HI
JULY, 1829.
WORKS
PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON
BY
C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.
I.
LECTURES on the ELEMENTS of HIEROGLYPHICS and EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.
By the MARQUIS SPINETO. With PLATES. 8vo. 16s.
II. SERMONS on various SUBJECTS and OCCASIONS:
including Three Discourses on the Evidences, the Obligations, and the Spirit of
the Gospel.
By the Rev. JAMES WALKER, D.D. Of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Episcopal Professor of Theology at
Edinburgh. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
III. .ESCHYLI AGAMEMNON TRIGLOTTUS,
GREECE: Textum ad Fidera, Editionum, praesertim Blomfieldianae, recognovit,
Notasque Anglice conscriptas et Indices adjecit JACOBUS KENNEDY, S.T.P.
Collegii SS. Trinitatis apud Dublinienses Socius.
TEUTSCH: Uebersetzt von HEINRICH Voss.
ENGLISH : Translated by JAMES KENNEDY, D.D.
Royal 8vo. 12s.
IV. The GERMAN PULPIT;
being a Collection of Sermons by the most eminent modern Divines of Germany.
Selected and Translated by the Rev. R. BAKER,
Chaplain to the British Factory at Hamburgh.
8vo. 10s. 6d.
2 PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON,
V.
SERMONS on some of the LEADING PRINCIPLES of
CHRISTIANITY. SECOND EDITION. 8vo. 12*.
By PHILIP NICHOLAS SHUTTLEWORTH, D.D.
Warden of New College, Oxford ; and Rector of Foxley, Wilts.
VI.
Some ACCOUNT of the WRITINGS and OPINIONS of
JUSTIN MARTYR. 8vo. 7s. Qd.
By the Right Reverend JOHN KAYE, D.D.
Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
VII.
PAROCHIAL LETTERS,
from a BENEFICED CLERGYMAN to his CURATE. Small 8vo. 8s. 6d.
CONTENTS. — Introductory — Parsonage — Gardening — Visiting — Churches — Psalmody —
Instruction of the Poor — Province of Private Christians — Preaching — Catholics — •
Cant — Universality of the Church — The Poor — Friendly Societies and
Savings Banks— The Clergy.
VIII.
TESTIMONIES
in Proof of the separate Existence of the Soul in a state of Self- consciousness between Death and the Resurrection. To which is added, the
Psychopannychia of Calvin. Small 8vo. 105. 6d.
By the Rev. THOMAS HUNTINGFORD, M.A.
Vicar of Kempsford, Gloucestershire.
IX,
The CLERICAL GUIDE, or ECCLESIASTICAL DIRECTORY.
Containing a complete Register of the DIGNITIES and BENEFICES of the
CHURCH of ENGLAND, with the Names of their present Possessors,
Patrons, &c. and an alphabetical List of the Dignitaries and Beneficed
Clergy; with an Appendix containing the Ecclesiastical Patronage
at the disposal of the King, the Lord Chancellor, Archbishops
and Bishops, Deans and Chapters, the Universities, &c. The THIRD EDITION. Corrected to 1829. Royal 8vo. I/. 2s.
By RICHARD GILBERT, Compiler of the Clergyman's Almanack, and the Liber Scholasticus.
X.
SERMONS on the DOMESTIC DUTIES.
To which are added, Two SERMONS upon CONFIRMATION. 12mo. 5s.
By the Rev. DANIEL CRESSWELL, D.D.
Vicar of Enfield, Middlesex.
The Tzco Sermons upon Confirmation may be had separately, price Qd.
BY C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON. <>
XI.
LIBER SCHOLASTICUS:
or an ACCOUNT of the FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS, and EXHIBITIONS,
t the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, by whom founded, and whether open to Natives of England and Wales, or restricted to particular Places or Persons : also such Colleges, Public Schools, Endowed Grammar Schools, Chartered Companies, Corporate Bodies, Trustees, &c. as have Uni- versity Advantages attached to them, or in their Patronage.
With appropriate Indexes and References. In one large Volume, Royal 18mo. 10s. 6d.
XII.
SERMONS.
By the Rev. THOMAS ARNOLD, D.D.
Head Master of Rugby School, and late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
XIII.
A LETTER to the LORD BISHOP of LONDON ;
i Reply to Mr. Pusey's Work on the Causes of Rationalism in Germany: comprising some Observations on Confessions of Faith and their Advantages.
By the Rev. HUGH JAMES ROSE, B,D.
Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge, and Vicar of Horsham, Sussex.
8vo, 7s. 6d.
XIV.
A CHRISTIAN'S PEACE-OFFERING :
being an Endeavour to abate the Asperities of the Controversy between the
ROMAN and ENGLISH CHURCHES. In 12mo. 4s. 6d.
By the Hon. and Rev. ARTHUR PHILIP PERCEVAL,
Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty, Rector of East Horsley, and late
Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford,
* XV.
FIVE PAROCHIAL SERMONS,
adapted to the PRESENT CRISIS. 1 2mo. 2s. 6d.
By J. HUSBAND, A.M. Curate of Norton, and late Bye-Fellow of Magdalen College, Cambridge.
XVI.
Ln ADDRESS delivered to the CANDIDATES for HOLY ORDERS,
in the Diocese of BARBADOS and the LEEWARD ISLANDS. 12mo. 3s.
By the Right Rev. WILLIAM HART COLERIDGE, D.D.
Bishop of Barbados.
4 PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON,
XVII. PRACTICAL SERMONS on the LORD'S PRAYER
and the Beatitudes, adapted to Family Reading.
With TWO SERMONS on the SACRAMENT of the LORD'S SUPPER.
By SAMUEL WIX, A.M. F.R.S. & A.S.
Vicar of St. Bartholomew the Less.
In 8vo. 8s, 6d.
XVIII.
A KEY to the REVELATION of ST. JOHN ;
being an Analysis of those Parts of that Prophetical Book which relate to the
General State of the Christian Church in After-Times ; and to the
Peculiar Signs of those Times. In two Volumes, 8vo. ll. 4s.
By the Rev. PHILIP ALLWOOD, B.D.
Fellow of Magdalen College, Cambridge.
XIX.
TWENTY-ONE PRAYERS,
composed from the Psalms, for the Sick and Afflicted. To which are added,
various other Forms of Prayer for the same purpose. With a few Hints and
Directions on the Visitation of the. Sick, chiefly intended for the use
of the Clergy. In 12mo. 4s. 6d.
By the Rev. JAMES SLADE, M.A.
Vicar of Bolton-le-Moors.
XX.
A SERIES of SERMONS on the LIVES of the FIRST PROMUL-
GATORS of CHRISTIANITY; with other Discourses : to which are added
Discourses on Miscellaneous Subjects, preached in the Parish
of Bromley, Middlesex. 8vo. 8s.
By the Reverend PETER FRASER, M.A.
Chaplain to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
XXI.
SERMONS FOR SERVANTS.
By the Rev. W. DOWNES WILLIS, M.A.
Vicar of Kirkby in Cleveland.
12mo. 6s.
XXII.
The LIFE and TIMES of WILLIAM LAUD, D.D.
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.
By JOHN PARKER LAWSON, M.A.
With a Portrait, beautifully engraved by DEAN.
In 2 vols. 8vo. ll. 8s.
BY C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON. 5
XXIII.
FRIENDLY ADVICE to MY POOR NEIGHBOURS.
In a Series of Cottage Tales and Dialogues. 12mo. 4s. 6d. By a MEMBER of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.
txxiv. THE LAST HOURS of EMINENT CHRISTIANS ;
compiled from the best Authorities, and Chronologically arranged. 8vo. 13s.
By the Rev. HENRY CLISSOLD, M.A.
Minister of Stockwell Chapel, Lambeth.
This Work is designed to present the most illustrious examples of Devotion, Tranquillity,
Fortitude, and Penitence, together with the most striking instances
of the brevity and uncertainty of human Life.
XXV.
A PLAIN and SHORT HISTORY of ENGLAND for CHILDREN.
In Letters from a Father to his Son. 18mo. 2s. 6d. half-bound. By the Editor of " The COTTAGER'S MONTHLY VISITOR."
XXVI.
THE FOURTH EDITION OF
A PRACTICAL TREATISE upon the ORDINARY OPERATION
of the HOLY SPIRIT. 12mo. 4s. By GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B.D.
Rector of Long Newton.
XXVII.
A KEY to the OLD TESTAMENT and APOCRYPHA ;
or an Account of their several Books, of the Contents and Authors, and of the Times in -which they were respectively written.
NEW EDITION, revised. 8vo. 14s.
By the Right Rev. ROBERT GRAY, D.D.
Lord Bishop of Bristol.
XXVIII.
THE FOURTH EDITION OF
INSTRUCTIONS for the USE of CANDIDATES for HOLY
ORDERS, and of the PAROCHIAL CLERGY,
As to Ordination, Licenses, Institutions, Collations, Induction, Reading in, Re- signations, Dispensations ; with Acts of Parliament relating to the Residence of the Clergy, Maintenance of Curates, and to exchanges of Parsonage Houses and Glebe Lands, with the Forms to be used. 8vo. 8s.
By CHRISTOPHER HODGSON, Secretary to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
6 PUBLISHED DURING THIS SEASON.
XXIX.
An ABRIDGEMENT of the HISTORY of the REFORMATION o
the CHURCH of ENGLAND. In 12mo. 5s. 6d.
By HENRY SOAMES, M.A.
Rector of Shelley, in Essex.
XXX.
THE THIRD EDITION OF
ANNOTATIONS on the EPISTLES:
in Continuation of Mr. Elsley's Annotations on the Four Gospels and the Act of the Apostles. Principally designed for the use of Candidates for
Holy Orders. In 2 vols. 8vo. 18s. By the Reverend JAMES SLADE, M.A.
Late Fellow and Tutor of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and Vicar of Bolton-le-Moors.
XXXI.
EXCERPTA EX VARIIS ROMANIS POETIS
qui in Scholiis rarius leguntur.
LUCRETIO,
CATULLO,
PROPERTIO,
TIBULLO,
PERSIO,
SENECA, LUCANO, V. FLACCO, S. ITALICO, STATIC,
MARTIALE, JUVENALE, AUSONIO, CLAUDIANO.
Notulis illustrata, quas selegit
JOHANNES ROGERS PITMAN, A.M.
Editio Tertia. 12mo. 7s. 6d. bound.
XXXII.
The DYING CHRISTIAN; a Poem. By the Rev. GEORGE BRYAN, A.M.
Small 8vo. 5s.
XXXIII.
JOHN HUSS, or the COUNCIL of CONSTANCE, A POEM.
With numerous Historical and Descriptive Notes. Small 8vo. 4s. 6d.
XXXIV.
A TREATISE upon JUSTIFICATION by FAITH,
with particular reference to the Opinions of the late Rev. Thomas Scott, and others of his School. In 8vo. 10s. 6d.
By JOHN FULLER, Esq.
WORKS
PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION
BY
C. J. G. & F. RIVINGTON.
i.
The LIFE of RICHARD BENTLEY, D.D.
Master of Trinity College, and Regius Professor of Divinity in the University
of Cambridge. By the Very Reverend JAMES HENRY MONK, D.D.
Dean of Peterborough. In one Volume, 4to. With a Portrait.
II.
A PRACTICAL GUIDE to the READING of the NEW TESTAMENT.
Intended for the use of General Readers.
By* the Rev. GEORGE HOLDEN, M.A.
In one Volume, 12mo.
III.
THE THIRD EDITION OF
The LIFE of the Right Rev. THOMAS WILSON, D.D.
Late Lord Bishop of SODOR and MAN.
By the Rev. HUGH STOWELL,
Rector of Ballaugh, Isle of Man.
IV.
A SECOND EDITION OF
L SERIES of DISCOURSES on the STATE of the PROTESTANT
RELIGION in GERMANY.
Preached before the University of Cambridge, in 1825. In 8vo. By HUGH JAMES ROSE, B.D.
Vicar of Horsham, Sussex.
7/e Appendix, containing a Reply to the German Critiques upon this Work, may be had to complete the former Edition, price 3s. 6d.
8 WORKS PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION.
v. PASTORALIA;
or a MANUAL of HELPS to the PAROCHIAL CLERGYMAN : containing a Scriptural View of the Clerical Duties — Hints for Pastoral Visits- Prayers for the Use of the Clergy ^-and Skeletons of Sermons.
By the Rev. HENRY THOMPSON, M.A.
Of St. John's College, Cambridge, Curate of Wrington, Somerset.
In one large Volume, 12mo.
VI.
THE SECOND EDITION OF
A NEW ANALYSIS of CHRONOLOGY,
Sacred and Profane. In 4 vols. 8vo.
By the Rev. Dr. HALES.
VII. CHRISTIANITY a PROGRESSIVE SCHEME;
in Answer to the Objections offered to its want of Universality. Being the Christian Advocate's Publication for the year 1829. 8vo.
By HUGH JAMES ROSE, B.D.
Christian Advocate in the University of Cambridge, and Vicar of Horsham,
Sussex.
VIII.
SERMONS.
Now First published from the Original Manuscripts. By the late Rev. WILLIAM JONES,
of Nay land. In 2 vols. 8vo.
IX.
The LIFE of ARCHBISHOP CRANMER.
By the Rev. HENRY JOHN TODD, M.A.
Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty, and Rector of Settrington, Yorkshire. In one Volume, 8vo. With a Portrait.
X.
HENRY and ANTONIO;
or, the Proselytes of the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. Translated from the Third Edition of the German of
Dr. C. G. BRETSCHNEIDER,
Chief Counsellor of the Consistory and General Superintendant in Gotha.
NEW CRITICISMS
ON THE
CELEBRATED TEXT, 1 JOHN V. 7.
FOR THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, " AND THE HOLY GHOST ; AND THESE THREE ARE ONE."
A SYNODICAL LECTURE,
BY FRANCIS ANTONY KNITTEL,
COUNSELLOR TO THE CONSISTORY, AND GENERAL SUPERINTENDANT OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF BRUNSWICK LUNEBOURG.
at Bntiistoicfc in 1785.
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL GERMAN,
BY
WILLIAM ALLEYN EVANSON, M.A.
LECTURER OF ST.LUKE'S, OLD STREET, LONDON.
'• It is good and needful to adhere to this Proof-Passage, and not to suffer it to be discarded by that superficial 'Criticism which is now so common. Nevertheless, this mint be done in rpgular mpthod: otherwise, more ' harm than good will ensue." ^^Z* ^^f^A^^^^ ERNEST I.
1
C. AND J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD. J. HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY.
MDCCCXXIX.
I / f
-2 S 2
DEDICATION.
TO
THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,
THOMAS BURGESS, D.D.
LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY,
MY LORD,
AS I am indebted to your Lordship for my acquaintance with the very elegant and ingenious " CRITICISMS" of Knittel, and have been encouraged by your Lordship to undertake the office of his Interpreter, I gladly avail myself of the privilege with which your Lordship has further honoured me, and dedicate the result of my pleasurable toil to one who can best appreciate its value to the Biblical Student.
IV DEDICATION.
In this extraordinary age, when the Lessons of History and the Oracles of the Living God are equally disregarded; when Truth, Honour, Rec- titude, and Consistency, are immolated on the Altar of Political Expediency ; when the Presi- dency of God, among the Nations of the earth, is scouted as the dream of an Enthusiast ; and Religion is Legislatively discarded, as the " one thing needless" in the public relations of So- ciety; it is refreshing to turn from the melan- choly spectacle of a Nation's Apostacy, and contemplate one of those time-honoured Guar- dians of our Church, who scorns to cast aside his Faith, as it were an old-fashioned garment. I am persuaded, My Lord, that I express but the sentiments of my Brethren of the Establishment, when I avow my unqualified admiration of that singleness of purpose, unweariedness of energy, and soundness of argument, with which your Lordship has asserted the inviolability of the British Constitution, and of that Bible which forms its only secure basis. As a Senator and Patriot, your Lordship's shield has borne the untarnished device, " NOLUMUS LEGES ANGLIC MU- TARI," ' We will not have the Laws of England
DEDICATION. V
changed.' As a Scholar, and a Christian Bishop, your tiara bears inscribed, Ov duvurcii XvOqvai q ygK<pq, " THE SCRIPTURE cannot be broken." [JOHN x. 35.]
I have the honour to be,
My Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient,
very humble Servant,
WILLIAM ALLEYN EVANSON.
4, Jeffrey's Terrace-, Kentish Town, London, June 30, 1829.
PREFACE
BY
THE TRANSLATOR.
ONE of the most powerful Opponents of the authenticity of 1 John V. 7., among the German Critics of the 18th century, was Dr. Semler*, in his " Historical Collections ; " quoted by Mi- chaelis in his Introduction to the New Testa- ment (Vol. IV. p. 425. Eng. Tr.)— " To Sem- ler's arguments/' says Michaelis, " Knittel has made some learned and specious objections, in his ' New Criticisms : ' but, specious and learned as they are, they have not convinced me that Semler is mistaken."
This character of Knittel's Work, by an oppo- nent of the controverted verse, excited an earnest wish, repeatedly expressed in the course of the
* Semler is the person to whom Knittel repeatedly alludes, as " a certain Doctor," " a Doctor of Upper Saxony," " a Pastoralist," &c. &c. See pp. 27, 28, 29. 77. 113. 212.
viii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
controversy on the verse, that the English Reader might be put in possession of it, by a Translation from the German. In a former passage of his e Introduction" (p. 413), though Michaelis pro- nounces that Knittel has " totally failed" in his defence of the verse, yet he allows that the " New Criticisms" is " a valuable Work, and that much useful information may be deduced from it." Knittel was indeed one of the most learned, experienced, and judicious Critics of his day ; and I am persuaded, that, when he is allowed to speak for himself, the decision which Michaelis has so authoritatively pronounced against his conclu- sions, will not be so readily admitted. I confi- dently anticipate, that a patient and impartial perusal of the following " Criticisms" will remove many inveterate prepossessions against the au- thenticity of the disputed Text ; while the clear, judicious, and masterly chain of inductive reasoning which they develope, will give the force of demonstration to the conclusion legiti- mately deduced ; viz. that 1 John V. 7. is, in very deed, an integral and aboriginal Text of Holy Scripture.
The subject has been illustrated with such a flood of light, by the labours of the last half- century, that my Readers will scarcely expect
TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. IX
the charm of novelty in the Criticisms of Knittel : yet, I am convinced, they will find much to justify the epithet " NEW," appropriated by that ingenious Author. I shall merely state, in a few Prefatory Observations, the reasons which have long since secured my acquiescence in the affir- mative of this still-controverted question.
The entire evidence against the authenticity of 1 John V. 7. is resolvable into its absence from the majority of Greek Manuscripts, hitherto dis- covered and collated, which contain the First Epistle of St. John. The number of such may be, at the utmost, 150. Of these, there are only Two of very high antiquity ; namely, the Codex Alexandrinus* , in the British Museum; and the Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican Library at Rome. These are supposed, by some, to have been of the 4th century. All other Greek Manuscripts, as yet discovered, are later than the 9th century.
(*) " The Codex Alexandrinus is, notoriously, a Latinized Version. Wetstein was prohibited, by the Authorities at Amsterdam, from printing his Greek Testament from that Codex, because it conformed to the Papal Vulgate in many important passages." (See Goesen's Vertheldigung der Complutensischen Bibel &c. &c. Preface, p. xiii.)
The Theological World is greatly indebted to the learned and laborious REV. H. H. BABER, Librarian to the British Museum, for an exact fac-simile of the Vetus Testamentum Grcecum in this interesting Codex ; one of the most splendid additions to our stock of Biblical Literature, and an incomparable specimen of typographic skill.
x TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
Those two omit the disputed clause. But that omission is only a negative testimony, at the best ; and it is suspicious testimony, as being contemporary with the prevalence of the Arian Heresy, which unquestionably originated in the meaning severally attached to that verse by Alexander and by Arius, in the 4th century. And, moreover, it is counterbalanced, or neu- tralized, by antecedent and contemporary po- sitive, i.e. affirmative testimony; because Ter- tullian in the 2d, and Cyprian in the 3d centu- ries, (who both understood the Greek Language well, and manifestly consulted the Original Text of the New Testament ;) Origen, a Greek Fa- ther in the 3d century ; the second Symbolum Antiochenum (published at the Council of An- tioch, A.D. 341) ; Gregory of Nazianzen, a Greek Father ; Phcebadius and Ausonius, Latins of the 4th century ; and Jerome, in his Latin Version, castigated, as he expressly says, 'ad Grcecam veritatem? in the same century * ; all either directly quote, or make such allusions to that
(*) All the most ancient and best Manuscripts of Jerome's Latin Vulgate contain 1 John V. 7. Not one Manuscript in fifty omits it. The majority of those in which it is omitted, contain the words " in terra " in the 8th verse. This is presumptive evidence of the ex- istence of the 7th verse in the Originals from which they were transcribed.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xi
verse, as necessarily infer its existence in the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament then extant. Therefore the testimony respecting 1 John V. 7. may be summed up thus : — EIGHT unsuspicious, positive, against Two extremely suspicious, negative witnesses. And the verdict, I feel confident, should be recorded as follows : " The verse, 1 John V. 7, being tried upon the sole testimony of GREEK Manuscripts of the first four centuries — which, if it please some, we will call primary testimony, — we find, after due in- quiry, that it did exist, as an integral part of the Greek New Testament, at, and antecedent to, the 4th century :" or, to use the words of Bishop Barlow, (no mean authority,) " We make no doubt it was originally there de facto ; and, de jure, should be so still f ." •
In the interval between the 4th century and the first Printed Edition of the Greek New Tes- tament, the majority of Greek Manuscripts now extant, of that period, which contain the First Epistle of St. John, omit the disputed verse. None of them, however, are more ancient than the 10th century; very few older than the 14th or 15th; and almost all belong to the same family, ue. are of Eastern origin. Their testi- mony, also, is merely negative, and suspicious ; and is counterpoised, or neutralized, first, by
(t) See Bishop Burgess's Letter to Archdeacon Beynon, p. 22.
xii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
the direct and unsuspicious (though not undis- puted) testimony of at least ONE Greek Manu- script, unquestionably antecedent to the first Printed Edition of the New Testament, (a Ma- nuscript, which a most judicious and experienced Critic has ascribed to the 13th century,) — I mean the celebrated Codex Montfortianus, preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. Per- haps the Annals of Theological Controversy do not furnish a more striking instance of unwar- rantable criticism, and inveterate prejudice, than the efforts made to depreciate this Codex. No assertion was too monstrous, no fiction too pre- posterous, to gain currency and momentary cre- dence. It was said, " The Codex was a palpable imposture, fabricated solely to deceive Erasmus :" — " It was the work of a bungling and ignorant impostor, and betrays itself by the badness of its Greek;" &c. &c. I cannot avoid a brief notice of these charges : and, first, as to Erasmus. — There is no direct evidence that he ever saw the Codex Montfortianus : the presumptive evidence is all the other way. I am quite convinced that he did not insert the disputed verse, 1 John V. 7, into his Third Edition of the Greek New Testament, upon the authority of the Codex Montfortianus; but, either because it was printed in the Complutensian (Princeps) Edition of the New Testament, or because he saw it, (or a
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xiii
Transcript of it,) in a Codex which he calls the Codex Britannicus. Let us hear his own ac- count of the matter, in his 'Annotationes? as follows : —
" Interea perlata est ad nos Editio Hispaniensis (the Complutensian) qua3 dissidebat ab omnibus, habet enim hunc in modum: 'On Tpe/s euriv ol paprvpov VTeq sv ra> ovpava, o HaTripf KOC.I 6 Aoyog, xou TO aytov IIv£i//t«, KO.I ol rpsis etg TO ev etffi. Kat Tpeis eimv ol papTvpovvTes vni T«S yrjs, TO TTvevpa, x«i TO vSaip, xai TO at/ma. Primum : In hoc dissonat exemplar quod ex eadem (ni fallor) Bibliotheca (scil. Vaticana) petitum, secuti sunt Hispani, ab Exemplari Britannico, quod hie addantur articuli, o n«T»jjO, o Aoyo?, TO Uvev/jL«9 qui non addebantur in Britannico. Deinde : Quod Bri- tannicum habebat iv eim, Hispaniense e/s TO sv «<r/. Post-
remd: QworfBRlTANNICUM ETIAM IN TERR^E TESTIMONIO ADDEBATxa/ ol Tpetg et$ TO ev eiffi, QUOD NON Clddebatur hie duntaxat in Editione Hispaniensi"
Now, whether Erasmus actually saw that Co- dex Britannicus, or only a transcript of the disputed verse from that Codex, it is most cer- tain, that he either did not see the Codex Mont- fortianus ; or, at least, that the transcript (if such it were) of the disputed verse, to which he adverts in the foregoing Note, could not have been copied from the Codex Montfortianus. For, besides the variations already noticed by the learned Bishop Burgess*, between the verse as here quoted by Erasmus, and as it stands
(*) Letter to Archdeacon Beynon, p. 6.
xiv TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
in the Codex Montfortianus, Erasmus expressly notices a remarkable addition which the Codex Britannicus contained in the 8th verse ; viz. xut ol rgstg ei$ ro tv si<ri : ' which words/ he observes, ' are not found in the Complutensian,' and which, be it observed, are not found in the Montfor- tianus. I am not aware of this remark having been ever made before; but it strikes me as conclusive against the identity attempted to be established between the Codex Britannicus and the Codex Montfortianus ; and, as evidence, that there did exist, in Erasmus's time, besides the Codex Montfortianus, another authentic Greek Manuscript, called the Codex Britannicus, which contained the disputed verse, though that Manu- script has not yet been discovered.
