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, 0 

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,          ...  0 

From  the  whole  East, 198 

Total  known  sees  and  Bishops  from  the  West  and 

the  East,  about 200 

10.  From  the  Italic  Diocese, 0 

1 1 .  From  the  Diocese  of  Spain, 0 

12.  From  the  Diocese  of  Gaul, 0 

13.  From  the  Diocese  of  Britain,         .         ,         .         .         .  0 

14.  From  other  parts  of  the  West 0 


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,  οντω  καΐ 
OVTOL  £7ΓΙ  το  €TCpov  μίρος  κλίναντΐ,ς  iv  άκρότντι  βλ'ίβης  καταλαμβάνονται 
οπως  κάκίΐνο  το  παρά  τισι  των  ίΐ^ωθίν  φ:λοσόφων  αδόρ,ενο;/  καΐ  iv  αντοΐς 
Ίτληρωθησίται  iv  τω  λέγειν,  αΐ  άκρότητίς  Ισότητες.  Ίση  yap  iz'  άμφοτ€ραις 
τανταις  ταΐς  αίρίσίσιν  η  βλάβη,  των  μεν  κατεντίλίζόντιον  την  άγι'αι/  παρθίνον 
των  δε  πάλιν  ίπερ  το  δέον  δο^αζοντων.  Οντοι  γαρ  "ί  τοίτο  διδ'/σ/οοντε9  τίνες 
«ίσίν  άλλ  η  γυναίκες  ;  Υνναικών  yap  το  γένος  εΰόλισ^ον,  σφαλί/'ον  δε  και 
ταπεινοί/  τω  φρονιιματι.  Και  αντο  yap  iSo^tv  ά~6  γυναικών  ό  8ιάβολ"ς 
€$εμ(Ιΐν,  όις  καΐ  άνω  τζα/'ο.  Κυϊντιλλ>;  και  Μα^ιρίλλζ  και  Πρ:σκίλλ>;  περιγέλαστα 
τα  διδάγ/χατα,  οιτω  και  ενταΰ^α.  Τινές  γαρ  /-υναικες  κουρικόν  τίνα  κοσμονσαι 
ήτοι  8ίφρον  τετράγονον  άπλώσασαι  επ'  αυτόν  όθόνην,  iv  ημίρα  τινι  φ'ΐνεΐ'ά  του 
£τους,  εν  ημίραίς  τισίν  άρτον  προτίθίασι  και  άναφψονσιν  εις  ονο/χα  τ^ς  Μνριας 
αϊ  πασαι  δέ  άπό  του  άρτου  μεταλαμβάνονσιν ,  οις  iv  avTrj  τη  εις  την  Αραβίαν 
ΐπιστολη  ypάφovτcς  εκ  μέρους  περί  τούτου  Βίελέχθημεν.  Νυν  δέ  σαφώς  τα 
περί  αΰτης  λε^ορ,εν,  και  τας  κατ  αύτης  άνατ/χιπάς  Θεόν  αΐτησάμενί  κατά  το 
δυνατόν  παραθησόμεΟα,  οπως  τ^ς  είδωλοποιου  ταυττ^ς  αίρεσεως  τάς  ρίζας 
€Κτεμοντες  άπο  τίνων  την  τοια'την  λυσσαν  καταλΰσ'-ίΐ  εν  Θεω  Βννηθωμεν. 

2.  "Αγε  τοινυν.  Θεού  δοΰλοι,  ανδρικών  φρόνημα  ενΒυσώμεθα,  γυναικών  δέ 
τούτων  τ>;ν  ρ,ανίαν  διασκεδάσωρεν.  Τό  πάν  γαρ  θήλεος  η  υπόνοια  κ'Λ  Ε^ίας 
■πάλιν  τ^ς  απατωρ,εντ^ς  τό  νόσημα,  μάλλον  δ  ετι  τ"ΰ  οφεως,  του  ipεθιστικΊυ 
θηρος  και  ~ου  λαλτ/σαντος  εν  αΰτ?;  η  της  πλάνης  νπόσχεσις ,  μηΒεν  εις  μέσον 
φέρουσα,  ουδέ  τα  ΰπισ;^νου/χενα  τελειοΰσα  άλλ'  η  μόνον  θάνατον  άπεργαζομενη, 
τα,  μη  οντά  ώς•  οντά  κ'^λουσα,  καΙ  δια  τ^ς  οράσεως  του  ζΰλου  παρακοην 
έργωζομενη  και  άποσπροφην  άπ'  αυτής  της  αληθείας  κ'Λ  του  έττΐ  πολλά 
τρεπεσ^ϋ. 

Note  495. — Genesis  III,  5.  The  reference  here  and  in  the  "e!aiion''  below  of  the  women 
refers  to  what  Epiphanius  brands  as  the  temptation  to  them  to  usurp  the  prerogative  func- 
tions of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  their  acceptance  of  that  luring  of  the  devil.    Their  sin  in 


382  Article  XIV. 

which  he  works  death  agai?i  to  their  [weak]  nature  (496),  even  as  I 
have  often  said.  For  in  the  first  place  indeed,  to  examine  straight 
from  the  beginning  to  this  time,  to  whom  is  it  not  clear  that  their 
presumption  is  thb  doctrink  and  scheme  of  demons  (497),  and 
IS  alien"  [to  Christianity]  (49S). 

Indeed,  never  from  the  beginning  did  a  woman  act  as  priest 
for  God,  not"  [even]  "Eve  herself,  though  she  had  transgressed 
(499)  (500)  [and  needed  the  services  of  a  priest],  but  yet  she  did 
not  dare  to  go  further  and  do  such  an  impious  thing  as  [that]  pre- 
suming [to  do  the  work  of  a  priest],  nor  did  any  of  her  daughters, 
though,  on  the  other  hand,  Abel  at  once  sacrificed  to  God  (501), 
and  Cain  offered  sacrifices  before  the  Lord,  but  was  not  accepted 
(502),  and  Enoch  was  well  pleasing  to  God  and  was  translated 
(503),  and  Noah  offered  thank  offerings  from  the  superabundant 
animals  of  the  ark,  thereby  showing  a  proof  of  a  disposition  loyal 
[to  God] ,  and  confessing  his  gratitude  to  Him  who  had  saved  him 
(504).  And  the  righteous  Abraham  was  acting  as  priest,  to  God 
(505),  and  so  was  Melchizedek,  the  priest  of  the  most  high  God 
(506),  and  Isaac  is  found  well  pleasing   to  God  (507),  and   Jacob 

such  usurpation  was  similar  to  that  of  Korah  the  lyevite,  and  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the  sons 
of  Reuben, -whom  God  Λviped  out  because  they  attempted  to  usurp  the  functions  of  the 
Aaronic  priesthood  under  the  law  of  Moses,  and  whom  Jehovah  therefore  made  "a  sign'''  or 
example  to  all:  see  on  that  Numbers  XVI,  1-50,  and  Numbers  XXVI,  9,10.  Some  false 
brethren  who  had  crept  in  unawares  and  despised  dominion  and  spoke  evil  of  dignities, 
probably  those  of  the  Christian  Apostolate  and  Ministry,  are  compared  in  Jude  3-21,  to  those 
who  "■' perished  in  the  gaitisaying  of  Korah'''  (Jude  II). 

Note  436. — There  are  silly  women  to. day  who  are  permitted  to  preach  and  even  become 
pastors  or  pastoresses  among  some  of  our  numerous  sects  in  this  land,  such  for  example  as 
the  Universalists,  Mrs.  Eddy  of  the  so-called  Christian  Science  sect,  who  is  practically  their 
pope,  Mrs.  Jackson  of  Jersey  City  of  the  sect  of  the  so-called  Faithcurists  and  Judaizing 
Seven'.h-Dayites,  etr.    Most  of  their  dupes  are  also  women. 

NoTEi9~.— As  tending  to  destroy  all  wise  government  in  the  Church  and  sensible  New 
Testament  preaching. 

Note49S.— It  is  certainly  forbidden  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  I  Corinthians  XIV,  34,  35,  36, 
and  I  Timothy  II,  11-15. 

Note  499.— Or,  "and  surely  she  had  transgressed." 

Note  500.— Genesis  III,  6;  I  Tim.  II,  14. 

Note  501.— Genesis  IV,  4;  Heb.  XI,  4. 

Note  502.— Gen.  IV,  8,  5  to  8, 

Note  503.— Gen.  V,  21  to  25;  Heb.  XI,  5. 

Note  504.— Genesis  VIII.  20,  21,  22;  Heb,  XI,  7. 

Note  505. —Genesis  XII.  7,  8;  Genesis  XIII.  4;  Genesis  XV,  1-21;  and  XXI.  38;  and  XXII, 
1-20,  and  Heb.  XI.  8-20. 

Note  506 —Genesis  ΧΠ'.  18.  19,  20;  Heb.  VII,  1-22. 

Note  507.— Genesis  XXV,  11. 


St.  Epiphanius  agai7ist  ihe  Worship  of  ihe  Virgiyi  Mary.     383 


offered  upon  the  stone  according  to  his  ability,  and  poured  out 
olive  oil  from  the  oil  flask  (508). 

And  as  to  his  sons,  Levi  indeed  is  found  thereafter  to  have 
received  the  priesthood  (509).  And  those  of  his  line  received  the 
priestly  rank,  I  mean  Moses  the  prophet  and  instructor  in  sacred 
rites,  and  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  Eleazar  and  Phinehas  and  Itha- 
marhis  offspring  (510).  And  why  should  I  mention  the  multi- 
tudes of  those  who  officiated  as  priests  unto  God,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as"  [for  example]  "Ahitub  is  found  as  a  sacrificing  priest 
(511),  and  the  Korites(512)  and  the  Gershonites  (513),  acd  the 
Merarites,  who  were  entrusted  with  the  Levitical  rank  and  order 
(514),  and  the  house  of  Eli  (5151,  and  those  after  him  who  were  of 
his  kindred  in  the  house  of  Abimelech  (516),  and  Abiathar  (517), 
and  Hi'.kiah  (518),  and  Buzi  (519),  till  Jeshua  the  great  priest  (520), 
and  Ezra  the  priest  (521),  and  others,  and  nowhere  did  a  woman 
act  as  priest. 

3.  And  [now]  I  will  come  to  the  New  Testament  also.  If 
women  were  commanded  to  be  priests  unto  God,  or  to  do  any 
regular  (522)  thing  in  the  Church,  it  was  especially  befitting  that 
Mary  herself  should  act  in  the  priestly  office  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, she  who  was  deemed  worthy  to  receive  in  her  womb  the 
king  of  all,  the  heavenly  God,  the  Son  of  God,  Mary  whose 
■womb,  by  the  love  of  God  for  man  and  for  the  amazing  mystery 
[of  the  Incarnation]  was  prepared  and  made  a  temple  and  abode 
in  the  Economy  of  the  Lord  in  flesh,  but  it  was  not  well  pleasing 


Note  508.— Genesis  XXVlII,  18-?2  inc!usive,  and  ΧΧΧΛ',  6-16. 
Note  509.— Deut.  X,  8,  9,  and  XXI,  5;  and  I  Chron.  XXIII.  and  ΧΧΠ'. 
Note  510. — See  the  references  in  the  note  last  above. 
Note  511. —I  Sam.  XXII,  11-23;  II  Sam.  VIII,  17. 

Note  512.-Kohathites?   I  Chron.  VI,  XXIII,  XXIV,  XXV,  and  XXVI.    The  Korhites  are. 
mentioned  in  I  Chron.  XXVI,  1-20.     The  Greek  here  is  KoptTat. 
Note  513.— See  the  references  in  note  last  above. 
Note  514.— Ibid. 
Note  515. —I  Sam.  I;  3,  9,  17. 

Note  516.— I  Chron.  XVIII,  10,  and  II  Sara.  VIII,  17. 
Note  517.— Ibid. 
Note  518.— II  Kings  XXII,  4. 
Note  519. —Ezek.  I,  3. 

Note  520.— Or  "the  high  priest.'•    Ezra  III,  2. 
Note  521.— Ezra  VII,  11,  etc. 
Note  522.— Or  "canonical  thing,"  Greek,  κιχνονικόν  τι. 


384  Article  XIV. 

[to  Him  to  give  her  that  office] .  But,  furthermore,  the  office  of 
giving  baptism  was  not  entrusted  to  her,  for  if  it  had  been,  the 
Christ  could  have  been  baptized  by  her  rather  than  by  John.  But 
John  indeed,  the  son  of  Zechariah,  was  entrusted  with  that  power, 
and,  in  the  wilderness,  administered  baptism  for  the  remission  of 
sins  (523),  and  his  father  was  a  priest  unto  God,  and  at  the  hour 
of  incense  saw  a  vision  (524).  And  Peter  and  Andrew.  James  and 
John,  Philip  and  Bartholomew,  Thomas,  Thaddaeus,  and  James 
the  son  of  Alphaeus,  and  Judas  the  son  of  James,  and  Simon  the 
Zealot,  and  Matthew,  who  was  chosen  to  fill  out  the  number  of 
the  Twelve,  all  these  were  chosen  to  be  Apostles  to  minister  as 
priests  the  Gospel  on  the  earth  (525),  together  with  Paul  and 
Barnabas  and  the  rest,  and  to  be  chief  leaders  of  the  mysteries 
(526)  with  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  and  first  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, by  which  very  Bishop  and  the  aforesaid  Apostles  were 
appointed  successions  of  Bishops  and  Elders  (527)  in  the  house  of 
God,  and  nowhere  was  a  woman  appointed  among  them.  'And 
Scripture  says  that  Philip  the  Evangelist  had  four  daughters  who 
did  prophesy  (528),  but  surely  (529)  did  not  perform  priestly  acts. 
And  Anna,  the  daughter  of  Phanuel,  was  a  prophetess  (530), 
but  was  not  entrusted  with  the  priesthood.  For  it  behooved  that  the 
prediction  should  be  fulfilled  that  your  sons  shall  prophesy,  and 
your  daughters  shall  drea7n  dreams,  and  your  you7ig  men  shall  see 
visions  (531 ).  And  though  there  is  an  order  of  deaconesses  in  the 
Church,  yet  it  is  not  to  be  priests,  nor  is  it  permitted  them  to 
attempt  any  thing,  but  they  were  appointed  for  the  sake  of  the 
modesty  of  the  female  sex,  either  for  the  time  of  the  bath  [of 
rebirth  (532)],  or  for  the  time  of  the  inspection  of  disease,  or  of 

Note  523.— Mark  I,  4. 
Note  524.— Luke  I.  1-23. 

Note  525.— Greek,  ίερουρ/Όυντες  το  tvayyiXtov.   Every  Christian  is  a  priest,  I  Peter  U, 
5,  9.  and  Rev.  I.  6,  and  so  in  an  eminent  sense  were  the  Apostles. 

Note  526.— That  is  sacraments.    The  Easterns  call  them  Mysteries. 

Note  527.— Greek,  ττρεσβυτψων. 

Note  528.— Acts  XXI,  8,  9. 

Note  529. — Or   "/io7vever." 

Note  530.— Luke  II,  36. 

Note  531. —Acts  II    17. 

Notb  533.— Titus  III,  5.  Greek,  διά  λουτρού  τταλί/'γενεσύχϊ  ,  "ίν  α  δα/h  ο/  rebirth," 


Si.  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgiii  Mary,     385 

labor,  and  when  the  body  of  a  woman  should  be  naked,  that  she 
may  not  be  seen  by  the  men  who  are  oflBciating  as  priests  (533), 
but  by  the  deaconess,  and  she  is  to  care  for  the  things  which  are 
commanded  [her]  by   the  priest  for  the  time  when  the  woman 

Compare  John  III,  5,  ec/v  μ,-η  TIS  "γίννη'^τ)  i^  ''Ο'ΐΤΟζ  ''//any  one  be  not  born  out  ο/ waier," 
etc.,  and  so,  John  III,  3,  the  reference  in  all  three  being  to  the  emersion  of  baptism  in  the 
ancient  rite  of  trine  immersion,  the  common  custom  of  the  whole  Church  for  the  first  1200 
or  1300  j-ears,  and  still  the  custom  in  the  East,  See  on  that  Chrys/a/'s  History  of  the  Modes 
of  Christian  Baptism  and  Bingham's  Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,  Index,  under 
Baplisr'.,  etc. 

Note  533. — As  Bingham  shows  in  his  Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,  book  II,  chapter 
22,  section  8,  that  women,  like  men,  were  baptized  naked,  they  needed  women  to  prepare 
and  be  with  them  in  the  rite.  In  the  Greek  Church  till  this  hour  the  infant  is  baptized  nude, 
as  all  were  from  very  early  days,  and  even  the  Romanized  Maronites  confess  that  their 
ancient  custom  was  to  baptize  infants  as  well  as  women  naked.  In  later  times  they  have 
discarded  that  custom  regarding  women,  but  still  order  it  regarding  infants;  see  their  own 
language  quoted  in  proof  on  pages  137,  138  of  Chrystats  History  of  the  Modes  of  Christian 
Baptism. 

The  origin  of  the  custom  comes  from  the  New  Testament  fact  that  baptism  contains  a 
double  symbolism,  the  immertion  representing  a  burial  with  Christ,  and  the  emersion 
both  a  resurrection  with  him  and  a  new  birth  out  of  the  womb  of  the  water.  See  in  proof 
John  III,  5;  Romans  VI,  3-8;  Colossians  II,  12,  and  Titus  III,  5;  and  Bingham's  Antiquities, 
book  XI,  chapter  I,  section  3,  and  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  as  quoted  on  page  71  of  ChrystaVs  His- 
tory of  the  Modes  of  Christian  Baptism.  And  the  Church  of  England  still  uses  language  in 
her  baptismal  offices  put  there  in  days  when  she  still  retained  the  emersion  of  baptism, 
which,  with  reference  to  it.  still  speaks  of  the  infant  emersed  as  regenerate,  that  is  rebirthed 
into  the  family  of  the  heavenly  Father  by  that  rite;  for  example.  In  the  Office  for  the  Public 
Baptism  of  Infants,  before  the  baptism  occurs  the  following: 

"Almighty  and  immortal  God  .  .  .  we  call  upon  thee  for  this  infant,  that  he,  coming  to 
thy  holy  Baptism  may  receive  remission  of  his  sins  by  spiritual  regeneration."  Again  below 
we  read:  "Almighty  and  everlasting  God,  heavenly  Father,  .  .  .  Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to  this 
infant,  that  he"  [or  she]  "may  be  born  again,  and  be  made  an  heir  of  everlasting  salvation." 

And  after  the  baptism  we  read: 

"\Ve  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regen- 
erate this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and 
to  incorporate  him  into  thy  holy  Church." 

And  similar  language  occurs  in  the  two  Baptismal  Offices  following  in  the  English 
Praye.-  Book,  and  in  all  the  Baptismal  Offices  of  the  American  Book. 

And  forasmuch  as  man  is  born  naked  into  the  world  at  natural  birth,  his  first  birth,  so 
the  ancient  Christians  would  have  the  man  born  out  of  the  womb  of  the  water  at  his  second 
birth,  his  rebirth,  that  is  his  regeneration,  which  means  rebirth.  And  at  the  same  time  he  is 
born  of  the  Spirit  who  has  moved  him  to  come  to  it,  or,  if  he  be  an  infant,  he  is  born  of  the 
Spirit,  because  that  baptism  is  in  the  word  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  shows  that  he  is  a 
proper  subject  forit  (John  III,  5;  Act  II,  38,  39;  XVI,  15,  and  XVI,  31-34;  1  Corinthians  1 ,  16;  Ephe- 
sians  I,  1-6,  compared  with  Ephesians  VI,  1-5,  where  the  "children"  2S^  spoken  of  a«  ^'saints,'" 
equally  with  their  "fathers,"  and  Colossians  1. 2,  compared  with  Colossians  III,  20,  21,  where 
we  finda  similar  mention  of  ία ;'«ίί  as  including  "children"  and  their  "parents"  aad  "fO' 
thers."  Compare  also  the  language  of  Peter,  1  Peter  II,  9:  "  Ye  are  a  chosen  race").  And  as 
the  infant  born  to  an  earthly  father  is  born  without  any  knowledge  of  that  fact,  so  the 
infant  born  out  of  the  womb  of  the  water  into  the  heavenh'  Father's  family  may  be,  and,  so 
far  as  we  can  see,  i<!  born  into  it  without  any  knowled^^e  of  that  fact.  But  as  the  earthly 
father  by  the  fact  of  the  first  birth  pledges  himself  to  feed  and  support  his  child;  so  God  the 


386  Article  XIV. 


needs  assistance  at  the  hour  when  her  body  is  naked,  for  the  duty 
of  her  order  is  intelligently  to  make  thoroughly  secure  the  good 
order  and  the  good  law  of  the  Church,  in  accordance  with  the 
rule  [governing  such  cases] .  Wherefore  the  Word  of  God  permits 
no  woman  to  speak  in  Church  (534),  nor  to  usurp  authority  over  a 
man  (535).  And  there  are  many  things  to  be  said  on  that  matter. 
4.  And  it  must  be  observed  that  the  Church  ministry  needed, 
so  far  [as  women  are  concerned],  deaconesses  only,  and  that  God's 
word  has  mentioned  widows  and  speaks  besides  of  the  older  of 
them  as  aged  women  (536),  but  nowhere  has  it  appointed  Presbyter- 
esses  (537)  or  Priestesses.  And  not  even  Deacons  in  the  Church 
ministry  are  permitted  to  perform  any  sacrament  [alone]  (538), 
but  only  to  assist  in  the  offices  (539).  And  whence  has  risen  again 
to  us  this  new  folly  [that  women  should  be  of  the  clergy]? 
Whence  has  come  this  arrogance  of  women  and  this  craziness  as 
to  woman's  place  in  the  Church?  Whence  has  been  nourished 
this  wickedness  through  the  female  again  (540)?  It  fills  us  with 
thoughts  of  suspicion  as  to  femininity  when  we  see  her  wo'king 

Father  by  His  Spirit  feeds  the  infant  newly  born  out  of  the  womb  of  the  water  and  pledges 
Himself  to  give  him  spiritual  grace  and  life,  aye  through  his  whole  life,  even  as  he 
may  be  able  to  receive  it.  Indeed  John  the  Baptist  was  "filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
even  from  his  mother's  womb,"  Luke  I.  15.  And  that  seems  to  be  more  or  less  the  case  in 
thousands  in  our  daj',  who,  from  the  first,  seem  to  have  more  than  common  sanctified  ten- 
dencies which  develop  with  the  increase  of  New  Testament  knowledge,  and  they  develop 
into  spiritually  minded  men  and  women  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Note  534.— I  Corinthians  XΠ^  34,  35,  and  I  Tim.  II,  11,  12. 

Note  5:55.-1  Timothy  II,  II,  12. 

Note  536.— Titus  II,  3. 

Note  537. — That  is  Eldresses  Greek.  ΤΓρε<τβντ€ρίοα<ΐ• 

Note  538. — Hence  much  less  may  deaconesses 

Note  539. — As  baptism  was  anciently  administered  to  female  candidates  nude  in  a  tank 
or  font  where  they  were  all  hidden  except  the  head,  deaconesses,  as  is  said  in  a  note  just 
above,  were  needed  to  be  present  and  attend  to  their  disrobing  getting  into  the  tank  and 
robing  again;  see  on  that  Bingham's  Anttgiitties  of  Ihe  C/irisiian  Church,  hooL•  II.  chapter 
XXII.  section  8  and  indeed  all  of  that  chapter.  But  they  could  not  administer  baptism.  And 
so  Epiphanius  here  teaches  that  not  even  the  deacons  were  allowed  to  perform  baptism. 
But  Bingham  in  his  A7itiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,  book  II,  chapter  XX,  section  9  who 
quotes  the  above  passage  of  Epiphanivis  and  another  from  the  so-called  Apostolical  Consti- 
tutions against  the  right  of  deacons  to  baptize  shows  that  in  other  places  they  had  that 
right. 

Note  540. — The  reference  seems  to  be  to  Genesis  III  where  the  fall  of  the  human  race 
through  Eve  is  told,  and  to  the  idolatrous  sins  of  Jezebel  (I  and  II  Kings)  and  to  the  women 
fanatics  for  idolatry  who  resisted  God's  prophet's  rebuke  for  their  sins  in  worshipping  the 
queen  of  heaven  and  in  inducing  their  husbands  to  idolatrize  with  them,  Jerem.  VII,  17-21, 
and  XLIV  15-30  inclusive.    Compare  also  Revelations  II,  20-29. 


St.  EpipJianius  agaiiist  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.      387 


out  her  love  of  her  own  pleasure,  and  going  outside  of  her  own 
proper  work  and  attempting  to  force  the  wretched  nature  of  men. 
But  let  us  indeed  take  the  firm  mind  of  the  athlete  Job,  and 
arm  ourselves  with  his  righteous  decision,  and  let  us  take  it  upon 
our  lips  and  say,  even  we  ourselves:  Thou  hast  spoken  as  one  of  the 
foolish  women  speaketh  (541),  For  why  will  not  such  a  thing  seem 
stupid  to  every  man  who  has  understanding  and  is  possessed  of 
God?  Why  is  not  the  purpose  [of  making  women  clergymen]  the 
making  of  an  idol  and  the  attempt  devilish  (542)?  For  the  Devil, 
under  the  pretext  of  what  is  right,  always  creeping  into  the  minds 
of  men,  and  in  the  eyes  of  men,  making  a  god  out  of  that  nature 
which  is  mortal,  by  a  variety  of  arts  wrought  images  like  unto 
men.  And  those  who  were  worshipped  indeed  died,  but  others, 
through  minds  that  went  into  adulterous  whoredom  from  the  one 
and  sole  God,  brought  in  to  be  worshipped  the  images  of  those 
dead  men,  (for  those  images  which  never  had  any  existence  could 
not  die),  and  so  they  acted  like  the  very  common  whore  who  has 
been  excited  to  a  great  excess  of  much  sexual  intercourse,  and  has 
got  rid  of  the  modesty  of  the  good  law  of  the  one  husband  (54."). 

Note  541.— Job  II,  10. 

Note  542. — These  words  explain  "idol  making  heresy"  in  section  I  above. 

Note  543. — See  how  God  in  Ezekiel  XXIII  rebukes  the  whoredom  of  Israel  and  Judab, 
figured  as  two  idolatrous  wives,  Aholah  (Samaria)  and  Aholibah  (Jerusalem),  and  their 
madne-s  and  vileness  in  the  spiritual  harloiiies  of  invoking  creatures  and  worshipping 
images.  And  see  how  God  rebukes  the  spiritual  whoredom  of  Israel  and  how  hopeless  His 
rebuke  was,  so  that  at  the  last  lie  says,  as  in  the  American  Canterbury  Revision:  "Ephraim 
[the  Ten  Tribes]  is  joined  to  idols"  (that  is  to  the  relative  worship  of  Jehovah  through  the 
calf  at  Bethel  and  through  that  at  Dan),  "let  him  alone.  Their  drink  is  become  sour,  they 
play  the  harlot  continually;  her  rulers  dearly  love  shame.  The  wind  hath  wrapped  her  up 
in  its  wings:  and  they  shall  be  put  to  shame  because  of  their  sacrifices,"  Hcsea  IV.  IT,  18, 
19.  See  volume  II  of  Smith's  Gieseler's  Church  History  for  specimens  of  the  utter  craziness  of 
the  image-worshipers  of  the  eighth  century  and  the  ninth,  in  notes  15,  18,  and  22  pages  17, 
18,  and  19:  and  the  words  of  the  opposers  of  their  worship  in  note  21,  page  18.  Gieseler 
speaks  in  one  or  more  notes  there  as  though  he  condemned  the  Elijah-like  sternness  of  the 
Iconoclasts  in  destroying  such  trash.  He  is  accused  of  Rationalism,  and  a  man  of  that  type 
can  hardly  appreciate  Elijah-like  zeal  against  the  use  and  the  worship  of  images  such  for 
example  as  that  of  the  English  Reformers  of  blessed  memory  who  banished  the  worship  of 
creatures  (Matt.  IV,  10)  and  purged  the  churches  of  crosses  and  of  all  other  images  painted 
as  well  as  those  graven,  and  so  raised  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  the  English-speaking  nations  to 
power  and  wealth,  and  from  the  small  area  of  the  Biitish  islands  and  from  about  5,000,000 
of  souls  at  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  to  a  dominion  which,  by  God's  help  and 
blessing,  includes  more  than  a  quarter  of  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and  about  500,000,000  of  its 
inhabitants,  that  is  about  a  third  of  its  population,  four  times  as  many  as  the  mightiest  of  the 
Caesar's  ever  ruled.  See  the  Reformers'  noble  Homih  against  Peril  of  /dolatty.  which  is 
approved  by   the   Thirty -fifth  Article  as  containing    'a  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine  and 


388  Article  XFV. 


Yes,  indeed,  the  body  of  Mary  was  holy,  but  nevertheless  was  not 
God.  Yes,  indeed,  the  Virgin  was  a  virgin  and  honored,  but  shb 
WAS  NOT  GIVEN  TO  US  TO  BK  WORSHIPPED,  kit  she  worships  Him 
who  was  born  iii  flesh  otct  of  her.  But  He  had  come  from  the  heav- 
ens out  of  the  bosom  of  His  Father.  And  concerning  that  (544) 
the  Gospel  assures  us,  when  it  tells  us  that  the  lyord  Himself  said, 
"  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  thee?  My  hour  is  -not  yet  come'* 
(545).  He  said,  "  IVoman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  theef '  that  none 
may  suppose  the  holy  Virgin  to  be  more  than  she  is,  and  He 
called  her  woman,  [thus]  speaking  prophetically  on  account  of  the 
schisms  and  heresies  which  were  to  be  on  the  earth  (546),  i?t  order 
that  no  persoyis  might  admire  the  holy  Virgin  too  rmich  and  fall 
into  this  nonsensical  talk  and   heresy'*  (547)  [of  tl^e  CoU'yridians]. 

necessary  for  these  times  "  and  necessary  now  as  then.  Yet  to-day  they  are  introducing  them 
into  Auglican,  American,  and  other  churches,  leading  women  into  idolatry,  putting  a 
stumbling  block  before  Jews  and  Mohammedans  who  might  b^  converted  and  eternally 
saved,  and  alienating  our  own  best  and  most  scripturally  Orthodox  men. 

Note 544. —Or,  "therefore." 

Note  545. — See  on  the  above  expression  the  learned  and  judiciius  remnrks  of  Whitby  on 
John  II,  4.  in  his  Co7nmentaTy,-w\\Q:e\ie  shows  even  from  the  Romish  Maidonat's  witness 
that  very  few  old  writers  do  not  take  them  as  a  rebuke  to  the  Virgin  for  interfering  with 
Him.  It  may  also  be  rendered,  '"Woman,  what  is  there  [common]  to  me  and  to  thee?" 
Christ  in  that  utterance  speaking  as  God  who  was  about  to  work  the  miracle.  For  God  alone 
works  miracles. 

Note  54G. — l,ike,  for  example,  the  heresy  of  the  Collyridians.  against  which  Epiphanius 
is  here  contending;  and,  I  would  add,  like  all  the  other  heresies  on  the  Virgin  Mary,  which 
are  heresies  because  they  sanctioned  her  worship  by  invocation  and  other  acts  of  religious 
service.  Among  them  are  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople  A.  D.  754,  held  by 
the  Iconoclasts,  for  the  invocation  of  saints,  and  the  decision  of  the  image-worshipping 
Conventicle  of  A.  D.  787,  called  the  Second  of  Nicaea,  and  the  similar  heresies  of  the  present 
Greeks,  I<atins,  Nestorians  and  Monophysites.  "The  New  Raccolta,  or  Collection  of  Prayers 
and  . . .  Works  with  Indulgences  attached,"  published  in  1898  by  order  of  Pope  I<eo  XIII.  the 
English  translation  being  made  from  the  Italian  authorized  and  approved  by  the  Congrega- 
tion of  Indulgences,  (Philadelphia,  Cunningham  and  Son,  1903),  contains  such  most  vilewor- 
ship  of  different  sorts  to  Mary  that  it  must  be  seen  to  be  understood  and  detested.  Surely 
Rome  is  what  she  is  called  in  Revelations  XVII,  5,  "Me  Mother  of  Harlots  and  Abominaiwns 
of  the  earth,''  for  the  spiritual  Harlotry  of  that  work  authorized  by  Rome,  that  is  the 
creature-worship  and  image-worship  and  relic  worship  which  constitute  it  are  simply  blas- 
phemous and  horrible  and  are  therefore  well  condemned  by  the  one,  holy.  Universal  and 
apostolic  Church  in  its  Third  Synod,  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431,  which  also  by  necessary  implication 
deposes  all  bishops  and  clerics  guilty  of  it,  and  anathematizes  all  laics  who  do  so. 

Note  547. — Epiphanii  episcopi  Constantiae  opera,  Dindorf's  edition,  vol.  Ill,  Pars  I, 
page  532,  Against  the  Collyridians,  Heresy  LXXIX:  Nttt  μΎ]ν  αγιον  rjv  To  σώμα  tw? 
Μαρίας,  oi  /χήν  ©cos,  vat  δ^  -αρθίνο•;  ην  η  τταρθίνος  και  Τ£Τίμημίνη,  αλλ'  ονκ 
ci?  -προσκννησιν  "ημΐν  οοθίΐσα,  αλλά,  ττροσκννονσα  τον  i$  αντης  σαρκΐ 
'^(.γΐ.ννημΐ.νον,    από    ουρανών  δί   (.κ   κόλπων  ττατρωων  τταρα/ενόμίνον ,      Και    δια 


5"/.  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.      3S9 

5.  For  the  whole  tale  of  the  heresy  is  a  matter  of  jesting  and 
a  fable  of  old  women,  so  to  speak.  And  what  sort  of  Scrip- 
ture has  made  mention  regarding  it?  "Which  of  the  prophets 
has  permitted  a  τηαη,  much  less  a  woman  (548),  to  be  worshippedf 

For  indeed  the  vessel  (549)  is  chosen,  but  yet  a  woman,  and 
changed  in  no  respect  as  regards  her  nature  (550),  but  in  honor  in 
our  minds  (551)  and  feelings  and  [in  that  sense]  honored,  just  as  I 
might  say  the  bodies  of  the  saints  and  whatsoever  is  the  more 
deserving  of  praise  are  (552),  as  for  example  Elijah  a  virgin  from 

ToCro  TO  ivayyiXiov  ΐ~ασφα\ίζ€ται  ημ.α<;  λ/γον,  αντον  του  Κυρίου  φησαντος 
ότι  ''  Tt  e/j.ot  KUL  σ"ΐ,  yvv(u  ;  ο•πΐύ  ί]κίΐ  ύ]  ωρα  μου,"  ίνα  άττό  του  "  Γυι/«ι,  τι 
€/ιοι  και  σοί  ;  '  μτη  τ:νε?  νομίσωσι  ττίρισσότίμον  etvut  την  άγύιι/  Trap^evov, 
yvvaiKa  Τ'ΐντην  κίκΧηκίν ,  ώς  ττ/Όφητίνον,  των  μίλλόντων  ίσεσθηΐττίτηςγη^ 
σ)^ισμ'ίτων  Τ€  και  αίρίσίων  \apiv,  ίνα  μ-η  τιΐ'€5  νττίρβοΧβ  θ'ΐνμάσαντ(.ς  την 
aytav  els  τοντο  νττοπίσωσι  τη<;  αίρεσεως  το  \ηρο\6γ7}μα. 

Note  548. — Or,  ''ηοί  inde'-d  ίο  ipeak  of  αιυυηιαη,"  Gretk  ου  μην  νυναΓκα  Atveiv. 

Note  5-19.— The  Virgin  Mary. 

Note  550.— That  is.  being  still  a  creature  she  can  not  he  worshipped  because  Christ  for- 
bids any  act  of  religious  service  to  any  but  God.  Matthew  IV.  10:  see  also  Colossians  II.  18; 
Rev.  XIX,  10  and  XXII,  8.  9. 

Note551.— Or  "^Μ(ί^»ΐίηί,"  Greek,  TT^V    .    .    .    γνωμην. 

Note  552.— The  Greek  words  here  are  τα  σωμ'ΐΤΊ  which  would  generaly  be  taken  to 
mean  the  aorf/ii,  though  the  examples  of  Epiphanius  just  following.  Elijah  and  the  rest, 
all  refer  to  ^«rjoni,  and  I^iddell  and  Scott's  Greek-English  I<exicon.  sixth  edition,  revised 
and  augmented,  under  σώμα  gives  "a  person,  human  being"  as  one  of  its  meanings  and 
persons  as  a  rendering  of  its  plural.  See  there  for  examples.  Considering  the  peculiar 
character  of  Epiphanius'  Greek,  that  may  possibly  be  the  meaning  here  just  as  in  English 
we  often  use  nobody  and  some  body  and  any  body  in  the  sense  of  no  person,  some  person,  and 
any  person,  as  for  example.  Nobody  is  there  etc. 

But,  if  mere  bodies  are  referred  to  here,  the  question  is.  does  Epiphanius  refer  to  bodies  of 
common  Christians,  or  to  bodies  of  other  saints,  such  as  martyrs  or  lo  both  classes.  Does  he 
refer  to  the  excessive  honor  and  even  worship  to  them  which  was  beginning  among  some? 
Does  he  approve  of  such  honor  and  worship?  To  these  questions  we  reply  that  there  is  no 
absolutely  certain  proof  that  he  refers  to  dead  or  other  bodies  at  all,  and  still  less  is  there 
any  proof  that  he  approved  any  worship  of  them,  and  thirdly  if  he  did  he  came  under  the 
anathema  of  the  Third  Ecumenical  Council,  held  not  long  after  hisdeath,  against  all  relative 
worship,  even  of  Christ's  mere  humanity,  and  much  more  against  any  relative  worship  of 
any  thing  inferior  to  that  humanity,  as  all  other  men's  bodies  are.  Indeed  Nestorius  him- 
self was  deposed  for  worshipping  Christ's  mere  separate  humanity  even  relatively  by  that 
great  Council  of  the  undivided  Church,  And  even  he  admitted  that  if  he  had  worshipped 
Christ's  dead  humanity  otherwise,  he  would  have  been  wrong.  For  in  the  fourteenth  of  the 
twenty  Blasphemies  for  which  he  was  condemned  and  deposed  there  he  expressly  says: 

'  That  which  was  formed  from  a  womb  is  not  God  byitself:  that  which  was  created  by 
the  Spirit' [Matt.  I,  18, 20:  Luke  I  35],  is  not  God  byitself  that  which  was  buried  in  the 
tomb  is  not  God  by  itself;  for  [if  we  had]  so  [said  and  worshipped  that  Man  as  being  Him- 
self GodJ  we  should  have  been  plainly  worshippers  oj  a  Man  and  worshippers  of  a  corpse. 


390  Article  XIV. 

his  mother's  womb  (553),  who  so  remained  always  (554),  and  was 
taken  up  [into  heaven]  (555),  and  did  not  see  death;  as,  for 
example,  John,  who  leaned  upon  the  Lord's  breast  (556),  and 
whom  Jesus  loved  (557),  as,  for  example,  the  holy  Thecla  (558), 

But  precisely  because  God  is  in  the  Man  taken,  the  Man  taken  is  co-called  God  with  God 
[the  WordJ  from  Him,  [God  the  Word],  Who  has  taken  him,  inasmuch  as  that  man  is  con- 
joined to  God  the  Word  who  has  taken  him." 

Those  XX  Blasphemies  with  Nestorius'  deposition  for  them  are  translated  in  volume  I 
of  Chrystal's  Ephesus,  pages  449-480,  4S6-504. 

Moreover  in  the  context  of  the  above  passage  Epiphanius  shows  that  the  honor  with 
which  the  bodies  or  persons  of  the  saints  were  regarded  was  not  worship,  for  directly  after 
he  denies  that  any  of  the  saints  there  mentioned,  including  Mary  herself,  is  to  be  wor- 
shipped.   See  above. 

And  all  that  agrees  with  his  repeated  and  strong  statements  that  nothing  can  be  bowed 
to,  that  is  worshipped,  but  the  Substance  of  God  alone.  See  in  proof  quotations  from  him  on 
pages  240-247,  volume  I  of  Chrystal's  translation  of  Nicaea  in  this  set.  In  passage  14  there  he 
proves  that  the  Word  must  be  God  "beeause  He  is  ίο  be  bowed  io,"  that  is  to  be  worshipped, 
and  he  adduces  the  fact  in  Hebrews  I,  6,  that  the  Father  commands  all  the  angels  to  bow  to 
Him,  that  is  to  worship  Him,  as  a  proof  of  His  Divinity,  and  so  he  argues  in  passages  there 
following.    In  passage  15.  he  writes  of  the  Sole-Born  out  of  the  Father: 

" If  he  is  not  real  God,  then  lie  is  not  to  be  worshipped.  And  if  He  is  a  creature.  He  is 
not  God." 

In  passage  16,  On  Heresy  Ι,ΧΙΧ,  section  36,  the  same  Epiphanius  after  arguing  that  a 
creature  could  not  save  us,  and  that  we  need  a  divine  Redeemer,  comes  to  notice  the  Arian 
absurdity  that  the  Father  had  created  a  god,  Arius' created  Son,  and  given  him  to  us  to  be 
worshipped,  which  he  shows  to  be  contrary  to  the  Christian  doctrine  that  no  creature  cati  be 
worshipped,  and  that  all  religious  bowing,  that  is  worship,  is  prerogative  to  God.  For  he 
writes: 

"Moreover,  how  could  God  have  created  a  god  and  given  him  to  us  to  worship,  when  He 
saith.  Thou  shall  not  make  toihyself  any  likeness  of  any  thing  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  and  Thou 
shall  not  bow  to  it  [that  is  Thoti  shall  not  worship  it.  Exodus  XX,  4,  5]?  How,  therefore,  could 
God  have  created  to  Hijnself  a  Sou  and  commanded  that  he  should  be  bowed  to  [that  is, 
^'^vorshipped."]  especiaUy  as  an  Apostle  saith:  And  they  served  the  creature  contrary  to  the 
Creator  and  became  fools  [Romans  I,  22,  2.5].  For  it  is  a  foolish  thing  to  call  a  creature  God, 
and  to  violate  the  first  commandment  which  saith,  Thou  shall  bow  to  the  Lord  thy  Cod,  and 
Him  only  shall  thou  serve,  therefore  the  holy  church  of  god  bows  to  [that  is  "wor- 
ships"] NO  Q.v.-E.ics\}¥.v.,but  does  to  the  Son-viho  has  been  born  [out  of  the  Father],  to  the 
Father  with  the  Son,  arid  to  tiie  Son  with  the  Father,  together  7vith  the  Holy  Ghost."' 

In  passage  17  he  contends  against  Origan  that  if  the  Word  is  made  he  cannot  be  wor- 
shipped, and  he  speaks  of  Orthodox  Christianity  as  'Hhat  pious  faith  which  worships  no 
creature"  and  that  nothing  created  can  beworshipped. 

Further  on,  on  the  same  Heresy  LXXVI,  St.  Epiphanius  contrasts  the  entire  freedom 
of  the  Universal  Church  from  the  fundamental  error  of  creature  worship.    For  he  writes: 

"And  WE  OURSELΛ^ES  DO  NOT  'WORSHIP  ANY  THING   INFERIOR  TO  THE  SUBSTANCE  OF  GOD 

HIMSELF,  iicawii  worship  is  io  be  given  to  Hi>n  alone  who  is  subject  to  no  one.  that  is  io  the 
unborn  Father,  and  to  the  Son  who  zvas  born  out  of  Him^  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  has  come 
from  Him  also,  through  the  Sole-Born.     For  there  is  nothing  created  in  the  Trinity." 

Note  553.— The  above  statement,  though  quite  possibly  true,  is  not  in  Scripture, 

Note  554. — Not  improbable,  for  we  never  read  of  his  wife  in  Holy  Writ. 

Note  555.— II  Kings  II,  1, 11. 

NOTE  556.— John  XIII,  23,  and  XXI,  20.  ι 

Note  557.— John  XIII,  23;  XIX,  2o,  XX,  2,  and  XXI,  7,  20.  24. 


It.  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  VirgiyiMary.     391 


and  Mary  who  was  yet  more  honorable  than  she  because  she  was 
deemed  worthy  to  bear  Christ.   But  Elijah  is  not  to  be  worshipped, 
even  though  he  never  saw  death  (559),  nor  is  John  to  be  wor- 
shiped, even  though  by  his  own  prayer  he  procured  his  amazing 
falling  asleep   [in  Christ]  (560),  aye,  rather  he  received  the  favor 
(561)  from  God;  but  neither  Tliecla  nor  any  one  of  the  saints  is   \ 
worshipped  (562)  for  the  ancient  error  of  forsaking  the  living  God  J 
and  worshipping  the  things  made  by  Him  shall  not  rule  us,''  [that 
we  should  be  like  those  of  whom  Paul  write?],  ''they  served  a7id 
worshipped  the  creature  contrary  to  the  Creator  (563)  a?id  became  fools'^ 
(564).     For  if  He  does  not  wish  angels  to  be  worshipped  (565), 
how  much  less  does  He  wish  her  to  be  who  was  born  of  Anna, 
who  was  conceived  by  Anna  from  Joachim,  even  that  Mary  who 
was  given  to  her  father  and   mother  in   accordance  with  God's   / 
promise,  as  an  answer  to  prayer  and  diligent  seeking  (566),  not,  / 
however,  that  she  was  born  in  a  way  different  from  the  natural  i 
way  of  all  humanity,  but  just  as  all  are  from  a  man's  seed  and  \ 
a   woman's  womb.     For  though  both  the  history  and  traditions  I 


Note  558. — Probably  "a  legendary  saintess,^'  as  Sophocles  terms  her  under  Θέκλα  in  his 
Greek  Lexicon  of  the  Roman  and  Byzantine  periods.  See  his  references  there,  and  and  on 
the  whole  topic  Gwj-nn's  article,  "Thecla  (I),"  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography,  and  that  in  McClintock  and  Strong's  Cyclopaedia.  Tliough  the  account  of  her  is 
branded  by  TertuUian  as  spurious,  yet  some  of  the  Fathers  believed  it. 

Note  559. — Or,  "even  though  he  were  [now]  among  the  living,"  that  is  on  the  earth. 

Note  5;;0.— Does  Epiphanius  refer  to  the  story  mentioned  by  his  contemporary  Augustine 
■which  Professor  Phuuptre  describes  in  his  articley<>//«  tbe  Apostle  in  volume  II  of  tlie  Ameri- 
can edition  oi  Smith's  Dictionary  0/  the  Bible,  (Hackett's  and  Abbot's),  page  142-1?  It  is  as 
follows: 

"When  he  felt  his  end  approaching  he  gave  orders  for  the  construction  of  his  own  sepul- 
chre, and  when  it  was  ilnisbed  calmly  laid  himseif  down  in  it  and  died  (Augustin.  Trad,  in 
Joann.  CXXIV)." 

Note  561.— Or  "the grace,"  Greek  τ^ν  χάριν. 

Note  56:i. — Δ  sure  proof  that  lipipluuiiiis  knew  of  no  worship  of  saints  in  the  Christian 
Church  in  the  period  A.  D.  374  to  Ά',ΰ  or  Z'.7  when  he  wrote  the  above  work. 

Note  .563.— Greek,  παρά  τον  κτίσαντα. 

Note  564. — Romans  I,  25. 

Note  505.— Matt.  ΙΛ",  10;  Colossians  II,  18;  Revelations  XIX,  10,  and  Rev,  XXII,  8,  9. 

Note  560. — The  story  regarding  Joachim  and  his  wife  Anna  and  the  birth  of  Mary  the 
virgin  is  found  in  two  apochryphal  works,  the  Gosp'l  of  the  Birth  of  Mary,  and  the  Protevan- 
gclton  of  James.  They  are  rejectsd  by  the  who'.e  Church,  but  were  received  by  a  few  at  first; 
and  the  above  tale  was  evidently  believed  by  Epiphanius.  They  are  found  in  the  Apocryphal 
New  Testament  translated  into  Knglish.  The  edition  before  me  is  by  a  skeptic,  and  was 
published  by  Dewitt  and  Davenport,  New  York,  but  has  no  date  on  the  title  page. 


392  Article  XIV. 


regarding  Mary  have  it  that  in  the  wilderness  it  was  said  to  her 
father  Joachim  ^^Thy  wife  hath  co?iceived'^  (567),  that  did  not  mean 
that  it  had  taken  place  without  marriage,  nor  without  a  man's 
seed;  but  the  angel  who  was  sent  [to  him]  foretold  that  it  would 
take  place  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  doubt  regarding  the 
reality  of  the  birth  and  that  it  was  already  ordained  by  God  and 
that  the  child  was  the  offspring  of  its  righteous  father. 

6.  And  we  see  the  Scriptures  explained  on  every  side.  For 
Isaiah  proclaims  beforehand  concerning  the  things  which  were 
going  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  Son  of  God,  for  he  says,  Behold,  the 
Virgin  shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  briyig  forth  a  Son,  a7id  they  shall 
call  his  name  Emniamiel  (568). 

And  because  she  who  did  bring  forth  was  a  virgin,  and  it  was  the 
God  with  us,  as  it  is  interpreted,  who  was  conceived  by  a  woman,  lest 
the  prophet  might  have  any  doubt  or  suspicion  as  to  the  truth  of 
the  prediction  he  sees  in  a  vision,  and,  constrained  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  he  explains,  and  says.  And  he  went  in  to  the  prophetess  (569),  by 
way  of  explaining  regarding  the  entrance  of  Ga^^riel  mentioned 
in  the  Gospel  (^70),  for  he  was  sent  by  God  to  tell  of  the  entrance 
of  the  Sole-born  Son  of  God  into  the  world  and  His  birth  from 
Mary.  And  she  conceived  in  her  womb,  it  says,  and  brought  forth  a 
son.  And  the  Lord  said  to  7ne,  Call  his  na77ie.  Quickly  Spoil,  Sharply 
Forage  (571).  Before  the  child  shall  know  how  to  say  father  or 
7Jiother  he  shall  receive  the  power  of  Damascus  and  the  spoils  of 
Samaria  (572)  and  what  there  follows.  And  none  of  those  things 
was  as  yet  fulfilled.  But  that  was  going  to  be  done  in  the  Son  of 
God,  and  to  be  fulfilled  after  sixteen  hundred  years  more  or  less 
(573).     And  the  prophet  saw  those  things  as  already  done  which 

Note  567.— See  the  Protevangelion,  Ιλ',  4,  and  the  Gospel  of  the  Birth  of  Mary,  ΠΙ,  11. 

Note  568.— Isaiah  VII,  14. 

NoiE  569 —Isaiah  VIII,  3,  where  the  Septuagint  Greek  translation  has  ττροσΎ]}ώον, 
"■'I  went  in"  like  our  Common  English  Version.  But  Epiphanius  is  not  here  quoting  the  exact 
words. 

Note  570.— Luke  I,  26-38. 

Note  571. — Isaiah  VIII,  3,  where,  however,  the  Hebrew  Maher-shalal-hash-baz  w  untrans- 
.'ated  in  the  text,  but  is  in  the  margin  of  some  of  the  reference  Bibles.  Compare  verse  I  there 
luargin.    I  have  translated  Epiphanius'  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  here. 

Note  572  —Id.,  VIII,  3,  4.  Epiphanius  is  here,  for  the  most  part,  following  the  Septua- 
gint rendering. 

Note  573.— There  is  an  error  here,  which  maybe  a  mistake  of  Epiphanius  or  of  a  copyist» 


St.  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.       393 


were  going  to  be  fulfilled  after  so  many  generations.  Was  that 
vision  a  lie?  God  forbid!  But  he  was  unerringly  proclaiming  the 
[Christian]  Economy  from  God  as  already  accomplished,  in  order 
that  the  truth  might  not  be  disbelieved,  [and]  in  order  that  the 
prophet  might  not  doubt  nor  suspect  that  such  an  amazing  and 
astounding  mystery  was  going  to  be  fulfilled.  Dost  thou  not  see 
the  prediction  itself  referred  to  when  the  holy  Isaiah  Himself  says, 
He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter,  arid  as  a  iamb  before  his 
shearer  is  dumb,  so  He  openetk  not  His  mouth.  A?id  who  shall  declare 
His  generation.  For  His  life  was  taken  fom  the  earth,  and  I  will 
give  the  wicked  for  His  burial  (574),  and  what  follows.  And  notice 
how  the  first  parts  of  the  prophecy  explain  the  latter  parts  of  it, 
and  how  the  latter  parts  of  the  prediction  are  explained  as  already 
accomplished  when  he  says,  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter. 
For  it  is  spoken  of  as  already  past.  For  he  did  not  say,  He  is  led, 
and"  [as  a  matter  of  fact]  "He  who  is  proclaimed  by  Isaiah  was 
not  yet  led.  But  the  work  is  mentioned  by  the  prophet  as  already 
accomplished.  For  God's  prediction  of  the  mystery  was  not  to 
fail  [of  accomplishment].  But  going  on  from  that  he  no  longer 
spoke  of  things  as  accomplished  lest  he  might  on  the  other  hand 
produce  a  false  impression,  but  he  says,  His  life  is  takeji  away  from 
the  earth.  And  from  the  two  statements  he  shows  the  truth  that 
the  led  was  first  fulfilled  and  that  the  is  taken  away  was  fulfilled 
afterwards,  in  order  that  from  what  was  [first]  done  thou  mayst 
know  the  truth  and  the  certainty  of  the  promise  of  God,  and  that 
thou  mayest  conjecture  the  time  of  the  revealment  of  those  mys- 
teries from  the  fact  that  they  were  then  in  the  future. 

7.     And  so  regarding  Mary  the  angel  foretold  the  very  thing 
which  was  about  to  be  brought  from  God  after  her  father  had 

A  marginal  Bible  makes  the  date  of  this  prophecy,  before  Christ,  about  742.  I  would  add 
that  ueitherthe  Universal  Church  norScripture  is  responsible  for  some  of  Epiphanius' ideas 
on  prophecy,  nor  for  some  of  them  on  Chronology.  They  are  his  mere  private  individual 
opinions,  but  nevertheless  his  condemnation  of  Mary  AV'orship  is  approved  by  God's  Word 
and  by  the  decisions  of  the  "one,  holy,  universal  and  apostolic  Chtttc/i"  at  Ephesiis,  A.  D.  431, 
against  the  Nestorian  worship  of  the  highest  of  all  created  things,  Christ's  humanity,  and 
much  more  against  the  worship  of  any  other  creature.  I  have  shown  that  more  at  length  in 
volume  I  of  ^/-//fiMi  in  this  Set,  note  ISrj,  pages  79-lCS;  notes  676-679,  pages  331-.36:ί,  and  note 
949,  pages  461463;  and  its  decisions  against  the  worship  of  Christ's  humanity  in  the  I<ord's 
Supper,  note  6C6,  pages  240-;313. 

Note  574. — Isaiah  1,111,  7,  8,  9,  Septuagint. 


