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

 

Sword of Pain/Bereavement/Doubt in Mary's Heart?

John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 14

But this blessed woman, who was deemed worthy of gifts that are supernatural, suffered those pains, which she escaped at the birth, in the hour of the passion, enduring from motherly sympathy the rending of the bowels, and when she beheld Him, Whom she knew to be God by the manner of His generation, killed as a malefactor, her thoughts pierced her as a sword, and this is the meaning of this verse: Yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also Luke 2:35. But the joy of the resurrection transforms the pain, proclaiming Him, Who died in the flesh, to be God.

In this case, notice that John is suggesting that Mary escaped the pains associated with original sin at Jesus' birth, but nevertheless experienced them when he died on the cross.

Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 105 (Masoretic Psalm 104):

12. Next he does relate the story, mentioning what Joseph suffered in his low estate, and how he was raised on high. His feet they hurt in the stocks: the iron entered into his soul, until his word came Psalm 104:18. That Joseph was put in irons, we do not indeed read; but we ought no ways to doubt that it was so. For some things might be passed over in that history, which nevertheless would not escape the Holy Spirit, who speaks in these Psalms. We understand by the iron which entered into his soul, the tribulation of stern necessity; for he did not say body, but soul. There is a somewhat similar expression in the Gospel, where Simeon says unto Mary, A sword shall pierce through your own soul also. Luke 2:35 That is, the Passion of the Lord, which was a fall unto many, and in which the secrets of many hearts were revealed, since their sentiments respecting the Lord were extorted from them, without doubt made His own Mother exceeding sorrowful, heavily struck with human bereavement. 

While Augustine does not explicitly link it to sin and the fall, Augustine asserts that Mary was touched with human bereavement and consequent sorrow.

Basil, Letter 260, to Optimus the bishop, sections 6-9

6. About the words of Simeon to Mary, there is no obscurity or variety of interpretation. And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, Behold, this Child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. Luke 2:34-35 Here I am astonished that, after passing by the previous words as requiring no explanation, you should enquire about the expression, Yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also. To me the question, how the same child can be for the fall and rising again, and what is the sign that shall be spoken against, does not seem less perplexing than the question how a sword shall pierce through Mary's heart.

7. My view is, that the Lord is for falling and rising again, not because some fall and others rise again, but because in us the worst falls and the better is set up. The advent of the Lord is destructive of our bodily affections and it rouses the proper qualities of the soul. As when Paul says, When I am weak, then I am strong, 2 Corinthians 12:10 the same man is weak and is strong, but he is weak in the flesh and strong in the spirit. Thus the Lord does not give to some occasions of falling and to others occasions of rising. Those who fall, fall from the station in which they once were, but it is plain that the faithless man never stands, but is always dragged along the ground with the serpent whom he follows. He has then nowhere to fall from, because he has already been cast down by his unbelief. Wherefore the first boon is, that he who stands in his sin should fall and die, and then should live in righteousness and rise, both of which graces our faith in Christ confers on us. Let the worse fall that the better may have opportunity to rise. If fornication fall not, chastity does not rise. Unless our unreason be crushed our reason will not come to perfection. In this sense he is for the fall and rising again of many.

8. For a sign that shall be spoken against. By a sign, we properly understand in Scripture a cross. Moses, it is said, set the serpent upon a pole. Numbers 21:8 That is upon a cross. Or else a sign is indicative of something strange and obscure seen by the simple but understood by the intelligent. There is no cessation of controversy about the Incarnation of the Lord; some asserting that he assumed a body, and others that his sojourn was bodiless; some that he had a passible body, and others that he fulfilled the bodily œconomy by a kind of appearance. Some say that his body was earthly, some that it was heavenly; some that He pre-existed before the ages; some that He took His beginning from Mary. It is on this account that He is a sign that shall be spoken against.

9. By a sword is meant the word which tries and judges our thoughts, which pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of our thoughts. Now every soul in the hour of the Passion was subjected, as it were, to a kind of searching. According to the word of the Lord it is said, All you shall be offended because of me. Matthew 26:3 Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man — to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him was proved unsound, that the power of the Lord might be shown.

In this passage, Basil does not just assert, but demonstrates that Mary was affected by sinful doubt.

