OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IV/Incarnation of the Word/On the Incarnation of the Word/Chapter 26

§26. Reasons for His rising on the Third Day. (1) Not sooner for else His real death would be denied, nor (2) later; to (a) guard the identity of His body, (b) not to keep His disciples too long in suspense, nor (c) to wait till the witnesses of His death were dispersed, or its memory faded.
The death on the Cross, then, for us has proved seemly and fitting, and its cause has been shewn to be reasonable in every respect; and it may justly be argued that in no other way than by the Cross was it right for the salvation of all to take place. For not even thus—not even on the Cross—did He leave Himself concealed; but far otherwise, while He made creation witness to the presence of its Maker, He suffered not the temple of His body to remain long, but having merely shewn it to be dead, by the contact of death with it, He straightway raised it up on the third day, bearing away, as the mark of victory and the triumph over death, the incorruptibility and impassibility which resulted to His body. 2. For He could, even immediately on death, have raised His body and shewn it alive; but this also the Saviour, in wise foresight, did not do. For one might have said that He had not died at all, or that death had not come into perfect contact with Him, if He had manifested the Resurrection at once. 3. Perhaps, again, had the interval of His dying and rising again been one of two days only, the glory of His incorruption would have been obscure. So in order that the body might be proved to be dead, the Word tarried yet one intermediate day, and on the third shewed it incorruptible to all. 4. So then, that the death on the Cross might be proved, He raised His body on the third day. 5. But lest, by raising it up when it had remained a long time and been completely corrupted, He should be disbelieved, as though He had exchanged it for some other body—for a man might also from lapse of time distrust what he saw, and forget what had taken place—for this cause He waited not more than three days; nor did He keep long in suspense those whom He had told about the Resurrection: 6. but while the word was still echoing in their ears and their eyes were still expectant and their mind in suspense, and while those who had slain Him were still living on earth, and were on the spot and could witness to the death of the Lord’s body, the Son of God Himself, after an interval of three days, shewed His body, once dead, immortal and incorruptible; and it was made manifest to all that it was not from any natural weakness of the Word that dwelt in it that the body had died, but in order that in it death might be done away by the power of the Saviour.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Literally ‘at an even’ [distance], as contrasted with (a) the same day (2, above), (b) the third day (ἐν τριταί& 251· διαστήματι (6, below). ἐν ἴσῳ must therefore be equivalent in sense to δευτεραίου. Possibly the literal sense is ‘[had the Resurrection taken place] at an equal interval between the Death and the [actual day of] the Resurrection.’
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism XI

XI.
Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord giveth life and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him [i.e., the Word] only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh giveth life because it is that of the Word who giveth life to all: let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
XI.
If any one maintains that the flesh which is united with God the Word is by the power of its own nature life-giving, whereas the Lord himself says, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” (St. John vi. 61), let him be anathema. [He adds, “God is a Spirit” (St. John iv. 24). If, then, any one maintains that God the Logos has in a carnal manner, in his substance, become flesh, and persists in this with reference to the Lord Christ; who himself after his resurrection said to his disciples, “Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having” (St. Luke xxiv. 39); let him be anathema.]
Hefele.
The part enclosed in brackets is certainly a spurious addition and is wanting in many manuscripts. Cf. Marius Mercator [ed. Migne], p. 919.
St. Cyril.
(Declaratio undecima.)
We perform in the churches the holy, lifegiving, and unbloody sacrifice; the body, as also the precious blood, which is exhibited we believe not to be that of a common man and of any one like unto us, but receiving it rather as his own body and as the blood of the Word which gives all things life. For common flesh cannot give life. And this our Saviour himself testified when he said: “The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that giveth life.” For since the flesh became the very own of the Word, therefore we understand that it is lifegiving, as the Saviour himself said: “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me shall live by me.”  Since therefore Nestorius and those who think with him rashly dissolve the power of this mystery; therefore it was convenient that this anathematism should be put forth.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism XII

