Cyprian references in Tim Dunkin paper - Bennett, Elowsky, Gallicet, Pieper, Sadler

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
From the Tim Dunkin article:

A Defense of the Johannine Comma
Selling the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
Timothy W. Dunkin
Revised, July 2010
With the gratefully accepted assistance of Steven Avery
https://web.archive.org/web/2014112...dytoanswer.net/bibleversions/commadefense.pdf
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/11724872/a-defense-of-the-johannine-comma-study-to-answernet

Other scholars have likewise acknowledged that Cyprian cited the Comma. In the 19th century, Bennett observed that Cyprian quotes the Comma, and dismisses the argument that Cyprian was really presenting an allegorical interpretation of v. 8. 67 In more modern times, Elowsky, following Maynard, accepts that Cyprian genuinely cited the Comma, 68 and Gallicet likewise observes that Cyprian’s quotation of the Comma is difficult to doubt. 69 Pieper states the case exquisitely, when he noted,

“Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: ‘Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt”’ (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One’”) Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. "The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.”70
Click to expand...

Indeed, it seems fair to observe that those who comment on the matter, and who do not have a particular textual axe to grind, readily acknowledge that Cyprian really, truly did cite the Johannine Comma. It is only when the a priori prejudices of a writer interfere, that Cyprian’s quotation becomes “unlikely.” As an example of this, observe Sadler’s statement concerning the question of Cyprian’s citation,

“If there had been evidence that the early MSS, and Fathers knew the text of the three heavenly witnesses, there would not have been the slightest doubt but that Cyprian here cites the original text; but the absence of all evidence for it till three centuries later shows that in Cyprian’s copy there must have been an interpolation...”71
Click to expand...

Essentially, the argument Sadler is making is that, because we already “know” that the Comma didn’t appear until centuries after Cyprian, the very clear citation by Cyprian (which, on its merit alone, would be accepted “without the slightest doubt”) must therefore be an “interpolation.” Why? Because that’s what the “accepted” interpretation demands – evidence contrary to the Critical Text dogma of the inauthenticity of the Comma must be explained away and ignored. This sort of argumentation employed by modernistic textual critics is simple intellectual dishonesty. Instead of trying to “explain away” evidence, following Scrivener in accepting Cyprian’s citation of the Comma seems to be the best path to follow. Certainly, our interpretation of later evidences, both pro and contra the Comma, should begin from the virtually certain historical fact (as seen from Tertullian and Cyprian) that some manuscripts in use in the churches around 200-250 AD, whether Old Latin or the Greek from which the Old Latin was derived, had the heavenly witnesses in their texts.

At this point, we should make a comment about the corroborative nature of these witnesses in the Latin. From Tertullian onward, we see several early Latin witnesses to the Johannine Comma. These witnesses, all located in North Africa, do not exist in a vacuum. While Tertullian's witness from Against Praxeus is less clear, the fact that Cyprian clearly cites the verse, in the same geographical area, a mere five decades later, and makes it significantly more likely that Tertullian did, indeed, have this verse in mind when he used the particular language that he did. So likewise does the testimony of the Treatise on Rebaptism, mentioned earlier, the text of which also dates to this same general time frame and concerns a doctrinal controversy that took place in this specific geographical area. Cyprian is explicitly corroborated, further, by the fact that Fulgentius, the bishop of Ruspe in North Africa around the turn of the 6th century, both cited the verse in his own writings, and pointedly argued in his treatise against the Arians that Cyprian had specifically cited the Heavenly Witnesses. All of these evidences work together synergistically to shown that the Johannine Comma was recognized in the Latin Bibles of North Africa, both before and after the Vulgate revision was made.

67 James Bennett, The Theology of the Early Christian Church (1855), p. 94
http://books.google.com/books?id=Su4rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA94
James Bennett (minister) - (1774-1862)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bennett_(minister)

1630406108950.png


68 Joel C. Elowsky, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, IVa, John 1-10, p. 359, note # 37
http://books.google.com/books?id=rW1ldBkoDY4C&pg=PA359
Joel Elowsky (b. 1963)
https://www.csl.edu/directory/joel-elowsky/
https://csl.academia.edu/JoelElowsky
https://sddlcms.org/media/files/Elowsky Biography.pdf

