Below is the copy of the paper I just posted, please no plagiarism (like you'd wanta!). I really enjoyed the research part of it. Hope, hope, hope I get a decent grade. Mum wanted to see it, I wonder if she knows what she's letting herself in for.Understand, dear reader, that I am not endorsing or defaming anything. I am merely trying to present enough facts for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. History is rightly included in the humanities. And if this causes anyone to dig a little deeper, great! :-) I think our tendency to chuck history out the window is retarded. Like we Americans chucked all that was British, to our hurt, the church also chucked first all that was Jewish and then after the reformation, anything associated with the catholic phase of the church. Duh.
How we have robbed ourselves and how we maybe could have avoided repeating mistakes if we had known about them in the first place. It is so much my desire that all of His people be on the same sheet of music. We have different jobs, all of us- what's an orchestra with only flutes? There are those who put the music out, those who work the lights, those who do the melody, the harmony, and let us not forget the audience, the ticket-sellers, the ones who keep the stage cleaned... The world is watching, folks. Must we continue to nit-pick eachother and forget that the body of the Messiah should not be divided? Can we at least be civil to those who share belief in the Creed? And the funny thing is that most of our differences are things that nobody will know the truth of until we stand in His presence and are able to ask Him personally.
God bless all y'all. Happy Thanksgiving to all. The paper starts next paragraph, so if you don't wanta read it, skip it.
ttfn
Rose
J. Rose Snow
Rise of the Papacy
CHHI 301 November 209
The Rise of the Papacy: A Tapestry View
The rise of the Papacy as it is known today was a complex set of circumstances that spanned centuries and involved many distinct cultures. The predictability of human nature and surprisingly the hand of Providence are both evident in the development of the idea of the supremacy of one man over all the church. The beginnings can be traced to before the Republic, indeed farther back than Ancient Egypt, although Egypt is where we will begin our journey. The threads of a tapestry taken individually are a confusing mass, but when put in their proper places, they yield a complete and often beautiful picture.
To understand the concept of the Papacy, one must travel backwards to a time long before the church existed. The reader may liken Ancient Egypt to the ground of the tapestry: rich and brown; Ancient Greece as the sky: lofty and blue; and the Roman Republic/Empire as the mid-ground: mountainous, solid, in grays and greens. Ancient Egypt was an orderly and structured society, with a sense of stability that stemmed from everyone knowing their place.
The Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt was considered to be the mouthpiece of the gods, often being viewed as a god himself, marrying church and state in a way that suited the populace. He had priests to carry out the day to day religious functions, priests who did not pay taxes and who were recognizable by their attire and bearing. The ruler of Egypt also had a well-functioning bureaucracy that handled civil matters. Jobs were determined by gender and social status, and were all recognized as important in their own way to keep the kingdom running smoothly. Also of note was the fact that the Pharaoh answered to a higher law, his decrees and actions had to line up with the deities of the Egypt, especially the goddess of justice[1]. The Egyptians believed in “a natural law that embraced social justice and morality” and saw Pharaoh as “the guarantor for the divine laws”[2]. Here one can see clearly the grounding of the idea of one man, guiding the spiritual state of his people, answerable to divine justice and to the body of religious leaders with the full approval of the people.
Ancient Greece operated in such a close resemblance to the early church it is almost uncanny. The lofty ideals of democracy showed themselves in the confederacy of independent city-states, each with a supreme ruler who had full autonomy, yet answered to the other rulers in policy matters that affected the whole. This seems to be the backdrop against which the apostles and subsequent bishops would appear. The principle of voting on matters of doctrine in councils and synods had its roots in Solon’s practice in Ancient Athens of dividing the people into “four classes, all of which had the right to take part in the debates in the political Assembly”[3]. One can clearly see that in the synods, the Archbishops had the final say, but that all had a voice. Another glimmer of blue in the tapestry is that way the autonomous city-states of Greece banded together against an external threat. So, too the church; no matter how far flung the bishops, when one was threatened, all were concerned and looked after the congregations under his care.