Secondly : As to the badness of the Greek in the Codex Montfortianus, especially in the words sv rq yn in the disputed verse, the promoters of that objection seem to forget, or not to know, that the identical form of expression occurs in the most classical of the Evangelists, St. Luke, e.g. Luke xii. 51 : " Think ye that I am come to send peace on earth?" stgqvyjv dovvcu sv ry yv\+ — I find St. John also uses the same form, in Rev. V. 13 : " Every creature in heaven, and upon earthy and under the earth," sv r*> ovgavv, zct,t ev ry yy\t %cu vToxaru rqg yqt;. So it stands in my Greek Testament (Sedan Edition, 1628) ; which
TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. XV
also has w TV yy in 1 John V. 7.* And such, most probably, was the Reading in the Greek Manu- script from which the Montfortianus was tran- scribed. The omission of the article before Ilotrqo, Aoy0£, and Hvevpct, is also alleged as evidence that the whole clause was literally translated from the Latin, by some ignorant transcriber! Yet it is strange, that the said ignorant transcriber, who could find no other method of rendering Pater 9 Verbum, et Spiritus, than literally HctTqg, Aoyoj, xou TlvevfAct,, without the article, should suddenly stumble on the gram- matical rendering of in ccelo, and in terra, by sv rep ovguvu, and w rn 777, with the article : not to mention, that we find rqv pagrvgiuv ruv ctv- Ogwrav, 7) [Actgrvgtot rov Ggou, TOV Tloy, &c. &c. occurring in these two verses, with the articles severally prefixed, although the Latin Text assuredly has no corresponding article. Con- sistent criticism would have detected another and more rational explanation of the omission of the article before Hctr^, Aoyog, and Hvevfta ; namely, that these terms are obviously used here as Appellatives, or proper names of the Divine Persons in the Trinity; and the omission of the article, in such cases, is sanctioned by the usage of the best Classic Authorities.
(*) Goezen also refers to the same Heading in the Printed Editions of the Greek Testament which he consulted. (See Ausfuhrlichere Vertheidigung, p. 242, note.)
XVI TRANSLATORS PREFACE.
If, then, we oppose the positive and unsu- spicious testimony of only this One Greek Ma- nuscript*, and the numerous quotations of, or direct allusions to, the disputed verse, in the Writings of Greek and Latin Fathers, especially the direct citation of it by the African Fathers at the Council of Carthage in the 5th century, and the assertion (which can never be disproved) of the Author of the ' Prologus in Epis tolas Ca- nonicas* in the 9th century, "that the verse in question existed in the Greek Manuscripts then
(*) To this should be added the Codex Ottobonianus, 298 in the Vatican Library, discovered not long since by Professor SchoLze, (Biblische-Critische Reise, p. 105,) which that learned critic pro- nounces to be of the 14th century ; I e. anterior to the Princeps Edi- tion. It reads the disputed verse thus : cOn rpeis etffiv ot /taprv/jowres OTTO rov ovpavov, ncmjp, Aayos^ KCU TlvevfJia dyiov' KM of rpcis eis ro ev fifft. Kot rpeis tuny of jj.apTvpowres OTTO TTJS y»js, &c. &c. The Latin Version, in the parallel column of this Codex, reads, " Quia tres sunt qui testi- monium dant in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis," &c. &c. On which Scholze observes, " Similar variations and entire transpo- sitions occur in many other passages, and may be imputed chiefly to the negligence of the transcribers. The Venetian MS. (No. XL), and of the 13th century, contains the disputed text in the Latin Version on the parallel column, but in the Greek it is written in the margin by a kter hand."
The Codex Ravianus or Berolinensis, which contains the verse exactly as it stands in the Complutensian, has been severely attacked by Pappelbaum, but its authenticity by no means so triumphantly annihilated as the adversaries of that verse assert. Martin has sa- tisfactorily repelled the charge that it was a transcript from the Com- plutensian. However defective, there is no reason to doubt its having been transcribed in a great degree from Original Manuscripts ; and so far, evidence for the verse. See Martin's " La Verite du Texte 1 John V. 7. dimontree," &c. &c.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xvii
extant," and possibly as far back as the 4th cen- tury ; — If we oppose this mass of positive and unimpeachable testimony to the negative and suspicious evidence of about 140 comparatively modern Greek Manuscripts of the New Testa- ment, I think the conclusion is inevitable, that, in authenticity, antiquity, and weight, the former not only counterpoises or neutralizes the latter, but decidedly preponderates in favour of the disputed verse.
Nor, when we leave Manuscript evidence to examine that of the Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament, will that conclusion be invalidated ; but, on the contrary, most power- fully corroborated. First in honour, as in place, stands that stupendous and magnificent monu- ment, the COMPLUTENSIAN PoLYGLOTT of XlMENES,
which contains the "Princeps" Edition of the Greek Testament*. Every Princeps Edition is primd-facie evidence of the Readings in con- temporary or antecedent Manuscripts. The Complutensian reads 1 John V. 7. : therefore that verse stood in the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament then existing and consulted by the Editors. Those Greek Manuscripts, we are assured by the Editors, were the most ancient,
(*) The Greek New Testament was first printed in the Compluten- sian Polyglott, and finished in the year 1514 ; though the entire Work was not completed until 1517, nor the Papal Privilegium obtained until 1520. Erasmus's First Edition was printed in 1517.
b
xviii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
and the most valuable which could then be pro- cured from the best public or private Collections in the world. The munificent Patron and Pro- jector of that Work spared no expense or toil, and employed the ablest Scholars and Critics of the day in its completion. Its autho- rity was held equivalent to that of the most au- thentic and ancient Greek Manuscripts then extant (as even Michaelis admits). It was re- ferred to as the ultimate appeal from every subsequent Printed Edition; and it remained in the undisputed possession of that preemi- nence, throughout all Christendom,, for nearly one hundred and fifty years, during the brightest days of the Reformation. Its first assailant was the celebrated Wetstein; whose charges were re- peated by the learned Semler ; [eminent Critics no doubt, but, as we can fully prove, unsafe and most suspicious witnesses in the point at issue,] and upon their sole authority, upon their unsup- ported and peremptory dicta, have all subse- quent opponents of the disputed verse impeached, not only the genuineness of that verse in the Complutensian New Testament, but the charac- ter of the whole Polyglott.
Now, if it be remembered, that both Wetstein and Semler ground their accusations almost solely upon motives which they invent, and im- pute to the Editors of the Complutensian, we are perfectly justified, not in fabricating and im-
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xix
puting any sinister intentions to these two Cri- tics, but in stating their avowed religious tenets — tenets of such a nature, as, in ordinary cases, engender not only a suspicion of sinister motives, but of invalidity in those deductions which such persons choose to draw, in favour of their pecu- liar opinions.
Whoever has impartially examined Wetsteiris Annotations on the New Testament will be con- vinced that the Learned Annotator did not believe in theProperDivinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.* Indeed, he was openly charged with Socinianism ; a charge which he could neither palliate nor deny. He was fully aware, that so long as the verse 1 John V. 7. remained an integral part of God's Holy Word, no ingenuity of criticism could argue away the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Great then was his anxiety, and incalculable the toil and pains which he encoun- tered, to destroy, if possible, the reputation of that Princeps Edition in which that verse was inserted. Where History or argument fails, he
(*) I select a few specimens. First as to Wetstein's ideas of the inspiration of the New-Testament Writers. On Luke i. 3. eSo^e Kajuot, he observes : " Si Lucas vel Pauli hortatu, velpeculiari Spiritus Sancti qfflatu ad scribendum impulsus fuisset, rem memoratu tarn dig. nam et ad auctoritatem scripto conciliandam tarn idoneam silentio neu- tiquam transiisset." If this reasoning holds, the major part of the Bible is uninspired. Again — his ideas of Christ, as the Son of God : he says, (on Matt. i. 20. e/c nvevftaros dyiov,) " Successor Imperatoris Romani vocabatur ©eou »rcus, imo quivis prseclarus homo
XX TRANSLATORS PREFACE.
has recourse to sneer and sarcasm. Let any one read the subjoined Notes, and say whether I am not justified in impeaching Wetstein as an un- sound witness in this cause. Biassed and hostile as he shews himself, against the foundation-truth of Christianity, his testimony cannot be re- ceived without suspicion : it must be scrupulously weighed ; and the result will be found to be cap- tious, superficial criticism, insidious and un- founded calumnies, upon the munificent Pro- moter and the learned and honest Editors of the noblest Biblical Undertaking in the world.
Semler, who repeated these accusations, with many additional effusions of his own spleen, in
irots, apud Liban." &c. &c. ^lianus Tact. Prsef. ad Hadrianum ine &fov. Plinius Paneg. " Necdum Imperator, necdum Dei filius eras." Also on Luke iii. 38 : " Observandum — Lucam, cumque Adamum Dei filium vocat, significasse Christum ex virgine natum Secundum esse Adamum, ejusque ortum per Spiritum Sanctum non minus esse opus potentise divinse singulare quam Adami fuerat." Lastly, his ideas of the Proper Deity of Christ may be gathered from his Notes on John i. 1. ©eos tjvj on which he quotes Livy, lib. i. 4. " Romulus Deo prognatus, Deus ipse :"— 16. " Deum Deo natum ;" &c. &c. And on John xx. 28. o Kvpios /xoy, icai 6 ®eos jitou, after attempting some philo- logical proofs that it should be u> Kvpios, <a 0eos, (that is, a mere excla- mation of surprise, not an acknowledgment that Christ was the Lord and the God of Thomas,) he quotes a passage from Servetus, with evi- dent approbation : " Quis Hebraice vel Chaldaice mediocriter doctus ignorabit Thomam non nominasse Jehovah quando dixit, Dominus meus et Deus meus ? Vidistine unquam illud affixum meus additum nomini Jehovah? Christus nunquam jungitur nomini Jehovah, sed nomini Elohim." (Servet. de Err. Trin. V. p. 98.) See Baum- garten's ' Recension der Wetstenischen Ausgabe der N. T.,' in the " Nachrichten von Merkwiirdigen Biichern," Vol. II. p. 53, &c.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxi
his Reprint of Wetstein's Prolegomena (1764.-8), was an avowed supporter of Pelagianism. He denied the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. He was, if not the originator, certainly the great promoter of that Infidel system so fashionable amongst the modern Neologians or Rationalists of Germany : I mean the Accommodation Theory *, according to which Revelation is to be judged of, not by the evidences of its divine origin, but by its supposed utility. It is notorious, that at the time when he repeated Wetstein's accusations against the Complutensian, he had never seen that Polyglottf : but he knew that it contained the disputed verse 1 John V. 7, and he was therefore determined to crush it altogether. Un- questionably he possessed gigantic intellectual powers, immense erudition, and unparalleled in- dustry. But he has been encountered by a
(*) For a fuller account of Semler, see Rev. H. J. Rose's Four Ser- mons on the State of the Protestant Religion in Germany : (a most valuable and interesting Work,) p. 45 et seq. First Edition.
(t) This appears, from his Note on Erasmus's Annotation already quoted. He there observes : " Since Erasmus has here noticed all the Variations between the Complutensian and the Codex Britannicus, yet without expressly stating that the former has eat rns yys where the latter reads & ry 777, he must have committed a mistake a few lines before, and been thinking of the Greek instead of the Latin in terra, which is much more correct than & ry 777. Now, from what we learn in other Works, of the order of the words in the Com- plutensian New Testament, it is certain that the latter actually printed w TV 777." Every one knows, that the reading in the Complutensian is «rt TTJS -Yns : therefore, Semler either deliberately falsifies, or never saw theWork which he criticizes. (See Goezen's Vertheidigung &c. p.78.)
xxii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
formidable antagonist, the celebrated GOEZEN *, of Hamburgh ; who has thoroughly exposed the shallowness of his pretensions as a Critic of that great Work, demolished the whole fabric of his baseless invectives, and consigned him, and his prototype, Wetstein, to the pity of every impar- tial Theologian and genuine believer in the doc- trines of Christianity.
Wetstein and Semler are, in fact, the only authorities appealed to by the depreciators of the Complutensian. Their unsupported assertions have been assumed as axioms ; their sophisms, as mathematical demonstration. Their hypothesis respecting especially the Greek New Testament in that Polyglott, is, that " the Editors formed the Greek on the Vulgate." This hypothesis, unsubstantiated by even a shadow of proof, has been repeated by Protestants, in the face of un- answerable evidence to the contrary f : and, cu- rious to say, its very opposite is maintained by a celebrated Roman-Catholic critic, Richard Simon,
(*) Goezen's Works on this subject are enumerated in KnittePs Note, p. 95. I am engaged in preparing a Translation of them for the press ; and am encouraged to hope, they will prove a valuable accession to our Biblical Literature.
(t) Goezen has collected nearly 1000 Variations between the Com- plutensian Greek New Testament and the Latin Vulgate ; and these not trivial or insignificant, but the majority most important : in many, the sense of the Headings in the Complutensian is directly op- posite to that in the Vulgate. (See Ausfuhrlichere Vertheidigung, pp. 276—506.)
TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. XX111
(Hist. Critiq. p. 516,) who asserts that the Com- plutensian Editors corrected the Vulgate Latin of the New Testament by the Original Greek Text!
I have been somewhat amused by the logic of our modern Anticomplutensians. The Alcala Editors asserted, (and their assertion, though denied by Wetstein and Semler, never has been, nor ever can be, disproved,) "that they were pro- vided with the rarest and most ancient and va- luable Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, by the liberality of Pope Leo X. ; who also particularly directed their attention to one of the number, called (xar s&xyv) " THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT." " Now it is most certain" (say they) "that these Alcala Editors did not con- sult the celebrated Codex Vaticanus, which is re- puted to be one of the most ancient, if not the most ancient Manuscript extant. FOR" — (ob- serve tibe-gtfta), — " FOR, that Manuscript has not the disputed clause, and they have departed from its Readings in various places *." In this Enthy- mem, we have gotten the Conclusion and the minor Premise; but the major is left for us to guess at ; and when found, will require, I imagine, something like proof. I presume the major is this: " The now-existing Codex Vaticanus was the most ancient Codex existing in the days of
(*) See Home's Critical Introduct. Vol. IV. p. 466. Sixth Edition.
xxiv TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
the Complutensian Editors; and LeoX. was guilty of gross imposition upon their credulity, in calling the Codex which he sent, (and upon which, as their ultimate guide, he requested them to form their Text,) The most ancient and authentic standard of the Original Text." Let me ask, Is this demonstrated? Is it likely? Is it not rather a monstrous improbability ? It matters not a straw whether the Alcala Editors consulted the now-existing Codex Vaticanus, or not. But it is any thing but " most certain" they could not have seen it, because they did not implicitly follow its Readings. As well might we assert, that the Editors of any book, of which there have been many originals, whether Manuscript or Printed, most certainly could not have seen some one of these originals, because they in- serted some clause in their edition which is wanting in that one original, or deviated from the Readings of that one original, although, (as in the case of the Complutensian,) the deviations are confessedly for the better, in most instances. Let, then, the major of the Enthymem be first proved, and we may then examine the intrinsic value of the Conclusion. At present, it goes for nothing.
Much stress has been laid on the Marginal Note annexed to 1 John V. 7, 8.* in the Com-
(*) See Knittel, p. 64, and Note.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxv
plutensian New Testament, as if it implied that the Editors had no Greek-Manuscript authority for inserting the seventh verse. Really nothing but a predetermination not to see, could have obscured the obvious purport of that Note to the eyes of the Anticomplutensians. Its plain and palpable intent is, not to account for the inser- tion of 1 John V.7. but to vindicate the omis- sion of the latter clause of 1 John V. 8. «". e. ol rgsig tv suri, which corresponds to the Latin "Hi ires unum sunt ;" — an omission, which affords, amongst many other evidences, an incontestable proof that the Editors had no intention of form- ing the Greek Text on the Vulgate, or elevating the authority of the Latin Version above that of the Original Greek Text.
Thus then stands the External Evidence, as regards the disputed verse, under the several heads, 1st, Greek-Manuscript authorities of the first four centuries ; 2dly, Greek-Manuscript au- thorities from the 4th to the 16th century; 3dly, Printed Editions.
Under ihejirst, we have the positive, or affir- mative unsuspicious testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, the Second Symbolum Antioche- num, Gregory Nazianzen, Phcebadius, Ausonius, and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, either directly quoting or undeniably alluding to the clause : and against them we have only the negative and
xxvi TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
suspicious testimony of two Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament; both confessedly Latinized, and (allowing them to have been written in the 4th century) the productions of an age in which Arianism had tainted the whole body of the Christian Church, for forty years.
Under the second, we have the affirmative un- suspicious evidence of at least two existing Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament ; of all the most ancient and best Manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (there being not one in fifty which omits the verse) ; and a large number of quotations or direct allusions to it, in the Works of Greek and Latin Fathers, from the 4th to the 16th century* ; — against the negative evidence of about 140 Greek Manuscripts, few more ancient than the 14th century ; and the great majority belonging to the same suspicious stock, the East- ern Church. And, as it is admitted, that there are probably many thousand Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, which have never been collated or examined ; as the Manu- scripts employed by the Complutensian Editors have not yet been discovered, being either de- stroyed in the great conflagration of the Escurial
(*) The verse, 1 John V. 7, was alleged against the Arians at the Council of Carthage, in the 5th century ; and its authenticity was not disputed by the Arian Bishops then present ; nor questioned by any Arian, or other Heretic, from the 5th to the 16th century.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxvii
1671, or disposed of by some ignorant or disho- nest Librarian, or concealed in the Library at Alcala, or possibly in the Vatican at Rome, under the apprehension of their proving unfa- vourable to the authority of the Vulgate ; there- fore, until the materials, on which a negative tes- timony can be admitted, be very considerably augmented in number and authenticity, the affir- mative, i. e. in favour of the disputed clause, must be allowed to preponderate under this head alsof .
Thirdly, As to Printed Editions, the verse is contained in the Princeps Edition, by which ERAS- MUS improved, and STEPHENS wholly formed, their several Editions of the New Testament ; and in the genuine versions of Jerome, edited by Mar- tianay and Vallarsius ; names fully equivalent to those of the Deistical WETSTEIN and the Utili- tarian SEMLER, or any of their servile imitators.
I have confined my remarks solely to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE for and against this verse, and rest in the assured conviction that the former is decidedly preponderant. The Internal Evi- dence has been so ably and argumentatively dis- cussed by the learned Bishop Burgess, and esta-
(t) At the same time, I must assert, that no amount of negative testimony can overthrow the positive evidence of those unimpeachable witnesses already adduced, as vouchers for the authenticity of 1 John V.7.
xxviii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
blished on such an immoveable basis, entirely and unanswerably in favour of the verse, that the opponents of that verse have no other resource, than to thrust that species of evidence out of court altogether, and take refuge in a very con- venient postulate, which has every thing to re- commend it — except truth. They tell us, that " no Internal Evidence can prove a clause to be genuine, where External Evidence is decidedly against it." The falsity of this aphorism is pal- pable, from the whole history of Various Read- ings. How is any particular reading to be determined, when there are conflicting testimo- nies ? By the context ; — by the general scope of the author; — in short, by Internal Evidence alone. But the aphorism is not only untrue, but inappli- cable in the case in question ; viz. 1 John V. 7. External Evidence is not decidedly against it: Internal Evidence is wholly in its favour: there- fore it is a genuine Text of Holy Writ.
One thing has deeply impressed me, in this inquiry. No satisfactory answer has ever been given to the question which naturally occurs, " How did that verse first gain admission and currency, as a text of Scripture, if it were not so ab initio $"
There have only been two attempts to explain this mystery: 1st, That the verse was forged
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxix
by the Orthodox party, against the Arians. 2dly, That it was a marginal note of Augustine's ; and thence accidentally, or designedly, crept into the Text. As to the first, there is not a particle of evidence to support the charge of forgery. And if the test of cui bono be applied, all the pre- sumption is in favour of omission by the Arians, rather than invention by the Orthodox. To the former it is an insurmountable stumbling-block : to the latter (supposing it a forgery), it was un- necessary and idle in the extreme. The doc- trine of the Trinity so thoroughly pervades the New Testament, is so interwoven into its texture, as a thread of gold, that the insertion of a single text, and at the risk of certain detection, would argue an extreme of folly, irreconcileable with the known character of those to whom it is imputed. Were the Orthodox ever charged with such a gratuitous imposture? Was such a calumny ever heard of until the 16th century, when it was fabricated to serve Socinian pur- poses? On the contrary, was it not broadly promulgated, so early as the 9th century, that the verse in question had been designedly erased by the Arians ? and was that imputation discre- dited or disproved ? As to Augustine, suffice it say, that the verse was in existence, in the Latin Version current in Africa, at least two hundred years before he was born. How could it have
XXX TRANSLATORS PREFACE.
gotten there, unless it was an integral and ab- original text of Holy Writ ?
These remarks have swelled far beyond the limits which I had originally prescribed ; and I therefore hasten to a conclusion. It shall con- sist of a few Personal and Pastoral observations.
When first I received our present Authorised English Version of the Bible, as the Revealed Will of God presented to me in a Translation which, with the imperfections unavoidable in such a Work, is probably unrivalled in purity and faithfulness, I entertained a religious dread of rejecting any part or parcel of that Volume, as spurious, or of doubtful origin. The original Translators, as well as the Revisers, had wisely cautioned and guarded their readers against con- founding the mere fictions, or historical records, or didactic aphorisms of uninspired men, with the " Oracles of the Living God ;" and the brand of " Apocrypha" was indelibly affixed, to warn the ignorant or the heedless. Patiently and learnedly had they explored the Divine Originals ; and neither few nor feeble were the grounds upon which, after mature deliberation, upon the deepest conviction, and assuredly in the spirit of dependence upon the guiding counsel of the Most High, they retained 1 John V. 7. as an integral and essential text of Holy Scripture.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. xxxi
Therefore, when that . Volume, the Authorised Version of the Bible, was placed in my hands at my ordination, and I was solemnly enjoined to " Take authority to preach the WORD OF GOD ;" — when, subsequently, I " set to my seal," that " HOLY SCRIPTURE containeth all things necessary to salvation ;" I should have deemed myself guilty of an unworthy dissimulation, had I virtually assented with my lips, and by my written sub- scription, to the integrity of that Authorised Version as the Revealed Will and Word of God, while I tacitly obliterated so important a verse as 1 John V. 7. I could not conscientiously pro- fess myself a Minister of the Established Church, while I deliberately stamped FALSEHOOD and FOR- GERY upon an entire text in her Authorised Ver- sion, promulgated by the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority in the realm, as the very Word of God. This may be called weakness or bigotry, or whatever the reader chooses. Be it so. I quarrel with no man's conscience, in merely as- serting my own.
