Post 2 of 4 in the series “The Three Heavenly Witnesses: Edmund Calamy on 1 John 5:7.” This post contains the complete modernized reading text of the corresponding sermon.
The second sermon takes up the strongest negative argument known to Calamy: the absence of the clause from many Greek copies and versions, together with the failure of many early writers to cite it when it might have served their purpose.
His reply is a historical argument from the evidence available in the early eighteenth century. Names, manuscript descriptions, and datings should be checked against current catalogues before contemporary critical use; they are preserved here because they show how the debate was conducted in Calamy's own setting.
Editorial note. This is a historical working reading edition. Calamy's manuscript identifications, datings, and patristic citations reflect the resources of his period and should be checked against modern catalogues and critical editions before scholarly use.
Sermon Text
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Original p. 457
II. I proceed to give the sum of the argument against this text, with a reply to it in its several parts and branches.
This is an argument in which some have mightily triumphed, but no one more than the late Inquirer. It stands thus: so many ancient Greek copies, and versions of the New Testament into other tongues, being without this text; and so many of the Greek and Latin fathers not having quoted it when they have spoken of the Trinity, nor produced it when they had occasion, there being nothing more pertinent to their design than this would have been—it cannot be genuine.
Original p. 458
For if it was genuine, we should most certainly have heard of it from them and met with it among them. We are told that this is a large stock of evidence, and as much as one can well require for a negative, to show that this verse was not originally any part of the New Testament; and that one would need very direct and peremptory testimonies to the contrary to make him so much as hesitate in the matter. From this it is concluded that either the fathers knew nothing of this text or counted it suspicious.
And Father Simon, who was so conversant in manuscripts, declared that after all his searches he could not meet with it inserted as we have it in any one Greek manuscript. It is therefore represented as a matter of admiration that any man of common sense should still insist upon it as genuine. But I have four things to offer that appear to me a sufficient answer to this argument.
- The failure of a good number of the fathers to mention such a text in the writings of theirs that remain, and their silence about it when it might be thought they had great occasion for it, is far from proving that there was no such text; nor is the case much altered if the ancient versions are taken in. This might indeed have occasioned hesitation and given ground for doubt and suspicion, had there been nothing to outweigh it.
Original note. Emlyn's Tracts, p. 317; Richard Simon, Critical Dissertation on the Manuscripts of the New Testament, p. 9.
Original p. 459
that over-ballanc'd: But to pretend from jj hence certainly to conclude, that there was no such Text as this in being, is to run too, far, and too fast.
Several Writings of the Greek Fathers, and particularly ot those who lived in the most early Ages, are lost, and not to be recovered . Had they been preserved, they might have helped us to a great deal of Light which now is wanting. Euseb'ms particularly tells us, as to Clement of Alexandria, That among other Things he wrote upon this first Epistle of Jude, and the other Catholic EfijHes. Had what he wrote upon this first Epistle of John come down to our Times, we might perhaps have found this Text in served: I am well assured those Gentlemen who are most against the Text, neither are able to prove, nor have any Right to con clue, the contrary. Didymus allo wrote a Comment on the Catholic Epistles. And as to him, we may say the very same. Several others among the fathers, that did not cite this Text in those Works of theirs that are still extant, might for anything we know, have it in some other Works of theirs which have perislied in the Ruins of Time. It has been observed, That Clement of Alexandria, and some others of the Fathers, speaking" of the Trinity i, tooJfno Notice at all of the Baptismal Charge in the 'Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: But it by no Means follows from thence, that that was not Scripture, or that we have any Reason to
Ecdes. Hist. Lib. VI. cap. xiv.
t See Martin Dijsertat. Cntia. Pare II. chap. iii.
Original p. 460
that Charge is mentioned by others: Bur being oft omitted, where the mentioning it would have done good Service, is an Evidence that the Text we are upon, is proved spurious by its not being cited^ when we may imagine it should have been had litch a Text been known, and own An d withal, our most ancient Copies, the several Oriental VerJIoiis, are defective to some other Texts, which yet are generally owned to be genuine, and are so. M. Martin has produced several Instances out of Dr. Mill And Dr. Wbitbj affirms, That there art Sin hundred Places^ in which our common Reading of the Text of Scri-r pure, is different from all the Old Versions f. And after all, several of the ancient Fathers (as we shall see in the Sequel,) have cited and owned this Text as genuine. I must own therefore it appears to me unreasonable, and indeed absurd, because a number of the Fathers have not cited it, and the ancient Versions have not inserted it, presently to conclude it to be no Part of Scripture. Bur, 2. After all the Noise that has been made of this Texts being wanting in the Manuscript Copies of the New Testament, we have good Evidence of its being found in several very Valuable Manuscripts. J can rea lily grant all that is dropped by Critlcks and Dealers in Manuscripts, is not to be depended on. I agree with the Inquirer, that Critics gre net always to be trusted, in what they say of their Ibid. Part II. chap. i. t Vii. Exam. Var. IfCil. Job. UiSii. car\ it. f, (,' h
Original p. 461
their own Fidelity . They as often see through false Spectacles, and are as liable to Mil1 takes, and as capable of serving sinister Purposes, and therefore as much need to be care fully watched, as any Men whatever. And yet when a Number of Persons that have no way forfeited their Character, positively assure us, after Searching into AlamfcrlptSy, That though others want this particular Text, yet such and'such have it in 'era to represent it as a Thing doubtful. Whether any MSS. at all really have, it, is to destroy ail Credit, and therefore very hard and unreasonable: And to cry up Witnesses on one Side of a Debate, as if they could hardly be sufficiently magnified, ana upon all Occasions to dis credit those on the other Side, is extremely Partial. And yet this is the Way of those that are against this Text, who make little or nothing of all that is said of the Man scripts in which it is to be found; and at the same Time rundown Erasmus about his British Copy, from whence he declares he took it; and inveigh against Beta and Ste pens (though Father 6iron himself owns, that He maybe compared to the most able Critics t) and represent them and others, as Persons deserving no Regard, while hardly anything that is great enough can be said of Father Simon, who with all his Skill was most certainly as bigoted and partial, and as prejudiced and canker a Writer, as any our Modern Times have afforded. That Author is very free in acknowledging, That the main Design of his Writings, was to establish tkt Emlyris Tracts, pa^. 331. t Mil. Crit, des y«r\. N, T. pag.130.
Original p. 462
velty of the Protestants *: And yet such a Vcneration have some Protestants for him, that they are for swallowing whatever comes from him by wholesale. I cannot help saying, That this has an Aspect that is a little Peculiar.
I have already owned, and it is not to be denied or concealed, That this Text is wanting in some valuable Copies that are now remaining: But I can't see any Reason we have in such a Case as this, to confine ourselves to MSS. that are now in being. I think we may very well claim the Benefit of such MSS. as were viewed by Persons that lived a great While before us, and are since worn out, or lost. History gives us an Account of a careful Collation of MSS. in these Parts of the World at two different Seasons, the one above Seven hundred Years ago, managed by the Doctors of the Sorbon; and the other above Nine hundred Years ago, under the Management of our Famous Countryman Alcuin, and other Learned Men his Contemporaries, at the Command of the Emperor Charles the Greet. Upon both these Occasions, we may well suppose, they had various MSS, which we have not at this.Day: And particularly in the latter Col nation, that was countenanced by so great a Prince, they could not but have all the Libra ries in Europe open to them, with their Area sures. After they had collated all the'MSS. that offered, (and some of them if they had at that • Time been transcribed but Two or Three hun died Years, must have been of as ancient Date * Advertijsemrm 4 shit, des Versions attn. T.
Original p. 463
Date as the very oldest that are now anywhere to be found) they inferred this Text, or rather continued it. And I cannot see, but we have as good a Right to claim the Benefit of their ManufcrlptSy, as if we ourselves had seen them, or they had been preserved till our Times.
But besides the Confirmation we may have this Way, I think we have good Evidence, that this disputed Text is to be found both in Latin Manuscripts and Greek.
I begin with Latin Manuscripts, which we have on our Side in Abundance. Lucks Brugenfis tells us, That in Thirty-five old Latin Copies, he found it wanting but in Five. Du Pin also tells us, That it is in a great Number of Latin Manuscripts, and those ancient ones too , though in some Co pies the 8th Verse, or that which is said of the Witmffes in Earth, goes before the 7th, or that which is said of the Three Witnesses in Heaven. And Father Simon himself acknow ledges tj That he read this Verse in the Bible of the Emperor Lotharlus, which was written in the Time of Charles the Great, or at least was copied from the Revise of the Bible which was encouraged by that Emperor, towards the Close of the VIHth Cen try: Bp. Burnet also, though he mentions s MSS. at Basil, and another at Zurich, and Three at Strasburgh, in which this Text was wanting, yet tells us, that One of the Four MSS. he saw at Strashurghy, which wanted but a small Matter of the Age of Charles the Great, and by Consequence was Nine hundred Hist, of the Can. of the 0. md N. T. Vol. II, c.ii. $. xi. pag. 77twist, des. Versions, du N. T. ch 9.
