Anathematising Public Opinion
Anathemas of Church Councils as representative of public opinion
Anathemas of Church Councils as representative of public opinion
When the christian victors wrote the history of the fourth and fifth centuries
much of the pagan resistance and its annoying controversies and heresies were
destroyed and buried. It was an epoch in which, according to the historian
Ammianus Marcellinus, "the highways were
covered by galloping bishops. There were numerous christian councils
conducted by the authodox, in association with the christian emperors, at
which the reception of christianity as a Roman state religion was discussed.
Evidence from the history of Ammianus also suggests that Christian state inquisitions
are attested in the mid 4th century, at which "numbers without end" of
civilians were brought to tribunals at which they were tortured and executed
on account of their (non-Christian) religous beliefs. See (Book 19,CH 7).
Theologians generally study the creeds of these councils in order to gain an
understanding of the evolution of authodox christian doctrine. However in this
article we have gathered up a different class of data: that of the anathemas.
The term anathema has come to mean a form of extreme religious sanction
beyond excommunication from the church, known as major excommunication. It
implied a status of heretical, and in some instances, it was expressly stated
that those peoples or writings which were anathemetised at these christian
ecclesiastical councils (of the fourth cand fifth centuries) were to be
regarded as aliens.
It seems therefore an interesting project to gather together in one index all
the various blashemies and heresies, identified in the anathemas which were
recorded at these councils. It appears to be a control process, by which
the authodoxy was defined by a process of the anathemetisation of any opinion
with which it was in conflict, or with which it disagreed. As such, a study
of these specific anathemas provides us arguably, with an index of public
issues with which the newly implemented christian church had to contend.
The data turns out to be quite remarkable. Public opinion was exceedingly
diverse over many issues.
The council of Nicaea:
"There are those who say,
There was a time when He was not, and,
Before being born He was not, and that
He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that
the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or
the Son of God is created, or
the Son of God is subject to alteration or change."
For, after thus writing, they at once added,
`They say that the Son of God
is from nothing,
or a work,
or from other essence."
The words of Arius resolve to a charge of fiction against the new testament.
See this article on The Council of Nicaea. The words of Arius are at the very top of the
anathema listings for most of the councils of the fourth century, as we shall see.
What were the words of Arius?
There was time when He was not.
[Ed: He did not exist before Constantine.]
Before He was born He was not.
[Ed: He is a fabrication.]
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.
[Ed: He is fictitious, as are his gospels.]
335 Sopater executed.
He was accused of threatening to starve Constantinople
by stopping the grain shipments from Egypt.
335 Council at Constantinople deposed Marcellus of Ancyra for heresy
(and then nominated Basil to replace him)
Marcellus was accused of teaching that the distinction
between the Father and the Son was only temporary -
the Logos will eventually merge with the Father.
|The Logos was the central philosophical
element of pagan thought since the time of Heraclitus, and was written
about by Philo of Alexandria extensively. In the fourth century,
it was brought into conflict with the "christian Logos". And it
appears that many people such as Marcellus thought that things might
soon return to normal, but this was not to be.
341 Eastern bishops met in synod at Antioch. (Golden church dedication)
Julius’ letter from the recent council at Rome was considered.
The Eastern bishops denied that Rome had a right
to judge decisions reached in the East.
The assembled Eastern bishops drew up three creeds.
The first had a preface denying that they were followers of Arius.
This creed does not seem to have been widely favored.
|Thus there were many who actually
agreed with these words of Arius, and who did not wish to state that
the words of Arius should be denied.
The second creed is referred to as the “Creed of the Dedication”
or the “Lucianic” creed, alleged to have been written by
Lucian the Martyr (see 312). The Lucianic creed omitted
the homoousion, but maintained the exact likeness of the Son
to the Father’s essence. Its anathemas permitted an Arian
interpretation. Against Marcellus, it insisted on the generation
of the Son before time. The Lucianic creed (as given by
Athanasius in his de Synodis): contained no anathemas.
