Lucian of Antioch (sometimes called Lucius)

Lucian of Antioch looks to have been a Church of God leader in the late 2nd through 3rd century A.D.

Here is an early 20th century report by a Protestant scholar:

Lucian of Antioch

Lucian was an eminent presbyter of Antioch and martyr of the Diocletian persecution, renewed by Maximin. Very little is known of him. He was transported from Antioch to Nicomedia, where the emperor then resided, made a noble confession of his faith before the judge and died under the tortures in prison (311). His memory was celebrated in Antioch on the 7th of January. His piety was of the severely ascetic type.

His memory was obscured by the suspicion of unsoundness in the faith. Eusebius twice mentions him and his glorious martyrdom, but is silent about his theological opinions. Alexander of Alexandria, in an encyclical of 321, associates him with Paul of Samosata and makes him responsible for the Arian heresy; he also says that he was excommunicated or kept aloof from the church (ἀποσυνάγωγος ἔμεινε) during the episcopate of Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus ...

Lucianus is known also by his critical revision of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek Testament. Jerome mentions that copies were known in his day as "exemplaria Lucianea," but in other places he speaks rather disparagingly of the texts of Lucian, and of Hesychius, a bishop of Egypt (who distinguished himself in the same field). In the absence of definite information it is impossible to decide the merits of his critical labors. His Hebrew scholarship is uncertain, and hence we do not know whether his revision of the Septuagint was made from the original...(Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Lucian of Antioch (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully compared, corrected, and emended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998)

He is traditionally have been believed to be killed on January 7, 312:

He is also commemorated as a saint, with a feast day of January 7 in the Roman Catholic Church and October 15 in the Orthodox Church. ...

Lucian is credited with a critical recension of the text of the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. The resulting manuscript was popular in Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople[7] and was later used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the textus receptus.[8] However, Lucian took it upon himself to "fix" the manuscripts he received, saying he was correcting errors that had snuck in over time. He undertook to revise the Septuagint based on the original Hebrew. (Lucian of Antioch. Wikipedia, accessed 03/06/25)

Notice what the Roman Catholic Cardinal Newman wrote:

Lucian, who schismatized or was excommunicated on his deposition, held heretical tenets of a diametrically opposite nature, that is, such as were afterwards called Semi-Arian; Paulus himself advocating a doctrine which nearly resembled what is commonly called the Sabellian.

More shall be said concerning Paulus of Samosata presently; but now let us advance to the history of this Lucian, a man of learning, and at length a martyr, but who may almost be considered the author of Arianism ... that during the times of the three bishops who successively followed Paulus, Lucian was under excommunication. The Catholics too, are silent in his vindication, and some of them actually admit his unsoundness in faith ... (Cardinal Newman, John Henry. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, p.7)

I would rather direct the reader's attention to the particular form which the Antiochene corruptions seem to have assumed, viz., that of Judaism... (Cardinal Newman, John Henry. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, p.9)

Although some Eastern Orthodox claim Lucian reconciled with them in 285 (Sanidopoulos J. The Orthodoxy of Lucian of Antioch. ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY THEN AND NOW, October 15, 2009 https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/10/orthodoxy-of-lucian-of-antioch.html#:~:text=Church%20authorities%20officially%20accepted%20a,.%2C%209%3A6), there does not look to be any real proof of that. Furthermore, in 321 A.D. he was listed as an apostate by Alexander of Alexandria in 321 (Encyclical Letter of Alexander, Archbishop of Alexandria, upon his Deposition and Excommunication of Arius, 321. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/volume1/alexander.html viewed 03/06/25). Hence, that is evidence that Lucian was NOT ever "reconciled" with the Greco-Roman confederation that was emerging in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

The Catholic Encyclopedia noted:

Though he cannot be accused of having shared the theological views of Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion at the time of Paul's condemnation, and was compelled to sever his communion with the Church ...

Very little is known about the life of Lucian, though few men have left such a deep print on the history of Christianity. The opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him. He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation which dominated the Eastern Church for a long period...

Receiving the literal sense alone he laid stress on the need of textual accuracy and himself undertook to revise the Septuagint on the original Hebrew. His edition was widely used in the fourth century (Jerome, De Vir. III. lxxvii Praef. ad Paralip.; Adv. Rufium xxvi, Epis., 106). He also published a recession of the New Testament. St. Jerome (De Vir. Ill, 77), in addition to the recension of the Bible, speaks of "Lebelli de Fide", none of which are extant. He is also credited with the composition of a Creed, presented to the Council of Antioch in 341 (Athan., "Ep. de Synod. Arim. et Seleuc". xxiii), but his authorship is doubtful; in fact it is certain he did not compose it in its present form. (Healy P.J. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).

An SDA scholar wrote the following:

CHAPTER 5
LUCIAN AND THE CHURCH IN SYRIA

Lucian was really a learned man; his work on the text of the Old Testament, which he corrected from the original Hebrew, soon became famous; he was a Hebrew scholar, and his version was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor. He occupied himself also with the New Testament. His exegesis differs widely from that of Origen. In Antioch allegorical interpretation was not in fashion.1

CONSIDERATION having been given to the importance of Syria in conserving the original bases of the true church, attention is now directed to Lucian (c. A.D. 250-312). Born among the hills of Syria, this devout scholar was destined to exercise a dominating influence on the thought of men through the ages. He was gifted with an unusual spirit of discernment, which the Holy Spirit used in enlarging and strengthening the foundations laid by the apostles. For many years destructive teachings more deadly to early Christianity than the poison of serpents had been gaining ground. Lucian was called upon to face these, and although he did not succeed in completely removing them, nevertheless he did build for all a safe retreat. Lucian might be likened to the founders of the American republic. As authors of the American Declaration of Independence and that part of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, they gave the nation written documents upon which to build the state. So Lucian, in an hour when documentary confusion was threatening chaos, defended, preserved, and passed on to other generations the true text of the Holy Scriptures. He also left a masterpiece of theology to evangelical believers. He stimulated and vivified correct church organization and method of evangelization. Although his opponents have seen to it that not much history about him has been preserved, yet they cannot rob him of his great works.
41

Lucian was born at Antioch, a center of Greek life and culture. In his day, Rome ruled supreme. There was no more powerful metropolis than Antioch. On the outskirts lay the glamorous grove of Daphne, celebrated above all other groves. In it the pleasure seeker could find many delights, ranging from the most luxurious and sensuous to the highest performances of classical art. Often, in his youth, Lucian looked upon these scenes of worldly folly; but his pious heart turned away from them in complete devotion to his Lord. He could wander eastward a few miles to those beautiful villages and cities, the remains of which have been described in a previous chapter. At that time they were the flourishing home of a learned, devoted Christianity, clinging closely to the early simplicity of the gospel, and refusing to adopt the unscriptural teachings and customs of heathenism which were gaining ground in some professed Christian bodies. The early years of Lucian were years of great contrast. He quickly discerned that there were two movements taking shape in Christendom, one loose in doctrine and affiliating itself with heathenism, the other based on the deep foundations of the Christian faith.

