The Council of Chalcedon
A.D. 451
A Condemnation of the Council of Ephesus
and the Monk Eutyches
&
The Passing of the Twenty-Eighth Canon
Donna Morley
Catholic monk Eutyches, who was in charge of a monastery near Constantinople,
caused a lot of commotion within the Catholic church when he proclaimed that
Christ did not have two natures--human and divine. Rather, Christ was divine only.
Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople, called a local synod which condemned
this “Monophysite” heresy, and excommunicated Eutyches from the church.
Eutyches was furious and maintained his views. He was not alone in his thinking
either. The majority of Catholics (including the monks) in Syria and Egypt refused
to accept the doctrines of two natures of Christ. With much support behind him
Eutyches appealed to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome. And, because during
this time religion was subordinate to politics, the Emperor Theodosius got involved.
The Emperor called together a council, which became known as the Council at
Ephesus (A.D. 449).
The Council at Ephesus pronounced anathemas against anyone who would dare
say that Christ had two natures. Leo I, bishop of Rome had not attended this
council, but gave the council a copy of his letter that he wrote to Flavian. The
letter supported Flavian’s position and opposed Eutyches’ views. This letter is
called Leo’s Tome.
Unfortunately, Leo’s letter fell on deaf ears. At the Council of Ephesus, Euthyches
was exonerated while Flavian was assailed. He was accused of being a heretic, and
later, assaulted because of his “heresy.” Shortly thereafter, Flavian died from the
assault.
When the Council of Ephesus ended, Leo’s delegates returned to him with a report
on what happened. Leo was shocked to hear that the bishops hd voted for a one-nature Christ. He was also deeply troubled that his dear friend Flavian was accused
of heresy and killed. Upset beyond words, Leo branded the council as the “Robber
Synod,” and refused to recognize its decrees.
Because of the ill feelings that now existed, Emperor Marcian stepped in. He
suggested that a new council get together to once again address the nature of
Christ. Leo didn’t want it and implored Marcian not to put the council together.
Leo reasoned that another open debate would cause people to leave the church.
Marcian insisted that a council come together, and so it did. He originally planned
for the council to meet at Nicaea, but later changed it to Chalcedon so that it could
be closer to him and to Constantinople. The emperor made himself the honorary
president of the council. One hundred and fifty bishops from all over attended the
conference. Although Leo was not present, he did have representatives attend
the conference for him. They were Bishops Paschasinus, Lucentius and Julian of
Cos; and priests Boniface and Basil.
On October 8, 451 the Council of Chalcedon met and acknowledged the nature of
Christ being both human and divine. This decision indirectly condemned the Council
of Ephesus and Eutyches as well. Flavian, although dead, was vindicated. But the
council was not entirely in Leo’s favor. He refused to accept its twenty-eighth
cannon, which denied him the supremacy of his office (read the excursus on the
Later History of Canon XXVIII).
Leo had fought hard for supremacy. For this reason, he wanted to become a pope
have have greater authority and power over all the bishops in Constantinople and
that of Rome. As well, that he would have greater authority and power over the
people in the church. Leo’s idea of a sort of papacy, was referred to as his “Petrine
Theory.” The theory was that Peter was the first Pope of Rome and that his
authority over all Christians was handed down to Peter’s successors at Rome.
The church in the East (Constantinople) refused to believe Leo’s theory and insisted
on the equality of all the bishops. For this reason, the twenty-eighth cannon was
written. But the canon became irrelevant when later Gregory I upheld Leo’s theory
and became the first pope.
Below is the original letter from Leo to Flavian (Leo’s Tome); the council’s definition
of the faith; and the twenty-eighth canon (there were a total of thirty canons).
Leo’s Letter to Flavian
Leo [the bishop] to his [most] dear brother Flavian.
Having read your Affection's letter, the late arrival of which is matter of surprise to
us, and having gone through the record of the proceedings of the bishops, we have
now, at last, gained a clear view of the scandal which has risen up among you,
against the integrity of the faith; and what at first seemed obscure has now been
elucidated and explained.
