Cyprian of Carthage and the Bishop of Rome

Back in April, I ordered, received and read Casey J. Chalk’s book, The Obscurity of Scripture - Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (Google Books preview HERE).[1]

The book is a solid contribution to the ongoing debate between Catholics and Protestants over the issue of sola scriptura, and is one I can in good conscience recommend to both sides; but, this post is going to focus on a secondary issue that Chalk brings up in chapter 9—Cyprian’s conflict with Pope Stephen of Rome concerning the validity of baptism by heretics and schismatics. From Chalk’s pen we read:

In the first few decades of the third century AD, a controversy arose in the North African church over the doctrine of Baptism. Some persons who had been baptized by non-Catholic sects such as the Montanists or Marcionites later asked to be received into the Catholic Church. A council in Carthage in AD 230 decreed that those baptized in such sects were required to be rebaptized before entering into full communion with the Catholic Church.

Cyprian, the famous Bishop of Carthage, defended this decision. When news of the council and Cyprian’s defense of it reached Rome, its bishop, Stephen, condemned the local synod as violating ancient and apostolic practices. Cyprian responded by calling an extraordinary synod in AD 256 that affirmed the earlier Carthage decision. In the minutes of the council, which were written by Cyprian, we read: “None of us has set himself up as bishop of bishops.” This was a direct attack on Stephen’s claim to authority. Cyprian also referred to Stephen as “arrogant, inconsistent, self-contradictory, ill-considered, and inept”; the Roman bishop’s views, the African bishop charged, were “erroneous.”

Cyprian’s rejection of the authority of the Bishop of Rome was a remarkable about-face. In his treatise The Unity of the Catholic Church, written only a few years earlier in AD 251, Cyprian had written that Christ

founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (Casey J. Chalk, The Obscurity of Scripture, 2023, pp. 192, 193)

The primary issue between Cyprian and Stephen concerned their disagreement over whether or not the baptisms performed by heretics and schismatics were valid. Chalk, in the above quote, points to another issue this disagreement brings to light—the authority of the bishop of Rome. Chalk maintains, “Cyprian’s rejection of the authority of the Bishop of Rome was a remarkable about-face. In support of this assessment Chalk then wrote:

In a revised, second edition of this document, published the same year as Cyprian’s extraordinary synod disputing the preeminent authority of the Roman bishop, all of the language extolling the chair of Peter, manifested in Rome, is absent. Instead, Cyprian defended the authority of “the episcopate” which is “one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure.” In other words, Cyprian’s debate with Stephen led him to change his mind about papal authority. (Casey J. Chalk, The Obscurity of Scripture, 2023, pp. 192, 193)

During my reading Chalk’s book, I could not recall reading any other author who embraced the same view as he did concerning Cyprian’s apparent reversal on the bishop of Rome’s unique position of authority in relation to the other Catholic bishops; as such, upon finishing the book I began an in depth study into Cyprian of Carthage, with a focus on his ecclesiology and the role bishop of Rome in it.

It had been over three decades ago since I was last engaged in a comprehensive study of Cyprian. In the early 90s I read all of Cyprian’s writings contained in the volume five of American reprint of the Edinburgh edition of The Ante-Nicene Fathers edited by Roberts and Donaldson and translated by Ernest Wallis. I began my renewed study by pulling this volume off of the shelf and rereading Wallis’ English translation of On the Unity of the Church (pp. 421-429). Chapter 4, page 422 contains what Chalk termed the “revised second edition” of Cyprian’s discussion of the Chair of Peter and the Bishop of Rome. Wallis’ rendition reads as follows:

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter,[3] saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep."[5] And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you : Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained ;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly

the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power ; but the beginning proceeds from unity.[7] Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith ? Does he who strives against and resists the Church[9] trust that he is in the Church... (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, ANF 5.422)

Contra Chalk’s view, Wallis presents the above as the first edition of our text in question. In support of this position he writes the following in footnotes 3, 5, 7 and 9:

3. [On the falsifying of the text by Romish editors, see Elucidation II.

5. S John xxi. 15. [Here is interpolated] : "Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and commits His sheep to be fed."