Original p. 464
that he saw several other ancient MSS. at Geneva, Venice, and Florence, which had this Passage in them.
Du Pin also gives it as his Opinion, That though the Antiquity and Number of the Greek Manuscripts is of lome Weight; yet as there are none ancienter than Eight or nine hundred Years, we should not upon their sole Authority reject a Passage which is found in Latin MSS. as ancient . And agreeably to this Sentiment of that Learned Man (who must be owned a Man of more Candor than most that are of his Comm noon) I find Erasmus in his Dispute withed ward Ley, lays it down as a good Rule in Criticism, That the consentient Voices of the Latin Fathers, are sufficient to establish the Authenticity of a Text of Scripture, though it should be wanting in Greek Manuscripts. And if so, I must confess I cannot see, why the meeting with this Text, in so many of the most ancient of our Latin Bibles, should be made so light of as it is by our Inquirer: Especially when we add to it, the multiplied Quotations of the Latin Fathers (which we shall hear of afterwards) which we have to set against the bare Silence of so many of the Greek. to Greek MSS. it must be owned, our Evidence is not so clear, full and strong, as it is with Reference to the Latin: And yet we are not so destitute as we are represented. One of the first Collectors of Greek MSS. of the New Testament in these Parts of the World,
Hist, of the Canon of the Old and New Ttstsnient.Vol. JJ. chap. j^ Sect. 11. p. 77.
Original p. 465
man Nobleman. He wrote a Book that he caird, Collations of the New Testament, which we have in our London Crlticks; in which Work he took Notice of the Differences he observed between the Vulgar Latin, and his Greek MSS. And though Dr. Mill , (as well as some others) complains of his being too severe upon the Old Version; yet neither he, nor any one else, as far as I can observe, has anything to offer against our depending upon his Account of such Greek Copies as he had. Now when he comes to this Text, which was then com only read in the Vulgar Latin, as it is with us at this Day, he takes no.Notice of any Difference as to this Passage, from his Greek MSS. saving only that whereas the former concluded the 8th Verse as the 7th, And. these Three are One, Et Hi tres unttm funt; He intimates, that according to the Greek Co pies, that Clause was thus: ii< ii u<ri -. These Three agree in One. In how many of his MSS. 'this 1st Epistle of St. John was found, he does not lay: He might have Seven Copies of the Gospels, and but One or Two perhaps, of the Catholic Epistles. But it must be in One of them at least, or he for fits the Character of Judgment and Fidelity, that he has had so generally given him in the Learned World: In which Simon himself felfconcurrs sand though Erasmus might say, as our Inquirer observes 4-> how Villa read is not evident yet all that could be thereby meant, was, that he was not certain how the whole H h 7th
Prolcgom. in N. T. num. 1086. t Hist. Crit. des. Prince. Comment, du N. T. c. xx4v« 4tmlyn pag. 476, and 496.
Original p. 466
for want of his reciting the whole Verse as he found it there; without anything of an Insinuation, as if he did not find there the Verse about the Three Witnesses in Earth as well as that about the Three Witnesses in Heaven, without supposing which, there is no making Sense ot what he declares.
I shall not engage in the tedious Debate about the Greek MSS. with the Assistance of which the famous Robert Stephen publish 'd his Noble Edition of the Greek Testament, An. 1 yyo. Morinus asserts that of the Sixteen Greek MSS. with which he was furnished, he points to 7 in which this Verse was to be found: Whereas Father Simon will not allow it to have been in any but the Complutenfian Copy f. This Matter has of late been debated with some Warmth; i perhaps more than it deserves. For my part I'm very inclinable to think the Mark in Stephen' Glorious Greek Testament might be misplaced and that we have a fair Account of that Matter given us by Dr. Louis Roger \.} and Father Le Long ft. And yet I don't know that we have any Occasion quite to lay aside all Hope of Help and Benefit from Stephen Greek Mans scripts.
For Bez, as who I should think deserves as much Credit as Father Simon, in his Deli catory Epistle to our Queen Elizabeth that is prefixed to his New Testament, which Epistle was *
Lib. t Exereitat. Biblic. Exercitat. II. cap. i. t Differs. Crit. fur les MSS. du N. T. pag. 14, \. DiJJertat. Crit. Iheolog. de 1 John v. 7. 4. HI, & XII. tt Vote^ Journal des Savant du mots de Join. 1710.
Original p. 467
ry, that was carefully collated with about Twenty-five MSS. which was sent him by his Son Henry Stephen. And in his Notes up on the Text, he expressly., and in so many Words, declares, that it was in some oi Ste pens^ ancient Copies, as well as in the Cowplutenfian Edition, bo that if the Text was in none of Stephen'^ Greek MSS. nothing can excuse Beta from telling a downright Lye in a Matter of Fact. It cannot be evaded, by saying, he might mistake undesignedly. For he teils us how these ancient MSS. of Stephen differed from each other; and inti mates, that the Father, the Ivory, and.the Spirit had Articles in some of them, and the Epithets of Holy, was added to th;.pi, It, Sec. I think therefore it is altogether unreasonable to refuse to allow, that (however it was as to Stephen sixteen Greek. MSS- >. with v. nice he was assisted in publishing his Greek T fta went,) this Text was in some ot the Twentyfire Copies, with the various Readings where of Bez, a was furnished by Henry Stephen. And we may this Way be able to give an Account how it came about^ that as Dr. Roger observes *, Bez.a should produce several va riots Readings, which had escaped the Fa mous Robert Stephen. The plain Reason was, because he was provided with the Collations of more Greek MSS. than that Celebrated Printer was furnished with, at the Time when his Famous Greek Testament was published.
H h 2 Nor * DIJsert. Critic. Thcol. dt I John v. 7. pag. 64.
Original p. 468
Brirtf] Copy fit to be made light of. The In 1Hirer makes himself pleasant with it; and wants to know, whether the Manuscript be in being still, and what is become of it; and represents it as much contested, whether ever Erasmus saw it, or pretended to it . But whether he saw it or no, it is plain by the Account he gives of it in his Notes upon the Text, and the Comparisons he pursues between the Spanish aud the Brhijh Copy, that he, who was a good Judge, depended upon it. It seems to be against the Grain with him that he at all prcdiiced it; and he appears as it were forced to it: And there is but little Likelihood he should at last have inserted the Verse, when he had omitted it in his former Editions, if he could have found any Way fairly to have avoided ir. Can any one imagine, that so Stomachful a Person as Erasmus was, after he had defied Stunica. the Spaniard, whom he wrote against, to produce any one Greek MS. in which this Verse was to be found, should himself produce such a Copy, if he could not depend upon the Truth of it? And that he did fully depend upon it is plain, in that he not only inserted it in his third Edition of his Greek Testament, An. IJ22, but in his Latin Edition of the New Testament, that was printed the Year before at Basil, in Confer mity to the Greek. Not only therefore M. • Martin, but Dr. Roger f, lays a considerable Stress upon this British Copy of Erasmus and the Emlyn Tracts, fag. 497. t Dissert. Crit. Thevl. in hunt Texttim: crag,' 100, ad pag. i«9.
Original p. 469
Objections 'against it, who was as willing to get rid of such an Evidence, as. any can be that come after him. And let Men quibble and cavil as long as they will, either there must have been some British Copy, that Erasmus could depend on, that had this Verse as he represents, or he that has hi thereto been admired as a great Restorer of Learnings, must come under the Imputation of being at once both weak and false so that he cannot be depended on.
And this is not the only Britijti Copy nei neither that has this Verse; for our English) Po PcJjglot takes Notice of another, that it styles Codex Montfortiut; which is also mentioned by Father Le Long, and Dr. Roger, as well as by M. Martin. This Copy is to be found in the Library at Dublin. It was formerly Front the Franciscans, and afterwards belongs to Thomas Clement, then to William Clerk, and then to Ttjomas Montfort, from whom Bishop Ujhtr had it, with whole MSS. it came into the Dublin Library. This MS. also has this Verse at large. And M. Martin has published the Copy of this Text and Context as it is there, to be found, attested by the Library Keeper of Tr/'»/^-College *. This cannot be the lame MS. as Erasmus refers to, because it differs from it. For the Word Holy is added to the Spirit, in the Dublin MS. whereas it is omitted in Erasmus's Copy. And withal, whereas the Article cris added tp i^rufiintt 8. in the Dublin MS. it is omitted in Eras muses Copy. Hh 3 So » 4f Verity du Text dt 4 gp, dp $. Jcstn, s, f, jer. 7. Chap, jij.
