Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis

The historical and chronological context of Cyprian's symbolic or mystery interpretation harmonizes with contemporary methods of interpretation (eis-egesis):

  • Origen of Alexandria
  • Clement of Alexandria
  • Dionysius of Alexandria

The geographical context and locality, lines up as well = North Africa, where Cyprian lived.

Cyprian's "these heavenly symbols" in reference to 1 John 5:8 "and these three are one" also harmonizes with his own symbolic interpretation (eis-egesis) in De Oratione Dominica 34.1 "three" as "a symbol of the Trinity" (what other "Trinity" than that of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit could Cyprian be speaking of in De Orat. Dom. 34.1?)

Fulgentius also understanding the sacramental/symbolic connection between the two texts, reading both "sacramentis coelestibus" in De Unitate 6.6 and "tres...sacramento scilicet Trinitatis" in De Oratione Dominica 34.1 knew full well the eis-egetical and sacramental/symbolic connection between the two, and logically quoted them together as examples of the same kind of interpretation - i.e. Cyprian's eis-egesis (cf. also the meaning of Latin "nam et" in Fulgentius “Responsio contra Arianos,” Objectio 10, Responsio 10, PL Vol. 65).

Then, we have the definitive statement from Facunudus, that Cyprian (Latin "intelligit" "interpreted") 1 John 5:8 symbolically.

Facunudus also knew full well, and read the context of De Unitate 6.6 "sacramentis coelestibus" = "these heavenly symbols" in the next sentence of his manuscript/manuscripts of Cyprian.

Potamius' "the figurative meanings that lye hidden underneath" could be added to this.
 
This does help confirm that Potamius was writing of the heavenly witnesses verse.
Thanks!
Most Unlikely. The very most we get from Potamius is:

"Quia Filius sequitur vocabulo, ita maior est ille qui praevenit; sed
et mittentis et missi, quia tres unum sunt, sed et mittentis et missi,
quia tres unum sunt," which as Conti correctly surmises, must come from 1 John 5:8.

One letter in which this is found is below (trans by Conti). Some of it is on the PBF.

But by reading this particular letter in full you will see that Potamius is almost "the insane Trinitarian" - he is literally mad (i.e. he does not show the brotherly attitude towards the Arians as J. Chrysostom who considered them Christians). Potamius sees them as devils. So if ever someone was wanting to quote the Comma in full, it would have been Potamius. But clearly the Comma is completely unknown to him. He is limited to 1 John 5:8 "tres unum sunt".

__________________________________

"INCIPIT EPISTULA POTAMI
AD ATHANASIUM EPISCOPUM
AB ARRIANIS POSTQUAM
IN CONCILIO ARIMINENSI
SUBSCRIPSERUNT

"THE LETTER OF POTAMIUS TO THE BISHOP ATHANASIUS,
FROM THE ARIANS AFTER THEIR SUBSCRIPTION
AT THE COUNCIL OF ARIMINUM

"Potamius to his brother the very glorious and blessed lord bishop
Athanasius.

"What hand would have been more effective in scraping off the filthy dirt
of the damned sect, dirt that is abundant because of the pit of such a large
prison, as you correctly write, or in cleansing with fiery merits the corpses
of the dead men from the bloody stench of ordure, if that hand of yours, which
is etemal in regard to the pious feats of a man crowned by exile, had not
repelled the heretical sect with the anathema of God? You smiled, I say, upon
us, perfect in your Catholic purity, while slaying and condemning the treach-
erous and perjured enemies of true faith. Armed with the cutting sword of one
faith, you overcame doubtful minds corrupted by heresy and the immoderate,
culpably poisonous intrigues of a damnable soul.

"May the serpent lie dead and the land which received him become black
with his purulent venom. May the serpent lie condemned by the divine thun-
derbolt. May the serpent lie gripped in his blood-red horror. May the serpent
lie with his eye-sockets crushed, with the sewer of his three-forked mouth
wide open. May the originator of every crime vomit, go to rack and ruin,
writhe in agony: his having deprived the first man of etemal life would have
been a little offence, had he, more poisonous than the Hydra, not flung him-
self even on the Saviour.

