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

 

Origen on the Golden Chain

 Rufinus (d. 411) provided Latin translations of many of Origen's works, including his commentary on Romans (published in two volumes in the Fathers of the Church series).

Origen, of course, predates the Calvinism/Arminianism debate by more than a millenium.  Nevertheless, it is interesting to hear his comments on the text.  Origen agrees with my point that those who God foreknows are a specific group of people - a subset of humanity.

Origen makes a connection to 2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Likewise, Origen contrasts with Matthew 7:23:

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Of course, we affirm both the universal prescience of God as well as general omniscience, but there is an important sense in which God knowing or foreknowing refers to God's special love and care. 

Origen puts the challenge this way:

"He says, 'For those whom he foreknew he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.' Let us not pass over what he has said: 'he foreknew and predestined.' For I think that just as he has not said concerning everyone that they have been predestined, so he has not said concerning everyone, 'those whom he foreknew.' For not according to the common opinion of the multitude should it be thought that God foreknows good and evil, but we should think in accordance with the custom of Holy Scripture. For, let the person who is diligent in the Scriptures observe where he finds Scripture to say that God foreknows the evil, in the same way it plainly says in the present passage concerning the good, that 'those whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.' For if it is those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, and yet no evil man can be conformed to the image of the Son of God, then it is obvious that he is only speaking of the good, 'whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed the image of his Son.' Of the others, however, God is said not only not to foreknow, but not even know them. For 'the Lord knows those who are his.' But to those who are not worthy to be known by God, the Savior says, 'Depart from me, because I have never known you, you workers of iniquity.' Therefore, in the same way, even in the present passage, whomever God foreknew he has also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son."

(Book 7, Chapter 8, section 7(5), FotC vol. 104, pp. 85-86)

Origen also expressly disagrees with the idea that to "foreknow" here means to foresee.  Origen expresses it this way:

"Above he said, 'Those whom he foreknew, these he also predestined.' Now he adds, 'And those whom he predestined, these he also called; and those whom he called, these he also justified.' And if we interpret 'foreknew' and 'predestined' in the general sense, it will surely seem that the one who is justified is justified because he has been called; and the one who has been called is called because he has been predestined; and the one who has been predestined is predestined because he has been foreknown. Yet once more, the contrary is to be understood. Whoever is not justified is not justified because he has not been called; and the reason anyone is not called is because he has not been predestined; and the reason one is not predestined is because he was not foreknown. And behold, into what an absurd interpretation would they fall who understand in this case the foreknowledge of God, as if only someone who knows beforehand what will come to pass afterwards. For through the things we have set forth above, it is found that God did not foreknow those whom he has not predestined. And again, if to this popular understanding is applied that which says that 'those whom he called, these he also justified,' we shall be opening a huge window to those who deny that it lies within man's power to be saved. For they say: If it is those whom God has foreknown that he has also predestined, and it is those whom he has predestined that he has also called, and it is those whom he called that he has also justified, those who are not justified are not to blame. For they were neither called, nor predestined, nor foreknown."

(Book 7, Chapter 8, section 8(2), FotC vol. 104, pp. 87-88)

Origen then immediately goes on to object that Judas was called but not justified, and certainly not glorified.

To resolve the tension that Origen sees in the text, Origen appeals to "And Adam knew his wife" (Genesis 4:1) and the description of Rebecca as "She was a virgin, a man had not known her." (Genesis 24:16).  Likewise, in a different sense, the sons of Levi were said to be punished because none of them "knew" his own father or mother (Deuteronomy 33:9). 

"Furthermore, you will discover many things said in the Scriptures about "knowing" with this sense; and therefore, it is established that in the present passage as well the Apostle had set down this word 'knowing' in accordance with the custom of Holy Scripture. His aim is to show that those who are foreknown by God are those upon whom God had placed his own love and affection because he knew what sort of persons they were."

(Book 7, Chapter 8, section 8(3), FotC vol. 104, pp. 89)

You will notice, I hope, that this is a slightly different understanding than I've proposed.  If anything, I would say that it would be more accurate to say that God had placed his own love and affection on them despite the fact that he knew what sort of persons they were.  

