Responding to Jonathan Sheffield's Comments on the Johannine Comma (on C Jay Cox's show)

C Jay Cox (CJC) in Un-Apologetics Ep.#67: Talking Textual Criticism with Jonathan Sheffield came to the topic of 1 John 5:7 around 1 hour and 13 minutes into the presentation (link to start of discussion).  The following is lightly cleaned-up transcript of the question and answer, interspersed with my comments.

Question from CJC:

I’ll hold off on the wrap-up really quick just to ask very briefly about 1 John 5:7. I’m just going to read it really quickly here for the people:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

The common objection is that this first appears in the works of Erasmus around the early 1300s. Is that a fair assessment as far as what we have in the historical record? Obviously, if you believe that it goes before then, then you wouldn’t think it’s a fair assessment in its totality. But as far as the historical record, does anybody reference it before then? Is there any manuscript evidence before then?

Erasmus was not around in the 1300s.  Erasmus famously introduced a form of the Comma into his third edition in AD 1522 (he had not included it in his first two editions).  Possibly there was some kind of conflation on CJC's part, because the oldest known manuscript with an insertion into the Greek from the Latin is GA 629, which is dated to AD 1362–1363.  GA629 is a Greek-Latin diglot, and there are multiple differences between the reading found in GA629 and the reading now viewed as the "TR" reading, most notably the absence of Greek articles, which is evidence of back translation from the Latin.  

Erasmus's Third Edition, showing the absence of Greek articles:

(Novum Testamentum omne (C.2.9), 596/643)

The TR reading first appears in Erasmus' fourth edition (1527), based -- as far as anyone can tell -- on Erasmus' conjecture of how to improve the reading he first published in his third edition (1522).

On the other hand, no one who is familiar with the evidence would say that this Latin variant first appears either in the works of Erasmus or GA629.  Instead, of course, this Latin variant shows up first in Latin.  There are examples of Latin manuscripts with such a reading that significantly predate the 1300s.  The earliest identifiable evidence of some related variant being possibly as early as the 300s.  Some have argued that it may have appeared in Latin as early as the late 100s, though the evidence for that idea falls short of compelling.

Jonathan Sheffield:

Yes, there is. That is the way they kind of detract and try to say, you know, the King James Bible editors added it in, or that it was Erasmus where it first showed up.

In the case with Erasmus, it wasn’t in his first edition, which prompted a response from the team of Cardinal Jiménez, who reached out to him and said, “Hey,” because in the [Complutensian] Polyglot it was included. And they actually provided citations for why they included it in their documents. So that is not the first case.

Jacobus Stunica (aka Zuniga) was part of the Complutensian team, and did publish a response to Erasmus' New Testament. Sheffield is a bit vague in his explanation here, but as we have discussed in a previous post (link to post), Stunica acknowledged that the Greek manuscripts do not have this reading but insisted that the Latin manuscripts maintain the correct reading, citing Jerome in support of his position. It turns out that Stunica was citing Ps-Jerome and a significantly corrupted version of Ps-Jerome at that (as explained here).  

Jonathan Sheffield:

Actually, we have two allusions very early on from the North African church, both with Tertullian and with Cyprian, that appear to hold the passage. But definitive quotes we have not only in Spain in the fourth century, but we actually have it used at an official council in the West, responding to the Goths, who were Arians.

The council was called by Huneric, the Vandal king, who was in support of the Goths, or the Arians in the West. He called the council and wrote a letter to all the Trinitarian bishops of the North African province, and we’re talking about Spain and all those little areas and islands around North Africa, to convene a council in 484 and to go to Scripture to defend their homoousian faith.

Let's break this down into four: Tertullian, Cyprian, Spain in the 4th Century, and Victor of Vita (author of the book against the Vandals, which Sheffield is indirectly citing).

As to Tertullian, there are at least three different works that are sometimes cited as allegedly showing reliance on the Johannine Comma.  The first is De Baptismo (On Baptism), in which Tertullian refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "three witnesses" that are united in the Church: "Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under three witnesses, there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three."  (On Baptism, Chapter 6)  The second is De Pudicitia (On Modesty), in which the Church is similarly said to unify the three: "For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three." (On Modesty, Chapter 21)

One challenge to viewing these as an allusion to the Johannine Comma is that the church as the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit is not really a suitable match to the usual readings of the Johannine Comma.  Moreover, in the case of On Baptism, the "three witnesses" is taken either from Paul (2 Corinthians 13:1; Cf. 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28) or Christ (Matthew 18:16) or possibly, though less likely, from Moses (Deuteronomy 17:6 & 19:15). 

