Revised 2002.

Note: The full electronic versions of most of the texts can be found at Early Church Fathers (CCEL).

Week 12 - Ephesus (431) & Nestorianism
- Theodore of Mopseustia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius -

Lecture/tutorial reading: Readings: Studer. Trinity & Incarnation. Chp. 16; Kelly. Early Xian Doctrines. Chp 12.1-3; 11.6.

Study Questions:
Review the questions from the previous weeks. By now, you should have appropriated the methodology used in analyzing the texts for their theology of Christ.

John Chrysostom

Homily 11 - On the Gospel of John

"And the Word was made Flesh," [John said], "and dwelt among us."

1. Having declared that they who received him were "born of God," and had become "sons of God," he adds the cause and reason of this unspeakable honour. It is that "the Word became Flesh," that the Master took on him the form of a servant. For he became Son of man, who was God's own Son, in order that he might make the children of humanity to be the children of God. For the high when it associates with the low touches not at all its own honour, while it raises up the other from its excessive lowness; and even thus it was with the Lord. He in nothing diminished His own Nature by this condescension [kenosis], but raised us, who had always sat in disgrace and darkness, to glory unspeakable. Thus it may be, a king, conversing with interest and kindness with a poor mean man, does not at all shame himself, yet makes the other observed by all and illustrious. Now if in the case of the adventitious dignity of humans, intercourse with the humbler person in nothing injuries the more honourable, much less can it do so in the case of that simple and blessed Essence which has nothing adventitious, or subject to growth or decay, but has all good things immovable, and fixed for ever. So that when you hear that "the Word became Flesh," be not disturbed nor cast down, for that Essence did not change to flesh, (it is impiety to imagine this,) but continuing what it is, it so took upon it the form of a servant.

2. Wherefore then does he use the expression, "was made"? To stop the mouths of the heretics. For since there are some who say that all the circumstances of the Dispensation [economy] were an appearance, a piece of acting, an allegory, at once to remove beforehand their blasphemy, he has put "was made"; desiring to show thereby not a change of substance, (away with the thought,) but the assumption of very flesh. For as when (Paul) says, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," he does not mean that His essence removing from Its proper glory took upon it the being of an accused thing, (this not even devils could imagine, nor even the very foolish, nor those deprived of their natural understanding, such impiety as well as madness does it contain,) as (St. Paul) does not say this, but that he, taking upon himself the curse pronounced against us, leaves us no more under the curse; so also here he [St. John] says that he "was made Flesh," not by changing His Essence to flesh, but by taking flesh to himself, His Essence remained untouched.

3. If they say that being God, he is Omnipotent, so that he could lower himself to the substance of flesh, we will reply to them, that he is Omnipotent as long as he continues to be God. But if he admit of change, change for the worse, how could he be God? for change is far from that simple Nature. Wherefore the Prophet said, "They all shall wax old as does a garment, and as a vesture shall you roll them up, and they shall be changed; but you are the same, and your years shall not fail." [Ps 102.27 LXX.] For that Essence is superior to all change. There is nothing better than he, to which he might advance and reach. Better do I say? No, nor equal to, nor the least approaching him. It remains, therefore, that if he change, he must admit a change for the worse; and this would not be God. But let the blasphemy return upon the heads of those who utter it. Nay, to show that he uses the expression,'" was made" only that you should not suppose a mere appearance, hear from what follows how he clears the argument, and overthrows that wicked suggestion. For what does he add? "And dwelt among us." All but saying, "Imagine nothing improper from the word 'was made'; I spoke not of any change of that unchangeable Nature, but of Its dwelling and in habiting. But that which dwells cannot be the same with that in which it dwells, but different; one thing dwells in a different thing, otherwise it would not be dwelling; for nothing can inhabit itself. I mean, different as to essence; for by an union, and conjoining God the Word and the Flesh are One, not by any confusion or obliteration of substances, but by a certain ineffable union ... .

