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

Monoousios vs. Homoousios

Back on May 11th, a good friend of mine began posting again in the Terminology: trinitarianism, unitarianism, monotheism, polytheism... thread, after an extended hiatus. The conversation between the two us continued over the next few days; and then on the 22nd, Tom contributed three consecutive, interrelated posts that would have been a bit difficult to adequately address in the combox. As such, I have created this new thread in an attempt to do justice to the cogent concerns and questions that he raised in those posts.

Now, a bit of background information. For a number of years now, I have maintained that the Greek term homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition was used in a generic sense and not a strict numeric sense—in other words, homoousion is to be understood as 'same essence' rather than 'one essence'. And so, on my May 21st post to Tom, I wrote:

The Greek of the Chalcedonian Definition (451) strongly suggests a generic sense for both. My studies indicate that the numeric sense was not adopted until much later when homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia. [Note: I had quickly typed up the above response and posted it before realizing that I had misspelled both homoousia and monoousia—should read homoousios and monoousios—sorry Tom, I am getting old.]

Tom on the 22nd responded with:

I would agree that homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia, but what scholars usually say is “homoousia in the numeric sense.” I have not seen folks who suggest that traditional Christian Trinitarian teachings are true use the term monoousia to describe what they believe. Folks like Plantinga might be inclined to point to the developed equivalence of monoousia and homoousia in the numeric sense, but I don’t see things like this from Father Don Davis or Phillip Schaff.

I first encountered the distinction between monoousios and homoousios in Dr. Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Dr. Hodge wrote:

The ambiguity of the word ὁμοούσιος has already been remarked upon. As ούσια may mean generic nature common to many individuals, not unum in numero, but ens unum in multis, so ὁμοούσιος (consubstantial) may mean nothing more than sameness of species or kind. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint, 1.463.)

Dr. Hodge then provides two important quotes from the famous Christian historian, Philip Schaff:

It is therefore said, that “the term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings.” “The Nicene Creed,” Dr. Schaff adds, “does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the first article: ‘we believe in one God’), and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. (Ibid.)

In the next paragraph, Hodge continues with:

Gieseler goes much further, and denies that the Nicene fathers held the numerical identity of essence in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit were the same in substance as having the same nature, or same kind of substance. This he infers was their doctrine not only from the general style of their teaching, and from special declarations, but from the illustrations which they habitually employed. The Father and the Son are the same in substance as among men father and son have the same nature; or as Basil says, Father and Son differ in rank, as do the angels, although they are the same in nature. Gieseler says that the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons, was first asserted by Augustine. It was he, according to Gieseler, who first excluded all idea of subordination in the Trinity. “Athanasius and Hilary understood the proposition, ‘There is one God’ of the Father. Basil the Great and the two Gregories understood by the word God a generic idea (Gattungsbegriff), belonging equally to the Father and the Son. (Ibid.)

Though Hodge and Schaff acknowledge that homoousios can be understood in a generic sense, they maintain—contra Gieseler—that it's use in the Nicene Creed should be interpreted in the numeric sense.

Moving from 19th century writers to those of the 20th century, we find the following from the pen of J.N.D. Kelly:

It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. 'of the same nature', was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand 'of the same nature' in the 'generic' sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic [i.e. Western] theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word ούσια could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such. (Early Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. 1960, p. 234.)

And from Ivor J. Davidson:

Homoousios was, however, a word with a difficult history. For a start, it was not biblical, which meant that the council [i.e. Nicaea 325] was proposing to talk about the nature of the Godhead in terms that were philosophical or conceptual rather than in language drawn directly from the Scriptures. 

…the outcome of the council was virtually unanimous. All but two of the bishops agreed to sign the creed. The dissenters, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, were both from Libya, where Arius had particularly loyal support. They suffered exile, as did Arius himself. The rest, it seemed, were at one, and Constantine had got his way; the church was united in its opposition to the teaching of Arius [i.e. that the Son was a created being, created ex nihilo, and that there was “a time he was not”].

The reality, however, was for more complex. The apparently all-important homoousios could in fact be understood in a variety of ways. Literally, it meant “same being.” But what was the “sameness” here? To be “the same as” can be “identical to” in a specific sense or “exactly like” in a generic sense. The “being” in question is also vague: a human and animal may both be described as “beings,” but one has on form of “being” (or “nature” or “substance”) and the other another. For staunch enemies of Arius, such as Eustanthius and Marcellus, homoousios meant “one and the same being.” For Eusebius of Caesarea, on the other hand, it meant “exactly like in being”—potentially a very significant difference. Is the Son, the same as God in his being, or is he exactly like God in his being? To Eusebius and many other Greek bishops it seemed better to say that he is like God. (The Baker History of the Church, Vol. 2 – A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312-600, 2005, pp. 35, 36.)

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.

More later, the Lord willing...

Grace and peace,

David

Book Recommendation - Christopher Beeley's, The Unity of Christ - Continuity and Conflict in Patristic Tradition

This is the second book of Christopher Beeley's published works that I have now read. I first became aware of Dr. Beeley via a link provided by Iohannes in THIS COMMENT. [See also this Google Books Preview.]

I was thoroughly impressed by his, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God, so when I discovered The Unity of Christ during some recent online research, I knew I had to obtain it—I was not disappointed—this book has reinforced my opinion that Dr. Beeley is firmly establishing himself as one of the most gifted Patristic scholars of the early 21st century.

In The Unity of Christ, Dr. Beeley delves into the theology of the following Church Fathers: Origen of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, and Leo the Great, with an emphasis on development of doctrine and the formation of the early creeds produced by the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451).

Though all the chapters of the book are quite good, I particularly appreciated the one devoted to Eusebius of Caesarea (chapter 2, pp. 49-104). For a number of years now, I have felt that Eusebius' theological contributions have been either ignored or significantly under appreciated by most patristic scholars. Dr. Beeley is of the same opinion; he demonstrates that Eusebius offers much more than his valuable history of the Church, and that he was a major contributor concerning the issue of the monarchy of God the Father.

Anyway, I wanted to bring this excellent book to the attention of readers who have an interest in patristic studies. Selections from the book can be read online via this, Google Books Preview.

For those who make the decision to purchase the book, I would be very interested in hearing from you once you have had the opportunity to read it.

Grace and peace,

David