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
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 composed at the period when
the Arian controversy was raging; and this was in the age of Constantine,
and not in the seventh century. Above all, the authority of the verse is
quoted with a precaution which the acuteness and vigilance of the Arians
required in that age; but which was not necessary in the age of Maximus,
when the verse was openly trumpeted forth without fear and without disguise.
As this
observation is of moment, I will illustrate it in a few words. The author
speaks of baptism administered in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost; and therefore refers to the concluding verse of Matthew.
Then he jumps, by mere association, to that in the Epistle of John, saying,
"And
these three are one." Now had no more than this been said, Mr. Porson,
and you, Sir, would have maintained that this was an inference from the
words of Matthew, and not the words of the Apostle John. But the clause
"And St. John says" is unfortunately premised; and thus all plea for
denying the reference is cut off, and nothing remains for you but to say
that the treatise is the production of a much later age.
But
I ask, Sir, why did not the author cite the whole text? Why confine himself
to the clause "And these three are one"? here lies the adroitness
of the writer. Had he produced the verse, and placed it wholly before his
readers, they would have seen, with little help from the Arians, that the
unity spoken of was unity of consent or of testimony; and this would have
scattered the Athanasian's argument as dust on the wind. Her therefore
was determined to give his opponents no such advantage; and he prudently
effected his purpose by suppressing the rest of the sentence.
I have
discovered allusions to the disputed verse in Tatian the disciple
of Justin Martyr, and in Theophilus bishop of Antioch; but I will
not here stop to produce the passages, as they are quite unnecessary for
my argument. I cannot however pass by the Philopatris of Lucian, which
Cave has alleged as a voucher for the controverted text. This is a dialogue
between Critias a heathen, and Triephon a pretended catechumen.
The former asks, "Whom shall I bind by an oath to myself, or solemnly
profess?" The latter answers, "The God who rules aloft, great, immortal,
heavenly, --- the Son of the Father, --- the Spirit proceeding from the
Father; three making one, and one three." (See vol. 3., p. 598, Hemster.
Edit.) I think it hardly possible but that the author of this passage had
before his eyes the supposed spurious text, his object being to travestie
and ridicule it. A God is solemnly appealed to as a witness; he is in the
heaven; he consists of three, Father, Son, and Spirit; these three make
one. This is the caricature; and the original, beyond all doubt, is the
Apostle John. Here then we have a remarkable testimony to the existence
of this much injured verse about the middle of the second century, the
time when this dialogue was written. I am aware, indeed, that learned men,
and Professor Porson in the number, refer it to some author of a much later
period. But the only reason for supposing it not the composition of Lucian
is, that it discovers more knowledge of the sentiments and affairs of the
Christians than Lucian is supposed to have had. The supposition however
is most erroneous; as that writer had an intimate knowledge of the Christian,
and even the Jewish, Scriptures. Most of his works too were called forth
by circumstances connected with the propagation of Christianity. The philosophers,
whom he ridicules and vilifies in many of his pieces, were for the most
part impostors of the Gnostic school. His life of Peregrinus or
Proteus
(as Suidas well observes) is but a travestie of Christ and His Gospel.
The Drapetai, succeeding that infamous piece, or Fugitivi,
whom
he so bitterly maligned and held forth as objects of hatred and persecution,
were the professors of Christianity in Egypt, Greece, and other provinces.
He appears for a season to have been himself of the number; but his conversion
was doubtless a mask for acquiring a knowledge of the Christian affairs,
with a view to betray them: and this pretended conversion is what he significantly
describes by his metamorphosis into an ass.
The
flame of controversy broke out about the beginning of the fourth century,
and Arianism endangered the orthodox church; when, in A.C. 325, Constantine,
having assembled the Council of Nice, condemned the followers of Arius,
authorizing them to be persecuted, and their books burnt. The violence
begun by Constantine was carried to a still greater extent by Theodosius,
who, interesting himself in the Trinitarian doctrine, exterminated the
Arians from all parts of the empire. From various causes, in which odium
and persecution had their share, Unitarianism at this period was nearly
extinct. Length of time too had withdrawn from the knowledge of men those
pernicious errors which called forth the writings of John. These cause
emboldened the fathers of the Western Church to lay aside the restraint
which Tertullian and Cyprian felt with regard to the verse; and at length
to quote it without disguise in support of their favourite doctrine, the
Trinity.
