Long section by Ben David
Again, in his book against Praxeas, (c.25,) the same author says,
"Caeterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt, --- non unus; quomodo dictum est: Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem."
But the Son says, he will take of mine, as he Himself of the Father's. Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes three cohering one with another, WHICH THREE ARE ONE, pointing, to unity of substance, non ad numeri singularitem.
(porson stuff)
The professor comments on these words, and says,
"As often as I read this sentence, so often I am astonished that the words Tres unum sunt should ever be urged as a quotation: they are words of Tertullian himself, and expressly distinguished from the words of Scripture." P.240. In this opinion he is joined by the Quarterly Review. With regard to this passage,
"We are compelled," says he,
"to confess that we participate in the feelings of Professor Porson. Is it probable, that if Tertullian had 1 John, v. 7, in his thoughts, he would have appealed for the true meaning of the expression not to that verse, but to John 10:30? Yes, contends Mr. Nolan: for the reading of John is not Pater, Filius, et Spiritus; but Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; and therefore contains as just a description of the doctrine of Praxeas as that heretic could have given. If then this passage of Tertullian be a proof of the existence of 1 John v. 7, we suppose that he referred his adversary to the very text which that adversary would urge as most accurately representing his own opinion."
...
Now in opposition to these high authorities I will briefly show that Tertullian not only alludes to the verse, but has embodied the substance of it in his own comment. If
tres unum sunt were his own words, in allusion to John 10:30, he would have said
duo unum sunt; for there it is virtually said that the Father and the Son are
one. The reason of Tertullian's referring to the Gospel at all is an artifice. In the Epistle, John directly meets the impostors, and in opposition to them he again and again asserts the simple humanity of Christ. In his Gospel he advances the same doctrine in reference to the same deceivers indeed, yet without mentioning them by name. His opposition, therefore, to the Divinity of Christ is of course less obvious in the Gospel. The very foundation of the Trinity in unity is the supposed spurious text; and this foundation the builders of the system attempted for obvious reasons to lay deep and out of sight. Hence the silence respecting it, and the caution with which they allude to it, or embody its substance in their own words. Having thus founded the doctrine on a passage which at first glance appears most favourable to it, --- but which in reality was ever liable to be withdrawn, and which when withdrawn left baseless the superstructure of wood, hay and stubble, erected upon it, --- the advocates of the Trinity went to the Gospel for materials to complete and establish it. There Jesus, though in the beginning represented as the Logos, is usually designated "the Son," or, "Son of God." There also the Holy Spirit is called "the Comforter." Hence Tertullian, and others who succeeded him down to the Council of Nice, for the sake of disguise substituted "Son" and "Comforter," which occur in the Gospel, for the "Word" and "Holy Spirit," which are used in the disputed text.
But has Porson done justice to the passage of Tertullian? No; he has omitted the very clause which completely identifies the verse with the quotation. The clause I mean is,
"Non ad numeri singularitatem," which, it must be allowed, is obscure and equivocal, and probably so intended. In this treatise Tertullian had in view the Unitarians of his days, who, as appears from his own words, formed the majority of believers; and he levels his language against them, --- for
numerus in that age, and afterwards, came to signify exclusively the three Heavenly Witnesses, or the three persons of the Trinity. If we take the clause in the first sense, we have the controverted text complete. Thus,
"Which three," (namely, the Father, Son, and Comforter, or the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit,)
"are one, pointing to unity of substance, and not to the singular form of the three Witnesses;" or, in other words, to the unity of their testimonies. Tertullian makes the words of the Apostle the foundation of the Trinity, without informing the reader where he had them: he quotes the verse, but quotes it with a comment that perverts its true meaning. The Unitarians of the day doubtless understood the verse in its true sense; as they could not but consider the clause
"and these three agree in one," in the eighth verse, as an index of that in the seventh. This interpretation Tertullian meets, and endeavours to set it aside by a gloss of his own: and that this might have some show of probability, he steals away the attention of his readers from the Epistle, where there is a clue to the true sense, and fixes it on a passage in the Gospel, which, without such clue, appears to favour his meaning.
