^ *^1 <LJ£ 2 " i> v-3-A 
 
 Ob’ THE 
 
 ?b3(d<l(dgno&& sbqwmibv, 
 
 -AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 DON ATIOX O K 
 
 SAMUEL AONEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 ectez.-. 
 
 o4t.. 
 
 r p7levu<tJ0?§5f 
 
 ❖©< 
 
 
 
 * BT 111 .B87 1825 
 
 Burgess, Thomas, 1756-1837. 
 
 I 
 
 ID 
 
 ft A letter to the clergy of 
 the diocese of St. David's 
 
 © 
 
 >> _ 
 

 N 
 
 
 A 
 
 t 
 
 f* 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■* 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 o-". 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 . ■■ * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 aaTTaa * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID'S. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/lettertoclergyofOOburg 
 
A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S, 
 
 ON 
 
 A PASSAGE OF THE SECOND 
 
 SYMBOLUM ANTIOCHENUM 
 
 OF 
 
 THE FOURTH CENTURY, 
 
 AS 
 
 AN EVIDENCE 
 
 OF 
 
 The Authenticity of 1 John y. 7. 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMAS BURGESS, D.D. F.R.S. F.A.S. P.R.S.L. 
 
 BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR F. AND C. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL’S CHURCH¬ 
 YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE ; 
 
 AND 
 
 J. HATCHAKD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY. 
 
 , 1825 . 
 
<( The second Person of the Trinity is here [1 John v. 7J 
 “ more clearly called the Logos, than even in the beginning 
 “ of the Gospel.”— Parson's Letters , p. 376. 
 
 PRINTED BY J. BRETTELL, RUPERT STREET, HAYMARKET, 
 
 LONDON. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 A copy of the Symbolum Antiochenum, 
 which is the subject of the following 
 Letter, is included (with a comparison of 
 its several articles with corresponding- 
 passages of Scripture) in the Appendix; 
 and is accompanied with two other Sym - 
 bold of the fourth century. The Symbolum 
 Antiochenum contains evidence in sup¬ 
 port of the authenticity of 1 John v. 7, and 
 against the Papal doctrine of unwritten 
 tradition . Its express condemnation of 
 all doctrines unauthorised by Scripture 
 was too evident to escape the notice of 
 
 a 
 
• « 
 
 11 
 
 Fleury, and too adverse to the doctrines 
 and authority of his church to be admitted 
 in his translation of it, which is inserted in 
 the Appendix . This creed acknowledges 
 no other grounds of faith but what are 
 delivered in the Scriptures —in the writ¬ 
 ings of the Prophets, Evangelists, and 
 Apostles,—and were the faith of the fourth 
 century. It condemns, therefore, every 
 one of the articles of faith which Pope Pius 
 subjoined to the Nicene Creed, and which 
 constitute the peculiar and distinguishing 
 tenets of the Church of Rome. 
 
 The Sirmian Creed, the last of the 
 Symhola inserted in the Appendix, is re¬ 
 markable for its twentv-seven anathemas 
 against various heresies, (instead of the 
 general and comprehensive declaration 
 afterwards adopted in the Athanasian 
 Creed,) of which anathemas the sixth 
 condemns the most unscriptural and im- 
 
• • • 
 
 111 
 
 pious of the heresies of the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 In answer to the Protestant objection 
 to the exclusive intolerance of the Church 
 of Rome, it has often been asserted, that 
 the Church of England is equally exclu¬ 
 sive in the damnatory clauses of the Atha- 
 nasian Creed. Rut this is not true. The 
 Athanasian Creed condemns only those 
 whom the Scripture condemns. The 
 Papal anathema relates to doctrines which 
 have no foundation in Scripture. The 
 Athanasian Creed says, that no one can 
 be saved who does not believe the doc¬ 
 trine of the Trinity, and of the Divinity 
 and Incarnation of Christ. But Pope Pius, 
 in his creed, not content with this Scrip¬ 
 tural declaration, says, that no one can 
 be saved who does not believe that the 
 Church of Rome is the mother and mis¬ 
 tress of all churches, and that, at the 
 
i 
 
 IV 
 
 Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the con- 
 secrated bread is changed into the real 
 body and blood of Christ,—who does not 
 acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, 
 tiie worship of the Mass, the invocation 
 of Saints, and the other novelties and 
 heterodoxies of that creed. The Atha- 
 nasian Creed condemns no orthodox be¬ 
 liever of any denomination; the Papal 
 Creed condemns every one, the most or¬ 
 thodox, who does not swear true obedience 
 to the Pope. 
 
 The doctrines before mentioned are 
 the chief tests of Popery. They there¬ 
 fore form the subject of that declaration 
 against Popery which the Legislature 
 has adopted, as an effectual bar against 
 the admission of Papists into Parliament. 
 No one can make this declaration and e 
 a Papist. Mr. Butler, in order to get rid 
 of this security against his Church, says. 
 
V 
 
 that no Protestant can make the declara¬ 
 tion with a safe conscience*. On the 
 contrary (ice, I believe I might say ge¬ 
 nerally, but, to speak for myself,) I am 
 persuaded, that no one can with a safe 
 conscience profess the doctrines con¬ 
 demned by the declaration. The dan¬ 
 ger is all on the side of those who profess 
 the doctrines, which Latimer, Cranmer, 
 Ridley, and other Martyrs to the Protes¬ 
 tant faith, declared to be idolatrous and 
 superstitious, and which they suffered the 
 crudest of all deaths rather than not 
 renounce. 
 
 The sixth anathema of the Sirmian 
 Creed before mentioned, condemns that 
 monstrous doctrine, which our Protestant 
 Martyrs “ resisted unto blood. ” The 
 Creed declares: “ If any one shall say that 
 the substance of the Deity is dilated or 
 
 * Book of the Homan Catholic Church, p. 318-324, 
 
 x 
 
VI 
 
 contracted, let him be accursed.” The 
 Church of Rome professes to believe that 
 the Divinity of Christ, and therefore of 
 the Trinity, (for the Divinity of Christ is 
 inseparable from that of the Father and of 
 the Holy Spirit), is, at the Sacrament, 
 contracted within the compass of a wafer, 
 and of every particle of consecrated bread. 
 
 June 6, 1825. 
 
CONTENTS OF THE LETTER. 
 
 -4- 
 
 Page 
 
 The stores of ecclesiastical antiquity not yet ex¬ 
 
 hausted.... 6 
 
 Knittel’s New Criticisms. 6, 7 
 
 Second Symbolum Antiochenum. 8 
 
 Its concluding words, So that the Three are One 8 
 The whole Creed expressly founded on Scripture 9 
 Resemblance of its concluding words to the final 
 
 clause of 1 John v. 7.. 10 
 
 Quotations undoubted, though not in the precise 
 words of their originals, nor declared to be 
 
 quotations.11, 12 
 
 Every article of the Symbolum Antiochenum de¬ 
 clared to be from Scripture.12, 13 
 
 The concluding article therefore from Scripture, 
 
 and consequently from 1 John v. 7.14-16 
 
 Mistake of Mr. Porson concerning the genius of 
 
 the Greek language. 18 
 
 A passage of Gregory Naz. conclusive against an 
 
 objection of Mr. Porson.17, 18 
 
 Influence of Mr. Porson’s mistaken opinion. 18 
 
 Omission of the article before n atrvp, A oyos, and 
 Uvtv^a., not contrary to the genius of the 
 Greek language.17-20 
 
Vlll 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 A passage of Basil, very like 1 John v. 7. 10 
 
 Earliest use of the word t ptocs, . . 20 
 
 Peculiarities in the passage of 1 John v. 7.— 
 
 Tests of quotation and allusion. 21 
 
 Passages of Theophilus, Tertullian, Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, and Athenagoras, compared 
 
 with those tests....21-24 
 
 A conjectural emendation of Athenagoras. 24 
 
 The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, designated 
 
 by neuter terms, o^oowix, rpix, &c. 25 
 
 Mistake of Mr. Porson concerning the language 
 
 of the Greek Fathers. 26 
 
 Concessions of Mr. Porson. 27 
 
 Objection of Mr. Porson obviated by reference to 
 
 Origen and Gregory.27, 28 
 
 Decisive testimonies, Greek and Latin, to the 
 
 authenticity of 1 John v. 7. 
 
 Allegorical interpretation of the eighth verse first 
 
 proposed by Augustine. 30 
 
 The allegorical interpretation of the eighth verse 
 not inconsistent with the knowledge of the 
 
 seventh. 34 
 
 Eugenius of Cherson’s opinion of the passage 
 
 misrepresented by Kappius. 35 
 
 Study of the Ancient Fathers recommended to 
 
 the younger Clergy.37, 38 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 IX 
 
 THE POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Page 
 
 I. The subject of the preceding Letter re¬ 
 sumed.—Every article of the Symholum 
 Antiochenum declared to be from Scrip¬ 
 ture.—Quotations may be authentic, 
 without being in the precise terms of 
 
 their originals. 43 
 
 II. The words roc rptoc Iv and roc, rptoc us « 
 derived from 1 John v. 7 and 8, and 
 these verses from the Gospel of St. 
 
 John. 46 
 
 III. Modern cumulative evidences against the 
 seventh verse, few and insignificant; 
 
 for the verse , many and important. 52 
 
 IV. Traces of the verse to be found in MSS. 
 and writings of the Fathers, which 
 
 omit it . 63 
 
 V. Causes of the omission of the verse in 
 the Oriental Versions, and in the two 
 
 ancient Greek MSS. 69 
 
 VI. Innovations necessary to invalidate the 
 verse.—Connexion of the passage with 
 
 the Gospel . 77 
 
 VII. Present sentiments of the Bishop of 
 Winchester concerning the passage. 
 
 —Testimony of other learned Prelates 81 
 
 VIII. Lincoln College MS. 84 
 
 IX. Historical evidence, that the verse gave 
 
 occasion to the Arian controversy. 85 
 
 b 
 
X 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 THE APPENDIX. 
 
 Page 
 
 I. Symbolum Antiochenum, Graec£, Latin&, 
 
 Gallic^, Anglic^. 95 
 
 II. Uberior fidei explanatio Italiam missa . 106 
 
 III. Symbolum Sirmii editum contra Photinum.. 114 
 
 IV. A comparison of every article of the Symbo¬ 
 
 lum Antiochenum with corresponding 
 passages of Scripture. 120 
 
« -^t oj-?-. -J- -rfiq^ i^j)* f'* n H ooi H, *v Tfpc^jN tK/&( jxcvt • 
 
 'r° u -n^ 1(^.1 iv <ro^>j5 (j o*-* .•- 
 
 «-^_, x ~ V ' • / 
 
 <■ * 0 ^i. ‘ y 0 pi K 00 fy T 0 p Ko O^co/y 
 
 ° ’~® r l cp^Ooop o ^ a- dq~£ o 
 
 ' ^ ^ u ^ / ( » 
 
 r Tz> u *tf-ir ' o vro cr ^7 ^ o <f^\, 
 
 r fay^'^)Z~rQ<rLcu gjl yuxrruc 
 
 ' , J ' ->r. 
 
 l ' fcTvi ^ tmt'of'-T'n qZ-^rJZ *• ■> « < ft a / 
 
 ^Kouk^h^ 0-A_^C^ H OXO fU^JJO 
 
 uW 
 
 UoJ no «-a> pay dan! to juucxp -7-u p 0 ^ y 
 
 Z'V'rpfaA-i'fa. Ha^c{hfau r "q 
 
 ' r “'V^ rr ‘Vv<Jf'fco L to _* ~ ^ v 
 
 '*+$:Ln euuTfWcu/ '*' r ?t' cr < r '*"*>**{ ^VfOU^ 
 
 -je-^r ; _ n^x - ^rx> '~urycu U-cu nr^ t cJ >V oo£ Ztru, 
 
 > _^ ( / T© Luxe 01 *7~p ^C <^cr *^-q 
 
 Ct- «i'ry<cr^o ^,'4 Tt^ «. y / * 
 
 <£rq<ny*4nvYixs^'Tvpiwc V x> 
 
 'V~6x> - ■ x t , *<r -$-ir ;- -» -—' " / u 
 
 c^-p oou oyx,fyy, K>Aj a_p r^v 
 
 p \ eo 'to o o^J 3 03 P H ‘ o nr/ 
 
 ' y y ' , 
 
 ou-r-r^ ozri. y h *Topi arnjv »^G 
 
 ^VAAJ }-ufj-MXp «-p/ p * J<C 'XCr<^ s rj^, J, 
 
 'O-fou ojutoo ■ * '■pr/ cy^o°y ^c rc To “' 
 
 \* ' / 
 
 *V^ p qx>\j *~fy\j T a <h'^ CCk f e Tt>pi )yy 
 
 7 s 
 
 6yzujTx& • o pni *~ccr^ cfdjso y nr2> «-#^o 
 
 JL> -> ‘ 
 
 HM^ccHy - td 7 nroi KKfcp cu-rrojj * 
 
 «. * 
 
 / r’r/f <v.. ty>y. ■ '^rr 7/J <5'/. <r////t 22x//y / ')fry' 7/fr- sr^t r>yt*e^/ ^ 
 
 ...». //. . ^ / . ~ tre t/ic PiDST.irmPT qftMs Tract p.ffff. 
 
 sn't 7// v/ ///.it///r //s'//777*77 / -/A HEJfRIt'US LIGHT, ff/W'w/’r. | 
 
 / / - ^ 
 
 ^ 5 ^/ /VyC'V / r ^/V 7 / We/ f ^ / 4 V/ y 
 
 t r y^V* 
 
A LETTER, 
 
 — ♦—- 
 
 Reverend Brethren, 
 
 The following pages were in¬ 
 tended as a preliminary to my Charge; 
 but they so far exceed the usual limits of 
 a Dedication, that I have thought it 
 better to send them to you in this separate 
 form. Though I am your debtor for 
 two former Charges, delivered to you in 
 the years 1816 and 1820, which I have 
 hitherto deferred to publish, I am induced 
 to comply with your request for the pub- 
 
6 
 
 lication of my last Charge, on account of 
 that part of it which concerns the inquiry 
 into the genuineness of 1 John v. 7, 
 which inquiry I am anxious to mature, 
 because I am convinced that it must end 
 in a full and satisfactory proof of the 
 authenticity of the verse. In that part of 
 the Charge which relates to the contro¬ 
 verted verse, I have confined myself to 
 the internal evidence of the verse, as better 
 suited to an audience , than the details of 
 the external evidence ; and not for want 
 of new materials of that evidence both 
 from Greek and Latin authorities. I have 
 elsewhere expressed a persuasion, that 
 the stores of ecclesiastical antiquity are 
 not yet exhausted; and that much new 
 light may be expected from a fuller in¬ 
 vestigation of the Greek Fathers. This 
 expectation has been verified by what I 
 find in M. Knittel’s New Criticisms on 
 
/ 
 
 7 
 
 the verse*, who has produced several new 
 Greek evidences from Joannes Mauropus, 
 and Gregory of Nazianzum, and many 
 new observations on the old authorities 
 of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Lucian’s Phi- 
 lopatris, to which criticisms Michaelis, 
 who allowed them to be learned and valu¬ 
 able, made no reply in the last edition of 
 his Introduction , though published three 
 years after the appearance of the New Cri¬ 
 ticisms. As a translation of M. Knittel’s 
 * work may, it is to be hoped, be published 
 before long, I will not here anticipate any 
 of his evidences or observations. But I 
 will present you with a Greek authority 
 of great antiquity, which is not noticed 
 by Knittel, and has not been adduced 
 in any defence of the verse; but which 
 appears to me to be directly referable to 
 
 * Published at Brunswick, 1785, 
 
8 
 
 it, I mean,^the second Symbolum Anti - 
 ochenum of the fourth century*. 
 
 Early in the fourth century (A.D. 
 34If) this Creed was drawn up by a 
 Council held at Antioch, consisting of 
 ninety-seven Bishops, of whom nearly half 
 were Arians. After the Declaration of 
 Faith ei; eva 0£ov,— eic svu Kvgiov, Ivjpovv X^- 
 (7Tov f —and sig to Ilvevixct to ccyiovj the Creed 
 
 adds wf EIVCCt TYI |X£V V7T0UTCi(T£l TPIA, Tift Se 
 
 av^Quvicc 'EN, “ so that they are Three in 
 “ Person, and One in Consent,” or, (with¬ 
 out the explanatory terms,) as eivea Jv, 
 “ or tu T$iu iv, so that the Three are One” 
 If in the Apostles’ Creed the declaration 
 
 * Socrates Hist. Eccl. L. II. c. x. ed. Reading. 
 Athanasius Opp. T. I. p. 735, 736. Fleury’s Eccles. 
 Hist. Vol. III. p. 253. ed. Paris, 1742; and Vol. II. 
 p. 131, of the English Translation. 
 
 -f Four Symbola were published in the year 341, 
 two of them at Antioch, of which the second is the 
 subject of this Letter. 
 
9 
 
 of belief in the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost had been followed by the 
 words, And these three are one , no one, 
 I think, could have doubted from what 
 part of the New Testament they were 
 derived, though it is not said in the 
 Creed that the whole is founded on 
 Scripture authority. The Nicene Creed 
 quotes Scripture only for one article of 
 faith,—the resurrection of Christ, — but 
 the rest of the Creed is not therefore 
 the less founded on “ most certain war- 
 “ rants of Holy Scripture.” The first 
 Christian Creed was a general decla- 
 ration of faith in the three Persons of the 
 Trinity, and was founded on our Saviour’s 
 baptismal commission. Later Creeds were 
 enlarged as heresies increased, and other 
 occasions required; but were equally 
 founded on Scripture, though not de¬ 
 clared so to be. To this apparently 
 unauthoritative form the Symbolum An - 
 tiochenum is an exception. 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 The words before quoted of the Sym- 
 holum Antiochenum , it must be allowed, 
 resemble the clause of the controverted 
 verse; but, it may be asked, are they a 
 quotation from Scripture ? Is there any 
 indication to that effect in the Creed 
 itself? Mr. Porson says, of a passage of 
 Euthymius, which will be quoted here¬ 
 after, “ I grant that the passage relates to 
 “ the Trinity ; and if it be a quotation 
 “ from Scripture, I will grant, that it is 
 “ the clause of 1 John v. 7.” (p. 209.) 
 We will apply this criterion to the words 
 of the Symholum Antiochenum , rig sivou ry 
 fisv V7ro<rTa<rei TPIA, rrj Ss crvjj.(pc*jnaz f EN, or 
 (without the explanatory terms by which 
 the quotation is disguised), rig mou rpioc 
 sv, or tu T(>tcc Jy*. These words are applied, 
 in the Creed to the Trinity. We may 
 
 * Divested of the explanatory terms, the subject 
 of the sentence requires the article, as in this passage 
 of Gregory Naz. 'Ey ra rgtx Seot^jt/, nxt to ey r^itx tous 
 
 Orat. 37. p. 598. 
 
n 
 
 therefore grant, with Mr. Person, if they 
 are a quotation from Scripture, they are 
 the clause of 1 John v. 7. They are not, 
 indeed, precisely the same as the words 
 of that verse, ol t psig sv sici : but may, 
 nevertheless, be a quotation from it. In 
 the quotations from the Old Testament in 
 the New, there is often as great, or greater 
 variation, where there is no doubt of one 
 being the original of the other, as may 
 be seen in Dr. Randolph’s and Dr. Owen’s 
 Collections of those Quotations. But take 
 another instance, more immediately appo¬ 
 site to our purpose,—Caesarius's quotation 
 of the eighth verse : K cu Tps/g V7rapx£iv 
 tovtov [xocpTVpctg (pvjFiv o i^yjKog Iwavvvjg, to 
 otipLoCf to il)wp, non to nrvsvpLoc, kcci ol Tpsig Iv 
 
 sun. The expression of the first clause is 
 accommodated to Caesarius’s use of the 
 passage: inrocp%stv is used instead of ei<n 9 
 and jj.oc^TV^OLg instead of ol jjiapTvpovvTsg, ayiov 
 
12 
 
 is omitted, and the words nrvsvy.*, odya, 
 
 are transposed. In the final clause of 
 the verse, we have lv instead of eig to h. 
 And yet, with all these variations, St. 
 John’s authority is expressly quoted for 
 the passage. 
 
