Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments on both sides. III. The arguments alleged for the testimony of the Three in. A Historical Account Of Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture: In A Letter To A Friend [Isaac Newton] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. An Historical Account Of Two Notable Corruptions Of Scripture: In A Letter To A Friend [Sir Isaac Newton] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
|Published (Last):||4 April 2005|
|PDF File Size:||18.43 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
And I have done it the more freely, because to you, who understand the many abuses which they of the Roman church have put upon the world, it will scarce be ungrateful to be convinced of one historiical than is commonly believed. For although the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some.
But whilst we exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman church, and make it a part of our religion to detect and renounce all things of that kind, we must acknowledge it a greater crime in us to historicla such practices, than in the Papists we so much blame on that account: There cannot be better service done to the truth, than to purge it of things spurious: The history of the corruption, in short, notablf this.
Then Jerome, for the same end, inserted the Trinity in express words into his version.
Out of him the Africans began to allege it against the Vandals, about sixty-four years after his death. Afterwards the Latines noted his variations in the margins of. Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments on both sides. The arguments alleged for the testimony of the Three in Heaven, are the authorities of Cyprian, Athanasius, scriphure Jerome, and of many Greek manuscripts, and almost all the Latine ones.
Cyprian’s words ‘ run thus — ” the Lord saith, ‘ I and the Father am one. Si notab,e tus sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo spiritus sanctus placatus ei esse potest, qui aut patris aut filii inimicus est? For had it been in Cyprian’s Bible, the Latines of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity, and all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out, and daily brought upon historicxl stage, qn never have hiatorical ignorant of a text, which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon.
In reconciling this difficulty, I consider, therefore, that the only words of the text quoted by Cyprian in both places are, ” And these Three are One: For Eucherius bishop ‘ Eucherius reads the text thus: Austin, reading the text without the seventh verse, tells us, that many then understood the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, to signify the Trinity. Austin is one of those many; as you may see in his third book against Maximus, where he tells us, scriptkre “the Spirit is the Father, for God is a Spirit: Propter hoc admonui te, ne fallaris: Cum enim de aqua loqueretur Jesus, quam daturus erat sitientibus, ait evangelista; ‘Hoc autem dicit de spiritu, quem accepturi erant credentes in eum.
In aqua spiritum sanctum, Joan.
Num- quid hi tres, qui in terra testificari, et qui unum esse dicuntur, possunt spiritus et aquae et sanguines dici?
Quod tamen Joannis apostoli testimonium B. Cyprianus Carthaginensis, antistes et martyr, in epistola sive libro quem de Trinitate, immo de Unitate Ecclesise scripsit, de patre, filio, et spiritu sancto dictum intelligit: And even Cyprian’s own words do plainly make for the interpretation.
So then the testimony of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least is as applicable to that verse as to the seventh, and therefore is of no force for proving the truth of the seventh: Austin, Eucherius, and those many others whom Eucherius mentions. For if those of that age had met with it in their books, they would never have understood the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, to be the Three Persons of the Trinity, in order to prove them One God.
The passage is this1: Praxeas be wholly spent in discoursing about the Trinity, and all texts of Scripture are cited to prove it, and this text of St. John, as we now read it, would have been one of the most obvious and apposite to have been cited at large, yet Tertullian could find no more obvious words in it for his purpose than ” these Three are One. So then this interpretation seems to have been invented by the Montanists for giving countenance to their Trinity.
Cyprian being used to it in his master’s writings, it seems from thence to have dropt into his: And by the disciples of these two great men, it seems to have been propagated among those many Latins, who as Eucherius tells us received it in the next age, understanding the Trinity by the ” Spirit, Water, and Blood. And what is said of the testimony of Ter- tullian and Cyprian, may be much more said of that in the feigned disputation of Athanasius with Arius at Nice.
For Father Simon informs us that in one of the manuscripts in the library of the king of France, marked numb. Also in the margin of one of the manuscripts in Monsieur Colbert’s library, numb.