7. [Here is interpolated]: "And the primacy is given to Peter, that there might be shown one Church of Christ and one See; and they are all shepherds, and the flock is one, which is fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent." This passage, as well as the one a few lines before, is beyond all question spurious.

9. [Here is interpolated] : "Who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded." This passage also is undoubtedly spurious. [Ibid.]

The ‘Elucidation II’ he mentioned above begins with:

(Falsifying of the text, p. 422.)

Cyprian is often innocently quoted by Romanist controvertists against the very principles of Cyprian himself, of his life and his writings. This is due to the fact that they have in their hands vitiated and interpolated copies. (Ibid. p. 558)

So, which view is the correct one: Chalk's or Wallis'?

My online research quickly revealed Wallis’ assessment that the reading of Cyprian “often innocently quoted by Romanist controvertists” was an interpolation by a later writer—not from Cyprian—has been rejected by the vast majority of folk who have written on the topic in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. Interestingly enough, even one prominent anti-Catholic polemicist (William Webster) has embraced the view that both versions were in fact written by Cyprian. Note the following:

Historically there has been some confusion on the interpretation of Cyprian’s teaching because there are two versions of his treatise, On the Unity of the Church. In the first Cyprian speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true Church with that chair. He states that there is only one Church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. In the second, the references to a Petrine primacy are softened to give greater emphasis to the theme of unity and co–equality of bishops. Most Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree that Cyprian is the author of both versions. (William Webster, A Refutation of the Misrepresentations of the Writings of William Webster and of the Church Fathers by Roman Catholic, Stephen Ray, in His Book Upon This Rock – LINK.)

The first solid refutation of the assessment that the ‘Petrine primary’ version was an interpolation by a later writer that I am aware of was by the Benedictine patristic scholar Dom John Chapman in his three academic articles published between 1902-1903 in the French journal Revue Bénédictine,[2] and in his book, Studies On The Early Papacy— chapter II, St. Cyprian on the Church (1928).[3]

Nine years after the publication of Chapman’s book an academic monograph titled St. Cyprian's De Unitate: Chap. 4 in the Light of the Manuscripts, authored by the Jesuit Patristic scholar Maurice Bévenot, was published in the Analecta Gregoriana, Volume 11 (1937). I have not been able to obtain of copy of the book, but Massey H. Shepherd Jr. has provided a concise summary/review that was published in the Church History journal (LINK). From the review we read:

Fr. Bévenot's researches throw the weight of probability definitely to the Cyprianic authorship of both the "primacy" text (or alternative, not interpolated version) and the textus receptus as given in Hartel. Though he has not dealt in detail with the question of the relative dates of the two versions, he side with van den Eynde's theory that the primacy (or alternative) text is the earlier, for which the textus receptus version was a substitute made by Cyprian at the time of his controversy with Pope Stephen over the rebaptism of heretics. (Page 375)

Subsequent to his above monograph, Bévenot had three more Cyprianic books published:

Maurice Bévenot, St. Cyprian ‘‘The Lapsed’’ and ‘‘’The Unity of the Catholic Church’ (Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 25, 1957) [LINK]

In this work, Bévenot provides his English translations for two important treatises from the corpus of Cyprian, including both of the variants for chapter four of The Unity of the Catholic Church. His introduction is excellent and his copious notes are invaluable.

Maurice Bévenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts, A Study in the Transmission of St. Cyprian's Treatises (Oxford 1961) [LINK]

The book is an exhaustive expansion of his previous monograph, St. Cyprian's De Unitate: Chap. 4 in the Light of the Manuscripts. It is available online for reading at no cost.

Maurice Bévenot, Cyprian De Lapsis and De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate (Oxford Early Christian Texts, 1971) [LINK]

In this tome Bévenot's provides his English "translation[s] of the treatises in Ancient Christian Writers 25 (here slightly revised), which is reprinted with the permission of Paulist/Newman Press, New York, N.Y.", and includes updated critical Latin texts for both treatises based on the extensive research he has done into the extant manuscripts.

