A Look At Barry Bickmore’s Book From a Non-LDS Perspective

Review by David Waltz

“…This one thing is at least certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…”¹

“The position, that historical Christianity is not Protestantism, is certainly true…We maintain Protestantism was the Christianity of the apostles-that very soon after their time, corruptions in doctrine and government were introduced into the church…”²

Historians have given the name “Oxford Movement” to the unique period of time set in England between 1833-1845-centered of course at Oxford University. A very important outgrowth of this movement was a renaissance in the study of the early Church Fathers(i.e.Patristics). Fueled in part by Newman’s Essay on the Development Christian Doctrine, this renaissance quickly spread well beyond Oxford. It sparked interest within Roman Catholicism, and many Protestant denominations. J.P. Migne produced his massive Patralogia Latina(221 volumes) and Patralogia Graeca (162 volumes) between 1844 and 1866. Comprehensive English editions of the Church Fathers shortly followed Migne’s works.

Providentially it would seem, discoveries of ancient documents, of which previously had existed either in fragments or name only, emerged on the scene. These newly discovered documents included the Didache (1875), the Oxyrhynchus Papri (1897), the Nag Hammadi Papyri (1945), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947). The emergence of these new documents took Patristic studies to an all new level.

Unbeknownst to the Patristic scholars of Christendom, a new “player” would emerge into the scene of Patristic studies, Hugh W. Nibley, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Gifted with a brilliant mind, Nibley has mastered Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German, French, Spanish, Coptic and Egyptian, giving him the tools to study the Patristics that very few possess. Well before the translation and publication of many of these new discoveries into English, Nibley started to write on them. Nibley would lay the groundwork on which a future generation of LDS scholars and writers would build. To this group we can now add Barry Bickmore.

Bickmore in his newly published Restoring the Ancient Church has added a significant work to the renaissance of Patristic studies started in Oxford.

It is my hope that I can offer a unique review of Bickmore’s book. I am not a Mormon, but I have been investigating the LDS Church since 1987. I also have a keen interest in Patristics, which started in 1980 with my purchase of the 38 volume Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. (My personal library has grown to more than 14,000 volumes, which includes 1,600 plus LDS-related volumes). I find it very interesting that Bickmore has organized, and put into print, many of the themes that I have seen in my personal reading of the early Church Fathers. I find it equally interesting that anti-Mormons who compare LDS doctrines with the early Church Fathers either ignore or gloss over much of the evidence.

The cry I have read, and heard, over and over again from the anti-Mormon camp is that Mormonism is not “historic” or “orthodox” Christianity. But, as Newman pointed out in the above quote, neither is Protestantism. My reading of the early Church Fathers has forced me to concur with Newman’s assessment. And yet Cunningham’s assessment of Roman Catholicism is equally telling, “Whatever be the Christianity of the New Testament, it is not Romanism. If ever there was a safe truth, it is this, and Romanism has ever felt it.”³

These are frank admissions, ones that anti-Mormons ignore when they criticize the LDS Church. Enter Barry Bickmore’s book. Is there strong evidence that distinctive LDS doctrine existed in the early Church? The honest investigator after reading this book must come to the following conclusion-YES.

Bickmore in his preface says, “I have endeavored to make this book exactly the kind of book I would like to read when I first became interested in comparing Mormonism to early Christianity.” Referring to previous LDS works on the subject, “These often quoted essentially from other LDS authors rather than from non-Mormon or even early Christian sources.” (In a footnote he addresses some exceptions, Nibley’s writings, James Barker’s The Divine Church, and Michael Griffith’s One Lord, One Faith and Signs of the True Church of Christ). Bickmore then writes that it his intention “to fill the gap I perceive in the LDS literature”. It is my opinion that Bickmore has accomplished what he set out to do.

