ADDRESSED TO
THE EDITOR OF THE QUARTERLY REVIEW
IN WHICH IS DEMONSTRATED
THE GENUINENESS OF
THE THREE HEAVENLY WITNESSES
1 JOHN v. 7.
By BEN DAVID
---------------------------
"There is nothing covered that
shall not be revealed; and hid that shall not be known. --- Matthew 10:26
"And if any one shall take away
from the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall take away his part
out of the book of life. --- Revelations 22:19
------------------------------------------------
LONDON
PRINTED FOR R. HUNTER, ST. PAUL'S
CHURCHYARD
-----------------
1825
Copyright 2001
All Rights Reserved
No part of this publication may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form
or by any means, electronic [floppy disk, zip disk, &c.], mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of both
the publisher and the editor.
To contact us:
Don Hewey, the Publisher at: webmaster@1john57.com
Jerome Cathelain, the Editor at:jcprotestanthouse@hotmail.com
CLICK HERE TO VIEW ORIGINAL TITLE PAGE
=======================================
THREE
LETTERS
TO
THE
EDITOR OF THE QUARTERLY REVIEW
--------------------------------
LETTER
I.
Sir,
Ever
since I began to interpret the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in connexion
with the circumstances which called them forth, and the knowledge of which
is necessary to place their true sense and propriety in a clear light,
I became convinced that the celebrated verse concerning the three heavenly
witnesses, is as genuine as the rest of the Epistle; and I intended one
day to dissipate the mystery which enveloped the subject. But I thought
the age little prepared to receive the consequences likely to follow from
the discussion; and I intended to leave my thoughts on the question, as
a legacy to succeeding generations. This was my intention, because experience
taught me that it would be in vain for me to write, if I materially opposed
public opinion, or ran counter to the authority of those who lead it. The
following incident, however, induced me to alter my mind. --- A gentleman,
distinguished for his eloquence, when very lately addressing a public assembly,
asserted that no person could maintain the authenticity of the three witnesses
without either ignorance or dishonesty. I was struck with this bold assertion;
and I resolved to give publicity to my ideas, and undeceive those at least
who should be at pains of examining them. This is the occasion which called
forth the following letters. And I address them to you, because of the
decided part you took in the controversy, when reviewing Dr. Burgess's
Vindication. That review, Sir, does, in my opinion, great credit to your
Journal: it contains a concise, candid, and luminous statement of the question;
and while it displays abilities peculiar to your publication, it gives
a specimen of the temper in which all theological controversies ought,
for the honour of Christianity, to be conducted. In your introduction you
say, "We must confess that, when we read an advertisement announcing
the publication of a work which promised to give Greek authorities for
the authenticity of 1 John v. 7, not hitherto adduced in its defence, we
felt no slight degree of surprise and curiosity. After the labour bestowed
by so many learned and ingenious men as have written on this controverted
verse, nothing seemed to remain for future disputants, but to restate and
place in new lights the facts which had been transmitted to them. When
therefore we saw new authorities promised, we were anxious to know by what
singular felicity the Right Reverend Prelate had been led to the discovery
of evidence which had escaped the researchers of all preceding inquirers.
The result of the controversy between Professor Porson and Archdeacon Travis,
--- the last regular controversy on the subject of 1 John v. 7, --- had
proved in a very high degree unfavourable to the opinion of the genuineness
of that passage. The great majority of learned men, whatever were their
sentiments respecting the important doctrine of the Trinity, agreed in
pronouncing the verse to be spurious." Quarterly Review for 1822, p. 324.
I believe,
Sir, no publication has contributed to diffuse and establish this notion
more than the Quarterly review; not merely because of the vast influence
which it has on public opinion, but because of the superior force and clearness
with which you analysed the controversy, and, if the grounds on which you
proceeded were admitted, the justness of your decision. My object is to
show that this ground is entirely mistaken; and to open a new path of inquiry,
which shall inevitably lead to the re-establishment of the verse in the
hearts and conviction of mankind. Important and curious as the question
of its authenticity is in itself, it has a far higher claim on your attention
and that of the public, on account of the consequences which it involves.
If I prove the genuineness of this text, the orthodox faith, whether established
by power or by prejudice, will receive a shock which shall shatter its
very foundations, and bring it at no distant period completely to the ground;
while, on the other hand, additional strength and lustre will be given
to the evidences of Christianity as it came from the hands of Christ and
his Apostles. This consideration, more than mere curiosity, must, if founded
in truth, inevitably engage you again in the controversy, and induce you
to employ your powerful pen in refuting my views. I then, Sir, summon you
a second time to the field; and I pray God that you may come in the exercise
of that Christian spirit of which you have given me and others a fine example
in your review of this question. Mistake me not; this summons is an invitation,
not a challenge. Whatever confidence I have in my cause, I have none in
myself, that would warrant me in defying your hostility. I wish you to
come forth, not that I might combat you, but that I might enlist under
you banners; that if in the main I am right, I might receive your assistance,
--- if otherwise, your opposition to come at a final decision; and through
you, give the nation an opportunity of knowing the issue of a discussion,
which, if taken in all its bearings, is one of the most momentous and interesting
that has ever engaged the attention of the Christian world. With this introduction,
I propose
then, to prove, That the disputed verse forms the sum and substance of
the whole Epistle, and is essential to the connexion:--- That the true
sense places its genuineness beyond all reasonable suspicion, and serves
to account for every defect in its external evidence. In pursuing this
end, the course natural for me to adopt, is to ascertain, first, the scope
of the Epistle; secondly, the scope of the verse; and lastly, this scope
being ascertained, to account for the silence of manuscripts, of version,
and of the early fathers.
I propose
then, first, to ascertain the scope of the Epistle: and an attentive perusal
of it warrants us in concluding, that its object is to check the heresy
of the Gnostics. These the Apostle mentions under the names of false
prophets and Antichrist: and so directly does he meet their
tenets, that we might fairly infer what they were from John's own words.
But we need not rest on this inference, as Iranaeus, Theodoret, and Epiphanius,
have given a direct history of the Gnostics system; while it is indirectly
confirmed by Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome.
These
heretics insisted on two principles, which served as the foundation of
their whole system. The first was, that the Creator is an evil, imperfect
Being: the second, that the Christ was a God, either dwelling for a season
in the man Jesus, or an empty phantom in his shape. In Judaea and other
places, where our Lord was personally known, they insisted on the former
as the morre plausible supposition; but in heathen countries, where the
appearance of a God in human form was vulgarly believed, they inculcated
the latter. It obviously followed, that if the Almighty were evil, he must
wish the misery rather than the happiness of his creatures, and the Saviour
could not have come from Him to save the world: and if Christ, as they
affect to believe, was a God opposite to the Creator in nature and character,
he must have come to destroy the works, to abolish the laws, of the Creator;
he must have come not to save men from their sins, but to confer, as they
pretended, on a favourite few, the privilege of indulging in every sinful
inclination. Moreover, if Christ were a God, He must have performed His
miracles by virtue of His own power; He appeared after death by virtue
of His own nature; and the resurrection or the reappearance of a being
after his supposed death, who was by nature superior to death, would not
be a pledge and pattern of the resurrection of beings such as mortals are,
who by nature are subject to death. There is therefore no resurrection
of the dead; and the doctrine of a future state or a judgment to come,
with all the purifying influence of the Gospel, falls to the ground.
The
Epistle of John consists of a few positions again and again repeated, and
variously placed in opposition to the two dogmas above mentioned, and the
pernicious inferences which followed from them. Thus, in opposition to
the impious statement that God was evil or malignant, or that the Christ
did not come from Him to save mankind, he says, "God is light, and in
Him there is no darkness." 1:5. "In this the love of God hath shown itself
among us, that His only begotten Son He hath sent into the world, that
we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that
He loved us, and sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins. Beloved,
if God thus loved us, we too ought to love one another." 4:9 - 10 "God
is love; and he who remaineth in love, remaineth in God, and God in him."
4:16.
The
impostors pretended, however it might be incumbent on the Apostles and
their faithful followers to suffer persecution and to abstain from sin,
they and their disciples were exempt from such sacrifices, being privileged
to continue in sin. This is a fact attested by Irenaeus (see p. 31.); and
without a knowledge of it, a modern reader would hardly comprehend such
passages as the following: "Children, let no one deceive you: he that
doeth righteousness is righteous, as Jesus Himself was righteous. He that
doeth sin is of the devil; because from the beginning the devil sinneth.
This was then end for which the Son of God appeared, that He might destroy
the works of the devil." 3:7 - 8.: that is, to destroy the works of
the devil, or all evil works, and not, as the deceivers pretended, to destroy
the righteous laws of God. Simon of Samaria, who was one of the framers
of the Gnostic system, as Theodoret informs us (Haeres. Fab. Lib.1. 1.),
taught his followers "that the prophets were ministers of (evil) angels;
and therefore encouraged those who believed in him not to attend to them,
nor dread the threatenings of the law, but to practise without restraint
whatever they wished; for it is not by good works but by grace they can
attain salvation." This is directly opposite to the Apostolic doctrine,
which says, "Every one that is born of God, does not sin; because his
seed (a Divine principle) remaineth in him; and he cannot bring himself
to sin, because he is born of God. In this are manifest the sons of God
and the sons of the evil one; every one that practiseth unrighteousness,
or hateth his brother, is not born of God."
The
impostors were not content with destroying the reforming influence of the
Gospel, but in mere derision sought to give immorality and licentiousness
the regularity of system and the sanctions of a law. Hence the same Theodoret
says of certain Gnostics in Egypt: "These men use magic, and employ
the names of demons: and to such a pitch of madness are they advanced,
that they conceal not their lewdness, but reduce it to a regular system.
For, says Carpocrates, some things are deemed evil, and others good, from
opinion, and not from truth. While I am on this subject, I shall not pass
over the legislative sanctions which they give to their impurities. They
admit the transmigrations (of the soul), but not on the principle according
to which it was taught by Pythagoras. For he said, that souls which have
sinned are sent into bodies to be duly purified and purified. But these
say, that the cause of their being embodied is directly opposite to that
assigned by Pythagoras. For human souls. Affirm they, are sent into bodies
in order to practise all manner of impurities: that therefore, those souls
which fulfill this end, on being once immersed in a body, do not need a
second immersion; but that those which have sinned in a small degree, must
be sent twice, thrice, or oftentimes, until they have completed all sorts
of baseness." Haer. Fab., lib. 1. 5.
