8/12/2019 jidulun

1/12

Developments in Christology in the Early Church History

By jidian, November, 2002

1.Introduction

Christology is the section of Christian theology and doctrine about the identity and the

person of Jesus Christ. The uestion of !"ho is Jesus Christ# is no doubt one of the

most essential uestions for Christianity. Throughout the nearly 2000 years of history ofthe church, Christians have believed that Christ is truly man and truly $od, and %e is the

&on of $od, 'ho is our savior and 'hom 'e 'orship, as the Bible teaches. %o'ever,

historically, the orthodo( doctrine e(perienced a lot of struggles in its development in the

early church history. The doctrine about the person of Christ is still much relevant today,as 'e are still facing many unorthodo( and heretical teachings about the person of Christ,

e.g., the Jehovah)s "itness, the *ormonism and the !apostolic oneness# theology.

+ooing bac on the history of the developments of Christology can certainly help us to

preserve, defend and proclaim the orthodo( Christian faith.

-lthough Christology can also have a soteriological side to include the 'or of Christ,the main focus of the early church theologians on the study of Christ 'as on the theology

proper side. The majority of the debates and controversies 'ere about the person of

Christ / his deity and humanity, and the relationship of the t'o. The orthodo( doctrinesof Christology 'ere established during this period of time, along 'ith other important

orthodo( doctrines such as the Trinity. %o'ever, orthodo( Christology did not come into

place automatically or easily. n the early church history, there 'ere a lot of heretical

teachings and controversies about the person of Christ. -nd the orthodo( doctrine 'asdeveloped out of continuous debates and fighting 'ith the 'rong doctrines.

This paper revie's the development of Christology in early church history 1fromapostolic fathers to the thcentury, ca. -3 405006. Because of the fact that in this period

of time Christology 'as developed along 'ith the struggles 'ith the heretical thoughts,

this paper is outlined mainly 'ith historical heresies and controversies as the thread.

2. Early Doctrines and Heresies

2.. -postolic 7athers and 8arly Theologians

There are plenty of descriptions about Christ)s deity and humanity in the $ospels and the

rest of the Ne' Testaments. The early apostolic fathers 1-3 405906 emphasi:ed on boththe deity and the humanity of Christ. gnatius acno'ledged the true deity and humanity

of Christ 'hen he referred to !Jesus Christ our $od# and the !blood of $od# 2. Clement

began his sermon by !Brothers, 'e must thin about Jesus Christ as about $od, as about

Berhof, +ouis, The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, 4>'''.ccel.org>fathers2>-N750>anf052.htm

1Nov. 20026

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-25.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-25.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-25.htm

8/12/2019 jidulun

2/12

the judge of living and dead?#@. -t a slightly later time 1-3 >'''.earlychristian'ritings.com>2clement.html 1Nov.

200269=*elito of &ardis, !rayer in raise of Christ#,http;>>'''.catholic5forum.com>saints>pray029A.htm 1Nov.

20026=Justin *artyr, !The 7irst -pology of Justin#,http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers>-N75

0>just>justinapology.htmlF&ection9

8/12/2019 jidulun

3/12

@.. $nosticism and -nti5$nostic Theologians

$nosticism covered a 'ide range of belief, and most of their teachings that 'e no'today 'ere obtained from the patristic -nti5$nostic 'ors4. n terms of Christology,

$nosticism believed that the &upreme $od 'as incomprehensible and inaccessible, but

from %im came a series of progressively lesser deities 1aeons6. Jehovah of the DldTestament is the lo'est of these aeons, and Christ is one of the highest aeons. &ince

$nosticism believed that all matter is evil, it usually had a 3ocetic vie' of Christ that he

'as a spirit being having only an apparent body or temporarily associated 'ith a manJesus 'ho 'as a special emissary sent to the 'orld to deliver manind from the

darness0. n his anti5heretic 'or, renaeus listed out various Christological heresies

that are due to $nostic influence, especially the 3ocetic vie's .

n the Ne' Testament, these $nostic vie's on the $odhead 'ere already refuted, e.g., by