HIS BOYHOOD AND YOUTH

In early boyhood an event occurred which opened his eyes to the frailty of empires. The Persians, led by the fanaticism of Mithraism, had made themselves masters of the Near Eastern world, bringing into existence an empire which would be the dreaded antagonist of Rome for five centuries. When Lucian was about ten years of age, Shapur (Sapro) I, the Persian monarch, waged successful warfare to the west, capturing the city of Antioch and taking captive the Roman emperor.2 Naturally he carried back from the region many captives, among them Syrian Christians who would labor to evangelize Persia. Antioch on the border line between Rome and Persia, the coveted prize of both empires, offered a commanding position from which the work of Lucian could exercise its influence east and west through the coming centuries.

Soon the government of the Roman world passed into the hands of an energetic soldier, the emperor Aurelian, who set about vigorously to repair the damage to the imperial system done by weak predecessors. At this time a certain Paul, born in Samosata, was bishop of Antioch and had brought down upon himself the wrath of the Roman and Alexandrian
42
churches because of his teachings. Paul was accused of believing a doctrine concerning the divinity of Christ which in the eyes of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria was considered heresy. Now for the first time Lucian heard the thunders of that struggle concerning the Sonship of our Lord which would go on until and after the first and most famous general council of the church was held at Nicaea in 325.

How difficult and dangerous the situation of Lucian was may quickly be seen. The churches of Rome and Alexandria had entered into an alliance. Alexandria had, for more than two centuries before Christ, been the real capital of the Jews who were compromising with paganism. The church at Alexandria was in this atmosphere. The city of Rome had been for seven hundred years, and was still to be for some time, the world capital of paganism. This environment greatly influenced the church at Rome. Lucian grew up in the churches of Judea. Here was the divine pattern for further believers. Lucian founded a college at Antioch which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance between Rome and Alexandria. How bitter the situation became and how it finally split the West and East will be clarified by the following four facts:

First, the original founders of the ecclesiastical college at Alexandria strove to exalt tradition. Justin Martyr, as early as 150, had stood for this.3 He was the spiritual father of Tatian, who in turn was, in all probability, a teacher of Clement. Second, Clement, most famous of the Alexandrian college faculty and a teacher of Origen, boasted that he would not teach Christianity unless it were mixed with pagan philosophy.4 Third, Victor I, bishop of Rome, entered into a compact with Clement, about 190, to carry on research around the Mediterranean basin to secure support to help make Sunday the prominent day of worship in the church.5 Sunday was already a day exalted among the heathen, being a day on which they worshiped the sun; yet Rome and Alexandria well knew that most of the churches throughout the world sanctified Saturday as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.6 Fourth, when Victor I, in lordly tones, pronounced excommunication on all the churches of the East who would not with him make Easter always come on Sunday, Alexandria supported this first exhibition of spiritual tyranny by the bishop of Rome. Lucian opposed Alexandria’s policies and for this has been bitterly hated and his name kept in the background.
43

In the church struggle over Paul of Samosam, Lucian held aloof from both parties. When it appeared as if neither side would win, appeal was made to the pagan emperor Aurelian. The party led by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria could well bow its head with shame that the aid of a heathen emperor was invoked to settle a controversy over the divine Son of God. Most astonishing to relate, the emperor declined to judge the case and commanded (A.D. 270) that it should be submitted to the judgment of the bishops of Italy and Rome.7 In referring this issue to the bishop of the capital city and his associates, it was assumed that they were responsible for the whole Christian church. This came as a recognition from the pagan state to Pope Felix. It could easily be used to support the assumed primacy of Peter.

What must have stirred the mind of Lucian, however, who at this time was about twenty-five years of age, were the philosophical speculations offered to sustain the theological viewpoint held by the bishop of Rome concerning the Godhead. Concerning the Christians after the Council of Nicaea, where the influence of Rome was dominant, the historian Edward Gibbon wrote, “They were more solicitous to explore the nature, than to practice the laws, of their founder.”8

As no record has been found that Lucian was a participant in this controversy, subsequent historians recognize their inability to accuse him of factionalism or instability. One must read the thorough defense of this holy man by George Bishop Bull to know the errors Lucian opposed and the excellent doctrines he taught.9 There is no record of any charge of heresy, officially or ecclesiastically, lodged against him by his contemporaries.

In his early youth, Lucian was called to resist the rise and spread of two perverted types of Christianity: Manichaeism and Gnosticism.

INSIDIOUS TEACHINGS MET BY LUCIAN

Manichaeism dethroned the first chapter of Genesis by rejecting creation and a miracle-working God, by demanding celibacy of its leaders, and by worshiping the sun as the supreme dwelling place of Deity.10 Imbued with the ancient Persian hatred of the Old Testament, it ridiculed the Sabbath of the fourth commandment and exalted Sunday.11 This fanatical darkness,
44

with its own fabricated scriptures, came down upon Syria like a fog. Lucian weakened its attacks by his irresistible defense of the Scriptures and their teachings.

He was next aroused to meet in the primitive church an invasion of subtle hero worship. Gnosticism was eating its way into those sections of the church which were compromising with paganism. The wrath of the papal party was brought down upon him because he refused to participate in a questionable movement to exalt on fraudulent grounds the primacy of the bishop of Rome. For more than a century previously there had appeared considerable deceptive literature giving an exalted place to Peter. In these crafty stories the impetuous apostle was brought to Rome, and with him was brought Simon the magician, whom he had rebuked. Supernatural powers were attributed to Simon. Peter, in these dishonest fables, was reputed to follow Simon, rapidly confuting his heresies and his superhuman feats, and finally destroying this pretended follower of the faith by a mighty miracle. These fabulous exploits of Peter were emblazoned abroad.

