« PreviousContinue »
verse,—tres unum sunt, a corruption manifestly from the hometoteleuton Tpeiseis: others omit that final clause. Some \* add, in Christo Jesu; some read Filius instead of Verbum; some, omit Sanctus; others transpose quoniam and et; and the more ancient of those that have the passage put tha eighth verse before the seventh. This uncertainty and fluctuation is itself a most suspicious mark of interpolation.
(3.) In some MSS. the disputed passage is interlined by a later hand; in others, it is added in the margin. '•"■ (4.) The oldest MSS. have it not: and to these should, in fairness, be added those in which it has been inserted by a more recent hand, in the margin or between the lines.
9. It is absent from all the MSS. of the Sclavonian version, tnade most probably in the ninth century; and from all the printed editions prior to that of 1653 according to Poletika, or 1663 according to Dobrowski.
Such is our case with regard to the ancient versions; and we leave to the judgement of our candid i-eaders, whether it does not establish a total failure of all valid evidence, from this source, in favour of the disputed passage.
Here we might, without much apprehension for the consequences, close our pleadings, and call upon the impai'tial reader for his verdict: for few critics, we suppose, would be so hardy as to insert any passage into the sacred canon of scripture, on the sole credit of two or three Latin or even Greek fathers. But we shall shew, superfluous as it may seem, that from this source also our adversaries can derive no aid.
That the clause under consideration has not the sanction of having been recognized by any of the Greek Fathers, is ^/ a fact so indisputable as to have been generally conceded by its advocates. However Martin, Travis,'and their humble follower Mr. Pharez, in the greatness of> their extremity, have brought forwards two treatises erroneously (as the Adtnojritiones in the Benedictine edition, and the remarks of Cave, sufficiently shew,) ascribed to Athanasius, the Synopsis Scripturte Sacra, and the Dispuiatio contra Arinm; and a supposed,, reference in Euthymius Zigabenus, a monk of Constantinople under the Emperor John Comnenus. Now, did truth permit us to be so generous as to make a present of this pittance to our opponents, what could they gain by it? Is there a man so profanely ignorant, or so besotted with prejudice, as that he would vamp up the ge- N' tiuine scriptures with additions'on the authority of manifestly spurious compositions of the fifth, or more probably of the seventh or eighth century, or of a superstitious monk of the twelfth?—Yet even this forlorn hope cannot be al* lowed them.
With respect to the Synopsis, will our readers think we ar£ serious, when we tell them that the passage adduced as a reference to l Joh. v. 1. is this? K«i rrii \mfma. $\ TM? Tioi7 vfe rev Xlarira ouxtvn' x<*l ori o arjovpivo; Tov Yiov otws Tov TTaTsj* <"x(>* (Athan. inter opera dubia; torn. ii. p. 190. Par. 1698.) "He sheweth also the oneness of the Son with the Father; and that he who denieth the Son hath not the Father." • The Disputation is generally ascribed to Maximus, Abbot of Chrysopolis about A. D. 640. To render the question sufficiently intelligible, we must translate a long passage. We shall not copy the Greek : the reader who wishes for it will know where to find it.
"Athanasius. The holy scriptures state all things clearly: but, with regard to what we are now upon, all the holy powers that are in the heavens incessantly honour the Holy Spirit, as Isaiah saith, with the Father and the Son.
"Ar'ius. It is no where written that the Holy Spirk is honoured with the Father and the Son.
