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
===========================
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.
------------------------------------
All
Rights Reserved of the Publisher and the Editor
2001
For
there are Three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word [Logos],
and the Holy Spirit; and these Three agree in One.
I
John v. 7.
-----------------