Church History Companion Unit 2: The Early Church Before the Time of Constantine

To return to the Introduction and Table of Contents, click here.

This unit covers the period from about 64 AD until about 313 AD.

The unit corresponds to pp. 16-24 in our textbook.

A Time of Persecution

This period in Church history was often a time of persecution for the Church.  During the time period covered in our previous unit, the time period of the Book of Acts, the Romans considered Christianity to be a sub-sect of Judaism.  Although Judaism was a very odd religion from the Roman point of view--with its exclusive worship of one God and its refusal to compromise on religious matters, among other things--the Romans had gotten used to it.  As long as Christianity fell under that label, the Romans thought they basically understood it and knew how to categorize it.  But the Christians and the Jews grew further and further apart over the first century.  The Jews, on the whole, did not accept Jesus as the Messiah (although, of course, many individual Jews did).  The Christian Church grew rapidly and began to become full of Gentiles, who eventually far outnumbered the Jews.  As the Gentiles came in, the Church became less culturally Jewish.  The Jewish leaders persecuted the early Christians, which also contributed to an estrangement in their relationship.  So, as time went by, it became more and more clear that the Christians were a distinct and unique group.  Starting with the Emperor Nero, the Romans began to persecute the Christians, and this state of affairs continued on and off for the next two-and-a-half centuries.  Christians weren't always actively persecuted during this time, but they were never given full formal legal protection.

According to early historical accounts, both Peter and Paul were martyred in the area of Rome during Nero's persecution.  St. Paul was beheaded, while St. Peter was crucified upside-down.  (He had stated that he did not feel himself worthy to die in the same way his Lord had died.)  Both Peter and Paul were associated in the early Church with the founding of the church in Rome.  They both had a hand in governing and watching over that church from its early days, and Peter would come to be listed as its first bishop.

What is astonishing about this time period is that while it began with the persecution of Nero, it ended with Christianity being declared legal as a precursor to its being made the official religion of the Roman Empire in the year 380.  A remarkable turn of events!  Some have seen in this a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation which depict a time of horrible persecution for the Church followed by a time of Christ's reigning over the earth and the Church being at peace for "a thousand years."

Destruction of the Second Temple

In 70 AD, the Second Temple, which had been built by Jews returning from the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC and which had been greatly expanded and renovated by Herod the Great not long before the birth of Christ, was destroyed by the Romans after a Jewish revolt.  Since this time, nearly two thousand years ago, the Jews have not been able to carry out the rituals and sacrifices outlined in the Law of Moses pertaining to the Temple.  Early church historians record that the Christians, being warned by the prophecies of Jesus, fled Jerusalem when the Romans began to surround it and, because of this, many of them were delivered from the traumas that were subsequently inflicted on the city in its siege and destruction.

Penance, Novatianism, and the Seed of Indulgences

In the early Church, there was often a very strict discipline for those who sinned and then repented of their sin.  Penances for serious sins were often public and could last for months and even years.  But there were those who believed they should be even stricter.  Novatian, a priest in the Church of Rome, decided that some sins were so bad they were beyond the purview of the Church to grant absolution to.  Only God could forgive such sins.  When Cornelius was elected Bishop of Rome in 251, Novatian had himself appointed as a rival claimant to the same see.  His followers made similar rival claims in other churches, advocating the same positions on penance.  For a while, the Novatianists constituted a rival sect to the Catholic Church, but the movement eventually died out entirely.

One of the great concerns of Novatian, and of many others, was what to do with people who had buckled under Roman persecution--denying Christ, worshipping the emperor or false gods, handing over Scriptures to be burned, etc.--but later repented and came back to the Church.  Novatian, of course, didn't want them to be accepted.  But even among the Catholics, they could have a long, drawn-out, severe time of penance before being received back.  At some point, it became customary, at least at some places, for those about to be martyred to write letters on behalf of those who had lapsed, asking that their own merits be accepted on behalf of the lapsed so that they might have a mitigation of the temporal consequences of their sins.  The Church could--and often did--accept these letters and decree a mitigation of penalties for the repentant lapsed.  This practice became the seed of the doctrine of indulgences that would later come to fuller flower in the Church, and it illustrates how, as St. Vincent of Lerins described it, flowers that bloom later on in the life of a plant have their buds much earlier, so that, as the organism grows towards greater maturity, there is an organic development from what came before, just as the doctrine and practice of the Church develops through the centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm - Catholic Encyclopedia article on Novatian and Novatianism.

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/07/20/indulgences-gift-of-the-martyrs/ - This article describes the history of indulgences, showing how they developed from practices in the early Church.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/primer-on-indulgences - This is a nice, basic overview of the theology of indulgences.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-fresh-look-at-catholic-doctrines-of.html - Here is my write-up on the theology of penance, purgatory, and indulgences.  I make use of a family analogy to help explain these concepts more clearly.

Apostolic Succession and the Authority of the Catholic Church

From her very beginning, the Church had to deal with heresies--false teachings which denied or perverted divinely-revealed doctrines taught by the Church.  During our time period, one of the great heresies the Church had to confront was Gnosticism.  The Gnostics were not so much a single group but were rather a number of groups which had certain things in common.  They were deviant offshoots of the mainstream Christian faith handed down from the apostles.  They fundamentally altered historic Christian teaching, usually by merging aspects of Christianity with highly mystical or esoteric Greek-inspired thought.  And they claimed to have a secret teaching handed down secretly from the apostles different from the public teaching known in the Catholic Church.  They claimed that the public Catholic teaching was, at best, intended as a sort of first-level teaching for the intellectually immature, while their secret teaching was the perfect, fully ripe teaching of the apostles intended for those who had attained sufficient maturity (they often called this latter group "the perfect").

