Tractatus de Deo Trino secundum personas

« According to the Catholic principles concerning the office of the Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, both the authentic theological declaration and the apostolic origin of the text of 1 Io. V. 7 ought to be affirmed. As regards the manner of preservation, monuments are at hand which demonstrate the immemorial antiquity of the reading and are a sufficient historical safeguard, so that legitimate judges could decide in favor of the apostolic origin of the text. The contrary documents, however, that are objected do not demonstrate interpolation; although from them it is evident that the omission of the text in the transcription of codices was already propagated from antiquity more or less widely ».

I. Since many critics, even among Catholics — especially after the edition of the New Testament prepared by Augustinus Scholz — think it permissible to call into doubt the genuineness of the testimony with which we are dealing, and some even openly reject it as spurious; I have deemed it necessary to apply to the present question the Catholic principles set forth and demonstrated in the Treatises on Tradition and on Scripture, so that we may understand what is to be held. Protestants, who, having repudiated the authority of the Church as guardian and interpreter of the word of God, are carried about by every wind of doctrine, each according to his own talent and judgment, can neither understand the Catholic method required by the economy instituted by Christ for guarding the deposit of faith, nor be aided by it, as long as they remain in their fundamental error. But that some Catholics have not always followed the safest principles in questions of this kind, and that at times, attributing too much to deceptive erudition, they inverted the order of dependence between authority and science in theological matters — this certainly did not profit the defense of truth, and hence not science either.

In the present question, whether the genuineness of the text of 1 Io. V. 7 is established from theological principles, the solution depends on a principle of right and on a truth of fact.

The principle of right that no Catholic may call into controversy is that fundamental one: that it belongs to the office of the Church, under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to have the infallible custody of the word of God in general, and likewise of the written word. This indeed is not to be understood as though the assistance of the Holy Spirit were promised lest some text or some part of a divine book, or even a whole book, should ever perish. For although a special providence of God must be acknowledged in the conservation in time of the divine books of both the Old and the New Testament, nevertheless the promise of the assistance of the Spirit of truth leading into all truth, and the infallibility of the Church in the custody of the deposit of faith depending on it, does not of itself include the indefectible conservation of all the books and their parts that are divinely inspired and so contain the written word of God. The reason is that the inspired books are not the sole nor an absolutely necessary instrument for the conservation of revelation (cf. Iren. l. III. c. 4); whence the Holy Spirit can, through the Church, preserve the integrity of the revealed truth, without its being necessary for Him for this end either to prevent, or His being unable to permit, the loss of an inspired book or of a part of a book.

But just as from the promise made of the Spirit of truth, abiding with the Apostles and their successors forever, error of the Church herself in proposing the doctrine of faith is excluded in general, so too from that same promised infallibility it can never come about that the Church, whether by formal definition or by equivalent consent and doctrine, should receive into use and propose to the faithful a book or a text of human origin as a book or a text divinely inspired. Hence from the office instituted by Christ the Lord of guarding the deposit of revelation, and from the promised charism for exercising this office, the Church is infallible not only in proposing the dogma concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures and concerning which are the inspired books, as it were in the abstract; but her infallible judgment also bears upon the concrete object, whether books existing under a certain form in a determined edition or version are and have remained inspired books. That is to say, the Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit not only infallibly teaches that the Apostle John, e. g., was inspired to write the Gospel, the three epistles, and the Apocalypse; but with the same infallibility she defines that the books in this form or even in this version — e. g. the Latin — as they have been received into public use for many centuries already, are the very inspired books of John. In such a judgment is contained that the books, as they exist in public use, are uncorrupted and not interpolated, and in this recension, to which the judgment refers, conformable to the primitive text in which they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Since in integrity and in conformity with the original text there can be degrees of greater or lesser perfection, and, as is evident of itself, the definition of the Church does not effect the inspiration and integrity of a book but authentically manifests what exists: therefore from the definition of the canonical book considered in general one cannot indeed yet infer the degree of integrity and conformity with the original; nevertheless, in that degree which the judgment of the Church defines, the integrity is infallibly certain.

Moreover, since the Church is ruled not by new revelations but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, lest she ever fall into error in her definitions, humanly knowable reasons are indeed required for inquiring into and perceiving the truth about whose definition the matter is concerned; but if the definition is reached, its infallibility is owed not to these reasons but solely to the assistance of the Spirit of truth, and to «the Lord inhabiting the Church, lest the most studious speculation go into error» (Aug. in Ps. IX. n. 12). Hence, a definition being presupposed, it indeed pertains to theological science to show the manner in which the tradition of the truth stands; yet it is not necessary that reasons should always be at hand of such a kind that, of themselves alone, prescinding from the authentic judgment of the infallible Church, they would suffice for the full demonstration of the truth handed down.

Concerning these foundations, which we have called the principle of right, most amply demonstrated in both Treatises on Tradition and on Scripture, no Catholic may doubt. But those who from them call into doubt or wholly deny the genuineness and authenticity of some passage of the Scriptures as they now exist, thereby at the same time deny that the Church has ever declared such a text, whether by solemn decree or by sufficient consent, as a part of Sacred Scripture and hence as the written word of God, and proposed it to the faithful. The whole dispute therefore (as we now undertake it) is reduced to the question we have called that of the truth of fact, namely whether the definition and doctrine of the Church, by which she receives and proposes as sacred and canonical all the books and those «entire with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition», comprehends the text of 1 Io. V. 7 with which we are dealing. Whatever Catholics deny its genuineness, thereby, as I have said, also deny the truth of this fact; for they can neither call into doubt nor wish to call into doubt the principle of right itself, in the denial of which the foundation and proper reason of Protestantism is constituted. We affirm the truth of the fact, and thereby we deem it a crime to call the genuineness of the apostolic text into doubt. But here a great error in the method of inquiry must be carefully guarded against, into which Iohannes Iahn fell in a chapter of doctrine, if not identical, certainly most similar to our question. He inquired first critically and historically what should be thought about the authority of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. Since by these critical arguments the books seemed to him of a lower order and dignity than the protocanonical books, he concluded that the Tridentine decree had not defined an equal degree of authority with respect to the books of both orders. Let us not proceed, I beg, by this way, but by the contrary and safe way. As in all theological questions, so here too let the genuine sense of the doctrine and definition of the Church be first inquired into; only then shall we be solicitous about the historical and critical confirmation of the truth, from which, whether it comes to us fuller or less full, the certainty established from the higher theological principle does not depend. In order that we may grasp the sense of the Tridentine definition, sess. IV, and its extension — whether it pertains to declaring the authenticity of this passage about which we ask — we shall first consider the words themselves, the context, and in it the declared scope of the decree, or rather of the two synodal decrees; thence we shall deduce the norm or rule according to which judgment is to be made about the extension of the definition, to which parts of Scripture it pertains; lastly we shall apply this rule, in order to prove that the Johannine comma about which we ask is a part of Scripture comprehended in the decrees of the Council, and hence that its genuineness is to be held theologically. 1°. The decree on the canonical Scriptures contains four parts. a) The Council teaches that there is a twofold divine institution by which all salutary truth and the revealed discipline of morals have come down even to us, namely tradition and the written books. The divine traditions, therefore, and these «all books of both the Old and the New Testament», «since one God is the author of both», the synod receives with an equal affection of piety and reverence. Then b) the books of Sacred Scripture are enumerated one by one, which are received by the synod itself. c) It is distinctly defined that all the parts of these books are to be believed canonical, and at the same time the norm is handed down according to which the Council understood, and all the faithful ought to understand, the integrity and the canonical parts of these books. The norm is the custom of reading in the Catholic Church and the comprehension in the old Latin Vulgate edition: «if anyone, however, shall not have received these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical... let him be anathema». Finally d) although the Council had without doubt the scope of condemning the errors of the Innovators concerning the books of Scripture, and of curbing the rashness of certain Catholics too, as is evident of itself and established from history (Pallav. VI. c. II. n. 8); nevertheless the Council itself declares the direct and immediate scope of the decree to be this, that the divine authority of the sources should be established, from which the holy synod would draw the testimonies in confirming dogmas and restoring morals. «Let all therefore understand (it says), by what order and way the synod itself, after having laid the foundation of the profession of faith, is to proceed, and by which especially testimonies and safeguards it is to use in confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the Church» ¹

