In this post I share some of the early and plentiful evidence from the Latin Church for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, typically referred to as the Comma Johanneum. The verse reads:
“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” New King James Version
“And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
I also provide the Greek and Latin renderings of this text:
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.
I start off with the testimony of St. Cyprian.
St. Cyprian (250 AD)
12. For it is no small and insignificant matter, which is conceded to heretics, when their baptism is recognised by us; since thence springs the whole origin of faith and the saving access to the hope of life eternal, and the divine condescension for purifying and quickening the servants of God. For if any one could be baptized among heretics, certainly he could also obtain remission of sins. If he attained remission of sins, he was also sanctified. If he was sanctified, he also was made the temple of God. I ask, of what God? If of the Creator; he could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father? (Cyprian, Epistle 72, To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050672.htm; bold and underline emphasis mine)
6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; John 10:30 and again IT IS WRITTEN of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one. 1 John 5:7 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1. On the Unity of the Church http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm; bold and capital emphasis mine)
Here is another translation:
UNITY OF GODHEAD, UNITY OF CHURCH. CYPRIAN. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, “And these three are one.”37 Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 6.38
371 Jn 5:7 (KJV). Cyprian seems to be quoting the so-called Comma Johanneum text of 1 Jn 5:7 that has an explicit reference to the Trinity. See Michael Maynard, A History of Debate (Temp, Ariz.: comma Publications, 1995), 38, although Daniel Wallace disagrees with Maynard’s conclusions. See his article on the web, The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian. (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, IVa, John 1-10, edited by J.C. Elowsky, Thomas C. Oden (General Editor) [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2006], p. 359; bold emphasis ours)
… The Lord says, “The Father and I are one (9);” and again, IT IS WRITTEN of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “And the three are one (10).”…
9. John 10:30
10. 1 John 5:7. (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers [The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1970], Volume 1, pp. 221, 222)
BIBLE EXPOSITORS AND THEOLOGIANS
I cite a slew of Christian authorities, all of whom appeal(ed) to Cyprian as an early, clear witness to the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.
“Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: ‘Et iterum de Patre et Fillo et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt”’ (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: ‘And the Three are One’”) Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. ‘The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’ THAT WILL HARDLY DO. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.” (Francis A.O. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics [Concordia Publishing House, 1968], Translated by T. Engelder, Volume 1, pp. 340-341; bold and capital emphasis mine)
“On the unity of the church these words occur: ‘The Lord says, “I and the Father one;” and again, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is written, “and these three are one.”‘ Here the disputed text in John’s First Epistle, v. 7, is quoted; for nowhere else is it written, these three are one. As Cyprian was the echo of Tertullian, the probability is strengthened that the latter was known to have quoted the disputed text in his work against Praxeas: ‘Which three are one (thing), unum; not one (person), unus; as it is said, “I and my Father are one,” unum; for unity of substance, not for singularity of number.’ It may be said Tertullian quotes only the text, ‘I and my Father are one;’ but he evidently quotes another text, which speaks of three as unum, one thing, or existence; or, as he says, substance. It may be said Tertullian quotes only the text, Jerome seems to have been falsely charged with introducing the disputed words, without authority, into the Vulgate; for Cyprian had read them in a Latin version, long before. Griesbach yields too much to the suspicion that the earlier fathers merely allegorized the eighth verse; for they here argue, as from express testimonies of Scripture, without any hint of that allegorical interpretation which, it must be confessed, the later writers abundantly employ.” (James Bennett, The Theology of the Early Christian Church Exhibited in Quotations from the Writers of the First Three Centuries, with Reflections [The University of Chicago Libraries, 1855], p. 94 https://archive.org/stream/MN40253ucmf_0#page/n109/mode/2up; bold emphasis mine)
1 John 5:7. For there are three, &c. — It is well known that the authenticity of this verse has been a subject of much controversy. “The arguments, on both sides of the question, taken from ancient Greek MSS. and versions, and from quotations made by the fathers, and from printed editions, have been stated with the greatest fidelity and accuracy by Mill in his long note at the end of John’s first epistle, where he observes that this verse is wanting in all the ancient Greek MSS. of the New Testament which have come down to us, except a few, which shall be mentioned immediately. It is wanting likewise in the first Syriac, and other ancient versions, particularly the Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in many of the present Latin MSS. With respect to quotations from the fathers, Mill acknowledges that few of the Greek writers, who lived before the council of Nice, have cited this