The confrontation with Gnosticism had the effect of motivating the Catholic Church to articulate more explicitly the basis of her own authority as the lawful possessor and interpreter of the divine revelation and the teaching of Christ and his apostles.  The Church's defenders pointed out that the Catholic Church could trace herself historically back to the apostles in an organic line of authority that was publicly visible and verifiable.  The apostles had been taught by Christ, and they in turn had handed down authority to govern and teach the Church to bishops in various churches who succeeded them.  Those bishops, likewise, appointed other bishops to succeed them, and this had continued down through the years.  The Gnostic groups, on the other hand, could produce no verifiable evidence of their claims to have secret teaching coming from the apostles.  In contrast to the historic pedigree of the Catholics, the Gnostic groups arose out of nowhere, usually connected with some particular founder, and they arose after the Catholic Church had already been going on for some time.  They claimed secret revelations, but they couldn't verify them.  The Catholic apologists asked why, if the apostles had teaching they wished to hand on to the churches they founded, they would not have transmitted that teaching to the very people to whom they were entrusting the churches and appointing as their successors, instead choosing to give that teaching to unknowns who would later pop up without any proof of any previous connection to the apostles.

One of the greatest anti-Gnostic apologists among the Catholics during this time period was St. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon in Gaul.  Around the year 180, less than one hundred years after the period of the apostles, he wrote a massive work which is usually titled Against Heresies, in which he lays out the teachings of the Gnostics and then refutes them from the Scriptures and from the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  Here is a sample from the third book of Against Heresies:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. 

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. 

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.  (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, taken from the plain text version at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01) but also found on the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm)

St. Irenaeus, here, articulates what would later be called the doctrine of "apostolic succession"--that the Church's authority is rooted in the organic succession of bishops from the apostles.  This is still the claim of the Catholic Church today.  It is a powerful claim.  Just as Irenaeus argued in response to the Gnostics, so ever since then it has continued to be true that any group which claims to represent the authentic teaching of Christianity but which wishes to establish this in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church has the burden of proof to show why we should abandon the very Church handed down from Christ and his apostles themselves in order to follow them.  We will see this issue come up again later in Church history.

Note also Irenaeus's appeal to the Church of Rome in particular, founded by Peter and Paul, as having "pre-eminent authority".  "It is a matter of necessity," he says, "that every Church should agree with this Church."  So our touchstone for unity and orthodoxy is the apostolic succession of the bishops in general, and this touchstone is made even more tangible by the special succession of the bishops of Rome, who, in a special way, function as guarantors of unity and orthodoxy for the entire Church.

Irenaeus makes mention in the passage quoted of Clement of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna, two bishops of the early Church, both of whom were direct disciples of the apostles (Clement was a successor of Peter in Rome and Polycarp was a disciple of John). Irenaeus himself had learned from Polycarp when he was young. Irenaeus mentions letters the Church had preserved from Clement and Polycarp. We still have these letters today (see the accompanying links). Clement's letter was written around the year 96, possibly while the Apostle John was still alive.  Polycarp's letter to the Philippians was written sometime between 110 and 140.  There is also an early account of the martyrdom of Polycarp which we still possess.  We have other writings from these early times as well, such as the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, which were written sometime before the year 110 (at the link, look for "Ignatius of Antioch" to find his letters).  Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John as well.

Some non-Catholic groups have claimed that the Catholic Church arose after a "Great Apostasy".  After the apostles died, the Church became corrupt and, in some extreme versions, the very authority to lead the Church was lost.  But we can see that this idea is not born out by the actual history we possess.

Sometimes heretics would appeal to some alternative interpretation of the Scriptures in order to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.  The Church Fathers, however, rejected this method as absurd, because, as they pointed out, the Scriptures themselves were entrusted to the Church.  They are the Church's book.  The same Tradition from which Catholic teaching in general is derived is also the source of the Scriptures, which therefore must be interpreted within that Tradition as their proper context.  Since Christ did not simply write a book and then throw it to the winds, to be interpreted by whomever should happen to pick it up, but instead he entrusted his teaching to his apostles, who entrusted it to the bishops of the Catholic Church, it is folly to try to wrest Scripture out of that context and to try to interpret it in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church.  One of the great apologists of our time period, Tertullian (who unfortunately himself later fell into the heresy of Montanism but, at this point, was Catholic), articulates this clearly:

We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some.  In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege. . . . 

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions. 

Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.  Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring).  In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. 

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.  Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. 

But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand, that if it were at once produced there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the opposite side, if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point, and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,—in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,” which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because “by three witnesses must every word be established.” After the same fashion, too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, “to expound all the Scriptures.” No doubt He had once said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;” but even then He added, “When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth.” He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth.  And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures of those things which they mendaciously devise.  (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 15-22, taken from the plain text version found on the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, but also found here.)

A little later on, the great St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (who lived from 354 to 430), made the same point Tertullian made above in one of his writings against the Manicheans (another heresy in the early Church).  The argument goes basically like this:  "You claim that the books of the gospels support Manichaeus (the prophet of Manicheanism). But the Catholic Church rejects Manichaeus. If I accept that the gospels support Manichaeus, I will no longer have any basis to believe in the gospels, because my reason for believing those books to be divine is because the Catholic Church teaches me so. But that same Catholic Church teaches me that you are wrong. So if I believe the Catholic Church about the gospels, I will have to also believe that you are wrong. But if I believe you are right because the gospels support you, then I lose my reason for believing the gospels, for I can no longer trust the Catholic Church, which is the authority behind why I believe in the gospels."

