A. D. 381, about a half century before, 
which put forth the Constantinopolitan, which has four articles 
more than the Nicene, and the eighth, that on the Holy Ghost, in 
a much fuller and completer form (183). Besides it is shorter in 
some respects than the Nicene and indeed has not its Anathema at 
all, and is a little fuller here and there. 

(B), Of the six greatest Nestorian heresies, 
(a), denial of the Incarnation of God the Word: 
(b). the relative worship of Christ's humanity: 
(c). the real presence of the substance of his humanity in 
the Eucharist; 

(d). its worship there, termed elsewhere by St. Cyril of 
Alexandria ' Κ-,Όιιωπυλατρεία^ that is the worship of a hitman bting, 
and 

(e). the Cannibalism of eating it there, termed by St. 

Note 182. — "Sole Born," &s the Creed of Nicaea well and Scripturally explains, "that is 
out of the substance of the Father, God out of God" etc. Compare Hebrews I, 3, whtre God 
the Word is called in the Greek χαρακτ^μ τι/ς ν-οστάσεως αύτον, that is, not "express image 
of His Person " but "character of His [the Father's] Substance," and God the Word's statement, 
as the Greek of John VIII, 42, is, "I came out of God," and the Greek of John XVI, 28, 'I came 
out of the Father." Alas! these strong proofs for the Divinity of Christ, so much insisted 
on by the ancient Greek Christians, are almost wholly lost in our common English transla- 
tion, because it does not render them exactly. 

IJOTE 183. — I follow here the common way of dividing the Western local Creed com- 
monly called the Apostles' into Twe'.ve Articles. The Coustanlinopolitau as in the Munich 
Greek translation of the Orthodox Teaching oi Plato Metropolitan of Moscow, second edition, 
A. D. 1834, pages 69-71, is divided into twelve articles also. It is an lEastern Church work. 



Decisio7is of Ephesus against Nestotms' Chief Heresies. 99 

Cyril ^λ.Όρω-υψαγία^ that^ is ihe eating of a Juiman being, that is, 
of course, Cannibalism: and 

(f). the Nestorian denial of Economic Appropriation; we 
see that 

The denial in (a) is implied and expressed throughout that 
depraved Forthset. That is clear to any one accustomed to Nes- 
torius' and Theodore's use of terms, and to his refusal in it to 
acknowledge the Orthodox doctrine of the Inflesh. It substitutes 
a mere relative and external Conjunction for a real Incarnation. 

B. (b), (d) and (f). The worship of Christ's mere humanity, a 
great Nestorian sin of creature worship, is very plainly expressed 
in the depraved symbol, that is the doctrine of ascribing the 
divine names, the divine attributes, and the worship of His human- 
ity relatively to God the Word, that is the -worship of a human beijig, 
that is creattire worship. See on all those points the parts of the 
Forthset which are printed in capitals above, pages 205, 206, 
207, 208. 

But to go a little more into details on point (f), because it is so 
little understood. Nestorius asserted, as has just been said, the 
error of such a Communication of Properties, as to ascribe even the 
names of God the Word's Divinity, and His Divine Properties, and 
His worship to the mere creature, the Man put on by Him; 
and indeed to ascribe the divine names of God the Word, or His 
Divine Properties to a man is, in effect, to worship that creature. 

And so Nestorius denied one part of the doctrine of Eco7iomic 
Appropriation, that is the part which asserts that all the things per- 
taining to that human nature, its weakness, its sufferings and death, 
etc., are to be Economically Appropriated to God the Word to 
avoid worshipping His humanity by praying to it, as St. Athan- 
asius, followed by St. Cyril of Alexandria, well explains (184). 

He would, however, agree with St. Cyril in maintaining that 
all the Son's divine names, such as God, Word, etc., and all His 

Note 1S4.— See Passage 13, of Athanasivis endorsed by Cyril, pages 237-240, volume I of 
Chrystal's translation of Nicaea. Compare indeed all the passages from Athanasius, Epi- 
phanius, I,ucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, and Faustin a Presbyter of Rome, on pages 217-2ϊ6 of 
that volume. Athanasius in those passages makes all prayer, all bowing and every other 
act of worship prerogative to God alone. It can not be given to any creature. 



4;)31U6 



100 Article II. 

divine attributes and divine acts must be attributed to God the 
Word as belonging of right to His divine nature. 

In other words, Cyril's doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 
found in each of his three Ecumenically approved Epistles (185), 
is this: All the things of Christ's Divinity are to be appropriated 
to God the Word as belonging naturally to His Divinitj', that 
is as belonging to its very Nature exclusively and alone; but 
the things of the Man put on by God the Word are to be ap- 
propriated to Him Economically only, to avoid bowing to, that 
is worshipping His humanity, a mere creature, for bowing, being 
one of the most common acts of religious service, to give it to 
His humanity would be to violate, as Cyril shows again and 
again, Christ's own law in Matthew IV, 10, ^'Thoti shall bow to 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," and Isaiah 
XLII, 8, ^^I am Jehovah: that is my name, and my glory will I not 
give to another; 7ieiiher my praise to gravest images.^'' 

When that Nestorian Creed was read in the Fourth Session 
of the Fifth Ecumenical Council in A. D. 553, we read in Hefele 
that the Synod exclaimed: 

"This Creed (Theodore's) Satan has made! Anathema to him 
who made this Creed! The First Synod of Ephesus anathematized 
this Creed with its author. Anathema to all who do not anath- 
ematize him? His defenders are Jews, his adherents heathens. We 
all anathematize Theodore and his writings" (186). ''His defen- 
ders are Jews,'" it seems to mean because, like the Jews, they de- 
nied the Incarnation; his "adherents" were "heathens," because, 
like the pagans, they worshipped a creature, that is, of course, 
Christ's humanity, 

(c) and (e). On the Lord's Supper the "depraved" Forthset 
or Credal statement of Theodore has nothing definite except the 

Note 185.— See volume I of Chrj-stal's "Ephesus." pages 74-78, and note 173 there, Cyril's 
Shorter Epistle to Nestotius; his Longer Epistie, pages 355-358, id., and pages 409, 410, note 
694, and note 695 on page 413. Moreover, Cyril in his Epistle to John of Antioch,-^'h\cti was 
approved by the Fourth Fcumenical Synod, not only teaches the doctrine of Economic 
Appropriation, but uses that exact expression, page 50 of P. E. Pusey's Three Epistles of 
S. Cyril. See furthermore in Chrystal's -'Ephesus," vol. I, page 602, Economic Appropri- 
ation; page 573, Appropriation; and page 720 under οΊκειωσασ^ηι and οΊκηνομικήν οΊκείωσιν, 

Note 186 — Hefele's History of the Church Councils, English translation, volume IV, 
page 306. The Second Synod of Ephesus was the Robbers' Council of A. D. 449. 



Decinons of Epkesics agai7ist Nestor ills' Chief Heresies. lor 

advocacy of the relative worship of Christ's humanity, which was 
a Nestorian tenet, as part of their Lord's Supper doctrine and 
practice. 

And, as we have seen, the Seventh Canon of Ephesus applies 
there as well as everywhere else, wherever Christ's humanity is 
worshipped. In other words, it smites the Man-Worship of Nes- 
torius' One Nature Cousubstantiation, which was directed to the 
consecrated bread and wine as being consubstantiated with that 
humanity, and it smites also the Man-Worship of the Two Nature 
Cousubstantiation of the idolatrizers Pusey and Keble, aye, their 
worship of the Two Natures of Christ alleged to be substancely 
present there; and it smites very clearly the Man- Worship in the 
Transubstantiation of Rome, that is her worship of the unleavened 
wafer as God the Word and Man, and the Man- Worship of the leav- 
ened bread and wine of the Greek Transubstantiation. Both the 
Latin and the Greek forms of Transubstantiation include the wor- 
ship after consecration of the substances of both Natures of Christ 
alleged to be there then, not at all of the wafer and wine of the 
Latins, nor of the leavened bread and wine of the Greeks, for both 
deny the existence of anything there after consecration except the 
real substance of Christ's Divinity, and the real substance of His 
humanity and what they call the accidents of wafer and wine, or of 
the leavened bread and wine, such as sight, smell, taste and feel 
ing. But, nevertheless, they do remain, and so, in fact are wor- 
shipped by them there. 

And both those forms of Transubstantiation differ from 
Pusey and Keble's newfangled Two-Nature Cousubstantiation, and 
from Nestorius' One Nature Cousubstantiation, because every 
Two Nature Consubstantiationist asserts that the Eucharistic 
bread, or the wafer used by him in its stead remains unchanged, 
and that the wine and water of the cup also remain unchanged. 

Furthermore, the Nestorian One Nature Consubstantiationist 
held to no real presence of the substance of Christ's Divinity in the 
Eucharist at any time, and hence did not worship it there. But he 
did worship there the consecrated bread and wine as being in a 
real sense His humanity, as is testified by Nestorius' chief cham- 
pion Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, in the first and the sixth of the 



I02 Article II. 

six passages quoted in note 606, pages 276-285, in volume I of 
Chrystal's "Ephesus" to which therefore the candid and learned 
reader is referred, for it is not necessary to repeat or quote them 
herein this short summing up. Moreover one or two passages of Cyril 
are quoted unlearnedly b}' the Romanists for their Transubstanti- 
ation (187), though he clearly shows that he did not believe in any 
real substance presence of Christ's Divinity in the Lord's Supper 
(188), nor in any real substance presence of His humanity there, 
nor in any worship of either nature there. Indeed he again and 
again denounces the Nestorian error of worshipping Christ's 
humanity as α^Ορω-οΧατρώι, that is, as the Greek term means, 
the worship of a humayi being (189), and the Nestorian belief in a 
real eating and drinking of the substance of that humanity as 
^Ορωτ.υψαγία, that is Ca7inibalisvi (190). 

And Kenrick claims that Theodoret was "a Catholic (191), 
and believed in Transubstantiation, thougTi the latter shows clearly 
that he held to opinions which are contradictory to that tenet; 
that is: 

1. That the substance of Christ's Divinity is not present in 
the Eucharist at all (192); and 

Note 187.— In the note matter "b," on pages 30G-310, vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesiisis shown 
how grossly Kenrick, formerly Romish Archbishop of Baltimore, perverted Orthodox pas- 
sages of St. Cyril of Alexandria to make them teach his Cannibal heresy of Transubstanti- 
ation, which Cyril anticipatively condemns, long centuries before any one held it or wrote in 
its favor. 

Note 1S8. — So he expressly teaches in place after place quoted in section F in the note 
matter on pages 250-260. See also vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus, and pages 642, 643, id., on 
Nestorius' Heresy δ. 

Note 189. — See under that Greek term in the work last named above, page 691, and 
under άνθριοττο'λάτρης , page 695, under Nestorius' Heresy 2, and 3, pages 639-C42, and under 
Man-Worship, on pages 631-635. Compare Nestorius' Heresy 6 and ~, pages 64'^, 644. On the 
relative worship of Christ's humanity see page 461, text, aud note 949. there, and compare 
note 156, pages 61-69, of the same work. 

Note 190.— See under άίθροι-οοα}Ία page 696 vol. I of Chrj-stal's Ephesus; είχαριστία^ 
pages 703-710; Catiniba/ism, page 576; Euchaiist, pages 612-022; Nestorius' Heresy 4 and 5, 
pages 612, 643; note 606, pages 240-313; note .^99, pages 229-238, and note "E," pages 517-528; note 
692, page 407, and note 693, pages 407, 408. 

Note 191.— Kenrick's Theologia Dogmatica, vol. Ill, (Philadelphia. A. D. 1840), page 197, 
where he represents Theodoret's Orlhodoxus, that is one Nature Consubstantintionist, as a 
''Catholic," that is a Romish Transubstantiaticnist, an assertion unlearned, uncritical, parti- 
san, and funny enough, considering the plain facts. 

Note 192.— See in proof his Blasphemy 18, pages 472^74, volnme I of Chrystal's Ephesus, 
and section "H," in the note matter on pages 276-294, particnlarly Passages 1, 2, 5 aud 6, 
pages 278-284; and see also under Theodoret, page 656, id. 



Decisions of Ephesics agai7ist Nesiorius' Chief Heresies. 103 



2. That the bread and wine remain in their own substances 
after consecration (193). 

And one passage of Theodoret perverted by Kenrick forTran- 
substantiation (194), is also quoted with equal ignorance by Pusey 
(195) and Keble (196) in their writings to prove their Two Nature 
Consubstantiation, though Theodoret expressly testifies that the 
substance of Christ's Divinity is not in the Eucharist at all (197). 

Now leaving the Third Council of the Undivided Church let 
us see what the Fifth has decided on i/ie Nestorian worship of 
ChrisV s humanity. 

(8). We have just seen on page 100 above in what strong 
terms of condemnation and anathema the whole Church in its 
Fifth Council denounced the Credal Forthset of Theodore of Mop- 
suestia and its author. See there and ponder those parts of it in 
capitals on pages 205-208, volume II of Ephesus, which most plainly 
teach the relative worship of OuisVs humanity by the Nestorian 
creature worshippers, the heretics condemned by the "one, holy, 
universal and apostolic Church" at Ephesus in A. D. 431. 

(9). The Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod brands 
the error of the Nestorians regarding the worship of Christ's 
humanity as a ''heresy or caltwniy of theirs, which they have made 
against tiie pious dogmas of the Church by worshippi7ig two Sons, and 
by introducing the ckime of Man-Worship iiito heaven and on earth. ' ' 

They worshipped two Sofis in that they worshipped God the 
Word, which was all right and in strict accordance with Christ's 
law: '"'Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall 
thou serve,'' (Matt. IV, 10); but they worshipped also another 
waom they considered a separate Son, His humanity, which was 

Note 193.— See in proof passage 2 from him on page 280, vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus, and 
passage 3 ou page 282. 

Mote 194.— Keurick's Theologia Dogmatica, vol. Ill, Phila,, Pa., A. D, 1840, page 197. 

Note 195.— Pusey's Doclrineof the Real Presence, (IvOndoa. 1883, Smith), page 86. 

Note 196. — Keble on Euchartstical Adoratioti, Fourth Edition, (Parker, Oxford and Lon- 
don, 1867) pages US, 119. 

Note 197 —Chrystal's Ephesus, vol. I, pages 278-284, passages 1, 2, 5 and 6. So Nestorius 
held and defended his view in his Blasphemy 8, and so far as denying the real presence of 
the Substance of Ch:ist's Diviniiy in the Eucharist, Cyril agreed with him, but not in the 
virus of that Blasphemy, that is his assertion of a real substance presence of Christ's human- 
ity in the rite and the Cannibalism of eating it there. See on that whole matter Nestorius' 
Blasphemy 18, pages 472-474, text and notes there, and the note matter on pages 250-294. 



I04 Article II. 

all wrong, and most plainly against that law, for it is only a crea- 
ture: see the passage in full in the note matter on pages 109, 110, 
volume I of Chrystal's "Ephesus." 

(IC). Anathema IX condemns and anathematizes all who 
hold to the co-worship of Christ's humanity with his Divinity, one 
of the heresies insisted on by Theodore and held to by his follow- 
ers Nestorius and his defender Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. I 
quote it: 

Anathema IX: ' 'If any one says that the Anointed One (198) 
is to be worshipped in two natures, by which two worships are 
brought in, one peculiar to God the Word and another peculiar to 
the Man; or if any one, to the doing away of the flesh, or to the 
mixing of the Divinity and the humanity, contrives the monstrosity 
of but one nature, that is but one substance of the things which 
have come together, and so worships the Anointed One, but does 
not, on the contrary, worship with but one 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." 

See more on that law in the note matter on pages 110, 1 1 1 of 
volume I of Chrystal's translation of "Ephesus." 

(II). Anathema XII in the same Definition condemns most 
plainly ihe relative worship of Christ's humanity: see it in the 
note matter on pages 111, 112 of the same work, where also see on 
pages 108-112, as here, the decisions of the 'One, holy, universal and 
apostolic Church'' against the worship of Christ's humanity, and, 
by necessary implication, against the worship of any other crea- 
ture. I quote this utterance of the whole Church East and West: 

Anathema XII 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 Anointed One 
(199) is another who was troubled by the passions of the soul and 

Note 198.— Greek, τον Χριστόν, which is often, aye, generally transferred, not trans- 
lated, into English, by "ihe Christ" 

Note 199. — Greek, τυν 'Κριστόν, that is ihe Chn'si, which means /he Anoinied One. Theo- 
dore meant, as he shows in his writings, that Christ's humanity is not only a separate 
nature from his Divinity, which is all right, but that it is a different person, not at all in- 
dwelt by the substance of God the Word, but that nevertheless it could be worshipped for 



Decisions of Ephesus against Nestoriiis' Chief Heresies. 105 



the desires of the flesh, and that little by little he separated him- 
self from the more evil things, and so was rendered better by pro- 
gress 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, 
"ihro7cgh ihe dipping' ''\ "he received the grace of the Holy Spirit 
and was deemed worthy of adoption, and is to be -worshipped {2Q,Qi) for 
the sake of God the Word' s Persori in the same way that a?i Emperor'' s 
image is for the sake of the Emperor's Person, and that after his 
resurrection, he was made blameless in his thoughts and entirely 
sinless. . . . If any one therefore defends the aforesaid «ziJj/m/'/i'Wi 
Theodore, and his i'tnpious writings, in which he poured forth the 
above mentioned and numberless other blasphemies against onr great 
God and Saviour fesiis 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 sentiments, or who at any time have held such senti- 
ments, and continued in such heresy till the last, let such a one be 
anathema." 

The foregoing elevenfold mass of proof for the truth that the 
Universal Church in her Kcumenical Synods has condemned , under 
the strongest penalties, all worship of the humanity of Christ, and 
all, whether Bishops, clerics, or laics, who are guilty of it, is abun- 
dant, of Ecumenical authority, and surely is all sufficient. 

But I will add other utterances on certain errors connected 
with that Man-Worship which are condemned by the Fifth 
Synod. 

(12). The same Fifth Ecumenical Synod in its Definition 
again and again uses language of condemnation, which, by neces- 
sary inclusion, smites Nestorius and his Master Theodore, and his 

the sake of God the Word, which is a plain return to creature worship from God alone wor- 
ship, on the pagan plea, told us by rtrnobius in his work Against ike Gentiles, that is the 
Heathen, book ΛΊ, chapter 9. For in his argument against their idolatry he represents 
them as using that very dodge: 

"Ye say, We worship the gods through the images," which he at once proceeds to 
refute. 

Note 200.— Greek, προσκννεϊσϋαί. 



I o6 Article II. 

defender Theodoret of Cyrus, for their worship of Christ' s humajiity 
as well as for their other heresies. I quote: 

"Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again 
confess that we receive the four holy Synods (201), that is the 
Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus (202), and that 
of Chalcedon, and we have approved and do approve all that they 
defined respecting the one faith. And we accotmt those who do ?iot 
receive those things \Q.s'\aliens from the U7iiversal Church. . . Moreover 
we condemn and anathematize together with all the other heretics 
who have been condemned and anathematized by the before men- 
tioned four holy Synods, and by the holy Universal and Apostolic 
Church, Theodore who was Bishop of Mopsuestia and his .impious 
writings, and also those things which Theodoret impiously wrote 
against the right faith, and agai^ist the Iwelve Chapters of the holy 
Cyril, and against the first Synod of Ephestis, and also those which 
he wrote in defence of Theodore and Nestorius. In addition to 
these we also anathematize the impious Epistle which Ibas is said to 
have written to Maris the Persian, which denies that God the Word 
was incarnate of the holy Bringer forth of God , . . and accuses 
Cyril of holy memory, who taught the truth, as a heretic, and 
of the same sentiments as Apollinarius, and blames the first 
Synod of Ephesus as deposing Nestorius without examination 
and inquiry, and calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril 
impious, a7id cotitrary to the right faith, and defends Theodore 
and Theodoret, and their impious opinions and writings. We 
therefore anathematize the three before mentioned Chapters, that 
is the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable 
writings, and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and 
the impious Eetter which is said to be of Ibas, and their defeiidej^s, 
a?id those who have written or do write in defence of them, or who dare 
to say that they are correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend 

Note 201.— The bond of unity in the Universal Church for the first seven ceoturies 
•were the Ecumenical Synods. This was based on Christ's words in Matthew XVIII, 
15-19, (compare on Church authority I Timothy III. 15 also), and on His promises to be with 
and guide the Apostolate, that is Kpiscopate (Acts, I; 20, 25). and to abide with them for 
ever (John XIV; 15-18; XV, 26, and XVI; 12-16). A sound Reformed episcopate will go back to 
the VI Synods. And the VI forbid us to recognize any other. 

Note 202.— The Ecumenical Synod of A. D. 431, to distinguish it from the Robbers' 
Council there in A, D. 449. 



Decisio7is of Ephesus against Nesiorius' Chief Heresies. 107 

their impiety with the 7iames of the Holy Fathers, or of the holy Coun- 
cil of Chalcedon (203). 

These things therefore being settled with all accuracy, we 
bearing in remembrance the promises made respecting the holy 
Church, and who it was that said that the gates of Hades should 
not prevail against it (204), thst is the deadly tongues of heretics; 
remembering also what was prophesied respecting it by Hosea, 
saying, ' / will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness and thou shall 
know the Lord''^ [Hos. II, 20.] , "and numbering together with the 
Devil, the Father of lies, the unbridled tongues of heretics, and 
their most impious writings, will say to them, ''Behold all ye kindle 
afire, and cause the fame of the fire to grow stro7ig; ye shall walk in 
the light of your fire, and the flame which ye kindle'* [Isaiah I; 11]. 

"But we, having a commandment to exhort the people with 
light doctrine, and to speak to the heart of Jerusalem, that is, the 
Church of God, do rightly make haste to sow in righteousness, and 
to reap the fruit of life; and kindling for ourselves the light of 
knowledge from tne Holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the 
Fathers (205), we have considered it necessary to comprehend in 
certain chapters, both the declaration of the truth, and the con- 
demnation of heretics and of their wickedness." 

Then follow the 14 Anathemas, the Ninth of which is quoted 
just above, which condemns, like Anathema VIII of Cyril, the 
worship of Christ's humanity with God the Word. 

And all those anathematized heretics and their writings were 
opposed to the Third Synod and its Orthodoxies, including its 
condemnation of all worship to Christ's humanity, and its condem- 

NoTE 203. — Translation in Hammond's Canons of the Church, page 130, Spark's N.Y. 
edition of 1844. 

Note 204.— Matt. XVI, 18. 

Note 805.— For the most important and valuable patristic witness is that of the Ante- 
Nicene writers, because they are sound and before the corruptions which came in in times 
after A. D. 325. If, however, among the Ante-Nicene Christian writers there is a difference 
in their historical testimony, the earlier are always to be preferred to the later in accordance 
with the principle, "As it was in the beginning," etc. But most authorative of all are the 
Utterances of those Fathers who met in the Six Ecumenical Synods, who spoke not as mere 
separate individuals, but as formulating with the Christ-promised aid of the Holy Ghost, the 
authoritative decisions of the sound Universal Apostolate of the whole Church, who con- 
demned the pagauizings and the infidelizings of their days and anticipatively, all those of 
ours. Compaie note 210 below. 



io8 Article II. 

nation of their real substance presence in the Eucharist of Christ's 
humanity, and its worship there, and the cannibalism of eating it 
there. And for those reasons were they condemned and anathe- 
matized in the Ecumenical utterances above. 

In short this Definition approves the Ecumenical Synod of 
Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon which also approved Ephesus; and 
the Fifth Synod here states expressly of the decisions of the Four 
Ecumenical Synods before it: 

"We have approved and do approve all that they defined 
respecting the one faith;" hence its repeated condemnations of 
Man-Worship, even though it be relative, and of course, by nec- 
essary implication, all other creature worship, even though it be 
relative, and much more if it be absolute, and also all the Nestorian 
heresies on the Eucharist, and then it adds the noteworthy lan- 
guage: ' 'And we account those who do not receive these things [as] 
aliens from the Universal Church," hence, of course, all worship- 
pers of Christ's humanity, and much more all worshippers of any 
creature inferior to that humanity, as all creatures are, and much 
more all worshippers of any mere material thing, be it a cross, 
image, altar, or any other mere thing. And they condemn and 
anathematize all heretics ' ''who have been condeni7ied and anathe^na- 
iized by the before mentioned four holy Synods" and of course the 
Man- Worshipper Nestorius among them, and Theodore and Theo- 
doret who had stood up for that Man-Worship, and their ' 'impious 
writings'' among them being specified ''those things which Theo- 
doret impiously wrote against the right faith, a7id agai?ist the 
Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril,'' the Vlllth of which anathema- 
tizes that worship of Christ's humanity which Theodoret in his 
reply defended as did Nestorius in his Counter- Anathema VIII. 

And the Synod anathematizes the Epistle which Ibas is said to 
have written to Maris the Persian, because, among other things, 
it "calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impioiis and contrary 
to the right faith, and defends Theodore and Theodoret and their 
impiotis opinions a7id writings." And therefore, the Fifth Council 
anathematizes those Three Chapters which favor Man- Worship, "ivith 
their defenders, and those ivho have written or do write in defence of 
them, or who dare to say that they are correct , and who have defended 



Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius' Chief Heresies. 109 

or attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the holy 
Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon." All this against 
the Nestorian Worship of Christ's humanity and his other errors. 
Then this Definition compares the tongues of Man-worshipping 
heretics to the gates of Hades which can not prevail against the 
Church which is guilty of no Man-Worship, but serves God alone 
(Matt. IV, 10), and it numbers ''with the Devil, the Father of lies, 
the unbridled tongues of heretics , and their most impious writings,'" 
which, as we have seen in passage after passage, maintain the 
creature worship of worshipping the humanity of Christ, the 
real substance presence of Christ's humanity in the Eucharist, and 
the Cannibalism, as St. Cyril brands it, of eating it there. 

Anathema I makes the one Nature, that is the one Substance of 
the Consubstantial Trinity, one Divinity, to be the object of wor- 
ship. That agrees with Cyril's teaching that we worship only a 
Trinity, and that to worship Christ's humanity besides would be to 
worship a Tetrad. And it agrees with the statement of the Con- 
stantinopolitau Creed which implies that the Consubstantial Trinity 
alone should be worshipped. For speaking of the Holy Spirit it 
defines: "Who with the Father and the Son is co- worshipped and 
co-glorified." Unless we take this clause as excluding the co-worship 
of Christ's humanity with God the Word, we make it contradict 
Cyril's Anathema VHI, pages 89 and 90 above, which anathe- 
matizes every man who asserts that co- worship. I quote Anathema I. 

"If any one does not confess one Nature, that is one Substance 
and power and authority of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, the Trinity of the same Substance, and one Divinity wor- 
shipped in three Hypostases [Beings] that is Persons, let such a man 
be anathema. For there is one God and Father, from whom are all 
things, and one Lord Jesus Anointed, through whom are all things, 
and one Holy Spirit by whom are all things." 

Anathema II guards Christ's Divinity and the Incarnation at 
the same time, by teaching two births of God the Word, the first 
before the worlds out of the Father and άχρόι/ω?, that is ''not in 
time' ' that is before time began, that is to put it in the words of the 
Nicene Creed, "out of the substance of the Father," "before all the 
worlds t'" as the Constantinopolitan Symbol has it, which agrees 



I ΙΟ Article II. 

witli the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Writers that he was born out 
of the Father, not from all eternitj', but only just before the worlds 
were made, and to make them: and the second birth was in time 
out of the Virgin Mary and theiefore it speaks of her as Bringer 
Forth of God. This Anathema uses complimentary language of her 
but not to her, and does not worship her. 

Anathema III ascribes to God the Word the miracles wrought 
by his Divinity, and Economically ascribes to Him (God the Word), 
the sufferings of the Man put on by Him in Mary's womb. 

Anathema IV, further on in the same Definition, condemns 
Theodore's denial of the real substance union, that is the union of 
God the Word's Substance to the real substance of His humanity 
by Incarnation, and his substituting a mere union of aSection 
which was merely of beings external to each other, and his asser- 
tion also of a mere union of grace, or of operation, or of equality 
of honor, or of authority, or of reference or of relation (206), or of 
power, or of dignity, or of worship between God the Word and a 
mere creature, His humanity, as though God the Word and a mere 
creature could ever have an equality of honor, or of authority, or of 
dignity. And the Anathema, further on, shows that Theodore held 
that Christ's two natures, the divine and the human, were one in 
name and honor and dig7iity and worship, which of course gives the 
peculiar and prerogative glories of God to a creature. His 
humanity. 

Anathema V again anathematizes Theodore and Nestor ius' 
making the ' 'dignity and honor and worship' ' of the two natures one 
and the same, "as," it adds, "Theodore and Nestorius have madly 
written." 

Anathema VI anathematizes every one who holds to Theodore's 
denial of the inflesh of God the Word in the womb of the Virgin 
and of His human birth out of her, and to his attempt to nullify 
the sense of the expression Bringer Forth of God (207) used of the 



Note206.— The ri/aizVi J/M70W of the Nestorians led to their jelaitve worship of Christ's 
mere created human i/y. See under "L'mon of Christ's Two Natures," page661, vohime I of 
Ephesus, and id., note 156, pages 61-69, and id., note 159, page 70. 

Note 207.— Greek, ^^ΐητόκον. The Third Ecumenical Synod never speaks of the 
Virgin as Mother of God, us some ignorant Romish pri:sts assert, for God can not have a 
mother, for He is from all eternity. It uses the exact expression Bringer Forth of God, not to 



Decisions of Ephes7is against Nestoritis' Chief Heresies. iir 

Virgin to guard the truth of the Incarnation, to make it mean that 
she did not bring forth God the Word but a mere man, which 
would result in making Christ a mere creature, and all worship of 
him, creatnre-worship, or, to use the great Cyril's name for it, 
* ΑνθρωτΓολατρ€ία^ that is i/ie worship of a hiunan being. 

What remains is so much that we must be content here to 
summarize it. 

Anathema Λ^ΙΙ in effect condemns again all the Nestorian error 

her, but of her, simply to guard the Scripture truth that God "the ll^ordwas made flesh,"' 
John I, 14, aud therefore in worshipping Him on that ground we are not worshippers of a 
creature but of God the Word. In other words on the basis of that Incarnation of God the 
Word we worship Him, as Anathema VIII, in Cyril's Ecumenically approved l,onger Epistle 
to Nestorius declares. And that worship of God alone is in strict accordance with Christ's law 
in Matthew ΙΛ', 10, and with Isaiah ΧΙ.Π, 8. 

I have before me a Romish manual of idolatrous devotion which bears the title of "Golden 
Book of the Con/rater nilies." "published," as its title page declares, "wilh the approbation ' 
of "John Hughes," the Romish "Archbishop of New 'i'ork," by Kirker in that city and copy- 
righted by him in 1854. On pages 20, 21, it makes the astonishing statement that the third 
part of the "Hail Mary," that is the words, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners 
now and at the hour of our death. Kxa^n,''^" was added by our holy mother the Church at the 
General Council of Ephesus." That is a downright lie, the invention of some ignorant or 
wilful deceiver, and a foul slander on the God alone invoking Third Synod of the whole 
Church, and a blasphemy against that Holy Spirit, who, according to Christ's promise, in 
John XIV, 17, 20, John XV, 20. and John XVI, 13, was with his Church to guide it into 
all truth, and He did guide all its decisions, against the Nestorian deni.ils of the Incarnation, 
and against its 'worship of a human being, be it even Christ's mere humanity, and much more 
that of the Virgin Mary, who was not perfect nor sinless. And the Orthodox champion 
Cyril of Alexandria indignantly denied that any Orthodox Christian worshipped her or any 
other creature. For writing on that matter in chapter X of the Kirst of his Five-Book Reply to 
the Slanders of Nestorius he says to him: 

"And what has persuaded thee to let loose that so uncontrolled and unbridled tongue of 
thine against those who have been zealous to think what is right, aud to pour down a ten ible 
and all cruel accusation on every worshipper of God? Vox thou didst moreover say in 
Church: 

'But I have already said often that if there be among us any one of the simpler sort, and 
if there be any such in any other pla.e who takes pleasure in t..e expression Brtnger l-orth 
of Cod, (Οεοτό /cof ), I have no hatred to that expression, only let him not make the Virgin 
a goddess.' 

Again thon dost out and out rail at us, and vent so bitter a mouth aud reproach the 
congregition of the l<ord, as it is written, but we indeed, Ο Sir, who say that she was the 
Bringer Forth of God, (θ€οτυκος), have never made any creature a god or a goddess, but we 
have been accustomed to acknowledge as God Him who is so bcth by" [His Divine] 'Nature 
and in very truth; and we know that the blessed Virgin is a human being like us. But thou 
thyself wilt be caught, and that before long, representing to us the Emmanuel" [that is, 
the Cod with us] "as a" Lniere] "inspired man, aud putting on another the crime chaged 
in thy own arguings " that is the cr me of creature worship, referring to his impl.td 
accusation that Christians might worship the Virgin JIary, and so make her a godd s-i. I 
have examined and translated the whole of the Third Synod, and have not found any 
worship of her or ot any creature jm any part of it. On the contrary it forbids, as we liave 
seen, under pain of deposition for Bishops and clerics and of anathema for laics, all worship 



112 Article Π. 

which asserts that Christ's two natures are two separate Beings or 
Persons, the outcome of which is to deny the Inflesh of God the 
Word in His humanity, and to lead to the heresy of worshipping 
His humanity, and it anathematizes every man who holds to what 
is condemned by that Anathema. 

Anathema VIII condemns every one who holds to the error of 
Monophysitism, that is One Natureis^n , that is that Christ's Divin- 

of (. hrist's perfect humanity, the shrine in which God the \Vo;d dwel s; even His humanity, 
•which is Ihe hi^ hest of all mere creatures, and much more it forbids the worship of any othtr 
creature; it teaches us to worship only the consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity, God the 
Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Ghost, and that absolutely and directly, not rela- 
tively through any created person, or through any mere material thing, be it a cross, a pic- 
ture, a graven image, an altar, a communion table, relics, or any thing else. 

See in volume I of Ephesus in this set, page 711 under θίο7οκ"(,-; page 588, Cyril's 
Anathema I and Nestorius' Counter Anathema I, and all that follows there to page 601, 
and id., pages 651-653, under Relative Conjunction^ Relative Indwelling, Relative Participation, 
Relative Worship forbidden, and Relative Worship by Nestorians, and Btinger Forth of 
God, on page 575, id., and Nestorius' Heresies 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, etc., on pages 637-647, id., 
and J. H. Aezvman, page 647, id.; E, B. Pusey, id., page 650; Tzvo Natures of Christ, id., page 
660, and Union of Christ's Two Natures, page 661, id. St. Cyril of Alexandria well teaches 
that to worship God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Ghost, and the Man put on 
by God the Word in Mary's Womb, is to worship a Tetrad instead of a Trinity: see in proof 
under Tetiadism, Pourism , and oa page 640, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus. 

But alas ! for the Anglican Communion, which does not, as it ought, maintain these 
decisions of the Universal Church, nor those of its Reformers and their formularies which 
are in accordance with them, against their own idolatrous bishops and clerics. As sampUs 
of the Apostasy of some of its bishops and clergy, I would mention the Host-Worship of 
Bishop Grafton, the late H. R. Percival's book in favor of the Invocation of Saints, the two 
manuals for popular use by F. E. Mortimer, "rector of St. Mark's Church, Jersey City, and 
examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Newark, U. S. Α.," as he calls him.self in the title page 
of the first below. They are his Pilgrim's Path and Devotions before the Blessed Sacrament. 
They teach the worship of Christ's humanity, the worship of the Host, and the invocation of 
creatures. Both profess to be "compiled" by said worse than Nestorian creature-worshipper, 
and certainly they are compiled partly or largely from Romish sources. Another similar 
manual is "The OfSce of the Mass, compiled by" one who dares to call himself "Rev. Father 
Davis, rector St. Martin's Church, Brooklyn, N. Y." Another is Arthur Ritchie's Catholic (?) 
Sunday Lessons, etc. The 'One, holy, universal and apostolic Church ' pronounces in its 
decisions at Ephesus these unlearned betrayers of their Church and its sound faith on those 
points to be neither Christian clerics nor Christian laics, and as lost forever unless they 
repent. They are doing the fell work of damning souls whom Christ died to save. And 
these are but a few samples out of many on both sides of the water. Surely the discipline 
and Orthodoxy of the Anglican Communion are a wreck and those of its Bishops who will 
not do their duty mny well fear that God may remove their candlestick from its place, Rev. 
II, 5, and III, 14-22, and damn their own souls for letting such men ruin and destroy so many 
well meaning but simple souls of their people. Poor simple women form the majority of these 
led into idolatrj' and hell by them. Such ignorant clerics are continually gabbling about the 
Catholic Church and its doctrine and practices, and will not take the pains either to learn its 
decisions or to obey them, but practically in their lack of knowledge identify it with Rome 
and its post Nicene, and mediaeval and modern idolatries, which the VI Synods condemn under 
severe penalties; whereas God says: "Come out of her, my people," Rev. XVIII, 4, compared 
•with Rev. XVII, 18, as the English Church has to her blessing. 



Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius" Chief Uer-esics. 113 

ity has swallowed up and transubstantiated His humanity into 
itself, or that both natures have become so mixed that they form a 
sort of Third Thing which is neither wholly God nor wholly man. 
But the Monophysites worshipped it nevertheless, and as, notwith- 
standing their denial, Christ's humanity abides, they hence in fact, 
worshipped a man, a creature, with God the Word, and therefore 
were Man-Worshippers, and therefore were anathematized by Cyril 
of Alexandria's Anathema VIII which, with the Long Epistle to 
Nestorius, of which it forms part, w^as approved by the Third 
Synod of the whole Church and the three after it, as is shown in 
note 520, pages 204-208, volume I of Chrystal's "Ephesus." The 
Anathema is quoted under head 4 above. See there and under 
heads 3, 5, and especially 6. pages 85-95, where all opposers of the 
decisions of the Third Council are, if Bishops or clerics, deposed, 
and, if laics, excommunicated. So that both Nestoriauism and 
Oiie Nahireisni end in creature worship. 

Anathema IX, as we have seen, condemns both forms of crea- 
ture worship aforesaid, and, in agreement with Cyril's Anathema 
VIII, confines all worship of Christ to His Divinity. 

Anathema X in effect teaches the doctrine of the Economic 
Appropriation of the sufferings and death of the Man put on by 
God the Word to God the Word to avoid worshipping a creature, 
as both Athanasius and Cyril explain elsewhere. See in proof 
passages 12 and 13 on pages 236-240, volume I of Chrystal's 
"Xicaea," and compare on creature worship, pages 217-255 of the 
same volume. 

Anathema XI condemns and, anathematizes again the Man- 
Server Nestorius, six other heretical leaders, and ''their ivipious 
writings, . . . and those also who have thought or do think like the 
before mentioned heretics, and have continued, or do continue in 
their wickedness till their death." 

Anathema XII, as we have seen under head (10), page 104 
above, anathematizes most plainly and most forcefully Theodore 
of Mopsuestia's relative worship of Christ' s huvianitjy and all who 
share or defend that or any other of his errors. 

Anathema XIII says: "If any one defends the impious writ- 
ings of Theodoret, which he put forth against the true faith and 



114 Article 11. 

against the First and holy Synod of Ephesus (208), and against 
Cyril" [now] "among the saints and his Twelve Chapters, and 
all that he wrote in favor of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, 
and in favor of those others who held the same errors as the afore- 
said Theodore and Nestorius, and received them and their im- 
piety; and in them he calls the teachers of the Church impious 
who held to and confessed the substance union of God the Word" 
[with flesh]; "and if indeed any one does not anathematize the 
aforesaid impious writings and those who held or do hold the 
like errors, and all those also who have written against the right 
faith, or against Cyril" [now] "among the saints and his Tw^elve 
Chapters, and who died in such impiety, let such a man be 
anathema." 

Here we see again censure pronounced against that The- 
odoret who wrote against that Synod of Ephesus which condemned 
the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, who wrote against 
Cyril's Twelve Chapters, the Eighth of which anathematizes that 
sin; aye, and Theodoret had been a defender of its chief propaga- 
tors, Theodore and Nestorius. And this anathematism XIII goes 
on and anathematizes also every one who does not anathematize 
"//?(? aforesaid impious writings of Theodoref" against the doctrine 
of the Incarnation, and for the worship of Christ's humanity, and 
his other heresies, and all who have written against the right faith, 
which forbids any worship to Christ's humanity, and all who have 
written against Cyril the great defender of the truth that God 
alone is to be worshipped (Matt. IV, 10; Isaiah XLII, 8), and 
against his Twelve Chapters, the Eighth of which anathematizes 
every one who co-worships Christ's humanity with His Divinity, 
and every w^riter against the right faith who has died in the Nes- 
torian denial of the Incarnation, and in the Nestorian worship of 
Christ's humanity, a creature. 

Anathema XIV. 

This also condemns and anathematizes the Epistle which Ibas 
is said to have written to Maris the Persian heretic, because it 

Note 208. — The Third Ecumenical of A. D. 431, to distinguish it from the Monophysite 
Robbers' Conventicle of A. D. 449 which is condemned and rejected by the whole Church. 



Dedsiojis of Ephesus against Nestorius' Chief Heresies. 1 1 5 

denies the Incarnation, and because, among other things, ''the same 
impious Epistle calls the Twelve Chapters of Cyril (209) among the 
holy, impious, and contrayy to the right faith, and defends Theodore 
and Nestoriiis and their impious doctrines and writings.^' And we 
have seen how Cyril's Anathema or Chapter VIII in those XII 
condemns the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity and how 
Theodore and Nestorius advocate it. "If anyone, therefore, de- 
fends the said impious epistle, and does not anathematize it and its 
defenders, and those who say that it is sound or any pai'tofiC [and 
hence those who call Cyril's Anathema VIII unsound] "and those 
who have written or do write in defence of it, or of the impieties 
which are contained in it, and dare to defend it, or the impieties 
contained in it by the name of the holy Fathers (210), or of the holy 
Council of Chalcedon, and continue in that conduct till their 
death ; let such a man be anathema. 

The Fourth Synod of the whole church receives and approves 
the three before itself. 

The Fifth Ecumenical Council receives and approves the 
four before it by their names, and the Sixth receives and approves 
the five before it. And all three depose every Bishop and cleric 
who rejects or opposes their decisions or any of them, and 
anathematize every laic who does ; as the Definition of the Fourth 
and that of the Sixth show, as does also the Sentence or Definition 
of the Fifth. 

Thus has Christ's Church Universal in its only sound councils 
of the whole, repeatedly condemned all who hold to any of the 
four great Nestorian heresies which we are considering, that is : 

1. Nestorius' denial of the Incarnation: 

2. His worship of Christ's mere separate humanity, and his 
plea to defend it, that is, that it is only relative to God the Word, 
that is, for the sake of God the Word: 

3. His denial of the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, 
put forth by the Third Council and the Fourth to avoid worshipping 

Note 209. — Greek, τον iv άγίοις Kvpi?./MV ; literally "of Cyril among the Saints," that is 
"among the holy ones," a designation in efTect of him as among the saved, as against the 
creature worshipping Nestorans that he was among the lost because cursed by th^m. 

Note 210.— See the Article below on the Use of the Fathers. 



ii6 Article III. 

Christ's humanity, a mere creature, and to confine all worship 
of the Son to His Divinity alone: 

4, His assertion (a) of a real S2i5sia?ices presence of Christ's 
humanity in the Lord's Supper ; (b) his error in worshipping it 
there, and (c) the Cannibalism, as St. Cyril terms it, of eating his 
human flesh there and drinking his human blood there, a thing 
forbidden by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts XV, 29. 



ARTICLE III. 

A SECOND ON- NESTORIUS' HERESIES. 

Vastly Important Decisions of the Third Ecumenical 

Council against all Nestorian forms of Apostasy 

FROM Christianity and against all Bishops, 

Clergy, and Eaity, Guilty of them or 

ANY OF them. 

What those Forms are, as referred to in its Canons Π, 

III, IV, AND impliedly in its Canons V and VI. 

We briefly sum up those decisions here, for we propose to 
treat of them more fully further on. 

They are all termed "Blasphemies" in the Council, see 
Chrystal's Ephesus, volume I, page 449; "Horrible" and 
"Blasphemous," and are made "an accusation against him'' on 
page 480; parts 'of his Blasphemy" and "Impieties" on page 
486, and proofs ''that he thinks and preaches \mv\o\3^\.y ,'' on page 
AQ7 , ΆΧϊά Xhaf there/ore ojir Lord Jesus A7ioi7ited . . . has been 
Blasphemed by him," and on the basis of them, the Third 
Ecumenical Synod deposes him, on pages 487, 488, 503, 504, and 
on pages 503, 504, he is branded as "a new Judas," and 'On 
account of ' his "Blasphemous Preachings," and " disobediejice to 
the CanonSy' which required him to come before the Council and 



Article Second 07i Nesiorius' Heresies. 117 

to purge h'mself of them, he is told iu the sentence against 
him, ''Thoic art an alie7i from every ecclesiastical grade. '^ The 
approval by the Council of Cyril's Short Epistle and of his Longer 
Epistle to him, which condemn more or fewer of those heresies, 
and its condemnation of Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril for such 
*'blasp/ie?ny'^ are found on pages 41-418, and so are the accounts of 
the dififerent summonses sent to Nestorius and the way in which he 
treated them, and the messengers of the Synod who bore them; 
and the passages from the Fathers and those from Nestornis 
himself are also important factors in his deposition. And so, to 
some extent, are the letters of Celestine of Rome, and Capreolus of 
Carthage, not as being so important as Cyril's on the statement of 
doctrine, but as giving the vote of their Sees and of those parts of 
the West against the heresiarch. They are found there on pages 
178-203, and 481-486. See also note F, pages 529-552. 

See also under proper terms in the indexes to that volume I, 
and in those to volume III of Chrystal's Ephes7is. On the Biblical 
proofs see index III, index to Texts of Holy Scripture, pages 667- 
690, volume I of Ephestis. 

The great errors of Nestorius and Nestorianism were: 

1 . His denial of the Incarnation of God the Word in the womb of 
the Virgin, and His birth out of her, and of the fundamental truth 
that He is now God in that man whom He took out of her 
substance, and that, therefore, He has two natures, a Divine one 
and a human one. 

See on that, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, pages 449-504, 
and under Ncstoria7is, and Nestor ins^ Heresy I, pages 637-639, and 
Nestorius' utterances on pages 113, 114, and under Cyril of 
Alexaiidria, pages 586-601, and Christ, pages 577-581, and under 
σάρκωσις on page 752. 

And the canons of Ephesus below depose all Bishops and clergy 
who reject its condemnation of it and of Nestorius' other heresies 
and anathematizes and excommunicates all laics who do. And 
that sentence, as is there shown, is ratified by the Fourth, the 
Fifth, and the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. 

2. His worship of Christ' s mere humanity, which is all there is 
of Nestorius' Christ, which, as is shown in volumes I and II of this 



ii8 Article III. 

translation of Ephesus, is branded by St. Cyril of Alexandria, his 
Orthodox opponent, as ανΟί,ω-ολατρεία^ that is as the worship of a hji- 
ma7i being, contrary to Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, Colos. II, 
18; Rev. XIX, 10, and Rev. XXII, 8, 9, 10. 

See on that Blasphemy and Nestorius' trial and condemnation 
for it, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, pages 449-504: Note F on 
Nestorius' Blasphemies on pages 529-551; Nestorius' Heresy 2, pages 
639-641 , 644-647; ]\Ia7i Worship on pages 631-635; ■πρί'σχννέω, etc., on 
pages 725-751; note 183, pages 79-12S; note 582, pages 225, 226; 
note 664, pages 332-362, and page 671. 

A very important thing to be remembered on this topic is that 
St. Cyril charges that the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity 
results in Tetradisvi, that is in worshipping no longer the Triune 
God alone, but a mere creature, Christ's created humanity also: 
See the places in Chrystal's Ephesus, volume I, General Index 
under Fotiristn and 1 etradisvt, pages 625 and 656, and in the Greek 
Index under τέταΐ)τ(><ί, page 759, id., and Nestorius' Heresy 2, pages 
639-641. 

In his Shorter Epistle to Nestorius Cyril condemns his co- 
worshipping Christ's humanity with God the Word, and other 
errors; see pages 79-93; and on pages 129-154 the Bishops vote on 
it and approve it. Nestorius, in reply, aflSrms his worship of a hu- 
man being and other errors, and the Bishops vote on and condemn 
that Epistle to Cyril and anathematize him and it; pages 154-178,' 
volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus. Cyril in his long Epistle to Nes- 
torius, condemns his co-worship of Christ's humanity with God the 
Word, and in his Anathema VIII, which forms part of that Epistle, 
he anathematizes him for it and all who do it, see pages 221-223, 
and pages 331, 332 there. And that whole Epistle was approved by 
the whole church in Ecumenical Synod again and again, note 520, 
pages 204-208 of that volume. And the canons impose stern pun- 
ishment upon all bishops, clerics, and laics, guilty of that co-worship 
of Christ's humanity with his Divinity and of any and all of his 
other errors. 

3. His defense of that worship of a mere man 07i the ground that 
his worship of him was not absolute, that is not for his own sake alone^ 



Article Second on Nestorhis' Heresies. ng 



but was relative, that is he worshipped that mere creature because of God 
the Word and for God the Word' s sake. 

That is the same sin as that of the Israelites in worshipping 
Jehovah through the golden calf in the wilderness and through the 
calf at Dan and through that at Bethel, and that of the heathen in 
\vorshipping their images and altars relatively to ihe gods and god- 
desses represented by them, for, as told by the Christian Arnobiiis 
in his work Agaifist the Pagans, book VI, chapter 9, they tried to 
excuse themselves by this same plea of relative worship. For Arn- 
obius addressing them writes: ''Ye say. We worship the gods 
through the images,'' a seductive plea which he at once refutes from 
Holy Writ and common sense. 

That plea of Nestorius was set forth in Act I of the Council in 
several of Nestorius' Twenty Blasphemous passages for which he 
was there condemned and deposed as a heretic; see pages 449-504, 
volume I of Chrystal's translation of Ephesus, and note F., pages 
529-551, among which they are found. See especially note 949, 
pages 46 1-463, where it is shown that it has been condemned by the 
Universal Church no less than 12 or 13 times. It is in the Man- 
Worshipping Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, to which Nestori- 
ans had invited or demanded subscription, pages 205-208 of volume 
II of Chrystal's translation of Ephesus where that excuse, borrowed 
from the pagans, is condemned again. And then the Council again 
pronounces its penalty in the following words: "These things, 
therefore, having been read, the Holy Synod has decreed that no 
one shall be allowed to offer or to write or to compose another faith 
contrary to that decreed by the holy Fathers gathered in the city of 
the Nicaeans with the Holy Ghost. But those who dare either to 
compose or to bring forward or to offer another faith to those wish- 
ing to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth either from heath- 
enism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever: these, if 
they are Bishops or clerics, are to be aliens, the Bishops from the episco- 
pate and the clerics from the clericate ; but if they are laymen they are to 
be anathematized. 

In the same manner, if any are detected, whether they be Bis- 
hops or Clerics or laics, either holding or teaching these things 
which are in the Forthset' ' [that is the Creed of Theodore of Mopsue- 



120 Article III. 

stia just mentioned]" brought forward by Charisius the Elder" [that 
is "the Presbyter"] "in regard to the Inman of the Sole-Born Son 
of God, that is to say, the foul and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, 
which are even its basis, let them lie under the sentence of this holy 
and Ecumenical Synod, that is to sa}-, the Bishop shall be alienated 
from the episcopate and shall be deposed; and the cleric in like manner 
shall fall out of the clericate; bnt if ayiy be a laic, even he shall be anaih- 
ematized, as has been said before.''' 

Then follow the names and subscriptions of the great Orthodox 
and sound champion against all relative service, Cyril of Alexandria, 
and the rest of the Bishops of the Council. 

See further against the Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ's 
humanity, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, and on its kindred and 
connected errors, note 156, pages 61 -69, and notes 580, 581, 582, and 
583, pages 221-226, and the text on pages 221, 222, and 22Z, and 
under Theodoret, pages 656, 657. 

We have seen how completely Nestorian, aye more than 
Nestorian, Rome has become in her worship of a human being 
{ανθρ<ύ-()λα.τρίΐα) , and how her Archbishop Kenrick actually braves 
and defies, in his ignorance, the decision of the whole Church in 
its Third Synod at Ephesus, A. D. 431 , when it adopted as its own 
Cyril's Anathema VIII, which deposes all bishops and clerics, and 
anathematizes all laics who co-worship Christ's humanity with 
His Divinit}', for he even goes so far as to co-worship it, as he 
claims, absolutely with God the Word, though his explanation 
there and in the places there referred to show that his adoration of 
it was relative, after all, to God the Word, that is for His sake, 
though, of course, the absolute worship of it, that is for its own, 
a mere creature's sake, would be still worse (Matt. IV, 10; Isaiah 
XLII, 8), and he would be a worse heretic than even Nestorius 
himself, for his words on page 461 , volume I of ChxysiaV s Ephesus, 
in his blasphemy 8 show that he did not go beyond the relative 
worship of Christ's humanity, that is he did not worship it 
absolutely. 

And we have seen also how the Roman Harlot has gone so 
low as to worship creatures inferior to the highest of all creatures, 
the ever sinless humanity of Christ, for example the heart of Mary, 



Article Second on Nestorius' Heresies. 121 



who is the object of religions service in no less than 122 pages 
together of her Raccolta, and there are devotions to the Archangel 
Michael, the angel Guardian so called, St, Joseph, Peter and Pavil, 
and others, and we have seen that indulgences are promised to 
those who say such God- angering orisons, condemned ecumenically 
by necessary implication at Ephesus in A. D. 431. 

That the Greek church is guilty of such worship of many 
human beings is very clear from her reception of the image 
worshipping and creature invoking conventicle of Nicaea, A. D. 
787. But at first I had some doubts whether the co-worship of 
Christ's humanity with his Divinity was approved by her. And 
the following would seem to imply that at any rate she will not 
admit the new-fangled Romish devotion to the Sacred Heart of 
Jesus, which as we have seen by the testimony of her Kenrick, 
Rtjnie at first hesitated to receive, and indeed did not authorize 
till A. D. 1765. 

Parsons, a Romish bitter and partisan priest, in an article on 
what he is pleased to call ''The Later Religious Martyrdom of 
Poland'' in the Amcricayi Catholic Quarterly Review for January, 
1898, incidentally remarks on page 96, speaking of about A. D. 
1894: 

"At that time, also, some humble peasants were dragged from 
the village of Minoga and deported to the depths of Muscovy, 
ihcir offence having been a propagation of the devotion to the Sacred 
Heart of fcsus — a devotion -which the Russian State Establishment 
affects to regard as heretical. 

If the Russian Church so regards it she acts, so far, in strict 
accordance with the Third Ecumenical Council and the Fifth, and 
therefore I should be pleased to believe that she so holds. 

But I am sorry to say that Macarius, Rector of the Ecclesias- 
tical Academy of St. Petersburg, Bishop of Vinnitza, who died 
Metropolitan of Moscow in 1882, in the French translation of his 
Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe,, tome II, Paris, Cherbuliez, 1859, 
pages 112-114, advocates fully the co-worship of both natures of 
Christ in 'O7ie sole and inseparable divijie adoration, both of the divin- 
ity and of the humanity;' which is practically their co-worship con- 
demned under pain of anathema and deposition by the Vlllth An- 



122 Article ΠΙ. 

athema of Cyril and by the Canons of Ephesus. Macarius goes on 
and attempts to defend his assertion by Nestorian perversions of 
Scripture to Man-Worship, and then quotes, wrongly, garbled pas- 
sages of Athanasius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria and the 
Third Ecumenical Council, all of whom, as we have seen, condemn 
it; see in proof Article II above, for the decisions of Ephesus and 
the three Ecumenical Synods after it, and Athanasius, Epiphanius, 
and Cyril as on pages 217-255, volume I of Chrystal'siVzVai'a. He 
quotes also for that heretical co-worship, Nestorius' chief champion, 
Theodoret of Cyrus and the eighth century notorious and accursed 
champion of idolatry John of Damascus, both of whom favor his co- 
worship of a creature with God, but both of whom, Theodoret in his 
own day, and John later, came under the anathema of the Third 
Council for that error. 

Macarius quotes also Chrysostom, of the same Antiochiau 
School as Theodoret, for the same error. If the passage be really 
genuine and the translation correct it would prove, not that the 
heresy is truth, but that Chrysostom was a heretic and therefore 
anathematized for it by Cyril's Anathema VIII approved by 
Ephesus, and by its canons, and that we mUst never think or speak 
of him as a saint or as fully Orthodox. And we could in that case 
suspect the more why the Orthodox Cyril so condemned him, so far 
as appears, to the very last. 

4. Nestorius' fourth Heresy of Apostasy to Creature Worship, 
contrary to Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, v:^s his dc7iial of the 
doctrine of Ecoyiomic Appropriatioii, which was maintaiiicd by Cyril 
a?id Ep/iesus, to avoid what Cyril calls ΆνΟρω-οΧατρύα^ that is the wor- 
ship of a huinafi being, Christ's mere humajiity. 

See on that Nestorius' Heresy 3, as there numbered, pages 641 , 
642, volume I of Chrystal's translation of Ephesus. under Economic 
Appropriatio7i on pages 602, 603, Appropriation on page 573, and 
οΙκαώσασΟαΐ, and οίκο^ιμικην οΐκί'ωσ'.^ on pages 720, id., and page 671. 

On the penalties for rejecting or attempting to unsettle the 
doctrine see Article II above, and page 29, canon VI, this volume. 

5. The next heresy of Apostasy of Nestorius was his making 
a mere man, a mere creatiire, Christ's humanity, 07ir Aiofier and Med- 
iator, whereas the Orthodox, held, as Cyril teaches, that God the 



Article Second on Nesiorius' Heresies. 123 

Word is the Sole Atoner and Sole Mediator, who does the human 
things, such as suffering, death, and intercession in heaven, as our 
Sole High Priest, by his humanity; on that see Cyril's Anathema 
X, pages 339-346, text, and notes 682-688 inclusive on that Anathe- 
ma there in vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus and especially note 688, 
pages 363-406. See also Cyril's Scholia on the Licarnation, sections 
24, 25 and 26, pages 211, 212 and 213 of the Oxford translation of 
Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation (only where Pusey wrongly 
renders by *' God-clad inaji ,' ' translate rightly *'i7ispired man,^^)Q.r\a 
the Greek of the same, page 544, volume VI of the Greek of P. E. 
Pusey 's works of Cyril. Cyril teaches that no creature can make an 
atonement, nor mediate for man, and that that is prerogative to God 
the Word. It hence follows that no creature can intercede for us in 
heaven, for intercession there is a part of Christ's mediatorial office 
work as God and Man, for as God he possesses the infinite attributes 
of omniscience and omnipresence to hear our prayers, and as man 
he prays for us, and precisely because he is God and man therefore 
he is the sole fit Intercessor there, and, besides, he is God-ap- 
pointed to that prerogative function and no saint, angel nor any 
other creature can be. See under Christ, pages 577-581 , volume I 
of Chrystal's Ephesus. Indeed as all admit that prayer is an act of 
religious service, for us to pray to any creatijre is an act of religious 
service contrary to Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10," Thott shall wor- 
ship the Lord thy God ayid Hi^n only shall thou serve," and brings his 
curse, as it did on us all in the middle ages, and as it does on Greek 
Church and Romish and Nestorian and Monophysite Europe and 
Asia and America and Africa and every place else till this very 
hour. And as prayer to creatures has always been a part of idola- 
try, therefore the 35th Canon of Laodicea, which some deem to be 
taken into the Code of the Universal Church by canon I of the 
Fourth Ecumenical Synod, justly and wisely forbids all Christians 
to invoke angels, and adds "if any one therefore be found spending 
time in this hidden idolatry^ let him be anathema, because he has 
forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over 
to idolatry." And, of course, the Third Council of the whole 
Church in deposing every Bishop and every cleric, and in anathema- 
tizing every laic, guilty of worshipping Christ's humanity, has, by 



124 Article III. 

necessary inclusion, inflicted those penalties on every one who gives 
any act of religious worship to any creature less than Christ's ever 
sinless humanity, be it bowing, standing, kneeling, praying, in- 
cense, or any other act of religious service mentioned in Holy Writ. 
For Christ's humanity is the highest of all created things, and the 
shrine in which God the Word dwells, and the instrument by which 
he does the human things in the Christian Economy. 

6. The next head of their Apostasy was the assertion of the 
real substance presence, not indeed of the Divinity of Christ, but of 
his body and blood in the Eucharist, which, on their Man worship- 
ping principles, led them into two other errors and sins, namely 
first, what Cvril terms 'Αν^ρωπολατο£;'α that is the worship of a Jminan 
being; which we will call head 7: and, secondly, into what he terms, 
'Ανθρωποφαγία, that is the eating of a human being , that is in plain 
English, Cannibalism, which we will number head 8. On the wor- 
ship of a man see heads 2 and 3 above, and on Cannibalism, see here 
and the next head below. Heads 7 and 8 here are on the 
Eucharist. 

See the condemnation by the Universal Church of that Apostasy 
on the Eucharist, told in note 606, pages 240-313, volume I of 
Chrystal's Ephesus, and, by another reckoning, Nestorius' Heresy 
4 and 5, pages 642, 643 of the same volume, and the places in it 
above referred to in this article for the penalties incurred by those 
who hold to those sins. See also under Eucharist, pages 612-622. 
See also page 596 on Cyril's Anathema XI, and compare Nes- 
torius' Counter Anathema XI on page 597. 

Nestorius worshipped the bread and wine as the body and 
blood of Christ, though he admitted that their substances remain 
after consecration as before: see in proof, pages 280, 281, note. 
And see under Theodoret, pages 656, 657. As is often shown in this 
set, he held not to Transubstantiation nor to two nature Consub. 
stantiation, but only to One Nature Consubstantiation, that is to 
the Consubstantiation of the real human substances of Christ's 
flesh and blood with the bread and wine. 

See further on the Eucharist, that is the Thajiksgiving (from 
Matt. XXVI, 27; Mark XIV, 23, Luke XXII, 19, and I Cor. XI, 
24, where in the Eucharist Christ ^at-i• thajiks), in volume I of Chry- 



Article Second on Nestonus' Heresies. 125 



stal's Ephesus, note 599, pages 229-238; noteE, pages 517-528; note 
692, and 693, pages 407, 4C8, and under Άι/^»ω-οφαγία on page 696 
and Άποστ'/.σια on page 697; α.ρχίτ'>-ω there and "σνμβολον, the Euch- 
aristic Symbol'* on page 755, and under Euc/iarist on pages 612-622, 
volume I of the same work. General hidcx, and on the absurd re- 
sults of all Nestorian, Greek, and Romish views on the rite, see id., 
note E, pages 517-528. 

We have seen that three most important Epistles came before 
the Council, and were examined by it. One was Cyril's Shorter 
Epistle to Nestorius which was approved by a Synodal vote; an- 
other, which was Nestorius' Epistle in answer to Cyril's Shorter 
one to him, and was condemned by v^ote also; and the Third 
was Cyril' sEonger Epistle to Nestorius, In a dogmatic sense these 
were far more important than Celestine's Letter to Nestorius and 
tliat of Capreolus to the Holy Synod, which also were read in the 
Council. Celestiae seems not to have grasped so well the errors of 
Nestorius on the Eucharist and on Man-Worship, as he did his 
errors on the Inflesh of the Word. The great theological sym- 
metrical mind in the controversy, the great champion for Christ 
and against all the Nestorian Man-Worship, Cannibalism on the 
Eucharist and other ''blasphemies,'' was Cyril of Alexandria, who 
has been justly termed the great Doctor of the Church 07i the Incar- 
nation, and may be as justly termed its great Doctor against what he 
terms ^Κνθρωττολατρύα, that is against the worship of a hitman 
being, that is Christ's ever sinless humanity, and by necessary 
inclusion, against all other worship of creatures, be it worship 
of the Virgin Mary or other saints or of angels or of altars or of 
images painted or graven or both; of relics, of the Bible or of any 
part of it; and of any thing but the Divinity of the Triune Jehovah. 

And he is also the great Doctor against the pagan plea and 
dodge of Relative Worship used against Cyril by the Nestor ians 
to palliate and to defend their relative worship of Christ's mere 
humanity, and of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper after 
consecration; and the same excuse has been and is since used by 
Romanists, Greeks and others to defend their relative worship of 
that humanity, one Romish form of which is called by Papists their 
worship of the sacred heart of Jesus, and another is their relative 



126 Article III. 

worship also of the sacred heart of Mary; and forms of relative 
worship common to the Greeks and Latins are their relative wor- 
ship of saints and angels by praying to them, etc., and of images 
painted or graven, the Bible or any part of it, crosses, relics, 
altars, and other things, by bowing, kissing, incense, etc. In 
brief, Cyril is the great Doctor of the Church against everj' form 
of relative worship, whether ofiered to Christ's humanity or to any 
thing else. 

We have seen that Twenty Blasphemies culled from Nestorius' 
writings were made the "Accusation" against him and that for 
them and for other blasphemous utterances, and on the basis of 
them all and for them all he was deposed. See them all in volume 
I of Chrystal's "Ephesus." 

So far as the Twenty Passages relate to the eight heads of 
Nestorius' ^^ Blasphemies,''^ as they are called on page 449 of vol- 
ume I of Chrystal's "Ephesus," they are found in that volume, 
pages 449-480, and ihey are separated under heads specified in 
note F, pages 529-552, where see especially. Nestorius' deposition 
for them and for his heresies mentioned in them, and elsewhere in 
Act I of Ephesus, and in Cyril's Epistles to him is found on pages 
481-504 and the Epistles, the final summons to him, and the 
opinions of the Fathers, on pages 52-449. 

A number of Scripture proofs against his heresies are found 
in the bidex to Texts of Holy Scripture, pages 667-675. See also 
what follows on pages 676-690. 



127 



ARTICLE IV. 

How THE Orthodox Cyril of Alexandria would have us 
WORSHIP Christ's Divinity and apply to God the Word alone all 
his Divme names as belonging to His Divine nature, and all His 
human names economically to avoid worshipping his humanity, a 
creature, which he brands, in contending against Nestorius, as 
Άν^ρω-ολατρεία, that is as the worship of a htanaji being. 

By Economically is meant what pertains to His work in the 
Christian Dispensation, and by the Christian Economy is meant 
the Christian Dispensation. 

1. We have seen the Orthodox Leader and Champion, St. 
Cyril of Alexandria, contending, in passage after passage, that to 
worship Christ's humanity is forbidden in Holy Writ in such 
passages as Matthew IV, 10; " Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, 
and Him only shall thou serve;'* Isaiah XLII, 8, / am Jehovah; 
that is my name; and my glory will I 7iot give to another, neither 
tny praise unto graven images; and that to worship Christ's human- 
ity is to make it a new god, a fourth after the Trinity, and so to 
substitute a worshipped Tetrad, that is a Pour, that is the Father, 
the Word, the Holy Ghost, and a man, a creature, for a worshipped 
Trinity; that is the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and 
against that he quotes the Septuagint Greek of Psalm LXXX, 9, 
our Psalm LXXXI, 9, which translated reads: ^^ There shall be no 
iiew god in thee, nor shalt thou worship a foreign god." See also 
for Cyril to the same effect, note 183, page 79-128, volume I of 
Chrystal's "Ephesus." For Cyril, like Athanasius aud all truly 
Orthodox men, holding that worship is prerogative to God, in 
that following Paul, an inspired Apostle, and Christ Himself, 
(Hebrews I, 6, 8, compared with Christ's prohibition in Matthew 
IV, 10, of worshipping any thing but God), would therefore prove 
that God the Word incarnate and born of a Virgin is God because 
at his birth the Father commanded all the angels to worship Him, 
and because another honor prerogative to Divinity is given to 
Him, in Holy Writ, that is because the name of God is applied to 
him, as in John I, 1-4, 14, and Hebrews I, 8. To the same effect: 



128 Article IV. 

see Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Faustin, pages 217-256, volume 
I of Chrystal's "Nicaea." 

2. We have seen that Cyril again and again teaches that we 
may not co-worship Christ's humanity with His Divinity, and that 
his Anathema VIII in his Long Epistle to Nestorius, with that 
whole Epistle was approved by the Third Ecumenical Sj'nod and 
the three Ecumenical Synods after it, so that the error that we may 
co-worship both Natures of Christ, or any thing in Christ except 
His Divinity is, since A. D. 431, condemned by that 'One, holy^ 
Universal and Apostolic Church,^^ in which, in the words of the 
Creed of its Second Synod we profess to believe, under pain of 
Anathema in that Anathema VIII itself, and under pain, by the 
Canons of Ephesus, of deposition in the case of Bishops and 
clerics, and of anathema in the case of laics; so that, to every 
Orthodox and fully intelligent man, the worship of Christ's human- 
ity is no longer among discussable things, but is condemned and 
settled forever. 

And we have seen how Nestorius himself (211), and the Nes- 
torian champions, Theodoret of Cyrus (212), Andrew of Samosata 
(213) and Eutherius of Tyana, did worship both Natures together 
(214), and that in their worship of His humanity they followed the 
leaders and founders of their heresies Diodore of Tarsus (215) and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia (216). 

3. And to avoid worshipping Christ's humanity, Άν^ρωττολατρεία, 
that is the worship of a human being, as Cyril terms it, he 
always rightly sees in God the Word the sole supreme thing in 
Christ, and the only worshipable thing, and his humanity as its 
mere shrine, the mere jewel case in which the divine Jewel is 
contained, the mere wrapping of His Eternal Divinity, the mere 
instrument in which He does the human things. And hence, after 

Note 211. — See Chrystal's Ephesus, volume I, pages 113-115, and under Nestorius anil fiis 
Heresies, etc., pages 637-δ$7. 

Note 212. — See volume I of Chrystal's Ephestis, page 115, 116, note matter, and pages 
656, 657, under Theodorei. 

Note 213. — See volume I of Chrystal's Epkesus, pages 97, 98, 116-121, and page 571 under 
A ndrew. 

Note 214 — See id., under Eutherius of Tyana. pages 121-128. 

Note 215. — See id., page 602 ηηά,&τ Diodore of Tarsus, pages 112, 113, 169, note 361, and 
page 456, note 914. 

Note 216. — See id., page 113, and under his name on page 656. 



How Cyril Worshipped Christ. 129 

denouncing any worship of the mere creature, he lays down the 
doctrine that all the names of Christ, both those belonging by their 
very nature to his Divinity, and those belonging by their very 
nature to his humanity, must all be ascribed to his Divinity, but 
the human by the Ecumenically approved doctrine of Economic 
Appropriation. Here I would quote, on this matter, a part of sec- 
tion XIII of Cyril's Scholia on the himan of the Sole-Born. It is 
as follows: 

"Wishing to inquire closely into the mystery of the Economy 
of the Sole Born with flesh we, holding the true doctrine and right 
faith, say as follows: that the Word Himself who came 02it of God 
the Father, the very God otd of very God , the Light out of the Light, 
both took Oil flesh and pnt on a man, came down, stiff e red,'''' [and] 
"rose frofn among the dead'' for so has defined the holy and great 
Synod in the Symbol of the faith (217). 

And searching thoroughly and wishing to learn truly what is 
the meaning of the Word's having taken on flesh and put on a man, 
we perceive that it is not to take a man to Himself in a" [mere 
external] "connection as regards an equality of dignity, that is of 
authority, or even in the having the same name of Sonship alone, 
but, on the contrary, to be made a man like us, while He at the 
same time preserved to His own" [divine] "Nature, its unchange- 
ableness and unalterableness, when He came in the Christian Econ- 
omy in a taking of flesh and blood. 

One therefore indeed is He who before the Inman is named by 
the God-inspired Scripture both Sole Born, and Word, and God, 
and Likeness and Radiance and Character of the Father's Substayice, 

Note 217. — Cyril of Alexandria did not receive the Constantinopolitan Creed. See in 
proof the Oxford translation of his works on the Incarnation against Nestorius, page 31, 
note ''a," and page 379, under Creed of Constantinople. His see and Constantinople had 
differed. It was, however, recited and approved in the Fourth Ecnmenical Council in 
A. D. 451, only about seven years after Cyril's death, and finally passed into use in the 
whole Church. Indeed, as Prof. Swainson shows in his article Creed, page 492, vol. I, Smith 
and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, it was at one time the baptismal Creed 
even of the Roman Church, and perhaps in some churches of Gaul and Germany, and should 
now be the baptismal Creed among us and everywhere, as it is in the Greek Church because 
it is Ecumenically approved and is therefore invested with the authority of the whole 
Church, whereas the Italian and Roman local Creed lacks Ecumenical approval, has ne%'er 
been recognized by the Greeks, can be signed by an Arian because it lacks the words "o/" the 
same Substa nee," is first mentioned clearly about A. D. 390 in the work of the Italian Rufinus, 



130 Article IV. 

Life, Glory, Light, Wisdom, Power, Arm, Right Hand, Most High 
[or ''Highest' ''\ , Magnificence, Lord of Sabaoth, and any other such 
names, which are truly God-befitting; and, after the Inman, Ma7i, 
Christ J eszis'^ [that is, translated, "Anointed Jesus"], '"Propitia- 
tion, Mediator, First Fruit of those who slept. First Brought Forth 
from the dead, the Seco7id Adam, Head of the Body, the Church, the 
names that were in the beginning following Him," that is the 
names that were His from the first and before His Incarnation, 
that is the names of His Divinity], "for all the names are His, 
both those that were first," [that is those before His Incarnation] 
"and those in the last times of this world" [that is since He 
became incarnate]. 

"One therefore is He who even before the Inman was very 
God, and in His humanity hath remained both what He was and 
is and will be," [that is, very God] . "The one Lord Jesus Christ 
is not therefore to be divided into a man separate and by him- 
self and God separate and by Himself, but we say that He is one 
and the same, Jesus Christ, though we recognize the difference 
between the Natures and keep them unmingled with each other," 

This last sentence shows also the injustice of any Monophy- 
site who may claim that Cyril was a mingler of Christ's two 
natures or an abolisher of his humanity, and, in brief, a favorer of 
Mcnophysitism. Indeed all his writings show that he recognized 
the continued existence of the two Natures, but not their co- 
worship. 

Cyril in his Long Epistle to Nestorius, pages 241-254, again 
teaches well that some of the expressions in Holy Writ regarding 
Christ have reference to His Divinity and others to His humanitj', 
but at the end, in accordance with his own and the universal 
Church's doctrine of Economic Appropriation he applies them all 
to God the Word; aye, even the humanity's names to His Divinity, 
Economically, of course, as he teaches elsewhere. I quote: 

" Therefore all the expressions in the Gospels are to be ascribed to' ^ 
[but] 'One Person, to' [but] "one infleshed Subsistence'' [that is 

on it, and then lacked Article XII, and, as Prof. Heurtley shows in his wcrk Nattnonm 
Symbolica, Creeds of the fVesiern Church, pages 70-72, is not found in its present form 
till about A. D. 750. 



How Cyril Worshipped Christ. 131 



Being"''\ "of the Word. For according to the Scriptures, Jesus 
Anointed is" [but] 'O7ie Lord'' (1 Cor. VIII, 6). 

The whole passage should be read, for it is very clear, and 
what is vastly important, is Ecumenically approved with the whole 
Epistle in which it stands. See in proof note 520, pages 204-208 
of volume I of Chrystal's translation of Ephesiis. 

And what is very important and germane here, we must 
remember that Cyril uses both Person (ΠρόσωτΓ'^ν) and Stibsistence, 
Being (Ύττόστασι?) for God the Word alone, though of course, He 
is in flesh. See in proof under Person, page 649, volume I of 
Chrystal's Ephestcs. 

Ο,γτ'ύ and his predecessor, Athanasius, in their Scripturally 
intelligent, uncompromising, and stern, and faithful, and noble 
zeal for the worship of the Triune Jehovah alone have never been 
excelled by any Bishops of the Church since, not even by Cranmer, 
Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, and Ferrar, who come nearest to their 
bright example, though the noble English Reformers suffered 
more in that they witnessed against Rome's idolatry before their 
triers and persecutors and at the stake and in the flame; and their 
struggle for a perfect Restoration of all that was in the beginning 
was all the harder, because the facts on many points were still 
unprinted and inaccessible, and because they were striving to get 
rid of a vast mass of superincumbent superstitions, idolatries, and 
creature worship, under which Bishops, clergy, and people had 
groaned and been led astray for long centuries, whereas Athan- 
asius and Cyril were called upon mainly to keep the sound doc- 
trines, discipline and rites or sacraments as they found them in 
Egj'pt, their ecclesiastical dominion, though in Syria, and to some 
extent elsewhere, corruptions in the way of Man- Worship, and 
Cannibalism had come in. If therefore we find that the English 
Martyrs for Christ did not make full work on some points, let us 
remember how they and every body else had been taught in Wes- 
tern Christendom, and let us remember how under God and by His 
grace they did the great work of ridding us of Rome's idolatries 
and her anti-canonical and anti- Six-Synods tyranny; and by God's 
mercy brought on us God's blessing by teaching us to avoid saint 
worship and to be zealous so far as they knew, and so far as we 



132 Article V. 

knew, for the worsliip of God alone, and so from about 4, 000, COO 
of English-speaking people at Queen Elizabeth's accession, have 
made us about 140,000,000, and from the small domain of the 
British Islands, her sole dominion, have by spiritual Christianity- 
given us victory on field and flood, so that both branches of the 
Anglo-Saxons to-day are the richest race in the world, and their 
rulers govern about 500,000,000, about one-third of the world's 
population, and control between a third and a fourth of the land 
surface of the earth, and by their united fleets can dominate the 
seas. Such has been the blessed result of the Reformation wrought 
by the English Martyrs. Let us finish the work of a full Restora- 
tion of all that was from the beginning, and the VI Holy Ghost 
led Synods, and work for a full Seventh Synod to be composed 
only of those who anathematize the image worship and saint wor- 
ship of the Nicene Conventicle of A. D. 787, and who hold fully 
to the VI Synods, and that coming Seventh Council of the whole 
Church East and "West which shall do away the creature worship of 
the present and all other errors. For we now know facts which the 
Reformers did not, and can and mlist finish their work by a full 
Restoration, as the Jews after their Reformation in Babylon finished 
their work about 70 years after by a full Restoration of their 
temple and its service at Jerusalem. 