Now, let me ask you, My Brethren in the Mini- stry of the Established Church, opponents of this important text, Are you aware of, or indifferent to, the inevitable results of that too often perti- nacious opposition ? Will your flocks, who rea- dily follow in their shepherd's track, as readily stop when he cries out 'Halt® You are se-
xxxii TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
dulously endeavouring to convince them, that an entire text in the Authorised Version of the Bible is spurious and interpolated. You have perhaps succeeded : they receive your conclusion as it were an axiom; but think you, Will they stop at that conclusion? Indeed No! Blind must be the man who does not already discern the effects of your — shall I call it, rash and un- warrantable— impeachments of the integrity of our Authorized Version ; who does not already take alarm at the wide-spreading Scepticism, and the popular and palatable delusion, that the Esta- blished Church of England circulates a spurious Bible, and imposes the fictions of man as the Oracles of God. The multitude are unskilled to argue, but prompt to believe what favours the corrupt propensities of nature. The trans- ition, from your conclusion to that of the Unita- rians, is natural and easy. You reject one verse of John's First Epistle: they reject the first fourteen verses of his Gospel (John I. 1 — 15.) It is but a step, and we reject the Sacred Canon al- together. This is no imaginary or visionary alarm: late circumstances indicate, if not its actual arrival, its very near approximation *.
(*) During the discussions which lately agitated the Bible Society on the subject of the Apocryphal Books, a great laxity of opinion was developed, as to the inspiration of the Sacred Canon. " The Eclectic Review" put forth an article, in which the integrity of that Canon is
avoir edly
XXX111
Pope Pius VII. denounced your Authorised Ver- sion in no measured terms; as, " Not the Gospel of man, but the Gospel of the Devil." His ob- sequious Hierarchy in Ireland re-echoed these sentiments throughout that Priest-bound Coun- try, and millions hailed the tidings with shouts of joy! Beware, then, lest your disciples should fearfully outstrip their Teachers, and grow, with accelerated velocity, from Sceptics of a Text, into Disbelievers of the Bible.
WILLIAM ALLEYN EVANSON.
4, Jeffrey's Terrace, Kentish Town, London, June SO, 1829.
avowedly impeached, and the inspiration of four entire Books of the Old Testament almost directly denied. This article was afterwards reprinted in a separate form ; and circulated gratuitously, in large numbers. The same Periodical, in its Number for June 1829, has taken up the cause of * Crito Cantdbrigiensis^ a determined opponent of \ John V. 7. Well may that indignant Critic exclaim, " Defend me from my friends ! " ' Hand tali auxiHo"* $c. $c.
CONTENTS.
SYNODICAL LECTURE 1 — 18
1 John V. 7. a text much controverted — its Opponents (in Germany) numerous and respectable — their reasons
deserve a hearing 1
Those reasons stated ; viz. 1st, The text itself ohscure, &c. 2dly, Luther omitted it in his Editions of his German Bible, and forbade any alteration in them. Sdly, Its advocates must also admit human interpretations as part of the text 2
Those objections answered; viz. 1st, The first would weaken our attachment to articles of Faith founded on Scriptural texts. Sdly, The second is only par- tially true. Sdly, The third applies equally to the objectors — The attack upon 1 John V. 7. has been ad- vantageous to Biblical Criticism 3, 4
ERASMUS, the first who gave occasion to the Contro- versy— he omitted the text in his two first Editions, and restored it in his third 5
The Controversy not definitively settled — The Works of the Fathers and the Councils ought to be more minutely investigated . ib.
AUGUSTIN'S maxim, " In rebus obscuris &c." admitted by J. BERNOULLI — Bernoulli's rule in similar cases . . 6
The ground of the Controversy stated, in the words of
MlCHAELIS 7
MICHAELIS'S mode of subverting the argument for the authenticity of the clause, from the context ... 8
GERHARD'S Note on the KOU in John V. 8, ... ib. (n. 6.)
c 2
XXXVi CONTENTS.
The argument, in favour of 1 JohnV. 7. stated in Seven
Propositions; viz. i. It existed in the Ante-Hieronymian Latin Version,
at least two hundred years older than the oldest
Greek MSS. extant. IT. Most Latin MSS. contain it. in. It is quoted by Latin Fathers of the 2d and 3d
centuries, and frequently since the 5th. iv. Greeks of the 4th, and down to the 15th century,
quote or allude to it. v. It is found in some Greek MSS. vi. Some Greek MSS, which omit it, have additions
to the 8th verse, implying the original existence of
the 7th. vii. No Greek Author ever understood 1 John V. 8.
of the Trinity 9, 10
Observations on Historical Criticism ; viz.
Difficulties not to be confounded with Objections — Examples given 10
Objections, or " Argumenta necessario indicantia" of two kinds — Examples of each 11
Difficulties, or "Argumenta contingenter indicantia? of two kinds — Examples of each 12
Knittel' s remarks on the foregoing; viz.
Obs. 1. Mere difficulties, in what respect incompetent to refute a proposition. Obs. 2. Historical difficulties may be removed, and how. Obs. 3. Or weakened, and how. Obs. 4. Historical truths capable of complete proof, notwithstanding difficulties — Example : Hero- dotus' and Thucydides' silence respecting the Romans — Herodian's silence respecting the Christians . . 14, 15
Two cases analogous to the omission of 1 John V. 7. ; viz. (1.) Cicero's quotation of a lost line in Homer, (the various points of the analogy stated in Note 13) . . 15 (2.) Cyril's quotation of a lost clause in 1 Thess.V. 21 .. 17
The different effect of confuting difficulties and objections — Why necessary to make the distinction .... ib.
CONTENTS. XXXVll
NEW CRITICISMS ON SOME TESTIMONIES OF LATIN
FATHERS CONCERNING 1 JOHN V. 7. . . . 21—37
CYPRIAN —
In the extract from his Work, De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. " Dicit Dominus £c. &c." The words " Hi tres unum sunt " are a quotation of 1 John V. 7 21
Objection. — They are taken from the 8th verse, which Cy- prian mystically understood of the Trinity .... ib.
Answer. — No trace in any of his Works that he allegorized the 8th verse — 1A\$ formula of citation, when he quotes allegorically, is quite different — this proved, hy various extracts — Neither is there any mode of expression in his Works to justify the objection . . . 22, 23, & notes
The objection originated* with FACUNDUS, an African Bishop, three centuries later than Cyprian — Extract from Facundus' Work Pro defensione Trium Capitu- lorum 24
Facundus' testimony contrasted with Cyprian's own words, and shewn to be altogether untenable — How accounted for 25, 26
A difficulty alleged; viz. the word " confitetur" applied to Cyprian, in FULGENTIUS' (Bishop of Ruspa) Work Contra Arianos 26
This hypothesis examined and confuted — Had Fulgeritius only been acquainted with 1 John V. 7. from the quo- tation in Cyprian, he would have worded it in the same manner ; but he does not — Therefore, Fulgentius read 1 John V. 7. in his own copy of the Latin New Tes- tament— This is proved by the context of the passage where the word " confitetur" is introduced — The true meaning of Fulgentius in that passage shewn ... 29
But Fulgentius may also have read 1 John V. 7. in his Greek New Testament-1- He was a great proficient in that language — No Latin Version, in his day, had been sanctioned by the authority of Councils — His quota- tions should be treated as those of Jerome — When Jerome quotes texts of Holy Scripture in Latin, no one doubts they existed also in his Greek copies . . . 30, 3 1
Another difficulty alleged; viz. That Augustin never quotes, or was acquainted with, 1 John V. 7. though he read Cyprian's Work De Unitate — but this is no ar- gument
XXXvi CONTENTS.
The argument in favour of 1 JohnV. 7. stated in Seven
Propositions; viz. J. It existed in the Ante-Hieronymian Latin Version,
at least two hundred years older than the oldest
Greek MSS. extant. n. Most Latin MSS. contain it. in. It is quoted by Latin Fathers of the 2d and 3d
centuries, and frequently since the 5th. iv. Greeks of the 4th, and down to the 15th century,
quote or allude to it. v. It is found in some Greek MSS. vi. Some Greek MSS, which omit it, have additions
to the 8th verse, implying the original existence of
the 7th. vii. No Greek Author ever understood 1 John V. 8.
of the Trinity 9,10
Observations on Historical Criticism ; viz.
Difficulties not to be confounded with Objections — Examples given 10
Objections, or " Argumenta necessario indicantia" of two kinds — Examples of each 11
Difficulties, or "Argumenta contingenter indicantia? of two kinds — Examples of each 12
Knittel's remarks on the foregoing; viz.
Obs. 1. Mere difficulties, in what respect incompetent to refute a proposition. Obs. 2. Historical difficulties may be removed, and how. Obs. 3. Or weakened, and how. Obs. 4. Historical truths capable of complete proof, notwithstanding difficulties — Example : Hero- dotus' and Thucydides' silence respecting the Romans — Herodian's silence respecting the Christians . . 14, 15
Two cases analogous to the omission of 1 John V. 7. ; viz. (1.) Cicero's quotation of a lost line in Homer, (the various points of the analogy stated in Note 13) . . 15 (2.) Cyril's quotation of a lost clause in 1 Thess.V. 21 .. 17
The different effect of confuting difficulties and objections — Why necessary to make the distinction .... ib.
CONTENTS. XXXV11
NEW CRITICISMS ON SOME TESTIMONIES OF LATIN
FATHERS CONCERNING 1 JOHN V. 7. ... 21—37
CYPRIAN —
In the extract from his Work, De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. " Dicit Dominus &c. &c." The words " Hi tres unum sunt" are a quotation of 1 John V. 7 21
Objection. — They are taken from the 8th verse, which Cy- priau mystically understood of the Trinity .... ib.
Answer. — No trace in any of his Works that he allegorized the 8th verse — His formula of citation, when he quotes allegorically, is quite different — this proved, hy various extracts — Neither is there any mode of expression in his Works to justify the objection . . . 22, 23, & notes
The objection originated* with FACUNDUS, an African Bishop, three centuries later than Cyprian — Extract from Facundus' Work Pro defensione Trium Capitu- lorum 24
Facundus' testimony contrasted with Cyprian's own words, and shewn to be altogether untenable — How accounted for 25, 26
A difficulty alleged; viz. the word " confitetur" applied to Cyprian, in FULGENTIUS' (Bishop of Ruspa) Work Contra Arianos 26
This hypothesis examined and confuted — Had Fulgeritius only been acquainted with 1 John V. 7. from the quo- tation in Cyprian, he would have worded it in the same manner ; but he does not — Therefore, Fulgentius read 1 John V. 7. in his own copy of the Latin New Tes- tament— This is proved by the context of the passage where the word " confitetur" is introduced — The true meaning of Fulgentius in that passage shewn ... 29
But Fulgentius may also have read 1 John V. 7. in his Greek New Testament— He was a great proficient in that language — No Latin Version, in his day, had been sanctioned by the authority of Councils — His quota- tions should be treated as those of Jerome — When Jerome quotes texts of Holy Scripture in Latin, no one doubts they existed also in his Greek copies . . . 30, 3 1
Another difficulty alleged; viz. That Augustin never quotes, or was acquainted with, 1 John V. 7. though he read Cyprian's Work De Unitate — but this is no ar- gument
xxxviii CONTENTS.
gument against Cyprian's authority — Cyprian quotes many texts to which Augustin never alludes : there- fore, Augustin's omission is no evidence that Cyprian did not quote 1 John V. 7. or doubted its authenticity, 31,32
Further : That Augustin, in his Work against Maximin the Arian, quotes 1 John V. 8., and explains it mysti- cally of the Trinity — But that is no reason why Cy- prian must necessarily have understood 1 John V. 8. mystically ; or that Augustin should have imagined he did 32
But there is also a passage in Augustin's Civitas Dei, which evidently alludes to 1 John V. 7 .... 33
Objection. — " That passage alludes to 1 John V. 8."
Answer. — The " Hi ires unum sunt" in Augustin's Work against Maximin, are his mystical interpretation of 1 John V. 8., and proposed only hypothetically. But the " Tria unum sunt," in the Civitas Dei, are given by him as a categorical proof of the Trinity . . . 33, 34 [Possibly, Augustin acknowledged 1 John V. 7. au- thentic when he wrote the Civitas Dei; but changed his opinion afterwards, when he wrote the work against Maximin — His case the reverse of Luther's in that respect] . . . (Note 24, 25.)
Augustin's Commentary on 1 John does not reach to chap. V. 7. : therefore, his sentiments on that clause are not known 35
Cyprian understood Greek well — so did Tertullian his master, who recommends the study of the Greek Ori- ginal of the Holy Scripture — It is unlikely that Cyprian should quote Latin texts against Heretics, which texts did not exist in the Original Greek — He may have oc- casionally quoted from the Vetus Itala or Africana, La- tin Version — but there is a difference between the authenticity of an entire clause, and of a few Various Readings: this illustrated by an example — The rule should be, Whenever a Latin Father who understood Greek quotes a text in Latin, it is primd-facie evi- dence of that text in the Original — This rule con- firmed by experience, and a discovery of Knittel's, in comparing the Gothic Version of Ulphilas with the Greek Codex Gtielpherbytanus B. & C. . . 35—37. & n. 28.
CONTENTS. XXXIX
NEW CRITICISMS ON SOME TESTIMONIES OF GREEK
FATHERS RESPECTING 1 JOHN V. 7 . . . 41—54
I. JOHN MAUROP, Archbishop of Euchania, in the llth century — His two Panegyrics on Basil, Gre- gory, and Chrysostom — Copies of one of them in the Wolfenbiittle Library, described 41
Its Inscription a part of the 15th Oration of Gregory Nazianzen — The Fragment illustrated and ex- plained 42. &n. 31.
The Writer of this Manuscript was GEORGE, who also wrote the Codex Colbertinus and Martyrium Demetrii
(See Montfau^on Palceograph.) 43
[A useful hint given to Investigators of Manuscripts, n.44.]
MAUROP'S Oration described — The beginning and close
of it 44,45
[The Festivals of Basil, Gregory, and Chrysostom,
in the Greek Church-Calendar, n. 38.] Contents of Maurop 's Oration investigated — Extract from the Mencea, giving account of the origin of the Festival on which it was delivered 46 — 48
A remarkable phrase in the Menaean Narrative, viz. " We are one in God" seems an allusion to 1 John V. 7. because referred to the Three Saints whom Maurop calls a Trias 49
Extract from Maurop's Oration — The phrases ol avrot rpets Kai e/s, " The same Three aJso are One /' and x«< Tpirov, Kara rrjv *Lv/u,7rvoiav, " Thirdly ', in Unanimity ;
evident allusions to 1 John V. 7 50 — 52
Objection. — " Tjoe/s xat E/s " not grammatical.
Answer. — It is the usual mode of expression in the Fathers,
who actually quote 1 John V. 7 52
[This confirmed by an ancient Scholium of Origen's, by Cassiodorus' Complex., and by Charlemagne's Letter to Pope Leo III. ; 11. 45.]
Maurop was an Orthodox Greek ; and therefore not to be suspected of Latinizing in this allusion — This con- firmed by a passage in one of his Hymns .... 53
xl CONTENTS.
II. GREGORY NAZIANZEN — SOME PASSAGES OF HIS WORKS
HITHERTO OVERLOOKED, AND NOT EMPLOYED IN THE CONTROVERSY UPON 1 JOHN V. 7 55 79
Gregory uses the phrase " Three are One" in his 12th, 37th, and 51st Discourses ; viz.'Ev rot. Tpta, To lv T/O/«, 'Ey yap TO. Tpioct KO.I T« rptot lv. Also the expression , Aoyos, KOU Uvevpa, in his Qprjvos &c. v.113 ; and , Ao-ye, xai n»/ei/yu« TO aytov , in Disc. 25 and 42 — These are manifest allusions to 1 John V. 7 . . 55 — 57
[Hints as to the proper mode of arguing from the supposed silence of ancient Authors on any topic, n.47.]
Objection. — " The foregoing quotations are from 1 John V. 8. — Gregory never quotes 1 John V. 7. among his Scripture proofs of the Trinity " 57
Answer. — Gregory does quote 1 John V. 7. ; and this is proved by three Propositions : (1.) There was a keen dispute, in Gregory's days, respecting the authenticity and interpretation of 1 John V. 7. (2.) Gregory never understood 1 John V. 8. of the Holy Trinity. (3.) He actually quotes 1 John V. 7. as a text of Holy Scripture 58
Proposition I. proved. — In Gregory's 37th Discourse, he argues against the Opponents of the Trinity. He asserts the Homoousian doctrine, which they opposed from the clause Tp/a cEv, which connumerates the Persons of the Godhead, and infers Tritheism — Gregory refutes this objection ; shews that things of different essence may be connumerated ; and quotes the letter of Scripture in
proof 59 — 61
[The whole dispute had evidently originated in this connumeration, which only occurs in 1 John V. 7. ; n. 51.]
His opponents objected, that the phrase " Three are One " does not specify what Three — they deny it to be a phrase of St. John's.
Gregory replies, that in 1 John V. 8. things of different essence are similarly connumerated, and the masculine
applied to things neuter 61,62
[The Arians acknowledged 1 John V. 7. to be au- thentic ; n. 54.]
CONTENTS.
xli
Prop. ii. Gregory did not quote 1 John V. 8. in proof of the Trinity — MILL is right in asserting that no Greek Father ever understood 1 John V. 8. of the Trinity — ORIOEN is the first among the Greeks who quotes that text at all — Gregory did not quote the last clause of 1 John V. 8. : possibly it did not exist in his copy — - This would account for Aquinas' Note on 1 JohnV. 8 . . 63
The phrase 'Ev ra Tpia almost proverbial in the Greek Fa- thers, to denote the Holy Trinity — It occurs in the Philopatris (supposed) of Lucian — The phrase " Tres Unum sunt" is common among the Latin Fathers of the 2d and 3d centuries; e.g. Tertttllian, Cyprian, &c. — They evidently derived it from 1 John V. 7 : therefore, Gregory's ra Tpta cEv was taken from the same — It evidently was not a mere technical expression, in his opinion , 64)
Prop. in. Gregory, in his 37th Discourse, where he enu- merates the Scriptural titles of the Holy Ghost, states, that he is crvvapi0/j.ov/uievov (connumerated) with the Father and the Son — The meaning of that word gene- rally, and in this specific instance, proved, from his 44th Discourse, where he says, " The Holy Ghost is ffvvTsrot.yiJ.evov xat arvvapiOfji.oviJ.evov" — these cannot be synonymous — Now this connumeration only exists in 1 John V. 7 : therefore Gregory read that clause in his Greek New Testament — This conclusion further proved by three passages of his Works :
1st, In his 37th Discourse, he argues against the Sabellians and Nestorians, from the phrase 'Ev ra Tpta — That phrase, being equally interesting to the Orthodox and the Heretics, must have been a phrase in Scripture — [This further proved by a passage of Theodorite's Dia- logue against Macedonius ; Cyril's Epistle to John of Antioch ; and Maximin's Reply to Augustin] 65 — 70.
(& notes 67, 68.)
2dly, A passage in Gregory's Hymns only explicable as an allusion to 1 John V. 7 70
3dly, In his 51st Discourse, he says, " In the Trinity there is no «AAo, because the Three are One" — He must have taken this proof from the Bible, as no other evi- dence was admitted by the»Heretics (See Athanasius de Synodis &c.) 71. & n. 70
xlii CONTENTS.
Application of the foregoing reasoning to the case of Maurop — Maurop had read Gregory's Works, and coincided with him in opinion on the Trinity : there- fore Maurop's two quotations (see pp. 50 — 52) are ob- vious allusions to, and therefore tacit quotations of, 1 John V. 7 72
Objection. — " No Greek Author quotes 1 John V. 7." Answer. — It is quoted by Bryennius, in the 15th century; Manuel Calecas, in the 14th ; the Council of the La- teran, in the 13th [a capitulum of which proves that they did not pervert the Original Greek Text, nor form it on the Vulgate] ; by Euthymius Zygabenus, in the 12th ; Maurop, in the llth ; the Greek Nomocanon, in the 8th ; Maximus, the Confessor, in the 7th ; Theo- dorite against Macedonius, in the 5th [this Dialogue attributed to Athanasius] ; Gregory Nazianzen, and the author of the Philopatrisy in the 4th [a remarkable extract from the latter] ; and Origen, in the 3d cen- tury. [See his Scholium on the 122d Psalm, Oi yap Tpsig TO 'Ev sun, which could not be from 1 John V. 8 ; else he would have said E*s TO cEi/ — nor did he explain the 8th verse as of the Trinity] . . . 72 — 78, & notes.
The Latins generally, in the 4th century, use the phrase " Three are One" (See Ausonius, in his poem of Gryphus) 77
Objection. — " No Greek Codex contains the CE»> rrj yp in
1 John V. 8." Answer. — Simon asserts it exists in the Cod. Reg. 2247,
Paris : [but this disproved by Bishop Burgess] . . 78, & n. That some persons mutilated the First Epistle of John,
appears from Socrates, Hinckmar, Fulbert, and the
Prologue of Jerome,
[Epiphanius suspects that the Alogi rejected John's Epistles] 78,79
CONTENTS. xliii
GREEK AND LATIN MANUSCRIPTS DISCOVERED
WHICH SUPPORT 1 JOHN V. 7 83 — 101
THE FIRST GREEK MANUSCRIPT, or Codex Guelphcr- bytanus C. — (1.) Its age, between the 10th and 13th centuries. (2.) Its Writer, GEORGE, a Monk (not the George mentioned p. 43.) (3.) Its Marginal Notices of the Lessons read in the Greek Church on stated days, from the Apostolus or Greek Church Liturgy — The modern Apostolus reads 1 John V. 7. as in our Printed Editions — Desirable to collate ancient MSS. of the Apostolus — Simon's high opinion of Apostolized Codices 83—85
This Codex contains 1 John V. 7 ; not in the text, but in the margin, and written by a later hand. But, (1.) It has many marks of the Transcriber's haste and carelessness. (2.) It has a wholly new Reading in 1 John V. 8. ; viz. 6n OI Tpe*s e*<rii>, &c. This OI shews that the original, whence it was transcribed, contained 1 John V. 7. That clause might have been omitted, owing to similarity in sound between OVTOI and on ; or to the insertion of Uncial letters, as Ot/ToI — This conjecture verified by Archbishop Eugenius, of Cherson, in his Criticisms on 1 John V. 7. . . 86, 87. &
App. (C.) 206
This Codex omits xai before v<tap, in 1 John V. 8 ; so does the Codex Basileensis ; and so Bryennius . . 87
THE SECOND GREEK MANUSCRIPT, or Codex Guelpher- bytanus D, described — It was written in the 17th century — The Text divided into chapter and verse — The Various Readings of the Vulgate, Syriac, Vatablus', Castalio, Erasmus, and Beza, noted underneath the Text — It reaches only to 1 John V. 19; and adds gypa^j; an^ois ffoy'. — The same number of ffri-^oi in Codex Montfortianus, Codex Ravianus, and Codices Ste- phani — It reads 1 John V. 7. exactly as our Printed Editions , 88 — 90
THE THIRD GREEK MANUSCRIPT. — That there existed a Greek Manuscript of the New Testament which contained I John V. 7. in Luther's time, and that he
had
xllV CONTENTS.
had seen and believed that MS. and that clause to be authentic, appears from the following considerations; viz.
In his First Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John (published by Dr. Neumann 1708), originally written down by Jacob Sprenger from Lectures delivered by Luther, it appears that Luther had at that time re- jected 1 John V. 7. as spurious, because he had not found it in the Greek Bibles 91
His Second Commentary on the same Epistle was translated into German from an Autograph Latin MS. of Luther — It was evidently prepared from the Greek Original Text — It is junior to the former Commentary — it was written by Luther, shortly before his death : and it bears internal evidence, that he had at that time acknowledged 1 John V. 7. to be authentic ; and must therefore have seen Greek MSS. of the New Testa- ment which contained it, and of whose authenticity he was satisfied — This proved, by various extracts from the Commentary itself, and hia other Works; 92 — 95,
(& notes 90—95)
1 John V. 7. is contained in the Codex Montfortianus, the Codex Ravianus, and the Complutensian Edition of the Bible 94
[GOEZEN'S Works in vindication of the Compluten- sian referred to — Fac-simile of the clause 1 John V. 7. in the Codex Montfortianus , as sent to Pro- fessor Bruns of Helmstadt by Archbishop New- come of Ireland ; n. 98.J
JEROME'S Prologue asserts the existence of 1 John V. 7. 96 Objection. — " The Prologue is a mere Monkish fiction." Answer. — It unquestionably existed in the 7th century — Its assertion, that the Greek MSS. contained that clause, must not be absolutely rejected — Its Author must have seen that clause in the MSS. which he con- sulted— Analogy between it and the Acta Sanctorum — The latter are admissible evidence, when they treat of ordinary events related by other Authors — Jerome's Prologue states that some Latin MSS. omitted 1 John V. 7 — This no one doubts 90, 97
CONTENTS. xlv
LATIN MANUSCRIPTS —
Collation of 24 Latin MSS. of the Bible in the Wolfen-
biittle Library : all, except one, posterior to the 9th
century ; and all containing 1 John V. 7. ONE has a marginal gloss interpolated into the Text —
[A singular example of this in the Greek Codex Corsen-
doneensis.~] FIFTEEN omit the " Hi tres unum sunt" in 1 John
V.8. TEN transpose the 7th and 8th verses.