About
the latter end of the fourth century, Jerome, at the request of Pope Damasus,
undertook a revision of the Vulgate, correcting first the Gospels, then
the Epistles, by comparing them with Greek MSS. To the last seven Canonical
Epistles he wrote a Prologue, in which he complains of the unfaithfulness
of certain interpreters, and exemplifies this complaint by their omission
of the three Heavenly Witnesses in their editions. I will first give a
version of this Prologue, and then subjoin Mr. Porson's comment. "The
order of these seven Epistles (meaning the Epistles of Peter, James, John,
and Jude), in those Greek copyists who think soundly and follow the right
faith, is not the same as it is found in the Latin Copies; where, as Peter
is first, so his Epistles are placed in order before the rest. But as I
have long since corrected the Evangelists (or preachers of the Gospel,
meaning the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul, as well as Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John), according to the rule of truth, so these Epistles
I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to
the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither
cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict
themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity
laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists)
widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the
names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit;
but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by
which, above all places, the Divinity of the father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit is proved to be one. How far my edition differs from those of others,
I leave to the discernment of the reader. But whilst thou, O virgin of
Christ, demandest of me the truth of Scripture, thou in a manner exposest
my old age to the rancorous teeth of those malicious men who hold me forth
as faithless and a corrupter of the Sacred Writings. But in such an undertaking,
I neither dread the malice of rivals, nor shall I withhold the truth of
the Holy scriptures from those who demand it."
On this
Prologue, the Professor, in his Letters, p. 289, thus comments: "At
the request or command of Pope Damasus, Jerome revised the Latin translation,
and corrected it upon the faith of the Greek MSS. Did he therefore replace
the three Heavenly Witnesses at this revision, or not? If he did, why did
he not then write his preface to inform the world of his recovered reading?
But after Damasus was dead, Eustochium it seems, a young lady at once devout,
handsome and learned, requests him once more to revise the Catholic Epistles
and correct them from the Greek. Jerome undertakes the task; and having
completed it, advertises her in this Prologue, that other inaccurate translators
had omitted the testimony of the three Heavenly Witnesses, the strongest
proof of the Catholic faith. Such a story carries its own condemnation
upon its forehead." He then adds, "It has therefore been given up
by most defenders of the verse; by Mill, by Abbe Roger, by Maffei, Valarsius,
Twells, Bengelius."
It is
remarkable that friends and foes should thus concur in fixing the stigma
of imposture on a document which carries in itself the mark of authenticity
beyond any to be found in ancient records. In truth, this fine writer and
great critic was not himself on the question before us. The prejudices
of education made him the easy dupe of ancient fraud; and with all his
learning, with all his brilliant parts, he failed to master the controversy.
On other subjects of criticism, Porson was the huge leviathan, which, like
another Britannia, ruled the wide domain of Grecian literature; --- on
this, he is the same monster of the deep, floundering and struggling for
life in shallow waters.
The
true state of the case is probably the following. The verse, as I have
observed, descended in the Old Italic Version from the days of the Apostles
to the age of Jerome. But the Copies which contained it were confined to
confidential friends, or to the more trusty fathers of the Church, while
it was carefully excluded from those which were designed for general use.
This precaution was naturally suggested by the dangers which on all sides
had hitherto encompassed the text. But these dangers were in a great degree
surmounted by the recent triumphs of orthodoxy, by the extinction of Unitarianism,
and by the shades of ignorance which gathered deeper and yet deeper over
the horizon of the Christian Church. At length Pope Damasus thought it
safe to restore the verse in the public version; and engaged Jerome to
revise it, partly with a view to that purpose. The design was hazardous;
and as it might be unpopular among the learned, it could not fail to call
forth the fears of the timid and the jealousy of rivals. Before the end
was accomplished, Damasus died, and Jerome found protection in Eustochium,
a lady of learning, influence, and reputation, who had earnestly solicited
him to restore the genuine text.
With
regard to the Prologue itself, a variety of circumstances beyond the reach
of forgery in a future age, and appropriate to the situation of the author,
concur in establishing its genuineness. Damasus engaged him to revise the
Latin Version; and the writer of the Prologue alludes to his revision,
as in part already accomplished. He tells his fair patroness, that at all
hazard he would restore the genuine text; and we find it in the very translation
which came through his hands. The Prologue is ascribed to Jerome; and it
came down to posterity among his works. Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century
commented upon it, as the production of Jerome; and neither he nor any
other of that age appears to have entertained any suspicion of forgery.
About the days of Jerome, the African fathers, omitting the seventh verse,
supplied its place by a mystical interpretation of the eighth; and it is
in reference to this notable piece of mysticism, which I shall presently
notice, that Jerome calls the restored injured verse veritatem Scripturae.
Besides, the verse and the context were not only disguised, but torn to
pieces, and cited by different authors in various contradictory ways, which
caused doubt and perplexity to the readers. "Sermonum ses varietates
impugnabant, et ambiguitatem legentibus faciebant." Jerome removed
the evil, by restoring "the truth of the Holy Scriptures" to Eustochium,
and others who demanded it. The attempt, as it might be expected, in such
circumstances, met with opposition, and brought upon the author the very
charge which he urged against those who faithlessly suppressed the text.
