IV. And, first, that the Nestorians read ὁ is evident by some fragments of the orations or homilies of Nestorius, sent by him to the Pope, and cited by Arnobius junior, in the second book of his conflict with Serapion. For there, in order to show what was the opinion of Nestorius, and how he defended it, he cites two of his orations in these words; “Non peperit sanctissima Maria Deitatem; nam quod natum est de carne, caro est. Non peperit creatura Creatorem; sed peperit hominem Deitatis ministrum. Non ædificavit Deum verbum Spiritus Sanctus; quod ex ipsâ natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est. Deo itaque virgo templum ex virgine ædificavit.” Et paulo post; “Qui per se natus est Deus in utero (scilicet ante Luciphorum) Deus est.” Et paulo post; “Θεοτοκου formam in Deo honoramus.” Et in aliâ prædicatione; “Spiritum divina separat natura, qui humanitatem ejus creavit. Quicquid ex Mariâ natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est, qui et secundum justitiam replevit, quod creatum est; hoc quod manifestum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu.” Which last words in the language wherein Nestorius wrote those homilies, are, “ὁ εφανερωθη εν σαρκι, εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι.”

V. Here you see that Nestorius reads ὁ expressly: not only so, but absolutely excludes God from being understood by it; arguing, that the Virgin was not θεοτοκος, because that thing which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit; or, as he expounds it, replenished by the spirit in righteousness, and calling that thing which was manifested in the flesh, a creature; “Spiritus,” saith he, “secundum justitiam replevit [hoc] quod creatum est; [nempe] hoc quod manifestum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu.”

VI. And now, whilst he read the text after this manner, and urged it thus against the Deity of Christ, one would suspect, that if this had not been the received public reading in the Greek churches, his adversaries would have fallen foul upon him, and exclaimed against him for falsifying the text, and blasphemously saying it was a created thing, which the Scripture calls “God manifested in the flesh.” And such an accusation as this would surely have made as great a noise as anything else in the controversy; and yet I meet with nothing of this kind in history. His adversaries do not so much as tell him that Θεος was in the text. They were so far from raising any controversy about the reading, that they do not in the least correct him for it; but on the contrary, they themselves, in their answers to his writings, read ὁ as he did; and only laboured by various disputations to put another sense upon the text, as I find by Cassian and Cyril, the two principal who at that time wrote against him.

VII. John Cassian was Chrysostom’s scholar, and his deacon and legate to the Pope; and after the banishment of Chrysostom, retired from Constantinople into Syria and Egypt, where he lived a monkish life for some time, and then ended his days in France. At that time, therefore, when Nestorius, who was patriarch of Constantinople, broached his opinion, and Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, opposed him; Nestorius sent a legacy to Rome with copies of his orations, to let the Pope understand the controversy: and thereupon Leo the Great, who was then archdeacon of the Church of Rome, and afterwards Pope, put Cassian (then in France) upon writing this book, De Incarnatione Domini, against Nestorius. He wrote it therefore in the year 430, as Baronius also reckons. For he wrote it before the condemnation of Nestorius in the council of Ephesus, as appears by the book itself. This book is now extant only in Latin; but, considering that his design in writing was to stir up the Greek church against Nestorius, and that for the making great impression upon them, he quotes Greek fathers at the end of his book, and concludes with an exhortation to the citizens of Constantinople, telling them, that what he wrote for, he had received from his master Chrysostom; I am satisfied that he wrote it originally in Greek: his other books were in both languages. For Photius saw them in eloquent Greek; and it is more likely that they had their author’s eloquent language from their author, and the Latin from one of the Latins where he lived, than that the contrary should be true. Now in this treatise⁴, when he comes to consider the passage of Nestorius about this text, of which we gave you an account above out of Arnobius, he returns this answer to it; “Jam primum enim hoc ais, Nestori, quia justitiâ repleverit, quod creatum est; et hoc apostolico vis testimonio comprobare, quod dicat, apparuit in carne; justificatus est in Spiritu; utrumque falso sensu et furioso spiritu loqueris. Quia et hoc, quod à Spiritu vis eum repletum esse justitiâ, ideo ponis, ut ostendas ejus vacuitatem, cui præstitam esse asseras justitiæ adimpletionem. Et hoc, quod super hâc re apostolico testimonio uteris, divini testimonii ordinem rationemque furaris. Non enim ita ab apostolo positum est, ut tu id truncatum vitiatumque posuisti. Quid enim apostolus ait? ‘Et manifestè magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu.’ Vides ergo, quod mysterium pietatis, vel sacramentum justificatum apostolus prædicavit.” Thus far Cassian not only reading ὁ, but confuting Nestorius by that reading. For whereas Nestorius said it was a creature which was justified, Cassian tells him, that if he had read the whole text, he would have found that it was “the mystery of godliness.” “Vides ergo,” saith he, “quod mysterium pietatis justificatum apostolus prædicavit.” He does not say, “Deum justificatum apostolus prædicavit” (as he would certainly have done, had that been in his Bible), but mysterium; and so makes mysterium, or, which is all one, its relative quod, the nominative case to the verbs which follow. In another part of this treatise, lib. 5, cap. 12, Cassian cites and interprets the text as follows; “Et manifestè magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, &c. Quod ergo magnum est illud sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne? Deus scilicet natus in carne, Deus visus in corpore, qui utique sicut palam est assumptus in gloriâ.” So you see Nestorius and Cassian agree in reading ὁ, but differ in interpreting it; the one restraining it to a creature, by reason of its being justified; the other restraining it to God, by reason of its being a great mystery, and assumed in glory.

