Rome and all the other creature worshipping communions, be it the Greeks, Monophysites, or Nestorians, and a strong wall against the Apostate creature-invokers and Host-worshippers in the Anglican communion of our day as well as against the creature-invoking and image and cross-worshipping conventicle called the Second of Nicaea A. D. 787, and all the other Councils East and West which have opposed the VI by bringing in such heresies and paganizings or favoring them.

8. Finally, if it be objected that the expression in Anathema IX of the Fifth Synod that we must "worship with one worship God the Word infleshed μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός,” is doubtful, for in ancient Greek, as Cyril's Nestorian opponent, Andrew of Samosata, tells him, to worship God the Word μetá σapkós., and oùv tỷ σaрki, may be translated with flesh (see the note matter on page 117, volume I of Ephesus in this set, and id., notes 582, 583, pages 225, 226, and note 183, pages 79-128, id.) Compare also pages 157-161, above.

But to this we reply:

1. that though μerá with the genitive is often or generally translated like ou with the dative, nevertheless Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon gives as the first meaning of μerá with the genitive, “in the midst of, among," and its "radical sense, in the middle;" whereas it gives as "the radical sense" of our "with," and with the dative "along with, in company with, together with," and when it is compounded with a verb it is used often, much oftener than μerá in the same compounds in the sense of together with.

Yet it may be granted that in itself the clause in Anathema IX of the Fifth Council is not so clear as it might be; and a worshipper of Christ's humanity with God the Word might under it claim that the term μerá here means "together with" and so would translate, "If any one . . . does not worship with" [but] "one worship God the Word infleshed together with his own flesh, μerà tŷs idías avτоû σaρκós as the Church of God has received from the beginning, let such a man be anathema," and he would claim also that the words authorize him to worship Christ in two Natures, the humanity and Divinity; whereas the Orthodox man would take the

words μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός, in the sense of in the midst of his own flesh, that is, with his own flesh in the sense not of worshipping flesh at all, but God the Word who is within it. Now which view best agrees with the context?

(A) this very Anathema anathematizes "any one who says that Christ is to be worshipped in two Natures:" see the Greek cn page 187 above, in note 231.

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

(C.) And see all the passages of Cyril and the Third Synod and the Fifth above, which teach the same thing and depose every Bishop and cleric and anathematize every laic who is guilty of worshipping the humanity of Christ.

(D.) To co-worship Christ's humanity even with God the Word, is to worship that creature, that Man nevertheless, and is the error which St. Cyril brands as åv@pwoλaтpeía, that is the worship of a human being, that is the worship of a creature contrary to Christ's law in Matthew IV, 10, one of Cyril's favorite texts.

(E.) Moreover, if there have been doubts regarding the meaning of the Orthodox formula in Anathema IX of the Fifth Synod, which commands us to worship God the Word μetà TŶs idias avrov σapκós, within His own flesh, let us remember that another Orthodox formula the oμoovoto To Harpi, "of the same substance as the Father," was rejected in the third century by a council of seventy Orthodox Bishops at Antioch, who condemned Paul of Samosata, because they did not understand it, or did not deem it fit. See in proof the Oxford translation of "S. Athanasius' Treatises against Arianism," volume II, Index to Foot Notes and Marginal References under "One in Substance." Besides it was perverted by some of the Arians: see id., under "Nicene Definition," and the Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the People of his Diocese, pages 59-65 of the same translation.

(F). The testimony of Cyril's Nestorian opponent, Andrew of Samosata, shows that Cyril used the expression μerà σаρкós not in the sense of together with flesh, but, in effect, in the midst of flesh, and that he forbade the flesh to be co-worshipped with the Divinity of the Word.

For speaking for the Orientals who sympathized with Nestorius, and objecting in their name to Cyril's condemnation in his Anathema VIII of their co-worship of Christ's humanity with His Divinity, he writes:

"We say that he" [Cyril] "has very scientifically censured those who wish to worship the one and the same Son together with His flesh (ov rỷ σapkí) on the ground that the preposition μerá” [that is in the midst of] "is somewhat different from the preposition σuv" [that is together with] "which very assertion he himself" [Cyril] "has made, as has been said before, by his saying that He" [God the Word] "must be worshipped in the midst of flesh perà σapk's, and by forbidding His flesh to be co-worshipped with His Divinity." See the whole passage, Greek and English, pages 157-159 above, and indeed pages 142-212, where quotations are given from Cyril, Athanasius, and the decisions of Ecumenical Councils.