Justification by Faith Alone - An Affirmative Rebuttal

I am still waiting to conduct my debate on Justification by Faith alone. I appreciate the comments left on my proposed Affirmative Constructive, but I thought I would share an Affirmative Rebuttal as well. The constructive sets forth the truth of Sola Fide from Scripture. The rebuttal addresses the historical question: if this is true, why didn't anyone realize it before? The answer is that while the Reformers may have better systematized, organized, and rendered consistent the doctrines known under the umbrella of "sola fide," or justification by faith alone, they were not in uncharted territory. That is not to say that the church fathers were consistent or that they all taught the same thing. Nevertheless, the idea of justification by faith alone certainly wasn't new to the Reformers. Chrysostom (349-407): Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, On the Second Epistle of St. Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, Homily 2, §8. What is interesting about the above is that Chrysostom is denying the necessity of baptism for justification. He's saying that good works provide confidence but that nevertheless one can be justified by faith alone. Chrysostom (349-407): That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying,” he says, “and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now. “Let us then do evil, that good may come.” This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith, from his words, “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on First Timothy, Homily 4, 1 Timothy 1:15, 16. One reason to include the quotation above is the fact that it refers to salvation by faith alone, and this is explicitly contrasted with good works. Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 9: “This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies.” Latin text: Et remissum est ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat; fides enim sola justificat. Sancti Hilarii In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius, Caput VIII, §6, PL 9:961. The above is pretty self explanatory. Basil of Caesarea (329-379): [As the Apostle says,] Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, [I say that] Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, [and] redemption, that, as it is written, “he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord.” [For] this is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been, δεδικαιωμένον, perfect passive participle, accusative, masculine of δικαιόω) justified solely by faith in Christ. See Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 505. (bracketed words added to Chemnitz’ translation) Greek text: Λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀπόστολος• Ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω, λέγω ὅτι Χριστὸς ἡμῖν ἐγενήθη σοφία ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις• ἵνα καθὼς γέγραπται, Ὁ καυχώμενος ἐν Κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. Αὕτη γὰρ δὴ ἡ τελεία καὶ ὁλόκληρος καύχησις ἐν Θεῳ, ὅτε μήτε ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνῃ τις ἐπαίρεται τῇ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ´ ἔγνω μὲν ἐνδεῆ ὄντα ἑαυτὸν δικαιοσύνης ἀληθοῦς, πίστει δὲ μόνῃ τῇ εἰς Χριστὸν δεδικαιωμένον. Homilia XX, Homilia De Humilitate, §3, PG 31:529. In context, Basil appealed to the example of the Apostle Paul as a regenerate man. Like the examples from Chrysostom above, this quotation both speaks of justification solely by faith and contrasts that with works. Pseudo-Jerome (fl. 5th century) on Romans 10:3: God justifies by faith alone. Latin text: Deus ex sola fide justificat: In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D (I will update when I have further opportunity, but this book is now attributed by scholars to Pelagius.  That work was edited over time, and I'm not sure whether this passage is part of Pelagius' original or a later edit.  I believe the former.). The above speaks for itself, but note that the exact phrase "sola fide" is found. Jerome (347-420): He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever. Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 61. Latin text: Qui enim tota mente in Christo confidit, etiamsi, ut homo lapsus, mortuus fuerit in peccato, fide sua vivit in perpetuum. Epistola CXIX, Ad Minervium et Alexandrum Monachos, §7, PL 22:973. The above is an example of Jerome contrasting justification by faith with works. Pseudo-Oecumenius (Late 7th or Early 8th Century), commenting on James 2:23: Abraham is the image of someone who is justified by faith alone, since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 33. See PG 119:481. Notice how here Pseudo-Oecumenius addresses Abraham's justification. He affirms that Abraham is justified by faith alone, but then explains that the works provide him with approval because of their connection to his faith. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:6, ‘righteousness apart from works’: Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 113. Latin Text: Hoc ipsum munit exemplo prophetae. Beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labore et aliqua observatione, sola fide justificentur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:83. Here Ambrosiaster explicitly denies justification by works, even while explicitly affirming justification by faith alone. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101. Latin Text: Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:79. This is similar to the previous one. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27: Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 103. Latin Text: Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:80. Again, Ambrosiaster is affirming justification by faith alone. Here, he's providing the angle that there is no alternative way of being justified. It's not like some people are justified by faith, and others are justified by works. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5: How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112. Latin Text: Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:82-83. I realize that some of Rome's apologists will try to wriggle out of the quotation above by emphasizing the distinction between the works of the Mosaic law and works in general. Nevertheless, Ambrosiaster makes it clear that faith alone justifies. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12: For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 65. Latin Text: Si enim justo non est lex posita, sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:67. The above closes out the attempted room of those who treat "the law" as simply a reference to the Mosaic law. Notice how Ambrosiaster connects the law and "avoidance of evil," which is a general description of works. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), wrote while commenting upon 1 Cor. 1:4b: God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6. Latin Text: Datam dicit gratiam a Deo in Christo Jesu, quae gratia sic data est in Christo Jesu; quia hoc constitutum est a Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit sine opere: sola fide gratis accipit remissionem peccatorum. In Epistolam B. Pauli Ad Corinthios Primam, PL 17:185. The above quotation puts a final nail in the coffin for any attempted Romanist wriggling, in that here Ambrosiaster makes it explicit that a person can be saved without works. Chrysostom (349-407): God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent. Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134. See also John Chrysostom. F. Field, ed. Interpretatio omnium Epistolarum Paulinarum per Homilias Facta (Oxford J. H. Parker, 1845-1862), 2:160. Here Chrysostom explains that faith justifies and faith produces works, but still insists that works do not justify us. Chrysostom (349-407): For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2. This is a powerful statement for justification by faith alone. Chrysostom is arguing that even for those with works in addition to faith, those works do not justify them. Clement of Rome: Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32. The above conclusion provides a final testimony for sola fide. Yes, he does not use the term "faith alone," but he specifically rules out works. - TurretinFan