ONE, the most ancient, written in the Franco-Gallic or Merovingian Character, and therefore prior to Charle- magne, reads " Spiritus est veritas" — [How this may be accounted for] — The same Reading found in Two Codices at Ulm — There were two Recensions of the First Epistle of St. John in Charlemagne's days — Curious account of a supposed Alcuin's Bible in the Vauxcelles' Library; also of one in the Library of the Benedictines at St. Casino, superscribed " Biblia ad recensionem S. Hieronymi " . . . 100, 101, and notes.
SUMMARY, AND CORROBORATION, OP THE WHOLE EVI- DENCE IN FAVOUR OF 1 JOHN V. 7, WITH A FEW
PASTORAL OBSERVATIONS RELEVANT TO
THE SUBJECT 105 123
The phrase " Three are Owe "used in speaking of the Deity by LATINS ; viz. Tertullian in the 2d centuiy ; Cyprian in the 3d ; Phrebadius and Ausonius in the 4th ; and numerous others subsequently — Also by THE GREEKS ; viz. Origen in the 3d, &c. [as enu- merated in pp. 74— 79] 105,106
This phrase asserted, by Cyprian and others, to have been employed in Scripture, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 100
It is used in the Philopatris ; also by Gregory Nazianzen and Maximus, as the words of Scripture, and of UohnV.7 107
This is corroborated by sundry Greek Fathers ; Greek MSS. of the New Testament ; the Complutensian
Edition ;
xlvi CONTENTS.
Edition ; many ancient Latin MSS. of the Vulgate ; by the additions to ver. 8 in some Greek MSS. which want ver. 7 ; by the grammatical structure of ver. 8 ; and by the general report that ver. 7. was expunged by
Heretics 107
The Difficulties; viz. (1.) " That it is omitted in the ma- jority of Greek MSS;" (2.) "That the Greek Fa- thers seldom quote it ;" are not sufficient to overturn the affirmative evidence in its favour, the oyuoAoyrj/za of so many Ancient Fathers who do quote or allude to it ."......... 108
In gaining thus much, we only secure a position; viz. (1.) That 1 John V. 7. formerly existed in Greek MSS. of the New Testament, now lost. (2.) That the Fathers who quoted it believed it to be the word of God. — We are therefore to deal with it as a Reading supported by some Greek and many Latin MSS. ; or, vice versa, wanting in many Greek and some Latin MSS. 109
Its authenticity is verified by Eighteen MSS. ; one of which is of the 2d century, two of the 3d, two of the 4th, and one of the 5th century . . . . . . .110
[Remarks on the Codex Ottobonianus ; and the Codex Britannicus, which Knittel (improperly) identifies with the Codex Montfortianus ; ib. note.]
The clause 1 John V. 7. harmonizes with the style, context, and doctrine, &c. &c. of St. John . . . ib.
PASTORAL OBSERVATIONS —
This text may, and ought to be, employed in proving the doctrine of the Trinity — The notions of modern Pas- tors, on this point, shewn to be erroneous — Fashion, or the spirit of the age, an unsafe guide to Ministers of the Gospel — may mislead them to the abandonment of all the peculiar doctrines of Christianity . . . Ill — 113
The Objection, viz. " That the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessary to Practical Christianity," confuted — An ancient stratagem practised at the Council of Sirmium (A.D. 350) to disparage a truth which cannot be dis- proved 113, 114
Question. " Cannot one be a Christian without knowing or believing the doctrine of the Trinity ?"
CONTENTS. xlvii
Answer. — No ! Because, 1st, It is essential that we adore God as he is revealed in Scripture. 2<lly, It is impos- sible to pacify conscience under a sense of guilt, or he furnished with adequate motives to holiness, without a distinct knowledge of the Incarnate Mediator, the God-Man, Christ Jesus 114,115
This proved hy illustration — Scaliger's aphorism ' Nescire velle &c. &c." modified — Minute investigation of texts bearing on this doctrine recommended . . . 116, 117
The 'Author's (Knittel's) u Brief Philosophy of what are called Mysteries" in Twenty-five Propositions; viz. (1.) There are mysteries. (2.) All mysteries are sub- jective. (3.) There is no mystery to God. (4.) What constitutes a mystery? (5.) Invincible ignorance. (6.) How we know it to be invincible. (7.) Two things to be discriminated in mysteries. (8.) Occult and revealed mysteries. (9.) Ignorance in occult mys- steries, two-fold. (10.) Temporary and eternal myste- ries. (11.) Temporary may not be eternal. (12.) My- steries to man may not be such to Spiritual Beings of a higher order. (13.) But some may be eternal myste- ries to all created Beings. (14.) Revealed mysteries, what? (15.) have a clear and a dark side. (16.) are known only symbolically. (17.) Mysteries essential components of Natural Religion. (18.) Mysteries re- specting God may be revealed, independently of Crea- tion. (19.) Symbolical knowledge of the mysteries in Christianity. (20.) Testimony of Holy Scripture. (21.) Mysteries must not be contrary to reason. (22.) All mysteries are above reason. (23.) Cannot be illustrated by comparisons. (24.) Our knoAvledge of the mysteries of Christianity solely analogical. (25.) Some mysteries may seem more analogous to our perceptions than others are — Mistakes of Cunninghame (a Ger- man Author) on this subject — Knittel's Concluding Prayer 118—123
Al'PENDIX (A.)
Proofs that Maurop interweaves passages of Scripture into his Discourses 125, 126
xlviii CONTENTS.
APPENDIX (B.)
Various Readings &c. of the Greek Codex Guelpherby- tanus C. collated with Mill's Edition of the New
Testament 129
Remarks on the Codex :
Some of its Readings peculiar to itself — Others found only in one Codex besides ; viz. the Codex Havniensis (See Hensler's Specimen Codex Nov. Test. Grceco- rum, &c. &c.) 204
APPENDIX (C.)
Extract from the Letter of Eugenius, Archbishop of Cherson, containing some interesting Remarks on 1 John V. 7. published by Professor MATTHJEI of Moscow, in his Edition of the Seven Catholic Epistles.
The purport of the Extract is, to shew the authenticity of 1 John V. 7. from the context, from the grammatical structure of the clause itself, and from the scope of the Apostle's argument in his Gospel and First Epistle . . 206
Gregory Nazianzen quotes an objection of his antagonist against the grammatical structure, and confutes it—- The Tjoe/s ptxpTvpowTes is not a Hellenism — Dionysius Alexandrinus, on Eusebius, proves that St. John's First Epistle is free from grammatical solecisms . . 207, 208
APPENDIX (D.)
Extracts from TERTULLIAN'S Works, to prove that he consulted the Greek Text of the New Testament, and regarded it as the ultimate appeal from all Versions . 209
He was well acquainted with Greek, and actually wrote Works in that language . . ib. n. 113
CYPRIAN also quotes different Lathi Versions of the same Text, and evidently consulted the Greek Codices of the New Testament existing in his day — This is con- firmed by a remark of Richard Simon — A striking passage in Cyprian shews that he had the Greek Text lying before him, even when he quotes in Latin . 210
This further confirmed by his occasionally playing on the
words of the Original 211
We may infer generally, that the Latino-Greek Fathers
never
CONTENTS. xlix
never quoted passages of Scripture which did not ac- tually exist in the Greek Manuscripts of their day . .213
Remarks on the African^ or Latin Version of the Scrip- tures, current in Africa during the first three centuries — It was not considered a perfected or closed Version, like Luther's German Bible; for Augustin admits that he corrected it — This proved by two quotations from his Works .............. M-
There was no African Vulgate (strictly speaking) from Tertullian's to Cyprian's days— This proved, by com- paring the Scripture quotations of the same texts in Ter- tullian's and Cyprian's Works— They differ considerably from each other, and must have consulted different Codices ............. 215,216
Two Remarks :
(1.) Whenever Greek or ancient Latin Authors quote any text of the New Testament, we may be sure that at least the substance of it existed in the Greek MSS. of their days ............. ^17
(2.) There is a striking parallel to the case of 1 John V. 7. in a clause formerly existing at the end of John iii. 6., quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, and others ; and also referred to by Eusebius, though it no longer exists in any Greek MSS. of that Gospel. Still there is no ground for maintaining its authenticity ; be- cause it is the evidence of only one Greek Author, that it ever existed as part of the Original Text ; and it is palpably at variance with the Context ..... ib.
APPENDIX (E.)
EXTRACT from GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S Panegyric on CY- PRIAN ; proving that the Anti-Trinitarians of his day per- verted the clause 1 John V. 7., especially the meaning of the words ev and rpets, i.e. the evcoffn; and the <rvv-
.......... 219
Even some of the Orthodox entertained doubts as to its interpretation — This appears from a passage of Gre- gory's Oration, addressed to Evagrius the Monk . . 220
Evidently, therefore, 1 John V. 7. was the subject of keen disputation between the Orthodox and Heretics . .221
1 CONTENTS.
APPENDIX (F-)
Critical Remarks on the Philopatris or Didascomenus — The author of it must have been well acquainted with the Bible — He describes St. Paul exactly in the words of the Martyrology of Thecla ; often uses the words of the Bible ; speaks of the book of God ; mentions the Lord's Prayer, &c. &c. . . 222. & n. 120 — 126
It is generally supposed to have been written by Lucian the Sophist, during the life-time of the Emperor Julian the Apostate, and with a view to turn Christianity into ridicule : but these suppositions are disproved, by internal evidence — The sarcasms against Necromancy would have greatly offended Julian — It was probably written about the time of his death, and intended to describe the various emotions of the people while that event was yet in suspense — The chief character in the Philopatris is a Christian Convert from Pagan- ism ; and there were many such after Julian's death — The existing editions of the Philopatris seem incom- plete— The Conclusion of the Work seems wanting
225—227 APPENDIX (G.)
Extract from an obsolete Anonymous Work, in which the doctrine of the Trinity is attempted to be proved by Algebra ; being a Revival of the Doctrine of the Syn- arithmesis. The Algebraic Formula given. (See Clemm's Vollstdndige Einleitung &c.) 228
DESCRIPTION of the Codex Guelpherbytanus E. written in the llth century, containing the Four Gospels and some other matters — Heusinger's Essay on it, noticed byMichaelis p. 231.&n.l30
This Codex contains the Eusebian Canons, and the Ke^>«- A«<« prefixed to each Evangelist — It has the remark- able addition Trep/ rijq yuo/^«AiJo?, noticed by Richard Simon p. 232, 233. & n. 132
Prefixed to each Evangelist is a Prologus, or Preface, in Greek — That prefixed to Matthew is found in the Typicum (Twrrixcq, or Greek Liturgy), and in Theophy- lact's Preface to St. Mark . . 233—235
CONTENTS. H
The Preface to St. Luke states him to be a disciple of Peter 237
The Preface to St. John states his banishment to Patmos, where he wrote his Gospel ib.
A very curious Reading, Luke xvi. 8. vioi TOV vvjm^cavog TOVTOV, accounted for 238 — 239
The Conclusion of Matthew's Gospel written oravpo- Ti/7rtus, i. e. in the shape of a Cross 241
The AfjAeyovs after John's Gospel is taken from Doro- theus, and found also in the Typicum 242
The Calendar of Festivals in this Codex 243
Extracts from Heusinger's Essay ib. — 251
ERRATA.
P. 50, note, for
read avaffTaffi[j.ov e£airoffTei\apiov.
P. 95, note 98, for Holmstadt,
read Hehnstadt.
P. 107, note 1 04, for Note 7 1 , read Note 6.
SYNODICAL LECTURE
1 JOHN,V. 7.
THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST; AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.
REVEREND BRETHREN,
You are all aware, that the authenticity of this passage has been controverted, from the beginning of the 16th century, down to the present day. I might almost say, no passage in the Bible has ever occasioned a dispute so violent and so general in the Church. Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Socinians, in short all Religious Sects whatever, who appeal to the New Tes- tament as authority, have taken part in the contest. At first, the party which rejected the passage was the minority : in the present day, on the contrary, [in Germany] it is the strongest and most respectable : nay, people already go so far as to wonder how it is possible, at the close of the 18th century, an age so enlightened upon this Text, there should still be found men to favour a clause so incongruous to St. John. Their reasons certainly deserve a hearing.
"1 John V. 7." say they, "is wanting in all Manuscripts of the Original Text. No ancient Greek or Latin Father of the
B
Church, not even excepting Tertullian and Cyprian, quote that clause. We seek for it in vain in old Translation*. It was in the reign of Charlemagne, or perhaps later, that it first crept, from a marginal gloss, into the Vulgate ; and passed from thence into a few insignificant Manuscripts, posterior to the art of printing."
To predispose us to a more favourable hearing of these objections, the following motives are urged.
1st. To console the friends of the Bible for the loss of this clause, we are told :
" It may well be dispensed with in Dogmatics : besides, it is obscure; or, at least, too ambiguous to prove what it is commonly intended to prove. Its loss, therefore, is of no importance whatever."
2dly : To discourage its defenders, we are told :
" Ungrateful that ye are ! how faithless is your conduct towards Luther, the mighty Luther, so deserving of your veneration and that of all the rational world ! How earnestly did that blessed man enjoin you, not to alter one tittle of his Translation of the Bible ! Yet, scarcely had twenty years elapsed since his death, when, lo! 1 John V. 7. appears, in Dr. Luther's New Testament ! a clause which is wanting in all the editions which he himself prepared ! Let it not be objected, that its absence in those editions was merely acci- dental, a matter of chance. If you have not read yet, read now, with what clear and profound reasoning that enlightened divine declares against the authenticity of that clause, in his Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John."
3dly ; And further, as a good-natured warning, we are asked,
" What is ultimately to become of the Text of the Bible, if our Criticisms are to be held worthless, and yours alone valid? Will not the same reasons which induce you to make 1 John V. 7. a Text of Scripture, compel you also to admit into the Sacred Volume many human suggestions, which Legends
announce to be expressions of Jesus and his Apostles, but whose real nature you yourselves acknowledge. To smite oneself with one's own sword, is surely the grossest impru- dence imaginable in any contest. Yet this is what you are doing."
Let us immediately reply to the foregoing ; and clear these obstacles from our path to the refutation of objections.
1st. They console us for the loss of this very favourite clause, so generally employed in Catechisms and books of doctrinal instruction.
True, we do not lose the doctrine of the Trinity, though this clause should lose its authority. But what rational Christian will adopt a doctrine unsupported by the testimony of Holy Scriptures, or cherish, as the ground of his faith, a Scriptural text which he perceives to be spurious and interpolated ? If he does, he acts erroneously ; and requires not to be consoled, but to be better taught. Our attachment to an article of faith ceases, the moment it is proved to us unfounded in any passage of Scripture. Where then is the need of con- dolence, when we are not sensible of any loss ? Conso- lation of this kind pays no great compliment to the discernment of those to whom it is offered : in fact, it is a species of satire. Suppose a case : — A rational Chris- tian, but defective in Biblical learning, imagines that the whole proof of the existence of the Trinity rests singly and exclusively on 1 John V.7. Well; the mo- ment he is convinced this passage is not the word of God, but a mere human invention, all his attachment to the doctrine vanishes He will thank us, perhaps, for
our instruction, but take it very ill if we attempt to console him for the loss of a passage which he erro- neously held to be genuine and divine. This is just the fashionable language used to persuade the world that the faith of Orthodox Christians, so Called, is blind and groundless; — 'that their wishes, prejudices, ha- bits, are the only source of their rigid adherence to the unphilosophical doctrines of their bigotted forefathers ; — that to gain upon this capricious weakness, it only requires to get hold of their passions, to play the part of some zealot for the ancient faith, and counterfeit their en- thusiastic veneration for the words and phrases of Scrip- ture ; and that to attempt to controvert their doctrines, is only pouring oil on the fire.' But further, allowing that 1 John V. 7. is not sufficiently clear to convince us of the existence of the Trinity, shall we therefore be deterred from scrutinizing the authenticity of this clause, or reject it without further ceremony, according to the system of a certain individual, in which relative edifica- tion is substituted for criticism on the Text ? Verily, I think this would be proceeding too arbitrarily, and too insecurely, in the investigation of the Bible Text.
2dly : " Luther," we are told, " thought quite differently of 1 John V. 7. Why corrupt his Translation ?"
What is here observed of our Luther, is true; but only in part. I shall reply to this hereafter, when I treat of Manuscripts : here I might become too episodical.
3dly : " You prove too much," say they, " when you attempt to vindicate the authenticity of this clause. Learn from us to criticise with more caution, and on better grounds."
It is true, (why should we deny it ?) that our fore- fathers had occasionally recourse to improper weapons in defence of 1 John V. 7. But did not their antagonists frequently do the same ? Does not Truth continue to be Truth, though its advocates rest their convictions of it upon erroneous grounds ? It is assuredly true, and palpable to any one who reads what has been written for and against this clause, that the attack upon I John V. 7. has been exceedingly advantageous to Biblical criticism. How many useful medicines have not che- mists discovered in their researches after gold ! Thanks to ERASMUS, who gave the first occasion to this contro- versy! Thanks to that great man, who, with a torch in one hand and scales in the other, elucidated and weighed, as carefully as it was then possible to elucidate and weigh, the Greek Text of the New Testament, which he presented to the world in various editions — that great man, who applied criticism to the uses for which it was designed ; i. e. as a test for discovering truth, and not as the mask of irregular passions ; — that great man, who retracted his words whenever he altered his opi- nions ; and, in his third edition of the New Testament, restored 1 John V. 7. to the place which he had refused it in his two first editions !
But, has the controversy upon this text been already settled by a decisive victory on either side ? Are the Manuscript sources so completely exhausted, that no further discoveries can be made, to sustain the autho- rity of this clause ? There are voluminous documents, often difficult to be understood, and to which all have not access — I mean the Writings of the Fathers, and
-
the Councils, which require to be revised more than once, if we would give the full force of law to the sen- tence founded upon them *. It is with the history of the Biblical Text, which we derive from the Fathers, as with Natural History, written about remote countries. Neither arrives at certainty, until men of various schools read the former deliberately, and travel attentively through the latter : each, however, candidly laying the grounds of their judgment, without reserve, before the reading world ; and, in short, " valuing their wares no higher than they are worth" Augustin had a maxim in this case, which I would strongly recommend to all our Critics who may yet be without it. " In matters of a doubtful nature 2," says this acute Bishop, " we must take care, lest an extravagant attachment to our own opinions, and a rash defence of them thence resulting, lead us to become guarantees for their absolute cer- tainty. For the time may come," he adds, " when we and others shall discern the real state of the case, and be convinced of the incorrectness of our notions. What would then be said of our having so zealously fought for our opinions? Every one would say, it was not truth, but an over-fondness for our own theses, which stimulated us to put on harness." Thank God! this ancient maxim has not wholly lost its admirers. That great calculator of probabilities, BERNOULLI, recognises it. " In our decisions," he observes, " we must take heed
(1) Remember, Brethren, the exquisite Critical Investigation of the 60th Canon of the Council of Laodicea ; published by the learned Professor Spittler, in 1777.
(2) Lib. I. de Genes, ad litt cap. xviii. u In rebus obscuris" &c.
that we attach no greater value to things than they really possess : we must not consider that thing to be absolutely certain, which is more probable than the rest ; nor impose it upon other people as an incontro- vertible truth V This being the case, I may be per- mitted here to announce the discovery which I have made respecting 1 John V. 7.
I shall describe the bearings of the controversy in the words of MICHAELIS ; because he possesses the art of stating Critical propositions in a manner at once intelli- gible and entertaining ; and belongs to the party of those who reject 1 John V. 7. as spurious, but yet controvert it learnedly, and with decorum.
" Forasmuch," says he4, " as many persons, who pretend to judge of this question, do not exactly know what is the sub- ject-matter in dispute, and as this is the case even with those who have actually taken the field as defenders of the text in question, I shall first present the entire passage, as it stands in our ordinary printed editions ; inclosing between brackets the words wanting in the Greek Manuscripts, which form the proper subject in controversy.
" 'OTf TjO£/5 tiff iv o/ fjuxprvpovvres [«/ T&> ovpavot, 6 Harijp, 6 Ao- •yos, x«f TO 'Ayiov Hvev/ma' xai OVTOI o! rpe/S ev eifft. Ka/ Tpeis ot ftapTvpovvTSs ev rrj yrf]t TO TrvevfAtx, xai TO vdwp, nat TO ' x«f 01 rpet$ ei$ TO
(3) Artis conjectandi, Parte IV. cap. n. Axiom vm. " In judiciis nostris cavendum, ne rebus plus tribuamus quam par est ; neque quod probabilius est ceteris, pro absolute certo habeamus, ipsi aut obtru- damus aliis."
(4) In the Second Part of his Introduction to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, § 223. pp. 1244, 1245. 3d and improved edi- tion. [Bishop Marsh has translated from the 4th edition. The parallel passage in his Translation will be found in Vol. IV. p. 415. 2d edition, 1802 __ TV.]
8
" 1 translate them for the benefit of the unlearned, whom I here chiefly aim to serve: for no scholar, who seeks the truth, requires my aid in this particular.
" For there are three that bear record [IN HEAVEN, THE FA- THER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST ; AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR RECORD ON EARTH],
the spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one.
" The words between brackets, I consider inadmissible ; and adopt the Text simply as it stands in the Greek Manu- scripts; viz.
" 'OTI Tpei$ eiffiv 01 paprvpovvTes, TO Trvevpa, xai TO i/Scop, nat TO fjiijufjc.' xat ol Tpets ft ? TO iv etcriv.
u For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one.
" By this representation of the case we immediately subvert the arguments which some would deduce from the context, to maintain the genuineness of the clause; viz.
" 1. ' That the sentence, There are three that bear record on earth, is incomplete, unless the Heavenly Witnesses be mentioned before or after.' — This, as we said, falls to the ground; because the words * on earth1 are part of those wanting in the Greek Manuscripts5, and therefore rejected as spurious.
" 2. ' The genuine verse begins with KOII (and), which pre- sumes that other witnesses were mentioned before.' — This also fails : for the KOU itself is part of the reading which is not found in the Greek Manuscripts ; and is therefore denied, when 1 John V. 7. is considered to be spurious. Still I must admit respecting this particle x«/, that it stands in the Syriac Version 6, and has passed from thence into the Arabic edited by Erpenius. But, even in that case, we must perceive that the two sentences, ' The Spirit beareth record' (v. 6), and,
(5) I shall make an observation in reply to this hereafter.
(6) John Gerhard has already remarked this, in his Essay De Tri- lus Testibus In Caelo. In Thesis XL. he says, " Ktu rpets, Et ires sunl lestificantes in terra, quam copulativam expressit etiam Syrus per usi- tatum V'
9
* There are three that bear record, the spirit, the water, at the bloody may be likewise connected by the particle AND."
Thus far MICHAELIS.
Having ascertained what is properly the matter in dis- pute, we must then make ourselves acquainted with the weapons used in defence of 1 John V. 7. And these weapons it is the purport of my " New Criticisms" partly to sharpen, and partly to augment. To enable you to survey them all at one glance, I shall exhibit them before you in regular succession.
PROPOSITION I.
Long before Jerome, this celebrated clause, 1 John V. 7, existed in an ancient Latin Version, which is at least three hundred years older than the oldest Greek Manuscript, yet extant, of the First Epistle of St. John. It is exceedingly probable, and therefore morally cer- tain, that the same clause existed also, at that time, in Greek Manuscripts.
PROP. II.
The majority of ancient as well as modern Latin Ma- nuscripts read 1 John V. 7.
PROP. III.
The Latins quote this clause so early as the 2d and 3d centuries ; and, ever since the 5th, very frequently.
PROP. IV.
Greeks of the 4th, Greeks of the 5th, Greeks of the 6th, Greeks of the 7th, Greeks of the llth, Greeks of the 13th, Greeks of the 14th, and Greeks of the 15th centuries, cite T John V. 7, or make evident allusions to
that clause.
PROP. v.
1 John V. 7. is found in Manuscripts of the Original Text, which are so constructed as to merit attention.
10
PROP. VI.
