A Brief Paper Regarding The Papacy In Light Of The Early Church Fathers

THE PAPACY IN LIGHT OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

THE ORIGINS

    In this paper I plan to examine the historical development of the Papacy but also to challenge its foundations according to the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. In the classic, Reformation tradition, I subscribe to the teaching that the Pope is, “. . . the man of lawlessness . . . the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”[1]

    The 1^st so-called foundational proof for the Papacy usually given is Matthew 16:18-19:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. ^[2]

    The problem is that the key words ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ do not agree in case, declension or gender in the original Greek text:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς· ^[3]

    Peter = Πέτρος, is a 2^nd declension, nominative, masculine, singular noun. Pέτρᾳ, by contrast is a 1^st declension, dative, singular feminine noun.[4] You have to jump ahead about two centuries after Christ in the Church Fathers to the time of Tertullian (160-225 A.D.) before Matthew 16:18 becomes the basis for Petrine doctrine:

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”^[5]

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,” “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church;” and, “I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth.^[6]

    At the same approximate time in history there is some commentary on this passage by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.) but it is used to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit, not the basis for the Papacy:

This is the Spirit that at the beginning “moved upon the face of the waters;” by whom the world moves; by whom creation consists, and all things have life; who also wrought mightily in the prophets, (Acts 28:25) and descended in flight upon Christ. This is the Spirit that was given to the apostles in the form of fiery tongues (Matt. 3:16). This is the Spirit that David sought when he said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Of this Spirit Gabriel also spoke to the Virgin, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”(Luke 1:35) By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished (Matt. 16:18). This is the Spirit, the Comforter, that is sent because of thee (John 16:26), that He may show thee to be the Son (τέκνον) of God.^[7]

    Cyprian of Carthage (Early 3^rd Century- 258 A.D.) had a different take of Matthew 16:18 as well:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”(Matt. 16:18, 19) Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.^[8] - Emphasis mine.

    So Cyprian viewed the Bishops as the plural rulers of the Church, not Peter as the singular head of all Christendom. Cyprian underlines his doctrine of a Church lead by an egalitarian school of bishops in De unit. eccl. = On The Unity Of The Church:

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”⁴ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”⁶ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.^[9] – Emphasis mine.

    So by the time of the Third Century A.D., there were at least two, possibly three opinions on the meaning of Matthew 16:18ff in the Church. I next investigated the various titles of the Papacy such as the ‘Vicar of Christ’. What In found in the Fathers was little:

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ (John 14:26), and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth (John 15:26); grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,^§ neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? ^[10]

    One passing mention by Tertullian – that’s it until you get to the last volume where it is brought up as an item of controversy between the churches of the East and the West:

Canon XXXIX

Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.^[11]

    It is worth noting that the translator comments, “I have translated the whole canon literally; the reader will judge of its antiquity.”^[12]Apparently, he didn’t trust the authenticity of the quote and in the Elucidations section following his work on Cyprian, he also wonders how much that is in the text regarding the authority of the Pope has been interpolated or “forced” into the text we now have:

How differently our Lord must have settled this inquiry had He given the supremacy to one of the Apostles, or had He designed the supremacy of any single pastor to be perpetual in His Church! “Who should be greatest?” ask this question of any Romanist theologian, and he answers, in the words of the Creed of Plus IV., “the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ.” But why was no such answer given by our Lord? And why does St. Peter know nothing of it when he says, “The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an eider … feed the flock of God, taking the oversight … not as being lords over God’s heritage,” etc. So also in the Council of Jerusalem, how humbly he sits under the presidency of James, and again how cheerfully he permits the apostles to send him forth, and “give him mission” to Samaria!² St. Paul, moreover, who was “not a whit behind the chiefest of the Apostles,” overrules him, and reforms his judgment.⁴

If I have forborne in these notes to refer frequently to the Treatise of Bishop Sage, who often elucidates our author in a very learned manner, it is because he is almost wholly a controvertist, and therefore not to my purpose in this work. For his Cyprian, however, I entertain a sincere respect; and, as it might seem otherwise should I omit all reference to that work, I place its title in the footnote. Profoundly do I feel what another Scottish Doctor⁶ has beautifully said, “It is a loss, even to those that oppose errors and divisions, that they are forced to be busied that way.”^[13]

    This got me intrigued about some of the other titles like Pontifex Maximus, the material just got worse. The 1^st reference to the title is in regards to the old Roman pagan religion and its priestly class:

To idols, at all events, both monogamy and widowhood serve as apparitors. On Fortuna Muliebris, as on Mother Matuta, none but a once wedded woman hangs the wreath. Once for all do the Pontifex Maximus and the wife of a Flamen marry. The priestesses of Ceres, even during the lifetime and with the consent of their husbands, are widowed by amicable separation.^[14]

