was manifested in the flesh, being the Creator." This reading finds strong confirmation in a Latin translation which reads: "Ad altiora profecto nos subvehit, quod scilicet in carne manifestatus est Conditor."1 This translation made directly from an old MS. agrees with the Greek given by Cramer, which is in all probability the more correct reading, as the alteration would be more naturally made for the purpose of conforming to the supposed words of scripture than the contrary.

b. Having spoken of Christ as invisible, because the image of the invisible God, Chrysostom adds, according to our printed editions: Εἰ δὲ ἀλλαχοῦ φησί, Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, μὴ θαυμάσης· ὅτι ἡ φανέρωσις διὰ τῆς σαρκός, οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν γέγονεν. Ἐπεὶ ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἀόρατος οὐ μόνον ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὶς ἄνω δυνάμεσι ὁ Παῦλος, εἰπὼν γὰρ ὅτι ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐπήγαγε ὅτι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις. “ But if it is elsewhere said, God was manifested in the flesh, wonder not at it; for the manifestation had regard to the flesh, and not the invisible essence. For Paul shows that he is invisible, not only to men but to the higher intelligences; for having said that he was manifested in the flesh, he adds that he was seen of angels." The context here does not especially confirm or oppose the reading Deos, as here quoted in the text; but some MSS. here have ős for Deos. Instead of Εἰ δὲ ἀλλαχοῦ φησί, κ. τ. λ. Savil gives in his edition the various reading. Διὰ τοῦτό φησιν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἡ γὰρ φανέρωσις διὰ τῆς σαρκός, κ. τ. λ. “Therefore,” i.e. because Christ is in his nature invisible," it is said,' Who was manifested in the flesh,' for the manifestation had refer

1 This translation we find in Chrysost. Enarr. in Pauli Epp. (Antwerp, 1544), Vol. II. fol. 36, p. 1; "incerto interprete," very likely Bergundio Pisanus of the twelfth century. It is also found in the Frankfort reprint (1697-98) of Fronto Ducaeus's Paris edition of Chrysostom.

In Joan. Hom. XV., Tom. VIII. pp. 85, 86.

* Etonae (1612), Tom. II. p. 613, 1. 27. For the facts in reference to this passage in Chrysostom, as also for the quotations from Theodorus Studites, and for much other valuable assistance, we are indebted to the combined kindness and learning of Mr. Ezra Abbott, of Cambridge, Mass.

ence to the flesh, etc." This reading gives an equally good sense, and bears internal marks of genuineness. In confir mation of it, compare the Latin translation made from a MS. in the fifteenth century by Francesco Accolti of Arezzo [Franciscus Aretinus.] It reads in the most exact conformity with the variation given by Savil: "Propterea inquit 'Qui manifestatus in carne,' manifestatio autem per carnem non est secundum substantiam."1

In the Benedictine edition of this Father, after having noted a comparatively unimportant various reading but three lines before our text, Montfaucon adds, in apparent reference to this passage, Et in sequentibus quoque, verbo tenus variant.2 Would that he had given us the exact authority for what he implies is so unimportant a "verbal variation."

c. "But that, when he was God, he should be willing to become man, etc., here is ground for astonishment and awe, and in wonder at this St. Paul said, 'And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,' Trolov péya; Deòs ¿þaveρwIn èv σapki, in what respect is it great? God was manifested in the flesh." This would seem to require cós as the true reading, if Chrysostom had not, with characteristic freedom of quotation, in the same sentence coupled Deós with a direct quotation from Heb. ii. 16: Oỷ yàp ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ὁ Θεός. “For God took not on himself the form of angels."

5. Nestorius. A.D. 428. Κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὸ πλασθέν ἀνέπλασεν, Εφανερώθη, γάρ φησιν, ἐν σαρκὶ, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι.4 According to justice he [i.e. the Spirit] filled" that which had been made, [i.e. the humanity of Christ], for it is said,' he was manifested in the flesh, justified in the

1 Found in the same Frankfort edition just referred to.

2 Tom. VIII. p. 85 E.

Homil. de Philog., Tom. I. p. 497 D; published also as a scholium by Matthaei, Pref. to Cath. Epp.

• Apud Cyr. Adv. Nest, Tom. VI. p. 103 E.

Reading ἀνεπλήσεν for ἀνέπλασεν, in accordance with repleverit in Cassian and replevit in Arnobius, though Mar. Merc. has reformavit.

spirit.'" Not only is so striking a word as deós here omitted, but the insertion of ős would make the citation pecu. liarly apposite, being translated "He who appeared in the flesh, i.e. Tò πλаodév, was made just by the spirit," i.e. kaTà Sikaιoσúvηv ávéπλaσev. No relative, however, is preserved by Marius Mercator in his translation of this sermon of Nestorius, nor by Arnobius 2 or Cassian,3 although the latter uses the masculine form justificatus to translate edukaiódŋ.

6. Eutherius Syanensis. A.D. 431. "To be united to flesh is not to be converted into flesh, wherefore it is said, ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ οὐκ ἐφανερώθη ἡ σάρξ, he was manifested in the flesh, not that the flesh was manifested." 4

7. Pseudo-Chrysostom. Ομολογουμένως μέγα ε. τ. τ. ε. μ. ὅ ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ. τ. λ.5 The present form exhibits 8, which favors ὅs rather than θεός.

Πῶς οὖν γνωστὸν τὸ μυστήριον ; ἐφανερώθη, φησίν, ἐν σαρκί. "How then was the mystery known? He was manifested, it is said, in the flesh." These citations are probably by different writers.

