Sir

Since the discourses of some late writers have raised in you a curiosity of knowing the truth of that text of Scripture concerning the testimony of the three in Heaven 1 Iohn V.7, I have here sent you an account of what the reading has been in all ages, & by what steps it has been changed, so far as I can hitherto determine by records. And I have done it the more freely, because to You, who understand the many abuses which they of the Roman Church have put upon the world, it will scarce be ungratefull, to be convinced of one more than is commonly believed. For altho' the more learned & quicksighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius & some others, could not dissemble their knowledge, yet the generality are fond of the place for its making against Heresy. But whilst we exclaim against the pious frauds of the Roman Church, & make it a part of our religion to detect & renounce all things of that kind; we must acknowledge it a greater crime in us to favour such practises than in the Papists we so much blame on that account. For they act according to their religion but we contrary to ours. In the Eastern Nations, & for a long time in the Western, the Faith subsisted without this text, & it is rather a danger to religion than an advantage to make it now lean upon a bruised reed. There can not be better service done to the truth, than to purge it of things spurious. And therefore knowing your prudence & calmness of temper, I am confident I shall not offend you(2) you by telling you my mind plainly: especially since 'tis no article of Faith, no point of discipline, nothing but a criticism concerning a text of Scripture, which I am going to write about.

The History of the Corruption in short is this. First some of the Latines interpreted the Spirit, water, & blood of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost to prove them one. Then Ierome for the same reason end inserted the Trinity in express words in his Version. Out of him the Africans began to alledge allege it against the Vandals about 64 years after his death. Afterwards the Latins noted his variations in the margins of their books, & thence it began at length to creep in to the text in transcribing, & that chiefly in the twelfth & following centuries, when disputing was revived by the Schoolmen. And when printing came up, it crept out of the Latin into the printed Greek, against the authority of all the greek MSS & ancient versions, & from the Venetian presses it went soon after into Greece. Now the truth of this history will appear by considering the arguments on both sides.

The Arguments alleged for the testimony of the three in heaven are the authorities of Cyprian, Athanasius & Ierome, & of many Greek manuscripts & almost all the Latin ones.