But I should tell you also, that that disputation was not writ by Athanasius, but by a later author, and therefore, as a spurious piece, uses not to be much insisted upon. Non ita est ordo apud Graecos, qui integre sapiunt, fidemque rectam sectantur, epistolarum septem, quae canonicae nuncupantur, sicut in Latinis codicibus invenitur: Sed sicut evange- Loading Est enim una earum prima Jacobi, duae Petri, tres Johannis, et Judse una.
In qua etiam ab infidelibus translato- ribus, multum erratum esse a fidei veritate comperinjus, trium tantummodo vocabula, hoc est. Aquae, Sanguinis, et Spiritus, in ipsa sua editione ponentibus: In cseteris vero epistolis, quantum a nostra aliorum distet editio, lectoris judicio derelinquo. Sed tu, virgo Christi Eustochium, dum a me impensius scripturae veritatem inquiris, meam quodammodo senectutem invidorum dentibus corrodendam exponis, qui me falsarium, corruptorem- que sanctarum pronunciant scripturarum.
Sed ego, in tali opere, nee aemulorum meorum invidiam pertimesco, nee Sanc- tae Scripturse veritatem poscentibus denegabo. In his defence he seems to say, that he corrected the vulgar Latin translation by the original Greek; and this is the great testimony the text relies upon.
But whilst he confesses it was not in the Latin before, and accuses former translators of falsifying the Scriptures in omitting it, he satisfies us that it has crept into the Latin since his time, and so cuts off all the authority of the present vulgar Latin for justifying it. And whilst he was accused by his contemporaries of falsifying the Scriptures in inserting it, this accusation also confirms, that he altered the public reading. For had the reading been dubious before he made it so, no man would have charged him with falsification for following either part.
However, seeing he was thus accused by his contempora- edition. And so, he being called to the bar, we are not to lay stress upon his kf testimony for himself, for no man is a witness in his own cause, but laying aside all prejudice, we ought, according to the ordinary rules of justice, to examine the business between him and his accusers by other witnesses. They that have been conversant in his writings, observe a strange liberty which he takes in asserting things.
Many notable instances of this he has left us in cr mposing those very fabulous lives of Paul and Hilarion, not to mention what he has written upon other occasions. Whence Ab said of him, that he was in affirming things, ” frequently violent and impudent, and often contrary to himself1.
It is possible that he might be sometimes imposed upon, or, through inadvertency, commit a mistake. Twwo since his contemporaries accused him, it is but just that we should lay aside the prejudice of his great name, and hear the cause impartially between them.
Vide etiam quse Erasmus contra Leum in hunc locum de Hieronymo fusius dixit. It is now in everybody’s mouth, and accounted the main text for the business, and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.
Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 1: ff. 1-41)
And yet it is not once to be met with in all the disputes, epistles, orations, and other writings of the Greeks and Latins Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, the council of Corrptions, Basil, Nazlanzen, Nyssen, Epiphanius, Chrysos- tom, Cyril, Theodoret, Hilary, Ambrose, Corruptiohs, Victorinus Afer, Philastrius Brixiensis, Phaebe- dius Agennensis, Gregorius Baeticus, Faustinus Diaconus, Paschasius, Arnobius Junior, Cerealis and others, in the times of those controversies; no, not in Jerome acciunt if his version and preface to the canonical epistles be excepted.
John’s gospel, ” I and the Father am One,” is everywhere inculcated, but this of ” the Three in Heaven, and their being One,” is no. So far are they from citing the testimony of ” the Three in Heaven,” that, on the contrary, as often as they have occasion to mention the place, they omit it, and that too, as well after Jerome’s age, as in and before it.
For Hesy- coorruptions cites the place thus: Cassiodorus, or whoever was the author of the Latin version of the discourse of Clemens Alexandrinus on these epistles of St.
John, reads it thus: Quoniam Tres botable, qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis, et Corruptoins Unum sunt.
But here the words, in ‘terra,’ so far as I can gather from his commentary on this text, have been inserted by some latter hand. The author of the first epistle, ascribed to Pope Eusebius, reads it, as Beda doth, omitting only the words, in terra.