The third creed, that of Theophronius of Tyana,
added to the second creed’s insistence
on the Son’s pretemporal generation,
his hypostatic pre-existence and eternal kingdom.
It had an anathema against Marcellus
and all who communicated with him
or his supporters (directed at the Italians).
A fourth creed was drawn up several months
after the council had closed, in the autumn of 341.
Julius had referred Athanasius’ case to Constans,
who requested Constantius send oriental bishops
to state their case against Athanasius.
A few bishops therefore reassembled
to send a deputation to Constans.
The creed they drew up became the basis
for subsequent Arian confessions.
Marcellus was not mentioned, but the
eternal reign of Christ was affirmed.
The Nicene anathemas were modified to attack Marcellian
and admit Arian interpretations of the divine Sonship.
The fourth creed, as given by Athanasius in de Synodis:
“But those who say,
that the Son was from nothing, or
from other subsistence and not from God, and,
there was time when He was not,
In the short run, the Arians made use
of the fourth creed (see Sirmium, 351).
The Semi-Arians, or Eastern Conservatives,
increasingly relied on the Lucianic creed.
One might have thought that the phrase
‘before all ages was begotten’
would militate against the Arian position
that the Son was created.
Yet, Eusebius of Nicomedia was able to hold
that the Son was begotten before time,
yet not co-eternal with the Father.
These creeds admitted of an orthodox interpretation,
as Hilary noted in his De Synodis, but were
an insufficient filter against Arianism.
|Thus popular opinion supported agreement
to a certain extent with these words of Arius, and who did not wish to state that
the words of Arius should be denied.
342/3 The council of Sardica.
The Easterners were outnumbered by the Westerners.
A dispute arose immediately over the admission of the deposed bishops.
The Eastern bishops withdrew to Philippopolis,
then condemned Hosius, Julius, Athanasius, etc.,
and re-issued the fourth creed from Antioch (341)
with additional anathemas against Marcellus.
In the wake of Sardica, Constantius (emperor in the East)
harshly persecuted the Nicene bishops in the East.
343 Photinus, bishop of Sirmium in Pannonia,
began teaching his heresy.
He denied the existence of the Son
prior to the incarnation,
claiming that the Son and
the Logos are distinct.
He viewed Christ's divinity as something
he attained through moral growth,
similar to the view of Paul of Samosata.
|Here we have someone saying
that the Son and Logos are two distinct things, and that
they need to be separated.
344 The council then sent an enlarged version of the fourth creed
from the dedication council of 341 to Italy by way of a deputation.
This is sometimes referred to as the “Lengthy Creed.”
The council also mildly condemned certain Arian phrases,
but condemned Marcellus and Photinus, and criticized
the Nicene creed for giving support to their heresies.
Photinus was condemned by the council of Sirmium in 351.
The fourth (revised) article of the creed,
from Athanasius’ de Synodis:
“But those who say,
(1) that the Son was from nothing, or from other subsistence and not from God;
(2) there was a time or age when He was not,
(the Catholic and Holy Church regards as aliens)
|Again, the opinion of Arius is anathemetised. Was Arius simply saying that the new testament was a fiction of men composed by wickedness? Was he saying that Jesus did not exist before Constantine, or that Jesus was made up - like a fiction story - out of nohing existing?
(3) there are three Gods:
|Here is a new opinion: we have three separate gods. Some pagans were
spreading the christology that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost were three separate
gods in the pantheon of ROman christianity. The pagans were having a hard time coming to terms with the monstrous fiction of the new testament. It was even written in bad Greek.
(4) Christ is not God;
|Christ was some new upstart in a top-down emperor cult
which was sponsored by Constantine. Twenty years down the track, after the boss had
gone to the underworld, people were starting to try and speak their mind.