Their
attempts, --- in many instances, it is to be feared, too successful to
pervert the Gospel into a regular system of depraved indulgences, --- are
thus noticed in the following words of Jude: "certain men long ago foretold
(by Jesus) as devoted to this condemnation, have insidiously crept in among
us, who changed, as being impious (atheists), the grace of our God into
lewdness; who perverted the Gospel, the gracious gift of God, into an engine
of impurities; and who reject God the only supreme ruler, and our Lord
Jesus Christ, as their Lord." Irenaeus is express in declaring that,
though they affected to extol Christ as a God, they rejected Him under
the title of Lord, as denying any obligation on their part to obey
the precepts and follow the example of Jesus, an obligation which that
name implies. (See Iren. P.9.)
While
the Antichristian teachers rejected the Creator and the only Supreme Ruler
of the universe, as evil and imperfect, they pretended to reveal an all-perfect
being of their own, not concerned in the creation and government of the
world. To this fictitious God, (which the impostors pretended to have been
unknown to the Apostles till they had brought him to light,) John thus
alludes, at the close of his Epistle, "We know that the Son of God is
come, and hath given us an understanding that we might know the true God;
and we are in the true God by means of His Son Jesus Christ. This is the
true God, and the life eternal. Children, be on your guard against idols:"
that is, "This is the true God, whom the only begotten in the bosom
of the Father hath brought to light (John 1:18); and whom we know through
Him, and not the new and the false God, whom the deceivers pretend to have
revealed. Brethren, be on your guard against all such false Gods."
Let
us next advert to what the Apostle advances against the other fundamental
principle on which the Antichristian system was founded; namely, that "Jesus
is not the Christ." This means, that the man Jesus is not the Christ.
For the deceivers maintained that the Christ is a God in the form of a
man, and not a real man; or that it is a God which dwelled for a season
in the man Jesus, having entered into him at the commencement of his ministry,
and abandoned him before his crucifixion. The first of these notions, as
I have already observed, was insisted upon only in heathen countries, where
such a notion harmonized with the popular superstition; while a more plausible
fiction was taught in Judaea and other places, where Jesus had been personally
known, or a more just notion of god prevailed. To the former barefaced
fiction, John thus distinctly alludes: "Beloved, believe not every spirit,
but try the spirits, if they be of God; because many false prophets are
come into the world. In this know ye the spirit of God: every spirit which
alloweth that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is of God: and every spirit
which alloweth not that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is not of God: and
this is that spirit of Antichrist, of whose coming ye have heard, and who
is even now already in the world." 4:1 - 3. "To come in the flesh" means,
to come in a real human body, or to be a real man. Here then it is clearly
and unequivocally written, that there were those who taught that Christ
is a God --- in the appearance of man indeed, but not a real man: and that
the Apostle calls the men who thus taught the Divinity of Christ, false
teachers, and even Antichrist. The comprehensive notion of Jesus being
God and man was, it seems, yet unthought of; and in the estimation of this
Apostle, to allow the Divinity of Jesus, was to deny His humanity; while
on the other hand, the allowing of his real humanity implied a denial of
His Divinity. It was necessary for a darker age to arrive, a more debased
prostration of the human understanding to take place, before it could be
admitted that the natures of God and man, though directly opposite to each
other, might yet co-exit in the same person, and constitute one and the
same being.
As Jesus,
according to the impostors, had not a real body, or real flesh and blood,
he did not in reality suffer death. At this notion John glances in the
following verse: "But if we walk in the light, as God is in the light,
God and we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus Christ
purifies us from all sin." 1:7. Here three things most important are
implied: that Jesus had real flesh and blood, --- and that his object in
shedding it was to cleanse men from all sin. These positions the Gnostics
denied; and the phrase "the blood of Jesus Christ purifieth us from
all sin" means, that He, by voluntarily laying down His life in connexion
with His resurrection, furnished a decisive proof of a future state; and
by that means, motives the most powerful to induce every man who cherishes
this animating hope, to "purify himself even as Jesus was pure." 3:3
Our
Lord Himself states that the object of His death was to induce men to forsake
their sins; "And he took up the cup, and gave thanks, saying, drink
ye all of it, it is My blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many
--- eis aphesin amartion, FOR THE DISMISSION OF SINS." Matthew 26:28:
that is, Christ shed His blood, --- or in other words, He laid down His
life, --- in order to supply all men, Gentiles as well as Jews, with an
adequate motive to dismiss their sins; that being purified from
their iniquities by repentance and reformation, they might be received
into favour with God.
It is
a remarkable fact, that wherever in their writings the Apostles notice
the death of Christ, they uniformly refer to the sentiments of the Gnostics;
and these sentiments supply an unerring standard by which to ascertain
their true meaning. The sentiments were; that Christ did not die for the
sins of men, the object of His appearing in the world being to destroy
the works of the Creator, who is cruel and arbitrary; and to rescue mankind
from subjection to His laws, so that all who followed them might gratify
their propensities without fear or compunction. This blasphemy Paul sets
aside in the beginning of his Epistle to the Galatians: "Grace be unto
you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, who
gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver from this present evil
world, according to the will of God and our Father: to whom be glory for
ever. Amen. I wonder that ye are so soon removed from Him who called you
in the grace of God unto another Gospel; which is not another Gospel, but
the artifice of men who wish to throw you into confusion, and to subvert
the Gospel of Christ." Here Paul must have intended to assert what
the deceivers denied; namely, that Christ gave Himself for our sins, not
to atone for them to Infinite Justice, but to deliver us from the evil
which is in the world: and this he did not against the will of God, but
in conformity to it, as the will of a father who takes an affectionate
interest in the recovery of his children. Again, Acts 20:28, "Take heed
unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He (Jesus) hath secured
around with His blood." The Gnostics denied that Christ had a real
body, and consequently denied that He really died. Of these he immediately
adds, "I know this, that immediately after my departure grievous wolves
will enter in among you, not sparing the flock." The phrase "with
His blood" is the same as "with His death:" but the writer preferred
the former, to show that the body of Jesus Christ, like that of other men,
consisted of real flesh and blood. The expression "He secured the church
of God with His blood" or "by death," has allusion to a fold
well fenced on every side against wolves or other beasts of prey which
sought to break into it. The wolves here meant were the Antichristian teachers:
and the fence which guarded the flock was the simple humanity and death
of its faithful shepherd. For these they wished to substitute in the person
of Christ, a God in a human form, but incorporeal and impassive. Paul,
they said, did not preach this doctrine, because Christ had not fully communicated
to him the mysteries of the Gospel: and to this charge the Apostle alludes,
when he says that he declared to them the whole counsel of God."
The
death of Christ, though not a supernatural event, is the corner-stone on
which the church of Christ is erected. It was necessary that our Lord should
voluntarily surrender Himself to His enemies, in order to evince the sincerity
of His own conviction in the doctrine which He proclaimed to the world.
It was necessary, too, that He should have died in the most public manner,
or His resurrection, however true, could not be proved, or even known.
Without the resurrection of Christ, we should have no hope in Christ of
surviving the tomb: and without the crucifixion of Christ, we should have
no evidence of His resurrection: and the glorious evidence of the Christian
faith erected by Him, and now placed on a solid basis, would fall to the
ground. Of this the Antichristian teachers were fully sensible; and they
used every artifice to undermine the death of our Saviour: and to this
circumstance it is owing that the Apostles assert it so frequently and
lay so much stress upon it. The cause of this stress became in latter days
overlooked; and men where hence led to ascribe to the blood of Jesus some
mysterious efficacy, by which the pardon of sin is obtained, and the Creator
prevailed upon to be reconciled to His fallen creatures. This was a refinement
unknown to the impostors; or they would have been glad to establish it,
in order to vilify the God and Father of mankind, as unwilling to forgive
sin unless appeased by the suffering of His own Beloved Son.
I am,
Sir, yours &c
===========================
LETTER
II.
Sir,
HAVING
shown in the foregoing letter, that the object of John in this Epistle
is to set aside the Divinity of Christ as an artifice to undermine the
Gospel, I proceed in the second to ascertain the object of the disputed
verse.
The
fiction that Christ was a God, or a phantom in the likeness of man, was
so absurd, as to be seriously believed by none; while the notion that He
was God dwelling for a time in the man Jesus, is no less plausible, than
difficult to be guarded against or refuted. It was countenanced by the
visible appearance which descended on Jesus at His baptism [1];
by the power of working miracles which ensued; and the apparent dereliction
of Him by that supernatural power when He surrendered Himself into the
hands of His enemies. Divine Wisdom anticipated this difficulty, and enabled
Jesus and His Apostles by three remarkable provisions to set aside; I mean,
a public testimony given by God Himself at the commencement of Christ's
ministry, --- the testimony given by Jesus in His capacity of delegate
from heaven, --- the testimony of the Holy Spirit after His ascension;
--- all these three testimonies forming one testimony.
This
leads me to the scope of the disputed verse, which is the following:---
'Oti treis eisin oi marturountes en to ourano, o Pater, o Logos, kai
to Agion Pneuma, kai outoi treis en eisi. There are three bearing testimony
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are
one: that is, oi treis en marturion eisi. The meaning then is,
that the father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, which are in heaven, bear
testimony; and these three testimonies are one testimony; or, as it is
expressed by the parallelism in the next verse, agree in one testimony.
The testimony meant, is that which it is the burden of this Epistle to
prove; namely, that JESUS IS THE CHRIST: meaning, in opposition to the
Antichristian teachers, that the man Jesus, and not a God dwelling in the
man Jesus or in the empty form of the man Jesus, is the Christ.
That
the reader may be assured that I do not mislead him by this distinction,
I will cite one or two authorities. Origen, speaking of the Serpentists,
a sect of the Gnostics in Egypt, thus writes of them: "They (while
they affected to believe in Christ) vilify JESUS no less than Celsus; nor
do they admit any into their society, unless he first pledges himself by
curse against Jesus." Contra Celsus. P. 294. They were sometimes called
Ophitai, as worshippers of the Serpent in opposition to the Creator,
from Ophis; and Paul thus alludes to them: "I fear, lest as the
serpent deceived Eve by his craft, so your minds be corrupted from the
simplicity which is in Christ." 2 Cor. 11:13. These, in verse 13, he
calls "false teachers, deceitful doers, assuming to themselves the character
of Christ's Apostles." In his first Epistle he distinctly refers to
the circumstance of their cursing the man Jesus, while they pretended to
receive and worship the Divinity within Him. "Wherefore I give you to
understand, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calleth JESUS cursed."