 But it may be said, that the words in 
 question, of the Symbolum Antiochenum , 
 are not declared (as in the passage of 
 Caesarius) to be a quotation from St. John. 
 Such tacit quotation is not uncommon ;— 
 there are many instances of it in this 
 Creed, in which we have 7 rpuroroKov 7 ru^vjg 
 %Ti<reoog, and e% ov tcc Trocvra, and S/’ ovtoc 7 tocvtu, 
 and the anathema, E 1 Tig uXXo IiIoktkei v\ 
 svayyeXi^STou 7 rocg 0 7Toc^sXuf3oysv, cwocBey.cc eo-tuj , 
 from St. Paul, without his name, or any 
 notice of quotation, and in the last instance 
 with some variation from his words. 
 
 There are in the Creed several other tacit 
 quotations from Scripture. It was, indeed. 
 
13 
 
 the less necessary to quote the autho¬ 
 rity for every citation, because the whole 
 Creed is declared, in its commencement 
 and conclusion, to be from Scripture, and 
 from Scripture only , as delivered by Pro¬ 
 phets, Evangelists, and Apostles ; and that 
 not by a general conformity with the doc¬ 
 trines of Scripture, but every article of it 
 is professed to be from Scripture: f fl2 at 
 Bsiai r /^oi(pocL 7 ragotSsfiouKav tocv IIPOEIPHMENnN 
 'EKASTON A$ 7 EKASTOT, as it is expressed 
 in one of the Anathemas of the Creed : “If 
 “ anyone shall not profess all and singular 
 “ of the aforesaid [doctrines] as the holy 
 “ Scriptures have delivered them, let him 
 “ be accursed. ” Again, “ If any one 
 “ teach or preach any other [doctrine] 
 “ than that we have received , let him be 
 “ accursed. For we believe and follow 
 “ all things out of Scripture delivered 
 “ by the Prophets and Apostles.’’ We 
 
14 
 
 find clearly here what is meant in the 
 commencement of the Creed by svayysXucy 
 kou cc7roa'ToXiK‘yj IIAPAAOXEI,—not tradition, 
 in the vague sense of the Roman Church*, 
 
 but TA V7T0 TCOV SVOCyysXlCTTCAJV TiDCL utvoftoXcov 
 
 ITAPAAEAOMENA, and oci Qsioa ygoctpoci 
 ITAPAAEAflKAN. 
 
 One of the 7 ra^sSofjLsm, of which the 
 Creed is composed, included in the 7 rpoeigvi- 
 psvu ,—“the aforesaid doctrines”—is the 
 passage cog slvoci rri psv wroaTourei TPIA, tjj Jf 
 <Tvptpwviu C EN, or (without the explanatory 
 terms,) cog eivca rgicc h, or tcc Tgioc Iv. I con¬ 
 clude, therefore, that these words may be 
 a quotation from Scripture, though, like 
 many acknowledged quotations, it is not 
 expressly declared to be so ; and that the 
 passage is a quotation from Scripture, be- 
 
 * The learned and candid Fleury was too faithful 
 to his church to be a faithful translator of this 
 Creed.—See his translation of it in the Appendix 
 to this Letter. 
 
15 
 
 cause it is an article of a Creed professing 
 
 \ 
 
 to consist of 7 rocffochtiopevoc V7ro tuv ccttofoXuv, 
 
 though, like other quotations in the same 
 Creed, and elsewhere, the words are not 
 precisely the same as in the original; and, 
 lastly, that it is from the final clause of 
 1 John v. 7, because there is no other 
 passage of Scripture, in which it is said 
 of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, that the three are one. 
 
 It is remarkable of this Creed, that the 
 framers of it profess to follow the Scrip¬ 
 tures, and the Scriptures only , and have 
 marked their strict adherence to what is 
 delivered by the Apostles by the repetition 
 of a term expressive of that adherence : 
 it begins with n/<rrewpv AKOAOY 0 H 2 
 Tfj svocyysXixyj xca ct7ro<no\i7tv\ TragccSofrst, and 
 ends with zoig uVo tuv frPotpriTOuv xca oc7TO(Tto\uv 
 TPDC^OC^O^VOig KOU TTKTTSVO^SV TiOCL AKOAOY 0 OY- 
 
 MEN. The words in question, therefore, 
 are not the casual expression of an indivi- 
 
16 
 
 dual writing in his own person, and perhaps 
 without an immediate reference to the 
 words of St. John, but they are the 
 language of a great Council, meeting 
 expressly to correct and supply the de¬ 
 fective and imperfect declarations of a 
 former Creed, and making a direct appeal 
 to the Scriptures for every article in it, 
 and anathematizing every thing not of 
 Scripture authority. 
 
 If in the Creed it had been said t*j jisv 
 
 OY2IA sv, though agreeing with the gene- 
 
 / 
 
 neral doctrine of the Church, it would 
 not have been so peculiarly applicable to 
 the passage of St. John, as tjj psv 
 NIA sv, because this is one of the mean¬ 
 ings of the word sv, expressly resulting 
 
 * 
 
 from St. John’s argument from concur¬ 
 rence of testimony . The expression seems 
 to have been adopted by the Council, as 
 being both founded on Scripture, and at 
 the same time not offensive to the Arians, 
 
17' 
 
 who constituted almost half of the Council. 
 When Gregory of Nazianzum addressed 
 his thirty-second oration to the Council 
 of Constantinople in the year 381, at a 
 time when the Arian faction had lost its 
 influence, he expressed the unity of the 
 Three Divine Persons in its primary 
 meaning: Iho-Tsvopsv —to psv f EN, OY2IA 
 
 yiVOOCTKOVTSg, %0U TOO OCpS^KTTOO T^g 7TpO<nCUVYI(r£Wg m 
 
 tu Ss tpia Toug V7Too~Toccr£(Ti 9 sits nposanon:, 
 
 <5 Ticri (piXcv*. 
 
 The first words of the declaration of 
 fait!i, from which this passage of Gregory is 
 taken, are remarkable: Therrsvopsv sig UaTspa, 
 xoci 'Yiov, Ttcu Tlvsvpoc to uyiov, opoovcrioc ts kou 
 
 opolo^oc. The language of Gregory shews 
 the weakness of Mr. Porson’s objection 
 to the absence of the articles before n octyj^ 
 A oyog, and Tlvevpoc, in the passage of St. 
 
 * Gregorii Naz. Opp. T. I. p. 520, Ed. Colon. 1690. 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 John, as it was read in the Codex Bri- 
 tannicus, and is now extant in the Dub¬ 
 lin MS. as if such omission of the articles 
 was contrary to “ the genius of the Greek 
 “ language ,” (Letters, p. 51. 60,) and a 
 proof that the verse was translated from 
 the Latin. Mr. Porson’s opinion of the 
 had Greek of the Montfort MS. is one of 
 the hasty assertions of the Greek Professor, 
 which (pre-eminently learned as he was) 
 contributed, no doubt, very generally to 
 the discredit of the controverted verse. 
 
 The articles are also omitted in a 
 passage of Basil, which I quote the rather 
 on account of its near resemblance to the 
 verse. Hi<rr£V 0 iL£v sig Osov, xoci Koyov, xui 
 
 HvSVjJLU, pU&V OVCCCV BsOTTjTa, XOil pL0VY\]f wpo- 
 
 (TXVVVITIXYIV. Mr. Porson (Letters, p. 234) 
 considers this passage as “ most like our 
 “ verse; ” but he quotes it not quite 
 fairly; for he gives only the Latin trans- 
 
19 
 
 lation of it, which conceals the omission 
 of the articles, that imputed proof of 
 Latin origin. In the same page there 
 is another suppression of words equally 
 adverse to his decision against the omis¬ 
 sion of the articles, and also bearing a 
 near resemblance to 1 John v. 7. “ The 
 
 “ Nomocanon published by Cotelerius, 
 
 “ uvtoc toc t^ioC} IT ctTVjp—Iv tocvtoc roc 
 
 The words are so quoted by Mr. Porson, 
 instead ot n ocTTjp kou c T log kou ccyiov sv 
 
 tccvtoc toc t^ioc. In the fourth of the Twenty 
 Questions in the works of Athanasius, 
 Yol. III. p. 337, we find those words with 
 
 the articles: o UuTVj^ kcu o T iog kou to Hi/sv^oc 
 to ccyiov EN sctti kou TPIA. Again in the 
 same Questions, p. 336, the same words 
 occur without the articles, Uoct ^ kou 'Tiog 
 koci uyiov II vsvy^oc, hg Qsog, kou ov Tps/g. Tile 
 truth is that where Hut T iog, Uvsv^oc are 
 connumerated as the Persons of the 
 Trinity, they have the force of proper 
 
20 
 
 names, and, as such, it is a matter of 
 indifference, in regard to idiom, whether 
 they have the articles or not. 
 
 The words of Basil are so “ like our 
 “ verse ” by the use of the term A oyog 
 for the second Person of the Trinity, that 
 
 J 7 
 
 there seems to be verv little doubt of his 
 
 j 
 
 allusion to it. There is another passage, 
 in one of the Fathers of the second 
 century, which has the same resemblance 
 to the verse, with the additional claim to 
 our notice on account of its use (perhaps 
 the earliest use} of the word TPIA2 for 
 the three Persons of the Trinity. Theo- 
 philus of Antioch, who lived A. D. 181, 
 speaking of certain types of the Trinity, 
 says, T rjg TPIAAQ2 tvttoi, tov Qscv, kcci tov 
 A oyov uvtov , kccl TYjg Xotpicxg ccvtov*. (Lib. 
 ad Autolycum, L. II. p. 94.} The A oyog 
 
 * Of this use of the term 2ocp,x for the Holy Spirit, 
 see Bishop Bull, Opp. p. 68. 76. 142, Ed. Bowyer, 
 1721. 
 
21 
 
 is no where in the New Testament 
 connumerated as the second Person ot 
 the Trinity, but in our verse. 
 
 The peculiarities which distinguish 
 1 John v. 7, from other passages of 
 Scripture, may, I think, be justly consi¬ 
 dered as tests of quotation, or of allusion 
 to it, which will be the more probable in 
 proportion to their antiquity. These pecu¬ 
 liarities are the connumeration of the 
 Word with the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit,—the citation of the Three Divine 
 Persons, as joint witnesses ,—and the 
 unity of the Three. The passage of 
 Theophilus may be considered as an 
 example of the first of these tests. The 
 citation of the Three Divine Persons as 
 witnesses , appears to render Clemens 
 Alexandrinus and Tertullian (of the same 
 century with Theophilus) examples of 
 the second, and as such contributors to 
 
22 
 
 the proof of the authenticity of the verse. 
 Clemens Al. p. 375 , ed. Commelin. Uav 
 
 ICTTCCTCCl 67ll S VO KOCl TQ100V MAPTTPflN, 
 67VL TVCCT^Og, KOCl VIOV , KOCl CcyiOV 7VV6'J jAOCTOg, eft 
 
 ot>v MAPTTPHN KOCl /3 oYi3caJV at 6VTO'hoci \6yO^LzVOCl 
 (pvXccTT6<r&oci o(psiXovo-iv» Tertullian, to the 
 resemblance arising from the mention of 
 the Three Divine Persons as witnesses, 
 and from the validity of concurrent testi¬ 
 mony, adds a further circumstance from 
 the context of the verse, (ver. 9.) —I mean, 
 the superiority of divine testimony over 
 human. Si in trihus testihus omne stabit 
 verburn,—quanto magis sufficit ad fidu- 
 ciam spei nostrae etiam numerus nominum 
 divinorum *. (De Baptismo, c. vi.) That 
 
 * If the language of Tertullian in this passage be 
 compared with his Qui tres union sunt , (Lib. adv. 
 Prax.) and his Trmitas unius Dimnitatis Pater et 
 Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, (Lib. de Pudicitia,) there 
 can hardly be a doubt of his knowledge of 1 John v. 7. 
 The very prevalence of the doctrine in the second 
 century is a presumptive evidence of the verse. 
 
23 
 
 these passages had a reference to the verse 
 of St. John appears the more probable, 
 because Maximus (many centuries indeed 
 subsequent to the age of Theophilus, 
 Clemens, and Tertullian, but on the 
 same subject of Baptism,^) after quoting 
 the thrice blessed names , Tgio-paKagia, ovo^a- 
 o-ia, in which we are baptized, adds, that 
 St. John says, “ These Three are one/’ 
 Athenagoras, of the same century with 
 the three learned Fathers before men¬ 
 tioned, speaks of that unity of the 
 Father , the Son , and Holy Spirit , which 
 is peculiar to the passage of St. John: 
 
 Tic Yl TOV 7 TOCl^Og TT^Og TOV 7 TOiTEQOC EVOTYjg, Tig Y\ 
 tov Tvoa^og ir^og tov ttui^oi koivoqvioc, ti to 7rvsvpcc> 
 Tig Y\ TOO)) T0CT0VT00V ENflEIS, KOll AIAIPE2I2) 
 SVOVpSVOOV, TOV 7TVSVpOCT0g, TOV TTOllOOg, TOV TTUT^Og, 
 
 (p. 98, ed. Reckenberg.) “ What the 
 “ unity of the Son with the Father, what 
 “ that of the Father with the Son, what 
 
24 
 
 “ the communion* of the Spirit [with 
 “ both], what the unity of persons 
 “ distinct by number, and the distinction 
 “ of persons united [in substance or 
 “ essence],” l. e . Tig tj ^ioc^sBsvtojv evw<rig 
 xui S lui^scng These problems ot 
 
 Athenagoras appear to be founded on the 
 Epistle of St. John, the two former being 
 expressed nearly in the words of Athana¬ 
 sius’s Synopsis of the Epistle: xca tyiv 
 
 ZVOTYjTOi §£ TOV VlOV TT^Og TOV TTCCTc^OC 'SsiKMClV, 
 
 and in connexion with the two latter, 
 pointing directly to the seventh verse. 
 
 But to return to Gregory of Nazian- 
 zum’s profession of faith in the Trinity 
 before the Council of Constantinople. 
 
 * Instead of n to tt nv^x, ns, it should, I 
 
 think, be read, ns rov ttuv^xtos xoivwvix, ns y.. t. x. and 
 so I have translated it. Epiphanius, (Haer. lxii. 
 p. 519,) calls the Spirit a-v^sa-^os TgixSos, which is what 
 I conceive to have been meant by xoivuvix rov 'nnv^xros, 
 if that (as I conjecture) be the right reading. 
 
25 
 
 He says, Hkttsvo^sv £ig Tlar^a, kocl f T iov, 
 Ttou IT vsv^cc to uyiov, ojjioov(rioc rs 7tca oy,oSo^a. 
 
 The Father and the Son, though dis¬ 
 tinguished by masculine nouns, are here 
 not called opoovo-ioi and opoSo^oi, but, 
 together with the Holy Spirit, ofjioovcrict 
 and ojj.o'So^cc, — 7rpocrM7roc being understood. 
 With reference to tv^og-oottu the Greek 
 Fathers much more frequently use the 
 neuter rp/a in speaking of the Three 
 Persons of the Trinity, than the Latin 
 Fathers do tria , their word for Person 
 being not neuter, but feminine. As the 
 solecistical appearance of Gregory’s lan¬ 
 guage is accounted for by reference to 
 7rpocrw7ra, may not the apparently greater 
 solecism of the eighth verse in the con¬ 
 struction of neuters with masculines be 
 removed by a reference of rpsig and ol to 
 l^apjvpsg involved in [AapTvgouvrsg ? Grotius 
 says, MaprvpowTsg Hebraeo more pro pc ocprvpsg. 
 Solet autem vox testis etiam de rebus 
 
 n 
 
26 
 
 inanimis dici, ut Genes, xxxi. 48. 51. 
 Csesarius, in quoting the eighth verse, has 
 l^aprvpocg instead of oi ^ocpTvpovvTsg: and Am¬ 
 brose and Augustine translate rps/g paprv - 
 povnsg by tres testes *. 
 
 Mr. Porson says, (p. 220,) “ I know 
 “ no Greek writer , who has used [ 'rpioc 
 “ for T^cLg] in either of the verses.” Mr. 
 Porson’s knowledge of the Greek Fathers 
 was evidently not so extensive as his 
 knowledge of the Greek dramatic Poets. 
 The neuter rpot is used by Origen in 
 quoting the eighth verse in his Com¬ 
 mentary on John i. 27, 28, p. 133, ed. 
 
 Colon. TO IT VSVpLOC 7LCCI TO vSajp TtCCl TO Oil jJLOC 
 ctvsypoo\js tu Tpioc sig sv ysvopsvoc* The neu¬ 
 ter form is also quoted from the same 
 verse by Gregory Nazianz. Yol. I. p. 
 603, ed. Colon. In the same terms 
 
 * Mittenda est ordinaria ac propria struendi ratio, 
 et dictus locus hac ratione vertendus : Tres sunt testes , 
 qui testantur in terra , spiritus , aqua , et sanguis. 
 —(Chr. S. Georgii Hierocriticus, N. T., p. 49 ) 
 
27 
 
 CEcumenius explains the eighth verse: 
 
 K ou tccvtoc toc t^ioc sig hoc X^kttov sun, tovt- 
 SfTTtV, TYjV TVSQl TOV Xp/(TT0V {AOCgTVgtCCV. If Mr. 
 
 Pol son had been aware of these autho¬ 
 rities, he would probably have passed a 
 different judgment on Euthymius’s tlou toc 
 Tptoch, from what he has done in p. 218, seq. 
 For he grants that “ the passage relates 
 “ to the Trinity, and if it be a quotation 
 u from Scripture, that it is the clause of 
 “ 1 John v. 7." These are encouraging 
 concessions, and afford some prospect of 
 a termination of our inquiry. Why did 
 Mr. Porson doubt that tcou ra t^ioc h is the 
 clause of 1 John v. 7? Because “ it varies 
 “ in language from the commonly received 
 “ text, the masculines being turned into 
 “ neuters,” and “ because the words may 
 “ have been adopted from Gregory of 
 “ Nazianzum.” Vol. I. p. 582.) The pas¬ 
 sages of Origen and Gregory afford a 
 sufficient answer to the two first objec- 
 
28 
 
 lions. The words of both those passages 
 vary from the common text, and yet they 
 are expressly quotations of the eighth 
 verse; and in both passages the mascu¬ 
 lines are turned into neuters. The dif¬ 
 ference of language, therefore, does not 
 prove the words xou roc rpioc b to be not 
 from the seventh verse. But the very 
 same words are found in Gregory. They 
 are. And why should not xca roc rpicc b 
 in Gregory and Euthymius be as truly 
 derived from the seventh verse, as Origen’s 
 toc Tpioc sig b yEKOjjisvoc are from the eighth 
 verse ? especially as bg sivoa rpicc b, or, m 
 TpLoc b , of the Symbolum Antiochenum, is 
 part of a Creed, the whole of which is 
 professedly from Scripture. 
 
 The most perfect likeness to our verse is 
 that required by Mr. Porson, p. 225, the 
 connumeration of the three Persons,and the 
 assertion of their unity*. This we find in 
 
 * See the Second Edition of a Vindication of 
 1 John v. 7, p. xxxvi.-xxxviii. 
 
29 
 
 that distinct fragment of the verse :— And 
 the three are one , or, And these three are 
 one. In Basil we have the assertion of 
 unity , but not the express connumeration 
 of the Three. In Theophilus we have the 
 Three , but not the assertion of unity . In 
 the Symbolum Antiochenum , Gregory, the 
 Nomocanon, Pseudo-Athanasius, Maxi¬ 
 mus, &c. we have both the connumera¬ 
 tion and the assertion. 
 