    There is a rich irony in the fact that Rome would have us believe that Tertullian gives us support for the Petrine doctrine they find in Matthew 16:18ff but Tertullian was critical of the idolatrous Pontifex Maximus of his time! Tertullian (in another work of his) also goes after the ‘Christian’ Pontifex Maximus:

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops§—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. ^[15]

    Where someone came down on these issues (at least you would think) may have been colored by where they came down on controversies facing the Church – but that doesn’t seem to be a completely reliable indicator. Cyprian was part of the accepted Catholic Church and his view was that Bishops were equals (see above page 3). The strongest statement supporting the authority of the Papacy was by Tertullian (a Montanist, never canonized as a ‘Saint’ by Rome[16]). The writings of Cyprian do seem to leave the impression that the Novatianists valued the office of the Papacy though:

To these also it was not sufficient that they had withdrawn from the Gospel, that they had taken away from the lapsed the hope of satisfaction and repentance, that they had taken away those involved in frauds or stained with adulteries, or polluted with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, lest they should entreat God, or make confession of their crimes in the Church, from all feeling and fruit of repentance; that they had set up outside for themselves—outside the Church, and opposed to the Church, a conventicle of their abandoned faction, when there had flowed together a band of creatures with evil consciences, and unwilling to entreat and to satisfy God. After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; § and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.^[17] – Emphasis mine.

    At the time Cyprian was being elected as the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, he was opposed by Fortunatus, a Presbyter of Carthage who was of the Novatianist party and who supported a rival candidate named Felicissimus.[18]

    I think it is here worthwhile to make a brief excursus and bring to mind the warnings regarding the Anti-Christ in Scripture:

1)    ³⁶ “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. ³⁷ He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.^[19] – Emphasis mine.

2)     ²⁰ If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— ²¹ “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” ²² (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? ²³ These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. ^[20] – Emphasis mine.

3)     ¹Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, ² through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, ³ who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.^[21] – Emphasis mine.

    It is well worth while to remember that the Novatianist sect was a rigorist sect while the Catholic Church at this time was more tolerant of human failings.[22]So Cyprian who has a more democratic (equality among Bishops) ideal of Church polity found himself at odds with a rigorist sect which wanted to install both an alternative Bishop (to Cyprian) and assume the “throne of Peter” to use Cyprian’s words. An interesting development here is that while Cyprian was more forgiving of the lapsed than the Novatianists were, Stephen, the present Bishop of Rome was more tolerant in regard to the Baptism received from heretics, etc.[23]It is also noteworthy that Stephen was the 1^st Bishop of Rome to lay claim to Matthew 16;18ff.[24]Cyprian did not like Stephen’s authoritarian view of his own importance and made no bones about his feelings:

And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter ^§, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity^§§. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice.^[25] – Emphasis mine.

    Cyprian probably saw Stephen as a power-hungry compromiser. The same schismatics who didn’t think Cyprian was strict enough over his tolerance of the lapsed had a positive view of Stephen because he accepted their baptisms as valid (they were Trinitarian after all and Stephen was opposed to rebaptism on principle) while Cyprian believed that only baptisms done by the true Church were valid. So Cyprian believed in a democratic polity of bishops within an authoritarian Church while Stephen believed in a single, authoritarian Bishop and democratic sacraments. Cyprian thought he was watching the rise of the Anti-Christ when Stephen was Bishop of Rome:

It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.⁴ But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

Cæcilius of Bilta said: I know only one baptism in the Church, and none out of the Church. This one will be here, where there is the true hope and the certain faith. For thus it is written: “One faith, one hope, one baptism;”⁶ not among heretics, where there is no hope, and the faith is false, where all things are carried on by lying; where a demoniac exorcises; where one whose mouth and words send forth a cancer puts the sacramental interrogation;⁸ the faithless gives faith; the wicked bestows pardon of sins; and Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ; he who is cursed of God blesses; he who is dead promises life; he who is unpeaceful gives peace; the blasphemer calls upon God; the profane person administers the office of the priesthood; the sacrilegious person establishes an altar. In addition to all these things, there is also this evil, that the priests of the devil dare to celebrate the Eucharist; or else let those who stand by them say that all these things concerning heretics are false. ^[26] - Emphasis mine.