And if the authority of popes 1 Hesych. Ambrose, in the sixth chapter of his first book, De Spiritu Sancto, disputing for the unity of the Three Persons, says, ” Hi Tres Unum sunt, Johannes dixit, aqua, sanguis, et spiritus: Unum in mysterio, non in natura.
Yea, in the eleventh chapter of his third book, he fully recites the text thus: Austin, you have in the places cited above.
And as for the Greeks, Cyril of Alexandria reads scgipture text without this testimony in the xivth book of his Thesaurus, cap. Also, Didymus Alexandrinus, in his commentary on the same passage, reads, ” the Spirit, Water, and Blood,” without mentioning ” the Three in Heaven: John connumerates three things not substantial, namely, ” the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood.
In like manner the Eunomians, in disputing against the Catholics, had objected, that the Holy Ghost is nowhere in Scripture conjoined with the Father and the Son, except in the form of baptism; which is as much as to say, that the testimony of ” the Three in Heaven” was accpunt in scriptufe books: The objection of the Eunomians, and the answer of the Catholics, sufficiently show that it was in the books of neither party.
Besides all this, the tenth epistle of Pope Leo, mentioned above, was that very famous epistle to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, against Eutyches which went about through all the churches, both Eastern and Western, being translated into Greek, and sent about in the East by Flavian.
So then the testimony of ” the Three in Heaven,” which, in the times of these controversies, would have been in everybody’s mouth, had it been in their books, was wholly unknown to the churches of those ages.
All that they could find in their books was the testimony of ” the Water, the Spirit, and the Blood. Yes, truly, those Arians were crafty knaves, that could conspire so cunningly and slily all the world over at once as at the word of a Mithridates in the latter end of the reign of the emperor Constantius, to get all men’s books in their hands, and correct them without being perceived: For they that, without proof, accuse the heretics of corrupting books, and upon that pretence correct scri;ture at their pleasure without the authority of ancient manuscripts, corruptilns some learned men of the fourth and fifth centuries used to histogical, are falsaries by their own confession, and certainly need no other confutation.
Will you now say, that Jerome followed some copy different from any which the Corrupions.
Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (part 1: ff. ) (Normalized Version)
This is to overthrow the authority of his version by making him depart from the received Greeks; and besides, it is contrary to what he himself seems to represent; for in his blaming not the vulgar Greek copies, but the Latin interpreters only, which were before his time, as if they had varied from the received Greek, he represents that he himself followed it.
He does not excuse and justify himself for reading differently from the received Greek, to follow a private copy, but accuses former interpreters, as if, in leaving out the testimony of ” the Three in Heaven,” they had not followed the notabpe Greek, as acciunt did. The authority of this version being thus far discussed, it remains, that we consider the authority of the manuscripts wherein we now read the testimony of afcount the Three in Heaven.
For, as we have shown, Loading A reading to be found in no manuscripts but the Latin, and not in the Latin before Jerome’s age, as Jerome himself confesses, can be but of little authority: That the vulgar Latin, now in use, nitable a c. Few of these manuscripts are above four or five hundred years old.
The latest generally have the testimony of “the Three in Heaven: Peter Cholinus notes in the margin of his Latin edition of the Scriptures, printed anno Christi andyistorical it was wanting in the most ancient manuscript of the Tugurine library. Simon has noted it wanting in five others in the libraries of the king of France, Mons. Colbert, and the Benedictines of the Abbey of St. An ancient and diligent collator of manuscripts, cited by Lucas Brugensis by the name of Epanorthotes, notes in general, that it was wanting in the ancient Latin manuscripts.
Lucas himself, collating many Latin ones, notes it to be wanting in only Jive, that is, in the few old ones he had, his manuscripts kf Loading The Lateran council, collected under Innocent the Third, anno Christicanon 2, mentions Joachim, the abbot, quoting the text a these words: But corruptiohs go to the original of the corrup tion.
Gregory the great1 writes, that Jerome’s version was in use in his time, and therefore no wonder if the testimony of ” the Three in Heaven” began to be cited out of it before.