Update: Thanks to the gentleman from Energetic Procession, who pointed out that that the Jerome quotation from PL 30 is actually not Jerome.  PL 30 does indicate that the works therein are suppositious, which ought to have warned me.  I don't see any other places where I made the same error on this blog, but I'm happy to correct things as the situations warrant. 

Steve Ray's Response to Michael Welton Critiqued

Steve Ray has posted a response to comments made by Michael Welton in Popes and Patriarchs. There is a lot of filler in the response, but Mr. Ray aims to address essentially two issues (1) Basil's words of dismissal of Rome and (2) Basil's failure to appeal to the Bishop of Rome as a supreme authority.

As to the first issue, Basil himself wrote:

I accuse no one; I pray that I may have love to all, and "especially unto them who are of the household of faith;" [Galatians 6:10] and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints.

Steve Ray cuts the mention of Rome out of the quotation, beginning at "And, although it is a grand testimony ..." but I have provided it to you, since it is significant to the question.

Steve Ray's response is that Basil's words must be understood as hyperbole. "Why? Because if Basil here denounces Rome, he denounces God as well." (p. 6) Of course, Mr. Ray's argument is empty: Romanism (the view that denouncing Rome is denouncing God) is not Basil's worldview. Steve Ray says we have to view Basil's words as hyperbole because if we don't they conflict with Romanism. The "begging the question" fallacy is aptly illustrated by his remarks.

Steve Ray goes on to complain that Basil could have been even more explicit in his denial of Rome's authority ("He could have easily said, 'I reject Rome's presumed authority which they have unlawfully arrogated to themselves.'" pp. 6-7). But Mr. Ray's example mistakenly assumes that in Basil's day Rome claimed universal authority.

In any event, "I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men," is clear enough of a testimony that Basil doesn't view the letter from Rome as having supreme authority. Basil makes a direct appeal to a higher authority by stating, "Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints," in which he seemingly alludes to Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." One is left in full agreement that while conceivably Basil could have used even stronger language than he did, the language he used is plenty strong.

It should be noted that this is not the only place where Basil criticizes the West. Basil wrote:

I am moved to say, as Diomede said,

“Would God, Atrides, thy request were yet to undertake;

…he’s proud enough.”

[Homer, Iliad ix.]

Really lofty souls, when they are courted, get haughtier than ever. If the Lord be propitious to us, what other thing do we need? If the anger of the Lord lasts on, what help can come to us from the frown of the West? Men who do not know the truth, and do not wish to learn it, but are prejudiced by false suspicions, are doing now as they did in the case of Marcellus, when they quarrelled with men who told them the truth, and by their own action strengthened the cause of heresy.

Basil of Caesarea, Letter 239 (to Eusebius of Samosata), Section 2

On the second point, the question of whether Basil never appealed to the bishop of Rome as the supreme authority, Steve Ray attempts to answer the question by quoting from Basil's Letter 70.