ARTICLE V. 

On the Ecumenically Approved Use op the Fathers. 

In different documents Ecumenical Councils have spoken well 
of what is in effect the historical witness of the sound Fathers to 
Christian doctrine. We have seen such an instance on pages 106, 
107, and just above on pages 1 19, 126. In the former case the Fifth 
Synod of the Christian world speaking in its Definition of the 
Three Chapters which contain a defence of Nestorius' heresies on 
the Incarnation, for the worship of Christ's humanity, and for 
Cannibalism on the Eucharist, says: 

"We therefore anathematize the Three before mentioned 
Chapters, that is the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his 



On the Ecumenically Approved Use of the Fathers. 133 

execrable writings, and those things which Theodoret impiously 
wrote, and the impious Letter which is said to be of Ibas, and 
their defenders, and those who have written or do write in defence 
of them, or who dare to say that they are correct, and who have 
defended or attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the 
holy FatJiers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedony And Anathe- 
matism XIV of the same Fifth Synod, anathematizes those who 
presume to defend Ibas' Epistle "or the impiety which is inserted 
in it, by the name of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of 
Chalcedon, and continue in that conduct till their death." 

And, furthermore, Anathematism XIII of the same Fifth 
Council quoted on page 1 1 3 above, curses every one who defends 
the impious writings of Theodoret against the right faith and 
against theThirdEcumenical Synodand against St. Cyril and his XII 
Chapters, (one of which, the Vlllth, anathematizes the co-worship 
of Christ's humanity with his Divinity), and all that he wrote in 
favor of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and his calling, in 
them, the teachers of the Church impious who held to the sub- 
stance union. The Teachers and Fathers here meant are Cyril 
and the rest of the Orthodox writers. 

We see that those utterances of the Fifth Synod anathematize, 

1, Every one who adduces the teachers of the Church in 
favor of any of Nestorius' heresies and paganizings, and also all 
who ^^ dare to defend the impieties contained in^ the Epistle which 
Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian heretic, '''by the 
7iame of the holy Fathers,'* that is, of course, those before the date 
of the Council, A. D. 553. 

And it follows that any and every Christian writer before that 
date who wrote in favor of the Nestorian heresies of Theodore, 
Theodoret, and Ibas must not be reckoned among '"the holy 
Fathers.'* Indeed, as we have seen, by the Canons of Ephesus, 
every such writer, then living, was deposed if he was a Bishop or 
cleric, and anathematized if a laic. Writers condemned by any of 
the VI Synods cannot therefore be deemed "holy Fathers,'* that 
is, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eut5'ches, 
and Origen, for we are required to anathematize them, and "their 
impious writings. They are condemned by name in Anathema XI 



134 Ariicle V. 

of the Fifth Council. With them we must class the originator of 
their heresies, Diodore of Tarsus, so strongly condemned by Cyril, 
and all who wrote in defence of those paganizings or infidelizings, 
or died in them, and who are therefore anathematized by the 
Canons of the Third Synod, the Anathematisms of the Fifth, and 
by the Sixth. For every Ecumenical Council approved all such 
Synods before itself. 

3. Besides, we must deny the name of ' 'holy Fathers" to any 
writer of the Paulianists, and their founder, Paul of Samosata, 
who are condemned by Canon XIX of the First World-Synod, and 
to any of the Cathari, who are condemned in its Canon VIII; to 
any of the Eunomians or Eudoxians, to any of the Semiarians, or 
Pneumatomachi, that is the Fighters against the Spirit, to any of 
the Sabellians, the Marcellians, the Photinians, and to any of the 
Apollinarians, and of their founders, all of whom we must anathe- 
matize by Canon I of the Second Synod. 

Nor, 4, can we receive as ^'holy Fathers^' any writer of the 
Arians, the Macedonians, the Sabbatians; the Novatians, who call 
themselves Cathari, that is the Pure and Aristeri, and the Four- 
teenth-dayites, or Tetradites (who kept Easter, that is the Pass- 
over, on the 14th day of the Hebrew month Nisan, on whatsoever 
day of the Aveek it fell) , and the Apollinarians, "the Eunomians who 
baptize with [but] ojie immersion,'' and the Montanists, the Sabel- 
lians, and the followers of all the other heresies, who are con- 
demned in Canon VII of the Second Synod. 

Nor, 5, may we accept as holy Fathers, any of Nestorius' 
partisans, John, Bishop of Antioch in Syria; John, Bishop of 
Damascus, Alexander of Apamaea, Alexander of Hieropolis, 
Himerius of Nicomedia, Fritilas of Heraclea, Helladius of Tarsus, 
Maximir^ of Anazarbus, Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, Paul of 
Emesa, Polychronius of Heracleopolis, Eutberius of the Tyanen- 
sians, Meletius of Neocaesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Apringius of 
Chalcedon (or of Chalcis),, Macarius of Laodicea Magna, Zosys of 
Esbuns, Sallustius of Corycus in Cilicia, Hesychius of Castabala in 
Cilicia, Valentinusof Mutoblaca, Eustathius of Parnassus, Philip 
of Theodosiopolis, Daniel and Decianus, and Julian, and Cyril, 
and Olympius, and Diogenes, and Palladius, Theophanes of Phila- 



On the Ecumenically Approved Use of the Fathers. 135 

delphia. Tatian of Augusta, Aurelius of Irenopolis, Musaeus of 
Aradus, and Helladius of Ptolemais, all of whom were suspended 
from Communion and afterwards deposed by the Canons of Ephe- 
sus, though some or most of them were afterwards restored on 
their accepting the Synod and its Orthodoxy. Yet all their her- 
etical writings, so far as they wrote, remain condemned like The- 
odoret's, which are anathematized for the same heresies. The 
above list of Nestorius' partisans is found on pages 81 , 82 of Ham- 
mond's Ca7io7is of the Church: compare volume II of Chrystal's 
"Ephesus," pages 42, 100, and 391. 

Nor, 6, may we accept as *ΊιοΙγ Fathers'" any of the Monothe- 
lite heretics who are condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, 
namely Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and 
Peter, who were Bishops of Constantinople, New Rome, Honorius, 
Pope of the old Rome on the Tiber, Cyrus, Bishop of Alexandria, 
Macarius, Bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple, for in the 
Definition of the Council their names are preceded by the words: 

"As the author of evil, who in the beginning, availed himself 
of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death 
upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, 
having found suitable instruments for working out his will, we 
mean Theodore who was Bishop of Pharan," then follow the rest 
of the nine names above including that of Pope Honorius, and 
then the Definition goes on, "and ["the author of evil"] has 
actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the 
stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures 
of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus dissemin- 
ating in novel terms among the Orthodox people, a heresy similar 
to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinarius, Sev- 
erus and Themistius, and endeavoring craftily to destroy the per- 
fection of the Incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our 
God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a 
rational soul as devoid of will or operation," Hammond's transla- 
tion, in the main, pages 143, 144 of his Canons of the Ch2trch, N. Y. 
edition of Sparks, 1844. 

Nor, 7, may we reckon as ^Ίιοΐγ Fathers,'" Ambrose of Milan, 
Augustine of Hippo, nor John Chrysostom, nor any other writer 



136 Article Υ. 

of the fourth century or the fifth or of any later or earlier date, if 
they really invoked creatures or worshipped any thing in the 
Eucharist. Ambrose, if a passage adduced as his be genuine, was 
an invoker of angels, and, according to John Keble, the paganizer, 
was a worshipper of the Host. Augustine, if certain passages 
cited from him be really his, was an invoker of martjTS, and also 
a worshipper of the Host, though the passages quoted from him 
and from Augustine teach, seemingly, only the Nestorian one- 
nature Consubstantion, \vhich was that of Nestorius. But whatso- 
ever form of real substance presence it was, it was condemned at 
Ephesus. And Chrysostom is quoted for the invocation of saints 
or other creatures, though in his case and in the case of Ambrose 
and Augustine, Treat, in his Catholic Faith, shows that other 
passages from their writings are distinctly opposed to those 
Ecumenically anathematized paganisms. In the first three 
centuries we find no use of images nor crosses, no worship of such 
things, no invocation of saints or angels, and no worship of the 
Eucharist nor of any thing in it. 

In the Post-Nicene period we first find such errors, but it 
would be rash to condemn any writer of that time for any such sin 
on the basis of any disputed passage from his writings, especially 
when admittedly genuine passages of his teach the direct contrary 
to those paganizings. O'^r safest policy, therefore, in the case 
of such persons is neither to anathematize nor to condemn them, 
nor on the other hand, to receive them as Orthodox till all the 
facts regarding their teachings are fully known. \'ast harm has 
been done to millions of souls because they trusted spurious 
pissages of old writers as genuine and Orthodox which really teach 
i lolatrizing condemned in A. D. 431 by the whole Church at 
Ephesus. 

8. I would also advise every one to remember that the historic 
witness of the Church Universal on any topic is only partly in 
i:idividual writers. It is in early local councils, and far more 
authoritatively in the VI Ecumenical because they represent 
Christ the great Head of the Church speaking through them and 
in their sound New Testament utterances. All those three, the 
Fathers of the Ante-Nicene period /;w;^ the beginniiig, the local 



On the Ecumenically Approved Use of the Fathers. 137 

councils of that period, and the YI Ecumenical give us the historic 
and rational judgment of the Church on H0I3' Scripture and its 
meaning. It is some times called the Historic Traditio7i, that is 
Transmission^ as Tradition means. It is contained in written 
documents wholly, well proven and genuine and authentic. 

9. That must be sharply distinguished from the falsified and 
legendary Tradition, that is Transmission, which is not foznid from 
the begin7iing, nor as approved in the Ante-Nicene period at all, 
but which is diametrically opposed to the Ante-Nicene Historic 
Transmission in doctrine, discipline, rites, and customs, and is 
condemned by it. And forasmuch as the legendary or falsified 
Transmission rests upon no written Ante-Nicene written testimony 
of approval, hence we can not say of it, as we so often say of the 
other, ^'As it was m the beginiiing,'^ etc. Indeed there is very 
little mention of the Anti-Historic Transmission for the first 325 
years, and what there is is condemnatory of it, as the learned 
Bingham in his Antiqidties has shown, and as is ably shown also by 
Tyler in his Primitive Christian Worship, in his work on Image 
Worship, and in his Worship of the Blessed Virgi?i, and the valuable 
tracts " What is Romanism?"' published by the Society for Promoting 
Christian Kno'u ledge (lyOndon, England), and Faber's Difficulties 
of Romanism (valuable), Finch's Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 
and the excellent Homily of the Church of England on Peril of 
Idolatry, and that 07i Prayer. They are approved in Article XXXV 
of the Reformed Church of England as containing ' 'a godly a7id 
wholeso77ie doctri?ie a7id 7iecessary for these ti77ies.'' 

I would add that if one would make a study of the science of 
Patristics he will find much to interest him in James' "Treatise of 
the corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers by the Prelates, 
Pastors and Pillars cf the Church of Rome for the maintenance of 
Popery. . . . Revised and corrected from the editions of 1612 and 
16S8 by the Rev. John Edmund Cox, M. Α., of All Souls' College, 
Oxford," (Eoudon, Parker, 1843), inDaille on the Fathers, Treat's 
Catholic Faith, and the above-mentioned works of Tyler, and 
other controversial works of Anglican theologians. I would add 
that some of them show that some of the abler Romish theologians 
have long ago given up some of their proof passages for their 



138 Article V. 

paganizings as spurious, and that Professor Contogonis, a Greek, 
gives up as false some passages and works of Fathers of the first 
four hundred years which have been relied upon, and often cited 
by the idolatrous party now long dominant in his Church for 
image worship, though he retains, but uncitically, others just as 
spurious. 

10. An unlearned and uncritical use of Fathers and alleged 
Fathers, without any suflBcient knowledge as to the genuineness or 
spuriousness of passages and works attributed to this or that early 
writer, and without any knowledge also of what the great Six 
Councils of the whole Church have decided on the doctrine, 
discipline, rite, or custom under discussion, has been the occasion 
of doing away vastly important and necessary New Testament 
doctrines, and much of its discipline, and its rites and sacraments, 
and customs, and has resulted in the damnation of millions of souls, 
who, never having read the Holy Scriptures, and being utterly 
ignorant of the witness of the Church in the first three centuries, 
when it was in its martyr period and pure, have been easil)^ 
imposed on and bamboozled by some spurious passage in favor of 
paganizing or infidelizing, and have been led into soul-destroying 
error Examples of such false citations, a few out of many, are a 
passage ascribed to Athanasius for image worship, believed in the 
middle ages to be really his, but now given up bj^ the more 
learned Latins and Greeks themselves; references to Cj'ril of 
Alexandria and to the Third Ecumenical Council as though they 
sanctioned the worship of the Virgin Mary, and as though the 
Council made the last part of the Hail Mary to worship her. In 
discipline the great imposition of the False Decretah^ received as 
genuine in the whole West in the middle ages, represented the 
early Bishops of Rome as really exercising a monarchical sway over 
all Christendom, broke down in the Occident the sole Ecumenical 
Canons and enabled Rome to idolatrize and to subjugate it all till 
the blessed Reformation of the sixteenth century. 

In the matter of rites and sacraments, the Latins, following 
their mediaeval or later writers, have abolished the trine immersion 
in baptism which is demanded by Canon VII of the Second S5'nod 
of the Christian World of A. D. 381, and have abolished the 



On the Ecumenically Approved Use of the Fathers. 139 

confirmation and Eucharistizing of infants, and substituted the 
wafer for the ά'ρτ"?. that is the leavened bread as the word means, 
of the New Testament, and have since the local Western Council 
of Constance, A. D. 1414-1418, robbed the laity of the cup 
altogether. 

And, in the matter of New Testament customs, its entire 
prohibition in I John, V, 21, "Little childreji, keep yourselves from 
idols,'* that is '''images'' as the word here used means, which was 
so rigorously obeyed for the first 300 years that no images or 
crosses were allowed in the Churches (218), was departed from 
in the fourth century and the result was soul damning idolatry, 
and God's curse on us in the form of the cruel Mohammedan, 
Arab, and Turk, slaughter and defeat, slavery, and the wiping 
out of Christianity in many of its ancient seats. 

A few words of advice to younger men: 

On the Fathers we must, therefore, remember 

1 . To try every alleged utterance of a Father by the New 
Testament and by the VI Synods in agreement with it. 

2. We must remember that probably not three clergymen 
out of a hundred are so well learned in Patristics as to be 
competent judges regarding the genuineness or spuriousness of 
an alleged passage, and regarding the Orthodoxy or heterodoxy of 
its alleged author. Stick, by all means, therefore, first to God's 
Word, and the VI Councils which, with Christ-authorized power, 
have defined on its teachings against many heresies, and anticipa- 
tively, by necessary inclusion, against most of the great heresies, 
and all the idolatry and creature-worship of mediaeval and of 
modern times. 

3. Remember that one of the great curses of the middle 
ages was the fact that men forgot so much of God's inspired 
Word and the VI Councils so Orthodox and Scriptural in their 
decisions, which condemn their errors, and turned instead to 
heretical works of theology such as those of the accursed idolater, 
John of Damascus, Peter Lombard's Se7ite?ices, and Thomas 

Note 218. — See Tyler on Image IVorshtp, and on crosses Chrystal's Essay on the 
Catacombs of Rome, pages 5-21, and indeed all of it. Minucius Felix, of the second century 
or the third, in chapter 29 of his Octavius witnesses that Christians neither worshipped nor 
wished for crosses. 



140 Article V. 

Aquinas' Siimma and its horrible paganizings, with their spurious 
citations and their putting the utterances of Ecumenically 
anathematized individuals into the place of the VI Synods and the 
New Testament. Indeed it may be said that among the great 
masses of the Christian Bishops and clergy and people from the 
time of the final triumph of the image-worshipping, relic and 
cross worshipping and creature-invoking, that is creature- 
worshipping party in 842, the decisions of the VI Ecumenical 
Councils against such sins and the relative worship by which 
the idolatrous party defended them, were almost wholly ignored 
or forgotten. It is true that there was an anti-image worshipping 
party in the East, but in a crushed position; and that in the West, 
England, and France, and the Council of Frankfort of A. D. 
794 resisted and condemned the worship of images, and that 
prohibition continued in those lands till about the close of the 
ninth century, but as their use still continued, and, to a greater 
or less degree, the invocation of saints, they served to keep alive 
the former paganizings, and finally brought on their final 
prevalence. And it was not till the sixteenth century that the 
almost unknown God-alone-worshipping decisions of the VI 
Synods began to be somewhat better understood. Indeed their 
decisions against the idolatries aforesaid are as yet known only to 
a few of the best and ablest scholars, simply because no translation 
of them in their entirety had ever appeared in any modern tongue, 
though, from this on, we expect a greater spread of knowledge on 
them, and a consequent return to their sound and saving teachings, 
and the doing away of all the errors condemned by them. 

But, alas ! how many hundreds of the ordinary uncritical and 
unscholarly clergy of the Church, ignorant of them, have been 
deceived by passages from the writings of heretics condemned by 
them, and by other passages, but spurious, ascribed to sound 
Fathers, and have apostatized to the idolatries of Rome, and now 
fill idolaters' graves, and are hopelessly damned (I Cor. VI, 9, 10; 
Galat. V, 19, 20, 21, and Rev. XXI, 8). And how many such 
clerics still stay in the Church of England and teach and preach 
the same paganisms and are leading thousands upon thousands of 
poor simple women and innocent children to hell ! They have 



On the Ecumenically Approved Use of the Fathers. 141 

broken down the discipline of the Anglican Church, and, being 
wickedly allowed to remain undeposed, they elect Bishops of their 
own traitorous stripe, and where they are not strong enough to 
control in Conventions here and elect one of their own fellow 
idolaters, they sometimes so manage affairs as to compromise on 
some weakling Eli-like man who will let them do the fell work of 
ruining souls. And the Anglican Communion, once the bulwark 
of the Reformation every where, and closer in its Formularies 
than any other national church to the anti-creature-worshipping 
utterances and decisions of the VI Sole Councils of the whole 
Church, has largely departed from them and the Ante-Nicene 
simplicity of worship, permits the invocation of saints and the 
wort^hip of images to be taught by a growing number of its clergy, 
has become in places a recruiting shop for Rome, and in other 
places with its Crapsies, for infidelizings on the great fundamentals, 
and, in brief, is a wreck, a corrupting and wrecking organization 
and snare to the other Protestant Churches, which, to some extent, 
are imitating it. Oh ! Christ, who didst save it before from Laud's 
and liis partisans' idolatrizings, save it now again. Ο God, thou, 
who in olden times didst raise up kings like Hezekiah and Josiah 
to reform and save, and Jeshua the high priest, and Ezra and 
Nehemiah to restore; and who didst in later times give usCranmer 
and Edward λ'Ι. and others to reform, send us now fit leaders to 
reform and put away our idolatrizings, and to restore all the 
New Testament truth, and all in the first three centuries which is 
in consonance with it and all in the VI Synods of the "One, 
Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church" which agrees with it. 



142 



ARTICLE VI. 

On Cyril of Alexandria's worship op God the Word, 
/lera τ/> ίδια? σαρκό<;, in the viidstof, or withiyi his own flesh, AND HIS 
ANATHEMATIZING anyone who co-worships His flesh with His 
Divinity. His utterances on those themes have vastly more than 
a linguistic interest, for they are approved with the two Epistles 
in which they stand by the Third Ecumenical Synod. 

I propose here briefly to summarize the chief facts connected 
with the question, and to refer the learned and Orthodox reader to 
those places in Chrystal's Ephesns where the fuller quotations of 
the Greek and English may be found. 

1. (A) Cyril again and again makes all religious worship of 
Christ to belong to His Divinity only, and 

(B) expressly denies it to His humanity, on the ground that it 
is a creature, and by Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, can not 
therefore be worshipped; and to the same effect he quotes Isaiah 
XLII, 8, and Psalm LXXXI, 9 (219). I have space here to cite 
only a few passag ^s out of many to show 

(a) that Cyril makes all religious worship of Christ to belong: 
to His Divinity alone, and, of course, denies it to His humanity, 
a creature. For, contending against the Man-Worshipping 
Nestorians, he writes in section 8 of book II of his Five Book 
Answer to the Blasphemies of Nestorius: "Why, tell me, dost thou 
wantonly insult God's" [the Word's] "flesh? Even, indeed, 
[by] not refusing to -worship it, whereas the DUTY OF being 
worshipped befits The Divine and ineffable nature alone" 
(220). The Greek is found at the top of page 80 in the note there, 
volume I of Chrystal's translation of Ephesus. 

(b). Cyril on chapter I, verse 6, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
proves that inasmuch as all worship is prerogative to God, and 
that by the Father's command Christ is worshipped by the angels, 
therefore, He must be God. That, of course, implies that he 



Note 219.— See in the Index to Scripture on those texts in volume I oi Ephesus, and in 
that of volume I of Nicaea in this set. 

Note 220.— Greek. Καίτοι πμοσκννην avry μη παραιτούμενος, πμέττοντος μόντι ττ? QFia 
«•ε και άπο'ρ'ρήτφ φΰσει του ιτροσκυνεΐσθαι όείν. 



Cyril and the whole Church against Mayi-worship . 143 



would not worship His humanity, nor any other creature. For he 
writes: 

"And again when He'' [the Father] ''briiigeth i7i ihe First 
Brought Forth into the iyihabited world, He saith, And let all God's 
arigels worship Him,'' [Hebrews I, 6]. 

On it Cyril writes: "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 
sole Father. 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 worshipped by the 
holy angels, and that too when the right to be worshipped 
BELONGS To AND BEFITS GoD ALONE. How then IS Christ not 
God, seeing that He is worshipped even in heaven ?" 

The Greek of this passage is found in the note matter on 
pages 225, 226, volume I of Chrystal's translation of Ephcsus, where 
by all means see it. 

We see then that the inspired Paul's argument that Christ 
must be God, because He is worshipped, is used here also by the 
great Cyril; and, moreover, twice on page 89, in volume I of 
Chrystal's ^//i-iwi/ and in the same volume, page 91, where he 
argues that God the Word was incarnate, and was worshipped as 
God, he refers to the passage and asks regarding the Nestorian 
claim that the worship there commanded by the Father to be done 
was to Christ's humanity: I quote 

"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 
were God-inspired Man, who had a side of a body [John XIX, 34], 
and endured the piercing, how comes it that He is seen in the thrones 
of the highest Diviiiity, and exhibited to tis as A NEW god" 
[ττρόσφατοζ ®ζός^ Psalm LXXX, 9. Septuagint Greek translation; in 
our English version Psalm LXXXI, 9] "as a sort of fourth God" 
[or "a sort of fourth Person"^ ^' after the Holy Trinity? Hast thou 
not shuddered" [at the thought of worshipping'] "λ commoii man, 
when thou contrivedst the worship to that creature? Are we then 
held fast in the ancie7it snares" [of creature worship] . "Has the 
holy multitude of the spirits above been deceived with us, and has it 



144 Article V/. 

given driinkards* insults to GodT' [that is by worshipping a creature. 
The reference is to Hebrews I, 6, this very text.] "And again 
when He" [the Father] "bringeth in the First Brought Forth into 
the inhabited world He saith, And let all God"s angels worship 
Him," [which the Nestorians so outrageously perverted as to 
insult God the Father by making Him command what Cj'ril calls 
again at.d again the sin of worshipping a creature, their mere 
human Christ; whereas Cyril and the Orthodox held that the wor- 
ship there done was to God the Word alone in strict accordance 
with Christ's command in Matthew IV, 10. The reference is also 
to the worship commanded in Philippians II, 9, 10, 11, to be dene 
to the Word; z.x\^ 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 that 
worship and that giving of the name God to Christ were done to 
His humanity, and therefore authorized their creature worship, 
that is what St. Cj'ril brands as their ανθρω-(>\α.τΐιώι, that is their 
worship of a humayi being, that is Christ's humanity; and so, in 
strict accordance with Christ's words in Matthew Ιλ", 10, he 
understands the worship there done and the application of the 
name above every na^ne (Philippians II, 9, 10, 11) that is God, to be 
done to God the Word alone. And in his Long Epistle, ecumeni- 
cally approved, in his Anathema VIII he anathem-atizes both Nes- 
torius' co-worship of Christ's humanitj' with His Divinity and his 
other sin of co-calling that man God with God the Word. Cyril 
goes on:] '^ Since we have beeyi ransomed fro^n 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 thoit whelm us agaiii in the ancient sins and make 2is WOR- 
SHIPPERS 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, although 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 [λά~ρι^ν €;^e: τό^* ovpavov KiiX προσκυνούσαν την γ^ν], for it is 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 145 

written: The earth is full of thy praise; Thy excellency, Ο Lord, has 
covered the heaveris," (Habakkuk III, 2). 

(c) In his Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, approved by vote of the 
Third Council in its Act I, and therefore of Ecumenical authority, 
Cyril again denies any co-worship of Christ's humanit}' with God 
the Word, for he says: 

"So will we confess" [but] "one Anointed One (Χριστον ha) 
and Lord, not that we co-worship a man with the Word, lest that 
thing be secretly brought in for a phantasm, if we used the term 
co'' [before ''worship' '\ "but that we worship" [the one Christ and 
Lord" just mentioned, that is, ''the Word'' there also spoken of] 
"one and the same" [Word], "for His body is not a thing foreign 
to the Word, with which," [here evidently "zi/z7///w which"] "He 
co-sits with the Father Himself, not, however, that two Sons are 
co-sitting, but that one is" [God the Word evidently] "in union 
with His own flesh." Elsewhere Cyril rejects the blasphemy of 
the Nestorians that a creature can co-sit on the throne with God; 
see the note matter on pages 1 17-119, volume I of Chrystal's 
Ephcsns. 

The Greek of the above passage, as in Act I of Chalcedon, in 
full in Hardouin's Concilia, is found in note 183, page 79, volume I 
of Chrystal's Ephcsus. As Cyril uses the term σνν in connection 
with τΓροσκυνίιο, which means to co-worship, with reference to co- 
worshipping Christ's humanity with God the Word and condemns 
that, I quote the Greek here: 

0(•7ω Χριστον ενα και Κιφιον όμολογήσομίν ονχ ώς άνθρωηον σνμνροΰκννσϋντες τψ 
Αόγφ Ινα μ)} τυντο εις φάντασμα παρεισκρίνηται, όιά τυν ?.έ-)ειν τό Σίν άλλ' ως ίνα και 
τον αντόν προσκιπ'ονντες, ότι μη ά'/.?.ότριον του Αόγον το σώμα αντον, μεθ" ον και αντώ 
σννεί^ρενει τφ ΤΙατρί' ονχ ώς δίω πά /uv σννεδρινόντων νΙών, α/.'/' ώς ένος κα& ίνωσιν μετά 
της Ίδιας σαρκός. 

(1) Here plainly enough Cyril condemns the co-worship 
(σνμττροσκννονντίς) of Christ's humanity with God the Word, and 
worships only "one," that is God the Word: 

And, (2), he denies that two Sons, God the Word and His 
humanity are co-sitti?ig (σν^εδ,οευόντων), but that one, God the 

Word, does within His body (^ro σωμ.α αντον, μεθ* ου και αΰτω avveSpeoci 

τω Πατρί)• See all of note 183, page 79-128 there, where much 



146 Article VI. 

more may be found from Cyril against the worship of Christ's 
humanity with God the Word or at all. 

(d). In his Lojiger Epistle to Nestorius Cyril again denies 
that he co-worships Christ's humanity with his Divinity. 

Nestorius in his 8th Blasphemy, (page 461 , volume I of Chrys- 
tal's Ephesus), had set forth his relative worship of Christ's 
humanity as foilows: 

^'I worship him'' [the Man, that is Christ's humanity] ^^who is 
•worn, for the sake of Hivi" [God the Word] ''who wears. I worship 
him who is seen'' [that is Christ's humanity] "for the sake of Him 
who is hidden" [that is God the Word]. 

"God is unseparated from him" [the Man] "who pppears. For 
that reason / do not separate the honor of the unseparated one. I 
separate the Natures" [of Christ, that is His Divinity from His 
humanity], "but I unite the worship." 

The peculiar act of worship here meant in all these passages 
except the first which is σ€^8ω, I worships is I bow (Greek προσκυνώ, 
bowi^ig ττροσκίψησιν), the most common words in Greek for worship, the 
former being the v^erb, the latter the noun. The verb occurs sixty 
times in the New Testament and is always translated by worship 
in our common version. See in proof The Englishmari' s Greek Con- 
cordance of the New Testavient. 

I would add that as Nestorius rejected the Incarnation and the 
substance union of Christ's two Natures, he really admitted only 
what his partisans are accused of in Anathematisms 4 and 5 in the 
Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, a union of "grace, or 
operation, or dignity, or equality of honor, or authority" as Ham- 
mond (on the Canons) translates, or in some other way mentioned 
in those utterances. And indeed he admits, in the same passage 
below, that he did separate the two Natures, but, like all his party, 
he worshipped them both, the Creator, which was all right; with 
the creature, which was all wrong and forbidden by Christ Him- 
self in Matthew IV, 10. 

(e). Cyril in opposing the Nestorian perversion of Hebrews I, 
6, forecited, and Philippians II, 6-11, to make them mean the 
worship of Christ's humanity, and calling it God, utterly rejects 
that perversion and holds that all worship there done is to God the 



Cyril and the whole Church agai?ist Man-worship . 147 

"Word alone, and that to Him alone the name God there meant is 
given: see in proof the Index of Scripture Texts in volume I of 
Chrystal's Ephesus^ under those texts, pages 686 and 688. The 
places are too long to be quoted here. One passage only is quoted 
under (b) above. 

See in the same Index to Scripture Texts under Psalm 
• LXXX, 9, Sept., and LXXXI, 9; Isaiah XLII, 8; Matt. IV, 10; 
Colossians II, 18; Rev. XIX, 10, and Rev. XXII, 8, 9. 

(f). Under (b) above Cyril teaches that theNestorian worship 
of Christ's humanity results in making ''amere God- inspired Μ a7i,'' 
his merely human Christ, to sit down "zw the thrones of the highest 
Divinity,'" and in exhibiting him to us ''as a new god, as a sort of 
fourth god " [or, "a sort of fourth Person'"'] ''afterthe holy Trinity,'' 
and that to think of worshipping \\χ•3Χ'' common vian'" should make 
Nestorius shudder for having contrived'' the worship to that creature." 
And he adds that to give worship to Christ's humanity, that crea- 
ture, would be to be "held fast in the ancient snares" of creature 
worship, and that to suppose, with Nestorius, that in Hebrews I, 
6, God the Father commanded the spirits above, the angels, to 
worship Christ's humanity, and that they did so would show 
that they had "been deceived,'" and had "given drunkards insults to 
God," who under the Old Testament and under the New forbids 
men to worship any one but God. And then he goes on to teach 
that "to worship the creature" Christ's humanity, is "a blasphe- 
mous THING," which we Christians "have rejused," diwa it would 
"whelm us again in the ancient sins" of creature worship, "the 
ancient deceit" from which we were "ransomed," "and make us 
WORSHIPPERS OF A MAN." And then he shows that the Word be- 
ing God in the Incarnation as He was before it. He has, on the 
ground of His being God, "heaven as his worshipper" as in 
Hebrews I, 6. "and the earth as His adorer." 

(g). In response to Nestorius' profession and that of his fol- 
lowers, that they worshipped both natures of Christ, God the 
Word, in effect absolutely, and His humanity relatively, that is for 
the sake of God the Word, Cyril brands that idea as resulting in 
worshipping a Tetrad, that is 1. God the Father; 2. God the 
Word; 3. God the Holy Ghost; and 4. the Man put on by God 



148 Article VI. 

the Word, instead of the first three alone, the Consubstantial and 
co-eternal Trinity. 

We have seen one passage of Cyril against that error under (b) 
above. 

Another is found on page 89, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, 
where Cyril writes: 

' 'But whereas the God-inspired Scriptures proclaim that there. 
is [but] One Anointed (Χριστόν) and Son and Lord, this here super- 
fluous fellow" [Nestorius] "on the contrary, proclaims that there 
are two, and adds λ worshipped man to the holy and consub- 
stantial TRINITY, AND IS NOT ASHAMED; Greek, και τροσκννονμενον 
άνθρωτΓΟν τη ayw και όμοονσίφ Ύριάοι ττροστιθα,ς, ονκ ala^vve.~'JL. See more 
on that place on pages 89, 90, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus. 

On pages 92, 93, id., is found another passage of St. Cyril against 
Nestorius' giving worship to Christ's humanity, and so in effect to 
make it a god. So Cyril argues in accordance with Matthew IV, 
10, and Hebrews I, 6, which teach that all worship is prerogative 
to God, and that to worship any thing else is to give him what 
belongs to God, and so is, in effect, to make him a god. 

(h). Cyril on page 86, shows that though Nestorius professed 
to worship Christ's humanity, for the sake of God the Word, that 
is relatively to God the Word, with one worship, nevertheless the 
excuse is folly. 
For he there writes: 

"But tell me, for I ask it, what is it that separates the" [Two] 
"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, tell vie, dost thou decvi it a wor- 
thy thing to honor with [but] 07ie worship \μ.ια. ττροσκυντ/σει] those 
things so unlike each other in nature, and parted as regards their 
mode of being by incomparable differences? For if thou put 

ABOUT A HORSE THE GLORY OF A MAN, WILT THOU DO ANY THING 
PRAISEWORTHY? WiLT THOU NOT RATHER OUT AND OUT INSULT 
THE SUPERIOR BEING BY DRAGGING DOWN HIS BETTER NATURE IN- 



Cyril a?id the whole Church against Man luorship. 149 

To DISHONOR?" [Cyril means that if a man gives any act of relig- 
ious service to Christ's separate humanity after the Nestoriau 
fashion, he thereby out and out insults the superior Nattcre, that is 
the Divinity of God the Word, by dragging It down ittto dishonor 
by giving what is prerogative to Divinity alone to the mere cre- 
ated nature of the Man put on, which he writes above is as 
■ inferior 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, because as Cyril teaches in A, (221) all 
religious service is prerogative to God, how much more is it an 
insult to God if we give bowing 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 
pictures, graven images, crosses, relics or altars, or any other mere 
thing. 

But there is so much of Cyril against the Worship of Christ's 
humanity in note 183, pages 79-128 of volume I oi Ephcsus in this 
set, that I can not find room for it here, but must refer the reader 
to that note itself, and to note 679, pages 332-362. Indeed, in 
order to understand Cyril's position and that of his Nestorian 
opponents on that whole matter, the reader should by all means 
read both those notes. To repeat them here would make this 
article too long, and is not needed, seeing that any one can 
find them there. I assume that the reader has those volumes. 
If it be said that Cyril constantly speaks of the worship of God 
the Word μ-ντο. t^s ιδίας αυτοί) σαρκός, as for example on page 85, 
note, and as worshipped μί-α. aafKO-i, as on page 84, note; I reply, 
that we must not understand the Greek there to teach any worship 
to Christ's humanitj^ for that is ecumenically anathematized; for 
in his Anathema VIII approved again and again by the Universal 
Church, that is in Act I of Ephesus and in the three Ecu- 
menical Synods after it, he anathematizes all who co-worship 
Christ's flesh with God the Word. I quote that anathema again, 
Greek and English: 
*'!/ any one dares to say that the Man taken on'" [bj' God the 

Note 221.— See under A, page 79. volume I, of Chrystal's Ephesus. 



150 Article Υ I. 

Word] ^ 'ought to be co-bowed to'^ [that is "to be co-worshipped ^^"^ 
''with God the Word, and to be co-glorified, and to be co-called God'''' 
[with the Word], "as 07ie with ayiother, for the term co always''' 
[thus], '.'added, of necessity means that, and does not 07i the co?i- 
trary honor the Emmajiuer' [that is, as Emmanuel meaus "the 
God with us,'' that is God the Word] "7vith" [but] "ojie worship 
and se7id up" [but] "o7ie glorifying to Hi77i 071 the grou7id that God 
the Word has been made flesh, let hii7i be a?iathe77ia" {222). 

Here three acts of religious service are specified: 

1. " Co-bozo ed to," that \s co-worshipped, for in Greek bowi7ig 
(ττροσκυνεω, προσκυντ/σι?) , is the viost com77ion act of worship, and 
often stands as a general term for worship, and that because it 
forms part of every act of religious service, for when men stand or 
kneel, or prostrate themselves, or oiTer incense or worship in any 
other way they generally bow as a part of that act of worship. 

Moreover, that and every act of worship may be used in any 
one of three senses, 

(A). As an act of acceptable religious service to the Triune 
God, or to any of the Cousubstantial Parts which compose Him, 
namely the Father, His Co-eternal Word, and His Co-eternal 
Spirit. I cite a few instances out of many where the Greek term 
ιτροσκυ^ίω, bow, worship is used in the New Testament in this good 
sense, and where it is forbidden to be given to any creature or to 
any thing but God: Matt. IV, 10; Luke IV, 8, Rev. XIX, 10, and 
Rev. XXII, 9, etc. 

(B). a. Given to any false god or to any creature, be it Christ's 
humanity, or to any saint, or to any angel, or to any other crea- 
ture, or to any image of any false god, as, for example, to an 
image of Baal, [I Kings XIX, 18, Isaiah II, 8, 9; etc., 

b. or to any image, or symbol, or altar of anj' creature, as, for 
example, to that of the Virgin Mary, or to that of any other saint 
or to that of any archangel or angel; 



Note 222. — Creek. Ει τις ro /^μά ?.έγειν του αναληφθέντα άνθρυ-ον σνμπροσκννεϊσθαι 
όεϊν τ(Τ θεά Χόγο) καΐ σννόοξάζεσθαι και συγχρ7ίματίζειν θεον, ώς ΐτερον έτερω, το γάρο Σνν 
άεΐ τ:ροστίθέμενον τοντο νοείν αναγκάσει και ονχϊ δη μαλ7.ον μια ττροσκννήσει, τψ9 '''ον 
'Εμμανουήλ, και μιαν Avtu την δυξολογίαν αναπέμπει^ καθό γέγονε σαρξ 6 ^ί.όγος^ ανάθεμα 

ίστω. 



Cyril ajid the whole Church agabist Maji-worship. 151 

c. or to any image or alleged image of God, of the whole Trin- 
ity, or to any image of any Person thereof, which was the sin of 
the Israelites in relatively worshipping the golden calf in the wil- 
derness, that is for the sake of Jehovah, whom, Aaron told them, 
it represented, when God would have destroyed them for that 
crime, if Moses, His chosen, had not stood before Him in the 
breach, to turn away His wrathful indignation, Exodus XXXII, 
and Psalm CVI, 19-24. That is the sin to-day of the Greeks, the 
Latins, and the Monophysites in bowing to, that is worshipping, 
images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, saints and angels. It is the 
sin of the Nestorians in worshipping crosses this day. Instances 
of such condemned worship where -ροσκυν6'ω is used are the wor- 
ship of demons (Rev. IX, 20), and the images in which both the 
Jews, and the ancient Christians following I Corinthians X, 20, 
held that the demons invisibly sat, or, in the case of a picture, 
behind which they sat unseen, as they now sit in or behind all 
images worshipped by idolatrous, so-called Christians, for the true 
God will not receive such idolatrous worship, nor may any good 
being, for they know that God forbids it, and they, as His faithful 
servants, abhor what He forbids, and they do not possess God's 
prerogative attributes of omnipresence and omniscience to see and 
know that God-cursed idolatry, for the}• are in heaven and not on 
earth. 

Such forbidden worship is mentioned in Rev. XIII, 4,8, 12, 
15; XIV, 9, 11; XVI, 2; XIX, 20\ and XX, 4. I would say that 
some of the Greeks try to excuse their idolatry to-day by saying 
that they do not worship είδωλα, that is, as the word means, 
images, but only etKo'ms, which they take to mean piciii res, though 
the word means literally likenesses, and Liddell and Scott in the 
"Sixth edition revised and augmented" of their Greek-English 
Lexicon, (Oxford, Eng., 1869), under είκών tell us that it is used 
^'of a picture or statue. '' So they are idolaters nevertheless, and 
the excuse is silly and of no account, and only serves to show what 
illogical trash men will use to strengthen themselves in their 
image worship rather than to obey God and to forsake it and to 
reform. It is a far lower type of relative worship than was Nes- 
torius' to Christ's humanity (see his Blasphemy 8, page 461, vol- 



152 Article VI. 

un.e I of Chrystal's Ephesus), for which, with his other blas- 
phemies, he was deposed by Ephesus. 

And moreover the New Testament uses this very word άκων 
of the images of the heathen (Romans I, 23), of the image of the 
beast in Rev. XIII, 14, 15 (thrice), XIV, 9, 11; XV, 2; ΧΛ^Ι, 2; 
XIX, 20; and XX, 4, eleven times in all: and εΐ'δωλον is used only 
eleven times, that is exactly the same number of times. 

But what does Cyril mean by the words "as 07ie with, another'* 
in his Anathema λ^ΙΙΙ? ' ''If any one dares to say that the AIa?i taken 
on' [by God the Word] 'Ought to be co bowed to'' [that is 'Vi» be 
co-worshipped ""^ ^^with God the Word, and to be co-glorified, and to 
be co-called God" [with God the Word] "as one with another for the 
term co always" [thus] ''added, of necessity 7nea?is that," etc. 

We answer he means Christ's humanity with God the Word: 
for he so explains himself above, where he expressly mentions 
them: and just below in the same Anathema Cyril shows that 
worship of Christ must be done to His Divinity alone, God the 
Word: in other words the creature Man, must not be co-wor- 
shipped with God the Word, for he at once adds: 

"And does not, on the contrarj^ honor the Emmanuel" [that 
is as the Emviamiel means ^'the God with us," that is God the 
Word] "with'* [but] one worship zwa. s^wu. up" [but] "<??/^ glorify- 
ing to Him on the ground that God the Word has been made flesh, 
"let him be anathem.a.'* 

We have seen how clearly the Nestorian leaders confessed their 
co-worship of Christ's humanity, a mere creature, with the Divin- 
ity of the Word: see pages 112-128, volume I of Ephesjis in this 
set, note matter. Theodoret, for example, says,: " IVe worship 
as one Son Him who took" [that is, God the Word] ''and that 
which was taken" [that is His humanity]. 

And in opposition to Cyril's Anathema VIII, the very thing 
we are here considering, he writes: "We offer but one glorify- 
ing, as I have often said, to the Lord Christ, and we confess the 
same one to be God and Man at the same time," page 1 16. 

And one of the Blasphemies of Nestorius reads: ' 'Let us wor- 
ship the Man, co-worshipped in the divine Conjoi7ime?it with God 
the Word," page 118, id., see Cyril's reply there. He there calls 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 153 

such language ^'very clear tongue-paining stuff against Him,^' God 
the Word: and adds, "For it was behooving" [thee] "on the con- 
trary to say, We worship the word op god viade Man and called 
God and bowed to" [that is, "worshipped'''] "in" [not wii/i\ 
"humanity, and that because He is God by Nature and has come 
out of God the Father and made His appearance," page 118, id. 
See much more there and the context, especially page 1 16. Sev- 
eral of the XX Blasphemies of Nestor ius for which he was con- 
demned and deposed teach the same co-worship of a creature with 
the Creator Word: see them on pages 449-480. 

Yet (C) bowing is often done in the Old Testament, not as an 
act of religious worship at all, but simply and only as an act 0/ 
mere humaji courtesy, mere hinjiayi love, or mere huniafi respect. An 
instance of that sort is in Acts X, 25, where Cornelius falls down 
at Peter's feet to bow to him in that position, that is to make the 
Eastern salaam, as a token of respect to him, which Peter straight- 
way forbids, as being wrong to a mere man. For such a custom is 
slavish, and has never been popular in the West. The Greek 
ττροσίκννησίν there should therefore be rendered boived to, not wor- 
shipped him, that is, Cornelius was going to prostrate himself to 
Peter. 

2. The next sin \sthe co-glorifying a creature, Christ's human- 
ity with God. That, of course, was an act of worship as we have 
just seen the Nestorians confessed. 

But (A.) the glory of worship is prerogative to God, which 
He will not share with any creature. For in I'-aiah XLH, 8, 
He proclaims: ^'I am Jehovah: that is viy name, a?id my glory will 
I not give to a?iother, neither my praise to graveii images'^ And by 
Matthew IV, 10, we can worship no creature either with God, or 
by itself. Hence we so often find gcdly men glorifying God, as 
any one can see under δό^α and δοξάζω in the Englishman'' s Greek 
Concordance of the New Testanie7it, and under glorify and glory in. 
Cruden's English Concordance, as for example in Revelations V, 13, 
where every creature in heaven and earth and under the earth and^ 
in the sea gives glory "unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and 
unto the Lamb forever and ever." Here the Father sits upon the 
throne; the Lamb is used by Cyril's teaching and that of the whole 



154 Article VI. 

Church for God the Word, as all other names of Christ are, 
and he receives the glory of worship "for ever and ever." For only 
as God is He worshipable. And as the Spirit is <?/^r«a/ (Heb. IX, 
14) he is therefore God, for God alone is eternal, and is one of the 
Holy Trinity, and therefore we with the whole Church from the 
beginning say "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the 
Holy Ghost." See many passages for God's glory of worship pre- 
rogative to Him under the last two Greek words above. 

(3). Giving glory to any creature in the sense of religious 
worship, or to any thing except God is condemned again and 
again in Holy Writ, Matt. IV, 10; Rev. XIX, 10, Rev. XXII, 8. 
For, as it is a part of God's prerogative, it can not be given to any 
but Him, and to Him always directly and absolutely, never in- 
directly through any person or thing and relatively. 

(C). We often give mere secular glory to generals and admir- 
als and others who win victory for us on field or flood, or who 
have been deemed to deserve well of us for some glory brought 
upon our race or language or nation, but in such a case we never 
intend to give them any religious glory of worship. Indeed they 
are sometimes not religious men at all. 

3. The remaining act of forbidden worship mentioned in 
Anathema VIII is the co-calling a mere creature, Christ's human- 
ity, God with God the Word. 

(A). For God's name is as prerogative to Him as His worship 
is. Hence even under the Mosaic Law men were forbidden to take 
it in vain (Exodus XX, 7). And He is called the ojily God 
again and again. 

And by the Ecumenically approved doctrine of Economic 
Appropriation, all Christ's names, those belonging to His human- 
ity, as well as those belonging to His Divinity, are to be appropri- 
ated to His Divinity, the former economically, the latter as belong- 
ing naturally to God the Word. And so must we understand every 
name of Christ in Holy Writ. See the Concordances for examples. 
The Word is expressly called God in John I, 1-4, 14. Even 
Thomas the doubter said to Him: ''My Lord a?id my GodV But 
the term God is never given in Holy Writ to Christ's humanity, a 
creature, and not God at all. 



Cyril and the whole Church agci?isi Man-worship. 155 

(B). God in Holy Writ forbade men even to mention the 
names of other gods than Jehovah, Exodus XXIII, 13, and com- 
manded to destroy even their names, Deut. XII, 3; Numbers 
XXXII, 38; Joshua XXIII, 7; Psalm XVI, 4, Hosea II, 10, 17, 
etc., and of course much more to call them gods^ for that is crea- 
ture worship and brought them curses in the form of defeat, 
slaughter, and captivity in Assyria and Babylon; and as practically 
in the last half of the fourth century, and in the centuries after, 
and in the Middle Ages, we did the same things, God's wrath 
came on us to the uttermost, for the Arab, the Turk and the Tartar 
defeated and slaughtered us, and conquered whole idolatrous 
Christian nations, that is the Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, Egyp- 
tians, North Africans, Spaniards, Bulgarians, Servians, etc., some 
of which remain even to-day under the Turkish yoke. For though 
we did not call saints and angels gods, nevertheless we made them 
gods by invoking, that is of course by woi shipping them. For as the 
learned Bishop Fell, of Oxford, well said of prayer to saints, "The 
man who petitions them makes them gods:" see his words on 
page 166, of Tyler's Primitive ChristiaJi Worship. 

(C). Holy "Writ condemns even the secular use of the term 
god to a poor mortal. For whether we take the use of the term in 
the case of Herod to be religious or merely secular and courteous, 
it shows that it may not be given to any creature, for he was 
smitten by God for allowing the words, "It is the voice of a god 
and not of a man," to be applied to him by his flatterers; for we 
read: "And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because 
he gave not God the glory, and he was eaten of worms and gave 
up the ghost," Acts XII, 21, 22, 23. 

Of course, there are many other acts of worship besides the 
three specified above in Cyril's Anathema VIII, but, by parity of 
reasoning, they are all anathematized by it. And indeed as 
ΐΓ/?οσκυν€ω, bow, is in Greek the common term for all acts of wor- 
ship, they all fall under it and are included under it. 

If it be asked why St. Cyril especially names in that Anathema 
VIII those three, the answer probably is because they are so prom- 
inent in Nestorius' Twenty Blasphemies, for which he was 
deposed. They are found in volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, pages 



156 Article VI. 

449-480. See there and note F on them where they are analyzed, 
pages 529-551. 

And one thing more must not be forgotten as it was in the 
Middle Ages, those ages of cursing, and that is that none of the 
three Acts of worship above specified in Cyril's Anathema VIII, 
ecumenically approved, nor any other such act, whether done to 
Christ's humanity or to any other creature, may now be defended. 
They are not discussible. For to give any of them to His human- 
ity or to unsettle any of the decisions of the Synod is forbidden by 
Canon VI of Ephesus under penalty in the case of a Bishop or 
Presbyter of deposition and of a laic of excommunication. And to 
give any of them to any creature is to perform an act of worship to 
it, is to worship that creature. Hence that sin is so often con- 
demned in Holy Writ: Matthew IV, 10; Colossians II, 18; Rev. 
XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9. 

Still another passage of Cyril against that Tetradism is found 
on pages 93, 94, there: 

"(X.) Passage III on Tetradism. It is from Cyril against 
Diodore of Tarsus, a Founder of Nestor ianism. It is found in a 
Latin translation on page 399 of Volume III of P. E. Pusey's edi- 
tion'Of the Greek of Cyril on the Gospel accordi^ig to Johi. Its end 
is mistranslated by Pusey, on page 335 of his translation of S. 
Cyril of Alexandria on the lucamation against Nestorijis.^* 

"Thou darest also to clothe in the Master's form him, whom 
thou sayest to be a Man from Mary, and who at first was not at all 
different from us nor superior 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 complement op The Trinity and in nature 
EQUAL TO IT." See Cyril, note matter page 94, volume I of 
Chrystal's Ephesus. 

But I must stop citing passages from Cyril here and refer to a 



Cyril and ihe whole Church against Man-worship. 157 

summary of his utterances in twenty places against any and all 
worship of Christ's humanity. It is found on page 338, 339, vol- 
ume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, note matter, and read also all passages 
of Cyril and others in note 183, pages 79-128. I must confine my- 
self here mainly to Cyril's use of μετά and σνν. 

And at the start I would say that the Nestorian champions as 
well as Nestorius himself professed to worship the two Natures to- 
gether. That is shown in the note matter on pages 112-128. And 
Cyril himself witnesses to that fact again and again and denounces 
them for it; see a few instances out of many there and in the note 
matter on pages 335, 336, and Nestorius' Blasphemy 8, on page 461 , 
of the same volume, where he plainly says: ^'/separate the Natures, 
but I unite the bowing'^ that is ^'the worship.''^ 

On that matter and the use of /xc-a and συν by Cyril I here 
repeat most of what I have written on page 117 of volume I of 
Ephesus. 

"As Cyril of Alexandria again and again in all his writings on 
our topic teaches that we must worship God the Word "^£;////^V^" [or 
* 'm the viidst of ' '] His flesh {μeτa σαρκός), but forbids to worship His 
flesh *■' together with'' {σνν) His Divinity; we hence find the Orien- 
tals who sympathized with Nestorius objecting by their spokes- 
man, 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-bow' and ^ co-glorify^ {rb 
σνμ-ροσκννί^.σθαι καΐ σν^Βαξάζίσθαί) as of two Persons or Hypos- 
tases 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 bowing [that is, 
but one kind of worship], and the rest [of the acts of worship] as 
to One Son, and we use the expression "together with" (σνν), as 
even he himself [Cyril] says in his first tome [as follows]: 

'And indeed as He [God the Word] always co-sits (συνεδρέυων) 
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 (μετά σαρκό'ΐ), Sii 
thou at my right hand, until I make thi7ie e7iemies thy footstool {YsaXva. 
CX, 1).' So we also say that He is bowed to both by ourselves 



158 Article VI. 

and by the holy angels. 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 together with His flesh 
[συν Ty σαρκ;'] as though the [preposition] /Αετά [that is, "witli'^ 
were something other than the [preposition] σνν [that is, "together 
with"'], which very assertion he himself [Cyril] has made, as has 
been said before, by his saying that He [God the Word] must be 
bowed to, [that is, "worshipped,"'] 'with ^esh,' and by forbidding 
His flesh to be co-bowed to, [that is, to be "co-worshipped"] with 
His Divinity." 

The Greek of P. E. Pusey's text has what means very scien. 
tifically," instead of "unlearnedly and unskilfully," which is the 
reading of the old fifth century Latin translation, which the con- 
text seems to favor. 

Andrew of Samosata evidently takes μ^τά. with the genitive in 
a very common sense of it, that is with; yet it has also the meaning 
in the midst of, withiyi, in which sense Athanasius and Cyril seem 
to use it when they profess to worship God the Word μίτά τΐ,% 
σαρκός-, that is, within His flesh, or "in the midst of lA.\s, 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: φαμίν ώς 
Ίτάνν ίτηστημονικως €πίσκηιΙ/€ [Cyril] Τ0Τ9 σνν rfj σαρκΧ προσκνν€Ϊν τω cvt κ'ά 
τω αντώ Υίω βονλομ^νοίς, ώς iripov Tivos ο•^τοζ Trcfa τό 2ύν του ΙΜετα' οτΓ€ρ 
αντοζ έθηκίν, ώς irpoetprjTai, λέγων αντον μετά σαρκός 8e.tv προσκννίΐσθαι, 
άτταγορενων Be σνμττροσκννύσθαι ry ©eoTrjTi την σάρκα, 

Euthcriiis, Bishop of Tyana, a bitter and irreconcilable Nes- 
torian, who died in his heresies, shows that he also understood 
Cyril's Anathema VIII to forbid the worship of Christ's human- 
ity. We have not the original Greek, but only a Latin trans- 
lation. He writes to John of Antioch (see page 121, note, vol. I 
of Chrystal's Ephesus): 

"But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, a^id takes away due 
adoration [from it] as he [Cyril of Alexandria] has comvia7ided [us 
to do], for he says; 

' 'If any one presumes to say that the man taken [by God the 
Word] ought to be co-adored with Cod the IVord, and to be co» 
glorified with Himy let him be anathema.''* 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 159 

Latin: Quis vero incidit a Verbo carnem, et sic fert ado- 
rationem debitam, sicut jussit iste qui ait: Si quis praesumat 
dicere assumptum hominem coadorari oportere Deo Verbo, et con- 
glorificari, anathema sit. 

And on pages 317-335, volume II of Ephesus in this set the 
reader will see a statement against the language of the seven 
Nestorian Bishops, who evidently, on page 311, try to turn the 
Emperors against Cyril and the Orthodox because they refused 
to worship Christ's humanity: see there. 

We have seen therefore that when Cyril speaks of God the 
Word being worshipped μίτο. τΐ,% ιδίας σαρκο?, page 89, (μετά σαρκός, 
page 84) he does not mean to worship His flesh but God 
the Word alone in Christ, and that he pointedly and often 
denounces any co-worship of the Two Natures. And he uses the 
μ-ίτά. with the genitive in those Greek expressions in the sense 
of amid, or among his flesh which we prefer to render with in 
the sense of in the midst of, within. 

But is that sense without warrant in the Lexicons and in 
the New Testament? 

In reply we would say that Robinson in his Greek and 
English Lexicon of the New Testamerit, gives as the ''primary 
signif [zVciZ/cw] "of /ΑΕτά, ''tnid, amid, Germ. Tnit, i. e. in the midst, 
with, among, . . . With the Genitive, . . . with i. e. mid, amid, 
among, in the midst of, as where one is said to sit, stand, or be 
with ox in the viidst of others, with gen"- [itive] "plur" [al] "of 

pers"-[on] or thing, Matt. XXVI, 58, έκάθητο μετά των νπηοετων 

[he sat among the serva?its'\, Mark I, 13, 14, 54, 62, ερχόμενων μίτα. 
των νεφελών του ούρανυ" ["coming among the clouds of heaven." 
etc. 

Liddell and Scott in their Greek-English Lexicon, sixth 
edition, revised and augmented, Oxford, 1869, give as the "radical 
sense" of μζτά, ."in the middle" and with a genitive "of the object 
or objects in the middle of which one is; and so, I. i^i the midst 
of, a77iong, between,'" etc., and he gives examples in Greek of those 
meanings. 

Μετά with the genitive is occasionally rendered in our com- 
mon English version by among: as for example in Luke XXII, 



1 6ο Article VI. 

37; Luke XXIV, 5; John VI, 43; John XI, 56; John XVI, 19; 
and it can be so translated in Matthew XXVI, 58; and Mark I, 13. 

A notable instance where μντά. is used by St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria with the genitive in the sense of μ^σα among or within us 
occurs in his work on the Gospel of John, book X, chapter I, where 
writing on John XIV, 31, of Christ, he remarks: 

"Therefore when escaping so to speak with us and among us 
from the wickedness that is in the world He says. Arise ye, let 
us go hence,'^ (223) etc. 

But there is one document which also denies any worship to 
the humanity of Christ, but teaches the worship of His Divinity 
alone, which seems to have guided Cj^il and the Orthodox Bishops, 
or at least may have, I refer to the Confession of Faith next to be 
mentioned here and its use of μ.(.τά.. 

I come then to speak on ftera with the genitive in the Creed 
or Forthset of a Synod of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, or of 
Nicaea, A. D. 325 (used at Ephesus, A. D. 431?) and on the use of 
μίτά. ill Anathema IX of the Fifth Ecumenical Cour'^il, 

For proof that /χετά with the genitive does not in several in- 
stances mean ^'together with^^ see the third edition of Hahn's 
Biblioihek der Symbole, (Breslau, 1897,), pages 182, 183, where the 
term so occurs again and again, in the old, so-called Symbol or 
Confession of Faith of a council of Antioch against Paul of Samo- 
sata, which bears the heading in some manuscripts, ' 'On the himan 
of God the Word, the Son of the Father, a Definition of the Bishops 
gathered in Nicaea in the Synod, agai7ist Paul of Samosata.^ ^ That 
Confession says: 

"We confess our Lord Jesus Christ, born, as respects His 
Divinity, out of the Father before the worlds, and brought forth in 
the last days out of a Virgin as respects His flesh, one Person, 
composed of heavenly Divinity and of human flesh, and as respects 
His humanity one thing, wholly God and wholly man, wholly God 
even with the body (και μντα. τ"ΰ σώματος^ , but not God as 
respects the body; and wholly man, even with His Divinity, 

Note 223. — P. E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of John, vol. 2 (Oxford 
Clarendon Press, A. D. 1872, page 533). Ovuovv όταν ώς συν ■ήμίν και μεθ' ημών την iv 
κόσμφ τταραδραμων φαυλότητα λί}?; τό 'Έγείρεσθε άγωμεν εντεύθεν, etc. 



Cyril and the whole Chiaxh against Man• worship, i6i 

(και μΐ,τα. τι}? Θίόττ^τος), but not man as respects His Divinity; 
so wholly worsbipable even with His bod}-, but not to be wor- 
shipped as regards His body; wholly worshipping even with His 
Divinity, but not worshipping as respects His Divinity, {o'Tuxi o\ov 

ττροσκννητυν καΐ /xerot του σωμχιτο<ΐ, αλλ ov)(l κατά, το σώμα ττροσκυνητον όλον 
■πριισκννιινντα /-"Χ /Αετάτ^ς ®(.ότ•ητο<ΐ, αλλ' ού^ι κατά τ-ην &€"Τ-ητ'ί προσκννοΐψτα) . 

Here, we see, is the document from which, seemingly, Cyril 
derived his use of /aera in his denial of worship to Christ's human- 
ity, which he shows again and again above, to be forbidden by 
Christ Himself in Matthew IV, 10(224). I hope to treat more fully 
of this Confession of Antioch and Nicaea hereafter. Let us now 
pass on: 

And now finally come two questions; which are of vast im- 
portance to every Christian, for they affect the matter of lawful 
worship, and therefore of our salvation: 

I. Did the great Orthodox champion Cyril wholly deny all 
worship to Christ's humanity? 

And, II, If he did. Did the Third Ecumenical Council accept 
his teaching on that? 

And, I. Did Cyril wholly deny all worship to Christ's 
humanit}'•, relative as well as absolute? 

We answer. Yes. For his words are very clear: 

For (1 ). In section 8 of Book II of his Five Book Contradie- 
tion of the Blaspheniies of Nestorius, he rebukes Nestorius for wor- 



NOTE 224.— One matter as not sure and therefore of less importance I may refer to in thi-s 
note to stimulate scholars to investigate further. 

In modern Greek, as we see by Coutopoulos' Greek-English Lexicon and by Byzantics' 
Αίξίκον Έ/./.τ/νο-Ταλλικόν, under μίση, it is used in the sense of withtn, as the latter shows 
with the genitive, and μετά is used also, but generally or almost always in other senses. And 
I have sometimes asked myself: 

Is not Cyril's μίτα really in the original μέθα, when he speaks of worshipping God the 
Word μετά σαρκός ? That is, does he not in that case use it instead of μί:τα ? Is not μέσα 
ancient in the sense oiwithin at Alexandria ? Μίσα σαρκ6ς, does mean ''within flesh." 

The lexicographers tell us how prone copyists were to correct what they deemed a bad 
lection in spelling for what they deemed a better one. Was μέσα, wtlhin, in use in the 
Alexandrian Greek of Cyril's time, and did he use it with the genitive σαρκός} In such a 
case a copyist of critical tendencies might substitute μετά for it. Indeed in some places 
Cyril does use μετά. But does he always? If we have a Syriac translation of Cyril's 
Utterance it might help us as to how he understood Cyril. These are questions only. 



1 62 Article ΤΙ. 

shipping his flesh and writes: "For if indeed thou sayest that the 
humanity has been substancely united to the Word who was born 
out of God, why, tell me, dost thou exceedingly insult the godly 
flesh, even indeed [by] not refusing to worship it, whereas THB 

OBLIGATION TO BE WORSHIPPED BEFITS THE DIVINE AND INEF- 
FABLE NATURE ALONE." The Greek of this passage is found on 
pages 79, 80, volume I of Chrj-stal's Ephesus, and on page 119 in 
volume VI of P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of Cyril's works, 
(Oxford, Parker, 1875), and a rendering of it into English is found 
on page 67 of his translation of 6*. Cyril of Alcxand) ia on the 
Incarnation against Nestorius . I give it here: Et μίν yap i^ ώσ^αι 

φηζ καθ" νττόστασιν Τψ Ικ Θ€ου φνντι Λόγω το ά-θρωτηνον, τ: τη^ Θεια' €ΐπ€ 
μοί ΤΓίρινβι>ίζίΐ<ΐ σάρκα ; Κ'ύτοί ττροσκννΰν avrrj μη ΤΓΐι/'αιτονμίνος, ττ/ζεποντο? 
μόντ} rfi ®ύ'ί τε κα\ άττορρτητφ φνσίΐ τον τροσκυνύσθαι ούν. 

(2). Again Cyril testifies that worship belongs to God 
alone, and that because it is given to the Word in heaven, there- 
fore He must be God, for writing on Hebrews I, 6, "And when 
He" [the Father] "bringeth in the First Brought Forth into 
the inhabited world, He saith, And let all God's angels worship 
Him," he sa3's: 

" The Word who has come out of God the Father has been 
named Sole-Born [Movoyev?;?] with reference to His" [Divine] 
"Nature, because He alone has been born out of the Sole Father. 
And He was called First Broiight Forth [Π/>ωτότ"κος] also when, 
having been made Man, He came into the inhabited world and" 
[became] "a part of it. And besides he is so worshipped by 
THE HOLY ANGELS, and that too when THE right To be wor- 
shipped BELONGS TO AND BEFITS GOD ALONE. HoW then IS 
Christ not God, seeing that He is worshipped even in heaven?" 

I quote the Greek of this last part: Πλ^ν καΧ ο^πλ irpoaKwurai 

τταρα των άγιων άγγελλων, άνακειμενου τε και ττρεττοντο? μονψ Θεω τι ν και 
ττροσκννΰσθαι δεΐν. Πώς ουν o'J Θε05 ό Χριστοί, ο και εν οί'ρανα 
•προσκννο ■ μίνοζ. 

(3). In passages quoted above Cyril says that to co-worship 
Christ's humanity with His Divinity is to change a worshipped 
Trinity, the Father, His Consubstantial Word, and His Consub- 
stantial Spirit, for a worshipped Tetrad, that is a worshipped Qua- 



Cyril and the whole Church agai7isi Man-worship. 163 

ternity, that is a worshipped Four, that is the Father, the Word, 
the Holy Spirit, and a Man: 

And (4). is to bring in the sin of Άν^ρωττολατρεία, that is 
the worship of a human being, contrary to Christ's Law in Matthew 
IV, 10, that we must worship God alone: 

And (5). is to make it a new god by worshipping it, for he 
who gives what belongs to God alone to a creature makes that 
creature a god, and all worship does belong to the Triune Jehovah 
alone: and Paul himself speaking by the Holy Ghost proves that 
the Word is God because the Father commands worship to be 
given to Him, Hebrews I; 6-14. And so Athanasius, Cyril, and 
other sound men, following Paul, have reasoned: 

(6). As we see on pages 221-223, volume I of Chrystal's 
Ephestcs, he rejects in strong language Nestorius' attempt to 
excuse his worship of it, even by saying that it was done for the 
sake of God the Word: 

And, moreover (7). Cyril both in his Shorter Epistle as 
quoted above, and 

(8). In his Longer Epistle there also quoted, again rejects 
the worship of Christ's humanity. 

And (9). in the latter he pronounces an anathema on every one 
who co-worships it even with God the Word, as one with another, 
that is the humanity with the Divinity of the Word, for he rightly 
says that the ''co" with worship implies that, and what follows 
shows that he would have all the worship to be directed to God the 
Word on the ground that He has beeii 7nade flesh (John I; 1-4, 14), 
and there are not to be two worships, one to the creature relatively 
as Nestorius asserted, creature worship, ot course, on the basis of 
the heathen excuse for the worship of their images, that it was 
done relatively only; for Nestorius said that it was done relatively 
to the Man, that is for the sake of God the Word, and another wor- 
ship, absolute, of course, and direct to God the Word, as belonging 
of right to God the Word as being prerogative to the Divinity of 
the Consubstantal Trinity. Yet Nestorius and his partisans pro- 
fessed to unite the worship to Christ's Two Natures; Nestorius, 
as on page 461, vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus, and "B," page 114, 
note id., Theodoret, id., note, pages 115, 116, Andrew of Samo- 



164 



Article VI. 



sata, id., note, pages 116-121, and, probably Eutherius of Tyana, 
id., pages 121-128, id. But if they united the worship, and 
worshipped both Natures by one act, it looks very ranch as though 
they gave absolute worship to both by it. For it seems two 
worships and not one, if they worshipped the humanity relatively 
when they worshipped God the Word absolutely. 

And surely no fair man can doubt that Cyril held that no wor- 
ship can be done to Christ's created humanity if he will but con- 
sider well and impartially all the passages of Cyril above, and all 
in note 183, pages 79-128, volume I of Chrystal's Epheszis, note 
679, pages, 332-362, and especially the summary of his utterances 
on pages 338, 339, under twenty heads. Surely a fair man can 
have no just ground for doubting that Cyril denied all worship to 
Christ's humanity as the worship of a human behig, as (Άν^ρωττολατρεία) 
forbiddeii as a crime by Scripture, as a blasphemy and a heresy, 
as a thing to shudder at, as creature worship, and as a trap to catch 
men. See more in that summary by all means. Surely the proof 
that Cyril denied all worship both relative and absolute to Christ's 
humanity is abundant from his own words and the statements of 
his Nestorian opponents. There are very few facts so well proven. 

And in all fairness it should be added that any one who will 
read notes 183, pages 79-128; 676, 677, 678, and 679, pages 331-362, 
volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, will find an abundance more of 
passages of St. Cyril against the worship of Christ's humanity, to 
which may be added still more in the Oxford translation of "S. 
Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius," though 
the translation is some times inexact, especially in translating pas- 
sages which speak of the co-worship of Christ's humanity with 
God the Word, most of all where /χετα σαρκός, etc., occur. Still 
other utterances of Cyril may be found in volumes Λ^Ι and VII of 
P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of his works. A'olume III of 
the Greek of Cyril on the Gospel of John includes also fragments 
of lost works of Cyril on the Epistles of the New Testament, and 
against Diodore and Theodore and other writings. 

An excellent condemnation of Alan- Worship will be found in 
"A Homily of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, delivered in Ephesus 
before he was arrested by the Count, and committed to soldiers to 



Cyril and the whole Church agcmst Man-worship. 165 

be kept under their guard " It is too long to quote here, but is 
found on pages 235-238, volume II of Ephesus in this set, where 
read it, and read also on pages 28, 29, another Homily of Cyril, 
and on pages 183-184 another; and on pages 317-335 an 'Έχρίαηα- 
tio7i of intportajit language 011 Man- Worship. ^^ 

I would add that I find the two following passages quoted by 
Jeremy Taylor in The Second Part of his Dissicasive from Popery^ 
Book II, section 6, page 607 of vol. VI of his " Works,'' (London, 
1849) ; I have quoted them on pages 359, 360, volume I of Ephesus 
in this set. 

Cyril of Alexandria, in his Thesaurtcs, Book II, Chapter I, 
plainly teaches that worship is prerogative to the Divine Nature 
alone, and 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: 

"But no one is ignorant that, by the Scripture, worship is 

TO BE GIVEN TO NO NATURE AT ALL, EXCEPT THAT OF God" (a). 

And again Cyril writes in the same work, 

"There is [but] one nature of the deity, which alone 

OUGHT TO BE worshipped" {b). 

The Greek is not given in Bishop Taylor's quotation, and the 
references ("a") and ("b") are to the Latin translation alone there 
cited, found in volume I of Ephesus in this set, pages 359, 360. 

I would here add the following on those passages from pages 
743-750, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus. 

Remark. On pages 359, 360, above, and in subnotes "a" and "b" 
on page 360, will be found two passages quoted by the learned 
Bishop Jeremy Taylor from St. C^'ril 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 Latin 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 Library of the Union Theological 
Seminary of New York Cit}', which I was courteously and 
kindly permitted to consult, for which I return my thanks to 



1 66 Ar.idc VI. 

its I,ibrarian, 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 : 

I translate the Latin 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 God. And that these 
things are true hear Him saying as a Jew to the vSamaritan 
woman, Ye, (says He), worship what ye know not, butwe worship 
what we know, [John IV, 221 ; [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 a^igels. 
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 worship the Lord thy God, and Him 07ily 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, never- 
theless 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 the Latin rendering 
of it and of the passage here following. 

I find the Greek for the above passage in column 1 17, tome 75 of 
Mign^' 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 section here, translated, is : 



Cyril and the whole Chtirch against Man-worship. 167 

*' That the Son is Co7isubstaniial ^\\h the Father is proved b}' the fol- 
lowing text, I go to my Father and yoiir Father^ aiid [to] viy 
God and your God,'' [John XX, 17], Then, without any 
break, comes the following: 

**Wlien the Word of God cast about Himself the form of the Man, 

and though He was /;/ the form of God ^s 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 viade 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 olir Re- 
demption]. And that He utters such expressions Economi- 
cally as Man, and so guards well both in word and deed the 
[conditions of the human] form which He put on, we shall 
see thence. For He says somewhere to the woman in Sam- 
aria, where He speaks as a Jewish person [or "under a Jew- 
ish mask," that is His body], Ye worship ye know not what; 
we worship what we knoic; though the Son [by ''Son" 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 worship Hitn, [that is God the Word, as 
Cyril often teaches]. And no such command is found in 
THE Scriptures of god regarding [worshipping] angei^s 

INDEED or any OTHER ORDER LIKE THEM. For 710 one is 

commanded to worship angels, but God alone. For it is 
written, ΤΙιοΐΐ shall worship the Lord thy God, and Him only 
shall thou serve \},1•Ά.\.'ί. IV, 10] . As therefore the worshipped 
Son [that is, God the Word] says that He worships Economi- 
cally as Man, so when He [God the Word] being God by 
Nature, calls the Father His God, He speaks again Economi- 
cally 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 saaie Substance" as the Father. 



ί68 



Article VI. 



I here contrast the Latin translation of part of the above and the 
Greek here: 



Laii?i translation. 
Nemo autem ignorat nulli 
prorsus naturae praeter quam 
Dei, adorationem a Scriptura 
contribui. 

English translation oj the above 
Latin. 
" But no one is ignorant that 
worship is given by Scripture to 
no Nature at all except that of 
God." 



Greek originul. 

Και TTcpi μχν ayyfXKwv η Ιτί.ρα<; tivos 
T/^S κητ. avTov'i τ«^εω5 ουδέν ^e'/'erat 
τοιούτο τταρα ταις 'Jetais Γραφαι?. Ου 
yap ayyiWoLS κελεύετα:' τις ττροσκν^ύν, 
άλλα μόνψ Θεώ. 

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 worship angels but 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 
Thesanrtis as in the Latin translation of volume II of his 
works, Paris, 1604, page 158, inner column, C, I find in 
tome 75 of yi\%vi€ 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 objection of followers 
of the heresiarch Eunomius; Eunomius' objection to Christ's 
Divinity there is as follows; it is prefaced by the following 
heading: Os el άντίθίσίωζ των ΈΙννομίου. Ex Objectione Euno^ 
mil is the Latin rendering in the parallel column there for 
the above heading. 

I xranslate into English. It is as follows : 

^'Eunomius, (who evidently has in mind, Christ's words in Mark X, 
18," Why callest thou vie good? there is none good but one, 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 



Cyril and the whole CInuch against Man-worship. 169 

in John I, 1 , that He is), "If He saj^s 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 
(0 Χριστός) says somewhere to a certain one. Why callcst thou 
vie goodf There is none good but 07ie, that is God.'' And when 
he said "One''' 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 " Solution of the above diffiadty."' 

" Forasmuch as the vScripture of God calls the Son Lord, thou wilt 
therefore grant that He is Lord, and that in accordance with 
the truth, or thou wilt refuse to Him that title also as thou 
dost to the rest. For if indeed thou wilt sz.y that He is not 
Lord, thou wilt hold an opinion which is contrary to the 
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 
convicted of impiety by applying [the title] 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 b}' 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] Oiie Lord [Mark XII, 29; Deut. VI, 4]; for 
the Nature of Divinity is [but] One: and That we must 
WORSHIP that nature αι,ΟΝΕ, hear again [the following 
words of Christ] , Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, a7id 
Him only shall thoti serve ' ' [Matt, IV, 10]. 

I have rendered /Αολλον ί/ above by ''contrary to" as making a Greek 
idiom clearer to the English speaking reader. In Liddell 
and Scott's Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1 869, under Μόλα we read, 
'^μάλλον yj . . . is often followed by ov (where ού seems 
redundant,) because in all comparisons the very notion of 
preference also implies rejection or denial.'''' But if any man 
prefers ^Wather than God by Nature" or "m prefereyice to 
God by Nature;" the sense will not be widely different, for 
it will mean that the Eunomian prefers to worship his 



lyo Article VI. 

mere created Christ in preference to the Orthodox uncreated 
Logos who is God by Nature. 

To conclude on this passage; Cyril in it teaches plainly again, 

1. That all religious bowing, and, by parity of reasoning, every 
other act of religious worship, is prerogative TO ThB 
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, vol. 1, Ephesns, 
in both which he denies worship to Christ's humanit}', 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 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 of Alexandria in his Thesauriis, Assertion X, col. 129 

of tome 75, Migne's Patrologia Graeca, writes: 

I translate the Greek: 

"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 words, Thoic shalt bow to the Lord thy God^^ [Matt. 
IV, 10], "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.] "com- 
mands the angels to bow to the Son, as we see in the 
words; And when He bring eth in the First Brought Forth 
itito the inhabited world, He saith, Aiid let all God' s angels 
bow to Him. The bo wed-to Son is therefore God. How 
then will there be [but] One Divinity, if, as you say, He 
is not of the same substance as the Father?" 

