The pseudo-Athanasian De Trinitate Libri XII and the Johannine Comma

Back on April 19, 2025 I published a new post under the title: Victor of Vita, the council of Carthage (484), the Book of the Catholic Faith, and the Johannine Comma (link). The thread delved into the history and controversy between two competing factions of professing Christians in North Africa—the homoians and homoousians—during the middle through late fifth century. This controversy between the homoians and homoousians began a full century earlier with promulgation of the Second Creed of Sirmium in 357 A.D.—also known as "The Blasphemy of Sirmium" (link).

Recently, my studies into the controversy between the homoians and homoousians has been renewed with my reading of Daniel H. Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflicts (link). Chapter 3, "Homoians and Anti Homoians: North Italy" (pages 69-103) is excellent; and in pages 96-103 Dr. Williams relates a fourth century apologetic work on the Trinity I had no memory of being mentioned in any my previous readings—De trinitate libri XII. From the pen of Dr. Williams we read:

Since the seventeenth century, the work commonly known as the De trinitate libri XII had been attributed to either Vigilius of Thapsus or Athanasius of Alexandria, since the latter's name appears as the author in the earliest and majority of manuscripts. Just before the turn of this century, careful manuscript studies by G. Ficker and G. Morin, showed that neither Vigilius nor Athanasius could have been the author, and that the most ancient and numerous manuscripts contain only seven books, not the twelve which Chifflet had compiled. While there does exist a longer recension which includes an eighth book, it is generally agreed that the first seven form a cohesive ensemble attributable to a single author. The latter five books are a comparatively recent agglomeration of treatises, noticeably different from the first seven in style and terminology. This consensus is reflected in the recent critical edition of the De trinitate (CCSL ix. 3-99), in which V. Bulhart treats books I-VII as a literary whole and prints the first (or shorter) and second recensions in parallel columns. But here the consensus ends. Regarding the questions of authorship and chronology for the De trinitate, scholarly opinion has been and continues to be sharply divided. With the publication of the CCSL edition (1957), Bulhart revived the view that Eusebius of Vercelli was the author of the first seven books (the first recension). [Pages 96-97]

He then writes:

Because of the imposing difficulties with the chronology and authorship of De trinitate, the contents of the treatise have been left virtually untreated by modern scholarship...As we shall see, the De trinitate provides one of the most informative glimpses into the evolution of Latin pro-Nicene literature, with the exception of those writings from Hilary and Ambrose. [Page 98]

After reading Dr. Williams book, I became somewhat obsessed with learning more about this "virtually untreated" work . I began with gathering information on the proposed authors of De trinitate libri XII: "Psuedo-Athanasius", "Vigilius of Thapsus", "Eusebius of Vercelli" and "Gregory of Elvira". Whilst engaged in some research on Vigilius of Thapsus, I discovered he is mentioned in one of the commentaries on 1 John that I own; note the following:

In PL 62, 237—334 there is a work De Trinitate consisting of twelve books. Formerly it was attributed to the North African bishop Vigilius of Thapsus who was present at the Carthage meeting; it has also been designated Pseudo-Athanasius; but other guesses credit it to a Spanish scholar such as Gregory of Elvira (d. 392) or Syagrius of Galicia (ca. 450). Recently the first seven books have been published (CC 9, 3—99) as the work of Eusebius of Vercelli (d. 371), but not without debate (see CPL #105). In any case, the work is probably of North African or Spanish origin; and its parts may have been composed at different times, e.g., Books 1—7 written just before 400, and 8—12 at a period within the next 150 years. In Books 1 and 10 (PL 62, 243D, 246B, 297B) the Comma is cited three times. (Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John, Appendix IV, 1982, p. 782)

Now, whoever actually wrote De trinitate libri XII—formerly attributed to Vigilius of Thapsus—the author(s), in defense of pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, cited the Johannine Comma. The following are the germane Latin texts from Migne’s Patralogia Latina, Volume 62 that were referenced by Brown (PDF):

Liber I 206 dirente Joanne evangelista in Epistola sua : Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus, et in Christo Jesu unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7) [Migne PL 62, p. 243D; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 15]

English: John the Evangelist in his Epistle asserts: Three are they who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and in Christ Jesus they are one

Liber I 209 Jam audisti superius evangel stam Joannem in Epistola sua tam absolute testantem : Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus sanctus : et in Christo Jesu unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7). [Migne PL 62, p. 246B; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 19]

English: We have heard the superior gospel from John in his Epistle as absolute testimony: There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and in Christ Jesus they are one

Liber X 281 et Joannes in Epistola sua ait : Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus : et in Christo Jesu unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7) [Migne PL 62, p.297B; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 145]

English: and John in his Epistle says: There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit: and in Christ Jesus they are one

In addition to  the three citations referenced by Brown, I found a fourth citation of 1 John 5:7 in De trinitate libri XII:

Liber V 249 sicut Joannes evangelista in Epistola sua tam absolute testatur : Et tres unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7). [Migne PL 62, p.274C; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 77]

English: just as John the Evangelist testifies so absolutely in his Epistle: And the three are one.

Now, most Patristic scholars are in agreement with Dr. Williams that only the first seven books of De trinitate libri XII were written by the same author, and that they were penned earlier than the other five. Following Bulhart’s assessment that it was Eusebius of Vercelli who wrote the first seven books, we have three clear citations of the Johannine Comma—in support of Nicene Trinitarianism—a full century before that of Victor of Vita.

Shall end this post with a Google AI Overview of Eusebius of Vercelli that I found useful:

Saint Eusebius of Vercelli (c. 300-371 AD) was a 4th-century Italian bishop, a staunch defender of orthodox Nicene Christianity against Arianism, known for establishing the first community of clergy living a monastic, communal life, and for enduring exile for his faith. Born in Sardinia, he became the first recorded bishop of Vercelli, unifying clerical and monastic ideals by having priests live together in piety, and bravely resisted Arian bishops at the Council of Milan, leading to his persecution and exile to the East. He returned after Emperor Julian's amnesty, working with St. Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers to restore Catholic doctrine before his death in 371.

