« PreviousContinue »
“At the end of the fourth century, character of Augustin in the Latin the celebrated Latin father Augustin, church soon gave celebrity to his gloss; who wrote ten treatises on the first and in a short time it was generally epistle of St. John, in all of which we adopted. It appeared indeed under seek in vain for the seventh verse of differeut forms; but it was still the the fifth chapter, was induced, in his gloss of Augustin, though variously controversy with Maximin, to compose modified. The gloss baving once oba gloss upon the eighth verse. Augustin gives it professedly as a gloss upon the unaptly occurs, as consisting of three perwords of the eighth verse, and shows sons, immediately adds, de quibus verissime by bis own reasoning, that the seventh dici potuit, • Tres sunt testes, et tres unum
sunt. Facundus, instead of dici potuit, says verse did not then exist.* The high plainly dicit. He says, that St. John, in the
eighth verse, speaks of the trinity. His
own words are, Joannes apostolus in episverse, as will presently appear, the quotation tola sua de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto of those words alone is no proof that they sic dicit. He then quotes the whole of the were taken from the seventh verse. But the eighth verse, but not a syllable of the sefinal clause of the eighth verse relates to spir• venth. Now when Facundus says that St. itus, aqua, et sanguis ; whereas Cyprian de- John, in the eighth verse, speaks of the trinclares, that the tres unum sunt, which he has ity, he uses the same kind of language, quoted, was written de Patre, et Filio, et Spir- which Cyprian had used, who, in quoting itu Sancto, Could Cyprian have argued thus tres unum sunt (which Augustin quotes from if he had quoted from the eighth verse ? Un- the eighth verse) says that it was written doubtedly be might, as will appear from of the trinity : de Patre, et Filio, et Spirthe following note.
itu Sancto, scriptum est. The scriptum est
of Cyprian is not at all stronger than the « * Augustin, in his treatise Contra Maximi- dicit of Facundus. It can make no difference mm Arianum, lib. ii. cap. 22, (tom. vii. col. in this case, whether we say scriptum est, or 725, ed. Benedict.) thus quotes the words of dictum est. Yet' Facundus was expressly the eighth verse, Tres sunt testes, spiritus, commenting on the eighth verse. Conseet aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt.'- quently we are not warranted to conclude He then makes various remarks on the words, that Cyprian meant the seventh verse. And spiritus, aqua, sanguis, and proceeds thus. it is really incredible that the seventh verse Si vero ea, quæ his significata sunt velimus should have existed and have been known inquirere, non absurde occurrit ipsa trinitas, to Cyprian, and yet have remained unknown quæ unus, solus, verus, summus est Deus, Pa- (as it certainly did) to Augustin. But all ter et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, de quibus doubts on this question have been long since verissime dici potuit, "Tres sunt testes et removed by Facundus himself, in the very tres upum sunt: ut nomine spiritûs significa- chapter where he quotes the eighth verse. tum accipiamus Deum Patrem-nomine au- In confirmation of the gloss upon that verse, tem sanguinis Filium-et nomine aquæ Spir- he appeals to the authority of Cyprian, and itum Sanctum. The gloss which Augustin says that Cyprian understands those words here puts on the eighth verse, very clearly of the trinity, namely, the words spiritus, shows, that he knew nothing of the seventh aqua, et sanguis. Facundus having quoted verse, which appears also from the fact that spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres unum he has never quoted that verse. Facundus, sunt, a second time in the same chapter, and another African bishop, to whom the seventh having observed that some men refused to verse was still unknown, quotes the eighth understand these words of the trinity, immeverse at full length (lib. i. cap. 3, p. 14, ed. diately adds, quod tamen Joannis apostoli Sirmond.), and then gives the gloss which testimonium B. Cyprianus, Carthaginensis Augustin had made on it. For after the antistes et martyr,--de Patre et Filio et Spirwords spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et hi tres itu Sancto dictum intelligit. Ait enim, Diusum sunt, he thus delivers what he supposes cit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus ; et to be St. John's meaning ; in Spiritu signifi- iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto cans Patrem,-in aqua vero Spiritum Sanc- scriptum est, Et hi tres upum sunt.' Here tuni significans-in sanguine vero Filium sig- then Facundus declares, not only that Cypnificans. Let us now consider the terms, rian understands the eighth verse of the trinwhich are employed by Augustin and Fa- ity, but, in support of his assertion, appeals cundus, when they state their interpretation to that very passage in the works of Cyprian, of the eighth verse. Augustin having observ- which in modern times has been taken for å ed, that if we inquire into the meaning of proof, that Cyprian was speaking of the spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, the trivity itself not seventh verse.