294  Artiae  XIV. 

entered  into  his  own  house,  that  is  the  fulfillment  of  the  request 
made  in  the  prayer  of  her  father  and  mother,  [for  the  angel  said], 
Behold,  thy  wife  has  conceived  ΐ7ΐ  her  wo7nb  (575),  that  by  the  prom- 
ise he  might  surely  cause  the  mind  of  the  faithful  [Joachim]  to^ 
finally  rest;  but  some  have  perverted  that  thing  to  error  (5/6).  For 
it  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  be  born  upon  the  earth  contrary  to 
the  common  way  in  which  all  other  men  are  naturally  born,  for, 
that  befitted  Him  alone  for  whom  nature  made  an  exception  [in 
that  matter] .  He,  as  the  Creator,  and  as  the  Ruler  in  that  thing, 
that  is  God  [the  Word]  came  from  the  heavens,  and  made  Himself 
a  body  from  the  Virgin  as  from  the  earth,  for  it  was  the  Word 
who  put  on  flesh  from  the  holy  Virgin. 

But  He  did  not  that,  however,  that  the  Virgin  should  be  wor- 
shipped, nor  to  make  her  a  god,  nor  that  we  should  offer  to  her 
name,  nor,  furthermore,  to  appoint  women  to  be  priestesses  of  such 
a  great  origin  [as  the  Son  of  God,  who  was  born  out  of  the  Father] 
(577).  God  was  not  well  pleased  that  that  should  be  done 
in  the  case  of  Salome,  nor  in  the  case  of  Mary  [the  Virgin]  herself. 
He  did  not  permit  her  to  give  baptism,  nor  to  bless  disciples,  nor 
did  he  command  her  to  exercise  authority  on  the  earth,  nor  to  be 
the  only  holy  person,  and  He  did  not  deem  her  worthy  to  share 
His  dominion  (578),  He  did  not  confer  that  dignity  and  that  work 
[of  the  ministry]  upon  her  who  was  called  the  mother  of  Rufus 
(579),  nor  on  those  women  who  followed  Him  from  Galilee  (580), 

HoTE  575, — All  this  is  from  the  spurious  or  apocryphal  Gospel  of  the  Birth  of  Mary ,  II,  9, 
ITI  11,  and  the  Prolevangelion  of  James  the  Lesser,  IV,  4,  and  the  context  of  both  texts. 
Epiphanius  and  others  were  deceived  as  to  them.  But  the  Universal  Church  never  received 
them,  and  indeed  most  of  it  had  probably  never  heard  of  them. 

Note  576, The  reference  seems  to  be  to  the  Collyridians  or  others  who  relying  on  the 

spurious  account  of  Mary  s  birth  by  promise  and  by  miracle  as  told  in  the  Gospel  of  the  Birth 
of  Mary  and  the  Protevangelion,  fell  into  the  error  of  worshipping  her,  a  creature,  contrary 
to  Christ's  iufallihle  and  binding  law  in  Matthew  IV,  10.  That  worship  of  Marj',  of  course, 
did  not  follow  from  her  alleged  miraculous  birth,  for  the  miraculous  birth  of  Isaac  did  not 
give  him  a  right  to  be  worshipped. 

Note  577.— Greek,  τοσαντηζ  γβνεας. 

Note  578.— All  the  creature  worshipping  sects  which  claim  to  be  Christian  and  yet  wor- 
ship Mary  ascribe  to  her  prerogatives  and  office  work  which  belong  to  one  or  more  persons 
of  the  Trinity  such  as  intercession  above,  which  is  prerogative  to  the  one  sole  Mediator 
Christ  (I  Timothy  II,  5),  protection,  guidance,  etc.  Rome  especially  in  her  latest  i^OiioZ/a, 
to  which  we  have  referred  in  a  note  above,  abounds  in  ascribing  such  parts  of  God'sdominion 
to  Mary.  See  it. 

Note  579.— Romans  XVI,  13. 

Note  580.— Matthew  XXVII,  55;  Mark  XV.  40,  41;  I,uke  XXIII,  49,  55i 


5"/.  Epiphaiiius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.     395 

nor  on  Martha  the  sister  of  Lazarus,  nor  on  Mary  [her  sister]  (581), 
nor  on  any  of  the  holy  women  who  were  deemed  worthy  to  be 
saved  by  His  coming,  who  ministered  to  Him  of  their  possessions 
(582),  nor  on  the  woman  of  Canaan  (583),  nor  on  the  woman  who 
had  an  issue  of  blood  and  was  healed  (584),  nor  on  any  woman  on 
the  earth. 

Whence,  therefore,  has  the  coiled  serpent  sprung  on  us  again? 
Whence  have  his  crooked  designs  come  again?  (585)  Let  Mary 
be  m  honor,  bnt  LET  THE  father  and  The  son  and  The  holy 
GuosT  BE  WORSHIPPED.  Let  NO  ONE  WORSHIP  isiARY.  I  assert 
that  God  has  not  commanded  the  sacrament  (586)  of  worship  to  be 


Note  581.— John  XI,  1-47,  and  XII,  1-0. 

Note  582.-  Luke  VIII,  3. 

Note  583. —Matthew  XV,  22-29. 

Note  584.— Matthew  IX.  20  23;  Mark  V,  25-35,  and  Luke  VIII,  43-49. 

Note    58Γ>,— Literally,     "whence    are    the    wicked   designs    reuewed?"     Greek,   TToflcv 

α.να.καιν'Χ(.τα.ι  τα  σκαλιά,  βουλίνμυατα  ; 

Note  586.— Greek,  το  μνστηριον,  that  is  ί/ie  sacred  rite  of  worship.  The  Greeks  now  use 
uvfTTVpiOV  in  the  present  sense  of  the  Latin  sacramentum,  that  is  for  their  seven  sacraments. 
But  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  for  other  things,  and  never  clearly  for  most 
on  any  of  the  said  seven;  see  under  μνσττήριον  in  the  Kttglish man's  Greek  Concordance  of 
the  New  Testament.  Sophocles  in  h\s  Greek /^'xicon  of  the  Roman  and  Byzcnlitie  periods 
(from  B.  C.  [before  Christ]  140  to  A,  D.  1100)  shows  that  Theodore  of  the  Studium  of  centuries 
VIII  and  IX  mentions  the  Greek  Church  mysteries,  that  is  sacraments  of  his  day,  as  "bap- 
tism, Eucharist,  unction,  orders,  monastic  tonsure,  and  the  mystery  of  death  or  funeral 
services.  Nothing  about  marriage  or  confession."  He  adds,  I  translate  his  Greek:  "The 
Geek  Church  now  recognizes  seven  mysteries,  namely,  baptism  [by  immersion  only] 
Chrism,  the  Eucharist  [in  which  they  iorbid  the  unleavened  wafers  of  the  Latins,  and 
require  leavened  bread],  priesthood,  penance,  marriage,  and  the  anointing  of  the  sick  with 
oil  with  prayer."  Sophocles  there  shows  that  Gregory  of  Nyssa  of  century  IV  used 
μνστΎίριον  in  the  sense  of  "the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  and  its  concomitants."  The 
Latins  have  now  and  have  had  since  some  time  in  the  middle  ages  seven,  but  generally,  in 
the  Latin  rite,  practice  pouring  instead  of  the  Greek  trine  immersion  in  baptism  which  as 
Bingham  shows  in  sections  4,5,6,7  and  8,  chapter  XI,  book  XI  of  his  Antiguiti^s  of  the 
C/irii/Zan  0«rcA,  was  in  ancient  times  the  usage  of  the  Roman  and  of  all  other  Churches, 
East  and  AVest.  And  of  the  Roman  wafers,  as  Bingham  proves  in  sections  5  and  6,  chapter  II, 
book  XV,  of  the  same  work,  he  tells  us  m  section  4  of  it  that  "the  use  of  wafers  and  unleav- 
ened bread  was  not  known  in  the  Church  till  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  centuries,"  and  that 
till  then  leavened  bread  was  used.  And  in  section  G,  he  cites  Cardinal  Bona  as  proving  that. 
And  as  the  Greeks  demand  trine  immersion  as  essential  in  baptism,  they  deny  the  baptism 
of  the  Latins,  and  as  they  deem  leavened  bread  as  essential  in  the  Eucharist  they  there- 
fore brand  the  Lord's  Supper  of  the  Latins  as  lacking  one  part  of  the  sacrament  eras  no 
sacrament  at  all,  so  that  according  to  them  Rome  has  only  five  sacraments.  And  they  differ 
from  Rome  in  that  they  administer  the  prayer-oil,  not  always  as  exlreme  unction  or  the  last 
anointing,  but  give  it  to  any  person  of  theirs  at  any  time  for  weakness  or  sicknesa. 

But  the  learned  Bishop  Jewell,  in  his  Defenee,  against  Harding  the  Jesuit,  of  his  Apol- 
ogy for  the  Church  of  England,  well  writes  (note  "e,"  page  51  of  Bishop  Whittingham's 
edition  of  his  Apology): 


396  Article  XIV. 

given  to  a  woman,  aye  not  even  to  a  man  (587),  nor  do  angels 


"We  will  grant  without  force,  and  freely,  that  the  holy  Catholic  fathers  have  made 
mentiou,  not  only  of  ίίζ/ίκ,  but  also  of  seventeen  sundry  sacraments.  Tertullian  {adversus 
Judaeos,  c.  13)  calleth  the  helve,  wherewith  Elisha  recovered  the  axe  out  of  the  water 
sacramentum  ligni'  the 'sacrament  of  woed:'  and  the  whole  state  of  the  Christian  faith  he 
calleth  {contra  Marcioneni,  Lib.  IV.)  'the  sacrament  of  the  Christian  religion,'  S.  Augustine 
in  many  places  hath  'sacramentum  crucis'  'the  sacrament  of  the  cross,'  {Eptst.  12).  Thus 
he  saith:  'In  this  figure  or  form  of  the  cross,  there  is  contained  a  sacrament'  (in  Sermone  de 
Sanctis  19).  So  saith  Leo,  de  Resurr.  Domini,  Serra.  2.  St.  Jerome  saith:  'Out  of  Christ's 
side  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  martyrdom  are  poured  forth  both  together.'  {ad  Oceanum) 
I,eo  calleth  the  promise  of  virginity,  a  sacrament;  inter  Decreia,  c.  14.  The  bread  that  was 
given  unto  the  novices,  or  beginners  in  the  faith,  called  Catechumens,  before  they  were  bap- 
tized, of  S.  Augustine  is  called  a  sacrament  {ae:  Peccat.  merit,  et  re>niss.X,\h.ll).  St.  Hilary 
in  sundry  places,  saith:  'The  sacramant  of  prayer— oi  fasting— oi  the  Scriptures— oi  weeping— 
of  thirst.  (z«  Uatth.  Canon.  11,  12,  23.  St.  Bernard  calleth  the  washing  of  the  Apostles•  feet  a 
sacrament  (in  Serni.  de  Coena  Dominica). 

"Thus  many,  and  many  more  sacraments  it  had  been  easy  for  M.  Harding  to  have  found 
in  the  catholic  learned  fathers.  Yet,  I  trow,  he  will  not  say,  that  either  the  'helve  of  an 
axe,'  or  the  whole  'religion  of  Christ,'  or  a  'cross'  printed  in  the  forehead,  or  'martyrdom,' 
or  'the  Scriptures,'  or  a  'vow  of  virginity,'  or  the  'bread  given  to  the  Catechumens,'  or 
'prayer,'  or  'fasting,'  or  'weeping,'  or  'thirst,'  or  'washing  of  feet,'  are  the  necessary  'seven 
sacraments'  of  the  Church!  Howbeit,  we  will  not  greatly  strive  for  the  name.  It  appeareth 
hereby  that  many  things  that  in  deed,  and  by  special  property,  be  no  sacraments,  may  never- 
theless pass  under  the  general  name  of  α  iflirraiMc/i/.  But  thus  we  say.  It  cannot  be  proved, 
neither  by  the  Scriptures  nor  by  the  ancient  learned  fathers,  that  this  number  of  sacraments  is 
so  specially  appointed  and  consecrate  to  this  purpose,  or  that  there  be  neither  more  nor  less 
sacraments  in  the  Church,  but  only  seven." 

The  reader  who  would  see  still  further  uses  of  sacramentum  for  things  outside  of  the  said 
seven  Sacraments  should  examine  in  tome  II  of  Migne's /'a/ro/e.g-za  Za/zwa,  col.  1361,  under 
Sacramentum  in  the  Index  Latinitatis  Tertu/lianae,  {the  "Index  to  Tertullian' s  Latinity") 
how  often  that  one  ancient  Christian  writer  alone  of  the  second  century  and  the  third  uses  it 
and  in  what  senses,  for  example,  1.  for  the  Christian  religion;  2.  the  sacrament  that  is  the 
sacred  thing  or  mystery  offesus'  name;  3.  for  the  Gospel;  4.  tacitum  sacramentum  is  used  for 
the  inner  and  hidden  sacred  doctrine;  5.  for  doctrine  or  teaching;  6.  tautum  sacramentum  is 
used  for  mystery,  or  secret  and  hidden  doctrine  or  teaching;  7.  pro  magno  nominis  Sacramento 
is  used  "/or  ί/ίί  great  mystery  of  the  name."  and  similarly  Irenaeus  of  the  second  century; 
8,  Tertullian  calls  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  the  sacrament,  that  is  mystery  of  the  Christian 
Economy:  9.  for  Christ  and  for  types  and  figures  of  Him  in  the  Old  Testament;  10.  for  mar- 
tyrdom; 11.  skill  in  interpreting  figures  that  were  certainly  presented  by  God  in  sleep,  that 
is  in  dreams  sent  by  God;  12.  parables,  enigmas,  figures,  mysteries  shown  or  suggested  in 
dreams  by  which  God's  will  is  signified  or  made  clear;  13.  for  unspeakable  words;  so  Irenaeus 
also;  Lex  est  sacramenti,  ?<  is  a  law  of  the  sacrament,  that  is  of  Christian  Communion! 
15.  Sacramenla,  sacraments,  are  signs  or  mysteries;  16.  Christ  is  called  sacramentum  hunianae 
salutis,  the  mystery  of  man's  salvation.  17.  figuram  extranei  sacvaraeinti,  fgure  of  an  extran- 
eous mystery;  18.  for  monogamy;  19.  for  the  resurrection ;  20.  for  love  as  the  supreme  sacra- 
ment, that  is  sacred  thing,  or  mystery  of  faith;  21.  ligni  Sacramento,  the  mystery  of  the  cross; 
22.  allegoriae  sacramentum,  the  mystery  of  an  allegory,  and  figuraruin  sacrameiita,  mysteries 
of  figures. 

Besides  these  22  instances  of  the  use  of  sacramentum,  mystery,  sacred  rite,  sacred  thing, 
Tertullian  applies  the  term  twice  to  baptism. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  'One,  holy,  universal  and  apostolic  Chureh  in  its  six  sole  Ecu- 
menical Councils  has  never  defined  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  words  μυσττ^ριον  and  sacra- 
mentum, nor  as  to  the  number  of  mysteries  or  sacraments,  a  fact  that  should  be  well  remem- 


St.  Epiphanius  agaiyist  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.       397 

accept  such  glory  (588).  Let  those  things  which  have  been  wick- 
edly written  on  the  hearts  of  the  deceived  [women]  be  wiped  out 
of  them;  let  their  longing  for  the  [forbidden]  tree  (589)  [of  Mary 
worship]  perish  from  their  eyes  (590).  Let  that  which  is  made 
turn  again  to  her  Lord.  Let  Eve,  with  Adam,  take  reverent  care  to 
ho?ior  God  alo7ie  (591).  Let  her  not  be  led  by  the  voice  of  the  ser- 
pent (592),  but  be  faithful  to  the  command  of  God,  Eat  tiot  of  the 
tree  (593).  And  [yet]  the  tree  [itself]  was  not  the  going  astray. 
But  the  disobedience  and  the  going  astray  came  through  the 
tree  (594).  Let  no  one  eat  (595)  of  the  going  astray  [of  those  women] 
on  holy  Mary's  account  (596),  For  even  though  the  tree  was  most 
beautiful,  yet  it  was  not  for  food;  and  though  Mary  is  most  beauti- 
ful and  holy  and  honored,  yet  she  is  not  to  bb  worshipped 
(597). 

bered  at  the  very  start  by  all  disputants,  and  then  there  will  not  be  so  much  division  as  there 
is,  for  most  of  it  or  all  of  it  is  causeless  and  useless. 

Note  5S". — That  implies  that  woman  being  the  lesser  being,  and  Mary  being  a  woman, 
she  was  less  fitted  by  her  very  sex  to  be  worshipped;  and  yet  not  even  man,  a  creature  of  the 
superior  sex,  is  to  be  worshipped,  Matthew  IV,  10. 

NOTK  588.— That  is  clear  from  Revelations  XIX,  10,  and  XXII,  8,  9.  Compare  Isaiah 
Xlyll,  8;  Matthew  IV,  10;  and  Colossians  II,  IS,  which  last  p'ace  teaches  that  those  who  wor- 
ship angels  lose  the  heavenly  "ri7i'a>(/,"  and  hence  are  lost,  which,  by  parity  of  rea.soning, 
will  De  the  punishment  of  all  worshippers  of  Mary.     For  their  sin  is  creature  worship  also. 

Note  589.— Genesis  11,9,  IG,  17.  and  III,  1-24. 

Note  590. — A  hard  thing  to  get  women  worshippers  of  the  Virgin  Mary  to  do.  For  a 
woman  takes  to  idolatry  as  a  fish  does  to  water.  Hence  God's  rebuke  of  them  by  the  prophet, 
Jeremiah  VII,  18,  and  XI,IV,  15-30 

Note  591. — In  accordance  with  Christ's  own  law  in  Matthew  IV,  10. 

Note  59''. — The  worship  of  the  Virgin  is  here  again  ascribed  to  the  old  serpent  the  Devil 
as  the  tempter  to  it.  Revelations  XII,  9,  and   X.\,  '2. 

Note  593  —Genesis  II,  16,  \~\  and  Genesis  III,  1-24,  especially  verses  1,  3, 11,  and  17. 

Note  594, — Here  and  below  Kpiphauius  teaches  that  as  tlie  tree  itself  was  guiltless  of  the 
sin  of  eating  from  it  by  our  first  parents,  so  the  Virgin  Mary  was  guiltless  of  the  sin  of  those 
who  violated  God's  law  (Matt.  IV,  10),  by  worshipping  her.  She  being  a  creature  and  there^ 
fore  not  omnipresent  nor  omniscient  can  not  hear  their  prayers  nor  receive  their  homage, 
and  if  she  could,  she  would  reject  both  with  horror  as  against  her  divine  Son's  law  in  Mat- 
thew IV.  10,  as  the  angel  rejected  John's  homage  in  Revelations  XIX,  10,  and  XXII,  8.  9. 

Note  595. — That  Is,  let  no  one  share  the  error  of  the  Mary-worship  of  those  silly  women 
which  is  deadly  and  destructive,  as  was  the  sin  of  Eve  in  partaking  of  the  tree  in  the  garden 
by  which  she  brought  d.-ath  on  all  her  posterity. 

Note  596.— That  is,  on  what  is  now  the  Romish  and  Greek  plea  that  in  worshipping  her 
they  honored  her  divine  Son,  who,  however,  has  forbidden  us  to  worship  any  one  but  God, 
Matt.  IV,  10. 

Note  597. — Dindorf's  Epiphanius  against  Heresies;  vol.  Ill,  Pars  I,  page  5.36,  Heresy 
I<XXIX,  the  CoUyridians,  Ουκ  [God]  (ττίτρίψεν  avrrj  [Mary  the  Virgin]  SovvaL  βάπτισμα, 

ουκ  εύλογ^σαι  μχχ.θητα.<ί,  ου  το  άρχ^ειν  iirl   τή<ϊ   γ^5   εκ€λευσεΐ',  ή  μόνον  άγιασμα 


398  Article  XIV. 

8.  But  those  -women  [who  worship  Mary]  mingle  again  drink 
to  Fortune  (598)  and  prepare  their  table  for  the  devil  and  not  for  God 
(599),  according  as  it  is  written,  and  ''they  eat  the  bread  of  wickedness,"'' 
as  God's  Word  saith  (600): 

''And  the  wome?i  knead  the  dough  and  their  sons  gather  sticks  to 
make  cakes  for  the  host  [or  "quee7i'''\  of  heaven  (601).  Let  such 
women  be  put  to  silence  by  Jeremiah,  and  let  them  not  trouble  the 
inhabited  world  (602),     Let  them  not  say,  Let  us  honor  the  queen 

αντην  etvat  και  καταζιωθηναι  τη<;  αντον  βασιλείας  ,  ,  .  οοτινα  των  ίττι  της  γη^ 
γυναικών  τοΐτο  Troteiv  τζροσίταζε  το  ά$ίωμα.  ΤΙόθεν  τοίννν  ττάλιν  "ημΐν 
κνκλο^ράκων,  ττόθίν  ανακαινίζεται  τα  σκόλια  βουλεύματα  ;  Εν  τιμή  έστω  Μαρι«, 
6  δε  ΐίοτηρ  και  Υί Os  και  "Αγιον  ΤΙνενμι  ττριισκννείσΟω,  την  Μ,αρίαν  μηΒεΙς 
■προσκννείτω.  Ου  λέγω  γυναικι,  αλλ'  ουοε  άνδ/Η,  Θεω  ττροστετακτο.'.  το 
μυστηριον,  ονδέ  α^-γελοι  γωρονσι  δο^ολογ;'«ν  τοιαΰτην.  Έξαλειφεσθίο  τα 
κακώς  •γραφεντα  εν  καρδία  των  ηπ'ΐτημενων,  αμαυροΰσθω  ες  οφθαλμών  το 
εγκίσσημα  τι>υ  ζύλ'ΐυ'  εττιστρεφτ^  -πάλιν  το  πλάσμα  ττρος  τον  Αεσττοτην, 
εντρεττεσθω  Έυα  /χετα  του  Άδαρ,  ®ε6ν  τιμαν μόνον,  μη  άγεσθω  τη  του  οφεως  φωνη^ 
αλλ  εμμενετω  τη  τον  ®εον  προστάζει  "  μη  φάγης  άπο  τον  ζύλου,"  Και  ην 
το  ζνλον  (>υ  πλάνη,  άλλα  δια  του  ζΰλον  γεγονεν  η  παρακοή  της  πλάνης.  Μη 
φα-γέτω  τις  ά'ο  της  πλάνης  της  δια  Μαρ;'αν  τ^ν  άγί'ΐν'  και  yap  εΐ  και  ώραΐον  το 
ένλον,    αλλ'  οίκ  εις  βρωμά,  καΐ   εΐ  καλλίστη  ή  Μαρία  και  αγία   και  τετιμημενη, 

άλλ  ονκ  εις  το  πρασκυνείσθαι. 

ΝΟΤΕ  598.— Α  heathen  goddess. 

Note  599.— Isaiah  LXV,  II,  Septuagint. 

Note  600.— Proverbs  IV,  17. 

Note  601.— Jeremiah  VII,  18.  This  same  title,  {?«ίί«,  is  often  given  by  Romanists  now 
to  the  Virgin  Mary.  Here  and  above  Epiphanius  in  the  statement  that  those  women  prepare 
a  "table  for  the  Devil  and  not  for  God"  again  teaches  that  the  worship  of  Mary  is  from  the 
ηε\ή1  and  the  folly  of  women.     See  his  language  above. 

Note  602. — Τ  wo  women  especially  troubled  the  Church  and  the  Christian  world  in  the  mid- 
dle ages,  and  defeated  the  efforts  of  the  Emperors  Leo  the  Isaurian,  Constantine  the  Fifth, 
and  Theophilus  to  rid  the  Church  of  image  and  relic  worship.  They  were  the  infamous 
Irene,  Empress  of  Constantinople  and  the  East,  A.  D.  797-802,  who  had  her  own  son  blinded, 
and  incapable  of  reigning;  and  Theodora,  Empress  of  Constantinople  A.  D.  842,  whose  "son 
Michael  III  compelled  her  to  resign  the  regency,  and  incarcerated  her  in  a  convent,  where 
she  died  of  grief  in  A.  D.  855"  (article  "Theodora  (2),"  page  318,  volume  X  of  McClintock 
and  Strong's  Cyclopaedia). 

Bloody  Mary,  queen  of  England  A.  D.  1553-1558,  was  another  troubler  of  Church  and 
State,  for  she  burnt  about  280  of  the  English  Reformers  during  her  short  reign.  And  to-day 
women  in  their  blind  and  silly  and  ignorant  devotion  to  her  worship  put  themselves  under 
the  excommunication  of  the  Third  Ecumenical  Council.  A.  D.  431,  impliedly  pronounced 
against  all  creature  worshippers,  and  trouble  Church  and  State  and  bring  curses  on  both 
where  they  have  influence  and  power.    They  are  generally  sensuous,  like  children,  and  so 


Si.  Epiphayiius  agaiiist  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.       399 

of  heaven  (603).  For  Tahpanhes  knows  the  punishment  of  those 
women  (604).  The  places  of  Migdol  know  that  they  received  the 
bodies  of  those  women  to  rot  (605). 

Be  not  persuaded,  Ο  Israel,  by  a  woman.  Hold  thy  head 
high  and  away  from  a  bad  woman's  counsel.  For  a  woman 
hunts  for  the  predozis  souls  of  vien  (606).  For  her  feet  lead  those  who 
have  intercourse  with  her  to  death  and  to  Hades  (607).  Heed  not  a 
wicked  woniayi  of  no  account.  For  [though]  honey  drops  from  the 
lips  of  a  whorish  woman  who  for  a  time  pleases  thy  throat,  yet  after- 
wards thou  wilt  find  it  a  thiyig  more  bitter  than  gall  and  sharper  than 
a  two-edged  sword  (608).  Be  not  persuaded  by  this  wicked  woman 
[of  whom  we  are  speaking,  that  is  the  heresy  of  the  Collyridians 
personified  as  a  woman  who  worships  Mary].  For  every  heresy 
is  a  wicked  woman,  and  still  more  is  this  heresy  of  the  women 
and  of  the  serpent  who  deceived  the  first  woman  (609).     Let  our 

take  to  what  they  see  with  their  ej-es,  and  therefore  in  their  ignorance,  unless  controlled  by  a 
man,  they  are  prone,  like  the  women  aforesaid,  and  like  Jezebel,  to  become  fanatical 
idolaters  and  so  trouble  hundreds  or  thousands  jf  parishes  and  thousands  of  faithful 
ministers,  even  in  the  Anglican  Communion  on  both  sides  of  the  water,  whose  formularies, 
notably  the  Homily  against  Peril  of  Idolatry,  approved  by  the  Thirty-fifth  Article,  forbid 
even  the  use  of  images  in  churches  and  much  more  their  worship,  and  condemn  the  Image 
Worshipping  Synod  called  the  Second  of  Nicaea,  held  A.  D.  786  or  787,  which  the  idolatrous 
Greeks  and  t,atins  call  the  Seventh  Ecumenical.  Such  women  bring  in  both  the  use  and 
worship  of  such  trash  and  contend  for  them  much  more  than  they  do  for  sound  Bible 
doctrine  on  such  things.  Indeed  they  hate  and  spurn  it,  and  back  up  the  idolatrous  clergy. 
That  is  true  of  multitudes  of  women,  but  happily  not  of  all. 

Note  603. — This  is  the  language  of  Rome  in  her  books  of  devotion  constantly. 

Note  604  —Jeremiah  ΧΙ,ΙΙΙ,  7  to  XLIV,  30,  and  ΧΙ,νΐ,  14,  aud  the  context,  and  compare 
Jeremiah  VII,  15-30. 

Note605. — See  especially  Jeremiah  XLIV,  1,  and  the  threats  of  God  in  verses  24-30 against 
the  worshippers  of  the  queen  of  heaven,  I  have  seen  in  one  Anglican  writer  the  virgin 
called  "Our  Lady  "  the  feminine  of  Our  Lord,  which  issinful  and  akin  to  that  wickedness  of 
calling  her  Queen  of  Heaven. 

Note  606.— Proverbs  VI,  26;  Ezekiel  XIII,  17-23  inclusive. 

Note  607. — Proverbs  V,  5.     Compare  Proverbs  VII,  27,  and  indeed  that  whole  chapter. 

Note  608,— Proverbs  V,  3-9.     Compare  Proverbs  VII,  1-27  inclusive. 

Note  609. — Here  again  St.  Epiphanius  ascribes  the  origin  of  the  Mary-worshiping  Colly- 
ridian  heresy  to  the  craft  of  the  Devil  and  the  folly  of  women,  and  in  the  whole  passage  des- 
cribes it  as  spiritual  '•  IVhoredom  "  And  the  worship  of  creatures  and  of  images  is  again  aud 
again  called  "whoredojn"  in  the  Old  Testament  as  any  one  can  readily  see  by  consulting  a 
full  concordance  under  that  term,  as  for  example  in  Jeremiah  III,  9.  compared  with  Jeremiah 
II,  27,  etc.  Rome  is  mentioned  in  Revelations  XVII,  1,  as  ^'the great  whore"  because  she  is 
given  to  the  spiritual  whoredom  of  worshiping  creatures,  Mary  and  others,  and  Marj'  especi- 
ally more  than  the  Collyridians  ever  did,  and  with  higher  honors  and  more  frequent  devotion 
reinforced  and  fostered  by  lying  indulgences,  as  one  can  see  by  the  Romish  Raccolla:  and 
of  such  indulgences  and  the  worship  of  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Mary  the  Collyridians  knew 


400  Article  XIV. 

mother  Eve  be  honored  as  a  formation  of  God,  but  let  her  not  be 
heard  lest  she  may  persuade  her  children  to  eat  of  the  tree  and 
transgress  the  commandment  [of  God]  (610).  And  let  this  woman 
[the  Colly ridian  heresy  of  Mary  Worship]  repent  of  her  empty 
gabble,  and  let  her  be  ashamed  [of  her  Mary  Worship]  and  turn 
and  put  on  a  garment  of  fig  leaves  (611).  And  let  Adam  under- 
stand her  and  never  again  be  persuaded  by  her.  For  the  persua- 
siveness of  the  error  and  the  counsel  of  a  woman  in  opposition  [to 
God]  wrought  death  for  her  own  husband,  and  not  only  for  him 
but  also  for  their  children.  EvE  ruined  God's  creatures  by  her 
transgression,  because  she  was  excited  by  the  voice  and  the 
promise  of  the  serpent  [and]  was  deceived  by  the  reward 
proclaimed  [to  her],  and  made  up  her  mind  to  transgress  (612), 
(613). 

nothing.  And  the  worship  of  relics  and  of  images  they  are  not  charged  with.  Such  forms 
of  spiritual  whoredom  are  peculiar  to  Rome  and  most  of  them  to  the  Greek  Church  also,  and 
to  the  MoDophysites  and  the  Nestorians,  though  the  last  are  said  to  worship  only  one  image, 
the  cross. 

Note  CIO.— Genesis  II,  16,  17,  and  Genesis  III,  1-24,  inclusive  ;  Matthew  IV,  10. 

Note  611. — A  reference  to  Genesis  111,7,  when,  after  our  first  parents  sinned  by  eating 
of  the  forbidden  fruit,  they  became  conscious  of  their  sin  and  shame  in  so  doing,  and  a  warn- 
ing of  St.  Epiphanius  to  the  Collyridian  worshipers  of  the  Virgin  Mary  to  become  conscious 
of  their  sin  and  their  shame  in  so  doing,  and  to  repent  of  that  worship  of  a  creature,  which 
violated  Christ's  law  in  Matthew  IV,  10. 

Note  612. — Genesis  III,  1-7.  The  Greek  is,  και  €φ  irepav  βαοίσασα.  literally  "and 
went  over  to  another  mind,"  that  is  to  leave  the  obedient  mind  and  to  become  disobedient 
to  God. 

Note  613.— St.  Epiphanius  ^^αζηί/ /TiTijiii/  Heresy  Ί,'ΧΧΙ'Κ.,  that  of  the  Collyridians, 

page  536,  vol.  Ill,  Part  I  of  Dindorf's  edition,  section  8.  Αύται  δε  ττάΧιν  άνακαινίζονσΐ 
rrj  Τΰ^)5  το  κίρ'ΐσμα  κοΧ  Ιτοιμάζονσι  τω  δαί/χονι  και  ον  Θεω  την  τ/'άττίζαν, 
κατά  το  -γεγραμμίνον,  καΐ  σίτοΰνταΐ  σΐτα  άσίβύα<;^  ώ<;  φησιν  6  θΰος  λόγος, 
"  Κ'ίΐ  αΐ  χυνηκίζ  τρίβονσί  σταΐ^,  και  "Σ  νίοί  σνλλΐγονσι  $ύλα  ττοιησαι 
ναυών«?  TYj  στρατιά  του  θύ/)ανοί5, "  [Jeremiah  νϋ,  IS,  Sep'uagint  Greek  translation]. 
Φιμ,ονσθ.~(ταν  νττο  lepcfxiov  at  τοιανται  γυναίκες,  και  μ,-η  θροίίτωσαν  ττ^ν 
οίκονμ^νην.  Μή  λεγ/τωσ«ν,  Ύιμωμεν  την  βασιλισσαν  του  ουρανού.  ΟΓδε 
yr'/p  Τ«φνας  ταύτας  τιμω<>ύσθαΐ^  οίοασιν  οί  τόποι  Μαγδούλωι/  τούτων  τα 
σώματα  νπο8ί)^εσθαι  ets  orjij/iv.  Μ.η  -ίίθου,  Ισραήλ,  γυναικί,  άνάκυ'τί.  άττο 
κακη<!  γνναικοζ  σνμβουλίας,  ' '  Γυν^  γαρ  τι/χ,ίας  φυχαζ  άντρων  άγρεύίΐ,  ταύτηζ 
yap  οι  ττόδες  τους  χ^ρωμίνους  μετά  του  θανάτου  αγουσιν  εΙς  τον  "Αιδι^ν.  Μ^ 
ΤΓοόσεχ^ε  φαύλω  γυναικίω,  μίλι  yap  άττοα-τάζξ.'.  άττο  ^£ΐλ/ων  γυναικά?  ττόρνηζ,  η 
τ-ρος  καιρόν  λιτταινει  σον   φάρυγγα,    ύστερον  μίντοι  ττικρότερον  χοληζ   ίίρησεις 


SL  Epiphayiius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgiji  Mary.      401 


9.  For  that  reason  the  Master  and  Saviour  of  all  wishing  to 
cure  the  pain  and  to  build  up  what  had  been  torn  down  and  to 
make  right  what  was  deficient,  because  by  a  woman  death  had 
descended  into  the  world,  was  Himself  born  out  of  a  woman,  a 
Virgin,  that  He  might  shut  up  death  and  supply  what  was  lacking 
and  perfect  that  which  is  deficient.  But  wickedness  (614)  turns 
itself  on  us  again  to  bring  loss  into  the  world.  But  neither  young 
men  nor  old  men  are  persuaded  by  the  woman  (615)  because  they 
have  the  chastity    which   is   from    above  (616).     The    Egyptian 

και  ηκονημίνον  μαΧλον  μαχαίρας  Βιστόμον. ' '  ^Ιη  -ίίθου  Tuvrrf  Trj  γνναικί  τη 
φανλϊ).  Πάσα  yap  αψεσις  φινλη  γννη,  ττλεον  δέ  η  των  yvvJ-iKiov  αΐρίσις  αντη 
και  η  του  άπατησαντοζ  την  ττρωτην  yvv'HKa,  Ύιμάσθω  -η  μητηρ  ημών  Ε  "α,  ώς 
£Κ  Θεού  πίίτλασμΐνη,  μη  άκονίσθω  0€,  ϊνα  μη  τηίση  τα  τίκνι  φαγΰν  άττό  του 
ζύΧου  καΐ  έντολην  τταραβηναι.  Μίτανοειτω  δέ  και  avVj^  από  κενοφωνίας 
€πιστρ€φίτω  αίσχννομίνη  κ'ά  φνλλα  σνκηί  €ν8υομενη.  Κατανοίίτω  δέ  εαυτόν 
και  6  Άδα/χ  και  μηκετι  αντη  ττίΐθίσθα».  Η  yap  της  -πλάνης  παθ^  κ'ά  yvv  Ηκος 
eis  το  ivavTLOV  σνμβονΧύι  θάνατον  τω  loito  συζνγ'ο  i/ιyάζ€τaL,  ου  μόνον  δέ,  αλλά 
καΐ  ToTs  τίκνοις.  Κατίστρίφί  το  τζλάσμα  Ευα  δια  της  παραβάσεως ,  ίρίθισΟίισα. 
δια  της  Τ"ί)  οφΐως  φωνής  καΐ  iπayyeλL'^ς,  ττλανηθίίσα  από  ταυ  κηρύγματος  κ'ά 
Ιφ^  ίτίρΊν  β'^ΒίσασΊ  Οίάνοί'ΐν. 

Note  614  —This  time  in  the  form  of  creature  worship,  that  is  Mary-worship,  contrary  to 
Christ's  prohibition  of  it  in  Matthew  IV,  10. 

Note  615. — That  is  the  Collyridlan  heresy,  as  he  explains  on  it  above. 

Note  616 —The  chastity  here  referred  to  is  the  spiritual  chastity  of  worshipping•  God 
alone,  as  opposed  to  what  is  called  [spiritual]  "■whoredom'^  in  the  Old  Testament  that  is  the 
worship  of  creatures  and  images;  but  in  Christian  times  the  worship  of  creatures  animate, 
like  the  Virgin,  for  example,  and  of  things  inanimate,  such,  for  instance,  as  images,  crosses, 
relics,  and  such  like  trash,  which  seems  not  (o  have  existed  in  the  Church  when  Epiphanius 
wrote  his  work  Against  Heresus,  "in  the  years  374  to  376  or  377  A.  D."  according  to  Professor 
Tripsins,  page  1 40,  volume  II  of  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Ch  ristian  Biography.  For  in  au 
Epist'.e  to  John  who  was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  386  to  417,  Epiphanius  tells  him  that  he  had 
torn  up  a  veil  in  a  church  at  Anablatha  because  it  had  on  it  an  image  of  Christ  or  of  some 
saint,  contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures;  en  that  see  the  full  account  in  the  excellent 
work  of  Tyler  on  Image  iVorship,  pages  163-107.  Epiphanius  does  not  say  that  it  was  wor- 
shipped, but  shows  that  the  use  even  of  such  a  thing  is  contrary  to  God's  holy  Word,  a  view 
followed  there  bj' Tyler  himself  and  by  the  Church  of  England  in  its  Homily  Against  Peril 
of  Idolatry.  And  surely  a  man  of  that  belief  would  not  worship  crosses  nor  re'.ics.  And 
Epiphanius  himself  witnesses  that  the  Church  of  his  day  did  not  worship  any  thing  but  the 
substance  of  God  Himself  (see  in  proof  volume  I  of  Chrystal's  Nicaea,  page  246,  and  to  the 
same  effect  against  the  worship  of  any  creature,  pages  241-246,  and  indeed  all  the  passages 
from  him  on  pages  240-247  of  the  same  work.  And  as  to  the  use  of  the  cross,  Tyrrwhitt 
("Christian  Art  and  Symbolism,"  page  Γ23,  compare  page  126)  remarks:  "Λ'ο  cross  with  the 
least  pretence  toantiquilv  occurs  in  the  catacombs^'  [of  Rome]  "a/  all,  on  the  highly  trustworthy 
testimony  of  Father  Martigny  (whose  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities  appears  to  be  the 


402  Article  XIV. 


woman  does  not  succeed  in  working  her  game  on  the  chaste 
Joseph,  nor  does  she  lead  him  astray,  although,  indeed,  by  much 
contriving  she  tried  to  work  a  crafty  (617)  plot  against  the  boy, 
but  a  man  who  receives  wisdom  from  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  led 
astray  (618).  Chastity  does  not  disappear  [from  the  earth]  lest 
men  may  disparage  [true]  nobleness.  He  leaves  his  outer 
garments  and  does  not  lose  his  body.  He  runs  away  from  the 
place  lest  he  may  fall  into  the  snare.  He  is  punished  for  a  season 
but  in  time  becomes  a  ruler.  He  is  cast  into  prison  (619),  but  one 
should  stay  in  prison  and  in  a  cornier  of  the  housetop  rather  than  with 
a  brawling  aiid  chattenng  woman  (620).  And  how  many  things 
there  are  to  say?  For  surely  those  idle  women  either  offer  the 
cake  as  an  act  of  worship  to  Mary  herself,  or  surely  they  under- 
take to  oflfer  that  aforesaid  rotten  sacrifice  on  her  behalf.  The 
WHOLE  THING  IS  SILLY  AND  FOREIGN  [to  Christianity]  and  is  both 
an  insolence  and  a  deception  TO  WHICH  THEY  ARE  moved  by  ThK 
DEMONS  (621). 

But  that  I  may  not  extend  my  discourse  [too  far],  the  things 
[already]  said  will  suffice  for  us.  Let  Mary  be  in  honor.  Let 
THE  Lord  be  worshipped.  For  the  righteous  do  not  work  an 
error  on  any  one  (622). 

*  For  God  can  not  be  tempted  by  evil,  and  He  Himself  tempteth 
no  man  to  any  deception.     Nor  do  His  servants   (623).     But  every 


best  and  readiest  of  all  manuals  of  sacred  archaeology)."  See  more  to  the  same  effect  in 
Chrystal's  Essay  on  the  Catacombs  of  Rome,  pages  8  and  9.  And,  on  page  238  of  volame  I  of 
Chrystal's  translation  of  A'zcaia,  St.  Athanasius  writes:  "That  we  may  not  become  servers  of 
another^'  than  God,  and  that  we  are  "truly  worshipers  of  God,  because  we  invoke  no  creature,^'' 
etc. ;  and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  quotes  that  passage  with  approval.  See  page  239  there.  Prob- 
ably most  of  the  passages  alleged  by  Romanists  or  Greeks  for  the  above-named  sins  and 
alleged  td  be  before  A.  D.  340  are  spurious  or  interpolations  by  some  creature  worshippers  of  a 
later  date,  for,  all  copies  being  written  by  hand,  interpolation  was  very  easy,  and,  considering 
the  idolatrous  character  of  the  later  copyists,  very  likely. 

Note  617. — Or  ''dreadful.'' 

Note  618.— Or  "Λ  not  made  sport  of."    Greek,  ov  παΐ'ζεταΐ. 

NOTE619.— The  story  of  Joseph,  and  his  life  in  Egypt  is  told  in  Genesis  XXXV,  24,  and 
Chapters  XXXVII.  XXXIX,  XL,  and  XLI,  etc. 

Note  620.— Proverbs  XXV,  24,  and  XXI,  9. 

Note  621.— Here  the  whole  Mary  Worship  and  the  Collyridian  heresy  which  first  started 
it  is  again  pronounced  silly.,  foreign,  an  insolence  and  a  deception  from  "the  demons." 

Note  622.— Notice  the  contrast,  Mary  is  to  be  in  honor,  but  the  Lord  is  to  be  worshipped. 

Note  623. — Hence,  he  implies,  no  righteous  man  will  teach  the  worship  of  Mary,  which 
he  writes,  just  above,  in  this  section  9,  is  from  "the  demons."    Oh!  what  a  lesson  to  the  clergy 


Si.  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.       403 

man  is  tempted  when  he  is  drawn  away  by  his  ow7i  lust  (624)  and 
enticed.  Then  lust  (625)  britigeth  forth  si?i,  a?id  sin,  when  it  is 
fiyiished  bring eth  forth  death  '  (626). 

But  considering,  beloved,  that  what  we  have  said  is  enough 
on  all  those  matters,  and  having  crushed  by  the  word  of  the  truth 
that  cantharides  (627),  so  to  speak,  which  is  golden  in  appearance, 
and,  so  to  speak,  winged  and  flying,  and  poisonous  and  contain- 
ing destruction  in  itself  (628),  let  us  go  on  to  the  one  heresy  yet 
remaining  (629),  and  again  call  on  God  to  help  us  to  follow  the 
track  of  the  different  parts  of  the  truth  and  to  enable  us  to  make 
a  perfect  refutation  of  what  is  opposed  to  it  (630)." 

and  people  of  the  Mary-worshiping  communions,  who,  according  to  St.  Epiphanius,  are  led 
into  that  sin  by  the  ^'demons."     Let  them  obey  Christ  in  Matthew  IV,  10, 

NOTK  ei4. — That  is,  God  tempts  no  man  to  the  sin  of  worshipping  Mary,  nor  do  his  faith- 
ful servants.  This  condemns  all  tlie  clergy  and  people  of  the  creature  worshipping  sects 
who  do.    For  even  their  laity  teach  that  error  to  their  children. 

Note  62S— The  word  ΐτηΟυμίαζ,  here  used,  means  desire,  and  so  lust,  for  lusi  is  desire. 
The  particular  desire  here  referred  to  is  the  desire  to  worship  the  Virgin  Mary.  See  the  note 
last  above. 

Note  626.— Here  the  worship  of  Mary  is  sin,  and  its  result  death. 

Note  627.— The  Cantharides  was  a  beetle,  but  there  were  several  kinds  of  them,  some 
of  them  being  poisonous,  to  one  of  which  St.  Kpiphanius  compares  the  poisonous  Collyridiaa 
Mary-worshipping  heresy. 

Note  628. — The  destruction  referred  to  here  is  the  destruction  in  this  world  of  the  best 
interests  of  all  those  individuals,  families,  and  nations  who  worship  Mary,  and  the  de- 
struclion.of  the  body  and  soul  in  the  lake  that  burnetii  with  fire  and  brimstone  in  the  next 
warld.  Contrast,  for  example,  the  curses  which  came  on  Mary-worshiping  Spain  and  Italy, 
and  Greece  and  the  Greek  Empire  of  Constantinople  which  was  destroyed  in  1453  because,  as 
the  English  Reformers  teach  in  tl>eir  Homily  against  Peril  of  Idolatry,  of  its  idolatry,  and  the 
blessings  which  have  come  on  anti-creature  worshiping  England  and  Scotland,  and  Prussia, 
and  these  United  States.  Iwleed  the  faces  of  those  wlxj  worship  Mary  and  other  creatures 
come  often,  when  they  are  thoroughly  imbued  with  it,  to  have  what  some  Irish  Protestants 
have  called  the  M.  B.  look,  that  is  the  Mark  of  the  Beast  face,  that  is  the  face  of  degraded 
animal  Rome,  Revelations  XVII,  18,  and  XVIII,  4.  Surely  those  nations  who  hax-e  come 
out  of  her  have  been  signally  blest,  and  surely  God's  word  has  been  fulfilled  in  the  case  of 
those  who  did  not,  for  they  have  been  made  partakers  of  her  sins  and  have  received  of  her 
plagues  (Rev.  ΧΛΊΙΙ,  4);  and  that  is  as  true  of  those  who  have  followed  the  idolatries  of  the 
New  Rome.  Constantinople,  on  the  Bosporus,  as  it  is  of  those  who  have  followed  the  idola- 
tries o>  the  Old  Rome,  on  the  Tiber. 

Note  629.— That  of  the  Massalians  who  were  afterward  condemned  by  the  Third  Ecu- 
menical Synod,  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431.     See  above  pages  37-39. 

The  following  is  a  rendering  of  the  heading  on  the  Heresy  in  Epiphanius,  "Against  the 
Massalians,  to  whom  are  joined  the  Martyrians,  whoare  derived  from  pagans,  and  the  Euphe- 
mites,  and  Satanites,  Heresy  Ι,Χ,  and  Ι,ΧΧΧ  of  the  series." 

Note  630. — Dindorf's  Greek  of  5i.  ^/Jz/Aaw/ui  against  Heresies;  against  Heresy  LXXIX, 
that  of  the  Collyridians,  section  9,  vol.  Ill,  Part  I,  page  538.  Και  -πόσα  ΐ,στι  Xiyuv  ; 
TjTOL  yap  ώς  αυτήν  τΓροσκυνουντες  την  Μ,αρίαν  αΰτι^  ττροσφίρονσι  την  κολΑυριδα 


404  Article  XIV. 

Now,  to  sum  up;  from  all  this  certain  very  important  facts  are 
clear.  But  first,  a  few  words,  by  way  of  preliminary,  as  to  the 
writer : 

Epiphanius  was  a  man  of  eminent  position  as  Metropolitan  of 
Constantia  in  Cyprus,  and  therefore  one  who  would  be  very  likely 
to  have  heard  of  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary  if  it  had  existed 
much  before  the  date  of  his  article,  LXXIX,  which  was  written 
against  it,  A.  D.  374  to  376  or  377  according  to  Professor  I^ipsius. 
And  Epiphanius  had  lived  in  Palestine  and  Egypt  before  going  to 
Cyprus,  and  was  acquainted  with  leaders  in  the  church-world  in 
his  day,  and  with  the  history  of  its  past.  And  as  he  was  probably 
born  according  to  Lipsius,  somewhere  in  the  period  A.  D.  310-320, 
his  memory  went  back  to  Ante  Nicene  days  or  soon  thereafter. 

Besides,  his  work  Against  Heresies  is  the  fullest  produced  in  the 
Church  up  to  his  time  and  long  after,  and  though  not  perfect  in  all 
respects  yet  it  is  the  most  valuable,  and  on  the  whole  the  most 
important  work  before  A.  D.  400  that  we  have  on  Heresies — see 
on  him  above.  Now  to  go  on  and  sum  up  what  he  says  in  his 
account  of  Heresies  LXXVIII  and  I^XXIX  against  the  worship 
of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

In  the  work  Epiphanius  condemns  and  denounces  the  two 
great  errors  comprised  in  the  CoUyridian  Heresy ;  that  is  : 

A.  The  usurpation  by  silly  women  of  clerical  functions,  that 
is  those  of  Bishops,  Elders,  and  Deacons,  and 

ax  apyal  αύται  γυναΐκε?,  ητοί  virep  αντη<;  -προσφίραν  έττιχαρονσι  'την 
τρθΐ.ίρημΐνην  ταύτην  σαθραν  κάρπωσιν.  Το  τταν  εστίν  ηλίθων  και  άλΧότριον, 
και  ίκ  8  ημόνων  κινήσεως  φρυ/γμά  re  κΆ  απάτη. 

"Ινα  δι  μτ)   τταρεκτύνωμαι    τω  λόγω,    άρκίσα   τα  άρημενα   ήμΐν'    η   Μαρία 

Tt/xjy,    ο  Κυρί"?  ττροσκννίΐσθω'    ούδενι    γαρ    ίργάζονταυ   οΐ    8ίκαιοι    νλάνην. 

*  Άπεί/ιαστος    γάρ   ίστιν  ο  Θεο?   κακών,    ττειράζα   δέ   αύτο9   οΰδ/ι/α,"    ουδέ    οι 

αυτοΰ  δούλοι,  ττρό?  άττάτ^ν.       ""Εκαστο?   δε  πειράζεται  εκ  της   Ιδία<;  επιθυμίας 

ΐζεΧκόμενος  καΧ  ΖεΧεαζόμενος.      Ε?τα  ύ]  έπι^υ/λία  τίκτει   άμαρτίαν,  rj  δε  αμαρτία 

άποτελεσθεΐσα  άποκνεΐ  θάνατον," 

Ίκανώ?  δέ  ίχ^ιν  περί  πάντων  τούτων  νομίσαντες,  αγαπητοί,  και  ταντην, 
ώς  ειπείν,  την  κανθαρί8''.,  την  τω  εΐ'δει  μεν  )(ρνσίζονσαν ,  πτερωτην  δε,  ως 
ειπείν,  και  πετωμενην,  Ιοβόλον  οΰσαν  και  Βηλητηριον  εν  eavTy  κεκτημένην,  τώ 
Χύγω  της  αληθείας  συντρίι^αντες,  etc. 


SL  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.      405 


B.     Their  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 

On  the  whole  heresy  and  on  the  point  on  which  we  are  especi- 
ally treating  he  teaches  and  witnesses  as  follows : 

1 .  That  it  was  ''new  "  in  his  day. 

2.  That  its  author  was  "the  Devil,"  and  that  it  was  fostered 
by  him  and  by  "the  Demons." 

3.  That  its  dupes  were  foolish  women. 

4.  That  it  was  confined,  so  far  as  appears,  to  the  places  where 
it  had  arisen,  ''Thrace'  and  the  upper  parts  of  Scythia,"  and  to 
Arabia  to  which  it  had  just  spread,  seemingly,  in  his  time. 

5.  That  the  Triune  God  alone  is  to  be  worshiped. 

6.  That  it  is  sinful  to  worship  Mary  or  any  other  saint,  or 
any  angel  or  any  other  creature ;  that  to  do  so  destroys  the  soul. 

7.  That  all  sound  Christians  condemned  the  Collyridian 
heresy,  including  its  worship  of  the  Virgin. 

These  points  will  be  treated  to  a  certain  extent  together  for 
more  or  fewer  of  the  passages  below  quoted  or  referred  to  bear  on 
two  or  more  of  them. 

(A.)  But  to  dwell  on  some  of  those  points  a  little  longer.  As 
to  the  originof  the  worship  of  the  Virgin,  a7id  its  first  dupes,  Epiphan- 
ius, in  Section  1  of  his  article  on  the  Heresy  of  the  Collyridians, 
thus  writes  of  it  what  shows  its  heresy,  novelty,  and  the  fact  that 
Epiphanius  held  that  *Hhe  Devil•*  was  its  atithor,  and  that  its  dzipes 
were  silly  wovieyi: 

"Next  in  order  in  the  report"  [from  Arabia]  "to  that  heresy 
[of  the  Antidicomarianites]  "appears  A  heresy  concerning  which 
we  have  already  spoken  briefly  in  the  heresy  before  this  one  in  the 
Epistle  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.  And  among  the 
wise  it  is  found  to  be  laughable  and  full  of  subjects  for  jesting. 
.  .  .  For  it  will  be  deemed  more  a  thing  of  foolish  simplicity 
than  of  wisdom,  as  other  heresies  like  it  also  were.  .  .  .  For 
those  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.  And  the  devil  deemed  it  best  to 
vomit  forth  that  error  also  by  means  of  women,  as  aforetime  he 


4o6  Article  XIV. 


vomited  forth  very  laughable  teachings  in  the  case  of  Quintilla 
and  Maximilla  and  Priscilla,  and  so  has  he  done  here  also." 

And  then  he  describes  their  womanish  and  foolish  worship 
which  he  brands  as  from  the  devil.  It  is  diametrically  opposed  to 
Christ's  command  in  Matthew  IV,  10,  and  Luke  IV,  8:  ''■Thou 
shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  oni.y  shalt  Thou  sErvk." 
Indeed  Epiphanius  himself  quotes  that  law  of  Christ  against  crea- 
ture worship  elsewhere;  see  in  proof  page  243,  volume  I  of  Chrys- 
tal's  Nicaea. 

The  Quintilla,  Maximilla  and  Priscilla  or  Prisca  were  Mon- 
tanist  so-called  prophetesses,  noted  for  their  fanaticism  and  folly. 
Professor  Salmon,  under  Moyitamis,  page  936,  volume  III  of  Smith 
and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christiayi  Biography ,  states: 

"Prisca  ^nd  Maximilla,  who  had  been  married,  left  their  hus- 
bands, were  given  by  Montanusthe  rank  of  virgins  in  the  church," 
and  claimed  to  be  prophetesses,  but  as  their  predictions  were  against 
Orthodox  Christianity  the  Church  regarded  thtir  alleged  prophe- 
cies as  false  and  evil.  Like  the  CoUyridians  later  they  had  female 
priests  and  bishops.  See  on  that  note  "g,"  page  939  of  the  same 
volume  III.  Montanism  indeed  claimed  in  eflfect  to  be  a  new  rev- 
elation supplementary  to  the  Christian.  See  more  fully  Salmon's 
article  Montanus. 

