Cyprian of Carthage, Eugenius Voulgaris, and "The Three are One"

Two arguments recur in contemporary defenses of the Johannine Comma (the “Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7–8): Cyprian’s quotation of “the three are one” and the claim that the masculine grammar of the earthly witnesses requires the heavenly witnesses of v. 7. The latter argument is often associated with a 1780 letter of Eugenios Voulgaris (aka Eugenius Bulgaris).  KJV advocates (the usual defenders of the Comma) object to the idea that Cyprian may have been referring to the spirit, water, and blood as the Father, Son, and Spirit.  What is particularly interesting, however, is that Voulgaris himself interprets the earthly witnesses—the spirit, the blood, and the water—as symbols of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Usually, the appeal to Voulgaris' letter comes in the form of bolstering an attack on the text of 1 John 5:6-8 as containing (it is alleged) a grammatical solecism in the absence of the interpolation. Students of John's writings, especially the book of Revelation, recognize that John's writing often violates the standards of Attic Greek, but does so intentionally, and with some purpose in these "violations."  Such departures from strict Attic norms are referred to as solecisms, apparently from the negative view that Athenians had of the Greek spoken by the people of Soloi (a Greek colony of Cilicia, in modern-day Turkey) (source).  

Cyprian's Reference to "The Three are One"

On the idea that Cyprian of Carthage may have been quoting 1 John 5:7, the specific quotation is from Cyprian's Treatise 1 (On the Unity of the Church), Section 6 (source), which states:

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est et pudica. Unam domum novit, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit. Haec nos Deo servat, haec filios regno, quos generavit, assignat. Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae iungitur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur, nec perveniet ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est. Habere iam non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem. Si potuit evadere quisquam, qui extra arcam Noe fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadit. Monet Dominus et dicit: Qui non est mecum, adversus me est, et qui non mecum colligit, spargit. Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter ecclesiam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt; et quisquam credit hanc unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem scindi in ecclesia posse et voluntatum collidentium divortio separari? Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, non tenet Dei legem, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et salutem.

(Latin Text Source and Alternative Translation)(Alternative Source)

I've tried to use text highlighting to emphasize the structure of Cyprian's argument.  In particular, note that Cyprian's last sentence wraps up the rest of this section: 

He who does not hold this unity (i.e., the unity of the church) does not hold God’s law (a reference to the adultery/treason motif), does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son (a reference to the gather/scatter statement and to the "I and the Father we are one" statement), does not hold life and salvation (a reference to the sacraments).  

Cyprian's quotation of 1 John 5:8 "and these three are one" is said to be about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  In what way is that?  Some have proposed that it is because John is symbolically referring to the Father, Word, and Spirit as spirit, blood, and water.  Typically, King James defenders balk (or even scoff) at this view.  Before investigating how Comma Defender Voulgaris endorsed such a view, let's consider some other reasonable alternatives. 

Alternatives to the Symbolic View - The Sacramental View

While the explanation of the symbolic interpretation of spirit, blood, and water is the most straightforward explanation of Cyprian's reference that does not require hypothesizing that the Johannine Comma had already been invented, there is another explanation: Cyprian may see the reference to water and blood as references to the sacraments of the Lord's Supper (the body and blood of Christ) and Baptism (water), through which the Spirit works - or perhaps to the Baptism (water) and Death (blood) of Jesus himself.  

Recall that the text says:

1 John 5:5-12 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

You may recall that God's witness to the Son ("my beloved Son") was given at Jesus' own Baptism (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).  A weakness of this interpretation of John's epistle is that John is the only evangelist not to mention this particular verbal witness (unless this is the time he is mentioning it).  On the other hand, John could be referring to the inspired witness that John the Baptist gave to Jesus (see, for example, John 3:26) or to the visual witness of the Spirit that John does record (John 1:33).  The strength of this interpretation is that this is a sense in which Jesus "came by water." 

Origen's (185-253) Commentary on John's Gospel, Book VI, Section 26, makes a similar connection between the Baptism of Jesus and 1 John 5:8 (source):

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, I baptize with water, but He that comes after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, Unless you drink My blood, you have no life in you, and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in the words, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished? And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his Epistle of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one.

Origen was approximately a contemporary of Cyprian.  

Another interpretation is that "come by water" here refers to Jesus baptizing (or overseeing baptism) as John's gospel records (John 3:22; 3:26; and 4:1-2).  This could then be connected (by Cyprian) with the triune name of God associated with Baptism in Matthew's gospel (Matthew 28:19).

Ambrose, for example, makes a connection of all three witnesses to Christian Baptism.  He does not do so in the way Origen does, but seems to be completely uninfluenced by his view. 

Ambrose (339-397) in On the Holy Spirit, Book I, Chapter 6 (sections 76-77) writes (source):

There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God. And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: The water, the blood, and the Spirit. One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Ambrose goes on in Book III, Chapter 10 (Sections 65-68) to write (source):

I ask, however, why, if there be no doubt that we are born again by the Holy Spirit, there should be any doubt that we are born of the Holy Spirit, since the Lord Jesus Himself was both born and born again of the Holy Spirit. And if you confess that He was born of the Holy Spirit, because you are not able to deny it, but deny that He was born again, it is great folly to confess what is peculiar to God, and deny what is common to men. And therefore that is well said to you which was said to the Jews: If I told you earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And yet we find each passage so written in Greek, that He said not, through the Spirit, but of the Spirit. For it stands thus: ἀμήν, ἀμήν, λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὓδατος και Πνεύματος, that is, of water and the Spirit. Therefore, since one ought not to doubt that that which is born of the Spirit is written of the Holy Spirit; there is no doubt but that the Holy Spirit also is God, according to that which is written, the Spirit is God.  But the same Evangelist, that he might make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says elsewhere: Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. Hear how they are witnesses: The Spirit renews the mind, the water is serviceable for the laver, and the blood refers to the price. For the Spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred Font washed us, the blood of the Lord redeemed us. So we obtain one invisible and one visible testimony in a spiritual sacrament, for the Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit. Though the fullness of the sacrament be in each, yet there is a distinction of office; so where there is distinction of office, there certainly is not equality of witness.

Notice the sacramental connection, as well as this explicit and positive testimony against the Comma, by quoting from before its insertion point to after without including it, particularly when it would have suited Ambrose's argument if it were known to him.