4. What then was the tabernacle in which he dwelt? Hear the Prophet say; "I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen" (Amos 9.11.). It was fallen indeed, our nature had fallen an incurable fall, and needed only that mighty Hand. There was no possibility of raising it again, had not he who fashioned it at first stretched forth to it His Hand, and stamped it mew with His Image, by the regeneration of water and the Spirit. And observe I pray you, the awful and ineffable nature of the mystery. He inhabits this tabernacle for ever, for he clothed himself with our flesh, not as again to leave it, but always to have it with him. Had not this been the case, he would not have deemed it worthy of the royal throne, nor would he while wearing it have been worshipped by all the host of heaven, angels archangel, thrones, principalities, dominions, powers. What word, what though can represent such great honour done to our race, so truly marvellous and awful? What angel what archangel? Not one in any place, whether in heaven, or upon earth. For such are the mighty works of God, so great and marvellous are His benefits, that a right description of them exceeds not only the tongue of men, but even the power of angels.

5. Wherefore we will for a while dose our discourse, and be silent; only delivering to you this charge, that you repay this our so great Benefactor by a return which again shall bring round to us all profit. The return is, that we look with all carefulness to the state of our souls. For this too is the work of His loving-kindness, that he who stands in no need of anything of ours says that he is repaid when we take care of our own souls. It is therefore an act of extremist folly, and one deserving ten thousand chastisements, if we, when such honour has been lavished upon us, will not even contribute what we can, and that too when profit comes round to us again by these means, and ten thousand blessings are laid before us on these conditions. For all these things let us returns glory to our merciful God, not by words only, but much more by works that we may obtain the good things hereafter, which may it be that we all attain to, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Nestorius

Nestorius' Sermon Against the Theotokos

a. The human race was adorned with ten thousand gifts when it was dignified by a gift which was furthest away and nearest to hand—the Lord's incarnation. Humanity is the image of the divine nature; but the devil overthrew this image and cast it down into incorruption, and God grieved over this image as a king might grieve over his statue, and renewed the likeness. Without male seed, he fashioned from the Virgin a nature like Adam's (who was himself formed without male seed) and through a human being brought about the revival of the human race. "Since," Paul says, "death came through a human being, through a human being also came the resurrection of the dead" [1 Cor 15.21].

b. Let those people pay attention to these words [of Paul], I mean those who, as we know have learned, are always inquiring among us now this way and now that: "Is Mary Theotokos," they say (that is, the bearer or mother of God), "or is she on the contrary anthropotokos" (that is, the bearer or mother of a human being)?

c. Does God have a mother? ... Is Paul then a liar when he says of the deity of Christ, "without father, without mother, without genealogy" [Heb 7.3]? Mary, my friend, did not give birth to the Godhead ... . A creature did not produce he who is uncreatable. The Father has not just recently generated God the Logos from the Virgin (for in the "beginning was the Logos" as John says). A creature did not produce the Creator, rather she gave birth to the human being, the instrument of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit did not create God the Logos (for what is "born of her is of the Holy Spirit" [Mt 1.20]). Rather, the Spirit formed out of the Virgin a temple for God the Logos, a temple in which he dwelt.

d. Moreover, the incarnate God did not die; he raised up the one in whom he was incarnate. ... God saw the ruined nature, and the power of the Godhead took hold of it in its shattered state. God held on to it while himself remaining what he had been, and lifted it up high. ... Paul recounts all at once everything which happened, and the [divine] being has become incarnate and that the immutability of the incarnate deity is always maintained after the union.