1630406229284.png


69 Ezio Gallicet, Cipriano di Cartagine: La Chiesa, p. 206, note # 12
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Chiesa-Cipriano-Cartagine-Paoline-Editoriale-Libri/30206605694/bd
“Cipriano e la Bibbia: Fortis ac sublimis vox,” (1975) Cyprian Vol. 32 Issue 1: p. 58
La Chiesa: Sui cristiani caduti nella persecuzione ; L'unità della Chiesa
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5VZuQ9L1nkC&pg=PA206
Ezio Gallicet (1931-2009)
http://www.idref.fr/050415956
https://data.bnf.fr/en/13528686/ezio_gallicet/

70 Franz August Otto Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Trans. T. Engelder, Vol. 1, pp. 340-1; emphasis mine
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...xC8Ln0QGolZmTAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result
Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_August_Otto_Pieper
Facebook - PureBible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/605714079520485/?comment_id=606021242823102
Quotes from Pieper
https://eduodou.gitbooks.io/christi...inal_text_of_holy_scripture_and_the_tran.html

71 Micheal Ferrebee Sadler, The General Epistles of Ss. James, Peter, John, and Jude (1895), p. 252, note #1
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qp4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA252
Micheal Ferrebee Sadler (1819-1895)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sadler,_Michael_Ferrebee_(DNB00)
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
1630438147216.png

1630436579290.png



"a quotation from the Fathers is often of decisive importance"
(Christian Dogmatics, 1950, p. 241, trans. from German ed. c. 1920.)

Francis Pieper wrote emphasizing the antiquity and significance of the Cyprian reference.
"In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or the spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian (p. 340)... Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds:
‘Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt”’ (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One’”)
Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. "The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.” p.341 (1950 English edition).
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Others, like Huther in Meyer's Commentary, say that the words of Cyprian “appear” to refer to 1 John 5:7. But we obtain the right to speak of a mere “appearance” only by showing that the words referred to are found at some other place in Scripture. Huther offers no further proof for his assumption of an “appearance” than the bare statement: “The singular quotation in Cyprian finds its explanation in interpreting the words The Spirit, the water, and the blood’ symbolically of the Trinity.” But no matter how much Cyprian otherwise allegorizes in the doctrine of the Trinity, in these words he does not allegorize, but he quotes Scripture: "Et iterum . . . scriptum est” Now, since the words of Cyprian are about two hundred years older than the oldest preserved codices (B and n), it is not fair to say that those are out of date who consider the words referring to the three witnesses in heaven to be genuine (e. g., Besser, Stoeckhardt, Sander, Mayer, and others).

The further assertion has been made that when Cyprian used the words “Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: ‘et tres unum sunt*** he was quoting v. 8. But v. 8 does not have the words: ?v eloiv, “‘unum* sunt,** but et? x6 ?v eioiv, “‘in unum stint,** “they agree in one.” But since Cyprian knew his Greek, the assumption that he might have rendered the et; t6 2v etciv with “they are one” is farfetched.

While we have always deplored the necessity of spending so much of the time of our regular dogmatical course on the textual discussion of 1 John 5:7-8, it has resulted in a twofold practical benefit. For one thing it gave us an opportunity to point out, with Tischendorf, that the doctrine of the Trinity is in no wise dependent on the genuineness of this passage, since there is more than enough proof for this doctrine in other passages. In the second place, it gave us the opportunity to inculcate the rule, never to attempt to use this passage in disputing with Unitarians. If this were done, the Unitarians would at once shift the discussion over to the field of textual criticism, with the result that the status controversiae, the doctrine of the Trinity, would be lost sight of and the public would receive the impression that the Scriptural foundation for this doctrine is rather weak.

May we be permitted to make a final remark that no theologian is risking his scientific reputation by whatever position he takes in the question of the genuineness of our passage. The “notoriously spurious,” which modern theologians are quick to use in connection with this passage, does not prove their scientific superiority, but rather the opposite. Whoever is somewhat familiar with the true state of affairs cultivates a more modest language. Bloomfield remarks in his commentary that on this passage “volumes have been written by some of the most eminent scholars.” He gives the names of the men who stand for the “pro” and the “contra” in this matter; then he comments, as Luther also did, on both versions; and finally he takes the well-known position of Bengel. He closes with the words: “On again examining, for this second edition of the present work, the evidence for and against the words, I still think that much of the mystery in which Bishop Middleton considers the passage as enveloped has yet to be cleared away; and my impression is . . . that, from the peculiar character of the evidence, external and internal (even after all that has been effected to strengthen the internal evidence, by the very learned Bishop Burgess) 145 we are neither authorized to receive the passage as indubitably genuine, nor, on the other hand, to reject it indubitably as spurious, but to wait for further evidence.” But “waiting for further evidence” does not appeal to most modem theologians, including most of the recent textual critics. They want to consider the question as closed. But the hope voiced by Bengel that old documents might still be discovered that would throw further light on our text might not be so foolish in view of recent discoveries.