What Augustine is saying is that the only way we know that the gospel books are from God is because this is taught by the Catholic Church.  If we trust the Catholic Church on that point, logically we have to trust them on all other points as well.  So if the Catholic Church tells us that the Manichean heresy is wrong, we have to believe that.  If the Manichean heresy is not wrong, then the Catholic Church is wrong, and so we would have no basis to believe the gospel books to be from God.  For Augustine, our trust in the gospels is part and parcel of our confidence that the Tradition of the Catholic Church in general is divinely guided and so authoritative and reliable.  It is therefore inconsistent to accept that Tradition regarding the status of the gospels but to reject other things that Tradition teaches.

Here is St. Augustine, addressing the Manicheans:

Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--"Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain." Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;--Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus. (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental, Chapter 5, text from here)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes - Wikipedia has a helpful list of Popes from Peter down to the present day.  As St. Irenaeus pointed out, we can see the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church in the line of succession of her bishops from the apostles, and this is preeminently manifested in the succession of the bishops of Rome as the successors of St. Peter, chief of the apostles.

What's In a Name?

In the New Testament, in the Book of Acts in particular (Acts 11:26), we find that at some point people started calling the disciples of Christ "Christians".  Eventually, Christians themselves accepted and adopted this name to describe the true religion and to distinguish it from false religions (that is, from religions that were not, per se, revelations from God and which therefore contained error and/or incompleteness).

During our time period, something similar happened with the name "Catholic".  The word "catholic" means "universal" or "complete".  Very early on, Christians started using the name "Catholic" as a label for the true Church and the true version of Christianity, to distinguish it from false churches and false versions of Christianity (that is, churches that were not founded by Christ and which therefore did not have his authority behind them nor possessed the fullness of the faith).  We don't see this usage in the New Testament itself, but we see it very soon afterwards.  The first occurrence of the name "Catholic" applied to the Church that we have record of comes from St. Ignatius of Antioch writing around the year 110 (only a little more than a decade after the death of the Apostle John).

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.  (Ignatius of Antioch, "Letter to the Smyrnaeans." Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.] Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm>)

The fourth-century bishop of Jerusalem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, commented on how God, inspiring the development of the Church's creed, gave the name “Catholic” to the Church in order to help the people of God distinguish the true Church from heretical churches:

But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church;" that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children.  (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 18:26, taken from the plain text version at the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library [https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207], but also found on the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm)

The great Catholic teacher and bishop of the city of Hippo in North Africa, St. Augustine, whom we quoted from a little earlier, writing at the end of the fourth century, made the same point, writing to the heretical Manichaeans:

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. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.  (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental 4:5, taken from the plain text version at the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library [https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104], but also found on the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm)

Eusebius and the Canon of Scripture

The Church inherited the Old Testament from the Jews.  For the most part, the canon (that is, the list of books included) of the Old Testament was settled.  However, there are a few Old Testament books over which there was some dispute in the early Church.  These are the books we have come to call the "Deuterocanonical" books.  They include Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as some portions of Daniel and Esther.  The Jews eventually rejected these books from their own canon of Scripture, but the Church came to accept them.  But, during this time period, this was not yet entirely settled.

In addition to the Old Testament, the apostles and their companions had written a number of books containing the life and teachings of Jesus, a history of the early Church, and a number of letters containing apostolic teachings.  These books came to be known as the New Testament.  The canon of the New Testament was mostly settled by our time period, but there were a few disputed books.

One of our most important sources of information on this period of Church history is the writings of Eusebius of Caesaria, who wrote a thorough history of the Church from the time of Christ up to his own time (he published the book sometime around 313-324).  Eusebius discusses the canon of Scripture, and lists books that were universally accepted, those that were universally rejected, and those that were disputed.

1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.

2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that  are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. 

4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.

5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.

6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers--we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew  and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.  (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 25, found here, text taken from here, footnotes removed)

Here we see the doctrinal development of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at work.  The Church Fathers used historical criteria to decide which books should be considered Scriptural and which should not be.  They looked to which books had a good historical pedigree and which didn't, and which books were recognized by churches that could trace themselves back to the apostles.  They looked to stylistic issues, theological issues, etc.  (The Gnostic writings, for example, are clearly and obviously very different from the writings of the New Testament.  They are obviously the product of a kind of Greek mysticism that is absent from anything in the New Testament.  They also have a terrible historical pedigree, since they arose out of nowhere long after the Catholic churches were already established and had already had the New Testament books for many years.)  But the historical analysis was not enough.  In the end, it was understood that the Church's Tradition and decisions in regard to the canon, as in regard to the interpretation and application of the Word of God, were guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.  It was confidence in God's guidance of the Tradition of the Church that ultimately grounded confidence in the Church's canon of Scripture.  We will see the canon continue to develop in our next unit.

https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201. - Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History

Justin Martyr and the Liturgy of the Church

The Church's liturgy was also developing during this time.  The great second-century apologist St. Justin Martyr, writing c. 153-155 (only about half-a-century or so after the death of the Apostle John), describes various liturgical practices of Christians in his day.  Although he is writing to the Roman Emperor and so tries to describe everything in terms a non-Christian could understand, the practices he describes will be familiar to Catholics today.  This is from his First Apology, chapters 65-67 (plain text version found here):

CHAP. LXV

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

CHAP. LXVI

And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

CHAP. LXVII

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Greek Philosophy and Doctrinal Development

Another important aspect of the doctrinal development of the Church is her growth through her dialogue with the philosophical methods and ideas of the surrounding culture.  In our time period, the intellectual world was dominated by Greek philosophy.  We might say, perhaps, that Greek philosophy (and Roman philosophy, which followed in its footsteps) had a role in the culture similar to the role played today by the natural sciences.  Today, we tend to look towards "what science says" and "what scientists say" as giving us the real scoop in our intellectual understanding of the world.  Greek philosophy was the intellectualism of the early centuries of the common era (history after the coming of Christ).