 If now to the professions of faith in 
 the Symbolum Antiochenum , A Smou 
 
 ypa(pou ITAPAAEAHKAN, and Maximus’s 
 inANNHS cEASKEI- xou ol rpstg to h 
 euriv, we add the testimony of Cyprian : 
 De Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto 
 SCRIPTUM EST: Et hi tres unum 
 sunt; and the use of the same words by 
 Augustine: Tres Personae sunt. Pater, 
 Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus; Et hi tres 
 unum sunt; ('who, he says are one, quia 
 
30 
 
 unius substantiae sunt;) there appear to 
 be no means of evading the conclusion, 
 that the seventh verse was in the original 
 text of St. John, otherwise than by a fre¬ 
 quently refuted objection to the authority 
 of Cyprian and Augustine, on the supposi¬ 
 tion that they quote the words not of the 
 seventh verse, but of the eighth, by allego¬ 
 rically interpreting 7 rvsvpu, uSup, and a! pet of 
 the three Persons of the Trinity. The verse 
 was certainly so interpreted by Augustine 
 and Facundus, but not by the Greek 
 Fathers*, or by Cyprian. Mr. Porson,how¬ 
 ever, lays so much stress on the inference, 
 which he draws against the seventh verse 
 from the allegorical interpretation of the 
 eighth, that I shall quote his several ob¬ 
 servations on the subject. P. 286, he 
 
 * See Bengelius, § xxiv. cc Periocha hcec non est 
 glossa ex allegorico spiritus , et aquae et sanguinis 
 interpretamento confectaP 
 
31 
 
 says : “ It is self-evident that no man , who 
 “ had before him a clear passage for the 
 “ doctrine of the Trinity, a passage, 
 “ where the three Persons are distinctly 
 “ named, would quote the adjacent sen- 
 “ tence, and explain it mystically of the 
 “ same doctrine, unless he were deter- 
 “ mined to turn the Scripture into need- 
 “ less tautology, and weaken the force of 
 “ his own reasoning.” Again, p. 307, 
 “ It is not likely, that any body, seeing 
 “ the doctrine of the Trinity clearly 
 “ revealed in the seventh verse, should 
 “ extract it from the eighth by an unna- 
 “ tural interpretation.” Again, p. 311, 
 “ I do re-assert, that no writer in his 
 66 perfect mind could possibly adopt this 
 “ allegorical exposition of the eighth 
 “ verse, if the seventh were extant in his 
 “ copy.—I appeal to any orthodox reader, 
 “ whether he would force an indirect 
 
32 
 
 confession of his favourite doctrine from 
 “ one text by torture, when he might 
 “ have a clear, full, and voluntary evi- 
 “ deuce from its neighbour/' 
 
 If Mr. Porson’s inference from the alle¬ 
 gorical interpretation of the eighth verse 
 were just, it would amount to no more 
 than this, that the allegorical interpreters 
 (Augustine and Facundus) had not the 
 seventh verse in their copies. It is absent 
 from some Latin MSS. now extant,—about 
 one in fifty, was Mr. Porson’s own calcula¬ 
 tion. Such a fact would go a very little 
 way towards disproving the authenticity 
 of the seventh verse. But the inference is 
 not just either on the ground of probability 
 or of fact. For with Augustine’s sense of 
 unum in the eighth verse, which he limited 
 to one in substance , he could not interpret 
 the eighth verse otherwise than he did, even 
 if the seventh verse had been before him. 
 
33 
 
 For he understood Tsrvsvpu, v$wp 9 and odpot ot 
 the eighth verse to mean, literally , Christ’s 
 expiration on the cross, and the water and 
 blood which issued from his side. These 
 he knew were things not of one substance , 
 and therefore, to be consistent with his 
 own interpretation of union, he was com¬ 
 pelled to resort to allegory, and to inter¬ 
 pret the three terms before mentioned of 
 the three Persons of the Trinity. It was 
 not therefore to extract the doctrine of the 
 Trinity from the eighth verse, that he had 
 recourse to his “ forced, indirect, and 
 “ unnatural interpretation,” as Mr. Porson 
 allows it to be, (for Augustine leaves it to 
 his readers to chuse any other sense, not 
 inconsistent with the doctrine of the Tri¬ 
 nity, that is, with the doctrine of the pre¬ 
 ceding verse,) but it was the unavoidable 
 consequence of his limited sense of the 
 word unum , and his not observing that 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 the original text was not simply by but 
 sts by or sis to b. He might therefore 
 have had the seventh verse in his Copy 
 though he misconstrued the eighth. And 
 as to the question of fact , whether any 
 writer in his perfect mind could interpret 
 the eighth verse allegorically, who had 
 the seventh verse before him, we know, 
 that at least one very learned man, Euge- 
 nius, the Archbishop of Cherson, who 
 translated Virgil’s Georgies into Greek 
 hexameters, and was a defender of the 
 seventh verse, has interpreted the eighth 
 verse allegorically of the Trinity, in his 
 Letter to Matthsei, in which he accounts 
 for the origin of the apparent solecism 
 of the eighth verse from the expression of 
 the preceding seventh verse. Quae igitur 
 alia ratio occurrentis istius octcutocXXyiXiocs 
 afferri potest nisi sola praecedentis versus 
 septimi expressio, quae per immediate 
 
sequentem versuni octavum symbolice 
 explicatin' et plane replicatur, allusione 
 facta ad id, quod processerat*. He 
 
 * Matthjii Ed. j Epistol. Cath. Prsefat. p. LVI. 
 Knappius, an opponent of the verse, who quotes Euge¬ 
 nios’s Letter to Matthaei, has strangely misrepresented 
 his opinion of the verse. Immo species grammaticae 
 rationis tantum valuit nuper vel apud Eugenium, 
 Chersonis Archiepiscopum, virum eruditissimum, ut, 
 repudiata codicum auctoritate, uno hoc argumeiito 
 loci OCV^EVTliXV defenderet (G. Christiani Knappii 
 Script a Varii Argument . p. 187. Halae 1805.) There 
 is no end of misrepresentations in the controversy on 
 this verse. Eugeni us does not defend the authenticity 
 of the seventh verse from the solecism of the eighth, 
 but accounts for that solecism from the expression of 
 the seventh, which had preceded it. And so far is he 
 from defending the verse by that argument alone, 
 (uno hoc argumento) that he employs not less than 
 twelve other vouchers for its authenticity: the MSS. 
 of the Conplutensian editors, of Erasmus, Frobenius, 
 and Robert Stephens, and other MSS. admitted by 
 Simon:—the testimonies of Tertullian, Cyprian, the 
 Council of Carthage, Eugenius, Vigilius Tapsensis, 
 and Fulgentius; to which he adds the judgment of 
 Mill on the verse; in ipso Joannis autographo 
 pericopen hanc exstitisse , variisque aliis ad illud 
 descriptis exemplarihus , utcunque postea disparuerit . 
 
36 
 
 observes, that the seventh verse is so far 
 from being an interpolation, that the 
 eighth would be wholly indefensible 
 without it. Tantum scilicet abesse, per 
 interpolationem ilium locum irrepsisse, ut 
 ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur 
 staret, nisi versus septimus praecederet, de 
 quo agitur. I think him mistaken in his 
 application of the allegory; but he did it, 
 with the seventh verse before him, which 
 Mr. Porson asserts that no writer in his 
 perfect mind could possibly do. Augustine 
 invented the allegory to get rid of a sup¬ 
 posed solecism in doctrine; Eugenius 
 
 In answer to the charge of interpolation, he says, Sed 
 praeterquam quod gratis id, et sine ullo positivo 
 argumento asseritur, cur nemo tunc de tali supposita 
 textus adulteratione suspicatusP nemo questus fue- 
 rat ? nemo ex Haereticis tantam imposturam Catholices 
 exprobraverit? praecipue ex Arianis, quorum intererat 
 contra Episcopos illos Africanos, qui textu strenue 
 utebantur, sese defendere, et falsitatis eos arguere ? 
 
 * 
 
37 
 
 adopted the allegory, to avoid an appa¬ 
 rent solecism in language . 
 
 I must not conclude without recom¬ 
 mending especially to the younger Clergy 
 the diligent study of the ancient Fathers 
 of the Church; and for their encourage¬ 
 ment in the pursuit of such passages of 
 Scripture as are quoted by them in support 
 of the essential doctrines of Christianity, 
 they cannot take a better model than Dr. 
 Wordsworth’s admirable and completely 
 successful defence of the celebrated passage 
 of St. Paul, Tit. ii. 13, in his Six Letters 
 to Mr. Granville Sharp. 
 
 I am, Reverend Brethren, 
 
 Your faithful and affectionate Friend, 
 
 T. St. DAVID’S. 
 
 Abergwilly Palace, 
 
 Nov. 4, 1824. 
 
38 
 
 Note to page 36, line 19. 
 
 A very profitable study of some of the most 
 valuable remains of the ancient Fathers may be 
 accomplished on easier terms, and at much less 
 expense, than, perhaps, is commonly imagined; as 
 will be evident from the following List of Works of 
 the ancient Fathers, which the reader will find in 
 Rivington’s and Cochrane^s Catalogue of Books for 
 
 1824 
 
 <£. s. d. 
 
 2790 Cox’s Lives of the Fathers ----- 8c o. 0 10 G 
 
 2S28 Ittigii De Bibliothecis et Catenis Patrum 12 mo. 0 7 0 
 
 2829 Bibliotheca Patrum ------- 12 mo. 090 
 
 2853 Patres Apostolici.- 2 vols. 8 vo. 14 0 
 
 2850 Translation of Ditto, by Wake - - - - 8ro. 0 10 6 
 
 2858 Barnabae et Herrnae Opp. - ----- 18mo. 050 
 
 2860 dementis ad Corinthios Epistolae - - - 8 vo. 0 7 0 
 
 2861 Patrum App. ed. Ittigii ------ 12 mo. 090 
 
 2S90 Justin Martyr - -- -- -- -- 8ro. 0 10 6 
 
 2891 Do. ed, Ashton -. Svo. 0 8 0 
 
 2892 -cum Tryphone Jud. Dialogus - - - Svo. 0 6 0 
 
 2896 Tatiani Oratio ad Grwcos ----- Svo. 012 0 
 
 2897 Irenaei Opp. - -- -- -- -- - Fol. 1 11 6 
 
 2901 Athenagorae Opp. - -- -- -- - 18mo. 0 4 6 
 
 2904 Theophilns ad Autolycum ----- 12mo. 050 
 
 2930 Origenes contra Celsum ------ Alo. 090 
 
 2937 Origenes de Oratione ------- 4 to. 076 
 
 2956 Minucius Felix--- .- Svo. 0 6 0 
 
 2963 Novatiani Opp. - -- -- -- -- Svo. 0 5 0 
 
 2976 Eusebii Hist Libri Septem ed. Strotli - - Svo. 0 9 0 
 
 2998 Lactantius - -- -- -- -- - 8ro. 0 7 0 
 
 2998 Do. ed. Walchii -------- - 12mo. 0 10 6 
 
 3037 Ephraim Syri Opp. - -- -- -- - Fol. 0 14 0 
 
39 
 
 ^ i S . dm 
 
 3045 Basilii et Gregorii Epistolae ----- 12 mo. 0 
 
 3054 Gregorius Naz. in Julianum ----- 4fo 0 
 
 3062 Macarii Homiliae - -- -- -- - 8ro. 0 
 
 3063 Macarii Opuscula - -- -- -- - 8 vo. 0 
 
 3067 Hegesippus de Bello Jud. ----- Fol. 1 
 
 3074 Nemesius - -- -- -.8 vo. 0 
 
 3082 Augustini Opuscula contra Pelagium 8 tom. 12mo. 0 
 
 3114 Chrysostomus de Sacerdotio.8 vo. 0 
 
 3119-— Passio Domini - - - - 8 vo. 0 
 
 3128 Sulpitius - -- -- -- -- -- 12 mo. 0 
 
 3144 Cyrilli Homiliae - -- -- -- -- 8 vo., 0 
 
 3155 Vincentius Lirinensis.18mo. 0 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 4 
 
 4 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Dr. Clarke’s Concise View of the Succession of 
 Sacred Literature, will be an useful addition to the 
 above List. 
 
 The more opulent Students in Ecclesiastical 
 Literature will find in the same Catalogue, the entire 
 Works and best editions of 
 
 2849 Patrum App. Cotelerii. 
 
 2888 Justin Martyr. 
 
 2910 Clemens Alexandrinus. 
 
 2916 Tertullian. 
 
 2923 Origen. 
 
 2944 Cyprian. 
 
 2961 Hippolytus. 
 
 2968 Eusebii Praeparatio et Demonstratio Ev. 
 
 2974 Eusebii, Socratis, &c. Hist. Eccles. 
 
 2989 Athanasius. 
 
40 
 
 2993 Arnobius. 
 
 3013 Cyrillus Hierosol. 
 
 3015 Hilarius. 
 
 3041 Basilius Magnus. 
 
 3047 Gregorius Nyssenus. 
 
 3053 Gregorius Nazianz. 
 
 3060 Ambrosius. 
 
 3070 Hieronymus ed. Yallarsii. 
 
 3080 Augustinus. 
 
 3110 Joannes Chrysostomus. 
 
 2784 Cave’s Scriptorum Eccl. Historia, Literaria. 
 2839 Suiceri Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus. 
 
 3357 Dupin’s History of Eccles. Writers. 
 
 * 
 
 Printed by J. Brettelt, 
 
 Rupert Street, Haymarket, London * 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 “ If the fourth century knew that verse, let it come 
 66 in, in God’s name.” 
 
 Dr. Bentley's Letters. 
 
 <c If this passage, K ai rx sv, be a quotation from 
 efi Scripture, I will grant that it is the clause of 1 John 
 “ v. 7.” 
 
 Mr. Porson's Letters , p. 219. 
 
 <c Versiculus hie nullo modo assumentum reputari 
 (i potest a Latinis patribus.—Tam mature, tarn sero, 
 cc tarn passim gentium, tarn perpetua aetatum serie 
 <c allegant.” 
 
 Bengelius , § xxv. 
 
 F 
 
EX SYMBOLO ANTIOCHENO. 
 
 IIIETETOMEN AKOAOT0QE t\$ evayyemi 
 
 APOETOAIKH TotyuSoeei — mTU, to ei^^evov £v tu 
 
 / 
 
 evuyy£\iu — mTCt tcc g TPA^AE. 
 
 Taurv]v ovv £%ovT£g tvjv victim mi cc%%vig mi 
 fJL£%$l rehovg fVW VIOM tov Qsov mi TOV XflCTOV, 
 VCiCCIM C£l$£TM>jV CiV^£/J,CiTl^Ofl£M mHolofycLM' mi £1 Tig 
 
 vu^ci tv\m vyivi TQN TPA4>QN o^vjv victim <$iduc%£i.— 
 mi /xvj 'QE AP 0EIAI rPA4>AI vciyctleSumciv tuv 
 vgO£igy[JL£Muv emcTOM a 0 * £mcT 0 V * mj £i ti uXKo 
 llluCM£l V) £Vli r yyCl'hlZ ) £TCil VCl<) 6 r KCl<l£'hCL$ 0 [L£M, CLMU%£[LCl 
 
 scru’ vj(j,£ig yci$ vcici Toig EK TQN 0EIQN TPA<PQN 
 vxqcidsdo^voig vvo tuv vqoQvitum mi AIIOETOAQN 
 u’hvfiiMug t£ mi £ixQofiug mi niETETOMEN KAI 
 AKOAOT0OTMEN. 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 March 20, 1825. 
 
 I shall here, Reverend Brethren, recall 
 your attention to the scriptural character 
 of the Symbolum Antiochenum , and to the 
 words of Euthymius, together with the 
 position which those words are adduced to 
 exemplify. I shall likewise lay before you 
 evidence from Socrates’s* account of the 
 origin of the Arian controversy , the pecu¬ 
 liar circumstances of which, manifestly 
 indicate the verse of St. John as the primary 
 ground of the dispute, and, combined with 
 the language of the Symbolum Antioche¬ 
 num, and of Gregory, appear to leave no 
 doubt that the verse was known to the 
 
 * Eccles. Hist. 1. i. c. 5, 6, 7. 
 
* 
 
 44 
 
 Greek Fathers of the fourth century. And 
 first, for the scriptural character of the 
 Symholum Anliochemim, arising from its 
 direct appeal to the Scriptures for every 
 article of its contents, and from its ana¬ 
 themas against every deviation from the 
 Scriptures. It commences with the follow¬ 
 ing declaration : u We believe according 
 to evangelical and apostolical tradition ,” 
 that is, according to what is “ delivered 
 “ in the writings of the Evangelists and 
 “ Apostles;” or, as it is afterwards ex¬ 
 pressed more generally, “ according to the 
 “ Scriptures.” It concludes with the 
 following passage: “ We believe and 
 “follow all things out of the Scriptures 
 “ delivered to us by the Prophets and 
 “ Apostles/' The anathemas subjoined to 
 the words of the Creed, cog mcu x. t . a. 
 which gave occasion to the preceding 
 Letter, pronounce, “ If any one, contrary 
 
45 
 
 “ to the sound and right faith of holy 
 “ Scriptures, shall teach—and not as the 
 “ holy Scriptures have delivered each of the 
 “ preceding" [doctrines, or articles of the 
 Creed] ; “ or if he shall teach or preach 
 “ any thing different from what we have 
 “ received, let him be accursed." The 
 copy of the Creed, in Socrates, (Hist. Eccl. 
 L. 2. c. 10.) has rw v 7r^osi^Yi^y]vcxJv EKASTA ; 
 but Athanasius’s expresses the requisite 
 adherence to Scripture more particularly, 
 'EKASTON A<F EKA2TOT, each from each; 
 that is, as it seems, each article of the 
 Creed from its respective Scripture. 
 
 In short, the profession of Faith now 
 before us amounts to this : We believe and 
 follow all things delivered in the Scriptures, 
 and nothing hut what is delivered in the 
 Scriptures ; and only as is there delivered. 
 
 All Creeds, Credenda , imply, by their 
 designation, that they are derived from 
 Scripture . In a Creed, therefore, so guard- 
 
46 
 
 ed by declarations of minute adherence 
 to Scripture, and by anathemas against 
 every deviation from it, we may, I think, 
 without hesitation refer the words, 
 EINAI ry psv v7T0(TTcc(r£i TPl’A, r>j $£ c tv^covioc 
 ( EN, or cog uvoa toc t^icc sv, to I John V. 7, 
 as their relative scripture and original. 
 
 You will perceive, in the Creed, the 
 Arian influence in avoiding the term 
 o^oova-iov, and also in adopting the words 
 of St. John in a manner most suited to 
 their doctrine. 
 
 II. I now recall your attention to the 
 words of Euthymius, KAI TA TPIA f EN, 
 that I may connect them with the position 
 to which they are applied by him, because, 
 the position being inapplicable to any 
 subject but the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 if the words are derived from Scripture, it 
 will follow that they are, as Mr. Porson 
 allows, “ the clause of 1 John v. 7.” 
 The position is this: “ The word one is 
 
47 
 
 “ applied to things that are consubstantial, 
 “ where there is a sameness of nature, but 
 “ difference of persons, as, for instance, 
 “ K ou toc T£ioc jy*. And the Three are One” 
 
 The words are not precisely the same 
 as the text of St. John, but may never¬ 
 theless be derived from it, as is evident 
 from the common usage of quotation or 
 allusion^* in ancient and modern writers. 
 Indeed the K ou toc t^loc lv of Euthymius and 
 Gregory,—the Toc tqioc stg lv ysvo[xsvoc, of 
 Origen, — the Ka / tocvtoc toc tqloc eig Ivoc Xg/c ttov 
 of CEcumenius,—and Tig sivoci t^loc lv , or toc 
 
 * To £ V £7 11 [XEV TUV OfAOOVaiWV XsyETXI EV§X TXVTOTY)S 
 fXEV TY]S <pvaEA)S } ete^otyis ^e vttocttxo'sujv, ujs TO K XI TX TglX £V. 
 
 (Euthymius quoted in Porson’s Letters, p. 219.) A 
 copy of this very rare book, the Greek text of 
 Euthymius’s Panoplia, is in the British Museum, and 
 in Sion College Library. 
 
 *f* An allusion is a tacit quotation, and of equal 
 evidence, according to Mill, who says of the words of 
 Tertullian : cc Nequaquam certe fieri potest ut textum 
 u hunc citarit, seu quod idem , ad eum cdluserit , nisi 
 in Grgecis suis legisset. (Adnotationes Millii, &c. p. 31.) 
 
