MOI UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES

COURSE: REL 211: HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY I

INTRODUCTION

This course is about the Origin and Development of Christianity to 1500 AD. It will
look into the humble beginnings of one of the Abrahamic religions, namely, Christianity,
following the birth of the promised Messiah Jesus of Nazareth. The period in question saw
the emergence of the Jerusalem Church which later would expand to include the Gentile
world, hence the Gentile Church, thanks to the apostle of the Gentiles by the name St. Paul,
who before his conversion following the profound Damascus experience was known as Saul
of Tarsus. The period witnessed the persecutions of the Christians by the Pagans led by the
Emperors of the Roman Empire. The turning point would come with the rising to power
of emperor Constantine who brought to an end the reign of terror and ensured freedom of
worship in the entire Roman Empire. The period saw the growth of the church whose
authority and integrity was guaranteed by, the Canon of Scripture, the Rule of Faith (Creed)
and the Monarchical Episcopate, counteracting heresies and schisms which were threatening
the unity and integrity as well as the authority of the Church. The period would also see the
city of Rome becoming the headquarters of Christendom, hence the supremacy of the city of
Rome. The period also witnessed the Church using Councils to address various doctrinal and
disciplinary challenges that faced the Church. It is during this period that the Church
encountered Islam, another Abrahamic religion with devastating consequences. The period
ends with the disintegration of the Christian Medieval pattern.

2.0. THE JEWISH AND HELLENISTIC BACKGROUND TO CHRISTIANITY

It is important to examine the situation of the Graeco-Roman world in the eve of the
birth of Christianity for a better understanding of what St. Paul’s meant by the statement; “in
the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4-5), in reference to the birth of Jesus Christ.
There were three cultural spheres that impinged upon the life of Jesus, growing in
intensity as their geographical area diminished. The three spheres included; the Roman
Sphere, the Hellenistic (Greek) Sphere and the Jewish Sphere. These cultural spheres
represented political, intellectual and religious factors respectively.

2.1 The Roman Sphere

The Roman Empire extended from Syria to the Atlantic, from the English Channel
and the Danube to the sands of the Sahara, thus the Western world acknowledged the rule of
Rome. Subdivisions existed within the framework of the empire permitting vigorous local
political life. However, Rome was the universal state to which all were subject. Christ
himself and the apostles owed allegiance to it. The unity and organization of the Roman
Empire, the facility of communication it afforded, and the peace and protection it offered

1
made it truly the “fatherland of Christianity”. No wonder the Roman name and the capital
city were permanently borrowed by the Catholic Church. .

2.2. The Hellenist Sphere

While Rome dominated the political arena, Greece dominated in the intellectual
arena. The language spoken was not pure Greek but rather an admixture of Greek and
Oriental influences that made up the phenomenon called Hellenism. As a result of Alexander
the Great’s conquest of the Near-Eastern States (336-323 BC), a veneer of Greek civilization
overlaid the indigenous cultures of Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor. Greek language
was spoken by all the educated persons, the lower classes, however, usually clung passively
to the old ways and resisted Hellenization. When Rome conquered the East, it could not resist
the pressure of Hellenization. Being practical men, the Romans recognized the cultural
superiority of Greece and proceeded to reshape their society along Greek lines. Looted Greek
arts adorned Roman homes, Greek slaves tutored their captors’ children. Judaism was
infiltrated by Hellenism; even parts of the Old Testament had been translated into Greek -
Septuagint. Christianity, even before it left its Palestinian cradle, came into contact with
Hellenism, and quickly worked out a symbiosis with it. Three of the Gospels, all the Epistles,
and other early Christian writings were composed in the vernacular Greek. Systematic
Christian theology grew out of the environment of Hellenism. For two hundred years the
Church was, in its intellectual life, more Greek than Latin. Thus the universal Roman Empire
permitted and the universal Hellenistic culture facilitated the expansion and elaboration of the
Christian Universal Church.

2.3 The Jewish Sphere

Judaism provided the third proximate and positive ethical preparation for the Gospel.
Judaism was the ideological and religious source for Christianity, much of which was either
explicitly expressed or foreshadowed in the Old Testament (OT). Jesus, himself a Jew, passed
his entire life in an almost exclusively Jewish environment. When the Apostles took the
Gospel beyond the confines of Palestine, Jewish communities scattered throughout the
empire provided the bridge by which contact might be made with the Gentiles. Both
Palestinian Judaism and Judaism of the Diaspora must be understood for a proper knowledge
of primitive Christianity. Four or five million Jews lived outside Palestine. Almost every
major city in the Empire had its Jewish colony. Such cities include; Alexandria, Antioch,
Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. The basic difference between the two types of Judaism lay in
their attitude toward their non-Jewish intellectual environment. While Palestinian Judaism
officially resisted Hellenization as evidence of corruption, the Judaism in dispersion
(Diaspora) came in terms with it, recognized the values it offered and yet successfully
preserved the purity of their distinctive religion. Thus the dispersed Jews freed themselves
from the narrow, stifling, factional spirit of Palestine. Even Gentile converts joined these
Jewish congregations abroad. The Platonic Philosophy of Philo and the Greek Septuagint
Version of the OT are examples of Hellenized Judaism at its best.
It should be kept in mind that the first apostles were all Jews, and so were their first
converts. For a time the Church remained completely Jewish, a sect within Israel of those
who believed in the resurrection of Jesus and regarded him as the promised Messiah who was
about to come again to definitively establish the reign of God. Their new faith did not require
them to break with the Temple or the Law (Mosaic ). In fact, the Acts of the Apostles
emphasizes how faithful they were to daily prayer in the Temple. Some Jewish leaders,

2
notably the Sadducees, regarded the Christians as an alien group of nonconformists and
wanted to suppress them. But the Jewish leaders were unable to because public opinion
favoured the Christians and admired their fervent piety and fidelity to Jewish custom.
The spread of the Church beyond Jerusalem occurred very gradually as the disciples
carried their message to the numerous Jewish communities scattered along the Mediterranean
coast. At first they confined their evangelizing efforts to their fellow Jews, no doubt in
conformity with the practice of Jesus himself, who said he had come to preach only to “the
lost sheep of the house of Israel”, The first group to break with this custom, as we will see
later, were probably some Jewish dissidents with strong Hellenistic ties and unorthodox
views on the Jewish Temple worship led by Stephen, the deacon.

2.4. Religion in the Graeco-Roman world

In the Graeco-Roman world, religion occupied a vital place in the lives and politics of
the inhabitants. But at the time of the birth of Christ the religious condition of the Roman
Empire was far from healthy. This is made explicit by four noticeable tendencies:
i) A decline in respect for the old paganism
ii) Syncretism, or the fusion of all the pagan religions into an amorphous, all-inclusive unity
iii) Attempts to discover substitutes for the decadent cults
iv) The growth of the cults of the State and of the Emperor.
The Romans were tolerant of other religions and only reacted against those foreign
religions which became nuclei for anti-Roman patriotism or advocated antisocial practices.
Such religions suffered suppression by the Roman authority. The syncretistic tendency that
prevailed reached its climax in the early third century when Emperor Alexander Severus
introduced images of Abraham and Jesus into his extensive divine circle (apparently
Abraham for Judaism and Jesus for Christianity).

2.5. Factors for the quick expansion

As a matter of fact, the ultimate reason for the early Church’s quick expansion was
the divine will that christianity overcomes all adversaries. In addition there was the purity of
its teaching and the superior moral principles of its adherents which drew others to it.
The void left in the minds of common people and educated classes alike by the
Graeco-Roman polytheism caused them to seek new religious experiences.
For some this religious experience was supplied directly by Christianity, for others by the
oriental cults or the religious philosophies, both of which might in turn easily lead to
christianity.
The privileges granted to Judaism sheltered the Church in its infancy, while the
strategically located Jewish colonies offered points of penetration into the Gentile world.
Finally, the official Roman policy of religious toleration, although cruelly violated
during persecution, and the physical conveniences of a universal state facilitated its spread.

3.0. THE JEWISH MESSIANIC IDEA

Messiah, transliterated from the Hebrew and the Aramaic, and Christ, transcribed
from the Greek, both mean “anointed”. In the Old Testament the word annointed is first of all
applied to the king. But it has been used to designate other personages, especially priests.

3
Nethertheless, it is the first use which has left more traces in Jewish eschatology and hope. In
virtue of the anointing with oil which signifies his investiture by the Spirit of God (I Sam
9:16), the King is consecrated to a function which makes of him the lieutenant of Yahweh in
Israel. Thus the King became “ the anointed one of Yahweh” (2Sam 19:22); that is to say, a
sacred personage to whom every loyal individual must manifest a religious aspect (1 Sam
24:7, 11: 2 Sam. 1:14,16).
The anointing the king received is a sign of divine preference (Ps. 45:8). It made of
him the adopted son of Yahweh (Ps.2:7). He was certain of the Protection of Yahweh. Revolt
against him is folly (Ps.2:2), for God will not fail to intervene to save him (Hab. 3:13). In
relying on the promises made to David, it is hoped that God will never fail to perpetuate his
dynasty (Ps. 132:17). Thus the confusion of minds was great after the fall of Jerusalem when
the anointed of Yahweh was taken prisoner by the pagans (Lm 4:20); why has God so
rejected His Messiah, so that all the pagans behave outrageously to him? (Ps. 89:39, 52). The
humiliation of the Davidic dynasty was a trial of faith, and this trial continued even after the
post-exilic restoration.
Beginning with the time the oracle of Nathan fixed the hope of Israel on the dynasty
of David (2 Sam 7:12-16), each King issuing from him became the actual “Messiah” by
whom God wished to fulfill his plan with regard to His people.
Frequently severe on the reigning anointed (Kings) whom they judged to be
unfaithful, the prophets oriented the hope of Israel on the future King, to whom, however,
they never gave the title of Messiah. It is at the beginning of their promises that the royal
Messianism is developed after the exile. The royal psalms which had already spoken of the
present anointed are now sung in a new perspective which makes them refer to the future
anointed, the Messiah in the strict sense of the term. They describe his glory in advance, his
struggle (see Ps.2), his victories, etc. Jewish hope rooted in the sacred text was very much
alive at the time of the New Testament, notably among the sect of the Pharisees.
Jewish eschatology gives an important place to the expectation of the Messiah:
everywhere a royal Messiah, a sacerdotal Messiah in certain places.In some circles where
they expected two Messiahs, on e was to be a sacerdotal Messiah and the other one was to be
concerned with political matters. The Essene sect was one that spoke of sacerdotal Messiah.
But the scriptural promises are not reduced to this Messianism in the strict sense of the word
because it is frequently tied up with dreams of temporal restoration. They equally announce
the setting up of the Kingdom of God. They present also the artisan of salvation under the
features of the Servant of Yahweh and of the Son of Man. The coordination of all this data
with the expectation of the Messiah (or Messiahs) is not easily or clearly realized. Only the
coming of Jesus will dissipate the ambiguities of the prophets on this point.
Struck by the holiness, the authority, and the power of Jesus (see Jn7:31), His hearers
asked themselves: “ Is not this the Messiah?’ (Jn 4:29; 7:40ff) or, which come to the same
thing: “Is not this the Son of David?” (Mt.12:23). And they urged Him to declare Himself
openly (Jn 10:24). Faced with this question, men were devided (see Jn 7:41). On the other
hand, the Jewish authorities decided to excommunicate whoever recognized Him as the
Messiah (Jn. 9:22). But those who had recourse to His miraculous power, invoked Him
openly as the Son of David (Mt. 9: 27;15:22; 20:30f), an His Messianism was the object of
explicit acts of faith (first disciples after the baptism in Jn 1:41, 45, 49. Martha in Jn11:27,
Peter’s act of faith in Mk.8:29”Thou art the Messiah”). This faith is genuine, but it remains
imperfect, for the title of Messiah runs the chance still of being understood in a perspective of
temporal royalty (see Jn 6:15).
Thus equally radical and new when compared with the beliefs till then held by the
Jews was the conviction of the Christians that Jesus was the true and promised Messiah. On
this subject, Jesus adopted an attitude of reserve. Except in Jn 4:25f, He never gives Himself

4
the title of Messiah. He allows Himself to be called Son of David, but He forbids the
demoniacs to say that He is the Messiah (Lk. 4:41). He accepts confessions of faith, but after
that of Peter He recommends that the twelve do not say that He is the Messiah (Mt. 16:20).
The belief by Jesus’ followers that in Him they possessed the Messiah expressed itself
in the various titles which the preaching of the apostles and the piety of the faithful bestowed
on him, e.g. “the Christ”, a designation that was used as a kind of surname to Jesus, they
preached the “Gospel of Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42), it was “Jesus Christ” who healed through
the apostles (Acts 9:34).
Because Jesus was the Messiah he was called the “Kyrios,” which he had been called
by God himself (Acts 2:36). So the church addressed the Kyrios in prayer with all
confidence; from its midst came the cry “Marana – tha” Come, O Lord! (1Cor. 16:22), a
prayer preserved for us by Paul. The risen Jesus was the Saviour, called by God to bring
salvation to men (Acts 5:31);
The first step to salvation through Jesus was the forgiveness of sins. He was sent to
turn men away from sin (Acts 3:26). The Gospel showed the way to this salvation but a man
could accept it or reject it; therefore Peter adjures his audience: “save yourselves” (Acts.
2:40). Penance and inner conversion were of course necessary for the removal of sins (3:19).
The reception of the Holy Spirit was for the primitive church proof and confirmation that
salvation had already begun for its members.

4.0 JESUS THE FOUNDER

We know about Jesus from the four Gospels. However, the Gospels are not lives of
Jesus edited according to the principles that govern the writing of history today. Written by
inspired believers to arouse and strengthen faith, they bring together and arrange memories
that have indeed had light shed upon them and been transformed by the paschal faith but,
which, when subjected to careful criticism, allow us to reach the person of Jesus of Nazareth
with certainty.
About thirty years after his birth, Jesus left his parental home and began his work
among the people of his homeland. First, he took a remarkable step, seeking out the great
preacher of penance, John the Baptist by the Jordan and accepting baptism from him,
whereby God “anointed him with the Holy Spirit,” who descended upon him in the form of a
dove while the voice of the Father bore witness from Heaven that this was his “beloved son”
(Mt. 3:13f).
Conscious of his messianic mission and his divine sonship which he was able to
confirm by numerous miracles, Jesus now proclaimed in word and deed that the Kingdom of
God was close at hand, and that all men, not only Israelites, were called to the Kingdom,
provided they served God with true piety.
The supreme law of the religion he preached was the unconditional love of God and a
love of one’s neighbour that embraced men of all nations. In clearly recognizable opposition
to pharisaical practice with its inwardly correct observance of the law he declared purity of
mind and intention to be the basis of moral behaviour, thus giving to the individual
conscience the decisive role in the sphere of religion.
Jesus furthermore re-established the true priority of obligations derived from that life
of inward union with the Father which he preached as the ideal: more important than
scrupulous observance of the Sabbath is a helpful action performed for our neighbour, of
more value than the prescribed prayers recited in the Temple is silent converse with the
Father in the solitude of one’s own room.

5
 Shocking for many was his message that publicans and sinners, the poor and infirm,
whom God seemed so obviously to have punished, had the first right to expect a welcome in
the house of the Father.
But consoling though his message was for those who had hitherto been despised and
lowly among the people, great though the effects of his miraculous powers were upon those
marked by lameness, blindness, leprosy and spiritual diseases, no less strict were the
conditions which Jesus imposed upon those who would enter the kingdom of God (Lk. 9:62).
He demanded a discipleship that was quite impossible without painful self-denial; the
man who would truly be his disciple must be able to lay aside his own life (Lk. 14:26)
All those, however, who made up their minds to follow him and were thus called to
the kingdom formed a new community.
Jesus proclaimed no kind of only individual piety or religion, but a message which
binds together those who hear it and are filled by it as brothers in a religious family that prays
together to the Father for the forgiveness of its sin.
Jesus himself on one occasion called his community his church, and he claimed that he was
establishing it by his work (Mt. 16:18).
He carefully prepared the ground for the foundation of this religious society.
From the minority of people who accepted to become his disciples, Jesus selected twelve
men, who occupied a special position among his followers; they were the object of his special
attention; with them he discussed the special tasks for which he intended them in the
community that was to be.
They were to take up and continue the mission which the Father in Heaven had
entrusted to him; “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (Jn. 20:21)
These received the name of apostles, envoys.
The content of their mission was the proclamation of the kingdom of God; to fulfill it,
the apostles were expressly appointed as teachers, whose word the nations must believe and
trust like that of Jesus himself (Lk. 10:16, Mt. 28:20), to whose judgement they must submit
as if it were a verdict of the Lord (Mt. 18:18)
Finally, to the twelve, who were to carry out his own office of High Priest in the new
community, Jesus gave priestly powers (Jn. 17:19; Mt. 20:28). They were to nourish and
sanctify its members through a mysterious, sacramental life of grace.
From the group Jesus chose Peter for a special task; he was appointed to be the rock
foundation on which his church should stand, with a singular form of words he was given the
mission to feed the sheep and the lambs and to strengthen his brothers (Mt. 16:18; Jn. 21:15).
Thus the foundation prepared by Jesus before his resurrection received an organic
framework, perceptible even from without, which would now grow in space and time,
according to laws of growth implanted in it by its founder.
Its purely supernatural basis lies indeed elsewhere: it is ultimately founded on the
death of Jesus. With his death, which completed the work of atonement and redemption, and
his resurrection, which gloriously confirmed that work, the founding of the church was
complete, and her historical existence began with the descent of the Holy Spirit.

4.1. Some Resemblance

It should ne noted that Jesus not only preached the good news of the Kingdom, he
also gathered his followers into a fellowship. They often took their meals together,celebrating
joyfully their new covenant with God while they anticipated the glorious banquet to come in
the Kingdom of heaven. He called them the light of the world, the city of God, the salt of the

6
earth. They were a family whose common devotion to God’s will united them far more
intensely than any bonds of flesh and blood.
In some ways all of this resembled other spiritual movements of his day. Another
Jewish group (sect) – the Essenes, for instance - had, as the Dead Sea Scrolls show, the same
sense of joy at the imminent advent of God’s Kingdom. They too practiced renunciation of
personal possessions and their leader too advocated celibacy. And from them Jesus may have
derived his doctrine of not resisting evildoers. But they held to a sharp separation from the
common herd, and many of them secluded themselves in monasteries near the Dead Sea.
Jesus, on the other hand, opposed any form of exclusivism, it would have been at odds with
his main doctrine of the boundless nature of God’s offer of grace. So he deliberately sought
out the social outcasts and even showed them special signs of his favor.
The members of Jesus’ Kingdom(Church) felt a most intimate relationship with God,
whom they loved to call Father. And he taught them to live sincerely as God’s children.
Though a tiny group, poor and despised, they had the greatest of conceivable treasures – the
absolute assurance of salvation, a salvation not dependent on their own achievements but on
the unlimited goodness of God. Nor must they worry about daily necessities, their heavenly
Father’s providence, which reached even to the tiniest sparrow, would surely not desert them.
Not that they would be spared any of the manifold forms of suffering and anguish that life
brings to everyone. But there was no need for them to comprehend the unfathomable
mystery of evil; enough to know that suffering when accepted brings one closer to God, while
death itself is only the prelude to union with him.
Life in God’s Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus found its purest expression in prayer,
and Jesus stood before his followers as a constant example of prayerfulness. As a pious Jew,
he observed the three liturgical hours of prayer daily and took part in the worship of
synagogue and Temple. But as in other matters touching the formal religion of the day, he
challenged tradition and custom. He warned his followers against the spirit of routine and
formalism so often characteristic of public prayer, he urged them to pray in secret as well,
and he himself spent whole nights in prayer. Moreover, he gave them a distinctive prayer of
their own, the Lord’s Prayer, whose brief petitions to the Father so perfectly express his own
yearning for the ultimate fulfillment of the divine purpose in history.
The community Jesus founded was to keep in mind the fact that accepting the rule of
God meant radically changing one’s order of values. There must be no divided loyalty: every
form of attachment, whether to family, property, business, or whatever, must be relegated to
second place in the heart of one who aspires to follow Jesus. And like the prophets, he
warned them of the special danger of riches; money could so easily take the place of God in
man’s soul – for “no man can serve two masters”. Service of the Kingdom might even mean
the complete renunciation of all material goods; when Jesus sent out messengers to spread the
good news he wanted them to go as poor men, and recommended celibacy for the sake of the
Kingdom. In any case, every follower of Jesus must deny himself, for the Kingdom could not
be brought in without suffering.
The originality of Jesus was found not so much in the novelty of his ideas ( for most
of them were already present in the traditions of his people ) but in the way he brought them
together, developed and harmonized them, and above all made them real in his own life with
such unparalleled intensity.