In 1967, the first edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia was published; volume 4 contains the entry ‘St. Cyprian’ (pp. 457-460) that was written by Bévenot. The second edition of volume 4 is available online for reading and/or downloading at no cost. (LINK)

Having diligently read through Bévenot’s above referenced works, I was able to answer for myself the question I asked earlier in this post: which view is the correct one; Chalk’s or Wallis’? I can confidently say the it is Chalk’s—the textual variant of chapter 4 in Cyprian’s The Unity of the Catholic Church termed by scholars as the ‘Primacy Text’ was not a later interpolation by an unknown author, but rather, it was the first version penned by Cyprian himself which he later changed (termed the ‘Textus Receptus Text’) after his disagreement with Pope Stephen over the issue of rebaptism.

Grace and peace,

David

Notes:

1. For an excellent summation of the book see THIS POST by the author published at Called to Communion. See also Chapman’s ‘St. Cyprian of Carthage’ entry in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp, 583-589. (LINK)

2. Revue Bénédictine, Volume 19, Issue 1-4, Jan 1902, p. 246 - 254 (LINK)

Revue Bénédictine, Volume 19, Issue 1-4, Jan 1902, p. 357 - 373 (LINK)

Revue Bénédictine, Volume 20, Issue 1-4, Jan 1903, p. 26 - 51 (LINK)

3. John Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, 1928  (LINK)

Professor Daniel A. Keating – solid scholarship concerning deification and patristics

I first became cognizant of Dr. Keating with the publication of his book, Deification and Grace in 2007 (link). This contribution is one the best introductions to the doctrine of deification I have read. It is one of those rare books that is both concise and comprehensive. [An excellent review is available via THIS LINK - LINK2.]

Dr. Keating’s bibliography referenced an earlier book of his—The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria, 2004—that is another must read on the topic of deification (link).

It had been over a decade since I last read anything from Dr. Keating, but that changed when I finally obtained a copy of a book that was on my wish list for months—The Oxford Handbook of Deification, 2024 (link). This work contains 44 essays, and a good number of them provide quotes from Dr. Keating’s two books referenced above, as well as some of his articles that I was not aware of.

This led to some online research during which I discovered a website I had never seen before—Encyclopedia of Catholic Theology (link). On March 12, 2025, an article on Deification by Dr. Keating was published on the site that can be read online and downloaded as a PDF (link). As much as I appreciated and enjoyed his book on deification, I must say that this article is probably a better introduction to the doctrine of deification for those folk who have not read much on the topic—it is also a great refresher for those have.

Looking to learn what other folk think about Dr. Keating’s new contribution.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Ignatius of Antioch: an early second century witness to the end of the apostolic age

My November 8, 2025 thread—The 'Great Apostasy' and Ignatius of Antioch—(link) saw renewed interest in March via some interesting and informative comments posted by two knowledgeable members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Errol and TOm). Their comments and responses from Rory and myself produced 23 new posts in the thread.  In this post, I want to emphasize a point that was not adequately addressed in the November thread: Ignatius of Antioch as an early and definitive witness to the end of the apostolic age.

Errol in his March 2, 2026-7:23 PM post (link) wrote:

>>Typically when Latter-day Saints refer to a particular date on which "the Apostasy" occurred they're referring specifically to the loss of Apostolic authority. And while this is certainly a significant milestone in the gradual process which would be the Apostasy there are various other contributing factors such as the subsequent loss of lesser priesthood keys and etcetera. Indeed, Ignatius, for all of his emphasis on Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship:

“I do not command you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a condemned man.” (Ignatius, ca. 107, To the Romans 4, in Fathers of the Church 1:109-110)>>

I concur with Errol's assessment that, "Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship".

In addition to Errol's above quote from Ignatius's letter to the Romans, we also read the following from his letter to the Trallians:

3.3 Because Ι love you Ι am sparing you, though Ι could write more sharply on his behalf. But Ι did not think myself qualified for this, that Ι, a convict, should give you orders as though Ι were an apostle. (Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 2007, p. 217)

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and High Anglican understanding of ‘Apostolic Succession’ also agrees with Errol—i.e. bishops are not ‘equal in authority’ to the Apostles. Bishops are not actual eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ, they do not perform Apostolic ‘wonders and signs’, and they do not write Scripture. However, they have received authority from the Apostles to preach to the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, to appoint and ordain presbyters and deacons, and to teach ‘the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints’ (Jude 3).