(5) before the ages He was neither Christ nor Son of God;
(6) Father and Son, or Holy Ghost, are the same;
(7) the Son is Ingenerate; that
the Father begat the Son,
not by choice or will
|All sorts of philosophical problems were being raised
in opposition to the absurd idea that Jesus firstly had existed, and secondly, that
he was to be presented as the new overall Roman state god of the universe. The
traditional pagan priests, who retained the gnostic writings until at least the
time of the preparation of the Nag Hammadi Codices c.350 CE
351 First Council of Sirmium.
Heretical was Photinus’ doctrine that
"the Son of God did not exist
before the Son of the Virgin"
The council also issued a version of the
fourth creed from Antioch (341).
See council of Antioch (from Hilary, De Synodis).
Separate article contains twenty-seven anathemas sourced from the texts
of De Synodis by Hilary of Poitiers ....
01: The Son is sprung from things non-existent,
or from another substance and not from God,
and that there was a time or age
when He was not.
02: The Father and the Son are two Gods.
03: God is one, but Christ, God the Son of God,
ministered not to the Father in the creation of all things
04: The Unborn God, or a part of Him, was born of Mary.
05: The Son born of Mary was, before born of Mary,
Son only according to foreknowledge or predestination,
and denies that He was born of the Father
before the ages and was with God,
and that all things were made through Him.
06: The substance of God is expanded and contracted
07: The expanded substance of God makes the Son;
or names Son His supposed expanded substance.
08: The Son of God is the internal or uttered Word of God.
09: The man alone born of Mary is the Son.
10: Though saying that God and Man was born of Mary,
understands thereby the Unborn God.
11: Men hearing The Word was made Flesh
think that the Word was transformed into Flesh,
or say that He suffered change in taking Flesh.
12: Men hearing that the only Son of God was crucified,
say that His divinity suffered corruption,
or pain, or change, or diminution, or destruction.
13: Saying "Let us make man" was not spoken by
the Father to the Son, but by God to Himself.
14: Saying that the Son did not appear to Abraham,
but the Unborn God, or a part of Him.
15: Saying that the Son did not wrestle with Jacob as a man,
but the Unborn God, or a part of Him.
16: Men who do not understand that The Lord rained from the Lord
to be spoken of the Father and the Son, but that the Father
rained from Himself.
17: Saying that the Lord and the Lord,
the Father and the Son are two Gods,
because of the aforesaid words.
18: Saying that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost are one Person.
19: When speaking of the Holy Ghost the Paraclete
says that He is the Unborn God.
20: Denying that, as the Lord has taught us,
the Paraclete is different from the Son.
21: Saying that the Holy Spirit is a part of
the Father or of the Son.
22: Saying that the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit are three Gods.
23: Men after the example of the Jews understand
as said for the destruction of the Eternal Only-begotten God
the words, I am the first God, and I am the last God,
and beside Me there is no God,
which were spoken for the destruction of idols
and them that are no gods.
24: Saying that the Son was made by the will of God,
like any object in creation.
25: Saying that the Son was born against the will of the Father.
26: Saying that the Son is incapable of birth and without beginning,
saying as though there were two incapable of birth and unborn
and without beginning, and makes two Gods.
27: Denying that Christ who is God and Son of God,
personally existed before time began
and aided the Father in the perfecting of all things;
but saying that only from the time that He was born of Mary
did He gain the name of Christ and Son
and a beginning of His deity.
353 Hilary of Poitiers violently denounced people who held that
Mary had not remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth, and maintained that
Jesus’ brothers were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage.
Under the influence of Valens,
the Second Council of Sirmium was held,
at which Hosius and Potamius
composed their blasphemy.
This creed insisted upon the unique Godhead of the Father
and deplored both the homoousion (Athanasius and the West)
and homoiousion (Basil of Ancyra and most of the East),
along with all discussion of essence, as unscriptural.