Philosophy--of the highly abstract, Greek sort--played very little role in the earliest days of the Christian Church.  Jesus was not a philosopher (in the Greek sense), and neither were the apostles or the earliest bishops.  Christian doctrine followed the pattern we see in the Old and New Testaments--rooted in Scripture, mostly Jewish in context, not focusing much attention on abstract concepts.  As the second century rolled on, the Church saw an influx of Gentiles who were more on the intellectual side, and so the Church began to come into contact with Greek philosophy.  There were also critics of Christianity (such as Celsus) who made use of philosophy in their criticisms, and Christians saw that they needed to answer the objections of these critics.

Among the reactions of Christians to Greek philosophy, there were extremes.  There were those who considered philosophy to be useless and dangerous and rejected dialogue with it, and on the other side there were those who wanted to adapt Christianity to its ideas.  We see the latter response among people like the Gnostics, and we see a leaning in that direction in even some of the early Church's theologians, particularly Origen and some of his followers.  The former, negative response has often been represented by the famous comments of Tertullian from his book, Prescription Against Heretics:

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart."

Tertullian was writing against heretics and had a bit of a flair for the extreme, so he probably wasn't intending here to reject categorically all ideas from philosophy whatsoever.  But he represents those who were more skeptical overall of how much philosophy could contribute.

The great second-century Christian philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, articulated the much more positive attitude of many towards philosophy:

And in general terms, we shall not err in alleging that all things necessary and profitable for life came to us from God, and that philosophy more especially was given to the Greeks, as a covenant peculiar to them — being, as it is, a stepping-stone to the philosophy which is according to Christ (The Stromata, Book VI, embedded links removed. Translated by William Wilson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.] Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm>)

The Church's encounter with Greek philosophy is instructive in terms of how the doctrinal development of the Church advances when the revelation given to the Church comes into contact with truths revealed by God to human reason as those ideas are encountered in dialogue.

For example, the Word of God speaks of there being one God, the supreme creator of all, one who created and who owns the universe and watches over it, leading all things to his own ends.  He is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.  But God is evident to human reason as well, and many philosophers in many cultures throughout history have done as St. Paul talks about in Romans 1--they have understood God and his nature by means of reasoning from the things he has made.  So we find ideas among the Greeks and many others (I think of the Hindus of India, for example) of a Supreme First Cause, a Being at the back of all things, from whom all things are derived.  Christians (and Jews before them) could not fail to recognize that the Being these philosophers were talking about was the same Being they worshiped and knew by revelation.  Jewish and Christian philosophers recognized the validity of much of the reasoning of the philosophers about the Divine Being.  They recognized that the doctrine of God contained in his Word has certain logical implications in philosophy.  For example, the Being who is the ultimate Lord over all and the ultimate source of all reality must be a simple being.  I'm using simple here in its philosophical definition--something having no parts or pieces.  God must be simple because anything that has parts must be derived from a more ultimate source.  When we have an object that possesses multiple parts, none of those parts explain the unity of the whole.  That can only be explained by tracing the parts back to a unifying source.  (Think of a puzzle.  None of the puzzle's pieces explain the unity of the puzzle.  To explain that, you have to recognize the unifying origin of the puzzle in the plan of its creator.)  Therefore, while the Word of God itself contains no mention of God's "simplicity", once the question has been raised--"Is God simple or compound?"--it can be seen that the Word of God requires a certain answer to that question.  In this way, the Church's understanding of all the implications of the divine revelation entrusted to her can grow through her continued reflection on it.  Reason can inform the Church's understanding of revelation, and revelation can also inform our understanding of what reason teaches.

An example of the latter is the teaching of the Word of God on creation.  The Greeks generally held that matter is uncreated and eternal.  But if God is the ultimate lord and creator of all, as the revelation of God teaches, this can't be so.  If the world is made out of uncreated matter, then God is not truly the single and sufficient source and explanation of all things.  He would be one uncreated thing in the midst of others--ultimately one god among other gods.  So one of the philosophical implications of the Christian doctrine of God is the idea of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing."  When God creates, he does not use preexistent material.  He is himself the source of not only the finished product but of any material he works with.  Christian theology had the effect of correcting and enlightening the philosophers on this point.

So it is during our time period that we can begin to see the Church's doctrine developing the implications of divine revelation in more philosophical directions--asking philosophical questions, giving philosophical answers, using philosophical methods of inquiry and language, etc.  The Holy Spirit guided the Church's doctrinal development by means of a fruitful engagement with the surrounding culture.  (We did see a first and early example of this in St. Paul's dialogue with the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17, but it really takes off during our current time period.)

The Easter Controversy

There were two controversies that rose up within the Church during our time period that particularly catch my attention.  One of them was over the proper time to celebrate Easter.  One thing that has amazed me in my study of Chuch history is how much time and energy was spent during the First Millennium of the Church arguing over the proper time to celebrate Easter.  This issue comes up again and again.  You would think it was a relatively minor point, but it was very important to many Church Fathers.  One of the reasons for this, I think, is that people's stance on the Easter question was often closely related to their response to decrees made by Popes, councils, and bishops, and therefore was a reflection of their practical attitude towards Church authority.