There follows then the second decree, by which the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate edition of the sacred books is declared. This, however, as we have demonstrated elsewhere (Tract. de Script.), comes down finally to this, that the sacred books under this form of the Vulgate edition are declared conformable to the primitive text, as having once been written with God inspiring, although in another language and in another accidental form. And so we are commanded to acknowledge this Vulgate text as the inspired text, not indeed as regards the words but as regards the things and the senses. The reason by which this authenticity is manifested and from which it is concluded by the Council is the same already indicated in the definition of the divinity or original authenticity of these books, namely the ancient use in the Catholic Church. The scope also is the same dogmatic one that is declared in the former decree; in this second one is indicated the no small utility of the Church of God, and that it may be established concerning the sincerity of the divine books under this form of the Latin edition, which «in public readings, disputations, preachings, expositions» is ordered to be held as authentic. Indeed the Council itself was not to bring forward texts and testimonies of Scripture from anywhere else than from this Latin edition; whence this decree, like the preceding one, pertained to declaring the divine authority of the testimonies which the synod was to use in confirming dogmas and restoring morals ². 2°. In the very context described the norm is manifestly handed down according to which the extension of the definition is to be understood, and judgment made about the parts of the books to be received as sacred and canonical. a) It must indeed be conceded, and can be demonstrated from the very scope of both decrees and from other most manifest reasons, of which we have spoken in their place, that the conformity of the Vulgate edition was not declared as one of supreme perfection pertaining to each and every particular; and in like manner that by the name of «the parts of the books, as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition», not all the words or clauses, of whatsoever kind they may be, are to be understood. But on the other hand b) from the scope which the Council itself teaches it set before both decrees, it seems most manifest that all the parts are declared canonical, as they are contained in the old Vulgate edition, which of themselves and directly enunciate some dogma or rule of morals, and that consequently in the same sense the Vulgate edition is declared authentic. Unless this were so, the decree would in no way correspond to its scope. For if by the name of the parts which are declared canonical were understood, as the adversaries wish, only the deuterocanonical parts of Daniel, Esther, etc., and if the authenticity of the Vulgate were declared only in a confused way, without its being authentic in the special texts that are of themselves dogmatic; by force of this decree no security would have been established either for the Fathers of the Council themselves or for the faithful, that the testimonies which the synod professed it would use for confirming dogmas and for reforming morals in the Church, drawn from all the books and parts of books as they were contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are texts of inspired Scripture and not human texts introduced either from elsewhere or by the translator. But that the decree pertained especially to this security concerning the divinity of the instrument, from which the testimonies for confirming dogmas were to be sought, the synod itself professes. Therefore it must be said that the canonical authority of the books is declared in all their parts that are of themselves dogmatic, as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition. c) Those who measure the extension of the decree by the polemical scope of the Council against the Innovators, which we indeed admit (Pallavic. VI. c. II. n. 4. 8), must also confess that a dogmatic text, used most frequently in the Church for many centuries and most known to all, which however about the time of the Council began to be eliminated by some and especially by the Innovators, is necessarily understood to be comprehended in those words by which we are commanded to receive «the books entire with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church». d) Not without absurdity can it be asserted that the sense of both decrees is this, that the canonical authority of the books and the authenticity of the Vulgate is to be believed only in those parts in which the critical and historical examination can demonstrate the genuineness of the text. For in this way that would be sanctioned which the Council wanted to exclude by its decrees, namely that the Scriptures, at least in controverted places, should be permitted to the examination of individuals. But the canonical authority of the parts and the authenticity of the Vulgate is decreed in that state of the edition, as it has been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and was approved by the long use of so many centuries in the Church herself, and was used by the Council itself as a divine instrument in matters of faith and morals.