1 Cor. 12:3; that is, --- rejecteth Jesus with curses. At the close of
the same Epistle, he writes, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let
him be anathema (excommunication)" : that is --- instead of excommunicating
Jesus, excommunicate the person, whosoever he be, that pretending to receive
the Christ, yet blasphemes and hates the Lord Jesus.
I.] The
authors of the Antichristian system were the priests and rulers who put
our Lord to death. During His ministry they laboured to disseminate a belief
that He performed His miracles by intercourse with evil spirits from hades,
or by Beelzebub prince of the demons dwelling in Him. Divine Wisdom anticipated
this subterfuge, and provided against it by a public testimony, which rendered
it impossible for the most ignorant or superstitious among the people,
to refer the power with which the blessed Jesus acted to any other source
than His Almighty Father in heaven. While His forerunner was proclaiming
the approach of the kingdom of Heaven, when surrounded by an immense concourse
from Judaea, Jerusalem, and all the country round about, many of the Pharisees
and Sadducees also being in the number, on this public occasion, Jesus
of Nazareth came to be baptized. A scene solemn, sudden, and surprising
ensued:--- High in the heaven, beyond the reach of all human power or imposture,
the clouds which had hitherto darkened the sky dispersed; a commission
from the Sovereign of the universe, assuming a visible appearance, descended
on the man Jesus, at the same time accompanied with an audible voice, saying
"This is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
In consequence
of this signal event, the fame of Jesus, we are told, "went out through
all Syria: ands they brought to Him all that were diseased, those oppressed
by various distempers and afflictions; demoniacs, lunatics, and those with
palsies: and He healed them." The Evangelist mentions these incidents,
in order to show, that the benevolent use, as well as the magnitude of
the power here displayed by Jesus, precluded the possibility of intercourse
with evil spirits and pointed to the Almighty as its real origin. The testimony
thus given Him by His heavenly Father implies, that Jesus, the man Jesus,
or, as He emphatically calls Himself the Son of Man, is also the Son of
God; that He was thus distinguished on the authority of God Himself; that
he became the Son of God by the commission or by the power and instruction
which He received on this occasion; and finally, that the Almighty, being
proclaimed that Father of all men who receive His Gospel and follow His
example. This chain of consequences the Apostles comprised in the simple
proposition, that Jesus is the Christ, or, that Jesus is the Son of God;
while the Antiapostolic teachers endeavoured to set them aside in a manner
equally compendious, by insisting on His Divinity. Thus John asks, "Who
is a liar but he that denieth Jesus to be the Christ? This is the Antichrist,
who denieth the Father and the Son." 2:2.
The
Apostles suppose the notoriety and acknowledged truth of this testimony;
ands they frequently allude to it in arguing against the impostors. Thus
our Lord asserts it in the face of His enemies; "I have a testimony
greater than that of John: for the works which the Father gave me to finish,
these works which I do, bear testimony of me, that the father sent me."
John 5: 36-37. John the beloved disciple seems to have been present
at the baptism of Jesus; and, apparently, it is to what he there witnessed
that he thus alludes: "And we have seen, and bear testimony, that The
Father sent His Son to be the saviour of the World. Whosoever alloweth
that Jesus is the Son of God, God remaineth in him, and he in God."
In writings these words, the Apostle had in his mind the following words
of John the Baptist, which he himself has recorded in his Gospel: "And
John bore testimony, saying, I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove
from heaven, and it remaineth upon Him." 1:32. From the succeeding
verses we learn that two of John's disciples then became disciples of Jesus.
These appear to have been John the beloved disciple, and Andrew brother
of Simon Peter. Hence the former relates of the Baptist what he had himself
seen and heard; and he relates it with all the particularity of an eye
witness: "And on the following day, John stood, and two of his disciples;
and fixing his eyes on Jesus as he was walking, saith, Behold the lamb
of God!" 35, 36. The Baptist uses tetheamai (I have seen) in
the singular; but the Apostle, in order to include himself and his fellow-disciple,
changes it into the plural, we have seen. And it is worthy of remark,
that the words tetheametha, marturoumen, omologese, Uios tou Theou,
menei, which the Apostle use in Chapter 3:14-15, of his Epistle, were
originally the words of the Baptist, and hence copied from him. The clause,
"Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world,"
used by the Baptist, is changed by the Apostle, into "the Son, Saviour
of the world;" both clauses meaning the same thing, namely, that Jesus,
as the Son of God, was to die; and that the object of His death was to
save the world from sin and its penal consequences; both which the impostors
denied.
II. No
word in the New Testament seems more uncertain, or the sense of which has
been more controverted, than the original of the Word, o Logos. It
is therefore necessary for me, first, to ascertain its meaning; and then
to show how, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, it bears testimony that
Jesus is the Christ.
The
Gnostics are thought by modern divines to have been a sect of Christians
betrayed into error by the pride of knowledge, and by the imperceptible
influence of early prejudices on the human heart. But this is a very mistaken
notion. The Gnostics were Christians only in profession; but in reality,
Epicurean Jews, and the most deadly enemies of the Gospel. This will appear
from the following reasons:---
1. The
Egyptians from the most early times worshipped the Serpent, as a
symbol of divine wisdom; and opposed it to the God of Israel, whom they
blasphemed as an evil, imperfect Being. This was the first principle in
the Gnostic system; and it is evident that those among the Jews who adopted
it, must have been apostates from the religion of Moses and the Prophets.
As abettors of the Serpent, they were sometimes called Ophitai, or
Ophianoi, Serpentists; and it is for their apostasy in this respect,
that John the Baptist and our Lord Himself stigmatize them as "serpents,
or children of the serpent." (See Matthew 3:7; 23:33.)
2. The
framers of Antichrist pretended to have revealed a supreme Being hitherto
unknown even to the Jews. This pretension demonstrates that their religious
creed was founded in atheism. For it is not to be supposed that,
if, in opposition to the strongest evidence from reason and revelation,
they rejected the Creator and Governor of the world as an all-perfect
Being, they seriously believed the existence and perfection of another
Being without any proof from either. Besides, the pagan poets, and even
philosophers, personified the Abyss [2] mentioned in the
beginning of the Mosaic history, and represented him as the most ancient
of gods. This was the Supreme God of the impostors; and therefore amongst
other names they called him Bythos, the "Depth." Accordingly,
the description they gave of him was copied from the school of Epicurus.
He was not the creator, nor had any concern in the government of the world;
and his happiness consisted in Epicurean ease, in silence, indolent tranquillity,
and indulgences, unruffled by disquietudes, or uninterrupted by care. (See
Irenaeus, p.7.)
3.
The Gnostics, being unable to check the progress or counteract the purifying
influence of the Gospel by openly denying the miracles and resurrection
of Jesus, artfully sought to sink it in the dregs of heathenism. This was
not only the tendency, but the direct object of their system:
and the most likely way to secure their end was to deify the founder, and
to place him on the same shelf with Pan, Serapis, or Hercules, in the Pantheon
of Athens or of Rome. Their attempts to fulfill this purpose at Philippi
and in the capital of the empire, may be seen in the seventh and tenth
chapters of the First Part of Ben David's Reply to Gamaliel Smith. Egypt
had ever been the hot bed of superstition. There Gnosticism mostly flourished.
The Emperor Adrian informs us that the priests of Serapis were also bishops
of Christ. [3] Of this number probably was Carpocrates and
Basilides, and these we know to have been at the head of the Gnostics in
that country.
4.
The authors of Gnosticism were the higher orders of priests and Pharisees,
who caused our Lord to be put to death. The blessed Jesus, anticipating
their insidiousness and enmity, pointed out the foundation of their system
in the parable of the tares sown with the good seed; and he repeatedly
warned his faithful followers against them, under the figure of wolves
coming among them in sheep's clothing. During His ministry, they had the
depravity to refer to an evil spirit miracles which they could not but
know to have proceeded from the Spirit of God. But they soon found this
evasion unavailing; and after the resurrection of the Founder, from open
enemies they became pretended friends. While their real object was to undermine
Christianity, they affected to render it more perfect and attractive, by
superadding to it certain sublime mysteries, which Christ had concealed
from His Apostles, as being illiterate; but revealed to them, as men of
superior wisdom. Being adapted to the prejudices of Jews and Gentiles,
and perverted into a cloak for gratifying the worst passions of the human
heart, this pernicious system enlisted on its side all the pretended wise,
and all the incorrigibly wicked, not only in Judaea, but in Rome and the
provinces. By means of agents and emissaries it was systematically propagated
from Jerusalem, and conveyed to all those places in which the Gospel in
its purity had been planted by the Apostles. Its reception into the churches
established by them was the means, under Providence, of calling forth the
Apostolic writings; and among the number, the Gospel and this Epistle of
John; who, on account of its wide prevalence and more systematic opposition
to the doctrine of Christ, was the first to give to this imposture the
name of ANTICHRIST.
One
of the means wisely adopted by this Evangelist to defeat the purposes of
the Antichristian teachers, was to transfer to his Divine Master the title
of Logos, which, as expressive of the being and attributes of God,
became in after days a new foundation for erecting upon it the Divinity
of our Saviour. Philo has the merit of unfolding the primary sense of the
term, and bringing to light the propriety of its application to Christ.
"The Deity," says he, (De Mundi Opificio, p.3,) "foreseeing that
nothing fair could be formed without a fair model, and that no sensible
object would be perfect unless made after some archetypal form, --- on
having determined to frame this visible world, preconcerted an intellectual
world, in order that after the model of this immaterial and diviner world
He might execute that which is material, as a younger image is taken from
an older, comprehending in it the several sensible kinds contained in the
other." The author illustrates his meaning by comparing the Creator
to an architect, who having designed to build a splendid city, first forms
a complete plan of it in his mind, before he carries his scheme into execution.