At any rate, the historian Eusebius, whom we were introduced to earlier, wrote about the Easter controversy that arose during the second century between some of the Eastern and the Western churches in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chapters 23-25, found here):

Chapter XXIII

1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.

2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Caesaria, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenaeus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

Chapter XXIV

1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

2. "We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.

4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.

5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said We ought to obey God rather than man.'"

8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: "I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."

9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

11. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

12. "For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith."

14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert: "Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it  themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.

15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."

18. Thus Irenaeus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches. 

Chapter XXV

1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:

2. "Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day."

We can see in this event several elements important to the early Church.  We see the importance of Tradition.  Scripture says nothing about the celebration of Easter.  The churches got their information regarding this important feast from the Church's Tradition, coming down from the apostles.  In this case, we have a genuine tradition and a fallacious one.  Eventually, all sides will come to agree on the true tradition, but at this time there was some dispute and difference of practice.

We see the authority of the Bishop of Rome.  Pope Victor takes it upon himself, unchallenged by anyone, to regulate the affairs of the universal Church.  He threatens to excommunicate the churches of Asia over their refusal to follow the decree of the rest of the Church and of the Church of Rome regarding the proper time to celebrate Easter.  Other bishops, such as St. Irenaeus, argue with him about the practical wisdom of this, but none of them disputes his authority to do it.

We also see, perhaps, that bishops of Rome do not always make the wisest practical decisions.  Many of the bishops considered Pope Victor's actions here to be overly harsh, and they remonstrated with him about it.  Catholics are required to submit to the teaching of Popes, but when it is a matter not of submission or lack of submission to binding teaching but rather their reaction to the Pope's practical decisions and personal choices, it can be appropriate for Catholics--especially other bishops, but even lay Catholics at times--to help point the Pope in a better direction.  We saw St. Paul do this with St. Peter in Galatians 2, we see it here, and we will see it later in Church history as well.

The Baptism Controversy

Another controversy that arose during our time period was over baptism--particularly, the question of whether heretical baptisms ought to be accepted as valid.  When people got baptized in heretical churches and then later came to the Catholic Church, should they be rebaptized, or did their baptism by heretics count?  Pope St. Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, decreed that heretical baptisms were valid.  So long as the baptism was done correctly, it was valid even if it was done by people not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

This greatly angered some people, among them St. Cyprian, bishop of the city of Carthage, and St. Firmilian, bishop of the city of Caesaria.  Both of them wrote furiously against Pope Stephen and his position.  Here is St. Cyprian (from Epistle 73, to Pompey):

1. Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God. For among other matters, which were either haughtily assumed, or were not pertaining to the matter, or contradictory to his own view, which he unskilfully and without foresight wrote, he moreover added this saying: "If any one, therefore, come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands be imposed on him for repentance; since the heretics themselves, in their own proper character, do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only admit them to communion." . . .

4. Certainly an excellent and lawful tradition is set before us by the teaching of our brother Stephen, which may afford us a suitable authority! For in the same place of his epistle he has added and continued: "Since those who are specially heretics do not baptize those who come to them from one another, but only receive them to communion." To this point of evil has the Church of God and spouse of Christ been developed, that she follows the examples of heretics; that for the purpose of celebrating the celestial sacraments, light should borrow her discipline from darkness, and Christians should do that which antichrists do. But what is that blindness of soul, what is that degradation of faith, to refuse to recognise the unity which comes from God the Father, and from the tradition of Jesus Christ the Lord and our God! For if the Church is not with heretics, therefore, because it is one, and cannot be divided; and if thus the Holy Spirit is not there, because He is one, and cannot be among profane persons, and those who are without; certainly also baptism, which consists in the same unity, cannot be among heretics, because it can neither be separated from the Church nor from the Holy Spirit. . . .

6. But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration." But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ? For it is the Church alone which, conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons; as the same apostle again says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water." If, then, she is the beloved and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His washing, cannot bear sons to God. . . .

8. In which place, dearest brother, we must consider, for the sake of the faith and the religion of the sacerdotal office which we discharge, whether the account can be satisfactory in the day of judgment for a priest of God, who maintains, and approves, and acquiesces in the baptism of blasphemers, when the Lord threatens, and says, "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you: if ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord Almighty, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings." Does he give glory to God, who communicates with the baptism of Marcion? Does he give glory to God, who judges that remission of sins is granted among those who blaspheme against God? Does he give glory to God, who affirms that sons are born to God without, of an adulterer and a harlot? Does he give glory to God, who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church? Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated? If glory is thus given to God, if the fear and the discipline of God is thus preserved by His worshippers and His priests, let us cast away our arms; let us give ourselves up to captivity; let us deliver to the devil the ordination of the Gospel, the appointment of Christ, the majesty of God; let the sacraments of the divine warfare be loosed; let the standards of the heavenly camp be betrayed; and let the Church succumb and yield to heretics, light to darkness, faith to perfidy, hope to despair, reason to error, immortality to death, love to hatred, truth to falsehood, Christ to Antichrist! Deservedly thus do heresies and schisms arise day by day, more frequently and more fruitfully grow up, and with serpents' locks shoot forth and cast out against the Church of God with greater force the poison of their venom; whilst, by the advocacy of some, both authority and support are afforded them; whilst their baptism is defended, whilst faith, whilst truth, is betrayed; whilst that which is done without against the Church is defended within in the very Church itself.