“The apocryphal accounts...of Peter’s deeds at Rome leaped at once beyond all bounds of sober credibility. They may have concealed a modicum of fact beneath the fiction, but the fiction so far exceeded and distorted the fact that it is hopeless now to try to disentangle one from the other....None the less this literature cannot be overlooked by one who aims to comprehend the growth of papal prestige. Conceptions founded upon it and incidents borrowed from it were in time accepted by most of the influential writers of Roman Christendom, even by those who like Eusebius or Jerome fully realized that the literature as a whole was a web of falsehood. In particular, the figure of Simon Magus, once installed at Rome, could never be entirely exorcised, nor could Peter be deprived of the renown of being the first mighty victor over heresy as embodied in Simon’s person. In fact, it is difficult to name one of the Fathers after the third century who does not sometime allude to that famous story. Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and others...could none of them rid themselves altogether of the impression it made upon them.12
45

Lucian never accepted such doubtful tales. He protested against those who were championing fraudulent claims; but as they became more determined in countenancing these false stories, and so helped to make the bishop of Rome “the vicar of the Son of God,” the more hostile they grew toward Lucian.

LUCIAN’S GIFT OF THE GENUINE NEW TESTAMENT

The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch, and other languages. During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labors of that great scholar, Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the received text was Lucian. None of Lucian’s enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian’s day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying.13 Lucian’s unrivaled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful. Mutilations of the Sacred Scriptures abounded.14 There were at least eighty heretical sects all striving for supremacy.15 Each took unwarranted license in removing or adding pages to Bible manuscripts.16 Consider how masterly must have been Lucian’s collection of the evidences which identified and protected the writings left to the church by the apostles. From that day to this the Received Text and the New Testaments translated from it are far in the lead of any other Bibles in use.

REJECTION OF THE SPURIOUS OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS

Not only did Lucian certify the genuine New Testament, but he spent years of arduous labor upon the Old Testament.17 As the Greek language
46

was the prevalent tongue in which leading works were published throughout the civilized world, he translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. He did this work so well that even Jerome, his bitter opponent, admitted that his Greek translation of the Old Testament held sway in the capital city of Constantinople and in most of the Near East.18 Jerome also entered the same field and translated the Hebrew Bible, not only into Greek, but into Latin. When the two translations of the Hebrew Bible appeared, there was a marked difference between the edition of Lucian and that of Jerome. To Jerome’s Latin edition were added the seven spurious books called the Apocrypha, which the Protestant world has continuously rejected. The responsibility cannot all be laid upon Jerome, for he did not believe in these seven spurious books. Augustine, whose fame as a father of the papal church outshines Jerome’s, favored them.19 Since, however, Jerome had been employed by the bishop of Rome to publish this translation and had received abundant money from his employer for its accomplishment, the pope took the liberty of adding the seven spurious books in question to the Latin edition of Jerome’s Old Testament. Later the Papacy pronounced it to be the authoritative Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thus, in many ways Lucian became a blessing to those churches which in later years designated the Church of Rome “a newcomer,” and felt themselves compelled to disagree with it, while they persevered in apostolic usages.

EXPOSURE OF THE ALLEGORIZING THEOLOGIANS

Clement (c. A.D. 194) and Origen (c. A.D. 230) of the metaphysical school of Alexandria, in the days immediately preceding Lucian, welded into an alluring and baffling system the method of allegorizing the Bible. They taught the supremacy of the bishop of Rome and declared that there was no salvation outside the church. Clement played to the applause of the populace by advocating the affinity of Christianity with paganism and of sun worship with the Sun of Righteousness. John Mosheim testifies to this as follows:

“He [Clement] himself expressly tells us in his Stromata, that he would not hand down Christian truth pure and unmixed, but

47

“associated with, or rather veiled by, and shrouded under the precepts of philosophy”... the philosophy of the Greeks.”20

While Clement, with Pantaenus, mixed Christianity with paganism at Alexandria, Lucian founded at Antioch a school of Syrian theology. The profound difference between his teaching and that of the north African allegorizing theologians, Dr. Williston Walker thus describes: “With Antioch of this period is to be associated the foundation of a school of theology by Lucian, of whom little is known of biographical detail, save that he was a presbyter, held aloof from the party in Antioch which opposed and overcame Paul of Samosata, taught there from c. 275 to 303, and died a martyr’s death in 312.... Like Origen, he busied himself with textual and exegetical labors on the Scriptures, but had little liking for the allegorizing methods of the great Alexandrian. A simpler, more grammatical and historical method of treatment both of text and doctrine characterized his teaching.”21

It was a critical hour in the history of the church in the days following the efforts of Clement, Origen, and Tertullian — the mystical teachers of north Africa — to substitute new foundations for Christianity. In that time God raised up a tireless champion of truth, Lucian. Speculation within the church was tearing to pieces the faith once delivered to the saints. The very foundation of the gospel itself was at stake. Because of the immense contributions made by Syrian Christianity in the following centuries, later generations are indebted to Lucian. At this time the words of the psalmist were appropriate: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”(Psalm 11:3.) It was at this time, according to a historian acceptable to the Roman Church, who lived in the same century with Lucian, that the martyr drew up a confession of faith.22

DENOUNCING TRADITION ABOVE THE BIBLE

The apostle Paul had prophesied that after his departing men would arise from the ministry, speaking perverse things and entering like grievous wolves among the flock.(Acts 20:29, 30.) Paul said it would come; Lucian in his day could say truly that it had come. Within a hundred years after the death of Paul there can be found in the writings of authors who now
48

stand high in the Roman Catholic Church the exaltation of tradition to the level, if not above the level, of the Holy Scriptures. Tertullian (A.D. 150- 235), who lived in the same century as did Lucian, after explaining the oblations for the dead, the sign of the cross upon the forehead, and the dipping of candidates in the water three times for baptism, writes: “If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as the strengthener, and faith as their observer.23

The Church in the Wilderness believed the Bible to be supreme. Its members believed that the Holy Spirit and the word agreed, and they remembered that Jesus met each test Satan put against Him in the hour of temptation with the words, “It is written.” To hold the Holy Scriptures as an infallible guide to salvation excludes the admission of any other authority upon as high a level. To exalt tradition and place it on the level with the Bible throws the door open to admit all kinds of writings as bearing the seal of divine authority. Moreover, it places an impossible burden upon believers to verify a wide range of literature. The Protestant and the Catholic worlds both teach that the Holy Scriptures are of God. There is a difference, however, for the Protestants admit the Bible and the Bible only, while the Papacy places the church traditions on an equality with the Scriptures. The Council of Trent, 1545, whose decisions are supreme authority on doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, speaks as follows on written and unwritten tradition: The sacred and holy, oecumenical and general Synod of Trent,...following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament, — seeing that one God is the author of both, and also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church.24 That this principle still prevails in the Roman Catholic Church is shown by the words of the celebrated Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, who was
49
long the leading exponent of his church in the United States. Thus he writes:

A rule of faith, or a competent guide to heaven, must be able to instruct in all the truths necessary for salvation. Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday, and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.25

Lucian was obliged to take his stand against the tide of error that was rising in his day. He was diametrically opposed to the school of theology at Alexandria, whose teachings exalted tradition. Tertullian took the same stand as did other early north African authors directly or indirectly favored by the Papacy.26

Lucian encountered the contradictory teachings concerning the binding obligations of the Ten Commandments. The same inconsistency is manifest in papal doctrine today, for The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. 6, can. 14) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.”27 This directly contradicts the teachings of Thomas Aquinas regarding the fourth commandment.28 And it is to be remembered that the Roman Church ranks him first as an expositor of papal doctrine.