"In the same way," adds he, "we must conceive of God, who having
purposed to build this city of universal nature, first conceived the models
of it, constituting the intellectual world, and then used this as a pattern
when executing the sensible world: and as the ideal city preconceived by
the architect had no external local existence, but subsisted only in the
mind of the artist; so the ideal world, consisting of models, can have
no other place than the Divine Intellect which arranged it." The original
of Divine Intellect, or the intellectual world, is Theios Logos, the
Divine Logos, or Logos Theou, Logos of God. In thus applying
the term Logos to the intellect of God, or to the effect of that intellect
subsisting within Himself, Philo professes to speak with philosophical
accuracy. If I might use," says he, "plain language, I should
say that the intellectual world (Theou Logon) is nothing else but the Intellect
of God, while He was mow making the world; for the intellectual city is
nothing else but the reasoning of the architect while employed in projecting
the material city." Vol. 1. 5. He adds, that god and no other is the
author of nature, employing only His own attributes, without advice, without
assistance from any other. Now Philo says expressly that this representation
is given by Moses, whence he borrowed it: and if we accurately examine
the Mosaic history of the Creation, we shall find that the assertion is
most true, as has been shown by Essenus, in his "New Version of the First
Three Chapters of Genesis, accompanied with Dissertations illustrative
of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the Principle of Evil, and the Plagues
of Egypt." According to this writer, Moses in speaking of the Creation
uses two verbs which the common translators have taken as synonymous: these
are bara, to create, and asha, to make, which nevertheless
have very distinct significations; the former meaning to plan, to model,
or devise, the latter to effect or produce. The
one is a term of science, and expresses the operation of the understanding
while planning, scheming, or inventing; the other of art,
and denotes the execution or performance of any scheme. This distinction
Essenus establishes by decisive evidence from Moses himself. Accordingly
he renders the first verse thus, "In the beginning God planned the heavens
and the earth;" remarking that, when the sacred historian represents
the Almighty as planning the heavens and the earth, He must have intended
to set aside the false notions of those who maintained that the world had
not beginning, or began to exist by natural causes.
"The
advocates of atheism," adds
he, "endeavoured to throw a veil over the evidences of design in the
works of nature, as proving, if admitted, a designing cause; and that by
denying all previous ideas, or models of material things in the Supreme
Mind." They knew that nothing was so likely to bring into disbelief
the agency and existence of the true God, as a pretended belief in the
agency and existence of false gods. With this view they personified the
properties of matter, and spoke of these properties as the attributes of
divine beings. On the other hand, they applied the name and attributes
of God to nature, to physical causes, to chance or fortune, and finally
to the heavenly bodies; thus endeavouring to confound Him with His own
works, and to conceal Him from the eyes of human reason by interposing
the shades of His own splendid creation. The Jewish Legislator had to defeat
this philosophical craft; and he has done it in a manner truly admirable.
He first places a spiritual being at the head of the creation; then represents
him, before he begins to create, as previously forming models of all the
things to be created. Next he exhibits him as moving to and fro over the
surface of the deep, in order to survey, as it were, how and were to begin
his projected plan. In a step further wee see him issue his commands to
the ministers that surround his throne, to carry his plans into effect,
conformably to models placed in their hands. Immediately after the execution,
he surveys the work, passes sentence on its merits, again and again pronouncing
it to be good.
Ver.
11 stands thus in the common translation, "And God said, Let the earth
bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding
fruit after his kind." The phrase after his kind is used in
connexion with all the creatures which God commanded to be made. It is
therefore evident that it has some definite and emphatic meaning. When
one thing is said to have been done after another, we mean that it is done
in imitation of it, that it is done conformably to it, the thing imitated
being a pattern or model, prior in point of time to the copy or imitation.
But the kinds of things were not yet in existence; they could not therefore,
in the sense of kinds, be standards of the things to be created.
Yet this precisely the meaning of lameino in Hebrew; and it is remarkable
that the translators, following with scrupulous accuracy the idiom of the
original, have so rendered it in English, without knowing its import. The
meaning of Moses, however, is clear and consistent. According to his representation,
the Creator, as a necessary step to render his works conformable to his
design, first drew a plan of the whole in his own mind. This plan consisted
of general ideas, intended to serve as models for the several classes
of things to be carried into effect. As the creator designed things to
be formed in classes or kinds agreeably to given models, it was natural
in Moses to designate the kinds or copies by the very same name which designates
the originals in the mind of God. Moreover, the classes of things called
kinds, now actually existing in nature, prior to our conceptions, become
themselves prototypes of those general conceptions which we call ideas:
and thus it is that the same word in Hebrew, when applied to things
in the divine Mind meant models; when applied to the classes of
things, signifies kinds; to ourselves denotes ideas, ---
and yet retains the same radical signification. The corresponding word
in Greek is eidos or idea; and this, like the original mein,
may mean models or ideas in God, the classes of things in nature, or the
general notions of those classes in the human understanding.
The
atheistical philosophers, considering the phaenomena of nature as the result
of matter and motion, rejected the doctrine of ideas or models; while Moses
and his followers insisted on them, as inseparable from the existence of
a Supreme Intelligence, --- for this obvious reason, that nothing can proceed
from design, but that of which an idea previously existed in the mind of
the designer. If these things came into being without ideas, they must
have come without design, and consequently without a designing cause. This
is the conclusion which the Jewish Legislator sets aside by representing
Jehovah as planning the fair system of things before he actually produced
it.
We return
again to Philo. He says, that Logos means the Divine Intelligence,
as the designing cause of all things, or as a rational spiritual being
independent of the works of nature. This doctrine he advances in opposition
to the atheistical philosophers of Egypt, who applied the word God
to nature, to physical causes, and to heavenly bodies; seeking thereby
to preclude all evidence for the existence of a rational principle distinct
from nature herself. Now this is precisely the doctrine of the evangelist
john in the beginning of his Gospel. Evidently alluding to the account
of the Creation given by Moses, he says, "In the beginning was the Logos;"
meaning, that when creation began to exist, a rational intelligent
principle, under the name of Logos, was the first cause of its existence;
or according to Philo, when the foundation of the universe was laid, an
intelligent planner or designer preceded its formation.
The
reference which this Evangelist has to Antichrist, both in his Gospel and
in his Epistles, places this doctrine in a clear, simple, and unequivocal
light. The Antichristian teachers were atheists; and they sought
to level the whole edifice of Christianity, by withdrawing from under it
the existence and agency of One God. The dispute between them and the Apostles
was, whether Sige (sige, silence) or Logos was from the beginning
with God. [4] If the former, the Supreme Being led a life
of eternal darkness and lonely inaction; --- if the latter, he lived in
the everlasting fruition of light and life; in the eternal display of every
natural and moral perfection, throughout the boundless and complicated
machine of nature. The one cut up all hopes of a future state, by erasing
the very foundations of natural religion: the other prepared the way for
a rational faith in it, by pointing to an all-powerful, wise, and beneficent
Being at the head of the universe.
One
step more remains to be taken, and we have reached the end of our inquiry.
The Logos which in the beginning was with God became flesh. [5]
What does this much disputed doctrine imply, --- what does it assert? In
direct and forcible language it asserts the very thing which the impostors
denied: It asserts that the Christ, instead of being a man in appearance,
was a real human being; that, instead of being a god acting independently
of the Creator, he was a man acting with the authority of the Creator.
It implies that the miracles which Jesus performed, the wisdom and benevolence
which he displays, the doctrine which he taught, the power by which he
rose from the grave, --- were but emanations of those Supreme Perfections
which originally framed and still govern the universe. In a word, it implies
that Jesus had received a commission from God, and was even invested with
the attributes of god, in order to carry into effect a benevolent scheme
which God Himself had formed for the salvation of mankind. The man Jesus
is the Christ: as the Christ, is the Word of God; and as the word of God,
the attributes of the Great Creator united themselves with him, and are
displayed in him. As the Christ, he was constituted and proclaimed the
Son of God; and as the Son of God, he is One with God --- not one
in substance or essence, (which, if not absurd and impossible, is quite
foreign to the question,) but one in co-operation and design: the very
thing which the Antichristian teachers denied, and by denying it, sought
to bring the fair fabric of Christianity altogether to the ground.
III. The
enemies of Christ could not deny that He appeared to His disciples after
His death; but they maintained that it was not Jesus Himself, but a demon
or a god in his known form. This was a fundamental point with the Gnostic
impostors; and it was equally important for Christ and His Apostles to
set it aside as an artful subterfuge. The beginning of John's first Epistle
is directly levelled against it: and the earnest emphatic manner in which
the Apostle brings forward the actual resurrection of Jesus as witnessed
by their several senses, sufficiently shows that there were men at the
time who pretended that it was a mere appearance, and by that means sought
to supersede the Gospel: What was at first; what we heard; what we saw
with our eyes; what we inspected, and our hands have handled, concerning
the Logos of life (for this life showed itself again after being put to
death; and we have seen it, and bear testimony, and declare unto, this
eternal life which was with the Father, and showed itself unto us His chosen
Apostles); that which we saw and heard, we declare unto you, that ye also
may have communion with us: for we have communion with the Father, and
His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write unto you, that your joy
may be complete."
In an
age when a belief in supernatural beings was general, and the laws of nature
little understood, it was very difficult to defeat the artful scheme of
the Gnostics. Divine Wisdom, however, furnished them with means sufficient
for this purpose. In his last discourse to the Apostles, when they were
sinking under apprehension of the evils before them, Jesus says for their
consolation, "But I tell you the truth. It is expedient to you that
I go away. If I do not go away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I go, I will send Him to you." John 16:7. The disciples were not
yet prepared to have His meaning more fully explained to them; but it was
to this effect: "You have witnessed My miracles, and you will soon witness
my resurrection: but even then, the evidence of My Divine mission and of
a future state will not be complete. Our enemies will endeavour by a false
philosophy to set aside my resurrection; by saying that it was not the
man Jesus, but a god within Him, or a go in His shape, that appeared to
His followers after death. I will frustrate this false doctrine, by not
delegating to you now the miraculous power necessary to ensure your success
in the propagation of the Gospel, but defer it till I ascend to My heavenly
father. I shall then descend upon you in a visible form, and expressly
with the design to prove that the Jesus who was crucified is the same with
the Jesus who rose from the grave; and that the Jesus who rose from the
grave did actually ascend into heaven, and will thence hereafter return
to raise the dead, and to confer eternal happiness on His faithful followers.
This divine gift, which will enable you to work miracles and speak with
unknown tongues, shall come down upon you in a visible form, that all may
see whence you derived it, that all may see you did not derive it from
intercourse with demons, or the base arts of magic. As it is intended to
identify My Person and prove the reality of My ascension, it shall be attached
to, and display its effect only in the name of Jesus. And as you are the
faithful witnesses of all I said and did, and especially of My resurrection,
this power shall be communicated to you, and to you alone; though through
you it shall be extended to such converts among the Jews and Gentiles as
the Holy Spirit shall deem worthy to receive it; so the the communication
of it by Me shall terminate with your life, and the last exercise of it
with the life of those to whom you may impart it."