48 
 
 7^loc iv of the Symbolum Antioclienum, have 
 so near a resemblance to the controverted 
 passage of St. John, being literal versions, 
 in neuter terms, of K oa ol Tgsig Iv, or stg Iv, 
 and Ka/ ovroi ol Tgeig Iv £i<ri, that we might 
 venture to say of all, what is indisputable 
 
 _ 4 
 
 of Origen’s and OEcumenius’s, that they 
 must have proceeded from one or other of 
 the two verses. Of the words of (Ecume- 
 nius there can be no doubt, because they 
 are his paraphrase upon the eighth verse ; 
 or of Origen’s, for they are expressly quoted 
 by him from that verse. One point there¬ 
 fore is certain, that tu t^ioc ug Iv is a 
 quotation from Scripture , being a quo¬ 
 tation or expression of the clause of the 
 eighth verse, though not precisely in the 
 words of St. John. And why should not 
 K oa roc t^loc Iv be a quotation of the clause 
 of the seventh verse? Mr. Porson is of 
 opinion, and has made it probable, that 
 Euthymius had the words immediately 
 
49 
 
 from Gregory. Admitting them to be 
 Gregory’s, why should they not be derived 
 by him from the seventh verse, as well 
 as Origen’s ra Tgia sig sv from the eighth? 
 If it should be said, that neuter terms 
 were admissible in a quotation of the 
 eighth verse, because ttvsv/jlcc, u$wg and 
 ctifjLoc are all neuters, that will be fully 
 obviated, if the Greek Fathers were 
 accustomed to speak of the Three Persons 
 of the Trinity, in neuter terms. That 
 they did so express themselves, is clear, 
 from the passages quoted in the pre¬ 
 ceding letter, —of Gregory, ttkttsvo^ev tig 
 UocTE^a, Tccti *Y tov 9 Tccti IT vsvjjioc to ccyiov, o^oovcriot 
 
 koci SpoSoj'oc, and of the Nomocanon, Ucctyi% 
 
 kcci 'Y tog Kca cxyiov ttvev^oc^ tv tocvtcc toc tqioc, &C. 
 
 And thus in the large exposition of the 
 faith sent by the Eastern Bishops into 
 Italy*, Ovte ^ vjv Tgicc ofAoXoyovvrsg 7r^ay[jLCiToc 
 
 * Socrates Hist. Eccles. i. ii. c. xix. 
 
 G 
 
50 
 
 kou 7r^ocrcAj7ru tov YlocT^og, kocl tov'Yiov, tccu tov uyiov 
 Tlvsv^ocrog KCiToc Tocg y^oc(pccg, Tgsig 5 icc tovto t ovg 
 
 Bsovg 7 roiovfjisv*. It cannot therefore. I think, 
 be reasonably doubted that Gregory's 
 Ka / tu TQioi lv, and the cog sivou tqlcc lv, or tcc 
 Tf>ioc lv of the Symbolum Anttoclienum , 
 were derived from the clause of the seventh 
 verse, though not quoted in the name of 
 St. John, nor precisely in his words. 
 
 Mr. Porson says-f, that “ the defenders 
 “ of the disputed verse catch greedily at 
 “ every place where the Fathers use the 
 “ expression of Three are One, as if such 
 “ expressions could not but proceed from 
 “ this verse; whereas, the contrary sup- 
 “ position is infinitely more probable that 
 
 * Etherius translates the clause of both verses in 
 the neuter: Et tria hcec imum sunt.—Et hcec tria 
 unum sunt. And thus the ancient version of the 
 Vaudois renders t ^is : Trois choses sont, qui donnent 
 temoing, le Pere, le Fils, et le Sainct Esprit; et ces 
 trois sont une chose. 
 
 -f* Letters, p. 221, 222. 
 
51 
 
 “ the verse proceeded from such expres- 
 “ sions of the Fathers/' The doctrine of 
 a Trinity in Unity being confessedly one 
 of the great “ mysteries of God,” whence 
 were “ the ministers and stewards” of 
 those mysteries likely to have derived it, 
 but from those “ Oracles of God,” which 
 were committed to them ? The prevalence 
 therefore of such an expression concerning 
 the Deity, as Three are One, in the writings 
 of the Fathers is a presumptive evidence 
 that it was derived from the clause of 
 1 John v. 7 , even by Mr. Porson’s con¬ 
 cession before-mentioned. It might as 
 well be supposed, that our Saviour’s 
 testimony of himself, I and my Father 
 are one , originated from the writings of 
 the Fathers. The fact, I am persuaded, 
 is, that the whole verse of 1 John v. 7 
 proceeded from Christ’s declarations in 
 the St. John’s Gospel. (John v. 32. 36; 
 viii. 18; xv. 26.) For there we find 
 
52 
 
 the Three Heavenly Witnesses, and there 
 the proof of their Unity. For our Saviour 
 having said, “ I and my Father are one,” 
 and the Holy Spirit being the Spirit of 
 both, it necessarily follows that the Three 
 are One. The whole verse therefore rests 
 on our Saviour’s testimony of himself, and 
 is employed by St. John in his Epistle, for 
 the same purpose as the three-fold testi¬ 
 mony in the Gospel,—to prove (not the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, though that follows 
 from it, but) the Divinity of Christ. The 
 eighth verse is founded on John xix.30.34. 
 
 III. In proportion as the probabilities in¬ 
 crease, (I had almost said, as the certainty 
 increases,) that the controverted verse is 
 the authentic language of St. John; you 
 will be the more surprised at the intemperate 
 language of a very recent opponent of the 
 verse*. Of the stile and temper of the 
 
 * Three Letters to the Rev. Frederick Nolan, by 
 the Rev. John Oxlee, York , 1825. 
 
53 
 
 tract, you may judge from a single sen¬ 
 tence, “ I fear not to pronounce it,” (the 
 
 * 
 
 verse,) “ a foul and scandalous inter- 
 “ polation, nor can language be too harsh 
 “ or severe in designating either the fraud, 
 “ or the abettors of it.” From this cen¬ 
 sure lie excepts the original translators 
 and the revisers of our authorized version, 
 and other learned men, who lived a cen¬ 
 tury ago, for reasons which do them great 
 injustice. “ I mean, however,” he says, 
 “ to censure or calumniate neither the 
 “ original translators nor the revisers of 
 “ the authorized version ; nor yet any one 
 “ of those learned men, who, a century 
 “ ago, acquiesced in the reasonableness of 
 “ suffering it to remain .” Gerhardus, 
 Hammond, Smith, Kettner, and Mill, 
 who lived a century ago, did not 
 merely suffer the verse to remain, but de¬ 
 fended it learnedly and copiously. Mill, 
 
 \ 
 
54 
 
 one of the exculpated defenders, after 
 
 amply detailing the evidence on both 
 
 * 
 
 sides, thus summed it up, not in the 
 language of acquiescence, but of the 
 firmest conviction and decision: “ Ego 
 44 equidem de tota hac re ita censeo: 
 44 Sufficere abunde in ocvSsniav commatis 
 44 quod a Tertulliano et Cypriano citetur, 
 44 licet nullo modo, ne per conjecturam 
 44 quidem, assequi possemus, unde factum 
 44 ut apud Joannem legerint ipsi, quod 
 44 nemo quisquam Grsecorum viderit; imo 
 44 licet in nullis omnino ab illo tempore 
 44 in hunc usque diem exemplaribus 
 44 comparuerit.” 
 
 Mr. Oxlee proceeds,— 44 1 am fully per- 
 46 suaded, that could there have been laid 
 44 before them that cumulative evidence, 
 44 which has since transpired, either all or 
 44 most of them, with the present Bishops 
 44 of Winchester and Peterborough, 
 
55 
 
 (C would have avowed their firmest con- 
 “ viction of its being a manifest inter¬ 
 polation.” (P. 119.) 
 
 The “ cumulative evidence” of modern 
 date has brought nothing important against 
 the verse , in addition to the materials of 
 Sandius and Simon. Of those materials 
 the most distinguishing feature was 
 Simon’s suggestion, that Cyprian’s words 
 are not a quotation of the seventh verse, 
 but an allegorical interpretation of the 
 eighth; and that the African Fathers 
 commonly so interpreted the eighth. 
 These suggestions were abundantly refuted 
 by Simon’s various opponents, of whom 
 none were more learned than Ittigius, Mill 
 and Bengelius, who maintain, that the 
 allegorical interpretation of the eighth 
 verse was unknown before the time of 
 Augustine. It is described by Mill as 
 incerta et lubrica—futilis et nugatoria — 
 
56 
 
 coacta denique ac detorta. Yet it has 
 been adopted by almost all the opponents 
 of the verse, since the time of Simon. 
 
 Mr. Oxlee confines his “ censure” and 
 “ calumny” to the defenders of the verse, 
 who have lived within the last hundred 
 years ; because they have not surrendered 
 their judgment to the cumulative evidence 
 which has transpired within that period. 
 No one has made more use of the evidence 
 against the verse than Mr. Porson ; but 
 what does he say of its novelties and accu¬ 
 mulations? Of Sir Isaac Newton’s post¬ 
 humous Tract, which was published about 
 the middle of that period, though written 
 before, he says,—It was chiefly employed 
 in collecting, arranging, and strengthen¬ 
 ing Simon’s arguments. And for himself 
 he disclaimed all pretension to novelty*. 
 
 # <c j hereby give notice once for all, that I pretend 
 “ not to produce any new arguments upon so beaten 
 a a topic as I have chosen.”—(P. 16.) 
 
57 
 
 But (if we take Mill as the last of the 
 defenders of the verse of the former period, 
 his edition forming an epoch in the history 
 of the New Testament,) the novelties for 
 
 the verse , within the latter period, have 
 
 ■ 
 
 been various and important. 
 
 1. First in importance is the Montfort 
 MS., first introduced into this contro¬ 
 versy by Martin. Mill knew nothing of 
 this MS. but the collation as far as the 
 Epistle to the Romans, printed in the 
 Polyglot. 
 
 2. The Panoplia Dogmatica of Euthy- 
 mius Zigabenus, which contains, not only 
 the xcti toc tqicc h before quoted, but the 
 whole of the seventh verse, extant in the 
 text of the Greek edition, printed from 
 Vienna MSS. and others of the East, 
 though omitted in the Latin translation. 
 
 3. The works of Bryennius, (Tom i* 
 
 p. 241) edited by Eugenius, Archbishop 
 of Cherson. h 
 
58 
 
 3 * The Complexiones of Cassiodorus, 
 from a MS. of the sixth century. 
 
 4. The Critical Edition of Jerome’s 
 Version by Vallarsius, and his Note on 
 1 John v. 7. 
 
 5. A Verona MS. of the Latin Version, 
 containing the seventh verse, and omitting 
 the eighth. 
 
 6. A Harleian MS. of the same descrip¬ 
 tion. 
 
 7. A Wolfenbottel MS. of the Latin 
 Version, containing the verse, more 
 ancient than any MS. of the Vulgate 
 that omits it. 
 
 8. A majority of MSS. in the British 
 Museum, which, though they omit the 
 
 seventh verse, retain in terra in the 
 
 * 
 
 eighth. 
 
 9. To these evidences must be added 
 a Greek MS. of Lincoln College Library, 
 which will be mentioned hereafter. 
 
59 
 
 To the same period, also, belong the 
 learned defences of the verse by Maffei, 
 Asceta Sammaurgeus, Maria de Rubeis, 
 Derhout, Knittel, and the short, but 
 weighty vindication of the verse, by 
 Eugenius, Archbishop of Cherson. With 
 these learned defences of the verse Mr. 
 Oxlee appears to have been wholly un¬ 
 acquainted. But the names of Bengelius, 
 Mosheim, and Bishop Horsley, might 
 alone have secured the verse from the 
 “ censure” and “ calumny” of a “ foul and 
 “ scandalous interpolation.” 
 
 Mr. Oxlee, in exculpating the acqui¬ 
 escence, as he calls it, of the learned men 
 of a former period, says: “ The true reason 
 “ of their conduct was their belief that 
 “ more testimony probably might be al- 
 “ leged, than the industry of modern 
 “ criticism has ascertained to be the fact,” 
 (p. 119.) So far was such expectation 
 
60 
 
 of future evidence from being the rule of 
 Mill’s judgment, who was the last of that 
 learned period, that in the passage which 
 I have just now quoted, he says, that the 
 testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian 
 alone are abundantly sufficient to prove the 
 authenticity of the verse, even though it 
 had not been found in a single copy of the 
 New Testament from their time to the pre* 
 sent. But it is found in a Greek MS. now 
 preserved in the library of Trinity College, 
 Dublin, and has been seen in a Lincoln 
 College MS. though at present lost from 
 the library; it is found in fifty MSS, of 
 the Latin Version (says Mr, Porson) to 
 one that omits it; it is found in Latin 
 MSS. more ancient than any that omit 
 it; and even in Latin MSS. which omit 
 the eighth verse. 
 
 Bengelius belongs to the period of 
 “ modern criticism,” his edition of the 
 
61 
 
 New Testament having been published 
 “ within the last hundred years .” Though 
 he thought it probable that Greek MSS. 
 might hereafter be found, containing the 
 verse, and other Greek authorities confirm¬ 
 ing it, he was content with the evidence of 
 the Latin Version and the context. He 
 says, in his Note on Acts viii. 37, “ Plane 
 “ Latinorum et Codicibus et Patribus 
 “ antiquissimis hie locus nititur, et nititur 
 “ firmiter,” ut 1 John v. 7. In his Note 
 on the controverted passage, (§ xxxvii.) 
 he observes, “ Enimvero interpres hie 
 " (Latinus) omnibus Greeds codicibus 
 “ patribusque, quorum hodie quidquam 
 “ superest, antiquior fuit, et primo hujus 
 " epistolse codici satis propinquus. Inter- 
 “ pres si plane deesset, textus Graecus per 
 “ se loqueretur, hiatum se habere.” 
 
 In his Gnomon Novi Testamenti, 
 (p. 1189,) he has given such a compre- 
 
62 
 
 hensive and perspicuous summary of 
 the modern criticism of his day, as may, 
 perhaps, convince Mr. Oxlee, that Ben- 
 gelius’s belief of the authenticity of the 
 verse did not depend at all on the pro¬ 
 bability of future discoveries. “ Summa 
 “ eorum, quae diximus, base est: Graeci 
 “ codices, in quibus Epistolse Johanneae 
 “ habeantur, nec tam multi sunt, nec tarn 
 “ antiqui, ut versui de Tribus in ccelo 
 “ testantibus,quippe cujus plane singularis 
 “ est ratio, debeant officere. Latino inni- 
 “ titur interpret solo propemodum, sed ve- 
 “ tustissimo et sincerissimo, quern continuo 
 “ sequuntur plurimi perpetua seculorum 
 “ serie patres, in Africa, Hispania, Gallia, 
 “ Italia, cum provocatione ad Arianorum 
 “ consentientem lectionem. Ipse denique 
 64 textus hunc versum tanquam centrum et 
 u summam epistolse comprobat.” In this 
 determination of the subject, we find not 
 
63 
 
 the sufferance of acquiescence, but the 
 confidence of full conviction. 
 
 IV. Very different from such conviction 
 of the authenticity of the verse, is Mr. 
 Oxlee’s assertion, that, the proofs of its 
 spuriousness are “ continually multiplying.” 
 His multiplied proofs are some recent no¬ 
 tices of several ancient Syriac MSS. and of 
 one Greek MSS. which are found to con¬ 
 tain “ no traces whatever of the heavenly 
 “ witnesses,” (p. 119.) This list of his 
 proofs we may augment by the addition of 
 Mr. Rich’s valuable collection of Syriac 
 MSS. lately imported from the East, in 
 which the seventh verse is said to be 
 absent; and yet, with Mill, we should 
 
 see no difficulty in such omission, though 
 
 . * 
 
 we could not, even by conjecture, account 
 for the absence of the verse, any otherwise 
 than by concluding, with him, that such 
 versions were translated from defective 
 
64 
 
 copies. “ De Syriaca versione*, Coptica, 
 “ aliisque aliquot, in quibus desideratur 
 iC hie versiculus, dicendum arbitror, expres - 
 u sam scilicetfaisse ex Greeds hoc commate 
 “ miitilatis.” This uniform absence of the 
 verse, (I believe without exception) from 
 the oriental versions, of undoubted anti¬ 
 quity, is indeed a remarkable circumstance; 
 and has been made not an unreasonable 
 ground of suspense, with some learned men, 
 in deciding on the authenticity of the verse. 
 Its absence, however, from the most ancient 
 oriental versions may, I think, be histori¬ 
 cally accounted for, as I shall shew before 
 I conclude this Postscript. 
 
 * With the Syriac and Coptic, Mill has coupled 
 the old Italic , as if it had omitted the verse,—a mistake 
 into which he was misled by his mis-conception of the 
 Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, and which he has 
 corrected in his Prolegomena, (§938, 939. Ed. Kuster,) 
 in which he says, that the verse was in the African 
 copies of the old Italic before the time of Tertullian 
 and Cyprian. 
 
65 
 
 Mr. Oxlee says, that in the MSS. which 
 he mentions, no traces whatever are to be 
 found of the seventh verse. This is a 
 large expression, and, perhaps, says more 
 than is meant. It means, I suppose, merely 
 that they omit the seventh verse. But 
 there may be indications and traces of the 
 absent verse even in MSS. which omit 
 it. For instance, (1.) the article in the 
 clause of the eighth verse, sig TO lv 
 (if the late Bishop of Calcutta, Wolfius, 
 and other learned men, were not mis¬ 
 taken,) requires for its relative term a 
 'preceding lv , which is in the clause of 
 the seventh verse. (2.) MS. Colbert, 
 871, has in the margin, Mapru^/a tov 
 tov Tlocrpog kou tov ocyiov IT vsujJsDcTog, a scholion 
 on the ninth verse, which appears to 
 refer the witness of God to the witness 
 of the Father, [the Son,] and the Holy 
 Spirit, in the seventh verse, and should, 
 
 i 
 
66 
 
 probably, be read thus: M apTvpcc tov ©sou] 
 tov Ylarpog kcu tov T tov xoci tov uyiov Hvsv^otTog, 
 
 (3.) In MS. Reg-. 57, (formerly 2247,) 
 there is the following scholion: 'On rpsi; 
 
 Stcri, TOVTSCTTL TO 7TVcV^U TO UJLOV Xttl 0 TtOiTYIQ KOCl 
 
 avTcg sccvTcv, or o vlog ccvtov , as Maius con¬ 
 jectured. The mark of reference to this 
 
 % 
 
 Note is on the word Tpstg, but the scholion 
 rises above the line in which Tpsig is, and 
 the mark of reference is opposite to on to 
 7 tvsii/x,oc scttiv 7[ aXv]&sioc, as may be seen in 
 the fac-simile of the whole page of the MS. 
 which I have prefixed to this Tract*. 
 
 * This is the MS. which Simon quoted on account 
 of the scholion, which he said was opposite to the 
 words sv ry yy. On his authority, the MS. 2247, 
 (now 57,) has often been erroneously quoted as 
 having s v ry yy in the eighth verse. The fac-simile of 
 the page of the MS. in which the verse occurs, is taken 
 from a copy, for which I am indebted to the kind 
 communication of Henry Light, Esq. Author of 
 <c Travels in Palestine, Nubia, &c.” and sets that 
 dispute concerning the text of this MS. at rest. 
 
67 
 
 The position, therefore, of the scholion on 
 the margin, points it out as an explanation 
 of the connexion of the last words of the 
 sixth verse ,—The Spirit is truth , or, a 
 true witness,—with the first words of the 
 following verse: For there are three 
 that bear record , the Spirit being one, 
 and the Father and the Son the other 
 
 9 
 
 two. TPEI2, 7 out£ctt/, to IT vsvpcc ayiov xou 
 o n ocTrjp tcoci avTog socvtov. Instead of the 
 two last words, Mains conjectured o viog 
 avrov : and to complete the sense, o viog must 
 at any rate be supplied. But if instead 
 of avrog savTov it were read ccvtov sv ccvtm, 
 that is, o viog ocvtov sv ocvtco, it would be a 
 Sabellian gloss on the seventh verse, 
 almost in the language which Epiphanius 
 ascribes to the Sabellians: ovrwg (pao-iv, 
 sig scttiv o Qsog, Ktxi ovyi Harvip o TIoctyiq, kcci 
 Y tog o r Y iog, non ayiov YlvsvfJioc to ccyiov IT vsvpoc 
 uXXu sig Osog o IlocTqp, koci YIOS) AYTOY 
 
68 
 
 EN Arm*. A Sabellian had no tempta- 
 
 « 
 
 lion to extract the doctrine of the Trinity 
 from the eighth verse. 
 