"He wanted to separate our Lord Jesus Christ from the Father and the Holy
Spirit, as if he might be able to cut into pieces the Word of Jesus Christ, even
though it is evident that the Trinity is a unity bound together by the buckle of
substance: the Scriptures in fact assert: "I and the Father are one" (Joh. 10,13),
and "He who sees me, sees the Father" (Joh. 14,9), and "I am in the Father and
the Father in me" (Joh.14,11) and "In the beginning was the Word and the
Word was with God and the Word was God" (Joh. l,1). This barbaric torturer,
this deserter and parricide sought, if he only could, to divide, so I believe, the
unity of the Trinity with rapacious claws and furious fangs.

"And after all this, which argument did the enemies of true faith allege in
support of their blashemies? " He who sent me", they cite,"is greater than I"
(Joh.14,24+28). The one from whom he was begotten is his Father, certainly:
since he is acknowledged as Son. However the Father is greater than the Son
because he is Father. The rank is placed first, but the substance is not separat-
ed.

"What do you say to these arguments, you infamous traitor? You mustjust-
ly admit that, when your poisonous desire of impure slander was inflamed, the
venerable fathers transfixed you with pious arrows in that bolier council. Here
also it is clearly shown that you held before you fetters of malicious distor-
tion, since the Saviour says: "I have corne down from heaven not to do my
own will but the will of him who sent me" (Joh.6,38). What do you answer,
serpent? Is it really possible that you seek to obfuscate the brightness of this

"What do you say to these arguments, you infamous traitor? You must justly
admit that, when your poisonous desire of impure slander was inflamed, the
venerable fathers transfixed you with pious arrows in that bolier council. Here
also it is clearly shown that you held before you fetters of malicious distor-
tion, since the Saviour says: "I have corne down from heaven not to do my
own will but the will of him who sent me" (Joh.6,38). What do you answer,
serpent? Is it really possible that you seek to obfuscate the brightness of this
pure profession, which they consider to be a very small problem? The occa-
sion has a bearing on the matter. The Lord our Saviour appeared to mankind
as a human being, since he had clothed himself with a human body. Therefore
he said: "I have corne down from heaven not to do my own will" (Joh. 6,38).

"He denied the exercise of the humanity that was in him. Therefore he cries out
in order to proclaim in himself the predecessor whom he remembers as his
Father and begetter. Since the Son is named second, therefore he who pre-
cedes is greater: but, because "these three are one" (1 Joh.5,8), the substance
of him who sends and of him who is sent, in the context of the unity of the
Godhead, is one: "I and the Father are one" (Joh. 10,30), and "He who sees
me, sees the Father" (Joh.14,9) and, as the Saviour himself said to the
Apostles: "I have been so long with you and yet you do not know the Father"
(Joh.14,9).

"lt is also asserted by the enemies of Faith that the term "substance" is not
attested in the Scriptures. Restore what you had stolen, you thievish tempter:
see, you are overcome. Do you have the nerve to refute the "substance".
Indeed the pious men, that is, the ancient ranks of holy prophets, the entire
chorus, according to the Scriptures openly declare:

"<They heard not> the sound of the substance: from the birds of the sky and the
cattle they run in fear, they yelled, and 1 will deliver up Jerusalem to captivity " (Hier. 9, 10).
Since Christ the God had not been heard at all by the earlier people, the inhabitants
having become corrupted, the columns of Jerusalem collapsed.