In a
few weeks after, this promise was fulfilled. The Apostles Peter, John,
and afterwards Paul, uniformly declared that the very Jesus who had been
crucified was risen and ascended into heaven, and had sent from thence
the Divine Spirit to work miracles in attestation of that fact. The words
which they use clearly show that an attempt was made by their enemies to
disprove the identity of Jesus. The preachers met this attempt with the
strongest and most specific words which the language could supply, in order
to identify Him that was risen and now glorified, with the man Jesus who
had been put to death: "Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus, HIM
OF NAZARETH, A MAN appointed of God among you, by miracles and wonders
and signs which God wrought by means of HIM in the midst of you, as you
yourselves know: THIS --- after being delivered to you by the predetermined
decree, by the foreknowledge of God, ye seized and slew, having with impious
hands nailed Him to a cross, --- this I say, WHOM God raised from the dead,
having loosened the pangs of death, as it was not possible that HE should
be kept under by Him." Acts 2:22. Observe here the crowd of words,
the circuitous round of terms, by which the Apostle traces the divine Power
which had descended upon them, and identifies the Person who had sent it.
This Person was Jesus, Him of Nazareth --- a man appointed of God, and
endowed with powers and wonders and signs, because He was so appointed.
He was taken, not unawares, not by surprise, being delivered up by the
foreknowledge, the previously settled counsel of Heaven --- He was slain,
but slain by impious hands: He performed mighty deeds even in the face
of His enemies; but these He performed, not by virtue of His own power
--- God performed them by means of Him. This very man, thus signalized
by authority from heaven, thus cruelly put to death by the malice and wickedness
of men, rose again; but not by virtue of His own nature, --- God raised
him; not before He died; no, after the sufferer was swallowed up in death,
after the prison of the grave had been opened, and He had been deposited
there, as was supposed, in eternal chains: but Almighty Power again laid
open this prison, loosened these chains, wrested the lifeless corpse from
its womb, and restored Him after the pangs of crucifixion, like a babe
when born, to a new and glorious life. The Apostle, not content with this,
proceeds still further in the same strain of emphasis and specification:
"This very Jesus God again raised, of whom we all are witnesses: being
therefore exalted to the right hand of God, and having received of the
Father the Holy Spirit, which He promised to us, this Spirit He has now
shed upon us, as ye yourselves see and hear. Know then for certain, all
ye house of Israel, that God hath made the same man Lord and Christ, ---
I mean that very Jesus whom you have crucified." 32 - 37. From these
and similar passages which pervade the Apostolic writings, it appears to
me demonstrable that the very men who had put our Lord to death endeavoured,
soon after His resurrection, to set aside that fundamental principle of
Christianity, by insisting that the Christ was not the same with the man
Jesus, but a god which appeared in his form; and that the Apostles received
the Holy Spirit for the express purpose of defeating this evasion, and
worked miracles in the name of Jesus, and solely in His name, as proofs
that He, who showed Himself again alive, but who is now seated on the right
hand of god, was the very same with him whom they attended during His ministry,
and who closed it by a violent death on the cross.
IV. It
now remains to apply these facts to the disputed verse. It says "That
there are three who bear testimony in the heaven, the father, the Word,
and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
The
father bears testimony in the heaven, and His testimony is, "This is
My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." The subject of this testimony
is expressed in another form in the first verse of this chapter. "Every
one that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God; and every one
that loveth the father loveth Him also that is born of Him." He is
born of God, because he receiveth the testimony which God hath borne to
him as his beloved Son; and because he leadeth a new life of piety and
benevolence, in consequence of embracing the Son of God as his Divine Master.
The testimony which the father bore in the heaven is more clearly expressed
in verse 9: "If we believe the testimony of men, the testimony of God
is greater; because this is the testimony of God which he hath testified
concerning His own Son." Thus verse 7 asserts that the Father bears
His testimony in the heaven; and verse 1st and 9th explain the effects
of that testimony, and what it is. The sense is only complete when all
the three verse are taken together. Remove the 7th under the supposition
of forgery, --- you have a head and feet of a human body without its trunk.
Again,
in verse 7 it is asserted that the word bears testimony. John himself explains
to us what is the object of this testimony, and how it is borne by the
Word. In the beginning of his Gospel he tells us that the Logos or word
of God became flesh, united with a real human body, or the man Jesus. He
then writes a history of what Jesus, as the Word of God, or as the delegate
of heaven, said and did during His ministry; and at the close of this history,
the evangelist fails not to inform us, that the object of the things written
by him was, "That we might believe that Jesus if the Christ, the Son
of God." Chapter 20:31. Thus the testimony of the father and the Word
is one and the same.
In verse
10, the Apostle adds, "He who believeth in the Son, hath the testimony
in himself;" that is, on the earth, which carries a tacit reference
to the Word now in heaven. He that believeth on the Son hath the testimony
in himself, --- because he has still the remembrance of what the word said
and did, while yet on earth; because he had the many proofs of His Divine
mission, His Doctrine, and example still engraved on his heart.
The
testimony of the Holy spirit, we have seen, harmonizes with that of the
Father and the Word. It was sent from heaven for the express object of
certifying that the man Jesus was the Christ, in opposition to the Antichristian
teachers, who denied His resurrection from the dead, His ascension to heaven,
and His second Coming to judge the world in righteousness, --- by maintaining
that the Christ a god in the likeness of man.
It is
worthy of remark, that the controverted text bears a striking resemblance
in form and sense to the last verse of the Gospel of Matthew; and the manner
in which the impostors attempted to evade the force and application of
that injunction, clearly proves that the gift of the Holy spirit was more
immediately levelled against them. "Go ye and make disciples of all
nations; baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and
of the Holy Spirit;" which is to this effect, "Go and preach the
Gospel, not only to the Jews, but to all other nations; and teach them
to believe in My Father as the only true and Supreme god, as the only authorized
teacher from Him, and not as a God acting independently of Him; --- in
the Holy Spirit, as a power given you to work miracles in attestation of
My simple humanity, and of My resurrection from the grave. Let these be
the fundamental principles of the Gospel you teach, and encourage those
who embrace it, openly to avow their faith by being publicly baptized."
The
import and scope of this formula are best asceratined by that which the
impostors opposed to it, and which is preserved by Irenaeus. "They lead,"
says that father, "the disciple to the water, and on baptizing him
they thus say:--- Unto the name of the unknown Father of all; unto truth,
the mother of all; unto him which came down on Jesus." Here the deceivers
for the universal Father substituted the Supreme unknown God, which they
pretended to have revealed. For the man Jesus, or the Son of God, they
held forth as an object of faith the God that descended on Jesus; and in
the room of the Holy Spirit, which attested his simple humanity, they placed
a fictitious being, which they called Alethia, or Mother of all.
(See Iren. P.91.)
It is
remarkable that some supernatural circumstances attended the baptism of
Jesus, which presignified his death, and which rendered the water then
administered a symbol or figure of the blood which He was to shed on the
cross. This probably was the circumstance which led the baptist to say,
"Behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world." John
1:20. This explains what precedes and immediately follows the disputed
verse. But I must put down the whole context: "Who is he that conquers
the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He
who came by water and blood, Jesus the Christ; not by water only, but by
water and blood: because the Spirit is the truth; and the Spirit is He
that testifieth:--- for there are three which bear testimony in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And
there are three who bear testimony on the earth, the Spirit, the Water,
and the Blood; and these three agree in one."
Before
I proceed, I must point out a circumstance necessary to the elucidation
of this passage, which shows how apt the writers of the New Testament were
to borrow their terms from the objects before them, and apply them by association
in a new and tralatitious sense. In my Reply to Gamaliel Smith,
I have proved that the centurion who pierced the side of Jesus, immediately
after His resurrection became converts to Him whom they had been the instruments
in slaying. These soldiers John had in his mind when penning the above
paragraph. Hence he calls that faith which enabled the believer to bear
under his trial, victory. The Roman soldiers, priding in their superior
valour and discipline, considered themselves conquerors of the world. In
opposition to such means of conquering the world, the Apostle says, "This
is the victory which conquereth the world; namely, our faith." A heathen,
on being brought to the knowledge and worship of the true God, was, in
the language of the Jews, said to be BORN AGAIN, or born of God.
In reference to the conversion of the centurion and the other soldiers,
the Apostle says, "Whoever is born of God, conquereth the world." The
centurion acknowledged, on seeing the wonders that happened at the cross,
that Jesus was the Son of God. (See Mark 15: 39.) This confession John
had before his eyes in the following question: "Who is he that conquereth
the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" Finally,
the obedience of the Roman soldier was founded only in fear; and
the orders which he had to fulfil as a servant of the emperor, was hard,
oppressive, and painful: and in allusion to those who, while engaged in
the service of Caesar, had enlisted under the banners of Christ, our author
says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and
HIS commandments are not heavy."
The
circumstance of the soldiers being in mind of the writer at this time,
accounts for the notice here taken of the water and blood which flowed
from the wound inflicted by one of them. The clause "This is He who
came by water and blood, Jesus the Christ," means as if it were thus
arranged: "This Jesus who came by water and blood is the Christ;" that
is, This Jesus, who was baptized by John, announced as the Son of God by
a voice from heaven, who afterwards, as having a real body, shed His blood
on the cross, --- this Jesus is the Christ, and not a God, as the impostors
pretend, in the form of the man Jesus. The Apostle adds, "Not by water
only, but by water and blood;" that is, not by the water of baptism
only, but by the water and blood which issued from His side, and which
prove His having a real body and His having really died.
I have
observed that the baptism of Jesus was considered as a symbol of His death;
and this seems to have been the reason why the two events were united by
association in the mind of our Lord. (See Matthew 20:22.) Hence the meaning
of the clause "because the Spirit is the truth" e aletheia. "The
true baptism," in reference to the baptism implied in en to udati.
The Spirit, the spiritual or figurative, presignified by His literal baptism,
is the true baptism. The abstract aletheia with the article is used,
John 1:17, to signify the Gospel as the substance or reality of the Law
of Moses, in contradistinction to its types and shadows. The Apostle adds,
"And it is the Spirit that testifies this." But how does the Spirit
testify it? The Spirit bears testimony to this figurative baptism or death,
because it enabled Jesus, on whom the Spirit descended, to foresee and
foretell His own death. The foreknowledge, the prediction of that event,
in some of its minutest circumstances, before the event took place, was
a testimony most true and convincing, borne by the Holy Spirit in the person
of the sufferer.
