Tertullian in Against Praxeas 25.1 - "three are one", are his Holy Spirit references about Montanus and prophecy?

Steven Avery said:
Wrong! :)
Only true in the sense that textual criticism today is a false science.

John Reynolds (1667-1727) of Shrewsbury did this section of the commentary, after Matthew Henry (1662-1714) passed.

His full section is very informative and quite excellent, worth a careful read even today.

1759 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=w4NaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA571
CCEL
https://books.google.com/books?id=_LooN0wXs2AC&pg=PT2004
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-john/5.html
Click to expand...
Even as I was reading it, I thought to myself, "this isn't typical of Matthew Henry." Thanks for clarifying the authorship although there is some dispute I understand as to exactly which "Reynolds" did the 1 John commentary.

As for the argument, possibly the worst I have seen:

"Cyprian, cites John's words, agreeably to the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions, thus: Ait enim Johannes de Domino nostro in epistolâ nos docens, Hic es qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus, non in aquâ tantum, sed in aquâ et sanguine; et Spiritus est qui testimonium perhibet, quia Spiritus est veritas; quia tres testimonium perhibent, Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et isti tres in unum sunt—For John, in his epistle, says concerning our Lord, This is he, Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one."

If I am not mistaken, this quotation comes from an anonymous author and not Cyprian.
 
cjab said:
As for the argument, possibly the worst I have seen:

"Cyprian, cites John's words, agreeably to the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions, thus: Ait enim Johannes de Domino nostro in epistolâ nos docens, Hic es qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus, non in aquâ tantum, sed in aquâ et sanguine; et Spiritus est qui testimonium perhibet, quia Spiritus est veritas; quia tres testimonium perhibent, Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et isti tres in unum sunt—For John, in his epistle, says concerning our Lord, This is he, Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one."

If I am not mistaken, this quotation comes from an anonymous author and not Cyprian.
Click to expand...

This is from the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, a very interesting work that emphasizes baptism in the name of Jesus.

Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism
http://books.google.com/books?id=aDcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA677

And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: "This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one; " [5417] that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men's own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized.
Click to expand...

Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that "three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."
Click to expand...

Latin
http://www02.homepage.villanova.edu/allan.fitzgerald/quartosecolo/rebaptismate.htm
English
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txu/misc005.htm

Reynolds is making an excellent point. Cyprian's text in Latin has the three are one, et hi tres unum sunt. Yet the Rebaptism treatise, at the same time and locale and based on the three (earthly) witnesses, has a different text, whch has the sense of the three are one (in agreement), et isti tres unum sunt. This distinction makes sense if the Greek originating source has the same distinction. And it does not make sense if there is only the three (earthly) witnesses and only one Latin text.

Walter Thiele gives this as a Latin reading for the three (earthly) witnesses, as shown in Raising the Ghost of Arius, p. 48.
Afawk, this Latin is never used with the heavenly witnesses.

Thiele’s reconstructed readings are: K:
(8) spiritus et aqua et sanguis et isti tres in unum sunt [ ] pater et filius et spiritus sanctus et tres unum sunt.
Click to expand...

Here is Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall (1812-1879).

Church Review (1874)
Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
https://books.google.com/books?id=0cDSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA638

1630331503425.png


That Cyprian’s citation of the words, “et hi tres unum suni,” was from the seventh verse, and not from the eighth, appears yet more clearly, if possible, from a singular circumstance. In a treatise, sometimes ascribed to Cyprian, but by the best editors to an anonymous writer, and preserved with Cyprian’s works, the eighth verse is cited twice in the words, “et isti tres unum sunt” (Venet. 641, 644). No scholar needs to be reminded that isti is more nearly allied to illi than to hi. And that varied expression in the Latin of the third century, corresponding, in some degree, to the varied expressions of the Greek in the seventh and eighth verses of the Received Text, is, to say the least, suggestive.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
This is from the Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, a very interesting work that emphasizes baptism in the name of Jesus.

Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism
http://books.google.com/books?id=aDcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA677





Latin
http://www02.homepage.villanova.edu/allan.fitzgerald/quartosecolo/rebaptismate.htm
English
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txu/misc005.htm

Reynolds is making an excellent point. Cyprian's text in Latin has the three are one, et hi tres unum sunt. Yet the Rebaptism treatise, at the same time and locale and based on the three (earthly) witnesses, has a different text, whch has the sense of the three are one (in agreement), et isti tres unum sunt. This distinction makes sense if the Greek originating source has the same distinction. And it does not make sense if there is only the three (earthly) witnesses and only one Latin text.