Ultimately, Origen is not a Calvinist nor a proto-Calvinist. Nevertheless, he is interesting because of his fluency in Greek, his nearness to the apostles, and the fact that he records people disagreeing over these sorts of issues already in his day.

When Origen encounters the choice of Jacob over Esau in chapter 9, he will be quick to agree that the election was not based on works done by the people.  Nevertheless, it seems as though Origen's resolution is that some people are better and more worthy by virtue of who they are.  That position also seems to fall short of the Apostle's doctrine.

Origen Against the Innovation of Christmas? Check your sources!

I came across the following statement, which immediately sparked my interest (source):

Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when the idea of fixing Christ’s birthday started. Quite a controversy arose among Church leaders. Some were opposed to such a celebration. Origen (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation. “In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” ( Catholic Encyclopedia , 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, “Natal Day”).

I tend to agree with the overall point of the author of the page, namely that the celebration of Christmas is an innovation that lacks any authentic apostolic tradition. Nevertheless, I thought that the patristic quotation would be very interesting, if indeed Origen were against the celebration of Christmas.

There are, however, a number of problems with this citation. First, the citation is not to any of Origen's works, but to the "Catholic Encyclopedia," a secondary source. Thankfully, one can look up this secondary source (link to "Natal Day" entry).

Second, the work of Origen being cited is his Homilies on Leviticus. We don't have the original Greek of this work. Instead, we have Rufinus' Latin translation. Moreover, this work is one that Rufinus himself acknowledged heavily editing. Accordingly, while this may be Origen, it might instead be Rufinus. Moreover, Rufinus translated this in the early fifth century. Thus, if this expresses Rufinus' views, it may represent a fifth century view, rather than a third century view.

Third, the context of the discussion is not the celebration of Christ's birth by his contemporaries. In other words, Origen's words (or Rufinus' words) were not addressed as a correction to his contemporaries.

Fourth, while Christ's birth is mentioned in the homily, it is mentioned as the sole exception to the standard case. In other words, applying the logic of Origen/Rufinus may cause us not to celebrate our own birthdays, but it would not similarly require us not to celebrate Christ's birthday.

For those interested, I've posted a modern English translation of the text and the Latin original, as well as some related quotations from the same homily at my "Ancient Voices" blog:

On Celebrating Birthdays and Original Sin
Unique Conception of Jesus
Original Sin and Infant Baptism

- TurretinFan

Rufinus on the Creed, the Canon, and the Church

Further to my previous post (link), it is probably worthwhile providing a much longer extract from Rufinus with respect to his discussion of the Creed (capitals are found in the translation from which this is taken, and seems to indicate where Rufinus is quoting the creed):

35. Let this be enough on this subject. Next in the order of belief comes, AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. The detailed, rather lengthy account of Christ recorded above has reference to the mystery of His incarnation and passion. Being taken in connection with His person, it has formed an interruption which has held up my discussion of the Holy Spirit. If our theme were exclusively the Godhead, we should say at the outset, I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, and then, IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD: then in exactly the same way we should, without more ado, append, AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. All the intervening allusions to Christ, as I have pointed out, are concerned with His incarnate state. Consequently, we complete the mystery of the Trinity with our mention of the Holy Spirit. Just as we speak of the Father as one, there being no other Father, and of the only-begotten Son as one, there being no other only-begotten Son, so the Holy Spirit is also one, and there can be no other Holy Spirit. In order to bring out the distinction of Persons, you see, we employ separate terms expressive of relationship. Thus, He is to be taken as Father from whom are all things, and who Himself has no Father. The Third is the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as He proceeds from the mouth of God and sanctifies all things. At the same time, to emphasize the unity and identity of the Godhead in the Trinity, just as we say we believe IN GOD THE FATHER, prefixing the preposition IN, so we use the form IN CHRIST, HIS SON, and also IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. The meaning of what I have said will, however, be made plainer in the sequel.