Original p. 470
omit this Text are not so old or so many, but that we have some both Greek and Latin ones to support it. And therefore I may say, as Dr. Roger *3 That it is mere Trifling for People to be continually dunning us with tie Greek and Latin MSS. in which this Pajjhgc is not to be met with. For we deny it not: As neither do we deny that there are a Number both es Greek and Latin Copies, in which we cannot meet with the History of the /idultrcfs in the vi'lith of Sr. John. But there being both Greek and Latin Cosies that have this Verse, the £>u iefilon will be, Which are most likely to agree with the Autograph of the Apostle, especially, when it is certain.there are very ancient Greek Copies that are faulty.
When therefore Dr. Clarke takes the Li betty to say, That the whole Text (for ought that yet appear.) has been wanting in every Manuscript Copy of the Original that is, or ever was in the World f: though ne (flies his Zeal, yet he discovers little Impartiality,• 5 and not much Regard to a Number of Valuable, Learned Men, that lived before him: And has acted as it no Man could have Assurance that such a Verse, Chapter or Book was really a Part of the Bible, unless he himself had turned over Manuscripts. And what an unhappy Condition most of us would then be in, may be safely left to any reasonable Man to judge. But farther, 3. The shewing; how it is possible, that this Text might be in St. John's Original, and yet afterwards omitted in several Co pies *' Dissertat. Crit. Ttxol. in textum, t>ag. 131," t Letter to Dr. mils, pag, 72.
Original p. 471
pies and Transcripts for a While, and at length restored out of other Copies in which it was preserved, bids fair for taking away the Force of the Argument, drawn from its being omitted in so many ancient Copies, as much as it is boasted of. Tho a Negative will not admit of the same Proof with a Positive Assertion, yet when it is pretended to be proved, if the Conclusion that is drawn from the Premises offered to sup^ port it is absolute, the Proof ought to be such as will lay a Foundation for a Rational Conviction of the Imfojsibliity of the contrary: And to conclude an absolute Negative, from Premises that at the most prove but a Pro ability of being in the Right, is fallacious. That this Text is not genuine, is a Negative Assertion. To prove it, an Argument is drawn from the Silence of the Fathers about it, and from its being wanting in the Oriental Versions, and in a great number of MSS. And in order to the rendering this Argument Conclusive, it ought to be Æewn, That being thus omitted, it could not pos silly have been in St. John's Original: Which; neither is nor can be done. WHEN the molt is made of this Argument that it will bear, we have no Evidence given, _ but that this Text might still have been in this Epistle at first, and afterwards omitted by some negligent or hasty Scribe that took one of the first Copies ot it, and might be the Occasion of its being left out in a great many other Copies that were transcribed after him, And such an Omission as this, might happen in the very same Way with Mutilation^ in other Writings both Sacred and Profane, It might be occasion'4 by a Repetition pf the lame Words, either those at the Beginning,
Original p. 472
End, are One. The Transcriber casting Eyes on either of these, without at that exactly minding what went before,, might happen to omit the whole 7th Verse: And not carefully collating his Copy. afterwards it might continue omitted, and that Omiflion might be transmitted to a great many other Transcripts. The 7th and 8th happening to begin with the same nothing more easy, than for theTranscribers to omit one by Negligence. For it is very usual, when the lame Words, or Words that are almost alike, are in two Periods that follow one another, for the Copier to pals from the Words of the first Period, to that which follows in the second: And Examples of such omissions are so frequent, and that in Passages of Importance too, that no one that has made any Observations on the Co lying of ManufcriptSj, can be ignorant of them. And yet when Dr. MM had given it as his Opinion, That it was thus this Case, and that though this Verse was omitted in several Copies used by the Ancient Fa there, yet it was recovers! from the Original by St. Cyprian, who appears to have had a Copy that was in this Respect true and unalcer d, our Inquirer complains of wild Suppo and improbable Imaginations, of this and the ether bare Possibility . Whereas, if the Way supposed and mentioned was but pofsibk, the Proof given that the Text debated was spurious, could not be certain, though it had been ever so often omitted. And he after wards Emtjns Tracts, pg. 340.
Original p. 473
only could not give a true Account how it really came to pass that the Greek MSS. andWritersstwuld be ignorant of this Verse; hut thatJetting his Imagination to work, he could not so much as invent or contrive a Way how it could possibly be done, with any tolerable Show of Probability, or Consistency of Circumstances . And yet one that I believe will be generally thought to have had as good a Taste in Matters of this Nature as the Inquirer, I mean the Learned Dr. Grab, has given it as his Judgment, That that was very likely, which he represents as scarce pos bible f. And to show it to be probable, that this was the Way in which this Verse came to be omitted, he has produced Two like Instances with this, out of the Writings of St. Cyprian and Tertullian; and Two Other Verses also of the New Testament, which are not in our printed Copies, and are wanting in several MSS. (and some that are very ancient too) and are not cited by the Fathers, which yet he thought he had good Reason to believe were written by the Apostles them selves, because otherwise no Reason could be imagined why they should be added: And these Verses also might reasonably be supposed to have been omitted in the very same Manner. The Learned Pfaffius also herein concurs 4., and Dr. Roger ft And whereas some might think that the supposing such Defects, would detract from the Divine Care in preserving the Holy Script ptures,
Ibid. pag. 343. t Cannot. in Bull. Del Fid. Nic. Sect. II. pag. 139: \ Differtat. Crit.de Genuine. Liar. N.T.Let. c. 9. tt Dflfertnt, Grit. Sheol. in 1 Job. v. 7. §. XXX.
Original p. 474
that in such Cases there are some Books or Cops left, by means of which we may be able to supply such Deficiencies: Which it cannot be pretended but that we have as to this Text, notwithstanding that it has been lett out and overlook 'd by lb many. M. Da Tin also has given like Instances ot omissions in the Septuagint, of whole Periods that are to be found in the Hebrew Text *.
But though our Inquirer owns that mistakes of this kind have happened to Transcribers, yet he says, that it was not so here is plain, because tbt Transcriber b.id then taken the next words to the second f? TufZrTif, which are « %?», in Earth, whereas it is confessed these Words are wanting also f. To which it is a sufficient Reply, that though these Words ivT»y», in Earth, are wanting in some Copies, yet they are found in others. And tho the Inquirer ob serves 4-, That the MSS. Copies of Bede in his Comment on the 8th Verse, differ from the printed, in terra, on Earth being wanting in the former, and added in the latter; yet M. Martin -ft assures us, that those Words on Earth, are in an ancient MS. of Bede in the Library of Utrecht, and that he saw them there with his own Eyes. And then I add farther, 4. That our not meeting with any Com' Complaints against this Text when it came to be publicly produced, and had a considerable Stress laid upon it, is a better Argument it was owned for genuine, notwithstanding its not
Hist of the Canon of the 0. and N. T. Vol. I. c. ii. I Emhns Tracts, pag. 339. \Ib. p. 492. 1
t Exam, de la i\ep<mst du M. Emljn, p. 85. 8$f
Original p. 475
than its having been before omitted, can jube pretended to be, to prove it Jpurlous and supposititious.
St. John's Apocalypse was opposed by several, in the first Ages of the Church. Calm a Roman Presbyter disowned it, and said it was written by Cerintbus the Heretic: And Denis of Alexandria argued strenuously against it. But as for this first Epistle of St. John not the least Doubt was started, whether or no 'twas his whose Name it bore; nor was there any Haæsituation about this particular Text, among any of the ancient Writers, upon its being cited. The' it must be owned it was not much cited for a considerable Time, (as far as we can judge from the few Writings of the earliest Fathers that remain, and have been preserved) yet, as we shall lee presently, it at length appeared publicly in the several Copies of the New Testament, and in the Writings of those who made a Fi sure in the Church, and was as commonly and unexceptionably used as other Texts. Had it, when it came to be thus generally used, or for some Time after, been by many disowned, and objected against as spurs ous, this might have created no small Diff culty. But To far was it from that, that it was no sooner used, than it was owned, without any Objection against its being ge nine, of which we can find any Footstep remaining, till after 1400. The Greeks took it into their Confession of Faith *. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, say they}are fill Three of one and the same EjJ'ence. According to the E evangelist St. John, there are Three that hear Record t fid. Smith Def. Diflirtat. in i.Job. v. 7. p. 155, 15^-
Original p. 476
the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One. They had it also in their Rituals, or public Service-Books, in which Selden observes *, they ordered -it to be read on the jth Day of the 5 th Week. And this Apstolos of theirs appears to some to have been as old as the Vth Century, it being mentioned in the Life psst. Sabes, who lived at that Time fIf was also in the ancient Latin Service-Books: For the Ordo Romans, which both Archbishop Ufier, and Dr. Cave reckon drawn up in 750, prescribes the Reading this of St. John, among the Seven Canonical Epistles, be between the Octaves of Easter and Whltfuntule. And it appears from St. Bernard and Durandus in his Rationale, that this Passage was read Annually in the Office of Trinity Sunday, and the first Sunday after. And this is the highest Proof that could be given, that both the Greek and Latin Church approved of these Words as real Scripture. And they soap proved of them, that we cannot find there was the least Objection against them; which ought not to be overlook 'd.