"Athan. You are mistaken. When Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord, and the encampments of the holy powers, what doth he say that they uttered in their divine hymnings? Is it not, Holy, Holy, Holy? Why do their praises neither go above that number, nor fall below it? Absolutely, because it is not lawful for any, besides the Trinity, to be thus honoured; nor that any should lessen the praise, because of the holy and blessed Godhead of the Trinity, self-sufficient in the unity. More* over, why did Moses teach the people to bow their necks to the earth, and bend their knees, three times? Was it not for the adoration of the Trinity in the One Deity? And did not the God-inspired Elijah raise the widow's son at the third breathing, to shew us that none cafc be counted worthy of eternal life, without first receiving the equally-honoured, and con substantial ('o/ioo'-u-iov), and life-giving Trinity, by the most reverential faith in the soul, which like fire burns up all dead offences, which deaden the soul; and it also quickens the soul which has obtained everlasting life r Yea, moreover, the Christ-inspired Paul could have ascended to the third heaven, only by possessing in his breast the unfailing and consubstantial faith of the Trinity; God hereby determining to shew that no one can attain to the kingdom of heaven, who is not a partaker cf the faith that dwelt in Paul. And the laver which presents remission of sins, which is quickening and sanctifying, without which none shall see the kingdom of" heaven, is it not given to the faithful by the thrice blessed naming ? In addition to all these, John saith, And the three are the one, (0'i Tjsij To *v hs-i'v.)" Athan. ut supra, p. 228.
Hi-.d this delectable and) judicious divine possessed the famous passage, is it imaginab-'e" that he would have neglected to -give it in full display? Is not the sentence which he cites, plainly the final clause of'the eighth verse? It comports with tl.c well-known and favourite application of that verse to the Sacred Trinity, and with the erroneous, but Very early reading of the Vulgate.
The passage in Euthymius, not having the book, we are obliged to give in Mr. Porson's literal translation; and we premise our ready reliance on its strict fidelity, in despite of the astonishing ignorance and effrontery with which Mr. J. Pharez has dared to insult the memory of that honest man and pre-eminent scholar. "The word one is applied, First, to things homoiisian, where there is a sameness of persons, as in this phrase, And tlie three are one (x«l T* T?i* ?».) Secondly, to things heteroQsian, where there is a sameness of persons, but a difference of natures, as in this phrase,' And both together are one, not by nature, but by conjunction." Porson, p. 221.
Any school boy that has touched his lips with Greek, sees that the first of these phrases canndt be a quotation from either the 7th or the 8th verse: and any child or man, possessed of common sense, must see that the two phrases stand on the same footing, that they are merely logical examples, and that, as the latter is confessedly no scriptural quotation, so there is no reason to think the former to be one. It happens, however, that they are both sentences from Gregory of Nazianzum.
We pass to the plea from the Latin Fathers. It is affirmed that the disputed passage has been cited by Tertullian at the close of the second century, by Cyprian in the third, by Phcebadius in the fourth, and by Augustine, Jerome, Eucherius, and four hundred Catholic bishops who were summoned before Hunneric, in the fifth century. We promise to say little beyond laying down the facts of the case.
1. After largely commenting on the words of our Lord to Philip, John xiv. 9, &c, Tertullian has the following passage.—"They proceed in the same style of discourse, in which the Father and the Son are distinguished by their peculiar properties, also that, when He should ascend to the Father, He would ask for the Comforter, and again promises that he would send Him; and indeed another Comforter, but we have already explained in what sense he is another. Further he saith, He shall take of mine, as I of that which is the Father's. Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son.in the Comforter, makes three coherent persons, one of another: which three are one being, not one person (qui tres unum sunt [al. sint] non imusj as it is written, / and the Father are one (unumj, with regard to the unity of the substance, not the singleness of the number." TertulL Opera, Rigaltii, 1663. p. 515.
2. Cyprian, who flourished about fifty years after Tertullian, in the same part of Africa, in his 73rd Epistle, disputing against the validity of baptism administered by heretics^ says: "If any one could be baptized among the heretics then he might also obtain the forgiveness of his sins, if he obtained the forgiveness of sins, then he is sanctified and become the temple of God: but I ask, of what God? If of the Father 5 he could not, who has not believed oa Him. If-of Christ; he cannot become his temple, who denies that Christ is God. If of,the Holy Spirit; .since the three are one (am tres unum sintj how can the Holy Spirit be pleased with him who is the enemy either of the Father or of the Sort r" Cypr. Opera, Amst. 1700, p*. 310- ". ,
Another passage of the same father. , " The Lord saithj I and the Father are one. And again, of the Father, and the Soiv and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one (Et hi tres unum sunt J; and can any one believe that this unity, coming from the divine unchangeablenessi cohering in the heavenly sacraments, can be divided in the church, and severed by the disunion of opposing wills'"il* p. 79.