Before presenting his evidences from the early Church Fathers, Bickmore lays down some very important prerequisites-first, that spiritual things cannot “be proven by human wisdom” (page 16), second, “Since we believe the post-apostolic Church had fallen away, we fully expect these documents to include views contrary to ours” (pages 16-17 footnote), third, “we also expect that the earlier we go, the more true doctrine we are likely to find” (page 17 footnote), fourth, “Given the incomplete nature of the historical record…it would be fruitless to search the extant early Christian literature for data to ‘falsify’ LDS claims” (page 17). Bickmore ends his preface on page 17 with, “Those who reject these assumptions will no doubt find the arguments presented here less than compelling, but even so I believe these arguments demonstrate conclusively that Mormonism is very similar in many respects to some very early forms of Christianity.”

In chapter one on page 24, Bickmore makes a cogent remark before launching into his main presentation: “If Joseph Smith taught doctrines that are in harmony with those of the early Church but which were essentially unknown in his time, the skeptic must provide explanation for the phenomenon.” All of us non-Mormons need to keep this in mind when we look at Bickmore’s evidence.

Chapter two is on the issues of apostasy and restoration. He begins this chapter with, “The simple fact is that had there been no ‘apostasy,’ or ‘falling away’, from Christ’s original Church, there would have been no need for God to restore the Church…” Bickmore first presents Old and New Testament evidence that there would be an apostasy. On this there is not much new, one can find most, if not all of the verses used by Bickmore in other LDS books that deal with the issue of an apostasy. Yet, this section is worth reading, for Bickmore’s presentation of the material is clear and well organized.

He then proceeds to present evidence from the Patristics and Patristic scholars that deal with the issue of apostasy. Though Nibley has presented much of the same evidence in past works, Bickmore’s presentation is more up-to-date, and his citations are all from works written in English which allows readers who have not mastered all the languages which Nibley has (and I think that is most of us!), to check first hand his references.

I found the citations from the Pastor of Hermas (pages 35-37) to be very interesting. As Bickmore points out, the Pastor of Hermas for centuries was considered to be inspired scripture by many Christians. In this work the Church is represented in a vision as a tower being built, and when finished, the end comes. To which is added, “But it will quickly be built up…”.

On page 39, Bickmore makes what I feel is a small mistake. He writes, “…it took fourteen ecumenical councils between the years 325 and 381 A.D. to settle the controversy about the doctrine of the Trinity.” He is correct about the fourteen councils, but only two (Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381) are considered by historians to be “ecumenical”.

The section of the book under the heading “Directions of the Apostasy”(pages 42-51) is a difficult one for me. Bickmore provides his readers in this section with only two quotes from the Church Fathers. Most of the information given to us in this section is from second hand sources, and most of these sources are very liberal. I am not saying that liberal sources cannot be useful, but I for one would certainly qualify the use of Wolfson and Jonas when dealing with Gnostic and Hellenistic influences on the early Church Fathers. These same men believe that the New Testament writers were also influenced by the Gnostics and Hellenists.

On page 52, Bickmore writes, “But what happened to the gifts? Few Christians today, besides some Pentecostals and charismatic Evangelicals, as well as the Mormons, claim to have all the gifts of the spirit.” As a non-Mormon I would have to ask Barry what happened to the type of usage of the gifts that we see in 1 Cor. 12-14? To date in my attendance of LDS services I have never seen the use of “tongues”, nor “prophecy”, nor “interpretations”. Let us keep in mind that one should not ask of others what one himself cannot provide.

In the section “The Necessity of a Restoration” on pages 65 and 66, Bickmore makes an intriguing observation about the usage of “all things” in Acts 3:20-21; 1 Peter 4:17; 2 Peter 1:3; and Matt. 17:11. He presents a solid argument that “all things” in the above contexts refers “to pure gospel teaching”.⁴

In addition to the evidence that Bickmore presents on the apostasy, I would like to add an important quotation from the prominent Protestant theologian William Cunningham who wrote, “Protestants believe, as a matter of unquestionable historical certainty, that at a very early period error and corruption–i.e., deviations from the scriptural standard in matter of doctrine, government, worship, and discipline–manifested themselves in the visible church gradually, but rapidly; that this corruption deepened and increased, till it issued at length in a grand apostasy…”⁵

Chapter three deals with the important issues of the doctrine of God and the nature of man. This is a very important chapter. As Bickmore points out, Jesus himself tells us that, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ who thou hast sent.”(John 17:3)

Anti-Mormon critics are quick to accuse Mormonism of teaching polytheism, and add that Trinitarianism is monotheistic. What they neglect to tell us is that Unitarians (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) have leveled the same charge against Trinitarians. Bickmore in this chapter does a very good job of addressing the complex issues that abound when dealing with the doctrine of the Godhead. Many LDS writers have not been always clear on this subject, but Bickmore gives us an excellent presentation of the Godhead in LDS thought, and then finds many parallels in the early Christian writings.