This last thing that we have said is clear from the very nature and character of a conciliar definition. The reason manifesting the authenticity, whether of the books and their parts that are of themselves dogmatic, or of the old Vulgate edition, was for the Council the dogmatic principle that the Holy Spirit assisting the Church would not have permitted a human text to be used in the universal Church, by common consent and public use through several centuries, as the written word of God ³. Whence it is not, after all, to be explored by a critical examination whether a dogmatic text of this kind existed either in the primitive original edition or at least in the primitive Latin version, so that from such an examination a decision might be made about its genuineness or supposititiousness. But if a text is of itself of such a character that the definition of the Church pertains to it, and if at the time of the Council it was accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church in the manner we have said and was contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition, i. e. had been contained for a long time already, the text ought to be judged, as regards its sense, conformable to the primitive sentence written under divine inspiration. Indeed this would be true even if it were established by certain demonstration that the text had been received into the Latin edition as from a later return; for this alone would prove that the true reading had been preserved for us not indeed by the first author of the Latin version, but in another way. These things follow necessarily from the principle of the assistance of the Spirit of truth leading into all truth, and from the infallibility of the Church in the custody of the word of God, whether written or handed down, depending on it. Nor, however, is it on that account denied that those Catholic men merit very well and are most worthy of praise who spend their labor in exploring the various readings, whether of the original text or of the Vulgate edition; for since truth cannot contradict truth, studies of this kind contribute to confirming, or at least to illustrating, the reason of the genuine reading. For although this can be established in the parts that are of themselves dogmatic from a dogmatic principle, to which consequently criticism itself must be subservient; there are nevertheless many other things that can be established almost only by critical and historical safeguards, and in those very parts that are of themselves dogmatic at least the manner of conservation is illustrated by the same safeguards. When, therefore, the matter is not about a whole book or about larger parts, which could almost of themselves constitute a book, or without which the book to which they belong would already fail in its substantials and would in some way become another; but if the question is about single testimonies and clauses; from what has been said thus far two things are required and suffice, that they ought to be judged comprehended in the decrees of the Council, sess. IV, as canonical parts of the books of Scripture. First, namely, that the texts be certainly of themselves dogmatic, directly pertaining to confirming dogmas and to establishing the rule of Christian morals; then secondly, that those same texts have been received by the Church herself through the long use of centuries as the written word of God, and have been accustomed to be read in the old Latin Vulgate edition (which, at least for the Latin Church, which the Council in these decrees especially has before its eyes, almost coincides with the long use of centuries). This comprehension in the synodal definition will be the more certain if the matter is about texts which, although marked with that twofold character, were nevertheless at the time of the Council attacked or rejected by the Innovators as spurious. 3°. If we now apply these principles and this norm to that about which we ask, no one can deny that the text of 1 Io. V. 7 is comprehended by both Tridentine decrees, and is declared a canonical part of Sacred Scripture. a) Even without entering upon the critical and historical examination of the primitive state of the Latin version, certainly no one can deny that at the time of the Council, at least from several centuries already, in public and private use, from the persuasion of all the Pastors, Doctors, and faithful, this text was held as a part of Sacred Scripture in the Vulgate edition, which was proper to the whole Western Church. All confess that, at least from the IX century, this passage exists in the codices of the Vulgate edition with so constant a consensus, that if it is lacking in some codd., it is to be thought an exception from the rule and the common reading (vid. Apparat. Crit. Bengelii in h. l. § 19. 21). The text was recited from time immemorial in the sacred liturgy ⁴; used without any signification of doubt as a testimony of Sacred Scripture in the Fourth Lateran Council; in the same way in the decretals inserted in the body of the law it is used to prove dogmas ⁵; at the time of the compilation of the false decretals (IX century) cited as a most known part of Sacred Scripture in the letters supposititiously attributed to Hyginus and John II; commended, and its omission attributed to a dangerous error, in the Prologue to the catholic epistles, which under the name of s. Hieronymus was from the most ancient times prefixed in the codd. of the Bibles and here and there in the more ancient editions ⁶; commented upon in that same place without any trace of doubt about its genuineness by the interpreters, namely in the glossa ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo and the interlinear gloss of Anselm of Laon, whose authority was magisterial among all the Doctors (as they used to say); used as the written word of God with the same confidence as a testimony, and from it the proof of the faith derived, by all the theologians in all the schools, and by the Pastors in the instruction of the Christian people. There is no need to name Rupert, s. Bernard, Hugh of Saint Victor, the Master of the Sentences, s. Thomas, s. Bonaventure. Truly, therefore, it is evident that the passage about which we ask, from at least seven centuries up to the Council of Trent, constituted a part of the canonical epistle, as it was accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and was contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition. b) Moreover, that the text is concerned with things of the faith revealed of themselves and is dogmatic in an eminent manner, needs no proof. That some answer, that the dogma of the most holy Trinity is expressed in other places of Scripture; whence they say, even if the genuineness of the testimony in this context of 1 Io. V. 7 is denied, it is nevertheless not denied that the same thing and sense is contained in the Scriptures; this answer, I say, will satisfy no one. Without doubt the conservation and sufficient proposal of revelation, according to Catholic principles, depends on some particular text, indeed on Scripture itself in general, neither uniquely nor principally; it is also most true that the doctrine of the most holy Trinity is contained in other places of Scripture and can be demonstrated from them, as we saw in the preceding theses. But the text of 1 Io. V. 7 constitutes a part of a special context, and in this form and in these words, explicitly enunciating the profession of the Church and «the substance of the New Testament, in that thenceforth the Father, the Son and the Spirit, three, being believed, present one God» (Tertull. contr. Prax. c. 31), another place is not found in Scripture. The Catholics indeed with whom we deal ought to notice the manner of disputing of the Protestants, who, attacking the genuineness, contend that so explicit a proposition of this mystery is alien to all the Scriptures. The Socinians and Rationalists would not with so great contention and on any offered occasion cry out that this text is spurious, unless they abhorred the truth so plainly enunciated in it; others, who profess to believe the dogma of the most holy Trinity, nevertheless deny that it pertains to the fundamental articles, because they do not acknowledge as genuine this place, in which alone they say the mystery is explicitly proposed ⁷. c) Finally, just as the Innovators and some more audacious Catholics (among whom at the Council of Trent Cajetan was named) attacked the authority of the deuterocanonical books and of certain parts of the books, so at the same time, a little before the Council, not without the offense of Catholics, they rejected this very Johannine comma about the witnesses in heaven. Luther in a public disputation in the year 1522 attacked its genuineness, and in his German version of the Bible eliminated the passage (Michaëlis Introd. in N. Testam. l. c. sect. 7); «Bugenhagen, Luther's colleague, with a great adjuration deterred all from inserting the saying thereafter» (Bengel. Apparat. critic. in h. l. § 9), nor was it admitted into the Bibles of the Lutherans until after the death of Luther, first in the year 1574. Erasmus in his two first editions of the New Testament omitted the passage, and only in the third, in the year 1522, moved by the indignation of the Catholics, received it from the Britannic cod. «There was found, he himself says in the later annotations to h. l., among the English one Greek codex, in which ὅτι τρεῖς etc. is contained. From this Britannic codex, therefore, we restored what in ours was said to be lacking, lest anyone should have an occasion for calumniating» (vid. Michaëlis l. c. sect. 6). Cajetan in his commentaries on h. l. had also himself insinuated a doubt about the genuineness. Resuming, therefore, the proper reasons of this passage which we have set forth, it cannot be denied that by both decrees of the oecumenical Council concerning the canonical parts of the books and concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate this text is comprehended, which most certainly is a part of the canonical book, «as it was accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and is contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition»; which in an eminent manner pertains to the parts that are of themselves dogmatic, which the decree for its scope peculiarly regarded; which in a manner almost similar to the deuterocanonical books, having been at that time called into doubt by the Innovators not without the offense of Catholics, was to be held by the Council in the same census with the deuterocanonical books ⁸ by reason of the very ancient use in the Catholic Church, on which use the Tridentine Fathers, defining the canon of the sacred books with all their parts, leaned. II. Since the Church, as I have said, in the custody of the word of God and hence in her authentic judgments is not ruled by new revelations perpetually succeeding one another, but is fortified against error by the assistance of the Spirit of truth; therefore it is necessary that by humanly knowable indications the truth to be defined be manifested, and in the present matter the divine origin of the book or text to which the judgment of the Church refers. The reason to which the Fathers of the Council, in the definition to be published under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, looked as to a sufficient manifestation of the truth, is indicated in the decree itself to have been the public, long-lasting and constant use of the Church, by which, without further examination, it was established that these books with all their parts had been received, from at least many centuries already, as the written word of God. This reason, moreover, itself has for its foundation the principle that the Spirit of truth, assisting the Church and leading into all truth, could not permit that the universal Church, in her public acts, in the decrees of faith, in the liturgy, in the instruction of the Christian people, in the explanation and defense of the doctrine through many centuries, should have and venerate as the written word of God that which in reality, nevertheless, was not such. And so not only the assistance of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as it is regarded as present to the Council, is the active principle from which the infallibility of the definition is derived; but also the assistance of the same Spirit, inasmuch as it is regarded as perpetual in the Church, was for the Council the objective reason of that same definition (cf. Tractat. de Scripturis th. XVI. n. I. Although indeed the infallibility of the definition depends on the assistance of the Holy Spirit under which it is published, and on this promised assistance our certainty about the truth of the definition leans; nevertheless it pertains to the office of theology to inquire into and declare the very manner in which the preaching and conservation of the truth through the course of ages has stood. And so in the present question we can inquire into the use of this text of 1 Io. V. 7 in the Church in ancient times, and the manner in which it has been preserved down to us. That from at least the IX century the text with which we are dealing was held in public use in the whole Western Church as a part of s. Scripture, is certain from what was said a little before. But not only by the argument of prescription, since especially considering the constitution and principles of the Church, such a use can be explained only by derivation from antiquity; but directly also from the monuments still remaining it is established that the text was acknowledged as genuine in the Church even in the ancient age, as far as we can trace the vestiges of the Latin version. The text, I say, existed, and is shown to have been used by the Fathers in Africa, Italy, Gaul, Spain as a most known and most weighty part of Sacred Scripture, going back from the eighth to the third or second century. In the conference instituted by the order of King Huneric at Carthage in the month of February of the year 484, the Catholic bishops offered «not only of all Africa but also of many islands» (Victor Vit. de persec. Vandal. l. II. n. 18) a profession of faith, which they then on the XII Kalends of May sent through four bishops of the provinces of Numidia and Byzacena to King Huneric ⁹. From the testimonies of Scripture against the Arian bishops they prove in the first part, n. 1-8, the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, in the other part, n. 9-23, the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, and so the one nature of three distinct persons. In this second part of the profession, written in the name of all the Catholic bishops against the Arian bishops, the most powerful and implacable enemies, this very passage about the three witnesses in heaven is brought forward as a testimony no less known and certain than clear and irrefragable. «And that we may teach, still more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is of one divinity with the Father and the Son, it is proved by the testimony of John the Evangelist. For he says: three are they who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one» (in libello fidei n. II, which is book III of the Historiae de persec. Vand. of Victor of Vita). Here some things are most worthy of observation. a) To whomsoever the composition of this libellus fidei was committed, whether to Eugenius of Carthage or to others or to several among the bishops, certainly no one would have dared in such a profession, to be approved by all the bishops and to be proposed in the common name to the Arians, to insert a text as of John the Evangelist, nor would all the others, more than four hundred and sixty bishops, with no one contradicting, have admitted the text, unless it had been accustomed to be read by common use in the Churches of Africa and of the islands. b) If the bishops had sensed that the Arians did not acknowledge this text as genuine, nor had it in their codices; much more, indeed, if the passage existed only in rare copies and was not most known and beyond controversy among the Catholics themselves, they would never, in the common name of the Catholics, have offered such a testimony, as a «clearer than light» confutation of the Arian heresy, to be read and examined by their most hostile enemies. Concerning this persuasion of the bishops, that not even the Arians could call the genuineness of the text into doubt, Vigilius of Thapsus, one of the bishops who had offered the profession (named in the last place among the bishops of the province of Byzacena), furnishes an argument besides. For Vigilius expressly appeals to the reading of this testimony among the Arians themselves: «why, since you read that John the Evangelist said that the three are one, do you take diverse natures in the persons?» Vigil. Taps. de Trin. l. VII. Bibl. Max. PP. T. VIII. p. 789. That therefore Michaëlis (Introd. in N. T. c. 31. sect. 3. T. IV) and others should wish to reduce the whole authority of this profession of faith almost to one Eugenius of Carthage, is absurd ¹⁰. c) Let it be observed that in the first part of the profession, as long as it stops at demonstrating the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, the most holy Confessors string together a very long series of testimonies from all the books, especially of the New Testament and also from 1 Io., yet they do not touch this passage of 1 Io. V. 7. In the same way the author of the book against Pintas the Arian in the first part of the treatise, and s. Fulgentius in the whole l. II. ad Trasimundum, among the innumerable testimonies of Scripture by which they demonstrate the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, do not use this text, which nevertheless they most certainly acknowledged and cited in other places, where they were dealing with the three divine persons together. Hence you may see how overhasty and fallacious is the conclusion which most of the adversaries constitute from the negative argument too generally. The Fathers (they say), disputing with the Arians, did not cite this most opportune passage; therefore they did not have it in their codices. In this way it was easy for Scholz, after the Rationalist critics, to cite a series of Fathers, all of whom he brings forward as undoubted witnesses of the interpolation, for no other reason than that they do not use John's testimony. As long as the attack of the heretics was directed against the person of the Son — whether by denying His distinction from the Father or His divinity — although all those heretics are convicted from their own principles of having erred also concerning the person of the Holy Spirit; we see nevertheless that even the defense of the Fathers in the earlier centuries for the most part kept itself within the limits of the dogma that was directly attacked ¹¹. In this disputation, however, about the person of the Son a citation from the epistle of John was not necessary, since most brilliant testimonies were at hand from the Gospel, by which the distinction and consubstantiality of the Father and the Son are enunciated. We do not, however, on that account deny that it can be shown from certain contexts of the Fathers that they either did not have our comma of v. 7 in their codices, or did not have it as certain and beyond controversy; this alone we say, that for the negative argument to have some force, the general assertion does not suffice by which the Critics are wont to decide too expeditiously that the Fathers did not know the text, because they do not use it where a citation seems to us to have been opportune.