 The allegorical interpretation of the 
 eighth verse is so “ indirect, tortured, 
 “ and unnatural,” as Mr. Porson calls 
 it, that it cannot justly be supposed to 
 
 be intended in any scholion or comment 
 
 * 
 
 without some expressed intimation of such 
 intention, as is expressed by Augustine, 
 and in the Moscow scholion. But in the 
 Paris scholia the allegorical sense is 
 neither expressed nor intimated, and 
 therefore not intended. In its obvious 
 construction it can belong only to the 
 seventh verse. 
 
 The other scholion of the same MS. 
 pa Ssor/jg, sig Gecg, which is a scholion on 
 the word b, agrees with Cassiodorus’s 
 
 * Epiphanius User. Ixv. p. 608. 
 
69 
 
 translation of the seventh verse in his 
 Complexiones : “ Et hi tres units est 
 “ Dens” and with Basil’s fuav Ssotvjtoc in 
 the passage, which Mr. Porson thought 
 most like our verse. The scholia, though 
 intended for the seventh, would remain on 
 the margin of the MSS. after the loss of 
 the seventh verse, because the words 
 rpsig and lv, to which they refer, are in 
 the eighth verse as well as the seventh. 
 
 These scholia, therefore, if I am not 
 mistaken, contain no obscure traces of 
 the seventh verse. Another indication of 
 the verse is found in those MSS. of 
 the Latin Version, and citations by the 
 Latin Fathers, which omit the seventh 
 verse, but retain in terra in the eighth, 
 bearing a manifest reference to the absent 
 terms in ccrto of the seventh verse. 
 
 V. When Mr. Oxlee asserts, (p. 132.) 
 that the verse is neither alleged nor com- 
 
70 
 
 merited on in the words of any Christian 
 Father, of whatever language, age, or 
 country, I need not again refer you, for 
 an answer to the assertion, to the perpetua 
 series of the Latin Fathers, who quote 
 it, as asserted by Bengelius*. It will 
 be sufficient to adduce the concessions 
 of two learned and eminent adversaries of 
 the verse. “ I allow,” says Mr. Porson, 
 “ that by saying of the Father, Son, and 
 a Holy Ghost, it is written, And these 
 “ (or the^) three are one, he affirms the 
 “ words, which follow it is written, to be 
 “ extant in Scripture/ 5 (p. 248.) And 
 if in Scripture, then by his concession, 
 
 respecting Euthymius, it follows, that it 
 
 / 
 
 is the clause of the seventh verse, for 
 
 # Gnomon Novi Test, before quoted p. 62. Again 
 in his note on this verse, § xxv. 44 Tam mature, tarn 
 44 sero, tarn passim gentium, tarn perpetua cetatum 
 44 serie allegunt.’’ 1 
 
71 
 
 there is no other passage of Scripture 
 in which it is so written . And to suppose 
 that he affirmed it to be so written, but only 
 meant that it was allegorically signified 
 under some other written terms, is, I 
 conceive, quite inadmissible. Griesbach 
 (p. 15 of his Diatribe,) allows, that 
 Fulgentius, who quotes the verse, had it 
 in his own copy, and was convinced that 
 Cyprian had it in his. 
 
 Mr. Oxlee asserts, (p. 19,) “ the 
 “ proofs of the spuriousness of the verse, 
 “ instead of decreasing, are continually 
 “ multiplyingand in support of this 
 assertion, he instances the Oriental MSS. 
 which I have before mentioned, which 
 omit the verse. If the Oriental Versions, 
 which omit the verse, were more numerous 
 than they are, the Latin Version, which 
 contains the verse, is more ancient than 
 any of them. The absence of the verse in 
 
72 
 
 all the Oriental Versions is certainly a 
 remarkable fact in the history of the 
 verse. But there may have been causes, 
 both accidental and voluntary, which 
 have led to the omission, subsequent to 
 the origin of the most ancient of these 
 Versions. Indeed, the existing MSS. of 
 the Oriental Versions are long posterior to 
 the fourth century, in which occurred the 
 entire separation of the Eastern and Wes¬ 
 tern churches. If then it be borne in mind, 
 that the Western copies contain the verse, 
 and the Eastern omit it, and that the Wes¬ 
 tern churches professed the Homoousian 
 doctrine, and the Eastern rejected it, we 
 may, perhaps, in this difference of opinion, 
 discover a cause sufficient to account, in 
 some measure, for the difference between 
 the Eastern and Western texts in this pas¬ 
 sage of St. John. Of the separation of 
 the churches, Socrates, in the second 
 
73 
 
 book of his Ecclesiastical History, (ch. 
 18 and 20,) gives the following account: 
 “ When the Emperor of the Western 
 “ parts had summoned three of the 
 “ Eastern Bishops to come to him, to 
 “ give an account of the depositions of 
 “ Paulus and Athanasius, though they 
 “ obeyed the summons, they refused to 
 “ hold any conference or intercourse 
 “ with Athanasius. They suppressed the 
 “ Creed published at Antioch, and drew 
 “ up another, which they presented to the 
 “ Emperor Constantius. (ch. 20.) About 
 “ three years afterwards, the Eastern 
 “ Bishops composed another and much 
 “ larger exposition of the Faith, which 
 “ the Western Bishops, who adhered to 
 “ the Nicene Creed, disapproved. An 
 “ QEcumenical Council being afterwards 
 “ convened at Sardica, the Eastern 
 “ Bishops refused to join the assembly, 
 
 K 
 
74 
 
 “ unless Athanasius was excluded from 
 “ the meeting. This not being complied 
 “ with, the Eastern Bishops immediately 
 “ left Sardica, and returning to Philip- 
 “ popolis, they held a Synod by themselves, 
 “ in which they openly anathematized 
 “ the term opoovnov.*' * 
 
 Inhere are only two MSS. of the 
 Catholic Epistles, the Alexandrine and 
 Vatican, which have any pretension to 
 so high an antiquity, as the age in which 
 these contentions subsisted. It cannot, 
 therefore, be surprising that two Greek 
 MSS. of that Anti-Homoousian period, 
 should be without a verse, so favourable 
 
 # Socrates Hist. Eccl. L. II. c. 18. 20. During 
 the Arian period, which subsisted for about forty 
 years previous to the Council of Constantinople, in 
 the year 381, eleven professions of faith were published 
 by the Councils of Antioch, Surmium, Ariminum, 
 Saleucia, kc. by all of which the terra b^oovvtx was 
 omitted; expressly rejected by three of them, and 
 anathematised bv two. 
 
to the doctrine which the Greek Bishops 
 rejected. As the verse was probably lost 
 in a very early age by the Homoeoteleuton, 
 it cannot be surprising, that in the choice 
 of copies to be transcribed, those should 
 be preferred which omitted the seventh 
 verse; or, that the Eastern Versions of 
 that age should follow the defective text. 
 
 The contentions, which subsisted at 
 this period in the East, concerning the 
 term c^oovo-iog, and the doctrine which it 
 expressed, may also account for the 
 absence of the verse from the writings 
 of the Greek Fathers. “ T|iey that had 
 “ an aversion to this term, (says Socrates, 
 “ Hist. Eccles. 1. 1, c. 23,) charged them, 
 “ who used it, with introducing the 
 “ doctrine of Sahellius and Montanus. 
 “ And, therefore, they called them blas- 
 “ phemers, as if they denied the existence 
 “ of the Son of God. On the contrary, 
 “ they who defended the term, conceiving 
 
76 
 
 n that their adversaries were introducing’ 
 “ the worship of many gods, held them in 
 “ abhorrence, as favourers of Paganism.” 
 Jerome, who was charged with Sabel- 
 lianism by his enemies, has no where 
 quoted the verse in his works, (as far as 
 has been yet discovered from his com- 
 menlaries and letters, now extant ,) though 
 he lias it in his Version. The danger 
 of treating the subject without running 
 into one of the extremes before men¬ 
 tioned, is thus expressed by Gregory 
 Nazianzen in his first Oration, (p. 16, 
 ed. Paris, 1609.) “ Above all subjects,” 
 
 he says, “ there is the greatest danger in 
 “ treating of the doctrine of the blessed 
 “ Trinity, lest they who have the office 
 “ of public instruction, while they are 
 “ anxious to avoid the language of Poly- 
 “ theism, should appear to acknowledge 
 “ only one person, representing the Father, 
 <c the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to be one 
 
77 
 
 “ and the same person, and their names 
 “ empty distinctions; or, on the contrary, 
 “ so discriminate the three Persons, as 
 “ to make them three Gods.” The 
 terms in which Chrysostom* speaks of 
 this awful subject, shew the extreme 
 caution with which it was treated by 
 the ancient Fathers. We find from Epi- 
 phanius, that the fear of the ill conse¬ 
 quences, which might be drawn from the 
 perversion of certain passages of Scripture, 
 induced even the orthodox to omit them 
 in their copies of the Scriptures, opSoSo^oi 
 Ss a(psiXono to pyjrov (popriBevTsg, speaking of a 
 passage of St. Luke, xix. 41. xxii. 43,44. 
 “ Sane exempla sunt in promptu (says 
 “ Bengelius, § xxvii.j) periocharum, quas 
 “ Graci praecipue detraxere.” Amongst 
 other passages he quotes that of St. Luke, 
 before mentioned ; and then adds, “ quare 
 
 # See his Horn, in 1 Cor. xv. 29. and Matth. xxviii. 
 19. quoted by Bengelius, § xxv. 
 
78 
 
 “justa suspicio est idem eos in hoc 
 “ Johannis loco admisisse.” It was cer¬ 
 tainly much more probable that the verse 
 was omitted from injudicious apprehen¬ 
 sion, than inserted by wilful fraud, as 
 Mr. Oxlee calls it, and unnecessary fraud 
 too, because the doctrine of the Trinity 
 has many proofs in the New Testament 
 without this verse. 
 
 VI. To support his own opinion of the 
 controverted verse, Mr. Oxlee has recourse 
 to a new subject of the preceding verses, 
 a new text of the sixth verse, and a new 
 version of the eighth. By the victory 
 over the world , he understands not a 
 victory over worldly cares, vanities and 
 temptations, as it is usually understood, 
 but a victory over the “ infidel world;”— 
 his text of the sixth verse differs from 
 all editions, that have hitherto appeared, 
 from Erasmus to Griesbach;—and he 
 interprets the eighth verse so as to make 
 
79 
 
 St. John appeal to witnesses without 
 naming them. 
 
 If the controverted verse be read with 
 attention to its context and to the general 
 design of the Epistle, and to its con¬ 
 nexion with the Gospel, it will be seen 
 that the verse is an indispensable part of 
 the Epistle, and the absence of the verse 
 will be felt as a defect in the perusal. 
 The ends for which Christ came into the 
 world were to die for the sins of mankind, 
 and to bear witness to the truth. “ To 
 “ this end was I born, and for this came 
 “ I into the world, that I should bear 
 “ witness unto the truth.”—(John xviii. 
 37.) And wdiat was this truth ? That y 
 for which he suffered death on the cross. 
 " We have a law, and by our law he 
 “ ought to die, because he made himself 
 “ the Son of God.”—(John xix. 7.) The 
 Divinity, the Incarnation, and the Death 
 
80 
 
 of Christ, are the main subjects of the 
 Epistle and the Gospel of St. John, and 
 of the whole of the New Testament. To 
 these truths the same witnesses and 
 evidences testify both in the Epistle and 
 the Gospel. That Jesus Christ was the 
 Son of God, is testified by the Father 
 and the Holy Spirit; and they are his 
 joint witnesses in the Gospel as well as 
 in the Epistles. Of his death on the 
 Cross, the same three evidences appear in 
 the Gospel as in the eighth verse. To 
 these evidences of Christ’s death, our 
 particular attention is directed by the 
 Evangelist, Ch. xix. 31.—“ And he 
 “ that saw, bare record.— YLca o twpccxug 
 IJLSfjLocpTvpYiKs. The ellipsis is supplied by 
 IT in the common Version. It should 
 rather be these things: for the reference 
 must have been to all that he saw,—all 
 the circumstances of Christ’s death,—not 
 
81 
 
 only the wound in the side, and the blood 
 (A f IMA) and the water (TACIV) that 
 issued from his side; but the expiration 
 on the Cross (nocp&unu to ITNEYMA.) He 
 that saw these things, bare record, “ that 
 “ we might believe,” namely, believe what 
 St. John saw,—that Christ died on the 
 Ci ’oss, and that he was really come in 
 the flesh, and not a phantom, as was 
 asserted by some unbelievers in the days 
 of St. John. 
 
 These are the evidences of the divinity, 
 incarnation, and death of Christ, and the 
 coincidences between the Epistle and the 
 Gospel of St. John, which we have in 
 the received text of the seventh verse, 
 and in the natural interpretation of the 
 eighth ; which are lost both in Griesbach’s 
 mutilated text, and in the innovations of 
 Mr. Oxlee. 
 
 VII. The passage of Mr. Oxlee's Let- 
 
 L 
 
ters to Mr. Nolan, which I have before 
 quoted (p. 54,) I selected for the purpose of 
 contrasting it with the present sentiments 
 of the Bishop of Winchester respecting 
 the controverted verse, which I have the 
 learned Prelate’s permission to insert in 
 this Postscript. I had communicated to 
 the Bishop the substance of the preceding 
 Letter, on the passage of the Symbolum 
 Antiochenum , &c. to which his Lordship 
 replied: c ‘ The passage you quote from the 
 “ Symbolum Antiochenum is certainly a 
 u very striking one, and adds materially to 
 “ that species of evidence in favour of 
 “ 1 John v. 7. Your other quotations 
 “ and observations also have considerable 
 “ weight; and I willingly own, that 
 “ upon the whole you have shaken my 
 “ former opinion.” 
 
 To these candid concessions of the 
 Bishop of Winchester, I could add the 
 
83 
 
 opinions of other learned Prelates, that 
 “ the evidences which I have laid before 
 iC you in the preceding Letter, are suffi- 
 “ cient to satisfy any reasonable man, 
 “ that the verse ought not to be thrown 
 “ out of the text;” and that “ they have 
 “ increased the probabilities, that the 
 “ verse was written by St. John.” But 
 I cannot refuse myself the pleasure of 
 naming two learned Prelates,—my vene¬ 
 rated and ever honoured Friend, the 
 Bishop of Durham, who says, “ When 
 “ Porson was in controversy with Travis, 
 “ I thought differently of the verse, but 
 “ you have convinced me of its authen- 
 “ ticity:” and the Bishop of Hereford, 
 whose decided and decisive judgment on 
 such a subject, I am sure, is not influenced 
 by the friendship of more than half a 
 century. “ An accumulation,” says my 
 learned and excellent Friend, “ of pre- 
 
84 
 
 “ sumptive, is sometimes more convincing 
 “ than paucity of direct evidence. Such 
 “ are your citations, appeals, and reason- 
 “ ings, that I no more doubt the authen- 
 “ ticity of 1 St. John v. 7, than I do the 
 “ authenticity of St. John’s Gospel, ch. i. 
 “ ver. 1. which even Griesbach could 
 “ neither remove nor surmount, although 
 “ I believe he would have done both, 
 “ had it been possible, consistently with 
 “ common honesty. Whatever may have 
 “ been the causes which occasioned the 
 “ omission of the verse in so many MSS. 
 “ the very ample abundance of collateral 
 “ circumstances proves, that the verse 
 “ must have existed in the original text.” 
 
 VIII. I must not here omit an important 
 accession to the direct evidence for the 
 verse, which I add on the authority of 
 the present learned Rector of Lincoln 
 College, in Oxford. Having heard it 
 
85 
 
 reported, that a Greek MS. of the New 
 Testament containing the verse had 
 been known to be extant in the Library 
 of Lincoln College, not many years 
 since, and that the Rector of Lincoln 
 had spoken of it in St. Mary’s pul¬ 
 pit, I wrote to the learned Rector on 
 the subject, and received the following 
 answer: “ Porson’s book never shook 
 “ my conviction of the authenticity of 
 “ the important verse, which has so long 
 “ and laudably engaged your indefati- 
 “ gable study. The artful and superficial 
 “ way in which he treated the interesting 
 “ subject, and his unmannerly behaviour 
 “ to Mr. Travis, brought me some years 
 “ ago into St. Mary’s pulpit, with a 
 “ sermon upon the disputed text; which 
 “ sermon I have mislaid, and cannot find. 
 “ What I said about the MS. that I had 
 “ seen, which contained the verse, I 
 
“ cannot accurately state. It was a MS. 
 “ in the College Library, and seen in the 
 “ presence of Dr. Parsons, late Bishop of 
 “ Peterborough ; but on looking for it, 
 “ when I preached the sermon, it was 
 “ not found, nor can it be found at the 
 " present time.” 
 
 IX. In pursuing the subjectof the second 
 Symbolum Anitochenum , from the meeting 
 of the Council of Antioch, upwards to the 
 origin of the Arian controversy, I have 
 been led to some historical evidence, 
 which, of itself, appears to be demon¬ 
 strative of the authenticity of our verse ; 
 and at the same time serves to account 
 for the silence of the Fathers of the 
 Nicene Council concerning it. Socrates, 
 in the second book of his Ecclesiastical 
 History (ch.v.) says, that when Alexander, 
 Bishop of Alexandria, discoursing on the 
 doctrine of the Holy Trinity before his 
 
87 
 
 presbyters and other clergy, observed, 
 that there was an unity in the Trinity , 
 Arius, who was present, thinking that 
 Alexander meant to inculcate the doctrine 
 of Sabellius, maintained opinions the most 
 opposite to Sabellius’s doctrine ; and, as 
 Alexander says, in his Letter to the 
 Bishops, endeavoured to subvert the Divi¬ 
 nity of the Word. 44 The novelty of 
 44 his assertions,” says Socrates, 44 excited 
 44 many to investigate the doctrine; and 
 44 a great fire broke out from this small 
 44 spark.” The Emperor Constantine 
 was grieved to hear of this dissension, 
 and feeling it as a personal calamity, 
 wrote to Alexander and Arius: 44 I am 
 44 informed, that the origin of the present 
 44 controversy was this:—when you, O 
 44 Alexander, inquired of your presbyters, 
 44 what each of them thought of a certain 
 
88 
 
 “ passage of Scripture Now, if we 
 consider, that the doctrine of the unity of 
 the Trinity was by Arius accused of Sa¬ 
 lt cllianism, and that, in order to invalidate 
 it, he endeavoured to subvert the Divinity 
 of the Word, it will be evident, that there 
 is only one passage of Scripture which 
 corresponds with these several parti¬ 
 culars^. There is no other passage but 
 1 John v. 7, to which Arius could have 
 imputed the opinion of Sabellins ; no 
 
 other, which teaches, that Three are 
 
 * 
 
 * *T nvos ruv ev vo/aw ysypa^Evuv. NOMOE in the New 
 Testament is used for the law of Moses, and for 
 the whole of the Old Testament. In the writings 
 of the Fathers, the New Testament is called vo^os 
 i vxyytXixos and ot'nocrToKnios. 
 
 ■j* The following are some of Arius’s assertions 
 concerning the word, as stated by Alexander: Ovx 
 am yv o rov Qeov AO TOE— ovte ofxoios xxt OYEIAN Tp 
 TlxTpt EO-T/y, OVTi a\v>§lVOS X.XI <f>V(TEl T OV 11 XTfOS A0T02 
 
 KTTIV - %EVOS TS KXL OtWorpiOS X.UI ajf 07^(0 IV ia^WS IffTiV 0 
 
 AOrOE tvs row 0 tov OYEIAE. 
 