"And now, you wretch, even though one judgement of God should have been sufficient,
listen to what the holy prophet thundered: "If they had stood in my substance and
had listened to me and proclaimed my words to my people, 1 would
have turned them from their evil way" (Hier. 23,22). This sacred voice con-
cerning the "substance" broke out on impious nations, in order that even the
prophet, beginning from Adam, desperately looks for Christ: "I am stuck fast
in deep mire, and there is no substance" (Ps. 68,2): to be sure because the sub-
stance of the Father had not yet been instilled in the human body of Jesus
Christ; and the same occurs to him who lost all his substance after having dis-
sipated his property with his dissolute life - in fact, as the sacred prophet
ofGod wrote: "the holy spirit of God will shun deceit" (Sap. 1,5): he lost his
substance because he lacked holiness owing to his licentiousness.

"If this is sufficient for you, I have finished.

"If you are now panting after them everything is filled with these sacred verities;
but if you are still on the rack, I will intensify my action. We read in the Scriptures:
"I also gathered for myself silver and gold and substance of kings and provinces" (Eccl. 2,8).
This is that substance which the prophet recalls by saying: "God has spoken once,
twice 1 have heard this (Ps.62,12)". The prophet asserts with certainty that in
the utterance of one word he has heard two voices, as David confirms: "My
tangue is like the calamus of a scribe" (Ps. 44,2). In fact, as the calamus is
made with separate, equal small teeth and works by means of harmoniously
combined thorns, so the Saviour is united to the will of his Father in an indivisible
harmony. Therefore what the Father said, the Son proclaimed; what the
Son announced, the Father fulfilled. With good cause the prophet says: "God
has spoken once, twice 1 have heard this" (Ps. 62,12). Two persons expressed
one will; and thus even in the Decalogue double tablets are engraved with one
sentence.

"May the heretical sect be suppressed, after being condemned to eternal
silence, smashed by the lightning of God and forsaken in the abyss
of hell.

"May the virgin alone, mother of God, raise to the clouds of heaven her head
crowned with laurels, she who is our only dove and is superior in fecundity.
May she be blessed among the nations who are piously faithful to the sacred
unity of the Trinity and fully praise her now and forever, world without end.

"May the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make you blessed."
 
Most Unlikely. The very most we get from Potamius is:

"Quia Filius sequitur vocabulo, ita maior est ille qui praevenit; sed
et mittentis et missi, quia tres unum sunt, sed et mittentis et missi,
quia tres unum sunt," which as Conti correctly surmises, must come from 1 John 5:8.

Where did Conti discuss the possible sources of the words from Potamius?
If a verse number is put in, by an editor or Conti, that does not say what "must" be the source.

Whoever placed in verse numbers erred twice on John 10:30, so they are not very meaningful.
 
Potamius of Lisbon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potamius

This is very clear and simple, only a contra who loves absurd invisible allegories can bog it up.

"Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God"

Therefore, he cries out in order to proclaim in himself the predecessor whom he remembers as his Father and begetter. Since the Son is named second, therefore he who precedes is greater: but, because "these three are one" (SA: I John 5:7)

Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit..

3 With good reason John asserts: 'and the three of them are one' (SA 1 John 5:7)

10. And now, if you agree, since we have burst out from the spring of the Trinity, let us examine again, like keen investigators, the innermost nature of the 'substance', from which the spring gushes and flows out. Thus the Savior proclaimed: 'The Father and I are one . Likewise John says: "And the three of them are one' (SA 1 John 5:7).

19 Indeed the Father with his power, when the Son descended to the underworld, through the Son and his self-same power, broke the adamantine bars of hell, and with the word of power evoked the dead men from the bowels of the abyss, and with the flaming sword of his mouth, according to the judgement delivered by his Christ, exiled the devil. This is one substance, this is the invisible and eternal majesty, this is the everlasting unity of the undivided Trinity. As John says: 'And the three of them are one' (SA I John 5:7).
 
Potamius of Lisbon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potamius

This is very clear and simple, only a contra who loves absurd invisible allegories can bog it up.
"The three are one" is also in verse 8 in the Latin so you aren't proving ANYTHING!!!

Why don't you lay out irrefutable evidence that Potamius was NOT referring to verse 8?