verse. The same he observes concerning those who, after that council, wrote in defence of the Trinity against the Arians, and other heretics; which, he thinks, shows that this verse was not in their copies.” But, on the other hand, the proofs of the authenticity of this verse are,” 1st, Some of the most ancient and most correct Vatican Greek copies, from which the Spanish divines formed the Complutensian edition of the Greek Testament, and with which they were furnished by Pope Leo X.,” one of which Mill speaks of as peculiarly eminent, of great antiquity, and approved fidelity. “2d, A Greek copy, called by Erasmus, Codex Britannicus, on the authority of which he inserted this verse in his edition anno, 1522, but which he had omitted in his two former editions. This is supposed to be a MS. at present in the Trinity College library, Dublin, in which this, verse is found with the omission of the word αγισν, holy, before πνευμα, Spirit. It likewise wants the last clause of 1 John 5:8, namely, and these three are one. All Stephens’s MSS., being seven in number, which contain the catholic epistles, have this verse: only they want the words εν ουρανω, in heaven. 4th, The Vulgate version, in most of the MS. copies and printed editions of which it is found, with some variations. 5th, The testimony of Tertullian, who alludes to this verse, Praxeam, c. 25, and who lived in an age in which he saith, Præscript, c. 30, the authenticæ literæ (the authentic writings) of the apostles were read in the churches. By authenticæ literæ Mill understands, either the autographs of the apostles, which the churches, to whom they were written, had carefully preserved, or correct transcripts taken from these autographs. Also the testimony of Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third century, and who, in his epistle to Jubajanus, expressly cites the latter clause of this verse. The objections which have been raised against the testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian, Mill hath mentioned and answered in his long note at the end of 1 John 5., which see in page 582 of Kuster’s edition. 6th, The testimony of many Greek and Latin fathers in subsequent ages, who have cited the last clause of this verse; and some who have appealed to the Arians themselves as acknowledging its authenticity. Lastly, the Complutensian edition, anno 1515, had this seventh verse exactly as it is in the present printed copies, with this difference only, that instead of these three are one, it hath substituted the last clause of 1 John 5:8, And these three agree in one, and hath omitted it in that verse. These arguments appear to Mill of such weight, that, after balancing them against the opposite arguments, he gave it as his decided opinion that, in whatever manner this verse disappeared, it was undoubtedly in St. John’s autograph, and in some of the copies which were transcribed from it.”
“Instead of passing any judgment in a matter so much contested,” says Macknight, “I shall only observe, 1st, That this verse, instead of disturbing the sense of the verses with which it is joined, rather renders it more connected and complete. 2d, That in 1 John 5:9, the witness of God is supposed to have been before appealed to: If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. And yet, if 1 John 5:7 is excluded, the witness of God is nowhere mentioned by the apostle. 3d, That in the opinion of Beza, Calvin, and other orthodox commentators, the last clause of 1 John 5:7 hath no relation to the unity of the divine essence. If so, the Trinitarians, on the one hand, need not contend for the authenticity of this verse, in the view of supporting their doctrine, nor the Arians, on the other, strive to have it excluded from the text as opposing their tenets. 4th, That the doctrine which the Trinitarians affirm to be asserted in this verse is contained in other places of Scripture. So Wall saith. Dr. Benson likewise, in his Dissertation, written to prove this verse not genuine, saith, ‘If it were genuine, there could nothing be proved thereby but what may be proved from other texts of Scripture.’” The reader who wishes for more satisfactory information respecting the authenticity of the text, may find it in Dr. Calamy’s Vindication of it, annexed to his Sermons on the Trinity, preached at the lecture at Salter’s Hall, and published in 1722. (Rev. Joseph Benson Commentary of the Old and New Testaments http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/1_john/5.htm; bold and emphasis mine)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,…. That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher’s copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens’s, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the “sixth” century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the “fourth” century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the “third” century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a “hundred” years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ’s sonship are, (John Gill’s Exposition on the Whole Bible http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/1_john/5.htm; bold and capital emphasis mine)
FULGENTIUS (527 AD)
This brings me to my next witness. Fulgentius Ruspensis, Bishop of Ruspe in North Africa not only cited the Comma but also stated St. Cyprian did so as well:
In Patre ergo et Filio et Spiritu sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non ademus. Beatu enim Joannes apostolus testatur, dicen: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; et tres unum sunt. Quod etiam beatissimus martyr Cyprianus, in epistola de Unitate Ecclesiae confitetur, dicens: Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter Ecclesiam colligit, Christi Ecclesiam spargit. Atque ut unam Ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstraret, haec confestim testimonia de Scripturis inseruit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum: De Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum et: Et tres unum sunt.