This
places the sense of the 8th verse in a new and forcible light: "There
are three which bear testimony on the earth, the Spirit, and the Water,
and the Blood." The water and the blood bear testimony; as having proceeded
from the region of the heart, they prove that the sufferer was actually
dead: and the Spirit bears testimony, because it inspired Him with the
foreknowledge of it from the very commencement of His ministry. And here
a circumstance presents itself which demonstrates the dependence of the
8th verse, which is allowed to be genuine, upon the 7th verse, which is
said to be spurious. The water and the blood bear testimony that Jesus
actually died. But what does this testimony prove? Taken in itself, nothing
to the purpose; for every man dies. But take Jesus in the character of
the Word, now alive, and now in heaven, as asserted in the preceding verse,
--- and the circumstances of His having died proves every thing. It places
on a solid foundation the grand principles of Christianity; the actual
death, [6] the resurrection, and exaltation to the right
hand of God, of the man Christ Jesus; whence, according to His own solemn
promise, He will one day return in the power of God, to raise the dead,
and to pass on the righteous the animating sentence "Come, ye blessed
of My father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world."
I am,
Sir, yours &c.
Footnotes
for Letter II.
[1]
--- The valentinians, Marcosians, the Carpocratians, the Cerinthians, all
maintained that the God which dwelt in the man Jesus descended upon Him
in the form of a dove at His baptism; thus artfully availing themselves
of the divine power which was then visible imparted to Him. (See Iren.,
pp. 33, 73, 102.)
[2]
--- See the Theog., of Hesiod, 123; and the Clouds of Aristophanes, v.
423.
[3]
--- See his letter to the Consull Servianus, preserved by Vopiscus in Saturninus,
c.7. or Lard., volume viii, p. 363. Ben David's Reply to Two Deistical
Writers, p. 25.
[4]
--- Touton de kai Protatora uparchonta de auton achoreton kai aoraton
te kai agenneton, en esouchia kai eremia polle gegonenai en apeirois aiosi
chronon sunuparchein o auton kai Esnoian, en de kai Charin kai Sigen onomaxousi.
"Him they call the original Father, and also Bythos (abyss), being of himself,
inaccessible and invisible, eternal and unregenerated, and existing through
interminable ages of time. With him co-existed Ennoea, whom they name also
Charis or Sige (silence)." When the beginning of the Gospel of John
is brought to bear against this artful, impious system, --- how plain,
how significant, how appropriate must it appear! En arche en o Logos,
kai o Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en o Logos. Outos en en arche
pros ton Theon. , i.e, outos o Logos, kai Sige, os phesi o Antichristos,
"This Logos was in the beginning with God, and not Sige, as Antichrist
says." Irenaeus understood the Evangelist exactly in this light, and
well illustrates the force of his language. "John," says he, (lib. I.,
p. 41,) "proclaiming one omnipotent God, and one only begotten, says, This
is the Son of God; this the only begotten; this the maker of all; this
the true light, lighting every man; this came to His own; this became flesh
and dwelt among us. But these heretics, perverting in a specious manner
the narrative, say that Monoges was one, that the Saviour was another,
that the Logos was another, and that the Christ sent to complete the Pleroma
was another still."
If
we understand by Logos the Supreme Mind, as the Intelligent Cause of all
things, and as delegating his Son Jesus to save the world, we can see the
object of this artifice: for if we separate the Logos from God, the Creator
becomes at once what the impostors represent their Bythos, --- a being
from eternity without life, light, or action; and Christ is no longer invested
with his attributes, or acting with his authority. These conclusions are
what the Evangelist meets and sets aside by asserting that the Logos was
in the beginning with God and became flesh, which asserts the two main
pillars of natural and revealed religion; namely, the existence of a Supreme
Intelligent Creator, and the Divine mission of Jesus.
I
may here observe that all the Gnostics, as rejecting the Logos, and the
writings of John, were alogoi, though Epiphanius confines this name
to one sect of them only. (See Haer., 51, or p. 422.)
[5]
--- Peter, speaking of the universal prevalence of the Gospel, gives it
the name of Logos, and represents it as a real being descended on the man
Jesus, and addressing the children of Israel through him. "The Logos
whom God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus
Christ, --- this (Logos) is Lord of all." Acts 10:36. Philo adopted
the same notion, and thus represents the Logos of God as descending from
heaven: "God the author of Divine virtue was willing to send his Image
(meaning of course in the person of Christ) from heaven to the earth, from
compassion on our race, that he might wash away the impurities which fill
this life with guilt and misery, and that he might thus secure to us a
better inheritance." Philo, vol. 2, p. 669. A very interesting history
of the rise, progress, and purifying influence of the Gospel may be gathered
from the works of this celebrated man. Luke published his Gospel in Egypt;
and there will appear reason to believe that Theophilus, to whom he dedicates
it, is not other than Philo.
[6]
--- The Gnostics allowed that the Christ, after the crucifixion of Jesus,
was still alive, as having neither died nor suffered. IN order to set aside
this, it was necessary in the Apostles to assert his death whenever
they had occasion to speak of him as being alive. I will give an instance
or two from the Revelation: 1:18: O zon kai egenomen nekros. I who am
alive, was also dead. Thus also chapter 2:8: os egeneto nekros kai
ezesen, --- who was dead, and he lived.
------------------------------------
LETTER
III.
Sir,
HAVING
now ascertained the scope of the verse, I proceed in this letter to show
its scope accounts for the suspicion of forgery under which it has strangely
fallen, and for the defect in the evidence for its genuineness. And here
I must be permitted to lay down two propositions, as preliminaries to our
inquiry. The one requires no proof; the other will need illustration.
First:
A verse which sets aside the Divinity of Christ could not be a forgery
of any man, or any body of men, who in after times believed in His Divinity.
Such were all the Greek and Latin fathers through whose hands the verse
descended to us.
Secondly:
Averse which establishes the simple humanity of Christ could not be regarded
with dark suspicion and alarm; could not but be mangled or perverted by
men who, understanding its import, yet strenuously insisted on the Divinity
of Christ, as essential to Christianity.
In order
to give my readers a general idea of the evidence which in its full extent
lies against the verse, I will here set down the opinions of the most eminent
among its adversaries. The judgment of Griesbach, after examining the evidence
for and against it, is the following: "If vouchers so few, doubtful,
suspected, and recent, and arguments so trifling, could suffice to establish
the genuineness of any reading, in opposition to so many weighty testimonies
and arguments, there would no longer be any criterion of truth and falsehood
in criticism, and the whole text of the New Testament would become wholly
uncertain and doubtful."
Professor
Porson, in his Letters to Travis, (p.26,) says: "All the Greek MSS.,
which, if I have counted rightly, amount to ninety-seven, ancient and modern,
Oriental and Occidental, good, bad, and indifferent, do with one consent
wholly omit the seventh verse, and the words en tei gei of the eighth."
Again, (p. 131,) he says: "I hesitate not to conclude with Chandler,
Bengelius, Wetstein, Mr. Griesbach, and many others, that this celebrated
verse exists in no genuine Greek manuscript whatsoever; and partly with
Mr. Gibbon, that it owes its place in our edition to the prudence of Erasmus,
the honest bigotry of the Complutensian Editors, the typographical error
of Robert Stephens, and the strange misapprehension of Theodore Beza."
The
verse is not cited by any of the Greek and Latin fathers, who would and
ought to have cited it, if it had been genuine. Of these Mr. Porson gives
a long catalogue in his last letter; and he adds, (p.373,) "I always
thought that when a great number of MSS., of an ancient author omit any
passage upon which the intermediate writers, who upon other occasions freely
quote that author's work, are quite silent, though the passage be very
fit for their subject; though they quote other passages much less apposite;
though they quote so near it, that they could not help seeing it if it
were extant; though sometimes they quote the words that precede and the
words that follow; even though they extract from the next words, with great
labour and difficulty, the very sense which this passage would furnish
at a much easier and cheaper rate; --- I always thought that in such a
case, the plain reason of these omissions of the fathers was a total ignorance
of the passage from their copies, and a total ignorance of its existence."
In p. 402 the same writer subjoins, "From the facts stated in this
historical deduction, it is evident that if the text of the Heavenly Witnesses
had been known from the beginning of Christianity, the ancients would have
eagerly seized it, inserted it in their creeds, quoted it repeatedly against
the heretics, and selected it for the brightest ornament of every book
that they wrote upon the subject of the Trinity. In short, if this verse
be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek
MSS except two; one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin,
and the other transcribes it from a printed book; notwithstanding its absence
from all the Versions except the Vulgate, and even from many of the best
and oldest MSS of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence
of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth, and most of the Latin
down to the middle of the eighth, century; --- if in spite of all these
objections it be still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever can be
proved either spurious or genuine; and Satan has been permitted for many
centuries miraculously to banish the finest passage in the New Testament
from the eyes and memories of almost all the Christian authors, translators,
and transcribers."
Dr.
Marsh has placed the objections to the authenticity of this unfortunate
verse if possible in a still stronger light. In the sixth part of his Theological
Lectures, the integrity of the New Testament forms the subject of the twenty-seventh,
in which the question relative to the disputed verse is an important part.
He says: "1. It is wanting in the most ancient manuscripts even of the
Latin versions. --- 2. It was no more known to Augustin, than it was to
Chrysostom. --- 3. It was gradually introduced into the Latin Vulgate by
the Church of Rome. --- 4. Not a single Gree MS was ever known to contain
the passage till after the invention of printing. --- 5. That solitary
MS was not written in Greece. --- 6. The verse originated in a Latin gloss
upon the eighth verse; and this is not conjecture, but an historical fact,
supported by evidence which cannot be resisted."
It is
not necessary for me to give the history of the controversy respecting
this passage: it was carried on in England and on the Continent with doubtful
issue, till Griesbach and Porson appeared in the field. The candour, learning,
and vast research of the former; the brilliant wit, the keen satire, the
tenacious memory of the latter, --- secured to them an easy victory over
their feeble adversaries. The Bishop of Peterborough came up in the rear
of the victorious party, and is remarkable only for brandishing weapons
furnished him by the conquerors against an enemy already in the dust. Dr.