Finally, one comes to the mid-ground of the tapestry: the Roman Republic and Empire. For centuries, the Romans influenced the thinking of the world that the church would develop in. There was a concept central to the thinking of the Romans called paterfamilias, which goes much deeper than the definition of “male head of household with no living father or grandfather.”[4] Paterfamilias extended through all of Roman life with the father of the family having the power of life and death over his children and their offspring, slaves, and freedmen. Romans expected the fathers of the families to act justly as they expected their conscripti patres[5], the name they called their Senators (conscripted fathers, literally, but with more of the overtone of adoption), to act justly on their behalf. Later, when the Empire replaced the Republic, the title pater patriae was added to this sense of “fatherness” and was bestowed upon the emperors as the fathers of the country or empire.
With this bedrock woven upon the grounds of spiritual leadership of one man for all from the Egyptians and beneath the air currents of democratic thinking bestowed by the Greeks, is there any wonder that the people of the early church were ready for a hierarchical structure in their leadership? Is it any wonder that as the Western Empire crumbled around them that the Romans increasingly looked to the Bishop of Rome as their father, pater, pope… eventually putting him on a pedestal as the mouthpiece of God?
But, how did the church get to the point of the elevation of one bishop over all others when initially she was run more like the old Grecian city-states? We have traced how it is understandable by filling in the background of our tapestry. Now let us look at some of the figures in the foreground. Bypassing the earliest days of the church when the Apostles still walked among men, and bypassing the hard days of persecution that followed, we run across the first figure on our tapestry: Constantine the Great. Constantine, who made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire and included the Bishops in his councils; this man would preside over the democratic synods and make laws and decisions for the church, like some long-forgotten Pharaoh. Constantine who as an intelligent politician would, as Justinian in the East after him[6], prefer the preeminence of his own city’s bishop to all others since the church would then be easier to control. Or so he thought; the church was not a body like the postal service or the merchant’s guild and while she was thankful to be out from under persecution, she balked at a mere earthly ruler vying for the position she felt the Lord Jesus held alone.
The next figure that is apparent on our tapestry is that of Pope Leo the Great of Rome. Leo did not use the term pope as it is thought of today; he considered himself merely an archbishop like all other archbishops, though he did at first begin to mention the authority passed to the Bishop of Rome from the Apostle Peter[7]. He was pope of Rome about an hundred years after Constantine passed off the scene and during a time when invaders were threatening Rome at every turn. The Emperor of the West was Valentinian III, a weak man who was ineffective against the invaders and tried to give the Bishop of Rome primacy above all others. Leo, however did not abuse this power, but used it to gain an audience with the Huns and Vandals, convincing them not to sack Rome in 452 and 455[8]. Above all, Leo sought unity for the church and gained impressive popularity both with the church and with the non-believers; here was a man who acted like the pater patriae that was idealized in the Roman mind, and indeed around the area that the Empire once covered.
Almost 200 years pass before we get to our next figure, during which time the people are almost needing that “father-of-country” figure so much that they are bestowing the title of “Universal Bishop” upon archbishops across the Eastern and Western Empires. The poor Western Empire, while falling victim to invaders, plagues, famines, and self-destruction[9], amazingly continued to have a strong Bishop and church. The Eastern Empire, under Justinian, was stable and secure, but the church was wavering, corrupt, and full of heresy. Justinian made it official that his bishop over Constantinople was the Bishop over All, yet it did not go over as smoothly as he would have hoped. His old friend Gregory was now Bishop, or Pope, of Rome and he felt it was heresy to promote any bishop over the others. Gregory felt this title undermined the authority of all other bishops and put this Bishop Universalis in a position vulnerable to the besetting sin of pride, as Christ alone is the one over all the church. It took Gregory many years to undo the damage; meanwhile he’d been put in a position to rally the armies of Rome to defend the city against the Lombards[10], defeating them and making peace with them. He gained enormous popularity in both the East and West, becoming what the Romans needed in the absence of an Emperor: the loving, strong, father figure. He was a great humanitarian, gave his wealth away in service of the church, and wrote much of the theology that is foundational to the church.[11] Through all that went on in Rome, he continued to protest the title Justinian had given his Bishop, John II. Even after most of the other Bishops decided it was a non-issue, Gregory kept on in his belief that no one bishop ought to hold authority over the others and finally had his way in it. Unfortunately, some of his impassioned pleading to Antioch and Alexandria had much about Petrine Authority and while not abused by himself, this led to the idea that those places where the Apostle and his disciple Mark had ordained Bishops had some preeminence above the others[12]. Gregory would have been appalled that in fighting against one man having absolute authority, he inadvertently gave the perfect excuse for it. The people in general had been ready for such a thing for aeons.