Addendum (12-23-25):

New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, p. 455 (Second Edition - 2003)

EUSEBIUS OF VERCELLI, ST.

Bishop, monastic founder, and anti-Arian polemicist; b. Sardinia, Italy, early fourth century; d. Vercelli, August 1, 371. He became a member of the Roman clergy under Pope JULIUS. When consecrated first bishop of Vercelli c. 344, he established a community life for his clergy, and he is considered a founder of the CANONS REGULAR. He was also instrumental in the establishment of new dioceses near Vercelli, e.g., Turin and Embrun. Eusebius attended the Council of Milan in 355 as legate of Pope LIBERIUS and with Dionysius of Milan upheld the orthodoxy of St. ATHANASIUS against the politically intimidated Western episcopate. He was exiled in the East until the death of CONSTANTIUS II, was liberated under Julian, and in 362 attended the Council of Alexandria with Athanasius and approved its lenient decisions for the reconciliation of compromised bishops. Returned to Italy, he collaborated with HILARY OF POITIERS against the Arians; he died peaceably in his own diocese. Of his correspondence correspondence, three letters have been preserved, and the first seven books of a De Trinitate previously attributed to Athanasius or Vigilius of Thapsus are now ascribed to him by many patrologists. He also translated Commentaries on the Psalms by EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (Jerome, Ep. 61.2), now lost, and may have authored the pre- Jerome version of the Gospels preserved in the Codex Vercellensis.

Feast: Aug. 2 (formerly Dec. 16, anniversary of his consecration). [V. C. DE CLERCQ] 

Grace and peace,

David

Isaiah 6:1-5 and John 12:41 - God the Father, the Son of God, or the Trinity (Part 2, 20th and 21st centuries commentators)

As promised in my previous post, I will now provide selections from modern-day commentators concerning the person Isaiah saw in his Isaiah 6:1ff. vision. The following list includes representatives from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed denominations:

Andreas Kostenberger (2004) -

In the wake of the two Isaianic quotes in 12:38 and 12:40, the evangelist concludes that “Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory” (cf. 8:56). In light of the preceding quotation of Isa. 6:10, some say that the background for the present statement is the call narrative in Isaiah 6.8. Yet though αὐτοῦ (autou, his) probably refers to Jesus, John does not actually say that Isaiah saw Jesus, but that he saw Jesus’ glory. Hence, it is not necessary to conclude that the evangelist believed that Isaiah saw “the pre-existent Christ” (Schnackenburg 1990: 2.416; cf. Talbert 1992: 180; D. M. Smith p 392 1999: 244) or that he saw Jesus “in some pre-incarnate fashion” (Carson 1991: 449). Rather, Isaiah foresaw that God was pleased with a suffering Servant who would be “raised and lifted up and highly exalted” (52:13), yet who was “pierced for our transgressions” and “bore the sins of many” (53:5, 12) (see esp. Evans 1987). Hence, Isaiah knew that God’s glory would be revealed through a suffering Messiah—something deemed impossible by the crowds (John 12:34). Like Abraham, Isaiah saw Jesus’ “day” (cf. John 8:56, 58). (John - Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pp. 391, 392)

Herman Ridderbos (1997) -

...vs. 41: "This the prophet said because he saw his glory and spoke of him." "His" refers to Christ—it is "his glory" —as the concluding words of vs. 41 confirm: "spoke of him." The Evangelist does not mean that Isaiah already foresaw Jesus' (later) glory, but that the glory of God as the prophet foresaw it in his vision was no other than that which the Son of God had with the Father before the world was and that was to be manifested before the eyes of all in the incarnation of the Word (17:4; 1:14, 18). For that reason ("because") the prophetic judgment of hardening on account of the unbelief of the people was fully applicable to the rejection of Jesus by Israel, and even came to fulfillment therein. (The Gospel of John: translated by John Vriend, p. 445)

George R. Beasley-Murray (1987) -

The glory of God that Isaiah saw in his vision (Isa 6:1-4) is identified with the glory of the Logos-Son, in accordance with 1:18 and 17:5. (Word Biblical Commentary - John, p. 217)

F. F. Bruce (1983) -

For verse 41 suggests that the one who 'has blinded theie eyes and made their heart obtuse' is Jesus. It was of him, says John, that Isaiah spoke on this occasion, 'because he saw his glory'. The reference is to Isa. 6:1, where the prophet says 'I saw the Lord'. In the Aramaic Targum to the Prophets (the 'Targum Jonathan') this is paraphrased 'I saw the glory of the Lord'; and while the Targum as we have is much later than John's time, many of the interpretations it preserves were traditional, going back for many generations, 'The glory' or 'the glory of God' is a targumic circumlocution for the name of God, but John gives the word its full force and says that the Lord whose 'glory' Isaiah saw was Jesus: Isaiah, like Abraham before him, rejoiced to see the day of Christ (John 8:56), for like John and his fellow-disciples in the fulness of time, he too was permitted to behold his glory (cf. John 1:4). (The Gospel of John, p. 272)

Rudolf Schnackenburg (1979) -

12:41 In an explanatory commentary (cf. 7:39) the evangelist says how he intends the quotation, which comes from the vision in which Isaiah received his call, to be understood. Isaiah spoke as he did at the time because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him. Even if it were possible to regard the seeing of the glory as still a reference to God (as some manuscripts wrongly do), the second part makes it certain that John means Jesus; this is the evangelist's unique, Christological view. Judaism had a tendency to reduce the (earthly) vision of God to the vision of his glory, for example in the Targum on Is 6:1 and 6:5. In other places John attacks the idea of any direct vision of God (cf. on 1:18; 5:37; 6:46), but there is no note of polemic in our passage. All the emphasis is on the αὐτοῦ, as the speaking περὶ αὐτοῦ confirms. John is probably taking for granted the Jewish interpretation that Isaiah saw God's glory, but he connects the δόξα emphatically with the glory of Jesus, which he possessed with the Father, according to 17:5, before the foundation of the world. In this case the implication is that the evangelist thinks the prophet saw the pre-existent Christ. This idea is a natural development of his Logos Christology. (The Gospel According St. John -Volume 2: translated by Cecily Hastings, Francis McDonagh, David Smith and Richard Foley, p. 416)