There are indeed Greek Manuscripts which do not contain 1 John V. 7 ; but yet make such additions to the Text of the eighth verse, as evidently shew there has been an omission in the verse preceding. PROP. VIT.
No Greek—I appeal, in testimony, to their writings- imagined that the 8th verse of the 5th chapter of St. John's First Epistle denoted the Holy Trinity. Au- gustin was the first in the Latin Church who suggested this allegory, yet without enforcing it on any one.
It may readily be supposed, that scarcely any one of these Propositions has been unassailed. I shall therefore now adduce what has been urged against most of them in its fullest force ; and, where illusions have been generated, endeavour to radiate upon them the pure light of Truth.
But I have one remark to make — a remark of great importance; which neither we, nor our antagonists, nor he that listens to us, can dispense with ; unless we all wish to mistake what is the truth. My remark is this : —
In Historical Criticism, we must never confound diffi- culties with objections: for they differ much, both in nature and in power. The former are concerned with relative, the latter with absolute, incomprehensibility : or, more plainly — He that raises an historical objection, alleges a fact which directly contravenes what we assert, or renders our assertion absolutely impossible. For example : Who- ever impugns the proposition, ' Moses wrote every thing which is found in his Five Books,' by asserting,
11
' No one can write after he is dead ; therefore Moses never wrote what is found in Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6, 7 : therefore the fact asserted, viz. that every thing which we read in the books of Moses was written by his own hand, is impossible;' — whoever, I say, impugns the fore- going proposition in this manner, raises an objection.
Objections, therefore, are what the calculators of proba- bilities call Argumenta necessario indicantia7 : consequently, there are two kinds of objections. The first, when the existence of the fact on which the contradiction rests is indubitable, and absolutely certain. The example just alleged belongs to objections of this first kind. These therefore are incontrovertible ; and completely demolish the positions against which they are levelled. The second sort of objections is, when the existence of the fact on which the contradiction rests, is not absolutely certain, but presumptive. For instance : If this propo- sition, * In the 2d century after the birth of Christ, the autographs of the Apostolic writings were no longer ex- tant,' be impugned thus ; viz. ' If some Christians in the time of Ignatius appealed to the Apostolic Originals, these originals must still have been extant in the 2d century;' — whoever, I say, impugns the proposition thus, raises an objection of the second class : for the testi- mony of Ignatius 8 to the existence of the fact on which the contradiction rests, (I mean, that " Christians ap- pealed to the Apostolic Originals of the Apostles,") is not absolutely certain, but only presumptive. Therefore,
(7) Jacob! Bernoulli Artis Conjectandi, Pars IV. cap. HI.
(8) Michaelis's Introduction to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, Vol. I. § 37. pp. 243, 244.
12
objections of the second class may be refuted ; and we may maintain our assertion against them.
We now come to Difficulties. — He that creates diffi- culties, draws such inferences from a fact as tend not to make what we assert impossible, but its contrary, to a certain extent, more possible, that is, more presumptive.
For example : Supposing the testimony of the An- cient Fathers, that the clause 1 John V. 7. was for- merly extant in the New Testament, be thus impeached : ' No such clause has hitherto been found in any ancient Greek Manuscript ;' — such an impeachment is no objec- tion, but a mere difficulty. For, as it is possible that all the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament have not yet been discovered ; as it is possible that the Manuscripts in which the Fathers read it have perished / so the ob- servation just made does not render what the Fathers say impossible : though the contrary proposition, viz. ' that hitherto the clause has not been found in any an- cient Manuscript,' gains presumptively, to a certain extent; that is, in case our assertion, ' that the Fathers actually found the clause in their New Testament,' cannot be perfectly ascertained.
Difficulties, therefore, are what the Ars Conjectandi (or Doctrine of Probabilities) designates Argumenta con- tingenter indicantia 9. Consequently there are two kinds of difficulties. First, When the existence of the fact which elicits the difficulty is absolutely certain 10. The example given, is of this kind.
(9) Bernoulli in loc. cit.
(10) The fact in the present case is this : " No very ancient Greek Manuscript, which we have yet discovered, reads 1 John V. 7." This fact is certain.
13
The second kind of difficulties is, When the existence of the fact which elicits the difficulty is not absolutely certain, but merely presumptive. For instance : If the position, ' Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek,' be con- troverted thus: ' Eusebius writes, " It is reported that Pantaenus left the Gospel of St. Matthew, in the Hebrew language, with the Indians :" thence it is evident this Gospel was written by Matthew, not in Greek, but in Hebrew.' Now, this argument consists of a difficulty, and that of the second kind : for, in the first place, the very quality of the fact here laid as its basis is doubtful : consequently, the presumptiveness or calculative value of the analogical inference (the contingenter indicans) = J : for the Gospel left by Pantaenus may have been that written by Matthew ; but it may also have been a Translation, made from the Greek Gospel of this Apostle, by another hand. Secondly, Eusebius also does not state the existence of this fact as certain. His words are, " It is reported."
Consequently, in difficulties of the second class, two calculations (viz. one which bears the analogical in- ference ; another, on which the existence of the fact is based) must be multiplied into each other, if we would determine the total probability of the surmise to be en- gendered thereby.
And now a few remarks — which I feel to be im- portant— on Historical and Critical Difficulties : I say, on Historical and Critical Difficulties, on which many a fashionable Critic of our day builds his entire triumph, when he impugns ancient truths which he dislikes, and tries to say something new, in order to be stared at ; —
14
on Historical and Critical Difficulties, by which our lovers of innovation are so rapidly seduced from the straight path of Truth, into the romantic by-ways of Imagination.
OBSERVATION I.
Mere difficulties, whether of the first or second class, are not competent to refute a proposition. Still they render good service, in putting to test the probability of mere hasty critical hypotheses.
OBS. n.
Historical difficulties are removed, whenever we adduce a circumstance from History, whereby the analogical inference (the contingenter indicans) of such difficulties becomes impossible, and = 0.
For instance : " Unquestionably," say those who would raise suspicions against the authenticity of Josephus's tes- timony to Christ, " Unquestionably Justin Martyr, when trying to convince Tryphon the Jew of the truth that our Jesus was the true Messiah, would have appealed to this testimony, had it been genuine, and in the writings of Josephus." This difficulty is removed, i.e. its analogical inference (or contingenter indicans) is an- nulled, the moment we find Justin, in this famous dia- logue of his, expressly saying to Tryphon, that he would adduce no other than Bible-proofs, to convince him that Jesus was the Christ ; and the Jew answering, that he (the Jew) required none other n.
(11) See my 'New Criticisms' on the celebrated Testimony of the ancient Jew, Flavius Josephus, on behalf of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, pp. 42, 43, 44.
15
OBS. III.
Historical difficulties are weakened when we quote cir- cumstances from History which invalidate their ana- logical inference ; that is, lower their grade of proba- bility.
To illustrate by an example. The following difficulty is alleged against Pilate's wife having resided in Jeru- salem (Matt. xxvii. 19.) : "It is incredible that Pilate, the Procurator, should have had his wife with him in the land of Judsea ; for, by an ancient Roman edict, no Procurator in the Provinces was allowed to do so." This difficulty is weakened, that is, the inference from the law referred to is invalidated, and its grade of pro- bability lowered, when we shew, that Severus Ccecina was not listened to when he attempted to revive this edict, about twenty-one years after the birth of Christ ; and that, some years previously, both Germanicus and Piso had their wives with them in Syria.
OBS. IV.
Hence we can prove an Historical truth completely, though we are unable to remove, or weaken, all the difficulties alleged against it.
I shall illustrate this also, by an example. I can prove, that in the times recorded by Herodotus and Thucydides the Romans were already a warlike people, and known to the Greeks ; notwithstanding my incom- petence radically to remove the difficulty why neither of these Historians mention them. I can prove that the Christians, in those periods of the History of the Emperors recorded by Herodian, had attracted much public attention, by their religion, and the persecu-
16
tions which they underwent. Yet Herodian makes no mention of them whatever. Why did he not, seeing he had such frequent opportunity ? This difficulty I cannot remove. But does it follow thence — I mean from He- rodian's silence—that the statements of other credible Historians concerning the Christians of that period must be false, or at least doubtful ? By no means.
And now two examples more ; which are better suited to the nature of this my Synodical Lecture.
1st: I can prove, that in the time of Cicero there was a verse in Homer which described Laertes manur- ing his fields l\ But the difficulty, ' Why that verse is
The citation in Cicero, to which I allude, is found in De Se- nectute, cap. xv. ; viz. " Homerus ..... Laertem lenientem deside- rium, quod capiebat e filio, colentem agrum et eum stercorantem facit." This citation presents many similarities and parallelisms to that of Cyprian, concerning 1 John V. 7. ; viz. (a) A Latin, who understood Greek, quotes something in Latin from Homer. (5) The idea of what he quotes (I mean, manuring a field) was known in Homer's time. (c) No one Manuscript of the Original Text, now extant, reads what Cicero has quoted, (d) We are informed that the early Critics ex- punged certain verses in Homer, as spurious. But there is no such account of this verse, (e) Except Cicero, we meet none of the An- cient Greek or Latin Authors who quote this verse. (/) Other pas- sages which Tally quotes from Homer we still read in the works of that ancient poet. (#) We do not possess a single Manuscript of Homer, of the times of Cicero. All ours are much later, (h) Homer was an author whose writings were diligently read by all the Literati in Cicero's days, and subsequently, (i) Cicero's writings were almost universally known among the Latins : &c. &c. &c. I could wish therefore that a Heyne, a Harles, and other great Critics, would still submit this quotation of Tully, from Homer, to the test of criticism. Their labours might be most serviceably applied to the controversy on 1 John V. 7 : though Cyprian's quotation, as I shall prove in this Lecture, has much, very much more, in its favour, than Tully's. Similarity of cases may be employed with as much advantage in criti- cism, as similarity of triangles in Mathematics.
17
wanting in all the Manuscripts of this ancient Poet which have come down to us,' I cannot remove.
2dly; The passage, IVeotfe <f>povipoi TpaTretyrat, was un- questionably in Manuscripts of the New Testament in the 3d, 4th, and 5th centuries 13. Yet it is wanting in all Manuscripts of the Original Text, and all Versions, which have escaped the ravages of time. Whence is this ? — I cannot tell.
In a word : When I confute the objections of my adver- sary, I convince him : but if I also remove his difficulties^ I strengthen the weakness of his conviction. The former terminates his contradiction ; the latter his suspicion. The former is necessary ; the latter only useful. The former lays the foundation of truth ; the latter eluci- dates it.
•
I deemed it necessary, Reverend Brethren, to remind you of these principles ; because, in the controversy in which I have engaged, it has become almost the fashion with our opponents to have recourse to difficulties, instead of objections.
(13) Respecting this passage, I refer, for brevity sake, to Suicer (Thesaur. Eccles. T. II. p. 1281); Cotelerius (ad Apost. Constit. lib. n. cap. 36) ; and Fabricius (Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Test. T. I. p. 300) ; &c. Thus Cyrillus Alexandrinus, in cap. in. lesaise, says : CO , KaOairep SO/CI/AOS Tpa7re£mjs, cicrSexfTat ftev^ TO irctpvKos
Se, Kadatrfp TI irapaffti^ov vopurp.^ TO (M] ovrias *xov. Totou- TOV TI KOI o jua/captos riavAos tyt\<ri' Twea-fle (ppovifjioi TpaTrefmu, VOMTO. SoKt/xofere, TO noXov /carexere, OTTO TTO.VTOS etSous irovypov cwrcxeotfe. In like manner, Cyrillus, lib. iv. cap. v. in Johannem ad v. 12. cap. vn. & lib. i. adv. Nestorium. From all these passages it is perfectly evident that the Presbyter of Alexandria read these words, TiveaQe <ppovi/j#l Tpa7re$Yrai, in 1 Thess. V. 21. Where are the Manuscripts in which they were (and perhaps still are) extant ?
C
18
I could wish to be favoured with your opinion whe- ther I have succeeded or failed in my undertaking, when you shall have read and pondered my " NEW CRITICISMS on passages of the Fathers hitherto overlooked, and newly-dis- covered Manuscripts" which I now proceed to lay before you.
I
NEW CRITICISMS
UPON SOME
TESTIMONIES OF LATIN FATHERS,
CONCERNING 1 JOHN, V. 7.
CYPRIAN.
TASCIUS C/ECILIUS CYPRIANUS, bishop of Carthage, flourished in the former half of the 3d century. About the year 241, he wrote his celebrated Treatise De Unitate EcclesicB 14. In that work, he says :
" Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt."
He must therefore have read the clause 1 John V. 7. in his New Testament.
" No !" it will be said, " No ! He only read in his copy the words ' Et hi tres unum sunt? and these he took from the 8th verse : but the subject of this predicate quoted by him — I mean the words, ' the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ' — these did not exist in his Bible, but in his imagination. In short, he discovered, mystically, the three Persons of the Godhead, in the three words of the 8th verse, * spirit, water, and blood.' "
Nothing of the kind, however, appears in the words of Cyprian. Allow me then to ask, How do you know it ? " Oh ! because he is sometimes apt to allegorize." Granted. But does he always allegorize, when he quotes
(14) Facundus calls this book, De Trinitate. In a few editions it bears the title, De Simplicitate Prcelatorum. Cyprian also quotes the words ' Tres unum suni,' in his Letter to Jubaianus.
22
passages of Scripture ? ' Certainly not always.' Well, then, I should think it was quite necessary to prove in the present instance, in the passage quoted, that he actually allegorized the 8th verse, and had it in view in this citation. Do we find any traces in his writings to confirm this surmise, or at least render it in some de- gree probable? Perhaps, when he quotes passages of Scripture in an allegorical sense, he uses the same for- mula of citation which he adopts in the passage before us ? No ! he does not. Nay, when he uses this for- mula, the subject as well as the predicate expressly stands in the Text, and he specifies particularly what the subject signifies, taken in an allegorical sense. I shall be more explicit. In his 69th Epistle (Bremen Edition 1690), which begins with the words c Pro tua religiosa diligentia, consuluisti mediocritatem nostrum] he quotes Exodus xii. 46. precisely in the same manner as he does in the passage under consideration. These are his words :
" Cum DE Sacramento paschse et ag-ni, qai ugnus Christum designatt SCRIPTUM SIT, In domo una comedetur, non ejicitis de domo carnem foras."
Here we perceive,
1. He uses the very same formula of quotation which he does in the passage before us, ' de . . . scriptum est.'
2. The subject (pascha et agnus), as well as the predi- cate (in domo una comedetur, non ejicitis de domo carnem
fords)) are found verbatim in the Text.
3. What he understands mystically by the pascha and agnus, he particularly specifies, viz. ' qui agnus Christum designat*
23
Therefore, if he had quoted the 8th verse allegori- cally, he would have said, according to his custom :
" Et iterum, DE spiritu, et aqua, et sanguine, qua Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum designant, SCRIPTUM EST, Et hi tres unum sunk"
Would he not ?
In short, in every passage which he cites as allegorical proof, he fast quotes the Text literally, and then states what it signifies mystically. If an example be wanting, observe how he quotes and explains Canticles vi. 8 ; la John xix. 23, 24; l6 Joshua xi. 18 ; 17 &c.
Hence, his method and manner of quoting passages according to the mystical sense evidently infer the very contrary of what our opponents assert. The mode of quotation which they ascribe to Cyprian is completely
(15) De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. ** Unam Eoclesiam etiam in Cantico Canticorum Spiritus Sanetus ex persona Domini designat et dicit : Una est columba mea, perfecta mea, una est matri suse, electa geni- trici suse."
Epist. LXIX. he quotes the same text thus : " Quod autem Eccle- sia una sit, declarat in Cantico Canticorum Spiritus Sanetus ex per- sona Christi, dicens : Una est coluinba mea, perfecta mea, una est matri suae electa genitrici suae."
(16) De Unitate Ecclesice ; viz. " Hoc unitatis sacramentum, hoc vinculum concordiae, inseparabiliter cohserentis, ostenditur, quando in Evangelic tunica Domini Jesu Christi non dividitur, omnino nee scin- ditur, sed sortientibus de veste Christi, quis ipsam potius indueret, in- tegra vestis accipitur, et incorrupta atque individua tunica possidetur. Loquitur et dicit Scriptura divina : De tunica autem quia de superior! parte non consutilis, sed per totum textilis fuerat, dixerunt ad invicem : ' Non scindamus illam, sed sortiamur de ea, cujus sit.' "
(17) Epist. LXIX. "Quod item circa Rahab, quoe ipsa quoque typum portabat Ecclesiae, expressum videmus ; cui manda£ur et dicitur: Patrem tuum et matrem tuam et fratres tuos et totam domum patris tui colliges ad te ipsam in domum tuam, et omnis qui exierit ostium domus tuae foras, reus erit."
24.
the reverse of his usual habit. Now, I should think that Cyprian ought to be explained by Cyprian. Ought he not ?
But perhaps modes of expression occur elsewhere in his writings, in some measure, if not entirely, to support the opinion of our adversaries.
I answer, No ! nor have our adversaries themselves ever asserted there were. In order to give their opi- nion the fairest play, I have read Cyprian through and through, with the most minute attention ; but I have not found any thing that could, in the least, lead one to suppose that the Bishop entertained any mystical views respecting 1 John V. 8.
How then did this fancy enter people's heads ?
" Oh ! " we are told, "It is no fancy, but a well-founded historical truth. Facundus, a celebrated African bishop, so early as the 6th century, undeceived the world re- specting this quotation of Cyprian ; and informed posterity that the bishop of Carthage did not quote 1 John V. 7. but 1 John V. 8. In his book Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorumt 661. cap. in. he says :
" Johannes Apostolus, in epistola sua, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu SanctOj dicit,Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis ; et hi tres unum sunt. In spiritu significans Patrem, in aqua vero Spiritum Sanctum, in san- guine Filium. Quod Johannis Apostoli testimonium beatus Cypricnmsy Garthaginensium Antistes et Martyr, in epistola sive libro quern de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto intelligit. Ait enim : Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus ; et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt/'
" What need we further testimony ? "
25
It seems, then, that Facundus is the man, the solitary witness, from whom we are to learn what Cyprian in- tended in his quotation, three hundred years before. Assuredly Facundus was no Pope ! — Suppose he were fallible ? Suppose I contrast his testimony with that of Cyprian himself? Suppose I quote a passage from Cyprian, in which he tells us, expressly, that it is con- trary to Scripture, and therefore it never occurred to him, to discover the Three Persons of the Godhead in the 8th verse ? In that case, Facundus, the retailer of anec- dotes, would dwindle into an insignificant Legendary.
The passage I allude to is as follows ; viz. — Cyprian, in his 36th Epistle, which begins with the words, " Quan- quam sciam, frater carissime," says :
" Quotiescunque autem aqua sola in scripturis sanctis no- minatur, baptisma pradicatur"
Upon which he quotes passages to prove his position ; and concludes,
" Nee argumentis plurimis opus est, frater caristime, ut probemus APPELLATIONS AQU^ BAPTISMA SIONIFICATUM SEM- PER ESSE, ET SIC NOS INTELLIGERE DEBERE."
Cyprian therefore declares it to be unscriptural for any one to believe that water, in the Bible, occasionally re- presents a Person of the Godhead, Could the venerable Father have spoken more plainly than he here speaks ? — as if announcing to posterity, "Should an African step forth, three hundred years after my death, and try to persuade you that I allegorized the Persons of the God- head from 1 JohnV. 8 ; and understood the water to mean the Holy Ghost, or any other divine person, believe him not!" Verily, as matters stand, Facundus cuts no very
26
respectable figure as a witness ! — But how did such a notion enter the man's head ? Heaven only knows ! Meantime, it seems — at least to me — that the old answer is still the best; viz. He read our disputed clause in Cyprian : on the other hand, he did not find 1 John V. 7. in his own Bible, but only the 8th verse : therefore he saw no better way of maintaining Cyprian's credit, than telling the world that the bishop's quotation was allego- rical, and taken from the 8th verse.
This, I think, would sufficiently prove that Cyprian read 1 John V. 7. in his New Testament.
But it may be said, "You have not yet removed the difficulties which are alleged." For it is with wars carried on upon paper, as with wars carried on in the field : if a man cannot slay his enemy, he tries to throw difficulties and hindrances in his way. — Now, what are the difficulties in our case ? These : " How," says an avowed opponent of our passage, " how will you explain the word confitetur, found in the following important extract from Fulgentius, unless Cyprian took his ' tres unum sunt' from the 8th verse, and transformed the spirit, the water, and the blood, into Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? Observe : — Fulgentius says 18 :
" In Patre ergo, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, unitatem sub- stantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus. Beatus enim Johannes Apostolus testatur, dicens : Tres sunt, qui tes- timonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus ; et tres unum sunt. Quod etiam beatissimus Martyr Cyprianus, in epistola De Unitate Ecclesiae conjitetur, dicens : Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversum Christum facit, qui alibi prseter ecclesiam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit; atque
(18) In his work, Contra Arianos.
27
ut imam ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstraret, hiec con- festim testimonia de Scripturis inseruit : Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus ; et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt."
Now what does our opponent say of this passage ? He asks,
" What is here meant by confitetur ? That John wrote these words, * Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, and these Three are One ? ' If they were actually read in the Epistle of St. John, would Fulgentius have said confitetur ? On the contrary, as the mystical exposition De Trinitate was somewhat far- fetched, therefore the authority of such a man as Cyprian was highly serviceable."
I reply : Supposing — though I do not grant it — that the Bishop of Ruspa had thought exactly as the Doc- tor makes him think : he would then rank, in our con- troversy, on a line with Facundus ; and we should regard the evidence of these two Africans with utter indifference, being convinced of the contrary. But did Fulgentius actually think as his Interpreter would have him think ? Let us see. The Doctor assumes, in his Explanatory hypothesis, that Fulgentius did not read 1 John V. 7. in his copy; — that he first became ac- quainted with this testimony of John by the allegorical quotation in Cyprian. I answer : Had he become acquainted with this testimony of John solely and ex- clusively by Cyprian's treatise, he would, I imagine, have quoted it as Cyprian did. But his quotation runs quite differently. The expression * in coelo ' was not in the allegorized 8th verse, which he is said to have adopted on the authority of Cyprian, as a proof of the Holy Trinity ; for Facundus says, expressly, that the
28
words in that verse were ' in terra.' The hypothesis, therefore, obscures what it was intended to elucidate. The Doctor is aware of this contrast : and therefore attempts to prop up his tottering surmise by a new fancy. He says, " Fulgentius, to make himself intel- ligible, subjoins, of his own accord, 'in ccdo* to the word Father, which refers to the clause ' This is my beloved SonJ On the other hand, Facundus connects ' in terra' with the word spiritus ; because he understood spiritus to mean the aqua, water, or the baptism of Christ, on which occasion the Father proclaimed with a voice from heaven to earth, ' This is my beloved Son.' '
This, then, is to solve the enigma, why Fulgentius gives ' in ccelo,' while the allegorized Text reads * in terra' I might expatiate in reply to all this — particularly to the notion, that Facundus understood the spiritus of the 8th verse to mean water, or the baptism of Christ. How does this harmonize with his own words, ' In spi- ritu significant Patrem ; in aqua vero, Spiritum Sanctum ' f But, briefly and fairly, how will the Doctor prove that his thoughts were also Fulgentius's ? The onus of this proof still rests with him. The hypotheses, which he here accumulates, are most extraordinary. The word Spiritus stands in the Text, and, according to the testi- mony of Facundus's authority, is to signify water: and this water indicates the baptism of Christ; and this baptism represents the Father, exclaiming from heaven to earth, This is my beloved Son!!! Thus he thrice christens the meaning of the word spiritus in the Text, and twice mystifies the first mystical meaning! ! Verily, no mystic has ever gone such lengths ! And why has
29
the good Doctor done so? In order to mask the false bearing which he gives the word confitctur. Now what is the true one? It is this: Fulgentius says19:
" In Patre ergo, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, unitatem sub- stantise accipimus, Personas confundere non audemus."
This was the doctrine of Orthodox Christians respect- ing the Holy Trinity. He proves this doctrine from the testimony of St. John:
" Beatus enim Johannes Apostolus testatur, diceirs : * Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in ccelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus ; et tres unum sunt.' '
Doubtless, therefore, Fulgentius read 1 John V. 7. in his New Testament. He then proceeds:
" Quod etiam." Which, (namely, the unanimity of Or- thodox Christians in the doctrine of the Trinity, of which he had just spoken,) is confessed by Cyprian also, and on (he same grounds 20 :
" Beatissimus Martyr Cyprianus, in epistola De Unitate Ecclesise, confitetur, dicens : * Qui pacem Christi et concor- diam rumpit adversus Christum facit ; qui alibi praeter eccle- siam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit.' Atque, ut imam ecclesiam unius Dei monstraret 21, hsec confestim testimonia
(19) Fulgentius, in his Book Contra Arianos, ad fin.