Consider the way that Ambrose makes a Trinitarian connection to the passage in On the Mysteries, Chapter 4 (Section 20)(source):

Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.

In another place (Concerning Virginity, Book III, Chapter 5, section 22, link to source), Ambrose does not make an explicit citation of 1 John 5:7-8, but nevertheless makes a similar connection:

And since I have inserted a clause in which mention is made of the Lord's Body, lest any one should be troubled at reading that the Lord took a body of pain, let him remember that the Lord grieved and wept over the death of Lazarus, and was wounded in His passion, and that from the wound there went forth blood and water, and that He gave up His Spirit. Water for washing, Blood for drink, the Spirit for His rising again. For Christ alone is to us hope, faith, and love— hope in His resurrection, faith in the laver, and love in the sacrament.

The Spear Piercing - Double Baptism View

Why go down the sacramental path at all?  Partly this is because of the slight obscurity of what it means for Jesus to "come by water" or by both water and blood.  Other interpretations have suggested that Jesus was born of water in the sense of being naturally born from his mother's womb (based on an interpretation of John 3:5).  Another Biblical mention of water and blood is in John 19:34 (and Matthew 27:49b in more Greek manuscripts than have the TR comma), where blood and water flowed out of Jesus' side upon His side being pierced with a spear (Rufinus (344-411) in his Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, section 23, refers to both this blood and water from the spear-piercing as baptism - link to source).

Considering that John's gospel just summarily says that the Word was made Flesh, and does not provide any infancy narrative, the "came by water" as relating to his birth seems less likely as a viable explanation.  On the other hand, there is mention of testimony associated with piercing of Jesus' side:

John 19:31-37 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.  

Here, the record of the water and blood is supported by the Evangelist, but also aligned with the inspired Old Testament Scriptures.

Tertullian (155 - 220), in On Baptism, Chapter 16, connects the spear-piercing with Baptism (source):

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood,  just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.

An anonymous author (writing in the third or fourth century) offers these thoughts in On Re-Baptism, sections 14, 15, 18, and 19 (source):

14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, But I have another baptism to be baptized with. Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?  Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, From his belly flowed rivers of living water;  which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord's passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier's spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe in Him: But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind, although the baptism of each kind ought to be one, as we have more fully spoken.

15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;  — that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men's own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. 

...

18. ...  From all which things it is shown that hearts are purified by faith, but that souls are washed by the Spirit; further, also, that bodies are washed by water, and moreover that by blood we may more readily attain at once to the rewards of salvation.

19. I think that we have fully followed out the announcement of John the Baptist, whence we began our discourse, when he said to the Jews, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He who comes after me is greater than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. And, unless I am mistaken, we have also explained what our Lord says: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Moreover, I think that we have given no weak reason as the cause of the custom. Let us have a care, although we do that in a subsequent place, that none may think that we are stirring up the present debate on a single article; although this custom even alone ought, among men who have the fear of God, and are lowly, to maintain a chief place.

I don't adopt this author's views (cf. Basil (330-379), On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 15, Section 36 - link to source), but merely offer them as being roughly contemporaneous with Cyprian, testifying to a sacrament-related (and even spear-related) view of the text, as well as providing an explicit testimony to the non-interpolation of the Johannine Comma.  Incidentally, Cyprian himself referred to a baptism of blood, referring to the death of the person himself in his Epistle 72, at sections 21-22 (link to source).

Leo's Life of Christ View 

Leo the Great (391– 461) makes a similar reference to both the spear-piercing and 1 John 5:8 in his famous "Tome of Leo," which was received by the Council of Chalcedon of 451 (often referred to as the 4th Ecumenical Council)(source), which is a clear positive testimony against the Comma:

If therefore he receives the Christian faith, and does not turn away his ears from the preaching of the Gospel: let him see what was the nature that hung pierced with nails on the wooden cross, and, when the side of the Crucified was opened by the soldier's spear, let him understand whence it was that blood and water flowed, that the Church of God might be watered from the font and from the cup. Let him hear also the blessed Apostle Peter, proclaiming that the sanctification of the Spirit takes place through the sprinkling of Christ's blood. And let him not read cursorily the same Apostle's words when he says, Knowing that not with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, have you been redeemed from your vain manner of life which is part of your fathers' tradition, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ as of a lamb without spot and blemish. Let him not resist too the witness of the blessed Apostle John, who says: and the blood of Jesus the Son of God cleanses us from all sin. And again: this is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith. And who is He that overcomes the world save He that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is He that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth, because there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the three are one.  The Spirit, that is, of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism: because the three are one, and remain undivided, and none of them is separated from this connection; because the Catholic Church lives and progresses by this faith, so that in Christ Jesus neither the manhood without the true Godhead nor the Godhead without the true manhood is believed in.

But - of course - the primary reason to go down the sacramental path is because of Cyprian's statement that God's unity "coheres in celestial sacraments" (sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem).  That's seen in both the unity of the Sacrament of the Lord's table, in which we consume the one loaf that we are (1 Corinthians 10:17; cf. Cyprian, Epistle 62, section 13 - link to source), and the unity of the Sacrament of Baptism, in which "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).  Connecting the death of Christ and Baptism to church unity has Scriptural precedent -- Paul writes: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13)

You only have to read the rest of Cyprian's treatise (available here) to get the same sense of Cyprian's willingness to follow Paul's point and also to develop the same themes from Scriptural passages that are not necessarily directly about the point being considered.  For example, in the very next section of the treatise, Cyprian argues for the necessary unity of the Church from Jesus' garment remaining undivided (e.g., "By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.").

Incidentally, this broader use of the term "sacrament" suggests that Cyprian may just be speaking symbolically, not necessarily referring strictly to the two Sacraments of the New Covenant.

Cyprian in Context - the Unity of the Church 

One must also consider Cyprian's point in citing 1 John 5:8.  Was it to establish the unity of essence of the Triune persons?  The argument seems to be about unity of purpose and mission, a sense that fits well with his quotation of John 10:30 ("I and my Father are one"), and does not require Cyprian to be taking John out of context there.  In context "the three are one" relates to the unity of agreement of the three bearing witness, not their unity of essence.  Moreover, in context, that unity of testimonial agreement serves the purpose of bringing life through faith, which is the main point of the church in Cyprian's view as well.