STANDING AGAINST “NO-LAW” THEORY

50

celebrated Reformer, Calvin, indignantly refuted the analysis of Thomas Aquinas.29 The charge made by Thomas Aquinas that the Sabbath commandment was ceremonial is not sustained by changing Saturday to Sunday, for, if definitely naming one particular day of the week is ceremonial, Sunday would be as ceremonial as is Saturday. Nor would the choice of any other succession of days, as one day in ten, or one day in twenty, escape this condemnation. Since the New Testament teaches that the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross, this attempt to make the fourth commandment partly ceremonial, placing it as a plaything in the hands of the church, clearly taught the abolition of the moral law. Herein can be seen how diametrically the above quotation from The Catholic Encyclopedia disagrees with Thomas Aquinas. The first says that the Decalogue is moral; the second claims it to be partially ceremonial. Cardinal Newman praised Alexandria, the seat of Gnosticism, which powerful movement rejected the Old Testament and with it the Ten Commandments. Lucian took his stand against such advocates of the “no-law” theory and taught the binding obligation of the Ten Commandments. Therefore he was called a “Judaizer” by John Henry Cardinal Newman.30

Excessive in his denunciations against Lucian, and master of the use of English, Newman, in founding the Oxford Movement, attempted to de- Protestantize the Western world. All must admit the great debating ability of the Oxford professor who left the Church of England to enter the Roman Catholic priesthood. He set out to defend the Alexandrian theologians.31 He sought diligently to find another way to circumvent the truth. Newman and the Oxford Movement as antagonists labored to brand the Authorized Version of the Bible as dishonest in doctrine.32 In order to secure a reason for writing his book entitled The Arians of the Fourth Century, which volume is practically atheism wearing a gospel mask, he was compelled to recognize the outstanding leadership of Lucian. So he said, “Now let us advance to the history of this Lucian, a man of learning, and at length a martyr.” He neglected, however, to state that for centuries Lucian’s orthodoxy has been defended by such great scholars as Caesar Cardinal Baronius, George Bishop Bull, and Henry Melville Gwatkin. So Newman resurrected against Lucian the old shibboleth of Judaizing. When a modernist is pressed for a weapon to attack defenders of the Ten Commandments, he brings out again the old bogey of Judaizing. What are
51

the historical facts? Newman recognized that the Jews “became an influential political body in the neighborhood of their ancient home, especially in the Syrian provinces which were at that time the chief residence of the court.33

However, Newman failed to add the facts admitted by The Catholic Encyclopedia, that

“for a long time Jews must have formed the vast majority of members in the infant Church.”

34 Since the majority of believers in the East were for a long time Jewish converts, it can easily be seen that the custom was general in the eastern church of observing Saturday as the Sabbath.35 It could hardly have been otherwise. The noble Christianity of converted Jews was second to none. Centuries of training under the prophets had endowed Jewish believers in Christ with ability to comprehend and to propagate the truths of the Scriptures. They felt, as the heathen world did not, the force of such terms as God, sin, righteousness, and atonement.

Lucian, though he was a Gentile, is belittled by Cardinal Newman as a Judaizer. Why? Those who sanctified Saturday by abstaining from labor were stigmatized as Judaizers. why should Lucian observe Saturday as sacred? It was the general custom. The church historian Socrates writes a century after Lucian: “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”36 Here we note the union between the church at Rome and at Alexandria, and their common antagonism to the seventh-day Sabbath.

Sozomen, a contemporary of this Socrates, and also a church historian, writes likewise, “The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.”37 At the Synod of Laodicea (c. A.D. 365) the Roman Catholics passed a decree that “Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day.... But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”38 Thus this church law not only forbade its followers to sanctify Saturday, but also stigmatized as Judaizers those who did.
52

A long list of early church writers could be given to show that for centuries the Christian churches generally observed Saturday for the Sabbath and rested from labor on that day. Many churches also celebrated the day of Christ’s resurrection by having a religious meeting on Sunday, but they did not recognize that day as the holy day of the fourth commandment.

39 The churches throughout the world were almost universally patterned after the church of Jerusalem in belief and practice. “It is true that the Antiochene liturgy describes Jerusalem ‘as the mother of all churches.’”40 Paul wrote,

“Ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.”(1 Thessalonians 2:14.)

The apostle Paul, therefore, is the author of the Judean pattern. How long did this pattern continue? The quotation given above from The Catholic Encyclopedia, article, “Calendar,” reveals that vast numbers, not a scattered few, of Christians were converts from the Jews, so that the Judean type of Christianity was almost universal, and it so continued for a long time.

Syria, the land of Lucian, possessed the Judean type of Christianity. “They [the books DeLacy O’Leary was describing] certainly do prove the continued and vigorous existence of a Judaistic Christianity within the province of Syria.”41

Judean Christianity prevailed so widely that it reached far into Africa, even into Abyssinia. The church in Abyssinia was a great missionary church. Neither must we forget that the Abyssinian Church [which is distinctively of Judaic-Christian type] became popular in the fourth century. In the last half of that century St. Ambrose of Milan stated officially that the Abyssinian bishop, Museus, had “traveled almost everywhere in the country of the Seres” [China].42 For more than seventeen centuries the Abyssinian Church continued to sanctify Saturday as the holy day of the fourth commandment.

As early as the second century, Judean Christianity in Syria produced scholars famous in Bible manuscripts. “The work of Malchion is generally regarded as commencing the ‘Early School’ of Antioch. .. The actual leader
53

in the critical work was Lucian who came from Edessa and was Malchion’s pupil The result was an Antiochene revised Greek text of both Testaments.”43 Lucian and his school, like Origen, worked in the field of textual criticism, but he used different manuscripts from those used by Origen. Erasmus rejected the manuscripts of Origen, as did Lucian.44 Lucian prevailed over Origen, especially in the East. “The Bibles produced by the Syrian scribes presented the Syrian text of the school of Antioch, and this text became the form which displaced all others in the Eastern churches and is, indeed, the Textus Receptus (Received Text) from which our Authorized Version is translated.”45
Before his death Lucian was acknowledged throughout all Christendom as
orthodox from the standpoint of the Bible, and a fundamentalist. It
remained for Cardinal Newman to resurrect the calumny of Judaizing
against him fifteen hundred years later.