The “blasphemy,” from Athanasius’ de Synodis:
The Blasphemy of Hosius:
“Whereas it seemed good that there should be
some discussion concerning faith, all points
were carefully investigated and discussed at Sirmium
in the presence of Valens, and Ursacius, and
Germinius, and the rest. It is held for certain
that there is one God, the Father Almighty, as also
is preached in all the world."
The text continues, and acknowledges the presence of
Jesus et al in the following sections, but it is notable
that the opening statement deals with a very general God
which would have served the Jews and the Pagans.
The blasphemy was too shocking for most Eastern bishops.
In the view of some historians, this council began
the collapse of the Arian cause.
359 Constantius called an ecumenical council
to meet in two locations: the West in Italy
at Rimini (Ariminum), and the East at Seleucia
in Asia Minor (Isauria).
The council at Rimini endorsed the Nicene formula.
“But the name of `Essence,'
which was set down by the Fathers in simplicity,
and, being unknown by the people, caused offence,
because the Scriptures contain it not,
it has seemed good to abolish, and for the future
to make no mention of it at all;
since the divine Scriptures have made no mention
of the Essence of Father and Son.
For neither ought Subsistence to be named
concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
But, we say that the Son is Like the Father,
as the divine Scriptures say and teach;
and all the heresies, both those
which have been afore condemned already,
and whatever are of modern date,
being contrary to this published statement,
be they anathema.”
The Semi-Arianswere defeated by Valens’ influence
at court, swept from their sees and replaced by Homoeans.
Jerome wrote of the council of Rimini,
“the world groaned to find itself Arian.”
362 A new group, known as the Tropici,
appeared in the Nile delta.
They denied the deity of the Holy Spirit,
terming him simply a ministering spirit,
and were condemned at the council in Alexandria.
362 Beginning of the schism in Antioch.
A famous ascetic named Paulinus was elected bishop of Antioch.
He was ordained by Lucifer of Caralis (Cagliari, Sardinia),
a strict adherent to the Nicene formula.
The party supporting Paulinus were known as Eustathians
after the pro-Nicene bishop Eustathius, whom the Arians had deposed in 328.
362 Athanasius called a council in Alexandria to deal with
(1) terms under which to accept the Arians back into communion and
(2) to sort out the succession at Antioch (see below).
It was decided to accept the Arians on the grounds
of their subscription to the Nicene formula
and their repudiation of Arianism,
including the doctrine that
the Holy Spirit is a creature.
363 The council of Laodicea (in the Lycus valley, Phrygia)
NT canonical books with the exception of Revelation
The Antiochene school (e.g., John Chrysostom and Theodoret)
was more favorable towards the "Apocrypha."
Though the East was generally hesitant about the Apocrypha,
the West was favorable.
The synod’s fifty-nine other canons affirmed
* forbade Christians from praying in the graveyards of heretics,
* honoring heretical martyrs instead of faithful ones,
* receiving the blessings of heretics,
* praying with heretics or schismatics,
* marrying their children to heretics,
* holding “love feasts” in the church,
* judaizing by resting on Saturday,
* receiving portions from the feasts of heretics or Jews, or
* clubbing “together for drinking entertainments.”
It forbade the clergy from being magicians,
from manufacturing magic amulets,
and from seeing plays at weddings and banquets.
The exact date of this synod is not known.
It has been placed as early as 343 as late as 381.
364 At a council in Lampsacus,
the Semiarians opposed the councils of Arminium (359) and Constantinople (360),
reissuing instead the Lucianic creed of Antioch (341).
They also deposed Acacius of Caesarea in Palestine.
366 Liberius, bishop of Rome, died.
He had subscribed to an Arian creed (see year 358),
Damasus and Ursinus battled for the bishopric of Rome.
At the end of one day, 137 corpses
were counted in the Liberian basilica.
Damasus won and ruled through 384.
In Damasus’ time, Latin was used
in the Roman liturgy for the first time.
