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

See other formats

ΔΝ 
cae AT 


τ τ 
Pent 


ES 


os 


ets 


a Wa 
ΔΝ 


DA 96 ἐν" 
RS 
+ 
PB: & 
Ct 


Ss a 


ἜΡΩΣ 
saisena ant 
San 


ae 





apigijayvccced ie 
- ΝΣ peters 


oi the Theologicgy Son 
a" PRINCETON, N. J. ΩΝ 


Purchased by the 


WéBR 220 .C5 1895 v.3. Π᾽ 


Chrystal, James, 1832-1908? 
Authoritative Christianity 


3 


Wt 
ἢ 
nt 


ἡ 
᾿ 


i 
ΠΝ, 


i, : 
Hb 
Wie) 


Beith 
WN 


MN 
Py 

Pai 

PECK AIR 
Hi 


MAN, 
ἡ if 
( 


ἫΝ ( 


hl 


OG OT! 
ἡ νι 


᾿ 


ἢ 

ἢ AK aS 

Ι i ἡ 
aA 


ἩΔῪΝ 
PAN adie A 
Torte 


᾿ lips 

iy / 
Ta 

Πα i 


SAE 


AWE 
᾿"; 


mi mn 


q 
NI ay 


VON 


Nh 


ἣν 
nk With 


0 
iy 


Nn 
i 


. if 


Me 








AUTHORITATIVE CHRISTIANITY. 


ΤῊΝ SIX SYNODS OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH, ITS ONLY 
UTTERANCES, ‘‘ THOSE SIX COUNCILS WHICH WERE 
ALLOWED AND RECEIVED OF ALL MEN,” 

SECOND PART OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HOMILY AGAINST PERIL, OF 





IDOLATRY WHICH IS APPROVED IN ITS ARTICLE XXXV. 


Mi ΠΊΝΕΙ, COUNCIL: 


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


ΓΟ ΤΕΣ “TIT: 


WHICH CONTAINS A TRANSLATION OF ALL OF ACT 
VII., AND ARTICLES ON: TOPICS CONNECTED 


WITH THE THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD, 
BY 


JAMES CHRYSTAL, MM, A. 


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. “27, he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a 
heathen man and a publican,” Matt. xviii., 17. With such a deposed or 
excommunicated ‘‘ zdolater’’ we may not even eat, I Corinthians y, II. 


JAMES CHRYSTAL, PUBLISHER, 
Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S. A. 


Loos. 


Ars 


Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1907, by 
JAMES CHRYSTAL, 
In the Office of the Librarian 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, “ΑἹ 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. 


DEDICATION. 


TO 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 “//S 
KINGDOM WILL HAVE COME AND HIS WILL WILL BE DONE 
ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN (MattHEW vi., το.) 


νιν i μιν ἡ" 
pets ἢ 


et " | appetite 
ἡ wat ae 


Lig 4 Van ἡ ἤν a baad ys ᾿ 


4 


ae ὙῊΣ Hb ἐδ a er a ng nae 


wie A. Aisha { WEY 


᾿ Haan. 
Ki Wee 





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 medizeval slanders 
on the noble Synod to the effect 

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

(Ὁ) That it approved and authorized her worship, a most 
baseless and infernal misrepresentation, which has 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, ‘‘ Zou shalt 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 XLII, 8: ‘‘ lam Jehovah, that is my 
name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto 
graven images,’ and Psalm LX XXI., 8,9, which is Psalm LXXX., 
8, 9, in the Greek Septuagint translation, which reads, as there 
translated, ‘‘ Hear O my people, and I will speak to thee O Israel; 
and I will testify to thee; if thou wilt hearken to me, here shall 
be no new god in thee, neither shalt thou worship a foreign 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- 





ΝΟΤΕ 1.—Which, in Greek, would be 4 μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ. 


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. Epiphanius, 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 so 
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, acleric 
and a congregation of women saying the Haz/-Mary 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 Aphesus, is that the rea- 
son why the Ecumenical Synod authorized the expression Bringer 
forth of God (2) to be used of Mary not Zo 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 Nestorius’ denial of the Incarnation and 





Note 2.—In Greek, θεοτόκος, the word authorized by the Third Ecumenical Council. 
The exact Latin for it and the English above as given by Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of 
the Romanand Byzantine periods is Detpara, Bringer Forth of God, not Mother of God. To 
guard the Incarnation Bringer Forth of God is a much more exact and much stronger expres- 
sion than Mother of God for we often use the term mother where there has been no 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 authorized by the whole Church in an 
Ecumenical Council at Ephesus whe eas Mother of God isnot. 1 εἴ τι8 therefore prefer and 
stick to the term adopted by the Huly Ghost-led Synod of the whole Church. 


And Lessons to Sound Christians from Ephesus. 111 





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 ‘‘Oxe Holy, Universal 
and Apostolic Church’ has defined in them amd 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 infideiities 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 saints, and of angels and all other ereature 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 ‘‘ One, 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 ‘‘ onze, 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’ denial of the Incarnation, and anticipatively and 
by necessary logical inclusion therefore all such denials since by which 
he made his Christ a mere inspired Man. 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, Mestorius’ Heresy 1., his denial of the Inflesh and the Inman. 
See, also, Article II., pages 77-116 below, and fit references to the 
Indexes of this volume. 

(ii.) ‘The Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity alone or 
_. ill 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 itunder Nestorius’ Heresy 2, his 
Man Worship, and under Man- Worship, pages 63!-635, and page 
580, and, indeed, all under Christ, pages 577-581, and Cyril of 


And Lessons to Sound Christians trom 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 human being (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), and the eating of Christ’s human- 
ity there as Cannibalism (av0pwrogpayia). Both Cyril and Nestorius 
held and taught that the eternal substance of Christ’s Divinity is 
not in the rite but is zeally absent 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 doctrine of the veal absence of the 
substance of Christ's Divinity and the veal 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 85 411 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 Cyril 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 atall. For Cyril writes to Nestori- 
us: ‘‘ But thou seemest to me to forget that what heth forth on the 
holy tables of the Churches 8 BY NO MEANS OF THE NATURE OF 
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 TOUS 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 Zphesus, and 
under Eucharist in its General Index and Nestorius’ Heresies, 2, 3, 
4 and 5, pages 639-644 in it, and under ἀνθρωποφαγία, page 696 of 
that volume, and under ἀνθρωπολατρεία and ἀνθρωπολάτρης 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. 


Ana Lessons to Sound 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 theirrights. See volume I. of Zphesus in this 
Set, page 573, under Appeal and Appellate Jurisdiction, and under 
Church Government, on page 582. See, also, in this volume under 
Appeals, and under Appellants 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 being (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) 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 Index to this volume and under the same terms in the 
General Index 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 (ἀνθρωπολατρέια) and 
to all Cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγία), 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 ὦ man-wor- 
shipper (ἀνθρωπολάτρης) and guilty of Cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγία), 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 





Norte 3.—That is the largest computation of the original sway of the Bishop of Rome, as 
is ably shown by Bingham in his Anézgutties of the Christian Chureh, book IX., Chapter I., 
sections 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 Latin, 
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 Nestorian worship of a human 
being (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) and her worse.than Nestorian Cannibalism (avOpwropayia) 
on the Lord's Supper. For we must remember that in those respects and in others the 
Anglican Reformation 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. of WVicaea in this Set, pages 95-128. 


And Lessons to Sound Christians from Ephesus. ix 
—_—_—_—_—_— eee 
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.) Tet 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’s 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 ‘‘zwovedom,’’ 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 being, (ἀνθρωπυλατρεία), 


p.4 Preface. 





condemned under the strong but righteous 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 
(ἀνθρωποφαγία), which was also condemned by the ‘‘one, holy, unt- 
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 
ΜΠ 17: 18: 


Names of Contributors. xi 








A MEMORIAL, 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, Kast 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 (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) 
as Cyril calls it, and all who believe what its great leader, Cyril of Alex- 
andria, calls Cannibalism 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 men,” (Homily against ‘‘Peril of [dolatry,”’) in the period June 13, 1904, 
to January Io, 1908. 


BISHOPS, 

RicHt Rrv. HENRY CODMAN POTTER, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of 

Ν εν OT Nesp Se a ea Ξ $5000 
RiGHT REV. G. HORSFALL FRODSHAM, D.D., Bishop of North 

@Queensland, Australia τπτοὁὕ.ὺὅ “τ Se cence aace 43 
Ricut Rev. Ὁ. S. TUTTLE, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of Missouri and 

Presiding Bishop sR aS RR oe Se ee τορι Re $10 00 
Ricut Rev. GEO. F. SEYMOUR, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of Springfield, 

Wdlinois (since departed in the Lord) -2_-__ =. 2. 222 2. 2.2 10°00 
RicHT REv. OZI W. WHITTAKER, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of Pennsyl- 

VAT eee ene eee (2 te Es De ee ee sk cece eesen OVO 
PieHut Rev. FREDERICK COURTNEY, D.D,L.L.D., late Bishop of 

INGVat ΟΡΟΙΉ πὸ se soe ene SO τὰ eee τ τ 55 LOYOO 
Right Rev. A. HUNTER DUNN, M.A., D.D-, Bishop of Quebec, 

(Cat acl a tee ee ἀπε εὐνὴν“ Big) Ὁ ee ee ccc Ξε FOL00 
R1iGHT REv. BOYD VINCENT, D.D., Bishop of Southern Ohio-.-___--- Io 00 
RIGHT REv. EDWARD G. WEED, D.D., Bishop of Florida._.------- Io 00 
RicHt REv. THOMAS AUGUSTUS JAGGAR, D.D., late Bishop of 

SOUEHERIIE@ 1110 See ἐπ ys Sees ee see se a 2 ἘΞῈΞ 5 00 
RicHt Rev. ALEXANDER C. GARRETT, D.D., L.L.D., Bishop of 

Dallasthehexas eee eee eae pee ee een ae ee ee  - | 0) OO 


Ricut 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 

Geparted nithet hordes pie 1 τ τὰ ee Uo oes enw εν... $50 00 
Rev. JOHN) HENRY, WATSON, New York. 22-2... ~~ . 5. δρῖϑο 
ΒἘῈν ἘΒΝΕΘΙ ΜΕ Si lS 0. New, VOrk tes se eT OLOD 
REV lOUISHS LOSBORINEwNewark. ON: 7... δ ς΄... a 10 00 
REV ARTHUR Cy KIMBER. Dip: New ΟΠ cee eee 5 00 
REV. VE WISteARKS: DsDi, New Nork2oss22 senor aoe 5 00 
REv. I. NEWTON STANGER, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa.___...------_-- 3 00 
Rev. GEORGE R. VANDEWATER, D.D., New York__------------. 3 00 


OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE. 
FRANCIS G. DU PONT, Wilmington, Del., (since departed in the 





ποτα) eee wl SL Se eS ee ον στον eee ce OL 

Mr. AUSTEN COLGATE, B. A., Orange, N. J.-------- pie dete ἘΞ 50 00 
JAMES RUTHERFORD, Carbondale, Paleo ae ee διε 00 
not previously reported, 25 00 

30 00 

WILLIAM GALWAY, Jersey: City,.N: J. Ξε ς Ξε τ ς eee I5 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. ΧΙ 





--- 


XVII., 18, and XVIII., 4, to come out of Rome, they led hundreds 
of the clergy 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 ‘‘ one, holy, universal and 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 Church of England 
against Peril of idolatry. 


3. Of ‘'1,285,349,’? though one other account gives it as 
‘““something mcre than 1,400,000’ immissrants 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 beto 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. They are now. 


ΟΜ ἡ Ἶ 
ΝΟ Spt 


ay ent 


4 ᾿ » ᾿ ; δι ' 
ἀμ γι wt 
EEE Hee ie ae 
a Bath ᾿ : ne 

Tea) a a ie Lf 


ai teh νὴ “ἐν 


δα. 
αν Ute Brie payee γυ 


ye Ml hie 


se 





Table of Contents, XV 





6 


TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME III. OF 


EPHESUS. 
FOREMATTER. 

PAGE 

MPEPIDOCICALIOt τα πεν oe iste s esc tec εν. κυ ες ἥτος 
2 ῬΙΘΙΑΟΘ:  -ἰς δε δος ἐς TC NCTRORSICLG eRe ene OR Cae ER που: ie 

3. Contributors to the Fund to Publish the VI. Ecumen- 
ACE CO MINIC NI Sars Ss ayia e οὐ Sd Sole kis Klis 

4. Note on the Set of these volumes and their needs and 
theirbenefits to Church and Statens.c.ds2.) 42256. ΧΙΪ. 
See ale ot Contents sss cise ss as co Souls eee one es 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 

ΙΝ ΘΕΟΣ c Roe ea ANREP Rear nar ΔΩ ας ἐν Be er ee το 1-20 
7. ALetter sent by the Ecumenical Synod te every Metro- 

politan and to every Suffragan Bishop, to the Elders, 

the Deacons, and Laics in regard to the Oriental 

Bishops, that is, those of the Patriarchate of 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 

ΡΞ ete cie os orese cs <nieus ects eerie aie 12 dines so | 21=33 
8. Epistle of the Third Ecumenical Synod to the bel 

Synod of Pamphylia concerning Eustathius, who 

had been their Metropolitan. ..........sssceceesss 34-37 
9. Decree of the Third Ecumenical Synod against the 

Massalians, who are also called Euchites or Enthu- 


SIASUS? τς shicis's.0 oS ν οο, θὶ οὐ οῆς BN UR tate vatiat a Sean natee 


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, 


11. The Synod’s Answer to it, page 40. That ends the 
Acts of the Third Ecumenical Synod............. 


12. Penalties pronounced by the Ecumenical Synod, 
speaking for Christ, and in the name and with the 
authority of the ‘‘one, holy, universal and apostolic 
Church,’’ against all who try to unsettle any of the 
Decisions of the ΘΟ ΠΟΙ] 070.00. cicero - 


ARTICLES oN Topics CoNNECTED WITH THE ‘THIRD 
EcUMENT@AT (SYNOD ui o5. 0a oe τ. 


Article I1—The Dioceses and Provinces, from which Bishops 
came to the Third Ecumenical Council, and how many 
CUULE J OME ξαρπποεοΨ,νΨὁΕΨνσσσοιοΕΠιπσσοὁυπςπἘοΠΠἜἔ  :------- 


Article I7.—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, 


' Article ITI —A Second Article on Nestorius’ Heresies. 
Vastly important Decisions of the Third Kcumen- 
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. 
Whet those Forms are, as referred to in its Canons 
II., III., and IV., and impliedly in its Canons V. 


Article 1V.—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 ΠΤ τ. Πρ π᾿ 


Article V—On the Ecumenically approved Use of the 
ἘΝΕΠΘΙΒ: - ον τευ ale alesis i a fee eter ae so alo) Oa eee πΠ 


39, 40 
40, 41 
41 

42 
43-76 
77-116 
116-126 
127-192 
132-141 


Table of Contents. xvii 





Article V7.—On Cyril of Alexandria's worship of God the 
Word, pera τῆς ἰδίας 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 VII.—The Ecumenical Rarienel of Cyril’s Xt: 
PMMA NEMAS Ries τ τον viele ssl Sista kale εν ἡ δ sity ose εἶδος ἦς 213-230 


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

(ἀνθρωπολατρεία) and Man- Worshipper (ἀνθρωπολάτρης), 

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

them, and how long that use appears......... . 230-234 
Article 1X.—The alleged opinion of Gregory of ὌΈΣΌΝΗΙ 

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. <.c....2...5-.).- 2-6. 243-246 
Article XT.—Some Spurious and Some Genuine Passages 
ascribed τὸ Cyril of Alexandrias 2.2). τος δον ν ies sre 246-253 


Article XTI.—The Sins of Idolaters,; that is 
(1). Zhe worship of created persons 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, universal and apostolic 
Church’ in its Six Sole Ecumenical Synods. 
°© Jake . . . the Sword of the Spirit, which is 
the Word of God,’’ Ephesians VI., 17...... 253-34 | 
Article X7/7.—Slander against Cyril and Ephesus to the ᾿ 
effect that he worshipped the Virgin Mary, and 
that the Third Ecumenical Synod authorized her 


ΟΠ lar saletete'h! ciale ls 1.1, 1... «'e's\c) 91 8/0) 's/nime ee 04 341-362 


Xviii Third Ecumenical Synod. 





Article X7V.—St. Epiphanius against the worship of the 
Virgin Mary, as he writes in his Article on the 
fleresy of the Antidicomarianites, and on that of the 
Collyridians i LFARSIGUHONS 5. Hattie 4 Seis eee 363-423 


INDEX I. To VOLUME II. ΟΕ EPHESUS, AND To Act. VII. 
AND LAST OF THE COUNCIL IN VOLUME III. 
NAMES AND SEES OF THE BISHOPS WHO WERE PRES- 
ENT IN Acts II. to VII., INCLUSIVE, OR IN 
ANY (OB EUR Mins ters ateteisleleic.s ον τ Sisleth τ- το πῶ εις Σ᾿ ἐν 424 
InpEx II. TO VotumME II. ΟΕ EPHESUS, AND TO AcT 
VII. oF THE COUNCIL IN VOLUME III. GENERAL, 
TEND Bie deere ais oS ies a i IS eee Sener a 425-470 


INDEX III. 


INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS IN VOLUME II. oF EPHESUS, 
AND TO PAGES 1-76, INCLUSIVE, OF VOLUME III 
OF EPHESUS, INCLUDING THE REST OF THE SYNOD, 471-481 


INDEX IV. 


INDEX TO GREEK WORDS AND TO GREEK ExPRESSIONS IN 
VoLuUME II. oF EPHESUS, AND To PAGES 1-76 INCLU- 
SIVE IN VOLUME III. ΟΕ EPHESUS, WHICH INCLUDES 
THE REST OF THE COUNCUZ το ec seein: 482-500 


A Last Worp on NEsTorRIUS’ WORSHIP oF CHRIST'S 
HuMANITY (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), on his worship of a 
Tetrad (τετράς) 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 7etvadism and on 


his Cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγία) on the Eucharist.... 501 
Tur TRANSLATOR’S CONFESSION OF FAITH........... 502, 503 
BRACE A enantio © eo aco 7 a δὺο lolw ον thent ss ore PinaP satel teens atts 504 


ACT SEVENTH (1). 





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

“ἦι (2) the Consulship of our Masters, Flavius Theodosius, 
Consul for the thirteenth time, and Flavius Valentinian, Consul for the 
third time, the ever August Ones, on the day before the Calends of 
September (3), the holy Synod being congregated by God’s favor and 
by the edict of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors in the 
metropolis of the Ephesians (4), tn the holy Church, which is called 
Mary (5), Rheginus, Bishop of the holy Church at Constantia, 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, ‘Let the written statement (7) offered, 
be received and read.’ 

“70 the most holy, the glorious, and the great Synod con- 
gregated by the favor (8) of God and the nod (9) of our most pious 





ΝΌΤΕ 1.—All that here follows upto the ‘‘Vote of the same Holy Synod,’ thit is canon 
Vill, as itis often called, is preserved in a Latin translation alone in Co/eéz and the Co/dlectio 
Regia, from which we translate it into English. It is in Latin alone in Cap. xxx11I of 
Irenaeus’ Syxodicon also. ‘The Greek is not in Hardouin nor Mansi, but the Latin is. 

Nore 2. Or “after.” Latin, Post Consulatum, etc. See on this expression, note 19 
page 19, vol. I, of Chrystal’s Ephesus. 

ΝΌΤΕ 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 .S/. is not used here, nor the evil expression, so common 
in our day, St. Mary's Church, St. Peter's, St. Paul's, etc. See on that, vol. I of Chrystal’s 
translation of Ephesus, page 21, note 22, and Bingham, as cited there. Nochurch 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 isdone. 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, δ, 9, and the 
decisions of the whole church at Ephesus. Some have supposed that Mary was buried there. 
But of that elsewhere. 

Nore 6,—‘'Libellus.” 

Note 7.—‘‘Libellus.”’ 

Nore §.—Or grace (gratia). 

Nore 9.—Latin, ‘‘zutu,’’ that is here, decree. 


2 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





Limperors in the most loyal to God (10) metropolis of the Ephesians; 
(11), a petition from Rheginus, and Zeno, and Evagrius, Bishops of 
Cyprus ( 12). 

“Even some time ago Troilus, who was our holy father and 
Bishop, suffered many things from the Clergy of Antioch, and the most 
pious Bishop Theodore endured uncommon violence, even as far as to 
stripes, such as tt does not befit men who are slaves and liable to the 
lash, to bear; and that forbiddenly, unreasonably, and unlawfully. 
For when he went away’ [to Antioch ‘‘for another cause, he succeeded 
zndeed in finishing tt happily, but they, abusing his going away’’ 
[from us and his visiting Antioch], ‘‘wished to compel him by violence 
even to subject to themselves the holy Bishops of the island contrary to 
the Apostolic canons (13), and to the decisions of the most holy Synod of 





Norte 10.—Latin, in Ephesiorum metropoli Dei observantissima. 

NoTE 11.—That is, Ephesus. 

Note 12.—According to Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church, νοὶ. τὶ page 
248 of the English translation, there were no lessthan fourteen suffragan Bishops in Cyprus 
about this time, whose sees are there named. The cause ofthe absence of all but two may 
be found in the Emperor’s First Decree, convoking the Council, ia 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 tothe same city, sothat 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 forthe Synod.’’ Seethat Decree, pages 32-41, vol.I, of 
Chrystal’s translation of Ephesus. Professor Bright, in his (Votes on the Canons 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 W7ltsch above 
in villages or not? The reference to Sozomen isto chapter 19, book VII, of his £cc/eszastical 
History. Bright’s little work, pages 118-122, has some waluable matter on Canon l’/// of 
Hphesus. 

ΝΟΤΕ 13.—The Greek is lost, but the Latin is: contra apostolicos canones et definitiones 
sanctissimae synodi Nicaenae. But does this mean, “contrary /o 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 nowcalled 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. 1, of the English translation of his Hzstory of the Church Councils, That Canon XXXV is 
as follows: 

“Tet no bishop dare to perform ordinations outside his own boundaries, for the cities and 
country places not subject to him, butif he be convicted 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 
Rheginus may mean that canon, Canon VIII of Ephesus makes no allusion to it, but to 


The Apostolic Canons. 3 





‘Canons 1v and ΤΊ 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” [Ὁ] ‘“‘and Joannes Scholasticus. On the 
other hand, when they are collected in the manuscripts of the Apostolic Constitutions, 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 English translation of Hefele’s History of the Christian Councils, volume 1, pages 
449-492. Speaking on page 452 of ‘‘the Anglcan Beveridge,’ as he terms him; Hefele writes: 

“Beveridge considered this collection” [‘‘¢e so-called Apostolic Canons,” as Hefele there and 
on page 449 terms them] ‘“‘to bea repertory of ancient canons given by Synods in the second 
and third centuries. In opposition to them, the Calvinist Dallaeus (Daillé) 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 been 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 century, bishops, synods, and other authorities often quote, as documents in com- 
mon use, the Κανὼν ἀποστολικὸς, or ἐκκλησιαστικὸς or Gpyaios’? [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, ete. According to 
Beveridge, these quotations make allusions to the Apostolic Canons and prove that they 
were already in use defove the fourth century. 

Next Hefele turns to‘‘Dr, von Drey, who,” he thinks, ‘‘is the author of the best work 
upon these 4 postolic Canons, and also upon the Afostolic Constitutions,” (id. page 449). 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 special codex canonum’’ [Code of 
Canons)” in use; 

2nd. That the expression κανὼν ἀποστολικὸς ᾽᾽ [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: Upon this point there 
tsavrule and a practice which can be traced back to apostolic times, but not exactly a written 
law. Asa summary of Drey’'s conclusions, the following points may be 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 fromthe Afostolic Constitutions, are really more ancient 
than the Council of Nicaea. Most of them 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 century.” 


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, from the eighth book 
of them, four or five from the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, twenty from the local Council 
of Antioch, of A. Ὁ. 341, four from the local Synod of Laodicea, in the fourth century, one 
from the sixth canon of the First Council of Constantinople, A. D. 881, the Second Ecumeni- 
cal, one from a local Council of Constantinople, of A. D. 394, five from the Fourth Ecumenical 


4 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





Nicea (rg). And now” [again | ‘‘because they have ascertained that 
the blessed man has migrated from this life, they have subornei the 
most magnificent Duke Dionysius to write a mandate to the governor 
(15) of the province (16), and to the clergy of the most holy Church of 
Constantia (17). The letter ts public and we have it at hand, and 
are prepared to show it to your Holiness( 18). On account of it, we 
ask and beg that men who will dare to do any thing, be not permitted 
lo bring in any innovation, for aforetime and from the beginning (19) 
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. Ὁ. 879, 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 Von Drey 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 
Apostolic 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. 

Nore 14.—The reference is, seemingly, to its Canons IV.and VI. It is noteworthy that no 
reference is made to the canons of the Second Ecumenical Synod, two of which, the IInd and 
the VIth, are pertinent and in favor of the autonomy of the Cypriots. But that Councilis 

“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 Azstory of the Church Councils, vol. II, section 100, pages 870-374. 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 intruced Latin 
Patriarch of Constantinople the rank next after Rome; see pages 448, 449, volume 111 of the 
English translation of his Hzstory 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. 

Nore 15,—Latin, “‘provinciae primczpz.” 

Norte 16.---That is, “‘¢he province” of Cyprus. 

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

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

Norte 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 against 
Cyprus, and that Bishop of Rome had promised to write to the Cypriots on that matter. 
the docunient be authentic and he did write, his advice was unheeded. 


The Apostolic Canons. 5 





and holy Synod (20) also with their own decisions which are not at 
alluseful (27). or, as we have said, the most magnificent Duke 
Dionysius, who has the care of the afflicted Church (22), would not 
have usurped those things which do not become him, nor would he have 
mixed himself up with ecclesiastical matters, if he had not been deceived 
by the most holy Bishops who were there ( 23) congregated and by their 
clergy, and supposed that thing (24) to be canonical, (as his orders alsa 
testify), and which by their advice (25) he has ‘‘[in hand] against 
the Bishop of Constantia the metropolis of Cyprus. But we’? [on the 
other hand | *‘ pray that both that (26) letter of the most magnificent 
Duke be read, and his commands, and all things at the same time 
which have been committed and done tn this tragedy (27), so that your 
holy and great Synod may ascertain from those very things the unen- 
durable violence that has been done. For no common tumult has arisen 





Note 0. That is, the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea. The Bishops of Antioch in their 
unholy ambition were going to pervert the Canons of the Ecumenical 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 their 
useless enactments, would take from Cyprusand fromits 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 Kcumenical Synod, as they had perverted them long 
before against Cyprus. The context shows that it also is included. 


Note 21.—Or ‘“‘not at all profitable.” 

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

Nore 23.—That is, at Antioch. 

Norte 24.—Or ‘‘that innovation.” 

Nore 25.—The Latin here reads: nisi ....putasset eam canonicam (quod etiam prae- 
cepta ejus testantur) quam absque eorum consilio adversus episcopum Constantiae Cypri 
metropolis habuit; but I judge that absque is a mistake for abs and que; unless we take ἢ 
“their” (eorum) to refer to the Cypriot prelates suffragan to Constantia; and so render ‘‘which 
without their advice,’ and so ‘‘against their advice; but the former view may seem to some 
perhaps the more probable of the two. 

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


ΝΟΤΕ 27.—The murder of the rights of Cyprus by Antioch would have been an accom- 
plished 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 
service, including also their Cannibalism and bread or wafer and wine worship in the 
Eucharist, on them, and,in the case of Rome, in depriving them of the use of their own 
language in the service, and so keeping them from rendering a rational and acceptable 
service to the Lord. Compare note 814, page 403, vol. 11, of Chrystal’s Ephesus. 


6 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





in the whole metropolis (28). Moreover, we make known to your holy 
Synod that a Deacon of the holy Church of Antioch was also sent with 
the letter of the most glorious Duke (29). Therefore we entreat by 
all thatis holy, and fcll forward to your holy knees, that by a canonical 
sentence’? [from you] ‘‘ even now our Synod of the Cypriots may 
vemain uninjured and superior to plots and power, as it has from the 
beginning from the times of the Apostles, and’ { that too | ‘‘by the 
decisions and canons of the most holy and great Synod at Nicaea (30). 
And so now also, we desire that justice be done us through your incorrupt 
and most just decision and by your enactment. 





Nore 28.—Constantia in Cyprus. The Cypriots were evidently not disposed to submit 
tamely to have their autonomy wrested from them and to bend toa foreign yoke 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 imply the 
Bishop’s compticity with the secular power to enslave 1t to his see; and indeed would imply 
that the Bishop had the chief hand in the plot. 

Nore 30.—The canons of Nicaea referred to are Canons IV, Vand 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 inthe 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 civil notitia. That is in effect confessed by 
the Romanist Hefele in his History of the Church Councils, 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 civil 
rank of the city. The Synod of Antioch in 341, 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 to-day Constantinople isa larger 


The Case of Cyprus. 7 





“7, Rheginus, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, have subscribed 
with my own hand. 

** 7, Zeno, Bishop of the Daly Church of God at Curium in Cyprus, 
have subscribed with my own hand. 

“7, Evagrius, the least, Bishop of the holy Church of God at Soli, 
in Cyprus, 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 (31), I pray that it also be 
read.”” 

“Te Hoty SYNOD SAID, ‘Let the command of that most 
magnificent Dionysius be read.’ 

“Flavius Dionysius, the Most Mlustrious and Most Magnificent 
Master of both armies, (32) to Theodore, the Most Mlustrious President 
of the region of the Cypriots. 

‘“ The Imperial authority, for many 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 isa 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 London 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 tothe 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 away by their own idolatries and creature invocation, which are antecedently con- 
demned by the VI Synods, and by God’s curseson themforthem, 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. 


Nore 31.—That is, of Cyprus. The Duke wasa military officer. The governor of Cyprus 
was subject tothe Duke Dionysius. Dionysius is spoken of as ‘‘of both armies,” 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 presidents, as he of Cyprusis in this Act VIIof the 
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Here we have again extravagant Byzantine titles. 


Nore 32.—On this expression, see the last note above. The Latin is utriusque cxercitus 
Magister. 


8 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





causes, has by a divine (33), open, and signed letter commanded the 
most pious Bishops to meetin Ephesus. But since we have ascertained 
that the Bishop of the city of Constantia (34) has migrated from the 
present life, and has fulfilled the day predestinated for him, we have 
judged that this necessary order should be sent across’’ (the water] (35) 
‘‘to thee, that no one may dare to name another in place of the defunct, 
without the decree or letter of the most pious Synod. For itis a thing 
befitting to wait for the form which the agreement of such most pious 
Bishops (36), shall prescribe, for, as we have said, the most pious men 
aforesaid have been ordered to meet for those matters. Therefore if 
guarrelsome persons excite disorders, let thy Gravity for its part, and 
the army that obeys it (37) forits part, study to avert them, and let τέ 
prohibit them in every way, and, as I have said, permit no one to be 





Nore 33.—Latin, ‘‘divinzs,” etc., literally ‘‘dzvzve,” but used slavishly, after the pagan 
Roman fashion, for zmferzal letters, etc. 

Note 34.—Theodore mentioned above. 

Nore 35.—Cyprus, of course, is across a strip of water from Antioch. It may also be ren- 
dered ‘‘transmitted,’’ but in the same sense. 

Norte 86.—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. Forall others are 
deposed and excommunicated by the decisions of the Six Ecumenical Synods. 

Norte 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, Lon- 
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 
tead 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: Ina 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. Ὁ. 367-383] “after confirming a law of precedency 
published by Valentinian” [I. who ruled A. Ὁ. 364-375] “the father of his Dzvinzty, thus con- 
tinues” [I translate his Latin]: 

“Tf anyone therefore shall usurp a place not due to himself, lethim not defend himself by” 
[the plea of ] ‘‘any rgnorance”’ [on his part] “‘and let him be clearly condemned for sacrilege 
because he has neglected divine commands’ [that is, blasphemously enough, the Emperor's 
orders] ‘‘the 7heodosian 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 dzvinzty to Roman Emperors 
and to things pertaining to them, and in its use of creature worshipping language. A Greek, 
Alexander Lycurgus, Archbishop of Syros and Tenos, to some extenta 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. 9 





promoted (38)’’ [to the vacant place of Metropolitan of Cyprus], 
“before the most pious Bishops (39) have approved him by their author- 
ity. But if the ordination of a not surely Bishop be performed before this 
letter arrives command him, in accordance with the heavenly Rescript 
(juxta caeleste responsum) of the Emperors to go to Ephesus like other 
Bishops, and be not ignorant that if thou opprove any thing being done 
otherwise, thou indeed shalt be compelled to pay five pounds of gold 
to the imperial treasury, and the army the same amount to it. And so, 
moreover, let these things which have been decreed in accordance with the 
petition of the most pious Bishops be written, and get swift fulfilment. 
We have commanded Maturius and Adelphius to be sent for this thing 
to them from the army. Given on the twelfth day before the Kalends 
ot June (go) at Antioch.’ 

“Bishop Rheginus 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 Sarp: ‘Let it be read and inserted in the 
Records of the Acts.’ 

“Flavius Dionysius the most Magnificent and most Glorious 
Count, and Duke of both armies, (et Dux utriusque exercitus) and 
Proconsul, to the most pious clerics in the metropolis of Constantia in 
Cyprus. 

““Your Piety also knows how the Augustand gloriously triumphani 
Masters of the world, have commanded the most religious and most holy 
Bishops to meet in Ephesus for many other, and especially for ecclesias- 
tical causes. And so since we have learned from the most holy Bishops 
themselves, who have met here, (21), that your most blessed Bishop has 
fallen asleep according to the divine will, 7 have deemed tt worth while 
to inform and to admonish your piety, to be on your guard, and to see toit 
that no one be elected Bishop by any one, nor ordained ( for a form (42) 





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.—Latin, progredi, ‘‘to advance.’ 

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

ΝΌΤΕ 40.—That is, May 21, 431, according to the modern English way of computing 
time. 

Note 41.—At Antioch. 

NoTE 42.—Latin, ‘‘/orvma,” here corresponding, I presume, to τύπος, a decree. 


10 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





will be plainly prescribed on that matter); but wait for the decision 
which ts there to be given, It is certainly a worthy and just thing, for 
holy Fathers to observe those things which Fathers command. But if 
it shall happen that any 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; and be not ignorant that praise shall follow the obedient, and 
that, furthermore, the present writing will fitly correct the disobedient. 

THE Holy SyNop 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 of 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]. 
i “THE Hoty SyNoD SAID, What did the Bishop of Antioch 
wish? 
Evagrius, Bishop of Soli, in Cyprus, answered: He is trying to 
subject our island and to snatch to himself the right of ordaining,”’ 
[there| ‘‘contrary to the canons and to the custom which now 
prevaiis and has prevailed’ [there] ‘‘aforetime. 


Note 43.—‘‘Juxta divinum edictum,” that is merely imperial; more blasphemous lan- 
guage. And notice “the heavenly rescript of the emperors”’ a little before. And wonderful is 
the fact that even in such a degenerate imperia: age the Holy Ghost guided the Bishops of the 
Council into al/ truth in the matter of its decisions against Nestorius’ Denialof the Incarna- 
tion and against his worship of a human being ( avOpwrodartpeia), and against his cannibalism, 
(ἀνθρωποφαγία) on the Lord’s Svpper; 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. 

Norte 44.—Literaily ‘‘teach us” (doceant), a courteous expression. 

Nore 45.—Capitaneum, 

ΝΟΤΕ 46.—Capitaneus. 


The Case of Cyprus. ΤΊ 





THE HOLY SYNOD SAID, Has the Bishop ot Antioch never been 
seen to ordain a Bishop in Constantia? 


Zeno, Bishop of Curium in Cyprus, 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. 


Tur Hoty Synop sarp: Let the Holy Synod be mindful of 
the canonof the holy Fathers congregated in Niczea, 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 Zeno 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 Synop 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 those 
who were from’’ [the times of] ‘‘the holy Apostles, all orthodox, 


NOTE 47.—Or ‘‘grace’”’ (gratiam). 

Norte 48.—Coleti Conc., tom. III, col. 1224: Sancta Synodus dixit; Memor sit sancta Syno- 
dus canonis sanctorum Patrumin Nicaea cougregatorum, qui conservat unicuique ecclesiae 
priscam dignitatem. Hic 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 
Tatin Africa. 


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


a 


12 Act 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 Synop (53). 


THE Hoty SyNoD SAID: 


The most dear to God Fellowbishop Kheginus, 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 
ofall(56). Wherefore, since the common sufferings (57) require the 
greater remedy, because they bring the greater damage, and especi- 





Norte 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. 

ΤΌΤΕ 51.—Literally, ‘‘place,”’ (locum). 

Note t2.—That is, Cyprus. . 

Nore 53.—This is now often or generally insome editions of the canons put with them 
as Canon V/// of Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical Synod. It is preserved in Greek. I have 
trans!ated it from Lambert’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 his ‘‘Greek text’ is ‘‘that given in the Paris edition of Zonaras, 1618, 
compared throughout with the text of Justellus and Bishop Beveridge, as veprinted in Migne’s 
Series..., The Latin is that contained in the works of Zonaras, as above specified.”’ 

ΝΌΤΕ 54.—See below the matter ‘‘On the so-called Canons of the Holy Apostles,’ ou the 
above. 

ΝΌΤΕ 55.—That is, assails, Greek, ἁπτόμενον. 

Norte 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 isa 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 capitalof 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. Andas at the same time Con tantinople 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. 381, a fact which led the Church 
historian Socrates to remark in his work, book V, chapter §, 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, Servians, Montenegrins Bosnians, 
Herzegovinians and the Russians resent asan 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 highest good 
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 XXVIII 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 Strorg’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 provi1-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 uow 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 VI 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 Pontus 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 ¢he 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 Synods. 

Professor Bright in his Votes on the Canons of the first Four General Councils, page 122, 
asserts that the ‘“‘Ephesine prohibition’ [in its Canon VIIJ| ‘‘was set aside by the Council of 
Chalcedon when it fermally subjected three Dzoceses, including twenty-eight metropolitan 
Churches (Bingham 1. c. )’’ [Bingham IX, 1, 6, 10.] “‘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 furthe: as to Constantinople 


14 Act ΚΠ. 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 regardedthe 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 the Eastern Church, except as to Constantinople’s jurisdiction in 
Canon III 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 Province of Europa, its Bishop became Metropolitan, whereas before it had 
been suffragan tothe 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 Binghamin his Antiquities of the Christian Church; book IX. 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’ cclcsiastical 
History, book V, chapter 8, 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 preserved 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 appealat 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 any part of the West. iis 
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 Wiltsch’s Geography aad 
Statistics of the Church, vol, 1, pages 4384, 435, and 468, and in Wiltsch’s vol. 2, pages 24, 25, 
259, 260, 268, 278, 286-288, 305, 306. 


Note δ᾽.--τὰ κοινὰ πάθη. ‘The term πάθη means both sufferimg and (hence) disease. 
Compare the language of the same Spirit, who aided the Bishops of Ephesus to make this 
canon, in 1 Cor., XII; 26: ‘‘And 1f one member suffer (πάσχει), all the members suffer 
(συμπάσχει) with it.” : 

Note 58.—Or, ‘‘and especially if no ancient custom has come down for the Bishop of the City of 
the Antiochians to perform the ordinations in Cyprus,’ etc.,as above. For the Greek here see as 
in this note below. The rendering of Hammond here is ‘“‘szmce.” Lambert gives ‘‘7f”’ 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 service of the English Church, asserts 
(page 267, vol. I, of his Hzstory of the Holy Eastern Church, Alexandria), that, ‘‘The Council 
guardedly decreed, that if the assertions of the Cypriot Bishops were true, they should 
remain, 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 believing 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 Antioch was 
represented in 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 ¢he 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 ‘‘vestore 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 tothe Nicaean Canons in ordaining Bishops for themselves, 
and that up to this time they hold itasathing 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 clearly 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 
Cyprus till the Arian troubles rose, and besides that Cyprus was then claimed by Antioch as 
underit by Canon VI of Nicaea. Yet even this claimis not supported by any facts, whereas the 
Cypriots themselves in the Third Ecumenical Synod, while showing that before this, Bishops 
Troilus 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 time of the Apostles, and also by virtue of the Nicene decrees, remained free from the 
encroachments of foreign power, may be also protected and maintained in the possession of 
this freedom by means of your just ordinances” ( Wiltsch's Geog. and Stattstics of the Church, 
vol. I, p, 246). See the exact words translated above. Evenif 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 
present 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 evidently 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 trying to 
pass off the canons of the local council of Sardica as those of the Ecumenical Council of 
Nicaea, as Rome tried todo. 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, 


16 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





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 must remember how many alleged letters and decretals of Bishops of Rome 
are now well known to be wholly spurious, or interpolated. Wemust 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 Law, nor may 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. 440-461, in subjecting by 
the aid of the civil power, Hilary of Arles and all Gaul to his see, and the conduct of Con- 
stantinople in subduing to itself by Canon XXVIII of the Fourth Synod, the great Dioceses of 
Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. And it would be too long totellof the quarrels between Rome 
and Constantinople for sway, how Constantinople fora time held evena part of Rome’s 
peculiar jurisdiction, Sicily and part of Southern Italy,and howafter a long contest she 
got controlover 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 εἰ here. As Liddell and Scott show in their Greek Lexi- 
con, it has both the meaning of “27. and “‘simce.’’ Indeed they say that “In Att’ [ic], ‘et 
with indic’’-[ative]” is used not only of probable, but of actwal events, to qualify the positive 
assertion, and so much like ‘‘07/,” because, that is: See the Harpers’ New York edition of 
1850. Soit is used in the New Testament as Robinson in his Leaicon of the New Testament 
shows under εἰ, Iijg, where instances are given. But I do not contend on the matter as to 
the rendering ‘‘7f,” or ‘‘szce,” 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-Worship 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,” (ἐδίδαξαν) : 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 W7ltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
English translation, vol. I, pages 245-249: see there. Peter’s See of Antioch, as it is 
called in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, and Paul's, (Galat. II, 11-21, compare Acts 
XIV, 26; XV, 1-41, and XI, 20-30). resorted to violence, by means of the secular powers, to gain 
her ends, but deservedly 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. 

Nore 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 Cyprus. 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 (sententiam decretoriam) of the Roman Bishop, Innocent I., 
who. about twenty years before this,in an epistle to Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, had 
claimed for thissame Alexander the power of ordaining Bishops in the island of Cyprus. 
See the Decrees of Pope Innocent, ch. XLV, XI,VI.’ Routh, p. 461. The Decrees of Innocent 
referred to may be seen in /atro/ |ogia] Latina], vol. LXVII, col, 255. See Stillingfleet’s 
Orig. Brit., pages 106-8, and note 5 on 6th Can. Conc. Nic. sup.’ 

Nore 63.—Greek, τῶν ἄλλων διοικήσεων. 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 3to7. 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 suffragan 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 toa part of Italy. See 
Bingham's Antig., book 1X. chap. 1, 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 Synod, which are modifications or 
even utter changes from this canon. She finally subjugated the diocese 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 Egypt and extended her rule after Egypt was guaranteed 
her by Canon VI of Nicaea, over Abyssinia. The Coptic Monophysite Patriarch of Alexan- 
dria exercises sway overit now. Antioch, which is mentioned in that canon, has lost much 
territory by Nestorian and Monophysite 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. 8. sec. 16. Compare also Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
English translation, vol. I, pages 208, 209, 213, 435, 461, 478, 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. 

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


18 Act VIL. of Ephesus. 


eee - - “κ“»ρλ Ῥθ-  ͵------- ---ςςςςςς--ς-ςςςς----- 


gressed, and lest under the pretence of sacred function (66) the 
pride of’ [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 
Augustine’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 of New York City for 1870 
under the head of ‘‘Defence 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 Suris- 
diction there.’’ 

Note 63.—There is no mention here of ‘‘Canons of the Apostles,” when there naturally 
would if the Council asa whole believed inthe myth that the Apostles made any canons, 
because Apostles are more authoritative than Fathers; that agrees with the lection, “The 
Canons of the holy Fathers’ above inthe first part of this Canon, and not so well with the 
readings preferred by some Greek Church writers, ‘the Canons of the holy Apostles.” 

Nore 66.—Under the pretence of caring for the interests of the churches and countries and 
lands which they wish 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, inits 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 Eeumenically 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 Nicaeain A. D. 
787, she has done allshe could to nullify and reverse the decisions of the VI Synods of the 
whole Church, East and West, against those sins, and against the heresy of Papal Infalli- 
bility in condemning Pope Honorius as a heretic. 

Note 67.—Bright iu his oe on this canon well cails 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 VV. Κ΄. Church Journal for November 30, 1870, and inserted in this 
volume below. 

Nore 68.—Ljiterally ‘our Lord Jesus Anointed,” (Χριστός) . The reference to freedom or 
liberty here seems to have been derived from Galatians V. 1, and Rev, I. 5, and V. 9. 

Nore 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 Emperoris 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; ‘‘Melvopolitan”’ 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, ete. The Patriarch 
was generally the Bishop of the capital of a civil diocese, and 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 be 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 





Nore 71.—Greek τὰ ἴσα τῶν πεπραγμένων: 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 Rotne in the West, 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 Latin 
Africa. And this enactment authorizes and demands that every Metropolitan in the West 
and every one in the East guard and preserve 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 
jurisdiction 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 in 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, heresies and idolatries, condemned ante- 
cedently and by necessary inclusion by its decisions against even 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), and 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 VI. For 
its decisions against the worship of Christ’s humanity and by necessary and logical inference 
against all creature worship see Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol. I, note 183, pages 79-128, and especi- 
ally for the decisions of the whole Church, pages 108-112; see also note 664, pages 323, 324; 
notes 676-679, pages 331-3862: and for the decisions of the whole Church against the dodge of 
relative worship for that error, see note 949, pages 461-463, and note 156, pages 61-69, and see 
also note 582, pages 225, 226. 

On the decisions of the whole Church, on God the Word as the only Mediator by his 
humanity see pages 363-406. 

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 606, pages 240-313; 
note £99, pages 229-.38, and note E, pages 517-528; 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 clergy 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 Universai Church, and we must also enforce those enactments against all 


20 Act VII, of Ephesus. 





own security. 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”’ (72), (73). 


who hold to her errors and against all the Bishops and Clerics and laics of allthe creature 
invoking and Host worshipping communions, for the Canons of Ephesus smite them allon 
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 must depose and shun, all 
Bishops and clerics who, like Pusey and other corrupters, fault Trinitarian Protestants 
who rebuked and left such Bishops and clergy at the blessed Reformation in the 16th Cen- 
tury,and we must finish the Reformation bya 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 Babylon all that had been lost in the times of Judah’s 
idolatry. 


Nore 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 cf Alexandria, and to the Bishop of Constantinople, and tothe Bishop of 
Antioch, to get the genuine Canons of Nicaea. Cyril had answered sympathizingly 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 by their brethren of 
the East, courteously but firmly and peremptorily in their Council of Carthage, A. D. 426, 
rejected Rome’s attempt to get appellate jurisdiction in Africa. Neither Cyril nor the 
other Orientals, nor Besula of Carthage, had forgotten that attempt to assail or ‘‘touch.”’ as 
this Canon words 1{, “/he 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 any such tyrannicalinnovation. And we may be sure that Besula, 
the representative present in the Ecumenical Synod from Carthage, wonld not forget his 
duty to remind allof 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 VIII, in vol. II. of Ephesus in this set, pages 131-134. See further on the attempts 
of Rome to secure Appellate Jurisdiction in Latin Africa and elsewhere, Smith's Gveseler’s 
Church History, vol. 1, pages 377-396,and as to Africa, its pages 393, 394, where important 
quctationsfrom 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. Foran account of the original independence of the British Church and its 
subjugation by Rome see id , pages 188, note 4; 462, note 11; 529-533; 552-557. And see also in 
vol. VIII. of Bingham’s Antigutizes, 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 anthority also all those anti-canonical 
privileges which were gotten by different prelates from the secular powers, such as the 
power gotten later, thatis in A. D. 445, from the vicious Emperor of the West, Valentinian 
III, by Leo I of Rome, tocrush Hilary, Metropolitan of Arles, and the liberties of the Gallican 
Church with him; and any such powers as Augustine, in a letter to Leo’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 





A LETTER (74) SENT BY THE HoLy Synop To Every BisHop 
OF A PROVINCE (75), AND TO EVERY BISHOP OF A CiTy (76), TO 





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 Geogva- 
phy and Statistics of the Church, volume I, pages 145-154, 434-438, 461-465. 

ΝΟΤῈ 73.—I give the Greek here of this whole Canon VIII: Κανὼν H’, Πρᾶγμα Tapa 
TOUS ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς θεσμοὺς καὶ τοὺς κανόνας τῶν ἁγίων ἸΤατέρων [according to the tritical 
and learned Beveridge’s Synodicon, with which agrees the Latin translation in Lambert. 
CHRYSTAL] καινοτομοίμενον, καὶ τῆς πάντων ἐλευθερίας ἁπτόμενον, προσήγγειλεν 
ὁ θεοφιλέστατος συνεπίσκοπος ‘Pyyivoc, καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τῆς Ἱζυπρίων 
ἐπαρχίας, Δήνων καὶ Ἑὐάγριος. “Ofev, ἐπειδὴ τὰ κοινὰ πάθη μείζονος δεῖται τῆς θεραπείας, 
ὡς καὶ μείζονα τὴν βλάβην φέροντα, καὶ μάλιστα [καὶ μάλιστα is not in Lambert’s Greek, 
and Ralle and Potlein a note here δίβ' 6 that itis 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 Συνταγμα (Athens, 
A. Ὁ. 1852). Compare page 16 of their preface to tome I. CHRysTaL.] εἰ μηδὲ ἔθος ἀρχαῖον 
παρακολούθησεν, ὥστε τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων πόλεως, τὰς ἐν Κύπρῳ ποιεῖσθαι 
χειροτονίας, καθὰ διὰ τῶν λιβέλλων καὶ τῶν οἰκείων, φωνῶν ἐδίδαξαν οἱ εὐλαβέστατοι ἄνδρες, 
οἱ τὴν πρόσοδον τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ ποιησάμενοι, ἕξουσι τὸ ἀνεπηρέαστον καὶ ἀβίαστον οἱ τῶν 
ἁγίων ἐκκλησιῶν, τῶν κατὰ τὴν Κύπρον, προεστῶτες, κατὰ τοὺς κανόνας τῶν ὁσίων Πατέρων 
καὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν συνήθειαν, δ ἑαυτῶν τὰς χειροτονίας τῶν εὐλαβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων 
ποιούμενοι τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων διοικήσεων, καὶ τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ ἐπαργιῶν 
παραφυλαχθήσεται" ὥστε μηδένα τῶν θεοφιλεστάτων ἔπισκόπων ἐπαρχίαν ἑτέραν οὐκ οὖσαν 
ἄνωθεν καὶ εξ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ χεῖρα, καταλαμβάνειν" ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καί 
τις κατέλαβε, καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν πεποίηται, βιασάμενος, ταύτην ἀποδιδόναι ἵνα μὴ τῶν Πατέρων 
οἱ κανόνες παραβαίνωνται, μηδὲ ἐν ἱερουργίας προσχήματι, ἐξουσίας τύφος κοσμικῆς 
παρεισδύηται, μηδὲ λάθωμεν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν κατὰ μικρὸν ἀπολέσαντες, ἣν ἡμῖν ἐδωρήσατ' 
τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι ὁ Ἰζύριος ἡμῶν ᾽᾿Τησοὺς Χριστὸς, ὁ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐλευθερωτής. “Edote 
τοίνυν τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ οἰκουμενικη συνόδῳ, σώζεσθαι ἑκάστῃ ἐπαρχίᾳ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀβίαστα τὰ αὐτῇ 
προσόντα δίκαια ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ ἄνωθεν, κατὰ τὸ πάλαι κρατῆσαν ἔθος, ἄδειαν ἔγοντος 
ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τὰ ἴσα τῶν πεπραγμένων πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον ἀσφαλὲς ἐκλαβεῖν. i δέ 
τίς μαχόμενον τύπον τοῖς νῦν ὡρισμένοις προκομίσοι, ἄκυρον τοῦτο εἶναι ἐδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ πάσῃ 
καί οἱκουμενικῃη συνόδῳ. 

I have translated the above Canon from the Greek in Lambert’s Codex Canonum 
Ecclesiae Universae, pages 44-47, where a Latin translation alsois found, and from Ralle and 
Potle’s Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ “ἱερῶν ἹΚανόνων, 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. 


Nore 74.—This heading is a marginal reading in column 1825, tome III, of Coleti, Instead 
of it. we find here in his text, “Canons of thc Two Hundred holy and blessed Fathers who 
met in Ephesus.’”? I have removed this last mentioned heading to just before the canons 
because I deemed that the marginal reading would most naturally 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, but Fulton hasin Latin ‘‘Zfzstola Synodica,”’ that 
is Synodical Epistle, and in the heading to his English translation, ‘‘Encyclical Letter of the 
Synod,” 

Note 75. That is, the Metropolitans. 


22 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





THE PRESBYTERS (77), THE DEACONS, AND Larcs (78), IN REGARD 
TO THE ORIENTAL (79) BISHOPS. ‘ 





Note 6. That is, tothe 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 profit, 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 chi®f city should be a sort of centre to all the 
ecclesiastical forces of the nation. Hence 1n Canons II and VI of the Second Synod of the 
Christian World, the Bishop of the capital city of each Diocese, who 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 VI 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 Chaicedon 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 Constantinople in the Eastern Empire. e 


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 
West, whichin the Middle Ages was tyrannized over by Romeinstead. Noappeals were allowed 
thence to Constantinople. In the XXVIIIth Canon of Chalcedon the Exarchs of the three 
great Church Dioceses of Pontus, hrace, and Asia were subjected to Constantinople. All 
Asia Minor, except the three Provinces of Isauria, Cilicia Prima and Cilicia Secunda, was 
under the Exarch of Ephesus. See Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, book IX, 
chapter 2, 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 when that imperial sway ended and Rome got back her 
dominion 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. Butits 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 toan 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 onlya higher Metro- 
politan. The Exarch of the Diocese is mentioned i11 Canons IX and XVII of Chalcedon; and 


The Case of Cyprus. 23 





THE HOLY AND ECUMENICAL SYNOD CONGREGATED IN EPHESUS 
BY THE DECREE OF THE Most KELIGIOUS (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. i 

Note 77.—Ljiterally, elders, (πρεσβυτέροις). 

NoTeE 78.—Greek, AaU-Koc, 

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

Nore 80.—Or, “most reverent,” εὐσεβεστάτων, 

Nore 81.—The Metropolitans. 

Nore 82.—The Suffragans. 

Nore 83.—Literally, ‘‘the Elders,’ as the Greek term here used is welltranslated in the 
New Testament. 

Nore 84.—Literally, ‘‘to all the people,” (καὶ παντὶ τῷ λαῷ), that is to all the Christian 
people, that is, as we say, “20 all the laity.” 

NoTe 85.—The Emperors’ Edict summoning the Ecumenical Council. 

Nore 86.—Ephesus. 

Nore 87.—Or, ‘‘stood off from among us,” Greek, ἀπεστῆσαν, Their action was both an 
apostasy and a standing off as its result. 

ΝΌΤΕ 88.—Greek, ἀποστασίας. The language and decision of the Council abundantly 
prove that they did not regard Nestorianism as a separation merely but as az Apostasy from 
fundamental and essential and necessary doctrines of the Christian faith, that is from the 
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 paganism of worshipping them there, and to what St 
Cyril calls the cannibalism of eating and drinking them there. 


Nore 89.—Or, ‘first John of Antioch in Syria himself.” 


24 Act VII, of Ephesus. 





Maximinus of Anazarbus; 

Theodore (90) of Marcianopolis; 

Peter of Trajanopolis; 

Paul of Emesa; 

Polychronius of the City of the Heracleans; 

Eutherius of Tyana; 

Meletius of Neocaesarea; 

Theodoret of Cyrus; 

Apringius of Chalcedon (91); 

Macarius of Laodicea 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; 

Graianus (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- 


Norte 90.—Or ‘‘Dorotheus.”’ 

Nore 91.--Or ‘“‘Chalcis;’”’ note there in Harduin., tome I, col. 1621, margin. 

Nore 92.—No less than four Laodiceas are mentioned in the ‘'/udex of Episcopal Sees’ at 
the end of book IX of Bingham’s Azdéiguities. 

Nore 93.—A marginal note in Coleti here states that ‘‘Polius” is here inserted in the ms. 
Seg. 

Nore 94.—Or, according to another reading, Tarianus ἢ 


The Case of Cyprus. 25 





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 adecreein 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 HOLY AND BLESSED FATHERS 
ΗΟ 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: 





Norte 95.—The Greek, as in Fulton’s Codex Canonum, page 150, reads as follows: 
Οἱ τίνες THE ἐκκλησιαστικῆς κοινωνίας μηδεμίαν ἔχοντες ἄδειαν ὡς ἐξ αὐθεντίας ἱερατικῆς, 
εἰς τὸ δύνασθαί τινας ἐκ ταύτης βλάπτειν ἢ ὠφελεῖν, διὰ τὸ καί τινας ἐν αὐτοῖς εἷναι 
καθηρημένους, πρὸ πάντων μὲν τὰ Νεστορίου καὶ τὰ ἹΚελεστίου φρονήματα ἐπιφερόμενοι 
σαφέστατα ἀπεδείχθησαν, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἑλέσθαι μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν Νεστορίου καταψηφίσασθαι οὕς 
τίνας δόγματι κοινῷ ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος πάσης μὲν ἐκκλησιαστικῆς κοινωνίας ἀλλοτρίους 
ἐποίησε πᾶσαν δὲ αὐτῶν ἐνέργειαν ἱερατικὴν περιεῖλε, OV ἧς ἠδύναντο βλάπτειν ἢ ὠφελεῖν 
τινας. 


Nore 96.—Lambert 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; forit cannot be madeto 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 wellsaid. 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 Christ’s law in Matthew IV, 10, and worshipping images, crosses, and 
other mere things. In the Old Testament the term ‘‘whovedom”’ 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. 

Norte 97.—On this see note 74 on the first part of this Circular Letter a little above. Allin 
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 “πᾶ here connects the Canons with the Circular Letter just before 
them, for with it they evidently formed one document. 

Notre 99.—The Emperor’s Letter convoking the council was addressed to the Metropoli- 
tans only, each of whom is directed by it to bring with him “a few” of his suffragans, ‘‘as 
many ashe may approve.’ This expression implies of course that the rest of his suffragans 
were to be “‘/e/t of.” See it on page 87, vol. I, of Chrystal’s translation of Ephesus. 


26 ΚΟΥ ΝΟΣ WN fo = 


Τῆς ἐν Epéow Tottns Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου. 


ΟΑΝΟΝ 1. 


Ἐπειδὴ ἐχρῆν καὶ τοὺς ἀπολειφϑέντας τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου, 
καὶ Pueivartas κατὰ χώραν ἢ πόλιν διά τινα αἰτίαν ἢ ἐκκλησια- 
στικὴν, ἢ σωματικὴν, μὴ ἀγνοῆσαι τὰ “ἔν αὐτῇ τετυπωμένα, 
γνωρίζομεν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ ἁγιότητι καὶ ἀγάπῃ, “ ὅτιπερ εἴ τις μη- 
τροπολίτης τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἀποστατήσας τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενι- 
κῆς συνόδου, προσέϑετο τῷ τῆς ἀποστασίας (}) συνεδρίῳ, ἢ μετὰ 
τοῦτο προστεϑείη, ἢ τὰ "Κελεστίου(3) ἐφρόνησεν ἢ φρονήσει, 
οὗτος κατὰ τῶν τῆς ξἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων διαπράττεσϑαί τι οὐδα- 
μῶς δύναται, πάσης ἐκκλησιαστικῆς κοινωνίας ἐντεῦϑεν ἤδη 
ὑπὸ τῆς συνόδου ἐκβεβλημένος καὶ ἀνενέργητος ὑπάρχων. ‘Alia 
καὶ αὐτοῖς τοῖς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόποις, καὶ τοῖς πέριξ μητρο- 
πολίταις τοῖς τὰ τῆς ὀρϑοδοξίας "φρονοῦσιν ὑποκείσεται εἰς τὸ 
πάντη καὶ τοῦ βαϑμοῦ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐκβληϑῆγαι. 


CANON II. 


Εἰ δέτινες ἐπαρχιῶται ἐπίσκοποι ἀπελείφϑησαν τῆς ἁγίας συνό- 
δου καὶ τῇ ἀποστασίᾳ προσετέϑησαν, ἢ προστεϑῆναι πειραϑεῖεν, 
ἢ καὶ ὑπογράψαντες τῇ ΝὝΥεστορίου καϑαιρέσει ἐπαλινδρόμησαν 
πρὸς τὸ τῆς ἀποστασίας συνέδριον" τούτους πάντη κατὰ τὸ δόξαν 
τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι τῆς ἱερωσύνης καὶ τοῦ βαϑμοῦ 
eu mime. 


27 


CANONS 


OF THE THIRD WORKLD-SYNOD, EPHESUS, A.D. 431. 


Canon I. 


Punishment of Nestorianizing and Pelagianizing Metropolitans. 


If any Metropolitan of a Province has apostatized from the 
Holy and Ecumenical Synod, and has joined himself to the San- 
hedrim of the Apostasy (101) or may hereafter join himself to it, 
or has held or may hold the opinions of Celestius, he can in no 
wise effect any thing against the Bishops of the Province, for he 
is henceforth cast out of ali ecclesiastical communion by the Synod, 
and is rendered incapable of doing 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 Nestorianizing suffragan Bishops. 


But if any of the provincial Bishops (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. 


Ei δέ τινες" καὶ τῶν ἐν ἕκάστῃ πόλει ἢ χώρᾳ, κληρικῶν ὑπὸ 
Neotogiov καὶ τῶν σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντων τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἐκωλύϑησαν 
διὰ τὸ ὀρϑῶς φρονεῖν" ἐδικαιώσαμεν καὶ τούτους τὸν ἴδιον ἀπο- 
λαβεῖν βαϑμόν. Κοινῶς δὲ τοὺς τῇ ὀρϑοδόξῳ καὶ οἰκουμενικῇ 
συνόδῳ συμφρονοῦντας κληρικοὺς, κελεύομεν τοῖς ἀποστατήσα- 
σιν ἢ ἀφισταμένοις ἐπισκόποις μηδόλως ὑποκεῖσϑαι κατὰ μη- 
δένα τρόπον. 


CANON IV. 


Hi δέ τινες ἀποστατήσαιεν τῶν κληρικῶν, καὶ τολμήσαιεν ἢ 
zat ἰδίαν ἢ δημοσίᾳ τὰ ΜΝυεστορίου(1) ἢ τὰ Κελεστίου φρονῆσαι, 
καὶ τούτους εἶναι καϑῃρημένους, ὑπὸ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου δεδι- 
καίωται. 


CANON V. 


Ὅσοι δὲ ἐπὶ ἀτόποις πράξεσι κατεχρίϑησαν ὑπὸ τῆς ἁγίας 
συνόδου ἢ ὑπὸ τῶν οἰκείων ἐπισκόπων" καὶ τούτοις ἀκανονίστως 
κατὰ τὴν ὃν ἅπασιν ἀδιαφορίαν αὐτοῦ, 6 Νεστόριος καὶ οἱ τὰ 
αὐτοῦ φρονοῦντες, ἀποδοῦναι ἐπειράϑησαν, ἢ πειραϑεῖεν κοινω- 
γίαν ἢ βαϑμὸν, ἀνωφελήτους εἶναι καὶ τούτους, καὶ μένειν οὐδὲν 
ἧττον καϑῃρημένους “ἐδικαιώσαμεν. 





CANON VI. 


Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἴ τινες βουληϑεῖεν τὰ περὶ “ἕκάστων πεπραγ- 
μένα ἕν τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ τῇ ἐν “Epéow οἷῳδήποτε τρόπῳ παρα- 


Canons of the Third Ecumenical Council. 29 





CANON III. 


Restoration of all Orthodox clerics unjustly deposed. They must not 
be subject to Nestorian 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 be 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 own Bishops for 
actions which were out of place, and to whom uncanonically and 
in accordance with his ‘‘[wonted] ‘‘lack of discrimination in al! 
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 of 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. 





σαλεύειν" 4 ἁγία σύνοδος ὥρισεν, εἶ μὲν ἐπίσκοποι εἶεν ἢ κληρι- 
κοὶ, τοῦ οἰχείου παντελῶς ἀποπίπτειν βαϑμοῦ᾽ εἰ δὲ λαϊκοὶ, ἀκοι- 
γωνήτους ὑπάρχειν. 


CANON VII. 


Τούτων "ἀναγνωσϑέντων, (1) ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος, ἑτέραν 
πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἢ συντιϑέναι, 
παρὰ τὴν ὁρισϑεῖσαν παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἔν τῇ Νι- 

/ id ’ Ἁ ε ’, ’ \ ‘ ~ 
καέων συναχϑέντων πόλει, σὺν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι. Τοὺς δὲ τολμῶν- 
τας ἢ συντιϑέναι πίστιν ἑτέραν ἤγουν προκομίζειν ἢ προφέρειν (3) 
τοῖς ϑέλουσιν ἐπιστρέφειν sic ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληϑείας, ἢ ἐξ λλη- 
γισμοῦ, ἢ) ἐξ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμοῦ, ἤγουν ἐξ αἱρέσεως οἱασδήποτε" τούτους 
εἶ μὲν εἶεν ἐπίσκοποι ἢ κληρικοὶ, ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐπισκόπους 
τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, καὶ τοὺς κληρικοὺς τοῦ κλήρου" εἰ δὲ λαϊχοὶ εἶεν, 
ἀναϑεματίζεσϑαι. Κατὰ τὸν ἴσον δὲ τρόπον, εἰ φωραϑεῖέν τινες 
εἶτε ἐπίσκοποι εἶτε κληρικοὶ, εἴτε λαϊκοὶ, ἢ φρονοῦντες ἢ διδά- 

δ 5 ~ ΄ 3 ΄ ‘ 7 (3) ~ 
OXOVTES τὰ EV τῇ προκομισϑείσῃ ἐκϑέσει παρὰ Χαρισίου(") τοῦ 
πρεσβυτέρου, περὶ τῆς ἐνανϑρωπήσεως τοῦ μονογενοῦς Yiow 
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἤγουν τὰ“ μιαρὰ καὶ διεστραμμένα τοῦ Νεστορίου 
δόγματα, ἃ καὶ ὑποτέτακται: ὑποκείσϑωσαν. τῇ ἀποφάσει τῆς 
ἁγίας ταύτης καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου" ὥστε δηλονότι τὸν μὲν 
ἐπίσκοπον ἀπαλλοτριοῦσϑαι τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς καὶ εἶναι καϑηρημέ- 
γον, τὸν δὲ κληρικὸν ὁμοίως ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ κλήρου" εἶ δὲ λαΐκός 

” Duy ἴδ: 39 ΄ d ‘ , 

τις εἴη, καὶ οὗτος ἀναϑεματιζέσϑω, ἃ καϑὰ προείρηται. 


. 





CANON VIII. 