36. Immediately after this clause follow the words, THE HOLY CHURCH, THE REMISSION OF SINS, THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH. The creed does not say: IN THE HOLY CHURCH, or IN THE REMISSION OF SINS, or IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH. Had the preposition been IN inserted, the force of these articles would have been identical with that of their predecessors. As it is, in the clauses in which our faith in the Godhead is laid down, we use the form, IN GOD THE FATHER, IN JESUS CHRIST HIS SON, and IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. In the other clauses, where the theme is not the Godhead but created beings and saving mysteries, the preposition IN is not interpolated. Hence we are not told to believe IN THE HOLY CHURCH, but that the Holy Church exists, speaking of it not as God, but as a Church gathered together for God. So Christians believe, not IN THE REMISSION OF SINS, but that there is a remission of sins, and not IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH, but that there is a resurrection of the flesh. Thus the effect of this monosyllabic preposition is to distinguish the Creator from His creatures, and to draw a boundary line between things divine and things human. It was this Holy Spirit, then, who inspired the Law and the Prophets in the Old Testament, and the Gospels and the Apostles in the New. So the Apostle remarks: All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach. Consequently, it seems appropriate at this point, basing myself on the records of the Fathers, to enumerate the books of the Old and New Testaments which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself and to have been entrusted by Him to the churches of Christ.

37. In the Old Testament, then, first of all five books by Moses have been handed down―Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; then Josue, the son of Nun, and Judges, together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, reckoned by the Jews as two, Paralipomenon [Chronicles], otherwise called the Book of Days; two books of Esdras, which the Jews count as one; and Esther. Of prophets we have Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, and, in addition, a single book of the Twelve Prophets. Job, also, and the Psalms of David are each of them one book. There are three which Solomon bequeathed to the churches, namely, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles. With these they completed the list of books belonging to the Old Testament. In the New there are four Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, composed by Luke; fourteen Epistles by the Apostle Paul; two by the Apostle Peter; one by James, brother of the Lord and Apostle; one by Jude; three by John; and the Apocalypse of John.

38. These are the writings which the Fathers included in the canon, and on which they desired the affirmations of our faith to be based. At the same time we should appreciate that there are certain other books which our predecessors designated ‘ecclesiastical’ rather than ‘canonical.’ Thus, there is the Wisdom of Solomon, as we call it; and another Wisdom, ascribed to the son of Sirach. This latter is known by the general title Ecclesiasticus among Latin-speaking people, the description pointing, not to the author of the book, but to the character of the writing. The Book of Tobias belongs to the same class, as do Judith and the books of the Machabees. In the New Testament we have the little work known as The Book of the Shepherd, or Hermas, and the book which is named The Two Ways, and The Judgment of Peter. They desired that all these should be read in the churches, but that appeal should not be made to them on points of faith. The other writings they designated ‘apocryphal,’ refusing to allow them to be read out in church. Such, the, is the traditional canon handed down to us by the Fathers. As I remarked above, I have thought this the proper place to draw attention to it for the information of catechumens receiving their first lessons in the Church and its faith, so that they may be in no doubt about the wellsprings from which their draughts of the word of God must be taken.

39. The next clause in the ordered statement of our faith runs, THE HOLY CHURCH. I have already explained in what precedes why they did not say IN THE HOLY CHURCH at this point too. So the faithful, having had the belief in one God mysteriously triune inculcated in the foregoing sections, are now in addition required to believe in the existence of one holy Church, a Church, that is, in which there is one faith and one baptism, and in which we believe in one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and one Holy Spirit.

- Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 35-39. (pp. 71-74 of J.N.D. Kelly's translation in Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 20)

(Thanks to David King for his assistance in identifying and transcribing this quotation.)

Believing About the Holy Catholic Church

Introduction

A perennial issue in our discussions with Roman Catholics is the issue of whether, in addition to believing God's word in Scripture, we ought also to trust (in a similar way) in the church. While nothing in Scripture suggests that the church is another rule of faith in addition to Scripture, such that we would accord the church the same credence we give to God and his written word, we are sometimes presented with folks who want to latch onto the creeds.