5.0. THE JERUSALEM CHURCH

The account given in the first seven chapters of the Acts of the Apostles is the most
important source for fortunes of the primitive church immediately after the ascension of our

7
Lord. It, however, does not give a complete picture of events because the author chose for his
subject only what served his purpose.
The author’s purpose was to show that the tidings of the Kingdom, though first
addressed to the Jews, were then, in accordance with God’s will, to be delivered to the
Gentiles, and that the Jewish Xtian Paul, with the approval of the apostles and commissioned
by them, had become the legitimate missionary to the Gentiles.
Therefore only about the first fifteen years of the origin and growth of the community are
described; of its later history mention is made only in occasional reference to Jerusalem.
It was the fact at first hardly comprehensible, of the resurrection of the crucified one
that brought together the scattered disciples and united them in a community sharing the same
believe and profession of faith.
When the story of the Acts begins, a group of 120 believers has re-assembled (Acts.
1:15). Firm in their belief that their Lord who has ascended into heaven will return, they are
determined to carry out the instructions he gave them during the forty days between his
resurrection and his ascension.
First of all under Peter’s leadership they hold an election to complete the apostolic
college, the number twelve being considered as Sacrosanct, the candidate must, like the
others be a reliable witness to the life and work of the Lord. After entrusting the election in
prayer to God, Matthias is elected.
The events of the first Pentecost gave them a great access of strength and courage to
bear witness in public. The enthusiasm of that day caused Peter to preach a sermon before the
people in which he proclaimed the crucified and risen Jesus as the true Messiah.
The external growth of the community reflected its inward strengthening: as a result
of Peter’s preaching about three thousand Jews professed their faith in Jesus.
The healing of a man born lame by Peter and John, and another sermon by the former,
brought further success. Soon the number of members of the community had risen to five
thousand (Acts 3-4:4).
Such success disturbed the Jewish authorities, which sent for the apostles to examine
them. Peter was their spokesman, and here too he boldly proclaimed the message of the
crucified. A threatening warning to the apostles to keep silent for the future was reflected in
the name of Jesus (Acts 4:5-22).
When fresh miracles and repeated preaching further increased the number of the
faithful, all the apostles were again arrested whereupon they dared to say before the
Sanhedrin that God must be obeyed rather than men (Acts 5:29).
A first scourging with rods, to which the leaders of the church at Jerusalem were
sentenced and renewed prohibition to speak in the name of Jesus, were preliminaries to the
first persecution.

5.1. Apostles Peter and John and inspection journey

They now took to preaching the Gospel in the countryside, especially in Jedaea and
Samaria, the Samaritan Mission of the Hellenist Philip was particularly successful.
This spread of the faith outside the capital was the occasion for a journey of inspection by the
apostles Peter and John to the newly won Christian in Samaria, upon whom they laid their
hand that they might receive the Holy Spirit. The two apostles were also active as
missionaries on their journey and preached in many places in Samaria.
Later Peter paid another visit to the brethren outside Jerusalem – “the saints” as the
Acts call them – and the presence of Jewish Christian in cities like Joppa and Lydda shows
how strong the movement had become in the more remote parts of Palestine.

8
5.2. James the elder is killed and James the younger takes over authority

The peace that had followed the persecution was again threatened by Herod Agrippa,
who caused the arrest of the leading apostles, Peter and James the Elder, and the execution of
the later (A.D. 42 0r 43), in order to please the Jews of the capital (Acts 12:2).
Peter might have escaped death given that he had already left Jerusalem for “another
place” (Acts 12:17). The leadership of the congregation then passed to James the younger.
The sudden death of Herod in 44 AD again brought more peaceful times for the church and
made possible a more widespread preaching of the word. For about 20 years James was able
to work in Jerusalem, surrounded by this congregation and highly respected by the other
apostles – Paul calls him, together with Peter and John one of the “Pillars” of the primitive
church (Gal. 2:9).
The strictly ascetic life of James the younger together with his loyalty to Jewish
tradition earned him the name “the just.” He was, however, also concerned for the Jewish
Christian Congregations outside the capital, to whom he wrote a letter which has been
accepted into the Canon of the New Testament. His authority carried weight at the so-called
council of the Apostles, where he played the part of mediator (Acts 15:13-21). He too met a
martyr’s death in 62, when the high priest Ananias was able to vent his hatred upon him, the
post of Roman procurator being vacant owing to the death of Festus. They cast the old man
from the pinnacle of the Temple, and, while he still lived, they stoned him and beat him to
death. Following the example of his Lord he prayed for his enemies as he lay dying.
A few years later the independence of the Jerusalem Congregation came to an end
when the rebellion against the Romans turned into a catastrophe for the whole nation.
The fortune of the young church took a new turn. Under Peter’s leadership in
Palestine there had already been individual conversions from paganism. Now Philip received
the chamberlain of Queen Candace of Ethiopia into the church by baptism, and Peter himself,
by the reception of the pagan captain Cornelius made it clear that the message of the Gospel
was not for the Jews alone.

5.3. The name Christian

Even while the original community was still in Jerusalem, a considerable number of
former pagans had formed a Christian Congregation in the Syrian capital of Antioch, the care
of which was entrusted to the Cypriot Levite Barnabas. It was here that the name Christian
was applied to the followers of a new faith, although it is an open question as to whether this
term was introduced by the local pagan authorities, was a popular slang word, or which
seems more likely, was an expression used by the Christians to distinguish themselves from
official Judaism and from Jewish sects (see Acts 1:6-8, Peter 4:16).

5.4. Special tasks in the community

This Christian community was, from the beginning, a hierarchically ordered society,
in which not all were of equal rank. There were in it persons and groups of persons to whom
special tasks and functions in the life of the community were assigned by higher authority.
The first of such groups was the college of the apostles, distinguished in a unique way
from all other members of the community; by them were carried out the special tasks which

9
Jesus had given to the chosen Twelve, before his ascension and for which he had trained
them.
The community felt the number twelve to be sacred, so after Judas defected Matthias
filled his place. The election of Matthias had a purely religious character; it was begun with
prayer and God himself made the decision by means of lots, so that it became unequivocally
clear that a man could be called to the office of an apostle only by the supreme authority of
God. The principal task of an apostle was to bear witness to the life, death and resurrection of
Christ.
Linked to this task was the duty of leading the community in the solemnities of the
cult, when it met together united in faith: to administer the baptism by which a man became a
member of the community, to preside at the religious meal which symbolically expressed the
sense of belonging together, to undertake the laying on of hands by which members were
consecrated for special tasks – in a word, to be mediators between Christ and his Church
through the exercise of priestly functions.
Christ himself gave the apostles power to work signs and wonders in his name (Acts
2:42, 5:12). Bound up with that power was the right to rule with authority in the community,
to ensure discipline and order and to found new congregations of believers (Acts 8:14 f;
15:2). Nevertheless, the apostle was not so much lord as rather servant and shepherd in the
church, which was firmly based upon the apostolic office (Mt. 16:18, 24:45, Acts 20:28).

5.5. The institution of the Seven Deacons

The other office in the primitive church was that of the Seven Deacons, (Acts 6:1-7).
The appointment of these seven deacons unlike that of Matthias was done with prayer and
laying on of hands by the apostles and not by elections. As the tasks to be carried out in the
community increased with the number of members, some organization became necessary.
The apostles must remain free to preach, and therefore seven men were appointed to serve the
tables, to care for the poor and to help the apostles in their pastoral activities (Acts 6:1-6).
These were ordained for their work with prayer and the laying on of hands. The seven
deacons were, Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus.
The deacons not only discharged charitable activities, some of them, like Stephen,
played a leading role in the theological dispute with the Jews about the mission of Christ and
the validity of the Old Law (Acts 6:8ff). Philip was an active missionary who preached
among the Samaritans and in many other places (Acts 21:8).
No special name is given to this group in the Acts of the Apostles, but their work is described
by the verb “to serve” (Acts 6:2).
The duties of the seven were determined by the needs of the church. The Greek names
of these men indicate that the number of Hellenistic Jews from the Diaspora was not
inconsiderable in the community.
It is clear that tension arose between them and the Palestinian Jewish Christians.
Among the Hellenistic Christians Stephen was especially distinguishable for his courage and
skill in debate, but he suffered a martyr’s death by stoning when he was bold enough to say to
the Jews that through Christ’s work the Old Testament had been superseded.
The death of Stephen was the signal for a persecution, which fell most heavily upon
the Hellenistic members of the Jerusalem community. While the apostles remained in
Jerusalem, many Christians evaded persecution by flight.

5.6. The elders

10
 There was yet another office, namely that of the elders. It is not so clearly defined as
that of the seven (Acts 11:30). In the primitive church of Jerusalem these “elders” are always
to be found in the company of the apostles or of James as leader of the congregation, they
take part in the decisions of the apostolic Council (Acts 15:2ff).
They were therefore assistants to the apostles or to the pastor of Jerusalem in the
administration of the community.

5.7. The Prophets

There was another office, which seem to have been a temporary one. This was the
office of “prophets” it is mentioned only once in connection with the Jerusalem community
(Acts 15:32). The prophets were Judas and Silas, who were chosen and sent to Antioch that
they might inform the Christians there of the decision of the council.
Their task was not therefore one that belonged to a permanent office; they were selected
because of their special gifts to carry out such a commission and to encourage and strengthen
the brethren in Antioch.
The existence of such office holders, the apostles, the elders and the seven, shows
clearly that there was already in the primitive church a division among the members into
groups, consecrated by a religious ceremony far special tasks, apart form the main body of
the faithful.

5.8. The impact of the Resurrection

The new and revolutionary event that brought about the formation of the followers of
Jesus into a community was the resurrection of the Lord. It was also one of the fundamental
elements of the religious faith by which the primitive church lived, and it was pivot upon
which the apostolic message hinged. It had therefore to be accepted by all who wished to
follow the Gospel.
Both as an historical event and as part of the faith the fact of the resurrection was
confirmed by the descent of the Spirit at the First Pentecost (Acts 2:1ff), which gave its final
clarity and direction to the apostolic message.

5.9. Membership/ Spirituality

Baptism became the basis of membership in the community. This baptism was
unequivocally carried out “in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins,”
(Acts 2:38), hence it was not merely a matter of taking over the baptism of John.
Jesus as a person was thus the centre of this liturgical act; from him it got its supernatural
efficacy, namely the forgiveness of sins and entry into the community of the faithful.
The author of the Acts of the Apostles says in his description of the life of the
Jerusalem Christians that they were persevering in “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42). Paul,
in his description of the Lord’s Supper says that he is drawing on the tradition of the
Jerusalem Community. The focal point of the liturgical life was the Eucharist. It is worth
noting that according to the Acts of the Apostles, three important rites dominated the liturgy
of the apostolic times: baptism, the imposition of hands and the breaking of bread. We can
therefore talk of a spirituality that was liturgical. The word liturgy in its original Greek sense

11
of the public service rendered by an individual to the community, was applied for the first
time to Christian worship by St. Clement of Rome.
The letter of James speaks of another Christian practice, the anointing of the sick,
which was to the elders (see James 5:14ff). Even if the letter was addressed to the Jewish
christians of the Diaspora, James would hardly have recommended to them a religious
custom unknown to his own congregation.
The whole religious attitude of the primitive church was roofed in a courageous
enthusiasm, prepared for sacrifice, which manifested itself above all in work of active
charity; “now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said
that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common”
(Acts 4:32). This reflects a communal or social kind of spirituality. Actually, from the
beginning, as we know from the Acts of the Apostles, the common life was an essential
element of the Church. Theologically, this spirituality of the primitive Church provided a
setting in which the Christians could pratice fraternal charity; liturgically, it was required by
the very nature of the Eucharistic liturgy and common prayer. Community life, in turn,
required the sharing of common possessions, if only to prevent the separatist individualism
that occasioned by personal dominion.
The brotherly love engendered by the enthusiasm of the new faith made the individual
believe easily and gladly renounce his private property in order to help the poor of the
community. This reflects an ascetical kind of spirituality. The word “ascetical” should be
understood in its original meaning of the practice and growth of the virtues rather than acts of
austerity and self-denial. The early Christians were, however, renowned for the virtues of
fraternal charity, humility, patience, obedience, chastity and the practice of prayer. To
cultivate and safeguard these virtues, they soon found it necessary to resort to practices of
austerity and some degree of separation from the world. In these early days asceticism was a
logical consequence of the Christocentric and eschatological aspects of Christian spirituality.
The voluntary principle in the giving up of personal property makes it impossible to
regard this early Christian community of goods as in any way equivalent to modern
communism. The generous indifference to the goods of this world, which it brought, made
them inwardly free, unselfish, and therefore capable of great deeds. This moral and religious
strength, born of the faith and the eschatological outlook (Parousia) of the primitive church,
also gave its members the strength not to give up when the Parousia failed to arrive, but
instead to open the way for Christianity into a greater future.

5.10. Special Days

The special mention of the day on which the breaking of bread was held (20:7) clearly
indicates that the Lord’s Supper is here referred to; a day was chosen which had no special
significance in the worship of the Jews. In this case too, we note a liturgical development
among the first Christians, which marks the departure; Sunday was the day on which the
young community assembled for its own form of worship.
The day Sunday was chosen because it was the day of the Lord’s resurrection, and
with this fact was linked the expectation that he would come again on the same day of the
week.
Some new Christian religious practices are also indicated by the choice of new fast
days, different from the Jewish ones held on Monday and Thursday. Friday became a fast day
for Christians, the day on which the Lord died.
The choice of Wednesday as the second fast day of the week follows the same line of
thought for it was on a Wednesday that Jesus was taken prisoner and his passion began.

12
5.11. Jewish Diaspora (THE HELLENISTS)

This was a group or congregation composed of Diaspora Jews – those who had lived
outside the Holy Land. Some had returned to Jerusalem and taken up more or less permanent
residence there. Now there were certain elements in Jesus’ preaching, which were quite,
absent from the religious life of the early Christians, although most of them were certainly
unaware of this. There was, however, one group in the early church, which was aware of
these discrepancies, and they were extremely important for the history of the later church.
The Jewish Christians who saw some of the implications of Jesus’ message that
escaped their contemporaries belonged to the group known as the “Hellenist.” These
Diaspora Jews were more open to new ideas and less rigid in regard to ritual law than their
fellow Jews. When these Hellenists were converted to Christianity, they seemed to sense that,
although their new faith had come into existence entirely within the Jewish religious world, it
could not be limited to those who were willing to undertake the strict observance of Jewish
dietary and cultic law. They seem to have sensed the radical incompatibility between
Christianity and legalistic Judaism as it was lived at the time, and they begun to draw some
practical consequences. (Paul would develop it later). Their critical approach to legalistic
Judaism brought them to loggerheads with non-christian Jews and were eventually driven out
of the city of Jerusalem. Their leader Stephen, the deacon, was arrested and denounced to the
Sanhedrin for speaking against the Temple and condemned to death by stoning thereby
becoming the first Christian Martyr.
On the other hand, those members of the Jewish Christian church who remained law-
abiding Jews got along very well with the Jerusalem Jews and evidently did nothing
whatsoever to support the Hellenists; possibly they were glad to see them go and were happy
to be rid of the embarrassment.
Though it was not clear how many Hellenists were expelled out of Jerusalem, in view
of later developments, it seems certain that the christian communities in Damascus and
Antioch owe their origin to them, and that their departure from Jerusalem was providential
for the spread of the new faith.
It is worth noting that since the 8th century BC a large number of Jews had spread in
repeated waves, of forced settlement or voluntary emigration, over the Near East and the
whole Mediterranean basin, and at the beginning of the Christian era they considerably
outnumbered the inhabitants of Palestine.
The great centres of Hellenistic culture had a special attraction for them; thus, for
instance there were powerful Jewish colonies at Antioch, Rome and especially Alexandria,
where two of the five districts of the city were allotted to them. Whenever their numbers
allowed, they organized themselves into congregations of which about one hundred and fifty
are known to have existed in the coastal areas of the Mediterranean when the apostles first
began their mission. The centre of each congregation was the Synagogue, presided over by an
archsynagogus as leader of their prayer meetings, while a council of elders, with an archon at
its head, concerned itself with civil matters. Religious faith bound the Diaspora Jews
together. They belonged mostly to the middle class; in Asia Minor and Egypt many of them
were engaged in agriculture as workers on the land or as tenant farmers, but some were
independent farmers or estate owners. One trade had a special attraction for them, that of
weaving and clothmaking. In the great city of Alexandria they played a considerable role in
banking; but here they did not enjoy the unqualified approval of their pagan neighbours.
Like all immigrants they gave up their mother tongue after a while and adopted the
international Greek language, the Koine, a fact that led to the use of this language in the

13
worship of the Synagogue. Here Egyptian Jewry had shown the way when it translated over a
long period the individual books of the Old Testament into Greek and thus created the
Septuagint, which was used throughout the Diaspora in the first century A.D. as the
recognized translation of the Bible. The reading of the Scriptures in Greek was followed by
prayers in Greek, of which the Christian church has adopted some. The use of Greek in the
religious sphere inevitably exposed the Jews to the cultural influences of Hellenism in a
wider sense, and in a narrower sense to the effect of Hellenistic religious currents.
From the stoics the Jews took over the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation,
which apparently was taught at a special school of exegetics for Jews in Alexandria. Without
giving up the literal sense of the biblical description of events in the great Jewish past, the
new teachers found a deeper secret meaning beneath it, which saw in Adam for instance the
symbol of human reason, in Eve that of sensuality, in the tree of life that of virtue. Paradise
itself was an allegory of the wisdom of God, and the four rivers that flowed from it were the
Cardinal Virtues (Prudence, Justice, Temperance and fortitude).

5.11.1.Philo Judaeus

A remarkable Jew in Diaspora was Philo (20 BC - 50 A.D .), whose city was
Alexandria. He was greatly influenced by the philosophy of Plato. He took from him not only
his philosophical terminology but also his high esteem for the intellect and his longing for a
spiritualized life as well as his idea of the imperfection of the material world.
Philo’s doctrine of creation has also a Platonic colouring especially his notion of the
“middle powers” which exist between a perfect God and the imperfect world; they are called
“thoughts of God,” and the highest of them is the logos, reason itself, which was to play such
an important part in the theology of the first christian centuries.
Despite this enthusiasm for the Hellenistic philosophy of his time, Philo remained a
convinced Jew by religion. What he took over from Hellenistic philosophy was after all, he
believed, only an earlier gift from the Jews to the pagans, whose teacher, unknown to them,
had been Moses. Jerusalem and its Temple were the focus of the attachment of the Diaspora
Jews. They even made their annual financial sacrifice, the temple tax.

5.11.2. The Confrontation with Judaism

The story of how this tiny community of believers spread to countless cities of the
Roman Empire within less than a century is indeed a remarkable chapter in the history of
humanity. Sources are limited, however, it is still possible to put together the basic story.
The first apostles were all Jews and so were their converts. For a time the church
remained completely Jewish, a sect within Israel of those who believed in the resurrection of
Jesus and regarded him as the promised Messiah who was about to come again to definitely
establish the reign of God.
Their new faith did not require them to break with the Temple or the law. Infact, the
Acts of the Apostles emphasizes how faithful they were to daily prayer in the temple. The
spread of the church beyond Jerusalem occurred very gradually as the disciples carried their
message to the numerous Jewish communities scattered along the Mediterranean coast. At
first they confined their evangelizing efforts to their fellow Jews, no doubt in conformity with
the practice of Jesus himself, who said he had come to preach only to “the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.”

14
 The first group to break with this custom were probably some Jewish dissidents with
strong Hellenistic ties and unorthodox views on the Jewish Temple worship. Their leader
Stephen, the deacon, was arrested and denounced to the Sanhedrin for speaking against the
Temple. When questioned he did not spare the Jews, he blasted them as “stubborn people,
with…. Pagan hearts and pagan ears” (Acts 7:51). He was stoned to death, and his martyrdom
triggered a general persecution. His followers sought refuge elsewhere and began to preach
the Gospel wherever they travelled.
It was at Antioch, it seems, and that they took the revolutionary step that would have
momentous consequences for the spread of the church and the history of the world. Here they
first preached the Gospel to the Gentiles and dared to baptize them. They made this city the
center of missionary work among the Gentiles.