Πρᾶγμα παρὰ τοὺς ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς ϑεσμοὺς καὶ τοὺς κανό- 
γας τῶν ἁγίων “ πατέρων καινοτομούμενον καὶ τῆς πάντων ἕλευ 


Canons of the Third Ecumenical Council. 31 


every matter in the Holy Synod at Ephesus, 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 VII. 


Punishment of all who dare to offer a fatth contrary to that of 
Nicaea to converts to the truth, and of those who hold the Nestorian 
denial of the Incarnation and to the Nestorian relative worship of 
Christ's separate humanity as in a Nestorian Forthset, 


Canon 1771 is really a decision of the Council in its Sixth Act regarding the Man-Wor- 
shipping Creed of The. dore of Mopsuestia, and is found in volume II of Ephesus, on 
pages 222-225. S εἰπε eontext. The Greek is in note 826, page 225 there. See it also in the 
parallel column here. 


Decision of the Synod on the Faith, in which it: also decided in re- 
gard to those mattcrs which the aforesaid Charisius reported: it is as 
follows: 

“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- 
pose 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 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 
anathematized. 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 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 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.”’ 


Canon VIII. 


Decision to Protect the Rights of Cyprus and of every Province and 
Nation against usurpers. 


ea Canons of the Synod of Ephesus. 








ϑερίας ἁπτόμενον, προσήγγειλεν 6 ϑεοφιλέστατος συνεπίσκοπος 
ἹῬηγῖνος καὶ oi σὺν αὐτῷ ϑεοφιλέστατοι συνεπίσκοποι τῆς Κυ- 
πρίων ἐπαρχίας Ζήνων καὶ Hidyouwc ὅϑεν (1) ἐπειδὴ τὰ κοινὰ 
πάϑη μείζονος δεῖται τῆς ϑεραπείας, ὡς καὶ μείζονα τὴν βλάβην 
͵ log J 

éoovta,* καὶ μάλιστα εἰ μηδὲ ἔϑος ἀογαῖον παρηκολούϑησεν 
/ ͵νς ς ᾽ 

ὥστε τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς ᾿Αντιοχέων πόλεως, τὰς ἕν Κύπρῳ ποιεῖ- 
ova χειροτονίας, καϑὰ διὰ τῶν λιβέλλων καὶ τῶν οἰκείων φωνῶν 
ἐδίδαξαν οἱ εὐλαβέστατοι ἄνδρες οἱ τὴν πρόσοδον τῇ ἁγίᾳ 
συνόδῳ ποιησάμενοι, ἕξουσι τὸ ἀνεπηρέαστον καὶ ἀβίαστον οἱ τῶν 
ἁγίων ἐκκλησιῶν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Κύπρον προεστῶτες, κατὰ τοὺς 
κανόνας τῶν ὁσίων πατέρων καὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν συνήϑειαν, Ov 
ἑαυτῶν τὰς χειροτονίας τῶν εὐλαβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων ποιούμε- 

-(2) 4 \ 8. Ὁ ἢ Ss τῶν ἢ - 5᾽ , A ~ ε 
youl) τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων διοικήσεων καὶ τῶν ἅπαν- 
ταχοῦ ἐπαρχιῶν παραφυλαχϑήσεται. ὥστε μηδένα τῶν ϑεοφι- 
λεστάτων ἐπισκόπων ἐπαρχίαν ἕτέραν οὐκ οὖσαν ἄνωϑεν καὶ 
ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ, χεῖρα κατα- 
λαμβάνειν" ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καί τις κατέλαβε, καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῷ πεποίηται 
βιασάμενος," ταύτην ἀποδιδόναι, ἵνα μὴ τῶν πατέρων οἱ κανόνες 
παραβαίνωνται, μηδὲ ἕν ἱερουργίας προσχήματι ἐξουσίας τύφος 
κοσμικῆς παρεισδύηται, μηδὲ λάϑωμεν τὴν ἐλευϑερίαν |) κατὰ 
: 

LI 39 , ει (eer 3 ’ὔ ~ 30/7 (v4 ς , 
μικρὸν ἀπολέσαντες, ἣν ἡ μῖν ἐδωρήσατο τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι 6 Κύ- 
ριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὃ πάντων ἀνϑρώπων ἐλευϑερωτής. 
Ἔδοξε τοίνυν τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ oixovpevixh συνόδῳ, o@lecdar ἕκά- 
στῃ ἐπαρχίᾳ καϑαρὰ καὶ ἀβίαστα τὰ αὐτῇ προσόντα δίκαια ἐξ 
ἀρχῆς καὶ ἄνωϑεν, κατὰ τὸ πάλαι κρατῆσαν ἔϑος" ἄδειαν ἔχοντος 
éxdotov Μητροπολίτου τὰ ἴσα τῶν πεπραγμένων πρὸς TO οἷ- 

- 5 4 5 ~ 3 , , , ~ ~ e 
κεῖον ἀσφαλὲς ἐκλαβεῖν. Hi δέ τις μαχόμενον τύπον τοῖς νῦν ὧρι- 
σμέγοις προκομίσοι, ἄκυρον τοῦτο εἶναι ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ “ πάσῃ 
καὶ οἰκουμενικῇ συνόδῳ. 


Canons of the Third Ecumeniccl Council. 33 





Canon VIIT is 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 Synop. 
THE HOLY SyNop SaIp: 

The most dear to God Fellow Bishop Rheginus, 2nd 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 contravy to the Church laws and to the 
canons of the holy 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 voices; the prelates 
of the holy Churches in Cyprus 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 sha 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 by 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 off copies of this Action for his own security. 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.”’ 


24 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





‘“RPISTLE OF THE SAME HOLY AND ECUMENICAL THIRD 
SYNOD TO THE HOLY (110). SvyNop ΟΕ PAMPHYLIA CONCERNING 
EvusTATHIUS WHO HAD BEEN THEIR METROPOLITAN.’’ 


With counsel he doeth all things (111), says the God-inspired Scrip- 
ture. It behooves therefore especially those whose lot it is to be 





Note 100, p. 25.—The expression ‘‘/o 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 7mdex Canonum. 
Ralleand Potlein their Σύνταγμα Kavévwr, tome 2, Athens, A. D., 1852, do not give it in 
their text, but ina note tell us that it is found in four editions of these canons by different 
writers. 

Nore 101, p. 27.—Or, ‘“‘the little Synod of the Apostasy,” τῷ τῆς ἀποστασίας συνεδρίῳ The 


Jewish Sanhedrim is called in the New Testament a συυξδριον. See Matt. XXVI, 59,and in 


Josephus as quoted under συνέδριον in Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon. 

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

Nore 103, p. 27.—Or, ‘‘the little Council of the Apostasy.” 

Note 104, p. 27.—or “‘the hervhood”’ (coined from ἱερεύς to express the sacerdotal rank and 
title). 

Nore 105, p. 29.—Or “‘hervhood.”’ 

Nore 106, p. 29.—This, like the decisions against other heretical Bishops, that is the Arians, 
Macedonians, Eutychians and others, is not only a guarantee for sound Protestants not to 
submit to any creature invoking or image-worshipping Bishops, but a conimand for them 
not todo so. They should, however, submit toa sound Bishop and follow the Six Syuods 
under him, where such a mancan be found. Of course to submit toa 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, 18,and Rev. XVIII, 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. Soshall we complete 
our Reformation bya full Restoration of New Testament Christianity. But 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. 

Nortr 107, p. 29.—The errors of Pelagius and Celestius astold by Marius Mercator, who was 
of the fifth century and therefore contemporary with their authors, in the Preface to his 
Subnotations on the Words of Julian are as follows: 


[1]. ‘‘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. 

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

These five heads breed one most impious and abominable opinion.”’ 

He adds [6], that ‘fa 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 XI,VIII, col. 114, Marius Mercator, lib. subnot. 

Any one well acquainted with the Bible can readily find passages there to refute those 
heresies, See furtheron them and their anthors in Blunt’s Dictionary of Doctrinal and 


The Synod’s Decision on Lustathius. 35 








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








Historical Theology, under Pelagianism, and under Pelagians and Celestians in his Dictiona ry 
of Sects, and in McClintock & €trong’s Cyclopaedia under Pelagianism and Pelagius, and 
Coelestius. What Jerome writes of him in an Epistle to Ctesiphon, A. D. 415, as quoted in 
the article Coelestius there, may serve to explain why he figures so prominently in the 
Canons of the Third World-Synod and in the preface to them: it is as fcl'ows: 

“Although a scholar of Pelagius, he is yet leader and master of the whole host.”’ 

See also Augustine’s works agaifist his and Pelagius’ heresies. 

According to Bunt in his Dictionary of Sects, page 417, outer column, under Pelagians, 
the heresiarch Theodore of Mopsuestia, though at first opposed to Pelagian views, neverthe- 
less before his death inclined to them, See there. 

Nore 108, p. 29.—The Universal Church has never known any false liberalism except to 
condemn it. She always in her sound normal state, before the lap-e into creature service 
made very short work of putting out creature serving heretics, like the Arians and Nestori- 
ans, for instance, and putting anti-creature servers into their places. So should every nation 
do now. Forsuch creature-invokers are murderers of souls. The sound English Bishops 
did that very justly and wisely with idolatrous prelates in England at the Reformation, and 
the result was national blessing. 

Nore 109, p. 31.—These penalties of course smite all who deny the Incarnation of God the 
Word in the womb of the Virgin, and 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 kissing them, or by incensing them, or in any other way; for 
surely, if, by this canonI 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 AHzstory of Infant Baptism, shows that as God 
under the Mosaic Covenant made, in Genesis XVII, 14, circumcision necessary for every 
male infant, so the ancient Christians held, He has made baptism necessary for all of every 
age and sex underthe new and better Covenant of Christ for, in John III, 5, He has said in 
warning language: ‘Verily, verily, Isay unto thee, Zf any one be not born out of water and 
of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’’ The Greek as in the text οἵ 
Tischendorf’s ‘‘Kighth critical larger edition” of the Greek Testament, (Lipsiae, 1869), is as 
follows: ᾿Αμὴν͵ ἀμὴν, λέγω σοι, ἐὰν ph τις γεννηθῆ ἐξ ὕδατοσ Kai ἸΠνεύματος ov δύναται 
εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. But see the exhaustive work of Wall. But the 
Pulagians baptized infants nevertheless. Antipaedobaptism, Wall states, began in sect form 
in the XIIth Century. The first volume of Wall before me has the Antipaedobaptist 
Gale's Reflections and Wail’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. 

NoieE 110, p. 84.—Or ‘‘pure.”’ 

Note 111.—This seems to be the sense of several texts taken together rather than a 
reference to any 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. 

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


36 Act VII. of Ephesus. 

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 seemly. 

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 todo wrong to a present condition of affairs, in order 
to see some thing advantageous’’ [as the vesult.| ‘‘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 of zfs functions, and willingly to endure the sweat for 
which he was paid. But since he has once shown himself to be 
heedless, having suffered this thing owing to his quiet disposition 
rather than from sloth and laziness, your Godfearingness 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 ov/y 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 Zo a//, 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 Prvest and Pizesthood, and Priestly, ind in Index III under I Peter 
II, 5; Il, 5, 9, and II, 9, and Rev. I, 6; and in Index IV, ἱεράτευμα, ἱερεύς, ἱερουργῶν 


and lepwouvr”c. 


The Synod's Decision on the Messalians 
a ee ee δν 
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 within 
it, and who had been for so long a time away 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 azd minister by his own authority, but he shall be 
taken along with one, or he shall be permitted 20 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 ECUMENICAL 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 
Amphilochtus have come to us, and have proposed that we consider 
in common the matters in regard to the Messalians, that is 
the Luchites or Enthusiasts, 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 Synodical 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 (113), and the most pious (114) Bishops 


Nore 113.—This Document is given in Latin alone here in Mansi, and Hardouin. The 
Greek for all from “712 has pleased us all,” to ‘‘admitted to communion” inclusive is found 
in ActI of the Idolatrous Council of Nicaea A. D. 787, which the image-worshipping Greek 





38 Act VII. of Ephesus. 





Valerian and Amphilochius, and all the most pious Bishops of 
Pamphylia and Lycaonia (115), that all things, which are contained 
in that Synodical document, have validity, and that they be 
neglected in no way (116); and that those things which were done 
in Alexandria remain firm; so that all who are Messalians or 
Enthusiasts (117) 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 presbyters 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 call the Seventh Ecumenical. See the Greek in Coleti’s Conciiia, 
tome §, col. 717. 

Nore 114.—Greek, ‘‘most dear to God.” 

Nore 115.—Greek, ‘‘most pious bishops of the provinces of the Pamphylians and of the 
Lycaonians.”’ 

Notr 116.—The Greek translated reads, ‘‘and that they be transgressed in no way, that 
is that they remain firm, and those things which were done in Alexandria |remain firm.]”’ 

Norte 117.—Greek, ‘that those who are of the heresy of the Massalians or Enthusiasts.” 

Nore 118.—Greek, ‘‘or who are suspected of such a disease.” 

Note 119.—Greek, ‘‘7f larcs, let them remain tu the communion of the Church." At this 
point the Greek quotation ends. 

Nore 120.—Or, ‘‘rank.” 


The Synod’s Decision on Euprepius’ Petition. 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 is difficult 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 PETITION FROM EUPREPIUS BISHOP OF BIzyA AND ARCADI- 
OPOLIS, AND FROM CyRIL, BISHOP OF COELE, WHICH WAS OFFERED 
TO THE THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD (121). 

“*To the holy and Universal Synod, congregated by the favor of 
God and the assent of the most pious Emperors in the metropolis Ephe- 
sus. vom Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya and Arcadiopolis, and from 
Cyril, Bishop of Coele. 

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: wherefore 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] “οἵ 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 az apostate by the holy Synod, and has 





NOTE 121.—This Document is given in aaatin alone eas in τάσδε and in Mansi, 


40 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 Piety, 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 very 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 your 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 
by the Bishops by whom they were governed aforetime, since as yet 
no Metropolitan hastaken away their power, nor hereafter in future 
times can any innovation be made in old custom,’’ (125).”’ 





Nore 122.—Latin, itaque priscos mores et consuetudinem, etc. 

Note 123.—The Latin here is ‘‘inordinationes,’’ which may be rendered “‘777egular 
ordinations,” or disorders. So we have transferred the word. 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. 

Norte 124.—The Greek of this document I do not find in Coleti’s Conc:dia, andthe Latin 
there given is corrupt. In the margin of column 1333 of tome IV of his Conci/ia two readings 
are given which we have followed in our translation. And in column 1334 of the same tome, 
referring to some things in the Latin of this document, it reads, ‘‘ These things seem mutilated 
and corrupted. (Haec mutila et depsavata videntur.) We have endeavured to do the best 
we could under the circumstances. 

Nore 125.—Bingham, in his Antiquities of the Christian Church, book IX, chapter IV, 


End of the Acts—Penalties for Unsettllers. 41 








HERE END THE ACTS OF THE THIRD ECUMENICAL Synop, THA’ 
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, ‘‘7 believe 
in one holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.’’ 

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- 
ping a human being (᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία), or of Relative Worship, 
or of Cannibalism (᾿Ανθρωποφαγία) in 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 “ἂς a 
heathen man and a publican’’ (Matt. XVIII, 15-19); and we are to 
“‘vejet’” him (Titus Il, 10). 


section 2, shows that this enactment was disregarded in times not long after Ephesus. 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 guilty of "Av@pwro/atpeia, that is, “ihe worship 
of a human being,’ and the excommunication of all laics guilty of the same sin of 
creature worship; and the same penalties, imposed by the same Council on those guilty of 
the disgusting and degrading error of ’Av@pwrogayia have been practically done away 
in the Latin Communion, the Greek, and the Monophysite, as well as in the Nestorian, 
in which we first find that sin, that is the eating of a human being, that is, Christ's humanily 
inthe Eucharist, that is in plain Engli-h, the error and heresy, condemned in that Synod- 
that Christians are guilty of cannibalism in that sacred rite, See on that error note 606, 
pages 240-313, vol. lof Ephesus in this set, and note 599, pages 229-2°8, and note Ἐς, pages 517, 
528, notes 692, 693, page 407; under ᾿Ανθρωποφαγία, on page 696, Αποστασία, on page 697, 
᾿Αρχετύπω there, and σύμβολον, the Eucharistic Symbol, on page 755,all in the same volume. 

On ‘the sin and heresy of worshipping a human berng see the sime volume, note 183, 
pp. 79-128; note 582, pp. 225, 226; note 664, pp. 323, 324; note 679, pp. 332-862; and on the relative 
worship of Christ’s humanity, and the Universal Church’s condemnation of it, and, by logical 
and necessary inclusion, of αὐ other relative worship, note 949, pp. 461-463; 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. 339-346, text and notes 682-688 on it inclusive, and 
especially note 688, pp. 363-406, and Nestorius’ Heresy 2 on pp. 639-641, and pp. 694-696, under 


᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία and ᾿Ανθρωπολάτρης. 





fe fin 





ARTICLES ON TOPICS 


CONNECTED WITH THE 


THIRD ECUMENICAL SYNOD. 


μὰ 


ἣν ra 





43 


ARTICLE I. 


THE DIOCESES AND PROVINCES, FROM WHICH BisHoPS CAME ΤῸ 
THE THIRD ECUMENICAL, COUNCIL, AND How Many 
CamE FROM EACH. 


I would here redeem my promise on page 30, in note 57, 
volume I of Aphesus, 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 differ- 
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, isa 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 /zdex of Episcopal Sees at the 
end of Book X of Bingham’s Azntiguities of the Christian Church, 
and by the Indexes in the English translation of Wiltsch’s Geogra- 
ply and Statistics of the Church. ‘The name of Bingham below 
cited means his Aztiguities 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; anda 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, volumeI. 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 nota 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 
Manichaean Heresy in Stothert’s translation, published by the 
Clarks of Edinburgh. It was written in 388 (page 1, id., note). 


Condemnation of Paganizings. 45 





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 Wicaea, 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 Jan- 
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. Ὁ. 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 (fa7z vatione) 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. Ὁ. 451. See Bingham’s A xtiguities, 
Index, wnuder 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- 
tiort, that is for a stronger reason, or much more, as we say, it 
deposes every cleric and anathematizes every laic who gives any 


46 Punishments for Creature- Worship. 


act of religious worship. even though it be velative, to any other 
creature. For Nestorius’ worship of Christ’s humanity, for 
which among other things he was deposed, was velative as we see 
by page 221, volumeI, text and note 580, pages 459, 461, and the 
notes on them, and pages 463, 464, 466, 407, and the notes on 
them. Indeed as I have shownin my articles on Creature-Worship 
in the Church Journal of New York City, for 1870, the heathen 
have ever defended their worship of images on that plea: see them be- 
low on all forms of creature worship, and under ‘‘Cvoss, Relic Worship, 
Relative Worship, Creature-Service, Invocation of Saints, Image 
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 ,zelative to Jehovah, as I have 
shown in the articles on Creature-Worship just mentioned, and on 
page 109 of WMicaea, and 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 


Keble’s Citations for Host Worship, etc. 47 





contradicts Himself. His truth never becomesa 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 Lucharistical Ador- 
ation (pages 108-118, 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 ᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, that is the worship of a 
human beig, 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 “AvOpwxogayia, that is his blasphemy of 
eating. Chris?s humanity and drinking his blood in the Lord’s 
Supper. But he was, as we have seen in note 606, pages 240- 
313, volume I of Zphesus, not a Two Nature Consubstantia- 
tionist, but a One Nature Consubstantiationist, that is, he held to a 
Consubstantiation of the Christ’s human nature only, (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 Ephesus under it and Chrzsé and Nestorius and Man- Worship and 


Leucharist. 


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. “‘Ennepius, Bishop of Myxa in Rhodope.’’ But no such see as 
Myxa is found in Bingham or in Wiltsch, or in Baudrand. 
Mercator has Maximianopolis, which is a see of Rhodope 
and seems to be the one meant. Perhaps J/yxa was another 
name for it or a copyist’s error. Indeed in volume I of 
Ephesus we find the name clearly written, ‘‘Annepius of 
Maximianofpolis,’’ which is therefore the true reading: see 
page 24, towards the foot, and page 140. But it is AZyxa 
on page 492. 

4. Athanasius, Bishop of Dueltus and 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 |Tomt?] in the Province 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. Luprepius, Bishop of Bizya, in the Province of noche, 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 Ephesus in Asia Proconsularis, Metropoli- 
tan and Exarch. 

2. <Amphilochius, Bishop of Sida in the First Pamphylia, Metro- 
politan. 

3. Hellanicus, Bishop of Rhodes, and Metropolitan. 

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


10. 


ΤΠ 


125 


19: 
14. 


iW 


18. 


Bishops present in the Synod. 49 








Themistius, Bishop of Jassus (spelled also Iassus and Iasus) in 
Caria, as on page 144, vol. I of Ephesus. 

Spudastus, 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. 

Philetus, Bishop of Amyzon, in Caria. 

Aichelaus, Bishop of Myndus in Caria. 

Afpellas, Bishop of Cibyrrhka in Caria. 

Aphthonetus, Bishop of Heraclea in Caria, as on page 144, 
vol. Lof Aphesus. 

Promachius, Bishop of the Alindans, that is of the inhabitants 
of Alinda, in Caria, as on page 145, id. 

Fleracleon, who is also Theophilus, Bishop of Tralles or Tral- 
lis, in Asia Proconsularis. Bingham adds a second Trallis 
or Tralles, which was in Lydia; but Wiltsch on page 170, 
volume I of his Geography and Statistics of the Church, 
English translation, spells the name of that see 7yada, 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 Hphesus. (A. 1): 491. 

Euporus, Bishop of Hypaepa in the Province of Asia. 

Rhodon, Bishop of Palacopolis, in the Province of Asia, that 
is in Asia Proconsularis. 

Tychicus, or Eutychius, Bishop of the Erythraeans, that is of 
Erythrae (in Asia Proconsularis). But on page 142, vol. I 
of Ephesus, Eutychius is set down as Bishop of Erythra, a 
city of Asia.’’ 

Nestorius, Bishop of Sion, in Asia Proconsularis. 

Eutychius, Bishop of Theodosiopolis, in Asia, that is in the 
Province of Asia Proconsularis, as we see by page 149, 
vol. I of Ephesus. 

Modestus, Bishop of the Aneans, or Anaeans, in Phrygia, as 
we see on page 141 there. 


50 Bish ps present in the Synod. 





19. TZheosebius, Bishop of the city of Priene in Asia Proconsularis. 
I have supplied in brackets, /inzor after Asia on page 139, 
vol. lof Ephesus. I should have supplied Proconsularts. 

20. Theodotus, Bishop of Nyssa, (in Proconsular Asia?). I judge 
this Nyssa, or as Wiltsch spells it in the /dex 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 Nyssa in Cappadocia. Wiltsch 
tells us that the Bishop of Nysa Asiana was at the Council 
of Ephesus in 431: see his note 13, volume I of his work, 
English translation. 

21. Maximus, Bishop of Assus, 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 Asza, not Mimorv 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 
Antiqutties, 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 Anizetfa, 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 Proconsuiar Asia. 

25. Eusebius, Bishop of the Clazomenians, that is of the inhabi- 
tants of Clazomenae in Proconsular Asia. 

26. Lusebius, 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 Macandrum, 
that is Magnesia on the Macander, in Caria, and Magnesia ad 


Bishops present in the Synod. 51 





Ὁ 


28. 
29. 


90. 


31. 


32. 


33. 


34. 


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

Theodosius, Bishop of Mastaura in Lydia, according to Bing- 
ham, but better in Proconsular Asia, according to Wiltsch: 
see page 139, vol. I of Ephesus, where MZmor should be Pro- 
consular. 

Eutropius, Bishop of Evaza, in Proconsular Asia. 

Philip, Bishop of the city of the Pergamians, that is of Perga- 
mus in Proconsular Asia. 

Aphobius, Bishop of Colona, or as it is on page 141, vol. I of 
Ephesus, Colon, in Proconsular Asia probably, for the name 
occurs here and on page 141, id., among the signatures of 
Prelates of that Province. 


Dorotheus, Bishop of Myrina, or as it is spelled on page 141, 
id., Myrrhina in Proconsular Asia. 


Euthalius, Bishop of the Colophonians, 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. 


Heliotheus, Bishop of the Barjulitans. 1 find no city repre- 
sented by thisterm. Wiltsch gives a ‘‘Bargasa or Baretta 
in Asia Proconsul.’’ and a ‘‘Bargyla, in Caria.’’ In Har- 
pers Latin Dictionary, the latter name is spelled ‘‘Bargy- 
liae,’’ and two adjectives are given as connected wlth 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. Ἢ 

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 Aphesus. If ‘‘Paros’’ be the 
true reading, we must remember that it belonged to the 


52 


35. 


36. 


37. 


38. 


39. 


40. 


41. 


42. 


43. 


Bishops present iu the Synod. 





Diocese of Asia. Mercator in the Council of Chalcedon 
has ‘‘of the Island Paros.”’ 

Flesychius, Bishop of the city of Parium 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. Iof 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. 

Tribonianus, Bishop of the Holy Church in 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. 

Nunechius, Bishop of the holy Church in Selga, in the First 
Pamphylia: See Bingham’s ‘‘Index of Sees,’’ and page 135, 
volume I of Ephesus. 

John, Bishop of Praeconnesus in Hellespontus. He speaks on 
page 132, volume I of Ephesus. 

Nesius, Bishop of the Holy Church of God in Corybosyna. 
This seems the same as Nesius, Bishop of Corybrassus in 
Pamphylia, on page 137, vol. I of Ephesus. The name of 
the see is misspelled in at least one of the above signatures, 
probably by a copyist’s or editor’s error. 

Acacius, Bishop of the Church of God in Cotena, in Pamphylia 
Prima. 

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. 

Solon, Bishop of Carallia, in Pamphylia, as we see on page 
135. τὰ: ; 

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 in the Synod. 53 





44, 


45. 


40. 


47. 


48. 


49. 
50. 


51. 


52- 


53. 


54. 


Marianus, 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. 

Theoctistus, Bishop of the city of the Phocaeans, that is of Pho- 
caea in Asia Proconsularis. 

Rujinus, Bishop of the city of the Tabanians. Is this the same 
as Rufinus, 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. 

Flelladius, Bishop of the holy Church at Adramytum, or, accord- 
ing to another spelling, ‘‘Adramyttium,’’ in Asia Proconsu- 
laris. . 

Stephen, Bishop of the city of the Tertans, that is of Teos in 
Proconsular Asia. 

Iddyas, Bishop of Smyrna, in Proconsular Asia. 

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 Lao- 
dicea mentioned, the first of four sees. Two other Laodi- 
ceas are mentioned, but they were suffragan not metropo- 
litical sees. This see was metropolitical, and therefore 
seems to be the one referred to. 

Beneagus, Bishop of the Church in Hierafolis, in Phrygia 
Pacatiana Secunda, I presume. ‘That is explained by Bing- 
ham in his Antiquities, book IX, chapter 3, section 15. 

Silvanus, Bishop of Ceratapa, in Phrygia Pacatiana, as 
on page 137, volume I of ‘‘Ephesus’’. 

Constantine, Bishop of the city of the Diocletians, that is prob- 
ably of Dioclia in Phrygia Pacatiana, (Bingham’s Axtiguz- 
ties, book IX, chapter 7, section I), unless it be the Dioclea 
in Praevalitana in Eastern Illyricum, Wiltsch, vol. I, page 
136, English translation. 

Hermolaus, Bishop of the Sattudians, possibly in Phrygia, 
though neither Bingham nor Wiltsch give us this name. 


54 


Bishops present in the Synod. 





5S. 


56. 
δῦ. 


58. 
59. 


60. 


61. 


62. 


63. 


64. 
65. 


66. 


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. 

Asclepiades, Bishop of the Church at Trapezopolis, which was 
in Phrygia Pacatiana Prima according to Bingham. 

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

Peter, Bishop of Crusa. According to the ‘‘Appendix to the 
Indices,’’ after the Tenth Book of Bingham’s Axiiguities, 
page 588 of vol. III 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. 

Eugene, Bishop of Appolonias, in Caria. 

Callinicus, Bishop of Apamia, '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. 

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

Pius, Bishop of the Pessinuntians, 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. 

Thomas, Bishop of Derbe, in Lycaonia, as we see on page 141, 
volume I of “phesus in this set. 

Martyrius, Bishop of Helistra. Is this the Lystra (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. 

Ablavius, Bishop of Amorium, in Phrygia Salutaris. 

Letojus, Bishop of Libyas, in the First Palestine. His name 
is spelled ‘‘Letoius’”’ on page 138, volume I of Ephesus. 

Severus, Bishop of Synnada, in the Province of Phrygia Salu- 
taris. 


Bishops present in the Synod. 55 





67. 


68. 


69. 
70. 


ls 
72. 


73. 
74. 


a. 


76. 


77. 
78. 


Domninus, Lishop of Cotneum, in the Province of Phrygia 
Salutaris. This seems the same see as the “Cotyaium’’ or 
“‘Cotyaeum’’ of Bingham’s list. 

Lustathius, Bishop of Docimium, in the Province of Phrygia 
Salutaris. Bingham spells the name of this see ‘“Docimaeum 
or Docimia.’’ 

Dalmatius, Bishop of the Holy Church of God at Cyzicus. 
It was the Metropolis‘of the Province of Hellespontus. 


Athanasius, Bishop of the city of the Scepsians, that is of the 
inhabitants of Scepsis in the Province of Hellespontus. 

Meonius, Bishop of the city of Sardis, in Lydia. 

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 Lydian sees; another in 
Isauria, and the third in Arabia. 

Phoscus, Bishop of Thyatira, in Lydia. 

Timothy, Bishop of the city of the Thermans, in the Province 
of Hellespontus. The city was Thermae Regiae; that is 
‘“‘Royal Warm Springs,’’ or ‘‘Royal Warm Baths.’’ 

Commodus, 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. 

Euthertus, Bishop of the city of the Stratonicians, in Lydia, 
that is of Stratonicia. 

Paul, Bishop of Dardana, in Lydia. 

Limentius, Bishop of the Foly Church of God at Sellae, in the 
Province of Media. In the ‘‘Appendix to the Indices,” 
page 589, volume III 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. Canit 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 


79. 


80. 


8 


—= 


82. 


Bishops present in the Synod. 


Theodore, Bishop of Atala. Ido not find Atala in Bingham 
or in Wiltsch. Can it bean error for Attalia, either the one in 
Lydia or that in Pamphylia Secunda? Wiltsch makes their 
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. 


Paul, Bishop of the Church in Thrymnae. Ido not find it in. 


Bingham’s Index, nor in Wiltsch’s, nor in Butler’s. But 
Wiltsch, vol. I, page 174, note5, 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 O fora ©, which would account for the difference 
in the first syllable. 


Timothy, Bishop of the city Termesus and Eudoctas. There 
was a Eudocias in Lycia. So there was a Telmessus 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 differently. For he tells us that there 
was a ‘“‘Kudocias’” 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. 


Aedesius, 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, 
Picinda, 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. 


83. 


84. 


85. 
86. 
Θ΄: 
88. 


89. 


Bishops present in the Synod. 57 


Libanius, Bishop of Palacopoits. ‘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. 

John, Bishop of Aurelianopolis, in the Province of Lydia. 
Both Bingham and .Wiltsch spell the name of this see 
‘‘Aureliopolis.’’ 

Daphnus, Bishop of Magnesia on the Maeander, in Proconsu- 
lar Asia. 

Thomas, Bishop of Vatentinianopolis, in Proconsular Asia. 


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


Ludoxius, Bishop of the city of Choma, in the Province of 
Lycia, as on page 141, volume I of ‘‘Ephesus.”’ 
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— 


ibe 
2. 


οϑο νι δ 


Firmus, Metropolitan of Caesarea, and Exarch. 

Acacius, Bishop of Melitine, in the Second Armenia, and Metro- 
politan. 

Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and Metropolitan. 

Palladius, Bishop of Amasia, in Helenopontus, and Metro- 
politan. 

Daniel, Bishop of Colonia, in Cappadocia Secunda: see page 
134, vol. I of ‘‘Ephesus.”’ 

Epiphanius, Bishop of Cratia, in Honorias. 

Eusebius, Bishop of Heraclea, in Honorias. 

Gregory, Bishop of Cerasus, in Pontus Polemoniacus. 

Paralius, Bishop of Andrapa, in Helenopontus. 

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 


19: 


3. 


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. 

Philumenus, Bishop of Cinna, in Galatia, as we read on page 
152, volume I of ‘‘Ephesus,”’ 

Bosporius, Bishop of Gangra, the Metropolis of the Province of 
Paphlagonia. In the subscriptions on pages 22-30, vol. I of: 
‘‘Wphesus,’’ we find Pamphylia, but it is a copier’s or other’s 
error. 


Arginus, Bishop of Pompeiopolis, in Paphlagonia. 


THE PATRIARCHATE OF ALEXANDRIA, COMPRISING EGyPT, 


LIBYA AND PENTAPOLIS. 


From Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis under St. Cyril of Alex- 


andria subscribed: — 


1. 


Cyril of Alexandria, Aegyptus Prima. 

Lvoptius of Ptolemais in Pentapolis. 

Eusebius of Pelusium in Augustamnica Prima. 

Lulogius of Tarenuthis in Thebais Secunda. 

Adelphius of Onuphis in Aegyptus Prima. 

Paul of Flavonia, [Fragonea, or Phragenea in Aegyptus 
Secunda?! The above name is spelled Phragonea in the 
subscriptions at the end of Act I. 

Phoebammon of Coptus, in Thebais Secunda. 

Theopemptus of Cabassus in Aegyptus Secunda. On pages 176, 
369, 377, vol I of ‘‘Ephesus’’ it is called ‘‘Cabasa.”’ 

Macarius of Metelis, in Aegyptus Prima. 

Adelphius of Sais, iu Aegyptus Prima, 

Macedonius of Xois [or Xoes] in Aegyptus Secunda. 

Marinus of Heliopolis, in Augustamnica Secunda. 

Metrodorus of Leonta [or Leontopolis] in Augustamnica 
Secunda. 

Macarius of Antaeum, [or with another spelling, Anteum] in 
Thebais Prima. 

Pabiscus of Apollo or Apollinis Civitas Parva in Thebais 
Prima. On page 503, vol. I of ‘‘Ephesus’’ his see is called 


31. 
32. 


33. 


Bishops present in the Synod. 59 


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

Peter of Oxyrinchus, in Arcadia. 

Strategius of Athribis, in Augustamnica Secunda. 

Athanasius of Paralus, in Aegyptus Secunda. In the sub- 
scriptions at the end of Act I it is Paralius. 

Silvanus of Coprithis, in Aegyptus Prima. 

John of Hephaestus, in Augustamnica Prima: compare page 
47 in vol. I of ‘‘Ephesus.’’ 

Aristobulus of Thmuis, in Augustamnica Prima. 

Theon 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. 

Lampo of Cassium, in Augustamnica Prima. His name is 
spelled Lampetius on page 151, vol. I of ‘‘Ephesus.’’. 

Cyrus 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,”’ 

Publius of Olbia, in Pentapolis. 

Samuel of Dysthis, [or Disthis] in Pentapolis. 

Zenobius of Barca, [or Barce] in Pentapolis. 

Zeno of Teuchira, in Pentapolis. 

Daniel of Darnis, in Libya Secunda. In the subscriptions 
at the end of Act lit is Darna. But see page 48, volume I 
of Ephesus,’’ and page 192 in vol. 11, id. 

Sosipatrus 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 
Bibya, > page 29] ἐν 0]: Il of “‘Ephesus.”’ 

Eusebius of Nilopolis, in Arcadia. 

Fleraclides of Heraclea, called also Heraclea Superior, in 
Arcadia. 

Chrysaorius of Aphrodita, called also Aphroditopolis, in 
Arcadia. 


60 


34. 


30% 


36. 
Wi 


38. 
39. 
40. 
41. 
42. 
43. 
44. 
45. 


40. 


47. 


48. 


49. 


Bishops present in the Synod. 


Andrew of Hermopolis, (Hermopolis Parva was in Aegyptus 
Prima. Hermopolis Major was in Thebais Prima. Compare 
page 154, volume I of ‘‘Ephesus.”’ 


Sabinus of Pan, in the Province of Thebais, as we read on 
page 149, volume I, of Ephesus. 


Abraham of Ostracine in Augustamnica Prima. 


Hierax’of Aphnaeum (otherwise called Daphnis) in ee 
tamnica Prima. At the end of Act I, in the list his name is 
Hieraces. 


Alypius of Sela, in Augustamnica Prima. 

Alexander of Cleopatris, in Aegyptus Prima. 

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

Ammon of Butus, in Aegyptus Secunda. 

Fleraclides of 'Thinis, in Thebais Secunda. 

Isaac of Elearchia, in Aegyptus Secunda. 

Fleraclitus of Tamiathis, in Egypt; but where there? 

Theonas of Psychis. At the end of Act I, the name of the see 
is spelled Psynchis. 

Ammonius of Panephysus, in Augustamnica Prima. I find 
also the following Egyptian see among the subscriptions at 
the end of Act I: 

Hermogenes, Bishop of Rhinocorura. It was in Augustam- 
nica Prima. 

Was the Leontius, whose name is signed among the Egyp- 
tiaus at the end of Act I, an Egyptian Prelate? The name 
of his see is not told us. 

Flelladius, 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 I and the Latin translation, 
and do not find Publius of Olbia there. Why it is missing I 
know not. It isfound 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 Libya Pentapolis. 


Lishops present in the Synod. 61 
Mit hata Se eo ao. eee eet eT Ti ST tL τ: πε τ ρρετἔοἔοΕἔΕἔἕἌΨἜΕΗνυσἔοὁἜἔουιυιοο,  οὁὺὦῳ.μοκ τ π᾿ 


2. FROM THE DICCESE OF 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. Ὁ. 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 givesan ‘‘Elusa in Palestina Tertia,’’ whichseems 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. 

Romanus, Bishop of Rhaphia in the First Palestine. 

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- 


” 
. 


ΞΟ 


sus 

6. Faulianus, Bishop of Maiuma, in the First Palestine, as we 
see by page 134, id. 

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 


ν᾿ 


62 


Bishops present in the Synod. 


Avindela in »the Third Palestine, or in) that part fot 
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 Palestina 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. Ὁ. 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 OF THESSA- 


LONICA, THE PATRIARCH, 


according to Canons II and VI of the Second Ecumenical Synod: 
compare Canon 1X of the Fourth Synod. 


i 


FLAVIAN OF PHILIPPI, Metropolitan of the Second Macedonia, 


who represented his Patriarch, Rurus, Metropolitan of 
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.”’ 


Lishops present in the Synod. 63 


eee 


IP 


Ze 


12. 
13. 


14. 
15. 


Felix, Bishop of the cities of Apollonia, and Belis (speiled also 
Bulis and Bullidum in New Epirus. 


Perigenes, Bishop of Corinth in Greece, that is in Peloppone- 
sus, and Metropolitan. 


Donatus, Bishop of Nicopolis in Old Epirus, and Metropolitan. 
Lucharius, Bishop of Dyrrhacium in New Epirus, and Metro- 
politan. 


Anysius, Bishop of Thebes in Hellas, that is in Greece: see 
pages 47, 49, volume I of ‘‘Ephesus.”’ 


Domnus, 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 difficulty. 

Agathocles, 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. Hedoes not call it Corone. Baudrand mentions 
another spelling, that is Coronea for Coronia. 


. Collicrates, Bishop of Naupactus in Achaia. 
. Nicias, Bishop of Megara in Achaia. 
. Perebius, Bishop of the Thessalonian Woodlands, [in Thessaly?]. 


Anderius, Bishop of the city of Cherronesus in the Province 
of Crete. Hewas one of the Synodal summoners of Nes- 
torius as we see by page 45, volume I of ‘‘Ephesus.’’. 

Paul, Bishop of the city of Lampe in the Province of Crete. 

Zenobius, Bishop of the city of Gnossus in the Province of 
Crete: 

Theodore, Bishop of Dodone in Old Epirus. 

Secundianus, Bishop of Lamia in the Province of Thessaly, as 
on page 137, volume I of ‘‘Ephesus.” 


64 Lishops present in the Synod. 





16. Dion, Bishop of Thebes in Thessaly, 
17. Theodore, Bishop of Echinaeus in Thessaly. ‘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: 
- 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, Bishop of 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, Svagrius, Bishop of Solia or Soli in Cyprus. 


SEES WHOSE PROVINCES ARE UNKNOWN. 


1. Caesarius, Chorepiscopus of the city Alce. It occurs after a 
Cyprian see and before the name of a Hellespontan see. 
Bingham gives an Arca in Armenia, and an Arca or Arcae 
in Phoenicia Prima. Smith’s ‘‘Dictionary of Greek and 
Roman Biography”? gives not Alce. It gives Arca, in 
Greek ”Apzy, which it places in Phoenicia. The margin of 
Hardouin’s ‘‘Concilia,’? tome I, column 1425, has Alce. 
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 in the Synod. 1 65 
a ereerrccre ieee eA, ἀσδος ο ον δ θα 
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- 
515: HEvagrius 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 hada see: see Bingham, book IX, chapter 3, 
section 2. 

2 Philadelphius, 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 Latip 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 Trajanopolis instead of Gratianopolis. The only 
see of Trajanopolis mentioned in Bingham’s list was in the 
Province of Rhodope in the Diocese of Thrace. Ido 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. Andwe 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 1800 Bishops in the world, for the episco- 


66 Bishops present in the Synod. 





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 todeem it not unlikely that they belonged 
either to the jurisdiction of Jerusalem or else to that of 
Alexandria. But asthat is not clearly provenI put them > 
here. ‘They are as follows: 


3. Sevenianus, Bishop of the city 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. Ὁ. 431. Szzzth’s 
Dictionary gives Myra in Lycia, but no Myrum nor Myrium. 
But among the subscriptions at the end of Act VI of Ephe- 
sus is found ‘‘Herennianus, 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 
‘‘Riphesus’’ in this set. On page 224, note 17, vol. I of 
his work, Wiltsch speaks of ‘‘The first and last Bishop 
of. the unknéwn 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 (Πύλαι in Greek) means 
‘“‘Gates,’? and hence a /ass 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 Li (4:) and the Lae (Aas) in Greek in modern times, as 


Bishops present in the 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 Amyzon.’’ 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. III, 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 with 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 Hardowin’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 in the Synod. 


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. 


1. 


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. 


Tranquillinus, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia. 


2. Alexander, Bishop of Apamea in Syria. 


. Helladius, Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia. 
. BERENIANUS, Bishop of Perga in Pamphylia. 


Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya. 


. LHimerius, Bishop of Nicomedia in Bithynia. 

. DaLMATIUvS, Bishop of Cyzicus. 

. SEVERUS, Bishop of Synnada in Phrygia Salutaris. 

. MAEontus, Bishop of Sardis in Lydia. 

. Maximianus, Bishop of Anazarbus in Cilicia Secunda. 


name is spelled Maximus in the list next below. 


. Dexianus, Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria. 
. Dorotheus, Bishop of Marcianopolis in Moesia Secunda. 
. Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis in Euphratesia. 


. Prus, Bishop of Pessinus in Galatia. 
. TrmotTuy, a Bishop from Scythia: The margin reads, ‘‘or of 


Tomi in Scythia.’’ 


. Eutherius, Bishop of Tyana in Cappadocia Secunda. 
. Asterius, Bishop of Amida in Mesopotamia, 

. Peter, Bishop of Trajanopolis in Rhodope. 

. Basil, Bishop of Larissa in Thessaly. 

. Diogenes, Bishop of Ionopolis, who held also the place of 


Bosserius, Bishop of Gangra in Paphagonia. 


. Julian, Bishop of Sardica in Dacia. 
. Beunantius, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. 
. Jacob, Bishop of Dorostolus in Moesia. 


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


This 


42. 


43. 
44, 
45. 
40. 


Lishops present in the Synod. Co 








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


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


. THEOPHANIUS, Bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia. On page 502 


this name is spelled Theophanes. 


. Paul, Bishop of Daldus in Lydia. 

. EUPREPIUS, Bishop of Bizya in Europa. 

. JouHN, Bishop of all Lesbos. 

. Fuscus, Bishop of Lydia. The margin here adds: ‘‘Read, of 


Ehyatiralin Lydia; from Act Vi.”’ 


. Commopus,. Bishop of Tripolis. 
. EUTHERIUS, Bishop of Stratonicia in Lydia. 
. JouN, Bishop of the city of the Aureli »politans in Lydia. 


Nimenius, Bishop of Helenovolis in Lydia. The margin tells 
us that, ‘‘Perhaps we should read Limenius as in Act I,’’ not 
‘‘Nimenius.’’ 


. Theosebius, Bishop of Cios in Bithynia. 

. PETER, Bishop of Prusa in Bithynia. 

. EUGENE, Bishop of Apollonias in Bithynia. 

. Anastasius, Bishop of Tenedos in the Cyclades. 

. Cyril, Bishop of Adana in the First Cilicia. 

. Hesychius, Bishop of Castabala in the Second Cilicia. 

. Severus, Bishop of Sozopolis in Pisidia. 

. 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 ““Πιονία, Eth-Pionita,’’ which, he tells us, was ‘‘a 
bishopric ‘of the Hellespontine province:’’ see under the 
term there. 

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.”’ 

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

Daniel, Bishop of Faustinopolis. 

Filtanius, Bishop of the Theodosianopolitans. 

Eustratius, a Bishop. 


70 


Bishops present in the Synod. 





47. 


48. 
49, 
50: 


ot 
a2. 
90: 


54. 
Do: 


56. 
oi. 
58. 
59. 


60. 
Guy 
62. 
63. 
64. 


65. 
66. 


67. 


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. 

Paul, Bishop of the Eutinnians, (Eutinnorum). 

TimoTuy, Bishop of Termesus and Eudocias. 


Axpisius, Bishop of the Isiodans [Isiodorum]. The marginal 
note adds ‘‘otherwise of the Sidans’’ [Sydorum]. 

Gerontius, Bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria. 

Aurelian, Bishop of Irenopolis in Isauria. 

Abrahamius, Bishop of Amorium. The margin adds here 
that the name is read in Act VI not Abrahamius, bnt Abla- 
vius. 


Polychronius, Bishop of Heraclea in Caria. 

Zosis, Bishop of Echintus [Echinti] in Arabia. The marginal 
note here adds, ‘‘Read Esbuntis, that is, in the nominative, 
Esbus. 

HERMOLAUS, Bishop of the Attudaeans [Attudaeorum]. 

ASCLEPIADES, Bishop of Trapezopolis. 

Evadius, Bishop cf Valentia. 

LIBANIUS, Bishop of Paula. The margin adds, ‘‘For Palaeas- 
polis, as in Act VI.”’ See ‘‘Libanius of Palaeopolis’’ in 
List II at the end of Act I, and that at the end of Act VI. 

Salustius, Bishop of Corycus in Cilicia. 

Valentinus, Bishop of Mallus, 

Pausianus, Bishop of Hypata in Thessaly. 

Theoctistus, Bishop of Caesarea in Thessaly. 

Maximus, Bishop of Demetrias, in Thessaly. 


Julian, Bishop of Larissa in the Second Syria. 
Diogenes, Bishop of Seleucobelus in the Second Syria. 


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. 71 

ee ee 

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?] 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, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. 
10. Commodus, Bishop of Tripolis. 
11. Dalmatius, Bishop of Cyzicus. 
12. Diogenes, Bishop of Ionopolis, who held the place of 
13. Besserius, Bishop of Gangra in Paphlagonia. 
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. Filtanius, Bishop of the Theodosianopolitans. 
20. Fuscus, Bishop of [Thyatira in] Lydia. 
21. Hermolaus, Bishop of the Attudaeans. 
22. John, Bishop of the city of the Aurelianopolitans in Lydia. 
23. John, Bishop of all Lesbos. 
24. Julian, Bishop of Sardica in Dacia. 
25. Libanius, Bishop of Paula. 
26. Maeonius. Bishop of Sardis in Lydia. 


72 Bishops present in 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, Bisuop 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. 
Fritilas, Heraclea, Europa, : Thrace. 
Helladius, Tarsus, Cilicia Prima, Asia. 


but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch; Bing- 
ham’s ‘‘Antiquities,’’ Book IX, chap. III, section 16. 


Dexianus, Seleucia, Isauria, Asia. 
but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 
Himerius, Nicomedia, Bithynia Prima, Asia. 


Alexander, Apamea, Syria Secunda, The East. 


Lishops present in the Synod. “2 


NAME OF BISHOP. SEE. PROVINCE. DIOCESE. 
L£utherius, Tyana, _ Cappadocia Secunda, Pontus. 
Basil, [Larissa?] Thessaly, Macedonia. 
Maximus, Anazarbus, Cilicia Secunda, Asia, 


but ecciesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 
The Synodicon of Monte Casino has Maximianus instead of 


Maximus. 
Alexander, Hieropolis,. Euphratesia, The East. 
Dorotheus, 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 Nestorianism. 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. III, page 58, (English translation), by all the forty-three 
members of the Nestorian Conciliabulum. ‘They are as 
follows: 

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

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

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

. Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Marcianopolis, Moesia Secunda, 

Thrace. 

5. Alexander, Metropolitan of Hierapolis, Euphratesia, The East. 

6. Dexianus, 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, Metropolitar of Bostra, Arabia, The Hast. 

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

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. 


BO wb = 


74 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 peconde The East. 

21. Placon, Bishop of Laodicea, ? ? 
The Latin 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. Eutherius, Metropolitan of Tyana in the Second Cappadocia, 
Pontus. 

27. 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. Theosebius, 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 


Lishops present in the Synod. 75 





42. 
43. 


ecclesiastically under Antioch; for, 2s 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. 


. Gerontius, Bishop of Claudiopolis, Isauria, Asia, but ecclesias- 
tically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 

Ἐν rus, Bishop of Marcopolis, Osrhoene, The East. 

Aurelius, Bishop of Irenopolis, Cilicia Secunda, or 
Isauria, Asia, 
but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 
Meletius, Bishop of Neocaesarea, ? ? 
. Helladius, Bishop of Ptolemais, Phoenicia Prima, The East. 


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


but ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. 


. Valentine, Bishop of Mallus, Cilicia Prima? The Kast? 
. Marcian, Bishop of Abrytus, or Abritum, Moesia Sec., Thrace. 
. Daniel, Bishop of Faustinopolis, Cappadocia Secunda, Pontus. 
. 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 Larissa here mentioned to be the suffragan see 
of that name in Syria Secunda. 

Heliades, Bishop of Zeugma, Euphratensis, The East. 

Marcellinus, Bishop of Arca, 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 difficulty 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 in 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, wasmore 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 Illyricum 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, 5 : : ‘ ; 6 
2. From the Diocese of Asia, : : : : : 100 
3. From the Diocese of Pontus, : Σ Ε 12 

4. From the Patriarchate of Alecandea. sibracine the 
Dioceses of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis : 48 or 49 

5. From the Diocese of the East, the Patriarchate of 
Antioch, : 2 0 

6. From the Panarchate of eee en Ἐν ἘΞ Pal- 

estine and part of Arabia, ν᾿ F ; : : 13 
7. From the Diocese of Macedonia, : 17 

8. From the Diocese of Dacia, called also Faeta Tliyri- 
cum, : : : : : : . : : 1 
9. From the Diocese of Western Illyricum, : : 3 0 
From the whole East, : 198 

Total known sees and Bishops from the West and 
the East, about ; : : : : : : 200 
10. From the Italic Diocese, : Σ ἥ : : 0) 
11. From the Diocese of Spain, : : 4 ξ O 
12. From the Diocese of Gaul, * : : 5 Ἴ (0) 
13. From the Diocese of Britain, 5 ; . . ° 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. 


AR TEC WEE 


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 ΒΕ Founn, SAID CHIEF 
HERESIES BEING: 


i. His denial of the Incarnation. 

2. Lis worship of Christ's humanity, and his plea that being 
only relative it was all right. St. Cyril brands that error as 
᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, that ts as “the worship of a human being.’’ 

3. is assertion of a real substances presence of Christ's human 
flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper, and that it is right to worship 
them there, and that they are eaten there, which St. Cyril brands as 
᾿Ανθρωποφαγία, that ts ‘‘the eating of a human being,’ that is, in 
plain English, Cannibalism. 


VASTLY IMPORTANT AND EVER TO BE REMEMBERED DECISIONS OF 
THE ‘ONE, HOLY, UNIVERSAL AND APposTOLIC CHURCH,”’ 
WHICH WE CONFESS IN THE CREED, AGAINST DENIAL OF 
THE INCARNATION, AND AGAINST THE IDOLATRIES OF ROME 
AND OF THE OTHER CREATURE-INVOKING CHURCHES: 


In other words, the Decisions of the Third Ecumenical Synod 
on Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Forthset or Creed, and on its Heresies, 
and in the other Utterances of the said Third Synod, and the Decisions 
of the whole Church in other Utterances of others of the VI Ecumeni- 
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 humanity, 


78 Article 77. 





and the worship relative as well as absolute of the Virgin Mary and 
other saints by kneeling, by invocation or in any other way, and of arch- 
angels and angels; and against the relctive and all other worship of 
images pictured or graven, crosses pictured or graven, altars, holy 
tables, relics, the book of the Gospels or any other part of the Bible, by kiss- 
ing, bowing orin any other way, and against the Nestorian one nature 
Consubstantiation worship of the bread and wine alleged by Nestorius 
to be Christ's real flesh 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, ve/ative 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 





Nore 126.—Rev. XVIII, 4. 

NOTE 127.—Rev. XVII, 18. 

Nore 128.—See in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, tome III, the references under ‘‘Roma urbs”’ 
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 passim. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. 79 


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, hcly, 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 chiefly against Creature- Worship» 
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 Lord thy God, and him only shall 
thou serve,’’ and with God’s command in Isaiah XLII, 8: 

“Ἴ 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, which all admit to bea 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. 


80 Article 77. 


denial of the Inflesh 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 we 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 authority and have settled forever all questions 
on which they have definitely spoken. They were uttered while the 
whole church was sound and one and are instrict 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 been for- 
mally approved by any of the VI Ecumenical Councils, but are in 
strict accordance with them. 

II. Nxrstorius’ DENIAL OF THE INCARNATION OF GOD THE 

WORD. 

The Third Ecumenical Council 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 








Note 130.—Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol. I, pages 52-154, and especially pages 52, and 129-154. 

Nore 131.—Id., pages 154-178, and, as to the decisions of the Council on it, pages 166-178. 

Note 122 —“hrystal’s Ephesus, vol. I, pages 178-203. See the approbative language use 
of that Epistle in id., page 487. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. 81 





XII Anathemas at its end (133); see especially on the Incarnation 
Anathema I. 

(5). By their course against Nestorius 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’ heresy or Orthodoxy (136), 21 passages fromthe Fathers which 
teach the Incarnation and, ofcourse, 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 





Nore 133 —Id., pages 204-858. For proof of the approval of that Epistle by the Third 
Keumenical Synod, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth, see id., pages 204-208, note 520. 

NoTeE 131.—Id. pages 400-418. See also the references to them on pages 486, 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,”’ εἴς, 

Note 135.—Id., pages 392-418. See the ncte last above. 

Note 186.—Chrystal’s Epresus, vol. 1, pages 417-449. 

Norte 137.—They are so termed by Peter of Alexandria, when he proposes to read them to 
the Synod. See id., page 449. 

Nore 138.—Id., pages 449-488, where tae 20 are found. 

Note 139.—Id , page 479, 480. 

Nore 140.—Id., pages 479, 480 vol. I of Chrystal’s Ephesus. 

Norte 141.—That is on page 449-480, of the same volume, The deposition on the basis of 
those ‘*Blasphemies,” as they are termed on pages 449, 488, and on the basis of his not receiv- 
ing the Bishops sent to summon him to the Coune’l, and on the basis of his utterances even 
at Ephesus, ison pages 486-504. An analysis cf the 20 ‘“Blasphemies”’ is contained in Note F, 


pages 529-551. 


82 Articde 77, 





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 heresy,”’ 
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 their 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 J, and had expressed ‘‘the judg- 
ment of allthe holy Synod in the West tothe 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). 





Nore 142.—Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol. II, Document I, pages 1 and 2. 
Norte 143.—Id.. pages 3-14, Document II, especially pages 7, 8 and 10. 
Norte 144.—Id., pages 14-16, Document III. 

Norte 145.—Id., pages 17-20, Document V. 

Norte 146.—Id., pages 18, 19. 

Norte 147.—Chrystav’s Ephesus, vol, ΤΙ, pages 67-113. 

Nore 148.—Id., vol. II, pages 114-124. 

Nore 149 —Chrystal’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 
beretic 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 relatively, 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 to 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 John of 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: 


Nore 150.—Id., pages 138-162. 

Nore 151.—Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol. II, page 140. . 

Norte 152.—See the teachings of Nestorius’ Twenty ‘‘Blasphemies’”’ under A, B, C, D,E 
Ἐς G, H, I, J, K, L,, in Note ‘ F,”’ pages 529-551, vol. I of Ephesus. The lettering is explained 
on pages 529-533. 

Nore 153.—See under C,D,Z,/,G, and Καὶ, in the same note, and indeed all of it. 

NOTE 154.—See there. 

Nore 155.—Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol. I, page 461. 

Norte 156,—Id., vol. II, page 167. 


Articde ITI. 


“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 init, 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 Inman, 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 Encyclical Letter of the Third Synod at its end 





Note 157.—Id., volume II, page 16/7. 
Note 158.—Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol. II, pages 170, 171, 172. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief 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 tobe 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; whom 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. 

ΠΙ. Now as to NESTORIUS’ RELATIVE WORSHIP OF 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 ‘‘EKphesus,’’ 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 1 translate from what I 
suppose is the Latin translation, in which it has reached us. 

Nestorius’ counter Anathema against Cyril's Anathema 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). 


Nore 159.—Fulton’s /ndex Canonum, pages 150, 151, gives the Greek and English. Chrys- 


tal’s translation is found above. 

Nore 160.—The reference is to Philippians IT, 7. 

Nore 161.—That is, ‘‘the Son of God, born out of the Father, Sole Born, that is out of the 
substance of the Father, God out of God,” as is explained in the Nicaean Creed: see Chrys- 


86 Article 77. 


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 images.’’ 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: 7his zs thy God (163), O Lsvael, who brought 
thee up out of the land of Egypt. And they worshipped it asa 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, O Israel, who brought thee up out of the land of Egypt,’’ 
Jehovah, of course, as they all believed; that is Behold this repre- 
sentation 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 
Egypt 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 ‘‘ade /srael to sin,’’ (II Kings X, 29, 31), and 


tal’s Nicaea, vol. I, pages 305-307. See also other important matter, Cyril’s language on 
pages 726-729, id. 

Norte 162.—I have translated the above from Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole, third edition, 
page 317. 

Norte 163.—Indeed it is so translated in Nehemiah IX, 18: ‘“Yea, when they had made them 
amolten calf, and said, 7his ts thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt, and had wrought 
great provocations.” 


Decisions 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. Ὁ. 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 we co-worship a Man 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 Articde LT, 








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 Cyril's 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- - 
358. As toits 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 velative and not absolute: I quote: 

‘‘Furthermore,’’ WE DECLINE TO SAY OF ANOINTED, ‘/ worship 
him who is worn’ [the mere Man put on by God the Word] ‘‘for the 
sake of Him’’ [God the Word] ‘‘ Who wears Him. TI bow to Him 
who is seen’’ [the mere Man] ‘‘on account of Him’’ [God the Word] 
“who is unseen; andit isa 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, iz accordance with the doctrine of which’? [Union] ‘‘xo one 
is co-bowed to (164) as one with another, nor ts any one co-called God, 
as one with another; but Anointed Jesus, Son, Sole Born, is under- 
stood to be’’? [only] ‘‘one, and is honored with but one worship (105) 
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 VIII in it, also, and that anathema pronounces a male- 





Nore 164,—Greek, συμπροσκυνεῖται, that is, ‘7s co-worshipped,”’ for bowing, as has 
been explained in this work elsewhere, being the most common act of religious service, and 
indeed being part of every other such act of worship came in Greek to stand for them all. 

Norte 165.—Greek, με Tpookvvygel, literally ‘with but one bow,” that is with but one 
worship, and that not to His humanity ve/atively, but absolutely to His Divinity alone. 

Nore 166,—See on the above expression note 583, page 226, volume I of Chrystal’s Ephe- 
sus, and notes 580, 581, and 582 on pages 221-226 there, and the text there. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. 89 
ee eee ee Eee 


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 with 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 ‘‘ove’’ only, and all glorifying of Him must be ‘‘oxe’’ only, 
that is, of course, adsolutle- to God the Word only, that is to 
the ‘‘God with us,’’ on the ground that ‘‘the Word has been made 
Hlesh’’ (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 humanity 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 ‘‘Forthset’? we must remember also, ¢hat the V/[/th An- 
athema in Cyril's Long Epistle to Nestorius was approved with the 


Nore 167.—John I; 1, 2,3,14. Compare the Anathema VIII aforesaid of St. Cyril. The 
Greek of the Constantinopolitan Creed is Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θέοῦυ ἀληθινοῦ, that is ‘‘very 
God out of very God.’ And God the Word in John VIII, 42, says: ἐγὼ γὰρ é« tov Θεοῦ 
ἐξῆλθον, ‘for I came out of God.” See in Chrystal’s Vicaea, vol. I, page 473 under yore VIII, 
42. 

Nore 168.—Matt. XVIII, 15-19. 

Nore 169—The Creed of the Second Synod of the whole Church. 


90 Articde I. 








Epistle in which it stands not only by the Third Ecumenical 
Synod, but also by the three after it (170). It is as follows: 

‘Tf 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 anvther, (for the ‘‘co-'’ always added 
forces us to understand that thing), and does not on the con- Ὁ 
trary konor the Ammanuel’’ [that is as Emmanuel means, the 
God with us| ‘‘with but one worship, and send up to him but 
one glorifying on the ground that ¢he Word 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 “οὐ 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 
offer 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 service is 
prerogative to God alone, (Matt. IV, 10, and Isaiah XLII, 8; Colos. 
II, 18, and Rev. XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9). Oniit see more fully 
the note matter on pages 109-128, vol. II of Chrystal’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, 


Norte 170.—See in proof vol. I of Chrystal's Ephesus, pages 204-208, note 520. 

Note 171.—That is, of course, in Mary’s womb. The Greek here, τὸν ἀναληφθέντα 
ἄνθρωπον, may also be rendered, “the man taken up’ to heaven. Of course he was in any 
event, a creature, and Cyril and the Universal Church therefore teach in accordance with 
Matthew IV, 10, can not be worshipped. 

NoTeE 172.—John I; 1, 2,3, and 14. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. οἱ 








488, 503, 504, of volume I οὗ Chrystal’s translation of ‘*Ephesus.”’ 
Compare Nestorius’ Counter-Anathema 8 translated just above. 

His Blasphemies 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,15, 16, and liad 
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 ‘‘Ephesus’’ 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 Zphesus as the Sanhedrim of the Apostasy 
(175). If we ask, In what sense is Nestorianism an ‘‘4fos¢asy,”’ 
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 
Christ's 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. 





Nore 173.—Greek in Canon II of Ephesus, τῇ ᾿Αποστασία, that is, ‘the Apostasy.” 

Note 174.—Greek ἀποστατήσας τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου, “having apostatized 
from the holy and Ecumenical Synod, ” Canon I of Ephesus. 

Note 175.—Greek, τῷ τῆς ἀποστ, ασίας συνεδρίῳ, that is, “to the Sanhedrim of the 
Apostasy,’’ Canon I; TO τῆς ᾿Αποστασίας συνέδριον, that is ‘the Sanhedrim of the 
Apostasy.” Canon II. 

Norte 176.—See the Greek in the third note above with its English rendering. 

Nore 177.—’ AvOpwrodatpeia, which means the worship of a human being, is the very ex- 
pression used by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod inits Definition to designate that error. See 
under that term and under ’AvdpwroAaTpyc, on pages 634, 635 of vol. I of Chrystal’s Ephesus, 
and under Man-Worship, pages 631-635, id. 

Nore 178.— Av@pwrogayia, 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.I of Chrystal’s Ephesus, pages 250-318, note 606 there, 
and especially “6, pages 260-276. Compare id., page 576 under Cannibalism, and page 


92 Article 17. 





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 Canon of Ephesus 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 country place who have been 
inhibited by Nestorius or his partisans from their priesthood be- 
cause of their Orthodoxy. ‘‘And,’’ it adds, ‘‘we 171 common com- 
mand the clerics who agree with the Orthodox and Ecumenical Synod, 
not to be at all subject in any way to the apostate Bishops or to those 
Bishops who hold aloof from us.’’ 

Canon IV orders: ‘‘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 ἀνθρωποφαγία, pages 612-622 under Euchar7rst, and pages 596, 597 on Cyril's 
Anathema XI, on page 642 under Nestorius’ Heresy 4; compare on pages 639-641 his Heresy 
2-and on his Man-Worship note 183, pages 79-128, note 664, pages 323 and 824, and note 
679, pages 332-362; and on the Eucharist, see note 606, pages 240-313; note 599, pages 220- 
238, and notes 692, 693, pages 407, 408, of the same vol. I of Ephesus. Nestorius in his 18¢h 
Blasphemy, 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 literally eaten and 
drunk there, (pages 472-474, volume 1 of Ephesus), and his chief champion, Theodoret, testi- 
fies, speaking for his own party, that they were worshipped by them before they were eaten; 
see on that his own language in volume I of Ephesus, pages 276-294, the note matter there. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ 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 adso- 
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. 





NoTeE 179.—See Nestorius’ Blasphemy 8, page 461, volume I of Chrystal’s ‘‘Ephesus” in 
proof. 

Nore 180.—The former head of the Romish hierarchy in this country, Francis Patrick 
Kenrick. who died Archbishop of Baltimore, in his 7heologia Dogmatica, vol. II (Phila., A. Ὁ. 
1840), page 258. lays down the Proposition (I translate his Latin): ‘The human nature of 
Christ 1s 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 it ts 
hypostaticalty” [or ‘‘substancely”] ‘‘conjoined.”’ That, of course, is higher than hypferdudia 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 260, he mentions a first objection to his position,: “1. The human nature of Christ 
does not cease to bea creature although it is hypostatically” [that is ‘“‘substancely’’| ‘‘con- 
joined to the Word, but it is wrong to give supreme worship to a creature.” 

That objection is the position of Christ 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 which 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 likethat of the calf at Dan. 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 hates 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 cones another objection: 

“9. 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 on account of itself, but on account of the substance of The 
Divinity” [of God the Word.] More illogical and misty stuff. After 4111} is relative worship 
because it is worship not foritself, but because of God the Word to whom the worship is 


94 Article IT. 





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 showing how the idolatry of creature worship is apt to 
return in some form that Kenrick’s arguments for his Man-Worshipping Proposition above 
are in effect the same as Nestorius’ for his worship of Chrisi’s humanity, for he quotes He 
brews I, 6; and Philippians It, 10;and John IX, 38, and Matthew II, 11. and explains them 

- like Nestorius to teach,the worship of Christ’s humanity; see under those passages in the 
Greek Index to volume I of Chrystal’s ‘‘Ephesus,’’? and Cyril's refutation of that creature- 
worshipping sense there. His proofs from the Fathers are, 1, from Athanasius which proves 
nothing for Man-Worship which elsewhere he utterly condemns: see in proof page 573, vol. I 
of Chrystal’s “Ephesus” under Athanastus the Greai; 2, from Ambrose who was born A.D. 
340 and died A. Ὁ. 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 Synod, though, like his fellow-heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia, he did 
some good service against Arianism. . 