VIII. In like manner, Cyril, the grand adversary of Nestorius, in his three books De Fide ad Imperatorem et Reginas, written against him in the beginning of that controversy, did not reprehend him, as if he had cited the text falsely, but only complained of his misinterpreting it; telling him, that he did not understand the great mystery of godliness, and that it was not a created thing, as he thought, but the Word or Son of God; and arguing for this interpretation from the circumstances of the text. And, first, in his book De Fide ad Imperatorem, sect. 7, he has this passage; “Πλανασθε, μη ειδοτες τας γραφας· μητε μεν το μεγα της ευσεβειας μυστηριον, τουτεστι Χριστον, ὁς εφανερωθη εν σαρκι, εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι,” &c. “Ye err,” saith he, “not knowing the Scriptures, nor the great mystery of godliness, that is Christ; who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit.” By this citation it is plain that he read ὁς, using one of these manuscripts which, by understanding Χριστον for μυστηριον, turned ὁ into ὁς; and, by way of interpretation, inserting τουτεστι Χριστον, which in those manuscripts was to be understood; unless you will say that he turns Θεος into ὁς, which is very hard. For had Θεος been in this text, he would not have said μυστηριον, τουτεστι Χριστον, ὁς εφανερωθη; but μυστηριον, Θεος, τουτεστι Χριστος, εφανερωθη, putting Χριστος, not for μυστηριον, but for Θεος. For Χριστος and Θεος are more plainly equipollent than Χριστος and μυστηριον. And making Χριστος and μυστηριον equipollent, he makes μυστηριον the nominative case to εφανερωθη; and therefore read them joined in this text by the article ὁς. Had he read Θεος, he would never have left out that authentic and demonstrative word, and by way of interpretation for μυστηριον Θεος written Χριστον ὁς. For this was not to argue against Nestorius, but to spoil the argument which lay before him. Neither would he have gone on, as he does, within a few lines, to recite the same text, putting λογος by way of interpretation for μυστηριον; and after to propound it as his bare opinion, that the Word or Son of God was here to be understood by this mystery, and to dispute for this his opinion, as needing proof out of other texts of Scripture, as he does after this manner⁵: “Moreover,” saith he, “in my opinion, that mystery of godliness is nothing else than he who came to us from God the Father; the Word, who was manifested in the flesh. For in taking the form of a servant, he was born of the holy God-bearing Virgin,” &c. And then, after many other things, he at length in sect. 23 and 24, concludes, that “this divine mystery is above our understanding; and that the only-begotten, who is God, and, according to the Scriptures, the Lord of all things, appeared to us, was seen on earth, and became man.” This he makes not the text itself, but the interpretation thereof; and from the preceding disputation, concludes it to be genuine.

IX. Again, in the first of his two treatises, De Fide ad Reginas, near the end, he cites the text, and argues thus against the interpretation of Nestorius. “Who is he,” saith he, “that is manifested in the flesh? Is it not fully evident, that it is no other than the Word of God the Father? For so will that be a great mystery of godliness (which was⁶ manifested in the flesh); he was seen of angels, ascending into heaven; he was preached to the Gentiles by the holy apostles; he was believed on in the world, but this not as a mere man; but as God born in the flesh, and after our manner.”