Raymond E. Brown (1966) -

Verse 41: Isaiah's vision of lesus' glory

If vs. 40 was a citation of Isa vi 10, this next verse recalls Isaiah's initial vision of the Lord upon a throne in vi 1-5. There are two things to note in John's reference. First, John seems to presuppose a text where Isaiah sees God's glory, but in both the MT and LXX of Isaiah it is said that Isaiah saw the Lord Himself. This has led many commentators to suggest that John is following the tradition of the Targum (or Aramaic translation) of Isaiah where in vi 1 Isaiah sees ''the glory of the Lord" and in vi 5 "the glory of the shekinah of the Lord." The possibility of John's use of Targums has already been discussed in relation to i 51 (p. 90) and vii 38 (p. 322), and the Johannine citation of a Targum for the Isaiah text may have been determined by the frequent stress in this Gospel that no one has ever seen God.

Second, John supposes that it was the glory of Jesus that Isaiah saw. This is not unlike the supposition in viii 56 that Abraham saw Jesus' day (see NOTE there). There are several possible ways to interpret this. If we accept the suggestion of a citation of a Targum, then the statement that Isaiah saw the shekinah of God may be interpreted in light of the theology of i 14 where Jesus is the skekinah of God (p. 33). The belief that Jesus was active in the events of the OT is attested in I Cor x 4, where Jesus is pictured as the rock which gave water to the Israelites in the desert (also Justin Apol. I 63 [PG 6:424], where Jesus appears to Moses in the burning bush). In later patristic interpretation Isaiah was thought to have hailed the three divine persons with his "Holy, holy, holy" (Isa vi 3), and Jesus was identified as one of the seraphs who appeared with Yahweh. Another possible interpretation of John xii 41 is that Isaiah looked into the future and saw the life and glory of Jesus. This is certainly the thought found in the vision section of the Ascension of Isaiah (this part of the apocryphon is of 2nd-century Christian derivation). Sir xlviii 24-25 says that through his powerful spirit Isaiah foresaw the future and foretold what should be until the end of time. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John,  I-XII: The Anchor Bible - Volume 29, 1966/1983, pp. 486, 487) [Note: this selection added 08-13-25]

William Hendricksen (1954) -

But because (ὅτι is the best reading here) Isaiah, in the glorious vision recorded in the same chapter from which the quotation was taken (chapter 6, verses 1-5 the vision; verses 9 and 10 the quoted words), saw the glordy, the transcendent majesty (not restricted to but certainly including the moral quality of holiness) of the Lord Jesus Christ (in whom the glory of Jehovah reflects itself) and was conscious of the fact that he was speaking of him, he did not criticize or protest, but recorded faithfully what he had seen and heard. Yes, Isaiah had seen not only the suffering of the Servant of Jehovah (Is. 53:1-10a) but also his glory (Is. 6:1-5; 9:6, 7; 52:13-15; 53:10b-12). (The Gospel According to John - Volume II, p. 213) 

R. C. H. Lenski (1943) -

41) These things said Isaiah because he saw his glory and spoke concerning him. Some texts have: "when" he saw, etc. "These things" are the ones contained in the two quotations from Isaiah,. The prophet uttered them, not as applying only to the nation at his time, but as applying equally to the Jews of the time of Jesus. Isaiah "saw his glory," "I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and hi train filled the temple . . . Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts," Isa 6.1-5, preceding by a little the last quotation. This is the glory of the exalted Son after his return to the Father, the glory referred in v. 28. Isaiah beheld it before the Incarnation, John after, Isaiah beheld it in a heavenly vision, John beheld it in the words and deeds of Jesus, in the person and the character of the God-man on earth: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," 1:14. And Isaiah knew that this glorious Son would in the fulness of the appear on earth, to be rejected by the Jews, even as they rejected the Lord in Isaiah's own time (compare Isa. 53). It is thus that the prophet "spoke concerning him,' namely Jesus. (The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, p. 889, 890)

Grace and peace,

David

Isaiah 6:1-5 and John 12:41 - God the Father, the Son of God, or the Trinity (Part 1, the Church Fathers)

A good friend of mine has been dialoguing with some Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning Isaiah’s vision in Is. 6:1-5. The JWs insist it is Jehovah/God the Father that Isaiah saw in his vision, but my friend maintains that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, relying on what the apostle John said in John 12:41.

Over the last few days, I have been delving into what the Church Fathers had to say about Is. 6:1-5 and John 12:41, along with a number of modern scholars.

In this post, I will be focusing on the CFs. Note the following:

Eusebius of Caesarea - Commentary on Isaiah

The same prophet [Isaiah] saw with his own eyes the Lord of hosts over his temple, in which the prophet often preached. And he relates in detail what transpired quite literally right before his eyes when he states next: “O wretched man that I am! I am stunned; for being a man and having unclean lips, I live among a people having unclean lips, and I have seen the King, the Lord of hosts, with my eyes!” [Is. 6:5] There is no doubt that it was the man who is described above who made this statement. He said that he saw the Lord of hosts, and the text records that he saw him with his own eyes. And he records the time of the vision when he says: And it happened in the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, lofty and raised up. [Is. 6:1] I believe it is clearly stated who was revealed through the entire prophecy as the Lord of hosts (although the phrase is also translated Lord of armies or Lord of powers). He thus introduces God as he was seen. However, concerning the unbegotten divinity, it has been said: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” [Jn. 1:18] And the Savior himself taught: “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.” [Jn. 5:46] Surely then the Lord of hosts who appeared to the prophet was another than the unbegotten and invisible and incomprehensible divinity. And who could this be but “the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,” [Jn. 1:18] who stepped down from his own exalted position, and, lowering himself from that position, made himself visible and comprehensible to humanity? (Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Texts, translated by Jonathan J. Armstrong, p.27)

Eusebius of Caesarea - Proof of the Gospel

As the great Evangelist St. John, teaching of our Lord and Saviour as the very Word of God full of supernatural power, begins his holy Gospel, by setting side by side His Divinity and His Humanity in His presence among men, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and All things were made by him," and adding after this, "and the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us"; so in the same strain the inspired prophet, about to proclaim God born of a Virgin, tells first the vision of His Divine glory, when he thus describes the Being of God:

"1. I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and exalted. And the house was full of las glory. 2. And Seraphim stood round about him : each one had six wings : with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly. 3. And they cried one to another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, the li, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory."

