The full electronic versions of most of the texts can be found at
Early Church Fathers (CCEL).
12 - Ephesus (431) & Nestorianism
- Theodore of Mopseustia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria,
Studer. Trinity & Incarnation. Chp. 16; Kelly. Early
Xian Doctrines. Chp 12.1-3; 11.6.
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.
- On the Gospel of John
the Word was made Flesh," [John said], "and dwelt among
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.
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.
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 ... .
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.
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.
Sermon Against the Theotokos
The human race was adorned with ten thousand gifts when it was dignified
by a gift which was furthest away and nearest to handthe 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].
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)?
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.
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.
Reply to the Second Letter of Cyril
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]
"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.
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 impassibleimpassible in the Godhead and passible in the
nature of the body.
... 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.
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
of Cyril to Nestorius (with the 12 Anathemas)
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.
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.
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:
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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
of Cyril in Opposition to Nestorius
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.