X. So also in his second book, De fide ad Reginas⁷, he cites the place again; and then argues upon it against the opinion of Nestorius after this manner: “If the Word, being God, is said to become a man, and yet continue what he was before, without losing his Deity, the mystery of godliness is without doubt a very great one; but if Christ be a mere man, joined with God only in the parity of dignity and power (for this is maintained by some unlearned men), how is he manifested in the flesh? Is it not plain, that every man is in the flesh, and cannot otherwise be seen by any body? how then was he said to be seen of the holy angels? For do they not also see us? What was there therefore new or extraordinary in Christ, if the angels saw him such a man as we are, and nothing more,” &c. Thus Cyril goes on to give his reasons why that which was manifested in the flesh, was not a mere created Man, as Nestorius interpreted, but the eternal Word, or Son of God; all which would have been very superfluous and impertinent, if God had then been expressly in the text.

XI. Seeing therefore Nestorius alleged the text to prove, that it was a created thing which was manifested in the flesh; and Cyril, in confuting him, did not answer that it was God expressly in the text, nor raise any debate about the reading, qut only put another interpretation upon the text than Nestorius had done; arguing with Cassian, that in the text it was not a mere man, as Nestorius contended, but a great mystery of godliness; and by consequence Christ, or God the Son, which was manifested in the flesh; and labouring by divers other arguments to prove this interpretation; it is evident beyond all cavil, that Cyril was a stranger to Θεος, now got into the text; and read ὁς or ὁ, as Nestorius and Cassian did.

XII. And all this is further confirmed by Photius, who, in his commentary on the epistles not yet published, relates that Cyril, in the 12th chapter of his Scholiums, read “ὁς εφανερωθη,” &c.; and consonant to this reading is Cyril’s commentary upon the text in his explanation of the second of the twelve Anathematisms, where he puts the question, “Quid est igitur quod dicit, apparuit in carne?” And explains it by saying, “Hoc est, Dei patris verbum caro factum est;” and concludes, that it is hence that we call him God and Man. Whereas had Θεος been in the text, it would have needed no interpretation; nor would he have put λογος for Θεος, in order to prove that God was manifested in the flesh. And yet in his books ad Reginas, and his other writings, wherever he quotes this text, the Greeks have since corrected it by their corrected manuscripts of St. Paul’s epistles, and written Θεος instead of ὁ; whence, if you would truly understand the Nestorian history, you must read ὁ or ὁς for Θεος in all Cyril’s citations of this text.

XIII. Now, whilst Cyril read ὁ or ὁς, and in the explanation of the twelve chapters, or articles, quoted this text in the second article; and this explanation was recited by him in the council of Ephesus, and approved by the council⁸, with an anathema at the end of every article; it is manifest that this council allowed the reading ὁς or ὁ; and by consequence that ὁς or ὁ was the authentic, public, uncontroverted reading till after the times of this council. For if Nestorius and Cyril, the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, and the heads of the two parties in this controversy, read ὁς or ὁ; and their writings went about amongst the Eastern churches, and were canvassed by the bishops and clergy without any dispute raised about the reading; and if Cyril read ὁς by the approbation of the council itself; I think that the conclusion we make of its being then the general uncontroverted reading must needs be granted us. And if the authority of one of the four first general councils make anything for the truth of the reading, we have that into the bargain.

XIV. Yet whilst the Nestorian controversy brought the text into play, and the two parties ran the interpretation into extremes, the one disputing that ὁ or ὁς was a creature, the other that it was the Word of God; the prevalence of the latter party made it pass for the orthodox opinion, that ὁ or ὁς was God; and so gave occasion to the Greeks henceforward to change the language of Christ into that of God; and say, in their expositions of the text, that God was manifested in the flesh (as I find Theodoret doth), and at length to write God in the text itself; the easy change of Ο or ΟϹ into ΘϹ, inviting them to do it; and, if this was become the orthodox authentic reading, to set right the text in Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, and wherever else they found it (in their opinion), corrupted by heretics.