But Jerome had sense and magnanimity to defy clamour, as he was fast sinking
under the weight of years to that rest where the sting of envy is no longer
felt, and the voice of slander silent for ever.
The
restoration of the verse by Jerome was followed by consequences that might
be expected. All efforts after this entirely to suppress it were fruitless:
and we find the passage formally quoted by Eucherius bishop of Lyons, and
Vigilius Tapensis, both of the fifth century, and in the sixth by Fulgentius;
though these writers felt it requisite still to mutilate the context, or
give it a new arrangement. I will produce their quotations at once, to
show their management, and at the same time with what little ceremony the
adversaries of the verse advanced the most unfounded positions. I quote
Eucherius from Griesbach, ad locum, p. 700, "III. (h.e. numerus ternarius)
ad Trinitatem (refertur) in Joannis Epistola: Tres sunt qui testimonium
dant in caelo; Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et tres sunt qui testimonium
dant in terra; spiritus, aqua, et sanguis." Here the unity being fist
assumed as that of the Trinity, the clauses asserting it in the seventh
and eighth verses are both amputated. The amputation undoubtedly was designed
to prevent the reader from discovering the true of that unity which the
Apostle inculcates. Of this object Griesbach was not aware, and he scruples
not to deny the passage to be a quotation of John.
The
citation of Vigilius, at the close of the fifth century, as given by Griesbach,
is the following:--- "Joannes Evangelista ad Parthos. Tres sunt, inquit,
qui testimonium perhibent in terra; aqua, sanguis, et caro; et tres in
nobis sunt: et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo; Pater, Verbum,
et Spiritus; et hi tres unum sunt." P. 702. Here we may detect several
artifices calculated to disguise the real meaning of the Apostle. Some
words foreign to the original are introduced; and the clause in the eighth
expressing the unity of testimony, which is the only true key to the sense
of the passage, is excluded. The seventh and eighth are transposed. The
transposition is most artful; for by the help of the new reading it suggests
a tacit illustration of the Trinity in unity. That, as water, blood, and
flesh, form one body in us, or in man; so the three which give testimony
in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, are one substance
or being. --- I have already noticed the testimony of Fulgentius, but it
is necessary again to quote it. It is as Follows: "In Patre ergo et
Filio et Spiritu Sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere
non audemus. Beatus enim Joannes Apostolus testatur: Tres sunt qui testimonium
perhibent in caelo; Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et tres unum sunt.
Quod etiam beatissimus Martyr Cyprianus confitetur," &c. Then he
presently cites the words of cyprian already considered. The citation of
this father is equally artful with that of Vigilius. He abruptly breaks
off at the end of the seventh, et tres unum sunt, --- thus endeavouring
to prevent his readers from learning what that unity was; and lest they
should not be drawn to his own notion, he premises, "In Patre, et Filio,
et Spiritu Sancto, unitatem substantiae accipimus."
But
hear what Mr. Porson says to this: "Fulgentius fairly confesses that
he became acquainted with this verse solely by the means of Cyprian."
Letters, p. 264. And in the next page he adds, "Fulgentius being aware
of an objection, that the verse was not then extant in St. John's Epistle,
shields himself under the authority of Cyprian." This is all mistake
undoubtedly, observes the bishop of St. David's. It is matter of astonishment,
that a writer who animadverts with so much contemptuous severity on assertions
without proof in his opponent, should himself again and again assert things
unsupported by a shadow of truth.
I again
revert to the Prologue, to point out one or two circumstances which go
to prove its genuineness. Those who suppose it a forgery, refer it to a
period subsequent to Fulgentius. We have here evidence that the African
fathers, long before the seventh century, quoted the very words which are
said in the Prologue to have been omitted in some Copies. The author of
that Prologue also intimates that the making of these same words public,
excited alarm and gave great offence. How could this be, if they had been
previously quoted by the most popular writer? The Prologue then carries
its own intrinsic evidence that its publication did not come after, but
preceded these citations of the disputed verse by the African fathers.