By this means Eutyches, who seemed to be deserving of honour under the title of
Presbyter, is now shown to be exceedingly thoughtless and sadly inexperienced, so
that to him also we may apply the prophet's words, "He refused to understand in
order to act well: he meditated unrighteousness on his bed." What, indeed, is more
unrighteous than to entertain ungodly thoughts, and not to yield to persons wiser
and more learned? But into this folly do they fall who, when hindered by some
obscurity from apprehending the truth, have recourse, not to the words of the
Prophets, not to the letters of the Apostles, nor to the authority of the Gospels,
but to themselves; and become teachers of error, just because they have not
been disciples of the truth. For what learning has he received from the sacred
pages of the New and the Old Testament, who does not so much as understand
the very beginning of the Creed? And that which, all the world over, is uttered by
the voices of all applicants for regeneration, is still not grasped by the mind of this
aged man. If, then, he knew not what he ought to think about the Incarnation of
the Word of God, and was not willing, for the sake of obtaining the light of
intelligence, to make laborious search through the whole extent of the Holy
Scriptures, he should at least have received with heedful attention that general
Confession common to all, whereby the whole body of the faithful profess that
they "believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ Iris only Son our Lord,
who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary." By which three clauses the
engines of almost all heretics are shattered.
For when God is believed to be both "Almighty" and "Father," it is proved that the
Son is everlasting together with himself, differing in nothing from the Father,
because he was born as "God from God," Almighty from Almighty, Coeternal from
Eternal; not later in time, not inferior in power, not unlike him in glory, not divided
from him in essence, but the same Only-begotten and Everlasting Son of an
Everlasting Parent was" born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary." This birth in
time in no way detracted from, in no way added to, that divine and everlasting
birth; but expended itself wholly in the work of restoring man, who had been
deceived; so that it might both overcome death, and by its power "destroy the
devil who had the power of death."
For we could not have overcome the author of sin and of death, unless he who
could neither be contaminated by sin, nor detained by death, had taken upon
himself our nature, and made it his own. For, in fact, he was "conceived of the Holy
Ghost" within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore him as she had conceived
him, without loss of virginity. (2) But if he (Eutyches) was not able to obtain a true
conception from this pure fountain of Christian faith because by his own blindness
he had darkened for himself the brightness of a truth so clear, he should have
submitted himself to the Evangelist's teaching; and after reading what Matthew
says, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of
Abraham," he should also have sought instruction from the Apostle's preaching;
and after reading in the Epistle to the Romans, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
called an Apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had promised before
by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made unto
him of the seed of David according to the flesh," he should have bestowed some
devout study on the pages of the Prophets; and finding that God's promise said to
Abraham, "in thy seed shall all nations be blessed," in order to avoid all doubt as to
the proper meaning of this "seed," he should have at-tended to the Apostle's
words, "To Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith not, 'and
to seeds,' as in the case of many, but as in the case of one, 'and to thy seed,'
which is Christ." He should also have apprehended with his inward ear the
declaration of Isaiah, "Behold, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall
call his name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us;" and should have
read with faith the words of the same prophet, "Unto us a Child has been born,
unto us a Son has been given, whose power is on his shoulder; and they shall call
his name Angel of great counsel, Wonderful, Counsellor, Strong God, Prince of
Peace, Father of the age to come."
And he should not have spoken idly to the effect that the Word was in such a
sense made flesh, that the Christ who was brought forth from the Virgin's womb
had the form of a man, and had not a body really derived from his Mother's body.
Possibly his reason for thinking that our Lord Jesus Christ was not of our nature
was this--that the Angel who was sent to the blessed and ever Virgin Mary said,
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of rite Highest shall
overshadow thee, and therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God;" as if, because the Virgin's conception was caused
by a divine act, therefore the flesh of him whom she conceived was not of the
nature of her who conceived him. But we are not to understand that "generation,"
peerlessly wonderful, and wonderfully peerless, in such a sense as that the
newness of the mode of production did away with the proper character of the kind.