Mr. Ray writes:

Also, in Letter 70 Basil addresses Pope Damasus as "right honorable father" and admits that "nearly all the East . . . is being agitated" and concedes that the pope's authority is "the only possible solution to our difficulties."

Remarkably, Letter 70 is without address, although it is widely believed to have been written to Damasus of Rome, the addressee is identified only by various affectionate names such as: "right honourable father" and "your mercifulness."

Moreover, it should be noted that Basil uses this affectionate term for Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in his letter 66 to Athanasius (the exact same Greek term: "τιμιώτατε Πάτερ") and similarly refers to Athanasius this way in letter 90 ("ὁ τιμιώτατος ἡμῶν πατὴρ"). I say this not to argue that Athanasius is the addressee, but simply to point out that at least equal dignity is given to Athanasius: this is not a proto-papalist speaking, but simply a bishop speaking to another esteemed bishop. It should be noted that Basil mentions that the addressee is in the same see as Dionysus, and while there were notable Dionysuses (Dionysi?) of both Alexandria and Rome, a references to "the East" (defined in the text as "Illyricum to Egypt") seems to weigh in favor of Rome as opposed to Alexandria.

But lets move along from the affectionate title to the actual request. His actual request to his addressee is this:

I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us, and to send some of those, who are like minded with us, either to conciliate the dissentient and bring back the Churches of God into friendly union, or at all events to make you see more plainly who are responsible for the unsettled state in which we are, that it may be obvious to you for the future with whom it befits you to be in communion.

There is not here any request for exercise of authority and power. Instead, the request is for aid and encouragement:

We are lamenting no mere overthrow of earthly buildings, but the capture of Churches; what we see before us is no mere bodily slavery, but a carrying away of souls into captivity, perpetrated day by day by the champions of heresy. Should you not, even now, be moved to succour us, ere long all will have fallen under the dominion of the heresy, and you will find none left to whom you may hold out your hand.

Without further commentary, I think it is worth pointing out the use here by Basil of "churches" (plural) as distinct from buildings. Basil may view communion as universal, but his ecclesiology is one in which there are many churches.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Images Debate with William Albrecht

On December 2, 2010, William Albrecht and I debated the topic: "Is the Veneration of Images Sinful?" I took the affirmative position and Mr. Albrecht took the negative position. Below I've provided the Youtube version and mp3 of the debate, as well as some very important notes.



(link to mp3 for the debate)

I relied heavily on the Old Testament prohibitions on the veneration of images, as well as on the New Testament confirmation of the Old Testament moral law. One of Albrecht's main attempts to distinguish his practice from idolatry was his claim: "Ancient Christianity knew how to differentiate between idolatry and true religious veneration."

But when challenged to produce such evidence, there was no evidence of any of the church fathers actually talking about religious veneration of images. Instead, they simply made the distinction between having images and venerating them.

Moreover, Mr. Albrecht was able to document some instances of ancient churches having images, and of people worshiping nearby images (Albrecht characterized it as people having no problem "worshiping with images around them"), but never any instances of ancient Christians actually venerating the images. The same was brought up with respect to the Jews. Some allegedly permitted the carving of a stone column, as long there was no worship of them - so again, no Jewish permission to venerate images.

There was one exception - one patristic quotation on which Mr. Albrecht tried to support his claim that the early church venerated icons, specifically there was a quotation allegedly taken from a letter of Basil the Great.

He mentioned it and relied on it (beginning at around 3:30 of part 6 below), but when asked to identify it, he seemed to have trouble giving me any kind of helpful citation.

The most popular edition of the fathers, the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers has the letter in the second series, volume 8 (NPNF2, Volume 8) at page 316. The page presents the full text of the letter (Letter 360 - the title given is "Of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the invocation of Saints, and their Images.")

The editors, at that same page, provide a note about this letter:

This letter is almost undoubtedly spurious, but it has a certain interest, from the fact of its having been quoted at the so-called 7th Council (2d of Nicæa) in 787. Maran (Vit. Bas. xxxix.) is of opinion that it is proved by internal evidence to be the work of some Greek writer at the time of the Iconoclastic controversy. The vocabulary and style are unlike that of Basil.