But the clause,
"Non ad numeri singularitatem," may mean
Not making singular the number three, not reducing to the singular number the plurality of persons. In this sense the words are levelled against Praxeas, who maintained that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit were
one; and that these names expressed not three distinct beings, but three different relations of the same being. Now it is demonstrable that in this sense also Tertullian refers to the disputed verse: first, because Fulgentius, having before him this passage of Tertullian, understood the member in this sense. His words are,
"In Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus." The master says,
"The three are one, pointing to unity of substance, not to the unity of the three persons." The pupil says after him,
"We acknowledge the unity of substance, but dare not confound the persons;" that is, dare not bring the three persons into one. But this, you will say, is no proof that Tertullian refers to the disputed verse. I answer, it is a proof that Fulgentius, who could not have been mistaken, understood his master as referring to that verse: for he adds,
"Beatus enim Johannes Apostolus testatur Tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbun, et Spiritus Sanctus, et tres unum sunt." Secondly, Tertullian alludes to the disputed verse, because the heresy of Praxeas was founded upon it. The true reading of
O Logos was essential to his opinion; and I can say with confidence that that heresy would not have existed, if the verse had not been known to exist: for Praxeas knew that
Logos in its strictest sense meant God Himself. In the disputed verse the Logos is applied to Christ, and is said to be one with the Father; nor is there another verse in the New Testament where such unity between the Father and the Logos is asserted. Tertullian could not meet this argument without the subterfuge of substituting
Filius for
Verbum, the true reading. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is commonly represented as "the Son;" and He proceeds throughout His discourses on the assumption that He is a being different from the Father. Tertullian had recourse to the substitution, because he was by means of it enabled to supplant his antagonist. He wrests the verse from the hands of Praxeas, and he gives it up to the public with a version of his own.
"If then," says the Reviewer,
"this passage of Tertullian be a proof of the existence of 1 John v. 7, we must suppose that he referred his adversary to the very text which that adversary would urge as most accurately representing his own opinion." Most truly so: Tertullian could not help adverting to the verse as the foundation of Praxeas's theory; and he endeavours to defeat him by garbling it, and by putting upon it his own interpretation.
Porson expresses his astonishment that any should consider the words of Tertullian as a quotation of the Apostle. In truth, the Professor, in this and many other places of his Letters, has recourse to the usual refuge of weak disputants, enlisted by accident or by prejudice on the side of error: he garbles his author, and uses strong assertions where he ought to produce proofs. He proceeds in his argument on mistaken grounds; and the fallacy made him quite blind. He powerfully urges that Tertullian does not allude to the verse, because he does not quote it; while he freely quotes other verses much less to his purpose. This was to him inconceivable. Of the dilemma he adopted the least improbable side; and by his ingenuity and bold assertions he contrived to make his readers (and the Quarterly Reviewer in the number) as blind as himself. Had he been aware of the true state of the case, how different would have been his conclusion! With what promptitude and keenness would he have unravelled Tertullian's quotation, discovered in it the language of John, and disclosed it beyond all dispute tom the views of his readers! But he was engaged in a wrong cause; and his fine powers either drooped, or they displayed their matchless vigour in devious flights of wit and sophistry, far beyond the precincts of truth.
Tertullian was a master in Israel, and his authority prescribed in which way and how far the verse might be quoted with safety to the orthodox faith. Accordingly
Phaebadius A.D. 350, and
Marcus Celedensis in 373, cite the verse only so far as he has cited it: but Cyprian, though preceding these writers by a century, took greater liberty; and he places the citation in a more clear and unequivocal light. His words are these:
"De Pater, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: et hi tres unum sunt." In this paragraph are implied two things; namely, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are one; and that it is so written of them, or that they are said to be one in the Scriptures. This is true; John has thus written of them in the disputed verse, and in no other place. But observe, the clause which says that these three bare witness, and suggests the unity meant to be that of testimony,
is artfully omitted; and Cyprian leaves the reader to conclude, as Tertullian asserts, that it is that of
being or
essence which the Apostle means.