6. 0. THE APOSTLE PAUL AND HIS MISSIONARY JOURNEYS

6.1. Birth, education, conversion and missionary Journeys

Paul was one of the greatest mystics, writers and missionaries in the history of the
Church. Born in the town of Tarsus, in the Roman Province of Celicia, Paul was first known
as Saul and was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin but also possessed Roman citizenship. While
in Tarsus, he studied Greek and Latin and was raised as a Pharisee (Acts 26:5). He was sent
at some time to Jerusalem where he studied” at the feet of Gamaliel” the famed rabbi (Acts
22:3), coming to appreciate the Torah and forging what were strong ties to Jerusalem. Paul
was thus the recipient of an excellent education and a solid scriptural foundation so that he
would be without question the most erudite and learned figure in the early Church.
Before his conversion, Paul was an inveterate enemy of the Christian Creed and was
present in the year 36 at the martyrdom of St. Stephen and consented to his stoning(Acts
7:58-8:1). He was “ still beathing threats and murder against the disciples” (Acts 9:11) when
he set out for Damascus to arrest Christians. On his way he recived his famed conversion
(Acts 9:1-19), 22:5-16 and 26:12-18).
Paul’s first missionary journey saw him travel to Cyprus and then to Asia Minor
accompanied by Barnabas and Mark. Mark would disappoint Paul by his decision to part
ways. Paul’s name changed from Saul toPaul. He preached and founded Christian
communities in Antioch, Pisidia and elsewhere. By custom he would begin with the Jewish
inhabitants, speaking at the local synagogue, but he devoted great effort to the Gentiles who
were routinely receptive to his words (Acts 13:48). His labors also caused local disturbances,
and at one point he was stoned by a mob and left for dead (Acts 14:27).
Around 50 AD, Paul set out on the Second Missionary Journey, an undertaking begun
with Silas that would last some five years. He traveled to Tarsus and then revisited the
Churches of Asia Minor. Timothy joined him and it is possible that this time he converted the
Galatians. He converted Philippians and Thessalonians and when he reached Athens he met
with Greek Philosophers including Stoics and Epicureans who listened to him but were not
moved by his words (Acts 17:16-34) and moved on to Corinth.
Paul Began his Third Missionary Journey soon after (around 55 AD). He paid another
visit to Asia Minor and then went to Ephesus where he stayed for two years and made
numerous converts. While at Ephesus, Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians. His
departure proved necessary owing to the riot of silversmiths upset at the shrinking business in
the shrine of the goddess Diana.

15
 On all these journeys, Paul’s method followed a definite pattern. First he appeared in
the Synagogues and addressed the Jews; usually he won a few converts before being ejected
and these established contacts for approaching the proselytes and Gentiles, whom he found
more favourable.
Time and again the envy of the Jews produced disturbances so that Paul had to move
on and begin a new elsewhere. He however kept the incipient congregations under his
personal supervision as indicated by his 13(14) epistles. About A.D. 58 Paul went to
Jerusalem. Jews from Asia recognized him in the Temple and provoked a riot leading to
intervention of the Roman Procurator.
For two years Paul lay in prison at Caesarea before being sent to Rome for trial.
At Rome he remained under house arrest from A.D. 61 to 63 when he was released
unharmed. The details of his trial were not recorded. A possible journey to Spain and another
visit to his communities in Asia and Greece preceded his second arrest and imprisonment in
Rome. About A.D. 64 or 67 Paul fell victim to Nero’s persecution. St. Paul had a genuinely
colossal role in the formation of Christian theology through his epistles, written in the very
drama of the moment during his eventual and so fruitful missionary endeavours.

6.2. Saul from Tarsus and the Gospel

A liberal attitude towards Gentiles converts seemed to prevail in the church: they
were not required to be circumcised or otherwise to observe the Jewish law. As greater
numbers of them began to stream into the church, misgivings were felt by the more
traditional-minded, who demanded they be circumcised and made to obey the Jewish law.
There was undoubtedly a fear that these Gentiles would swamp the church and lose its
Jewish character. So the church was plunged into its first great controversy, which shook it to
its roots; at bottom it was the question of whether it was going to remain an exclusively
Jewish affair or stretch out to encompass all of humanity.
The man who contributed most to the solution of the matter was Saul of Tarsus,
known by his Roman name, Paul. It was Paul who stripped the Gospel of much of its Jewish
character and adapted it to appeal to all humanity. For Paul, the very essence of the Gospel
was at stake in the controversy over circumcision, to require Gentiles to practice the Jewish
law would be tantamount to saying that faith in the risen Lord Jesus was not enough for
salvation; observance of the law was also necessary.
Paul’s understanding of the Gospel as a liberation from the law was not some
academic theory he had worked out in a study; it was at the very heart of the conversion
experience that had changed him from a dedicated devotee of the law to an ardent disciple of
Jesus. Struck down by spiritual lightning on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians,
Paul’s spiritual universe turned upside down; he realized that with the coming of Jesus the era
of law had passed. “I took on everything as so much rubbish if only I can have Christ and be
given a place in him. I am no longer trying for perfection by my own efforts, the perfection
that comes from the law, but I want only the perfection that comes through faith in Christ,
and is from God and based on faith (Ph. 3:8-9).
Paul came out strongly against the traditionalists who said that Gentiles must be
circumcised. He insisted, “What makes a man righteous is not obedience to the law, but to
faith in Jesus Christ… (Gal. 2:16, 21; 5:1). The conflict became bitter and the unity of the
church was threatened, particularly at Antioch, where the Christian community was already
in large part Gentile.
These Jewish Christian brethren who had previously felt no scruples about joining in
the common meals taken with the eucharist now withdrew due to pressure from those who

16
wanted to maintain the link with Judaism. Even Peter, who shared Paul’s views, momentarily
wavered and deserted the common table. Paul was indignant and dressed him down publicly.

7. 0. THE GENTILE CHURCH

The Council of Jerusalem opened the way for the Gentile Church or rather the
reception of the Gentile converts into the Church.

7.1. The Apostolic (Jerusalem) Council

This is the earliest council of the church, dated around AD.49;

It was convened to discuss some of the issues then facing the faith, under the direction of the
apostles.
The immediate question facing the early Christian church concerned the regulations
of the Old Testament and the degree to which Jewish traditions needed to be adopted by the
many Greek converts to Christianity, particularly as the early Christian liturgy was derived
from Jewish ritual.
It was decided by Paul, Barnabas and Titus to present the situation to the apostles in
Jerusalem, most notably Peter and James, the bishop of the city. There followed the council
of Jerusalem, in which it was decided that Jewish traditions (circumcision, dietary restrictions
and Jewish ritual) should not be forced upon Gentile converts.
More still, it was determined that there was no difference between Jews and Gentiles
in the eyes of the church, although this view was opposed by some Jewish converts called
Judaizers.
Paul and his companions had returned from Southern Galatia when they found the
church at Antioch in a state of turmoil because of the intervention of Judaizers from Judea
insisting on the necessity of circumcision. With his broad background and his contacts with
the Gentile world, Paul was ideally suited to be the spokesman for the cause of catholicity
against the Judaizers. In Jerusalem, in private conversations Paul convinced Peter, James and
John, the only apostles then in the city, of the justice of his own liberal views. A general
assembly with the other members of the clergy present confirmed the apostles’ decision.
A public enactment was dispatched to all the communities informing them that,
except for a few minor matters pointed out in what came to be referred as the clause of St
James (Acts 15: 19-21), the Gentiles were free of the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. So
firmly was the national religion fixed in the hearts of the Judeo-christians that they failed to
draw from the Jerusalem council the logical deduction that the law bound them also.
It took a personal clash between Peter and Paul to resolve this point. Peter came to
Antioch and cited equivocally, first ignoring Jewish customs and then, as if reconsidering,
observing them, to the confusion of the Gentile Christians, Paul rebuked Peter openly,
pointing out that “we may be justified by the faith of Christ, not by works of the law.….”
Peter yielded and accepted Paul’s Catholic views entirely.
Judaizers were stopped from spreading their heresy by external forces. Actually, it
was when the Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and then a second Jewish
war in 135 A.D. that the Jewish nation ceased to exist and the prestige of the Judaizers
disappeared accordingly.
The Judeo-christians managed to escape destruction by migrating to Pella beyond the
Jordan before the Roman assault, but they never recovered their importance in the church. By
the end of the 5th century the Judeo-christians disappeared and on the site of Jerusalem, arose
a new Hellenistic city, and its Christian population shared the life of the Gentile church.

17
7.2. Organization of the Pauline Communities

It is almost impossible to get sources, which give a picture that conveys all the facts
about the organization or “constitution” of the Pauline Congregation. Not a single piece of
writing originating in one of those congregations offers a description of its daily life or a clue
to its organization. The Acts fail to give such a description preferring to keep to their central
theme, the route followed by Paul on his missionary journeys. The letters discuss matters of
organization only on given occasions, never principles or a complete system.
These occasional utterances, nevertheless, make it quite clear that an organization
existed, which regulated and established the congregations’ religious life. It is indeed a
special kind of organization, not to be compared, for instance, with the rules of a secular
body, which are purely the work of man, based on human Counsel and human judgement and
therefore subject to alteration.
But the organization of which we speak rests on a supernatural foundation, the same
as that on which the Church herself is based, her Lord, who guides his Church through his
Holy Spirit. The same Spirit which caused the young Church to grow (Acts 2:47; 6:7),
directed Paul’s missionary travels (Acts 16:9; 19:21) and crowned his work with success
(Acts 19:11; 1Cor. 2:3ff; Rom. 15:17ff), also created this organization for the life of the
community (1 Cor. 3:9ff; 2Cor. 12:19; Eph. 4:12-16).

When, therefore, members of the community were appointed to special tasks in the
service of that organization, they were called by the Holy Spirit, whose organs they were
(1Cor. 12:4f). Those who were called thus knew themselves to be in the service of the Lord
and fulfilled their tasks in and for the community in a spirit of love such as Jesus had required
from his disciples (Mk. 10:42-45).

7.3. The role of Paul

Paul himself occupied a special or unique place in the organization of the

congregation being their founder. This was based upon his direct vocation to be the Apostle
of the Gentiles. Though he felt himself to be the least of the servants of Jesus Christ, yet his
office gave him full power and the authority he required for the “edification” or building up
of his congregations (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 1 Cor. 4:21).
Conscious of this, he made decisions binding on them, as for instance when he cast
out the incestuous adulterer from the congregation at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:3ff), gave directions
for the worship of God (1 Cor. 7:17; Tit. 1:5), or for the moral behaviour of the faithful (1
Thess. 4:11). Paul was, then, for all his congregations not only the highest teaching authority
but also the chief judge and lawgiver, the apex of an hierarchical order.

7.4. Other leaders

18
 In the individual congregation, other men were called to be members of this
hierarchical order, particular tasks being assigned to them, care for the poor and the
conducting of religious worship. For the exercise of their functions they had a right to give
directions, to which the faithful according to Paul’s explicit order had to submit (1 Cor.
16:15f; 1 Thess. 5:12; Rom. 12:6ff).
Paul stood behind these office-holders with his authority, their powers being similar
but subordinate to and limited by his. Those entrusted with such duties were called Presbyters
(presbuteroi, Acts 14:23) or elders whom Paul ordained with laying on of hands and prayer
during his first missionary journey in Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch, before he left
those cities to continue on his travels. To the elders of Ephesus, Paul said that the Holy Spirit
had appointed them overseers (episcopoi) to rule the Church of God as shepherds take care of
their sheep.
The two terms Presbyters and episcops here indicate the same group of persons, that
the two expressions could be used for holders of the same office. However when Paul
mentions deacons alongside espiscops; the former are said to have special duties in the
congregation. The later pastoral letters make it clear that the sphere of activity allotted to the
deacons was distinct from that of the “presbyters” and “episcops” (1 Tim 1:1-10; 5:17; 19;
Tit. 1:5-11).
From the nature of things it is obvious that the office-holders were attached to local
congregations; overseer-elders and deacons did not, like Paul and his closest collaborators,
travel from city to city and province to province, but fulfilled their tasks within the
framework of a particular congregation, from which of course further missionary activity
might be carried on in the immediate vicinity.

7.5. The role of the charismatic leaders

Besides the holders of authority, there were in the Pauline congregations the
charismatically gifted whose function was essentially different. Their gifts, above all
prophecy and the gift of tongues, came direct from the Holy Spirit, who imparted them to
each as he wished; they were not therefore attached permanently to particular persons and
were not necessary for the existence of the community.
The charismatics appeared when the faithful assembled for worship, and, by their
prophetic utterances and stirring prayer of thanksgiving, kept alive the lofty enthusiasm of the
new faith; they were not guardians and guarantors of orders. Here and there, indeed, order
was endangered because of them, since the extraordinary and mysterious nature of their
performance led many members of the congregation to overestimate their gifts – a danger
against which Paul had to issue an admonition (1 Cor. 14).

7.6. Link with Jerusalem

Finally it was an essential feature of the structure of the congregations established by

Paul that they did not regard themselves as independent communities which could go their
own individual religious way. Paul was the bond between them. Paul had, besides, implanted
in them a strong consciousness that they were closely linked with the community of
Jerusalem, whence had gone forth the tidings of the Messiah and of the salvation wrought by
him.
To this connexion was due their charitable assistance to the poor of Jerusalem, (Gal.
6:10). By preaching unwearyingly that Christians of all congregations served one Lord (1 Cor

19
8:6), that they were members of one body (1 Cor 12:27), he kept alive the consciousness that
all the baptized were “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16), the church of both Jews and Gentiles
(Eph 2:13-17).
From the point of view of church history, it was one of the greatest achievements of
the Apostle of the Gentiles that this consciousness of being one Church which he awakened
and encouraged in his congregations made possible the spread of Christianity in the pagan
world. Otherwise the believers in Christ might have split into two separate communities, one
of Jewish and one of pagan origin, so that, even by the end of the apostolic age two Christian
“denominations” might have come into being.

7.7. Distinction between Bishop, Priest and Deacon

The sources mention three orders: deacons, priests and bishops. Some confusion
surrounds the early evolution of these orders because it took time to work out the terminology
of the hierarchy. The clearest indication in the epistles of the differentiation of functions
between priests and bishops is Paul’s appointment of Titus and Timothy whom he endowed
with authority as his legates over the Greek churches and on whom he conferred power to
ordain priests and deacons.
In these disciples are seen the true successors of the apostles. Gradually the custom
arose of a single bishop governing each community of priests, deacons and laity. The epistles
of St. Ignatius of Antioch about 110 A.D. clearly stresses on established hierarchical
constitution in the order of monarchical bishops, priests and deacons. Such sources as the
Didache, the epistle of Clement of Rome, which provide much information on early Christian
life several decades after mid first century, are quiet on this matter.
According to what is perhaps the oldest document of the post-apostolic period, the
letter of the Clement of Rome to the church of Corinth, the leaders of the congregation were
divided into two groups: one bore the double designation of elders (Presbyters) and oversees
(episcopi), the other was represented by the deacons. At the end of the post-apostolic age we
also met in the shepherd of Hermas the two names, overseers or elders for the holders of
leading offices in the church, deacons and teachers being mentioned as well. The Didache
names only overseers and deacons; Polycarp on the other hand mentions only elders and
deacons.
Only the letters of Ignatius distinguish clearly between the three offices of overseers,
elders and deacons. Every congregation had only one overseer or bishop, to whom the college
of elders (priests) and deacons was subordinate.
In Antioch and in a number of congregations in Asia Minor there existed therefore in
the second decade of the second century a monarchical episcopate; the government of the
church was assigned to one bishop, whereas elsewhere both previously and subsequently, this
development was not complete, or at least our sources do not confirm that it was.
The one office, which in apostolic times bore the double designation of episcop or
presbyter, was divided into two and the term overseer or bishop reserved exclusively for the
holder of the highest office in the congregation. The sources do not make it possible for us to
follow the phases of this development, nor do they tell us if it took place everywhere in the
same way.
Soon after 150 the monarchical episcopate seems to have generally prevailed
throughout the area of Christian expansion. The Apostolic Fathers also partly worked out a
theology of ecclesiastical offices, the authority of which is ultimately derived from God. God
sent Jesus Christ, who gave the apostles the commission to proclaim the Gospel; they, in
accordance with this commission, appointed overseers and deacons, whose places were to be

20
taken at their death by other approved men who would continue their work among the
faithful. Thus Clement of Rome regarded the authority of heads of congregations as based
upon Christ’s commission to the apostles, from whom all power of government in Christian
Communities must be derived by uninterrupted succession.
Ignatius further developed the theology of the episcopate in another direction; he was
the most eloquent advocate of the complete and unconditional bond of union between bishop
and congregation. The congregation was one with its bishop in thought and prayer; only with
him did it celebrate “agape” and Eucharist. Its members should follow him in obedience as
Christ did the Father; nothing should take place in the congregation without the bishop. Even
the administration of baptism and the performance of marriage ceremonies were reserved to
him. Presbyters and deacons had a share in his authority; the faithful were to obey the
presbyter, and in the deacons they were to honour the law of God.
The bishop could demand such an attitude from his people only because he
represented Christ to them; he who, like the teachers of false doctrines, rejected the authority
of the bishops was a rebel against the Lord, who was the actual if invisible bishop of every
congregation. The office-holders for this post saw their mission wholly in the light of its
supernatural origin and were conscious that in the fulfilment of their task the Spirit guided
them. Ignatius, for instance, felt himself thus guided when he urged the Philadelphians to be
in agreement with their bishop and presbyters; he was conscious of being the possessor of
heavenly mysteries, he knew things visible and invisible.
Two factors then worked together in order that the bishop and his assistants might
fulfill their official duty: the apostolic authority, which is God-given, and guidance through
the divine Spirit. Thus supported, they conducted the Eucharistic celebration, presided at the
“agape,” proclaimed the true doctrine and were guarantors of the purity of the Gospel,
guardians of the apostolic traditions.
The unity of the post-apostolic congregation is more clearly apparent in the
Eucharistic celebration, which members of the given congregation partook. Ignatius of
Antioch unwearyingly proclaims this unity, explaining it by various images and comparisons.
For example he likened the congregation to a choir whose singers praise the Lord with one
voice, or like a company of travelers following the directions of its Lord.
In the Post-apostolic age, individual congregation is more clearly defined as regards
its significance and function as part of the church’s organism. The Christians of a city were
now everywhere joined together in separate congregations or local churches. The joining
together of the followers of Christ in a city to form a single congregation differs markedly
from the organization of contemporary Judaism in the Diaspora, which had several
Synagogues in the same city.
The vital, compact unity of the congregation was a possession to be constantly
guarded. Schism and heresy were regarded as the great enemies of unity in the early church.
There is hardly a written work of the post-apostolic period, which does not mention the
schismatic tendencies, which appeared here and there. It was not always a definite splitting
away hardening into irreconcilability, but often ambition, jealousy, or backbiting, which
created a climate of dissatisfaction against which the Didache and Pseudo-Barnabas gave
warning, but which was also present in the Roman congregation at the time of Hermas
(Hermas was a second century author, ranked as one of the Apostolic Fathers, whose famed
work “The Shepherd” was immensely popular in the early church).
To the apostolic Fathers the danger of heresy was even greater. As the pastoral and
Johannine epistles had had to warn against heretical falsification of Christian doctrine, so it
was also Asiatic Christianity in particular that was exposed to danger from heretical groups in
post-apostolic times.

21
 Ignatius of Antioch directed his attack against spokesmen of Docetism, who said that
Christ had not possessed a real body and asserted that the Jewish law was still valid. There
was only one attitude for members of the Christian community to adopt towards them, and
that was strict avoidance of all association with them and a close drawing together of the
faithful among themselves, not only in Antioch, but also in Smyrna, Philadelphia and
Philippi.
In Rome, too, Hermas knew of attempts to introduce strange doctrine. The leaders of
the church organized the campaign against heresy with exhortations and with warnings to
other congregations, almost in the same way they would soon have to do, with all energy in
opposing Gnosticism.

7.8. The Roman Church

There was indeed no bishop of the post-apostolic age who intervened in the affairs of
other local churches with the same authority as in his own congregation, or could give
instructions to the whole church. However, there were some indications that the church of
Rome was gradually being given precedence in rank. This is clear considering the great
respect with which the letter of Clement of Rome was received by the church at Corinth.
Again in the letter of Ignatius to the Romans, it is clearly stated that the Roman congregation
acted as teacher to others.
However, Ignatius does not mention the Bishop of Rome, and his words about the
precedence of Rome in clarity can in no way be understood in the sense that any special
personal dignity was accorded to its bishop.
The Orthodox Christians, as well as adherents or founders of sectarian and heretical
movements, (e.g. Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin, Hegesippus, and Gnostics Valentinus, Cerdon
and Mercian ), sought support or recognition at Rome which would count as legitimation in
their own country. This fact also is evidence of the precedence allowed to the Church of
Rome.
As a sign of being in communion with each other, bishops, wherever there was a
transfer of a bishop, this information would be passed to all the bishops. Again whenever
there arose a heresy or schism involving even bishops, the bishops used to exchange lists of
bishops who were still in communion.
This is exemplified by St. Augustine who in order to show the Donatist Africans of
their auto-exclusion from the communion, while claiming that they were not donatists, he
challenged them to write a letter of peace or of communion to the major churches in other
regions, knowing very well that it would not be accepted by other churches. In order to
demonstrate that one belonged to the church, it was argued that he had to be in communione
with the great majority of bishops. If one was in communion with almost all the bishops, this
was a guarantee that he belonged to the church.
In 251, Cyprian defined the church in Rome (Roman Church) as “the see of Peter and
the principle church from which proceeds the community of bishops.” Even the pagans knew
that whoever was in communion with Rome, was a true Christian.