After the brief, but accurate and clear, presentation of the LDS doctrine of the Godhead, and the classical Trinitarian view (pages 76-82), Bickmore turns to presenting his evidence that a change had occurred from the God of the Bible who is presented in anthropomorphic terms, to a God presented in Hellenistic philosophical terms. He also demonstrates that Hellenistic Christian philosophers/theologians such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ambrose, and Augustine had affirmed in their writings that many early Christians believed in a corporeal God, even though they themselves emphatically rejected such an idea.

Bickmore writes the following on page 90, “Origen rejected anthropomorphism, not because the scriptures or unanimous Christian tradition specifically rejected it, but because the philosophers ‘despised’ it: ‘The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.'”(Origen, De Principiis Preface 9)

In the section that Bickmore titles “The Problem of ‘Monotheism'” (pages 106-121) he presents solid evidence that many of the early Church Fathers had no problem with identifying Jesus Christ as a second God. In addition to the Fathers that Bickmore cites (Justin, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Novation, Lactantius, Methodius, and Eusebius) we can add Gregory of Nyssa, who, though had written a treatise called “On Not Three Gods”, was still able to write, “Does not the nature always remain undiminished in the case of every animal by the succession of its posterity? Further a man in begetting a man from himself does not divide his nature, but it remains in its fulness alike in him who begets and in him who is begotten, not split off and transferred from the one to the other, nor mutilated in the one when it is fully formed in the other, but at once existing in its entirety in the former and discoverable in its entirety in the latter.”⁶ And, “Accordingly, a man becomes ‘one’ with another, when, in will, as our Lord says, they are ‘perfected into one'(see Jn. 17:23), this union of wills being added to the connexion of nature. So also the Father and the Son are one, the community of nature and the community of will running, in them, into one.”⁷ So, following Gregory’s reasoning, just as it is proper to call the saints one, and also many, so too with the Godhead. Gregory Nazianzen wrote, “When we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause–there are Three Whom we worship.”⁸And again, “I will baptize you and make you a disciple in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and These Three have one common name, the Godhead.”⁹ Compare this with Orson Pratt who said, “In one sense of the word, there are more Gods than one; and in another there is but one God (JD 1.56), and “…there is but one God, and He is in all worlds, and throughout all space, wherever the same identical light or truth is found; and all beings, from all eternity to all eternity, have to worship Him; though they worship Him in so many different tabernacles, yet it is one God, or in other words, the same light or truth that is worshipped by all.” (JD 2.346)

Bickmore then cites Bettenson who says, “‘subordinationism’…was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.”¹⁰ With this assessment I fully concur, and would like to add that when one closely examines the doctrine of God and Jesus Christ in the early Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, one is hard pressed to find Trinitarianism-what one does find is diversity. Note what R.P.C. Hanson has to say, “Finally, what is Christian midrash(i.e. tradition)? What are its contents? Is it the Gnostic formulae of Ignatius? The angel-Christology of Hermas? …or the economic Trinity of Irenaeus and Tertullian? The modalistic monarchianism of Callistus and Zephyrinus? The graded Trinity of Origen?”¹¹ And Newman writes, “If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian… Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord’s divinity… Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.”¹² Yet with all this diversity among the pre-Nicene, one point of theology remains constant, subordinationism.

On pages 121-138, Bickmore provides his readers with a brief overview of the development of Christology, and the doctrine of the Godhead, from the time of the early apologists, up to Augustine and Cyril of Jerusalem. It is an adequate presentation given the scope and limitations of the book’s format. (The reader should note that this is a very complex issue on which hundreds of volumes have been written).