Epiphanius  again  brands  Collyridianism  clearly  and  definitely 
as  a  ''heresy,''^  and  again  and  Άζζιη  diS  from  t/ie  devil  and  from  the 
demons,  and  from  the  folly  of  wo^neyi. 

For  in  the  same  Section  1  above  quoted,  he  expressly 
terms  it  a  '''heresy'^  which  'Hhe  Devil"  had  vomited  forth  ''by  tncayis 
of  women."  And  in  Section  2,  referring  to  the  fact  that  those 
women  in  their  folly  by  usurping  the  functions  of  the  Christian 
ministry  would  wreck  sound  doctrine,  he  adds: 

"To  whom  is  it  not  clear  that  their  presumption  is  the  doc- 
trine and  scheme  of  demons  and  is  alien"  [to  Christianity].  Evi- 
dently they  could  then  find  no  true  minister  of  Christ  to  undertake 
the  sacrilegious  task  of  offering  to  Mary,  and  so  they  blasphemously 
ursurped  clerical  functions  themselves,  weak  and  ignorant  and 
heretical  as  they  were. 

In  Section  2,  below,  Epiphanius  speaks  of  the  whole  heresy, 


SL  Epiphanius  agaiyist  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.       407 

without  excepting  any  part  of  it ,  as  ''the  craziness  of  those  women''' 
who  held  it,  ''for  the  whole  thi?ig  is  a  fancy  of  the  female  sex ,  and  it 
is  the  disease  of  Eve  who  is  agai^i  deceived, ' '  and  he  calls  upon  the 
'''male  servants  of  God' ^  to  "put  on  a  ma?ily  tnind'^  and  to  "scatter'^ 
it  "awayy  And  in  Section  1,  just  before,  he  terms  it  an  "idol- 
makijig  heresy'^  (631)  and  a  "mad?iess'^  of  [the  Collyridian] 
" women' ^  whom  he  had  just  mentioned. 

In  Section  4  he  calls  the  "Mary- worshipping  Collyridianism  a 
ταΈν7  folly, ^*  and  "this  craziness  as  to  woman's  place  in  the  Church," 
and  "this  wickedfiess  through  the  female  again,'^  blames  them  for 
*'going  outside  her  own  proper  work,"  and  as  "attempting  to 
force  the  wretched  nature  of  men"  by  their  new  heresy,  and  tells 
the  man  to  say  to  her  in  the  words  of  Job,  "Thou  hast  spoken  as 
one  of  the  foolish  women  speaketh.'^  He  very  pertinently  brands 
it  as  "stupid  to  every  man  who  has  understanding,  and  is  possessed 
of  God"  and  "the purpose  the  making  of  an  idol  [of  Mary]  a7id  the 
attempt  devilish  . ' ' 

And  further  on,  in  the  same  section,  he  condemns  the  worship 
of  creatures  and  the  worship  of  images  as  spiritual  "whoredom" 
and  "adulterous  whoredom,"  and  as  from  "the  Devil,"  which  is  an 
antecedent  condemnation  of  the  idolatry  approved  by  the  image 
worshiping  conventicle  called  by  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins  the 
Seventh  Ecumenical  Synod  which  was  held  at  Nicaea,  A.  D.  786 
or  787.     And  in  Section  5,  he  writes: 

"For  the  whole  tale  of  the  heresy  is  a  matter  for  jesting  and  a 
fable  of  old  women,  so  to  speak.  And  what  sort  of  Scripture  has 
made  mention  regarding  it?  which  of  the  prophets  has  permitted 
a  man,  much  less  a  woman  to  be  worshipped?" 

In  section  7  Epiphanius  refers  to  the  invitation  of  the  Colly- 
ridian heresy  to  worship  Mary  as  "the  voice  of  the  serpent,"  and 
the  error  of  those  who  heed  it  as  a  '  'going  astray, ' '  and  warns 
against  it: 

"Let  that  which  is  made  turn  again  to  her  Lord.  Let  Eve 
with  Adam  take  reverent  care  to  honor  God  alone.  Let  her  not 
be  led  by  the  voice  of  the  SerpeYit,  but  be  faithful  to  the  command  of 
God,  Eat  not  of  the  tree.     .     .     .     Let  no  one  eat  of  the  going 

Note  631. — Those  last  words  are  explained  in  line  16  above. 


4o8  Article  XIV. 


astray  [of  those  Collyridian  women]  on  holy  Mary's  account.  For 
even  though  the  tree  was  most  beautiful,  yet  it  was  not  for  food; 
and  though  Mary  is  most  beautiful  and  holy  and  honored,  yet  vSH^ 

IS  NOT  TO  BE  WORSHIPPED. 

[Section]  8.  But  those  women  [who  worship  Mary]  mingle 
again  drink  to  Fortune  and  prepare  their  table  for  the  Devil  and  not 
for  God,  according  as  it  is  written,  and  'they  eat  the  bread  of 
wicked?iess,'  as  God's  Word  saith. 

And  again  in  Section  8,  he  calls  the  Mary-worshipping  Colly- 
ridian '  'heresy^' :  ''this  heresy  of  the  women  and  of  the  serpent  who 
deceived  the  first  woman,"  and  his  words  imply  that  it  was  a 
worse  heresy  than  most  or  all  others.     For  he  writes  of  it: 

"For  every  heresy  is  a  wicked  woman,  and  still  more  is  this 
heresy  of  the  women  ayid  of  the  serpeiit  who  deceived  the  first  woman  y 
And  just  before  he  terms  it  a  wicked  woman,  and  warns  against  it 
as  leading  "to  death  and  Hades.' ^ 

And  in  Section  9,  he  writes:  "And  how  many  things  there 
are  to  say?  Far  surely  those  idle  women  either  offer  the  cake 
as  an  act  of  worship  to  Mary  herself  or  surely  they  undertake  to 
offer  that  aforesaid  rotten  sacrifice  on  her  behalf. 

[Section]  9.  The  whole  thing  is  silly  and  foreign  [lo  Chris- 
tianity] and  is  both  an  iiisolence  and  a  deceptioyi  το  which  they 
ARE  MOVED  BY  THE  DEMONS. 

But  that  I  may  not  extend  my  discourse  [too  far]  the  things 
[already]  said  will  suflBce  for  us.  "Let  Mary  be  in  hojior.  Let  the 
Lord  be  worshipped. ' ' 

Then  he  teaches  that  the  righteous  do  not  work  the  error  of 
Mary-worship,  of  which  he  is  speaking,  on  any  one,  nor  does  God 
nor  do  any  of  His  servants,  but  that  human  beings  are  drawn 
away  into  error  by  their  own  lust,  that  is  liking  for  it,  that  is,  he 
means,  like  the  liking  of  those  silly  women  for  the  worship  of 
Mary,  and  that  the  result  is  sin  and  death. 

In  Section  9,  Epiphanius  teaches  that  men  possessing  the  spirit- 
ual chastity  of  the  Scriptures,  that  is  strong  attachment  to  the 
worship  of  God  alone,  were  not  in  his  day  led  into  the  spiritual 
"whoredom"  of  worshipping  a  creature,  Mary.  For  referring  to 
the  sin  of  worshipping  her  he  writes: 


St.  EpiphanUis  against  ike  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.     409 


"But  wickedness  turns  itself  on  us  again  to  bring  loss  into  the 
world.  But  neither  young  men  nor  old  men  are  persuaded  by  the 
woman  [the  Collyridian  heresy  of  Mary-worship]  because  ihey 
have  the  chastity  which  is  from  above." 

Would  that  all,  by  God's  grace,  had  preserved  that  spiritual 
chastity  against  the  invocation  and  worship  of  all  creatures,  and 
against  the  worship  of  images  pictured  and  graven,  crosses,  relics, 
altars,  communion  tables,  and  other  material  things.  Then  we 
would  have  escaped  the  punishments  of  God  for  such  sins  in  the 
middle  ages  and  since,  and  so  large  a  part  of  what  was  once 
Christerdom  would  not  now  be  held  in  subjugation  by  the 
Mohammedan  Turk. 

See  on  pages  363-377  above  what  is  quoted  to  the  same  effect 
against  Mary  Worship  from  Epiphanius  against  the  Antidicomarian- 
ites,  Heresy  LXXVIII. 

(B).  In  Section  1 ,  Epiphanius  tells  us  where  the  worship  of  the 
Virgin  had  risen  and  whither  it  had  gone,  Thrace  and  the  upper 
parts  of  Scythia,  thence  to  Arabia,  all  which  was  as  yet  only  a 
small  part  of  the  Christian  world.  And  his  words  prove  therefore 
that  it  could  not  bear  the  Vincentian  test,  in  other  words  that  it  had 
not  been  held  "always,  everywhere  and  by  aW  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Gospel,  and  therefore  it  must  be  rejected  and  condemned 
on  every  principle  of  Orthodoxy  and  of  Catholicity  that  is  of  Uyii- 
versality,  and  is  by  the  ^^o?ie,  holy,  universal  and  apostolic  church'" 
East  and  West,  in  the  decisions  of  its  Third  Synod,  Ephesus, 
against  the  sin  of  worshipping  a  human  being. 

See  to  the  same  effect  on  pages  363-377  above  what  is  quoted 
from  Epiphanius  against  the  Heresy  of  the  Antidicomarianites, 
(Heresy  EXXVUI). 

(C.)  Si.  Epiphanius  teaches  that  it  is  sinful  to  worship  Mary 
or  any  other  saint  or  any  angel,  and,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  any 
other  creature,  and  that  all  such  worship  is  from  the  Devil.  For 
he  held  strongly  to  Christ's  command  to  worship  God  alone  (Matt. 
IV,  1 0).  And  he  tells  us  that  the  Christians  of  his  time  worshipped 
nothing  but  the  Triune  Jehovah. 

For  example,  in  Section  4  he  writes: 

"Yes,  indeed,  the  body  of  Mary  was  holy,  but,  nevertheless, 


4 ΙΟ  Article  XIV. 

was  not  God?  Yes  indeed,  the  Virgin  was  a  virgin,  and  honored, 
but  she  was  not  given  to  us  to  be  worshipped,  but  she  worships  Him 
who  was  born  in  flesh  out  of  her,  but  He  had  come  from  the  heavens 
out  of  the  bosom  of  His  Father.  And  concerning  that  the  Gospel 
assures  us  when  it  tells  us  that  the  Lord  Himself  said,  '  Woman 
what  have  I  to  do  with  iheef  My  hour  is  not  yet  οονιε,'  that  none 
may  suppose  the  holy  Virgin  to  be  more  than  she  is;  and  he  called 
her  a  '  IVoman'  [thus]  speaking  prophetically  on  account  of  the 
schisms  and  heresies,  which  were  to  be  on  the  earth,  in  order  that 
no  persons  might  admire  the  holy  Virgin  too  much  and  fall  into 
this  nonsensical  talk  and  heresy  [of  the  Collyridians,  and,  I  would 
add,  of  Romanists,  Greeks,  Nestorians  and  Monophysites,  most 
or  all  of  whom  are  now  worse  and  more  degraded  worshippers  of 
Mary  than  the  Collyridians  were]. 

"For  the  whole  tale  of  the  heresy  is  a  matter  for  jesting 
and  a  fable  of  old  women,  so  to  speak.  And  what  sort  of  Scrip- 
ture has  made  mention  regarding  it?  which  of  the  prophets  has  per- 
■mitted  a  man,  tmich  less  a  womayi,  to  be  worshipped'^. 

For  indeed  the  vessel  [Mary]  is  chosen,  but  yet  a  woman,  and 
changed  in  no  respect  as  regards  her  nature,  but  in  honor  in  our 
minds  and  feelings,  and  [in  that  sense]  honored." 

Then,  after  mentioning  Elijah  and  John,  and  Thecla,  "α«αί 
Mary  who  was  yet  more  honorable  than  she  because  she  was  deetned 
worthy  to  bear  Christ,  he  adds: 

"But  Elijah  is  not  to  be  worshipped,  even  though  he  never 
saw  death,  nor  is  John  to  be  worshipped  .  .  .  but  neither 
Thecla  nor  any  one  of  the  saints  is  worshipped,  tor  the  ancient 
error  of  forsaking  the  living  God  and  worshipping  the  things  made 
by  Him  shall  not  rule  us"  [tliat  we  should  be  like  those  of  whom 
Paul  writes]  'they  served  and  worshipped  the  creature  contrary  to  [or 
* ' besides"''^  the  Creator  and  became  fools. ^  For  if  He  does  not  wish 
angels  to  be  worshipped  how  miich  less  does  He  wish  her  to  be  who  was 
conceived  by  An?ia  from  Joachi7n,  even  that  Mary  who  was  given 
to  her  father  and  mother  in  accordance  with  God's  promise  as  an 
answer  to  prayer  and  diligent  seeking?  not,  however,  that  she  was 
born  in  a  way  different  from  the  natural  way  of  all  humanity  but 
just  as  all  are  from  a  man's  seed  and  a  woman's  womb." 


Si.  Epipha7iius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.     411 

In  a  note  above  I  have  explained  that  the  tale  of  the  birth  of 
the  Virgin  and  that  she  was  the  child  of  Joachim  and  Anna  is 
derived  from  the  spurious  Gospel  of  the  Birth  of  Mary  or  from  the 
Protevangelion  falsely  called  James  the  Lesser's,  and  that  in  com- 
mon with  some  others  Epiphanius  was  deceived  by  the  story.  That 
will  be  enough  on  that.  We  notice  further  that,  like  others  of  the 
ancient  writers,  he  understood  the  words  of  Christ,  in  John  II,  4, 
"  Womaii,  what  have  I  to  do  with  theeV^  to  be  a  rebuke  to  her. 

Furthermore  he  shows  above  that  neither  Mary  nor  any  other 
creature  was  worshipped  by  the  Church  in  his  day,  the  creature 
worship  of  the  Collyridian  women  being  confined  to  themselves 
and  branded  by  him  as  a  7ioveIty  and  a  heresy  again  and  again. 

And  elsewhere,  as  we  see  in  a  note  above  on  this  heresy 
Epiphanius  tells  us  that: 

''The  holy  church  of  God  worships  no  creature;"  but  does  worship 
the  Trinity. 

And  in  the  same  note  we  see  that  he  speaks  of  Christianity  as 
*' that  pious  faith  which  worships  no  creature.'^ 

And  speaking  of  Orthodox  Christians  he  writes: 

"And  we  ourselves  do  not  worship  any  thing  inferior 
TO  THE  Substance  of  God  Himself  because  worship  is  to  be  given 
to  Him  alone  who  is  subject  to  no  one,  that  is  to  the  unborn  Father 
and  to  the  Son  who  was  born  out  of  Him,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
who  has  come  from  Him  also  through  the  Sole-Born.    For  there  is 
nothing  created  in  the  Trinity." 

See,  to  the  same  effect,  that  note  and  more  of  Epiphanius 
Athanasius,  Faustin  a  Presbyter  of  Rome,  Lucifer  of  Cagliari  and 
Chromatins  of  Aquileia  on  pages  217-253,  volume  I  of  Nicaea  in 
this  Set,  and  Sections  7,  8  and  9  of  Epiphanius'  work  above. 

In  Section  7,  referring  to  the  fact  that  God  the  Word  took  a 
body  from  the  Virgin,  he  adds: 

"But  He  did  not  that,  however,  that  the  Virgin  should  be 
worshipped,  nor  to  make  her  a  god,  nor  that  we  should  offer  to  her 
name." 

To  day  Romanists  call  her  Queen  of  Heaven  as  though  she 
a  creature,  could  share  the  dominion  of  her  Son.     But  in  Section  7 
Epiphanius  well  writes  of  her: 


412  Article  XIV. 

"He  [Christ]  did  not  permit  her  to  give  baptism,  nor  to  bless 
disciples,  nor  did  he  command  her  to  exercise  authority  on  the 
earth,  nor  to  be  the  only  holy  person,  and  He  did  not  deem  her 
worthy  to  share  His  dominion.  .  .  .  Whence  therefore  has  the 
coiled  serpent  sprung  on  us  again?  Whence  have  his  crooked 
designs  come  again?  Let  Mary  be  in  honor,  but  let  the  Father  and 
the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  be  worshipped.  Let  no  one  worship  Mary. 
I  assert  that  God  has  not  commanded  the  sacrament  [of  worship]  to 
be  given  to  a  woman,  aye  not  even  to  a  man,  nor  do  angels  accept 
such  glory.  Let  those  things  which  have  been  wickedly  written 
on  the  hearts  of  the  deceived  [women]  be  wiped  out  of  them;  let 
their  longing  for  the  [forbidden]  tree  [of  Mary  worship]  perish 
from  their  eyes.  Let  that  which  is  made  turn  again  to  her  Lord. 
Let  Eve  with  Adam  take  reverent  care  to  honor  God  alone.  Let 
her  not  be  led  by  the  voice  of  the  serpent  [to  worship  Mary],  but 
be  faithful  to  the  command  of  God,  Eat  not  of  the  tree.  .  .  . 
Let  no  one  eat  of  the  going  astray  [of  those  women]  on  holy  Mary's 
account.  For  even  though  the  tree  was  most  beautiful,  yet  it  was 
not  for  food;  and  though  Mary  is  most  beautiful  and  holy  and  hon- 
ored, yet  SHE  IS  NOT  το  be  worshipped. 

8.  But  those  women  [who  worship  Mary]  mingle  again  drink 
to  [the  goddess  of]  Fortune,  and  prepare  their  table  for  the  Devil 
and  not  for  God,  according  as  it  is  written,  and  ''they  eat  the  bread 
of  wicked7iess"  as  God's  word  saith,  "And  the  women  knead  the 
dough,  and  their  sons  gather  sticks  to  make  cakes  for  the  host  [or 
Queen]  of  Heaven.  Let  such  women  be  put  to  silence  by  Jeremiah, 
and  let  them  not  trouble  the  inhabited  world;  let  them  not  say,  Let 
us  honor  the  Queen  of  Heaven.  For  Tahpanhes  knows  the  punish- 
ment of  those  women.  The  places  of  Migdol  know  that  they 
have  received  the  bodies  of  those  women  to  rot." 

Then  comparing  the  efforts  of  those  first  worshippers  of  the 
Virgin,  the  Collyridian  women,  to  win  men  to  that  sin  of  spiritual 
whoredom,  Epiphanius  goes  on: 

"Be  not  persuaded,  Ο  Israel,  by  a  woman.     Hold  thy  head 

v^  high  and  away  from  a  bad  woman's  counsel.     For  d  woman  hunts 
\    for  the  preaous  souls  of  men.     For  her  feet  lead  ihosejwho  have  inter - 

^tf  w';  course  with  her  to  death  and  to  Hades,     Heed  iiota/vicked  woman  of 


►S"/.  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.      413 

no  account.  For  [though]  honey  drops  from  the  lips  of  a  whorish 
womayi  who  for  a  time  pleases  thy  throat  yet  afterwards  thou  wilt  fnd 
it  a  thi7ig  more  bitter  than  gall  and  sharper  than  a  two-edged  sword. 
Be  not  persuaded  by  this  wicked  woman  [of  whom  we  are  speak- 
ing, that  is  the  heresy  of  the  Collyridians  personified  as  a  woman 
who  worships  Mary].  For  every  heresy  is  a  wicked  woman,  and 
still  more  is  this  heresy  of  the  womc7i  and  of  the  serpent  who  deceived 
the  first  woman.  Let  our  mother  Eve  be  honored  as  a  formation 
of  God,  but  let  her  not  be  heard  lest  she  may  persuade  her  children 
to  eat  of  the  tree  and  transgress  the  command  [of  God].  And  let 
this  woman  [the  Collyridian  heresy  of  Mary-worship]  repent  of 
her  empty  gabble,  and  let  her  be  ashamed  [of  her  Mary-worship] 
and  turn  and  put  on  a  garment  of  fig  leaves.  And  let  Adam  come 
to  his  senses  regarding  herself  and  never  again  be  persuaded  by  her. 
For  the  persuasiveness  of  error  and  the  counsel  of  a  woman  in 
opposition  [to  God]  wrought  death  for  her  own  husband,  and  not 
only  for  him  but  also  for  their  children.  Eve  ruined  God's 
creatures  by  her  transgression,  because  she  was  excited  by  the 
voice  and  the  promise  of  the  serpent  [and]  was  deceived  by  the 
reward  proclaimed  to  her  and  made  up  her  mind  to  transgress. 

[Section]  9.  .  .  .  But  wickedness  turns  itself  on  us  again 
to  bring  loss  into  the  world.  But  neither  young  men  nor  old  men 
are  persuaded  by  the  woman  [the  Collyridian  heresy  and  spiritual 
whoredom  of  Mary-worship]  because  they  have  the  chastity  which 
is  from  above." 

Then  he  likens  the  Collyridian  heresy  to  Potiphar's  wife, 
and  him  who  preserves  spiritual  chastity  to  Joseph,  as  being  free 
from  the  whoredom  of  creature  worship,  and  then  adds: 

"And  how  many  things  there  are  to  say  ?  For  surely  those  idle 
women  either  offer  Ihe  cake  as  an  act  of  worship  to  Mary  herself, 
or  surely  they  undertake  to  offer  that  aforesaid  rotten  sacrifice  on 
her  behalf. 

The  whole  thing  is  silly  and  foreign  [to  Christianity]  and  is  both 
an  insolence  and  a  dcceptioji  to  which  they  are  vioved  by  the  demons. 

But  that  I  may  not  extend  my  remarks  [too  far],  the  things 
[alread}']  said  will  suflSce  for  us.  Let  Mary  be  in  honor.  Let  the 
Lord  be  worshipped. 


414  Article  XIV. 


Then  he  teaches,  in  effect,  that  God  does  not  tempt  any  one  to 
commit  the  sin  of  worshipping  Mary,  nor  do  any  of  His  servants, 
but  that  every  one  who  falls  into  it  is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust 
for  that  spiritual  whoredom  and  enticed,  and  that  the  result  of  that 
sin  is  ' '  death . ' ' 

And  on  Heresy  lyXXVIII,  after  condemning  the  Antidico- 
marianites,  Epiphanius  writes  of  the  Collyridians,  above,  pages 
368-370,  as  follows : 

"So,  also,  we  wondered  again  at  the  other  party  when  we 
heard  that  they  [the  Collyridians] ,  on  the  other  hand,  in  their  sense- 
lessness 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  the)^  are  borne  along  by  a  sort  of  stupidity  and  craziness.  For 
they  say  that  certain  women  in  Arabia  have  indeed  brought  that 
empty-headed  nonsense  thither  from  the  parts  of  Thrace,  so  that 
they  offer  a  certain  cake  to  the  name  of  the  Ever-Virgin,  and  meet 
together,  and  in  the  name  of  the  holy  Virgin  they  attempt  beyond 
their  measure  in  any  respect  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,  so  that  t/ie  whole  thing  is  a  devilish  work  and 
a  doctrine  of  a?i  laiclean  spirit.  And  in  them  is  fulfilled  the  Scrip- 
ture, which  says :  Sofue  shall  depart  from  the  sound  doctrine  giving 
heed  to  fables  and  doctrines  of  deniojis.  For  it  saith,  they  shall  be 
worshippers  of  the  dead  as  they  were  worshipped  in  Israel  also. 
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."  ' 

Then,  after  more  condemnation  of  saint  worship  he  adds: 

"  We  must  not  honor  the  saints  beyond  what  is  right,  but  we 
must  honor  their  Lord.  Let,  therefore,  the  error  of  the  deceived 
cease.  For  Mary  is  neither  a  god  nor  has  she  a  body  from  heaven. 
.  .  .  And  let  no  one  offer  to  her  name,  for  [if  he  does]  he  des- 
troys his  own  soul." 

And  just  before  he  says  that  ^'  the  saints  were  not  guilty  of 
placing  a  stumbling  block^'  of  creature  worship  "  before a?iy person.''^ 

(D.)  He  teaches  that  the  worship  of  Mary  brings  a  curse  on 
those  guilty  of  it  and  destroys  the  soul. 


Si.  Epiphaiihis  agahist  the  WorsJdp  of  the  Virgin  Mary.       415 

That,  indeed,  is  the  burden  of  the  work  of  Epiphanius  against 
the  Antidicomarianite  Heresy  as  well  as  of  that  against  that  of  the 
Collyridians.  For  example,  in  Section  23  of  the  former  he  writes : 
"  We  must  not  honor  the  saints  beyond  what  is  right,  but  we 
must  honor  their  Lord.  Let,  therefore,  the  error  of  the  deceived 
cease.  For  Mary  is  neither  a  god  nor  has  she  a  body  from  heaven, 
but  is  one  by  coition  of  a  man  and  a  woman,  and  she  formed  part 
of  a  dispensation  according  to  a  promise,  as  Isaac  came.  And  let 
no  one  offer  to  her  7iaine,for  [if  he  does]  he  destroys  his  own  soul.'^ 

In  Section  8,  on  the  latter,  he  therefore  likens  the  Mary-wor- 
shipping Collyridian  heretics,  the  women  who  offered  to  Mary,  to 
the  Jewish  women  who  worshipped  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  who 
were  cursed  by  God  for  it ;  and  warns  the  Christiati  Israel  by 
their  fate,  and  likens  the  spiritual  whoredom  of  those  Mary-wor- 
shipping women  to  a  whore  who  "  hunts  for  the  precious  Ufc^  and 
who  leads  ^^  those  who  have  intcrcojcrse  with  her  to  death  and  to 
Hades.  .  .  .  For  every  heresy  is  a  wicked  woman,  and  still 
more  is  this  heresy  of  the  women  and  of  the  serpent  who  deceived 
the  first  woman."  Then  he  likens  the  creature  worshipping  her- 
esy to  the  work  and  sin  of  Eve,  who  by  her  folly  and  disobedience 
wrought  death  for  Adam,  her  husband,  and  their  children.  "  Eve 
ruined  God's  creatures  by  her  transgression."  And  so  "by  a 
woman  death  had  descended  into  the  world."  And  so  he  concludes 
on  that  and  the  author  of  Mary  worship  and  its  result  on  the  soul 
as  follows: 

"  And  how  many  things  there  are  to  say.  For  surely  those 
idle  women  either  offer  the  cake  as  an  act  of  worship  to  Mary  her- 
self, or  surely  they  undertake  to  offer  that  aforesaid  rotten  sacrifice 
on  her  behalf.  The  whole  thing  is  silly  and  foreign  [to  Christi- 
anity] and  is  both  an  insolence  and  a  deception  to  which  they  are 
moved  by  the  demons.  But  that  I  may  not  extend  my  discourse 
[too  far]  the  things  already  said  will  suffice  for  us.  Let  Mary  be 
in  honor.  Let  the  Lord  be  worshipped.  For  the  righteous  do  not 
work  an  error  on  any  one.  God  can  not  be  tempted  by  evil,  and 
He  Himself  tempteth  no  man  to  any  deception,  nor  do  His  ser- 
vants," [hence  not  to  the  Worship  of  Mary  which  is  the  topic 
here] .     ' '  But  every  human  being  is  tempted  when  he  is  drawn 


41 6  Article  XIV. 

away  of  his  own  lust  [for  Mary  worship  here]  and  enticed.  Then 
lust  bringeth  forth  sin  [the  sin  of  worshipping  a  creature  contrary 
to  Matthew  IV,  10],  and  sin  when  it  is  finished  bringeth  forth 
death.''^  That  is  the  result  of  Mary  worship.  Then  he  compares 
that  sin  and  the  whole  heresy  of  the  Collyridians  to  a  cantharides, 
that  is  a  beetle,  which  in  its  speciousness  to  w^omen  seems  golden, 
winged,  and  flying,  but  is  in  reality  '■''  poisonous  and  containing 
DESTRUCTION  171  itself ^^^  which,  as  above,  he  had  "crushed  by  the 
word  of  the  truth . ' ' 

It  would  appear  ^^ golden''^  to  women  and  to  some  ignorant 
men  because  they  would  imagine  that  because  of  her  relation  to 
Christ  as  His  mother  she,  a  creature,  can  interfere  with  and  share 
His  peculiarly  divine  and  prerogative  works  as  God.  Indeed,  the 
Romanists  of  our  day  invoke  and  hence  worship  Jesus,  who  is  God, 
wnth  Mary  and  Joseph,  two  creatures,  as  a  sort  of  saving  Trinity 
of  their  own,  and  that  together.  See  on  that  and  St.  Athanasius' 
rebuke  of  a  similar  creature-worshipping  Ariau  sin  of  his  day  in 
passage  3,  pages  222-225,  Volume  I  of  Chrystal's  translation  of 
Nicaea. 

See,  besides,  on  pages  363-377  above,  what  is  quoted  from  St. 
Epiphanius  against  the  Antidicomarianites. 

But,  an  objection  of  the  Mary  Worshipper : 

Those  CoU^-ridians  offered  a  sacrifice  to  Mary,  but  I  do  not. 
I  bow  to  her;  I  pray  to  her,  and  I  grant  that  I  go  further  and  even 
worship  her  image  by  kissing,  by  bending  the  knee,  by  bowing, 
and  by  incense,  and  by  other  acts  of  worship,  but  there  is  no  sin 
in  that. 

To  that  I  reply,  Such  a  plea  is  mere  dodging  and  nonsense. 
For  there  are  many  acts  of  worship  in  the  Bible,  as,  for  example, 
off"ering  prayer,  incense,  bowing,  kneeling,  and  others,  and  one  of 
them  is  the  sacrifidng  of  cakes,  which  were  commanded  by  God  under 
the  Mosaic  Dispensation  to  be  offered  to  Him,  but  were  forbidden  to 
be  offered  to  creatures ;  and  Mary  is  a  creature.  But  I  have  suflB- 
ciently  shown  from  God's  word  the  grievous  iniquity  of  that  sin, 
which  was  that  of  the  Collyridians,  and  how  God  cursed  women 
and  men  for  it,  and  to  that,  therefore,  I  must  refer  the  Orthodox 
xeader.     It  is  Act  9  of  worship  on  pages  309-313  above.     Indeed,  I 


Si.  Epipha7iius  agai7ist  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.       417 

beg  the  reader  to  read  the  whole  of  Article  XII,  of  which  it  forms 
part,  but  especially  pages  264-319. 

(E.)  Epiphanius'  condemnation  of  the  worship  of  Mary  and 
of  any  and  all  other  creatures  is  by  logical  and  necessary  implica- 
tion Ecumenically  approved  by  the  Third  Ecumenical  Council. 
And  so  is  the  plea  of  relative  worship  to  excuse  it,  and  that  settles 
the  whole  matter  forever,  however  much  Rome  and  other  creature 
worshippers  may  oppose. 

For  the  Synod  coiidemyied  the  NestoriaJi  worship  of  ChrisV s  humayi- 
ity,  a)id  Nestorius'  plea  of  Relative  Worship  to  excuse  it :  see,  in 
proof,  Volume  I  of  Chrystal's  Ephesus^  note  183,  pages  79-128; 
note  582,  pages  225,  226;  and  note  679,  pages  332-362;  compare 
note  664,  pages  323,  324  ;  and  agaiyist  the  Ncstorian  Relative  Wor- 
ship of  Christ' s  hiunanity^  see,  in  Volume  I  of  Chrystal's  Ephcsus, 
Nestorius'  Blasphemy  8,  page  461,  and  note  949  there;  note  156, 
pages  61-69,  and  notes  580,  581,  pages  221-226,  and  the  text  of 
pages  221-223;  and  see  in  the  Geyieral  Index,  to  that  volume  under 
Christ,  Cyril,  Nestorius,  Ma7i- 1 1  'orship ;  άν^ρωπολατρεάι  and  άνθρωπολάτρη^ 
in  the  Greek  Index,  and  Relative  Jl  orship  in  the  General  Index. 

And,  in  Volume  II  of  the  same  work,  see  the  Nestorian  Rel• 
ative  Worship  of  the  Man-Worshiping  Creed  of  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  pages  204-208,  text,  and  the  notes  there;  pages  236-238, 
and  the  notes  there,  and  especially  note  377  ;  and  pages  370-372  of 
the  same  volume. 

And  again,  against  the  worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  see  it, 
page  311  text,  and  notes  501,  502  there,  and  the  ''  Expla?iation  of 
Importaiit  Layiguage''  on  pages  317-335;  pages  340-355,  370-373, 
379,  note  683. 

And,  among  other  things,  Nestorius  was  deposed  for  his  rela- 
tive worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  and  by  Canon  VI  of  the  Third 
Ecumenical  Council  every  Bishop  or  Cleric  who  attempts  to  unsftttle 
that  or  any  other  of  its  decisions  is  deposed,  and  every  laic  guilty 
of  the  same  sin  is  excommunicated.  Those  blasphemies  are  on 
pages  449-480,  Volume  I  of  Ephesus,  and  his  deposition  for  them 
and  his  other  utterances  is  on  its  pages  486-504.  Cyril's  condemn- 
ation of  that  Nestorian  worship  of  Christ's  humanity  is  in  his 
Short  Epistle  to  Nestorius,  pages  79-85,  id.,  and  in  the  Longer  \.q 


4i8  Article  XIV. 


him,  on  pages  221-223,  and  both  those  Epistles  were  also  approved 
by  the  Third  Synod;  see  id.,  pages  123-154  as  to  the  former,  and 
pages  205-208,  note  520,  as  to  the  latter.  Besides  Nestorius'  asser 
tion  that  Christ's  ^'^  circumcision,  and  sacrifice,  and  sweatings,  a7id 
hunger  and  thirst  .  .  .  inasmuch  as  they  happe^ied  to  his  flesh  for' 
otir  sake  are  to  be  joined  together  to  be  worshipped,^*  was  con- 
demned by  vote  by  the  whole  Church  in  that  Orthodox  Council 
and  made  part  of  the  ground  for  his  deposition;  see  the  same  Vol- 
ume 1,  pages  164  and  166-178. 

And  surely  the  *^  one,  holy,  universal  and  apostolic  Church,'^* 
Christ's  own  agent  to  define  on  Christian  doctrine  (Matthew 
XVIII,  15-19  and  I  Timothy  III,  15),  has  therefore  most  plainly 
defined  against  all  Nestorian  worship  of  his  humanity  the  highest 
of  all  creatures,  and,  of  course,  against  the  worship  of  all  other 
creatures,  Mary  and  all  others  included,  for  she  and  all  other 
creatures  are  inferior  to  that  ever  sinless  creature  in  whom  dwells 
God  the  Word.  And  therefore  all  Bishops  and  clerics  of  the  idol- 
atrous communions,  Rome,  the  Greek  Church,  the  Monophysites, 
and  the  Nestorians  are  deposed,  and  all  their  laics  are  excommuni- 
cated till  they  reform,  and  if  they  die  in  their  Mary  Worship  they 
are  eternally  lost.  And  in  passing  those  decisions  the  Universal 
Church  has  acted  in  strict  accordance  with  Christ's  binding  law, 
"Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  aiid  Him  o?ily  shall  thou 
serve-,"'  Matthew  IV,  10. 

The  facts  cited  show,  therefore,  that  the  undivided  Church 
approved,  in  effect,  Epiphanius  against  Mary  worship,  and  against 
all  other  worship  of  creatures,  and  condemned  once  for  all  the 
heresy  of  worshipping  Mary  and  the  sin  of  worshipping  any  thing 
but  the  Substance  of  the  Triune  God  as  Epiphanius  teaches,  as  quoted 
in  Chrystal's  Nicaea,  Volume  I,  page  246,  where  he  is  writing  on 
Heresy  LXXVI,  where  he  contrasts  as  follows  the  entire  freedom 
of  the  Universal  Church  from  the  fundamental  error  of  worshipping 
creatures. 

* '  And  we  oursei^ves  do  not  worship  any  thing  inferior 
TO  THE  SUBSTANCE  oE  GoD  HiMSELF,  because  worship  is  to  be  given 
to  Him  alo7ie  who  is  subject  to  no  07ie,  that  is  to  the  unbor^i  Father,  and 
to  the  Son  who  was  borii  out  of  Him,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  has 


Si.  Epiphayiius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.     419 

come  from  Him  also  through  the  Sole  Born  [out  of  the  Father]  .  For 
there  is  nothing  created  in  the  Tri^iiiy.  .  .  .  Because  the  Trinity 
if  uncaused  by  any  .  .  .  cause,  //  has  7i?ierri?igly  taught  that 
Itself  alojie  is  to  be  worshipped ;  for  Itself  alone  is  uncaused  :  whereas 
all  things  [else]  have  been  caused.  For  they  have  been  made  and 
created,  but  the  Father  is  uncreated,  and  has  a  Son  who  has  been 
born  out  of  Him,  but  is  no  creature,  and  a  Holy  Spirit,  Who  goes 
out  of  Him,  and  was  not  made.  Since  these  things  are  so,  the  Son 
who  is  worshipped  [that  is  God  the  Word]  is  not  liable  to  the  suf- 
fering of  a  creature." 

As  all  admit  that  Christ's  humanity  is  liable  to  sufiering  the 
last  remark  of  St.  Epiphanius  would  seem  to  imply  that,  like  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  he  refused  to  worship  it  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  a  creature,  and  that  to  do  so  would  be  contrary  to  Matthew 
IV,  10;  see,  on  that,  page  580,  Volume  I  of  Ephesus  in  this  set, 
where  Cyril's  words  are  found.  See,  further,  to  the  same  effect, 
as  regards  St.  Epiphanius  passage  16,  on  pages  242,  243,  Volume 
I  of  Chrystal's  Nicaea,  and,  indeed,  the  four  other  passages  from 
him  in  the  context. 

(F.)  It  is  noteworthy,  also,  in  this  connection  to  remember 
that  in  the  Nestorian  Controversy  both  Cyril  and  Nestorius  him- 
self rejected  the  worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  Cyril  accused 
Nestorius  of  the  error  of  worshipping  Christ's  humanity,  which  is 
true,  whereas  Cyril  rejected  that  error  and  worshipped  God  alone; 
see  on  that  Volume  II  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set  pages  282-284,  num- 
ber 3,  text  and  notes,  where  the  words  of  both  are  quoted. 

(G  )  And  for  God  the  Word  as  the  Sole  Mediator  by  His  Divin- 
ity  and  by  His  hjanauiiy,  see  Cyril's  Anathema  X,  pages  339-346, 
text,  and  notes  682-688  inclusive,  on  it,  and  especially  note  688, 
pages  363-406,  Volume  I  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set.  Indeed,  it  is  clear 
that  if  Christ  were  not  God  he  could  not  hear  the  millions  upon 
millions  of  prayers  which  are  daily  offered  to  him,  nor  could  he 
make  a  thorough  examination  of  the  circumstances  and  needs  of 
each  invoker,  and  ask  His  Father  for  what  is  best  for  each.  But 
neither  the  Virgin  Mary  nor  any  other  creature  possesses  the 
peculiarly  divine  attributes  of  omnipresence  and  omniscience, 
which  are  prerogative  to  God  alone.     And  hence  the  Virgin  Mary 


420  Article  XIV. 


can  not  hear  any  prayer  or  other  invocation  addressed  to  her  by 
the  creature  worshippers  of  earth,  and  she  would  be  pained  and 
horrified  if  she  knew  that  any  one  worshipped  her,  and  would 
wish  him  to  obey  her  divine  Son's  law  in  Matthew  IV,  10. 

(H.)  St.  Epiphanius  knew  nothing  of  the  Romish  figment  of 
the  Assumption,  that  is  the  taking  of  Mary  body  and  soul  into 
heaven  which  is  celebrated  in  the  Romish  Communion  on  August 
15.  For  he  did  not  know  whether  she  died  a  natural  death,  or  was 
killed,  or  still  remains,  and  concludes : 

"  For  no  one  knew  her  end." 

See  what  he  says  above  in  section  23,  page  372  on  the  Heresy 
of  the  Antidicomarianites,  which  is  Heresy  LXXVIH. 

(I.)  Epiphanius  makes  no  mention  of  the  Romish  new-fangled 
and  medieval  figment  of  the  Immaculate  Coyiception  of  the  Virgin 
without  any  taint  of  origiiial  sin,  which  was  never  heard  of  in  the 
primitive  Church  but  was  much  debated  in  the  Western  Church 
between  the  leathery  and  idolatrous  Franciscans  and  the  equally 
leathery  and  idolatrous  Dominicans,  from  the  twelfth  century  till 
A.  D.  1854  when  it  was  made  a  dogma  by  Pope  Pius  IX,  an  idol- 
ater, for  the  Romish  Communion.  For  in  section  5  Epiphanius 
denies  that  "  she  was  born  in  a  way  different  from  the  natural  way 
of  all  humanity,"  etc.,"  and  in  the  context  there  and  in  sections  6 
and  7  he  shows  in  eflEect  that  her  conception  of  Christ  was  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  immaculate,  and  therefore  miraculous, 
and,  so,  different  in  effect  from  her  own  conception  by  her  mother, 
and  from  all  other  human  conceptions  and  human  births.  And  in 
section  7  he  shows  that  Christ  was  the  only  one  born  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  without  original  sin,  which  is  denied  by  those  who  hold  to 
Mary's  conception  without  original  sin,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
alone  works  such  miracles.  For,  as  Paul  shows  in  1  Corinthians 
XII,  10,  11,  He  is  the  worker  of  the  miracles.  And  Epiphanius 
writes  on  that : 

' '  For  it  is  impossible  for  anyone  to  be  born  upon  the  earth 
contrary  to  the  common  way  in  which  all  other  men  are  naturally 
hoxriyfor  that  befitted  Him  alone  for  whom  nature  m.ade  an  exception 
[in  that  matter].  He,  as  the  Creator,  and  as  the  Ruler  in  that 
thing,  that  is  God  [the  Word] ,  came  from  the  heavens  and  made 


S/.  Epiphanius  against  the  Worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary.      421 

Himself  a  body  from  the  Virgin  as  from  the  earth,  for  it  was  the 
Word  who  put  on  flesh  from  the  holy  Virgin. 

But  He  did  not  that,  however,  that  the  Virgin  should  be  wor- 
shipped, nor  to  make  her  a  god,  nor  that  we  should  offer  to  her 
name,  nor,  furthermore,  to  appoint  women  to  be  priestesses  of 
such  a  great  Origin  "  [as  the  Son  of  God  who  was  born  out  of  the 
Father].  Then  he  condemns  those  guilty  of  the  sin  of  worshipping 
her.  Epiphanius  would  have  been  horrified  at  the  Roman  doc- 
trine as  stated  on  page  1  in  the  valuable  work  of  Treat  entitled 
The  Catholic  Faith,  or  Doctri7ies  of  the  Church  of  Rome  contrary  to 
Scripture  and  the  Teaching  of  the  Primitive  Chiirch  : 

"By  the  term  ''Immaculate  Cojiception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin' 
the  Church  of  Rome  means  .  .  .  that  the  Virgin  herself  was 
conceived  and  born  without  original  sin,  so  that  never  for  an  instant 
was  she  subject  to  the  influence  of  sin.  It  was  therefore  impossible 
for  her  ever  to  commit  any  actual  sin,  or  to  err  even  in  the  slight- 
est manner," 

In  conclusion,  I  would  recommend  to  the  scholar  the  aforesaid 
work  of  Treat ;  and  "  The  worship  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  in 
the  Church  of  Rome  proved  to  be  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture  and 
to  the  Faith  and  Practice  of  the  Church  of  Christ  through  the  first 
five  centuries  ;  by  J.  Endell  Tyler,  B.  D.,  Rector  of  St.  Giles  in-the- 
Fields,  and  Canon  Residentiary  of  St.  Paul's;"  his  "Primitive 
Christian  Worship  or  the  Evidence  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
Church,  against  the  Invocation  of  Saints  and  Angels,  and  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary,"  and  his  "The  Image  Worship  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  proved  to  be  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Faith 
and  Discipline  of  the  Primitive  Church,  and  to  involve  contra- 
dictory and  Irreconcilable  Doctrines  within  the  Church  of  Rome 
itself." 

And  every  American  and,  indeed,  every  one,  should  read  the 
Church  of  England  Homily  on  Prayer  and  that  against  Peril  of 
Idolatry,  both  so  well  approved  in  the  Thirty-Fifth  Article. 

Why  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge  has  ceased 
to  publish  the  important  and  valuable  works  of  Tyler  I  can  not 
say.  We  certainly  need  them  now  when  so  many  of  the  clergy 
who  are  ignorant  of  the  decisions  of  the  VI  Synods  of  the  whole 


422  Article  XIV. 

Cliurcli  have  fallen  into  some  or  all  of  those  sins,  and  are  leading 
their  people,  and  especially  women,  to  hell,  and,  undepostd  by 
their  own  EH-like  Bishops,  are  ruining  Church  and  State  and 
bringing  curses  on  both.  Has  the  Society  passed  into  the  hands  of 
Romanizers,  as  I  think  I  have  seen  it  stated?  If  it  has,  as  the 
copyright,  I  presume,  of  Tyler's  works  must  now  have  expired, 
they  should  be  revised  by  some  sound  man  and  republished  and 
circulated  on  both  sides  of  the  water,  for  Tyler  was  deceived  as  to 
Keble,  for  example,  whose  heretical  creature  worship  was  not  yet 
fully  developed  and  known,  and  so  spoke  too  well  of  him  on  pages 
334,  335  of  the  second  edition  of  his  Prbnitive  Christian  Worship 
(London,  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  A.  D.  1847). 
It  was  first  published  in  1840,  and  therefore  before  the  influence  of 
Keble  over  Newman  had  led  him  to  Rome,  and  ere  Keble's  writings 
had  led  so  many  hundreds  of  other  clerics  thither  and  so  many 
thousands  of  laics  also.  See  the  article  on  Keble  in  McClintock 
and  Strong's  Cyclopedia. 

I  do  not  think  that  Tyler  would  have  used  the  tolerant  lan- 
guage that  he  does  of  Keble's  abominable  Ave  Maria  if  he  had 
understood  it  and  him  thoroughly.  For,  from  what  was  known  of 
Keble  later,  I  deem  the  judgment  of  a  Romish  critic  that  he  really 
meant  it  as  an  act  of  real  invocation  to  her,  and  therefore  of  wor- 
ship to  her,  to  be  correct.  Indeed,  another  piece  of  Keble's,  his 
address  to  the  Harlot  Rome  (Rev.  XVII,  18)  to  have  mercy  on  the 
spiritually  chaste  Church  of  England,  which  he  terms  her  northern 
child,  is  one  of  the  most  namby  pamby,  traitorous  and  sickening 
and  disgusting  eflfusions  that  ever  issued  from  a  warped  and  idol- 
atrous Anglican's  brain,  who  writes  with  such  sympathy  for  the 
Harlot  that  one  would  be  tempted  to  think  that  but  for  his  wife 
and  living  he  would  then  be  inclined  to  embrace  her,  as  so  many  of 
his  Romanizing  faction  did.  The  approval  of  the  Ave  Maria  of 
such  a  traitor  should  be  removed  from  the  work  and  it  should  be 
republished. 

All  the  works  above  mentioned  are  subsidiary  indeed  to  the 
Ecumenical  but  fit  to  go  with  this  set,  for  they  give  Orthodox  ijidi- 
vidtial  testimonies  of  Fathers  against  both  Nestorian  and  Romish 
and  Greek  creature  worship,  and  this  set  of  the  Six  Ecumenical 


St' Epipha7iius  against  the  Worship  of  ihe  Virgin  Mary.      423 

Couacils  shows  how  the  whole  Church,  East  and  West,  in  them 
set  forth  final  and  Holy  Ghost  led  and  New  Testament  and 
supremely  authoritative  decisions  against  those  and  all  other  forms 
of  creature  worship  and  relative  worship,  and  defended  and  vindi- 
cated and  enforced  the  doctrine,  primary,  fundamental  and  neces- 
sary to  Salvation,  contained  in  the  words  of  the  Master  Himself. 
' '  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only  shalt  thou 
SERVE,"  Matthew  IV,  10. 


J  X< 

Here  end  the  Acts  of  ihe    Third  Ecumenicat  Council,   held  at 
EphestiSy  A.  D.  4.31, 


\ 


L-o       '  u  L 


INDEX  I.  to  YOLUME  11. 

OF  EPHESUS  AND    TO  ACT   VII.   AND  LAST  OF  THE 
COUNCIL  IN  VOLUME  ΙΠ. 

NAMES  AND  SEES  OF  THE  BISHOPS  WHO  WERE  PRESENT  IN  ACTS 

II.  TO  VII.  AND  LAST  OF  THE  THIRD   ECUMENICAL,  SYNOD, 

INCLUSIVE,  OR   IN  ANY  OF  THEM. 

The  names  of  those  present  in  Act  I.  are  in  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this 
set  of  translations,  pages  19-2S;  and  those  who  sign  at  its  end  are  on  pages 
489-503.  See  also  Index  I.,  pages  553-568  of  that  volume.  The  Bishops 
present  at  the  opening  of  Act  VI.,  are  in  the  second  volume  of  Ephesus,  pages 
187-193,  and  those  at  its  end  are  on  pages  225-234. 

Before  the  arrival  of  John  of  Antioch  and  his  following  at  Ephesus,  we 
find  a  Report  to  the  Emperors  which  bears  the  names  of  Nestorius  and  his 
partisans.  It  is  on  page  42,  volume  II.  of  Ephesus  of  this  set.  It  is  sub- 
scribed by  only  11  or,  according  to  another  reckoning,  17  in  all,  Nestorius' 
name  being  first.  Another  letter  of  68  Asiatic  Bishops  to  Cyril  and  Memnon 
asks  for  delay  till  John  of  Antioch  arrives.  Twenty  of  them  afterward  joined 
the  Orthodox  Synod. 

After  John's  arrival  we  find  a  document  emanating  from  him  and  the  rest 
of  the  Synod  of  the  Apostasy,  and  addressed  to  the  Emperor  and  for 
Nestorius.  It  has  43  names  appended  to  it — see  pages  54,  55  of  the  same 
volume,  and  compare  pages  391,  392,  402,  and  the  English  translation  of 
volume  III.  of  Hefele's  History  of  the  Church  Councils,  page  46.  On  pages 
23  and  24  of  this  volume  will  be  found  the  names  of  the  34  deposed  and 
excommunicated  Nestorian  Prelates. 

Article  I.,  pages  43-76,  volume  III.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set  gives  an 
account  of  "  The  Dioceses  and  Provinces  from  which  Bishops  came  to  the 
Third  Ecumenical  Council,  and  How  many  came  from  each." 

The  names  of  the  34  suspended  or  deposed  Nestorian  Bishops,  including 
their  leader,  John  of  Antioch,  are  found  on  pages  23,  24,  volume  III.  of 
Ephesus  in  this  Set.    See  also  on  them  pages  12-33. 


4^5 


INDEX  Π.  to  YOLUME  II. 

OF  KPHESUS  AND  TO   ACT   VII.  OF  THE  COUNCIL  IN 


VOLUME   III. 


GENEK^L    INDEX. 

Except  where  otherwise  specified  the  references  in  this  Index  II.  are 
to  volume  II.  of  Ephesus  in  this  set,  though  it  is  not  generally  expressed. 
The  iii.  or  III.  before  a  reference  means  volume  III.  All  other  references 
in  Roman  are  to  Forematter  in  volume  II.,  except  where  volume  III.  is 
specified,  when  the  references  are  to  its  Forematter.  The  references  in 
Arabic  are  to  the  body  of  the  volume  meant.  The  reader  should,  by  all 
means,  look  also  at  the  other  Indexes  of  this  set  for  important  matter  on 
different  themes;  both  those  mentioned  in  these  Indexes  and  in  others  in 
the  other  volumes. 

Acaciiis,  Bishop  of  Melitine;  said  to  be  unsound,  ^γ^ι  note  656. 
Adoptionism;  see  Felix  of  Urgcl  and  Elipandus. 

Africa;  its  struggle  against  the  attempt  of  Rome  to  get  Appellate  Jurisdic- 
tion there;  9,  note  2Z;  99.  note  3;  128-137;  141,  note  23:  see  Appeals 
and  Carthage;  Christianity  extirpated  from  Africa  because  of  idolatry, 
and  from  parts  of  other  Christian  lands  for  the  same  reason ;  a  lesson 
to  us,  231,  note  342,  and  234,  note  351.  See  Augustine;  420,  note  908; 
465,  note  1 170;  if  Rome  subjugated  it,  Ephesus  commanded  her  to 
restore  it,  iii.,  17  note  64. 
Alexander,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  how  delivered  by  God  from  receiving 

Arius,  195,  note  232. 
Alexandria ;  see  of  always  ranked  before  Peter's  see  of  Antioch,  141,  note 

24.     See  Dioceses. 
Ambrose;  see  Augustine:  341-344;  a  work  quoted  as  his  and  as  Nestorian; 
344-355 ;  discussion  on  heretical  passages  ascribed  to  him,  to  Augustine 
and  to  others,  ibid.;  quoted  as  a  worshipper  of  Christ's  flesh  and  of  the 
cross,  and  as  a  worshipper  of  Christ's  humanity  and  of  the  Eucharist 

and  as  a  Cannibalizer  on  it,  and  as  an  Adoptionist  heretic,  344-355 ;  380 
note  697,  381. 

Americans ;  a  false  liberalism  our  danger,  10,  note. 

Ananias;  357. 

Andrew  of  Samosata ;  390,  note  752. 

Anglican  Communion;  its  disorders  and  lack  of  discipline,  134,  and  195,  note 

232;  and  paganizings;   id,  and  158,  note  102,  warning  of  its  Homilies 


426  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus. 

disregarded,  232,  note;  terrible  faults  of  some  of  its  Bishops,  439,  note 
1013.  See  Puseyite  and  Oxford  Movement;  see  Britain,  and  Discip- 
line, and  Rome. 

Ante  Nicene  historic  testimony;  355. 

Aniioch;  see  Diodore,   Theodore  of  Mopsuestia   Theodoret  and  Andrew  of 
Samosata,  and  Constantinople;  141,  note  24;   142,  note  28;  157,  note 
100;  107,  note  i;  163,  notes  116,  121;  294;  376,  notes  669,  670;  321,  note 
517;  38s,  note  726;  and  in  the  text  and  notes  of  Act  VII.,  volume  III., 
pages  1-41. 

Antipaedobaptism ;  condemned,  iii.,  35,  note  109. 

Antiphons;  406,  note  831. 

Apiarins;  the  appellant  to  Rome,  9,  note;  see  Africa. 

Apollinarianism ;  344;  383,  384.     See  Apollinarius. 

Apollinarins ;  55,  63;  383,  384,  261;  his  worship  of  Christ's  flesh,  386;  how 
Polemius  differed  from  him  on  that;  386,  note  731.  Apollinarius  mixed 
Christ's  divinity  with  part  of  his  humanity,  386;  Cyril  and.  the  Third 
Synod  falsely  accused  of  Arianism,  Apollinarisni,  and  :Eunomiani8in, 
250,  note  383;  357  261,  note  396.  Apollinarius  deposed:  in  what  sense, 
by  Damasus,  384,  note  717.    See  Apollinarianism. 

