|[ Previous Lecture / Essay ]|[ Ancient Christianity Index ]|[ Next Lecture / Essay]|
For the tiny Christian movement this entire age was truly a time when its future was weighed in the balance. In the last analysis the Christian movement probably profited more from the Roman Peace than it was hindered by the capricious and incoherent violence of occasional popular persecution during the period prior to the middle of the third century. And the really concerted efforts of the weakened Roman state to eradicate Christianity that came after 250 and were never sustained consistently or uniformly enough to stop the growth of the movement.
The far more deadly enemy of Christian truth and viability was part and parcel of the enormous success in the spread of Christian ideas through many segments of the imperial populace. Those ideas labeled Christian meant resoundingly different things to different groups of the Empire's inhabitants. The largely unrecorded and sometimes unrecognized struggle to preserve the pure essence of the Gospel was, in the long term, the most important issue of the period of relative peace and growth. It was a valiant struggle, and it was probably not nearly as successful and decisive as subsequent generations of Christians came to believe it had been. The victors in any struggle always fall victim to the delusion of having been in possession of all that really matters from the start. It is true that a very large majority of the Christian world today--Baptists and other evangelicals generally included--assumes that the victors in this struggle preserved the authentic totality of the original undistorted Gospel. But the agreement among Christians is more apparent than real, since Baptists and evangelicals today put more emphasis on the New Testament which emerged from this struggle while Catholic and Orthodox Christians put greater emphasis on the institutional and traditional products of this struggle.
Up
The total body of teachings and practices possessed by those who in any place or in any century have called themselves Christians and who have allowed their beliefs and actions to be guided and judged by it, is recognized as the Christian Tradition. Every believer still today commonly shares this body of knowledge in some degree. Every believer has some concept of what it is to be and act as a Christian; that is that believer's personal part of the Christian Tradition. Within the Christian Tradition, broadly defined, the most important part came to be known as the Apostolic Tradition. It consisted in part of the teachings of Jesus himself forming the most authoritative core or foundation. In addition to the precious words of Jesus, the explanations, interpretations, elaborations and instructions of other persons discipled either by Jesus or by the Twelve, whether oral or written, were included.
Up
The cultural diversity of the early community of believers soon left its imprint on the expanding Tradition. Both before and after Pentecost other sources of ideas were also tapped to elaborate the Christian tradition under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. The enlistment of believers who had been schooled in any of the diverse ways of thinking present in the Jewish population resulted in the interpretation of Christian teachings in ways that reflect the variety of Jewish culture and values. During the Apostolic period believers searched the Jewish Scriptures for prophecies, proof texts, analogies, metaphors, allegories, and symbolic interpretations that supported the Christian faith and "way". Likewise mature gentile believers grasped, understood and perhaps even taught Christian doctrine in terms of the presumptions, preconceptions and thought patterns of polytheistic culture and religion. Some of the resulting elaboration from both Jewish and pagan culture was recognized and accepted as a part of the Apostolic Tradition because it was accepted by, or approved by, the Christian leaders of the Apostolic period. However, some of the ideas were rejected and condemned by those first century leaders. Even later churchmen of subsequent generations might reject a concept or idea on the basis of a growing awareness of the incongruity between the particular idea or concept and the main body of the Apostolic Tradition as it was then understood. Consequently, it must be observed that as the Church became more and more gentile in composition the Christian Tradition lost more and more of the culturally conditioned influences of Judaism and included more and more of the culturally conditioned values and prejudices of the dominant civilization of the Roman world. Unavoidably, the result of the changing point of view was a degree of distortion in understanding the Apostolic Tradition itself. Some Jewish understandings that supported and explained parts of the Christian tradition were lost, so new polytheistic or philosophic explanations for those now unsupported and unexplained parts were added. Every time Christianity passes from one prevailing culture to another in either time or space, this kind of shuffle occurs.