7.9. From urban to rural setting: Catholicity

Until the third century, Christianity was almost exclusively urban in character and
rooted in the middle and lower urban classes. The countryside had remained stubbornly
pagan, conservatively attached to their local deities and superstitions and their old ways of

22
life. There was also a language barrier, for the peasants clung to their ancient Coptic, Berber,
Syrian, Thracien or Celtic tongues. It was quite normal, therefore, for missionaries to bypass
the rural areas and simply move from city to city.
It was only in the second half of the third century that Christianity began to make
considerable inroads into the rural lands. In many of the great provinces of the Roman
Empire, the peasants deserted the temples of their ancestral gods and turned to Christ. In one
North African township, dedication tablets tell the tale: the last one dedicated to Saturn-Baal
Hammon is dated 272; all subsequent ones uncovered have proven to be Christian. By the
year 300, North Africa was largely Christian.
In Asia Minor the story was similar. The most famous of the missionaries there was
Gregory the wonder-worker. His well-known remark that he found only seventeen Christians
when he arrived in Neo-Cesarea in 243 and left only seventeen pagans when he was ready to
die thirty years later is probably close to the truth, since it is in accord with the general
history of the province. Numerous tombstones found in the countryside, dating between 248
and 279 are patently Christian in their wording and often pay homage to the deceased as “a
soldier of Christ.”
In Egypt and probably in Syria, there was the same widespread turning to Christ by
the peasants. Eusebius gives us an eyewitness account of the conversion of the Coptics to
Christianity when he was in Egypt in 311-12. Altars to Christ abounded, he reports, and the
majority of the population was already Christian.
A big change in the complexion of the aristocracy also contributed greatly to the
progress of Christianity. Like the peasants, but for different reasons, the aristocrats had
remained pagan for the most part. Prejudices instilled in them by their education and their
class made them hard to reach. Trained in a curriculum almost exclusively devoted to
rhetoric, they learned to put a great premium on mere verbal elegance and so were snobbishly
inclined to dismiss the holy books of the Christians as uncouth and barbarian.
But this situation began to change in the fourth century. Circumstances fostered an
upward social mobility, and numerous members of the middle classes were able to move into
the equestrian or senatorial order; and many of these were already Christian or disposed to
become Christian. This restructuring of the social order began with Diocletian’s (284-305,
and died in 316) reorganization, which enabled many members of the lower class to take high
administrative offices. This smoothed the way for Constantine’s pro-christian policies, since
it meant he was not hampered by an entrenched aristocracy in key offices who were hostile to
religious innovation.
The enlargement of the senatorial order furthered the social mobility, particularly in
the new senate at Constantinople, where Constantine enrolled thousands of new members.
Many of these came from the middle class, many of whom were already Christians. This
meant that Constantine and his Christian successors were able to build up an aristocracy
sympathetic to their religious policies.
In consequence, paganism in the East put up no serious political resistance to the
same Christian policies of the fourth century Emperors. The same was not true, however of
the West where as late as 380 stoutly resisted, though in vain, the Emperor’s command to
remove the pagan statue of victory from the chamber.
One of the most potent reasons for the appeal of the Church to the masses was its
magnificent system of charity, which aroused the admiration even of its enemies. The system
of charity, eventually broadened out to include a whole organism of institutions including
orphanages, hospitals, inns for travelers, foundling homes, and old-age homes – so much so
that as the state became increasingly unable to cope with the immense burden of social
distress brought about by the barbarian invasions of the fourth and fifth centuries, it relied
more and more on the church. The bishop was even given public Judicial authority in all

23
matters concerning care of the poor and social welfare. He was supposed to eat daily with the
poor and he often did. Bishop Ambrose of Milan, for instance wanted no gold vessels on the
altars when there were captives to be ransomed, while at a later period Gregory the Great felt
personal guilt when a poor man was found dead of starvation in his city. The bishop
moreover stood forth as the champion of the oppressed against the clumsy and insensitive
imperial bureaucracy and gradually became the most important figure in the city. While
clothed in an aura of supernatural prestige, he enjoyed at the same time a popular authority
since the people elected him.

7.10. Imperial recognition of Church’s influence

The immense influence of the church over the masses was recognized by Emperors
Gratian and Theodosius, who finally established it as the basis of the whole social order. This
is the intent of the epoch-making decree promulgated by Theodosius from Thessalonica on
February 27, 380, which began: “we desire that all people, who fall beneath the sway of our
imperial clemency should profess the faith which we believe have been communicated by the
Apostle Peter to the Romans and maintained in its traditional form to the present day…”
(1) Paganism was declared illegal, (2) While privileges were granted to the Catholic
clergy; they were accorded immunity from trial except in ecclesiastical courts. (3) The
Roman law was revised in harmony with Christian principles, (4) The Sunday observance
laws of Constantine were revised and enlarged with the banning of public or private secular
activities. (5) The pagan calendar was revised and given a christian character; (6) Christmas
and Easter were made legal holidays (7) Various forms of heresy were proscribed and the
property of their adherents confiscated,(8) pagan rites and practices were outlawed and (9)
the pagan priesthood abolished.

7.11. What explains the triumph of the church?

Besides the factors already alluded to we would point out, first, the simple force of the
church’s incomparable organization with all its ramifications, from the wall of Hadrian to the
Euphrates River. It had no rival in this regard. Second, in a time of extreme social decay, it
provided a refuge for the oppressed and acted as an agent of social justice. Finally, “in its
high ethical appeal, its banishment of the blood and sacrifice from worship, and adherence to
a God at once transcendent and active in the universe, Christianity presented in a coherent
form ideas to which the pagan world was groping.”
The church organized its governments along enduring lines, expanded more rapidly
than ever before, and began effectually to mold the society of the Roman Empire into the
pattern of christian life in the century following Constantine’s edict of toleration. This was
the age also of the greatest of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
During the fourth century the structure of the church’s government assumed definite
shape. When the general councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) legislated
concerning organizational matters, more often than not they were only confirming established
custom, not prescribing innovations. The main features of administrative organization
appeared spontaneously and were conveniently modeled along lines established for the
Roman civil administration by Diocletian and the reforming emperors. Although the church
imitated, it did so with a spirit of independence, so that the parallels between secular and
ecclesiastical organization are often incomplete.
Roman Government rested on a large number of municipalities and their surrounding
rural areas as units of local administration. These came to be grouped into 120 provinces,
which in turn constituted a dozen dioceses, five under the western emperor and seven under

24
the eastern. The two lowest levels, municipalities and provinces, were most consistently
followed for purposes of ecclesiastical government. In general, each municipality comprised
a bishopric as the basic unit. Occasionally, especially in the East, even villages provided a
seat for a “country bishop” enjoying limited powers.
Everywhere bishops abounded: about A.D. 400 a hundred sees existed in Egypt,
almost 500 in North Africa, 200 in Southern Italy, and 115 in Gaul. Except for unusual
circumstances the early customs of popular election of bishops had given way to election by
neighbouring bishops. According to Nicene decrees, bishops once chosen were to remain in
residence, were forbidden to move to other sees, or to meddle in affairs of municipalities
other than their own.
No longer autocephalous, bishoprics were grouped in provinces. The bishop of the
civil provincial capital became metropolitan or archbishop with Jurisdiction over the rest, his
suffragans. Regular meetings of all bishops of a province assembled in local councils under
the metropolitan’s direction. Circumstances played a large part in determining the role of the
metropolitan. In some provinces he wielded great power, in others little.
The pattern of civil government arranging provinces into larger units called dioceses
was not accepted for ecclesiastical governments. When ecclesiastical dioceses came into
existence later they comprised entirely different territory. Nevertheless, certain metropolitans,
for one reason or another, extended their influence far beyond the limits of their own
provinces. The metropolitans of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople and
Carthage commanded wide respect; all but Carthage eventually gained recognition as
patriarchates i.e. metropolitans of superior rank. Other metropolitan sees such as Milan under
St. Ambrose temporarily enjoyed extensive influence during the lifetime of outstanding
incumbents. Spain, Gaul and Britain produced no extraordinary metropolitan sees until after
the collapse of the Empire.

7.12. Major Metropolitan Sees

Rome as a metropolitan See is discussed elsewhere in this course.

Carthage: This see owed its power to the fact that no other metropolitan of North
Africa could match its political importance. In the third century, this see was considered by
the see of Rome as a rival in the Latin West. In the other African provinces the title of
metropolitan passed to the eldest bishop and hence no other city could develop traditions of
rivalry with Carthage. The North African sees always guarded jealously their own rights of
local jurisdiction against the centralizing tendencies of Rome.
Alexandria: It was around this see that the Egyptian church history was centered. So
great was the prestige of Alexandria (i.e. catechetical school) that other eastern metropolitans,
fearful of losing their own prerogatives to Egyptian usurpers, agreed at Constantinople in 381
on a law specifically restricting the Alexandrian metropolitan to Egyptian affairs. The
Patriarch of Alexandria governed Egypt with an iron hand, supported by fanatical monks. His
monopoly on sales of salt and papyrus and a kind of monopoly on funeral ceremonies
brought him tremendous revenues.
Antioch: Like Rome, this see rested securely on its apostolic tradition. It dominated
more than a hundred bishoprics of the Near East, but a series of disastrous schisms
throughout the second half of the fourth century weakened its prestige, as did the heterodox
theories of many of the scholars.
Jerusalem: The rise of Jerusalem to metropolitan and patriarchal status and freedom
from the metropolitan of Caesarea is a tale of ambition and intrigue. Bishop Juvenal (420-
458) successfully persuaded the council of Chalcedon to recognize Jerusalem without
reservation as a patriarchate.

25
 Constantinople: The third canon of the council of Constantinople in 381 declared
that “the bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogative of honour after the bishop of
Rome, since Constantinople is the New Rome.” This decree marked the beginning of the
troubled history of the newest patriarchate. Constantinople definitely became the permanent
residence of the eastern emperors at the close of the fourth century. Instinctively recognizing
a threat to the traditional framework of the church’s government, the popes rejected the
council’s action. Undeterred, the eastern prelates advanced further at the council of
Chalcedon seventy years later when Constantinople, received metropolitan rights over the
vast area of the civil dioceses of Pontius, Asia and Thrace. It was the fourth canon of the
council of Nicaea (325) that had officially recognized the primacy of Rome, Alexandria and
Antioch.
Pope Leo I (440-461) took issue with this Canon which offered as justification the
declaration that “the fathers had granted privileges to the see of old Rome because it was the
imperial city,” wherefore they could grant similar rights to the new Rome if they wished. Leo
insisted that Rome’s prerogatives stemmed from St. Peter himself, not from the political
significance of Rome or from any act of the “fathers.” Regardless of papal opposition
Constantinople all the same continued to rise. It was only in 1215, when the city was under
Latin rule, did the Roman Church acknowledge the patriarchal claims of its eastern rival.

7.13. Means adopted by the Early Church to uphold its authority

7.13.1. Monarchical Episcopate

In the first place, the term “bishop was originally a secular Greek expression,
episkopos, meaning supervisor or overseer. It gradually came into church usage and was
nearly synonymous at first with the word for elder, presbyter. These elders or bishops
governed the churches collectively at first. But gradually one man took over the power and
concentrated the various ministries in his hands. He was now called “bishop” to distinguish
him from the presbyters, who were his subordinates.
This system – the monarchical episcopates – is already clearly enunciated, as we have
already noted, at the end of the first century in the letters of Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch,
who wrote while on his way to trial and eventual martyrdom in Rome. For Ignatius the
bishop is the (1) focal point of the congregation; (2) all important functions are vested in him;
he alone has the right to lead public worship, and administer the sacraments. (3) His authority
is without limits, but it is to be completely at the service of the community.
By 150 or 160 this system of authority was established practically everywhere. Four
factors seem to account for its triumph:
(1) A need for one presbyter - the senior of the college, often - to represent Christ at the
Eucharist; the same one would often be deputed to ordain as well, and he gradually claimed
this power by right,
(2) One person would be charged normally with carrying on correspondence with the other
churches;
(3) One person would often be chosen to represent a church at a general gathering,
(4) In view of the Gnostic disturbance, congregations realized the value of having a single
person as a focus of unity and as an authoritative doctrinal spokesman.
The authority of this monarchical bishop as a guarantor of the oral tradition was based
on the claim that he stood in legitimate succession in a line reaching back to the apostles
themselves. The implication was that his teaching would therefore be in conformity with his
predecessors. This concept was given its classic form by Irenaeus around A.D. 185. Irenaeus
used Rome as the pre-eminent example of a church whose fidelity to the original deposit of

26
faith was guaranteed by the fact that its bishops were the direct successors of Peter and Paul;
moreover, they spoke in agreement with the bishops of other sees who were also successors
of apostles.

7.13.2. Canon of Scripture

This is the second measure taken by the church to guarantee the integrity of its
traditions and safeguard its identity with the church of the apostles. The Canon of Scripture
entails the church’s decision to recognize a certain limited body of writings as “Scripture.”
This Canon of the New Testament was supposed to contain the authentic tradition about
Jesus. The decision to set these writings apart as sacred (inspired) was a momentous one, for
it meant that the church would forever be subject to them as an absolute norm of its life and
faith.
This Canon was based on a consensus of the church that all the books listed were
associated with the apostles in some way and were orthodox in doctrine. Judgement about the
authenticity of the canonical writings was based on the idea that the tradition of the church in
this matter was trustworthy in general, although it could be wrong in detail. The scholars did
not accept the tradition uncritically; they did their best to verify whether the books in
question were actually written by apostles or by those in touch with apostles. As long as there
was uncertainty about apostolic authorship, there was reluctance to accept books as
canonical.
For example, St. John’s Gospel was not readily accepted at first, and it was only after
Irenaeus gave what was thought sufficient proof of its authorship by John that its canonicity
was established. The same thing occurred with the epistle to the Hebrews, which writers in
the Western churches refused to quote for nearly two hundred years.
The interplay of the living church and the written scriptures – a constant feature of
Christian history – was thus in operation from the start. The living community was constantly
checked and controlled by the basic testimony of the apostles. But at the same time the
written records were checked and controlled by the living community as one scholar (C.F.D.
Moule in The birth of the NT) has written, “simply because by that time it contained within it,
or among its leaders, a sufficiently firm and uniform tradition to constitute it corporately a
preserver of tradition…”.
The Canon of Scripture was virtually complete by the early decades of the second
century with such exceptions as mentioned; but it was not definitely finalized in the West
until 380-90, and even later in the East.

7.13.3. Formulation of a Creed, The “RULE OF FAITH”

This was the third means used by the church to uphold its authority and safeguard
orthodoxy. The “rule of faith” is a compendium of the main teachings of the bishops. The
earliest example of such a rule is found in the writings of Irenaeus. It asserts the church’s
faith in one God, the Father and creator of all things, in the incarnation of God in Christ
Jesus; and in the Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets were inspired to foretell the
salvation events connected with the Ministry of Jesus Christ.
In this threefold manner – through bishops claiming to be successors of the apostles,
through a canon of scripture and through an authoritative creed – the church erected a durable
structure of authority, a framework of steel that has enabled it to meet every conceivable
crisis.

27
 In a nutshell, by the end of the second century, the Christian church presents itself as
an institution with a clearly defined system of authority based mainly on its Sacred Scripture,
its creed, and its hierarchy of bishop, priest, and deacon. The question of how this system
developed constitutes one of the most controverted chapters in the history of the church.
Whether or not we accept the view that Jesus himself founded the church and
conferred authority over it on his twelve apostles, history clearly shows that from the
beginning the first believers formed a tightly knit community and were conscious of being
members of a unique fellowship. This awareness soon found expression in the terms they
used of themselves: they called themselves the Saints, the elect, the church of God, and the
true remnant of Israel, the new Israel.
Profoundly conscious, as they were, that it was the resurrection of Jesus and not some
human agency that created the church, they saw their fellowship as a gift of the spirit, a
miraculous act of God. This sense of supernatural origin of the church is powerfully
conveyed by Paul, who thought of the church as the new Eve – the spouse of Christ. This
unique Christ-centered self-image of the early church is revealed clearly in its two most
important rituals, namely the Eucharist, which was celebrated by repeating Christ’s words at
the Last Supper over bread and wine in obedience to his command to remember him and in
the firm conviction that he was present as their risen lord; then the initiation rite of Baptism, a
cleansing with water.
The traditional Catholic view of the organization of the church is that Jesus himself
organized it by appointing the twelve apostles and giving them authority to assume control of
the church after his death. This is the picture presupposed and developed by Luke
particularly; but many scholars including some Catholic ones, view this conception as a
retrojection of the later developed church system into the primitive era, one objection to the
traditional views is to the effect that if the twelve apostles were put incharge by Jesus, why do
they so completely disappear from the subsequent history of the church?
Many historians, therefore, prefer the theory that the primitive church only slowly
organized itself and shaped its system of authority in response to a variety of situations that
existed in different localities. And in their view it only gradually settled everywhere on the
three-tiered structure – bishop, priest and deacon – as the one most conducive to its mission.
Those who favor this developmental approach interpret Paul, the earliest witness, in
this sense. They hold that for Paul the spirit is the one who organizes the community; rule by
the spirit means that love is the unifying and organizing force, and freedom is its
characteristic quality. The various ministries needed to carry on and order the community are
given directly by the Spirit. (1 Cor.12: 28).

8.0. THE PERIOD OF THE CHURCH FATHERS

The Church Fathers were found both in the Western Roman Empire with the
Headquarters at Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire with the Headquarters at
Constantinople.

8.1. Church Fathers

This is a collective name given to the renowned figures of the early church who had a
monumental role in the defense, elucidation, and propagation of the faith; they produced an
extensive body of doctrinal works which were given a heightened authority by the church.
The study of their writings is called Patrology (or Patristics) and is heavily encouraged for all
desirous of learning the faith.

28
 These early ecclesiastical writers are recognized as Fathers as a result of (1) holiness
of their lives, (2) orthodoxy of their teachings (3) antiquity of their eras, and (4) the
recognition of their merits by the church. It is worth noting that the term Father is not
explicitly bestowed by the church; rather it is a traditional title unlike the title, Doctor of the
church, which is formally conferred by the church in recognition of merit and sanctity. It is
therefore not a surprise to hear some church Fathers later branded as heretics e.g. Origen (c.
185-255).
Most of these Fathers were bishops or scholars of the church in the early centuries,
and those principally studied wrote in Greek or Latin. Some important and influential figures
wrote in one or other of the ancient languages, like Syrian, Coptic or Armenian, as for
example the Syrian hymn-writer Ephraem; and some originally Greek or Latin works survive
only in ancient translations, especially those of writers later branded as heretics.
The term “Father” first appeared in the NT and was used in the early church for
bishops. It was restricted in use to bishops who were revered as witnesses of the faith. From
the fourth century, it was broadened to include those exceptional ecclesiastical authors who
made lasting contributions to the faith and whose writings wielded much authority in matters
of doctrine. Such individuals did not have to be bishops.
It is customary to consider the so-called Age of the Fathers as enduring for specific
periods in the West and the East. In the West, it dates from the first days of the church to the
passing of St. Isidore of Seville in 636. St. Isidore is thus considered the last of the Western
Fathers. In the East, the Age covers until the death of St. John Damascene in 749. He is
therefore the last of the Eastern Fathers.
It is possible to divide the Age of the Fathers into various periods; broadly the pre-
Nicene (to 325) and the post-Nicene (from 325). Within the pre-Nicene period can be seen
the era of the Apostolic Fathers and that of the Apologists. The name apostolic Fathers (used
since the 1600s) is applied to those major writers who labored in the years just after the NT
times. They either knew or were directly influenced by the apostles. Among them are Pope
St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and Hermas. The apologists flourished in the
second and third centuries and defended the faith from intellectual attacks and persecution,
writing with the intention of reaching out to non-christians, as most of them were themselves
at one time.
Students of history of religion find the Fathers excellent sources for their researches
into the problem of “Antiquity and Christianity.” Patrology has thus become an independent
science for the study of late antiquity and early Christianity.
While Eusebius is considered as one of the most important sources for Patrology since
many of the works quoted have been lost and Eusebius remains our only source of
information for many ancient writers, the first real Patrology was produced by Jerome, whose
De viris illustribus, a catalogue of writers which he composed at Bethlehem in 392, was an
effort to rebut the accusation of cultural inferiority leveled against christians by pagans.

8.2. Why study the literature of the ancient ecclesiastical writers?

a) For historical reasons: It is the primary source of material for reconstructing the
history of the church during the period of antiquity. Of course there is other relevant material:
references to Christ, Christians or the church in secular literature of one kind and another,
archaeological evidence, etc. But the Patristic literature is the largest body of extant evidence,
and secular historians of the late Roman Empire and early Byzantine worlds have to use it for
information as much as historians of the church.