A brief summary of the theological conditions which prevailed in the days of Lucian, and a review of his work and influence, is now presented.
1
THEOLOGY

The school at Antioch, founded by Lucian, developed a system of theology, so real that though all the power of the Papacy was thrown against it, it finally prevailed. The Papacy also developed a great system of theology which was challenged both by the Church in the Wilderness and by the Reformation.
54

2
QUALITY NOT QUANTITY

The Antioch system of theology which we have been studying was prominent; it extended from England to China and from Turkestan to Ethiopia.

Papal theology was also prominent. It is not necessary to indicate the dominating course it has had throughout the earth. Yet numbers do not constitute the final proof of truth. As an example, more millions of people in the world follow Buddha than follow any other religion.
3
THE GENUINE BIBLE

Lucian and his school gathered and edited a definite and complete Bible. It was a collection of the books from Genesis to Revelation. Well-known writers like Jerome, Erasmus, and Luther, and, in the nineteenth century, John William Burgon and Fenton John Anthony Hort, whether friends or opponents, agree that Lucian was the editor who passed on to the world the Received Text — the New Testament text which was adopted at the birth of all the great churches of the Reformation. Not a single church born of the Reformation, such as Lutheran, Calvinistic, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, or Adventist, adopted any other Bible than that whose New Testament text came down from Lucian. The Papacy passed on to the world an indefinite and incomplete Bible. While it recognized to a certain extent the books from Genesis to Revelation, it added to them seven other books not considered canonical by the authorities quoted above. In the Latin Vulgate of the Papacy it adopted a New Testament text with passages radically different from the same in the Received Text. It also made the decrees of the councils and the bulls of the popes equal to the books of the Bible. In other words, with the Roman Catholic Church, the Scriptures are still in the making. The Papacy
55

exalts the church above the Bible. Cardinal Gibbons says, “The Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe.”46

4
MANUSCRIPTS TRUE AND FALSE

The text which Lucian gave to the world was to all intents pure and correct.47 Even his opponents declare that there are no Greek New Testaments older than Lucian’s, and that with it agree the great mass of Greek manuscripts.48

The Roman Catholic text of the regular books from Genesis to Revelation and the seven apocryphal books based upon the manuscripts of Origen — later edited by Jerome — abounded in errors. Thousands of these errors have been noted and presented to the world by eminent Catholic and non- Catholic writers. Catholics admit that Jerome was a polemic theologian and that he allowed his prejudices to warp his translation.49

5
RELATION TO THE LAW OF GOD

The theology of Antioch stood for the binding obligation of the Ten Commandments. The theology of the Papacy claims authority to change the Ten Commandments.

6
CHRIST OUR SUBSTITUTE AND SURETY

The theology of Antioch teaches salvation for sinful man through the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
56

The Papacy does not now teach and never has taught salvation for sinful man through the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross. The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “‘Vicarious satisfaction,’ a term now in vogue, is not found expressly in the church formularies, and is not an adequate expression of Christ’s mediation.”50

7
THE SABBATH

The majority of the churches of Syria and of the East continued to observe Saturday, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment from the days of the apostles and throughout the centuries. Hence the attempt to stigmatize them as Judaizers.

The Papacy has always endeavored to substitute the observance of Sunday for the sanctification of Saturday, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Pope Gregory I, in 603, declared that when antichrist should come, he would keep Saturday as the Sabbath.51 ...

Lucian by his life and by his opposition to Alexandrian errors showed that he would never accept any doctrines of the Trinity which destroyed the moral obligation of the Ten Commandments; that he refused any teaching which exalted the inspiration of the church above the inspiration of the Bible, and that he did not countenance any authority which divided the Decalogue into moral and ceremonial, is proved by his writings. Lucian is one of those world characters who needs no sculptor to erect a monument to his fame. The transmission of the Received Text with its unparalleled effects down through the centuries is monument enough. Another monument is the influence of Lucian in the great Church of the East, as reproduced in its evangelical thought and life. In its history will be seen the hand of God, building a sure foundation for the divine troths that shall live in the long wilderness period of the church.

(Wilkinson BG. Truth Triumphant. Hartland Publications, Rapidan, VA, 1944, reprint 1997)

The fth century historian Eusebius wrote:

3 And Lucian, a presbyter of the parish at Antioch, and a most excellent man in every respect, temperate in life and famed for his learning in sacred things, was brought to the city of Nicomedia, where at that time the emperor happened to be staying, and after delivering before the ruler an apology for the doctrine which he professed, was committed to prison and put to death. 4 Such trials were brought upon us in a brief time by Maximus, the enemy of virtue ... (Eusebius. The History of the Church History, Book IX, Chapter V6, Verses 3,4. Translated by A. Cushman McGiffert. Digireads.com Publishing, Stilwell (KS), 2005, p. 205)

Lucian was a man with godly character and was educated in religious matters. He also gave his testimony before Emperor Maximus who had him killed. Probably, like Pionius of Smyrna who was killed by Roman authorities decades earlier, Lucian would have been offered the opportunity to eat unclean meat and not have to die. But, since the Romans killed him, we can probably safely assume that he did not eat unclean meat.

The Continuing Church of God has published some information on Lucian in three of its free e-books. Here is informaton found in Who Gave the World the Bible? The Canon: Why do we have the books we now do in the Bible? Is the Bible complete?:

Furthermore, it should also be pointed out that Lucian of Antioch (late 3rd and early 4th century) while opposing allegorical positions (such as held by Origen) tried to correct translation errors in the Septuagint by consulting with the Hebrew texts:

Lucian was a Hebrew scholar, and his version was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and in Asia Minor. (Duchesne L. Early History of the Christian Church: From Its Foundation to the End of the Third Century, Volume 1, 4th edition. Longmans, Green & Co., 1912, p. 362)

Lucian also rejected the Apocrypha (Wilkinson BG. Truth Triumphant, ca. 1890. Reprint: Teach Services, Brushton, NY, 1994, p. 51). Waldensian and pre-Waldensians later used information from Lucian (Wilkinson BG. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. 1930, reprint TEACH Services, 2014, pp. 31, 40). ...