Here again Cyril argues that inasmuch as religious bowing is 



Cyril ayid the whole Church agauist Man-worship. 171 

prerogative 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 context, where the inspired Apostle Paul 
is proving, in effect, that the Son, that is the Word evi- 
dently, is no creature, no, not even a high creature like 
an angel, but is ''Character o/" the Father's ''Substance,'' 
is worshipped by bowing, and is called God; in other 
words he is showing by all those facts that He is Gbd. 
Hence we find Athanasius arguing from ^'Character of 
His Substance," Heb. I, 3, that the Word must be God; 
see the Greek of pages 325, 494, of the Oxford translation 
of Athanasius' Treatises against Arianisni, as examples, 
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. Epipha- 
nius, 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 volume I of Nicaea in this set. See in 
the Oxford translation of Cyril of Alexajidria 07i tJie bicar- 
naiion 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, volume VI, under those texts in Wi^ Index Locorurn. 
. . . Sctipturae, and in volume VII, part I, pages 98-106, 
193, 240, 241, 270, and in the Index Locorum . . . Scrip- 
iurae. In his Anathema VIII St. Cyril approved by Ephe- 
sus, 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 crea- 
ture, for Christ's humanity is the highest and noblest of 
all created things. And the Third Ecumenical Synod 
approved the doctrine that every act of worship is preroga- 
tive to God; see Man Worship, Worship, etc., in the General 
Index in volume I of Ephesiis in this set: 
But, alas! in the Middle Ages men were given to the relative wor- 



172 Article Υ I. 

ship of the Virgin Mary, martyrs, other saints, and alleged 
saints, crosses, relics, pictures, and graven images, and they 
could no longer argue that all acts of religious worship are 
prerogative 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 mis- 
led to the everlasting fires of hell. So God's Word infallibly 
teaches, and the Holy Ghost led the Third Ecumenical 
Synod to formulate it in efEect as the doctrine of the whole 
church, and to depose Nestorius for denying it and for his 
relative worship of creatures. 
In all those passages Cyril surely shows that he refuses worship 

to any thing in Christ except His Diviaity. 

In that he follows his teacher, the great Athanasius, who in 

sections 3 and 6 of his Epistle to Adelphius v;r{tes what is plainly 

against the worship of Christ's humanity or any thing but God. 
At the end of section 6 of it he writes : 

"And let them [that is the heretics just mentioned by him] know 
that when we bow to the Lord in flesh, ue do not bow to a 
creattire^ but to the Creator Who has put on the created body, as 
we have said before.''^ 

In section 3, he teaches what is also plainly against Man-Worship 
(άν^ρο)πολατ,^ε:'α, St. Cyril calls it), as follows : 

' ' Wk do not worship a creature — God forbid ! For such an 
error as that belongs to the heathen and to the 
Arians. But we worship the Lord of the creation Who has put 
on flesh, that is the Word of God." See the note on page 350 
vol. 1, Eph., and the context, and pages 98-101, where more 
matter to the same efEect is found in the note. Particularly 
pertinent there is Athanasius' commendation of the leper be- 
cause in his worship of Christ ''he was worshippiiig [not 
Christ's humanity, but] the Creator of the Uiiiverse as in a 
created temple , [that is in His body] and he was made clean." 

u, ... For THE CREATURE DOES NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE. 
NOR. ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THE CREATURE DECLINING 



Cyril aiid the whole Church against Man-worship. 173 

TO WORSHIP ITS LoRD BECAUSE OP THE flesh" [wbich he 
wore], etc. Here is worship of God the Word alone, not at 
all of the humanity which he wore. This is clear from the 
whole passage. See it more fully on pages 91-101, note, 
volume I of Ephcsus. Towards the end of this Epistle 
Athanasius again professes that he worships God the Word 
as in flesh. See there. He terms this doctrine on that 
' 'the faith of the Catholic Church.'' He urges the Ariomaniacs, 
as he 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 Universal Church 
knows the Word of God to be Creator and Maker of all things, 
and [because] we know that In the begiyining was the Word 
and the Word was with God [John I, 1] , and we worship 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." 
We come Π, to the question, of vast importance, as it affects 
the only permitted object of Chnstian Worship, 

Did the Third Ecumenical Council, and the Fifth, its comple- 
ment, its filling out, so to speak; and the Fourth Synod and the 
Sixth accept St. Cyril's teaching that God alone, the Triune Jeho- 
vah, is the sole object of New Testament worship, and that no wor- 
ship can be given to Christ's created humanity? 

To this we reply that in this matter we prefer to let those 
great Councils of the whole Church answer for themselves. They 
speak as follows: (I give the pages in volume I of Chrystal's 
Ephesus, where the passages on that topic are found) : 



174 Artkle VI. 

(1). The Third approved by vote the Shorter Epistle of Cyril 
to Nestorius, and, of course, the passage cited above from it which 
refuses worship to his humanity: Chrystal's translation of Ephe- 
sus, pages 79-82: the approval of the Epistle b}' the Council is 
found on pages 129-154. They constitute part of Act I. See all 
the notes in those places. 

(2). The Third Council condemned by vote Nestorius' 
Epistle to Cyril because it denied the Incarnation of God the 
Word, and the doctrine of Economic Appropriation, which guards 
against worshipping Christ's humanity. Compare Passage 13, 
approved by Cyril on pages 237-240, volume I of Chrystal's iV/m^a. 
That Epistle is in volume I of Ephesus in this set, pages 154-166, 
and its condemnation on pages 166-178, id.; see also the notes 
there. 

(3). The Third Council of the w^hole Church, East and 
West, approved St. CyriT's Long Epistle to Nestorius which rejects 
and condemns all worship to Christ's humanity and, of course, 
much more (a fortiori) all worship to any other creature, and all 
worship to any thing in the Universe but Almighty God, The 
Epistle is found id., pages 204-358, and the parts against worship 
to Christ's humanity are found on pages 221-223; and on pages 
231-240 is found the part against Cannibalism on the Eucharist, 
and impliedly against the real substance presence of Christ's flesh 
and blood there, and, of course, against the Nestorian worship of 
it there, for, as Cyril and the Church teach, the body and blood 
not being substancely present there are not to be worshipped 
there at all, and furthermore, as they teach elsewhere in these 
passages, in accordance with Matthew IV, 10, being parts of 
Christ's created humanity and so not God, but creatures, they can 
not be worshipped at all anywhere. 

And the famous Anathema VIII of Cyril is found on pages 
331, 332, which, as we have seen, anathematizes every one who 
co-worships Christ's humanity with His Divinity. 

And on those Epistles should be read in that volume, 
note 183, pages 79-128, and note 679, pages 332-362. Compare 
especially on God the Word's mediatorship and his present 
intercession above by his humanity, note 688, pages 363-406. 



Cyril and the whole Church agamst Man-worship. 175 

Compare also the other notes in those places, and Chrystal's 
Nicaea, volume I, pages 237-240, and see Cyril's Anathema X, 
in volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus, text of pages 339-346, and the 
notes to it, 682-688 on pages 363-406, id. 

(4). The one, holy, universal and apostolic Church condemned 
the following "Blasphemies" as they are termed in the Covmcil 
(page 449, volume I of Chrystal's Ephesns'), and on the basis of 
them and for them, and for Nestorius' utterances at Ephesus of the 
same sort, deposed him: the Third Ecumenical Synod begins by 
condemning the first four Blasphemies which deny the Incarnation 
and so make Christ a mere Man, and hence all worship of him 
to be what St. Cyril calls it, Άν^ρωπολατρεια, that is the worship of a 
human being, contrary to Christ's Law in Matthew IV, 10. 

Then come the condemned utterances of Nestorius for the 
worship of that human being, which are justly termed blasphemies 
by the Council, which deposed him for them. See in proof 
Chrystal's Ephesus, volume I, pages 449, 486, 488, 504, 

(a). Blasphemy 5, where Nestorius calls Christ's humanity, 
a mere creature, God, relatively, pages 458, 459. By all means see 
the notes there, and also those on each of the Blasphemies here 
following: 

(b). Blasphemy 6, where he calls Christ's humanity Ci?i/ again, 
pages 459, 460, and the notes there. That is an act of worship 
and is anathematized in Anathema VIII in Cyril's Long Epistle to 
N'estorius which is approved b}' Ephesus and the three Synods 
of the whole Church after it: see in proof, note 520, pages 
204-208, id. 

(c). Blasphemy 7 , where he commits the same sin again, page 
460, and the notes there. 

(d). Blasphemy 8, where Nestorius very clearly and very 
plainly confesses his relative worship of Christ's humanity, which, 
as is shown in note 949, pages 461-463, has been condemned thir- 
teen times by the Universal Church: see the other notes there. 

(e). Blasphemy 9, where Nestorius ascribes the same ''dig7iity 
of Sonshif ' to God the Word and the mere creature, the Man 
''conjoined to Him,'' to use his Nestorian substitute for the Incar- 
nation, id., pages 462-464. 



176 Ariide VI. 

(f). Blasphemy 10, where he plainly co-worships both natures 
of Christ together. For he writes: 

"Let us worship the Man co-bowed to" [that is ''co-wor- 
shipped'''] "with the Almighty God in the divine conjoinment;" 
Greek σίβωμ.ΐ.ν τον rrj θν.'ί συναφει'/ τω παντοκράτορί Θεώ σνμτΓροσκννονμ€νον 
άνθ,οωπο^. See the notes there. 

(g). Blasphemy 14. Here again Nestorius plainly proclaims 
his Man Worship, for he writes of Christ's humanity: 

"This is He who endured the three days' death, and / 
worship him together xviih the Divitiity'' [of the Word] 'Hnasmiich 
as he is a co-worker with the divine authority ;'' Greek, προσκννω δέ 
<ri)i' TM θίότητι τοντο•' ώζ τΓς θί,ίας avvepyov ανθεντίαζ. 

And further on in the same Blasphemy, he asserts the relative 
worship of co-calling the Man taken God with God the Word, a 
thing anathematized by Cyril in his Anathema VIH, as we have 
seen above. For after admitting that Christ's humanity can not 
be called God for its own sake, and that if he and his partisans 
had so named it, he and thej' would have been ''plainly servers 
[that is "worshippers"] op a man," he goes on to argue that 
to apply that term God relatively to that man is right, for he 
says: 

'' But precisely because god is in the Man taken, the Man taken is 
co-called god" [with God the Word] ''from Hint" [God the Word] 
"who has taken him, inasnnich as that Man is covjoi7ied to God the 
Word who has taken him,'' the same volume, pages 466, 467, and 
the notes there. 

(h). Blasphemy 15. This blasphemy asserts that form of wor- 
ship and religious service which consists in glorifying a man, a 
creature, that is Christ's humanity at the right hand of the 
Father, which is cursed by Cyril in his Vlllth Anathema, in his 
Long Epistle to Nestorius which is approved by the Third Synod 
of the whole Church. 

I quote: 

"God the Word was made jiesn, ajid iaber7iacled amo?ig us^* 
[John I, 14] "The Father made the humanity taken to sit down 
with Himself; for He said, The Lord said unto viy Lord, Sit thou 
at my right hand. 



Cyril a7id the whole Church agcmst Man-xvorship. 177 



The Spirit came down and co-celebrated the glory of the Man 
takeyi; for it says, ''When the Spirit of Truth is come. He shall 
glorify vie,'' [John XVI, 13, 14]. See page 467-469, aud the notes 
there, aud page 644, Nestorius' Heresy 7. The Spirit glorified in 
that high sense of Divinity God the Word, and no creature, not 
even Christ's humanity. 

(i). Blasphemy 16. In this Nestorius denies that God the 
Word is our High Priest, but a mere Man, His humanity, is. 
Hence to address Christ as such is to invoke a mere creature, and 
inasmuch as invocation is an act of worship, it would be an act of 
religious service to a creature contrary to Cyril's favorite texts, 
Matthew IV, 10, and Isaiah XLH, 8. Indeed by giving that 
creature an act of worship it would make him a new god, and to 
worship α j//-a;/^^ ;fi?u? contrary, as Cyril again and again writes, 
to God's prohibition of that sin in Psalm LXXX, 9, Septuagint, 
which is Psalm Ι,ΧΧΧΙ, 9, in the English Version. 

Cyril, on the contrary, with his Elijah-like jealousy for the 
worship of God alone and to shun all creature worship, would 
make the Word the sole High Priest who, however, does the 
human things, such as prayer, atonement by dying for us, and the 
other human things by his humanity. For, as Cyril teaches else- 
where, as God He can be prayed to, and as Man he pra\s. He 
worships as Man, but is worshipped as God; see in proof note 
on page 127, volume I of Chryslal's Ephesus. And see the texts 
above mentioned in the Scripture Indexes in volume I of Nicaca 
and volume I of Ephesus, and, in the former, pages 217-255. 
See also in the latter volume, in the General Index under that 
Anathema X, pages 593-596, and under Nestorius' Heresy 6th 
on pages 643, 644, and compare his Heresies 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, 
in the context there. See also under Christ, pages 577-581, and 
under Cyril of Alexandria, pages 586-601. 

(j). Blasphemy 17. Here again Nestorius makes a mere 
creature, Christ's humanity, our High Priest, the effect of which 
would be to lead men to invoke, that is worship a creature 
when they ask Christ to pray to the Father for us. Besides, 
he commits the absurdity of making that mere perfect man 
offer a sacrifice for himself the sinless. See id., page 471, and 



iy8 Article VI. 

the notes on that Blasphemy there. Ancient Christian writers 
show that God the Word our Mediator and High Priest was 
asked by them to present their prayers to the Father: see on 
that, note 688, pages 336-406, volume I of Ephesus in this set, 
especially pages 363-383, and indeed all of it. 

(k). Blasphemy 18. This Blasphemy asserts the following 
errors: 

(1). a real presence of the substances of Christ's flesh and 
blood in the Eucharist, that is the Tha7iksgivhig , as Eucharist 
means: 

and (2). inasmuch as Nestorius, in accordance with his One 
Nature Consubstantiation heresy, held that Christ's humanity is to 
be worshipped, he would worship the humanity there, 

and (3). the Cannibalism of eating and drinking Christ's flesh 
and blood, aye, his whole humanity there. 

The Third Ecumenical Synod in condemning that Blasphemy, 
condemned, of course, all those blasphemies contained in it. 

Blasphemy 18 is found on pages 472-474, vol. I oi Ephesus in 
this Set, where the notes on it should also be read. 

(1). Blasphemy 19. The poison of this is that it denies 
Cyril's and the Universal Church's doctrine of Ecoiioviic Appro- 
priation, which guards against the worship of Christ's humanity. 
See it and the notes on it on pages 475-478, volume I of Chrj-stal's 
Ephesus. Several of Nestorius' Ecumenically condemned XX 
''Blasphemies'^ reject this Orthodox doctrine. See them, id., pages 
449-480, and note "F," pages 529-551 . 

And see also on all those XX Blasphemies of Nestorius, Note 
"F," pages 529-551, volume I of Ephesus. Most of Nestorius' XX 
Blasphemies are refuted in the places pointed out in that note 
in Cj'ril's Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestoritis^ 
which is therefore a very valuable work to the orthodox theologian. 
But P. E. Pusey's translation of it in his work "►S". Cyril of 
Alexayidria 07i the Incarnation, agai7ist Nestorius, ^^ is sometimes 
utterly wrong and misleading on Man-Worship. 

There are several more of those XX Blasphemies which favor 
the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, but I have been 
content to cite only 8 of the clearest above. 



Cyril ajid the whole Church against Man-worship. 179 



Here, plainly, Blasphemies 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, eight, at 
least, teach worship to Christ's humanity, and the rest are parts 
of the same error. 

And on the basis of them the ^'one, holy, universal and 
apostolic Church,'' the Christ-authorized teacher of men, ''the pillar 
and ground of the truth'' (225), which we must by his law ''hear'" or 
be accounted "as the heathc7i vian and the ptiblican'" (226), has, 
once for all, condemned that creature worship by deposing 
Nestorius for it, and also all Bishops and clerics who hold to it, 
and by anathematizing and excommunicating every laic who holds 
to it. That smites all the Bishops, clerics and laics of Rome, all 
those of the Greek church, those of the Monophysites and those of 
the Nestorians, and all other creature worshippers. 

The deposition is on pages 486-504 of volume I of Chrystal's 
Ephesus, and the Canons are on pages 21-33, volume III of 
Chrystal's translation of Ephesus. 

On pages 486-488, they show that they were moved to depose 
him by the "Blaspiikmiks" aforesaid, including, of course, those 
which assert the worship of Christ's humanity. For they write 
that after Nestorius had refused their summonses to answer 
regarding them, they had "necessarily proceeded to the examination 
of the IMPIETIES cojnmitted by him''; and that they had "found 
out in regard to him, both from his letters and writings, and from 
the things said by him in this very metropolis [Ephesus,] and 
testified to, in addition, that he thinks and preaches impiously," 
and therefore they depose him in the following words : 

' 'Therefore our Lord Jesus Anointed who has been blasphemed 
by him" [in his XX Blasphemies, of course, the eight specified 
above, namely 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15, which teach worship to 
Christ's humanity, among them], "has decreed, through the 
present most holy Synod, that the same Nestorius is an alien from 
the Episcopal dignity and from every priestly assembly." 

Then follow the signatures of St. Cyril of Alexandria and the 
rest of the Bishops of the Council. After their names comes the 

Note 225.— 1 Tim. Ill, 15. 

Note 226.— Matthew XVIII, 15-19. 



1 8ο Article VI. 

statement in this Act I of the Third Syncd of the whole Church, 
pages 503, 504, vohime I of Chrystal's Ephesus. 

"And the rest of the Bishops who came to the Holy Synod 
after those" [above named] "had subscribed the deposition of 
Nestorius, subscribed the foregoing Sentence. So the Bishops who 
deposed Nestor ius 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, 

The Sente7ice of Deposition sejit to him on the day after his 
deposition : 

The Holy Synod gathered hy God's grace and the decree of our 
most religious and Christ-loving Emperors in the metropolis of the 
Ephesians, sendeth" [what here followeth] "to Nestorius, a new 
fudas. 

Know, that thou thyself, on accotuit of Thy blasphh:\ious 
PREACHINGS and thy disobedience to the canons" [which required 
him to eome before the Sj^nod and to give an account, among 
other things, of his worship of a human being, Christ's humanit}] 
"wast deposed by the holy Sj'nod, in accordance with the behests 
of the Church Canons, on the twentj^-second day 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." 

(5). The same Third Council of the Christian world 
condemned the depraved creature-worshipping creed of Theodore, 
and deposed every Bishop and every cleric, and anathematized 
every laic who either holds or teaches its errors, the worship of a 
human being among them, of course, that is, of Christ's humanity. 
That creature-worship is found on pages 205-208, volume II of 
Ephesiis in this set, and the Sentence, now Canon λ^ΙΙ of Ephesus y 
on pages 222-225, and the signatures of Cyril of Alexandria and the 
rest of the Bishops to it on pages 225-234 of it. 

(6). That Man-worshipping Creed was condemned again by 
the Fourth Ecumenical Sj^nod held at Chalcedon, A. D. 451, in its 
First Session. So the Emperor Justinian states. So Hefele writes 
in note 1, page 301, volume IV of Clark's English translation of 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. i8i 

his History of the Councils of tJie Chtirch (Ediuburgh, Clarks, 1895). 
Hefele there shows that on that matter he was correcting an error 
of the Jesuit Gamier. For on pages 300, 301, he first quotes the 
Emperor Justinian's letter to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, as 
follows : 

"We exhort you to direct your attention to the impious 
writings of Theodore and especially to his Jewish Creed which zvas 
condemned at Ephcsus and Chalcedon. You will thence see that he 
and his heresies have since been condemned, and that therefore his 
name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the church 
of Mopsuestia." 

On that statement, Hefele in the note aforesaid writes : 

"As at Chalcedon, the Acts of the Third Synod were read 
again, and (Sess. I.) among them the censure of that Creed, the 
Emperor could say that the Council of Chalcedon had also 
condemned it. We think it necessary to remark this, in opposition 
to Gamier (1. c. p. 544)." 

Moreover, in its Definition the Fourth Council of the whole 
Church approves all the work of the Third, including, of course, 
its condemnation of the worship of Christ's humanity. See it in 
proof in Hammond's Cations of the Chjirch (page 95, Sparks' New 
York edition, 1844, and the Greek in the Councils). 

We have seen how clearly the Universal Church in its Third 
Ecumenical Council condemns any and all worship of Christ's 
humanity, even when Nestorius and his fellow-heretics tried to 
excuse it by the pagan plea that it was only relative. 

And we have seen how the Fourth Ecumenical Comicil ratified 
again all the work of the Third. 

Now let us glance briefly at the work of its Fifth great Coun- 
cil on those matters: 

(7), The Fifth Ecumenical Synod, II. Constantinople, A. D. 
553. 

(A), ratified again all the work of the four World-Synods 
before itself, and, of course, 

(B). among other things the condemnation of Theodore's Creed 
by the Third and the Fourth. And when it was read, Hefele tells 



1 82 Article VI. 

US (pages 306, 307 of the same volume) the assembled Bishops 
exclaimed: 

"This Creed (Theodore's) Satan has made. Anathema to 
him who made this creed! The first Synod of Ephesus anathe- 
matized this Creed with its author. We know only one Creed, 
that of Nicaea: the other three Synods have also handed this 
down: in this Creed we were baptized and baptize others. 
Anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia! He has rejected the Gos- 
pels, insulted the Incarnation of God (dispeiisatio, «Ικονομία, cf. 
Suicer, Thesaur. s. v.). Anathema to all who do not anathematize 
him! His defenders are Jews," [because, like the Jews, they deny 
the Inflesh of God the Word] "his adherents heathens" [because, 
like the heathens, they worship a creature] . * 'Many years to the 
Emperor. . . . We all anathematize Theodore and his writings. 

The Synod hereupon declared: The multitude of blasphemies 
read out, which Theodore has spit out against our great God and 
Saviour, essentially against his own soul, justifies his condemna- 
tion." 

(C). The same Fifth Synod, in its Sentence or Definition, 
receives the four Synods before it, Ephesus, of course, which is 
expressl}' named, among them, and all its condemnations of Man- 
Worship (άνθρωπολατρεία), See in proof Havimoud o?i the €αηο?2$^ 
page 129, (N. Y. edition of Sparks, A. D. 1844). And see the 
Greek of this and all the other citations of the Six Ecumenical 
Synods. 

And here I quote what I have written before on pages 109- 
112 of volume I of Ephesus in this set: 

(D). The Defi7iitio7i of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, held at 
Constantinople, A. D. ^jj, part before its XIV. Anathemas. 

That part of the Definition after stating that the Third Ecu- 
menical Council in condemning Nestorius for his errors, had by 
necessary implication condemned every one like Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, whether living or dead, who held the same errors, then 
proceeds: 

* 'For it was a consequence of once condemning even one per- 
son for his so profane vain sayings, that we should advance not 
only against that one, but, as I may say, against every heresy or 



Cyril and the whole Church against Maii-worship. 183 

cahimny of theirs^ which they have made against The; pious dog- 
mas OF THE Church, by worshipping two Sons, and by dividing 
the undivided [Two Natures of Christ] , and by introducing THE 
CRIME OF 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 hold view I on pages 103-106, volume I of 
Ephcsus in this set, the view that God the Word alone in Christ is 
to be worshipped, would explain the above as follows: 

B)^ ^^worshipping iico Sons," is meant the worship of what is 
forbidden in Anathema IX, put forth by this Fifth Council below, 
that is the Nestoriau worship of Christ "/w tzco 7iaiurcs;'" 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 ^'dividi?ig 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 actual 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 ''ifiiroducing the crime of Alan-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-Worship; that is Creature-Worship, 
that is, the worship of a creature contrary to Christ's law in Matt. 
IV, 10, ''Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him ονι,υ 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, 11, 
where all are to bow ' 'in the name' ' (ev τω ονόμχιτΐ) of Jesus, or accord- 
iug to our translation, "at" his name. For every knee is to bow 
atid every tongue is to coyifess 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, includ- 
ing verses 9, 10 and 1 1, is meant as the one who was "in the form 



1 84 Article VI. 

of God^' before His Inflesh, and who in that form ''thought it not 
robbery to be eqtial 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 XLH, 8, and the Septuagint of Psalm LXXX., 9, (in 
our Version LXXXI, 9), which reads: ^^ There shall be no nezv God 
in thee; neither shall thou worship 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. Athanasius as quoted in note 173, pages 
75 and 76, volume I of Ephesus. 

(E). A?iathema IX, towards the end of the Deft?iiiion of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council^ A. D.^^j: 

"If any one says that the Anointed One {τον Χριστόν), 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 af the fiesh or to the 
mingling of the Divinity and of the humanitj^ asserts the mon- 
strosity of but one Nature, that is, of One Substance of the Things 
which have come together, and so worships the Anointed One 
[τον Χρίστόν] ; but does not [on the contrat)^] worship with [bui] 
one worship [that is with divine and absolute worship] God the 
Word, infleshed within [or ^^ in the midst of'"] His own flesh, as 
the Church of God has received from the beginning, let such a 
man be anathema." 

Those who hold to view I on pages 103 to 107 volume I of 
Ephesus would say as follows; The o?ie worship here means 
what is divine; that is, what belongs to God the Word. 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 on pages 98-1 01 vol. I of Ephesus. 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 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 185 

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 com- 
mon, as a generic term for every act of worship. 

(F). The Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema XII 
anathematizes Theodore of Alopsuestia for his relative-worship of 
Christ's Humanity, and all who defend him in that error. Theo- 
dore, 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 
Person in the same way that the Emperor' s image is bowed to for the 
sake of the Emperor'^ (και κατ' Ισότητα βασιλικής etKovos, eis πρόσωπον του 
Θεοΰ Λόγου προσκννύσθαϊ). 

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 XII 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 (τόι/Χρίστόν) 
is another who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the 
desires of the flesh, and that little by little he separated himself 
from the more 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 
dipping'^^ He received the grace of the Holy Spirit and was 
deemed worthy of adoption, and is To be bowed TO \προσκννύσθα.ι, 
that is, "is to be worshipped"] for the sake op God the 
Word's Person in the same way that an E-mperor's image is 
FOR the sake of the Emperor's person, and that after his resur- 
rection, he was made blameless in his thoughts and entirely sin- 
less. . . . 

"If any one therefore defends the aforesaid most impious 
Theodore, and his impious writings, in which he poured forth the 
above mentioned and numberless 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 



1 86 Article VI. 

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 sentiments, or who at anj^ 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 anathema- 
tized, and only the other kind of worship, is allowed and approved 
and required, that is, the absohite, all of which is prerogative to 
God alone, and so may not be given to any animate creature or to 
any mere inanimate thing. 

(G). And we must not fail to mention the remainder of the 
decisions of the 1 4 Anathemas of the Fifth Synod against the Nes- 
torians' errors, including, of course, their Man-Worship, and 
their opposition to the XII Anathemas of Cyril, which pointedly 
condemn their Man-Worship, and which were approved by Ephe- 
sus. Indeed, our limits here demand that we confine ourselves 
mainly to these last two points. Anathemas IX and XII are 
treated of above. And all those Anathemas, as they bear upon 
our subject, are treated of in volume I of Epheszis. See Index II 
in it, under Cyril of Alexa7id?ia,-p?igQS 586-601, especially pages 
587-597. These Chapters, as they are also called, are found in the 
same volume, pages 314-358. They should be read with the notes 
on them there and the whole Long Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius 
there of which they form the summary and conclusion. 

In Anathema I the Universal Church anathematizes every one 
who does not worship the *'co7isubstantial Trinity,''^ 'O?ie Nature,'' 
' O7ie Substance ,' ' and "o7ie Diviiiity'^ in three Beings, that is Per- 
sons; but says not a word in favor of worshipping Christ's human- 
ity, which is not of the same substance as the Consubstantial 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 187 

Trinity, that is not of its 07ie Nature and one Substajice and 07ie 
Divinity. That creature, by Matthew IV, 10, enforced by the 
Church on all by Anathema VIII of Cyril and Ephesus and by 
Anathema IX of this Council, is not to be worshipped. For all 
worship is prerogative to the Triune and Consubstantial Jehovah. 

In Anathema IV the Universal Church condemns those heretics, 
the Nestorians, ' 'who pretend to acknowledge one Person and one 
Son and one Christ" "merely in name, and honor, znadigriity and 
worship'* {227), and just before, in the same Anathema, curses the 
same heretics for making a union between God the Word, and a 
creature, his humanity," according to . . , dignity, ox equality of 
honor or authority or relation, . . . or power," as though it were not 
blasphemy to ascribe equality of honor or authority . . . or power' ^ 
to a creature with God (228). And the Nestorian theory of a union 
by relation was associated with their doctrine of relative worship, 
which they had borrowed from the pagans (229), 

And Anathema V curses them for asserting of the two Natures 
of Christ that they form "one Person according to dignity, honor 
and worship, as Theodore and Nestorius have madly written" 
(230), that is that the created humanity of the Redeemer has the 
same ''dignity, honor, and worship" as God the uncreated Word ! ! ! 
But for a fuller account of the XIV Anathemas I must refer 
the scholarly reader to the account of their contents under Cyril 
of Alexandria on pages 586-601, volume I of Ephesus in this set. 
I must not, however, omit to mention that Anathema IX, and this 
is very important, anathematizes every one who worships Christ 
Ή71 two Natures" (231), that is, of course, his humanity with his 

Note 227.— Compare Hammond's Canons of the Church, page 182, N. Y. edition, Sparks, 
of 184*. 

KOTE 228.— Id., page 132. 

Note 229.— Ibid. See also vol. I of Ephesus in this set, Index II, under Relative Worship. 

Note 230. — Hammond's Canons, page 135. 

Note 231, —Id., page 135. The Greek of Anathema IX of the Fifth Ecumenical vSynod is in 
the third edition of Hahns Bibliothek der Symbole, (dritte, vielfach veraenderte und ver- 
mehrte Auflage, page 170, Breslau, Morgenstern, 189T): E? τις τϊροσκννεϊσθαί εν δυσΐ φίσεσί 
Τιέγει top Χριστόν, ίς ον όνο προσκνι•>/σείς εισάγονται, ιδία τφ θεω Λό;•ω καϊ Ιδία tu 
άνβρώτνω η εΐ τις έτϊΐ αναιρέσει της σαρκυς ή ί-τι συγχύσει της θεότητας και της ανθρωπό- 
τητας, η μίαν φνσιν ήγουν ούσίαν τώι> σννελθόντων τβρατενόμενος, οντω προσκυνεί τον 
Χριστόν, αλλ' ονχΐ μια προσκυνήσει τόν θευν Αόγον σαρκωβέντα μετά της Ίόίας αυτού 



1 88 Article VI. 

Divinity; and that Anathema XI, following the type of Paul's in- 
spired language in Galatians I; 8, 9, curses some creature wor- 
shippers and among them "Ncstoritis'^ and his "impio7is writingSy 
and ail other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized 
by the four before-mentioned holy Councils," [including Ephesus, 
the Third among them, of course] "and those also who have 
thought or do think like the before mentioned heretics, and have 
continued or do continue in their wickedness till their death" (232). 

Anathema XIII curses "any one" who "defends the impious 
writings of Theodoret, which he published against the right faith 
and against the First holy Synod of Kphesus, and against the 
holy Cyril and his Twelve Chapters, and all that he wrote in favor 
of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, defending them and their 
impiety," etc. (233). 

Anathema XIV curses "a7iy 07ie'' who "defends the Epistle 
which Ibas is said to have written to Mari? the Persian heretic, 
which . . . accuses the holy Cyril, who preached the right faith, 
of being a heretic, and writing like the impious Apollinarius; 
and blames the fir^t holy Synod of Ephesus" [that is the Third 
Ecumenical in A. D. 431] "as if it had deposed Nestorius without 
examination or inquiry: and the same Jiipious Epistle calls the 
Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impious and contrary to the 
right faith" [the Vlllth, of course, among them, which anathe- 
matizes the co-worship ^f Christ's humanity with his Divinity], 
"and defends Theodore and Nestorius, and their impious doctrines 
and writings." (234) And then it adds: "If any one, therefore, de- 
fends the said impious Epistle, and does not anathematize it and its 
defenders, and those who say that it is sound, or any part of it, 
and those who have written or do write in defence of it, or of the 
impieties which are contained in it, and dare to defend it, or the im- 
pieties which are contained in it, by the name of the holy Fathers, 

οαρκος ττρηακννεΐ, καθάπερ i/ του Otov ίκκ?.ησία παρέΤΜ,βεν }ξ άρχτ/ς' ό τοιούτος πΐ'άθΐΐιη Ιστω, 
The English traiislatiou is found on pages 110,111, volume I of Ephesus in this set, and in 
this volnnie just above on page 1S4. 

NoTii •Ά)ί.— Halm's Bibliuthrk cier Symbole, page 170. See also the English translation, as 
in Hammond's Canons of the Climch, page 137. 

Note 233. — Hammond's Canons of the Church, page 137. See the Greek in Jiahn's Biblio• 
thek der Symbole, page 171. 

Note 234.— Ibid. 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 189 

or of the holy Council of Chalcedon, and continue in that con- 
duct till their death, let such a man be anathema" (235). 

And then, without any break, come the following further 
penalties: 

"We then, having thus rightly confessed those things which 
have been delivered to us, as well by ihe Holy vScriptures as by the 
doctrine of the holy Fathers, and the definitions of the one and 
same faith of the before-mentioned four holy Councils, and hav- 
ing pronounced a condemnation against the heretics and their 
impiety, and also against those who have defended or do defend 
the three impious Chapters (236), and have persisted or do per- 
sist in their error," [do further decree that] "if any person shall 
attempt to deliver, or teach, or write, contrary to this which 
we have piously settled, if he be a Bishop, or any of the clergy, 
he shall be deprived of his episcopate or clericate, as doing 
things alien to Priests and the ecclesiastical ofTice; but if he be 
a monk or a laic, he shall be anathematized" (237). 

(8). The Sixth Ecumenical Council, III Constantinople, 
A. D. 680, in its Definition oj Faith, approved the aforesaid 
condemnations by the three ICcumenical Synods, Ephesus, Chal- 
cedon and II Constantinople, ol all worship of Christ's human- 
ity, and all their other decisions: see in proof Havivwnd on the 
Cations, page 142, (N. Y., 1844), and the Greek in the Concilia. 

And now, to sum up again: 

I. As to Cyril's teachitigs on the worship of Christ's human- 
ity a7id 

II. As to THE DECISIONS of the ONE, HOLY, UNIVERSAL AND 
APOSTOLIC Chukcii on that same creature worship. 

And I. As to CyriV s teachings 07i the worship of ChrisC s 
huma7iity. 

On that I have treated more fully in note 183, pages 79- 

NoTH 235. — Hayimond's Canons of the Church, page 137: the Greek is in Hahn's Bibliothek 
der Synibole. page 172. 

236.— That i.s, as told in the Definition of the Council, "the impion."? Theodore of Mop- 
suestia, with hi.s execrable writings., and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and 
the impious letter which is said to be of Ibas:" see Hammond's Canons of the Church, 
page 180. 

Note 337.— See as in the Concilia, and in Uammond's Canons of the Church, page 188, 



I go Article VI. 

128, volume I of Ephesus, and in note •679, pages 332-362, and 
against the Nestorian pagan excuse and dodge of relative wor- 
ship for it in note 949, page 461 of the same volume. 

And in note 606, pages 240-313, I have shown that 
neither the Orthodox Cyril nor the heresiarch Nestorius 
believed in any real snbstance presence of Christ's Divinity in 
the Eucharist, and that Cyril denied also any real substance 
presence of his humanity there, but that Nestorius did believe 
it, and worshipped it and the unchanged bread and wine, that, 
in other words, he held to but One Nature Consubstantiation 
there, and that he also held that Christ's humanity is eaten 
there, and that Cyril branded the first error as the worship of 
a htnnan being (άνθρωττολατρεία), and the second as Can7iibalism 
(^ανθρωποφαγία) , and that for both those errors and for bis denial 
of the Incarnation Nestorius was deposed from the ministry and 
expelled from his see. Cyril, of course, held none of those three 
errors. 

But to proceed further as to Cyril's teaching agaiyist the wor- 
ship of Ch^'isfs h2imanity. 

From the citations above we are certainly justified in 
saying that 

(A). Beyond all doubt Cyril, on the basis of Christ's words and 
command in Matthew IV, 10, teaches that Christ's humanity can 
not be worshipped, and that furthermore all religious service is 
prerogative to the Triune God alone and, so, that in Christ God 
the Word alone is to be adored. 

(B). And another thing must be remembered, as serving to show 
Cyril's great influence over the Third Synod, and its agreement 
with him, and that is that he was the first Bishop of the Eastern 
Church present in the Council and place-holder for Rome, then by 
virtue of its being the first capital of the Empire, the first Western 
see, and the first see of the whole Church; and that, under God, he 
was the Eeader and Guide of the Synod, and that it approved two 
of his Epistles to Nestorius, with their condemnation of Man- 
Worship, and condemned also one of the heresiarch Nestorius to 
him which favored that error, and that nearly every thing or every 
thing in the Synod was governed by him and that no opposition 



Cyril and the wJwle Church against Man-worship. I91 

is found in it to him or to any of his great teachings. And so 
there is in its decisions not one thing opposed to his teaching 
against Man-Worship, and that, on the contrary, it agreed with 
him by aDproving, as just mentioned, his utterances against the 
worship of Christ's humanity, including his Anathema VIII and 
the whole Long Epistle which contains it. 

And so, there is not a word then and there said against his 
doctrine 

(a), which we find in volume I of Ephesus in this set, on pages 
79, 80 of the note matter, and that, too, in controversy with the 
Nestoriau heresy of worshipping Christ's humanity, where he 
utterly and absolutely denies it any worship whatsoever, and in 
accordance with Matthew IV, 10, confines all worship to God 
alone: and 

(b). in the note matter on pages 89-95, Cyril contends in no 
less than four passages that to worship Christ's humanity with 
God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Ghost, is to 
substitute wrongly a worshipped Tetrad for a worshipped Trinity, 
that is God the Father, God the Word, and God the Holy Ghost, 
contrary to Matthew IV, 10, Isaiah XLH, 8, and Psalm LXXX, 
9, in the Septuagint Greek translation. Psalm Ι,ΧΧΧΙ, 9, in the 
English Version. 

(c). On page 95 he speaks of worshipping a merely human 
Christ as "the crime of worshipping a man, " language which 
the framer or framers of the Definition set forth by the Fifth 
Ecumenical Sj'nod may have known when they condemned the 
Nestorians as ' ' iyitrodticing the crime of Man- Worship into 
HEAVEN AND ON EARTH," (pages 109, 110, volume I of Chrystal's 
Ephestis, where see). With Cyril to worship God alone, and hence 
to deny any worship to his created humanity were fundamental 
and necessary tenets of Christianity, which every one should 
believe. *^ee in proof all of note 183, pages 79-128; and all of 
note 679, pages 332-362; on pages 338, 339, he mentions the Nes- 
toriau Man- Worship in terms of strong condemnation no less than 
eighteen times. And see more instances in other parts of those 
two notes, which are rather essays or small works on those themes 
than notes. The passages are too long and too many to be quoted 



192 Article VI. 

here. See especially the six points against the view that Cyril 
worshipped Christ's humanity, in the note matter on pages 347- 
353; and on pages 353-357, and see^proof Jthat Cyril's μετά σαρκό?, 
in the midst of flesh, does not mean that he worshipped flesh together 
with God the Word; and to the same effect see under /χ^τά on pages 
715-717 of the same volume I. 

(d). One can readily find in his Five Book Contradiction of the 
Blasphemies of Nestorius and in his other works a large number of 
passages to that effect, which though important and by all means 
to be read, are, nevertheless, too long to be here inserted. Some 
of them are found in Greek and English, with much of the context 
in volume I of Chrystal's Ephesiis. And St. Athanasius is against 
the worship of Christ's humanity, and of any thing but God: see 
in proof the same volume, pages 736-742, where Athanasius' lan- 
guage is very strong. 

(e). See more of Cyril against Man- Worship, and Nestorius for 
it, in volume I of Ephesus in this set. Index II under Cyril of 
Alexandria, and Nestorians, Nesto7'ins and his Heresies; A?idrew, 
Eutherius of Tyana, Theodoret, Man Worship, and especialiy page 
634, where it is mentioned as condemned by the whole Church no 
less than nine times, and under Latreia, Dulia and Hyperdnlia, and 
in the Greek Index, (Index Ιλ'^), under άνθρωπολατρεία ^ άνθρωπολάτρψ, 
and book II of Cyril's Eive Book Contradictio7i of the Blas- 
phemies of Nestorius, especiallj^ sections 8 to 14 inclusive, indeed 
the whole book, but in the Greek. Aye, the whole Five Books 
are useful. They explain more fully most of Cyril's XX Anathe- 
mas. See especially also the following notes in volume I of Ephe- 
sns of this set, which contain historical matter very important to 
him who would search the whole question of Man- Worship 
(άνθρωτΓολατρεία) thoroughly and the decisions of the Universal Church 
on it: note 183, pages 79-128; note 582, pages 225, 226; note 664, 
pages 323, 324; note 679, pages 332-362. And against relative 
worship of Christ's humanity see note 949, pages 461-463, where 
it is shown that it has been condemned by the Universal Church 
no less than thirteen times in Ecumenical Synods; note 156, pages 
61-69, and notes 580-583, pages 221-226. 

(f). Matter on God the Word as the sole Mediator, by His 



Cyril and the whole Church agaiiist Man-worship. 193 

Divinity, so far as the divine things, like hearing prayer, and the 
rest of God the Word's works are concerned, and so far as inter- 
cession and the human things are concerned, by His humanity, are 
as follows: Cyril's Anathema X, pages 339-346, text, and notes 
682-688 inclusive on it, and especially note 688, pages 363-406. See 
also under Christ, pages 577-581. 

Another question: 

III. What did the Nestorian leaders understand Cyril and 
the Third Synod to teach as to the worship of Christ's created 
humanity? 

Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, a noted champion for Nestorius, 
in writing against Cyril's Anathema VIII, says in the note matter 
on page 117, volume I of Ephcsics in this set: 

"In addition to the foregoing we say that he has very un learn- 
edly and very unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the 
one and the same Son, together with His flesh, as though the" [pre- 
position] 'yeTa" \u'ithy or in the viidst of'\ "were some thing 
other than the" [preposition] "σύ>" {together with\, "which very 
assertion he himself" [Cyril] "has made, as has been said before, by 
his saying that that He" [God the Word] "must be worshipped 
with flesh, and by forbidding His flesh to be co-worshipped with 
His Divinity," Greek, λέγων avrov μ€τα. σα"/<05 Bei•' πριισκννύσΟαι. 
awayopc'jwv δε σνμ~ροσκνν(.ίσθαι rfj θίότητι την σάρκα. See ChryStal's 
Ephesus, volume I, note matter on pages 97, 98, 115-121. 

And the bitter Nestorian, Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana, shows 
that he himself held to the worship of Christ's humanity and 
teaches that Cyril rejected it. For he writes: 

^'Bict who C2cts away the flesh from the Word, a7id takes away diie 
adoration^ ^ [from it] "λ^//^" [Cyril of Alexandria] ' 'has eo7nma7ided " 
[us to do] , ' 'for he says: 

If any 07ie presumes to say that the vian taken^ ' [by God the 
Word] * 'ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and to be co- 
glorified with Him, let him be ayiathema.'''' See colnmn 682, tome 
84 of W\%nt.''?> Patrologia Graeca, and pages 121-128, volume I of 
Chrystal's Ephesus. The passage is on page 316, volume VI of 
P. E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril's works. 

And in volume II of Ephesus in this set, on pages 311, 317-335, 



194 Article VI. 

we see that the seven delegates of " tee Apostasy," that is of the 
Man- Worshipping Conventicle at Ephesus, who were sent to the 
Emperor at Constantinople to work against the Third Ecumenical 
Synod, charge on St. Cyril and the Orthodox Council the design 
'Ho adulterate^'' the worship offered by the angels above to God 
(evidently to God the Son, as that alone was involved in the 
discussion), and they accuse the Orthodox Synod of '^really taking 
away that worship and establishing'''' Cyril's Twelve Chapters, the 
eighth of which forbids worship to Christ's humanity and confines 
it to his Divinity alone. Among the seven creature-worshippers 
were their notorious leaders, John of Antioch and Theodoret of 
Cyrus, but their mission failed, and the XII Anathemas tri- 
umphed. 

Other utterances of Nestorius and his partisans for the wor- 
ship of Christ's humanity with His Divinity are found in the note 
matter on pages 1 12-128, volume I of Ephesus in this set. Their 
utterances there show that they understood Cyril to deny all wor- 
ship to Christ's humanity. See that whole note 183, which begins 
on page 79 and ends on page 128, and compare note 6/9, pages 
332-362; in which strong passages of Cyril against Man- Worship 
are found. 

On pages 338, 339, note, will be found a summary under 
twenty heads, of St, Cyril's condemnation of Nestorius' worship 
of Christ's humanity and what he brands in effect as its hereti- 
cal, its paganized and soul-destroying results. And for further 
proof that Cyril did not worship Christ's humanity at all see the 
note matter on pages 346-360. 

On the Nestorian errors on the Eiicharist, that is the Thayiks- 
givins; as Eticharist means, a part of which was the worship of the 
bread and wine as Christ's humanity, see especially note 599, 
pages 229-238, and note 606, pages 240-313, volume I of Ephesus, 
and see also in Index II under Eucharist, and in Index IV under 
εΰναριστια, ivkoyia^ ^νχασιστ-ησας, αποστασία ά'^θρο)ττοφαγία, άντίτν~α 
σνμβολον, and words in Greek which mean worship, on pages 
725-750, and compare pages 666-675, Texts of Holy Scripture, 
Explanatioyi; and in Index II, see l^estorians, and A^estorius and 
his Heresies, pages 637-647, id ; Note "E," pages 517-528, and 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 195 

Note "F," pages 529-554; note 692, page 407; and note 693, pages 
407, 408. 

And now II, to sum up again as to the Decisions of the one 
one, holy, universal, and apostolic Church 07i the worship of Christ' s 
humanity. 

On that I have treated in volume I of Ephesns in this set, note 
183, pages 108-1 12, and in note 679, pages 346-362. See indeed 
all of those notes. 

And in note 949, in the same volume, pages 461-463, I have 
shown that the Universal Church has condemned the Nestorians' 
attempted excuse that they worshipped Christ's humanity rel- 
atively only, and therefore were guiltless. 

And in note 606 I have shown that Nestorius was deposed by 
the Universal Church at Ephesus, among other things for his 
"Blasphemy 18," as it is called in the Council (see Chrystal's 
Ephesus, volume I, page 449). That Blasphemy is on its pages 
472-474: see there and the notes on it there; and see also Nes- 
torius' deposition by the Third Council for it, and for the rest of 
his XX "Blasphemies" on pages 486-488, and 503, 504. Compare 
the language of Flavian on pages 479, 480, of the same. 

Surely we see by all the foregoing utterances of the whole 
Church, that is of the 'One, holy, iiniversal and apostolic Church'' 
in its Third Ecumenical Council, and in the three Ecumenical 
Councils after it, that it condemned any and all worship to 
Christ's humanity. See the following passages: 

1. Ephesus approved Cyril's Shorter Epistle to Nestorius, 
which condemns it absolutely: see in proof Chrystal's Ephcsiis, 
volume I, pages 79-85, 129-154, The former is the passage against 
Man-Worship, the latter its approval with the whole Epistle in 
which it stands. 

2. Ephesus approved Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius, 
which twice condemns it absolutely, including Cyril's Anathema 
VIII against all co-worship of Christ's humanity with God the 
Word; Cyril's words are on pages 221-223, and 331, 332; for the 
approval of that Epistle by the Universal Church see pages 204- 
208, id., note 520. 

3. Ephesus condemned the worship of Christ's humanity, as 



ig6 Article VI. 

contained in at least eight of the XX "Blasphemies" of Nestorius, 
all of which it condemned also. The eight are "Blasphemies" 5, 
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15. All those eight are condemned in its 
Act I, and on the basis of them as "■Blasphemies,'' as Peter the 
Presbyter and chief of the Secretaries calls them, before he reads 
them in that Act, (page 449, volume I of Chrystal's Epkesus), Nes- 
torius is condemned and deposed; see the same volume I of Epke- 
sus, pages 486-488, and 503, 504. 

4. The same Ecumenical Synod in its Act VI condemned 
the depraved, Man-Worshipping, heretical Creed of Theodore, 
which, on pages 205-208, volume II of Chrystal's Ephesus, contains 
his relative worship of Christ's humanitv. The condemnation is 
in id., pages 222-234. 

5. And the Council enforces its condemnation of all Man- 
Worshippers in its canons as follows: 

The first two canons depose all Nestorianizing and all Pelagi- 
anizing Metropolitans and Bishops, The third nullifies all actions 
of such Prelates against their Orthodox clergy, and commands the 
latter not to submit to those heretics. The 4th Canon deposes all 
the clergy who fall off to the Nestorian or Celestian heresies. The 
5th refers to the case of clerics" condemyied for their wrong practices 
by the holy Synod , or by their own Bishops,' ' whom Nestorius and 
those of his party had attempted to restore "either to communiofi or 
to their rank.'^ The Council pronounces all such restorations to be 
invalid. And finally Canon VI decrees deposition against all 
Bishops and Clerics and exclusion from Communion against all 
laics who wish to disturb in any way any of the decisions of the 
Synod, and, of course, their oft repeated prohibition of any wor- 
ship, be it relative or absolute, to Christ's humanity; and, of 
course, by necessary logical inclusion, their prohibition against 
any worship of any kind, relative or absolute, to any other crea- 
ture, or to any mere thing, be it an image painted, that is a pic- 
ture, a graven image, a cross graven or painted, or an altar, a 
communion table, relics, a Church, or any part of it: in brief, we 
must all obey Christ's command to worship God and Him alone* 
Matthew IV, 10, and that directly and absolutely, not rela- 
tively or through any creature, or through any mere thing. 



Cyril and the whole Chzirch against Man-worship. 197 

6. The clear witness of Cyril's Anathema VIII, which for- 
bids the co-worship of Christ's humanity with God the Word, 
and was approved by the Third Sypod, and the prohibition of 
worship to Christ "in two natures" in Anathema IX of the Fifth 
Synod, both therefore of Ecumenical authority, must be remem- 
bered, for with the other utterances of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, 
and Sixth Synods of the whole Church they settle the whole ques- 
tion by following strictly Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10: ''Thou 
shall worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thoii serve," and 
by forbidding all worship to Christ's humanity. 

For, if we take the words in the IXth Anathema of the Fifth 
Council, which under pain of anathema, commands us to ''worship 
with'^ [but] "o7ie worship" [that is, of course, with divine and 
absolute, not Nestorius' relative worship'] "God the Word inflcshcd 
in the viidst of ' [that is withiji] "His own flesh as the Church of God 
has received from the begiiining ,^' as equivalent to the Ecumenically 
approved Vlllth Anathema of Cyril, which forbids all co-worship 
of Christ's humanity with God the Word (238), we make them 
fully agree, as any one should see. 

Aj-e, both the Vlllth Anathema of Cyril, and other matter in 
the same Epistle in which it stands, and the IXth of the Fifth 
Synod agree in forbidding the worship of Christ "iyi two nattires" 
(ev δυσι φύσεσι) (239), and confine all worship of him to His 
Divinity, and anathematize expressly every worshipper of His 
humanity. 

The prohibition of giving worship to Christ Ήη two Natures'' 
by the said Anathema IX is therein Ecumenically defined, to be 
the truth and the faith "as the Church of God has received from the 
beginning.'' (240) 

And we must remember that Cyril's Ecumenically approved 
Anathema VIII, after rejecting and anathematizing the co- worship 
of Christ's humanity with God the Word, bases all worship of His 

Note 238 — The Greek of Cyril's Anathema VIII is found in volume I of Ephesus in this 
Set, page 3;i2. note 6~9; and the English in the text of pages 331-332, and again in the note 
matter on page 109, there. 

Note 239. — See in a note a little above the Greek of Anathema IX. and the English in the 
note matter on pages liO, 111, volume I of Ephesus in this Set. 

Note 240. — See the note last above. 



198 Article VI. 

other Nature, the Divine, on the ground that it is Emmanuel, that 
is, as Em77ia7mel me^Q-ns, the God with 21s, and that He, "the Word, 
has been made flesh," and therefore that the 'Oyie worship" and 
the ''ojie glorifying'' can be and is to be given to Him alone, to 
whom by Matthew IV, 10, it belongs and is there prerogative. 

And wherever, therefore, we read in Cyril or in any Ecu- 
menical utterance that Christ or the Word is to be worshipped 
/Α£τα σαρκός, "witJi" or ''withi^i" flcsk, the meaning is not that his 
flesh or any other part of his humanity is to be co-worshipped 
with God the Word, but only that He is i7i the midst of it, with 
or withi7i it in that sense, to guard the truth of his perfect 
humanity against Gnostic and Docetic error that He has a body 
only in seeming. 

7, We see from all this also that no Orthodox Christian may 
submit to any Xestorian Bishop or cleric, and that no one is 
to submit in any way to the worse than Nestorian Creature- Wor- 
shipping Prelates of Rome, those of the Greeks, and those of the 
Monophysites. For they are all deposed antecedently by the 
decisions of Ephesus and excommunicated, Such Holy-Ghost- led 
enactments of Ephesiis were an all-sufficient authorization and 
command for Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and the rest of the 
English and the Scotch and the Continental Reformers, to come 
out from Rome, the Harlot of the Revelations (Rev. XVIII, 4, 
compared with Revelations XVII, 18), and from all such Bishops 
at the Reformation and to worship God alone. 

8. We see also that any union of Christians must be based 
upon the sole utterances of the ^O7ie, holy, 7uiiversal, a7id apostolic 
Church,'' which Christ has commanded us to hear or else be 
accounted as the heathen man and the publican, Matthew XVIII, 
15-18, which, of course, includes the acceptance of all these its 
decisions against the worship of a humayi being (άνθ,οοτ7Γολα.τρΐία), be 
it Christ's humanity or any other creature, and also its decisions 
against Ca7i7iibalis77i (άνθρωποφα-^ία) in the Eucharist, and against 
all forms of real substance presence, and its sequences, the 
errors of Consubstantiation, both of the one nature kind and of the 
two nature kind, and both forms of Transubstantiation, the Ro- 
man and the Greek, which are opposed to each other and to Ephe- 



Cyril a7id the whole Church against Man-worship. 199 

sus, and the idolatry of Host Worship there, be it the Nestorian 
worship of one nature, Christ's humanity; or the Puseyite, the 
Roman and the Greek idolatry of worshipping both natures, the 
Divinity and the humanity there. 

Oh ! that our people may soon get together to save Church 
and State, and to obey the spirit of Christ's prayer to His 
Father that all his disciples ' ' may be one" {l•^"^) ■ Oh ! that they may 
mark those who cause divisions and scandals, contrary to the 
doctrine which we have learned from the New Testament, and 
that we may all "azoid than'" (242), be they Romanizers and 
other idolatrizers, or infidelizers, or ignorant heretics, and 
anarchistic fanatics. 

The basis must be 

(A). The New Testament; 

(B). as understood and \vitnessed to from the beginning by 
the Church of the first three centuries; in doctrine, discipline, 
rite and universal custom; and 

(C). as defined and decreed by the Six Ecumenical Synods; 
namely : 

1. Nicaea, A. D. 325. 

2. I Constantinople, A. D. 381. 

3. Ephesus, A. D. 431. 

4. Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 

5. Π Constantinople, A. D. 553, and 

6. Ill Constantinople, A. D. 680. 

That will be the full Restoration, after our Sixteenth Cen- 
tury Reformation, corresponding to the Jewish Restoration after 
their Reformation in Babylon, when they restored their religion 
at Jerusalem. There is great need of union among us. For of 
about 65,000,000 of Protestants in this Land only about 20,000,000 
are counted, popularly, as members of any Church. The 45, COO- 
COO others are counted to be non Christians, and millions upon 
millions of them are unbaptized, though they have Christian 
faith. And they die without that saving rite, for they are kept 

Note 241 —John XVII, 20-24. 

Note 242.— Romans ΧΛΊ, 17, 18. I Cor. 1, 10; I Cor. Ill, 3, and I Cor. XI, 18: see the con- 
texts of those passages. 



200 Article VI. 

from it, and die outside the Covenant. They marry Romanists, 
Jews, or others, and that contrary to II Cor. VI, 14-18; I Cor. 
VII, 39, etc., and thousands go over to them, 

And often they are lost to Church and State, and their race. 
And by our causeless splits and divisions into more than a hundred 
Protestant sects we show our indifference to our own shame and to 
our own consequent weakness. God grant us a godly union on 
the basis aforesaid, the only one possible, the only one which fills 
the demands of the New Testament, and obedience to all those 
decisions of Christ's "one, holy, universal and apostolic Church" 
which are in agreement with it, and are a part of it. 

If any one says that many godly men, some even among the 
Reformers, professed to worship Christ in two Natures, it is suflB- 
cient to say, 

1 . that they had been so trained while under Rome; and that, 
with their Elijah-like, intense hatred of all creature-worship, they 
would have obeyed the anti-creature worshipping decisions of the 
Universal Church in its VI Synods, if they had known them: but 
they could not, for they were not yet printed. 

2. They so thoroughly believed in Christ's Divinity and in its 
infinite superiority to His mere created humanity that, though they 
may have used Roman language still on that matter, nevertheless, 
in the judgment of Christian charity for noble men, we prefer to 
believe that they worshipped in Christ practically God the Word 
alone; and it is well, seeing their obedience so far as they knew, 
and that they suffered or died as martyrs for the truth confessed 
by them that God alone is to be worshipped, to regard them as 
at heart sound. The Jews even after they reformed in Babylon 
had still many and great lacks. They could not obey their Law, 
which commanded them to go up to Jerusalem three times a year 
and to sacrifice, for their temple was in ruins and their priests 
captives. 

But about seventy years after their reformation in Babylon 
they made a full Restoration at Jerusalem, and rebuilt their 
temple and set their priests in their courses again. So we shall 
restore all New Testament Christianity again, and the decisions 
of the undivided Church in its VI Sole Synods, and the simplicity 



Cyril and the whole CJuuxh agai7ist Man-worship. 201 

and Orthodoxy of the first three centuries. And we shall ever 
cherish the memory of our blessed Reformers, who, in the six- 
teenth century, died to lift us and to save us, as well as the mem- 
ory also of our Christian Restorers who, following the example 
of Ezra, and Nehemiah, and Jeshua under the Mosaic Law, are 
making a full and perfect Restoration of New Testament Christi- 
anity, as settled by the said Councils and as witnessed to in the 
doctrine, discipline and rites of the Ante-Nicene Church. 

One thing more I should here mention, and that is how Habib 
the Deacon refused at his martyrdom to worship Christ's human- 
ity, but professed his faith in God the Word, '^who took a body and 
became man, and *^ died for Him as being God; see it on pages 360- 
362, volume I of Ephesns in this set. His language is an example 
of Cyrillian and Universal Church Orthodoxy for the Worship of 
God the Word alone in Christ. 

I quote it here. 

*'ln\.hQ jUiartyrdom 0/ Habib the Deacon which took placein A.D.312, 313, 
or 315 according- to note i, pagegi in the Syriac Docuvicnts bound up with 
vol. XX of the Ante Nicene Christian Library: (compare Hole's article "Hab- 
ibus (2)" in Smith & Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography'), '''■which are 
presumably of the Ajite Niccfie age,^' (Vol. XX, Ante Nic. Christ. Lib., In- 
troductory Notice, pag-e 3), is found the following in the conversation of 
the pagan Roman Governor Λvith 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 
Λvho took upon Him a body and became a man, [Him] do I worship and 
glorify." 

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 
Monophysitism, but the Anglican Ball's article on him in Smith & Wace's 
Dictionary of Christian Biography tQllsvLsthdit it is, "a charge which Asse- 
inani and Abbeloos show to be unwarranted.' ' He gives there the argument 
for his Orthodoxy. The follo\ving from the translation of the Homily, is 
Cyrillian and Orthodox. It is found on pages 112, 113-115 of the Syriac 
Documents bound up in Vol. XX of the Ante Nicene Christian Library. I 
quote; 
But Habib, when questioned, was not afraid. 

Was not ashamed, and was not frightened by the menaces [he heard], 



202 Article VI. 

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"J from the confession 
of tlie Son of God. 

********* 
They taunted him: lyo! thou worshippest a man: 

But he said: A man I worship not. 
But God, who took a body and became man: 

Him do I worship, because He is God with Him that begat Him. 
The faith of Habib, the martyr, was full of light; 

And by it was enlightened Edessa, the faithful [city], 
The daughter of Abgar, whom Addseus betrothed to the crucifixion — 

Through it is her light, through it her truth and her faith. 
Her king is from it, her mart3'rs 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 Edessaeans, moreover said: 

My heart is led cap<^ive by God, who became man; 
And Habib the mart^'r, who also was crowned at Edessa, 

Confessed these things: that he 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 martj'rs 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 aloud 

Out of the midst of the fire: A man I worship not. 
But God, who took a body and became man — 

Hint 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 man I worship not, said Habib, 

Because it is written: '■Cursed is he that putteth his trust in a man* [Jer. 
XVn, 5l. 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 203 

Forasmuch as He is Cod, I worship Him, j-ea 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 ag-e 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, Λvho brought the bridegroom's ring and put it on her hand, 

Betrothed her thus to the Sou of God, who is the Only [-Begotten]. 
Sharbil the priest, who made trial and proof of all gods, 

Died, even as he said, "ybr Cod 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, for- 
asm iich as He is Cod. 
And Habib the mart^'r, 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 be\ burned in the fire; 

But he was burjied '^^f or the sake of God who became man.'''' 
And Edessa is 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] afflictions, 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 — 

Eve7i that He is Cod, and of Maty became a man. 
And the bride hates him that denies His Godhead, 

Anddespiseth and contemns him that maligns His corporeal nature. 
And she recognizes 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." 

Opinions of Differeiit Heretical Sects 07i the Worship of Christ's 
Humanity or of Some Part or Parts of it; AS CONTRASTED with the 

iJECISIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH ON IT. 

We have seen that the doctrine of the "cwi?, holy, u?iiversal, 
and apostolic ChurcJi" is that Christ's humanity is not to be wor- 



204 Article VI. 

shipped; that, in other words, the only thing in Him that may be 
worshipped is His Divinity, and that, because, as is explained by 
Cyril's Anathema VIII approved by Ephesus, God the Word has 
been viade flesh and is in His huma7iity, as Athanasius and Cyril 
explain, as in a temple (243), and so may there be adored. 

And Anathema IX of the Fifth Synod forbids us to worship 
Him "m two Natures,'^ but only His Divinity. 

The heretical adorations of Christ included the following 
worshippings of his humanity: as thej' are enumerated and con- 
demned in Anathema IX of the Fifth Synod of the whole 
Church: which also anathematizes every one guilty of any of 
them. I have quoted the Anathema in full, on page 184 above, 
where see it. 

1. It first anathematizes *'any one" who "says that the 
Anointed one [the Christ] 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." 

That means Nestorianism as we have shown above. It openly 
professed to worship Christ "in two Natures/' and to give one 
worship, the absolute, to God the Word, as deserving worship for 
His own sake as God, and the other worship, the relative, to His 
humanity, not for its own sake, but for the sake of God the Word 
(244), for Nestorius admitted that being a creature it had no right 
to be worshipped in itself or for itself (245). 

On the principle laid down by Cyril in his Scholia on the In- 
carnatioji, that all the names of the Son are to be understood of 
God the Word, the divine names of God the Word, as for example, 
God, the Word, belonging to Him naturally as being God, and all 
the names of His humanity, as for example, Christ, that is Anointed, 
and Ma?i, as belonging to God the Word economically (246), we 

Note 243. — See Athanasius as quoted on page 172, above. Habib the deacon and martyr 
held the same faith: see Ephesus in this set, vol. I, page 592, on that. 

Note 244. — That relative worship is proclaimed by Nestorius himself in his Blasphemy 8, 
page 461, text, (compare note 949 there), \Olnme I of Chrystal's Ephesus, and in others of his 
XX Blasphemies, pages 449-480; compare note F, pages 529-551. 

Note 245.— Id. page 467, Blasphemy 14. 

Note 246.— See Chrystal's Ephesus, volume T, pages 602, 603, under Economic Appropri- 
ation, ana Pusey's S. Cvtl of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, page 20<\ 
where he uses the word "economically," 



Cyril a?id the whole Church against Man-7uorship. 205 

» " ■ — 

must understand the term Christ, in this Anathema IX, of God the 
Word. Cyril makes that clear and most Orthodox ically in those 
Scholia: I give the references to Pusey's English translation of 
them in his ''Cyril of Alexandria 07i the Incaryiatio7i against Nes- 
toritis'' (Parker, Oxford, A. D. 1881). See its sections 1-17 inclu- 
sive, pages 185-207, and especially sections 1, and 13. In sections 
18 37, pages 207-236, he shows that His humanity is not to be 
worshipped but only his Divinity (247). 

Referring again to the above Canon IX we would add that 
among those who worshipped Christ "/« two Natures,''^ or rather 
in the whole of his Divinity and in two out of the three parts of 
his humanity may also be included the Two Partites of Valen- 
tinus' school or wing of the Apollinarians. 

On them I have spoken in volume I of Ephesus in this set, 
pages 103-106. I would also refer the reader to notes 29, 39, and 
31, and the text of pages 310, 31 1, volume I of Smith's Gieseler's 
Church History. In both places quotations from the original are 
que ted. Valentinus and Apollinaris himself held to two natures 
in the above sense. 

But what was their belief as to worshipping the flesh of Christ 
in which they believed? On that Apollinaris, as given by his op- 
ponent, Gregory of Nyssa, chapter 44 of his Άντφβητίκος ττρό? τα 
'ΛτΓολλινα/ηΌυ, that is his Disputation against the Errors of Apollinarius, 
writes: 

"The flesh of the Lord is worshipped, forasmuch as it is is 
one Person and one living being with Him. Nothing made is to 
be worshipped with the Lord, as His flesh is" (248). 

And his disciple of the Moderate School, Valentinus, in his 
*^ Apology against those who say that we say that the body is consub- 
stantial with God,'" writes similarly: 

Note 247. — I ought, however, to warn the reader against some of Pusey's mistakes here, 
as I have elsewhere to some extent: 

On page 217, and again and again elsewhere, he wrongly renders Q^'OTOKoq Mother of 
God, as though it were μή'ηρ τον Qenv. It really means Bringer Forth of God. The Greek 
is section 28, pages 552-556, vol. VI of P. E. Pusey's edition of Cyril's works in the Greek. 

2. On page 215, he renders ϋχεηκήν, non-essential. It should be translated relative. 
The reference is to the fact that Christ dwells in us, not by His eternal Substance, but rela- 
tively, that is by the Spirit which is related to Him as being His Spirit (Romans VIII, 9). 



2o6 Article VI. 

"The flesh is worshipped together with the Word of God" 
(249). 

Both those heretics were therefore worshippers of all of 
Christ's humanity that they believed in, His flesh and seemingly 
His human soul, but not His mind, because they held that He had 
no human mind. The quotations in Gieseler as above show that 
Apollinarius derived his error from the professedly creature wor- 
shipping Arians. Apollinarius or Apollinaris held to two Sons in 
Christ, for he said: 

*'There is one Son of God indeed by Nature," [the Divinity], 
"and one" [the humanity] "adopted" (250). And so he wor- 
shipped two Sons. 

Apollinarius and his sect had been condemned as heretics, in 
Canons I and VH of the Second Ecumenical Council, A. D. 381. 

The IXth Anathema of The Fifth Synod, after thus condemn- 
ing the Nestorians for their worship of Christ's humanity, in other 
words, for what it calls their worship of Christ "m two Natures" 
(c> δυσι φνσεσι) and Valentinus' school of the Apollinarians for 
worshipping His flesh with the Word, next turns definitely and 
clearly to two other perverted and forbidden kinds of worship to 
Christ, the Monophysite, that is the One Nature kind, and the 
radical Apollinarian sort. 

For the Anathema goes on to condemn the mistaken worship 
of both, for it pronounces solemnly: 

"Or, if any one to the doing away of the flesh" [of Christ, 
that is the Monophysite, who held that in Christ is now Divinity 
only and no humanity at all, "or to the mingling of the Divinity 
and the humanity" [the Apollinarian Co-substancer, that is Two- 
Partite] "asserts the monstrosity of but one nature, that is but 
one substance of the Things which have come together" [Christ's 



Note 248. —Greek as in note 30, page 311 of volume I of Smith's Giese/ey's Church History: 
Ή αάρξ τον Κυρίου προσκυνείται, καβό εν έστι πρόσωττον καΐ ει> ζωον μετ' αυτού. Μηδέ» 
■κοίημα προσκυνητόν μετά τον KvpioVy ΰς ή σαρξ αντον, 

ΝΟΤΕ 249. — I<eontius, page 702, C. D., Cum Verbo Dei simul adoratur caro. See more 
details on pages 103-106, volume I of Ephesus in this set. 

Note 250.— Greek, as in Gieseler as above, Eif μεν ψίσει ν'ώς θεον, ε'ις ύε θετός. 



Cyril and the whole Church against Mayi-worship . 207 

Divinity and His humanity] "and so worships Christ. ... let 
such a man be anathema." 

The Monophysite did in fact worship Christ's humanity, when 
he worshipped Christ, though he did not intend to, for He is still 
of two Natures, and so the One Natureite is a Man-Worshipper. 
His heresy aimed to do away the flesh of Christ, but, in fact, failed 
to do so. 

In note 30, page 311, volume I of Stnith's Gieseler' s Church 
History, among the Apollinarian fragments still preserved in 
Greek, (ap. Maium VII, 1, 16), we find the very heresy con- 
demned in this last part of the Anathema: 

"We say that the Lord is Man in His one mixed Nature, even 
in His one mixed Nature both fleshly and divine" (251). 

The outcome of such a mixture of Christ's two Natures, 
Divinity and humanity, would be an impossible Third Thing, (a 
Tertium quid) which would be neither the one thing nor the other, 
but what the Anathema calls it, a Monstrosity. 

But Anathema IX goes on and closes by pronouncing that: 

"7/^ a7iy one . . . does not worship with'" [but] 'O7ie worship God 
the Word infleshed in the midst of his own flesh, as the Church of 
God has received from the beginning, let such a man be an- 
athema." 

Here then is Orthodoxy: 

1. By this Anathema IX of the Fifth Synod we may not 
worship Christ "zVi tico Natures,'" but, as all agree, we must wor- 
ship Him in his Divinity, consequently not at all in His humanity, 
for that would be to worship his humanity, which is forbidden 
under pain of anathema by this decree, as well as by Christ Him- 
self in Matthew IV, 10: ''Thotc shalt worship the Lord tliy God, 
and Him 07ily shalt thou serve, ''^ 

2. By Anathema VIII of Cyril's XII approved by Ephesus 
we may not co-worship Christ's humanity' with God the Word as 
one thing with another, that is, of course, as humanity, with 
Divinity, that is a creature with God, contrary to Matthew IV, 10, 



Note 251. — Greek as referred to above, Μία (if σν-,κράτω -y φίσεί άνθρωπον τον Kvpiov 
λέγομεν, μια δε σχτγκμάτψ ry <ρύσει σαμκικί} τε και θείκί^. 



2o8 Article VI. 

under pain of anathema; and another place in the same Epistle, all 
of it approved by Ephesus, forbids worship to Christ's humanity. 
See pages 221-223, volume I of Ephesus in this set, and on pages 
149, 150, above. 

And Canon VI of Ephesus deposes every Bishop and cleric, 
and deprives of communion every laic who tries in any way what- 
soever to unsettle any of its decisions, the above anathema, of 
course, among them. 

3. The Definition of the Fifth Synod of the whole Church 
which condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia, who taught the wor- 
ship of Christ's humanity, speaking of their duty to oppose those 
who worshipped Christ's humanity, says that the Synod must 
advance against every "heresy or calumny of theirs which they 
have made against the pious dogmas of the Church, by worshipping 
two Sons," that is Christ's humanity as well as his Divinity, and 
brands those who worshipped His humanity for "'introd^icivg the 
crime of Ma7i- Worship into heaveyi a?id 07i earth:'' see volume I of 
Ephestis in this set, pages 109, 110. Compare note 679, pages 332- 
362, and especially pages 346-362. 

And the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council at the end 
deposes every, Bishop and cleric and anathematizes every monk 
and laic who "shall attempt to deliver or teach or write contrary to'' 
its decisions, the above two, of course, among them. See more 
fully still in the note matter on pages 108-1 12, id., for proof that the 
Third Synod of the whole Church and the Three after it have 
followed the statements and doctrines of Cyril as to the worship 
of Christ's humanity. And see also pages 85-1 16 above. 

4. If we reject and condemn Cyril's doctrine that we may 
not worship Christ's humanity at all, relatively or absolutely, and 
that all worship of Him is prerogative to his Divinity alone, on 
pages 142-150, and 161-181 , above, and suppose that the Third 
Sj'nod and the Fifth did so, we make him a heretic and brand as 
heresy his doctrine against that worship of a human being, and 
also, of course, by necessary inclusion, we brand as heresy his 
doctrine against the worship of any creature less than that perfect 
humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, saint, archangel, or angel, or 
any other creature; and we blame as heretics the Bishops of the 



Cyril and the whole Church agaijist Man-worship. 209 

Third Ecumenical Synod and those of the Fifth because they ap- 
proved his doctrine, and deposed all who reject it under pain of 
deposition or anathema: see above, pages 173 and after. 

5. If we condemn as heresy Cyril's doctrine on pages 150, 
151, that he who worships Christ's humanity with the Trinity 
brings in the worship of a Tetrad instead of the worship of a Trin- 
ity, and of a crea'ure with the Creator, we condemn Christ's utter- 
ance in Matthew IV, 10, and the Third Synod and the Fifth, whose 
decisions, in elTect, are the same, and we make Cyril, the leader 
of the Third Synod and, under God, the formulator of its decisions 
for the worship of God alone, a heretic, and the Third Synod 
and the three Ecumenical Synods after it mere conventicles of 
heretics, and justify Nestorius aiad his heresies and become ecu- 
menically condemned heretics ourselves, deposed by their 
decisions if we be Bishops or clerics, or excommunicated if laics. 

6. We do more. For in that case we do away with all the 
VI Councils of the whole Church, all their sound decisions, and 
all Church authority with them, and the result will be doctrinal 
and disciplinary anarchy, for if they can not stand what else can? 
Then what does Christ mean by commanding us '"to hear the 
Church''^ under pain of being regarded "λ5 the heathen via?t and the 
publica7i?" And if they did not rightly use the Christ-given power 
of teaching and binding, and teaching, too, in its highest and 
most important place, an Ecumenical Council, which teaches the 
whole Church, East and West, and North and South, by defining 
for Orthodox, Anti-Creature-serving, God-alone-worshipping and 
saving truth against apostatic paganizings, as, in effect, Ephesus 
calls them, I repeat, if the VI Synods did not rightly use use the 
Christ-given power and duty of binding and teaching (Matthew 
XXVIII, 19, 20; John XX, 19 24; I Tim. I, 18, 19, 20, etc.) to 
bind heretics like Nestorius the Man-Worshipper, the Cannibalizer 
on the Eucharist, and Tetradite, who else has been justly bound? 

7. Moreover, if we reject the sound decisions of the VI Syn- 
ods of the whole Church East and West against the creature-wor- 
shippers, Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, and their followers, we 
break down a solid wall of defence for Anglicans and all the Re- 
formed of the Reformation period against creature worshipping 



2 ΙΟ Article VI. 

Rome and all the other creature worshipping communions, be it 
the Greeks, Monophysites, or Nestorians, and a strong wall 
against the Apostate creature- in vokers and Host-worshippers in 
the Anglican communion of our daj' as well as against the crea- 
ture-invoking and image and cross-worshipping conventicle called 
the Second of Nicaea A. D. 787, and all the other Councils East 
and West which have opposed the VI by bringing in such heresies 
and paganizings or favoring them. 

8. Finall3', if it be objected that the expression in Anathema 
IX of the Fifth Synod that we must ''worship with 07ie worship God 
the Word infieshed /ttera t^s t8t«s avntv σαρκός," is doubtful, for in 
ancient Greek, as Cyril's Nestorian opponent. Andrew of Samo- 
sata, tells him, to worship God the Word /ιετά σαρκός., and σΰν τ^ 
σαρκι, may be translated with flesh (see the note matter on page 
1 17, volume I of Ephesus in this set, and id., notes 582, 583, pages 
225, 226, and note 183, pages 79-128, id.) Compare also pages 
157-161, above. 

But to this we reply: 

1. that though μ^τά. with the genitive is often or generally 
translated like σνν with the dative, nevertheless Liddell and 
Scott's Greek Lexicon gives as the first meaning of μντά with the 
genitive, ^'ijithe viidst of, among, '^ and its "radical sense, in the 
middle;'' whereas it gives as "the radical sense" of σνν '^with,'* 
and with the dative ^^ along with, in company with, together with,' ^ 
and when it is compounded with a verb it is used often, much 
oftener than μζτά. in the same compounds in the sense of together 
with. 

Yet it may be granted that in itself the clause in Anathema 
IX of the Fifth Council is not so clear as it might be; and a wor- 
shipper of Christ's humanity with God the Word might under it 
claim that the term /χετά here means ''together with''' and so would 
translate, "If any one . . . does not worship with" [but] "one wor- 
ship God the Word λπΆο.^^^ together with his own flesh, μ^τα. της tSc'as 
avTov σαρκός as the Church of God has received from the begin- 
ning, let such a man be anathema," and he would claim also that 
the words authorize Ijim to worship Christ in two Natures, the 
humanity and Divinity; whereas the Orthodox man would take the 



Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. zii 

ti ^ ■ 

words μΐτα. της ΐδ«χ? αυτού σαρκός^ in the Sense of ZJl the viidst of 
his own fleshy that is, with his own flesh in the sense not of worship- 
ping flesh at all, but God the Word who is within it. Now which 
view best agrees with the context? 

The answer is easy, for 

(A) this very Anathema anathematizes *'any one who says 
that Christ is to be worshipped in two Natures:'''' see the Greek en 
page 187 above, in note 2J1 . 

(B.) The Third Ecumenical Council approved Cyril's Anath- 
ema VIII, which anathematizes every one who co-worships Christ' s 
humanity with his Dizi7iity. See pages 149, 150, above, where the 
Greek and English are found. 