Likewise, while it is not perfectly clear that Spirit points to Father, Blood points to the Son, and Water points to the Holy Spirit, it is certainly easy to see how someone who sees the undivided garment of Christ as being a sacrament of Christian unity could see the context of 1 John 5:8 as pointing in this direction, for John writes: "And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:7-9).  It would be easy for Cyprian to see "the witness of God" and "the three are one" and to infer that Spirit, water, and blood refer to the persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Gregory Nazianzen: Trinitarian with a Non-Trinitarian Interpretation 

Gregory Nazianzen (329-390), however, takes a view that John is not speaking about the Trinity in his Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31) (source):

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

At some point, our KJV advocacy friends throw up their hands and exclaim that we are being wholly unreasonable to make a linkage between the Spirit, Water, and Blood and the persons of the Trinity - and following Leo or Gregory on the interpretation of the text, we may agree with them about the right sense.  

On the other hand, I would like them to consider their own champion on the grammatical argument (one who stands opposed to Gregory Nazianzen, whose text did not include the Comma): because that's exactly how their champion, Voulgaris, interprets the text!

I'm not suggesting that Voulgaris is infallible, or even right - surely Gregory Nazianzen's and Leo the Great's takes on the text are each better than Cyprian's.  However, considering that Voulgaris is one of the go-to sources for the grammatical argument, KJV advocates ought not lightly set aside his interpretation of the text.  Even if they disagree with it, saying it is wholly unreasonable - or something that only opponents of the Comma would suggest - seems like it is hereby demonstrated to be untenable.

In particular, Voulgaris argues that the heavenly witnesses are what the earthly witnesses symbolize. He made these claims long before the boogey-men, Westcott and Hort were on the scene.  He also made these claims in defense of the verse against being an interpolation. See the details of his claims in the letter that follows. 

My (amateur) Translation of the Text of Voulgaris 

In some places, I've slightly departed from the accents/breathings provided in the printed text (see my transcription of the printed text below). First, I provide a translation of the Latin of the document, and then I offer a translation of the Greek portions. 

This alone I could add at present, which by no one (that I know) has hitherto been observed. So far indeed is it from being the case that that passage crept in through interpolation, that not even the eighth verse, which follows, would stand, unless the seventh verse, about which the matter is, preceded.

For what in the Latin version is rightly expressed by the masculine gender of speech, that, in the original Greek text itself, the preceding verse not being presupposed, would by no means stand, except with a certain violence of diction and through a most manifest solecism. For since

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [1]

are nouns of the neuter gender, in what way will that which immediately precedes agree with them:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [2];

and that which immediately follows:

Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ. [3]

That masculine nouns, indeed, and feminine ones are construed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, regard being had to

τὰ πράγματα [4],

is certainly a peculiar genius of our language, most well known to all who know it; but that, conversely, neuter substantive nouns are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns, no one would say.

Further, here in the eighth verse we read thus:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [5]

But would not, I ask, the natural and proper expression here rather be:

Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν? [6]

Yet that is written, not this. What other account, therefore, can be brought forward for the occurrence of this

ἀκαταλληλίας [7],

except solely the expression of the preceding seventh verse, which through this immediately following eighth verse is symbolically explained and plainly repeated, an allusion having been made to that which had preceded?

The three, therefore, who bear testimony in heaven are first placed in the seventh verse:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι. [8]

Then, however, immediately brought forward, the very same witnesses, insofar as they also confirm the same testimony on earth, through these three symbols in the eighth verse:

Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [9]

As if our Evangelist were saying:

Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες [10]

(which is sufficiently indicated by the particle καὶ [11], whose force in the present passage is not simply copulative, but plainly identificative)

περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται· δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα· οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν· ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ· τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός· τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως, συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι· οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [12]

But oh! I have undertaken a pitcher, not an amphora!

At Poltava, on the 10th day of December, 1780.

And my (again amateur) translation of the Greek portions:

1. τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

the spirit and the water and the blood

2. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness.

3. Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ.

And these three, etc.

4. τὰ πράγματα

the things [i.e., the nature of those things]

5. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

6. Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [neut.] are the things [neut.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν?

and the three [neut.] are unto the one?

7. ἀκαταλληλίας

of incongruity / of lack of agreement

8. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness in heaven,

ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα·

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit;

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι.

and these three are one.

9. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

And three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

10. Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες

Those very same ones, the ones bearing witness in heaven

11. καὶ

Most commonly, this word means "and" or "also," but here Voulgaris is saying it has the sense of "namely" 

12. περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται·

concerning whom it has been said in the passage above;

δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα·

namely, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit;

οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ,

the same ones are bearing witness also on the earth,

δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν·

through which symbols they were revealed to us;

ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ·

and these symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is indicated;

τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός·

the blood, through which the Son [is indicated];

τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.

the water, through which the Holy Spirit [is indicated].

Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν

And these three, who above indeed,

ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων,

in an unveiled manner, through the thearchic names themselves,

ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται

are presented as bearing witness in heaven,

οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ

the same [are presented] on the earth,

διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως,

through the mention in the economy,

συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι·

being repeated symbolically;

οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

these three are unto the one.

Source Text (trying to stay faithful to the printed text)