John in his $ospel and other 'ritings and by aul in Colossians. The early apostolic

fathers and theologians also had many 'ors 'ith the purpose of fighting against $nostic

teachings including its Christology. The debates contributed significantly to thedevelopment of orthodo( Christology. Drigen believed that Christ is the 3ivine Geason,

and !the mediator bet'een $od and flesh#. %e noted that !through the 'hole of&cripture the divine nature is spoen of in human terms, and at the same time the human

nature is accorded the distinctive epithets proper to the divine#2. %e used the 'ord

!homoousios# to state that Christ has the same essence of the 7ather, but at the same timehe seemed to be also a &ubordinationist 1e.g., he taught that the +ogos 'as a !copy# of

the original $od and inferior to the 7ather6. renaeus stressed the unity of $od, but he

did not have much speculation about the !+ogos#. The &on and the !"isdom# 'ere

involved in the Creation. %e emphasi:ed that Christ 'as both $od and man, and rejectedthe separation of !the heavenly Christ# and !the earthly Christ#. %e held a recapitulation

1restoration6 theory about Christ)s &alvation@. Tertullian believed that Christ is fully $od

and fully man at the same time, and rejected the idea of !divine5human alloy#. %estressed that the +ogos is an independent erson 'ho 'as begotten by 1and thus

proceeded from6 $od. There 'as still a little &ubordinationism in his discourse of

Christology, as evidenced in a crude form of a greater and lesser participation of the firstand second persons of $od9.

@.2. *onarchianism and ts Dpponents

*onarchianism sought to assert that $od has only one being but as a result denied the

Trinity. t 'as divided into t'o different classes, 3ynamic *onarchianism and

*odalistic *onarchianism.

4!$nosticism#, ibid.0Berhof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, 4

8/12/2019 jidulun

4/12

8/12/2019 jidulun

5/12

-n important controversy in Christology, the -rian controversy, too place in the 9 th

century. The -rian controversy mainly concerned the relationship of $od the 7ather and

$od the &on, and had its root in the past unclear conception of the Trinity. The result ofthis controversy established the basic elements of orthodo( doctrine of the Trinity, but the

ey issues of the controversy 'ere much related to Christology. -s a matter of fact,

development of orthodo( of Christology 'as usually intermingled 'ith that of the Trinityat that time in history. -rius stressed that there is only one unbegotten $od and

unoriginated $od. %e believed that there is a real difference in the essence bet'een the

7ather and the &on. Christ 'as neither $od nor man, but some being in bet'een, or alesser $od. The &on is a created being, he !has a beginning#, and !there 'as a time 'hen

he 'as not#. The &on might also be mutable20.

9.2. The Council of Nicea

-rius) o'n bishop -le(ander 'as the first one to oppose him and contended for the

eternal sonship of Christ by generation. -le(ander called the Council of -le(andria 1@2

-36, and -rius 'as e(communicated. But -rius continued to get more follo'ers.Constantine decided to intervene to maintain peace, and called the Council of Nicea 1@2

-36. This 'as a larger council and the stecumenical one. Both -rius) supporters 1e.g.,8usebius of Nicomedia6 and strong opponents 1e.g., -le(ander and -thanasius6 'ere

minorities. The majority 'as the middle party 1!semi5-rian# people, e.g., 8usebius of

Caesarea6. They suggested using the 'ord homoiousiosto state that the &on is of similaressence as the 7ather, instead of homoousiosto state that the &on is of the same essence

of the 7ather. Constantine 'as actively involved and finally 'ith the emperor)s pressure

the Council adopted a statement 'ith !homoousios# in it and the party of -le(ander and

-thanasius had a temporary victory. The Creed of Nicea, 'ith its focus on Christology,is 'idely regarded as the basis of orthodo( Christianity. t affirmed the full divinity of

Christ against the -rian vie' of his creaturely status;

!"e believe in one $od, the 7ather almighty, maer of all things visible and invisible.