Apostasy;  see  Nestorius  SLnafohn  of  Antioch  and  Ephesus,  the  Conveuiicle 
of;  143,  note  37;  235;  iii.,  23,  note  88. 

Apostles  Creed;  136,  137,  note. 

Apostolate;  31,  note  i ;  its  relation  to  the  Presbyterate  and  tlie  Diaconate,  31, 
note  I. 

Apostolic  Canons.    See  Canons. 

Appeals;  what  and  how  many  are  allowed  by  the  VI.  Synods  of  the  Christian 
World,  note  6,  pages  117-121;  180-182.  See  Discipline,  and  Rome;  383, 
note  716.    See  Precedences;  iii.,  22,  note  76. 

Appellants  to  Rome,  8,  note  33. 

Appropriation.     See  Economic  Appropriation. 

Arcadius  and  Projectus,  Bishops  and  legates  from  Rome,  67,  and  after,  78- 
93,  167• 

Archbishop,  the  title;  to  whom  given  anciently;  164,  note  123;  260,  note  394; 
446,  note  1050. 

Arius;  55,  63,  he  professed  creature  worship,  155,  note  90,  258;  261;  miracn• 
lously  smitten  by  God  with  death,  195,  note  232. 

Augustine's  witness  to  the  idolatry  of  Africa  before  its  ruin,  232,  note:  he 
and  his  Master  Ambrose  said  to  have  taught  error,  341,  and  notes 
there,  342,  343,  352.     See  Ambrose. 

Authority;  dififerent  sorts  of,  355. 

Azarias;  237. 

Besula  the  Deacon;  139,  note  i;  234,  note  351. 

Bible,  that  is  Book  Worship;  431,  note  962. 

Bingham',  153,  note  81,  and  several  times;  157,  note  100. 


General  Index.  427 


Bishop,  the,  has  a  right  to  control  the  property  of  his  Paroeda,  that  is  his 
jurisdiction;  evils  which  flow  from  depriving  him  of  that  power,  2, 
note  8;  and  197,  note  237;  417,  note  879.  See  Stewards;  has  a  right 
to  oversee  and  rule,  76;  in  what  order  the  Bishops  subscribed  in  the 
Third  Synod,  124;  compare  the  lists  of  their  subscriptions  in  the  Acts. 
In  a  future  Seventh  Synod  of  the  whole  Reformed,  restored  and  primi- 
tivized  and  united  Church,  East  and  West,  there  will  be  a  different 
arrangetnent  of  sees  ;  135,  note  i ;  principle  of  the  precedences  of 
sees ;  141,  notes  23,  24.  See  Precedences  of  Sees.  6000  in  the  Chris- 
tian world  in  A.D.  431,  417  and  note  879;  where  the  Bishop  sat  in 
Church,  418,  note  891 ;  unfaithful  ones,  428,  note  950:  elections  of,  431, 
note  966;  noble  conduct  of  the  sound  Bishops  at  Ephesus,  440,  note 
1019;  single  and  married,  442,  note  1027.  No  Freemason  to  be  Bishop 
or  cleric,  idid;  more  noble  language  of  the  Orthodox  Bishops,  445, 
note  1045  ;  450,  not?s  1079,  1084;  all  the  Orthodox  share  their  praiie,  451, 
note  1088;  compare  460;  note  1132. 

bishops,  representing  chief  and  other  sees  who  were  present  in  Act  VI. 
185-193 ;  The  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  Dioceses  and  Provinces  from 
which  Bishops  came  to  the  Third  Ecumenical  Council,  and  how  many 
came  from  each.  Vol.  III.,  43-76  inclusive. 

All  creature-invoking  and  all  image-worshipping  and  all  cross-wor- 
shipping and  all  relic-worshipping  and  all  altar  or  communion  table,  or 
host-worshipping,  and  all  other  creature-worshipping  bishops  and  clergy 
deposed  till  they  reform,  and  all  laics  guilty  of  any  of  those  sins 
excommunicate  by  the  decisions  of  the  whole  church.  East  and  West 
at  Ephesus,  41.  See  Rclative-zvorshtp,  Man-worship,  Creature-zvor- 
ship,  Eucharist,  Pttseyite  idolaters,  and  see  also  in  the  General  Index 
to  Vol.  I.  of  Ephesus  and  its  Greek  Index,  under  similar  terms ;  and 
in  the  same  volume  note  183.  pages  79-128;  note  679,  pages  332-362; 
and  page  461,  and  note  949  there;  and  canon  VI.  of  Ephesus,  page  29 
of  Vol.  ΠΙ.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set. 

Blondel;  353. 

Boniface,  Bishop  of  Rome ;  9,  note  33. 

Bowing;  being  an  act  of  religious  service  is  prerogative  as  such  to  God,  324- 
335.     So  the  Orthodox  ancients  held,  ibid. 

Britain;  464,  note  1168.  See  Rome.  Rome  usurped  jurisdiction  in  Britain 
and  in  other  Western  lands  contrary  to  the  Ecumenical  Canons,  iii.,  16, 
note  58,  and  17,  note  63 ;  iii.,  20,  note  72,  and  iii.,  21,  note  73 :  original 
autonomy  and  independence  of  the  British  and  other  Western  Churches, 
iii.,  20,  note  72,  and  iii.,  21,  note  JZ-  See  Anglican  Communion;  its 
independence  of  Rome  guaranteed  by  Canon  VIII.  of  Ephesus,  iii..  25, 
note  96. 

Bringer  forth  of  God,  Mary;  the  expression  admitted  in  hi•  own  sense  by 


428  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus. 

Nestorius  before  the  Council  met,  277 ;  compare  279 ;  was  not  the  whole 
difference  between  the  Orthodox  and  the  heretics,  277,  278,  but  the 
XII.  chapters  embraced  all;  278,  and  note  422  there:  359,  the  ex- 
pression admitted  by  him,  283 ;  but  his  sincerity  doubted  by  Cyril,  283- 
285  and  notes  there  :  it  is  ignored  by  the  Delegates  of  the  Apostasy 
at  Constantinople,  who  concentrate  their  whole  strength  against  Cyril's 
XII.  Chapters  after  they  had  been  approved  in  Act  I.  of  the  Ecu- 
menical Synod,  309,  358,  359,  twice;  375386,  they  claim  that  ** the 
greatest  part  of  the  people  "  favor  Nestorian  dogmas,  357. 

Bulgarian  Church;  157,  note  100.  See  Constantinople  and  Dioceses  and  Pre- 
cedences. 

Candidian,  Count;  hinders  at  first  the  Council  from  communicating  matters 
to  the  Emperor,  20,  21, 40,  41;  commended  by  the  Nestorians  at  Ephesus» 
43;  his  course  in  "  the  Synod  of  the  Apostasy"  at  Ephesus,  42-66,  257, 

343• 

Cannibalism;  see  Eucharist,  and  Rome,  and  250. 

Canons,  the;  140,  note  16;  148,  note  49;  violation  of  them  by  the  Conven- 
ticle of  the  Apostasy,  160;  see  Ephesus,  the  Conventicle  of,  and  John 
of  Antioch;  163,  note  114;  see  Diodore;  170,  note  147;  173,  note  165; 
141,  notes  23,  24;  147,  6  times,  note;  157,  note  100;  162,  note  114;  see 
"  Faith  and  canons."  Canons  of  the  Third  Synod  and  the  Letter  of 
which  they  form  part,  vol.  iii.,  pages  21-33;  the  so-called  Apostolic 
Canons,  vol.  iii.,  page  2,  text  and  note  13 ;  iii.,  18,  note  65 ;  canons  of 
Nicaea,  iii.,  4,  note  14;  they  preserve  to  each  church  its  own  dignitj', 
and  are  authoritative,  iii,  il,  note  48;  so  the  Universal  Church  pro- 
claims at  Ephesus;  ibid.;  Rome  resists  some  canons  of  the  Second 
Synod  and  some  of  the  Fourth  but  finally  accepts  at  least  the  rank 
of  Constantinople  in  them,  iii.,  13,  note  there — Canon  VI.  of  Nicaea, 
III.,  II,  note  48,  and  id.,  12,  note  50;  by  whom  Ecumenical  Canons 
may  be  modified  or  abolished,  id.,  12,  note  56;  Xicene  Canons  protect 
Cyprus,  iii.,  15,  note  58. 

Carthage;  see  Africa;  141,  note  22,. 

Catharists;  219,  note  307:  see  Novatians. 

Celestius,  vol.  iii.  of  Ephesus,  35,  note  107. 

Celestians;  their  errors,  173,  notes  165,  166,  421,  note  913.    See  Pelagians. 

Celestine,  Bishop  of  Rome;  his  vote  against  Nestorius  represented  not  the 
whole  church,  but  only  a  part,  8,  text  and  note  33 ;  was  defeated  in 
his  attempt  to  gain  Appelate  Jurisdiction  in  Africa,  note  33 :  Philip's 
words  on  him  and  Rome,  128-137;  his  Epistle  to  the  Council,  read  in 
lAct  II.  first  in  Latin,  then  in  Greek  and  approved  by  it ;  67-93  '>  his 
'letter  to  Cyril,  its  date;  his  letter  to  the  Synod  was  not  Synodical,  2, 
note  2;  the  relic-worshipping  passage  in  it  omitted  by  the  Synod  was 
Celestine's  only,  72,  note  2:  see  Relic  IVorship  below,  and  in  volume  I. 
of  Ephesus,  see  IVorship;  see  also  an  expression  of  Celestine  which 


General  Index,  429 


savors  of  relic-worship,  which  was  altered  by  the  Synod,  ^^,  text  and 
note  2:  [they  changed  his  Latin  reneramini,  j/^  venerate  οτ  ye  worship 
to  ye  have  honored  which  does  not  necessarily  imply  any  act  of 
worship,  and  taken  in  connection  with  the  utterances  of  Cyril  and 
the  Council,  can  not  here] ;  136,  137.  The  Council  gives  three  sum- 
monses of  its  own  to  Nestorius,  besides  those  of  Celestine  to  him,  175, 
note  172. 

Chapters,  the  Tzi'elve;  see  Cyril  of  Alexandria's  XII.  Chapters,  and  the  Nes- 
torian  Conventicle;  denounced  by  the  Nestorian  Conventicle  at  Ephesus, 
and  Cyril's  explanation  of  them,  388-396;  255,  256;  272;  Cyril's  works 
for  them,  388-392;  their  Nestorian  opponents  Andrew  and  Theodoret, 
390,  note  752 ;  they  are  defended  by  the  Fifth  Synod  and  their  op- 
ponents condemned  333-335 :  compare  note  520,  pages  204-208  vol.  i. 
of  Ephesus  in  this  Set,  for  their  approval  by  the  last  4  Ecumenical 
Synods :  denounced  by  the  Delegates  of  the  Apostasy,  335-344 ;  345- 
398,  indeed  241-398:  differences  between  themselves  and  the  Orthodox 
as  to  their  teachings,  270,  271 ;  and  notes  on  pages  388,  389,  and  the 
text  there;  John's  Nestorian  Conventicle  lyingly  claim  to  have  found 
"the  impious  opinion  of  Apollinarius"  in  Cyril's  XII.  Chapters  230, 
notes  383,  and  382;  421,  note  909. 

Christ;  the  sole  Intercessor  above;  261,  note  398. 

Christians;  all  are  priests;  and  the  only  chosen  race,  389,  note  747;  408, 
note  842;  iii.,  35,  note  112.    See  Priests. 

Christianity;  the  greatest  and  best  thing  in  the  state;  duties  of  the  State 
towards  it;  11,  note  40. 

Church  and  State;  their  proper  relations,  page  10,  note  40.     See  Magistrate. 

Churches;  national,  157,  note  100.     See  Saints. 

Church  Review;  its  witness,  Pref.  ii. 

Church  Unity;  see  Unity. 

Clirysostom;  380,  note  695. 

Chrystal;  his  articles  on  the  struggle  of  Carthage  to  defend  its  rights  against 
Rome,  88,  note;  deferred  to  another  volume. 

Circumcision  and  Baptism;  iii,  35,  note  109. 

C onstantine  the  Great;  commended  by  Ephesus,  6,  text,  and  note  25 ;  see 
Emperors;  434,  note  984.    Compare  195,  note  232. 

The  Contributors  to  volume  II.,  v. — vi.  A :  to  volume  III.  see  in  fron^  p-  '   ^  I 

Constantinople,  its  struggle  against  Rome;  141,  notes  23,  24,  157,  note  lOO: 
141,  note  24;  313,  314;  its  former  power,  428,  note  952.  See  Rome — 
its  power;  is  now  mainly  a  Greek  see,  157,  note  100,  iii.,  12,  note  56; 
called  Ncn'  Rome,  420,  note  906;  Canons  on:  iii.,  4,  note  14;  its  idolatry, 
creature  worship,  and  tyranny  a  curse  to  the  East,  iii.,  5,  note  27;  Bul- 
garian hate  of  it  and  the  Greeks,  iii.,  13,  note  56;  dislike  of  other 
non-Greek  Oriental  church  peoples  to  it.  iii.,  12,  13,  note  56:  compare 
iii.,  17,  note  63;  because  of  its  idolatry  it  has  no  rights  anywhere,  iii., 


43©  Index  Π.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  pari  of  III. 

19,  note  71,  and  20,  note  72 :  its  power  for  a  time  in  part  of  Italy,  iii., 
22,  note  76;  its  usurpations  of  the  rights  of  other  churches  by  canon 
,    "  viii.   of   Ephesus  are  "  of  no  authority."  and  she   is   commanded   to 

J' VI  1?•  restore,  iii.,  Z2,• 

Constantius,  the  Emperor,  persecutes  the  Orthodox,  195,  note  232. 
I  Councils,  The  VI.  Ecumenical:  what  this  work  does,  Preface,  i;  needs  of 

Λ       CI'         this  set,  Pref.  i.,  ii.,  iii.,  vi.,  b;  their  importance,  Pref.  ii. ;  their  sound- 
I  "  ness,  ii.,  vi.  b.,  ignorance  of  them  and  its  mournful  results,  Pref.  ii.,  iii. ; 

1  f  [il.       vi.,  B. ;  well  spoken  of  by  a  Homily  approved  by  Article  xxxv ;  the  sole 
'^  ^^    basis  of  Unity  vi,  B.     See  under  Ephesus,  and  11,  note  40:  Supreme 

^    y'^*°''^(/   authority  of  an  Ecumenical  Council,  80,  note  4;  4S3,  note  1102;  454, 
^v*        note   1 107:  455,  notes   11 10,   11 13;  a  future  Seventh  of  the  Christian 
Λ  World,  95 ;  193,  note  227 ;  404,  note  822 ;  the  Council  of  Nicaea  in  a.d. 

^  787,  of  idolaters,  38;  it  opposes  the  VI.  Ecumenical  and  is  condemned 

^  by  them,  38;  39;  that  so  called  Seventh  is  condemned  by  the  Church 

of  England,  v.  How  many  sorts  of  Councils  there  are  and  how  many 
appeals;  1 16-124,  notes  5  and  6  and  all  notes  there.  An  Ecumenical 
Council  makes  no  new  doctrine,  but  puts  into  form  what  is  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  has  been  held  to  from  the  beginning,  and  condemns  heresies 
opposed  to  it,  122,  note  4.  An  Ecumenical  Council  was  continuous  and 
gatherable  so  long  as  the  Church  was  sound  and  one,  193,  text  and 
notes  there ;  the  Vatican  Council  local  and  heretical  and  idolatrous  and 
merely  Rome-ruled,  193,  note  227;  it  is  not  enough  for  a  church  to 
have  good  Creeds  and  sound  doctrine;  its  clergy  must  know  them, 
and  it  must  have  discipline  enough  to  enforce  them,  195,  note  232; 
examples  of  the  ruinous  consequences  of  such  lacks  in  the  whole 
Church  and  in  the  Anglican  Communion,  ibid.;  decisions  of  the  VI. 
Synods,  323,  note  322.  See  Ecumenical  Synod,  a  future  Seventh :  the 
Image  Breakers'  Council  of  A.  D.  754,  at  Constantinople,  38:  other  coun- 
cils opposed  to  the  vi.,  454,  note  1107;  45s,  note  11 13. 
Consubstantiation,  one  nature  kind,  Pref.  ii:  the  two  nature  kind,  Pref-  ii. ; 
the  one  nature  kind,  Nestorius'  heresy  on  the  Eucharist,  condemned  by 
Ephesus;  see  Rome;  250. 
Creature  Worship,  250.  See  Worship :  258,  and  on  page  441,  vol.  i.  of  Nicaea 
under  Creature  Service,  and  on  page  454,  under  Man  Worship,  in  x>i- 
ume  i.  of  Nicaea,  and  on  pages  476,  477  of  that  volume  under 
άνθρωτΓολατρίία ,άνθρωτΓοΧατρίω, άνθρωτΓθλάτ;ιης,3.ηά.  άνθρωττοφιγία,  etc., 
in  vol.  i.  of  Ephesus,  pages  694-696,  and  such  of  them  as  are  found  in 
vol.  III.  of  Ephesus,  Greek  Index. 
Creature  worshippers.,  how  to  be  received,  460,  note  1132:  Anti-creature  wor- 
shippers praised,  and  Cyril  likened  to,  467-469  and  notes. 
Creed,  that  of  Nicaea;  Ecumenical,  a  test  to  try  other  documents  by,  6,  text 
and  note  24.  See  Nicaea,  a.d.  325 ;  is  perhaps  termed  "  the  correct 
Dennition  of  the  Apostolic  faith,"  140,  note  14;  it  was  put  forth  against 


General  Iiidcx, 


431 


the  creature-worshipper  Arius,  171,  note  151 :  its  use  in  Act  VI.  of 
Ephesus,  187;  193,  194;  various  readings  of  parts  of  it,  194,  and  notes 
there :  in  Act  I.  of  the  Synod  Cyril's  Orthodox  explanation  of  it  in 
his  two  Epistles  was  approved  and  Nestorius'  heretical  one  in  his 
Epistle  was  condemned,  and  the  Orthodox  one  is  made  a  test  of  sound- 
ness forever;  Cyril's  with  its  approval  by  the  Council  is  on  pages  49- 
154,  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set  in  the  Shorter  Epistle  to  Nes- 
torius, and  in  the  Longer  to  him  on  its  pages  204-358;  and  its  Ecumeni- 
cal approval  is  shown  in  note  520,  pages  204-208,  of  the  same  volume : 
and  in  Act  II.,  the  Roman  legates  ask  that  the  Minutes  of  Act  I. 
which  contains  that  Creed  be  read  to  them.  And  in  Act  III.  they  are 
read  and  subscribed  by  them.  In  Act  VI.  it  is  read  again,  and  at  its 
close  the  Ecumenical  Synod  said:  "To  this  holy  Faith,  indeed,  it  is 
fitting  that  all  should  consent — For  it  is  pious  and  suffices  for  the  profit 
of  the  zvhole  zvorld"  vol.  II.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set,  pages  193-195:  in 
what  sense  it  is  a  tradition,  198,  note  240.  Nor  is  that  all  but  the 
council  orders  to  be  read  again  the  21  passages  of  Orthodox  Fathers 
against  the  Nestorian  perversions  of  it.  For  they  say  at  once  and 
without  any  break: 

"  But  because  some  pretend  that  they  confess  it,  and  consent  to 
it,  but  misinterpret  the  sense  as  they  please,  and  evade  the  truth, 
because  they  are  sons  of  error  and  of  perdition,  it  seemed  necessary 
to  compare  testimonies  out  of  the  holy  and  Orthodox  Fathers,  which 
will  avail  to  satisfy  us  as  to  the  way  in  which  they  understood  it  and 
had  confidence  to  preach  it,  so  that  it  may  be  evident  that  all,  having 
the  right  and  unspotted  faith,  so  understand  and  so  interpret  and  so 
preach  it,"  195. 

Peter  an  Elder  of  Alexandria  and  chief  of  the  secretaries  informs 
the  Synod  that  he  has  the  21  passages  from  the  Fathers  which  had 
been  read  in  Act  I.,  and  if  it  was  their  pleasure  he  would  read  them 
again;  and  at  the  order  of  Flavian,  Bishop  of  Philippi,  to  read  them 
and  to  insert  them  in  the  Acts,  he  reads  them.  In  agreement  with 
them  the  Council  had  defined  the  true  sense  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  and 
to  that  sense  it  still  held,  ig6:  what  criteria  we  must  follow  if  there 
be  a  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  Holy  Writ  or  of  either  of  the  two 
Ecumenical  Creeds,  196,  note  233 ;  the  Nicene  Creed  made  with  the 
aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  222,  223 ;  and  note  322 ;  penalties  for  presenting 
to  a  convert  to  Christianity  any  thing  contrary  to  it,  323,  324;  and  for 
holding  the  Nestorian  errors  in  the  Creed  of  Theodore  which  oppose 
it  and  are  therefore  condemned,  224,  225 ;  it  is  in  a  report  of  the 
Orientals,  250;  that  of  the  318  of  Nicaea,  255,  256,  but  taken  by  them 
in  their  sense,  374,  note  661 ;  359,  360,  note  599.  The  Ecumenical 
Synod  mentions  the  Creed  of  the  318  as  one  of  the  criteria  on  the 
basis  of  the   Orthodox   sense  of  which  they  had   deposed   Nestorius, 


^32  Index  II.  to  Voluvie  Π.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  if  111. 

399,  400.  The  clear  and  literal  sense  of  the  Creed  condemns  Ariup, 
Nestorius,  Eutyches  and  Pope  Honorius,  195,  note  2.^2.. 

'Cteed,  the  Constantino politan;  6,  Ecumenical;  how  it  differs  from  the  ren- 
dering in  the  Anglican  Prayer  Book,  6,  note  24;  compare  171,  note  152. 

Creedf  the  so-called  Apostles\  a  local  Roman  and  Western  Creed,  136, 
137,  note ;  certain  things  in  the  Latin  of  it  in  Celestine's  Letter  changed 
by  the  Synod,  136,  137,  171,  note  152;  among  the  changes  it  omitted 
Celestine's  belief  in  the  myth  of  its  being  made  by  the  Apostles,  and 
made  the  reference  to  be  to  the  Nicene :  see  there ;  and  especially  also 
note  444,  page  185,  volume  i.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set.  In  that  altered 
form  alone  did  they  approve  it. 

A  Creed  said  to  be  of  Antioch  and  of  Nicaea;  256;  Z77}  note  6/2,',  433>  note 

983. 

Creed  of  Theodore  of  Mopsucstia;  why  branded  as  "  of  no  faith,"  200  and 
note  251  there;  (see  Ephesus);  and  as  a  "counterfeited"  [or  "de- 
praved^''] *^ Symbol,'''  202,  note  257  ;  204,  note  264;  Theodore's  worship 
of  Christ's  humanity  relative,  not  absolute,  205,  note  26y•,  204-210,  and 
notes  there  including  all  of  note  285 ;  an  oath  demanded  by  a  Nes- 
torian  to  maintain  it,  216,  note  297;  it  is  ascribed  in  the  Fifth  Ecu- 
menical Synod  to  Satan,  and  anathematized  there  and  by  the  Third 
Synod  6i  the  whole  Church,  207,  note  274:  see  all  that  note.  The 
Greek  of  it  is  in  note  285  above,  and  its  English  translation  is  on 
pages  202-210,  of  the  same  volume  ii.  of  Ephesus;  penalties  for  hold- 
ing its  Nestorian  heresies,  224,  225,  and  note  326  there. 

Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.;  216,  note  297, 

Customs  in  the  Church,  31,  »ote  i. 

Cyprus.  The  Petition  of  Rheginus,  Metropolitan  of  Constantia  in  Cyprus, 
and  two  of  his  suffragans,  Zeno  and  Evagrius,  for  the  protection  of 
their  autonomy  against  the  see  of  Antioch  which  would  deprive  them 
of  it — Decree  of  the  Council  in  their  favor  and  guaranteeing  the 
autonomy  of  every  national  Church:  volume  iii.,  pages  1-20  inclusive; 
vol.  iii.,  4,  note  19;  iii.,  S,  note  27;  IIL,  18,  note  69:  number  of  suf- 
fragans there,  vol.  iii.,  page  2,  note  12. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria's  ΧΠ.  chapters  or  Anathemas;  xiii. ;  255,  256,  335-344; 
381,  note  704:  Anathema  VIIL,  id.;  letters  of,  and  a  spurious  homily, 
21,  22-27,  28-39;  the  Anathemas  are  slandered  and  denouncid  by  the 
Nestorian  Conventicle  of  the  Apostasy  at  Ephesus,  55,  63;  281,  282; 
375-386.    Spuriousness  of  the  said  Homily  shown,  29-39; 

Some  of  his  writings  corrupted  by  Monophysites,  30;  place-holder 
for  Celestine  of  Rome,  67,  as  well  as  representative  in  person  of  his 
own  see,  id.;  see  EpJiesus,  Ecumenical  Synod  of,  and  Ephesus,  the 
Conventicle  of,  and  Nestorian  Conventicle  of  the  Apostasy  at  Ephesus: 
his  wisdom,  145,  note  45 ;  claims  the  presence  of  Christ  with  the 
Synod,  150;  his  Short  Epistle  to  Nestorius  read  and  approved  in  Act 


General  hide  χ.  Λτ^χ 


I.  of  Ephesus,  170,  171,  and  note  150  there;  his  Homily  against  John 
of  Antioch,  183,  184;  his  Homily  delivered  in  Ephesus  before  he  was 
arrested  by  the  Count  and  committed  to  soldiers  to  be  kept  under 
their  guard:  it  is  clear  against  serving  the  humanity  of  Christ  and 
for  the  virorship  of  God  alone;  235-240;  so  he  speaks  in  his  Five  Book 
Contradiction  of  the  Blasphemies  of  Nestorius,  371,  372;  against  repre- 
senting God  by  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  236;  and 
against  worship  to  it,  and  against  worship  to  a  human  being,  22,7,  and 
note  372  there;  238.  Cyril  likens  the  Nestorian  worship  of  Christ's 
humanity  to  the  worship  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  golden  image  238,  note 
277;  another  comparison  (interpolated?),  vol  i.  of  Eph.,  118,  note; 
Nestorius'  relative  worship  to  that  Man  condemned  by  the  Third 
Ecumenical  Council  and  the  Fifth,  238,  239  ;  372  ;  it  was  relative  as  was 
that  of  the  heathen,  238-240,  and  notes  there.  Cyril  is  arrested  and 
kept  in  custody  for  the  faith,  293;  298;  306;  is  regarded  by  the 
Emperor  as  deposed  with  Memnon  and  Nestorius,  287,  288-292;  293- 
295 ;  Cyril  and  Memnon  are  released  and  recognized  by  him  as  Bishops» 
297-302:  Cyril's  faithfulness,  302:  the  XII.  Chapters  opposed  by  the 
Nestorians  but  maintained  by  the  Orthodox  notwithstanding  that  the 
Emperor  seemed  to  oppose  them,  302-306;  372;  subscribed  by  the 
Third  Synod  and  approved  by  the  Fifth,  381,  note  704;  302-306,  and 
notes  there ;  made  the  great  Nestorian  complaint  against  Cyril,  though 
the  Nestorians  dropped  all  mention  of  the  expression  Bnnger  Forth 
of  God,  Document  xviii.,  pages  306-309;  and  in  Document  xix.,  the 
Nestorians  again  oppose  Cyril's  xii.  Chapters,  because  they  oppose 
Nestorius'  Worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  and  they  ask  the  Emperor 
to  carry  out  their  decisions  against  those  who  subscribe  them  or  con- 
sent to  them;  Cyril's  Five  Book  Contradiction  of  the  Blasphemies  of 
Nestorius,  33s,  336  and  notes  there ;  341  to  344. 

Some  of  Cyril's  other  writings,  ibid.  The  Nestorians,  of  their 
Delegation  to  the  Emperor,  after  the  Third  Synod  of  the  whole  Church 
had  authoritatively  spoken  and  with  the  Christ  promised  aid  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  approved  the  XII.  Chapters,  wished  to  reopen  the  case  and 
defend  them,  as  the  Emperor  wished,  but  the  Council  stood  firm 
against  those  condemned  heretics,  and  refused  in  accordance  with 
Matt,  xviii.,  17,  18;  Rom.  xvi.,  17;  II.  Timothy  iii.,  4,  5;  Titus  iii.,  10, 
and  II.  John,  7-10,  which  is  very  apposite  against  Nestorius  and  all 
others  who  deny  the  Inflesh  of  God  the  Word ,  336-338;  and  the  Nes- 
torians threaten  a  schism  if  an  Orthodox  successor  to  Nestorius  be 
ordained  for  Constantinople,  338,  339 ;  they  threaten  that  "  the  Italies 
■will  not  suffer  the  dogmas  of  Cyril  to  be  admitted,  ibid.,"  Nestorians 
rage  against  the  XII.  Chapters,  374,  note  637 ;  375 ;  376,  note  669,  670 ; 
377-385  ;  Nestorians  oppose  the  Economic  Appropriation  to  God  the 
Word,  of  the  things  of  the  Man  put  on   (Cyril's  Anathema  iv. ),  377, 


434  hidex  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  EpJiesus  and  part  of  III. 

3/8,  and  notes  there,  especially  674,  (ητ,  682,  and  683 :  why  Cyril  set 
forth  that  doctrine;  see  the  same  notes;  the  Nestorians  slander  the 
doctrine  of  the  Chapters,  by  asserting  that  they  agree  with  Arian- 
ism,  Eunomianism  and  ApoUinarianism,  379-385,  make  God  the  Word 
liable  to  suffering  and  mingle  Christ'3  two  Natures,  377-385;  the 
Fifth  World  Synod  anathematizes  all  those  who  wrote  against  "  the 
holy  Cyril  and  his  Twelve  Chapters  and  continued  in  their  impiety 
unto  their  death." 

Cyril  resents  the  innuendo  that  he  was  making  the  Virgin  a  god- 
dess, 277,  note  422;  he  seems  to  have  been  place  holder  for  Carthage 
also,  403,  note  816;  is  praised  and  likened  to  other  great  opponents  of 
creature  worship,  467-469  and  notes. 

Cyril,  Bishop  of  Coele  and  Callipolis;  see  Euprepius. 

Dalmatius;  his  Epistle  to  the  Synod,  16.  Epistle  of  the  Synod  to  him,  17- 
20. 

Damasus  of  Rome;  383,  note  716. 

Deacons;  197,  the  deacon's  work,  note  237. 

Defenders;  I57,  note  100;  291,  note  472. 

Dioceses,  Patriarchates  and  Provinces,  253,  note  389;  381,  notes  706-713:  vol. 
III.,  17,  note  63 ;  vol.  iii.,  18,  note  70• 

Diodore  and  Theodore;  brought  in  the  worship  of  a  human  being  and  Can- 
nibalism on  the  Eucharist,  170,  note  146;  340;  316,  note  510:  See 
Theodore;  341,  342  and  notes  580,  581  there;  372;  376  and  notes  there; 
380,  note  695 ;  249,  250. 

Discipline;  the  Orthodox  not  subject  to  be  deposed  or  excommunicated  by 
creature  worshippers  or  other  heretics,  176,  note  177;  177,  note  182: 
see  Appeals;  need  of  discipline  to  enforce  sound  doctrine  against  here- 
tics ;  how  the  Universal  Church  in  the  early  centuries  enforced  her 
decisions  against  them;  lack  of  it  in  the  Anglican  Communion  against 
such,  19s,  note  232. 

Divinity,  your;  see  Titles. 

Economic  Appropriation;  denounced  by  Nestorius.  280,  281;  defended  by 
Cyril,  ibid:  343,  and  note  583  there;  345:  380,  note  693;  aim  of  the 
doctrine,  280,  281.  282,  378-381,  380,  note  693. 

Ecumenical:  see  Councils. 

Ecumenical  Synod,  a  future  Seventh,  404,  note  822;  see  Councils,  the  VI. 
Ecumenical,  and  Synods;  who  alone  may  sit  in  it,  437,  note  1004;  vol. 
iii.,  8,  note  36. 

EUpandus,  the  Adoptionist  heretic,  349,  355• 

Emperors  the;  their  power  in  the  appointment  of  Bishops.  2;  an  honorable 
place  for  their  letter,  6.  text  and  note  23;  see  Constanfine.  See  Titles 
and  Theodosius  II.:  67;  138.  130;  18?.  186;  were  Heads  of  the  State, 
but  not  of  the  Church,  462,  notes  1146,  1148;  but  convoked  the  Ecu- 


General  Index.  435 


menical  Synods;  see  vol.  i.  of  Ephesus,  pages  5-44;  vol.  III.,  page  i, 
etc. ;  iii.,  23 ;  iii.,  25,  note  99. 

England,  its  noble  struggle  for  the  worship  of  God  alone,  13,  note ;  254,  note ; 
with  the  other  Protestant  and  God  alone  worshipping  nations  of 
Europe,  and  these  United  States  and  elsewhere  it  should  control  a 
true  Seventh  Ecumenical  Synod  soon  to  be  held,  and  abolish  all 
idolatry,  314,  315;  it  may  not  be  invaded  by  Rome;  254,  note. 

Ephesus,  Ecumenical  Synod  of;  this  volume  ii.  on,  Preface,  i. ;  needs  of  the 
Set,  see  under  Councils.  Contents  of  volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  id.,  vii.  ; 
when  it  began,  463,  note  1157:  the  Synod's  account  of  their  deposi- 
tion of  Nestorius,  3-14;  the  Gospels  on  a  throne,  that  is  a  seat,  in  the 
middle  to  show  that  Christ  was  with  them  to  guide  them  by  His 
Word,  5;  their  procedure  against  Nestorius,  3-14;  14-16;  17-127;  169, 
note  143;  399-405;  408-416;  why  he  was  deposed,  id.;  see  Nestorius, 
Eucharist,  and  IVorsliip  of  Christ's  humanity;  Non-Ecumenical  Docu- 
ments between  its  Acts  I.  and  II.,  21-66;  see  Cclcstine.  The  Greeks 
modify  his  Letter  to  the  Synod  and  in  that  form  only  approve  it,  yy, 
note  2  and  3 — 93;  an  Ecumenical  Synod  was  superior  to  Celestine,  80, 
note  4;  82,  note  i;  compare  175,  note  172;  see  under  Hefele  and 
Peter  and  Rome.  Celestine's  complimentary  language  of  it,  73,  text 
and  note  5.  On  July  10,  431,  in  Session  that  is  Act  II.,  the  Roman 
Legates  appear,  and  ask  for  the  reading  of  Celestine's  Letter  to  the 
Ecumenical  Council,  67-70;  Cyril  orders  it  to  be  read,  and  it  is  read 
first  in  Latin,  70 ;  Jnvenal,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  and  all  the  Bishops 
order  it  to  be  read  in  Greek;  71;  it  is  so  done  by  Peter  an  Elder,  that 
is  a  Presbyter,  of  Alexandria  and  Chief  of  the  Secretaries,  72-79; 
shouts  of  approval  by  the  Bishops  for  Celestine  and  for  Cyril,  79.  The 
Roman  Legates  ask  what  had  been  done  as  to  approving  Celestine's 
deposition  of  Nestorius,  and  request  that  Act  I.  be  read  to  them  also, 
that  they  may  confirm  the  Action  against  Nestorius  80-93 ;  the  Synod 
agrees,  93.  Firmns.  Bishop  of  Caesarea  bed  just  before  informed  the 
Roman  Legate  that  the  Synod  had,  in  its  Act  I.,  cited  Nestorius  before 
them  and  as  he  would  not  obey  their  summons,  they  had  given  eflFect 
to  Celestine's  form,  or  judgment  against  him,  82-84.  On  July  li,  in 
Act  ill.,  Jnvenal,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  states  that  on  the  day  before 
the  Roman  Legates  had  asked  "  that  the  minutes  composed  on  the 
deposition  of  the  heretic  Nestorius  be  read.  Accordingly  the  Holy 
Synod  ordered  it  to  be  done."  It  had  evidently  been  done  informally 
before  the  Third  Session  (Act  iii.)  began,  94  and  note  there;  Juvenal 
goes  on:  "If  therefore  your  Holiness  has  read  and  learned  their  sense 
and  force,  your  Holiness  will  deem  it  a  worthy  thing  to  state  it,"  94. 
Philip,  the  Roman  Presbyter,  that  is  Elder  as  PresbytT  means,  states 
that  they  had  ascertained  from  the  minutes,  that  is  of  Act  I.,  that  "  all 
things  were  judged  and  decided  canonically  and  in  accordance  with 


436  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

church  discipline;"  94,  95;  the  Roman  Legates  ask  however  that  they 
be  read  again  formally  that  they  may  confirm  them  for  their  part  of 
the  Church,  95,  96,  and  note  5 ;  they  are  read  again  by  Peter,  a  Pres- 
byter of  Alexandria  and  chief  of  the  Secretaries,  96,  97,  98;  Philip 
the  Presbyter,  that  is  Elder,  and  Ambassador  of  Rome,  in  the  name 
of  Celestine,  his  Bishop,  approves  the  deposition  of  Nestorius  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  done  by  the  Bishops  of  the  whole  Church,  East 
and  West,  in  an  Ecumenical  Synod,  either  in  person  or  by  their 
ambassadors,  and  he  compliments  the  Emperors  for  assembling  the 
Synod,  99-108;  the  Roman  legates  Arcadius  and  Projectus  also  ap- 
proved, 108-111;  Cyril  of  Alexandria  then  states  to  the  Council  that 
the  Roman  legates,  as  representatives  of  Rome  and  of  a  Synod  of  the 
West,  had  just  expressed  their  agreement  \vith  the  Ecumenical  Synod, 
in  its  action  against  the  heretic  Nestorius,  and,  he  added :  "  Where- 
fore let  the  Minutes  of  the  Acts  done  yesterday"  [in  session  ii.]  "and 
to  day"  [in  Act  iii.]  "be  joined  to  those  of  the  Acts  done  before" 
[in  Session  I.  of  the  Council],  "and  let  them  [all]  be  presented  to 
their  God — Reveringness,"  [the  Roman  legates]  "  that  they  may  by 
their  own  signature,  in  the  usual  manner,  make  manifest  their  canon- 
ical agreement  with  us  all."  Arcadius  agrees.  The  Synod  calls  upon 
the  Roman  Legates  to  sign  the  Minutes  of  the  Acts  as  they  had 
promised.  They  do  so,  so  condemning  Nestorius  and  approving  all 
done  in  the  Acts — 113;  Report  of  the  Synod  to  the  Emperors, 
regarding  the  action  of  the  Roman  Legates  in  signing  the  Acts;  the 
Council  informs  the  Sovereigns  that  inasmuch  as  the  said  Legates 
had  agreed  with  the  Synod  and  signed  the  Acts,  therefore  the  whole 
Church,  East  and  West  had  spoken  and  the  whole  matter  was  settled 
and  at  "an  end,"  1 14-124:  Cyril  of  Alexandria  drew  up  the  report 
and  all  the  Bishops  subscribed,  124.  Next  comes  an  Epistle  of  the 
Council  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  Constantinople  regarding  the 
deposition  of  Nestorius.  It  mentions  his  impiety,  his  denial  of  the 
Incarnation,  his  deposition,  and  his  spreading  of  doubts  on  it  among 
the  more  simple,  and  calls  upon  them  to  pray  God  to  make  known  a 
fit  man  for  the  vacant  see,  124-127;  it  is  signed  by  Cyril,  Juvenal,  the 
Roman  Liegates,  Firmus  of  Caesarea,  and  four  other  Basteros,  those 
names  being  deemed  enough,  126,  127.  Next  comes  A  warning  by  the 
translator  071  Philip's  haughty  and  boastful  Roman  language  on  page 
99  above,  128-137.  Three  aspects  of  Philip's  claims  for  Rome,  129:  he 
did  not  claim  infallibility  for  her,  128 ;  the  Vatican  Conventicle  of 
1869,  1870,  which  did  was  controlled  by  Rome  and  Italy,  and  decided 
against  the  Sixth  Ecumenical  Synod  which  in  A.  D.  680  condemned 
Pope  Honorius  as  a  Monothelite  heretic,  and  an  instrument  of  the 
devil,  128,  129 ;  wonderful  revealment  of  God's  anger  when  Pius  IX. 
proclaimed  his  infallibility,  129,  130;  curses  on  Rome  which  followed 


General  Index.  437 


that  proclamation  o'f  Ecumenically  condemned  heresy,  130,  131 ;  the 
claim  of  Rome  to  Appellate  Jurisdiction  outside  of  Italy  is  refuted  by 
the  canons  and  decisions  of  the  VI.  Synods  and  by  the  facts  of  early 
Christian  history,  131-134;  so  is  her  claim  to  a  primacy  by  divine  right, 
134-137;  changes  in  the  Acts,  97,  note  i,  and  98,  note  2;  Philip  the 
Roman  Presbyter  and  Legate  contends  that  inasmuch  as  the  sentence 
of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  was  pronounced  by  the  representatives  of 
the  whole  Church,  East  and  West,  it  is  therefore  "valid  and  unshaken," 
107  ;  that  is  in  eflfect  Cyril's  view,  vol.  ii.  pages  iii,  112,  note  i  ;  and 
113,  notes  2  and  4;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  itself,  1 14-124,  note 
5,  6,  pp.  116,  117,  and  note  7,  page  121,  122,  notes  2,  3;  124  and  note  3 
there. 

In  Act  IV.  of  the  Council  Cyril  and  Memnon  ask  the  Synod  to 
take  action  against  the  Bishops  of  John  of  Antioch's  little  "  Conven- 
ticle of  the   Apostasy"   for  their  farcical  deposition  of  them;   which 
they  brand  as  "an  unholy  and  unlaniiil  attempt  to  perpetrate  an  out- 
rage and  an  insult  upon  "  them,  138-143.    At  the  suggestion  of  Acacius, 
Bishop  of  Melitene,  the  Synod  sends  three  Bishops  to  summon  Nes- 
torius.     They  go  and  return  with  the  statement  that  Nestorius  would 
not  receive  them,  but  that  they  had  been  threatened  and  that  abusive 
or  blasphemous  words  had  been  uttered  by  his  partisans  against  the 
Orthodox  faith  and  the  Synod,  143-145.     Before  the  summons  Acacius 
stated  of  John  and  his  Conventicle,  that  "  it  was  not  within  the  power 
of  those  who  had  apostatized  from   the  holy  Synod  and  had  joined 
and  connected  themselves  to   the  wicked  opinions  of  Nestorius,  and 
who  were  under  so  great  an  accusation,  to  dare  to  eflfect  any  thing 
against  the  Presidents  of  this  Ecumenical  Synod,  nor  did  they  have 
any  authority  at  all,"  43.    A  summons  must  therefore  be  sent  to  John, 
but  he  refuses  it  and  the  summoners  are  insulted  and  maltreated.     A 
second  summons   is  sent,   with  the   same  results,    143-150.     Then   the 
Synod  pronounces  invalid  the  Acts  of  John  of  Antioch  and  his  Con- 
venticle of  the  Apostasy  against  Cyril  and  Memnon  and  the  Ecumeni- 
cal Synod  suspends  them  from  communion  and  from  priestly  power, 
and  threatens  John  and  his  partisans  with  deposition  if  they  do  not 
obey  the  third  summons,  150-152.   Next  follows  Act  V.,  at  the  beginning 
of  which  Cyril  calls  upon  the  Synod  to  proceed  with  their  work  of 
vindicating  the   faith   and    its    defenders,    himself   and    Memnon,    and 
warns  them  that  the  Nestorian  Conventicle  was  sending  false  reports 
to  the  Emperors,   153-156.     Accordingly  the  Council  warns  Nestorius 
that  they  have  deprived  him  and  his  fellows  of  the  Conventicle  of  the 
power  to  perform  any  episcopal  act ;   and  they  appoint  three  bishops 
to  carry  that  message  and  a  third  summons  to  them,  and  warn  him 
and  them  that,  unless  they  obey  it,  "  those  things  which  seem  in  con- 
sonance with  the  canons  shall  be  decreed  against  you,"  156.    The  mes- 


438  Index  Π.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 


sengers  of  the  Council  go  and  return  and  state  that  their  message 
was  not  received,  and  that  they  were  badly  treated.  Then  the  Synod 
suspends  John  and  the  Bishops  of  his  faction,  35  in  all,  from  com- 
munion and  episcopal  functions,  and,  in  effect,  threaten  them  with 
deposition  and  excommunication  unless  they  quickly  "  condemn  them- 
selves and  acknowledge  their  fault"  159-162.  Before,  the  Synod  had 
specified  their  Nestorian  heresy,  the  first  cause  of  all  their  action. 
Next  comes  the  Report  of  the  Synod  to  the  Emperors,  in  which  they 
mention  their  deposition  of  Nestorius,  his  support  by  John  of  Antioch 
and  his  small  Conventicle  and  their  absurd  attempt  to  depose  Cyril, 
and  Memnon,  and  their  action  against  the  Council,  and  the  Council's 
against  them,  and  ask  for  the  Emperor's"  c/'/>roz'a/  and  support  of 
piety  against  Nestorius  and  Jiis  impious  doctrine"  and  ask  further  that 
their  own  decisions  "shall  have  their  otvn  proper  force,  and  be 
strengthened  by  the  consent  and  approval  of"  the  said  Emperors,  163- 
167.  Then  follows  a  Report  to  Celestine,  Bishop  of  Rome,  of  a 
similar  tenor  to  that  sent  to  the  Emperors,  only  they  go  more  into 
detail  on  doctrine,  and  tell  Celestine  that  they  are  co-voters  with  him 
against  the  Pelagian  heretics  whose  chiefs  they  specify  and  who  were 
represented  in  John's  Conventicle,  168-182;  "the  exactitude  of  the 
Synod  and  piety"  to  be  approved,  173,  and  note  162:  its  noble  stand 
for  Cyril  and  Memnon,  176,  note  176;  names  of  Bishops  present  at 
the  beginning  of  Act  VI. ;  different  readings  of  parts  of  the  Acts 
explained,  185;  Remark,  and  notes  there;  186,  note  193;  187,  notes 
196,  197,  198;  and  some  of  the  notes  to  pages  188-197;  passages  from 
the  Fathers  read  in  Act  I.  are  read  again  in  Act  VI.,  196,  note  233; 
the  action  on  Charisius,  197-234;  Peter,  the  Elder  of  Alexandria  and 
chief  of  the  secretaries,  states  that,  after  the  Ecumenical  Synod  had 
decreed  that  the  Creed  of  the  318  of  Nicaea  should  remain  firm, 
Charisius  an  Elder  and  Steward,  of  the  Church  of  Philadelphia,  had 
come  and  stated  that  certain  heretics  who  came  from  Lydia  and  wished 
to  go  over  to  the  dogmas  of  the  Universal  Church,  had  been  deceived 
by  Antony  and  Jacob  two  Nestorian  clerics  who  had  come  down 
from  Constantinople,  and  instead  of  asking  them  to  subscribe  the 
Nicene  creed,  as  they  ought  to  have  done,  had  made  them  subscribe 
to  a  certain  Forthset  of  impious  dogmas,  put  together  as  if  in  the 
order  of  a  Symbol,  that  Is  Creed;  and  the  statement  given  in  by 
•charisius  and  "  tJie  Forthset  of  that  impious  and  bad  belief  on  the 
Inman  of  the  Sole  Born  Son,  of  Cod  [that  is  God  the  Word],  with 
the  subscriptions  of  those  on  whom  the  deception  was  practiced " 
were  presented  to  the  Council,  id.  Then  follows  Charisius'  statement 
to  that  effect,  and  his  personal  "Confession  of  Faith"  which  is  partly 
in  the  words  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  but  is  a  little  fuller  at  the  end,  yet 
without  its  anathema ;  and  he  testifies  that  he  had  given  in  the  docu- 
ments aforesaid,  and  had  subscribed  with  his  own  hand,  199-202. 


Geyieral  Index.  439 


Next  comes  a  "  Copy  of  the  Forthsct  of  the  Counterfeited  for 
'depraved']  Symbol,"  which  is  ascribed  by  Marius  Mercator  and  the 
Emperor  JustinidO  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  one  of  the  founders 
of  the  Nestorian  heresies.  It  most  plainly  teaches  the  denial  of  the 
Incarnation,  and  a  mere  Relative  Conjunction  and  Relative  Indzcell- 
ing  of  God  the  Word  in  Christ's  humanity,  and  what  St.  Cyril  and 
the  whole  Church  so  strongly  condemn,  and  make  a  ground  of  Nes- 
torius'  deposition,  his  Relative  Worship  of  Christ's  mere  separate 
humanity,  Relative  that  is  to  God  the  Word,  that  is  for  the  sake  of 
God  the  Word,  the  old  heathen  plea  for  the  relative  worship  of  their 
images,  for  they  tried  to  defend  that  worship  of  images  by  saying  that 
they  worshipped  them  not  for  their  own  sake  but  for  the  sake  of  those 
gods  or  goddesses  represented  by  them.  See  Chrystal's  work  Crea- 
ture Worship,  General  Index  under  Relative  Worship.  Cyril  brands 
the  Nestorian  relative  worship  as  άνΟρωττολατρύα^  that  is  ihe  worship 
of  a  human  being;  see  pages  694,  695,  volume  i.  of  Ephesus  in  this 
set  under  ανθρωποΧατρύα  and  άνθ/'ωπολάτρη•!  and  **  Man- Worship" 
on  page  632;  it  is  very  plainly  taught  in  that  heretical  document 
termed  Theodore's  Creed,  on  pages  204-210,  and  at  its  end  it  lyingly 
asserts:  "This  is  the  teaching  of  the  Church  dogmas,"  and,  it  adds, 
"  let  every  man  who  holds  opinions  contrary  to  them  be  anathema," 
page  210;  which,  of  course,  anathematizes  the  Third  Ecumenical 
Council  and  Cyril,  its  leader,  and  every  Orthodox  \vorshipper  of  God 
alone,  (Matt,  iv.,  lo). 

Then  follow  on  pages  211-222  the  subscriptions  of  those  who  had 
been  deceived  into  signing  the  aforesaid  Man-Worshipping,  that  is 
Creature- Worshipping  Creed,  and  on  pages  222-2;^4,  the  Decision  of 
the  whole  Ecumenical  Council  against  the  document,  its  heresies, 
and  all  who  hold  to  it,  including  also  the  penalties  of  deposition  for 
all  Bishops  and  clerics  who  do  and  of  anathema  for  all  laics,  222- 
225.  That  smites  all  Nestorians,  for  they  worship  Christ's  humanity 
still  and  are  guilty  of  the  lower  Alan-worship  of  worshipping  saints. 
And  it  smites  all  Romanists  who  worship  the  sacred  Heart  of  Jesus 
and  those  who  worship  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Mary,  and  it  smites  all 
who  worship  saints,  be  they  Romanists,  Greeks,  Nestorians  or  Mono- 
physites,  for  surely  if  the  Bishop  or  cleric  is  deposed  for  worshipping 
the  mere  humanity  of  Christ,  even  if  he  do  it  only  relatively  as  Nes- 
torius  did,  much  more  is  he  deposed  if  he  worships  any  lesser  creature, 
and  all  other  creatures  are  less  than  that  ever  spotless  humanity  of 
the  Redeemer;  and  for  the  same  reason,  and  by  the  same  Decision 
of  that  Holy  Ghost  guided  Council  of  the  whole  Church,  East  and 
West,  every  laic  committing  the  same  sin  of  the  Nestorian  Worship 
of  Christ's  humiuiity  and  much  more  if  he  worships  any  other 
creature,  acts  contrary  to  it  and  to  Christ's  law  in  Matthew  iv.,  lO,  and 


440  Index  Π.  to  Volume  II .  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

therefore  is  eternal  anathema  unless  he  repents  and  forsakes  it,  222- 
225.  Then  follow  the  subscriptions  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Synod,  and 
so  its  Act  VI.  ends,  225-234.  Some  of  their  sees  since  wiped  out  for 
their  later  developed  idolatry  by  the  Mohammedans,  231,  note  342; 
192,  note  223. 

The  same  decision  forbids  every  one  "  to  offer  or  to  write  or  to 
compose  another  faith  (mVriv),  contrary  to  that  decreed  by  the  holy 
Fathers  gathered  in  the  city  of  the  Nicaeans  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
[in  the  First  Ecumenical  Synod,  A.  D.  325].  But  those  who  dare 
either  to  compose  or  to  bring  forward  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  anathematized."  Meaning  of  "  contrary  to  " 
in  the  above  decision,  223,  notes  322,  323 :  what  it  forbids,  ihid.  ' 

Cause  of  slight  variations  in  the  manuscripts,  222,  note  320;  two 
Bishops  forsake  the  Third  Synod  for  the  Nestorian  Conventicle,  249: 
firmness  of  the  bulk  of  the  Synod  for  Cyril  and  for  Orthodoxy,  287- 
292,  298,  302,  303,  304  and  notes.  Then  follow  XVI.  Orthodox  Docu- 
ments between  Acts  VI.  and  VII.  of  the  Council.  The  Synod  in 
their  Report  of  July  I,  431,  Orthodox  Document  I.,  to  the  Emperor 
show  how  justly  they  had  acted  in  deposing  Nestorius,  and  on  what 
bases  and  proofs,  and  how  they  were  hindered  and  misrepresented 
and  hampered  by  the  secular  agents  of  the  Emperor,  Candidian  and 
Irenaeus,  and  by  Nestorius  and  his  friends,  and  state  that  they  were 
in  peril  of  their  lives  from  them,  but  that  some  Bishops  who  had 
acted  with  Nestorius,  but  who  had  after  that  found  him  to  hold  blas- 
phemies had  forsaken  him  and  come  to  the  Orthodox  Council,  so  that 
only  thirty-seven  were  left  with  Nestorius  and  John  of  Antioch ;  and 
the  Synod  adds  that  those  who  signed  the  deposition  of  Nestorius  were 
more  than  200  in  number,  and  that  they  represented  the  whole  Church 
"West  as  well  as  East,  ask  that  five  of  their  number  be  allowed  to  go 
to  the  Emperors  and  detail  what  they  had  decreed,  pages  399-405.  and 
notes  there.  The  Orthodox  Document  II.  is  "  An  Answer  of  the 
Bishops  found  in  Constantinople  to  the  Memorial  from  the  Synod," 
and  relates  how  the  Nestorians  and  their  messengers  were  allowed  to 
reach  Constantinople  with  their  misrepresentations  but  none  of  the 
Orthodox  side  were  admitted,  but  that  one,  clad  as  a  beggar,  had  been 
able  to  reach  Dalmatius  the  Archimandrite  with  a  message  from  Cyril 
of  Alexandria  hid  in  a  reed,  and  addressed  to  certain  clergy  in  Con- 
stantinople, how  he  had  read  it  to  the  Emperor  and  the  monks  and 
people,  and  how  he  and  how  they  had  been  enhghtened  by  it  and  how 
the  people  had  anathematized  Nestorius,  405-417,  and  how  the  Em- 


Ge7ieral  Index.  441 


peror  had  given  permission  to  Bishops  to  come  from  the  Ecumenical 
Synod  and  to  tell  their  side,  ibid.,  405-417. 