If so, if Jerome restored and published the verse in his corrected version,
his conduct in this respect must have been the real cause of those fathers
being more explicit in quoting it, than Tertullian, Cyprian, Phaebadius,
Marcus Celedensis, and others who preceded him. They followed the author
of the Prologue, and endeavoured to neutralize the mischief which he had
occasioned, by garbling the text, and pre-occupying the public with their
own construction. And here a coincidence of a delicate nature, which ever
accompanies truth, presents itself. The Latin fathers preceding, such as
Tertullian and Cyprian, in alluding to the verse or quoting it, always
use FILIUS, instead of VERBUM as it is in the original. But Eucherius,
Vigilius, and others who succeeded Jerome, as uniformly use the
latter in the room of the former. To what is this deviation from their
great masters to be ascribed? Plainly to Jerome, who had corrected the
text, and restored to it Verbum, as the true reading. The change
evidently was not the effect of choice, but necessity; for whenever they
accompany the text with their own comment, they adopt their favourite Filius,
instead
of the long disinherited Verbum.
The
Prologue then is beyond all contradiction the work of Jerome: and it furnishes
us with three most important facts. First, that as this great father restored
the disputed verse to the Vulgate, on the authority of Greek MSS., there
were extant at that period, in the fourth century, Greek MSS which Jerome
considered more ancient and more authentic than those, which did not contain
the disputed verse; and four of which remain to this day. Secondly, the
erasure of the disputed verse from such of the Greek MSS as were then,
and
still are without it, proceeded from the same motive which induced
the Greek and Latin fathers to pass it over, or to garble the text in their
writings. Thirdly, the Copies of the Vulgate insisted upon by Porson as
not containing the verse, are those, or Copies taken from those, of which
Jerome complains as faithless versions of the Greek original.
After
the restoration of the verse by Jerome, ecclesiastical writers felt it
necessary to notice it; and no alternative was left to them, but to use
some expedient for disguising its true import. The principal expedient
usually adopted for this purpose was, the omitting of the clause which
pointed out the nature of the unity intended by the Apostle in the eighth
verse. The second was, the transposing of the two verses, so as to make
the eighth, without the clause denoting unity of testimony, a model for
interpreting the seventh, as denoting unity of substance. To render this
parallelism the more obvious, it became necessary to insert some particle
expressing similitude; and this various reading being found in certain
Copies, afforded to Mr. Porson a fresh proof of interpolation, and suggested
the way in which it crept into the text. "I have purposely omitted,"
says
he, "in my former account of the various readings, one of the most important,
that I might introduce it here. The reader will easily guess that I mean
the connexion of the seventh verse with th eighth by the intervention of
SICUT. In three MSS that Bishop Burnet saw, the seventh verse follows the
eighth; and they are pinned together, as the Bishop well expresses it,
by a sicut. In a MS at Ulm, the passage stand thus: 'Quia tres sunt, qui
testimonium dant, Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt: SICUT
in caelo tres sunt, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; et tres unum sunt.' This
various reading not only gives fresh suspicion of interpolation, but shows
us the means by which it gradually insinuated itself into the text. Whoever
duly and attentively weighs this circumstance, will perhaps see less cause
to think the idea of a marginal gloss so affected and absurd as you modestly
pronounce it." (See Letters, p. 148.)
The
argument against the verse drawn from its corruption he states more fully
in p. 142: "If all these various readings were presented in one view
to any person endowed with common sense, moderately instructed in the principles
of criticism, and uninfluenced in the present debate by interest or passion,
he could not help concluding that the number and the importance of the
various readings furnish reasonable ground for a suspicion of corruption.
That a passage which so often adds, omits, or alters particular words;
which now precedes, now follows the unsuspected part of the text; which
is sometimes seen in the body of the work, sometimes in the margin; sometimes
by the same, sometimes by a different hand; sometimes after a rasure; which,
in short, changes shapes faster than Proteus or Empusa; that such a pasage
is exceedingly questionable, whatever shape it assumes; and that, though
it were not absolutely omitted by any MSS., an editor might yet hint his
doubts, or even avow his disbelief of its genuineness, without justly incurring
the censure of blasphemy or impiety."
How
differently does the same thing strike different minds? I am not influenced
by interest or passion in the present debate; and am, too, it is hoped,
moderately instructed in the principles of criticism :--- yet to my mind,
various readings, the variety of forms and positions which the verse assumed,
its transposition with the eighth, open fresh evidence of genuineness.
Uniformity may often be the effect of art and systematic falsehood; while
diversity changes with change of circumstances; agreement in the main,
and variance in inferior points, are characteristics of nature and of truth.
I should therefore thus reason on the present subject :--- The verse is
certainly authentic: the tattered form in which it appears, the patches
put upon it, and the turning of it as it were inside out, prove only that
it is old, and has long suffered violence and hard service; not
that it never came from the hands of the Apostle. Its dismemberment and
abuse must therefore be referred to some causes very different from interpolation.