For it was the Holy Ghost who gave fecundity to the Virgin, but it was from a body
that a real body was derived; and "when Wisdom was building herself a house," the
"Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,that is, in that flesh which he assumed
from a human being, and which he animated with the spirit of rational life.
Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved,
and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by
power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay the debt of our condition, the
inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for
our ills, one and the same "Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus,"
might from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable.
Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole
in what was his, whole in what was ours. By "ours" we mean what the Creator
formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that
which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a
trace in the Saviour; and the fact that he took on himself a share in our infirmities
did not make him a par-taker in our transgressions. He assumed "the form of a
servant" without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing
what was divine: because that "emptying of himself," whereby the Invisible made
himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among
mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power.
Accordingly, the same who, remaining in the form of God, made man, was made
man in the form of a servant. For each of the natures retains its proper character
without defect; and as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant,
so the form of a servant does not impair the form of God. For since the devil was
glorying in the fact that man, deceived by his craft, was bereft of divine gifts and,
being stripped of his endowment of immortality, had come under the grievous
sentence of death, and that he himself, amid 'his miseries, had found a sort of
consolation in having a transgressor as his companion, and that God, according to
the requirements of the principle of justice, had changed his own resolution in
regard to man, whom he had created in so high a position of honour; there was
need of a dispensation of secret counsel, in order that the unchangeable God,
whose will could not be deprived of its own benignity, should fulfil by a more secret
mystery his original plan of loving kindness toward us, and that man, who had
been led into fault by the wicked subtlety of the devil, should not perish contrary to
God's purpose. Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from his seat in heaven,
and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after
a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because he who in his
own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in
space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, he began to exist in
time; the Lord of the universe allowed his infinite majesty to be overshadowed,
and took upon him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be
passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death. And born
by a new mode of birth; because inviolate virginity, while ignorant of
concupiscence, supplied the matter of his flesh. What was assumed from the Lord's
mother was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our
Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin's womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours.
For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this
union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For
as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed
by the dignity [bestowed]. For each "form" does the acts which belong to it, in
communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the
Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines
out in miracles, the other succumbs' to injuries. And as the Word does not
withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the
nature of our kind. For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly
Son of God, and truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as "in the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Man, inasmuch as
"the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." God, inasmuch as "all things
were made by him, and without him nothing was made." Man, inasmuch as he was
"made of a woman, made under the law." The nativity of the flesh is a
manifestation of human nature; the Virgin's child-bearing is an indication of Divine
power. The infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes:
the greatness of the Highest is declared by the voices of angels. He whom Herod
impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but he whom the Magi
rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all. Now when he came to the baptism of
John his forerunner, lest the fact that the Godhead was covered with a veil of flesh
should be concealed, the voice of the Father spake in thunder from heaven, "This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Accordingly, he who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to
whom, as God, angels pay duteous service. To hunger, to thirst, to be weary, and
to sleep, is evidently human. But to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and
give to the Samaritan woman that living water, to draw which can secure him that
drinks of it from ever thirsting again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet
that sink not, and by rebuking the storm to bring down the "uplifted waves," is
unquestionably Divine. As then--to pass by many points --it does not belong to the
same nature to weep with feelings of pity over a dead friend and, after the mass of
stone had been removed from the grave where he had lain four days, by a voice of
command to raise him up to life again; or to hang on the wood, and to make all
the elements tremble after daylight had been turned into night; or to be transfixed
with nails, and to open the gates of paradise to the faith of the robber; so it does
not belong to the same nature to say, "I and the Father are one," and to say, "the
Father is greater than I."
For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that
whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches
to both is another; for from what belongs to us he has that manhood which is
inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father.
Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as
existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that "the Son of Man came
down from heaven," inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of
whom he was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been
crucified and buried, inasmuch as he underwent this, not in his actual Godhead;
wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in
the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that"
the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried," according to that saying
of the Apostle, "for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of
Majesty."