Bickmore’s next section comes under the heading of “The Origen and Destiny of Man” pages 138-165. He begins this section with the doctrine of premortal existence. After defining the LDS view, he then gives us a few examples from Church Fathers who supported this view. Although this was definitely a minority view among the early Church Fathers, some certainly held to it, and as Bickmore points out on page 145, the doctrine of premortal existence was not “formally condemned until 543 A.D. when Origen’s ‘errors’ were listed and pronounced heretical at a council of bishops.”

Next Bickmore discusses the doctrine of deification (i.e. man becoming God). After a brief presentation of the LDS view, Bickmore then turns to the writings of the Church Fathers. Before proceeding, I must say that as one who is not LDS, I have been somewhat “troubled” by the immense quantity of references in the Church Fathers which promote the doctrine of deification. As Bickmore points out, the later Fathers began to make qualifications on what and what not deification meant, but the vast majority of the pre-Nicene Fathers gave their readers no qualifications.

Bickmore in this section gives his readers more than twenty citations from the Church Fathers that teach the doctrine that men can become Gods. To this number I could supply at least another thirty quotes, from my personal notes on the Church Fathers, which teach the same doctrine. I think that the citations speak for themselves, but read what one Protestant scholar had to say: “Participation in God was carried so far by Irenaeus as to amount to deification. ‘We are not made gods in the beginning,’ he says, ‘but at first men, then at length gods.’ This is not to be understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration on Irenaeus part. He meant the statement to be taken literally.”¹³ This is “food for thought”–unless one is willing to completely ignore and throw away the unified teaching of the early Church Fathers on the doctrine of deification, the honest reader must seriously look at either the LDS Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church as maintaining the truly “historic” teaching on this important doctrine.

Chapter 4 has the heading “Salvation: History and requirements”. In pages 168-186 Bickmore discusses Adam and the Fall, the sinful nature and original sin, and, total depravity and predestination. Bickmore provides examples from the Church Fathers that are very close to the LDS teachings on these subjects.

In pages 191-196 Bickmore touches on faith, grace and works. I personally wish he would have devoted more space to these complex doctrines, but then we must keep in mind that Catholics and Protestants have been hotly debating these doctrines for more than 400 years now, and agreement on these issues is no where in sight. Needless to say, the LDS position certainly falls within the “historic” teachings on these doctrines.

Pages 197-204 are on baptism and the laying on of hands. Once again we have two hotly debated doctrines amongst Christians. Bickmore clearly shows that the LDS view on these issues was represented by some of the early Church Fathers.

In pages 205-218 Bickmore delves into the realm of the spirit world, the world of the departed dead. LDS teachings that are represented amongst the writings of the early Church Fathers include a two-fold division of the spirit world, instruction in the spirit world, an end of punishment for most of wicked, and a preaching of the gospel in the spirit world.

Pages 218-227 discuss baptism for the dead. To my knowledge, the LDS Church is the only body of Christian believers who currently practice baptism for the dead. Baptism for the dead is of course mentioned once in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 15:29. Bickmore cites Richard DeMaris, who writes the following about the above passage, “the reference itself is simply so obscure and our knowledge so limited that we cannot discern just what this rite actually involved or meant.”¹⁴

Moving on to the Church Fathers, Bickmore informs us in note 160 on page 223 that, “The index of texts for ANF(Ante-Nicene Fathers) lists only two instances in the entire pre-Nicene period where 1 Corinthians 15:29 was even mentioned…” On page 222 Bickmore writes, “Aside from Paul’s reference there is only mention of a few heretical groups who preserved the practice.”