It should be pointed out that Erasmus, who put together texts used by the translators of the King James version, was originally trained as a Roman Catholic priest and, although he had doctrinal differences with Rome, he remained a Roman Catholic all his life.

Erasmus rejected the manuscripts of Origen, as did Lucian. Lucian prevailed over Origen, especially in the East. “The Bibles produced by the Syrian scribes presented the Syrian text of the school of Antioch, and this text became the form which displaced all others in the Eastern churches and is, indeed, the Textus Receptus (Received Text) from which our Authorized Version is translated.” (Wilkinson, The Truth Triumphant)

Lucian emphasized the need for textual accuracy and sought to limit the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrian Christian tradition, which incorporated pagan philosophy. Lucian’s edition … became the basis of the textus receptus from which most of the Reformation era New Testament translations were made. (Lucian. New World Encyclopedia, 2018)

Notice also:

Westcott and Hort … believed that from the very beginning the Traditional (Byzantine) Text was an official text with official backing and that this was the reason why it overcame all rival texts and ultimately reigned supreme in the usage of the Greek Church. They regarded the Traditional Text as the product of a thorough-going revision of the New Testament text which took place at Antioch in two stages between 250 A.D. and 350 A.D. They believed that this text was the deliberate creation of certain scholarly Christians at Antioch and that the presbyter Lucian (d. 312) was probably the original leader in this work. (Hills EF. The King James Version Defended! 1956)

Lucian of Antioch’s textual work lies at the basis of the Textus Receptus (Westcott BF, Hort JA. The New Testament in the original Greek introduction and appendix [to] the text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Harper, 1882, p. 138). Some have dismissed Lucian’s involvement “because early Church Councils and Church Fathers are completely silent on the matter” and because there are papyri that pre-date Lucian (Gordon RL. A History of Biblical Transmission. Written April 1997, Updated September 2020). But Lucian did have involvement. Leaders with beliefs like Lucian’s did not attend the Greco-Roman councils (Bagatti, The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine, pp. 47-48) and were often condemned, not praised, by those councils (Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision, p.35). The fact of pre-Lucian documents, of course, does not mean that Lucian was not involved with the Bible, because he was.

The version associated with Lucian was essentially supreme in the East, whereas Rome preferred a Latin text (Westcott, pp. 138-143). “Receiving the literal sense alone he {Lucian} laid stress on the need of textual accuracy and himself undertook to revise the Septuagint on the original Hebrew. His edition was widely used in the fourth century (Jerome, De Vir. III. Lxxvii Praef. Ad Paralip.; Adv. Rufium xxvi, Epis., 106). “He also published a recession of the New Testament” (Healy, P. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910). “During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown outside of the Greek Church … It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian … Lucian’s unrivaled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting the divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful. … Lucian and his school produced and edited a definite and complete Bible” (Wilkinson, The Truth Triumphant, pp. 50,59).

The “chain of custody” of the received text reportedly passed through Lucian who was NOT Protestant.

In the early 19th century, it was reported:

Let us now take this circumstance into account, together with the critical reputation of Lucianus:  let us consider, that the place and period in which he made his revisal, was the region where the inspired writings were deposited, and within a short distance of the period when they were published:  … while the Byzantine text has confessedly retained its integrity for full eleven hundred {years}. We may thence form a just estimate of the conclusiveness of that evidence which still exists in attestation of the purity of the text of Lucianus. In fine, a very short process enables us to prove, that the tradition which supports the authority of this text, has continued unbroken since the age of the apostles. The coincidence of the Vulgar Greek of our present editions with the old Italick translation, enables us to carry up the tradition …  to the times of Lucianus, in whose age the Byzantine text equally constituted the Vulgate or common edition. (Nolan, pp. 125-126)

The Rome supporting Jerome was opposed to a lot of the theology that the school Lucian had founded taught (Westcott, p. 138). Yet, his contacts with Lucian’s works appear to be one of several reasons he rejected the Apocrypha (Wilkinson, The Truth Triumphant, p. 51). Being a semi-arian/binitarian (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, p. 7) and Sabbatarian (Wilkinson, The Truth Triumphant, pp. 55-57; cf. Newman, p. 9; Kohen E. History of the Byzantine Jews. University Press of America, 2007, p. 53), Lucian would have been neither a Roman Catholic nor Alexandrian Orthodox, but held to more Church of God doctrines.

Despite early Protestant scholars knowing about Lucian, beginning no later than the late 19th century, many Protestant scholars began to reject various of the Byzantine texts.

So, Lucian was one who was part of the true Church of God custodians that were involved in the chain of custody of the Bible.

Now, here is information found in Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?:

In the late 3rd through early 4th century, there was a church leader known as Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was not in communion with the succession of at least three Greco-Roman bishops of Antioch, had a school based on literal biblical interpretation, “savoured of Judaism,” and was “Semi-Arian” (binitarian) (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, pp. 5, 9, 277, 406). Lucian reportedly was a Sabbatarian (Wilkinson BG. The Truth Triumphant. TEACH Services, Reprint 1994, pp. 55-57; Kohen E. History of the Byzantine Jews. University Press of America, 2007, p. 53).

In a seemingly 4th century creed ascribed to him, Lucian (or perhaps penned by a disciple) used the term “Catholic Church of God” (Schaff P. The Creeds of Christendom: The Greek and Latin creeds, with translations, Volume II. Harper and Brothers, 1877, pp. 28-29). This would not seem to have been a reference to the Greco-Roman churches as Lucian opposed the Alexandrian school which they encouraged. Lucian looks to have been a Church of God leader.

Lucian’s Creed seems to be the oldest known document with the exact expression “Catholic Church of God.” Although as shown already, Ignatius implied that as he used both “church of God” and “catholic Church” expressions in his 2nd century Letter to the Smyrnaeans. ...

Perhaps it should be emphasized that the school in Antioch that Lucian ran was opposed to the allegorical and semi-Gnostic school of Alexandria. The schools were NOT in true communion with each other. ...

It should be clear that no later than the early 3rd century (but most likely by the mid-late 2nd century) those in Asia Minor and Antioch were not in communion with those of Rome, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Rome was also supportive of the ‘allegorical’ school of Alexandria that Origen was part of, but not of the ‘literal’ school that Lucian of Antioch was associated with in the 3rd century. Origen also supported infant baptism that was not supported by those of Asia Minor or Antioch. ...

Although there are contradictory reports about him and his theology (like him supposedly reconciling with the area’s Greco-Roman Bishop while still reportedly maintaining his binitarianism, Sabbath-keeping, biblical literalism, etc.), he looks to probably have been a COG leader. If so, Lucian may be one who held the succession mantle from about 275 through his martyrdom in 312. ...