(20) Whoever has read Fulgentius, knows that he is wont to quote, in his Doctrinal theses, the testimony and agreement of the Ortho- dox Fathers who lived before him. See his Book Ad Monimum, and his Responsioncs ad Ferrandum Diaconum ; also the parallel passage lib. ii. ad Trasimundum regem, cap. xvi. " Probante Domino, et di- cente," &c. &c. very relevant to our subject.
(21) This Unity of the Church rested on the agreement of Chris- tians in the correct doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Cyprian expressly says so, in his Epistle to Jubaianus : " Si eundem Patrem, eundem Fi-
lium,
30
de Scripturis inseruit : * Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus : et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scrip- turn est, Et tres unum sunt.' "
And now, let us leave the field of battle ; and advance a few steps.
Fulgentius quotes the words, " Tres sunt qui testi- monium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spi- ritus ; et tres unum sunt," as the express words of the Apostle John: consequently they stood in his Latin Version. But may he not also have read them in the Greek, in the Original Text ?
It may be replied, " Who can tell that ? Did Ful- gentius understand Greek ? "
I should think he did. He was even extraordinarily proficient in that language. He spoke it with great fluency, purity, and elegance. Nay, it seems to have been his favourite study : for, even when a boy, he had committed the entire of Homer to memory. Is it likely that such a man, disputing against the Arians, and con- fronting them with passages of Scripture, should never have consulted the Original Text ? Could he be guilty of such imprudence as to combat his opponents with Scripture-testimonies, which were not existent in the Original Text ? No Council had, as yet, invested any Latin Translation with the authority of the Original Text. Then let us be reasonable, and think of Fulgentius reasonably and fairly, as we are wont to think of Jerome
Hum, eundem Spiritum Sanctum, eandem ecclesiara confitentur nobiscum Patripassiani, Anthropiani, Valentiniani, Appelletiani, Ophitae, Mar- eionitae, et ceterae hereticorum pestes et gladiis et venenis subvertentes veritatem, potest illic et baptisma unum esse, si est et fides una."
SI
in similar cases. When Jerome opposes the Heretics with passages of Scripture, no one doubts, for an instant, that they stood in his Greek copy, though he only quotes them in Latin. And why ? " Oh ! " we are told, " Why ask such a question? The man understood Greek." Be it so : our Bishop of Ruspa understood it as well : aye, and better. May not, therefore, the quotation in Fulgentius be justly alleged as a proof that 1 John V. 7. stood in Greek copies of the 5th and 6th centuries ? I think it may ; not only for the reasons already assigned ; but my opinion is further justified by a discovery which I have made in the Works of Fulgentius, of which I shall speak hereafter.
We come to the last struggle of our opponents. It consists of a faint difficulty, which they have ransacked from the writings of Augustin : —
"If we allow," say they, " that Cyprian was acquainted with the clause 1 John V. 7. then surely Augustin also must have been acquainted with it : for he had read the very work of his countryman, in which, according to your allegation, this clause is quoted22. Now, peruse his writings from be- ginning to end : no where will you find the smallest trace that Augustin was acquainted with 1 John V. 7."
It may be so ! But to what purpose is this remark ? Is it that we must thence infer, " Because Augustin has not quoted this text, therefore Cyprian, whom he had read, could not have quoted it?" Woe to poor Cy- prian's writings, if this conclusion be legitimate ! How many things did Augustin read in Cyprian which he never quoted ! Be so good, then, as to prove to us the necessity that the bishop of Hippo must have quoted, in Contra Cresconium Donatistam, lib. n. cap. xxxni.
3-2
his own Works, all the passages of Scripture which he found in those of the bishop of Carthage.
" But this text was obviously advantageous to him, in combating the enemies of the Holy Trinity ; Why then did he never use it ? He must either have been ignorant of it; or regarded it as suspicious, or even interpolated." — All this may be so ; even if he were convinced that Cyprian quoted 1 John V. 7. But it never can follow that Cyprian must have been as ignorant or as suspi- cious as perhaps Augustin was.
Further, it is asserted, and as of ponderous weight against our opinion : " Augustin, as you must be aware, in his second book against the Arian Maximin, explains 1 John V. 8. mystically, and finds in it the Holy Trinity. Undoubtedly, therefore, he must have been convinced that Cyprian, whom, as you know, he had read, grounds his expressions, * Et iterum, de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt,' on the 8th verse."
What an inference ! So, because Augustin allegorizes the 8th verse, it is evident, thence, that he must have thought Cyprian to have done the same ! How this ' must ' follows, I cannot exactly see. Possibly Augustin did think so ; but where is the proof that he actually thought, or must have thought so ? Augustin never notices, for a moment, one syllable of Cyprian's (whose writings on the subject he had read), in the passage where he retails his allegories on the 8th verse. And, inverting the argument, if Augustin had read the works of Cyprian with attention and memory, he never could have stumbled upon this notion ; as we
33
have already proved. And, granting that he had, you surely cannot expect us to follow his errors, in oppo- sition to our own convictions. But let us now change places, and ask you in return :
Is it then already perfectly clear, free from all doubt> and absolutely certain, that Augustm, in all his Works, has never taken any notice of 1 John V. 7. ?
Of course you have done yourselves what you ad- vised us to do; i.e. read through all Augustin. If so, you will recollect a passage23, where he says,
" Deus itaque summus et verus, cum Verbo suo et Spiritu Sancto, qucB tria unum sunt."
Does not this passage distinctly betray its origin? I mean the text of John, " There are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one."
" Oh ! but," you answer, " this conjecture is only tenable, or even plausible, as long as the passage is viewed separately, and not compared with that already adduced to you from Augustin's polemic treatise against the heretic Maximin. From that, it seems to us clear as the sun, that Augustin had the 8th verse in view, when he used the words ( guce tria unum sunt.' "
Now we think quite the reverse. This very passage, wherein he combats Maximin, confirms us in our opinion, that he took his ' tres unum sunt* which he submitted to Marcellus, not from the 8th, but from the 7th verse. And why? Because the meaning
(23) De Civitate Dei ad Marcellum, lib. v. cap. xi. I need not re- mind you, that the word Deus is here used, UTTOO-TCTJ/CWS, for Uaryp.
D
-
34
which he affixes to the words of the 8th verse, ' tres unum sunt,' in the dispute with Maximin, he announces as a mere problem, in which he leaves every one at liberty to differ from him : he only prohibits hete- rodoxy24. On the contrary, the * tria unum sunt,' which he quotes in his Civitas Z)eit he proposes not as a problem, but as indisputable truth — as a very axiom. Now, could such a man as Augustin, who so strenuously cautioned all Theologians not to confound mere proba- bilities with ascertained truths25 — could a man of such prudence so completely forget himself and his prin- ciples, as to assert categorically, that these, namely,
(24) Contra Maximinum Arianum, lib. n. cap. xxn. § 3. Au- gustin, after proposing his allegories on 1 John V. 8, says : " Si quo autem alio modo, tanti sacramenti ista profimditas, quse in Epistola Johannis legitur, exponi, et intelligi potest secundum catholicam fidem, quae nee confundit nee separat Trinitatem, nee abnuit tres personas, nee diversas credit esse substantias, nulla* ratione respuendum est. Quod enim ad exercendas mentes fidelium in scripturis sancii* obscure poniiur, gratulandum est, si multis modis non tamen insipienter ex- ponitur."
(25) The passage relevant to this point we have already quoted, in Note 2.
To quote the proposition, ' Tria unum suntj in his book De Civitate Dei, was contrary to his principles : for he says (Contra Donatistas, vulgo De Unitate Ecclesise, § 9), " Sic et ilia interim seponenda sunt, quae obscure posita et figurarum velaminibus involuta, et secundum nos et secundum illos possunt interpretari. Est quidem acutorum hominum dijudicare atque discernere, quis ea probabilius interpretetur. Sed nolunms in has ingeniorum contentiones in ea caussa, quse popu- los tenet, nostram disputationem committere."
As the books Contra Maximinum were written subsequently to that De Civitate Dei, possibly Augustin considered 1 John V. 7. authentic, when he wrote the latter ; but altered his opinion afterwards, when he was composing the former. This case reversed was actually Luther's. I shall allude to it hereafter.
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are ONF, from an arbitrary allegorical interpretation of a Scrip- ture text, of which interpretation he himself says, that it is merely possible, and a problem ?
That is the difficulty — note it well ; and understand us no further than we wish to be understood : it only purports to shew you, how improbable is your conjecture, and how probable ours ; namely, " that it cannot be affirmed, as a positive certainty, that Augustin, in all his Works, has never taken any notice of 1 John V. 7. and was wholly unacquainted with that text." If his Commentary on the First Epistle of John, still extant, had reached as far as this passage, we could then more certainly determine whether he was acquainted with it; at least at the time he wrote that Exposition.
And now a few words more respecting CYPRIAN.
CYPRIAN understood Greek. He read Homer, Plato, Hermes Trismegistus QG, and Hippocrates27. He main- tained an Epistolary Correspondence with the Teachers of that Church: nay, he translated into Latin the Greek Epistle written to him by Firmilianus, bishop of Ca?- sarea. His great Master, whose principles he fol- lowed— I mean Tertullian, a man who likewise under- stood Greek — enjoins us to keep before our eyes the Original Text of the Apostolic Epistles ; and him- self frequently appeals to the ancient Manuscripts.
(26) This is evident, from his book De Idolorum Vanitate. His Latin style also occasionally Grsecizes.
(27) Cypriani. Epistol. LXIX.
D 2
36
Now, could such a man as Cyprian, when proving the elementary truth of Christianity, have quoted, as a text of the Bible, a passage not extant in the original ? Cre- dat JudcBus Apella ! It might easily have happened, that, in passages where the Latin had a few Readings varying from the Original Text and of no particular importance, he quoted according to his — what shall I call it ? — Italic, or African Version. Still, there is a great difference between the authenticity of an entire sentence, and that of SL few readings in that sentence : the latter may be easily overlooked by one conversant with the Original Text ; the former, never. To illustrate this :— A man skilled in coins may hastily take a ducat as perfect, which wants a few grains in weight: but it is extremely improbable that he could mistake a piece of leaden money for a real ducat, merely because it has the co- lour and impression of one. Hence I have laid down for myself the following rule : Whenever an ancient Latin Father, who understood Greek and held it to be the language of the Original Text, quotes a passage of the Bible, in Latin, which is wanting in all those Greek Manuscripts yet come to hand, it is in the highest degree probable that he must have formerly read that passage in Manuseripts of the Original Text, now lost28. Is it not so ? — This, then, is the reason why I con-
(28) That this rule is a safe one, experience teaches. For in- stance : Fulgentius, of whom I have already spoken, quotes a passage, " Qui solvit Jesum &c." in such a manner, that we know it formerly stood in Greek Manuscripts, although it is wanting in ours: — And where ? In 1 John IV. 3. Further : If we are certain that a Translation of the New Testament was made immediately from the Greek, or if we only know that its author (unless he says explicitly
that
37
sider Cyprian s quotation of this passage so important. It proves, that 1 John V. 7. existed in Greek Ma- nuscripts of the 3d century.
that he follows a Translation) understood the original language, we may infer, with the greatest probability, that even such of its Headings as are not found in the present Greek Manuscripts must formerly have stood in some copies of the Original Text. Experience has confirmed this conjecture of mine, in the case of the Gothic Version. For ex- ample : Luke vi. 38. has, " Mitad izwis :" therefore Ulphilas read, in his Original, METPH0H2ETAI vp.iv. Luke ix. 28. has, " Waurthun than afar tho waurda :" Ulphilas therefore read ErENONTO /uera rovs \oyovs. John xiv. 16. has, " Ei Sigai mith izwis:" therefore Ul- philas read, Iva. H /xe0' V/J.MV. These three Readings I had vainly sought in Greek Manuscripts, before the year 1756. But in that year when I discovered the Codices Guelpherbytani A and B, I then found the two first Readings in Cod. Guelph. A, and the last in Cod. Guelph. B. Both these Codices are about 150 years junior to Ulphilas's Ver. sion. — (See my Ulphilas.)
NEW CRITICISMS
UPON SOME
TESTIMONIES OF GREEK FATHERS,
RESPECTING 1 JOHN, V. 7.
JOHN MAUROP.
ONE OF HIS HITHERTO UN PRINTED ORATIONS,
JOHN, surnamed MAUROP, a Metropolitan of Euchania of the 1 1 th century, wrote two panegyrics on Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom. Trans- scripts of them are found in various Libraries ; and, as far as I can learn, they have never been printed. One begins with the words,
Tpeis /JLS TTjOOs rpiCDWfJiov 7rapoTpvvov<rt Kivtjcrtv &C. &C.
and the beginning of the other is,
Yia\tv Icoavvtis 6 rtiv Xcorrav vffovs &C. &C.3°
There is a Manuscript Copy of the latter preserved in the Wolfenbiittle Library ; which, considered merely as Manuscript, merits particular attention. I shall de- scribe it.
It consists of eighteen leaves in 4to. On the first page of the first leaf is the following Inscription : —
airrjffai TTpo ravrtis, KOI rt]v yye- ovpavov Karaftaivovffav. dv rovro verov
(29) Acta SancLm-. Junius, T. II. p. 933.
(30) P. Lambecii Comment, de Biblioth. Caes, lib. v. Cod. tciv. n. 6. p. 4.
o Kvp'os 5&>0E/ xptiffTorrjTf*, xat r) yij iifj.uv Secret rov napTtov «ur»7s rj x«T<uye, rov e^rjjuepov' xai 6 %ov$ rifJ-(*>v rov aitoviov, ov rou<; ta trov. TTpo<rayovro$ »7/u,«s re x«* T<X
I have transcribed this passage accurately, with all its marks of aspiration, accents, and points : the Iota has always two dots over it. But to what work does this Fragment belong? and who is its author? Answers to questions of this kind are not always easy : nay, they are sometimes utterly impossible. I have been fortunate enough to detect the father of this foundling. Great Patristics would think this little to boast of. Our Fragment contains the conclusion of a Discourse of Gregory Nazianzen, which has this superscription, E/s
rov Ttarepa cn&Trcavra. $ia rrjv Trhtjytjv TIJS ^aA«£»j$. In the Co-
logne Edition of 1690, it is the 15th31 in T. I.
Immediately under this Fragment, which occupies
(31) This 15th Discourse of Gregory, from which our Fragment is taken, will be interesting and valuable to those who investigate the antiquity of our modern religious solemnities ; an inquiry which, especially in our days, is of great utility, and, if I mistake not, would be very serviceable to the Reformers of our Liturgy. The occasion of the Discourse was as follows: — Arianzum was a small vil- lage in Cappadocia Secunda, in the Prefecture of Tiberina. The father of our Gregory possessed an estate there ; and the place was within his episcopal diocese. His son, our Gregory, was born there. 'A hail-storm laid waste the fields at Arianzum. The father, a pious man, but naturally somewhat irritable, kept silence under this ca- lamity, believing it a deserved punishment on the villagers, for their sins. The peasants therefore applied to his son, at that time a Pres- byter and assistant to his father, and entreated him to perform a religious service on account of the hail-storm. He did so, and in a manner becoming a son. I mention this, to explain the title of the Discourse : Ets rov irarepa auairwvra. Sio TTJZ/ Tr\7)yrjv TT)S x«Act<tr/s.
nearly half the first page, there stands a Monocondilion, which contains a Date.
I shall here exhibit all that I have been able to de- velope with perfect satisfaction, from the confused traces of the mutilated letters : viz,
-j- EreAgi/o)^ ^M %sipo$ ys&pyiov I . . p TOV • • • • • . .
S7TI TUtV
ai <j>i\o%ptffTaiv
'A.v$povix.ov xoci Kai Etprivtis T/JS £vff£ftsffrart]<; M/^«^A, Kai M«JO/«<J, Ka
The Transcriber's name, therefore, was George; and he finished his work in the year of Christ 1.315.
I find, in Montfaucon3', that the Writer of the Codex Colbcrtinus, No. £493, was also named George : and he likewise says, in his Monocondilion, that he finished his work in the year 1315. He mentions (and very natu- rally) the same Princes named in ours. If we compare our Manuscript with his hand-writing, which Montfaucon caused to be engraved33, we perceive, plainly, that the
t
same George who wrote the Martyrium Demetrii also copied our Fragment.
Enough of the first page34. — Turning over the leaf,
(32) Palseograph. p. 68.
(33) Palaeograph. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 324. specim. u.
(34) This first page had been pasted down by the bookbinder, on the inner side of the cover. Some of its letters were visible through the outer surface : I -therefore had it detached. I mention this cir- cumstance, in order to suggest to novices in the art of investigating Manuscripts a mode of making discoveries, already announced by the celebrated Professor Bruns, of Heimstadt, in the Annales Liierarice, which he edites jointly with the learned Dr. Hencken. In the second
page
44
we find, on the reverse, the Oration of MAUROP: and this also was written by our George. The shape of the letters is exactly the same with that we meet in the concluding Fragment of Gregory's, already quoted.
And now for the Oration itself. — Its title, written in uncial letters with accents, appears thus :
+ TCfY ZIANIEPQTA'TOY
MHTPOnOAl'TOY EYXAI'T&N IQA'NNOY AOTO2 'EI2 TOY'S eEHTO'POYS KAf OEOEIAE~I2 'IEP -f APXONY2. TONN BASI'AEION. TO^N rPHTO'PION. KAf TONN XPYSO~YN
IGA'NNHN. IvA:—
On this Title I shall make three remarks :
1st. It runs differently in other Manuscripts35.
2dly. The abbreviation euA, is evhoywov. We fre- quently meet it after the titles of Homilies, in Manu- scripts of the 13th and 14-th centuries36.
3dly. The sign (:-) i.e. two dots vertically with a hyphen, is commonly found in Manuscripts of the 10th, 11 th, 12th, and 13th centuries37.
page of the Number for January 1782, he says, "Cseterum, oro rogoque Bibliothecarum Prsefectos, et peregrinatores, immo obtestor, ut non solum codices rescriptos sedula excutiant manu, sed etiam tegmina vel involucra librorura manu exaratorum et, impressorum attentius consi- derent, immo folia ilia qua? tegmini averse glutine affixa sunt."
(35) Lambec. Comment, de Bibl. Csesaria, lib. v. p. 4. Cod. cciv. n.6. gives this Discourse the following title: Iwavvov MrrrpoTro\irou EVXCUTWV EyKw/juov ety TOVS dyiovs /cat Offfirccriovs jj/uwv Trarepos, BcuriXfiov TOV p.eyav, Tpijyopiov rov 6eo\oyov, «at Iwavvqv TOV xPv<ToffroljLOV'
(36) Montf. Palaeogr. lib. iv. cap. ix. p. 324. Spec. x. n. lib. iv. cap. vi. pp. 303, 304.
(37) Montf. Palseogr. lib. iv. cap. i. p. 271. Specim. iv. cap. vm. p. 320. Specim. n, in. caj). vi. p. 308. Specim. i. n.
45
The Oration begins thus :
YLd\iv 'Icodvvtjs 6 rtjv yh&rrav %pvffov$, xat 7rd\iv fj/uuv Trepi-
firjv ovroq . f£ ov T
£7ravriyvpiffa/A£v. ax; <$£ Sv<r%£paivetf rd^a /xjj^eV nappe* reray-
TTOV xax£ivovq avrco
Troivv, oi/s ov ^£%cw TTftJ? ovofj.dffoi.1 fia<ri\£iov, xai Tpriyopiov, T« x«i a-yyeAo/s x«i dv0pa)7roi<; ovo/jiara. TOVT&V y<xp ex«T£- TOV yu£v, eoprdffafjLev %0sq. rov ^e Ttpo rfc %0e<; avdis ovv fifjuv £7reiffrj\0£Vf 6 KOI (frtovtjv xai Travra %pvffov<;. x«i TO
%Op£ia T/5 fjfiiffTII $OK£l. TTjOO? £(JiVTtJV £VpvOf*Gi><; KOI TT} OtVTOV
poovvT£<; eyyvri, inrep r£>v $vo ffvveyyvrjffaoDe. yu/« fj.lv So£
Tplds. €% ^£ (TX07TO?.
i. xat xaTaff<f>a\iffaff0ai itjv £vff£/3£iav. £v £pyov
tg iraffi. xai \oyoiq xai rpo-rroi^. a"irov-
£i/i7. Inlays ot rpiis rov QEOV £jm£ya\vvavt £7T/<rij? T^I/ TTIOTIV £t$ rtjv oixovju.£vtiv Ixijpv^av. ETri<n}$ T«$ £xxAtj<r/ T«,$ ToJi' ftaprvpcov jj.vrip.as Ixocr/miffav. £i7rcoT£ £7Tiffrjg rot yap ovv, TOI/$ £v£py£Ta$ avTirt/j.r}ffct)fji£vt OVTO$ o TOV \6yov OVCOTTOS. TOUTO rrjs Trpodvpiaq fi(j.G>v TO /jt-vartipiov. avrrj rtj<; irapovffris ^lahifyws f} V7r60sffi<;. iitsi ovv} &C. &C.
And concludes thus :
yu£i/, rrjv
T}/JUV §£, pa£VOtT£ TtJV
(38) The 13th of November, among the Greeks, was, and still is, sacred to bishop Chrysostom. This Discourse, as I shall hereafter shew, was delivered on 30th January. According to the eH/j.fpo\oyioi>, the 1st January is dedicated to Basil ; the 25th to Gregory ; the 27th to Chrysostom ; and on the 30th is celebrated the Commemora- tion of these three saints jointly.
ev%£pe0T£pov eXxocre?, °iva xai avroi Si' vfj.(i<; re KOI avv v/j.7v, avyaffOcof^ev' eyyvrspov xa} rpavorepov, TO> <f>coTt rtjs w,yia<; xat 7ravv/j.vr)Tov. rov rpiafios. vTtlp ov TT«$ \6yoq v/uuv xal «TT«J/ epyov xal (nrou&xo/ua. on ai/rco TrpSTrst Tratrot So^« sis TOV$ nicovaq rcov aiajvcov. djmrjv. -}-
Such is the beginning and close of the Discourse, with all its marks of punctuation and accent, just as they stand in the Manuscript. The v and t have always two dots over them ; but the Iota subscriptum never occurs.
On the verso of the first leaf, under the text, is written
and the leaves following amount to exactly seventeen.
I now come to the contents of the Oration.
JOHN MAUROP (that is, Blackfoof) was a Monk, Pro- fessor, and afterwards Metropolitan of Euchania, a city belonging to the province of Heleno-Pontus, in Asia Minor. He lived in the llth century; and in his time, it is said, an event occurred which gave occasion to the festival on which he delivered this Oration. Let us hear the printed MEN^EA* on the subject39.
" The occasion of this festival," say they, " was as
* [" M EIMBUM, (M-nvaiov seu MTjwatoj/.) The title of a Work con- taining the prayers and hymns to be repeated in the choir, divided into xn volumes, according to the months of the year, for the use of the Greek Church. Each month occupies a volume ; and for each day is prescribed the office, or religious service, proper to the saint or saints commemorated on that day." HOFFMAN Lex. in voc. — (TRANS.) ]
(39) Acta Sanctorum Junius, T. II. p. 93-1.
47
follows. During the reign of Alexius, who swayed the Imperial sceptre after Botoniates, there arose at Con- stantinople a schism between persons of rank and re- spectability. Some preferred Basil the Great, before all others. ' He speaks,' said they, ' with sublimity, probes the very inmost recesses of nature, almost surpasses the angels in virtue, or at least is scarcely their inferior. His demeanour is striking, and has nothing earthly about it.' On the other hand, they depreciated the godlike Chry- sostom, pretending that he was the reverse of all this, and that men soon became disgusted with him. Others, on the contrary, extolled this Chrysostom, as one whose instructions were much better adapted to human-nature, who by the plainness of his address attracted every one, and called men to repentance: nay, they ranked him, in consequence of his acute understanding, above the great Basil and Gregory. Others again favoured Gregory the Theologian ; as one who, in ornament and variety, in charm of eloquence and flowery lan- guage, far surpassed all the Greek Literati of any re- pute, as well as our own: these, therefore, gave the palm to Gregory, as did the former to Basil and Chry- sostom. And thence it came to pass, that the people split into parties ; and some were called Joannites ; others, Basilians ; others, again, Gregorians.