Hoc ego tantummodo in præsenti addere possem, quod a nemine (quod sciam) hactenùs observatum. Tantum scilicet abesse, per interpolationem locum illum surrepsisse, ut ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septimus præcederet, de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione Latina rectè exprimitur masculino sermonis genere, id in ipso textu Græco originali, non præsupposito superiore versiculo, haud planè consisteret, nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis, ac per solœcismum patentissimum. Cum etenim το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα nomina neutrius generis sunt, qua ratione concordabit cum iis, quod immediatè præcedit: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες; et quod illico sequitur: Και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις κ. τ. λ.  Masculina equidem nomina, et fœminina, nominibus adjectivis, pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi, respectu habito ad τα πραγματα, id sane linguæ nostræ peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est; sed quod etiam reciprocè neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut fœmininis indicentur, nemo dixerit. Porro hic versu octavo sic legimus: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισι. Sed nonne quæso dictio naturalis hic et propria potius esset: Τρια εισι τα μαρτυρουντα εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και τα τρια εις το ἓν εισιν? At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc. Quæ igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest, nisi sola præcedentis versus septimi expressio, quæ per hunc immediate sequentem versum octavum, symbolicè explicatur et planè replicatur, allusione facta ad id, quod præcesserat? Tres, igitur, qui in cœlo testimonium perhibent, primo positi sunt versu septimo: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῳ ουρανῳ, ὁ Πατηρ, ὁ Λογος, και το ἁγιον Πνευμα· και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις ἓν εισι. Deinceps vero immediatè adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment, per tria hæc symbola versu octavo: Και τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισιν. Ac si diceret Evangelista noster: Οἱ αυτοι εκεινοι οἱ εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες (quod satis indicatur per particulam και, cujus vis in præsenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed planè identifica) περι ὡν εν τῳ ανωτερῳ εδαφιῳ ειρηται· δηλαδη ὁ Πατηρ ὁ Λογος και το Πνευμα· οἱ αυτοι μαρτυρουντες εισι και εν τῃ γῃ, δι’ ὡν ἡμιν συμβολων απεκαλυφθησαν· ταυτα δε τα συμβολα εστι το πνευμα, δι’ ου δηλουται ὁ Πατηρ· το αἱμα, δι’ ου ὁ Υἱος· το ὑδωρ, δι’ ου το Πνευμα το ἁγιον. Και οἱ τρεις οὑτοι, οἱτινες ανωτερῳ μεν ανακεκαλυμμενως δι’ αυτων των θεαρχικων ονοματων, εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες παριστανται οἱ αὐτοι εν τῃ γῃ δια της εν τῃ οικονομιᾳ μνησεως, συμβολικως επαναλαμβανομενοι· οἱ τρεις οὑτοι εις το ἓν εισι. Sed ohe! urceum institui, non amphoram!

Poltaviæ, ad d. 10 Decemb. 1780

 

A Brief Rejoinder to Mr. Sheffield on 1 John 5:7

Jonathan Sheffield recently wrote (source):

After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history. Appealing to "some scribe" is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage.

After I asked if he was ok, Sheffield responded: "Francis Turretin, have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" (source)

The reason for my question was that I have seen Mr. Sheffield present cogent statements in other contexts.  However, in this particular context, what he offered is hard to connect to anything I've said/written.

First: "After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history."  

Based on his follow-up message, I gather that he did not have some third party's thesis in mind. He simply misplaced his modifier.  I'm sure I've done the same in informal contexts like Facebook. However, I have no idea which of my "points" JS has in mind.  His comment is too vague for me to guess which points from the many Comma Johanneum articles I've posted he means to reference (link to tagged posts).  

Likewise, the reference to my "thesis" is not entirely clear.  My overall thesis (if one wants to call it that) on the text of 1 John 5 is that John's letter originally said (though in simple uncial without diacritical marks, spaces, and punctuation): "... ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν ... " (see here) and specifically without the additions proposed by Erasmus, the Complutensian editors, and others over the years on the basis (directly or indirectly) of a Latin tradition.

There's a mountain of evidence to support my thesis, especially that the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts support this thesis - particularly the non-insertion of "in earth" and of the heavenly witnesses parallel is evidenced in literally hundreds of Greek manuscripts ranging from the fourth century up to the age of printing (and beyond, for whatever little that might be worth).  (a sorted list of manuscripts can be seen here)

Further support comes from all the ancient versions, except for a subset of the Latin. For example, the Coptic versions follow the Greek (Bohairic)(Sahidic).  So does the Old Georgian (source).

Additional support comes from writings of the fathers and other early Christian authors, even amongst the Latin tradition:

• Cassiodorus' (Latin, 485–585) translation of Clement of Alexandria's (Greek 147-215) comments on 1 John (available here);
• A 3rd or 4th century opponent of Cyprian on rebaptism (available here); 
• Ambrose (339-397) in his treatise on the Holy Spirit (available here); and
• Leo the Great (391-461): the Tome of Leo (available here).

So much for "no basis in history."  It's hard to respond to the claim of poor construction or a postmodern narrative, because no specific narrative is identified. In other comments in the thread JS offered some clarification (source):

Hefin Jones, let me give you an example.

In my debate with Ehrman on Gospel Authorship, his response to the evidence I presented in support of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the actual authors was this:

Actual quote: "But once somebody puts a name on them, apparently somebody in Rome, which at this time is becoming the biggest church and the most influential church in the empire, uh, somebody puts a name on these things, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And everybody else afterwards calls them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, uh, what, you know, what else are they going to call them? That's what people are starting to call them"

That is a postmodern narrative, not actual objective evidence for his position.

He doesn't produce any documentation to that effect: no letter, where the location was (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, North Africa), - note he dropped the Rome claim when I pressed him on it. Additionally, who the person was that decided, and then which churches copied. It was like a world of make-believe. No one said what he was advocating in the ancient world.

The Critical Text Scholarship uses a similar postmodern narrative in trying to defend the premise that 1 John 5:7 is not original to the epistle of John. While taking the position that 1 John 5:7 is not original is a valid position, instead of advocating a postmodern narrative, present evidence for it in the same way as we have for any other now-credible theory of the world. “Evidence” in that sense must mean facts, which are beyond dispute as they are, whose existence is more likely, more probable, if the proposed theory is true than if any competing theory were true instead. Hope that helps. Pax Christi,

I cannot see the relevance of Ehrman's theory regarding the names of the gospels to the present controversy. JS seems to concede that my overall thesis is "a valid position" and that my approach of offering evidence in support of my position is an appropriate mode of investigating the problem.

JS continued: "Appealing to 'some scribe' is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage."

What positive evidence?  I've dealt with the very few, inconsistent, and late Greek manuscripts offered in support of any version of the comma (see my post).   Before the life of Erasmus, they amount to a single Greek manuscript (GA 629). The two competing theories about that manuscript are (1) that the scribe producing the manuscript copied from a now lost Greek exemplar and (2) that the scribe producing the manuscript back-translated from his Latin exemplar into Greek to supply what he assumed was an omission in his Greek exemplar. Given the popularity of the comma among Latin readers in the West by the mid-1300s when the manuscript was made, and given the absence of known early Greek exemplars, the second of the two theories is the one more supported by the evidence. However, if an advocate of the TR wanted to go with the former theory, one might reasonably ask (as I did during my recent debate) why the Greek prepositions of the TR are different from those of GA 629. I'm not sure what appeal to "some scribe" JS has in mind. Without some clarification it's basically impossible to provide a helpful response.