A third passage that is sometimes cited is Tertullian's, Against Praxeas, in which Tertullian states (Against Praxeas, Chapter 25): "These Three are one [essence], not one [Person], as it is said, I and my Father are One, (John 10:30) in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."  While this translation may obscure the point, Tertullian's Latin is: "qui tres unum sunt, non unus".  Tertullian is relying on the difference between the neuter and masculine, a difference that also exists in his Latin of John 10:30.  

The major problem for the theory that this is an allusion to the Johannine Comma is as follows: why not quote the entirety of the text if Tertullian is referring to something from 1 John?  The chapter in question contains numerous quotations from John's gospel: why then wouldn't the epistle be quoted if a helpful statement were found there?  So, it seems that instead Tertullian is explaining the unity of the Trinity, not quoting a verse that allegedly supports his conclusion.  

Turning to Cyprian of Carthage, James Snapp (source) provides this succinct explanation: 

In his Treatise on the Unity of the Universal Church (1:6), Cyprian says: “Dicit Dominus, ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est:  ‘Et tres unum sunt.’”  In English:  “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,” and again, it is written of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

This is a quotation, not an allusion.  The use of the formula, "it is written," suggests that Cyprian is referencing Scripture, not Tertullian (or another merely human author).  The question remains, however, whether Cyprian is referencing the shorter original reading or the interpolated Latin reading.  The former is possible, if Cyprian believes that the spirit, blood, and water are references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Cyprian does not explain, so it is difficult to be sure.  On the other hand, again, if the interpolation were present in Cyprian's text, why does he not quote it more fully?  Why say that it is about the Father, Son, and Spirit instead of quoting "Father, Word, and Spirit"?  It's hard to find a good answer to that question, and in this very brief discussion, Sheffield does not offer one.

Turning to Spain in the fourth century, we have what is generally viewed as the earliest clear reference to some form of the Comma.  As discussed in a previous post (link), this form of the comma has a few notable differences, especially that it says that the Father, Word, and Spirit are one in Christ Jesus.  Also, the author who provides this quotation is someone who did not hold to proper Trinitarian doctrines.

Finally, we turn to the first evidence of a shorter form of the comma that became more widespread in medieval Europe.  This is evidence is from a work by Victor of Vita, who records persecution by Huneric, including a time when Huneric is said to have summoned 466 (or so) bishops to Carthage, in an effort to make them conform to the Arian religion of the Vandals.

Huneric did not call them to "convene a council" as that expression is usually used.  The homousian bishops were, instead, essentially being put on trial.  The synod was run by the Vandal king's bishop of choice, a man named Cyrila.  There was an offer to hold a debate between the Vandal bishops and the homousian bishops.  The homousian bishops of North Africa selected ten representatives to attend the debate.  However, this offer of debate was declined.  Nevertheless, Victor says that four bishops had prepared a written treatise on the beliefs of the homousians.  Victor includes a version of this document in his account, and his version of that document (as best as it has been critically reconstructed) includes a reference to a form of the Comma.  

The Vandals invaded North Africa via Spain at the start of the 5th century, but I'm not sure whether any of the bishops summoned to Carthage were from Spain.  Huneric's territory did not, as far as I can tell, include Spain in 484, and he only summoned bishops from his territory.

While Vandals and Goths are related, they were different Germanic tribes.

Jonathan Sheffield:

So the Trinitarian North African bishops came to that council with a written confession, not only in their own language but in the language of the Goths and other dialects, and presented a specific quote from John, referencing the Epistle of John, where he quotes 1 John 5:7.

So the bishops of North Africa crafted this statement in response to the Arians of the West, the Gothic Arians, and used this specific passage to defend the Trinitarian position. And this is a council of over 400 bishops in attendance.

So the question is: we have a major council that is quoting this passage against the Arians. We know the type of text that the Arians used, so why would the North African bishops use something that was questionable, which would have meant their death over there in North Africa, if the passage was disputed?

The treatise cites John the Evangelist, without specifying whether it was in John's first epistle or somewhere else.  However, it seems reasonable to think that the author meant to refer to John's first epistle.

The treatise was not written in multiple languages: it was written in Latin.  Latin, however, was not the language of the Vandals.  In fact, the reason Cyrila gave (according to Victor) for declining to hold a debate was that he didn't know Latin.

Victor does not say that the treatise was crafted by all the bishops, but attributes the treatise to four bishops.  As the treatise does not seem to have circulated apart from Victor's work, we have no way to tell how much Victor himself contributed to the work. Indeed (as discussed in this previous post), the discussion of the Comma breaks the flow of the work, suggesting that it may have been a revision (Victor would be the most obvious source of this revision).  