XII.
Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
XII.
If any one, in confessing the sufferings of the flesh, ascribes these also to the Word of God as to the flesh in which he appeared, and thus does not distinguish the dignity of the natures; let him be anathema.
St. Cyril.
(Adv. Orientales, ad XII. Quoting Athanasius.)
For if the body is of another, to him also must the sufferings be ascribed. But if the flesh is the Word’s (for “The Word was made flesh”) it is necessary that the sufferings of the flesh be called his also whose is the flesh.  But whose are the sufferings, such especially as condemnation, flagellation, thirst, the cross, death, and other such like infirmities of the body, his also is the merit and the grace. Therefore rightly and properly to none other are these sufferings attributed than to the Lord, as also the grace is from him; and we shall not be guilty of idolatry, but be the true worshippers of God, for we invoke him who is no creature nor any common man, but the natural and true Son of God, made man, and yet the same Lord and God and Saviour.
As I think, these quotations will suffice to the learned for the proof of the propositions advanced, the Divine Law plainly saying that “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” But if after this any one would still seem to be contentious, we would say to him: “Go thine own way. We however shall follow the divine Scriptures and the faith of the Holy Fathers.”
The student should read at full length all Cyril’s defence of his anathematisms, also his answers to the criticisms of Theodoret, and to those of the Orientals, all of which will be found in his works, and in Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., 811 et seqq.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism VIII

VIII.
If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα ) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this “Together with” is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
VIII.
If any one says that the form of a servant should, for its own sake, that is, in reference to its own nature, be reverenced, and that it is the ruler of all things, and not rather, that [merely] on account of its connection with the holy and in itself universally-ruling nature of the Only-begotten, it is to be reverenced; let him be anathema.
Hefele.
On this point [made by Nestorius, that “the form of a servant is the ruler of all things”] Marius Mercator has already remarked with justice, that no Catholic had ever asserted anything of the kind.
Petavius notes that the version of Dionysius Exiguus is defective.
Petavius.
Nestorius captiously and maliciously interpreted this as if the “form of a servant” according to its very nature (ratio) was to be adored, that is should receive divine worship. But this is nefarious and far removed from the mind of Cyril. Since to such an extent only the human nature of Christ is one suppositum with the divine, that he declares that each is the object of one and an undivided adoration; lest if a double and dissimilar cultus be attributed to each one, the divine person should be divided into two adorable Sons and Christs, as we have heard Cyril often complaining.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism VII

VII.
If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as something not properly his:  let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
VII.
If any one says that the man who was formed of the Virgin is the Only-begotten, who was born from the bosom of the Father, before the morning star was (Ps. cix., 3), and does not rather confess that he has obtained the designation of Only-begotten on account of his connection with him who in nature is the Only-begotten of the Father; and besides, if any one calls another than the Emmanuel Christ let him be anathema.
St. Cyril.
(Declaratio Septima.)
When the blessed Gabriel announced to the holy Virgin the generation of the only-begotten Son of God according to the flesh, he said, “Thou shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.” But he was named also Christ, because that according to his human nature he was anointed with us, according to the words of the Psalmist:  “Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity:  therefore God, even thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” For although he was the giver of the Holy Spirit, neither did he give it by measure to them that were worthy (for he was full of the Holy Ghost, and of his fulness have we all received, as it is written), nevertheless as he is man he was called anointed economically, the Holy Spirit resting upon him spiritually (νοητῶς) and not after the manner of men, in order that he might abide in us, although he had been driven forth from us in the beginning by Adam’s fall. He therefore the only begotten Word of God made flesh was called Christ. And since he possessed as his own the power proper to God, he wrought his wonders. Whosoever therefore shall say that the glory of the Only-begotten was added to the power of Christ, as though the Only-begotten was different from Christ, they are thinking of two sons; the one truly working and the other impelled (by the strength of another, Lat.) as a man like to us; and all such fall under the penalty of this anathematism.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The editor of the English translation to this reference adds the following note:  “This is the reference in the original; but the editor is unable to say to what it refers.” (!) (Hefele, Hist. of the Councils, Vol. III. p. 36, n. 3.) “Ex utero ante Luciferum genui te,” the third verse of the Psalm Dixit Dominus, cix., by the Hebrew numbering cx.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism VI