XV. And the man that first began thus to alter the sacred text, was Macedonius, the patriarch of Constantinople, in the beginning of the sixth century; for the Emperor Anastasius banished him for corrupting it. At that time the Greek church had been long divided about the council of Chalcedon. Many who allowed the condemnation of Eutyches, rejected the council; by reason of its decreeing, by the influence of the bishop of Rome’s letter against Eutyches, that Christ subsisted not only ex duabus naturis, which Eutyches allowed, but also in duabus naturis; which language was new to the Greeks, and by a great part of that church taken for Nestorianism. For they understood, that as the body and soul made the nature of Man, so God and Man made the nature of Christ; assigning the nature to the person of Christ, as well as to all other things, and not considering that in all compounds the several parts have also their several natures. Hence each party endeavoured to render the other suspected of heresy; as if they that were for the council secretly favoured the Nestorians, and they that were against it the Eutychians. For one part, in maintaining two distinct natures in Christ, were thought to deny the nature of one person with Nestorius; and the other party, in opposing two distinct natures in him, were thought to deny the truth of one of the natures with Eutyches. Both parties, therefore, to clear themselves of those imputations, anathematized both those heresies; and therefore, whilst they thus differed in their modes of speaking, they agreed in their sense, as Evagrius well observes. But the bishops of Rome and Alexandria being engaged against one another, and for a long time distracting the East by these disputes; at length the Emperor Zeno, to quiet his empire, and perhaps to secure it from the encroachment of the bishop of Rome, who, by this verbal contest⁹, aspired to the name and authority of universal bishop, sent about an henoticum, or pacificatory decree; wherein he anathematized both Nestorius and Eutyches with their followers on the one hand, and abrogated the Pope’s letter and the council on the other; and his successor, Anastasius, for the same end, laboured for to have this decree signed by all the bishops. And Macedonius at first subscribed it; but afterwards heading those who stood up for the council¹⁰, was, for corrupting the Scriptures in favour of his opinion, and such other things as were laid to his charge, deposed and banished, ann. C. 512¹¹. But his own party, which at length prevailed, defended him, as if oppressed by calumnies; and so received that reading for genuine, which he had put about among them. For how ready are all parties to receive what they reckon on their side, Jerome well knew, when he recommended the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” by its usefulness; and we have a notable instance of it in the last age, when the churches, both Eastern and Western, received this testimony in a moment in their Greek Testaments, and still continue with great zeal and passion to defend it for the ancient reading, against the authority of all the Greek manuscripts.

XVI. But now I have told you the original of the corruption, I must tell you my author; and he is Liberatus, archdeacon of the church of Carthage, who lived in that very age. For in his Breviary, which he wrote in the year 535, or soon after, and collected, as he saith in his preface, out of Greek records, he delivers it in these words¹²: “Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus ab imperatore Anastasio dicitur expulsus, tanquam evangelia falsaret; et maxime illud apostoli dictum, Quia apparuit in carne, justificatum in spiritu. Hunc enim mutasse, ubi habet qui … hoc est … monosyllabum Græcum, literâ mutatâ in … vertisse et fecisse … id est, ut esset Deus, apparuit per carnem. Tanquam Nestorianus ergo culpatus expellitur per severum Monachum¹³.” The Greek letters here omitted are, in the second edition of Sunius, and in those of the councils, thus inserted: “Ubi habet ὁς, hoc est qui, monosyllabum Græcum, literâ mutatâ ο in ω, vertisse et fecisse ὡς; id est, ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem.” But this interpolation was surely made by conjecture; for if Θεος was in the sacred text before the corruption, then ὁς or ὁ was not in, and so could not be changed into ὡς: but if Θεος was not in, it could not be brought in by this change. The interpolation therefore is inconsistent and spurious, and seems to have been occasioned by straining to make out Nestorianism here; the scribes, for that end¹⁴, referring the words ut esset to the sacred text; and then the interpolator writing ὡς for ut. Whereas they should have referred ut esset to the words of Liberatus, thus distinguished from the sacred text; “Id est, ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem.” I had rather, therefore, waive the conjecture of this interpolator, and fill up the lacunæ by the authority of an ancient author, Hincmarus; who above eight hundred years ago¹⁵ related the fact out of Liberatus after this manner: “Quidam ipsas Scripturas verbis illicitis imposturaverunt; sicut Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus, qui ab Anastasio Imperatore ideo a civitate expulsus legitur, quoniam falsavit evangelia; et illum apostoli locum, quod apparuit in carne, justificatum est in spiritu; per cognationem Græcarum literarum Ο et Θ hoc modo mutando falsavit. Ubi enim habuit, qui, hoc est ΟϹ, monosyllabum Græcum, literâ mutatâ Ο in Θ, mutavit, et fecit ΘϹ, id est, ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem; quapropter tanquam Nestorianus fuit expulsus.” He was banished therefore for changing the ancient reading (which in some manuscripts was ΟϹ, as these authors have it, and in others Ο) into ΘϹ. But whereas he is here represented a Nestorian for doing this, the meaning is, that he was banished for corrupting the text in favour of the doctrine of two natures in Christ; which his enemies accounted Nestorianism, though it was not really so. Nestorius held only a human nature in Christ; and that God, the Word, dwelt in this nature, as the spirit in a holy man; and therefore interpreted ὁ of the human nature. This doctrine Macedonius anathematized, and maintained two natures in Christ; and, for proving this, corrupted the text, and made it God manifested in the flesh. This distinguishing Christ into two natures was, by the enemies of Macedonius, accounted Nestorianism in another language; and in this respect the historian saith, that they banished him as a Nestorian for corrupting the text, though he was not really of that opinion.