If in the V century the testimony was received by the use of the whole African Church, it is not surprising that we see Vigilius of Thapsus and, not long after, Fulgentius and the author of the book against Pintas appealing to it in their disputations against the Arians without any suspicion that it might perhaps be rejected by anyone. «The united name of the Godhead is clearly declared, John the Evangelist saying in his epistle: three are they who bear witness in heaven, the Father and the Word and the Spirit, and they are one in Jesus Christ..... See, that in the deity and in the substance of the fullness they are one in all things, and in the names of the persons they are three» Vigil. Trin. l. I. Bibl. Max. PP. T. VIII. p. 775; l. X. p. 793. The same form of citing as in Vigilius is in the fragment of a dialogue between an orthodox and a heretic in Nova Bibl. PP. Card. Mai T. I. p. 496. Likewise s. Fulgentius expressly appeals to the text of John in the book of Responses to the objections of the Arians, in obiect. 10., and in the book de Trin. c. 4; likewise the author of the book adv. Pintam n. 8. (Opp. s. Fulgent. ed. Paris. 1684. p. 68. 331. 540). But in the former place (ad obiect. Io. Arian.) Fulgentius joins with his citation another one already used in the III century by s. Cyprian. The words of Fulgentius are: «In the Father therefore and the Son and the Holy Spirit we receive the unity of substance; we do not dare to confound the persons. For blessed John the Apostle testifies, saying: three are they who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and the three are one. Which also blessed Martyr Cyprian confesses in the epistle on the unity of the Church... and immediately he inserted these testimonies from the Scriptures (Cyprian): the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again of the Father and the Son and the Spirit it is written: and the three are one». For Fulgentius, therefore, together with the other African bishops, there was absolutely no doubt that in the Churches of Africa in the III century the passage about the three witnesses in heaven had been read and had been cited by Cyprian.

The critics, however, have wanted to weave quibbles about this citation of Cyprian, lest they should be disturbed in their confidence, with which, along with Scholz and others, they pronounce that Vigilius of Thapsus seems to be the first who appealed to this comma, and further that «with good reason the subdititious comma is rejected not only from the text but also from the margin». They say, namely, that Cyprian in this place (de unitate Ecclesiae ed. Baluz. Paris. 1726. p. 195), where s. Fulgentius thought appeal was made to the witnesses in heaven, does not appeal to v. 7, but to the spirit, water and blood of v. 8, according to the mystical interpretation by which these three were understood to signify the three persons, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, as is established from Augustine (contr. Maximin. Arian. l. II. c. 22. n. 3). But in truth a) before Augustine such an interpretation of the thing signified by the spirit, water and blood had never been heard ¹². b) Augustine had recourse to that mystical signification solely to uphold what he had affirmed universally, that in Scripture several things are never said to be one, except those which are consubstantial. Moreover Augustine himself did not propose that mystical interpretation as certain and to be held; but as if conjecturing he asked whether in this way the objection against that hermeneutical canon of his could not be solved. Certainly, therefore, neither would Augustine himself ever have used v. 8 as a convincing and of itself clear demonstration of the unity of nature in three distinct persons ¹³. Hence that interpretation, just as before Augustine it had come into no one's mind, so after him was adopted only by very few, moved by the authority of the holy Doctor ¹⁴; and indeed considered in itself it seems far-fetched and not probable (cf. de Rubeis in Dissertatione de tribus in coelo testibus c. I).

When therefore Cyprian and the other Fathers, especially those more ancient than Augustine, or even later ones who do not depend on his authority (like Pseudo-Athanasius in Disp. contr. Arium n. 44), for demonstrating the dogma of the Most Holy Trinity simply say: «of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: the three are one», it is altogether certain that they appeal not to the 8th but to our 7th comma.

Facundus of Hermiane, indeed, who, since he lived among the Greeks at Constantinople, wrote books for the three Chapters to the Emperor Justinian, transfers the cited passage of s. Cyprian (l. I. p. 7.) to v. 8. But in the first place Facundus seems to have confounded into one the Greek codices, in which v. 7 was lacking, and the Latin codices, in which, at least in the age of Facundus and in the Churches of Africa, the verse existed — after what we have said this could not be denied except impudently. This confusion appears from the very manner of citing; for on the one hand he speaks as if he were wholly ignorant of the 7th comma, on the other hand he retains from the Latin codices the words «on earth»: «three are they who give testimony on earth» etc.; but these require the corresponding testimony of the witnesses in heaven. Hence from the Greek codices, where the omission of v. 7 had already happened, also from v. 8 the words «on earth» were struck out. Moreover, since Facundus, writing among the Greeks and to the Emperor of the Greeks, either dissembled v. 7 or at that time did not admit it on account of the reading of the Greek codices — an African man, to whom the argumentation from 1 Io. V for the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, so often repeated by the bishops of his fatherland, must have been most known, preferred to follow and almost to transcribe the mystical interpretation of Augustine on the 8th comma, lest he should be wholly destitute of the argument so often inculcated in Africa against the Arians from the words «the three are one». And with this method adopted it was easy to transfer the citation of Cyprian too to that same v. 8. But the thing itself and the history of this mystical interpretation cry out against it; and if it is a question of authority, that authority is certainly stronger on the side of s. Fulgentius than on the side of Facundus.

Let it therefore remain settled that already in the III century the reading of v. 7 flourished in the African Church, which we have demonstrated to have been common in that same Church in the V century and afterwards. This being posited, there can be no doubt that even in the time of Tertullian the same passage was accustomed to be read in Africa; and unless one has hardened his mind by prejudice, anyone will readily concede the allegation in the book contra Prax. c. 25. In the preceding chapters Tertullian had demonstrated the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, where among many other things he used that testimony of Christ, Io. X: I and the Father are one: «blind, who do not see; first, that ego and Pater are the signification of two, then in the last word, sumus, not of one person, because it is said in the plural; then that it is unum sumus, not unus sumus», etc. ibid. c. 22. Now in c. 25 he proceeds to the demonstration of the whole Trinity, namely that not only, according to what Tertullian set down above, are the Father and the Son, but in an altogether equal manner there are three, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, of one substance. To prove this very thing pertain these words: «so the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes three coherent ones, one from the other; who are three as one, not one; as it was said: I and the Father are one, with respect to the unity of substance, not to the singularity of number» ibid. c. 25. That «I and the Father are one», brought forward above to prove the consubstantiality of the two, is adduced here only to persuade that the other saying must be understood in the same sense: «the three are one»; but this saying is set down to prove the consubstantiality of the three, which proof would be nothing unless the words were cited from the Scriptures. The disciple and the master agree, therefore, in altogether parallel citations:

Cyprian: «of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, who are three, one».