(C.) And see all the passages of Cyril and the Third Synod 
and the Fifth above, which teach the same thing and depose every 
Bishop and cleric and anathematize every laic who is guilty of 
worshipping the humanity of Christ. 

(D.) To co-worship Christ's humanity even with God the 
Word, is to worship that creature, that Man nevertheless, and is 
the error which St. Cyril brands as άνθρω-ολατρίία, that is the 
worship of a human being, that is the worship of a creature contrary 
to Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, one of Cyril's favorite texts. 

(E.) Moreover, if there have been doubts regarding the 
meaning of the Orthodox formula in Anathema IX of the Fifth 
Synod, which commands us to worship God the Word /xera ttJ? 
ίδιας αυτοΰ σαρκός, within His ow?i flcsh, let US remember that 
another Orthodox formula the όιχοονσω•.' τω Πατρι, ^ 'of the same stib- 
stance as the Father," was rejected in the third century by a coun- 
cil of seventy Orthodox Bishops at Antioch, who condemned Paul 
of Samosata, because they did not understand it, or did not deem it 
fit. See in proof the Oxford translation of "5. Athanasius' Treatises 
against Arianism," volume II, Index to Foot Notes and Marginal 
References under 'One in Substance.'' Besides it was perverted by 
some of the Arians: see id., under "Nice?ie Denyiition" and the 
Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese, pages 
59-65 of the same translation. 



212 Article VI. 

(F). The testimony of Cyril's Nestorian opponent, Andrew 
of Samosata, shows that Cyril used the expression μ.(.τα. σαρκός 
not in the sense of together with flesh, but, in effect, in the viidsl 
of flesh, and that he forbade the flesh to be co-worshipped with 
the Divinity of the Word. 

For speaking for the Orientals who sympathized with Nes- 
torius, and objecting in their name to Cyril's condemnation in his 
Anathema VIII of their co-worship of Christ's humanity with 
His Divinity, he writes: 

"We say that he" [Cyril] "has very scientifically censured 
those who wish to worship the one and the same Son together with 
His flesh (συν τ^ σαρκί) on the ground that the preposition μετά' 
[that is in the midst of] "is somewhat different from the preposi- 
tion συν" [that is together with] "which very assertion he himself" 
[Cyril] "has made, as has been said before, by his saying that He" 
[God the Word] ''must be worshipped hi the midst of flesh μ€τα 
σαρκός, and by forbiddiyig His flesh to be co-worshipped with His 
Divinity.''^ See the whole passage, Greek and English, pages 
157-159 above, and indeed pages 142-212, where quotations are 
given from C3'ril, Athanasius, and the decisions of Ecumenical 
Councils. 

The persistent Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana, also quotes 
Cyril's Anathema VIII as forbidding, what it plainly calls the co- 
worship of Christ's humanity with His Divinity. See it above, 
pages 158, 159. And Nestorius' Counter- Anathema VIII, as 
oppose! to CN^ril's Anathema VIII, asserts a relative worship only 
of Christ's humanity to defend it against Cyril's Anathema VIII 
against it. And Theodoret held with Nestorius. See volume I 
of Ephesus in this set, pages 97, 98, 108-128, and 332-362. 

I ought to add that, before, I have followed the Latin rendering 
*^very unlearnedly and zuiskilfully'^ in Andrew of Samosata's utter- 
ance above. But now I have rendered the place *' scientifically" as 
in the Greek. 

It seems clear, therefore, that Cyril, and the Universal Church 
following him, by the worship of God the Word p.(.ra. σαρκός, meant 
not the co-worship of flesh with God the Word, but only the wor- 
ship of the Word i?i the midst of His flesh, in other words that they 
both worshipped in Christ His Divinity only. So the facts seem to 
teach. I speak not as a partisan, but as an impartial chronicler 
and historian, as duty demands. 



213 



ARTICLE VII. 

The; Ecumenicai, Authority of Cyril's XII Anathemas. 



I would here notice the attempts of men unsound or not fully- 
understanding the XII Anathemas of Cj'ril to deny their ecumen- 
icity and binding force. That is especially true of some of the 
creature worshippers of the Roman Communion and of the Greek, 
and of the Monophysites, as well as the Nestorian worshippers of 
Christ's humanity, against whom they were first directed. For if 
the last are condemned, much more are the others who worship 
not only Christ's created humanity but also archangels, angels, 
and saints, including especially the Virgin Mar}•, to whom the 
common Rosary of the Romanist offers ten prayers to one to the 
Father and none to the Son. In other words, she is the Romish 
and the Greek great goddess. 

Particularly condemnatory of all creature worship is Anathema 
VIII of Cyril, which, in anathematizing all Nestorian worshippers 
of Christ's humanity, much more anathematizes all who worship 
any lesser creature; and all creatures are inferior to Christ's 
humanity, the highest of all creatures. 

And Anathema X, in denying that any mere creature can be 
our High Priest above, whose work there includes intercession for 
us, necessarily condemns the error of invoking saints who, not 
possessing God's infinite attributes of omnipresence and omnisci- 
ence, and omnipotence, can not hear or help us. God the Word, 
therefore, is the sole Mediator and sole 'Intercessor above, who 
does the human things by his humanity. 

I have treated of those matters in note 183, pages 79-128, 
volume I of Ephesus, and in note 679, pages 332-362, and in note 
688, pages 363-406, where see. The last treats of God the Word's 
mediation. No sound man should ever speak ill of Cyril's XII 
Anathemas approved by Ephesus and the three Synods after it, as 
I have shown in note 520 on pages 204-208, volume I of Ephesus. 
Professor Bright or whoever wrote note '>," page 156 of the Ox- 



214 Article VII. 

ford translation of ^' Saint Athanasiiis'' Later Treatises''' denies that 
the Fourth Ecumenical Synod approved Cyril's Long Letter to 
Nestorius which has the XII Anathemas. His prejudices against 
those XII Chapters seem to have moved him, for he himself shows 
that "the Fifth General Council in 550" [no! 553] "asserted that 
the Council of Chalcedon had accepted Cyril's Synodical Epistles^ 
to 07ie of which the XII Articles were appended.'' Mansi, IX, 341 , is 
there referred to. And the Fifth Ecumenical Synod knew the 
facts better than Bright or Pusey, and was vastly more Orthodox 
and exact than either. And Bright in the same note shows that 
the Third World-Council in its "memorial to the Emperor" says 
that it had compared "Cyril's Epistles about the faith," one of 
which has the XII Articles, that is Anathemas, "with the 
Nicene Creed, and found them to be in accordance with it," and 
lie refers on that to Mansi's Concilia, vol. IV, col. 1237. And he 
tells us that the Eastern Party, that is the Nestorians of John of 
Antioch's Patriarchate, "in their secoJid petitiofi to Theodosins" the 
Emperor, say that Cyril's party, that is the Orthodox of the Third 
Ecumenical Council, had "confirmed in writing" what those 
Nestorians deemed the heretical "Articles of Cyril," id. 403. 
Bright goes on and states that: "At the end of the first ses- 
sion of Chalcedon the imperial commissioners announced that 
their master adhered to Cyril's '7ze'<3 canojiical letters, those which 
were co7ifirmed in the first Cou7icil of Ephesus'^ [the Ecumenical of 
A. D. 431], "Mansi VI, 937." And Bright shows further that "at 
the end of the Second Session" [of Chalcedon] "Atticus of Nicop- 
olis requested that" Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius which has the 
XII Articles "might be brought forward, i. e., in order 
that Leo's tome might be compared with it also. In the fourth 
session the tome was solemnly accepted, three Bishops saying 
inter alia that it was in harmony with the Epistles of Cyril.'* But 
Bright tries to break down the force of this last testimonj^ for the 
XII Chapters, that is Articles, that is Anathemas, by saying that 
one of the three Bishops was Theodoret, who had been one of the 
chief champions for Nestorius and his Man-Worship, against St. 
Cyril, and who, Bright thinks, could not have approved Cyril's 
XII Anathemas. 



The Ecumenical Aidhority of CyriV s XII Ajiatkemas. 215 



But it is enough, in reply to that, to say that before the Ortho- 
dox Bishops of the Council permitted him to sit in it, they 
required him to anathematize Nestorius, and when he at first 
refused they threatened to anathematize him unless he would. 
And then he did so reluctantly. And neither he nor any other 
Bishop of the Synod could have dared to reject the XII Chapters, 
or could have done so by the decisions of Ephesus without incur- 
ring deposition and excommunication by its Canon VI. 

Bright's other argument is that when certain letters of Cyril 
were read in the Second Session of Chalcedon the Long Epistle of 
Cyril to Nestorius was passed over. But there was doubtless a 
good reason for it then and there. And that does not militate 
against its reception by the Synod elsewhere. And it is sufficient 
to say that the Epistle with Cyril's XII Anathemas was received 
by the Fourth Synod as even Bright shows above, and as is clear 
from its Definition, in which it states that: "It has received the 
Synodal Letters of Cyril of blessed memory. Pastor of the Church 
of Alexandria to Nestorius, and those of the East, being suitable 
for the refutation of the frenzied imaginations of Nestorius, and 
for the instruction of those who with godly zeal desire to under- 
stand the saving faith," Hammond's translation in his Canons of 
the Onirch, page 96. 

Bright refers to J. M. Neale's History of the Eastern Church, 
Alexandria, volume I, page 252, as favoring his denial of the ecu- 
menicity of the XII Anathemas. And certainly Neale, the crea- 
ture invoker, in his note I on that page does favor that historical 
falsehood with blunder upon blunder. He refers to the Roman- 
ist Tillemont as his leader on this matter. I will give Neale's con- 
clusions in his own words: 

1. Rewrites: "It appears that the Council of Ephesus ap- 
proved the writings of S. Cyril to Nestorius in general terms, 
while the anathemas themselves were permitted to pass without 
comment in the mass, but not especially noticed." 

That is an untrue statement. The approval was entire of both 
of Cyril's Epistles, the Shorter, and the Longer, to Nestorius, 
■which contains the Anathemas. No part was excepted. For the 



21 6 Article VI Ι. 

Ecumenicity of the Longer Epistle see note 520, pages 204-208, 
volume I of Ephesus. 

2. Neale adds: "that the feeling of many of the Fathers was 
very strong against them." That is another false statement, I 
have translated all the Acts of Ephesus and have not met any word 
against them from any of the Orthodox Bishops of the Synod. All 
the opposition which I have found was from the heretical Nes- 
torians, whose feeling was very strong against them because they 
condemn their denial of the Incarnation, their worship of Christ's 
humanity, and their Cannibalism on the Eucharist. I have found 
no utterance of any Orthodox Father against them, much less have 
I found "many of the Fathers . . . very strong against them," 
(252). 

3. Neale asserts: "that S. Gennadius wrote most strongly 
against them, and S. Proclus disapproved of them." 

The Gennadius here spoken of was, I suppose, the one who 
was Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 458-471 . His first appearance, 
according to Sinclair in his article on him in Smith and Wace's 
Dictionary of Christian Biography , was in ^' about ^ji or 432,''' 
when he wrote two books, one of them Against the Anathemas of 
Cyrily in which he is Nestorian and slanderous and abusive 
enough. But Sinclair thinks it probable that "in 433 Gennadius 
was one of those who became reconciled with Cyril. At any rate, 
his abuse of Cyril and the XII Anathemas, which was holly Nes- 
torian and heretical, seems to have occurred early in his career, 
when he had not reached the episcopate and when his influence 
was probably small; and, so far as appears, he forsook his opposi- 
tion not long afterwards and spent his life in friendship with Cyril 
and in Orthodoxy. If he had continued in his Nestorian couri;e. 

Note 252. — Venables in his Article, Acacius of Beroea in Syria, page 13, volume I of Smith 
and H'ace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, does ipdeed write: "Acacius was strougly 
prejudiced against Cyril, and disapproved of his anathemas of Xestorins, which, as we have 
seen, appeared to him to savor of Apollinarianisni" But in reply to this we must remember: 

1. that Acacins belonged to John of Antioch's Nestorian patriarchate, and sympathized 
with its stand against Cyril. 

2. that before he died he became reconciled to Cyril and the faith of Ephesus. Further- 
more, Venables seems not to have understood the great issues involved, and therefore is 
himself prejudiced against Cyril. 



The Ecumenical Authority of Cyril's XII Anathemas. 217 

he would have been liable by the canons of Ephesus to deposition 
and anathema. 

I suppose the Proclus referred to was the Prelate of that name 
who was Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 434-446 or 447. What 
has just been said of Gennadius applies to him. If he had 
opposed the XII Chapters, the Canons of Ephesus would have 
deposed and anathematized him. But Neale gives no authority 
nor reference for his assertion, and so I leave it with the remark 
that the same Proclus in section VII of his Epistle on the Faith, 
which is addressed to the Annenians, (column 861, tome 65 of 
yix^w^ s Patrologia Graeca), seems to imply that sound Christians 
in his time did not worship Christ's humanity, in which belief 
he agrees with Cyril's Anathema VIII and the Lotig Epistle to 
Nestorius, which contains it. For he writes: 

"For we worship the consubstantial Trinity: we do not add a 
fourth" [Person, that is Christ's humanity] "to the number, 
but the Son is one" [that is God the Word] "who was born 
unbeginningly out of the Father, through whom we believe the 
worlds were made. He is the Shoot co-eternal with the Root; 
He has shone forth without emission from the Father; He 
both goes forth inseparably from his mind, and remains the 
Word" (253). 

Here the statement: "We worship the Consubstantial 
Trinity. We do not add a fourth [Person] to the number" is 
perfectly Orthodox, but the part that follows it is mere philosophic 
Anti-Scriptural, Anti-Church trash and heresy, no matter who 
utters it: for example: 

(A). The assertion that the Word "was born unbeginningly 
out of the Father." For every act must have a beginning, and 
the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod tells us when it be- 
gan, when it states, as in the Greek, that He was ^'born out of 
the Father before all the worlds" (254). It nowhere claims that 

Note 253. — Greek. Τ^«ά(5α }ΰ/0 iuoo'vciuv ττιιυσκννυνντίς, τέτα/ιτον τώ άριΟμφ ουκ 
έπεισψέρομεν ά/.λ' έστιν ΐΐς ΎΙός ό άνάργως έκ Πατρός j-evi^flfir•, δι' ου τοις αιώνας 
πιστενυμεν γε^ενήσθαι 6 σνναίδιος ry ρΰτ) κ7.άύυς, ό άρενστως έκ ΤΙατρυς έκλάμ•ψας' ό 
αχάριστος τυν νου ττροϊών τε και μένων Λο;ογ. 

Note 254.— Greek, τυν ΎΙον τοϋ θεοϋ Τον μονογενή, τον έκ τον ΙΙατρός γεννηθέντα irpb 
πάντων των αΙώνων, 



2i8 Article VII. 

he was born eternally out of the Father. That is condemned 
by the Anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed, which well 
defines: 

"But those who say that the Son of God . . . was not be- 
fore He was born" [that is, as is said just before in that Creed 
of Nicaea, ''born out of the Father, Sole Born, that is out of the 
Substajice of the Father, God out of God . . . very God out of very 
God"]; and that He was made out of nothing, or that He is of 
another existence or substance" [than the Father], "or that 
He is a creature, or subject to change, or to be turned into 
something else, these the universal and apostolic Church anathe- 
matizes" (255). 

From this if follows that he who holds to the error of eter- 
nal birth, (and every one does, of course, who asserts that it 
had no beginning), denies the existence of God the Word before 
He was born out of the Father, and hence falls under this anath- 
ema of the whole Church. Indeed he is a Ditheist or a Tritheist, 
and not a Trinitarian at all. 

(B). Proclus, in his misty, nonsensical, pagan philosophy as- 
serts that God the Word "shone forth without emission from the 
Father." If that means that the eternal Word has not come out of 
the Father y, it contradicts the statement of Christ Himself in John 
VIII, 42, "I ca77te out ^/ God" (256), and in John XVI, 28, "/ 
came out of the Fathef (257). And it contradicts the doctrine of 
the Nicene Creed, that He was ''born out of the Father, Sole Born" 
[out of Him], "that is out of the Substance of the Father, God out 
of God, . . . very God out of very God, born, not made, of the 
same Substance as the Father" (258). 

Such mere fancyings derived from pagan philosophy, like, for 
instance, the opinion of some of the ancients, not of all, that God 

Note 255. — Greek, Ύονς δε λέγοντας' ?}v ποτέ δτε ονκ ην καΐ πρΙν γεννηθήναί ονκ 
νν . . , τον ΎΊόν του θεον αναθεματίζει ή άγια τον θεοϋ καθολική καΐ αποστολική 
'Έικκλτ/σία, 

Note 256. — Greek, ίγω γαρ εκ του θεοϋ εξήλθαν. 

Note 257. — Greek as in Tischendorf 's Greek New Testament, eighth critical and larger 
edition (Lipsiae, 1869), έξ7]λθον ίκ του ΣΙατρός. 

Note 258. — Greek, τον Ύίον τοϋ θεον, γεννηθέντα έκ τον ΤΙατρος μονογενή, τουτέστιν έκ 
τής ουσίας τοϋ ΐΐατρός, θεον έκ θεον, ... θεον αληθινον έκ θεοϋ άληθινοϋ. 



The Ecumenical Authoriiy of CyriVs XII Anathemas. 219 

has no body, contrary to Exodus XXXIII, 18-23 inclusive, Daniel 
VII, 9, 10; Rev. IV, 2, 3; Rev. XX, 11, 12; Rev. I, 9, 19, etc.; 
and the doctrine of the double eternal procession of the Holy 
Ghost out of the Father and the Son, have done much to explain 
away Scripture, tc confuse the minds of men, and to split the 
Church. For how can one eternal act like the alleged double Pro- 
cession be after another alleged eternal act, the birth of the Son 
out of the Father, and yet be eternal? That would be an absurd 
contradiction in terms. 

Let us take warning to avoid mere Platonism and other vari- 
ous philosophizings of the pagan world and follow the inspired 
Scriptures, for they alone are sure and infallible, 

Neale goes on with his misstatements, in which, I suppose, he, 
a creature worshipper, and a traitor to Anglicanism, follows the 
Romanist Tillemont, who was also a creature worshipper, and am 
adherent of Rome. 

4. Neale goes on: "It appears that in the life-time of Cyril, 
they found no defenders but himself, Marius Mercator, and per- 
haps Acacius of Melitene." 

Oh! what herculean misstatement and ignorant falsehood! 
For the letter of Cyril which has the XII Chapters was not merely 
Cyril's but Synodal, the Synod being that of Alexandria, held 
November 3, 430. (259). As Hefele puts it: it was "prepared by 
Cyril and sanctioned by this Synod" (260); and as he adds of the 
XII Chapters: "At the close of their letter the Synod summed up 
the whole in the celebrated twelve anathematisms, composed by 
Cyril, with which Nestorius was required to agree" (261 ). They 
there follow. Consequently "in the lifetime of Cyril" they were 
put forth not only by him but by a Synod of Egyptian Prelates, 
who sent four commissioners, two of them Bishops, Theopemptus 
and Daniel, to deliver them, including, of course, the letter of 
which the XII Anathemas form part, and other documents to Nes- 
torius at Constantinople (262). 

Note 259.— See the references in the notes on page 28, volume III of the English 
translation of Hefele's History of the Church Councils, 
Note 260.— Id., page 28, text. 
Note 261.— Id., page 31. 
Note 263.— Hefele, id., page 34. 



220 Article VII. 

Neale proceeds: 

5. "It appears . . . that the Council of Chalcedon purposely- 
omitted all mention of them." 

Here is another historical falsehood, for, as we see above, 
even Bright's own statement shows that at Chalcedon they are 
mentioned as authority to guide the Emperor's faith and to try the 
Orthodoxy of Leo's tome by. And lastly we have, and that by 
the confession of Bright himself, the fact that "the Fifth General 
Council . . . asserted that the Council of Chalcedon had accepted 
CyriPs Synodical Epistles, to one of which the XII Articles were 
appended.''' And the Synod knew the facts. 

Nor is that all, for the Fourth Ecumenical Synod is so clear 
on the matter of its reception of both of Cyril's Letters to Nes- 
torius that it seems strange that Bright should be so inexact as to 
overlook the fact. For in its Definition, after receiving the first 
two Ecumenical Synods, it says plainly: 

"And further, on account of those who endeavor to corrupt 
the mystery of the Incarnation, and who impudently utter their 
vain conceits, that He who was born of the holy Virgin Mary 
was a mere man, it has received the Syfwdal letters of Cyril of 
blessed memory. Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, to Nestorius, 
and those of the East, being suitable for the refutation of the fren- 
zied imaginations of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those 
who, with godly zeal, desire to understand tBe saving faith" (263). 

6. Neale goes on: 

"It appears . . . that as late as the end of the fifth century 
they were held in doubtful reputation." 

To this we reply that from the time when the Epistle of which 
the XII Anathemas form part was read and approved in A. D. 
431, in the Third Synod of the whole Church, they were a test, a 
criterion of doctrine, and that by the Canons of that Council, and 
especially by its Canon VI, any one who tried to unsettle them, if 
he were Bishop or cleric, was deposed, and every laic who did was 
deprived of the Communion. 

7. Neale proceeds: 

Note 263. — Hammond's Canons oj the Church, page 96. 



The Ecumenical Authority of CyriVs XII A7iaihemas. 221 



"It appears . . . that, hovv'ever, the Fifth and Sixth Councils 
expressly approved them." 

We reply: They certainly did. 

For the Fifth Council received and approved all that Ephesus 
*'defi7ied rcspecti?ig the one faith,'' and condemned and anathema- 
tized '^ those things which Theodoret impiously wrote agai^ist the right 
faith, a7id against the Twelve Chapters of holy Cyril, afid against 
the first Synod of Ephes2is y And, further on, the Definition anathe- 
matizes "the impious Epistle which Ibas is said to have written 
to Maris, the Persian," because it calls Cyril a heretic, '*a7id calls 
the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril i)npio2cs, and coiitrary to the 
right faith r 

I quote mainly Hammond's translation: 

"Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again 
confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene, 
the Constantinopolitan, the First of Ephesus" [the Ecumenical 
Synod of A. D. 431, in contradistinction from the Robbers' Con- 
venticle of A. D. 449], "and that of Chalcedon, and we have ap- 
proved, and do approve ALL that they defined respecting the one 
faith. And we accojait those who do not receive these thiyigs alie^is 
from, the Catholic Church,'' that is 'from the Universal Church,'' for 
Catholic means Universal, and therefore we have so translated it 
generally. 

"Moreover, we condemn and anathematize, together with all 
the other heretics who have been condemned and anathematized 
by the before mentioned four holy Synods, and by the holy 
Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore, who was Bishop of 
Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, a7id also those i/migs which 
Theodoret i77ipio7csly wrote against the right faith, a7id agai7ist the 
Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyfil, a7id agai7ist the First Sy7iod of 
Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in defence of Theodore 
and Nestorius. In addition to these, we also anathematize the 
impious Epistle which Ibas is said to have written to Maris, the 
Persian, which denies that God the Word was incarnate of the holy 
Bringer Forth of God, and ever Virgin Mary, and accuses Cyril of 
holy viemory, who taught the truth, as a heretic, and of the same 
sentiments with ApoUinarius, and blames the First Synod of 



C22 Article VII. 

Ephesus as deposing Nestorius without examination and inquiry, 
a?id calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impious, and contrary 
to the right faith, and defends Theodore and Theodoret, and their 
impious opinions and writings. We therefore anathematize the 
three before mentioned Chapters, that is the impious Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those things which 
Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said to 
be of Ibas, and their defenders, and those who have written or do 
write in defence of them, or who dare to S2,y that they are correct, 
and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety with 
the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon. 

These things therefore being settled with all accuracy, we, 
bearing in remembrance the promises made respecting the holy 
Church, and Who it was that said that the gates of hell should not 
prevail against it (264), that is, the deadly tongues of heretics; 
remembering also what was prophesied respecting it by Hosea, 
saying, I will betroth thee tuito me in faithfulness , and tho2i shall know 
the Lord (265), and numbering together with the Devil, the father 
of lies, the unbridled tongues of heretics, and their most impious 
writings, will say to them, Behold, all ye kindle a fire, and cause 
thefianie of the fire to grow strong: ye shall walk i?i the light of your 
fire, and thefianie which ye kindle (266). 

But we, having a commandment to exhort the people with 
right doctrine, and to speak to the heart of Jerusalem, that is, the 
Church of God, do rightly make haste to sow in righteousness, and 
to reap the fruit of life; and kindling for ourselves the light of 
knowledge from the holy Scriptures, and the doctrine of the 
Fathers, we have considered it necessary to comprehend in certain 
Chapters, both the declaration of the truths a7id the condem7iation of 
Heretics and their wickedness. ' ' 

These ''necessary chapters,^'' as we have seen, include an approval 
of Cyril's Twelve, and, like them, condemn Man-Worship, In-, 
deed, we have just seen how strongly and plainly the Fifth Synod, 
in its Definition, condemns the writings of Theodoret and the 

Note 264.— Matt. XVI, IS. 

Note 265— Hosea II, 20. 

Note 266.— Isaiah I,, 11, Septuagint in the main. 



The Ecumenical Authority of CyriV s XII Anathevias. 223 

Epistle said to be of Ibas, because they condemned Cyril's XII 
Chapters, the Vlllth among them, which anathematizes every 
one who co- worships Christ's humanity with His Divinity. 

Then follow the XIV Anathemas of the Synod. Of the Ninth 
we have spoken above, and of its condemnation of those who 
worshipped Christ "/« two Natures.'''' 

Anathema XI curses in Christ's name Apollinarius, the Co- 
substancer who, as we shall see, worshipped Christ's flesh with 
his Divinity; Nestorius who worshipped all of Christ's human- 
ity with his Divinity, and Eutyches who, after the Union of 
the Two Natures of Christ, professed neither to admit nor to 
worship more than One, His Divinity, though, whatever were 
his intentions, as Christ's humanity does remain, for it has not 
disappeared, been annihilated nor transubstantiated into His 
Divinity, he did in fact worship it, and not only worship it, 
but worship it absolutely as very God. 

I quote Anathema XI, translating from the Greek given 
by Hefele (267): 

"If any one does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, 
Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, with 
their impious writings, and all the other heretics who have 
been condemned and anathematized by the Holy, Universal and 
Apostolic Church, and the aforesaid four holy Synods, and those 
who have held or do hold errors like those of the aforesaid 
heretics, and have continued in their impiety till the end, let 
such a man be anathema." 

Anathema XIII is clear and definite on the XII Chapters of 
Cyril, For it anathematizes Theodoret's utterances against 
them and their defenders as follows: 

"If any one defends the impious writings of Theodoret 
against the true faith and against the first and and holy Synod 
of Ephesus and against Cyril among the holy (268) and his 
Twelve Chapters, and if any one defends any of those things 
which Theodoret wrote in favor of the impious Theodore and 

Note 267. — Hefele's History of tbe Church Councils, volume IV of the English translation, 
page 336. 

Note 268. — Greek, του hv άγίοις Κυρίλλου, literally "of Cyril among the holy," no mat- 
ter how much he might be abused and anathematized by the Nestorian creature worship- 



224 Article VII. 

Nestorius and in favor of those others who hold the same errors as 
the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, and receive them and their 
impiety, and for their sakes calls impious the teachers of the 
church who held to and confessed the substance union of God the 
Word, and if indeed he does not anathematize the aforesaid 
impious writings, and those who held or do hold errors like 
theirs, and all those who have written against the right faith, or 
against Saint Cyril and against his Twelve Chapters, and have 
died in such impiety, let such a man be anathema," 

Anathema XlVth condemns the Epistle which Ibas is said to 
have written to Maris the Persian heretic, because 'Hhe same 
impious Epistle calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril 
impious, and contrary to the right faith." And it adds: 

"If any one therefore defends the said [impious] Epistle, and 
does not anathematize it and its defenders, and those who say 
that it is sound, or any part of it, and those who have written or 
do write in defence of it, or of the impieties which are contained 
in it, and dare to defend it or the impieties contained in it by the 
name of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon, 
and who continued in that conduct till the end; let such a man 
be anathema." 

And then follows what, considered with the foregoing and 
with all the context, means deposition for every Bishop and cleric 
who opposes the XII Chapters (of course, including the Vlllth, 
which anathematizes the co-worship of Christ's humanity with his 
Divinity,), the XII Chapters approved by Ephesus and the Three 
Ecumenical Synods after it, and anathema for every monk or 
Ifiic who does. I quote here mainly Hammond's translation: 



ping heretics. Of course, Cyril who, in his Anathema VIII, anathematizes every one who 
worships Christ's perfectly sinless humanity, would not worship any lesser creature. The 
language only means that The Fifth S^nod deemed Cyril amoDg Christians departed and 
saved and in heaven. For saint and its synonym holy are frequent appellations in the New 
Testament, 

1. for all living saints; as for example in II Cor. I, 1; VIII, 4; Eph, 1, 1, etc.; 

2. for the saints in heaven. Rev. XX, 6. And there are the 144,000 virgins. Rev. XIV, 1-6, 
for they follow the Lamb who is in heaven, (Rev. ΙΛ', 1-11, Rev. V, 1-14), whithersoever he 
goeth; and that great multitude whom no man could number. Rev. VII, 9-17 inclusive. And 
all those are surely saints. 

And, 3, saint and its synonym Jioly are used for the children of Christians, even if but 
one parent be a Christian, I Cor. VII, 12-17. 



The Ecumenical Authority of CyriV s XII A7iathemas. 225 

"We, then, having thus rightly confessed those things which 
have been delivered to us, as well by the Holy Scriptures as by 
the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and the Definitions of the one 
and the same faith of the before mentioned four holy Councils" 
[and, of course, among them the Third, which in its Canon VI 
deposes every Bishop and cleric and excommunicates or suspends 
from communion every laic who tries to unsettle its work], "and 
having pronounced a condemnation against the heretics and their 
impiet}'•, and also against those who have defended or do defend 
the three impious chapters" [two of which, Theodoret's writings 
and the Epistle said to be Ibas', as we have just seen, are con- 
demned specifically and by name because they opposed the Twelve 
Anathemas of Cyril; and the Third Chapter, the writings of The- 
odore of Mopsuestia, because they teach the relative worship of 
Christ's humanity. He opposed the doctrine contained in Cyril's ^ 
ΧΠ Anathemas, but the Council does not mention them because 
he died before they were put forth], 'and have persisted or do per- 
sist in their error; if any person shall attempt to deliver, or teach 
or write, contrary to this, which we have piously settled, if he be 
a Bishop, or any of the clergy, he shall be deprived of his Episco- 
pate or clericate as doing things alien to Priests and the ecclesias- 
tical ofl&ce; but if he be a monk or layman he shall be anathema- 
tized." 

Hefele on page 342 of volume IV of the English translation 
of his History of the Church Councils sums up this conclusion and 
adds what here follows: 

"In the appendix to these fourteen anathematisms" [of the 
Fifth Council] "the Synod declares that, "if any one ventures to 
deliver, or to teach, or to write any thing in opposition to our 
pious ordinances, if he is a Bishop or cleric, he shall lose his 
bishoprick or office; if he is a monk or layman, he shall be anath- 
ematized. All the bishops present subscribed, the Patriarch of 
Constantinople first, altogether 164 members, among them eight 
Africans. It is nowhere indicated that any debates took place 
over the plan." 

And the Sixth Ecumenical Council, A. D, 680, received all 
the Five World-Synods before itself, the Third and the Fifth as 



226 Article VII. 

well as the others by name and all their decisions absolutely, for 
it excepts nothing. For after referring to the fact that the 
Empero-r Constantine IV (Pogonatus), had convened the "holy and 
Ecumenical Assembly," and by it had "united the judgment of 
the whole Church," it goes on, (I quote mainly as in Hammond's 
good translation, though for greater accuracy I have departed 
from it a little): 

"Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having 
driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain 
time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy 
and approved. Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five 
holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318 
holy Fathers who assembled in Nicaea against the raging Arius; 
and the next in Constantinople of the 150 inspired men against 
Macedonius the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apol- 
linarius; and also the first in Ephesiis of 200 venerable me7i conve?ied 
against Nestorhis the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of 630 
inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; 
and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod 
assembled in this place" [Constantinople] "against Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of 
Theodoret agai7ist the Twelve Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and 
the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Per- 
sian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion and 
chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion." 

Then, after an excellent statement for the Two Natures 
and the Two Wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, the 
Definition ends as follows against those who depart from any 
of the doctrines and faith of the VI Ecumenical Synods, the 
five before named and itself: 

"These things then being defined by us with the utmost 
accuracy and care, we decree that it shall not be lawful for any 
one to bring forward or write or compose another faith (269), 
or to understand or teach otherwise. And they who shall dare 
to compose any other belief (270), or to bring forward or teach 

Note 269. — Greek, ετίραν ττίστιν. 
Xote270. — Greek, ττισην έτέραν. 



The Ectmicnical Atdhority of CyriVs XII Anafhemas . 227 

or deliver another Creed" (271) [than the Nicaeno-Constanti- 
nopolitan] "to those who wish to turn to the acknowledging of 
the truth from Heathenism or Judaism, or indeed from any 
heresy, or to introduce any novelty of expression or newly in- 
vented phrase to the subversion of those things which we have 
now defined, if they are Bishops or clerics they shall be aliens, 
the Bishops from the episcopate and the clerics from the clericatc; 
but if they be monks or laics, they are to be anathematized," 
Those are the penalties inflicted by the Universal Church 
against all opponents of the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril approved 
by Ephesus and by the three Ecumenical Synods after it, and 
against all therefore who oppose its Anathema ΛΊΙΙ, which for- 
bids the co-worship of Christ's humanity with His Divinity, or 
any other of those Anathemas. 

Surely, after all this evidence, not from mere private indi- 
viduals but from Ecumenical Synods, no fair man can have any 
doubt that the ^'onc, Jioly^ universal and apostolic Church''^ has in 
the clearest terms again and again approved Cj^ril's XII Anath- 
emas and commanded their enforcement as a necessary part of 
the doctrine of the Universal Church so long as time endures, in- 
cluding, of course, the deposition of all Bishops and clerics, and 
the excommunication, temporary or permanent, of all who trans- 
gress Anathema VIII of Cyril by co-worshipping Christ's human- 
ity with God the Word. 

Neale continues: 8. "It appears . , . that they were alleged 
by Pope S. Martin in the Council of Eateran against the Monoth- 
elites as authoritative." 

That Synod was held in A. D. 649. And it certainly did 
regard and treat the XII Chapters of Cyril and Ephesus as authori- 
tative and binding on all. 

In Labbe and Cossart's Concilia, Coleti's edition, tome VIT, 
the Lateran Council of A. D. 649, under Martin, Bishop of Rome, 
Session III, columns 177, 178, we find him quoting Anathema I 
of Cyril's XII as authoritative. It is there mentioned as "the 



Notb271. — Greek, Ιτ^μον σνμβο?.ον. 



228 Article VII. 

first of the XII Chapters composed by him in his Synodical 
Epistle to Nestorius. ' ' 

In session IV, columns 245-262, id., Martin, Bishop of Rome, 
at the request of a Bishop, calls for the reading of the decisions 
of the first five Ecumenical Synods. And then Theophylact (chief 
of the notaries) reads, first the Creed of the First Ecumenical 
Synod, then that of the Second Council, then the XII Anathemas 
of Cyril, which were approved at Ephesus, the heading of which 
in the Greek there is: 

"Chapters on Faith of the blessed Cyril, Bishop of Alexan- 
dria, which the holy Synod of the 200 holy Fathers, following 
him, approved" (iveKptve). Fourth, there follows the Definition 
of Chalcedon, and fifth, the XIV Anathematisms of the Fifth 
Synod. And all these, including Cyril's XII Anathemas, are 
made the criteria of judging of Monothelism. 

And in Session V the Council puts forth a Definition (opos 
κεφαλαιώδτ;?) in the form of XX Canons on the faith, the XVIIth 
of which condemns every one who does not follow the Five Synods 
aforesaid. It reads as follows: 

"If any one does not confess in accordance with the holj'^ Fa- 
thers properly and truly every thing which has been handed down 
and preached to the holy, universal, and apostolic Church of God, 
both by the holy Fathers themselves and the approved (εγκρίτων) 
five Ecumenical Synods, and that in word and sense to a single 
dot {άχρι μιας κεραίας), let him be Condemned. 

We have seen how the Orthodox Champion Cyril brands Nes- 
torianism as resulting, by its worship of Christ's humanit}', in 
substituting a worshipped Tetrad for a worshipped Trinit}'•, and 
in the great error of worsJdpping a Jucmayi being {ανΟρω-οΧατρύα). 
See under Tetradism, page 656, volume I of Ephesus in this Set. 
And though the seventh century was a period of growing idolatry 
in the Church, for which God punished it by the Mohammedan 
Scourge, nevertheless it is noteworthy that the Ecthesis {η "Εκ^εσι?) 
of the Emperor Heraclius, put forth A. D. 638, to crush the con- 
troversy on Monothelism, though itself the work of heretics, 
nevertheless is decidedly Cyrillian and Orthodox in denouncing 



The Eaime7iical Authority of Cyril's XII A7iaihemas. 229 

Tetradism, at least in name, for it contains the following rejection 
of it: 

"No Tetrad is brought in by us" [or '7<? wi"] "instead of the 
Holy Trinity. God forbid! For the Holy Trinity has received 
no addition of a fourth Person" {272). But nevertheless the wor- 
ship of saints, angels, and images, and the cross had come in, and 
the worship of relics, and probably the co-worship of Christ's 
humanity with his Divinity contrary to Cyril's Anathema VIII 
and Ephesus, and to Anathema IX of the Fifth Synod, and to 
Christ's command in Matthew IV, 10; to Colossians II, 18; Revela- 
tions XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9; I Corinthians ΛΊ, 9, 10, 11; Gala- 
tians V, 19-22, and Revelations XXI, 8. 

Neale concludes: 

"It appears . . . that since that time" [A. D. 649] "they have 
generally been considered as part of the teaching of the Church.'' 

They certainly have, though in the Middle Ages and even in 
modern times parts of their teaching have been forgotten, especially 
their doctrine against the worship of a human being {άνθρωττο/ατρεία); 
the result of which was a vast growth of the worship of 
Christ's humanity, the worship of his sacred heart, the worship 
of the Virgin Mary, and of other saints, and angels, by bowing, 
invocation, etc., and of the relative worship of relics, altars, com- 
munion tables, images painted and graven, including images of 
the cross, churches, the Bible, and parts of it, etc., by relative 
pagan worship, by kissing, genuflection, kneeling, incense, etc., 
and the worship of the bread or wafer and wine in the Eucharist. 

And oh! the woful failure to keep in mind Cyril's teaching in 
his Anathema X, that He who is our Sole Mediator on high by inter- 
cession, our High Priest there, must be God as well as Man, for 
He must be God to hear our prayers and search our hearts and 
motives, and to know what will be best for us, and to answer us 
wisely; and that means that He must possess the three peculiarly 
divine attributes of omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, 

KoTE 272.— Greek as in in col. 2(M, tome VII of Coleti's Labbe and Cossart, Venetiis, A. D. 
1729. Ου Τ€τράδθ5 ημΐν αντί της άγάιΐ" τριάδα? ίΙσαγομ.€νηζ, μη γένοιτο, ουΤ€ yo^ 
Τ€Τ<ψτον ττροσωτΓου ττροσΟηκην η άγια rpias εδί^ατο. 



230 Article VIII. 



which no creature can have; and he must be a man to pray for us, 
for God never prays, but is prayed to. And Cyril well teaches there- 
fore that Christ prays as man, and is prayed to as God: that he 
worships as Man, but is worshipped as God: see in proof the ref- 
erences to his works in the note matter at the foot of page 127, 
volume I of Ephesus in this Set, and compare the note matter on 
page 128, id. And the forgetting of those things led men and 
women in past ages to invoke creatures in heaven who never heard 
them, nor were allowed to dare to share God the Word's pre- 
rogative Mediatorial work of being the sole hearer in Christ 
of human prayer there and the sole Intercessor there by his 
humanity. And so they became guilty of the great sin of 
worshipping creatures, and t)rought on themselves cursing and 
not blessing, and ruin in both worlds. Of course, the Father and 
the Holy Spirit hear prayer also, but Christ is the only Mediator 
there. 

And because they forgot the teaching of the Long Epistle of 
Cyril to Nestorius, which contains his Twelve Anathemas, that we 
are not guilty of eating a man (ανθρωποφαγία) in the Lord's Supper 
they fell into that error and sin. 

And because others knew not that Epistle and its XII Chapters 
and did not regard their Ecumenical authority they fell away into 
the fundamental error of denying the Incarnation. To conclude: 
so long as the Church respects and enforces the XII Anathemas of 
Cyril and of Ephesus, and of the Epistle which contains them, it 
will, so far, be Orthodox and blessed, and so far as it does not, it 
will fall into error, lose, and be cursed. God grant us all wisdom 
to preserve and obey them, and enforce them on all. Amen. 



ARTICLE Vin. 

The use of the terms man-worship (ά•^ΟρωτΓθλατρ€ία), AND 
MAN-WORSHIPPER (άνθρωπί'λάτρης) , AFTER EPHESUS, A. D. 431, 
AND WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THEM; AND HOW LONG THAT USE AP- 
PEARS. 

We have seen in volume I of Ephesus in this set that Nestorius 
in his counter Anathema VIII against Cyril's Anathema VIII 
professes himself to worship Christ's humanity, but only relatively ^ 



The Terms Δ fan- Worship and Man-Worshipper. 231 

which plea, he thinks, will excuse his error on that (273). And 
therefore he repels the term Man- Worshipper (άνΟρωττολάτρψ)^ and 
Man- Worship (άν^/>ω7Γολατρεια) as not applicable to himself and 
his partisans: see in proof his Blasphemies 5, 8, 10, and 14, pages 
458-498, text and notes. In his Blasphemy 14 he admits that, if 
that excuse does not avail, he and his partisans would be ''plainly 
Man- Worshippers and flesh-worshippers,"' page 467, and note 966 
there, where the Greek is found. 

In Hardouin's Co7icilia, tome I, col. 1414, Nestorius in his 
Blasphemy 5, tries to excuse his worship of Christ's humanity by 
the plea that it was relative in eilect, and therefore 'that no one 
77iay suspect Christianity of worshippifig a niaiV (274). See the 
Blasphemy in full in Greek and English, in volume I of Ephesus 
in this Set, page 459, text, and note 935. But we must not forget 
that Nestorius did not profess to worship Christ's humanity abso- 
lutely, but tries to excuse it by the pagan plea of relative service. 
For he denies in his Blasphemy 5, (page 459, text and note 935, 
volume I of Ephesus in this Set), that he is a worshipper of a human 
being because he worships Christ's humanity not for its own sake, 
but on account of its conjunction with God the Word, that is 
relatively only. The still worse absohite worship of it, though not 
meant nor intended, came in later when One Natureism rose and 
the One Nature heretics, Eutyches and others, asserted that the 
humanity of Christ had disappeared and that they worshipped only 
His Divine Nature. But, as his humanity remains, they did, in 
fact, worship it unintentionally as very God with absolute ^OXh\\\\). 

It is noteworthy that the expression J/a«- Worshipper ■^z.sws&d, 
for some time after Ephesus, but fell into disuse as the years rolled 
on and the worship of human beings became common. In the 
Xlth volume of Hardouin s Concilia, in one of the Indexes, it is 
found as late as the seventh century. 

It seems strange that in the corrupting times after the Coun- 

Note273.— The Counter Anathema VIII of Nestorius is found in l,atin in column 1300, 
tome I of Hardouin's Concilia; on page 317 in the third edition of Hahn's Bibliothek der 
Svmbole, and with other matter bearing on it in volume I of Ephesus in this set, pages 
65-69, note matter. The Counter Anathema itself is on page 68, id. 

Note 274.— The Greek is: Γνα /xr/Set? άν^/3ω7Γθλατ/3£ίαν [or, according to another 

reading in Hardouin's margin, άν^/οω7Γθλατ/3£Γν] τόν Χριστιανισ/χόν ντΓΟΤΓΤίνστ. . See as 
above. 



232 Article VII Ι. 

cil, when the worship of creatures inferior to Christ's humanity 
had grown and become a common sin, that is when the worship of 
the Virgin, martyrs and other saints, archangels and angels w^as 
openly practiced, that men should any longer remember that the 
Third World Synod had forbidden them, under pain of deposition 
and anathema, to worship even the spotless humanity of the 
Redeemer. 

Yet for some time they did, though the Ecumenical condem- 
nation of worshipping Christ's perfect humanity, the shrine in 
which God the Word dwells, was much more, by necessary inclu- 
sion, a condemnation of all lower kinds of Man- Worship. And 
probably there were other Orthodox maintainers of that prohi- 
bition for some time after whose works have not reached us, for 
they had to pass the criticism of unlearned and Man- Worshipping 
copyists and image- worshippers, who would naturally regard their 
Orthodoxy with suspicion. But nevertheless we have the comfort- 
ing and all-sufficient fact that the Third Council of the whole 
Church forbade all Man-Worship, word and thing, and the Three 
of the whole Church after that approved that prohibition by ap- 
proving Ephesus. And that Christ-authorized decision binds us 
all forever, under severe penalties, Matthew XVIII, 15-18 
inclusive. Nothing avails against it, private opinions of any 
Father or any thing else. Every thing against it is heresy, ecu- 
menically condemned in the VI Great Synods. 

I will here mention all the noteworthy and pertinent instances 
of the terms Man- Worshipper, and Ma7i- Worship, after Ephesus, 
which occur in the Index to Hardouiii's Councils (Concilia). 

In the Council under Mennas, held at Constantinople A. D. 
536, we find a letter of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and the Bishops 
of the three Provinces of Palestine under him, to John, Bishop of 
Constantinople, and the Synod congregated there. It contains a 
profession of faith and a condemnation of various heresies and 
heretics, where John of Jerusalem and his Synod say: 

"We anathematize every heresy, and Nestorius the Man• 
Worshipper'' (275). 

Note 275.— //ardouin's Concilia, tome II, col, 1344: Kat άναθΐ.μχιτίζομ.ίν ττασαν 
αιρίσιν , και Nearo/jtov τον άνθρωιτολάτρην. 



The Terms Man- Worship and Man- Worshipper. 233 



In the same document below they profess lo receive "the 
Synod ,o£ the two hundred [Fathers] who met at Ephesus and 
deposed Nesioriiis the Man- Worshipper'' (276). 

And again, further on, in the same leUer, they receive the 
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 630 Fathers "who had ratified 
the decisions against Nesioriiis the Man- Worshipper (27'/). 

In Action XI of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 680, a 
letter was read of Sophronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, who opposed 
the heresy of One Willism, to Sergius, the heretical Monothelite, 
Bishop of Constantinople, in which in his profession of faith 
Sophronius anathematizes among other heretics, "Theodore of 
Mopsueslia and Nestorius, the most foul preachers of the foul 
worship of a hiunan being''' (278). 

That is the last and latest instance in the Index in volume XI 
of Hardouin's Concilia of the use of the expression " Worship of a 
human being" (279). 

That was in the last of the Ecumenical Councils. 

Yet a dim remembrance of the fact that the Universal Church 
had forbidden the worship of Christ's humanity lingered long, and 
perhaps we may say lingers yet, even in the idolatrous Com- 
munions, the Greek and the Roman. 

For even the Romanist Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore in 
our own day, witnesses to the objection, and the hesitancy for 
3^ears of Rome before she would approve the new-fangled form of 
creature worship, the worship of the sacred heart of Jesus (280), 

Note 2"^.— Ibid, και άστταζόμίνιη τας τεσσάρας άγιας σννόο<>νς. Then after 
mentioning the first two Ecumenical Synods they come to specify their acceptance of the 
Third as foUows: "And we receive τ^ν των διακοσίων των iv Έφ€σω των κα^ελόντων 
Νεστό/Ίον τον άνθρωπολάτρην. 

ΝΟΤΕ 277.— Ibid. Κα* Tr/v μίγάλην καΐ οίκονμ^νίκην σιίνοδ'ν των χ\ iv 
Χαλκτ^δόνι . . . σννίλθόντω> . . . και εττισφραγισαντων δέ τα κατά Νεστοριου 
τοΰ άν^ρωτΓολατρου. 

ΝΟΤΕ 278.— Harduin. Concil., torn. Ill, col. 1289. Θεόδωρος ό ΙΝΙοι/ίουεστιας , καΐ 

Νεστόριοζ, οΐ t^s μιαρας άνθρωτΓθλατρζία<ί μιαηωτατοι κηρνκ€ς. 

Note 279.— See the Greek in the note last above. 

Note 280.— See Chrystal's translation of Epiiesus, volnme I, page 342, note. Kenrick 
states that "iery many tumults were excited" in the Roman Communion by the new ism, and 
that the Roman ''Congregation of Rites hesitated in the years ι6^γ, ij27, and 1729^ avd decided 



234 Article IX. 

and another Romanist tells how even the idolatrous Russian Church 
rejected and punished that novel paganism (281). 



ARTICLE IX. 

The alleged opinion of Gregory op nazianzus in favor 
of worshipping both natures of christ: 

In other words Gregory of nazianzus on the worship 
OP Christ's humanity and on creature worship. 

Bingham in his Antiquities of the Christian Church, book T, 
chapter 2, section 16, quotes Gregory of Nazianzus as favoring the 
view that an Orthodox Christian was reproached by an Apol- 
linarian opponent as being a worshipper of a man, and that he 
admitted it. 

The passage to which he refers occurs in Gregory's Epistle I 
to the Presbyter, that is Elder, Cledonius, a faithful cleric, ''agai?ist 
Apollinarins,'" and is found in column 185, tome 3 of Gregory's 
works, which is tome 37 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. It is 
Epistle CI of Gregor}- there, It argues against the Apollinarian 
heresy that Christ lacked a human mind, and that God the Word 
took its place in Christ's humanity. I quote the place on which 
Bingham relies as the basis for his statement. Gregory there 
addresses the Apollinarian as follows: 

"But, saith he," [the Apollinarian] "our" [human] "mind is 
condemned But what" [then] "shall we say of the flesh? Either 
do away with it on account of its sin. or accept the mind also for the 

thai a should abstain from conceding an Office and a Mass for the worship of ike heart, taken in 
the strict sense. But Clement XIII approved it in the year 1765.'" If one would kuow the 
depth, the variety, and the utter paganism of Rome, he should by all means read "the Rac- 
colta, or Collection of Indulgenced Prayers," now translated into English and published. 
Surely Rome is the Harlot of the Revelations, from whom we are commanded to come out. 
She is irreformable and doomed to utter and everlasting destruction in Revelations XVIII, 
as the early Church held. And all who, agaicst God's warning and command in Rev. XVIII, 
4, refuse to "come out of her" must be "partakers of her sins,"' and "receive of her plasties," 
as witness Spain and Italy, and the Romanists of Ireland, and the Greeks, Bulgarians, 
and others who refused and still refuse to come out of the "New Rome," Constantinople, on 
the Bosporus. And those plagues, the plagues of the idolater, are punished, as God's Word 
teaches, in the future world as well as in this, I Corinthians VI, 9, 10; Galatians V, 19, 20, 21, 
.and Revelations XXI. 8. 

Note 281.— See page 121 above. 



Gregory of Nazianziis on the Worship of Christ' s Humanity. 235 

sake of salvation. If the inferior thing" [the flesh] "was taken" 
[by God the Word] "that it might be made holy by the Inflesh" 
[of God the Word], "shall not the better thing" [the mind] "be 
taken that it may be made holy by the Inman" [of God the 
Word]? 

If the day" [man's human nature made from clay] "has been 
leavened and made a new lump, Ο wise men, shall not its like- 
ness" [or its like] "be leavened and united to God, being made 
godly by the Divinity. And we will add the following also: if the 
mind be altogether spit upon as prone to sin and condemned, and 
for that reason a body indeed was taken" [by God the Word] 
"but the mind was left out" [of his humanity], "there is [no?] 
pardon for those who err in" [or "concerning"] "mind. For, 
according to thee, a testimony of God has clearly shown the im- 
possibility of its cure. 

Let me speak of the greater thing of the two. Thou, most 
excellent sir, dishonorest my mind (as a flesh worshipper, if indeed 
I" [were] "a man-worshipper) in order that thou mayest bind God 
to flesh, as though he could not be bound" [to man] "in any other 
way, and by that means thou hast removed the middle wall of 
partition" [between Divinity and the flesh] (282). "But if that 
be true of my logical power Λvhat shall be said of the mind of the 
unphilosophic and uneducated man? Mind communes with mind 
as with some thing nearer and more akin to itself, and by it, it 
acts as mediator for the flesh, between its grossness and Divinity" 
(283). 

But this passage is not perfectly clear and definite on the 
question as to whether Gregory co-worshipped Christ's humanity 
with His Divinity, or whether he worshipped it at all. For the 
Greek expression on which Bingham bases his idea that he waS 
guilty of άν^ρωπολατραα, that IS the error of ivorshipping a 
}mma7i beiiig, as St. Cyril and, in effect, the whole Church in the 

NOTB 282— S. Gregorii Theologi Epistola CI, column 185, tome 37 Migne's Patrologia 
Graeca ; Ειπώ TO μείζον' arv /xev δια τούτο άτι/χάνεις, ω Βέλτιστε, τον ε/χόυ 
νουν (ώ? σαρκολάτρης, εί'τΓϊρ άνθρωττολάτρηζ εγώ) Γνα συνθ7;σ>;ς Θεύν ττρός σάρκα 
ώ? ονκ άλλως δε^^ναι δυνά/χενον, και δια τοΰτο εξαίρεις το μ^σότοίκο/ , 

ΝΟΤΕ 283.— /izd. 



236 Article IX. 

decisions of Ephesus call it, is without any verb at all. Iviterally 
translated it reads: 

"Thou ... as a flesh-worshipper, dishonorest my mind, if 
indeed I a Man- Worshipper. " 

If we "supply "were" after "I" it certainly does not neces- 
sarily imply that Gregory admitted himself to be a Man- Worship- 
per." And no one can be sure whether we may not supply 
^^werey The place is therefore not perfectly clear and sure. 
Indeed the remark seems to have no necessary connection with 
the context, for if omitted the sense is as good or better without 
it. It looks very much like an interpolation, but may not be so. 

There is another place of Gregory of Nazianzus which bears 
upon cur topic. It occurs in his dogmatic poems, and is found on 
page 467, tome XXXVII of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. I translate: 

"To thee I am a worshipper of a man, because / worship the 
whole of the Word who is mystically joined to me, both God Himself 
and a mortal vv'ho bringeth salvation. Thou art a flesh- 
worshipper and bringest in" [the error] ' 'that I am without a mind, 
if with thy permission I may courteously repl}^ to thee" (284). 
Then he argues that Christ must have had a human mind. But 

Note 284. — Greek as above mentioned : 

ΆνθρωτΓολάτρηζ άμί σοι, σίβων όλον 

Τόι/ σνντίθβντα μυστίκως €μοΙ Λόγον 
Αυτόν ©eov Τ€ και βροτον σωτηιηον. 

2ύ σαρκολάτρης, εΐσά/ων άνουν ipi ', 
"Αν σου το κομψον ττει^ανώ? άντίστρίφω. 

The σωτν; ριον Ι have translated as it is rendered in the only place where it occurs in 
the New Testament, Titus II, 11, as an adjective, if we may follow the Englishman's Greek Con- 
cordance of the New Testament on it. In the four other instances where it occurs there it 
is rendered by the noun Salvation in our Common Version. The σωτηρ'.ον may be taken to 
refer to &e(>V and to the whole clause, and so the meaning would be that it is God the 
Word Himself and a mortal man who bringeth salvation. The worship is given here by 
Gregory to "the whole of the Word," but Λvhether the words which follow, "5ο/Λ God Himself 
and a mortal who bringeth salvation" mean that he worshipped both natures as included 
under ^'the whole of the Word" though the "mortal" man is certainly no part of God the 
Word, or whether he means merely in that expression to confess his faith in the Orthodox 
doctrine that Christ is God the Word and a mortal man, and not, as the ApclHnarians 
asserted, a part of a man, in other words to confess his belief in the doctrine of the two 
perfect Natures in Christ, the divine and the human, is not absolutely sure. 



Gregory of Nazianziis on the Worship of ChrisV s Humanify . 237 

the passage is not so definite either way, as we could desire. 
And yet Gregory may have meant that he worshipped Christ's 
humanity, but then another thing is to be considered: The 
VI Ecumenical Councils are not to be judged by the private 
opinions of Gregory of Nazianzus or by the private opinions 
of any other individuals, but the private opinions of Gregory 
and those of every other writer in the ancient Church, of the 
mediaeval Church, and of the modern Church, by that "<?«^, 
holy, universal and apostolic Church,'^ with whose continuous Apos- 
tolate he has promised to be to the end of the world and to guide 
them into all truth, and which in the only places where it ever 
spoke before its division in the eighth century and the ninth, those 
six Sound Synods, was the pillar and ground of the truth against 
denial of the Incarnation, the Worship of a Human Being 
{avOpumoXarpiia) , and Cannibalism (ανθρωποφαγία) on the Eucharist, 
Papal Infallibility, and antecedently against most or all the great 
heresies of our daj-. This principle, that all the Fathers must be 
judged by the VI Synods, has often been forgotten, and, as a conse- 
quence, most important and necessary and saving truths formulated 
once for all by those sole Councils of the whole undivided Church 
have been trampled under foot, and mere private opinions of indi- 
vidual writers admittedly fallible and sometimes positively heretical 
and condemned by them have been put into their place and 
idolatry and creature worship and corruption and ruin have 
resulted, and Christianity has been wiped out of North Africa, 
most of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Pontus, Asia Minor, parts of 
Thrace, and at one time out of part or most of Spain, and parts of 
Bulgaria, Servia, Roumania and Hungary. But since the 
Reformation, and as a consequence of it, we have been gaining and 
conquering so that now Edward VII, King of Great Britain and 
Ireland and Emperor of India, holds some 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 
of Mohammedans in subjection, nearly one-half of the Moslem 
world, and about 12,000,000 are under Russia, and 5,000,000 under 
France. Nevertheless, because of their idolatry the Christians of 
parts of North Africa, (Morocco and Tripoli), Turkey and Persia, 
are still under the control of the followers of the False Prophet of 
Mecca. And all the defeats, slaughter, loss of of property, and 



238 Article IX, 

territory, that came upon us in the past, was because we forgot 
the decisions of the New Testament and the VI Synods, and put 
in their place heretical opinions of Fathers or alleged Fathers and 
idolatrous Conventicles hostile to the VI Councils, such as the 
creature invoking Sj-nod of 754, at Constantinople, the image 
worshipping Conventicle of Nicaea of A. D. 787, and others. 
I<et all this be a warning to us that we maintain the New 
Testament and the VI Synods, or we shall suffer again as we 
did for our creature worship and our idolatry for long centuries. 

To conclude: — 

If it could be said that Gregory meant to include Christ's 
humanity in the expression "/ worship the whole of the Word," 
then he co-worshipped the humanity with the Divinity, the very 
thing condemned by Cyril in Anathema VIII in his Long Epistle 
to Nestorius, which was approved in A. D. 431 by the Third 
Ecumenical Council, under pain of deposition for all Bishops 
and clerics who deny it, and of anathema for all laics who do. 

We must remember that that decision settled the question 
forever. Any of the opinions of Gregory of Nazianzus may be 
on trial; never any decision of the whole Church in the VI 
Synods. But out of charity for Gregory and to save his Ortho- 
doxy, I have taken the view most favorable to him in treating 
of the above passages. But if he did indeed co-worship Christ's 
humanity with His Divinity, he was undoubtedly, so far, a 
heretic. 

But wc have some thing that is more definite on the 
opinion of the writer under discussion. For the same Gregory 
of Nazianzus is very clear against creature worship in his 
Oration 37th, which is on the words of the Gospel of Matthew 
XIX, 1-12, and which a note in column 281 of tome XXXVI 
of Migne's Patrologia Graeca tells us was delivered at Constan- 
tinople toward the end of the year 3&0. For in it, in column 301, 
he writes plainly: 

"If I worshipped a creature I could not be named a 
Christian" (285). 

Note 285. — Milne's /"airo/o^/a 6" ra^ca, tome 36, column 301. Et κησματί iXarptVOV. 
ovK av Χριστιανό? ώνομαζομην. 



Gregory of Nazianzus 07i the Worship of Christ's HuTnanity. 239 

And Treat in his Catholic Faith, page 117, quotes in Greek 
and English from the same Gregory three passages in which he 
plainly testifies that he worships nothing but the Triune God. 

Yet Contogonis, the Greek, of our day, quotes Gregory of 
Naziauzus for the worship of relics, and the language, if it be 
really his, looks too much that way (286). It occurs in a denun- 
ciation of Julian the Apostate Emperor (287), who had justly 
reproached some Christians for such sins. (288). And the 
Romish archbishop of Baltimore, Kenrick, adduces Gregory as 
attributing power to martyrs which belongs to God alone (289), 
and as invoking St. Basil (290). 



Note 28G.— See his Φιλολ"γικ;^ και K/utik^ Υστορίχι. , . , των Πατψων^ 
tome II, Athens, 1853, page δί". Compare page 5ϋ1, on Cyprian, Bishop of Car- 
thage. Under the heading of Gregory's opinions "on the due honor and wor- 
ship of the martyrs," Contogonis, quotes a passage from \ns First Invective against the 
Emperor Julian, in which he faults him for his contempt for the martyrs who 
had died for the truth of Christ, and at the end, speaking of them, writes: 

ων at μεγάλαι τιμαΐ καί ττανη/υραζ' τταρ ων ^'ύμονν» 1\α.ννονται, και νόσοι 
θερατΓίΰο-ταί' ων αί €πιφάν€ίαι, και ων αί ΤΓροββησίΐ<ϊ' ων καΐ τά σώματα μόνον 
Ισα ούι/ανται ταΓς άγύχις ψνχα'ϊζ, rj €~αφώμ€ΐ'Λ, η τιμώμενα' ων καΐ ρανίΒΐ,ζ 
αΊματοζ μόνον, καΐ μικρά σνμβολ'ΐ ττά'/ους Ισα 8ρώσι toW σώμασι. ΤαΟτα ού 

σεβαζ, άλλ' άτιμάζίΐς. 

Surely Gregory is guilty of great imprudence and folly, aye, guilt, in writing such stuff, 
for the natural outcome with an ignorant but devout juass was what did occur, the worship 
of martyrs and the consequent bringing on the creature-worshippers the wrath of the jealous 
God. It is true indeed that Clrcgory does not pray to them, but his expression of censure to 
Julian, Ταΰτα ου σεβαζ, αλλ' άτιμάζίΐζ, may be understood to mean" Thou dost not wor- 
ship them." that is the bodies of the martyrs, "but dishonorest them." Or it may mean 
"Thou dost not respect them," etc., for, as l,iddell and Scott in their Greek I<exicou show, 
ceBoi is used of honor to parents and to kings, where it certainly does not mean religious 
■worship. 

Note 287 .—Id., page 597, note. 

Note 28S. — See Wordsworth's article above mentioned on Julian. 

Note 289 — F. P. Kenrick's Dogmaticae Theologiae, vol. IV, page 191: De CitUu Sanc- 
torum: S. Gregorius Nazianzenus in Julianum Apostatam invectus, ait, "martyres Juliani 
munera, et templum quod in eorum honorem volebat exigere, cum Christianam adhuc reli- 
gioiiem profiteretur respuisse, et terram excussisse fundamenta aedificii sacri, quod extruere 
conabatur. O! iusignem martj-rum inter se charitatera! Honorem illius" [Julian the Apos- 
tate?] qui multos martyres ignominia et dedecore affectums erat, recusarunt. 

But such extravagant stuff is mere mischievous rhetorical bosh, for surely neither 
Gregory nor any other intelligent man really believed that martyrs or any other creature 
can make an earthquake and shake the foundations of a temple. The great harm of such 
anti-Scriptural trash is that many of the ignorant multitude take it for fact, and especially 
in ignorant ages when the masses caa not read or write, as it was in Gregory's day, and pray 



240 Ariide IX. 

But the last seems merely rhetorical and not meant for real 
sober invocation. See on it in notes 289 and 290 below. But we 
can easily see the wide difference between the pure Christianity 
of the first three centuries and the corruptions which seem to 
have begun in Julian's day among some, not all, but as the years 
rolled on grew and increased till they affected nearly the whole 
Church, or the whole of it, and brought on us the long-continued 
Mohammedan scourge for our idolatry, as the blessed English 
Reformers teach in their Homily agahist Peril of Idolairy. which 
with the other homilies is approved in the 35th Article. 

The Apostate Emperor is one of the first to bring justly 
the charge of cross-worship and relic-worship and creature wor- 
ship against any Christians. See Wordsworth's article ow Julian 
the Emperor, in volume III of Smith and Wace's Didiojiary of 
Christia7i Biography, pages 521, 522, 523, and 510, where he accuses 
some Christians of his day of worshipping the cross and dead 
men, that is the martyrs, and their sepulchres, and relics. As 

to creatures to exercise that power which belongs to God alone, and so commit the sin of wor- 
shipping creatures, contrary to Matthew IV, 10. There is no invocation of saints, however, 
in the above nor is any clear worship of them. 

Gieseler makes Origeu the heretic, the author of direct invocation of martyrs at their 
graves, and so, he adds, "theOrigenists were the first who addressed them in their sermons, as if 
they were pre.sent and besought their intercession," Smith's Gieselers Church History, vol. I, 
page 419. He was anathematized in Anathema XI of the Fifth Ecumenical Conucil and 
every one who does not anathematize him. 

Note 230.— See his Dogmattcae Theologiae, vol. IV, page 201. The passage, however, is 
one in which he addresses Basil as though he were present and could reply to him, and direct 
his life and receive him in the tabernacles above at death, as well as assist him by his pray- 
ers. If taken literally, it plainly ascribes to Basil what really belongs to Christ. Vet it may 
come under that figure of rhetoric which grammarians term, to quote Gould Brown's English 
Grammar under Prosody, " Vision or Imagery," which he defines to be "a figure by which the 
speaker represents the objects of his imagination as actually before his eyes and present to 
his senseo." There was too frequent use of that figure among some of the more rhetorical 
of the writers of the last half of the fourth century and after, which being misunderstood to 
he real and not figurative helped on the sin of invoking creatures. The heathen error 
that the souls of the dead remain about their tombs or graves was believed by some Chris- 
tians of the souls of their martyrs, and hence they invoked, that is, of course, worshipped 
them there. See important matter on that and the early rise of martyr and saint worship 
and the worship of relics in the fourth ctntury in Smith's Gieselers Church History, vol. I, 
pages -115-428, text and notes. See on the belief that the souls of the martyrs hovered about 
their bodies and might be invoked there page 418, note 10. Some, however, tried to stem the 
tide of degeneracy, like Vigilantius and to some extent African Councils and men like 
Augustine, but the idolatrous mob, ignorant and uuspiritual, wished to have their own 
way, and they did, and as a consequence God sent the Vandals on them in the fifth cen- 
tury, who enslaved the creature-worshippers. That was just before the Third Synod con- 
demned by necessary implication all such and all other Apostatic paganizings. 



Gregory of Nazianziis on the Worship of Chris f s Humanity . 24I 

Julian, according to Wordsworth, though secretly a convert to 
paganism, in the period 351-355, (id., page 493), still pretended to 
be a Christian, and did not throw ofiE the mask and openly profess 
himself to be a heathen till about A. D. 361, (id., page 498), and 
died in A. D. 363, we place these charges against us in that 
period. Cursed by God he was defeated in battle and slain. The 
result was the loss of the five Mesopotamian provinces, including 
Nisibis, which had been the bulwark of the" [Roman] "empire 
in the East," id, page 516, outer column. 

But Minucius Felix, a Christian lawyer of Rome in the third 
centurj^ in replying to the heathen slander that his brethren wor- 
shipped crosses, says: Crosses, moreover, we neither worship 7ior 
wish for'' (291). 

And the account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, according to 
Cave in A. D., 167, and according to Bp. Pearson in 147, while it 
uses rather extravagant language of the remains of a martyr, 
nevertheless witnesses strongly and clearly that Christians did not 
•worship relics, but then refused to worship any other than God 
(292). And the learned Bingham shows how sincerely the best 
and wisest men in the Church struggled at their first appearance 
against the worship of relics and sepulchres and martyrs (293), and 

Note 291.— See his Octavius, cap. 29: Cruces etiam nee colitnus necoptamus. fee more 
fully in Chrystal's Essay on the Catacombs of Rome, pages 15, 16, and the whole context. 

Note 29i. — See ChevalUer's translation of the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, 
and Ignatius, and of the First Apology of Justin Martyr, edited by Bp. Whittingham, N. Y. 
City, 1S34. The place quoted is section 17 of the Martyrdom, page 117 there. 

Note 293. — Bingham's Antiquities, book XXIII, chapter 4, sections 7, 8, and 9. Augustine, 
of centary ΙΛ' and Λ', though not himself without some of the faults of his day, yet grieved 
over the picture worship and sepulchre worship of his time, for he writes in his work on 
the Morals of the Cat/\ ο tic Church, chapter XXXIV, and tome I, col. 713, ed. Ben., 1689: "I 
have known many to be ■worshippers of sepulchres and pictures; — whom also the Church 
herself condemns and is diligent to reprove as wicked sons." See on that the excelltnt 
■work of Tyler on Image Worship, page 199 and the context. Well might Augustine say in view 
of that idolatry, which was the result of bringing images into churches, and of the curses com - 
ing for that sin, as he does in chapter 7 of his work On Faith andthe Creed, that "it is uiicked 
to set up an image in a temple of God;''' and speaking on feasts over the graves of the mar- 
tyrs, he wisely writes in his Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter XXXIV, "I know that 
there are many who drink to great excess over the dead, and who in the feasts which they 
make for the corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and give to their gluttony and 
drunkenness the name of religion," Stotherl's translation of Augustine on the Alanichaean 
Heresy, page 47. The African Church, in Canon II of the first Council of Carthage, A. D.348, and 
in Canon Ι,ΧΧΧΙΙΙ of the African Code of A. D, 419. strove to do away some of the super- 
stitious and abuses connected with the festivals of the martyrs, but the last named canon 
shows that the besotted and unspiritual people were perverse and likely to raise tumults 



242 Article IX. 

we see how the great Athanasius and his faithful follower Cyril 
refused any invocation to any creature (294), and confined it to 
God alone, to whom by Matthew IV, 10, that and every other act 
of religious service is due and prerogative. The enthusiasm of 
the Christian orator and the warm nature of the ignorant and not 
fully Christianized multitude ran away with their common sense 
and landed them in folly and sin. 

But, amidst all this division in the Church of the fourth cen- 
tury and the fifth, God fulfilled his promise to it to guide it into 
all truth, and he did so by the assembled apostolate in the Third 
Ecumenical Synod A. D. 431, and settled the whole matter by for- 
bidding under penalty of deposition for Bishops and clerics, and 
anathema and excommunication for laics, the worship of Christ's 
created and spotless humanity, even though any one try to excuse 
it, as Nestorius did in his Counter Anathema VIII, on the ground 
that it was only relative worships and much more, it forbade under 
the same penalties all who worship any other creature. If Gregory 
worshipped Christ's humanity, therefore, he was then condemned 
so far; if he did not, he was not. And that ends the whole matter. 

I have shown the decision of the Universal Church on that 
question of the worship of Christ's humanity in volume I of 
Ephesus, note 183, pages 79-128, and note 679, pages 332-362 of the 
same work, and in Article \^I in this volume. 

against reform, and so not long after God sent on them the Vandal conquest and scourge. 
For more on the pagauizings of the fourth century and the fifth see Smith's Gieseler's 
Church History, volume I, section 99, text and notes, pages 416-138. 

For the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Church against invocation of saints, see Tyler's 
val'iable work, Primitive Christian Worship, and Treit's Catholic Faith, which contain 
Aute-Nicene and early Post-Nicene testimony against Wiat sin, the latter on pages 91-151. 

Note 294. ^See in proof Chrystal's Kicaea, volume i. pages 22i-iib, 236-240, and indeed the 
whole contest on pages 217-240. On pages 240-255 all worship of creatures is condemned by 
St. Epiphanius, I,ucifer of Cagliari, Kaustin, a Presbyter of Rome, and by Chromatius the 
Bishop of Aquileia. On page 239 Cyiil ^appro^es Athanasius' condemnation of the sin of 
invoking creatures. 



243 



ARTICLE Χ. 

Additional, matter from theodoret, the nestorian 

CHAMPION, for THE CREATURE WORSHIP OF WORSHIPPING CHRIST'S 
HUMANITY. 

In Baluze's Works of Mariiis Mercator {Marii Mercatoris Opera) 
we find extracts from different members of the Nestorian party. 
I quote a few of them from Nestorius' chief champion, Theodoret, 
Bishop of Cyrus, which show his and their Man-Worship. On 
pages 61-69, note 156, and pages 115, 116, note matter, volume I 
cf Ephesics, I have shown how plainly and clearly he was a denier 
of the Incarnation, and a worshipper of Christ's humanity. See 
under his name on pages 656 and 657, of the same volume, how 
he held to One Nature Consubstantiation in the Eucharist, to the 
worship of the bread and wine there, and what Cyril calls Canni- 
balism in the rite, and how he was condemned by the Universal 
Church in its Third Synod, and how at length, after long and per- 
sistent and bitter resistance, he finally submitted to it, at least so 
far as his lips were concerned, and, in the Fourth Synod, anathe- 
matized his master Nestorius. See those places for the details. 

Moreover, as the Orthodox Cyril wrote a Five Book Contradic- 
tio?i of the Blasphemies of N'isiori2is, which has reached us in the 
original Greek, and is translated into English in the Oxford ren- 
derings under the title, 6*. Cyril of Alcxaridria' on the Incarnation 
against Nestorius, so Theodoret wrote a woik termed Pentalogus, 
that is a Five Book Work, as the expression means, against Ortho- 
doxy and for Nestorian errors. On it Canon Venables, page 918, 
volume IV of Smith and Wcce' s Dictio7iary of Christian Biography, 
states that it is' lost in the original, and that it was "on the incar- 
nation" and '^'^ directed against Cyril and his adherents at Ephesus,^' 
and that "compromising fragments are given by Theodoret's . . . 
theological enemy, Marius Mercator, and are to be found in Gar- 
nier and Baluze's editions." On page 324 and after in Baluze we 
find extracts from Th^caorei' s Pejitalog2cs in Latin against Cyril of 
Alexandria. 

In the Second Book of that Pentalogus (page 326 in Baluze as 



244 Article Χ. 

above) Theodoret teaches plainly the worship of Christ" s humanity, 
directly contrary to Cyril's doctrine in his Anathema VIII above, 
and to Matthew IV, 10, for he writes: 

"And so he did not predict that God the Word would be great 
after a birth out of the \'irgin, but that the holy temple which 
was born out of the Virgin and was united to Him" [the Word] 
"who took it to Him, and is itself co-named "5i7w" [with God the 
Word] would be; "not that we worship two Sons, but that co- 
seeing the invisible God in the visible temple, we give one glory 
of worship to Him"' [that is to God the Word and his humanity] 
(295). That is, evidently, Theodoret worshipped both natures 
together as he says elsewhere. 

The following is from the thirtieth chapter of Theodoret's 
Fifth Book against Cyril of Alexandria, and, right against Cyril's 
XII Anathemas, attributes, after the Nestorian fashion, to the 
mere creature taken by the Word, those honors which Cyril 
and the Third Council make prerogative, according to the Scrip- 
tures, to God the Word. 

"The Son of God having been inseparably joined to a Man 
thoroughly taught him the doctrine of highest virtue, and pre- 
served him uninjured from the darts of sins, and exhibited him 
entire and superior to the Devil's fraud; and permitting that 
man for a brief time to taste death, He quickly freed him from 
its tyranny, and granted him to be a partaker of His own 
proper life (296), bore him up to the heavens, and made him 
to sit at the right hand of Majesty, and gave him the 7iaine 

Note 29).— Baluze's Marii Mercatoris Opera, page 326: Non itaque Deum Verbum pest 
nativitatem virgiuis magnum futurum esse praedixit, sed templum quod ex virgine sanctum, 
est adsumeuti unitum. et connuncupatum etiara ipsuni filium; non ut duos filios adoremus, 
sed ut in templo visibiii Deum invisibilem contuentes, unam illi venerationis gloriam deier- 
amus." 

Inasranch as Theodoret, in m.atter quoted from him elsewhere in this set (see under his 
name, pages 656,657, volume I of Ephesus) denies the actual Incarnation of God the Word's 
Substance in the womb of Mary, and His birth out of her, the "illi," that is 'to him" above, 
must refer to God the Word and His humanity, ''the temple," and hence Theodoret means 
that he worships it 7-elatively to God the ΛλΌrd, who indwells it, according to Theodoret, by 
yixs grace only, as He indwelt the prophets and the inspired apostles, and as God the Word's 
Substance, is now in heaven, if not in that temple, at lea-^t near it, therefore he worships both 
natures of Christ together as there. In other words, he means here what he often professes 
elsewhere, that he worships both natures together, see, for example, volume i of Ephesus in 
this Set, pages 115, 116, note, pages 61-69. note 156, and under Theodoret in Index ll. 

Note 296.— That is God the ΛVord's life. 



Theodoret for the Worship of Christ's Huina7iiiy. 245 

which is above every name, and conferred His own dignity on him, 
and took on Himself the appellation of his \Jiuman^ natzire" (297). 

