1 2 3 4

I’d submit to the reader that one who believes that an original revelation was given to the apostles, yet denies the teaching given by the Fathers as regards how that revelation is transmitted is the one who “doesn’t understand the issues they’re discussing.” If JE really believes that an “original revelation that must be followed” was given to the apostles, then he should be able to show us what that revelation is, who followed it in the early Church, and who, specifically, was responsible for tainting the original message. I’ve seen no such evidence presented by JE . I’ve seen instead that a vast majority of the Fathers quoted by JE give quotes that betray JE’s position. If Fathers such as Athanasius and Basil really believed that sacred tradition was a subordinate authority, I would expect to see their writings dripping with explicit statements of that belief. I find none. We instead find that Athanasius believed that a Council was “sufficient” to combat heresy; Augustine believed that not only the Scriptures but the “authority of the Church” was also a “rule of faith“; we find Irenaeus teaching that “recourse to the ancient Churches” is where we must go when a dispute arises among believers; we find Basil teaching that dogmas that are held in the Church come from two forms, the written and the unwritten, which both carry “the same force.” If Basil really believed that the unwritten tradition contained the same teachings as the written, then it would be superfluous for him to mention the two separately, but he does.

We could go on and on. What has become obvious is that this whole debate hinges upon is how the Church Fathers viewed the Church and her authority. JE began this series by stating, quite correctly, that Evangelicals and Catholics have radically different views of Church History. JE misunderstands the Fathers because he misunderstands the nature and mission of the Church. The Fathers were very aware of the promises that were made to the Church by Christ, and they viewed the manifestation of the Church’s claim to teach with His authority to be a fulfillment of those promises. To follow the successors of the apostles was to follow the apostles themselves. One could not reject their authority without rejecting the authority of the Lord himself. The promises made to the apostles - and by extension their successors - do not allow for such rejection of their teachings on the premise that their teachings somehow held a ‘subordinate authority.’ So, it is to the Fathers’ teachings on the nature and the mission of the Church that we must go to conclude and summarize this section of the series. The following posts will be strictly dedicated to that purpose.

Augustine-

Let’s look at a few quotes from Augustine to get an idea of how this great Bishop viewed the Church:

This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can; be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they all went out of it, like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity.

(On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens, 1:6)

We can see from this quote that Augustine didn’t understand the Church as a body that could teach error and heresy at weak points in its history. He specifically says that “all” heresies have gone out of it. The idea that the Church could teach heresy was a fiction to Augustine. The pure truth, and salvation, was to be found only in the Catholic Church:

We believe also in The Holy Church, assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor.

(On Faith and the Creed, Chap. 10)

and...

One cannot have [salvation] except in the Catholic Church. Outside of the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing the alleluia, one can answer Amen, one can have the Gospel, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and preach, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.

(Sermon to the People of the Church of Caeserea, Chap. 6)

These powerful statements from Augustine show that the Church, and by extension her teaching authority, was something that could not be dispensed with. Even the possession of the Gospel itself, according to Augustine, was not enough. Where the Church is, there is salvation. Can this Church be recognized by certain notes? Augustine says, yes:

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith) - not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

(Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chap. 4)

and...

You [Vincent] imagine you are saying something clever when you derive the name Catholic, not from its universal membership in the world, but from the observance of all divine commands and all the sacraments, as if we rely on the meaning of the word to prove that the Church is world-wide, and not rather on the promise of God, and on so many and such clear pronouncements of truth itself. Yet it does happen that the Church is called Catholic, too, because it embraces all truth, and there are even some fragments of this truth to be found in different heresies.

(Letters, No. 93)

Now, does what you have just read line up with the understanding of the Church JE has presented in his series? I don’t believe it does. Augustine taught that the Church is recognized as a “world-wide” church, something JE implicitly denies existed in his opening remarks to his series. Remember, in contrasting the Evangelical understanding of Church history with the Catholic understanding, JE writes:

The evangelical view of church history is similar to what we read about in 2 Kings 22:8-13, where the original revelation is what must be followed, even if our forefathers failed to do so. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that there's been one worldwide denomination centered in Rome since the time of the apostles. They believe that the church fathers were members of that denomination, and that all of the teachings of the apostles were passed on in an unbroken succession.