Tertullian: «The connexion of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete, and the three are one».

From these things we could now conclude that our seventh verse existed in the most ancient Latin version, produced «in the earliest times of the faith» (Aug. Doctr. Christ. l. II. n. 16), and which by the beginning of the third century in Africa had already «come into use» (cf. Tertull. Monogam. c. II; contr. Marc. II. c. 9; contr. Prax. c. 5), contrary to what Millius judged, who improbably conjectured that the citation of Tertullian and Cyprian was derived not from the Latin version but from Greek codices alone.

This reading in the old version is confirmed from the Speculum of Augustine published by Card. Mai (Nov. Bibl. PP. T. I. P. II. p. 6. 10) and from the Pseudo-Athanasian Enarratio on the Creed published by Iosephus Blanchinius (p. 40). Blanchinius thinks that this Enarratio was written in Latin in Africa before the rise of the heresy of Pelagius. The reasons by which the most eminent Cardinals Besutius and Maius claimed that Speculum for Augustine in preference to the Maurist opinion can be read in the Preface of Card. Mai, l. c. It is certain that in both little works the old Latin version is employed, as it was before the version of the Old Testament and the emendation of the New by s. Hieronymus. Now, twice in the Speculum and once in the Enarratio of the Creed the passage about the three witnesses in heaven is expressly cited. In the Speculum under ch. II on the distinction of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: «Likewise there: since three are they who bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus; and three are they who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one».

Again, under ch. III on the Holy Spirit the same citation recurs, with the witnesses on earth omitted. In the Enarratio of the Creed it is said most effectively: «Let John answer for us all, who, reclining familiarly on the breast of our Lord, was able to know the hidden mysteries of the whole teaching.... Three are they, he says, who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one. After these things, is it not for us that to lose such a faith is death and to have kept it is salvation?» ib. p. 40.

As regards Augustine, even if it may be permitted to doubt whether this Speculum has him as its very author, it could certainly in no way have happened that the holy Father in Africa in the fifth century was ignorant of our verse. Indeed, whoever would persuade himself that in the year 430, in which Augustine died, this verse was still unknown, and that at the time of the profession of faith offered in the year 484 a text of such importance was already in the common reading of the African Churches, he would have to weigh no less all the principles than the constancy and vigilance by which the Church was always governed in guarding the Holy Scriptures. How could, within those fifty years, with no one noticing, a universal change of such importance have taken place in Africa, where on account of a change of the version in a matter far smaller a huge tumult arose, so that the Bishop was compelled to return to the old and customary reading, «unwilling after a great danger to remain without his people» (Aug. ep. 71. n. 5). Nevertheless, since at the time of Augustine the verse was already lacking in many Greek codices, and hence this sort of emendation had without doubt migrated also into Latin exemplars somewhere, Augustine could in his polemical writings, namely against Maximinus, dissemble this testimony in accordance with his economic principle, that things which are somewhere called into doubt «are not brought forward with so great firmness against contradictors» (vid. Tract. de ss. Script.). At least he nowhere expressly cites the passage in the works that survive; on the sufficiently clear allusions, see de Rubeis, dissertat. cit. c. 6. and Card. Mai. Praefat. ad Specul. Aug. p. VII. cf. Bengel. Apparat. crit. in h. l. § 20.

Now from the reading in the African Churches it would have to be concluded that the same reading was not lacking in the other Western Churches as well, even if we were destitute of express testimonies for proving that. Yet these testimonies are not lacking. To Spain belong the «Collectio testimoniorum Scripturae et Patrum», which F. A. Zaccarias judged to be older than s. Isidore, while Maffeius and Arevalus thought it could be attributed to Isidore himself (Opp. s. Isidori ed. Arevalo T. II. p. 27. seq.; Isidorian. c. 83); then the most celebrated codex of the Toletan Bibles, no more recent than the eighth century (cf. P. Vercellone Apparat. Bibl. T. I. Lect. variar. Vulg. p. 84); Etherius and Beatus against Elipandus; before these Idacius, if he is the author of the disputation against Varimadus (cf. Ruinart. Commentar. in Hist. persec. Vand. c. 4. n. 7. p. 442). In these monuments the express seventh verse about the witnesses in heaven is found together with the eighth about the witnesses on earth, as the genuine text of the epistle of John (Opp. s. Isidor. T. VII. p. 291; Lectiones var. ex cod. Tolet. in vindiciis. Vulg. Blanchinii p. CCIII; contra Elipand. l. I. n. 26. Galland. T. XIII. p. 296; contra Varimad. Bibl. Max. PP. T. V. p. 729).

In Gaul in the fourth century Phoebadius (otherwise Soebadius) Aginnensis cited the passage in almost the same way as Tertullian and Cyprian (l. contr. Arian. Bibl. Max. PP. T. IV. p. 305); in express words, before the middle of the fifth century, Eucherius Lugdunensis (unless another be the author) transcribes both verses in the book of Formulae spirituales c. 11, where he treats of numbers, «which the mystical reason of the exempla makes more celebrated among the sacred writings» (Bibl. Max. T. VI. p. 838). «To the Trinity (it is referred) in the epistle of John: three are they who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; and three are they who give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water and the blood» ¹⁵.

In Italy Cassiodorus in the middle of the sixth century not only collected codices of the Scriptures, both Latin and Greek, or, as he says, the Greek Pandect, but in order that those which he left to his monastery of Vivarium might be most correct, he gave solicitous care, instituting a collation of the ancient Latin and Greek codices ¹⁶

Now indeed Cassiodorus adduces both verses, the seventh and the eighth, in his Complexiones (ed. Maffei post Histor. theolog. in opuscul. p. 145). On this passage of Cassiodorus, Maffeius rightly notes: «we learn now from our author that the Romans also had books of better note and more ancient speaking thus; for since with so great zeal he commanded his monks in Inst. div. lect. to use codices purged by the collation of the most excellent Greek text as well, and that in ambiguous places the authority of two or three ancient and corrected codices be sought, who would doubt that he himself first of all performed the same?» See the rest there. To this also belongs the codex of Cava, attributed by Card. Mai to the seventh or eighth century, and Ambrosius Ansbertus in the middle of the eighth century in Apoc. l. I. (Bibl. Max. T. XIII. p. 415), in both of which monuments our verse exists.

Therefore in the Church of the West we can show by positive documents not only that from the ninth century onward the common and public use of this testimony as canonical Scripture existed, but also its derivation from the earliest times of the faith, and its reading in the old Latin version¹⁷.

When a defender of the verse had asked I. D. Michaelis, one of the first assailants of verse 7, whence he himself knew that the Latin Fathers citing the verse had not had Greek codices, he replied with great haughtiness, «he had not thought that any beginner in theology was ignorant that the Latin Fathers, except Hieronymus, not knowing Greek, could not have used Greek codices» l. c. sect. 3. Therefore did not even that critical man know that most of the Latin Fathers who are cited as witnesses for this verse — Tertullian, Cyprian, Vigilius, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus — knew the Greek language very well? Whoever said that the other Fathers, Hilary, Ambrose, etc., did not know Greek has never compared their books with the writings of the Greek Fathers, Origen, Basil, etc. after s. Hieronymus, and much more as it was received before and after Alcuin's recension.

