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 aóyos by way of interpretation for μυσήριον; and after to propound it as his bare opinion, that the Word or the 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 manner ;* 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 onlybegotten, who is God, and, according to the Scriptures, the Lord of all things, appeared to us, was seen on earth, and became a 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 Nesto

Γεγένηται γὰρ διὰ

* Ειη γὰρ ἂν οὐχ ἕτερον οἶμαὶ τι τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ἢ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ὁ ἐκ Θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγος, ὅς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου καὶ Θεοτόκου, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών. ad Imperatorem, Sect. 8.

Cyril. de Fide

man, as Nestorious 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 inanifested 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, but 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 ds, now got into the text; and read %, or, as Nestorius andCassian 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 s ipave páen, &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 Os been in the

text, it would have needed no interpretation; nor would he have put ayos for ds, in order to prove that God was manifested in the flesh. And yet in his books ad Reginas, and in other writings, wherever he quotes this text, the Greeks have since corrected it by their corrected manuscripts of St Paul's Epistles, and written instead of ; whence, if you would truly understand the Nestorian history, you must read or for es in all Cyril's citations of this text.

XIII. Now, whilst Cyril read or %s, 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 council,* with an anathema at the end of every article; it is manifest that this council allowed the reading s or ; and by consequence thats or was the authentic and 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 s or; 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 s 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 *Concil. Ephes. par. iii, sub initio.

first four general councils make any thing 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 thators 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 or s 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 Thodoret doth, and at length to write God in the text itself; the easy change of O or Oc into oc, 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