As for "have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" Again, this seems a bit vague. The phrase "beta test" has a meaning in software development, but I'm not sure how JS means to apply that to this topic. If he's asking if I have taken this into debate - yes, I have. There is a link above to my recent debate with CJ Cox and the topic came up in my debate with Nick Sayers (link), though I don't think I offered much (if anything!) on that topic then.

Ambrose and Justification by Faith

One Ambrose quotation that comes up in discussions of Justification by Faith is this one:

Ambrose (c. 339-97): Thus I do not have the wherewithal to enable me to glory in my own works, I do not have the wherewithal to boast of myself, and so I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I have been redeemed. I will not glory because I am free of sins, but because sins have been forgiven me. I will not glory because I am profitable or because anyone is profitable to me, but because Christ is an advocate in my behalf with the Father, because the blood of Christ has been poured out in my behalf. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 65, Saint Ambrose, Seven Exegetical Works, Jacob and the Happy Life, Book 1, §6.21 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1972), p. 133.

This seems, at least on its face, to be at odds with the approach to justification described by Trent and expressed in canons XII, XXIV, and XXXII on Justification.  The reason it seems that way is because it downplays individual merit in favor of forgiveness on the basis of what appears to be an imputation model of the atonement.  An even more problematic passage for the Tridentine view is when Ambrose states:

Ambrose (c. 339-97):  And Isaac 'smelled the fragrance of his garments.' [Gen. 27.27] And perhaps that means that we are not justified by works but by faith, because the weakness of the flesh is a hindrance to works but the brightness of faith puts the error that is in man's deeds in the shadow and merits for him the forgiveness of his sins.  Fathers of the Church, Vol. 65, Saint Ambrose, Seven Exegetical Works, Jacob and the Happy Life, Book 2, §2.9 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1972), p. 151.  

This is particularly notable because Ambrose recognizes that these clothes are not Jacob's own:

Ambrose (c. 339-97):  Accordingly, Jacob received his brother's clothing, because he excelled the elder in wisdom. Thus the younger brother took the clothing of the elder because he was conspicuous in the merit of his faith. Rebecca presented this clothing as a symbol of the Church; she gave to the younger son the clothing of the Old Testament, the prophetic and priestly clothing, the royal Davidic clothing, the clothing of the kings Solomon and Ezechias and Josias, and she gave it too to the Christian people, who would know how to use the garment they had received, since the Jewish people kept it without using it and did not know its proper adornments. This clothing was lying in shadow, cast off and forgotten; it was not tarnished by a dark haze of impiety and could not be unfolded farther in their confined hearts. The Christian people put it on, and it shone brightly. They made it bright with the splendor of their faith and the light of their holy works.  Fathers of the Church, Vol. 65, Saint Ambrose, Seven Exegetical Works, Jacob and the Happy Life, Book 2, §2.9 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1972), pp. 150-51.

Thanks to Pastor David King for bringing this to my attention and for providing this and other material on Ambrose.

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture: Fourth Century Fathers (Guest Series)

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
Stated and Examined from Scripture and the Fathers, with scholarly confirmation regarding the Fathers' views.

We began by explaining the nature of formal sufficiency (i.e. the Reformed view) in an introduction section (link). After that we explored Scripture's own testimony to its sufficiency (link). We could rightly have stopped the series there, but instead we continued by exploring some of the patristic testimony on the subject, starting with the earliest Christian writers (link), and then continuing with the fathers of the 3rd century (link).

The fourth century ushers in a period during which Christianity did not experience persecution on a large scale. Consequently, there are more and better preserved writings from this period than from some of the previous periods.

Using the century boundaries as the dividing line as to which fathers to include may seem a little arbitrary. For example, Epiphanias of Salamis and Chrysostom both died in the first decade of the 5th century, having lived most of their lives in the 4th century. Nevertheless, I've tried to select only those fathers who died or flourished (in the case of fathers whose date of death is not known) in the fourth century.

We begin our exploration of the fourth century with a theologian born in the 3rd century in Africa, but who later became an adviser to the Roman emperor.

Lactantius (260-330):

For this is especially the cause why, with the wise and the learned, and the princes of this world, the sacred Scriptures are without credit, because the prophets spoke in common and simple language, as though they spoke to the people. And therefore they are despised by those who are willing to hear or read nothing except that which is polished and eloquent; nor is anything able to remain fixed in their minds, except that which charms their ears by a more soothing sound. But those things which appear humble are considered anile, foolish, and common. So entirely do they regard nothing as true, except that which is pleasant to the ear; nothing as credible, except that which can excite pleasure: no one estimates a subject by its truth, but by its embellishment. Therefore they do not believe the sacred writings, because they are without any pretense; but they do not even believe those who explain them, because they also are either altogether ignorant, or at any rate possessed of little learning.

ANF: Vol. VII, The Divine Institutes, Book V, Chapter I.

There are two things to particularly note in Lactantius' comments above. The first is that the Scriptures are generally written in simple language. The second is that they are believed and explained by those who are either uneducated or have little education.

Lactantius (260-330):

For all those things which are unconnected with words, that is, pleasant sounds of the air and of strings, may be easily disregarded, because they do not adhere to its, and cannot be written. But a well-composed poem, and a speech beguiling with its sweetness, captivate the minds of men, and impel them in what direction they please. Hence, when learned men have applied themselves to the religion of God, unless they have been instructed by some skillful teacher, they do not believe. For, being accustomed to sweet and polished speeches or poems, they despise the simple and common language of the sacred writings as mean. For they seek that which may soothe the senses. But whatever is O pleasant to the ear effects persuasion, and while it delights fixes itself deeply within the breast. Is God, therefore, the contriver both of the mind, and of the voice, and of the tongue, unable to speak eloquently? Yea, rather, with the greatest foresight, He wished those things which are divine to be without adornment, that all might understand the things which He Himself spoke to all.