XVII. But whilst he is said to be banished as a Nestorian for this, without explaining what is here meant by a Nestorian, it looks like a trickish way of speaking, used by his friends to ridicule the proceedings against him as inconsistent; perhaps to invert the crime of falsation; as if a Nestorian would rather change ΘϹ into Ο. For they that read history with judgement, will too often meet with such trickish reports; and even in the very story of Macedonius I meet with some other reports of the same kind. For Macedonius having in his keeping the original acts of the council of Chalcedon, signed by that emperor under whom it was called, and refusing to deliver up this book to the emperor Anastasius; some, to make this emperor perjured, distorted the story; as if, at his coming to the crown, he had promised under his hand and oath, that he would not act against the council of Chalcedon; and represented his subscribed promise to be the book, which Macedonius refused to deliver back to him. Macedonius had got his bishopric by being against the council of Chalcedon, and had subscribed the henoticum¹⁶ of Zeno, in which that council was anathematized; and this being objected against him, his friends, to stifle the accusation, make a contrary story of the emperor; as if, when he came to the crown, he had done as much as that in behalf of the council. Another report was¹⁷, “That the people of Alexandria and all Egypt, great and small, bond and free, priests and monks, excepting only strangers, became about this time possessed with evil spirits, and being deprived of human speech, barked day and night like dogs; so that they were afterwards bound with iron chains, and drawn to the church, that they might recover their health. For they all ate their hands and arms. And then an angel appeared to some of the people, saying, that this happened to them because they anathematized the council of Chalcedon, and threatened that they should do so no more.” Again, we are told in history¹⁸, “That the adversaries of Macedonius produced certain boys in judgement to accuse both him and themselves of sodomy; but that when they found his genitals were cut off, they betook themselves to other arts for deposing him.” Now if you can believe that a eunuch had the beard and voice of another man; and that in a solemn council the great patriarch of the East was thus accused and thus acquitted, and yet deposed; you must acknowledge that there were many bishops among the Greeks who would not stick at as ill and shameless things as corrupting the Scriptures. But if all this be a sham invented to discredit the council, the need of such shams adds credit to their proceedings in condemning him for a falsary.