And he adds also:

" 8. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying. Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people? And I said. Behold, Here am I. Send me. 9. And he said, Go and say to this people. Ye shall hear indeed, but shall not understand ; and ye shall see indeed, but not perceive. 10. For this people's heart has become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their  heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. And I said, How long, O Lord ? And He said, Until the cities be deserted, by reason of their being uninhabited, and the houses by reason of there being no man."

What Lord may we say the prophet saw but Him Abraham we have proved to have been seen and known by the fathers with Abraham in previous days? He, we have already learned, was both God and Lord, and Angel and Captain of the Lord's power as well. So then in approaching the account of  His Coming to men the prophecy before us tells first of His divine kingdom, in which it says that the prophet saw Him ps. xliv. sitting on a throne high and exalted. This is that throne which is mentioned in the Psalm of the Beloved, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," on which the Most High Creator of the Universe, His God and Father, bade his Only-begotten

sit, saying, "Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." John the Evangelist supports my interpretation of this passage, when he quotes the words of Isaiah, where it is said, "For this people's heart is become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed," referring them to Christ, Saying, "This said Isaiah, when he saw his glory, and bare witness of him." [John 12:41] The prophet then seeing our Saviour sitting on His Father's throne in the divine and glorious kingdom, and moved by the Holy Spirit, and being about to describe next His coming among men and His Birth of a Virgin, foretells that His knowledge and praise would be over all the earth, by introducing the song of the Seraphim round His throne : Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory. (Eusebius of Caesarea, The Proof of the Gospel, Vol. 2 (Edited and Translated by W. J. Ferrar, pp. 48-50)

Hilary of Poitiers

From everlasting we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen God, except Thee, and Thy works which Thou wilt do for them that await Thy mercy. [Is. 64:4] Isaiah says that he has seen no God but Him. For he did actually see the glory of God, the mystery of Whose taking flesh from the Virgin he foretold. And if you, in your heresy, do not know that it was God the Only-begotten Whom the prophet saw in that glory, listen to the Evangelist:—These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him. [John 12:41] The Apostle, the Evangelist, the Prophet combine to silence your objections. Isaiah did see God; even though it is written, No one hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father; He hath declared Him, [John 1:18] it was God Whom the prophet saw. He gazed upon the Divine glory, and men were filled with envy at such honour vouchsafed to his prophetic greatness. For this was the reason why the Jews passed sentence of death upon him. (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book V.33: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 9.95)

Gregory of Nyssa

...through the prophet Isaiah it is attested, as to the manifestation of the Divine appearance vouchsafed to him, when he saw Him that sat "on the throne high and lifted up:" [Is. 6:1] the older tradition, it is true, says that it was the Father Who appeared to him, but the evangelist John refers the prophecy to our Lord, saying, touching those of the Jews who did not believe the words uttered by the prophet concerning the Lord, "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory and spake of Him." [John 12:41] But the mighty Paul attributes the same passage to the Holy Spirit in his speech made to the Jews at Rome, when he says, "Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet concerning you, saying, Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand," [Acts 28: 25, 26] showing, in my opinion, by Holy Scripture itself, that every specially divine vision, every theophany, every word uttered in the Person of God, is to be understood to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II.14: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers II, 5.129)

Theodore of Mopsuestia

He [John] further adds, [John 12:41] Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke about him. Indeed, when he saw the Lord of the armies sitting upon the high and lofty throne along with the Seraphim who were praising him and proclaiming him "Holy," the Lord then said to him, "Go and say to this people, 'Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.'" [Is. 6:1-9] Here the blessed John says that the glory of Christ was seen by Isaiah. In Acts the blessed Paul said that he saw the Spirit, as he said to the Jews, "The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, 'You will indeed listen, but never understand.'" and so forth. [Acts 28:25-26] What did he see? In the spiritual vision, in the revelation of the divine nature, which is incomprehensible, Isaiah saw the glory that is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since Scripture cannot establish precisely whether it is the glory of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Therefore neither the Evangelist nor the apostle is in contradiction in saying that it is the glory of the Son or of the Holy Spirit. (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Ancient Christian Texts, translated with introduction and notes by Marco Conti, p. 114)

Before providing interpretations from two more CFs—Origen and Jerome—I thought it important to point out that certain remarks from Jerome’s comments indicate he had a negative view of Origen’s interpretation, even though he does not mention by name. Now the quotes:

Origen - Homilies on Isaiah

“And the Seraphim were standing around him, six wings belonging to the one and six wings belonging to the other.” [Is. 6:2] I see two Seraphim, each one of them in himself having six wings...