But whether new discoveries are made or not, the Church of God stands on a sufficiently firm Scripture text, as wc know a priori from Christs promise (John 8:31-32; 17:20) and a posteriori by scientific investigation. In every age the Church of God, which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, had in its possession themBible text which enabled it to carry out its commission to teach all nations all things that Christ had commanded. Luther could say in his day “The Word they still shall let remain.” Athanasius and ….

(continues)

145 Bishop Burgess is one of the theologians who based their arguments for the authenticity of the passage on text and context. Stoeckhardt also lxrlongs in this class. Others of our circle voiced the opposite opinion.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Quotation or Reference?

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/jer...lgate-new-testament.10317/page-17#post-806229

.... why Steven doesn't say directly that Cyprian quotes the Comma (i.e. the "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" part/clause) anymore,
Click to expand...
Actually the saying that Cyprian quotes the heavenly witnesses verse is quite understandable, because of the double emphasis:

et iterum

scriptum est

With Father, Son and Holy Spirit positioned between the two.
Et iterum is marking the fact of an additional verse, after John 10:30.

“Dicit Dominus, ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’(John 10:30) et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: ‘Et tres unum sunt.’”
" The Lord said, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, "and these three are one"

=======================

Franz Pieper, (1852-1931)
(Christian Dogmatics, 1950, p. 340-341, trans. from German ed. c. 1920.)

"In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or the spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian (p. 340)... Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds:

‘Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt”’ (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One’”)

Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. "The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.” p. 341 (1950 English edition).
Click to expand...
=======================

The borderline between a partial quote and a reference is small. With the excellent explanation that Pieper gives, I will fully accept his calling the Cyprian citation a quotation.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Wilhelm August Ritter von Hartel (1839-1907)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_von_Hartel

is said by

Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie
C. A. Klepper
https://books.google.com/books?id=V1I4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA680

to see Cyprian using verse 7.

Hartel has "tres unum" in Unity of the Church, Epistle 73 and Duplicio Martyrio.

He also discusses the verse, and the Speculum, here

S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera omnia
http://books.google.com/books?id=BmG58KzE-V8C&pg=PR25

1660952894803.png


Is that the Kepper reference?

Pius Bonifatius Gams 1816-1892

Pius Gams – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org de.wikipedia.org

Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien - Vol One p. 86 (1862)
Pius Bonifatius Gams
https://archive.org/details/diekirchengesch06gamsgoog/page/n103/mode/2up

1660953838348.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
TWOGIG
[Knittel] Cyprian understood Greek. He read Homer, Plato, Hermes Trismegistus (This is evident, from his book De
Idolorum Vanitate. His Latin style also occasionally Graecizes.), and Hippocrates (Cypriani. Epistol. I.xix.). He maintained
an Epistolary Correspondence with the Teachers of that Church: nay, he translated into Latin the Greek Epistle written to
him by Firmilianus, bishop of Caesarea. His great Master, whose principles he followed - I mean Tertullian, a man who
likewise understood Greek - enjoins us to keep before our eyes the Original Text of the Apostolic Epistles; and himself
frequently appeals to the ancient Manuscripts. (Knittel, New Criticisms, 1785; 1829, p. 35)

• [Quasten] Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was a contemporary of Gregory the Wonder-Worker, whom he
met as a member of Origen's circle and whose regard for the Alexandrian teacher he shared: 'He displayed such esteem
for Origen, that at one time he would summon him to his own parts for the benefit of the churches; at another, journey
himself to Judaea, and spend some time with him for his own progress in divine knowledge' (Euseb., Hist. eccl., 6,27).
Both bishops attended the first two synods at Antioch that condemned the errors of Paul of Samosata. Firmilian died
shortly after the second in 268. He was one of the outstanding prelates of his time. Of his writing there is extant only one
letter, addressed to St. Cyprian of Carthage and dealing with the vexed question of the rebaptism of heretics. It represents
the answer to a lost letter of Cyprian's on the same subject and was for this reason preserved in a Latin translation in the
collection of the latter's epistles (Epist. 75). The original Greek is lost. The version shows all the peculiarities of Cyprian's
Latin and was therefore most probably made by him. It seems to have been written about the year A.D. 256. (Quasten,
Patrology, vol. 2, 1983, p. 128)