The editors go on to provide several examples:

• at "I adore and worship one God, the Three," the editor comments "Neuter sc. πρόσωπα, not ὑποστάσεις, as we should expect in Basil."
• at "I confess to the œconomy of the Son in the flesh," the editor comments "ἔνσαρκον οἰκονομίαν, an expression I do not recall in Basil’s genuine writings."
• at "was Mother of God," the editor comments "Θεοτόκον, the watchword of the Nestorian controversy, which was after Basil’s time."

And the letter is only a paragraph or two long, so it's not as though these indicia are spread out over a large amount of writing.

Elsewhere in the volume there are similar comments about this letter:

Even Letter CCCLX., which bears obvious marks of spuriousness, and of proceeding from a later age …

NPNF2, Vol. 8 St. Basil: Letters and Selected Works, p.lxxiii

N.B. The letters numbered CCXII.-CCCLXVI. are included by the Ben. Ed. In a “Classis Tertia,” having no note of time. Some are doubtful, and some plainly spurious. Of these I include such as seem most important.

NPNF2, Vol. 8 St. Basil: Letters and Selected Works, p. 316

The letter can also be found in other patristic series. The Fathers of the Church series, in the introduction to volume 1 of Basil's letters, explains the situation:

The chronology of the letters and their order and arrangement into three classes according to the Benedictine editors have been retained. In the arrangement the first class includes all the letters adjudged by them to have been written before St. Basil's episcopate, in the years from 357 until 370, Letters numbered 1 to 46; the second, those written during his episcopate, from 370 until 378, Letters 47 to 291; and the third, letters of uncertain date, doubtful letters, and those clearly spurious, numbered Letters 292 to 365. Three more, Letter 366, included by Mai and also by Migne in their editions, and Letters 367 and 368, lately discovered by Mercati, have been added in the translation.

Another edition of Basil's letters provides this note:

This letter is clearly spurious. It has been attributed to the Greek Iconoclasts. The vocabulary, particularly that employed in the Trinitarian controversy, and the style are not Basil’s. Furthermore, it is missing in all the MSS. of St. Basil’s letters.

Basil: Letters, Volume IV, Letters 249-368. Address to Young Men on Greek Literature. (Loeb Classical Library No. 270), p.329 (Roy J. Deferrari and M. R. P. McGuire, translators)

It's the problem one runs into when one researches from unreliable secondary sources (such as this one). The second source puts it this way:

St. Basil the Great died 24 years earlier than Epiphanius, in 379. Schaff cites this Father:

"....I receive also the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs. Their likenesses I revere and kiss with homage, for they are handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but on the contrary painted in all our churches." (Basil, Epist 205, Comp his Oratio in Barlaam, Opp 1, 515 cited in Schaff, ibid, page 567; and similar expressions in Gregory Naz, Orat 19).

Albrecht also alleged (see part 10 of the debate, around 6 minutes into that part) that Gregory of Nyssa quoted from this, or said something similar to this. The reason is (we presume) reliance on a secondary source like the one above (coupled with a conflation between Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa), because there is nothing like that in either Gregory's authentic writings (that I could find). You'll notice that Albrecht mentions an "Oration Barlaam" which is what the secondary source says should be compared to the actual work.

What made matters much worse, in my opinion, was that around 8 minutes into my second cross-examination of Mr. Albrecht (part 10 below), he indicated that no one had contested the validity of this work, he claimed it was cited by Schaff (which it was, the tertiary source I quoted from above is quoting from the secondary source of Schaff), Bickham (his source regarding Dura Europos), and "numerous Protestant authors," and he continued by stating: "I didn't find one - one author - contesting its validity - so I imagine its valid."

And then in his conclusion (part 11 below), Albrecht made the Basil quotation his leading argument - presumably because during the cross-examination period, Mr. Albrecht had acknowledged that he was not aware of any other patristic writings speaking about the veneration of images. He alleged that my opposition to the quotation was because it was so damaging to my position. And then after some other discussion he came back to it again and claimed that it had to be "pushed aside" because of its weight.

But it arguably got still worse, because Albrecht - in his conclusion - went on to complain about the authenticity of certain canons of the Council of Elvira (which I did not bring up) and of other allegedly spurious patristic writings (which I did not bring up), even while admitting that I did not bring them up. It would seem appropriate that perhaps Mr. Albrecht should check the authenticity of his own patristic works before questioning the authenticity of those that support but weren't even cited by other side.

Finally, Albrecht brought Basil back up again in his concluding remarks.