Well, the reason Catholics believe such things is that Fathers, like Augustine, claimed such things for the Church. I don’t see that Augustine gave any credence to the belief that he was somehow autonomous from a world-wide denomination that is comprised of a hierarchy that claims to teach in the name of Jesus and the Apostles. The fact that the Church “embraces all truth” - or an “original revelation” if that’s what we want to call it - is only one mark of the Church according to this Father. It is not just the possession of truth that Augustine considered to be an essential mark of the Church, but also other marks such as, “the consent of peoples and nations...,” “...her authority...,” “...the succession of priests...,” and “...the name itself of Catholic...” All of these things were considered to be important distinguishing marks of the true Church to Augustine. This understanding of the Church is a far-cry from the understanding presented by JE of an “invisible” church, to which we’ll now momentarily turn.

One is left perplexed as to what JE understands the Fathers to be teaching in some of his quotes. In one example, JE quotes Protestant historian Philip Schaff as follows:

Protestant historian Philip Schaff wrote:

"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, ...

Yet, in another post we read:

Augustine refers to the invisible church: (emphasis mine)

"But the enemies of this brotherly love, whether they are openly without, or appear to be within, are false Christians, and antichrists. For when they have found an opportunity, they go out, as it is written: 'A man wishing to separate himself from his friends, seeketh opportunities.' But even if occasions are wanting, while they seem to be within, they are severed from that invisible bond of love. Whence St. John says, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for had they been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.' He does not say that they ceased to be of us by going out, but that they went out because they were not of us." (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3:19:26)

Not only does this passage say nothing about an ‘invisible church,’ but it only reinforces the earlier statement from Augustine quoted above that heresy and schism cannot exist within the Church of God. The Church, by her very nature as a God-ordained institution, does not have the opportunity to become wholly heretical. Augustine never imputes such an idea to the teaching authority of the true Church. Needless to say, one ends up scratching his head when it comes to trying to decipher what JE is trying to prove, and why he uses such Fathers as Augustine to prove it.

Basil -

JE offers some critique of Stephen Ray’s commentary in his book Upon This Rock as regards how Basil viewed the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Mr. Ray quotes Basil as follows:

"It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him [the bishop of Rome] to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey,-suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here" (Upon This Rock [San Francisco, California: Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 207)

Mr. Ray offers the following commentary regarding this statement of Basil:

"The Eastern churches were in dismal condition due to heresy and schism, caused especially by Arianism. Basil confides in Athanasius that the only way out of the situation, in his estimation, is to appeal to the bishop of Rome. He tells Athanasius that he has appealed to the bishop of Rome to 'act on his own authority in the matter'. Basil must have understood the Roman church to have superior authority and the right to exercise it in the Eastern churches. He knows that if the bishop of Rome speaks, those in contention will have to submit." (pp. 207-208)

JE goes on to give his reasons of why he feels Mr. Ray is mistaken in this matter. JE sees no implications of a juridical authority being given to the Bishop of Rome in these quotes. He summarizes his contention as follows:

But, even worse than Stephen Ray's errors in analyzing what he *did* quote from Basil is what he *didn't* quote. Contrary to what he claims, Basil did *not* view an appeal to the bishop of Rome as the only solution to the problems in the East in the sense Stephen Ray suggests. You could say that it was the only solution in some sense, in the sense of practicality and the exhaustion of other possibilities, for example, but not in the sense of jurisdiction.

I’d like to turn the tables here and submit that what’s even worse than JE’s errors in analyzing what he *did* quote from Stephen Ray and Basil is what he *didn’t* quote. But, before we get into that, we need to pause and ask ourselves a couple of questions: First, how was this appeal to the Bishop of Rome the only solution in “some sense?” JE gives us the senses of “practicality” and the “exhaustion of all other possibilities,” but I don’t see Basil alluding to such in the above quote. JE never explains how this appeal to the Bishop of Rome was only necessary in some sort of limited sense. This reduces his assertion to mere conjecture. Second, if the Bishop of Rome was not viewed as having a jurisdictional authority to decide in this matter, then why, as we shall see, were both sides (orthodox Christians and the Arians) claiming to have letters from the Bishop of Rome vindicating their positions?