• [Churton] Greek being the commercial language throughout the empire, must have been known to a large portion of the
inhabitants of Rome and Italy. Even in Africa there are traces of Greek influence, as if there was a transition state before
the Churches assumed a decidedly Latin character; and the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian abound with Greek words,
which seem afterwards to have given place to a purer Latinity, such as that of St. Augustine. (Churton, Influence of the
Septuagint Version, 1861, p. 26)

• [Churton] Cyprian employed the Septuagint, or a close and literal version from it, in his two Books of Testimonies against
the Jews which he addressed to Quirinus, consisting of a series of citations from the Old Testament. Among these the
passage Ps. cx. 3 is quoted according to the Greek : 'Before the morning star I begat thee.' The Jews against whom he
wrote probably employed this Version of the passage; for we find Tertullian refuting their opinion that Hezekiah is
signified, because he was born before the dawn of day. (Churton, Influence of the Septuagint Version, 1861, p. 48)

• [Churton] In the quotations of Cyprian we find a similar introduction of Greek terms in a Latinized form. Besides many of
those which occur in Tertullian's works, the following may be observed. Again, Cyprian compares these words from the
genuine Wisdom of Solomon with the apocryphal book bearing the same title... Thus he [Cyprian] was lead by the
Septuagint reading of the words to place them at the head of his evidence from Scripture of the blessedness of
martyrdom.(Churton, Influence of the Septuagint Version, 1861, p. 84)

[Kaukanen] In addition, for the Latin Fathers Tertullian and Cyprian the question had to be raised whether they quoted
the LXX in an existing OL version or translated it into Latin themselves. In order to deal with these issues, the nature of
each Father's quotations from I Samuel was analyzed in its entirety. After this, a set of important readings included all the
suggested agreements between the Father and L as well as several other readings that demonstrate the overall nature of
the text used by the Father. ...Like Tertullian, Cyprian (chapter 6) too appears to have used the LXX in its Greek form. In
three instances his text and L agree in preserving the original reading (1:23, 2:35,36). (Kaukanen, Proto-Lucianic
Problem, 2012, p. 189, 190)

AD JUBAIANUS
• [John Selden] ...the fact remains that long before Jerome the comma is mentioned by fathers older and superior,
Greek and Latin. It is quoted (to which must be looked first) as an undoubted reading by Cyprian, who flourished in
the year 250, or around 140 years before Jerome. ”And again,”he says,”about the Father and Son and Holy Spirit it is
written: and these three are one.”He clearly designates that there was a reading of this sort that was accepted by him.
Again, it is read in the booklet to Theophilus of Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria ”de Unita Deitate Trinitatis.” He
flourished in the first Nicene council or in the year of Christ 325. Also in the Occident some authors, not of obscure
names, likewise mention this part of John’s epistle as genuine. Idacius Clarus [in Adversus Varimadum] etc
(Selden, De Synedriis & Praefecturis Iuridicis Veterum Ebraeorum, 1653, vol 2, p. 138; Translated by Jeroen Beekhuizen,
correspondence, February 2020)

• John Selden (16 December 1584 – 30 November 1654) was an English jurist, a scholar of England's ancient
laws and constitution[1] and scholar of Jewish law.[2] He was known as a polymath; John Milton hailed Selden
in 1644 as”the chief of learned men reputed in this land."[3][4] It was as a prolific scholar and writer that
Selden won his reputation. The early books were on English history. ... In 1650 Selden began to print the trilogy
he planned on the Sanhedrin, as the first part of De synedriis et prefecturis juridicis veterum Ebraeorum through
the press, the second and third parts being severally published in 1653 and 1655. The aim of this work was to
counter the use by the Presbyterians, in particular, of arguments and precedents drawn from Jewish tradition; it
was a very detailed study aimed at refuting such arguments, and pointing out the inherent flexibility of the tradition
that was being cited.[23] After the death of the Earl of Kent in 1639, Selden lived permanently under the same
roof with the earl's widow, the former Elizabeth Talbot. It is believed that he married her, although their marriage
does not seem to have ever been publicly acknowledged. He assembled a famous library which eventually
became part of the Bodleian Library's collection in 1659. In addition to a wide range of Greek, Arabic, Hebrew and
Latin works, it included the Codex Mendoza and the Selden Map of China.[11] He died at Friary House in
Whitefriars, London on 30 November 1654, and was buried in the Temple Church, London. His tomb is today
clearly visible through glass plates in the floor of this church. Furthermore, he is commemorated by a monumental
inscription on the south side of the Temple Church. More than two centuries after his death, in 1880, a brass
tablet was erected to his memory by the benchers of the Inner Temple in the parish church of St. Andrew's, West
Tarring. (John_Selden. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Selden>)