Now to the main point of this post that I would like to make: in Ignatius’ seven authentic epistles we are given no evidence that any Apostles are still alive. We also have no indication that living Apostles were expected to be a continuing office that Christians could turn to. What we do find in Ignatius’ epistles is an adamant appeal to Christians that they are to look to and obey their local bishop, presbyters and deacons. All this indicates to me that the Apostolic office of the first century was foundational in nature, a foundation that succeeding generations of Christians would build upon, and not an office that was to be perpetuated.

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Johannine Comma and the Catholic Church - the late 19th century through the mid-20th century

Back on January 13, 1897 the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (now termed The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a response to the question of whether or not a Catholic could deny that the Comma Joanneum was genuine. Their decision—approved by Pope Leo XIII—definitively answered in the negative. Canon Mancini's—Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition—English translation follows:

"Whether it may be safely denied, or at least called in doubt, that the text of St. John, in the first epistle, chap. 5, vs. 7, which reads as follows: 'For there are three that bear witness in heaven: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, and these three are one' is genuine?"

After having weighed everything in a most diligent examination, and taking a vote of the Counselors, the said most Eminent Cardinals declared that the reply was to be given: Negatively. On Friday, the 15th day of the same month and year, in a regular audience granted to the Reverend Father the Assessor of the Holy Office, after an exact report on the above to Our Most Holy Master Leo XIII the Pope, His Holiness approved and confirmed the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers. (English provided in Gregory's article referenced below; Latin text here.)

Ten years after the above mentioned decree affirmed that the Johannine Comma was genuine, an article published by the American-German theologian Caspar René Gregory called into question the integrity of that decree. The article opens with the following bold assertion:

The discussion of this text, the spurious character of which is beyond doubt, has of late taken a new turn. (Bold emphasis mine.)

A bit later, Gregory provides the full decree of the ‘Roman Inquisition’ (Latin and English), and then wrote:

The untutored mind, whether Roman or not, would at once say that that was a clear settlement of the question. To the question whether the passage can safely be denied to be genuine, or at least be called doubtful, the congregation replied that the question was to be answered in the negative. It is pertinent, of course, to observe that the denial or the doubting referred to is not something that takes place in the open market every day, is not in the least a popular question. The congregation knew perfectly well that the passage was rejected or called doubtful only by textual critics, and the congregation settled that it could not with safety be rejected or called doubtful, and Pope Leo XIII confirmed their decision. I take it for granted, however, that this opinion of the Pope does not come within the series of cases in which he is regarded as infallible. We must pass on; but I cannot omit to call attention to the extraordinary conduct of the Congregation of the Inquisition, which has such learned men at its back, and which nevertheless in the year 1897, only eight years ago, permitted itself to be advised on a textual question by men ignorant of, or incapable of judging of, the text-critical work of the last fifty years. (Bold emphasis mine.) [PDF - link]

Clearly, Gregory is not open to the possibility that the Johannine Comma may be genuine; he adamantly made the decision the Comma is “spurious...beyond doubt.” He is so convinced of this assessment that he labels those who maintain that the Comma is genuine as “ignorant” or “incapable”!

His article goes on to attack the authenticity of the Comma, referencing Catholic and Protestant writers who agree with his view. However, I find is quite interesting that he has completely ignored one Catholic scholar who defends the authenticity of the Comma—Dr. Thomas Joseph Lamy.

Dr. Lamy—who was later appointed by Pius X to the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1903—wrote a detailed article on the decree under the title, "The Decision of the Holy Office on the 'Comma Joanneum'", that was published in November of the same year as the decree (1897). From that article we read:

The modern editions of the New Testament, styled critical editions, notably the octava critica major of C. Tischendorf, omit verse 7 and retain only the second part of the text. According to German and English critics, the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions have not verse 7, and critical science demands that it be expunged from the editions of the Vulgate, as an interpolation the retention of which in the text cannot be justified .