29
 b) For doctrinal reasons: It is the primary source of material for reconstructing the
early history of dogma, though the doctrinal study of the Fathers has often gone beyond mere
historical interest. For the Orthodox church, the Fathers are a major source and authority
alongside Scripture and venerated as such; all truth will be found somewhere in the literature,
and the theological task is essentially an exegetical one. Catholics would invest authority in
the church and not confine it to the Patristic period; yet the establishment of the orthodox
tradition was very much the work of the Fathers, and their pronouncements enshrined in the
creeds and decisions of councils are accorded the utmost respect.
c) For liturgical reasons: It is the primary source material for reconstructing the
early history of the liturgy. Texts of liturgies begin to be available from about the fifth
century but prior to that, and even after that, the Patristic literature is an indispensable source
of information: e.g. for descriptions of practices which help to date their emergence or
explain their intention, quotations of early prayers, hymns, ritual formulae, etc.
d) For biographical reasons: Some of the writers were outstanding personalities
worth studying in their own right. The development of modern biographical interests has on
the whole succeeded the older hagiographical approach. Augustine, Jerome and many others
have been the subjects of serious studies, and increasingly those tarred with the heresy brush
have attracted the sympathetic attention of scholars, notably Origen and Nestorius.
e) For spiritual, philosophical or theological reasons: Particularly in the Orthodox
and Catholic traditions, the spiritual, mystical and ascetical aspects of the Fathers’ teachings
have had a continuing influence; and there has been more confidence than in Protestant
theological streams that the Fathers still have important philosophical and theological truths
to convey.

8.3. Issues addressed by the Church Fathers

Critical reference to Patristic formulations and some major heretical movements may
still figure in systematic discussions but there is an enormous gap between serious study of
the Patristic material largely conducted in historical terms, and modern theological interests.
In spite of all the differences in terms of culture, methods of reasoning, presuppositions, etc,
the Fathers did belong to an important intellectual tradition, and they did wrestle far more
openly than is often realized, with many of the same issues as now face Christian theologians
and apologists.
Questions about God and His relationship with the world, His activity in the world,
His essential nature; questions about other religions (Christianity then being a powerless and
derided “new superstition”); questions about faith and knowledge, science and revelation;
questions about meaning and interpretation; questions about the nature of prayer and
providence – all these, quite apart from the more obvious matters like the doctrine of the
Trinity and Christology, are issues with which the Fathers wrestled.
To see these questions debated in a quite different intellectual setting is important, for
it enables us to step outside our own culturally-conditioned presuppositions and see the issues
in a different way. All too often the contribution of the fathers has just been dismissed for one
reason or another: e.g. regarded as a sellout to Hellenistic ways of thinking without proper
attention to the Bible; criticized for over-allegorization and failure to take history seriously;
condemned for being pre-scientific and tied to outdated “substance” categories.
Now it is true that the fathers may try the twentieth century patience – their style and
approach is not ours. Yet they were intelligent and perceptive men and they often saw things
to which we have become blind. Critical distance is necessary, but sympathetic insight may
discover treasure.

30
 No doubt that during much of the second century, christian writers had employed their
skills in defending the church against heretics from within and in trying to secure a
sympathetic hearing for the faith on the part of those outside it. In the third century, some
highly prolific Christian writers went on the offensive, engaging paganism on its own ground,
and confidently asserting the superiority of christian faith over both the popular paganism of
the masses and the philosophy of the elite.

8.4. Pre-Nicene Church Fathers

We shall divide them into two groups, namely the Latin and the Greek Fathers. We
shall consider a few from each group.

8.4.1. Latin Fathers

1. Irenaeus of Lyons (C. 140-202)

a) Background
He was an Asiatic Greek, a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who in turn had been a
disciple of the Apostle St. John. Irenaeus lived between A.D. 140 and A.D. 202, born
probably in the 140 in Smyrna. It is here that as a boy he listened to the magnificent
preaching of St. Polycarp. He studied in Rome and then entered the clergy and became a
presbyter in Lyons.
In A.D. 177, Irenaeus was sent by the Christians of Lyons to Rome to take letters to
Pope Eleutherius pleading for toleration in dealing with the Montanists of Asia Minor. This
trip made him escape the initial but very severe persecutions of Christians in Lyons. The local
bishop, Potheinos was martyred during this time of persecution. When Irenaeus returned the
following year, he was elected bishop of Lyons thereby taking the post of the martyred
bishop. He held this office with great honour till his death. Irenaeus belonged to the East but
when and why he came westwards is not known.
Of those who defended Christianity against heretical attack during the second century,
St. Irenaeus indisputably holds first place. As bishop, he was a vocal defender of Christian
Orthodoxy. Actually, to defend his flock against Gnosticism he composed his masterpiece:
Adversus Omnes Haereses (Against All Heresies). This was a brilliant attack on Gnosticism,
and has survived in a Latin translation. On the basis of this work, Irenaeus has been accorded
the title of first outstanding Catholic Theologian. His work, Adversus Omnes Haereses,
which is partly preserved in Greek, was translated into Latin, Armenian, and Syriac. He also
wrote in Greek, the “Demonstration of the Apostolic preaching,” found in an Armenian
translation, it was an apologetic work.

b)The value of ‘Adversus omnes haereses’

The value of this masterpiece, “Against All Heresies” stems from its positive
approach to the Gnostic heresy. Not only does it refute errors, it also elaborates the content of
Catholic dogma. Irenaeus’ genius was not of the speculative, philosophical type. He was
content simply to state the Orthodox view on difficult points and acknowledge mysteries for
what they are.
In his “Unmasking and Refutation of the False Gnosis,” Irenaeus gives an analysis of
Gnosticism based on his own reading of Gnostic writings, which is of outstanding merit. To
his account of Gnostic systems Irenaeus added a refutation of their errors (Adversus Omnes
31
Haereses). He opposed them, using his own exact knowledge of Scripture and tradition, with
the true doctrine of the church. Irenaeus’ interest in his subject and the soundness of his work
make us forget any stylistic failings; his achievement was not surpassed by any of the Gnostic
writers who succeeded him.

c) Irenaeus and Apostolic tradition

Since Irenaeus witnessed to the faith of the church early in its history, particular
significance attaches to the role he assigned to tradition as the guiding principle in doctrinal
matters and in preserving unity among the scattered churches. He describes christianity as a
body of truths handed down from the Apostles and therefore the test of Orthodoxy lies in
determining whether disputed points are taught by those churches which through their
bishops track their authority back to the Apostles.
Of all such churches, “the greatest and most ancient” is that of Rome, founded by
Peter and Paul, and with an unbroken succession of bishops to guarantee conformity with
apostolic tradition. Irenaeus goes further even to give a catalogue of the bishops of Rome.
“Because of its superior authority all churches must agree with this church” is Irenaeus’
celebrated key to doctrinal unity and orthodoxy and his testimony to the Roman primacy.

d) Irenaeus and canon of Scripture

Irenaeus did play a great role in the formation of the canon of scripture. It was
through his evidential prove of the apostolic authorship of the Fourth Gospel that it was listed
among the Canonical books. Actually in deciding which individual writings were to be
included, the church had to be able to invoke an undisputed, objective principle. This was to
be found in ecclesiastical tradition. Only those books could be recognized as canonical which
went back to apostolic times and had from an early date been particularly esteemed in the
traditions of the whole Christian community.
The only guarantors of the genuineness of such traditions were those leaders of
congregations who could trace their unbroken succession back to the apostles. The positive
effect of this principle of apostolic succession was to assure the place of tradition as an
essential element of the church’s faith and theology. Its negative effect was to strip the
Gnostic apocrypha and doctrinal works of their authority and cut them off from the church,
for in no case could they claim to be acknowledged by the witnesses and guardians of
apostolic tradition.

e) Irenaeus and Penance

We also can learn something from Irenaeus with regard to the Doctrine and practice
of penance in the East in the third century, given that he came from Asia Minor. Irenaeus was
one of those who still represented the strict ideal of holiness inherited from the beginning of
the church, and who would have refused readmission into the church to those who had
incurred the guilt of serious offences.
Irenaeus himself was particularly imbued with the thought that the likeness to God
given to man by redemption obliges him to a perfectly holy and sinless life. Because
Christians had been given such high graces, they must be subjected to a much stricter
judgement than the men of the Old Testament, and consequently, often their baptism, ought
to be their guard against any sin, because the death of Christ is not efficacious for them a
second time.
On the question whether there is any salvation at all for a sinner after baptism,
Irenaeus makes no pronouncement, but on another occasion, he expresses perfectly clearly
the possibility of such penance; he believes that God gives his peace and friendship to those
“who do penance and are converted;” only those who persist in apostasy impenitently are

32
eternally lost. Particularly important is a remark in the so-called “rule of faith” of Irenaeus,
(Adversus Omnes Haereses, 1, 10,1), that summary of ancient belief inherited from the
apostles, where it is said that God will “graciously grant life to those who persevere in his
love – some from the beginning, some since penance – will grant them incorruptibility and
surround them with eternal glory.” It follows from this, that the conviction that men could
regain the love of God by penance even after baptism, has always belonged to the belief of
the Church.
To designate this penance Irenaeus commonly uses the expression “exhomologesis;”
he is in fact silent about a reconciliation of the penitents, but this follows indirectly from his
belief in the efficacity of penance. That penance after baptism is a concern of the church, is
clear from his observation that priests had the duty of watching over the moral life of
Christians and, when necessary, of expelling a sinner from the church.

f) Irenaeus and missionary spirit

Irenaeus of Lyons can be regarded as a missionary bishop, concerned for the Celtic
population of his adopted homeland; no doubt he intended to preach the Gospel among the
Gauls, although, as he himself hints, the language problem was a source of difficulties. To
him we owe our knowledge of Christian congregation then existing “in the Germanies” –
probably in the Rhenish provinces with their chief towns of Cologne and Mainz – and in the
Spanish provinces. This survey of the expansion of Christianity in the course of the second
century gives a clear impression that the missionary enthusiasm of the primitive church was
still fresh and active.
St. Irenaeus bishop of Lyons died in circa 202 A.D.

Tertullian (C. 160-220)

a) Background
His full names were Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian. He was not only an
apologist, but also a theologian and controversialist. Tertullian was born in Carthage, North
Africa. He was the son of a Roman soldier, probably a centurion. Raised as a pagan, he
studied law and was also learned in Latin and Greek literature. He became a lawyer and
adherent to stoicism before settling in Rome where he acquired an excellent reputation as a
jurist.
Appalled by the state of social decay, Tertullian was drawn to christianity, perhaps
attracted by the steadfastness of the christian martyrs. He was converted around 195-196 and
then returned to Carthage and became a defender of the new faith, also devoting his time to
teaching. According to St. Jerome, Tertullian was ordained as a presbyter around 200. By
207, however, he had become disillusioned with the African church, turning to the Montanist
movement, which offered a strict morality and a rigorous lifestyle. He formally joined the
Montanists in 211, but even they were not sufficiently rigorist for Tertullian; he left the
heretical sect and established his own group called the Tertullianists as reports Augustine.

While he wrote against Catholic teaching during his Montanist period, he did retain
many orthodox beliefs. These, however, are not considered acceptable for usage in the
defense of Catholic teaching, only his orthodox writings being applicable. Thus in examining
the many works of Tertullian, a division must be maintained between his Catholic and
Montanist periods.

b) His contribution

33
 Of all the writers involved in the early Trinitarian disputes, the African Tertullian was
the most able. Typically Roman in outlook, he deplored philosophic speculations, to which he
attributed the errors of the heretics. Such a phrase as “The blood of martyrs is a seed” is
attributed to Tertullian. Latin rather than the Greek still officially used the Roman church was
his language, and the impress of his genius on that tongue earned for him the title “founder of
ecclesiastical Latin.”
Tertullian’s most important productions were apologetic and controversial tracts. His
“Apology” reveals him at his eloquent best; here his legally trained, naturally brilliant mind
erupts in fiery protest at the patent injustice of the persecutions. Point by point he shows how
every part of the established Roman legal procedure was violated in cases against Christians.
This work apologesticus (c.197), was a popular treatise refuting the changes then being
hurled against Christianity. This is considered one of his orthodox writings. The other one is
entitled ; De praescriptione hereticorum (c.200, prescription against the heretics), attacking
heresies then facing the faith.
Tertullian’s late years saw him slip into the Montanists heresy which penetrated
Africa – a hard blow for the church, but one which could not efface his achievements in its
behalf. His becoming a Montanist earned him many enemies; or rather he was disliked
because of his apostasy. However, he is today recognized as a figure of true geniune and
lasting import. The works written by Tertullian as a Montanist include; De idolatria (on
idolatry), this was a strict interpretation of christian morality
Tertullian is distinguished as the first Christian author to compose chiefly in Latin. He
created a comprehensive body of Latin terms that was ideally suited to the spread of Christian
faith throughout the West and the rapid development of theology. His contributions would
earn him the eventual title of Father of Latin theology and would influence the theological
life of the Western church for the next millenium.
Tertullian mistrusted philosophy, holding it to be the source of all heresy, using it
only as a tool rather than as a source of truth. Tertullian’s work, already mentioned above; De
praescriptione hereticorum is the most valuable of his works. Following Irenaeus, he stressed
tradition and the witness of the apostolic churches as the key to orthodoxy.

c) Tertullian and Montanism

Mantanism originated in Northwestern Asia Minor (c. 170 A.D.) by a presbyter
Montanus. It is is a highly ascetical and regoristic distortion of the faith. The most prominent
feature of Montanism was its “eschatological message,” the second coming of the Lord was
at hand and with it the heavenly Jerusalem would be set up in the plain near the Phrygian
town of Pepuza. The grave tribulations faced by the people under Marcus Aurelius had
actually prepared people for this new prophecy. Fasting was emphasized as a measure of
spiritual preparation for the coming of Christ; the Montanist prophets encouraged Christians
who were waiting for the Lord’s coming to face martyrdom and not to avoid it by escaping.
Evasion would have meant a renewed attachment to this world, which was after all
approaching its end. The Montanists demanded the renunciation of marriage. In their eyes it
was marriage that most strongly attached men and women to this world. Widows and
widowers were not supposed to remarry.

d) Tertullian and Faith / Reason

As regards the problem of faith and reason, Tertullian argued that faith was the higher
knowledge and must always prevail over reason. In virtue of this, Tertullian was proud to
believe what would, by rational criteria, be pure absurdity. (credo quia absurdum – I believe

34
because it is absurd). Tertullian is a theologian who was engaged in all the great problems
discussed in the church during his time.

St. Cyprian of Carthage ( d. 258)

a) Background
He was born in Tunisia. He studied law and was a pagan rhetorician prior to his
conversion to Christianity about the year 246. He was consecrated bishop of Carthage around
the year 248, but was soon forced to flee in 249 when the persecutions of emperor Decius
began. Cyprian remained in communication with his flock by letter and upon his return in
251 to Carthage, he was reestablished as bishop.
During his time, there were very practical matters affecting the church, the authority
of bishops within their dioceses and of the bishop of Rome over the church universal. These
were the basic issues involved in the controversies that swirled around the bishop of
Carthage, St. Cyprian from 248 to 258.

b) Cyprian’s De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate (or simpy De Unitate).

In this work, Cyprian discussed the nature of unity in the church and the ideal of
equality among the bishops. Cyprian’s views about the role of the bishop of Rome in the
church universal are very important. He saw Peter as the leader of the Apostles and as the
first bishop of Rome and he argued that union with Peter’s successor is the guarantee of the
unity of the universal church.
Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome had jurisdictional power, and the
argument which he had with the Roman bishop, Stephen I in 255, would indicated that he
was not prepared to find in the bishop of Rome an authentic, much less infallible, source of
doctrine. It is clear that for Cyprian, each bishop was supreme in his own diocese, and yet it
is equally clear that for him, each local church is the realization, in one place of the universal
church, and that it is the bishop of Rome who presides over the universal church and who is
the sign and symbol of its unity.
Actually Cyprian wrote this work against Novatianism. He emphasized on the
primacy of Peter and the unity of the episcopate as essential marks of Christ’s church. While
Cyprian was in exile, some christians were not satisfied by that very fact of the bishop going
into hiding, such christians led by the deacon Felicissimus and the priest Novatus, found a
cause in question of readmitting apostates. They maintained that pardons granted by
confessors released from prison reinstated the lapsed Christians with the church. Generous
confessors willingly forgave all apostates, so that on air of laxity pervaded the diocese.
Cyprian denounced this practice as contravention of the authority of the episcopate
and the clergy in disciplinary and ultimately moral matters. He therefore declared “you
should understand that the bishop is in the church and the church in the bishop and that
whoever is not with the bishop is not in the church.” The sin of apostasy, he asserted, should
be expiated in the regular manner prescribed by the clergy. Influenced by Novatian, Novatus
changed completely his attitude and took up the rigoristic attitude of Novatian against the
“lapsi.”

c) Cyprian’s De Lapsis
In this work, Cyprian detailed the conditions by which the lapsed could be readmitted
into the church. He was addressing a controversy that would trouble the church for years to
come. Many Christians had lapsed from the faith or had purchased “Libelli pacis” certificates

35
stating that they had made sacrifices to the Roman gods when in fact they had not, and with
no consequences.
Cyprian opposed such lax discipline, allowing the so-called “lapsi,” to return to the
church after suitable penance; he did not support the Novatianists, who refused the idea of
rebaptism, giving aid to Pope Cornelius in his struggle against Novatian, Cyprian’s stand
later put him at odds with Pope Stephen I, since the bishop of Rome held that both
schismatics and heretics could administer valid baptisms.
African customs regarded such baptism as invalid. This was the opinion expressed by
Cyprian also and by an African Synod in 255 and again in 256. Pope Stephen invited Cyprian
to amend his views to bring them into conformity to the Roman theory of the “ex opere
operato” efficacy of the sacraments, which discounted the person of the minister. The
arguments waxed bitter but Stephen’s death and Cyprian’s martyrdom in 258 suspended the
controversy before it reached the stage of excommunication.
Well-preserved documents in the dispute establish the fact that the Carthaginian
prelate advanced so far as to deny the primacy of jurisdiction to the Roman bishop,
although he undeniably acknowledged the lesser primacy of honor. Individual bishop is
responsible to God alone for the guidance of his community even in such matters as baptism.
In theology, bishop Cyprian owed much to Tertullian, whom he called his master and
whose works he constantly read. He coined a number of remarkable statements i.e. “you
cannot have God for your Father, if you cannot have the church for your Mother.” His
treatises and letters deal mostly with the solution of questions of the day, as they arose
through persecution and the threat to ecclesiastical unity from sectarian divisions.
Cyprian sets a very high value on membership in the church of Christ: nobody has a
claim to the name of christian who has not his own name in this church; only in her is his
salvation assured, according to the pregnant formula: Salus extra ecclesiam non est. Children,
too, should share in the membership of the church as early as possible, and so infant baptism
is a practice which Cyprian takes for granted. Fidelity to the church in persecution merits the
highest recognition; those who in martyrdom have sealed their testimony to Christ and his
church with the sacrifice of their lives obtain immediately the vision of God. In this belief,
Bishop Cyprian himself accepted a martyr’s death in a manner, which kept his name in
undying remembrance in the African church.

8.4.2. Greek Fathers

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c.35-107)

a) Background
The bishop of Antioch. He was possibly a disciple of Sts. Peter and Paul or St. John: it
has been proposed that he was the child whom Christ placed among the Apostles in Matthew
18:1-6. Ignatius was probably a Syrian.
Ignatius was arrested by Roman authorities and sent for execution in Rome. He was
placed in the custody of several soldiers. On his way to Rome, he wrote seven epistles (or
letters) addressed to the Christian communities of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome,
Philadelphia, Smyrna, and a farewell letter to Bishop Polycarp.
His letters are of great value on the state of the church at the time. He reafirms the
profound honors of martyrdom – “let me follow the example the suffering of my God” – and
the need to remain firm in the faith. Ignatius died a martyrs death by being thrown to the wild
36
animals of the Roman circus. The epistle to the Romans is the most important of his epistles.
His martyrdom came about in the last years of Trajan’s reign (98-117).
The letters addressed to the christians of Ephesus, Magnesia and Tralles were handed
to them directly when they came to meet this highly respected Bishop of Antioch at the
Seaport town of Smyrna.

b) Corpus Ignatianum
In the attempt to assess the value of Corpus Ignatianum as a source of information on
post-apostolic theology and religion, one must not overlook the fact that the seven letters
were written more or less extempore by a prisoner condemned to death, under the eyes of his
not very considerate goalers. The letters are therefore, not well-weighed theological treatises
composed in conditions of tranquility, but the spontaneous outpourings of a courageous
leader, full of the love of Christ and a longing for martyrdom. The letters to the Christians of
Philadelphia, and of Smyrna and to Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, were written at Troas.
In his writings the author insisted that Christians were the true Israel, who had taken
over the inheritance of the rejected nation. According to the writings, the promises made to
the people of the covenant were fulfilled when Jesus was recognized as the Messiah by a new
people, the Christians. According to Ignatius, the flesh of Christ had suffered for our sins and
won us eternal life, giving us a new relationship with the Father.