The precise words used by the Apostle, and the arrangement which he gave
to the context, were repugnant to the views of those who, coming after
him, quoted or copied the verse; and they sought to alter its sense by
altering its position or true reading. If it had been a forgery, the authors
of it would at once have placed it where it would have answered their purpose
best; and it is certain that they, and their coadjutors in successive ages,
would exert all their endeavours to prevent its mutilation and its variety
of shapes from appearing in evidence against its authenticity. If in a
solitary spot I saw the decayed and scattered bones of a human being, I
should instantly conclude that a person once existed to whom they belonged.
Mr. Porson, if he were consistent, would insist on the contrary conclusion.
He would say, these bones are mangled and scattered by violence, and therefore
never formed a real body. The inference he draws, resembles that which
Jacob drew when he saw the mantle of his son torn to pieces and stained
with blood. The inference in both cases proves erroneous. The verse, like
Joseph, was still alive. Pious fraud forced it away, and, with the Gospel
in its original simplicity, sold it to Antichrist; and there for ages they
were held in worse than Egyptian bondage. But the period of their common
deliverance is at hand. The diffusion of knowledge, the progress of inquiry,
and the spirit of rational and manly freedom, will, sooner or later, melt
their chains; and the powers of darkness, like Pharaoh and his hosts, shall
be scattered on the waves.
A third
expedient remains to be noticed, which for its cunning and baneful consequences
may appear an invention of Satan to blind the eyes of the learned. This
is the allegorical interpretation given to the eighth verse, which consisted
in explaining the water, the blood, and the spirit --- as meaning the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. On this allegory Mr. Porson observes, that "no
writer in his perfect mind could possibly adopt this allegorical interpretation
of the eighth verse, if the seventh were extant in his Copy." P. 311.
"Because,"
says he, "it is not likely that anybody, seeing the doctrine of
the Trinity clearly revealed in the seventh verse, should extract it from
the eighth by an unnatural interpretation." P. 307. By means of this
argument he infers the absence of the verse from the Copies used by Cyprian,
Eucherius, Augustin, and others, referring their supposed citation of the
seventh to a mystical gloss of the eighth.
This
is the chief instrument by which the genuineness of the verse was annihilated
in the judgement of the learned; and its fallacy will appear from the three
following remarks. First, the reference proceeds on the assumption that
the verse in question proves the doctrine of the Trinity, which it does
not. Secondly, the allegory of the eighth verse is so unnatural, absurd,
and even impious (for it makes water to mean God the Father), that it would
never have been thought of, if it had not been suggested by the presence
of the seventh, and adopted by cunning interpreters as an expedient to
give a wrong direction to their readers, and by that means prevent its
true meaning from being known. In order to secure this text from danger,
and to pervert it in safety to the support of the Trinity, it was necessary
for these true sons of the Church to leave the plain and solid ground of
common sense, and rise into the region of mysticism; and they left off
this allegory as a smaller balloon to pilot their readers in the interpretation
of the seventh verse. Thirdly, the allegory was suggested by the transposition
of the two verses; and then, and not till then, adopted. Hear the Professor's
own words: "Bengelius wishes to transpose the seventh and eighth verses.
I believe that this was more frequently the position of the verses when
the Heavenly Witnesses first obtained admittance. The allegorical interpretation
will then so naturally follow the verse which it explains, particularly
in the Copies that announce the Heavenly Witnesses with a sicut, that the
manner in which the interpretation was made, will be obvious to any person
acquainted with the history of MSS. Twells saw something of this consequence;
for he reasons against the idea of an allegory or marginal gloss upon this
ground, --- that the oldest and best MSS prefix the seventh verse: but,
says he, if the seventh verse were a gloss engendered by the eighth, the
seventh would follow the eighth. The plain answer to this reasoning is,
that such indeed was the arrangement of the two verses." P. 394.
The
Professor argues that Augustin was a stranger to the verse, because he
put upon the eight a mystical interpretation. But this argument, like his
other reasonings, is totally unfounded. This father was as well acquainted
with the disputed text as Mr. Porson himself; as we may infer from the
following passage: "Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unum sunt. Tres
enim personae sunt, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres, quia
unius substantiae sunt, unum sunt." Here the substance of the seventh
verse with Augustin's own comment; and such comment as prevented every
reader, who regarded that father's authority, from having any idea of the
sense which the Apostle intended to convey by it.
The
venerable Bede wrote a commentary on the seven canonical Epistles; and
it is remarkable that he has passed over the verse in profound silence.
Its adversaries, of course, have availed themselves of this omission, to
plead that the verse was unknowns to him. "If any person," says
Mr. Porson, "will read through Bede's commentary on the fifth chapter,
he must see, unless he be wilfully blind, that Bede was totally ignorant
of the seventh verse." P. 384. I confess myself so far blind as not
to
see this. From the very words which the Professor has himself quoted, I
see quite the reverse. "Upon this very chapter, he (Bede) breaks out:
Pereat de terra memoria eorum, qui eum vel Deum vel hominem esse verum
denegant." P. 385. Now why should Bede utter this anathema in commenting
on the very chapter in which the controverted text is found? He wishes
that the memory of those who denied Jesus to be real God and real man,
might perish from the earth. Has such pious curse any propriety in this
place? Yes, if the verse was in his Copy; but not otherwise. For it turns
solely upon the seventh and eight verses. According to Bede, who, as Mr.