The so-called Apostles' Creed (not formulated by them, as some have supposed, but taken from the Scriptures that they left behind for us) includes a phrase regarding the "Holy Catholic Church," which is often seen as problematic for those who are unfamiliar with the meaning of the creed. The usual way in which this section of the creed is recited in English-speaking churches that recite it is thus:

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Grammar of the Creed
The grammar of the creed makes a distinction that is not immediately apparent in English. What we "believe in" is God. He is the one in whom we trust. Thus, we "believe in" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In contrast, we believe that there is a holy catholic church (not the Roman Catholic church, but the universal body of Christ: all those who believe on the name of the Lord), that the saints (by which mean again those who believe) ought to commune together until the Lord's return, that sins are forgiven by God on the merits of Christ, that the body will be resurrected and re-united to the soul, and that heaven will be eternal. Thus, we are not saying that we trust in the church despite the ambiguity of the English wording (as well as the ambiguity of the wording of the Constantinoplean Creed).

Schaff's Explanation

Perhaps it would be helpful to have more than the word of a pseudonymous blogger on this grammatical point. In Creeds of Christendom, historian Philip Schaff explains it this way:

Then, changing the language (credo in for credo with the simple accusative), the Creed professes to believe 'the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.'

- Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 7

Paschasius' or Faustus' Testimony

The significance of this distinction was not lost on the ancients. Indeed, when we draw this distinction (which today we refer to as Sola Scriptura) we are in agreement with those ancient Christians whose writings have survived (even one from the Rome of that day, which had not descended to the depths of Rome today):

Paschasius, Deacon of Rome (flourished about A.D. 491 - 512) wrote:

Therefore thou sayest, ‘I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,’ because, in supplying the little syllable in, dost thou attempt to produce great darkness? We believe the Catholic Church as the mother of regeneration; we do not believe in the Church as in the Author of salvation. For when the universal Church confesses this of the Holy Ghost, can she also believe in herself? ... He who believes in the Church believes in man. For man is not of the Church, but the Church began to be from man. Desist therefore from this blasphemous persuasion, to think that thou oughtest to believe in any human creature: since thou must not in anywise believe in an angel or archangel ... We believe the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, everlasting life ... The unskillfulness of some have drawn, and taken the preposition ‘in’ from the sentence going next before, and put it to that which follows, imprudently adding thereto more than needed.

- Paschasius, Deacon of Rome, Two Books on the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chapter 1 (This work is sometimes alternatively ascribed to Faustus of Riez who flourished from about A.D. 433 - 485)

Rufinus' Testimony

We see the same thing from Rufinus, about a century earlier, who made roughly the same point.

Tyrannius Rufinus (lived about A.D. 344 - 410) explains with reference to the Apostles' creed:

“The Holy Church; The Forgiveness of Sin, the Resurrection of This Flesh.” It is not said, “In the holy Church,” nor “In the forgiveness of sins,” nor “In the resurrection of the flesh.” For if the preposition “in” had been added, it would have had the same force as in the preceding articles. But now in those clauses in which the faith concerning the Godhead is declared, we say “In God the Father,” and “In Jesus Christ His Son,” and “In the Holy Ghost,” but in the rest, where we speak not of the Godhead but of creatures and mysteries, the preposition “in ” is not added. We do not say “We believe in the holy Church,” but “We believe the holy Church,” not as God, but as the Church gathered together to God: and we believe that there is “forgiveness of sins;” we do not say “We believe in the forgiveness of sins;” and we believe that there will be a “Resurrection of the flesh;” we do not say “We believe in the resurrection of the flesh.” By this monosyllabic preposition, therefore, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine are separated from things human.