Damasus wrote that Rome was the
“first see of the apostle Peter” and the “apostolic see.”
He began the habit of using the “plural of majesty” in his writings,
and he addressed his fellow bishops
for the first time as “sons,” instead of the traditional “brothers.”
Damasus claimed to be the “exclusive inheritor of all,
and more than all, that the New Testament tells us
of the prerogative of St. Peter.”
He also claimed that the authority of the council of Nicaea
was based on its acceptance by Sylvester, his predecessor.
Much of this verbiage may have been induced
by the pretensions of Constantinople (see 381).
That the bishop of Rome enjoyed temporal power in this time
is illustrated by the pagan official Praetextus’ words to Damasus:
“Make me bishop of Rome and I will turn Christian.”
373 Athanasius died.
Apollinarius of Laodicea in Syria, his friend, asserted a Christology
in which the Logos replaced the human mind of the Son.
This implied that Christ was not fully human,
which has unwanted implications for soteriology.
Christologies of the “Word-Flesh” type (like that of Apollinarius)
were common coming from Alexandria,
while Antioch championed a “Word-Man” theology.
The former type had the potential to do disservice to Christ’s humanity,
while the latter had difficulty with the fusion of the two natures,
human and divine, into one person.
St. Epiphanios, bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, published his Ancoratus.
It contained two creeds, the first of which is nearly identical
to that of Constantinople (381).
374 For his opposition to Arianism,
St. Macarius (d. 390) the Egyptian was banished
to an island in the Nile by bishop Lucius of Alexandria.
Macarius had become a hermit in the desert of Scete in around 330,
and lived there for much of the following 60 years.
Macarius had gifts of healing and prophecy.
He was the author of 50 Spiritual Homilies,
which describes the ascent of the spirit,
through work, discipline, and meditation,
toward the vision of light.
375 Epiphanios (see 335), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (367-403),
launched an attack on the orthodoxy of Origen.
He wanted to bring Origen (or, rather, his corpse) to trial,
and he was troubled by the influence of Origen’s writings
on certain Egyptian monks, namely, Ammonius and three brothers,
known collectively as the Tall Brothers.
Evagrius moved to Egypt and put himself under Ammonius’ direction,
where he became the Tall Brothers’ literary spokesman.
Epiphanios was a scholar. According to Jerome,
he knew Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Coptic, and some Latin.
He was also an energetic defender of the Orthodox faith.
His chief written works are
---- the Panarion, written by about 377, which describes 80 heresies, and
---- the Ancoratus, a compendium of church teachings dating to 374.
In his works, Epiphanios denounced a sect called the Collyridians,
which worshipped Mary. He also described a group of Quartodecimans
in Asia Minor who taught that Jesus was crucified on March 25
and who celebrated Easter invariably on that date.
377 Damasus realized the implications of Apollinarius’ Christology
and held a council that condemned his teachings.
Its sentence was confirmed by synods in Alexandria
in 378 and Antioch in 379.
379 Theodosius (379-95) became Eastern Roman emperor. Ruled through 395.
An imperial edict (3 August 379) was issued
which condemned heretics of all kinds.
Theodosius made it clear that he wanted conformity with the creed of Nicaea.
Bishops not in communion with Pope Damasus and Athanasius’ successor
at Alexandria, Peter, would not be recognized.
380 The canons of the synod of Saragossa (Caesaraugusta), Spain,
condemned the teachings of Priscillian, later bishop of Avila, Spain.
From about 375 Priscillian taught that
* bodies were created by the Satan,
* that souls were imprisoned in bodies as punishment for sins, and
* that angels and human souls were emanations from the Godhead.
Eleven sermons ascribed to Priscillian were published in 1889.
They teach that the Son differs from the Father in name only.
381 Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople
The first canon of the council:
“The faith of the three hundred and eighteen fathers
assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia shall not be set aside,
but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized,
particularly that of the Eunomians or Eudoxians,
and that of the semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi,
and that of the Sabellians,
and that of the Marcellians,
and that of the Photinians,
and that of the Apollinarians.”