Walter Thiele gives this as a Latin reading for the three (earthly) witnesses, as shown in Raising the Ghost of Arius, p. 48.
Afawk, this Latin is never used with the heavenly witnesses.



Here is Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall (1812-1879).

Church Review (1874)
Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall
https://books.google.com/books?id=0cDSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA638

1630331503425.png
Click to expand...
Ingenious but specious arguments, as invalidated on account of Augustine's observation that anyone who knew both Greek and Latin could and did make their own translation of the scriptures from Greek into Latin (I guess there would have been many). Thus this argument rests on the specious premise that there was some uniform Latin codex in those days. Obviously, two different authors are going to be using different Latin texts. Some I guess were more faithful to the Greek than others. All we really know is that there were many Latin codices citing 1 John 5:8 without the "isti or in" because of what Leo I said:

"For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are one."
 
Steven Avery said:
Wrong! :)
Only true in the sense that textual criticism today is a false science.

John Reynolds (1667-1727) of Shrewsbury did this section of the commentary, after Matthew Henry (1662-1714) passed.

His full section is very informative and quite excellent, worth a careful read even today.

1759 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=w4NaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA571
CCEL
https://books.google.com/books?id=_LooN0wXs2AC&pg=PT2004
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-john/5.html
Click to expand...
Are you then Kjvo?
 
cjab said:
There is no way that the Sabellians could have approved of 1 John 5:7 as they only credit one "witness in heaven" consistent with one God.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point.

They didn't (and still don't) recognise the different identities as separate "persons".

They have (and that includes Steven Avery's version of one-ness) a strong aversion to the words "person" or "persons".
 
What can the masculine gender aspect of the τρεῖς actually mean to Mr Avery if he denies that τρεῖς indicates a male identity?

Does he believe God is a "man", or "three men" "in heaven"?

Interestingly, Tertullian argues that "the three" are "unum" neuter gender, and not "unus" masculine.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
Ingenious but specious arguments, as invalidated on account of Augustine's observation that anyone who knew both Greek and Latin could and did make their own translation of the scriptures from Greek into Latin (I guess there would have been many). Thus this argument rests on the specious premise that there was some uniform Latin codex in those days. Obviously, two different authors are going to be using different Latin texts. Some I guess were more faithful to the Greek than others. All we really know is that there were many Latin codices citing 1 John 5:8 without the "isti or in" because of what Leo I said:

"For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are one."
Click to expand...

It's not "anonymous", that's a lie!

It's definitely not "anonymous" in the manuscript (unlike the Fuldensis Prologue), it clearly says "Cyprian" at the beginning (in the Incipit) and at the ending (in the Explicit).
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
It's not "anonymous", that's a lie!

It's definitely not "anonymous" in the manuscript (unlike the Fuldensis Prologue), it clearly says "Cyprian" at the beginning (in the Incipit) and at the ending (in the Explicit).
Click to expand...
Also not included in the list of Cyprians Works by his deacon Pontius.

[quod idola dii non sint] (Possibly wrongly omitted)
ad Donatum
de habitu virginum
[testimonia ad Quiri] (Possibly wrongly omitted)
de lapsis,
de unitate ecclesiae,
de dominica oratione,
ad Demetrianum,
de mortalitate,
de opere et eleemosynis,
de bono patientiae,
de zelo et liuore,
ad Fortunatum de exhortatione martyrii,
(de laude martyrii) (Possibly wrongly included - dissented from on textual grounds)

Cyprian's opinion of baptism by heretics was strongly expressed: "Non abluuntur illic homines, sed potius sordidantur, nec purgantur delicta sed immo cumulantur. Non Deo nativitas illa sed diabolo filios generat"

(That poeple are not washed, but rather are dirty, nor are their sins purged, but rather heaped up. That birth not to God, but to the devil.)

The problem is that de Baptismo Hæreticorum holds a contrary opinion to that of Cyprian which derives from his views on the unity of the church. De Baptismo Hæreticorum rather coincides with the views of his opposer Stephen (the Pope) (i.e. the baptism of Christ being the true baptism: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire").


cjab said:
Ingenious but specious arguments, as invalidated on account of Augustine's observation that anyone who knew both Greek and Latin could and did make their own translation of the scriptures from Greek into Latin (I guess there would have been many). Thus this argument rests on the specious premise that there was some uniform Latin codex in those days. Obviously, two different authors are going to be using different Latin texts. Some I guess were more faithful to the Greek than others. All we really know is that there were many Latin codices citing 1 John 5:8 without the "isti or in" because of what Leo I said:

"For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are one."
Click to expand...
Also @Steven Avery, your point is answered by Dr. Samuel Clarke's account of Facundus, as his book ("The scripture doctrine of the trinity ... A letter to Mr. Benjamin Hoadley ... relating to the proportion of velocity and force in bodies in motion," 1738) explains, by quoting Facundus as expouding on Cyprian's position, viz. that by "the Spirit, Water and Blood" is meant "the Father, The Holy Ghost and the Son," respectively.

www.google.co.uk

The Works

www.google.co.uk
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
What can the masculine gender aspect of the τρεῖς actually mean to Mr Avery if he denies that τρεῖς indicates a male identity?