Nestorius' Reply to the Second Letter of Cyril

a. So if it seems right, examine what was said more closely [at Nicea], and you will discover that the divine chorus of the Fathers did not say that the coessential Godhead is passible or that the Godhead which is coeternal with the Father has only just been born, or that he who has raised up the temple which was destroyed has [himself] risen. ...

b. "We also believe," [Nicea] said, "in our Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son." Observe how first of all they establish, as foundations, the titles which are common to the deity and the humanity—"Lord" and "Jesus" and "Christ" and "Only-begotten" and "Son"—and then build upon them the teaching about his becoming human and his passion and resurrection, or order, since the titles which signify and are common to both natures are set in the foreground, the things which pertain to the sonship and lordship are not divided and the things peculiar to the natures within the unitary sonship do not get endangered by the suggestion of a confusion.

c. Paul was himself the instructor in this matter. He refers to the divine act of becoming human, and since he is about to add mention of the passion, he first posits the title Christ, the title which as I said earlier, is common to the two natures, and then introduces words that are appropriate to the two natures. What does he say? "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not think equality with God something to be snatched at, but [...] became obedient to death, even death on the Cross" [Phil 2.5-8]. Since he was about to recall the death, lest anyone for that reason suppose that the Logos is passible, he inserts the word "Christ" because it is the term which signifies the impassible and the passible in one unitary person, with the result that Christ is without risk called both passible and impassible—impassible in the Godhead and passible in the nature of the body.

d. ... Everywhere in Scripture, whenever mention is made of the saving dispensation of the Lord, what is conveyed to us is the birth and suffering not of the deity but of the humanity of Christ, so that by a more exact manner of speech the holy Virgin is called Mother of Christ [Christotokos], and not Mother of God [Theotokos]. ... [One may read in the Scriptures] thousand of other statements warning the human race not to think that the deity of the Son is a new thing, or susceptible to bodily passion, but rather the flesh which is united to the nature of the Godhead.

e. That is why Christ calls himself both Lord and son of David. He says, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They say to him, "David's." Jesus answered and said to them, "How then does David, speaking in the Spirit, call him Lord, saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit on my right hand."'" [Mat 22.42-44]. Because he is entirely the son of David according to the flesh but Lord according to the deity. The body therefore is the temple of the Son's deity, and a temple united to it by a complete and divine conjunction, so that the nature of the deity associates itself with the things belonging to the body, and the body is acknowledged to be noble and worthy of the wonders related in the Gospels.

Cyril of Alexandria

The Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius (with the 12 Anathemas)

1. When our Saviour says clearly: "He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," what is to become of us, from whom your Holiness requires that we love you more than Christ the Saviour of us all? Who can help us in the day of judgment, or what kind of excuse shall we find for thus keeping silence so long, with regard to the blasphemies made by you against him? If you injured yourself alone, by teaching and holding such things, perhaps it would be less matter; but you have greatly scandalized the whole Church, and have cast among the people the leaven of a strange and new heresy. And not to those there [i.e. at Constantinople] only; but also to those everywhere [your letters were sent]. How can we any longer, under these circumstances, make a defence for our silence, or how shall we not be forced to remember that Christ said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother." For if faith be injured, let there be lost the honour due to parents, as stale and tottering, let even the law of tender love towards children and brothers be silenced, let death be better to the pious than living; "that they might obtain a better resurrection," as it is written.

2. Behold, therefore, how we, together with the holy synod which met in great Rome, presided over by the most holy and most reverend brother and fellow-minister, Celestine the Bishop, also testify by this third letter to you, and counsel you to abstain from these mischievous and distorted dogmas, which you hold and teach, and to receive the right faith, handed down to the churches from the beginning through the holy Apostles and Evangelists, who "were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the Word." And if your holiness has not a mind to this according to the limits defined in the writings of our brother of blessed memory and most reverend fellow-minister Celestine, Bishop of the Church of Rome, be well assured then that you have no lot with us, nor place or standing among the priests and bishops of God. For it is not possible for us to overlook the churches thus troubled, and the people scandalized, and the right faith set aside, and the sheep scattered by you, who ought to save them, if indeed we are ourselves adherents of the right faith, and followers of the devotion of the holy fathers. And we are in communion with all those laymen and clergymen cast out or deposed by your holiness on account of the faith; for it is not right that those, who resolved to believe rightly, should suffer by your choice; for they do well in opposing you. This very thing you have mentioned in your epistle written to our most holy and fellow-bishop Celestine of great Rome.