89 
 
 One; no other, which mentions the 
 Word , as one of the Three Persons of 
 the Deity; no other, which could have 
 given occasion to Arius’s denying that 
 the Word was of the same nature and 
 essence with the Father: I conclude, 
 therefore, that the verse of St. John was 
 the passage intended by Constantine, as 
 the ground of the dispute between Alex¬ 
 ander and Arius, and the origin of the 
 Arian controversy; and therefore that it 
 was in the Greek text of the fourth cen¬ 
 tury*. 
 
 * Whitaker, in his learned work, the Origin of 
 Arianism Disclosed , deduces the origin of Arianism 
 from two Jews, Ebion and Cerinthus, (p. 412,) and 
 says, 44 it was afterwards transmitted by them to the 
 “ Mahometans, (p. 419J that the Saracens established 
 44 Mahometanism, and with it established Arianism, 
 
 44 (p. 877.) Mahomet began a course of Arianism, 
 
 44 which has since continued in the Christian world.” 
 (p. 889-) Intent on his theory of the alliance between 
 Arianism and Mahometanism, he contends that Ma- 
 
 M 
 
90 
 
 It has been often objected, as a proof 
 of the spuriousness of the verse, that it 
 was not quoted by the Fathers of the 
 Nicene Council. It might, perhaps, be suf¬ 
 ficient to answer, that there is no authentic 
 record of the debates which passed at 
 that Council. But even if the history 
 of the Council by Gelasius Cyzicenus 
 be credited, the silence of the Fathers 
 respecting the verse, would be no proof 
 of its spuriousness. For if this verse was 
 the ground of the dispute between Alex¬ 
 ander and Arius, it could hardly have been 
 quoted by the Council, to settle that 
 dispute. Besides, the consubtantiality 
 of the Three Persons was effectually 
 established by that of the Father and the 
 Son, for which it was sufficient to quote 
 
 hornet could have the heresy only from the Jews; 
 and though he notices the Council of Nice, says 
 nothing of the disputes of the Christian Church, 
 which preceded it. 
 
91 
 
 the authority of John x. 30. which the 
 Fathers had been accustomed to adduce 
 for that purpose. The quotation, therefore, 
 of the controverted verse at the Council, 
 would have been both unnecessary, and 
 liable to exception. 
 
 THE END OF THE POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 

 
 
 
 
 ' . , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ , ■ ... . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /. 
 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 1. Symbolum secundum Antiochenum quarti Seculi; 
 idem Latine, Gallice, Anglice redditum. 
 
 % Uberior Fidei Explanatio Italiani missa. 
 
 3. Symbolum Sirmii editum contra Photinum. 
 
 4. A comparison of every Article of the Symbolum 
 
 Antiochenum, with corresponding passages of 
 Scripture. 
 
■ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ " • -V , .o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
I. 
 
 SYMBOLUM SECUNDUM ANTIOCHENUM 
 
 QUARTI SECULI. 
 
 Ex Athanasii Opp. T. I. p. 735. ad Bened. 
 
 -4- 
 
 UtcrTSVopsv cocoXovOwg tji £vocyys\iKr\ koci 
 uttoo-toXik^ Tvocpc^ocrsi, sig hoc Ssov 7 rocTspu 7 tocv- 
 TOXpocTopoc, tov toov oXojv ^7}piovpyov TS KOCI ttoiyityiv 
 KOCI 7TpOVOV)TV)V, 6^ OV TOC 7T0CVT0C . KOCI Sig hoc KVplOV 
 ItjCTOVV XpKTTOV, TOV VlOV ccvtov, tov povoysn) 6sov 
 Si 9 OV TOC TTOCVTOC, TOV ySVVYjQsVTOC TTpO TCaJV OUOOVOOV 
 SK TOV 7 TCCTpog, QsoV SK 9sOV, oXoV £% oXoV, pOVOV 
 sk povovf tsXsiov sk tsXsiov, ftocFiXsct sk ftoccriXsoog, 
 KVplOV 0C7T0 KVplOV, XoyOV f'OJVTCC, <ro(piccv ^OOdOCV , 
 
 (poog aXvjSfivov, oc)ov, ocXv}9siccv, ocvckttccctiv, nroipsvoc, 
 
 Ovpocv, OCTpSTfTOV TS KCCl OCVOCXXOIOOTOV * TY\g QsOTYjTOg, 
 
 ovariocg ts koci [3ovXrjg koci 'Svvocpsoog koci ^o^yjg tov 
 
 VTOCTpOg OOTOepOcKkUKTOV SIKOVOC. TOV 7T pOOTOTOKOV 7TOC(TY[g 
 
 # Fortasse ©eov. 
 
96 
 
 KTicrewg, tov ovtcc ev ap%v) 7 rpog tov Qeov, Xoyov Ssov 
 
 7C0CTCC TO EipTjpLEVOV SV TM EVayysXlCC, KCCl 8s0g V\V 0 
 
 Xoyog, h' ov roc Trance sysvsTO, nut sv oo ra 7 rana 
 
 i 
 
 (TVVS(TTY\KS, TOV ETT ECyjXJWV TOOV jJOSgOUV TtUTEhQoVTa 
 
 avooOev, Tcui ysvvvfisvTa ek ttu$evov kutu Tag ygafiag, 
 xai avQpwTrov ysvoptsvov, ^e<tity\v 8eov uai avQgooTrouv, 
 a7TO(TToXov te TVjg TCiSEwg Yi^MCAjVf Kai a^yyiyov TVjg 
 tgwYig, CAjg (pvjcriv * on uaTa[2s(3r]}ta ek tov ovpavov, 
 ov% ha ttoioo TO OsXvjpLa TO SfjLov, aXKa to 8s\vifj,a 
 TOV 7 TEpLlpaVTOg pLE. TOV TTaQovra VTTED fJLOOV 7tat 
 ava^avTa tti TpiTy ypcEpa, xuci avsXdovTa Eig ovpavovg, 
 xai KaQso-QsvTa sv tov TraTpog, xai TraXiv 
 
 EpyopLEvov piETa (to^y/g xai 'civvapLSoog, xpivai ^oovrag 
 7tai VEKpovg. Kai sig to Trvsv^a to ayiov , to sig 7 rapa- 
 yShv]tTiv, xai ayiacpLOv, xai teXeiwciv Toig ttio-tevoicti 
 S iSopLEyov, xaflcvg Kai 0 xvpiog Yjpiwv Ivjcrovg .Xpi^Tog 
 S/ETa^aTO Toig praOyjraig Xsyoov, TropsvQsvTEg p.a9r]- 
 TEvcraTE 7 ravra Ta sdvq, QaTTTiZpvTSg avTOvg sig to 
 ovopta tov TraTpog, xai tov viov, xai tov ayiov 
 TivsvpLaTog, S yjKovoTi TraTpog aXyj9aig TraTpog ovTog, 
 viov Se aXv]8oog viov ovTog, tov Ss ayiov Trvsv^aTog 
 
97 
 
 ocXy]9cog ccyiov TrvsvjJLCcTog ovrog 9 tcov ovopLUTiov ov% 
 UToXcog cu$e ocpycog keillsvoov, uXXoi (TTj jjLoavov^cov 
 ccKpiftoog rvjv oikeiccv ekoccttcv tcov ovo^a^ouiEvcov 
 V 7 rocrToccriv te kcu toc^iv kou So^ocv' cog eivcu ttj 
 fj,sy vttottocctei rpioc, tyi Se crv^covioi sv. T ctvrvjv 
 ovy s%ovTsg ty\v ttkttiv, kou e^ oc^yjjg kou (ccsygi 
 TsXovg s^ovrsg evcottiov tov 9eov kou tov 'Kps’ov, 
 
 £locv ccvoc9e 
 
 ei rig nroc^oc tyjv vytyj tcov ygoctpcov og>9y\v 7ricrTiv 
 Sl^OCCTKEt, A SyCOV 7] %%OVOV, 7] KOClfjOV, 7] oaoovoc, yj 
 sivocif 7] yEyovEvoa nrpo tov yEWY]9y]voci tqv viov, 
 
 ava^EpLOC ETTCO. KOU El Tig A EyEl TOV VlOV KTlCTpLOi 
 
 c c f c 
 
 cog EV TCOV KTKTjJLOCTOOV, 7} yEWTjpCU Log EV TOOV 
 
 c « 
 
 yEVVYipOCTOOV, 7j 770l7]pa > COl EV TOOV 77017]jJCOCTCOV KOU [JL7] 
 COl Oil 9eIOU ypocfpou 7TOC(jOC$6$WK&V, TCOV 7r^0El^7lpcEvcov 
 EKOiSTOV Oc(p* * EKOCTTOV' 7] El Ti OiXXo S L^UTKEl, 7] 
 
 evocyyEXi^Ercu, ttocq o tyoc^eXuQo^leVj ccvoc9eijloc eq-tco, 
 Tj^Eig yoi$> ttokti TOig ek too]/ 9eicov y^cctpcov 7 voc^uSe- 
 J OpLEVOig, V7T0 TE 7T^o(p7]TCOV KOU 0171 OTToXcOV, 0cX7]SlVC0g 
 TE KOU Epc<pol2lEg KOU TVKTTEVOpEV KOU OlKcXoSoVpEV. 
 
 * Fortasse woccrrov, de unoquoque. 
 
 [AOlTifopSV. KOU 
 
 TTOKTOiV OCl^ETlKTJV KOiKO^i 
 
 N 
 
SECUNDUM SYMBOLUM ANTIOCHENUM, 
 LATINE REDDITUM. 
 
 Credimus juxta Evangelicam et Apostolicam tra- 
 
 I 
 
 ditionem in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, om¬ 
 nium rerum conditorem et opificem et provisorem, a 
 quo omnia: Et in unum Dominum, Filium ejus, 
 unigenitum ex Deo*, per quern omnia; genitum ex 
 Patre ante secula, Deum ex Deo, totum ex toto, solum 
 ex solo, perfectum ex perfecto, Regem ex Rege, 
 Dominum ex Domino, Verbum vivens, Sapientiam 
 viventem, veram lucem, viam, veritatem, resurrec- 
 tionem, pastorem, portam, nee mutationi nee con- 
 versioni obnoxium, paternae Divinitatis, substantiae, 
 consilii, potestatis et gloriae in nullo dissimilem 
 imaginem, genitum ante omnem creaturam; qui erat 
 in principio apud Deum ; Deum Verbum, ut scriptum 
 est in Evangelic: Et Deus erat Verbum : per quern 
 omnia facta sunt, et in quo omnia consistunt; qui 
 novissimis diebus descendit desuper, natus est ex 
 
 * Ex conjectur'd redditum. 
 
99 
 
 Virgine, et homo factus est: mediator Dei et hominum, 
 Apostolus fidei nostrae, et auctor vitae, ut ipse ait, 
 Descendi de ccelo, non ut faciam mearn voluntatem , 
 sed voluntatem ejus , qui misit me: qui passus est pro 
 nobis, et resurrexit tertia die ; et ascendit in coelum, 
 sedetque ad dexteram Patris; et iterum venturus 
 est cum gloria et potestate, judicare vivos et mortuos. 
 Et in Spiritum sanctum, qui ad consolationem, et 
 sanctificationem, et ad perfectionem credentibus datur; 
 sicut et Dominus noster Jesus Christus praecepit 
 discipulis dicens: Euntes docete omnes gentes bap- 
 tizantes eos in nomine Patris , et Filii , et Spiritus 
 Sancti: Patris scilicet vere Patris, et Filii vere Filii, 
 et Spiritus Sancti vere Spiritus Sancti, nominibus non 
 temere aut inutiliter positis, sed accurate propriam 
 singulorum, qui nominantur, hypostasim, ordinem et 
 gloriam significantibus; adeo ut hypostasi quidem 
 tres sunt, concordia autem unum. 
 
 Hanc igitur tenentes fidem, eamque ab initio ad 
 finem usque, in conspectu Dei et Christi, servantes, 
 pravam omnem haereticam doctrinam anathemate 
 damnamus. Et si quis praeter sanam rectamque 
 Scripturarum fidem docuerit, dicens aut tempus aut 
 aevum aut saeculum esse, vel extitisse, priusquam Filius 
 gigneretur, anathema esto. Et si quis dixerit Filium 
 
100 
 
 creaturam, ut unam ex creaturis, genitum, ut unum 
 ex genitis, aut opificium, ut unum ex opificiis, neque 
 singula ut divinae scripturae tradiderunt, prout or- 
 dine dicta sunt, profiteatur : aut si aliquid docuerit, 
 aut evangelizaverit, praeter id quod accepimus, 
 anathema esto. Nos enim omnia, quas sacris in 
 Scripturis traduntur, turn a Prophetis, turn ab Apos- 
 tolis, vere ac religiose credimus sectamurque. 
 
EXTRAIT DE LTIISTOIRE ECCLESIAS- 
 TIQUE, PAR M. FLEURY. Vol. III. 
 An. 341. 
 
 Suivant la tradition de Pevangile et des apotres, nous 
 croyons en un seul Dieu, pere tout puissant, createur de 
 toutes choses. Et en un seul Seigneur J. C. le fils 
 unique de Dieu, par qui tout a ete fait: qui a ete 
 egendre du pere avant tous les siecles. Dieu de Dieu : 
 tout de tout, seul d’un seul: parfait de parfait: roy 
 de roy, seigneur de seigneur. Verbe vivant, sagesse, 
 vie*, lumiere veritable: voye, verite, resurrection, pas- 
 teur, porte : immuable et inalterable. Image invari¬ 
 able de la divinite, de Pessence, de Ppuissance, de la 
 volonte et de la gloire du pere: le premier ne de toute 
 creature : qui etoit au commencemeut en Dieu, verbe 
 Dieu, comme il est dit dans Pevangile: Et le verbe 
 etoit Dieu. Par qui toutes choses ont ete faites, et en 
 qui toutes choses subsistent. Qui dans les derniers jours 
 est descendu d’en haut, est ne d'une vierge suivant les 
 ecritures, et a ete fait homme: mediateur de Dieu et 
 des hommes: apotre de notre foi: auteur de la vie. 
 
 * Fleury followed Socrates’s reading, (rapiav, r\v } instead of 
 
 Athanasius’s vo<piav £ujc rav. 
 
102 
 
 Et un peu apres: Nous croyons aussi au S. Esprit 
 qui est donne aux fidelles, pour leur consolation, leur 
 sanctification et leur perfection; comme N. S. J. C. 
 a ordonne a ses diciples, en disant: Allez, instruisez 
 toutes les nations, et baptisez au nom du Pere et du 
 Fils et du S. Esprit. II est clair que c’est d’un pere 
 qui est vrayment pere, d'un fils qui est vrayment fils, 
 d'un S. Esprit qui est vrayment S. Esprit. Ce ne 
 sont pas de simples noms donnes en vain : mais ils si¬ 
 gnified exactement la subsistance, l’ordre et la glorie 
 propre a chacun de ceux que Ton nomme : ensorte que 
 ce sont trois choses, quant a la subsistance, une quant 
 a la Concorde. Et ensuite: Si quelqu’un enseigne 
 qu'il y ait eu un temps ou un siecle avant que le fils de 
 Dieu fust engendre ; qrfil soit anatheme. Et si quel- 
 qu’un dit, que le fils soit creature comme une des crea¬ 
 tures, ou production comme une autre production, et 
 ne se conforme pas a la tradition*' des ecritures, qu’il 
 soit anatheme. 
 
 * These ambiguous terms, conform to the tradition of the Scrip¬ 
 tures, are the language of the Church of Rome, and not of the Sym- 
 bolum Artitochenum. This Creed condemns every one, who shall pro¬ 
 fess or teach any of the doctrines recited in it “ not as they are de- 
 “ livered in the Holy Scripturesor shall teach “ any other [ doctrine f 
 or gospel,] than that which we have received,” that is, received from 
 the Scriptures: for it adds, u For we believe, and adhere to all 
 “ things out a of the Scriptures delivered to us by the Prophets and 
 “ Apostles.” This is a direct anathema against the unwritten and 
 unapostolical religion of Pope Pius’s Creed. 
 
ENGLISH TRANSLATION, 
 
 Agreeably to Evangelical and Apostolical tradition, 
 we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the 
 Creator, Maker, and Governor of the Universe, of 
 whom are all things; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, 
 his Son, the only begotten of God, by whom are all 
 things; begotten of the Father before the worlds; God 
 of God, All from All, [TotusDeusex Toto Deo], 
 the Only one from the Only one, the Perfect from 
 the Perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, the 
 living Word, the living Wisdom, the true Light, the 
 Way, the Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the 
 Door, the unchangeable and invariable Image of the 
 Father’s Godhead, essence and will, and power and 
 glory; born before all Creation; who was in the be¬ 
 ginning with God; the Word, who was God, according 
 to what is declared in the Gospel: And the Word 
 was God; by whom all things were made, and by 
 whom all things consist; who, in these last days, came 
 down from above, and was born of a Virgin, according 
 to the Scriptures, and was made man; the mediator 
 
104 
 
 between God and men, the Apostle of our faith, the 
 Prince of life, as he says, I came down from Heaven , 
 not to do my 0W7i will , but the will of Him , who sent 
 me; who suffered for us, and rose again on the third 
 day, and ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the 
 right-hand of the Father, and shall come again, with 
 glory and power, to judge the living and the dead. 
 
 And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, who is given 
 to believers for consolation, and sanctification and 
 perfection, according to our Lord, Jesus Christ’s 
 direction to his Disciples, saying, Go ye unto all 
 nations , baptizing them in the name of the Father , and 
 
 the Son , and the Holy Ghost , the Father being truly 
 
 / 
 
 a Father, and the Son truly a Son, and the Holy 
 Ghost truly a Holy Ghost; the names being given 
 not vainly and unmeaningly, but accurately expressing 
 the respective subsistence, order and glory of each of 
 the [Persons] named; so that they are three in 
 subsistence, and one in consent. 
 
 Having, therefore, this faith, and holding it, before 
 God and Christ, from beginning to the end, we anathe¬ 
 matize all heretical heterodoxy. And if any one, con¬ 
 trary to the sound and right faith of the Scriptures, 
 shall teach that there ever was a time, or period, or 
 age, before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema; 
 
105 
 
 and if any one shall say, that the Son is a creature, as 
 one of the creation, or a production, as one of the 
 productions [of nature]; or a work, as one of the works 
 [of nature]; and [shall teach] otherwise than as the 
 Holy Scriptures have delivered each of the aforesaid 
 [doctrines] from each [of its respective Scriptures] ; 
 or shall teach any other thing than what we have 
 received, let him be anathema. For, all things out of 
 the Holy Scriptures, which have been delivered to 
 us by the Prophets and Apostles, we believe and 
 follow. 
 
 O 
 
UBERIOR FIDEI EXPLANATIO, 
 
 ITALIAM MISSA AB EPISCOPIS ORIENT. A. D. 345. 
 
 Ex Athanasii Opp. T. I. p. 738, ad Bened. 
 