After Gregory passed away, it was not long before the idea of the Papacy was firmly integrated into the mind of the laity. It was only logical that the Roman Bishop be the one in charge, since he had authority from Peter as well as stability that the Bishops of Constantinople did not have. But, what Gregory feared would happen, did indeed happen. Any man in a position of such power, power only the Lord Jesus should have, would be subject to the worst sort of pride. Multiple Bishops now all using the title of Pope began to claim this power. Corruption and interference in the government began to happen more often than not, destabilizing Europe in awful ways. The councils of Bishops tried to keep a handle on things, but were often assassinated for their troubles.[13] But, one cannot un-spill milk, and in spite of the corruption, the people were convinced of the need for a central figure to rule spiritually. After all, many leaders are corrupt, but they are leaders and they are necessary. So, our tapestry’s foreground is filled with some kind men, some sinister, all wearing the robes of the Papal office.
The concept of the papacy did not happen overnight. It took millennia to weave that piece of art. From the sands of structured Egypt, to the democratic ideals of Greece, to the paternal structure of Rome, the minds of the people- indeed, their worldview- depended upon and looked toward a central figure who would govern spiritually and ensure that the civil government behaved in accordance to divine law. The early church was more democratic and fought against one man having the preeminence, but then began to lose interest in fighting it. Though the first popes of Rome were against the idea, the times were too unstable to resist what the people needed. Who else could step up and bring stability, leadership, a voice for the people, and the sense of a loving, strong father who would be comforting to and protective of the people? Who better than the Bishop, the Pope of Rome?
Reference List
Benton, Jeanette & DiYanni, Robert. Arts and Culture: An Introduction to the
Humanities. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 2005) 94-97.
Chamberlin, E.R. 1978. “The Death and Resurrection of Rome: From A.D. 400
imperial Rome was subject to pillage and plunder, but Popes in the
Renaissance destroyed in order to rebuild.” History Today 28, no.5:304-
313. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17,
2009). http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=5&sid=7fbb9563-3c64-42e9-9a36-c670f151aeda%40sessionmgr13
Chamberlin, Russell. 2003. "The Ideal of Unity." History Today 53, no. 11: 56.
Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17, 2009).
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=5&sid=7fbb9563-3c64-42e9-9a36-c670f151aeda%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=11293943
Demacopoulos, George E. 2009. "GREGORY THE GREAT AND THE SIXTH-
CENTURY DISPUTE OVER THE ECUMENICAL TITLE." Theological
Studies 70, no. 3: 600-621. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost
(accessed November 17, 2009). http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=7&hid=9&sid=c2fbecaa-75ff-4e31-bcfb-fa1be79e3bfb%40sessionmgr12
Houghton, S.M. Sketches from Church History. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust;
Morrison & Gibb, Ltd. 1980). 31-32, 51-61.
Moyer, Elgin. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church. (Chicago: Moody
Press. 1982). 11,23,111,168-169,210-211,240,413.
Rodgers, Nigel. Ancient Rome.( London: Anness Publishing, Ltd. 2006).
468-469.
Strudwick, Helen. Ancient Egypt. (London: Amber Books. 2006)366-370,388-391.
[1] Strudwick, Helen. Ancient Egypt. (London: Amber Books. 2006) pp. 366-367.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Benton, Jeanette & DiYanni, Robert. Arts and Culture: An Introduction to the
Humanities. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 2005) p.9
[4] Rodgers, Nigel. Ancient Rome.( London: Anness Publishing, Ltd. 2006. p. 468
[5] Ibid.