• [Stillingfleet] If it be said, “They might correct the Fathers too”, answer, that there is no imaginable Ground for any such
suspicion; because the Fathers lived in distant Places and Countries, and therefore when their Testimonies agree about
some places of Scripture alleged by them, there can be no Reason to suspect any Corruption or Alteration of the Text. As
for Instance, no one Text of the whole New Testament, hath been more suspected than that of I S. John 5.7. There are
three that bear Record in Heaven, &c. And it cannot be denied that there hath been great variety, both in the Greek and
Latin Manuscripts about it; yea, there was so in S. Jeroms' time, as it appears as by his Preface to the Canonical Epistles;
who charges the leaving it out to the unfaithfulness of the Translators. S. Jerom is cried out upon as a Party in this
Controversie, and therefore it is said on the other side, that he put it in as favouring his own Opinion. But his Integrity is
vindicated herein, because S. Cyprian so long before the Arian Controversy produced this Place. (S. Cyprian. Ad
Jubaianum. Epistle 73) So that our Certainty as to Scripture doth not depend upon the mere Letter, but upon comparing
the best and most ancient Copies, with the Writings of the Fathers, who still made use of the Scriptures in all Discourses
and Debates about Matters of Faith.
(Stillingfleet, A Discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith, 1688, p. 89-90)

• [Bishop Bull] Other passages of St. Cyprian on the Divinity of the Son. But in the other writings of Cyprian also, you may
everywhere meet with passages which remarkably set forth the true Divinity of the Son. I will here produce one or two. In
his 63rd epistle to Caecilius, near the beginning[1], he calls Jesus Christ”our Lord and God,”as he does a second time
also in a subsequent part of the same epistle[2]. There is, however, a marked passage in his treatise On the Vanity of
Idols, in which Cyprian thus speaks concerning the Word and Son of God[3];”As the Dispenser and Master, therefore, of
this grace and teaching, the Word and Son of God is sent, who was foretold of by all the prophets in times past as the
Enlightener and Teacher of the race of man. This is the Power of God, This His Reason, This His Wisdom and Glory: He
descends into the Virgin, and puts on flesh by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, (or rather, as it should be read, the Holy
Spirit puts on flesh,) God is united with man, This is our God, This is the Christ.”Here I embrace, as the true reading,
carnem Spiritus sanctus induitur, because most of the oldest MSS. exhibit the passage in this form. Certain sciolists
[pretentious know-it-alls], as I conceive, corrupted the true text in some of the copies, supposing forsooth, that by the Holy
Spirit none other than the Third Person of the Godhead could be meant. We have, however, elsewhere[4] shewn that
Each several Person of the Trinity, because of the divine and spiritual nature common to the Three, is called the [PAGE
288] Spirit, both in the Scriptures and throughout the writings of the ancients; [a fact] which is also noted on this passage
in the margin, in some of the MSS., as Pamelius intimates, who, notwithstanding, thought that no alteration ought to be
made in the reading, fearing, I suppose, lest the Anti-trinitarians should draw their poison out of this place, and allege that
Cyprian did not acknowledge the Third Person of the Godhead. Vain fear! inasmuch as it is abundantly clear from many
passages of Cyprian, that he believed in the whole consubstantial Trinity, an assertion which we may also with good
grounds make with regard to the other fathers, who have used a similar mode of expression. Thus in his letter to
Jubaianus, about baptizing heretics, he proves that the baptism of heretics is not valid by this argument[5];”If any one,”he
says,”could be baptized among heretics, it follows that he might also obtain remission of sins. If he has obtained remission
of sins, [he has also been sanctified and made the temple of God,] I ask, Of what God? If [you say] of the Creator, he
could not [be so], for he has not believed in Him: if of Christ, neither could he have been made His temple, who denies
that Christ is God. If of the Holy Ghost, seeing that the Three are One (cum tres unum sint,) how can the Holy Ghost be at
peace with him who is an enemy either of the Son or of the Father? “Here you see that the Holy Ghost is expressly
called God, equally with the Father and the Son, as we have already[6] observed was done by Tertullian. You may
also, by the way, observe that Cyprian, in this place, certainly has an eye to the passage of John, in his 1st
Epistle [867] v. 7,”And these three are One”(et hi tres unum sunt). In his treatise ' On the Unity of the Church,'
however, (chap. 4, near the end), he professedly quotes this passage, in these words [7];”Concerning the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is written, 'And these Three are One.'“So also, before Cyprian, Tertullian
manifestly alluded to the same passage in his work against Praxeas, c. 25[8]; “The connection,” he says, “of the
Father in the Son, and of the Son [margin: unum]. in the Paraclete produces Three coherent, one from another;
and these Three are one [substance] (unum), not one [person] (unus)"[9] This is to be observed in opposition to
those who suspect that these words were introduced into the text of John by the Catholics, after the Arian
controversy. To return, however, to the point from which I have digressed a little. Cyprian, in the same epistle to
Jubaianus[10], also proves that baptism conferred in the name of Jesus Christ only', is of no efficacy, from the
circumstance that”He Himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity.” Where by “the
full and united Trinity”. it is manifest that the Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are
designated, as all subsisting in one Godhead; and, therefore, that the Holy Ghost, equally with the Son, is united
with God the Father in the same fellowship of Divine honour.
(Bull,”Defence of the Nicene Creed”in Works on the Trinity, 1851, vol 1, p. 288-289)

