Cyprian - no invisible allegorizing

[Steven Avery]

This Post:

Cyprian - no invisible allegorizing
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ion-no-invisible-allegorizing.2135/#post-8108

Original Title
Cyprian pre-answered the Facundus allegorical explanation - no invisible allegorizing

However, I have removed the pre-answered part, because that is a weakness in Knittel and Forster.

Changed to
Cyprian - no invisible allegorizing

And we can add that there is no invisible allegorizing by any New Testament writer.

====================================

A New Plea
Charles Forster
https://books.google.com/books?id=EKwCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA65

Having further shown of Cyprian that, ‘in every passage which he cites as allegorical proof, he first quotes the text literally, and then states what it signifies mystically;' this learned writer proceeds to produce a passage which alone proves it impossible that Cyprian could have understood the eighth verse of the Trinity.

Cyprian, therefore, declares it to be unscriptural for any one to believe that water, in the Bible, occasionally represents a Person of the Godhead.’

=============================

Nec argumentis plurimis opus est, frater carissime, ut probemus appellatione aquae Baptisma significatum semper esse, et sic nos intelligere debere.

There is no need for very many arguments, dear brother, to prove that baptism was always meant by the name of water, and so we ought to understand it.

=============================

Knittel and Forster are not really using this properly. It is a stretch to say that this sentence would prevent any allegorical sense for baptism.

=============================

It is Epistle 63
The Latin section needs English placement in the Cyprian text, p. 707
(However, since the argument is weak, we can let it pass.)
https://archive.org/details/CorpusScriptoruEcclesiasticorumLatinorum3.2Cyprian/page/n255/mode/2up

======================================

The Knittel part is in p. 21-24

And Knittel and Forster are pointing out that there is NO invisible allegorizing.

======================================

Sander - says 38 Epistle
https://books.google.com/books?id=KAwWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA267

======================================

Knittel
https://books.google.com/books?id=QH5CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24

 

[Steven Avery]

Joshua Alvarez shows Armfield refuting Facundus, responds to Newton

Isaac Newton Versus the A.V. 1611 (Part 1—1 John 5:7) (2021)
https://flamingswordkjv.blogspot.com/2021/04/isaac-newton-versus-av-1611-part-11.html

Joshua Alvarez noted how strong is the Knittel section. And these are the Joshua Alvarez notes that add a bit to the section I have in the next post, the first two quotes here overlap.

I shall be more explicit. In his 69th Epistle (Bremen Edition 1690) [75th Epistle in, Ante-Nicene Fathers—J.A.], which begins with the words 'Pro tua religiosa diligentia, consuluisti mediocritatem nostram,' ["With your usual religious diligence, you have consulted my poor intelligence, dearest son,"—Roberts & Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, pg. 397] he quotes Exodus xii. 46 precisely in the same manner as he does in the passage under consideration. These are his words:

"Cum DE sacramento paschae et agni, qui agnus Christum designat, SCRIPTUM SIT, In domo una comedetur, non ejicitis de domo carnem foràs." ["it is written of the sacrament of the passover, and of the lamb, which Lamb designated Christ: "In one house shall it be eaten: you shall not carry forth the flesh abroad out of the house.""—Ibid, pg. 398.]

"Et iterum, DE spiritu, et aqua, et sanguine, quae Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum designant, SCRIPTUM EST, Et hi tres unum sunt." ["And again, IT IS WRITTEN OF the spirit, and of the water, and of the blood, which designate Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"—J.A.]

 

[Steven Avery]

Knittel on invisible allegory p. 21-24
(Forster summary is above, Sander touches on this in German)

New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text: 1 John V. 7. "For There are Three that Bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and These Three are One." A Synodical Lecture (1829)
Franz Anton Knittel
https://books.google.com/books?id=QH5CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24

Nothing of the kind, however, appears in the words of Cyprian. Allow me then to ask, How do you know it? "Oh! because he is sometimes apt to allegorize.” Granted. But does he always allegorize, when he quotes passages of Scripture? 'Certainly not always.’ Well, then, I should think it was quite necessary to prove in the present instance, in the passage quoted, that he actually allegorized the 8th verse, and had it in view in this citation. Do we find any traces in his writings to confirm this surmise, or at least render it in some degree probable? Perhaps, when he quotes passages of Scripture in an allegorical sense, he uses the same formula of citation which he adopts in the passage before us? No! he does not. Nay, when he uses this formula, the subject as well as the predicate expressly stands in the Text, and he specifies particularly what the subject signifies, taken in an allegorical sense. I shall be more explicit. In his 69th Epistle (Bremen Edition 1690), which begins with the words 'Pro tua religiosa diligentia, consuluisti mediocritatem nostram,' he quotes Exodus xii. 46. precisely in the same manner as he does in the passage under consideration. These are his words:

"Cum DE sacramento paschae et agni, qui agnus Christum designat, SCRIPTUM SIT, In domo una comedetur, non ejicitis
de domo carnem foras.”

Here we perceive,
1. He uses the very same formula of quotation which he does in the passage before us, 'de... scriptum est.'
2. The subject (pascha et agnus), as well as the predicate (in domo una comedetur, non ejicitis de domo camem
fords), are found verbatim in the Text.
3. What he understands mystically by the pascha and agnus, he particularly specifies, viz. ‘qui agnus Christum designat.'

Therefore, if he had quoted the 8th verse allegorically, he would have said, according to his custom :

"Et iterum, de spiritu, et aqua, et sanguine, quae Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum designant, scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.”

Would he not ?

In short, in every passage which he cites as allegorical proof, he first quotes the Text literally, and then states what it signifies mystically. If an example be wanting, observe how he quotes and explains Canticles vi. 8; 15 John xix.
23, 24; 16 Joshua xi. 18 ;17 &c.

Hence, his method and manner of quoting passages according to the mystical sense evidently infer the very contrary of what our opponents assert. The mode of quotation which they ascribe to Cyprian is completely the reverse of his usual habit. Now, 1 should think that Cyprian ought to be explained by Cyprian. Ought he not?

But perhaps modes of expression occur elsewhere in his writings, in some measure, if not entirely, to support the opinion of our adversaries.

I answer, No! nor have our adversaries themselves ever asserted there were. In order to give their opinion the fairest play, I have read Cyprian through and through, with the most minute attention; but I have not found any thing that could, in the least, lead one to suppose that the Bishop entertained any mystical views respecting 1 John V. 8.