But when our Lord and Saviour himself was by his questions instructing the faith of
the disciples, he said, "Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?" And when
they had mentioned various opinions held by others, he said, "But whom say ye
that I am?" that is, "I who am Son of Man, and whom you see in the form of a
servant, and in reality of flesh, whom say ye that I am?" Whereupon the blessed
Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Not undeservedly, therefore, was
he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity
which belonged both to his virtue and to his name, who through revelation from
the Father confessed the selfsame to be both the Son of God and the Christ;
because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not profit unto
salvation, and it was equally dangerous to believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be
merely God and not man, or merely man and not God. But after the resurrection
of the Lord--which was in truth the resurrection of a real body, for no other person
was raised again than he who had been crucified and had died--what else was
accomplished during that interval of forty days than to make our faith entire and
clear of all darkness ? For while he conversed with his disciples, and dwelt with
them, and ate with them, and allowed himself to be handled with careful and
inquisitive touch by those who were under the influence of doubt, for this end he
came in to the disciples when the doors were shut, and by his breath gave them
the Holy Ghost, and opened the secrets of Holy Scripture after bestowing on them
the light of intelligence, and again in his selfsame person showed to them the
wound in the side, the prints of the nails, and all the flesh tokens of the Passion,
saying, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see, for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have:" that the properties of the
Divine and the human nature might be acknowledged to remain in him without
causing a division, and that we might in such sort know that the Word is not what
the flesh is, as to confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh. On
which mystery of the faith this Eutyches must be regarded as unhappily having no
hold, who does not recognise our nature to exist in the Only-begotten Son of God,
either by way of the lowliness of mortality, or of the glory of resurrection. Nor has
he been overawed by the declaration of the blessed Apostle and Evangelist John,
saying, "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of
God; and every spirit which dissolveth Jesus is not of God, and this is Antichrist."
Now what is to dissolve Jesus, but to separate the human nature from him, and to
make void by shameless inventions that mystery by which alone we have been
saved? Moreover, being in the dark as to the nature of Christ's body, he must
needs be involved in the like senseless blindness with regard to his Passion also.
For if he does not think the Lord's crucifixion to be unreal, and does not doubt that
he really accepted suffering, even unto death, for the sake of the world's salvation;
as he believes in his death, let him acknowledge his flesh also, and not doubt that
he whom he recognises as having been capable of suffering is also Man with a body
like ours; since to deny his true flesh is also to deny Iris bodily sufferings. If then he
accepts the Christian faith, and does not turn away his ear from the preaching of
the Gospel, let him see what nature it was that was transfixed with nails and hung
on the wood of the cross; and let him understand whence it was that, after the
side of the Crucified had been pierced by the soldier's spear, blood and water
flowed out, that the Church of God might be refreshed both with a Laver and with
a Cup. Let him listen also to the blessed Apostle Peter when he declares, that
"sanctification by the Spirit" takes place through the "sprinkling of the blood of
Christ," and let him not give a mere cursory reading to the words of the same
Apostle, "Knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and
gold, from your vain way of life received by tradition from your fathers, but with
the precious blood of Jesus Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot."
Let him also not resist the testimony of Blessed John the Apostle, "And the blood
of Jesus the Son of God cleanseth us from all sin." And again, "This is the victory
which overcometh the world, even our faith;" and, "who is he that overcometh the
world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by
water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not in water only, but in water and blood; and
it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three
that bear witness--the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are one."
That is, the Spirit of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of
baptism; which three things are one, and remain undivided, and not one of them is
disjoined from connection with the others; because the Catholic Church lives and
advances by this faith, that Christ Jesus we should believe neither manhood to
exist without true Godhead, nor Godhead without true manhood. But when
Eutyches, on being questioned in your examination of him, answered, "I confess
that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess
one nature;" I am astonished that so absurd and perverse a profession as this of
his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an
utterance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over, just as
if nothing had been heard which could give offence: seeing that it is as impious to
say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation
as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him
one nature only.