Let’s take a deeper look into Basil’s writings to see if we can get a better glimpse as to how he viewed the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

In a Letter to the Bishop of Rome (most likely to Pope Damasus), Basil wrote the following:

“Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honourable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is, that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties.... I have been constrained to beseech you by letter to be moved to help us....In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case. For I well remember learning from the answers made by our fathers when asked, and from documents still preserved among us, that the illustrious and blessed bishop [Pope] Dionysius, conspicuous in your see as well as for soundness of faith as for all virtues, visited by letter my Church of Caeserea, and by letter exhorted our fathers, and sent men to ransom our brethren from captivity.” (emphasis mine)

(Basil, Letter 70, as quoted in Upon this Rock, pg. 209)

In a footnote, Mr. Ray aptly comments:

..The letter has no official address, though it is obviously addressed to Pope Damasus (r.A.D. 366-384). Again previous practice and ancient custom acknowledge the special place of the Roman bishop. Basil remarks elsewhere that certain men were “carrying about letters from the westerns, handing over the bishopric of Antioch to them (NPNF2, 8:253).” What right had Rome to hand over Eastern Bishoprics to anyone? How could Rome prove its primacy in any stronger terms than to hand the Antiochean bishopric over to someone of its own choosing? Obviously Rome had the right and duty of overseeing such ecclesiastical matters, and Basil recognized this authority.”

(Stephen Ray, Upon This Rock, pg. 209)

I think Mr. Ray makes a damaging blow here. If nobody in this period of Church history believed that the Bishop of Rome had the authority he was claiming to have then why did the Eastern Churches submit to the bogus letters, purporting to be from the Pope, that were being promulgated by the heretics? When you have heretics and orthodox alike seeking vindication from the Bishop of Rome then you immediately know that this same bishop held a jurisdictional authority in the eyes of the early Church. I don’t see in the above quote from Basil the understanding postulated by JE that an appeal to the Bishop of Rome was the only possible solution in “some sense.” Basil specifically states that he is “by no means making any novel request.” Basil’s request for the intervention of the Bishop of Rome was not based on the “exhaustion of all other possibilities” but was instead based on actions that were “customary” even before the peculiar circumstances Basil’s time.

What is even more telling are the claims made by Pope Damasus himself. Consider the following:

Likewise it is decreed:... we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelistic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]....

(Damasus, The Decree of Damasus, 382 A.D.)

If Basil really believed that there was no “world-wide denomination centered in Rome” then we should expect to hear a litany of objections from him regarding the claims made by Pope Damasus in this document - there are none. Basil shows his belief in these claims when he specifically asks for Pope Damasus to intervene in the aforementioned crisis. Before one rashly assumes that Basil held a view of the Church’s nature and mission that rejects Roman Catholic claims of the authority of the Roman bishop, he needs to answer why Basil and other early Christians begged for the intervention of the Bishop of Rome to solve controversies and why they gave no objections to his claims of primacy in the process.

Athanasius -

The topic of the deposition of Athanasius is the crux upon which the above quotes from Basil revolve. JE gives an excerpt of a letter from Basil to Athanasius to back his assertion that Basil, and the early Church with him, rejected Catholicism’s claim for the jurisdictional authority of the Bishop of Rome. JE quotes Basil as follows:

What would Roman Catholic apologists like Stephen Ray make of the following comments if they had been written to the bishop of Rome rather than the bishop of Alexandria:

"As time moves on, it continually confirms the opinion which I have long held of your holiness; or rather that opinion is strengthened by the daily course of events. Most men are indeed satisfied with observing, each one, what lies especially within his own province; not thus is it with you, but your anxiety for all the Churches is no less than that which you feel for the Church that has been especially entrusted to you by our common Lord; inasmuch as you leave no interval in speaking, exhorting, writing, and despatching emissaries, who from time to time give the best advice in each emergency as it arises. Now, from the sacred ranks of your clergy, you have sent forth the venerable brother Peter, whom I have welcomed with great joy. I have also approved of the good object of his journey, which he manifests in accordance with the commands of your excellency, in effecting reconciliation where he finds opposition, and bringing about union instead of division. With the object of offering some contribution to the action which is being taken in this matter, I have thought that I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all, and treating you as alike adviser and commander in the enterprise. I have therefore determined to send to your reverence our brother Dorotheus the deacon, of the Church under the right honourable bishop Meletius, being one who at once is an energetic supporter of the orthodox faith, and is earnestly desirous of seeing the peace of the Churches. The results, I hope, will be, that, following your suggestions (which you are able to make with the less likelihood of failure, both from your age and your experience in affairs, and because you have a greater measure than all others of the aid of the Spirit), he may thus attempt the achievement of our objects....The present state of affairs makes it specially necessary that attention should be called to him [the heretic Marcellus], so that those who seek for their opportunity, may be prevented from getting it, from the fact of sound men being united to your holiness, and all who are lame in the true faith may be openly known; that so we may know who are on our side, and may not struggle, as in a night battle, without being able to distinguish between friends and foes....you will yourself give more complete attention to all these matters, so soon as, by the blessing of God, you find every one entrusting to you the responsibility of securing the peace of the Church." (Letter 69:1-2)