tained credit in the Latin church, the convert to the church of Rome. In possessors of Latin manuscripts began the fifteenth century, the passage was to note it in the margin, by the side of quoted by Bryenniue, who was likethe eighth verse. Hence the oldest of wise so attached to the church of Rome, those Latin manuscripts, which have that he quoted other readings of the the passage in the margin, have it in Vulgate, which are not found in the a different band from that of the text. Greek manuscripts.* In later manuscripts we find margin • At length, in the sixteenth century, and text in the same hand; for tran- a Greek manuscript of the new testascribers did not venture immediately ment appeared with 1 John, v. 7. Its to move it into the body of the text, original appellation was codex Britanthough in some manuscripts it is in- nicus : but it is now called the Dubterlined, but interlined by a later lin manuscript.t It made its first aphand. After the eighth century, the pearance about the year 1520 : and insertion became general. For Latin that the manuscript bad just been manuscripts written after that period written, when it first appeared, is highhave generally, though not always, the ly probable, because it appeared at a passage in the body of the text. Fur- critical juncture, and its appearance ther, when the seventh verse made its answered a particular purpose. But first appearance in the Latin manu- whether written for the occasion or scripts, it appeared in as many differ. not, it could not have been written ent forms, as there were forms to the very long before the sixteenth century. gloss upon the eighth verse. * And For this manuscript has the Latin though it now precedes the eighth verse, chapters, though the superasa of Eusęit followed the eighth verse, at its first bius are likewise noted. Now the insertion, as a gloss would naturally follow the text, upon which it was 6 * See the above quoted preface, p. 17. made.t It is not therefore matter of 16+ That the Dublin MS. is the same with mere conjecture, that the seventh verse the codex Britannicus, is proved in my notes originated in a Latin gloss upon the to the second volume of Michaelis'introduceighth verse : it is an historical fact, tion, under the article codex Montfortianus. supported by evidence, wbich cannot “Erasmus had published two editions of be resisted
tho Greek testament, one in 1516, the other
in 1519, both of which were without the many
centuries elapsed before words, that begin with xv Top ouparo and end the passage was exhibited in Greek.
with ay tingin. This omission, as it was called The first Greek writer who has given by those who paid more deference to the it, is Manuel Calecas, who lived as
Lalin translation than to the Greek original, late as the fourteenth century.
exposed Erasmus to much censure, though it
And fact the complaint was for non-addition. we need not wonder at finding the pas. Erasmus, therefore, very properly answered, sage in his works, as Calecas was a addendi de meo quod Græcis deest, provin
ciam non susceperam. He promised, how6 * The various forms, in which the seventh Greek edition what he had never found in a
ever, that, though he could not jnsert in a verse made its first appearance in the Latin Greek manuscript, he would insert the pasMSS. may be seen on consulting the notes
of sage in his next edition, if, in the mean time, Erasmus, Mill, and Sabatier to i John, v.7 :
a Greek MS. could be discovered, Simon Hist. des versions, chap. ix. and Por- had the passage. In less than a year after son's 6th letter.
that declaration, Erasmus was informed, " + Bengelii Appar. Crit. p. 467. ed, 2da. It that there was a Greek MS. in England, is so placed also by Vigilius Tapsensis, who which contained the passage. At the same quotes thus. Tres sunt qui testimonium per- time, a copy of the passage, as contained in hibent in terra, aqua, sanguis, et caro; et that Ms. was communicated to Erasmus : tres in nobis sunt: et tres sunt qui testimoni. and Erasmus, as he had promised, inserted um perhibent in cælo Pater, Verbum, et Spire that copy in his next edition, which was pube itus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.
lished in 1522.