- Rufinus of Aquileia, A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, Section 36

(for a larger context, see here)

Aquinas' Testimony

While we would certainly have some disagreements with the much later writings of Thomas Aquinas, we find some similar sentiments in his discussion:

Objection 5. Further, Augustine (Tract. xxix in Joan.) expounding the passage, "You believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 14:1) says: "We believe Peter or Paul, but we speak only of believing 'in' God." Since then the Catholic Church is merely a created being, it seems unfitting to say: "In the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
...
Reply to Objection 5. If we say: "'In' the holy Catholic Church," this must be taken as verified in so far as our faith is directed to the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies the Church; so that the sense is: "I believe in the Holy Ghost sanctifying the Church." But it is better and more in keeping with the common use, to omit the 'in,' and say simply, "the holy Catholic Church," as Pope Leo [Rufinus, Comm. in Sym. Apost.] observes.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 9

Notice how Aquinas agrees with the substance of the objection while seeking to find an acceptable sense for the words.

Conclusion

The idea of arguing that one should be "believe in" the church from the creed is an anachronistic misuse of the creed. It is as anachronistic as supposing that the term "Holy Catholic Church" was supposed to refer to the Roman Catholic church. Both the grammar of the creed (as noted by Schaff) as well as early Christian authors and even the most notable medieval scholastic.

With Alexander of Alexandria (died about A.D. 326), we affirm that we believe in the existence of only one body of Christ, relying on the authority of Scripture:

“And in addition to this pious belief respecting the Father and the Son, we confess as the Sacred Scriptures teach us, one Holy Ghost, who moved the saints of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New. We believe in one only Catholic Church, the apostolical, which cannot be destroyed even though all the world were to take counsel to fight against it, and which gains the victory over all the impious attacks of the heterodox; for we are emboldened by the words of its Master, ‘Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world [John xvi. 33].’ After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God (ἐκ τῆς Θεοτόκου Μαρίας); in the fulness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead. He rose from the dead, was taken into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

- The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Chapter III, The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople.

How can we know whether a church is part of the Church? If it is apostolical. How can we tell if something is apostolical? Look at the books left behind by the apostles. Human successors can pervert the path of those who went before them, but the unchanging Word of God found in Scripture is the alone reliable measure of apostolicity and catholicity (in the true sense of the term).

-TurretinFan

Aquinas on Sola Scriptura

Some folks seem to imagine that a rejection of Sola Scriptura was the "established faith" prior to the Reformation. Those folks ought to read their Aquinas (emphasis supplied in the following:

Article 8. Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

Objection 1. It seems this doctrine is not a matter of argument. For Ambrose says (De Fide 1): "Put arguments aside where faith is sought." But in this doctrine, faith especially is sought: "But these things are written that you may believe" (John 20:31). Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

Objection 2. Further, if it is a matter of argument, the argument is either from authority or from reason. If it is from authority, it seems unbefitting its dignity, for the proof from authority is the weakest form of proof. But if it is from reason, this is unbefitting its end, because, according to Gregory (Hom. 26), "faith has no merit in those things of which human reason brings its own experience." Therefore sacred doctrine is not a matter of argument.

On the contrary, The Scripture says that a bishop should "embrace that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers" (Titus 1:9).

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

Reply to Objection 1. Although arguments from human reason cannot avail to prove what must be received on faith, nevertheless, this doctrine argues from articles of faith to other truths.

Reply to Objection 2. This doctrine is especially based upon arguments from authority, inasmuch as its principles are obtained by revelation: thus we ought to believe on the authority of those to whom the revelation has been made. Nor does this take away from the dignity of this doctrine, for although the argument from authority based on human reason is the weakest, yet the argument from authority based on divine revelation is the strongest. But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8

There is more like unto it:

The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one — the literal — from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, Article 10, Reply to Objection 1

And that is also not all:

Objection 1. It would seem that it is unsuitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol. Because Holy Writ is the rule of faith, to which no addition or subtraction can lawfully be made, since it is written (Deuteronomy 4:2): "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it." Therefore it was unlawful to make asymbol as a rule of faith, after the Holy Writ had once been published.
...
Reply to Objection 1. The truth of faith is contained in Holy Writ, diffusely, under various modes of expression, and sometimes obscurely, so that, in order to gather the truth of faith from Holy Writ, one needs long study and practice, which are unattainable by all those who require to know the truth of faith, many of whom have no time for study, being busy with other affairs. And so it was necessary to gather together a clear summary from the sayings of Holy Writ, to be proposed to the belief of all. This indeed was no addition to Holy Writ, but something taken from it.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 9