3. But it would not be sufficient for your reverence to confess with us only the symbol of the faith set out some time ago by the Holy Spirit at the great and holy synod convened in Nicea: for you have not held and interpreted it rightly, but rather perversely; even though you confess with your voice the form of words. But in addition, in writing and by oath, you must confess that you also anathematize those polluted and unholy dogmas of yours, and that you will hold and teach that which we all, bishops, teachers, and leaders of the people both East and West, hold. The holy synod of Rome and we all agreed on the epistle written to your Holiness from the Alexandrian Church as being right and blameless. We have added to these our own letters and that which it is necessary for you to hold and teach, and what you should be careful to avoid. Now this is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church to which all Orthodox Bishops, both East and West, agree:

4. "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those in the earth. Who for us men and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man. He suffered, and rose again the third day. He ascended into the heavens, from thence he shall come to judge both the living and tile dead. And in the Holy Spirit: But those that say, There was a time when he was not, and, before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made of that which previously was not, or that he was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes."

5. Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers which they made (the Holy Spirit speaking in them), and following the scope of their opinions, and going, as it were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father, True God from True God, Light from Light, through Whom all things were made, the things in heaven and the things in the earth, coming down for our salvation, making himself of no reputation, was incarnate and made man; that is, taking flesh of the holy Virgin, and having made it his own from the womb, he subjected himself to birth for us, and came forth man from a woman, without casting off that which he was; but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. Neither do we say that his flesh was changed into the nature of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of God has laid aside for the nature of flesh; for he is unchanged and absolutely unchangeable, being the same always, according to the Scriptures. For although visible and a child in swaddling clothes, and even in the bosom of his Virgin Mother, he filled all creation as God, and was a fellow-ruler with him who begat him, for the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.

6. Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ: we do not divide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts, as though the two natures were mutually united in him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do we give separately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different one born of a woman; but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own Flesh. For as man he was anointed with us, although it is he himself who gives the Spirit to those who are worthy and not in measure, according to the saying of the blessed Evangelist John.

7. But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing man; for although the Word tabernacled among us, it is also said that in Christ "dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"; but we understand that be became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality. But being made one and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.

8. One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of honour which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one. Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be apposition, for this does not suffice for natural oneness. Nor yet according to relative participation, as we are also joined to the Lord, as it is written "we are one Spirit in him." Rather we deprecate the term of "junction" [or "conjoining"] as not having sufficiently signified the oneness. But we do not call the Word of God the Father, the God nor the Lord of Christ, less we openly cut in two the one Christ, the Son and Lord, and fall under the charge of blasphemy, making him the God and Lord of himself. For the Word of God, as we have said already, was made hypostatically one in flesh, yet he is God of all and he rules all; but he is not the slave of himself, nor his own Lord. For it is foolish, or rather impious, to think or teach thus. For he said that God was his Father, although he was God by nature, and of his substance. Yet we are not ignorant that while he remained God, he also became man and subject to God, according to the law suitable to the nature of the manhood. But how could he become the God or Lord of himself? Consequently as man, and with regard to the measure of his humiliation, it is said that he is equally with us subject to God; thus he became under the Law, although as God he spake the Law and was the Law-giver.

9. We are careful also how we say about Christ: "I worship the one clothed on account of the one clothing him, and on account of the unseen, I worship the seen." It is horrible to say in this connection as follows: "The assumed as well as the assuming have the name of God." For the saying of this divides again Christ into two, and puts the man separately by himself and God also by himself. For this saying denies openly the Unity according to which one is not worshipped in the other, nor does God exist together with the other; but Jesus Christ is considered as One, the Only-begotten Son, to be honoured with one adoration together with his own flesh.