VI.
If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess him as at the same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, “The Word was made flesh”: let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
VI.
If anyone, after the Incarnation calls another than Christ the Word, and ventures to say that the form of a servant is equally with the Word of God, without beginning and uncreated, and not rather that it is made by him as its natural Lord and Creator and God, and that he has promised to raise it again in the words:  “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up again”; let him be anathema.
Hefele.
This [statement of Nestorius’s that any should call “another than Christ the Word”] has no reference to Cyril; but is a hyper-Nestorianism, which Nestorius here rejects.  This [that “the form of a servant is without beginning and uncreated”] was asserted by some Apollinarists; and Nestorius accused St. Cyril of Apollinarianism.
Petavius.
As Nestorius believed that in Christ there were two distinct entities (re ipsa duos) that is to say two persons joined together; it was natural that he should hold that the Word was the God and Lord of the other, that is of the man. Cyril contradicts this, and since he taught that there was, not two, but one of two natures, that is one person or suppositum, therefore he denied that the Word was the God or Lord of the man; since no one should be called the Lord of himself.
Theodoret in his answer shuffles as usual, and points out that Christ is styled a servant by the Prophet Isaiah, because of the form of a servant which he had received. But to this Cyril answers; that although Christ, inasmuch as he was man, is called the servant of the Father, as of a person distinct from himself; yet he denies that the same person can be his own lord or servant, lest a separation of the person be introduced.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The Third Ecumenical Council/The Anathematisms of Cyril/Anathematism X

X.
Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him (ἰδικῶς ἄνθρωπον), who is become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.
Notes.
Nestorius.
X.
If any one maintains that the Word, who is from the beginning, has become the high priest and apostle of our confession, and has offered himself for us, and does not rather say that it is the work of Emmanuel to be an apostle; and if any one in such a manner divides the sacrifice between him who united [the Word] and him who was united [the manhood] referring it to a common sonship, that is, not giving to God that which is God’s, and to man that which is man’s; let him be anathema.
St. Cyril.
(Declaratio decima.)
But I do not know how those who think otherwise contend that the very Word of God made man, was not the apostle and high-priest of our profession, but a man different from him; who was born of the holy Virgin, was called our apostle and high-priest, and came to this gradually; and that not only for us did he offer himself a sacrifice to God and the Father, but also for himself. A statement which is wholly contrary to the right and undefiled faith, for he did no sin, but was superior to fault and altogether free from sin, and needed no sacrifice for himself.  Since those who think differently were again unreasonably thinking of two sons, this anathematism became necessary that their impiety might appear.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 4/Part 30

XII.
The Encyclical Letter of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople and of the Holy Synod Met with Him to All the Holy Metropolitans and to the Pope of the City of Rome.
To the most beloved of God, fellow-minister, Gennadius and the most holy synod assembled in the royal city which is New Rome, sendeth greeting.
As our Lord without money and without price ordained his Apostles, so should we ordain the clergy, for the Lord has placed us in their grade and in their stead (ἐις τὸν ἐκείνων βαθηόν τε καὶ τόπον). Nor should we use any ingenious sophisms to avoid this plain duty, explicitly laid upon us, not only by the words of the Gospel but also by a canon of the great Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The Greeks speak of the canons of The Thirteen Holy Fathers, counting in the number St. Cyprian’s canon, but as this was really Synodal I have placed it in that category.
* ↑ In this I have not followed Johnson, but translated from Beveridge, Synod., Tom. II., p. 181.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 4/Part 7