Porson observes, was wuite othrodox, the former verse asserts that Christ
is a real God, one of the three persons of the Trinity; the latter,
that He was a real man. Those who maintained the simple humanity
of Christ, or simply His pre-existence, denied the one;--- the Gnostics,
whom John immediately opposed, denied the other. There was, it seems, something
peculiar in the situation of Bede, which made him afraid to comment on
what the first of these parties rejected: and he was compelled to be content
with cursing both.
It is
needless to pursue the inquiry any further. From the eleventh century the
verse was known, freely quoted, and its authenticity never called in question
till the revival of learning, when the first edition of the Greek Testament
was given to the world. The merits of the Complutensian edition is discussed
by Mr. Porson in his third letter; and the charge that the editors translated
the verse from the Latin Vulgate, is urged with a force difficult to be
resisted. Yet a single circumstance exits, which should rescue them in
fairness from this imputation. The Complutensian differs from the common
reading by substituting in the seventh, oi treis eis to en eisi, which
belongs to the eighth verse. This is the clause which the Latin fathers
so much dreaded, and uniformly omitted in quoting the context. Yet the
Complutensian editors not only adopted it, but placed it contrary to the
Latin Copies, where it set aside the doctrine of the Trinity, and points
directly to the true meaning of the Apostle. So far, therefore, is the
Complutensian text from being a version of the Vulgate, that it is the
reading of some MS which owed its existence and preservation to antitrinitarians.
This is a very providential circumstance; and the attempt of Porson to
account for it by supposing that the editors had recourse to this variation
for the purpose of disguise, is both unsatisfactory and disingenuous.
Porson's
Letters to Travis have greatly and deservedly been admired. The amazing
magazine of knowledge, the strength of memory, the detail of minute, dry,
and uninteresting facts --- yet facts sparkling with wit and learning ---
which are exhibited almost in every page; the vein of sarcastic humour
and contemptuous indignation with which he assails his adversary; the ingenuity
with which he detects his weakness and turns it to his own advantage; finally,
the force with which he hurries away his readers to his conclusion, ---
give them a character unrivaled among similar production of the human mind.
But accident, or caprice, or prejudice had enlisted him on the side of
error; and his credit as a Scriptural critic vanishes for ever. Had the
verse in John been a verse of Euripides, he would by his learning and acuteness
have penetrated the circumstances of the writer, developed the mystery
which peculiarity of situation gave to his meaning, and in connexion with
the errors which called it forth, placed it before his readers in the light
of day. But the path of enlightened criticism, the avenue to Biblical knowledge,
were in a manner blocked up to the Cambridge professor. From his youth
he had sworn to belive, on the subject of religion, only what his Alma
Mater prescribed; and he was one of those few who scorned to read, where
was not permitted to think for himself. Accordingly, the volume of Revelation,
though the only charter of immortality to man, though written in the same
sublime characters, and with the same Divine hand, which has stereotyped
around us the volume of Nature, presented him either with a blank page,
or a page obscured and distorted through the mist of authority. His discussion
of the three Heavenly Witnesses furnishes, I believe, the only specimens
we have of his skill in sacred criticism; and I must say that they are
unworthy of him. The remissness with which he suffered the obvious sense
of the verse to elude his grasp, and his forced and awkward attempts to
explain the context without it, makes us lose sight of the man; and we
are mortified to discover him dipping in the sacred page, as in the stream
of Salamis, where his masculine mind drops half its vigour. What an example
of the baneful influence of an established creed! Had thirty-nine articles
been laid down at the revival of learning, requiring conformity in science
and literature as well as in religion, the noble rage for improvement had
never been felt in Europe; the genial current which enlivens and enriches
society, would have been chilled by monkish penury; and knowledge, like
a beneficent stream in spring diffusing verdure and fertility over its
banks, would have been arrested in its progress as by the frost of winter.
Locke and Newton would not have existed as philosophers; Bentley and Porson
would have been unknown as critics; and the Bishop of St. David's, a man
unquestionably of sterling powers and an accomplished scholar, would have
been known, if known at all, only as a fanatic and a driveler.
Having
finished this brief sketch of the external evidence of the verse, I must
again shortly advert to its internal meaning. And here, Mr. Editor, I beg
your attention while I argue a little with you, as an advocate of the Trinity.