Whereas therefore the Inquirer asks, with reference to the Primitive Christians, whether they did not often hear St. John'.r Epistle read to them, the reading of the Gospels, ana the Apostles Writings being represented by Austin Martyr and Tertullian as toe constant practice of their Astthemhlles? And whether if there had been an omission in the Transcript, some or other would not have miss"d so memorable a TaJJhge as this Text contains, It being so fmgtdar and remarkable, that the omission * De Synedr. Lib. II. cap. iv. Art. 4. t
Uve.List. Ut.
Original p. 477
would scarcely be unobserved, when they came to read it over again ? I might in Answer, refer him to Father Simon, who tells us f, that the Primitive Christians made little account of any of the New Testament, but the Gospels, and the Epistles of St. Paul. And that perhaps in the first Ages they read only those two Works in their Churches. I don't affirm that it was really thus, but if I did, F. Simon (whom our In quiver seems not much inclined to contradict) would be my Voucher. However, I think theres a great deal in what is asserted by our Dr. Smithy, That the Canonical Epistles were scarce at first.)., and there was much greater plenty of the Gospels, and the Epistles of St. Paul. And on that Account it is very likely, they were more read, both in their Cliurches and private Houses. At least we have good Evidence, that those Churches that us a the Syriack Version, could not at first publicly read this Verse, because the Catholic Epistles, and the Apocalypse were at first wanting in that Version, and after wards added f. And though this Epistle should be read, in common with the other Catholic Epistles in the public Assemblies of the Primitive Christians, yet if this Verse happened to be omitted in some of the first Transcripts from the Original, it might not be read there for some Time, together with the rest of the Chapter: And yet it might not be missed by those that were present, because of their being used to Copies in which this Verse was omitted. But then I take the Freedom in my Turn
Emlyris Tracts, fag. 341. t Hist. Crit. du Text' du Ni. T. fug. J 5 4. 4 Vindic. I S. John v. ver. 7. a SuppoJ. not.t. p. 126. H Vid. Fred. Spanhem. Spit. Isf.g. ad Hist. Eel. N. T, &
ct. II. p. 7
Original p. 478
had been for a considerable time omitted to be read, it would not have been likely to have occasioned a Complaint, that there was an Addition made to the Text, when this Verse came to be read constantly in Course afterwards? And whether the People would not be apt to reckon themselves imposed up on, if they had not good Reason to believe that this Text was genuine, notwithstanding that it had been omitted before? I must own for my part, I fake this to be a better Proof that this Text was genuine, than any that is produced that it was spurious, and a mere humane Addition.
And thus having done with the Argument against this Text, and.offered what seemed proper, by way of Reply to it, I proceed now, IV. TO add the Sum of the Argument for this Text, with an Answer to the Suggestions of Opposers that have been designed to weaken it.
The Argument here stands thus. Not withstanding that many of the Ancient Fa there have taken no Notice of this Text, and several MSS. as well as the Ancient Versions have omitted it, yet is there such Evidence of its having been owned in the Christian Church from one Age to another, from the Primitive to the Present Times, as may be sufficient upon Rational Grounds to give us Satisfaction, that it is real Genuine Scripture, and no Corruption or humane Addition to the Word of GOD.
Two different ways may be taken to give, Proof of this. We may either begin with the First Ages of the Christian Church, and so come
Original p. 479
we may begin with Latter sages, and so ascend by degrees to the Primitive Times. And if in either of there ways it can be made out, that from one Age to another this Text has been own for Scripture, it will I think afford us an unanswerable Reason lor con tinting it in our Bibles, how much soever any are disturbed at it for thwarting their darling Notions, and how willing soever they may be upon one Pretence or another to di scared it. I shall pitch on the latter of these ways, because I think it has less Intricacy in it, and may be more briefly dilpatchd than the former. to the last 600 Years I scarce need a better Voucher, than I have in Father Simon himself, who freely owns, that there is a great Uniformity in the MSS, that have been written within that compass of time. 'Tit observable, says he, that -well nigh all the Man scripts not above 600 Tears old, agree in this, that they haw the Verse in dispute f. And this brings us at once, as high as the Year iioo; And if it was then very commonly in the Copies of the New Teflament, it is a sign it was at that time generally owned for a true, and not reckon a fictitious Text. But that this mayn't seem too large a step to be taken at the first setting out, Ill divide it in to Periods.
The Reformation in these Western Part9 began soon after the expiring of the XVth. Century and from that time to this> though it must be own that this Text has been much debated, yet I believe it would upon Com mutation t Wsi, Crit. 4es versions, Ch, 9. p. 1x,.
Original p. 480
vera Learned Men for it, to one that has been against it. And since the Invention of the Art of Printing, there have been several Impressions of the New Trftament in which it has been inserted, to one in which it lias been omitted.
In the XlVth Century, and about 1^60 lived Manual Calecas a Creek Writer, who Published a Tract concerning the Principles of the Catholic Faith, in which this Text is in served. though our Inquirer seems not pleased with Dr. Mill for mentioning him, yet I hope hell allow me to take Notice of him, because it directly answers my End, which is to slew, that this Text was not counted spurious in the Time he lived in. In the same Age, but a little earlier, viz,, about 1 220, we have Nicholas de Lyra, a Learned Professor of Divinity at Paris, who wrote a Commentary on the Holy Scriptures that was much esteemed: And this Passage is to be met with explained there, without the least Insinuation of its being suspected as a Forgery.
In the Xlllth Century, and about 1260, Durandus Bp. of Mend brought this Text into his Rationale; but placed it after the 8th Verse, mentioning the Three Witness en Earth, before the Three Witness in Ilea en, which is also the Way of some Writer yet more ancient, and of some Manuscripts also, as has before been intima ted. This is no uncommon Thing in other Parts of the New Testament, ror the 50th and 31st Verfesof of Match xxi. and see feje-ral other Places, are alike transposed. A little before him, about njo, lived Thomas Aquinas, who commented on this first Epistle of St. John, and explain'4 this Verse of it among
the
Original p. 481
same Age, that is, about 121 j, was held the Lateran Council, under Innocent III, when it is reckoned there were present above Two thou sand Prelates of all Sorts, and among the rest the Two Patriarchs of Constantinople andre rusalem in Person, and those of Antiocb and Alexandria by their Proctors. In the Acts of this Council this Text is quoted as decisive upon the Head of the Trinity: Which is an Argument it was at that Time generally owned both in East and West . Ii. In *
Father Simon (in his Dijsertat. Crit. sur let MSS., du N. T. pag. 13) will have it, chat this 7th Verse of the 5 th Chap, of the 1st Epistle of St. John, was taken from the Greek of this Lateran Council; and to con firm it, he observes, That in both, Ao>©» »nd Tistvga. are without Articles; and in both of them it is ^ *7" « t? Ht; which seems to have been translated out of Latin: But M. Martin, who gives an Extract both of Erasmus's British Copy, and of the Greek, of the La texan Council, (Dijsertat. fur S. Jean. 1 Ep. c. v. ver. 7. p. 138.) takes Notice of a Difference between them ia Four Things; and observes,
- That in the Councils Greek the "Word i^tvS, is without an Article whereas the British Copy has the Article txS 2. That in the Councils Greek, the Word Uctrig has the Article 0; whereas in the British Copy it has no Article.
- That in the Councils Greek., the Word TrvivfjsA. has its common Epithet lyiQv, whereas in the British Copy that Epithet is wholly omitted. And,
- That in the Councils Greek., it is t«'to»/, whereas in the British Copy it is Sr 01.
Which Four Differences I should think a sufficient Evidence against Simon, that the Greek, of the British Copy referred to by Erasmus, was not taken (from this iMtiran Council.