Adding your little notes in parentheses does not prove Potamius was referring to verse 7!

You've been told all of this repeatedly and still you persist in the deception!
 
Last edited:
So, someone saying roughly 100 years or so before the Codex Fuldensis was written that "falsified" and "corrupt" "copies" of the "Canonical" Scriptures (which includes the "Canonical"Epistles obviously) were circulating and being read in many places and churches in Spain, and therefore was a widespread problem, is somehow irrelevant to the context and history of the corruption of 1 John 5:7-8?

Raising the Ghost of Arius- Grantley Robert McDonald

Joseph Denk (1906) likewise argued that Priscillian’s citations of Scripture reflect a “very early, extremely interesting and faithful form of the Itala,” p. 36
 
Potamius of Lisbon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potamius

This is very clear and simple, only a contra who loves absurd invisible allegories can bog it up.
From Marco Conti p. 56 - link here (I searched a long time for this link and what a treasury it is):

"At the age of Potamius, during the Arian controversy, this irresolute
wavering between a Trinity conceived as a threefold, or a twofold unity prevailed,
and only after 360 [Council of Alexandria] did theologians begin to discuss in a more organic
way the role of the Holy Spirit. Therefore this is the reason why "Potamio da
una parte abbondi in affermazioni generiche comprendenti tutta la Trinità
soprattutto sulla traccia del Comma Ioanneum (cf. 48: quia tres unum sunt:
however Potamius is almost certainly quoting the authentic text of I Joh. 5,8
and not the Comma: cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 170, 222, 235), mentre
d' altra parte, allorchè la trattazione si fa analitica, egli la limita allo studio del
rapporto fra il Padre e Cristo ( Simonetti, ariana, 134)".

Italian translated as follows:

"On the one hand, Potamius abounds in generic affirmations including the whole Trinity, especially on the trail of the Comma Ioanneum" (cf. 48: quia tres unum sunt: however Potamius is almost certainly quoting the authentic text of I !oh. 5,8 and not the Comma: cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 170, 222, 235), while on the other hand, when the discussion becomes analytic, he limits it to the study of the relationship between the Father and Christ (Simonetti, ariana, 134)".
 
Mr S. A. Spencer has been over all of this (about Potamius) in detail before.

Don't believe a word he says.

Notice he hasn't actually stated why he thinks Potamius is quoting the Comma.

He hasn't provided a single shred of solid evidence of how and why he thinks these references in Potamius are concretely Comma quotations.

Nothing yet. Nada.
 
Yet what does the (unbiblical apart from the Comma) tres unum sunt really connote, when used of heavenly persons alone? In the mouth of Christ, unum sunt meant "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." John 14:11.

But in respect of what is in heaven, tres unum sunt is certainly capable of assuming Sabellian connotations. This capacity was exploited to condemn the Priscilliants as Sabellians, in addition to their more unorthodox beliefs. Whereas such as Potamius and other Trinitarians were allowed to exploit "tres unum sunt" against the Arians with impunity. A case of double standards?

Consider Orosius of Braga, epistle to Augustine.

Orosius of Braga, Inquiry or Memorandum to Augustine on the
Error of the Priscillianists and Origenists (Fathers of the Church/Iberian Fathers/Vol 3/p.171).
__________________________

"Moreover, Priscillian used to speak about the Trinity only in name. For he
asserted “unity” without any “existence” or “property,” (25) and by
omitting “and” was teaching that Father, Son, Holy Spirit were
only** one:*** Christ. (26)

** i.e. "always"
*** i.e. Priscillian was effectively teaching the Comma. [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]

25. Unionem; existentia; proprietate. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila 199, n. 1 re-
marks, “Orosius’s rendering of hypostasis is of interest as an echo of the terminol-
ogy of Marius Victorinus.