In the same work of Baluze, on page 75, we find a Latin 
translation of Sermon IV of Nestorius, in which he argues that 
the ''name above every name,'^ that is god, is given to Christ's 
created humanity, and the worship done in Philippians 11,5-12, is 
done to Christ's humanity, and so he argues in a passage quoted 
from him by Cyril of Alexandria, which is given in a Latin 
translation on page 114 of Baluze's Marins Mercator. Cyril as 
there given (section 12 of Cyril's Scholia on the Incarnatio7i) , on 
page 385 contends there, as always, that the passage refers to the 
Divinity of God the Word, and that the worship there given is done 
to Him after his voluntary humbling of Himself and His exalta- 
tion to heaven after it. The place is found on page 198 of the 
Oxford translation of Cyril 071 the Incarnaiio7i of the Sole-Bo)7i and 
the context. He treats of the same matter again on pages 111, 112 
of the same translation, and to the same effect. See Indexes to 
Scripture Texts in these translations under Philippians II, 5, to 
12. 

Nestorius' worship of Christ's humanity above and his calling 
that mere creature god is anathematized in Anathema λ'ΙΙΙ in 
Cyril's Lo7ig Epistle to him which was approved by the whole 
Church in its Third Synod. See volume I of Chrystal's Ephesm, 
page 331, for it, and note 520, pages 204 208, id., for its approval 
by the whole Church, See also pages 590-592, and pages 639-644, 
Nestorius' heresies 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and under proper terms in the 
indexes to the other volumes of this set of translations of the VI 
great Synods. 

And for the condemnation by Ephesns of the Nestorian 
pagan plea of relative worship to excuse his worship of Christ's 
humanity, see the same volume, page 461, where it is Blas- 
phemy 8, and note 949 there; compare also page 449, id., where it 
is mentioned as one of Nestorius' Twenty '' Blasphemies," and 
pages 483-504, where Nestorius is deposed for it and his other 
heresies and for his refusal to obey the summonses of the Council 
and to meet the accusations against him for his errors. 

Note 297. — Baluze's Λ/αη'ι Afercatoris Opera, page 333. 



246 

ARTICLE XI. 



Some spurious and some genuine passages ascribed to 
cyril, of alexandria. 

In Treat's Catholic Faith, pages 120, 121, 139, 140, are found 
passages from Cyril of Alexandria against invocation ofsaints, and 
for the worship of God alone, though one on page 121, and the last 
four on page 139 are not his, but from a work of Philip of Sida 
against Julian the Apostate, and the first of the four from Philip of 
Sida, on page 139, which teaches the relative worship of martyrs, is 
probably an interpolation of a date centuries after Philip, for it 
savors of some creature-worshipping heretic of the image worship- 
ping party of the eighth or ninth century. If it were Philip's we 
must of course pronounce that he is a worse than Nestorian heretic 
and creature-worshipper and anathematized by the decisions of the 
Third Ecumenical Synod. But we must not condemn him till we 
know that the work and the passages said to be his are so. Venable's 
article on him on page 356, volume IV of Smith and ^ 3.0.^' s, Diction- 
ary of Christiaii Biography ^ shows him to have been a poor character. 
His return from Alexandria to the school of Sida, '^ was fatal,'''' 
says Venables, "/o the prosperity of the school of which {Schroeckh, 
Christlich. Geschicht., VII, p. 8) we hear no more. We find Philip- 
pus" [Philip] "afterwards at Constantinople, where he enjoyed 
the intimacy of Chrysostom, by whom he was admitted to the 
diaconate. Tillemont says of him that he was rather the imitator 
of Chrysostovi' s eloquence than of his virtues, and that the imitation 
was a very poor 07ie.'" He wrote a work entitled a Christia^i History , 
of which and of the writer, Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History, 
book VII, chapters XXVI and XXVII, speaks in terms of little 
better than contempt. By all means see there. And "Photius' " 
estimate of the book," writes Venables, "is equally low — diffuse; 
neither witty nor elegant; written more for display than useful- 
ness; wearisome and unpleasing; full of undigested learning, with 
very little bearing on history at all, still less on Christian History 
(Phot. Cod. 35.). A rather important fragment relating to the 



spurious and Geyiuine Passages ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria. 247 



School of Alexandria and the succession of the teachers has been 
printed by Dodwell at the close of his dissertations on Irenaeus, 
Oxon. 1689. Of this Neander writes: 'The known untrustworthi- 
ness of this author; the discrepancy between his statements and 
other more authentic reports; and the suspicious condition in 
which the fragment has come down to us, render his details un- 
worthy of confidence' (Neander, Ch. Hist., vol, II, p. 460, Clark's 
transl.)" 

Socrates, as above, chapter Π , states of Philip that, "He 
wrote many books; for he refuted the books of the Emperor fulian 
agaiust the Christians, and composed a Christian History.''' 

As I show in a work yet unpublished, but which I hope to 
get the means to publish, Cyril wrote no work against Julian, for 
the danger from him had passed before Cyril was born, and the 
ten books against Julian are Philip's work, or possibly a rehash of 
it by some unlearned crejiture worshipper of a later age, or pos- 
sibly, though less likely, a rehash of that part of the voluminous 
thirty-six books of Philip's Christian History which tells of Julian's 
reign. The teaching on creature worship of the five passages 
referred to is wholly opposed to Cyril's. 

If it be asked, why should a work of Philip's be fathered on 
Cyril, the reply is easy: 

1 . because Cyril was a man of great and just fame in the 
whole Church, while Philip was of slight consequence, as testified 
by the Church historian, Socrates, his contemporary, and there- 
fore to put Cyril's name on a work would give it a monetary value 
perhaps ten or twenty times as great as Philip's would give it. 
Hence among some of the less honest manuscript sellers, a part of 
whom are said to have been Jews, there was always a temptation 
to do that for the sake of base gain. Oh! the vastness of the harm 
done by such forgers and deceivers to simple, honest, and unin- 
structed souls whom they have lured to ruin and damnation by 
heresies and idolatries by passing off heretical or idolatrous works 
on them as genuine. What an account will theirs be at the last ! 

2. Another reason for altering texts of ancient Christian 
writers, if they were Orthodox, was to make their Orthodox testi- 
mony unorthodox to favor some heretical opinion or sect; or, if 



248 Article XI. 

they were unorthodox themselves, like, for example, the Arian 
author of the Imperfect Work on Matthew, to make it Orthodox in 
order to make it more valuable and more saleable; though some- 
times, as in the case of that work, the alterer would do his work 
so imperfectly in the expurgation of heresy that some little of it 
would remain and betray the original error. But before that it 
had passed as Orthodox for long centuries. Witness also the 
spurious Decretals of Isidore, which w^ere deemed genuine for 
ages. Instances of changing the utterances of an Orthodox writer 
are found again and again in text and Indexes. One example is 
found on page 140 of Treat's work, where we find the following: 
"Works of Cyril of Alexandria, Paris, 1605. From the Index 
remove the following: Scripture attributes adoration to God alone. 
God aloTie is to be invoked and adored. No worship is to be paid to 
deadtneyi.'^ 

3. Sometimes, as the outer sheet of the manuscript contain- 
ing the title would be worn away by use and become illegible, or 
in other cases would become torn or lost altogether, to make the 
work saleable some sound writer's name would be put upon it even 
if the work were deemed Orthodox by some or most, and the 
author so also. For example, on page 12 of volume III of Smith 
and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, we read of a work 
of Hesychius ^'on the Resurrection of our Lord; falsely ascribed to 
Gregory, Nyssen, and published among his works as the Second 
Homily on Easter."" In such a case some of the letters of a name 
like, for instance, the s (σ) of Hesychius may have remained unob- 
literated, and the owner of the manuscript might hunt about till 
he found another name of some Orthodox Father with an s (σ) in 
it, as, for example, Gregory of Nyssa's, and substitute it for it, 
supposing it to be the right one. For we must remember that there 
was a large monetary value for those days in the parchment or 
other material on which the work was written, and that a sharp 
manuscript dealer, none too scrupulous, but with an eye to 
business and to profit, would utihze it by such methods as he 
could for base gain. 

4. If some things found in the alleged ten books of Cyril 
against Julian (really Philip's), were there originally, the work 



spurious ayid Geriuinc Passages ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria. 249 

was more creature serving than even Nestorius or his champion 
Theodoret himself, and therefore it could be suppressed in ac- 
cordance W\\h. the imperial edicts which forbade the circulation 
of the Nestorian writings (298). I would say, in passing, that 
Philip's see, Sida, is in that Pamphylia which borders on Isau- 
ria, which is a part of the Patriarchate of Antioch (299), whose 
Nestorian creature worship may have affected himself and per- 
haps his see and province, though the following quotations made 
by Treat on page 139 of his Catholic Faith are probably no part 
of Philip's alleged work against Julian, but are the product of 
some later and lower creature worship. I quote: 

"Moreover, we neither say that the holy martyrs are gods, nor 
are we accustomed to worship them absolutely but only rela- 
tively, and in an honorary way," Philip's work against Julian, 
I, 6, page 203, D, A second passage from Philip's work 
savors of that worship of martyrs and of their tombs and exhibits 
the first image worship in the Church of which we read, all of 
which Augustine regrets when he writes in sorrow in section 
XXXIV of his work 0)i the Morals of the Catholic Church against 
the Manicheans. It was written in A. D. 388, shortly after his 
own conversion from Manicheism and his baptism at Milan. It is 
noteworthy as showing how early the worship of tombs and pic- 

NOTE 29S. — On that Trofessoi Stokes in his article yestoriannm/\vi Smith and H'ace's 
Dictionary of Chyiitian Biogiaplty, vohime IV, page 31, writes: 

"In 4^5 . . . the joint influence of Cyril" [of Alexandria] "and John" [of Antioch] "obtained 
the adoption of s ronger measures against Nestorins and his followers. His disciples were to 
be called Sinionians, Λίί books were to be burned, the republication of them was made a penal 
offence; the bishops who adhered to his views were to be deposed." 

And on page 31 of the same work, Professor Stokes adds: "The writings of Nestori\is 
■were consigned to the flames by an edict of Theodosius; they were therefore diligently extir- 
pated by the magistrates (cf. Jac GT:eiseT,dejure prohibcttdi libros uiaios, lib. I, cr.p. 9); while 
a passage in John Moschus (Spuit Pi at. c.46) proves that the clergy were not backward in 
the work of destruction' 0\\ihor\'\r\.)ri\s Decline and Fall of the Roman £mpire, chapter 
XIvVII, in a note on page 225, volume V of Bohn's seven volume edition, states that the im- 
perial letters against Nestor'us are found in the Councils, tome III, pages 1730-1735. He does 
not say whose edition. They are found in Mansi's Concilia, tome V, col. 413-120. Alas! how- 
ever, Gibbon shows in his remarks in the context a most sad and lamentable ignorance and 
lack of appreciation of the vital and saving truths involved. But we could hardly expect 
much from a man of so litt'e intelligent faith. 

Note 299.— See Bingham's Antiquities, book IX, chap. 2, sect. 9, and chap. 3, sect. 16. And 
whether Chrysostom of the heretical Patriarchate of Antioch was himself heretical on the 
invocation of creatures is debated still, and if he was a creature-worshipper did he pervert 
Philip of Sida? 



250 Article XL 

tures had got a hold on "»^ί^?^y," not indeed on all, in the Church, 
and how such sins were condemned at their first appearance by its 
wisest and best men. A note on page 1 of Stothert's translation 
of Augustine's writings on the i\ia7iichaea7i Heresy, published in 
1872 by the Clarks of Edinburgh, tells us what occasioned the 
writing of the work. It is quoted from Augustine's Retractations I, 
7, where he says: "When I was at Rome after my baptism, and 
could not bear in silence the vaunting of the Manichaeans 
about their pretended and misleading continence or abstinence, 
in which, to deceive the inexperienced, they claim superiority 
over true Christians, to whom they are not to be compared, I 
wrote two books, one on the Morals of the Catholic Ouirch, the 
other on the Morals of the Ma7iichaea?is .' ' 

The passage of Augustine's Morals of the Catholic Church, sec- 
tion XXXIV, is found on page 47 of Stothert's English transla- 
tion and as there in his address to the Manichaeans is as follows: 

"Do not summon against me professors of the Christian name, 
who neither hioio nor give evidence of the power of their profession. 
Do not hunt up the numbers of ignorant people, who even in the 
true religion are superstitious, or are so given up to evil passions 
as to forget what they have promised to God. / kno^v thej-e 
are ina7iy worshippers of tombs and pictures. I know that there are 
matiy who drink to great excess over the dead, and who, i?i the feasts 
which they make for corpses, bnry themselves over the buried, a7id give 
to their gluttony a7id dru7iken7iess the 7ia7ne of 7'eligio7i (300). I know 

Note 300. — Alas! how many there are to-day in our vastly more educated age, when 
nearly every body can read and when the Bible is translated into their own tongue, who get 
drunk at Christmas, Thanksgiving, St. Patrick's Day, and other such days when every thing 
should admonish them to keep sober. And are we ourselves so guiltless with our so-called 
Institutional Churches, where, to increase by worldly means and unspiritual the congre- 
gation, and its monetary income, we let go the spiritual and have dancing, fairs, suppers 
where folly reigns, and where any thing else worldly that will pay is employed in buildings 
owned by the Church? And are we not doing worse by putting images and crosses into 
churches and church windows, contrary to God's ΛV'ord and to our own formularies and so 
leading silly women into idolatry, teaching them to bow to the cross, to altars, and to turn 
to the altar when we sing the doxology to the Trinity, etc.? Have we forgotten how all 
Christendom suffered for long centuries, and is suffering in the East yet under the Turk and 
the Persian for snch paganizings. Are we such brutes or so ignorant as to do such things right 
ao-ainst such facts, and especially when, taught by the idolatrous section of the clergy, neatly 
whole congregations, as for example, St. Ignatius' and St. Mary the Virgin's, New York, and 
hundreds of others in the Anglican communion, are idolaters and oa the road to hell 
(Rev. XXI, S). 



Spurious a7id Getiuine Passages ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria. 251 

that there are many who in words have renounced this world, and 
yet desire to be burdened with all the weight of worldly things, 
and rejoice in such burdens. Nor is it surprising that among so 
many multitudes you should find some by condemning whose life 
yow may deceive the unwary and seduce them from Catholic safety; 
for in your small numbers you are at a loss when called on to show 
even one out of those whom you call the elect who keeps the pre- 
cepts which in your indefensible superstition you proless. How 
silly those are, how impious, how mischievous, and to what extent 
they are neglected by most, nearly all of you, I have shown in an- 
other volume. 

My advice to \o\x now is this: that you should at least desist 
from slandering the Catholic Church, by declaiming against the 
conduct of vieyi whom the Church herself condcynns^ seeking daily to 
correct them as wicked children. Then if any of them by good v/ill 
and by the help of God are corrected, they regain by repentance what 
they had lost by sin. Those again who icith zvicked will persist in their 
old vices, or eveii add to them others still worse, are indeed allowed 
to remain in the field of the Lord, and to grow along with the 
good seed; but the time for separating the tares will come. Or if, 
from their having at least the Christian name, they are to be placed 
among the chaff rather than among the thistles, there will also come 
One to purge the floor and to separate the chaff from the wheat, 
and to assign to each part (according to its desert) the due 
reward" (301). 

The second idolatrous or at least extravagant and suspicious 
passage from the work of Philip of Sida against Julian the 
Apostate is found in that edition, page 204, B. C, and is as 
follows: 

"But we, as I have said, do not say that the hoiy martyrs 
have become gods, but we are accustomed to think them worthy 
of all reverence, and we honor their tombs." 

''All rcvcreiicc'^ is a strong term and may be taken to mean 
"///<? worship of dead vien,'' which Augustine condemns in another 
passage relating to martyrs (302); and ''we honor their tombs'' looks 

Note 301 — :Matt. III. 13. and XIII, 24-43. 

Note 302. — See passages of his against creature worship, including invocation of creatures, 



252 Article XL 

very much like worshipping their sepulchres, which also he con- 
demns above, as do also African canons, as, for example, Canon 
II of I Carthage, A. D. 348, and Canon LXXXIII of the African 
Code, A. D. 419. Some of the abuses at the festivals of the 
martyrs were really importations ffom heathenism, as is shown by 
Canon I^X of the African Code. We see how true in such cases 
Augustine's words are when he speaks of inconsistent Christians. 
Though with their lips they renounced paganism, nevertheless 
they brought parts of it into the Church when they entered it. 

Thank God that even in the days of Philip of Sida, and not 
long after the death of Gregory of Nazianzus, the 'One^ holy, 7i7ii- 
versal and apostolic Church' ' in its Third Synod, Ephesus, A. D. 431 , 
guided by the Written Word and the Christ-promised aid of the 
Holy Ghost, condemned all creature worship and idolatry when it 
condemned even the relative worship of Christ's humanity, the 
highest of all creatures, and settled all such questions forever, 
under pain of deposition of all Bishops and clerics guilty of them 
or any of them and of anathema and excommunication for all laics 
so guilty. 

The sin of worshipping martyrs and all other creatures is con- 
demned by Matthew IV, 10; Isaiah XLH, &; Colossians II, 18; 
Revelations XIX, 10 and XXII, 8, 9. And the sin of relic wor- 
ship, we find in II Kings XVIII, 4-8 inclusive, in the form of 
incensing the brazen serpent. And the reforming king Hezekiah 
is especially commended by Almighty God for destroying it, and 
he was prospered and blessed for it: Read verses 1-8 there. 

I would add that there is hardly any of the Post Nicene 
Fathers who did not hold one or more opinions which were after- 
Avard condemned by the Universal Church in one or more of the 
VI Ecumenical Synods, though not generally themselves. I do 
not know of any work in English written to tell us exactly what 
the errors of each and all of the ancient Christian writers were 
which were so condemned, though, of course, we find works which 

in Treat's Catholic Faiik, pages 109, HO, 111, 119, 136-139, and the first two on page 120. The 
third aud especially the fourth on page 120, seem to be from some Orthodox men, though 
they are not given as Augustine's. See other passages there, pages 91-152, and compare topics 
on page 571 of that work. And see also Tyler's Primitive Christian Worship, aud his Worship 
of the Blessed Virgin. 



A) tide XII. 253 

treat of the errors of some of them. Athanasius and Cyril of 
Alexandria, though on some points not perfect, were nevertheless 
the soundest of the Fathers. Some of the alleged opinions of Am- 
brose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of 
Nyssa, and others for creature invocation, or on the Eucharist, or 
for customs leading to idolatry, are condemned expressly or im- 
pliedly by Ephesus. 

In the struggle against relic worship, saint worship, and the 
superstitions of his time, Vigilantius, the Presbyter, of Spain, was 
one of the noblest and best of the Fathers of the fourth century 
and the fifth, though he maj- have had a few defects. We hope to 
speak of him in another work. Judged by the decisions of 
Ephesus, he was vastly nearer Orthodoxy than the relic worshipper 
and, so far, heretic, Jerome, who blackguarded him and misrepre- 
sented him. Freemantle's account of him in the article Vigilan- 
tius in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography com- 
pared with the quotations» from the original sources in note 6, 
page 457, volume I of Smith's Gieseler's Church History, show 
him to have been in the main a wise and holy reformer. 



ARTICLE XII. 
CREATURE WORSHIP. 

The Sins of Idolaters: that is 

I. the worship of created perso7is by ijivocatioji and other Acts 
of worship, and 

II. the worship of viere inaiiiynate things, snch as pictttrcs 
graven images, crosses paijittd and graven, altars, communion tables, 
the Bible or afiy part of it, etc., and 

III. How they are forbidden in god's word and by the "one, 
holy, tiniversal and apostolic CJncrch'" iji its Six Sole Ecumcnicai 
Synods. 

' ' Take . . . the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, ' ' 
Ephesians VI, 17. 

"Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, 
and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou 



254 Article XII. 

hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast 
learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy 
Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through 
faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspira- 
tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
tion, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be 
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," II Timothy 
III, 13-17 inclusive. 

"If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a 
heathen man and a publican," Matthew XVIII, 17. 

"The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the 
truth," I Timothy III, 15. 

We are here to treat of the great sin of worshipping creatures 
relatively or absolutely, and on the relative worship of mere 
things, such as pictures, that is painted images, graven images, 
crosses graven and crosses painted, relics, altars, communion 
tables, churches, the Bible and any part of it, and, in brief, the 
great sin of worshipping any thing in the universe but .the Triune 
God, the Father, His Consubstantial and Coeternal Word, and 
His Consubstantial and Coeternal Spirit, who must always be wor- 
shipped directly and absolutely, not relatively through any created 
or made person or thing, for that was the sin of the Israelites in 
the Wilderness in worshipping Him through the golden calf, and 
afterwards through the calf at Dan and through that at Bethel, for 
which He so punished them, and at the last cursed them with 
defeat, slaughter and exile. All forms of creature worship are by 
necessary implication condemned by the Third Ecumenical Coun- 
cil, as is shown above, in Article VI. For it deposed all Nestorian 
Bishops and clerics, and anathematized all Nestorian laics, even 
for the relative worship of Christ's perfect and ever sinless human- 
ity, the highest of all mere creatures, and much more all who 
give even relative service to any lesser creature, be it the Virgin 
Mary, any other saint, or archangel or angel, or any other crea- 
ture, or any mere thing, be it an image or any thing else. 

As the whole matter was antecedently settled at once and for- 
ever by the Third Synod and the Fifth, this Article belongs here. 

The following is, much of it, the same as the four articles from 



Creature Worship. 255 



my pen on Creature Worship, published in the Chiirch Journal, of 
New York City, for August 3, August 10, August 17, and 
August 24, 1870, over the name, "^ Friend of the Pure Worship of 
God.'^ Some defective statements are made more full, and one or 
two mistakes are corrected. JamES Chrystal. 

Messrs. Editors: — Certain matter in the columns of The Church 
Journal on subjects connected with this article has interested me. 
The points at issue seemed to me to include the whole subject of 
CREATURE-WORSHIP, and its lawfulness or unlawfulness. I write 
for this reason, and because I would add my mite towards streng- 
thening that noble jealousy for religious worship as the preroga- 
tive of God alone, which has been the great glory of the Anglican 
Communion. This has brought many blessings from that God 
who, with reference to religious worship, calls Hmiself 'Jealous.' 
(303). Disregard of this principle that God alone should be 
WORSHIPPED has, as the second part of the Homily against the 
Peril of Idolatry teaches, brought on the Mohammedan Scourge as 
a direct punishment of the flock. I may add that, for a similar 
sin, God sent the Assyrian and the Babylonian Scourge on His 
ancient flock; for be it remembered that for the one sin of creature- 
worship, and for that alone, God sent the direst curses of captivity, 
of long subjugation, and slavery upon His former people, as wit- 
ness the whole teaching of the Old Testament regarding the his- 
tory of the Israelites and Jews, and as witness the captivity, the 
long subjugation, and slavery of the Eastern Church in Palestine, 
in Egypt, in Asia, and in Europe; and the utter extinction of 
Christianity in Northwest Africa, formerly subject to the Patriarch 
of Carthage. This is the spirit of those Homilies of the English 
Church, of which the Thirty-fifth Article expressly declares that 
they ^'contaiii a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these 
times.^'' If, therefore, any attempt be made to destroy this jeal- 
ousy for the principle so often taught us in God's holy Word, that 
He alone is to be worshipped, it behooves us, as we value our 
souls and the souls of those who may come after us, that, like the 

Note 303.— Exodus XX, 5; XXXIV, 14; Deut. IV, 23, 34; V, 6-10; VI, 14, 15; Joshua XXIV, 
19; Nahum 1,2. 



256 Article XII. 

splendid type of jealous loyalty to God under the old law, the 
Prophet Elijah, to whom for his rare faithfulness God awarded at 
last the rare glory of translation that he should not see death, we 
may every one of us say, "I have been very jealous for the Lord 
God of Hosts" (I Kings XIX, 10, 14). 

England was once idolatrous. It was then a little realm. It 
had produced no great literature. It had at Bloody Mary's 
death not a foot of land on the globe except England, Wales, 
and Ireland, which at the time was little elevated above bar- 
barism. The people were, (for the most part), without knowledge 
of letters. Probably not two out of a hundred of us could read 
and write. It had but a small navy. The people were poor, 
and many, or most of them, degraded. 

But the Reformation came. Three strong men stood for- 
ward — not indeed perfect, for God's servants have never been 
perfect men, as witness the crimes of David and the apostasy 
of Peter, and the slaughter of his son by Constantine, but take 
them for all in all, the greatest Bishops who have lived within 
the past 1400 years. They and the clergy and the people 
reformed the Church, as the Jewish and Israelitish Churches 
had often been reformed before it, and in the case of England 
as in the case of the Church of the Elder Covenant, blessings 
spiritual and temporal came in like a flood. Scotland, formerly 
the deadly foe, became the willing mate of England, and the 
island, in other ages distracted and torn by the feuds of its own 
children, was at peace; and the best of it all was, even allow- 
ing for some defects, it was the peace of God. He gave within 
a brief space after the Reformation, to the English race, the 
greatest of poets, Shakespeare, and an army of writers, and 
wise statesmen, and success in battle. The spread of her con- 
quering arms since that time has been wonderful. She wrested 
Canada and other parts of the world from Romish and creature- 
worshipping France. She subjugated 160 millions of heathen 
and twenty-five millions of Mohammedans in India to her author- 
ity. She has a foothold almost everywhere — in Gibraltar, in 
Malta, at Aden, in India, at Hong Kong, in Australia, at the Cape 
of Good Hope, and places too many to be recounted here. And 



Creature Worship. 257 



the English-speaking people of these United States have, from a 
few and weak, grown great and powerful, and now possess vast 
tracts originally held by the Frenchman and the Spaniard, the 
slaves and creature-invoking and creature-worshipping liegemen 
of Rome. Education, enlightenment, happiness, have wonderfully 
increased within the past 350 years. Even the Jews themselves, 
after their Reformations, were not such remarkable instances of a 
blessed people as we are now who speak the Saxon tongue. 

But the history of the Jews teaches us the lesson that after a 
time of Reformation came a tendency toward idolatry. And there 
is abundant reason for believing that a similar evil tendenc}' exists 
among us. We see it in the drift toward altar-worship and the 
worship of the Eucharist, and in the invocation of saints. 

But before we be lured aside into such sins, and into the nec- 
essary consequences in the shape of curses from God, of punish- 
ment in this world and the world to come, let us look well to it 
and examine what is proposed to us, to see whether after all it is 
not a new form, or perhaps an old form, of that creature-worship 
and idolatry which is natural to the heart of man, and which in 
the hands of its sharp and subtle advocates can be made to seem 
very plausible, at least to those unskilled in its deceits. Let us 
not imagine that all the heathen are devoid of arguments for their 
observances. Such as the arguments are, they are certainly 
sharp, and such as many a well-informed Latin or Greek would use 
in our day for his worship of symbols, crosses, and images painted or 
graven. The ancient opponents of Christianity were not confined 
to the ignorant mob. Among them were found the philosopher 
and the man of the schools. And in our day Brahminism in India 
has acute defenders of its image-worship, as has Buddhism also. 
Indeed the writer of this article has been assured that sometimes 
the missionary who, in ignorance and misconception, attacks their 
creature- worship, is apt to find that he has underrated his oppo- 
nents, and to experience defeat. We should not then despise such 
a foe. We ought not to misrepresent his belief, and to father on 
him certain views which he would scorn as gross libels and slan- 
ders. If we do, we commit a wrong act, and expose ourselves to 
a crushing repartee or response. 



258 Article ΧΠ. 

I propose then, in order that we may not fight in the dark, 
to state: 

I. On what principle the heathen grounds his worship of 
material symbols and images painted and graven, altars, relics, and 
other created things. 

II. To mention the acts in which that worship consists. 

III. To show that the relative worship of the altar, the cross, 
relics, and images, among pagans and so-called Christians is, so far as 
the kind of worship rendered to such material things is concerned, 
the same; in other words, that the creature-worshipping Christian 
and the creature-worshipping heathen both worship such material 
objects, but only relatively. 

The subject of the invocation and worship of saints, I pro- 
pose to treat separately below. 

Section I. The principle on which the heathen grounds his 
worship of material symbols, and images painted or graven, 
altars, and all other things material, is that oi J^e/ative Worship, 
In other words, the heathen asserts that he does not give 
absolute worship to wood or stone or colors, or any material 
itself, but he worships it because of its relation to its prototype 
or the alleged holy person with whom it is connected, who 
may be resident in it, as in the image sometimes, or absent 
from it, as in the case of the image sometimes, or the symbol 
always. The early Christians sometimes adduce heathens as in effect 
making the distinction between relative and absolute worship. 
I cite only a few passages out of a number. Thus Origen writes: 

"We deem those the most ignorant who are not ashamed to 
address lifeless things, to petition the weak for health, to ask life 
from the dead, to pray for help from the most despicably needy. 
And although some allege that these things are not gods, but only 
their symbols and representations; even such persons, fancying that 
imitations of the Deity can be made by some mean artisan, are 
not a whit less ignorant and slavish and uninstructed. From this 
sottish stupidity the very lowest and least informed of us Chris- 
tians are exempt" (304)^ 

Note 304. — Origen against Celsus. Compare the same work, book VII, chap. 66, col. 1513, 
and after in tome XI of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. 



Creature Worship. 259 



Let us hear Lactantius, a Christian writer, who was born in 
Century III, and who represents the heathen as excusing their 
idolatry on the plea, in substance, of relative worship. Thus in his 
Divine Institutions, book II, ''Regarding the Origin of Error,'* 
chapter 2, ' ' What was the first cazise of forming images^ concerning 
the true ittiage of God, ayid His true worship,''' he thus speaks: 

"What senselessness is it, therefore, either to form those 
things, which they themselves afterward fear, or which they have 
formed to fear. ^ We do not fear them,' say they, ^but those after 
whose image they are formed, a?id to whose names they are consecrated. ' 
So then you fear what you deem to be in heaven, nor, if they are 
gods, can it be otherwise. Why, therefore, do you not raise j'our 
eyes toward heaven, and call upon their names, and celebrate your 
sacrifices in the open air? Why do ye look to walls and wood, and 
especially stones rather than to that place where ye believe them 
to be? What temples, what altars do they wish for themselves? 
Finally, what do they want of images themselves, which are 
monuments either of those dead or of those absent? ' ' (3C5) 

And so this pious writer, indignant at such attempted justi- 
fying of idolatry under the plea of honorary or relative religious 
worship, proceeds at length to expose and to denounce it, and 
oppose all use of images. 

And Arnobius, another Christian opponent of paganism, who 
was born in Century III, in his work Against the Gentiles, that 
is the pagans, book VI, chap. 9, thus meets this same evasion: — 

"Ye say, *We venerate the gods throjigh the images' What 
then? If these images were not, would the gods be ignorant that 
they themselves were worshipped, or would they deem that you 
had given them no honor? Through certain paths [media], and 
through certain acts of faith, as is said, the gods take and receive 
your worship, and before the gods, to whom that service is due, 
are aware of it, the images are first sacrificed to, and then you 
transmit to the gods themselves something like certain relics of 
worship, and that on the basis of an authority foreign to them. And 

Note 305. — I,actantii Divin. Institut., de Origine Erroris, cap. 2, Quae fuerit prima causa 
fingendi simulacra; de vera Dei i>^agine et ejus vera cullu, col. 258, and after in tome V of 
Migne's Patrologia Lalina, 



26ο Article XII. 

what can be done more injurious, more insulting, more hard, than 
to recognize one being as a god, and yet to supplicate an effigy 
which has no sense? Is not this, I pray you, what is said in com- 
mon proverbs — that is, to cut the smith when you strike at the fuller; 
and when you would seek counsel of men, to ask decisions as to 
how matters should be conducted from little asses and from little 
pigs? 

"And whence have you just found out that all those images, 
which, on the principle of substitution, ye form as the represen- 
tatives of the immortal gods, do represent and have the divine 
similitude?" (306) 

And so Arnobius proceeds against the principle of vicarious 
or relative worship. 

And Augustine of Hippo represents the heathen as excusing 
their image-worship by the same plea. Their words were: "I do 
not worship this visible thing, but the Deity who there invisibly 
dwells." "/<f(? not worship the image for the spirit, but I look ripon 
the bodily effigy as a sign of that thi^ig which I ought to wor- 
ship (207) r 

So clear is it that sharp and able apologists for heathenism 
knew well this distinction between relative and absolute worship, 
and cunningly used it against the ancient Christians to try to 
justify their own idolatry. 

And indeed it may well be doubted whether an}^ intelligent 
heathen since the dawn of creation ever gave absolute worship to 
anything material. They have worshipped material things as 
symbols, and images painted and graven, and many other things 
material^perhaps including altars, but always offered their adora- 
tion not to the material thing for the sake of the matter alone, but 
for the sake of the being to whom it had relation. In other words, 
their worship was relative, not absolute. 

And surely the law of Christian fairne=s demands of us as con- 
scientious men, to state as exactly as we can what the real opinions 

Note 306.— Arnobii Adversus Gentes, lib. VI, cap. 9 and 10, col. 1180 and after in tome V 
of Migne's Pal7-ologia Lah'na: Deos, inquitis, per simulacra veneramur. 

Note 307.— Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum CXIII, col. 1483 of tome XXXVII of 
Migne's Patrologia Latitia, 



Creature Worship. 261 

of the intelligent heathen are. We ought not to misrepresent, to 
lie, and to deceive regarding the pagan in ordei to cover up the 
guilt of the Christian creature-worshipper. That would be out- 
rageous. Too much of such work has been done intentionally or 
unintentionally, and the result is that many a simple person has been 
beguiled by the tricks and deceit of creature-worshipping errorists, 
and has been led into idolatry. Creature-worship is the sin which 
God especially hates, and against which he denounces temporal 
scourging, and eternal damnation in that lake of fire and brimstone in 
which we are expressly told that 'idolaters,' or, as the Greek word 
means, 'image- worshippers,' 'shall have their part' (Rev. XXI, 8). 
If one-half of the talent which has been expended in defending 
abuses and error and idolatry had been employed in exposing and 
correcting them, many a soul lulled into spiritual sleep, and finally 
and forever lost, might have been saved; many a false minister of 
Christ might have been a true one, and might have turned many 
to righteousness to shine as stars in his crown of rejoicing, instead 
of damning them and himself But, alas! there were favorers of 
creature-worship among the "ancient former covenant ministry 
and people of God who perished, and there are some among our- 
selves. I grieve to say these things, but what really intelligent 
man can deny them? I do not utter these things in causeless 
anger, but in sadness and in grief of soul, and in fear as to the 
future of the Anglican Communion every where. 

Once it had order, but as the result of the Oxford movement 
of 1833 it has become degraded into a doctrinal, disciplinary and 
ritual anarchy. The three leaders ended their wretched lives 
without spiritual joy and comfort. For Pusey, who had denied 
the doctrine of the whole Church atEphesus on the Eucharist, and, 
contrary to it and to his own Anglican formularies, brought in 
two-nature Consubstantiation, and its sequences of what Cyril of 
Alexandria, the Orthodox Champion against Nestorius, calls 
the worship of a human beifig (άνθρωπολα.τρζία) and Ca7i7iibalism 
(ανθρωποφαγία), died SO raviug or out of his head that when at 
the last he wished the Communion, his friends, seeing him unfit to 
receive it, refused to give it to him. He had corrupted the 
doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and brought in the error of 



202 Article XII. 

Man-Worship and Cannibalism in the rite, and died without 
comfort at the last. How different the death of Archbishop 
Crammer, who died at the stake for what is, in effect, the doctrine 
of the Third Ecumenical Synod, the symbolic, and the real 
substances absence of Christ's Divinity and Humanity from the 
sacrament, and the real presence of His sanctifying grace. For 
just before going to be burned he reaffirmed the same belief on 
the Lord's Supper which he had maintained in his book against his 
Romish opponent, Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and 
proclaimed that it would stand at the last day when the Papistical 
doctrine, contrary to it, would be ashamed to show its face. 

And from Sir John Duke Coleridge's account of the death of 
Keble, Pusey's ally in such paganizings, it must have been com- 
fortless enough, and his words may mean that he died a Romanist. 
And the late Dr. Philip Schaff told me that he was informed by a 
pervert from the Church of. England to Rome that Newman was 
with him at the last. The family of the patron of his living at 
Hursley became Romanists, and the writer of the article on Keble 
in McClintock and Strong' s Cyclopaedia states that "it is to Keble's 
influence over Newman that the latter ascribes his conversion to 
Romanism." 

And Newman, after his apostasy to Roman idolatry, did vast 
harm, by his writings, to the English people, and finally lost much 
of his mental power, and, like all other idolaters, died a death 
without hope (Rev. XXI, 8). 

Their fell work led hundreds of the clergy and thousands 
upon thousands of the laity to Rome. It is said that at the apos- 
tate Manning's ordination to the see of Westminster four hundred 
apostate Anglican clergymen were present. But he had no com- 
fort at the last, as his biographer tells us. 

And so it has ever been with creature-worshippers. Jeroboam 
■who ^'made Israel to si7i,'' as is often said in Holy Writ, by mak- 
ing calves to represent God, and by bringing in the relative wor- 
ship of Jehovah through the calf at Dan and through that at 
Bethel, was condemned by God for both sins, and his line was 
rooted out for them. So was it with Jehu and his line, for while 
he served God by wiping out the foreign idolatry of Baal worship 



Creature Worship. 263 



and those who followed it, he would not forsake the native idol- 
atry of worshipping Jehovah relatively through the calves. And 
again and again do we read in the Old Testament of the extirpa- 
tion of d)'nasty after dynasty of the Ten Tribes tor that sin till 
finally they were carried away captives to Assyria; and for similar 
sins the tribes under the house of David with their king were 
exiled to Babylon. 

And the most horrible death, or one of the most horrible 
deaths, in Christian history is that of Tarasius, Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, who died A. D. 806. He was the propagator of image 
■worship and saint worship, relic worship, and the real substance 
presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist and its 
sequences the WorsJiip of a Hiimaii Being and Cannibalisin, and gath- 
ered that most harmful Council of image-worshippers at Nicaea in 
A. D. 787, which the Greeks and Latins call the Seventh Ecumen- 
ical, which for long centuries crushed the pure worship of God 
alone, and silenced the antecedent decrees of the \'I really Ecu- 
menical Synods against such sins. 

The story of his frightful death is told not by one of the 
image-breaking party, but by one like himself, aye, his arch- 
deacon, an image-worshipper, Ignatius, who details his struggle 
at the last against the demons, his shouting in an ecstasy of terror 
against them, his shaking his head against them, and his efiEorts to 
push them away from him, and how all that went on till his voice 
died in his throat, and till his hands and head were too weak to 
move, and till death ended his struggles, while all present might 
well have been horrified at the scene. And his helper and co- 
worker, Theodore of the Studium, just before his death, thinking 
he saw the devil or a devil, by bis shrieks and yells at night 
aroused the whole dwelling or monastery in which he was. 

And Philip II of Spain, the husband of bloody Mary, who 
with her put 'to death one Archbishop, four Bishops, and more 
than 270 others of the Reformed in England, died a sad death. For 
history tells us that worms bred in his flesh before death, and he 
suffered such tortures that when borne to his palace of the Escurial 
to die, he could not bear to be carried on a litter more than a few 
miles a day. 



264 Article XIL 

The poor creature, after his arrival there, was so superstitious 
that he would have his sores rubbed with some saint's or alleged 
saint's bone, in the vain hope that it would cure him, and one of 
his own idolatrous Creed tells us that he saw some thing in his 
last hours which terrified him, and that he asked for a crucifix 
which had belonged to his father, Charles V, which, when he got, 
he put between him and what he saw, evidently a demon, to 
protect himself, and shortly after died. 

Idolaters do not die well. "The idolater shall not inherit the 
kingdom of God," I Cor. VI, 9, 10; Galat. V, 19-22, and Rev. 
XXI, 8. " The Lord is know7i by the judgmeyit which he executeth,^* 
Psalm IX, 16. 

Keble and Pusey and Newman, not knowing well the VI 
Ecumenical Councils, nor the fact that they depose all creature- 
worshipping Bishops and clergy, and excommunicate all laics 
guilty of that sin, and having fallen into the heresy condemned by 
them, that we must consider as the first and essential thing, not the 
question of the episcopate but that of doctrine, forsook the wor- 
ship of God alone and fell into ecumenically condemned idolatry, 
and their ends were as hopeless as others who have died in the 
same sin under the condemnation of God's Holy Word and under 
the anathemas of the Third Ecumenical Council and the three 
after it. 

James Chrystal. 

Section II. 

I have shown, as my first point, that the heathen worship 
images, painted and graven, symbols, and all other material things 
which they worship, only relatively, not absolutely; that it is a 
false and utterly absurd notion to suppose that they deem the mere 
material itself to be God, and that intelligent heathen have dis- 
owned most clearly any such charge as untrue, and that ancient 
Christian writers show this. 

Two points remain to be treated of and I close. They are as 
follows: — 

II. To mention the acts in which the heathen image- worship 
and worship of material things consists. 



Creature Worship. 265 



III. To show that the relative worship of the altar, the cross, 
and images among Christians and so-called Christians is, so far as 
the kind of worship rendered to such material things is concerned, 
the same; in other words, that the creature• worshipping Christian, 
and the creature-worshipping Pagan both worship material objects, 
but 07ily relatively. 

And now as to the second point. At the start let us attempt, 
in accordance with the facts of the Bible, to define what religious 
worshipping is. Many blunder just here, and inasmuch as they 
have no clear ideas in their minds as to this matter of defitiiiion^ 
they dispute often for hours with no clear result. Now, the chief 
thing in such matters is to start rightly and clearly. We shall 
then not be so apt to get lost in a fog, or to get puzzled by the 
sharp tricks of some crafty sophist, who pleads for paganism 
among Christians with the ancient argumeirts of the heathen 
opponents of Christ and of Christianity. 

Religious worship, then, is respect, reverence, love, gratitude, 
pleading, honor, penitence, and all other good and proper feelings 
toward God, generally expressed by just such otitward acts as, if ex- 
pressed toward living men, are deemed 7nerely humayi respect^ rever- 
ence, love, gratitude, pleading, honor, penitence, and so on, These 
acts, as mentioned in Holy Writ, are as follows: — 

1 . Bowing to or kneeling to, or prostration before. 

Instances of this kind are subdivided into four classes accord- 
ing to the object to whom or which they are addressed, three clas- 
ses being religious in their character, and one non-religious. They 
are as follows: — 

(a) Bowing to God, or prostration to Him, or kneeling to 
Him, which is true and acceptable worship. Of this sort are of 
bowing, Exodus IV, 31; Psalm XCV, 6, and elsewhere; of pros- 
tration, 2 Chron. XX, 18; of kneeling, as of Solomon in his prayer 
in the Temple, 1 Kings VIII, 24. 

{J}) Giving anj' of those acts, or any other act of worship to 
the true God through any image, as, for example, through the gol- 
den calf in the wilderness, Exodus XXXII, 1-35, Psalms CVI, 
19-24, or through the calf at Bethel, or through that at Dan, I 
Kings XII, 26 to XIII, 1-10 inclusive. 



266 Article XII. 

(c) Bowing to or prostration to or kneeling to false gods, or to 
creatures, such as the Virgin Mary, other departed saints, or 
archangels or angels, or to crosses, images, relics, or to other 
material things, which is forbidden in Matt. IV, 10, Colos. II, 18, 
Rev. XIX. 10, and XXII, 8, 9, and Isaiah XLII, 8, etc., and is 
accursed of God. Of this sort are Isaiah II, 8, 9, etc. 

(d) Bowing to or prostration to living men as a mark not of 
religious worship, but of Jmman respect merely. Of this sort are 
Gen. XXXIII, 3; I Samuel XXIV, 8; II Samuel IX, 6, 8; 
I Kings II, 19. 

2. Prayer or entreaty to, or thanksgiving to, or giving 
honor or glory to. 

Instances of this kind are also subdivided into four classes, 
according to the object to whom or which they are addressed, three 
classes being religious in their character, and one non-religious. 
They are as follows: — 

{a) Entreating God, or giving thanks or honor or glory to 
Him, which are acts well pleasing in His sight. Of this sort are 
the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple (I Kings 
VIII, 22-61), and many others in the Old Testament and the New. 

ij}) Giving any of those acts or any other to the true God 
through any image or symbol or any created or made thing, as, for 
example, the calves mentioned under I, (b) above. 

(i) Entreating or giving thanks or honor or glory to false 
gods, or to images painted or graven, or to material things of any 
kind. Of this sort there are many examples in Scripture, such 
as Isaiah XLIV, 17, and Hosea IV, 12, etc. 

(d) Entreating or giving thanks or honor or glory to living 
men with mere human, no7i-religious respect. Of this sort are Acts 
VIII, 34, and many others. 

3. Kissing. 

Instances of this kind are subdivided into four classes, 
according to the object to whom or which they are addressed, three 
classes being religious in their character, and one nbn-religious. 
They are as follows: — 

(a) Kissing the hand to God the Father, to His co-eter7ial Word, 
and to His co-eternal Spirit. I am not aware, however, that this act 



Creature Worship. 267 



was done to any of these Three Consubstantial Persons in Bible 
times. And, of course, no one has ever kissed the substance of the 
Father's divinity, nor that of the eternal Word, nor that of the 
Holy Spirit, I Tim. VI, 16; John I, 18; Heb. XI, XJ, and Exod. 
XXXIII, 20. 

Throwing kisses to the divinity of those Three divine Persons 
is the only way, therefore, in which men on this earth may now 
give this act of kissing to God• 

But we never read in Holy Writ of that act being given to 
God the Word or to either the Father or His consubstantial Spirit 
in heaven. And it is certain that no one in heaven gives any 
relative or absolute worship to God the Word's humanity now 
there, for that would be contrary to His own law in Matt. IV, 10. 

The strong language of the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenic 
cal Synod against Nestorius for introducing Man-Service into 
heaven and earth by perverting to it the words, ^'And when He 
bringcth in the First Brought Forth into the World, he saith, And let 
all the angels of God worship Him' ' (308), forbids us to think that the 
humanity put on by the Word may be worshipped either in heaven 
or on earth. All acts of worship to the Son must be to the Word 
alone. He may not be co-worshipped with the Man, His humanity, 
in whom He ever dwells, though he must be worshipped as within 
him. So decides Anathema VIII of Ephesus on pages 90, 91 above, 
and see the whole context, and compare Anathema IX of the Fifth 
Synod on page 104. 

We can discuss nothing more here than the question as to 
what was meant when Christ's body was kissed during His sojourn 
on earth. 

To be a little mere full. 

As to kissing then the body or any other part of Christ's 
humanity, or throwing kisses to that humanity, or to any part of 
it, I would state the facts as follows: 

The Nestorian view would imply that this may be done 
because of the divine Person, that is the Eternal Word, Who dwells 
in that body. For they gave relative worship by bowing 

Note 308.— Heb. I, 6. 



263 Article XII. 

(προσκύνησίζ) to that hinnanity^ and consequently, I suppose, they 
would give relative worship, by kissing, to it, b}^ throwing kisses to 
it, because the Word of God dwelt in it, they said by His Spirit 
only, but we say by His eternal substance. But the doctrine of Cyril 
of Alexandria, the champion of Orthodoxy, against the creature- 
server Nestor ius, is that all such Relative Service is Creaiiire Ser- 
vice, that is service to a creatiu-e; and, of course, Ma7i-Service^ that 
is Service to a Man {α^θρωπολατρίία) , and that every act of religious 
service must be given directly to the Father, to the Eternal Word, 
and to the Holy Ghost alone, and that every act of religious service 
is prerogative to the Divinity alone; and so that, in the Son, the 
Eternal Word only is to be bowed to, that is worshipped, and not 
the humanity at all which that Eternal Word put on, and hence 
that we may not either kiss or throw any kiss to that humanit}^ or 
to any part of it, nor to the Eternal Word through it or any 
part of it, though we worship God the Word as with^ in the sense 
of within, the Man put on by him. See on that the witness of 
Cyril's opponents, the Nestorians, Andrew of Samosata, and 
Eutherius of Tyana, in the note matter on pages 1 16-128 of volume 
I of Chrystal's Ephesus, Cyril's language on page ii of its preface, 
his Anathema VIII, approved by Ephesus, pages 331 , 332, id., and 
Anathema IX of the Fifth Council, pages 108-112, id., and pages 
737, 740-750. 

And by the Third Synod of the Universal Church, and by the 
Fifth, this doctrine has been approved, formulated and commanded 
to be believed and maintained by all Christians, clergy and people, 
under penalty, in case of the ordained clergy of deposition, and, 
in the case of lower and unordained clergy, of removal from the 
clericate; and in case of the laity, of anathema. 

And this decision was made with the aid of the Holy Ghost, 
promised to the successors of the Apostles (John XIV, 16; Matt. 
XXVIII, 20; I Tim. Ill, 15, etc.). Hence we must, as Orthodox 
Christians, loyal to the Teachings and Decisions of that universal 
Church which Christ has commanded us to hear (Matt. XVIII, 
17). reject all interpretations of Holy Writ which make it teach 
relative bowing, prayer, kissing, kneeling, or any other act 
of relative religious service to the creature, that is to the Man 



CreaUire Worship. 269 



put on by the divine Word. And much more must we reject 
any and all acts of absolute religious service to that humanity by 
bowing, prayer, or in any other way. For the very moment we 
do so, we become guilty of the God-angering sin of the heathen, 
who '^worshipped and served the creature contrary to the Creator^ -who 
is blessed forever'" (Rom. I, 25.), and we place ourselves, as bringers- 
in of a new Man-Serving Gospel, under the curse of the Hol}^ Ghost 
by the Apostle Paul in Galatians I, 8, 9; and of God's Universal 
Church in the Decisions of the Third Ecumenical Synod and of 
the Fifth. 

But at this point comes the following Nestorian Question and 
Objection: 

How can you explain the act of Judas Iscariot in kissing 
Christ in the garden (309) when he betrayed Him, and the act of 
the sinful woman in kissing Christ's feet and in wiping them with 
the hair of her head (310)? Is there not nlative religious service 
to the body here because of the indwelling God the Word? 

To this I answer No! Most certainly not! 

There are two ways of answering here as to the kissing as 
follows: 

(1). That it was done to the Word alone as within his body, but 
not at all to his body either relatively or absolutely, like, for ex- 
ample, kissing a person's hand with a glove on it, where the kiss 
is meant for the person directly, not relatively through the glove. 

(2). That it was given to the body alone, 7iot as an act of 
religious worship but of vie re human non-war shippi?ig love and respect ^ 
such as would be given to a prophet, or to the high priest of the 
Mosaic Dispensation in the temple. And those who hold this view 
would hold, in order to avoid other Nestorian objections, that since 
Christ has mozaited the throiie of his glory no such human familiarities 
are tolerated though proper during his stay on earth when in his 
voluntary humility he condescended to associate with men as a 
man (311). He now, in His exaltation, receives no familiar and 

Note 309.— Matt. XXVI; 48, 40. Mark XIV; 44, 45. I.uke XXII; 47, 48. 
Note .310.— Luke VII; 36-50 inclusive. 

Note Sll.— Philippiaus II, 4-12. Compare Psalm XXII, 6-31: Isaiah LIII, 1-12; Daniel 13- 
26; Mark IX, 12; Romans XV, 3; and I,uke XXII. 27. 



270 



Article XII. 



lowly acts of mere human respect, but is worshipped with religious 
service in his Divine Nature alone, and in his dread Majesty as 
the awe-inspiring Word of God. This has been settled for 
ever by the whole Church. One who denies the opinion that both 
Judas and the penitent woman kissed Christ's body as an act of 
relative worship to God the Word through it, would say as follows : 
First, as to Judas, it is by no means certain that he believed 
in Christ's Divinity at all. For the Redeemer himself, when he 
rebuked some of his ''disciples''' for unbelief seemed to include 
Judas especially with them. For we read, "when Jesus knew in 
himself, that his disciples murmured at it" [his teaching as to 
eating his flesh and drinking his blood] "he said unto them. Doth 
this offend you ? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend 
up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the 
flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you, they are 
spirit, and they are life. But there are some of yoti that believe not. 
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed 
not, and who the 07ie was who was going to betray him'' (312). The 
last expression, of course, refers to Judas. 

And just below, in response to Peter's profession of his own 
faith, "We believe and are sure that thou art the Christ," [that is, 
"the Anointed One"] "the Son of the Living God," we read, 
"Jesus answered them, "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one 
of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the Son of Simon : 
for he it was, who was going" [or "about"] "to betray him, being 
one of the twelve" (John VI, 70, 71), 

And in John ΧΠ, 6, Judas is called "a thief." We are not sure, 
therefore, that Judas was at any time a sincere believer in Christ's 
Divinity. But whatever he may have been before, his condtict at this 
time, when he gave him this alleged kiss of relative service looks like 
anything but a belief in His Divinity. For it is hard to believe 
that any man who believed in Christ as God and as his future 
Judge, as He had said long before (John V, 21-31), could betray 
Him for thirty pieces of silver (Matt. XXVI, 14-16), or indeed for 



Note 312.— John VI, 64. Greek, K«t Tt's Ιστιν Ο τταραΒώσων αυτόν. The trans- 
lation above is more exact than the Common Version. 



Creature Wors/iip. 2 γι 



any sum at all. And his action of kissing him with the intention 
not only of pointing Him out to his enemies, but also, seemingly, 
of deceiving Christ, is not consistent with the idea that he believed 
Him to be the heart-searching. Omniscient God (313). And it 
certainly was not on his part an act of religious service at all, 
either to His Humanity or to His Divinity, but of hypocrisy and 
base betrayal, and as a sign to Christ's enemies to seize him. In 
other words, there is, therefore, no clear proof that Judas Iscariot 
at any time believed in Christ's Divinity, much less is there any 
proof that He believed in His Divinity when he gave• him that 
kiss of betrayal and final apostasy ; hence, there is no clear proof 
that he kissed Christ's body as an act of relative religious service 
to it, that is, because of the divine Word who dwelt in it. Nor is 
there any proof oi absolute service to that body, that is for its own 
sake. 

We come now to the case of the repentant woman who kissed 
Christ's feet and wiped them with the hairs of her head. 

The Nestorian party claim this to be a case oi relative x&\\%\o\\s 
§ervice to the divine Word by kissing His feet. But the Third 
Synod and the Fifth say, in effect, that it is not. 

Let us show it. 

In some lands it has been and still is the custom to kiss the 
monarch's hand. Now suppose that for some reason this hand is 
covered, let us say by a glove. Now if I stoop and kiss his hand 
thus gloved, no one will accuse me of doing any relative human 
service to the glove, for my act is addressed directly to the king 
himself. I do not intend my act of kissing for the glove either 
relatively or absolutely. 

So with the kiss of the penitent woman (314). 

Let us suppose that the kiss was meant only for the Word, 
though her lips met only His mortal covering. On that sup- 
position she was not guilty of worshipping the body with relative 
■ » ■ — ■ " 

Note 313.— Matt. ΧΧΛΊ, 45-51; Mark XIV, 41-47. 

Note 314.— See R. Payne Smith's English translation from the Syriac of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria's Commentary upon the Gospel according to S. Luke, sermon XL, pages 156-161 
incUisive. which is on this passage on the penitent woman, that is, on Luke VII, 36-50. But 
Cyril there teaches that she worshipped God the Word, absolutely of course for he always 
condemns the relative worship of God the Word, as we have seen often. 



272 Article XII. 

service, for that would make her a Nestorian before Nestorius 
and a creature server, that is, a Man-Server. Since her act was 
not disapproved by Christ, we must believe in accordance with 
the decision of the Third Synod and that of the Fifth, that 
she was not guilty of Man-Service (άν^ρωπολατ/^εώι), that is, of 
the creature service of giving religious service to Christ's human 
nature. 

Some may hold that Psalm II, 12, exhibits a case of actual 
religious worship rendered to Christ's Divifiity only by kissing 
Him. It is against the God-inspired faith proclaimed in the Third 
Synod and the Fifth to believe it was done to his humanity 
relatively or absolutely. 

According to that view then we may conclude that kissing 
God the Word, if possible, would be a laudable act of absolute 
religious service to the Word alone. It is not acceptable as an act 
of relative religious service to the creature, the Man put on by the 
Word, and of course it would be impious and gross creature-ser- 
vice to give absolute religious service to that Man, by kissing or 
in any other way. 

It should be added that although the Father and the Spirit are 
eminently worthy of this act of honor and afiection and religious 
worship, nevertheless for certain obvious reasons we read not in 
Holy Writ of its being giv^en to either. So far as we know, it was 
given to God the Word only. In His case, men were permitted 
to feel and handle that body which He took from a virgin, but 
not to worship it relatively or absolutely by kissing it or in any 
other way. 

But we are not allowed to approach so near to the* Father's 
Substance and to that of the Holy Spirit and kiss them. No man 
may see God's face and live (315). Much less can we be so 
familiarly rude and irreverent as to kiss him, who smote Uzzah 
(316) for touching His ark only. And Paul by the Holy Ghost 
exhorts us, "Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God accept- 



NoTE 315.— Exodus XXXIII, 20. 
Note 316.— II Sam. VI; 6, 7. 



Creature Worship. 273 



ably, with reverence and godly fear; for our God is a consuming 
FIRE" (317). 

But, on the other hand, the great diflSculty about this first ex- 
planation of the penitent woman's kissing Christ as an act of 
religious service to God the Word alone, is to prove that it was 
ever so done by kissing the feet of the man put on by Him. And 
the same diflGcuUy stands against taking Psalm II, 12, in that 
sense. Besides the Nestorians might pervert the act to favor their 
Man-Service. The second view, here following, is therefore much 
preferable. 

And, forasmuch as the Scriptures do not mention throwing 
kisses to the divinity of the Father or the Spirit, it is ques- 
tionable whether it should be done. It seems best to limit ourselves 
to the acts of religious service mentioned in the Holy Scriptures as 
acceptable to Him. And the same is true of throwing kisses to 
the Son. It is not mentioned there. Nor can we kiss His feet or 
cheek unless we approach as near Him as did Judas and the Pen- 
itent Woman. Furthermore, the saints in heaven and all creatures 
there are represented in the Revelations as praising the Lamb 
(318) who, as we have seen above, must be deemed to be God the 
Word. See to that effect Cyril's Scholia on the hicarjiatioyi, section 
13, page 200 of the Oxford translation of Cyril of Alcxajidria o7t 
the Incarnatio7i against Ncsioriits. In sections following he condemns 
the worship of Christ's humanity. 

Having thus exhibited the first view or Explanation of the 
act of kissing Christ's feet by the penitent woman, which is 
that it was done as an act of religious service to the divine word 
ALONE, not at all to his humanity or to any part of it relatively or 
absolutely; we come now to the second Explanation of her act 
namely that it was not an act of religious service at all, but an act 
of vicre Ίΐοη -worshipping human love for Christ as a Prophet and 
Teacher, similar to what was given then to a Prophet and to the 
Jewish High Priest and to other religious men not at all as aii act 

Note 317.— Heb. XII; 2S, 29. 

Note 318. — See t he many passages under Lamb in any good concordance, especially those 
in Revelations. Compare the same Person in Revelations XIX, 13, where He is expressly 
called "the IVordof God.'''' 



274 Article XII. 

of religious worship, but of viere human love and respect, as men and 
women, and children in the East now kiss a Bishop's hand. And 
Christ's feet, travel-stained and soiled, needed then such acts of 
non-religious huvia^i service as washing and wiping, which this 
ΛVoman did, and such human acts as care for his humanity which 
His mother did, and gifts of money and food and drink for his 
sustenance while that body lived and was mortal, and care for it in 
taking it down from the cross, in winding it up "in linen clothes 
with spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury" (319), and the 
laying it in the sepulchre, but all these are acts, not at all of religious 
worship, but of viere human non-worshippi7ig care for that created 
Man. For the disciples of Christ were not Creature-Servers. And 
all those acts are acts of huma?i no7i-worshipping love and care to 
other men also. 

Furthermore, though it is stated that this penitent woman 
believed in Christ (320), it is far from certain that she understood 
the truth then confessed by no believer, that He was God. For that 
truth was revealed as men could bear it; and we do not find it 
clearly acknowledged by any of Christ's followers before Peter, as 
mentioned in Matthew XVI; 16. And that was after this woman 
performed this act of kissing Christ's feet. Greswell, Stroud, 
Robinson, Thomson, Tischendorf, and Gardiner, that is all the 
harmonists tabulated by Gardiner in his Harmoiiy of the Gospels in 
English, so put it (321). Hence there is no probability that she 
understood him to be God or meant to offer him any act of 
religious service as God. Her act was one of Tnere human non- 
worshippijig love and affection, such as ma}' be given to an exalted 
and holy and merciful creature, such as, in all probability, she took 
him to be. 

Even some time after that He said to His disciples: "I have 
yet many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now. 
Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide 

NOTE 319.— John XIX, 40. 

Note 320.— I,uke VII, 50. 

Note 321.— lyuke VII, 36-50, is section 48 in that work and is put in the period between 
Christ's second Passover and His third in the ministry. Peter's confession of His divinity is 
put after His third Passover, and is in section 70. See it, Preface, pages VII and VIII, and 
pages XXVIII to XXXIII inclusive. 



Creature Worship. 275 



you into all Truth," John XVI, 12, 13. He came at Pentecost, 
and the truth was fully made known then and after, but gradu- 
ally, till the whole was understood. 

We conclude then, as Orthodox Christians loyal to Christ, 
who forbids us to serve religiously any but God (322), and as loyal 
to His Universal Church, which, in accordance with that com- 
mand, forbids us to serve any creature, that we viiist understand, 
as well we may, the act of the Woman who came behind Christ 
when he was eating at table and kissed his feet and wiped them 
with the hairs of her head, to have been an act of mere human 
love of his humanity, not at all an act of religious service to 
that humanity, or of the Word Who dwelt in that humanity 
through it. For in either of those cases her act of kissing, if an 
act of religious service, would have been service to a crealiire: in the 
first case it would be an instance of absolute creature• service, be- 
cause given to the humanity, not because of its relation to the 
Word who dwelt within it, but because of itself : in the other case it 
would have been an act of relative creature-service, and of relative 
Man-Service, because given to the Man Christ on account of the 
divine and Eternal Word who dwelt in that Man. In other 
words, the Vlllth Anathema of Cyril of Alexandria which, with 
the whole long Epistle to Nestorius in which it stands, was 
approved in Act I of the Third Ecumenical Synod (note 520, pages 
204-208, vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus), forbids us to co-worship 
Christs's humanity with his Divinity, and the IXth Anathema 
of the Fifth Council forbids us to worship the Son "m" his ''two 
Natures," but orders us to "worship with one -worship, ^^ that is with 
absolute, not relative, worship, ''God the Word ivflcshed in the midst 
of His own fleshy See on that volume I of Chrystal's Ephesus^ 
note 183, pages 79-128, and note 679, pages 332-362, and page ii of 
the Preface to that volume. See also Nestorius' Heresy 2 on pages 
639-641, where Cyril brands the Nestorian worship of Christ's 
humanity as resulting in worshipping a Tetrad instead of a 
Trinity; and against the relative worship of Christ's humanity see 
Nestorius' Blasphemy 8, page 461, text, and note 949. 

But, to some, perhaps, the expression "Kiss the Son," in our 

Note 322.— Matt. IV, 10; Luke IV, 8. 



2/6 A) tide XII. 

English Version of part of the twelfth verse of the Second Psalm, 
may seem to favor the Nestorian view that it is right to give an 
act of religious service to the humanity of Christ because the 
Eternal Word dwells in it, and 30 to condemn the Universal 
Church for forbidding all such religious relative worship to a 
creature, and all absolute service to a creature. 

But to this objection the Universal Church may well and con- 
vincingly reply; 1, that the expression, "Kiss the Son," is not 
found in the rendering of this verse in the Greek Septuagint, or in 
the Latin \''ulgate. 

The Greek Septuagint here has instead of it, ^^ Take fast hold 
of instrudtoni^ (Αράξασθε παιδεία?); and the Latin Vulgate has 
the same, (Apprehendite disciplinam). 

2, that if, as some think, the primary reference of this Psalm 
II be to David, or as others think, to Solomon, or as another has 
suggested, to another king of Judah, and the secondary to the Son 
of David, Christ; it does not follow that every thing in the 
prophecy which has reference to David, has reference to the Eternal 
Word also. For often in prophecy certain parts of the predic- 
tion are true only of the primary person, or kingdom, or people, or 
thing, etc., referred to, and certain others are true only of the 
second reference, whether it be person, or kingdom, or people, or 
thing. To take but one instance out of many: the words in 
Isaiah VII, 14, '''■Behold^ a virgi?i shall co7iceive, and bear a so)i, aiid 
shall call his name Immanuel,'' are applied to Christ in Matthew I; 
22, 23; and yet the sixteenth verse of the same seventh chapter of 
Isaiah, which refers to the same child, shows that the primary 
reference of the prophecy must be to Hezekiah alone, or at least to 
some one about his time, if not in it, not to Christ at all, in whom 
nevertheless the complete fulfilment of part of the prophecy is 
to be found. 

And indeed this is a common thing in Scripture prophecies, 
in instances clearer than the one I have just cited (323). So here the 

Note 323.— Samuel H. Turner, D. D., Professor of Biblical I,earning and Interpretation 
of Scripture in the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in 
Isew York City, one of my former Theological teachers, made the following statement as to 
the quoting of Scripture in Scripture. So I find it in my own writing in one of my books. 

''■There are Four Modes of Quoting:— 

1. Quotations are frequently made in order to express a literal fulfilment of what is 



Creature Worship. 277 



kings of the earth are not called upon to kiss the Eternal Word's 
body as an act of religious service, but to do seadar homage to 
King David or Solomon, and to be his vassals or tributaries or 
allies, and some of those kings were vassals or tributaries and 
others were friends: and so that part of the prophec}•, granting 
what is disputed, that the rendering should be ''Kiss the Son''' has 
received its fulfilment. But some ancient versions, the Septua- 
gint and the Vulgate, as has been said, have no such translation. 
And the learned have differed as to the rendering. 

Furthermore, the kings of the earth cannot now ''kiss the 
Son'' of God, because He is in Heaven and they upon earth. And 
we have no clear proof that any of the kings of the earth has as 
yet kissed the Son. And, forasmuch as the kissing is to be done 
by "kings" during the time of probation, while Christ may be 
propitiated and salvation secured, therefore it can not be done at 
the end of probation when he comes to reign on earth (Rev. XX), 
and hence as no king has ever kissed the Son, so no king of this 
earth will ever kiss Him. And hence these words will never be 
fulfilled, namely: 

"O ye kings ... ye judges of the earth . . . kiss the Son, lest 
he be angry, ayid ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled 
but a little:' 

It seems most likely, therefore, that this part of the prophetic 
Psalm refers to David's "Son" Solomon, to whom "kitigs" and 
"Judges" were subject, and to whom therefore, according to Oriental 
custom, they would do merely secular, ?io7i- religious homage by 
kissing." 

3, Any interpretation of Holy Scripture which would militate 

announced thereby in the Old Testament, the subject respecting which they are used in the 
New being the same as in the old. See Matthew 11, 6, (Bethlehem, etc.). 

2. AVe often meet with Quotations where no fulfilment is intended by the New Testa- 
ment writer. He merely accommodates the language of the Old Testament to the subject of 
which he is treating. See the slaughter of the Infants at Bethlehem — language accommo- 
dated from Jeremiah. 

3. Sometimes Quotations are made to express fulfilment in addition to literal sense. The 
first part of this principle applies to the whole subject of typical accomplishment. See 
Psalm CXVIII; 22, " The sione which the butlders rejected,'^ etc. 

4. Frequently the New Testament writers express their own thoughts in the language 
quoted, and so the original meaning of the Quotation has no connection with that which they 
may have intended." 



2/8 Article XII. 



against other parts of it, and which is forbidden as such by the 
whole Church in two Ecumenical Synods acting with the Christ- 
promised aid and guidance of the Holy Spirit, must be rejected as, 
by that very fact, false and evil. 

(b). Kissing done to the true God or to any Person of the 
Consubstantial and Coeternal Trinity through any image, as, for 
example, the golden calf in the wilderness, or through the calf at 
Dan, or through that at Bethel, or through a cross, or through an 
altar, communion table, wafer, bread and wine, or any other 
material thing. 

An instance of kissing some image painted or graven, and 
God's anger at this sin, is told us in Hosea XIII, 1-4, as follows: 

"When Ephraim spoke trembling, he exalted himself in 
Israel; but when he offended in Baal, he died. And now they sin 
more and more, and have made them molten images of their sil- 
ver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the 
work of the craftsman: they say of them, I^et the men that sacrifice 
kiss the calves. Therefore, they shall be as the morning cloud, 
and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chafE that is driven 
with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the 
chimney." 

The reference is to the calf at Bethel, and to that at Dan, to 
which, as to the calf in Exodus XXXII, relative religious worship 
was given as to the representatives of the true God, Jehovah. Not 
only these calves, but images of Baal also were kissed with religious 
worship. Thus in I Kings XIX, 18, God said to Elijah: "Yet I 
have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have 
not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed 
him." The worship of the golden calf in the wilderness was 
surely relative, not to a false god, but to Jehovah Himself. See 
that shown more at length in Chrystal's small work on Creature 
Worship, and page 266 above under "3. Kissing, (a)." 

There are three examples of the worship, through images, 
forbidden by God (324), of Him by His former people of the 
Mosaic Covenant, that is 

Note 324.— Exodus XX, 4. 



Creature Worship. 279 



1. through the golden calf in the Wilderness, Exodus 
XXXII: 

2. through the calf at Bethel and through that at Dan, both 
made by Jeroboam, who ^'viade Israel to sin,'' I Kings XII, 26, to 
XIII, 10; II Kings III, 3; I Kings XV, 26, 30, 34; II Kings 
XVII, 19-24, and again and again: and, 

3. The worship of Him through the brazen serpent, which 
therefore the noble reforming king Hezekiah ''brake in pieces'^ 
and called Nchushtan, that is a piece of brass, II Kings XVIII, 
4-9. He was a God approved Iconoclast, that is an image breaker. 

But of these further on, in more detail. 

4. Other idolatrous ways of worshipping Jehovah, relatively, 
are: — 

Kissing an altar, or communion table, bending the knee to it, 
incensing it, or turning to it at the Doxology or at any time on 
the ground that it is God's altar, table or throne, as they say: all 
these forms of idolatry have reentered the Anglican Communion 
since the Apostatic Puseyite movement began in 1833, and are 
bringing God's curse on it: 

Giving any of those Acts to any alleged image of the Father, 
the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or to any alleged image of the whole 
Trinity together: 

Giving absolute worship to the consecrated unleavened wafer, 
and to every part thereof when broken, or to the wine, or to both, 
on the ground, as the Romish Church has it, that "in the venerable 
sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under 
each species, and underevery part of each species, when separated," 
Session XIII of the idolatrous conventicle of Trent, chapter VIII, 
Canon III; or giving absolute worship to the consecrated leavened 
bread and wine, as do the Greeks, as the very body and blood and 
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, for most or all of them hold to 
that error condemned by the Universal Church in its Third 
Synod, held at Ephesus, A. D. 431: see in proof note 606, pages 
240-313, and note 599, pages 229-238, volume I of Ephesus, in 
this set. 

The same worship is given also to the bread or wafer, and 



28ο Article XII. 

wine, by the Monophysites, as being now the real substances of 
Christ. 

The Nestorians, so far as I know, still hold to the one Nature 
Consubstantiation of Theodoret, their champion, and of their other 
leaders, and to the worship of the leavened bread and the v/ine, 
not as Christ's divinity at all, but as His humanity, as Theodoret 
held and taught against Ephesus (325). 

(c) Kissing [done as an act of religious worship to some 
angel, or to some human being, as the Grand Lama, though these 
examples of this kind in brackets are not in the Bible, or] to some 
image painted or graven, to the cross, or to some symbol, or to 
relics of saints, or to an altar, or to some other material thing. 
Of this sort are, 

(1) Kissing the hand to one of the heavenly bodies as an 
act of worship to it: this sin is mentioned by Job, and is a very 
ancient form of idolatry, perhaps older than image-worship, at 
least in certain places; the sin and its guilt are described by Job 
XXXI, 26-29, as follows: 

"If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking 
in brightness, and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my 
mouth hath kissed my hand, this also were an iniquity to be pun- 
ished by the Judge, for I should have denied the God that is 
above:" 

(2). the kissing of images of false gods, like, for example, 
that of Baal, I Kings XIX, 18: 

(3). We should put here the worship of the deified Emperors 
of Rome, and the worship of their images, which Jerome on 
Daniel compares to the worship of the image of Nebuchadnezzar 
(Daniel III, 1-30), and condemns both. See QhrysX^aXs Ephesus, 



Note 325. — Theodoret, the Nestorian one Nature Consubstantiationist, testifies that he 
and his party gave relative bowing, that is, of course, as the Greek means, relative worship 
to the consecrated but unchanged bread and wine of the I<ord's Supper, which St. Cyril of 
Alexandria brands as αν^ρωτΓολατραα, that is the worship of a human being: see him as 
quoted in volume I of Ephesus in this set, pages 280, 282, 283, 284, 28,5. For that Man-Worship 
and for his belief in a real presence of the Substance of Christ's real flesh and blood in the 
Encharist, and for his beUef also in what Cyril calls, ανθρωποφαγία, that is, the Can- 
nibalism of eating that real human flesh and drinking that real human blood there, and for 
his denial of the Incarnation, he was deposed at Dphesus. 



Creature Worship. 281 



volume I, page 19, note 20. Compare on extravagant Byzantine 
titles, Ralle and Potle's Syniag?)ia, tome V, pages 497-512. The 
apostate and idolater, John Henry Newman, note "o," page 405, 
of his English translation of St. Athanasius' Orations against the 
Arians, rightly states that the worship of the Emperors' images 
helped to bring the worship of images into the Church; see note 
"n" also. 

(d) Kissing done to some human being, not as an act of 
religious adoration, but of human affection, as, for instance, by a 
father or mother to their children, of wives and husbands, of kin- 
dred and relatives, of a friend to a friend, and of a lover to his 
sweetheart. Under this also we may place certain foolish acts, 
indefensible on any ground of common sense, done among certain 
nations where creature-worship prevails, such as kissing a 
national flag, a picture of a mistress, or of a friend, or of a rela- 
tive. In all such cases there is no intention to give the slightest 
religious-worship , relative or otherwise. The act is simply one of 
passionate, unreasoning nonsense, and is reprehensible because it 
might lead to relative religious-worship, as indeed it has in other 
days, probably. Indeed these last mentioned acts are in them- 
selves reprehensible because they are silly, and possibly, though 
I do not assert this, for another reason or for other reasons. In- 
stances of mere non-religious kissing in Bible times are related in 
Gen. XXIX, 11; XIV, 15. 

It should be added also that the custom of expressing religious 
worship by kissing material things, and by kissing one's hand as 
a proxy for one of the heavenly bodies, — in other words, Sabean- 
ism. — seems never to have prevailed so much in the cold North as 
in the warm South. Indeed the North was ever freer from idol- 
atry than the great mass of the Southlanders in Europe, Asia, 
Africa, and America. By north we mean not w^hat is north of Mason 
and Dixon's line, but the climatic North wherever the snow falls. 

4. Offering incense. 

Instances of this kind are also sub-divisible into four classes, 
according to the object to whom or which the incense is offered: 
three classes being religious in their character, and one being 
non-religious. 



282 Article Χ ΓΙ. 

They are as follows: 

(a) Offcrhig iticense to God as an act of religious worships 
was countenanced in the ancient law, and if offered to God alone ^ is 
not wrong now if it has been used in the Christian Church from 
the beginning, and if, on proof of that, it be authorized by a Synod 
of the whole Church, or of the national Church. But the learned 
Bingham teaches that it is not found in the first three centuries. 
See his Antiquities, book VIII, chapter VI, section 2 1 . Then it should 
not be used. '''As it was in the beginiiing,'''' etc., is the law. 
Every presumptuous clergyman who introduces it or uses it of his 
own self-will and ignorant noddle should be at once deposed. For 
the fact that every unlearned or doting Bishop or Presbji-ter or 
Deacon, is left free to do as he pleases in matters of rite as well as 
of discipline and of doctrine has resulted in ritual and disciplinary 
and doctrinal anarchy. 

((5) Wrong and 7iot acceptable offering of incense to fehovah, 
the incensing of alleged images of the Father, the Son, or the 
Holy Ghost, the last being often imaged in the form of a dove, 
and the Son in his human form; and the incensing of the whole 
Trinity together, the incensing of an altar or a communion 
table, or the Bible or any part of it, as is done in the idolatrous 
Communions, and of other material things relatively to Jehovah, 
or to any Person of the Trinity. 

The worship of Jehovah by Jeroboam and the Ten Tribes at 
Bethel and at Dan, through the calf at each place, seems to have 
included the offering of incense as well as sacrifice, I Kings XII, 
26, to XIII, 10, inclusive. 

Another instance of the incensing of a material thing rela- 
tively to Jehovah is the incensing of the brazen serpent made by 
Moses by God's command for a brief occasion, but made a vehicle 
of idolatrous worship to Him afterwards, and therefore broken in 
pieces by the good king Hezekiah, and spoken of by him with 
words of contempt as "λ piece of brass,' ^ Numbers XXI, 7, 8, 9; 
II Kings XVIII, 3, 4, 5, and the context. 

Another offering of incense to Jehovah, which was rejected 
by Him, was that of Korah the lycvite and the three Reubenites, 
Dathan, Abiram, and On, who would usurp the peculiar function 



Creature Worship. 183 



of the Sons of Aaron in offering incense, when the earth opened 
and swallowed up the unauthorized offerers of it, Numbers XVI, 
1-50: compare Jude 11. 

{c) Offering incense as an act of religiotcs worship, relative or 
absolute, to false gods or to any creature or material thing, as, for 
instance, to any image painted or graven, or to any symbol, or to 
any altar, or to any thing material whatsoever. Of this general 
class there are many instances in Holy Writ. Examples are 
Hosea XI, 2; II Kings XVIII, 4; II Chron. XXXIV, 25; etc. 