Original p. 482
Lombard Bp. of iWw, commonly called the Mao the Sentences, mentions this as a Text about which there was no Doubt. At the Close of his first Book of Sentences and Second pistktlion, he has these Words: That the Father and the Son are One, not by Consupon of Perfonsy, but by Unity of Nature, St. John has taught us in his Canonical Epistles; saying, There are Three which bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One. And St. Bernard a little before him, and about the Year 1120, quoted it in his Festival Sermons:; And many think that it was about that Time_ the Jpojtolos was drawn up (which was published at Venice sin. 1602 ) in which also this Verse was inserted.
And thus are we risen to the Year 1100. And thor Ill freely own to the Inquirer, That if the IVords were 71ot in St. John'/ Epistle, for so many Hundred Tears, nor known to the Christian Church as such, we may conclude, that no Man can give, a good Reason for admitting them since • yet I hope if we find our Evidence rather increases than abates upon our ascending higher, that may be allowed to pass for a food Reason for our retaining them, and adoring to 'era as 'genuine. Du Pin informs us f, That Errors and Mistakes being apt from Timeto Time to ship into the Copies of the Bible, the Authors ot the later Ages endeavour to correct them in their Works, which they intituled, CorrecHons of the Bible; j Two A1SSof which Pie says F. mljns Tracts, Pf.g. ill,'. f Complete Hist. of the Canon of the Old and New Testament, Book I. chap. vii. i.
Original p. 483
Sorbonne. One of these. Father Simon tells us, was as old as the Xth Century *, whether Bible was carefully revised by the Oor actors of the Sorbonne, and this Verse kept in by common Consent, after their molt an client Copies were consulted, and compared with the Greek. And this Testimony from one of the most Learned Bodies of Men at that Time In, Europe, may well be allowed to be very considerable: Especially when we" have no Reason to apprehend they had' anything to give them a wrong Brass. Even Simon acknowledges, that these Critical Works, called Correctoria Bibliaœ, may to \i\ supply the Place of MSSand give great Allislance in judging of the true Reading of the Text of the Bible.-' Antf'that tfse ra the, because,, as he tells us, they that were£ concerned in this Work, cxarained what 'vy'al to be kept in, and what left out of the Text, according to the strictest Laws of CrW Hcism. And therefore we have the less Reason to wonder at the Assurance given' Jus by" Lucks Brugenfis, who had one of these Correlloriums, that he found there almost all the different Readings, which the Writers of our Time have collected out of a Variety of MSS. and that they are there faithfully examined by the Originals.
In the Sixth Century, Walafrid Strabo drew up and published the GloJJ'a Ordinaria, of which F. Simon gives so great a Charactery sayings That we have no Commentary upon the Scripture which has so much Authority as 'that Gloss, from that Age to the present Times f. And in this I i 2. also \ Hill.Crit. du Vers, du fit. T. c.ix.]' f Hist. Grit, du Prince, Commentat, dttK.t. c. 17.
Original p. 484
remember that Simon thought fit to take any Notice of it.
In the Vlllth Century, and about the Year 760, Ambrostus Autfertusy, Abbot of St. Vincent, writing ealypfe, brings in this 7th Verse of St. John, to explain Re v, i. ft Nor should the Decretal Epistles of the Popes, which are gene rally owned to be forged in this Age, be here overlooked. Both Baronlus and Blonde agree, that 'as probable they were drawn up about the Year 78s. And it is observable, that in the very first Letter there attributed to Pope Hyginus, among a great many Citations from Scripture, the 7th and 8th Verses of the 1st Epistle of St. John are brought in; though the 8th Verse is placed before the 7th: And this appears to be the most ancient Writing we have remaining, in which these Verses ate thus transposed. In the same Age, about the Year 798, were the Latin Bibles revised, by the Order of Charles the Great, under the Con duct of our Countryman Alcuin. Father Si mon owns, that this Prince applied himself restore Learning in the Wist, and made use of the ablest Men he could find, in restoring the Latin Bibles, which had been very much altered by the Transcribers in those barbarous.Times that went before. And speaking of himself, in a Preface before Paul Deacons Book of Hqmi'lies, the Emperor says, We have al ready with great Exactness, by Divine AJjistancs corrected all the Books of the Old and New Te stamen, * M. Martins Dissertation, par.%^, t Mag. Bib}. Pan, Vol. XIII.
Original p. 485
tf the Transcribers *. Now after this CorreSiton, this Text was commonly read, and Simon owns it f. Nor is it at all likely that so Wise and Learned a Man, with his As distant Divines, would have inserted a Text of this Importance, if they had not found it in the Greek as well as Latin MSS. which they consulted and if the Church had not generally acknowledge it for a Part of the inspired Writings. Our Inquirer indeed, who is for greatning the Difficulty from Point to Point, says, What though this Text was found to be direSilv in the Bible of Charlemain, which Father Simon opposes not? will this prove it to have been in the Greek Manuscripts at that Time 4-? I answer, it makes it probable, ese-^ cially if it be considered, that as Simon tells us, we read in Thegan, That that wife "Prince had before hts Death, correSied the Latin Edition of the New Testament, by the Greek Copies and that there were at that Time "Persons ■well skilled in the Greek Tongue And thus we see that this Text has been in the Bible above 900 Years. And though if it was not there at first, it could have no Right to come there afterwards yet I think it it was an Addition, it cannot justly be said to be a Modern Addition ff.
In the Vllth Century, we have a buffi client Witness, if Maximus, who flourished about the Year 645-, was the real Author of the Dispute at the Council of Nice, which bears the Name of Athanasius, and is joined with his Works, as the Learned generally" I i 3 thinfc * Hill. Crit. des Versions du N. T. cap. ix.
IM.pag. 111. I Ernies Tracts, p. 477,
Hist. Crit.des Versions du fsi. T. pag. joo, ' ft $mljnss Tracts,^.
Original p. 486
Persons of the Trinity, cites this Text. And though the Inquirer seems not so well with Dr. Mill, for citing much a spurious Work *j yet a Work that bears a wrong Name may 1 should think be allowed to give good Evidence in a Matter of Fact, ac ' Time when it was really drawn up. Twas this Citation that, in F. Simon Opinion gave Rise to the Opinion, That Father^ Son and Spirit, were to be understood by Water, and Blood f. And though he says, makes no question of it; yet 1 must confess, take it for an Imagination that is altogether groundless., For • all that this Author is this: That John says, These Three are ■ One which he really says of the Father, Son, Spl. lt: Whereas of the Spirit, Water, and Bloody he only says, They agree in One.
In the Vlth Century, we have a very Witness in Fulgentius, the Bishop of in Africa, who died about the Year or as others say, 5:;;, baker having sufmuch from the Arians. He without the Habitation cites this Text in three several Places of his Works. I (says he) and the Father are One \. It becomes us to reserr One to the Nature • and are to the Persons. So also, there are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One. Let Sabellius hear: are Let him hear Three, and beliefs there are Persons. Let Arius also hear One,• and not say, that the Son is of a different Na sure. He was looked upon as the chief of the ( Jatholick * Ibid. pag. 3×0. t Hist. Crit. du Text du N. T. fa«g. 113, i Lib}, ie Tfinitatc^, Cap>. IV/,
Original p. 487
into Sardinia, though there were others of them that were older than he. He was. summoned by that Prince to appear at Carthage, to answer the Objections which the Ar.fans had drawn, ■; up against the Eternity of the Son of GOD,' and; his Equality with the Father. And in suchCircumstance as he at that Time wa6, it is very evident, the utmost Caution and Exactness was requisite in choosing out texts of Scripture; And nothing could be more necessary, than Care that/ none might beck" ted that' were liable to be objected against as: not genuine. Now he in this Case alledges this Text of. St John, in Proof of the '.Saws Consubstantiality with the Father. In An jfwer to Pita an Arian Bishop, among the Testimonies produced, he brings in this Te^jin the Efifilc of John, There are Three that bear Record, says he, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are, One% And finally in his Book of Answers against the Arians *, he says. In the Father, Son; and Holy Spirit, u>e receive the Unity of Sub stance, hut dare not confound the Persons. For St, John the Apostle bears fVitntfs, saying. There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, CHa> t!)efe jsjree are One. Which also the blessed M–trtyr Cyprian confeJJ'es, facing in an Epistle, of the Unity of the Church, He that breaks the Peace wd-fjvmerd -of Christ, acts against Christ; he that gathers any where out of the Church, scatters the Church of Christ; And that he might flaw that One GOD had One Church, he, presently inserts these Testimonies cut of Scripture: The Lord faith.'
Original p. 488
the, Son, and Holy Ghost, it is these Three are One.