Up
In dealing with Christian Tradition in the period up to AD 200 a number of useful concepts emerged. For example, the concept of "orthodoxy" gradually emerged as the label for the beliefs and doctrines of a local church that were considered to be in essential agreement with the beliefs and doctrines of the Apostolic Tradition. In contrast, the doctrines and beliefs that did not agree and were incompatible with the Apostolic Tradition were labeled heresy. Not only were these terms applied to individual doctrines, but by extention, they came early to be applied to the people group who held them.
As the Christians scattered across the world, every Church was planted in different circumstances and grew amidst the unique local pressures and influences. Localized practices naturally developed which could in some cases influence the Christian tradition over a wider geographic territory. Despite the unique, localized customs of nearly every congregation by 200 AD most churches took pains to emphasize their particular practices and customs which were in all essentials identical with or in close harmony with the practices and customs reflected in the commonly held Christian Tradition. Hence the Greek term, katholikos, meaning general, generic, or universal, emerged as a label for those practices and customs--generally not beliefs or doctrines--that were recognized as being "universal" or world wide, that is, found to be characteristic of all major bodies of Christians. The earliest usage of "catholic church" appears in one version of Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans written about 107.
Another reason to stress catholicity was the healthy contrast it exposed between the true Christians and the so-called "Christians", quasi-Christians, of the Gnostic type like the followers of Marcion or some other Gnostic leader. As we shall see early Gnostic customs and practices were nothing if not unique, specific and localized.
Local groups of believers that maintained their (doctrinal) orthodoxy but rejected some custom or practice included in the "universal" Christian tradition were not, therefore, guilty of heresy. They were, nevertheless, not in fellowship with the "catholic" churches in terms of their customs and practices. Such aberrations in the customs and practices of otherwise orthodox Christians were labeled schismatikos, schismatic.
Up
Every local church had to deal with the practical and everyday ethical issues that naturally arose. Judicial like settlements and clarifications were devised on the local level, but there was always concern that the most authoritative answer be found. If they could find nothing in the written part of the Apostolic Tradition that would satisfy the question, or if it was a question of the meaning or interpretation of the written tradition, it was natural that they would put the issue before leaders whom they considered best informed.
Up
Early in this period between 70 AD and 200 AD the burgeoning local churches began sensing a need for a centralized leadership as a means of establishing an authority for the purpose of defending the integrity of Christian truth. This resulted in the enhancement of the special role or responsibility of a single elder and calling him "bishop", that is, overseer. First of all the bishop's authority rose to prominence among his colleagues, the local elders and other leaders, a development much more rapid in the east than in the western part of the Christian diaspora. An intermediate stage in the process found the bishop acting as a presiding officer over an authoritative council of elders. As president he was also the spokesman or correspondent for the local church with the government or with other churches. This latter role might justify the title, "messenger", (angelos) found in Revelation.
In order for the bishop's position to fully emerge he must rise to a level or power superior to his former colleagues. We begin to encounter language that suggests the autonomous authority of the bishop apart from the elders' council by the middle of the second century. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD) spoke of the elders as composing the bishop's "senate." This Latin word named the council of elders who, in the earliest period of Roman history, ultimately ruled the Roman State. While the Roman Senate had, by Irenaeus' time, retained its honor and respect, it had lost almost all of its real political power and authority as a body to the Princeps, i.e., Roman Emperor. The title Princeps, meaning "first" or "prince," originated from the Senatorial title princeps senatus which had for centuries been reserved for the highest ranking, most authoritative Senator.
Evidently there was considerable resistance to the elevation of the bishop to monarchical power. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108 AD) was one of the first Christian leaders to emphasize the importance of obedience to the bishop. In his letters to the congregations in the Roman Province of Asia (Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Magnesia and Tralles), written ca. 107, he is at great pains to deliver strenuous and repetitious admonitions emphasizing the superior rank, the role and the centrality of the bishop's office as the appropriate strategy for achieving and maintaining congregational unity. He identifies Polycarp as the current bishop of Smyrna, Damas as bishop of Magnesia, and Polybius as bishop of Tralles; yet in his letters to those individual churches he delivered the same message about the role of the bishop. This strongly implies that something was still lacking in making the office of bishop in those churches what Ignatius believed it should be. For another important aspect of the evidence of Ignatius' letters, see this discussion of the claims of the Roman Church below.