382 Jerome (340-420) became an adviser to Damasus in Rome.
Jerome initially rejected Mary’s virginity in childbirth,
which he later came to accept, along with her perpetual virginity thereafter.
Jerome was responsible for the theory
that Jesus’ brothers were actually cousins,
and that Joseph as well as Mary was a virgin.
He attacked the view that virginity
and marriage are to be valued equally.
“It is not the case that there is one church at Rome
and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain,
Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ
and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority,
the world outweighs its capital.
Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome
or at Engubium, whether it be Constantinople or at Rhegium,
whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan,
his dignity is one and his priesthood is one.
Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty
makes him more a bishop or less a bishop.
All alike are successors of the apostles.”
(Letter CXLVI to Evangelus)
Jerome believed that the Devil and those who have denied God will be tortured for eternity, but that reprobate Christians will eventually be saved.
Jerome created a new translation of the Bible into Latin (now known as the Vulgate). Unlike the Old Latin version, Jerome’s Vulgate relied on the Hebrew Old Testament rather than the Septuagint. His translation was declared authoritative at the council of Trent (Fourth Session, 1546). Jerome began work on this translation during a stay in Rome (382-85) when Damasus was bishop, working initially on the psalms and the New Testament. He completed his translation, the Vulgate, while living in Bethlehem, in 405.
Medieval artwork sometimes portrays Moses with horns. This depiction derives from Jerome’s mistranslation of verses in Exodus 34. Verse 29: “he knew not that his face was horned from the conversation of the Lord.” Verse 30: “And Aaron and the children of Israel seeing the face of Moses horned, were afraid to come near.” Verse 35: “And they saw that the face of Moses when he came our was horned.” Rather than being “horned” Moses face “shone,” as in the Old Latin and the Septuagint.
390 At the Synod of Side in Pamphylia,
the Messalian heresy was condemned (they were then called Adelphians).
The Messalians believed that Satan was Christ’s elder brother.
On account of his pride, he had rebelled against the Father
and created the material world, which they considered wicked.
Each person’s soul was held to be inhabited by a demon,
which the Messalians sought to eject
in the form of mucous or saliva through prayer.
The only prayer they said, however, was the Our Father.
Those who succeeded in expelling the demon could be unified
with the Holy Spirit and behold God.
When they had reached this state, sin was impossible for them:
Messalians had a reputation for licentious behavior.
They refused to reverence the cross or the Virgin Mary,
since the cross was the instrument of Jesus’s death,
and Mary was simply the mother of a human, Jesus,
whom the Holy Spirit later inhabited.
Effectively, Jesus was reduced to a teacher or example.
Epiphanios (Ephanius) reported that if a Messalian were asked,
“Are you a Patriach? Prophet? Angel? Jesus Christ?”
he would always respond with “Yes.”
Messalians were also known as Euchetes (praying people) or Enthusiasts.
Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople
Although the Arians could no longer use churches inside the city (see 380),
they processed through the city at dawn, chanting hymns
that ridiculed Orthodox belief, then met outside the city walls.
Chrysostom staged Orthodox processions that were even more spectacular,
and the Arians soon ceased their efforts to win over the city this way.
The Orthodox processions, however, continued until the 440s at least.
399 After initially supporting the Tall Brothers’ criticism
of the Anthropomorphites, Theophilus of Alexandria
expelled the Origenists.
They moved to Constantinople and made their case to John Chrysostom.
(Recall that Alexandria was jealous of Constantinople’s
elevation by the council of Constantinople in 381.)
In 400, a council convened at Theophilus’ behest
405 In a letter to Jerome regarding the controversy between Paul and Peter (Galatians 2),
Augustine wrote (Letter 82):
“I have learned to yield this respect and honor only
to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone
do I most firmly believe that the authors were
completely free from error.