Basil refers to Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, as watching over "all the Churches". He refers to Athanasius as "the head and chief of all" and "commander". He says that Athanasius has "a greater measure than all others of the aid of the Spirit". He refers to Athanasius as a source of unity, with "sound men being united to your holiness". He asks Athanasius to act, so that "all who are lame in the true faith may be openly known; that so we may know who are on our side, and may not struggle, as in a night battle, without being able to distinguish between friends and foes". He tells Athanasius that "you will yourself give more complete attention to all these matters, so soon as, by the blessing of God, you find every one entrusting to you the responsibility of securing the peace of the Church".

These comments of Basil refute Stephen Ray's suggestion that Basil considered a jurisdictional appeal to the bishop of Rome to be the *only* solution to the problems in the East. Not only does Basil say nothing about the bishop of Rome being a Pope, but he even makes comments about the bishop of Alexandria that are higher than what he says about the bishop of Rome. If Basil had made those comments about the bishop of Rome rather than the bishop of Alexandria, Stephen Ray probably would have quoted them in his book. But since Basil was referring to the bishop of Alexandria, Roman Catholic apologists see no papal implications.

The reason Roman Catholic apologists see no ‘papal implications’ in this passage is because there are none. Did Basil make any references to Athanasius being the successor of Peter? Did Basil, who was familiar with Pope Damasus’ decree, also believe that the Church of Alexandria was “placed at the forefront” and had “received the primacy by the evangelistic voice of our Lord and Savior?” The answers to the questions are, undoubtedly, no. Flowery language from bishop to bishop doesn’t make a Papacy - the promises made to Peter and his successors do. Knowing that Basil wrote to Pope Damasus with full knowledge of the claims that Pope Damasus made for himself testifies to the irrefutable fact that Basil accepted the claims of the Bishop of Rome, and that he, likewise, did not believe that the Church of Alexandria either held or claimed to hold the same primacy as that of Rome. Basil’s silence in the face of Pope Damasus’ claims does not leave room for any other alternative viewpoint.

The Case of Ursacius and Valens

The case of Ursacius and Valens as regards the deposition of Athanasius gives us an interesting glimpse into early Church protocol. Ursacius and Valens were the Bishops of Singidunum (Belgrade) and Mursa, respectively. Both were Arian sympathizers who were instrumental in getting Athanasius booted from his bishopric in Alexandria. Neither of them were known for their consistent orthodoxy, either before or after the incident with Athanasius, but their actions surrounding their condemnation of Athanasius - as well as their subsequent retraction of that condemnation- speaks volumes as to how they, and Athanasius, regarded the authority of the Church, especially the Roman Bishop. After Pope Julius learned of Athanasius’ deposition, he wrote the following in a scathing letter to Arian sympathizers:

“Why was nothing said to us [Pope Julius and the Roman Church] concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us [Rome], and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place [Rome]; whereas, after neglecting to inform us and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.... Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.”

(Pope Julius, as quoted in Athanasius’ Defence Against the Arians, 2, 35)

What was the response of these two bishops? Did they say that the Bishop of Rome was usurping rightful authority? Did they, or Athanasius, argue that the God-Breathed Scripture denies such authority being placed in any man? Consider the following and draw your own conclusion. As regards Pope Julius’ letter, Athanasius wrote:

“When Ursacius and Valens saw all this, they forthwith condemned themselves for what they had done, and going up to Rome, confessed their crime, declared themselves penitent, and sought forgiveness, addressing the following letters to Julius, Bishop of ancient Rome, and to ourselves. Copies of them were sent to me from Paulinus, Bishop of Treveri.