Bickmore in attempts to give us some support for the practice of baptism for the dead by citing an obscure passage from the Pastor of Hermas which seems to indicate that baptism for the righteous dead is practiced in some form in heaven. Bickmore even goes so far as to quote Clement of Alexandria out of context in his search for support among the Church Fathers. Bickmore’s citation from page 221 reads as follows, “‘They went down therefore into the water and again ascended…But those who had fallen asleep descended dead, but ascended alive…’ Then, too, the more subtle substance, the soul, could never receive any injury from the grosser element of water.” The footnote number 153 for the above quote tells us that the passage is from Clement’s Stromata 6:6, but Bickmore neglects to tell his readers that the portion of the quote following the first set of ellipses is removed a full 6 paragraphs. The following is the full context of the above citation:

“If, then, He preached only to the Jews, who wanted the knowledge and faith of the Saviour, it is plain that since God is no respecter of persons, the apostles also, as here, so there, preached the Gospel to those of the heathen who were ready for conversion. And it is well said by the Shepard, ‘They went down with them therefore into the water, and again ascended. But these descended alive, and again ascended alive. But those who had fallen asleep, descended dead, but ascended alive.’ Further, the Gospel says, ‘that many bodies of those that slept arose,’-plainly as having been translated to a better state. There took place, then, a universal movement and translation through the economy of the Saviour.”¹⁵ And, “If, then, in the deluge all sinful flesh perished, punishment having been inflicted on them for correction, we must first believe that the will of God, which is disciplinary and beneficent, saves those who turn to Him. Then, too, the more subtle substance, the soul, could never receive any injury from the grosser element of water, its subtle and simple nature rendering it impalpable, called as it is incorporeal. But whatever is gross, made so in consequence of sin, this is cast away along with the carnal spirit which lusts against the soul.”¹⁶

In an attempt to explain away the fact that there is no mention of baptism for the dead in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Bickmore suggests that the practice was a secret, esoteric one. Bickmore writes on page 225, “… all the sacraments of the Church were veiled in secrecy until the third century. According to Davies, in the first two centuries of Christianity there are plenty of references to baptism and the Eucharist, but no detailed descriptions, because ‘the observance of the disciplina arcani [secret discipline] inhibited full descriptions of these rites.'”

It is extremely important to note that the scholarship of R.P.C. Hanson in pages 27-35 of his work Tradition in the Early Church contradicts the notion that secret tradition existed among the orthodox Fathers of the early Church. Hanson states on page 27 that, “Secret tradition is characteristic of Gnosticism and not of orthodox Christianity.” He tells us that the term disciplina arcani was first coined in the seventeenth century by J. Daille who used to term to describe the alleged practice of concealing the doctrines and rites of Christianity. Hanson then writes on page 27, “This hypothesis used to be widely employed by apologists for orthodoxy, as a means of accounting for the apparent ignorance on the part of early Christian writers of doctrines developed in the fourth and later centuries. Newman, for instance, applies it frequently in his Arians of the Fourth Century. But this method of accounting for the development of Christian doctrine has now been everywhere abandoned. Indeed, Newman himself had abandoned it by the time he came to write his Development of Christian Doctrine.” I am surprised that Bickmore attempts to use the argument of disciplina arani, for Hanson’s puts to rest any legitimate attempt to appeal to its use, and Bickmore, must be familiar with this book, for he cites it on page 301.

To sum up, the evidence for baptism of the dead as a practice amongst the orthodox Church is not there. It was practiced in some heretical Christian sects, but I am not comfortable with using Gnostic heretical practices to support true Christian doctrine. It is of course mentioned in the New Testament, but only once. It must be admitted that New Testament scholars have not come up with any type of consensus as to what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 15:29, so the LDS interpretation cannot be ruled out simply by exegesis. But we are left with the question of, why was it not practiced in the early Church? A plausible argument from the LDS perspective could be that it was a practice which would be primarily reserved for the latter-day dispensation, and that Christ and his apostles revealed the doctrine to very few in the early Church. In conjunction with this line of thought, early abuses by those few to which the doctrine had been revealed, may have caused the apostles to cease any practice of it at all. But, with that said, to the non-Mormon the practice of baptism for the dead rests on very scanty evidence.