ANF: Vol. VII, The Divine Institutes, Book VI Of true Worship, Chapter 21 Of the Pleasures of the Ears, And of Sacred Literature.

The quotation above builds upon the previous one. It reemphasizes that Scripture is written simply, and it explains the reason, which is that it will be understood by all.

Regarding Constantine (325, Nicea):

The excellent emperor next exhorted the Bishops to unanimity and concord; he recalled to their remembrance the cruelty of the late tyrants, and reminded them of the honourable peace which God had, in his reign and by his means, accorded them. He pointed out how dreadful it was, aye, very dreadful, that at the very time when their enemies were destroyed, and when no one dared to oppose them, they should fall upon one another, and make their amused adversaries laugh, especially as they were debating about holy things, concerning which they had the written teaching of the Holy Spirit. “For the gospels” (continued he), “the apostolical writings, and the oracles of the ancient prophets, clearly teach us what we ought to believe concerning the divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue.” These and similar exhortations he, like an affectionate son, addressed to the bishops as to fathers, labouring to bring about their unanimity in the apostolical doctrines.

According to Theodoret, cf. NPNF2: Vol. III, Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 6.

Note that Constantine is not just saying that the Scriptures are clear, but that they clearly teach even on the challenging issues of the Arian controversy. Furthermore, they are the ones from whom the solution of the question will come, the one source he identifies.

We should not be too surprised that Alexander of Alexandria shares similar ideas, since he was one of the bishops at Nicaea.

Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328), the spiritual mentor of Athanasius, testified of the Arian heretics in a letter to Alexander of Constantinople:

They are not ashamed to oppose the godly clearness of the ancient scriptures.

Alternative translation:
The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame . . .

Greek: Οὐ κατήδεσεν αὐτοὺς ἡ τῶν ἀρχαίων Γραφῶν φιλόθεος σαφήνεια . . .

Theodoreti Ecclesiasticae Historiae, Liber I, Caput III, PG 82:904; translation in NPNF2: Vol. III, Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 3; alternative translation in ANF: Vol. VI, Epistle to Alexander, Bishop of the City of Constantinople, §10. The mistranslation of these words in J. Berington and J. Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, with preface, corrections, and additions by Rt. Rev. Monsignor Capel, Vol. 1, Third Enlarged Edition (Ratison: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1909), p. 45, represent a distorted view of what Alexander of Alexandria said, “Neither the explanation, well-pleasing unto God, of the ancient Scripture has shamed them.”

The quotation above is fairly self-explanatory. It is simply confirming that Alexander thought that the Arians were not simply interpreting Scripture differently, but rather that they were opposing the clear teachings of Scripture.

Anthony (c. 251–356) (recounted by Athanasius):

One day when he had gone forth because all the monks had assembled to him and asked to hear words from him, he spoke to them in the Egyptian tongue as follows: ‘The Scriptures are enough for instruction, but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words.

NPNF2: Vol. IV, Life of Anthony, §16.

Anthony's comments are a fairly concise statement of formal sufficiency. Unsurprisingly, Athanasius' own views are similar.

Athanasius (297-373):

The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ.

Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well.

For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable.

NPNF2: Vol. IV, Against the Heathen, Part I, §1-3.

Again, we see explicit affirmation of the sufficiency of Scripture. Athanasius even says what some of our Roman opponents beg us to find in the fathers, namely that human teachers are not necessary. And, of course, such sentiments about Scripture's formal sufficiency are not a unique occurrence it Athanasius.

Athanasius (297-373):

But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority [than the light of nature in the form of the testimony of the stars themselves], so that we in our turn write boldy to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say.

For an argument when confirmed by higher authority is irresistibly proved.

NPNF2: Vol. IV, Against the Heathen, Part III, §45, points 2-3.

Notice that again Athanasius is affirming the plainness of Scripture, and the ability of the reader to be taught from them.

From Alexandria, we make a dramatic move westward to France and hear the testimony of the somewhat younger Hilary of Poitiers.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

If any man propose to express what is known in other words than those supplied by God, he must inevitably either display his own ignorance, or else leave his readers’ minds in utter perplexity.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book 7, §38.

The above quotation is a pretty strong way of stating that Scripture is plainly written and easy to understand.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

I do not know the word ὁμοιούσιον, or understand it, unless it confesses a similarity of essence. I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted ὁμοιούσιον by ὁμοούσιον. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of ὁμοούσιον and ὁμοιούσιον. Our desire is sacred. Let us not condemn the fathers, let us not encourage heretics, lest while we drive one heresy away, we nurture another. After the Council of Nicaea our fathers interpreted the due meaning of ὁμοούσιον with scrupulous care; the books are extant, the facts are fresh in men’s minds: if anything has to be added to the interpretation, let us consult together. Between us we can thoroughly establish the faith, so that what has been well settled need not be disturbed, and what has been misunderstood may be removed.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Councils or the Faith of the Easterns, §91.

According to his own testimony, Hilary learned the doctrine that the Son shares the same substance with the Father from Holy Scripture before he had ever heard that it was taught by the Council of Nicaea.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

Now we ought to recognize first of all that God has spoken not for Himself but for us, and that He has so far tempered the language of His utterance as to enable the weakness of our nature to grasp and understand it.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book VIII, §43.

The above quotation is another fairly straightforward statement of formal sufficiency in the sense that the wording of the Scriptures is specifically designed to permit us to understand it. This is, you may note, very similar to the explanation we gave in the first two posts of the series.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

The Lord enunciated the faith of the Gospel in the simplest words that could be found, and fitted His discourses to our understanding, so far as the weakness of our nature allowed Him, without saying anything unworthy of the majesty of His own nature.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §40.

I feel like I'm piling on with that last quotation, because it says nearly the same thing as the previous one.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) commenting on John 10:30:

But this passage concerning the unity, of which we are speaking, does not allow us to look for the meaning outside the plain sound of the words. If Father and Son are one, in the sense that They are one in will, and if separable natures cannot be one in will, because their diversity of kind and nature must draw them into diversities of will and judgment, how call They be one in will, not being one in knowledge? There can be no unity of will between ignorance and knowledge. Omniscience and nescience are opposites, and opposites cannot be of the same will.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book IX, §70.

