« PreviousContinue »
verse,-tres unum sunt, a corruption manifestly from the homeoteleuton TPEIXEIE: 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 the 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, made 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 readers, 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 impartial 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 Admonitiones in the Benedictine edition, and the remarks of Cave, sufficiently shew,) ascribed to Athanasius, the Synopsis Scripture Sacre, and the Disputatio contra Arium; 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 pre. sent 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 genuine scriptures with additions on the authority of mani. festly 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 allowed them.
With respect to the Synopsis, will our readers think we are serious, when we tell them that the passage adduced as a reference to TJoh. v. 1. is this ! Και την ενότητα δε του Υιού προς τον Πατέρα δείκνυσιν και ότι ο αρνούμενος τον Υιόν ουδε τον Πατέρα έχει. (Athan. inter opera dubia; tom. 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 ia the heavens incessantly honour the Holy Spirit, as Isaiah saith, with the Father and the Son.
“ Arius. It is no where written that the Holy Spirit 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. Moret 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 can be counted worthy of eternal life, without first receiving the equally-honoured, and consubstantial (OLLOoustov), 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? 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 of 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 daming ? In addition to all these, John saith, And the three are the one, (és agsis tol v duciv.)” Athan. ut supra, p. 298. : :
Had this delectable and judicious divine possessed the famous passage, is it imaginable that he would have neglected to give it in full display? Is not the sentence which he cites, plainly the final clause of the cighth verse? It com. ports with 12 well-known and favourite application of that verse to the Sacred Trinity, and with the erroneous, but very early reading of the Vulgaie.
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 homoüsian, where there is a sameness of persons, as in this phrase, And the three are on? (xod rá aptas xv.) Secondly, to things heteroüsian, 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 cannot be a quotation from either the 7th or the Sth 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 ex. amples, 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 Phæbadius 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 promi. ses that he would send Him; and indeeil another Comfor. ter, but we have already explained in what sense he is another. Further he saith, He shalt take of mine, as I of that which is the Father's. Thus the connexion of the Fa. ther 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 unun sunt [al. sint] non unus,) as it is written, I and the Father are one (ununi), with regard to the unity of the substance, not the singleness of the number.” Tertull. Opera, Rigaltii, 1663. p. 515.
2. Cyprian, who fourished about fifty years after Tertul
lian, in the same part of Africa, in his 73rd' Epistle, disputing against the validity of baptism administered by hereties, 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 į he could not, who has not believed on Him. If of Christ; he cannot become his temple, who depies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one (cum tres unum sint) how can the Holy Spirit be pleased with him who is tbe enemy either of the Father or of the Son ?” Cypr. Opera, Amst. 1700, p. 310..
Another passage of the same father, , “ The Lord saith; I and the Father are one. And again, of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one (Et hi tres unum sunt); and can any one believe that this unity, coming from the divine unchangeableness; cohering in the heavenly sacraments, can be divided iu the church, and severed by the disunion of opposing wills ?” ibi 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 all. By the way, we humbly beg that attention may be paid to Tertullian's manner of quoting John xvi. 14, 15. as a specimen of the loose way in which the fathers often cite scripture, amplifying, contracting, and modifying, to answer the exigency. Great caution is necessary in relying upon suchi writers. , . . . . . . .
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 Johy v. 3. adopting the common and very ancient reading which we noted in our account of the Vulgate, and interpreting " the spirit; tbe was ter, and the blood" of the Persons in the Trinity. This is, as far as we know, the first appearance of that interpretas tion which afterwards became such a favourite, and which ule timately led to the interpolation of the passage in question. Our proofs are these:
(1.) Those who suppose that the martyr intended the seloenth verse, should bring some other and independent evi. dence of its existence at the time. Now, 110 such evidence can be established-till two or three centuries afterwards for the Latin;minor till a thousand years afterwards for the Greek. ,,
(2.). Cyprian was not niggardly of parchment, ink, and pa-.
Hence; and it is most extraordinary, or rather incredible; that he should have omitted to introduce the whole passages so apposite to his purpose, had he known any thing about
"* purpose, he introduce, ratherine
(3.) We have good evidence for the truth of our 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 who give testimony. (in earth, in terra ; a probable insertion from the later Vulgate of a copyist or the editor ;] the Spirit, the water, änd' the blood, and these three are one; signifying by thë Spia rit, the Father, &c: – Which testimony, moreover, of the apostle John, the Blessed Cyprian, bishop and martyr of Carthage, in the epistle or book which he wrote on the unity; 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. "I . .'
3. From Phoebadius; bishop of Agen about 357; "the following passage is adduced. : * So the Spirit is different from the Son, as the Son is from the Father. So the third person is in the Spirit, as the second in the Son : yet all One God; because the three are one; ( quia tres unum sunt.)” If the Latter clause be a quotation, which can only be presumed; it may be either from X. 8. or 'from the passage in Tertullian. ....;!!! ! ! • 4. Because Augustine, in a place or two where lie speaks of the Trinity, has subjoined;" which three are one" (que tria unum sunt), it is sapiently concluded that he had derived them from y. 7. It may help our judgement in this matter, if we hear how Augustine expounds the genuine pass sage. “If we would inquire what are signified by these terms" (spirit, water, and blood), y on the Trinity itself may without impropriety, be understood i'non absurde occurret), which is One God; the Father, and the Son, and: the Holy Spirits of whom it might 'most truly be said, They are three witnesses, and the three are one : so that by the spirit we may understand the Father, by the blood the Son, and by the water the Spirit.” i Contra Maximin. lib.ii. cap. 22. ap. Opera, Colon., 1616, vol. vi.p. 2757 i
5. Jerome has been, sunmoned as a witness. For brévity's sake, we will quote Michaelis. “ Jerome has taken no notice of 1 John v. 7. in any part of his very voluminous *works, as Bengel himself acknowledges. It is true, that in - the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, which has been as
cribed to Jerome, the passage is both mentioned and de a Vol VI. * . . N . . . . . .