{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/214/2140262.htm","path":"chr/ecf/214/2140262.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/214/2140262.htm","text":"p. 206 The XII. Anathematisms of St. Cyril Against Nestorius.\n(Found in St. Cyril\u2019s Opera. Migne, Pat. Gr\u00e6c, Tom. LXXVII., Col. 119; and the Concilia.)\nIf anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (\u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, \u201cThe Word was made flesh\u201d] let him be anathema.\nThe Anathematisms of the Heretic Nestorius Against Cyril.\n(Found best in Migne\u2019s edition of Marius Mercator.)\nIf anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema.\nPetavius. 245\n(De Incarnatione, Lib. vj. cap. xvij.)\nIn this anathematism certain words are found in the Greek copy of Dionysius which are lacking in the ordinary copies, viz. \u201caccording as it is written, \u2018And the Word was made flesh\u2019;\u201d unless forsooth Dionysius supplied them of his own authority. For in the Lateran Synod in the time of Martin I. this anathematism was quoted without the appended words.\nThis anathematism breaks to pieces the chief strength of the Nestorian impiety. For it sets forth two facts. The one that the Emmanuel, that is he who was born of a woman and dwelt with us, is God: the other, that Mary who bare such an one is Mother of God. That Christ is God is clearly proved from the Nicene Creed, and he shews that the same that was in the beginning the Son of God, afterwards took flesh and was born of Mary, without any change or confusion of natures.\nSt. Cyril explains that by \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2, carnaliter, he meant nothing else than \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, secundum carnem, \u201caccording to the flesh.\u201d And it was necessary to use this expression to overthrow the perfidy of Nestorius; so that we may understand that the most holy Virgin was the parent not of a simple and bare man, but of God the Word, not in that he was God, but in that he had taken flesh. For God the Father was the parent of the same Son \u03b8\u03b5\u03ca\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 246 (divinely) as his mother was \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 (after the flesh). And the word (\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2) in no degree lessens the dignity of his begetting and bringing forth; for it shews that his flesh was not simulated or shadowed forth; but true and like to ours. Amphilochius distinctly uses the word, saying \u201cExcept he had been born carnally (\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2), never wouldest thou have been born spiritually (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 ).\u201d Cf. St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 51).\nTheodoret misunderstood St. Cyril to teach in this first anathematism that the Word was changed into the flesh he assumed. But Cyril rightly treated this whole accusation as a foolish calumny.\nPetavius gives a scholion on every anathematism and a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the Orientals\u2019 objections and of Theodoret\u2019s criticisms, with answers.\n206:246\nThis is a late form of \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03c2, but used only in its secondary sense.","title":"Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. XIV: The Third Ecumenical Council: The Council of Ephesus.: Anathematism I","type":"page"}