The passage above may seem to be a relatively obscure reference to formal sufficiency, but it shows one way in which such a view plays out in Hilary's hermeneutic.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

Human judgment must not pass its sentence upon God. Our nature is not such that it can lift itself by its own forces to the contemplation of heavenly things. We must learn from God what we are to think of God; we have no source of knowledge but Himself. . . . Of all this he could have known nothing except through God Himself. And we, in like manner, must confine ourselves, in whatever we say of God, to the terms in which He has spoken to our understanding concerning Himself.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book V, §21.

One interesting aspect about this is not so much the aspect of perspicuity in itself, but the fact that Hilary views God's description of himself as enough. Someone might try to argue that this is really more related to material sufficiency, but by saying "to the terms in which He has spoken," it appears that Hilary means to suggest not only the material but also the form.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

In our reply we have followed Him to the moment of His glorious death, and taking one by one the statements of their unhallowed doctrine, we have refuted them from the teaching of the Gospels and the Apostle. But even after His glorious resurrection there are certain things which they have made bold to construe as proofs of the weakness of a lower nature, and to these we must now reply. Let us adopt once more our usual method of drawing out from the words themselves their true signification, that so we may discover the truth precisely where they think to overthrow it. For the Lord spoke in simple words for our instruction in the faith, and His words cannot need support or comment from foreign and irrelevant sayings.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book XI, §7.

Notice how the hermeneutic of letting the text speak for itself is here explained in terms of the plainness of the text. Scripture interprets Scripture is one of the hermeneutical outworkings of a belief in formal sufficiency.

You might think that was enough from Hilary, and perhaps it is, but he says the same thing in other ways too.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

The Lord has not left in doubt or obscurity the teaching conveyed in this great mystery; He has not abandoned us to lose our way in dim uncertainty. Listen to Him as He reveals the full knowledge of this faith to His Apostles; — I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me. If ye know Me, ye know My Father also; and from henceforth ye shall know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith unto Him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and ye have not known Me, Philip? He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? Dost thou not believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth His works. Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe for the very works’ sake.

He Who is the Way leads us not into by-paths or trackless wastes: He Who is the Truth mocks us not with lies; He Who is the Life betrays us not into delusions which are death. He Himself has chosen these winning names to indicate the methods which He has appointed for our salvation. As the Way, He will guide us to the Truth; the Truth will establish us in the Life. And therefore it is all-important for us to know what is the mysterious mode, which He reveals, of attaining this life.

No man cometh to the Father but through Me. The way to the Father is through the Son. And now we must enquire whether this is to be by a course of obedience to His teaching, or by faith in His Godhead. For it is conceivable that our way to the Father may be through adherence to the Son’s teaching, rather than through believing that the Godhead of the Father dwells in the Son. And therefore let us, in the next place, seek out the true meaning of the instruction given us here. For it is not by cleaving to a preconceived opinion, but by studying the force of the words, that we shall enter into possession of this faith.

NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book VII, §33.

Notice how clearly Hilary states the matter, as making it perfectly apparent that he views the recorded teachings of Jesus as sufficient.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

Salvation is far from the wicked, because they have not sought the statutes of God; since for no other purpose were they consigned to writing, than that they should come within the knowledge and conceptions of all without exception.

Latin:
Ob id enim longe a peccatoribus salus est, quia non exquisierunt justificationes Dei: cum non utique ob aliud consignatae litteris maneant, quam ut ad universorum scientiam notionemque defluerent.

Psalmi CXVIII, Littera XX, 5, PL 9:633; translation in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 246.

We Calvinists may be hesitant to speak in such unqualified terms (since Arminians will think we mean all individuals without exception rather than all classes without exception). Nevertheless, Hilary's point is really an unmistakable affirmation of formal sufficiency.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67):

But the word of God [and in the context he speaks explicitly of Scripture] has consulted the benefit of all who shall ever live, being itself the best adapted to promote the instruction of all without exception.

Latin text:
Sed universis qui in vitam venirent Dei sermo consuluit, universae aetati ipse aptissimus ad profectum.

Psalmi CXVIII, Quindecim Graduum., Gradus 15, PL 9:643; translation in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 246.

This is quote similar to the immediately previous quotation.

From France, we can jump back east to Caesarea and hear from the only slightly younger Basil the Great.

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379):

What seems to be said in an ambiguous and veiled way in certain passages of inspired Scripture is made plain by the obvious meaning of other passages.

Alternative translation:
Whatsoever seems to be spoken ambiguously or obscurely in some places of holy Scripture, is cleared up by what is plain and evident in other places.

Greek:
Τὰ ἀμφίβολα καὶ ἐπικεκαλυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα ἔν τισι τόποις τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις ὁμολογουμέων σαφηνίζεται.

In Regulas Brevius Tractatas, Responsio CCLXVII, PG 31:1264; translation in W. K. L. Clarke, The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil, Translations of Christian Literature Series I, Greek Texts (London: S.P.C.K., 1925), The Shorter Rules, Answer #267 (CCLXVII), p. 329; alternative translation in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 491.

The quotation above comes at the issue of the formal sufficiency of Scripture from a little different angle from some of the statements we've seen before. Basil here addresses the imagined problem that there are some parts of Scripture that are hard to understand. It is true that there are some difficult parts of Scripture, to be sure, but this is not a problem because there are also clear parts of Scripture, and the clear parts explain the more difficult or obscure parts.

Basil of Caesarea (AD. 329-379)(To a widow):

Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.

Greek:
Ἔχουσα δὲ τὴν ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν παράκλησιν, οὔτε ἡμῶν οὔτε ἄλλου τινὸς δεηθήσῃ πρὸς τὸ τὰ δέοντα συνορᾷν, αὐτάρκη τὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἔχουσα συμβουλίαν καὶ ὁδηγίαν πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον.

Epistola CCLXXXIII, PG 32:1020; translation in NPNF2: Vol. VIII, Letters, Letter 283.

Again, a very clear statement of the formal sufficiency of Scripture. This statement also provides a negative aspect - the widow does not need any additional teachers besides the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. This sort of comment should satisfy our Roman disputants, though perhaps they will be dissatisfied because Basil said "nor that of anybody else," instead of saying "nor that of the pope." But, of course, Basil was not familiar with the modern papacy and its claims of infallibility, so he could hardly be expected to specifically disclaim such a view.