“Ursacius and Valens to the most blessed lord, pope Julius.

“Whereas it is well known that we have heretofore in letters laid many grievous charges against the Bishop Athanasius, and whereas, when we were corrected by the letters of your Goodness, we were unable to render an account of the statement we had made; we do now confess before your Goodness....Wherefore we earnestly desire communion with the aforesaid Athanasius, especially since your Piety, with your characteristic generosity, has vouchsafed to pardon our error. But we also declare, that if at any time the Eastern Bishops, or even Athanasius himself, ungenerously should wish to bring us to judgment for this matter, we will not depart contrary to your judgment.... I Ursacius subscribed this my confession in person; and likewise I Valens.

(As quoted in Athanasius’ Defence Against the Arians)

In the face of a condemnation from the Bishop of Rome, these two heretical Bishops did a complete “180” and went so far as to say that not even a judgment from the eastern bishops would cause them to depart from Julius’ judgment. This function of the Church was so well understood that the great orthodox bishop Athanasius bothered to quote it in his Defence. Neither Athanasius, or the bishops mentioned here ever denied the authority of the Pope, or the Church as a whole in communion with him. This shows us that the Church has the authority to make crucial, binding decisions. Such is her nature as the Bride of Christ.

Conclusion

There’s much more that can (and should) be discussed as regards this topic, but it’s been my aim to keep this as general and simple as possible. One can spend his or her entire lifetime studying the massive corpus of writings that came out of the early Church. I hope to move to other topics such Salvation and the Sacraments in later posts. My desire in this segment, a desire I believe also to be shared by Mr. Engwer, is a desire to present you with a general yet thorough treatment of what the writers of the early Church believed to be the nature and role of the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Authority of the Church. I’ve meant no disrespect in this rebuttal to Mr. Engwer or anyone who subscribes to his brand of doctrine, and I hope nothing I’ve said will be construed as being arrogant or condescending. Try as we might, those of us who engage in these types of discussions, whether in private or in a public forum such as this, have a tendency to be ‘Prima Donnas.’ I’ve tried my best to avoid that, and I apologize if anything I’ve written has caused undue offense to anyone. Having said that, I still stand by my earlier statements that, in my estimation, Mr. Engwer’s treatment of this topic in his series is woefully inadequate. To make claims that the early Church Fathers contradicted Roman Catholic teachings as regards the nature and role of the Scriptures, Tradition, and the authority of the Church is untenable. In reality, Catholic Dogma as regards these subjects has done nothing more than re-quote what these Fathers unanimously taught about such things, and I firmly believe that an unbiased reading of the Fathers certainly reveals such to be the case. It’s not enough for Mr. Engwer and other Evangelical apologists to re-state the obvious; namely, that an original revelation was given to mankind that must be followed if one is to remain in God’s good graces; that simple fact has never been the argument between us. Mr. Engwer instead needs to show us from the Fathers what vehicle was viewed by the early Church to be the mode of transmission for that revelation, and how it is really the invisible church of Evangelicalism as opposed to a hierarchical, world-wide Church of Catholicism that has held to and transmitted that revelation undefiled since the time of the apostles. I’ve seen no such evidence of this ‘invisible church’ in the writings of the Fathers at all. I also have not seen how a religious movement which cannot agree on such fundamental issues as Baptism, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ and Church government can be the ‘pillar of truth’ against which the gates of hell would never prevail. In fact, I believe there’s a recent book titled, ‘Five views on Church Polity” - where’s that ever sanctioned in the Bible or the early Church?!

I hope this segment has been helpful. It’s certainly not the best that could have (or has been) done on these topics. My hope is that it will at least get all those interested to look a little deeper at the historical roots for the Catholic faith. The job is now up to the reader to examine this evidence and study the Fathers for themselves. I believe such a study leads to an inevitable discovery: It is only the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Catholicism that can lay claim to be the sole possessor of the unadulterated truth given to us by our King and Lord.

Patrick D. Morris

January 13, 2005

Where the Church is, there is the most secure resting-place (or harbour) for thy mind.

(Ambrose, To the Church of Vercelli, Epistle 63).

 1 2 3 4