Lucian himself, improves Greek Septuagint by using Hebrew Masoretic documents and also edits the ‘Traditional Text’ of the Greek New Testament. ...

It should be noted, however, that during the time of Asclepiades the Confessor we assert that there were Christian leaders in Antioch of Syria that did not follow him. We feel that later leaders that are NOT on the Orthodox succession lists, such as perhaps Lucian (270-312) who looked to have held COG doctrines, would have had God’s faithful succession—the succession we in the CCOG would consider as the standard. That position is consistent with the following:

Jewish Christianity ... up to the fourth century, the followers of Jesus who observed ritual practices of the Mosaic Law and preserved theological traditions of Judaic origin had notable communities in Syria – (Myllykoski M. James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship. Currents in Biblical Research, 2006, Vol. 5.1: 73-122)

Hence, we believe that there were ‘Judaic‘ Syrian Antiochians in our 3rd and 4th century succession lists (some whose names are known, with others unknown), which is consistent with some available historical claims. ...

Apostolic Succession List as put together by the Continuing Church of God

c. 31 - c. 64-68 Apostle Peter
c. 67 - c. 98-102 Apostle John
c. 100 - c. 157 Polycarp of Smyrna
c. 157 - c. 160 Thraseas of Smyrna
c. 160 - c. 167 Sagaris of Laodicea
c. 167 - c. 170 Papirius of Smyrna
c. 170 - c. 180 Melito of Sardis
c. 180 - c. 200 Polycrates of Ephesus
c. 200 - c. 220 Camerius of Smyrna
c. 220 - c. 254 Nepos of Arsinoe
c. 254 - c. 275 Unnamed Antiochian(s) or possibly Dorotheus
c. 275 - 312 Lucian of Antioch ...

In the 3rd and 4th centuries, Lucian of Antioch was also known to be binitarian (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 277, 406). ...

Notice this condemnation by a Roman Catholic Cardinal for holding the original view of the Godhead:

Lucian, who schismatized or was excommunicated on his deposition, held heretical tenets of a diametrically opposite nature, that is, such as were afterwards called Semi-Arian . . . I would rather direct the reader’s attention to the particular form which the Antiochene corruptions seem to have assumed, viz., that of Judaism . . . (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 7,9).

This is showing that there were people in the Antioch area in the 3rd and 4th centuries that held to some form of Judeao-Christianity, as well to binitarianism, in the late 3rd entury according to Catholic sources, who were not part of the group in communion with Rome and Alexandria.

Here is something from a later book put out by the Continuing Church of God titled Mysteries of God: What is God?:

The following is claimed to be the Creed of Lucian of Antioch (it surfaced a couple of decades after he was martyred)—if Lucian was the actual writer, it may be the oldest written creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty; And in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son, who was begotten of him before all ages, the Divine Logos, through whom all things were made, both those in the heavens and those on the earth; who came down and was made flesh; and suffered; and rose again; and ascended to the heavens; and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; and in the resurrection of the flesh; and in the life of the world to come; and in a kingdom of heaven; and in one Catholic Church of God which extends to the ends of the earth. (Schaff P. The Creeds of Christendom: The Greek and Latin creeds, with translations, Volume II. Harper and Brothers, 1877, pp. 28-29)

Note: While Jesus was not physically begotten until about nine months before His human birth, the plan for His birth existed before the ages of the earth began (cf. Revelation 13:8). Note also that the original Greek text, καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, does not separately capitalize ‘Catholic Church.’

Yet it is interesting that what may be the oldest ‘creed’ refers to the catholic church of God as well as teaches that Jesus was made flesh.

Lucian of Antioch was not in communion with the Greco-Roman bishops of Antioch nor those of Alexandria, and yet he is considered a saint by the Greco-Romans. Although there are contradictory reports about him and his theology (like him supposedly reconciling with the area’s Greco-Roman Bishop while still reportedly maintaining his binitarianism, Sabbath-keeping, biblical literalism, etc.), he held COG doctrines. Lucian looks to be the one who held the church leadership succession mantle from about 275 through his martyrdom in 312. ...

[T]here were people in the Antioch area in the 3rd and 4th centuries that held to some form of Judeao-Christianity, as well to binitarianism. And who, according to Roman Catholic sources, were not part of the group in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Furthermore, in 321 A.D. Lucian was listed as an apostate by Alexander of Alexandria (Encyclical Letter of Alexander, Archbishop of Alexandria, upon his Deposition and Excommunication of Arius, 321). Hence, Lucian was not considered to have reconciled with the Greco-Roman confederation before his death—though he is claimed to be a saint by the modern Greco-Roman Catholic churches.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Lucian of Antioch … Though he cannot be accused of having shared the theological views of Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion at the time of Paul’s condemnation, and was compelled to sever his communion with the Church …  The opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him. He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation … (Healy PJ. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia)

Yes, those who literally believed scripture were condemned by the allegorists. Lucian was probably considered to be a type of ‘Paulician,’ which is a name the Greco-Romans assigned to people with beliefs like his. ...

Here is a list of early binitarians and trinitarians with their respective centuries:

Binitarians                                                  Trinitarians
Ignatius 1st/2nd                                            Valentinus 2nd                
Polycarp 1st/2nd                                           Montanus 2nd   
Justin Martyr 2nd                                        Tertullian 2nd/3rd
Athenagoras 2nd
Melito 2nd                                                                
Theophilus 2nd
Irenaeus 2nd
Hippolytus 3rd
Lucian 3rd/4th
Eusebius 4th

Everyone in that binitarian list is considered to be a saint by at least some of the Greco-Roman Catholics, whereas those listed as trinitarians are ALL considered to be heretics/apostates by the Greco-Roman Catholics. This should help show all willing to believe the truth that early professor of Jesus were binitarian, not trinitarian. ...

5. Council of Tarsus (358 or later)

• Supported the Semi-Arian position with a creed about the same as the Council of Anycyra. It declared that the Lucian creed should be the guide (Sozomen. Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 11) ...

The two earliest know creeds (the Old Roman Form and Creed of Lucian) were not trinitarian. ...

In the late 3rd through early 4th century, there was a church leader known as Lucian of Antioch. Lucian was not in communion with the succession of at least three Greco-Roman bishops of Antioch, had a school based on literal biblical interpretation, “savoured of Judaism,” and was “Semi-Arian” (binitarian) (Newman JH, Cardinal. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, pp. 5, 9, 277, 406). Lucian reportedly was a Sabbatarian (Wilkinson BG. The Truth Triumphant. 1944. TEACH Services, Reprint 1994, pp. 55-57; Kohen E. History of the Byzantine Jews. University Press of America, 2007, p. 53).