But lest Eutyches should think that what he said was correct, or was tolerable,
because it was not confuted by any assertion of yours, we exhort your earnest
solicitude, dearly beloved brother, to see that, if by God's merciful inspiration the
case is brought to a satisfactory issue, the inconsiderate and inexperienced man be
cleansed also from this pestilent notion of his; seeing that, as the record of the
proceedings has clearly shown, he had fairly begun to abandon his own opinion
when on being driven into a corner by authoritative words of yours, he professed
himself I ready to say what he had not said before, and to give his adhesion to that
faith from which he had previously stood aloof. But when he would not consent to
anathematize the impious dogma you understood, brother, that he continued in his
own misbelief, and deserved to receive sentence of condemnation. For which if he
grieves sincerely and to good purpose, and understands, even though too late,
how properly the Episcopal authority has been put in motion, or if, in order to
make full satisfaction, he shall condemn viva voce, and under his own hand, all that
he has held amiss, no compassion, to whatever extent, which can be shown him
when he has been set right, will be worthy of blame, for our Lord, the true and
good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep, and who came to save men's
souls and not to destroy them, wills us to imitate his own loving kindness; so that
justice should indeed constrain those who sin, but mercy should not reject those
who are converted. For then indeed is the true faith defended with the best results,
when a false opinion is condemned even by those who have followed it. But in
order that the whole matter may be piously and faithfully carried out, we have
appointed our brethren, Julius, Bishop, and Reatus, Presbyter (of the title of St.
Clement) and also my son Hilarus, Deacon, to represent us; and with them we
have associated Dulcitius, our Notary, of whose fidelity we have had good proof:
trusting that the Divine assistance will be with you, so that he who has gone astray
may be saved by condemning his own unsound opinion. May God keep you in
good health, dearly beloved brother. Given on the Ides of June, in the Consulate of
the illustrious men, Asterius and Protogenes.
The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon
The holy, great, and ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God and the
command of our most religious and Christian Emperors, Marcian and Valentinan,
Augusti, at Chalcedon, the metropolis of the Bithynian Province, in the martyry of
the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, has decreed as follows:
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when strengthening the knowledge of the Faith
in his disciples, to the end that no one might disagree with his neighbour concerning
the doctrines of religion, and that the proclamation of the truth might be set forth
equally to all men, said, "My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
But, since the evil one does not desist from sowing tares among the seeds of
godliness, but ever invents some new device against the truth; therefore the Lord,
providing, as he ever does, for the human race, has raised up this pious, faithful,
and zealous Sovereign, and has called together unto him from all parts the chief
rulers of the priesthood; so that, the grace of Christ our common Lord inspiring us,
we may cast off every plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ, and feed
them with the tender leaves of truth. And this have we done with one unanimous
consent, driving away erroneous doctrines and renewing the unerring faith of the
Fathers, publishing to all men the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen, and to
their number adding, as their peers, the Fathers who have received the same
summary of religion. Such are the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who
afterwards assembled in the great Constantinople and ratified the same faith.
Moreover, observing the order and every form relating to the faith, which was
observed by the holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome
and Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders, we do declare that the
exposition of the right and blameless faith made by the Three Hundred and
Eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, assembled at Nice in the reign of Constantine of
pious memory, shall be pre-eminent: and that those things shall be of force also,
Canon XXVIII
FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the
canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in
the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and
decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of
Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to
the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and
Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal
privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that
the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal
privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be
magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and
the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the
Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the
aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every
metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province,
ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons;
but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses
should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections
have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.
Bibliography
The Tome of St. Leo. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 343; also Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom.
LIV. [Leo. M. Opera, Tom. I.] col. 756.) Translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
ed. Norman P. Tanner
The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 562.)
Translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner
Cannons. (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia. Translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,
ed. Norman P. Tanner.
Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert. A History of Christian Doctrine. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978).
Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization: The Age of Faith, vol. 4. (New York: Simon and Shuster,
1950).
Milman, Henry Hart. History of Latin Christianity, 9 vols. (London: John Murray, 1872), 1:112.
Sihler, E.G. From Augustus to Augustine: Essays and Studies Dealing with the Contact and Conflict of
Classic Paganism and Christianity (Cambridge, 1923), 217.
Civilization Past & Present, 5th ed. (Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1981).
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 6. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1956).
Copyright © 2003 by Donna Morley