Ilis only other witness for Man-Worship 15 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 in the Eucharist died under the an 
anathema of Ephesus. : 

Kenrick on page 260, 261, of the same voliime treats of that new-fangled form of Nes- 
torianism, which Rome calls the worship of tre 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 anda 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 of St. Philip Neri, 
Birmingham, authorized translation,” N. Y., Sadlier & 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 against Nestorius’ 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 Church’? 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 atasan 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. 
III, 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 OF 
MOPSUESTIA’S FORTHSET OR CREED 

on Nestorius’ Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity, and on 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 236-266 inclusive. Indeed Mary is the 
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, Peter and 
Paul, etc., and indulgences are promis d to those who say such God-angering Ecumenizally 
condemned orisons, condemned in A. D. 431 by necessary implication. Snrely in tempting 
her poor idolatrous dupes to such paganizings she wrecks the bodies and souls of men Reyvy- 
elations XVIII, 13; compare her description in Revelations XVII, 18, which has been under- 
stood from the beginning to mean Rome, 


96 Article 17. 


(1). The parts of the Forthset of Theodore of Mopsuestia in 
capitals on pages 205, 206, 207, and 208 of volume II of ‘‘Ephesus,”’ 
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 on the Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 

This ‘‘depraved symbol’’ from its beginning on page 202 to 
the words ‘‘zz ¢he sameness’ [that is, che 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 Chzystal’s 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 ¢heve was once when the Son 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 hada 
beginning, but are satisfied with asserting that He was ‘‘born out 
of the Father, Sole-Born, that is out of the Substance of the Lather, 
God out of God, Light out of Light, very God out of very God, born, 
not made, of the same substance+as the father,” 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 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. 97 
a a Πές, τ 
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 
Father’’ (6 Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος), and after that birth ‘“‘the Word 
borne forth’’ (6 Adyos προφοριχός). 

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 
Floly 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 another faith (181), to those wishing to turn 
to the acknowledgement of the truth, either from heathenism, or from 
Judaism, 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 





Nore 181.—Greek ἑτέραν πίστιν, another faith, not another σύμβολον, Creed. 


98 Article 77. 





Elder, in regard to the Inman of the Sole-Born Son of God ('82), 
that is to say, the foul and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, which 
are eveil 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 merely the right of the ‘‘one, 
holy, 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: 

(0). 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 ᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, that is the worship of a human being, 
and 


(e). the Cannibalism of eating it there, termed by St. 





Norte 182.—‘'Sole Born,’ as the Creed of Nicaea welland Scripturally explains, ‘‘¢hat zs 
out of the substance of the Father, God out of God,” etc. Compare Hebrews I, 3, where God 
the Word is called in the Greek χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, that is, not “express image 
of His Person,” but ‘character of His {the Father’s] Swbstance,’’ and God the Word's statement, 
as the Greek of John VIII, 42, is, ‘‘7 came out of God,’’ and the Greek of John XVI, 28, "7 came 
out of the Father. Alas! these strong proofs for the Divinity of Chri-t, so much ins’sted 
on by the ancient Greek Christians, are almost wholly lost in ourcommon English transla- 
tion, because it does not render them exactly. 

Nore 183.—I follow here the common way of dividing the Western local Creed com- 
monly called the Apostles’ into Twe've Articles. The Constantinopolitan as in the Munich 
Greek translation of the Orthodox Teaching of Plato Metropolitan of Moscow, second edition, 
A. D. 1834, pages 69-71, is divided into twelve articles also, It isan Eastern Church work. 


Sn a ΡΥΨ ΗΝ ὙΨ ΨΒΒΟΟΙ 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. 99 





Cyril ’AvOpwxogayia, that is the eating of a human being, that is, 
of course, Cannibalism: and 

(Ὁ. 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 Jncarnation. 


B. (b), (4) 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 being, 
that is creature 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 Zconomic 
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 


Nore 184.—See Passage 13, of Athanasius endorsed by Cyril, pages 237-240, volume I of 
Chrystal’s translation of Nicaea. Compare indeed all the passages from Athanasius, Epi- 
phanius, Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari,and Faustin a Presbyter of Rome, on pages 217-256 of 
that volume. Athanasius in those passages makes all prayer, all bowing and every other 
act of worship prerogative to God alone. Itcan not be given to any creature, 


100 Article 71 





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 Economie 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 Divinity, 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, ‘‘ Zhou shalt bow to 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,’”’ and Isaiah 
ΧΙ, 8, ‘Zam Jehovah: that is my name, and my glory will I not 
give to another; neither my praise to graven 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). . ‘‘A/zs 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 





Nore 185.—See volume I of Chrystal’s ‘‘Ephesus,’’ pages 74-78, and note 173 there, Cy77/’s 
Shorter Epistle to Nestorius; his Longer Epistle, pages 355-858, id., and pages 409, 410, note 
694, and note 695 on page 413. Moreover, Cyril in his Efzstle to John of Antioch, which was 
approved by the Fourth Fcumenical Synod, not only teaches the doctrine of Kconomic 
Appropriation, but uses that exact expression, page 50 of P, E. Pusey’s 7hvee Epistles of 
S. Cyril. See furthermore in Chrystal’s “‘Ephesus,” vol. I, page 602, Economic Appropri- 
ation; page 573, Appropriation; aud page 720 under οἰκεεώσασθαι and oiKkovomiKyy οἰκείωσιν, 

Nore 186 —Hefele’s History of the Church Councils, English translation, volume IV, 
page 806. The Second Synod of Ephesus was the Robbers’ Council of A. 19). 449. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. IOI 





advocacy of the relative worship of Christ’s humanity, which was 
a Nestorian tenet, as part of their Lord’s Supper doctrine and 
practice. ἷ 

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 Consubstantiation, 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 
Consubstantiation 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 Consubstantiation, and 
from Nestorius’ One Nature Consubstantiation, 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 


102 Articde 77. 





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 
here in this shortsumming up. Moreover one or two passages of Cyril 
are quoted unlearnedly by 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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is, as the Greek term means, 
the worship of a human being (189), and the Nestorian belief in a 
real eating and drinking of the substance of that humanity as 
ἀνθρωποφαγία, that is Cannibalism (190). 

And Kenrick claims that Theodoret was ‘‘a Catholic (191), 
and believed in Transubstantiation, though 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 








Nore 187.—In the note matter ‘‘b,’’ on pages 306-310, vol. I of Chrystal’s Ephesus is shown 
how grossly Kenrick, formerly Romish Archbishop of Baltimore, perverted Orthodox pas- 
sages of St. Cyril of Alexandria to make them teach his Caunibal heresy of Transubstanti- 
ation, which Cyril anticipatively condemns, long centuries before any one held it or wrote in 
its favor. ἢ 

NoTeE 188.—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 5. 

NoTe 189.—See under that Greek term in the work last named above, page 694, and 
under ἀν θρωπολάτρης, page 695, under Nestorius’ Hevesy 2, and 3, pages 639-642, and under 
Man-Worship, on pages 631-635. Compare Nestorius’ Heresy 6 and 7, pages 647, 644. On fhe 
relative worship of Christ’s humanity see page 461, text, and note 949, there, and compare 
note 156, pages 61-69, of the same work. 

Nore 190,—See under ἀνθρωποφαγία page 696 vol. I of Chrystal’s Ephesus; ev yapioria, 
pages 703-710; Cannibalism, page 576; Eucharist, pages 612-622; Nestorius’ Heresy 4 and ὃ, 
pages 642, 643; note 606, pages 240-313; note 599, pages 229-238, and note “‘E,”’ pages 517-528; note 
692, page 407, and note 693, pages 407, 408. 

Nore 191.—Kenrick’s 7heologia Dogmatica, vol. III, (Philadelphia, A. D. 1840), page 197, 
where he represents Theodoret's Orthodoxus, that is one Nature Consubstantiationist, as a 
“Catholic,” that is a Romish Transubstantiationist, an assertion unlearned, uncritical, parti- 
san, and funny enough, considering the plain facts. 

Nore 192.—See in proof his Blasphemy 18, pages 472-474, yolnmeI of Chrystal’s Ephesus, 
and section "Ἢ," in the note matter on pages 276-294, particnlarly Passages 1, 2, 5 and 6, 
pages 278-284; and see also under 7heodoret, page 656, id. 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ 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 for Tran- 
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 the Nestorian worship of 
Christ'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 οἵ Ephesus, which most plainly 
teach the relative worship of Christ’s humanity by the Nestorian 
creature worshippers, the heretics condemned by the ‘‘one, holy, 
universal and apostolic Church’’ at Ephesus in A. Ὁ. 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 calumny of theirs, which they have made 
against the pious dogmas of the Church by worshipping two Sons, and 
by introducing the CRIME OF MAN-WORSHIP 2720 heaven and on earth.”’ 

They worshipped zwo Sons in that they worshipped God the 
Word, which was all right and in strict accordance with Christ’s 
law: ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shall 
thou serve,’ (Matt. IV, 10); but they worshipped also another 
wiom they considered a separate Son, His humanity, which was 





Nore 193.—See in proof passage 2 from him on page 280, vol. I of Chrystal’s Ephesus, and 
passage 3 on page 282. 

Norte 194.—Kenrick’s Theologia Dogmatica, vol. III, Phila,, Pa., A. D, 1840, page 197. 

Note 195.—Pusey’s Doctrine of the Real Presence, (1,ondon, 1883, Smith), page 86. 

Norte 196.—Keble on Hucharisticai Adoration, Fourth Edition, (Parker, Oxford and Lon- 
don, 1867) pages 118, 119. 

Nore 197 —Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol. I, pages 278-284, passages 1, 2,5and6. So Nestorius 
held and defended his view in his Blasphemy 8, and so far as denying the real presence of - 
the Substance of Christ’s Divinity 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. 


104 Article IT, 


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.’’ 

(10). 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, onthecontrary, 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, 111 of 
volume I of Chrystal’s translation of ‘‘Ephesus.”’ 

(11). Anathema XII in the same Definition condemns most 
plainly the relative worship of Christ’s humanity: see it in the 
note matter on pages !11, 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: 


“Tf 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, τὸν Χριστόν, which is often, aye, generally transferred, not trans- 
lated, into English, by ‘‘thke Christ.” 

Nore 199.—Greek, Tov Χριστόν, that is the Christ, which means the Anointed 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 bythe substance of God the Word, but that nevertheless it could be worshipped for 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ C. hief fleresies. 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, 
“through the dipping’’| ‘‘he received the grace of the Holy Spirit 
and was deemed worthy of adoption, and ἐς ¢o be worshipped (200) for 
the sake of God the Word’s Person in the same way that an Emperor’ s 
image is for the sake of the Emperor's Person, and that after his 
resurrection, he was made blameless in his thoughts and entirely 
sinless... . Ifany 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, aud 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 4evesy till the last, let such a one be 
anathema.”’ 

The foregoing elevenfold mass of proof for the truth that the 
Universal Church in her Ecumenical 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 retnrn to creature worship from God alone wor- 
ship, on the pagan plea, told us by arnobius in his work Against the Gentiles, that is the 
Heathen, book VI, 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.—Grcek, προσκυνεῖσθαι. 


106 Article 77. 





defender Theodoret of Cyrus, for their worship of Christ’ s humanity 
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. Axd we account those who do not 
receive those things [as|aliens from the Universal 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 against the Twelve Chapters of the holy 
Cyril, and against the first Synod 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 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, 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 say that they are correct, and who have defended or attempt to detend 





Note 201.—The bond of unity in the Universal Church for the first seven certuries 
were the Ecumenical Synods. This was based on Christ’s words in Matthew XVIII, 
15-19, (compare on Church authorlty I Timothy III, 15 also), and on His promises to be with 
and guide the Apostolate, that is Fpiscopate (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. Ὁ. 481, to distinguish it from the Robbers’ 
Council there in A, D. 449. 


/ Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. τοῦ 


their impiety with the names of the eed, 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), that is the deadly tongues of heretics; 
remembering also what was prophesied respecting it by Hosea, 
saying, ‘J will betroth thee tinto mein faithfulness and thou shalt 
know the Lord’’ {|Hos. 11, 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 
a fire, and cause the flame of the fire to grow strong; 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 
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 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- 





Norte 203.—Translation in Hammond’s Canons of the Church, page 130, Spark’s N.Y. 
edition of 1844. 


Nore 204.—Matt. XVI, 18. 


Note 205.—For the most important and valuable patristic avibaeas 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 paganizings and the infidelizings of their days and anticipatively, all those of 
ours. Compare note 210 below. 


108 Artice 71. 


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 condemned and anathema- 
lized 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 ‘‘zazpzous 
writings,’ among them being specified ‘‘those things which Theo- 
doret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the 
Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril,’ the VIIIth 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 impious and contrary 
to the right faith, and defends Theodore and Theodoret and their 
impious opinions and writings.’ And therefore, the Fifth Council 
anathematizes those Three Chapters which favor Man-Worship, ‘‘w7th 
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 


Decisions of L:phesus 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 numders ‘‘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 
worshipa Tetrad. Andit agrees with the statement of the Con- 
stantinopolitan 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 VIII, 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 areall 
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 ἀχρόνως, that is ““ποΐ 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,’’ ‘‘deforve all the 
worlds,’? as the Constantinopolitan Symbol has it, which agrees 


IIo Article IT. 


with the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Writers that he was born out 
of the Father, not from all eternity, 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 therefore it speaks of her as Bringer 
Forth of God. This Anathema usescomplimentary 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 affection 
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 zz 
name and honor and dignity and worship, which of course gives the 
peculiar and prerogative glories of God to a creature, His 
humanity. - 

Anathema V again anathematizes Theodore and Nestorius’ 
making the ‘‘dignity and honor and worship’’ of the two natures one 
and the same, ‘‘as,’’ it adds, ‘“T’heodore and Nestorius have madly 
written.” 

Anathema VIanathematizes 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 





Nore 206.—The velative union of the Nestorians led to their velatzve worship of Christ's 
mere created humanity, See under ‘Union of Christ's Two Natures,” page 661, volume I of 
Ephesus, and id., note 156, pages 61-69, and id., note 159, page 70. 

Note 207.—Greek, Θεοτόκον, The Third Ecumenical Synod never speaks of the 
Virgin as Mother of God,as some ignorant Romish pricsts 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 Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. 111 





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, creature-worship, or, to use the great Cyril’s name for it: 
᾿Ανθρώπολατρεία, that is the worship of a human being. 

What remains is so much that we must be content here to 
summarize it. 

Anathema VII in effect-condemns again all the Nestorian error 








her, but of her, simply to guard the Scripture truth that God “the Word was made flesh,” 
Jchn I, 14, and 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 Longer Epistle 
to Nestorius declares. And that worship of God alone is in strict accordance with Christ’s law 
in Matthew IV, 10, and with Isaiah XLII, 8. 

I have before me a Romish manual of idolatrous devotion which bears the title of ‘“Golden 
Book of the Confraternities,” ‘published,’ as its title page declares, ‘‘with the approbation” 
of “John Hughes,” the Romish ‘‘Archbishop of New York,” by Kirker in that city and copy- 
righted by himin 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. Amen,’’‘‘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, anda foul slander on the God alone invoking Third Synod of the whole 
Church, anda blasphemy against that Holy Spirit, who, according to Christ’s promise, in 
John XIV, 17, 26, fohn XV, 26. and John XVI, 13, was with his Church to guide it into 
all truth, and He did guide all its decisions, against the Nestorian denials 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 champiou 
Cyril of Alexandria indignantly denied that any O-thodox Christian worshipped her or any 
other creature, For writing on that matter in chapter X of the First 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, and to pour down a éer7 thle 
and all cruel accusation on every worshipper of God? For 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 place who takes pleasure in tiie expression Bringer Forth 
of God, (Θεοτόκος), I have no hatred to that expression, only let him not make the Virgin 
a goddess.’ 

Again thou dost out and out rail at us, and vent so bitter a mouth and reproach the 
congregation of the Lord, as it is written, but we indeed, O Sir, who say that she was the 
Bringer Forth of God, (Θεοτόκος), have never made any creature a god or a goddess, but we 
have been accustomed to acknowledge as God Him who is so both 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 God with us] ‘‘as a’’|mere] “‘inspired man, and putting on another ¢he crime charged 
in thy own arguings ’’ that is the cr.me of creature wurship, referring to his implied 
accusation that Christians might worship the Virgin Mary, and so make her a godd ss. I 
have examined and translated the whole of the Third Synod, and have not found any 
worship of her or ot any creaturein any part of it. On the contrary it forbids, as we have 
seen, under pain of deposition for Bishops and clerics and of anathema for laics, all worship 


112 Artide IT. 





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 Oxe Natureism, that is that Christ’s Divin- 





of Christ’s perfect humanity, the shrine in which God the Word dwel 5; even His humanity, 
which is the hic hest of all mere creatures, and much more it forbids the worship of any other 
creature; it teaches us to worship only the consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity, God the 
Father, God the Word, aid God the Holy Ghost, and that absolutely and directly, not rela- 
tively through any created person, or through any mere material thing, be ita 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 Θεοτόκος: 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 Bringer 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. Newman, page 647, id.; £, B. Pusey, id., page 650; Two Natures of Christ, id., page 
660, and Union af 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, andthe Man put on 
by God the Word in Mary’s Womb, is to worship a Tetrad instead of a Trinity: see in proof 
under Je/radism, Fourism, and on 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 samples 
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 /zvocation 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.A.,” as he calls himself 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 Office 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 may well fear that God may remove their candlestick from its place, Rev. 
ΤΙ, 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 thcse 
led into idolatry and hell bythem. 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 mediaevaland 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 Heresies. 115 





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, was 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 Nestorianism and 
One Natureism 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 
‘‘Nicaea,’? 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 impious 
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 humanity, 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 IT. 


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 Twelve 
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 
“‘the aforesaid impious writings of Theodore?’ 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 writer 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 





Nore 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, 


Decisions of Ephesus against Nestorius’ Chief Heresies. 115 





denies the Incarnation, and because, among other things, ‘‘¢he same 
impious Epistle calls tne Twelve Chapters of Cyril (209) among the 
holy, tmpious, and contrary to the right faith, and defends Theodore 
and Nestorius and their tmpious 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 any one, therefore, de- 
fends the said impious epistie, and does not anathematize it and its 
defenders, and those who say that it is sound or any part of it” [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. Nestoritis’ 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 ve/ative 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, τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις ἹΚυρίλλου ; literally ‘‘of Cyril among the Saints,”’ that is 
“tamong the holy ones,” a designation in effect of him as among the saved, as against the 
creature worshipping Nestorians that he was among the lost because cursed by them, 

Nore 210.—See the Article below on the Use of the Fathers. 


116 Artide 777. 


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 substances 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. 


AR TICE ΤΙ. 
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 LAItTy, GUILTY OF THEM OR 
ANY OF THEM. 


WHAT THOSE FORMS ARE, AS REFERRED TO IN ITS CANONS II, 
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 phesus, 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 IMPIOUSLY,’’ on page 
487, and that ‘‘therefore our Lord Jesus Anointed . . . 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 “ὦ new Judas,’’ and ‘‘on 
account of’’ his ‘‘BLASPHEMOUS PREACHINGS,”’ and “disobedience to 
the Canons,’’ which required him to come before the Council and 


Article Second on Nestorius’ Heresies. 117 


to purge himself of them, he is told in the sentence against 
him, ‘‘Zhou art an alien 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 
‘blasphemy’ are found on pages 41-418, and so are the accounts of 
the different 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 Nestorius 
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 Aphesuws. On the Biblical 
proofs see index III, index to Texts of Holy Scripture, pages 667- 
690, volume I of Zphesus. 

The great errors of Nestorius and Nestorianism were: 

1. His dental 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 JVestorians, and Nestorius’ Heresy 1, pages 637-639, and 
Nestorius’ utterances on pages 113, 114, and under Gyvil of 
Alexandria, 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 whodo. 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 


118 Article 7717. 





translation of Ephesus, is branded by St. Cyril of Alexandria, his 
Orthodox opponent, as ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is as the worship of a hu- 
man being, contrary to Christ’s law in Matthew IV, 10, Zhou 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; 77αγι Worship on pages 631-635; πρυσχυνέω, etc., on 
pages 725-751; note 183, pages 79-128; note 582, pages 225, 226; 
note 664, pages 332-362, and page 671. 

A very important thing to be remembered on this topic is ἘΠῚ 
St. Cyril charges that the Nestorian worship of Christ’s humanity 
results in Zetradism, that isin 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 Fourism and 7etradism, pages 625 and 656, and in the Greek 
Index under τέταρτος, 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, affirms 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 1 of Chrystal’s Ephesus. Cyril in his long -fzstle to Nes- 
torius, condemns his co-worship of Christ’s humanity with God the 
Word, andin 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. Andthat 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 on the ground that 
his worship of him was not absolute, that is not for his own sake alone, 


Σ᾿ Article Second on Nestorius’ Heresics. 119 





but was relative, that 15 he worshipped that mere creature because of God 
the Word and for God the Wora’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 
worshipping their images and altars relatively to the gods and god- 
desses represented by them, for, as told by the Christian Avnobius 
in his work Agaznst 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 461-463, 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- 
aus 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: ‘hese, if 
they are Bishops or clerics, are to be aliens, the Bishops frome 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 inthe Forthset’’ [that is the Creed of Theodore of Mopsue- 


120 Article 777. 





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 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 be a latc, even he shall be anath- 
ematized, as has been said before.”’ 

Then follow the names and subscriptions of the great Orthodox 
and sound champion against all ve/ative service, Cyril of Alexandria, 
and the rest of the Bishops of the Council. 

See furtber against the Nestorian Relative Worship of Christ’s 
humanity, volume I of Chrystal’s Aphesus, 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 223, and 
under 7heodoret, pages 656, 657. 

We have seen how completely Nestorian, aye more than 
Nestorian, Rome has become in her worship of a human being 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία), 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 ali laics who co-worship Christ’s humanity with 
His Divinity, for he even goes so far as to co-worship it, as he 
claims, adsolutely with God the Word, though his explanation 
there and in the places there referred to show that his adoration of 
it was velative, after all, to God the Word, that is for His sake, 
though, of course, the adso/ute 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 Chrystal’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 religious 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 Paul, 
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, 
Rome at first hesitated to receive, and indeed did not authorize 
ΕΠ A.D. 1705: 

Parsons, a Romish bitter and partisan priest, in an article on 
what he is pleased to call “‘7kze Later Religious Martyrdom of 
Poland’ in the American 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, 
their offence having been a propagation of the devotion to the Sacred 
Heart of Jesus—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 “‘one sole and inseparable divine 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 VIIIth An- 


122 Articde 777. 





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’s Vicaea. 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 Antiochian 
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, was his denial of the 
doctrine of Economic Appropriation, which was maintained by Cyril 
and Ephesus, to avoid what Cyril calls ᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, that is the wor- 
ship of a human being, Christ’s mere humanity. 

See on that Nestorius’ Heresy 3, as there numbered, pages 641, 
642, volume I of Chrystal’s translation of Ephesus, under Lconomic 
Appropriation on pages 602, 603, Appropriation on page 573, and 
οἰκειώσασθαι, and οἰκονομικὴν οἰκείωσιν 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 creature, Christ's humanity, our Atoner and Med- 
ialor. whereas the Orthodox, held, as Cyril teaches, that God the 


Article Second on Nestorius’ Heresies. 122 





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 therein vol. I of Chrystal’s Ephesus and especially note 688, 
pages 363-406. See also Cyril’s Scholia on the Incarnation, 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 man,’’ translate rightly ‘“‘zspired man,’’) and 
the Greek of the same, page 544, volume VI of the Greek of P. E. 
Pusey’s works of Cyril. Cyril teaches that nocreature 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 creature is an act of religious 
service contrary to Christ’s law in Matthew IV, 10, ‘‘ Zhou shalt wor- 
ship the Lord thy God and Him only shalt thou serve,’’ and brings his 
curse, as it did on 115 411 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 zdolatry, 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 777. 


_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 religiousservice 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 Afosfasy was the assertion of the 
real substance presence, not indeed of the Diviuity 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 Cyril terms AvOpwrodarpet that is the worship of a humai 
being; which we will call head 7: and, secondly, into what he terms, 
᾿Ανθρωποφαγία, that is the eating of a human being, that isin plain 
English, Caznzbalism, which we will number head 8. On ¢he wor- 
ship of a man see heads 2 and 3 above, and on Cannzbalism, 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 
4and 5, pages 642, 643 of the same volume, and the places in it 
above referred to in this article for the pena.ties incurred by those 
who hold to those sins. Seealso under Aucharist, 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 Zhanksgiving (from 
Matt. XXVI, 27; Mark XIV, 23, Luke XXII, 19, and I Cor. XI, 
24, where in the Eucharist Christ gave thanks), in volume I of Chry- 


Article Second on Nestorius’ Heresies. 125 

SE NO ie A SW, ADL Dn a ἸΌΝ 

stal’s Ephesus, note 599, pages 229-238; note E, pages 517-528; note 

692, and 693, pages 407, 408, and under ᾿Ανθρωποφαγία on page 696 

and ᾿Αποστασία on page 697; dpxerizw there and “‘ovpPorov, the Euch- 

aristic Symbol” on page 755, and under Eucharist on pages 612-622, 

volume I of the same work, General Index, and on the absurd re- 

sults of all Nestorian, Greek, and Romish views on the rite, see αι 
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 vote also; and the Third 
was Cyril’s Longer Epistle to Nestorius. Ina dogmaticsense these 
were far more important than Celestine’s Letter to Nestorius and 
that of Capreolus to the Holy Synod, which also were read in the 
Council. Celestine 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 ‘‘dlasphemies,’’ was Cyril of Alexandria, who 
has been justly termed the great Doctor of the Church on the Incar- 
nation, and may be as justly termed 7¢s gveat Doctor against what he 
terms ᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, that is against the worship of a human 
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 Nestorians 
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 117. 





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, ete. In 
brief, Cyril is the great Doctor of the Church against every form 
of zelative worship, whether offered 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 they 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 /udex 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 Divine 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 
᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, that is as the worship of a human being. 

By Lconomically 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; ‘‘ Zhou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
and Flim only shalt thou serve,’ Isaiah XLII, 8, Lam Jehovah; 
that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither 
my praise unto graven images, and that to worship Christ’s human- 
ity is to make ita zew god,a fourth after the Trinity, and so to 
substitute a worshipped Tetrad, that is a Four, that is the Father, 
the Word, the Holy Ghost, and a man, acreature, 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: ‘‘ 7heve shall be no 
new 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 1, 1-4, 14, and Hebrews I, 8. To the same effect: 


128 Article TV. 





see Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Faustin, pages 217-256, volume 
I of Chrystal’s ‘‘Nicaea.’’ 

2. Wehave 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 Synod 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. Ὁ. 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,’ AvOpwroAarpeia, 
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 and ats 
Heresies, etc., pages 637-647. 

Nore 212.—See volume I of Chrystal’s Ephesus, page 115, 116, note matter, and pages 
656, 657, under 7heodore. 


ΝΌΤΕ 213.—See volume I of Chrystal’s Zpkesus, pages 97, 98, 116-121, and page 571 under - 


Andrew. 

Norte 214—See id., under Eutherius of Tyana. pages 121-128. 

Nore 215.—See id., page 602 nnder Diodore of Tarsus, pages 112, 118, 169, note 361, and 
page 456, note 914. 

Nore 216.—See id., page 113, and under his name on page 656. 


flow 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 Inman 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 out of God 
the Father, the very God out of very God, the Light out of the Light, 
both took on flesh and put on a man, came down, suffered,’ [and] 
“‘yose from 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 
anthority, 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 So/e Born, and Word, and God, 
and Likeness and Radiance and Character of the Father's Substance, 





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. Wis see and Constantinople had 
differed. It was, however, recited and approved in the Fourth Ecnmenical Conncil 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, asit 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 never 
been recognized by the Greeks, can be signed by an Arian because it lacks the words “‘of the 
same Substance,” is first mentioned clearly about A. Ὁ). 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, J/an, 
Christ Jesus’ [that is, translated, ‘‘Anointed Jesus’’], ‘‘Propitia- 
tion, Mediator, First Fruit of those who slept, First Brought Forth 
from the dead, the Second 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 νεῖν 
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. 

Cyrilin 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 humanity, 
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 tn the Gospels are to be ascribed to”’ 
[but] ‘‘oxe Person, to’’ [but] ‘‘one infleshed Subsistence’’ (that is 





on it, and then lacked Article XII, and, as Prof. Heurtley shows in his werk Harmonia 
Symbolica, Creeds of the Western Church, pages 70-72, is not found in its present form 
till about A. D. 750. 


Flow Cyril Worshipped Christ. 131 





Being’’| ‘‘of the Word. For according to the Scriptures, Jesus 
Anointed is” [but] ‘‘oxe Lora’’ (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 Ephesus. 

And what is very important and germane here, we must 
remember that Cyril uses both Person (Πρόσωπον) and Subsistence, 
Being (Ὑπόστασις) for God the Word alone, though of course, He 
isin flesh. See in proof under /ervson, page 649, volume I of 
Chrystal’s Ephesus. 

Cyril 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 
Egypt, 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 worship of God alone, and so from about 4,000,000 
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, sothat 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 anathenmiatize 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 must finish their work bya 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. 


ἈΠΟ 
ON THE ECUMENICALLY APPROVED USE OF 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 119,126. Inthe 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 Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon.’’ 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 113 above, curses every one who defends 
the impious writings of Theodoret against the right faith and 
against the Third Ecumenical Synodand against St. Cyril and his XII 
Chapters, (one of which, the VIIIth, 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, ‘‘dy the 
name 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 rcckoned 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 alaic. Writers condemned by any of 
the VI Synods can not therefore be deemed ‘‘holy Fathers,’’ that 
is, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Kutyches, 
and Origen, for we are required to anathematize them, and ‘‘¢heir 
impious writings. They are condemned by name in Anathema XI 


134 Article 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 isthe 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 week it fell), and the Apollinarians, ‘‘the Eunomians who 
baptize with [but] one zmmersion,” 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, 
Maximin of Anazarbus, Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, Paul of 
Eimesa, Polychronius of Heracleopolis, Eutherius 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, Valentinus of 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 Canons of the Church: compare volume II of Chrystal’s 
“‘Ephesus,’’ pages 42, 100, and 391. 

Nor, 6, may we accept as ‘‘holy 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 Church, N.Y. 
edition of Sparks, 1844. 

Nor, 7, may we reckon as ‘‘holy Fathers,’? Ambrose of Milan, 
Augustine of Hippo, nor John Chrysostom, nor any other writer 


136 Article V. 


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 martyrs, and also 
a worshipper of the Host, though the passages quoted from him 
and from Augustine teach, seemingly, only the Nestorian one- 
nature Consubstantion, which 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 
pass?ges 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. Our 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. Vast 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 Azstoric 
witness of the Church Universal on any topic is only partly in 
iadividual 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 from the beginning, the local 


a 


On the Ecumenically Approved Use of the Fathers. 137 





councils of that period, and the VI Ecumenical give us the historic 
and rational judgment of the Church on Holy Scripture and its 
meaning. It is some times called the Historic Tradition, 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 mot found from 
the beginning, 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 zt was in the beginning,’’ 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 Antiquities has shown, andas is ably shown also by 
Tyler in his Primitive Christian Worship, in his work on J/mage 
Worship, and in his Worship of the Blessed Virgin, and the valuable 
tracts ‘‘ Whats Komanism?”’ published by the Society for Promoting 
Christian Knowledge (London, 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 ox Prayer. They are approved in Article XXXV 
of the Reformed Church of England as containing ‘‘a godly and 
wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times.”’ 

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 
1688 by the Rev. John Edmund Cox, M. A., of All Souls’ College, 
Oxford,’’ (London, Parker, 1843), in Daillé 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 abier 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 sufficient 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 easily 
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 by the more 
learned Latins and Greeks themselves; references to Cyril 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 /a/se Decretals, 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 Synod 
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 ἄρτος. 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, ‘“‘Litéle children, keep yourselves from 
idols,’’ that is ‘‘cmages’’ 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 Sentences, and ‘Thomas 


Note 218.—See Tyler on Image Worship, 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’ Summa 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 
worship 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 his partisans’ idolatrizings, save it now again. O God, thou, 
who in olden times didst raise up kings like Hezekiab and Josiah 
to reform and save, and Jeshua the high priest, and Ezra and 
Nehemiah to restore; and who didst in later times give us Cranmer 
and Edward VI. 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: Vil 


On Cyri, oF ALEXANDRIA’S WORSHIP OF GOD THE WoRD, 
μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, in the midst of, or within his own flesh, AND HIS 
ANATHEMATIZING anyone who CO-WORSHIPS HIS FLESH with His 
Divinity. Wis 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 Zphesus 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? ven, indeed, 
[by] wot vefusing 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 Aphesus. 

(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 

Nore 219.—See in the Index to Scripture on those texts in volume I of Zphesus, and in 
that of volume I of /Vicaea in this set. 

Note 220.—Greek. Kairos προσκυνεῖν αὐτῇ μὴ παραιτούμενος, πρέποντος μόνῃ τῃ Θείᾳ 
TE καὶ ἀποῤῥήτῳ φύσει τοὺ προσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν. 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 143 
eae ro a nr et) arenes le 
would not worship His humanity, nor any other creature. For he 
writes: 
“And again when He’ [the Father] ‘‘bringeth in the First 
Brought Forth into the inhabited world, He saith, And let all Goa’s 
angels 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 Ephesus, 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 Zphesus; 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 
mere 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 Divinity, and exhibited to us as A NEW GOD”’ 
[πρόσφατος Θεύς, Psalm LX XX, 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] “a common man, 
when thou contrivedst the worship to that creature? Are we then 
held fast in the ancient snares’’ [of creature worship]. ‘‘/Has the 
holy multitude of the spirits above been deceived with us, and has it 


144 Artide VJ, 





given drunkards’ insults to God?’’ [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 Cyril calls 
again and 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 dcne 
to the Word; and ¢he 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. Cyril brands as their ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is their 
worship of a human being, that is Christ’s humanity; and so, in 
strict accordance with Christ’s words in Matthew IV, 10, he 
understands the worship there done and the application of the 
name above every name (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 anathematizes both Nes- 
torius’ co-worship of Christ's humanity with His Divinity and his 
other sin of co-calling that man God with God the Word. Cyril 
goes on:] ‘Szxce we have been ransomed from the ancient deceit”’ 
[the sin of worshipping creatures, the sin of the heathen], ‘‘and 
have refused asa BLASPHEMOUS thing to WORSHIP THE CREATURE, 
why dost thou whelm us again in the ancient sins and make us 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 ina 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 whichis 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, /7e has heaven as His worshipper and the earth 
as His adorer [λάτρην ἔχει τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ προσκυνοῦσαν τὴν γῆν], for it is 


Cyril and the whole Church agcinst Man-worship. 145 


written: Zhe earth zs full of thy praise; Thy excellency, O Lord, has 
covered the heavens,’’? (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 humanity with God 
the Word, for he says: 

“So will we confess’’ [but] ‘‘one Anointed One (Χριστὸν ἕνα) 
and Lord, zot that we co-worshib 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] 
‘fone and the same’’ [Word], ‘‘for His body is not a thing foreign 
to the Word, with which,’’ [here evidently ‘‘within 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 117-119, volume I of Chrystal’s 
Ephesus. 

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 Ephesus. As Cyril uses the term σύν in connection 
with προσκυνέω, which means to co-worshipf, with reference to co- 
worshipping Christ’s humanity with God the Word and condemns 
that, I quote the Greek here: 


Οὕτω Χριστὸν ἕνα καὶ Κύριον ὁμολογήσομεν οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπον συμπροσκυνοῦντες τῷ 


isc, ΥδΕΕ ᾿ : 5 iS as ae Tite eee 
Tov αὐτὸν προσκυνοῦντες, OTL μὴ ἀλλότριον τοῦ Λόγου τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, μεθ᾽ οὗ Kai αὐτῷ 
συνεδρεύει τῷ Πατρί" οὐχ ὡς δύω πάλιν συνεδρευόντων υἱῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἑνὸς καθ᾽ ἕνωσιν μετὰ 
τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός. 


(1) Here plainly enough Cyril condemns the co-worship 
(συμπροσκυνοῦντες) of Christ’s humanity with God the Word, and 
worships only ‘‘ove,’’ that is God the Word: 

And, (2), he denies that two Sons, God the Word and His 
humanity are co-sitting (συνεδρευόντων), but that one, God the 
Word, does within His body (τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, μεθ᾽ οὗ καὶ αὐτῷ συνεδρεύει 
τῷ Πατρὶ). 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. 

(4). In his Longer 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: . 

“7 worship him’’ [the Man, that is Christ’s humanity] ‘‘who zs 
worn, for the sake of Him’’ [God the Word] “who wears. 7 worship 
him who is seen’’ [that is Christ’s humanity] ‘‘for the sake of Him 
who is hidden’’ [that isGod the Word]. 

‘‘God is unseparated from him’’ [the Man] ‘‘who appears. For 
that reason 7 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 σέβω, I worship, is 1 bow (Greek προσκυνῶ, 
bowing προσκύνησιν), the most common words in Greek for worship, the 
former being the verb, the latter the noun, The verb occurs sixty 
timesin the New Testament and is always translated by worship 
in our common version. See in proof 7he Englishman's Greek Con- 
cordance of the New Testament. 

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- 
niond (on zhe 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. 

(6). Cyrilin 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 against 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 Aphesus, under those texts, pages 686 and 688. The 
places are too long to be quoted here. One passage only is quoted 
tnder (Ὁ) above. 

See in the same Index to Scripture Texts under Psalm 
LXXX, 9, Sept., and | XXXI, 9; Isaiah XLII, 8; Matt. IV, 10; 
Colossians II, 18; Rev. XIX, 10, and Rev. XXII, 8, 9. 

(ὃ. Under (Ὁ) above Cyril teaches that the Nestorian worship 
of Christ’s humanity results in making ‘‘a mere God-inspired Man,” 
his merely human Christ, to sit down ‘‘zz the thrones of the highest 
Divinity,’? and in exhibiting him to us ‘‘as a new god, asa sort of 
fourth god ”’ [or, ‘‘a sort of fourth Person’’| ‘‘after the holy Trinity,” 
and that to think of worshipping that ‘“‘common man’’ should make 
Nestorius shudder for having contrived ‘‘the worship to that creature.’ 
And he adds that to give worship to Christ’s humanity, ¢hat 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 ‘‘/o worship the creature,’’ Christ’s humanity, is “‘a BLASPHE- 
MOUS THING,’’ which we Christians ‘‘have refused,’’? and it would 
“‘whelm us again in the ancient sins’’ of creature worship,, ‘‘the 
ancient deceit’? from which we were ‘‘vansomed,’’ ‘‘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.”’ 

(5). 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 Ὁ 
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 A WORSHIPPED MAN TO THE HOLY AND CONSUB- 
STANTIAL TRINITY, AND IS NOT ASHAMED; Greek, καὶ προσκυνούμενον 
ἄνθρωπον τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ ὁμουυσίῳ Τριάδι προστιθεὶς, οὐκ αἰσχύνεται. See more 
on that place on pages 89, 90, volume I οἵ 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 ita god. So Cyrilargues 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 isto give him what 
belongs to God, and so is, in effect, to make him a god. 

(8). 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 Werd] ‘‘is incomparably exalted above the 
other, and, moreover, that the other’’ [the Man] ‘‘is as much inferior 
to It as Man isto God. How, then, tell me, dost thou deem tt a wor- 
thy thing to honor with [but] one worship [μιᾷ προσκυνήσει] chose 
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 and the whole Church against Man worship. 149 





TO DISHONOR?’’ [Cyril means that if a man gives any act of relig- 
ious service to Christ’s separate humanity after the Nestorian 
fashion, he thereby out and out insults the superior Nature, that is 
the Divinity of God the Word, by dragging It down into 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 
intertor to the Word as a man is to God. Τί 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 of Zphesus 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 μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός, as for example on page 85, 
note, and as worshipped μετὰ σαρκός, as on page 84, note; I reply, 
that we must not understand the Greek there to teach any worship 
to Christ’s humanity, 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: 
“Tf any one dares to say that the Man taken on’’ [by God the 


Note 221.—See under A, page 79. volume I, of Chrystal’s Ephesus. 


150 Article VI, 





Word] ‘‘ought to be co-bowed to’’ [that is ‘‘to be co-worshipped’’] 
“ἀρ, God the Word, and to be co-glorified, and to be co-called God”’ 
[with the Word], ‘‘as one with another, for the term co always” 
[thus], ‘‘added, of necessity means that, and does not on the con- 
trary honor the Emmanuel’? [that is, as Emmanuel meaus ‘‘the 
God with us,’ that is God the Word] ‘‘w7th’’ [but] ‘‘one worship 
and send up’’ [but] ‘‘one glorifying to Him on the ground that God 
the Word has been made flesh, let him be anathema’’ (222). 

Here three acts of religious service are specified: 

1. ‘‘Co-bowed to,’’ that is co-worshipped, for in Greek bowing 
(προσκυνέω, προσκύνησις), 25 the most common act of worship, and 
often stands as a general term for worshif, and that because it 
forms part of every act of religious service, for when men stand or 
kneel, or prostrate themselves, or offer 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). Asan act of acceptable religious service to the Triune 
God, or to any of the Consubstantial 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 
προσκυνέω, 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 
Rey, Xa, 9 ete. 

(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 any 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; 
eT a Ee 
ΤΊ Nore 222.—Greek. Ei τις τολμᾷ λέγειν τὸν ἀναληφθέντα ἄνθρωπον συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι 
δεῖν τῷ Θεᾷ Λόγῳ καὶ συνδοξάζεσθαι καὶ συγχρηματίζειν Θεὸν, ὡς ἕτερον ἑτέρῳ, τὸ γὰρὸ Σὺν 
ἀεὶ προστιθέμενον τοῦτο νοείν ἀναγκάσει καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον μιᾷ προσκυνήσει, τιμᾷ τὸν 
᾿ ee, : Ἢ ΣΤΗ͂Σ 5 wae Shr Sauls ene 
᾿Ἐμμανουὴλ, καὶ μίαν Αὐτῷ τὴν δοξολογίαν ἀναπέμπει, καθὸ γέγονε σὰρξ ὁ Λόγος, ἀνάθεμα 


ἔστω. 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 151 





c. or toany 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 προσκυνέω 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 they are in heaven and not on 
earth. 

Such forbidden worship is mentioned in Rev. XIII, 4, 8, 12, 
ΤΡ, Oe elt SOV, 2. ΚΙ ΧΟ 20; and: XX, 4. lL would) say. that 
some of the Greeks try to excuse their idolatry to-day by saying 
that they do not worship εἴδωλα, that is, as the word means, 
images, but only εἰκόνας, which they take to mean Pictures, though 
the word means literally /ikenesses, and Liddell and Scott in the 
“Sixth edition revised and augmented” of their Greek-English 
Lexicon, (Oxford, Eng., 1869), under εἰκών tell us that it is used 
“γα 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 Articde VI. 


ume I of Chrystal’s Ephesus), for which, with his other blas- 
phemies, he was deposed by “phesus. 

And moreover the New Testament uses this very word εἰκών 
of the images of the heathen (Romans I, 23), of the image of the 
beast Rey. Xl, 14, 15. ὉΠ ΕΘ) XPV. Oatis Sev, 2: ON ee 
XIX, 20; and XX, 4, eleven times in all: and εἴδωλον is used only 
eleven times, that is exactly the same number of times. 

But what does Cyril mean by the words ‘‘as one with another’’ 
in his Anathema VIII? ‘‘/fany one dares to say that the Man taken 
on’? [by God the 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 God the Word] “‘as one with another for the 
term co always’’ [thus] ‘‘added, of necessity means 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 bedone 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 contrary, honor the Emmanuel’’ [that 
is as the Emmanuel means ‘‘the God with us,’’ that is God the 
Word] ‘‘with’’ [but] oze worship and send up’? [but] ‘‘ove glorify- 
ing to Him on the ground that God the Word has been made flesh, 
‘Yet him be anathema.”* . 

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 Zphesus in this 
set, note matter. Theodoret, for example, says,: ‘‘We 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 116. 

And one of the Blasphemies of Nestorius reads: ‘‘Let us wor- 
ship the Man, co-worshipped in the divine Conjoinment 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 OF GOD made Man and called 
God and bowed to’’ [that is, ‘‘worshipped’’| “in’’? [not with] 
“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 116. Sev- 
eral of the XX Blasphemiés of Nestorius 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) dowing is often done in the Old Testament, not as an 
act of religious worship at all, but simply and only as an act of 
mere human courtesy, mere human love, or mere human 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 
Fastern salaam, as a token of respect to him, which Peter straight- 
way forbids, as being wrong toa mere man. For sucha custom is 
slavish, and has never been popular in the West. The Greek 
προσεκύνησεν there should therefore be rendered dowed to, not wor- 
shipped him, that is, Cornelius was going to prostrate himself to 
Peter. 

2. The next sin is the 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 Isaiah XLII, 8, 
He proclaims: ‘‘lam Jehovah: that is my name, and my glory will 
I not give to another, neither my praise to graven 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 δόξα and δοξάζω in the Englishman’s Greek 
Concordance of the New Testament, aud under glorify and glory in) 

ruden’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 VT, 





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 efernal (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 only 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: ‘‘A7y Lord and my God.’’ 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 agcinst 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 
Reo 38° Josuua XXIII, 7; Psalm XVI} 4; Hosea IT, 16; 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 worshipping 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 Christian Worship. 

(C). Holy Writ condemns even the secular use of the term 
god toa 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 
προσκυνέω, Gow, 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 εἷς 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. 
ee OVand. x X IT, 8. ὋΣ 

Still another passage of Cyril against that Zetradism is found 
on pages 93, 94, there: 

‘“(X.) Passage IIT on Tetradism. It is from Cyril against 
Diodore of Tarsus, a Founder of Nestorianism. It is found in a 
Latin translation on page 399 of Volume III of P. E. Pusey’s edi- 
tion"of the Greek of Cy7il on the Gospel according to John. Its end 
is mistranslated by Pusey, on page 335 of his translation of SS. 
Cyril of Alexandria on the Iucarnation against Nestorius.” 

“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 OF THE TRINITY AND IN NATURE 
EQUAL TO 11. See Cyril, note matter page 94, volume I of 
Chrystal’s Zphesus. 

But I must stop citing passages from Cyril here and refer to a 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. Ea 


summary of his utterances in twenty places against any and all 
worship of Christ’s humanity. Τί 15 found on page 338, 339, vol- 
ume I of Chrystal’s Zphesus, 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 pera and σύν. 

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 μετά and ow 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 ‘‘within’’ [or 
“in the midst of’’| His flesh (μετὰ σαρκός), but forbids to worship His 
flesh ‘‘together with’’ (σύν) 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’ (τὸ 
συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι καὶ συνδυξάζεσθαι) as of two Persons or Hypos- 
tases or Sons, as though the bowing [that is, ‘‘*ke 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’’ (σύν), as 
even he himself [Cyril] says in his first tome [as follows]: 

‘And indeed as He [God the Word] always co-sits (συνεδρεύων) 
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 (μετὰ σαρκός), Sz¢ 
thou at my right hand, until 1 make thine enemies thy footstool (Psalm 
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 éogether with His flesh 
[σὺν τῇ σαρκί] as though the [preposition] μετά [that is, ‘‘wzth’’ 
were something other than the [preposition] σύν [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 flesh,’ and by forbidding 
His flesh to be co-bowed to, [that is, to be ‘‘co-worshipped’’] wzth 
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 μετά with the genitive in 
a very common sense of it, that is with; yet it has also the meaning 
in the midst of, within, in which sense Athanasius and Cyril seem 
to use it when they profess to worship God the Word pera τῆς 
σαρκός, that is, within His flesh, or ‘‘in the midst of His flesh.’’ 

The Greek of the above as in P. E. Pusey’s edition of Cyril of 
Alexandria’s works, Vol. VI, page 316, is as follows: φαμὲν ὡς 
πάνυ ἐπιστημονικῶς ἐπέσκηψε [Cyril] τοῖς σὺν τῇ σαρκὶ προσκυνεῖν τῷ Evi καὶ 
τῷ αὐτῷ Ὑἱῷ βουλομένοις, ὡς ἑτέρου τινὸς ὄντος παρὰ τό Σὺν τοῦ Mera’ ὅπερ 
αὐτὸς ἔθηκεν, ὡς προείρηται, λέγων αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρκὸς δεῖν πρυσκυνεῖσθαι, 
ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι τῇ Θεότητι τὴν σάρκα. 

Eutherius, 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. Hewrites to John of Antioch (see page 121, note, vol. I 
of Chrystal’s Ephesus): 

“But who cuts away the flesh from the Word,and takes away due 
adoration [from it] as he [Cyril of Alexandria] has commanded [us 
to do], for he says; 

‘Tf any one presumes to say that the man taken [by God the 
Word] ought to be co-adored with God the Word, and to be co- 
glorified with Him, let him be 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 Zphesus 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 μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας σαρκός, page 89, (μετὰ 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 
μετά 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 772 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 Testament, gives as the ‘‘primary 
signif’? [ication] ‘‘of pera, ‘‘mid, amid, Germ. mit, i. e. in the midst, 
with, among,..-. With the Genitive, ... with i. 6. mid, amid, 
among, in the midst of, as where one is said to sit, stand, or be 
with or in the midst of others, with gen’’- [itive] ‘‘plur’’ [al] ‘‘of 
pers’’-[on] or thing, Matt. XXVI, 58, ἐκάθητο μετὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν 
[te sat among the servants], Mark I, 13, 14, 54, 62, ἐρχόμενων μετὰ 
τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ’ [‘‘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 μετά, ‘‘iz the middle’’ and with a genitive “οἵ the object 
or objects in the middle of which one is; and so, I. ix the midst 
of, among, between,’’ etc., and he gives examples in Greek of those 
meanings. 

Μετὰ with the genitive is occasionally rendered in our com- 
mon English version by among: as for example in Luke XXII, 


160 Article V7. 





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 1, 13. 

A notable instance where μετά is used by St. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria with the genitive in the sense of μέσα among or within us 
occurs in his work on zhe 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, Avise 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 Cyril 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 pera. 

I come then to speak on pera 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. Ὁ. 431?) and on the use of 
pera in Anathema IX of the Fifth Ecumenical Cour~il, 

For proof that μετά with the genitive does not in several in- 
stances mean ‘together with’? see the third edition of Hahn’s 
Bibliothek 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, ‘‘Oz the /nman 
of God the Word, the Son of the Father, a Definition of the Bishops 
gathered jn Nicaea in the Synod, against 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 (καὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος), but not God as 
respects the body; and wholly man, even with His Divinity, 





NorE 223.—P. E. Pusey’s Greek of Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of Jehn, vol.2 (Oxford 
Clarendon Press, A. D. 1872, page 583). Οὐκοῦν ὅταν ὡς σὺν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν τὴν ἐν 
κόσμῳ παραδραμὼν φαυλότητα λέγῃ τό ’Βγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν, ete. 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 161 





(καὶ μετὰ τῆς Θεότητος), but not man as respects His Divinity; 
so wholly worshipable even with His body, but not to be wor- 
shipped as regards His body; wholly worshipping even with His 
Divinity, but not worshipping as respects His Divinity, (οὕτως ὅλον 
προσκυνητὸν Kal μετὰ τοῦ σῶματος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ κατὰ TO σῶμα προσκυνητόν ὅλον 
πρυσκυνοῦντα χαὶ μετὰ τῆς Θεότητος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ κατὰ τὴν Θεύτητα προσκυνοῦντα). 

Here, we 566, isthe document from which, seemingly, Cyril 
derived his use of μετά 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 
humanity, relative as well as absolute? 

We answer, Yes. For his words are very clear: 

For (1). Insection 8 of Book II of his Five Book Contradie- 
tion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, he rebukes Nestorius for wor- 





Norte 224,.—One matter as not sure and therefore of less importance I may refer to in this 
note to stimulate scholars to investigate further. 

In modern Greek, as we see by Contopoulos’ Greek-English Lexicon and by Byzantios’ 
Λεξικὸν “EAAnvo-Taddikov, under μέσα, it is used in the sense of zyz¢hin, 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 μετά really in the original μέσα, when he speaks of worshipping God the 
Word μετά σαρκός ὃ That is, does he not in that case use it instead of μετά Is not μέσα 
ancient in the sense of wzthin at Alexandria? Μέσα σαρκός, does mean ‘‘withtn 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, within, in use in the 
Alexandrian Greek of Cyril’s time, and did he use it with the genitive σαρκός ὃ 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, 


162 Artide ἘΠ. 





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 THE 
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 Chrystal’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 S. Cyril of Alexandria on the 
Incarnation against Nestorius. I give it here: Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἡἣ"ὥσθαι 
φὴς Kil ὑπόστασιν τῷ ἐκ Θεοῦ φύντι Λόγῳ τὸ ad θρώπινον, τὶ Ti Θείαν εἰπέ 
μοι περιυβρίζεις σάρκα ; καίτοι προσκυνεῖν αὐτῇ μὴ παραιτούμενος, πρέποντος 
μόνῃ τῇ Θείᾳ τε καὶ ἀποῤῥήτῳ φύσει τοῦ προσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν. 

(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 says: 

“The Word who has come out of God the Father has been 
named ,Sole-Born [Movoyevys] with reference to His’’ [Divine] 
‘“‘Nature, because He alone has been born out of the Sole Father. 
And He was called First Brought Forth [ΠΠρωτότυκος] 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: Πλὴν καὶ οὕτω προσκυνεῖται 
παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλλων, ἀνακειμένου τε καὶ πρέποντος μόνῳ Θεῷ TV καὶ 
προσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν. Πῶς οὖν οὐ Θεὸς 6 Χριστὸς, ὃ καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ 
προσκυνούμενος. 

(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 against 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 ᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, 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 xew god by worshipping it, for he 
who gives what belongs to God alone toa 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 
Ephesus, 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 isthe 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 been made flesh (John I; 1-4, 14), 
and there are not to be two worships, one to the creature relatively 
as Nestorius asserted, creature worship, of 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 forthe 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 Articde VT. 





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 mnch 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 adsolutcly. 

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 Aphesus, 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 being, as (AvOpwrodartpeia) 
forbidden 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 procf 
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 Aphesus, 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 μετὰ σαρκός, etc., occur. Still 
other utterances of Cyril may be found in volumes VI and VII of 
P. E. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of his works. Volume ΠῚ 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 J/an-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 agcinst 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 Aphesus in this set, where 
read it, and read alsoon pages 28, 29, another Homily of Cyril, 
and on pages 183-184 another; and on pages 317-335 an ‘‘Exflana- 
tion of important language on Man-Worship.”’ 


I would add that I find the two following passages quoted by 
Jeremy Taylor in Zhe Second Part of his Dissuasive 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 Zphesus 
in this set. 

Cyril of Alexandria, in his Thesaurus, 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 ΟΡ (a). 


And again Cyril writes in the same work, 

“There is [but] ONE NATURE OF THE DEITY, WHICH ALONE 
OUGHT TO BE WORSHIPPED”’ (ὁ). 

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 Aphesus 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. Cyril of Alexandria, for the 
worship of the Divine Naturealone. I quoted Bishop Taylor’s 
Latin alone, because he does not give the Greek original. He 
quotes it froma Latin translation in the Parisedition of A. Ὁ. 
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 City, which I was courteously and 
kindly permitted to consult, for which I return my thanks to 


166 Aride VI. 


its Librarian, Rev. Mr. Gillett, as I do for similar favors to the 
Librarians of the General Theological Seminary Library of 
the same city, to those of the Astor Library, and to those of 
Columbia College Library. I here summarize results as to 
the Greek reading of the aforesaid passages : 


The first passage quoted from Cyril of Alexandria by Jeremy 
Taylor, is found in tome Second of Cyril’s Works, Paris, 
A. Ὁ. 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 asa Jew to the Samaritan 
woman, Ye, (says He), worship what ye know not, but we worship 
what we know, [John IV, 22]; [here] He speaks as Man. 
For the Word is not a worshipper, but is worshipped together 
with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Let all God’s angels, 
Scripture says, worship Him [Heb. I, 6]. But No ONE 15 
IGNORANT THAT WORSHIP IS PERMITTED TO NO NATURE AT 
ALL BY SCRIPTURE BUT THAT OF Gop. [For it is written], 
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt 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 117, tome 75 of 
Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, though the arrangement of Migne 
is different from the Paris edition of A. Ὁ. 1604. I quote it- 
with more of the context: 


The heading of the Greek of the section here, translated, is: 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 167 


“* That the Son is Consubstantial with the Father is proved by the fol- 
lowing text, J go to my Father and your Father, and [10] my 
God and your God,’’ [John XX, 17]. Then, without any 
break, comes the following: 


‘““When the Word of God cast about Himself the form of the Man, 
and though He was 7z the form of God as itis written, [ Philip. 
II, 6] nevertheless humbled Himself for the salvation of us 
all, then indeed He sometimes speaks even as Man, but in so 
doing He does no wrong to His God-befitting glory. For 
since He really became Man, and yet did not thereby cease 
from being God, even though as having been made Man He 
speaks the things which befit the Man, He will not thereby 
damage His God-befitting dignity, but He will still remain 
the same [ Word], the humble expressions [that is His utter- 
ances as Man] being referred to the Economy [of our Re- 
demption]. And that He utters such expressions Kconom1- 
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 know, 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 Him, [that is God the Word, as 
Cyril often teaches]. AND NO SUCH COMMAND IS FOUND IN 
THE SCRIPTURES OF GOD REGARDING [WORSHIPPING] ANGELS 
INDEED OR ANY OTHER ORDER LIKE THEM. for no one 15 
commanded to worship angels, but God alone. For it is 
written, Zhou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Flim only 
shalt thou serve{Matt. IV, 10]. As therefore the worshipped 
Son [that is, God the Word] says that He worships Hconomi- 
cally as Man, so when He [God the Word] being God by 
Nature, calls the Father His God, He speaks again EKconomi- 
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 same Substance’”’ as the Father. 


168 


Articie VI. 





I here contrast the Latin translation of part of the above and the 


Greek here: 


Latin translation. 


Nemo autem ignorat nulli 
prorsus naturae praeter quam 
Dei, adorationem a Scriptura 
contribui. 


English translation of the above 
Latin. 


“‘But no one is ignorant that 
worship is given by Scripture to 
no Nature at all except that of 
God.”’ 


Greek original. 

Kat περὶ μὲν ἀγγέλλων ἢ ἑτέρας τινος 
τῆς κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τάξεως οὐδὲν φέρεται 
τοιοῦτο παρὰ Tals ϑείαις Τραφαὶς. Οὐ 
γὰρ ἀγγέλλοις κελεύεταί τις προσκυνεῖν, 
ἀλλὰ μόνῳ Θεῷ. 


English translation of the above 
Greek. 


“And no such command is 
found in the Scriptures of God 
regarding [worshiy ping] 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 
Thesaurus as in the Latin translation of volume II of his 
works, Paris, 1604, page 158, inner column, C, I find in 
tome 75 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, in the Greek; I give 
it with the immediate context as in the Greek in columns 
113, 116, where Cyril is answering an objection of followers 
of the heresiarch Eunomius; Eunomius’ objection to Christ’s 
Divinity there is as follows; it is prefaced by the following 


heading: Ὥς ἐξ ἀντιθέσεως τῶν Hivopiov. 


«Ἐα Objectione Euno- 


mii is the Latin rendering in the parallel column there for 


the above heading. 
I vranslate into English. 


It is as follows: 


‘‘Eunomius, (who evidently has in mind, Christ’s words in Mark X, 
18,‘‘ Why callest thou me good? thereis none good but one, that ts 
God,’’ andis 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 Church against Man-worship. 169 





in John I, 1, that He is), ‘‘If He says that the Son is of the 
same Substance as the Father, why is not He Himself also 
[the Son] as good as the Father [is]? For the Anointed One 
(ὁ Χριστός) says somewhere to a certain one, Why callest thou 
me good? There is none good but one, that is God.’?’ And when 
he said ‘‘Oxe’’ He put himself outside [of that One]; for 
though He Himself is good also, He cannot be so good as 
the Father is.’’ Ξ 

Cyril’s ‘‘ Solution of the above difficulty.’’ 

‘‘Forasmuch as the Scripture 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 say 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 ἹΜΡΙΕΤῪ by applying [the title] Zorvd to him 
whom thou deniest to be of the same Substance as the God and 
Father, and by bowing to [that is by worshipping] him [that 
mere creature]; and [so] thou worshippest a creature contrary 
to Him who is God by Nature. For that which is of a sub- 
stance other than God can not be God by Nature. And the 
Scripture of’'God is a witness to this, forit says, The Lord 
our God is [but] One Lord [Mark XII, 29; Deut. VI, 4]; for 
the Nature of Divinity is [but] One: AND THAT WE MUST 
WORSHIP THAT NATURE ALONE, hear again [the following 
words of Christ], Zou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and 
Flint only shalt thou serve,’ [Matt. IV, 10]. 

IT have rendered μᾶλλον } above by ‘ ‘contrary do’’ as making a Greek 
idiom clearer to the English speaking reader. In Liddell 
and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1869, under Mada we read, 
“(μᾶλλον # . . . is often followed by οὐ (where od seems 
redundant,) because in all comparisons the very notion of 
preference also implies rejection or denial.’”’ But if any man 
prefers ‘‘vather than God by Nature’ or “in preference to 
God by Nature;’’ the sense will not be widely different, for 
it will mean that the Eunomian prefers to worship his 


170 Artide VI. 


mere created Christ zz 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 THE 
DIVINE NATURE ALONE; and so is God’s name. 

And, 2, that to give bowing, or any other act of religious worship, © 
or God’s name, to anything but the Divine Nature is an 
ἐπ σελ aoa es 

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, Aphesus, 
in both which he denies worship to Christ’s humanity, and 
condemns it as wrong. In the passage last above, both in 
the Greek and in the English translation, he argues for the 
Divinity of the 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 Thesaurus, 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, Zhou 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 bringeth in the First Brought Forth 
into the inhabited world, He saith, And let all God's angels 
bow to Him. ‘The bowed-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 and the whole Church against Man-worship. ΤΙ 








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 of’’ the Father’s ‘‘Subdstance,”’ 
is worshipped by Jdowixg, and is called God; in other 
words he is showing by all those facts that He is God. 
Hence we find Athanasius arguing from ‘‘Character of 
fis Substance,’ Heb. I, 3, that the Word must be God; 
see the Greek of pages 325, 494, of the Oxford translation 
of Athanasius’ Tveatises against Arianism, 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 JVicaea in this set. See in 
the Oxford translation of Cyril of Alexandria on the Incar- 
nation in the Zndex of Texts, under Heb. I, 3, and especially 
Heb. I, 6, and in P. KE. Pusey’s edition of the Greek of 
Cyril, volume VI, under those texts in the /zdex Locorum 
... Sertpturae, and in volume VII, part I, pages 98-106, 
193, 240, 241, 270, and in the Zwdex Locorum .. . Scrip- 
zurae. 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 Aphesus in this set: 

But, alas! in the Middle Ages men were given to the relative wor- 


172 Artide VI, 


ship of the Virgfn 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 effect 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 Diviuity. 
In that he follows his teacher, the great Athanasius, who in 
sections 3 and 6 of his Epistle to Adelphius writes 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, we do not bow toa 
creature, 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 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία, St. Cyril calls it), as follows: 

‘‘WE DO NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE—GOD FORBID! FOR SUCH AN 
ERROR AS THAT BELONGS To THE HEATHEN AND TO THE 
Arians. Lut 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 effect is found in the note. Particularly 
pertinent there is Athanasius’ commendation of the leper be- 
cause in his worship of Christ ‘‘he was worshipping [not 
Christ’s humanity, but] ¢he Creator of the Universe as in a 
created temple, [that is in His body] and he was made clean.’’ 

For THE CREATURE DOES NOT WORSHIP A CREATURE, 
NOR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS THE CREATURE DECLINING 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 13 


TO WORSHIP ITs LORD BECAUSE OF THE FLESH’’ [which 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 ou pages 91-101, note, 
voiume I of LZphesus. 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 
“416 fatth 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 toremain 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 Jz the beginning 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 II, to the question, of vast importance, as it affects 
the only permitted object of Christian Worship, 

Did the Third Ecumenical Council, and the Fifth, its comple- 
ment, its filling out, soto 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 Article 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 Zphe- 
sus, pages 79-82: the approval of the Epistle by 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 WVicaea. 
That Epistle isin volume I of Aphesus 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 whole Church, East and 
West, approved St. Cyril’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 3603-406. 


Cyril and the whole Church against 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 Zphesus, 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 Council 
(page 449, volume I of Chrystal’s Ephesus), 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, ᾿Ανθρωπολατρεία, 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 dlasphemies 
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: 

(Ὁ). Blasphemy 6, where he calls Christ’s humanity God 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 
Nestorius which is approved by Zfphesus 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 “‘dzgnzty 
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 Article VT. 


(f). Blasphemy 10, where he plainly co-worships both natures 
of Christ together. For he writes: 

“Tet us worship the Man co-bowed to’’ [that is ‘‘co-wor- 
shippea’’| ‘‘with the Almighty God in the divine conjoinment;’’ 
Greek, σέβωμεν τὸν τῇ θείᾳ συναφείᾳ τῷ παντοκράτορι Θεῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον 
ἄνθρωπον. 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 7 
worship him together with the Divinity’? [of the Word] ‘cxasmuch 
as he ts a co-worker with the divine authority ;’’? Greek, προσκυνῶ δὲ 
σὺν τῇ Θεότητι τοῦτον ὡς τῆς θείας συνεργὸν αὐθεντίας. 

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 VIII, 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 they would have been ‘‘Alainly SERVERS 
(that is ‘‘WORSHIPPERS’’] OF 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 Gon is in the Man taken, the Man taken is 
co-called Gobd’’ [with God the Word] ‘‘from Him’’ [God the Word] 
‘who has taken him, inasmuch as that Manis conjoined 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 Curist’s humanity at the right hand of the 
Father, which is cursed by Cyril in his VIIIth 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 pesn, and tabernacled among us?’ 
[John I, 14] ‘‘The Father made the humanity taken to sit down 
with Himself; for He said, Zhe Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
at my right hand. 


Cyril and the whole Church agcinst Man-worship. 177 





The Spirit came down and co-celebrated the glory of the Man 
taken; for it says, ‘‘When the. Spirit of Truth is come, He shall 
glorify me,’’ [John XVI, 13, 14]. See page 467-469, and the notes 
there, and 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 1V, 10, and Isaiah XLII, 8. Indeed by giving that 
creature an act of worship it would make him a xew god, and to 
worship ὦ strange god contrary, as Cyril again and again writes, 
to God’s prohibition of that sin in Psalm LXXX, 9, Septuagint, 
which is Psalm LXXXI, 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 prays. He 
worships as Man, but is worshipped as God; see in proof note 
on page 127, volume I of Chrystal’s Zphesus. And see the texts 
above mentioned in the Scripture Jndexes in volume I of Nicaea 
and volume I of Zphesus, 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. Were 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 


178 ἱ Article V1. 