As for the unity of the Christians belonging to local congregation, Ignatius sought to
explain it by the use of various images and comparisons; the congregation is like a choir
whose singers praise the Lord with one voice, or like a company of travelers following the
direction of the Lord.
As regards devotion to martyrdom, with Ignatius of Antioch the connexion between
martyrdom and imitation of Christ was already clearly grasped and forcefully expressed: a
man is a true disciple of Christ only if he dies for Christ’s sake; any one who does not accept
death willingly with eyes fixed “on his passion” has not the life of Christ within him. The
epistles of St. Ignatius stress an established hierarchical constitution in the order of
Monarchical bishops, priests and Deacons.

c) His Letter to the Romans

In this letter addressed to the Christians of Rome, Ignatius, the bishop of the Gentile
community of Antioch begs the Christians of Rome not to rob him of the martyr’s crown he
expected to receive there; they would have done so by interceding with the pagan authorities
for him. He qualifies his request with the respectful words; “I do not command you as Peter
and Paul did.” This was a clear indication that Peter and Paul stood in a special relationship to
the Roman Congregation which had given them a position of authority; that is, they had
stayed there for a lengthy period as active members of the community, not temporarily as
chance visitors. This letter is valuable as evidence for Peter’s residence and martyrdom at
Rome.
This same letter indicates the esteem accorded to the Roman church. Its enthusiastic
introduction is unique when compared with the prefaces to his other letters. In obvious
allusion to the epistle to the Corinthians, the letter states that the Roman congregation acted
as teacher to others. Ignatius does not however mention the Bishop of Rome, and his words
about the precedence of Rome in charity can in no way be understood in the sense that any
special personal dignity was accorded to its bishop.

St. Justin Martyr ( c. 100-165)

37
a) Background
Was an early christian theologian and one of the foremost of all apologists. He was
born in Flavia Neapolis in Samaria to a pagan family. He became a Christian at the age of 30.
He taught at a school in Ephesus and around 135, engaged in a famous disputation or debate
with Trypho the Jew, the basis for Justin’s later work, “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.” He is
said to have studied paganism before becoming a Christian and that it was after having been
dissatisfied with it that he found Christianity.
He moved to Rome and opened a place of learning for Christians, claiming as one of
his pupils the theologian Tatian. Justin, now a learned Christian, began to defend his faith in
clear and brilliant fashion, utilizing his extensive familiarity with pagan teachings to provide
an educated Roman audience with reasoned arguments for the moral and intellectual
superiority of chrisitianity. Around 165, the imperial government finally took action against
him. Justin and several followers were arrested, ordered to make sacrifices, and, upon their
refusal, were scourged and beheaded.
Justin, the greatest of the early apologists was remarkable for his efforts to unite
christian faith with reason. During his time a more active defense of the christian principles
was felt. This was a time when an increasing number of representatives of the aristocracy and
of the educated classes found their way into the church (second century). The educated class
possessed all the qualifications to meet anti-christian philosophers and rhetoricians on equal
terms.
Because of the calibre of the Antonine Emperors there was even hope that they would
heed carefully reasoned and well-written expositions of the faith and put an end to
persecution entirely. This task of explaining Christianity to the pagans in scholarly fashion
was tackled by the first group of Catholic intellectuals, the Greek Apologists. About a dozen
and a half of these apologists are known, although many survive in name only, e.g.
Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Miltiades and Theophilus of Antioch, nothing remains of their
work. Others are better known, e.g. Athenagores of Athens who addressed his “supplication
for the Christians” to Marcus Aurelius in 177, and Tatian of Syria, author of a “Discourse to
the Greeks” (ca.170).

b) His works
Justin’s life exemplifies what type of men the apologists were. By profession a
teacher of philosophy, he tested all the Greek systems and found them all wanting. Having
discovered Christianity he embraced it enthusiastically as the true philosophy. For 30 years
thereafter he taught Christianity as a philosophical system in Rome until a pagan competitor
identified by Tatian as Crescens (Philosopher) denounced him to the authorities and brought
about his death in the arena.
Justin composed two apologies against pagans and a Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew.
The first apology written perhaps A.D. 150 was addressed to Antoninus Pius and his son
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, defending the faith against various charges and
accusations. The second apology was written for the Senate and this too refuted assorted
charges.
Justin attacked Polytheistic mythology with the methods placed at his disposal by the
“enlightened” philosophers. He taught about one true God, the “Father of the Universe,” who
is without origin and himself the first cause of the world, and for whom there is no name that
can express his nature. He is enthroned above the world, in which he cannot be directly
apprehended by the senses. Justin does not argue that this one God is called “Father” because
he has favored men with a kind of divine sonship, but rather, because he is the first cause of
creation.

38
 He seeks to connect this philosophical idea of God with elements of the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity as expressed in the Creed, so that the Christian belief in God is shown
as including also belief in Jesus Christ his son and in the prophetic spirit. The Logos was in
the beginning with God; he was begotten by the Father and appeared in his divine fullness in
Jesus Christ, as Holy Scripture had foretold. He has not indeed the same rank as the Father,
but, as his son, he shares the divine nature.
Even before his manifestation in Christ, the Logos was active; not only did the Father
create the world through him, but he also appeared frequently as the “Angel of the Lord,” he
spoke in the prophets of the Old Testament, and he was active too in such eminent men as
Heraclitus, Socrates and Musonios, in whom he was at work as “germinal Logos,” so that
these and many others who lived in accordance with the Logos working in their reason are
actually to be reckoned as christians.

c) His Teaching:

i) On Angels and Demons

As regards Justin’s teaching on angels and demons, the influence of Platonic
philosophy comes to the fore. According to Justin God gave the good angels charge over men
and earthly affairs (Apol.2: 5). Angels are not pure spirits but possess aerial bodies, nourished
by a kind of manna (Dial. 57). The fall of the angels was caused by their having sexual
intercourse with women. Their children are the demons, who from their kingdom of the air
exercise their baleful influence on mankind, until at Christ’s return they will be cast into
everlasting fire.
According to Justin, they are the actual founders of the pagan cults; they also made
the Jews blind to the Logos and so caused his death on the cross. They continue by their
cunning to prevent the conversion of mankind to him and to God. But in the name of Jesus
Christ the redeemer, a power has been given to Christians, which protects them against the
demons (Dial. 307).

ii) On the daily life of Christians

Justin also wrote of the daily life of the christians, its high moral level was for Justin a
convincing proof that the christians were in possession of the truth, christians led a life of
truthfulness and chastity, they loved their enemies and went courageously to death for their
beliefs not because they had been persuaded of the importance of these virtues by
philosophical considerations, but because Jesus had demanded of them a life in accordance
with such ideals. Justin esteemed the Old Testament as highly as the Gospels, the “Memoire
of the apostles.”

iii) On Baptism and Eucharist

He speaks of baptism and the Eucharistic liturgy as essential components of christian
worship. Baptism performed “in the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe and of
our redeemer Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit” (Apol.61), frees us from sins previously
committed and creates a new man through Christ; since the christian is also enlightened by it,
Baptism is also called “enlightenment.” He holds that the purest form of worship is the
eucharistic sacrifice, at which the faithful, joined in brotherly union, bring bread and wine
over which the head of the congregation utters a prayer of thanksgiving.
The bread and wine become the body an blood of Christ the change of which is
brought about by the words which Jesus spoke over the bread and wine at the Last Supper
and which he told the apostles to repeat (Apol. 62). This food that Christians call the
Eucharist replaced the Old Testament sacrifices, which God rejects. Eucharist is a perfect

39
sacrifice (not explicit in his apologic) and the fulfilment of the spiritual sacrifice which the
Greek philosophers longed for and which they regarded as the only worthy form of divine
worship.

iv) On Redemption
About redemption, Justin speaks of the mystery of the cross and the redemption of
mankind by the bloodshed and death of the Son of God. Justin’s belief in the resurrection of
the body, which would one day bring incorruptibility to the just, was unshakable. Although,
according to his own words, not all good christians agreed with him in this, he expected a
millenium – thousand year kingdom – in Jerusalem which would begin at the end of time,
when the souls of the dead would be delivered from Hades.
Justin’s apologetical purpose in controversy with the pagans required him to show a
philosophical and rational basis for his faith whereas the dispute with the Jews limited him
very much to the question of the Messiah. Nevertheless, one is bound to say that he did not
confine himself to a purely philosophical Christianity; his survey represents a significant
advance in the development of early Christian theology when compared with the world of the
Apostolic Fathers and the earlier apologetic of Aristides (an Athenian). Justine wrote his
apologia in Greek. The account on his martyrdom is one of the ancient documents valuable as
a source of information of his time.

Origen (c.185-254 )

a) Background
Origenes Adamantius was an influential early teacher, theologian, exegete, and writer.
He was born probably in Egypt, perhaps Alexandria to Christian parents. His father, St.
Leonides taught him extensive elements of the faith and made him memorize passages from
the scriptures. Further education came under the famed teacher Clement of Alexandria.
Origen succeeded Clement as director of the school of Alexandria when the latter was forced
into exile by the Romans. Origen remained in the post for some twenty years, even after the
end of the persecution; he taught philosophy, scripture and theology but at the same time
improved his own knowledge of pagan philosophy by attending lectures by the noted
philosopher Ammonius Saccas, founder of the school of Neoplatonism. Origen also adopted a
strict asceticism, castrating himself in a very extreme interpretation of the passage Matthews
19:12.
In 212, Origen traveled to Rome and then to various places in Greece, Palestine, and
Arabia. While in Palestine, Origen was invited by several local bishops to preach in their
churches. Origen accepted their request, despite being a layman, an action that angered
bishop St. Demetrius of Alexandria, who ordered him to return to Alexandria. Bishop
appointed him successor of Clement in the Catechetical School. On another visit to Palestine
around 230, he was ordained a priest by the bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea. Demetrius,
even more angry and feeling that his rights had been violated held two Synods. Origen was
exiled from Alexandria and commanded not to exercise his priestly duties.
Given sanctuary at Caesarea, he opened another School in 231 and added to his
already considerable reputation through his writing and instruction. Sometime in 250,
however, he was arrested during the Decian persecution. Imprisoned and tortured, he was
shattered physically and never recovered his health after his release in 251. He died in 254 in
Tyre.

b) His works

40
 Origen was the author of a vast Corpus of writings. Unfortunately, few of his work
have survived. His Scriptural writings include: numerous commentaries of the Old and New
Testaments and the Hexapla (or Sixfold Bible), that was used by St. Jerome in his creation of
the Vulgate. Other works are: Contra Celsum (against Celsus), an apology against the pagan
cynic celsus; exhortation to martyrdom, a plea to his friends to remain firm in the faith during
the persecutions, and perhaps his most important book, ‘first principles’ (c.225), an effort to
compile a comprehensive manual on dogmatic theology, one of the first in the history of the
church. This manual became the focus of the Origenist Controversy.
Origen was accused by St. Jerome and others of certain heretical tendencies. Others
defended him, however, and the majority of the Eastern bishops considered him a defender of
the faith. The chief enemy of Origenism (a doctrinal system incorporating various
unorthodox elements of his teachings) was St. Jerome who helped secure the condemnation
of Origen’s radical teachings by Pope Anastasius I in 400.
Fortune did not favor the life-work of Origen, the greatest of the Alexandrian teachers
and the most important theologian of eastern Christianity. He was condemned by the synod
of Constantinople in 553 and this made a number of his works to disappear. The sixth book of
Eusebius’ ecclesiastical history preserves useful evidence regarding the work of Origen.
Eusebius had at his disposal a collection of Origen’s letters, and obtained many details from
men who had known him personally in Caesarea.
The journeys Origen made gave him a vivid idea of the life of the church as a whole,
and strengthened his inclination to work everywhere through his lectures for a deeper
understanding of scripture and belief. Origen was already a castrated man when he was
ordained a priest and according to the views of the time, he was not a suitable candidate
because of that very fact.
The kernel of Origen’s theological achievement was his work on the bible, his efforts
for its better understanding and the use made of it to create a right attitude in belief an true
piety, the impressive undertaking of the Hexapla served to establish a trustworthy text of the
bible. It presented in six parallel columns the original Hebrew in Hebrew characters, a Greek
transcription, the translations by Aquila and Symmachus, the Septuagint and the Theodotian
translation. What was probably the only copy of this work was placed in the library of
Caesarea, where it could still be consulted in the time of Jerome (342-420) and even later.

c) “Concerning Principles”
While in Alexandria, Origen wrote a systematic exposition of the chief doctrines of
Christianity. He gave this first dogmatic handbook in the history of Christian theology the
title “concerning principles,” and dealt in four books with the central questions concerning
God, the creation of the world, the fall of man, redemption through Jesus Christ, Sin,
Freedom of the will, and Holy Scripture as a source of belief. Scripture and tradition are the
two primary sources for Origen’s exposition of Christian doctrine.

d) His Teaching:

i) On the Holy Scripture

The understanding of the Holy Scripture is for Origen “the art of arts” and “the
science of sciences.” To understand difficult texts of the Bible, Origen turned to “His Lord
Jesus” in prayer. He considered prayers as very necessary for the understanding of the
scriptural texts. That which is hidden behind the letter is the treasure hidden in the field. Thus
the allegorical interpretation of scripture was not for Origen merely a traditional and easily
applied method, taken over from the exposition of secular texts. It was often a compelling

41
necessity for him, absolutely essential if what is sometimes offensive in the purely literal
sense of scripture is to be transcended. Origen was fully aware that allegory has its limits.

ii) On perfection
Origen held that the ultimate goal of the ascent to perfection is the resemblance to
God, to which man was called when God created him in his own image and likeness. The
surest way to this goal is the imitation of Christ: A man who imitates Christ chooses life and
chooses light. He emphasized the importance of a serious ascetic effort, in which fasting and
vigils have their place just as much as the reading of the scripture and the exercise of
humility. Those who, following Christ’s example, freely choose a celibate life and virginity
will more easily reach the goal. The ascent to mystical union with the Logos takes place by
degrees, a progress which Origen sees prefigured in the journey of the people of Israel
through the desert to the promised land.

iii) On the Church

According to Origen the church is not only intended to be the guardian of Holy
Scripture, but is also its authentic interpreter, for she alone has received from Christ the light,
which enlightens those who dwell in darkness. The church is the true ark in which alone men
can find salvation: the house, which is marked with the blood of Christ and outside which
there is no redemption.

iv) On the Holy Trinity

Origen was not free from attacks. There are some particular views, which he held and
which gave rise to the later controversies about their author’s orthodoxy. In his doctrine of
the Trinity, Origen still thinks in subordinationist terms: only the Father is “o theos”or
“autotheos” : The Logos, of course, likewise possesses the divine nature, but in regard to the
Father he can only be called “deuterostheos” The fact that Origen expresses the eternity of
the Logos and characterizes him as Homoousios, makes his views more advanced compared
with early subordinationism.

v) Christology
In Christology, too, he devises models of expression which point to the future; the
union of the two natures in Christ is so close in his doctrine that the communication of idioms
follows from it; as far as can now be traced the term God-man “theanthropos”, first occurs
with Origen, and probably he prepared the way for the term “theotokos”.

vi) On Creation
Origen taught that before the present world, a world of perfect spirits existed to which
the souls of men then belonged; these were, therefore, pre-existent. Only a fall from God
brought upon them banishment into matter which God then created. The measure of their pre-
mundane guilt actually determines the measure of grace, which God grants each human being
on earth. All creation strives back towards its origin in God, and so is subjected to a process
of purification which can extend over many aeons and in which all souls, even the evil spirits
of the demons and Satan himself, are cleansed with increasing effect until they are worthy of
resurrection and reunion with God. Then God is once more all in all, and the restoration of all
things is attained. The eternity of hell was practically abandoned as a result of this
conception.
Critics have reproached Origen with further errors in his theology, which might be
described as spiritualism and esotericism. By this is meant his tendency to undervalue the
material creation and to exempt the spirit from the need for redemption, and also his tendency

42
to reserve the innermost kernel and meaning of the truths of revelation for the circle of the
perfect, the “pneumatikoi;” or the spiritual ones. Origen did not call for annihilation of that
which was not spiritual, instead he advocated for its spiritualization and transfiguration.
Despite the criticisms, his theological work and especially his systematic treatise “concerning
principles,” represents a creative personal achievement and consequently an enormous
advance in Christian theology.
For all the independence and freedom of his theological questioning and inquiry,
Origen wanted only to serve the church and was always ready to submit to her judgement.
“If I,” Origen once addressed the church, “I, who bear the name of priest, and have to
preach the word of God, offend against the doctrine of the church, and the rule of the Gospel
and were to become a scandal to the church, then, may the whole church with unanimous
decision cut off me, her right hand, and cast me out.”
Such an attitude should have prevented posterity from proscribing Origen’s work as a
whole merely because of particular errors and mistakes in the way that happened later.

General observation
As regards the earliest defenders of the faith, and particularly the apologist we can say
in a nutshell that they challenged the current calumnies against the church by pointing to the
upright, chaste lives of the Christians and by explaining Christian ceremonies. They exposed
the immorality and folly of pagan polytheism. They presented Christianity as a philosophical
system more perfect and more ancient than all others, tracing its origin back to the Old
Testament and offering the fulfillment of its prophecies as proof of its truth. Except for
Tatian, the apologists employed all the resources of Hellenistic learning to drive home their
arguments.
There is no way of estimating the impact of these second century authors on the pagan
world. Certainly they failed to end the persecutions, and others took up their work in the next
century. Nevertheless, their importance for the church was very great. Although they did not
attempt a complete explanation of Christianity, since they were philosophers and not
theologians, yet they may be considered the founders of the science of Christian theology in
that they were the first to explain Christian doctrine rationally and in an intellectual satisfying
guise.

8.5. The Classical Church Fathers :

8.5.1. In The East

St. athanasius (295-373)

He was a native of Alexandria serving as a deacon and then secretary of Alexander,

bishop of Alexandria. He accompanied the bishop of Alexandria to the council of Nicaea
(325). In 328, he became bishop of Alexandria. During an eventful episcopate, he
defended the faith of Nicaea against the Arians and those who were presumed to be Arians.
Five times he was hounded from Alexandria. One of his periods of exile (366) brought him to
the West, as far as Trier. He returned to the East following the death of emperor Constantine
the Great in 337.
His work was mainly devoted to the defence and presentation of the theology of the
word incarnate, the equal of the Father. He authored numerous works including defenses of

43
orthodox doctrine and treatise, particularly De Incarnatione. The work entitled “life of St.
Anthony” is attributed to him. This work enjoyed a huge success. He inspired many monastic
vocations, i.e. of St. Augustine.
Athanasius’ efforts at defeating Arianism helped lay the ground work for the triumph
of orthodox chritianity at the council of Constantinople in 381, years after his death. The
triumph of orthodoxy was the work of the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Athanasius’ feast day;
May 2.

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d.444)

He was born in Egypt, a nephew of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria succeeding

Theophilus. Cyril was one of the most forceful figures in the church during the fifth century.
Cyril, a devoted orthodox Christian, spoke out against lingering elements of paganism in the
city and heresy.
Cyril’s principle focus, was against Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople and founder
of the heresy of Nestorianism. Cyril represented the Alexandrian theological position,
arguing for the unity of two natures in Christ against Nestorius’ theory that Christ had two
separate persons, Divine and Human. Cyril entered into the severe conflict with Nestorius
specifically over the former’s adherence that the blessed Virgin be honored with the title
“Theotokos,” a name opposed by Nestorius.
Beyond the theological dispute – itself enough to alarm Alexandrian theologians – the
dispute had religio-politacal ramifications, since it represented the potential rise of
Constantinople as one of the most important Sees in all of Christendom, a development that
threatened and was much opposed by the Alexandrians.
The difference between Cyril and Nestorius led to the council of Ephesus 431 of
which Cyril was the president with full support of Pope Celestine I. He secured the
condemnation of Nestrorius, but this led to the Robber Council of 449 which condemned
Cyril. Cyril made important contribution to Christian theology, especially the Trinity and the
nature of Christ. He was declared a Doctor of the church in 1882 by Pope Leo. Feast day;
June 27 in the West; June 9 in the East. His brilliant writings included letters and Anathemas,
and a refutation of the work “Against the Galileans” by emperor Julian the apostate (r.361-
363), this defense of Christianity is the last of the great apologies for the faith in the Roman
era.