Orthodox  Document  III.  is  an  "  Epistle  imitten  by  the  Clergy  of 
Cofistantinople  to  the  Holy  Synod,"  accepts  their  faith,  and  their  depo- 
sition of  Nestorius,  thanks  them  for  Cyril's  letter  above,  and  asks  them 
to  go  on  with  their  good  work,  418,  419. 

Orthodox  Document  IV.  is  a  "  Copy  of  a  Report  of  the  Holy 
Synod  in  response  to  that  Sacred  [that  is  imperial]  Letter,  which  was 
read  by  John,  the  most  magninccnt  Count  of  the  sacred  [that  is  im- 
perial] largesses." 

This  Report  contradicts  the  pretence  that  the  Nestorian  faction 
was  the  Council,  and  denies  that  itself  had  deposed  Cyril,  and  on  the 
contrary,  praises  him  and  adds  :  *'  W"e  have  deposed  Nestorius  alone, 
the  preacher  of  the  idcked  heresy  of  the  MAN-SERVERS,"  that  is 
the  worshippers  of  Christ's  humanity,  and  states  that  they  are  dis- 
tressed because  the  Emperor  had  addressed  John  of  Antioch,  his  par- 
tisans, and  the  Celestians  as  part  of  the  Ecumenical  Council,  for  it  had 
suspended  them  from  Communion  and  the  exercise  of  their  episcopal 
functions,  for  their  Nestorian  errors  and  violations  of  the  canons,  asks 
Cyril  and  Memnon  to  be  given  back  to  the  Synod  as  sound  men,  which 
implies  that  they  were  under  durance,  says  that  the  Syuod  held  to  the 
Nicene  faith,  and  asks  the  Emperor  to  serd  persons  to  the  Council  to 
report  to  him  the  facts  as  between  them  and  the  schismatics,  419-424. 

"  Orthodox  Document  V."  is  a  "  Copy  of  an  Epistle  of  Cyril, 
Archbishop  of  Alexandria,  written  to  the  Clergy  and  People  of  Con- 
stantinople." 

In  this  Cyril  complains  of  the  misrepresentations  of  Count  John 
at  Constantinople  and  of  his  tyranny  in  trying  to  undo  the  work  of  the 
Council  against  Nestorius  and  his  partisans  of  the  Conventicle  of  the 
Apostasy,  and  it  had  heard  that  as  a  result  of  such  lying  the  Emperor 
and  the  civil  power  were  taking  counsel  to  exile  Cyril  and  the  Ortho- 
dox Council,  tells  of  being  kept  in  durance  and  of  the  strong  support 
given  to  him  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Synod,  and  of  their  refusal  to 
recognize  the  Conventicle  or  to  meet  with  them.  One  sentence  shows 
such  noble  attachment  to  the  God  alone  worshipping  doctrine  and  its 
champion  Cyril,  that  I  here  quote  it : 

"  For  here  also  by  the  grace  of  the  Saviour,  those  of  the  most 
God-revering  Bishops  who  never  knew  us,  hold  themselves  in  readi- 
ness to  lay  down  their  lives  for  us,  and  come  to  us  with  tears,  and 
say  that  they  have  the  wish  to  be  exiled  with  us  and  to  die  with 
us."  Oh !  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Christian  world  to-day  were  as 
strong  and  self-sacrificing  for  the  truth  that  to  God  alone  belong 
invocation  and  every  other  act  of  religious  service.  Alas !  the  great 
bulk  of  them  are  creature  invokers  and  image  and  cross  worshippers, 
and  are  therefore  deposed  and  excommunicated  by  Ephesus,  424-428. 


442  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus  and  part  of  III. 

Orthodox  Document  VI.  is  a  "  Copy  of  an  Epistle  uritten  by 
Mefnnon,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  to  the  Clergy  of  Constantinople." 

It  narrates  how  Count  Candidian  favored  Nestorius  and  his  fac- 
tion and  oppressed  the  Orthodox,  and  how  John  of  Antioch  had 
permitted  Irenaeus  and  the  Bishops  and  Clerics  of  the  Nestorian 
faction  of  John  to  lay  "unbearable  stripes"  upon  the  Bishops  who 
had  gone  to  him  as  messengers  of  the  Orthodox  §ynod,  and  how  they 
had  returned  to  the  Council  and  showed  their  stripes,  and  how  they 
had  suspended  him  from  Communion  for  it,  and  how  John  had  tried 
to  ordain  some  one  in  Memnon's  place,  but  had  failed  because  the 
Orthodox  people  would  not  permit  it,  and  had  repelled  his  violence, 
428-432. 

Orthodox  Document  VII.  is  a  Report  of  the  Ecumenical  Synod 
to  the  Emperor,  in  which  they  expose  the  lying  cheat  of  the  Nestorian 
Conventicle  in  representing  their  small  faction  as  the  Ecumenical 
Council,  and  their  absurd  deposition  of  Cyril  and  Memnon  as  its  work. 
And  they  ask  for  their  restoration  to  the  Synod  and  for  freedom  for 
the  Council  to  do  its  proper  work.  They  narrate  also  that  they  had 
deposed  Nestorius  for  his  "  innovations  "  in  "  the  faith  "  and  "  blas- 
phemy" and  deprived  of  Communion  all  who  held  Nestorian  errors, 
433-436. 

Orthodox  Document  VIII.  is  a  Synodical  Epistle  to  the  Clergy 
of  Constantinople,  signed,  in  the  absence  of  Cyril  and  Memnon,  by 
Juvenal  of  Jerusalem.  It  tells  of  the  persecution  of  the  Ecumenical 
Synod,  how  they  had  been  shut  up  at  Ephesus  for  three  months  as 
in  prison,  forbidden  to  communicate  with  the  Emperor;  and  mis- 
represented and  slandered,  and  yet  express  their  determination  never 
to  compromise  with  the  Nestorian  party  nor  to  admit  them  to  Com- 
munion. The  Letter  tells  of  the  mean  trickery  of  John  of  Antioch 
and  his  Nestorian  followers  in  representing  their  clique  to  be  the 
Ecumenical  Synod,  and  the  noble  struggle  of  the  oppressed  Orthodox 
to  maintain  God's  truth  on  the  doctrines  involved,  and  ends  by  asking 
the  Bishops  and  Clergy  at  Constantinople  to  appeal  to  the  Emperor 
and  let  him  know  the  facts,  and  they  proclaim  their  undying  attach- 
ment to  Cyril  and  Memnon,  and  their  willingness  to  be  driven  from 
their  churches  and  to  be  exiled  with  them  rather  than  betray  the  faith ; 
and  they  add  that  they  were  being  consumed  by  sickness  and  death ; 
pages  437-444• 

Orthodox  Document  IX.,  is  an  Epistle  written  to  Orthodox  Bishops 
in  Constantinople  by   Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  regard  to  the  intrigues 
and  trumped   up   charges   from   which   he   suffered,   said   trumped   up 
"  charges  being  in  the  letters  of  Nestorius  and  John.     It  nobly  refuses 

to  compromise  with  the  Man-Worshippers,  and  refuses  to  commune 
with  John  of  Antioch  or  his  Conventicle;  it  tells  them:  "The  Synod 


General  Index. 


443 


has  not  suffered  itself  to  commune  with  John  [of  Antioch]  but  stands 
firm  in  resistance  saying:  Behold  our  bodies!  Behold  our  Churches! 
Behold  our  cities!  Ye  have  authority!  But  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
commune  with  the  Orientals  till  their  deceitfully  contrived  enactme^its 
against  our  Fellozc  Ministers,  zcliich  are  the  issue  of  their  own  false 
accusing,  are  abrogated  "  [by  them]  "and  they  confess  the  right  faith 
also.  For  they  are  convicted  of  uttering  and  holding  and  confessing 
the  dogmas  of  Ncstorius.  So  all  our  objection  and  resistance "  [to 
them]  *' rests  on  those  things.  Let  .",11  the  Orthodox  pray  for  us.  For 
as  the  blessed  David  says,  /  am  prepared  for  the  scourges."  That  is 
noble,  unselfish  and  plain  against  that  Nestorian  here-sy  which  denied 
the  Incarnation,  worshipped  a  human  being,  and  held  to  Cannibalism 
on  the  Eucharist;  that  is  to  the  real  substance  presence  of  Christ's 
human  flesh  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist  and  to  the  error  that  they  are 
eaten  there. 

Orthodox  Document  X.  is  a  Reply  of  the  Orthodox  Bishops  at 
Constantinople,  to  the  last  above  of  Cyril,  and  tells  of  the  preventing 
of  their  going  to  Ephesus  by  the  Nestorians  and  expresses  sympathy 
for  the  Synod  and  asks  them  to  counsel  them  whether  they  ought  to 
go  to  Ephesus  and  suffer  with  them ;  or  to  remain  at  Constantinople 
and  work.  They  hint  that  "  by  the  help  of  God  who  is  to  he  worship- 
ped," the  Emperor  was  veering  around  to  Orthodoxy :    Pages  446-448. 

Orthodox  Document  XL,  is  a  reply  of  the  Synod  to  the  last  above, 
advises  the  Orthodox  Bishops  at  Constantinople  to  remain  there  and 
disabuse  the  mind  of  the  Emperor  of  the  impression  produced  on  him 
by  the  Nestorian  slanders  on  the  Council,  and  tells  them : 

"  For  we  are  now  held  fast  together,  in  a  state  of  strict  siege  by 
both  land  and  by  sea,  so  that  we  can  not  make  known  to  your  Holiness 
the  things  which  have  been  done,"  and  they  say  that  they  need  their 
prayers  that  they  may  hold  out  and  not  come  to  terms  with  the  Nes- 
torians, though  it  adds :  "  the  rulers  are  using  great  violence  to  drive 
us  to  it ;"  pages  448-452. 

Orthodox  Document  XII.  is  "  Λ  Prayer  and  Supplication  by  the 
Clergy  of  Constantinople  for  the  Holy  Synod  in  Ephesus,"  addressed 
to  the  Emperors,  Theodosius  and  Valentinian,  and  is  a  model  letter  tc 
Emperors.  For  it  states,  as  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  that 
all  subjects  should  obey  civil  rulers  so  long  as  they  rule  in  accordance 
with  the  higher  law  of  God,  but  must  oppose  all  enactments  against  it, 
such  as  were  the  Emperor's  persecutions  of  Cyril,  Memnon  and  the 
Orthodox  Council,  and  suffer  for  such  opposition,  if  need  be,  and  they 
beg  them  to  do  as  their  ancestors  had  done,  that  is  to  leave  the  Church 
free  in  its  own  sphere  and  enforce  its  decisions  on  Church  matters, 
that  is  on  doctrine  and  discipline  in  the  matter  of  Nestorius,  his 
heresies,  and  his  partisans.     It  is  very  respectful,  very  truthful  and 


444  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

very  firm.  Ο  !  that  there  were  such  Bishops  and  Clergy  now-a-days, 
God  grant  that  there  may  be  :  452-458. 

ORTHODOX  DOCUMENT  XIII.  is  a  Mandate  made  by  the  Holy 
Synod  and  given  to  the  Bishops  who  were  sent  by  them  to  Constanti- 
nople to  plead  their  cause  and  the  cause  of  the  imperilled  Faith  against 
those  from  John  of  Antioch  and  his  Conventicle  at  Ephesus. 

This  tells  the  Orthodox  Deputation  to  plead  for  Orthodoxy  and 
for  Cyril  and  Memnon,  and  not  in  any  way  to  admit  to  Communion 
John  of  Antioch  and  the  little  Synod  of  the  Apostasy,  because  they 
were  doctrinally  Nestorians,  had  dared  to  condemn  Cyril  and  Memnon, 
(and  they  add  that  some  of  them  are  Celestians;),  unless  they  would 
believe  and  do  what  was  right  on  all  those  matters :  pages  458-461. 

Orthodox  Document  XIV.  is  a  Report  of  the  Ecumenical  Council 
to  the  Emperors  introducing  the  delegates  mentioned  in  the  Document 
last  above.  It  narrates  how  and  why  Nestorius  and  his  partisans  had 
been  deprived  of  Communion  and  tells  of  the  injustice  done  to  Cyril 
and  Memnon  by  the  Nestorian  Conventicle  in  its  absurd  and  snap 
judgment  against  them,  vouches  for  their  Orthodoxy  and  prays  the 
Emperor  to  give  them  back  to  the  Synod,  and  to  release  themselves 
from  bonds.  It  emphasizes  the  fact  that  it  represented  the  whole 
Church  West  as  well  as  East:  pages  461-466. 

Orthodox  Document  XV.  is  an  Epistle  of  Alypius,  a  Presbyter, 
that  is  an  Elder,  of  the  Church  of  the  Apostles  at  Constantinople  to 
Cyril  of  Alexandria.  It  praises  him  for  the  great  work  which  he  had 
done,  and  tells  him  that  he  had  followed  the  steps  of  Elijah,  Athana- 
sius,  and  Theophilus  his  own  uncle,  and  states  that  he  had  "  overturned 
much-eating  Baal,"  all  which  may  well  be  an  allusion  to  his  zeal  against 
creature  worship.  The  reference  is  to  Bel  and  the  Dragon  of  the  Old 
Testament  Apocrypha ;  pages  467-469. 

Orthodox  Doctimcnt  XVI.  and  Last,  is  the  "divine  letter"  of  the 
Emperor  "to  the  Holy  Synod  in  Ephesus,^*  by  which  he  seems  to  mean 
both  the  Orthodox  Synod  and  Nestorius'  Conventicle.  It  dismisses 
the  Oriental  Bishops,  that  is  the  Nestorians  of  John  of  Antioch's  party, 
to  "their  own  Countries  and  Churches,"  and  orders  that  the  Synod 
be  dissolved;  and  that  "Cyril  shall  go  into  Alexandria  and  Memnoit 
shall  remain  in  Ephesus.^*  And  then  follows  what  shows  a  most  lament- 
able ignorance  of  the  all  important  and  saving  doctrines  involved,  and 
an  utter  failure  to  appreciate  the  good  and  noble  work  done  by  the 
Orthodox  Council.     For  he  adds : 

"  Only  we  inform  your  God-reveringness  that  so  long  as  we  live 
we  shall  never  be  able  to  condemn  the  Orientals.  For  they  have  not 
been  convicted  in  our  presence,  for  no  one  wished  to  dispute  with 
them."  The  Synod  of  the  whole  Church  having  judged  and  condemned 
them,  that  settled  it.     The   Emperor  being  only  a  layman  could  not 


General  Index  4_j  5 


make  himself  a  court  of  highest  appeal  against  the  verdict  of  a  Holy- 
Ghost-led  Synod  0/  the  "  one,  holy,  universal  and  apostolic  Church." 
His  only  duty  in  the  matter  was  to  reject  the  heretics,  (Titus  iii.,  10) 
and  to  enforce  the  decision  of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  putting  the  creature 
worshippers  out  of  their  sees  and  putting  sound  men  into  their  places. 
Then  he  adds  what  shows  that  he  would  have  them  unite  again, 
seemingly  as  though  the  difference  between  them  was  a  mere  passing 
quarrel  and  involved  no  essential  doctrine.  And  there  is  too  much 
reason  to  believe  that  even  at  this  time  he  was  a  Nestorian  Man- 
Worshipper.  He  concludes  by  telling  them,  if  they  would  not,  to  go 
home,  and  says  that  their  failure  to  agree  was  not  his  fault  but  implies 
that  it  was  theirs,  so  blind  and  ignorant  was  he !  pages  470-472. 

ACT  Vn.  is  all  in  volume  HI.  of  Ephesus.  It  contains  several 
matters  and  decisions  of  the  Council  on  them. 

The  first  is  the  appeal  of  Rheginus,  Metropolitan  of  Constantia  in 
Cyprus,  and  t\vo  of  his  suffragans  to  guard  the  autonomy  of  their 
island  against  the  attempts  of  the  see  of  Antioch  to  subdue  them, 
and  to  deprive  them  of  it.  Some  documents  are  presented,  the  witness 
of  the  Cypriot  prelates  is  taken  on  the  matter,  and  the  Ecumenical 
Council  accedes  to  their  claim  of  autonomy  and  makes  a  universally 
applicable  law  now  termed  canon  VIII.  of  Ephesus,  to  guard  the  rights 
of  all  Provinces,  and,  in  effect,  of  all  national  Churches  much  in  the 
spirit  of  the  canons  of  the  First  World  Synod  and  of  the  Second  on 
that  theme.  It  guards,  of  course,  the  rights  of  the  Anglican  Church 
and  of  all  the  national  Churches  in  communion  with  it,  as  it  does  those 
of  Gaul,  Africa,  and  the  rest.     Volume  III.  of  Ephesus,  pages  1-20. 

Next  comes  the  Letter  of  the  Council  to  all  Bishops,  Clergy  and 
people  in  regard  to  John  of  Antioch  and  the  Bishops  of  his  faction, 
who  are  condemned  as  holding  to  the  Nestorian  heresies,  and  are 
therefore  warned  against  as  debarred  from  Communion  and  from  all 
ministerial  functions  and  privileges.  Their  names,  34  in  numeber,  are 
given.  Then  follow  the  VIII.  Canons  which  conclude  the  Epistle. 
The  vith  of  them  deposes  every  Bishop  and  Cleric  and  anathematizes 
every  laic  who  tries  to  unsettle  any  of  its  decisions.  That  smites 
in  effect  not  only  all  guilty  of  the  Nestorian  worship  of  Christ's 
humanity  but  also  all  who,  like  Romanists,  Greeks,  INIonophysites,  and 
others,  worship  any  creature  inferior  to  that  perfect  and  ever  sinless 
humanity  which  is  the  shrine  in  which  God  the  Word  ever  dwells, 
be  it  the  Virgin  Mary  or  any  other  saint  or  angel.  It  smites  also  all 
who  deny  the  reality  of  the  Incarnation  like  the  Nestorians,  and  all 
Anti-Trinitarians  and  all  Jews  and  all  Mohammedans,  for  they  all 
deny  the  Infiesh  and  Inman  of  the  real  Substance  of  God  the  Word 
in  His  humanity. 

And  it  smites  also  all  who  hold,  as  do  all  Romanists,  Greeks,  Mon- 


44^         Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

ophysites  and  Nestorians,  and  some  apostate  Anglicans  and,  it  is  said, 
a  few  Lutherans,  to  eating  the  substance  of  Christ's  flesh  and  blood 
in  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  other  words  to  what  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
approved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  led  Synod,  calls  άνθρωποφα-γία^  that  is 
Cannibalism  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  All  of  those  corrupt  clergy  and 
people  are  therefore  barred  from  Communion  and  are  excommunicate. 
Vol.  iii.,  Ephesus,  pages  21-33. 

The  next  document  is  an  "  Epistle  of  the  same  holy  and  Ecumeni- 
cal Third  Synod  to  the  Holy  Synod  of  Pamphylia  concerning  Eusta- 
thius  who  had  been  their  Aletropolitan ;"  vol.  iii.  of  Ephesus,  pages 
34-37.  That  and  the  two  other  documents  following  are  so  shor|  that 
to  summarize  them  fitly  would  be  largely  to  repeat  them.  They  are 
the  Decree  of  the  Synod  "  against  the  Messalians  who  are  also  called 
Etichites  or  Enthusiasts,"  volume  IIL  of  Ephesus,  pages  37-39;  and  the 
Petition  of  Euprepius,  Bishop  of  Bizya  and  Arcadiopolis  and  of  Cyril, 
Bishop  of  Coelc  and  Callipolis,  addressed  to  the  Council  ;  vol.  III.  of 
Ephesus,  pages  39-40. 

Those  documents  should  therefore  be  read.  And  they  end  the  Acts 
of  Ephesus. 

By  Canon  VL  the  penalty  imposed  on  all  Bishops  and  Clerics  who 
try  to  unsettle  any  of  the  decisions  of  Ephesus  is  deposition,  and  for 
laics  deprivation  of  Communion :  vol. IIL  of  Ephesus,  page  41. 

Note. — Some  differences  in  manuscripts  and  in  editions  of  the 
Third  Ecumenical  Council  are  explained  on  pages  185,  186  and  194, 
volume  ii.  of  Ephesus. 

Eyiicsiis,  the  Ncstorian  Conventicle  of;  its  make  up  Nestorians,  Pelagians, 
and  men  without  sees,  140,  141,  note  22;  151,  400,  note  804;  399-405. 
See  under  John  of  Antioch,  and  Ncstorian  Conventicle  of  the  Apostasy, 
and  Nestoriiis;  its  Erastianism,  251,  252,  their  lying  and  misrepresenta- 
tions, 250-253:  were  under  discipline,  390,  note  749;  rely  on  the  Em- 
peror, 387-394;  plead  to  the  Emperor  for  Nestorius  and  their  heresies, 
and  against  the  XII.  Chapters,  392-394;  423,  note  917;  fellowshipped 
him  after  his  deposition,  440,  note  1014;  441,  note  1020;  try  to  ordain 
Bishops  for  the  sees  of  the  Orthodox  Bishops  but  fail,  405,  note  824: 
called  Sanhedrim  of  the  Apostasy,  439.  44o;  459,  note  1127;  465;  when 
it  began,  463,  464,  note  1162:  fairness  of  the  Council's  action  against 
the  Conventicle  as  contrasted  with  its  against  the  Orthodox,  465,  note 
1171. 

Eternal  Birth,  203,  notes  258,  259. 

Eucharius,  Vol.  II.,  page  i. 

Eucharist,  the;  Pusey's  and  Keble's  errors  on,  Pref.  ii. ;  are  parts  of  an 
Apostasy,  143,  note  37;  326,  note  529;  real  substance  presence  of  either 
Nature  of  Christ,  the  Divine  or  the  human,  alien  to  Ephesns.  5, 
text  and  note  18;  430,  note  962.    See  also  under  Nestorius  and  Wor- 


General  hide  χ.  447 


ship  in  this  Index,  412,  note  844,  and  under  the  same  words  in  the 
General  Index  to  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set ;  and  volume  II., 
page  143,  note  37.  Benediction  of  the  Sacrament,  158,  note  102.  See 
Consubsiantiaiio7i  and  Home;  and  335-344  and  notes  there;  250;  400; 
401,  note  804;  and  403,  note  814:  the  Gospel, not  the  Eucharist,  placed 
in  the  midst  of  the  Orthodox  Synod  to  represent  Christ  as  present 
with  them,  400;  Cannibalism  in  the  Latin,  Greek,  ]\Ionophysite  and 
Nestorian  Communions  still,  vol.  iii.,  41,  text  and  note;  penalties  for 
the  sin;  ibid. 

Euchitcs,  382,  and  notes  709-713  inclusive:  see  Massalians. 

Eunomius',  55,  63;  his  errors,  155,  note  91. 

Euprcpius,,  Bishop  of  Bizya  and  Arcadiopolis  and  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Coele  and 
Callipolis,  their  petition :  action  of  the  Synod  on  it :  vol.  III.,  pages 
39-40. 

Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Caesarca,  an  opponent  of  the  Nicene  faith,  finally  pro- 
fesses to  accept  it,  but  his  sincerity  is  disputed,  195,  note  22,2. 

Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Nicomcdia,  hvpocritically  professes  to  accept  the  Nicene 
faith,  but  afterwards  opposes  it,  195,  note  2^2. 

Eustathius,  Bishop  of  Antioch ;  unjustly  treated  by  the  Arians,  195,  note  232. 

Euslatliius.  Bishop  of  Attalia  in  Pamphylia;  his  case  settled  by  Ephesus,  vol. 
iii.,  pages  34-.37• 

Eutyches,  the  One-Natureite  and  worshipper  of  Christ's  humanity,  con- 
demned by  the  Universal  Church,  195,  note  2^2.  See  Discipline  and 
Creed,  that  of  Nicaca. 

Exarchs,  vol.  iii.,  22,  note  76.    See  also  Precedences  of  Sees. 

Excommunication  and  Restoration  in  the  New  Testament,  135:  compare  453, 
note  iioi. 

"Faith  and  Canons,"  420,  note  902. 

False  Decretals  of  Isidore  and  other  spurious  writings,  vol.  iii.,  16,  note  58. 

False  Liberalism,  376,  notes  669,  670. 

Fathers;  editions  by  Romanists,  critical  rules  regarding  them,  30 ;  344-355 ; 
to  be  rejected  where  they  oppose  the  New  Testament,  the  first  three 
centuries,  or  the  VI.  Synods,  30 ;  spurious  citations  from  Fathers  and 
alleged  Fathers  contrary  to  the  VI.  Councils  the  curse  of  the  ]^Iiddle 
Ages,  and  since,  31,  note  i ;  344-355 ;  Benedictine  and  Vindobona 
editions  of,  353 ;  need  of  a  society  to  issue  faithful  editions,  353 ; 
compared  with  the  authority  of  the  Bible  and  Councils,  354,  355;  see 
381,  note  698.  See  Authority.  See  also  Fathers,  page  623,  vol.  i.  of 
Ephesus  in  this  Set. 

Felix  of  Urgel,  the  Adoptionist  heretic,  350  355. 

Flavian,  Metropolitan  of  Philippi;  leads  the  Ecumenical  Synod  after  the 
removal  of  Cyril  and  Memnon ;  291,  note  468. 

Foresifter:  why  the  Oriental  Bishop  was  so-called,  418.  note  891. 

Fourtecnthdayites,  that  is  Quartodccimans;  197,  note  235. 


448  hide  χ  Π.  to  Volume  Π.  of  Ephestis. 

Gallican  Church;  robbed  of  its  ecumenically  guaranteed  rights  and  liberties 
by  Leo  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  his  tool  Valentinian  III.,  the  Western 
Emperor,  vol.  iii.,  20,  note  /2. 

Gospel  Utterances;  381,  note  698. 

Gospels,  the;  see  Ephesus;  lay  in  the  midst  of  the  Synod  showing  Christ  to 
be  present  by  them  and  in  them,  His  inspired  Word,  400. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus;  14,  note  44. 

Hefele,  the  Romanist;  his  History  of  the  Church  Councils,  19,  note  73 ;  per- 
verts the  sense  at  times  to  favor  Rome;  an  instance,  82,  note  2;  another, 
84,  note ;  his  work  dangerous,  89,  note ;  on  Juvenal,  relied  on  very 
doubtful  documents,  127,  note  i ;  admits  that  Rome  misused  the  Sardi- 
can  Canons,  and  the  false  Decretals,  id. 

H. 

Hilary^  Bishop  of  Aries  ;  see  Gallican  Church. 

Holiness _ your ;  a  Byzantine  title;  139,  148,  note  52:  see  under  Titles. 

Hono7'ius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  ecumenically  condemned  as  a  heretic,  12,  note; 

8?-89,  note  2;   102,  note;   128-131;    168,  note  139;  196,  note  232.     See 

also  Vigilius  of  the  same  See. 

/. 

Idolatry  and  Rome  to  be  resisted,  266;  see  Rotne,  and  vol.,  Ill,  35,  note  109. 

Illyricum,  465. 

Immigratiofi  of  fezus,  Romanists,  etc.,  into  the  U.  S.  harmful;  vi.  B. ;  11-14, 

note;  see  Chicrch  and  State. 
Incarnation,  the  doctrine  denied  by  Nestorius;   see  under  Rome  and  Nesto- 

rius:  he  -was  deposed  for  said  denial;  ibid,  250. 
Infants  for  800  j^ears  after  Christ  received  at  once  baptism,  confirmation  and 

communion,  11,  note  4:  the  custom  should  be  restored,  408,  note  842; 

sad  results  in  the  United  States  and  elsewhere  of  denying  those  rites 

to  infants,  ibid.,  especially  pages  411,  412  of  that  note. 
Infidelity;  376,  notes  669,  670. 
Innocent  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome;  an  alleged  letter  of  his  on  Antioch's  claim  to 

Cyprus,  vol.  III.,  15,  note  58;   his  failure  in  that  matter  pronounced 

by  the  Third  Synod,  vol.  III.,  16,  note  62. 
Invocation  an  act  of  worship  and  prerogative  to  God,  330;   to  give  it  to  a 

creature  is  to  turn  Pagan,  330;  Athanasius  writes :    "  We  invoke  no 

CREATUBE,"  330;  see  the  whole  passage  there, 
Ireland;  Romanism  its  curse,  13,  note;  and  massacre  of  Protestants  there 

in  1641,  ibid,  and  see  all  note  40  there. 
Irenaeus,  Count;  241-247. 
Irene,  the  idolatrous  Empress;  vol.  III.,  8,  note  37. 

/• 

Jeroboam  worshipped  God  relatively  through  the  calves;  372. 


General  Index.  449 


Jerusalem;  see  Juvenal. 

Jews;  a  curse*  how  to  be  treated  by  us    12,  13,  14,  note  40;  a  lesson  from 
them,  431.  note  967. 

John  oj  Antioch;  22,  see  Table  of  Contents,  vii.-xiv.  See  Ephesus,  Ecutnen 
ical  Synod  of,  and  Ephesus,  the  Conventicle  of.  John  and  his  Conven 
tide,  140-143;  its  composition  and  number  and  action,  ίί/.,  and  151; 
166,  167;.  i73j  174,  176;  140,  note  19;  see  Canons;  called  an  Apostasy, 
143.  note  37,  143,  notes  36,  37;  vol.  III.,  23^  note  88;  see  Apostasy:  its 
wrong•  treatment  of  the  Bishops  sent  by  the  Ecumenical  Synod 
to  summon  them,  143-182;  its  members  suspended  from  communion 
and  from  their  episcopal  functions,  2if.,  especially  160-162;  176;  John 
hid  his  errors,  150;  the  conventicle's  bad  and  slanderous  course, 
153-156;  375-3S6;  expected  the  Emperor  to  sustain  them  against  the 
Synod,  159•  375-386,  account  of  them  in  the  report  of  the  Synod  to 
the  Emperors;  only  thirty  in  number,  "some  of  whom  have  been  long 
since  deposed,  and  others  of  whom  are  of  the  wicked  opinions  of 
Celestius,  and  still  others  of  whom  have  been  anathematized  as 
holding  the  opinions  of  Nestorius.''  Account  of  them  given  by  the 
Ecumenical  Council  to  Celestine,  168-182;  John's  motives,  163  text 
and  note  121:  165,  note  125;  169,  170;  John  delays,  and  sends  word  to 
the  Ecumenical  Synod  to  proceed,  id..  415,  note  862:  his  after  course. 
170;  course  of  the  Synod  against  him  170  and  after;  his  writings 
condemned  as  '* blasphemies ,'"  171,  172;  constitute  "an  unholy  and 
most  foul  heresy  which  overturns  our  most  pure  religion  and  takes  away 
the  whole  Economy  of  the  mystery  from  its  foundations;''^  specimens  of 
his  blasphemy,  171,  172;  his  slanders,  175;  375-386;  was  a  Nestorian 
143,  note  37;  145;  the  Conventicle's  rash  action  176,  note  175:  177, 
notes  178,  179,  iSo;  John  of  Antioch's  action  at  Ephesus,  247-249;  his 
and  his  partizans  drift  to  relic  worship,  264;  ask  to  be  called  to  Con- 
stantinople to  testify  against  the  Orthodox,  266,  267,  268•  oppose 
Juvenal,  312-316;  begin  to  fear,  316;  Juvenal's  supporters  Orthodox, 
310-316;  John  and  his  fellow  delegates  to  the  Emperor  threaten  to 
make  a  Schism,  338-344,  357.  but  it  succeeds  only  among  a  part  of 
the  S3'rians,  338-344;  they  Ij'ingly  assert  that  Cyril,  Memnon  and 
the  Third  Synod  teach  the  heresies  of  Apollinarius,  Arius.  and 
Eunomius,  357;  376;  see,  also,  under  those  names;  wish  the  Emperor 
to  persecute  the  Orthodox,  depose  their  Bishops  and  drive  them  out 
of  the  churches,  355-357,  and  to  permit  nothing  but  their  own  hereti- 
ical  sense  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  357;  376,  and  notes  669,  670  there;  they 
oppose  the  ordination  of  an  Orthodox  successor  to  Nestorius,  356,  358; 
favor  him,  361;  are  forsaken  by  the  Emperor,  359-364;  slander  the 
Orthodox,  and  lyingly  charge  them  with  conte?iding  'that  there  is 
but  one  nature,  composed  of  deity  and  humanity  *'  262;  so  does  John  ol 
Antioch,  371,  372;   are  wrongly  allowed  to  preach  their  heresies  at 


450  Index  II.  to  Volume  11.  of  Ephesus. 


Chalcedon,  362;  but  are  opposed  by  the  Emperor  and  "a  multitude;' 
John  of  Antioch  at  Chalcedon  preaches  the  relative  worship  of 
Christ's  humanity,  371,  372;  the  Nestorian  delegates  claim  to  have 
won  a  victory  over  Acacius,  and  to  have  the  sympathy  of  the  Em- 
peror and  the  Senate,  and  "all  the  people,^'  at  Chalcedon  and  Constan- 
tinople; see  Acacius,  373-375;  refuse  to  accept  the  decisions  of  Ephe- 
sus, 373-375;  see  Bring  er  Forth  o/God,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria' s  Tzvelve 
Chapters  and  Nestorian  Conventicle  of  the  Apostasy  at  Ephesus: 
Say  not  a  word  on  the  expression,  ''  Bringer  Forth  of  God,'*  but  con- 
centrate their  efforts  against  Cyril's  XII.  Chapters,  375-386;  388-398 
and  notes;  tell  the  Emperor  that  they  have  sworn  not  to  receive 
Cyril  even  if  he  should  cast  away  his  Chapters,  394;  slander  Cyril's 
faith,  394,  395,  note  769;  absurdity  and  falsity  of  their  pretensions, 
394-398;  their  heresies,  397;  on  gifts,  397,  398;  John's  heresies,  249, 
250:  ''Bishops  under  his  hand,''  who?  415,  note  863;  try  to  usurp  juris- 
diction at  Ephesus  and  to  ordain  a  successor  to  Memnon,  428-432  and 
notes;  John  and  his  little  Conventicle  of  the  Apostasy,  33  names  in 
all,  deprived  by  the  Ecumenical  Synod  of  Communion  and  of  all 
episcopal  power  because  of  their  defense  of  Nestorius  and  his  errors, 
and  of  their  persistent  refusal  to  condemn  both,  vol.  III.,  21-33;  vol. 
III.,  16,  note  59;  violence  of  Antioch  to  subdue  Cyprus,  vol.  III.,  2, 
and  after;  vol  III.,  12,  and  after;  vol.  III.,  16,  note  61;  names  of  the 
Bishops  of  the  Apostasy,  34  In  number,  and  sentence  on  them,  vol. 
III.,  23,  24,  25;  they  are  called  the  Sanhedrim  of  the  Apostasy  in  Canon 
I.  of  the  Council,  and  in  its  Canon  II.,  and  they  and  all  other  Nes- 
torian Bishops,  Metropolitans  and  Suffragans  are  deposed.  In 
Canon  III.  all  Orthodox  clerics  are  forbidden  'Ho  be  at  all  subject  in 
any  way  to  the  Bishops  who  have  apostatized  or  are  apostatizing,"  that 
is  to  John  of  Antioch  and  his  Conventicle  and  such  Bishops  as  held 
with  them;  and  Canon  IV.  decrees  that  "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  Cclestius,  it  has  been  deemed  gust  by  the 
Holy  Synod  that  they  also  be  deposed."  Canon  VII.  speaks  of  .the  basis 
of  the  Creed  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  as  being  "the  foul  and  per- 
verse dogmas  of  Nestorius ,"  and  it  does  deny  the  Incarnation  of  God 
the  Word  and  teaches  men  to  worship  Christ's  mere  separate  human- 
ity. See  it  on  pages  202-210,  volume  II.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set. 
And  Canon  VI.  deposes  every  Bishop  and  Cleric  and  suspends  from 
Communion  every  laic  who  attempts  to  unsettle  any  of  the  enact- 
ments of  Ephesus. 

fohn,  the  Apostle;  14. 

Juvenal,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  67,  and  often  in  the  Acts,  67;  126,  text  and 
note  6;  139,  note  6;  claims  for  the  See  of  Jerusalem  Patriarchal 
autonomy  and  freedom  from  Antioch,  and  precedence  of  Antioch, 


General  hide  χ.  451 


146,  notes  47,  48;  162,  note  114;  312-316:  Oriental  principle  of  the 
precedences  of  Sees,  139.  note  6;  162,  note  114;  312-316,  and  notes 
there;  opposed  by  Leo  I.  of  Rome,  i47, 148,  note  48.  Juvenal  at  times 
takes  a  leading  part  in  the  Third  Synod,  67,  notes  133,  134,  etc. 

K. 

Keble^John ;  his  ignorance  of  the  VI.  Synods  and  its  results,  Pref.  ii.,  iii.; 

232,  note;  his  ignorance  on  the  Eucharist,  Pref.  ii. ;  341,  342,  and 

notes  there:  see  195,  note  232  and  Discipline. 
Kenrick,  Romish  Archbishop;   his  ignorance  of  the  VI.  »Synods,  341,  note 

580;  advocates  the  worship  of  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Jesus,  341,  note  580; 

Kenrick's  account  of  its  rise,  vol.  I.  of  Ephesus,  342,  note. 
King,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  428,  note  950. 

L. 

Leo  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome,  see  Juvenal  and  Gallican  Church. 

Liberalism,  a  false;   a  curse,  13,  note  40;   it  opposes  the  New  Testament, 

same;   see  Magistrate  and   .i-lmericajis :   the   Universal   Church   has 

always  condemned  false  liberalism  which  tolerates  creature  worship, 

vol,  III.,  35,  notes  108,  109. 
Lycurgus  Alex.,  Archbishop ;   his  witness  as  to  how  the  Greek  Church  had 

suffered  from  the  imperial   power    at    Constantinople,  vol.  III.,  8, 

note  37. 

M. 

Macedonius :  his  errors,  155. 

3iagistraie,  the  civil;  his  duties  toward  Christ's  sound  religion,  12,  note 
40.     See  Christianity  and  Chicrch  and  State,  11,  note  40. 

Man-Worship;  xiii  ;  the  Nestorians  did  not  believe  the  Incarnation,  and, 
so,  relatively  worshipped  Christ's  mere  separate  humanit3',  317,  31S; 
vol.  III.,  35,  note  109;  based  it  on  Hebrews  I.,  6;  II.,  317:  John  of  Anti- 
och  and  the  Delegates  of  the  Apostasy  complain  to  the  Emperor  that 
theThirdEcumenicalSynod  were  taking  away  worship  from  Christ's 
humanity,  309-3x2;  Cyril  condemned  it.  Where?  318,  319,  but  wor- 
shipped God  the  Word  as  incarnate  within  His  own  flesh,  (in  line 
7  from  foot  of  note  502,  page  312,  not  is  a  misprint  for  but.  Correct 
it  please),  and  made  the  worship  of  Hebrews,  i,  6,  to  be  given  to  God 
the  Word,  318-323;  held  that  to  worship  Christ's  humanity  with  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is  to  worship  a  Tetrad  instead 
of  a  Trinity,  318-323:  in  the  Vlllth  of  his  XII.  Anathemas  he  ana- 
thematizes every  one  who  co- worships  or  co-glorifies  Christ's  human- 
ity with  His  Divinity,  or  co-calls  it  God  with  His  Divinity,  pages 
33^1  332,  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set,  and  notes  there  ;  and  page 


452  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III, 

331,  volume  II.  of  Ephesus  in  this  set;  in  other  passages  of  Cyril 
against  the  Nestorian  worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  volume  II.  of 
Ephesus,  pages  319-323;  he  contends  that: 

"  The  Nature  of  Divinity  is  [but]  One,  and  that  WE  MOST  WOR- 
SHIP THAT  Nature  alone,  hear  again  [the  Words  of  Christ] :  Thou 
shall  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only  shalt  thou  serve"  [Mat- 
thew IV.,  10].  And  so  he  teaches  again,  in  passages  quoted  on  page 
ii.  of  the  Preface  to  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set  Like  Athan- 
asius,  he  teaches  that  to  worship  anyone  is  to  make  him  a  god,  vol- 
ume II.,  id.,  pages  321,  322;  and  Athanasius  so  teaches  and  proves 
that  the  Word  must  be  God  because  He  is  worshipped  in  Hebrews 
I,  6;  id.,  323-331;  so  Epiphanius  teaches,  331,  id.  The  Third  Ecu- 
menical Synod  and  the  Fifth  condemned  in  strong  language  Nesto- 
rius'  worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  and  approved  Cyril's  doctrine 
that  in  Christ  we  must  worship  the  Divine  Nature  alone,  id.,  319, 
324,  325,  331-335.  So  Cyril's  Nestorian  opponents,  Andrew  of  Samo- 
sata,  understood  Cj'ril  to  hold,  320,  and  volume  I.  of  Ephestis  in  this 
Set,  pages  97  and  117;  see  in  its  General  Index ^  under  ΆΙαη- Worship, 
Nestorians,  Nestorius  and  his  Heresies,  especially  his  Heresy  2,  pages 
639,  645,  and  in  the  Greek  Index,  under  άνθρωπολατρίω ,  άνθρωπολατρ^ία 
a.nd  άνΟρωπολάτρης,  250.  See  Creature- Jl'orship  and  the  Explanation 
on  pages  317-336,  where  Cyril  condemns  Man-Worship  on  pages 
319-335;  and  where  the  Universal  Church  does,  on  pages  319-324; 
Cyril  says  it  results  in  Tetradism,  321,323;  advocated  by  Nestorians, 
3i7~335;  Cj'ril  is  followed  by  the  Third  Sj'nod  and  the  Fifth  in  con- 
demning it  under  strong  penalties,  317-335  ;  his  Nestorian  opponents 
understood  him  to  oppose  Λvorship  to  Christ's  humanity,  320;  Athan- 
asius condemns  it,  323-335.  Oxford  mistranslations  of  Cyril,  321; 
he  condemns  Man  Worship,  355-357;  369,  370;  412,  413,  and  notes 
there;  seQ  John  of  Aniioch.  Man- Worship  in  the  degraded  and  lower 
form  of  saint  worship,  etc  ,  in  the  Greek  Church  and  in  the  Latin  and 
in  the  other  Man-Worshipping  Communions,  volume  III. ,41,  text  and 
note.  See  also  Worship  of  Christ's  Humanity — Kenrick,  Romish  Arch- 
bishop of  Baltimore,  advocates  one  of  the  latest  forms  of  Man-  Wor- 
ship, the  Worship  of  the  Sacred  Heart  of  Jesus,  341,  note  580. 
Mary,  the  Virgin;  what  became  of  her  remains,  14,  15,  note  46;  the  Mary 
Church  at  Ephtsus,  5,  and  note  17  there;  138;  153,  note  81 :  neither  the 
Orthodox  nor  the  Nestorians  worshipped  her,  277,  note  422;  282-285, 
and  notes  there;  the  Church  named  the  holy  RIary,  at  Ephesus,  413, 
note  853:  Note:  Sophocles  in  his  Greek  Lexicon  of  the  Roman  and 
Byzantine  Periods  under  Mapt'a  makes  the  following  statements  and 
refers  to  the  original  Greek  authorities  in  proof.  "The  tendency  to 
pay  her  divine  honors  began  to  manifest  itself  in  the  fourth  cen. 
tury,"    He  refers  to  Epiphanius  Λvho  shows  that  the  CoUj'ridians 


General  hidex.  453 


started  that  heresy;  see  Article  XIV.,  vol.  III.  of  Ephesus  in  this 
set,  pag-e  363,  and  Peter  of  Sicily  in  proof.  "For  the  legend  of  her 
assumptiofi  see  Timothy  the  Presbyter"  of  Constantinople,  of 
■A-.  D.  535,  and  others  whom  Sophocles  there  mentions.  "The  title, 
Μ,-ητηρ  Θεοί), ' '  [Mater  Dei.  in  Latin,  that  is  'Mother  0/ Cod"'],  "made  its 
first  appearance  in  the  fourth  century."  See  the  facts  stated  by 
Bishop  Pearson  in  his  work  on  the  Creed,  Article  III  ,  'Born  0/  the 
Virgin  Mary,"  pages  270-272,  N.  Y.  edition,  Appleton,  1853,  and 
notes  there.  But  we  should  never  use  Mother  0/ Cod,  which  is  not 
authorized  by  the  Third  Synod  but  Bringer  Forth  of  God,  ®i.orOKO% 
(Theotocos),  which  is. 

Memnon  0/ Ephesus,  60,61,  67,  139,  262  to  264;  268;  269-277,  293;  405,  note 
S24;  422,  note  915;  428,  note  952;  resists  the  Nestorian  attempt  to 
depose  him,  431,  note  966;  432,  notes  968,  971. 

Messatians  or  β/assa/ians:  John  of  Antioch  and  his  Conventicle  accuse  the 
Ecumenical  Synod  of  containing•  12  Messalians,  263,  266;  382,  notes 
709-713;  decree  of  the  Third  Council  condemning  that  heresy  and  all 
who  hold  it,  vol.  Ill  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set,  pages  37-39.  See 
Euchites. 

Metropolitans;  141,  notes  23,  24;  382,  note  712;  385,  note  726;  vol.  III.,  22, 
note  76,  and  23,  note  81,  and  25,  note  99;  by  whom  to  be  ordained, 
vol.  HI.,  12,  note  50;  vol.  III.,  22,  note  76. 

Ministry,  the  three  orders ;  31,  note  i. 

Misael ;  237. 

Monte  Casino ;  see  SynodicoJi. 

Monks  and  Nuns :  what  they  should  be  and  do,  and  what  not,  406,  note  835. 

N. 

Nationality  and  race ;  Danger  of  preferring  the  heretical  and  idolatrous 
opinions  of  some  writers  of  our  own  race  or  nationality  to  the  Holy 
Ghost  led  decisions  of  the  VI  Ecumenical  Councils,  note  488,  pages 
304,  305;  how  recognized  by  the  Universal  Church  Canons,  422.  note 
915  ;  no  appeals  to  Rome  or  Constantinople,  456,  note  1116,  nor  allow- 
ance of  jurisdiction  to  either,  ibid. 

Neale,  J.  M.;  351 ;  an  idolatrizer,  on  the  struggle  between  Antioch  and 
Cyprus,  vol.  III.,  14,  note  58. 

Nebuchadnezzar ;  Cyril  on  his  idolatry  and  on  the  courage  of  the  Hebrew 
children  who  refused  to  worship  his  image.  He  draws  encourage- 
ment   from    their    resistance    to    resist    Nestorian    Man  Worship, 

235-241. 
The  Nestorian  Conventicle  of  the  Apostacy  at  Ephesus,  46 ;  143,  note  37 ;  its 
utterances,  etc.,  42-66  ;  its  crafty  plan  to  secure  control  of  the  Ortho- 
dox Council,  43,  44 ;  whence  its  Bishops  came,  46,  47,  48 ;  compare  42 


454  hidex  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and pat-t  of  III. 

and  387-392  ;  contrast  between  their  procedure  and  that  of  the  Ortho- 
dox Synod,  47-50;  their  slanders  against  it  and  Cyril,  and  their  far- 
cical deposition  and  excommunication  of  them,  46-66;  158,  note  102; 
their  worship  of  relics,  59 ;  their  hatred  of  Cyril's  XII.  Chapters,  and 
lies  regarding•  them,  55,  57,  58,  60,  6i,  63,  250,  251 ;  their  complaint  of 
fear  of  violence  from  the  Orthodox,  59  66;  "co-apostatized"  with 
Nestorius,  173,  note  164:  Seejohti  of  Antioch:  misrepresentations  of 
their  partizans  in  their  favor,  174,  note  170;  175,  note  171.  Docu- 
ments from  them  and  on  them. 

I.  A  formal  conversation  between  John  of  Antioch  and  Count 
Candidian  in  the  presence  of  the  Conventicle  against  the  Ecumeni- 
cal Council,  247-249 : 

II.  An  Epistle  of  John's  Conventicle  to  the  clergy  and  people 
of  Hieropolis  in  Euphratesia,  in  John's  Patriarchate,  in  which  they 
utterly  misrepresent  and  wickedly  lie  about  the  Ecumenical  Council, 
and  absurdly  represent  their  endeavors  to  save  the  Faith  and  the 
Church  as  "'doing  evil  in  despair  of  their  own  salvation,'"  ! ! !  249. 

Document  III.  is  a  Report  of  the  Orientals,  that  is,  of  some 
Bishops  of  John's  Patriarchate  of  Antioch,  who  composed  John  s 
Conventicle  at  Ephesus,  to  the  Emperor,  in  which  they,  lyingly,  rep- 
resent their  small  minority  faction,  though  suspended  from  the  Com- 
munion, as  the  Council  and  ask  him  to  approve  their  action  against 
them,  falsely  accuse  them  of  heresy,  and  craftily  suggest  such  a 
way  of  managing  things  as  to  undo  the  work  of  the  S3'nod,  and  they 
would  make  the  Emperor  their  tool  to  that  end,  250-253:  see  Theodo- 
sius  II. 

Document  IV.  is  another  output  of  the  Nestorian  Conventicle, 
the  contents  of  which,  briefly  summed  up,  are  a  denunciation  of 
Cyril's  God  alone  worshipping  XII.  Chapters,  and  a  tissue  of  lies 
and  misrepresentations  of  the  Ecumenical  Synod  which  they  bra- 
zenfacedly  claim  to  be  subject  to  themselves  and  to  their  discipline, 
253-256. 

Document  V.  is  from  the  Emperor  Theodosius  II.  in  the  name  of 
both  Emperors,  to  the  Ecumenical  and  Orthodox  Synod,  and  relying 
on  the  misinformation  given  him  by  the  Nestorian  Count  Candidian, 
he  annuls  all  their  actions  and  commands  them,  in  effect,  to  begin 
anew,  257-260.  Blasphemously  enough  he  speaks  of  himself  as 
"our  Divinity,'"  ibid.: 

Document  VI.  is  an  answer  of  John  and  his  Conventicle  to  the 
Emperor  in  the  form  of  a  report  to  him,  in  which  they  praise  him 
for  annulling  the  work  of  the  Orthodox  Council,  and,  as  was  their 
wont,  falsely  accuse  them  of  wishing  "to  confirm  and  to  renew  the 
dogmas  of  Apollinaris  and  of  Arius, "  and  censure  Cyril's  XII.  Anathe- 
mas, and  the  Synod  for  its  deposition  of  Nestorius,  lyingly  assert 


General  hidex.  455 


that  XII.  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Orthodox  Sj'nod  were  Messalian 
heretics,  though  the  whole  Ecumenical  Svnod  formally  condemned, 
that  heresy,  as  we  see  in  vol.  Ill,  37-39,  and  II.,  266  ;  and  they  propose 
to  the  Emperor  such  an  arrangement  as  should  enable  their  small 
faction  to  control  the  Ecumenical  Synod  and  establish  their  heresies 
of  denial  of  the  Intiesh  of  God  the  Word,  and  their  worship  of  a  human 
being,  and  their  Cannibalism  on  the  Eucharist,  II  ,  260-266: 

Document  VII.  is  from  John  and  his  little  Conventicle  and 
appeals  to  the  Emperor  to  undo  the  work  of  the  Orthodox  Council, 
which  it  lies  about,  as  usual,  266. 

Document  VIII.  This  is  from  the  same  John  and  his  following 
to  Scholasticus  or  Scholasticius,  supposed  to  be  the  Prefect  of  the 
Emperor's  bed  chamber,  evidently  to  get  him  to  use  his  influence 
with  the  Emperor  against  the  Ecumenical  Synod,  267. 

Document  IX.  is  a  lying  report  from  the  Conventicle  to  the 
Emperors,  whom  it  flatters  as  sympathizers  with  it,  announces  that 
their  one  fifth  of  the  Council  had  deposed  Cyril  and  Memnun.  and 
censures  the  Orthodox  Synod  and  C  ril  s  XII.  Chapters,  and  falsely 
accuses  him  of  being  an  Apollinarian,  268-271. 

Document  X.  is  a  Report  of  the  Orientals,  that  is  the  Bishops  of 
John  of  Antioch's  Conventicle  at  Ephesus,  most  of  whom  were  from 
his  Diocese,  that  is  Patriarchate  of  the  East,  to  the  Emperor,  which 
they  gave  to  Count  Irenaeus  to  take  with  him  to  Constantinople 
with  Document  IX.  Iienaeus  was  their  strong  friend  and  partisan. 
They  complain  that,  notwithstanding  the  Emperor's  letter,  Cyril 
and  Memnon  and  the  Synod  had  not  submitted  to  them  And  the 
Documeni  shows  that  they  had  confided  to  Irenaeus  some  secret  and 
crafty  plan  or  plans  of  theirs  to  nullify  the  work  of  the  Council,  271. 

Document  XI.  is  an  Epistle  written  to  "The  Conventicle  of  the 
Apostasy"  by  Count  Irenaeus  after  his  arrival  at  Constantinople 
and  the  delivery  of  the  Reports.  In  it  he  tells  how  at  first  he  fouiid 
the  chief  men  of  standing  on  the  side  of  the  Orthodox  Synod,  how 
he  succeeded  in  turning  some  of  them  for  a  time  to  favor  Nestorius 
and  his  faction,  how  the  Emperor  sent  ofi'  straightway  the  deposition 
of  Orthodox  Bishops,  but  that  when  John  the  Physician,  and  cell-mate, 
or  Syncellus  of  Cyril  came  ""tnost  of  the  ruling  men  becat>ie  changed^'' 
and  would  not  endure  to  hear  the  Nestorian  pleas  further;  and  that 
different  views  prevailed  as  to  what  should  be  finally  done,  for  some 
would  validate  the  action  of  the  Synod  as  well  as  that  of  the  Con- 
venticle, whereas  others  would  send  an  embassy  to  Ephesus  to  settle 
matters  as  they  might.  It  is  decidedly  for  Nestorius  and  against 
Cyril  and  the  Synod,  273. 

Document  XII ;  it  is  addressed  to  Scholasticus.  In  it  Nestorius, 
seeing  his  danger,  begins  to   hedge  and  professes   to  receive  the 


456  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

expression  Bringer  Forth  of  God  (Theotocos,  Θεοτόκο?),  but,  in  what 
sense  is  not  so  clear,  and  in  violent  lang^uage  he  rejects  Cyril's  XII. 
Chapters  (the  Vlllth.  of  which  condemns  his  Man- Worship),  and 
Cyril's  doctrine  of  the  Economic  Appropriation  of  the  human  things 
of  the  Man  put  on  by  God  the  Word  to  God  the  AVord.  Cyril  had  put 
it  forth  to  avoid  invoking-  and  otherΛvise  worshipping  that  Man:  on 
tha;  see  passages  11,  12  and  13  of  Athanasius,  pages  236-240,  volume 
I.  of  Nicaea  in  this  Set,  and  indeed  217-256  there  ;   277. 

Document  XIII.  is  an  Edict  of  the  Emperors  which  accepts  the 
deposition  of  Nestorius  by  the  Orthodox  Synod  and  inconsistently 
and  absurdly  and  ignorantly  enough,  the  deposition  of  Cyril  and  of 
Memnon  by  the  Nestorian  Conventicle,  and  exhorts  both  parties  to 
be  reconciled,  as  though  God's  truth  and  man's  Nestorian  false- 
hoods of  denial  of  the  Inflesh,  and  his  Man- Worship  and  Cannibal- 
ism on  the  Eucharist  can  ever  be  reconciled.  The  Edict  was  sent 
to  the  Synod  by  Count  John.  In  it,  alas!  the  Emperor  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  old  Pagan  fashion  as  "■  our  Divinity ;''  385. 