" Now, while they were disputing with each other under these appellations, these great men appeared, first one after the other, then altogether— (it was no dream) — to John, bishop of Euchania (a man of station and re- nown, who possessed no small knowledge of Greek lite- rature, as his writings evince, but attained a still higher
48
eminence in virtue), and said to him with one accord : 4 We are, as thou seest, one in God, and no dissension exists between us ; but each of us, in our day, moved by the Holy Ghost, have confirmed the doctrines of the Salvation of Mankind by our writings, and pub- lished our religious instructions. None of us is first: none of us is second. If thou invokest one of vis, the other two immediately accompany him. Wherefore, arise, and command the people not to quarrel on our account : for our wish is, that there be peace between the living and us who have already departed life ; and that concord be finally established. Assemble them on some day: consecrate to us a festival, as behoveth thee: shew them, thereupon, that we are one in God. But we will not the less labour, with our combined energies, for the welfare of those who celebrate our joint Commemoration : for we believe that we possess some influence with God.' After these words, they seemed to soar to heaven, encircled with a glorious light ; and each called to the other by name.
" Now this'godlike man, John of Euchania, did what those saints enjoined him. After he had pacified the multitude and the parties, (for he was regarded as a man of acknowledged integrity,) he commanded this festival to be solemnized in the Church, to the glory of God. And now let the reader observe the wisdom of this man. When he found that each of the three saints had his festival in the month of January — Basil the Great on the 1st, St. Gregory on the 25th, St. Chryso- stom on the 27th — he appointed another festival for all three jointly, on the 30th ; and graced it, as became
-
19
these saints, with hymns, antiphonies, and panegyrics; which (being delivered, I believe, with their approbation) omitted nothing conducive to their renown, and sur- passed every thing of that kind ever written before, or that will be written hereafter."
Thus far the MEN/EA.
Manrop says nothing of the apparition of the three saints, in this Discourse. Possibly the other, which I have quoted above, contains something to that effect. It appears, from the Mcnaean account, that Maurop was already a bishop, and advanced in years, when he delivered the panegyric : for the feast was esta- blished after the year of Christ 1081 ; and therefore the copy of this Discourse, which is preserved in the Wolfenbiittle Library, is above 234 years junior to the original. Now, as our three saints were known to the world as zealous champions of the doctrine of the Trinity40, so the expression, ' We are one in GW41,' which occurs twice in the Menoean narrative, seems to be an allusion to 1 John V. 7 : particularly, because it is here used of Three Persons, whom Maurop himself calls, in his Discourse, a T/><«s. This, however, is only a cursory remark. Maurop, as we may readily sup- pose, quotes different passages of Holy Scripture, but seldom accurately and at full length : he commonly interweaves their substance into his context, or makes allusions to them42.
(40) This appears from their writings, and also from the beginning of Maurop's Discourse.
(41) The first time it is, 'H/xeis eV ecr/xei/, us opaj, irapa rip 0ew. The second time, *H^fts kv €0>ie»/ ry Qty.
(42) I shall give several instances of this in the Appendix (A.)
E
50
And now to come nearer the goal: now for the interesting passage. It runs thus:
Qeo$ /JL£v dyivvrjTOS 6 UaTtjp' Oeoq Se yevvtjros 6 Y/o?' xa* os etirropevTos TO Tlvevpa TO "Aytov. 'OI AYTOI TPEIZ KAI oTaTOv x«} Traffi, Tchtjv To7q yvtjffiots
T£ K.O.I <J(.yv<t)ffTOV» Tp£l$ fJ>£V
Qeoi' e7$ 5s ©£05. on pia QSOTVS x«i 17 avTrj. OVTS ras v7ro<rra- Ivtaico 43, OL/TS 7r«A<v eKsivais ffvjmirKridvvo- «AA' 0^^ «xr/Vrx?, o/xo/«s 7rpoj3a\\OfA£vri It- x«< Tijpov<ra$ iva TOV j]\iov. ov^ev l%ov- p.ovov £K(x.ffrt]v Ttjv t^iOTrjTfx,9 ov J <pvff£i xai ool-r], x«i ovvwjitei x
AI'«I/ aKptfius dTTOff&tyvcras TO tffov yucxAAoi/ ^£ TO /J/cy? «AA^A«/5 (rt/^oiicra? xai ffweffo/mwag, e/s TO a.7T£pavTOv. TOU 7r«»>Tos $v/j.iovpyo<; fj Tpia^. OI/TO? o 0eo? o r}fj,£T£po$° ov Ao-
yi(T0r]ff£TOll £T£pO$ TTjOO? (XVTOV* OV& £T£jO&>? ») OVT&S 7T£pl (AVTOV T/S <f>pOVOVVTQ)V Op0CtJ$. £^£Vp£ TTaffOiV OOO
Tft> 7T«l/ CClTOl;i, X« <TjO« To) iyaTTt]fJL£Vta VTf (KVTOV.
TavTa $£ TO?? Tpiffiv avTOv TOVTOIS A«TjO£i/T«r5 xrxi T e<$£t yup 7r«vTo>5 T^ J/' >7? T« 7r«vT« y£yov£v dyiav piOp.ov<; lavTtj Qepa7T£VTas vTTOffrfjffai' xat /U£T« T/??
(13) 'Ei/jaios is an exceedingly rare word. Maurop uses it as an adjective, in one of his e|a7ro<rT6t\apm*. *H cVmta ©eoTTj KOI TO n>eu/ia ; Taiy Ba<riAetou irpea-fieiais, Tptjyopiov KCU Iwo ayvt)s QSOTOKOV fj.7] %a/)t(r0a> TTJS (rrjs So^y.
1 [" t&noa-TeiXapiavocantur Cantica quaedam quse erant TCI)V ayyeXuV) TOV irpoS^OjUOu, TOU oravpoy, TCOJ* aTrotrToAcov, Itt patet ex Horologio. Tjpicum Saba? cap. n. p. 4. TO avaffTa(Tt/j.ove£aTroffT€t\apiov' Kai TO OeoroKiof. Undecim numero fuerunt ava.(na<Tifj.a. Vide Gl. IMeussii." — Suicer. Thesaur. in voc. (TRANS.)]
(U) Baruchiii. 36,37.
51
*at T« rpia rovq rpes, on re roffovrot, xa on TO, Travra KAI TPITON, KATA THN 2YMIINOIAN. TO
KOti T/;$ £yu.^»£|Oe/«$ avvexnxov X«T« TIJV inrep rt<; rjp.£-
I >/ . T ,v. V ~ ' ~ <•/
<ret>Ttipiat$ (nrovorjv »?$ ovosvt TCUV iravrtov roffovrovj OGOV re x«xe/j/o/5 ete'Aijoe. T« xe>/ 0^ x. T. A.
Which may be thus rendered :
" God Unbegotten, is the Father ; but God Begotten, is the Son ; and God Proceeding, is the Holy Ghost.
THE SAME THREE ALSO ARE ONE. A most WOnderflll
thing, and to all, save the true worshippers of the Three, a thing unintelligible and obscure ! Three Persons ; not Gods, but ONE God : because the Godhead also is One and the same; neither uniting the Substances in its Single- ness ; nor, again, multiplied with them because of the Plurality; but beaming forth equal rays, like those which proceed from the sun, yet constitute but one identical sun ; having no distinction, except each his own indivi- duality ; no pre-eminence ; no inferiority ; but, in essence, glory, power, and goodness, preserving the most perfect equality, nay, rather identity ; and individually co- existent with each other, and to co-exist to all eternity. This Trinity is the Creator of the Universe : this is our God; and there is none to be compared with Him ; neither let any Orthodox Believer think other- wise than thus of Him. As saith the Prophet (Baruch iii. 36, 37) : " He hath found out all the way of know- ledge, and hath given it (formerly, indeed) unto Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved :" but afterwards, to these Three, his worshippers and adorers. For it altogether behoved the Holy Trinity, by whom all things were made, to be personated by a co-equal number of
E 2
52
worshippers; anil, according to its counsel, again to create men after its own image and likeness, (a much more accurate and striking one than the first) ; and the Trinity (T>«) created the Three Saints (T^), that they might be like unto God, 1st, in number; 2dly, in god- liness; THIRDLY, in unanimity. Nay more, Fourthly, and to complete the similitude, in zeal for our salva- tion ; which none whatever has had so much at heart as God and they:" &c. &c.
In this passage there are two paragraphs in which the allusion to 1 John V. 7. is remarkable.
The first is this : " God Unbegotten, is the Father ; God Begotten, is the Son ; and God Proceeding, is the Holy Ghost. The same Three also are One" In the words " The same Three also are One," we are immediately re- minded of the Scripture Text, " These Three are One."
" Yes," it may be said, " if the expression were, ' The same three also are One, in the neuter ' (lv), we might imagine the allusion ; but it is, * The same Three also are One/ in the masculine («/?)•"
I answer : The ONE (e/s) evidently refers to God (0eo$), which word occurs immediately before and after. The Fathers, who expressly quote 1 John V. 7, use the same mode of diction. I shall give examples below45.
(45) An ancient Scholium of Origen says, Keu ra rpia els 0eos.
In Cassiodorus' Complex. Canonic. EpistoL it is said : " Cui rei testi- ficantur in terra tria mysteria, aqua, sanguis, et Spiritus, quae in pas- sione Domine leguntur impleta : in ccelo autem Pater, Filius, et Spi- ritus Sanctus ; el hi tres unus est Deus."
Likewise in the Caroli M. ad Leonem III. Epislola ad Holsleniam, we find : " Hieronymus quoque de hac ipsa Spiritus Sancti processione in symboli expositione inter coetera ait : Spiritus qui a Patre et Filio
procedit
53
The second paragraph is this : " The Holy Trinity," says Maurop, " by creating the Three Saints, has pro- duced also a Triad, resembling itself, and chiefly in unanimity." The obvious meaning of which can be nothing else than this : " Just as the Three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, agree in one, so also do these Three Saints." But we find no text in the Bible which literally supports this on the part of God, except 1 John V. 7 : therefore, we have every reason to conjecture, here is an allusion to this clause. " But is that conjecture to turn the scale ?" Have a little pa- tience, Reader. Let me first introduce an episode ; and then I will shew its preponderance more fully.
But, previously, a few words on Maurop's panegyric. In this Oration, Maurop quotes no one text of the Bible in express terms, to prove the doctrine of the Holy Tri- nity. This, therefore, removes the suspicion, that, as the bishop probably quoted Scriptural proofs, and yet omitted 1 John V. 7, he must have been unacquainted with that text, and consequently made no allusion to it. Finally, the bishop was an Orthodox Greek**, and lived at a time when his Church was at variance with the Latin,
procedit, Patri Filioque cooeternus, et per omnia oequalis est. Hsec est Sacra Trinitas ; i.e. Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, una est Deltas, et potentia una, et essentia ; i. e. Pater qui genuit, Filiusque genitus, et Spiritus Sanctus qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, h<ec tria unus Deus cst."
(46) We perceive, even in his Hymns, the cautious orthodox of his Church. He ties down the expression the instant its meaning seems too equivocal. For instance, in his 186th Hymn. 'O Ao-yoj i\v fv apxp T0* TOP riarepo crwapxos. T(p \oycp livdVfj.0. ffVftjv AAA' EK TOT TENNHTOPO2.
54.
in many particulars. I entreat my Readers to bear this circumstance in mind, whenever they are assailed by the fashionable objection, " Perhaps Maurop latinizes in this allusion."
55
II. GREGORY NAZIANZEN.
SOME PASSAGES FROM HIS WORKS, HITHERTO OVER- LOOKED, AND NOT EMPLOYED IN THE CONTRO- VERSY ON 1 JOHN V. 7.
Now for the promised Episode !
Is the expression, " Three are one" — this almost unques- tionable allusion to 1 John V. 7 — found in any other Greek Father whatever?
I answer, Yes ! The very man upon whose silence people have relied so confidently in our days, in assailing the authenticity of this celebrated text — even GREGORY NAZIANZEN, a renowned Teacher of the 4th century — uses the very same expression, and in that very Dis- course from which men have been wont to controvert the existence of 1 John V. 7, in the Greek exemplars47.
(4?) See Wetstein's New Testament, T. II. p. 722. It would be worth while carefully to revise the Fathers there cited by him; in order to see, partly, whether they are really silent on the passages quoted ; partly, whether their silence is authority, and admissible as evidence. Upon the latter point, our modern Reformers conceive themselves at liberty to take very little trouble. I have censured this impropriety, in my Beytr'dyen zur Critik uber Johannes Offenbarung, (Contri- butions to Criticism upon the Apocalypse of St. John,) pp. 13, 14; viz. " Whosoever wishes to argue fairly from the silence which authors observe respecting matters ascribed to their times, must do more than quote their mere silence. He must prove that his silent witnesses would certainly have spoken of them, if they had really occurred in
their
56
In this his 37th Discourse, which treats of the Holy Ghost, he says, at the beginning of page 598 (Cologne Edition, 1690) : CEN TA TTIA Qeorim, x«i TO 'EN TPIA rats i$(OTti<rt. Further, in his 51st Discourse, which has
the superscription Kara ATroXtvapiov Trpos KA»j<W/oi/ Upeff-
fivTspov eTUffToXn «'. He says, in the middle of page 739: 'EN yap TA TPIA, JCGCI TWVTOV TJ? QeoTtjrt. Finally, in his
12th Discourse, entitled Etpnvixos «'. e-ni -n? svutret T&V yuo-
yuerot rtjv fficoTrrjv Trapovfft'Ji TOV Tioirpos GCI/TOI/, at
their time-. But, to apply a proof of this kind, I must neither give the ancients my world, nor transpose myself, with my modes of thinking, into theirs: that is dreaming, not criticising, and converting History into Fable. The problem for Historical Criticism is properly this : To find out, from the known sentiments of an author, and the nature of the world in which he lived, and with which he was conversant, the relation which his silence bears to matters ascribed to his times ; — I mean, whether his silence upon the subject originated in wisdom, cun- ning, flattery, fear, neglect, or ignorance ; or whether the cause of his silence lay not in himself, but in the subject, which had no existence in his times." — A celebrated author, whom I hold in high respect for his erudition and philology, in his " New Investigations into the Apoca- lypse," in which he attempts to confute my " Beytragen," assails the principle which I have advanced, as thus : " With such precepts," (namely, how to estimate the authority of silence,) " Protestants could have reflected but little historical light against the assertions of the Papists respecting the antiquity of the Mass and Transub- stantiation ; or the genuineness of many Works which were certainly spurious, e.g. the high antiquity of the symbol c Quicunque' &c. of the Apostolic Constitutions; the ' Dionysius Areop.' &c. &c. But I will very briefly give my opinion, that there are no general rules as to the application of such a precept or problem." And in this tone the refutation proceeds. Refutations resting on such principles, I shall never reply to. For whoever asserts, that the truth of a cri- tical maxim must only be judged of by the interests of the Pro- testant Church, he And such is the conduct of this
man, who certainly cannot himself be accused of having the interests of the Lutheran Church
57
page 204, he says, K«* TA TPIA 'EN. He also thrice mentions the Three Divine Persons, with the very names, and in the same consecutive order in which they occur only once in Holy Scripture, Le. in I John V. 7.
In his Opnvoq Trepi TQ>V rns avrov ^i>%»7$ 7r«0a>i/, in the 113th
verse, he says, AAA« IIATEP, Uarpos rs AOFOS, x«< IINEYMA faeivov. And in the 42d Discourse, Ei$ TO uytov -naff^a, towards the end, O IIATEP, KGU AOFE, KUU
IINEYMA TO 'AFION. And in the 25th Discourse, Ilpos
Apeiavovs KOH sis aviov, he says, at page 442, Ov ^vffojmai as. HATEP «i/«|0^£, ov \l/£vffo/jt.ai ffe fjiovoyeves AOFE, ov ^euao/uat ffe ro IINEYMA TO 'AFION.
Is not all this a very plain intimation that the bishop read \ John V. 7. in his Greek New Testament, and intended an allusion to that passage in the expressions which he has used ? ,
" No ! " we are told, " not at all." And pray why not? — " Because, in the Discourses referred to, the bishop was vindicating the doctrine of the Trinity : yet neither here, nor any where else, does he quote the clause 1 John V. 7. among his Scripture proofs. In one of these Discourses, indeed, he quotes the 8th verse:— a striking and indisputable proof that he knew no- thing of the 7th verse: that, on the other hand, he discovered the Holy Trinity, mystically, in the 8th verse ; and therefore borrowed from it his CEN TA TPTA, and his TA TPIA 'EN."
Is all this, so dictatorially announced to the world, perfectly true ? — Is it true, I ask ?
I strongly doubt that the man who affirms it has read Gregory with attention : or, if he has, that he
58
understands him rightly. At least, I may be allowed to say how /understand Gregory in this passage.
"How, then?"
What if I should prove the three following Proposi- tions out of his writings ?
PROPOSITION I.
There had arisen a keen dispute between Gregory and some Heretics of his day, concerning the exposi- tion, as well as the authenticity, of 1 John V. 7.
PROP. II.
The venerable Greek Father never harboured the idea of finding the Holy Trinity in the 8th verse of the 5th chapter of St. John's First Epistle.
PROP. III.
Gregory quotes 1 John V. 7. more than once, as a text of Holy Scripture.
Now for my proofs.
Gregory says, in his 37th Discourse48, " THE Per- sons in the Godhead are ONE ; not only as regards that wherewith they are conjoined, but also as regards them- selves, because of the Oneness of Essence and Power: in short, they are opoovmot." Now this Unity, maintained by the Orthodox, was assailed by their opponents, who attempted to prove an absurdity and inconsistency in the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. And what gave
(48) riept TOV 'Ayiov n>et//.iaTo$, p. 602. To ev tuaarov avruv e^ei '"'pos TO ffvyKci/jievov ov\ TJTTOP, i) irpos eatrro, rep ravrcp TTJS ovffias KOI TIJS 5wa- juewy. In order to illustrate this somewhat obscure passage, read what he says upon the same Proposition, in his 41st Discourse, Eiy TO aytov /3a7m0>ta, p. (H38 ; viz. Tavrrfv SiSw/u Trcuroy, K . T. A-
59
occasion to this attack ? I answer, ' The clause, Three are one — TPIA 'EN.' " You cannot deny," said the adversa- ries, " that you understand by the 'EN, in this passage, a perfect equality of the whole Divine Essence49. You maintain further, that each Person of the Godhead is not a Quality, a mere relative denomination, but is actually self-existent; and is, therefore, a separate Substance. — Now see the absurd consequences of this !" How so? " Thus. By the Three (TA TPIA), the Divine Persons are here trvvapie/movpEvot, that is, connumerated? — This was undeniable. But then they assumed an axiom, to this effect : " Things only can be connumerated which are of the same essence (ja o^oovma50): those, on the contrary, which are not of the same essence (T« w o/jLoovffia) cannot be connumerated." And, thence, they argued thus : " As, in the passage ' Three are one, ' the Persons of the Godhead are connumerated ; you must, nokntes volentest in virtue of our axiom and this passage, grant the existence of Three Gods. — What absurdity!"
Gregory commences his refutation by controverting the axiom on which the objection of his adversaries was founded.
" You say," said he, " if things are to be connumerated^
(49) This is evident from the connection with what immediately folloAVs : for they built their whole objection on the connumerating of the Persons in the Godhead ; on the Three (TA TPIA) ; and on the idea of the One (TO 'EN). I have therefore unravelled the intricate argu- ment of the opponents, for greater perspicuity's sake.
(50) The adversaries seem here to have taken the word 'OMOOT- 2IO2 in the erroneous sense, which was rejected by the Church in the year 273, at the Councils of Antioch ; according to which, there was no difference of the Persons.
60
they must be of the same essence ; and therefore there must be no difference between them. What absurdity ! Know ye not, that Numerals are merely competent to express the quantity, and not the nature, of the things whose sum they designate ? I call things Three, which are that many in number, though they are different in Essence : likewise, I call One and One and One, so many Units, namely, Three, when they have the same essence. For I look not, herein, to their essence; but to their quantity, which constitutes the number that I affix to them51."
Now, though this was clear as the sun, and perfectly sufficient to confute the opponent's axiom, still Gre- gory strikes into another path : and it is very interesting, very remarkable. — " Well, what is it ? " — This.
" Since you," says the bishop, " adhere so strictly to the letter of Scripture in this instance; namely, to the word * Three ^ though you generally controvert it; I therefore will also adduce proof from the same source namely, the letter of Holy Scripture53, which
(51) We see, therefore, that the whole dispute originated in the connumerating of the Persons in the Godhead ; which occurs only once in the Bible, and that in 1 John V. 7.
(52) Orat. xxxvii. p. 603. Ewet 5e Ktav Treptex^s rov ypa/j./j.aros, KO.I TOI 7* voXf/JLcov TO) ypa/Jt-fj-ciTi, EKEI0EN /J.QI Aa/8e ras OTroSetfeis. Tpia evrais irapoifuais sffnv, K. r. \. That I have rightly translated Tpa/x/^a, by " Letter of Holy Scripture," will be seen by perusing the passage in p. 606 of this same Discourse. Justin Martyr uses Tpa^a. in the very same sense. He says, in his Expositio Fidel: AAA' ou5e TOU rio- rpos e£ovffias e\aTTOu<r0ai TOV Ttoj/ wot TO nVet^a irapa. TTJS Oetay ypa<pT]s ;uc- /na07jKa^€J/. Kcu ircoj; A/coue rov FPAMMATO2, o 5e ©eos T^OJJ/, tyrjffi, sv T<U ovpa.vcf, KCU 67ri T?j5 yrjs, TrcwTa, offa i]9e\ri<Tev, 67roi7j(T6. And moreover, this possible signification is rendered necessary, that is real, in this
6!
demonstrates the proposition, * Things also can be con- numerated which have not the same essence, but are different :' " — and accordingly he quotes passages of Scripture, in which things of different kinds are num- bered together ; e. g. Prov. xxx. 29 — 31. Exod. xxxvii. 7. Matt. vi. 24.
" Good bishop," replied his opponents, " thou still understandest not all that we charge upon the clause ' Three are one' It is absurd ; and therefore cannot pos- sibly be derived from the discourse of the Apostle John. For, of things, we can only say, * they are con- numerated, and of like essence,' when the names proper to them (i.e. those resulting from the identity of their essence) are expressly stated in their sums total. For instance, Three men, Three Gods ; not merely indefinite Three. No sensible man thinks, speaks, or writes other- wise. Away then with the fancy, that the clause * TJiree are one? originated with the Apostle ! "
After Gregory had, in his own way, exposed the ab- surdity of this new principle also, he attacks the conse- quence which the Heretics had inferred from this axiom, against the authenticity of the clause. " WJiat" says he, " What! — the Apostle John? — shall he not be the author of this text, because in your opinion it involves an absurdity53. — Listen! — I will lay before you another passage of St. John, whose authenticity you do not
passage, not only by the EKEI0EN (which, as the sequel proves, evi- dently refers to expressions of Scripture), but also by the proposition, that the adversaries elsewhere contested the TO TPAMMA.
(53) I cannot otherwise conceive why he hurls, with such marked and energetic vivacity, his TI AAI 'O IHANNH2,; against his adver- saries.
Solomon,
62
deny, which is conceived in the very same manner; namely, 1 JohnV. 8.54 ' There are three that bear record, the spirit, the water, and the blood.' What say you to that? Has the Apostle expressed himself absurdly here; in the first place, because he combines things which are different in essence ? (For who will maintain, that spirit, water, and blood, are things of one and the same essence ?) Secondly, because he construes ungrammati- cally ; inasmuch as he says of three things which are of the neuter gender, that they are three (jpe'is) in the masculine55?"
Now what rational man, under such circumstances, will assert, that Gregory wished to prove the existence of the Trinity from 1 John V. 8 ? It is therefore clear as the sun that the bishop was ignorant of the mystical meaning of the 8th verse. Nay, I know not one of the
Solomon, Moses, and Christ, whose mode of expression the bishop had already quoted in vindication of the clause, were held by his adver- saries in equally great estimation with St. John ; Christ, indeed, in greater. Whence then the TI AAI 'O IflANNHS j if what I have just said was not the bishop's intention ?