But yet these Seraphim, who surround God, who say by pure knowledge, “Holy, holy, holy!” [Is. 6:3] observe in this way the mystery of the Trinity, because they themselves also are holy. Indeed, in all these things that exist, nothing is more holy. And they speak not softly to one another: “Holy, holy, holy!” but, by crying out, they announce the salvific confession to everyone. Who are these two Seraphim? My Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit. You should not suppose the nature of the Trinity to be divided, if duty-bound observances of the names are to be kept. (Origen, Homilies on Isaiah: The Fathers of the Church, Volume 142, translated by Elizabeth Ann Dively Lauro, pp. 42, 43)

Origen - De Principiis

My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either of the two living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,” ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. (Origen. De Principiis, Book I.3.4: Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4.253)

For my Hebrew teacher also used thus to teach, that as the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one, save only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a vision Isaiah spake of two seraphim alone, who with two wings cover the countenance of God, and with two His feet, and with two do fly, calling to each other alternately, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of Thy glory.” (Origen. De Principiis, Book IV, 1.26: Ante-Nicene Fathers,  4.375, 376)

Jerome - Commentary on Isaiah

Sacred history relates that Uzziah was struck with leprosy, because he laid claim to an unlawful priesthood for himself [cf. 2 Chr 26:16–21]. When he died the Lord is seen in the temple that he had polluted. From this we observe that while a leprous king is reigning within us, we are not able to see the Lord reigning in his majesty, nor are we able to recognize the mysteries of the Holy Trinity. This is why even in Exodus, the people cried out to the Lord after Pharaoh died, who was oppressing Israel with mud, straw, and bricks [cf. Exod 1:14; 5:7]. For they were not able to cry out while he was alive [cf. Exod 2:23]. Moreover, it was after the terrible ruler Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died that Ezekiel falls on his face and cries out to the Lord with a loud voice [cf. Ezek 11:1–4, 13]. And it is nicely expressed by the Hebrew word that it was not the Lord himself who filled the temple, whose throne is heaven and whose footstool for his feet is the earth [cf. Isa 66:1]; and we read about him in another passage, “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord, his throne is in heaven” [Ps 11:4]; but the things that were under his feet filled the temple.

Now in John the Evangelist and in the Acts of the Apostles we learn more fully who is this Lord who is seen. John says of this, “Isaiah said this when he saw his glory and spoke about him” [John 12:41], doubtless signifying Christ. In the Acts of the Apostles, on the other hand, in Rome Paul speaks to the Jews, and says,

The Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: You will hear with hearing and you will not understand, and seeing you will see and you will not perceive. For the heart of the people is fat and with difficulty they have heard with their ears, and they have closed their eyes, lest perhaps they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and convert themselves and I would heal them.” [Acts 28:25–27; Isa 6:9–10]

But the Son is seen in the character of one reigning, and the Holy Spirit has spoken on account of the association of their majesty and the unity of their substance.

Someone may ask how the prophet can say now that he has seen the Lord, not the Lord without qualification, but the Lord Sabaoth [cf. Isa 6:5], as he himself testifies in what follows, although John the Evangelist has said, “No one has ever seen God” [John 1:18; 1 John 4:12], and God says to Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no man will see my face and live” [Exod 33:20]. We will respond to this that fleshly eyes are not able to see not merely the divinity of the Father, but not even that of the Son and the Holy Spirit, since the nature in the Trinity is one. But the eyes of the mind [can see him], of which the Savior himself says, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” [Matt 5:8]. We read that the Lord of Abraham was seen under the figure of a man [cf. Gen 18:1–3], and a man, as it were, who was God, wrestled with Jacob. This is why the place itself was called Penuel, that is, face of God [cf. Gen 32:24–30]. He says: “For I have seen God face to face and my soul was saved” [Gen 32:30]. Ezekiel too saw the Lord in the form of a man sitting over the cherubim; from his loins and below he was like fire and the upper parts had the appearance of amber [cf. Ezek 1:26–27]. Therefore, the nature of God is not discerned, but he is seen by men as he wills. (Jerome, St. Jerome: Commentary on Isaiah: Ancient Christian Writers #68, Translated and with an Introduction by Thomas P. Scheck, pp, 150, 151-print edition, pp. 138, 139-PDF edition)

Jerome - Letters of St. Jerome

Next: I SAW THE LORD SITTING UPON A THRONE HIGH AND ELEVATED: AND THE HOUSE WAS FILLED BY HIS GLORY, AND SERAPHIM STOOD ABOUT HIM. Certain ones who have interpreted this passage before me, Greeks as well as Romans, have declared that the Lord sitting upon a throne is God the Father, and the two seraphim which are said to be standing one at each side are our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

2 I do not agree with their opinion, though they are very learned men. Indeed, it is far better to set forth the truth in uncouth fashion than to declare falsehood in learned style. I dissent especially because John the Evangelist wrote that it was not God the Father but Christ who had been seen in this vision. For when he was speaking of the unbelief of the Jews, straightway he set forth the reasons for their unbelief: Therefore they could not believe in Him, because Isaias said: “Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand, and perceiving ye shall behold and shall not see” [Isaiah 6:9]. And he said these things when he saw the glory of the Only-begotten and bore witness concerning Him [John 12:39–41].

3 In the present roll of Isaias he is bidden by Him who sits on the throne to say: Ye shall hear with the ear and not understand. Now He who gives this command, as the Evangelist understands it, is Christ. Whence we comprehend that the seraphim cannot be interpreted as Christ, since Christ is He who is seated.

4 And although in the Acts of the Apostles Paul says to the Jews that agreed not among themselves: Well did the Holy Ghost speak to our fathers by Isaias the prophet, saying: Go to this people and say: With the ear you shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing you shall see and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears have they heard heavily, and their eyes they have shut, lest perhaps they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them [Acts 28:25–7; Isaiah 6:9–10]—for me, however, the diversity of the person does not raise a question, since I know that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one substance, and that the words of the Spirit are not other than those of the Son, and that the Son has not given a command other than the Spirit. (Jerome, The Letters of St. Jerome, Vol. 1, Letter 18A: Ancient Christian Writers #33, translated by Charles Christopher Mierow, pp. 82, 83)

Shall end here for now, saving the various interpretations of modern-day scholars for my next post.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Victor of Vita, the council of Carthage (484), the Book of the Catholic Faith, and the Johannine Comma

In 484 A.D. an unusual council of bishops was convened by the Vandal king Huneric (also spelled Huniric and Hunirix) in Carthage North Africa. The Germanic Vandals had conquered most of North Africa west of Alexandria, taking control of the region from the Roman empire, and establishing Carthage as its capital in 439 A.D. The Vandals had converted to Christianity before leaving Hispania (i.e. the Iberian Peninsula) in 429 A.D for North Africa, though the form of Christianity they had embraced was Homoianism, not Catholic Homoousianism.