And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything
which appears to me opposed to the truth,
I do not hesitate to suppose that either
the manuscript is faulty, or the translator
has not caught the meaning of what was said,
or I myself have failed to understand it.”
408 An imperial decree issued in May of this year
forbade Jews from burning crosses
during the festival of Purim.
412 Cyril became patriarch of Alexandria.
Served through 444.
Cyril was Theophilus’ nephew.
The circulation of tracts of Nestorius in Egypt
occasioned him first to write on the heresy of Nestorius.
There can be little doubt that the powerful mind of S. Leo,
who was the soul of the Council of Chalcedon, was, in his
young days when S. Celestine's Archdeacon in 429, taught
through those writings; as S. Cyril himself had been
taught by the writings of S. Athanasius. |xi
The 12 Chapters, appended to his last letter to Nestorius,
were made a trouble to S. Cyril at a later period of his
Episcopate, so that it may be well to give them in full.
They were framed to preclude any evasion of that letter.
THE 12 CHAPTERS: WORDS OF THE HERETICS
See the note below: the phraseology of the following
has been adjusted tpo present the words of the heresy:
1. We say that Emmanuel is not in truth God,
and that the holy Virgin is not the Mother of God.
2. We say that the Word out of God the Father
has not been personally united to Flesh,
and that Christ and God are not one.
3. We do not connect the One Christ to dignity or authority or sway
4. We mention two Persons or Hypostases.
5. We say that Christ is a God-clad man,
and that He is not God in truth.
6. We say that the Word That is out of God the Father is God.
We say that the Word That is out of God the Father is Lord of Christ.
7. We say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word,
and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him,
as being another than He.
8. We say there no One Doxology.
9. We say that Jesus Christ hath not been glorified by the Spirit,
that His Power are, as it were, Another's,
10. We say that the Very Word out of God was not Christ's,
We say that in His own behalf He offered the Sacrifice, not for anyone else.
11. We say that the Flesh of the Lord is not Life-giving and
that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is out of God the Father,
We say that it belongs to another than He,
and is not connected with Him by dignity.
12. We say that the Word of God did not suffer in the Flesh
and that it was not crucified in the Flesh
and did not taste death in the Flesh
and was not made First-born of the Dead.
THE 12 CHAPTERS.
Note that the above phraseology has been extracted from the following text, and turned around in order to present the phrase as the heretics would have then expressed it. The original text of Cyril is shown below ...
- 1. If any one confess not, that Emmanuel is in truth God, and that the holy Virgin is therefore Mother of God, for she hath borne after the flesh the Word out of God made Flesh, be he anathema.
- 2. If any one confess not, that the Word out of God the Father hath been personally united to Flesh, and that He is One Christ with His own Flesh, the Same (that is) God alike and Man, be he anathema.
- 3. If any one sever the Hypostases of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a concurrence unto Unity of Nature, be he anathema.
- 4. If any one allot to two Persons or Hypostases the words in the Gospels and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is out of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is out of God the Father, be he anathema.
- 5. If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man, and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son, and That by Nature, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh, be he anathema.
- 6. If any one dare to say that the Word That is out of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, according to the Scriptures, be he anathema. |xii
- 7. 9 If any one say that Jesus hath been in-wrought-in as man by God the Word, and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, as being another than He, be he anathema.
- 8. If any one shall dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the Word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, ever appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honour Emmanuel with one worship, and send up to Him One Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.
- 9. If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the Spirit, using His Power as though it were Another's, and from Him receiving the power of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs towards men, and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom also He wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.
- 10. The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the Sigh Priest and Apostle of our Confession and that He offered Himself for us for an odour of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that, not the Very Word out of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart by himself as other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.
- 11. If any one confess not, that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is out of God the Father, but says that it belongs to another than He, connected with Him by dignity or as |xiii possessed of Divine Indwelling only, and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Word Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.
- 12. If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.