If it be queried. How it should come about that St. Austin who lived before titty should not take Notice of this Text as well as he? It is easily answered, That he having but a very small Knowledge of the Greek Tongue, commonly made ule of that which he calls the Jtalick Version of the Ni tv Te stamen, in which this Verse was not found. And I suppose it won't be contested either by our Inquirer, or those of his Make, that St. Austin was no great Grecian, when I add, that F. Simon expressly asserts, that that Father did not understand the Greek Tongue *.
In the Vth Century, This Text is cited by Vigilius Bishop of Jiifjm, who flourish' about the Year of Christ 480. He wrote Tracts against several Heresies, without prefixing his Name. He particularly concealed himself when he wrote against the Arians, that he might the better screen himself from their Rage and Malice. He sometimes personated Jdaciat Claus, who had been a Bishop in Portugal, and is spoken of by Sulpicius Seijerus: At other Times Athanasius, under whose Name he published Twelve Books concerning the Trinity, in the Form of Dialogues: And at other Times St. Austin, in whose Name he published a Treatise against an Arian called Felician. This Author cites this Text, both in his Treatise concerning the Trinity t, and in his Dispute against Varimadus the Arian. He has descanted on most Texts in the New Testament Hist. Crit.du Text du N. T. fig. 3 IX. t Lib. I. & L.W\. • '
Original p. 489
on some of them admirably well. In Return to the Objection made by the Arians, that our Lord says. My Father is greater than I, he makes this Answer, The Son, says he, «' less than the Father in the humane Form which He ajjum'dy, but equal to the Father in the Substance of the Divine nature, and in Tower. And He faysy, I and the Father are One. And again, That they may be One in Us, as We are One: Thou in Ale, and I in them. And again, All Things are thine, and thine are mine. And again, The Things that the Father hath are mine, &c. And John the Evangelist says, In the Beginning waste Word, and the Word was with GOD, and the Word was GOD. And the same, writing to the Parthians, says, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these Three are One. About the same Time also, that is, An. 484. this Text was cited by Eugenics Bishop of Carthage, in that celebrated Confejston of Faith, which he presented to Hunnerlcky, the Arian King of the Vandals, which enraged the whole Body of the Arians, and put them to Silence, if it did not "convince them. This Confession ofFaithis there fore the more remarkable, because Gennadius tells us, it was drawn up and presented with the common Consent of all the Bishops and Confessors of Africa,'Mauritania, Sardinia, and Corsica . In this ConfeJJiony, there are such Ex pressions as these: We believe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to be of one Substance or EjJtncCy, because the Deity of the unbegotten Father, and of the begotten Son, and of the proceeding Holy Spirit, is One, though the Personal Properties are Three. ' Cap. xcvii.
Original p. 490
Equality of Divinity, with Refpeil to both FaandSon, might best>ewn the more evidently, Lord says in the Gospel, I am in the Father and the Father in me; and I and the Father are One: Which relate not only to an TJnim of the Willy, but to one and the same Substance; use He does not say,. I and the Father will one but are One. And again, It ts also ■written That all Men might honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. But an equal Honour is given to those that are equal. The Son also to the Father, All mine are thine, and thine are mine: And he said to Philip, He that both seen hath fen the Father which he would not have if he was not equal to the Father in all Things. And yet a little after. We own two Natures in Son, that true G.OD, and true Alan, con of Body and Soul. Whatever the Scriptures of him with Refpetl to the excellent Sublimity of his Power, we reckon it to be aferibed to his £>;■«■ which we, acknowledge: And whatever is concerning him, that is meany, and below Honour. of his heavenly Towery, we ascribe not to the Word of GOD, but to the Alan He asfumd. is therefore according to his Divinity, that, as has been,.above hinted, He faysy, I and the Far-» the are One; and he that has seen me, bos seen the Father; and all Things whatsoever the Father doth, the Son doth the Jane, &C. But when He t The Father is greater than I; and I came not to do mine own Willy, but the Will of Him thai me; and, Father, if it be possible, let this Clip pass from me, and, Aly GOD, my GOD, why hast Thou forsaken me? These Things are spoken of Him,, as Alan. And afterwards they undertake to prove, That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of one Substance, by Passages out pfthe Qtd Ttstnmcnt and the Nov. And after several
Original p. 491
may make it clear as the Light, that the Holy Spirit is of one Divinity with the Father and the Son, it is proud by the Testimony of John the Evangelist, who faith, there are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and Spirit, and these Three are One. He does not say, Three separated by their different Qualities, or di video from each other by gradual Diversities, in a long Space of Distance but he intimates, they are One. And in the Close of all, to intimate that they were far from having any peculiar Sentiment in these Matters, they add. This is our Faith, bottomed upon Evangelical and Aposto local Traditions, (by which it is plain from the whole Tenor ot their Confession, and the Proofs which it contains, they mean the Gospels and Epistles') and the Agreement of all the Catholic Churches which are the World $ in which by the Grace of Almighty Go J), we trust and hope to continue, even to the End of this our earthly P/7age. ' This Confession of Faith, which is upon many Accounts remarkable, is in the Bibliotheca Tantrum, Printed at Paris 1644, ascribed to Bishop Victor: But whoever drew it up, it was presented by Eugenics Bistiop of Carthage as& the common Faith of all the bishops of those Parts. And therefore I think M. Martin is much in the Right, in representing this as^ equivalent to a Cloud of Wnnest'es . And there, is the less Reason ' to wonder our Inquirer should be so willing to get rid of it. He says, He cannot well telly what is the Credit of Victory History, as we have it f. He knows,\ he DiPfertation fur ct Text, pag. 77,] V, J Erntjns Tracts, fag, 314, 325.
Original p. 492
ofstrange Miracles, not unlike those of Monkish Le ends, viz. of many who could speak freely and articulately, when their Tongues bad been cut out by the Roots, &c. . But by the same Rea son « Grotltis was no very credulous Person, and yet he thinks that the Report of the Men whose Tongues were cutout, comes to us well Confirmed.Says he in his Notes on Lib. 1. de Ver. Hel. Christ. $.17. Vide & de its qui, ex» fella ob religionem lingua loquuti, testes certijsimos, Juilinianum L. I. C. de Ojficio Pra-fcfti Prcttorio Africa j Procopium, Vtfndalicorum 1. Victorcm Vticenfem, Libre de Persecutionibus; Æj team Ga^æum Tbeopbrasto.
The Emperor Justinian speaking of the Vandals in Africa, says, We ourselves have seen the Venerable Men, who spake when their Tongues were cut offfrom the roots. Gothofrede in his Notes confirms it, and quotes also MarceSinus Comes, and Paulus Diaconus, in his Life of Qdoacer; Cuba. 19. Observe. 6 j Forcatulus in Cufidine juris permit. cap. ult. in fin.
The Words of Procopius Hist. Vandal. Lib. x. are these. Speaking of Honorichus the Vandal King, he says', Multi & linguas exscindebat efaucibus, qui met etiam state, By^anti ambulabant Integral utentes ferment, nibilque de vetere fana persentiscentes: ques duo postqua>n fe prostitute pudoris feminist mifeuerunt, loqui defiere. And this Procopius the Learned Dr. Grave tells us deserves to be regarded. Spicilcg. Pair. Sea. peg.^. Ænews Ga^deus, who of a Platonic, Philosopher bet came a Christian, and lived about the Year 485, in the Reign of the Emperor fino, wrote a Dialogue of the Immortality of the Soul, and the Resurrection of the Body, which he calf Tbeophrastus. It was Printed by C. Bartbius with Notes at Leipsicb, An. 1653. In this Dialogue he declares, That he Jaw certain Con, fcjfors who had their Tongues cut out, and yet spake wesand articulately.
So that if we reject and slight ViElors History on: ke Account of what he relates concerning these Confeffors% we shake tha Credit of all Ancient Story, as unworthy of Credit.