Latin chapters were foreign to the the Dublin manuscript, is most conusage of the Greek church, before the spicuous in the text of that manuscript, introduction of printed editions, in which is a servile imitation of the which the Latin chapters were adopted, Latin Vulgate. It will be sufficient to as well for the Greek as for the Latin mention how it follows the Vulgate at testament. Whatever Greek manu- the place in question. It not only scripts therefore were written with agrees with the Vulgate, in the inserLatin chapters, were written in the tion of the seventh verse : it follow's west of Exirope, where the Latin chap- the Vulgate also at the end of the ters were in use. They were written sixth verse, having Xplotos, where all by the Greeks, or by the descendants other Greek manuscripts have trovjere : of those Greeks, who fled into the west and in the eighth verse it omits the of Europe, after the taking of Con- final clause,which had never been omit. stantinople, and who then began to di- ted in the Greek manuscripts, and was vide their manuscripts according to the not omitted even in the Latin manuusage of the country, in which they scripts before the thirteenth century. fixed their abode.* The Dublin man- Such is the character of that solitary uscript, therefore, if not written for the manuscript, which is opposed to the purpose to which it was applied in the united evidence of all former manu-' third edition of Erasmus,t could hard. scripts, including the codex Vaticanus, ly have been written more than fifty and the codex Alexandrinus. years before. And how widely those " It has been already observed, criticks have erred in their conjectures, that when the passage first appeared who have supposed that it was written in Latin, it appeared under various so early as the twelfth century, appears forms, though it subsequently acquired from the fact, that the Latin chapters the permanent form, which it now were not invented till the thirteenth retains in the Latin Vulgate. It apcentury. I But the influence of the peared also under various forms, when church of Rome in the composition of first exhibited in Greek. The Dublin
manuscript gives it in one form : Ca« * There are three Greek manuscripts with lecas and Bryennius in other forms: the Latin chapters, in our university library, the Greek translation of the Acta Con." marked Hh. 6. 12. Kk. 5. 35. and Ll. 2. 13. cilii Lateranensis again in another form.f That which is marked LI. 2. 13. and is evi. And the differences are exactly such deatly the oldest of the three, was written at Paris, by Jerom of Sparta, for the use and
as might be expected in different Greek at the expense of a person called Bodet, as translations of the same Latin original. appears from the subscription to it. Now Nor had it acquired a settled form, Jerom of Sparta died at the beginning of the when introduced in our printed edi. sixteenth century.
tions. The Complutensian editors " The third edition of Erasmus has 1 John, 1. 7. precisely in the words of the Dublin gave it in one form : Erasmus in anoth
er form : Robert Stephens again in "I They were invented by Hugo de S. Ca- another form. Such is the origin and ro, who died in 1262. The precise year, progress of that celebrated passage, in which he divided the text of the Latin which men of learning and talent have Vulgate into its present chapters, is not taken for the genuine production of St. known. But as it appears from the preface Jobn. to the Cologne edition of his works, that he
" It is true, that, in the opinion of composed his concordance about the year 1248, and his division of the Vulgate into the present chapters was connected with that
16 * Here there is an additional proof, reconcordance, it could not have been done specting the age of the Dublin Ms. many years before the middle of the thir- “ + See the above quoted preface, notes teenth century.
some criticks, internal evidence may be be published and circulated by them, discovered in this passage, which they without note or comment. The obthink sufficient to overturn the exter. ject of this regulation was to allay the nal evidence. Now internal evidence jealousies of the dissenters, and lead may show, that a passage is spurious, them to unite with their brethren of the though external evidence is in its fa. establishment, in the great design of vour ; for instance, if it contains al. circulating the scriptures among all lusions to things which did not exist in the nations of the world. To guard the time of the reputed author. But against any collision wbich might inno internal evidence can prove a pas.. terrupt the harmony of the society sage to be genuine, when external thus constituted, it was further deter. evidence is decidedly against it. A mined to bave no religious services at spurious passage may be fitted to the their meetings. In this way, and in context, as well as a genuine passage. this only, could they effectually preNo arguments therefore from internal vent the questions from being agitated evidence, however ingenious they may respecting a liturgy or extempore appear, can outweigh the mass of ex- prayers, or concerning the validity of ternal evidence, which applies to the dissenting ordinations. Such being the case in question.