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 “phesus 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 Zhanksgiving, 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 of 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 Aconomic 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 Chrystal’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 
“FR? pages 529-551, volume I of Zphesus. Most of Nestorius’ XX 
Blasphemies are refuted in the places pointed out in that note 
in Cyril’s Five Book Contradiction of the Llasphemies of Nestorius, 
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 
Alexandria on the Incarnation against 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 and the whole Church against Man-worship. 170 
eee“ 
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, “¢he pillar 
and ground of the truth’’ (225), which we must by his law ‘‘hear’’ or 
be accounted “65 che heathen man and the publican’’ (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 
toit. 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 Aphesus. 


On pages 486-488, they show that they were moved to depose 
him by the ‘‘BLASPHEMIES’’ 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 committed by him’’; and that they had ‘‘found 
out in regard to him, both from is 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 bee 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 


Nore 225.—1 Tim. III, 15. 
NOTE 226.—Matthew XVIII, 15-19. 


180 Articde VI. 


Statement in this Act I of the Third Syncd of the whole Church, 
pages 503, 504, volume 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 Nestorius himself are more than two hundred in number. 
For some were place-holders for other Bishops who were not able 
to come to the metropolis of the Ephesians. 

The Sentence of Deposition sent to him on the day after his 
deposition : 

The Holy Synod gathered by God’s grace and the decree of our 
most religious and Christ-loving Emperors in the metropolis of the 
Ephesians, sendeth’’ [what here followeth] ‘‘to JVestorius, a new 
Judas. 

Know, that thou thyself, oz account of THY BLASPHEMOUS 
PREACHINGS and thy disobedience to the canons’’ [which required 
him to come before the Synod and to give an account, among 
other things, of his worship of a human being, Christ’s humanity ] 
‘‘wast deposed by the holy Synod, in accordance with the behests 
of the Church Canons, on the twenty-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 
Lphesus in this set, and the Sentence, now Canon VII of £phesus, 
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 Synod 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. 181 


his History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh, Clarks, 1895). 
Hefele there shows that on that matter he was correcting an error 
of the Jesuit Garnier. 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 azd especially to his JEWISH CREED which was 
condemned at Ephesus 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 Garnier (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 Canons of the Church (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 velaizve. 

And we have seen how the Fourth Ecumenical Council 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. 
Boas 

(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 


182 Articde 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 (@ispensatio, οἰκονομία, cf, 
Suicer, Zhesaur. 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 
expressly named, among them, and all its condemnations of Man- 
Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), See in proof Hammond on the Canons, 
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 “phesus in this set: 

(D). Zhe Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, held at 
Constantinople, A. D. 553, 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 Man-worship. 183 





calumny 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-WoORSHIP 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 
Ephesus in this set, the view that God the Word alone in Christ is 
to be worshipped, would explain the above as follows: 

By ‘“‘worshipping two Sons,’’ is meant the worship of what is 
forbidden in Anathema IX, put forth by this Fifth Council below, 
that -15 the Nestorian worship of Christ ‘‘7z two natures,’’ that is, 
the worship of his created humanity as well as of his uncreated 
Divinity, the latter being demanded, as Cyril in effect shows again 
and again, by Matt. IV, 10; whereas the former as being Mazn- 
Worship is forbidden by Christ himself in that text. 

By ‘‘dividing the Undivided One’’ is meant the denial of the 
Incarnation, and of the true Union, that is, the indwelling of the 
Man born of Mary by the 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 ‘‘introducing the crime of Man-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 onearth. ‘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 ONLY SHALT 
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 allare to bow ‘‘iz the name’’ (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι) of Jesus, or accord- 
ing to our translation, ‘‘a¢’’ his name. For every knee ts to bow 
and every tongue ts to confess that He is Lord. While they adduced 
such places for the worship of His humanity, St. Cyril, on the 
coutrary, 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 11, is meant as the one who was “272 ¢he form 


184 Articde VT. 


of God’’ before His Inflesh, and who in that form ‘“‘thought it not 
yobbery to be equal with God,’’ language which all may see can not 
be asserted of His mere created humanity. And Cyril adduces 
against such Nestorian Man-Worship, such texts as Matt. IV, 10, 
and Isaiah XLII, 8, and the Septuagint of Psalm LXXX., 9, (in 
our Version LXXXI, 9), which reads: ‘‘7here shall be no new God 
in thee; neither shalt 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). Anathema IX, towards the end of the Definition of the Fifth 
Ecumenical Council, A. D. 553: 

“If any one says that the Anointed One (τὸν Χριστόν), is to be 
worshipped in two Natures, by which assertion ¢wo 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 flesh or to the 
mingling of the Divinity and of the humanity, 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 
[τὸν Χριστόν]; but does not [on the contrary] worship with [but] 
one worship [that is with divine and absolute worship] God the 
Word, infleshed within [or ‘‘ zz ¢he 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 ove worship here means 
what is divine; that is, what belongs to God the Word. ‘The ¢wo 
worships mean that kind, for one, and the Nestorian velative-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 98-101 vol. I of Aphesus. For if we worship the 
Man itis 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 ofworship. 

(F). The Fifth Ecumenical Council in its Anathema XII 
anathematizes Theodore of Mopsuestia for his velative-worship ot 
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 ‘‘/o be bowed io 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” (καί κατ᾽ ἰσότητα βασιλικῆς εἰκόνος, εἰς πρόσωπον τοῦ 
Θεοῦ Λόγου προσκυνεῖσθαι). 

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 (τὸν Χριστόν) 
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 [pookvveiobu, 
that is, ‘‘Is TO BE WORSHIPPED’’] FoR THE SAKE OF GOD THE 
Worpb’s PERSON IN THE SAME WAY THAT AN EMPEROR'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 τ τὸ 

“Tf 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 


186 Article VT. 





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 
sentiments and continued in such heresy till the last, let sucha one 
be anathema.’’ 

One thing should be remarked here, that is, if the Universal 
Church in this utterance anathematizes those who give velative- 
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 velative-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 absolute, all of which is prerogative to 
God alore, and so may not be given to any animate creature or to 
any mere inanimate thing. 

(6). And we must not fail to mention the remainder of the 
decisions of the 14 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 Aphesus. See Index II 
in it, under Cyril of Alexandria, pages 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 ‘‘consubstantial Trinity,’ ‘‘one Nature,” 
‘‘one Substance,’ and ‘‘one Divinity” 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 oxe Nature .and one Substance and one 
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, and dignity 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, or equality of 
honor or authority or relation, .. . or power,’ as though it were not 
blasphemy to ascribe eguality of honor or authority... or power’ 
to a creature with God (228). And the Nestorian theory ofa union 
by velation was associated with their doctrine of ve/ative 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 Zphesus in this set. 
I must not, however, omit to mention that Anathema IX, and this 
is very important, anathematizes every one who worships Christ 
‘in two Natures’ (231), that is, of course, his humanity with his 


Note 227.—Compare Hammond’s Canons of the Church, page 132, N. Y. edition, Sparks, 
of 1844. 

NOTE 228.—Id., page 132. 

Nore 229.—Ibid. See also vol. lof Ephesus in this set, Index II, under Relative Worship. 

NOTE 230.—Hammond's Canons, page 135. 

Nore 231,—Id., page 135. The Greek of Anathema IX of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod is in 
the third edition of Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole, (dritte, vielfach veraenderte und ver- 
mehrte Auflage, page 170, Breslau, Morgenstern, 1897): Ei τὶς mpooxvveictiat ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι 
λέγει τὸν Χριστόν, ἐξ οὗ dio προσκυνήσεις εἰσάγονται, ἰδία τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ καὶ ἰδία τῷ 
ἀνθρώπῳ ἢ εἴ τις ἐπὶ ἀναιρέσει τῆς σαρκὸς ἢ ἐπὶ συγχύσει τῆς Θεότητος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπό- 
τητος, ἢ μίαν φύσιν ἤγουν οὐσίαν τῶν συνελθόντων τερατευόμενος, οὕτω προσκυνεῖ τὸν 


Χριστόν, ἀλλ’ οὐχὶ μιᾷ προσκυνῆσει τὸν θεὸν Λόγον σαρκωθέντα μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ 


188 Article VT. 


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 ‘‘/Ves¢orzus’’ and his ‘impious writings, 
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 Ephesus, 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 ‘‘azy one’’ who ‘‘defends the Epistle 
which Ibas is said to have written to Maris 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 first holy Synod of Ephesus’’ [that is the Third 
Ecumenical in A. D. 431] ‘‘asif it had deposed Nestorius without 
examination or inquiry: and the same mpious Epistle calls the 
Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impious and contrary to the 
right faith’ [the VIIIth, of course, among them, which anathe- 
matizes the co-worship»».f Christ’s humanity with his Divinity], 
“(πα defends Theodore and Nestorius, and their impious doctrines 
and writings.’’ (234) And thenitadds: ‘‘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, 
σαρκὺς προσκυνεῖ, καθάπερ ἡ TOV θεοῦ ἐκκλησία παρέλαβεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς" ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 
The English translation is found on pages 110,111, volume I of Ephesus in this set, and in 


this volnme just above on page 184. 

Note 232.—Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symbole, page 170. See also the English translation, as 
in Hammond’s Canons of the Church, page 187. 

Nore 233.—Hammond’s Canons of the Church, page 137. See the Greek in Hahn's Biblio- 
thek der Symbole, page 171. 

Nore 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 the Holy Scriptures 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 office; 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 of Faith, approved the aforesaid 
condemnations by the three Ecumenical Synods, Ephesus, Chal- 
cedon and II Constantinople, ot all worship of Christ’s human- 
ity, and all their other decisions: see in proof Hammond on the 
Canons, page 142, (N. Y., 1844), and the Greek in the Concilia. 

And now, to sum up again: © 

I. As to Cyril's teachings on the worship of Christ’s human- 
tly and 

II. As to THE DECISIONS of the ONE, HOLY, UNIVERSAL AND 
APOSTOLIC CHURCH on that same creature worship. 

And I. As to Gyril’s teachings on the worship of Christ's 
humanity. 

On that I have treated more fully in note 183, pages 79- 
Note 235.—Hammond’s Canons of the Church, page 187: the Greek is in Hahn’s Bibliothek 
der Symbole. page 172. 

236.—That is, as told in the Definition of the Council, ‘“‘the impions Theodore of Mop- 


suestia, with his execrable writings., and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and 
the impious letter which is said to be of 1085: see Hammond’s Canons of the Church, 


page 130. 
Norte 237.—See as in the Conczlia, and in Hammond’s Canons of the Church, page 138, 


190 Article VI. 





128, volume I of Zphesus, and in note 4679, 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 substance 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 human being (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), and the second as Cannibalism 
(ἀνθρωποφαγία), and that for both those errors and for his 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 fo Cyril’s teaching against the wor- 
ship of Christ's humanity. 

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 Leader 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 whole Church against Man-worship. ΙΟΙ 





is found in it to him or to any of his great teachings. And so 
there is in its decisions not one thiug opposed to his teaching 
against Man-Worship, and that, on the contrary, it agreed with 
him by approving, 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 involume I of Apfesus in this set, on pages 
79, 80 of the note matter, and that, too, in controversy with the 
Nestorian 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 XLII, 8, and Psaim LXXX, 
9, in the Septuagint Greek translation, Psalm LXXXI, 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 Synod may have known when they condemned the 
Nestorians as “‘7ztroducing THE CRIME OF MAN-WORSHIP INTO 
HEAVEN AND ON EARTH,”’’ (pages 109, 110, volume I of Chrystal’s 
Ephesus, 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. See 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- 
torian 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 that Cyril’s μετὰ σαρκός, 
in the midst of flesh, does not mean that he worshipped flesh together 
with God the Word; and to the same effect see under μετά on pages 
715-717 of the same volume I. 

(4). 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 Ephesus. 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 /an- Worship, and Nestorius for 
it, in volume I of Ephesus in this set, Zudex 77 under Cyril of 
Alexandria, and Nestorians, Nestorius and his Heresies; Andrew, 
Eutherius of Tyana, Theodoret, ManWorship, and especialiy page 
634, where it is mentioned as condemned by the whole Church no 
less than nine times, and under Latreia, Dulia and Hyperdulia, and 
in the Greek Index, (Index IV), under ἀνθρωπολατρεία, ἀνθρωπολάτρης, 
and book II of Cyril’s Five Book Contradiction of the Blas- 
phemies of Nestorius, especially 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 Zphe- 
sus of this set, which contain historical matter very important to 
him who would search the whole question of MMan-Worship 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία) 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 agcinst Man-worship. 193 





Divinity, so faras 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 Zphesus in this set: 

“Tn addition to the foregoing we say that he has very unlearn- 
edly and very unskilfully censured those who wish to bow to the 
one and the same Son, dogether with His flesh, as though the’’ [pre- 


ΚΖ) 


position] ‘‘pera’’ [with, or zu the midst of | ‘‘were some thing 
other than the’’ [preposition] ‘‘ow”’ [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,’’ 
ἀπαγορεύων δὲ συμπροσκυνείσθαι τῇ Θεότητι τὴν 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: 

“But who cuts away the flesh from the Word, and takes away due 
adoration’’ [from it] ‘‘as he’’ [Cyril of Alexandria] ‘‘has commanded’? 
[us to do], ‘‘/or he says: 

Lf any one presumes to say that the man taken’’ [by God the 
Word] ‘‘ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and to be co- 
glorified with Him, let him be anathema.’’ See colnmn 682, tome 
84 of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, and pages 121-128, volume I of 
Chrystal’s Ephesus. ‘The passage is on page 316, volume VI of 
P. Τὸ. Pusey’s Greek of Cyril's works. 

Andin volume II of Zphesus in this set, on pages 311, 317-335, 


Greek, λέγων αὐτὸν μετὰ σαρκὸς δεῖν προσκυνεῖσθαι 


104 Articde V1. 





we see that the seven delegates of ‘‘ THE 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 
‘‘to 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 ‘‘veally 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 112-128, volume I of Aphesus 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 679, 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 Zucharist, that is the Zhanks- 
giving as Eucharist 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 Aphesus, 
and see also in Index II under Aucharvist, and in Index IV under 
εὐχαριστία, εὐλογία, εὐχασιστήσας, ἀποστασία ἀνθρωποφαγία, ἀντίτυπα 
σύμβολον, and words in Greek which mean worshif, on pages 
725-750, and compare pages 666-675, Zexts of Holy Scripture, 
Explanation; and in Index II, see Nestorians, and Nestorius 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 ove 
one, holy, universal, and apostolic Church on the worship of Christ s 
humanity. 

On that I have treated in volume I of Aphesus in this set, note 
183, pages 108-112, 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 “phesus, 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, universal 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 Afphesus, 
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 


196 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 ‘“‘lasphemies,’’ 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 Aphesus), Nes- 
torius is condemned and deposed; see the same volume I of Ephe- 
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‘‘ condemned for their wrong practices 
by the holy Synod, or by their own Bishops,’’ whom Nestorius and 
those of his party had attempted to restore “‘ezther to communion 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, tneir 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 isa 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 Church 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 Synod, 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: ‘‘7hou 
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,”’ and 
by forbidding all worship to Christ’s humanity. 

For, if we take the words in the [Xth Anathema of the Fifth 
Council, which under pain of anathema, commands us to ‘‘worship 
with’ [but] ‘‘one worship’ [that is, of course, with divine and 
absolute, not Nestorius’ relative worship] ‘‘God the Word infleshed 
in the midst of’’ [that is within] ‘‘ His own flesh as the Church of God 
has received from the beginning ,’’ as equivalent to the Ecumenically 
approved VIIIth 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. 

Aye, both the VIIIth Anathema of Cyril, and other matter in 
the same Epistle in which ‘t stands, and the IXth of the Fifth 
Synod agree in forbidding the worship of Christ ‘‘z2 two natures’ 
(ἐν δυσὶ 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 ‘‘77 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 








Nore 238 —The Greek of Cyril’s Anathema VIII is found in volume I of Ephesus in this 
Set, page 332, note 679; and the English in the text of pages 331-332, and again in the note 
matter on page 109, there, 

Notre 239.—See in a note a little above the Greek of Anathema IX. and the English in the 
note matter on pages 110, 111, volume I of Zphesus in this Set. 

Norte 240.—See the note last above. 


198 Ὃ Articde VI. 





other Nature, the Divine, on the ground that it is Emmanuel, that 
is, as Emmanuel means, the God with us, and that He, ‘‘the Word, 
has been made flesh,’’ and therefore that the ‘‘one worship’’ and 
the ‘‘one 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 
μετὰ σαρκός, ‘‘with’’ or ‘‘within’’ flesh, 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 iz the midst of it, with 
or within 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, Wesee from all this also that no Orthodox Christian may 
submit to any Nestorian 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 Ephesus 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 ‘‘one, holy, universal, and 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 human being (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), be 
it Christ’s humanity or any other creature, and also its decisions 
against Cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγία) 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 and 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’’ (241). 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 ‘‘avoid them’ (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 witnessed 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: 

Nicaea A. 19: 925. 

I Constantinople, A. D. 381. 
Ephesus, A. D. 431. 

Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 

II Constantinople, A. D. 553, and 

6. III 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,(000- 
000 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 


Oo ® ow bo 


NOTE 241.—John XVII, 20-24. 
Nore 242.—Romans XVI, 17, 18. I Cor.1, 10; I Cor. III, 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, ete., 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 aferesaid, the only one possible, the only one which fills 
the demands of the New Testament, and obedience to all those 
decisions of Christ’s ‘fone, 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 suff- 
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 knownthem: 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. 7 

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 Church against 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 Zphesws 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: 


“Inthe Martyrdom of Habib the Deacon which took place in A.D, 312, 313, 
or 315 according to note 1, pagegi in the Syriac Documents bound up with 
vol. XX of the Ante Nicene Christian Library: (compare Hole’s article ‘‘Hab- 
ibus (2)? in Smith ἃ Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography), “which are 
presumably of the Ante Nicene age,” (Vol. XX, Ante Nic. Christ. Lib., In- 
troductory Notice, page 3), is found the following in the conversation of 
the pagan Roman Governor with the martyr; page 99: 

‘The Governor said, How is it that thou worshippest and honorest a 
man, but refusest to worship and honor Zeus there? 

‘‘Habib said: Iworship not a man, because the Scripture teaches me, 
‘Cursed is every one that putteth his trust in man,’ [Jerem. XVII, 5] but Gop 
who 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 tells us that it is, “ὦ charge which Asse- 
mani and Abbeloos show to be unwarranted.’ He gives there the argument 
for his Orthodoxy. The following from the translation of the Homily, is 
Cyrillian and Orthodox. Itis 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 V7. 





Lifting up his voice, he confessed Jesus, the Son of God— 
That he was His servant, and was His priest, and His minister [or 
““deacon’’]. 
At the fury of the pagans, roaring at him like lions, 
He trembled not, nor ceased [Or ‘‘so as to cease’’| from the confession 
of the Son of God. 


* * * * * * * * * 


They taunted him: Lo! thou worshippest a man: 
But he said: A man 7 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 Addzus betrothed to the crucifixion— 
Through it is her light, through it her truth and her faith. 
Her king is from it, her martyrs from it, her truth from it; 
The teachers also of [her] faith are from it. 
Abgar believed that Thou art God, the Son of God; 
And he received a blessing because of the beauty of his faitk. 
Sharbil the martyr, son of the Edesszans, moreover said: 
My heart is led captive by God, who became man; 
And Habib the martyr, who also was crowned at Edessa, 
Confessed these things: that he he took a body and became man; 
That He is the Son of God, and also is God, and became man. 
Edessa learned from teachers the things that are true: 
Her king taught her, her martyrs taught her, the faith; 
But to others, who were fraudulent teachers, she would not hearken. 
Habib the martyr, in the ear of Edessa, thus cried aloud 
Out of the midst of the fire: 4 man 7 worship not. 
But God, who took a body and became man— 
Him do I worship. [Thus] confessed the martyr with uplifted voice, 
From confessors torn with combs, burnt, raised up [on the block], slain, 
And [from] a righteous king, did Edessa learn the faith, 
And she knows our Lord—that He is even God, the Son of God. 
She also learned and firmly believed that He took a body and became 
man. 
Not from common scribes did she learn the faith: 
Her king taught her, her martyrs taught her; and she firmly believed 
them: 
And, if she be calumniated as having ever worshipped a man, 
She points to her martyrs, who died for Him as being God. 
A man 7 worship not, said Habib, : 
Because itis written: ‘Cursed is he that putteth his trust in a man’ [Jere 


XVII, 5]. 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 203 





Forasmuch as Heis God, I worship Him, yea submit to be burned 
For His sake, nor will I renounce His faith. 
This truth has Edessa held fast from her youth, 
And in her old age she will not barter it away as a daughter of the poor. 
Her righteous king becamie to her a scribe, and from him she learned 
Concerning our Lord—that He is the Son of God, yea God. 
Addzeus, who brought the bridegroom’s ring and put it on her hand, 
Betrothed her thus to the Son of God, who is the Only [- Begotten]. 
Sharbil the priest, who made trial and proof of all gods, 
Died, even as he said, “7207 God who became man.” 
Shamuna and Guria, for the sake of the Only [-Begotten], 
Stretched out their necks [to receive the stroke], and for Him died, /or- 
asmuch as He is God. 


And Habib the martyr, who was teacher of congregations, 
Preached of Him that He took a body and became man. 
For a man the martyr would not have {submitted to be\ burned in the fire; 
But he was burned ‘‘for 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] affiictions, 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— 
Even that He is God, and of Mary became a man, 
And the bride hates him that denies His Godhead, 
And despiseth 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 
foMkier 


Opinions of Different Heretical Sects on the Worship of Christ's 
Humanity or of Some Part or Parts of it; AS CONTRASTED with the 
DECISIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH ON IT. 

We have seen that the doctrine of the ‘‘one, holy, universal, 
and apostolic Church’? is that Christ’s humanity is not to be wor- 


204 Article VT. 


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 made flesh and is in His humanity, 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 ‘‘tz two Natures,’’ but only His Divinity. 

The heretical adorations of Christ included the following 
worshippings of his humanity: as they 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 fwo 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 adsolute, to God the Word, as deserving worship for 
His own sake as God, and the other worship, the ve/atfive, 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- 
carnation, 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 J/an, as belonging to God the Word economically (240), 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), volnme I of Chrystal’s Ephesus, and in others of his 
XX Blasphemies, pages 449-480; compare note F, pages 529-551. 

Nore 245.—Id. page 467, Blasphemy 14. 

Norte 246.—See Chrystal’s Ephesus, volume I, pages 602, 603, under Economic Approprt- 
ation, and Pusey’s S. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nestorius, page 200, 
where he uses the word ‘‘economically,” 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 205 





must understand the term Christ, in this Anathema IX, of God the 
Word. Cyril makes that clear and most Orthodoxically in those 
Scholia: I give the references to Pusey’s English translation of 
them in his “Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation against Nes- 
torius’’ (Parker, Oxford, A. Ὁ. 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 ‘‘iz 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, 311, volume I of Swzzth’s Gieseler’s 
Church Flistory. In both places quotations from the original are 
qucted. 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 ᾿Αντιῤῥητικὸς πρὸς τὰ 
*AroAAwapiov, 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 οὗ 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 misiakes here, 
as I have elsewhere to some extent: 

On page 217, and again and again elsewhere, he wrongly renders Θεοτόκος Mother of 
God, as though it were μήτηρ Tov Θεοῦ. 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 σχετικῆν, 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). 


ase ΣΤ ἢ 





‘‘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 wore 
shipped two Sons. 


Apollinarius and his sect had been condemned as heretics, in 
Canons Iand VII of the Second Ecumenical Council, A. Ὁ. 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 ‘‘72 two Natures?’ 
(ἐν δυσὶ φ'σεσι) 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 


Nore 248.—Greek as in note 30, page 311 of volume 1 of Smzth’s Gteseler’s Church History: 
Ἢ σάρξ tov Κυρίου προσκυνεῖται, καθὸ ἕν ἐστι πρόσωπον καὶ ἕν ζῶον per’ αὐτοῦ, Μηδὲν 
ποίημα προσκυνητὸν μετὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, ὡς ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ. 

ΝΟΤῈ 249.—Leontius, page 702, C. D., Cum Verbo Dei simul adoratur caro, See more 
details on pages 103-106, volume I of Ephesus in this set. 


Norte 250.—Greek, as in Gieseler as above, Εἷς μὲν φύσει υἱὸς Θεοῦ, εἰς δὲ θετός, 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-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 29 do away the flesh of Christ, but, in fact, failed 
to do so. 

In note 30, page 311, volume I of Smith's Gieseler’s Church 
ffistory, 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: 

“Tf any one... does not worship with’’ [but] ‘‘one 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 ‘‘27 two 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: ‘‘Zhou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
and [Tim only shalt thou serve,’’ 

2. By Anathema VIII of Cyril’s XII approved by Zphesus 
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, 


ΝΟΤΕ 251.—Greek as referred toabove, Mid δὲ συγκράτῳ τῇ φύσει ἄνθρωπον τὸν Κύριον 


λέγομεν, μιᾷ δὲ συγκράτῳ τῇ φύσει σαρκικῇ TE καὶ Θεϊκῇ, 


208 Article VI. 





under pain of anathema; and another place in the same Epistle, all 
- of it approved by Aphesus, forbids worship to Christ’s humanity. 
See pages 221-223, volume I of Aphesus in this set, and on pages 
149, 150, above. 

And Cancn 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, οὗ. 
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 ‘‘7xtvoducing the 
crime of Man-Worship into heaven and on earth:’’ see volume I of 
Ephesus 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 108-112, 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 85-116 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 
Synod 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 against 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 ofa crea‘ure with the Creator, we condemn Christ’s utter- 
ance in Matthew IV, 10, andthe Third Synod andthe Fifth, whose 
decisions, in effect, 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 and his heresies and become ecu- 
menically condemned heretics ourselves, deposed by their 
decisions if we be Bishops or clerics, or excommunicated if laics. 

6. Wedo 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 “20 hear the 
Church’? under pain of being regarded ‘‘as the heathen man and the 
publican?” 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 efiect, Ephesus 
calls them, I repeat, if the VI Synods did notrightly use use the 
Christ-given power and duty of binding and teaching (Matthew 
Sov Ihe 195520; John. xX, 19-24; I Tim... 18; 19, 20, ete:), te 
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 


210 Articde VI. 


Rome and all the other creature worshipping communions, be it 
the Greeks, Monophysites, or Nestorians, and a strong wall 
against the Apostate creature-invokers and Host-worshippers in 
the Anglican communion of our day 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. Finally, if it be objected that the expression in Anathema 
IX of the Fifth Synod that we must ‘“‘worship with one worship God 
the Word infleshed μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός, is doubtful, for in 
ancient Greek, as Cyril’s Nestorian opponent. Andrew of Samo- 
sata, tells him, to worship God the Word μετά σαρκός., and σὺν τῇ 
σαρκί, may be translated w7th flesh (see the note matter on page 
117, 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 pera with the genitive is often or generally 
translated like ow with the dative, nevertheless Liddell and 
Scott’s Greek Lexicon gives as the first meaning of pera with the 
genitive, ‘72 the midst of, among,’’ and its ‘‘radical sense, iz the 
middle,’ whereas it gives as “the radical sense’’ of σύν ‘“‘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 μετά in the same compounds in the sense of fogether 
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 μετά here means “‘fogether with’’? and so would 
translate, ‘‘Ifany one... does not worship with’’ [but] ‘‘one wor- 
ship God the Word infleshed together with his own flesh, μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας 
αὐτοῦ 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 him to worship Christ in two Natures, the 
humanity and Divinity; whereas the Orthodox man would take the 


i ae 


Cyril and the whole Church against Man-worship. 211 





words μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός, in the sense of zz the midst of 
his own flesh, 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 ‘‘axy one who says 
that Christ ts to be worshipped in two Natures:’’ see the Greek cn 
page 187 above, in note 231. 

(B.) The Third Ecumenical Council approved Cyril’s Anath- 
ema VilI, which anathematizes every one who co-worships Christ's 
humanity with his Divinity. See pages 149, 150, above, where the 
Greek and English are found. 

(C.) Andsee 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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία, 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. 

(Z.) 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 pera τῆς 
idias αὐτοῦ σαρκός, within His own flesh, let us remember that 
another Orthodox formula the ὁμοούσιον τῷ Tlarpi, “of the same sub- 
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 ‘.S. Athanasius’ Treatises 
against Arianism,’’ volume II, /ndex to Foot Notes and Marginal 
References under ‘‘One in Substance.’’ Besides it was perverted by 
some of the Arians: see id., under ‘‘Wicene Definition,’’ and the 
Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese, pages 
59-65 of the same translation. 


212 Artice VI, 


(F). The testimony of Cyril’s Nestorian opponent, Andrew 
of Samosata, shows that Cyril used the expression μετὰ σαρκός 
not in the sense of together with flesh, but, in effect, zz the midst 
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 dogether with 
His flesh (σὺν τῇ σαρκί) on the ground that the preposition pera’’ 
[that is z7 the midst of | ‘‘is somewhat different from the preposi- 
tion. σύν᾽᾽ [that is zogether 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 in the midst of flesh μετὰ 
σαρκός, and by forbidding 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 Cyril, 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 bumanity with His Divinity. See it above, 
pages 158, 159. And Nestorius’ Counter-Anathema VIII, as 
opposel to Cyril’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 
‘‘yery unlearnedly and unskilfully”’ in Andrew of Samosata’s utter- 
anceabove. But now I have rendered the place ‘‘scientzfically’’ as ° 
in the Greek. ᾿ 

Itseems clear, therefore, that Cyril, and the Universal Church 
following him, by the worship of God the Word μετὰ σαρκός, meant 
not the co-worship of flesh with God the Word, but only the wor- 
ship of the Word ἐμ 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 asa partisan, but as an impartial chronicler 
and historian, as duty demands. 


ἈΝ ΤΙΟΙΣΤ Ail 


THE ECUMENICAL AUTHORITY OF CyRIL’S XII ANATHEMAS. 


I would here notice the attempts of men unsound or not fully 
understanding the XII Anathemas of Cyril 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 Mary, to whom the 
common Rosary of the Romanist offers ten prayers to one to the 
Father and none tothe 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 Aphesus, 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 Aphesus. 
Professor Bright or whoever wrote note ‘‘7,’’ page 156 of the Ox- 


214 Artide VII. 


ford translation of ‘‘Sazut Athanasius’ 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 Councii of Chalcedon had accepted Cyvil’s Synodical Epistles, 
zo one 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 
he 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, ‘‘z their second petition to Theodosius’ 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 ‘‘two canonical letters, those which 
were contirmed in the first Council of Ephesus,’’ [the Ecumenical of 
A. D. 431], ‘‘Mansi VI, 907. 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 £fiséles of Cyril.’ But 
Bright tries to break down the force of this last testimony 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 Authority of Cyril’s XII Anathemas. 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 Church, page 96. 


Bright refers to J. M. Neale’s Aiistory 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 1 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. Hewrites: ‘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 


216 Artide VII. 





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 allthe 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 5. 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 131 or 432,” 
when he wrote two books, one of them 4A yazust the Anathemas of 
Cyril, 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 hotly 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 course, 





Nore 252.—Venables in his Article, Acacius of Beroea in Syria, page 13, volume I of Smith 
and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, does indeed write: ‘‘Acacius was strongly 
prejudiced against Cyril, and disapproved of his anathemas of Nestorins, which, as we have 
seen, appeared to him to savor of Apollinarianism’’ 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 sol leave it with the remark 
that the same Proclus in section VIL of his Epistle on the Faith, 
which is addressed zo the Armenians, (column 861, tome 65 of 
Migne’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 Long Lpistle to 
Nestorius, which contains it. For he writes: 

“For we worship the consubstantial Trinity: we do not adda 
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. Τριάδα yap ὁμοούσιον προσκυνοῦντες, τέταρτον τῷ ἀριθμῷ οὐκ 
ἐπεισφέρομεν" ἀλλ᾽ ἐστιν εἷς. Υἱὸς ὁ ἀνάρχως ἐκ ἸΙατρὸς γεννηθεὶς, δ οὗ τοὺς αἰῶνας 
πιστεύομεν γεγενῆσθαι ὁ συναίδιος τῇ ῥιζῃ κλάδος, ὁ ἀρεύστως ἐκ ἸΤατρὸς ἐκλάμψας" ὁ 
ἀχωρίστος τοῦ νοῦ προϊών τε καὶ μένων Λόγος, 

Nore 254.—Greek, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ Tov ἸΤατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ 


πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, 


2138 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 
Substance 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 it 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 wzthout emission from the 
Father.’’ If that means that the eternal Word has not come out of 
the Father, it contradicts the statement of Christ Himself in John 
VIII, 42, “J came out of God’’ (256), and in John XVI, 28, ἢ 
came out of the Father’’ (257). And it contradicts the doctrine of 
the Nicene Creed, that He was ‘‘dorn 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 





Nore 255.—Greek, Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας" ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἣν Kal πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ 
qv . . . τὸν Ὑἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία τοῦ Θεοῦ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ 
"ExkAnoia, 

Note 256.—Greek, ἐγὼ yap ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, 

Nore 257.—Greek as in Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament, eighth critical and larger 
edition (Lipsiae, 1869), ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός. 

Nore 258.—Greek, τὸν Ὑἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ ἸΤατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ 
τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, , . .- θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. 


The Ecumenical Authority of Cyril’s XII Anathemas. 219 





has no body, contrary to Exodus XXXIII, 18-23 inclusive, Daniel 
ΠΟ Rev. TV, 2,3; Rev. XX, 11,12; Rev. 1, Gio meter 
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 an 
adherent of Rome. 

4. Neale goeson: ‘‘It appears that in the life-time of Cyril, 
they found nodefenders 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 auathematisms, 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). 





ΝΌΤΕ 259.—See the references in the notes on page 28, volume III of the English 
translation of Hefele’s History of the Church Councils. 

Nore 260.—Id., page 28, text. 

NOTE 261.—Id., page 31. 

Nore 262.—Hefele, id., page 34, 


220 Articde 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 
Cyril’s 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 ¢he Synodal letters of Cyril of 
blessed memory, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, fo 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 the saving faith’’ (263). 

6. Neale goes on: 

“Tt appears... thatas late asthe 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 of the Church, page 96. 


The Ecumenical Authority of Cyril’s XII Anathemas. 221 





“Tt appears... that, however, the Fifth and Sixth Councils 
expressly approved them.”’ 

Wereply: They certainly did. 

For the Fifth Council received and approved a// that Ephesus 
“defined respecting the one faith,’’ and condemned and anathema- 
tized ‘‘those things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right 
faith, and against the Twelve Chapters of holy Cyril, and against 
the first Synod of Ephesus.’’ And, further on, the Definition anathe- 
matizes ‘‘the impious Epistle which Ibas is said to have written 
to Maris, the Persian,’’ because it calls Cyrila heretic, ‘‘and calls 
the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impious, and contrary to the 
right faith.’’ 

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 ¢hat they defined respecting the one 
faith. And we account those who do not receive these things aliens 
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 fcur holy Synods, and by the holy 
Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore, who was Bishop of 
Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, azd also those things which 
Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and against the 
Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the First Synod 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 memory, who taught the truth, as @ heretic, and of the same 
sentiments with Apollinarius, and blames the First Synod of 


222 Article VII. 


Ephesus as deposing Nestorius without examination and inquiry, 
and calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyrilimpious, and contrary 
to the right faith, and defends Theodore and Zheodoret, 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, azd 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 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, 7 will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know 
the Lord (265), and numbering together with the Devil, the father 
of lies, the unbridled tongues of heretics, and their most impious 
writings, willsay to them, Behold, all ye kindle a fire, and cause 
the flame of the fire to grow strong: ye shall walk in the light of your 
fire, and the flame 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 tn certain 
Chapters, both the declaration of the truth, and the condemnation of 
fferetics and their wickedness.”’ 

These ‘‘xecessary chapters,’ as wehave 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, 18. 
NOTE 265,—Hosea II, 20. 
NOTE 266.—Isaiah L, 11, Septuagint in the main. 


The Ecumenical Authority of Cyril’s XII Anathemas. 223 





Epistle said to be of Ibas, because they condemned Cyril’s XII 
Chapters, the VIIIth 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 ‘‘t 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 zz fact worship it, and not only worship it, 
but worship it adsolutely as very God. 

I quote Anathema XI, translating from the Greek given 
by Hefele (267): 

“Tf 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 Churck, 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: 

“Tf any one defends the impious writings of ‘TTheodoret 
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 the Church Councils, volume IV of the English translation, 
page 336. - 

Nore 268.—Greek, τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις ἹΚυρίλλου, literally ‘of Cyril among the holy,’’ no mat- 
ter how much he might be abused and anathematized bythe 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 Zwelve Chapters, and have 
died in such impiety, let such a man be anathema.”’ 

Anathema XIVth condemns the Epistle which Ibas is said to 
have written to Maris the Persian heretic, because ‘‘t#e same 
impious Epistle calls the Zwelve Chapters of the holy Cyril 
impious, and contrary to the right faith.” And it adds: 

“Tf 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 VIIIth, 
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 
Ταῖς 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 Synod deemed Cyril among Christians departed and 
saved and in heaven. For sainf and its synonym λον are frequent appellations in the New 
Testament, 

I. forall living saints; as for example in II Cor. I, 1; VIII, 4; Eph, I, 1, etc.; 

2, for thesaints 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. IV, 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 holy are used for the children of Christians, even if but 


one parent be a Christian, I Cor. VII, 12-17. 


The Ecumenical Authority of Cyril’s XII Anathemas. 225 


“γε, 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 
impiety, 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 
XII 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 office; 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 //istory 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 isa 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 Articde VII. 


well as the others by name and all their decisions absolutely, for 
it excepts nothing. For after referring to the fact that the 
Emperor 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 fora 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 Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened 
against Nestorius 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 isthe Fifth holy Synod 
assembled in this place’’ [Constantinople] ‘‘against Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, azd the writings of 
Theodoret against 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 Το Natures 
and the I'wo 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 





Nore 269.—Greek, ἑτέραν πίστιν, 
Note 270.—Greek, πίστιν ἑτέραν, 


The Ecumenical Authority of Cyril’s XII Anathemas. 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 clericate; 
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 VIII, 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 ‘‘ovze, holy, universal and apostolic Church’? has in 
the clearest terms again and again approved Cyril’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 Lateran against the Monoth- 
elites as authoritative.” 

That Synod was held in A. Ὁ. 649. And it certainly did 
regard and treat the XII Chapters of Cyril and Ephesus as authori- 
tative and binding on all. 

In Labbé and Cossart’s Concilia, Coleti’s edition, tome VJ], 
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 
ΝΠ. Wid te Scart. hese a Ομ ἐς ἜΞΒΕΒΕΕΒΕΕ 


Nore 271.—Greek, ἕτερον σύμβολον. 


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’ (évexpwe), 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 (ὅρος 
κεφαλαιώδης) 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: 

“Tf any one does not confess in accordance with the holy 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 (<yxp/irwv) 
five Ecumenical Synods, and that in word and sense toa single 
dot (ἄχρι μιᾶς κεραίας), let him be condemned. 

We have seen how the Orthodox Champion Cyril brands Nes- 
torianism as resulting, by its worship of Christ’s humanity, in 
substituting a worshipped Tetrad for a worshipped Trinity, and 
in the great error of worshipping a human being (ἀνθρωπολατρεία). 
See under Zetradism, 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 (ἡ “Ex@eo.s) 
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 Ecumenical Authority of Cyril’s XII Anathemas. 229 


Tetradism, at least in name, for it contains the following rejection 
οὗ it: 

“No Tetrad is brought in by us’ [or ‘‘¢o ws’’] ‘‘instead of tke 
Holy Trinity. God forbid! Forthe 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 VI, 9, 10, 11; Gala- 
tians V, 19-22, and Revelations XXI, 8. 

Neale concludes: 

“Tt appears... that since that time’’ [A. Ὁ. 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 (ἀνθρωπολατρείαλ) : 
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, 





Note 272.—Greek as in in col. 204, tome VII of Coleti’s Labbe and Cossart, Venetiis, A. D, 
~ Ὁ ’ , , A / ΝΜ ᾿ 
1729. Οὐ τετράδος ἡμῖν ἀντὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος εἰσαγομένης, μὴ γένοιτο, οὔτε γὰρ 
τετάρτου προσώπου προσθήκην ἡ ἁγία τριὰς ἐδέξατο. 


230 Articde 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 Zphesus in this Set, and compare the note matter on Ὁ 
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 brought 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 (ἀνθρωποφαγία) 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 fa!l into error, lose, and be cursed. God grant us all wisdom 
to preserve and obey them, and enforce them on all. Amen. 


ARDICLE ὙΠ: 


THE USE OF THE TERMS MAN-WORSHIP (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), AND 
MAN-WORSHIPPER (ἀνθρωπουλάτρης), AFTER EPHESUS, A. D. 431, 
AND WHAT IS IMPLIED IN THEM; AND HOW LONG THAT USE AP- 
PEARS. 

We have seen in volume 1 of Zphesus in this set that Nestorius 
in his counter Anathema VIII against Cyril’s Anathema VIII 
professes himself to worship Christ’s humanity, but only zelatively, 


The Terms Man-Worship and Man-Worshipper. 231 


which plea, he thinks, will excuse his error on that (273). And 
therefore he repels the term J/an- Worshipper (ἀνθρωπολάτρης), and 
Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) 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 ‘‘Alaznly 
Man- Worshippers and flesh-worshippers,’’ page 467, and note 966 
there, where the Greek is found. 

In Hardouin’s Conclia, tome I, col. 1414, Nestorius in his 
Blasphemy 5, tries to excuse his worship of Christ’s humanity by 
the plea that it was ve/ative in effect, and therefore ‘‘that no one 
may suspect Christianity of worshipping a man’’ (274). See the 
Blasphemy in full in Greek and English, in volume I of Zphesus 
in this Set, page 459, text, and note 935. But we must not forget 
that Nestorius did not profess to worship Christ’s humanity adso- 
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 Zphesus 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 absolute 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 adsolute worship. 

It is noteworthy that the expression J/an- Worshipper was used 
for some time after Ephesus, but fell intodisuse as the years rolled 
on and the worship of human beings became common. In the 
XIth 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- 





Nore 273.—The Counter Anathema VIII of Nestorius is found in Latin in column 1300, 
tome I of Hardouin’s Concilia; on page 317 in the third edition of Hahn’s Bibliothek der 
Symbole, and with other matter bearing on it in volume I of Lphesus in this set, pages 
65-69, note matter. The Counter Anathema itself is on page 68, id. 


Note 274.—The Greek is: (va μηδεὶς ἀνθρωπολατρείαν [or, according to another 


reading in Hardouin’s margin, ἀνθρωπολατρεῖν τόν Χριστιανισμὸν ὑποπτεῦσηῃ. Seeas 
above. 


232 Artice VIII. 





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 was 
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 itis 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 Man-Worship, after Ephesus, 
which occur in the Index to Hardouin’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 JVestorius the Man- 
Worshipper’ (275). 

NOTE 275.—Hardouin’s Concilia, tome II, col, 1344: Καὶ ἀναθεματίζομεν πᾶσαν 
αἵρεσιν, καὶ ΝΝεστόριον τὸν ἀνθρωπολάτρην. ͵ 





The Terms Man-Worship and Man- Worshipper. 233 





In the same document below they profess to receive ‘“‘the 
Synod οὐ the two hundred [Fathers] who met at Ephesus and 
deposed Nestorius the Man-Worshipper’’ (270). 

And again, further on, in the same letter, they receive the 
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon of 630 Fathers ‘‘who had ratified 
the decisions against Veslorius the Man- Worshipper (277). 

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 
Mopsuestia and Nestorius, the most foul preachers of ¢he foul 
worship of a human 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 
years of Rome before she would approve the new-fangled form of 
creature worship, the worship of the sacred heart of Jesus (280), 





Note 276.—/bid. καὶ ἀσπαζόμενοι Tas τέσσαρας ἁγίας συνόδους. Then after 
mentioning the first two Ecumenical Synods they come to specify their acceptance of the 
Third as follows: “And we receive τὴν TOV διακοσίων τῶν ἐν Edeow τῶν καθελόντων 
Νεστόριον τὸν ἀνθρωπολάτρην. 

Nore 277.—Ibid. Καὶ τὴν μεγάλην καὶ οἰκουμενικὴν σύνοδυν τῶν χλ ἐν 
Χαλκηδόνι. . . συνελθόντων... καὶ ἐπισφραγισάντων δὲ τὰ κατὰ Νεστορίου 

΄- > /, 
τοῦ ἀνθρωπολάτρου. 

ΝΟΤΕ 278.—Harduin, Concil., tom. III, col. 1289. Θεόδωρος ὃ Μοψουεστίας, καὶ 
Νεστόριος, οἱ τῆς μιαρᾶς ἀνθρωπολατρείας μιαρώτατοι κήρυκες. 

ΝΟΤΕ 279.—See the Greek in the note last above. 

Norte 280.—See Chrystal’s translation of Ephesus, volnme I, page 342, note. Kenrick 


states that ‘very many tumults were excited’? inthe Roman Communion by the new ism, and 
that the Roman ‘‘Congregation of Rites hesitated in the years 1697, 1727, 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 τὸς 


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. 

Bingham in his Avztiguities of the Christian Church, book 1, 
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, ‘‘agaznst 
Apollinarius,’’ 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 Gregory 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 





thatit should abstain from conceding an Office and a Mass for the worship of the heart, taken in 
the strict sense. But Clement XIII approved it tn the year 1765.’ If one would know 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, against God’s warning and command in Rey. XVIII, 
4, refuse to ‘‘come out of her’ must be “‘partakers of her sins,” and “receive of her plagues,” 
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 asin this, I Corinthians VI, 9, 10; Galatians V, 19, 20, 21, 
and Revelations XNI, 8. 
NOTE 281.—See page 121 above. 


Gregory of Nazianzus on the Worship of Christ's Hum.nity. 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 clay’’ [man’s human nature made from clay] ‘‘has been 
leavened and made a new lump, O 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). “Butif that 
be true of my logical power what 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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is the error of worshipping a 
human being, as St. Cyril and, in effect, the whole Church in the 





Nore 282—S. Gregorii Theologi Epistola CI, column 185, tome 37 Migne’s Patrologia 
» A a τ ΄ 
Graeca; Ἐϊπω τὸ μεῖζον. σὺ μὲν διὰ τοῦτο ἀτιμάζεις, ὦ Βέλτιστε, τὸν ἐμὸν 
an ΄ , Ls Be > 6 Ad > I 7 δή Θ \ ἂν ΄, 

νοῦν (ὡς σαρκολάτρης, εἰπερ ἀνθρωπολάτρης ἐγώ) va συνοησης Wevy πρὸς σάρκα 
΄ an “A & “ Ἂν / 
ὡς οὐκ ἄλλως δεθῆναι δυνάμενον; καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐξαιρεῖς τὸ μεσότοικυν, 

NOTE 283.—Jbid. 


236 Article IX. 








decisions of Ephesus call it, is without any verb at all. Literally 
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 
‘twere.’ ‘The place 15 therefore ποῖ periectly 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 our topic. It occurs in his dogmatic poems, and is found on 
page 467, tome XX XVII of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. I translate: 

“ΤῸ thee I am a worshipper of a man, because J worship the 
whole of the Word who is mystically joined to me, both God Himself 
and a mortal who 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 reply to thee’’ (284). 
Then he argues that Christ must have hada human mind. But 





Note 284.—Greek as above mentioned : 
3 ΄ ΄ 
Λνθρωπολάτρης εἰμί σοι, σέβων ὅλον 

Τὸν συντεθέντα μυστικῶς ἐμοὶ Λόγον 
Αὐτὸν Θεόν τε καὶ βροτὸν σωτήριον. 

Ν ᾽ὔ > / ΝΜ ΤΑΝ 

Σὺ σαρκολάτρης, εἰσάγων ἄνουν ἐμὲ ; 

“Av σου τὸ κομψὸν πειθανῶς ἀντιστρέφω. 


The σωτήριον I 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. Inthe four other instances where it occurs there it 


is rendered by the noun Sa/vation in our Common Version. The σωτήριον may be taken to 
refer to Θεόν 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 whether the words which follow,‘both God Himself 
and a mortal who bringeth salvation’” mean that he worshipped both natures as included 
under ‘‘the whole of the Word” though the ‘‘morfal” 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 Apollinarians 
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 Nazianzus on the Worship of Christ's Humanity. 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 ‘‘one, 
holy, universal and apostolic Church,’’ with whose continuous A pos- 
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 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία), and Cannibalism (ἀνθρωποφαγία) on the Eucharist, 
Papal Infallibility, and antecedently against most or all the great 
heresies of our day. ‘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 1X. 





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 Synod of 754, at Constantinople, the image 
worshipping Conventicle of Nicaea of A. D. 787, and others. 
Let 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 we 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 380. For in it, in column 301, 
he writes plainly: 

“If I worshipped a creature I could not be named a 
Christian’’ (285). 








Nore 285.—Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, tome 36, column 301. EZ κτίσματι ἐλάτρευον, 
ἢ : 
οὐκ ἂν Χριστιανὸς ὠνομαζόμην. 


Gregory of Nazianzus on the Worship of Christ’s Humanity. 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 
Nazianzus for the worship of relics, and the language, if it be 
really his, looks too much that way (286). It occnrs 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). 





Nore 286.—See his Φιλολογικὴ καὶ Κριτικὴ ‘Iotopia , . , τῶν Πατέρων, 
tome II, Athens, 1853, page 597. Compare page 561, 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 his 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: 


κα ε / Ν Ν , e > = 4 > , Ν , 
ὧν at μεγάλαι τιμαὶ καὶ πανηγύρεις" Tap ὧν δαίμονες ἐλαύνονται, καὶ νόσοι 
6 , 65 τις exes) / Ne ee ; Sens Ge Or Ν ἊΝ , ΄ 
ἐραπεύονται" ὧν αἱ ἐπιφάνειαι, καὶ ὧν αἱ προῤῥήσεις" ὧν καὶ τὰ σώματα μόνον 
ay , ~ ε ΄ - ~ 2, , “Ν Ἅ a > x ε ’ 
ἶσα δύνανται ταῖς ἁγίαις ψυχαῖς, ἢ ἐπαφώμενα, ἢ τιμώμενα" ὧν καὶ ῥανίδες 
° , Ν \ , , > ~ ~ , ~ > 
αἵματος μόνον, καὶ μικρὰ σύμβολα πάθους ἴσα δρῶσι τοῖς σώμασι. Tadta ov 


σέβεις, ἀλλ᾽ ἀτιμάζεις. 

Surely Gregory is guilty of great imprudence and folly, aye, guilt, in writing such stuff, 
for the natural outcome with an ignorant but devout mass 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 Gregory does not pray to them, but his expression of censure to 


Julian, Ταῦτα ov σέβεις, GAA: ἀτιμάζεις, may be urderstood to mean ‘‘7hou dost not wor- 


ship them,’ that is the bodies of the martyrs, ‘‘but dishonorest them.’? Or it may mean 
“Thou dost not vespect them,” etc., for, as Liddell and Scottin their Greek Lexicon show, 


σέβω is used of honor to parents and to kings, where it certainly does not mean religious 


worship. 

NOTE 287 .—Id., page 597, note. 

Norte 283.—See Wordsworth’s article above mentioned on Julian. 

Note 289.—F. P. Kenrick’s Dogmaticae Theologiae, vol. IV, page 191: De Cultu Sanc- 
torum: 8. Gregorius Nazianzenus in Julianum Apostatam invectus, ait, ‘‘martyres Juliani 
munera, et templum quod in eorum honorem volebat exigere, cum Christianam adhuc reli- 
gionem profiteretur respuisse, et terram excussisse fundamenta aedificii sacri, quod extruere 
conabatur. ΟἹ insignem martyrum inter se charitatem! Honorem illius’’ [Julian the Apos- 
tate?] qui multos martyres ignominia et dedecore affecturus 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 can not read or write, as it was in Gregory’s day, and pray 


240 Articde 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 against Peril of Idolatry. 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 on /uliax 
the Emperor, in volume III of Smith and Wace’s Diuctionary of 
Christian 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 MatthewIV, 10. There is no invocation of saints, however, 
in the above nor is any clear worship of them. 

Gieseler makes Origen the heretic, the author of direct invocation of martyrs at their 
graves, and so, he adds, “πε Origenists were the first who addressed them in their sermons, as if 
they were present and besought their intercession,’ Smith’s Gieseler's Church History, vol. I, 
page 419. He was anathematized in Anathema XI of the Fifth Ecumenical Conncil and 
every one who does not anathematize him. i 

NOTE 290.—See his Dogmaticae Theologiae, vol. 1V, 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. Yet it may 
come under that figure of rhetoric which grammarians term, toquote Gould Brown’s English 
Grammar under Prosody, ‘‘V7zszon or Jmagery,’’ 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 senses.’’? 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 
be 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 century in Smith’s Gieseler’s Church Aistory, vol. I, 
pages 415-428, 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 unspiritual, 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 euslaved the creature-worshippers. That was just before the Third Synod con- 
demned by necessary implication all such and all other Apostatic paganizings. 


Gregory of Nazianzus on the Worship of Christ's Humanity. 241 





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 off 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 
century, in replying to the heathen slander that his brethren wor- 
shipped crosses, says: Cvosses, moreover, we neither worship nor 
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 nec colimus necoptamus. See more 
fully in Chrystal’s Essay on the Catacombs of Rome, pages 15, 16,and the whole context. 

NOTE 292.—See Chevallier’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, 1834. The place quoted is section 17 of the Martyrdom, page 117 there. 

Norte 293.—Bingham’'s Antiquities, book XXIII, chapter 4, sections7, ὃ, and9. Augustine, 
of centary IV and V, 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 oz 
the Morals of the Catholic Church, chapter XXXIV, aud tome I, col. 718, 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.” Seeon that the excellent 
workof Tyler on Image Worship, page 199and 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 and the Creed, that ‘“‘7t τὸ wicked 
to set up an mage 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,’’ Stothert’s translation of Augustine on the Mantchaean 
Heresy, page 47. The African Church, in Canon II of the first Council of Carthage, A. D. 348, and 
in Canon I,XXXIII of the African Code of A. D, 419, strove to do away some of the super- 
stitions 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 worshif, and much more, it forbade under 
the same penaltiesall who worship any othercreature. 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 VI in this volume. 





against reform, and so not long after God sent on them the Vandal conquest and scourge. 
For more on the paganizings of the fourth century and the fifth see Smith’s Gzeseler's 
Church History. volume I, section 99, text and notes, pages 416-438. 

For the testimony of the Ante-Nicene Church against invocation of saints, see Tyler’s 
valuable work, Primitive Christian Worship, and Treat’s Catholic Faith, which contain 
Aute-Nicene and early Post-Nicene testimony against that sin, the latter on pages 91-151. 

Nore 294.—See in proof Chrystal’s Nicaea, volume I, pages 222-225, 236-240, and indeed the 
whole context on pages 217-240. On pages 240-255 all worship of creatures is condemned by 
St. Epiphanius, Lucifer of Cagliari, Faustin, a Presbyter of Rome, and by Chromatius the 
Bishop of Aquileia, On page 239 Cyril approves Athanasius’ condemnation of the sin of 
invoking creatures, 


243 


ARTICLE xX, 


ADDITIONAL MATTER FROM THEODORET, THE NESTORIAN 
CHAMPION, FOR THE CREATURE WORSHIP OF WORSHIPPING CHRIST’S 
HUMANITY, 

In Baluze’s Works of Marius Mercator (Marit 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 Ephesus, 1 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 Canmni- 
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- 
tion of the Blasphemies of Nestorius, which has reached us in the 
original Greek, and is translated into English in the Oxford ren- 
derings under the title, S. Gyvil of Alexandria on the Incarnation 
against Nestorius, so 'Theodoret wrote a work termed Pentalogus, 
that is a Fzve Book Work, as the expression means, against Ortho- 
doxy and for Nestorian errors. On it Canon Venables, page 918, 
volume IV of Smzth and Wece'’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
states that it is lost in the original, and that it was ‘‘on the incar- 
nation’’ and ‘‘divected 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 Thecdoret’s Pentalogus in Latin against Cyril of 
Alexandria. 

In the Second Book of that Pentalogus (page 326 in Baluze as 


244 Article X. 





above) Theodoret teaches plainly ‘he 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 Virgin, 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 ‘‘Soz’’ [ 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 toa 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 name 





NOTE 295.—Baluze’s Marit Mercatorits Opera, page 326: Non itaque Deum Verbum post 
nativitatem virginis magnum futurum esse praedixit, sed templum quod ex virgine sanctum 
est adsumenti unitum, et connuncupatum etiam ipsum filium; non ut duos filios adoremus, 
sed ut in templo visibili Deum invisibilem contuentes, unam illi venerationis gloriam defer- 
amus.,”’ 

Inasmnch as Theodoret, in matter quoted from him elsewhere in this set (see under his 
name, pages 656,657, volume I of Aphesus) 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 ‘‘/o him’ above, 
must refer to God the Word and His humanity, ‘‘/he femple,’’ and hence Theodoret means 
that he worships it relatively to God the Word, who indwells it, according to Theodoret, by 
His 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 least 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 1 of Ephesus in 
this Set, pages 115, 116, note, pages 61-69, note 156, and under Theodore? in Index 11. 

Note 296.—That is God the Word's life. 


Lheodoret for the Worship of Christ's Humanity. 245 





which 1s above every name, and conferred His own dignity on him, 
and took on Himself the appellation of his [human] nature’’ (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 ‘‘xame above every name,’”’ that is Gop, is given to Christ’s 
created humanity, and the worship done in Philippians II, 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 ima Latin 
translation on page 114 of Baluze’s Marius Mercator. Cyril as 
there given (section 12 of Cyril’s Scholia on the Incarnation), on 
page 385 contends there, as always, that the passage refers 20 ¢he 
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 Cyvzl on the Incarnation of the Sole-Born 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 
ΤΩ: 

Nestorius’ worship οἵ Christ’s humanity above and his calling 
that mere creature GOD is anathematized in Anathema VIII in 
Cyril’s Long Lfistle to him which was approved by the whole 
Church in its Third Synod. See volume I of Chrystal’s Ephesus, 
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 Lphesus 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. 





Nore 297.—Baluze’s Marit’ Mercatoris Opera, page 833. 


246 


ARTICLE ΧΕ 


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 of saints, 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 behisareso. Venable’s 
article on him on page 356, volume IV of Smith and Wace’s Diction- 
ary of Christian Biography, shows him to have been a poor character. 
His return from Alexandria to the school of Sida, ‘‘was fatal,’’ 
says Venables, ‘‘to 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. ‘Tillemontsays of him that he was rather the imitator 
of Chrysostom’s eloquence than of his virtues, and that the imitation 
was avery poor one.’’ He wrote a work entitled a Christian fistory, 
of which and of the writer, Socrates, in his £ccesiastical 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 Genuine 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’ ἀρ ον Ch. Fist, Voir ἘΠ 5. ΔΘ. Clare's 
transi)?” 

Socrates, as above, bias 27, states of Philip that, ‘“‘He 
wrote many books; for he refuted the books of the Emperor Julian 
against 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 creature 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: 

{. 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 Articde XT. 


they were unorthodox themselves, like, for example, the Arian 
author of the Jmperfect Work on Matihew, 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 were 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 alone is to be invoked and adored. No worship is to be paid to 
dead men.”’ 

3. Sometimes, as the outer sheet of the manuscript contain- 
ing the title would be worn away by use and become iilegible, 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 
fTomily on Easter.” In sucha case some of the letters of a name 
like, for instance, the s (c) 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 (σὴ) 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 tliose 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 utilize 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 and Genuine 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 with 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 oz 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- 





Nore 298.—On that Professor Stokes in his article Nestorzanism,in Smith and Wace's 
Dictionary of Christian Biography, volume IV, page 31, writes: 

“Tn 435... the jointinfluence 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 Simonians, kzs 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 340f the same work, Professor Stokes adds: ‘‘The writings of Nestorius 
were consigned to the flames by an edict of Theodosius; they were therefore diligently extir- 
pated by the magistrates (cf. Jac Gretser, de jure prohibendi libros mailos, lib. I, cap. 9); while 
a passage in John Moschus (Sfz7727 Prat. c.46) proves that the clergy were not backward in 
the work of destruction’’ Gibbonin his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 
XLVII,ina note on page 225, volume V of Bohn’s seven volume edition, states that the im- 
perial letters against Nestorius are found in the Councils, tome ITI, pages 1730-1785. He does 
not say whose edition. They are found in Mansi’s Concz/ia, tome V, col. 413-420. 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. 

Nore 299.—See Bingham’s Andzguitzes, 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 Articde XI. 





tures had got a hold on ‘‘many,’’ 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 oz the Manichacan 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 Church, the 
other ox the Morals of the Manichaeans.”’ 

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 know 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. J know there 
are many worshippers of tombs and pictures. I know that there are 
many who drink to great excess over the dead, and who, in the feasts 
which they make for corpses, bury themselves over the buried, and give 
to their gluttony and drunkenness the name of religion (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 Word 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 Kast yet under the Turk and 
the Persian for snch paganizings. Are we such brutes or soignorant as to do such things right 
against such facts, and especially when, taught by the idolatrous section of the clergy, nearly 
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 on the road to hell 
(Rev. XXI, 8). 


Spurious and Genuine 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 
you 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 profess. 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 you now is this: that you should at least desist 
from slandering the Catholic Church, by declaiming against the 
conduct of men whom the Church herself condemns, seeking daily to 
correct them as wicked children. ‘Then if any of them by good will 
and by the help of God are corrected, they regain by repentance what 
they had lost by sin. Those again who with wicked will persist in their 
old vices, or even 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 willcome. 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: 

“Βαϊ 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 reverence’ is a strong term and may be taken to mean 
“‘the worship of dead men,’’ which Augustine condemns in another 
passage relating to martyrs (302); and ‘‘we honor their tombs’’ looks 


Nore 301.—Matt. IIT. 13, and XIII, 24-43. 
NOTE 302.—See passages of his against creature worship, including invocation of creatures, 


252 Articde XT, 





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 from heathenism, as is shown by 
Canon LX 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, uni- 
versal and apostolic Church’’ in its Third Synod, Ephesus, A. Ὁ. 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 XLII, 8; Colossians II, 18; 
Revelations XIX, 10 and XXII, 8, 9. Andthe 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- 
ward 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 Faith, pages 109, 110,111, 119, 186-139, and the first two on page 120. The 
third and 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 seealso 7y/er'’s Primitive Christian Worship, and his Worship 
of the Blessed Virgin. - 


Articde 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 may 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- 
Ζίμδ 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, Xi. 
CREATURE WORSHIP. 


The Sins of Idolaters: that is 

I. the worship of created persons by invocation and other Acts 
of worship, and 

Il. the worship of mere inanimate things, such as pictures, 
graven images, crosses painted and graven, altars, communion tables, 
the Bible or any part of it, etc., and 

Ill, How they are forbidden IN GOD’S WORD AND BY THE “‘one, 
holy, universal and apostolic Church” in tts Six Sole Ecumenical 
Synods. 

“‘Take ... the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,’’ 
Ephesians VI, 17. 

‘‘Fivil 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 froma child thou hast known the holy 
Scriptures, which are abie 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. 

“Tf 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 piliar and ground of the 
truth?) Timothy ΠΠ1 1s. 

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 Cyeature Worship, published in the Church Journal, of 
New York City, for August 3, August 10, August 17, and 
August 24, 1870, over the name, ‘‘A 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 Zhe 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 Himself ‘Jealous.’ 
(303). Disregard of this principle that Gop 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 ‘‘contain 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, 24; V, 6-10; VI, 14,15; Joshua XXIV, 
19; Nahum I, 2. 


256 Artide ΧΙ]. 





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, “1 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 tendency 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 whichis 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 allthe 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 
afoe. 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 Articde ΣΧ 77. 





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, sofaras 
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 of Relative 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 anumber. Thus Origen writes: 

‘“‘Wedeem 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). 





Norte 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 cause of forming images, concerning 
the true image of God, and Fis 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, and towhose 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 your 
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 altarsdo they wish for themselves? 
Finally, what do they want of images themselves, which are 
monuments either of those dead or of those absent? ’’ (305) 

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:— 

“Ve say, ‘We venerate the gods through 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 tothem. And 


Note 305.—l,actantii Divin. Institut., de Origine Errorts, cap. 2, Quae fuerit prima causa 
jingendi simulacra,; de vera Det tp agine et ejus vero cultu, col, 258, and after in tome V of 
Migne’s Patrologia Latina. 


260 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, fo 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.’’ ‘‘Zdo not worship the image for the spirit, but I look upon 
the bodily effigy as a sign of that thing which I ought to wor- 
ship (307).”’ 

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 any 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 Patrologia Latina: Deos, inquitis, per simulacra veneramur. 
Nore 307.—Augustini Enarratio in Psalmum CXIII, col. 1483 of tome XXXVII of 


Migne’s Patrologia Latina, 


Creature Worship. 261 
a σε: a NIELS ene τνεσσνειν 


of the intelligent heathen are. We ought not to misrepresent, to 
lie, and to deceive regarding the pagan in order to cover up the 
guilt of the Christian creature-worshipper. ‘That would. be out- 
rageous. Too much of such work has been done intentionaliy or 
unintentionally, and the result isthat 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 fireand brimstonein 
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 at Ephesus 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 being (ἀνθρωπολατρεί) and Cannibalism 
(ἀνθρωποφαγία), died so raving 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 


262 Article XTT. 


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 kis 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 sin,’’ 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 forthem. 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 dynasty after dynasty of the Ten Tribes for 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 Worship of a Human Being and Cannibalism, 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 VI 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 efforts 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 Artide ΧΙ. 





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 fora 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 known by the judgment 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 77. 


I have shown, as my first point, that the heathen worship 
images, painted and graven, symbols, and 411 other material things 
which they worship, oly RELATIVELY, zof absolutely; that it is a 
false and utterly absurd notion to suppose that they deem ¢he 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 andI close. They are as 
follows:— 

II. Τὸ mention the acfs in which the heathen image-worship 
and worship of material things consists. 


Creature Worship. ᾿ 265 





III. To show thatthe 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 only 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 definition, 
they dispute often for hours with no clear result. Now, the chief 
thing in such matters is to s¢av¢ 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 arguments 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 outward acts as, if ex- 
pressed toward living men, are deemed merely human respect, rever- 
ence, love, gratitude, pleading, honor, penitence, and soon, ‘These 
acts, as mentioned in Holy Writ, are as follows: — 

1. Bowing to or kneeling to, or prostration before. 

Instances of this kind aresubdivided into four classes accord- 
ing to the object to whom or which they are addressed, three clas- 
ses being veligzous in their character, and one zon-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. 

(ὁ) Giving any 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 XT. 





(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 11, 8, 9, etc. 

(4) Bowing to or prostration to living men asa mark not of 
religious worship, but of human respect merely. Ort this sort are 
Gen. ΘΙ 3; 1 Saniuel\ ΕΝ 8; ΤΠ Samuel DxG Orne, 
I Kings IT, 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. 

(6) 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. 

(Ὁ Entreating or giving thanks or honor or glory to false 
gods, or to images painted or graven, or to materiai things of any 
kind. Of this sort there are many examples in Scripture, such 
as Isaiah XLIV, 17, and Hosea IV, 12, etc. 