However, it is unlikely that the role of the bishop could have emerged as it did without the support of the majority of the local church members including many of the elders. The office of bishop eventually became an absolute monarchy and a full time responsibility because local congregations were finally persuaded that the Holy Spirit wanted it that way. The bishops may have been active as agents of persuasion, however!
By the end of the second century the autocratic or monarchical episcopacy was recognized as universal, i.e., catholic, practice. The bishop not only exercised authority over all ministry and worship functions such as teaching and performing baptism, he was the sole trustee and administrator of all property and funds belonging to the local congregation. He was assisted by the clergy made up of deacons, elders and, in larger congregations by the end of the period, some lesser clergy.
Cyprian of Carthage could say (c. 250 AD) "the bishop is the Church and the Church is the Bishop." Following Tertullian and Cyprian Roman Catholic scholars argue that the office and authority of the bishop derived directly from the office and authority of the individual apostles.
Up
By the end of the third century a clear division between clergy (Greek kléros = the called) and the laity (Greek laos = people) had developed. This was partly the result of the expansion in the powers of the bishop. It was also due to the increasing numbers of believers. The Church at the city of Rome, for example, has been estimated at 20,000 to 30,000 members by mid-third century. Bishop Cornelius (251-253) had 46 elders ministering to, probably, 46 local parts of the enormous congregation. Not every church was the size of the Roman church. Many clergy, even bishops, during this period were still supporting themselves in substantial measure by secular occupation even though they had a share in the offering.
Ordination was the ceremony by which the "called" were set apart and installed in their special role. Ordination (Greek cheirotonia and the Latin ordinatio) in a variety of limited forms was a practice that had roots in the polytheistic Hellenistic society of the Roman Empire; for the vocabulary had a well attested classical utilization. Sometimes it was a matter of selection, and sometimes a matter of installation or inauguration.
Up
In the competition between orthodox catholic Christianity and the increasingly numerous Christian heresies, control of congregations of believers was of paramount concern. This was one of the reasons for the development of autocratic episcopacy. Consequently, steps were taken to interpret the plan of salvation as a means of developing and exercising control. To do this it was necessary to deny or downplay some of the aspects of the Christian tradition and define salvation narrowly as uniquely the property of, and exclusively dispensed by, the official clergy. This resulted in the development of two doctrines, both of which distort much of the true Christian tradition, and make believers dependent on the bishop and his clergy. Scholars debate the degree to which these two distortions of New Testament teaching emerged before AD 200, but it is abundantly clear to many that major steps were being taken toward these destinations.
Sacramentalism is the doctrine that the ordinances of Christianity are physical acts (rites) that mysteriously transmit God's gift of salvation and eternal life. Salvation is received only in and through, by and because of the individual's physical participation in the proper sacramental ritual. Aspects of this doctrine paralleled teachings of contemporary paganism. The ordinances have become mysterious miracle-working rituals like those offered by the mystery religions. New Testament teachings of salvation by faith were thus controverted by institutionalizing and ritualizing an intensely personal faith experience.
Sacerdotalism (from sacerdos, priest) is the doctrine that those who are the leaders of the church constitute a consecrated priesthood "called out" (clergy) from among the regular believers (laity). Sacerdotalism also holds that all effective acts of ministry (administering the sacraments, etc.) and worship must be performed by or with the supervision of an approved member of this priesthood. Aspects of this doctrine reflect Old Testament Jewish practices, but in some ways it also imitates contemporary paganism. It seriously undermined the New Testament teaching of the priesthood of every believer and the ability of any believer to minister to anyone in need in the name of Christ. Nevertheless, Sacerdotalism was the basis for the conviction that sacramental rites performed by schismatics or heretics were not efficacious; that is, individuals could not be saved by means of sacraments dispensed by them!