Pseudo-Epiphanius. "Εξ μεγάλα μυστήρια ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ὡς λέγει Παῦλος, ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, K. T. 1.8 "Six great mysteries did our Lord Jesus Christ perform, as Paul says: "He was manifested in the flesh, etc."

9. Pope Martin. A.D. 649. Ομολογουμένως μέγα ε. τ. τ. ε. μ. ὡς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, κ. τ. λ. This peculiar reading of ὡς

1 Serm. 3, Tom. II. p. 11, (ed. Garn., Par., 1673). Migne's Patr. Lat., Vol. XLVIII. col. 767.

'Conflict, cum Serap., Lib. XXI.

'De Incarn. Dom., Lib. VII. cap. XVI.

Confut. quar. Prop. ap. Athan., Tom. II. p. 564 B. This is attributed to Theodoret by Photius.

Homil. de Incarn. Dom., Chrysost. Opp., Tom. VIII. Part. 11. p. 214.

Tom. X. p. 763; cf. p. 764.

'This word is printed érλŋpúðŋ; an evident error in transcription.

De Num. Myst., ap. Opp. Epiph., Tom. II. p. 307.

• Concil. Lateran. I., Ep. 5; Mansi, Tom. X. col. 813. The Acts of this Council were composed in Greek as well as Latin.

for os is probably due to the first editor; cf. the alteration. suffered by Liberatus.

10. Oecumenius. Flourished between A.D. 800 and 990. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ε. τ. τ. ε. μ., θεός ἐφανερώθη, κ. τ. λ. After commenting on the first clause, he adds: Deòs épaveρώπη ἐν σαρκί· εἶτα λέγει τὸ μυστήριον· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ὁ ἐν σαρκὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις φανερωθείς, οὗτος οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρωπίνοις ὀφθαλ μοῖς δίκαιος ἐκρίθη, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τοῦ πνέυματος ὀφθαλμοῖς τοῖς ἐρευνῶσι καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τὸ δέ, Ἐδικαιώθη, διὰ τὴν σάρκα, καλὸ γάρ ἐστι θεὸς οὐ δικαιοῦται, ἀλλὰ δικαιοῖ1 God was manifested in the flesh;' here he tells the mystery, for he who was manifested in the flesh to men was not judged. just by human eyes, but by the eyes of the Spirit, which search even the deep things of God. The phrase 'was justified,' refers to his humanity, for as God he is not justified, but justifies." This comment renders it almost certain that Oecumenius read ős. With this reading it is natural to say that the mystery consists in the way in which "he who was manifested in the flesh was justified," while with the reading Deós, the mystery must consist in the fact of the manifestation of God in the flesh. The manner in which this writer speaks immediately after of Cyril's comment on this passage,2 confirms us in the belief that he read ős, for he does not quote Cyril, as has generally been understood by scholiasts, for the purpose of giving a various reading, but simply for the sake of his comment attached to the text.

We have a negative argument for including Athanasius, A.D. 326, among those whose reading was probably ős. Our text occurs in no part of his genuine writings, a most remarkable fact if this great defender of Christ's divinity read Deós. How happens it that on almost every page of these discussions we have references to John i. 14: "The Word was made flesh," and yet throughout all his writings not one clear reference to 1 Tim. iii. 16. "God was mani

1 Comm. in 1 Tim. iii. 16, Tom. II. p. 227 (Paris, 1631).

2 Vide supra, p.
21.

fested in the flesh?" It is to be accounted for only on the supposition that he read ős.

This text is found in our editions of Athanasius: "Exovol γὰρ καὶ τὸν ἀπόστολον συγγνώμην αὐτοῖς νέμοντα, καὶ οἱονεὶ χεῖρα αὐτοῖς ἐν τῷ λέγειν ἐκτείνοντα, ὅτι. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα, ε. τ. τ. ε. μ., θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. For they have the apostle also extending pardon to them, and, as it were, stretching out his hand to them, with the words: "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh." This passage is probably spurious. The Benedictine editors found it in but a single MS., and accordingly enclosed it in brackets. Yet Henderson, who must have known these facts, quotes it without a hint at its more than dubious authenticity.2

The following Fathers clearly read Deos.

1. Gregory of Nyssa. A.D. 370.

α. "Ος οὐ μόνον θεὸν, ἀλλὰ καὶ μέγαν θεόν, καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν, ὀνομάζεται τὸν κύριον..... Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδην βοῖ ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι.3 "Who [Paul] not only calls our Lord, God, but also 'the great God,' and God over all' [here he quotes Rom. ix. 5,' God over all,' and Tit. iii. 13, 'great God and our Saviour,' and then proceeds to add]; and to Timothy he boldly cries that 'God was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit."" Gregory had already cited from other sacred writers various passages in which Christ is called God, and then gives 1 Tim. iii. 16 as another proof that Paul gives Jesus the title of God. Nothing could be more express and unquestionable than his reading. His other citations of this text, though not so definite, are yet in strict unison with this one.

b. ̓Αλλὰ πεισθέντες ὅτι ἀληθῶς θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί,

1 Adv. Serap., Epist. xv. Cap. IV. (ed. Bened.), Tom. I. p. 706.

2 Another quotation sometimes referred to the same Father will be found under the name Pseud.-Athanasius.

3 Contra Eunom., Orat. iv. (Paris, 1638), Tom. II. p. 693.