Since God constituted the visible head of His whole Church in the Latin Church, in it and through it He wished to preserve with special providence, just as the integrity of the faith universally, so also the integrity of the written word, as is openly evident from the history of the deuterocanonical books, whose authenticity, after many fluctuations had arisen among the Eastern Doctors, was vindicated from imminent obscuration into the open light chiefly by the constant tradition, use, vigilance, and definitions of the Latin Church. Hence to the Fathers of Trent, by the wonderful providence of the Holy Spirit, the use of the Latin Church in the old Vulgate edition shone before them and provided the safest norm for both decrees, both concerning the canonical books and concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate.

On the contrary, in the East, just as there was greater dissension concerning the deuterocanonical books in general, so a great obscurity occurs concerning this text of John. If one should wish to appeal to the passages of the Greek Fathers where they speak of the Trinity, of the three hypostases and the unity of essence (as I see has been done by a recent vindicator of genuineness, an Englishman, Carolus Forster), testimonies would of course be at hand without number. But surely the arguments do not reach the goal. Nor do those arguments seem more convincing which are usually brought forward from the dialogue «Philopatris», about which nevertheless see, if you have leisure, Cave Hist. Litter. T. I. p. 17. The valid positive documents are reduced almost to these.

Origen appeals to the words «three are one» as to an irrefragable authority, in order to demonstrate the unity of nature in three distinct persons (in Ps. 122. v. 2. Opp. T. II. p. 821). Likewise, to demonstrate the unity of the divine nature in three persons, «these three are one» is expressly cited as the words of John, in the disputation supposed to be of Athanasius against Arius n. 44 (Opp.

Athan. T. II. p. 229). Euthymius Zigabenus (Panoplia P. I. tit. VII. Bibl. Max. PP. T. XIX. p. 47) cites in this manner: «one is said of those things which are of the same essence, when the nature is the same and the persons distinct; whence that saying: and the three are one» ἓν λέγεται ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοουσίων μέν, φύσεως ἑτερότης δὲ ὑποστάσεων· ὡς τὸ καὶ τὰ τρία ἕν εἰσι (restored from context; Euthymius Zigabenus Panoplia I. tit. VII) ¹⁸.

Furthermore, the whole verse was quoted and is extant in Greek and Latin in the acts of the Fourth Lateran Council, at which some Greek bishops also were present (Hard. VII. p. 18); afterwards it was cited by Emmanuel Calecas, a Greek writing for the Greeks in the fourteenth century (Combefis. Auctuar. II. P. II. p. 219), and by Joseph Bryennius, a schismatic Byzantine monk, at the beginning of the fifteenth century (Griesbach, dissert. cit. p. 11). The same verse is now found in the ecclesiastical lesson of the Greeks and Russians and in the modern Greek version (Bengel l. c. § 22) ¹⁹. For the existence in the old codices there can be adduced directly the testimony in the Prologue to the catholic epistles under the name of Jerome, indirectly the collation of codices undertaken by Cassiodorus. Of the Greek codices that survive, three are named in which the verse is found: the Dublin (Monfortianus), the Ottobonian (in the Vatican), the Neapolitan (11th century). The Complutensian edition and Erasmus's third likewise received it, and afterwards all the rest until Rationalism prevailed among the Protestants.

Finally, if we look at the context of the epistle of John, it certainly seems broken with this comma omitted, and with it admitted it is so well-joined and coherent with itself that, if the verse were found somewhere in suitable witnesses, one would have to congratulate oneself on the most opportune filling of the lacuna. Moved by this consideration of the context, the Protestant Bengel himself exclaims: «the adamantine coherence of the verses compensates for every poverty of the codices.... This saying (v. 7) can be recognized with more certainty than a part of a leaf lost from some book, sought here and there, found somewhere, and in the whole of its texture agreeing with the part not lost» (l. c. § 28). Certainly, with v. 7 cut off, the expression of v. 8 in the masculine gender is very strange: «because three are..... these three are one»; nor does any sufficiently apt explanation of it seem able to be given (cf. Gregor. Naz. or. 31. al. 37. n. 19), which appears most manifest from the coherence with verse 7. Moreover — and this is even more serious — in the following v. 9 that: «the testimony of God, because he has testified concerning his Son μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν μεμαρτύρηκε), altogether demands verse 7, and with it lacking has nothing to which it may be referred. Finally, the congruence of this verse with the Gospel of John, both in respect of the matter and in respect of the manner of speaking, is most manifest, if you compare Io. V. 31-37; VIII. 14-18; XV. 26 ²⁰.

I do not now ask whether this whole demonstration would be sufficient, if the matter concerned a book abandoned to private industry or negligence. But if the talk were of a Code of the fundamental laws of the republic committed to the custody of public authority, certainly a public use of this kind reaching back to the very first beginnings would be a sufficient demonstration of authenticity, so that no legitimate doubt could be admitted; and if a suit were brought, the authenticity could and ought to be juridically declared. But here we are concerned with the integrity of Scripture in some part of it of the gravest importance, and so we are concerned with the Code of faith committed by divine institution not to private industry but to the public custody of the Church under the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore such a public and constant use of the Church, such as we have shown, in a text that is dogmatic in itself is a sufficient demonstration that the text was legitimately admitted into the codex of the Scriptures; but it would not have been legitimately admitted unless it had first been written by the Apostle John. Whence, even setting aside the Tridentine decrees and looking only at the use in the Church in itself, no doubt about the genuineness could be admitted. The Church herself, moreover, had available reasons knowable in a human way, which would have been abundantly sufficient for passing judgment on the genuineness.

With this genuineness established, we see the manner of its preservation to be this: that the text certainly passed from the Greek exemplars into the version established in the first times of the faith and received by the Latin Church, and through this ecclesiastical version above all it has always been preserved in public use. Nor, however, is it therefore necessary to affirm that this use was equally universal at every time and in all regions; for after the lacuna introduced in many Greek codices, perhaps in the fourth century, and spread more widely, it could hardly happen that Latin books here and there would not be conformed to them, as even now certain Latin codices show, which however were written not before the sixth century, at which time it most clearly stands that our reading was acknowledged and used by the Latin Fathers. But with this variety introduced among the Easterns and from there some hesitation also arising in the West, as happened almost in regard to whole deuterocanonical books, it is no wonder if some Latin Fathers too (as Augustine) preferred rather to abstain from the use, especially the polemical use, of this testimony.

III. Since among the Protestants not only is the true Church of Christ not present, but from their fundamental principles neither is there any visible, lawful religious society which is contained and governed by authority, but there are only individual men, who are led by their own private judgment; hence also Scripture is not an instrument under the custody and authentic interpretation of public authority, destined for society itself, but is a book destined and permitted to the examination and knowledge of individuals. Therefore just as no authentic interpretation of the true sense, so no authentic declaration of genuineness is recognized, whether of a whole book or of individual texts; but the genuineness and hence the authenticity of the Scriptures is to be explored and known solely by individuals through historical and critical examination (see Tract. de Script.). From these principles, however, it follows that while the foundations of faith and religion are laid in human science and learning, at least for the greater part of men the authority of the Scriptures cannot stand, and by the learned themselves, to whose school the revealed doctrine of faith is reduced, according to the diversity of minds and the imperfection of science, sometimes more, sometimes fewer, sometimes all the sacred books are rejected as spurious or interpolated — not indeed rightly, but still without defection from the fundamental principles of the sect.

As to the clause therefore called into question, we do not now contend that critical and historical supports of such a kind are available that by them alone, even supposing the false principle of the Protestants, by which they use Scripture no differently than a profane and private book, the genuineness could be demonstrated as certain and placed beyond doubt²¹; but since from our catholic principles the genuineness is fully established, we at the same time affirm that the Protestants, from their principles and critical supports, cannot demonstrate the interpolation.

If you concede that our verse was lacking in Greek codices already from the fourth century onward more frequently, and somewhere perhaps even in the third century — whether that happened by the error of hasty scribes on account of the similarity of the words in both verses, as most suspect, and that it could have happened they confirm by an induction from examples of similar lacunae²²: or whether it was done deliberately for the observance of the disciplina arcani, as Bengel thought (l. c. § 25); or whether the propagation of the omission is to be referred to the work of Eusebius, to whom Constantine had committed the preparation of many codices for the Church of Constantinople (Euseb. Vita Constant. l. IV. c. 36), as the most recent author, the distinguished Le Hir, suggests (cf. Introd. in N. T. compiled by the distinguished H. Valroger T. II. p. 566); or whether you admit that the excision could have been done in many ways, but that you are ignorant of how it was done — if, I say, you concede this defect in many Greek codices of the fourth century and in some Latin ones afterwards conformed to their norm, the adversaries have nothing further that they could demonstrate as certain by critical supports. And yet from such a defect it can in no way be concluded that the dogmatic testimony which is shown by positive documents to have existed in the reading of the Latin Church from the remotest antiquity did not exist in the primitive edition of the epistle of John. Therefore they cannot demonstrate the interpolation by critical supports.