In a seemingly 4th century creed ascribed to him, Lucian (or perhaps penned by a disciple) used the term “Catholic Church of God” (Schaff P. The Creeds of Christendom: The Greek and Latin creeds, with translations, Volume II. Harper and Brothers, 1877, pp. 28-29). This would not seem to have been a reference to the Greco-Roman churches as Lucian opposed the Alexandrian school which they encouraged. Lucian looks to have been a Church of God leader.

Lucian’s Creed seems to be the oldest known document with the exact expression “Catholic Church of God.” Although as shown already, Ignatius implied that as he used both “church of God” and “catholic Church” expressions in his 2nd century Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

Paulicians?

On February 27, 380, Roman Emperor Theodosius decreed only those who accepted his trinitarian creed could call themselves “Catholic Christians.”
However, some of those who disagreed with Theodosius still used it after Theodosius’ decree. Fred Conybeare reported that in the Middle Ages the Paulicians of Armenia continued to state,

“They were the ‘holy, universal, and apostolic Church,’ founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles” (Conybeare, p. xxxiii). Those called Paulicians opposed Sunday observance and the Greco-Roman festivals, while apparently observing the seventh-day Sabbath (Ibid, pp. clii, cxciii).

Also, notice this about them:

They called themselves the Apostolic Catholic church, but …  nicknamed Paulicians by their enemies … (Paulicians. The Encyclopaedia Britannica: Mun to Pay. 1911, p. 961; Blackwell D. A HANDBOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY: A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology. April 1973, p.29)

In Kurtz’s Church History, article Nostic and Manichean Heretics:

The Catholics, this sect called Romans, gave them the name Paulicians. (Blackwell, p. 48)

The Paulicians claimed to be THE “holy universal and apostolic church” founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles. Of the false churches, they would say: “We do not belong to these, for they have long ago broken connection with the church.” (Lesson 50 - I Will Build My Church, Part 2. 58 Lesson: Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course, 1965)

So, while the biblical name of the true church was Church of God, the term catholic was also associated with the faithful as well as others who adopted that name.

More on Lucian and Lucianists

When I original wrote the book, Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church: Could a remnant group have continuing apostolic succession?, I pointed to Lucian as someone who may have been a Church of God leader and may have had apostolic succession.

In 2025, however, I became more assured that he was a Church of God and was a logical one to consider as a successor.

For one point, it was reported that some associated with the School of Antioch, which Lucian may have founded, was "Universalistic" (Hansen JW. Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years: With Authorities and Extracts. Universalist Publishing House, 1899, p. 198) and followed after Theophilus of Antioch (ibid, p. 191), meaning that it taught a version of apocatastasis (see also Universal OFFER of Salvation, Apokatastasis: Can God save the lost in an age to come? Hundreds of scriptures reveal God’s plan of salvation) and it is specifically asserted "the school of Antioch ... maintained the doctrine of restoration" (ibid, p. 199).

I noticed the word Talucian when re-read something from from Rankin's History of France:

Their enemies confirmed their great antiquity. Rinerius Sacko, an inquisitor and one of their implacable enemies who lived only 80 years after Waldo, admits that the Waldenses flourished 500 years before that preacher. In 600 A.D., Gretzer, the Jesuit who also wrote against the Waldenses and had examined the subject fully, not only admits their great antiquity, but declares his firm belief that the Talucians and Albigenses were none other than the Waldenses. ...

In fact, their doctrine, discipline, government, manners and even the errors with which they have been charged by the Catholics showed that the Albigenses and the Waldenses were distinguished branches of the same sect or that the former, the Albigenses, sprang from the latter, the Waldenses. As cited in Blackwell D. A HANDBOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY. A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology, April 1973, p. 136)

I did more research and found that "Talucian" meant "to Lucian," so wondered if there could have been a connection to Lucian of Antioch. After doing more research, I found the following:

There was another sect of Lucianists, who appeared some time after the Arians. They taught, that the Father had been a Father always, and that he had the name even before he begot the Son, as having in him the power and faculty of generation; and in this manner they accounted for the eternity of the Son. (Lucianists. Charles Buck Theological Dictionary. J. Johnson, 1802)

So, there was a semi-arian/binitarian group that was called Lucianists. Hence "Talucian" is consistent with possible affiliation.

And if the Talucians did lay the foundations for the faithful among the Albigenses and the Waldenses, they would seem to have been Church of God.

However, there is another complication. Talucian might be a rewording of Toulousian. Toulouse was a town in France (now a major city) that Peter Waldo preached at and gained converts. However, if the Talucians/Toulousians reportedly preceded Peter Waldo, then the tie to Lucian seems more probable.

The late WCG evangelist reported that:

Lucianus martyred at Antioch (Blackwell D. A HANDBOOK OF CHURCH HISTORY. A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology, April 1973, p. 224)

And, yes, Lucian of Antioch was martryed.

So, between that and other sources, this tends to put Lucian in the "Church of God" camp and successor list.

In Conclusion

Lucian had to deal with the allegorical scholars of his day.

He and his school stood opposed to them.

Lucian stood for believing and teaching the actual word of God.

His non-trinitarian creed proclaimed the catholic Church of God.

Lucian stood for the original view of the Godhead and looks to have kept the seventh-day Sabbath. Since he reportedly had Judeo-practices, it can be safely assumed he did not eat biblically unclean meat.

Because of those differences, he could not have been in communion with the Greco-Roman churches, which helps explain why the Alexandrian Archbishop Alexander denounced him as apostate. Yet, the Greco-Roman Catholics now claim him as one of their saints.

Lucian was martyred by the Roman Emperor Maximus in 312.

Decades AFTER his martyrdom, let me add that the trinitarian Emperor Theodosius declared that the Paulicians and others who did not accept his trinitarian decree could no longer use the term "catholic"

Lucian, though a well known Church of God leader, faced tests and challenges.

Jesus prophesied the following:

21 "Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." (Matthew 10:21-22)

While we do not know who betrayed him, Lucian endured to the end.

So, we know that Lucian would be saved.

If you, too are a true Church of God Christian, and you endure to the end, you will be able to meet Lucian after the second resurrection.

Back to Early Christianity page

Back to COGwriter home page

Thiel B. Lucian of Antioch. COGwriter (c) 2025 https://www.cogwriter.com/lucian.htm