(zd) Entreating or giving thanks or honor or glory to living 
men with mere human, non-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 odject to whom or which they are addressed, three 
classes being religious in their character, and one non-religious. 
They are as follows:— 

(a) Kissing the hand to God the Father, to His co-eternal Word, 
and to His co-eternal Spirit. Iam 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; JohnI, 18; Heb. XI, 27, and Exod. 
DOXCKUIT, 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 Ecumeni- 
cal Synod against Nestorius for introducing Man-Service into 
heaven and earth by perverting to it the words, ‘‘dnzd when He 
bringeth 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 onearth. All acts of worship to the Son must be 20 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. 


208 Articde Χ 77. 





(προσκύνησις) to that humanity, and consequently, I suppose, they 
would give relative worship, by kissing, to it, by throwing kisses to 
it, because the Word of God dwelt in it, they said by His Spirit 
only, but we say by His eternalsubstance. But the doctrine of Cyril 
of Alexandria, the champion of Orthodoxy, against the creature- 
server Nestorius, is that all such Relative Service is Creature Ser- 
vice, that is service to a creature; and, of course, Man-Service, that 
is Service to a Man (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), 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 
zs 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 humanity or 
to any part of it, nor to the Eternal Word ¢hvough it or any 
part of it, though we worship God the Word as wh, 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 T'yana, in the note matter on pages 116-128 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. III, 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 


Creature Worship. 269 





put on by the divine Word. And much more must we reject 
any and allacts 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 
zs blessed forever’’ (Rom. I, 25.), and we place ourselves, as bringers- 
in of anew Man-Serving Gospel, under the curse of the Holy 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 ~dative 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 witha 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, of as an act of 
religious worship but of mere human non-worshipping 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 toavoid other Nestorian objections, that since 
Christ has mounted the throne 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; 48,49. Mark XIV; 44,45. Luke XXII; 47, 48. 

Nore 310.—Luke VII; 36-50 inclusive. 

Nore $11.—Philippians 11, 4-12. Compare Psalm XXII, 6-31: Isaiah LIII, 1-12; Daniel IX. 
26; Mark IX, 12; Romans XV, 3; and Luke XXII. 27. 


270 Articde 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 ‘‘dzsciples’’ for unbelief seemed to include 
Judas especially with them. For we read, ‘‘when Jesus knew in 
himself, that 27s 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 ¢here ave some of you that believe not. 
For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed 
not, and who the one 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 isa devil? Hespake 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 XII, 6, Judas is called ‘‘a thief.’”? Weare not sure, 
therefore, that Judas was at any time a sincere believer in Christ’s 
Divinity. But whatever he may have been before, his conduct 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. XX VI, 14-16), or indeed for 





Note 312.—John VI, 64. Greek, Kal τίς ἐστιν ὃ παραδώσων αὐτόν. The trans- 


lation above is more exact than the Common Version. 


Creature Worship. 21 





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 asa 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 velative religious service 
to it, that is, because of the divine Word who dwelt in it. Nor is 
there any proof of 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 of velative religious 
service 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. Nowif I stoop and kiss his hand 
thus gloved, no one will accuse me of doing any velative 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 velative 
ime δ ee Eee 


Norte 313.—Matt. XXVI, 45-51; Mark XIV, 41-47. 

Nore 314.—See R. Payne Smith’s English translation from the Syriac of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria’s Commentary upon the Gospel according to 8. Luke, sermon XI, pages 156-161 
inclusive, 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 Articde 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 (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), 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 ¢o Christ’s Divinity 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 affection and religious 
worship, nevertheless for certain obvious reasons we read not in 
Holy Writ of its being given 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- 





Nore 8315.—Exodus XXXIII, 20. 
Note 816.—II Sam. VI; 6,7. 


Creature Worship. 273 





ably, with veverence and godly fear; for our God is a CONSUMING 
HIRE” (317); 


But, on the other hand, the great difficulty 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 difficulty 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 Incarnation, section 
13, page 200 of the Oxford translation of Cyril of Alexandria on 
the [Incarnation against Nestorius. 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 velative/y or 
absolutely; we come now to the second Explanation of her act 
namely that it was not an act of ve/igzous service at all, but an act 
of mere non-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 of at all as an act 





Nore 317.—Heb. XII; 28, 29. 
NoTE 318.—See t he many passages under Lamd in any good concordance, especially those 
in Revelations. Compare the same Person in Revelations XIX, 13, where He is expressly 


called ‘‘the Word of God.” 


274 Article ΧΙ]. 





of religious worship, but of mere 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 human service as washing and wiping, which this 
woman 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 mere human non-worshipping care for that created 
Man. For the disciples of Christ were not Creature-Servers. And 
all those acts are acts of human non-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 Harmony 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 mere human non- 
worshipping love and affection, such as may 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. 

Nore 820.—Luke VII, 50. : 

Nore 321.—Luke VII, 36-50, is section 48in that work and is put in the period between 
Christ’s second Passover and His third inthe 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 must 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 creature: in the 
first case it would be an instance of adsolute creature-service, be- 
cause given to the humanity, not because of its relation to the 
Word who dwelt within it, but decause of ztse/f: in the other case it 
would have been an act of velative creature-service, and of velative 
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 VITIth 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 ‘‘77’’ his ‘‘two 
Naturyes,’’ but orders us to ‘‘worship with one worship,’ that is with 
absolute, not relative, worship, ‘‘God the Word infleshed in the midst 
of His own flesh.’ See on that volume I of Chrystal’s ZAphesus, 
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 





Nore 322.—Matt. IV,10; Luke IV, δ. 


276 Ar tiie ἌΧ 





English Version of part of the twelfth verse of the Second Psalm, 
may seem to favor the Nestorian view that itis right to give an 
act of religious service to the humanity of Christ because the 
Eternal Word dwells in it, and so to condemn the Universal 
Church for forbidding all such religious relative wore 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 Vulgate. 

The Greek Septuagint here has instead of it, ‘‘Zake fast hold 
of instructton,’’ (Δράξασθε παιδείας); 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, Τὸ take but one instance out of many: the words in 
Isaiah VII, 14, ‘‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and 
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 tothe same child, shows that the primary 
reference of the prophecy must be to Hezekiah alone, or at ieast 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 isa common thing in Scripture prophecies, 
in instances clearer than the one J have just cited (323). So here the 


Nore 328.—Samuel H. Turner, Ὁ. D., Professor of Biblical earning and Interpretation 
of Scripturein the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in 
New York City, one of my former Theological teachers, made the following statement as to 
the quoting of Scripture in Scripture. SoI find it in my own writing in one of my books. 

“There ave Four Modes of Quoting :— 

1. Quotations are frequently made in order to express a literal fulfilment of what is 


Creature Worship. Ail 





kings of the earth are not called upon to kiss the Eternal Word’s 
body as an act of veligious service, but todo secular 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 prophecy, granting 
what is disputed, that the rendering should be ‘‘A7%ss 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 can not 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: 

“Ὁ ye kings ... ye judges of the earth ... kiss the Son, /est¢ 
he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath ts kindled 
but a little.’’ 

It seems most likely, therefore, that this part of the prophetic 
Psalm refers to David’s ‘‘Son’’ Solomon, to whom ‘‘kizgs’’ and 
‘Gudges’’ were subject, and to whom therefore, according to Oriental 
custom, they would do merely secular, zon-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 asin the Old, See MatthewlI, 6, (Bethlehem, etc.). 

2. We 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 stone which the builders rejected,” etc. 

4. Frequently the New Testament writers express their own thoughts inthe language 
quoted, and so the original meaning of the Quotation has no connection with that which they 


may have intended.” 


278 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, Let 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 chaff 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 issed 
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. 


a 


Creature Worship. 279 


I. through the golden calf in the Wilderness, Exodus 

XXXIT: 
2. through the calf at Bethel and through that at Dan, both 
_made by Jeroboam, who ‘‘%ade Israel to sin,’? I Kings XII, 26, to 
iO Ue Kings Ill, 3; I Kings XV, 26, 30, 83; 1) 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 ehushtan, that is a piece of brass, I 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 under every 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 


280 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 wine, 
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: 

“Tf 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). Weshould 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 Chrystal’s Ephesus, 





Nore 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 
fo the consecrated but unchanged bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, which St. Cyril of 
Alexandria brands as ἀνθρωπολατρεία, 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, 285. For that Man-Worship 
and for his belief in a real presence of the Substance of Christ’s real flesh and blood in the 
Eucharist, and for his belief also in what Cyril calls, avOpwropayia, 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 Ephesus. 


Creature Worship. 281 





volume I, page 19, note 20. Compare on extravagant Byzantine 
titles, Ralle and Potle’s Syntagma, tome V, pages 497-512. The 
apostate and idolater, John Henry Newman, note ‘‘o,’’ page 405, 
of his English translation of St. Athanasius’ Ovations 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 toa friend, and of a loves 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 what 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 odject to whom or which the incense is offered: 
three classes being religious in their character, and one being 
non-religious. 


282 Articde XII. 





They are as follows: 

(a) Offering incense to God as an act of religious worship, 
was countenanced in the ancient law, and 27}, 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 Antiguities, book VIII, chapter VI, section 21. Thenit should 
not be used. ‘‘As it was in the beginning,’ 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 Presbyter 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. 

(6) Wrong and not acceptable offering of incense to Jehovah, 
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 “ὦ 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 Levite and the three Reubenites, 
Dathan, Abiram, and On, who would usurp the peculiar function 


Creature Worship. 283 


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 religious 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; Il Chron. XXXIV, 25; etc. 

(4) 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 
human respect, like the presenting of a flower, for instance, which 
is fragrant like good incense. I have heard of incense being 
offered to 2 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 time 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 toa free mind. Iam not aware that 
any such thing is found in the Bible, though possibly the sweet 
odors offered to Daniel may be so taken, Daniel 11, 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 ve/igtous worship, because all our approaches 
to Him are such, 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. Weshall 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 todo. But I have 
heard 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 Articde XT. 





men even similarly ignorant are to be found. This isthe 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 
Anglicanae,’? 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 which 
deserve especially honorable mention, and which should be in the 
library of every Anglican clergyman, 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 ‘‘T'yler 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 XL, 4, 24, 25; 
compare Exodus XXV, 31-40. 

(ὁ). the burning of lights to God in a way forbidden by Him, 
for example, if such a thing were ever done in henor 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- 
turcd 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 Abyssinians), 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. : 

(ὧ. 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 constantly. 

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 tapers 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 Articde XII. 





quieted (326). Let those who do not observe this enactment be de- 
barred from the communion of the Church.’’ 

(4). Burning lights, not as a religious act at all, but as ax 
act of mere secular honor or respect, as when men light up their 
windows at night to honor some political procession, or some 
military or civil officer or dignitary, etc., or celebrate their party 
fealty, or a victory, or a bridal party at night, as I once saw in 
Autioch 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 disgureted me, to bring me up?” Itseems 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 prayers and invocations made to them 
by creature worshippers, they would be disquieted to know that men commit such creature- 
worshipping acts toward them, tothe ruin of theirownsouls. 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, foras God He is not 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 he offered for himself and for the sins of the people 
(Leviticus XVI,17, and the context). And so Paul shows that our High Priest, God and 
Man, the ‘‘one Mediator between God and men” (1 Timothy II, 5), ‘dy Azs own blood” has 


entered once for all (ἐφάπαξ) 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 liveth 
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 in Romans VIII, 34: ‘‘Who is he 
that condemneth? It is Christ that died, aye more that is risen again, who is also at the right 
hand ot God, and who maketh intercession for us.”’ 

And throughout the ninth chapter of his Epistle to the Hebrews Paul contrasts the glory 
and snperiority 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 Leviticus 
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. Hr 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 without.” 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, in 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. 287 





6. Sacrifice. 

This act was also of four kinds, three of them religious, and 
one non-religious and merely secular. 

(4). Sacrifice, not through any medium, 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 be 
offered to any saint, angel, or any other creature, are condemned by the New Testament, 
in Matt. IV, 10, and I Timothy II, 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 on 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 Smith's Gteseler’s Church History, volume I, page 419, note 11. Note 688, pages 363-406 
volume I of Ephesus in this Set cites authorities for Christ as the Sole Intercessor above. 
Chrysostom, as quoted by Finch in his Sketch of the Romish Controversy, pages 178,179, 
favors going to God directly in prayer, but like Augustine he is also quoted for invocation 
of creatures. If the said passages for saint worship be genuine he is a heretic, and is 
condemned by the Third Kcumenical Synod; and the same thing may be said of Augustine 
also, if such creature-worshipping passages as are 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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία, 


that is the worship of a human being, it much more (a fortiori) by necessary inclusion, 
anathematizes all worship of any other creature. For the Man put on by God the Word 
is confessed by all to be the highest of all created things. 

St. Athanasius in his Excyclical Epistle, put forth in A. Ὁ. 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 thetr zdols,” Atkinson’s translation of .S. 
Athanasius’ Tracts, page 7; compare the Preface, page XXVIII. To light candles before idols 
was acommon 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 give light at her services and to enable those who read tosee 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 inits noble and excellent and soul-profiting Homzly Against 
Peril Of Idolatry shows that 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 itsidolatry. But the 
passage is too long to be quoted here. The Orthodox, God alone worshipping, reader 
should by all means read it in the 7hzrd 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 Orthod-~ 


288 Article XT. 





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 offering for sin in accordance with the 





just as the books of the Old Testament, which chronicle the idolatry of the Israelites and 
their punishment for it, were needed by the Jews and their reformed descendants to keep 
them from falling into it again. 

At the beginning of the Reformation in England in “‘injunctions given by King Edward 
VT, A. Ὁ. 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 Injnnction 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 Latin Mass was still 
used in the service and till the English Communion office was put forth partlyin English, 
in 1548, and before the church was fully reformed against idolatry. 

2. That ‘‘the high altay 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. 

8. 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 Injunction, 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 Lord’s Supper in its Third Council, Ephesus, A. D. 431, as is shown 
in note 606, pages 240-313, and note 599, pages 229-238, 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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία 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 ‘‘zz two natures”’ (ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι). which is 


anathematized by the Ninth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 

1f 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 Nestorzus, 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 79-128, 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 
472-474, and the notes there, and the sentence on pages 479-480, 486-504, and compare notes E 


and F, pages 517-552. 


Creature Worship. 289 





understanding of the words of God in Genesis IV, 7, ‘‘siz’’ [that 
is a sin offering, sheep or lambs or cattle] ‘‘UZeth 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 offer 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 unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’? 
(327), 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 transgressions that were under the first testament’’ (330), that so 
“they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance’ 
(331). Christ’s ‘‘one sacrifice for sins forever’ (332) is the all-sufficient 
sacrifice for the s7zs, 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- 


Nore 327.—Exodus XIX, 6. 

NOTE 328.—Hebrews VIII, 6 to 13 inclusive; Hebrews IX, 15 to 28 inclusive, and Heb. X, 
1-32. 

Nore 329.—Heb. X, 4, 11, 12, 26, 27. 

NOTE 330,—Heb. IX, 15. 

Nore 331.—Heb. IX, 15. 

NOTE 3832.—Heb., X, 12. - 

Nore 333.—I John 11,1, 9. The term ἐφάπαξ, which means once for all, well sets forth 


the soleness of Christ’s one sacrifice for sin, althongh of the four places where i- occurs in 


200 Artide 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, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of 
the whole world,’’ etc. 

And as under the Mosaic Covenant, the Israelites were “ὦ 
kingdom of priests and a holy nation’’ (334), so under the New and 
“‘better covenant’’ (335), which came of force when Christ died on 
the tree (336) and ‘‘abolished”’ the Old with its circumcision (337) 


ce 








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 sin once for ali, but in that he 
liveth he liveth unto God.” There is, therefore, no dead Christ now to be eaten in the 
Lord’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. We 
offer only aftertypes and a memorial of it, as we teach in the Communion Office. 

Hebrews IX, 11,12: ‘‘But Christ being 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 /or 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 αἱ]. I would add that in the Revised Versiou, “newly edited by the 
American hevision Committee, A. Ὁ. 1900,’ published by Thomas Nelson and Sons, N. Y., 
and sold by the American Bible Society, ἐφάπαξ is correctly rendered by “‘once for all,” 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 jor 
all.”’ 

Nore 334.—Exodus XIX, 6. 

. . . ’ 

Nore 335.—Heb. VIII, 6: Christ “15 the Mediator of a better Covenant, KPELTTOVOS . . . 
διαθήκης, which was established as a law (νενομοθέτηται) on better promises.” He is the 
“surety of a better Testament,’ that is Covenant, as the Greek διαθήκης means also, Heb, 
VII, 22, and it brings in ‘‘a better hope,” Heb. VII, 19. 

NOTE 836.—I Peter II, 24, 

Norte 337.—That was settled at the gathering at Jerusalem in Acts XI, 1-19,and again 


% 


Creature Worship. 291 





and Sabbaths (338) and other holidays (339), there is now ἃ 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 done away and abolished in II Corinthians III, 11,13: see also 
Heb. VIII, 13; its noble summary in Ten Commandments is referred to in II Corinthians, III, 
%, as “the ministration of death written and engraven in stones,” and as ‘‘done away’ and is 
there contrasted with the Gospel, ‘the ministration of the Spirit,” which “vemaineth” and is 
“vather,” 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 itsark: see Heb. IX, 
1-6: compare Deuteromony IV, 15, 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 two tables of stone.’ And Solomon, inI 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 ccvenant,’ 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. Andagain 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; 11 Samuel XV, 24, etc., because, of course, they were init, But we were never 
under the Mosaic covenant, but remained till Christ came under the Noachian, which, like 
the Adamic and 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, ΑἹ] the moral 
parts of those Commandments are re-enacted impliedly or expressly inthe 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 ¢hee,’”” Exodus XX, 12, had 
reference only to the Twelve Tribes, 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. Andso 
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 decetvers, and anti-christs, whom we are forbidden to 
receive or to bid God-sfeed to under a penalty (II John, 7-12), willnever be converted till all 
the Gentile nations come into the fold of Christ, Romans ΧΙ, 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 ard 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 keep 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 lawcontinued, that is till Christ died. Apostolic example in 
the absence of any command to keep any particular day is equivalent toa command and 
as we have that forthe First Day of the Week, Acts XX,7,and I Corinthians XVI, 2, we 
should keepit. 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. 

Note 339,—Ibid, 


292 Artice ΧΙ. 





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: 

“Ve 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 nation, 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 vace’’ 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, 
UI Pigg Seis aa Sea Nea a ΠΟΘ id Et 5 Ὲ ΞΕΕῚ ΘΕΕΑΞΕΒΡΕΘΕ 


Nore 340.—Romans IIT, 22. 23; Romans X, 12, 18. 

Nore 341.—I Peter II, 5-11. 

Norte 342.—I Kings XIV, 21, 31. 

NOTE 343.—Genesis XVII, 14. 

Nore 344.—So the Greek of I Peter II, 9, γένος ἐκλεκτὸν, literally translated, is, 
“chosen vace.”’ 

Nore 345,—John III, 5; ‘Titus III, 5; Acts II, 38, 89; 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 in verse 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, they are 
all addressed as ‘‘sazu/¢s,’’ and in verses 4 and 5, as ‘‘chosen’’ in 
Christ ‘‘defore the foundation of the world,’ and as ‘‘predestinated 

. unto the adoption of children by Jesus 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, chi/- 
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 in the word,’’ as the 
Greek is, and as is distinctly stated in the same Epistle, V, 26, that 
is, of course, baptized. 

But, ifat this point some one may object, Some of the mem- 
bers of the Ephesian Church were not perfectly holy, nor sazv¢s in 
that personal sense, though addressed as saznds in the first verse of 
that Epistle, for in chapter IV of it, verse 28, the Greek, literally 
translated is, ‘‘Let him that stea/eth steal no more;’’ to that we 
reply that though in the Old Testament the Israelites of that 


294 Article Χ 17. 





Covenant are called a holy nation (346), elect (347), and saints (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 mation,’ end 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). Thetime 
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 


Nore 346.—Exodus XIX, 6; Deut. VII, 6. 

NOTE 347.—Isaiah XLV, 4; I Chron, XVI, 13; Isaiah XLIII, 20, 21, εἴς, 
Nore 348.—Psalm LXXXIX, 5, 7, 18. 

Note 349.—Matt. XIII, 24-31, 36-44. 

Nore 350.—Matt. XIII, 47-51. 

Nore 351.—Matt. XIII, 39, and 49. 

NOTE 352.—I Cor. V, 1-6. 

Nore 353.—II Cor, 11, 5-12, 

Nore 354.—I Tim. I, 19, 2’ compared with II Tim. II, 16, 17, 18. 
NOTE 355.—I Tim. I, 19, 20. 

Nore 356.—Ibid., and II Tim. IV, 14-19. 


Creature Worship. 295 





and gvzests unto His God and Father’’ (357). And the twenty-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 kiugs 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 Him a thousand years’”’ 
(359). So that we shall be priests not only now, but in heaven, 
and after that during the Millenium, offering not ‘‘carnal, 
ordinances,’’ that is sacrifices of flesh, but the “‘spz7itual sacrifices’’ 
of praise and thanksgiving to the Father and to Christ the Word 
forever. 

Even now when we all, as God’s chosen Christian vace (360), 
and people, and priests, offer with those the aftertypes also of the 
one, great, perfect, and all-suffcient propitiatory sacrifice of Cal- 
vary (361), the leavened bread and wine of the Eucharist, that is 
of the Zhanksgiving, as Eucharist means, we glory in it, as the 
Church has from the beginning, as an wzzbloody service (362), 
that is an offering without blood, and a spiritual sacrifice, which 
is explained by Christ Himself (363) and by His Apostle Paul 
(364), and is therefore understood by all who will. 





Norte 357.—Rev. I, 6. Instead of kzmgs, another reading here is ‘a kingdom,” but priests 
follows asin the text. 

Nore 858,—Rev. V, 9, 10, Instead of kzzgs another lection is ‘‘a kingdom,’ but prtesis fol- 
lows. 

Nore 859.—Rev. XX, 4. 


NOTE 360.—I Peter II, 9, Greek, γένος ἐκλεκτόν, “chosen race,’ not ‘‘chosen genera 


tion,’ which is a most plain mistranslation, The English form of the Canterbury Revision 
and the American, both well render it ‘‘e/ect yace,’’ composed, as places in that Epistle show, 
of Jewi-h and of Gentile Christians. See also, to the same effect, all those passages in the 
New Testament where Christians are spoken of as e/ect and chosen. 

Nore 361.—I John II, 1, 2. 

Nore 362.—See volume I of Ephesus in this set, pages 231-240, text, and note 599, pages 
229-238, and under Lucharist, pages 612-622, and under εὐχαριστία, εὐχαριστήσας, 
pages 702-710, id. 

NOTE 863.—In John VI, 63, Christ Himself shows that the eating and drinking there 
mentioned and in the context is to be understood spiritually. 

Nore 364.—Nothing is much clearer in Holy Writ than that Christ offered but ‘‘oxe sacri- 
fice for sins forever,” Hebrews X, 10, 12, 14, etc., as is shown on pages 286, 289, above, text, 
and in notes 826 and 383, above. Consequently his words in Matthew XXVI, 28, “‘This is my 


296 Artide XII. 





And in Colossians III, 20, 21, 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, “γε are alsorisen with him’’ (366), and as 
‘elect 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 zs shed for many for the remission of sins,’ must be 
taken not literally but figuratively, for, as the sacrifice was but once offered for sins, if it 
was offered then, 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 which ts given for you.” as old Tertullian took them about 1700 years ago, 
Hoc est corpus meum, ...id est figura corporis mei, 7hzs 7s my body, ...that ts the figure of 
my body.” See his work Against Marcion, book IV, chapter 40, Indeed in Matt. XXVI, 29, 
Christ, after the words, 7hzs zs 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 ἐλ 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 fguvein ‘‘the fruit of the vine,” that is wine, for He adds: 
“Verily Isay unto you, I willdrink no more of the fruit of the vine, untilthat day that I 
drink it new in the kingdom of God.”’ 

And what clinches the figurative sense, as the only true one, our God- pehiocieedl teacher, 
the ‘“‘one, holy universal, and apostolic Church,” in its Third Ecumenical Council, Ephesus, 
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 


avo pwrokat pea, 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 ἀνθυωπ ποφαγία, that is Cannibalism. See in proof on the Eucharist volume I 


of Ephesus in this set, pages 231-240, text, and note 599, pages 229-238; and on Man Worship, 
pages 79-128, text, and note 606; pages 231, 332, text, and note 679, pages 332-362, and on Nestorius’ 
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 ἀναίμακτος, ἀ:αφομάν, 


ἀνθρωπολατρεία, ἀνήρωπολάτρης, ἀνθρωποφαγία, and forms of the verb πρυσκυνέω 
and cognate terms on pages 725-750, 

Nore 365.—Colos, I, 2. 

Note 366.—Colos. II, 11, 12 

NOTE 867.—Colos, III, 12, 


Creature Worship. 297 





Christ’s own law baptism is a condition of salvation for every 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 é¢ baptized, and added, ‘‘For 
the promise is unto you azd to your children,’’ Acts II, 37, 38, and 
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 house.’’ And ‘‘he 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 offer up to 
God the Father ‘‘spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through 
Jesus Christ,’? our Great High Priest, who as God, as St. Cyril of 
Alexandria well teaches, hears our prayers aud as man prays for 
S's (909). 

And, moreover, we shall be priests of God and of Christ for- 





Note 368.—That is till spiritual religion, ‘the ministration of the Spirit’? (ΤΙ Cor. 111, 8) 
came with Christ, as opposed to and contrasted with ‘‘the ministration of death, written and 
engraven in stones,” (II Cor. III, 7), the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic Law, and all its 
other multitudinous enactments; II Corinthians III, compared with Exodus KX,and the 
scene at the giving of the Lawreferred toin both chapters. 1he words in the text above are 
in Heb. IX, 10. 

NOTE 369.—See pages 127,128, note, and all that note and under /nvocation, page 650, 
volume I of Ephesus in this set, and under worship, page 665, number 6. Canon XXXV of 
Laodicea, well brands invocation of angels as ‘hidden idolatry,’ And, of course, the same 
enactment applies to prayer to saints, for prayer, as all know, is an act of religious service, 
and it is therefore by Christ’s law in Matthew IV, 10, forbidden to any creature, bunt is pre- 
rogative to God alone, 


298 Article XT, 





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 ts 
the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name’’ (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 more 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 them up out 
of Lgypt, 1 Kings XII, 28, by which, of course, they would under- 
stand Jehovah. 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 ‘‘7his is thy God, O 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 772 flaces forbidden by the 
Mosaic Law, that is on the high places, whereas the Law com- 





NOTE 870,—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 Kings 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 worshif. Of the 
Reforming Kings who tolerated it were Asa (371), Jehoshaphat (372), 
Jehoash (873), 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 should 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 fort idden 
worship of Jews (381), creature worshipping and excommunicate 





Nore 871.—I Kings XV, 14. 

Norte 872.—I Kings XXII, 42, 48. 

NOTE 873.—II Kings XII, 2, 3. 

Note 374.—II Kings XIV, 1-5, 

Norte 37/5,—I1 Kings XV, 1-5. 

Nore 376.—II Kings XV, 32-36. 

Nore 3/7.—I Kings XII, 32, and I Kings XIII, 2, 89, 33, 34. 

Nore 878.—II Kings XVI, 4. 

NOTE 3879.—II Kings XVIII, 1-9. 

Nore 380.—II Kings XXIII, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19-28. 

Nore 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 ensued the separation. 

The Church of Jerusalem was much slower to separate from the abolished Law for 


300 Articde 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. III; 
Heb. VIII, 13) we find them all zealous for the Law (Acts XXI, 20), 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 ΤΙ, 11-21 inclusive), and 
by 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 Law of Moses and the putting of the Gospeland 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. Forat that time 
the whole Church under them consisted of faithfnl Hebrews, who contiuued 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 been all Gentile Christians except one, 
Alexander, who was a Bishop of the Anglican Protestant succession there, 


Creature Worship. Ὁ 301 





as the Romanists, the Greeks, and some idolatrous and apostate 
Anglicans hold. ΑἹΙ 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; I/Kings 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 jeaiousy with strange gods; with abom- 
inations provoked they Him to anger. They sacrificed unto 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 XXXII, 
16-44. Such sacrifices to demons are forbidden in Leviticus XVII, 
7. And the Psalmist, in recounting the sins of his people, states: 

“Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto de- 
mons, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of 
their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto tke 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 


302 Article ΧΙ]. 


then? that the idol’ [that is the zmage as idol (εἴδωλον) means] “15 
any thing, 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 (δαιμονίοις) 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 ifa 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 would add that the Devil (6 Διάβολος) and Satan (6 Saravas) 
are the same (Rev. XII, 9, and XX, 2), but the demons (δαιμόνια ) 
are his underlings and agents according to a belief of the Jews 
in the New Testament. See more fully under all those Greek 
terms in Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New 
Testament, and in The Englishman's Greek Concordance to the New 
Testament. 

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, 
therefore 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- 





Norte 382.—I Kings XI, 1-43, and XII, 1-25, anc II Chronicles, X, all of it. 
Norte 883.—I Kings XI, 1-I4, 26, to II Kings XVIII, 1. 

NOTE 884.—Exodus XXII, 20, etc. 

Norte 385.—II Chron. XXVIII, 23. 

Note 3886.—II Chron, XXNXIIJI, 1-21. 

NOTE 387 —II Chron. XXXIII, 21-20. 


Creature Worship. 303 





cans, when they offer the ‘‘sacrifice of praise’’ (388) and thanks- 
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- 
veligious, 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 Third Ecumenical 
Council A. D. 431, is turning to the altar or communion 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 ora 
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 de/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 20 it, or to gennflect 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 388,—Heb. XIII, 15, 


204 Artide XII. 





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 light thereof’’ (390). I know of no 
instance in the Aute-Nicene period of any Christian turning from 
any other direction to the 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 afier 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 “216 Lora’s Table,’ and again 
twice below ‘‘‘he Jad/e.’’ And in a prayer below we read: 
“We do not presume to come to ¢his thy Table, O merciful 
Lord, trusting in our own righteousness,’’ etc. Andso 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- 





Nore 389.—Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, book XIII, chapter 8, section 
15. To the same effect see Venables’ article Zas¢ in Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of 
Christian Antiquities. 

NoTE 390.—Rev. XXT, 23. 

Nore 391.—Bingham’s Antigutties, book VIII, chapter VI, sections 13-16. To the same 
effect see Nesbitt’s article d//favin Smith and Cheetham’s Dictionary of Christian Antignities, 
vol. I, page 61, no. 111. 


Crealure Worshtp. 30 


n 


tations now at the end of the Eucharistic Office in the Ameri- 
can book of Common Prayer, the ‘‘holy tadble’’ is twice men- 
tioned in the first, and ‘‘the Lord’s Tadle’’ once in the second. 
And the same is true of the same exhortations in the English 
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 priests 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 z. What was the form of the New Testament altar? 
Answer. 'Thetable. Proof: Christ instituted the Eucharist 


Nore 392.—II Cor. III, 7, Greek καταργουμένην, “ἧς done ατυᾶν,᾽ not “was to be done 


away,’’ as in our Common Version; and verses 6 to 13 inclusive of Heb. VIII, and Colos, II, 16. 


306 Articde XII. 





on a table; proof, Luke XXII, 21,‘‘The hand of him that betrayeth 
me is with me oz the tadble.’’ 

Paul speaks of it as a ¢adle. 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 παν in Smith and Cheetham’s Diction- 
ary of Christian Antiquities, volnme I, page 61, writes: 


‘‘VWaterial 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 Acclestastical 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 and a holy table, but if the 
buildings are only half finished, to dig them up from their founda- 
tions.’’ As Bingham shows, “Prayer houses,’’ 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 27, 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 Worshit. 307 





(393). ‘The term a/tar 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 offered 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 inthe first part of the fifth century, the wnbloody 
altar (396). Yet the same writer, in referring to the incursions of 
the barbarians into Cyrenaica, mentions the tables. for in Hal- 
comb’s article Syzeszus in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 
Liography, 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 ¢he 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 mea 








Norte 3893.—Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., book I, chap. 27, Bright’s edition; Ischyras, a lying oppo- 
nent of Athanasius, had spread the report τι Μακάριος εἰσπηδήσας εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον 
ἀνέτρεψε μὲν τὴν τράπεζαν, ποτήριον δὲ κατέαξε μυστικόν᾽ καὶ ὅτι τὰ ἱερὰ 

4 , 
βιβλία κατέκαυσε. 

In chapter XX XV of the same book Socrates shows that afterward at Constantinople the 
Arians, recognizing their failure to injure Athanasius by the falsehood of the broken cup, and 
the overturned table, (τραπέζης) would not permit the matter to be discussed at Con- 
stantinople. 

Norte 394.—Hebrews XIII, 10. 

Nore 395.—Hebrews IX, 10. 

Note 396.—Greek, βωμὸν τὸν ἀναίμακτον, Bingham’s reference to Synesius is 
“Catastas, p. 303. (p. 304, b. 10).” 


308 Articde 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]... ‘‘Z 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 weare 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 théir 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 tocommunion. 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 face under 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 History, book I, chapter 37, Bright’s edition: Ἔν τῇ 

«. 

ΕἸ ΄ δι.» , aes, , ε Ν \ ΄ Ν > Ν 

ἐκκλησία ἢ ἐπώνυμον Εἰρήνη μόνον €auToV κατακλειστὸν ποιήσας, καὶ εἰς τὸ 
,ὕ > Ν ε Ν Ν ε Ν ,ὔ ε Ν Janek , > , 

θυσιαστήριον εἰσελθὼν, vzOo τὴν ἱεραν τράπεζαν εαυτὸν ἐπι στομα EKTELVAS 


Ν , 
εὔχεται δακρύων. 


Creature Worship. 309 


might be delivered from that peril, a prayer which God heard by 
removing Arius from the world by a miraculous visitation of 
death in a privy (399). 

8. Another act of worship is the pouring out of a drink offer- 
ing. Vike 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; 5661 Chron. XXIX, 
20, 21; see much more in Cruden’s unabridged Concordance under 
Drink offering and Drink offerings: 

(b). Offering 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 drink offerings to false gods, and to idols, and 
to the host of heaven, and the queen of heaven, as, for example, In 
Deuteronomy XXXII, 48: 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). Pouring out drink, not at all as an act of religious worship 
but as an 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 offering 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., bookI, chapter 38 


310 Artide XII. 





Hebrews IX, 15-28 inclusive, and VIII, 6-13 inclusive, and II 
Corinthians III. 

(Ὁ). ‘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 heaven. 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 queen 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 XLIV, 15-30, God warns the 


Creature Worship. 21 





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, asa 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 Canterbury 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, ¢o durn tncense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out 
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 incense to the queen of heaven, 
and poured out drink-offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to 
worship her, aud pour out drink-offerings unto her, without our hus- 
bands? 

Then Jeremiah said unto all the people, tothe 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 276 
abominations which ye have committed; therefore is your land be- 
come a desolation and an astonishment, and a curse, without 
inhabitant, as itis 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 Artice 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 offerings unto her; establish then your vows, 
and perform your vows. 

Therefore hear ye the word of Jehovah, all Judah that dwell 
in the landof 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 whose 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 
ov 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 Araband Turk till we reformed in the sixteenth 
century, and restored the service of God alone in accordance with 
the New Testament, Matthew IV, 10, Colossians IJ, 18; Rev. 





Norte 400.—Al11 this seems to imply that those idolatrous Jews were like their countrymen 
who worshipped the golden calfin the wilderness, and Jeroboam’s calves, and like the 
idolaters, professedly Christian, of the Middle Ages, who worsbipped Jehovah while at the 
same time, contrary to His law, they worshipped creatures also. 


Creature Worship. 313 





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 offering of cakes or of a loaf is, and has ever been, an 
act of non-religious and merely secular friendship or kindness or 
affection or secular honor, as, for instance, wben 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 another act of worship is the use of the γαῖ ον. It 
also was of four kinds, three religious, and one non-religious and 
merely secular. They were as follows: 

(a). Itis act of worship to Jehovah, to call Him God, the only 
God, as he claims to be in Isaiah XLV, 5, 6, 14, 18, 22; XLVI, 9, 
etc. Andto 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 sou] 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). Toapply the term God, meaning the true God toa crea- 





Nore 401.—Exodus XXXII, 1-4, where gods should be in the singular, as it isin the mar- 
gin of the American form of the Canterbury revision, and as itis in Nehemiah IX, 18,a 
translation which is made clearer by the fact that Aaron made them only one caif and called 
them to makeit a ‘‘feast to Jehovah,” verse5 American revision. See the learned Bishop Pat- 
rick’s Commentary on the above place, and the place mentioned in the note next below. 

Nore 402.—I Kings XII. 26 to XIII, 34 inclusive. 

Norte 403.—Exodus XXXII, 4-15. Aaron in verse 4, had eommitted the crime of calling 
that calf ‘tke God,” as the Hebrew may be translated, who had brought them ‘“‘xp out of the 
Zand of Egypt,” 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 
asin upon them.” 

Nore 404.—In I Kings ΧΙ], 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. 


214 Artide ΧΙ. 





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 manasa 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. Forit is the plain teaching of 
Holy Writ that the édolater shall not inherit the kingdom of God 
(405), but is to have his part ‘ ‘iz the lake which burneth with fire and 
brimstone, which is the second death’’ (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. 

Let me here state how the ‘‘one, holy, universal and apostolic 
Church’? 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 





Nore 405.—I Corinthians VI, 9-10; Galatians V, 19, 20. 21, and Revelations XXI, 8 
* NotTe’406,—Rev. XXI, 8. 


Creature Worship. 315 





with Him (407), and much 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 ‘‘d’’ and ‘‘c,’’ 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 under act 2, ‘‘4,”’ 
or “δ᾽ 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 V7 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 





~ / 
Nore 407.—Greek. Ev tis τολμᾷ λέγειν τὸν ἀναληφθέντα ἄνθρωπον 
a A ~ τς = \ 
συμπροσκυνεῖσθαι δεῖν τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ καὶ συνδοξάζεσθαι καὶ συγχρηματίζειν 
Θεὸν, ὡς ἕτερον ἐν ἑτέρῳ" τὸ γάρ Σὺν ἀεὶ προστιθέμενον τοῦτο νοεῖν ἀναγκάσει" 
\ > Ν Ν ἴω “~ Ve ~ Ν τὸ by! ον Ν , > “ ἈΝ 
καὶ οὐχὶ δὴ μᾶλλον μιᾷ προσκυνήσει τιμᾷ τὸν Eppavounr, καὶ μίαν αὐτῷ τὴν 


rv. , 3 , 06 ΄ Ait A , > 10 μὴ 
δοξο oylav GQVATELTEL, KAVO γέγονε σαρς ὁ oyos, ανασεέεμα εστω. 


316 Articde XT. 


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. 

Anathema IX of the Fifth Synod of the undivided Church: 

‘“Tfany one says that the Christ is to be bowed to’’ [that is, ‘‘zo 
be worshipped’’| ‘‘in 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’’] “τὰς Christ, but does 
not’? [on the contrary] ‘‘bow to’’ [that is ‘‘worshzp’’] ‘‘with”’ 
[but] ‘‘one worship God the Word infleshed within His own 
flesh,’’ [or ‘‘ in 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 and 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. 

Nore 408.—Greek, Ed tus προσκυνεῖσθαι ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν, ἐξ 
οὗ δύο προσκυνήσεις εἰσάγονται, ἰδία τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ, καὶ ἰδία τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, ἢ εἴ 
τις ἐπὶ ἀναιρέσει τῆς σαρκὸς ἢ ἐπὶ συγχύσει τῆς Θεύτητος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, 
ἢ μίαν φύσιν ἤγουν οὐσίαν τῶν συνελθόντων τερατευόμενος, οὗτω προσκυνεῖ τὸν 
Χριστόν᾽ ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ μιᾷ προσκυνήσει τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον σαρκωθέντα μετὰ τῆς 
ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκὸς προσκυνεῖ, καθάπερ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησία παρέλαβεν ἐξ 


pi A ; ᾿ 
ἀρχῆς, ὃ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. 


Creature Worship. 217 





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’ (ἣ ᾿Αποστασία- the Greek of IL Thessalonians 
II, 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 the 
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 XIV, 16, 17, 26; John XV, 26, and John XVI, 7, 13; 
Matt. XVIII, 17, 18. CompareI Tim. III, 1ὅ. 


318 Article ΧΙ. 





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 Coun- 
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 ‘‘ew 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 





Nore 410.—II Kings IX, 22; II Chron. XXI, 11-20; Jerem. III, 1-25 inclusive, especially 
verses 1-12; Ezek. XVI, where 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 atthe same time be an adulteress. See also Hosea II, 13, and IV, 12-19 
iuclusive. 


Note 411.—That is clear from Rev. XVII, 18. 
Nore 412.—So called in Canon III of the Second Kcumenical Synod and in Canon XXVIII 


of the Fourth. 
Note 413.—See in proof page 489, volume II of McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia, and 


Rev. XVI, 9, 18. 


Creature Worship. 319 


Idolatry, which, with the other Homilies, is approved in the 
Thirty-Fifth Article, as containing ‘‘a godly and wholesome doctrine 
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 acfs 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 material things is concerned, the 
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 zdod- 


220 Articde XI. 





aters means, image-worshi¢pers, 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 RELATIVE, ot absolute. 
This doctring 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 Nestorius 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 11, 
pages 639-641. 

And that strong and clear and definite condemnation of ad/ 
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, ‘‘the 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 ‘‘as a heathen man and 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 αὐ their pictures, and 
destroy all their molten images,’’ etc.—Compare Ezekiel VIII, 
7-13, for God's anger against painted idols. 

Objection II (of aGreek ora 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 oviginal 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- 


322 Artide 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 
ἴῃ them still, and is a bad one, though some would say, perhaps, 
that they did not give any veligious worship, relative or otherwise, 
to the book, but kissed it only as a form to be gone through 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 re/atively, 
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 isa 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 
asked why you do the last seven acts to senseless ma/erial 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 ¢hrough 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 bowto the Virgin or the saint through the 
image as a medium through which 1 express my adoration; and 
moreover my fervor and devotion are heightened by the beauty of 


Creature Worship. 


2299 
0-3 





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 ¢hvough 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 atall. Do beso 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, Lactantius, Arnobius, and 
Augustine of Hippo did, who, though my opponents, testified to 
the fact that my worship of the image was velative. And if you 
should ask a little child in the streets of Calcutta or Canton this 
day whether he supposes that the maferzal of a painting or statue 
is itself God, or whether that mere material ztself 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 


224 Artice XI. 


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 asa mere medium and vehicle of my devotion. I 
do not perform any act of worship to the image itself absolutely, 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. Wearein 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 zz all our acts under 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, lam 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 principle 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: “1 
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. 325 


Scriptures against what they condemn as asin, 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 veligzous worship, relative or other- 
wise, with your own act of worshipping what you call ‘‘holy im- 
ages’’ with what you intend to be relative religious 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 non-religious and 
impulsive acts to bolster up your systematic image-worship, 
which is based upon a doctrine as a part of religion, and not 
upon a mere undefended and unexcused impulse, if indeed 
such a custom 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 my practice. Jet 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! Iam 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 toa 
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 veligious worship. ‘The one is simply foolish; the other, 
by the Christian Scriptures, is damnable idolatry.”’ 


326 Artide 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 you prove too much! If you 
condemn my act of praying to an image which cannot be con- 
demned without, at the same time, by zecessavy implication, con- 
demning the frinciple 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 medium 
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 Com- 
munion, (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, 
and the practice of singing hymns containing invoeations or reciting 
addresses before the picture, as tf to the Angel or Saint himself who 
was represented by tt, 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-worship?’’ Indeed, you do go so far as to 
approve the principle, but, because laughed at by the Anglicans or 
other Protestants, you do a little shirking now and then, and to 


Creature Worship. 327 





excuse what Christians call your own guilt you misrepresent my 
image-worship and tell downright lies about it and me. 

But thatisnot manly. If idolatry (εἰδωλολατρεία, that is, image- 
worship) is right, it is right, and we ought to defend it. Ifitis 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, 

Jully as 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 ¢he 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 γεαζ beings. who are in the realm 
of the blessed; such, for example, as God, the Virgin, 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. Weare disposed to be candid and as charitable as we 
can be inconsonance 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 vea/ 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 


228 Article «Χ 77. 





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 πο charity, but practically, whatever may be the 
intention, hatred to God and rebellion against 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 zudivect 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, All-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 Artide ΧΙ. 





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 (δαίμων) did not mean devil in the 
sense that the heathen understood it. The Greek word for devil 
is διάβολος, and it is never applied to any demon, but only to 
Satan. By demon (δαίμων) 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 zz¢ention, though we heartily agree 
with the Apostle Paul as to the fact that their ac/s 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 ¢vwe worship can be adored with- 
out guilt. 

The following are the facts of the case: 

(1). Wehave 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. 331 
a Ὁ τΠὋΠὸὃῤῸὃ ςτὸ 


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, 

(2). 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: 

(4). ‘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 against 
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 
Shipley 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 madea 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 aésolute worship to 
images. It is enough to say that any man who worships any 


552 Artide Χ77). 





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-worshif, 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 any 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 idolators... 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 
velative, 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 isa 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 defore the altar of Jehovah, as we worship Jefore Christian 
altars now, that is communion tables, but he did not worship the 
altar, nor does any true Anglican. He bowed before the altar, 
but not othe altar,—not with relative worship to it, but Zo God 
alone, whom he worshipped directly, not 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 ‘‘/oward’’ 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 acumencan 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 direction 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 XT. 





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 foward 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 thémselves 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 ready 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 innocent 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. 


436 Article XII. 


God grant that 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 Homily 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 z¢ zs 
best to have none in a church. 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 isthe 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 moreclergymen. 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 witha 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 Latin 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 ‘‘Confraternity 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 Laymen, following the 
rules of the Friars Minor. Address The Rev. Father Minister, 
S. A., 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. 337 





“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, ofa poor Italian idolater, Francis of 
Assisi, who started his order of Friars Minor, that is Fran- 
ciscans, about A. D. 1209, 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 Catholic 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 Breviary, under October 4, tells us, 
he begana 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. 

ΟἿ! 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- 


338 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 ‘‘one, holy, universal and apostolic 
Church,’? 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 Oxford 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 ‘‘Con/fraternity of the Blessed Sacra- 
ment,’’ 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 Paciaudi, has condemned, some edifying and appro- 
priate text from God’s holy Word, the unerring image of His 
mind and will. Tet 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 asnareto 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 15 
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. 239 





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 York 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 allits idolatrous or inefficient Bishops 
and clergy, and they must have the powers guaranteed by Nicaea 
todo 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 souland 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 ‘‘oxe, 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, XIV, 1-6.) 

The Bishops should make one sound male order and one sound 
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 
(Matt. 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 ‘‘oxe, holy, universal and apostolic Church’’ on doc- 
trine, discipline, rite, and custom in the Six Sole Ecumenical 
Syncds, A. D. 325-680. That will be to do what Christ commands; 
that is to ‘‘hear the Church,’’ or be accounted as the heathen man 
and 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 Vicaea 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 CHRYSTAL, 
2 Emory Street, Jersey City, N. J. 
February 7, 1907. 


ARTICLE ΧΙ 


Slander against Cyril and Ephesus to the effect that he wor- 
shipped the Virgin 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 humanity, 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, Ihave 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 VIIto XIII above. And in the Defin- 


242 Articde XIII. 


ition of theFifth Ecumenical Council the reason for refusing to wor- 
ship the humanity of Christ is that it is ‘‘the crime of worshipping a 
man’’ (see a note in volume I of Aphesus in this set, page 110, top). 
And sucha sin of ‘‘Wan-Worship’’ it declares to be a Nestorian 
“‘heresy or calumny of theirs, which they have made against the pious 
dogmas of the Church.’’ And surely if it is “against 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 dow to the Lord our God and to serve Him 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 Aphesus. 

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 /ive 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 106 in this volume, and, in volume I of Ephesus, 
note 183, pages 79-128, note 679, pages 332-362, and on the Eucharist, note 606, pages 240-318, 

Note 415.—That is in strict consonance with the example of the Apostle Paul in anath- 
ematizing, that is cursing, not only the Judaizers who were troubling the Galatians, 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 
opposers of 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), aud 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? (418) For thou saidst furthermore 
before the Church, : 

‘But I have already often said that if there be among us any 
person of the simpler sort, and, if among certain other things he is 
pleased with the expression Bringer-forth-of-God (419), 7 have no 
grudge against the expression, only let him not make the Virgin a 
goddess.’ 

Dost thou again rail at us and put on sucha bitter mouth? - 
Aud dost thou zveproach 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 WHO ARE RECKONED AMONG CREATURES (423), 


Nore 416.—This is stated in the margin of page 4 of the Oxford translation of S, Cyril of 
Alexandria on the Incarnation, 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 Iof Chrystal’s Ephesus, on pages 449-481, and his deposition on pages 
486-504, and see further on them in pages 517-552. notes EK and F. 

Nore 417.—Compare the Oxford translation of S. Cyrzlof Alexandria on the Incarnation 
against Nestorius, page 37 and before. 

Note 418 —Cyril means every worshipper of God alone, as he shows just below, that is all 
the Orthodox. 

Note 419.—Greek, Tov Θεοτόκος. 


NoTE 420.—I Sam. XI, 2; I Sam. XVII, 26; Nehem. II, 17, etc. 

Nore 421.—That is, We, for our part, that is, We, the Orthodox, in contradistinction from 
Nestorius and his partisans. 

Nore 422.—Greek, Θευτόκον. 

Nore 423.—But Cyril, like Athanasius and the Orthodox writers of the early Church, held 
that to worshipa creature is to make that creaturea god, And so Athanasius proves that 
the Word 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, 231, text, and note 809; 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 Trinity, conseqently not the Virgin Mary or any othercreature. For on Heresy LXXVI 
he writes. page 246, id,: ‘‘And we ourselves do not worship any thing inferior to the substance 
of God Himself, because worship ts to be given to Him 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 Sole-Born. For there is nothing created in the Trinity, 
Because the Trinity is uncaused by any cause. ,. it has unerringly taught that Itself alone τς to 
be worshipped.” 


444 Artide XII. 





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, “216 God with 
us’’|, ‘‘asa’’ [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 (τοῦ Θεοτόκος) 
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 wont 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, ‘zwor- 
shipped.”’| ‘‘For tt belongs to God to be bowed to’’ [that is, ‘to be worshipped’ |; ‘‘since indeed 
in another place also an apostle teaches that concerning the Son of God it is written, “And 
let all the angels of God bow to Him” [that is ‘worship Him’); ‘‘that is ‘because Hes really 
God and Lord,” pages 251, 252, volume I of WVicaea in thisset. See tothe same effect in the 
Index to Greek Texts in that volume under Genesis XLVIII, 15,16; HebrewsI 6; and Rev- 
elations XXII, 8, 9; and see also the Church of England’s noble witness inits Homily on 
Prayer for the truth that God alone is to be worshipped. It is found in the note matter on 

‘age 888, volume I of Zphesusin this Set. And see what there follows on Christ's office 

york. Alas!that such noble utterauces should now be unread inthe pulpit tothe people 
py whom and by the clergy they areso much needed. Hence the fal‘ing away into spir- 
itual degeneracy and to Romanism and its soul-damning creature worship. 

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, 8-19, where 
Paul and Barnabas refuse with horror to be worshipped; Colossians II, 18, where the worship 
of angels brings the loss of the heavenly veward, that is eternal damnation, and Rev. X1X, 
10, and Rev. XXII, 8, 9. 

Nore 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. 


5 : , ἘΠ A ‘ - 
torius, Book I. section 10, Πάλιν ἡμῖν διαλυιδορῇ καὶ πικρὸν οὕτως ἐπιθήση στόμα ; 
3 , Ν 2) , > aA 
ὀνειδίζεις δὲ τὴν συναγωγὴν Κυρίου, κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον ; GAN ἡμεῖς ye, ὦ 

~ ε ,ὔ , 5 , / \ > ’ , -“ 
τᾶν, οἵ θεοτόκον λέγοντες αὐτήν τεθεοποιήκαμεν δὲ οὐδένα πώποτε τῶν 
τελούντων ἐν κτίσμασι᾽ κατειθίσμεθα δὲ Θεὸν εἰδέναι τὸν ἕνα καὶ φύσει καὶ 
> nq ” ed = pe a 
ἀληθῶς͵ ἴσμεν δὲ ἄνθρωπον οὖσαν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὴν μακαρίαν παρθένον. ᾿Αλώσῃ 
Ν ἣν > > ” a , 

δὲ καὶ οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν, ἄνθρωπον ἡμῖν θεοφόρον ἀποφαίνων αὐτὸς τὸν 


"EB ) yr Ν a lal 3 ΄ὔ Ν Ἦν ΠΕ ΤΤΙ > 6 Ν ere 
μανονὴλ, καὶ τῶν σὼν επιχειρημάτων Τὴν καταρρησιν επιτισεις ετέερῳ. 


Slander against 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 human being like us.’’ 

Here Cyril regards the blessed Virgin merely as ‘‘a human 
being,’ and therefore not to be worshipped. And by worshipped 
Cyril means 20 de 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 ‘‘To BE BOWED TO 
[that is ‘‘to be worshipped’’] BEFITS AND IS DUE TO THE DIVINE 
AND INEFFABLE NATURE ALONE.”’ And in note 582, page 225, of 
the same volnme he again writes, ‘‘7he right TO BE BOWED To 
[that is, ‘‘to be worshipped’’ | BELONGS TO 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 ὦ god, that is by giving him veligious bowing, that 
is worship, which is prerogative to God, for he says, that if he 
(Nestorius) ‘‘has made another besides the Word of God [that is] the 
Man conjoincd to Him to BE BOWED TO [that is ‘‘to be worshipped,” 
(προσκυνητόν)), by heaven and earth and by the things still lower, 
HE HAS, THEREFORE, MADE A GOD OUT OF A MAN, and, as no 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 teaching in Philip- 
pians II, 9, 10, 11, the worship of a mere Man, whereas Cyril 
asserts again and again elsewhere that the exaltation and warship 
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 dowing the knee (‘‘that at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow,’’ Philip. II, 10), and the giving to a creature, 
Christ’s mere humanity, the name of Zord evidently in the sense 
of God, a thing made perfectly clear by the expression in the 


346 Articde XTIT. 





same passage before ‘‘Wherefore also God hath highly exalted 
Him and given Him ¢he 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 ‘‘zz’’] 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, 
bowing 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: ‘‘7hou shalt bow to [that is ‘‘worship’’| the Lord 
thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve,’ Matthew IV, 10. And 
under the Old Testament God said: “7 am Jehovah, that is my 
name, and my glory will [not give to another, neither my praise unto 
graven images,’’ Isaiah XLII, 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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία, 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] substance, but also that by the 
Father’s command worship is to be given to Him, and because He 





Nore 425.—Tischendorf in his Greek New Testament, editio octava critica major, vol. II, 


Lipsiae, 1872, states that the four oldest Greek manuscripts have the article TO, that is, the 
before zame in the aboye passage. ᾿ 

Note 426.—See on Hebrews I, 6, and I, 3, in P. E. Pusey’s Cyrillz in 7οαγιγιῖς Evangelium, 
volume III, page 671, and in the Oxford English translation of S. Cyril of Alexandria on the 
Incarnation against Nestorius, pages 390 and 399, only that the Greek should be consulted 
where P. E. Pusey’s faulty training under his father and his leanings affect his rendering 
See also P. Ἐς 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, Χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως 
αὐτοῦ, to mean ‘Character of His’’ [the Father’s] ‘‘Swdstance,’’ and therefore to mean that 


God the Word is of tlie same substauce 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 sa 
He isin 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 asa created \)ivinity 
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- 
tius, Bishop of Aquileia, of the fourth century, are equally strong 
against the worship of Christ as a creature, Lucifer branding it 
even as ‘‘Avian idolatry.’? For though zdolatry (εἰδωλολατρεία 
in Greek, from which the word comes) means literally the worship 
of tmages, 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 ztdolatry,’’? and anathematizes every one guilty of it, 
and, of course, by parity of reason, all worshippers of the Virgin 
Mary who doit, 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 





Norte 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 Iof Ephesus in this set, page 
688, and in volume I of Wicaea, pages 217-255. where Athanasius, Cyril, Faustin, and Chro- 
matius speak clearly against creature-worship. See further even John Henry Newman’s 
Select Treatises of S. Athanastusin Controversy with the Arians., page 423, 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 “π᾿ ou the Arians being idolaters. 


248 Artide .Χ 777. 


of that ‘‘Aidden’’ or ‘‘concealed’’ ‘“idolatry’’ 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 wasa subtle form of idolatry, and therefore ‘‘forbidden,’’ 
subtle becanse 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 first gveat 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 7 against the Arians, in 
denouncing the novelty and heresy of their assertion that the 
Word of God is a creature, and is ¢o be worshipped as such, writes as 
follows: 

‘“‘For who at any 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 thiugs to them? Who has said to them, 
cease to worship the creature, and come and again worship a creature 
and a work? But since even they themselves confess that they have 
heard such things now for the first time, let them not deny that 
that heresy is a thing alien and of from the Fathers. But what zs 
not from the Fathers, but has been now invented, what is it but that of 
which the blessed Paul has prophesied in the words: Jn the latter 
times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to spirits of 
error, and to doctrines of demons, and speaking lies in hypocrisy, hav- 
ing their own consciences seared and turning away from the truth,’’ 
I Timothy TV) 15 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 Cyril 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 
tohim. 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 (ἀνθρωπολατρεία in Greek). Indeed he brands 
as, in effect, fundamental errors his three great heresies 

1. his dental of the Incarnation, the root error of all: 

2. his worship of a human being, and 

3. his Cannibalism ( νθρωποφαγί) 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 in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, volume 
_I. page 838, writes: 

“Ἢ 15. rationalizing spirit had led him to express himself ou 
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 ‘a 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 Articde XII. 





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 ‘‘always, everywhere, 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, inthe note matter on page 84, 
volume I of Ephesus; 

‘‘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 isan act of service to ‘‘that which by nature 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 





Norte 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 LXXX, 9, (Psalm IL.XXXI, 9, of our version): ‘‘ There shall be no 
new god in thee, neither shalt thou worshtp a strange god.’ See in proof volume I of Chrys- 
tal’s Ephesus, page 677, under Psalm LXXX, 9, Sept. and |XXXI 9, of our own English Ver- 
sion. Itis one of Cyril’s three favorite texts against the worship of Christ’s humanity, the 
other’s being Matt. IV, 10, and Isaiah XLII, 8. He cites others also. 


Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. | 351 





been pagans. ‘‘Howbeit then when ye knew not God, ye did service 
unto them 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 they 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 humanity, 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] “15 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] “15 TO BK BOWED To (430)”’ [that is ‘‘wor- 
shipped ‘‘both by ourselves and by the holy angels, what sort of glory 
has been invented then by the Father that THE CREATURE’’ [Nes- 
torius’ mere human Christ] ‘‘shouwld be MADE A GOD along with 
Himself (431). And’’ [it will follow that] ‘‘He’’ [the Father] 
“λας been aggrieved without any cause at some for doing that thing’? 
[of worshipping a creature]. ‘‘And if that thing were to 1715 [the 
Father’s] ‘‘glory, why should we not deem those who have chosen 
to do that thing worthy of recompense and praise and 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 toa creature is to ‘‘out and out insult’’ God, 





Nore 429.—Greek, διὰ συνάφειαν δέ σχετικήν. 
Nore 430.—Greek. προσκυνεῖσθαι. 


Nore 431.—Greek τᾷ θεοποιεῖσθαι σὺν αὐτκ τὴν κτίσιν. 


352 Articde XTIT. 





“ἦν dragging down His better Nature’ [that is, His Divinity] ‘into 
dishonor.’ 

And on page 88 he again refers to Nestorius’ acts of worship, 
bowing, bending the knee, and applying any of God’s names toa 
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 falling away from the 
road to what is right he hastens along his perverse way, and out and 
out proclaims two Gods, one who is suchin 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 worshipped| Man to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, and is not 
ashamed’’ and that he called that Man, ‘‘dy veason 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 AVicaea in this set, where on page 223, the 
great Athanasius teaches on Genesis ΧΙ ΝΠ, 15, 16, that if any 
man invokes an angel with God he vejects God, and that the Father 
gives all things “‘¢through the Son,’’ not through any creature, and 
hence not, of course, through, Mary, and that ‘‘the Angeil’’ of 
verse 16 there must therefore be understood of God the Word, 
and on page 222 of that volume I of /Vicaea, he ascribes the crea- 
ture worship of the Arians to the Devil, and so says of them ‘‘that 
being Arians, 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’ 
doctrinesin allthings. See that Epistle elsewhere and all passages 
of Athanasius, Epiphanius, etc., on pages 217-255 vol. I, WVicaea. 

On page 91, Cyril states that Nestorius by giving acts of wor- 
ship to Christ’s humanity, a mere creature, had ‘‘exhzbited’’ him 


Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. 353 











‘‘to us asa new God (πρόσφατος Θεός, Psalm L,XXX, 9, Sept.) asa 
a sort of Fourth Person after the Holy Trinity.’’ We adds, ‘‘Hast 
thou not shuddered [at the thought of worshipping] a common Man 
when thou contrivedst the worship to that creature? Are we then held 
fast in the ancient snares [of creature worship]? Has the holy multi- 
tude of the spirits above been deceived with us, and has it given 
drunkards’ insults to God?’ [The reference is to Hebrews I, 6, 
where we read, ‘‘And again when He [the Father] dringeth in the 
First-Brought Forth into the inhabited world He saith, and let all the 
angels of 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, ‘‘ Zhou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and 
fTim only 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, 
asin of paganism. I quote Cyril’s words to Nestorius on that: 

‘"Since we have been ransomed from the ancient deceit [the sin of 
worshipping creatures, the sin of the heathen] and have refused as 
@ BLASPHEMOUS THING TO WORSHIP THE CREATURE, WHY DOST 
THOU WHELM US AGAIN IN THE ANCIENT SINS AND MAKE US wOR- 
SHIPPERS OF 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 ‘‘¢tdat A RECENT AND LATE GOD has 
appeared to the world, and that he has the glory of a Sonship which has 
been acquired from without as ours also has, and that he glories in cer- 
tain adulterous quasi honors, so that it 15 now the worship of a Man 
and nothing else, and a certain 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 when He [the Father] dringeth the First Brought 
Forth into the inhabited world He saith, And let all God’s angels 


54 Artide XIII. 


iss) 








bow to flim,’ 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 with 
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 ofa 
creature, Christ’s mere humanity, had resulted in making that 
creaturea 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 EQUAL TO IT.”’ 

Every one who commits that Nestorian co-worship of Christ’s 
humanity with his Divinity is anathematized by Anathema VIII 
in Cyril’s Long 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 @ 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 





Nore 432.—See in this work above, pages 85-116, and indeed allof Article II of which 
those pages form part; Article III, Articles IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X, and XII. 


Slander against Cyril and 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 most illustrious Bishop of Oxford,’ 
that ‘‘He who petitions them’ [saints] ‘‘makes them gods’? (Deos qui 
rogat 1116 facit); see his language quoted, page 166 of Tyler’s excel- 
lent Primitive Christian Worship, published by the Christian 
Knowledge Society. 

And his argument that to give worship to any one is to make 
him God, or ‘‘a god” is that of Paul in HebrewsI, 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 Vicaea, 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, 15/2; 9, 4, 5, 6; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 4πᾷἃ 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 bowing, 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 exhort 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 asa 
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 
coutrary 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; 


56 Artide XLII. 


3 





‘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 ¢hat we may not become servers of 
another but truly worshippers of God, because WE 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 filla 
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 inthe references to his works there, rejected the Nestorian 
worship even of Christ’s humanity and all worship of any thing 
but God, certainly did not worship the Virgin Mary or any other 
creature (433). No genuine writing of Cyril contains any worship 

Nore 433._See Cyril's Epistle XVI, (al. XIV), column 104, tome LXXVII of Migne’s 
Patrologia Graeca, where, speaking of Nestorius, Cyril writes: Kat τοσοῦτον ἀπέσχε τοῦ 
θέλειν τοῖς τῆς ἀληθείας ἕπεσθαι δόγμασιν, ὥστε καὶ ἐπιστολὴν ἀποστεῖλαι 
πρύς pe μεθ᾽ ὑπογραφῆς ἰδίας, ἐν ἣ καὶ ἐπιπλήττει μὲν, ὡς λυπούμενος, 
διωμολόγηκε δὲ σαφῶς, Θευτόκον εἰπεῖν μὴ εἶναι τὴν ἁγίαν ἸΤαρθένον" ὅπερ 
ἐστὶν ἐναργῶς εἰπεῖν, μὴ εἶναι Θεὸν ἀληθῶς τὸν Ἐξμμανουὴλ, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὰς σωτηρίους 


ἔχομεν ἐλπίδας. 


Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. 357 





of the Bringer Forth of God. Involume 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 term Θεοτόκος, 
that is Bringer Forth of God, and why did the ‘‘one, 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 that the Virgin 
Mary brought forth God the Word in flesh, and therefore neces- 
sarily believes that she was the Bringer Forth of God (Θεοτόκος), 
though he may or may not know the expression. And we cannot 
reject the expression in that sense without making Christa mere 
man, and all our worship of him mere worship of a human being 
(ἀνθρωπυλατρεία), 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 
itis 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 calla 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 


458 Articde 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 (Θεοτόκος) ‘*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 
treason 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 Unus stt Christus, that Christ ἐς One, column 1257, tome 
LXXV of Migne’s Patrologia Graeca proves against Nestorius that 
the Virgin Mary is Bringer Forth of God, Θεοτόκος in Greek, 
because she brought forth in flesh Him who is called Emmanuel, 
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 ἀνθρωποτόκον, that is Bringer Forth of the 
Anointed One and Bringer Forth of a Man. He would prefer 
those expressions to avoid confessing the Incarnation. 

And 2, Cyril uses the expression, Bringer Forth of God, not 
to worship Mary, but to guard against what he again and 
again calls ‘‘the worship of a human being’’ (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), 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 human 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 “phesus 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 
"Nowe ὅδ. Θεε page 808) notedae,) τ, Jounal |) πὰ ΣΝ 


Slander against Cyril and Ephesus. 


ΟΣ) 
On 
wo 


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 ἀνθρωποφαγία, 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 ‘‘one, holy, universal, and 
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: 


360 Artide .Χ 777. 





“7 worship him’? [the Man, that is Christ’s humanity] ‘“‘who 
is worn for the sake of Him’’ [God the Word] ‘‘who is hidden.” 

Nestorius again teaches the relative worship of Christ’s 
humanity in his Blasphemies 10, and 14, Chrystal’s Ephesus, vol- 
ume 1, 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. TY: 
10, Isaiah XLII, 8, and Psalm LXXXI, 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 and 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: 

“Tf 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 isthe 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 office 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 suffl- 
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 tocontinue by reason of death. 
But this Priest because he continueth ever, hath the unchangeable 
priesthood. Wherefore also He ts able to save them to the uttermost 
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 


462 Artide 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 286 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 inthe Revelations as uttered 
by even the martyrs is nota 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 11). 

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. Asa 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 303-406, 
volume I of Ephesus. See there therefore. 