• George Bull (25 March 1634 – 17 February 1710) was an English theologian and Bishop of St David's. He
wrote four major theological treatises in Latin, one on justification and three on the Trinity. The Latin works were
collected and edited by John Ernest Grabe in 1703, with a preface and annotations by the editor, in one volume
folio. His advocacy of the necessity of good works caused his adversaries to insinuate that he was a Socinian. His
move onto the polemical ground of trinitarianism was therefore prompted by the need to clarify his position, in
Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (1685). It was finished in 1680, but was turned down by three publishers. It appeared
with the backing of William Jane, and John Fell who subsidised the cost of publication. It was stylish and well
received, with praise from Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet. The context was that Petavius and Simon Episcopius, to
take two examples, denied that the ante-Nicene Church Fathers held the same doctrines as those which were
established at the Council of Nicaea. Bull took upon himself to prove that they did, and concentrated on the
opinions of the ante-Nicene fathers, excluding other controversies.[1] A substantial excerpt from the Defensio
Fidei Nicaenae was reprinted by Abbé Migne in his seventh volume devoted to Origen in the Patrologia Graeca
(vol. XVII) He has a high place among Anglican theologians, and as a defender of the doctrine of the Trinity was
held in high esteem even by Continental Romanist controversialists. (George Bull. Wikipedia.
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bull>) His works display great erudition and powerful thinking. The Harmonia
Apostolica (1670) is an attempt to show the fundamental agreement between the doctrines of Paul and James
with regard to justification. The Defensio Fidei Nicenae (1685), his greatest work, tries to show that the
doctrine of the Trinity was held by the ante-Nicene fathers of the church, and retains its value as a
thoroughgoing examination of all the pertinent passages in early church literature. The Judicium Ecclesiae
Catholicae (1694) and Primitiva et Apostolica Traditio (1710) won high praise from Bossuet and other French
divines. ("George Bull”in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 <theodora.com/encyclopedia/b2/george_bull.html>)
Hippolytus of
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
TWOGIG
Selden
Stillingfleet
Bull

Later Armfield and some others

SOLID ADDS

In the 19th century, Bennett observed that Cyprian quotes the Comma, and dismisses the argument that Cyprian was really presenting an allegorical interpretation of v. 8. 67

In more modern times, Elowsky, following Maynard, accepts that Cyprian genuinely cited the Comma, 68

and Gallicet likewise observes that Cyprian’s quotation of the Comma is difficult to doubt. 69

Pieper states the case exquisitely, when he noted,

Elie Philippe
maybe Hartel
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top