8.5.2. In The West

St. Ambrose (c. 340-397)

He was born in Trier in Italy. After studying law, he began practicing in the Roman
courts until 370 when he was named governor of Aemilia–Luguria with his capital at Milan.
In 374 at the death of Auxentius, Arian bishop of Milan, Ambrose was chosen by the
Catholics of the city to succeed him. He was only a Catechumen and this made him resist the
office but later he took it up after baptism and ordination. He however, continued with
studying Orthodox theology.
As bishop, Ambrose was forced to involve himself in numerous political affairs,
particularly as Milan in this period had become the main city of the Western Roman Empire.

44
He exercised enormous influence at the imperial courts and within the Government.
Officially being the imperial chaplain, he was also formidable adviser.
In 382, he convinced emperor Gratian to remove from the Senate the pagan altar of
victory. In 390, he spoke out against emperor Theodosius I and demanded public penance
after the ruler grew angry with rioters in Thessalonica and ordered his troops to massacre
about 5,000 people. The emperor obeyed and made a public atonement for his brutal act.
Ambrose also successfully resented the efforts of empress Justina to give a church to
the Arians. He and his followers seized the church, holding it until Justina relented. He used
his authority not for his own good but for the good of the church.
As a theologian, Ambrose was steadfastly orthodox. He was one of four great Fathers
of the Latin Church. The other three included St. Augustine, Jerome and Pope Gregory the
Great. He is also ranked among the Doctors of the church. He was perhaps the most active
opponent of Arianism.
He devoted much effort to the extermination of paganism and to resisting Arianism.
At the council of Aquileia (381) he succeeded in having the Arian bishops removed and he
wrote several treatises defending orthodox doctrines against the Arians. His writings
included: De sacramentis(a treatise on the sacraments), De Officiis Ministrorum ( a treatise
on Christian ethics); sermons; doctrinal works on faith and the Holy Spirit; letters.
He promoted monasticism in Italy; introducing many Eastern elements into the liturgy
and used hymns extensively as a means of giving praise. A supporter of virginity and
devoted to the Virgin Mary, he wrote several treatises on the subject of Christian virginity.

Perhaps his greatest act was to bring about the conversion of St. Augustine in 386 whom he
baptized and launched on his great career. Feast Day: December 7.

St. Augustine (354-430)

He was born in Tagaste in African Numidia. From childhood he knew of Christ, for
his mother, St. Monica, enrolled him as a catechumen at an early age, but he learned little
doctrine. His education was in the best pagan Roman Tradition. In 374 Augustine entered
upon a brilliant career as teacher of grammar and rhetoric at Tagaste, Carthage, Rome, and
finally at Milan.
During these twelve years his thirst for truth led him successively into Manichaean
Sect and then to New-Platonism, but without satisfaction. At the peak of his career in Milan,
Augustine came under the influence of St. Ambrose whose sermons he attended to study the
bishop’s style of rhetoric. Aided by kind friends and by his reading of St. Paul, after a hard
struggle to free himself from his worldly lies, Augustine was converted. Ambrose baptized
him in 387.
Having resigned his professorship, Augustine returned to Tagaste to take up a
monastic life of poverty and prayer. In 391 he was ordained and five years later chosen
bishop of Hippo.
No Christian thinker has ever surpassed Augustine in the extent of his influence over
succeeding genereations. For 800 years Augustine alone dominated every aspect of European
thought, faith, and theology and the impress of his genius on Christianity is ineffaceable.
Most of his writings were composed in response to immediate problems, but the nature of the
subjects treated and Augustine’s ability to go directly to the judgmental universal issues
behind every conflict have given a permanent value to his work. Two of Augustine’s
volumes are undisputed classics among the great books of the world.

45
 “On the Trinity.” This is Augustine’s most profound treatise. He attacked the errors
of the Manichaeans, Donatists, Pelagians and Arians, composed exegetical works and
scriptural commentaries, and treated educational and psychological subjects also in masterly
fashion.
“Confessions” and “City of God,” are the best known among laymen. Confessions
narrates his own intellectual and moral development and his progress into the church.
Between 413 and 426, he labored on the “City of God” to refute the accusations of pagans
who tried to blame Christianity for the disastrous Visigothic sack of Rome in 410. Here
Augustine treated not only the relationship between the Christian God and the Roman Empire
but he went on to explain the full scope of God’s relation to the progress and destiny of
mankind in terms of a philosophy of history resting on principles of perennial validity.

8.6. Monasticism: formative period

This is a religious life by which an individual leaves the world and enters into a
community whose members, monks, devote themselves to the service of God through prayer,
contemplation, solitude, and self-denial. Monasticism has been one of the oldest and most
enduring traditions of the church, both East and West, and the faith has profited enormously
from the work of monks throughout its long history.

Monasticism was not a Christian invention since monastic customs existed in the pre-
christian world, including the Essenes and in the East. In Asia, it was highly developed, most
remarkably so in China and Japan.
Ascetic renunciation is entirely consistent with the message of the Gospels and hence
it appeared instinctively wherever Christianity spread. Those who entered Monastic life
usually lived under vows and a fixed rule in order to devote themselves to prayer and the
achievement of salvation.
Further causes of monastic tradition’s popularity were the expectation of an imminent
second coming of Christ and the difficulty of living uncontaminated amid the society and
politics of pagan Rome. Gradually becoming organized, Monasticism grew with the church,
taking many different forms before settling down along lines marked out by Great rules such
as those of St. Basil and St. Benedict.

8.6.1. The Father of monasticism: St. Anthony

St. Anthony of Egypt is the Father of Christian Monasticism. He attracted many

people including hermits to his way of life and so earned the above title. Actually Egypt was
the birthplace of organized Christian Monasticism and St. Anthony (251-356) is usually
called the first monk.
There had been ascetics before Anthony e.g. St. Paul of Thebes, who withdrew in
spirit from the world to devote their lives to prayer and charity, either remaining in their own
homes or living as hermits. But Anthony is the recognized originator of Monasticism as a
definite way of life completely in its own right.

8.6.2. Why Egypt?

Many factors have been suggested to explain why Egypt should has provided the
breeding ground for Monasticism. The factors included, geographical features, severity of

46
persecution, influence of mystical Neo-Platonism. By the end of the third century Anthony
was established in solitary asceticism along the banks of the lower Nile.
After twenty years in the loneliness of an abandoned form of life, Anthony yielded in
305 to the importunities of a group of other hermits and came fourth to guide them on the
basis of his personal experience. Anthony composed no rule, simply supervising loosely the
activities of his disciples. Ten years later, however, Anthony again, tired of human company,
sought a new distant retreat where he passed the remaining four decades of his life.

8.6.3. Anchoritic monasticism

This is a monastic life where by the hermit or Anchorites lived alone in some desert
place, often on the outskirts of a village, for he depended on the admirers to provide an
occasional modicum of food. No fixed rule guided him; he was his own superior. Sometimes
groups of anchorites assembled on weekends for divine services, although some preferred no
contact at all with others. Most anchorites were not priests, not uncommonly they considered
their way of life superior to that of ordained clergy.
A semi-anchoritic life evolved when hermits lived in separate cells but close to each
other, meeting regularly for prayer or mutual support yet retaining their essential autonomy.
It commonly happened that the reputation of a particularly saintly monk such as Anthony
attracted neophytes hoping to learn from him the way to perfection.
Although pure anchoritic monasticism never disappeared entirely, by the sixth century
it was largely supplanted by the semi-anchoritic type. St. Anthony thus exemplified the
eremitic or anchoritic type of monasticism.
Either pure or modified anchoritic pattern offered a maximum of flexibility and
individuality. This characterized Antonian Monasticism and was at the same time its greatest
weakness. With each monk setting his own standards, eccentricities developed. Since the
majority of the first monks had little education, often they erred in the direction of excessive
severity.
The early monks had to be “spiritual athletes,” trained to endure extreme feats of
asceticism: protracted fasts, severe penances, and self-inflicted bodily punishment. In the fifth
century Syria some hermits ate nothing but grass; others hobbled their legs with iron chains;
still others took to living atop pillars reaching up to fifty feet in height, whence their name
“Pillar Saints” or Stylites. St. Simeon Stylite (395-461) achieved the record of thirty-six years
on his tiny platform.

8.6.4. Cenobitic monasticism

This is a monastic life whereby members live a community life. This includes as a
usual concomitant an established rule of conduct. This second type of monastic life grew out
of the anchoritic form but it did not necessary represent a revolt or reform.

St. Pachomius:

He lived between 290 and 345, an Egyptian like his friend Anthony. He founded
Cenobitism about 320 when he established the first monastery at Tabennisi in Southern
Egypt. Cenobitism would create the basis of the formal monastic orders in later years.
Pachomius’ rule eventually was observed in nine large monasteries for men and two
for women, comprising about 7,000 members by A.D. 400. The rule provided definite

47
organization under recognized superiors. Prayer, fasting, manual labor and study of the
scriptures were provided for, the greatest innovation being the importance attached to regular
and diversified type of labor, including agriculture.
In general, Pachomius set a minimum standard of asceticism attainable by all, but he
allowed and even encouraged each monk to set whatever goals of mortification or austerity
he could achieve over and above that prescribed by the rule.

8.6.5. The spread of monasticism:

Eastern monastism

Monasticism spread quickly to the Near East. St. Basil became the most important
Greek promoter in Asia Minor. The ideals of this Cappadocian father were reflected in all
Monastic life of the Greek world. Basil was influenced by his Sister Macrina who fostered
monastic life on family estates at Annesi near Neocaesarea in Pontus. He made journeys to
Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia to observe the monks there. Returning home in 357 Basil
became a hermit near Annesi but was soon joined by others so that a community arose.

For his community, Basil composed his “Longer Rules” and “Shorter Rules” consisting of
ascetic and moral precepts on various aspects of monastic life. Basil believed firmly that the
Cenobitic life was much superior to the eremitic. “If you always live alone whose feet will
you wash?” he wrote. Hence the Basilian rule went further than the Pachomian by
strengthening the community elements; meals, work, and prayer all in common within the
same house.

The Western monasticism

Monasticism was introduced to the West by St. Athanasius and the Egyptian monks
who accompanied him on his journey during the Arian Crisis. Wherever Athanasius went he
spread the monastic ideals. In 335 Athanasius was exiled to Trier and in 341 he was in Rome.
Athanasius’ biography of St. Anthony, translated into Latin in 380, immediately
found a wide audience and enkindled the spirit of pious emulation. Practically all Christian
biographies of the late fourth and fifth centuries show traces of Monasticism. Both anchoritic
and cenobitic types found favor, but naturally isolated hermits usually left fewer traces of
their activity than did the communities.
The European monastic system per excellence is that formed by St. Benedict of
Nursia (480-547) early in the sixth century. All that was required to become a monk was to
discover a retreat in the wilderness and take up the eremitical life. For Benedict, Subiaco
about fourty miles from Rome offered a suitable cave, and there Benedict remained for three
years, known only to another monk nearby who aided him in small ways. .
He produced a rule which was so excellent and so widely adopted that Benedict has
been honored with the title Patriarch of the Monks of the West. The fundamental quality that
assured the success of Benedict’s rule was its spirit of moderation.
According to Benedictine Rule, there are six vows to be taken: poverty, chastity,
obedience, observance of the Rule, moral reform and stability. The last is Benedict’s most
tangible contribution to monasticism. By it he meant that a monk should be bound to the
monastic life and that he should spend his life in the community, which he joined.

48
 The requirement of labor helped the monastery achieve self-sufficiency, at the same
time it balanced the contemplative features of the monk’s life, hence the famous Latin
expression, ora et labora.

8.7. Theological Controversies in the East and in the West

Having acquired peace through the workings of the Great Roman Emperor,
Constantine, the church found herself torn by yet another strife. The strife was not political or
social in origin, but religious and, perhaps even more, theological. The church in the East felt
this impact all the more. It almost seemed that, once the persecution had passed, the church
now had the leisure to devote itself to metaphysical problems of the kind, which had always
delighted the Greek mind.
From the second century, Christian thought was propelled in various directions as it
tried to safeguard both biblical monotheism and the baptismal profession of a Trinitarian
faith. Some thought that God was at the same time both Father and Son, and that one could
say that the Father had suffered as well as the Son. Others insisted on making a distinction
between the Father and his Son, between the Father and his Word (Logos); The Son was God
but not in the same way as the Father; the Son (the Logos) was subordinate to the father.
Jesus could have been a man made divine through adoption by the Father. Certain
scriptural reference could be interpreted as having this meaning (John 14:28). Writers used
Greek and Latin words in different ways, giving rise to some confusion.
Before the peace of the church the disagreements were fairly localized, but after 313
they spread rapidly throughout the whole of the empire. So a crisis, which arose within the
church in Alexandria, soon stirred up the whole church in the East.

8.7.1. In the East

The Arian heresy

Arius, a strict and highly respected priest from a parish in Alexandria, wanted, like
many others before him, to safeguard the position of a unique God, a being who alone had no
beginning. If this God was Father, it was because at a certain moment he begot a Son. So the
Son had a beginning. He was not of exactly the same nature as the Father, and was
subordinate to him. To support his affirmations, Arius used proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28.
Finally, Jesus saved humanity by urging people to follow his own example in order one day
to be glorified with him.
The greatest theologian of the third century Origen had been fascinated by the
question of the relationship of the word to God the Father, and had described the word in a
Greek term which, unfortunately, can be translated in two ways: It could mean either “Second
God” or “Secondary God.” If one underlined the word “God,” then the unity of Jesus and the
Father was affirmed; but if one underlined “Second” or “Secondary,” then the meaning was
clearly “secondary,” and since God is unique, then the word is not God but is merely the
highest and greatest of creatures.
The bishops and theologians of the Eastern Church were all Origenists in the closing
years of the third century, and they seemed unaware of the dangerous ambiguities in Origen’s
thought. Five years after the rescript of toleration, that is, in 318, Arius began to preach and

49
teach that the Word was not God, but a creature, the first and the highest of the creatures, to
be sure – and therefore not eternal.
Arius was disciplined by his bishop, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria who objected to
Arius’ theology, but Arius found other bishops ready to support him, and his teaching caught
on quickly with the rationalistically inclined, as well as with those who, true to the New-
Platonic tradition, were concerned, above all, to safeguard the absolute unity and
transcendence of God.

The two clergymen, Arius and Alexander held doctrines quite opposed to each other with
regard to the relationship between the Son and the Father. While Arius held that, the word did
not exist with the Father from all eternity; Alexander held that the word has coexisted with
the Father from the beginning.
According to Arius, the word was created from nothing. According to Alexander, the
word was not created, but is the one who created all things. For Arius the word is not the Son
by nature and is not strictly of the Father. Alexander held that the word was the Son, not by
adoption but by nature. According to Arius, the nature of the Son does not proceed from that
of the Father. Alexander taught that the word had a nature equal to that of the Father.
Arius held that the word began to exist by an act of the Father’s will. For Alexander
the word exists by the communication of the essence of the Father. Arius held that the word is
by nature subject to change, physical and moral. According to Alexander, the word, who by
his nature is divine, is subject to neither change nor suffering.
The Arian controversy led Emperor Constantine to convoke the council of Nicaea
(325) for the unity of the empire was at stake. The council came up with the Nicene Creed.
The council fathers affirmed that Jesus Christ was “true God from True God, begotten, not
made,” and that the word, the divine principle in Jesus Christ, was of the same substance as
the Father - the Greek word for this sameness of substance was Homoousion. The
outstanding opponent of Arius was Athanasius who succeeded Alexander as the bishop of
Alexandria.

Gnosticism

Of the controversies or heresies in the second and third centuries Gnosticism was the
most serious in its effect on orthodox Christianity. It challenged the Christian notion of
revelation which centres around and culminates in Jesus Christ. The Church in North Africa,
led by Tertullian with his Adversus Marcionem, fought it as did the Church in Egypt.
Gnosticism derived from the Greek gnosis meaning knowledge. Thus central to Gnostic
teachings was the idea of gnosis, secret revealed knowledge of salvation.
The Gnostics claimed that the source of the gnosis was the secret oral transmission of
the knowledge by Christ, either to the Twelve Apostles or to the leader of the sect. In turn,
the gnosis was transmitted to select members who were determined to be worthy. To the
Gnostics, the universe was sharply divided between spiritual and material worlds, the first
representing perfection and goodness, the second imperfection and evil. The world, and
hence everything created in it, including humanity, is imperfect.
God, to the Gnostics, is a transcendent and spiritual being, meaning that he could not
have created the material world. Instead, the material world was created by a lesser god, the
Demiurge, derived from the Divine Being through a series of emanations, or eons. Certain
humans, however, contain within them a gift of spirituality, described by some as a spark of
the Divine Being. They will be able to achieve salvation and become reunited with the Divine
Being through the gnosis, secret knowledge of attainment. Christ, to the Gnostics, was a

50
representative of the Divine Being, sent to deliver to the elect the gnosis, the path to
salvation. Gnosticism thus divided all of humanity into two main groups, the select (saved)
and those of the flesh (damned).
Alexandria was the centre of Gnosticism in Egypt and the most important proponent
of it being, Basilides and Valentinus and outside Egypt there was Marcion (from Asia Minor)
whom St. Polycarp called, the “first-born of Satan.” Marcion drew the list of Biblical books
to be considered canonical by the Gnostics: only ten letters of St. Paul and parts of the Gospel
of St. Luke. The rest of the New Testament and the Old Testament were rejected because of
their Jewish content or influence of a cruel and despotic God of the Law as opposed to the
Christian God of Love, the God of Jesus Christ).
Orthodox Christians fought Gnosticism by excommunication and the preaching and
writing of orthodox theologians. The first target was Gnostic Dualism which maintained two
principles, the Good and the Evil.

Christological controversies

No sooner was the question of the divinity of the Word settled than a new problem
surfaced. If the Word was God, then what was to be said about the humanity of Jesus Christ?
Does he have a human nature, fundamentally like ours, or does he have only one nature, that
of the divine word? And if he does have two natures, what is it that holds them together,
unifies them, and makes him just one person?
Different solutions to these three questions divided the two leading cities of
Alexandria and Antioch, and the theological struggle was compounded by questions of
church politics. The first attempt to solve the problem of how Jesus Christ could be at one
and the same time God and man was made in Alexandria, and it is often called the “word-
flesh” Christology.
Those who held this view argued that, in Jesus, the word (that is, the divine principle
in him) took upon himself not a complete human being, but rather a human body and that the
word discharged for His body all the functions which are usually taken care of by the human
soul. The radical members of this group actually derived that Jesus had a human soul, and
they used to speak of “the one incarnate nature of the divine word.”
The Alexandrians went further and argured that unless the word had taken to himself
a complete human nature, body and soul, then human beings would not be saved, since it was
by the union of human nature with divine nature that the saving power of God becomes
accessible to us. This very platonic view of salvation was expressed in a famous slogan or
catchword: “what has not been assumed has not been saved.” This slogan saved the formal
orthodoxy of Alexandria.
Alexandria had developed a clever way of explaining the “unity” of Jesus Christ, but
theologians there based that unity solely on the controlling and directing power of the word.
As a result, they passed on to later ages a Jesus who was divine but dehumanized.
The Antiochians approached the problem of relating the humanity and divinity of
Jesus in an entirely different way. Their concern was how the humanity and divinity of Jesus
could be joined so as to constitute the one God-man Jesus Christ. While the Alexandrians
never took the humanity of Jesus seriously, the Antiochians’ strength lay on the fact that they
took the humanity of Jesus seriously and they accepted the fact that he was a vulnerable and
eventually broken man.
The Antiochene theology was weak in explaining the unity of Jesus Christ, and even
the best exponents of Antiochene thought tended to speak vaguely about how one person
“resulted” from the coming together of the two realities, the divine and the human.

51
 The two theological schools differed in that in Alexandria, the emphasis was on the
unity of Christ, starting from the logos (word). Christ was the word (God) who appeared in
the flesh. That was the condition for the divinization of man. In Antioch the emphasis was put
on the two aspects of Christ’s being. The starting point was the two natures and the goal was
their unity. There was a concern to maintain the complete humanity of Christ.
The controversy between the two schools of thought later ceased to be merely
theological and became political and personal. Actually a sharp confrontation arose between
two rival bishops, Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, who originally came from Antioch. The
latter attacked the popular piety which called on Mary as “theotokos” i.e. Mother of God.