26. Augustine, De haeresibus 70 confirms this observation: “Concerning
Christ, they agree with the sect of the Sabellians, saying that he is not only the
Son, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit.” Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila 87
notes that Priscillian’s own third tractate “likewise affirms the Christian faith in
Father, Son, and Spirit to be belief in one God Christ: he is God, Son of God, Sav-
iour, was born in the flesh, suffered, and rose for the love of mankind.”****

**** Sounds like modern Trinitarianism.
 
Last edited:
cf. Augustine De haeresibus

The De haeresibus of Saint Augustine : a translation with an introduction and commentary Liguori.G, p.111
____________________________________

Chap. 70. The Priscillianists, instituted in Spain by Priscilli-
anus, follow, for the most part, a mixture of Gnostic and Mani-
chaean doctrine, although filth from other heresies flowed in horrible
confusion into their teachings as into some sort of cesspool. And,
to hide their corruption and filth, they also have as part of their
doctrine these words : " Swear, perjure yourself, but do not betray
the secret."

These men say that souls are of the same nature and
substance as God. To undergo some sort of a voluntary test on
earth, souls descend by grades through seven heavens and through
certain principalities. They meet with an evil prince, by whom the
Priscillianists would have it the world has been made, and are by
this prince sown through various carnal bodies. They maintain,
moreover, that men are bound by stars governing their fate, and
that our body itself is composed in accordance with the twelve signs
of the zodiac.

Like those who are ordinarily called astrologers, they
set the Ram at the head, the Bull at the neck, the Twins on the
shoulders, the Crab at the breast, and running through the rest of
the signs, they come to the feet, ascribing them to the Fish,
which is called the last sign by the astrologers. That heresy has
fabricated these and other foolish, empty and sacrilegious tales,
which would be tedious to pursue in detail.

This heresy, likewise, shuns meat as unclean food. They separate
spouses whom they have succeeded in convincing of this evil,
husbands from wives who refuse to accept this, wives from husbands
who likewise refuse to accept it.

They ascribe the creation of all flesh, not to the good and true God,
but to evil angels. Moreover, they are more cunning than the Manichaeans
in this respect, that they reject nothing of the canonical Scriptures, but accept all of
them, along with Apocrypha, as authoritative. Whatever there is
in the holy Books that would destroy their error, they transform to
their own sense by means of allegory. Concerning Christ, they hold
the Sabellian opinion, claiming that He is the same, not only as
the Son, but also as the Father and the Holy Spirit.
 
he is God, Son of God, Saviour, was born in the flesh, suffered, and rose for the love of mankind.”****

**** Sounds like modern Trinitarianism.

Modern Trinitarianism (the most common, central teachings) is distinctive in that it insists on God the Son.

And the definition of God the Son as one of three persons in the Godhead.
 
Don't believe a word he says.
Notice he hasn't actually stated why he thinks Potamius is quoting the Comma.
He hasn't provided a single shred of solid evidence of how and why he thinks these references in Potamius are concretely Comma quotations.
Nothing yet. Nada.

:) you are funny. Master of Posturing.

There is a reference to the "three are one", and this is applied to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And this is specifically Johannine scripture.


The four Potamius references are very, very similar to Cyprian's two references, where I have carefully explained to you that it is a LOT more "safer and more candid" to accept the simple and clear reading, the heavenly witnesses. Rather than the "usual explainings away".

The invisible allegory theory is a total disaster, and that is your only alternative attempt.
 
Modern Trinitarianism (the most common, central teachings) is distinctive in that it insists on God the Son.

And the definition of God the Son as one of three persons in the Godhead.
But in Trinitarianism, "God the Son" is not substantially different from God the Father, as they are of the "same substance." One wouldn't even describe two human beings as of the same substance, so why use that motif for the Son and the Father? Can anyone define the substance of the invisible God, or is it just a human deception?

Any differentiation of hypostasis may be viewed as only nominal in the light of Heb 1:3 (Son is the imprint of the hypostasis of God). Taking Heb 1:3 together with the motifs of modern Trinitarianism, you are into Sabellian territory. Thus it can be construed as somewhat hypocritical in condemning the Priscillianists as Sabellians.
 