9. But if there be among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if the maintenance of the faith prevail, if we keep the precepts of Christ, if we guard the incorrupt and inviolate sanctity of His spouse, if the words of the Lord abide in our thoughts and hearts, when he says, "Thinkest thou, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" then, because we are God's faithful soldiers, who war for the faith and sincere religion of God, let us keep the camp entrusted to us by God with faithful valour. Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth, knowing that in Esdras also the truth conquers, as it is written: "Truth endureth and grows strong to eternity, and lives and prevails for ever and ever.  With her there is no accepting of persons or distinctions; but what is just she does: nor in her judgments is there unrighteousness, but the strength, and the kingdom, and the majesty, and the power of all ages. Blessed be the Lord God of truth!" This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, "I am the truth." Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and have Christ in us, if we abide in the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep fast those things which are true.

10. But it happens, by a love of presumption and of obstinacy, that one would rather maintain his own evil and false position, than agree in the right and true which belongs to another. Looking forward to which, the blessed Apostle Paul writes to Timothy, and warns him that a bishop must not be "litigious, nor contentious, but gentle and teachable." Now he is teachable who is meek and gentle to the patience of learning.  For it behoves a bishop not only to teach, but also to learn; because he also teaches better who daily increases and advances by learning better; which very thing, moreover, the same Apostle Paul teaches, when he admonishes, "that if anything better be revealed to one sitting by, the first should hold his peace." But there is a brief way for religious and simple minds, both to put away error, and to find and to elicit truth. For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases; and having seen the reason of the heavenly sacraments, whatever lay hid in obscurity under the gloom and cloud of darkness, is opened into the light of the truth. If a channel supplying water, which formerly flowed plentifully and freely, suddenly fail, do we not go to the fountain, that there the reason of the failure may be ascertained, whether from the drying up of the springs the water has failed at the fountainhead, or whether, flowing thence free and full, it has failed in the midst of its course; that so, if it has been caused by the fault of an interrupted or leaky channel, that the constant stream does not flow uninterruptedly and continuously, then the channel being repaired and strengthened, the water collected may be supplied for the use and drink of the city, with the same fertility and plenty with which it issues from the spring? And this it behoves the priests of God to do now, if they would keep the divine precepts, that if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition; and thence may arise the ground of our action, whence has taken rise both our order and our origin. (footnotes removed)

St. Cyprian accuses Pope St. Stephen of using his authority wrongly to aid and abet heresy by recognizing baptisms done by heretics.  He rejects Stephen's appeal to his authority, indicating that following the truth is of greater importance than following such authority.  He rejects Stephen's appeal to the previous tradition and custom of the churches on the grounds that "custom without truth is the antiquity of error."  That is, a long-standing custom that is not true is simply old error--not worthy of our regard.  Cyprian appeals instead to the earliest traditions of the apostles, which he thinks agree with him, to trump the tradition appealed to by Pope Stephen.

One might get the impression from this that St. Cyprian did not accept the authority of the papacy.  But this is not the case.  On the baptism issue, he does not like where Stephen goes and so he resists him, but, when there is no such conflict, he acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome in very strong terms.  Here, for example, is a selection from a letter he wrote to Pope St. Cornelius, an earlier Pope, just a few years earlier (Epistle 54, to Cornelius), complaining about the actions of some heretics:

7. Nor ought it, my dearest brother, to disturb any one who is faithful and mindful of the Gospel, and retains the commands of the apostle who forewarns us; if in the last days certain persons, proud, contumacious, and enemies of God's priests, either depart from the Church or act against the Church, since both the Lord and His apostles have previously foretold that there should be such. Nor let any one wonder that the servant placed over them should be forsaken by some, when His own disciples forsook the Lord Himself, who performed such great and wonderful works, and illustrated the attributes of God the Father by the testimony of His doings. And yet He did not rebuke them when they went away, nor even severely threaten them; but rather, turning to His apostles, He said, "Will ye also go away?" manifestly observing the law whereby a man left to his own liberty, and established in his own choice, himself desires for himself either death or salvation. Nevertheless, Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, speaking one for all, and answering with the voice of the Church, says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God:" signifying, doubtless, and showing that those who departed from Christ perished by their own fault, yet that the Church which believes on Christ, and holds that which it has once learned, never departs from Him at all, and that those are the Church who remain in the house of God; but that, on the other hand, they are not the plantation planted by God the Father, whom we see not to be established with the stability of wheat, but blown about like chaff by the breath of the enemy scattering them, of whom John also in his epistle says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us." Paul also warns us, when evil men perish out of the Church, not to be disturbed, nor to let our faith be lessened by the departure of the faithless. "For what," he says, "if some of them have departed from the faith? Hath their unbelief made the faith of God of none effect? God forbid! For God is true, but every man a liar." . . .

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

St. Firmilian, the bishop of Caesaria, wrote even more strongly to Pope St. Stephen aginst his ideas on heretical baptism, refusing to give way on this point even to the successor of St. Peter:

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

23. What, then, is to be made of what is written, "Abstain from strange water, and drink not from a strange fountain," if, leaving the sealed fountain of the Church, you take up strange water for your own, and pollute the Church with unhallowed fountains? For when you communicate with the baptism of heretics, what else do you do than drink from their slough and mud; and while you yourself are purged with the Church's sanctification, you become befouled with the contact of the filth of others? And do you not fear the judgment of God when you are giving testimony to heretics in opposition to the Church, although it is written, "A false witness shall not be unpunished?" But indeed you are worse than all heretics. For when many, as soon as their error is known, come over to you from them that they may receive the true light of the Church, you assist the errors of those who come, and, obscuring the light of ecclesiastical truth, you heap up the darkness of the heretical night; and although they confess that they are in sins, and have no grace, and therefore come to the Church, you take away from them remission of sins, which is given in baptism, by saying that they are already baptized and have obtained the grace of the Church outside the Church, and you do not perceive that their souls will be required at your hands when the day of judgment shall come, for having denied to the thirsting the drink of the Church, and having been the occasion of death to those that were desirious of living. And, after all this, you are indignant! 