Cyprians words run thus. (a)(a) Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, et tres unum sunt. Cypr. de. unit. Eccles. "The Lord saith I & the Father are one, & again of the Father & son & Holy Ghost it is written; And these three are one." The Socinians here deal too injuriously with Cyprian, while they wh would have this place corrupted. For Cyprian in another place repeats almost the same thing (b)(b) Si templum Dei factus est, quæso cujus Dei? – – – – – Si Spiritus Sancti, cùm tres unum sint, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus ei esse potest, qui aut Patris aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est. Cypr. Epist. 73 ad Iubaianum "If, saith he, [one baptized amongst heretics] be made the Temple of God, tell me I pray of what God: – If of the Holy Ghost; since these three are one, how can the Holy Ghost be reconciled to him who is the enemy of either the Father or the Son." These places of Cyprian, being in my opinion genuine, seem so apposite to prove the testimony of the three in heaven, that I should never have suspected(3)pected a mistake in it, could I but have reconciled it, with the ignorance I meet with of this reading in the next age amongst the Latins of both Afric & Europe, as well as amongst the Greeks. For had it been in Cyprians Bible, the Latins of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity, & all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out & daily brought upon the stage, could never have been ignorant of a text, which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon. In reconciling this difficulty, I consider therefore that the only words of the text quoted, by Cyprian in both places are, And these three are one; which words may belong to the eighth verse as well as to the seventh. For (c)(c) Eucherius reads the text thus. Tria sunt quæ testimonium perhibent, Aqua, Sanguis & Spiritus, & then adds this interpretation. Plures hîc ipsam interpretatione mysticâ intelligunt Trinitatem, eo quòd perfecta ipsa perhibeat testimonium Christo: Aquâ Patrem indicans, quia ipse de se dicit, hic dereliquerunt fontem aquæ vivæ; Sanguine Christum demonstrans, utique per passionis cruorem; Spiritu verò Sanctum Spiritum demonstr manifestans. Eucher. de Quæst. N. Test. Eucherius Bishop of Lion in France, & contemporary to St. Austin, reading the text without the seventh verse, tells us that many then understood the Spirit, the Water & the Blood to signify the Trinity. And (d)(d) Sane falli te nolo in Epistolà Ioannis Apostoli, ubi ait, Tres sunt testes, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis, et tres unum sunt: ne fortè dicas Spiritum et aquam et sanguinem diversas esse substantias, et tamen dictum esse tres unum sunt. Propter hoc admonui te ne fallacis. Hæc enim sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant semper attenditur –––––– Si verò ea quæ hìc significata sunt velim inquærere, non absurdè incurrit ipsa. Trinitas, quæ unus solus summus est Deus, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, de quibus verissime dici potuit tres unum sunt. Vt nomine spiritùs significatum accipiamus Deum Patrem (de Deo ipso quippe adorando loquebatur Dominus ubi ait Spiritus est Deus) nomine autem Sanguinis fFilium, quia verbum caro factum est, nomine Aquæ Spiritum sanctum. Cùm enim de Aquâ loqueretur Iesus, quæ datum erat sitientibus, ait Evangelistas "Hoc autem dixit de Spiritu quem acceptum erant credentes in eum. D. Augustin. cont. Maximum. cap. 22 S. Austin is one of those many, as you may see in his third book against Maximus: where he tells us that the Spirit is the Father, for God is a spirit; the Water, the Holy Ghost, for he is the Water which Christ gives to them that thirst, & the Blood the Son, for the word was made Flesh. Now if it was the opinion of many in the western Churches of those times that the Spirit, the Water & the Blood signified the Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost, its plain that the Testimony of the three in Heaven in expresse words was not yet crept into their books. And even without this testimony it was obvious for Cyprian, or any man else of that opinion, to say the Father & Son & Holy Ghost, it is written And these three are one. And that this was Cyprians meaning, (e)(e) Facundus in the begining of his book to the Emperor Iustinian, pro defensione trium Capitulorum Concilii Chalcedonensis, first recites the Text after the manner of Cyprian, but more distinctly in these words. Nam Ioannes Apostolus, in Epistolâ suâ, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, sic dicit: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in Terrâ, Spiritus, Aqua, et Sanguis et Hi Tres unum sunt: in Spiritu significantes Patrem (Ioan 4.21) –––––– in Aquâ Spiritum Sanctum (Ioan. 7.37) –––––– in sanguine verò filium filium. And a little after he thus confirms this Interpretation, by Cyprians Authority saying; aut si forsan ipsi qui de Verbo contendunt, in eo quod dixit tres sunt qui testificantur in terrâ, Spiritus Aqua et Sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt, Trinitatem nolunt intelligi, secundum ipsa verba quæ posuit pro Apostolo Ioanne respondeant. Numquid hi tres, qui in terrâ testificari, & qui unum esse dicuntur, possunt et spiritus et aquæ et sanguinessanguinis dici? Quod tamen Ioannis Apostoli testimonium B. Cyprianus Carthaginensis Antistes et Martyr, in Epistolà sive Liberro quod de Trinitate [immo de Vnitate Ecclesiæ] scripsit; de Patre Filio et Spiritu Sancto dictum intelligit. Ait enim, Dicit Dominus Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt. Facund. l. 1. p. 16. ex edit. Sirmondi Parisiis 1629 Facundus, an African Bishop in the sixth century is my author. For he tells us expressly that Cyprian in the abovementioned place understood it so; interpreting the water, spirit & blood to be the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, & thence affirming that Iohn said of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, These Three are one. This at least may (4) may followsbe gathered from this passage of Facundus, that some in those early ages interpreted Cyprian after that manner. Nor do I understand how any of those many who took for the Spirit Water & Blood for a type of the Trinity, or any man else who was ignorant of the testimony of the Three in Heaven (as the Churches in the time of the Arian controversy generally were) could understand him otherwise. And even Cyprians own words do plainly make for this interpretation. For he does not say, The Father The Word & the Holy Ghost, as 'tis now in the seventh verse, but the Father & Son & Holy Ghost as 'tis in Baptism, the place from whence they used at first to derive the Trinity. If it be pretended that the words cited by Cyprian are taken out of the seventh verse rather than out of the eighth, because he reads not Hi tres in unum sunt, but Hi tres unum sunt; I answer, that the Latines generally read Hi tres in unum sunt as well in the eighth verse as in the seventh, as you may see in the newly cited places of Austin & Facundus, & those of Ambrose, Pope Leo, Beda & Cassiodorus which follow, & in the present Vulgar Latin. So then the testimony of Cyprian respects the eighth, or at least is as applicable to that verse as to the seventh, & therefore it is of no force for proving the truth of the seventh. But on the contrary, for disproving it, we have here the testimonies of Facundus, S. Austin, Eucherius & those many others whom Eucherius mentions. For if those of that age had met with it in their books, they would never have understood the Spirit the Water & the Blood to be the three Persons of the Trinity in order to prove them One God.

see the printed Copy