{d) Offering incense to a human being not as an act of 
religious worship of any kind, but simply and only as an act of mere 
hiunan respect, like the presenting of a flower, for instance, which 
is fragrant like good incense. I have heard of incense being 
offered to a late Sultan of Turkey as an act of mere civil homage, 
not of religious worship, by a Christian lady, when he was on a 
visit some ti;ue ago to Smyrna. The Sultan, however, seemed to 
be a sensible man, though accustomed to absolute authority, for 
he requested that that thing might cease. And surely such Orien- 
talisms are often disgusting to a free mind. I am not aware that 
any such thing is found in the Bible, though possibl)' the sweet 
odors offered to Daniel may be so taken, Daniel II, 46. 

It should be added further that, as has in effect been said, 
most or all acts of love, reverence, thankfulness, when offered to 
God, become acts of religious worship, because all our approaches 
to Him are siich, while, on the other hand, such acts toward men, 
when non-religious acts, as they generally are, are outside of the 
sphere of worship altogether. It is all- important to remember 
this fact, for, without so doing, we shall blunder endlessly, as so 
many do for that reason. We shall be in danger of putting light 
for darkness and darkness for light, of calling bitter sweet and 
sweet bitter, of approving soul-damning idolatry as innocent in- 
stead of exposing it and condemning it and warning men against 
it, as, before the "jealous" God, as He terms Himself in Exodus 
XX, 5, it is our solemn and imperative duty to do. But I have 
lieard in the mouth of an Anglican clergyman, unlearned on this 
topic, language which befits only the lips of a heathen. Indeed in 
the lack of theological training on this topic many Anglican clergy- 



284 Article XII. 

men even similarly ignorant are to be found. This is the more won- 
derful when we recollect the writings of the great Anglican scholars 
of the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth centuries, on 
the Romish controversy and on this particular part of it, and par- 
ticularly the book of Crakanthorp, entitled "Defensio Ecclesiae 
Angucanae," which displays excellent acumen in meeting the 
excuses and attempted evasions of the Romanists and Greeks on 
this point to excuse their idolatry. Among the later works whicli 
deserve especially honorable mention, and which should be in the 
library of every Anglican clergj-man, are the last edition of 
George Stanley Faber's "Difficulties of Romanism," the works 
published by the Christian Knowledge Society, entitled "What is 
Romanism?" and "Tyler on Image-Worship," "Tyler on Worship 
of the Blessed Virgin," and "Tyler on Primitive Christian Wor- 
ship." The first-named work of Tyler is aimed at Image- Wor- 
ship, the second at Worship of the Blessed Virgin, and the third 
at Invocation of Saints and Angels, and the three are among the 
best books on these topics in defence of the doctrines of God as 
maintained in the Anglican formularies. 

5. The burning of lights. This act, like the foregoing, may 
be used In four senses, three religious, and one non-religious and 
purely secular. They are 

{a) . the burning of lights in the worship of Jehovah to honor 
Him directly, as commanded by Him in Exodus XI,, 4, 24, 25; 
compare Exodus XXV, 31-40. 

(b). the burning of lights to God in a w-ay forbidden by Him, 
for example, if such a thing were ever done in lienor of the golden 
calf in the wilderness relatively to Jehovah, or in the worship of 
the calf of Jeroboam, at Bethel or in the worship of that at Dan, 
relatively, to God. 

Among idolatrous Christians, the Greeks especially, it is often 
done to the image of Christ on the iconostasis, that is the image 
stand, indeed in every liturgical service and also in every other. 
The same form of God-angering idolatry would, I presume, for the 
same reason (pari ratione), be offered to any other image of any 
other Person of the Trinity, or to any image of the whole Trinity. 
The deluded and hell-bound idolater sometimes buys a candle or 



Creature Worship. 285 



taper, even if he has not time to remain throughout the whole ser- 
vice, and puts it on the stand for that purpose in front of the 
image that is idol. The Greeks are, so far as I have seen, the 
most frequent and fanatical idolaters in all Christendom, though 
they say the Latins are, because they worship both graven images 
and pictures, whereas they, the Greeks, worship generally only pic- 
tured images, but that difference in their idolatry is only the 
difference between tweedledum and tweedledee, as the Latins 
in effect reply. For under the ancient law the making and the 
worship of the likeness, that is the picture, was as much pro- 
hibited, as the making and the worship of the graven image 
Exodus XX, 4, 5, 6. Besides, the Greeks do worship images in 
low relief, which, of course, are graven. 

The Latins also burn lights before their images of Christ 
and of the Trinity in relative worship to them. 

As to the Monophysites (the Armenians, Syrians, Copts, 
and Abj'ssinians), I do not feel so certain, though, as they use 
images and are in fact creature-worshippers, I suppose they do. 

The Nestorians use no images. 

if), the burning of lights before images painted or graven, the 
cross, or any other material thing, as an act of relative worship to 
the archangels, angels, or saints represented by them, or alleged 
to be represented by them, or in cemeteries or elsewhere in honor 
or worship of departed Christians. 

That is constantly done to images, especially to those of the 
Virgin Mary, other saints, and angels, by the Greeks. Indeed an 
image, that is a picture of her is seen on one side of the main 
door of the image-stand, and lights are burned before it constantl3^ 

And the images of saints and angels are also worshipped by 
lights, and that in the Roman Church as well. 

Canon XXXIV of the local Council of Elvira in Spain, about 
A. D. 305, forbids a custom which looks like a beginning of the 
worship of the Christian dead, or perhaps of martyrs only, It 
reads: 

"Canon XXXIV. Let no wax tape7's be lit in the cemeteries: 

It has been decreed that no wax tapers are to be lighted in the 
day time in a cemetery, for the spirits of the saints are not to be dis- 



286 Article XII. 



quieted (326). Let those who do not observe this enactment be de- 
barred from the communion of the Church." 

{d). Burning lights, not as a religious act at all, but as an 
act of mere secular hojior or respect, as when men light up their 
windows at night to honor some political procession, or some 
military or civil oflScer or dignitary, etc., or celebrate their party 
fealty, or a victory, or a bridal party at night, as I once saw in 
Antioch of Syria, or in many other such non-religious merely se- 
cular ways. 

Note 326.— Compare the language of Samuel to Saul in I Samuel XXVIII, 15, "Why hast 
thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" It seems quite likely that the Council had that passage 
in mind when they made that Canon. And surely if the Virgin Mary, and the saints in 
heaven, and the archangels and angels could hear the praj-ers and invocations made to them 
by creature worshippers, they would be disquieted to know that men commit such creature- 
worshipping acts toward them, to the ruin of their own souls. But happily for the saints 
and angels above they are not omniscient nor omnipresent to hear prayers or addresses 
from earth. For Christ is the only Intercessor for us above, for as God He i.snot only omni- 
potent, but also omniscient and omnipresent by His knowledge to hear our prayers, to know 
also what is best for us, and as Man to ask the Father for it. And all saints and angels would 
be so disquieted as to be horrified and made unhappy if they knew that any one could 
believe them to be so blasphemous as to claim to share Christ's prerogative office work of 
being the one Sole Mediator on high, one part of which is intercession. 

The High Priest, His foretype, went alone into the most holy place on the day of atone- 
ment, and that not without blood, which be offered for himself and for the sins of the people 
(I,eviticus XVI, 17, and the context). And so Paul shows that our High Priest, God and 
Man, the "one Mediaior between God and jnen" (I Timothy II, 5), "by His own blood" has 
entered once for all {(φάπας) into the holy place above (Hebrews IX, 12), to be our all- 
sufficient and sole God-authorized Intercessor there. And therefore the Apostle writes: "He 
is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liΛ'eth 
to make intercession for them" (Heb. VII, 25). And John writes of the all-sufficiency of 
Christ's atonement for every sin and his advocacy above: "If any 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," (I John II, 1, 2). So that 
every Christian may say in triumph in the words of Paul iu Romans VIII, 34 : "Who is he 
that condemueth ? It is Christ that died, aye more that is risen again, who is also at the right 
hand of God, and who maketh intercession for us." 

And throughout the ninth chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews Paul contrasts the glory 
and superiority of Christ's High Priesthood and atonement and intercession with the inferi- 
ority of the work of the Aaronic High Priest on the Day of Atonement, as told in I,eviticus 
XVI. 1-34. 

And Augustine, on the Sixty-fourth Psalm, witnesses to the truth that Christ is our only 
Intercessor above, for he writes: 

"He Himself is the Priest who has now entered within the vail. He alone of those who 
have now 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 ν ithout." See the Latin in the note matter on page 369, 
volume I of the translation of Ephesus in this Set. The Universal Church, in effect, iu its 
approval of St. Cyril's Anathema IX, teaches the same doctrine, but with Ecumenical 
authority, whereas Augustine gives above his private opinion, which was approved by 



Creature Worship. 2S7 



6. Sacrifice, 

This act was also of four kinds, three of them religious, and 
one non-religious and merely secular. 

(a). Sacrifice, not through any viediuvi^ but directly to the true 
God, Jehovah, and to Him alone. It was commanded again and 
again by God Himself under the Mosaic Law, for example in 



Ephesus after his death, but it did not approve his doubts, elsewhere expressed, in favor 
of the intercession of saints for men, and especially at their memorial chapels or Mar- 
tyries, which, as well as the opinion that prayer, an act of worship, as all admit, may he 
offered to any saint, angel, or any other creature, are condemned by the New Testament 
in Matt. IV, 10, and I Timothy 11, 5, 6, and in Colossians II, 18 to 23, and no man holds 
to the Head, Christ, there mentioned, in the true. Orthodox sense who does not hold 
that He is the only intercessor ou high. See also, against the worship of angels. Revela- 
tions XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9. On Augustine's errors and doubts on the worship of martyrs 
see Smieh's Gieseler^s Church History, volume I, page 419, note 11. Note 688, pages 363-406 
volume I of Ephesus iu this Set cites authorities for Christ as the Sole Intercessor above. 
Chrysostom, as quoted by Finch in his Sketch of the Komi'sh Cotitroversv, pages 178,179 
favors going to God directly in prayer, but like Augustine he is al.so quoted for invocation 
of creatures. If the said passages for .saint worship be genuine he is a heretic, and is 
condemned by the Third Ecumenical Synod; and the same thing may be said of Augustine 
also, if such creature-worshipping passages as aie cited from him be really his. 

And the Universal Church, not long after his death, in approving Cyril's Anathema IX 
condemned Nestorius' heresy that a mere man, Christ's humanity, alone does above the whole 
High Priestly work of intercession for men, and condemned much more the heresy and blas- 
phemy that any other creature there can share God the Word's prerogative work of mediation 
by intercession, in heaven; and in approving Cyril's Anathema VIII, which anathematizes the 
Nestorian worship of Christ's mere humanity, as what St. Cyril calls άνθρωποΧατβίία. 
that is the worship of a human being-, it much more (a fortiori) by necessarj' inclusion, 
anathematizes all worship of any other creature. For the Man put on by God the ΛVord 
is confessed by all to be the highest of all created things. 

St. Athanasius in his Encyclical Epistle, put forth in A. D. 341, depicts the violence of the 
Arian Gregory, who was sent to supplant him in his see, and his partisans, the Jews and the 
pagans, in plundering and desecrating the churches; and among other things which they 
did, they "lighted the candles of the church before their irfo/j," Atkinson's translation of 5". 
Athanasius' Tracts, page 7; compare the Preface, page XXVIII. To light candles before idols 
was a common sin of the heathen. No mention is made of images in the Church of Alexan- 
dria then, and it was later when they were first introduced, and led to idolatry. The Church 
used the candles simply to g^ive light at her services and to enable those who read to see the 
Scriptures. 

The local mediaeval custom of bearing a light before the Gospel in honor to it, was well 
laid aside, for it might mean book worship, or the relative worship of Christ through the 
book. 

The Church of England in its noble and excellent and soul-profiting Homily Against 
Peril Of Idolatry sh.o-msX\iai the ancient Christians did not light candles in the day time in 
their service, nor before images, but that the pagans did, and that those pagan customs were 
used in the Church of England when it was under Rome and practiced its idolatry. But the 
passage is too long to be quoted here. The Orthodox, God alone won^ihipping, reader 
should by all means read it in the Third Part of said Homily. And that Homily and the 
others should be perfected and read in all the Churches of the Anglican Communion once 
every year, for their blessed teaching is needed among us of the Reformed and Orthof''"' 



288 Article XII. 

Numbers XXVIII, 2, and after; Deut. XII, 1-15; Exodus XXII, 
20; Numbers XXV, 2-18; Deut. XIII, 1-18, and Deut. XVII, 
1-8, etc. 

And, long before Moses under the Patriarchal Dispensations, 
Abel sacrificed unto God bloody sacrifices (Gen. IV, 4), predic- 
tive of Christ's bloody oft'ering for sin in accordance with the 

just as the books of the Old Testameut, which chronicle the idolatry of the Israelites and 
their punishment for it, were needed by the Jews and their reformed descendants to ketp 
them from falling into it again. 

At the beginning of the Reformation in England in ^^Injunctions given by King Edward 
VI, A. D. 1547," which was about two years before the First Prayer Book in English of the 
same King Edward VI was put forth, it was ordered that lights before images which, it 
should be added, formed a part of the idolatry of worshipping them, should be abolished, 
and that there should be still allowed "only two lights upon the high altar before the sacra- 
ment for the signification that Christ is the true light of the world." It was, however, soon 
done away and was never in the Prayer Book. 

We see, however, by it, 

1. That that Injunction was put forth in the very year, 1547, in which Edward VI came 
to the throne, the very year in which during his father's lifetime the I,atin Mass was still 
used in the service and till the English Communion office was put forth partly in English, 
in 1548, and before the church was fully reformed against idolatry. 

2 That ''the high altar had not yet been abolished, and "the holy table" been substi- 
tuted for it till its mention in the First Book of Edward VI, A. D. 1549. 

3. It should be added that the use of two lights before the consecrated wafer would 
be understood as an act of worship to it as before, notwithstanding the wording of the 
king's lujuuction, above; in other words, the lights would be understood by the ignorant 
multitude still accustomed to worship the wafer as whole Christ God and Man, as foster- 
ing still their idolatry of worshipping it, for we must remember that very few if any of 
the Bishops or clergy, and probably none of the laity, knew as yet that that crime had 
been in effect and by necessary inclusion antecedently forbidden in the decision of the 
whole Church on the lyord's Supper in its Third Council, Ephesus, A. D. 431, as is shown 
in note 606, pages 240-313, and note 599, pages 239-238, volume I of Ephesus in this Set. 

The two lights meant the separate worship of Christ's Divinity by one light, and the 
separate worship of his humanity by the other, which would, of course, be what St. Cyril 
of Alexandria terms άνΟρωποΧατρίία that is the worship of a human being, one of 
the great heresies of Nestorius, for which he was deposed by the Third Ecumenical 
Council and it would be to worship Christ "in two natures" (iv δυσι φνσεσι) , which is 
anathematized by the Ninth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 

If any caviller replies that though it has the appearance of the separate worship of 
Christ's human nature, nevertheless he would understand that the co-worship of the two 
natures of Christ is intended, it is enough to reply, that that co-worship is anathematized 
by Anathema VIII of Cyril in his Long Epistle to Nestorius, which is approved by the 
decisions of Ephesus, and enforced by its sentence on him, and by its canons, under the 
penalty, in the case of Bishops and clerics of deposition, and in the case of laics of 
Anathema. See on the decisions of Ephesus on the Thanksgiving, notes 606 and 599, last 
mentioned, in volume I of Ephesus in this set: and against the Nestorian worship of 
Christ's humanity, note 183, pages 79-12S, and note 679, pages 332-362 in tha .same volume; 
and Nestorius' Blasphemy 8, page 461, and note 949 there, and his Blasphemy 18, pages 
*i'2^74, and the notes there, and the sentence on pages 479-480, 486-504, and compare notes Ε 
and F, pages 517-552. 



Creature Worship. 289 



understanding of the words of God in Genesis IV, 7, ''sin" [that 
is a sin ofiering, sheep or lambs or cattle] ''lieth at the door,'" 
that is for sacrifice, as many take them. Cain's offering of the 
fruit of the ground which had no blood and therefore no foretype 
of the sacrifice of Calvary, was not acceptable to God (Gen. IV, 
3-8). See the Speaker's Commentary on Genesis IV, 7. It seems 
not natural for mankind to ofier blood to a God of love unless He 
had commanded it in Genesis IV, 7. 

So at the Covenant made by God with Noah we find the second 
father of the human race sacrificing to God (Gen. VIII, 20, 21, 22; 
Abraham (Gen. XXII, 13), and Jacob (Gen. XLVI, 1). 

And with reference to such bloody sacrifices, God said to all 
Israel, " Ye shall be tuito me a kingdovi of priests and a holy nation'''' 
{227), so that so long as the Mosaic Covenant lasted, and it did 
till Christ died and sealed the New Covenant with His blood (328), 
they all. Sons of Aaron and common people, did offer the foretype 
of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. And yet such sacrifices, as Paul 
teaches by the Holy Ghost, could never take away sins (329). 
That was done by Christ himself, who died ^' for the redemption of 
the transgressioyis that were tinder the first testament" (330), that so 
*'they zvho are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance'* 
(331 ) . Christ's ' 'one sacrifice for sins forever' ' (332) is the all-sufl5cient 
sacrifice for i\ie.si)is, not of the covenant only, but also 'for the sins 
of the whole world'' (333). There is no other, and there is no need 
of any other. The Anglican Church in its Thirty-first Article: 
"Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross," well and 
most Orthodoxically and Scripturally decides: 

"The Offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemp- 
tion, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole 
world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfac- 

NOTE 327.— Exodus XIX, 6. 

Note 328.— Hebrews VIII, 6 to 13 inclusive; Hebrews IX, 15 to 28 inclusive, and Heb. X, 
1-32. 

Note 329.— Heb. X, 4, 11, 12, 26, 27. 

Note 330.— Heb. IX, 15. 

Note 331.— Heb. IX, 15. 

Note 332.— Heb. X, 12. 

Note 333. — I John II, 1, 2. The term εφάττα•?, which means once for all, well sets forth 
the soleuess of Christ's one sacrifice for sin, althongh of the four places where i. occurs in 



290 Article XII. 

tion 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 blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." 

And the same Church, in the language of its noble Reformers, 
well confesses the same truth in its Communion Office: 

"All glory be to thee Almighty God, our heavenly Father, 
for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son 
Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, 
who made there by his one oblation of himself once offered, a full, 
perfect, a7id sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the si7is of 
the whole world, '^ etc. 

And as under the Mosaic Covenant, the Israelites were "a 
kingdom of priests and a holy natio7i'^ (334), so under the New and 
* ^ better covenaiif' (335), which came of force when Christ died on 
the tree (336) and ^'abolished'" the Old with its circumcision (337) 

the New Testament, it is so translated but once in the King James Version, that is in 
Hebrews X, 10. I quote all four places: 

Romans VI, 9, 10: "Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no 
more dominion over him. For in that he died he died for siu once for all, but in that he 
liveth he liveth unto God." There is, therefore, no dead Christ now to be eaten in the 
lyord's Supper. 

Hebrews VII, 27: "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices 
first for his own sins, and then for the people's; for this he did once for all, when he offered 
up himself." His sacrifice, therefore, can never be repeated, as Article XXXI teaches. W• 
offer only aftertypes and a memorial of it, as we teach in the Communion Ofiice. 

Hebrews IX, 11, 13: "But Christ beiug come a high priest of good things to come, by a 
greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this build- 
ing, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in onee Jar all 
into the holy places having obtained eternal redemption for us." 

Hebrews X, 10: "By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body 
of Jesus Christ once for all." I would add that in the Revised Versiou, "newly edited by the 
American hevision Committee, A. D. 1900," published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, N. Y., 
and sold by the American Bible Society, ζφάπαζ is correctly rendered by "once for aN," in 
these three last passages from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and though it is not so translated 
in Romans VI, 10, nevertheless we are told in a note there that the Greek means "once for 
all." 

Note 334.— Exodus XIX, 6. 

Note 335.— Heb. VIII, 6: Christ "is the Mediator of a better Covenant, KpeiTTOVOS . . . 
Βίαθηκη? which was e.stablished as a law (^ΐ'^νομοθίτηται) on better promises."' He is the 
''surety of a belter Testament," that is Covenant, as the Greek δίχιθηκη^ means also, Heb, 
VII, 2J, and it brings in "a better hope" Heb. VII, 19. 

Note 836.- 1 Peter II, 24, 

Note 337.— That was settled at the gathering at Jerusalem in Acts XI, 1-19, and agrain 



Creature Worship. 291 



and Sabbaths (338) and other holidays (339), there is now a new 

more fully by the Apostles in Acts XV, 1-36, when the attempt was made by some of the only 
partly enlightened Jewish brethren to bind that rite on the Gentile Christians, But the 
whole law is mentioned as rfowi azfoy and abolished in II Corinthians 111,11,13: see also 
Heb. VIII, 13; its noble summary in Ten Commandments is referred to in II Corinthians, III, 
'i, a.s" the ministration of death written and engraven in stones " Sinaas" done azt/av" and is 
there contrasted with the Gospel, '-the ministration of the Spirit," which "reniaineth" and is 
^'rather," that is as the Greek means, "more glorious." verses 8-17. The Ten Commandments 
therefore should never be taught to Christian children as binding, for they were never 
given to any but the XII Tribes of the Mosaic Covenant and passed away with it. Indeed 
they are called the "tables of the covenant," and as such were put into its ark: see Heb. IX, 
1-6; compare Deuteromony IV, 13, where Moses, referring to the giving of the Law in Horeb 
to the Israelites, tells them: 

"And He declared unto you His Covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even the 
Ten Commandments; and He wrote them upon tuo tables of stone." And Solomon, in I Kings 
VIII, 21, speaks of "the ark wherein is the Covenant of Jehovah, which He made with our 
fathers, when He brought them out of the land of Egypt."' See to the same effect II 
Chronicles V, 10. The covenant is, therefore, in a summary form, the Ten Commandments, 
which Paul tells us in Hebrews IX, 4, are "the tables of the covenant," which he tells us, in 
verse 1 there, was "the first covenant,^' that is the Mosaic; and see to the same effect I Kings 
VIII, 9, and Deuteromony X, 5. And again and again in the Old Testament the ark which 
contained the Ten Commandments is called "the ark of the covenant," Numbers X, 33; 
Joshua IV, 7; II Samuel XV, 24, etc., because, of course, they were in it. But we were never 
under the Mosaic covenant, but remained till Christ came under the Noachian, which, like 
the Adamic aud the Christian, was with all humanity, Genesis VI, 18, and VIII, 15 to IX, 18. 
Owing to the modern abuse of teaching them as binding some have been led to keep the 
Jewish Sabbath of the Seventh Day, and so far have apostatized to Judaism. All the moral 
parts of those Commandments are re-enacted impliedly or expressly in the New Testament 
under stronger penalties, but not the Seventh Day Sabbath, but we have apostolic example 
for the First Day of the Week which all Christians have kept from the beginning. The promise 
of the land of Palestine, "the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee," Exodus XX, 12, had 
reference only to the Twelve Tribe.», and even they have lost that for nearly 1800 years, 
because of their apostasy. But God has given us Christians a vastly larger and better land, 
aye, many of them, aye nearly all the lands of the world are under Christian sway. And so 
the prophecy is near its fulfilment that, "the kingdoms of this world have become the king- 
doms of our Lord and of His Christ," Rev. XI, 15. The Jews, as a race, "the synagogue of 
Satan" (Rev. II, 9, and III, 9), who are deceivers, and anti-chrtsts, whom we are forbidden to 
receive or to bid God-speed to under a penalty (II John, 7-12), will never be converted till all 
the Gentile nations come into the fold of Christ, Romans XI, 25, 26, and the context, and Matt. 
XX, 1-17. It should be added that when we speak of the moral parts of the Ten Command- 
ments we mean those which commend themselves to the enlightened cousciences of men as 
being binding in their very nature, like, for example, to worship the one God acd no other, 
the command to honor our parents, not to murder, not to steal; and by ceremonial we mean 
that which is not in itself moral, for example, the command of the Mosaic Law to ktep a par- 
ticular day, the seventh or any other, which was binding on the Israelites by positive enact- 
ment and only so long as that law continued, that is till Christ died. Apostolic example in 
the absence of any command tr> keep any particular day is equivalent to a command and 
as we have that for the First Day of the Week, Acts XX, 7, and I Corinthians XVI, 2, we 
should keep it. As the weekly commemoration of Christ's blessed resurrection, and hence 
called the Lord's Day in Rev. I, 10, all Christians have kept it from New Testament times; 
as Bingham, in Chapter 2, book XX, of his Antiquities of the Christian Church, shows. 

Note 338.— Colossians II, 16, 17, 

ϊίοτΕ 339.— Ibid, 



292 Article XII. 

chosen people, composed of Jews and Gentiles (340) in place of 
the discarded Jewish people. And so all Christians are addressed 
by the Apostle Peter as follows: I translate literally and correct 
one bad mistake of our Common Version in verse 9: 

"Ye also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy 
priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by 
Jesus Christ. Wherefore it is contained in the Scripture, Behold 
I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious, and he that 
believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you, therefore, 
which believe he is precious, but unto them which be disobedient, 
the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the 
head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of 
offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobe- 
dient, whereunto also they were appointed. 

But ye are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy 7iaiion, a 
people for a possession, that ye should shew forth the praises of him 
who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light, 
who once were not God's people, but are now God's people, who 
had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (341). 

And in I Corinthians VII, 12 to 15, the Apostle teaches that 
even if one of two parents is a Christian, their child is holy, that 
is a saint, as the Greek word there used means, that is it is to be 
reckoned among the holy Christian people just, for example, as 
Rehoboam, the son of Naamah, an Ammonitess, was reckoned to 
be of the holy people of the Mosaic Covenant because his father 
Solomon was of it (342). Of course, it was demanded by the Old 
Testament that he should be circumcised, for if he was not he 
was to be cut off from his people (343), just as in the New Testa- 
ment the child of the ^'chosen race"" of Christians (344) could not 
enter into the kingdom of God without being baptized (345). 

And, in the New Testament, again and again all Christians, 

Note 340— Romans III, 22. 23; Romans X, 12, 13. 
Note 341.— I Peter II, 5-11. 
Note 342.— I Kings XIV, 21, 31. 
NOTE 343.— Genesis XVII, 14. 

Note 344.— So the Greek of I Peter II, 9, yevos ΙκΧίκτον, literally translated, is, 
"chosen race.'" 

Note 345.— John III, 5; Titus III, 5; Acts II, 38, 39; Acts XXII, 16. 



Creature Worship. 293 



^'Fathers" and ''children,''* *' parents" and ''children'' are called 
saints and elect, that is, as elect means, chosen. For example, in 
Ephesians VI, 1, 2, 3, children are taught to obey their parents, 
"and," adds the apostle inverse 4 there: "Ye fathers, provoke 
not your children to wrath; but bring them up in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord," all which, of course, implies that the 
children were yet young. But in that very Epistle, I, 1, the)' are 
all addressed as "saints,'" and in verses 4 and 5, as "chosen" in 
Christ "before the foundation of the world," and as "predestinated 
. . . iinto the adoptiofi of children by fcsus Christ to himself," and in 
chapter II, 12, the Apostle tells them that though they had been 
in their non-Christian state: "without Christ, being aliens from 
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world," he 
adds at once, in verses 13, 19, 20, 21, 22: "But now in Christ 
Jesus, ye who once were far off, are made nigh by the blood of 
Christ. . . Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreign- 
ers, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of 
God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and proph- 
ets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, in whom all 
the building fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in 
the Lord, in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation 
of God through the Spirit." Now, all that implies, of course, 
what is taught at the very beginning, that children and all were 
saints, that is of the holy people, the chosen, the elect of God, and 
of His Church, and that as members of that Church they all, chil- 
dren and parents, had been sanctified in the sense, that is, as the 
word often means, made to be of the holy people of Christ, or 
counted so, and cleansed by the bath of water 171 the word," as the 
Greek is, and as is distinctly stated in the same Epistle, V, 26, that 
is, of course, baptized. 

But, if at this point some one may object. Some of the mem- 
bers of the Ephesian Church were not perfectly holy, nor saints in 
that personal sense, though addressed as saints in the first verse of 
that Epistle, for in chapter IV of it, verse 28, the Greek, literally 
translated is, "Let him that stealeth steal no more;" to that we 
reply that though in the Old Testament the Israelites of that 



294 Article XII . 

Covenant are called a holy nation (346), elect (347), and saitits (348), 
nevertheless the crimes of some of them for which they are so 
sternly denounced by God through His prophets, were simply 
shameful and ended in apostasy to idolatry and in exile to Assyria 
and to Babylon. Such persons were therefore not holy in a per- 
sonal sense, but only of the then ^'holy 7iation;^^ rnd so some 
Christians will ever be not personally holy, but only as being in 
the Christian Covenant, by descent and baptism, of the holy nation 
of Christians, Christ's chosen Christian race, in the covenant 
sense. And this mingling of the evil in the Church with the good 
is predicted by Christ himself in the parable of the wheat and 
tares (349), and in that of the net cast into the sea (350). The time 
of separating them, as we are taught in both those parables, is not 
now, but at the end of the world (351). For there are only three 
instances of excommunication in the whole New Testament, the 
case of the incestuous man in the Church of Corinth delivered to 
Satan in Paul's First Epistle (352), and taken back by him in his 
Second on his repentance (353), and the case of Hymenaeus for 
denying the cardinal doctrine of the resurrection (354) and preach- 
ing against it, seemingly (355), and Alexander the Coppersmith, 
also a preacher against God's truth, who may have been the 
Alexander who is mentioned in Acts XIX, 33, and who is thought 
to have been a Judaizing Christian of the sort who so much 
troubled the Church by insisting on keeping the Mosaic Law after 
it had been abolished with its circumcision. Sabbaths, and all else 
of it and supplanted by the New and Better Law of Christ (356). 
Furthermore, John tells us that Christ ' 'hath made us kings 



Note 346.— Bxodus XIX, 6; Deut. VII, 6. 

Note 347.— Isaiah XI,V, 4; I Chron, XVI, 13; Isaiah XI<III, 20, 21, etc. 

Note 348 —Psalm Ι,ΧΧΧΙΧ, 5, 7, 18. 

Note 349.— Matt. XIII, 24-31, 36-44. 

Note 350.— Matt. XIII,47-S1. 

Note 351.— Matt. XIII, 39, and 49. 

Note 352.— I Cor. V, 1-6. 

Note 353.— II Cor. 11,5-12. 

Note 354.— I Tim. I, 19, 2' compared with II Tim. II, 16, 17, 18. 

Note 355.— I Tim. I, 19, 20. 

Note 356.— Ibid., and II Tim. IV, 14-19. 



Creature Worship. 295 



ζ,ηά. priests unto His God and Father" (357). And the twentj -four 
elders sing in heaven a new song, saying, to Christ: 

"Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals 
thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy 
blood, out of every tribe and tongue, and people and nation, and 
hast made us unto our God ki?igs and priests, and we shall reign on 
the earth" (358). And of the risen dead who are to reign on this 
earth before the judgment, it is written that "they shall be priests 
of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Ilim a thousand j-ears" 
(359). So that we shall be priests not only now, but in heaven, 
and after that during the Millenium, offering not "mr;m/, 
ordinances y'* that is sacrifices of flesh, but the '^spiritual sacrifices'^ 
of praise and thanksgiving to the Father and to Christ the Word 
forever. 

Even now when we all, as God's choscfi Christian race (360), 
2iVia people, and priests, offer with those the aftertypes also of the 
one, great, perfect, and all-sufficient propitiatory sacrifice of Cal- 
vary (361), the leavened bread and wine of the Eucharist, that is 
of the Tha7iksgiving, as Eucharist means, we glory in it, as the 
Church has from the beginning, as an nnbloody service (362), 
that is an offering without blood, and a spiritual sacrifice, which 
is explained by Christ Himself (3G3) and by His Apostle Paul 
(364), and is therefore understood by all who will. 

Note 357. — Rev. I, 6. Instead of kings, another reading here is "β kingdom," but priest» 
follows as in the text. 

Note 358,— Rev. V, 9, 10, Instead of kings another lection is "a kingdom," but priests fol- 
lows. 

Note 359.— Rev. XX, 4. 

Note 360.— I Peter II, 9, Greek, yivoi €κ\€κτόν, ''chosen race," not ''chosen genera 
ίίοη," which is a most plain mistranslation. The English form of the Canterbury Revision 
and the American, both well render it "elect race," composed, as places in that Hpistle show, 
of Jewish and of Gentile Christians. See also, to the same effect, all those passages in the 
New Testament where Christians are spoken of as elect and chosen. 

Note 361.— I John II, 1, 2. 

Note 362. — See volume I of Ephesus in this set, pages 231-240, text, and note 599, pages 
229-238, and under Eucharist, pages 612-622, and under ευχαριστία, ίνχΐίί/ιστησα^ 
pages 702-710, id. 

Note 363.— In John VI. 63, Christ Himself shows that the eating and drinking there 
mentioned and in the context is to be understood spiritually. 

Note 364.— Nothing is much clearer in Holy Writ than that Christ offered but "one sacri- 
fice for sins forever ," Hebrews X, 10, 12, 14, etc., as is shown on pages 2t<6, 289, above, text, 
and in notes 326 and 333, above. Consequently his words in Matthew XXVI, 38, "This is my 



296 Article XI Ι. 

And in Colossians III, 20, 2\, the members of that Church are 
told: "Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well 
pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to 
anger lest they be discouraged," all which, of course, implies that 
those children were young. And yet, in the same Epistle at the 
beginning, all are addressed as "saints and faithful brethren in 
Christ" (365), and further, as "buried with Him in baptism, 
wherein," he adds, "ye are also risen with him" (366), and as 
*'eleci of God, holy and beloved'" (367). We never read in the 
New Testament of any unbaptized children of Christian parents. 
If there were any such we may be sure that, inasmuch as by 



blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for ike remission of sins," must be 
taken not literally but figurativel3', for, as the sacrifice was but once offered for sins, if it 
was offered tlieu, that is on what men now call Thursday night, it was not offered next day 
on the cross, that is on the Preparation, which men call Friday. But Peter shows that He 
bare our sins in his own body on the tree, I Peter II. 24, not at that Last Supper. For then 
his Mary-born body was not broken, nor His blood shed. 

Consequently we must take Christ's words there, and His words in Luke XXII, 19, 20, 
^' This is my body 'ivhich is given for you." as old Tertullian took them about 1700 years ago. 
Hoc est corpus meum, ... id est figura corporis mei, This is my body, . . . that is the figure of 
my body." See his work yi.g-ai«i/ ^/arczow, book IV, chapter 40. Indeed in Matt. XXVI, 29, 
Christ, after the words. This is my blood, of the New Testament, which is shed for many for 
the remission of sins." adds what is a further proof of the figurative sense: "But I say unto 
you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new 
with you in my Father's kingdom, and so He explains in Mark XIV, 24, 25, that He did not 
mean that either He or His people would drink His own blood in His Father's kingdom, 
but, as Tertullian understood, its^^«;<f in "the fruit of the vine." that is wine, for i:e adds: 
"Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I 
drink it new in the kingdom of God." 

And what clinches the figurative sense, as the only true one. our God-authorized teacher, 
the "one, holy universal, and apostolic Church,''' in its Third Ecumenical Couucu. Epheius, 
A. D. 431, condemned Nestorius, the heresiarch, and deposed him for denying it and for 
bringing in the heresy of a real substance presence of Christ's humanity in the rite, and for 
worshipping it there, which the Orthodox champion, St. Cyril of Alexandria, brands as 
άν^ρωτΓολατρε'α, that is the worship of a human being, and for asserting that Christians 
eat that humanity there after worshipping it, which the same clear-headed and logical Cyril 
brands as άνθ/'ωττοφαγυί, tha.t is Cannibalism. See in proof on the Eucharist volume I 
of Ephesus^n this set, pages 23i-'240, text, and note 599, pages 229-238; and on Man 'Worship, 
pages 79-128, text, and note CC6; pages £31, 332, text, andnotee79, pages 332-362, and on Xestorius' 
Cannibalism on the Eucharist, his Heresy 4, page 642; aye, on all his heresies see pages 639- 
647; and see in the Greek index on those themes under άναι'/χακτος, ά-αφθ"άν, 
άνθρω-ολατρίία, άν'^ρωποΧάτρηζ, άνθροτιτοφαγία, and forms of the verb ττροσκυνέω 
and cognate terms on pages 735-750. 

NOTE3C5.— Colos. I, 2. 

Note 366.— Colos. II, 11, 12. 

Note 367.— Colos. Ill, 13. 



Creature "Worship. 297 



Christ's own law baptism is a condition of salvation for ever}- age 
and sex, it would therefore contain charges to parents to have 
them baptized, and to the ministry to baptize them. Indeed 
when, on the day of Pentecost, the conscience-stricken Jews asked 
Peter and the rest of the Apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall 
we do?" he told them to repent and be baptized, and added, "For 
the promise is unto you and to your children ,^ ' Acts II, 37, 38, ar.d 
39. And when the Philippian jailer asked what he should do to 
be saved, Paul replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
thou shalt be saved, and thy honseJ" And "//f and all his'' were 
baptized straightway. Acts XVI, 29-34. 

In the first of these important cases the proclamation of salva- 
tion is made to the children as well as the rest at the start, and so 
it is to the jailer and his household. And we know not of any 
Christian household in the New Testament which contained even 
one unbaptized child. And no sect denying the baptism, confir- 
mation and Eucharistizing of infants is found for more than a 
thousand years after Christ. 

To resume on the Christian Priesthood. 

All Christians are therefore priests in a higher sense than any 
son of Aaron ever was, precisely because the former Aaronic priest- 
hood offered inferior that is "carnal ordinances imposed on them 
till the time of Reformation" (368), whereas Christians ofi'er up to 
God the Father "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through 
Jesus Christ," our Great High Priest, who as God, as St. C3Til of 
Alexandria well teaches, hears our prayers and as man prays for 
us" (369)." 

And, moreov^er, we shall be priests of God and of Christ for- 

NoTE 368.— That is till spiritual relig^ion, "the ministration of the Spirit" (II Cor. Ill, 8) 
came with Christ, as opposed to and contrasted with "the ministration of death, liiiiten and 
engiavc-n in stones," (II Cor. Ill, 7), the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic I,aw, and r.U its 
other multitudinous enactments; II Corinthians III, compared with Exodus XX. and the 
scene at the giving of the Law referred to in both chapters. 1 he words '.n the text above are 
in Heb. IX, 10. 

Note 369. —See pages 127, 128, note, and all that note and under Invocation, \>Άζ2 650, 
volume I of Ephesus in this set, and under a'orjAz>, page 665, number 6. Canon XXXV of 
l,aodicea, well brands invocation of angels as "hiddemdolatry." And, of course, the same 
enactment applies to prayer to saints, for prayer, as all know, is an act of relgious sertiice, 
and it is therefore by Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, forbidden to any creature, but is pre- 
rogative to God alone, 



29§ Article XII. 

ever to offer to both purely spiritual sacrifices, free from the wan- 
dering thoughts and other imperfections of our service on earth. 
Through Christ, therefore, we should now offer, and shall in the 
future world ^ 'offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is 
the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His 7iame' ' (370). So that the 
idea of priesthood and sacrifice in the New Testament is vastly- 
higher and better than it was under the patriarchal dispensations 
of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and later under the Mosaic Law, because 
vastly viore spiritual^ and both will attain still higher spirituality 
in the future world, and will be there eternal. 

(b). Sacrifices offered to God in forbidden ways, that is 
through the golden calf in the wilderness (Exodus XXXII, Psalm 
CVI, 19-24), and through Jeroboam's calf at Bethel and through 
that at Dan, Jeroboam having seemingly put only one calf in each 
place to preserve the doctrine of Monotheism, that is, as he told 
his people, that the one God was He who had brought thevi tip out 
of Egypt, I Kings XII, 28, by which, of course, they would under- 
stand y(?/w^'α/^. For, as Bishop Patrick in his Commentary teaches, 
the reference here is not to many gods, but to the one true God, 
and the place should be rendered ^'This is thy God, Ο Israel, who 
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." 

Jeroboam's sacrifices to each calf were contrary to the Mosaic 
Law, under which they were given by him; 

(1). because they were given through an image; 

(2). because they were not offered through the sons of Aaron, 
the only God-authorized ministry of peculiar function in the Law 
of Moses; and 

(3). because they were not offered at the place which God 
had chosen, the tabernacle at Jerusalem, where alone He had com- 
manded all sacrifices to be offered, and had forbidden them else- 
where. 

To dwell on this last point a little, and to ask what lessons 
we of the New and Better Covenant may learn from it? For some- 
what different was the worship of Jehovah, not through images 
nor through any material thing, but in places forbidden by the 
Mosaic Law, that is on the high places, whereas the Law com- 

XOTE 370,— Hebrews XIII, 15. 



Creature Worship. 299 



manded the Israelites, on pain of being cut off from their people, to 
do sacrifice where the tabernacle was to be, Leviticus XVII, 1-10; 
Deut. XII, 4-29, the purpose of the law being seemingly to pre- 
serve the religion pure by keeping it under the control of the 
priests, who ministered and sacrificed at the tabernacle only. The 
violation of the Law in that respect was suffered by some of the 
Reforming Kii:gs even, just as the New Testament Law against 
the use of images, I John V, 21, was violated in Churches at least, 
by some of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, that is, the 
Lutherans, even when they had abolished their worship. Of the 
Reforming Kings who tolerated itwere Asa(37l), Jehoshaphat (372), 
Jehoash (373), Amaziah (374), Azariah (375), and Jotham (376). 

But the bad kings, Jeroboam (377) and Ahaz (378), favored 
those places. And there was always danger that idolatry might 
be introduced in such unauthorized and forbidden localities. But 
the best kings, like Hezekiah (379) and Josiah (380), utterly for- 
bade them in consonance with the Law of Moses, setting us an 
example under the New and Better Covenant of Christ of strict 
obedience to our law. 

As to places where Christians shoidd not worship we are com- 
manded to avoid those who cause divisions contrary to Christian 
doctrine (Rom. XVI, 17), and therefore we should, of course, avoid 
going to their places of forbidden division. 

And the Universal Church from the beginning, following that 
law of Paul, has forbidden her children to share in the fori idden 
worship of Jews (381), creature worshipping and excommunicate 



Note 371.— I Kings XV, 14. 

Note 372.-1 King.s XXII, 42, 43. 

Note 373.— II Kings XII, 2, 3. 

Note 374.— II Kings XIV, 1-5, 

Note 37S,— II Kings XV, 1-5. 

Note 376.— II Kings XV, 3:;-;ϊΟ. 

Note 377.— I Kings XII, 33, and I Kings XIII, 2, 32, 33, 31. 

Note 378.— II Kings ΧΛ'Ι, 4. 

Note 379.— II Kings XVIII, 1-9. 

Note 380.— II Kings XXIII, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19-2S. 

Note 381.— Acts XIX, 9. Wherever Paul went into a synagogue of the Jews it was not 
to share their errors, but to preach to them Christ's salvation and to win them to the faith 
and he often succeeded in converting some, though at the last many or most of them rejected. 
Then eu.'iued the separation. 

Tlie Church of Jerusalem was much slower to separate from the abolished t,aw for 



300 Article XII. 



Arians who denied the Lord who bought them, and professed to 
worship a creature, and the Macedonians, who denied the divinity 
of the Holy Ghost, the Nestorians who sanctioned the worship of 
a human being; Cannibalism on the Eucharist, and the denial of 
the Incarnation; the One Natureites, who deny the truth that 
Christ has now a human nature, and nevertheless worship it 
unintentionally, but in fact, and that, too, even with absolute 
worship as God, and so are Man-worshippers, that is creature- 
worshippers in fact; and of course, the whole Church, in her 
first four Synods, which forbids us to share the worship of all 
such heretics, antecedently in them forbids us to share in the 
worship of all who have since fallen into the sins of creature 
worship, be it the Nestorian relative worship of Christ's human- 
ity, the worse relative worship of creatures, inferior to that 
ever sinless and perfect humanity, be they the Virgin Mary, 
other saints, angels, or any other creature, and much more, 
images, pictured or graven, crosses, relics or other material things 
such as altars, communion tables, and every thing else material, 
or who worship in the Lord's Supper the alleged substance of 
Christ's divinity or the substances of his humanity, from which, 
by her decisions at Ephesus, in A. D. 431 , both natures are absent, 
or who hold to the monstrosity of actually eating the substances, in 
the bread and wine, of one of His natures there. His humanity, as 
the Nestorians held, or to the worse error of eating the substances of 
both of His natures there, in the wafer, or the bread and wine, 



years after the proclamation of the Gospel and the abolition of the Mosaic Law, (II Cor. Ill; 
Heb. VIII, 13) we find them all zealous for the I<aw (Acts XXI, ίϊΟ), and yet Paul, against the 
advice of Agabus, a prophet, went up thither, dissembled, as did other brethren with him, 
the sin for which afterwards he rebuked Peter at Antioch (Galatians II, ll-il inclusive), and 
bv which he nearly lost his life. Acts XXI, 10, to XXVII, I. Some of those partly enlightened 
Jews, after the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, may have received the full truth 
of the abolition of the L,aw of Moses and the putting of the Gospel and the New Covenant 
into its place, but others probably fell off and joined or formed the heretical and apostate 
Jewish sects of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. But the Jewish Church itself ex- 
isted for some time. For Eusebius tells us in book IV, chapter V, of his Ecclesiastical History, 
Cruse's translation, that the first fifteen bishops of that see were Hebrews, "and received the 
knowledge of Christ pure and adulterated; so that, in the estimation of those who were 
able to judge, they were well approved, and worthy of the episcopal office. For at that time 
the whole Church under them consisted of faithfnl Hebrews, who continued from the time 
of the apostles, until the siege that then took place," (in the time of the Emperor Adrian, 
A. D. 117-138). But since that its Bishops have b°en all Gentile Christians except one, 
Alexander, who was a Bishop of the iUiglican Protestant succession there. 



Creature Worship. 301 



as the Romanists, the Greeks, and some idolatrous and apostate 
Anglicans hold. All these classes and heretics for their idolatry 
are condemned by God's Word to eternal damnation (Rev. XXI, 
8; I Cor. VI, 9, 10, and Galat. V, 19-22); and with that word 
agree the Definitions of the VI Sole Synods of the whole Church, 
East and West. 

(c). Sacrifice offered to any false god, of which there are many 
examples in Scripture, for instance, to Dagon, Judges XVI, 23, to 
Baal, Hosea XI, I, 2; IIKings X, 19; to Ashtoreth, the goddess of 
the Zidonians, to Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites; to 
Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, and Molech, the abomination 
of the children of Ammon, I Kings XI, 4-14, etc. 

Of course, the true God Jehovah would not receive such for- 
bidden sacrifices, and the false gods could not, and therefore we 
find that Holy Writ makes the demons the recipients of them; for 
example, Moses writes of Israel: 

''They moved Him to jealousy with strange gods; with abom- 
inations provoked they Him to anger. They sacrificed 701 to demons , 
which were no God, to gods that they knew not, to new gods that 
came up of late, which your fathers dreaded not. Of the Rock 
that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that 
gave thee birth, and Jehovah saw it and abhorred them because of 
the provocation of his sons and daughters, " and then He threatens 
them with dire vengeance for that sin; Deuteronomy XXXIl, 
16-44. Such sacrifices to demons are forbidden in Leviticus XVII, 
7. And the Psalmist, in recounting the sins of his people, states: 

' ' Vea, they sacrificed their sons and their datighiers tinto de- 
mons, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of 
their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan; 
and the land was polluted with blood," Psalm CVI, 37, 38, and 
then he tells how God cursed them for such sins. 

And in the New Testament Paul, warning his brethren against 
entangling themselves in the sin of idolatry by eating of meats 
which had been offered in sacrifice to idols, which eating is con- 
demned by the gathering of the apostles at Jerusalem, in Acts 
XV, 29, and XXI, 25, writes on our topic as follows: 

"Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry . . . what say I 



3o2 Article XII. 

then? that the idol" [that is the image as idol (εΓδωλον) means] "is 
anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols in any thing? 
But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri- 
fice to demons (Βαιμονωις) and not to God; and I would not 
that ye should have fellowship with the demons. Ye can not 
drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye can not be 
partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of demons," I Corin- 
thians X, 14, 19-23. 

All that seems to teach that a demon or demons sit unseen in 
the image if hollow, or behind it if a picture or symbol, or else- 
where, and really receives the worship of the deluded idolaters, 
whether it be by incense, bowing, genuflection, kneeling, stand- 
ing, prostration, kissing, or in any other way. 

I \vOuld add that the Devil (ό Αιάβολος) and Satan (ό 2ατ'/να5) 
are the same (Rev. XII, 9, and XX, 2), but the demons (δαι/χόνια) 
are his underlings and agents according to a belief of the Jews 
in the New Testament. See more fully under all those Greek 
terms iu Robinson's Greek and English Lexico7i of the New 
Testarne7it, and in The Englishman'' s Greek ConcordaJice to the New 
lestavient. 

For such sins God took away ten tribes from the house of 
David, and raised up enemy after enemy to trouble Solomon (382). 
And for such sins, combined with the worship of Jehovah through, 
images, God cursed the Ten Tribes, exterminated nearly all or all 
of their dynasties, and sent them captives to Assyria (383). And 
because Ahaz, king of Judah, disobeyed God's law of sacrifice to 
sacrifice to Him only (384), but sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, 
tberefore God cursed him (385), and for similar sins of creature 
worship and image worship He cursed Manasseh (386), and Amon 
(387) . 

A similar sin is committed by all Romanists, Greeks, Mon• 
ophysites, Nestorians, and some degenerate and idolatrous Angli- 

NOTE 382.— I Kings XI, 1-43, and XII, 1-25, and II Chronicles, X, all of it. 

Note 383.— I Kings XI, 1-14, 26, to II Kings XVIII, 1. 

Note 384.— Exodus XXII, 20, etc. 

Note 385 —II Chron. XXVIII, 23. 

Note 380.- II Chron, XXXIH, 1-21. 

NOTE 3Sr —II Chi on. XXXIII, 21-2o. 



Creature Worship. 303 



cans, when they offer the ''sacrince of praise'' (388) a7id thajiks- 
giving to the Virgin Mary, other saints, archangels, and angels; 
for praise and thanksgiving are parts of prayer, and prayer with 
all its parts, as every one knows or at least should know, is an act 
of religious service , and is therefore forbidden to be offered to any 
creature, and, by Christ's own law in Matthew IV, 10, is preroga- 
tive to God Himself. 

(d). Sacrifice is often used by us in the mere secular, non- 
religious, non-worshipping sense, as, for example, when we say: 
that man died a sacrifice on the field of battle for his country; 
that man died to preserve the Union; that other man made every 
sacrifice to preserve his credit and his good name; that mother 
sacrificed every thing for her children; Sir John Franklin and 
his companions sacrificed themselves to the cause of science in 
Arctic exploration. 

(7). Ano. her form of relative worship and idolatry, antece- 
dently condemned by the decisions of the Thiid Ecumenical 
Council A. D. 431, is turning to the altar or commtaiion table at the 
''Glory be to the Father,'' etc., or at any other time, and standing, 
or bowing, or kneeling, or prostrating one's self to an altar or a 
communion table, and still another such sin of altar worship is to 
incense it, or to give any of those acts of religious service to any 
thing in the universe but God, and that directly, not indirectly, 
through any thing else. We may stand be/ore the chancel end in 
a church, the altar, the chancel rail, or any thing else there, but 
we never stand before the communion table, the altar, or any of 
those other things to bow to it, or to genuflect to it, or to worship 
it in any other way. We remember Christ's Law in Matthew IV, 
10, and God's burning wrath against the sin of relative worship 
in the worship of Him through the calf in the wilderness and 
through the calves of Jeroboam and the curses that came on the 
idolaters who committed those crimes. 

In ancient and mediaeval times churches were generally built 
with the chancel end toward the East. And that was in accordance 
with the early church symbolic custom of worshipping not the 

Note 3S8.— Heb. XIU, 15. 



304 Article XI L 

Communion table, but Christ Himself in the East (389), the land of 
light, where the sun rises, symbolic of the land of eternal light 
above, where is that matchless city which has no need of the sun, 
neither of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God did lighten 
it, and the Lamb is the li^ht thereof" (390). I know of no 
instance in the Aute-Nicene period of any Christian turning from 
any other direction to tbe Communion table to worship it, though 
ancient writers speak of worshipping Christ in the East. None 
of them speaks of bowing to the table. And there were not then 
nor for centuries af ler any altars in the churches to bow to, as the 
learned Bingham shows (391), and consequently no turning to 
them. That custom came in during the Post-Nicene period when 
partly enlightened heathen came into the Church in crowds, and 
in their ignorance transferred to the Christian communion table 
the worship which they had been wont to pay to their pagan 
altars. 

But the ignorant clergy of idolatrous leanings in the Anglican 
Communion, in later years, since the Apostatic Puseyite move- 
ment commenced, have started the Romanizing and idolatrous 
custom of worshipping the altar, by turning toward it, or to the 
communion table where they have not followed their wont of sub- 
stituting the Jewish or pagan closed altar for it. The custom is non- 
primitive, mediaeval, and pagan, and is, in effect, forbidden by the 
Anglican Prayer Book. For, at the very beginning of its Lord's 
Supper Office, it is twice called 'Hhe Lord's Table," and again 
twice below ''ihe Table." And in a prayer below we read: 
"We do not presume to come to this thy Tabic, Ο merciful 
Lord, trusting in our own righteousness," etc. And so it is in 
the American Prayer Book, where also, after the Communion, 
we read: **When all have communicated, the minister shall 
return to the Lord's table," etc. And in the two final exhor- 

NOTE 3S9. — BinghaytVs Antiquities of the Christian Church, book XIII, chapter 8, section 
15. To the same effect see Veuables' article East iu Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of 
Christian Antiquities. 

Note 390.— Rev. XXI, 23. 

Note 891.— Bingham's Antiquities, book VIII, chapter VI, sections 13-16. To the same 
effect see Nesbitt's article ,-l//arin Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Aniiqnilies^ 
vol. I, page 61, no. III. 



Crealute ]VorsJiip. 305 



tations now at the end of the Eucharistic Office in the Ameri- 
can book of Common Prayer, the '^holy table'' is twice men- 
tioned in the first, and ^'the Lord' s Table" once in the second. 
And the same is true of the same exhortations in the Enghsh 
Book, only they occur earlier in the office. 

But alas! many of the sacrilegious clergy- of our time change 
the table form of Christ and the apostles (Luke XXII, 21, and 
I Cor. X, 21), in that leaving the New Testament example, as the 
wicked, idolatrous and innovating king, Ahaz, put the pagan 
altar of Damascus in place of God's altar at Jerusalem, II Kings 
XVI. 10-17, and as Ahaz had a too unfaithful and too yielding 
priest Urijah to bend to his will in that matter instead of to 
God's law on it, so multitudes of idolatrous Roman pritsts to-day 
obey the Harlot Rome's command to lay aside the New Testa- 
ment table, which alone was used in the Lord's Supper for long 
centuries after Christ, and alas! there are many men of mere 
tastes, unlearned, innovating, and wicked Anglican clergy who 
follow their evil example. To this very day, the communion 
table is the common form in the Greek Church, though in some 
other things it is very corrupt and idolatrous. Oh! what a rebuke 
to us of far sounder faith against idolatry for leaving the table of 
Christ and his Apostles and of the Anglican Reformers for the 
sacrilegious changes of Rome! 

Ought we and all not to be as zealous to follow the New 
Testament in this matter, as even the idolatrous Greeks? For 
where there is no positive enactment on any point we should fol- 
low New Testament example as a law, as we do in the observance 
of the First Day of the Week as the Christian day of rest, which, 
with the whole Church from the beginning, we call the Lord's 
Day. For the whole Mosaic Law being done away, of course its 
Sabbath went with it (392). 

Christian Eucharistic Tables. 
Question i. What was the form of the New Testament altar? 
A7iswer. The table. Proof: Christ instituted the Eucharist 

Note 392. — II Cor. Ill, 7, Greek καταρ•γονμΐνην, "« done away," not "was to be done 
away," as in our Common Version; and verses C to 13 iuclusi%-e of Heb. VIII, and Colos, II, 16. 



3o6 Article XII. 

on a table; proof, Luke XXII, 21 , "The hand of him that betrayeth 
me is with me o?i the table.^^ 

Paul speaks of it as a table. See in proof I Corinthians X, 21 , 
where the Apostle, warning them against idolatry, writes, "Ye 
can not be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of 
demons." 

Question 2. What was the form of the altar in the early 
Church? 

Nesbitt in his article Altar in Smith and Cheetham's Diction- 
ary of Christian Antiquities, volnme I, page 61, writes: 

^'Material and form of altars. It is admitted by all that the 
earliest altars were tables of wood." 

Bingham, in his Antiquities of the Christian Church, book VIII, 
chapter VI, sections 13, 14, 15, witnesses to the same fact, and 
shows that no crosses were used on them for the first three cen- 
turies, id., section 20. 

The language of Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome, A. D. 
361-363, shows that the holy table was a part of the furniture of 
the Church. Sozomen is quoted by Bingham, book IX, chapter III, 
section 10, to that effect. Sozomen states of Julian the Apostate, 
who had known the Church and therefore could tell whether the 
table was preserved in his day, what here follows in chapter 20, 
book V, of his Ecclesiastical History: 

"The Emperor having learned that there were prayer houses 
in honor of the martyrs near the temple of the Didymaean Apollo 
which is before Miletus, wrote to the governor of Caria to burn 
them down with fire if they have a roof a^id a holy table, but if the 
buildings are only half finished, to dig them up from their founda- 
tions." As Bingham shows, "prayer ho2ises," the very expression 
above used, was a usual term for Christian churches; see his 
Antiquities, book VIII, chapter I, section 4. And in Socrates' 
Ecclesiastical History, book I, chapter 21 , one of the false Arian 
charges against Macarius, a Presbyter, that is an Elder of St. 
Athanasius, was "that" he "had leaped into the altar" [part of 
the chureh], "overturned the table, broke the mystic cup" [that is 
the communion cup], "and that he had burned the sacred books" 



Creature Worship. 307 



(393). The term altar here is used for what we now call the chan- 
cel. And the altar idea is in Christianity. For the blessed Apostle 
Paul writes: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to 
eat, who serve the tabernacle" (394). But our altar has the table 
form, and is not in form or in idea the same as the Jewish or the 
heathen altar, for that had the altar form, and was bloody because 
bloody sacrifices were ofEered on it, which, in the case of the Jews, 
the Apostle describes as "fleshly ordinances imposed on them until 
the time of reformation" (395), whereas in our case that Reforma- 
tion has come, and our altar is well called by old Synesius, Bishop 
of Ptolemais in the first part of the fifth century, the icnbloody 
altar (396). Yet the same writer, in referring to the incursions of 
the barbarians into Cyrenaica, mentions the tables, for in Hal- 
comb's z.x\\(i\^ Syneshis in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, volume III, page 780, he is represented as bemoaning 
his ruined churches as follows: 

"Have they not burnt and ruined my churches at Ampelis? 
Have they not defiled the holy tables, and used them for their 
feasts? Have not the sacred vessels of our public worship been 
carried off to be used in the worship of daemons?" And then fol- 
lows some idolatrous trash which explains why so many woes had 
fallen upon him and his diocese: 

"Alas for Pentapolis, of which I am the last bishop! But the 
calamity is too near me — I can say no more — tears check my 
tongue. I am overwhelmed at the thought of abandoning the 
house and services of God. I must sail away to some island, but 
when I am summoned to the ship I shall pray them to leave me a 

Note 393.— Socrates' jEcc/. Hist., book I, chap. 27, Bright's edition; Ischyras, a lying oppo- 
nent of Athanasius, had spread the report vtl Μακάριος €ΐστΓη8ησα<; eis το θνσίαστηρων 
av€Tp€ijjt μίν την Τί'άττίζαν, ττοτηρων δέ κατίαζΐ. μυστικόν' και ο'τι τά ίψα 
βιβλία κατ€καυσ€. 

In chapter XXXV of the same book Socrates shows that afterward at Constantinople the 
Ariaus, recognizing their failure to injure Athanasius by the falsehood of the broken cup, and 
the overturned table, (τραττζζ-ηζ) would not permit the matter to be discussed at Con- 
stantinople. 

Note 394.— Hebrews XIII, 10. 

Note 395.— Hebrews IX, 10. 

Note 396.— Greek, βωμον TOV άναίμακτον. Bingham's reference to Synesius is 
"Catastas, p. 303. (p. 304, b. 10)." 



3o8 Article XII. 

little longer here. First I shall go to God's temple; I shall em- 
brace the altar, I shall wet with my tears the precious pavement, 
I will not leave till I have kissed the well-known door, the well- 
known seat. How often shall I call on God for help; bow often 
shall I turn back, how often clasp the altar- screen." . . [the veil 
before the communion table, which in the present idolatrous state 
of the Eastern Church is replaced by the image stand] . . . "/ will 
cling to the sacred pillars which raise the holy table from the ground. 
There will I remain while living, there will I lie when dead. I 
am God's minister, appointed to present the offerings to Him: it 
is perhaps His will that I should present to Him the offering of 
my life. Surely God will not look with indifference on His altar 
stained for the first time with blood, the blood of His Bishop." 

We see here the relative worship of embracing the altar, kis- 
sing the door, clasping the altar-screen, and clinging to the pillars 
which support the holy table. And we are reminded how an Anti- 
ochian Nestorian, John, wished to embrace that which enclosed 
the bones of the apostle John (397), and, by what Synesius says 
further on of anxious nights on watch against the expected foe, of 
what Claude of Turin, the Reformer in the ninth century, says of 
his anxious night-watching against the dreaded incursions of the 
Mohammedans sent on Christendom for their idolatrizings. 

One more example out of many of the table. Alexander, the 
Orthodox Bishop of Constantinople, had been threatened by the 
Arian champion Eusebius of Nicomedia, with deposition unless 
he would admit the heresiarch Arius to communion. And by his 
influence over the Emperor Constantine he might have removed 
Alexander. He therefore, Socrates tells us, went into the church 
called Irene or Peace, "shut himself alone in it, and entered into 
the altar," the chancel as we call it, "and prostrated himself on 
his idiCQ zuider the holy table, and prayed in tears" (398), that he 

Note 397.— See John of Antioch's language, page 59, vol. II of Ephesus in this Set, and 
note 1 there. 

Note 398. Socrates' Ecclesiastical HistOTy, book I, chapter 37, Bright's edition: Έν Tw 
€Κκλησία η έπώννμον Έιψηνη μόνον eavTov κατακλαστον ττοιτ^σας, και etj• το 
θνσιαστηοιον ίΐσίλθών, ν~ο την upav τράττίζαν εαυτόν εττι στόμα, εκτεύ'ας 
^υ-^ται δακρύων. 



Creature Worship. 309 



might be delivered hova that peril, a pra3^er which God henrd by 
removing Arius from the world by a miraculous visitation of 
death in a privy (399). 

8. Another act of worship is the p07iri?ig out of a drink offer- 
ing. Like the others it is of four kinds, three religious, and one 
not religious, but merely secular. 

(a), to the true God, Jehovah ^ as for example, the act of 
Jacob in Genesis XXXV, 14. It was commanded in the Mosaic 
Law, Exodus XXIX, 40: Numbers XV, 5, 7; seel Chron. XXIX, 
20, 21; see much more in Cruden's unabridged Concordance under 
Drink offering and Driyik offerings: 

(b). Offerifig drink offerings to the true God, Jehovah, through. 
any image or thing. I know not that we have any record of that sin 
in Holy Writ, but it may have been committed when the idolatrous 
people sacrificed to the calf in the Wilderness, and to Jeroboam's 
at Bethel or to his other at Dan. 

(c). pouring out d^ink offerings to Jalse gods, and to idols, and 
to the host of heaven, and the queen of heaven, as, for example, In 
Deuteronomy XXXII, ."tS- Isaiah LVII, 6; Isaiah LXV, 11-17; 
Jeremiah XIX, 13, and XXXII, 29; to the queen of heaven, in 
Jeremiah VII, 18; and XLIV, 15-30 inclusive. The heathen 
poured out libations to their gods and goddesses. 

(d). Poiiring 07it drijik, not at all as ayi act of religious worship 
but as a7t act of mere secular social pleasure or jollity, as pouring out 
wine into glasses to be drunk in toasts to secular rulers, or to 
military or naval heroes, or at a celebration, or a patriotic or other 
non-religious festival, etc. 

9. Still another act of worship was the making and offerijig of 
cakes. It also was of four kinds under the Law of Moses, three 
religious, and one non-religious and merely secular. They were 
as follows: 

(a). The offering of cakes in the worship of Jehovah was com- 
manded in Leviticus VII, 12; and XXIV, 5-11; Numbers XV, 17- 
22: that was of force so long as the Mosaic Law lasted, that is till 
the new Law of Christ was substituted for it by Christ's death, 

Note 399. Id., book I, chapter 38 



2 ΙΟ Article XI Ι. 

Hebrews IX, 15-28 inclusive, and VIII, 6-13 inclusive, and II 
Corinthians III. 

(b). The offering of cakes to Jehovah in the worship of Him 
through the golden calf in the wilderness, and through Jeroboam's 
calf at Bethel and through that at Dan, would be a case of forbid- 
den worship of Jehovah. But I am not sure that they committed 
that form of relative worship, though it is plain that they com- 
mitted other forms of God-angering relative worship of the said 
images by the sacrifice of burnt offerings and peace offerings, 
Exodus XXXII, 6-9, and in the passages last cited the offering of 
cakes is mentioned as among the peace offerings. See also I Kings 
XII, 32, 33, where Jeroboam offers sacrifice to Jehovah through 
the calf at Bethel, and God's anger at that sin in I Kings XIII, 
1-11, and in wiping out the lines of idolatrous, man-made priests 
and the dynasties of Israel who supported that idolatry, as told in 
Book I of Kings and Book II, and compare both books of Chron- 
icles. 

(c). A God-cursed form of paganism was the offering of cakes to 
the Queen of heaveyi. It existed among the idolatrous Jews, and 
God in his threatening against them and against Jerusalem, tells 
Jeremiah the prophet (Jerem. VII, 16-20 inclusive): 

"Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry 
nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not 
hear thee. Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and 
in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the 
fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make 
cakes to the queeji of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto 
other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Do they 
provoke me to anger, saith Jehovah; do they not provoke them- 
selves to the confusion of their own faces? Therefore thus 
saith the Lord Jehovah; Behold mine anger, and my fury shall 
be poured out upon this place, upon man and upon beast, and 
upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; 
and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched." And then he 
utters further denunciations of their sin and threatens them 
with dire curses. 

Again, further on, in chapter XlylV, 15-30, God warns the 



Creature WorsJiip. 311 



Jews who had fled to Egypt to escape from the Babylonian con- 
querors of their country and the desolators of Jerusalem and Judah. 
But they obstinately refused to hearken, and in their utter blind- 
ness and madness interpreted the fact that God had not cursed 
them at once for their worship of creatures, but had borne with 
them for long, as a proof that they were right in committing that 
sin. For we read that, in response to the rebuke of Jehovah by 
the prophet Jeremiah: (I quote the American Canterbur}' Revision): 

"Then all the men who knew that their wives burned incense 
unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great assembly, 
even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, 
answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken 
unto us in the name of Jehovah, we will not hearken unto thee. 
But we will certainly perform every word that is gone forth out of 
our mouth, to burn incense unto the quceyi of heaven, and to pour ont 
drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our 
kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of 
Jerusalem; for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and 
saw no evil. But since we left off burning incense to the queen 
of heaven, and pouring out drink-offerings unto her, we have 
wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by 
the famine. And when we burned i-iccnse to the queen of heaveti, 
and poured out dri^ik-offeriyigs iinto her, did we make her cakes to 
worship her, Άηά pour out drink-offerings unto her, without our hus- 
bands? 

Then Jeremiah said unto all the people, to the men, and to the 
women, even to all the people that had given him that answer, 
saying, The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah, and in 
the streets of Jerusalem, ye and your fathers, your kings and your 
princes, and the people of the land, did not Jehovah remember 
them, and came it not into his mind? So that Jehovah could no 
longer bear, because of the evil of your doings, and because of the 
aboniiyiations which ye have committed; therefore is your land be- 
come a desolation and an astonishment, and a curse, without 
inhabitant, as it is this day. Because ye have burned incense, and 
because ye have sinned against Jehovah, and have not obeyed the 
voice of Jehovah, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in 



312 



Article XII. 



his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as it is 
this day. 

Moreover, Jeremiah said unto all the people, and to all the 
women, Hear the word of Jehovah, all Judah that are in the land of 
Egypt: Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, Ye 
and your wives, have both spoken with your mouths and with your 
hands have fulfilled it, saying, We will surely perform our vows 
that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, 
and to pour out drink ofierings unto her; establish then your vows, 
and perform your vows. 

Therefore hear ye the word of Jehovah, all Judah that dwell 
in the land of Egypt: Behold, I have sworn by my great name, 
saith Jehovah, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth . 
of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, as the Lord 
Jehovah liveth (400). Behold, I watch over them for evil and not 
for good; and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt 
shall he consumed by the sword and by the famine until there be 
an end of them, And they that escape the sword shall return out 
of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah, few in number; and 
all the remnant of Judah, that are gone into the land of Egypt to 
sojourn there, shall know whosa word shall stand, mine or theirs." 

And His words stood and not theirs, so that worshipping the 
queen of heaven with cakes and their other acts of forbidden wor- 
ship did not profit them, but, on the contrary, brought God's curse 
on them, and the idolatrous people lost their independence, and 
creature- worshipping kings of the house of David never reigned 
over them again, for all, both kings and people, had mingled crea- 
ture worship with the worship of Jehovah; and we who did the 
same in the Middle Ages, beginning to some extent, in the 
last half of century IV, were bitterly and justly cursed for it by 
the Mohammedan Arab and Turk till we reformed in the sixteenth 
century, and restored the service of God alone in accordance with 
the New Testament, Matthew TV, 10, Colossians II, 18; Rev. 



Note 400. — AH this seems to imply that those idolatrous Jews were like their countrymen 
who worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness, and Jeroboam's calves, and like the 
idolaters, professedly Christian, of the Middle Ages, who worshipped Jehovah while at the 
same time, contrary to His law, they worsliipped creatures also. 



Creature Worship. 31^ 



XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9, and with the decisions of the Universal 
Church in its VI Synods, of some of which we had been ignorant. 

(d). The offeriyig of cakes or of a loaf is, and has ever been, an 
act of non-religiojis a?td merely sectdar friendship or kiyidness or 
affection or seadar hotior, as, for instance, when a neighbor pre- 
sents such a thing to her neighbor in return for similar kindness 
granted her, or a mother gives such a thing to her child as food, 
or such things are given as part of a secular entertainment or 
banquet, etc. 

(10). Still Άπούί^τ 2iCi oiwoxihiip \s the use of the name coxi. It 
also was of four kinds, three religious, and one non-religious and 
merely secular. They were as follows: 

(a). It is act of worship to Jehovah, to call Him God, the oidy 
God, as he claims to be in Isaiah XLV, 5, 6, 14, 18, 22; XL VI, 9, 
etc. And to Him all worship is prerogative. Exodus XX, 3 8; 
Matthew IV. 10, etc. 

(b). To apply the name God to any thing as an image of 
Him as the Israelites did to the golden calf in the wilderness (401), 
and as Jeroboam did to his, at Bethel and to that at Dan (402), or 
to worship the only God through such an image, that is to worship 
it relatively to Jehovah, as the Israelites did to the golden calf in 
the wilderness (403) and as Jeroboam did to his calf at Bethel 
(404), is an act of God-angering and soul damning idolatry, as we 
see by Exodus XXXII; I Kings XII, 26, to XIII, 34, inclusive; 
Psalm CVI, 19-24; Nehemiah IX, 18; and Revelations XXI, 8, etc. 

(c). To apply the term God, meaning the true God to a crea- 

NoTE 401. — Exodus XXXII, 1-4, where gods should be in the singular, as it is in the mar- 
gin of the American form of the Canterbury revision, and as it is in Nehemiah IX, 18, a 
translation which is made clearer by the fact that Aaron made them only one ca'.f and called 
them to make it a "feast to Jehovah," verse .5 American revision. See the learned Bishop Pat- 
rick's Commentary on the above place, and the place mentioned in the note next below. 

Note 402. —I Kings XII. 2fi to XIII. 34 inclusive. 

Note 403.— Exodus XXXII, 4-15. Aaron in verse 4, had committed the crime of calling 
that calf "'the God." as the Hebrew may be translated, who had brought them "up out of the 
land of Effvpt.'" that is, of course, Jehovah. Moses might well rebuke him therefore, as he 
does in verse 21, by saying, "What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great 
a sin upon them." 

Note 404. — In I Kings XIl, 28, Jeroboam commits the same sin that Aaron did, for speak- 
ing of his calves he calls them the God who had brought them "up out of the land of Egypt,'• 
Jehovah, of course. See to that effect the judicious Bishop Patrick's Commentary on that 
place. 



314 Article XI!. 

ture as a name rightly belonging to that creature, or to apply it to 
any false god as an act of faith in him or her is a God-angering sin. 
And the Israelite was forbidden even to make mention of the name 
or of the names of the pagan gods, or to swear by them as well as to 
worship them (Joshua XXIII, 7; Exodus XXIII, 13; Deut. XII, 3; 
Ps. XVI, 4: Zech. XIII, 2). Indeed to swear by them was in fact 
to invoke them to witness the oath, and to acknowledge them as 
gods. 

(d). Men sometimes, without any idea of worship or of religion 
at all, speak of a man as a. god among his fellows, or as godlike, 
but such expressions savor of impiety and should be avoided. 

The foregoing acts are not the only possible ones, but, as has 
been said, almost any act may be used in any of those four senses, 
and therefore we should carefully examine every thing we do and 
every thing which is proposed to us, the more especially as our 
eternal salvation depends on it. For it is the plain teaching of 
Holy Writ that the idolater shall not inherit the kingdom of God 
(405), but is to have his part "m the lake which bur7ieth with fire a7id 
brimsio7ie, which is the seco7id deatJi"^ (406). 

If the Protestant nations stand in the van of the world's 
progress to day and are blessed and happy it is only because they 
shun idolatry and the worship of creatures and obey Christ's law 
in Matthew IV. 10, to worship God alone. And on obedience to 
that law depends the welfare in both worlds of the individual, the 
family, and the nation. 

I have shown above ten of the acts mentioned in the Bible as 
acts of worship. 

L,et me here state how the 'One, holy, universal a7id apostolic 
Clnircli'^ condemns the idolatrous and the creature- worshipping 
use of some of them expressly and of all such sinful use of all 
such acts impliedly and inclusively. 

Anathema VIII in Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius, anath- 
ematizes every one who commits the Nestorian sin of worshipping 
the separate humanity of Christ by co-bowing to it with God the 
Word, by co-glorifying it with God the Word, or co-calling it God 

Note 405.— I Corinthians VI, 9-10; Galatians V, 19, 20. 21, and Revelations XXI, 8. 
NOTE-406,— Rev. XXI, 8. 



Creature Worship. 315 



■with Him (407), and mucli more does it, by necessary inclusion, 
curse in God's name every one who gives any of those three acts 
to any creature inferior to Christ's humanity, as all other 
creatures are. 

Moreover, the anathema against the "co-bowing" to, that is 
the co-worshipping of Christ's sinless humanity with God, because, 
as Cyril himself shows again and again, it is a creature and there- 
fore by Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, may not be worshipped, 
much more anathematizes any and all who commit the sin of wor- 
shipping any creature less than that perfect humanity or it for 
God or with God. 

Such sins are condemned in "(5" and 'V," pages 265, 266 
above. 

And the anathema against all those who commit the sin of 
co-glorifying a creature, Christ's spotless humanity, with God the 
Word, much more anathematizes all who co-glorify any lesser 
creature with God the Word, or commit the sins underact 2, "<^, " 
or ' c" on page 266 above. 

Furthermore, the anathema against all those who co call 
Christ's created humanity God with God the Word, much more 
smites all who apply the term God to any image relatively to God, 
as the Israelites did to the golden calf in the wilderness, or who 
apply the term God to any creature or to any thing but God Him- 
self. 

On all these matters see Article VI above. 

And canon VI of the same Third Ecumenical Synod decrees 
as follows regarding the above anathema and every other enact- 
ment of the Council. 

"And likewise if any may wish to unsettle in any way what- 
soever the things done on each matter in the holy Synod" [held] 
"at Ephesus, the holy Synod has decreed, that if indeed they are 

Note 407.— Greek. Ei Τ65 τολμά. XiycLV τον αναληφθέντα α^'θρωττον 
σνμττροσκννΰσθαι otCv τω Θεώ Αόγω και σννΒοζάζ^σθαι καΐ σνγχρηματίζίΐν 
Θεόν, ω? eTepov iv ίτερ(ο• το yap 2w del ττροστίθίμίνον τούτο νουν αναγκάσει' 
και ουχί οη μάλλον μια προσκυνήσει Ti/iii τον Εμμανουήλ, ΚΗ μίαν αϋτώ την 
ίο^ολογιαν άναπ€/ιπ«, κα^ό yeyove σαρ$ 6 Aoyos, άνάθίμ/χ έστω. 



3i6 Article XII. 

Bishops, or clerics, they shall utterly fall from their own rank, 

and if they are laics they are to be excommunicate." 

Anathema IX of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 553, is 

of the same tenor against the worship of the two Natures of 

Christ, and for the worship of His Divinity alone, that is against 

any worship of his created humanity, and, of course, against the 

worship of any other creature. 