Original p. 493
many Writers, both of that and the following Ages. And methinks, it is a very hard Gale, if so many Bishops when they were suffering for their Religion., should deserve no Regard in their citing a Text of Scrip sure, because he that inserts their Confession in his History, gives an Account of some wonderful Things which that Author knows not how to believe. But I can't imagine how it can be represented as a private Com posture *, when nothing of that Nature could well be more public. For it was presented in the Name of a considerable Number, to a Prince that was set against them, and dis— posed to use them with great Severity. It was signed but by a Few, but presented in the Name of the whole Body, and many were actually upon the Spot when it was delivered. It this deserves no more Regard, than for it to be coldly said, That at the latter End of the Vth Century, some pretended this for Text f, it would be hard to know what might pass for good Proof. I should think this a strong and unanswerable Evidence, that these Words were not inserted without just Authority; and that our Inquirer was pretty far out of the Way, when he. asserts, That the Primitive Writers, Greeks and Latins, knew nothing of this Text, down to the Vlllth Century. 4 Our Countryman Dr. Thomas Smithy, seems to me to argue in this Case admirably well. Can we imagine, says he \\, that Eugenics of Carthage, \ t Ibid. pag. 325. t 4 P38. ' tt Def. Dissert, de I job, V. 7. Cont. except Simenii, inCrit. Hili. N. T. ■ "
Original p. 494
the African Church, who were so ready to suffer for their Faith, could have been so senseless, as in this Confession of theirs, which they presented to an Arian Prince, to have produced this Text in express Words, under the Name of the Evangelist John, if it either had been wanting in the Sacred Books at that Time, or bad been newly lidded or inserted an Age or tii>o before? bow easily might they have been upbraided with the Crime of falsifying by their v>atchsul arles? And bow ill would it have sounded for Persons in their Circumstances to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures? Certainly those holy Confessors had a greater Concern for their own Reputation, and for the Truth of the Catholic Dourine which they had undertaken to defend, than by itfing such evil Arts, to bring down Infamy upon themselves, and prejudice the Truth of Christianity! Nor is this the Testimony of one A Lm, but of the whole African Church, and that after a careful Examination, repeated again and a^ain: So that he must seem destitute of Christian Modejtj and Charity, that can charge such flagitious Crimes as these, upon Perfojjs so venerable, and so eminent for their Holiness and Learnings, who were at the same time so horribly oppress''d with the dreadful Cruelty of the Arians. And to this, it would be no easy Thing to return a pertinent Answer.
And it also deserves to be obferv'dj, as is noted by Dr. Roger , That a good deal of Time passed between the presenting of this Confession pf Faith to King Hunerick, and the publishing the Works of Fulgentius, in which it has before been observed, that this Passage was cited. And this is a plain Evidence that Dijfertar. Crit.Theol, in t John v, "I. p. i63.
Original p. 495
in the Confession, with being false. If they had, Fulgentius could not have been a Stranger to it, and therefore either would have forbore to cite it, or have ansvvered the Objection of the Arians.
But this Text is quoted a little earlier in the same Age, and about 434, by £«cherish of Lions He says, As to the Trina\, we read in St. John's Epistle, There are Three which bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and there are Three that bear Witness in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood. This is above One thou sand two hundred and eighty Years ago; and if we are put to it, we cannot give any clear1 Evidence that the oldest Manuscript wd have now remaining in the World, reached that Age. This is a plain and positive Testimony, and no mystical Interpretation of the Three Witnesses on Earth f, as the Inquirer pretends. And if it should happen that Dr. Mill here forgat himself f, (to which the greatest Men are sometimes liable) it does not follow, that Ettcherias cited the 8th Verse only, if upon consulting him it is found, that both the 7th and 8th Verses are cited expressly. It must indeed be owned, that £«-" Eucherius speaking of the Spirit, the Water, uni the Bloody, in the 8th Verse, says, That /ewral by a mystical Interpretation, understood that of ^re Trinity. Handsome have thought that' he herein referred to St. Austin in hisitook against Maximinus, and Facttndus Herrrtiancnjis, on' whose"':1 « -X 1 S Si V • j
Lib. Formularum Spiritalts Intelligent!*, cap. xi. $• 3. 4 t Emljiis Tracts, p. 315. \ Brolegom 938.
Original p. 496
Stress: But that must necessarily be a great y y Mistake; because St. Austin and Facundus understood by the word Spirit, the Person of the Father, and by Water, the Person of the Spirit,• whereas they of whom Eucherius speaks, (as he himself declares) by the word understood the Holy Ghost, and by the Watery, the Person of the Father.
In the IVth Century, which has therefore been called Arian, because then the Arians turned all Things upside-down, it is un doubted, that there was the most Occasion for this Text, and it is one of the greatest Prejudices against it, that it was not then produced, or used: But I must own, that I cannot see how its not being at that Time cited, is a Proof of its not being genuine, since it was cited before, even In the Hid Century, by St. Cyprian; who more than once refers to this Text in his Writings, about the Year of Christ 240. In his Epistle to Jubaianus about Baptizing Hcreticks, he proves the Validity of their Bap tim by this Argument: If, says he, any one could he baptized among them, he might also obtain the Remission of his Sins. If he obtains the Remission of his Slnsy, and is Janitified, and is become the Temple of Go Dy, I query of what GOD I If it he said, of the Creator; j I reply, That cannot he, because of his not believing in Him. If it be said, of Christ j / rph> Neither cm he he his Temple, when he denies bin to ht GOD. If it befaldy, of the Holy Spirit,• / re reply Since these Three are One, bow can the Holy Spirit be pleased with him who is an Enemy either to^ the Father or the Son? Bishop Bull give it as hi Opinion, That St. Cyprian here
Original p. 497
so also does Mr. Selden f, Dr. Samuel Garditier 4., Dr. Mill ft, M. De Blanc f+f, and other Learned Men. And I must confefsj, I think with good Reason, because we have not a Text to produce in which these Three are expressly said to be One, but this. But the same celebrated Writer, professedly cites this Text, in his Book of the Unity of the Church , where speaking before of St. John, he has these Words: And again, It is written of the Father, Son, and Spirit, these Three are One. Where when he expressly says. It is written, it is plain, œ he means, That this is inserted in so many Words in i the holy Scripture. Now where is this express-1 ly written but in this Text? To such as are free from Prejudice, methinks nothing can be plainer, than that this is a free Appeal to some Passage of Scripture, in which it is written of Father, Son, and Spirit, that these Three are One. And this is the more evident, be cause these Words being connected with a plain Citation of John x. 30. concerning Father and Sons being One, carry an Intimation in them, that this was as much and as truly a Passage of Scripture, and written there, as that which was mentioned and cited just before. But Sandius f, and Father Simon 4., and
Def.Fid. N»'c. Sect. II, cap. x. pag. 132. t De Synedriis. Lib. II. cap. iv. p. 93.
4Cathol. circa. SS. Trinity. Fid. Deline. ex Scr. Pair Antenic. desumpta. p. 133. ft Prolegom. in N. T. num. 713. fit Principles contreles Sociniens. Sect. II. C. be. Arc X. *
Cap. iv. ad fine. \ f Append, interpretsit. Paradox, p. 380. I HUt, Crh. da Text du N. T. c. 18.
Original p. 498
out Evasions. Sandius says, That this Epistle was strangely changed, and had much added to it, and taken from it, which he endeavours to prove from the Confession of Pofj'evine, (who compared Four MSS. Copies of it,) and of Rivet, and Perkins, and Dr. James; and boldly concludes this Verse to be an Interpolation, and that St. Cyprian had no Know ledge of it. How easily (says he) might this Verse also be inserted, by those who were net afraid to corrupt the sacred Scriptures, for Fear of Heretics? But this is a groundless Insinuation, as our Dr. Smith has sufficiently proved f. It is certain (lays he) that neither Pamelius nor Rigaltius, nor any other Publisher of the Works of St. Cyprian, has taken Notice of any various Readings in this Place, which is the same in all Editions. But, adds he, that this Epistle bad St. Cyprian for its Author, and that this Reading ing nmaittd invariable from his Time, is evident from St. Fulgentius, who not only has brought in this Jth Verse, in his Book of the Catholic Faith, against Pinta an Arian Bishop, in the Testimonies he produces about the Trinity, and in his Book of the Trinity to Felix the Notary; but also produces this ■ very Place of St. Cyprian in his Book against the Objections of the Arians, &c. Simon says, That.f7<rsw Vitenfis was the first who product this as St. John's Saying • and that it was St. Cyprian'j own yjjjertion, and not made use of by him as a Testimony ofScripture. But, says Bishop StsUingfleet, they who can say such Toings as these, are not much, to be trusted ±. 4 It is pleaded, That *
Bmlyjh\ Tracts, pag. 333.
t VindicU 1 yok. v. 7. a Supfositionisnota, p. 13 i,{£c. i Vindic. of the' Doctrine of the Tiunirr,/>. 167.