363 


ARTICE Ey XAV: 


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 upa 
veil in a church at Anablatha in Palestine because it had painted 
on it an image of Christ or some saint, (see Tyler on Jmage 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 Axdidicomarianites, that is against those who deny 
her perpetual virginity, and the second against a sect which intro- 
duced her worship, who were called Collyridians, that is Little- 
Loaf-ites, 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. Hedoes 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 asthe Jdlessed among 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, oz the Creed, Article 777, 
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 isto 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 Acclesiastical 
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. Inthe 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 Panarion, or Medicine Chest, written about A. D. 374-377, 


Nore 435.—Jerome in his book to Pammachius against John of Jerusalem details the 
errors of Origen. See them in note1, page 323, volume I, Swzzth's Greseler’s Church History. 
On the other hand Pamphilns. presbyter of Caesarea, defends him, in his Apology: see note 
15 page 222 223 οἵ thesame volume. But as we have said 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 not anath- 
ematize him. Scein proof its Anathema XI. 





St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 36ς 





describes eighty Heresies. Heresy XXVIII is that of the Anz- 
dicomarianites, 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 shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him only 
shalt thou serve’? (Matthew IV, 10). 

And two vastly important facts in this connecticn 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 
against heresies, his teaching seems to have largely moulded the 
minds of the Bishops who met at Ephesus in A. Ὁ. 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 LX XVIII, which concludes his article on it. It forms a 
part of an Epistle written by Epiphanius Zo tLe Orthodox priests and 
laics and catechumens in Arabia.’’ 

It is preceded in his work by the following summary of that 
Heresy LXXVIII: 

‘“‘The Antidicomarianites, [that is as tbe word means, ‘‘7%e 
opponents of Mary’’|’’ 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 





Nore 436.—See his article on Epiphanius, in the outer column of page 149, volume II of 
Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
Nore 437.—Dindorf's Epzphanizus, volume III, page 454, 


466 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 LX XIX, 
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 Colly- 
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, 851 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 difference between the two opposing parties on the Virgin. 
And this I quote for its description of the origin and Mary wor- 
ship of the Collyridians: 

‘So concerning that holy and blessed ever-Virgin” [Mary] 
“‘some’’ [the Antidicomarianites] ‘‘have dared to utter abusive 





NOTE 438.—Epiphanius Against Heresies, Heresy XXVIII, the Antidicomarianites 
section 22, page 523, volume III of Dindorf’s Zpiphanius: ᾿Ασφαλισώμεθα οὖν μή πως 
τὸ περισσοτέρως ἐγκωμιάσαι τὴν παρθένον γένηταί τινι εἰς ἄλλο πρόσκομμα 
φαντασώας. 

Nore 439.—Dindorf’s Epiphanii Episcopi Constantiae opera, volume III, Pars I, page 454: 
ἔστι δὲ τοῖς μέρεσιν ἀμφοτέροις ἀνίατος ἣ πληγή. Wemen who have fallen into the 


sin of worship>ing Mary are very difficult to cure. 


St. 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 strong on that point, and the ever-virginity of Mary is 
affirmed, as we have said. in the Definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and in its chap- 
ters or Anathemas IJ, 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 first 
born'”’ [or ‘the First Brought Forth’’, Matthew I, 25], 

“But that expression at once causes a suspicion that after she had done her service 
purely in bringing forth the Lord, which birth was accomplished by the Holy Ghost, Mary 
did not refuse the usual works of marriage. And we” [50 hold] ‘‘since also no pollution is 
wrought tothe matter of piety; for virginity was necessary till she had done her service 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 sufferit that the Bringer Forth of God at 
any time ceased to be a Virgin, we deem these testimonies sufficient 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 “Ὃν the holy Birth ef Chrisi.” 

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 (Θευτόκος) : 
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. 146 to A. D. 1100),’” under Θεοτόκος cites instances 
of its use from Origen of the third century: (the dates of the others I give from Sophocles 
uiough he may not always be exact); Methodius, A. Ὁ. 312; Peter of Alexandria, A. Ὁ, 304; 
Eusebius, Julian the Emperor, A. D. 363; Athanasius, A. D. 873; Cyril of Jerusalem, 
A. Ὁ. 386; Gregory of Nazianzus, A. Ὁ. 390; Gregory of Nyssa, A. Ὁ. 394;,Philon of Carpasia, 
A. Ὁ. 405 pint 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 Bave 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 
Lord 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 Antidicomarianites andthe Helvidians were condemned by the common vote 
of all the ages and numbered with the heretics.” ; 


268 Article XTV. 





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 Collyridians] ‘‘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 bya sort of stupidity and craziness. For they say 





On the heretics who impugned the doctrine see in Blunt's Dictionary of Sects, etc,, under 
Antidicomarianiles 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: “Ὑπὸ most exhaustive modern treatise on 
the question is that of Dr. Mill cited above. He gives[pp 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 anda 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 remained a virgin after Christ’s 
birth. Yet without discussing the matterI accept that tenet, and let it go. Hooker, £cci. 
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 anathematizesall laics who do, and therefore it is best to accept 
the tenet, but not toagitate and be constantly discussing the doctrineand 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 may be 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 Nestorian 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 in the Homily [aforesaid] a certain mythical tradition 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 forthtbe 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 I,XXIX, 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 Birthof Mary orfrom 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 ofancient 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 Maryseems more reverent as 
regards Christ, but Basilseems not to deem the matter important- 

We conclude then that Cave’s objections against the genuineness of Basil’s Homily are 
not well proven. In passing, I would add that Whitby. an Anglican, in his Commentary on 
Matthew I, 25, agrees with St. Basil’s view above and defends it. 


X—— μενοι 


St. Epiphantus against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 3609 





that certain women in Arabia have indeed brought that empty-headed 
nonsense thither from 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) todo 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 unclean spirit (446). And in them is ful- 
filled the Scripture which says: Some shall depart from the sound 





The Greek of the above of St. Basil is found in note ‘‘a’’ on page 379, volume II of Conto- 
gonis’ Φιλολογικὴ Kat Κριτικὴ Ἱστορία τῶν ἁγίων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Πατέρων 
Literary and Critical History of the Holy Fathers of the Church, Athens, 1853. 

I would add that Hahn inthe third edition of his A&zbliothek der Symbole, (Breslau, 
Morgens‘ern, 1897), gives further instances of the use of ἀειπάρθενος, but with 
the exception of Canons II, VI and XIV of the Fifth World-Synod, they are from non- 
Ecumenical documents: see under that termon page 391, there. Thedoctrine 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 tead them into the soul-damning sin of worshipping Mary, 
Some of its strongest advocates, like Jerome, have been idolaters. 

Nore 441.—Does Epiphanius mean that belief in 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 Churchto marry? Someof 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 oneto be 
received into the order af widows under 60 years of age: see his words in I Timothy V, 9-17. 

Norte 442.—In section 22 on the heresy of the Antidicomarianites,Epiphanius states of it: 
“They say that certain women in Arabia have indeed brought that empty-headed nonsense 
thither from.the parts of Thrace.’’ In section ion 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. 

Nore 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 Himselfin 
Matthew IV, 10,and by the Holy Ghost, speaking through the inspired apostle Paul, in 
Colossians II, 18, 19, and by John in Revelations XIX, 10, and XXII, 8,9,is “adevilish work 
and a doctrine of an unclean spirit,” as St. Epiphanius here brands it, as he does also the 
Anti-Scriptural usurpation by silly 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: 

“Yet the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, 
nor to usurp authority over 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, asin every 
thing else, she is sensuous, and hence takes to images, saint worship and idolatry. Hence 
left to herself she is prone to becomea fanatical Jezebel for creature worship, and some 


370 Article XIV. 





doctrine, giving heed to fables and doctrines of demons (447). For, it 
saith, ¢hey 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 Ahaband Jezebel. And so were the persistent idolaters 
among the Jews as the prophet Jeremiah shows (Jeremiah XLIV, 19). And two women, the 
Empresses Irene and Theodora, gave the victory tothe image worshipping partyin 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 theirinfluence in sup- 
porting the idolatrous creature invoking Council called the second of Nicaea, heldin A. Ὁ. 
787, 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, under the lead of certain Romanizing 
Anglican clergy, were glad to ΠῚ] {πὸ churches with idols, that is zmages, again and bring them 
back tothe same idolatrous appearance which they had before the Reformation of the six- 
teenth century. A man,if he bea 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 sensuons, and, without some good man to guide her, or check her, she is often sure to 
become anidolater 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 fora 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 lite 
and royalty, and England. 

And finally the Holy Ghost decrees by Paulin I Corinthians XIV, 34, 35: 

“Tet your women keep silence inthe 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.” 

Nore 447.—I Timothy IV, 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. I do not find it in Trommius’ 
Concordance to the Septuagint. But that reference may be general tothat sin, and more 
especially to such texts as Psalm CVI, 28, and Isaiah VIII, 19. 

Note 449.—Page 524, volume III, Dindorf’s edition of Epiphanius: The Panarion, or 
Work against Herestesof Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, Heresy LXXVIII, 


= 1: . Β Β ly a , 
that of the Antidicomarianites, section 22: Οὕτω περὶ τῆς ἁγίας ταύτης καὶ μακαρίτιδος 
> 7 ε Ἂς 2€ , , ¢e a EN Ν Ν 
ἀειπαρθένου ot μὲν ἐξυβρίσαι τετολμήκασιν, ὡς συναφθεῖσαν αὐτὴν σαρκὶ μετὰ 
’,ὔ ΄ na Lal ’ A , ~ 
τὴν μεγίστην ἐκείνην καὶ ἀκραιφνῆ οἰκονομίαν τοῦ Κυρίου τῆς ἐνσάρκου αὐτοῦ 
, Prepay A , , , ε x Ὁ 
παρουσίας. Καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο πάσης μοχθηρίας δυσσεβέστατον. Ὥς δὲ τοῦτό 
A , oO , , A 

φαμεν ἐνηχηθῆναί twas οὕτω τετολμηκέναι, PaoTws ἐπιδοῦναι ἑαυτοὺς TH 

ε ’, v4 Ν Arg. 6 / 4 5 » Ὁ Ν᾿ Ν , 
ἁμαρτία, οὕτω Kal TO ἕτερον τεθαυμάκαμεν πάλιν ἀκηκούτες" ἄλλους yap πάλιν 
> , τς > Ν δ τας an » A One? > QL ε 56 > \ a 
appatvovtas εἰς τὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς αὐτῆς ἁγίας ἀειπαρθένου ὑπόθεσιν, ἀντὶ Θεοῦ 
, / > 4 Ν / Ν > > ’, Ν 
ταύτην παρεισάγειν ἐσπουδακότας, καὶ σπουδάζοντας, καὶ ἐν ἐμβροντήσει τινὶ 
Ν , / A Ἂν ΄ AN tal > cal > “ 
καὶ φρενοβλαβείᾳ φερομένους. Διηγοῦνται yap, ὡς τινὲς γυναῖκες ἐκεῖσε ἐν TH 


᾿Αραβίᾳ ἀπὸ τῶν μερῶν τῆς Θράκης τοῦτό γε τὸ κενοφώ ἐνηνό ὡ 
ραβίᾳ ἀπὸ τῶν μερῶν τῆς Θράκης γε τὸ κενοφώνημα ἐνηνόχασιν, ὡς. 


St. Epiphantus against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. “71 





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 they 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 





Ἃ 4 A -“ Ἂ 
εἰς ὄνομα τῆς ᾿Δειπαρθένου κολλυρίδα τινὰ ἐπιτελεῖν, καὶ συνάγεσθαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, 
κ > ¥ a ἘΣ ΄ ean \ , A 9 ΄ ct 
καὶ εἰς ὄνομα τῆς ἁγίας Ἰ]αρθένου ὑπὲρ τὸ μέτρον τι πειρᾶσθαι ἀθεμίτῳ Kat 
lal » aA ε a a 
βλασφήμῳ ἐπιχειρεῖν πράγματι, καὶ εἰς ὄνομα αὐτῆς ἱερυυργεῖν διὰ γυναικῶν" 
id QA Lal 5 5 Ν \ 3 / 3᾿ , > Ν ~ / ~ 
ὅπερ TO πᾶν ἐστιν ἀσεβὲς καὶ ἀθέμιτον, ἠλλοιωμένον ἀπὸ TOU κηρύγματος τοῦ 


ἁγίου Iveiparos’ ὥστε εἶναι τὸ πᾶν δι᾽αβολικὸν ἐνέργημα καὶ πνεύματος 
ἀκαθάρτου διδασκαλίαν. ἸΠληρυῦται yap καὶ ἐπὶ τούτους τὸ ‘‘ ἀποστήσονταΐξ 
τινες τῆς ὑγιοῦς διδασκαλίας, προσέχοντες μύθοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίω:. 
σονται yap,’’ φησὶ, “'νεκροῖς λατρεύοντες ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐσεβάσθησαν.᾽᾽ 
Καὶ ἡ τῶν ἁγίων κατὰ καιρὸν εἰς Θεὸν δόξα ἄλλοις γέγονε τοῖς μὴ ὁρῶσι τὴν 
ἀλήθειαν εἰς πλάνην 


Norte 450.—Judges XI, 80 to 40 inclusive, St. Epiphanius is here showing how respec 
for other females and honor forthem 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 te 
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, offering any thing e!se to her, be it prayer, 
thanksgiving, 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 shalt thou serve (Matthew IV, 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. 

Note 451.—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, 

Nore 452.—As the reputed son of Pharaoh’s daughter, Hebrews ΧΙ, 20-29, 


372 Article ALY, 





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 her rest isin honor and her end 
was in chastity, and her crown is in virginity, or she was killed, 
as it is written, azd 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 2o one knew her end. We must 
not honor the saints beyond what is right, but we must honor their 
Lord (457). et therefore the error of the deceived cease (458). 
For Mary is neither a god (459), nor has she her body from 





Nore 453.—That is, by doing any thing to lead men or women or children to worship a 
creature, 

Note 454.—Luke ΤΙ, 35. 

Nore 455.—Christ is called the Light of the Wortd in John VIII, 12; IX, 5; and compare 
John I, 4, 9; II, 19; and Luke II, 382, etc. 

Norte 456.—This shows how little was known of Mary’s end, evenin 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 (Busebius’ Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapter 31,and bookIV 
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 Lourdes 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 imageof her is worshipped; both places being nurseries of paganism and damnation to 
souls, as well as a scandal to be thrown intotheteeth 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 ot 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 Lord and of His Christ,’’ Rev. XI, 15. 

Nore 457.—A noble God-alone-worshipping sentiment in full accord with Christ’s law in 
Matthew IV, 10, and with Colossians II,18; Revelations XIX, 10, and XXII, 8,9, and Isaiah 
> ABET 

Norte 458.—That is the error of Mary worship, the sinof the Collyridians. Oh! that the 
Greeks. the Latins, the Monophysites, and the Ncstorians 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 all 
others who worship her by invocation or by any other act. 

Note 459.—That implies that if any one worships her. he makes hera god, for worship is 


St. Epiphanius against the 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] 
‘‘he 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 after 
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, ‘‘He that heareth, let 
him hear, and he that ts disobedient, let him disobey (465), and not make 


an act of religious service and is pretogative to God alone, and the fact thatitis given to 
Christ in Hebrews I,6, by the Father’s command, and elsewhere in the New Testament, is 
the argument of St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius, and others to prove 
Christ’s Divinity against Arius the heresiarch; see volume I of Nicaea in this set, pages 213- 
256. 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 tothe craft of the Devil and the 
folly of women. 

Note 460.—This looks like a side-wind against those heretics who héld 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; 11 Tim. II, 8; Rom. 1IX,5; Hebrews II, I6, 17; Galatians IV, 
4, etc. 

Nore 461.—Genesis XVIII, 9-16; Genesis XXI, 1-22; Rom. IX, 6-33; 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 refer1ed to seems to be that alleged 
to have been made to her father Joachim and to her mother Anna, inthe spurious Gospel of 
the Birth of Mary or in the spurious Protevangelion of James, on which see below. 


Nore 462,—Greek. TO τέλος yap αὐτῆς οὐδεὶς ἔγνω. Πέρα τοῦ δέοντος οὐ 
χρὴ τιμᾷν τοὺς ἁγίους, ἀλλὰ τιμᾷν τὸν αὐτῶν Δεσπότην. Παυσάσθω τοίνυν ἣ 
» ” ΄ » ’ nw 
πλάνη τῶν πεπλανημένων. Οὔτε yao Meds 7 Μαρία οὔτε ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἔχουσα 
τὸ σῶμα, GAN ἐκ συλλήψεως ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς, κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαν δὲ, ὥσπερ 

na ε “ 
ὃ Ἰσαὰκ οἰκονομηθεῖσα. Kat μηδεὶς cis ὄνομα ταύτης προσφερέτο. “Eavrod 
, 
yap τὴν ψυχὴν ἀπόλλει, K. τ. X. 
Nore 463.—See what is said on that in note 440 above, and in another place below. 
Nore 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 in perverting Scripture to her worship. 
- Nore 465,—Ezekiel III, 27. 


274 Article XTV. 





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 [15] with thee (468). And 
if the Lord was with her, 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). ‘Theirlot 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 





Norte 466.—That is, Epiphanius seems to think, by perverting their words to deny Mary’s 
ever-virginity, or to worship her. 

Note 467.—That is, of course, as Epiphanius deemed, for her ever-virginity, but against 
the insult of worshipping her. 

Nore 468.—Luke I, 28. The Greek κεχαριτωμένη means merely favored. The word 
highly 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 


(Θεοτόκος) . Yet the translation should be exact as we have given it above. 


Norte 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-virginity view. But too much discussion of that 
doctrine may lead some now, as it did in Epiphanius’ day, tothe abuse and soul-destroying 
sin of worshipping her. We should accept her ever-virginity as Bishop Pearson and Arch- 
bishop Cranmer did, and after that be as silent on that point as Scripture is, but insist con- 
stautly 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 XLII, 8. 

Nore 470.—Or ‘‘in perfection,” ἐν τελειότητι. 

Norte 471.--Compare John XIV, 2, 3. 

ΝΟΤῈ 472.—Or rewards. Compare I Corinthians IX, 24, and Philippians IIT, 14. 

Nore 473.—The Greeks have always used the exact term Orthodox to designate a man of 
right faith, for as Catholic means universal and 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 inthe Middle 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 5375 





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] ‘‘without sin (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 tothe merely Roman Communion since the Reformation isa plain 
and absurd abuse. Fora 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 EKcumeni- 
cal Creeds the Bishops shouted out in Greek, ‘‘ 77s ts the faith of the Orthodox!” 


Norte 474.—Greek, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, that is three Hypostases, that is three H-ristences 


or Berngsin one Trinity. The Greeks used Hyfostasts in the sense of the Latin Persona, 
Person. Andas 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. 

Nore 475.—Greek, kal ἁπαξαπλῶς μίαν dofoAoyiar, that is, ‘absolutely one worship,” 
Compare God’s statement in Isaiah XLII, 8, that He will not give His glory to another, for the 
glory of worship, by Christ’s command in Matthew IV, 10, belongs to the three divine Per- 
sons only, the Father, His Consubstantial Word, and 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 Blasphemtes, 
and on pages 480, 486-504. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Orthodox Champion, uses Person for 
God the Word alone; see under Person, page 649 of the same volume, 


Notre 476.—Greek, τέλειον Θεὸν. 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 tothe 
exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit, but only that as the Word He was perfectly God 
as a Partof the Divinity, the two other parts being the Father and the Holy Ghost. The 
term Part or Portion is used by Tertullian in chapter IX of his work Against Praxeas, as 
noted in note second above. 

Nore 477.—Hebrews IV, 15, 

Norte 478.—That above mentioned Epistle which, though quoted in his article on the 
Antidicomariaunites. had been written some time before. Its full title on page 500, volume III 


476 Article XIV. 





as well adapted to meet the opposition of those [heretics] we have 
approved it as sufficient on our present theme; and, with God's 
help, trampling on this heresy as a serpent creeping forward froma 
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 ¢he evil 
poison of their serpent-like wickedness (479). And now let us go on 





of Dindorf’s Epiphanius is: “ΤῸ 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.” 

Norte 479.—Strong and vehement language this against the Antidicomarianites. Many 
Protestant Trinitarians may deem it too strong, evenif they hold to Mary’s ever-virginity. 
But Epiphanius may include under itthe worship of Mary, which above he denounces 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 ofthe Birth of Mary, or the Protevangelion which teaches 
the doctrine of Mary’s ever-virginity, which would naturally make his language stronger for 
that tenet. Yetitisin Anathemas II, VI, and XIV of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, aud inits 
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 Vth 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 VIIth: 

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 allworship to God. The words are: ‘‘We can not beara 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 uskeep the language of the primitive Church, ‘Let her be hon- 
ored and esteemed, let him be worshipped and adored’: He backs up that by referringtothe 
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 Homzly on Prayer 
and to that on Peril of /dolatry which 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 wedo not 
believe Pearson to have been sucha man. If he had been he would have been an opposer of 
“those six Councils which were allowed and received of all men,” which are mentioned with 
honor in the Second Partof 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 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 377 





again 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 Against Heresies is as follows: 

‘*The 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 Cakeztes 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 (ὑπερδουλεια), that is. more than slavery, or dulia, (δουλεώ), 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 itselfin the Second part of 
its Homily egainst Peril of Idolatry condemns the Romanist’s distinction between the absolute 
worship of God and the so called inferior worship of saints as ‘their lewd 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 asthat given by the pagans to their inferior 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 England 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 Eprphanius, volume III, pages 528-527. 
Note 481.—Dindorf’s Epiphanii Episcopi Constantiae opera, vol, III, Pars I, page 454: 
Κολλυριδιανοὶ, ot εἰς ὄνομα τῆς αὐτῆς Μαρίας ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τινὶ τοῦ ἔτους. 


ἀποτεταγμένῃ κολλυρίδα τινὰ προσφέροντες, οἷς ἐπεθέμεθα ὄνομα Κολλυριδιανῶν. 


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: 

“T. Next in order in the report’? [from Arabia] ‘‘to that 
Heresy’’ of [the Antidicomarianites] (482) ‘‘appears a Heresy con- 
cerning 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 (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 Against Heresies, that of the Antidicomarianites is 
Heresy LXXVIII. 

ΝΟΤῈ 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 ‘zm the years 374 
to 376 or 377, A. D.;” see page 149, volume 11, of Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biogra- 
phy. Ashe wasa 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 tohave 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 sucha 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 
Latin, as wellas among the effeminate 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, 19-22; 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 isdue. 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 





Nore 485.—Dindorf’s text here has τῶν φιλοσόφον, the latter word a mistake doubt- 


less for φιλοσόφων. 

Nore 486.—Epiphanius himself, further on, refutes that statement, for he brands the 
worship of the Virgin Mary as from the Devil and, of course, soul-damuing, which surely is 
worse than the other erior. 4 


Norte 487.—There are three appeals in religion, I. the appeal to the senses by images ptc- 

tured or graven, crosses and velics, aud such like. Tosuch things every woman is prone, 
Most manly men are not. It is her great weakness, and, left to herself, she is almost certain 
to fallinto idolatry and to go to hell (Rev. XXI, 8). 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, asfor example, tbe Jewish women whom God 
rebukes and threatens with curses in Jeremiah VII, 16-21; (compare Jeremiah XLIV, 15-20) ; 
and we do not forget Jezebel and Athaliah, and their evil influence on their posterity and on 
Judak and Israel, for which both those idolaters were wiped out. And under the Christian 
Dispensation, wcmen, 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 ninth and made permanent the curses 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 forget 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 inthe Churches and to be in 
subjection (I Cor. XIV, 34, 35, and I Tim. ΤΙ, 11), and is forbidden to teach, or to usurp author- 
ity over aman (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 io 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 doesreach. 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 veasonadble 


service’ (τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν), Romans XII,1. That is a high table land which 


few or none except a high typeof 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. 


380 Article XIV. 


2 nn --΄--΄--ς-- 


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 isa square seat, and spread on ita 
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 IpoL-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 ona 
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 serpent (490), the reptile who provokes to sin, and 
who has spoken in this [new] deception (491) though it brings noth- 
ing forward to substantiate itself (492), nor does it fulfill its prom- 
tses, 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 488.—Surely to worship Mary is to make her an idol, 

Nore 489.—It is certainly madness to worship any creature contrary to Christ’ s own law 
in Matthew IV, 10, and then to hope for salvation. 

Norte 490.—Genesis III, 1-24. 

Nore 491.—Or, ‘‘in this [new] heresy.”’ 

Nore 492.—Surely neither the Bible, nor indeed the Gharch of the first three centuries, 
as Tyler has shown in his '' Worship 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. 

Note 493.—Here again Epiphanius teaches that the Collyridian heresy leads to death, 
and yet the Greeks, the Latins, 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 contrary 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. III, Pars I; page 527, Heresy 


LXXIX, the Collyridians: κατὰ Κολλυριδιανῶν, tov τῇ Μαρίᾳ προσφερόντων 
.. . Ἑξῆς δὲ ταὐύτῇ εἰς φήμην πέφηνεν αἵρεσις, περὶ Hs ἤδη ὑπεμνήσαμεν 
ean ἐν τῇ πρὸ ταύτης, δὰ THs εἰς ᾿Αραβίαν γραφείση: ἐπιστυλῆς τῆς 


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 





aut , > , \ IN he 9 ΄ Py Aes 

περὶ τῆς Μαρίας ἐχούσης. Καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ 9 αἵρεσις πάλιν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ ἀπὸ 
- a \ an are a A bi > 8 ΄ θ κ᾿ 9 cLuA 5 τ 
τῆς Θράκης καὶ τῶν ἄνω μερῶν τῆς Σκυθίας ἀνεδείχθη καὶ εἰς ἡμῶν ἀκυὰς 

“3 , ε o > Ν MS SEN ~ ἊΝ ΄, 2, Ν a > 
ἀνηνέχθη ἥτις ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτὴ γελοῖος Kal χλεύης ἔμπλεως παρὰ τοῖς συνετοῖς 
ε ΄ 3 é/ 6 \ Seat A ‘ Ν 3 SPAN ΄ 
εὑρισκομένη. ΑἈρξόμεθα περὶ αὐτῆς φωρᾶσει καὶ τὰ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν διηγήσασθαι. 

/ n~ / ae, σ΄ \ 

Εὐηθείας yap μᾶλλον κριθήσεται ἥπερ συνέσεως αὕτη, καθὼς καὶ ἄλλαι ὅμοιαι 
, Ss c Ν + Ν Ν a \ Ὥ σ ε ΄ἑ 
ταύτῃ ἦσαν. Qs γὰρ ἄνω πολὺ διὰ τῆς πρὸς Μαρίαν ὕβρεως οἱ δόξαντες 

a ε a Qe τξ ΄ ΄ A's , “ \ 
ταῦτα ὑπονοεῖν βλαβερὰς ὑπονοίας σπείρουσι λογισμοῖς ἀνθρώπων, οὕτω καὶ 
- ΄ ΄ 9 ΄ , 
οὗτοι ἐπὶ TO ἕτερον μέρος κλίναντες ἐν ἀκρότητι βλάβης καταλαμβάνονται, 
“ / aA + ΄ ’ 2 ~ 
ὅπως κἀκεῖνο TO παρά τισι τῶν ἔξωθεν φίλοσόφων ᾳδόμενον καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς 
΄ ΕἸ al 2 e 3 , > / 2 Ν Ses ΄ 
πληρωθήσεται ἐν τῷ λέγειν, αἵ ἀκρότητες ἰσότητες, "lon γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέραις 
, a eo ε ΄, ἜΣ Ν ΄ N ev ΄ 
ταύταις ταῖς αἱρέσεσιν ἣ βλάβη, τῶν μὲν κατευτελιζόντων τὴν ἁγίαν παρθένον, 
“- , / τς Ν ε A ΄ 
τῶν δὲ πάλιν ὑπὲρ τὸ δέον δοξαζόντων. Οὗτοι γὰρ vi τοῦτο διδάσκοντες τίνες 
Ima “ ~ Ν Ν , ie 
εἰσὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἢ γυναῖκες ; Τυναικῶν yap τὸ γένος εὐόλισθον, σφαλερὸν δὲ καὶ 
“ ἫΝ IN αἰ ‘ad “ 
ταπεινὸν τῷ φρονήματι. Καὶ αὐτὸ γὰρ ἔδοξεν ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ὃ διάβολυς 
πὶ ΄ “ ’ Ν 4 Ν 
ἐξεμεῖν, ὡς καὶ ἄνω παρὰ Κυϊντίλλῃ καὶ Μαξιμίλλῃ καὶ Πρισκίλλῃ περιγέλαστα 
io μ lal Ν Ἂς “ , a 
τὰ διδάγματα, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα. Twes γὰρ γυναῖκες κουρικόν τινα κοσμοῦσαι, 
~~ δί ᾽ὔὕ ε r , ἈΦ ΞΟ 56 / 5 ε / \ “ - 
ἤτοι δίφρον τετράγονον ἁπλώσασαι ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ὀθόνην, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τινὶ φανερᾷ τοῦ 
oy > ε ΄’ Ν + θέ ? 3 4 3 + a ΄, 
ἔτους, ἐν ἡμέραις τισὶν ἄρτον προτιθέασι καὶ ἀναφέρουσιν εἰς ὄνομα τῆς Mupias, 
i πᾶσαι δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄρτου μεταλαμβάνουσιν, ws: ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ εἰς τὴν ᾿Α a 
at πᾶσαι δὲ ἀπὸ ρτου μ μ : Ἢ τῇ εἰς τὴν ᾿Αραβίαν 
“ , > 4 Ν , , A Ν “ 
ἐπιστολῇ γράφοντες ἐκ μέρους περὶ τούτου διελέχθημεν. Νῦν δὲ σαφῶς τὰ 
\ 7, A LE Ν ‘ ? SEN > Ν Θ Ν > 4, Ν Ν 
περὶ αὐτῆς λέξομεν, καὶ τὰς KAT αὐτῆς ἀνατρυπὰς Θεὸν αἰτησάμενοι κατὰ τὸ 
κ᾿ , “ col id ἴω , ε 7 Ἂν er 
δυνατὸν παραθησόμεθα, ὅπως τῆς εἰδωλοποιοῦ ταύτης αἱρέσεως τὰς ῥίζας 
> ΄ Ὅν ΩΝ \ ΄ , a > a a 
EKTEMOVTES ἀπὸ τινῶν THY τοιαύτην λύσσαν καταλῦσαι ἐν Med δυνηθῶμεν. 
" ΄ A A 3 \ ΄ > , a 
2. “Aye τοίνυν, Θεοῦ δοῦλοι, ἀνδρικὸν φρόνημα ἐνδυσώμεθα, γυναικῶν δὲ 
, \ ΄ ΄ \ na ‘ ΄ @). Je ΄ \ ¥ 
τούτων τὴν μανίαν διασκεδάσωμεν. Τὸ πᾶν yap θήλεος ἡ ὑπόνοια καὶ Εὔας 
͵ὔ aA > , Ν , a δ᾽ ” a~ A 3 “-“ 
πάλιν τῆς ἀπατωμένης τὸ νόσημα, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἔτι τοῦ ὄφεως, τοῦ ἐρεθιστικοῦ 
Ἂς Ν ον / > 3 ae lol ΄ ΙΒ / Ξ Ν > , 
θηρὸς Kat tod λαλήσαντος ἐν αὐτῇ ἡ τῆς πλάνης ὑπόσχεσις, μηδὲν εἰς μέσον 
ν Λ 90ῸΝ Syne , a 3 2 “ἃ , ΄ 39 4 , 
φέρουσα, οὐδὲ τὰ ὑπισχνούμενα τελειοῦσα ἀλλ᾽ ἢ μόνον θάνατον ἀπεργαζομένη, 
τὰ 2 ΄ » a \ \ a a7, A , κ᾿ 
τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα καλοῦσα, καὶ διὰ τῆς ὁράσεως τοῦ ξύλου παρακοὴν 
» Lal “ ,ὔ΄ ἴω 
ἐργωζομένη καὶ ἀποσπροφὴν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ πολλὰ 
τρέπεσθαι. 
ΝΟΤΕ 495.—Genesis III, 5. The reference here and in the “‘elation’® 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 Artide XTV. 





which he works death again to their [weak] nature (496), even as 7 
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 THE DOCTRINE AND SCHEME OF DEMONS (497), AND 
IS ALIEN’’ [to Christianity] (498). 

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] prc- 
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 Levite,and Dathan and Abiram, the sons 
of Reuben, whom God wiped 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 gainsaying of Korah” (Jude 11). ; 

Nore 496.—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 
Seventh-Dayites, etc. Most of their dupes are also women. 

Norte 497.—As tending to destroy all wise government in the Church and sensible New 
Testament preaching. 

Note 498.—It is certainly forbidden by the Holy Ghostin I Corinthians XIV, 34, 35, 36, 
and I Timothy IT, 11-15. 

Nore 499.—Or, ‘‘and surely she had transgressed.” 

Nore 500,—Genesis III, 6; I Tim. IT, 14. 

Nore 501.—Genesis IV, 4; Heb. XI, 4. 

Nore 502.—Gen. IV, 8,5 to 8. 

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

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

Nore 505.—Genesis XII, 7, 8; Genesis XIII, 4; Genesis XV, 1-21; and XXI, 33; and XXII, 
120, and Heb, XI, 8-20. 

Nore 506.—Genesis XIV, 18, 19, 20; Heb. VII, 1-22. 

Note 507,—Genesis XXV, 11. 


St. Epiphantus against the Worship of the Virgin 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- 
mar his 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 asa sacrificing priest 
(511), and the Korites (512) and the Gershonites (513), and the 
Merarites, who were entrusted with the Levitical rank and order 
(514), and the house of Eli (515), and those after him who were of 
his kindred in the house of Abimelech (516), and Abiathar (517), 
and Hilkiah (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 XXVIII, 18-22 inclusive, and XXXV, 6-16. 

Nore 509.—Deut. X, 8, 9, and XXI, 5; and I Chron. XXIII, and XXIV. 

Norte 510.—See the references inthe note last above. 

Nore 511.—I Sam. XXII, 11-23; II Sam. VIII, 17. 

Norte 512.—Kohathites? I Chron. VI, XXIII, XXIV, XXV,and XXVI, The Korhites are, 
mentioned in I Chron, XXVI, 1-20. The Greek here is Κορῖται. 

Norte 513.—See the references in note last above, 

Norte 514.—Ibid. 

Nore 515.—I Sam, I; 3, 9, 17. 

Nore 516.—I Chron. XVIII, 16, and II Sam. VIII, 17. 

Nore 517.—Ibid. 

Nore 518.—II Kings XXII, 4. 

NoTE 519.—Kzek. I, 3. 

Nore 520.—Or ‘‘the high priest." Ezra IIT, 2. 

NoTeE 521.—Ezra VII, 11, etc. 

Nore 522,—Or ‘‘canonical thing,” Greek, κανονικόν Tee 


384 Artide 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, inthe wilderness, administered baptism for the remission of 
sins (523), and his father wasa 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 dream dreams, and your young men shall see 
visions (531). And though there is an order of deaconesses in the 
Church, yet itis 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 


Nore 523.— Mark T, 4. 


Note 524.—Luke I, 1-23. 
Nore 525,—Greek, ἱερουργοῦντες τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. Every Christian is a priest, I Peter II, 
5,9. and Rev. I,6, and so in an eminent sense were the Apostles, 


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


Norte 527.—Greek, πρεσβυτέρων. 

Nore 528.—Acts XXI, 8, 9. 

Nore 529.—Or  ‘“‘however.”’ 

Norte 530.—Luke II, 36. 

Nore 531.—Acts II 17. 

Nore 532.—Titus III, 5. Greek, διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας, “by a bath of rebirth,” 


St. Epiphantus against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 385 





labor, and when the body of a woman should be naked, that she 
may not be seen by the men who are officiating 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, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος “27 any one be not born out of water,” 


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 years, and still the custom in the East, Seeon that Chrystal’s History of the Modes 
of Christian Baptism and Bingham’s Antiquities of the Christian Church, Index, under 
Baptism, ete. 

NOTE 583.—As Bingham showsin his Antiquities of the Christian Church, book ΤΙ, chapter 
22, section 8, that women, like men, were baptized naked, they needed women to prepare 
and be with themin 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 stillorder it regarding infants; see their own 
language quoted in proof on pages 137, 188 of Chrystal’s 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 immersion 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 Chrystal’s 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, /x the Office for the Public 
Baptism of Infants, before the baptism occurs the following: 

“Almighty and immortal God . . . wecall upon thee for this infant, that he, coming to 
thy holy Baptism may receive remission of his sins by sfzrztual 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: 

‘“‘We 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 
Prayer 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 vebivth. And at the same time heis 
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 isin the word inspired by the Holy Ghost, which shows that heisa 
proper subject forit (John ΠῚ, 5; Act IT, 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 ‘‘chz/dven”’ are spoken of as “‘saznts,”? 
equally with their ‘‘/athers,”’ and Colossians I.2, compared with Colossians IIT, 20, 21, where 
we finda similar mention of saints as including ‘‘chi/dren”’ and their ‘‘pavents’” and “fae 
thers.’” Compare also the language of Peter, 1 Peter II, 9: “Ye ave a chosen race’). Andas 
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 heavenly Father’s family may be, and, so 
far as we can see, is born into it without any knowledge 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 


486 Article XTV. 





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 day, 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. 

Nore 534.—I Corinthians XIV,34, 35, and I Tim. II, 11, 12. 

Nore 535.—I Timothy H, 11. 12. 

Nore 536.—Titus 11, 3. 

Nore 537.—That is Eldvesses Greek. πρεσβυτερίδας. 

NOTE 538.—Hence much less may deaconesses 

Nore 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 issaid ina 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 Antiquities of the Christian Church, book 11. chapter 
XXII, section 8 and indeedall ofthat 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 Antiquities of the Christian Church, book II, chapter XX, section 9 who 
quotes the above passage of Epiphanius and another from the so-called Afostolical 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 fallof 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, 
aud XLIV. 15-30 inclusive. Compare also Revelations II, 20-29. 


St. Epiphanius against 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: Zhou 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 inthe 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 oue 
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 IT, 10. 

Nore 542.—These words explain ‘‘zdol making heresy” in section I above. 

Nore 543.—See how God in Ezekiel XXIII rebukes the whoredom of Israel and Judah, 
figured as two idolatrous wives, Aholah (Samaria) and Aholibah (Jerusalem), and their 
madness and vileness in the spiritual harlotries of invoking creatures and worshipping 
images. Andsee how God rebukes the spiritual whoredom of Israel and how hopeless His 
rebuke was, so that at the last he says, as in the American Canterbury Revision: ‘‘Ephraim 
[the Ten Tribes] is joined to idols’' (that is tothe 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,’’ Hosea IV, 17. 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 suchtrash. 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 British 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 Homily against Peril of Idolatry, which is 
approved by the Thirty-fifth Article as containing ‘a godly and wholesome doctrine and 


488 Articde XTV. 





Yes, indeed, the body of Mary was holy, but nevertheless 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 heavé 
ens out of the bosom of His Father. And concerning that (544) 
the Gospel assures us, when it tells us that the Lord Himself said, 
“‘Woman, what have I todo with thee? My houris not yet come” 
(545). He said, ‘‘ Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ 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), 772 order 
that no persons might admire the holy Virgin too much and fall 
into this nonsensical talk and heresy’? (547) [of the Collyridians]. 





necessary for these times,” and necessary now asthen. Yet to-day they are introducing them 
into Anglican, American, and cther churches, leading women into idolatry, putting a 
stumbling block before Jews and Mohammedans who might be converted and eternally 
saved, and alienating our own best and most scripturally Orthodox men. 

Nore 544.—Or, ‘‘therefore.” 

Nore 545.—See on the above expression the learned and judicious remarks of Whitby on 
John II, 4. in his Commentary, where he shows even from the Romish Maidonat’s witness 
that very few old writers do not take them asa 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 546.—Like, 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 sanctloned her worship by invocation and other acts of religious 
service. Among them are the decision of the Council of Constantinople A. Ὁ. 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, Latins, Nestorians and Monophysites. ‘‘The New Raccolta, or Collection of Prayers 
and... Works with Indulgences attached,”’ published in 1898 by order of Pope Leo 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 vile wor- 
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, ‘‘the Mother of Harlots and Abominations 
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 whodo so. 

Note 547.—Epiphanii episcopi Constantiae opera, Dindorf’s edition, vol. III, Pars I, 


page 532, Against the Collyrsdians, Heresy LXXIX: Nat μὴν ἅγιον ἣν τὸ σῶμα τῆς 
Mapias, οὐ μὴν Θεὸς, vat δὴ παρθένος ἢν ἣ παρθένος καὶ τετιμημένη, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ 
εἰς προσκύνησιν ἡμῖν δοθεῖσα, ἀλλὰ προσκυνοῦσα τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς σαρκὶ 


, > \ > a Naas. s , ΄ \ Nn 
γεγεννημένον, ἀπὸ οὐρανῶν δὲ ἐκ κόλπων πατρῴων παραγενόμενον. Καὶ διὰ 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 389 








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 man, much less a woman (548), to be worshipped? 

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 (55!) 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 





A Ν 3 , 9 ΄ ε > 
τοῦτο TO εὐαγγέλιον ἐπασφαλίζεται ἡμᾶς λέγον, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου φήσαντος 
σ (a3 1 Jet) τ \ ‘ , a v o e y ” YY. > Ν oy ts , , 
ὅτι “᾿ τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοὶ, γύναι ; οὔπω ἥκει ἣ ὥρα pov,’’ iva ἀπὸ τοῦ ““ Τύναι, τί 


5 \ Ν PAS ὟΣ , ΄, ΄ > Ny ev , 
εμοι καὶ COOL , μη τίνες VOMLOWOL περισσοτέρον ELVAL τὴν αγιαν παρθένον, 


A , , ε a a a 
γυναῖκα ταύτην κέκληκεν, ὡς προφητεύων, TOV μελλόντων ἔσεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 

= nn ee , -“ , ε “ ΄ \ 
σχισμάτων TE καὶ αἱρέσεων χάριν, ἵνα μή τινες ὑπερβολῇ θαυμάσαντες τὴν 


ἁγίαν εἰς τοῦτο ὑποπέσωσι τῆς αἱρέσεως τὸ ληρολόγημα. 

Nore 548.—Or, ‘‘xot indeed lo speak of a woman,” Greek οὐ μὴν γυναῖκα λέγειν. 

Norte 549.—The Virgin Mary. 

Norte 550.—That is, being stillacreature she can not be worshipped because Christ for= 
bids any act of religious service to any but God, Matthew IV,10: see also Colossians I1, 18; 
Rev. XIX, 10, and XXII, 8, 9. 

Note 551.—Or “‘yudgment,’’ Greek, τὴν Ἐπ γνώμην. 

Note 552.—The Greek words here are τὰ σώματα which would generaly be taken to 
mean ¢he bodies, thongh the examples of Epiphanius just following, Elijah and the rest, 
all referto persons, and Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. sixth edition, revised 


A Ξ : : 
and augmented, under σώμα gives ‘‘a person, human being’ as one of its meanings. and 


persons asa 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 xobody and some body and any body in the senseof no person, some person, aud 
any person, as for example. Nobody 15 there. etc. 

But, if mere dodies 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 to both classes. Does he 
refer tothe excessive honor and even worship tothem 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 his death, against all relative 
worship, evenof Christ’s mere humanity, and much more against any relative worship of 
any thizg 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 wombis not God by itself; that which wascreated by 
the Spirit’’{Matt. I, 18,20: Luke I 35], 15 not God by itself: that which was buried in the 
tomb is not God by itself; for [if we had] so [said and worshipped that Man as being Him- 
self God] we should have been plainly worshippers of a Man and worshippers of & corpses 


390 Articde 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 inthe Man taken, the Man taken is co-called God with God 
[the Word] from Him, |God the Word], Who has taken him, inasmuch asthat 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, 486-504. 

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. Seeabove. 

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 /Vicaeain thisset. In passage 14 there he 
proves that the Word must be God “‘deeause He ts to be bowed to,” that is to be worshipped, 
and he adduces the fact in Hebrews], 6, that the Father commands all the angels to bow to 
Him, that is to worship Him, asa 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: 

“Tf he ts not realGod, then he is not to be worshipped. Andif He isa creature, He is 
not God.” 

In passage 16, On Heresy LXIX, section 36, the same Epiphanius after arguing thata 
creature could not save us, and that we needa divine Redeemer, comes to notice the Arian 
absurdity that the Father had created a god, Arius’ created Son,and given him tous to be 
worshipped. which he shows to be contrary to the Christian doctrine that ”o creature can 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 tous to worship, when He 
saith, Thou shalt not make toihyself any likeness of any thing on earth or in heaven, and Thou 
shalt not bow to it [that is Thou shalt not worship τί, Exodus XX, 4, δ] How, therefore, could 
God have created to Himself a Sonand commanded that he should be bowed to [that is, 
“worshipped.”| especially as an Apostle saith: And they served the creature contrary to the 
Creator and became fools [Romans I, 22, 25]. Foritis a foolish thing to call a creature God, 
and to violate the first commandment which saith, Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and 
Him only shalt thou serve. THEREFORE THE HOLY CHURCH OF GOD BOWS TO [that is ‘‘wor- 
SHIPS] NO CREATURE, but does to the Son who has been born[out of the Father], to the 
Father with the Son, and to the Son with the Father, together with the Holy Ghost.” 

In passage 17 he contends against Origen that if the Word is made he cannot be wor- 
shipped, and he speaks of Orthodox Christianity as ‘‘¢hat pious faith which worships no 
creature’ and that nothing created can be worshipped. 

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: 

ΣᾺ Πα} WE OURSELVES DO NOT WORSHIP ANY THING INFERIOR TO THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD 
HIMSELF, because worship is tobe given to Him alone who ts subject to ne one. that ts 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 ts nothing created in the Trinity.” 

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

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

Nore 555.—II Kings II, 1,11. 

Nore 556.—John XIII, 23, and XXI, 20.1 

Note 557.—John XIII, 23; XIX, 26, XX, 2, and XXI, 7, 20. 24, 


St. Lpiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 301 





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 Thecla nor any one of the saints is 
worshipped (562) for the ancient error of forsaking the living God 
and worshipping the things made by Him shall not rule us,”’ [that 
we should be like those of whom Paul writes], ‘‘they served and 
worshipped the creature contrary to the Creator (563) and became fools’? 
(504). 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 
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 





Note 558.—Probably ‘‘a egendary saintess,”’ as Sophocles terms her under Θέκλα in his 
Greek Lexicon of the Romanand Byzantine periods. See his references there, and and on 
the whole topic Gwynn’s article, ‘“‘Thecla (1),’?in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian 
Biography, and thatin McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia. Though the account of her is 
branded by Tertullian as spurious, yet some of the Fathers believed it, 

Nore 559.—Or, ‘‘even though he were [now] among the living,” that is on the earth. 

Nore 560.—Does Epiphanius refer to the story mentioned by his contemporary Augustine 
which Professor Plumptre describes in his article John tbe Apostle in volume II of the Ameri- 
can edition of Smlth’s Dictionary of the Bible, (Hackett’s and Abbot’s), page 1424? Itis as 
follows: 

‘When he felt his end approaching he gave orders for the construction of his own sepul- 
chre, and when it was finished calmly laid himself down init and died (Augustin. 7yact. in 
Joann, CXXIV).” 

ΝΟΤΕ 561.—Or ‘‘the grace,’’ Greek τὴν χάριν. 

Norte 562.—A sure proof that Epiphanius knew of no worship of saints in the Christian 
Church in the period A. Ὁ. 374 to 376 or ὃ: τ when he wrote the above work, 

Nore 563.—Greek, παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, 

Norte 564.—Romans I, 25. 

Nore 565.—Matt. IV, 10; Colossians II, 18; Revelations XTX, 10,and Rev, XXII, 8, 9. 

Note 566.—The story regarding Joachimand his wife Anna and the birth of Mary the 
Virgin is found in two apochryphal works, the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, aud the Protevan- 
gelion of James. They arerejected by the whole 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 English. The edition before meis by a skeptic, and was 
published by Dewitt and Davenport, New York, but has no date on the title page, 


292 Articde XIV. 





regarding Mary have it that in the wilderness it was said to her 
father Joachim ‘‘ 7hy wife hath conceived’’ (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 bring forth a Son, and they shall 
call his name Emmanuel (568). 

And because she who did bring forth was a virgin, and it was the 
God with us, asitis 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 ina 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 (570), 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 fortha 
son. And the Lord said tome, Call his name, Quickly Spoil, Sharply 
forage (571). Before the child shall know how to say father or 
mother 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 





Norte 567.—See the Protevangelion, IV, 4, and the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, III, 11. 

Nore 568.—Isaiah VII, 14. 

ΝΟΊΕ 569 —Isaiah VIII, 3, where the Septuagint Greek translation has προσῆλθον, 
“Twent in” like our Common English Version. But Epiphaniusis not here quoting the exact 
words. 

ΝΟΤῈ 570.—Luke I, 26-38, 

Nore 571.—Isaiah VIII, 3, where, however, the Hebrew Maher-shalal-hash-baz 7s untrans- 
Jated in the text, butis in the margin of some of the reference Bibles. Compare verse I there, 
inargin, I havetranslated Epiphanius’ Greek of the Septuagint here. 

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

Nore 573,—There is an error here, which may be a mistake of Epiphanius or of a copyist. 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 503 





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, 
fle was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a tamb before his 
shearer 15 dumb, so He openeth not His mouth. And who shall declare 
fis generation. for fiis life was taken from 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 zs ded, 
and” [asa matter of fact] ‘‘He who is proclaimed by Isaiah was 
not yet /ed. 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 zs taken away from 
the earth. And from the two statements he shows the truth that 
the /ed was first fulfilled and that the zs 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 neitherthe Universal Church nor Scripture 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 Worship is approved by God’s Word 
and by the decisions of the “‘one, holy, universal and apostolic Church” at Ephesus, 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 Ephesus in this Set, note 183, pages 79-128; notes 676-679, pages 331-362, and note 
949, pages 461-463; and its decisions against the worship of Christ's humanity inthe Lord’s 
Supper, note 606, pages 240-313. 
Nore 574.—Isaiah LIII, 7, 8,9, Septuagint 


394 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 in her womb (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 (576). 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), 





Vote 575.—All this is from the spurious or apocryphal Gospel of the Birth of Mary, ΤΙ, 9, 
VI, 11, and the Protevangelion of James the Lesser, IV, 4, and the context of both texts. 
Epiphanius and others were deceived astothem. But the Universal Church never received 
them, and indeed most of it had probably never heard of them. 

Norte 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 infallible and binding lawin Matthew IV, 10. That worship of Mary, of course, 
did not follow from her alleged miraculous birth, for the miraculous birth of Isaac did not 
give hima right to be worshipped. 

Nore 577.—Greek, τυσαύτης γενεάς. 

Note 578.—All the creature worshipping sects which ΓΝ to be Christian and yet wor- 
ship Mary ascribe to her prerogatives and ofilce 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 Raccolta, 
to which we have referred in a note above, abounds in ascribing such parts of God’s dominion 
to Mary. See it. ‘ 

ΝΟΤῈ 579.—Romans XVI, 13. 

Notre 580.—Matthew XXVII, 55; Mark XV. 40, 41; Luke XXIII, 49, 55 


St. Epiphanius 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 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 (586) of worship to be 








Nore 581.—John XI, 1-47, and XII, 1-9. 

Nore 582.— Luke VIII, 3. 

Nore 583.—Matthew XV, 22-29. 

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

Note 585.—Literally, ‘‘whence are the wicked designs renewed?’ Greek, Πόθεν 


ἀνακαινίζεται τὰ σκολιὰ βουλεύματα ; 


ΝΌΤΕ 586.—Greek, τὸ μυστήριον, that is the sacred rite of worship. The Greeks now use 


μυστήριον 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 μυστήριον in the Englishman’s Greek Concordance of 
the New Testament, Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzcntine periods 
(from B. C. [before Christ] 146 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 
G-eek Church now recognizes seven mysteries, namely, baptism [by immersion only] 
Chrism, the Eucharist [in which they του the unleavened wafers of the Latins, and 
require leavened bread], priesthood, penance, marriage, andthe anointing of the sick with 
oil with prayer.’’ Sophocles there shows that Gregory of Nyssa of century IV used 
μυστήριον in the sense of ‘‘the mystery of the Incarnation and its concomitants.’”? The 
LIatins have now and have had since some time inthe 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 ΧΙ οὗ his Antiquities of the 
Christian Church, was in ancient times the usage of the Roman and of all other Churches, 
East and West. And of the Roman wafers, as Bingham proves in sections 5 and 6, chapter II, 
book XV, of the same work, he tells us 1n section 4 of it that ‘“‘the use of wafers and unleav- 
ened bread was not known in the Church ti!l the eleventh or twelfth centuries,’ and that 
till then leavened bread was used. And in section 6, 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 Latinsas lacking one partof the sacrament oras 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 ex/veme 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 Defence, against Harding the Jesuit, of hts Apol- 
ogy for the Church of England, well writes (note ‘‘e,”’ page 51 of Bishop Whittingham’s 
edition of his Apology): 


396 Article XTV. 





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 
mention, not only of seven, but also of seventeen sundry sacraments. Tertullian (adversus 
Judaeos, c. 13) calleth the helve, wherewith Elisha recovered the axe out of the water 
sacramentum lignt’ the ‘sacrament of woed:’ and the whole state of the Christian faith he 
ealleth (contra Marcionem, Lib, IV.) ‘the sacrament of the Christian religion,’ S. Augustine 
in many places hath ‘sacramentum crucis’ ‘the sacrament of the cross,’ (2 δέ. 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, Serm.2. St.Jerome saith: ‘Out of Christ’s 
side the sacraments of baptism and martyrdom are poured forth both together.’ (ad Oceanum) 
Leo calleth the promise of virginity, a sacrament; inter Decreta,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 (de Peccat. merit. et remiss. Lib. ἘΠ) 50 Hilary 
in sundry places, saith: ‘The sacramant of praver—of fasting—of the Scriptures—of weeping— 
of thirst. (in Matth. Canon. 11, 12,23. St. Bernard ceglieth the washing of the Apostles feet a 
sacrament (zz Serm. 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,’ ora ‘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 forthe 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 a sacrament. But thus we say, 72 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, διέ 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 Patrologia Latina, col. 1361, under 
Sacramentum in the Index Latinitatis Tertullianae, (the ‘‘Jndex 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 of Jesus’ name, 3. for the Gospel; 4. tacitum sacramentum is used for 
the inner and hidden sacred doctrine, 5. for doctrine or teaching; 6.tantum sacramentum is 
used for mystery, or secret and hidden doctrine or teaching, 7%. pro magno nominis sacramento 
is used ‘‘for the great mystery of the name,” and similarly Irenaeus of the second century; 
8, Tertullian calls the doctrine of the Trinity ¢he 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. skillin 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 willis signified or made clear; 13. for unspeakable words; so Irenaeus 
also; Lex est sacramenti, τό 7s a law of the sacrament, that is of Christian Communion} 
15. Sacramenta, sacramen.s, are signs or mysteries; 16. Christ iscalled sacramentum humanae 
salutis, the mystery of man’s salvation, 17. figuram extranei sacramenti, figure of an extran- 
eous mystcry; 18. for monogamy; 19. for the vesurrection,; 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 ofan allegory, and figurarum sacramenta, 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 μυστήριον and sacra- 
mentum, nor as tothe number of mysteries or sacraments, a fact that should be well remem- 


Ss Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 5307 





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 toher Lord. Let Eve, with Adam, take reverent care to 
honor God alone (591). T,et her not be led by the voice of the ser- 
pent (592), but be faithful to the command of God, Hat not 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 BE 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. 

Nore 587.—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. 

Nore 588.—That is clear from Revelations XIX, 10, and XXII, 8,9. Compare Isaiah 
XLII, 8; Matthew IV, 10; and Colossians II, I8, which last place teaches that those who wor- 
ship angels lose the heavenly ‘‘veward,’’ and hence are lost, which, by parity of reasoning, 
will pe the punishment of all worshippers of Mary. For their sin is creature worship also. 

Nore 589.—Genesis 11,9, 16, 17, and IIT, 1-24. 

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

Norte 591.—In accordance with Christ’s own law in Matthew IV, 10. 

Nore 592.—The worship of the Virgin is here again ascribed to the old serpent the Devil 
as the tempter to it, Revelations XII, 9,and XX, 2. 

Nore 593 —Genesis II, 16, 17; and Genesis III, 1-24, especially verses 1, 3, 11, and 17. 

Note 594.—Here and below Epiphanius teaches that as the 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 lawin Mat- 
thew IV. 10, as the angel rejected John’s homage in Revelations XIX, 10, and XXII, 8. 9. 

Nore 595.—That Is, let πὸ 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 death on all her posterity. 

Nore 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. 

Nore 597.—Dindorf’s Epiphanitus against Herestes; vol. III, Pars I, page 536, Heresy 


LXXIX, the Collyridians, Οὐκ [God] ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτῇ [Mary the Virgin] δοῦναι βάπτισμα, 


3 3 a Ἂν » Ν Ν SIETN “A a > 4 ~*~ 4, ef 
οὐκ εὐλογῆσαι μαθητὰς, οὐ TO ἄρχειν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκέλευσεν, ἢ μόνον ἁγίασμα 


398 Artide 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 WERT: 
as God’s Word saith (600): 

‘‘And the women knead the dough and their sons gather sticks to 
make cakes for the host [or ‘‘queen’’| 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 








Cyan 4 Ν A ~ > a“ , » a ΥΩ -“ - 
αὐτὴν εἶναι καὶ καταξιωθῆναι τῆς αὐτοῦ βασιλείας, . . οὔτινα τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 

“ aA lal = , Ν 9 / ’ / Θὲ τας 
γυναικῶν τοῦτο ποιεῖν προσέταξε τὸ ἀξίωμα. ἸΠόθεν τοίνυν πάλιν ἡμῖν 
κυκλοδράκων, πόθεν ἀνακαινίζεται τὰ σκολιὰ βουλεύματα ; Ἔν τιμῇ ἔστω Μαρία, 

“ a 
ὃ δὲ Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱὸς καὶ ἽΔγιον Πνεῦμα πρυσκυνείσθω, τὴν Μαρίαν μηδεὶς 
προσκυνείτω. Οὐ λέγω γυναικὶ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἀνδρὶ, Θεῷ προστέτακται τὸ 
“ ΄ 3 

μυστήριον, οὐδὲ ἄγγελοι χωροῦσι δοξολογίαν τοιαύτην. Ἐξαλειφέσθω τὰ 
κακῶς γραφέντα ἐν καρδίᾳ τῶν ἠπατημένων, ἀμαυρούσθω ἐξ ὀφθαλμῶν τὸ 
ἐγκίσσημα τοῦ ξύλου’ ἐπιστρέψῃ πάλιν τὸ πλάσμα πρὸς τὸν Δεσπότην, 


»” a“ 4 Cal -“ 
ἐντρεπέσθω Eva μετὰ τοῦ ᾿Αδὰμ Θεὸν τιμᾷν μόνον, μὴ ἀγέσθω τῇ τοῦ ὄφεως φωνῇ, 
ce 


ἀλλ᾽ ἐμμενέτω τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ προστάξει ‘wy φάγῃς ἀπὸ Tod Evdov.’’ Καὶ ἣν 


τὸ ξύλον οὐ πλάνη, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ ξύλου γέγονεν ἣ παρακοὴ τῆς πλάνης. Μὴ 
φαγέτω τις ἀπὸ τῆς πλάνης τῆς διὰ Μαρίαν τὴν ἁγίαν" καὶ γὰρ εἰ καὶ ὡραῖον τὸ 
ξύλον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ εἰς βρῶμα, καὶ εἰ καλλίστη ἣ Μαρία καὶ ἁγία καὶ τετιμημένη, 
ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ εἰς τὸ προσκυνεῖσθαι. 

Norte 598.—A heathen goddess. 

Nore 599.—Isaiah LXV, II, Septuagint. 

Nore 600.—Proverbs IV, 17. 

Nore 601.—Jeremiah VII, 18. This same title, Queen, 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 
Devil and the folly of women. See his language above. 

ΝΌΤΕ 602.—T 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 Kast, 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 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 5309 





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, O Israel, by @ woman. Hold thy head 
high and away from a bad woman’s counsel. for a woman 
hunts for the precious souls of men (606). For her feet lead those who 
have intercourse with her to death and to Hlades (607). Heed nota 
wicked woman 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 thing 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 eyes, and therefore in their ignorance, unless controlled bya 
man, they are prone, like the women aforesaid, and like Jezebel, to become fanatical 
idolaters and so trouble hundreds or thousands οὗ 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 Latins 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 spurnit, and back up the idolatrous clergy. 
Thatis true of multitudes of women, but happily not of all. 

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

Nore 604 —Jeremiah XLIII, 7 to XL1V, 30, and XLVI, 14, and the context, and compare 
Jeremiah VII, 15-20. 

Nore 605.—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 ‘‘Oury Lady,” the feminine of Our Lord, which is sinful and akin to that wickedness of 
calling her Queen of Heaven, 

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

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

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

Nore 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 “" Whoredom’’ And the worship of creatures and of images is again and 
again called ‘‘whoredom”’ 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 gveat whore” because she is 
given to the spiritual whoredom of worshiping creatures, Mary and others, and Mary 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 Raccolta: and 
of such indulgences and the worship of the Sacred Heart of Mary the Collyridians knew 


400 Articde XTV. 





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 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 (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 Monophysites and the Nestorians, though the last are said to worship only one image, 
the cross. 

Note 610.—Genesis II, 16, 17, and Genesis ITI, 1-24, inclusive ; Matthew IV, 10. 

Note 611.—A reference to Genesis III,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. 

Nore 612.—Genesis III, 1-7. The Greek is, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἑτέραν βαδίσασα. literally ‘‘and 
went over to another mind,” that is to leave the obedient mind and to become disobedient 
to God. 

Nore 613.—St. Epiphanius Against Heresies; Heresy WXXIX, that of the CoLLyRIDIANS, 


page 536, vol. III, Part I of Dindorf’s edition, section 8, Αὗται δὲ πάλιν ἀνακαινίζουσι 
“ Ty ” \ ’ a Nes) (ζ lal δαί Ν > Θ a Ν ’, 
τῇ Τύχη τὸ κέρασμα καὶ ἐτοιμάζουσι τῷ δαίμονι καὶ ov Mew τὴν τράπεζαν, 
\ , \ A a 7 aA 
κατὰ TO γεγραμμένον, καὶ σιτοῦνται σῖτα ἀσεβείας, ὥς φησιν ὃ θεῖος λόγος, 
σ ἈΝ ε a ’ὔ nw , a 
“Καὶ at γυναῖκες τρίβουσι σταῖς, καὶ οἵ viol συλλέγουσι ξύλα ποιῆσαι 
αυῶνας τῇ στρατιᾷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ," [Jeremiah vii, 18, Septuagint Greek translation]. 
‘ t ε 
Φ , 0: ε \ ΕἾ / e ~ “ Ν Ν θ ’ ‘ 
ἱμούσθωσαν ὑπὸ Ἱερεμίου at τοιαῦται γυναῖκες, καὶ μὴ θροείτωσαν τὴν 
> ,ἤ Ν lal A 7A 
οἰκουμένην. Μὴ λεγέτωσαν, Τιμῶμεν τὴν βασίλισσαν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Οἶδε 
‘ ΄ 4 ~ 
γὰρ Τάφνας ταύτας τιμωρεῖσθαι, οἴδασιν of τόποι MaydovAwy τούτων τὰ 
4 e , nn 
σώματα ὑποδέχεσθαι eis σῆψιν. Μὴ πείθου, Ἰσραὴλ, γυναικὶ, ἀνάκυπτε ἀπὸ 
a Ν / “-“ 
κακῆς γυναικὸς συμβουλίας, ““ Τυνὴ γὰρ τιμίας ψυχὰς ἀνδρῶν ἀγρεύει, ταύτης 
Ν ε / A [4 A 
yap ot πόδες τοὺς χρωμένους μετὰ τοῦ θανάτου ἄγουσιν εἰς τὸν “Aidnv. My 
/ , “4 
πρόσεχε φαύλῳ γυναικίῳ, μέλι yap ἀποστάζει ἀπὸ χειλέων γυναικὸς πόρνης, 7) 


Ν Ν ΄ὔ Ν / σ΄ , ΄ a ε , 
πρὸς καιρὸν λιπαίνει σὸν φάρυγγα, ὕστερον μέντοι πικρύτερον χολῆς εὑρήσεις 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin 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 





Aus , a“ 9 ὃ ΄ ᾽}7 Μὴ wind ‘6 , “ Ν a 
καὶ κονήμενον μᾶλλον μαχαιρας ὀιστομου. Ἢ πειῦου TAULTH TH γυναικὶ TH 
φαύλῃ. ἸΠᾶσα γὰρ αἵρεσις φαύλη γυνὴ, πλέον δὲ ἣ τῶν γυναικῶν αἵρεσις αὐτὴ 
καὶ ἣ τοῦ ἀπατήσαντος τὴν πρώτην γυναῖκα, Τιμάσθω ἣ μήτηρ ἡμῶν Eva, ὡς 
9 A , Nae 53 ΄ Ν 9 Ν ΄ Ν ΄ a ye A 
ἐκ Θεοῦ πεπλασμένη, μη ἀκουέσθω δὲ, Wa μὴ πεισῃ TA τεκνᾶ φαγεῖν ἅπο του 
ξύλου καὶ ἐντολὴν παραβῆναι. Μετανοείτω δὲ καὶ αὕτη ἀπὸ κενοφωνίας, 
ἐπιστρεφέτω αἰσχυνομένη καὶ φύλλα συκῆς ἐνδυομένη. Κατανοείτω δὲ ἑαυτὴν 
καὶ ὁ ᾿Αδὰμ καὶ μηκέτι αὐτῇ πειθέσθω. ἫἪ γὰρ τῆς πλάνης πειθὼ καὶ γυναικὸς 
εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον συμβουλία θάνατον τῷ ἰδίῳ συζύγῳ ἐργάζεται, οὐ μόνον δὲ, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις. Κατέστρεψε τὸ πλάσμα Eva διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως, ἐρεθισθεῖσα 
διὰ τῆς THD ὄφεως φωνῆς καὶ ἐπαγγελίας, πλανηθεῖσα ἀπὸ τοῦ κηρύγματος καὶ 
ἐφ᾽ ἑτέραν βαδίσασα διάνοιαν. 

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

Nore 615.—That is the Collyridian heresy, as he explains on it above. 

Nore 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 to have existed in the Church when Epiphanius 
wrote his work Against Heresies, “in the years 374 to 876 or 377 A. D.’’ according to Professor 
Lipsins, page 149, volume II of Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography. Yorinan 
Epistle to John who was Bishop of Jerusalem, A. D.386 to 417, Epiphanius tells him that he had 
torn upa veilin a church at Anablatha because it had on it an image of Christ or of some 
saint, contrary to the authority of the Scriptures; on that see the full account in the excellent 
work of Tyler on Image Worship, pages 163-167. Epiphanius does not say that it was wor- 
shipped, but shows that ‘he use even of sucha thing is contrary to God’s holy Word, a view 
followed there by 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 123, compare page 126) remarks: ‘‘Nocross with the 


least pretence toantiquity occurs tn the catacombs”’ [of Rome] “αἴ all, on the highly trnstworthy 
testimony of Father Martigny (whose Dictionary of Christian Antiquities appears to be the 


402 Article XTV. 





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. Heis cast into prison (619), but one 
should stay in prison avd in a corner of the housetop rather than with 
a brawling and chattering 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 offer that aforesaid rotten sacrifice on her behalf. Tur 
WHOLE THING IS SILLY AND FOREIGN [to Christianity] απ zs both 
an insolence and a deception TO WHICH THEY ARE MOVED BY THE 
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 Fits 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, pages8and9, And, on page 238 of volume I of 
Chrystal’s translation of Nicaea, St. Athanasius writes: “That we may not become servers of 
another” than God,and that we are ‘‘¢vuly worshipers of God, because we invoke no creature,” 
etc.; and St. Cyril of Alexandria quotes that passage with approval. See page 239there. Prob- 
ably most of the passages alleged by Romanists or Greeks for the above-named sins and 
allezed to be before A. Ὁ. 340 are spurious or interpolations by some creature worshippers of a 
later date, for, allcopies being written by hand, interpolation was very easy, and, considering 
the idolatrous character of the later copyists, very likely. 