Let us then recall the three Heavenly Witnesses, and re-examine their testimony.
What is the subject of this testimony? The subject is that of the whole
Epistle, namely, that JESUS is the Christ. But what does Jesus mean?
Assuredly the man Jesus. If I were to say Paul was an Apostle of
Christ, I must mean the man Paul. The use of language in every age
and country, from the beginning of the world until now, implied that when
a man's name is used, it means that man, and nothing more, who is designated
by it. But you will say, that Jesus, as the Christ, was indeed a real man,
but he was also really God. The Apostle does not say so; he says the very
reverse. You and other Trinitarians maintain what the Gnostics before you
maintained at the first appearance of the Gospel. IN places where the gods
were thought to appear in the empty form of men, the impostors pretended
that Jesus was one of those phantoms: but in other countries they taught,
more plausibly, that a God united with the man Jesus, and that therefore
he was both God and man. In opposition to such teachers, the Apostle wrote
his Epistle. And what does he say? He says, again and again that Jesus,
whom they rejected and even cursed, was the Christ; thus inculcating that
the God which they pretended to have united with the man Jesus was not
the
Christ. If the language of the Apostle were vague and uncertain, the sentiments
of the deceivers would serve to define it; for he maintains what they denied,
and denies what they maintained: and, beyond controversy, what they maintained
was the Divinity of Christ. Here then we have an important fact placed
before us in clear unequivocal light. The orthodox insist on the Divinity
of Christ as essential to Christianity; the enemies of the Gospel, on its
promulgation, artfully adopted the same doctrine as the means of subverting
Christianity. The doctrine was specious, and it did prevail. John publishes
his Epistle to check its growth, and he expressly calls it Antichrist.
But
you will say that the Unitarians who maintain the simple humanity of Christ,
degrade Him far below His real dignity. Quite the reverse: for Unitarians,
with John and the other Apostles, receive him --- with all gratitude and
reverence receive Him --- as the Logos of God. In this view they believe
Him, as the evangelist asserts, to be God; though we scruple to give Him
the name, as liable to abuse and misconstruction. The term holds him forth
as the delegate of God, to be the Saviour of the world: it is a title of
His high office, not of His nature. The union of the Logos with the man
Jesus is not the union of two natures in one person, but the union of His
ministry, as the promised Messiah, with the moral government of God for
the salvation of mankind. The Evangelist, in attesting the incorporation
of the Logos, solely attests the Divinity of our Lord's mission, and that
in opposition to wicked and artful men, who denied His commission from
the Creator and Governor of the Universe.
To the
subject that Jesus is the Christ, there are in heaven, according to the
disputed verse, three who bear testimony; the father, the Word, and the
Holy Spirit. The father attests it as having, at the commencement of His
ministry, by a voice from heaven declared Jesus to be His well-beloved
Son. The word attests it, because Jesus in His official capacity, now invested
with all power and authority, gives a clear and decisive evidence of His
delegation. The Apostle, speaking of himself and brethren, says, that they
had this testimony in themselves, --- meaning, that the proofs of His Divine
mission which Jesus exhibited during His ministry, were still engraven
in their memories and on their hearts. The Holy Spirit attests it, because
it descended on the Apostles expressly to prove that the man Jesus, who,
after bringing life and immortality to light in His Gospel, was put to
a violent death, is the very same with Him who rose from the dead and now
sitteth at the right hand of God. The disputed verse, then, is not spurious,
because it asserts a testimony which is recognized and verified in the
Gospel; because its object is that which it is the object of the Epistle
in other parts to establish: in a word, because, with singular brevity
and felicity of expression, it comprehends the substance of Christianity
and a summary of its evidences.
If we
want any further evidence for the trues sense and genuineness of the verse,
we shall find it in the conduct of the Greek and Latin fathers. These men
made it the foundation of their peculiar system, yet were afraid to produce
it in support of that system. For many ages they concealed it, erased it
from the manuscripts, omitted it in their versions; thus endeavouring to
confine the knowledge and use of it to a confidential few: and when circumstances
at length allowed them to bring it to light, they could not trust it to
the public eye without mutilating and perverting it by their own interpretation.
These artifices demonstrate their fears; and their fears suppose a consciousness
that the three Heavenly Witnesses, on which the trinity was built, might,
if rightly interpreted, be made a handle to subvert it. After the lapse
of ages, what they feared is actually accomplished: and hence the restoration
of this celebrated verse, as an authentic document of the Apostle John,
becomes, in the hands of Divine Providence, an extraordinary instrument
of restoring the Gospel to its original purity.