Basil of Caesarea (329-379):

All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful, composed by the Spirit for this reason, namely, that we men, each and all of us, as if in a general hospital for souls, may select the remedy for his own condition. Greek:
Πᾶσα Γραφὰ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος, διὰ τοῦτο συγγραφεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος, ἵνʼ, ὡσπερ ἐν κοινῷ τῶν ψυχῶν ἰατρείῳ, πάντες ἄνθρωποι τὸ ἴαμα τοῦ οἰκείου πάθους ἕκαστος ἐκλεγώμεθα.

Homilia in Psalmum I, §1, PG 29:209; translation in FC, Vol. 46, Saint Basil: Exegetical Homilies, Homily 10 on Psalm 1 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1963), p. 151.

I'm sure that there are folks today who would have a heart attack at the idea of a self-service pharmacy, but Basil views Scripture as such a thing - a place where a person in need can find what he needs. It's not just a high view of Scripture, it's a formally sufficient view of Scripture.

From Caesarea, we turn ... who knows where! We're not quite sure where Ambrosiaster lived or who he was. He's sometimes treated as a church father, and his writings were - for a long time - confused with those of his contemporary, Ambrose. Perhaps he was even from the same part of the world - certainly we think he was from the West, and his surviving works are known in Latin.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384):

The fact is that Scripture speaks in our own manner so that we may understand.

Latin:
Sed Scriptura more nostro loquitur, ut intelligere possumus.

In Epistolam Beati Pauli Galatas, v. 4:7, PL 17:360; translation in Mark J. Edwards, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VIII: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 57.

The quotation is pretty self-explanatory. It's a simple statement of the fact that the Scriptures are written so as to be understandable to the reader.

From Ambrosiaster, it only makes sense to turn directly to Ambrose, one of the youngest of the 4th century fathers, living mostly in the second half of the century.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

Trust to no one, to guide you, but where the light of that lamp [i.e. Scripture] goes before. For where you think it shines, there is a whirlpool; it seems to shine, but it defiles; and where you think it is firm or dry, there it is slippery. And, moreover, if you have a lamp, the way is long. Therefore let faith be the guide of your journey; let the divine Scripture be your path. Excellent is the guidance of the heavenly word. From this lamp light your lamp; that the eye of your mind, which is the lamp of your body, may give light.

Latin:
nulli credas tuum, nisi praeeunte lucernae istius luce, processum. Nam ubi putas quod luceat, gurges est; videtur lucere sed polluit; et ubi putas solidum esse vel siccum, ibi lubricum est. Sed et si lucerna tibi, iter longius sit. Sit ergo fides tibi itineris tui praevia, sit tibi iter Scriptura divina. Bonus est coelestis ductus eloquii. Ex hac lucerna accende et tu lucernam; ut luceat interior oculus tuus, qui lucerna est tui corporis.

In Psalmum David CXVIII, Expositio, Sermo 14, §11, PL 15:1394; translation in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 148.

Ambrose, in the quotation above, is simply reaffirming the points that we had previously raised about the fact the Scripture illuminate our way. The Scriptures illuminating our way implies not only that they have the right material, but also the right form, to enlighten us.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

In most places Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser.

Latin:
In plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere.

Epistola XXXVII.1, PL 16:1084; translation in William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 2nd edition, 3 Volumes (London: John Henry Jackson, publisher, 1853), Vol. 3, p. 262, Chemnitz, Vol. 1, p. 167, and Whitaker, pp. 398, 492, who all render plerisque as “most.” Cf. also The Letters of S. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, trans. H. Walford (Oxford: James Parker and Co., and Rivingtons, 1881), Letter 37, §1, pp. 46-47. The translation found in FC, Vol. 26, Saint Ambrose: Letters 54. Ambrose to Simplicianus (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), p. 286, has mistranslated this word plerisque to read “in some instances” rather than the correct translation of “most places.”

This is another example of Scripture interpreting Scripture. It is also particularly interesting, because Ambrose is addressing the Pauline corpus - that portion of the the Bible that does include some things that are hard to understand. Nevertheless, there is no need (in Ambrose's view) for external interpretative authority - the interpretation is to be derived from Paul's own writings.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

Divine Scripture confers salvation on us and is fragrant with the perfume of life, so that he who reads may acquire sweetness and not rush into danger to his own destruction.

FC, Vol. 42, Saint Ambrose: Hexameron, Book 1, 2nd Homily, Chap. 8.30 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1961), p. 34.

Notice, that Congar ascribes this view of Holy Scripture to Protestant orthodoxy. See the first post of this series, quoted from Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1964), pp. 87-88. But, whether or not Congar is correct, the expressions "he who reads" and "Scripture confers salvation" is pretty strong language for the formal sufficiency position.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

I wished that they be arrayed in the unadorned words of Scripture in order that they may gleam in their own light and that in due order they may speak out plainly for themselves. The sun and the moon need no interpreter. The brilliance of their light is all-sufficient a light that fills the entire world. Faith serves as an illumination for the inspired Word. It is, if I may say so, an intestate witness having no need of another's testimony, yet it dazzles the eyes of all mankind.

FC, Vol. 42, Saint Ambrose: Cain and Abel, Book 1, Chap. 6.22 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1961), p. 380.

Notice the very strong wording of formal sufficiency in the quotation above. The Scriptures themselves speak plainly - they are comparable to the sun for light and have no need of another's testimony. It seems that Ambrose is trying to outdo Hilary in terms of stating formal sufficiency in such a way as it will be hard for someone to deny that he is teaching it.

Ambrose (c. 339-97):

Frequent reading of the Scriptures, therefore, strengthens the mind and ripens it by the warmth of spiritual grace. In this way our powers of reasoning are strengthened and the influence of our irrational passions brought to naught.

FC, Vol. 42, Saint Ambrose: Cain and Abel, Book 2, Chap. 6.19 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1961), p. 421.

We end our discussion of the fourth-century fathers on this slight softer note, but one that shows the functional outworking of a view of formal sufficiency. If we believe in formal sufficiency, we will be encouraged to read the Scriptures often, and we will likewise encourage others to do the same. One can contrast that with the Reformation-era attitude of the Roman church.

(to be continued)