The persistent Nestorian, Eutherius of Tyana, also quotes Cyril's Anathema VIII as forbidding, what it plainly calls the coworship of Christ's humanity with His Divinity. See it above, pages 158, 159. And Nestorius' Counter-Anathema VIII, as oppose to Cyril's Anathema VIII, asserts a relative worship only of Christ's humanity to defend it against Cyril's Anathema VIII against it. And Theodoret held with Nestorius. See volume I of Ephesus in this set, pages 97, 98, 108-128, and 332-362.

I ought to add that, before, I have followed the Latin rendering "very unlearnedly and unskilfully" in Andrew of Samosata's utterance above. But now I have rendered the place "scientifically" as in the Greek.

It seems clear, therefore, that Cyril, and the Universal Church following him, by the worship of God the Word μerà σapkós, meant not the co-worship of flesh with God the Word, but only the worship of the Word in the midst of His flesh, in other words that they both worshipped in Christ His Divinity only. So the facts seem to teach. I speak not as a partisan, but as an impartial chronicler and historian, as duty demands.

213

ARTICLE VII.

THE ECUMENICAL AUTHORITY OF CYRIL'S XII ANATHEMAS.

I would here notice the attempts of men unsound or not fully understanding the XII Anathemas of Cyril to deny their ecumenicity and binding force. That is especially true of some of the creature worshippers of the Roman Communion and of the Greek, and of the Monophysites, as well as the Nestorian worshippers of Christ's humanity, against whom they were first directed. For if the last are condemned, much more are the others who worship not only Christ's created humanity but also archangels, angels, and saints, including especially the Virgin Mary, to whom the common Rosary of the Romanist offers ten prayers to one to the Father and none to the Son. In other words, she is the Romish and the Greek great goddess.

Particularly condemnatory of all creature worship is Anathema VIII of Cyril, which, in anathematizing all Nestorian worshippers of Christ's humanity, much more anathematizes all who worship any lesser creature; and all creatures are inferior to Christ's humanity, the highest of all creatures.

And Anathema X, in denying that any mere creature can be our High Priest above, whose work there includes intercession for us, necessarily condemns the error of invoking saints who, not possessing God's infinite attributes of omnipresence and omniscience, and omnipotence, can not hear or help us. God the Word, therefore, is the sole Mediator and sole Intercessor above, who does the human things by his humanity.

I have treated of those matters in note 183, pages 79-128, volume I of Ephesus, and in note 679, pages 332-362, and in note 688, pages 363-406, where see. The last treats of God the Word's mediation. No sound man should ever speak ill of Cyril's XII Anathemas approved by Ephesus and the three Synods after it, as I have shown in note 520 on pages 204-208, volume I of Ephesus. Professor Bright or whoever wrote note "y," page 156 of the Ox

ford translation of "Saint Athanasius' Later Treatises" denies that the Fourth Ecumenical Synod approved Cyril's Long Letter to Nestorius which has the XII Anathemas. His prejudices against those XII Chapters seem to have moved him, for he himself shows that "the Fifth General Council in 550' [no! 553] "asserted that the Council of Chalcedon had accepted Cyril's Synodical Epistles, to one of which the XII Articles were appended." Mansi, IX, 341, is there referred to. And the Fifth Ecumenical Synod knew the facts better than Bright or Pusey, and was vastly more Orthodox and exact than either. And Bright in the same note shows that the Third World-Council in its "memorial to the Emperor' says that it had compared "Cyril's Epistles about the faith," one of which has the XII Articles, that is Anathemas, "with the Nicene Creed, and found them to be in accordance with it," and he refers on that to Mansi's Concilia, vol. IV, col. 1237. And he tells us that the Eastern Party, that is the Nestorians of John of Antioch's Patriarchate, "in their second petition to Theodosius” the Emperor, say that Cyril's party, that is the Orthodox of the Third Ecumenical Council, had "confirmed in writing" what those Nestorians deemed the heretical "Articles of Cyril," id. 403.

Bright goes on and states that: "At the end of the first session of Chalcedon the imperial commissioners announced that their master adhered to Cyril's "two canonical letters, those which were confirmed in the first Council of Ephesus," [the Ecumenical of A. D. 431], "Mansi VI, 937." And Bright shows further that "at the end of the Second Session" [of Chalcedon] "Atticus of Nicopolis requested that" Cyril's Epistle to Nestorius which has the XII Articles "might be brought forward, i. e., in order that Leo's tome might be compared with it also. In the fourth session the tome was solemnly accepted, three Bishops saying inter alia that it was in harmony with the Epistles of Cyril." But Bright tries to break down the force of this last testimony for the XII Chapters, that is Articles, that is Anathemas, by saying that one of the three Bishops was Theodoret, who had been one of the chief champions for Nestorius and his Man-Worship, against St. Cyril, and who, Bright thinks, could not have approved Cyril's XII Anathemas.