By 484 A.D. this region of North Africa had been under Homoian Vandal rule for over four decades, but the majority of Christians remained Catholic. As such, of the hundreds of bishops that attended the 484 A.D. council, the vast majority—461 according to Heffle*—were Catholic bishops.

Recently, I was able to obtain John Moorheads’s English translation of an extensive historical document that provides the proceedings of this council, and the events leading up to it—Victor of Vita’s, History of the Vandal Persecution (Google Books; Scribd pdf).

The first book of Victor's tome is a chronicle of the Vandal invasion of North Africa under the leadership of their king Geiseric. 

The second book begins with the death of Geiseric and succession to the throne by his eldest son, Huniric. Concerning Huniric's rule, Victor writes:

First of all the tyrant decreed, in a dreadful command, that no-one could hold an office in his palace or carry out public duties without becoming an Arian. (Victor of Vita: History of the Vandal Persecution, English translation John Moorhead - Liverpool University Press, 1992, Book II, chapter 23, p. 32)

In chapter 26 he relates the following:

But with what floods of tears shall I proceed? He sent bishops, priests, deacons and other members of the church, to the number of 4,966, to exile in the desert Among them were very many who had gout, and others who had lost their worldly sight through age. Among their number was the blessed Felix, bishop of Abbir (Henchir el-Khandaq), who had then been a bishop for 44 years; having been struck with the disease of paralysis he did not feel anything, nor was he capable of speech. (Ibid. p.33)

An edict from Huniric/Hunirix is provided in chapter 39:

"Hunirix, king of the Vandals and Alans, to all the homousian bishops. It is well known that not once but quite often your priests have been forbidden to celebrate any liturgies at all in the territory of the Vandals, in case they seduce Christian souls and destroy them. Many of them have despised this and, contrary to the prohibition, have been discovered to have said mass in the territories of the Vandals, claiming that they hold to the rule of the Christian faith in its fullness. And because we do not wish for scandal in the provinces granted us by God, therefore know that by the providence of God and with the consent of our holy bishops we have decreed this: that on the first of February next you are all to come to Carthage, making no excuse that you are frightened, so that you will be able to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures. From this it will be clear whether you hold the faith in its fullness. We have sent a copy of this edict to all your fellow bishops throughout Africa. Given on 20 May 483 in the seventh year of Hunirix." (Ibid. pp. 37-38)

From the above edict we learn that Hunirix [Huniric] has decreed that “all the homousian bishops” are to meet on February 1, 484 A.D. in Carthage “to debate concerning the principles of faith with our venerable bishops and establish the propriety of the faith of the Homousians, which you defend, from the divine scriptures.”

A few chapters later, Victor penned the following:

52 That day of treachery which the king had appointed, 1 February, was now drawing near. There came together not only the bishops of the whole of Africa, but also those of many of the islands, worn out with suffering and grief. Silence was observed for many days, until he separated every skilled and learned man from among them, so that they could be put to death on the basis of false charges. For he committed to the flames one of that choir of the learned, whose name was Laetus. a vigorous and most learned man, after he had long endured a squalid imprisonment. He thought that making an example of him would strike fear into the others and enable him to wear them down.

53 Finally the debate took place, needless to say at a place their enemies had selected. Our people chose to avoid the disturbances which loud voices would have caused, in case the Arians were later to say that they had been overpowered by weight of numbers, and chose ten of their number who would answer on behalf of them all. Cyrila, with his lackeys, most arrogantly placed a throne for himself in a high place, while our people were standing. And our bishops said: "It is always pleasant to be at a meeting at which the exaltation of power does not proudly hold sway, but general consent is arrived at, so that the truth is recognized from what the judges decree, in accordance with the actions of the parties. But who is to be the judge on this occasion, who will weigh the evidence so that the scales of justice may confirm what has been argued well or show unsound propositions to be false?"

54 While these and other things were being said, the king's notary answered: "The patriarch Cyrila has named some people." Our people, abominating the proud and unlawful title which he had usurped, said: "Read out to us who gave permission for Cyrila to take this title for himself!" At this our enemies made a loud clamour and began to bring false accusations. And because our people had sought that, if the throng of sensible people were not allowed to ask questions, they could at least look on, the order was given that all the children of the catholic church who were present were to be beaten with a hundred blows each. Then blessed Eugenius began to cry out: "May God see the violence we endure, let him know the affliction we suffer from the persecutors!"

55 Our people turned round and said to Cyrila: "Say what you intend to do." Cyrila said: "I do not know Latin." Our bishops said: "We know very well that you have always spoken Latin; you should not excuse yourself now, especially since you have set this fire going." And, seeing that the catholic bishops were better prepared for the debate, he flatly refused to give them a hearing, relying on various quibbles. But our people had foreseen this and written a short work concerning the faith, composed quite fittingly and with the necessary detail. They said: "If you wish to know our faith, this is the truth we hold."

THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

56 We are enjoined by a royal command to provide an account of the catholic faith which we hold. So we are setting out to indicate briefly the things which we believe and proclaim, aware of our lack of ability but supported by divine assistance. We recognize, then, that the first thing we must do is give an explanation of the unity of the substance of the Father and the Son, which the Greeks call homousion.

Therefore: we acknowledge the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity of the divine nature in such a way that we can say with a faithful confession that the Father subsists as a distinct person, and the Son equally exists in his own person, and that the Holy Spirit retains the distinctiveness of his own person, not asserting that the Father is the same as the Son, nor confessing that the Son is the same as the Father or the Holy Spirit, nor understanding the Holy Spirit in such a way that he is the Father or the Son; but we believe the unbegotten Father and the Son begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father to be of one substance and essence, because the unbegotten Father and the begotten Son and the Holy Spirit who proceeds have one divine nature in common; nevertheless, there are three distinct persons.