Now, I will certainly concede that Aquinas mistakenly believed that a council of the universal church could not err, and that Aquinas accorded a primacy to the bishop of Rome that was excessive. Nevertheless, Aquinas did not hint or suggest in the least that either council or bishop could rightly go beyond the Scripture, as modern Rome does. For Aquinas, any article of faith had to be taken from Scripture, and he recognized that, in fact, the creeds were drawn up based on Scripture, not in supplement to the content of Scripture.

Aquinas seemed to have more trust in the universal church, as such, then perhaps the Reformed churches had. But consider the qualifications that Aquinas makes:

Objection 5. Further, Augustine (Tract. xxix in Joan.) expounding the passage, "You believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 14:1) says: "We believe Peter or Paul, but we speak only of believing 'in' God." Since then the Catholic Church is merely a created being, it seems unfitting to say: "In the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
...
Reply to Objection 5. If we say: "'In' the holy Catholic Church," this must be taken as verified in so far as our faith is directed to the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies the Church; so that the sense is: "I believe in the Holy Ghost sanctifying the Church." But it is better and more in keeping with the common use, to omit the 'in,' and say simply, "the holy Catholic Church," as Pope Leo [Rufinus, Comm. in Sym. Apost.] observes.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 9

He adopts Rufinus' comments that, as we noted before, disclaim any faith in the church, placing it instead in the Holy Ghost, and specifically Scripture:

“The Holy Church; The Forgiveness of Sin, the Resurrection of This Flesh.” It is not said, “In the holy Church,” nor “In the forgiveness of sins,” nor “In the resurrection of the flesh.” For if the preposition “in” had been added, it would have had the same force as in the preceding articles. But now in those clauses in which the faith concerning the Godhead is declared, we say “In God the Father,” and “In Jesus Christ His Son,” and “In the Holy Ghost,” but in the rest, where we speak not of the Godhead but of creatures and mysteries, the preposition “in ” is not added. We do not say “We believe in the holy Church,” but “We believe the holy Church,” not as God, but as the Church gathered together to God: and we believe that there is “forgiveness of sins;” we do not say “We believe in the forgiveness of sins;” and we believe that there will be a “Resurrection of the flesh;” we do not say “We believe in the resurrection of the flesh.” By this monosyllabic preposition, therefore, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine are separated from things human.

This then is the Holy Ghost, who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the Prophets, in the New the Gospels and the Epistles. Whence also the Apostle says, “All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable for instruction.” [2 Tim. iii. 16] And therefore it seems proper in this place to enumerate, as we have learnt from the tradition of the Fathers, the books of the New and of the Old Testament, which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Ghost, and have been handed down to the Churches of Christ.

- Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, Section 36

Was Aquinas' view of all things doctrinal the same as that of the Reformed churches? Of course not. As to Scripture, however, his views were quite close (if not identical). Scripture is the supreme authority. While Aquinas did not make councils, or the Roman bishop, or the consent of the fathers a second rule of faith, but rather stuck with Scripture, of which the creeds were "symbols" - extractions of important points.

There is one place where you might think me contradicted by Aquinas. The translation that is most popular on the Internet now has the following reading:

Athanasius drew up a declaration of faith, not under the form of a symbol, but rather by way of an exposition of doctrine, as appears from his way of speaking. But since it contained briefly the whole truth of faith, it was accepted by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to be considered as a rule of faith.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 10, Answer to Objection 3

Notice that "so as to be considered a rule of faith."

One might think that the Latin would read: "ut regula fidei habeatur." But in fact, the Latin reads "ut quasi regula fidei habeatur." (emphasis added)

You will recall, after all, that in one of the quotations above, Aquinas had pointed out (in the objection) that the Holy Scriptures ("Holy Writ") are the rule of faith, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing can be subtracted.

-TurretinFan