The Epistle of the Same Athanasius Taken from the XXXIX. Festal Epistle.
(Found translated in Vol. IV, of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (2d series), pp. 551 and 552.)
[Johnson’s epitome is so unsatisfactory that I have been compelled to relegate it to a footnote and to make one in its room of my own.]
As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth.  The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list ending with “the Apocalypse of John”]. These are the fountains of salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is in them. In them alone (ἐν τούτοις μόνοις) is set forth the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom.
I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Doctrine (Διδαχή) of the Apostles and the Pastor. And let none of the Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Johnson says: “This contains the Canon of Scripture as we now receive it in all respects, save that the Epistle of Baruch is reckoned in the Canon, but Esther is not. He tells us, there are other books never reckoned in the Canon but authorized by the fathers to be read by the Catechumens, viz.: Wisdom of Solomon, of Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobias, and that which is called The Doctrine of the Apostles, and Pastor. These (says he) are read, the other reckoned of the Canons: Apocryphal books are the invention of heretics.” To this Johnson appends a note, to wit:  “It is the common opinion of learned men that the reason why some of the ancients reckoned the book of Esther not to belong to the Canon, was the Apocryphal chapters added to it by another hand. That The Doctrine of the Apostles is a book now lost, see Dr. Grabe’s Essay on this subject.” Who these “learned men” may be, I do not know, but at the time of the writing of St. Athanasius the position of the Hebrew Esther was not well assured in the restricted Palestinian Jewish Canon. On this point the reader should make himself familiar with The Canon of the Old Testament by the Rt. Rev. Tobias Mullen, Roman Catholic Bishop of Erie, U.S.A.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 4/Part 8

The Epistle of St. Athanasius to Ruffinian.
Συ μὲν τὰ υἱῷ, κ.τ.λ.
(Found translated as Epistle LV. in Vol. IV. of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (2d Series) pp. 566 and 567.)
It has been determined by synods in Greece, Spain, France, that they who have fallen, or been leaders of impiety [Arianism], be pardoned upon repentance, but that they have not the place of the clergy; but that they who were only drawn away by force, or that complied for fear the people should be corrupted, have the place of the clergy too. Let the people who have been deceived, or forced, be pardoned, upon repentance and pronouncing anathema against the miscreancy of Eudoxius and Euzoius, ringleaders of the Arians (who assert that Christ is a creature); and upon professing the faith of the Fathers at Nice, and that no synod can prejudice that.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/Additional Canons 4/Part 5

III.
The Canonical Epistle of St. Gregory, Archbishop of Neocæsarea, who is called Thaumaturgus, concerning Them that, During the Incursion of the Barbarians, Ate of Things Offered to Idols and Committed Certain Other Sins.
Canon I.
That they who have been taken captives by the barbarians, and have eaten with them, be not treated as persons that have eaten things offered to idols; especially because it is universally reported, that they do not sacrifice to idols; nor shall those women who have been ravished by them, be treated as guilty of fornication, unless they were before of lewd lives.
Canon II.
That those Christians who plundered their brethren during the invasion, be excommunicated, lest wrath come on the people, and especially on the presidents, who enquire not into these matters.
Canons III., IV., V.
The pretence of having found those goods, or that they themselves lost things of equal value, shall stand them in no stead, but that they be excluded from prayer.
Canon VI.
Against those who detain them prisoners who had escaped from the barbarians, the holy man expects that such should be thunder-struck, and therefore desires that some enquiry be made upon the spot by persons sent for this purpose.
Canon VII.
That they who joined the barbarians in their murder and ravages, or were guides or informers to them, be not permitted to be hearers, till holy men assembled together do agree in common upon what shall seem good, first to the Holy Ghost, then to themselves.
Canon VIII.
But if they discover themselves, and make restitution, they shall be admitted to be Prostrators.
Canon IX.
They that are convicted to have found (though in their own houses) anything [of their neighbours’] left by the barbarians shall also be Prostrators; but if they shall confess themselves they shall communicate in prayer.
Canon X.
This last privilege is restrained to such as demand nothing as a reward for their discovery, and salvage, or under any pretence whatsoever.
Canon XI.
The station of Mourners is without the gate of the oratory; the station of the Hearers is within the oratory, in the porch with the catechumens; the station of Prostrators is within the door of the temple; the station of Co-standers is among the communicants; the last is the participation of Holy Mysteries.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Johnson says this was about the year of grace 240, after the Goths had ravaged Asia, during the reign of Galienus. The letter, he thinks, was an Encyclical sent to every bishop of his province, by Euphrosynus, who was one of these bishops and whom he calls his “old friend.” In the beginning of the letter he addresses each one of the bishops as “most holy pope.”
* ↑ I.e., the bishops, cf. St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, etc.
* ↑ Literally “abdicate from Prayers.” Johnson explains this to mean that they became Prostrators.
* ↑ I.e., St. Gregory.
* ↑ Johnson has a note that this canon is not “St. Gregory’s but an addition by some other hand.”