24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood.  For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?--whether he who supports God's enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God's enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?  (Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen, AD 256, text taken from the plain text version found here at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.  Also found, more accessibly, here.)

Afterwards, the whole Church came to accept the position of St. Stephen.  Cyprian, Firmilian, and others who agreed with them on this point, were later regarded as good men who fell into error on this point at a time when the controversy was young and so ignorance and confusion were more understandable.  St. Vincent of Lerins, writing in the fifth century, in chapter seven of his Commonitory, uses this incident as an example of the danger of going against the Tradition of the Church to embrace novel ideas, relying on one's own opinions against the Holy-Spirit-guided Tradition of the Church.   He is gentle towards Cyprian and others who first put forward the baptism error, but very harsh towards the Donatists of his own day (we'll talk about them in our next unit) who tried to revive this error to support their own later position.  Here is St. Vincent of Lerins:

[15.] Great then is the example of these same blessed men, an example plainly divine, and worthy to be called to mind, and meditated upon continually by every true Catholic, who, like the seven-branched candlestick, shining with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit, showed to posterity how thenceforward the audaciousness of profane novelty, in all the several rantings of error, might be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity.

Nor is there anything new in this. For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.

[16.] Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it--that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even.

When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: "Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down." For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.

[17.] But it may be, the cause of innovation at that time lacked patronage. On the contrary, it had in its favor such powerful talent, such copious eloquence, such a number of partisans, so much resemblance to truth, such weighty support in Scripture (only interpreted in a novel and perverse sense), that it seems to me that that whole conspiracy could not possibly have been defeated, unless the sole cause of this extraordinary stir, the very novelty of what was so undertaken, so defended, so belauded, had proved wanting to it. In the end, what result, under God, had that same African Council or decree? None whatever. The whole affair, as though a dream, a fable, a thing of no possible account, was annulled, cancelled, and trodden underfoot.

[18.] And O marvellous revolution! The authors of this same doctrine are judged Catholics, the followers heretics; the teachers are absolved, the disciples condemned; the writers of the books will be children of the Kingdom, the defenders of them will have their portion in Hell. For who is so demented as to doubt that that blessed light among all holy bishops and martyrs, Cyprian, together with the rest of his colleagues, will reign with Christ; or, who on the other hand so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and those other pests, who boast the authority of that council for their iteration of baptism, will be consigned to eternal fire with the devil?

In the Easter controversy we looked at previously, we were reminded that the Bishop of Rome is not perfect.  Sometimes his actions are not the wisest and best, and it can be appropriate to respectfully remonstrate with him to some degree, as St. Irenaeus remonstrated with Pope St. Victor.  In the baptism controversy, on the other hand, we are reminded of the importance of humbly allowing our judgments and opinions to be guided by the Church that Christ founded as she is guided by the Holy Spirit.  Even though St. Cyprian acknowledged that "faithlessness could have no access" to the Roman Church because of the promises of Christ to Peter, yet he allowed himself to become so committed to his own opinion in the baptism controversy that he refused to be corrected by Pope Stephen and the general Tradition of the Church.  Pope Stephen was trying to point out a nuance in Church teaching regarding baptism, but Cyprian (and Firmilian and the others who shared their view) had a hard time with this nuance, believing it compromised the Church's stand against heresy.  They believed that the only way the Church could adequately and consistently oppose heresy was by denying the validity of baptism performed by heretics.  But Pope Stephen was trying to teach them that reality is more complicated than that--that one's reaction to the heretics need not be "all or nothing."  There were some things the heretics had, while there were other things they did not have.  Commitment to truth requires acknowledging what they did have--valid baptism--while not granting to them what they did not have--the true, de jure Church and the fullness of the faith.  It should not be surprising to us to see those who recognized the authority of the Church and of the Pope react to that authority so inconsistently based on commitment to their own opinions.  We will see this happen again and again throughout Church history, as it happens in our own day as well.

https://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2019/03/pope-francis-scandalon.html - An article comparing recent resistance to some of the teachings of Pope Francis to the earlier resistance to Pope Stephen by Cyprian and Firmilian.