-nd 'e believe in one +ord Jesus Christ, the &on of $od, begotten from the 7ather,

only begotten, that is from the 7atherLs substance, light from light, true $od from true$od, begotten not made, of one substance 'ith the 7ather. Through him 'ere made

all things, both in heaven and on earth. 7or us and for our salvation he came do'n,

'as incarnate and became human. %e suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended

into the heavens and is coming to judge the living and the dead. -nd 'e believe in the%oly &pirit. But those 'ho say, Mthere 'as once 'hen he 'as not) and Mbefore he 'as

begotten he 'as not), and that Mhe 'as made out of nothing), or 'ho affirm that Mthe

&on is of a different hypostasis or substance), or that he is mutable or changeable 5these the catholic and apostolic church anathemati:es.#2

The Creed is uneuivocal in its e(pression that the &on is of the same essence as that ofthe 7ather. t also included e(plicit condemnations of -rian vie's. %o'ever, many

20=-rius, !- +etter to 8usebius, Bishop of Nicomedia#, &ection 9.< in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The ChristianTheology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac'ell, 44.2=!The Creed of Nicea#, http;>>'''.gospelcom.net>chi>$+*&87>$limpses>glmps0EE.shtml 1Nov.

20026

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps088.shtmlhttp://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps088.shtml

8/12/2019 jidulun

6/12

people at that time still had concerns about using the 'ord !homoousios# 'hich 'as not

biblical and had been used by the heretic aul of &amosata. The decision reached by the

influence of the strong hand of the emperor 'as not satisfactory.

9.@. 3efending the Nicene Drthodo(

-fter the Council of Nicea, &emi5-rianism came bac and 'as on the rise, 'ith

-thanasius fighting alone for the Nicene orthodo(. n a letter dated around @0 -3,

-thanasius argued for the divinity of Christ as 'ell as the full humanity of Christ;

!Being $od, he became a human being and then as $od he raised the dead, healed all

by a 'ord, and also changed 'ater into 'ine. These 'ere not the acts of a human

being. But as a human being, he felt thirsty and tiredness, and he suffered pain.These e(periences are not appropriate to deity? -nd yet these are not events

occurring 'ithout any connection, distinguished according to the their uality, so that

one class may be ascribed to the body, apart from the divinity, and the other to the

divinity, apart from the body.#

22

-thanasius 'as repeatedly banished and e(iled. -fter Constantine died, the Goman8mpire 'as divided. Constantius in the 8ast supported -rius, but -thanasius 'as

'elcome in the "est ruled by Constans, and the Council of &ardica 1@9@ -36 endorsed

his doctrine. Then Constans died and Constantius became the sole emperor. Constantiuscalled a fe' synods councils 1&ynods of -rles and *ilan, Council of &irmium6 to force

-rianism. %o'ever, the -rians had divisions among themselves. There 'ere no' three

camps; 16 e(treme -rians 'ho believed in heteroousios, 126 moderate -rians 'ho

believed in homoiousiosand 1@6 Nicene orthodo( 'ho believed in homoousios23.

9.9. The Cappadocian 7athers

*ean'hile the Cappadocian fathers 1Basil the $reat, $regory of Nyssa and $regory of

Na:ian:us6 did great service to the orthodo( doctrine of the Trinity by dra'ing a

distinction bet'een !ousios# and !hypostasis#. Their starting point 'as the three!hypostasis# instead of the one divine ousiaof $od. By this they made it clear that

$od is one in essence, but three in persons. n @E -3 the Council of Constantinople

affirmed the approval of the Creed of Nicea, and mared the final triumph of the Nicene

orthodo(. The !Niceno5Constantinoplitan Creed#, 'hich had a longer discussion of theperson of Christ, became the orthodo( !Nicene Creed# as 'e call it today. The part of

this Creed that concerns Christology states;

! believe in?one +ord Jesus Christ, the only5begotten &on of $od, begotten of the

7ather before all 'orlds $od of $od, +ight of +ight, very $od of very $od

begotten, not made, being of one substance 'ith the 7ather, by 'hom all things 'eremade. "ho, for us men for our salvation, came do'n from heaven, and 'as incarnate

by the %oly &pirit of the virgin *ary, and 'as made man and 'as crucified also for

22=-thanasius, !8pistulate ad &erapionem#,H.9, &ection 9.A in *c$rath, -. 8., 8d., The Christian