The
providence of God, which watches over the interests of the Gospel, is singularly
displayed in the history and preservation of this text. An artful scheme,
dictated by heathenism, was formed to undermine Christianity. Its prevalence
called forth the writings of John: the controverted text, containing as
it does the sum and substance of the Gospel, presents a triangular figure,
corresponding in shape to the base of the orthodox church. This accidental
coincidence suggested the idea of converting it into a pillar to support
the Trinity. The attempt was hazardous, for the Apostle erected the verse
as a column to the simple humanity of Christ; and it was found by experience
impossible at the time to conceal the true meaning of the verse without
concealing the verse itself. Hence the founders of orthodoxy, though they
would have been happy to quote the passage, if they could quote it without
detection, were compelled, as opportunity offered, to erase it from their
Copies, to omit it in their Versions and writings. In more favourable circumstances,
they felt themselves free to allude to it or paraphrase it; but they were
still forced to have recourse to the expedients of mutilating it, transposing
it, and of tacking upon it their own interpretations. But lo! A consequence
ensued, which was never contemplated by the pious advocates of the Trinity.
The ages of darkness drew to a close. The reign of ignorance and imposture,
the usurpations of priestcraft, received successive shocks by the invention
of printing, the revival of learning, and the reformation from popery;
and the very means which had been adopted to disguise the verse, brought
it under the suspicion of forgery. Learned men in England and on the Continent
for two centuries eagerly engaged in the dispute, and were divided in their
opinions. The arguments against it were more and more felt. The number
of its advocates daily diminished; till it was abandoned, except by a few,
as a gross interpolation. The pantomime, which pious fraud had for a thousand
years been acting on the Christian stage, at length reached its crisis.
The mask dropped; and the verse, after a long incarceration, emerged with
proofs of genuineness written in letters of gold upon its forehead. The
catastrophe is sudden and surprising. The verse promised to establish the
Trinity, --- but it is found to level it in the dust for ever. The perversion
of its meaning caused its concealment; its concealment brought on the suspicion
of forgery; and it is cut off, as a rotten member, from the very church
of which it is the main pillar and ornament. It is again restored to its
primitive sense; --- its primitive sense accounts for its ill treatment;
while the violence which it suffered for ages confirms in return the true
signification: and thus a verse which was thought to justify the orthodox
in placing beyond the pale of the church those who rejected the Divinity
of Christ , establishes the simple humanity of Christ as a fundamental
article of that faith which Christ and His Apostles delivered to the saints.
The riddle of the Sphinx is scarcely more enigmatical; and the Oedipus
of Sophocles, so famous for the complication of its plot, more unexpected
in its catastrophe. The Bishop of St. David's, Mr. Nolan, and other sons
of Orthodoxy, who still defend the verse, gain their cause; and they are
defeated. On the other hand, Mr. Fox, Dr. Carpenter, with others of the
same school, who insist on its forgery, are defeated; and they triumph.
The former, like the frogs of Aesop in demanding a king, claim the verse,
to crush Unitarianism. Their demand is heard; and they receive a Hydra,
to devour their own system. The latter repudiate it, as hostile to genuine
Christianity. They fail in the attempt; and the failure restores the Gospel
to that purity for which they contend. In a word, the contending parties,
after struggling each against their own views and interest, change places.
The success of the one is followed by disappointment and even mortification;
the defeat of the other ends in triumph. The most respectable characters
in this comic-tragedy are Michaelis, Marsh, Griesbach, Porson, J.P. Smith,
and others, who, though Trinitarians, still had the candour to reject the
verse. To the command of the roman Satiris, Vos hinc, hinc vos mutatis
discedite partibus, they may still answer, Nolumus; and, though defeated,
retire from the stage with honour and consistency. They however cannot
feel but mortified that the part which they have acted, obliges them in
retreating to leave behind their fair name, as a mantle to cover the shame
of the triumphant party.
I remain,
Mr. Editor,
Your
most obedient humble Servant,
BEN
DAVID.
Footnote
for Letter III.
[1]
--- Tertullian plainly acknowledges that the common people of his days
(who, as he says, constituted the majority of believers) dreaded the Trinity,
as introducing three Gods. The attempt on the part of this father
and others to extinguish common sense, and to reconcile the Divine unity
with the distinction of three persons in the Trinity, caused them uncommon
perplexity. In one passage of his treatise, he says, "Simplices quisque,
ne dixerim imprudentes, et idotae, quae major semper credentium pars est,
quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis saeculi, ad unicum et verum
Deum transfert, non intelligentis unicum quidem, sed cum sua oeconomia
esse credentum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam. Numerum et dispositionem Trinitatis
divisionem praesumunt unitatis … Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis
praedicare, se vero unius Dei cultores praesumunt." Page 502.
THE
END
-------------
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.
-----------------