Burgess bishop of St. David's, however, considering the battle as not completely
lost, renewed the contest by a formal Vindication of the verse. The second
edition of this tract being much enlarged, comprehends a reply to Dr. Marsh
and the Quarterly Review, as well as to Griesbach and Porson. The Vindication
is calm, able, and learned. Deriving wisdom from the intemperance and indiscretion
of Martin and Travis, the author is cautious in his positions, correct
in his statements, fair and just in his conclusions. He considers the absence
of the verse from Greek manuscripts an accidental omission. The improbability
of this supposition renders his reasonings throughout, however just in
themselves, feeble and inefficient. He defends the text as a pillar of
the Trinity: and his zeal for orthodoxy makes us sometimes forget that
he is a man of sense and a Christian. His Vindication, in short, has the
singular fate and character of Cassandra; --- it absolutely proves the
genuineness of the verse, yet leaves every reader in full conviction of
its forgery.
I now
proceed to meet the overwhelming evidence against the verse. In doing so,
I must frankly confess that I have little novelty to produce. I shall therefore
select but a few facts from the materials collected by Mr. Porson, Dr.
Burgess, and others; and these will be sufficient to decide the question.
The following quotation from the first verse of these writers, (p. 155,)
in connexion with the sense I have already given to the verse, lays open
at once the true state of the controversy.
"Abbot
Joachim compared the final clauses of the seventh and eighth verses, whence
he inferred that the same expression ought to be interpreted in the same
manner. Since therefore, said he, nothing more than unity of testimony
and consent can be meant by tres unum sunt in the eighth verse, nothing
more than unity of testimony and consent is meant in the seventh. This
opinion the Lateran Council and Thomas Aquinas confuted by cutting out
the clause in the eighth verse. Thomas tells us that it was not extant
in the true Copies; but that it was said to be added by the Arian heretics,
to pervert the sound understanding of the foregoing authority."
This
Abbot Joachim was probably an Arian; and he here at once puts a lighted
torch in our hands, to guide us through the intricate windings of this
subterraneous controversy. The verse pressed as hard against the Arians
as against those who denied the pre-existence of Christ. And how does this
champion of Arianism repel its force? By denying its genuineness? No: he
admits its authenticity, and meets his antagonists by pointing out the
true sense of the verse. And how was he answered? In a way which fully
accounts for the silence of the fathers, and for the erasure of the verse
from MSS and translations, --- they cut out the clause which led
to the true understanding of the verse. Here then we are prepared for the
scene which I shall attempt to disclose.
At the
time when the Gospel was promulgated, men of education in Rome and other
places were acquainted with Greek. But this was not generally the case
with the common people who had the Gospel preached unto them. It is reasonable
to suppose, therefore, that the New Testament soon after the dissemination
of the Gospel in Italy was translated into Latin. This Version, effected
by a competent person or persons, must have been widely circulated, and
sanctioned by the learned as faithful and worthy of reception. As it descended
in the Latin Church it probably underwent occasional correction and revisal;
and thus it passed as a standard into the African churches (where Latin
was the vernacular tongue), till, about the end of the fourth century,
it was again corrected and revised by Jerome. According to Newton, the
disputed verse was then, for the first time, inserted in the Latin Text,
and Jerome was the author of its insertion. But to be consistent this great
man ought to have gone higher. In the year 484, a council was held at Carthage,
consisting of 400 bishops of the Western Church. These in their profession
of faith appeal to the verse; and Newton owns that Eugenius, who was one
of them, expressly quotes it.
In the
beginning of the fourth century the Arian controversy broke out, and continued
to rage till Constantine assembled the Council of Nice in Bythinia. The
controverted text, as understood by Trinitarians, might have been a powerful
weapon against Arianism. Was it so used by the orthodox? Or, if used, did
the Arian bishops object to it as spurious; or did they acquiesce in its
authenticity? Though the works of these bishops are lost, being for the
most part burnt by the decree of that council, we should still have known
their objection to it, if any had been made. The works of Celsus are lost;
yet we know through Origen, who answered him, the charge of altering the
Gospel which he brought against the Christians. The works of the heretic
Marcion are lost; yet we know through Tertullian that he urged a similar
charge against the orthodox. The works of Abbot Joachim may be also lost;
but Thomas Aquinas and the Lateran Council have been obliging enough to
let posterity know how that heretic understood the verse. And undoubtedly
we should now have also known, if the Arians objected to its genuineness,
when first quoted against them, or if through fear not quoted, when first
inserted in the Vulgate translation.
If then
the Latin Version contained the verse in the fourth century, it was there
from the beginning, probably so early as the end of the first century,
or even before the death of the Apostle John. This inference we are not
only warranted in drawing, but we are compelled to draw it. For if it be
not true; then it is true that a text which in its obvious acceptation
disproves the Divinity of Christ, and which came from the hand of the Apostle
for that purpose, is the forgery of some one who interpolated it to prove
the Trinity.
Here
we are arrived at an important stage of inquiry. A Latin Version, which
perhaps was not unknown to some of the Apostles; which perhaps was made
with the sanction and under the eye of John himself, or of Paul, or of
Peter, or of Mark, when preaching in the western parts of the Roman empire;
which, if this exceed the truth, was made from the autographs of the Apostles,
or at least from Copies in Greek attested with their signatures; --- a
version, I say, thus circumstanced, thus authenticated, thus grafted on
the Greek original, contained the disputed verse.
I next
proceed to show that it was known, as an integral part of the Italic version,
to the Latin fathers, from Tertullian down to the African Council or to
Jerome. These fathers, it is allowed, all except the last, do not indeed
quote the verse: but I will show that they were acquainted with it; that
they allude to it; that they embody in their writings as much of it as
was likely to answer their purpose; and they dared to no more. The argument
of Griesbach, Porson, and other adversaries of the text, drawn from the
silence of Tertullian and others, proceeds on an erroneous apprehension
of its meaning: they suppose it to be such as to furnish those fathers
with the strongest motive for quoting it, if they knew of it; and as they
had no knowledge of it, it must be a forgery subsequent to their days.
The argument, it must be allowed, is conclusive, if we allow the premises.
But the Greek and Latin authors of the second and third centuries, instead
of having motives to quote the passage as come from the pen of John, had
motives the most powerful to pass over it in silence, and to erase it,
if possible, from the sacred text, --- a fraud which, as I shall prove
in many instances, they actually committed.
The
far greater portion of the Christian world in the second century when Tertullian
flourished, though their numbers were continually diminishing, still preserved
the faith in that simplicity which it had when first delivered to the saints.
[1] Men of information had the facts which called forth the
writings of John yet fresh in their minds. The knew that the identity spoken
of in the disputed paragraph meant identity of testimony, and that the
intended testimony meant the simple humanity of Jesus. In such circumstances,
surrounded with such witnesses of the truth, could Tertullian quote the
verse as evidence of the Trinity? At this early period the advocates of
orthodoxy were beset with dangers unseen on every side: they walked among
steel traps and spring guns, where one incautious step might prove fatal;
or they resembled men going about having their pockets filled with gunpowder,
at a time when the smallest spark of inquiry, the slightest collision with
an adversary, might cause an explosion destructive to their system.
Nevertheless
Tertullian has done what might be expected: he shows that he was no stranger
to the verse, by alluding to it, by garbling and disguising it. He wished
indeed openly to lay it down as the chief corner-stone of the orthodox
church; but this he dared not do. He therefore breaks it into fragments;
and these he throws into the breach which the enemy was making in its walls.
The
first paragraph of Tertullian I shall quote from his treatise De Baptismo,
c. vi. P. 226, already quoted by Dr. Burgess: "Si in tribus testibus
omne stabit verbum, quanto magis, dum habemus per benedictionem eosdem
arbitros fidei, quos et sponsores salutis sufficit ad fiduciam spei nostrae
etiam numerus nominum divorum." The numerus nominum divorum
in the last clause, means ternus numerus, the number three, the
three witnesses, or, as Tertullian himself explains it in the next sentence,
tres, i.e. Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus. It might be supposed
and fairly urged by the adversary, that the writer here alludes to the
Father, Son. And Holy spirit mentioned at the close of Matthew. But the
specification of three witnesses in the preceding clause demonstrates
that the allusion is to the disputed text, where alone the three names,
namely, the father, the word, and the Holy Spirit, are represented as bearing
testimony. "Si in tribus testibus omne stabit verbum." --- If
we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater.
Again,
in his book against Praxeas, (c.25,) the same author says, "Caeterum
de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio
et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. Qui tres
unum sunt, --- non unus; quomodo dictum est: Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad
substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem." But the Son says,
he will take of mine, as he Himself of the Father's. Thus the connexion
of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes three
cohering one with another, WHICH THREE ARE ONE, pointing, to unity of substance,
non ad numeri singularitem.
The
professor comments on these words, and says, "As often as I read this
sentence, so often I am astonished that the words Tres unum sunt should
ever be urged as a quotation: they are words of Tertullian himself, and
expressly distinguished from the words of Scripture." P.240. In this
opinion he is joined by the Quarterly Review. With regard to this passage,
"We are compelled," says he, "to confess that we participate
in the feelings of Professor Porson. Is it probable, that if Tertullian
had 1 John, v. 7, in his thoughts, he would have appealed for the true
meaning of the expression not to that verse, but to John 10:30? Yes, contends
Mr. Nolan: for the reading of John is not Pater, Filius, et Spiritus; but
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; and therefore contains as just a description
of the doctrine of Praxeas as that heretic could have given. If then this
passage of Tertullian be a proof of the existence of 1 John v. 7, we suppose
that he referred his adversary to the very text which that adversary would
urge as most accurately representing his own opinion."
Now
in opposition to these high authorities I will briefly show that Tertullian
not only alludes to the verse, but has embodied the substance of it in
his own comment. If tres unum sunt were his own words, in allusion
to John 10:30, he would have said duo unum sunt; for there it is
virtually said that the Father and the Son are one. The reason of
Tertullian's referring to the Gospel at all is an artifice. In the Epistle,
John directly meets the impostors, and in opposition to them he again and
again asserts the simple humanity of Christ. In his Gospel he advances
the same doctrine in reference to the same deceivers indeed, yet without
mentioning them by name. His opposition, therefore, to the Divinity of
Christ is of course less obvious in the Gospel. The very foundation of
the Trinity in unity is the supposed spurious text; and this foundation
the builders of the system attempted for obvious reasons to lay deep and
out of sight. Hence the silence respecting it, and the caution with which
they allude to it, or embody its substance in their own words. Having thus
founded the doctrine on a passage which at first glance appears most favourable
to it, --- but which in reality was ever liable to be withdrawn, and which
when withdrawn left baseless the superstructure of wood, hay and stubble,
erected upon it, --- the advocates of the Trinity went to the Gospel for
materials to complete and establish it. There Jesus, though in the beginning
represented as the Logos, is usually designated "the Son," or, "Son of
God." There also the Holy Spirit is called "the Comforter." Hence Tertullian,
and others who succeeded him down to the Council of Nice, for the sake
of disguise substituted "Son" and "Comforter," which occur in the Gospel,
for the "Word" and "Holy Spirit," which are used in the disputed text.