Accordingly, verse 7 has been omitted from the new English version, called Revised, which a select body of English and American exegetes prepared some years ago. Since the verse in question clearly teaches the distinction of Three Persons together with the unity of Their nature in the Godhead,we can realize its importance from a theological point of view. However, the passage is not essential to a demonstration of the dogma of the Trinity; the Gospels contain sufficient texts and testimonies for that purpose. On the other hand it would be folly to reject so explicit a testimony in behalf of a Catholic doctrine, unless we have very grave reasons for doing so. This has caused Catholics to have recourse to the authority of the Apostolic See, and to submit to the Congregation of the Holy Office the question, whether we can with safe conscience reject verse 7, or call it into doubt. The Congregation has answered: No; and the Sovereign Pontiff has approved and confirmed the answer. (PDF - link)

The rest of the article goes on to provide a robust defense of the authenticity of the Johannine Comma; a defense that demonstrates—to an objective reader—that Gregory’s one-sided assessment is not as unassailable as he portrays.

Before ending this post, I would like to reference a post-1897 Catholic scholar who believes the Johannine Comma is authentic—Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P:

The second text of St. John referring to the three persons together is the famous Johannine comma: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one" (I John 5:7). A great controversy has arisen about the genuineness of this text. Those who attack the text argue from the fact that it is not found in any Greek codex of any authority, nor in many Latin codices and versions. From this they conclude that this "comma" was originally a marginal note which in the course of time was incorporated into the text. Consequently the text would enjoy only the force of tradition. The defenders of the text say that it was always in the Latin version, which is more ancient than the Greek codices, for it is found in many Latin codices and is cited by many of the Fathers, by Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine. The omission of this verse in the Greek codices is explained by the fact that the seventh and eighth verses begin and end in the same way and thus the scribes could easily have omitted the seventh verse. In the Latin version the seventh verse is: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The eighth verse is: "And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." (Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The Trinity and God the Creator, trans. Rev. Frederick C. Eckhoff, 1952, pp. 31-32; PDF - link)

 

Grace and peace,

David

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

The “Great Apostasy” and Ignatius of Antioch

Any Christian church, denomination, or sect that is not within the ecclesiastical  authority of the Roman Catholic Church or one of Eastern Orthodox churches must postulate and embrace some form of a massive apostasy on the part of those historic churches just mentioned above.

The extent and timing of the various theories of apostasy that have been promulgated by the hundreds of churches, denominations and sects who remain outside of RCC or EO churches are numerous. Concerning the extent, theories have fallen within a near total apostasy of professed disciples, through varying degrees of a less than majority. As for the timing, propositions I have read include the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, eleventh, and sixteenth centuries, as the when the so-called “Great Apostasy occurred—I suspect other centuries may have been proposed. [See the threads here at AF under  The Great Apostasy (LDS view) and The Great Apostasy (Protestant views) labels for some germane examples.]

With the above introduction in place, I would now like to disclose what has prompted this post. Back on October 17, 2025—the feast day of Ignatius for many Western churches—The Catholic World Report published a post under the title, ‘On St. Ignatius of Antioch and Catholic distinctives of the early Church’ (LINK). From that post we read:

>>Ignatius bears witness to the early provenance of Catholic distinctives. For instance, he emphasizes the importance of the episcopate again and again. (Here’s how you summarize three-fourths of Ignatius’ letters: Obey the bishop. Do nothing without the bishop. The bishop is to you as God is to Christ. The bishop is to you as Christ is to you. Obey the bishop. By the way, watch out for those nefarious docetae. Did I mention obey the bishop?) He also has a profound view of the Eucharist, famously calling it “the medicine of immortality.” And he repeatedly calls Christ “God,” showing that Jesus’ divinity was not a relatively late development.

For these reasons, fundamentalists often point to him as the figure with which Everything Went Wrong, as the one who instituted an ‘unbiblical’ model of the church. And so we’re left with a church fundamentally flawed from Ignatius to whichever reformer the one construing this narrative thinks revived real Christianity.>>

This ‘Everything Went Wrong’ assertion is hyperbolic. In the plethora of diverse apologetic writings from folk who maintain the view that the RCC and EO churches are apostate—e.g., Independent, Reformed and SBC Baptists; most Calvinistic churches, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons—Ignatius of Antioch is generally viewed as one of the earliest examples of the BEGINNING of the Great Apostasy.

So, what is the correct view of Ignatius: was he an exemplary, early expounder of the teachings he had received firsthand from the apostles Peter, Paul and John; or, was he corruptor of those teachings, an instigator of the Great Apostasy?

For me, the most important question that needs to be addressed is: if Ignatius was a corruptor, what was he motive for doing so?

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