Bickmore’s next chapter on “Church Organization and Life”, pages 251-281,touches on priesthood authority, the priesthood of all believers, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, offices in the priesthoods, the Lord’s Day, worship, the Lord’s Supper, anointing the sick, tithes, offerings and the united order. Bickmore does a good job in the brevity of 30 pages to find support in the early Church for most of the above practices and beliefs that exist in the LDS Church. If there is one weakness in the above treatment it is finding support for the continuance of the Aaronic priesthood. In fact Bickmore states on page 267, “As for the offices of the Aaronic priesthood, only deacons are mentioned in the New Testament Church.” Bickmore gives us no solid evidence from the Church Fathers that the office of deacon was an office in the Aaronic priesthood. In fact, apart from suggesting that converted Jewish priests did not lose their authority as Aaronic priests, Bickmore gives us no evidence that the Aaronic priesthood continued on within the Christian Church.

Chapter six has the heading “The Temple”. Bickmore in this chapter attempts to demonstrate to his readers that secret and esoteric doctrines existed in the early Church from the New Testament period onward. At first reading Bickmore seems to have compiled strong evidence for its existence. However, I must once again refer readers to R.P.C. Hanson’s work Tradition in the Early Church. Although this is a complex issue, in my opinion Hanson has put to rest the theory that an oral, secret, apostolic tradition existed in the early Christian Church. It would take me too many pages to present all the evidence in a cogent manner, so I am left with recommending this book to anyone interested in this subject.

Bickmore’s final chapter, “Conclusions”, is a mere page and one-half long. He writes on page 353, “Latter-day Saints believe that much of the New Testament church, with its basic doctrines and ordinances, forms the fabric of most modern Christian churches, but they also hold that ‘many plain and precious’ things have been lost or changed over the two centuries since Christ was crucified and the church fell into apostasy. Latter-day Saints claim that those lost or altered elements were restored in these latter days…”

This, of course, is the most important issue which divides the LDS Church from all other Christian churches. Bickmore in this book has certainly demonstrated that many teachings of the LDS Church were present in writings of the early Church. Some of the evidence that Bickmore has presented is from confessedly heretical groups, but the majority are gleaned from what most would call the “Orthodox” Fathers. Bickmore’s claim on page 354 that, “the Church which Joseph Smith claims to have restored is much closer to the original church of Christ, as revealed in the many documents of the first three centuries after Christ,” would be contested by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant scholars, but the fact remains that LDS scholars can appeal to the early Church Fathers for support on many of their doctrines. Just as Catholics, the Orthodox, Protestants, and Mormons disagree over what the Bible teaches, so too, as one should expect, they will disagree over what the Church Fathers taught. Luther and Calvin felt that early Fathers gave more support to their teachings than those of the Catholic Church. Now Bickmore and other LDS writers believe that the early Fathers lend more support to LDS teachings than any other church.

So, who is correct? One will have to decide for themselves through diligent prayer and study. If there is one thing that all mankind can count on it is this- if one is diligent and faithful in their search for the truth, God will be faithful in revealing the truth. The timing of God will probably not be when one would expect it to come, but it will come.

It is my sincere hope that Bickmore’s book will encourage all Christians to study the early Church Fathers, along with the scriptures, and that continued dialogue will occur among those who take up this noble pursuit.

Notes

¹ John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Univ. Of Notre Dame Press (1989) pp.7,8.

² William Cunningham, Discussions on Church Principles, Still Water Revival Books (1991) pp.46,47.

³ William Cunningham, ibid., p.48.

⁴ Nibley makes the same observations in Mormonism and Christianity, Deseret Book (1987) pp.288-289.

⁵ William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, (1960) vol.1, p.34.

⁶ Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1.34, in NPNF Series 2, 5:109.

⁷ Gregory of Nyssa, ibid., p.81.

⁸ Gregory Nazianzen, On The Holy Spirit, 5.13, in NPNF Series 2, 7:322.

⁹ Gregory Nazianzen, ibid., p.376.

¹⁰ Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, London: Oxford University Press, (1956) p.330.

¹¹ R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition in the Early Church, London: SCM Press, (1962) pp.244,245.

¹² John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, (6th edition 1989) p. 17.

¹³ Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought Vol. 1 – Early and Eastern, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, (1932) p. 141.

¹⁴ R.E. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995):661.

¹⁵ Clement of Alexandria , Stromata VI.6.6, in ANF 2:491.