57 A heresy arose and brought forth something new against this catholic and apostolic faith. It maintained that the Son was not born of the substance of the Father but came into being from no existing things, that is, out of nothing. To refute and completely destroy this wicked profession which had come forth against the faith, a Greek word, homousion, was coined. This means 'of one substance and essence,' and signifies that the Son was not born from no existing things nor from any substance, but of the Father. Therefore, whoever thinks that the word homousion is to be laid aside wishes to assert that the Son came to exist out of nothing. But if the Son is not 'of nothing,' he is without doubt of the Father, and rightly homousion, that is, of one substance with the Father.

58 That he is of the Father, that is, of one substance with the Father, is demonstrated by these testimonies. The apostle says: 'who, while he is the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance, also upholds all things by the word of his power.' (Heb 1:3) [Ibid. pp. 43-45]

This apologia for the Catholic Faith continues for another 43 chapters (pp. 45-63). It contains dozens of supporting Scriptural quotes, including the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7,8. Note the following:

82 And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for setvitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does he not say 'three separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?' No, he says that the 'three are one.' (Ibid. p. 56)

THE BOOK OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ends with:

101 This is our faith, confirmed by evangelical and apostolic traditions and authority, and founded on the association of all the catholic churches which are in this world; in which faith we trust and hope we shall remain, by the grace of almighty God, until the end of this life. Amen.

This is the end of the book sent on 20 April by Januarius of Zattara (Kef Benzioune) and Villaticus of Casae Medianae, bishops of Numidia, and Boniface of Foratiana and Boniface of Gratiana, bishops of Byzacena. (Ibid. p. 63)

And with the ending the Catholic defense, I shall end this post…

Grace and peace,

David 

*Charles Joseph Heffle, History of the Councils - Vol. IV, A.D. 451 to  A.D. 680, 1895, p. 36.

Athanaius: did he teach Sabellianism (i.e. modalism) ???

I have recently encountered the proposition that Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was not a Trinitarian, but rather, that he was a Sabellian (i.e. modalist).

The first instance of connecting Athanasius with Sabellianism that I came across occurred back on 11-26-2023 via my reading of a post published by Andries van Niekerk on his blog From Daniel to Revelation under the title, 'The Sabellians of the Fourth Century'. Andries wrote:

Note that the West also vindicated Athanasius. His theology was similar to the Sabellians...

And:

Another article provides further evidence of the Sabellian leaning of the theologies of Alexander and Athanasius. For example, “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238) The question is, why did the West vindicate these two Sabellians?

The 'Another article' mentioned (and linked to) by Andries was published under the title, 'Was Athanasius a Sabellian?' From that post we read:

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by the church during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.

The Western Council of Serdica in 343, where Athanasius played a dominant part, is devastating evidence. It explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one hypostasis and Athanasius approved and supported this creed. People struggle with this conclusion is that it shows that Athanasius, who is regarded as the hero of the Arian Controversy, was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian.

Before moving on to my second recent encounter with the notion that Athanasius was a Sabellian, I would like to mention I have been following Andries blog for over two years now. It began shortly after Andries posted a few comments back in late November 2021 in an old thread here at AF [LINK]. (Interestingly enough, earlier this week during some online research I discovered that Andries had also published the material from the two above mentioned threads at the Christianity Stack Exchange [LINK].)

With this background information in place, I suspect that folks reading this post will be as surprised as I was that in a mere seven days after reading Andries’ posts on Athanasius and Sabellianism, I began receiving emails from a knowlegable member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has embraced the proposition that Athanasius was a modalist/Sabellian. (My December 10, 2023 AF post  was inspired by our email exchanges.)

Prior to all this, I was involved in an email exchange—beginning on August 30th—with an advocate of neo-modalism who had questions concerning my AF post, James White's (mis)use of Melito of Sardis as an early witness to the incarnation of God (the Son) [December 5, 2011 - LINK].

There is one more connection that warrants mentioning: the LDS gent mentioned above is a friend with Errol Amey. Errol has a keen interest in patristics, and has contributed a number of informative comments in a few threads here at AF. And so, we have four gents mentioned above, that have at least three interests in common—patristics, theology, and challenging/respectful dialogue—who are in one way or another linked to this current post.

It is now time to delve into why I maintain Athanasius was not a Sabellian/modalist. One of Andries’ arguments—which initially seems quite strong and compelling—is that,"Athanasius opposed the concept of 'three hypostases'" and taught the "Father and Son are only one Hypostasis". (LINK)

Though Athanasius wrote in at least two extant documents that the Father and Son are 'one hypostasis', he also acknowleged that they are 'three hypostases'. Note the following:

And how do the impious men venture to speak folly, as they ought not, being men and unable to find out how to describe even what is on the earth? But why do I say 'what is on the earth?' Let them tell us their own nature, if they can discover how to investigate their own nature? Rash they are indeed, and self-willed, not trembling to form opinions of things which angels desire to look into (i Pet. i. 12), who are so far above them, both in nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God] than the Cherubim or the Seraphim? And yet they, not even seeing Him, nor standing on their feet, nor even with bare, but as it were with veiled faces, offer their praises, with untiring lips doing nought else but glorify the divine and ineffable nature with the Trisagion. And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men. For the Triad [Τριὰς], praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi. ; Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three times, saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' proves that the Three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] are perfect, just as in saying 'Lord,' they declare the One Essence. They then that depreciate the Only-begotten Son of God blaspheme God, defaming His perfection and accusing Him of imperfection, and render themselves liable to the severest chastisement. For he that blasphemes any one of the Subsistences [τῶν ὑποστάσεων] shall have remission neither in this world nor in that which is to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their heart to contemplate the Sun of Righteousness, in order that coming to know Him whom they formerly set at nought, they may with unswerving piety of mind together with us glorify Him, because to Him belongs the kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen. [Athanasius, In Illud ‘Omnia’, Mihi Tradita – On Luke x. 22 (Matt. Xi. 27) - NPNF 4.90]

And:

And prohibit even the reading or publication of the paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it, the holy synod assembled in Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς λέγοντας ὑποστάσεις], on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicaea, but on account of the contention we made enquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences [τριοουσίους] foreign and strange, and alien in essence [οὐσίας] from one another, and that each Subsistence [ὑπόστασιν] was divided apart by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass ;—or whether, like other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγωσι].