Hierarchies of Bishops

During this time period, we begin to see a more pronounced hierarchy develop in the structure of the universal Church.  I mentioned in the previous unit that while the whole college of bishops is the successor of the whole college of the apostles, yet some sees--that is, some seats of authority of bishops--gain more prominence and authority than others due to their special connection with an apostle or their place in the overall geography of the Church.  For example, as Peter was the head of the apostles, so his connection to a particular see had the effect of greatly promoting that see to a place of high authority.  St. Mark (the author of the second gospel) was a disciple of St. Peter, and, according to the Church's tradition, he went to Egypt to preach the gospel, becoming listed as the founder of the Church of Alexandria.  The Church of Alexandria, therefore, came to have very high authority in the Church.  Peter himself was at Antioch ministering for a long time, and so the Church of Antioch likewise ended up being highly regarded.  I've already mentioned how Peter, dying at Rome, left his unique authority as head of the Church to the See of Rome, and so the Church of Rome became the highest and most authoritative church.  Later on, the Church of Jerusalem would gain high status as well.  And, after the capital of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople (which we'll see in our next unit), the Church of Constantinople, before of no great account, grew rapidly in importance.  The bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch come to receive the name of patriarchs--"heads or fathers of families"-- because of their high authority.  Later on, Jerusalem and Constantinople will be added to their number, so that, as the Church matures through the centuries, we will end up with five major patriarchates with highest authority in the Church, to whom all other bishops are subordinate.  And there is hierarchy apart from the major patriarchs as well.  Bishops of large cities in general receive more authority than rural bishops or bishops of smaller towns, and the latter end up subject to the former.  And so we get bishops under bishops, and various titles that come to be associated with higher bishops, such as archbishop, metropolitan, primate, eparch, etc.  The Church's structure, put into place in its essence by Christ and the apostles, yet has a degree of flexibility built into it and can adapt itself to function efficiently in the cultural and geographical and historical circumstances in which it finds itself.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm - A helpful article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on patriarchs and patriarchates.

Saints and Martyrs

Not surprisingly, this period is rich with saints and martyrs.  Our earliest post-biblical saints come from this period, which is one reason why saints from this period show up in the list of saints read out sometimes during the Mass.  There are a lot of martyr stories from this period, some more historically-grounded than others.  The Church does not vouch for all the details of all the martyr stories told about all of these saints, though she acknowledges the historical existence of these saints and their saintly lives which led to their being recognized as saints.

Some of these lives are well-attested, however.  One of these is St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John and Bishop of the city of Smyrna, who was martyred around the year 156.  We've mentioned him already in this unit.  We have an extant letter of his, as well as an early account of his martyrdom.  Another saint we have early evidence of is St. Agnes, who died around 304.  And then there is the fascinating story of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity, who were martyred in 203.  We have an actual autobiographical account from St. Perpetua herself, describing her experience as she was waiting to be martyred.  It is a fascinating first-hand window into the lives of Christian martyrs during this time period.

Tell the story and read selections in class - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm - The account of the martyrdom of Polycarp.

Read in class - https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vii.ii.ii.html - St. Ambrose of Milan's fourth-century account of the martyrdom of St. Agnes, who died in the early fourth century.

Tell story and read selections in class - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/perpetua.asp - Accounts of the martyrdom of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity, including an autobiographical section from St. Perpetua herself.

Intercession of the Saints and Purgatory

Although the doctrinal development of the Chuch proceeded gradually over the centuries, many themes emerged very early.  Even in the case of doctrines (like indulgences) that only came to full flower in later periods of history, there is often an embryonic form of these doctrines or practices in earlier times--just as we can often see buds on a plant before the flowers bloom.

A couple of examples of doctrines/practices that are not explicitly or clearly discussed in Scripture but which we find budding very early in the Church's Tradition are the doctrine of purgatory and the doctrine of the intercession of the saints.  In the autobiographical account of St. Perpetua discussed and linked to above, St. Perpetua talks about her brother Dinocrates who had died.  She had a vision of him after death in pain and suffering, and then, after praying for him, she had a vision of him freed from his pains.  Here we have an example of someone in what would later be called purgatory being freed from purgatory partly through the prayers of a godly woman.

Another example is an account found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History describing a series of events that took place around the year 205 in which we see the effectiveness of the intercession of the saints in heaven.  The text is from Chapter V of Book VI of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, and I have taken it from the online plain text version at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (footnotes removed):

1. Basilides may be counted the seventh of these. He led to martyrdom the celebrated Potamiæna, who is still famous among the people of the country for the many things which she endured for the preservation of her chastity and virginity. For she was blooming in the perfection of her mind and her physical graces. Having suffered much for the faith of Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and terrible to speak of, she with her mother, Marcella, was put to death by fire.

2. They say that the judge, Aquila by name, having inflicted severe tortures upon her entire body, at last threatened to hand her over to the gladiators for bodily abuse. After a little consideration, being asked for her decision, she made a reply which was regarded as impious.

3. Thereupon she received sentence immediately, and Basilides, one of the officers of the army, led her to death. But as the people attempted to annoy and insult her with abusive words, he drove back her insulters, showing her much pity and kindness. And perceiving the man's sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be of good courage, for she would supplicate her Lord for him after her departure, and he would soon receive a reward for the kindness he had shown her.

4. Having said this, she nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch being poured little by little, over various parts of her body, from the sole of her feet to the crown of her head. Such was the conflict endured by this famous maiden.

5. Not long after this Basilides, being asked by his fellow-soldiers to swear for a certain reason, declared that it was not lawful for him to swear at all, for he was a Christian, and he confessed this openly. At first they thought that he was jesting, but when he continued to affirm it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowledging his conviction before him, he was imprisoned. But the brethren in God coming to him and inquiring the reason of this sudden and remarkable resolution, he is reported to have said that Potamiæna, for three days after her martyrdom, stood beside him by night and placed a crown on his head and said that she had besought the Lord for him and had obtained what she asked, and that soon she would take him with her.

6. Thereupon the brethren gave him the seal of the Lord [baptism]; and on the next day, after giving glorious testimony for the Lord, he was beheaded. And many others in Alexandria are recorded to have accepted speedily the word of Christ in those times.

7. For Potamiæna appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them. But let this suffice in regard to this matter.

Accounts like these are among many which show the organic development, and budding and flowering, of Catholic doctrine and practice in the early Church.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm - The Didache (or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), a popular manual of Church order from our period which provides lots of insight into the early, pre-Constantinian Church.