If you argue, as some do, that such emphasis on the sacraments and the priesthood was already present in the New Testament, then second and third century churchmen can be absolved of any guilt for innovatively creating these practices as a means of control and leverage.
Up
The qualifications for clergy were based on Paul's discussion in I Timothy 3:2-13 and Titus 1:5-9. The following exclusions were generally followed:
The selection of the bishop remained in the hands of the congregation generally in this period, but the lower clergy tended in practice to be selected by the upper.
But by the early fourth century the bishop's election was to be supervised by at least three neighboring bishops from the province. If all was in order the assembled bishops then consecrated the newly elected bishop. Before 300 it was typically an elder who was chosen as bishop; after that date the archdeacon was frequently preferred.
Up
The rise of the autocratic bishop and the consolidation of local Church authority in his hands came at the expense of the rest of the resident elders who in some cases may have resisted.
By the beginning of the third century the position of elder was beginning to be somewhat depressed by the intimidating power of the local bishop. There were questions in the third century whether the elders were to be supported by the church and considered clergy. This was no doubt because the elders had from the beginning been the resident local church leaders whose lives were closely meshed with the community's economic environment and therefore not "full time" churchmen. However, the increasing size of some churches before this period was over made it necessary to demand more of elders. Also during this period it was becoming customary among Christians to refer to an elder as a priest (Greek hieros; Latin sacerdos). This of course reflected the general practice in polytheism of referring to any religious official as a priest.
Up
The influence of itinerant clergy, e.g. prophets, evangelists, and teachers after the order of Barnabas, Mark and Paul, was a direct challenge to the rise of autocratic resident bishops. The role of the teacher (Greek didaskalos; Latin doctor) is the only ecclesiastical office occasionally given to laymen in this period. Normally the task of instructing new converts was handled by an appointed deacon or elder, but there were notable cases (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria (?), Origen) where laymen exercised this task.
While the roles of teacher and evangelist were sooner or later absorbed by the local resident elders and thus becoming subject to the episcopal primacy, the role of the prophet offered stubborn resistance. Christian prophets continued to be active at least through the latter part of the first and the early second centuries AD. Both the New Testament and The Didaché indicates there were problems associated with false prophets. We should observe that prophecy was one avenue of ministry in the church to which women might aspire with the well-documented precedent of Philip's four daughters (Acts 21:9). Nevertheless, after the Montanists' efforts to give the prophet the dominant role in the leadership of Christianity, the orthodox catholic Christians became very restrained in giving place to prophecy, prophets and women in leadership. Prophets continued to serve in Montanist congregations, however, through the early fourth century.
Up
The formal office of deacon clearly emerges in this period between 70 and 200 despite the scarcity of evidence. The role seems to have developed a two-directional thrust. On the one hand the deacon ministered to the elders and the emerging bishop as an administrative assistant and on the other hand ministered to the individual believers in need. Where baptism was carried out in the nude, as in parts of Syria, deaconesses baptized women. We understand that deacons and deaconesses assisted in the Eucharist also. Evidences for deaconesses became less evident in the latter part of the period. At some point in this period the status of the deacon rose above that of the elder, perhaps due to the role of assisting the bishop. There is reason to suspect that the deacon's role may well have been the first of the resident clergy to become a "full time" responsibility.
At the beginning of the third century deacons were already clearly ranked above the elders (priests), and were treated as the local bishop's administrative assistants. Bishop Fabian at Rome (c. 236-250) assigned a deacon to each of the seven districts of the city. By 300 the "archdeacon" was considered next to the bishop and often thereafter succeeded to the bishop's office.
There were additional orders of clergy found in large churches during the third century. These include:
In many urban settings the monarchical episcopacy did not prevent the appearance of more than one congregation gathered behind a particular leader who exercised that type of centralized authority. This happened because of disagreements (heresies and schisms) over doctrine and practice. The competition among these groups highlighted the question of the integrity of Christian tradition. Which of these local congregations (each with their own ruling bishop) reflected the correct (orthodox) Christian teaching and the most consistent (catholic) practice?