[6] Demacopoulos, George E. 2009. "Gregory the Great and the Sixth-Century dispute over the Ecumenical Title” Theological Studies 70, no. 3: p.601.
[7] Moyer, Elgin. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church. (Chicago: Moody Press. 1982).p. 240.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Chamberlin, E.R. 1978. “The Death and Resurrection of Rome.” History Today 28, no.5: p. 304.
[10] Moyer, Elgin. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church. (Chicago: Moody Press. 1982) p. 168.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Demacopoulos. p.619.
[13] Houghton, S.M. Sketches from Church History. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust; Morrison & Gibb, Ltd. 1980). p.51.
Rise of the Papacy
CHHI 301 November 209
The Rise of the Papacy: A Tapestry View
The rise of the Papacy as it is known today was a complex set of circumstances that spanned centuries and involved many distinct cultures. The predictability of human nature and surprisingly the hand of Providence are both evident in the development of the idea of the supremacy of one man over all the church. The beginnings can be traced to before the Republic, indeed farther back than Ancient Egypt, although Egypt is where we will begin our journey. The threads of a tapestry taken individually are a confusing mass, but when put in their proper places, they yield a complete and often beautiful picture.
To understand the concept of the Papacy, one must travel backwards to a time long before the church existed. The reader may liken Ancient Egypt to the ground of the tapestry: rich and brown; Ancient Greece as the sky: lofty and blue; and the Roman Republic/Empire as the mid-ground: mountainous, solid, in grays and greens. Ancient Egypt was an orderly and structured society, with a sense of stability that stemmed from everyone knowing their place.
The Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt was considered to be the mouthpiece of the gods, often being viewed as a god himself, marrying church and state in a way that suited the populace. He had priests to carry out the day to day religious functions, priests who did not pay taxes and who were recognizable by their attire and bearing. The ruler of Egypt also had a well-functioning bureaucracy that handled civil matters. Jobs were determined by gender and social status, and were all recognized as important in their own way to keep the kingdom running smoothly. Also of note was the fact that the Pharaoh answered to a higher law, his decrees and actions had to line up with the deities of the Egypt, especially the goddess of justice[1]. The Egyptians believed in “a natural law that embraced social justice and morality” and saw Pharaoh as “the guarantor for the divine laws”[2]. Here one can see clearly the grounding of the idea of one man, guiding the spiritual state of his people, answerable to divine justice and to the body of religious leaders with the full approval of the people.
Ancient Greece operated in such a close resemblance to the early church it is almost uncanny. The lofty ideals of democracy showed themselves in the confederacy of independent city-states, each with a supreme ruler who had full autonomy, yet answered to the other rulers in policy matters that affected the whole. This seems to be the backdrop against which the apostles and subsequent bishops would appear. The principle of voting on matters of doctrine in councils and synods had its roots in Solon’s practice in Ancient Athens of dividing the people into “four classes, all of which had the right to take part in the debates in the political Assembly”[3]. One can clearly see that in the synods, the Archbishops had the final say, but that all had a voice. Another glimmer of blue in the tapestry is that way the autonomous city-states of Greece banded together against an external threat. So, too the church; no matter how far flung the bishops, when one was threatened, all were concerned and looked after the congregations under his care.
Finally, one comes to the mid-ground of the tapestry: the Roman Republic and Empire. For centuries, the Romans influenced the thinking of the world that the church would develop in. There was a concept central to the thinking of the Romans called paterfamilias, which goes much deeper than the definition of “male head of household with no living father or grandfather.”[4] Paterfamilias extended through all of Roman life with the father of the family having the power of life and death over his children and their offspring, slaves, and freedmen. Romans expected the fathers of the families to act justly as they expected their conscripti patres[5], the name they called their Senators (conscripted fathers, literally, but with more of the overtone of adoption), to act justly on their behalf. Later, when the Empire replaced the Republic, the title pater patriae was added to this sense of “fatherness” and was bestowed upon the emperors as the fathers of the country or empire.