object of these regulations, there was “ The sacrifice therefore of that prin- not the least intention of passing any ciple, by which we defend the general judgment in the abstract against the integrity of the new testament, is a utility of commentaries, any more than sacrifice to which the passage is not there was of condemning the practice entitled. That important principle of opening all meetings for religious therefore remains unshaken : and the purposes with prayer. It was, in fact, general integrity of the new testament only the sacrifice of what was proper is liable to no objection. That prin- and useful in itself, for the attainment ciple has been rescued from the dan- of that co-operation, which they conger, to which many incautious friends sidered as a greater good. of Christianity have exposed it, by But the question with regard to notes endeavouring inadvertently to defend and commentaries soon assumed a difa part at the expense of the whole." ferent shape. Many of the members
of the church of England opposed a union with the British and Foreign
Bible Society, on account of its heteTo the Editor of the Gospel Advocate.
rogeneous character. This brought on When the British and Foreign Bible
a warm dispute, in the course of which, Society was formed, one of its funda inany of the friends of the society mental rules was that the bible should
maintained that notes and comments were not necessary to the understand
ing of the scriptures. "* One of the arguments from internal evidence is that ev t» in the eighth verse im- into the merits of this question, though
It is not my intention to enter fully plies that something had preceded with ev TV ouparoo. But they who in this argue
it appears to me that the practice of
manner, forget, that sy on an is wanting in the Greek all denominations is an evidence of the MSS. as well as sy to ou peva. Also in the fallacy of this last mentioned position. oldest Latin MSS. the eighth verse is equally If no comments are necessary, what is , destitute of in terra, which was inserted for the object of the constant instructions the very purpose of having something to correspond with in cælo, and shows how well the of the pulpit ? and if the bible alone, several parts of the interpolation have been put into the hands of a heathen, be fitted to each other."
sufficient to lead bim to embrace the
Christian faith, what need is there of found to be indubitably so, it will be missionaries ? “ Understandest thou seen that the construction put upon the what thou readest ?" was the question words “ without note or comment," of Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch ; and has in fact led to a mutilation of our the answer was, “How can I, except bibles. some man should guide me ?” What Another evil introduced by this eris the object of all the tracts and roneous construction, has been the pamphlets which are circulated with orission of all the marginal references. Euch incessant activity ?
These are of the greatest importance Erroneous principles always come for the understanding of the scriptures, attended with a train of practical evils ; because they enable the reader to reand such has been the case with the fer to the several passages in wbich the position in question.
same expression is used, and which Because the society had determined therefore often throw light upon each to publish the bible without note or other. They also point out the allucomment, it was inferred that the trans- sions to, or quotations from the old lations in the margin ought to be omit- testament, contained in the new, and ted; and accordingly the editions, pub- thus serve to harmonize the inspired lished by the several bible societies, I writings of the two dispensations.believe without exception, omit them. Many of these references were inserted But these marginal translations are an by the translators in the folio of 1611, integral part of the text of the author- the editio princeps. They were afterized English version. On this point, wards augmented from time to time, Dr. Adam Clarke, himself a dissenter, till the year 1769, when a thorough will, I presume, be considered as an revision of the authorized version was unexceptionable witness. “ That the made by Dr. Blayney, under the dimarginal readings,” says he, “in our rection of the vice chancellor and delauthorized translation, are essential to egates of the university of Oxford. the integrity of the version itself, I The references contained in Dr. Blayscruple not to assert; and they are of ney's edition are, says Dr. Clarke, the so much importance, as to be in sev. best collection ever edited. eral instances preferable to the textual
It is believed that on this subject readings themselves. Our conscien- no jealousy existed among the dissent. tious translators, not being able, in sev- ers, at the time when the British and eral cases, to determine which of two foreign bible society was formed. If, meanings borne by a word, or which of therefore, the object of publishing two words found in different copies, without note or comment, was only to should be admitted into the text, adopted produce a co-operation between churchthe measure of receiving both, placing men and dissenters, the marginal referone in the margin, and the other in the ences need not have been omitted. If text ; thus leaving the reader at liberty any objection existed with regard to to adopt either, both of which, in their Dr. Blayney's edition, which was conapprehension, stood nearly on the same sidered as the standard edition at the authority. On this very account, the time when the society was formed, they marginal readings are essential to our surely might have taken the bible of version ; and I have found, on collat 1611, as their copy, and published it ing many of them with the originals, exactly as it came from the hands of that those in the margin are to be pre.
the translators. ferred to those in the text, in the pro
If the several bible societies consiportion of at least eight to ten.” If der these marginal readings and refethis be correct, and I believe it will be rences as inconsistent with their rule of 27
ADVOCATE, VOL. II.