Last edited:
But in Trinitarianism, "God the Son" is not substantially different from God the Father, as they are of the "same substance." One wouldn't even describe two human beings as of the same substance, so why use that motif for the Son and the Father? Can anyone define the substance of the invisible God, or is it just a human deception?

Any differentiation of hypostasis may be viewed as only nominal in the light of Heb 1:3 (Son is the imprint of the hypostasis of God). Taking Heb 1:3 together with the motifs of modern Trinitarianism, you are into Sabellian territory. Thus it can be construed as somewhat hypocritical in condemning the Priscillianists as Sabellians.

Most everybody gets accused, even Augustine:

Modalism, Tritheism, Or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the Bible(1994)
Living Stream Ministry Staff
https://books.google.com/books?id=JXfe5pt5-kUC&pg=PA13

Adolf Hamack, a renowned authority in the history of dogma, said, “We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a Modalist, and by the aid of ingenious distinctions between different ideas.”47

47. Adolf Hamack, History of Dogma (Peter Smith Publishers, 1976), pp. 129-131.

History of Dogma, Volume 4 (1907)
Adolf Harnack
https://books.google.com/books?id=VFFGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131
https://ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma4/dogma4.ii.ii.i.ii.html

This gentleman defends Augustine from Harnack's charge, and that of Andrew L. Davis.

Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2018/07/augustines-trinity-modalistic-semi.html

IMO, Harnack should have read Augustine much more closely, for Augustine definitively goes well beyond, "the mere assertion that he does not wish to be a modalist". Time and time again Augustine makes it clear that the Trinity (i.e. the Three) is composed of three distinct persons, and that the Father is the beginning/source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. As mentioned above, I have already provided a number of examples which are germane to Augustine's anti-modalistic understanding of the Trinity. The following selections will add further support that Augustine did not espouse some degree and/or form of modalism:

The next section in the book shows Athenagoras being accused of Sabellianism!
 
Last edited:
"On the one hand, Potamius abounds in generic affirmations including the whole Trinity, especially on the trail of the Comma Ioanneum" (cf. 48: quia tres unum sunt: however Potamius is almost certainly quoting the authentic text of I !oh. 5,8 and not the Comma: cf. Montes Moreira, Potamius, 170, 222, 235), while on the other hand, when the discussion becomes analytic, he limits it to the study of the relationship between the Father and Christ (Simonetti, ariana, 134)".

:)
It is amazing how everybody is on the trail!
 
Most everybody gets accused, even Augustine:

Modalism, Tritheism, Or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the Bible(1994)
Living Stream Ministry Staff
https://books.google.com/books?id=JXfe5pt5-kUC&pg=PA13



History of Dogma, Volume 4 (1907)
Adolf Harnack
https://books.google.com/books?id=VFFGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131
https://ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma4/dogma4.ii.ii.i.ii.html

This gentleman defends Augustine from Harnack's charge, and that of Andrew L. Davis.

Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2018/07/augustines-trinity-modalistic-semi.html



The next section in the book shows Athenagoras being accused of Sabellianism!
You have highlighted some interesting points, notably that the further one enters the territory of philosophy, the easier it is to impute allegations of heresy, however orthodox one's pretensions.

For to say the Trinity comprises "distinct persons" may be consistent with Sabellianism if one's doctrine allows no real distinction of those persons alleged to be distinct. This is the case where God becomes defined by "substance" (infering equality of persons in heaven which may be unscriptural) and not by one [person] called "God". It is also the case where distinctions are posited on whom begets who in heaven (there is no biblical doctrine as to the Word or Spirit being begotten in heaven). Thus classical Trinitarianism is fraught with potential heresies deriving from its philosophical basis, which I guess is why Priscillianist Trinitarianism became difficult to separate from orthodox Trinitarianism, which was always in a philosophical muddle, taking hundreds of years to unravel, and creating many schisms in the process.
 
Back
Top