Original p. 499
the same African Church, gives another Account of this Passage of St.Cyprian, and lays, That St. John in his Epistle, says of the Father, y Son, and Holy Spirit, that there arc Three which bear Record on Earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Bloody, and these Three are One: By the Spirit signifying the Father, and by the Water the Holy Spirit, and by the Blood the Son which Testimony (says he) Sr.' Cyprian Blstwp of Car thane, understood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, when In an Epistle or Book which he wrote of the Trinity, he expresses himself thus: The Lord faith, I and my Father are One: And again, It is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, These Jljree are One. From whence it appears to have been Facundus's' Apprehension, that Cyprian had an Eye to the Verse that speaks of the Three Witnesses on Earth, which he expounded mystically. But this was plainly Facundus"s Mistake, as appears by Fulgentius; who not only himself cites, this Text, but also certifies us, that St. Cyprian owned it, in the Citation men tons above. I should think Fidgerttlus might be allowed to know St. Cyprian's Mind better than Factmdusy, because he lived nearer him, and htfidQSy, Facundus mistook in the Tract of St. Cyprian, which he referred to, which was of the Unity of the Church, as Fulgentius inti mates, ana not about the Trinity, as Facundus has it tFacundus also upon this Suppose lion, represents St. Cyprian as varying from • the Order in which St. John mentions the a Three. •• T * Def. Tr. Capita. Lib. I. t Vote% Principles Centres Serin.par TheeJ. dt Wane'.' pag. iJ7> ©c-
Original p. 500
stole names the Water before the Blood. Now, according to Vacundus, St. Cyprian must understand the Holy Ghost by the Water, and the Son by the Blood. So that St. Cyprian to follow the Order of the 8th Verse, should have said, It is written of the Father^ the Holy Ghost, and the Son. Not having done this, but ra the followed the Order of the 7th Verse, it is to that he must have a Reference; the Three Persons of the Trinity being there ranged in the Order in which he had placed Them.And after all, I think Dr. Mill has given sufficient Proof, that this mystical Interpretation of the Spirit, the Watery, and the Bloody, as meant of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Was first brought in by St. Austin.
The Inquirer asks, Why may not St. Cyprian father a weak Interpretation as well as St. Austin? 'It is easily answered, That St. Cy Arian was the greater Man by far of the Two, and that such forced and jejune Interpretations are pretty common in the Writings of the one, but not of the other. If it be queried, Supposing St. Cyprian did cite this Text, what can we conclude from his doing so? I an swear, I think we may from thence con clue. That this Text was in his Greek Copy of the New Testament. And when it is asked, Doth Cyprian say one Word of any stub Thing, as his hating had a better Copy then the rest of the Churches had? f I answer with Maidonate, That St. Cyprian did not use to cite Version of the New Testament, nor indeed • could he, there being no common one among the Latins in his Time: But as often as he cited the Scripture, he himself turned Emlyn\ Tracts, fag. 337. f Tracts,/. 341;
Original p. 501
it out of the. Cheek. And if he did so as to this Verse, then has this Text been in the JSTe-w Testament, iiow for upwards of One thousand four hundred and sixty Years, and therefore can be no Modern Addition to if. Simon reckons it incredible, that St. Cyprian should have.this Text in his Copy of the New Testament, and St. Austin not have opposed it to the Arles of his Time *. But I can't see why this should be at all incredible, if (as has before been hinted) he more used the Jtallck Version (which in his Time was current) than the Greek Original I shall advance yet one Step farther, and add, That I take this Text to have been referred to by Tertullian, about the Year pf Christ ioo, which was but very little above One hundred Years after the Epistle it was in, was first written. Mr. JVbiston says, this first Epistle of St. John was written about A. C. 7 fDr. Mill says, 't was about the Year 91, or 92. According to either Calculation, the Citation will come early enough to be a good Evidence that the Text is genuine • especially considering, that, as is observed by Dr. Mill, 4 3 a variety of Latin tin Versions were commonly read by the Africans, from the very Beginning of Christianity among them, to the Time of St. Austin, bo that it might happily fall out, that a Passage wanting in the Italics Version, thro the Defect of the Greek Copy from which it was at first taken, might be preserved in other Latin Versions, that were made after such Greek Cosies, as were more perfect. Jv k 5 Ter Hist, Crit. du N. 7. cap. xviii. t Jiisay on Post. Constitutions, p. 3^,.
I Proleptn.itf N, J, N, 6%ff (Sty,
Original p. 502
in his Book against Praxeas *} where he says, The Connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes Three join> ing together, the One of which is from the Other: Which Three are one Thing; not one Individual after the same Manner as tis Said, I and the Father are One, with Respect to the Unify of Sub stance, and not the S'.figtdurij of Number. That this Text is here referred to, is the Judgement notonly of Rigalt-us, and others that have written ana publish' d No: es upon his Works, but also of Dr. Damn.cnd, Bp. Bully!, Pr. Grabby, Dr. Louis Roger, Dr. Mill, and several others of Worth and Eminence. If it be laid, as it has been by some, That Tertullian took the Saying, And these Three are One, from V else 8 of the Chapter, where we are told of the Watery, and Spirit, and Bloody, that they are One, which several of the Ancients took to be a Signification os the Trinity; it is answer d, That that mystical Exposition was unknown in Tertullian 's Days, and never heard of before the Year 428, or thereabouts, when St. Austin published his Bocks against Maximinus f. Tertullian here plainly gives It as his Sense, Opinion, and Belief, That the Fa they, Son, and Spirit, are One, as much as Father andSow are One, and in the very lame Sense. And when that Writer, whom St. Cyprian owned for his Master, does with his Disciple Cyprian, for a Proof of the peculiar Unity of Father and Son, refer to the same Saying in St. John's, Gospel, J and my Father art One; what more natural than to suppose he should at the same Time refer to the same Apostles fust Epistle, fora like Unity fall theta? CaPij. t Millii Prolcg%. in N. X pag. 60.
Original p. 503
the Three? especially when he makes use of the very same Expression as we meet with jj there? He speaks of the Unity of all the 1 Three^ as a Thing as well known, as generally believed, as little doubted of, and as much proved from Scripture, as the Un; ty of Father and Sen, of which, (as has before been hinted) this Text is the most express Proof we have in the whole New Testament. It is indeed the great Design of that Tract to prove against Praxeas, who confounded the Persons of Father and Son, that Father, Son, and Spirit, are of one and the same Substance. So that if we cannot gain by producing Tertullian, that this Text was in his Copy of the New Testament, we may at least gain this, that that Tenet or Opinion, to prove which this Text has commonly been produced, 'viz. That the Father, Son, and Spirit, are of one and the same Substance, was the common Notion in those early Days of the Christian Church. For though lermliian's being a Montanlst, affected him with Respect to Discipline, yet in his Doctrine, and particularly with Respect to the Trinity, he kept to the very same Rule, and the lame Faith with the Catholkks *, whole common Sentiment it was, That Father, Son, and Spirit, were of one Substance, and really One GOD And there fore, should it be granted, that this City lion of Tertullian does not add much to the Proof that this Text is genuine, (which is yet what, when all Things are considered, I can see no Reason to yield) it may however satisfy us, that the Divines of the Westminster Assembly are no Innovators, in asserting the Three Persons in the Godhead, to be tbt same in K. k 4 Substance^! $??
See? rm. X.?*f-' Vl,
Original p. 504
Old Truths, take the Liberty to represent ic as a Novelty.
I mall close with this one Remark; That if these Words are real Scripture, as I am persuaded they are, upon such Grounds as. those forementioned, it will by a necessary Consequence follow, That they that deny the Trinity, oppose the plain Words of Sri pure, which here declares, that there art Three that bear Record in Heaven: That they that deny the Unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, directly contradict the Af formation of St. John, who says, That these Three are One: That they that deny the proper Deity of the Holy Ghost, though they may not hold him a mere Creature, do oppose this Text, which plainly distinguishes the Holy Ghost as a Tefiifier, from the Word, and from the Father; as much and in the same Manner as it does distinguish the Word from the Father on one Side, or from the Holy Ghost on the other. And therefore I think we have not the least Occasion to wonder, that they that run in to Errors upon these Heads, should be so zealous as we find they are4 in contending that these Words are spurious and suppositi pious, and for that Reason to be expunged, and d; carded.
Greek and Latin Notes
Original p. 465 — Latin and Greek
Et hi tres unum sunt; καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Translation: And these three are one; and the three agree as one.
Original pp. 469–481 — Greek
οἱ μαρτυροῦντες; ἐν τῇ γῇ; ὁ Πατήρ; ὁ Λόγος; τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
Translation: those who bear witness; on the earth; the Father; the Word; the Holy Spirit.
Original p. 481 — Greek textual variants
οὐρανῷ / τῷ οὐρανῷ; ὁ Πατήρ / Πατήρ; πνεῦμα ἅγιον / πνεῦμα; τοῦτοι / οὗτοι
Translation: in heaven (without / with the article); the Father (with / without the article); Holy Spirit / Spirit; these (the two printed forms Calamy compares).
Previous: Post 1, “The Text in Question: Calamy's First Sermon on 1 John 5:7”
Next: Post 3, “The Positive Case for the Text: Calamy's Third Sermon on 1 John 5:7”
Comments
Share a question or response to this article.