Document  XIV.  is  an  Epistle  of  Count  John,  the  Imperial  Treas- 
urer, on  his  mission  to  Ephesus  to  reconcile  the  Bishops  of  the 
Ecumenical  Synod  and  the  Conventicle.  He  tells  how  difficult  it 
was  to  do  so,  how  the  Orthodox  refused  to  recognize  the  latter,  who, 
as  they  were  judged  and  deposed  by  the  Ecumenical  Council,  were 
by  Christ's  law  to  be  regarded  as  the  heathen  man  and  the  publican^ 
MattheAV  XVIII.,  17,  18.  John  testifies  that  he  had  taken  Cyril, 
Memnon,  and  Nestorius  into  custody,  but  that  the  Synod  stood  by 
the  tΛvo  former.  They  ΛνοηΜ  not  recognize  the  ridiculous  deposition 
of  them  by  the  Nestorian  Conventicle  whatever  the  Emperor  might 
do;  287. 

Document  XV.  A.  does  not  belong  here  but  may  be  mentioned 
hereafter;  292. 

Document  XV•  B.  is  a  L^etter  addressed  by  John  of  Antioch  and 
Twelve  others  to  the  Presbyters,  Deacons,  the  rest  of  the  clerics, 
the  monks,  and  laity  of  Antioch.  Though  the  Council,  in  its  Act  I., 
had  defined  the  true  Incarnation  sense  of  the  Nicene  Creed  and 
rejected  the  Anti-  Incarnation  Nestorian  sense,  John  and  his  friends 
imply  that  their  heretical  sense  of  it  Λvas  correct;  and  thev  tell  them 
that  if  the  Third  Synod  sends  any  person  to  Antioch  they  are  to  see 
that  he  be  made  to  suffer  for  it;  293. 

Document  XVI.  is  an  Edict  addressed  by  the  two  Emperors  to 

!  the  Synod  at  Ephesus,   evidently  without  making  any  important 

difference  between  the  Orthodox  and  the  Nestorians.     It  dismisses 

the   Bishops   to  their  homes   because  of  their   disagreement,   but 

regards  Cyril  and  Memnon  as  deposed;  294. 

Document  XVII.  is  addressed  by  the  Oriental  Bishops  at  Ephe- 


General  Index  457 


sus  of  John  of  Antioch's  party  to  Acacius  of  Berrhoea.  It  denounces 
the  Twelve  Chapters  of  Cyril  as  Apollinarian  and  heretical,  and 
g"lories  in  their  deposition  of  Cyril  and  Memnon  and  of  its  approval 
by  the  Emperor,  but  shows,  also,  that  the  Orthodox  Council  stood  up 
firmly  for  Cyril,  Memnon,  and  the  said  XII  Chapters;  and  these 
Nestorians  joy  in  the  imprisonment  of  Cyril  and  Memnon;  302. 

Document  XVIII  is  a  Mandate,  that  is  a  Letter  of  Instruction, 
from  the  Bishops  of  the  Conventicle  at  Ephesus  to  John  of  Antioch 
and  six  other  Bishops  of  their  ΟΛνη  heresy  whom  they  had  sent  to 
Constantinople  as  their  representatives.  They  demand  in  a  future 
union  between  the  Orthodox  Council  and  themselves  that  their  Nes- 
torian  sense  of  the  Nicene  Creed  be  held  to,  and  that  the  XII  Chapters 
of  Cyril  be  cast  out,  though,  as  we  see  in  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in 
this  Set,  note  520,  pages  204-208,  those  Chapters,  with  the  whole 
Epistle  in  which  the_y  stand  were  then  approved  in  Act  I.  of  Ephesus 
and  by  the  three  Ecumenical  Synods  after  it;  306• 

Document  XIX  is  the  First  Petition  of  the  Schismatics,  that  is 
the  representatives  of  John  of  Antioch's  Conventicle,  which  was 
sent  from  Chalcedon  to  the  Emperor.  This  appeal  begs  the  Emperor 
to  help  them  against  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  charges  him  with 
introducing  " heretical  dogmas'^  into  the  Churches,  and  accuses  him 
and  others  of  '■'■taking  aivay'"'  the  worship  of  Christ's  humanity;  the 
reference  seemingly  being  to  Cyril's  Anathema  VIII.  on  that  theme, 
and  faults  the  Orthodox  for  trying  to  establish  the  XII  Chapters, 
and  they  ask  the  Emperor  to  crush  all  such  persons.  Then  they 
ask  the  Emperor  not  to  allOΛV  the  Orthodox  to  reject  their  appeal  to 
their  Nestorian  Doctors,  Diodore  of  Tarsus,  Theodore  of  Mospuestia, 
and,  perhaps,  other  S3'rians  of  like  views:  and  they  refer  also  to  the 
struggle  between  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  to  get  the  ecclesiastical 
sway  over  Palestine  and  Arabia,  and  contend  for  their  own  side  of 
it,  and  at  th^  same  time  accuse  the  Orthodox  of  helping  Juvenal  of 
Jerusalem  for  favoring  Cyril's  and  the  Synod's  Orthodoxy;  309. 

Next  comes  an  '■'■Explanation  of  hnportant  Language''''  on  the 
Nestorian  Worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  Cyril's  condemnation  of 
it,  and  on  his  XII.  Chapters,  317-335.  It  is  by  the  translator  and 
editor. 

Then  follows  the  second  Petition  of  John  of  Antioch  and  the 
other  Delegates  of  "the  Apostasy,''''  from  Chalcedon  to  the  Emperor, 
Theodosius  II.  It  is  Dociivient  XX.  They  lie,  as  usual,  against 
Cyril  and  the  Orthodox,  and  accuse  Cyril's  XII.  Chapters, 
approved  by  the  whole  Church,  in  Act  I.  of  the  Council,  as 
agreeing  with  "M<?  impiety  of  Arius  and  of  Eunomius  and  of 
Apollinarius,'"  a  downright  falsehood,  and  they  oppose  his  other 
writings   against  the  Nestorians.     They  harp  on   the   fact,  also. 


458  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 


that  the  Ecumenical  Synod  had  refused  to  let  the  Emperor  uudo 
their  Holy  Ghost  g-uided  decisions  against  the  Nestorian  Man-Wor- 
shippers, impliedly  threaten  a  Schism,  and  cite  a  work  of  Ambrose 
against  Cyril's  dogmas  which  had  already  been  approved  by  the 
Ecumenical  Council.  The  Delegates  of  the  Apostasy  and  the  Con- 
venticle ΛYhom  they  represented  seem  to  have  dropped  the  whole 
topic  of  the  Bringer  Forth  of  God  (^Θ^οτόκος,  Theotocos  in  Eatin 
letters)  and  were  disposed  to  make  their  great  fight  against  Cyril's 
XII.  Chapters  and  the  God  alone  worshipping•  doctrines  which  they 
contain.  The  work  of  Ambrose  which  they  adduce  as  favoring 
them,  there  seems  too  much  reason  to  fear  did  contain  Man-Wor- 
ship and  One  Nature  Consubstantiation  as  did,  perhaps,  Augustine, 
and  so  was  Nestorian.  Indeed  the  heresiarch  and  creature  wor- 
shipper, John  Keble,  quotes  both  to  what  is  really  to  that  effect.  See 
his  Eiicharistical  Adoration,  fourth  edition,  page  io8  and  after;  335. 
But  neither  Ambrose,  Theodoret,  nor  any  other  of  the  earlier  wit- 
nesses of  Keble  are  for  his  tAvo  Nature  Consubstantiation,  but  for 
the  One  Nature  kind.  Here  we  add  "Remarks  on  a  Statement  of  the 
Seven  Bishops  of  the  Apostasy  that  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan,  had 
opposed  one  or  more  of  the  Orthodox  dogmas  of  Cyril  which  had 
been  approved  by  the  Third  Ecumenical  Council;"  344. 

Document  XXI.  This  is  the  Third  Petition  of  the  Delegates  of 
'■'^  the  Apostasy''"'  to  the  Emperor.  It  also  was  sent  from  Chalcedon, 
a  suburb  of  Constantinople,  and  contains  the  usual  lies,  that  their 
little  Conventicle  Avas  the  Ecumenical  Synod,  and  that  Cyril,  Mem- 
non,  and  the  Synod  were  Apollinarians,  Eunomians  and  Arians, 
who  should  not  be  permitted  to  have"  churches,  and  again  hints  at 
Schism  on  their  own  part  if  the  doctrines  and  work  of  Cyril  and  the 
Synod  \vere  approved;  355. 

Document  XXII.  is  an  Epistle  of  the  same  seven  Bishops  of  the 
Apostasy  to  their  own  at  Ephesus.  It  does  not  oppose  the  expres- 
sion Bringer  Forth  of  God,  but  does,  stoutly,  Cyril  of  Alexandria's 
XII.  Chapters,  though  they  were  now,  by  the  approval  of  the  Third 
World-Synod,  invested  with  Ecumenical  Authority.  They  begin 
now  to  speak  of  the  forsaking  of  their  Man- Worshipping  faction  by 
the  Emperor;  358. 

Document  XXIII.  is  of  the  same  general  character.  It  is  an 
Epistle  of  Theodoret  to  his  fellow  Nestorian,  Alexander  of  Hiera- 
polis.  It  tells  of  the  eflForts  made  by  the  Delegates  of  the  Apostasy 
to  persuade  men  at  Constantinople  but  shows  that  they  failed,  and 
that  the  Emperor  had  definitely  turned  against  Nestorius,  and  that 
they  themselves,  when  they  made  mention  of  him  before  the  Emperor 
or  his  Cabinet  had  been  reproached  as  being  guilty  of  defection,  and 
that  they  had  failed  to  move  Theodosius  II.  even  by  an  oath  that 


Ge?ieral  Index.  459 


they  would  not  communicate  with  Cyril  and  Memnon  nor  with  those 
who  would  not  reject  the  XII.  Chapters,  which,  notwithstanding-, 
most  of  them  afterAvards  did.  Evidently  the  tide  had  turned  in 
favor  of  Orthodoxy,  and  they  were  unpopular — Nestorius  seems  to 
have  been  removed  from  that  city;  359. 

Document  XXIV.  is  a  vile,  misrepresenting,  and  slandering 
Homily  of  Theodoret,  delivered  at  Chalcedon  before  the  departure 
of  himself  and  the  rest  of  the  Nestorian  Delegates  thence.  It  mis- 
quotes Scripture,  and  perverts  its  sense,  to  make  it  oppose  the  work 
of  the  Ecumenical  Council  and  to  create  undeserved  sympathy  for 
the  justly  deposed  creature  server  Nestorius  and  his  heresies;  365. 

Document  XXV.  bears  the  title:  "A  Homily  of  John,  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  delivered  in  Chalcedon  after  the  Homily  of  Theodojet,  to  ani- 
mate their  own  parly.  This  contains  most  plain  and  aQfinitG  relative 
co-worship  of  Christ's  humanity  and  co-callifig  it  God  with  God  the  Word, 
which  is  condemned  in  Cyril's  Anathema  VIII.,  which  is  approved 
by  the  Third  Ecumenical  Synod.  For  that  error,  among  other  things, 
Nestorius  was  deposed.  For  that  form  of  worship  to  a  human  being 
(άν^'ρωτΓολατρΕία  in  Greek,  anthropolatreia  in  Eatin  letters),  John 
and  his  fellow  heretics  Λvere  now  disposed  to  fight  to  the  last;  370. 

Document  XXVI.  This  is  an  Epistle  of  the  Nestorian  Delegates 
at  Chalcedon  to  their  own  Conventicle  at  Ephesus,  and  it  brags  over 
a  so-called  victory  of  theirs  over  Acacius,  the  Bishop  of  Melitine,  in 
Armenia,  who  is  said  to  have  been  inclined  to  Monophysitism  and 
to  have  finally  opposed  Cyril;  373. 

Document  XXVII.  is  an  Epistle  of  John  of  Antioch  and  the  rest 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  Apostatic  Delegation  at  Constantinople  to 
Rufus  who  is  thought  to  be  Rufus,  Bishop  of  Thessalonica.  It 
seeks  to  enlist  his  aid  and  that  of  the  large  ecclesiastical  jurisdic- 
tion, of  Λyhich  he  was  the  head,  against  the  Anti-Man-Worshipping 
XII.  Chapters  of  C3tA  and  against  Cyril  himself.  It  says  not  a 
word  on  the  expression  Bringer  Forth  of  God  (Qcotokos),  which 
seems  to  be  dropped  earlier  in  the  controversy.  The  great  fight 
which  the  party  were  now  making  was  against  the  prohibition  in  the 
XII.  Chapters  of  their  Man-Worship;  and  they  cite  for  it  Ambrose  of 
Milan  and  claim  for  it  much  of  the  Church,  East  and  West,  and  lie 
about  Cyril  and  the  Synod,  charging  the  Chapters  with  Apollinari- 
anism,  Arianism,  and  Eunomianism,  and  misrepresenting  his  Ecu- 
menically approved  doctrine  of  Economic  Appropriation  which,  as 
both  Athanasius  and  Cyril  himself  show,  was  designed  to  guard 
against  invocation  to  Christ's  humanity  or  any  other  Act  of  Λvorshiρ 
to  it:  see  volume  I.  of  Nicaea  in  this  Set,  Passage  13,  pages  287-240. 
And  they  repeat  the  falsehood  again,  till  we  are  sick  of  it,  that  their 


φβο  hidex  II.  ίο  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

little  Conventicle  was  the  true  Synod  of  the  whole  world,  and  that 
their  heresies  were  the  true  faith,  and  that  the  Ecumenical  Synod 
and  its  condemnation  of  their  errors  and  of  themselves  were  to  be 
rejected.  They  wish  their  Nestorian  sense  of  the  Nicene  Creed  to 
be  received  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  and  all  who  held  it  were 
condemned  in  Act  I.  of  the  Ecumenical  Synod.  They  harp  on  that 
ag-ain  and  again  in  these  Documents;  375. 

Document  XXVIII.  is  a  Ivetter  of  the  42  Nestorian  Bishops  of 
the  Conventicle  at  Ephesus  to  the  8  at  Chalcedon  whom  they  had 
sent  as  their  representatives. 

This  praises  their  delegates  for  their  efforts  in  their  behalf,  hopes 
for  the  final  triumph  of  their  heresies,  through  the  Emperor,  if  he 
lives,  professes  the  willingness  of  the  Conventicle  to  give  up  life 
sooner  than  to  receive  any  of  the  XII.  Chapters,  brands  the  deposi- 
tion of  Nestorius  as  unjust,  but  expresses  fear  lest  the  decisions  of 
the  Council  against  themselves  may  be  enforced,  and  calls  upon 
their  delegates  to  endeavor  to  have  annulled  everything  done 
against  them  "by  deposition,  or  by  excommunication,  by  Synodical 
letters,  and  by  imperial  decrees."  Then  they  state  of  Cyril's  Expla- 
nation lately  made  of  his  XII.  Chapters — I  suppose  that  delivered  at 
Ephesus — that:  "Even  in  that  very  Explanation  he  shows  still 
more  clearly  his  impiety,"  that  is,  of  course,  his  condemnation  of 
their  denial  of  the  Incarnation,  and  their  Man-Worship,  and  their 
Cannibalism  on  the  Eord's  Supper.  Those  Nestorian  heresies  are 
condemned  in  that  Explanation  on  Chapters  I.,  VIII.,  and  XI. 
Again,  there  is  nothing  said,  specially,  of  the  Expression  Bringer 
Forth  of  God  {®ίοτόκο%) ^  but  the  stress  of  their  opposition  is  still 
against  the  XII.  Chapters.  They  ask,  furthermore,  to  be  dismissed 
and  allowed  to  go  home;  387. 

Document  XXIX.  is  a  last  effort  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Nestorian 
Conventicle  at  Ephesus  in  the  form  of  a  Letter  to  the  Emperor 
against  the  Synod  and  the  XII.  Chapters,  and  to  persuade  him  to 
restore  Nestorius,  the  worshipper  of  a  human  being  ανθρωποΧάτρψ, 
in  Eatin  letters  anthropolatres);  392. 

Document  XXX.  is  an  Epistle  of  the  Delegates,  John  of  Antioch 
and  the  rest  of  the  Delegation,  at  Constantinople,  to  the  Nestorian 
and  Apostatic  Conventicle  of  Ephesus  which  had  sent  them.  "With 
the  usual  lies  it  combines  also  the  statement  that  they  had  ^^jnore 
iha7t  of  ten  sworn  to  the  .  .  .  Emperor  "  that  they  would  not  hold 
communion  with  the  Orthodox  unless  they  would  renounce  the  XII 
Chapters,  that  even  if  Cyril  would  cast  them  away  they  would  not 
receive  him,  and  yet  they  admit  that  they  could  not  prevail.  But 
they  write  that  they  were  prepared  to  persist,  even  to  death,  in  not 


General  Index  461 


admitting  Cyril  nor  his  Chapters,  and  in  refusing•  to  hold  communion 
with  the  Orthodox  until  they  renounce  their  Orthodox  decisions. 
Then  they  identify  themselves  with  Nestorius  and  his  heresies,  and 
add  that  the  Emperor  had,  in  answer  to  their  many  prayers,  given 
them  leave  to  go  home,  but  had  allowed  "the  Egyptian,"  as  they 
spitefully  call  Cyril,  and  Memnon  to  remain  in  their  ΟΛτη  places.  It 
is  noteworthy  that  in  all  or  nearly  all  these  documents  the  Nestori- 
ans  say  not  a  word  definitely  on  the  expression  Β  ringer  Forth  of  God, 
though  some  suppose  that  to  be  the  only  thing  in  the  controversy, 
but  fight  their  battle  more  clearly  against  the  XII  Chapters  and  for 
their  own  Man  Worship,  their  denial  of  the  Inflesh,  and  for  Canni- 
balism. See,  also,  page  302;  387:  they  defend  Nestorius,  388;  and 
wish  to  undo  all  the  decisions  of  the  Synod  and  imperial  decrees 
utif  avorable  to  them,  389,  390;  page  394. 

Nestoriaiis ;  were  bitter  persecutors,  430,  note  961. 

Nestorius;  deposed,  2;  an  Apostate,  17;  his  impious  preachings,  2,  note  6; 
called  unholy  hj  the  Synod,  18;  grounds  of  his  deposition,  7-14,  and 
notes  there;  and  170-172;  447,  note  1065;  6;  the  Third  Council  deemed 
their  judgment  on  him  ''God-inspired,''  15,  and  justly,  id.,  note  50: 
himself  or  his  errors  called  a  stumbling  block  and  tares,  15,  and  notes 
52,  53,  and  a  "foul  and  profane  novelty,''  16,  and  notes  54,  55  and  56; 
what  they  were,  page  16,  notes  54,  55  and  56;  and  17,  notes  59,  62,  65, 
68,  71,  72:  compare  on  page  152,  note  76,  what  is  said  of  John  of 
Antioch;  pages  249,  250,  for  three  chief  errors  of  Nestorius;  see 
Incarnation,  Man-  Worship  and  Cannibalism,  and  page  282;  all  of  them 
and  all  his  other  errors  condemned  and  anathematized  by  Cyril  in 
utterances  approved  by  the  whole  Church  at  Ephesus,  65,  66;  but 
defended  by  Nestorius,  63,  64,  65,  66.  The  utterances  of  the  Third 
Ecumenical  Synod  against  him  are  as  binding  as  the  two  Ecumen- 
ical Creeds  are,  65;  he  was  drastic  against  other  heretics,  46  text  and 
notes;  63;  he  was  a  blasphemer  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Incar- 
nat'cn  and  against  the  Λvorshiρ  of  God  alone,  and  held  to  One- 
Nature  Consubstantiation,  and  its  logical  sequence,  Cannibalism, 
126  and  127,  note  i;  141,  note  20;  regularity  of  the  proceedings 
against  him,  140,  note  16;  145,  note  45;  169,  note  143;  168-177; 
he  was  an  apostate,  143,  note  37;  blasphemy  of  his  partisans,  144; 
his  '■'■unholy  blasphemies,"  170;  his  Epistle  to  Cyril  and  his  Expo- 
sitions, that  is  his  XX.  Blasphemies,  condemned,  and  he  himself 
is  deposed  in  Act  I.  of  Ephesus,  171,  notes  153  and  154;  he  denied 
the  Incarnation,  172  and  notes  156,  159  and  161  there;  280,  note 
430;  412,  413,  and  notes  there,  and,  as  a  consequence,  held  to  the 
worship  of  a  man,  and  to  Cannibalism  in  the  Eucharist,  ibid.y 
280,  note  431;  283,  note  442;  597  and  notes  there;  434,  note  986;  436, 
note  995;  Cyril  charges  him  notwithstanding  his  acceptance  of  the 


462  htdex  II.  to  Volume  IL  of  Ephems,  and  part  of  III. 


expression  Β  ringer  Forth  of  God  {^ίοτόκο<ί)  with  making-  Christ  a 
mere  inspired  Man,  and  yet  worshipping•  him,  283,  and  notes  442,  443, 
there  and  284,  285;  and  371,  372;  is  sent  away  from  Constantinople, 
358:  see  Worship,  and  Cyril  of  Alexajidria ;  Nestorius'  relative  wor- 
ship of  Christ's  humanity  condemned  by  the  Third  Ecumenical 
Synod,  238,  note  377.  Cyril  writes  of  him  that  he  had  *'  done  away 
the  worshipping  faith  of  the  churches,^''  412,  note  844;  how?  ibid 
samples  of  his  blasphemies,  impiety  and  defilement,  408-415,  and 
notes;  439,  notes  loii,  1012 — the  Ecumenical  Council  calls  him  '■'■  the 
preacher  of  the  impiety,''''  440, 

Newman,  f.  H.,  his  ignorance  on  the  V.  Synods,  vol.  II.,  Pref.  ii.;  Sad 
results,  232,  note:     See  Discipline,  and  195,  note  232. 

Nicaea,  A.  D.  325;  see  Or^if  and  Canons. 

Nicaea,  the  idolatrous  Conventicle  of  A.  D.  787.     See  Councils.   . 

Nonfurors ;  a  humorous  fact  on  the,  147,  note. 

Novatianisni ;  condemned  in  the  Creed  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  212.• 
note. 

Novatians ;  219,  note  307;  220,  note  311;  46  and  notes;  63  and  notes. 

Nubia ;  extirpation  of  Christianity  there  for  idolatry,  231,  note  342. 

α 

Obiter  dicta  (Latin),  things  passingly  said ;  103,  note. 

Orietitals;  who  they  were,  138,  and  note  2  there;  163,  note  116. 

OHhodox  and  Catholic;  their  sense,  220,  note  314;  466. 

Orthodoxy ;  the  sound  faith  of  the  Universal  Church,  including,  of  course, 

the  VI.  Synods,  459,  469. 
Oxford  Movement ;   its  evil  influence,  vol.  II.,  Pref.  ii.,  iii.,  vi.,  B.     See 

Puseyite  and  Anglican  Communion. 

P. 

Particen;  279,  and  note  426. 

Patriarchs ;  their  origin  according  to  Socrates,  vol.  III.,  12,  note  56;  vol. 

III.,  22,  note  76:  see  Precedences. 
Patriarchates ;  some  of  them  national  churches,  157,  note  100;    162,  note 

114;   253,  note  389;    141,  notes  23,  24:     See  Dioceses  and  Precedences  of 

Sees. 
Pelagia7ts ;  their  errors;  173,  note  166;  177,  note  182,  and  182,  note  184:    See 

Celesiians ;  and  403;  464,  note  1163;  vol.  III.  of  Ephesus,  34,  note  107. 
Percival,  H.  R,;  defects  of  his  work,  vol.  II.,  Preface  i.;  his  death  in  sin, 

Preface  i. ;  the  Church  Quarterly  on  his  work.  Preface  i. 
Peter,  was  not  monarch  of  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  but  only  '■'■  first  among 

his  equals"  (primus  inter  pares),  vol.  II.,  90,  note  6,  and  91,  note  i; 

two  of  his  Roman  successors,  judged  and  condemned  by  two  Ecu- 


Geiieral  In  dcx.  463 


menical  Synods,  91,  note  i;  compare  84,  note  i,  and  93,  note  i: 
Peter's  rank  and  oiSces  in  the  New  Testament  and  his  character, 
vol.  II.,  99-106,  note  3  there.  It  should  be  numbered  note  4;  the 
rank  and  offices  of  Peter's  Roman  Successor  and  of  his  Antiochian 
according•  to  the  VI.  S3-nods;  see  the  same  notes  ^ηά  Juvetial  and 
Cyprus  a.na  John  of  Antioch. 

The  present  Bishop  of  Rome,  an  idolater  and  a  heretic,  and 
deposed  with  all  his  clerg-y,  and  excommunicate  Λvith  all  his  laity, 
vol.  II.,  92,  note;  ωυιρανε  under  Bishop,  and  141,  notes  23,  24.  See 
Precedences  of  Sees. 

Precedences  of  Sees ;  the  Ecumenical  principle  on  which  they  are  based,  162, 
note  114;  157,  note  100;  312-316  text,  and  notes;  428,  note  952:  see 
Dioceses,  Appeals  3.ηά  Discipline  ■a.n^L  Juvenal ;  see  Constajilinople;  in  a 
future  Seventh  Council  the  great  Sees  of  the  Reformed  nations — 
London,  New  York,  Berlin,  etc. — will  be  chief  by  the  Ecumenical 
principle,  vol.  III.,  6,  note  50:  neither  Rome  nor  Constantinople  has 
now  any  precedence,  both  being•  idolatrous,  heretical,  and  the 
population  of  Constantinople  being-  now  mainly-  Mohammedan;  ibid: 
the  Romanist  Hefele's  witness  to  the  principle,  ihid;  examples 
of  the  change  of  ecclesiastical  precedences  when  the  civil  preced- 
ences changed,  Heraclea  and  Constantinople,  Jerusalem  and  Caesa- 
rea;  vol.  III.,  12-14,  note  56;  dislike  of  non-Greek  Eastems  to  the 
sway  of  the  Greek  See  of  Constantinople  and  the  Greeks  over 
them;  vol.  III.,  ibid;  see  Bishop. 

Philip,  a  presbyter  and  legate  of  Rome ;  vol.  II.,  68  and  after;  78,  notes  11,12; 
A  Warning•  against  his  haughty  and  boastful  Roman  language;  vol. 
II.,  Pref.  X.;  99,  note  3;  128-137;  Λvho  he  was,  127,  note  i;  138,  139, 
note  5. 

Polemiiis;  his  heresy  that  "  the  body  of  the  Lord  came  down  from  the  heavens, 
and  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  of  the  same  substance  as  the  Divinity, ^^ 
vol.  II.,  386,  note  731. 

Presbyter;  its  meaning,  vol.  II.,  197,  note  236:  See  Property. 

Priest;  some  times  used  for  Bishop,  vol.  II.,  77,  note  3;  465,  note  1178; 
co-pi  iest,  that  is  co-minister,  466,  note  1186:  all  Christians  are  priests, 
vol.  II.,  73,  note  i;  161,  note  iii;  3S9,  note  747;  and  408,  note  842;  vol. 
III.,  35,  note  112:  See  Christians  and  Priesthood. 

Priesthood,  the  Christian;  vol.  II.,  429,  note  959:  See  Christians,  and  Priest. 

Property  of  the  Church;  to  be  controlled  by  the  Bishop  with  the  aid  of  his 
Elders  and  Deacons;  vol.  II.,  197,  note  237. 

Protestatit  nations;  see  England,  Britain  and  Protestants. 

Protestants  forbidden  to  submit  to  any  creature-worshipping  Bishop,  vol. 
III.,  34,  note  106. 

Pusey,  E.  B.;  his  ignorance  of  the  VI.  Synods;  its  results,  vol.  II.,  Pref. 


464  Index  π.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  ayid  part  of  III. 

ii.,  iii.;  and  232,  note;  is  condemned  by  Ephesus,  vol.  III.,  20,  note  71: 

See  vol.  II.,  195,  note  232,  and  Discipline. 
Puseyite  idolaters ;  326,  note  529. 
Quaternity ;  240:  See,  also,  Tetradistn. 
Qiiartodecimans,\.\i2±\s, Fourteenthdayiies ;  vol.  II.,  197,  note  235;  condemned 

in  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia's  Creed,  2io,note  285;  211,  note  286. 

R. 

Reader,  the;  his  office;  vol.  II.,  217,  note  298. 

Real  substance  presence;  see  Consubstantiation. 

Relative  Worship;  condemned  with  the  Creed  of  Theodore;  vol.  II.,  205- 
208,  and  notes  there,  and  the  Decision,  on  pages  222-225,  under  the 
penalties  there:  see,  also,  under  Relative  Worship,  in  the  General 
Index  to  volume  I.  of  Ephesus,  vol.  II.,  pages  652,  653,  and  compare 
the  cognate  terms  there,  Relative  Conjimction,  Relative  Indwelling, 
and  Relative  Participation ,  vol.  II.,  pages  651  and  652:  see  Worship; 
Relative  Worship,  vol.  II.,  240;  of  the  golden  calf  in  the  wilderness,  326, 
327;  curses  from  God  for  such  sins,  327:  of  the  Gospels,  the  Bible  or 
any  part  of  it,  Communion  Tables,  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Eu- 
charist, or  the  so-called  Real  Presence  of  either  of  Christ's  two 
Natures  or  of  both  with  them  or  in  them,  relics,  or  any  thing  in  the 
Universe:  even  of  Christ's  humanity,  forbidden,  vol.  II.,  317-335» 
etc.;  the  only  worshipable  thing  is  the  Divinity  of  the  Triune  Jeho- 
vah, and  all  Λvorship  to  it  must  be  absolute  not  relative;  Ibid. 

John  of  Antioch  preaches  the  relative  worship  of  Christ's  human- 
ity, 370-372,  inclusive;  it  is  found  among  Nestorius'  XX.  Blasphe- 
mies for  which  he  Λγas  deposed  at  Ephesus,  see  vol.  I.  of  Ephesus  in 
this  Set,  page  461,  note  949;  479,  4S0,  486-504,  and  note  F.,  pages  529- 
552  there. 

Relative  Conjunction,  vol.  II.,  240:  See  Relative  Conjunction,  page  651,  vol- 
ume I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set,  and  Relative  Worship,  etc.,  on  page 
652,  id. 

Relative  Indwelling;  see  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set,  page  652  under 
that  expression. 

Relative  Participation;  See  under  that  expression  page  652,  volume  I.  of 
Ephesus  in  this  Set. 

Relic  Worship;  approved  by  the  Nestorian  Conventicle  at  Ephesus,  vol.  II., 
59,  and  note  i  there,  and  page  264;  a  golden  Canon  of  Carthage, 
A.  D.  348,  against  it,  note  1,  page  59,  vol.  II.:  See  Celestine  also,  and 
vol.  II.,  page  77,  note  2,  a.naJohn  oj  Antioch. 

Restoration;  a  perfect  needed,  vol.  II.,  vi.  B.;  vol.  III.,  20,  note  71. 

Rhegimis,  Metropolitan  of  Constantia;  vol.  II.,  21,  27. 

Rivington;  an  apostate  to  Rome,  vol.  II.,  9,  note  33. 

Rome;  appellants  to^  vol.  II.,  9,  note  33;  what  they  deserve,  vol.  II.,  10,  note 


General  Index  465 


33:  See  Apiarius  and  Appellants;  and  vol.  II.,  10-14;  refutation  of 
Philip's  boastful  lang.uage  for  Rome,  vol.  II.,  128-137;  what  the  VI. 
Synods  have  decided  regarding  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  vol.  II.,  128- 
137;  compare  note  3,  pages  99-106;  and  141,  notes  23,  24:  they  pro- 
nounce Honorius  one  of  them,  a  heretic,  vol.  II.,  128;  and  so  deny 
Papal  infallibility,  128,  129;  attempt  of  the  really  local  Vatican 
Council  of  A.  D.  1870,  to  undo  that  decision;  controlled  by  Rome  and 
Italians,  vol.  II.,  128,  129;  Λvonderful  and,  seemingly,  miraculous 
rebuke  of  that  local  conventicle's  attempt  to  give  the  lie  to  the  Vlth 
Ecumenical  Synod,  Schaff's  account,  vol.  II.,  129,  Quirinus'  130;  the 
proclaimer  of  the  dogma  of  Papal  infallibility,  Pius  IX.,  an  idolater 
deposed  and  excommunicate  by  the  Third  Sj-nod  and  the  Sijath  for 
his  Ecumenically  condemned  heresies,  and  deemed  by  the  Greeks 
unbaptized,  vol.  II.,  130;  results  of  the  Vatican  Synod  unfavorable 
to  Rome  and  beneficial  to  those  who  worship  the  Triune  God  alone, 
130;  her  claim  to  appellate  sway  outside  of  Italy  and  to  universal 
jurisdiction  refuted  by  the  VI.  Synods,  and  denied  by  Africa,  vol. 
II.,  131,  and  by  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  vol.  II.,  131-134;  see 
Africa:  Rome  had  no  primacy  by  divine  right  (jure  divino)  in  the 
whole  Church,  vol.  II.,  134-137;  Constantinople  had  ""equal  priv- 
ileges'''' with  her,  vol.  II.,  135;  the  Church  not  built  on  Peter  alone, 
vol.  II.,  135,  13C;  how  the  Third  Synod  rebuked  Celestine  for  his 
idolatrous  language,  vol.  II.,  136,  and  his  credulous  statement  that 
the  Apostles  had  made  a  Creed,  vol.  II.,  137;  Juvenal,  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  in  Act  IV.  of  Ephesus  makes  a  bumptious  claim  over 
Antioch  Λvhich  the  Third  Synod  ignores,  vol.  II.,  137  and  146,  and 
notes  47  and  48  there;  and  vol.  III.,  page  4,  note  19;  why  Rome  is 
called  ''''the  Apostolic  throne"  vol.  II.,  68,  note  2;  420,  note  907;  462, 
note  1 149;  further  refutation  from  Scripture  and  Ecumenical  Synods 
of  Rome's  claims,  vol.  II.,  79,  note  2;  8?,  note  4;  82,  notes  i  and  2; 
141,  notes  23,  24;  at  Ephesus  Rome's  legates  approved  all  its  Act  I., 
which  condemns,  under  strong  penalties  Nestorius'  denial  of  the 
Incarnation,  his  worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  even  relatively,  and 
much  more,  all  other  relative  Λvorship  of  creatures,  crosses,  images, 
and  all  other  things,  and  all  his  real  substance  presence  of  Christ's 
humanity  in  the  Eord's  Supper,  its  worship  there  or  anyΛτhere  else, 
and  the  Cannibalism  of  eating  it,  vol.  II.,  98,  note  3;  113,  note  4;  com- 
pare note  2  there;  vol.  II.,  116,  117,  notes  5  and  6;  123,  note  i;  a 
specimen  of  how  Romanists  pervert  language  to  favor  Rome,  146, 
note  47,  how  Rome  got  anti-canonical  power  in  the  West,  vol.  II.,  127, 
note  i;  compare  456,  note  iii;  vol.  III.,  5,  note  27;  see  Constatitinople; 
see  Precedences  of  Sees.  Appellants  to  idolatrous  Rome  should  be  de- 
posed if  clerics  and  excommunicated  if  laics,  8,  note  33:  See  Ap- 
peals. 


466  hidcx  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Epkesus,  and  part  of  III. 

The  reason  given  in  Canon  III.  of  the  Second  Ecumenical  Synod 
and  in  Canon  XXVIII.  of  the  Fourth  for  Rome's  primacy  has  long 
since  ceased,  141,  note  24,  and  vol.  Hi-,  6,  note  30:  See  CoJistanli- 
nople;  Rome's  and  Constantinople's  Bishops  and  clerics  deposed  and 
their  laics  now  excommunicate,  403,  notes  812  and  814;  Rome's  sway 
always  a  curse,  vol.  III.,  5,  note  27;  doom  of  Rome,  vol.  II.,  168,  note 
139:  Nestorian  language  explained,  vol.  II.,  383,  note  716;  Rome  on 
the  Tiber — '■'■  the  Elder  Rome,''''  vol.  II.,  Constantinople  the  '■'■New 
Rome,''''  458,  note  1122;  462,  note  1149:  Rome  subjugated  Britain  con- 
trary to  the  Nicene  and  other  Ecumenical  Canons,  vol.  III.,  16,  note 
58;  vol.  III.,  17,  note  63;  is  commanded  by  Canon  VIII.  of  Ephesus  to 
restore  and  to  get  out  of  the  British  islands  and  out  of  all  non-Ital- 
ian lands,  vol.  III.,  33;  vol.  III.,  12-21;  vol.  III.,  17,  note  64;  her 
opposition  to  the  VI.  Ecumenical  Synods,  vol.  III.,  18,  notes  66,  67, 
68  and  69;  her  original  jurisdiction  when  Orthodox,  vol.  III.,  18,  note 
70;  by  the  decisions  of  Ephesus  all  Rome's  Bishops  and  clerics  are 
deposed  and  all  her  laics  are  excommunicate,  and  so  are  all  those  of 
the  other  creature-invoking  Communions,  vol.  III.,  19,  note  71:  the 
Reformers  of  the  XVIth  century  acted  in  strict  accordance  with 
Ephesus  and  all  the  VI.  Synods  in  throwing  off  Rome's  yoke  and  in 
casting  away  her  heresies  and  idolatries,  ibid,  all  enactments  in 
favor  of  usurping  Sees  such  as  Rome,  Constantinople,  Antioch  and 
others  pronounced  by  the  Third  Ecumenical  Synod  to  be  'Of  no 
authority,''''  vol.  III.,  33;  compare,  also,  volume  III.,  pages  1-20,  and 
the  notes  there:  see  also  Rome,  pages  653,  654,  volume  I.  of  Ephe- 
sus in  this  Set. 


Saints^  names  for  Churches  neither  primitive  nor  scriptural,  vol.  II.,  5,  text 
and  note  17;  not  to  be  used  for  them,  153,  note  81 ;  431,  note  967;  vol. 
III.,  I,  note  5. 

Sardica,  the  local  Council  of  a.  d.  344,  or  347;  its  canons  quoted  by  Rome 
as  those  of  the  Ecumenical  Council  of  Nicaea,  to  base  her  claim  to 
the  right  of  Appellate  Jurisdiction  in  Latin  Africa,  exposed  and  re- 
jected by  Africa  vol.  III.,  20,  note  72.  Similarity  between  the  lan- 
guage used  in  defense  of  their  rights  by  the  Africans  and  that  rejec- 
tion and  the  language  of  Canon  VIII.  of  the  third  Ecumenical  Coun- 
cil in  condemning  the  attempt  of  the  see  of  Antioch  to  subdue  the 
autocephalous  Church  of  Cyprus,  and  all  similar  attempts  at  usurpa- 
tion by  other  sees,  including  of  course  Rome's  attempt  in  Africa- 
see  Sardica  in  Smith  and  Cheetham's  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities 
and  Chrystal's  articles  in  the  Church  Journal  oi  New  York  City  for 
1870,  on  the  "Defence  by  Latin  Africa  in  centuries  V.  and  VI.  of  its 
rights  against  the  attempt  of  Rome  to  get  Appellate  Jurisdiction 


General  Index.  467 


there."  It  is  hoped  that  that  matter  may  appear  In  another  volume 

of  this  Set  ;  vol.  III.,  20,   note  72. 
Scripture;   vol,  II.,  355 ;  see,  on  that   page,  all   on  authority  in   line    i    and 

after. 
Sees;  how  their  precedences  are  determined,  141,  notes  23,  24;  142,  note  28. 

See  Precedences  of  Sees  and  Dioceses. 
State,  The;  see  Church  and  State,  and  Ivi'>nigration. 
Stewards  and  other  clerics  to  guard  Church  property  till  a   Bishop  is  ap-, 

pointed,  vol.  II.,  2,  and  note  8  ;  see  Bishop  and  compare  197,  note  237; 

291,  and  note  472. 
Suffragan  Bishops;  vol,  III.,  22,  note  76;  see  Bishops  also  ;  vol.  III.,  23,  note 

82. 
Sunday,  wrong,  Lord's  Day  right ;  4,  note  13. 
Sytiodicon  ofJMonte  Casino  ;  vol.  II.,  241-247. 
Synodicon  of  Irenaeus ;  vol.  II.,  335. 
Synods;  see  Councils. 
Synods,  local :  Synod  of  the  West,  the;  vol.  II.,  iii,  text  and  note  4;  112, 

note  I ;  what  it  was,  114-124,  and  note  7  on  pages  114-116 ;  464,  465, 

notes  1168,  1169,  1170:  note  5,  pages  116,  117,  and  note  6,  page  117; 

167,  note  132. 
Synods,  the  Six  World-Synods;  see  Councils;  "there  is"  [only]  * 'One  Synod 

of  the  inhabited  world,''''  164,  text  and  note  124  there;  167,  note  132;  the 

Second  Ecumenical  not  mentioned  by  Ephesus,  vol.  II.,  249 ;  vol.  III., 

4,  note  14  ;  see  also  Ecumenical  Synod,  a  future  Seventh,  422,  note  915. 


Tetradism  ,vo\.  II.,  240  ;  319-323;  see  Man-Worship  and  Worship  of  Christ's 
humatnty,  and  Quaternity ;  see  Tettadisfn,  page  656,  volume  I.  of 
Ephesus,  and  in  the  same  volume  Man  Worship  on  pages  631-635, 
Nestorius'  Heresy  2,  pages  639-641,  and  τέτα/'τος,  pages  759-761. 

Theodora,  the  idolatrous  Empress  ;  vol.  III.,  8,  note  37. 

Theodore  of  Mopsicestia  ;  see  Creedof  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  The  Nestorians 
wish  the  Emperor  not  to  allow  the  Orthodox  to  reject  theNestorian 
Doctors,  vol.  II.,  311,  312  ;  Theodore,  one  of  them,  co-worshipped 
Christ's  humanity  with  his  Divinity,  372  ;  376  and  notes  there  ;  see 
Theodoret. 

Theodoret,  condemned,  vol.  II.,  pref.  ii.;  was  Nestorius'  champion,  vol.  II•, 
pref.  ii ;  143,  note  37  ;  vol.  II.,  359-364 ;  363-370»  and  notes  there  ;  390, 
note  752  ;  249,  25o  ;  suspended  from  episcopal  functions  and  the 
Communion,  160-162,  and  note  108  there;  his  heresies,  vol.  II.,  341, 
342  and  notes  there  ;  359-370  ;  charges  the  third  Ecumenical  Synod 
falsely  with  making  God  the  Word  liable  to  suffering,  vol.  II.,  369, 
370  ;  may  have  been  at  heart  a  Nestorian  heretic  to  the  last,  ".•ο1.  II., 


468  Index  II.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus ,  and  part  of  III. 

366-371,  notes  616,  617,  618,  619,  628,  and  647  ;  had  approved  Diodore 
and  Theodore,  vol.  II.,  316,  note  510. 

Theodosius  the  Empeivr ;  prejudiced  against  Cyril,  vol.  II.,  42,  43;  see 
Emperors ;  59  ;  he  favors  Nestorius,  vol,  II.,  421,  note  913  ;  425,  note 
927  ;  opposes  the  Synod,  vol.  ll. ,  257-260  ;  relied  on  by  the  Nestorians 
vol.  II.,  260-266 ;  deemed  by  them  their  friend  and  supporter,  vol.  II., 
335-344;  35S,  374.  377,  387;  307,  note  498;  calls  himself  "owr  divinity,'^ 
vol.  II.,  259;  see  under  Titles  ;  terms  Nestorius  even  after  his  deposi- 
tion by  the  Third  Svnod,  ^'the  most  holy  and  most  Godreveriyig  Bishop 
Nestorius,"  vol.  II.,  259,  note  393  where  the  Greek  is  quoted;  per- 
secutes the  Synod,  vol.  II.,  428-432,  note  955;  vol.  II.,  445,  note 
1041 ;  compare  447,  note  1058;  vol.  II.,  452,  notes  1091  and  1095 ;  456, 
note  1 1 15,  and  470-472  and  notes. 

Theophilus,  called  ^'blessed,^^  vol.  II.,  380,  note  695:  Theophilus  of  Alex- 
andria,  Cj-ril's  uncle,  called  "  blessed  "  again,  vol.  II.,  46S,  note  1199  ; 
that  is  if  the  reference  on  page  3S0  means  him. 

Timothy  ;  see  Vitalian ;  vol.  II.,  384,  and  note  717  there. 

Titles,  extravagant,  vol.  II.,  68,  note  4:  153,  note  82  ;  used  in  a  document 
from  the  Third  Sj-nod,  18;  67  and  after;  142,  note  30  ;  143,  note  36;  153 
note  ;  and  often  in  documents  emanating  from  the  Synod.  See  the 
Acts  in  many  places:  condemned,  vol.  II.,  68,  note  4  ;  70,  note  3;  71, 
note  I  and  2.  Such  titles  were  demanded  by  Roman  law,  vol.  III.,  8, 
note  37.  See  also  note  8,  page  96,  vol.  II.;  "  divitie  ears,''  that  is  the 
Emperor's,  vol.  II.,  162,  note  113.  See  volume  I.  Ephesus  in  this  set, 
page  659,  Titles  collective.  Titles  flattering  and  sinful.  Titles  Byzantine  ; 
168,  note  138;  '■'■our  divinity,  vol.  II•,  pages  259  and  287,  of  the 
'  Empercir,  and  note 453  there;  '•^divine  letter,'"'•  289,  note  469,  and  vol. 

II.,  470,  note  1212;  vol.  III.,  8,  and  note  33:  compare  note  20,  page 
19,  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  set  ;  and  in  vol.  II.,  286,  287,  notes 
444,  445,  452,  and  453  there  ;  288-292  and  notes  there  ;  *' divine  cotirt,'* 
*'  divine palaee,"  said  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius  II.  of  his  court  and 
his  palace,  vol.  II.,  289,  note  459  ;  "  Your  Divinity,''  addressed  to  the 
Emperors,  and  that  very  wickedly,  ibid.,  454,  note  I104  ;  milder,  but 
not  to  be  used  for  flattery,  •'  Your  God-Reveringness,'''  427,  notes  947 
and  948;  '■'■  Your  Headship'^  462,  note  1 146.  Some  such  titles  were 
probably  bound  on  the  Council  and  all,  462,  note  1148  :  "  Your  Christ- 
loving  and  devoted  to  God  soul,'"  463,  note  1150  :  compare  Ephesus,  vol, 
III., 7,  note 31,  and  id.,  8,  37,  and  id.,  10,  note 43.  Someof  those  titles  are 
more  profane  and  objectionable  than  others,  but  godly  simplicity 
would  be  better  than  unscriptural  titles,  for  their  use  promotes  in- 
sincerity and  lying  and  flattery.  We  should  remember  what  is  said 
in  Job  xxxii.,  21,  22 :  "  Let  me  not,  I  pray  you,  accept  any  man's  per- 
son, neither  let  me  give  flattering  titles  unto  man.  For  I  know  not 
to  give  flattering  titles ;  in  so  doing  my  Maker  would  soon  take  me 


General  Index.  469 


away."  Let  us  be  warned  by  what  happened  to  King•  Herod  when 
he  allowed  such  a  flattering•  title  to  ba  g-iven  to  hiin,  Acts  xii.,  20- 
24.  Yet  the  Romanist,  right  against  the  decision  and  anathema  of 
the  Sixth  Ecumenical  Synod,  ascribes  to  a  poor  idolatrous  deposed 
Bishop  of  Rome  one  of  the  prerogative  titles  of  God,  Infallibity,  and 
some  have  called  him  a  Deus  in  terra,  that  is  '■'■  a  god  on  earth  "  ;  and 
the  idolatrous  Greek  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  is  even  now  in  this 
enlightened  age  commonly  addressed  as  "Your  all  Holiness"!!! 
and  "  Your  most  dear  to  God  All  Holiness  !  ! !  "  But  they  generally 
call  God  Himsell  '''■holy,^''  only.  Surely  snch  blasphemous  trash 
should  be  done  away. 

Traditions^  that  is  Transmissions  ;  107,  notes  4,  5;  of  how  many  kinds,  198, 
note  240  ;  199,  note  243  ;  what  primitive  historic  tradition  includes, 
414,  415,  note  860;  its  importance  rightly  understood,  ibid.\  418,  note 
887. 

Trine  immersion ;  426,  note  941. 

Triitlan  Synod  of  a.  d.  691  or  692  ;  its  action  on  the  struggle  between  Rome 
and  Carthage,  10,  note  33.     See  Africa. 

The  Twelve  Chapters,  that  is  the  XII.  Anathemas  of  Cyril.  See  Cyril  of 
Alexandria's  XII.  Chapters;  /o//«  of  Atitioch^  and  the  Nestorian 
Conventicle,  and  Chapters,  the  Twelve. 

Tyler,  J.  Endell,  quoted,  35-37. 

U 
Unity,  Church,  its  future  bases,  vi.  B.     See  Authority. 

V 

Vatican  Council,  see  Councils  and  '■^Synods,  local.'''' 

Vatighn,  Cardinal,  his  witness  to  the  Romanizing  results  of  the   Oxford 

Movement,  pref .  ii. 
Vigilius,  Bishop  of  Rome ;  condemned,  87,  note  ;  102,  note  ;  compare  195, 

note  232. 
Vitalian  and  Timothy,  heretics  ;  384. 

w 

Wall,  Dr.  Wm.;  his  statement  as  to  the  belief  of  the  Christians  of  the 
first  four  centuries  regarding  the  fate  of  infants  dying  unbaptized, 
173,  note  166. 

Whitsunday  ;  an  improper  name,  4,  note  13. 

Will  worship;  261,  note  398. 

Wordsworth ;  125,  note  2. 

Worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  Nestorians  for,  xiii.,  378,  379,  notes  674,  682, 
683  ;  380,  note  693  ;  Creed  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  for,  205-210  ;  it 
is  condemned  by  Ephestis,  222-234.     Cyril  of  Alexandria  against  the 


470  Index  II.  ίο  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III 

Nestorian  worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  235-240;  and  note  377, 
pages  238-240  there  ;  Apollinarian  errors  on,  386;  the  Fifth  Ecumen- 
ical Synod  say  of  Theodore's  Man-worshipping- Creed  :  "This  Creed 
Satan  has  made!  Anathema  to  him  who  made  this  creed!  The 
First  Synod  of  Ephesus  [the  Third  Ecumenical]  anathematized  this 
Creed  with  its  author,"  207,  note  274  ;  see  all  that  note,  and  under 
Man-worship  in  the  General  Index  to  volume  I  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set, 
pages  631-635,  and  Nestorius'  Heresy  2  there,  pages  639-641,  and 
under  Rome  in  this  Index.  Nestorius  and  Theodore  worshipped 
the  unchanged  leavened  bread  and  wine  of  the  Bucharist  as  being 
not  Christ's  Divinity,  but  his  humanity  ;  see  under  Eucharist  here 
and  also  in  the  General  Index  to  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  set, 
and  especially,  pages  276,  277,  note  ;  Cyril,  the  Third  Synod,  the 
Fourth,  the  Fifth  and  the  Sixth,  against  the  Nestorian  Worship  of 
Christ's  humanity,  note  377,  pages  238-240;  and  indeed  id.;  pages 
235-240  and  all  notes  there  ;  317-335. 

John  of  Antioch  preaches  it  at  Chalcedon,  as  relative  Λvorship, 
370-372  ;  a  Creed  said  to  be  of  Antioch  against  it,  377,  note  673  ;  the 
Nestorian  relative  worship  of  Christ's  humanity  condemned  by  the 
Third  Synod,  238,  note  377.  See  Relative  Worship  in  the  General 
Index.  Notwithstanding  the  condemnation  of  Man  Worship  and  of 
Cannibalism  on  the  Eucharist  under  severe  penalties,  those  sins 
were  practiced  in  the  middle  ages,  and  are  still  in  the  idolatrous 
sects,  vol.  III.,  40,  note  125  :  Ecumenical  Church  penalties  on  those 
guilty  of  such  sins,  vol.  III.,  40,  note  125  ;  see  especially  on  that 
volume  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set,  note  183,  part  under  section  "II," 
pages  108-112,  and  note  6790η  pages  332-362;  and  against  the  Nestorian 
pagan  plea  of  relative  worship,  that  is  that  it  is  right  to  worship 
Christ's  humanity  for  the  sake  of  God  the  Word,  see  page  461,  text 
and  note  949  there;  and  see  especially  in  the  same  volume  I.,  pages 
276-286,  note,  aud  indeed  all  of  that  note  606  of  which  they  form  part. 
It  is  on  pages  240-313  there.  It  is  rather  an  essay  or  a  dissertation 
than  a  note.  And,  what  is  very  important,  Cyril  teaches  that  to 
worship  Christ's  humanity  in  addition  to  the  worshippable  Trinity, 
that  is'God  the  Father,  God  the  Word,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  to 
turn  a  worshipped  Trinity  to  whom  all  worship  is  prerogative,  into  a 
worshipped  Tetrad,  consisting  of  three  divine  Persons  and  a 
creature.  See  Tetradistn  in  the  General  Index  to  this  volume,  and 
in  that  to  volume  I.  of  Ephesus,  and  in  the  latter  on  the  difference 
between  Cyril  and  Ephesus  on  the  one  hand  and  Nestorius  on  the 
other,  pages  590,  591,  and  Nestorius'  Heresy  2  on  pages  639-641. 

z. 

Zosimus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  9,  note  33  ;  127,  note  i. 


471 


INDEX  ΠΙ. 

INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  TEXTS, 

In  Volume  II.   of  Ephesus  and  to  Pages  1-76  inci^usive  of 
Volume  III.  of  Ephesus. 

EXPL^lSrA.TION. 

In  volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  where  texts  are  referred  to,  the  Roman 
letters  refer  to  the  chapter,  Arabic  numbers  to  the  verse.  What  follows 
the  verse  refers  to  the  page,  and  note,  if  any,  of  the  volume.  Roman 
letters  standing  alone  are  used  to  designate  the  pages  of  the  Forematter, 
but  in  that  case  they  stand  among  the  references  to  the  pages,  not 
among  the  references  to  the  texts. 

One  should  by  all  means  read  pages  667-690,  Index  III.  in  volume  I.  of 
Ephesus  in  this  Set,  on  the  difference  between  the  Orthodox  Interpretation 
of  Texts  and  that  of  the  Nestorians. 

References  to  the  pages  of  volume  III.  of  Ephesus  begin  with  "vol. III." 
for  that  volume,  followed  by  the  number  of  the  page,  and  the  number  of 
the  note,  if  there  be  a  note  there.  If  there  be  no  note  there,  then  the  re- 
ference ends  with  the  number  of  the  page.  All  before  that  III.  refers  to 
volume  II.,  but  generally  without  the  II.  But  volume  II.  must  always  be 
understood  where  "vol.  III."  is  not  expressed.  If  after  that  "vol.  III." 
any  reference  in  Roman  occurs  among  the  pages,  it  refers  to  the  pages  of 
the  Forematter  of  volume  III.  References  in  Roman,  not  preceded  by 
vol.  III.  refer  to  the  Forematter  to  volume  II. 