(54) It is notorious that the Arians — to which class Gregory's opponents belonged— acknowledged the authenticity of 1 John V. 7. August, contra Maximinum Arianum, lib. n. cap. xxn.
(55) The passage, Orat. xxxvii. p. 603. runs thus: TI AAI 'O iriANNHS ; Tpetj fivou. rovs fj.apTvpovvraS', Xvyosv sv rats /ca0oAi/cats, TO Trveujua, TO u5a>p, TO cu/xa, upa croi Aepew (pawtTcu; Tlpurov /wev, on TO. /tTj 6/ji.oovffia ffvvapi6jj.T}(Tai TeToAjurj/ce;/, 6 rots o/j-oovcriois ffv SiScas- Tty yap av etTrot ravra (juas ovvias; Aevrepov 5e, oVt ^77 Kura\\r]Xu>s ^Xcav <"-^W~ Tijffev, oAAa, TO rpeis apfevmus 7rpo0ets, ra rpia ouSerepcos firyveyKc irapa. TOVS novs Kat TTJS ypa.fj.{j.aTLKr)s opovs /cot vofj.ovs* Kat Tot TI Sm^epet, 97 rpeis irpoQevra, tv KO.L ev Kat ef e7T€j/67/ceiV, i) eVa «at Iva. /cat eva \tyovra, jur; rpeis aAAa rpia Trpoffayopeveiv, oirep avros a-na£iois errt TTJS QeoTTjTos. I shall avail myself in Appendix (B.) of the last part of this quotation, from
to the end.
G3
Greek Fathers, though I have anxiously perused them, who discovered Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the 8th verse of 1 John V. I am therefore convinced, by expe- rience, of what honest Mill says : " No Greek understood the 8th verse mystically of the Holy Trinity" — an important maxim in criticising our disputed clause ! It deprives our opponents of all recourse to 1 John V. 8, when they meet with undeniable allusions to 1 John V. 7. in Greek Authors. I have also found what Mill says, in this respect, of the Latin Fathers, perfectly correct. Augustin, of whom I have spoken above, is unques- tionably the first who metamorphosed the meaning of the 8th verse.
Origen66, Ambrose, Cassiodore, Pope Leo the Great, Bede, and others, explain it quite differently ; and much more naturally.
It is therefore beyond all doubt, that Gregory did not take his CEN TA TPIA, his TA TPIA eEN, (which he vindicates so sharply, as expressions of St. John,) from the 8th verse. Nay, in citing this verse, he never once quotes the words, K«* ol rpeis ei$ TO lv SKTI. Now, would he have omitted words of such importance to him, if he had grounded his 'EN TA TPIA upon them? Assuredly not ! Perhaps, indeed, they were not in his copy ; and this would justify, or at least excuse, the celebrated Note of
(56) Origen is the first among the Greeks, to my knowledge, who quotes 1 John V. 8. In his Commentary on the Gospel of 1 John, he says, on the words John I. 27, 28. (p. 133. Cologne Edit. 1685.) Ourws 6 avros eort jSaTmoyia v8aros /cat Trpev^aros 8e /ca: atjwaros. Ilept Serov TcAcuratou /SoTrrtcr^aTos, us nvfs $t\v\.v &> tcf EairrKr/j.a 8' ex&> /3c«r- TiffO-rjvai, Kai irus (rvvcxopai ews 6 rov T€\fffOrj. Tourco 5e crv/j.<p<at>os tv ry firt(TTO\ri j*a0rjTr?s IWOWTJS, TO nNEYMA KAI TO 'TAriP KAI TO 'AIMA, TA TPIA EI2 'EN TINOMENA.
St. Thomas Aquinas*, on 1 John V. 8. If it be said that Gregory did not consider them to be the words of the Apostle, there is only this alternative : Either the bishop himself first invented this clause, or borrowed it elsewhere. That he was not the inventor •, is, I think, palpably evi- dent ; because the phrase 'EN TA THA, long before the middle of the 4th century, was a solemn form of ex- pression, and generally known, among the Greek Chris- tians, to designate the Holy Trinity. I appeal to the author of the Didascomenus, of whose testimony I shall speak more circumstantially hereafter. The Latins used the same expression in the 2d and 3d centuries, ( Tres unum sunt? says Tertullian. ' Tres unum suntj says Cyprian. Now, as it plainly appears, as well from the Didascomenus as from Cyprian, that they took this phrase from Scripture, and indeed from 1 John V. 7, there remains no doubt that Gregory derived his TA TPIA 'EN from the same source — 1 John V. 7*
The expression was by no means merely technical, in Gregory's estimation : for he vindicates his TA TPIA 'EN very zealously and firmly ; which he never does in the case of technical terms. In the latter, he is very in- dulgent; nay, he shuns all controversies of the kind, and holds them to be useless and ridiculous. I refer my reader to the Note57.
* [Aquinas's words are, " Et in quibusdam libris additur (sell, to the 8th verse), ' Et hi ires unum suntS Sed hoc in veris exempla- ribus non habetur sed dicitur esse appositum ab Hereticis Arianis, ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis praemissse de Unitate Essentise trium Personarum." (See Home's Crit. Introd. Vol. iv. p. 466. Ed. vi.)— TRANS.]
(57) Orat. xxi. ad finem, p. 395. Tijs yap fj.ias ovffias xai &c.— Further, Orat. XMV. p. 710. Zw&uftfv o^A7J^o^s &c.
6,5
We now proceed to prove our Hid Proposition ; viz. That Gregory actually quotes 1 John V. 7. as a .passage of Holy Scripture.
After Gregory, in his 37th Discourse, had termi- nated the dispute which we have just noticed, concern- ing the words ' Three are one; and subjoined a few ob- servations on the diction of Holy Scripture ; he then pro- duces, what he conceives, an express proof of the Di- vinity of the Holy Ghost, derived from the divine names, works, and attributes, applied to him in Holy Scripture.
" I tremble," says he58, " when I consider the mul- titude of titles, which must cover with shame all who rebel against the Holy Ghost. He is called the Spirit of God; the Spirit of Christ; the Mind of Christ; the Spirit of the Lord ; the Lord himself; the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty ; the Spirit of Wisdom, of Counsel, of Understanding, of Might, of Knowledge, of Piety; of the Fear of God, that is, as one who worketh this ; who filleth all things with his Essence ; upholdeth all together ; who has power to pervade all earth with his Essence, yet whose Might the world cannot conceive; the Good, the Upright, the Guide; not by grace, but by nature; who sanctifieth, not is sanctified ; who measureth, not is measured ; who di- videth, not is divided ; who filleth, not is filled ; who upholdeth, not is upheld ; who inheriteth ,• is glorified, and ZYNAPI0MOYMENON."
Gregory concludes his Biblical Catalogue of names of
(58) Orat. XXXVll. p. 610. E-ya> fj.ev <j>piTr<a TOV trXoinov K\T\crtwv &c. to KXtipovo^ov^ SolaS'ojuejw, (rwapi9iJ.ouiJ.tvov.
F
06
the Holy Spirit with these words09: " Thus great, thus impressive, are the titles of the Holy Ghost! What need that I should lay before you, verbatim, the passages in proof thereof?"
We see, therefore, that all the functions, all the attri- butes, all the denominations, of the Holy Ghost, which occur in the foregoing extract, the bishop has taken from passages of Holy Scripture.
Two questions arise :
1. What is meant by " The Holy Ghost is ZYNAPI0- MOYMENON?"
2. From what passage of Scripture did Gregory de- rive the assertion, " The Holy Ghost is ZYNAFIOMOY- MENON?"
To the first question I reply : " It is true, the word ffwaprfpeopai has frequently, in Gregory60 and others, only this signification : * / put some one in a series, in a class of certain persons, wiiJiout enumerating the persons who compose that series. But, in the passage before us, the signification of the word is wholly different." And why ? Because the adversaries, whom Gregory combats in this 37th Discourse, restricted the vague signification of the word SYNAHOMEOMAI by a precise definition. They said, " 2YNAFI0MH2IZ means, The combining together certain things in one number01; i.e. eonnume-
(59) Orat. xxxvil. p. 61 1. At pev ovv /cA7?<my rocravTai KCU OVTCOS €[*- ^t/xot. Tt yap Set ffot ras fin TWV pr)iJ.aTwv /jLaprvptas irapa,Ti6ecr6a.i ;
(60) Orat. xxiv. p. 431. Mera Uav\ov BeoXoyrjffov, rov vpos rpirov ovpavov a.va.-)(QfVTos irore /tev awapiQuovvros ras rpeis vTroffraa'fis.
(61) Orat. xxxvii. p. 602. Ta ofwovo-ia o-uj/ap^^rat ^TJS 2YNAPI0- MH2IN, \cyoov r-rjv eis apiBuov tva (TvyouprjffLv. I have already no- licetl tliis.
07
rating them'' Gregory admitted this definition02; and, as we have just shewn, took considerable pains to ob- viate its false application. Consequently the expres- sion, " The Holy Ghost is 2YNAPI6MOYMENON," must necessarily be taken here in the signification which his adversaries maintained ; and which Gregory did not only admit, but also controverted its application in a sophis- tical axiom, and likewise purified the idea of the word itself: that is, we must translate it, " The Holy Ghost is placed in a class, and connumerated with the Father and the Son."
That this is the actual signification of the word ffw- KpiBpovpevov, in the present instance, will become clearer still, from the 44th Discourse of Gregory ; in which he vindicates the Deity of the Holy Ghost against the same Heretics, and likewise refers his hearers to his 37th Discourse. He there says63, " The Holy Ghost always was, and always is, and always will be: He has never had a beginning, and will never have an end ; but is al- ways with the Father and the Son ZYNTETAFIMENON and ZYNAFI0MOYMENON." Here these two words must either differ in signification; or Gregory falls into a palpable tautology, which he never does in any other instance. But how do they differ, being generally syn- onymous ? I answer, I^vvreTay/Msvov means, " The Holy
(62) In Orat. xxxvu. p. 603. he says of St. John, Ta JUT? fytootxna ovvapi6/j.ri<Tcu T€ToAjitr;/cej'. And p. 604. Ei yap jurjre ra 6/j.oovffia iravTws (TvvapiBfjiTiTai &c.
(63) Orat.XLiv. p. 711. To nvevpa TO ayiov t\v fj.ev aci KO.I eo-rt KOU eoTeu- oure ap^a^evov , ourc ira.vffoiJ.tvov, oAA' act Tlarpi rcat ttcp vvvrtTayiJ.*- vov, /cat ffvvapi6(j.ov/jLfvov.
68
Ghost is ranked or classed with the Father and the Son." I appeal (for he occurs to me this moment) to
Photius ; nay, even to Gregory himself64. jj-svov, among its meanings, has none other whereby it is distinguished from those of o-i/i/rerayyaevoi/, except that which the Heretics selected, and Gregory admitted ; namely, connumerated, as I have already shewn. And therefore Gregory intends to say, " The Holy Ghost is, in Scripture, classed, cmd also connumerated, with the Father and the Son."
Now the latter— I mean, " That the Holy Ghost is connumerated with the Divine Persons" — in what pas- sage of Scripture does that occur ? The verse, " There are three that bear record on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood," cannot be the proof-passage, to which the bishop alludes : for he did not understand this text of the Holy Trinity. Now, as we find no other place, throughout the whole Scriptures, wherein the Holy Ghost is connumerated with the Divine Persons, except that which the Latin Version has preserved, and a few ancient authors have quoted ; viz. " There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one;" the bishop, therefore in the passage alleged, must have taken his SYNAPI0MOYMENON from 1 John V. 7. and have read it in his Greek New Testament.
(64) Photius, Epist. I. He says of the Holy Ghost, ITcos Hwrpi Kai fly; TropevQevTfs yap, avros <pf]<Tiv 6 f'tos, jua07jreu(raTe, K.r. A.
Gregory also uses the word <rwTa£is in this sense. Orat. XLIV. p. 7 1 2. KOI Trap', w IJLOV&V yw(a<TKerai
69
This conclusion is further justified by three passages, which I have discovered in the Works of Gregory, and which are as follows : —
The First. — Gregory says, in this 37th Discourse 6S, " The phrase CEN TA TPIA is of such a nature, that neither the CEN supports the opinion of Sabellius, nor the TPIA the notion of those who falsely separate those Divine Persons." We see, then, from this passage, that the phrase 'EN TA TPIA interested the Ortho- dox and the Heretics ; both wishing to discover their opinions in it66. Phrases which equally interested the Heretics and the Orthodox, and to which they mutually appealed, were none other than phrases in Scripture. This is notorious, and self-evident 67. Con- sequently, it is manifest, from the passage just quoted,
(65) Orat. xxxvii. p. 598. CEN TA TPIA ©eorrjTJ, KUI TO kv Tpia, rats ', ba (M}T* TO CEN 2aj8eA\tov, t\ ^re TO. TPIA Ti]s irovrjpas vvv 81-
(66) This is clear, from the following passage. Bishop Theodorite, in his First Dialogue against Macedonius (a Heretic belonging to this class), makes one of his followers say, UaXiv TA TPIA 'EN Ae^w. (Therefore this phrase greatly interested the Heterodox.) To which the Orthodox replies, Tats vTroffraffecriv ovx &, a\\a rpia,
(67) For instance : " Cyrillus Alex, in Epist. quadam ad Johannem Antiochenum in Actis Synod. Ephesinoe: Of cwro TTCKTTJS alpeo-ws e« TT/S Qeoirvevffrov ypa(pr]s TO.S rrjs tavrwv irXavrjs av\\eyovaiv cupoppas. TO. Sia rov'Ayiov nvevfj.a.Tos opOas €iprjfji.eva rats eauTeoy KaKovoiais Trapcupdeipovres." I might here adduce testimonies in abundance : but, to convince our- selves, even from Gregory, let us read his 36th Discourse, entitled riept Tlou \oyos Sevrepos. I have spoken of this subject before. The Arian Maximin says to Augustin: " Si quid de divinis scripturis protuleris, quod commune est cum omnibus, necesse est ut audiamus. Ese vero voces, quae extra scripturam sunt, nullo casu a nobis sus. cipiuntur."
70
" thai the 'EN TA TPIA, THREE ARE ONE, was a phrase which stood in the Bible. Now, as Gregory and all the other Greeks did not understand 1 John V. 8. of the Trinity, he must therefore have taken his ev ra rpta from the 7th verse" — The validity of this reasoning may be easily perceived and felt. For instance : If I say, " The Father of Jesus Christ is greater than He ;" and add, " This word * greater1 does not support the opinion of Arius;" it will be imme- diately inferred that the clause, " The Father of Jesus Christ is greater than He," is taken from Scripture68. Will it not?
The Second passage from the Works of Gregory is taken from his Poems. In his Hymns, which bear the name of " Mysteries," (TA AIIOPHTA,) Hymn III. 1. 80, 81, 82: he says —
Ei/re rpto)v rivtx. /j.vtjffriv e%rj \oyoq, o»s TO ftev «ij TW rpiffffav faeoov <T£TTTOV xtipvypa pporourt, Tco (Je /jLOvoxpotTiTjv £pt\a/j.7rea xi/5«/i/cw/iei/."
These three Hexameters I understand thus :
•" Whereas Holy Scripture makes a certain mention of Three, in order that men should venerate what is announced by these three Divine Persons : but that we might at the same time extol the all-glorious Singleness of the Supreme.
I know not any passage of Holy Scripture which makes a certain mention of three, to the intent here stated ; except it be, " There are Three that bear record in heaven,
(68) Gregory frequently uses this mode of quoting Biblical phrases. e.g. Orat. xxxv. p. 572. TO>J> 5e teyovrwv ^awy, tin rep airiy MEIZflN 'O nATHP, K.T.\.
71
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. Now this is the witness of God, which he hath testified of his Son" &c. to ver. 13.
And now for the Third passage. — In his 51st Dis- course, Gregory maintains the following proposition against Nestorius ; viz. " In the Trinity there is no AAAO."69 And how does he prove this assertion? Thus : " For" says he, " three are one ! " And whence did he get this proof? From reason ? Assuredly not. From a Canon of a Council ? I answer, first, that can- not be proved : next, mere edicts of Councils, without proofs from Scripture, availed nothing in those days with the Orthodox, the followers of the great Atha- nasius, to whom Gregory unquestionably belonged70. Consequently, and beyond all dispute, he got his proof, * Three are one, from Holy Scripture.
Doubtless, therefore, he got his TA TPIA 'EN, his 'EN TA TPIA, his combined IIATHP, AOFOZ, KA1 IINEYMA TO 'ATION, from 1 John V. 7 ; and therefore he quoted this text.
(69) He says : EK«» (namely, em TTJS TptaSos) /xer yap oAAos KOI aAAos, Iva. (MJ TO.S inroffrafftis ffvyxfufj-*v> OVK °^° ^6 Kcu «AAo* 'EN yap TA TPIA KCU ravrov ry 0eoT7jTt.
(70) Athanasius de Synodis Ariminensi et Seleuciensi : Man?*' n-epi- TpfXovTfs •npotyacrifrovTai Sia iricrTiv Tj^uaKtvai yeveffdai ras ffwofiovs* Eon fiev yap iKavwrepa iravrwv T) ®eto ypatyi].
In the controversies of those days, and especially respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, particular stress was laid upon Scriptural proof. Basil the Great says to those who accused Christians of adoring three Gods (Epist. LXXX.) ; OVKOVV 77 Beoiri'tvffros y(uv StatTTjTaTco ypacpri, KCU irap ols o.v ei»pe07j ra 8o*yjuaTa (TvvwSa rots Oeiots ^.07015, €Trt TOVTOLS yfa •rravTuv TTJS
72
And thus ends my Episode. — But what is its pro- mised application ? It is this :— Maurop had read the Works of Gregory, especially those in which he ex- plains and proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; and coincided in sentiment with him on that point. Doubtless, therefore, his two expressions; viz. " The same three are also one;" and, " The Holy Trinity created a Triad, resembling itself in Unanimity ;" are both, I say, obvious allusions to, and therefore tacit quotations of, the text 1 John V. 7.
And now, but three remarks more.
The First. — It is frequently said, by those who would dispute the authenticity of this text, " No Greek Author quotes 1 John V. 7."
How any one can affirm this, I am at a loss to con- ceive. The following testimonies to the contrary lie open to all the world.
I.
FROM THE 15th CENTURY.
The Greek Monk, JOHN DE BRYENNE, who lived in the 14th and 15th centuries, quotes 1 John V. 7. He was no partisan, but an opposer of the Latin Church : for he disputed the tenets respecting which the latter seceded from the Greek Church. He died previous to the Council of Ferrara; — a circumstance particularly to be noted.
He was a Critic ; and consulted Codices. He asserted expressly, that " nothing was more reasonable than to revise and correct the Latin Versions of the New Tes-
73
tament by the Original Greek Text." He must there- fore, in the 14-th and 15th centuries, have seen Manu- scripts which read 1 John V. 7 ; Manuscripts, I say, which had weight and authority with him.
" But yet he quotes a few phrases, which vary from our Greek copies, and follow the Vulgate."
I reply. " Does it thence certainly follow, that be- cause our Greek Codices read differently, his Greek Manuscript should have read so too ? He also quotes texts which follow the Greek accurately, where the Latin Translations vary. Nay, occasionally, he has new readings: therefore I should think his copy of the New Testament, from which he quotes, could not have been a re-model of the Greek from the Latin."
II.
14-th CENTURY.
MANUEL CALECAS, who lived in the middle of this century, quotes 1 John V. 7.
III.
13tll CENTURY.
In the Acts of the 4th General Council of the Late- ran, held at Rome in IS 15, 1 John V. 7. is quoted.
" Indeed ? But a Council, to which the Latins gave the tone, is not worth a straw I "
"Why so?"
" Because, doubtless, in that Councfl they metamor- phosed the Original Text, according to the Vulgate."
" That is a groundless suspicion ; not only incapable of proof; but, as far as evidence goes, false. This I will demonstrate. In the very same Capitulum of this
74
Council, which cites 1 John V. 7, another clause also, viz. John X. 29, is quoted verbatim. The Latin Text cites it after the Vulgate : thus, ' Pater, quod dedit mihi, majus est omnibus.' On the contrary, the Greek quotes it accurately, according to the Original, Ilarnp, o? Se&uxe pot, pei^aiv TravTuv effTi. — People should read Ancient Authors more carefully, before they pronounce sen- tence of condemnation upon them."
IV.
12th CENTURY.
The Constantinopolitan Monk, EUTHYMIUS ZIGA- BENUS, was acquainted with 1 John V. 7.
V.
lltll CENTURY.
I think I have proved that MAUROP alluded to 1 John V. 7, and did not question the authenticity of that passage.
VI.
8tll CENTURY.
The author of the Greek Nomocanon, who must have lived at least in the 8th century, says,
Aura, ra rptot, Harnp xai Y/os xai ro'kyiov Tlvevpa, iv ravra ra rpia.
VII.
7th CENTURY.
MAXIMUS, the Confessor, author of the Nicene Dis- putation, falsely ascribed to Athanasius, says, in that
work, Ujoos <ta TOVTOH; Tracri xai Io>«v^rjs (paffxs* xai 01 rpeis TO iv siffi.
Now, as Maximus has never been suspected of mysti-
75
cizing the 8th verse, in any part of his writings ; and as we know from experience that the Greeks universally never understood 1 John V. 8. of the Holy Trinity ; it is clear that he took these words from 1 John V. 7. Besides, if he had the first passage (i.e. ver. 8.) in view, he would and must have said, Ei$ TO lv eian.
VIII.
5th CENTURY.
Bishop THEODORITE, in his First Dialogue against Macedonius, makes a partisan of that Heretic say, n«-
Aiv TA TPIA 'EN Aeyw.
The Orthodox replies: To*s V7ro0r«<re<ni/ ov% eV, «AA«
rpta.
The Heterodox therefore used this phrase, as well as the Orthodox. The only question was, How were the TPIA and the CEN to be explained ?
We know, that some ascribed this Dialogue to Atha- nasius. It is also usually printed in the Editions of Athanasius's Works.
IX. X.
4th CENTURY.
GREGORY NAZIANZEN, as I have proved, held 1 John V. 7. to be authentic. But so did another author of this century: I mean the author of the Dialogue entitled Philopatris, or Didascomenus'11 . A passage in this Dia- logue plainly betrays that he was acquainted with
(71) Though Lucian may not have been the author of the Philo- palris, yet it is certain that this work must have been written at least in the beginning of the 4th century.
76
1 John V. 7. CAVE, and others, made the same re- mark, long ago. — Permit me to offer my sentiments on the subject.
The passage is as follows :
The Pagan, who personates Critias, and endeavours, in this Dialogue, to turn Christianity into ridicule, puts a question to Triphon, who represents the Christian : K«/ nva e7ro/jLO<re0fJLOU ye ;
Triphon replies :
*Y\^f/xe5oi/T« 0£ov, yueyai/, ufi/Sporov^ ovpavicovot.) Y/ov YIvtTpo$t
\\VEVfJLO. ex n«T(OOS £K7TOp£VO/Ji£VOV, 'EN EK TPI12N, XCU E3
'ENO2 TPIA, ravTO, vojju^s tyv<*t TOV <T tiyov Qsov.
Critias rejoins :
A/o/^/z££/v /xe ^/Jao-xe/?, xou opxoq tj wpi0fitjriKtj» K«/ yap ao/5- fieei<; &»s N/XO/X«^OS 6 Tepacnjvo^. Oux oitiot yap n hsystg 'EN TPIA, TPIA CEN 7a.
The 'Ev ex Tpicov, E^ ei/o? rpta, Ev rpia, Tpta eV, must therefore have been well-known and solemn forms of ex- pression among Greek Christians in the 4th century. Now, whence may the reviler have derived them? I think the most natural answer is, " Undoubtedly from the same source whence he derived the immediately
preceding, Y/o? IlaTjOO?, Hvev/Jia ex n«T|OOs etnrop£vofj.evov ; that
is, from passages of the New Testament." Now, we do not discover, in the Writings of the Greeks, the
(72) 'EN TPIA, TPIA 'EN, exactly like Gregory Nazianzen and Theo- dorite.
The Author of the Twenty Questions, falsely ascribed to Atha- nasius, says, in Qurest. IV. 'O Uarrtp KCU 6 Tlos /cat TO n>ey/ia TO 07*0** 'EN E2TI KAI TPIA.
77
faintest indication that they understood 1 John V. 8. of the Holy Trinity. Consequently, nothing remains but that the phrases above-mentioned are borrowed from ) John V. 7. Besides,