There is no evidence that using something questionable or disputed would have "meant their deaths".  We also do not know what type of text the Vandals used.  Very little of Vandalic has survived to the present time, the longest sentence being  "eils ... scapia matzia ia drincan!" (source) Even if we were to assume that the Vandals read the Gothic Bible, John's epistles (if they were ever translated into Gothic) have not survived.  

On the other hand, we do know that Augustine who died during the Vandal siege of Hippo in 430, had a text of 1 John without the Latin interpolation (link to example of Augustine's discussion of 1 John 5).  So, it is reasonable to suppose that if the Vandals had taken up Latin texts from the places they conquered, they would have found at least some without the interpolation.

Likewise, it is unreasonable to call this a "major council."  There was no meaningful participation in person by any of the homousian bishops.

Jonathan Sheffield:

And if we look back to the allusions of Cyprian and Tertullian, that follows that same textual line of the North African bishops. They had no doubt that this passage was Scripture at all.

The common retort against the North African council is, “Well, this passage was sort of made up because they looked at verse 8 and John, and it became sort of a version of verse 8 and became verse 7.” So they have to make up these wild conspiracies to generate verse 7.

Sheffield seems to be conflating a few things.  The question is less about the council or even just Victor specifically, and more about how such an interpolation could come to be.  The answer to that question is that it can come to be by an unreliable (or at least, not strictly literal) translator providing an interpretive gloss on the three witnesses that are actually mentioned in the text: the spirit, the blood, and the water.  This fault seems to have been identified at least as early as the 6th century (see the original reading of the Ps-Jerome prologue).  

Jonathan Sheffield:

The passage is a majority reading in the West. So while the Greek evidence is very—it has very little testimony to it in the Greek—when the official Greek Orthodox churches, I’m talking about the official churches of Alexandria, North Africa, and Constantinople, all met in 1904 to create their standardized Greek text for use throughout the Greek Orthodox Church, they discussed the issue of 1 John 5:7.

That is not in their textual tradition. That is not basically witnessed by the Byzantine text form. The holy bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church voted this passage to be included in the 1904 [text].

So when all the magisterial Reformers, basically all the magisterial Reformers except for Luther, all basically came to the same conclusion that this passage was witnessed by the ancient church and included in their editions of the TR. It’s a majority reading in the West, and when the Greek Orthodox Church met and discussed this issue, they included this passage.

The only people who seem to reject this passage are the textual critics based in the German rationalism of the late eighteenth and seventeenth century. So it’s not the official churches rejecting this passage. It’s basically the critical-text proponents of German rationalism.

This comment about "the only people who seem to reject this passage" is unsupportable.  It's also misleading to say that it is "a majority reading in the West."  It may well be a majority in the later Vulgate manuscripts.  It is not a majority reading in the oldest Vulgate manuscripts.  If you survey the Latin manuscripts from the 6th to the 10th centuries (as I did in this post), none of them have the Comma as it was ultimately imposed on the Greek text:

• 22 manuscripts originally lacked the Comma (many of these were later deliberately altered to include it)
• 1 manuscript had the "son" variant (i.e., not "Word" but "Son")
• 1 manuscript without "in earth" and with the comparative variant
• 1 manuscript with the "in Christ Jesus" variant

So, it's misleading at best to make comments about the "majority reading" in the West.  The earliest Latin exegesis of 1 John 5 (from an anonymous Irish author around AD 680) does not have the interpolated reading. Neither did the Venerable Bede in the 8th century.  

John Calvin and the Fathers on Baptism

I've been told that John Calvin invented a justification for infant baptism that was new. I'm not fully persuaded that, in its essence, Calvin's justification was new. My impression is that the main argument is that Calvin was departing from medieval Western tradition that viewed baptism essentially as regenerative by virtue of its operation. However, of course, I want to acknowledge up front that I haven't seen a precisely worded expression of the claim that Calvin's view of baptism was a theological novum. Perhaps, in the precisely worded expression of the claim, the point is that some of the details of Calvin's justification for infant baptism were new. In any event, I hope the following post will help at least to demonstrate what wasn't new to Calvin.

For example, Calvin writes:

Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:14), is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father - an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13), and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters (I Cor. 7:14). Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament (Gen. 17:12), how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?

- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 16, Section 6

Yet we see similar comments in the church fathers:

This sacrament the Lord Himself received in infancy, although He abrogated it when He was crucified. For these signs of spiritual blessings were not condemned, but gave place to others which were more suitable to the later dispensation. For as circumcision was abolished by the first coming of the Lord, so baptism shall be abolished by His second coming. For as now, since the liberty of faith has come, and the yoke of bondage has been removed, no Christian receives circumcision in the flesh; so then, when the just are reigning with the Lord, and the wicked have been condemned, no one shall be baptized, but the reality which both ordinances prefigure— namely, circumcision of the heart and cleansing of the conscience— shall be eternally abiding. If, therefore, I had been a Jew in the time of the former dispensation, and there had come to me a Samaritan who was willing to become a Jew, abandoning the error which the Lord Himself condemned when He said, "You worship ye know not what; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews;" [John 4:22] — if, I say, a Samaritan whom Samaritans had circumcised had expressed his willingness to become a Jew, there would have been no scope for the boldness which would have insisted on the repetition of the rite; and instead of this, we would have been compelled to approve of that which God had commanded, although it had been done by heretics. But if, in the flesh of a circumcised man, I could not find place for the repetition of the circumcision, because there is but one member which is circumcised, much less is place found in the one heart of man for the repetition of the baptism of Christ. You, therefore, who wish to baptize twice, must seek as subjects of such double baptism men who have double hearts.

- Augustine, Letter 23, Section 4

If the only meaning of baptism were the remission of sins, why would we baptize the newborn children who have not yet tasted of sin? But the mystery [of baptism] is not limited to this; it is a promise of greater and more perfect gifts. In it are the promises of future delights; it is a type of the future resurrection, a communion with the master’s passion, a participation in His resurrection, a mantle of salvation, a tunic of gladness, a garment of light, or, rather it is light itself.

- Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Compendium of Heretical Fables, Book 5, §18, Preface (courtesy of David King)

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Yet the apostle says of Abraham himself, that "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith," having already believed in his heart, so that "it was counted unto him for righteousness." Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should circumcise every male child in order on the eighth day, [Genesis 17:9-14] though it could not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail? And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses' son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised, [Exodus 4:24-26] and when this was done, the danger of death was removed. As therefore in Abraham the justification of faith came first, and circumcision was added afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual sanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of regeneration was added afterwards in the laver of baptism. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail. In accordance with which rule, we find in the gospel what strikes every one as natural when he reads it, "He is of age, he shall speak for himself." John 9:21

- Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book 4, Chapter, Chapter 24 (Section 32)

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them," [Luke 4:56] as far as we Can, We must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

- Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 58, Section 2

Response to Steve Ray on Petrine Primacy

I've provided a response to one of Steve Ray's blog posts in which he suggests that there are some verses related to Peter and the Papacy that are frequently overlooked by Protestants. My response can be found here (link) at the Team Apologian blog.

Another time that the Team Apologian blog has addressed Steve Ray's teachings on the supposed primacy of Peter can be found here (link).

May God edify the readers!

-TurretinFan

Did Cyprian Teach the Doctrine of Indulgences?

The answer is, of course not. There was no doctrine of Purgatory in Cyprian's day, and consequently no doctrine of indulgences either. But occasionally Cyprian's Epistle XIII is trotted out as evidence of indulgences in the 3rd century (example).

A typical presentation of Cyprian's words is presented thus:

"Those who have received a libellus from the martyrs and with their help can, before the Lord, get relief in their sins, let such, if they be ill and in danger, after confession and the imposition of your hands, depart unto the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs " (Ep. xiii, P.L., IV, 261).

What's usually not mentioned is that this "libellus" is a certifiate: a piece of paper filled out by the martyr. In Epistle XII, Cyprian refers to these certificates as "by their letters to us." It's not 100% clear which martyrs Cyprian has in mind (at least not from this particular epistle). In Epistle VIII, Cyprian writes to certain martyrs, to wit men about to die for their faith.

In Epistle IX, Cyprian conveys the fact that apparently the martyrs had written to him requesting that those who had lapsed during the time of persecution be restored to communion when the time of persecution was over. He explains that some were willing to accept people back on the bare word of the martyrs, before the persecution was past, before there was repentance, and even before the martyrs themselves had been martyred! Cyprian explains that this is not proper. Furthermore, Cyprian explains that "even if the martyrs, in the heat of their glory, were to consider less carefully the Scriptures, and to desire anything more, they should be admonished by the presbyters' and deacons' suggestions, as was always done in time past."

From Epistle X, we gather that the martyrs had identified "certain of the lapsed" for this benefit. In Epistle X, though, Cyprian has to politely decline their request in part, for he insists that there must be repentance of sin before their can be a granting again of communion. Furthermore, toward the end of the epistle (part 4), Cyprian urges the martyrs to be specific in their commendations. Cyprian explains that they should name names, and only designate those "whose penitence [repentance] you see to be very near to full satisfaction."