10. We confess that he is the Son, begotten of God the Father, and Only-begotten God; and although according to his own nature he was not subject to suffering, yet he suffered for us in the flesh according to the Scriptures, and although impassible, yet in his Crucified Body he made his own the sufferings of his own flesh; and by the grace of God he tasted death for all: he gave his own Body thereto, although he was by nature himself the life and the resurrection, in order that, having trodden down death by his unspeakable power, first in his own flesh, he might become the first born from the dead, and the first-fruits of them that slept. And that he might make a way for the nature of man to attain incorruption, by the grace of God (as we just now said), he tasted death for every man, and after three days rose again, having despoiled hell. So although it is said that the resurrection of the dead was through man, yet we understand that man to have been the Word of God, and the power of death was loosed through him, and he shall come in the fulness of time as the One Son and Lord, in the glory of the Father, in order to judge the world in righteousness, as it is written.

11. We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood." For we must not think that it is flesh of a man like us (for how can the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?) but as having become truly the very own of him who for us both became and was called Son of Man. Besides, what the Gospels say our Saviour said of himself, we do not divide between two hypostaseis or persons [prosopa]. For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two and diverse, yet he has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person.

12. a. For when as God he speaks about himself: "He who has seen me has seen the Father," and "I and my Father are one," we consider his ineffable divine nature according to which he is One with his Father through the identity of essence—"The image and impress and brightness of his glory." But when not scorning the measure of his humanity, he said: "But now you seek to kill me, a man that has told you the truth." Again no less than before we recognize that he is the Word of God from his identity and likeness to the Father and from the circumstances of his humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that being by nature God, he became flesh, that is, a man endowed with a reasonable soul, what reason can certain ones have to be ashamed of this language about him, which is suitable to him as man? For if he should reject the words suitable to him as man, who compelled him to become man like us? And as he humbled himself to a voluntary abasement for us, for what cause can any one reject the words suitable to such abasement?

b. Therefore all the words which are read in the Gospels are to be applied to One Person [prosopon], to one hypostasis of the Word incarnate. For the Lord Jesus Christ is one, according to the Scriptures, although he is called "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession," as offering to God and the Father the confession of faith which we make to him, and through him to God even the Father and also to the Holy Spirit; yet we say he is, according to nature, the Only-begotten of God. And not to any man different from him do we assign the name of priesthood, and the thing, for be became "the Mediator between God and men," and a Reconciler unto peace, having offered himself as a sweet smelling savour to God and the Father. Therefore also he said: "Sacrifice and offering you would not; but a body you have prepared for me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do your will, O God." For on account of us he offered his body as a sweet smelling savour, and not for himself; for what offering or sacrifice was needed for himself, who as God existed above all sins? For "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," so that we became prone to fall, and the nature of man has fallen into sin, yet not so he (and therefore we fall short of his glory).

c. How then can there be further doubt that the true Lamb died for us and on our account? And to say that he offered himself for himself and us, could in no way escape the charge of impiety. For he never committed a fault at all, neither did he sin. What offering then did he need, not having sin for which sacrifices are rightly offered? But when he spoke about the Spirit, he said: "He shall glorify me." If we think rightly, we do not say that the one Christ and Son as needing glory from another received glory from the Holy Spirit; for neither greater than he nor above him is his Spirit, but because he used the Holy Spirit to show forth his own divinity in his mighty works, therefore he is said to have been glorified by him just as if any one of us should say concerning his inherent strength, for example, or his knowledge of anything, "They glorified me."For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of it by itself, as it is the Spirit and not the Son; but it is not different from him; for it is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and it is sent by him, just as, moreover, it is from God and the Father. When then the Spirit worked miracles through the hands of the holy apostles after the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, it glorified him. For it is believed that he who works through his own Spirit is God according to nature. Therefore he said: "He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." But we do not say this as if the Spirit is wise and powerful through some sharing with another; for it is all perfect and in need of no good thing. Since, therefore, he is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father (that is, of the Son), he is evidently Wisdom and Power.