All the arguments which can be opposed against the genuineness and are wont to be brought upon the stage by the adversaries with no small apparatus are drawn from the codices of Scripture, from the writings of the Fathers, from the ancient versions.

1°. Greek codices older than the fifth century, or at the very most the fourth, they have none; of this supreme antiquity two or three are reckoned: the Vaticanus (B) with its twin, the Sinaiticus of Tischendorf, and the Alexandrinus (A), then one G. (Card. Passionei, now in the Bibliotheca Angelica) of the ninth or tenth century; all the rest are of more recent age, from the tenth to the fifteenth century. And so, except for three among the Greek codices that contain the catholic epistles, none survives older than the age of Charlemagne, but they were all written at that time when no one can deny that the reading of our comma 7 was common in the whole Latin Church. The codices are indeed derived from older ones, and the very considerable number of those in which the comma is lacking would already by itself demonstrate that the omission is older than the age in which the codices were written. But if you compare with one another this double series of documents, of which the one exhibits the clause from the ninth to the fifteenth century in the public and universal use of the whole Latin Church, while the other is constituted by Greek codices written almost by private work and authority, which in the same lapse of time commonly do not have it — certainly from a computation of codices of this kind you will never by any art derive a certain argument by which you demonstrate that the text written by John is in these private Greek exemplars²³, and that in the public use of the whole Western Church, with no one ever contradicting, a text interpolated in a matter of such importance was received, and that the same interpolation, with that authority of the codices of yours offering no obstacle, prevailed even among the schismatic Greeks!

2°. The scarcity of the older codices can be abundantly compensated by the writings of the Fathers, provided only that they are such that from the contexts it certainly stands that the Fathers did not read in their codices the text in question. For this, however, it does not suffice, a) that the Fathers do not cite our comma where they prove by testimonies of Scripture the divinity of the Word and the consubstantiality of the Father and of the Son, or where they prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit. What I say is most evident, as I showed above, from the manner of citing of those very Fathers who use our testimony. Tertullian adv. Praxeam, the African bishops in the Confession of Faith to Hunneric, s. Fulgentius l. II. ad Trasamundum and l. contra Fastidiosum (with the book de Trin. ad Felicem notarium compared), the same Fulgentius (or another author) against Pintas the Arian — for proving those heads of doctrine one by one they heap together many testimonies, among which however they do not place this one of ours; but where they treat of the Trinity in common, only then do they adduce also these words of John. b) It does not suffice to have shown that by certain Fathers verse 6 is joined immediately with our 8, so that you conclude from this that verse 7 was lacking. For Idacius (or another) contr. Varimadum, Cassiodorus, the Speculum of Augustine, the little book of Testimonies (among the works of s. Isidore), Etherius and Beatus, the Toletan codex and the Cavensis, as also very many other codices, join them in this way — all of whom, in inverted order, place our 8 after v. 6 and then 7. Finally c) it does not suffice that the Fathers cite the eighth comma without the seventh, if the scope is not the demonstration of the Holy Trinity but another, to which the 8th, not the 7th, verse is fitting.

Now with these conditions observed, without which nothing is established from the silence of the Fathers for the absence of the verse in their codices, it cannot be demonstrated that our comma was lacking to the Fathers of the third century. Mill diligently collected the passages of the Fathers in his annotations to this passage, who, although he thought that our testimony was unknown to all those Fathers, nay even that it was lacking in the Itala version, nevertheless sincerely defended its genuineness; from Mill afterwards Wetstein, Griesbach, Scholz and others transcribed the passages of the Fathers, and what he had set before himself as a difficulty to be solved, these took up as a certain argument of interpolation.

As to the Fathers therefore of the third century, Griesbach with his allies says: «Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria did not read the seventh comma, neither in the adumbrations rendered into Latin nor in the remaining works,

Hippolytus contra Noetum, Dionysius Alex. in ep. ad Paulum Samosatenum »: Further they add: «it is not cited by the Latin Fathers, where it would pertain to the matter most of all and could altogether be expected; to this belong the author de bapt. haeret. in Cyprian and Novatian».

Let us examine them individually. The place where Irenaeus ought to have cited comma 7, Mill judges to be l. III. c. 18 (which in the Massuet edition is the 16th). And yet in that chapter Irenaeus treats of the Incarnation, that Jesus Christ is one person, not one Jesus and another Christ according to the ravings of the Gnostics; whence there neither Mt. XXVIII. 19: «baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit», nor Io. X. 30: «I and the Father are one», is cited; nor did 1. Io. V. 7. pertain more to this. Nay, Irenaeus in the works left to us never cites Io. X. 30, and the other place, Mt. XXVIII. 19, only once (III. 19. al. 17.), to show that the Holy Spirit, the same one who is given to the faithful, descended upon Jesus Christ when baptized. Where, then, was the greater necessity of adducing 1. Io. V. 7 than Io. X. 30? Perhaps Irenaeus also lacked the text of the Gospel?

Clement of Alexandria in his undoubted works nowhere cites either Mt. XXVIII. 19. or Io. X. 30.; what greater necessity, then, of the Johannine comma? Only in the Excerpts of Theodotus at the end of the works of Clement in the Potter edition n. 61. is Io. X. 30. adduced to demonstrate the divinity of the person assuming the flesh; but of the Trinity there is there no mention.

Furthermore, if Catholic theologians were to adduce, with such assurance, the Latin Adumbrationes under the name of Clement, and perhaps also the book of Hippolytus against Noetus, and the letter of Dionysius, in support of their cause, I do not doubt that those men, κριτικώτατοι as they are, would cry out that suspect merchandise was being imported. Meanwhile, from those Adumbrationes (Bibl. Max. PP. III. p. 233) we shall never know what the author or interpreter read in the letter of John; for they consist of a few sentences culled from the letter. Hippolytus does not himself treat of the Trinity of persons, but of the distinction of the Father and the Son and of the Incarnation of the Word. Of the Trinity he makes mention only in passing, n. 14, with no other text adduced besides the formula of baptism. But, they say: « Dionysius often cites the eighth verse, but not the seventh, although he treats of the divinity of Christ and of the Trinity through almost the whole letter ». We answer: not often, but only in question 4, where he declares that we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ and reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, Dionysius cites the words of verse 8 twice in the same context: « and these three are one, the water and the blood and the spirit » (Opp. ed. de Magistris p. 230. 231). There, therefore, the discourse was not about the Trinity but about another matter, to which verse 7 had nothing to pertain, while verse 8 could be most aptly applied. But in this whole letter and in the other works published under his name neither Mt. XXVIII. 19 nor Io. X. 30 is ever cited; and what greater necessity (I ask again) can be shown for using this text of 1 Io. V. 7?

Two Latin writers of the third century remain. First, the author of the treatise on the baptism of heretics, they say, « joins verse 6 and verse 8, omitting the seventh ». But if we assume that the author, equally with the other Fathers, had in his codex the inverted order of clauses 7 and 8, they will be able to demonstrate by no argument that this is false. By this very fact, neither will it be demonstrated from that joining of the verses, and much less will it be suggested from the context, that clause 7 was lacking to the author. For he treats not of the Most Holy Trinity but of an entirely different matter. He distinguishes « three species of baptism: the baptism of the spirit, which is for the most part joined with the baptism of water », the baptism of water, and the baptism of blood. If, therefore, it is asked in what way baptism is one, « it is altogether manifest, he says, for that reason, because they are diverse species of one and the same baptism flowing forth from one wound into water and blood... And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism three ways, let us come also to the proof of the proposed narrative. For John says in his letter, teaching us about our Lord: this is he who came through water and blood, etc., v. 6. Because three bear testimony: the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one, v. 8; so that from these we may gather that water is wont to supply the spirit, and that blood, proper to men (martyrdom), is wont to supply the spirit, and that the spirit itself (desire with charity) is wont to supply the spirit » (Opp. Cypr. ed. Baluz. p. 364). Now, I ask, what need was there of our clause 7 for declaring this distinction of baptisms? That the author had it in his codex not interposed between v. 6 and v. 8, as it now is, but after those cited verses, we assume not without reason, although we have no need even of this assumption. Moreover, we demonstrated above that in Africa, where this author was writing, the clause was wont to be read in the third century.