In Epistle XI, Cyprian explains that "no one can come to communion unless the hands of the bishop and clergy be first imposed upon him" and therefore urges "how much more ought caution and moderation, according to the discipline of the Lord, in these gravest and extremest sins!"

For you see, the problem is this: in the time of persecution, many abandoned the faith. It was an enormous task for the elders (even assisted by the deacons) to examine those who wished to return to communion. The testimony of the martyrs was viewed as compelling - partly because the martyrs could themselves be trusted (for they were willing to die for their faith) and also an honor for the martyrs as indicated in part 3 of Cyprian's Epistle XIV.

In short, in the historical context, when Cyprian writes: "Those who have received a libellus from the martyrs and with their help can, before the Lord, get relief in their sins, let such, if they be ill and in danger, after confession and the imposition of your hands, depart unto the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs," we understand that Cyprian is referring to restoration into the visible church of Christ: a restoration of fellowship and communion, and of peace with the church.

Even so, Cyprian immediately goes on to contrast them with the "others who, without having received any certificate from the martyrs, are envious ..., must wait, in dependence on the protection of the Lord, for the public peace of the Church itself."

What is Cyprian trying to convey? He's explaining that even though it is not technically proper to begin restoring the lapsed while the church is being persecuted, those who appear to be at death's door may be received back, assuming the other conditions for re-acceptance are met.

In Epistle XIV, Cyprian explains that he "wrote twice" and indicated that those qualifying in dire straits should be "remitted to the Lord." In the same epistle he goes on to explain how he came to provide epistles XII and XIII, namely because there way too many, and way too many spurious, certificates being written - and lapsed were being welcomed back in, who should have been excluded. But after this had been stopped, those who had certificates started to stir up trouble, basically demanding that the churches honor their certificates. So, the purpose of XII and XIII were to limit the acceptance of the certificates to those at death's door, at least until the persecution was over.

In short, even with the certificates of the martyrs, Cyprian goes in Epistle XXVI to state that "although they [i.e. certain lapsed folk] had received certificates from the martyrs, nevertheless, that their satisfaction might be admitted by the Lord, these persons beseeching have written to me that they acknowledge their sin, and are truly repentant, and do not hurry rashly or importunately to obtain peace ...."

From all this context, we see that these certificates of the Martyrs were, in essence, personal commendations to the effect, "I know this person - he is truly sorry for his sins, please accept him back into the church of God." This was taken by some of the certificate recipients to their spiritual benefit - but by others to a demanding and insistency, as though the certificates were "Get out of Excommunication Free" cards.

So we even read a response from the presbyters and deacons of Rome to Cyprian, in which they explain "Let them, then, see what they are trying to do in this matter. For if they say that the Gospel has established one decree, but the martyrs have established another; then they, setting the martyrs at variance with the Gospel, will be in danger on both sides. For, on the one hand, the majesty of the Gospel will already appear shattered and cast down, if can be overcome by the novelty of another decree; and, on the other, the glorious crown of confession will be taken from the heads of the martyrs, if they be not found to have attained it by observation of that Gospel whence they should become martrys; so that, reasonably, no one should be more careful to determine nothing contrary to the Gospel, than he who strives to receive the name of martyr from the Gospel." (Ep. XXIX, pt. 2)

Notice how both Cyprian and the Roman presbyters agreed that even if the martyrs thought otherwise, it was their loss: not the Gospel (word from the Romans) /Scriptures (word from Cyprian). But finally, one could turn to the end of the second epistle from the roman presbyters to Cyprian, in which they assent to his thought of making an exception for those on death's door. For they essentially repeat his ideas and expound and (most notably, slightly expand):

"but of such as impending death does not suffer to bear the delay, having repented and professed a detestation of their deeds with frequency ; if with tears, if with groans, if with weeping they have betrayed the signs of a grieving and truly penitent spirit, when there remains, as far as man can tell, no hope of living; to them, finally, such cautious and careful help should be ministered, God Himself knowing what He will do with such, and in what way He will examine the balance of His judgment; while we, however, take anxious care that neither ungodly men should praise our smooth facility, nor truly penitent men accuse our severity as cruel."

After such an investigation, I think we can conclude that neither Cyprian or his colleagues in Rome had any concept of Indulgences in mind in the various letters they exchanged. They were concerned, very concerned, about proper church discipline, and had very serious reservations about those who had lapsed during time of persecution.

-TurretinFan