13. And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.

14. For "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God," and he is the Maker of the ages, coeternal with the Father, and Creator of all; but, as we have already said, since he united to himself hypostatically human nature from her womb, also he subjected himself to birth as man, not as needing necessarily in his own nature birth in time and in these last times of the world, but in order that he might bless the beginning of our existence, and that which sent the earthly bodies of our whole race to death, might lose its power for the future by his being born of a woman in the flesh. And this: "In sorrow you shall bring forth children,"being removed through him, he showed the truth of that spoken by the prophet, "Death swallowed them up, and again God has wiped away every tear from off all faces." For this cause also we say that he attended, having been called, and also blessed, the marriage in Cana of Galilee, with his holy Apostles in accordance with the economy. We have been taught to hold these things by the holy Apostles and Evangelists, and all the God-inspired Scriptures, and in the true confessions of the blessed Fathers.

The Anathemas of Cyril in Opposition to Nestorius

1. If any one refuses to confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and therefore that the holy Virgin is Mother of God, for she gave birth after a fleshly manner to the Word of God made flesh; let him be anathema.

2. If any one refuses to confess that the Word of God the Father is united in hypostasis to flesh, and is one Christ with his own flesh, the same being at once both God and man, let him be anathema.

3. If any one in the case of the one Christ divides the hypostaseis after the union, conjoining them by the conjunction alone which is according to dignity, independence, or prerogative, and not rather by the concurrence which is according to natural union, let him be anathema.

4. If any one divides between two persons or hypostaseis the expressions used in the writings of evangelists and apostles, whether spoken by the saints of Christ or by him about himself, and applies the one as to a man considered properly apart from the Word of God, and the others as appropriate to the divine and the Word of God the Father alone, let him be anathema.

5. If any one dares to maintain that the Christ is man bearing God, and not rather that he is God in truth, and one Son, and by nature, according as the Word was made flesh, and shared blood and flesh in like manner with ourselves, let him be anathema.

6. If any one dares to maintain that the Word of God the Father was God or Lord of the Christ, and does not rather confess that the same was at once both God and man, the Word being made flesh according to the Scriptures, let him be anathema.

7. If any one says that Jesus was energized as man by God the Word, and that he was invested with the glory of the only begotten as being another beside him, let him be anathema.

8. If any one dares to maintain that the ascended man ought to be worshipped together with the divine Word, and be glorified with him, and with him be called God as one with another, and does not rather in one act of worship honour the Emmanuel and praise him in one doxology, in that he is the Word made flesh, let him be anathema.

9. If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ is glorified by the Spirit, using the power that works through him as a foreign power, and receiving from him the ability to operate against unclean spirits, and to complete his miracles among men; and does not rather say that the Spirit is his own, whereby also he wrought his miracles, let him be anathema.

10. Holy Scripture states that Christ is High Priest and Apostle of our confession, and offered himself on our behalf for a sweet-smelling savour to God and our Father. If, then, any one says that he, the Word of God, was not made our High Priest and Apostle when he was made flesh and man after our manner; but as being another, other than himself, properly man made of a woman; or if any one says that he offered the offering on his own behalf, and not rather on our behalf alone; for he that knew no sin would not have needed an offering, let him be anathema.

11. If any one confesses not that the Lord's flesh is giver of life, and proper to the Word of God himself, but [states] that it is of another than him, united indeed to him in dignity, yet as only possessing a divine indwelling; and not rather, as we said, giver of life, because it is proper to the Word of him who has might to engender all things alive, let him be anathema.

12. If any one confesses not that the Word of God suffered in flesh, and was crucified in flesh, and tasted death in flesh, and was made firstborn of the dead, in so far as he is life and giver of life, as God, let him be anathema.