Theology Geader, D(ford and Cambridge; Blac'ell, 44.2@Berhof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, 4

8/12/2019 jidulun

7/12

us under ontius ilate %e suffered and 'as buried and the third day %e rose again,

according to the &criptures and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of

the 7ather and %e shall come again, 'ith glory, to judge the uic and the dead'hose ingdom shall have no end.#29

". he Christological Controversies

- fe' other controversies specifically concerning Christology follo'ed in the 9thand the

thcentury. By that time there 'ere t'o schools of thoughts concerning Christology. The-le(andrian &chool tends to stress the unity of the t'o natures of Christ and focused

more on the deity of Christ. The -ntiochian &chool tends to stress the distinction of the

t'o natures and focus more on the humanity of Christ. -s a result, there 'ere t'o main

controversies concerning Christology; the -ppollinarian controversy and the Nestoriancontroversy.

.. The -ppollinarian Controversy 1-3 @

8/12/2019 jidulun

8/12

n this letter $regory of Na:ian:en used the term theotokos1!$od5bearer#6 to call

*ary.

.2. The Nestorian Controversy 1-3 92E59@6

&ome of the -ntiochian school people 'ent to another e(treme and denied that the termtheotokos could be applied to *ary. Nestorian believed that to call *ary !theotokos

is to say that a creature gave birth to the Creator and is thus blasphemous. $od cannot

have a mother. %e 'hom *ary conceived is not $od, but a man in 'hich $od !clothed#%imself. The erson of Jesus is a !temple# for the 3ivine +ogos. The t'o natures of

Christ should be separated2A. -ccording to the church history by &ocrates, Nestorius

sponsored the proposition of -nastasius 'ho preached; !+et no one call *ary the

Theotoos; for *ary 'as only a human being, and it is impossible that $od should beborn of a human being#2E. Nestorian opponents refuted that the term !theotokosstresses

the unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ. To reject it is to reject the true union of

the t'o natures of Christ in one person. 3ichotomy of the t'o natures can eventually

lead to the denial of Christ)s full deity. Cyril 'as the most prominent opponent ofNestorianism, although he 'as heavy5handed personally. Cyril 'rote t'elve

condemnations on the propositions of Nestorian Christology and other heresies, starting'ith the denial of !theotokos;

!f anyone does not acno'ledge that 8mmanuel is truly $od, and that the holyvirgin is, in conseuence, Mtheotokos), for she gave birth in the flesh to the "ord of

$od 'ho has become flesh, let them be condemned?#24

-t the Council of 8phesus 19@ -36, the term !theotokos 'as officially endorsed as theproper title for *ary. Cyril celebrated the dignity of *ary for bearing Jesus Christ in his

%omily at this Council@0. n his discussion about the incarnation, Cyril stressed the real

union of Christ)s divinity and humanity;

!The natures 'hich 'ere brought together to form a true unity 'ere different but out

of both is one Christ and one &on. "e do not mean that the difference of the naturesis annihilated by reason of this union, but rather that the divinity and the humanity, by

their ine(pressible and ine(plicable concurrence into unity, have produced for us the

one +ord and son Jesus Christ#.@

.@. The 8utychian Controversy 1-3 9946

2ABerhof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, 4

8/12/2019 jidulun

9/12

8utyches the archimandrite 'as the e(treme of the anti5Nestorian -le(andrian &chool.

%e stressed the divine nature of Christ to the point of neglecting the human aspect of

Christ. 8utychian believed that Christ has only one true nature 1*onophysites6, i.e., thedivine one, after the incarnation. $od 'as born !theotokos, and $od 'as crucified and

died@2.

The 8utychian opponents refuted by stressing that Christ has t'o natures instead of one,

in one erson. Christ is fully $od and fully *an, con5substantial 'ith the 7ather and has

complete *anhood. Christ had true incarnation, and there 'as no conversion from manto $od or the deification of man 1nor 'as there humani:ation of $od6. n his famous

!Tome of +eo# in 994 -3, +eo critici:ed the 8utychian vie's, and in particular his

rejection of Christ)s true humanity;

!O8utychesP did not reali:e 'hat he ought to believe concerning the incarnation of the

"ord of $od? "e could not overcome the author of sin and death, unless OChristP

had taen our nature and made it his o'n, 'hom sin could not defile or death retain?