OLD  TESTAMENT. 


GENESIS. 
XVII.,  14. vol.  III.,  35, note  109 

EXODUS. 

XVII.,  II,  12  ;  27,  text.  But 
the  place  Λvas  quoted, 
probably,  from  mem- 
ory only,  for  it  was 
Aaron  and  Hur  who 
held  up  Moses' 
hands. 


XIX.,  6,  etc, —389,  note  747  ; 
408,  note  842 ;  409, 
note  842;  429,  note 
959• 

XX.,  1-8 237,  note  366 

XX•.  3»  4,  5 34 

XX•,  4,  5.  6 259,  note  377 

XX.,  5. .173,  note   161;  237, 
note  366. 

XXXII 19,  note  71 

XXXIV.,  12  to  18 34 

XXXIV.,  14 237,  note  366 


472  Index  III.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 


LEVITICUS. 
XVI.,  2,  15,  16,  17,  29-34. .261, 

note  398. 
XVI.,  17  ;  312,  note  502. 

NUMBERS.     • 

XXV.,  I 467,  noteii93 

XXVII.,  17 277,  note  422 

DEUTERONOMY. 

IV.,  24 35 

VI.,  4 323 

VI.,  4,  5 331,   note  554 

VI.,  15 35 

VII.,  6,  etc 409,  note  842 

XXXI.,  16-30 201,  note  251 

XXXII.,  24,  33 467,  note  1194 

JOSHUA. 

XXIII.,  7 239,  note  377 

XXIV.,  19,  20 35 

JUDGES. 

v.,  23 63,  note  7 

XIII.,  16 328,   note  537 

I.  KINGS. 

XII.,  25  to  I.  Kings  xiv.,  17, 
and  II.  Kings  xvii  ; 
19,  note  71. 

XIV.,  21-31 409,  note  842 

XVII.,  I 467,  note  1192 

XVIII.,  8  to  20 467,  note  1192 

XVIII.,  17,  18 249 

XIX  ,  10,  14 173,  note  161 

XIX.,  18 239,   note,   twice 

XXI.,  17  to  25. .467,  note  1192 

II.  KINGS. 
XVII., 19,  note  71 

I.  CHRONICLES. 

XVI.,  13 409,  note  842 

II  CHRONICLES. 
,     XII.,  13 409,  note  842 


JOB. 

XL,  12,  Sept 160,  note  105 

XVIL,  5 68,  note  4 

XXXII. ,  21,  22 68,  note  4 

XXXIII^  12 409,  note  84a 

PSALMS. 

II.,  7 327,  note  531. 

XIL,  2,  3 68 

XIV.,  3 376,  note  667 

XVI.,  10 281,  note  434 

XXIL,  1 379,  note  684 

XXXI.,  24,  Septuagint 235, 

note  353. 

XXXIIL,  6 _329,  note  545 

XXXIV.,  28,  Sept.,  XXXV.,  28, 
King  James  version  ; 
29,  note  8. 

XXXVIL,  18,  Septuagint 445, 

note  1046. 

XLIV.,  22 447,  note  1063 

L.,  16,  17 Prayer  Book 

Version. 

L.,  20 155,  note  88 

LIII.,  3 376,  note  667 

LXIX.,  20 27,  text 

LXXX.,  9,Sept.,ourlxxxi.  ,9;  26, 
note  ;  240,  note  ;  320  ; 
331, note  553.  It  is  one 
of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexan. 
dria's  favorite  texts 
against  the  Nestori. 
an  worship  of  Christ's 
humanity. 
CVL,  28  to  32... 467,  note  1193 
CXVIIL,  46,  Sept.,  our  cxix.,  46. 

453,  note  1098. 

CXIX.,  130,  etc.-  216,  note  296 

CXXIL,  6-— 78,  note  10 

CXXV  ,  3 26,  note  5 

CXXXVTII  ,  21,  22,  Sept..  our 

CXXXIX.,  21,  22 i»4 


Index  III.     Index  of  Scripture  Texts. 


473 


PROVERBS. 

XIV.,  34 II.,  note  40 

XIX.,  5 154,  note  87 

XXIV.,  rig-ht  after  verse  22,  in 
Van  Ess'  Septuag-int, 
where  it  is  "29,  27  "_ 
__I56,  note  97.  In  the 
edition  printed  at  the 
Oxford  University 
Press  in  A.  D.  1859, 
and  put  forth  by  the 
Society  for  Promot- 
ing• Christian  Know- 
ledge, it  is  Proverbs» 
xxix  ,  26. 
XXVI.,  28 68,  note  4 

ISAIAH. 

II.,  20 314 

XXV.,  I,  Sept 29,   note  7 

XXX.,  I 367,  note  623. 

XLII.,  8_.i9,  note  71  ;  26,  note 
i;  34  ;  201,  note  251  ; 
240,  note,  twice  ;  306, 
note  49 1  ;  312,  note 
502;  320;  331,  note 
553  :  386.  It  is  one 
of  St.  Cyril's  favorite 
texts  ag-ainst  the 
'  Nestorian  Worship 
of  Christ's  human- 
ity. 

XLV.,  I4__328,  tΛvice,  notes 
539.  540. 

LVII.,  3,  4,  Sept. .29,  note  ir 


ISAIAH. 

LIX.,  3,  5 367,  note  626 

IvIX.,  5 58,  note  i  ;  368, 

notes  633,  635. 
lylX.,  5,  6,  Sept.  ..62,  note  3 
LIX.,  6...  369,  notes  637,  638 

LIX.,  7 369,  notes  639,  640 

IvIX.,  7,8 369,  note  643 

JERKMIAH. 

II.,  13 399 

v.,  26 322,  notesiS 

XII.,  10 357,  note  621 

DANIEL. 
III.,  1-30 236,  note  361 

HOSEA. 

IV.,  7 367,  note  622 

XIII.,  2,  3,  4 239,  note 

AMOS. 

III.,  2 404,  note  842 

NAHUM. 

I.,  2 35 


APOCRYPHA. 
ECCEESIASTICUS. 

II.,  I,  2 236,  note  355 

BEL,  AND  THE  DRAGON. 

Verse  3—  467,  note  1195 


474 


hidex  III.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 


NEW  TESTAMENT. 


MATTHEW. 

I.,  I,  17 204,  note  263 

IL,  1-12 126,  note  i 

III.,  17 327»  note  532 

IV.,  i-ii 215,  note  296 

IV.,  1-12 305,  note  488 

IV.,  10,  xiii.,  twice:  19, 
note  71;  26,  note  i; 
29,  note  15;  33,  text; 
34;  35;  126,  note  i; 
128;  136;  155,  note  90; 
i7i,notei5i;  172, note 
159;  180;  195,  note 
232,  twice;  201,  note 
251,  thrice;  205,  note 
267;  239,  note  377; 
240,  note  twice; 
261,  note  398;  282; 
298;  306,  note  491; 
360,  note  599;  401» 
note  804;  vol.  III.,  46; 
312,  note  502,  thrice; 
317,  twice;  319;  320, 
twice;  323;  327,  note 
534;  330;  331.  note 
553;  376,  note  670; 
379,  note  683;  380, 
note  693;  386;  445, 
note  1045;  468,  note 
1197;  vol.  III.,  I,  note 
5;  vol.  III.,  25,  note 
96,  and  vol.  III.,  46. 

This  is  one  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria's three  most  favorite  and  oft- 
quoted  texts  against  the  Nestorian 
worship  of  Christ's  humanity,  the 
two  others  being  Psalm  I^XXXI.,  9, 
our  Version;  L,XXX.,  9.  of  the 
Greek  Septuagint  Version,  and  Isa- 
iah XLII.,  8.  Of  course,  they  are 
much  more  against  the  worship  of 


any  other  creature  inferior  to  that 
humanity,  and  all  other  creatures, 
be  they  saints  or  angels,  or  any- 
thing else,  are  inferior  to  that  ever 
spotless  humanity  in  which  God  the 
Word  is  incarnate  and  in  which  He 
ever  dwells. 

IV.,  II 327,  note  533 

VI.,  10 12,  note;  45 

X.,  32,33....  238,  note  376 

X.,  32-40 51»  notes 

X.,  34  to  42,  inclusive..  269 

X.,  40 463,  note  1154 

XIV.,  1,  2,  6-12. .216,  note  297 

XVI.,  13-21 90,  note  6 

XVI.,  16-20 103,  note 

XVI.,  18 -  66 

XVI.,  19- 106,  note;  135 

XVII.,  5 —  327,  note  532 

XVIII.,  15-19  66;  81,  note;  206, 
note  274;  252,  note 
387;  355,  note  593; 
359,  note  599;  410, 
note  842,  twice;  vol. 
III.,  41 
XVIII.,  i7--i4.note4o;  31, note 
i;  51;  268;  297;  435, 
note  890;  440,  note 
1014. 

XVIII.,  18 440,  note  1014 

XVIII.,  20 .-73  notes 

XIX.,  19 14.  note  40 

XIX.,  10-13 442,  note  1027 

XIX.,  II,  12 406,  note  835 

XIX.,  12 442,  note  1027, 

twice. 

•     XXII.,  17-22 452,  note  1094 

XXII.,  21... 275,  note  411 

XXYI.,  9 loi,  note 

XXVI.,  34 100,  note  3;  128 

XXVL,  38 379,  note  687 

1  XXVI.,  39 379>  note  685 


Index  ΠΙ.     hidex  of  Scripture  Texts. 


475 


XXVI.,  59. vol.  III.,  34,  note 

lOI. 

XXVL,  69-75,  inclusive...  128 

XXVI.,  72 100,  note  3 

XXVL,  73,  74 100,  note  3 

XXVII.,  46 379,  note  684 

XXVIII.,  16-20,  inclusive 81, 

twice,  note. 

XXVIII.,  19 74,  note  i;  409, 

note  842. 

XXVIII.,  19,  20 31,  note  i, 

twice;  66;  252,  note 
387;  324,  note  924;  435, 
note  990. 

MARK. 

I.,  II 327,  note  532 

I.,  13 327,  note  533 

VI.,  14-16,  21-27...  216,  note 
297. 

XII.,  13-18 452,  note  1094 

XII.,  17 275,  note  41 1 

ΧΠ,,  29 323 

XII..  29,  42 331,  note  554 

XIII.,  27 410,  note  S42 

XIV.,  30 100,  note  3;  128 

XIV.,  34 379,  note  687 

XIV.,  35 379,  note  685 

XIV.,  66-72,  inclusive 128 

XIV.,  70,  71,  72...  100,  note  3 

XV.,  34 379,  note  684 

XVI.,  16 389,  note  747 

LUKE. 

I.,  2 86,  note 

I.,  77__ 215,  note  296 

II.,  2 313 

III.,  23-38,  inclusive...  204, 
note  263. 

IV.,  1-13 215,  note  296 

IV.,  8..  19,  note  71;  34;  340, 
note. 

IX.,  35 327,  note  532 

X.,  16 463,  note  1154 


XI.,  28 355,  note  592 

XII.,  51  to  54 269 

XX.,  19  -27 452,  note  1094 

XX.,  25 275,  note  411 

XXII.,  34 100,  note  3;  128 

XXII.,  56-62,  inclusive 128 

XXII.,  59-61 100,  note  3 

JOHN. 

I.,  I,  2,  3,  14..  75,  note  7, 
and  note  8;  206,  note 
274;  360,  note  599. 

I•.  3 329    note  545 

I.,  14..  206,  note  274;  330, 
note  546;  378,  note 
678. 

Ill,  5 389,  note  747;  409, 

note  842;  411,  note 
842,  twice;  vol.  III., 
35,  note  IC9. 

III.,  13 106,   note 

III.,  20 150,  note  55 

v.,  39-.  216,  note  296;  355, 
note  592. 

VI.,  37 261,  note  398 

VII.,  17 305,  note  488 

VIII.,  42 75,  note  7;  329, 

note  543. 

X.,  9 261,  note  398 

X.,  16 277,  note  422 

XI.,  51 407,  note  835 

XIII.,  13 328;  541 

XIII.,  38 100,  note   3;  128 

XIV. ,  6. .  261,  note  398,  twice; 
311,  note  502. 

XIV.,  13,  14 261,  note  398 

XIV.,  16,  17. ._  31,  note  i;  66; 
8t,  note;  252,  note 
387;  435,  note  990. 
XIV.,  16,  17,  26 355,  note 

593. 

XV.,  7,  16 261,  note  398 

XV.,  13,  14 81,  note 

XV.,  26^ 355,  note  593 


476  Index  III.  to  Volume  11.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III . 


XVI.,  7-15 355,  note  593 

XVI.,  13 31,  note  i 

XVI.,  15 329,  note  544 

XVI.,  23,  24 261,  note  398 

XVI.,  28 75,  note  7,  and 

note  8;  329,  note  543. 

XVI.,  33_ 236,  note  356 

XVIL,  3 331,  note  554 

XVII.,  15 406,  note  835 

XVII.,  17 216,  note  296 

XVIII.,  17,  25 100,  note  3 

XVIII.,  17,  19  to  28 128 

XX.,  21-24 355,  note  593; 

410,  note  842,  twice. 

XX.,  22 135 

XX.,  22,  23 81,  note 

XX.,  23 90,  note  6;  106, 

note;  440.  note  1014. 
XX.,  28-.75,note8;  329,  note 

542. 
XXI.,  1-24 103,  note 

ACTS. 

I.,  1 1 -.106,  note;  431,  note 

962. 
I.,  15  to  26  inclusive -.136 

I.,  20 108,  note  5 

I.,  20-23 86,  note 

I.,  20,  25.. 3,  note  8;  17, 
note  62  ;  31,  note  i ; 
48;  109,  note  ;  197 
note  237  ;  308,  note  ; 
455.  note  II 10. 
I.,  25,  26 ;  90,  note  6. 

II.,  1-47 103,  note 

II.,  5,  io__io3,  note,  twice 

II.,  27,  31 281,  note  434 

II.,  39 409,  note  842 

III.,  17 100,  note 

III.,  20,  21 106,  note 

III.,  21 481,  note  963 

IV.,  29-32 78,  note 

IV..  32 ..77,  note  4 

IV.,  34,  35 . 3,  note  8 


IV.,  34-37  inclusive 197^ 

note  237. 

v.,  i-ii 197,  note  23? 

VI.,  1-7- -3,  note,  8;  31,  note 
i;  197,  note  237. 

VII.,  55,  56 43I1  note  962 

VIII.,  26-40 104,  note 

X . 102,  note 

X.,  1-7 104,  note 

X.,  1-48 101,  note 

X.,    14,  15,  38,  34,  35;  loi, 

note. 
X.,  25,   26. .328,  note  535  ; 
469,  note  1208. 

X.,  28-34 104,  note. 

X•.  34.  35 104.  note 

X.,  34-44 105,  note 

XI 102,  note 

XI.,  3 loi,  note 

XI.,  1-4. .103  note,  105  note 

XI.,  18— 105,  note 

XIII.,  33. 327,  note  531 

XIII.,  34-38 281,  note  434 

XV,..  102,   note;   105,   note; 
147,  note. 

XV.,  I 103,  note 

XV.,  1-32 100,  note 

XV.,  5-24 103,  note 

XV.,  7-12 105,  note 

XV.,  28 355,  note  593 

XVI.,  I5___ 409,  note  842 

XVI.,  33 409,  note  842 

XVII.,  II,  12 216,  note  296 

XVII.,  31 210,  note  288 

XIX.,  33,  34 135  ;  410,  note 

842. 

XX.,  17,  28 125,  note  2 

XX.,  28.76,  note  7;  89,  notes 

XXI.,  10-27.. ...xoi.  note. 

ROMANS. 

I.,  3 204,  note  263 

I.,  7-. 408,    note  842;  409^ 
note  842. 


Index  III.     Index  of  Scripture  Texts. 


477 


1.,  23,  25 236,  note  363. 

I.,  25 29,  note  15  ;  236, 

note  362. 

III.    12 376,  note  667 

III.,  13 467,  note  1194 

IV.,  14,  15,  16. -261,  note  398 

IV.,  18-21 452,  note  1094 

v.,  3,  4,  5- --.236,  note  354 

VIII.,  4 ..74,  note  7 

VIII.,  33,  34 311,  note  502 

VIII.,  34_.26i,  note  398,  ίΛνΐοε 

VIII.,  36 447,  note  1063 

IX.,  8- 277,  note  411 

X.,  2 215,  note  296 

XI.,  7-36 389,  note  747 

XI,,  19-24 277,  note  422 

XII.,  21 176,  note  174 

XIII.,  1-8 II,  note  40 

XV..  6 75,  note  4 

XVI.,  5 153,  noteSt 

XVI.,  17 74,  note  5 

I.  CORINTHIANS. 
I.,   2__i53,   note  81  ;    408, 
note  842 ;    409,   note 
842. 
I.,   2__conipared    Λν^Η    I. 
Corinthians  v.,  i,  and 
vi,    13-20 ;  409,    note 
842. 

I.,  5 --215,  note  296 

I.'  16 409,  note  842 

I.,  27.  28--.  .-410,  note  842 

II.,  6 78,  note  8 

II  ,  16 386 

III.,  6,  7 74,  note  6 

V,,  1-13 106,  note;  410, 

note  842, 
v.,  3  to  6_.9o,  note  6  ;  135  ; 
4iO(    note    S42 ;   440, 
note  1014. 

v.,  9-13 140.  note  16 

VI.,  II 134 

VI.,  9,  io__.35;  123,  note  i  ; 
201,  note  251. 


YI.,  II 40S,  note  842 

VI.,  20 29,  note  13 

VII.,  the  whole  chapter__442, 
note  1027. 

VII..  14 409,  note  842 

VII.,  39 409,  note  842 

VIII ...78,  note  6 

'VIII•.  4,  5.  6 331,  note  554 

IX.,  5 442,  note  1027 

IX.,  24 447,  note  1057 

X.,  13 449,  note  1073 

X.,  15 78,  note  6 

XI•.  17-34 409,  note  842 

XI.,  28 — 410,  note  842 

XII-,  8 2i5i  note  296 

XIV.,  37 --355.  note  592 

XV.,  20,  23 281,  note  433 

XV.,  47 — 209,  notes  279,  280 

XV.,  48,  49 209,  note  281 

XVI.,  I,  19 .153,  note  81 

XVI  ,  19 153,  note  81 

II.   CORINTHIANS. 

I.  I-153,  note  81;  408,  note 
842  ;  409,  note  842. 

II.,  1-12 106,  note;  410, 

note  842. 

11•.  5  to  12 135 

II.,  10 440,   note   1014 

II.,  10,  II 90,  note  6 

II.•  14 -—215,  note  296 

HI.,  i-io 411,  note  842 

III.,  11-14 411.  note  842 

III.,  13,  and  the -whole  chap- 
ter ;4ii,  note  842. 

IV.,  6 215,  note  296 

VI.,  6 215,  note  296 

VI.,  14 12,  note  ;  and 

13,  note.  ^ 

VI.,  14,  15,  16.. 409,  note 842. 

VIII.,  I 153,  note  81 

VIII.,  7 215.  note  266 

XI.,  5 92,  note 

XI.,  13 61,  note  I 

XII.,  II . 92,   note  χ 


4/3  Index  III.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 


GALATIANS. 

Ϊ••  I-2I — 150.  note  54 

I-i  7i  8,  9 61,  note  i 

I..  8,  9 74,  note  5 

I.,  22 153,  note  81 

H.,  9 103,  note 

II.,  II,  12 100,  note  3 

II.,  II,  14 100,  note 

II.,  II  and  after 128 

II.,  11-21 103,  note; 

vol.    III.,      16,     note 
61. 

II.,  12 100,  notes 

II.,  14 102,  note 

II.,  14-21 102,  note 

IV.,  3,  4,  5 204,  note  263 

IV.,  4 204,    note  263 

IV.,  5 3S6 

v.,  i__vol.  III.,  18,  note  68 
v.,  19-22.. 9,  note  33  ;  35  ; 
123,  note  i;  201,  note 
251• 

EPHESIANS. 

I. ,  I —compared  with  Eph- 
esians    iv.,    15  ;    409, 
note  842. 
I.,  i__coni pared  with  Eph- 
esians   iv.,    28  ;    409, 
note  842. 
I.,  I  - .  compared  with  Eph- 
esians  vi. ,  i ;  409,  note 
842. 
I.,  4,  to  Ephesians  11,  22  ; 
4x0,  note  842. 

I.,  17 215.  note  296 

I.,  21 205,  note  268 

II.,  i8-_. 261,  note  39S 

II.,  2o__66;  90,  note  6;  103, 
note;  135. 

II.,  20,  21,  22 103,    note 

III.,  9 329,   note    545 

IV.,  5.__ 25,  note  7 


IV.,  13 215.  note  296 

v.,  27 439,  note  1012 

VI.,  I,  compared  with  Eph- 
esians i  .  i;  409,  note 
842. 

VI.,  13 75,  note  10 

VI.,  13,  17 215.  note  296 

VI.,  14 76,  notes  2  and  3 

VI.,  17;  14,  note 40;  76,  note 
2;  305,  note  488. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

I.,  9 215,   note  296 

II•.  2 75,  note  4 

II•.  3 75.  note  5 

II.,  5  to  12 323;  325 

n.,7 386 

III.,  8 215,  note  296 

III.,  14 447,   note   1057 

III.,  17-21 74,  note  7 

COLOSSIANS. 

I.,  2,  compared  with  Col- 
ossians  iii.,  20;  409, 
note  842. 

I.,  16,  17 329,  note  545 

II.,  18. .201,  note  151;  240, 
note;  261,  note  398, 
twice;  312,  note  502; 
vol.  III.,  I,  note  5. 

II..  23 261,  note  398 

III.,  10 __  215,  note  296 

III.,  i2.._409,  note  842;  410, 

note  842. 
III.,  20,  compared  with  Col- 
ossians    i.,    2  ;    note 
842. 

IV.,  15 153,  note  81 

IV.,  18 466.   note   1187 

I.  THESSAEONIANS. 

Π•,5 68 

IV.,  3-9 409,    note  842 

IV.,  13-18 106,  note 


Index  III.     hide  χ  to  Scripture  Texts. 


479 


II.  THESSALONIANS. 

II.,  8 469,  note  1204 

III.,  14,  15,  etc 4401  note 

1014. 


I.  TIMOTHY. 

I.,  3 74.  notes 

I.,  13 loi,  note 

I.,  18,  19,  20 106,  note; 

410,  note  842. 
I.,  19,  20,  etc. . .90,  note  6» 

135• 

I.,  20 135;  140,  note  16; 

440,  note  1014. 

I.,  25 410,  note  842 

II.,  4 215,   note  296 

II..    5--261,  note  398;  311, 
note  502. 

III.,  2,  12 422,  note  1027 

III.,  15—31,  note  i;  66;  103, 
note  ;  175,  note  172  ; 
252,  note  387;  355, 
note  593  ;  435.  note 
990. 

IV.,  14-19 410,  note  842 

IV.,  16 75,   note  3 

IV•,  8.__ ...II,  note  40 

v.,  17 198,  note  237 

VI.,  3  to  6 440,  note  1014 


II.  TIMOTHY. 

II.,  15 17,  note  60 

II.,    16,     17,     18..  135;    140, 
note  16;  410,  note  842 

III.,  7 215,  note  296 

III.,  14 75.  note  3 

III.,   15,    16,    17. .216,  note 
296  ;  355,  note  592. 

III.,  v6 68,   note  4 

IV.,  2 176,    note   174 

IV.,  I4-I9__i35;  140,  note  16 


TITUS. 

I.,  I 410,   note  842 

I.,  6 442,  note  1027 

II.,  10 409,  note  84^ 

III.,  I — note  1094 

III.,  10.. 268;  279;  290,  note 
461;  440,  note  1014. 
vol.  III.,  41. 

PHILEMON. 
I.,  2 153,  note  8r 


HEBREWS. 

I.,  2 329,  note  545 

I.,  3.-28,  note  5;  329,  note 

543• 

I.,  5 327,  note  531 

I.,  6_.xiii.;  317;  318;  319, 
twice;  320,  twice;  321, 
note  516;  322;  323, 
twice  ;  324,  thrice  ; 
325,  thrice;  327,  note 
534;  328,  note  538;  331, 
note  555;  333. 

I.,  8-13 327,  note  534 

II.,  10 207,  note  276 

II.,  14-18 386 

III.,  I 447,  note  1062 

v.,  5 327»  note  531 

VI.,   19,   20    261,    note  398, 
twice. 

VII  ,  15-28 261,  note  398, 

VII.,  25. .261,  note  398;  311, 
note  502. 

VIII.,    1-6    inclusive 261, 

note  398. 

VIII,,  1-13 410,  note  842 

VIII.,  6-13  inclusive 411, 

note  842. 

IX.,  1-28 411,  note  842 

IX.,  3,  7-18 261,  note  398 

IX.,  7-28 312,  note  502 


48ο  Index  III.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 


IX.,    lo;  i6i,  note  11I--389, 
note  747;    411,    note 
842. 
IX.,  II,  12,  24.. 261,  note  398 

IX.,  23,  24 261,  note  398 

X.,  1-26 411,  note  842 

X.,  the  whole  chapter. .411, 
note  842. 

X.,  19-24 261,  note  398 

X.,  22 409,  note  842 

X.,  34 466,  note  1187 

XI.,  26 440,  note  1019 

XL,  37,  38 447,  note  1064 

XIII.,  3 466,  note  1187 

JAMES. 

I.,  12 236,  note  357 

III.,  1-12 409,  note  842 

III.,  8,  etc 447;  note  1194 

I.  PETER. 
I.,  18,  19 29,  note  13 

II.,  5. .125,  note  3;  vol.  III., 
36,  note  112. 

II.,  5,  9 73,  note  i;  109, 

note  5;  161,  note  iii; 
162,  note  III;  277, 
note  422;  389,  note 
747,  twice;  411,  note 
842;  429,note959;  vol. 
III.,  34.  note  106;  vol. 
III.,  36,  note  112. 

Π.,  9-389,  note  747;  408, 
note  842;  409,  note 
842  ;  411,  note  842, 
twice;  vol.  III.,  34, 
note  106;  vol.  III.,  36, 
note  112. 

m.,  8 75,  note  4 

III.,  21,  22 .106,  note 

v.,  I 125,  note  2 

v.,  I.  3 197,  note  237 

v.,  3—3,  note  8;  vol.  III., 
2,  note  13. 

v.,  13 99,  note  3. 


II.  PETER. 

I.,  5,8 215,  note  296 

;i.,  17 327,  note  532 

I. 19,  20,  21:  305,  note 

488;355,  note  592. 

II.,  I 29,  note  12 

II.,  1-22 61,  note  I 

III.,  13 106,  note 

III.,  16,  17,  18 305,  note 

488. 
III.,  18 215,  note  296 

I.  JOHN. 

II.,  1,2 261,  note  398 

v.,  7,  etc 75,  note   7 

II.  JOHN. 

I.,  I 125,  note  2 

I.,  II 12,  note 

JUDE. 
Verse  3 451,  note  1085 

REVELATIONS. 

I.,  2 305,  note  448 

I•,  3 —  355,   note  592 

I.,  5. -vol.  III.,  18,  note  68 
I.,  5,6-389,  note  747;  411 

note  842. 
I.,  6. .73,  note  i;  109,  note 
5;  161,   note  III;  429, 
note  959;  vol.  III..  36, 
note  112. 

II.,  2 6τ,  note  i;  89,  note 

at  top. 

III.,  9 389,  note  747 

III.,  12  103,  note 

IV.,  I 106,  note,  twice 

IV.,  I  to  v.,  14 106,  note 

IV.,  II 329,  note  545 

v.,  6,  9,  10 ic6,  note 

v.,  7 ..106,  note 

v.,  8,  9,  io_.4ii,  note  842, 
twice. 


Index  III.     Index  of  Scripture  Texts. 


481 


v.,  8-14 327,  note  534 

v.,  9. -vol.  III.,  18,  note  63 

v.,  9,  10 161,  note  III 

VL,  9,  10,  II 106,  note 

VI.,  10,  II 261,  note  398 

VII.,  9-12 327,  note  534 

VII.,  9-17 106,  note 

VIII.,  1-4 106,  note 

IX.,  13 106,  note 

XI.,  15 13.  note;  45;  46 

XI.,  19 106,  note 

XIV.,  3 106,  note 

XrV.,  17,  18 106,  note 

XVII.,  I 94,  note  4 

XVII.,  i-i8__2i6,  note  297;  vol. 
III.,  25,  note  96. 

XVII.,  5 94,  note  4 

XVII.,  14,  etc 410,  note  842 

XVII.,  18.  .94,  note  4;  123,  note 
i;  182,  note  183;  193, 
note  227;  254,  note: 
314;  411,  note  842; 
vol.  III.,  25,  note  96; 
vol.  III.,  34,  note  loC. 
XVIII., __i82,  note  183;  193,  note 
227;  314;  vol.  Ill  ,  25, 
note  96. 


XVIII. 

XIX, 
XIX 


XIX 
XX. 
XX, 

XXI 


XXI, 

XXII. 

XXII 
XXII, 


,4.-123,  note  i;  134;  254, 

note;   411,    note   842; 

vol.  III.,  34,  note  106, 

twice. 

,  1-4.. vol.  III.,  25,  note 

96. 
,  lo— 201,  note  251;  239, 
note;  240,  note;  261, 
note  398;  312,  note 
502;  328,  note  536; 
vol.  III.;  I,  note  5, 

,,  13,  16 75.  note  7 

,  1-7 411  ,  note  842 

,  xxi.,  xxii 106,  note 

,  8 34;  41,  note  i;  68, 

note  4;  123,  note  i;  9, 
note    33;   25,    note  i; 
201,  note  251. 
,,  14;  66;  90,  note  6;  103, 
note;  136. 

,  7 305,  note  48S;  355, 

note  592. 

.,  7,  8,  19 355,  note  592 

,,  8,  9--20I,  note  251;  239, 

note;  240,    note;  261, 

note  398; 312,  note  502, 

328,  note 536.,  vol.  III., 

I,  note  5. 


482 

INDEX  ΙΥ. 

INDEX  TO  GREEK  WORDS  AND  GREEK  EXPRESSIONS. 

The  Greek  is  so  mucli  that  we  cannot  attempt  to  index  it  all 
but  only  such  words  and  expressions  as  are  of  special  importance 
as  bearing  on  doctrine,  discipline,  or  rite.  Our  aim  is  to  omit  no 
such  word  or  expression. 

The  words  and  expressions  omitted  are  not  of  so  much  import- 
ance except  as  bearing  on  the  correctness  of  the  translation,  etc. 

The  English  of  single  words  of  the  Greek  will  be  found  with 
them  in  this  Index.  The  English  of  the  Greek  expressions,  when 
not  found  with  them,  will  be  found  on  the  pages  referred  to.  If 
often  or  generally,  only  one  case  of  a  noun  or  an  adjective  or  pro- 
noun is  given,  the  scholar  can  readily  understand  the  meaning  of 
the  other  cases  from  it.  So  when  one  part  of  a  verb,  participle,  or 
other  word  is  given. 

Sometimes  we  have  omitted  the  preposition  proper  to  the  case 
of  a  noun,  article,  pronoun,  or  adjective,  because  that  would  re- 
quire a  fuller  quotation  than  is  demanded  in  an  Index,  but  the 
reader  can  ordinarily  supply  it  by  turning  to  the  reference.  So  in 
the  case  of  verbs,  we  have  sometimes  for  the  same  reason  omitted 
to  quote  the  reference  in  it  in  a  fuller  form,  but  the  reader  can 
turn  to  it  himself. 

A. 

η  ά-γωτη<;  σου,  thy  holiness,  381 ,  note  705, 

άγ40ττ;το5,  of  holi7iess,  a  Byzantine  title;  79,  note  1. 

άγιωσυντ;,  holiness)  a  Byzantine  title:  τ^ν  υμίτίραν  άγιωσννην^  your  /wit- 
ness, 200,  note  246;  201,  notes  252  and  254;  307,  note  495. 

άμωτάτον,  of  the  viost  holy  (of  a  creature),  a  Byzantine  anti-New 
Testament  title;  95,  note  6;   112,  note  1. 

δ€σποτα  άγιώτατε.  Most  holy  Master  or  lord;  383,  note  714. 

άδελψόττ;?,  ^  υμετέρα,  your  Brotherlhiess ,  a.  title;  74,  note  2. 

aeLTrapOhOs,  evervirgin  (Mary);  33,  note  13:  S&&v^vovvTa<i,  34,  note  17. 

άθΐσμωζ,  wickedly;  456,  note  1114. 


Index  IV.     Index  to  Greek  Words  and  Greek  Expressions .     483 

sidKois,  Τ0Γ5,  ίο  ox  for  the  prizes,  the  rewards;  447,  note  1057;  451,  note 

1075. 
α.ΟνμίΛ<ζ,  from  sadness;  441,  note  1022. 
aipeaiuxi^  of  heresy;  15,  note  46. 
αΐτίαυς,  to  accusations;  151,  note  71. 
άκοίμητο<;,  slecplcss;  246. 
ακοίμητοι,  oi',  the  sleeplcss,  246. 

άκοινωι/ϊ^τους  γενέσθαι,  to  be  excommunicated;  53,  note  7. 
ά/ίοινωνι/τους  ■πίττονηκα.μΐ.ν ,  we  have  excomm,unicated  them,  or  put  them 

out  of  communion;  377,  note  671. 
ακοΧονθΊαν,  order;  148,  note  49;  151,  note  72. 
άκολοιί^ω?,  in  a  fit  manner;  274,  note  410. 
Κμβροσίον  βιβλίον      .      .      .      του  μακαρίου  'Αμβροσίου  nepl  της  του  Κυρίου 

(νανθρωτζήσίως,     δττερ     τα    ivavria     rots     αΊρ^τίκοΐζ     τούταις     Βώάσκιι 

κ€φα\αίοις,  344,  note  385;  381,  notes  702,  703:  '' a  little  book 
of  the  blessed  Ambrose  on  the  biman  of  the  Lord,  which  teaches 
things  opposed  to  those  heretical  chapters. ' '  Said  by  Nestorians 
against  St.  Cyril's  XII.  Chapters. 

Ανάγκη,  necessity;  7Γ"λλ^ς  ανάγκης  ϋς  τοντο  των  αρχόντων  ημάς  συνίλαυνονσης , 
though  the  rulers  are  using  great  violence  to  drive  us  to  it;  450, 
note  1084;  said  by  the  Ecumenical  Synod. 

ανακαινιστής,  renewer ;  14,  note  42;  and  15,  note  46. 

άναν€ώσαι,  to  renew  or  to  revive;  261,  note  395. 

αναφοράς,  of  the  Report,  1 14,  note  1 ;  άναφοραν  Θεοί),  the  offering  which 
belongs  to  God,  208,  note  278;  άναφοραν,  offeriyig,  relation, 
ibid.,  and  211,  note  285. 

άνύληφί,  took;  378,  note  676. 

dv€Tp€i/ie,  has  overturned;  435,  note  990. 

άν^/οωπολατρεύχ  worship  of  a  human  being;  IQ,  note  f2  ;  98,  note  3  ; 
130;  171,  note  154;  170,  note  146;  172,  note  159;  237, 
note  372  ;  άνθ<>ωΐΓολατρίίας  ττ'ΐραίτησις,  refusal  io  Worship  a  ma?i, 
227 ,  note  365  ;  Εϊ  yap  καΐ  κάμινον  άνάτΓΤΟυσιν  €~ίβουλοι,  ti  και 
φλόγας  Ι-γύρονσι  8υστροπία^  άνθρωττολατρίίαν  ήμΐν  (Ισφίροντίς,  αλλ* 
ημΰς  €χομίν  ®e6v  iv  ονρανω,  αντω  προσκυνησομεν.  ©eos  γαρ  ων 
φνσίΐ,  ytyovc  καθ'  ήμάί^,  ουκ  άττοβφληκως  το  etvai  ©cos,  τιμησας 
οέ      την     των     ανθρώπων      φνσιν'       δυνατός     Ιστιν     Ιζίλίσθαι     ημάς. 

"For  even  though  plotters  kindle  a  furnace,  and  though 


484  Index  IV.  to  Volume  II.  0/  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

they  wake  the  flames  of  perversity  by  bringing  in  to  us 
service  to  a  man,  nevertheless  we  have  a  God  in  heaven — we 
will  bow  to  [that  is  '  worship  ']  Him  [God  the  Word] .  For 
being  God  by  Nature  He  became  like  us,  not  casting  away 
His  being  God,  but  honoring  the  nature  of  men  [by  taking  it 
on  Him];  He  is  able  to  deliver  us;"  237,  note  371;  282,  note 
437;  283,  note  442;  312,  note  502;  the  Fifth  Ecumenical 
Synod  brands  Nestorius'  άνθρωπολατρύα^  that  is,  /lis  worship 
of  a  kmnan  beings  Christ' s  humanity,  as  a  crime,  393,  394: 
See  in  the  General  Index  to  vol.  I.  of  Nicaea  under  Cod, 
Logos  and  Man-  Worship,  and  in  its  Greek  Index  under 
άνθρωτΓολατρίία,  άνθρωπολατρέω,  and  άν^ρωττολάτρι^ξ,  and  άσφονσιν, 
and  under  the  same  first  three  terms  in  the  Indexes  to  volume 
I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set.  Compare  against  the  real  sub- 
stances presence  of  Christ's  Divinity  and  humanity  or  of  the 
real  stibstance  presence  of  either  of  them  in  the  Eucharist, 
and,  consequently,  against  the  worship  of  both  or  either  of 
those  substances  there  under  Eucharist  in  the  General  Index 
to  volume  I.  of  Ephesus,  and  words  specified  at  the  begin- 
ing  of  that  article,  and  Eucharist  in  the  General  Index  to 
volume  I.  of  Nicaea  and  ανθρωποφαγία  in  the  Greek  Index  to 
each  volume;  413,  note  845;  άνθρωττολατρύα^  455,  note  1113, 
and  vol.  III.,  10,  note  43;  vol.  III.,  41,  and  note  125  there, 
twice,  and  vol.  III.,  47. 

άνθρωπολάτρη•;,  a  worshipper  of  a  human  being;  237,  note  372;  282, 
note  437;  283,  note  442;  Nestorius,  so  called  by  the  ancients, 
393;  see,  also,  the  references  in  note  789,  page  397,  vol.  II. 
of  Ephesus  in  this  Set;  413,  note  845:  μόνον  δε  τόν  t^s  άθψίτου 
αίρΐσίωζ  των  ανθρΜττοΧατρων  κήρνκα  Νεστόριον  καθίλόντζζ,  '  *  we  have 
deposed  Nestorius  alone,  the  preacher  of  the  wicked  heresy 
of  the  Ma?i-servers,^'  that  is,  "  of  the  worshippers  of  a  human 
being,''  said  by  the  Fifth  Ecumenical  Council  of  those  who 
worshipped  Christ's  humanity,  and  much  more,  of  course, 
against  all  who  worship  saints,  angels,  or  any  other  crea- 
ture, 421,  note  911;  vol.  III.,  41,  note  125. 

αν^ρωττοτόκον ,  briuger  forth  of  a  man,  426,  note  944;  427,  note  944. 

άνθρωποφα-^ία,  eating  a  human  being,  that  is,  Cannibalism;  19,  note 


Index  IV.     Index  to  Greek  Words  and  Greek  Expressions.   485 

72\  98,  note  3;  130;  170,  note  146;  172,  note  159:  see,  also, 
under  ανθρωποφαγία^  and  άνθρωπολατρίία  iu  the  Greek  Index  to 
each  volume,  Nicaea,  and  volume  I.  of  Ephestis:  άνθρωττοφαγία, 
456,  note  1113,  and  vol.  III.,  10,  note  43;  vol.  III.,  41,  text 
and  note,  and  vol.  III.,  47. 

6  avo/nos,  i^e  lawless  one,  the  wicked  one:  469,  note  1204. 

ά|ιω/Λα,  ho7ior  ΟΓ  digjiity;  236,  note  359. 

ο^ιώ/Λατο5,  of  rank  or  dignity;  page  111,  note  3. 

αττε^ανον,  οί  πλ€ωυ?,  most  are  dead;  428,  note  949. 

άττόνοιαν,  mad?iess;  449,  note  1076. 

βποστασιας,  of  an  Apostasy;  143,  note  37;  η  'Αποστασία,  the  Apostasy, 
those  who  stood  aloof  horn  the  Ecumenical  Synod,  and  for  the 
Nestorian  Apostasy  to  denial  of  the  Incarnation  of  God  the 
Word,  and  to  the  Worship  of  a  htiman  being  {άνθρω-οΧατρίία) 
and  to  Cannibalism  on  the  Eucharist  {άνθρωποφαγία),212,  note; 
see  under  those  Greek  words:  τοτης  Αποστασίας  σννίΒοων,  the 
Council  of  the  Apostasy,  212,  note;  459,  nole  1127;  vol.  III., 
34,  note  101 :  αποστασίας,  of  the  Apostasy,  that  is  the  Conven- 
ticle of  John  of  Ephesus  and  himself,  vol.  III.,  23,  note  88 ; 
vol.  Hi.,  41,  note;  αυτόν  tc  τόν  «ίν^χον  τοΰ  τηζ  Αποστασίας 
σννώρίον  Ίωάννην,  "both  fohn  himself  the  leader  of  the 
Sanhedrim  of  the  Apostasy;''  465,  note  1172.  See  Αποστασία 
and  other  Greek  words  here  which  may  be  found  in  the 
Greek  Index  in  vt)l.  I.  of  Ephesus  in  this  set. 

άπ"στατ7;σαι/τ«5,  those  who  had  apostatized;  143,  notes  35,  37;  421, 
note  912;  άποσταττ/σα?,  having  stood  aloof,  or  haviyig  aposta- 
tized, ibid.;  άποστατησασιν,  the  [Bishops]  who  have  apostatized 
or  stood  aloof,  ibid.;  άποστατησαίεν,  may  have  apostatized,  or 
may  have  stood  aloof,  ibid. 
ο.ποστ(.ρΎ\σψ  mightcst  not  rob:  455,  note  1110. 

αποστολικό?,  δ  .  .  .  θρόνος,  the apostolic  .  .  .  throne {oi'R.OTS!^)', 
82,  note  2  (compare  68,  note  2);  69,  note  2;  82,  note  2;  146, 
and  notes  47  and  48  there;  άποστολίκικης  καθέδρας,  apostolic 
See:  100,  note;  1 12,  note  1 .  See  more  boasting  titles  applied 
to  Rome  by  its  bumptious  presbyter  Philip  there,  and  re- 
marks there  on  his  stilted  words.     See  παρά^σι%\   so  ^^  the 


486         Index  IV.  to  Volume  II,  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

apostolic  throne''   of  Jerusalem  is  mentioned  on  page  146, 

notes  47,  48. 
άπτομενον,  touches;  vol.  III.,  12,  note  55. 

άρχετυττω,  with  the  archetype;  see  άρχετύπω,  page  697,  vol.  I.  of  Ephe- 
sus in  this  Set. 
άρχίίττίσκοτΓΟ'ζ,  archbishop;    164,  note  124;   260,  note  394;   446,  note 

1050. 
αρχίίρονργω  Κυριλλω,  to  Cyril,  a  chief  worker  in  sacred  things;  467, 

note  1189. 
*Αρ;(ων,  ruler:   δια  των  ημ€τ4ρων  αρχόντων,  by  our  secular  officers,  470, 

note  1214  ;  άρχονσι,  to  the  Archons,  that  is,  rulers;  58,  second 

note  2. 
άσίβίίας,  τηζ,  of  the  impiety  (Nestorianism);  439,  note  1011. 

Β 

βαθμον,  grade;vo\.  II.,  page  111,  note  3;   142,  note  28. 

βαΧανύον,  του,  the  bath;  AAA,  note  1037. 

βα-πτισθύ<ϊ,  dipped,  baptized;  426,  note  941. 

βασιλίως  Κανσταντ:'νου,  Eniperor  C07istanti7ie ;  166,  note  131 .      Β^/σιλεων, 

καλλίνικων  Ύ\μων,  our  beautifully  victorious  Emperors;  140,  note 

17. 
/3δελυ|α/Α€ν77,  loathing  or  abominati7ig ;  433,  note  979. 
βφλία,  booklets;  \A2,  note  29;   153,  note  34. 
β<>νλ€ν€σθαι,  to  take  counsel;  425,  note  928.   • 


γεγον/ν«ι  εκ,  made  out  of;  204,  note  265.     It  is  a  marginal  reading. 

γενντ^^ε'ντα,  boril  ;   see  σαρκωθίντα. 

γζνόμ€νον  από  γυναικό?  ;  made  of  a  woman,  204,  note  265. 

yeVo?  εκλεκτόν,  chosen  race;  411,  note  842. 

γραμμάτων  βραχίων,  short  letters;  31 ,  note  4. 


Ιΐ,σμωται,  prisoners  in  fetters;  445,  note  1042. 
δεαττόττ/ϊ,  master;  των  Δεσποτών  ήμων,  our  Masters,  67,  note  2. 
διαιρουντα5,  Toiis,  thosc  who  Separate;  378,  note  680. 
διάκονος,  serva7it,  mi7iister;  183. 


Index  IV.     Index  to  Greek  IVords  and  Greek  Expressions.      487 

διδασκετωσαν,  let  thevt  teach,  that  is  tell;  143,    144,  note  38. 

StotKciv,  7na7iage,  rule;  76,  note  6. 

διοικι^σεω?,  of  a  civil  diocese;  253,  notes  388,   389.     See  ίπαρχίων ;  των 

άλλων  oioLKi'jaewv,  of  the  other  DioceseSy  vol.  III.,  17,  note  63. 
δόγ/Αασι,  decrees;  1 10,  note  4. 

Βομίστικο&,  one  of  the  imperial  body  guard;  291 ,  note  470. 
δυσιν,  WEST,  1 12,  note  1  ;  compare  φιίφον  and  Έκκληα-ία  :   8νσσφη  αντοΰ 
κηρύγματα,  his  [Mesl^orius']  impious  treachivgs;  vol.  II., '2,  note  6. 
Βυσσεβηθίντων  των  αντω,  the  impieties  com7nitted  by  him,   [Xestorius]  ; 

98,  note  2. 
δυσσε^ώς,  των  λΐ)φίντων  τταρ    αντον,  those  things  which  have  been  im- 
piously said  by  him;  98,  note  2. 

See  also  under  Nearopt"?. 
ΒύσφημΜ,  abusivc  OX  blasphemous:  144,  note  41. 

Ε 

ίγκώμίον  d<i  .  .  ,  Μαρίαν,  Encomium  OH  .  .  .  Mary;  32,  note  6  ;  40, 
top  note. 

ίκβιβαστά<ΐ,  ex^cuton ;  vol.  II.,  1 10,  note  3;  111,  note  2• 

Ιθίλοθΐ'ησκίία'ΐ  of  will  worship;  261,  note  398. 

άκόνα  γ^ρνστην,  golden  image;  236,  note  360 ;  κ<Α  προσκννίχν  τβ  cIkovi  τη 
χρνστ},  "  and  to  bow  to,'^  that  is  ''Ίο  worship  the  golden  image  ^^^ 
Daniel  iii.,  18  ;  237,  note  364  ;  άκόνι  an  image,  ayi  idol;  239. 

ΪΚ  του  Θ£οΰ  Ι^ηλθον,  I  came  oni  of  God;  75,  note  7. 

ΐκίίκά:,  defends;  157,  note  100. 

€κθ€σίζ,  a  Forthset,  a  Statement; 

έκθίσ€ΐ,  a  Forthset,  here  used  for  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  7,  note  28, 

twice ;  ίκθίσίν  τίνα  δσγ/χάτων  άσεβων,  ως  ev  τά^ει  συμβόλου 
συντΐ,θίΐμίνην ,  "α  certaiu  Forthset  of  impious  dogmas,  put  to- 
gether as  if  in  the  Order  of  a  Sy^nbol''  that  is  '' Creed,' ^  199, 
note  243  ;  the  same  Fl  7 thset  (ίκθίσίωζ)  is  mentioned  again, 
page  202,  note  257  ;  ΙκΟ^σιν  πίστεω?,  Forthset  or  Statement  of 
faith,  426,  notes  938,  942. 
εκκλησία  ;  the  Church,  κατά  τον  τύπον  πασών  των  Ικκλησιων,  επείδ» 
σνν(.στηκασίν  ΐ.ν  τοντω  ιερατικω  σνλΛογω  οιά  τε  των  παρόντων,  διά  re 
των    πρεσβευτών,  των    άπο  της  ανατολικής  Τ€  κΆ   Βντίκης  εκκλησίας  οΐ 

παρόντες  Ιερείς,  ' '  ΐ7ί  accordance  with  the  fundame7ital  decision  of 


488         Index  IV.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus^  and  part  of  III. 

^ — . . 

all  the  churches,  since  the  Priests  both  from  the  Eastern  Church 
and  from,  the  Westerii  Church  are  prese?it  and  stayid  together  in 
this  priestly  assembly  either  hi  person  or  bv  their  a7?ibas sudors;" 
112,  note  1,  where  we  find  the  representation  of 
the  Third  Synod  completed  by  the  arrival  and  co-operation 
and  utterances  of  representatives  of  the  West :  compare 
φήφον  and  δύσιν  ;  157,  note  100. 

ΐΚκΧησιαστικην  ΐτηστημην,   Church  science;  95,  note  1. 

ΙκκΚ-ησνιστικη'ί  evraiias,   the  good  discipline  of  the  Church;  382,  note 

713. 
εκκλησιαστικούς  Θίσμον<;,  ecclesiastical  Sanctions;  53,  note  5. 
cv.  in,  to,  into  ;  \φ,  note  51, 
ci/αν^ρωπι^σαντα,  put  0?l  a  man;    see  σαρκωΟίντα,    and     Αμβροσίου.      See 

also   Ινσωματώσεωζ,  below. 
ivepyeiv,  to  energize,  or  to  work  miracles;  78,  note  1 . 
Ένσω/χ,ατώσεω?,  putting  on  of  a  body;  Trept  τ^?  €νσωματώσ£ω<;  τον  \€σπ<'>του 

Χρίστου,  on  the  puiti?ig  ο?ι  of  a  body  by  the  Master  Christ ;  463, 

note  1 1 58.     See  ίνανΟρωττησαντα  above. 
€ντελλω,  /  command ;  των  ΙντίταλμΙνων  αυτυΐς,  things  commatided,  the 

commands  given  them,  121,  note  6. 
Ιντολην,  commaiid?ne7it;  74,  note  4. 
el  ϋδ'>ίτο5,  out  of  water;  vol.  III.,  35,  note  109. 
€παιν£τ05,  to  be  praised,  praiseworthy;  πάντα  μ\ν  τα  t^s  νμετίρας  βασιλν'ας 

cVatvcTa,  all  the  purposes  [or  ''affairs''^  of  yoiir  Imperiabiess 

are  to  be  praised;  462,  note  1145. 
€παναστανΓάς    .     .     .    τού^, /Λί  r<f^(?/5/ 451,  note  1088,  Said  of  John  of 

Antioch  and  his  fellow  creature-worshippers 

Ιηαργία.,  province;  Ik  διαφόρων  διοικϊ^σεων  koJ.  ΐπαρχιων,  out  of  different 
dioceses  and  provinces;  253,  note  389  ;  see  διοκ77σ£ω5  ;  381 ,  note 
706 ;  των  Ιγκαμά/ων  αυτω  επαρχιών,  the  provinces  represented  in 
it,  385,  note  7!24. 

€πισκόπου?,  overseers,  bishops;  76,  note  5  ;  125,  note  2  ;  436,  note  996; 
446,  note  1050. 

«πιστολάς,  Epistles  ;  7,  note  28  ;  69.  note  2. 

ίτίροοΰσιον,  difference  of  SJibstance;  379,  note  688. 

'EivayyiXiov,  τοϊ  άγιου  Εΰ'-ίγγελιΌυ  προκείμενου,  the  holy  Gospet  lying  forth; 
430,  note  962. 


hidex  IV.     Index  to  Greek  Words  and  Greek  Expresnons.    489 

€ναριθμ-ητων,  easily  counted;  151,  note  63. 

Evaefitca,  Piety  ;  νμ€Τ€ρα<;  Ευσέβειας,  your  Piety,  a  Byzantine  title  ;  45, 

note  2;  123,  note  3  ;  εΰσε/3ε:α9,  of  piety  or  of  religion;  AZ2y  note 

982  ;  436,'  note  994. 
Ευχαριστία,  the  Tha7iksgiving ,  that  is,  the  Lord's  Supper;   15,  note 

50. 
€ΰχ^5,  of  wish  or  of  prayer,  53,  note  4  ;  275,  note  414. 
ίυχορΛΐ,  I  wish,  I  pray;  126,  note  5. 

Η 

T^ytua/xcVoi?,  to  the  sanctified;  408,  note  842. 


θαλασσοθέα,  goddess  of  the  sea;  36,  note  22. 

^eif's,  divine;  289,  note  459  ;  ©etov  γράμμα,  divine  letter;  470,  notes 
1212,  1213;  θν.α.%  α.κοά.<ί,  divine  ears  (the  Emperors') ;  162,  note 
113.     See  under  Titles  in  the  General  Index. 

βί[Λτ•ί]%,  Divinity  ;  289,  note  459  :  r^s  τ^/χετερα?  θεωτητος,  of  our  Divinity , 
(the  Emperor's),  287,  note  453:  τ^ν  νμίτίρ'ΐν e(.LOTTqfTa,y ojir Divin- 
ity (said  to  the  Emperoi) ;  454,  note  1104.  See  under  Titles 
in  the  General  Index  2λΛ  in  the  General  Index  to  vol.  I.  of 
Ephesus. 

θεμίλιοζ,  6,  the  foundation ;  135,  text;  136. 

^eoA'iyos,  ό  .  .  .  Ίωάιντ;?,  GodlheWorder  John :  vol.  II.,  14, 
note  44. 

©e05,  God;  207,  note  275,  tA'ice  ;  Θεοί,  see  «κ. 

θΐασφίίας,  God  Reveringiiess ;  t^s  νμίύν  Οίοσφν.α%,  your  God  Revering- 
ness,  a  Byzantine  non-New  Testament  title;  93,  note  5;  471, 
note  1220. 

CkoTijs,  Divifiity;  η  Θεόττ;;  του  μονογί.νον<ί  Ύΐον  Θεοί  Ιτταθΐ.,  the  Divinity  of 
the  Sole  Borji  Son  of  God  suffered,''  a  Nestorian  lie  about 
Cyril's  opinions.  378,  note  675 :  see  the  Greek  of  note  677 
there  and  remarks  on  it,  and  note  679,  the  Greek,  and  note 
682 ,  and  under  Titles  in  the  General  Index, 


490         hidex  IV.  .ο  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 


^eoTOKi's  παρθένο<ί,  ή  ayta  Μαρία,  ί/ie  holy  Mary ^  the  Virgin  Bringer  Forth 
of  God ;  15,  note  45  ;  Θεοτόκο?,  Bringer  Forth  of  God^  32,  note 
6;  34,  note  17,  twice;  274;  217  note  422,  thrice;  282,  note 
438;  283,  notes  439,  441  and  442;  284,  note  443,  thrice  ;  in 
the  Greek  context  St.  Cyril  denies  indignantly  that  the 
Orthodox,  who  use  the  term,  worship  the  Virgin  or  make 
her  a  goddess,  as  they  would,  of  course,  by  praying  to  her 
or  giving  her  any  other  act  of  worship,  285,  307,  309.  See 
Twelve  Chapters,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  in  all  the  General 
Indexes  to  these  volumes:  the  Delegates  of  the  Apostasy 
ignore  the  term,  and  spend  their  whole  force  against  Cyril's 
XII.  Chapters,  340;  359;  392:  426,  note  943;  427,  note  944. 