With this bedrock woven upon the grounds of spiritual leadership of one man for all from the Egyptians and beneath the air currents of democratic thinking bestowed by the Greeks, is there any wonder that the people of the early church were ready for a hierarchical structure in their leadership? Is it any wonder that as the Western Empire crumbled around them that the Romans increasingly looked to the Bishop of Rome as their father, pater, pope… eventually putting him on a pedestal as the mouthpiece of God?
But, how did the church get to the point of the elevation of one bishop over all others when initially she was run more like the old Grecian city-states? We have traced how it is understandable by filling in the background of our tapestry. Now let us look at some of the figures in the foreground. Bypassing the earliest days of the church when the Apostles still walked among men, and bypassing the hard days of persecution that followed, we run across the first figure on our tapestry: Constantine the Great. Constantine, who made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire and included the Bishops in his councils; this man would preside over the democratic synods and make laws and decisions for the church, like some long-forgotten Pharaoh. Constantine who as an intelligent politician would, as Justinian in the East after him[6], prefer the preeminence of his own city’s bishop to all others since the church would then be easier to control. Or so he thought; the church was not a body like the postal service or the merchant’s guild and while she was thankful to be out from under persecution, she balked at a mere earthly ruler vying for the position she felt the Lord Jesus held alone.
The next figure that is apparent on our tapestry is that of Pope Leo the Great of Rome. Leo did not use the term pope as it is thought of today; he considered himself merely an archbishop like all other archbishops, though he did at first begin to mention the authority passed to the Bishop of Rome from the Apostle Peter[7]. He was pope of Rome about an hundred years after Constantine passed off the scene and during a time when invaders were threatening Rome at every turn. The Emperor of the West was Valentinian III, a weak man who was ineffective against the invaders and tried to give the Bishop of Rome primacy above all others. Leo, however did not abuse this power, but used it to gain an audience with the Huns and Vandals, convincing them not to sack Rome in 452 and 455[8]. Above all, Leo sought unity for the church and gained impressive popularity both with the church and with the non-believers; here was a man who acted like the pater patriae that was idealized in the Roman mind, and indeed around the area that the Empire once covered.
Almost 200 years pass before we get to our next figure, during which time the people are almost needing that “father-of-country” figure so much that they are bestowing the title of “Universal Bishop” upon archbishops across the Eastern and Western Empires. The poor Western Empire, while falling victim to invaders, plagues, famines, and self-destruction[9], amazingly continued to have a strong Bishop and church. The Eastern Empire, under Justinian, was stable and secure, but the church was wavering, corrupt, and full of heresy. Justinian made it official that his bishop over Constantinople was the Bishop over All, yet it did not go over as smoothly as he would have hoped. His old friend Gregory was now Bishop, or Pope, of Rome and he felt it was heresy to promote any bishop over the others. Gregory felt this title undermined the authority of all other bishops and put this Bishop Universalis in a position vulnerable to the besetting sin of pride, as Christ alone is the one over all the church. It took Gregory many years to undo the damage; meanwhile he’d been put in a position to rally the armies of Rome to defend the city against the Lombards[10], defeating them and making peace with them. He gained enormous popularity in both the East and West, becoming what the Romans needed in the absence of an Emperor: the loving, strong, father figure. He was a great humanitarian, gave his wealth away in service of the church, and wrote much of the theology that is foundational to the church.[11] Through all that went on in Rome, he continued to protest the title Justinian had given his Bishop, John II. Even after most of the other Bishops decided it was a non-issue, Gregory kept on in his belief that no one bishop ought to hold authority over the others and finally had his way in it. Unfortunately, some of his impassioned pleading to Antioch and Alexandria had much about Petrine Authority and while not abused by himself, this led to the idea that those places where the Apostle and his disciple Mark had ordained Bishops had some preeminence above the others[12]. Gregory would have been appalled that in fighting against one man having absolute authority, he inadvertently gave the perfect excuse for it. The people in general had been ready for such a thing for aeons.