    Was Cyprian correct in asserting that Stephen was an Anti-Christ? There are some things to be considered:

1. Stephen made himself the ‘rock’ of the Church when Scripture says that Christ is the Rock (Ps. 118:22, Isa. 28:16,1 Cor. 10:4, Eph. 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4-6).
2. The Papacy usurps the Trinity, Pope = Father, but we are to call no man ‘Father’ in the spiritual sense but God,[27] as Pontifex Maximus[28] and Vicar of Christ the Papacy puts itself between God and man, usurping the role of mediator[29] that the Son serves and the Pope’s role of ‘teacher of the whole Christian Church’ usurps the role of the Holy Spirit:

I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. ^[30]

EPILOGUE

    It would be to go after low hanging fruit to delve into the Avignon Popes, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the growth of the cult of the saints and Mariolatry especially but I decided going into this I was going to write a paper, not a tome. It is enough for me for the purposes of this paper to show that men of faith and good character saw that men who cared more about power than truth and who abused the Word of God in order to secure that power did so:

 . . . There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. ¹⁷ You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. ^[31]

---

[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (2 Th 2:3–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^[2] The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. 2009 (Mt 16:18–19). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^[3] Holmes, M. W. (2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Mt 16:18). Logos Bible Software.

[4] Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon oh the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2^nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, 654-655.

^[5] Tertullian. (1885). The Prescription against Heretics P. Holmes, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (253). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^[6] Tertullian. (1885). On Modesty S. Thelwall, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (99). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^[7] Hippolytus of Rome. (1886). The Discourse on the Holy Theophany S. D. F. Salmond, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (237). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^[8] Cyprian of Carthage. The Epistles of Cyprian, ANF, Vol. V (305).

^[9] Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Church, ANF, Vol. V (422).

^[10] Tertullian. The Prescription against Heretics, ANF, Vol. III: 256.

§ [Tertullian knows no other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit. They who attribute infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.]

^[11] The Captions of the Arabic Canons Attributed to the Council of Nice H. R. Percival, Trans.). (1900). In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils. 1900 (P. Schaff & H. Wace, Ed.) (48). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] ANF, Vol. V: 561–562.

^[14] Tertullian. On Monogamy, ANF, Vol. IV: 72.

^[15] Tertullian. On Modesty. ANF, Vol. IV, 74.

§ Zephyrinus or (his predecessor).

[16] He is not included in The Book Of Saints, a popular and very complete devotional reference compiled by the Benedictine Monks of St. Augustine’s Abbey.

^[17] Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian, ANF, Vol. V: 344.

§ [The Apostolic See of the West was necessarily all this in the eyes of an unambitious faithful Western co-bishop; but the letter itself proves that it was not the See of one who had any authority over or apart from his co-bishops. Let us not read into his expressions ideas which are an after-thought, and which conflict with the life and all the testimony of Cyprian.]

^[18] Smith, William and Henry Wace. A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines A to D Vol. 2. London: William Clowes and Sons, 1877, 555. Some authors used Novatianist and Donatist interchangeably or anachronistically.

^[19] The New King James Version. 1982 (Daniel 11:36–37). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

^[20] ESV, Colossians 2:20–23.

^[21] ESV (1 Ti 4:1–3).

[22] Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Nicene And Post-Nicene, Volume III. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910, 187.

[23] Kelly, J. N. D. and M. J. Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, 16-17.

[24] Ibid.

^[25] Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian R. E. Wallis, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (394–395). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

§ [This place and succession are conceded in the argument; but Stephen himself does not appear to have claimed to be the Rock or to exercise the authority of Peter. Vol. iii. p. 266.]

§§ [Stephen abolishes the Rock, and “deserts unity;” here, then, is evidence that he was not the one, nor the criterion of the other.]

^[26] The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian R. E. Wallis, Trans.). (1886). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. 1886 (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (565–566). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[27] ESV, Matthew 23:8–10.

[28] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Re 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. This handle was adopted by the Roman emperors, who used the Latin title Pontifex Maximus, which means “Major Keeper of the Bridge.” And the same title was later used by the bishop of Rome. The pope today is often called the pontiff, which comes from pontifex.

[29] ESV, 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15 & Hebrews 12:24.

^[30] ESV, 1 John 2:26–27.

^[31] ESV, 2 Peter 3:16–17.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon oh the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2^nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Holmes, M. W. The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Bible Software. 2010.

Kelly, J. N. D. and M. J. Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Schaff, Phillip & Henry Wace (Eds.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900.

Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Nicene And Post-Nicene, Volume III. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

Smith, William and Henry Wace. A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines A to D Vol. 2. London: William Clowes and Sons, 1877.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. 1885.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.

The Book Of Saints: A Dictionary Of Servants Of God Canonized By The Catholic Church: Extracted From The Roman & OtherMartyrologies, Compiled by The Benedictine Monks Of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate, 4^th Ed. Revised and Enlarged, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.

The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Re 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.