Thus there 'as born true $od in the entire and perfect nature of true humanity,complete in his o'n properties, complete in ours (totus in suis, totus in nostris).#@@

.9. The Council of Chalcedon 19 -36

-fter some more struggle bet'een the 8utychian party and its opponents 1including the&econd Council of 8phesus in 994 -3, 'hich 'as nic5named the !the Gobber

Council#6, the Council of Chalcedon 'as held in 9 -3. The 8utychian teachings 'ere

condemned, and the Tome of +eo 'as elevated to a position of authority as a statement of

Christological orthodo(y. The ecumenical Council of Chalcedon issued its famousstatement of the doctrine of the erson of Christ in its definition of faith;

!&o, follo'ing the saintly fathers, 'e all 'ith one voice teach the confession of oneand the same &on, our +ord Jesus Christ; the same perfect in divinity and perfect in

humanity, the same truly $od and truly man, of a rational soul and a body

consubstantial 'ith the 7ather as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial'ith us as regards his humanity lie us in all respects e(cept for sin begotten before

the ages from the 7ather as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us

and for our salvation from *ary, the virgin $od5bearer as regards his humanity one

and the same Christ, &on, +ord, only5begotten, acno'ledged in t'o natures 'hichundergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation at no point 'as the

difference bet'een the natures taen a'ay through the union, but rather the property

of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a singlesubsistent being he is not parted or divided into t'o persons, but is one and the same

only5begotten &on, $od, "ord, +ord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the

beginning about him, and as the +ord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as thecreed of the fathers handed it do'n to us.#@9

@2Berhof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, 4

8/12/2019 jidulun

10/12

The Council of Chalcedon set its o'n purpose to study and decide the central issues of

Christology and 'as much self5conscious of its o'n goal to establish the orthodo(y of

Christology. t affirmed the orthodo( Christological doctrines from the Niceno5Constantinopolitan Creed. t used the four negatives 1!no confusion, no change, no

division, no separation#6 to e(plain the relationship of Christ) divinity and humanity,

'hich 'as a great theological accomplishment that not only pointed out the doctrinalerrors before the Council, but also set a clear boundary by clarifying 'hat is out of the

range and thus forbidden.@ The Chalcedon 3efinition put together a clear statement

about the issue 'ith several important elements; 16 Jesus Christ is truly $od and trulyman, in one person, 'ith t'o natures. 126 Jesus Christ is the real incarnation. There 'as

no conversion bet'een the divinity and the humanity of Christ. There 'as neither the

deification of man, nor humani:ation of $od. 1@6 Christ is not a temporary association

'ith $od and man. %e is fully $od and fully man, but does not have t'o persons. 196Christ has t'o natures 1$od and man6 forever, but has the perfect hypostatical union of

divine and human. These established the essential foundations for orthodo( Christology.

.. -ftermath of Chalcedon

The Council of Chalcedon did not put all Christological disputes to rest. There 'ere stillstrong follo'ers of Cyril and 8utyches in 8gypt, &yria and alestine. They insisted that

Christ only had one holy nature instead of t'o natures after the union. 7or this reason

they 'ere called *onophysites. They thought that t'o distinct natures 'ould necessarilylead to t'o persons@

8/12/2019 jidulun

11/12

Dther additional uestions also arose, such as if the 'ill of Christ belongs to the person or

the nature, or if there is one 'ill in Christ or t'o. Dne sect of people asserted that there is

only one 'ill in Christ based on the unity of the erson. They 'ere called *onothelitesas a result. 7or a time the term !'ill# 'as replaced by !energy#. t 'as in the later Ath

century that the doctrine of t'o 'ills and t'o energies 'as adopted to be orthodo(@4.

#. Concluding $emar%s

-lthough most of the fundamental orthodo( doctrines of Christology 'ere established bythe closing of the patristic era, the Christological debates did not end at this time. n the

history to follo', there 'ere other controversies such as the -doptionist Controversy in

&pain in the Athand Ethcentury. Christology 'as not in the foreground in the *iddle

-ges. The *iddle -ges theologians accepted the authority of patristic Christology andidentified 'ith -ugustine)s stress on the real humanity of Christ in his atoning 'or.