XVIII. This council, if I mistake not, sat first at Constantinople, being that council which Theodorus calls “a company of mercenary wretches;” and Nicephorus, “a convention of heretics, assembled against Macedonius.” Upon their adding to the “thrice holy” these words¹⁹, “who art crucified for us,” the people fell into a tumult; and afterwards, when Macedonius came to be accused, they fell into a greater tumult, crying out, “The time of persecution is at hand; let no man desert the father;” meaning Macedonius. In this tumult, which was said to be stirred up by the clergy of Constantinople, many parts of the city were burnt, and the nobles and emperor brought into the greatest danger; insomuch that the emperor was forced to proffer the resignation of his empire, before he could quiet the multitude. Then seeing that, if Macedonius were judged, the people would defend him, he caused him to be carried by force in the night to Chalcedon; and thence into banishment, as Theodorus writes. Whence I gather, that the council removed also to Chalcedon to avoid the tumult, and finish their proceeding there. For the story of his being accused in judgement by boys, Nicephorus places after this tumult; and all agree that he was condemned; and the monks of Palestine, in an epistle recorded by Evagrius, say that Xenaias and Dioscorus, joined with many bishops, banished him. When his condemnation was sent him, signed by the emperor, he asked, whether they that had condemned him received the council of Chalcedon; and when they that brought him the sentence denied it, he replied, “If Arians and Macedonians had sent me a book of condemnation, could I receive it?” So that it seems he stood upon the illegality of the council. The next day one Timothy was made bishop of Constantinople, and he sent about the condemnation of Macedonius to all the absent bishops to be subscribed²⁰. Whence I think it will easily be granted, that he was condemned as a falsary by the greatest part of the Eastern empire; and by consequence, that the genuine reading was till then, by the churches of that empire, accounted ὁ. For had not the public reading then been ὁ, there could have been no colour for pretending that he changed it into ΘϹ.

XIX. About six years after Anastasius died, and his successors, Justin and Justinian, set up the authority of the council of Chalcedon again, together with that of the Pope over the Eastern churches, as universal bishop; and from that time the friends of Macedonius prevailing, it is probable, that in opposition to the heretics, which condemned him, and for promoting and establishing the doctrine of two natures in Christ, they received and spread abroad the reading ΘϹ. But as for the authority of the Pope, that fell again with Rome in the Gothic wars, and slept till Phocas revived it.

XX. I told you of several shams put about by the friends of Macedonius, to discredit the proceedings of the council against him. There is one which notably confirms what has hitherto been said, and makes it plain that his friends received his corruptions as genuine Scripture. For whereas Macedonius was banished for corrupting the New Testament, his friends retorted the crime upon the council, as if they had taken upon them, under colour of purging the Scriptures from the corruptions of Macedonius, to correct in them whatever they thought the Apostles, as unskilful men and idiots, had written amiss. For this I gather from an ironical report of this kind put about in the West, and thus recorded by Victor Turonensis: “Messalâ V. C. consulibus, Constantinopoli, jubente Anastasio Imperatore, sancta evangelia, tanquam ab idiotis composita, reprehenduntur et emendantur;” that is, “In the consulship of Messala, the holy gospels, by the command of the emperor Anastasius, were censured and corrected at Constantinople, as if written by evangelists that were idiots.” Here Victor errs in the year. For Messala was consul anno Christi 506, that is, six years before the banishment of Macedonius. But Victor is very uncertain in dates of the years; for he places the banishment of Macedonius in the consulship of Avienus 502; and the above-mentioned tumult about the Trisagium in the consulship of Probus, anno Christi 513; whereas all these things happened in the same year. For it is plain by this chronicle, that the Scriptures were examined and corrected about this time by a council at Constantinople, by the order of Anastasius; and I meet with no other council to which this character can agree, besides that which deposed Macedonius. Now that they should censure and correct the gospels, as if written by idiots, is too plainly ironical to be true history; and therefore it must be an abusive report, invented and put about to ridicule and shame the council, and to propagate the corruptions of Macedonius as the genuine apostolic reading of the Scriptures, which the council had rashly corrected.

XXI. So then the falsation was set on foot in the beginning of the fifth century, and is now of about twelve hundred years standing; and therefore since it lay but in a letter, and so was more easily spread abroad in the Greek manuscripts than the testimony of “the Three in Heaven” in the Latin ones, we need not wonder if the old reading be scarce to be met with in any Greek manuscripts now extant; and yet it is in some.

XXII. For though Beza tells us that all the Greek manuscripts read Θεος, yet I must tell Beza’s readers, that all his manuscripts read ὁ. For he had no other manuscripts of the epistles besides the Claromontan; and in this manuscript, as Morinus by ocular inspection has since informed us, the ancient reading was ὁ²¹: but yet in another hand, and with other ink, the letter Θ has been written out of the line; and the letter Ο, thickened to make a Ϲ, appears; which instance shows sufficiently by whom the ancient reading has been changed. Valesius also read ὁ in one of the Spanish manuscripts; and so did the author of the Oxford edition of the New Testament, ann. Ch. 1675, in the manuscript of Lincoln College library, which is the oldest of the Oxford manuscripts. The Alexandrian manuscript²² and one of Colbert’s, and Cyril, c. 12. Scholiorum (teste Photio MS. com. in Epist.), read ΟϹ. So then there are some ancient Greek manuscripts which read ὁ, and others ὁς; but I do not hear of any Latin ones, either ancient or modern, which read Θεος.