 TlicpEvopLEV e ig evv, bsov Tar spa TccvTonpvropv, 
 JiT/TTVJV UCU TTO/VJT^V T«V 7r#VT«V, E^ CU TCUJCL TVTplCi 
 £V ovpavcp KCU ElTl yvjg OVOpiV^ETCil. 7V,l £IQ TOV (J,0V0y£VV\ 
 CiVTOV VIOV , TOV KVpiOV VJ/XWV Ivj<7OUV Xp/TTOV, TOV TTpO 
 7T&VTWV TWV tf/WVMV £K TOU 7 TCiTpog yEVVV^EVTV,, $£0V 
 
 £/. Osou, Cpws £tf CpwTO?, 5/’ ov EyevEro tv kvvtv, 
 tv £V ovpvvoig nvi ra eti rujg yvjg, tv, bpvTV nvi 
 TCI CiOpciTU, Koyov OVTV 7VI (JOtylCiV, 7VL $VVCtfJ,lV, 7V,l 
 
 £w>]V, K#/ «A^9iV0V* TOV £7r’ £(7%£TWV TCOV V^EpOOV 
 
 » 
 
 £/’ V|/X££ EVCivbpWTT/lTUVTCCj YVl y£VVV$EVTV £7 TVJJ vyiCig 
 TCipOeVOV, (7TVVpU§£VTV, 7VL VKOQVVOVTV 7VI TCiCpEVTU, 
 YVl VWGTVVTV EH TWV V£KpwV Tfl Tp/Tfl i][JOEpp 7VI 
 VVVX^^EVTV Eig cvpavov , 7V,Qeg()£VTV £7. dsfyuv 
 
 tov Tccrpog , £p%o[LEvov £7r/ gvvteXeiv TOV viuvog 
 
 npivvi ^vvrvg ycii VEUpov ;, VTodowai Encamp 7 vtv 
 
 tv, epyv, uvrov ' ou ^ fivviXEiv VYVTVitwqog ovvv 
 SiapLEVEi £ig Tovg vzjEipovg viuvvg. 7 v^e^etvi yv,p £v 
 
 TOU TCiTpog, OV /XOVOV £V TOO flJ/WV/ TOUTW, «AAg 
 
107 
 
 mi £V Tip /XfAAOVT/. KtTT£l >0|X£V X#/ £i£ TO TXVEV[X,U TO 
 UyiOV, TOVTSGTl TOV 7T«p#tfAVJTOV, 07T£p £ltCiy\£l\CL\LEVOg 
 TOig UTOGTOXOig [LETCt TV]V £/£ OVpCiVOV CiVO^OV, CCK£(TT£lX£ 
 Sllufyl CIVTOVg mi \) r KO[L'JY [ Ca.l 7 TCiVTCl' OU X«i 
 
 ^7/«(j6vi70VT«/ «/ TWV £l\lHplVWg £ ig CiVTOV 7T£7 UT- 
 
 TfUXOTWV 4 sV%Cll. 
 
 Tovg$£ hsyovTcig £% ovu ovtwv tov wov, vj e% £T£pag 
 vi:o(jTU.<j£wg } mi /xvj £X tou Ofou, x«/ oti yv %povog 
 
 'KOTS^ VJ tf/WV, CT£ /Xi^ V]V, «AAOTp/OU£ OllsV VJ X«0oA/XV1 
 
 x«* #7/2 fxxAvjox#. opioiug ‘mi Tovg A EyovTug Tp£ig 
 aivcti Qsovg, vj tov XpiTTOV ^ £ivca Gfov, ^ 7rpo twv 
 
 CilWVWV \X,Y[T£ XplJTOV jXVJTf 0/OV «UTOV £/V«/ 6fOU, ^ 
 TOV tfUTOV f/v«/ irUTEpCl mi V10V, ^ «7 /0V 7TV£U/X£* 
 vj ^7 ^vvvjtov u/ov, vj ot/ ou fiovXv\(7Ei ovds QeAvjo'f/ 
 f7£vvv]7e o TUTVjp tov viov, avci^£{j,ciTi^£i \\ uyia mi 
 mbohniy fxxAvj jia. 
 
 Ovts yap> ovx ovtcajv tov viov A sysiv oco-(pa\sg, 
 
 STTSl [JLYl'Soc^OV TOVTO TOOV 6s07TVSVCTT00V y^u(pOOV (pS^STOU 
 
 v c f 
 
 7 T£f>l CCVTOV, OVTS jU.7 ?V ££ £TS£a£ T/VO^ VKOTTCCCTSOdg 
 7TCl(>0C TOV TTUTS^CC 7T^0V7T0KSl^SVYjg, #AA’ £X [JiOVOV 
 
 tov 9sov yvYjcncvg uvtov ysysvvricrQca ^io^i^o^sGoc. sv 
 yoc% to ccysvvYjTov %ou ocvocgyov tov X^icttov ttuts^oc 
 o Qsiog ^i^occttcsi Koyog, aAA’ ovSs to, tjv n tots, ots 
 ovtc Tiv, s^ ay^ocOajv £7Ti(r(paXajg XsyovTocg, yj^ovixov 
 
 Tl ^lOCCTTY]j/jOC 7 TgOEvQvfJLVjTSOV OlVTOV, «AA’ 7} [AOVOV TOV 
 
 ay^ovoog uvtov ysysvvYjxom Qsov' xoa %%ovoi yag 
 
108 
 
 kou octuveg ysyovocn S/’ ocvtov. ovts fjLTjv crvvocvocgyov 
 
 KOU <TVV0CySVVV)T0V 7CC 770C7QI 70V VLOV SIVOU VOjJLlS'tOV' 
 
 crvvccvoc^yjov yoc(> kou cvvocysvv^ov ovSs/g KVgioog 
 TTOTJff, 7] Viog A S%6fJCr£70U, OcXKu 70V [XSV 7 70C7S(>0C 
 jjiovov uvot^yjov ov7oc kou ayevvvjTov yzysvvYiKSvoa 
 avs(piK7cog, kou 77o«riv oiKoc7oc\r}77Toog o&ocptv. 70V 
 
 Sf viov ysysvvy]o~9ui 7 rgo ouwvocv, kou fjiriK£7i oyoiug 
 
 T60 7 70C7QI aySVVYjTOV UVOU KOU CCV70V, aAA' oc^yyjv 
 
 tyjiv 70V ysvnj(rocv7cc 7 7oc7£goc' KsyocXv] yocf> Xgiorou 
 0 Qsog. 
 
 Ot*7S fJLYjV 7QIU Q^o\oyOVV7Sg 7 Tgay^0C7CC KOU 
 7gicx 7Tgoo-w7ra 9 70V 7 Toa^og, kou 70V viov, kou 70v 
 ocyiov 77vsvjjLOc7og koctoc 70cg ygoctyocg, 7gsig S 10c 
 70V70 70Vg Qsovg 7T0/CUjU,£V' £7 TSlSvj 70V CCVT07£Xrj 
 
 kou ccysvni70V ocvoc^ypv 7£ kou ao^oc70v 9sov } hoc 
 
 [JLOVOV Ol^OCIXSV 70V OSOV KOU 770C7SQ0C 70V ^ovoysvovg, 
 70V fJLOVOV fJLSV S% SCCV70V 70 SlVOCl SypV70C, fAOVOV Ss 
 
 roig ocXKoig ttocctiv cc<p9ovoog 70 V 70 yjx^o^svov. ovts 
 jX^V SVOC 9sOV [JLOVOV XsyOV7£g StVOU 70V 70 V KVQIOV 
 yjjLOov Ivjcrov X^c T70V r 7Toc7S{>oc, 7ov [xovov ocysvvyjTOv, 
 S/a 7OUT0 U^VOVjXs9oc KOU 70V Xgl(T70V 9s0V SIVOU 7gO 
 cuoovwv* oTTOioi sktiv ot oc770 UocvXov 70V Hocuo(rcc7Soog 9 
 
 VCT7SgOV OCV70V j US70C 77JV SV0Cv9^0077Yl<TlV SK 77^0K077Y]g 
 
 7c9£0770ivjcr9ou A syov7Sg, 700 77\v (pvciv i[//Aoy ocv9^oot70V 
 
109 
 
 ysyovsvoci. oi^oc[asv yocg koci ocvtov 9 si xoci vttotstccktcu 
 
 TOO 7 TOCTQl KOCI TOO 9s0O 9 #AA 0[AWg 7 TgO CCICaTVMV 
 
 ysvvvi^svTU sk tov 9sov, 9sov koctoc Ovtiv tsXsiov 
 
 SlVOCl TiOCl OcXv\9v] 9 XOCl [AYj s^ Uv9^UJ7TOJV [ASTOC tccvtoc 
 9sOV 9 a A A’ SK 9sOV SVOCv9^00'7VV\VOU $l’ Yi[AOCg^ TiOCl 
 [AV$S7T007T0TS OCTT oXooXSKOT OC TO SlVOCl &SOV*. 
 
 B'$sXv<tcto[as9oi Js Tv^og rovroig koci ocvocSts[aoc- 
 ti£o[asv Tioci t ovg Xoyov [ASV [AOVOV OCVTOV iJviXov TOV 
 9s0V TiOCl OCVVTTOC^KTOV S7T ITTXocTTOOg KOlXOVVTOCg, SV 
 STEgte TO SlVOCl SypVTOC , VVV [ASVy 00g TOV 7 T^O^O^IKOV 
 
 Xsyo[ASvov vtto tivoov, vvv Ss, cog tov sv^ioc9stov" 
 
 XglCTTOV Ss aVTOV, TiOCl V10V TOV 9sOV 9 XCU [ASTITVIV, 
 XOCl SITiOVOC TOV 9sOV [AV\ SlVOCl 7T^0 CUOOVOOV SsXoVTOig. 
 #AA’ STi tots X^icttov ocvTcv ysyovsvoci XOCl VIOV TOV 
 9sOV f S^ OV TYJV Y\[ASTS^OCV SK TVjg TTOC^SVOV (TOCgKOC 
 OCVSlXljtpS, 7 TfTO TST^OCXOTIOOV OVy^ 0 X 0 OV STOOV. SK TOTS 
 
 yocg tov Xqhttov ocq%y\v ftoccriXsiocg scryyixsvoci s9sXovcri’ 
 XOCl TSXog S^SIV OCVTVjV [ASTOC TYjV ctvvtsXsioiv koci 
 Tyjv KQITIV, 
 
 Toiovtoi $s sicriv 9 oi cctto ^s/Ioc^ksXXov koci 
 Xkotsivov toov Ayxv^oyocXuTOov, oi tv\v tt^oociogviov 
 VTTU^IV TOV XglfTOV, XCU TVJV 9s0TV]TOC, KOCI TVlV 
 aTsXsvTVjTov ocvtov (ZoKTiXsiocv d[AOioog lov^ccioig 
 
 * Sic Socr. S*ov deest ap. Athanas. 
 
110 
 
 cc9sT0v<nv, S7ri 7 rgotpccvEi tov ctwicttoktOoci Soxeiv 
 tyj jjiovocpyioc. io~jj,sv yoc^ ocvtov tfpeig, ov% ocTvXoog 
 Xoyov 7 rgo(pogixov 9 Yj EvhctdsTOV tov 9eov 9 ccXXcc 
 ^oovtoc 9sov A oyov xoc9° socvtov V7TocpypVToc 9 xoci viov 
 9eov xoci XgicrTov, xoci ov TvpoyvoovTixoog CTVV 0 VT 0 C 
 
 XOCI (TVV^lCCTQlfioVTOC 7TQ0 OCIOOVOOV TOO SOCVTOV TVOCTpi, XOCl 
 7 T^og TTOCTOCV ^lOCXOVYjCTCCy.EVOV OCVTOO TYjV ^Y]jXlOV^yiCCV 9 
 ElTE TOOV 0Q0CT00V SITE 700V OCOpOCTOOV. OVTOg yOip ECTTl, 
 7 Tgog OV E17TEV 0 770CTYj^ 9 OTl, 7T 0 lYj(T 00 pLEV CCv9^007T0V 
 
 TOUT EIX0V0C f t [ASTEgOCV, XOCI X0l9' OUOlOOFlV , 0 XOU TOig 
 TTocTpiocpyjxig ocVTOTTpovooTVog o(f)9sig, SsSooKoog tov 
 
 VOjJLOV, XOCl XochYjVOeg hoc T00V 7 TQo(pYlTOOV) XOU TOC 
 TEXeVTOCIOC EV0Cv9^007TYj(rag 9 XOCl TOV socvtov ttocteqoc 
 ttoktiv uv9^oj77oig (pocvEgwcccg, xoci Qocti'Kevoov Eig 
 TOVg OCTE\SVTYjTOVg ocioovocg. Ovhv yoifi 77^0(r(pOCT0V 0 
 XgitTTog 7TgO(TEiA'/](psv oc^ioc^oc, aX?C ocvooSev teXeiov 
 
 0CVT0V) Xttl TOO TTOCTQl XOCTOC 770CVT0C OjJLOlOV ElVOCl 
 77 E7710~T SVXCC jAEV • 
 
 K ou Tovg XEyovTocg h tov ocvtov eivoci TiocTEpoc xoci 
 viov xoci ccyiov ttvev^cc, xu9 ’ svog xoci tov ocvtov 
 
 77p0Cyp.0CT0g TE XOCI 77pO<T00770V TOC TplOC 0V0ULCCT0C 
 CCTE^OOg ExXocjJi(3ocV0VTCtg, ElXOTOjg 0C77CXY]pV(T(r0pL£V 
 TYjg EXXXYjClOcg, OTl TOV OcyjjOpy\TOV XOCI 0C770 c9y] TTOCTEpOC, 
 y^OOpyjTOV djJLOC XOCI 770 c9y]T 0V SlOC TYjg EVCCv9p0O77Y]<rE0Og 
 V77 qti9evtoci * TQiovTOi yocp EITIV oi IlaTp077cc(rariocvoi 
 
Ill 
 
 juc£v 7 zapa 'Poojuaioig, Xa(^£XXiavoi Ss xaXovfJiSVOi 
 7 rap’ y\iLiv. oi'Soc^sv yap Y\^£ig tov [asv oc7TO(TtsiXocvtu 
 7T0iTSpCC, £V TOO OIXSIOO TYjg aVaKkOICOTOV S^£OTYJTOg Y]9oi 
 fJLcfJLSVYlKSVttl, TOV CC7T0(TTUKSVT0C ’K^KTTOV TY\V TYjg 
 
 £Vav9p007TY}(T£00g OIXOVO jAiaV OT£7ZkYjpCOX£Vai. 
 
 Ojj^cog Ss xai Tovg ov (dovXyiosi ov$£ QsXrjosi 
 y£y£WYjcr9ai tov viov £ipY]XOTag av£vka@cog, avayxvjv 
 
 Sf ^YjkoVOTl a@OVk.Y]TOV Xai aTT pOOiip£T OV 7 TtplTcQSlKOTOCg 
 
 too 9sco , Ivoc axcov ysvvycrri tov viov, 'SvcrcrsftscrTccTOvg 
 jcoa TYjg £xxkv\<nag ^cvovg £7Tiyivoo<rxopL£v* otl t£ 
 Tzapa Tag xoivag 7Z£pi 9sov svvoiag , xai c)Y] xai Tzapcc 
 to foovXYjjjoa TYjg 9 c 07 TVcV(TT 0 V ypa(pYjg, TOiavTa t£toA- 
 ^Yjxacri 7 rspi avTov 'Siopicraor9ai. avzoxpaTOpa yap 
 qjjLSig tov 9sov xai xvpiov amov laVTOv si^oTsg, Ixovorioog 
 avTov xai s9sXovtyiv tov viov ysysvvYjxsvai svcrs/3cog 
 v r rz£i\Y\(pay,£v. 7 u<rTSVOVTSg Js S[j,(pol3cog xai too 7Z£pi 
 lavTOV XsyovTi, xvpiog £xtkts ^s apy/jv oScov avTov 
 £ig £pya avzov, oi% ojjooicog avTov Toig 'ti avTov 
 y£vopo£voig xTicrpcacriv v\ 7zoivipoao-i ' y£y£WYjo-9ai 
 voovuov, a<T£^)£g yap xai TY\g £xxkYicriao m TixYig 
 7 TL(TT£COg aX7\OTplOV , TO TOV XTKTTYJV TOig l)l aVTOV 
 X£xjicry,£voig S YijjuovpyYj^ao-i TzapuftaXksiv * xai tov 
 avTov TYjg y£V£(f£cog Toig aXXoig Tpoizov £%£iv xai 
 avTov vopilsiv. [aovov yap xai jjoovoog tov povoyevij 
 viov y£y£WYj(r9ai yvY\(rioog T£ xai aXY}9cog h'Sacrxovtriv 
 
112 
 
 ipccg ui Osioti ypu(pui. ’AAA* ov^e tov viov xu§ 
 
 EUVTOV ElVOU, ty[V TE XCCl VTTUpyElV OfJLOlWg TOO 7TUTpl 
 
 XsyoVTEg, ^iu tovto yoogi^opLEV uvtov tcv TTocrpog, 
 Toorovg xai ^lOicrryj^ara. tivu [joetu^v T7jg c rwafisiug 
 uvtoov (Too^ocriKoog svrivoovnsg. 7T£7ncrTSVKocfjo£v yap 
 apLEcriTSVToog uvTovg xai ccSiocaTUTwg ccXhrjXoig etti- 
 c rvvv}(p9cci , xai ocyoopKTTOvg virupyEiv eocvtoov' oXov 
 
 jJLEV TOV TTOLTpOg EVTTEpVKr^EVOV TOV VIOV, 0 X 0 V Ss TOV 
 VIOV Ef'TjpTY]jJOEVOV XUl 7T^0(T7rE<pVX0T0g TOO TTUTgl, XUl 
 jJ.0V0V TOig 'KUTQOOQig XOKTTOig UVUTTUVO^EVOV ^ITjVEKOOg, 
 TTKTTEVOVTEg OVV Eig T7]V 7TUVTsXsiOV TpiuSu TY]V uyiOO- 
 TUTYjV, TOVTETTlV Eig TOV TTUTEpU, XUl Eig TOV VIOV, 
 XUl Eig TO 7 TVEVpLOC TO OcytOV, XUl 6 eOV [AEV TOV TTUTEPU 
 XEyovTEg, 9 eov $e xui tov viov, ov Svo TovTovg @£Ovg, 
 aAA’ ev opLoXoyoviJOEV Tv\g OeoTyjTog u^ioojjou, xui [joiuv 
 uxpifirj TYjg @u<ri\iiug ty]v <rvp(pooviav % oravrup - 
 ypvvTog ptev xu9oXov ttuvtoov, xui uvtov tov viov , 
 
 jJLOVOV TOV 7TOCTpog m TOV $£ VIOV V7T0TSTUy[AEVOV TOO 
 7T0CTpl * EKTOg Ss UVTOV, 7T UVTOOV [AST UVTOV / 3u(TlXsV - 
 OVTOg TOOV 01 UVTOV ySVO^EV&OV, XUl TVjV TOV uyiov 
 7rvEVjjLUTog yjxpiv a(p@oviog TOig ayioig Swpovpsvov 
 rrruTpixoo (3 ovXvi^uti, ovtoo yap tov orspi t vjg eig 
 XpicrTov ptovapyiug cvvittut^ui A oyov orupE^oTuv 
 yjjoiv ol iepoi A oyoi. 
 
 Tuvtu vjvuyxarSyj^Ev p etu t>]v ev eiuto^ vrpoEx- 
 
113 
 
 tsQsktccv ttkttiv, Ti'XarvTepov ETrs^EpyoccrucrQcti, ov 
 XUTOC 7T£(jtTTYIV (ptXOTlfJUCCV, aAA’ IvOC 7 TCKTOiV TVJV TV\g 
 qp/LSTSgag V7T0?i7Jlp£CUg OcXXoTglOCV OCVOiKOi9u^OO^EV V7TO- 
 Ip/ttV, 7 TCC£>OC TOig TOC TCuO" V\^LUg UyVOOVVl' KOCl yVCxja-LV 
 01 7CUT0C TY\V SucT/V 7 TUVTEg, 0[A0V [ASV TVjg (TVKotyocVTtOCg 
 TOQV ETEgoSo^OdV TYjV CtVCC$SlOCV 9 OjJiOV <)£ TU)V CCVOCToXlKWV 
 TO SKKXYjCTlUO'T 1710V EV 7CV(*lCt) (^gOVY/fm, ^CipTVpOV^EVOV 
 u/3lOC(TTUjg V7T0 TOOV QeOTTVEVGTTOQV ypCt^WV, TTdpOC TOig 
 aoioc<TTPo(poig . 
 
 p 
 
<Vl A 
 
 114 
 
 III. 
 
 SYMBOLUM SIRMII EDITUM, A D. 357. 
 
 ■' * * ' j J v - • • • ■ • • • • • 
 
 Ex Athanam Opp. T. I. p. 742, ad Bened. 
 