Moreover, if the rule of one bishop per church strengthened the integrity of the local congregation then one unified congregation per city-region under one bishop should further strengthen the integrity, orthodoxy, and catholicity of the Christian faith of all believers in the city. So which of the several congregational leaders in a city community would be recognized as the ruling bishop? When more than one congregation was involved in a dispute the same rules and assumptions, those of apostolic succession, applied. That bishop representing the most ancient, most nearly apostolic, congregation in the city should be recognized as the true Christian bishop; hence, all other local congregations were condemned as schismatic or heretical. Not only did these schismatic and heretical congregations continue to thrive and compete with Apostolic Christianity throughout the second, third and early fourth centuries, their numbers and variety probably increased. As long as the polytheistic assumption of religious freedom and fragmentation continued to prevail in Roman civilization this "variety of Christianities" flourished. We see a similar proliferation today. Meanwhile the local group claiming to posses orthodoxy and catholicity, and thus to be true Christianity, struggled for survival.
Up
Because of the development of such rules as orthodoxy, catholicity, autocratic episcopacy, and apostolic succession--all discussed above--only one orthodox, catholic church organization per city became the general rule. Remember since the second century the entire Roman Empire has been divided into "cities" each of which serves as the local administrative arm of Roman authority. However, there may well have been several other schismatic or heretical "churches" in a single city. If the first church established in a city region was in the rural villages of the city, and if that rural bishop (chorepiskopos) for some reason did not extend his work and move his headquarters into the urban center of the city, another church might be established in the urban center. Only if the rural church was established before the urban church and if both remained orthodox and catholic could two such churches, i.e. two bishops, exist in the same city region.
Up
Elders and deacons, both under the bishop's supervision, ministered in the sections of the city as well as in the towns and villages in the rural area of the city. In some cases they probably extended their ministry into the territory of neighboring cities, but only if there was no Christian witness already there. When sufficient interest developed in such a neighboring city a church might be created there with a bishop of its own. By 200 AD, the establishment of a new church normally involved the gathering of a congregation of believers whose first official act was to elect a bishop. The bishop-elect might be either a long time resident or a newcomer in the community. He might be a member of the new congregation, or an elder, deacon, or layman from a nearby church (i.e. in another city) who was known to the new congregation. The bishop-elect could not serve until he had been given special recognition--usually called consecration--by at least one and preferably more of the neighboring bishops. Frequently in this period the bishop-elect himself, together with a small deputation from the congregation, traveled to see the nearest bishops. Sometimes the bishop-elect would seek his consecration from the most influential bishop in that part of the Empire and this could offend his near neighbors. Once the bishop was consecrated he could then preside over the selection and ordination of elders and deacons.
Up
The parish (Greek paroikia; Latin parochia) was a congregation or group of congregations containing all the Christians within a city under the supervision of a single bishop. Remember that in the second century the entire Roman Empire was subdivided into cities, some of which included large regions of basically rural population. The earliest congregations were routinely found in the heavily populated urban cities but from the late third century, churches began to appear in the less populous cities.
Up
The ecclesiastical province (Greek eparchia; Latin provincia) was usually identical in size and boundary with the civil provinces of the Early Roman Empire. The first ecclesiastical provinces were organized in the East (excluding Egypt) in the third century made up of all parishes within the territory of a civil province. By the early fourth century the bishop of the capital city, i.e. the Metropolis, "Mother City", of the Roman province was normally the presiding bishop or metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province. Note that Diocletian had reduced the size of the civil provinces, thus increasing their number. By 350 there were probably nearly 100 civil provinces. But the ecclesiastical provinces reflected the older, larger provincial regions.
Up
Before the middle of the fourth century larger ecclesiastical regions began to take form. The ecclesiastical diocese was in some cases roughly equivalent to the territory of the newly created civil dioceses that typically incorporated several civil provinces. By 325 AD the presiding bishop of such a region was termed a "chief metropolitan". Already among those listed below the first three were customarily recognized as having preeminence. The number of civil provinces in the civil diocese by the same name is given in parenthesis.