XXIII. And besides to read Θεος makes the sense obscure and difficult. For how can it properly be said, “that God was justified in the spirit?”²³ But to read ὁ, and interpret it of Christ, as the ancient Christians did, without restraining it to his divinity, makes the sense very easy. For the promised and long-expected Messias, the hope of Israel, is to us “the great mystery of godliness.” And this mystery was at length manifested to the Jews from the time of his baptism, and justified to be the person whom they expected.

XXIV. I have now given you an account of the corruption of the text, the sum of which is this; the difference between the Greek and the ancient versions puts it past dispute, that either the Greeks have corrupted their manuscripts, or the Latins, Syrians, and Ethiopians their versions; and it is more reasonable to lay the fault upon the Greeks than upon the other three, for these considerations. It was easier for one nation to do it than for three to conspire. It was easier to change a letter or two in the Greek, than six words in the Latin. In the Greek, the sense is obscure; in the versions, clear. It was agreeable to the interest of the Greeks to make the change, but against the interest of other nations to do it; and men are never false to their interest. The Greek reading was unknown in the times of the Arian controversy; but that of the versions then in use amongst both Greeks and Latins. Some Greek manuscripts render the Greek reading dubious; but those of the versions hitherto collated agree. There are no signs of corruption in the versions hitherto discovered; but in the Greek we have showed you particularly when, on what occasion, and by whom, the text was corrupted.

XXV. I know not whether it be worth the while to tell you, that in the printed works of Athanasius, there is an epistle De incarnatione verbi, which reads Θεος. For this epistle relates to the Nestorian heresy, and so was written by a much later author than Athanasius, and may also possibly have been since corrected, like the works of Chrysostom and Cyril, by the corrected texts of St. Paul’s Epistles. I have had so short a time to run my eye over authors, that I cannot tell whether, upon further search, more passages about this falsation may not hereafter occur pertinent to the argument. But if there should, I presume it will not be difficult, now the falsation is thus far laid open, to know what construction to put upon them, and how to apply them.

XXVI. You see what freedom I have used in this discourse, and I hope you will interpret it candidly. For if the ancient churches, in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of them now the debates are over. And whilst it is the character of an honest man to be pleased, and of a man of interest to be troubled at the detection of frauds, and of both to run most into those passions when the detection is made plainest; I hope this letter will, to one of your integrity, prove so much the more acceptable, as it makes a further discovery than you have hitherto met with in commentators.

---

← 1 John v. 7 The Testimony of the Three in Heaven · Contents

Footnotes

1. Orat. xi. contra Eunom. ↩

2. Nor expounds it as they do who read Θεος.] They who read Θεος cannot expound the passage otherwise than Chrysostom expounds it. His words, “For God was made Man, and Man God,” are not particularly expositive of ὁ, as our author imagines, but declarative of the mystery which the apostle calls the great mystery of godliness, and they will not decide for either reading. “Observe,” says Chrysostom, “how the apostle calls the dispensation for our sakes [the scheme of redemption] a mystery in all its branches. With good reason. For it is not known to all men. Nay, rather it was [formerly] not known to angels. How should it? since it has been discovered through the church. Therefore, he says, without controversy it is great. And great indeed it is. For God has been made Man, and Man God. A Man was seen without sin. A Man has been received up—preached in the world—angels saw him with us—truly this is mystery.” The design of this paraphrase of St. Chrysostom’s is to show that the scheme of redemption involves mystery in every distinct branch mentioned by the apostle; and our author’s conclusion, that the subject of the verb εφανερωθη, in Chrysostom’s Bible was something that might be taken either for God or man, is at best precarious. The more natural conclusion would be, that the common subject of the verbs εφανερωθη, εδικαιωθη, ωφθη, εκηρυχθη, &c. was some word that might denote a living person; and is not likely to have been the neuter relative ὁ.—Bp. Horsley. ↩

3. Chrysostom’s words are—λεγων, “Θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι,” τουτεστιν, ὁ δημιουργος. Substitute ὁ for Θεος in the text of Chrysostom, and the exposition τουτ᾽ εστιν ὁ δημιουργος, will be rank nonsense.—Bp. Horsley. ↩