 * c i ‘ J i \ *; .* “ * 
 
 11/crTti/Oju.f)/ sig sva 9sov 77a7£pa 77av70Kpa70pa, 
 70V K7l(TTVjV KOU 7 70lYj7'/jV 700V 7 TOCVTOOV, S£ OV 770CCT0C 
 TTOlTfjlCC SV ovpocvti Kai £771 yVjg 0V0p.0lC£70tl. -KOU sig 
 70V [JLOVOySVY] aV70V VIOV, 70V KVglOV Y\jJLOOV, ’Ivjcrovv 70V 
 'K^I<T70Vy 70V 77pO 770CVT00V 700V OCLOOVOOV SK 70V 7 TU7^0g 
 
 y£VVY)9sV7a, 9sov SK SsOV, (poug SK (f)W70g, Si OV Sy£V£70 
 
 7U 77CCVT0C, 7U 7£ £V TOig OVpaVOig KOU 7a £771 7Y\g yvjg , 
 ra opara Kai 7ai aopu7a % Xoyov OV7U Kai cro(piav, Kai 
 (poog ahq9iyov, Kai {oorjv' 70V £77 svyjxTuov 7oov 
 
 r\uspocv Si' qpag svav9pou77V]<rav7u , Kai ysvvv}Qsv7a sk 
 7Vjg ay lag 77a^9vjvov, Kai (T7av^cx9sv7a, Kai a77o9avovTa, 
 Kai 7a(p£V7a , Kai ava(T7av7a sk vskqoov t>j 7gi7vj 
 YifASpa, Kai avaXvj(p9sv7a sig cvpavov , Kai Ka9sa'9sv7a 
 sv Ss^ia 70V 77a7pog } Kai spypp-svov S77i crvv7sXeia 70V 
 aicxvog, Kpivai (9xv7ag Kai vsKpovg, Kai airoSovvai 
 Kar7Co Ka7a m spya avrov' cv Vj fiacriXsia 
 
115 
 
 QCKocTotTTocvcTTog cvcra, Eig Tovg a7TEipovg 
 
 aioovag. scrTOii yoc g Kcc9E(! ) ofjosvog ev os^ioc tov 
 7 rocTpog, ov poovov ev too ocioovt tovtco, aXXa kui ev 
 
 TOO [JLEXXoVTI. KOCl Eig TO 7TVEVp0U TO OcyiOV, TOVTECTTl 
 TOV TTOtpOtKh'rjTOV, 07TE £> E7T0Cyl ElXupLEVOg TOig Ct7T0(r- 
 ToXoig, y.£Ta tyjv Eig ov^avovg ccvtov avoSov, anrocrTEiXai 
 
 Sl^OC^ai KOCl VOTO^n\(TOCl OCVTOVg TVOCVTOC, ETTE^ll/S* X/ 
 ov koci aylaZovioci ai toov EiXix^ivoog eig avTOV tvetvlct- 
 tsvkotcov Jyvypu. 
 
 I. T ovg Js A syovTag e^ ovk ovtoov tov viov, y s£g 
 
 ETEpag v7TO(TTacrEoog f xai fjLYj ek tov 9eov , kul oti y\v 
 
 * 
 
 Xpovog y) uioov> ote ovk vjv, aXXoTpiovg oi^ev y\ ayioc 
 XUl Ka9oXlKY} EKK\v\(Tia . 
 
 II. UaXiv ov v spovjjosv * si Tig tov nraTE^a xai tov 
 viov $uo XsyEt Osovg , ava9spia ecttoo. 
 
 III. K#/ si Tig Xsyouv 9eov tov XpicrTOV nrpo uioovouv 
 VIOV TOV 9sOV , VTTOVpyYJKOTa TOO 7 TaTQl Eig TY]V TOOV 
 oXoov ^YjjjLiov^yiav fjovi opLoXoyoir], uva9s^a ecttoo. 
 
 IV. E/ Tig tov aysvnjTOv, rj [JCEgog avTov ek M oc^iag 
 Xsysiv ysy£VY\(r9ai ToXy.cn, ava9sy,u ecttoo. 
 
 V. E i Tig kutu Tvpoyvoocriv 7r £0 Wla^iag Xsysi tov 
 viov Eivoci, xai poyj 7 rgo aioovoov ek tov nruT^og ysysv - 
 vYjjjLSvov nrpog tov 9eov Eivociy Kai ^i avTov y£ysv7]cr9ai 
 tcc icavTa, ava9Ey J a ecttoo. 
 
116 
 
 VI. El Tig TY\V 0 V<TIUV TOV 9sOV TtXuTVVE^ Ul, 7] 
 (TVC‘TSh\£0'9ai (fiocCrKOl, CCVCt9s^CC 6CTC0, 
 
 VII. Ei rig 7rXocTVVOjJLSnjv tvjv ovciav rov 9sov, tov 
 viov A zyoi ttoieiv, v\ tov %XaTVcr^ov T7jg ovcriag uvtov 
 
 VIOV OVOUa^Ol, UVd9i^0t £<TTOO» 
 
 VIII. Ei Tig svSioc9stov Yj n tqoQoqikov Xoyov A sysi 
 TOV VIOV TOV 9eOV, 0CV0t9sjJLOC SCTTCO. 
 
 IX. Ei Tig ocv9qogttov p^ovov A sysi tov sk M a^iag 
 viov , avoc9s i^oc ecttoo. 
 
 X. Ei Tig 9 sgv KUl av9(>Gd7rOV TOV EK M Ol^lOig 
 A Eycov, 9sov tov aysvnjTov ovtoo vosi , ocvoc9sjj.u ecttoo, 
 
 XI. Ei Tig to, syoo 9iog or^ooTog, kui eyoo pLEToc 
 
 TCiVTCC, KOCl 7rXV]V SjAOV OVK £<TTl 9sog, SZP aVUl^ECTEl 
 SlSdU Awi/ KOCl TOOV pOTj OVTCaJV 9sC 0V SipYljJLSVOV, £Tff- 
 OCVCCipECTEl TOV fJLOVOyEVOVg 7 rpo uioovoov 9sov I OV^OClKOOg 
 £KhocpL$CCVOl, 0CV0c9s^0C £(TTOO, 
 
 XII. Ei Tig to, o A oyog erasysvsTO , ukovcov , 
 tov 7\oyov eig cragKa pc£Taf3£f3Xvj(r9ai vopuZoi, rj 
 
 T^07TYjV V7T0pL£pL£VY\KOTa CCV£l\Yl&£VOU TTjV CTOCQKOC \cyOl, 
 
 uvoc9e^oc EO~TCO» 
 
 XIII. El Tig TOV povoytvvi VIOV TOV 9£0V ETTaVpCO - 
 pLEVOV UKOVGOV, TY\V 9£0T7jTU OCVTOV (p9opdV, 7] 7TCc9og, 7} 
 TpQ7T7jV, 7] pc>ElCO(TlV, 7} aVUlpSCTtV V7T0U£pL£VV]K£Vai KsyOl, 
 avoc9£jjca ecttoo. 
 
XIV. E/ Tig TO, 7 TOlTjCTC^pLEV Uv9pUJ7TOV, pLVj TOV 
 
 f 1 c 
 
 7r oct spot 7 rpog tov viov A sysiv, uXX uvtov TTpog euvtov 
 A syoi TOV 9sOV ElpYjKEVUl, UVu9spLU ECTTLO. 
 
 XV. E i Tig [jiV) tov viov A syoi tov ’Aj Gpuupp 
 loo^ucr9ui, uXXu tov uyswrjTOV 9sov, v\ fjLEpog ocvtov 
 hey oi, uvu9spLu scttoj, 
 
 XVI. El Tig TOP I UKG<j( 3 , ^Yj TOV viov oSg 
 
 uv9pcaj7TOV ‘ns'TroihuiKZvui, uKKu tov uysvnjTOv 9eov, 
 
 7 ] jJLSgOg UVTOV Xsyoi, UVu9spLU ECTTCP. 
 
 XVII. E< Tig to, efips^s KVpiog orvp irupu 
 
 KVpiOV, S7TI TOV TTUTpOg KUl TOV VIOV EKku^JO- 
 
 (3uvoi, uX7\ uvtov nup euvtov \zysi (3sftpsyfivoa, 
 uvu9sjjLu scttcxj. 6(3ps^s yccg KVpiog 0 viog TTU^U 
 KVpiOV TOV TlUTppg . 
 
 XVIII. E / Tig UKOVOOV KVpiOV TOV TTUTEpU, KUl 
 TOV VIOV KVPIOV, KUl KVPIOV TOV TTUTEpU KUl TOV VIOV* 
 
 67 rsi KVpiog sk kv^iov, Suo A sysi 9sovg, uvu9sy.u scttou, 
 ov yup <rvvTuo-(ropLSv viov tcp ttut^i, uX?C vivoTZTuy - 
 [JLEVOV TCP TTUTpi. OVTE yup KUTY]X9 eV E7TI Xo^O^U 
 uvsv /3ovXy]g tov TTUTpog, ovte sftgs^e v aft euvtov, 
 uKKu orupoc KVPIOV, Uv9zv]oVVTOg ^YjXu^Y) TOV TTUTpOg. 
 OVTE Ku9y\TCU SK Ss^lCPV u(p* EUVTOV, «AA’ UKOVEl 
 A syovTog tov nruTpog, ku9ov ek Ss^icpv pLov. 
 
 XIX. E/ Tig TOV 7 TUTE^U, KUl TOV VIOV, KUl TO 
 uyiov TTVEVpLU, £V TTQQCTOOTTOV A SySl, OCVu9s^U SfTTOU. 
 
118 
 
 XX. E l Tig TO TTVSVyu TO uyiOV 7Ta^Oi>cXY}TOV 
 
 A syvov, tov aysvvvjTOv A syoi 9sov, avu9syu sftuj. 
 
 XXI. E/ Tig, cog ebi$oc%ev viyotg o xv^iog, yvj 
 
 aXXov Xsyoi tov 7rapaxXv)Tov Trapu tov viov * si^vjxs 
 yoc^y, xai aXXov Tra^axXyjTov vyiv o 7 tocty^, 
 
 ov s^cotvjtco syoo, avu9sya scttco. 
 
 XXII. E/ Tig to vrysvya to ocyiov ysgog Xsyoi 
 tov TiuTpog, vj tov viov, avu9sy.cc scttco. 
 
 XXIII. E/ Tig TOV TTUTS^U, XUl TOV VIOV, XUl 
 
 to uyiov nrvsvyu, T^sig Xsyoi 9sovg , uvu9syu scttco. 
 
 XXIV. E/ Tig /2ovXrjarsi tov 9sov, cog sv tcov 
 TcoiYiyuToov ysyovsvca Xsyoi tov viov tqv 9sov, uvu9syu 
 sottco. 
 
 XXV. E/ Tig yvj 9sXvjcruvTog tov nvuTpog 
 ysysvnj(r9ai Xsyoi tov viov, uvu9syu scttco. ov 
 yu% f3iucr9sig 0 7 tutv]^ vtto uvuyxyjg (pvcrtxvjg ayfistg, 
 cog ovx Yj9sXsv, sysvvvicrs Toy viov, aXX ’ uyu ts 
 y]f2ovXYi9r], xui uyjpovcog xui u r jru9cog s% suvtov 
 avTov ysvvY\Tug stteSsi^sv. 
 
 XXVI. E / Tig aysvvYiTov xui uvupyjov Xsyoi tov 
 
 viov, cog >0 uvu^yjx xui §uo uysvvvjTOC Xsyoov, xui Suo 
 7roicov 9sovg, ava9syu scttco. xs(puXr} yu 0 s<ttiv 
 cc^yyi 7ruvTcov , 0 viog, xs(puXv} Ss, 0 scttiv u^yy\ tov 
 XgicrTov, 0 9sog % evTco yag sig yiuv avu^ypv tcov 
 oXcov upyyv S /’ viov svasf3cog 7 tuvtu uvayoysv. 
 
119 
 
 XXVII. K OU TTOiXlV (TVV$lOCK(>l(3oVVT£g TOV 'Kpicr- 
 Ticcvicrpov t vjv svvoiav, Xsyopsv, on si ng X^ittov 
 9s0V VIQV TOV 9sOV 7 T QOOUOOVIOV OVTOC , KOtl VTVOVpyVjKOTOC 
 Tea 7 rocTgi sig T vjv tcov oKoov irj^Liov^yiav, pyj Xsyoi * 
 uX7C s£ ov sk Nlct^iccg eysvvYjSYj, sk tots koci 
 X^/ctt ov kcu viov kskXy\v9cu, kou cc^yyjv si\q(psvou 
 TOV 9soV Sivuty UVOc9s^CC STTCaJ. 
 
 I 
 
120 
 
 IV. 
 
 A Comparison of every Article of the Symbolum 
 Antiochenum with corresponding passages 
 of Scripture. 
 
 niSTETOMEN EYE 
 
 *ENA 0EON 
 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 nctTEyct 
 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 6.; xv. 6 
 
 TCiVTOOHqCtTOqCi 
 
 
 Apoc. ii. 8. 
 
 o twv oAiyv dyfjsiouqyovTe hui 1 
 
 [ Heb. xi. 10. 
 
 HCil TT^OVOVjTVJV 
 
 1 
 
 £ £ 0V TCi KCiVTCC 
 
 
 I Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 KAI EIE 'ENA 
 
 KTPIONl 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 IHEOTN XPISTON 
 
 $ 
 
 TOV VlOV CtVTOV 
 
 1 
 
 1 John iii. 16 ; John 
 
 tov ixovoyevvi Oeov* 
 
 (-£. Qcou) 1 
 
 1 i. 14; 1 John iv. 9. 
 
 5/’ OV TCt KCtVTCC 
 
 1 Cor. viii. 6. 
 
 tov yevvvi^evTce 
 
 7TfO TWV 1 
 
 | 1 John i. 1. 
 
 etiuvuv £H TOV ItClT^OC, 
 
 J 
 
 > John xvii. 5. 
 
 * Movoysni ©£ov is an expression not authorised by Scripture. 
 Instead of 0 m we should perhaps read Qsov, the only begotten of 
 God, as in John i. 14. the only begotten of the Father, poyoyivovs 
 nxgx narcos. So also in the Symbolum Arimmense, (Athanas. 
 °PP- T. I. p. 722. A.) o t^ovoyms tov Gtov. 
 
121 
 
 060V £Y &£0V 
 
 John i. 1. 14. 
 
 oXov e\ o'Aov 
 
 Col. ii. 9< 
 
 /U.0V0V £Y /X0V0U* 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 15; Jude, 4. 
 
 teXeiov ey teXeiov 
 
 Heb. ii. 10. 
 
 fidGlXEd EY fidGlXEUg 
 
 Apoc. xvii. 14. 
 
 YVQ10V dZO YVqiOV 
 
 Col. ii. 24. 
 
 Aoyov Zuvtcc 
 
 1 John i. 1. 
 
 EoQldV %UGdV 
 
 1 Cor. i. 24. 30. 
 
 (pug dXv^Lvov 
 
 John i. 9- 
 
 edov 
 
 John xiv. 6 . 
 
 dXv^Eietv 
 
 John xiv. 6 . 
 
 dVdGTdtJIV 
 
 John xi. 25. 
 
 KOt^EVd 
 
 John x. 11. 
 
 $V$dV 
 
 John x. 9- 
 
 UT^EKTOV TE Ydl dVdXXOlUTOV 
 
 ! 
 
 TVJ£ ^EOT^TOg, OVGldg TE YCU* 
 
 Heb. i. 3 ; xiii. 8 . 
 
 fiovXvjg Ydi SovdixEug Ydi SoiygC 
 
 ' Jam. i. 17. 
 
 TOV VdTQOS dKdqdXXdYTOV ElYOVd J 
 
 TOV 'K^UTOTOYOV Td(7V\g YTl- | 
 
 rcoi. i5. 
 
 GEug J 
 
 i 
 
 tov ovTd fv d%%v 7 %^og tov 1 
 
 - John i. 1. 
 
 Bfov j 
 
 I 
 
 Aoyov 0fov 
 
 John i. 1. 
 
 J/’ c'u T« 'KdVTd EyEVETQ 
 
 1 Cor.viii. 6 ; John i.2. 
 
 AXv)§WS v'lOt TOV viov XX\0V[JI.IV 0 Tl (AOVOS XZI (AGVOV XXI (XOVUIS XXI 
 
 (aovov ( ov yzp xxi Uarv?) xa/ o Xov vios xxi oXov 9 xxi xix ocgyys, ov Tiort to 
 
 g /v«< v\os vigypiios. Chrysost. Orat. xxxiii. p. 321. 
 
 n 
 
122 
 
 fV W Ttt 7 VCIVTU, <TVV£<TT^ii£ 
 
 TOV £%' f(7 %tiTWV TWV VJjXf^WV 
 XaTfA^CVT# tfVW$£V 
 yfWvjSevT# £H Tr^^evou 
 uv^^utov yevofAtvov 
 
 [A£GITV\V §SOV HXt CIV^^QTUV 
 CiTtOGTOXQV TVJC %l(TT£Ug VifL wv 
 a?%v)yov TV); ?«jjs 
 
 TOV nTU^OVTd V7T£% V)[AUV 
 CtVCMJTUVTCt TJfl T^tTV\ V\p£^OC 
 
 uveX^ovtu eig ovqctvovg 
 xurscrSevrci sv Ssfyci tov 
 narcos 
 
 Httl TdXiV £%%0[A£VOV (JLSTCi 
 Sofa; Hat Swaps ug 
 
 •A^ivcti %uvTag v.ai vexqovg. 
 
 } 
 
 } 
 
 Col. i. 17. 
 
 Heb. i. 2. 
 
 John vi. 38. 
 Matt. i. 22, 23. 
 John i. 14. 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 Heb. iii. 1. 
 
 Acts ii. 15. 
 
 1 Pet. ii. 21. 
 
 1 Cor. xv. 4. 
 Eph. iv. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 Col. iii. 1. 
 
 Matt. viii. 38. 
 Luke ix. 26. 
 
 1 Pet. iv. 5. 
 
 Acts ix. 31; Rom. xv 
 16; 1 Cor. vi. 11 
 Eph. iv. 12. 
 
 KAI EIE TO IINETMA 
 TO ATION to sig 7ra^anXvi civ 
 kcu uyiacpov aai teXeiuciv roig 
 TUCTEVOVCIV SlSopEVOV 
 
 « 
 
 nu$cog uai 6 xvqiog vj/xcov \\\aovg 
 XyicTog hera^ciTo roig pc&yrcug 
 Xeyuv, 7 ro$EV$EVT£g pa^^TEver ute 
 
 wvrte TCI £3vi 1 , (IciTTiZovTe; ^Matt. xxviii. 19. 
 uvTovg £ig to ovopa tov TLxTqog 
 uai tov T lov uai tov byiov 
 UvsvpaTog 
 
123 
 
 (Jvj Xovoti UctT^o; ct\v\5ui n 
 T^og ovrog , T fov Jf aAvjSwj u/ou 
 ovrog, tou Je ay/ou riv£Ujx«TC£ 
 u\\fiwg uyiGV TVft t^arog cvrog* 
 TWV OVOfJLXTUV Ot>% #7rA«S Ot^f i 
 tf^ywf Mf//xfvwv, #AAa aV[[Laivov- 
 TttV OlMEl&V 6HX7T0V TUV CVOlJLCt- 
 Zopev UV VKOfTCUTlV T£ Y.CU Tdfyv 
 MU $o£av) 
 
 iog eivcu t q /xfv vxoffrcurei'} 
 
 TqiK f Tyi $8 avixQuvip iv. ) 
 
 Heb. v. 5; Matt. 
 17; John xv. 26. 
 
 1 John v. 7. 
 
 THE END. 
 
LATELY PUBLISHED, 
 
 And sold by Messrs. Rivington, Waterloo Place ; and J. Hatchard 
 
 and Son, Piccadilly. 
 
 1. —The Second Edition of a Vindication of I John v. 7, 
 from the Objections of M. Griesbach; to which is prefixed, 
 a Preface, in Reply to the Quai'terly Review. 
 
 2. —Adnotationes Mill'd, Bengelii, Wetstenii, Sabaterii, 
 &c. ad 1 Joaiin. v. 7. 
 
 3. —The Greek Original of the New Testament Asserted. 
 
 4. —A Selection of Tracts and Observations on 1 John v. 7. 
 
 5. —Three Catechisms on the Principles of our Profession 
 as Christians, as Church of Englandmen, and as Pro¬ 
 testants. 
 
 Printed by J. Brettell, 
 lluyert Street, Haymarket, London. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' • :h -''k-ilrm t > n a 
 
 ..•v : 'i , i 
 
 jfcwq m t! w M 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 . 
 
 v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 . to! ! ■ ! • r H • ■ ’ • / • 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 ■