We now submit to our readers, whether, in the first and second of these passages, it can be concluded with any ap» proach to certainty, that tres unum sint is a citation at alk By the way, we humbly beg that attention may be paid to Tertullian's manlier of quoting John xvi. 14, 15. as a speci* nien of the loose way in which the fathers often cite scripture, amplifying, contracting, and modifying, to. answer the exigency. Great caution is necessary in reiying upon.such \vriters. • • > ■
The third instance is a defined reference to.some passage of scripture ; and our firm belief is^ that Cyprian intended to refer to the final clause; of 1 John v. 8.' adopting the common and very ancient reading which we noted in our account of the Vulgate, and interpreting" the spirit^ the wa^ fcer, and the blood'* of the Persons in the Trinity. This is, as far as we knowj the first appearance of that interpretation which afterwards became such a favourite, and which ul>timately ledto the interpolation of the passage in question. Our proofs are these: .;. ■
(1.) Those who suppose that the martyr intended the seventh verse, should bring some other and independent evidence of its- existence at the time. Now> no such evidence can be established—till two or three centuries afterwards for the Latin^—-nor till a thousand years afterwards, for, th« Greek. '- ■ » ■ ■, . * • -:
(2.) Cyprian was not niggardly of parchment, ink, and paHence; and it is most extraordinary, or rather incredible/ that he should have omitted to introduce the whole passage*: !so apposite to his purpose, had he known any thing about
(3.) We have good evidence for the truth of out solution In the following passage of Facundus, another African bishop* who flourished three hundred years after Cyprian. "John the apostle* in his epistle, saith concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, There are three w~Iio give testiitumy [in earth, in terra; a probable insertion from the latefc Vulgate of a copyist or the editor;} the Spirit, the watery and the blood, and these three art one; signifying by the Spirit, the Father, &c. — Which testimony* moreover* of tht5 apostle John, the Blessed Cyprian, bishop and martyr of* Carthage, in the epistle or book which he wrote on the unity J understands to be spoken of the Father* and the Son, and the Holy. Spirit:' for he says* The Lord saith," &c. quoting our passage exactly.
3. From Phoebadius* bishop of Agen about 35*7* the following passage is; adduced. "So the Spirit is different frorJi the Son, as the Son is from the Father. So the third person is in the Spirit, as.the second irt the Son: yet all One God* because the three are one; (-fuia tresunumsunt.)" If the latter clause be a quotation, which can only be presumed* it may be either from v. .8. or from the passage in Tertullian. ..■■;•! . -,u ; ;■:
4. Because Augustine, in a place or two where he speak* of the Trinity, has subjoined*" which three are one" (qui iriaunum svcnt), it is sapiently concluded that he had derived them from v. .7i Ik may help our judgement in. this matter, if we hear how Augustine expounds the genuine pasSage. "If we would inquire what are signified;by these terms'* (spirit, water, and bloody* "the Trinity itself may without impropriety be understood (non abstitde occurret), which is One God* .the Father* and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; •of whom it-might most truly be said, They are three witnesses, and the three areane: so that by the spirit we may understand the Father, by the blood the Son, and by tug water the Spirit." Contra Maxirnin. lib.;iii. cap. 22* ap» Opera* Colon. 1616* vol. vi. p. 275j . <
5. JerOme has been, summoned as a witriess. For brevity's sake, we will quote Michaelis. "Jerome has taken no notice of 1 John v. 1. in any part of his very voluminous •works, as Bengel himself acknowledges., It is true, that in •tbe Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, which has been ascribed to Jerome, the passage is both naentionsd and de*
Vol.. VI. N '■