But
has Porson done justice to the passage of Tertullian? No; he has omitted
the very clause which completely identifies the verse with the quotation.
The clause I mean is, "Non ad numeri singularitatem," which, it
must be allowed, is obscure and equivocal, and probably so intended. In
this treatise Tertullian had in view the Unitarians of his days, who, as
appears from his own words, formed the majority of believers; and he levels
his language against them, --- for numerus in that age, and afterwards,
came to signify exclusively the three Heavenly Witnesses, or the three
persons of the Trinity. If we take the clause in the first sense, we have
the controverted text complete. Thus, "Which three," (namely, the
Father, Son, and Comforter, or the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit,) "are
one, pointing to unity of substance, and not to the singular form of the
three Witnesses;" or, in other words, to the unity of their testimonies.
Tertullian makes the words of the Apostle the foundation of the Trinity,
without informing the reader where he had them: he quotes the verse, but
quotes it with a comment that perverts its true meaning. The Unitarians
of the day doubtless understood the verse in its true sense; as they could
not but consider the clause "and these three agree in one," in the
eighth verse, as an index of that in the seventh. This interpretation Tertullian
meets, and endeavours to set it aside by a gloss of his own: and that this
might have some show of probability, he steals away the attention of his
readers from the Epistle, where there is a clue to the true sense, and
fixes it on a passage in the Gospel, which, without such clue, appears
to favour his meaning.
But
the clause, "Non ad numeri singularitatem," may mean Not making
singular the number three, not reducing to the singular number the plurality
of persons. In this sense the words are levelled against Praxeas, who
maintained that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit were one;
and that these names expressed not three distinct beings, but three different
relations of the same being. Now it is demonstrable that in this sense
also Tertullian refers to the disputed verse: first, because Fulgentius,
having before him this passage of Tertullian, understood the member in
this sense. His words are, "In Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto unitatem
substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus." The master
says, "The three are one, pointing to unity of substance, not to the
unity of the three persons." The pupil says after him, "We acknowledge
the unity of substance, but dare not confound the persons;" that is,
dare not bring the three persons into one. But this, you will say, is no
proof that Tertullian refers to the disputed verse. I answer, it is a proof
that Fulgentius, who could not have been mistaken, understood his master
as referring to that verse: for he adds, "Beatus enim Johannes Apostolus
testatur Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbun,
et Spiritus Sanctus, et tres unum sunt." Secondly, Tertullian alludes
to the disputed verse, because the heresy of Praxeas was founded upon it.
The true reading of O Logos was essential to his opinion; and I
can say with confidence that that heresy would not have existed, if the
verse had not been known to exist: for Praxeas knew that Logos in
its strictest sense meant God Himself. In the disputed verse the Logos
is applied to Christ, and is said to be one with the Father; nor is there
another verse in the New Testament where such unity between the Father
and the Logos is asserted. Tertullian could not meet this argument without
the subterfuge of substituting Filius for Verbum, the true
reading. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is commonly represented as "the Son;"
and He proceeds throughout His discourses on the assumption that He is
a being different from the Father. Tertullian had recourse to the substitution,
because he was by means of it enabled to supplant his antagonist. He wrests
the verse from the hands of Praxeas, and he gives it up to the public with
a version of his own. "If then," says the Reviewer, "this passage
of Tertullian be a proof of the existence of 1 John v. 7, we must suppose
that he referred his adversary to the very text which that adversary would
urge as most accurately representing his own opinion." Most truly so:
Tertullian could not help adverting to the verse as the foundation of Praxeas's
theory; and he endeavours to defeat him by garbling it, and by putting
upon it his own interpretation.
Porson
expresses his astonishment that any should consider the words of Tertullian
as a quotation of the Apostle. In truth, the Professor, in this and many
other places of his Letters, has recourse to the usual refuge of weak disputants,
enlisted by accident or by prejudice on the side of error: he garbles his
author, and uses strong assertions where he ought to produce proofs. He
proceeds in his argument on mistaken grounds; and the fallacy made him
quite blind. He powerfully urges that Tertullian does not allude to the
verse, because he does not quote it; while he freely quotes other verses
much less to his purpose. This was to him inconceivable. Of the dilemma
he adopted the least improbable side; and by his ingenuity and bold assertions
he contrived to make his readers (and the Quarterly Reviewer in the number)
as blind as himself. Had he been aware of the true state of the case, how
different would have been his conclusion! With what promptitude and keenness
would he have unravelled Tertullian's quotation, discovered in it the language
of John, and disclosed it beyond all dispute tom the views of his readers!
But he was engaged in a wrong cause; and his fine powers either drooped,
or they displayed their matchless vigour in devious flights of wit and
sophistry, far beyond the precincts of truth.
Tertullian
was a master in Israel, and his authority prescribed in which way and how
far the verse might be quoted with safety to the orthodox faith. Accordingly
Phaebadius A.D. 350, and Marcus Celedensis in 373, cite the
verse only so far as he has cited it: but Cyprian, though preceding these
writers by a century, took greater liberty; and he places the citation
in a more clear and unequivocal light. His words are these: "De Pater,
et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: et hi tres unum sunt." In
this paragraph are implied two things; namely, that the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit are one; and that it is so written of them,
or that they are said to be one in the Scriptures. This is true; John has
thus written of them in the disputed verse, and in no other place. But
observe, the clause which says that these three bare witness, and suggests
the unity meant to be that of testimony, is artfully omitted; and
Cyprian leaves the reader to conclude, as Tertullian asserts, that it is
that of being or essence which the Apostle means.
If we
turn to the Greek fathers, we shall find them equally well acquainted with
the verse, and equally reluctant to quote it. I will notice a few of those
who have been brought forward as vouchers for its genuineness.
In a
scholium on Psalm 122 ascribed to Origen, the controverted text is partly
quoted: Ta de tria Kurios o Theos emon esti. Oi gar to en eisi. The
Lord our God is threefold; for THEY ARE ONE.
Clemens
Alexandrinus has a manifest reference to the verse and its context: Pan
rema istatai epi duo kai trion marturon, epi Patros, kai Uion, kai Agioun
Pneumatos. Eph on marturon kai bonthon ai entolai legomenai phulassestai
ophelousi. Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and
helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept. This passage
was first pointed out by Bengelius, and lately alleged by Dr. Burgess.
Basil
paraphrases the text, but is afraid to quote it: 'Oi pisteuontes eis
Theon, kai Logon, kai Pneuma, mian ousan theoteta. Who believe in God,
and the Word, and the Spirit, being one Godhead.
Theodorus,
the master of Chrysostom and a contemporary of the emperor Julian, as we
learn from Suidas, wrote "A Treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the
Epistle of John the Evangelist" Eis ten Epistolen Ioannou tou Euaggelistou
peri tou eis Theos en Triadi. This is a remarkable testimony, as it
implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the
fourth century. At that period, a writer of celebrity erects upon it the
doctrine of a trinity in unity; which surely he would hardly have done,
if any suspicion of its authenticity had been entertained by him, or by
any other person of that age. Besides, the turn of the expression, as it
supposes what was grounded on the verse to be grounded also on the whole
Epistle, supposes the Epistle and the verse, in respect to their purport
and authenticity, to stand exactly on the same foundation. (See Suidas
on the word Diodoros.)
Cyril,
in his Thesaurus, attempts to prove that the Holy Spirit is God.
With this view he extracts the 6th and 8th verses, and omits the 7th: yet
he inserts an argument which demonstrates that this verse lay before him,
though he was too much afraid directly to use it. Cyril's words are these:
Eirekos gar oti to pneuma esti tou Theou to marturoun mikron ti proelthon,
epipherei, e marturia tou Theou meizon esti. Pos oun esti poiema to ton
olon Patri suntheologoumenon kai tes agias triados sumplerotikon. For having
said that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little forward he adds,
the witness of God is greater: How then is he a creature WHO IS SAID TO
BE GOD WITH THE UNIVERSAL FATHER, AND COMPLETES THE NUMBER OF THE HOLY
TRIAD. The words in capitals form the substance of the seventh verse
which Cyril wished to quote, as being direct to his purpose; yet through
fear he declined to produce it in express terms. This was in the fifth
century. Time, however, removed the grounds of this apprehension; and in
the course of seven centuries after, Euthymius Zigabenus published a work
called The Panoply of Faith (Panoplia Dogmatike); in which he quotes
the words of Cyril, premising the disputed text as it stands in our Greek
Copies. Mr. Porson (p. 224) translates the whole passage from the Panoply,
as published in the Turgovist edition of 1710: but, strange to say, the
clause in the Thesaurus, which demonstrates that Cyril had the controverted
text before his eyes, is omitted by him. This omission is noticed by Dr.
Burgess: "Here," says he, "Mr. Porson unaccountably closes the
passage by his et caetera; --- I say unaccountably, because the omitted
words relate expressly to the seventh verse." P. 37.
This
is sufficiently indulgent. Had Mr. Belsham or Dr. Carpenter been guilty
of an evasion so palpable, what epithets would not have been applied to
them by the Bishop of St. David? In truth, the professor felt a difficulty
which he could not solve; but being convinced that Cyril never saw the
verse, he passes over in silence the paraphrase of it given by that father.
Travis,
in support of the verse, produces a passage from a Dialogue as between
Athanasian and an Arian, where it is quoted in part, with
an express reference to John as its author. The passage is to this effect:
"Is not that lively and saving baptism, whereby we receive remission
of sins, administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. And St. John says, And these three are one." (See Porson's
Letters, p.213.)
The work whence this extract is taken, has come home down to us as the production of Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, who flourished about the middle of the fourth century. But some things in it being supposed unworthy of him, it is considered as spurious, and imputed to Maximus, a monk in the seventh century. But I believe there is no solid ground whatever for this supposition; nor would it have been countenanced, had it not been for the advantage it gives to the adversaries of the disputed verse. And I request my reader to weigh the following reasons:--- Mention is made in it of the joint reign of Constantine and Constantius in the year A.C. 337. This appears to have been made incidentally, and not by any means with the design of foisting it on the public as a genuine production of Athanasius. It is reasonable to suppose that the Dialogue was com