By 200 AD certain bishops were beginning to emerge as the most honored and revered and the most influential. Bishops located in the capital, i.e., "mother city" (metropolis) of a province almost automatically acquired such positions of precedence among the churches in the cities of the province. Moreover, not all the churches established during the lifetimes of the Apostles survived with equal vigor; again, those established in the more socio-economically prominent cities seemed to thrive best.
Already by the early fourth century the Roman bishop was recognized as one of the three most influential bishops in the Empire. There is no contemporary evidence that the Council of Nicaea officially acted on the matter--despite the firm insistence of later Roman bishops in the affirmative. It does appear that the rest of the bishops were willing to tolerate the tiresome insistence of the Roman bishop to be given "first place" honors so long as it was clearly understood that no special powers or jurisdiction went with the honor.
Up
Certainly the Christians in the city of Rome had an organization and leadership typical of the New Testament Period from the appearance of Christianity in Rome in the late 40's. Moreover, there is no first century text that attributes the descriptive title, bishop, to either Paul, Peter or John, the three itinerant apostles who ministered to the Roman congregation in the 60's.
The only congregation where we have evidence that a single elder had assumed a superior role under the title bishop by the end of the first century AD is in Syrian Antioch. Indeed, the evidence of Ignatius' letters makes it impossible to believe that the office of autocratic bishop had yet appeared at Rome or, for that matter, in the churches of the Asian Province where there were, nevertheless, bishops. When Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Christians in Rome about 107 he did not salute or even mention a bishop other than to refer to himself as bishop of Syria. All the evidence available points to Pius I as the first ruling bishop of the Church at Rome. Pius I's dates are variously given, but scholars generally agree on the late 140's and early 150's. Prior to the bishopric of Pius I, the other Roman leaders who are traditionally listed (Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus and Hyginus) probably served the Roman congregation as outstanding members of the fellowship of elders, presbyteroi, who shepherded the beleagered congregation during the period of heaviest persecution of the Christians (**) by the last Flavian Emperor and his successors down to the accession of Antoninus Pius in 138.
Forty-some years after Pius I, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (c. 178), in illustrating the principle of apostolic succession used the church at Rome as the most widely known example--certainly the only possible example in the western part of the Roman Empire. Irenaeus went ahead to make this observation: "For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this [Roman] church on account of its preeminent authority." (Adversus haereses, 3, III, 2., quoted by Ray C. Petry, ed. A History of Christianity: Readings in the History of the Church, Vol. I: The Early and Medieval Church {1962}, p.183.) It is quite reasonable and unexceptional to expect all recognized orthodox catholic churches to be in agreement; for, there is only one Apostolic Tradition. Irenaeus enumerated five unique things that set the Roman Church apart from its sisters:
The "necessity" Irenaeus speaks of is a logical or customary necessity; not a legal one. Here he is reflecting the culturally conditioned custom of recognizing and honoring anything and everything about the capital city of the Roman Empire. The preeminence of the Roman congregation's authority derives from all these: location, apostolicity, antiquity and size.
Irenaeus makes no specific mention of Peter by name in his discussion. He concludes his list of Roman leaders from Linus down to Eleutherius (c. 175-189) by saying that Eleutherius is "in the twelfth place from the apostles.... In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us." (Adversus haereses, 3, III, 3., quoted by Ray C. Petry, ed. A History of Christianity: Readings in the History of the Church, Vol. I: The Early and Medieval Church {1962}, P.183.) Yet Irenaeus was not claiming for Rome anything Apostolic that he would not have claimed also for other apostolic churches. When Irenaeus' contemporary, Bishop Victor (189-198) of Rome attempted to employ such reasoning to alienate and isolate the churches of the Asian Province among others as schismatics, Irenaeus (born and raised in the province of Asia) and other bishops criticized and rejected Victor's action (see Controversy over the Celebration of Easter).