θεοφιλέστατο?  most  dear  to  God,  (of  Cyril  of  Alexandria)  ;  7,  note  28. 

6€οφιλία,  God-belovedness ;  a  Byzantine  title,  y]  νμετίρα  θίοφίΚία,  your 
God-belovedness,  201,  note  253  ;  451,  note  1086. 

θίοφόρΐ,ω,  to  inspire  divitiely;  in  the  passive,  to  be  possessed  or  iyispired 
by  a  God;  284,  note  443,  twice. 

(>€οφόρησί<;,  inspiration;  284,  note  443. 

θεοφ6ρητο<;.  God-iuspired,  God-possessed;  284,  note  443. 

θίοφόρος,  God-borne  man,  God-i7ispired  man;  284,  note  443,  8  times  ; 

των  τριακοσίων  δεκαοκτώ  άγιων  θίοφόρων  πατψων,    the  J/8  holy  God- 

inspired  Fathers,  284,  note  443. 
Θεσ/Α'^ς,  law,  ordiyiance,  rule;  θεσμών,  των  της  εκκλησίας,  the  laws  of  the 

Church,  142,  note  26  ;  414,  note  857. 
θίσπισμα,  decree,  437,  note  1000;  θ(.σιζίσμχιτο<ί,  by  the  oracle  or  decree, 

96,  note  8. 
θρησκεία,  religion;  172,  note  158. 
θρύνοζ,  throne;  see  αποστολικές  ;  θρόνον,  κατά  /icti^ovos,  against  a  greater 

throne,  141,  note  24. 


Ίιρατικον  jSa^jaoi),  of  priestly  grade;  here  used  for  episcopal,  434,  note 

985:  ίερατικην,  priestly,  440,  note  1018. 
'Upiwv,  Priests;  199,  note  2  ;    110,  note  5;   τ('ΐ>  Χρίστου  ύρεΐς,  Priests 

ofChnst,  465,  note  1179. 
ΐ€ρωσννη<:,  τηζ,  the  Priesthood;  125,  note  3;  429,  note  959;  454,  note 

1103. 


Index  IV.     Index  to  Greek  Words  and  Greek  Expressions .     491 


Κ 

κα^αίρεσις,  deposition;  177 y  note  182. 

καθολικός,  Universal;  220,  note  314. 

καθολική,  Universal;  Universal  Church,  220,  note  314  ;  καθολίκη<; 
(πίστεως),  Universal  (faith),  69,  note  2;  71,  note  4  ;  194, 
note  231  ;  καινοφωνίας,  «ίίζ;*?//^  (Nestorianism);  16,  note  94. 

Κανών,  ca?lOfl,  rtlle;  Κανόνων,  o/ca?io?lS,  see  σύνταγμα;  κανών  άπ'^στολ.'κν? 
or  €κκλησιαστίκο<»  ΟΓ  αρχαίος,  that  is  the  apostolic  ΟΓ  ecclesiastical  OX 
ancient  rule;  vol.  III.,  3,  note  ;  canon  VII.  of  Ephesus,  Greek 
and  English,  is  found  on  pages  222-22'S,  vol.  II,  af  Ephesus, 
and  on  pages  30,  31,  vol.  III.  of  it,  and  its  canon  VIII.  in 
vol.  III.  of  it,  on  pages  12-21  ;and  the  Greek  of  it  in  note  73 
on  page  21,  and  the  Greek  and  English  on  pages  31,  33  and 
pages  opposite  to  them  ;  and  the  Greek  and  English  of  all 
the  VIII.  Canons  of  Ephesus  are  found  in  the  same  volume 
III.,  pages  25-33. 
*  κίκρψίνα.  Decisions;  κίκριμενα,  τα  βφαιωσαι,  to  confirm,  or  to  make fitvt 
the  Decisio7is,  95/  note  5. 

Κεφάλαια,  Chapters;  Κεφ'^λαιΌις,  to  The  [XII  ]  Chapters ;  see 
Ά/Α/3ροσιΌυ, 

κλετΓτων  stealing:  Ό  κλί-των  μηκίτι  κλεπτετ.»^  let  him  thai  stealeth  steal 
no  more,  409,  note  842, 

κληηικοί,  clerics;  150/  note  53. 

κλήρων,  των,  the  possessiofis,  or  the  inheritatices,  3,  note  8. 

Κορυφή,  Snmmitness,  Headship,  E^ninence;  τήν  νμ^τίραν  κορνφην  your 
Snmmityiess,  your  Emine-nce,  yoiir  Headship,  Λ52,  noio.  1097; 
τήν  φιλόχριστον  νμων  .  .  .  κορνφήν,  your  Christ- lovillg 
Headship,  462,  note  1146. 

κράτους,  of\yo\xr\  Mightiness  (a  title);  4,  note  10;  1 14,  note  2,  of  the 
gathering  of  the  Third  Synod  by  the  Emperors. 

κρΊσίΐ,  jtidgment;  113,  note  3;  122,  note  1. 

κα^ε'δρας,  of  the  \^Apostolic\  See  ;  see  αποστολικό?. 

\<ακό%,  layman  ;  λαϊκοΐ$,  to  the  laics,  vol.  III.,  22  ;  note  78,  on  page 
23. 

τον  λαόν,  the  people,  the  laity;  424,  note  924  ;  447,  note  1050  ;  vol. 
III.,  23,  note  84. 


49•2          Index  IV.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

λάρνα$,  crffer,  or  chest,  or  coffin,  εφιε/χ,ενοι?  Se  πάσας  τας  των  άγ:'ων  και 
καλλίνικων  μΑΐ/'τνρων  ττίΐηπτύ^ίσθ /χ  λάρνακας,   ί^'//;^  Λ   strong  deure 

to  embrace  all  the  coffins  \or  coffers^  of  the  holy  and  glori- 
ously triicmphant  viariyrs,  59,  note  1 . 

λείψανα  ;  ου  τα  XtL\pJ.va  TrapoVres  τετιμήκατί,  whose  remai7is  [John  the 
Evangelist's]  ye,  being preseiit,  have  honored,  77 ,  note  3. 

λϊ/γάτον,  legate,  68,  note  3  ;   110,  note  7. 

A^^ts,   lot ;  ToO  T^5  ^et'/s  Xrj^t(ji<i,  Κωνσταντίνου,  Co7lstanti7ie  [the  Great, 

the  Emperor]  ^///^  divine  lot,  2S7 ,  note  450. 

λίβΐΧΚοι,  little  books,  statements,  138,  note  1;  139,  note  8;  165,  note 
127;   199,  note  244;  250,  note  381;  251,  note  384. 

Xoyo<;,  word;  €ι%  του?  λόγου?  .  .  .  ελ^εΐν,  to  come  to  a  discussion; 
471,  note  1216. 

\νμ.τ^,  defileme^it  or  riiiyi;  376,  note  668. 

M. 

Μακαριότϊ;?,  Blessedness:  τ^?  υμετέρας  μακαριότητο<ϊ ,  of  yo7ir  BlcssednesSy 

a  Byzantine  title,  89,  note  1 .  It  was  given  to  the  Ecumenical 

Council;  96,  note  1. 
Μαρ6α,  Jllary,    iv  rfj  μζγάΧτι  ΐκκλησία   rrj  καΧονμΙντ^    άγια  Μαρία,    "  Ι7ΐ   the 

great  church  which  is  called  the  holy  Mary,''  413,  note  853. 
ΜαρτΓνο9,  ό  τί}?  Μεδιολάι/^ν  Ιτησκοττοζ,  Marti7i,  the  Bishop  of  the  Church 

of  Milan;  344,  note  585. 
/Λ0λΐ5,  rehicia7itly ;   140,  note  18. 

/LicTci  δε  τούτο,  besides  that,  or  thirdly;  440,  note  1016. 
/movoyev^,  rov,  the  Sole  Bom;  202,  note  255;  203,  note  259;  325,  note 

52e. 

Ν 

"Searopiov,  τον  άνοσίον,  of  the  tuiholy  Nestorius;  18,  note  68;  Νεστόριο? 
ό  r^5  K«iv^s  διαστροφή•;  αρχηγός,  NestoriuS      .      .       .      the 

author  of  the  new  perversity,   107,  note  1.     See,  also,  under 
words   commencing   with    δυ?  ;     τοΰ   φρονήματος  τοΰ   ΝεστοριΌυ 
the  opinions,  or  mind,  or  way  oj  thinki7ig  of  Nestorius,  440. 
note  1017. 
wv/xari,  by  the  nod,  decree;  163,  note  117. 


Index  IV.     Index  to  Greek  Words  and  Greek  Expre'^sioyis.    493 


νεωτίρΐιζω  ;  /  innovate;  άφ"  ων  «νεωτέρισε,   from  the  imiovatio7is  which 

he  [Nestorius]  has  made,  151,  note  65.  The  same  language 

is  used  of  John  of  Antioch  and  his  errors,   152,  note  76. 
He  was  a  Nestorian. 

Ο 

οίκειωσασθαι,  to  appropriate:  282,  note  437. 

<)ίκονι>μο<;,  steward;  οικονόμοις,  to  the  Stewards,  1 ,  note  4. 

οίκονομίκψ  oiKCLwaLv,  economic  appropriation ;  282,  note  437. 

οΙκονμ€νικην  σΰνοΒον,  Ecumenical  Synod:  146,  note  48;  151,  note  72', 
164,  note  124. 

ομιλιών,  of  homilies;  211 ,  note  422. 

ομοονσιο'ζ,  of  the  same  substance;  note  730,  page  386,  vol  IT.  of  Ephe- 
SUS  in  this  Set,  ονκ  άνθρωττοζ,  άλΧ  ά><;  ανθρίοτΓος  διότι  ουχ^  όμο'>νσιο<ί 
τω  α.νθρώιτ(ΐ>  κατά  το  κυρκύτατον;  ^^  He  is  not  a  man,  but  like  a 
maji  hecause  He  is  7iot  of  the  same  sicbstance  with  77ian  as 
respects  the  chief  thing''  [the  mind];  Apollinarius'  heretical 
language,  for  while  he  admitted  that  Christ's  humanity  had 
a  body  and  a  soul  he  denied  that  he  had  a  human  mind. 

TO  ομοονσιον Ιστ-ψί,  "he  [Athanasius]  established  the  doctrine  of  the 
same  Substa^ice,'"  469,  note  1206. 

^OpQoh'iiiv,  την,  the  right  doctrine;  219,  note  305. 

Όρ^οδοίο5,  Orthodox,  of  right  faith;  220,  note  314;  421,  note  911. 

ορισθίντα,  τά,  the  things  decreed;  96,  note  3;   112,  note  1. 

ορκίζοντνί,  adjuring,  or  sweating  you;   142,  note  29  and  31 . 

opoi9,  decisions;   1 10,  note  1 . 

όσΐ'ίττ;?,  holiness,  a  Byzantine  non-New  Testament  title;  tjJ  ΰρ,ετερα 
οσυ'ηψι,  to  your  Holiness,  200,  note  247;  201,  note  25J, 
twice. 

Π 

ττάΒ-ΐ],  S7^fferi7igs;  τα  κοινά  ττάθη,  the  commo7i  sufferiJigs,  vol.  III.,  14, 

note  57;   see  πάσ;^ει  and  συμπάσχε  there. 
-ιταΧαισμάτων,  των,  of  the  wrestler' s  arts;  449,  note  1072. 
τταναγιοις,  to  the  all  holy;  446,  note  1049. 

ττανονρ•^ω<ί,  by  every  means,  or  villainously,  or  craftily;  384,  note  719. 
ιτάττας     .     .     .     Κελεστΐνο5,  Father,  OX  Pope  Celesti7ie;  69,  note  2;  93, 

note  1;  95,  note  6. 


494  Index  IV.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

■najnTiuv,  grandfathers,  ox  ancestors,;  106,  note  1. 

παρά,  its  meaning;  besides,  οτ  contrary  to,  223,  note  322,  twice;  459, 
note  1126. 

τταράδοσις ;  transmission,  tradition;  των  πατρικών  7Γαραδόσ£ων  of  the 
Fathers^  Transmissiojis,  109.  note  4;  καί  τών  εϋα/'γελικών  καΐ  τών 
αποστολικών  παραδ"σ£ων,  of  the  Gospel  ayid  the  Apostolic  Tra7lS- 
missions,  109,  note  5;  146,  note  48;  την  re  ευαγγελικών  και 
ατΓοστοΧικην  π'/ράδοσιν  t^s  πιστεω?,  both  the  Gospel  and  Apostolic 
transmission  of  the  faifh,  198,  note  240,  and  199,  note  243. 

ταροφΟύη,  neglected,  or  overlooked;  46 1 ,  note  1 1 36. 

Ίταρρησία,  confidence;  159,  note  104  ; 

particeyi,  its  meaning  is  not  clear,  279.     Is  it  Greek  ? 

•παρών,  present;  see  χ,οιστ'ίς, 

πατήρ.  Father;  εκ  Ύίατίρων,  from  the  Fathers;  452,  note  1093. 

πίστι%,  faith;  222,  note  321  ;  224,  notes  323  and  324  ;  τ/,ν  .  .  . 
πίστιν,  the  faith,  56,  note  1  ;  170,  note  149 ;  εν  Νίκαια,  iji  or  at 
Nicaea,  or  of  F^icaea,  ibid.,  and  223,  note  322  ;  223  ;  see 
under  παράδοσι?  ;  πάρα  την  (-ι'στιν),  contrary  to  the  faith,  223, 
note  322;  how  tlie  words  ίτψαν  πι'στιν,  ^'  a?iother  faith" 
contrary  to  the  Nicene  faith  are  to  be  understood,  223,  note 
322  ;  compare  222,  note  321 ;  oi  yap  ενεδεχετο  άνδρΊ  [Nestorius] 
τοιαύτα  κηρνζαντι  (πασαν  γαρ  hiiaTpt\p(.  [Nestorius]  τ^ν  οίκονμίνψ 
και  τ^ν  θρησκενομίνην  των  'Εκκλησιών  παρελυσε  πιστιν)  χα/ιίσασθα'• 
σνγγνώμην,  "  for  it  was  not  possible  to  grant  pardon  to  a 
man  who  has  preached  such  things.  For  he  has  perverted 
all  the  inhabited  world,  and  has  done  away  the  worshipping 
faith  of  the  Churches,''  412,  note  844. 

Πνεί5ρ,α,  TO,  το  εκ  Θεού  ''  the  Spirit  who  came  out  of  God,'"  203,  note 
260. 

συν  Άγιω  Πνευ/οιατι,  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  note  322,  page  223. 

πράγματα,  affairs;  157,  note  99,  100. 

πρακτικον  τη<ί  Ύρίτη^  2υνόδου,  the  Acfs  of  the  Third  Sy?iod ;  246. 

πράσσω,  /  do  ;  τα  ί'σα   των  πεπραγμένων,   copies  of  the  things  done,    19, 

note  71. 
πρεσ/3εια9,  of  a7i  embassy  ;   110,  note  7. 
πρεσβευτών,  of  ambassadors  or  of  legates,  67,  note  4  ;  68,  note  4  ;  70, 

notes  1  and  2. 


hidex  IV.     Index  to  Greek  Words  arid  Greek  Expresnons.    495 

πρίσβντεροις,  to  the  Presbyters,  that  is  to  the  Elders ;  1,  note  3  ;   125, 

nole  2  ;  vol.  III.  23,  notes  77  and  83. 
trpo,    before;  ττρο  τριών  δλων  -ήμερων  τη<;   άγίαζ   συνόδου,    three  whole  days 

before  the  holy  Synod,  8,  note  30. 

irp'5yovo5,  aricestor;  προγ>νων,  of  ancestors;  456,  note  1116. 

πρόεδρος,  \\\.QX2\\y ,  fore  sitter,  h.^uc&  Bishop,  preside7it;  κ'Λ  ττροίΒρων  της 
εκκλησίας,  Κυρίλλου  καιΜερ,ννος,  arid  For esitters  (or  Chief  Bishops 
or  Presidents)  of  the  Church,  Cyril  and  Memnori,  162,  note 
112;  των  ημετψοιν  ττροεδρων,  oiir  Foresitters,  that  is  Preside?iis 
(Cyril  and  Memnon),  422,  note  915;  441,  note  1022;  460, 
note  1135. 

Ίτροσκννίω,  I  boiv,  and  as  bowing  is  a  part  of  every  act  of  worship 
the  word  became  the  common  term  in  the  New  Testament 
and  in  the  whole  Church  from  the  beginning  for  every  act 
of  religious  service;  I  bow,  I  worship. 

Ίτριισκνί'ησωμΐν  τον  Θεόν  Aoyov,  let  US  bow  to,  that  is,  let  7iS  Worship  God 
the  IVordy  27,  note  3  ;  ττροσκννησάτωσαν  uvTw,  let  them  [the 
angels]  worship  Hirn.  318,  note  514;  -π-ροσκυναν  την  ίνότητα  to 
worship  the  unity,  32,  note  7;  δι  ^5  [Mary]  στανρος  τίμως 
ονομ'/ζίται  κ'Λ  ηροσκννίίταί,  δι  ^s  8'/-ίμονε<:  φυγαδεύονται  ''through 
whom  [Mary]  the  cross  is  called  precious  and  is  worshipped, 
through  whom  demons  are  put  to  flight,^''  a  spurious  and 
idolatrous  and  blasphemous  Homily  or  Encomium  on  the 
Virgin  Mary  falsely  and  slanderously  ascribed  to  Cyril  by 
some  impostor,  or  ignoramus,  32,  note  11.  See  V^owtos. 
^ροσ-κυ'ντ/σις,  bowing,  and  hence  commonly  yc'r  every  act  of  worship,  for 
we  bow  in  every  such  act  of  religious  service,  be  it  prayer, 
kneeling,  bowing,  prostration  or  any  other. 

It  is  used  oi  mere  human  respect  only,  70,  note  3:  see  on 
that  Chrystal's  little  work  entitled  Creature  Worship,  page 
10,  particularly  'V." 
ττροσκννησις,  bowing,  of  religion  or  worship,  76,  note  10;  ττροσκννησίως 
of  [true]  worship,  of  [true]  religion,  as  opposed  to  Nestori- 
anism;  177,  note  182;  meaning  of  προσκννίω,  ττ/Όσκυνησις  and 
προσκννητός,  205,  note  269. 

Relative  Worship  and  Creature  Worship  are  in  the  Nesto- 
torian  Creed  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  as  follows:     την  πάρα 


496  hidex  IV.  to  Volume  II.  oj  Ephesus^  and  part  of  III. 

ττάσης  της  κτΐσίως  Βεχ^ταί  [ChriSt'S  humanityj  ΤΓροσκννιησιν ,  ώ? 
άχωρίστον  ττροΐ  tyjv  θίύιν  φνσιν  €χων  την  σννάφειαν ,  άναφο'ΐα  Θεοΰ,  και 
έννοια,  ττάσης  αΰτω  T^s  κτίσεως  την  ~ροσκννησίν  άπονεμονσης ;  ' '  /le 
[that  is,  the  mere  Man]  receives  worship  from  every  creature 
071  the  ground  of  his  having  that  inseparable  [external]  con- 
jwiction  with  the  divine  Nature,  every  creature  re^idering  that 
worship  to  him  [that  is,  to  the  mere  man,  Christ's  humanity], 
by  reference  to  God,  and  i?t  coiisideration  of  God  [the  Word] , 
206,  note  274.  On  the  ground  of  the  same  alleged  external 
conjunction,  the  same  Relative  Worship  of  Christ's  human- 
ity, that  is  Man-worship,  that  is  Creatjire  worship  is  taught 
further  on  in  the  same  Creed  of  Theodore  in  the  following 
words:  iropi-^u  Se  rnxiv  iv  rrj  ττροζ  τον  ®t6v  Λόγον  σνναφαα  ~ασαν 
6;(£ΐν  ο.ντον  την  ττίστιν  και  cvvol'/v  και  την  Otopiav  νπίρ  ων  οη  και  τήν 
ττροσκννησιν,    Κ'Χ    άνιφορ•ιν    ©eou   ~αρα   ■πάσηs   Βίχίται   τη^    κτίσεως: 

"  It  enables  us  to  have  all  the  faith  and  the  thought  and  the 
consideration  regarding  him  [that  is  regarding  Christ's 
mere  humanity]  in  his  [the  mere  Man's  external]  conjunc- 
tion with  God  the  Word,  for  which  reasons  he  [that  is  the 
mere  Man,  Christ's  humanity]  receives  from  every  creature 
both  the  worship  and  the  offerijig  which  belong  to  God,''  208, 
note  278:  see  there  more  fully.  That  is  the  Nestor ian  heresy 
that  the  peculiar  prerogatives  and  properties  of  Christ's 
divinity  such  as  worship,  etc.,  may  be  communicated  to  or 
asserted  of  His  humanity;  that,  of  course,  ends  in  the  wor- 
ship of  a  creature  contrary  to  Cyril's  favorite  texts,  Mat- 
thew IV.,  10,  Isaiah,  XLII.,  8,  and  Psalm  LXXXt.,  9.  The 
Ecumenically  approved  doctrine  of  St.  Athanasius  and  of 
his  pupil,  St.  C3'ril  of  Alexandria,  that  we  may  eco?ioniically 
appropriate  the  things  of  the  man  put  on  by  God  the  Word  to 
Him — that  is  to  God  the  Word — to  avoid  worshipping  that 
man,  the  sin  of  what  St,  Cyril  calls  ανθρωττολατρύα,  that  is 
the  worship  of  a  huma?i  being,  contradicts  no  text  of  Holy 
Scripture:  see  Economic  Appropriatio7i,  page  445,  volume 
I.  oiNicaea,  and  in  volume  I.  of  Ephesus  the  same  expression, 
pages  602,  603,  and  Appropriatio7i  on  page  573,  and  under  the 
same  terms,  where  found,  in  the  General  Index  to  this  vol- 


Index  IV.     Index  ίο  Greek  Words  and  Greek  Expressions.    497 


umelll.    See,  also,  on  page  720  of  volume  I.  of  Ephesus,  under 

οίκαώσασθαι,  and  οίκανομικην  οίκζίωσιν,  and  οικονομικώς^  and  Under 

οίκαωσασθαι  and  οίκονομικην  οίκύωσιν  in  the  Greek  Index  to  this 
volume.  %χίτικη  ιτροσκννησις,  relative  worships  208,  note  278; 
ττροσκννασθ'ίΐ,  to  be  worshipped,  the  relative  worship  of  Theo- 
dore condemned  in  Anathema  XII.  of  the  Fifth  Ecumenical 
Council,  238, 239,  note  377.  See,  also,  under άν^ρωπολατρεια;  τον 
ττροσκννψον  Θε'^ν,  the  God  who  is  to  be  worshipped;  447,  note 
1065.  Η  σαρξ  τι>ΰ  Κυρίου  προσκυνείται,  καΟα.  "ίν  εστί  -πρόσωπον  καϊ 
%ν  ζώον  μ€Τ    αυτόν.       MrjSkv  πο.ημα  προσκννητον  μετά  του  Κν/ιίον,  ώ? 

η  σαρξ  αϋτον;  the  flesh  of  the  Lord  is  to  be  worshipped,  foras- 
rmich  as  it  is  one  Perso7i  and  one  living  being  with  Him. 
Nothing  made  is  to  be  worshipped  with  the  Lord  as  His  flesh 
is,  386,  and  note  729  there.  The  above  is  the  language  o. 
Apollinarius  the  heretic. 

ιτρόσωπιιν;  perso7i;  Πατίρα  τίΧίΐον  προσωπ(ο,  a  Father  perfect  in  Person  , 
204,  note  261. 

τον  Πρωτότ"Κ"ΐ',  the  First  Brought  Forth,  318,  note  513;   325,  note  528 

πρώτων,  theflrst  [^Bishops^ ,  165. 

ντωχών,  ο/ the  beggars,  or  of  the  poor ,  432,  note  969. 

Ρ 
*Τ(ί>μη,  Rome;  τ^?  μί-γίστης  'Ρώμψ,  ο/  the  greatest  Pome,  458,  note  1 122. 


2  ^- 


σάκοα,  for  the  Latin  sacra,  sacred,  here  imperial,  275,  note  4 13;  286, 
notes  444,  445;  287,  note  452;  288,  notes  454,  455;  289. 
note  459;  290,  notes  460,  466;  301,  note  481;  419,  notes898, 
899. 

σηρκνύθίντα,  yewrjOevTa  ck  της  άγιας  παρθένου,  ενανθρωττησαντα,  put  Οη  flesh, 

and  having  put  on  a  mail  was  born  out  of  the  holy  Virgiyi,  202,  note 

255. 
σκαιότ?^το5,  bungli^ig,  or  evil,  said  of  Nestorian  Man-worship,  240, 

note. 
σκ^τΓτρον  T^5  όρ6οδο|ύΐ5,  sceptre  of  Orthodoxy ,  32,  note  9  (spurious). 


498  Index  IV.  to  Volume  II.  0/  Ephesus,  and  part  of  III. 

σταυρό?     .     .     .     προσκυνείται,   ike  cross  is  worshipped,   32,  note  11, 

spurious  and  blasphemous  and  idolatrous. 
avXkiiTovpyov,  fellow-minister;  3C,  note  21. 
σύμβολον,  Symbol^  Creed;  see  Ικ^εσις ;  σίμβοΧον,  Creed,  222,  note  321. 

See,   also,  under  σύμβολον,  page  754,  vol.  I.  of  Ephesus  in 

this  Set. 
σύμβολον,  the  bread  of  the  Lord' s  Stipper;  and  σνμβολα,  the  Symbols  in 

the  Lord's  Supper:  see  σύμβολον,  page  755,  vol.  I.  of  Ephe- 

stis  in  this  Set. 
σνμττρζ.σβντίΐ>οι%,  fellow  presbyters,  that  \s,  fellow  elders;  125,  note  2. 
συνί'δριον.  Council,  or  Sanhedrim:  see  αποστασία, 
αννίττίσκοπον,  fellow-bishop;  36,  note  21. 
'^vvitpaTviiiu,  I  CO-pritst;   κΆ  συνιερατευοντας  avro'i'i,  ajld  we  C0-priest\i\l2^, 

is,  CO- Minister, '\  with  them,  466,  note  1186,  said  by  the  Synod 

to  the  Emperors  regarding  Cyril  and  Memnon. 

σνν<^ο%,  A  Synod;  την  τ€  άκρίβίίαν  του   συνοδού  και  τ^ν  €.νσ(.βίνα.ν,  both  the 

exactitude  (or  accuracy)  and  piety  of  the  Synod,  173,  note  162. 
The  Ecumenical  Synod,  in  pleading  to  the  Emperors 
for  the  release  of  their  imprisoned  leaders,  Cyril  and  Mem- 
non write:  Χν'ιμίθα  τοίννν  του  νμίτίρου  κράτους,  λύσατε  και  ημα<ϊ 
αυτού?  των  δεσρών.  ^υνδεδερε^'/  γαρ  τοις  δεδομένοι? ,  ώ?  αδελφοί?  και 
προε'δροι?  τη<;  άγια?  ημών  2υν'5δου,  "  We  beg,  therefore,  your 
Mighii?iess  release  us  also  from  bo7ids.  For  we  have  been  bou7id 
with  those  who  have  bee?i  boimd  for  being  brethren  ayid  Pres- 
idents of  our  Holy  Synod;''    466,  note  1 187. 

^υνταγ/Αα  των  Κανόνων,  Collection,  ΟΓ  Arrajigment  of  the  Canons  by 
Ralle  and  Potle;  225,  note  426. 

σνννπίκρίθησαν  αυτω,  played  the  kypocHte  with  him;  101 ,  note. 

σχεσι?,  relation;  208,  note  278,  twice. 

σχετικι;,  relative;  208,  note  278.  The  Greek  of  Theodore  of  Mopsu- 
estia's  Ecumenically  condemned  heresy  of  the  relative  wor- 
ship of  Christ's  humanity  is  on  pages  210-212,  note  285, 
and  its  English  on  pages  202-210. 

σχολή,  oyie  of  the  divisions  of  the  i7nperial palace  guard;  291,  note  471. 

2ωτί7ρο?  Χρίστου,  the  Anointed  Saviour;  140,  note  15. 


Index  IV.     Index  to  Greek  Words  and  Greek  Expressioyis .     499 


τ  a  βονλάμιοι,  public  registrars;  150,  note  53. 

roi^t?,  our  order;  111,  note  3:  see  βαθμών. 

τίτολμημζνα,  audacious  actions;  151,  note  156. 

T,««is,  the  Trinity;  81  ης  Τριάς  αγιάζεται,  through  whom  [Mary]  the 
Trinity  is  sanctified;  32,  note  10;  blasphemy  iu  a  spurious 
Homily:  the  Tri-Personality  of  God  is  treated  at  some 
length  in  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia's  Creed;  the  Greek  of 
which  is  found  in  note  285,  pages  210-212  of  volume  II., 
but  it  is  too  long  to  quote  here.  The  English  of  it  is  on 
pages  202-210  there. 

τρικυμία;     .     .     .     /;/  a  Sea;  437,  note  1003. 

τνποζ,  form,  decree;  80,  note;  82.  note  2;  84,  note  1;  97,  note  2; 
107;    110,    note   2;     τους  της  νμετ^ραζ   ίνσίβίίας      .      .       .      τνττονς, 

the  decrees  0/ your  Piety,  said  by  Nestorians  to  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  II. ;  252,  note  386. 


νΙός,  Son;  207,  note  275. 

νμνοννταςτην  άίίπαρθίνον  Μαρίάν,  δϊ^λονότι  τήν  άγίαν  ΙκκΧησίαν,  κ'ά  τον  ταύτης 
Υίόν,  etc.,  hym?iing  the  ever- Virgin  Mary,  that  is,  the  holy 
Church  and  her  Son,  etc.;  33,  note  13;  part  of  a  spurious 
Homily. 

νττατα'α,  C07lS^ilship ;  ftera  την  υττατΐίαν,  in  the  time  of  the  consulship;  67, 
note  2;  94,  note  1;  in  the  time  0/ the  consulship  of  our  Mas- 
ters; 153,  note  79. 

των  ντταχθέντων  vvv  iv  τη  νλάνη,  those  who  have  now  bee7i  dragged  under 
171  that  error;  435,  note  988. 

υποκρίσα,  with  or  by  hypocrisy;  1 00,  note. 

Φ 

φιΧοχρίστω  Βασιλει  ημών,  our  Christ-loving  Emperor;  385,  note  722. 
φρονίω,  I  think;  τονς  ίξω  τοντο  φρονησαντας,  those  who  think  otherwise^ 
114,  note  7. 


5oo         Index  IV.  to  Volume  II.  of  Ephesus ,  and  part  of  III. 

φνσκ,  nature:  Mta  Se  σνγκράτω  rrj  φνσίΐ  ανθρωπον  τον  Κυριον  λίγομεν,  μια 
δέ  συγκράτψ  rrj  φύσα  σαρκική  τε  και  θάκτ);  We  call  the  Lord  a 
mail  with  a  vibigled  nature,  even  one  ?iature  of  flesh  and  Divin- 
ity mingled  together;  Apollinarius'  heretical  language;  note 
731,  page  386,  vol.  II.  of  Ephesus  in  this  Set.  Compare 
what  is  said  on  Polemius  in  the  note  731  just  mentioned, 
and  see,  also,  the  article  Apollinarius  in  Blunt' s  Dictionary 
of  Sects. 

X 

χαρακτηρ  τηζ  υποστάσεως  αίιτοΰ,  Character  of  His  Substance;  28,  note  4. 
γάριτι  0e"i),  by  God' s  grace  ox  favor;  vol.  II.;  1 ,  note  2;   139,  note  12; 

168,  note  136. 
χάριτι  Χριστοί),  by  Chris  f  s  grace  or  favor;  4,  note  9. 
Χριστός,  the  Aiwinted  Ojie;;  10;  note  38;    19,  note  73;  78,  notes  3, 

4;   238,  note  377;    h  Κύριο?  ι^ρ,ώι/   Ιϊ^σους  Χριστός,  ο  καχ  ννν  Trj  αγία 

σννόΒω  παρών,    ^^  our  Lord  festis  Anointed,  who  also   is   7ww 

present  with  the  holy  Synod;"'   150,   note  54;    168,   note  140; 

172,  note  160;  200,  note  245;  Δεσπόττ^ν  Χριστόν,  204,  note  262; 

and  page  378,  notes  681,  682;   421,  note  909;   vol.  III.,  18, 

note  68. 
Ιίριστοτόκο'ί,  Brijiger  Forth  of  the  Ayiointed  One;  vol.  II.,  426,  note 

944. 

Φ 

"^■ήφον,  note;  8,  note  3,  twice;  15,  note  48;  82,  note  2;  μία.  καί  κοιν)] 
φηφος  άπάσης  τηζ  οίκονμΐνψ,  "the  one  and  common  vote  of  all 
the  inhabited  world,''  after  the  West  had  joined  the  East  in 
condemning  Nestorius  and  his  errors;  123,  note  3;  compare 
page  116,  text.  Compare  δΰσιν  and  Έκκλϊ/σία;  124,  note  3; 
142,  note  27;   145,  note  45;   150,  note  59;   151,  note  72. 

Ω 

No  reference. 


A  Last  Word  on  Nestonus'  Worship  of  Christ" s  Humanity.     501 

A  Last  Word  on  Nestorius'  Worship  of  Christ's 
Humanity  {άνθρωττολατρ^ία),  and  on  his  worship  of  a  Tetrad 
(τίτράς,  τετρακττί?)  that  is  his  worship  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 
(ανθρωποφα-γία)  in  the  Eucharist. 

I  would  exhort  every  Orthodox  Christian  to  maintain  firmly 
and  strongly  and  faithfully  the  decisions  of  the  Third  Ecumenical 
Council  against  all  Nesiorian  worship,  even  relative,  of  Christ's 
separate  humanity,  and  much  more  against  the  worship  of  any 
created  person  or  thing  inferior  to  that  perfect  humanity,  as  all 
creatures  and  all  made  things  are,  and  against  all  cannibal  heresies 
on  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  I  have  spoken  on  the  last  page  of  Volume 
I.  of  Ephesus ;  and  under  the  penalties  there  imposed  by  the 
whole  churck  in  that  Synod,  against  all  opposers.      See  there. 

And  as  to  co-worshipping  Christ's  humanity  with  God  the 
Word,  which  St.  Cyril  calls  the  worship  of  a  Tetrad,  and  the  worship 
of  God  the  Word  in  the  midst  of  his  flesh,  /u-era  r^s  σαρκό?  aizov,  I  refer 
the  learned  reader  to  what  I  have  there  written,  to  which,  if  God 
will,  I  will  add  other  translated  matter  in  another  volume,  and  I 
would  refer  especially  also  to  the  Decisions  of  the  Universal  Church 
in  its  undivided  time,  as  quoted  in  the  note  matter  on  pages  108- 
1 12,  Volume  I.  of  Ephesus,  including  all  of  Section  Π.  there,  and, 
indeed,  to  that  whole  note  183,  pages  79  to  107  on  Tetradism  and 
on  pages  1 12-128  of  it  on  Ma7i- Worship  {άνθρ(ο•πολατρεία),  and  on  the 
statements  of  Nestorian  heretics  for  it.  See,  also,  under  Tetradism, 
in  the  General  Index,  and  in  the  Greek  Index  under  άνθρ^ττολατρζία, 
and  on  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  General  Index  to  that  volume,  and 
under  Eticharist,  etc,,  and  Nestorius'  Heresies,  2-6,  pages  639-644, 
id..  Cannibalism,  on  page  576,  άν^ρωποφαγ6α,  on  page  696,  and  sim- 
ilar terms  in  indexes  to  this  volume.  See  also  note  679,  pages 
3y2-362,  and  on  relative  worship  and  how  often  it  has  been  con- 
demned by  Ecumenical  Councils,  the  text  of  page  461,  and  note 
949  there,  and  note  F,  pages  529  551.  Compare  his  Heresy  I.,  on 
page  637,  Volume  I.  of  Ephesus.  My  position  is  told  on  the  last 
page  of  volume  I  of  Ephesus  (page  769.) 


502 


THE  TRANSLATOR'S  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH. 

I  would  add  in  conclusion,  as  my  faith,  that, 

I  believe  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Christian  Scrip- 
tures, and  in  all  the  Decisions  of  the  VI.  Ecumenical  Councils  of 
A.  D.  325-680  as  in  agreement  with  them  ;  and  in  accordance 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  and  of  the  said  VI. 
Synods  I  reject  and  anathematize  the  idolatrous  and  creature 
worshipping  conventicle,  wrongly  called  by  the  Greeks  and 
the  Latins  the  Seventh  Ecumenical  Council  which  was  held  A.  D. 
786  or  787,  whose  worship  of  saints  (άν^/3ω7Γολατρεία)  and  of  other 
creatures  by  invocation  and  by  other  acts  of  religious  service,  and 
whose  relative  and  all  other  worship  of  images,  crosses,  and  relics, 
and  other  material  things  and  all  their  Cannibalism  (άνθρωποφα-γία) 
on  the  Eucharist,  and  all  the  concomitant  errors  of  the  real  sub- 
stance presence  of  Christ's  Divinity  or  humanity  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, and  the  worship  of  either  or  both  of  them  there  was  ante- 
cedently condemned  expressly  or  impliedly  by  the  Third  Ecumen- 
ical Synod  approved  by  ihe  three  Synods  of  the  Christian  World 
which  were  held  after  it,  in  their  condemnation  of  the  Heresies  of 
Nestorius. 

And  I  approve  and  accept  the  deposition  of  all  Bishops  and 
clerics  holding  those  paganizings  and  the  excommunications  of  all 
laics  who  do,  and  I  will  ^'rej'ed"  them  all  as  heretics  as  God 
commands  (Titus  iii,  10.) 

And  I  believe  that  the  curses  of  God  which  were  sent  on  Tar- 
asius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  the  leader  in  that  Synod,  and  on 
the  Empress  Irene,  its  promoter,  were  deserved,  that  is  his  hor- 
rible struggle  with  demons  in  his  death  of  which  his  deacon  and 
pupil  and  biographer  and  fellow  idolater  and  heretic  Ignatius 
tells  us,  and  I  will  remember  how  she  was  given  up  to  the 
unnatural  crime  of  putting  out  the  eyes  of  her  own  son  that  she 
might  reign  in  his  place,  and  her  being  compelled  to  be  a  tributary 
to  the  Mohammedan  caliph,  and  her  being  finally  thrust  from  the 
throne,  and  her  death  in  exile  ;  and  I  hold  that  those  judgments 
of  God  should  be  a  warning  to  all  men  against  their  heresies  as  the 


The  Trayislatof  s  CoJifession  of  Faith.  503 

causes  of  defeat  and  slaughter,  and  thesubjugation  of  whole  Christian 
nations  from  the  seventh  century  till  the  sixteenth  by  the  Moham- 
medan Arab  and  Turk  and  the  Tartar,  and  the  slavery  till  this 
hour  of  so  much  of  once  Christian  Africa,  Asia  and  Europe,  where 
Christianity  has  been  almost  wiped  out,  and  should  be  a  warning  to 
us  to  shun  their  idolatrizings,  as  the  English  Reformers  well  teach 
in  their  Homily  against  Peril  of  Idolatry,  and  as  others  of  the  Re- 
formed also  do.  And  I  will  follow  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures 
and  of  the  Ante  Nicene  period,  against  both  the  use  and  the  w^f— 
worship  of  images,  painted  or  graven,  crosses  and  relics  ;  and  I  will 
do  my  utmost  to  keep  such  things  out  of  churches  lest  they  may 
become  the  occasion  of  leading  women  and  others  into  the  soul 
damning  sin  of  idolatry  as  for  long  centuries  they  did. 

I  look  for  a  sound  Seventh  Ecumenical  Synod  to  agree  with 
the  first  VI.  and  to  reunite  the  Christian  Church  on  the  basis  of 
the  New  Testament  as  interpreted  by  the  VI.  Ecumenical  Councils 
and  the  Ante-Nicene  Church. 

And  where  the  VI.  Councils  have  not  spoken  I  accept  all  the 
universal  doctrine,  discipline,  and  rite  of  the  Ante  Nicene  Church, 
that  is  all  that  is  found  before  A.  D.  325,  but  if  there  be  a  differ- 
ence in  it  then  I  prefer  and  accept  the  older  to  the  later  of  it,  and 
the  universal  to  the  merely  local. 

And  moreover  if  at  any  time  in  any  of  my  writings  I  have 
erred  I  shall  be  thankful  to  any  one  who  may  point  out  my  mis- 
take— and  I  will  correct  it — for  I  have  aimed  to  follow  strictly  no 
private  opinions  but  God's  inspired  Word  and  the  VI.  Synods,  as 
aforesaid,  of  that  'Oyie,  holy,  ujiiversal  and  apostolic  Chiirch'^  which 
Christ  has  commanded  us  all  to  hear  under  pain  of  being  regarded 
as  the  heathen  man  and  the  publican;  and  where  those  God-led 
Councils  have  not  defined  I  have  aimed  and  still  aim  and  will 
ever  aim  to  follow  all  that  was  held  to  in  doctrine,  discipline,  rite, 
and  custom,  in  the  pure  Ante-Nicene  ages,"a/zfa>'j,  everywhere  and 
by  all r 

James  Chrystai,. 


504 


ERRATA  IN  VOLUME  II  OF  EPHESUS,  and  in  VOLUME  III  of  it   as 
far  as  page  76,  inclusive,  which  ends  the  Acts  proper,  and  a  little  more. 

PAGE 

vii.  Supply  "  rf"  in  "  decisions  "  in  line  5. 
X.  Insert  "  ΓΛ«  "  in  line  3. 
xiii.  Add  "  j  "  after  "  Christ' "  in  line  21. 
13.    Read  "  stirrings'"  not  "stirrings  "  in  line  7  of  the  note. 
13.    Change  in  line  11  of  the  note  "  which  "  to  "  who." 
13.    Change  the  "  zi  "  \\x  foreign  to  "  «,"  in  line  24. 

25.  In  line  5  from  foot  between  "iaz£'"and  '^7iot"  inseit  "  it  stated,"  and  before  "some"  in 

line  4  from  the  foot  of  said  page  insert  "  that." 

26.  In  line  4  from  foot  of  text,  insert  "  r  "  in  "  brought." 
43.    In  line  1,  insert  "  A  "  in  "  such." 

59.  In  note  1,  line  8,  insert  "  t  "  in  "  αγίων. '  * 

73.  In  line  4  of  top  note  correct  broken  "  I  ''  ih  "  Italian." 

85.  In  line  15  of  note  1,  in  "  ii(i?iran^'   make  last  syllable  "  <«/." 

89.  In  line  4,  top  note,  add  "  They  are  deferred  to  another  volume." 

99.  In  line  1  of  the  second  note,  change  the  3  to  4. 

101.  In  line  14  of  note  supply  the  '"  /  "  to  "  but." 

135.  In  line  23  of  text  change  ^"^  given  "  to  ''■promised." 

136.  In  line  4  of  text  change  "  given''  to  "  promised." 

139.  In  line  6  from  the  foot  of  the  text,  instead  of  "  Dracon  "  read  "  Deacon." 

140.  In  the-first  line  of  note  16,  supply  "  ο  "  in  "  to." 

141.  In  note  23,  next  to  the  last  line,  supply  "  /  "  in  "Λ." 

142.  In  note  30.  last  line  but  one,  omit  the  second  "  it." 

148.  In  line  7  from  foot  of  the  page  change  "Note  48  "  to  '■'Note  U8,  A ." 

150.  In  line  2  of  the  text  supply  between  ''clerics  "  and  "  public  "  the  words  "  and  not." 

153.  In  line  3  from  the  foot  of  the  text  supply  '•  i  "  in  "  religious." 

158.  In  line  3  from  the  foot  of  the  text  supply  the  "  a  "  in  "  answered.^' 

161.  In  text,  in  line  10  read  "  castabaliz,"  not  "  castabaia." 

163.  Line  1  in  note  at  top  read  "turn  "  not  "time." 

167.  In  line  1  of  note  133  cut  out  the  space  or  colon  before  "  act." 

171.  In  note  150,  line  1,  after  "ChrystaV  "  add  "  J,"!in  line  2  add  "  s  "  to  "  i,"  and  in  line  3 
add  "  /  "  to  "  tha." 

171.  In  note  152,  line  4,  read  "  on  "  not  "  ou." 

172.  In  the  text,  line  2  from  the  top,  supply  the  "  /  "  in  "  himself." 
177.  In  the  last  line  supply  the  "  ο  "  in,''  others." 

179.  In  the  third  line  from  the  foot  of  the  page  add  "  tele  "  to  "  convent.' 

181.  In  line  4  from  foot  of  page  cutiofF '   s  "  from  "  regards." 

201.  In  line  13  of  top  note,  supply  "1"  before  "  ο  "  so  making  "10." 

202.  Text,  line  7,  insert  "  having  "  before   "  put." 

207.  Line  7  from  foot  of  note  274,  read  "  Galatians." 

208.  In  line  3  of  note  278,  omit  last  ' '  την  ' '  before  * '  τταρα.' ' 
220.    Note  314,  line  5,  strike  out  the  comma  aften"  Greek." 

223.  In  note  322,  line  20  from  foot  of  page  to  "  Synod  "  add  "  i,">nd  in  line  3  from  foot  of 

page  add  "  t  "  in  "  Nestorius." 

228.  In  line  3  from  foot  of  text  add  "  i  "^to  "  leas." 

231.  In  last  line  put  "  i"  before  "  s  "  so  making,'•  is." 

241.  In  line  13  add  quotation  marks  after  "  (378.)  " 

254.  In  line  24  of  note,  put  comma  after  "  plagues,"  instead  of  the  period. 

261.  In  line  5,  note  398,  for  "  wilt  "  read  "  will." 


Errata  in  Volume  IT.  of  Epkesus.  5C5 

PAGE 

272.    ].n  lines  11,  12,  Irom  foot  of  page,  omit  "  in  the  fourth,"  to  "  Coleti  above  "  inclusive,  and 
insert  in  place  of  them  ''pages  264-266  aoove,  and  pages  428-432  below." 

278.  In  line  16  supply  '   i  "  before  '   he  "  so  making  "  the." 

279.  In  lines  14,  15,  omitj"  been  "  to  "  the  Greek  "  inclusive  and  put  in  its  stead   '•  meant 

Bringer   Forth  0/  God   and    Bringer   Forth    of  Man,''    in    Greek,    ^ίθτυκο%    and 

άν^ρωτΓΟτόκο?.       And  in  line  13,  text,  add  "  s  "  to  "  expression." 
279.    In  the  last  line  of  the  text  after  "  is  ''  and  before  "  doing  "  insert  "  a  " 
284.    In  line  14  of  the  note  read  "  άνθρωττον    '  not  ''  άνθωπον,^'  and  in  line  18  read 

^ '  θ^οφόρ-ητοζ,"    not    "  θ(.Οφ"ρητοζ^^^   and  in  line  29  read    "immediate"   not 

"  immedaite." 
289     After  "  Emperors  "  in  last  line  but  one  add  :  "  Compare  note  20,  page  19,  Vol.  I  of 

Ephesus  in  this  Set,  and  note  453  above." 
203.    In  line  10,  correct  battered  "  e  "  in  "  the." 
297.    In  line  23  correct  battered  "  and." 
305.    In  line  14  of  top  note,  read  "  them,"  not  "  hem  "  ;  and  in  line  30  put  "  we  "  in  place  of 

battered  word  after  "must,"  and  in  line  32  supply  "p  "  befort  "  a»/,"  and  in   line 

33  supply  "  t  "  before  "  he  "  so  making  "  the." 
809.     In  last  line  supply  "  ο  "  in  "  petition." 
310.    In  line  6  insert  semicolon  after  "  Theodosius,"  and  put  good  "  k  "  for  the  battered  "  k" 

in  the  last  line  but  one  of  note  499. 
312.     In  the  7th  line  from  the  foot  in  note  502,  for  "  not  in  "  read  "  not  to."    A  very  important 

and  necessary  correction — cut  out  the  "  m  "  and  put  in  its  place  "  to."    Ab  it  stands 

now  it  is  an  oversight  or  printer's  error, 
319.    l<ine  9  from  foot  of  page  connect  108  and  112  by  a  hyphen. 
331.    Line  2,  text,  put  comma  after  "  Father." 

338.  Line  9  from  foot  of  text  correct  broken  "  p  "  in  "  present." 

339.  In  line  9  from  foot  of  text  in.sert  "  a  "  after  "  piety." 
341.    In  line  12,  text,  for  "^miroii  "  read  "  Theodoret•" 
343.    In  the  last  line  of  note  583'supply  "  und"  before  "  er." 
345.    In  line  7  from  foot,  read  "  can  "  not  "  crn." 

352.  In  line  26  supply  •'  /_"  in  "Adoptiomst.'* 

353.  In  line  3  read  "  Ml?  "  before  "/(7/ji." 

364.  Line  21,  change^the  "  u  "  to  "  η  "  in  "  and," 

367.  In  line  14  of  note  supply  "  en  "  in  "  Ecumenical." 

372.  In  the  last  line  of  note  650,  last  figures,  read  "  486-504,"  the  "  5  "  is  blurred. 

373.  Line  10  of  note  656,  put  "  ten  "  in  "  tendencies"  instead  of  "  teu." 

378.    Line  3  of  note  677,  read  * '  οίκειονμ^νης  ' '  instead  of  **  (Ίκονμίνηζ  ' ' 

381.  In  line  2  of  note  698  put  down  the  space,  and  in  line  2  in  note  704  do  the  same. 

382.  In  note  713  read  ' '  εκκλησιαστικής ,' '  not  '  *  Ικκλησί. ' ' 

394.  In  note  766,  line  3,  after  "  vol."  read  "  /,"  and  make  "  vol.  II"  "  vol.  Ill" 

395.  In  the  text  in  line  14,  read  "little"  not  "tittle,"  and  in  line  17  supply  "/"  in  "Universal." 

395.  In  note  772,  line  2,  supply  "  /  "  in  "  not,"  and  change  the  first  "  has  "  to  "  it,"  and  make 

the  second  "  have,"  and  supply  "  /"  in  "  all,"  and  in  line  3  supply  "  /  "  in  "permit," 
"  rf"  in  "  discussion,"  and  "  /  "  in  "  all." 

396.  In  line  3  from  foot  of  text  read  "(rSj  V  in  place  of  those  figures  blurred. 

397.  In  line  6  from  foot  of  text  read  "  such  "  rot  "  snch." 
405,    In  line  11  of  note  824,  supply  "  a  "  in  "  especially" 
411.    In  line  22  change  "  200  "  to  "590  "  in  the  note. 

413.  In  line  8  from  foot  of  text  after  "  thing."  put  quotation  marks. 

421.  In  line  1  of  note  913,  correct  broken  "  «  "  in  "  names." 

425.  In  line  13,  text,  insert  "  r  'in  "  confirmed  " 

426.  In  line  20,  text,  supply  "  d  "  in  "  established." 


506         Errata  in  Volume  III  of  Ephesus  as  far  as  to  page  4.1. 


PAGE 

427.  In  line  10,  text,  read  "  revering  "  not  "  reverting" 

428.  Text,  line  1,  read  at  end  "  left  are  selling." 
428.  In  line  6  read  ''faith  of  Ortho." 

428.  In  line  7  read  "  trouble  "  after  "^succeeds," 

428.  In  line  8  read  "  bear  those." 

428.  In  line  9  read  "  sotne  times  excites." 

429.  Note  959,  line  3,  read  "  I  Peter  ii,  5-9." 

431.  In  line  5  of  top  note  supply  second  "  i  "  in  "  restitution." 

431.  In  line  10  of  top  note  correct  battered  "  c  "  of  "Council." 

431.  In  the  last  line  but  one  of  note  967  supply  "  /  "  in  •'  blind." 

434.  In  line  3,  top  note,  put  "  Afiiioch  "  in  place  of  "  Ephesus." 

436.  In  line  4  of  note  995  reid  "  enunciated  "  instead  of  "  enumerated." 

437.  In  note  1000  read  ' '  θίσπίσμα, ' '  not  *  θίσπΐσμα. '  * 

438.  I,ine  12,  text,  supply  "  a  "  in  "  as." 

439.  In  line  5  of  note  1013  supply  "  j  "  in  "  saints,"  and  in  line  7  of  it  "  <•  "  in  "  thetr.' 
449.  In  note  1076  read,  for  the  Greek,  ' '  άπόνοιαν.** 

457.  I<ine  22  of  top  note  supply  •'  c"  in  "  canons." 

467.  I<ine  9,  text,  supply  "  t  "  in  "  both." 

471.  I|ine  1  in  note  1219  supply  "  r  "  in  "  after." 


ERRATA  IN  VOLUME  III  OF  EPHESUS  as  far  as  to  page  41,  which 
ends  the  Acts  of  Ephesus,  and  to  page  77. 

PAGE 

iv.  Preface,  in  line  12  from  foot,  for  *'  will"  put  "  with." 

11.  After  "  see"  line  5,  note  48,  add  "  in  a  future  volume"  and  omit  "  below." 

IT.  Text,  line  5,  change  "  these  "  to  "  those." 

18.  Add  at  the  end  of  note  64,  "  P.  S. — It  is  deferred  necessarily  to  another  volume." 

23.  In  place  of  the  running  bead,  "  The  Case  of  Cyprus,"  substitute,  ''Letters  of  the  Counci 

to  all  against  Nestorians." 

23.  At  the  end  of  note  76  add  "  of  Pontus,  Asia  and  Thrace." 

23.  In  note  84,  line  1,  read  ' '  και  "  for  "  και."  ^ 

25.  In  place  of  the  running  head  "  The  Case  of  Cyprus,"  put  "Preface  to  the  Canons." 

25.  In  the  last  line  but  one  of  note  95,  etc.,  read  * '  01 '  "  not  ' '  ot . " 

25.  Note  96,  last  line  but  one,  draw  together  the  last  letters  of  "  mean." 

34.  Note  106,  3rd  line  from  end  supply  "  ^  "  in  "CArzi/iawzVy.'' 

34.  Note  107,  line  1,  supply  "  d  "  in  "  told." 

41.  Note,  line  15,  read  ' '  ^Αρχετνπω  ' '  instead  of  ' '  Άρχζτνπω.  ' 

58.  I<ine  5,  put  period  after  "  Ephesus." 

71.  L,ine  9,  omit  "  below." 

73.  Line  12,  omit  "  eight  "  and  put  "  ten  "  in  its  place. 


w,v*/t^  V 


-e 


/2>