“In the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, whose unity of substance we accept, are confident not to confound the persons. For the blessed John the Apostle testifies, saying: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one. This is also confessed by the most blessed martyr Cyprian in the letter On the Unity of the Church, saying: ‘He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, he does against Christ’, who in another place says in addition to a collection of the Church, says, ‘scatters the Church of Christ’. And in order to show that there is one Church of the one God, he immediately inserted this into the testimonies of the Scriptures: ‘The Lord says: I and the Father are one. And again: of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: ‘And the three are one.’” (Responsio Contra Arianos Libri Duo, Response 10 [MPL065, col. 224]; bold and capital emphasis mine)
And:
En habes in brevi aliu esse Patrem, alium Filium, alium Spiritum sanctum: alium et alium in persona, non aliud et aliud in natura; et idcirco Ego, inquit, et Pater unum sumus. Unum, ad naturam referre nos docei, Sumus, ad personas. Similiter et illud: Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium dicun in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et his tres unum sunt.
“Here you have briefly that another is the Father, another is the Son, another is the Holy Spirit: different in person, not different in nature: and for this reason ‘I’, he says, ‘and the Father are one.’ We teach that ‘One’ refers to nature, and ‘We are’ refers to the persons. Likewise regarding it: ‘There are three’, he says, who are said to testify in heaven, ‘the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.’” (Ad Felicem Notarium De Trinitate Liber Unus, Chapter IV [MPL065, col. 500]; bold emphasis mine)
PRISCILLIAN (380 AD)
Priscillian, writing in Spain, cited the Comma:
Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt. Et tria sunt quae testimonium dicent in caelo: Pater Verbum et Spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.
“There are three that bear witness on earth: the water, in the flesh, and the blood: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, Volume xviii, p. 6 https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptoru01wissgoog/page/n55/mode/1up?view=theater; bold emphasis mine)
VIGILIUS TAPENSI (484 AD)
In a work refuting the Arians, Vigilus includes the following statement:
“John the Evangelist, in his Epistle to the Parthians (i.e., his 1st Epistle), says there are three who afford testimony on earth: the water, the blood, and the flesh, and these three are in us; and there are three who afford testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” (Contra Varimadum Arianum)
COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (485 AD)
A council in Carthage was convened at the instruction of the Arian Vandal king Huneric where North Africa Trinitarian bishops met Arian bishops to debate the issue of the Trinity. Sources state that there were 461 bishops that stood in defense of the Trinity against Arian heretics. These orthodox bishops employed the Comma to refute the Arians’ denial of the Trinity.
A Christian named Eugenius (Eugene) was the spokesman for the Trinitarian bishops of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearick Isles. He planned to present a statement of faith, a manifesto, delineating the 461 bishops’ belief in the Trinity.
North African Victor of Vitensis, who attended the Council, included the manifesto of the 461 bishops into his account of the proceedings. That manifesto states in respect to the Comma:
Et ut luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.
“And as a shining light teaching the unity of the divinity of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the testimony of John the Evangelist demonstratively testifies: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’”
Victor himself wrote that:
“… and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”
I share a couple of more noteworthy cases where the Comma is cited.
Cassiodorus (500s AD) noted:
Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in coelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unus est Deus.
“And the three mysteries testify – on earth: water, blood and spirit. The fulfillment of which we read about in the passion of the Lord. And in heaven: Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And these three are one God.” (Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum)
Codex Fuldensis, which was produced in 546, mentions the Comma in the Preface to the Canonical Epistles. It states that, “much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words ‘water, blood and spirit’ in this edition, omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit.”
FURTHER READING
REFORMERS ON MK. 16:9-20, JN. 7:53-8:11, ACTS 8:37 & 1 JN. 5:7
Answering Islam Blog 
One thought on “LATIN WITNESSES TO 1 JN 5:7”