Tertullian adds to the weight of the argument based on apostolicity by mentioning (c. 200 AD) that in addition to Paul and Peter, the Apostle John also ministered briefly at Rome (De Pers. Ad. Haer., 36, quoted by Petry, p. 183). He also comments in the same work that Clement was ordained by Peter (De Pers. Ad. Haer., 32, quoted by Bettenson and Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, New ed., p. 77), but the tradition that Peter was the first "bishop of Rome" comes first to light in the evidence dealing with the controversies in the Church at Rome in the days of Bishop Calystus, c. 220 AD (see **). Calystus attempted to force his interpretation of Penance on other bishops by identifying his authority with Peter.
The church in Rome seems to have split about 230. The successors of Calystus, Bishop Urban I (222-230) and Pontian (230-235) were contemporaries with Hippolytus (222-235)(**) whom later tradition also identified as a bishop. Both Hippolytus and Pontian were exiled by the Emperor Maximus Thrax in 235 as part of his actions against the Christians. The relative peace for the Church at Rome continued down to the reign of Emperor Decius Trajan (249-251) whose innovative religious policies (**) caused the Christians further suffering and schism. After the long reign and martyrdom of Bishop Felix (236-January 250) it was fifteen months before the Roman Church re-established a bishop, Cornelius (251-253), only to have a schismatic group form, under Novatian (251-258?).
Bishop Cyprian of Carthage (c.248-258) who had briefly gone into self-imposed exile during Decius' persecution put forward a new analogy in defending the unity of catholic orthodox Christianity in the face of the schism over penance. He wrote to Bishop Cornelius of Rome asserting and implying that the unity of the Christian clergy across the Empire arose from its having a common origin in the disciples. (Latin Petri cathedra atque ecclesia principalis, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. (Cyprian, Ep. 59,14. Cf. Ep. 58,8, and De cath. eccles. unitate, 4.) Since that original unity was expressed symbolically by the fact that Simon Peter was their spokesman, or chair-person, (literally, Peter's chair), so the symbol of the unity of the clergy in Cyprian's day was in the role of the clergy situated (or 'chaired') in the principle city of the Roman Empire. By "principle church" Cyprian certainly did not intend to indicate the Rome was chronologically older than any other congregation; even though it was doubtless older than any other church in the western part of the Empire. Rather, what "principle church" seems to imply is the good fortune of it's being located in the city most closely identified with the Princeps, that is the Roman Emperor. Roman Catholic scholars subsequently have wished to avoid such a blatantly political reading of Cyprian's statement. Moreover, Cyprian stressed the equality of all the Apostles with Peter insisting that each was endowed with the same authority and honor. Indeed, Cyprian saw every bishop as a successor of Peter.
Bishop Stephen I (254-257), Cornelius' successor at Rome, picked up on Cyprian's analogy between Peter's role as spokesman and the role of the Roman church, i.e. the Roman bishop, and allegedly declared that he held "the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid." (The latter phrase is a typical later view of Matthew 16:18. This accusation against Stephen I came from the pen of Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea.) This was the first step toward combining Cyprian's analogy with the already current ideas of apostolic succession.
When Stephen attempted to overrule some actions of the assembled bishops of Spain, Cyprian and his bishops took him to task. Cyprian was gracious in saying that Stephen was ignorant of the previous actions. Nevertheless, the Carthagenian Synod of 256 put in writing: "No one among us sets himself as a bishop of bishops, no one tyrannizes over his colleagues nor terrorizes them in order to compel them to assent, seeing that every bishop is free to exercise his power as he thinks best." (Cited by J. G. Davies, The Early Christian Church: A History of its First Five Centuries., 1965, p. 136.)
In 257 Emperor Valerian (**) began to take actions against subversive organizations including churches. In 258 the Roman Church lost its bishop and all its deacons. In the following months all valuable church property as well as the personal property of many well to do church members was confiscated. Bishop Dionysius (260-268) received most of the Church's properties back from Emperor Gallienus (253-268).
Up
Return to the Lecture/Essay Table of Contents for Part I
ht3463le07.html
Most recently edited 3 October 2003