Sancto est, qui et secundum justitiam replevit, quod creatum est; hoc quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu. Which last words in the language wherein Nestorius wrote those homilies, are, ὃ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι.

V. Here you see that Nestorius reads expressly; not only so, but absolutely excludes God from being understood by it; arguing, that the Virgin was not SeoToxos 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 manifestatum 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 any thing 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 s was in the text. They were

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, 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 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 treatise, 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 quod ais, Nestori, quia justitia 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 loqeris. Quia et hoc, quod a 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 manifeste magnum est pietatis sacramentum, quod manifestatum est in carne, justificatum est in Spiritu. Vides ergo, quod mysterium pietatis, vel sacramentum justificatum apos

*Libro septimo, cap. 18.

In

tolus prædicavit. Thus far Cassian is not only reading, 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 certainly would 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. another part of this treatise, lib. 5. cap. 12. Cassian cites and interprets the text as follows; Et manifeste 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 manifestatus in carne, ita palam est assumptus in gloriâ. So you see Nestorius and Cassian agree in reading ", 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; Пavarde, un időtes τὰς γραφάς· μήτε μέν τὸ μέγα τῆς εὐσεβείας μυσήριον, τετέ τι Χρισὸν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, &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 reads, using one of these MSS which, by understanding Xpisov for Muspiov, turned into 's; and, by way of interpretation, inserting τετέσι Χρισόν, which in those MSS was to be understood; unless you will say that he turns in s, which is very hard. For had Os been in this text, he would not have said μυσήριον, τετέσι Χρισόν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη; but μυσήριον, Θεὸς, τετέςι Χρισὸς ἐφανερώθη, putting Χρισός, not for μυσήριον, but for Θεός. For Χρισός, and Θεός are more plainly equipollent than Χρισός and μυςήριον. And making Xpisos and Muspiov equipollent, he makes μυσήριον the nominative case to ἐφανερώθη; and therefore read them joined in this text by the article. Had he read sès, he would never have left out that authentic and demonstrative word, and by way of inte tation for μυσήριον Θεός, κατά τον