4. Libro septimo, cap. 18. ↩

5. “Ειη γαρ αν ουχ ἑτερον οιμαι τι το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον, η αυτος ἡμιν ὁ εκ Θεου πατρος λογος, ὁς εφανερωθη εν σαρκι. Γεγενηται γαρ δια της ἁγιας παρθενου και θεοτοκου, μορφην δουλου λαβων.” Cyril. de Fide ad Imperatorem, Sect. 8. ↩

6. Codex Græcus hoc loco jam legit ΘϹ pro ὁς, sensu perturbato. ↩

7. Sect. 33. ↩

8. Concil. Ephes. par. iii. sub initio. ↩

9. Vide Baronium, anno 451; sect. 149, 150, 151. ↩

10. Evagrius, lib. iii. cap. xxi. 44.—Theodorus lector, lib. ii. and Marcellini Chronicon. ↩

11. Flavian was banished in the year of Antioch 561, as Evagrius notes; and Macedonius was banished the same year, or the year before ↩

12. Liberati Brev. cap. xix. ↩

13. Vide Baronii Annal. 510. sect. 9. ↩

14. N.B. In Hincmari opusc. xxxiii. cap. 22. the words ut esset are in like manner referred to the sacred text; and somebody, to make out the sense, has in their stead added ut appareret to the words of Liberatus, and written ut appareret, ut esset Deus, &c. But the words ut appareret not being in Liberatus, must be struck out, and supplied by setting the comma after ut esset, to part these words from the sacred text. ↩

15. Hincmari opusc. artic. xxxiii. cap. 18. ↩

16. Vide Annotationes Valesii in Evagr. &c. lib. iii. cap. 31. ↩

17. Victor Turonensis in Chronico. ↩

18. Evagrius, lib. iii. cap. 32. ↩

19. Theodor. lib. ii.—Nicephor. lib. xvi. cap. 26.—Evagr. lib. iii. cap. 44. ↩

20. Theophanes, p. 135. ↩

21. Aliâ manu et atramento, extra lineæ seriem, addita est litera Θ, et ambesa paululum Ο, ut appareret sigma. Sed præpostera emendatio facile conspicitur. Hæc Morinus in Exercitationibus Biblicis, lib. i. Exercitat. ii. cap. 4.—At Beza nobis aliqua invidit, ut ex ejus epistolâ ad Academiam Cantabrigiensem a Waltono editâ, liquet; ubi variantes aliquas lectiones celandas esse admonet. ↩

22. Alio atramento jam ducta cernitur tam lineola per medium literæ Ο, quam virgula superna; ut jam legatur ΘϹ. Putat autem Millius, lineolas illas olim tenues fuisse et prope evanidas, et novo dein atramento incrassatas fuisse; eo quod perlustrato attentius loco, lineolæ per medium Θ ductæ, quæ primam aciem fugerat, ductus quosdam ac vestigia satis certa deprehendere visus esset; præsertim ad partem sinistram, quæ peripheriam literæ pertingit; luculentiora multo habiturus nisi obstante liturâ quam dixit hodiernâ lineolæ ipsi superinductâ. Verum si lineola antiquitus tam conspicua esset, ut usque nunc per medium lineæ crassioris, alio atramento superinductæ, cerni possit; quid opus esset, ut a lineâ illâ superinductâ incrassaretur? Sin olim tam evanida esset, ut cerni vix posset; mirum est, quod ejus ductus et vestigia satis certa, per medium literæ illius superinductæ, etiamnum appareant. Doceant verba evanida aliis in locis atramento novo incrassata fuisse, vel fateantur ΟϹ hic mutatum in ΘϹ. ↩

23. How is it said in St. Luke, that “publicans justified God” by receiving John’s baptism? If to read Θεος gives a difficult sense in this clause, to read ὁ, will it give an easy sense in others? Are the propositions, that a mystery was manifested in the flesh, a mystery was received up into glory, both which arise from the reading ὁ, very easily intelligible? Is it easy to understand what mystery was manifested in the flesh, if our Lord’s divinity is set out of the question? If it be allowed that his divinity makes the mystery, the two readings will be equivalent in sense, but Θεος makes the best construction.—Bp. Horsley. ↩