The other Latin writer who is objected is Novatian, « who, in l. de Trinitate, proves with many testimonies of Scripture that Christ, as also the Holy Spirit, is God, and yet passes over this place, certainly in the highest degree opportune ». The same answer returns. Novatian indeed treats at length of the divinity of Christ, of the distinction of the Father and the Son, and briefly also, c. 29, of the Holy Spirit; he does not, however, institute a proof from the Scriptures concerning the three persons in common; whence, although (c. 12) he adduces that saying of Christ, Mt. XXVIII. 20: « behold, I am with you even to the consummation of the age », he nevertheless never uses the text of v. 19, expressing at once all three persons: « baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ». What is there, then, why you should wonder at the omission of this testimony of 1 Io. V. 7 as well?

From the Fathers of the third century, therefore, no witness can be brought forth for the absence of the verse in the codices already at that age; but witnesses can be cited for its existence: Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian.

Among the Fathers, then, of the fourth and fifth centuries there are indeed some, such as Cyril of Alexandria (Thesaur. T. V. P. I. p. 463), who in their contexts supply a positive argument that this verse was either lacking in their codices or was deliberately dissembled by them, because at that time it was already lacking in more or fewer codices. But contexts of this kind are quite rare, so that the long series of names which Griesbach described almost entirely from Mill, and from him Scholz (with many errors added), must be restricted to altogether few Fathers. Most certainly out of place are cited by them, among the witnesses of the omission: Alexander of Alexandria in the letter to Alexander of Constantinople, the Council of Sardica in the synodal letter to all the Churches (Hard. I. p. 295. 661), and (whether by manifest fraud or ignorance) the Council of Nicaea itself. For in those letters there is no treatment of the three persons in common, and therefore neither is Mt. XXVIII. 19 cited; nay, for the very divinity of the Son texts of Scripture are used most sparingly in the Sardican letter. But the disputations about the Holy Spirit, which Gelasius of Cyzicus, at the end of the fifth century, reported as held, as it were, in the Council of Nicaea with the philosophers of the Gentiles, are without doubt supposititious, whatever be the case with the omission of John's clause in these Gelasian disputations (Hard. I. 40. seqq.). Although, however, the individual Fathers, considered each by himself and separately, supply a positive argument for proving the absence of the clause only in very few cases; nevertheless I shall not deny what I conceded at the beginning: that from the common silence among

the Greek Fathers, for that time in which the dispute against heretics was carried on deliberately not only about the person of the Son but about the Holy Spirit and about the three divine persons, and from which time sufficiently ample demonstrations of the Catholic dogma survive, and therefore for the closing fourth century and thereafter, it can be concluded that the verse was already lacking in many Greek codices, and thence also in some Latin ones.

I do not wish to pass over in silence here what the adversaries boast concerning St. Leo the Great. « Leo the Great, says Griesbach (p. 13), transcribes the whole context, but skips over this verse in the celebrated letter to Flavian, translated into the Greek tongue and read out in the Council of Chalcedon ». If it were so, the Pontiff, writing to the Greeks, would have to be said to have deliberately passed over the verse; for the suspicion that the verse did not exist in the Latin codices in the middle of the fifth century would be absurd. Three decades after the letter to Flavian was written we see the text in the common reading of the Churches of Africa; the same testimony was read in Spain and in Gaul; two generations after Leo, in Italy, Cassiodorus²⁴ had it in codices certainly ancient and most carefully corrected; afterwards it appears in the common reading of the whole Latin Church: how, then, could the testimony have been unknown to Leo the Pontiff? But from the letter to Flavian you will conclude nothing else, except that the order of verses 7 and 8 in Leo's codices, as with the other Fathers, was inverted. For the Pontiff cites v. 6 and the v. 8 connected to it; but to v. 7, which followed after our v. 8, he did not proceed, because it pertained to nothing of his purpose. His purpose was, against the Eutychians, to demonstrate the truth of the human nature of Christ, which is declared by vv. 6 and 8 joined together, but not by the subsequent v. 7 (ep. Leonis 28. al. 24. ad Flav. c. 5).

3°. The adversaries profit no more from the ancient versions than from the Greek codices and from the authority of the Fathers. Let there be set aside, first of all, the Ethiopic, Armenian²⁵, Philoxenian Syriac and the other Syriac versions of the later recension, the Arabic, the Slavonic; for whatever be the case with their primitive reading, they were all made from the Greek text of the fourth to the ninth century, at which age we concede that our clause was already lacking in many Greek exemplars.

That the Copts already in the third century, or at the beginning of the fourth, had the Sacred Scriptures translated into their own language, the learned gather from certain facts of ecclesiastical history; but no one, I think, will arrogate to himself a certain judgment about its primitive state. If in one or another codex known to our Critics verse 7 is lacking, a lacuna of this kind could easily have been introduced afterwards from the Greek codices. The reasoning is similar with respect to the simple Syriac version. In its codices, which our learned men have known up to now, even the deuterocanonical books of the Old and New Testament (2 Pet. 2 and 3 Io. Iud. Apoc.) are wanting, which nevertheless it is certain still existed in it in the fourth century, at the time of St. Ephrem (cf. Tract. de Scriptur. th. XV.). Nothing, therefore, is to be wondered at if, even with respect to this reading of 1 Io. V. 7, some disturbance has permeated from the Greeks to the Syrians.

That these things are so, we cannot demonstrate; but neither have we undertaken that as our task; the adversaries promise the demonstration, and to it they are surely bound, who accuse of interpolation the reading of the whole Church — a reading which for a long time now has been common even to the schismatics and to the Protestants themselves — and would wish it to be eliminated from the editions of the sacred books. It is abundantly enough for us to have shown that, from Catholic principles, the genuineness is demonstrated, and that from all the critical resources, even if meanwhile the false theological principles of the Protestants be granted, the interpolation cannot be demonstrated.

The variation of the Protestants is indeed worthy of notice, as in other things so also in their judgment concerning this apostolic testimony. Nothing at all new has been found against the genuineness of the reading which was not fully known at the beginning of the eighteenth century to Mill, Bengel, and the rest, if you except a few Greek codices collated more recently, from which no new weight accrues to the contrary arguments. Nevertheless, as long as the dogma itself enunciated by the testimony was not called into doubt, those learned Protestants, although destitute of the Catholic principle of Tradition and of authority, led by I know not what obscure Christian sense, as by remnants derived from the Catholic Church, understood²⁶ the constant use of the ecclesiastical reading, so that its authority in favor of the genuineness of the dogmatic text could not be undermined by those arguments, for the most part purely negative. Hence, from the end of the sixteenth century up to the last decades of the past century, almost the Socinians alone rejected the testimony together with the thing enunciated; the other Protestants, still retaining the dogma of the Trinity, strenuously defended even the genuineness of the testimony by the authority of the Latin version, so that at times they called the deniers even into the crime of heresy; just as Michaelis complains happened to himself (l. c. sect. I). After, however, the dogma itself began first to be attacked by undermining, and then, with Rationalism prevailing, to be openly rejected by most of the Protestant doctors; then at last they set about exaggerating not new arguments — which, as I said, they have none at all — but those difficulties long since most well known, by which they might proclaim the testimony first doubtful, then wholly spurious. This history of the controversy indeed shows that they descended into this opinion much more by prejudices and dogmatic error than by critical arguments.

But this is more to be wondered at: that some even learned Catholics have either agreed with them in denying²⁷, or at least elsewhere scarcely dare openly to affirm and defend its genuineness.