Christology 'as not of essential importance to the Geformation debates. +uther)s

Christology 'as based on Christ as true $od and true man in inseparable unity. Calvin

also approved of the orthodo( Christological statements of the church councils.%o'ever, Christology once again became of major importance during and after the

8nlightenment of the 4thcentury. The liberal theologians proclaimed it their goal toisolate the !true historical Jesus# from the !$od5man# 'ho has been 'orshipped and

adored by the Church throughout the history. The divinity of Jesus Christ is presumed to

be a myth. *any of the modern Christological debates gave rise to uestions about therelationship of faith and history. n the 20thcentury and today, the doctrine of the erson

of Christ has often been represented in a naturalistic 'ay, 'hich has departed from the

orthodo( doctrines as reflected in the historical creeds such as the Chalcedon 3efinition. 90

7or contemporary Christians 'ho are committed to preserving, defending and

proclaiming the orthodo( Christian faith, 'e often need to go bac to the historical

orthodo( doctrine of Christology, 'hich is no doubt one of the most essential parts ofhistorical Christian doctrine. -nd 'e find that as this brief survey of the development of

Christology in the early church history has sho'n, most of the fundamental orthodo(

Christological doctrines 'ere developed before the beginning of the *iddle -ges throughthe struggle 'ith the erroneous teachings. The discussions and important historical

creeds concerning Christology help us to set boundaries from historical insight. They are

valuable theologically for determining the important parameters. -lthough 'e still need

to have space for further theological discussion, they help us to avoid repeating the errorsin the history. This is especially important in a time lie ours 'hen many of the historical

heretic teaching are reappearing in old and ne' forms.

&elected 'i(liography

Berhof, +., The %istory of Christian 3octrines, +ondon; Banner of Truth Trust, 4

8/12/2019 jidulun

12/12

Clement, !The &econd 8pistle of Clement#,

http;>>'''.earlychristian'ritings.com>2clement.html1Nov. 20026

7erguson, &. B. and "right, 3. 7., 8d., Ne' 3ictionary of Theology, 8ngland; nter5

Harsity ress, 4EE

%istorical 3ocument, !The Creed of Nicea#,

http;>>'''.gospelcom.net>chi>$+*&87>$limpses>glmps0EE.shtml1Nov. 20026

%istorical 3ocument, !The Nicene Creed#,

http;>>'''.reformed.org>documents>nicene.html1Nov. 20026

%istorical 3ocument, !3ogmatic 3efinition of the Council of Chalcedon#,http;>>'''.e'tn.com>faith>teachings>incac2.htm1Nov. 20026

%yppolitus, !Gefutation of -ll %eresies#, Boo H, Chapter II,

http;>>'''.'ebcom.com>gnosis>library>hypKrefutA.htm1Nov. 20026

gnatius, !The &econd 8pistle to the 8phesians#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers2>-N750>anf052.htm1Nov. 20026

Justin *artyr, !The 7irst -pology of Justin#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers>-N750>just>justinapology.htmlF&ection9saints>pray029A.htm1Nov. 20026

Tertullian,!-gainst ra(eas#, http;>>'''.ccel.org>fathers>-N75

0@>tertullian>part2>againstKpra(eas.html1Nov. 20026

2

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2clement.htmlhttp://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps088.shtmlhttp://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.htmlhttp://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac2.htmhttp://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/hyp_refut7.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-25.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-25.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justinapology1.html#Section46http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justinapology1.html#Section46http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0247.htmhttp://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0247.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-03/tertullian/part2/against_praxeas.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-03/tertullian/part2/against_praxeas.htmlhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2clement.htmlhttp://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps088.shtmlhttp://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.htmlhttp://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac2.htmhttp://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/hyp_refut7.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-25.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-25.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justinapology1.html#Section46http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/just/justinapology1.html#Section46http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0247.htmhttp://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pray0247.htmhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-03/tertullian/part2/against_praxeas.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-03/tertullian/part2/against_praxeas.html