After Gregory passed away, it was not long before the idea of the Papacy was firmly integrated into the mind of the laity. It was only logical that the Roman Bishop be the one in charge, since he had authority from Peter as well as stability that the Bishops of Constantinople did not have. But, what Gregory feared would happen, did indeed happen. Any man in a position of such power, power only the Lord Jesus should have, would be subject to the worst sort of pride. Multiple Bishops now all using the title of Pope began to claim this power. Corruption and interference in the government began to happen more often than not, destabilizing Europe in awful ways. The councils of Bishops tried to keep a handle on things, but were often assassinated for their troubles.[13] But, one cannot un-spill milk, and in spite of the corruption, the people were convinced of the need for a central figure to rule spiritually. After all, many leaders are corrupt, but they are leaders and they are necessary. So, our tapestry’s foreground is filled with some kind men, some sinister, all wearing the robes of the Papal office.
The concept of the papacy did not happen overnight. It took millennia to weave that piece of art. From the sands of structured Egypt, to the democratic ideals of Greece, to the paternal structure of Rome, the minds of the people- indeed, their worldview- depended upon and looked toward a central figure who would govern spiritually and ensure that the civil government behaved in accordance to divine law. The early church was more democratic and fought against one man having the preeminence, but then began to lose interest in fighting it. Though the first popes of Rome were against the idea, the times were too unstable to resist what the people needed. Who else could step up and bring stability, leadership, a voice for the people, and the sense of a loving, strong father who would be comforting to and protective of the people? Who better than the Bishop, the Pope of Rome?
Reference List
Benton, Jeanette & DiYanni, Robert. Arts and Culture: An Introduction to the
Humanities. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 2005) 94-97.
Chamberlin, E.R. 1978. “The Death and Resurrection of Rome: From A.D. 400
imperial Rome was subject to pillage and plunder, but Popes in the
Renaissance destroyed in order to rebuild.” History Today 28, no.5:304-
313. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17,
2009). http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=5&sid=7fbb9563-3c64-42e9-9a36-c670f151aeda%40sessionmgr13
Chamberlin, Russell. 2003. "The Ideal of Unity." History Today 53, no. 11: 56.
Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17, 2009).
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=5&sid=7fbb9563-3c64-42e9-9a36-c670f151aeda%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=11293943
Demacopoulos, George E. 2009. "GREGORY THE GREAT AND THE SIXTH-
CENTURY DISPUTE OVER THE ECUMENICAL TITLE." Theological
Studies 70, no. 3: 600-621. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost
(accessed November 17, 2009). http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/pdf?vid=7&hid=9&sid=c2fbecaa-75ff-4e31-bcfb-fa1be79e3bfb%40sessionmgr12
Houghton, S.M. Sketches from Church History. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust;
Morrison & Gibb, Ltd. 1980). 31-32, 51-61.
Moyer, Elgin. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church. (Chicago: Moody
Press. 1982). 11,23,111,168-169,210-211,240,413.
Rodgers, Nigel. Ancient Rome.( London: Anness Publishing, Ltd. 2006).
468-469.
Strudwick, Helen. Ancient Egypt. (London: Amber Books. 2006)366-370,388-391.
[1] Strudwick, Helen. Ancient Egypt. (London: Amber Books. 2006) pp. 366-367.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Benton, Jeanette & DiYanni, Robert. Arts and Culture: An Introduction to the
Humanities. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 2005) p.9
[4] Rodgers, Nigel. Ancient Rome.( London: Anness Publishing, Ltd. 2006. p. 468
[5] Ibid.
[6] Demacopoulos, George E. 2009. "Gregory the Great and the Sixth-Century dispute over the Ecumenical Title” Theological Studies 70, no. 3: p.601.
[7] Moyer, Elgin. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church. (Chicago: Moody Press. 1982).p. 240.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Chamberlin, E.R. 1978. “The Death and Resurrection of Rome.” History Today 28, no.5: p. 304.
[10] Moyer, Elgin. The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church. (Chicago: Moody Press. 1982) p. 168.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Demacopoulos. p.619.
[13] Houghton, S.M. Sketches from Church History. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust; Morrison & Gibb, Ltd. 1980). p.51.
Posts