Ajiathevia IX of the Fifth Synod of the undivided Church: 

"If any one says that the Christ is to be bowed to' ' [that is, Ήσ 

be worshipped''^ "/« two Natures, by which two bowings" [that is 

"two worships' ''\ "are brought in, one peculiar to God the Word, 

and one peculiar to the man; or if any one to the doing away 

of the flesh, or to the mixture of the Divinity and the humanity, 

brings in the monstrosity either of" [but] "one Nature, 

or [one] "substance of the things which have come together, 

and so bows to" [that is '^worships"''] "the Christ, but does 

not" [on the contrary] "bow to" [that is "worship""] "with" 

[but] "one worship God the Word infleshed within His own 

flesh," [or * ' iji the midst of His own flesh ' '] * 'as the Church of God 

has received from the beginning, let such a man be anathema" 

(408). 

We have already treated of this Anathema IX and of the rest 

of the work of the Fifth Synod, on pages 181-213 above, where 
see abundant proof that the "one, holy, universal aiid apostolic 
Church" has condemned all relative worship of every kind, and all 
the Romish and the Greek errors on the Eucharist, that is the 
Thanksgiving, and all who worship the bread and wine, like the 
Greeks, and the wafer and wine, like the Latins, and all who be- 
lieve in the real substance presence of either or both of Christ's 
Natures there. 

XoTE 408.— Greek, Et Tt5 -προσκννΰσθαι iv δυσι φυσεσι Aeyet τον Χριστόν, Ιζ 
ο5 δυο ττροσκννησας ίΐσάγονται, iSiu τω Θεώ Λόγω, κα: ίδ;α τω άνθρώττγ, η ei 
Tts €πι άν«;/3€σει τηζ σο.ρκος ij iwt συγχύσει τ /^s ©c'tt^to? καΐ τη<ΐ άνθρωπότητο<;, 
7} μίαν φνσιν ήγουν ονσύν./ των σν-^ελθόντω.' τ^ρατενόμενοζ, ούτω ττροσκννη τον 
Χριστόν' αλλ "νχΐ- Α<•ΐ«^ ττροσκυνήσίί τον Θεόν Αό/ον σαρκωθΐ^τα μετά τη<ί 
ίδια; αυτοΰ σαρκό? ττροσκυνεΤ, καθάττερ ή του Θεοΰ Εκκλησία παρίλαβεν i$ 
ap)(rj?, 6 TOLOvTos ανάθεμα έστω. 



Creature Worship. 317 



And so by the guidance of the Holy Ghost in leading the 
Apostolate, that is Episcopate, in the VI sole Synods of the whole 
undivided Church, as Christ had promised (409), it defined antece- 
dently against all the creature-worshipping and image- worshipping 
Councils, the so-called Second of Nicaea, A. D. 787, and all other 
idolatrous Conventicles since, Greek, and Latin, and its holy and 
God-guided work will stand forever, and all will in time come 
back to it. Paul the Apostle predicted a great ''falling away. ''^ 
*'the Apostasy'' {η Άττοστασια the Greek of II Thessalonians 
IT, 3, has it,) and it has come. It began in the end of the 
fourth century in the form of invoking creatures, and gradually 
grew till by the seventh it had infected nearly the whole Church, 
and the antecedent decisions of Ephesus against all forms of idol- 
atry were practically forgotten, and God's curse in the form of 
the Mohammedan Arab, the Turk, and the Tartar came on us: 
we were slaughtered on battle-fields, subjugated, our churches 
taken from us, and turned into mosques for the false anti-Christian 
Creed of the great impostor of Mecca, the false prophet of Revela- 
tions XVI, 13; XIX, 20, and XX, 10, our houses and lands taken 
from us and we were compelled to pay tribute to our oppressors. 
And the Crusades to stop the flow of the Mohammedan plague and 
deluge ended in disastrous failure. And at the dawn of the six- 
teenth century it seemed as though all the Christian nations still 
unconquered would soon be. God's Word was for the most part 
locked up in dead languages, known to the learned only, and 
hardly two out of a hundred of us had been taught to read even our 
own tongue. And the sole utterances of the Universal Church in 
the VI Ecumenical Synods had never been fully translated into 
any of the languages of the people and so their condemnations of 
our soul-damning idolatry were unknown even to most of thei 
Bishops and clergy and to nearly all the Christian people. And 
indeed till the invention of printing just before, few had the 
means to buy the manuscripts which contained them, and fewer 
still could read the original Greek of them even if they could 
purchase them. Everywhere there was woe, and the creature- 

NoTE 409. -Matt. XXVIII, 19, 20; John Xrv, 16, 17, 26; John XV, 26, and John XVI, 7, 13; 
Matt. XVIII, 17, 18. Compare I Tim. Ill, 15. 



31 8 Article Χ Π. 

worshipper's curse, and ahead all seemed dark, and, without a 
special intervention of God, absolutely hopeless. But He did not 
forsake us, He raised up godly Reformers, and the miseries of 
men led them to look for help to the inspired Scriptures, and to 
seek for the decisions of the whole Church in what the English 
Reformers in their just appreciation of them call ''those Six Cou7i- 
cils which were allowed and received of all men.^^ And the spiritual 
''whoredoms'^ of idolatry, as the Old Testament terms creature wor- 
ship and image worship (410), though enforced on the West by Old 
Rome, the Harlot of the Revelations (411), as the writers of the 
ancient Church had held from the beginning, and enforced on the 
East by Constantinople, the ''New Rome'' (412) on the Bosporus, 
seven-hilled like the elder Rome (413), were seen to be contrary to 
God's Word and to the decisions of the "One, Holy, Universal and 
Apostolic Church,'" and they were thrust away and the Church 
was purged under the lead of the noble reforming Professors, Pas- 
tors, and Prelates, and secular rulers, the Jeshuas, the Ezras, 
the Nehemiahs, the Hezekiahs, and the Josiahs of the New and 
Better Covenant of Christ, in Germany Luther, Melanchthon, 
and German rulers; in Switzerland, Zwingle, Calvin, and Farel, 
and the rulers of the Reformed Cantons, and in the Scandinavian 
lands and in other parts of the Continent other noble men in sacred 
and in secular station; and among ourselves Cranmer, Ridley, 
Latimer, Hooper, and Ferrar of St. Davids, the Martyrs, and King 
Edward VI. And all the Reformers rejected the idolatrous con- 
venticle, the Second of Nicaea of A. D. 787, and all other Coun- 
cils opposed to the Decisions of the Six Ecumenical. And the 
English Reformers did it in their excellent Homily against Peril of 



Note 410.— II Kings IX, 22; II Chron. XXI, 11-20; Jerem. Ill, 1-25 inclusive, especially 
verses 1-12; Ezek. XVI, vs-here Jehovah speaks of His former people as married to him and 
as having fallen away to false worship as to spiritual whoredom: see especially verses 16-39; 
see in Ezek XXIII, 7, 30, 37, 39. and 49, Verse 39 shows that in all their spiritual whoredoms 
they still worshipped Jehovah, as an adulterons wife still may have intercourse with her 
husband, and at the same time be an adulteress. See also Hosea II, 13, and IV, 12-19 
iuclusive. 

Note 411. — That is clear from Rev. XVII, 18. 

Note 412.— So called in Canon HI of the Second Ecumenical Synod and in Canon XXVIII 

of the Fourth. 

Note 413.— See in proof page 489, volume II of McChniock and Strotig's Cyclopaedia, and 

Rev. xvn, 9, 18. 



Creature Worship. 319 



Idolatry, which, with the other Homilies, is approved in ihe 
Thirty-Fifth Article, as contaiyiiiig '^ a godly and wholesome doctrhie 
and necessary for these times.'" And the Church of England in its 
Article XXXV adds: "and therefore we judge them to be read in 
churches by the ministers, diligently and distinctly, that they may 
be understanded of the people." 

And all the other Reformed Churches also rejected the idol- 
atrous conventicle of Nicaea, which is termed by the paganized 
Churches of Rome and Constantinople the Seventh Ecumenical, 
and, like the Church of England, practically received most of the 
great God alone-worshipping dogmas of the Six really sound and 
only Ecumenical Councils, and some of their Formularies accept 
their Creeds, though sometimes with the Roman additions to 
the Constantinopolitan; and the Declaration of Thorn speaks well 
of the VI great Synods. A breviate of their utterances on those 
themes will be found in volume I of Nicaea in this set, pages 
128-162. 

But we should all make a full restoration of all in the utter- 
ances of the VI Synods of the whole Church, which agrees with 
the New Testament, all in the first three centuries which agrees 
with it, and all since developed by the Spirit which is useful in 
our time. What the Anglican Communion everywhere needs to 
make, a full Restoration, is told on pages 95-128 of that volume. 

Section III. 

I have shown above: 

(1). that the heathen worshipped things only relatively, not 
absolutely; and 

(2). the nature of the ads which make up the sum and sub- 
stance of heathen image- worship and the worship of other material 
things. I am next to show 

(3). that the relative worship of the altar, the cross, and im- 
ages among Christians, and so-called Christians, is, so far as the 
kind of worship rendered to such viaterial things is concerned, tlie 
same; in other words that the creature- worshipping Christian aud 
the creature-worshipping Pagan, both worship material objects, but 
only relatively, and of course, both as being idolaters, or, as idol' 



320 Article XII . 

aters means, hnage-worshicfpers, do so to the damnation of their own 
souls, according to I Corinthians VI, 9, 10; Galatians V, 19-22, 
and Revelations XXI, 8. 

The doctrine of the Greek Church and of the Latin (both 
which, I grieve to say it, are still advocates for the worship of 
images) is that they do not worship the wood or stone or cloth or 
colors for themselves, but for what they represent; in other words, 
that the worship offered by them is reIvATivE, 7ioi absolute. 
This doctrine is contained in the enunciations of the so-called 
Seventh Ecumenical Synod, held under the accursed pair, Irene 
and Tarasius, the Jezebel and episcopal Ahab of the Church of 
the New Testament, who have wrought untold evils against the 
best interests of the Church of God and in favor of idolatry. 
The decisions of this precious conventicle of ignoramuses and 
heretics and scoundrels have set forth a doctrine the same in 
substance as the ancient writers inform us the heathen held, 
and, in substance, largely in their words. This fact is clear 
from the foregoing. Besides, the Third Ecumenical Council, 
speaking with the Christ-promised aid of the Holy Ghost, con- 
demned and deposed the heresiarch Nestor ius for his relative 
worship of Christ's humanity, and much more all relative wor- 
ship of any lesser creature, and much more still the relative wor- 
ship of any image pictured or graven or any mere thing: see that 
proven in volume I of Ephesus in this set, page 461, text and 
note 949, and pages 486-504. And by its Canon VI every Bishop 
and cleric so worshipping is deposed and every laic is excommuni- 
cated. See the same volume. Note F. pages 529-551, for the use 
of relative worship again and again by Nestorius, and his Heresy II, 
pages 639-641. 

And that strong and clear and definite condemnation of all 
relative worship by the Third Ecumenical Council as is shown in 
said note 949, is further repeated in six other places by the Third 
Council, of the whole Church, and was approved by the Fourth 
Ecumenical Synod, by the Fifth, and by the Sixth. So that the 
whole matter has been abundantly and unshakably settled forever 
by that final tribunal, Christ's Church, 'Hhe pillar and ground of the 
truth'' (I Timothy III, 15), which every one must hear or by His 



Creature Worship. 321 



law be unto all sound Christians "αί a heathen man aiid a publi- 
can;' Matt. XVIII, 17. 

But, objection I. The Greeks are not idolaters because they 
do not worship graven images, but only painted ones! 

Answer. This is a distinction without a difference of any 
importance, so far as the principle of such worship is con- 
cerned, for it is too clear to need argument that, if the worship 
of a painted image is right because it is relative and not abso- 
lute, the worship of a graven image is right also, and for the 
same reason. And indeed Holy Writ makes no distinction in 
guilt between the worship of the painted image and the graven 
one. In Exodus XX, 4, God prohibited "any likeness" as well 
as "any graven image," and in Numbers XXXIII, 51, 52, He 
bade Moses to tell Israel thus: "When ye are passed over Jordan 
into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants 
of the land from before you, and destroy all their pict7ires, and 
destroy all their molten images," etc. — Compare Ezekiel VIII, 
7-13, for God's anger against painted idols.' 

Objection II (of a Greek or a Latin). — But Americans and other 
Anglicans and Protestants kiss the Bible in court when they take 
oaths, and this is relative religious worship, just as much as my wor- 
ship of an image painted or graven. Let the Anglicans, therefore, 
blame themselves before they blame us. Moreover, if there should 
be any doubt as to the meaning of this custom of kissing the Bible, 
it should be remembered that it comes from the mediaeval 
Romish times, when the English Church was the slave of the Ro- 
man, and that the original intention of the act was to express 
relative religious worship. 

Answer. — What you say as to the origiiial and the mediaeval 
intention of the act is true. But here we must distinguish between 

(1). the custom^ of the Anglican Communion, and 

(2). that of the civil courts in this matter. 

(1). As to the Anglican Church. She swept away everything 
like kissing the Gospels, images, the cross, and every such thing 
at the Reformation. There is not a shred of this creature- worship 
in the Prayer Book or the Articles. In this respect she is as inno- 



522 Article XII. 

cent as an angel. No blame can therefore be attached to her in 
this matter. 

(2) As to the case of the civil courts. The custom is found 
jin them still, and is a bad one, though some would say, perhaps, 
that they did not give any religious worship, relative or otherwise, 
to the book, but kissed it only as a form to be gone thr9ugh with, 
and of whose origin and original significance they were ignorant. 
This excuse, however, is not satisfactory. And certainly, so long 
as the custom endures, it will be an occasion to many a Romanist 
and to others to sin, and should therefore be abolished. It might 
seem wonderful why no more attention has been paid to this mat- 
ter. It cannot be attended to too soon, for it is undoubtedly idol- 
atrous. Furthermore, what is of less saving importance, but yet 
of importance as regards bodily health, as some who kiss the 
Bible have diseased lips, their disease may be transmitted to others 
who kiss the same place. And therefore some object to such 
kissing, and that very justly. 

Objection III (of a Greek or a Latin). — But I am not so bad 
as the heathen, even if we both do worship images relatively, 
for, whereas the heathen invokes images, caps to them, bows 
to them, genuflects to them, salutes them, bows down to 
them and kisses them, and incenses them, I do only the last seven. 
I do not, commonly at least, invoke them. Even though I do 
worship images, therefore, there is a great difference in this mat- 
ter of invocation. The heathen is guilty, but I am wholly inno- 
cent. 

Answer. This attempted distinction has no real force, for, if 
a'iked why you do the last seven acts to senseless material things, 
you at once say in order to justify yourself, "I do not worship the 
mere matter absolutely but only relatively; that is, I worship the 
prototype represented by the image through it, as, for instance, 
when I bow to an image of Christ painted or graven, I do not bow 
to the mere material image itself, but, through it, to Christ, the 
prototype represented by it. So, with an image of the Virgin or 
of any other saint. I bow to the Virgin or the saint through the 
image as a medium through which I express my adoration; and 
moreover my fervor and devotion are heightened by the beauty of 



Creature Worship. 323 



the image painted or graven." This is your plea in justification 
of yourself. 

But now comes along a heathen, educated and talented as you 
are, and after hearing your justification, he agrees with you 
entirely, and thinks you a sensible and shrewd fellow, except in 
so far as he condemns what he deems your inconsistency in not 
following out the principle of relative worship so far as to 
invoke the prototypes through the images. He would reply to 
you somewhat as follows: — "You admit and teach in com- 
mon with me against the Christian Scriptures, the ante- 
Nicaean Church, and the present Anglican Church, that the bow, 
the genuflexion, the kiss, and the incense which you give to the 
image go not to the mere visible material of which it is made, but 
to the invisible being represented by it, and that this worship is 
acceptable to the prototype. So far there is agreement and per- 
fect concord between us. But at this point, in a manner so utterly 
illogical and silly that you cannot defend it, you tell me that I am 
wrong because I carry out the very same principle of relative 
worship which we both hold, so far as to pray to the image rel- 
atively. But I am not fool enough to suppose that the mere 
material of the image can itself hear me. Indeed I do not believe 
that the painting or statue has any feeling at all. Do be so good 
as not to lie about me and to slander me in order to cover up what 
your Christian brethren complain of in you regarding the 
matter of image-worship. Exercise the same charity towards me 
as the ancient Christian writers Origen, L,actantius, Arnobius, and 
Augustine of Hippo did, who, though my opponents, testified to 
the fact that my worship of the image was relative. And if you 
should ask a little child in the streets of Calcutta or Canton this 
day whether he supposes that the material of a painting or statue 
is itself God, or whether that viere material itself can hear or feel, 
if he knew his own religion as well as his elders, he would laugh 
in your face at your absurdity in supposing such a thing, and 
might take you for a fool or an insulter for asking such a question. 
No, my brother in the faith of image worship, our acts rest on the 
same principle of the rightfulness of the relative religious worship 
of material things. If the principle will justify your bowing to 



,24 Article XII. 

the image, and your kissing it, and your incensing it, it will jus- 
tify these acts in me and my prayer to it, for in all these acts I use 
the image only as a mere medium and vehicle of my devotion. I 
do not perform any act of worship to the image itself absohitely, but 
only relatively. We are, therefore, so far as the only principle upon 
which we act is concerned, on exactly the same basis in this mat- 
ter. We are in the same boat, and must sink or swim together. 
If the principle of the relative religious worship of material 
things is right, we are both right z« all our acts wider that prin- 
ciple, you in your seven, I in my eight, and in whatever other acts 
come under this principle. It is, therefore, the veriest nonsense in 
the world to attempt to make such a distinction as you have 
attempted to make. But if the principle aforesaid is wrong, we 
are both wrong, and nothing can save our acts from condemna- 
tion. If, as you say, I am going to hell for what you call my idol- 
atry, you are going to a worse hell, for you are sinning against 
what you call the light of your Scriptures (Revelations XXI, 8), 
and I am in the darkness, according to your Bible, and do not sin 
against their light, for I do not know them. If, however, we are 
right, as doing the same thing and defending it by the same argu- 
ment of relative worship, let us not be uncharitable to each other 
by misrepresenting each other's views. So far as we can, let us 
be brethren. For, as against the Bible and its Author, and the 
ante-Nicaean Church, and the Anglican Communion, we must 
stand or fall together. No man of brains, if he takes the trouble 
to examine, will say that, so far as the pri?iciple is concerned, 
there is even a shred of difference between us." 

Moreover, Christian image-worshippers, in justification of 
that custom of relative-worship, not infrequently make use of the 
following argument against the Anglican or other Protestant: "I 
do indeed bow to the image painted or graven, for the argument 
applies to both kinds of images, and I incense it and kiss it to 
show my devotion to the prototype represented by it. But do you 
not kiss the portrait of your father or mother or sweetheart?" 
You say this in justification of yourself. 

The Anglican or other Protestant, if he has experience on 
this subject, and if he heeds the strong utterances of the Christian 



Creature Worship 



Scriptures against what they condemn as a sin, and if he sympa- 
thizes with their prohibitions of images, would indeed at once 
reply by telling you that you were silly for confounding the act of 
kissing a parent's or a sweetheart's portrait, which where done is 
never intended to express any religious worship, relative or other- 
wise, with your own act of worshipping what you call "holy im- 
ages" with what you intend to be relative religions adoration. 
Moreover, many or most and perhaps all Protestants in northern 
lands, where image worship is not so common, would tell you that 
they had never done such an irrational act as kissing an image 
painted or graven of a parent or lover, or any other memorial of 
him, and that one of these acts is as logical as the other, and is 
unfelt by the parent or lover aforesaid. And he would add, per- 
haps, that you must be terribly hard up for an excuse or an argu- 
ment when you appeal to such mere human and noii-rcligious and 
impulsive acts to bolster up your systematic image-worship, 
which is based upon a doctrine as a part of religio7i, and not 
upon a mere undefended and unexcused impulse, if indeed 
such a castom exists among any Protestants at all: and I have 
never known any instance of it among them, and I hope that there 
will never be any, for it might lead to idolatry for it is silly and 
inexcusable. 

But inasmuch as you often make use of this favorite argument 
against the Protestants in order to defend your practice, let me, 
says the pagan image-worshipper, use it against you in order to 
defend viy practice. Let me ask you if, when you kiss an image 
painted or graven of your father or mother or your betrothed, you 
do not address it and say: "My dear father, or my dear mother, 
or my dear Araminta Jane, how I love you! How I would like 
to see you! I am sorry to have offended you," etc. And is it any 
worse for me to do this to a religious image than it is for you to a 
secular one? I know indeed that you may say to me, as the 
Protestant says to you, "We must make a distinction here between 
a mere impulsive, secular, non- religious act, such as kissing the 
image of the parent or the mistress, and the same act intended to 
express religions worship. The one is simply foolish; the other, 
by the Christian Scriptures, is damnable idolatry." 



226 Article XII. 

But, stop ! replies the pagan to the Romanist, the Greek, 
the Monophysite, the Nestorian, and the idolatrizing Puseyite 
and apostate, if you are right j^ou prove too much! If you 
condemn my act of praying to an image which cannot be con- 
demned without, at the same time, by necessary implication, con- 
demning the principle of relative religious worship, which is the 
only one on which your addresses to the prototype by bowing, 
kissing or incensing his image or symbol or memorial can be 
excused, you condemn yourself as a damnable idolater, to use a 
modification of your own language. For will any man tell me 
that the image or material things may be made the mediiivt 
through which the bow, the kiss, and the incense, and other acts 
go to the prototype, and that the same image cannot be made the 
medium through which another act, that is prayer, can be sent to 
the same prototype? Show me the logic or the sense of such 
attempted distinctions without a difference, and that, too, in 
regard to actions which rest upon the same principle of relative 
religious worship. 

Moreover, you can easily ascertain that on Good Friday the 
Latins do use an address to the cross or the crucifix, and that the 
Greek Church has something like an invocation of the prototype 
through the image, if Palmer, formerly of Magdalen, the apologist 
for creature- worship, in his Dissertations on the Orthodox Cotn- 
mti7iio?i, (that is on the Oriental Church), Masters' London edition 
of 1853, page 259, is correct. For he there remarks: "The intro- 
duction of Icons or pictures to render present as it were in the 
churches the Saints and Angels who are not present to the senses, 
ajid the practice of singing hymns contahiing invocations or reciting 
addresses before the picture, as if to the Angel or Saint hijnself who 
•was represented by it, heightened still further the sense of reality 
already popularly attached to the poetical addresses of the Church 
Hymns," etc. 

Why unjustly blame me then? Why not stand shoulder to 
shoulder with me in defence of idolatry, — that is, as the Greek 
word means, ''image-worshipT' Indeed, you do go so far as to 
approve ihe. pri7iciple , but, because laughed at by the Anglicans or 
other Protestants, you do a little shirking now and then, and to 



Creature Wots hip. 327 



«xcTise what Christians call your own guilt you misrepresent my 
image-worship and tell downright lies about it and me. 

But that is not manly. If idolatry (εΐοωλολατρεία, that is, imao-e- 
worship) is right, it is right, and we ought to defend it. If it is wrong, 
it is wrong, and we ought to give it up. And prayer has, in every 
age and among all religions, been deemed an essential act of worship, 
Jullyas much so as bowing, kissing, or incensing, and the man who 
attempts to divide it from worship, or who asserts that it is not an 
act of worship, has a hard job before him if his adversary has any 
acumen. When addressed to an image, it comes under the head 
of relative religious worship just as much as bowing to the same 
image, kissing it, or incensing it. 

Objection IV. The Romanist or the Greek might say, 
"Granting that the principle upon which we and the heathen 
base our worship of material things is the same, nevertheless, it 
should be added in our favor that whereas the heathen worships, 
as the early Christian writers teach, images (painted and graven) 
of dead men, as, for example, heroes and lawgivers, we worship 
through material things only real beings, who are in the realm 
of the blessed; such, for example, as God, the \^irgin, and the 
saints. And, moreover. Scripture expressly says that the heathen 
worship demons, I Cor. X, 20. Granting, therefore, that we are 
image-worshippers, we worship only images of actual beings who 
are in heaven. 

Answer. We are disposed to be candid and as charitable as we 
can be in consonance with duty to God, which, however, requires us 
not to be derelict in accepting mere makeshift and non-justifying 
excuses. We do indeed, therefore, admit that the Christian image- 
worshipper does in fact worship real beings, some of whom, like 
the Virgin Mary and the Apostles, are in the realm of the blessed, 
while none of the dead pagans, the real or imaginary beings 
whom the heathen worship, is in the same realm. We ought, 
however, to state that it is by no means certain that many of the 
alleged saints of the Latin Communion or the Greek are in the 
realm of the blessed. They do not agree as to that matter them- 
selves, for many a Greek would not like to admit the salvability 
of Bonaventura, Bernard, and Thomas Aquinas, and the so-called 



328 Article XII. 

Latin saints manufactured to order at Rome since the separation 
in the ninth century; and on the other hand, many a Latin would 
refuse to admit the salvability of the Eastern Church saints, 
manufactured since that epoch, and an Anglican who believes his 
own formularies and the adjudgments of God to idolaters in His 
Holy Word, cannot consistently admit the saintship or probability 
of salvation of any of the creature-worshipping and the image and 
cross and relic worshipping so-called saints of the East and the 
West after A. D. 787, when a Council was held at Nicaea for the 
invocation of saints, and the worship of images, relics, and other 
material things, and indeed, of some of long before, for soul-damn- 
ing creature-worship of certain kinds began to make its appearance 
among some, not all, in the last half of the fourth century. It 
seems certain, therefore, that both the Latin and the Greek do 
give relative worship to the images of men who are lost, and who 
will be damned at the judgment, for they lived and died in the 
practice of sins to which God, who cannot lie, attaches that pen- 
alty in His unerring Word. Who, for instance, will assert against 
that Word the salvation of the murdering Dominick, or that 
champion of Roman errors and idolatry, Ignatius Loyola? In 
judging of such men, we must be true not to what we will, but to 
what God will concerning them. Too many mistake judgments 
concerning them, which really contradict God's Word, by excul- 
pating them from guilt where He proclaims them guilty, for char- 
ity. That is noi charity ^ but practically, whatever may be the 
intention, hatred to God and rebellion agaiiist His just utterances. 
And similar things might be said regarding those who exculpate 
men like John of Damascus and the later Easterns from condem- 
nation, though they were partisans of idolatry, and died impen- 
itent in their sins. It is an impious task to cry peace, peace, 
•when God says there is no peace. 

So much for the alleged saints who died idolaters. 

Now. with regard to worshipping the images of the Virgin, 
or real saints, or their relics. All such work is wrong, because 
God, throughout the whole extent of the Old Testament and of 
the New, denounces it as a crime to worship any other than him- 
self. Of all religious worship He has said "My glory will I not 



Creature Worship. 329 



give to another, neither my praise to graven images": Isaiah 
XLII, 8. And He has never authorized any man to give relative 
worship to any image of that shape which no man hath seen or 
can see: John V, 37; I Tim. VI, 16. He demands direct worship, 
not i7idirect worship through an image. He will not give His 
praise to graven images, as He expressly affirms. And the 
principle contained in this forbids all relative worship of Him. 
All worship to be acceptable to God must be absolute and direct. 
The excuse contained in this objection of the Romanist and the 
Christian of the Orient, with both of whom we hope to agree 
when they shall cast their idols to the moles and to the bats 
(Isaiah II, 18-22), does not therefore acquit them of guilt in their 
present lamentable idolatry and creature-worship. We oppose 
and expose these evils in sadness, — not from any personal feeling, 
but solely as a solemn duty to God, who commands us in his 
Word so to do, to their souls and to ours, and in the interests of a 
future union; not in error, which God will not allow, but in 
blessed, saving, peaceful, loving, brotherly truth. I beg, there- 
fore, any Greek or Latin who may glance over these lines not to 
misunderstand me, and not to take my words as those of hatred, 
but as those of love. If I have uttered warning words, let me 
say that the truest love always warns that it may guard and 
save. That is my object now. I do not believe in apologizing 
for an evil and thereby strengthening it; but in curing it, and 
to cure it, exposing its objectionable features, and showing it 
to be an evil is absolutely necessary. Men will never forsake an 
evil which they do not recognize to be such. You must there- 
fore expose before you can cure. And that is all that I have 
done. And I doubt not that the day is fast drawing on, when, 
as prophecy teaches, all creature-worship shall utterly perish in 
East and West, and North and South, when God, and God 
alone, shall be worshipped, and when men shall no longer de- 
grade themselves and anger Him, by bowing down to the work 
of their own hands and to mere material things. Oh! speed 
that blessed day, AH holy and Almighty One, who art 'jealous" 
for Thine honor and glory! Purge from Thy Church every 
stain! Make it a glorious Church without spot, or wrinkle, or any 



330 Article XII. 

such thing. Banish from among all called Christians and from 
the world all worship forbidden and hateful to Thee, and as Thou 
alone art worthy of religious worship, let it be given to nothing 
but Thee? In every communion, East and West, give victory, 
soon and forever, to Thy servants, who are jealous for the 
principle that all religious worship is Thy blessed prerogative, 
and Thine only! 

I wish to add to what I have said heretofore a few remarks in 
regard to the statement that the heathen worshipped demons. We 
must remember, 

(1). That the word demon (δαι/χων) did not mean devil in the 
sense that the heathen understood it. The Greek woid for devil 
is Βίάβολος, and it is never applied to any demon, but only to 
Satan. By demon {8αίμων) the heathen of Paul's day understood 
merely a subordinate deity, a good spirit of that class. And as 
those subordinate deities were unrecognized by Christianity, 
except as non-existent beings, or, if existent, as beings malevo- 
lent; and, as an ancient Christian writer explains it, as the sub- 
ordinate deities, that is demons aforesaid, made use of those im- 
ages to materialize and degrade men's worship, and to draw them 
away from the worship of the invisible God, though the images 
themselves, we may add, were at the first only representations of 
living or dead men; therefore the Apostle writes that those who 
worshipped them worshipped the demons. But the heathen did 
not intend to worship what was evil when they bowed down 
before a picture or a graven image of Jove or Mars or Minerva. 
We must do justice to their intention, though we heartily agree 
with the Apostle Paul as to the fact that their acts were evil. 

Now let us see whether the worship of images of God, and of 
the saved, is laudable, or even innocent, and whether symbols or 
material things connected with true worship can be adored with- 
out guilt. 

The following are the facts of the case: 

(1). We have neither example nor precept for that in God's 
Word. 

(2). The whole spirit of the Old Testament is against any 
worship of material things, and the distinction of relative worship 



Creature Worship. 33 j 



is never countenanced, but condemned, as for instance, the relative 
worship of the golden calf in the wilderness and of Jeroboam's 
calves. 

(3). For learned writers state that among cases of relative 
religious worship of the true God, are to be numbered, 

(a). The worship of the Golden Calf by the Israelites, for 
which God wished to blot them from existence, but was induced 
to spare them by the intercession of Moses, though even then 
they were justly scourged: on that see Nehemiah IX, 18, where 
the singular "God" is used, and Exodus XXXII, 1-35, and Psalm 
CVI, 19-23: 

(J)), The worship of the calves by the Israelites at Bethel, 
and Dan, for which God sent them curse upon curse, and because 
they would not repent he removed them from their own land into 
a stranger's land by the Assyrian captivity: compare the origin 
of this calf-worship in I Kings XII, 26-33 inclusive, and II Kings 
X, 26-30. 

(c). The worship by incense of the divinely ordained symbol, 
the brazen serpent, for which the pious King Hezekiah called it 
Nehushtan, that is a piece of brass, and destroyed it. See on that 
II Kings XVIII, 4, and after. According to the present doctrine 
of certain members of the "advanced school," who contend agaiust 
the Anglican Church from within, and endeavor to betray it to 
its foes, this act of the pious king was "shocking, horrible, irrev- 
erence." Alas! alas! the unfortunate monarch died before Orby 
Skipley and his followers in this country and in England, and had 
never heard of the beauties and the odor of the Stercorian contro- 
versy. He believed that God prohibited idolatry, and acted as 
though he believed it. But if he had only seen certain fledglings 
in divinity whom we know, they would have made a nice dis- 
tinction for him, and would have shown him that he had "Puritan 
prejudices" which he ought to conquer, and that, after all, it was 
easy to be true to God, and to be an idolater at the same time! 

And have not demons or the devil ever made use of images to 
allure Christians to idolatry? Would not even Latins and Greeks 
both say that he has when men have given absolute worship to 
images. It is enough to say that any man who worships any 



332 Article XII. 

image of Christ, or of any other holy person, damns his soul. There 
is no authority in God's holy Word for any such act. He 
denounces all image-worship, and makes no exception. And the 
ancient Church, Greek or Latin, East or West, never authorized 
any such thing. Indeed the Third Council of the whole Church, 
Ephesus, A. D. 431, deposes every Bishop and cleric, and anath- 
ematizes every laic who is guilty of worshipping the perfect 
humanity of Christ even relatively, as did the Nestorians, and 
much more all who worship any other created person or any 
inanimate thing, be it an image, painted or graven, any cross, 
relics or altar, or communion table, or any thing else, even though 
it be done relatively only. If the man who gives relative worship 
to any creature by invocation or in any other way, or to a7iy ma- 
terial thing can be saved, we know not where the authority for it is 
to be found in God's Word. And the best way, and the only safe 
way, if we would not be partakers of the sins of the creature- wor- 
shipper, is to tell God's threats in the language in which He 
utters them. For He says plainly, "Be not deceived; neither fornica- 
tors nor idolaters . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God," I Cor. 
VI, 9, 10: and so He says again in Galatians V, 19-22; and in 
Revelations XXI, 8, He declares that "idolaters . . . shall have 
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; 
which is the second death." And that does not except and save 
from hell those who worship creatures and images relatively. It 
includes what it says, "idolaters," without making any excep- 
tion. If those who worship images, altars, communion tables, 
and other such things were counted guiltless, then nearly all or 
all such idolaters would go unpunished, for nearly all or all wor- 
ship of images and material things from the beginning has been 
relative y not absolute. 

Objection V. — The Christian Scriptures are inconsistent, be- 
cause while they teach that God alone is to be worshipped, they 
nevertheless speak of worshipping before God's altar, or at His 
footstool, or toward His temple, which means that God's altar 
and footstool and temple are proper objects of adoration. 

Answer. That is a tremendous blunder. The Scriptures no- 
where approve of giving worship "to" any material thing. The 



Creature Worship. 333 



Psalms do indeed speak of worshipping before God's altar, and at 
His footstool, and towards His temple, but they nowhere speak 
of worshipping those material things. That would indeed be 
downright idolatry. And surely a man who thus perverts Holy 
Writ, insults Jehovah, the divine Author of it. The Hebrew wor- 
shipped before the altar of Jehovah, as we worship before Christian 
altars now, that is commimion tables, but he did not worship the 
altar, nor does any true Anglican. He bowed before the altar, 
but not to the altar, — not with relative worship to it, but to God 
alone, whom he worshipped directly, ?iot indirectly. And every 
loyal Anglican does just the same. The Hebrew worshipped "at" 
God's footstool, that is, the tabernacle or the temple in which 
was the ark and the mercy seat, which was, so to speak, the 
"footstool' ' of God, during the time of the first temple and before, 
when the Psalms which mention it were written; but the Israelite 
never gave relative worship or absolute to the ark or the footstool 
itself, for that would have been idolatry. No! he worshipped 
God alone, as in heaven, as Solomon did at the dedication of the 
temple, I Kings VIII, 22, and that directly, not indirectly. 

Moreover, the Hebrew worshipped ''toward'* the temple, but 
he did not worship the temple, but only God, who abode in 
heaven, just as the ancient Oriental Christian worshipped towara 
the East, and as the modern Eastern follower of Christ does, and 
as the Mohammedan worships toward Mecca. But surely, no one 
will be so outrageously unjust as to assert that the ancient Oriental 
Christian worshipped the East, though he worshipped God ' 'toward" 
it. The things are so widely distinct that it seems singular how 
any man of any acumen can confound them. Basil the Great, in 
a beautiful passage, tells his brethren the reason of their custom. 
He said they turned toward the East because it was the land of 
the sunrising where light began, and so the mere directio7i itself, 
although it was not a material object or thing, was symbolic of the 
blessed land of eternal light, the Christian's final home, towards 
which it behooves him to be constantly looking. And it is so 
'with the Mohammedan. He looks toward Mecca in his prayers, 
not, I suppose, to worship it, but as the place whence, according 
to his imposture, light sprang up to the East through Mohammed. 



334 Article XII. 

And Daniel, in captivity, though the temple of God had been 
destroyed, and the mercy-seat, which had been the footstool of 
God, had disappeared, worshipped indeed God in heaven, but 
with his face turned in the direction of Jerusalem. But I know 
of no man yet who has been wild enough to accuse the prophet of 
perpetrating idolatry by giving relative religious worship to the 
mere stone and mortar of the capital of Israel. 

And the Jews still turn either toward the East, or else they 
look from all sides toward Jerusalem. But surely, no man accuses 
the Israelite of worshipping either the East or Jerusalem. And so 
let us treat the inspired men of the Old Testament, and not com- 
mit the sacrilegious blasphemy of accusing God's unerring and 
blessed Word of teaching the idolatrous acts of worshipping rel- 
atively or absolutely material things, such as an altar, a footstool, 
or a building called the temple. There is not a shred of ground 
for this impious charge in Holy Scripture. 

In conclusion, let me recommend, as practical, lessons 

FROM THIS WHOLE SUBJECT, 

1. The questioning of every candidate for Holy Orders 
in the Church of God as to whether he has invoked any crea- 
ture, or given relative religious worship to any creature, and 
whether he has not worshipped the Eucharist, and whether he 
maintains such creature-worship, or renounces and denounces it. 
I would advise caution in these matters, for certain of the Roman- 
ized clergy are sharp and cunning enough to conceal their real 
sentiments and their past acts by evasive or ambiguous replies. 
I make these recommendations because it would seem that all dis- 
cipline regarding idolatry among the clergy is at an end, or nearly 
so, for the present. Such writers as Shipley, Percival, and clergymen 
in London, New York and elsewhere, have set forth approvals of 
creature-worship, aud even in New York City several places of 
worship are shrines of idolatry — places for luring and damning 
souls — and it cannot be helped with the present discipline. The 
Bishop is merely a figurehead with no real authority, and he never 
will have enough to maintain discipline until he can remove or 
displace or depose his clergy without the intervention of Pres- 
byters, while subject to be reprimanded or deposed himself by his 



Creature Worship 335 



co-provincial Bishops, according to the canons of the first four 
Ecumenical Synods, if he is himself derelict like Eli. Such a 
thing as Presbyters trying a Presbyter was unknown to the 
ancient Church, and is, so far as doctrinal opinion is concerned, 
little better than a farce. The presbyterial members are to some 
extent or largely under the control of those in their own parishes 
who sympathize with the opinions of the party on trial, whatever 
they may happen to be; and if they bring in such a sentence as the 
case demands they may themselves be ousted from their cures. 
The Bishop therefore ought to have power to remove men who 
are notoriously false to the Anglican formularies by reason of their 
disloyalty on this all-important point. The laity should, of 
course, be entitled to a hearing. Prompt and impartial discipline 
would thus become a blessing both to clergy and to people. The 
laity would have a read}' appeal against the idolatrous clergy, 
who should be instantly removed, not only from the parish but 
also from the holy ministry, which they pollute by their unclean 
and traitorous presence. And so the sound clergy, who constitute, 
let us hope, the great bulk, would not be wrongfully subjected to 
suspicion, as they too often are on account of the spiritual iniquity 
and perversity of some of their brethren. So long as idolatry 
exists in a church or a nation it must be the case that the innocent 
to some extent suffer with the guilty. History and common sense 
teach this. The inno:ent should, therefore, as they value their 
own welfare, here and hereafter, use their utmost endeavors to 
remove from a Reformed Church those who are endeavoring to 
bring God's withering curse upon it by propagating idolatry 
within its pale. I grieve to say that there are clergymen in the 
Anglican communion who are children of ruin and enemies of 
Christ, who in the matter of every distinctive Roman error con- 
demned as such in Article XXII, or in the Homilies, or elsewhere 
in the formularies, sympathize with Rome against their own com- 
munion. The more learned clergy who are familiar with these 
men know that this picture is not overdrawn. What other com- 
munion claiming an episcopate would tolerate such treason to its 
doctrines? Hitherto by God's blessing the great bulk of the 
laity have been firm witnesses for God against these wicked men. 



336 Article XII. 

God grant tliat their jealousy for God and His worship may ever 
be as strong as now! But alas! those Romanizers and idolatrizers 
are allowed to lead silly women into idolatry and the idolaters* 
hell! And, they, alas! are only too successful! 

2. Care should be taken to maintain the Anglican principle 
laid down in the Hoynlly against Peril of Idolatry, that in order to 
avoid any man's abusing the use of images painted or graven in a 
church to giving them relative religious worship, therefore it is 
best to have none in a clnirch. And surely the warning of that 
Homily is amply justified by the history of Christian nations, for in 
the case of the Eastern Church and the "Western, as that powerful 
Homily teaches, the use of such images did at last bring in their 
worship. This caution is the more needed now, because in the very 
city of New York there are many idolaters within the pale of the 
Episcopal Church, and among them twelve or more clergymen. This 
is not wonderful, for although the Twenty-Second Article, and the 
Homily aforesaid do contain a "godly" and "wholesome" doc- 
trine, "and necessary for these times," nevertheless there are 
Episcopal clergymen who openly ridicule them, and have some 
sheets to aid them. I very much doubt whether, if a man were 
sharp, he could not wich a certain amount of money, and a few 
friends, advocate the relative worship of Jupiter, or Brahma, or 
Boodh, within the Episcopal Church. I have known of a man now 
dead.in Anglican Orders who was wedded to creature-worship, such 
as would satisfy an idolatrous Eatin or Eastern, having the effron- 
tery to attack a brother Anglican clergyman for defending the doc- 
trine of their own common formularies, and that through the press. 
And another one, a digamist, told me he worshipped images. 
Indeed there is a '' Confraterriity of the Blessed Sacrament,^' with a 
Bishop at its head, on this side of the water, for the worship of 
the Host; see page 66 of Gorham's Church Almanac for 1907. 
And it mentions "The First Order of the Society of the Atone- 
ment, a religious Order for Priests and Eaymen, following the 
rules of the Friars Minor. Address The Rev. Father Minister, 
S. Α., St. Paul's Friary, Graymoor, Garrison, N. Y.," page 71 of 
the Almanac. 

And on page 72 of it is found the following: 



Creature Worship. ^-^j 



"The Sisters of the Atonement, a religious Community for 
Women, following the Franciscan Rule. Address the Rev. 
Mother, S. A. Graymoor, Garrison, N. Y." 

Here we have a male and a female order following the Rule 
approved by Popes of Rome, of a poor Italian idolater, Francis of 
Assisi, who started his order of Friars Minor, that is Fran- 
ciscans, about A. D. 12C9, when he stole a horse and goods from his 
father to begin with. The article on that Francis in Smith and 
Wace' s Cyclopaedia states of him: 

"In Roman Catholic phrase, he had a singular devotion to the 
Virgin Mary, whom he chose for the patroness of his order, and in 
whose honor he fasted from the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul to 
that of the Assumption," of Mary. In "Sadlier's Cathohc Direc- 
tory, Almanac and Ordo" for 1891, (N. Y.) page XVI, the feast 
of St. Peter and St. Paul occurs on June 29, and that of the 
Assumption of Mary on August 15, a period of 47 days, and on 
another occasion, as the Roman Breviar}', under October 4, tells us, 
he began a fast of 40 days in honor of Michael the Archangel. 
That poor, ignorant idolater, Francis, because of his creature- 
worship and image worship, was antecedently deposed and excom- 
municated by the whole Church in the decisions of the Third 
Ecumenical Council, Ephesus, A. D. 431, and so died deposed 
and excommunicated, and that justly, and therefore without any 
cause for hope: Rev. XXI, 8; compare Matthew XVIII, 15-19, 
and John XX, 21-24. According to the Roman Breviary one of his 
last acts was to exhort his followers to stick to the idolatrous faith, 
or rather heresies of the Roman Harlot (Rev. XVII, 18) which 
God commands us to come out from (Rev. XVIII, 4), and from 
which we have come out to our blessing. 

Oh! that any Anglican, a member of a Reformed Church, 
should descend to such drivel as to take such a poor, deluded, and, 
some think, crazy pagan and his Rule as guides! And some other 
Anglican clerics have started a new Benedictine Order, and I 
understand aim to follow the Rule of that poor Italian Romanist, 
Benedict. And from a lady who knows I learn that the wor- 
ship of the Virgin Mary, which St. Epiphanius ascribed to the 
craft of the Devil and the folly of women, is practiced in Episco- 



33S Article XII. 

palian female religious orders in this land. Indeed some or most 
of* the monks are also given to that sin. And all those forms of 
error are condemned by the 'O7ie, holy^ U7iivcrsal and apostolic 
CJnirch,''^ under penalty in the case of Bishops and clerics of 
deposition and of laics of excommunication, and yet our poor 
ignorant creature-worshippers and idolaters know not of it. 

And Walsh in his Secret History of the Oxfoi'd Movement has 
shown how thoroughly honeycombed the English Church is with 
Mariolatry, other saint worship, and Host worship, and apostasy 
from the worship of God alone. On page 225 he mentions seven 
Bishops who are members of the ^^ Confraternity of the Blessed Sacra- 
nient,'^ all of whose members are host- worshippers, and therefore 
idolaters; and I judge that there are hundreds of them, even 
among the clergy. 

So we move. Such men will be likely to make use of images 
in a church, to lead men to idolatry. Such things should there- 
fore be carefully excluded. The danger is great, and we ought to 
avoid assisting such dangerous men. Let us substitute for the 
often lying image painted or graven, such as even an intelligent 
Latin, like Pa:iaudi, has condemned, some edifying and appro- 
priate text from God's holy Word, the unerring image of His 
mind and will. Let us make the churches most beautiful, but let 
us have neither graven image nor any likeness of any thing in 
heaven above or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the 
earth. The custom is evil; it may be a snare to souls, and it is 
anti- Anglican, anti-Primitive, and anti-New Testament. 

Among all the churches claiming an Episcopate, the Anglican 
is the largest which opposes creature- worship, and in other days 
has been famous as a witness for the principle that God alone is 
TO be; worshipped. She banished crosses and all other images, 
painted as well as those graven, from churches, put relics out of 
sight, and erased all creature-service from her service-book. It is 
her duty to do what she can in the future to foster and encourage 
the few in the Greek and other Eastern Communions, and the 
many in the West, who are endeavoring to fulfil the unfulfilled 
prophecy, "And the idols he shall utterly abolish," Isaiah II, 18, 
for unfortunately, so long as images are in churches, men will 



Creature Worship. -^g 



sooner or later worship them. Some of them are worshipped even 
now. And a Church of England Review published in London 
openly professed to receive the idolatrous conventicle of Nicaea, 
A. D. 787, which sanctioned the worship of images and the invo- 
cation of saints, and that without punishment or even public 
rebuke from the Bishop, and hundreds and thousands of our people 
are taught in their own Anglican churches, as the late Romish 
Cardinal Vaughn boasted, nearly every doctrine of Rome. 

Indeed, years ago even, I heard a layman who admired a cer- 
tain Episcopal church in New Yoik city (a sort of half church 
half- Joss-house uptown), defend idolatry. Alas! alas! certain 
evil men persuade the women to commit the sin of idolatry; the 
hands of the Bishop are tied, and though he may hate the bonds, 
he is powerless. If the Anglo-American Church is to live, its 
Bishops must depose at once all its idolatrous or ineflBcient Bishops 
and clergy, and they must have the powers guaranteed by Nicaea 
to do it. In no other way can order, orthodoxy, and their own 
formularies be preserved. And the sound clergy and the laity must 
protect themselves from the sin which God especially hates, and 
which destroys soul and body. And finally, by all means the Homily 
against Peril of Idolatry, and that on Prayer should be read every 
year in Church at the morning services. I know of no Church in 
the world which has better Homilies in its Formularies against 
the use, and the worship of images and material things and against 
the invocation of saints and angels, and against all other acts of 
worship of creatures, than the Anglican Church. They speak on 
those topics the voice of Scripture, the decisions of the 'V«<r, holy, 
universal and apostolic Church''' in its Six Sole Ecumenical Coun- 
cils, and the faith and practice of the first three centuries. 

3. The single orders which should be strong against the spir- 
itual ''whoredom,'' as the Old Testament calls it again and again, 
of creature worship, seem, some of them at least, perhaps most of 
them, to be especially given to it, and of course can never receive 
the virginal reward (Matt. XIX, 10-13; I Cor. VII, 25-40 
inclusive; and Rev, ΧΙΛ', 1-6.) 

The Bishops should make one sound male order and one sounf* 
female order of them and depose all the unsound clerics and 



340 Article XII. 

excommunicate all the rest of them who are unsound. The Greeks 
have never had but one order of each sex. The single life followed 
in spiritual chastity as against all worship of any but God alone 
(Malt, IV, 10) and against physical unchastity is a blessing, but 
all spiritual and bodily unchastity is a curse and damns the soul 
to the eternal flame. These matters should be attended to at 
once, for the plague is spreading and the consequent curse is 
coming speedily, indeed has come to some extent already, for 
multitudes have already left, some for Rome, whose doctrines 
they have been taught by Anglican clergy, and others, disgusted 
at such sins, for other sounder communions, and others still have 
been driven into infidelity. Alas! alas! for the Anglo-Saxon race, 
which in the past has stood so often on field and flood against 
Rome and her idolatries, and had God's richest blessings for so 
doing. Alas for Britain! Alas for America! 

And 4. The sound clergy and laity must protect themselves 
and their families from the sins of worshipping creatures by invo- 
cation, and images and other material things by bowing and all 
other acts of religious service. For those are sins which God 
especially hates and which destroy both soul and body. 

Finally, 5. We must, as the crowning glory of the Church 
of Christ, 

(A). Finish the work of the Reformation of the Sixteenth 
century by making a full and perfect Restoration of every thing 
defined by the 'One^ holy, universal and apostolic Churcli" on doc- 
trine, discipline, rite, and custom in the Six Sole Ecumenical 
Synods, A. D. 325-680. That will be to do what Christ commands; 
that is to ''hear the Church,'" or be accounted as the heathen vian 
a7id the publican; and 

(B). Restore, where they have not spoken, all the doctrine, 
discipline and rite of the pure ages of the Church, the first three 
centuries. We have spoken of that on page 319 above, where see, 
and especially and more fully on pages 95-128, volume I of Nicaea in 
this Set. In other words, as the Jews after their Reformation in 
Babylon by sweeping away their idolatry, made a perfect Restora- 
tion of all their religion at Jerusalem about seventy years later, 
so we must restore all of Christianity which was lost in the times 



Creature Worship. 341 



of our idolatry, and reunite the Church in New Testament and 
Universal Church Orthodoxy and in all saving and necessary 
truth. 

James Chrvstal, 
2 Emory Street, Jersey City, N. J. 
February 7, 1907. 



ARTICLE XIII. 

Slander agddnsi Cyril ayid Ephesus to the effect that he wor- 
shipped the Virgi?i Mary, and that the Third Ecumenical Synod 
authorized her worship. 

One of the most baseless and utterly atrocious slanders on the 
Third Ecumenical Council and against Cyril of Alexandria, its 
leader under God, is the lie that they favored the worship of the Vir- 
gin Mary. 

On the contrary, the Third Council even condemns him who 
worships by bowing, and by necessary implication by any other 
act, the humanity of Christ, as, for example, in volume I of 
Ephesus in this set, on pages 79-85, text, pages 221-224, text, and 
pages 331, 332, text, in documents approved by it. So, also, on 
the other hand, it condemns Nestorius for applying the term God 
to a mere creature, Christ" s humajiity, which is an act of wor- 
ship: see in proof pages 459 and 460, text, and page 467, text. 
And on page 461, it condemns Nestorius' relative worship of 
Christ's humanity; and on page 463 it condemns him for elevat- 
ing Christ's mere humanity, a creature, to share relatively the 
dignity of the Sonship of God, the Eternal Logos! So it condemns 
the co-worship of that mere creature with God the Word, on page 
464 and 466, text. 

And the Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Definition and in its 
Anathemas IX and XII does the same. In the note there on pages 
108-112, I have grouped the facts which show how thoroughly the 
whole Church in its Ecumenical Councils has condemned even the 
Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity. See to the same effect 
Articles II, III, IV, VI, and VII to XIII above. And in the Defin- 



342 Article ΧΙΠ. 



itioii of theFifth Ecumenical Council the reason for refusing to wor- 
ship the humanity of Christ is that it is ''the crime of worshipping a 
mail' ' (see a note in volume I of Ephesiis in this set, page 1 10, top). 
And such a sin of ''Ma?i- Worship'' it declares to be a Nestorian 
''heresy or calumny of theirs, which they have viade against the pious 
dogmas of the Church^ And surely if it is "agaijist the pious dog- 
mas of the Church'' to worship Christ's humanity, which is 
confessedly the highest and best of all mere creatures, much more 
is it "against the pious dogmas of the Church"' to worship any lesser 
creature, be it the Virgin Mary, or any martyr or other human 
saint or any angel or any other creature whomsoever, whether 
that worship be by bowing, prostration, prayer, thanksgiving, 
incense, or by any other act. So that in the Third Ecumenical 
Synod and in the Fifth the Holy Ghost, in accordance with 
Christ's promise in John XVI, 13, guided the Universal Church 
East and West (414) to anticipatively condemn all worship of the 
Virgin and all worship of any other creature whomsoever, and to 
command all men, in accordance with Christ's own law in Mat- 
thew IV, 10, to how to the Lord our God and to serve Hiin alone. 
The whole Church therefore infallibly in that instance, and once 
for all has forbidden all worship of the Virgin Mary and of every 
other creature. See more fully in proof the note matter on pages 
108- 112, volume I of Ephesus. 

Having thus shown that the Third Ecumenical Synod and 
indeed all the VI Synods of Christendom are utterly free from 
Mary-worship and that they have forbidden it and expressly and 
impliedly cursed it (415) let us next refute the slander as to its 
chief, Cyril. Cyril of Alexandria, in sections 9 and 10, Book I, 
of his Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, after 
contending for the doctrine of the real Inflesh of God the Word in 
the womb of the Virgin Mary and His birth out of her, against the 

Note 414.— See on that, note 201, page IOC in this vohime, and, in volume I of Ephesus, 
note 183, pages 79-128, note 679, pages 332-362, and on the Kucharist, note 600, pages 240-313. 

Note 415. — That is in strict consonance τΛ -ith the example of the Apostle Paul in anath- 
ematizing, that is cursing, not only the Judaizers who were troubling the Galatiaus, but also 
antecedently all other heretics such as Arians. Macedonians, and Nestorians, who are con- 
trary to the Gospel of Christ. For surely all should see that by the new Testament all 
opposersof the Gospel are cursed, I Cor. VI, 9, 10; Galatians I, 6-9, and V, 19-22; and Revel- 
ations XXI, 8. 



Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. 343 

teaching of Nestorius in his sermons (416) comes to his lying 
charge against the Orthodox of making a goddess out of the Vir- 
gin (417), and refutes it as follows: 

"But what is it that persuaded thee to thus let loose thy un- 
controlled and unbridled tongue against those who are zealous to 
think aright, and to pour down accusal terrible and all-cruel up- 
on every worshipper OF god? (4 IS) For thou saidst furthermore 
before the Church, 

'^But I have already often said that if there be aynong tcs any 
person of the simpler sort, a7id, if amo?ig certain other things he is 
pleased with the expression Bringer-forth-of-God (419), / have no 
grudge against the expressio7i, only let him not make the Virgin a 
goddess.^ 

Dost thou again rail at us and put on such a bitter mouth? 
And dost thou reproach the congregation of the Lord, as it is written 
(420)? But we at least (421), Sir, who say that the Virgin was 
Bringer forth of God (422), HAvE NEVERTHELESS never deified 

ANY ONE OF THOSE ΛΥΗΟ ARE RECKONED AMONG CREATURES (423), 

Note 416.— This is stated in the margin of page 4 of the Oxford translation of S, Cyril of 
Alexandria on Ike Incarnalion. See also the quotations from Nestorius' Sermons in the XX 
Blasphemies of his for which, among other things, he was deposed by the Third Synod. 
They are, in volume I of Chrystal's £"^Λ<•ί«ί, on pages 449-481, and his dep>osition on pages 
48G-504, and see further on them in pages 517-552. notes Ε and F. 

Note417. — Compare the Oxford translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
against Nestorius, page 37 and before. 

Note 41S — Cyril means every worshipper of God alone, as he shows just below, that is all 
the Orthodox. 

Note 419. — Greek, του Θεοτόκος. 

Note 420.— I Sam. XI, i; I .Sam. XVII, 2G; Nehem. II, 17, etc. 

Note 4'Π.— That is. We, for our part, that is. We, the Orthodox, in contradistinction from 
Nestorius and his partisans. 

Note 42.2. — Greek, Θε»τοκον. 

Note 423. — But Cyril, like Athanasius and the Orthodox writers of the early Church, held 
that to worship a creature is to make that creature a god. And so Athanasius proves that 
the M'ord must be God because the Father in Hebrews I, 6, commands the angels to worship 
Him: see in proof volume I of Nicaea in this set, pages 223, 2^31, text, and note 309; and pages 
234, 235, 237. The same doctrine is set forth by St. Epiphanius, on pages 240-247, id. And he 
witnesses that none of the Orthodox in his day worshipped any thing but the substance of 
the Triuitj', conseqently not the A'irgin Mary or any other creature. For on Heresy Ι,ΧΧνί 
he writes, page 24ΰ, id, : "And we ou> st'h'es do ?ioi worship any thing inferior to the substance 
of God Himself because worship is to be given to Hint alone, who is subject to no one, that is 
to the Unborn Father, and to the Son that was born out of Him, and to the Holy Ghost who 
has come from Him also through the So!e-Born. For there is nothing created in the Trinity. 
Because the Trinity is uncaused by any cause . , . it has unerringly taught that Itself alone is to 
be worshipped.^'' 



344 Article XIII. 

but we have been wont to acknowledge as God" [only] "the one 
who is so both by" [His Divine] "Nature and in reality. And we 
know that the blessed Virgin was a human being like us. But 
thou thyself wilt be caught and that before long representing to 
us the Emmanuel" [that is, as Emmanuel means, ''the God with 
«5"], "as a" [mere] "God-inspired man, and charging on another 
the condemnation due to thy attempts" [to bring in creature wor- 
ship by bringing in the worship of Christ's humanity]" (424). 

Here Nestorius in effect makes the contemptuous remark that 
he who would speak of Mary as Bringer Forth of God {rov ®ίοτ»κο<ί) 
must be one of the simpler sort, and that he should not make the 
Virgin a goddess, that is should not deify her. Cyril promptly 
replies and clearly states: 

"we , . . HAVE . . . NEVER . . . DEIFIED ANY ONE OF THOSE 

WHO ARE RECKONED AMONG CREATURES, but we have been wout to 

And Faustin, also of the fourth century, makes worship a prerogative and mark of 
Divinity, for he writes: 

"The Son is proven to be very God by the fact that He is bowed to," [that is,' wor- 
sktpped."] "For it belongs to God to be bowed to" [that is, "io be worsltipped'\; "siuce indeed 
in an jther place also an apostle teaches that concerning the Son oi" God it is written, "^nrf 
let all the angels 0/ God bow to Him" [\.\ia.i a "worship Hnn']\ "WiSiX. is'because He is really 
Goiia«ii/.o/rf," pages 251, S52, volume I oi Nicaea in this set. See to the same effect in the 
Index to Greek Texts in that volume under Genesis XLVIII, 15, 16; Hebrews I G; and Rev- 
elations XXII, 8, 0; and see also the Church of England's noble witness in its Homily on 
Prayer ior the truth that God alone is to be worshipped. It is found in the note matter on 
-qge 3S8, volume I of Ephesus in this Set. And see what there follows on Christ's ofHce 
>ork. Alas ! that such noble utterances should now be unread in the pulpit to the people 
i>y whom and by the clergy they are so much needed. Hence the fal ing away into spir- 
itual degeneracy and to Romanism and its soul-damning creature wo• ship. 

For, as Christ expressly teaches in Matthew IV, 10, all worship is prerogative to God: 
see also to the same effect in the Greek Index in volume I of Ephesus, Acts XIV, i^-1!), where 
Paul and Barnabas refuse with horror to be worshipped; Colossians II, 18, where the worship 
of ange'.s brings the loss of the heavenly reward, that is eternal damnation, and Rev. XIX, 
10, and Rev. XXII, 8, 9. 

Note 424.— P. E. Pusey's edition of the Greek of Cyril of Alexandria's Works, vol. VI, 
pages 90, 91 : Cyril, Arbp. of Alexandria's Five Book Contradiction of the Blasphemies of Nes. 
torius. Book I. section 10, Π /Atv ΐ]μλ.ν Βιαλί'ώορβ κά ττικρον ο 'Τωζ Ιπιθήστ^ στόμα • 
ovetS:'^etS δέ την σννα-γω/ην Kvptou, κατά τυ γζ/ραμμενον ; αλλ ημύ:• γε, ώ 
ταν, oi θεοτόκον λίγοντίς αυτήν τΐ.θίοτοιήκΛμΐ.ν δέ ου^ίν.χ ττώποτε των 
τελούντων ev κτίσμασι' κατίΐθί,σμίθα δέ Θεόν ειδεναι τον εν/ καΐ φύσει καΐ 
άληθως, Ισμίν δε ανθρωττον ονσ'ΐν καθ ημα.'ς την μικαρίαν τταρθενον. Άλώσι^ 
δε καΧ ουκ εις μακράν, ανθριοττον ήμΐν θεοφόρον άτΓοφίίνον αίτόϊ τον 
'Έιμμανονηλ, καΐ των σων ΐττι^^ειρημάτων την κατάρρησιν ΐπιτίθείς Ιτερω. 



Slander agaimt Cyril and Ephesus 345 



acknowledge as a God [only] the One Who is so both by [His 
Divine] Nature and in reality. And we know that the blessed Vir- 
gin was a htivian being like us.''' 

Here Cyril regards the blessed Virgin merely as "λ human 
being'' and therefore not to be worshipped. And by worshipped 
Cyril means to be bowed to as an act of religious service, and to be 
prayed to or invoked, and to receive other acts of religious service 
as his own language in note 183 again and again shows. And to 
give any act of worship to any human being, even though it 
be Christ's own perfect humanity, is to make that creature a god. 
So he teaches in note 183, pages 79-128, volume I of Ephesus, for 
example, on page 80, where he writes that "το be; bowed to 
[that is "to be worshipped"] befits and is due to the divinb 
AND ineffable natuke ALONE." And in note 582, page 225, of 
the same volume he again writes, ''The right το be bowed to 
[that is, '7i7 be worshipped' ''\ belongs το and befits god alone." 
So Cyril says, on page 83, of that volume, that Nestorius, by giv- 
ing bowing, that is worship, to Christ's humanity, had by that act 
made that man a god, that is by giving him religious bowing, that 
is worship, which is prerogative to God, for he says, that if he 
(Nestorius) ''has made another besides the Word 0/ God [that is] the 
Man conjoined to Him to BE BOWED TO [that is "to be worshipped,'' 
(τΐροσκν\η]τόν)\, by heaven aiid earth and by the things still lower, 

HE HAS, THEREFORE, MADE A GOD OUT OF A MAN, and, aS DO Other 

cavil in the world was left to him, 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 Nestorius charged God with the sin of teachiog in Philip- 
pians 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 
alone. It is noteworthy that the particular acts of worship in the 
passage mentioned are bowing the kriee {"that at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow," Phihp. II, 10). and the giving to a creature, 
Christ's mere humanity, the name of Lord evidently in the sense 
of God, a thing made perfectly clear by the expression in the 



346 Article XIII. 



same passage before "Wherefore also God hath highly exalted 
Him and given Him t/ie name which is above every name (425), that 
is the name of God, of course, and then follows what shows that 
God's name must be meant, for God commands what is explainable 
only on the basis of Christ's being God, that worship by bowing 
the knee shall shall be given to Him," that at [or "f«"] the name 
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in 
earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should 
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father," 
Philippians II, 9, 10, 11, Here is worship commanded by God 
Himself to be given to the Son, by all men and angels by two acts, 
bowi^ig the knee and calling Him by the name of God, the name 
which is above every name. And surely, all that implies that Christ 
is God, for He Himself limits all religious service to God, for He 
commands us all: '^Thou shall bow to [that is *'worship'''\ the Loid 
thy God, and Him. 07ily shall thou serve, ^' Matthew ΙΛ'^, 10. And 
under the Old Testament God said: "/ am Jehovah, that is my 
■name, and my glory will 1 7iot give to a7iother, neither viy praise unto 
graven images,^' Isaiah Xlyll, 8. And these are two favorite texts 
of St. Cyril of Alexandria, quoted by him again and again against 
the Nestorian worship of Christ's humanity, which he brands as 
the sin of ανθρωπολατρίία, that Is the sin of worshipping a human 
being, that is the sin of worshipping Christ's humanity (426). And 
Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews, I; 3, 6, 7, 8, 
proves the divinity of the Son by the fact that He is in verse 3 
''Character of His [the Father's] substa^ice, but also that by the 
Father's command worship is to be given to Him, and because He 

Note 425. — Tischendorf in his Greek New Testament, editio octava critica major, vol. II, 
l,ipsiae, 1872, states that the four oldest Greek manuscripts have the article to, that is, the 
before name in the aboye passage. 

NoTK 426. — See on Hebrews I, 6, and I, 3, in P. E. Pusey's Cyrilli in Joaymis Eva7if;eUuni^ 
volume III, page 671, and in the Oxford English translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the 
Incarnalion against Ncsiorius, pages 890 and 393, only thai the Greek should be consulted 
where P. E. Pusey's faulty training under his father and his leanings affect his rendering 
See also P. E. Pusey's Greek of Cyril's works, vol. VI and VII, Greek Indexes under those 
texts. In Hebrews I, 3, the Orthodox understood the words,• 1ί.αρακΤΎ)ρ της υνοστάσίωζ 
αντον, to mean "Character of His" [the Father's] ''Substance,'" and therefore to mean that 
God the Word is of the same substance as the Father, and hence very and eternal God 
Indeed the Word is expressly called God in verse 8 there in the very same passage, and so 
He is in John 1: 1. 



Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. 347 

is called God. And St. Athanasius and St. Epiphanius, and Faus- 
tin, the Presbyter of Rome, use one or more of those texts also to 
prove Him to be God (427). 

Besides Athanasius' and Epiphanius' testimony against the 
Arian error and sin of worshipping Christ as a created Divinity 
as the Arians did, which is a testimony much more against the 
lower creature worship of his humanity, and much more against 
the worship of all lesser creatures, Mary included, Lucifer, 
Bishop of Cagliari, Faustin the Presbyter, of Rome, and Chroma- 
tins, Bishop of Aquileia, of the fourth century, are equally strong 
against the worship of Christ as a creature, Lucifer branding it 
even as ^^ Arian idolatry.'^ For though idolatry (£Ϊδωλολ'/τρε;'α 
in Greek, from which the word comes) means literally the worship 
of images y nevertheless as invocation of creatures is always associ- 
ated with it, it comes to be deemed an accompanying sin, and is 
itself branded as idolatry; for example Canon XXXV of the local 
Council of Laodicea, which some deem to be made Ecumenical by 
Canon I of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, terms the invocation of 
angels ^'hidden idolatry,'''' and anathematizes every one guilty of it, 
and, of course, by parity of reason, all worshippers of the Virgin 
Mary who do it, and nearly all or all of them do, for it is all the 
same sin of creature worship, and it says of him what here 
follows: 

Canon XXXV of Laodicea. 

"Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away 
and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things have been 
forbidden. If therefore any one be found engaged in that hidden 
idolatry, let him be anathema, for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, and gone over to idolatry." 

All that, of course, implies that at that time there was none 

Note 427,— See in volume I of Nicaea in this set, in the Greek Index under Hebrews I, 6, 
and I, 3, pages 474, 475. See also under those texts in volume I of Ephesus in this set, page 
688. and in volume I of Nicaea, pages 217-255. where Athanasius, Cyril, Faustiu, and Chro- 
matins speak clearly against creature-worship. See further even John Henry Newman's 
Select Treatises of S. Athanasius in Controversy Tvit/i the Arians., page 42.3, note "n."; compare 
note "m" on the same page- Aye. so clear is the matter that even Petavius (Petau), the 
Jesuit, remarkably enough cites Fathers who held that because Christ is worshipped, He 
must be God. See therein note "'n" on the Arians being idolaters. ' 



348 Article XI I L 

of that ^^hidden'' or ^'concealed^* ^Hdolatry'^ of worshipping angels 
in the Church, or that if it existed among any, it was done secretly, 
and was forbidden, and that those guilty of it had to leave the 
Church and to make assemblies outside of it to perpetrate that 
God-angering crime in public. Beveridge puts that Council in 
A. D. 365 or thereabouts. Or the "hidden" may mean only 
that it was a subtle form of idolatry, and therefore "forbidden," 
subtle because the unlearned might not understand it to be 
idolatry. 

Though creature- worshipping heresies had arisen in the 
Church, like, for example, that of Paul of Samosata, in the first 
three centuries, they were speedily repressed and their propaga- 
tors were condemned and expelled from the Church, as he was. 
The ^xsX. great creature- worshipping heresy after that was that of 
Arius, and Athanasius and others of the Orthodox brand it as a 
novelty. To take but one instance out of several: Athanasius in 
sections 8, 9, and 10 of his Discourse I against the Arians, in 
denouncing the novelty and heresy of their assertion that the 
Word of God is a creature, and is to be worshipped as such, writes as 
follows: 

''''For who at a7iy time yet heard of such doctrines? Or whence 
and from whom did the flatterers and bribe-takers of the heresy 
hear such things? When they were being instructed as catechu- 
mens, who talked such things to them? Who has said to them, 
cease to worship the creature, and come a7id again worship a creature 
and a work? But since eve7i they themselves confess that they have 
heard such tlmigs now for the first time, let them not deny that 
that heresy is a thing alien and 7iot from the Fathers. But what is 
not from the Fathers, but has been now invented, what is it but that of 
which the blessed Paul has prophesied in the words: hi the latter 
ti77ies some shall depart from the sotmd faith, givi7ig heed to spirits of 
error, and to doctrines of de77ions, a7id speaki7ig lies in hypocrisy, hav- 
i7ig their own conscie7u:es seared and tur7ii7ig away from the truth, ' * 
I Timothy IV, 1, 2. 

But if the worship of the Virgin had been known then, the 
Arians could have said in reply, We worship Mary, a creature, 
and why not her Son, whom we deem only a higher creature? But 



Slander against Cynl and Ephesus. 349 



they did not, because the worship of Mary, and of other saints and 
angels came in later. 

And St. Athanasius, speaking of all the Orthodox in contra- 
distinction from the Arians, says: "we invoke no creature." 
So that the invocation of Mary and other creatures was unknown 
to him. See the passage in full below. It was then a novelty of 
the Arian heretics, who, however, worshipped only Christ as a 
creature, and no other. 

The Macedonians, a little later, in the fourth century, denied 
the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and, if they worshipped Him as a 
creature, they were on their own theories creature-worshippers. 

But the next great creature worshipping heresy was that of 
Nestorius, which sinned, not in denying worship to, Christ's Div- 
inity, but in giving it to his humanity, a creature, as all admit, 
a mere perfect man. And therefore Cyril brands it as the worship 
of a human being {άνθρωπολ'ίτρίία in Greek). Indeed he brands 
as, in effect, fundamental errors his three great heresies 

1 . his denial of the Incarnation, the root error of all: 

2. his worship oj a human beings and 

3. his Ca7inibalism{^\vQpo)TTo^ayi*) on the Eucharist, not to 
speak of others connected with one or more of them, as is shown 
in Articles VI, VII and VIII above. And no great antiquity 
among the Orthodox could be claimed for those three great her- 
esies; for the first author of them was Diodore, who was Bishop of 
Tarsus about A. D. 378-394, of whom Venables, in his article on 
him \viSmith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, volume 
I. page 838, writes: 

"His rationalizing spirit had led him to express himself on 
the Incarnation in language containing the principles of that her- 
esy afterwards more fully developed by his disciple Theodorus" 
[Theodore of Mopsuestia]. "So that, not without justice, he has 
been deemed to have been the virtual parent of Nestorianism, and 
has been called *« Nestorian before Nestorius.* " 

Theodore of Mopsuestia was one of his pupils and held his 
heresies, and Chrysostom was another, and the opposition of The- 
ophilus of Alexandria and of Cyril to him was probably because 
they deemed him unsound, and it is yet an open question whether 



350 Article XIII. 



he did not adopt some of the creature-worshipping ideas of his 
master. Indeed if a certain passage or passages in his works be 
not interpolations, we must deem him a worshipper of saints, and 
so to have been impliedly condemned by the decisions of the Third 
Council of the whole Church, though not by name, as some others 
were condemned without being named, because they fell under its 
anathemas on all such errors and errorists. 

We see then that the great creature worshipping heresies 
of Arius and of Nestorius either never appeared in the first three 
Christian centuries in the forms broached by them, or if they did 
they made but little impression and soon died out, so that they 
could not abide the test of having been held from the beginning, 
that is ^^ahvays, everyzuliere, and by all'^ And besides they were 
all opposed to the inspired Scriptures, as those Scriptures were 
understood and formulated by the Universal Church in her Six 
sole great Synods. 

But to resume. Cyril continues, in the note matter on page 84, 
volume I of Ephesiis; 

"See now, therefore, O, thou learner of the doctrine of Christ 
where his" [Nestorius'] "reasonings have at last burst forth; and 
in what sort of a sequence the contrivances of that very sheer 
miscouusel have resulted." [These are only a part of the places 
where St. Cyril makes the act of religious service which we call 
bowing prerogative to Almighty God, and where he teaches that 
to give it to a creature, even though that creature be Christ's 
humanity, is to make that creature a God (428). Below, on page 84, 
Cyril again makes bowing to Christ's humanity an act of religious 
service, that is an act of service to ^'that vchich by naiiire is not 
God,'* and therefore sinful, because all religious service is prerog- 
ative to the Triune Jehovah, who alone is by Nature God. Cyril 
seems also to have in mind what Paul writes to some who had 



Note 428. — And against that error of making a god out of Christ's humanity by worship- 
ping it, Cyril again and again quotes the version of the Psalms used by him, the Septuagint 
Greek, which reads in Psalm I^XXX, 9, (Psalm Ι,ΧΧΧΙ, 9, of our version): '■'Theie shall be no 
new god in thee, 7ieither shall ihoji worship a strange god." See in proof volume I of Chrss- 
tal's Ephesus, page 677, under Psalm Ι,ΧΧΧ, 9, Sept. and Ι,ΧΧΧΙ 9, of our own English Ver- 
sion. It is one of Cyril's three favorite texts against the worship of Christ's humanity, the 
other's being Matt, IV, 10, and Isaiah XI<II, 8. He cites others also. 



Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. 351 

been pagans. *' Howbeit then when ye knew not God, ye did service 
U7ito the7n which by nature are no gods,'" Galatians V, 8. But we 
Christians give no act of religious service to any but Him who is 
God by nature. This is a vast and fundamental difference 
between the Christianity of the Six Ecumenical Councils and all 
creature-worshipping systems, be the}^ called Christian or be they 
pagan. On page 85, Cyril again insists that the Nestorian sense 
of bowing the knee at the name of Christ's mere humanit3\ and 
the applying to that creature the name Lord in the sense of God 
in Philippians II, 9, 10, and 11 is a making of that creature God. 
For he says, 

"Therefore if he" [Christ's mere humanity] "is not God by 
nature, and He" [the Father, in Philip. II, 9, 10 and 11] "says 
that because of his" [that Man's] "having a relative" [mere exter- 
nal] "conjunction (429), I mean to the Word who has come out of 
God, he" [that Man] "is TO Ββ bowed To (430)" [that is ''wor- 
shipped] '''both by cnirselves and by the holy angels, what sort of glory 
has been invented theyi by the Father that TiiE creature" [Nes- 
torius' mere human Christ] ''should be made a god along with 
Himself iA^\). And" [it will follow that] "He" [the Father] 
"has been aggrieved without any cause at some for doi?ig that thing''' 
[of worshipping a creature] . ' 'And if that thing were to Nii ' [the 
Father's] "glory, why should we not deem those who have chosen 
to do that thing worthy of recoinpense and praise a?id glory?' ' Here 
Cyril plainly teaches that to give a creature, even Christ's human- 
ity, the highest of all mere creatures, the act of bowing the knee, 
a thing done by Romanists, Greeks, Monophysites, and Nes- 
torians to the Virgin Mary and other saints and angels, or to give 
to Christ's humanity the name Lord in the sense of God is to 
make that creature a God. 

On pages 86 and 87 Cyril writing on God the Word and His 
humanity teaches that to give an act of worship to a creature, or 
to give a name of God to a creature is to "out and out insult ' ' God, 

Note 429.— Greek, δια σννάφ€ίαν δε σχΐΤίκην. 

Note 430.— Greek ιτροσκυνύσθαι. 

Note 431. —Greek τα θίοττοΐίίσθ'η συν αύτ« την KTtViv. 



352 Article XII ί. 

"by dragging down His better Nature'' [that is, His Divinity] ' ijito 
disho7ior. ' ' 

And on page 88 he again refers to Nestorius' acts of worship, 
bowing, bending the knee, and applying an}^ of God's names to a 
creature, even to Christ's perfect humanity, as resulting in mak- 
ing that creature a god. I quote, 

"But now abandoning that [the Substance Union and the 
reality of the Inflesh of God the Word] and falliJig away from the 
road to what is right he 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." 