Albrecht also made an allegation about the Vienna Genesis manuscript, which is a very luxurious high-end manuscript copy of Genesis. He claimed it was dated from the 300's by "Hans" and that Metzger puts it in the "400's" (in his first cross-examination of me) fourth century, but Metzger puts it in the fifth or sixth centuries (see here) and Hans Gerstinger had dated it to the late fifth or early sixth century as well (see discussion here) but subsequent evidence suggested to him that it could be dated no earlier than the sixth century (as reported here). He's the only "Hans" that Metzger references (see the page linked above) - though "Hans" is a very common name, and so it possible that there is some guy named "Hans" out there who dates it earlier.

I don't believe that Mr. Albrecht was intentionally relying on wrong dates and pseudographic evidence, but without such evidence, there is really no ancient support for the distinction he is trying to make. There is no evidence that he provided for the fathers of the first five centuries venerating images. He tried to paint Calvin as ignorant of early church history for suggesting such a thing, but with all due respect I think that while some additional archaeology has come to light, John Calvin was more familiar with the authentic writings of the fathers than Mr. Albrecht is (although Calvin also was fallible and capable of making mistakes - and we have even more manuscripts now than Calvin did).

Parts of the Debate

1. Affirmative Constructive Part 1 (TurretinFan)
   
   
2. Affirmative Constructive Part 2 (TurretinFan)
   
   
3. Negative Constructive Part 1 (Albrecht)
   
   
4. Negative Constructive Part 2 (Albrecht)
   
   
5. First Negative Cross-Examination of Affirmative - Part 1 (Albrecht cross-examining TurretinFan)
   
   
6. First Negative Cross-Examination of Affirmative - Part 2 (Albrecht cross-examining TurretinFan)
   
   
7. First Affirmative Cross Examination of Affirmative - Part 1 (TurretinFan cross-examining Albrecht)
   
   
8. First Affirmative Cross Examination of Affirmative - Part 2 (TurretinFan cross-examining Albrecht)
   
   
9. Second Negative Cross-Examination of Affirmative (Albrecht cross-examining TurretinFan)
   
   
10. Second Affirmative Cross-Examination of Negative (TurretinFan cross-examining Albrecht)
    
    
11. Negative Conclusion (Albrecht)
    
    
12. Affirmative Conclusion (TurretinFan)

UPDATE:

Mr. Albrecht has provided a comment by email, which I reproduce below:

" I want to thank Turretinfan for the notes he has sent me and I have surely looked deeper into this subejct. Whereas I am unwilling to grant that the quotation on Basil is definitively spurious, I am willing to say that we can dismiss it wholly if need be. I believe that through a thorough examination of Basil's works(that are not contested) we can clearly see he believed in proper religious honor being passed on to the person whose image is being venerated. I also want to apologize for not being more careful in regards to my comments on the Vienna Genesis. It would seem that in my constant fumbling of notes, I should have been clear that the Vienna Genesis is dated to the 400s and it is the COTTON Genesis dated to the 300s. The names are quite similar and it's quite easy to confuse the two! I hope this helps clear up certain things and I wish everyone that reads this blog a HAPPY HOLIDAY season!"

I reply:

1) I don't know why one wouldn't grant what scholarship universally affirms.

2) The issue about the honor given to an image reaching the prototype is the way that John of Damascus quoted Basil (and Aquinas interestingly quotes not Basil himself but John of Damascus quoting Basil). But what John of Damascus does is to rip Basil out of context. In context, Basil is speaking about veneration of the Son (Christ) who is the image of the Father being veneration passed on to the Father (view the original quotation from Basil in context here and also see here for a similar discussion).

3) As discussed in the post, the best date for the Vienna Genesis is the 6th century, i.e. the 500's - although it may possibly date to the late 400's according to some scholars.

4) The Cotton Genesis is also 5th or 6th century according to Metzger (see this link to Metzger's Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: an introduction to Greek palaeography, p. 45). Metzger even states that the Vienna Genesis is slightly later in date than the Cotton Genesis, which reaffirms the 6th century date I identified above.

5) You'll also notice on that same page of Metzger that Metzger confirms that the earliest New Testament Manuscript with minatures date from the 6th century. This confirms the point I made during the debate that the illumination of manuscripts became progressively more elaborate into the later periods of church history. It also tends to undermine Mr. Albrecht's seeming attempts to make this practice of adorning Biblical manuscripts a more ancient or perhaps apostolic tradition.

- TurretinFan