Norte 617.—Or ‘‘dreadful.” 

Nore 618.—Or “75 not made sport οὔ" Greek, ov παίζεται. 

Nore 619.—The story of Joseph, and his life in Egypt is told in Genesis XXXV, 24, and 
Chapters XXXVII, XXXIX, XL, and XLI, etc. 

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

Nore 621.—Here the whole Mary Worship and the Collyridian heresy which first started 
it is again pronounced s7lly, foreign, an tnsolence and a deception from ‘‘the demons.” 

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

Nore 623.—Hence, he implies, no righteous man will teach the worship of Mary, which 
he writes, just above, in this section 9, is from “‘¢hedemons.’’ Oh! whata lesson to theclergy 


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





man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust (624) and 
enticed. Then lust (625) bringeth forth sin, and sin, when tt is 
jinished bringeth 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.’? Wet them obey Christ in Matthew IV, 10, 

Nore 624.—That is, God tempts no man to the sin of worshipping Mary, nor do his faith- 
ful servants. This condemns all the clergy and people of the creature worshipping sects 
whodo. For even their laity teach that error to their children, 


ΝΟΤΕ 625—The word ἐπιθυμίας, here used, means desire, and so Zust, for lust τς desiree 


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 szz, 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. Epiphanius compares the poisonous Collyridian 
Mary-worshipping heresy. 

Nore 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- 
struction of the body and soul in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone in the next 
world. Contrast, forexample, 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 their 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. Imdeed the faces of those who 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 have 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. XVIII, 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 οὐ the Old Rome, on the Tiber. 

Nore 629.—That of the Massalians who were afterward condemned by the Third Kcu- 
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 LX, and IX XX of the series.’’ 

Nore 630.—Dindorf’s Greek of St. Epiphantus against Heresies; against Heresy L.XXIX, 


that of the Collyridians, section 9, vol. III, Part I, page 538. Καὶ πόσα ἔστι λέγειν ; 
᾽ 


ἦτοι γὰρ ὡς αὐτὴν προσκυνοῦντες τὴν Μαρίαν αὐτῇ προσφέρουσι τὴν κολλυριδα 


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, LX XIX, which was written 
against it, A. D. 374 to 376 or 377 according to Professor Lipsius. 
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 goon and sum up what he says in his 
account of Heresies [XXVIII and LX XIX against the worship 
of the Virgin Mary: 

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

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





‘ Gs “ Aa a 
ai dpyat αὗται γυναῖκες, ἤτοι ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς προσφέρειν ἐπιχειροῦσι τὴν 
= , , θ Ν / Ν a > 3 ΄ Ἀ > ΄ 
προειρημένην ταύτην σαθρὰν κάρπωσιν. Τὸ πᾶν ἐστιν ἠλίθιον καὶ ἀλλότριον, 
A > / 
καὶ ἐκ δαιμόνων κινήσεως φρύαγμά τε καὶ ἀπάτη. 
Y Ν Ν - aA mae ᾿ 
Iya δὲ μὴ παρεκτείνωμαι τῷ λόγῳ, ἀρκέσει τὰ εἰρημένα ἡμῖν ἡ Μαρία 
A ε Κ , i a 6 4 bo Ν Ν 2 4g ε δώ nN , 
τιμῇ, ὃ Κύριυς προσκυνεῖσθω' ovdevi γὰρ ἐργάζονται ot δίκαιοι πλάνην. 
> , ’ Lal 
“᾿Απείραστος yap ἐστιν ὃ Θεὸς κακῶν, πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα,᾽᾽ οὐδὲ οἵ 
> A A ” aA 
αὐτοῦ δοῦλοι, zpos ἀπάτην. “Ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας 
/ Ἂν /, > 
ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος. Εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία 
ἀποτελεσθεῖσα ἀποκυεῖ θάνατον.᾽᾽ 
‘Ta. ῶ δὲ ” Ν ΄, , , 3 Ἃ Ν 4 
vas δὲ ἔχειν περὶ πάντων τούτων νομίσαντες, ἀγαπητοὶ, καὶ ταύτην, 
e > ~ ‘ 4 Ν “ ” Ων ’ Ν Ν ΄ 
ὡς εἰπεῖν, τὴν κανθαρίδα, τὴν τῷ εἴδει μὲν χρυσίζουσαν, πτερωτὴν δὲ, ὡς 
εἰπεῖν, καὶ πετωμένην, ioBor ὖ ai δηλητή ἐν ἑαυτῇ 2 D 
: μένην, ἰ ον οὖσαν καὶ δηλητήριον ἐν ἑαυτῇ κεκτημένην, τῷ 
, a > , 
λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας συντρίψαντες, etc. 


St. 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 ‘‘xew’’ 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, ‘‘7hrace 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. 4s 
to the origin of the worship of the Virgin, and tts first dupes, Epiphan- 
ius, in Section 1 of his article on the Heresy of the Collyridians, 
thus writes of it what shows its hevesy, novelty, and the fact that 
Epiphanius held that ‘‘¢he Devil” was its author, and that its dupes 
were silly women: 

‘‘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 treatson 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 15 lowin mind. And the devil deemed it best to 
vomit forth that error also by means of women, as aforetime he 


406 Article XTV. 





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: ‘‘7hou 
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and HIM ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE.”’ 
Indeed Epiphanius himself quotes that law of Christ against crea- 
ture worship elsewhere; see in proof page 243, volume I of Chrys- 
tal’s WVicaea. 

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

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

Epiphanius again brands Collyridianism clearly and definitely 
as a “‘heresy,’’ and again and again as from the devil and from the 
demons, and from the folly of women. 

For in the same Section 1 above quoted, he expressly 
terms it a ‘‘heresy’? which ‘ ‘the Devil’’ had vomited forth ‘‘by means 
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 isalien”’ [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, 


St. Lpiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 407 


without excepting any part of it , as ‘“‘the craziness of those women’ 
who held it, ‘‘/or the whole thing ts a fancy of the female sex, and it 
is the disease of Eve who ts again deceived,’’? and he calls upon the 
‘‘male servants of God’’ to ‘‘put on a manly mind’ and to ‘‘scatter’” 
it ‘‘away.’’? And in Section 1, just before, he terms it an ‘‘zdo/- 
making heresy’ (631) and a ‘‘madness’ of [the Collyridian] 
‘‘women’’ whom he had just mentioned. 

In Section 4 he calls the ‘‘Mary-worshipping Collyridianism a 
NEw /folly,”’ and ‘‘this craziness as to woman’s place in the Church,’’ 
and ‘‘this wickedness through the female again,’ blames them for 
‘“‘soing 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, ‘‘7hou 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] and 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: 

‘Ror 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: 

“Tet 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, but be faithful to the command of 
God, Eat not of the tree. . . . Let no oneeat of the going 





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


408 Artide XTV. 





astray [of those Collyridian women] on holy Mary’saccount. For 
even though the tree was most beautiful, yet it was not for food; 
and though Mary is most beautiful and holy and honored, vET sHE 
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 
wickedness,’ 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 ¢he 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: 

‘‘Ror every heresy is a wicked woman, and οὐ more is this 
heresy of the women and of the serpent who deceived the first woman.” 
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 [to Chris- 
tianity] and is both az 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 bein honor. 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. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 409 





“Βαϊ 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 they 
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, erosses, 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 L XXVIII. 

(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 all’’ 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 Uni- 
versality, and is by the ‘‘one, 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 LX XVIII). 

(C.) St. 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, 10). Andhe 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, 


410 Artide 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 thee? My hour ts not yet come,’ that none 
may suppose the holy Virgin to be more than she is; and he called - 
her a ‘Woman’ [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, much less a woman, 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, ‘‘and 
Mary who was yet more honorable than she because she was deemed 
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’’ [that 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 much less does He wish her to be 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? not, however, that she was 
born in a way different from the natural way of all humanity but 
just as ail are from a man’s seed and a woman’s womb.”’ 


St. Epiphanius 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 thestory. 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, 
“‘Woman, what have I to do with thee?’’ 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 zovelty 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 Gop 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, Faustina Presbyter of Rome, Lucifer of Cagliari and 
Chromatius 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 XTV. 


“Ἧς [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, Lat 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 TO 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 ‘‘¢hey eat the bread 
of wickedness’ 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, Letsuch 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 tho-e 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, O Israel, by a woman. Hold thy head 
high and away from a bad woman’s counsel. for a woman hunts 
for the precious souls of men. For her feet lead those who have inter- 
course with her to death and to Hadés, Heed not a wicked woman of 


St. Lpiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 413 





no account. For [though] honey drops from the lips of a whorish 
woman who for a time pleases thy throat yet afterwards thou wilt find 
ita thing 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 women 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 Adamcome 
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 the 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 deception to which they are moved by the demons. 

But that I may not extend my remarks [too far], the things 
[already] said will suffice for us. Let Mary bein honor. Let the 
Lord be worshipped. 


414 Article XTV. 





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 L XXVIII, 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 they are borne along bya 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 the whole thing is a devilish work and 
a doctrine of an unclean spirit, And in them is fulfilled the Scrip- 
ture, which says: Some shall depart from the sound doctrine giving 
heed to fables and doctrines of demons. 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 any person.” 

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


St. Epiphanius against the Worship 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 shea 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 Isaaccame. And let 
no one offer to her name, 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 Christian Israel by 
their fate, and likens the spiritual whoredom of those Mary-wor- 
shipping women to a whore who “‘ hunts for the precious life,’? and 
who leads ‘‘ those who have intercourse with her to death and to 
Flades. . . . 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 jinsolence 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 


416 Article XIV. 


a Es ES a a ---- - 


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 women seems golden, 
winged, and flying, but is in reality ‘‘ potsonous and containing 
DESTRUCTION 771 zéself,’? which, as above, he had ‘‘crushed dy 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, 
with 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 Arian 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 Collyridians 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, 
offering prayer, incense, bowing, kneeling, and others, and one of 
them is the sacrificing 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 isacreature. But I have suffi- 
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 
reader. It is Act 9 of worship on pages 309-313 above. Indeed, I 





St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 4τ7 


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 sois the plea of velative worship to excuse it, and that settles 
the whole matter forever, however much Rome and other creature 
worshippers may oppose. 

For the Syzod condemned the Nestorian worship of Christ’s human- 
ity, and 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 against the Nestorian Relative Wor- 
ship of Christ's humanity, see, in Volume I of Chrystal’s Ephesus, 
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 Gexeral /ndex, to that volume under 
Christ, Cyril, Nestorius, Man- Worship; ἀνθρωπολατρεία and ἀνθρωπολάτρης 
in the Greek Index, and Relative Worship in the General Index. 

And, in Volume II of the same work, see the Nestorian Fe/- 
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 ‘‘ Explanation of 
Important Language’’ 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 unsettle 
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 to 


418 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, and 
hunger and thirst . . . tnasmuch as they happened to his flesh for 
our sake are to be joined together fo de worshipped,’’ was con- 
demned by vote by the whole Church in that Orthodox Council ἡ 
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, 
ee shalt worship the Lord thy God, aud Him only shalt thou 
serve ;’’ Matthew IV, 10. 

The facts cited show, therefore, that the ἜΤ Church 
approved, in effect, Epiphanius against Mary worship, and against 
all other worship of creatures, and condemned once for ail 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 Vicaca, Volume I, page 246, where he is writing on 
Heresy LX XVI, where he contrasts as follows the entire freedom 
of the Universal Church from the fundamental error of worshipping 
creatures. 

‘‘ AND WE OURSELVES DO NOT WORSHIP ANY THING INFERIOR 
TO THE SUBSTANCE OF Gop 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 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 419 





come from Flim also through the Sole Born [out of the Father]. For 
there 1s nothing created in the Trinity. . . . Because the Trinity 
if uncaused by any . . . cause, 72 has unerringly taught that 
Itself alone 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 [tbat is God the Word] is not liable to the suf- 
fering of a creature.’’ 

As all admit that Christ’s humanity is liable to suffering 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. Hpiphanius passage 16, on pages 242, 243, Volume 
I of Chrystal’s /Vicaea, 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 ¢he Sole Mediator by His Divin- 
ity and by His humanity, 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 Zphesus 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 Articde XTV. 


en nnn .»"-----..-ττ“Φ“Τ Τ ESSE || ςᾺς7Δ5τᾺΘ,ᾳἰοοωᾳ»“σρδ.......... 


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 LX XVIII. 

(I.) Epiphanius makes no mention of the Romish xew-fangled 
and medieval figment of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin 
without any taint of original 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 effect 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 
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 


St. 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 Doctrines of the Church of Rome contrary to 
Scripture and the Teaching of the Primitive Church : 

“By the term ‘/mmaculate Conception 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 Artice ATV. 





Church have fallen into some or all of those sins, and are leading 
their people, and especially women, to hell, and, undeposed by 
their own Eli-like Bishops, are ruining Church and State and 
bringing curseson 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 Primitive 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 effusions 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 ἐμά:- 
vidual testimonies of Fathers against both Nestorian and Romish 
and Greek creature worship, and this set of the Six Ecumenical 


St. Epiphanius against the Worship of the Virgin Mary. 423 


Councils 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. 


Flere end the Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council, held at 
Ephesus, A. 22. 431. 





INDEX I. to VOLUME II. 


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


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 10-28; and those who sign at its end are on pages 
489-503. See also Index L, 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 1., 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. 





425 


INDEX II. to VOLUME II. 


OF EPHESUS AND TO ACT VII. OF THE COUNCIL IN 
VOLUME III. 





GHNEHRAL 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. ΑἹ] 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. 


Acacius, Bishop of Melitine; said to be unsound, 373, note 656. 

Adoptionism,; see Felix of Urgel and Elipandus. 

Africa; its struggle against the attempt of Rome to get Appellate Jurisdic- 
tion there; 9, note 33; 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 1170; 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; zd, and 158, note 102, warning of its Homilies 


426 Index IT. to Volume 77. 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. 

Antioch; see Diodore, Theodore of Mopsuestia Theodoret and Andrew of 
Samosata, and Constantinople; 141, note 24; 142, note 28; 157, note 
100; 107, note 1; 163, notes 116, 121; 294; 376, notes 669, 670; 321, note 
517; 385, note 726; and in the text and notes of Act VII. volume 11]., 
pages I-4I. 

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

Antiphons; 406, note 831. 

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

Apollinarianism ; 344; 383, 384. See Apollinarius. 

Apollinarius; 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, Apollinarism, and Eunomianism, 
250, note 383; 357 261, note 396. Apollinarius deposed: in what sense. 
by Damasus, 384, note 717. See Apollinarianism. 

Apostasy; see Nestorius and John of Antioch and Ephesus, the Conveuticle 
of; 143, note 373 235; iii, 23, note 88. 

Apostles Creed; 136, 137, note. 

Apostolate; 31, note 1; its relation to the Presbyterate and the 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 PSP Hines and Rome; 383, 
note γιό. See Precedences; ae 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 304; 
446, note 1050. 

Arius; 55. 65, he professed creature worship, 155, note 90, 258; 261; miracu- 
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; different sorts of, 355. 

Azarias; 237. 

Besula the Deacon; 139, note 1; 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 Paroecia, 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 
arrangement of sees; 135, note 1; 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, 2jz¢d; more noble language of the Orthodox Bishops, 445, 
note 1045 ; 450, notzg 1079, 1084; all the Orthodox share their praise, 451, 
note 1088; compare 460; note 1132. 


Bishops, representing chief and other sees who were present in Act VI. 
185-163; 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 Relative-worship, Man-worship, Creature-wor- 
ship, Eucharist, Puseyite 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 670, pages 332-362; 
and page 46%, and note 949 there; and canon VI. of Ephesus, page 29 
of Vol. III. of Ephesus in this Set. 

Blondel; 353. 

Boniface, Bishop of Rome; 9, nete 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 73. 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 his own sense by 


428 Index IT. to Volume IT. 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 Deiegates 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; 375 386, they claim that ‘‘¢he 
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. iil, 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 dignity, 
and are authoritative, iii, 11, 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, 111., 13, note there—Canon VI. of Nicaea, 
III, 11, note 48, and id. 12, note 50; by whom Ecumenical Canons 
may be modified or abolished, id., 12, note 56; Nicene Canons protect 
Cyprus, iii., 15, note 58. 

Carthage; see Africa; 141, note 23. 

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 
‘Act 11. 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 Worship below, and in volume I. 
of Ephesus, see Worship; see also an expression of Celestine which 


General Index. 429 





savors of relic-worship, which was altered by the Synod, 77, text and 
note 2: [they changed his Latin veneramini, ye venerate or 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 Twelve; 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- 
308, indeed 241-398: differences between themselves and the Orthodox 
as to their teachings, 270, 271; and notes on pages 388, 380, 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 308. 

Christians; all are priests; and the only chosen race, 380, 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; II, 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. 

Chrysostom; 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 1009. 

Constantine 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 front. 

Constantinople, its struggle against Rome; 141, notes 23, 24, 157, note 100: 
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 New 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, 


430 Index IT. to Volume II. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 





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 
restore, ili., 33. 

Constantius, the Emperor, persecutes the Orthodox, 195, note 232. 

Councils, The VI. Ecumenical: what this work does, Preface, i; needs of 
this set, Pref. i., ii. iii, vi, B; their importance, Pref. ii.; their sound- 
ness, ii. vi. B., ignorance of them and its mournful results, Pref. 11., 1110; 
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 
authority of an Ecumenical Council, 80, note 4; 453, note 1102; 454, 
note 1107: 455, notes 1110, 1113; a future Seventh of the Christian 
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; 116-124, 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; 455, note 1112. 

Consubstantiation, one nature kind, Pref. 11: 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 vel- 
ume i. of Nicaea, and on pages 476, 477 of that volume under 
ἀνθρωπολατρεία, ἀνθρωπολατρέω, ἀνθρωπολάτρης, and ἀνθρωποφαχγία, 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 
Definition of the Apostolic faith,” 140, note 14; it was put forth against 


EEO 





General Index. 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 whole world,” 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 IL, 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, 196: 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; 350, 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, 


432 Index IT. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of 11. 





399, 400. The clear and literal sense of the Creed condemns Arius, 
Nestorius, Eutyches and Pope Honorius, 195, note 232. 
Creed, the Constantinopolitan; 6, Ecumenical; how it differs from the ren- 
dering in the Anglican Prayer Book, 6, note 24; compare 171, note 152. 
Creed, the so-called Apostles’, a local Roman and Western Οὐ δα, 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; 377, note 673; 433, note 


983. 

Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia; 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 267; 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 of 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, mote 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, 5, note 27; III., 18, note 69: number of suf- 
fragans there, vol. 111., page 2, note 12. 

Cyril of Alexandria’s XII. chapters or Anathemas; xiii.; 255, 256, 335-3443 
381, note 704: Anathema VIII., id.; letters of, and a spurious homily, 
21, 22-27, 28-39; the Anathemas are slandered and denounced 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 Ephesus, 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 


—— Ψ ἊΨ ΡΟΝ 


General Index. 433 


(9) 





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 worship 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, 237, and 
note 372 there; 238. Cyril likens the Nestorian worship of Christ’s 
humanity to the worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image 238, note 
377; 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; 3723; it was ve/ative 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 Bringer 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, 335, 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. xvi, 17; τὸ: Rom. xvi, 173 ΠῚ Timothy: iit.,/4, 5; Ditus 111, 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 660, 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 Index IT. to Volume II. of Ephesus and part of 117. 





378, and notes there, especially 674, 677, 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 Apollinarianism, 379-385, make God the Word 
liable to suffering and mingle Christ’s 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; 157, 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, 195, 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 603. 

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. 
ili., 8, note 36. 

Elipandus, 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 Constantine. See Titles 
and Theodosius II.; 67; 138, 130; 185, 186; were Heads of the State, 
but not of the Church, 462, notes 1146, 1148; but convoked the Kcu- 


General Index. 435 





menical Synods; see vol. i. of Ephesus, pages 5-44; vol. III., page 1, 
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 θέ 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; τόρ, 
note 143; 399-405; 408-416; why he was deposed, id.; see Nestorius, 
Eucharist, and Worship of Christ's humanity; Non-Ecumenical Docu- 
ments between its Acts I. and II., 21-66; see Celestine. The Greeks 
modify his Letter to the Synod and in that form only approve it, 77, 
note 2 and 3—93; an Ecumenical Synod was superior to Celestine, 80, 
note 4; 82, note 1; 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; Juvenal, 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, 72-70; 
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. Firmus, Bishop of Caesarea had 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 effect 
to Celestine’s form, or judgment against him, 82-84. On July 11, in 
Act iii., Juvenal, 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,” 04. 
Philip, the Roman Presbyter, that is Elder as Presbyter 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 IT. to Volume Il. of Ephesus, and part of II. 





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 οἵ the 
West, had just expressed their agreement with 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,” 114-124: 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 Legates, Firmus of Caesarea, and four other Easterns, those 
names being deemed enough, 126, 127. Next comes A warning by the | | 
translator on 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 


Se  ὐὉὉ π΄  -  -------ςς-- ο'͵συστστσσσστο -  πτ ΌΘΣ Ξ 


that proclamation of 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 effect Cyril’s view, vol. ii. pages III, 112, note I; and 
113, notes 2 and 4; and the doctrine of the Council itself, 114-124, 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 unlawful 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 effect 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 77. to Volume 77. 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“ approval and support of 
piety against Nestorius and his impious doctrine,” and ask further that 
their own decisions “shall have their own 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 
Vharisius and “the Forthset of that impious and bad belief on the 
Inman of the Sole Born Son, of God [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. 


. 4 
ὌΠ ΨΞΗΠΨᾳΠ᾿Ί ΣΟ Ὄρος ἈΝ ΡΝ ΨΚ ΡΟ ΨΨΨΝ ΡΨ ΡΨ. ᾽ν ᾿ῳᾳσ ]Φ0Ψ0Ν ΩΝ 


i ee ee ας δέ ee «αὐ. 


+ 


a ae 


General Index. 439 





Next comes a “Copy of the Forthset of the Counterfeited for 
“depraved’| Symbol,’ which is ascribed by Marius Mercator and the 
Emperor Justinian 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 Indwell- 
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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is the worship 
of a human being; see pages 694, 695, volume i. of Ephesus in this 
set under ἀνθρωπολατρεία and ἀνθρωπολάτρης 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 worshipper of God 
alone, (Matt. iv., 10). 


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 222-234, 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 Man-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 ccmmitting the same sin of the Nestorian Worship 
of Christ’s humanity and much more if he worships any other 
creature, acts contrary to it and to Christ’s law in Matthew iv., 10, and 


440 


Index 17. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of 177. 





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; 
102, note 223. 

The same decision forbids every one “to offer or to write or to 
compose another faith (πίστιν), contrary to that decreed by the holy 
Fathers gathered in the city of the Nicaeans with the Holy Ghost Ὁ 
[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, ibid. 

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 1, 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 enlightened by it and how 
the people had anathematized Nestorius, 405-417, and how the Em- 


General 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 written by the Clergy of 
Constantinople 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, 410. 

Orthodox Document IV. is a “Copy of a Report of the Holy 
Synod in response to that Sacred [that is imperial] Letter, which was 
vead by John, the most magnificent Count of the sacred [that is im- 
perial) Zargesses.”’ i 

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: ‘‘We have deposed Nestorius alone, 
the preacher of the wicked 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 Synod 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 Conventicie 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 IT. to Volume IT. of Ephesus and part of 717. 





Orthodox Document VI. is a “Copy of an Epistle written by 
Memnon, 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 Synod, 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 enactments 
against our Fellow Ministers, which 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 Nestorius. So qll our objection and resistance” [to 
them] ‘‘ vests on those things. Wet 11 the Orthodox pray for us. For 
as the blessed David says, 1 am prepared for the scourges.’ That is 
noble, unselfish and plain against that Nestorian heresy 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 be worship- 
ped,” the Emperor was veering around to Orthodoxy: Pages 446-448. 


Orthodox Document XI., 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 “A 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 to 
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 IT. of Ephesus, and part of 111. 


ee Cr” O]jUjw“ 


very firm. O! 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 467-4609. 

Orthodox Document XVI. and Last, is the “ divine letter” of the 
Emperor “‘/o 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 Memnon 
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 445 





make himself a court of highest appeal against the verdict of a Holy- 
Ghost-led Synod of 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 VII. is all in volume III]. 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 two 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, Monophysites, 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 Inflesh 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- 


446 Index IT. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of Lil. 





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 ἀνθρωποφαγία, 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 Metropolitan;” vol. 11. of Ephesus, pages 
34-37. That and the two other documents following are so short 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 
Euchites or Enthusiasts,’ volume III. of Ephesus, pages 37-39; and the 
Petition of Euprepius, Bishop of Bizya and Arcadiopolis and of Cyril, 
Bishop of Coele 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 VI. 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.III. 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. 


Uphesus, the Nestorian 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 Nestorian Conventicle of the Apostasy, 
and Nestorius; its Erastianism, 251, 252, their lying and misrepresenta- 
tions, 250-253: were under discipline, 390, note 749; rely on the Em- 
peror, 387-304; 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, 440; 450, 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 Dirth, 203, notes 258, 250. 
Eucharius, Vol. 11., page 1. 
Eucharist, the; Pusey’s and Keble’s errors on, Pref. ii.; are parts of an 


Apostasy, 143, note 37; 326, note 520; real substance presence of either 
Nature of Christ, the Divine or the human, alien to Aphesns, 5, 
text and note 18; 430, note 962. See also under /Vestorius and Wor- 


General Index. 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 11]., 
page 143, note 37. Benediction of the Sacrament, 158, note 102. See 
Consubstantiation and Rome, 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, Monophysite and 
Nestorian Communions still, vol. 111., 41, text and note; penalties for 
the sin; ibid. 

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

Lunomius, 55, 03; his errors, 155, note ΟἹ. 

Euprepius, 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 Caesarea, an opponent of the Nicene faith, finally pro- 
fesses to accept it, but his sincerity is disputed, 195, note 232. 

Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, hypocritically professes to accept the Nicene 
faith, but afterwards opposes it, 195, note 232. 

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

Eustathius, Bishop of Attalia in Pamphylia; his case settled by Ephesus, vol. 
111., pages 34-37. 

Eutyches, the One-Natureite and worshipper of Christ’s humanity, con- 
demned by the Universal Church, 195, note 232. See Discipline and 
Creed, that of Nicaea. 

Exarchs, vol. 111., 22, note 76. See also Precedences of Sees. 

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

“ Faith and Canons,” 420, note 902. 

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

False Liberalism, 376, notes 660, 670. 

Fathers; editions by Romanists, critical rules regarding them, 30; 344-3553 
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 Middle 
Ages, and since, 31, note 1; 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; 201, note 468. 

Foresiiter; why the Oriental Bishop was so-called, 418, note 801. 

Fourteenthdayites, that is Quartodecimans,; 197, note 235. 


448 Index IT. to Volume 77. of Ephesus. 





Gallican Church; robbed of its ecumenically guaranteed rights and liberties 
by Leo L, Bishop of Rome, and his tool Valentinian III., the Western 
Emperor, vol. iii., 20, note 72. 

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 1; admits that Rome misused the Sardi- 
can Canons, and the false Decretals, id. 


77. 


Hilary, Bishop of Artes ; see Gallican Church. 

Holiness, your ; a Byzantine title; 139, 148, note 52: see under 77//es. 

Honorius, Bishop of Rome, ecamenically condemned asa heretic, 12, note; 
82-89, note 2; 102, note; 128-131; 168, note 139; 196, note 232. See 
also Vigilius of the same See. 


1 


Idolatry and Rome to be resisted, 266; see Rome, and vol., III, 35, note rog. 

Lllyricum, 465. 

Immigration of Jews, Romanists, etc.,into the ΤΙ. 5. harmful: vi. B.; 11-14, 
note; see Church and State. 

Incarnation, the doctrine denied by Nestorius; see under Rome and Nesto- 
rvius: he was deposed for said denial; 27d, 250. 

Infants for 800 years after Christ received at once baptism, confirmation and 
communion, II, note 4: the custom should be restored, 408, note 842; 
sad results in the United States and elsewhere of denying those rites 
to infants, 77d., 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. 

{nvocation an act of worship and prerogative to God, 330; to give it toa 
creature is to turn Pagan, 330; Athanasius writes: ‘‘ WE INVOKE NO 
CREATURE,’’ 330; see the whole passage there. 

Treland; Romanism its curse, 13, note; and massacre of Protestants there 
in 1641, zbid, and see all note 40 there. 

Irenaeus, Count; 241-247. 

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


7. 


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 of Antioch; 22, see Table of Contents, vii.-xiv. See Ephesus, Ecumen-: 
ical Synod of, and Ephesus, the Conventicle of. John and his Conven 
ticle, 140-143; its composition and number and action, zd., and 151; 
166, 167;. 173, 174, 176; 140, note 19; see Canons, zalied an Apostasy, 
143. note 37, 143, notes 35, 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, 7d., especially 160-162; 176; John 
hid his errors, 150; the conventicle’s bad and slanderous course, 
153-156; 375-386; 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 ‘‘dlasphemies,’’ 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, 180; 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, 3167 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 Syrians, 338-344; they lyingly assert that Cyril, Memnon and 
the Third Synod teach the heresies of Apollinarius, Arius, and 
Kunomius, 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 contending ‘‘that there is 
but one nature, composed of deity and humanity.’’ 262; so does John of 
Antioch, 371, 372; are wrongly allowed to preach their heresies at 


450 


Index IT. to Volume 77. of Ephesus. 


nn nnn nnn EEUU EEE EIEnIEn Un EnEN SEES SESE 


Chalcedon, 362; but are opposed by the Emperor and “ὦ 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 “αἱ the people,” at Chalcedon and Constan- 
tinople; see Acacius, 373-375; tefuse to accept the decisions of Ephe- 
sus, 373-375; see Bringer Forth of God, and Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve 
Chapters and Nestorian Conventiclé 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. IIL., 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 ‘‘to 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 ‘‘7f any of the elerics 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 
Floly 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. 


John, 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, 


— Se 


General Index. 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, 147, 148, note 48. Juvenal at times 
takes a leading part in the Third Synod, 67, notes 133, 134, etc. 


“κε 


Keble, John ; his ignorance of the VI. Synods and its results, Pref. ii., iii.; 
232, note; his ignorance on the Kucharist, 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 ¢he 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. 


Te 


Leo 7., 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 Americans: 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. 

7. 


Macedonius ; his errors, 155. 

Magistrate, the civil; his duties toward Christ’s sound religion, 12, note 
40. See Christianity and Church and State, 11, note 40. 

Man-Worship; xiii.; the Nestorians did not believe the Incarnation, and, 
so, velatively worshipped Christ’s mere separate humanity, 317, 318; 
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 
the Third Ecumenical Synod were taking away worship from Christ's 
humanity, 309-312; 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, mot is a misprint for dwt. 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 VIIIth 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 
331, 332, volume I. of Zphesus in this Set, and notes there; and page 


452 


Index IT. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of LI. 





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

““The Nature of Divinity is [but] One, and that WE MUST WOR- 
SHIP THAT NATURE ALONE, hear again [the Words of Christ]: Zhou 
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and H1M 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 Hphesus 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 
1, 6; id., 323-331; so Epiphanius teaches, 331, id. The Third Kecu- 
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 Cyril to hold, 320, and volume I. of Aphesus in this 
Set, pages 97 and 117; see in its General Index, under J/an- Worship, 
Nestorians, Nestorius and his Heresies, especially his Heresy 2, pages 
639, 645, and in the Greek Index, under ἀνθρωπολατρέω, ἀνθρωπολατρεία 
and ἀνθρωπολάτρης, 250. See Creature-Worship and the Explanation 
on pages 317-335, 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, 
317-335; Cyril is followed by the Third Synod and the Fifth in con- 
demning it under strong penalties, 317-335; his Nestorian opponents 
understood him to oppose worship 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; see John of Antioch. 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. Seealso Worship of Christ's Humanity—Kenrick, Romish Arch- 
bishop of Baltimore, advocates one of the latest forms of MWan- 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 £phesus, 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 ¢he holy Mary, at Ephesus, 413, 
note 853: Vole: Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and 
Byzantine Periods under Μαρία 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 who shows that the Collyridians 


General Index. 453 


started that heresy; see Article XIV., vol. III. of Ephesus in this 
set, page 363, and Peter of Sicily in proof. ‘‘For the legend of her 
assumption see Timothy the Presbyter’’ of Constantinople, of 
A. Ὁ. 535, and others whom Sophocles there mentions. “The title, 
Μήτηρ Geod,’’ [Mater Dei, in Latin, that is ‘Mother of God’), ‘made its 
first appearance in the fourth century.” See the facts stated by 
Bishop Pearson in his work on the Creed, Article III , ‘Born of the 
Virgin Mary,’ pages 270-272, N. Y. edition, Appleton, 1853, and 
notes there. But we should never use Mother of God, which is not 
authorized by the Third Synod but Bringer Forth of God, Θεοτόκος 


(Theotocos), which is. 

Memnon of Ephesus, 60, 61, 67, 139, 262 to 264; 268; 269-277, 293; 405, note 
824; 422, note 915; 428, note 952; resists the Nestorian attempt to 
depose him, 431, note 966; 432, notes 968, 971. 

Messalians or Massalians: 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, III of “phesus 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. 1II., 12, note 50" vol. III., 22, note 76. 

Ministry, the three orders; 31, note I. 

Misael, 237. 

Monte Casino; see Synodicon, 

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


Ν. 


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, zd7d. 

Neale, 7. 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 


Index IT, to Volume Il. of Ephesus, and part of 177. 





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, 61, 63, 250, 251; their complaint of 
fear of violence from the Orthodox, 59-66; ‘‘co-apostatized’’ with 
Nestorius, 173, note 164: See_ John 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 ‘‘dotng evil in despair of their own salvation,” 11] 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 Einperor, in which they, lyingly, rep- 
resent their small minority faction, though suspended from the Com- 
mtunion, 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 Synod, and they 
would make the Emperor their tool to that end, 250-253: see Zheodo- 
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 tne 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 “20 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 Index. Ray 
esta ee ee λυνος, ἐδ. τος ἐμ νι κ τως 


that XII. of the Bishops of the Orthodox Synod were Messalian 
heretics, though the whole Ecumenical Synod formally condemned 
that heresy, as we see in vol. III, 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 Intlesh 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 Memnon, 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. Irenaeus was their strong friend and partisan. 
They complain that, notwithstanding the Emperor's letter, Cyril 
and Memnon and the Synod had not submitted tothem. And the 
Document 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. isan 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 found 
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 off straightway the deposition 
of Orthodox Bishops, but that when John the Physician, and cell-mate, 
or Syncellus of Cyril came ‘‘sost of the ruling men became 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 IT. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 





expression Bringer Forth of God (‘Theotocos, Θεοτόκος), but, in what 
sense is not so clear, and in violent language he rejects Cyril’s XII. 
Chapters (the VIIIth. 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 Word. Cyrilhad put 
it forth to avoid invoking and otherwise 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 Kucharist 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, 
Matthew XVIII., 17, 18 John testifies that he had taken Cyril, 
Memnon, and Nestorius into custody, but that the Synod stood by 
thetwo former. ‘They would 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 Letter 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 L, 
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 was correct; and they 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 disa 
regards Cyril and Memnon as deposed; 294. sia taint | 

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 
glories 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 own 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 they 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 tothe 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 away’? 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 allow the Orthodox to reject their appeal to 
their Nestorian Doctors, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mospuestia, 
and, perhaps, other Syrians 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 the 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 Important 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 ‘‘¢he Apostasy,’ from Chalcedon to the Emperor, 
Theodosius II. It is Document XX. They lie, as usual, against 
Cyril and the Orthodox, and accuse Cpyril’s XII. Chapters, 
approved by the whole Church, in Act I. of the Council, as 
agreeing with ‘“‘¢he impiety of Arius and of Eunomius and of 
Apollinarius,’’? a downright falsehood, and they oppose his other 
writings against the Nestorians. [hey harp on the fact, also, 


458 Index IT. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of IT. 








that the Ecumenical Synod had refused to let the Emperor uido 
their Holy Ghost guided 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 whom they represented seem to have dropped the whole 
topic of the Bringer Forth of God (Θεοτόκος, ‘Theotocos in Latin 
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 Eucharistical Adoration, fourth edition, page 108 and after; 335. 
But neither Ambrose, ‘Theodoret, nor any other of the earlier wit- 
nesses of Keble are for his two Nature Consubstantiation, but for 
the One Nature kind. Here weadd ‘‘ 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 ΧΙ. This is the Third Petition of the Delegates of 
“the Apostasy”? tothe Emperor. It also was sent from Chalcedon, 
a suburb of Constantinople, and contains the usual lies, that their 
little Conventicle was the Kcumenical 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 were 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 efforts 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 11. even by an oath that 


General Index. 459 


ee Se 


they would not communicate with Cyril and Memnon nor with those 
who would not reject the XII. Chapters, which, notwithstanding, 
most of them afterwards 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 Theodoret, to ani- 
mate their own party. This contains most plain and definite relative 
co-worship of Christ's humanity and co-calling 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 
(ἀνθρωπολατρεία in Greek, anthropolatreia in Latin letters), John 
and his fellow heretics were 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 which he was the head, against the Anti-Man-Worshipping 
XII. Chapters of Οὐχ and against Cyril himself. It says not a 
word on the expression Bringer Forth of God (Θεοτόκος), 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, Kast and West, and lie 
about Cyril and the Synod, charging the Chapters with Apollinari- 
anism, Arianism, and Kunomianism, and misrepresenting his Kcu- 
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 worship 
to it: see volume I. of Vicaea in this Set, Passage 13, pages 237-240. 
And they repeat the falsehood again, till we are sick of it, that their 


460 


Index IT. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 





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 
again and again in these Documents; 375. 


Document XXVIII. is a Letter 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 Lord’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 (Θεοτόκος), 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 ἀνθρωπολάτρης, 
in Latin 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 ‘‘ more 
than often 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 own places. It 
is noteworthy that in all or nearly all these documents the Nestori- 
ans say not a word definitely on the expression Bringer 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 
unfavorable to them, 389, 390; page 394. 

Nestorians ; were bitter persecutors, 430, note 961. 

Nestorius ; deposed, 2; an Apostate, 17; his impious preachings, 2, note 6; 
called unholy by 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 
note 5; 63; he was a blasphemer against the doctrine of the Incar- 
nation and against the worship 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, I40, 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, 7d7d., 
280, note 431; 283, note 442; 397 and notes there; 434, note 986; 436, 
note 995; Cyril charges him notwithstanding his acceptance of the 


462 Index IT, to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of ITI. 





expression Bringer Forth of God (Θεοτόκος) 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 Alexandria; 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? τά 
samples of his blasphemies, impiety and defilement, 408-415, and 
notes; 439, notes 1011, lo1z2—the Ecumenical Council calls him ‘“‘ the 
preacher of the impiety,’ 440. 

Newman, 7. 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 Creed and Canons. 

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

NNon-Jurors ; a humorous fact on the, 147, note. 

Novatianism; 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. 


Ο. 


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

Orientals ; who they were, 138, and note 2 there; 163, note στό. 

Orthodox 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. 


PP 


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. ‘ 

Pelagians; their errors; 173, note 166; 177, note 182, and 182, note 184: See 
Celestians ; 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 33 
two of his Roman successors, judged and condemned by two Ecu- 


General Index. 463 





menical Synods, 91, note 1; compare 84, note 1, and 93, note I: 
Peter’s rank and offices 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. Synods; see the same notes and /uvenal and 
Cyprus and John of Antioch. 

The present Bishop of Rome, an idolater and a heretic, and 
deposed with all his clergy, and excommunicate with all his laity, 
vol. II., 92, note; compare under Sishop, and 141, notes 23, 24. See 
Precedences of Sees. 


Precedences of Sees; the Kcumenical principle on which they are based, 162, 


Philip 


note 114; 157, note 100; 312-316 text, and notes; 428, note 952: see 
Dioceses, Appeals and Discipline and Juvenal; see Constantinople; ina 
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 30: neither Rome nor Constantinople has 
now any precedence, both being idolatrous, heretical. and the 
population of Constantinople being now mainly Mohammedan; 1614: 
the Romanist Hefele’s witness to the principle, zd; 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. 111., zbid,; see Bishop. 

, α presbyter and legate of Rome, vol. 11., 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; who he was, 127, note 1; 138, 139, 
note 5. 


Polemius, his heresy that ‘‘¢he body of the Lord came down from the heavens, 


and that the body of Christ ts 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-pr test, that is co-minister, 466, note 1186: all Christians are priests, 
vol. II., 73, note 1; 161, note 111; 389, 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. 


Protestant nations; see England, Britain and Protestants. 
Protestants forbidden to submit to any creature-worshipping Bishop, vol. 


III., 34, note τοῦ. 


Pusey, E. B.; his ignorance of the VI. Synods; its results, vol. 11., Pref. 


464 Index Il. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of 7177. 





ii., iii.; and 232, note; is condemned by Hphesus, vol. III., 20, note 71: 
See vol. II., 195, note 232, and Discipline. 

Puseyite idolaters ; 326, note 529. 

Quaternity; 240: See, also, Tetradism. 

Quartodecimans, that is Fourteenthdayites ; vol. II., 197, note 235; condemned 
in Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Creed, 210,note 285; 211, note 286, 


i 


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 /elative Worship, in the General 
Index to volume I. of Ephesus, vol. II., pages 652, 653, and compare 
the cognate terms there, elative Conjunction, Relative Indwelling, 
and Relative Participation, vol. 11., pages 651 and 652: see Worship; 
Relative Worship, vol. 11., 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. 11., 317-335, 
etc.; the only worshipable thing is the Divinity of the Triune Jeho- 
vah, and all worship to it must be absolute not relative; Lbid. 

John of Antioch preaches the relative worship of Christ’s human- 
ity, 370-372, inclusive; itis found among Nestorius’ XX. Blasphe- 
mies for which he was deposed at Ephesus, see vol. I. of Ephesus in 
this Set, page 461, note 949; 479, 480, 486-504, and note F., pages 529- 
552 there. 

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

Relative Indwelling; see volume I. of Aphesus 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 Zphesus, vol. 11., 
59, and note 1 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, and Johz of Antioch. 

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

Rheginus, 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. 11., 10, note 


General Index 465 


a  οοοτρ τ τ Τττττ-“----- ῬϑοϑοῸυὺἄ͵ὰέισοεἽἼςοο.ο-Οο'αΦΘΟΟ“--ο-λ ρ---ς-- 


33: See Apiarius and Appellants; and vol. 11., 10-14; refutation of 
Philip’s boastful language 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; wonderful and, seemingly, miraculous 
rebuke of that local conventicle’s attempt to give the lie to the VIth 
Ecumenical Synod, Schaff’s account, vol. 11., 129, Quirinus’ 130; the 
proclaimer of the dogma of Papal infallibility, Pius IX., an idolater 
deposed and excommunicate by the Third Synod and the Sixth 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. 11., 131-134; see 
Africa: Rome had no primacy 6y divine right (jure divino) in the 
whole Church, vol. H., 134-137; Constantinople had ‘‘egual priv- 
ileges”’ with her, vol. II., 135; the Church not built on Peter alone, 
vol. II., 135, 136; 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. 11., 137; Juvenal, Bishop of 
Jerusalem, in Act IV. of Ephesus makes a bumptious claim over 
Antioch which 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. 11., 68, note 2; 420, note 907; 462, 
note 1149; further refutation from Scripture and Ecumenical Synods 
of Rome’s claims, vol. II., 79, note 2; 80, note 4; 82, notes I and 2; 
141, notes 23, 24; at Hphesus Rome’s legates approved allits 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 worship of creatures, crosses, images, 
and all other things, and all his real substance presence of Christ’s 
humanity in the Lord’s Supper, its worship there or anywhere else, 
and the Cannibalism of eating it, vol. II., 98, note 3; 113, note 4; com- 
pare note 2 there; vol. 11., 116, 117, notes 5 and δ: 125, notes) a 
specimen of how Romanists pervert language to favor Rome, 146, 
note 47, how Rome got anti-canonical power in the West, vol. II., 1275 
note I; compare 455, note 111; vol. III., 5, note 27; see Constantinople; 
see Precedences of Sees. Appellants to idolatrous Rome should be de- 
posed if clerics and excommunicated if laics, 8, note 33: See 4f- 
peals. 


: 


466 Index LI. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of Ill. 
i ::"..».»» 


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. III., 6, note 30: See Constanti- 
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 ‘‘ Vew 
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 Hphesus 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, 757d, 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 I-20, and 
the notes there: see also Rome, pages 653, 654, volume I. of Hphe- 
sus in this Set. 3 


S 


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., 1, 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 Sardicain Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities 
and Chrystal’s articles in the Church Journal of 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, 11., 355; see, on that page, all on authority in line 1 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 Immigration. 

Stewards and other clerics to guard Church property till a Bishop is ap- 
pointed, vol. II., 2, and note 8; see Aishop 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. 

Synodicon of Monte Casino ; vol. 11., 241-247. 

Synodicon of Irenaeus ; vol. II., 335. 

Synods; see Councils, 

Synods, local: Synod of the West, the; vol. II., 111, text and note 4; 112, 
note 1; 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 /phesus, vol. 11., 249; vol. III., 
4, note 14; see also Hcumenical Synod, a future Seventh, 422, note 915. 


7" ° 


Tetradism, vol. II., 240 3 319-323; see Man- Worship and Worship of Christ's 
humanity, and Quaternity ; see Tetradism, page 656, volume I. of 
Liphesus, and in the same volume Man Worship on pages 631-635, 
Nestorius’ Heresy 2, pages 639-641, and τέταρτος, pages 759-761. 

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

Theodore of Mopsuestia; see Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Nestorians 
wish the Emperor not to allow the Orthodox to reject the Nestorian 
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. 11., 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, 250; 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, το]. 11., 


468 Index II. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 








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

Theodosius the Emperor; prejudiced against Cyril, vol. II., 42, 43; see 
Emperors ; 59; he favors Nestorius, vol. 11., 421, note 913; 425, note 
927 ; opposes the Synod, vol. 11., 257-260 ; relied on by the Nestorians 
vol. II., 260-266 ; deemed by them their friend and supporter, vol. II., 
335-3443 358, 374, 377) 387; 307, note 498; calls himself ‘‘our divinity,” 
vol. 11., 259; see under 77¢/es ; terms Nestorius even after his deposi- 
tion by the Third Synod, “216 most holy and most God-revering 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 Iogi and 1095; 456, 
note 1115, and 470-472 and notes. 


Theophilus, called ‘‘ blessed,’ vol. 11., 380, note 695: Theophilus of Alex- 
andria, Cyril’s uncle, called ‘‘ blessed”’ again, vol. II., 468, note 1199 ; 
that is if the reference on page 380 means him. 

Timothy ; see Vitalian ; vol. 11., 384, and note 717 there. 

Titles, extravagant, vol. 11., 68, note 4: 153, note 82; used in a document 
from the Third Synod, 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 rand 2. Such titles were demanded by Roman law, vol. III., 8, 
note 37. See also note 8, page 96, vol. II.; ‘‘ dzvine ears,” that is the 
Emperor’s, vol, II., 162, note 113. See volume I. Hphesus in this set, 
page 659, Titles collective, Titles flattering and sinful, Titles Byzantine ; 
168, mote 138; ‘‘our divinity, vol. 11΄, pages 259 and 287, of the 
Emperar, and note 453 there; “ divine letter,” 289, note 459, 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 court,” 
“ 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, 2d7d., 454, note 1104; milder, but 
not to be used for flattery, ‘‘ Your God-Reveringness,” 427, notes 947 
and 948; ‘‘ Your Headship,’’ 462, note 1146. Some such titles were 
probably bound on the Council andall, 462, note 1148: *‘ Your Christ- 
loving and devoted to God soul,’ 463, note 1150 ; compare Lphesus, vol, 
III.,7, note 31, andid., 8, 37, and id., το, note 43. Some of 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 sodoing my Maker would soon take me 


General Index. 469 





away.’ Letus be warned by what happened to King Herod when 
he allowed such a flattering title to bo given to him, 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, zd7d.; 418, note 
887. 

Trine immersion ; 426, note 941. 

Trullan Synod of A. D. 691 or 692; itsaction on the struggle between Rome 
and Carthage, Io, note 33. See A/rica. 

The Twelve Chapters, that is the XII. Anathemas of Cyril. See Cyril of 
Alexandria’s XII. Chapters; John of Antioch, and the Nestorian 
Conventicle, and Chapters, the Twelve. 

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


{7 
Unity, Church, its future bases, vi. B. See Authority. 


V 


Vatican Council, see Councils and ‘‘ Synods, local.’’ 

Vaughn, 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 /phesus, 222-234. Cyril of Alexandria against the 


470 


Index IT. to Volume Il. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 


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 “phesus in this Set, 
pages 631-635, and Nestorius’ Heresy 2 there, pages 639-641, and 
under Rome in this Index. Nestorius and 'Fheodore worshipped 
the unchanged leavened bread and wine of the Eucharist as being 
not Christ’s Divinity, but his humanity; see under Aucharist here 
and also in the General Index to volume I. of Afhesus iu 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 worship, 
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 note6790n 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 ora dissertation 
than anote. 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 7etradism 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. 


Ss 


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


471 


INDEX ITI. 


INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS: 


IN VoLUME II. OF EPHESUS AND TO PAGES 1-76 INCLUSIVE OF 
VOLUME III. ΟΕ EpHesus. 


oe 1, AWN: Ar EOIN, 


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 “νοὶ. III.’? is not expressed. If after that ‘‘vol. ITI.”’ 
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. XIX., 6, etc,--389, note 747; 
408, note 842; 409, 
XVII., 14-vol. III., 35,note 109 note 842; 429, note 
959: 

EXODUS. DID aia Cao ye pee 237, note 366 
SOV ΤΥ ΟΣ ea 7.itext. | Bit ΣΧ ΦΉΣ fant a PMA ee EC 
the place was quoted, XX., 4, 5, 6 ____259, note 377 
probably, from mem- ΧΟΧΟ 6-173, uote) IGT 5 227. 

ory only, for it was note 366. 
Aaron and Hur who D.,D-G fl PULA a ἐπ Τρ Hs de 19, note 71 
held up Moses’ DOG) 1 P13 2 0h ΘΝ ME ΤΟ ες 34 


hands, DOO. IN 5th 7, ΤΈ ΘΠ" 237, note 366 





472 Index IIT. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 
LEVITICUS. JOB. 
XVI, 2, τ ΠΤ 29-34--261, XI., 12, Sept. ..160, note 105 
note 398. 
XVI., 17; 312, note 502. XVII., 5---- ----—--68, note 4 
XEROX iin 22. πον 68, note 4 
NUMBERS. XXXIIIy 12....-- 409, note 842 
XOX 6. 1 - ΞΞ τοῖς 467, note 1193 
x a fees 2775 SHOWS 422 
δ we ees PSALMS. 
DEUTERONOMY. 
Ἐν" 2A es Seen ΞΕ Ξ feos IL., 7-------- 327; note 531. 
TT ANS ἘΡΕῚ τς ὑε- Ὁ . (τ 
VI., 4----— ----------—323 XIV 6 TG 
ὙΠ ἢ; 5: 331, note 554 8 Sitcom ar ao) eae 
OV. τοῦ 201 nOTeNAgh 
VI., 15------ ------------ 35 XXII te 68 
VII., 6, etc..._.409, note $42 XXXI. ts Ξ : ἜΣ, νὴ ΕΟ 
OO τ6-90.. 201, note 251 2 24s τ eee Tee 235; 
ΧΧΧΙΙ,, 24, 33----467, note 11 DOPE 353: 
sah eat Oe Ἢ SOK KM Somes _329, note 545 
JOSHUA. MOOI Wey Gey [ses Sean 29» 
XXIII., 7--.----- -239, note 377 King James version ; 
SOIT Ve ig 20 eek oS ISS 29, note 8. 
XXXVII., 18, Septuagint--_--- 445, 
JUDGES. note 1046. 
Wis 23 ae eee ee 63, note 7 XSI, (22 5. 5 447, note 1063 
>: 10 GAM CsA see 328, note 537 ΤᾺ 16. 1722 brayer Book 
KIN Version. 
le oer Lj.) 20.2 25.2155, notes 
ἘΠῚ 25 101. Kines xiv., 17, LIl., 3--— --—.-376, note/6s7 
and II. Kings xvii; LXIX. , 205232252 27 tex 


19, note 71. 
GIN. 2:5τΈ:-:--. 409, note 842 
ΧΦ ἀΞ: -ὕ 467, note 1192 
XVIII., 8 to 20____ 467, note 1192 
SVM Tse O wee ne ee ς Ψ ΑΝ 249 
EEX LOA eee 2. nOte TOL 


XIX., 18___.239, note, twice 
XXI., 17 to 25..467, note 1192 
II. KINGS. 
Pele cae eee TOS MOLeL 7.1 
I. CHRONICLES. 
DiQ'p Ct es eee 409, note 842 
II CHRONICLES. 
XII., 13..-.----409, note 842 


LXXX., 9,Sept.,our 1xxxi.,9; 26, 
note ; 240, note ; 320; 
331,note 553. It isone 
of St. Cyril of Alexan_ 
dria’s favorite texts 
against the Nestori-_ 
an worship of Christ’s 
humanity. 

CVI., 28 to 32--.467, note 1193 
CXVIIL., 46, Sept., our cxix., 46. 

.---453, note 1098. 
CXIX., 130, etc__ 216, note 296 
CXXDk) 6222522 see 78, note Io: 
ἜΧΥΝΕ ΠΟ Ores 

CXXXVITII., 21, 22; Sept.. our 

CXXXIX., of, 22023 2 een 


Index IIT, Index of Scripture Texts. 473 


PROVERBS. 
SSE eee el. NOLEHAO 
oD. ΠΕ ΞΞ 5... 154, note 87 


XXIV., right after verse 22, in 
Van Ess’ Septuagint, 
where it is ‘‘29, 27’’- 
_.156, 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» 


ΣΕΙ͂Σ ¢, 26: 
ΘΟ (262825. = 68, noter4 
ISAIAH. 
Vile FIO eee eS τς 5ΞῸ 314 
DO: Won dig ΟΡ 29, note 7 
ΧΟ ee 167; Mote 625. 


XLII., 8:-το, note 71; 26, note 
19.327. 201; HOLES 25 rie 
240, note, twice ; 306, 
note 4913 312, note 
502/47 220» 221, t10te 
553: 386. It is one 
of St, Cyril’s favorite 
texts against the 
Nestorian Worship 
of Christ’s human- 
ity. 

XLV., 14_.328, twice, notes 
539, 540. 

NAL, 3, 4, Sept--29, note Ir 





ISAIAH. 
0 ge al eee 367, note 626 
LIX., 52-2258) note’ Κ᾿; 368; 


notes 633, 635. 
LIX., 5, 6, Sept. -. 62, note 3 
LIX., 6... 369, notes 637, 638 
LIX., 7__- 369, notes 639, 640 


ΤΟΝ τ ΘΈΕΕΕ " 369, note 643 
JEREMIAH. 
Πα eee Le ὦ. ἘΠ 09 
Wa 265252502 322, note 518 
Dos Wane ees ROY ΠΟΓΘ Sam 
DANIEL. 
ΤΠ Ξο τ = 236, note 361 
HOSEA. 
LWA ees OTOL 622 
Xo oat Aes eo 239, note 
AMOS 
ee eee ee AOA nOte.oA2 
NAHUM. 
ΠΤ aan see oy 35 
APOCRYPHA. 
ECCLESIASTICUS. 
1) Ge ph tapes 236, note 355 


BEL AND THE DRAGON. 
Verse 3-- 467, note 1195 


474 Index 717. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of IIT. 





NEW TESTAMENT. 


MATTHEW. 
I., I, 17-.--- 204, note 263 
ΤΙ τι. 55.558 126, note I 
100 CRP ty eee == 327, note 532 
τὺ τοῖτὶ..5 .- 215, note 296 
IV., I-12____— 305, note 488 


TVs} τὸ, Xi, twice: 10, 
note 71; 26, note I; 
29, note 15; 33, text; 
34; 35; 126, note I; 
128; 136; 155, note 90; 
171, note 151; 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; 
an7, twice: 319; 320, 
twice; 323; 327, note 
5345 330; 331, note 
5535 376, note 670; 
379, note 683; 380, 
note 693; 386; 445, 
note 1045; 468, note 
1197; vol. III., 1, 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 L.XXXI., 9, 
our Version; LXXX., 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. 

ΤΥ. re Sa B27 nO ce sas 

ΨΙ, LOL οὐ OLE AS 

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


IX 5142-40 eee 51, note 3 
X., 34 to 42, inclusive... 269 
AON ae ees 463, note 1154 
XIV., 1, 2, 6-12..216, note 297 
OVI, 13-21 See go, note 6 
XVI, 16-202 τοῦ nore 
XVI, TSS ee ee 66 
ΧΥΙ ἘΞ 9 eee I06, note; 135 
OVI ΠΤ ΡΥ ΘΞ τ - 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. 
ΤΙ, ὅτ 

XVIII., 17--14, note 40; 31,note 
15 51; 268; 297; 435, 
note 890; 440, note 


1014. 
XVIII, 182-22 270; note ford 
ΧΎΥΙΙΕΙ. 205. Πρ eee 75. ΠΟΊΕΙ Σ 
KLUX. , 197 OLEH 


XTIX., 10-13-___442, note 1027 
XUEX., If, 122222406; note, 825 


LX ke 442, note 1027, 
twice. 

XXIT., 17-22___ 452, note 1094 

OMNES OB ΕΝ 275, note 4II 

EVI, ΌΣΟΙ πον ΙΟΙ, note 

XXVI., 34... I00, note 3; 128 

SXSW 5: eee 379, note 687 


XXVI., 39 ---—.- 379, note 685 


Index ITT. Index of Scripture Texts. 475 


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


Iol. 
XXVI., 69-75, inclusive_-__ 128 
OVA ΣΙ πεν τς 100, note 3 
ΧΟ, 7 eee 100, note 3 
XXVII., 46_____... 379, note 684 


XXVIII., 16-20, inclusive-_-- 81, 
twice, note. 

PEXOXS VA 1 Ae 74, note I; 409, 
note 842. 

SEV τοῦ 20. . τ 41, note I, 
twice; 66; 252, note 
387; 324, note 924; 435, 


note 990. 

MARK. 
Teeth haa 2 7 OLE 532 
I., 13--—---- 327, note 533 
VI., 14-16, 21-27-.. 216, note 

297. 

XII., 13-18-__ 452, note 1094 
ΠΣ 7 Ἐπ ἘΠ 275, note 4II 
RN 520 a eee δὲ at 323 
XII.. 29, 42-__ 331, note 554 
OU 27 ee ee τὸ O te 872 
ἈΝ: 3OL2= 5 LOO; note) 2; 129 
ὙΠΟ, 2 5 Seas 379, note 687 
ΧΙ, 35 u ae = 379 0.6 685 


XIV., 66-72, inclusive -__ 128 
ΣΙΝ. τὸν 71,.72.--- τοῦ mote:3 


ἈΝ, 274 ene 570, Ὡρίδ 694 
ΣΝ Gee eee OO NMOLe 747 
LUKE. 
Teo Raye ue OO TOLe 
ΤΩ pee eee 215, note 296 
ΤΠ oy ἘΞ 27. 
III., 23-38, inclusive-_-.. 204, 
note 263. 
IV., I-13 ____-- 215, note 296 
τ . 8:.- τὸῦ ΠΟΕΘ 21; 52) 340, 
note. 
EX 25: 25: 327, note 532 


ΣΕ ΙΘΙΒΞΞΕΙΣ 463, note 1154 


vu 





ML, 26225. 355, nore 594 
DCT Sa (TOMS Alay eeu 269 
XX., 19 -27---- 452, note 1094 
REX 25 oe τ ΠΕ nOLe ATi 
D-O:@ DGC, Te 100, note 33 128 
XXII., 56-62, inclusive_... 128 
OTT 59-0 a2 100, note 3 


JOHN. 


Me a 2. By Ble 75 note 7, 
and note 8; 206, note 
274; 360, note 599. 
a OS το σε θη σης 229. note 545 
I., τ 206, note 274; 330, 
note 546; 378, note 
678. 
III, 5---. 389, note 747; 409, 
note 842; 411, note 
842, twice; vol. III., 
35, note 169. 
{τ τὸ ποτ 106, note 
ΠῚ 20ee 3 ὐὐΥδοὶ ποΐδ 55 
V., 39-- 216, note 296; 355, 


note 592. 
Vil, 37-----22= 261, note/393 
ὙΠ yee 3054 Note 488 
Wa Az -- 75, note 7; 329, 
note 543. ᾿ 
Dia (oa aaa eS 261, note 398 
DCA (open ΜΕΝ 277, note 422 
ΕΠ κα Ξ 0: 407, note 835 
XCEL aera ee 28. δα 


MM) 32-2 τοῦ, note 3: 128 
XIV., 6__ 261, note 398, twice; 
311, note 502. 

SGI, 12:14. - 261. note 205 
XIV., 16, 17.-- 31, note 1; 66; 

81, note; 252, note 
387; 435, note 990. 
XIV., 16, 17, 26... 355, note 


593- 
ΟΝ ΘΟ ΣΝ: 261, note 398 
DN RE th eA Vaca NO 81, note 
νυ, 26u = ee uh 355, note 593 


Index II. to Volume II. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 


DIN A ty ne Ὁ 355, note 593 
XVI6 δ... St, ote 
ἈΝ. yd pee 4550 OLE 544, 
XVI., 23, 24---- 261, note 398 
ΚΤ, 28.---: 75, note 7, and 

note 8; 329, note 543. 
Wile 3322 eson == 236, note 356 


2 QV hy Bape 011 ἘΠ ΟΙΒ 551 
ἘΠ 15--2-——406, note 835 


XVII., 17..—--—216, note 296 
ΤΙ ΔΊ, 25: eee Ioo, note 3 
VE. τῇ. το 0.25. σ΄ τ2ὃ 


XX., 21-24-- --355, note 593; 
410, note 842, twice. 


ἘΚ, 125. οὐ ποτὲ τ ἐλ ae 
ἘΝ 22:22. ΦοὦὸἄῳἍἅὝ.ν. Oly ΠΟΕΒ 
EK a3 5 ee QO OLE ὁ; 106, 


note; 440, note Ior4. 
XX., 28_.75, note 8; 329, note 


542. 
Oe 1) τ ee 101. t1OLe 


ACTS. 


I., 11..106, note; 431, note 
962. 

I., τῷ to 26 inclusive_-_136 

er 20s sca 108, note 5 

ἘΠ 20-23 ses sa 86, note 

Ua FO 25, 2; TACK Τὴ, 

note 62; 31, note 1; 
48; I09, note; 197 
note 237; 308, note; 
455. note 1110. 

I., 25, 26; 90, note 6. 
DSA Tee ee 103, note 
II., 5, Io__103, note, twice 
ὙΠ 27, 41 - 2581, ΠΟΘ 424 


Δ ΟΣ ΞΕ ΤΕΣ 409, note 842 
100 Ge Ἐν Ioo, note 
IMU σοι». aS 106, note 
Th alee 431, note 963 
ἜΝ. 0512. τ ΟΠ 75; note 
τον ἘΞ ἘΦ ΞΕ ἐὰπ 77, note 4 
LV. 34; 35--a-s----3, notes 


ee 


IV., 34-37 inclusive--._-197 
note 237. 

V3, Tells Sag 7 Gre 25. 
VI., 1-7--3, note, 8; 31, note 
I; 197, note 237. 

VII., 55, 56----431, note 962 


WIM; 26-40.---Ξ- - τον, ote 
οὐ Ξ  Ἶ ΟΣ OLS 
XS a7. cae poe θά ποῖ 
X.; 11-4822. ΙΟΙ, note 
X., 14, 15, 28, 34, 35; IOI, 

note. 


XG, 25, 2622320, moter 50515 
469, note 1208. 


iX., 28-3425 = Ξ Ἴ ΟΝ, note: 
Χο 54.235 —1I04, note 
Χ,, 34-44 = hO5 ΠΟΕΘ 
Seale ee a eee Io2, note 
ΧΙ, 3.--- Ὁ Ἐπ του ποῖρ 
XI., I-4--103 note, 105 note 
XD 1G eee __105, note 
ΤΙ eee 327, note 531 


XIII., 34-38--_.281, note 434 
ἈΝ, = 102) Otel ros; HOLES, 


147, note. 
Vi roe 103, note 
ΧΥν., I= 3 2b eos LOO HOLE 
SOV. 5=24 See στοῦ ΠΟΤ 
ΧΟ a ee OS HOLE 
XV.) 2922 355, note 593 
OW Ls Ga eee 409, note 842 
XVI 33 409, note 842 


XVIL., Tt; 12 216, mote 295 
XVII., 31¢b S22 10 morezee 


XIX., 33, 34----135 5 410, note 
842. 

EX τὴ, 25 eer 2S totes 

XX., 28.76, note 7; 89, note3 

XOX, το-27.Ξ. τες τοὺ, MOLE. 


I. ΔΕΞΕΕΞΈΞΕΝ 204, note 263 
I., 7.408, note 842; 409, 


vote 842. 


a 


Index IIT, Index of Scripture Texts. 477 





1 23, AG oo 225, woe 265- 
Tee 2 5a 295 MOLE 15, 210, 


note 362. 
ΠῚ τ εν ee ete 376, note 667 
ieee 467 Ποία LLG4 


IV., 14, 15, 16..261, note 398 
IV., 18-21____ 452, note 1094 
Wars; A won 2536, note! 354 
ἈΠ ΜΞ τυ τε TAG ΠΟΈΘΙ 
WADU ES Beh yl eu iS ΗΌϊδ 502 
VIII., 34-261, note 398, twice 


Nis Gap AA ποῖα τοῦς 
XS See enone 7 ΒΟΕΘ ἍἹ 
DRO 2, Ὁ 22215) note) 200 
XI., 7-36..---.389, note 747 
XC ,16.:242΄... Ὁ 277, note 422 
OO Gr Git ase —176, note 174 
SOU Gs HS ty ΠΟΙ 49 
EXON JOR 2 Doce be 75, note 4 
DSA A (ena ae ee τεσσ: 153, note 81 
ΟΝ, 175 5 3 AL OLens 


I. CORINTHIANS. 
1 222153, note) 81. 408; 
note 842; 409, note 
842. 
I., 2--compared with I. 
Corinthians v., I, and 
vi, 13-20; 409, note 


842. 
Se oe eee 215, note 296 
A (BU (catered 2 409, note 342 
1 27.258. 710, note 842 
ΤΠ ΘΕ π΄ Ὁ 78, note 8 
TY ΤΟ τς τ 786 


ΤΠ ΟῚ Geena asa 7A OLE 
V,, I-13..-.106, note; 410, 
note 842, 

V., 3 to 6__g0, note 6; 135; 
410, note 842; 440, 
note 1014. 