On page 89 he tells us that Nestorius ''adds a bowed to [that is 
a zvorshipped~\ Man to the Holy and Co7isubstantial Trinity^ and is not 
ashamed'' Άπά that he called that Man, "by 7'eason of" his "con- 
junction'^ with the Word, "Almighty God," and so turned the 
Trinity into a Tetrad, that is into a Quaternity. And so Cyril 
teaches in two other passages in the same note and context, pages 
89-94. But the Romanists, who join Mary and Joseph with 
Jesus in prayer in their popular devotions, really by that act make 
five persons, a worshipped Quintet, a Five, instead of the Three 
Consubstantial Persons of the Trinity. That is shown on pages 
222-225, volume I of Nicaea in this set, where on page 223, the 
great Athanasius teaches on Genesis XL VHI, 15, 16, that if any 
man invokes an angel with God he rejects God, and that the Father 
gives all things "through the So7i," not through any creature, and 
hence not, of course, through, Mary, and that "the A7igel" of 
verse 16 there must therefore be understood of God the Word, 
and on page 222 of that volume I of Nicaea, he ascribes the crea- 
ture worship of the Arians to the Devil, and so says of them "that 
^.?z>z^ ^n«?z5, THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS." And Cyril of Alex- 
andria in the third of his Ecumenically approved Epistles, which 
was addressed to John of Antioch, professes to follow Athanasius' 
doctrines in all things. See that Epistle elsewhere and all passages 
of Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc., on pages 217-255 vol. I, Nicaea. 

On page 91, Cyril states that Nestorius by giving acts of wor- 
ship to Christ's humanity, a mere creature, had "exhibited" him 



Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. 353 



''to 7CS as a new God {ιτρόσφατος ©eos, Psalm LXXX, 9, Sept.) as a 
a sort of Fourth Person after the Holy Trinity:' He adds, ''Hast 
thou not shuddered [at the thought of worshipping] a common Man 
when thou contrivedst the worship to that creatiiref Are we then held 
fast in the ancient snares [of creature worship]? Has the holy multi- 
tude of the spirits above bce?i deceived with us, and has it given 
drunkards' iyisults to GodT' [The reference is to Hebrews I, 6 
where we read, "Arid again whe7i He [the Father] bringeth iri the 
First-Brought Forth into the hihabited world He saith, arid, let all the 
angels 0/ God bow to [that is "worship"^ Him,'' which the Nes- 
torians so outrageously perverted as to insult God by making 
Him command the sin of worshipping a creature, their mere 
human Christ; whereas Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council 
and all the really Orthodox held that the worship there done was 
to God the Word alone, in strict accordance with Christ's com- 
mand in Matt. IV, 10, "Thou shall bow to the Lord thy God, and 
Him ojily shalt thou serve. ' ' 

Further on, "on page 92, Cyril states that the result of giving 
bowing and other acts of relative worship to the Man put on by 
God the Word in Mary's womb, was a return to creature worship, 
a sin of paganism. I quote Cyril's words to Nestorius on that: 

"Since we have becji ransomed from the aiidcnt 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 WOR- 
SHIPPERS OP A HUMAN being" [that is of a mere human Christ]. 
And again in another passage against Tetradism, on the 
same page 92, St. Cyril teaches that to give any act of religious 
service to Christ's mere humanity, all there was of Nestorius' 
Christ, ended in believing "that a recent and late god has 
appeared to the world, and tliat he has the glory of a Sonship which has 
been acquired from, without as ours also has, and that he glories in cer- 
tain adulterous qtiasi honors, so that it is now the worship of a Man 
and nothing else, arid a certairi Man is adored with the Holy Trinity 
as well by us as by the holy angels [the reference to angels being to 
Heb. I, 6, "And whe?i He [the Father] bri?igeth the First Brought 
Forth into the inhabited world He saith, And let all God' s arigels 



354 Article XIII. 

bow ίο I'lim;'^ that is worship Him, which Nestorius and his 
partisans perverted into a command to worship Christ's human- 
ity, whereas, as St. Cyril rightly reaches, in accordance witli 
Matt. IV, 10, Colossians II, 18, Revelations XIX, 10, and Rev. 
XXII, 8, 9, it is a command to worship God the Word, not a 
creature.] 

And on page 94, Cyril writing against Diodore of Tarsus, the 
founder of Nestorianism, tells him in effect, that his worship of a 
creature, Christ's mere humanity, had resulted in making that 
creature a god. I quote: 

"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 superior 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 toward the end [of his earthly career] got posses- 
sion of glory and was made A complement of The Trinity and 

IN NATURE EOUAI, TO IT." 

Every one who commits that Nestorian co-worship of Christ's 
humanity with his Divinity is anathematized by Anathema VIII 
in Cj'ril's I,ong Epistle to Nestorius, which is approved by the 
Third Synod and the three after it (432). Surely, then, from the 
foregoing it is plain 

1), that St. Cyril held that bowing, and by necessary implica- 
tion every other act of religions service are prerogative to the 
Triune Jehovah, 

and, 2, that to give bowing or any other act of religious 
service to a creature, even though it be Christ's humanity the 
highest of all mere creatures, is to make that creature a god, that 
is to deify it; and so for the same reason (pari ratione) to give 
bowing, prayer, or any other act of religious service to the Virgin 

Note 432. — See in this work above, pages 85-116, and indeed all of Article II of which 
those pages form part; Article III, Articles IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, and XII. 



Slayider against Cyril a7id Ephesus. 355 

Mary is, of course, to deify her. In other words, he held, on pray- 
ers to saints, like Bishop Fell, whom the Benedictine editors of 
Cyprian well spoke of as ''the viost illustrious Bishop of Oxford," 
that ^ 'He who petitions them^^ \sai7its^ ''makes them gods'' (Deos qui 
rogat ille facit); see his language quoted, page 1 66 of Tyler's excel- 
lent Primitive Christia7i Worship, published by the Christian 
Knowledge Society. 

And his argument that to give worship to any one is to make 
him God, ox "a god" is that of Paul in Hebrewsl,6, where he proves 
that the Son must be God, because the Father commanded the 
angels to bow to, that is worship Him. See all the passages on 
that verse, which are referred to on page 688, volume I of 
Ephesus in this Set, and especially the following passages of, St. 
Athanasius in Chrystal's translation of volume I of A^icaea, namely 
Passage 9 on pages 232-235, where he uses that verse and that 
argument against the Arians to prove that the Word must be God. 
Compare passages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 from 
him in the contexts there. So St. Epiphanius uses it in Passage 
14, pages 240: and in Passage 15, pages 241, 242; Passage 16, 
pages 242, 243: Passage 17, pages 243, 244; and in Passage 18, 
pages 244-247, he contends that the Son is proved to be God 
because bowings that is worship, being confined to Divinity and 
prerogative to God by God's Word, and the Son being worshipped 
in it, therefore He must be God. To that effect he quotes Christ's 
words in Matthew IV, 10. And Passage 18 is full against all 
creature worship. I have space here to quote in full none of the 
Passages, but would exhoit the reader who would know the strong 
and clear witness of the greatest writers in the ancient Church for 
the worship of God alone to read all of Athanasius' thirteen Pas- 
sages there on pages 217-240, where he shows his entire detes- 
tation of creature worship, not only of bowing but also of prayer 
to any creature, for example in Passage 13 from him, he gives as a 
reason for the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation of the suffer- 
ings of the Son's humanity to God the Word that we may not fall 
into the sin of service to creatures, which, of course, would be 
contrary to Christ's plain command in Matthew IV, 10: I quote part 
of this glorious passage, on page 238, for I have not room for it all; 



356 Ariicle XIII. 

"For this cause therefore, consistently and fittingly such suf- 
ferings are ascribed not to another but to the Lord; that the 
grace may be from Him, and that we viay 7iot become servers of 
another but truly worshippers of God, bcca^ise WB invoke no crea- 
ture nor any common Man, but Him who has come out of God 
by Nature and is the very Son, even that very one become man, 
but yet nothing less the Lord Himself and God and Saviour." 

This Passage is approved by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his 
defence of his Anathema XII against the creature-invoking Nes- 
torian Orientals. 

But the proof of Cyril's Elijah-like loyalty to the worship of 
God alone, and his abomination of all creature-worship is so 
abundant in his own genuine writings and acts that it would fill a 
goodly portion of a small volume, and we can not therefore quote 
it all here. But we must not, however, fail to call the learned 
reader's attention to the following places in volume I of Chrys- 
tal's translation of Ephesus, which we beg him to read that he may 
be made stronger in his attachment to Christ's law in Matthew 
IV, 10, and in his Orthodox witness against the worship of the 
Virgin Mary and of all other creatures; namely, the note matter 
on pages 94, and 338-340, where under 20 heads the strong tes- 
timony of Cyril against even the worship of Christ's humanity is 
summarized, to some extent even in his own words and wholly in 
their sense. And all that by necessary inclusion is much more 
against the worship of Mary and of any other creature. 

And so, therefore, Cyril of Alexandria, who, as we see above 
and in the references to his works there, rejected the Nestorian 
worship even of Christ's humanity and all worship of anything 
but God, certainly did not worship the Virgin Mary or any other 
creature (433). No genuine writing of Cyril contains any worship 

Note 433.— See Cyril's Epistle XVI, (aU XIV), column 104, tome LXXVII of Migne's 
Patrologta Graica, where, speaking of Kestoriiis, Cyril writes: Kat τοσούτον άπίσχί του 
OeXeiv τοις rrjs άληθίίας ϋττίσθαι δ"γ/χασιν, ώστε και επιστολών ά7Γοστ€Ϊλαι 
7Γρ''5 μ-ί /><•ε^' νπο-γραφης ίδιας, iv y καΧ ίπίπληττα /u.€v, ώς λνπονμ€νο<:, 
Βίωμολόγηκε δέ σαφώς, Θε^τόκον dveiv μη είναι την άγίαν ΤΙαρθίνον' δττερ 
€στιν εναργώς εΐπεΐν, μη eivat ©eov άληθω<; τον Έιμμανονηλ, εφ' ω τας σωτηρίους 
ίχομίν ελπίδας. 



Slayider against Cyril and Ephestis. 357 

of the Bringer Forth of God. In volume II of Ephesus in this set 
on pages 29-39, I have shown that document VII there is spurious 
and contains even worse creature worship than Nestorianism 
itself. And, as we see above, Cyril, who anathematizes in his 
Anathema VIII every one who co-worships even Christ's human- 
ity with God the Word much more anathematizes any one who 
worships any lesser creature, be it the Virgin Mary or any saint 
or any angel. And that utterance of Cyril is approved by Ephesus 
fully. But why then did he insist so much on the terra ©cotokos, 
that is Bringer Forth of God, and why did the"i?w<?, holy, universal, 
and apostolic Church'^ of God approve and authorize that expres- 
sion? 

I answer, for two great reasons, 

1 . to guard the fundamental and absolutely essemtial and 
scriptural truth of the Incarnation, without belief in which no one 
can be saved. Every Orthodox Trinitarian Protestant holds to 
the doctrine of the Incarnation, and so believes tl^at the Virgin 
Mary brought forth God the Word in flesh, and therefore neces- 
sarily believes that she was the Bringer Forth of God {βίοτ6κο<;), 
though he may or may not know the expression. And we cannot 
reject the expression in that sense without making Christ a mere 
man, and all our worship of him mere worship of a human beiiig 
(άνθρωπί'λατρίία) , and an apostasy from Christianity, and a 
going over therefore to a sin of creature worship, and so incurring 
the deposition by the Third Synod of the whole Church pro- 
nounced on clerics for that sin, or excommunication if we be laics. 
Besides Rome and the Greeks might justly retort on us when we 
charge them with that sin that we ourselves are guilty of that 
form of it which is condemned by Ephesus. We should indeed 
not dwell unduly on that term but still admit and use it at proper 
times, and continue as we do now to teach the doctrine expressed 
by it. But we should never use the expression Mother of God, for 
it is not used at all in any utterance of the Council in any of its 
Acts. And it is not so strong and definite as the expression 
Bringer Forth of God, for we call a stepmother mother, though she 
did not bring forth the step-children who so address her. 

The same Cyril of Alexandria in an Epistle to Juvenal, Bishop 



35§ Article XIII. 



of Jerusalem, written after he had received the Epistle of Nes- 
torius to himself, which was afterward condemned by vote in 
Act I of the Third Ecumenical Council, states of it that Nestorius 
over his own signature in it denies that the Virgin Mary was the 
Bringer Forth of God (©cotokos) ''which," he well adds, "is 
plainly to say that the Emmanuel is not really God, on Whom our 
hopes of salvation depend" (434). That forms an all sufficient 
leason for retaining the Ecumenically approved expression not to 
her but of her to guard the verity of the Inflesh and Inman of God 
the Word. 

Moreover, as to the Scripturalness of the expression, Cyril in 
his Quod Umis sit Ckrishis, that Christ is 07ie, column 1257, tome 
LXXV of Migne's Patrologia Graeca proves against Nestorius that 
the Virgin Mary is Bri7iger Forth of God, %ίοτόκο% in Greek, 
because she brought forth in flesh Him who is called Emmariuel^ 
that is God with us, and he quotes that expression from Matthew 
I, 23. It is there said in Migne that Nestorius would call her 
only Χριστοτόκον and άνθρω-οτόκον, that is Bri^iger Forth of the 
Anoiyited One and Bringer Forth of a Ma7i. He would prefer 
those expressions to avoid confessing the Incarnation. 

And 2, Cyril uses the expression, Briyiger Forth of God, not 
to worship Mary, but to guard against what he again and 
again calls *7Λ<? worship of a human being''* {άνθρωπολατρίία), for 
Nestorius' denial of the Inflesh and the Inman of God the 
Word in Mary's womb, made His Christ, as a necessary and 
logical sequence, a mere Man, and of course all worship of him 
was mere worship of a humayi being, as Cyril repeatedly charges, 
and as the Third Council held and formulated, 

(A). By condemning Nestorius' Epistle to Cyril, and his XX 
Blasphemies, which contain both those soul-damning heresies, that 
is, first, his denial of the Incarnation, and, second, his worship of 
Christ's humanity. See in proof volume I of Ephesus in this Set, 
pages 154-178, for the former, and pages 449-480 for the latter: 

(B). By approving Cyril's two Epistles to Nestorius, the 
Shorter and the Longer, which is not merely Cyril's, but Syn- 
odal, both which condemn those denials of fundamental New 

Note 434.— See page 356, note 433. 



Slander against Cyril and Ephestis. 359 

Testament truths. See in proof for the former, the same vol- 
ume, pages 52-154, and for the latter, pages 204-358: 

(C). By deposing Nestorius himself for the two heresies 
aforesaid, including under the second his relative worship of 
Christ's humanity, and thirdly, for ανθρωποφαγία, that is for 
his Cannibalism on the Eucharist, as Cyril calls it, and fourthly, for 
his denial of the Church's doctrine of the Economic Appropriation 
of the sufferings of the Man to God the Word, which was put 
forth by Cyril and Ephesus to guard against even the worship of 
Christ's humanity. See above: 

And (D). by deposing in its Canon VI every Bishop and 
cleric, and by anathematizing and excommunicating every laic 
who tries to unsettle any of its decisions: 

And (E). The Third Ecumenical Synod and Cyril, its leader 
under God, who so enacted against every Nestorian guilty of 
worshipping Christ's humanity, much more, anticipatively, deposed 
by necessary logical inclusion all Bishops and clerics guilty of 
the worse creature worship of invoking the Virgin Mary or giving 
her any other act of worship, and excommunicated every laic 
guilty of the same sin. And so has the whole Church East and 
West by logical inclusion and sequence forbidden in those enact- 
ments all creature worship of any kind and all worship of images 
pictured and graven, all crosses and relics and every thing else 
material. And those utterances of the Holy Ghost including that 
Canon VI and its penalties, through the "(?«<?, holy, 2iniversal, a^id 
apostolic Church,'' though forgotten by most in the middle ages, 
will stand forever, for God is with them; and every error con- 
demned by them will perish forever. 

It is true indeed that Nestorius perceived that Christ's 
humanity not being God, but a creature, could not, by Matthew 
IV, 10, be worshipped absolutely, that is for its own sake; but he 
fell back on the pagan plea of relative worship, that is the worship 
of it for the sake of God the Word, the plea, in effect, of the 
Israelites for their worship of Jehovah through the golden calf in 
the wilderness, and through the calf of Jeroboam at Bethel, and 
through that at Dan, and hence he said in the 8th of his Twenty 
Blasphemies: 



36ο Ariide XIII. 



"/ worship him'' [the Man, that is Christ's humanity] ''who 
is worn for the sake of Him'' ' \_God the Word'\ ''who is hidde^i.'"' 

Nestorius again teaches the relative worship of Christ's 
humanity in his Blasphemies 10, and 14, Q^irysX-aX s Ephesus^ vol- 
ume I, pages 464, 466; and 467, and co-calls him God with the 
Word, which, of course, is in itself an act of worship, in his Blas- 
phemies 5, 6, 7, 14; pages 459, 460, 467, of the same volume. And 
he taught the co-glorifying of the Man with God the Word in his 
Blasphemies 13, and 15, pages 466, 468, and 469. 

And all who assert that these acts of worship ought to be 
done to Christ's humanity are anathematized in Cyril of Alexan- 
dria's Anathema VIII which, with the Epistle in which it stands, 
was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council and by all the 
Three Ecumenical Synods after it, as is shown in volume I of 
Ephesus in this Set, note 520, pages 205-208. 

We see then as to the worship of Mary: 

1 . It is forbidden by Cyril of Alexandria, and even the wor- 
ship of Christ's humanity. For Cyril bases the condemnation of 
the Nestorian worship of that humanity on the ground that it is 
the worship of a creature, contrary to his favorite texts. Matt. IV, 
10, Isaiah XLH, 8, and Psalm EXXXI, 9; and of course the same 
argument condemns much more the worship of Mary and of every 
other creature. 

2. Every one guilty of the worship of Christ's humanity is 
deposed if he be a Bishop or a cleric, and excommunicated if he or 
she be a laic; and these penalties, of course, apply to all who 
worship any lesser creature, be it the Virgin Mary, or any other 
saint or angel, and much more to all worshippers of images 
painted or graven, to a cross pictured or graven, and all who bow 
to the altar or to any thing but God, to whom all worship is due 
and prerogative. 

And all these doctrines of Cyril, approved at Ephesus by the 
whole Church of Christ, are in strict accordance with the new Tes- 
tament, from which they are derived. 

For 1), God alone is to be worshipped, Matthew IV, 10, and 
God the Word is a part of the Triune Jehovah: 

and 2), Christ is the sole God-appointed Intercessor in 



Slander against Cyril aiid Ephesus. 361 

heaven, I Timothy II, 5. And his intercessory work is a part of 
his prerogative Mediatorial Office, and is just as prerogative to 
Him as the sacrificial part of it is. And He is the all-sufficient 
Intercessor there. So that with Paul, the inspired Apostle, we 
may well say, as God's elect: 

"If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared 
not his own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He 
not with Him freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing 
to the charge of God's elect? God is the Justifier. Who is the 
condemner? Christ is the One who died, aye more, who hath also 
risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also mak- 
eth intercession for us," Romans VIII, 31-35: see here how the 
parts of His Mediatorial work are combined, his death, his resur- 
rection, and his oflSce of intercession for us at His Father's right 
hand. 

And John writes: "My little children, these things write I 
unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advo- 
cate 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," I John II, 1.2. Here again we see 
combined in their proper relation Christ's Propitiatory one offer- 
ing offered once for all, for the sins of the whole world, and his In- 
tercessory work above, his advocacy for us all at the right hand 
of the Father. Compare note 326, page 286 above. 

And blessed be God, Christ's intercessory work is all suffi- 
cient. He needs no creature's help. For, on that point and on 
the duration of his High Priestly work of intercession the inspired 
Paul writes: 

"They" [the Aaronic priests] "truly were many priests, 
because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. 
But this Priest because he continueth ever, hath the unchangeable 
priesthood. Wherefore also He is able to save them to the utteymost 
that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession 
for them;' Hebrews VII, 23, 24. 25. 

The Aaronic high priest, Christ's foretype on the annual day 
of atonement for the sins of all Israel, did three things: 

1). he entered in alone into the most holy place, and that 



362 Article XIII. 

(2). not without blood which he was to offer for the sins of 
the people, and 

(3). he alone was to intercede for them there. 

No man could be there to share any part of his offering or 
intercession there. 

And Paul in Hebrews IX, 1-28 inclusive, and in VII, 19-28, 
and X, and the contexts, shows how all those parts are more 
than fulfilled in Christ's one sacrifice for sins forever, and in his 
intercessory work above. Compare note 326, page 2S6 above. 

He alone redeemed us by His blood. He alone intercedes for 
us above. Here we may intercede for each other, but not there. 
There, as we see in the Revelations, we praise. Here we pray 
as well as praise. 

The only thing that we read of in the Revelations as uttered 
by even the martyrs is not a prayer of intercession for mercy to 
men, but an inquiry regarding the time when God will avenge 
the blood of those who were slain for the Word of God and for 
the testimony which they held, (Rev. VI, 9, 10 and 1 1). 

Neither the Virgin Mary, any other saint in heaven, or any 
angel can share the performing of Christ's one offering for sins on 
the cross, or His Intercession above. They can no more do one 
than they can the other, and it is blasphemy to assert that any of 
them can do either, for both are prerogative to Christ. And 
Augustine, or a passage attributed to him, well says therefore 
in a note on the Sixty-fourth Psalm regarding Christ what here 
follows: 

"He Himself is the Priest who has now entered within the 
veil. He alone of those who have worn flesh intercedes for us 
THERE. As a figure of which thing among that first people and 
in that first temple one priest was entering into the Holy of 
Holies, whilst all the people were standing without." 

See more fully on this passage in the note on page 369, vol- 
ume I of Ephesus in this set. I would add that much more may 
be found on Christ's intercessory work in note 688, pages 363-406, 
volume I of Ephesus. See there therefore. 



363 



ARTICLE XIV. 

St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin 
Mary, as Expressed in his Article on the Heresy of the 
Antidicomarianites, and on That of the Collyridians. 

St. Epiphanius, a noble and orthodox writer, one of God's 
champions against the Arian worship of creatures, who tore up a 
veil in a church at Anablatha in Palestine because it had painted 
on it an image of Christ or some saint, (see Tyler c^/ Image Wor- 
ship, page 165), the first image of which we read as in use in any 
Christian Church, has left us the ablest work against the Heresies 
of his time and before that we possess. It contains, among other 
things, two refutations of different heresies on the Virgin, the 
first against the A?itidicomariaJiiies, that is against those who deny 
her perpetual virginity, and the second against a sect which intro- 
duced her worship, who were called Collyridiaiis, that is Little• 
Loaf-lies, because they offered a little loaf of bread to her. 

His doctrine of the ever-virginity of Mary is sanctioned by the 
Universal Church in the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Synod, and in its Anathemas II, VI, and XIV. He does not set 
forth that doctrine to induce men to worship her. On the contrary, 
in those two articles he condemns that worship in the strongest 
terms. His aim is only to forbid what he deems such uncalled for 
and unscriptural language concerning her as to be abusive, and as 
to some extent reflecting on Christ, as though others had lain in 
the womb in which He lay, and as though Joseph, after Christ's 
birth, had destroyed the virginity of her whom the Father had 
used as the blessed avioiig women (Luke I, 28), in whom His own 
Eternal Logos was to put on flesh. For unless Scripture is clear 
that she had other children, (and all admit that it is not), it seems 
most reverent to God the Word to believe that other sons did not 
take flesh from her, and that the vessel in whom God lay was not 
used for sexual purposes by man. The learned Anglican anti- 
creature-worshipping Bishop Pearson, on the Creed, Article III, 
Born of the Virgin Mary^ (pages 263-269 of Appleton's New York 
edition of 1853), argues for her ever-virginity with much force 



364 Article XIV. 



and power. The subject, however, as being merely subsidiary to 
the greater theme of Christ, should never be mentioned to the 
detriment of His law that God alone is to be worshipped (Matt. 
IV, 10), and to the misleading the ignorant to suppose that either 
Epiphanius, or the Universal Church in its Ecumenical Synods 
has ever done otherwise than condemn the worship of her. For 
because we speak well of all God's saints it is not to be supposed 
that we worship any of them, or any body but God. She should 
therefore be rarely referred to, but the Trinity should always. 
For God alone is to be glorified. 

Epiphanius, according to Murdock's Mosheim's Ecclesiadical 
History, volume I, page 242, note 18, is thus described, 

"Epiphanius, of Jewish extract, was born at Bezanduca, a 
village near Eleutheropolis, some twenty miles from Jerusalem, 
about the year 310. He became a monk in early life, visited 
Egypt, fell into the toils of the Gnostics, escaped, was intimate 
with St. Antony, and returning to Palestine in his twentieth 
year, about 330, became a disciple of Hilarion, established a mon- 
astery near his native village, called Ancient Ad, where he lived 
more than thirty years. He read much and was ordained a pres- 
byter over his monastery. In the year 367, he was made Arch- 
bishop of Constantia (formerly Salamis) in Cyprus, but still lived 
by monastic rules. He engaged in all the controversies of the 
times, was an active and popular Bishop, for thirty-six years, and 
regarded as a great saint and worker of miracles." 

He therefore lived in the pure Ante-Nicene period. With his 
friends Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and Jerome, and others, 
he stoutly opposed the errors of Origen and his partisans Chrysos- 
tom and Rufinus, and so prepared the way for Origen's condemna- 
tion by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 553, in its Anathema 
XI, where his partisans are also anathematized with him (435). 

His Panario7i, or Medicine Chest, written about A. D. 374-377, 

Note 435. — Jerome in his book to Pammachius against John of Jerusalem details the 
errors of Origen. See them in note 1, page 323, volume I. Smith's Gieselo's Church History. 
On the other hand Pamphilns presbyter of Caesarea, defends him in his Apology: see note 
15 page 222 223 of the same volume But as we have saia elsewhere, the one, holy, univer- 
sal and apostolic Church' in its Fifth Synod II. Constantinople, A. D. 553. settled all ques- 
tions as to Origen's errors by anathematizing him, his partisans, and all who will aot anath* 
ematize him. See in proof its Anathema XI . 



St. Epiphanius agai7ist the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 365 



describes eighty Heresies. Heresy LXXVIII is that of the Aiiti- 
dicomarianiieSy in which Epiphanius contends for her ever- 
virginity against those who held the view that after Christ's birth 
she lived with Joseph in marriage, and against those who main- 
tained that she had other children by him after Christ. 

In Heresy LXXIX he turns to an opposite party, who had 
brought her worship into the Church, and uses such strong lan- 
guage against them as to delight the heart of every Orthodox 
Christian. For he maintains in its full strength and glory Christ's 
glorious law: Thou shall worship the Lord thy God and Him only 
^halt thou serve'' (Alatthew IV, 10). 

And two vastly important facts in this connection are: 

1. that assuming the date set by Professor Lipsius for the 
work Against all Heresies, the Panarion, "374 to 376 or 377, 
A. D.," (436), it must have been written at the latest about 54 
years before the Third Ecumenical Council met; and 

2. As Epiphanius stood very high both in his own day and 
in the times following for Orthodoxy and had a great influence 
among all, because his great work was deemed a sort of guide 
a,<jainst heresies, his teaching seems to have largely moulded the 
minds of the Bishops who met at Ephesus in A. D. 431, and 
strengthened them in their New Testament abhorrence of wor- 
shipping any creature. 

I quote first a part of section 22 and all of sections 23 and 24, 
Heresy LXXVIII, which concludes his article on it. It forms a 
part of an Epistle written by Epiphanius to the Orthodox priests aiid 
laics ayid catcchumc7is ΐ7ΐ Arabia.' ' 

It is preceded in his work by the following summary of that 
Heresy LXXVIII: 

"The Antidicomarianites, [that is as tbe word means, "The 
opponents of Mary' Ύ' who assert that the holy Mary, the ever- 
virgin, had sexual intercourse with Joseph after she had brought 
forth the Saviour" (437). 

Epiphanius begins by grieving over the errors which had 

Note 436. — See his article on Epiphanius, in the outer column of page 149, volume II of 
Smith and IVace's Dictionary of Christian Biography. 

Note 437.— Dindorf s Epiphanius. volume III, page 454. 



366 Article XIV. 

risen and were troubling the Church, and warning against them, 
that of the Antidicomarianites among them, and giving his 
reasons for believing in her ever-virginity, and further on comes 
to the Heresy of worshipping her, and its advocates, the Collyrid- 
ians, of whom, however, he treats more fully in Heresy LXXIX, 
which next follows this of the Antidicomarianites, from which we 
are here to quote. He considers those two ideas and parties to 
represent two extremes to be avoided. In other words, he would 
oppose the Antidicomarianites because they held that Mary had 
lived with Joseph after Christ's birth, as his wife, and the CoUy- 
rydians because they worshipped her. 

And at the end of section 22 and to the end on the Antidico- 
marianites. warning against going to what he deems extremes of 
opinion regarding the Virgin he writes: 

* '22 ... Let us therefore be on our guard lest the too exces- 
sive praise of the Virgin become to any one another stumbling 
block of delusion (438). 

23. For some "[the Arians]" in blaspheming against the 
Son, as I have shewn above, have striven to make Him alien in 
Nature to the divinity of the Father; while others "[the Sabel- 
lians]" on the contrary who think otherwise, as if moved to 
honor Him the more forsooth, have said that the Father, and the 
Son and the Holy Ghost are the same [Person] , and the plague of 
both those parties is incurable (439)." 

And now without any break he comes to speak more at length 
of the difEerence between the two opposing parties on the Virgin. 
And this I quote for its description of the origin and Mary wor- 
ship of the CoUyridians: 

"So concerning that holy and blessed ever-Virgin" [Mary] 
"some" [the Antidicomarianites] "have dared to utter abusive 

Note 438. — Epiphamus Against Heresies, Heresy LXXVIII, the Antidicomarianites 
section 22, page 523, volume III of DindorPs Epiphanius: Ασφαλισωμεθα oiV μη ττως 
το ττερισσοτψωζ Ιγκωμιάσαί την παρθΐνον "γίνηταί tlvi ets άλλο ~ρόσκομμα 

φαντασία? . 

Note 439. — Dindorf's Epiphanii Episcopi Constantiae opera, volume III, Pars I, page 454 : 
έ'στι δε toTs μίρΐ,σιν άμφοτεροΐζ ανίατος η ττΧη-γη. Wc men who have fallen into the 
sin of worshipping Mary are very difficult to cure. 



Si. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 367 

language, as though she had fleshly intercourse" [with Joseph] 
"after that greatest and pure Economy of the Lord, his Incarna- 
tion and advent. And that is a most impious thing of all wicked- 
ness (440). And as we say that some have so dared to teach 

• 

Note 440. — Epiphanius is strongs on that point, and the ever-virginity of Mary is 
afflrmed, as we have said, in the Definition of the rifth Ecumenical Council, aiid in its chap- 
ters or Anathemas II, VI, and XIV. And it is wisest to let it stand and not contradict it, for 
it seems most reverent to believe that the mother of Christ's humanity and Bringer Forth of 
God never had sexual intercourse after that, though certain texts are thought by many to 
admit the contrary view. 

And Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, A. D. .371-379, or a sermon attrib- 
uted to him, throws doubt on Mary's ever-virginity; for he writes: 

"The Scripture says, 'He [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her son, the frst 
born' " [or "the First Brought Forth'', Matthew I, '^5], 

"But that expression at once causes a suspicion that after she had done her service 
purely in bringing forth the I<ord, which birth was accomplished by the Holy Ghost, Mary 
did not refuse the usual works of marriage. And we" [so hold] "since also no pollution is 
wrought to the matter of piety; for virginity was necessary till she had done her ser\-ice in 
the Economy" [by giving birth to God the Word,], "but as to what occurred afterwards, we 
leave it, by reason of the Mystery, without too curious inquiring into it; nevertheless 
because the ears of those who love Christ will not suffer it that the Bringer Forth of God at 
any time ceased to be a Virgin, we deem these testimonies sufllcient of themselves," etc. 

The Greek, Professor Contogonis, refers to the Anglican Cave as throwing doubt on the 
above Homily of Basil, but refutes one of three arguments of Cave on the matter. His ref- 
erence to Cave is "G. Cave Script. Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria, page 155." The title of 
this Sermon of Basil is '■'On the holy Birth of Christ.'^ 

On it Contogonis remarks: 

"The critic Cave thinks this Homily to be either a spurious writing of Basil, or as very 
much adulterated in many matters for the following reasons: 

(a), because the writer uses the expression Bringer Forth of God (Θε"Τ0Κ05), 
which in the Fathers of the Church became most common after the rise of the heresy of Nes- 
torius (though it can not be denied that Athanasius had used the expression in his Fourth 
Book against the Arians)." I would add that Sophocles in his "Greek Lexicon of the Roman 
and Byzantine Periods (from B. C. 14G to A. D. 1100)," under ®ίθΤΟΚΟ<; cites instances 
of its use from Origen of tbe third century: (the dates of the others I give from Sophocles 
i.iough he may not always be exact); Methodius, A. D.31'2; Peter of Alexandria, A. D, 304; 
Eusebius, Julian the Emperor, A. D. 363; Athanasius, A. D. 373; Cyril of Jerusalem, 
A. D. 386; Gregory of Nazianzus, A. D. 390; Gregory of Nyssa, A. D. .394; Philon of Carpasia, 
A. D. 405 +; Theodore of Mopsuestia, A. D. 429; Socrates, A. D. 439; Cyril of Alexandria, A. D. 
444; Leontius of Byzantium, A. D. 610; and Modestus of Jerusalem, A D. 614. Some of those 
writers, as we see, were before Basil, and still more were before the rise of the Nestorian 
controversy, about A. D. 427, and therefore the objection that Basil could not h«ve used tbe 
expression because he wrote before it is utterly baseless. 

We go on to the next objection of Cave to the genuineness of this Homily. Contogonis 
states it as follows: 

"(b), Because the same writer seems to have found it an indifferent thing as regards 
godliness whether or not any one may say that the Virgin Mary after the pure birth of the 
I<ord did not deny to Joseph the usual rights of Marriage. That expression, says Cave, fights 
against the doctrine of the Universal Church, since also because of such an opinion which 
opposes it, the Antidicomarianitesandthe Helvidians were condemned by the common vote 
of all the ages and numbered with the heretics." 



368 ArHcle XIV. 



that thing, to give themselves most easily to sin (441), so also we 
have wondered again at the other party when we heard that they" 
[the Colly ridians] "on the other hand, in their senselessness in 
the matter of their contention for the same holy ever-Virgin, have 
been eager and are eager to introduce her for a god, and they are 
borne along by a sort of stupidity and craziness. For they say 

On the heretics who impugned the doctrine see in Blunt' s Dictionary of Sects, etc,, under 
Antidicomarramtes and Helvidians. 

Blunt, on page 32, states that Bishop Latimer and Archbishop Cranmer were for the doc- 
trine of the Ever-Virginity of Mary, and adds: "The most exhaustive modern treatise on 
the question is that of Dr. Mill cited above. He gives fpp 309-311] extracts from the principal 
divines of the English Church. He speaks, too, of the conciliar condemnation of the 
opponents of the doctrine as being mild, not severe; showing the difference of importance 
between a necessary belief in the Virginity of our Lord's mother at His birth and a pious 
belief in her virginity after, which , he says, is in exact agreement with the sentiments of our 
own divines." 

From Scripture it is not clear to my own mind that Mary remaiaed a virgin after Christ's 
birth. Yet without discussing the matter I accept that tenet, and let it go. Hooker, Eccl. 
Polit., book V, chapter XLV, section 2, accepted the doctrine. 

It should be added, however, that the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 553, which, as we 
see, asserted the ever-virginity of Mary, in its Definition deposes all Bishops and clerics who 
oppose its Decisions, and anathematizes all laics who do, and therefore it is best to accept 
the tenet, but not to agitate and be constantly discussing the doctrine and making a hobby 
of it to the neglect of the greater doctrine that all worship must be given to the Triune God 
alone. But neither Mary nor any other creature maybe worshipped, for that is forbidden 
by Christ Himself in Matthew IV, 10. and by his word in Colossians II, 18, under pain of the 
loss of the heavenly reward, and in Revelations XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9. Besides the Third 
Ecumenical Council deposes all Bishops and clerics and anathematizes and excommunicates 
all laics guilty of the Nestoriau sin of worshipping Christ's ever sinless humanity and, by 
necessary inclusion, all who worship any creature inferior to that humanity, be it the Vir- 
gin Mary, or any other saint, or angel, or any other creature. 

But we go on with the third and last objection of Cave as stated by Contogonis: 

"And (c). because iu the Homily [aforesaid] a certain mythicaltraditiou is related which 
is wholly taken from the apocryphal Protevangelion of James, in which it is related that 
Zacharias was killed by the Jews between the temple and the altar because he preached 
that the Virgin Mary brought forth the Christ. Jerome counts that tradition among the 
dreams'of the Apocryphal books, and remarks that forasmuch as it has not the authority of 
the holy Scriptures it is as easily condemned as admitted," 

That objection would be conclusive as to this Sermon or Homily if writers of other con- 
fessedly genuine documents as, for example, Epiphanius on Heresy LXXIX, that of the 
Collyridians, did not quote apocryphal works as genuine. See his proofs for the ever- 
virginity of Mary from the Gospel of the Birth of Mary or from the Protevangelion of 
James below. And at the end of the Apocryphal New Testament I find a list of many 
spurious works now lost, and of ancient writers who mention them. 

Furthermore Contogonis puts the Homily of Basil among his genuine works. The 
doubtful and the spurious works ascribed to him begin on page 402 of the same volume, the 
genuine on page 376. The doctrine of the ever-virginity of Mary seems more reverent as 
regards Christ, but Basil seems not to deem the matter important- 

We conclude then that Caves objections aarainst the genuineness of Basil's Homily are 
not well proven. In passing, I would add that 'WTiitby. an Anglican, in his Commentary on 
Matthew I, 25, agrees with St. Basil's view above and defends it. 



Si. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 369 

that certain women in Arabia have indeed brought that empty-headed 
nonsetise thither frovi the parts of Thrace (442), so that they offer a 
certain cake to the name of the ever Virgin (443) and meet 
together, and in the name of the holy Virgin they attempt beyond 
their measure in any respect (444) to do a lawless and blasphemous 
thing and to perform ministerial functions in her name through 
women, all which is impious and lawless, and alien to the preach- 
ing of the Holy Ghost (445), so that the whole thing is a devilish 
work and a doctrine of an uiiclean spirit (446). And in them is ful- 
filled the Scripture which says: Some shall depart fro7n the soimd 

The Greek of the above of St. Basil is found iu note "a" on page 3T9, volume II of Conto- 
gonis' Φιλ"λογίκ^ και Κριτική Ιστορία των άγι'ωι/ τμ? Εκκλησίας Ιΐατερων 
Literary and Critical History of the Holy Fathers of lite Church, Athens, 1S5.3. 

I would add that Ilahn in the third edition of his Bibhothek der Svmbole, (Breslau, 
Morgens'ern, 1897), gives further instances of the use of άΐ.ιττάρθίνο'ζ , but with 
the exception of Canons II, λ'Ι and XIV of the Fifth World-Synod, they are from non- 
Ecumenical documents: see under that term on page 391, there. The doctrine is not the 
most important in theology and as even Epiphanius teaches on the Collyridians it has been 
made so much of by some as to lead them into the soul-damning sin of worshipping Mary. 
Some of its strongest advocates, like Jerome, have been idolaters. 

NOTE441.— Does Epiphanius mean that belief iu the view that the Virgin after Christ's 
birth had sexual intercourse with Joseph, had led some who were vowed to or were living 
the virginal life in the Church to marry? Some of the younger widows at least who had 
undertaken to remain single when they were put on the list of the Church for support and 
who seem to have made a promise to that effect violated it by marrying; and therefore the 
inspired apostle wishes the younger widows to marry, bear children, etc., and no one to be 
received into the order af widows under CO years of age: see his words in I Timothy V, 9-17. 

Note412.— In section 22on the heresy of the Antidicomarianites, Epiphanius states of it: 
"They say that certain women iu Arabia have indeed brought that empty-headed nonsense 
thither from the parts of Thrace." In section i on the Collyridian Heresy he adds: '-and the 
upper parts of Scythia,'^ 

Note 443.— Or "in the name of the ever- virgin."' 

Note 444. — That is, as being women. 

Note 445. — In the Holy Scriptures, that is His proclamations and teachings there. 

Note 446.— And surely all worship of any creature, being forbidden by Christ Himself in 
Matthew IV, 10, and by the Ho'.y Ghost, speaking through the inspired apostle Paul, in 
Colossians II, 18, 19, and by John in Revelations XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9, is "a devilish work 
and a doctrine of an unclean spirit," && St. Epiphanius here brands it, as he does also the 
Anti-Scriptural usurpation by si'.ly Mary-worshipping women of the functions of the Chris- 
tian ministry to introduce and to foster that creature worship. For the Holy Ghost by Paul 
the Apostle orders in I Timothy II, 11-15 inclusive: 

'Xet the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, 
nor to usurp authority o\'er the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then 
Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 
Notwithstanding she shall be saved by childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and 
holiness with sobriety." 

Generally speaking, a woman rather feels than reasons. And in her religion, as in every 
thing else, she is sensuous, and hence takes to images, saint worship and idolatry. Hence 
left to herself she is prone to become a fanatical Jezebel for creature worship, and some 



370 Ariicle XIV. 



doctrine^ giving heed to fables and dodriyies of demons (447). For, it 
saith, they shall be worshippers of the dead, as they were wor- 
shipped in Israel also (448). And the glory given by the saints 
at due times to God, has been given to others by those who, being 
in error, do not see the truth (449). 

times has been able, like her, to infect her husband and children with her paganizings; see 
in Cruden's Concordance, under ^Λαέ and Ti^iii/. And so were the persistent idolaters 
among the Jews as the prophet Jeremiah shows (Jeremiah XL,IV, 19). And two women, the 
Empresses Irene and Theodora, gave the victory to the image worshipping party in the 
struggle between it and the image breakers in the eighth century and the ninth and ruined 
a large part of the Church and cursed it all till the Reformation, and their influence in sup- 
porting the idolatrous creature invoking Council called the second of Kicaea, held in A. D. 
78~, is cursing the Greek, and the Roman Communions, not to speak of the Monophysites, 
till this very hour. 

And, in the ruining Puseyite movement of 1833, they, undertheleadof certain Romanizing 
Anglican clergy, were glad to fill the churches with idols, that is images, again and bring them 
back to the same idolatrous appearance which they had before the Reformation of the six- 
teenth century. A man, if he be a true, manly, intelligent man. has no drift towards the 
merely idolatrous, but has reason, and knowledge of how God has cursed men and nations 
for that sin, but the woman, ordinarily speaking, never wholly outgrows her fondness for 
the sensuous, and, without some good man to guide her, or check her, she is often sure to 
become an idolater and a worshipper of creatures. Even the great Queen Elizabeth resis- 
ted the advice and protests of the Reforming Bishops to put a crucifix out of her chapel, and 
though for a time she gave way, she brought it back. The weakness of the woman was 
there after all the good advice she had received from godly Reformers who saved her life 
and royalty, and England. 

And finally the Holy Ghost decrees by Paul in I Corinthians Xrv, 34, 35: 

"Let yourΛVomen keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to 
speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law. And if they 
will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to 
speak in the Church . " 

Note 447.— I Timothy TV, 1; I, 4; IV, 7; II Timothy IV, 4; and Titus I, 14. 

Note 448.— This seems to be a reference to Romans I, 25. 1 do not find it in Trommius' 
Concordance ίο the Septiiagint. But that reference may be general to that sin, and more 
especially to such texts as Psalm CVI, 528, and Isaiah VIII, 19. 

Note 449. — Page 524, volume III, Dindorf's edition of Epiphanius; The Panarion, or 
Work against Heresies of Epiphanius, Bishop of Coustantia in Cyprus, Heresj' LXXVIII, 
that of the Antidicomarianites. section 22: O'jto) ΤΓίρι Trjs άγια? ταΰτί^ς και μακαρίτίΒοζ 
atLTTHpOivov ot μλν Ιζνβρίσαι τίταΧμ-ηκασιν, ώς σνναφΟίίσαν αντην σαρκΐ μ.ΐ.τα 
την μενίστην ίκί'νην και ακραιφνή οίκονομιαν του Κυρίου τ^? ένσάρκου αΰτου 
τταρονσίας. Krxt εστι τούτο ττάσης μοχθηρίας δυσσίβίστατον. Ώς δε τουτό 
φαμεν Ινηχηθηναί τινας ούτω τίτοΧμ-ηκεναι, ραστως επιδουναι ίαντονς τβ 
αμαρτία, ούτω και το iTcpov τίθανμάκαμΐν ττάΧιν άκηκο'Ίτες' άλλους γαρ πάλιν 
άφραίνοντας els την o-ep τη<; αυτής άγιας άίίπαρθ ίνον υπόθζσιν, άντι Θεοΰ 
ταντην 7Γαp£tσάretv «σπουδακότα?, και σττονοάζοντας, και iv Ιμβροντήσίΐ τινί 
κα\ φρενοβλαβίία φερομένους. Αιη-γουνται γαρ, ώς τινέ? γυναίκες «κασέ iv τη 
'Αραβία άτΓΟ των μέρων της Θράκης τοΰτο ye το κενοφώνημα ενηνόχασιν, ώ; 



St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 371 

23. For in Shechem, that is in Neapolis, the inhabitants of 
the country perform sacrifices in the name of the girl, forsooth 
with the pretence of honoring the daughter of Jephthah, who 
was once offered in the sacrifices to God (450). And that became 
to the deceived the harm of idolatry and vain worship (451). 
And moreover the Egyptians honored more than was right, 
and for a goddess the daughter of Pharaoh, who had honored 
Moses the servant of God, and had taken him up and brought him 
up" [and that they did] "because of the then very famous con- 
dition of the boy (452). And they handed down that thing as an 
evil transmission to the foolish for religion. And tl^ey worship 
Thermoutis, the daughter of Amenoph, till then Pharaoh, because, 
as I have said before, she brought up Moses. And many similar 
things have occurred in the world to the deception of those who 
have been deceived, but the saints were not guilty of placing a 

€15 ovojLUXT^? 'AciTrap^evv κολλυριδα τίνα «ττιτελεΐν, καΐ συνάγεσ^αι ΙττΧ το αντο, 
Κ'ΐι £15 ονομ/χ της άγια? ΪΙαρθίνου νττέρ το μ€Τρον τι TriLpaauai ά.θΐ.μ.ίτω και 
βλασφημώ i-i^eiptiv ττράγμ'ίΤί, και eh ov"/x'/ αύτ^5 ltp"vpytiv δια γυναικών' 
07Γ£/3 τό τταν εστίν άσεβ€<; καΐ άθίμιτον, ηλλοιωμ^νον άττο του κη/'ΰγματοζ του 
άγιου ΐΐνίύματο^'' ωστί είναι τό παν Β'αβολίκον ένΐρ-γημα και ττνευ/ϋΐατος 
ακαθάρτου διδασκαλιαν. ΐΙληρ"νταί γαρ και ctti τουτου5 το " άττοστησονταί 
Tives T^s ΰγιου5 διδασκαλ!α5, 7Γ/Όσ€;(οντ£5 /Αυ^οι? και διδασκαλιαΐ5 Βαιμον'α,. 
*Εσονται γαρ," φησΙ,"ν€κροΐ<; λατρ£υοντ£5 ^5 και ev τω Ισραήλ ΐσίβάσθησαν.' ^ 
Και η των άγι<"ν κίτα καιρόν £ΐ5 Θεόν δο^α αλλοΐ5 yeyve τοις μη ορωσι την 
άληθααν £15 ττλ'ίνην 

ΝΟΤΕ 450.— Judges XI, 30 to 40 inclusive. St. Epiphanius is here showing how resper 
for other females and honor for them had become an occasion of the creature worship of 
worshipping them; and this he does to warn all against so honoring the Virgin Mary as tc 
worship her, as those errorists did, and as the Collyridian heretics were doing in his time by 
offering a loaf to her, and, by parity of reasoning, oflfering any thing else to her, be it prayer, 
thanksEriving, praise or any thing else, for to believe that she would receive such Christ- 
forbidden worship is to believe that she would break the law of Christ, Thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou serve (Matthew T\\ 10), and to believe that she can 
hear such addresses to her is to suppose that she possesses the infinite and peculiar and pre- 
rogative attributes of Almighty God, omnipresence and omniscience. 

ΝοτΕΊδΙ.— Naturally in the sympathy and frenzy of bewailing her, some of the daugh- 
ters of Israel (Judges XI. 40), In their ignorance of what constitutes creature worship, would, 
womanlike, be led to commit that sin, and it would naturally be taken up by others and 
spread, and so become a sin of men as well as women. 

Note 452.— As the reputed son of Pharaoh's daughter, Hebrews XI, 20-;ί9. 



372 Article XIV. 



stumbling block before any persons (453), but the minds of men 
are unquiet, and are prone to the evil things. For either the holy 
Virgin died and was buried, and hei rest is in honor and her end 
was in chastity, and her crown is in virginity, or she was killed, 
as it is written, a7id a sword shall pierce through her own soul (454). 
[And so] her glory is" [that she is] "among the martyrs and her 
holy body is among blessings," [for] "through her the Light 
rose upon the world (455). Or she remained, for God can do every 
thing that he wishes to (456). For no one knew her end. We jmist 
not honor the saints beyond what is right, but we viust honor their 
Lord (457). Let therefore the error of the deceived cease (458). 
For Mary is neither a god (459), nor has she her body from 

Note 45S. — That is, by doing any thing to lead men or -ννοηιεη or children to -worship a 
creature, 

Note 454 —Luke II, 35. 

Note 455. — Christ is called ihe Light of the World in John VIII, 12; IX, 5; and compare 
John I, 4, 9; III, 19; and l,uke 11,32. etc. 

Note 456. — This shows how little was known of Mary's end, even in the time of Epi- 
phanius. Seemingly so little is said in Holy Writ that she may be said not to be even men- 
tioned after the first beginnings of the New Covenant in Acts I, 14 ; which was before the first 
ingathering at Pentecost. A little before that, on the cross, Christ commended her to the 
care of John the Apostle, to treat as his ''mother,'' John XIX, 25, 26, 27. He lived later at 
Ephesus and died there {'S.ws^'^xns' Ecclesiastical /^ts/ory, book III, chapter 31, and book IV 
chapter 14). Some have supposed that she was buried in the Mary Church at Ephesus, in 
which the Third Ecumenical Council was held, and that therefore it was named after her, a 
tale denied by others. We hope to say something on that when we come to treat of that 
edifice. The reason why so little was said of her was in all probability to keep men from 
worshipping her there, or elsewhere. At gourdes in France among Romanists we see to- 
day idolatrous crowds going on pilgrimage to the fabled place of her apparition, and the 
same sort of crowds, but Greeks, going to Tenos in Greece, the place where a fabled miracu- 
lous image of her is worshipped; both places being nurseries of paganism and damnation to 
souls, as well as a scandal to be thrown into the teeth of Christians by their enemies. Alas! 
Alas! Every Christian government whose members pray daily for God's kingdom to come, 
and His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, should suppress such degrading and soul- 
damning places at once, and should educate its people in the New Testament against them. 
Every Christian ruler should remember that he is God's minister (Romans XIII, 3. 4) and 
that he must not bear the sword in vain, but crush such evils and all others against the pure 
faith of Christ. When that is done the prophecy will be fulfilled, that "the kingdoms of this 
world are become the kingdoms of our I,ord and of His Christ," Rev. XI, 15. 

Note 4.57. — .\ noble God-alone-worshipping sentiment in full accord with Christ's law in 
Matthew IV, 10, and with Colossians 11,18; Revelations XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9, and Isaiah 

ΧΙ,ΙΙ. 8. 

Note 458. — That is the error of Mary worship, the sin of the Collyridians. Oh! that the 
Greeks, the Latins, the Monophysites, and the Ntstorians would heed this and not worship 
the Virgin Mary. The Romanists and the Greeks may rather be called Mariolaters than 
Christians, and die hopeless deaths in that sin ( Rev. XXI, 8) . And the same sin destroys ail 
others who worship her by invocation or by any other act. 

Note 459. — That implies that if anyone worships her. he makes her a god, for worship is 



St. Epiphanius agai7ist ihe Worship of the Virgin Mary . 373 

heaven (460), but it came by coition of a man and a woman, and she 
came by divine dispensation according to a promise, as Isaac 
came (461). And let no one offer to her name, for" [if he does] 
"Λί destroys his own soul (462), and on the other hand, let him not 
act like a drunken man by out and out insulting the holy Virgin, 
for he ought not. She had no sexual intercourse with flesh afier 
the conception, nor before the conception of the Saviour (463). 

24. And closely considering these few things with our- 
selves we have written to those who are willing, to learn well the 
truth of the Scripture, and not rashly to act like a drunken 
man with the word, and not to arm themselves with any abusive 
tongue (464). But if any persons wish to oppose and not to accept 
those things which are profitable, but rather their opposites, even 
by us whom they hold so cheap, shall be said,"//*? that heareth, let 
him hear, and he that is disobedieiit , let him disobey (465), and not make 



au act of religious ser\-ice and is prerogative to God alone, and the fact that it is given to 
Christ in Hebrews I, G, by the Father's command, and elsewhere in the New Testament, is 
the argument of St. Ailiaiiasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Kpiphanius, and others to prove 
Christ's Divinity against Arius the heresiarch; see volume I of Nicaea in this set, pages 213- 
25G. Athanasius goes so far as to brand there the worship of Christ as a creature as from the 
devil, as Epiphanius above ascribes the worship of Mary to the craft of the Devil and the 
folly of women. 

Note 460.— This looks like a side-wind against those heretics who held that Christ's body 
■was not taken from the substance of Mary, but came down from heaven, an error refuted by 
Acts XIII, 22, 23; Romans I, 3; II Tim. II, 8; Rom. IX, 5; Hebrews II, 16, 17; Galatians IV, 
4, etc. 

Note 461.— Genesis XVIII, 9-16; Genesis XXI, 1-22; Rom. IX, G-.33; and Galatians IV, 21-31, 
inclusive. This last is a noteworthy passage showing the superiority of the Christian's lot as 
compared with that of the unbelieving Jew. The promise refen ed to seems to be that alleged 
to have been made to her father Joachim and to her mother Anna, in the spurious Gospel of 
the Birlh of Mary or in the spurious Piotevangelion of fames, on which see below. 

Note 462,— Greek. To TcAos γαρ α.νττ\% ovSeis" tyvm. Πέρα τον δέοντος o'> 
ypr} τι/χαν τ<>ν<; άγιους, άλλα τιμαν τον αντων Λεσ'οττ^ν. Παυσάσ^ω τοίννν τ/ 
■πλάνη των ττίττλανημίνων . O'JTe yap Θε '5 rj Mup.'a o'JTC άττ ovpav<'v έχουσα 
το σώμα, αλλ' εκ σνλΧ•ηψ€ω<; ανδρός καΐ γυναικός, κατ' ε-αγγελίαν δε, ώσττερ 
δ Ίσαακ οίκονομηθίίσα. Και μηΒΐΙς εις όνομα τατ/η^ς ττροσφίρίτο. Εαυτού 

γαρ τ^ν ιΙ/νχτ]ν άπολλει, κ. τ. λ. 

Note 463. — See what is said on that in note 440 above, and in another place below. 

Note 464. — The reference is to the sense placed by the Antidicomarianites on the words 
in the New Testament which speak of Mary, and to what Epiphanius deems the Anti- 
dicomarianite abuse of her by denying her ever-virginity through them, and to the sin of 
Others ill perverting Scripture to he.'• worship. 

Note 465.— Ezekiel III, 27. 



374 Article XIV. 

any trouble for the apostles (466) nor for us longer. For we have 
spoken those things concerning the holy Virgin which we knew to 
be the more seemly and profitable for the Church, and have 
pleaded for the in all respects favored maid (467), as Gabriel 
said. Hail thou who art favored, the Lord [is] with thee (468). And 
if the Lord was withher, how will she be in another union" [or 
"in another marriage"]? "And how shall she have fleshly inter- 
course if she be guarded by the Lord (469). The saints are 
in honor. Their rest is in glory. Their departure hence was in 
completeness (470). Their lot is in blessedness, in holy mansions 
(471). They are in the choir with the angels, their abode [is] 
in heaven, the rule of their" [Christian] "conduct and citizenship 
is in the Scriptures of God; their glory in incomparable and con- 
tinuous honor; their prizes (472) are in Christ Jesus our Lord, 
through whom and with whom be glory to the Father with the 
Holy Ghost forever. Amen. 

All the brethren greet you. And ye yourselves salute all the 
faithful Orthodox (473) brethren with you, and let them abominate 
arrogance, and hate the communion of the Arians and the soph- 
istry of the Sabellians and honor the Consubstantial Trinity, the 

Note 466. — That is, Epiphanius seems to think, by perverting their words to deny Mary's 
ever- virginity, or to worship her. 

Note 4B~. — That is, of course, as Epiphanius deemed, for her ever-virginity, but against 
the insult of worshipping her. 

Note 468.— I,uke I, 28. The Greek Κ£)(α.ρίΤωμενη means merely favored. The word 
highlv before favored in our Common Version is not in the Greek, though, of course, all 
Christians admit that Mary was highly favored in becoming the Bringer Forth of God 
(©eoTfixos) . Yet the translation should be exact as we have given it above. 

Note 469.— Most Protestants might agree with Basil's view of the indifference of her 
having sexual intercourse with Joseph after Christ's birth, were it not that a feeling of rev 
erence for Christ impels some to the ever-virgiuity view. But too much discussion of that 
doctrine may lead some now, as it did in Epiphanius' day, to the abuse and soul-destroying 
sin of worshipping her. We should accept her ever-virgiuity as Bishop Pearson and Arch- 
bishop Cranmer did, and after that be as silent on that point as Scripture is, but insist con- 
stantly on the sin of worshipping her as contrary to Christ's command in Matthew IV^, 10, 
and to such anti-creature worshipping passages as Colossians II, 18, Revelations XIX, 10, and 
XXII, 8, 9, and Isaiah ΧΙ,ΙΙ, 8. 

Note 470. — Or^inpetfection" iv ΤΐΧίίΟΤτηΤΙ. 

Note 471 —Compare John XIV, 2, 23. 

Note 472.— Or rewards. Compare I Corinthians IX, 24, and Philippians III, 14. 

Note 473.— The Greeks have always used the exact term Orthodox to designate a man of 
right faith, for as Catholic means universal &-αά as no man is universal, it can not be applied 
to an individual, but it could to the whole Church, inclusive, of course, of the East and the 
West, so long as it was one. But to apply it to the West alone, as was done in the Middle 



Si. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 375 

Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, three Existences (474), 
one Substance and one Divinity, and absolutely one glorifying 
(475), and let them not fall into error concerning the saving Econ- 
omy and incarnate advent of our Saviour, but let them believe 
perfectly the Inman of the Christ, perfectly God (476), and the same 
perfectly God perfect man," [yet] "withoutsin (477) who took His 
body itself from Mary, and He took a soul and a mind and every 
thing else which belongs to a man, [yet] without sin, and [yet] 
there are not two, but one Lord, one God, one King, one High 
Priest, God and Man, Man and God, not two but one, united 
together not in a mingling [of the two Natures], "nor to the anni- 
hilation" [of the two Natures], "but in a great Economy of 
grace. Farewell." 

Being satisfied with the duplicate of the [above] Epistle (478) 

Ages by Westerns, or to the merely Roman Communion since the Reformation is a plain 
and absurd abuse. For a part of it is not the whole. Indeed the Greeks go so far as to deny 
that the Roman Communion is any part of the Catholic Church at all. 

In the Fourth EcumenicalSynod, A. D. 451, after the reading of one of the two Ecumeni- 
cal Creeds the Bishops shouted out in Greek, "This is the faith of the Orthodox!''' 

Note 474. — Greek, rnct5 υποστάσεις, that is three Hypostases, that is three Existences 
or Beings in one Trinity. The Greeks used Hypostasis in the sense of the Latin Persona, 
Person. And as the three Persons form but one God, and are parts of one God, as old Ter- 
tullian has it, (see chapter IX of his work Against Praxeas) , so the three Existences are parts 
of the one sole divine and eternal Being, the one Consubstantial Existence who includes 
them all as Parts of Himself. 

Note 475. — Greek, και άτταςαττΑώ? μ,ίαν θθςο\(τγίαν, that is, "absolutely one worship'"' 
Compare God's statement in Isaiah ΧΙ,ΙΙ, 8, that He zvill not give His glory to another, for the 
glory of zvorship, by Christ's command in Matthew IV, 10, belongs to the three divine Per- 
sons only, the Father, His Consubstantial Word, axid His Consubstantial Spirit, and may not be 
given even relatively to Christ's separate humanity, and that by the decision of the "one, 
holy, universal, and apostolic Church" in approving Cyril's Anathema VIII against it, and 
in deposing Nestorius among other things for his relative worship of it even: see volume I 
of Chrystal's Ephesus in this set, pages 331, 332, text, and note 677 there; pages 221, 222, 223, 
note 580 there, Nestorius' Blasphemy 8 on page 461, and note 949 there, and his deposition for 
that and his other Blasphemies on page 449, where they are expressly called Blasphemies , 
and on pages 480, 48G-304. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Orthodox Champion, uses Person for 
God the Word alone; see under Person, page 649 of the same volume. 

Note 476.— Greek, T€\ei"V ®ίον. Of course, Epiphanius was not a Tritheist, and there 
fore does not mean that Christ is perfect God in the sense of being the whole of God to the 
exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but only that as the Word He was perfectly God 
as a Part of the Divinity, the two other parts being the Father and the Holy Ghost. The 
term Part or Portion is used by TertuUian in chapter IX of his work Against Praxeas, as 
noted in note second above. 

Note 477. — Hebrews IV, 15. 

Note 478. — That above mentioned Epistle which, though quoted in his article on the 
Antidicomariauites. had been written some time before. Its full title on page 500, volume III 



376 Article XIV. 



as well adapted to meet the opposition of tho?e [heretics] we have 
approved it as sufficient on our present theme; and, with God' s 
help, trajHpling on this heresy as a serpent creeping forward from a 
hole and doing that by the wise doctrine and power of God, which 
like the sweet gum styrax breathes fragrance in the world, have 
treated of the virtue also of the holy children of that holy virgin- 
ity which began from Mary the holy, and has come down through 
Him who was born out of her, and has caused light to rise upon 
the wor'd; and we have utterly refuted and shown up the evil 
poison of their serpent-like wickedness {A7^). And now let us goon 

of Dindorf 's Epiphanius is: "To my most honorable lords, and most longed for children, 
and genuine brethren and of the same faith and Orthodox, from priest to layman, and to the 
catechumens, in Arabia, Epiphanius the least of Bishops, wishes joy." 

Note 479. —Strong and vehement language this against the Autidicomarianites. Many 
Protestant Trinitarians may deem it too strong, even if they hold to Mary's ever-virginity. 
But Epiphanius may include under it the worship of Mary, which above he aenounces as ruin- 
ing the soul, in which case the language is strictly just. And he believed, as is shown in this 
work elsewhere, the spurious Gospel of the Birtk of Mary, or the Protevangelion which teaches 
the doctrine of Mary's ever-virginity, which would naturally make his language stronger for 
that tenet. Yet it is in Anathemas II, VI, and XIV of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, and in its 
Definition. 

The learned Anglican Bishop Pearson, in his work On the Creed ably explains and 
defends the doctrine of Mary's Ever-Virginity, from Scripture, and the agreement of 
ancient Christian writers, and answers objections to it, and cites the \'th Ecumenical Synod 
for it, and, like a true Orthodox man, condemns the sin of worshipping her and quotes the 
words of St. Epiphanius against it. See his language on the third Article, on the words, 
'^ Born of the Virgin Mary," 

I would notice, however, two things there in Pearson: 

I. his mistake in quoting Anathema VI of the Fifth Ecumenical Council as its \^IIth: 

And, 2, his language in the same note which I have heard quoted by a creature invoking 
Episcopalian cleric to favor giving her an inferior worship, whereas the Bishop, as the end 
of the quotation shows, gave all worship to God. The words are: "We can not bear a too 
reverend regard unto the mother of our Lord, so long as we give her not that worship which 
is due unto the Lord himself. Let us keep the language of the primitive Church, 'Ltt her be hon- 
ored and esteemed, let him be worshipped and adored':" He backs up that by referring to i he 
Greek of Epiphanius on Heresy 79, where he forbids Mary to be worshipped. As invocation is 
an act of worship, if he had given her that or any other such act, he must have died under the 
condemnation of Canon VI of the whole Church at Ephesus, A. D. 431. Besides he would 
have been false to the Twenty-Second Article of his own Church and to its Homily on Prayer 
and to that on Peril of Idolatry vi\\\c\\ are approved in its Article XXXV, and to his ordination 
vows to maintain them. And, furthermore, if he had held to the invocation of saints he 
should have gone to the creature worshipping and image worshipping Romish Communion 
and not be so dishonorable as to eat the bread of a Protestant Church while betraying it. 
That would have been the work of a sneak, a deceiver, and a scoundrel. But we do not 
believe Pearson to have been such a man. If he had been he would have neen an opposer of 
"those six Councils which were allo-ved and received of all men," which are mentioned with 
honor in the 5>co«ii Part oi the Anglican Church's Homily against Peril of Idolatry. But 
the expression "so long however as we give her not that worship which is due the Lord 
himself," is defective because it may be perverted by some creature worshipper to mean 



SL Epiphanms against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 377 

agai:i to the other heresies, by God's help, to the completion of 
the whole work" (480). 

Then at once Epiphanius passes on to The Collyridians, his 
Heresy LXXIX. 

This is the first distinctly Mary-worshipping sect of which 
we read in Church History, and it was composed of silly women 
only. 

The short summary of them, as given by Epiphanius in his 
work Agai?ist Heresies is as follows: 

"77i(? Collyridians, who on a certain set day of the year offer a 
sort of loaf [or "cake"] to the name of the same Mary; to whom 
we have given the name Collyridians" (481), [that is Cakeites or 
Loafites^ 

Epiphanius gives the following account of them: 

that it is right to give what the Roman creature worshipper calls an inferior worship, that is, 
hyperdulia (ΰτΓεροουλεΐα) , that is. more than slavet-y, or dulta, (δουλεία), slavery. Two 
passages are quoted there by Pearson from the above work of Epiphanius to prove that Mary 
is not to be worshipped but that God is. And the English Church itself in the Second pari of 
i/s Homily cgatnst Peril of Idolatry condemns the Romanist's distinction between theabsolute 
worship of God and the so called inferior worship of saints as '7Ai/> lezud distinction of 
Latria and Dulia,^' that is, worship supreme to God, and inferior worship to saints, etc. So 
that even if Pearson had been a traitor to Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, his church is not in 
her formularies. But Blunt alas ! favors the Romish so called inferior worship of creatures, 
which is practically the same as that given by the pagans to their inlerior deities. See under 
worship in his heretical and dangerous Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology. 
Alas! he was not deposed and excommunicated by the Church of E'ngland but he is by the 
decisions of the Third Council of the Universal Church, as were Pusey, Keble, and Newman, 
and all like them also. 

Note 480.— Dindorf's Epiphanius, volume III, pages 523-527. 

Note 481. — Dindorf's Epiphanii Episcopi Constantiae opera, vol, III, Pars I, page 454: 
Κολλυριδΐ'>(νοί, ot tts όνομα τ^5 αντης ^Ιαρίας iv ημίρα tlvX τον ίτονζ 
άττοτίταγμίντ} κολλνρίΒα τίνα προσφίροντ(.<;, ols ίπίθΐμ^θα όνομα. Κολλυριδαινώΐ'.' 



378 



ST. EPIPHANIUS 

Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, and Metropolitan, A. D. 367-403, 

"AGAINST THE COLLYRIDIANS " 
[THAT IS THE LOAFITES OR CAKEITES] 
" WHO OFFER TO MARY. 
/ Heresy LXXIX." 

As it is most important against all creature worship, I 
translate the whole of it: 

"I. Next in order in the report" [from Arabia] "to that 
Heresy' Vof^the Antidicomarianites] (482) "appears a Heresy con- 
cerning "which we have already spoken briefly in the Heresy 
before this one in the Kpistle written to Arabia, which treats on 
Mary. And this heresy also has made its appearance in Arabia 
from Thrace and the upper parts of Scythia, and has been borne 
to our ears (483). And among the wise it is found to be laughable 
and full of subjects for jesting. We will begin to investigate 
regarding it and to detail the facts in relation to it. For it will 
be deemed more a thing of foolish simplicity than of wisdom, as 
other heresies like it were also (484). For as, much above, those who 
hold those opinions" [of the Antidicomarianites] "by their insult 
against Mary" [by saying that she had sexual intercourse 
with Joseph] "lead the minds of men to have injurious suspicions 

Note 482.— In Epiphanius' work /^gainst Heresies, that of the Antidicomarianites is 
•Heresy Ι,ΧΧνίΙΙ. 

Note 483.— This remark shows that Epiphanius knew of no worship of Mary when he 
wrote the above work, which Professor Lipsius in his article on him dates "»» the years j/^f 
toj76orjyj, A. D.\" seepage 149, volume 11, of 5>«ή'Λ andlVace' s Dictionary of Christian Biogra- 
phy. As he was a man of wide reading we may well brand any alleged quotation in favor 
of Mary-worship of a date before that as spurious, especially if it be from any Greek writer, 
all of whom Epiphanius may well be supposed to have known on that point before making 
the above statement. And we may be well assured from what he says of the Collyridians, 
that if he had known of any author, East or West, making such a statement he would have 
denounced it as heretical and its author as a heretic. 

Note 484. — Mary-worship and the worship of creatures and of images and crosses are the 
besetting sins, as any one can see, in the Greek and other Oriental Communions, and in the 
X,atin, as well as among the eflfeminate Romanizing and idolatrizing party in the Anglican 
Communion, whose dupes are almost wholly women whom they are leading to the idolater's 
hell. Matt. IV, 10; I Cor. VI, 9, 10; Gal. V, \%-ii\ Col, II, 18; Rev. XIX, 10, XXII, 8, 9, and Rev. 
XXI, 8. 



St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 379 

regarding her, so these" [the Collyridians] "also in bending to 
the opposite side are caught in an extreme of harm, so that the 
celebrated expression of some of the pagan philosophers (485) will 
be fulfilled in them also, that is the saying, Extremes meet. For in 
the case of both those heresies the harm is equal (486), for the 
one class cheapen the holy Virgin, and the other class, on the 
other hand, glorify her more than is due. For these who teach 
this latter error" [the Collyridian heresy] "who are they but 
women? For the female sex is very prone to slip and to fall and 
is low in mind (487). And the Devil deemed it best to vomit forth 

Note 4'^5.— Dindorf's text here has των φιλοσοφον, the latter word a mistake doubt- 
less for φιλοσόφων. 

Note 48ϋ.— Epiphanius himself, further on, refutes that statement, for he brands the 
worship of the Virgin Mary as from the Devil and, of course, soul-damuiug, which surely is 
worse than the other en or. 

Note 487.— There are three appeals in religrion, I. the appeal to the senses by images pic• 
tured or graven^ crosses and relics, arid such like. To such things every woman is prone. 
Most manly men are not. It is her great weakness, and, left to herself, she is almost certain 
to fall into idolatry and to go to hell (Rev. XXI, «). Women under the Mosaic Dispensation 
were most persistent and ruinous advocates and practicers of the worship of the queen of 
heaven and other goddesses and false gods, as for example, tbe Jewish women whom God 
rebukes and threatens with curses in Jeremiah VII, 16-21; (compare Jeremiah XI<IV, 15-"0) ; 
and we do not forget Jezebel and Athaliah, and their evil influence on their posterity and on 
Judah and Israel, for which both those idolaters were wiped out. And under the Christian 
Dispensation, wcmeu, led by idolatrous clergy, resisted in the eighth century and the ninth, 
all the attempts of the Emperors to reform and so save the Church and State, and two 
women, the Empresses Irene and Theodora, gave the image-worshipping and creature- 
invoking party their final victory in the ninih and made permanent the cur!-es of God on the 
Eastern Church, which in the form of Mohammedan conquest and persecution whelmed it 
in ruin and utterly wiped out most of it. And to-day in all the idolatrous misnamed Chris- 
tian Communions they are for the most part the fosterers of all such sins. And England 
does not now and never will forset Bloody Mary and the hundreds of godly Reformers whom 
she had burned at the stake. Woman is a feeling rather than a reasoning being. Hence 
under the New Testament she is commanded to be in silence in the Churches and to be in 
subjection (I Cor XIV, 34, 35, and I Tim. II, 11). and is forbidden to teacli, or to usurp author- 
ity over a man (I Tim. II. 12). And those laws of the Holy Ghost should be enforced in every 
Christian congregation. Then all such matters go well, and in her proper sphere, like the 
holy women of old, she is a great blessing approved by God and men. 

2. The appeal to the emotions, such as fear, love, sorrow, affection, etc. 

This appeal has power with men and women, and is generally the highest she can reach, 
or at least does reach. She makes a devout Methodist. The appeal like the one next below 
is Scriptural and legitimate. 

3. The appeal to the reason and logic. Christianity is what Paul calls "your reasonable 
service'• (ri/v λογικην λατρίίαν νμων) , Romans XII, 1. That is a high table land which 
few or none except a high type of intelligent, logical ard spiritual man reaches. All the great 
works in defence of the faith, of Christian doctrine and practice have been written by men 
of that class; none by any female. 



38ο 



Article XIV. 



that error also by means of women, as aforetime he vomited forth 
very laughable teachings in the case of Quintilla and Maximilla 
and Priscilla, and so has he done here also, For certain women 
adorn a sort of chariot, that is a square seat, and spread on it a 
linen cloth on a certain bright day of the year, and on certain 
days they set forth and offer a loaf of bread to the name of Mary, 
and all partake of the loaf, as we have written to some extent and 
stated on that matter, in the same Epistle to Arabia. And now 
we will tell clearly the matters concerning that heresy. And ask- 
ing help of God, we will set forth, according to our ability, a 
refutation of it, in order that we may be able by God's help to 
cut out the roots of that Idol-making Heresy (488) and do away 
such madness (489) from any" [who may by afflicted with it]. 

2. Come, therefore, ye male servants of God, let us put on a 
manly mind, and scatter away the craziness of those women, for 
the whole thing is a fancy of the female sex, and it is the disease 
of Eve who is again deceived. Aye, more, there is yet the decep- 
tive promise of the serpe)it{A^O), the reptile who provokes to sin, and 
who has spoken hi this [new] deception (491) though it brings noth- 
ing forward to substantiate itself (492), nor does it fulfill its prom- 
^es, but only works death (493) by calling lies truths, and by the 
sight of the tree [of error] works disobedience and a turning away 
from the truth itself, and a turning to many errors (494). And we 

Note 4S8.— Surely to worship Mary is to make her an idol, 

Note 489. —It is certainly madness to worship any creature contrary to Christ's own law 
in Matthew IV, 10, and then to hope ior salvation. 

Note 490.— Genesis III, 1 24. 

Note 491.— Or, "in this [new] heresy." 

Note 492. — Surely neither the Bible, nor indeed the Church of the first three centuries, 
as Tyler has shown in his " IVorship of the Blessed Virgin,''' has anything to substantiate the 
right of women to be Presbyters, or Bishops, or to perform any other ministerial function, or 
the Collyridian heresy of worshipping her. 

Νοτε49•3. — Here again Epiphanius teaches that the Collyridian heresy leads to death, 
and yet the Greeks, the I,atins, the Nestorians, and the Monophysites are still leading multi- 
tudes to that death by teaching her worship. Aye, alas! a few idolatrous Anglicans, owing 
to their anarchical state, are allowed to do the same, but contrarj' to their formularies. 

Note 494. — In all the idolatrous Communions, many errors besides the Mary-worship 
of the Collyridians are now found. I give here the Greek of the above passage: Din- 
dorf's Epiphanii episcopi Constantiae Opera, vol. Ill, Pars I; page 527, Heresy 
I<XXIX, the Collyridians: κατά Κολλνριδί'/νών, τών Trj Μ«/>ια ΤΓροσφΐ.ρι'ιντίύν 
. . . Έ^ς δε ravrfj eis φημην ττΐφην^ν αιρεσις, ττερί η^ 7^8η ΰτημνησαμΐν 
6\ϊγω ev τη προ τα\ιτη<ϊ, δ. α ttJs cis Αραβίαν γιιαφΐ,ίση, Ιπίστοληζ τη<ΐ 



St Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 381 



are to consider what sort of seeds the Deceiver sowed when he 
said, Ye shall be as gods (495), and so has ensnared the mind of 
those women by the elation produced by the aforesaid serpent, by 



Trept T^s Μαρίας ίγονσΎ]<ί. Kat αΰτ^ δέ ^ αΓρεσις ττοίλιν Ιν τ^ ^Αραβία από 
Tiys ®ράκηζ καΐ των av-J μ€ρων της "^κυθίαζ άνώίίχθη καΐ ας -ημών d/cas 
άνψίχθη ί',Τίζ ίστί και αΰτη γελοίο? και χλεύης Ι/χττλίω? 7Γ'>ίρά τοΐ,^ σννετοΓ? 
ίνρισκομίνη Αρξόμίθα ττίρΐ αντης φωρασα καΐ τα κατ αντην 8ιηγησασθαι, 
Ένηθίίας yap μάλλον κρίθήσίται τ^ττερ σννίσίως α τϊ;, κα^άις καΐ αλλαι ομοιαι 
τανττ) ήσαν. Ω? γαρ άνω πολύ δια, της ττρυς Μαρίαν υβρίως οΙ ^όξαντίς 
ram α. νττονοίίν βλαβίρας υπόνοιας σπάοονσι λογισμοΖς ανθρώπων