They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them 'what then do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions?' they replied. Because they believed in a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν Τριάδα], not a trinity [Τριάδα] in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, 'both a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,' and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν μὲν Τριάδα] but One Godhead [μίαν δὲ θεότητα], and one Beginning, and that the Son is coessential [ὁμοούσιον] with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence [τῆς οὐσίας] of the Father and the Son. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 5 - NPNF 4.484)

Having accepted then these men's interpretation and defence of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal. But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but 'we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence [ὑπόστασιν μὲν λέγομεν ἡγούμενοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν];' 'But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father [ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας], and because of the identity of nature [τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως]. For we believe that there is one Godhead [μίαν γὰρ θεότητα], and that it has one nature [φύσιν],  and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.' Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichasus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God's grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 6 - NPNF 4.484, 485)

Clearly, Athanasius used the term 'hypostasis/hypostases' in two, distinct senses. In one sense, he equated 'hypostasis' with 'ousia' and 'theotēs', and in a second sense, with the personal distinctions of the three members of the Trinity. He also made it quite clear that he separated himself from those folk who embraced a Sabellian sense of the term. With these facts in place, I must conclude that Athanasius did not embrace Sabellianism.

Grace and peace,

David

Homoousios, Monoousios and Tautoousios

This last week, I have been dialoguing with a gent via email on the topic concerning the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Folk familiar with this blog are aware that I prefer to speak of differing Trinitarian concepts, rather than ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’—but I digress…

Our dialogue has touched on the terms homoousios and hypostasis as used in the original Nicene Creed (325), as well as the subsequent period of doctrinal development up to the Council of Constantinople. Two previous threads published here at AF, have been referenced during the discussion—The original Nicene Creed and semantic confusion and Monoousios vs. Homoousios—which should be useful for folk interested in our topic at hand.

Our ongoing dialogue has precipitated some renewed research on my part into the issues being raised, and this last Friday (12-08-23) I discovered an informative essay by Prof. John S. Romanides—The Christological Teaching of St. John of Damascus—that is germane to the discussion. The following from the essay caught my eye:

Differing terminology pointing to one single concrete revelatory reality was seen clearly by St. Athanasius in regard to those who rejected the homoousios but accepted that the Logos is of an ousia similar in everything to that of the Father and from the ousia of the Father. St. Athanasius claims that this is exactly what he himself means by homoousios.

The “those" being refernced by Fr. Romanides are those bishops who preferred the term homoiousios, when speaking of the relationship between the Son of God and God the Father. Concerning these folk, Athanasius wrote:

...those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential, must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence, and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential.' [On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis) - NPNF series 2, 4.472.]

In his essay, Fr. Romanides points out that differing terminology in certain contexts meant the same thing—i.e. homoousios and homoiousios—whilst the same term could mean something different. The term homoousios was a prime example; some folk understood the term in a strict numerical sense (one essence), whilst others in a generic sense (same essence)—see the Monoousios vs. Homoousios thread. Concerning this issue, Fr. Romanides mentions a term— tautoousios —that I did not recall reading about in my previous studies; note the following:

...the Orthodox themselves were split over the use of the term "homoousios" because many were afraid that it denoted a Sabellian confusion of the Hypostases and could be taken to mean "tautoousios." This was finally precluded by the general acceptance of the Cappadocian distinction between Hypostases and ousia, which Augustine and the Franks who followed him never understood.

Immediately after coming across the term, I pulled Lampe’s exhaustive tome, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, off of the shelf and read:

*tautoousios (*tautousios), of the same substance, identical in essence; Trin. ; 1. dist. from homoousios and rejected by orthodox...Epiph.Aaer.65.8 (p.11, 10; M.42.25A); [p.1377]

The following is Frank Williams' English translation of the Epiph.Aaer.65.8  reference listed by Lampe:

8,1 And so there are not two Gods, because there are not two Fathers. And the subsistence of the Word is not eliminated, since there is not one [mere] combination of the Son’s Godhead with the Father. For the Son is not of an essence different [ἑτεροούσιος] from the Father, but of the same essence [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father. He cannot be of an essence different [ἑτεροούσιος] from his Begetter’s or of the identical essence [ταυτοούσιος]; he is of the same essence [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father. (Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 1994, p. 217)

Epiphanius is making clear distinctions between those who teach that the Son is of a ‘different essence’ [ἑτεροούσιος] than the Father (i.e. Arians) and those who believe he is of an ‘identical essence’ [ταυτοούσιος] (i.e. Sabellians/modalists) with the Father, with the ‘orthodox’ who maintain that he is of the ‘same essence’ [ὁμοούσιος] as the Father.

Athanasius makes a similar distinction between monoousios and homoousios, referencing the Sabellians. The following is from the Monoousios vs. Homoousios thread:

>>In the selections provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church Fathers who interpreted homoousios in the generic sense—Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I would now like to introduce a fifth Church Father from the 4th century who affirmed the generic understanding, and also explicitly differentiated between monoousios and homoousios—Athanasius. From his Expositio Fidei we read:

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. (Statement of Faith, 2.2 - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Vol. 4.84)

The phrase, "calling Him of one but not of the same essence", is a non-literal translation of the Greek, and a bit misleading. The Greek reads as follows:

λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον  (legontes monoousion kai ouch homoousion)

My translation: saying [he is of] one essence and not [of the] same essence

[Full Greek text of 2.2—οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόν—Migne, PG 25.204.]

Athanasius identifies the strict numeric understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son with the Sabellians, contrasting the term monoousion from that of homoousion to drive home his point.

This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent understanding of the use of homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition.>>

Conclusion: in many doctrinal discussions, it is important to realize that different terms can sometimes be used to mean the same thing, whilst the same term can carry a different meaning for opposing sides when attempting to define their respective positions.

Grace and peace,

David