Does he believe God is a "man", or "three men" "in heaven"?

Interestingly, Tertullian argues that "the three" are "unum" neuter gender, and not "unus" masculine.
Click to expand...
Scripture itself reveals to us the masculine nature of the Truine God though
 
Steven Avery said:
Not my label, however my reading Bible is the AV.
Click to expand...
Authorized by a church that Cyprian wouldn't have condoned, as breaking the unity of the church. Cyprian would have construed all non-Roman-Catholics as heretics, just as he construed the Novatians.
 
YeshuaFan said:
Scripture itself reveals to us the masculine nature of the Truine God though
Click to expand...
Have regard for (some of) the observations of the learned Dr. Samuel Clarke:

VI. The Father is the sole origin of all power and authority, and is the author and principle of whatsoever is done by the Son or by the Spirit.

VII. The Father alone is in the highest, strict, proper, and absolute sense supreme over all.

VIII. The Father alone is, absolutely speaking, the God of the universe; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel; of Moses, of the Prophets and Apostles; and the God and Father of our I>ord Jesus Christ.

IX. The Scripture, when it mentions the one God, or the only God, always means the supreme person of the Father.

X. When the word, God, is mentioned in Scripture, with any high epithet, title, or attribute annex'd to it; it generally (I think, always) means the person of the Father.

XI. The Scripture, when it mentions God, absolutely and by way of emi-nence, always means the person of the Father.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
What can the masculine gender aspect of the τρεῖς actually mean to Mr Avery if he denies that τρεῖς indicates a male identity?

Does he believe God is a "man", or "three men" "in heaven"?

Interestingly, Tertullian argues that "the three" are "unum" neuter gender, and not "unus" masculine.
Click to expand...
Terullian says the three are one thing, not one person. This is crucial to Tertullian's rebuttal of Praxeas's Sabellianism, but it somewhat backfires in being not scriptural. For in Deut 6:4, the text is κύριος ο θεός ημών κύριος εἷς εστί.

εἷς = masculine (not neuter)

In other words, the OT is undoubtedly "Sabellian" (God is one Person), if the Trinity is in view. A better way is to see that whenever the OT speaks of God, it means only God the Father; such that the OT doesn't refer to the "Trinity."

Deut 6:4 is a very good argument against the "Triune God" as if God was triune, then εἷς would have to be ἕν.

However despite this, it creates massive problems for Tertullian's argument, as a matter of theology, for he is stressing ἕν whereas Deut 6:4 uses εἷς for what is in heaven. So his argument is necessarily one of philosophy.

Tertullian was known for his obscurity. He seems to be misusing John 10:30 for a purpose for which it was never intended, i.e. to say something about things in heaven. Although the neuter is used in John 10:30, (ἕν), Jesus was most definitely on earth, and not in heaven, so there was no direct correlation with the Tertullian usage. The Greek also uses the neuter case in a grammatical sense, i.e. for conveying concepts. Here Jesus the man was said to be one with God the Father in heaven: so you can see why the neuter would have been used, i.e. to denote a spiritual unity only.

Tertullian could have more easily said that as Jesus never acknowledged being the same person as God his Father, Sabellianism must be wrong; or that the Word of God is plainly not the same person as God (by John 1:1). It is difficult to understand why Tertullian went down this particular route when there were much easier scriptural routes. Presumably it came from his penchant for philosophy.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
Authorized by a church that Cyprian wouldn't have condoned, as breaking the unity of the church. Cyprian would have construed all non-Roman-Catholics as heretics, just as he construed the Novatians.
Click to expand...

“Roman Catholic” is anachronistic. At the time of Cyprian, there were Bishops in Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Carthage and other cities. There was no Roman supremacy, no singular Pope.
 
Steven Avery said:
“Roman Catholic” is anachronistic. At the time of Cyprian, there were Bishops in Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Carthage and other cities. There was no Roman supremacy, no singular Pope.
Click to expand...
Still, the CofE isn't in communion with Rome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top