Weg Q=argurceees 140, note 16 
ὙΠ ee es 2S 
ἍΕ 9, ΤΟΙ 122. note: τ: 

201; note 251. 


ὙΠ AOS TOre OAS 
Wil ΤΡ ΕΜ ΞΡ τὰ 29, note 13 
VII., the whole chapter__442, 
note 1027. 

Vi niques he 409, note 842 
VIT., 39---- ----409, note 842 
Δ ΚΕ a os § ete ἢ 78, note 6 
Wale 4 502 eee 331, note 554 
DO ye ee | 442, note 1027 
OE EDA μὰς 447, note 1057 
DeCarlo πὸ 449, note 1073 
ERG ΠΕΣ ἘΞ’ 78: ΠΟ ΕΟ 
ΠῚ ἸΞ2 4 409, note 842 
ΕΠ 28: τ Ato, note, S42 
DOT σε παν ae 215, note 296 
ely ieee ene 355, note 592 


τ, 20; 23 ate 281, note 433 
XV., 47---209, notes 279, 280 
Wo, 49, ZG) oe 209, note 281 
ΤΟΝ diy 1) as πΠ 153, note 81 
VIE) ΤΟ Ἐπ 105 note SE 


Il. CORINTHIANS. 


I. 1.153, note 81; 408, note 
842 ; 409, note 842. 

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

note 842. 

MS Steen oh Vu se 135 

17. ἼΘΙ ΤΣ 440, note IoI4 

Jog Oy, Seek SEE 1 go, note 6 

II.. 14._.....-215, note 296 

OGG, arate) hae 411, note 842 

III., 11-14.--__411, note 842 

III.,13, and the whole chap- 
ter ; 411, note 842. 


IV., 6___.___215, note 206 

VIL; 62 28-205, note 296 

Wis ta sence I2, note; and 

13, note. 

VI., 14, 15, 16.409, note 842. 
VIL, τοῦ see ΠῚ. note SE 
WITT, Jee 21k. note 206 

>.<) (Fea ἘΞ ἘΔ. ἐπ δ ΑΗ Ν ἃ 92, note 

SRO AT 2 heer Se 61, note I 


DOUG S gee τ Ὲ 92, note r 


| 


478 





Lidex ITT. to Volume Il. of Ephesus, and part of 111. 





GALATIANS. 
1s es) ον ee 150. note 54 
ἢ ὦν Θιθεοςς ΘΙ OLE a 
a, 5.0. -.- Ὁ τ OLE 5 
ΤΣ ἘΠ 153, note 81 
dey Qe See ee Os ΘῈ 
TWO ΤΥ, ee 100, note 3 
ὙΠ αἰ Aes cee Ioo, note 
Pie LEvandianter see 128 
ΠΟ ὙΠ τοῦ, note: 
vol. ΠῚ, τὸ, note 
61. 
Mee eT) eS oe —I00, note 3 
DS idee eee eee = TOD tloLe 
ΠΡ ὙΠ ΖΕ 95 Io2, note 
νι, 2,3. 5 . 20A, note.203 
ΑΕ be oe ere 204, note 263 
DV Gn oeoe eae sea -- 386 


V., 1--vol. III., 18, note 68 

V., 19-22.-9, note 33; 35; 
123, note I; 201, note 
251. 


EPHESIANS. 


I., 1_.compared with Eph- 
esians iv., 15; 409, 
note 842, 

I., 1_.compared with E,ph- 
esians iv., 28; 409, 
note 842. 

I., 1-.compared with Eph- 
esians Vi., 1; 409, note 
842. 

I., 4, to Ephesians 11, 22; 
410, note 842. 


τ χ-- are ποία 296 
LSA Ὁ ge ene Τὸν 205, note 268 
ΤΙ δον τ τ 261, note 398 


II., 20__66; 90, note 6; 103, 
note; 135. 


ΤΟ ae de τ 103, note 
US ea 329, note 545 
0 pe eR 26, note 7 


- 





Τὰν 1 1 σ᾽ ΠΌΕΡ 500 
ν., 27-439, note 7012 
VI., 1, compared with Eph- 
esians i , 1; 409, note 
842. 
ΙΝ Ι 2. ον 5 7πὶ ACE) ΤῸ 
Vier stones eee 215, note 296 
VI., 14-___76, notes 2 and 3 
VI., 17; 14, note40; 76, note 
2; 305, note 488. 


PHILIPPIANS. 

T.,'9. 5 + 22.2215, mote: 296 
ΠῚ ΖΕ eer ΠΟΘ 
Ts 583 och τ, 75, note 5 
IO po) ee 4223 225 
ΤΙ εξ aie SS 386 

ἘΠῚ 85 - ΠΡ ΠΟΘ 2906 
IDO Whee σας 447, note 1057 
1. L724 OLE, 

COLOSSIANS. 


I., 2, compared with Col- 
Ossians iii., 20; 409, 
note 842. 
1 16, 17.329, note: 545 
II., 18..201, note 151; 240, 
note; 261, note 398, 
twice; 312, note 502; 
vol. III., I, note 5. 
ΤΙ. 23/2: το ΟῚ ΠΟΤΕ 298 
ΠῚ. τοςς -ς Ξ 215. note 296 
III., 12... 409, note 842; 410, 
note 842. 
111., 20, compared with Col- 
ossians i., 2; note 


842. 
αν, τ5. sb See noLevor 
TV e982 oes 466, note 1187 


I. THESSALONIANS, 


ΤῸ δον ΕΟ ΟΝ ΥΩ 
ΤᾺ, 3Ξ39:.-. τ. 409, note 842 
DV, S518 are --τοῦ, note 


Index 7}. Index to Scripture Texts. 479 





II. THESSALONIANS. 


eS ete eet 469, note 1204 
III., 14, 15, etc.-_-___440, note 
ΙΟΙ4. 


I. TIMOTHY. 


ἘΠΕ Ὁ ΠΥ TLOLELS 
ΤΣ ΤΟΥ note 
ΠῚ 18: τὸ, 20242106, note; 


4το, note 842. 

I., 19, 20, etc..-90, note ὃ» 
135. 

I., 20....1353; 140, note 16; 
440, note Ior4. 

1 252225. = 410, note $42 
Ae eens 5 OLE: 296 
ee 201; ΠΟΕΘ 2908 +0300. 

note 502. 
Ti, 2, 02222422) note 1027 
III,, 15--31, note 1; 66; 103, 
MOLE τὴν,. HOLE) 172: 
252, note 387; 355, 
note 593; 435, note 


990. 
IV., 14-19... 4το, note 842 
DIN δι Bee tiat Me 75, Ores 
MV Oneness II, note 4o 
Wig ly See 198, note 237 


VI., 3 to 6-__.440, note 1014 


1. TIMOTHY. 


DE ΒΕ A 17, note 60 
MT ΤΟΣ n doa 18}.155: 170; 
note 16; 410, note 842 
DE eee 215, note 296 
TE. 4 Sees 75, note 3 
D550 LO ΤΡ 216, mote 
296 ; 355, note 592. 
TTT. V6 232-228 '685) note: 4 
TVG eee 176, note 174 
IV., 14-19--135; 140, note 16 





TITUS. 
Te esse ee ATOM ΠΟΙΟῚ 57,2 
1 Ole 722. ΟΕ ΤΟ] 
II., το------. 409, note 842 
ΤΠ πεν τ ΘῈΣ note 1094 


III., 10..268; 279; 290, note 
461; 440, note Ior4. 
vol. III., 41. 


PHILEMON. 
Το Ig 153, note 81 


HEBREWS. 


Ieee τ 220, note 545 

I., 3--28, note 5; 329, note 
543. 

MSS See 3 2a MOLE 538 

I OLR. 5) 517) 318; sre, 
twice; 320, twice; 321, 
note 5163) 322: 323, 
twice ; 324, thrice; 
325, thrice; 327, note 
534; 328, note 538; 331, 
note 555; 333. 


ΤΙ OM Que oes 327, note 534 

i Rs (οὐ Ὁ ἘΞ Ae 207, note 276 

ΤΠ T OR Sees ey ee 386 

es aan AA NOLS TOO? 

ING ES eee re 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. 

VIE Irae 4το, note 842 

VITI., 6-13 inclusive -._.411, 
note 842. 

EXE ΞΘ. seam 411, note 842 


IX., 3, 7-18-___ 261, note 398 
DX 20s 312, note 502 


480 





ndex IIT. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 


IX., 10; 161, note 111--389, 
note 747; 411, note 
842. 

IX., 11, 12, 24.261, note 398 

IX., 23, 24....261, note 398 


x. 1-20 Arr, mote 522 
X., the whole chapter..4II, 
note 842. 
ΚΟ,  10-24.:-- 261, note 398 
B.A | Seen ae 409, note 842 
Δ ΞΞ σας 466, note 1187 
SI. 26--- - 440, note τοῦθ 
XI., 37, 38----447, note 1064 
> 00 eee ee eee. 466, note 1187 
JAMES. 

Te 22a Ὁ 2 OnOte 557 
III., 1-12.... 409, note 842 
111., 8, εἴο.-.---447; note 1194 

I. PETER. 
IRAs WO) Tey ΠΟΈΘΒῚ 12 


II., 5--125, note 3; vol. III., 
36, note 112. 
II., 5, 9----73, note 1; 109, 
note 5; 161, note III; 
102) Note its 277. 
note 422; 389, note 
747, twice; 411, note 
842; 429,note 959; vol. 
III., 34. note 106; vol. 
III., 36, note 112. 
II., 9--389, note 747; 408, 
note 842; 409, note 
8423 411, note 842, 
twice; vol. III., 34, 
note 106; vol. III., 36, 
note 112. 
ΤΠ διε ee 75, note 4 
ΕΠ 21, 52 Ὁ τοῦ Hote 
Ν ))2ὰὰ τ ΤΕ ΠΠ͵ἸΘΕΕ 
ἄνα, ἄμα 3 197, note 237 
V., 3--3, note 8; vol. III., 
2, note 13. 
V., 13-...+.+...99, note 3. 





II. PETER. 
1. 5 5: eee 215, note 296 
he 17.....5.35 327, note 532 


Ἷ.. το, 20, 21: 305, Howe 
488;355, note 592. 


{ΠῚ Tasca eee 29, note 12 
TI. 1-22.22 61, note I 
11), 13:1 δ ΠῚ LOG OLE 
ΤΠ1., 16, 17, 1822-305, note 
488. 
||. 18 S215; mote zee 
I, JOHN. 
ΤΣ τς 261, note 398 
Wag Ci@oeaesae 75, note 7 
II. JOHN. 
EAs (hee pact ΠΟ Β 125, note 2 
{,, ties ee __I2, note 
JUDE. 
Verse 32 —451, note 1085 
REVELATIONS. 
Ti; Dee See 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 
53 161, note III; 429, 
note 959; vol. III.. 36, 
note 112. 
II., 2_...61, note τ; 89, note 
at top. 
IIT., 93-- Ὁ 5805 note 747 
Til, {02-6 eee 103, note 
Veg Weseeee 106, note, twice 
νη I ti Ve, 1 τοῦ πιοῖϑ 
LV) 00s. See 329, note 545 
ν., 6, 9; 10L== Loo ποῖα 
My eo OL, TAGE 
V., 8, 9, I0__411, note 842, 
twice, 


Index ITT, Index of Scripture Texts. 481 


Vis, 8-14 eee 327, note 534 
Wi, Qeavole ἘΠῚ 13, note:6S 
Wed Ch Meh duace 161, note III 
Wi., Ὁ; ΤΟΙ ΕΠ Ὁ τοῦ; note 
Wales ΤΟΙ ΤΙ -- 261, note 398 
ΠῚ O= 12-2 -- 327, note 534 
Walls, 9-17 τοῦ; note 
WA Ameen TOG note 
EX 3 eee τοῦ; ποῖα 
iG Gag I epee ee 13, note; 45; 46 
dO) rie) eee __106, note 
ΧΙ. τ ΤΟΙ ΠΘΕδ 
ΕΝ τ: 1.Ὁ τ ee LOO, ΠΟῈΒ 
XG ee OA ὙΟΈΘΙ 


XVII., 1-18__216, note 297; vol. 
III., 25, note 96. 
xOVAM Spee Ὁ τ΄ ΟἹ 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 τού. 
XVIII., --182, note 183; 193, note 
2273; 314; vol. III., 25, 
note 96. 





XVIII., 4..123, note 1; 134; 254, 
note; 411, note 842; 
vol. III., 34, note 106, 
twice. 

XIX., 1-4--vol. III., 25, note 
96. 

XIX., 10__201, note 251: 239, 
note; 240, note; 261, 
note 398; 312, note 
502; 328, note 536; 
vol, III.; 1, note 5, 


DIDS 10H 160. Σ΄ -- 75, note 7 
OXS, I 7 Ay ποίδ OAS 
EXONG OR ey KON Ξ τοῦ, note 


XO Oe 14: 41; ΤΙΘΕΘ Ὺ; 68; 
note 4; 123, note I; 9, 
note) 32; 25, notes ΤΣ 
201, note 251. 

XXI., 14; 66; 90, note 6; 103, 
note; 136. 

XXL, 722-2305, note 2488; 355, 
note 592. 

XXII., 7, 8, 19--.-355, note 592 

XXII., 8, 9-201, note 251; 239, 
note; 240, note; 261, 
note 398; 312, note 502, 
328, note 536., vol. III., 
I, note 5. 


482 


INDEX ΤΥ, 
INDEX TO GREEK WORDS AND GREEK EXPRESSIONS, 


The Greek is so much that we cannot attempt to index it all 
but only such words and expressions as are of special importance 
as bearing on 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- 
atice 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. Soin 
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. 


ἡ ἁγιότης σου, thy holiness, 381, note 705. 

ἁγιότητος, of holiness, a Byzantine title; 79, note 1. 

ἁγιωσύνη, holiness; a Byzantine title: τὴν ὑμετέραν ἁγιωσύνην, your holi- 
ness, 200, note 246; 201, notes 252 and 254; 307, note 495. 

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

δέσποτα ἁγιώτατε, Most holy Master or lord; 383, note 714. 

ἀδελφότης, ἣ ὑμετέρα, your Brotherliness, a title; 74, note 2. 

ἀειπαρθένος͵ ever-virgin (Mary); 33, note13: See ὑμνοῦντας, 34, note 17. 

ἀθέσμως, wickedly, 456, note 1114. 


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


ἄθλοις, τοῖς, to or for the prizes, the rewards, 447, note 1057; 451, note 
1075. | 

ἀθυμίας, from sadness; 441, note 1022, 

αἱρέσεως, of heresy, 15, note 46. 

αἰτίαις, to accusations, 151, note 71. 

axoiuntos, sleepless, 246. 

ἀκοίμητοι, ot; the sleepless, 246. 

ἀκοινωνήτους γενέσθαι, to be excommunicated; 53, note 7. 

ἀκοινωνήτους πεποιήκαμεν, we have excommunicated them, or put them 
out of communion; 377, note 671. 

ἀκολουθίαν, order; 148, note 49; 151, note 72. 

ἀκολούθως, in a fit manner; 274, note 410. 

᾿Αμβροσίου BiBdtov . . . τοῦ μακαρίου ᾿Αμβροσίου περὶ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου 
ἐνανθρωπήσεως, ὅπερ τὰ ἐναντία τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τούτυις διδάσκει 
κεφαλαίοις͵ 344, note 385; 381, notes 702, 703: ‘‘a little book 
of the blessed Ambrose on the Inman of the Lord, which teaches 
things opposed to those heretical chapters.’’ Said by Nestorians 
against St. Cyril’s XII. Chapters. 

᾿Ανάγκη, necessity; πυλλῆς ἀνάγκης εἰς τοῦτο τῶν ἀρχόντων ἡμᾶς συνελαυνούσης, 
though the rulers are using great violence to drive us to it, 450, 
note 1084; said by the Ecumenical Synod. 

ἀνακαινιστής, renewer, 14, note 42; and 15, note 46. 

ἀνανεῶσαι, to venew or to vevive,; 261, note 395. 

ἀναφορᾶς, of the Report, 114, note 1; ἀναφορὰν Θεοῦ, the offering which 
belongs to God, 208, note 278; ἀναφορὰν, offering, relation, 
zbid., and 211, note 285. . 

ἀνείληφε, took, 378, note 676. 

ἀνέτρεψε, has overturned, 435, note 990. 

ἀνθρωπολατρεία worship of a human being; 10, note 72; 98, note 3; 
130; 171, note 154; 170, note 146; 172, note 159; 230 
note 372 ; ἀνθρωπολατρείας παραίτησις, refusal to worshipa man, 
237, note 365; Ei yép καὶ κάμινον ἀνάπτουσιν ἐπίβουλοι, εἰ Kat 
φλόγας ἐγείρουσι δυστροπία, ἀνθρωπολατρείαν ἡμῖν εἰσφέροντες, ἀλλ᾽ 
ἡμεῖς ἔχομεν Θεὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ, αὐτῷ προσκυνήσομεν. Θεὸς γὰρ ὧν 
φύσει, γέγονε Kal” ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἀποβεβληκὼς τὸ εἶναι Θεὸς, τιμήσας 
δὲ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν: δυνατός ἐστιν ἐξελέσθαι ἡμᾶς. 
“For even though plotters kindle a furnace, and though 


484 Index IV. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 717. 

i Γ΄ ΠἕἝἕΞἕἝἕΞἕΞΤ τ ἝΠ ἑἔἑ Ὁ ΘΘΘΟΘΟθΘΕΞ 
they wake the flames of perversity by bringing in to us 
service toa 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]; Heis able to deliver us;’’ 237, note 371; 282, note 
437; 283, note 442; 312, note 502; the Fifth Ecumenical 
Synod brands Nestorius’ ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is, his worship 
of a human being, Christ's humanjty, aS a CRIME, 393, 394: 
See in the General Index to vol. I. of Micaea under God, 
Logos and Man-Worship, and in its Greek Index under 
ἀνθρωπολατρεία, ἀνθρωπολατρέω, and ἀνθρωπολάτρης, and ἀσεβοῦσιν, 
and under the same first three terms in the Indexes to volume 
I. of Ephesus in this Set. Compare against the real swd- 
stances presence of Christ’s Divinity and humanity or of the 
real substance presence of either of them in the Aucharvist, 
and, consequently, against the worship of both or either of 
those substances there under Aucharist in the General Index 
to volume I. of Ephesus, and words specified at the begin- 
ing of that article, and ucharvist in the General Index to 
volume 1. of Micaea and ἀνθρωποφαγία in the Greek Index to 
each volume; 413, note 845; ἀνθρωπολατρεία, 455, note 1113, 
and vol. III., 10, note 43; vol. III., 41, and note 125 there, 
twice, and ott LD. 447. 

ἀνθρωπολάτρης, a Fee of ahuman being; 237, τὰς 9.2; 292, 
note 437; 283, note 442; Nestorius, so called by the ancients, 
393; see, also, the references in note 789, page 397, vol. II. 
of Aphesus in this Set; 413, note 845: μόνον δὲ τὸν τῆς ἀθεμίτου 
αἱρέσεως τῶν ἀνθρωπολατρῶν κήρυκα Νεστόριον καθελόντες, ‘‘ we have 
deposed Nestorius alone, the preacher of the wicked heresy 
of the J/an-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. Iil., 41, note 125. 

ἀνθρωποτόκον, bringer forth of a man, 426, note 944; 427, note 944. 

ἀνθρωποφαγία, 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 ἀνθρωποφαγία, and ἀνθρωπολατρεία in the Greek Index to 
each volume, /Vicaea, and volume 1. of Ephesus: ἀνθρωποφαγία, 
456, note 1113, and vol. ITI., 10, note 43; vol. III., 41, text 
and note, and vol. III., 47. 


ὃ ἄνομος, the lawless one, the wicked one: 469, note 1204, 
ἀξίωμα, honor or dignity; 236, note 359. 

ἀξιώματος, of rank or dignity; page 111, note 3. 
ἀπέθανον, οἱ πλείους͵ most are dead; 428, note 949. 
ἀπόνοιαν, madness; 449, note 1076. 


ἀποστασίας, of an Apostasy, 143, note 37; ἡ ᾿Αποστασία, the Apostasy, 
those who stood aloof from the Ecumenical Synod, and for the 
Nestorian Apostasy to denial of the Incarnation of God the 
Word, and to the Worship of a human being (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) 
and to Cannibalism on the Eucharist (4v@pwrodayta), 212, note; 
see under those Greek words: τὸ τῆς ᾿Αποστασίας συνέδριον, the 
Council of the Apostasy, 212, note; 459, note 1127; vol. III., 
34, note 101: ἀποστασίας, of the Apostasy, that is the Conven- 
ticle of John of Ephesus and himself, vol. III., 23, note 88; 
vol. Il1., 41, note; αὐτόν τε τὸν ἔξαρχον τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αποστασίας 
συνεδρίου Ἰωάννην, ‘‘ both John 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 vol. I. of Ephesus in this set. 

ἀποστατήσαντας, those who had apostatized; 143, notes 35, 37; 421, 
note 912; ἀποστατήσας͵ having stood aloof, or having aposta- 
tized, tbid.,; ἀποστατήσασιν, the [Bishops] who have apostatized 
or stood aloof, ibid.,; ἀποστατήσαιεν, may have apostatized, or 
may have stood aloof, ibid. 

ἀποστερήσῃς mightest not rob; 455, note 1110. 


ἀποστολικὸς, ὃ. . . θρόνος, theapostolic . . . throne (of Rome); 
82, note 2 (compare 68, note 2); 69, note 2; 82, note 2; 146, 
and notes 47 and 48 there; ἀποστολικικῆς καθέδρας, apostolic 
See: 100, note; 112, note1. See more boasting titles applied 
to Rome by its bumptious presbyter Philip there, and re- 
marks there on his stilted words. Sée παράδοσις: so ‘the 


486 Index IV. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of IT. 





apostolic throne’? of Jerusalem is mentioned on page 146, 
notes 47, 48. 

ἁπτομένον, touches; vol. III., 12, note 55. 

ἀρχετύπῳ, with the archetype; see ἀρχετύπῳ, page 697, vol. I. of Ephe- 
sus tn this Set. 

ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, archbishop, 164, note 124; 260, note 394; 446, note 
1050. 

ἀρχιερυυργῷ Κυριλλῷ, to Cyril, a chief worker in sacred things; 467, 
note 1189. 

Ἄρχων, ruler: διὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀρχόντων, by our secular officers, 470, 
note 1214 ; ἄρχουσι, to the Archons, that is, rulers, 58, second 
note 2. 

ἀσεβείας, τῆς, Of the impiety (Nestorianism); 439, note 1011. 


B 


βαθμοῦ, grade,;vol. II., page 111, note 3; 142, note 28. 

βαλανείου, tov, the bath; 444, note 1037. 

βαπτισθείς͵ dipped, baptized; 426, note 941. 

βασιλέως Κανσταντίνου, Emperor Constantine; 166, note 131. Βασιλέων, 
καλλινίκῶν ἡμῶν, our beautifully victorious Emperors, 140, note 
17. 


βδελυξαμένη, loathing or abominating; 433, note 979. 
βιβλία, booklets; 142, note 29; 153, note 34. 


βυυλεύεσθαι, to take counsel; 425, note 928. 


iy 


γεγονέναι ἐκ, made out of ; 204, note 265. It isa marginal reading. 
γεννηθέντα, born » see σαρκωθέντα. 

γενόμενον ἀπὸ γυναικός ; made of a woman, 204, note 265. 

γένος ἐκλεκτόν, chosen race; 411, note 842. 

γραμμάτων βραχέων, short letters; 31, note 4. 


A 


δεσμῶται, prisoners in fetters; 445, note 1042. 

δεσπότης, master; τῶν Δεσποτῶν ἡμῶν, our Masters, 67, note 2. 
διαιροῦντας, τοὺς, those who separate, 378, note 680. 

διάκονος, servant, minister; 183. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 487 


διδασκέτωσαν, let them teach, that is tell; 143, 144, note 38. 
διοικεῖν, manage, vule; 76, note 6. 
διοικήσεως, of a civil diocese; 253, notes 388, 389. See ἐπαρχιῶν ; τῶν 
ἄλλων διοικήσεων, of the other Dioceses, vol. III., 17, note 63. 
δόγμασι͵ decrees; 110, note 4. 
δομέστικοϑβ, one of the imperial body guard, 291, note 470. 
δύσιν, WEST, 112, note 1; compare ψήφον and Exkdysia: δυσσεβῆ αὐτοῦ 
κηρύγματα, his [Nestorius'] impious breaching, vol. 11., 2, note 6. 
δυσσεβηθέντων τῶν αὐτῷ, the tmpieties committed by him, [Nestorius] ; 
98, note 2. 
δυσσεβῶς, τῶν λεχθέντων παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, those things which have been im- 
piously said by him; 98, note 2. 
See also under Νεστόριος. 
δύσφημα, abusive or blasphemous: 144, note 41. 


E 


ἐγκώμιον εἰς. . . Μαρίαν, Encomium on .. . Mary; 32, note 6; 40, 
top note. 

ἐκβιβαστάς, exccutors ; vol. II., 110, note 3; 111, note 2. 

ἐθελοθρησκείας Of will worship, 261, note 398. 

εἰκόνα xpvonv, golden image; 236, note 360; Kat προσκυνεῖν τῇ εἰκόνι τῇ 
χρυσῇ, ‘and to bow to,’’ that is ‘‘/o worship the golden image,”’ 
Daniel iii., 18; 237, note 364; εἰκόνι ax image, an idol, 239, 

ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, 7 came out of God; 75, note 7. 

ἐκδικεῖ͵, defends; 157, note 100. 

ἔκθεσις, α Forthset, a Statement; 

ἐκθέσει, a Forthset, here used for the Creed of Nicaea, 7, note 28, 
twice; ἔκθεσίν twa δσγμάτων ἀσεβῶν, ὡς ἐν τάξει συμβόλου 
συντεθειμένην, “a certain Forthset of impious dogmas, put to- 
gether as tf in the Order of a Symbol,’’ that is ‘‘Creed,’’ 199, 
note 243; the same /irthset (ἐκθέσεως) 58. mentioned again, 
page 202, note 257; ἔκθεσιν πίστεως, Forthset or Statement of 
faith, 426, notes 938, 942. 

Ἐκκλησία; the Church, κατὰ τὸν τύπον πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, ἐπειδὴ 
συνεστήκασιν ἐν τούτῳ ἰερατικῷ σνλλόγῳ διά τε τῶν παρόντων, διά τε 
τῶν πρεσβευτῶν, τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς τε καὶ δυτικῆς ἐκκλησίας οἱ 
παρόντες ἱερεῖς, ‘‘ 27 accordance with the fundamental decision of 


488 Index IV. to Volume IT. οὐ Ephesus, and part of 777. 





all the churches, since the Priests both from the Eastern Church 
and from the Western Church are present and stand together in 
this priestly assembly either in person or bv their ambassadors,” 
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 
ψήφον and δύσιν ; 157, note 100. 

ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἐπιστήμην, Church science; 95, note 1. 

ἐκκλησιαστικῆς εὐταξίας, the good discipline of the Church, 382, note 
713: 

ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς θεσμούς, ecclesiastical sanctions; 53, note 5. 

ἐν. in, to, into ; 149, note 51, 

ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, put ona man; see σαρκωθέντα, and ᾿Αμβροσίου. See 
also ἐνσωματώσεως, below. 

ἐνεργεῖν, to energize, or to work miracles; 78, note 1. 

Ἐνσωματώσεως, putting on of a body, περὶ τῆς ἐνσωματώσεως τοῦ Δεσπότου 
Χριστοῦ, on the putting on of a body by the Master Christ ; 463, 
note 1158. See ἐνανθρωπήσαντα above. 

ἐντέλλω, 7 command ; τῶν ἐντεταλμένων αὐτοῖς, things commanded, the 
commands given them, 121, note 6. 

ἐντολήν, commandment, 74, note 4. 

ἐξ ὕδατος, out of water; vol. III., 35, note 109. 

ἐπαινετός, to be praised, praiseworthy, πάντα μὲν τὰ τῆς ὑμετέρας βασιλείας 
ἐπαινετὰ, all the purposes [or ‘‘ affairs’’| of your Imperialness 
are to be praised; 462, note 1145. 

ἐπανασταντάς. . . τοὺς, the rebelsy 451, note 1088, said of John of 
Antioch and his fellow creature-worshippers 

ἐπαρχία, province, ἐκ διαφόρων διοικήσεων καὶ ἐπαρχιῶν, out of different 
dioceses and provinces, 253, note 389 ; see διοκήσεως ; 381, note 
706; τῶν ἐγκειμένων αὐτῷ ἐπαρχιῶν, the provinces represented in 
it, 385, note 724. 

ἐπισκόπους, overseers, bishops ; 76, note 5; 125, note 2; 436, note 996; 
446, note 1050. 

ἐπιστολάς, Epistles ; 7, note 28 ; 69, note 2. 

ἑτεροούσιον, difference of substance; 379, note 688. 

Εὐαγγέλιον, τοῦ ἁγίου Εὐαγγελίου προκειμένου, the holy Gospel lying forth; 
430, note 962. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 480 





εὐαριθμήτων, easily counted; 151, note 63. 

Εὐσέβεια, Piety ; ὑμετέρας Εὐσέβειας, your Piety, a Byzantine title ; 45, 
note 2; 123, note 3; εὐσεβείας, of piety or of religion; 433, note 
982 ; 436, note 994. 

Εὐχαριστία, the Thanksgiving, that is, the Lord’s Supper; 15, note 
50. 

εὐχῆς, of wish or of prayer, 53, note 4; 275, note 414. 

εὔχομαι, 7 wish, 7 pray; 126, note 5. 


H 


ἡγιασμένοις, to the sanctified, 408, note 842. 


Θ 


θαλασσοθέα, goddess of the sea; 36, note 22, 

θεῖυς, divine; 289, note 459; Θείον γράμμα, divine letter; 470, notes 
1212, 1213; θείας ἀκοάς, divine ears (the Emperors’); 162, note 
113. See under 7z#es in the General Index. 

θειότης, Divinity ; 289, note 459: τῆς ἡμετέρας θειότητος, of our Divinity, 
(the Emperor’s), 287, note 453: τὴν ὑμετέραν θειότητα, your Divin- 
zty (said to the Emperor); 454, note 1104. See under Zié/es 
inthe Gexeval Index and in the General Index to vol. I. of 


Ephesus. 

θεμέλιος, 6, the foundation, 135, text; 136. 

θεολόγος, 6 . . -. Ἰωάννης, GodtheWorder John: vol. II., 14, 
note 44. 


Θεός, God, 207, note 275, twice; Θεοῦ, see ἐκ. 

θεασεβείας, God Reveringness,; τῆς ὑμῶν θεοσεβείας, your God Revering- 
ness, a Byzantine non-New Testament title; 93, note 5; 471, 
note 1220. 

Θεότης, Divinity, 4 Θεότης τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ὑἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἔπαθε, the Divinity of 
the Sole Born 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 77z#/es in the General Index. 


490 Index IV. .0 Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of 177. 








θεοτόκυς παρθένος, ἡ ἁγία Μαρία, the holy Mary, the Virgin Bringer Forth 
of God ; 15, note 45; θεοτόκος, Bringer Forth of God, 32, note 
6; 34, note 17, twice; 274: 277 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 10 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. 

θεοφιλέστατος most dear to God, (of Cyril of Alexandria) ; 7, note 28. 

θεοφιλία, God-belovedness; a Byzantine title, ἡ ὑμετέρα θεοφιλία, your 
God-belovedness, 201, note 253; 451, note 1086. 

θεοφόρεω, to inspire divinely, in the passive, fo be possessed or inspired 
by a God, 284, note 443, twice. 

ὑεοφόρησις, inspiration, 284, note 443. 

θεοφόρητος, God-inspired, God-possessed; 284, note 443. 

θεοφόρος, God-borne man, God-inspired man; 284, note 443, 8 times; 
τῶν τριακοσίων δεκαοκτὼ ἁγίων θεοφόρων πατέρων, the 318 holy Goa- 
inspired Fathers, 284, note 443. 

Θεσμύς, law, ordinance, rule; θεσμῶν, τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, the laws of the 
Church, 142, note 26; 414, note 857. 

θέσπισμα, decree, 437, note 1000; θεσπίσματος, by the oracle or decree, 
96, note 8. 

θρησκεία, religion; 172, note 158. 

θρόνος, throne; see ἀποστολικός ; θρόνου, κατὰ μείζονος, against a greater 
throne, 141, note 24. 


I 


ἱιρατικοῦ βαθμοῦ, of priestly grade; here used for episcopal, 434, note 
985: ἱερατικήν, priestly, 440, note 1018. 

Ἱερέων, Priests; 199, note 2; 110, note5; τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἱερεῖς, Priests 
of Christ, 465, note 1179. 

ἱερωσύνης, τῆς, the Priesthood; 125, note 3; 429, note 959; 454, note 
1103. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 491 





K 


καθαίρεσις, deposition, 177, note 182. 

καθολικός, Universal; 220, note 314. 

καθολική, Universal; Universal Church, 220, note 314; καθολικῆς 
(πίστεως), Universal (faith), 69, note 2; 71, note 4; 194, 
note 231 ; καινοφωνίας, novelty (Nestorianism); 16, note 94. 

Κανών, canon, rule; Kavovev, of canons, see σύνταγμα; κανὼν ἀποστολικύς 
or ἐκκλησιαστικος ΟΥ̓ ἀρχαῖος, that is the apostolic or ecclesiastical or 
ancient rule; vol. III., 3, note; canon VII. of Ephesus, Greek 
and English, is found on pages 222-225, 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 alj 
the VIII. Canons of Ephesus are found in the same volume 
III., pages 25-33. 

κεκριμένα, Decisions, κεκριμένα, τὰ βεβαιῶσαι, to confirm, or to make jim, 
the Decisions, 95, note 5. 

Κεφάλαια, Chapters; Κεφαλαίοις, to The [XII] Chapters; see 
᾿Αμβροσίου, 

κλέπτων Stealing: Ὃ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτο, Let him that stealeth steal 
no more, 409, note 842, 

κληρικοί, clerics; 150, note 53. 

κλήρων, τῶν, the possessions, or the inheritances, 3, note 8. 

Κορυφή, Summitness, Headship. Eminence; τὴν ὑμετέραν κορυφὴν, your 
Summitness, your Eminence, your Hleadship, 453, note 1097; 
τὴν φιλόχριστον ὑμῶν. . . κορυφήν, your Christ-loving 
Fleadship, 462, note 1146. 

κράτους, of [your] Mightiness (a title); 4, note 10; 114, note 2, of the 
gathering of the Third Synod by the Emperors. - 

κρίσει, Judgment; 113, note 3; 122, note 1. 

καθέδρας, of the [Apostolic] See ; see ἀποστολικός. 

λαϊκός, layman ; daixois, to the lazcs, vol. 111., 22; note 78, on page 
22: 

τὸν λαόν, the people, the laity; 424, note 924; 447, note 1060; vol. 
ἘΠῚ 23, note 84. 


492 Index IV. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 





λάρναξ, ccffer, or chest, or coffin, ἐφιεμένοις δὲ πάσας τὰς τῶν ἁγίων καὶ 
καλλινίκων μαρτύρων περιπτύξασθαι λάρνακας, with a strong desire 
to embrace all the coffins [or coffers] of the holy and glori- 
ously triumphant martyrs, 59, note 1, 

λείψανα ; οὗ τὰ λείψανα παρόντες τετιμήκατε, whose remains [John the 
Evangelist's] ye, being present, have honored, 77, note 3. 

ληγάτου, legate, 68, note 3; 110, note rhe 

Λῆξις, lot τοῦ τῆς θείας λήξεως, Κωνσταντίνου, Constantine [the Great, 

the Emperor] of the divine lot, 287, note 450. 

λίβελλοι, little bovks, statements, 138, note 1; 139, note 8; 165, note 
127; 199, note 244; 250, note 381; 251, note 384. 

λόγος, word; εἰς τοὺς λύγος . . . ἐλθεῖν, to come toa discussion, 
471, note 1216. 

λύμῃ, defilement or ruin; 376, note 668. 


Μ. 


Μακαριότης, Blessedness: τῆς ὑμετέρας μακαριότητος, of your Blessedness, 
a Byzantine title, 89, note 1. It was given to the Ecumenical 
Council; 96, note 1. 

Mepia, Mary, ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ καλουμένῃ ἁγίᾳ Μαρίᾳ, ‘‘ zn the 
great church which ts called the holy Mary,’’ 413, note 853. 

Μαρτῖνος, ὃ τῆς Μεδιολάνων ἐπισκοπος, Martin, the Bishop of the Church 
of Milan, 344, note 585. 

μόλις, reluctantly, 140, note 18. 

μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο, besides that, or thirdly; 440, note 1016. 

μονογενῆ, sv, the Sole Born; 202, note 255; 203, note 259; 325, note 
ΘΕ 


Ν 


Neoropivv, τοῦ ἀνοσίου, of the unholy Nestorius; 18, note 68; Νεστόριος 
- + « ὁ τῆς κανῆς διαστροφῆς ἀρχηγός, Nestorius . . . the 
author of the new perversity, 107, note 1. See, also, under 
words commencing with dus; τοῦ φρονήματος τοῦ Necropiov 
the opinions, or mind, or way of thinking of Nestorius, 440, 
note 1017. 

νεύματι, by the nod, desree; 163, note 117. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 403 





νεωτερίζω ; 7 innovate, ap ὧν ἐνεωτέρισε, from the innovations 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. 


O 


οἰκειώσασθαι, to appropriate; 282, note 437. 

οἰκονόμος, Steward, oixovouo.s, to the stewards, 1, note 4, 

οἰκονομικὴν οἰκείωσιν, economic appropriation, 282, note 437. 

οἰκουμενικὴν σύνοδον, Lcumenical Synod: 146, note 48; 151, note 72; 
104, note 124. 

ὁμιλιῶν, of homilies; 277, note 422. 

ὁμοούσιος, of the same substance; note 730, page 386, vol IT. of Ephe- 
sus in this Set, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄνθρωπος διότι οὐχ ὁμουύσιος 
τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ κατὰ τὸ κυριώτατον; ‘‘ He zs not a man, but like a 
man hecause He is not of the same substance with man 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. 

τὸ ὁμοούσιον ἔστησε, ‘he [Athanasius] established the doctrine of the 
same Substance,’’ 469, note 1206. 

Ὀρθοδυξίαν, τήν, the right doctrine; 219, note 305. 

᾿Ορθόδοξος, Orthodox, of right faith; 220, note 314; 421, note 911. 

ὁρισθέντα, τά, the things decreed; 96, note 3; 112, note 1. 

ὀρκίζοντες, adjuring, or swearing you; 142, note 29 and 31. 

ὅροις, decisions, 110, note 1. 

ὁσιότης, holiness, a Byzantine non-New Testament title; τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ 
ὁσιότητι, fo your Holiness, 200, note 247; 201, note 252, 
twice. 

II 


πάθη, sufferings, τὰ κοινὰ πάθη, the common sufferings, vol. III., 14 
note 57; see πάσχει and συμπάσχει there. 

παλαισμάτων, τῶν, of the wrestler’s arts; 449, note 1072. 

mavayios, to the all holy; 446, note 1049. 

πανούργως, by every means, or villainously, or craftily; 384, note 719. 

πάπας. . . Kedeorivos, Father, or Pope Celestine; 69, note 2; 93, 
note 1; 95, note 6. 


’ 


494 Index IV. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 





πάππων, grandfathers, or ancestors; 106, note 1. 

παρά, its meaning; Jdesides, or contrary to, 223, note 322, twice; 459, 
note 1126. 

παράδυσις ; transmission, tradition, τῶν πατρικῶν παραδόσεων of the 
Fathers’ Transmissions, 109. note 4; καὶ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν 
ἀποστολικῶν παραδόσεων, of the Gospel and the Apostolic Trans- 
missions, 109, note 5; 146, note 48; τήν τε εὐαγγελικὴν καὶ 
ἀποστολικὴν παράδοσιν τῆς πίστεως, both the Gospel and Apostolic 
transmission of the faith, 198, note 240, and 199, note 243. 

παροφθείῃ, neglected, or overlooked, 461, note 1136. 

παρρησία, confidence, 159, note 104 ; 

particen, its meaning is not clear, 279. Is it Greek ? 

παρών, present; see χριστύς, 

πατήρ, Father, ἐκ Ἰατέρων, from the Fathers; 452, note 1093. 

πίστις, faith, 222, note 321; 224, notes 323 and 324; 777 . . . 
πίστιν, the faith, 56, note 1; 170, note 149; ἐν Νικαίᾳ, 72 or at 
Nicaea, or of Nicaea, ibid., and 223, note 322; 223; see 
under παράδοσις ; παρὰ τὴν (πίστιν), contrary to the faith, 223, 
note 322; how the words ἑτέραν πίστιν, ‘‘ another faith’’ 
contrary to the Nicene faith are to be understocd, 223, note 
322; compare 222, note 321; οὐ yap ἐνεδέχετο ἀνδρὶ [Nestorius] 
τοιαῦτα κηρύξαντι (πᾶσαν yap διέστρεψε [Nestorius] τὴν οἰκουμένην 
καὶ τὴν θρησκευομένην τῶν ᾿Εκκλησιῶν παρέλυσε πίστιν) χαρίσασθαι 
συγγνώμην, “for it was not possible to grant pardon toa 
man who has preached such things. For he has perverted 
all the inhabited world, and has done away the worshipping 
Satth of the Churches,’ 412, note 844. 

Πνεῦμα, τὸ, τὸ ἐκ Θεοῦ ‘‘ the Spirit who came out of God,’’ 203, note 
260. 

σὺν ᾿Αγίῳ Πνεύματι, with the Holy Ghost, note 322, page 223. 

πράγματα, affairs » 157, note 99, 100. 

πρακτικὸν τῆς Τρίτης Συνόδου, the Acts of the Third Synod; 246. 

πράσσω, 7 do; τὰ ἴσα τῶν πεπραγμένων, copies of the things done, 19, 
note 71. 

πρεσβείας, of an embassy ; 110, note 7. 

πρεσβευτῶν, of ambassadors or of legates, 67, note 4; 68, note 4; 70, 
notes | and 2. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 405 





πρεσβυτέροις, to the Presbyters, that is fo the Elders, 1, note 3; 125, 
note 2; vol. III. 23, notes77 and 83. 
πρό, before; πρὸ τριῶν ὅλων ἡμερῶν THs ἁγίας συνόδου, three whole days 
before the holy Synod, 8, note 30. 
πρύγονος, ancestor; προγόνων, of ancestors; 456, note 1116. 
πρόεδρος, literally, foresitter, hence Bishop, president; καὶ προέδρων τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας͵ KupidXov καὶ Μέμνονος, and Foresitters (or Chief Bishops 
or Presidents) of ‘the Church, Cyril and Memnon, 162, note 
112; τῶν ἡμετέρων προέδρων, our Foresitters, that is Presidents 
(Cyril and Memnon), 422, note 915; 441, note 1022; 460, 
note 1135. 
προσκυνέω, 7 bow, 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; / bow, L worship. 
προσκυνήσωμεν τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον, let us bow to, that is, let us worship God 
the Word, 27, note 3; προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ, let them [the 
angels] worship Him, 318, note 514; προσκυνεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα to 
worship the unity, 32, note 7; di ἧς [Mary] σταυρὸς τίμιος 
ὀνομάζεται Kat προσκυνεῖται, δὶ Hs δαίμονες 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 ὑμνοῦντας, 
προσκύνησις, bowing, and hence commonly for 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 of mere human respect only, 70, note 3: see on 
that Chrystal’s little work entitled Creature Worship, page 
10, particularly ‘‘c.” 
προσκύνησις, bowing, of religion or worship, 76, note 10; προσκυνήσεως 
of [true] worship, of [true] religion, as opposed to Nestori- 
anism; 177, note 182; meaning of προσκυνέω, προσκύνησις and 
προσκυνητός, 205, note 269. 
Relative Worship and Creature Worship are in the Nesto- 
torian Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia as follows: τὴν παρὰ 


400 


--- 


Index IV. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 





πάσης τῆς κτίσεως δέχεται [Christ’s humanity] προσκύνησιν͵ ὡς 
ἀχώριστον πρὸς: τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἔχων τὴν συνάφειαν, ἀναφορᾷ Θεοῦ, καὶ 
ἐννοίᾳ, πάσης αὐτῷ τῆς κτίσεως τὴν προσκύνησιν ἀπονεμούσης ; “he 
[that is, the mere Man] vecezves worship from every creature 
on the ground of his having that inseparable [external] con- 
junction with the divine Nature, every creature rendering that 
worship to him [that is, to the mere man, Christ’s humanity], 
by reference to God, and in consideration 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 A/an-worship, that is Creature worship is taught 
further on in the same Creed of Theodore in the following 
words: παρέχει δὲ ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον συναφείᾳ πᾶσαν 


5» Φ ψ νι \ ΄ ἌΓ TN , ΠΤ ΥΤ τὰῸ Ν eee 
~€XelvV AUTOV τὴν πιστιν καὶ EVVOLYY καὶ τὴν θεορίαν UTEP WV δὴ καὶ Τὴν 


προσκύνησιν, καὶ ἀναφορὴν Θεοῦ παρὰ πάσης δέχεται τῆς κτίσεως: 
“‘Tt 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 offering which belong to God,’’ 208, 
note 278: see there more fully. That isthe Nestorian 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 LXXXI.,9. The 
Ecumenically approved doctrine of St. Athanasius and of 
his pupil, St. Cyril of Alexandria, that we may economically 
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 ἀνθρωπολατρεία, that is 
ihe worship of a human being, contradicts no text of Holy 
Scripture: see Economic Appropriation, page 445, volume 
I. of Nicaea, and in volume I. of Ephesus the same expression, 
pages 602, 603, and Appropriation on page 573, and under the 
same terms, where found, in the General Index to this vol- 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 497 

a  νυπυ συν ον 
umelIII. See, also, on page 720 of volumelI. of Ephesus, under 
οἰκειώσασθαι, and οἰκονομικὴν οἰκείωσιν, and οἰκονομικῶς, and under 
οἰκειώσασθαι and οἰκονομικὴν οἰκείωσιν in the Greek Index to this 
volume. Σχετικὴ προσκύνησις, relative worship, 208, note 278; 
προσκυνεῖσθαι, co be worshipped, the relative worship of Theo- 
dore condemned in Anathema XII. of the Fifth Ecumenical 
Council, 238, 239, note 377. See, also, under ἀνθρωπολατρεία; τὸν 
προσκυνητὸν Θεύν, the God who is to be worshipped; 447, note 
1065. Ἡ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου προσκυνεῖται, καθὰ ἕν ἐστι πρόσωπον Kat 
ἕν ζῶον μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Μηδὲν ποίημα προσκυνητὸν μετὰ τοῦ Κυρώου, ὡς 
ἡ σὰρξ αὐτοῦ; the flesh of the Lord ἐς to be worshipped, foras- 
much as it is one Person and one living being with Him. 
Nothing made ἐς to be worshipped with the Lord as His flesh 
zs, 386, and note 729 there. The above is the language o. 
Apollinarius the heretic. 

πρόσωπον; person; Uarépa τέλειον προσώπῳ, a Father perfect in Person. 
204, note 261. 

τὸν ἹΤρωτότοκον, the First Brought Forth, 318, note 513; 325, note 528 

πρώτων, the first | Bishops], 165. 

πτωχῶν, of the beggars, or of the poor, 432, note 969. 


Ρ 


Ῥώμη, Rome, τῆς μεγίστης Ῥώμης, of the greatest Rome, 458, note 1122. 


Σ 


σάκοᾳ, for the Latin sacra, sacred, here imperial, 275, note 413; 286, 
notes 444, 445; 287, note 452; 288, notes 454, 455; 289, 
note 459; 290, notes 460, 466; 301, note 481; 419, notes 898, 
899. 

σαρκωθέντα, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου, ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, put on flesh, 

and having put on a man was born out of the holy Virgin, 202, note 
299 

σκαιότητος, bungling, or evil, said of Nestorian Man-worship, 240, 
note. 

σκῆπτρον τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας, sceptre of Orthodoxy, 32, note 9 (spurious). 


498 Index IV. to Volume 77. of Ephesus, and part of 177. 





σταυρὺὶς . - -. προσκυνεῖται, the cross is worshipped, 32, note 11, 
spurious and blasphemous and idolatrous. 

συλλειτουργοῦ, fellow-minister,; 3€, note 21. 

σύμβολον, Symbol, Creed; see ἔκθεσις ; σύμβολον, Creed, 222, note 321. 
See, also, under σύμβολον, page 754, vol. I. of Aphesus in 
this Set. 

σύμβολον, the bread of the Lord’s Supper; and σύμβολα, the Symbols in 
the Lord’s Supper: see σύμβολον, page 755, vol. I. of Ephe- 
sus in this Set. 

συμπρεσβυτέροις, fellow presbyters, that is, fellow elders, 125, note 2. 

συνέδριον, Council, or Sanhedrim: see ἀποστασία. 

συνεπίσκοπον, fellow-bishop; 36, note 21. 

Συνιερατεύω, 7 co-priest; καὶ συνιερατεύοντας αὐτοῖς͵ and we co-priest [that 
is, co-Minister,| with them, 406, note 1186, said by the Synod 
to the Emperors regarding Cyril and Memnon. 

σύνοδος, A Synod; τήν τε ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ συνόδου καὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν, 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: Δεόμεθα τοίνυν τοῦ ὑμετέρου κράτους, λύσατε καὶ ἡμᾶς 
αὐτοὺς τῶν δεσμῶν. Σϑυνδεδέμεθα γὰρ τοῖς δεδομένοις, ὡς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ 
προέδροις τῆς ἁγίας ἡμῶν Συνόδου, ‘We beg, therefore, your 
Mightiness release us also from bonds. For we have been bound 
with those who have been bound for being brethren and Pres- 
idents of our Holy Synod,’ 466, note 1187. 

Σύνταγμα τῶν Κανόνων, Collection, or Arrangment of the Canons by 
Ralle and Potle; 225, note 426. 

συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ, played the hypocrite with him, 101, note. 

σχέσις, relation; 208, note 278, twice. 

σχετική, relative; 208, note 278. ‘The Greek of Theodore of Mopsu- 
estia’s Kcumenically 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, one of the divisions of the imperial palace guard; 291, note 471. 

Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ, the Anointed Saviour, 140, note 15. 


Index IV. Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 499 








T 


taBovrapio, Public registrars; 150, note 53. 

τάξις, our order; 111, note 3: see βαθμοῦ. 

τετολμημένα, Audacious actions; 151, note 156. 

Τριάς, the Trinity; δὶ ἧς Τριὰς ἁγιάζεται, through whom [Mary] 216 
Trinity is sanctijed; 32, note 10; blasphemy in 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 2!0-212 of volume II., 
but it is too long to quote here. The English of it is on 
pages 202-210 there. 

τρικυμί; . . . 22a Sea; 437, note 1003. 

τύπος, form, decree; 80, note; 82, note 2; 84, note 1; 97, note 2; 
107; 110, note 2; τοὺς τῆς ὑμετέρας eioeBeias . . =. τύπους, 
the decrees of your Piety, said by Nestorians to the Emperor 
Theodosius II.; 252, note 386. 


Υ 


vids, Son; 207, nete 275. 

ὑμνοῦντας τὴν ἀειπαρθένον Μαρίαν, δηλονότι τὴν ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ τὸν ταύτης 
Υἱὸν, etc., hymning the ever-Virgin Mary, that ts, the holy 
Church and her Son, etc.; 33, note 13; part of a spurious 
Homily. 

ὑπατεία, consulship; μετὰ τὴν ὑπατείαν͵ in the time of the consulship; 67, 
note 2; 94, note 1; zz the time of the consulship of our Mas- 
ters, 153, note 79. 

τῶν ὑπαχθέντων viv ἐν τῇ πλάνῃ, those who have now been dragged under 
in that error, 435, note 988. 

ὑποκρίσει, with or by hypocrisy, 100, note. 


® 


φιλοχρίστῳ Βασιλεῖ ἡμῶν, our Christ-loving Emperor; 385, note 722. 
φρονέω, 7) think, τοὺς ἔξω τούτο φρονήσαντας, those who think otherwise, 
114, note 7. 


500 Index IV. to Volume IT. of Ephesus, and part of 777. 





φύσις, nature: Μιᾷ δὲ συγκράτῳ τῇ φύσει ἄνθρωπον τὸν Κύριον λέγομεν, μιᾷ 
δὲ συγκράτῳ τῇ φύσει σαρκικῇ τε καὶ θεϊκῇ; We call the Lord a 
man witha mingled nature, even one nature 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 Afollinarius in Blunt’s Dictionary 
of Sects. 

Χ 


χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, Character of His Substance; 28, note 4. 

χάριτι Θευῦ, by God's grace or favor; vol. 11.; 1, note 2; 139, note 12; 
168, note 136. 

χάριτι Χριστοῦ, by Christ's grace or favor, 4, note 9. 

Χριστός, the Anointed One;; 10; note 38; 19, note 73; 78, notes 3, 
4; 238, note 377; ὃ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ὃ καὶ viv τῇ ἁγίᾳ 
συνύδῳ παρών, ‘Sour Lord Jesus Anointed, who also is now 
present with the holy Synod,;’’ 150, note 54; 168, note 140; 
172, note 160; 200, note 245; Δεσπότην Χριστόν, 204, note 262; 
and page 378, notes 681, 682; 421, note 909; vol. III., 18, 
note 68. 

Χριστοτόκος, Bringer Forth of the Anointed One, vol. 11., 426, note 
944, 


Ψ 


Ψήφον, note; 8, note 3, twice; 15, note 48; 82, note 2; pia καὶ κοινὴ 
ψῆφος ἁπάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης, ‘‘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 δύσιν and Ἐκκλησία; 124, note 3; 
142, note 27; 145, note 45; 150, note 59; 151, note 72. 


Q 


No reference. 


a 


A Last Word on Nestorius’ Worship of Christ's Humanity. 50] 





A Last Worp on Nestorius’ WorsHIP OF CHRIST’S 
HuMANITY (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), AND ON HIS WORSHIP OF A THTRAD 
(τετράς, τετρακτύς) 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 7etradism and on his Cannibalism 
(ἀνθρωποφαγία) 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 Nestorian 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 church in that Synod, against all opposers. Seethere. _ 

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, pera τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, 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- 
112, Volume I. of Ephesus, including all of Section II, there, and, 
indeed, to that whole note 183, pages 79 to 107 on TZetradism and 
on pages 112-128 of it on Man-Worship (ἀνθρωπολατρεία), and on the 
statements of Nestorian heretics for it. See, also, under Zetyvadism, 
in the General Index, and in the Greek Index under ἀνθρωπολατρεία, 
and on the Lord’s Supper in the General Index to that volume, and 
under Hucharist, etc,, and Nestorius’ Heresies, 2-6, pages 639-644, 
id., Cannibalism, on page 576, ἀνθρωποφαγία, on page 696, and sim- 
ilar terms in indexes to this volume. See also note 679, pages 
342-362, 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 (ἀνθρωπολατρεία) 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 (ἀνθρωποφαγία) 
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 the 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 411} Bishops and 
clerics holding those paganizings and the excommunications of all 
laics who do, and I will ‘‘zeject’’ 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 bea 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 Translator’s Confession 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 alsodo. And I will follow the teachings of the Scriptures 
and of the Ante Nicene period, against both the use and the wor- 
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 ‘‘one, holy, universal and apostolic Church’? 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/ways, everywhere and 
by all.” 

JAMES CHRYSTAL. 


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 “αἰ in “‘ decisions” in line 5. 
x. Insert ‘‘ The”’ in line 8. 
xiii, Add ‘‘s” after ‘* Christ?” in line 21. 
18. Read “stirrings” not “stirrings” in line 7 of the note. 
13. Change in line 11 of the note “" which” to “ who.” 
13. Change the ‘‘z’’ in foreign to ‘‘n,” in line 24. 
25. Inline 5 from foot between ‘‘ saw’ and ‘‘7ot”’ insert ‘‘ zt stated,”” and before “ some” in 
line 4 from the foot of said page insert ‘‘ that.” 
26. In line 4 from foot of text, insert ‘Sy’? in " brought.” 
43. Inline 1, insert “2” in “ such.” 


59. In note 1, line 2, insert “" ζ᾽ in ‘‘ ἁγίων. "» 

73. In line 4 of top note correct broken “1 in ‘‘ /taldian.” 

85. In line 15 of note 1, in ‘‘ differant,’ make last syllable ‘‘ ent.” 

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 “2” to “ but.” 

135. In line 22 of text change ‘‘gzven ”’ 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 “ὁ. in ‘‘ Zo.” 

141. In note 23, next to the last line, supply ‘‘z” in ‘‘77.” 

142. In note 30, last line but one, omit the second ‘ 77,” 

148. In line 7 from foot of the pageichange ‘‘/Vote 48” to ‘‘Note 48, A.” 

150. In line 2 of the text supply between ‘‘ clerics’ and “ pudlic’’ the words ‘‘ and not.” 
153. In line 3 from the foot of the text supply ‘** s” in “ religious.” 

158. In line 3 from the foot of the text supply the ‘‘ a” in ‘‘ answered.” 

161. In text, in line 10 read ‘‘ castabala,” not “ castabaia.” 

163. Line 1 in note at top read ‘‘turn” not ‘‘tzme.” 

167. In line 1 of note 133 cut out the space or colon before “ act.” 

171. In note 150, line 1, after “Chrysta? ” add “ s,’*in line 2add “sto “2,” and in line 3 

add τ tote." 

71. In note 152, line 4, read ‘ton’ not ‘* ou.’” 

172. In the text, line 2from the top, supply the “7” in “ Aimse/f.” 

177. In the last line supply the “ὁ in* others.” 

179. In the third line from the foot of the page add “‘ zcle ” to ‘* convent.’ 

181. In line 4 from foot of page cutioff “᾿ 5 " from “" regards.” 
201. In line 13 of top note, supply “1” before ‘‘ 0’ so making “10. 

202. Text, line 7, insert ‘‘ having ” before ‘“ put.” 

207. Line 7 from foot of note 274, read ‘‘ Galatians,” 

Ἂν 


208. In line 3 of note 278, omit last ‘‘ τὴν ᾿᾿ before ‘ παρὰ.᾽᾽ 


220. Note 314, line 5, strike out the comma after‘ Greek.” 

223. In note 322, line 20 from foot of page to ‘‘ Synod” add ‘‘s,” and in line 3 from foot of 
page add “7” in ‘‘ Nestorius.” 

228. In line 3 from foot of text add ‘‘ ¢’ ‘to ‘‘ Jeas.”” 

231, In last line put ‘‘ 7”? before “ s’? so making“ zs.” 

241. In line 13 add quotation marks after ‘‘ (378.) ” 

254. In line 24 of note, put comma after ‘ s/agues,” instead of the period, 

261. In line 5, note 398, for ‘' wilt” read “ wl.” 


Errata in Volume IT. of Ephesus. 505 


Sn ncn πἠ ͵ π-άὔρῦῦὉὖὺ-ςςςςςςςςς-ςςς- 


PAGE 


ΟΣ 
(Ae 


278. 
279. 


In lines 11, 12, from foot of page, omit ‘‘ 2 the fourth,” to “ Coleti above” inclusive, and 
insert in place of them ‘* pages 264-266 above, and pages 428-432 below.” 

In line 16 supply ‘ 2” before ‘ he’? so making “‘ the.” 

In lines 14, 15, omit7'‘ been”? to ‘‘ the Greek” inclusive and put in its stead ‘“‘ meant 
Bringer Forth of God and Bringer Forth of Man,” in Greek, Θεοτόκος and 


ἀνθρωποτόκος. And in line 13, text, add “ς᾽ to “ expression.” 
In the last line of the text after " zs” and before ‘‘ doing” insert ‘‘ a” 
In line 14 of the note read ‘‘ ἄνθρωπον ”’ not ‘‘ avOwrrov,’’ and in line 18 read 


ef θεοφόρητος;,᾽᾽ ποῖ “" θεὀφύόρητος, 5) and in line 29 read ‘‘ zmmediate” not 
““Tmmedatte.”” 

After ‘‘ Emperors” in last line but one add: ‘‘ Compare note 20, page 19, Vol. I of 
Ephesus in this Set, and note 453 above.” 

In line 10, correct battered “" e”’ in ‘* the.” 

In line 23 correct battered “ axd.” 

In line 14 of top note, read ‘‘ zhem,” not “ hem’ ; and in line 30 put ‘‘ we” in place of 
battered word after “ must,” and in line 32 supply “2. ” before ‘ a7t,” andin line 
33 supply ‘‘7”’ before ‘‘ he’? somaking “ the.” 

In last line supply “ὁ in “‘ petition.” : 

In line 6 insert semicolon after ‘‘ Theodosius,” and put good ‘‘&”’ for the battered “4” 
in the last line but one of note 499. 

In the 7th line from the foot in note 502, for ‘‘ γιοΐ in? read ‘‘ mot 10.) A very important 
and necessary correction—cut out the ‘‘ zz” and put in its place ‘‘ Zo.’ As it stands 
now it is an oversight or printer’s error, 

Line 9 from foot of page connect 108 and 112 by a hyphen. 

Line 2, text, put comma after “" Father.” 

Line 9 from foot of text correct broken ‘‘ p” in ‘‘ present.” 

In line 9 from foot of text insert ‘“‘ a” after “ prety.” 

In line 12, text, for ‘‘Ambrose” read ‘‘ Theodoret.” 

In the last line of note 583 supply ‘‘ ud’? before ‘‘ ev.” 

In line 7 from foot, read ‘‘ can” not ‘‘ crn.” 

In line 26 supply ‘“‘ 2” in ‘‘Adoptionzst.”” 

In line 3 read “‘ the” before ‘‘ false.” 

Line 21, change7the “τὶ to ‘‘2” in“ and,” 

In line 14 of note supply ‘‘\ex” in “ Ecumenical.” 

In the last line of note 650, last figures, read ‘t 486-504,” the ‘‘ 5 ’’ is blurred. 

Line 10 of note 656, put ‘‘ ze ” in ‘‘ tendencies’ instead of ‘‘ feu.” 

Line 2 of note 677, read ‘‘ οἰκειουμένης ’’ instead of “ οἰκουμένης ”’ 

In line 2 of note 698 put down the space, and in line 2 in note 704 do the same. 

In note 713 read ‘‘ ἐκκλησιαστικῆς, not “" ἐκκλησί.᾽" 

In note 766, line 3, after “ vol.” read “ J,” and make “ vol. /7” “‘ vol. 117” 

In the text in line 14, read ‘‘Z##Je” not ‘‘¢z/¢/e,”” and in line 17 supply ‘‘2” in ‘‘ Universal,” 

In note 772, line 2, supply “ 7’? in “* νοΐ," and change the first "Ὁ /as” to “ zt,” and make 
the second “‘ fave,” and supply “7” in ‘ ail,” and in line 3 supply “7” in “ permit,” 
“qd” in “ discussion,” and ‘‘Z” in “ all.” 

In line 3 from foot of text read ‘‘(785)” in place of those figures blurred. 

In line 6 from foot of text read ‘‘ such ” not “ such.” 

In line 11 of note 824, supply ‘‘ a” in “ especially.” 

In line 22 change ‘‘ 200 ”’ to ‘‘ 590’ in the note. 

In line 8 from foot of text after ‘‘ ‘hing,” put quotation marks, 

In line 1 of note 913, correct broken “ γι} in ‘‘ xames.”’ 

In line 13, text, insert ‘‘» ’ in ‘‘ confirmed”? 

In line 20, text, supply “αἱ in ‘* established.” 


506 Errata in Volume 717 of Ephesus as far as to page 21. 





PAGE 

427. In line 10, text, read ‘‘ vevering ’’ not “ revereing.” 

428. Text, line 1, read atend “ /e/t ave selling.” 

428. Inline 6 read “ fazth of Ortho.” 

428. In line 7read “ trouble” after ‘‘\succeeds.” 

428. In line 8 read “ dear those.” 

428. In line 9 read ‘' some times excites.” 

429. Note 959, line 3, read ‘‘ I Peter ii, 5-9.’ 

431. In line 5 of top note supply second ‘‘z” in “‘ vestitution.”” 

431. In line 10 of top note eorrect battered ‘‘ c’’ of ‘‘Counezl.” 

431. In the last line but one of note 967 supply “2 in "" d/ind,”” ' 

434. In line 3, top note, put “‘ Antioch ” in place of ** Ephesus.”’ 

436. In line 4 of note 995 read ‘‘ enunciated” instead of ‘‘ enumerated.” 
437. In note 1000 read *‘ OZomucpa,’’ not “ θέσπῖσμα. Ἂ 

438. Line 12, text, supply ‘‘ a” in ‘‘ as.” 4 
439. In line 5 of note 1013 supply ‘‘ s”’ in ‘‘ saznds,” and in line 7 ofit “δ᾽ in“ their." 


419. In note 1076 read, for the Greek, ‘ ‘ ἀπόνοιαν." 


457. Line 22 of top note supply *‘c‘’ in “ canons.” 
467. Line 9, text, supply ‘‘ 2”’ in ‘‘ doth.” 
471. Line 1 in note 1219 supply “γ᾽ 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 “ w7/7” put ‘‘ with.” 

11. After “ see,” line 5, note 48, add ‘‘ zz a future volume,” and omit * below.’ 

17. Text, line 5, change “ hese’ to “ those.” 

18. Add at the end of note 64, “"" P. S.—/t ἐς deferred necessarily to another volume.” 

23. In place of the running head, ‘‘ 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 ‘‘ kat’? for ““ Kau.’’ 
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 ‘‘ δι᾽ ’’ not ‘* δι. 


25. Note 96, last line but one, draw together the last letters of ‘‘ mean.” = 
34. Note 106, 3rd line from end supply ‘‘ ¢” in ‘‘ Christianity.” 
34. Note 107, line 1, supply “αἰ in ‘‘ told.” 


41. Note, line 15, read ‘‘’Apyervzw ’? instead of ‘‘ ᾿Αρχετύπω.᾽ 


58. Line ὅ, put period after “ Ephesus.” 
71. Line 9, omit ‘‘ below.” 
73. Line 12, omit ‘‘ eyght”’ and put ‘‘ zen ’’ in its place. = 






rer Heart, ὮΝ 


Tat ‘on ὌΝ ΣΝ} 
7 ᾿ ᾿ μι... Ν᾿ 
᾿ : ὍΝ 





᾿ ᾿ ἊΝ Nga 

UNCON MLLfeh Gee AL ty 
a KON Ae bia ty 
o vy aS an τὰ 

ΠΟ say 


Ws 


μὴν 


ὶ 











"ἢ 
ἀν 


ἐν, 4 





DATE DUE 























GAYLORD PRINTEDINU.S.A. 


χὰ 


Aint 


ay ἀπ 
ἢ" ᾿ 
7: 


Nae Sia 
WV i 


f 
᾿ 
Ἵν 





wu 


. ewe 
Ι] ] 
1. 10 





|
Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

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

See other formats