Nestorius (d.451) and Nestorianism

He was a famed preacher from Antioch who became patriarch of Constantinople in

428. Nestorius, working in the Antiochene tradition, stressed the two natures of Christ. He
held that the word had been united with a complete man (this was called a word-man
Christology, to distinguish it from Alexandria’s word-flesh Christology).
Nestorianism explained the relationship of the human and the divine nature in Jesus as
a union of two distinct persons, each with its own particular nature but conjoined only in a
superficial, moral fashion. The acts of Christ the man, according to Nestorius, remained
distinct from those of Christ as God. Christ was said in effect to have a dual personality.
In 428, Nestorius solemnly informed the faithful of Constantinople that it was
incorrect to refer to the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God (Theotokos), for she was mother
only of the human element in Christ, not of his divine personality.
The church of Alexandria was by then ruled by bishop Cyril, a man dedicated to the
church and to the preservation of pure doctrine, but a proud and ruthless bishop. Having
heard of the teaching of Nestorius, he set out to defend the unity of Christ and the common
faith of Christians. He argued for one single nature in Christ.
Cyril joined forces with Celestinus, bishop of Rome (Pope), who condemned
Nestorius (430). Cyril then requested that Nestorius should sign a statement affirming, in
Jesus, the word and the man were united in one single nature. Nestorius appealed to his
friends in Antioch; bishop John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus, who came up to protect
Nestorius. They accused Cyril of Apollinarianism. In the face of such an uproar emperor
Theodosius II saw that a General Conference was the only way out and so he convoked the
third ecumenical council to assemble at Ephesus in 431. Celestinus, bishop of Rome, was
invited as was Augustine of Hippo, but Augustine died before in 430.
The council defined the Hypostatic union and endorsed the Marian title, Theotokos.
The Antiochean School was defeated in favor of Alexandria. The two schools of theology
came to an agreement only in 433. The union was motivated by a deep love of the church,
however the extremists of both parties left unsatisfied.

Eutyches and Monophysitism

The anti-Nestorian movement within the Roman Empire fell into the opposite heresy
of monophysitism, which flourished wherever Alexandrian influence was strong since it
claimed to rest on the theology of St. Cyril. Where Nestorius had stressed the separateness of

52
Christ’s two natures, the monophysites stressed the Oneness of his person in such a way that
they taught the absorption of the human nature into His divine nature.
Eutyches, supervisor of a Constantinopolitan monastery, a man of little education or
formal theological training, promulgated this teaching, prompting Archbishop Flavian of
Constantinople to summon a local synod of thirty-two bishops who questioned Eutyches and
found his theories erroneous. He was condemned and excommunicated but he had friends in
high places. He appealed to Leo, bishop of Rome, and Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria.
Dioscorus intervened to protect Eutyches on the pretext of defending the orthodox
faith of St. Cyril against new Nestorians. Theodosius II also sheltered the monk and furthered
his proposal for a new general council, Pope Leo consented. Ephesus was to be the venue and
the date set for 449. Three western delegates represented the bishop of Rome (Pope Leo). To
them Leo entrusted a dogmatic letter addressed to Flavian, the so called “Tome” propounding
Catholic teaching on the disputed point so that the assemblage might have a true standard for
judging Eutyches.
The Council turned out to be a travesty. Pope Leo dubbed it a Latrocinium or
Robber Council and history retained the name. Dioscorus presided in highhanded fashion.
Ignoring the papal legates and Leo’s instructions, he first reinstated Eutyches; he set up a jury
to hear the monk’s trial and it acquitted him. Next Dioscorus turned the council against
Flavian, whose condemnation and deposition were voted.
At this point the meeting broke up in a riot of Syrian monks in which Flavian was
fatally injured, emperor Theodosius solemnly ratified the counciliar acts and threatened
deposition and banishment to any bishop who dared protest. The Pope denounced the robber
council but nothing could be changed so long as emperor Theodosius was alive.
In 450 Theodosius died and Marcian assumed the throne; the atmosphere cleared at
once. Exiles returned, Eutyches was jailed and many bishops rescinded their approval of the
acts of the council. Desiring a final settlement, Marcian convoked a new council, to which
Leo reluctantly consented, to meet at Chelcedon across the Bosphorus from Constantinople.
During three weeks 630 bishops sat in the largest ecumenical council ever until that of
1870 (Vat. I). Practically all were Greeks, five papal legates attended. Doctrinally, the work
of the council was to reverse the acts of the robber council. Dioscorus was deposed as a
heretic. A formula of faith was accepted based on creeds of the three earlier ecumenical
councils plus Leo’s “Tome,” reading in part: “We confess one and the same Christ Jesus, the
only-begotten Son, whom we acknowledge to have two natures, without confusion,
transformation, division or separation between them …. The attributes of each nature are
safeguarded and subsist in one person.”
Thus the middle way was mapped out between Nestororianism and Monophysitism.
Also enacted were the diverse disciplinary Canons, of which the 28th raised Constantinople
to the rank of Second see in Christendom. This was the council of Chalcedon of 451. As far
as theological questions were concerned, Chalcedon settled the Monophysite heresy once and
for all.
Some Monophysites held on to St. Cyril’s twelve propositions and hence discrediting
the council of chalcedon that it had undermined the dicision of the ecumenical council of
Ephesus. They were not aware that Cyril himself had discarded the proposition on realizing
their equivocal wordings. At the root of the matter lay a confusion of theological terms
“person” and “nature.”
Questions of politics and culture entered into play. Monophusitism exercised a strong
attraction in Syria and Egypt precisely at a time when these provinces were feeling a desire
for independence of the Roman Empire. Along the Nile, Greek began to disappear as the
liturgical language and the monophysites substituted the native Coptic, while Syria became
the official language of the Syrian monophysites.

53
 In the Monophysite dispute the Egyptian continued to rally around the heretical
patriarch rather than admit defeat at the hands of the Greeks and Romans. Bishops from
Egypt at Chalcedon declared that they were afraid to return home with the report of
Dioscorus’ deposition. When Alexandria heard the news it rose in revolt, massacred the
imperial garrison, and tore to pieces the orthodox patriarch whom Constantinople appointed.
In an attempt at reconciliation, Emperor Zeno who defeated Basilicus, promulgated in
482 his own formula of reconciliation, the “Henoticon,” drawn up by Acacius, Patriarch of
Constantinople. The formula ignored chalcedon and established a test of faith based on the
earlier councils. Many accepted the Henoticon, Catholic as well as Monophysites but others
did not including the Pope, Simplicius(r. 468-483).
Because of Acacius’ pro-monophysite tendencies Pope Felix (r.483-492) condemned
and deposed him and all his followers who accepted Zeno’s act of union. Acacius thereupon
went into schism (hence the Acacian schism), taking many but by no means all Catholics
under his jurisdiction with him. This schism lasted for 35 years and thus monophysitism
flourished in those years. It came to an end in 518, when emperor Anastasius who had
attempted to restore Monophysitism in the empire died, the staunchly Catholic populace of
the capital raised such an outcry that emperor Justin had to reopen negotiation with Rome.
Pope Hormisdas (r.514-523) made a formula of reunion that was accepted by the
Constantinopolitan patriarch and the bishops of his province. Not only was the formula of
Hormisdas a recognition of the papal primacy of jurisdiction, it also voiced the claim that
“Christianity has ever been kept undefiled in the Apostolic See,” a reference to papal
infallibility.

8.7.2. In The West

The major heresies which troubled the West after Arianism and which occupied the
Western Fathers include Donatism, Priscillianism, Pelagianism and Manicheism.

Donatus and Donatism (Ecclesial controversy)

The victory of Christianity in Africa dated back to the latter half of the third century.
By the time of Augustine there were more than three hundred dioceses in Africa.
Unfortunately the Church in Africa was torn by dissension between Catholics and Donatists,
a schism that dated back to the time of Emperor Constantine and that occurred when some of
the bishops refused to recognize a certain Caecilian as the legitimate bishop of Carthage on
the grounds that he had been consecrated by a “Traditor”(traitor) Inspite of Constatine’s
effort to pressure the Donatists back into union with the Catholics, the schism lasted and by
Augustine’s time the two churches faced each other in almost every town.
Donatism is a heresy emanating from Donatus, the Second Schismatic bishop of
Carthage. His followers were rigorists within the African Christian community who were
vehemently opposed to the so-called traditors (or traitors), those Christians who had handed
over the scriptures to Roman officials during the terrible persecutions under emperor
Diocletian.
The focus of the rigorists became centred on Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, who was
consecrated in 311 by Felix of Aptunga. The rigorists refused to accept Caecilian on the
grounds that Felix had been a traditor, hereby making him no longer able to administer the
sacraments validly. The rigorists were supported by Numidian bishops who consecrated
Majorinus, thus setting him up as a rival bishop for the Carthaginian See. Donatus soon

54
succeeded Majorinus in 313. Donatus emerged as the leader of this Schismatic Sect
(movement).
This sect found fertile ground among African Christians who resented the
interference of the Roman Church in what they felt was an internal matter of the independent
African Church. The commission set by Pope St. Meltiades (2nd African Pope 311-314, the
1st being St. Victor I, 189-199, and the 3rd being St. Gelasius 492-496)) to study the case,
and the subsequent appeals made to the council of Arles (314) and then to the emperor
Constantine the Great (316) proved unsuccessful.
At issue were two radically opposed conceptions of the nature of the Church: the
Donatists claimed to be a pure Church, a Church of the elect, of the holy, of the martyrs,
uncontaminated by and fiercely exclusive toward the world, an ark of refuge from evil
society. By their practice of rebaptizing they claimed fidelity to the tradition of Cyprian and
to true African Christianity as it was before Constantine. They did not know that Cyprian had
realized his mistakes and had dropped his controversial ideas. The opposite tack was taken by
Augustine and the Catholics who willingly acknowledged the co-existence of saints and
sinners in their church as already explained earlier.
Many Donatists turned to violence, forming roving bands of raiders known as
circumcelliones. The imperial government responded by launching an intervention in 347.
The repression continued for some years, ceasing under emperor Julian (r. 361-363).
Within the Church opposition to the Donatists was spearheaded by St. Augustine.
Further repression began in 405 when emperor Honorius, a devout Catholic who had once
suppressed paganism, issued an edict of unity ordering the dissolution of the Donatist church,
leading to a formal declaration against the schism in 411 in a conference at Carthage. Though
the subsequent persecution weakened the movement, it survived in North Africa until he
extirpation of much of the church in Africa by the Muslims in the eighth century.
Having originated in Constantine’s day, Donatism remained an African heresy,
spreading at Rome only among African immigrants. Not only did the Donatists organize their
own church and hierarchy of hundreds of bishops, they also produced an extensive
propaganda. Augustine felt qualms about relying on the secular arm until he was convinced
that the Donatists had no case in doctrine or discipline. Emperor Theodosius (r.379-395), had
decreed a series of laws against them. This emperor was called the Great because of his
devotion to and promotion of christianity. Augustine often pointed out that the Donatists were
isolated from the worldwide Church, while the Catholics enjoyed communion with it by their
agreement with the overseas customs - such as the Roman ban on rebaptizing - and by their
willingness to communicate with the overseas’ churches, an attitude that gained them the
favour of the Emperor.

Pelagius and Pelagianism

Pelagianism is a heresy of the fifth century. It derived its name from the British Monk
Pelagius (c.355-425), who gave the movement much of its theological basis. Pelagianism can
be defined as a series of heretical propositions concerning grace, ultimately denying both the
supernatural order and the necessity of grace for salvation.
Pelagianism held also that Adam still would have died even if he had not sinned; that
the fall of Adam injured only Adam and not the entire human race; that a newborn child is in
the same state as Adam prior to the fall; that the human race will not rise on the Last Day
because of Christ’s redemption; that the law of the Jews (or Israel) will permit individuals to
heaven in the same way as the Gospel.

55
 The monk Pelegius arrived in Rome around 380. He found the Romans shockingly lax
in their moral attitudes and blamed the cause on the church’s teachings on grace. He believed
that the Augustinian position of grace being dependent upon the divine will was incorrect and
gave humanity no personal reason to avoid sin. Pelagius argued that humans were responsible
for their own actions. In this he was supported by the lawyer Celestius and a number of
Romans.
Around 410 during the sack of Rome by the Visigoths, Pelegius and Celestius
journeyed to Africa. They met with a stiff opposition from St. Augustine, who especially
disagreed with Pelegius’ concept of an individual’s essentially good moral nature and his
understanding of the person as a free and autonomous individual who can achieve sanctity
through unaided human effort.
Denial of original sin and its consequences and affirmation of man’s ability to achieve
salvation through unaided effort of his own will represent the two leading features of
Pelagianism.
In 411, the council of Carthage condemned Pelagius. This heresy reached Palestine
and St. Jerome attacked it from his retreat at Bethlehem, but a synod of bishops at Diopolis
(Lydda) in 415 found Pelagius innocent of errors.
Appeal was taken to Rome. Pope Innocent concurred with the condemnation of
Pelagius, but Zosimus, his successor hesitated. A gathering of over two hundred African
Bishops at Carthage in 418, with Augustine as its guiding spirit, reiterated the earlier African
decision, and persuaded Zosimus to do likewise.
The hesitant state of Pope Zosimus may have been caused by the visit paid to him by
the Roman Lawyer Celestius with the intention of influencing Zosimus to revisit the case
after Pope Innocent had excommunicated the proponents of the heresy. Already convinced of
Pelagius’ innocence, Zosimus had released the Libellus fidei (brief statement of faith). He
reversed himself and in the Epistola Tractoria, he reiterated Pope Innocent’s position.
Pelagius subsequently disappeared from history although Pelagianism continued to be
advocated by Celestius. It spread in Italy and Britain, and did not entirely disappear until the
end of the fifth century. Celestius and his followers were condemned by the council of
Ephesus (431).

Mani and Manichaeism

Manichaeans were members of a religious sect founded by a person named Mani (or
Manes) in the third century. The sect spread throughout the East and was even found in the
Roman Empire.
Not much is known about Mani. However, he is said to have been born around 215 in
Ctesiphon and died around 376. He used to see visions. He began to preach a new religion in
the lands of the Persian Empire where the creed of Zoroastrianism predominated.
Most likely because of local opposition Mani left Persia for India around 342. He later
on went back to Persia where, because of his popularity as a preacher, he now enjoyed
toleration and won friendship with the Persian Monarch Shapur I. The successor of Shapur I,
Verahran I condemned Mani to death and his disciples were banished from the realm.
The followers of Mani believed that there was an eternal struggle between good and
evil, between the darkness and the light. When darkness intruded upon the realm of the light,
there occurred an intermingling of the mortal with the divine, a mixture trapped in matter.
The light was found in the brain.

56
 Humanity was to practice strict asceticism in order to begin the process of releasing
the trapped light. Those who became Hearers hoped to achieve rebirth as the elect, that is to
say, the blessed few who had overcome the need for the transmigration of the soul.
Jesus, they felt, was the Son of God, but he had come on earth to save his own soul
because of Adam. Jesus, Buddha, and other holy figures were sent to help humanity in
attaining spiritual freedom.
Though Diocletian condemned the Manichaean Creed in 297 when he realized that it
was winning adherents, the Sect still spread. Christians and Neoplatonists attacked it but still
found fertile grounds. St. Augustine before conversion was its member for nine years
attaining the rank of a hearer.

Thus Dualism lay at the root of its teaching, the division of creation into the good
things of the spirit and essentially evil things of the flesh or matter. The soul imprisoned in
the flesh, can be liberated only through extreme ascetic practices and renunciation of all
material, physical and sexual contacts. The extreme condemnation of all things of the flesh
led paradoxically to the collapse of morality, especially with regard to sex.

9.0 THE PERSECUTIONS AND THE CONSTANTINIAN TURNING POINT

For 250 years the church lived under threat of persecution, but there was considerable
variation in the times and places of actual attempts by the Roman state to destroy it. Although
legally proscribed, the Christians experienced intermittent periods of peace during which they
enjoyed freedom from all but the fear of renewed animosity. Much depended on the
personality and problems of the various emperors. The reasoned explanations of Christian
beliefs by the apologists and Christian’s own uprightness were the means used by the
Christians themselves to confound the persecutors.

9.1.Towards Christian Persecutions

It was inevitable for the Roman Government and Christianity to clash. This is because
paganism was the official religion of the state, fostered, financed and even demanded by it. In
addition, the rapid spread of the imperial cults created a test of political loyalty that only
pagans could meet. According to Rome, the conquered subjects might worship whatever gods
they chose - provided they added the goddess Rome and the divine emperor to their circle of
deities. Refusal to venerate these state gods exposed the recusant to the charges of atheism, a
capital offence under Roman law, as well as to the charge of treason to the state.
Because of the racial aspect of Jewish monotheism, Rome was willing to make
exception in favour of the Jewish nation, which found the prescribed worship impossible. As
long as Christianity was restricted to Jewish nationals, it shared this privileged status of
Judaism. However, when Gentiles began to enter the fold and Christianity lost its national
colour, it perforce surrendered the protection Judaism offered. Almost from the beginning
official Judaism disowned Christianity.
More important in the long run was the attitude of the Roman people as distinct from
that of the government. Popular opinion definitely condemned Christianity. The opinion itself
was partly caused by the ignorance and the bigotry which ignorance engendered. The secrecy
surrounding Christian ceremonies gave rise to popular distortions of the Agape and the
Eucharistic sacrifice into execrable rites involving Cannibalism, human sacrifice, and incest.
“Hatred of the Human race” was another charge hurled at Christians, probably in reference to

57
a certain aloofness from society evident among them. Some converts, expecting the imminent
second coming of Christ, did turn their back completely on the world, but for most it was
merely that so much of the environment of the Roman Society was repugnant to Christian
principles.
To avoid contact with what they repudiated, the Christians often found it necessary to
avoid social intercourse altogether. The imagination of the ignorant easily interpreted such
conduct as misanthropy. Sometimes changes in established habits of the people as a result of
conversion provoked ill feeling, as between a covert and his spouse or the members of his
family. St. Paul describes the anti-Christian riot provoked at Ephesus by the Silversmith
Demetrius because of the loss of his lucrative market for idols when the people joined the
church (see Acts 19:23ff).

9.2. The Persecutions

While it is a fact that Emperors were behind the persecutions, they behaved
differently towards christians and even some did defend them. There were sporadic
persecutions and general persecutions.

9.2.1. Sporadic Persecutions

These were limited or selective persecutions.

(i) Neronian persecution (AD. 54-68)

Emperor Nero first turned the authority of the state against the Christians. According
to the account in Tacitus’ Annals, the persecution was almost an accident. A great fire
devasted a huge section of Rome in A.D. 64. the emperor was suspected by the popular
opinion as having caused the fire. To escape blame, Nero and his evil adviser Tigellinus
decided to lay the blame on the Christians perhaps capitalizing on the anti-christian attitude
of the popular opinion.
Many Christians were martyred. According to Tacitus, “some were covered with
skins of wild beasts and left to be devoured by dogs; others were nailed to the cross; some
were burnt alive; and many, covered over with inflammable matter, were lighteed up, when
the day declined, to serve as torches during the night.” St Peter suffered crucifixion; St. Paul
was beheaded. There is no evidence of similar proceedings outside Rome. It is usually
assumed that Nero issued a decree of condemnation against Christianity as a religion and that
it was on this basis that he punished the faithful. Tacitus wrote that the Christians were
convicted of “hatred of the human race,” not of arson.
Subsequent persecutions, however seem to rest on some sort of fundamental anti-
christian legislation. At any rate, Christianity from the time of Nero was treated as a
forbidden religion and profession of the Christian name was sufficient grounds for
persecution.

(ii) The second century: Antonian era

During the second century Rome was ruled by the “good” emperors under whom it
attained its peak of power and prosperity. These men of the Antonine family were the
capable, cultured rulers of the best type personally, yet their reigns sew no amelioration of the
status of the church. They did not instigate persecutions, but neither did they repeal Nero’s
prohibitory legislation. Rather they regulated the Neronian decree in such a way as to
encourage attacks by private citizens, consequently the harassment of Christians assumed

58
empire-wide albeit sporadic proportions during the years from emperor Trojan to Emperor
Commodus.
Correspondence between emperor Trojan (98-117) and the writer Pliny the younger
provides a clear exposition of the government’s attitude toward Christians under the
Antonines. Pliny had been sent out in A.D. 112 to govern Bithynia where there was sizable
concentration of Christians. Not knowing what to do with these Christians since he never
advocated large-scale execution and again he saw nothing objectionable in their lives beyond
their stubbornness in refusing to recant, the governor asked for advice from Rome.
Trajan’s rescript containing his instructions (1) acknowledged that the profession of
Christianity was a crime meriting death (2) bade pliny not to take the initiative in ferreting
out Christians but nevertheless to punish those whom private citizens publicly denounced, (3)
ordered him to release unharmed any accused who recanted or denied Christianity and proved
it by worshipping the emperor’s image. Thus modified, Nero’s decree remained in force.
Under these conditions persecution was intermittent throughout the second century.

During Trajan’s administration, Pope Clement, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Simeon
of Jerusalem were condemned. Emperor Hadrian (117-138) was less severe. He actually
removed abuses stemming from Trajan’s procedure by calling for “due process” in trials of
Christians and punishment for false accusers. Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) ruled
during the martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna, Pope Hyginus and Pius I.
Emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180), an eminent stoic philosopher, did not see fit to
moderate the attacks on Christians; the martyrs at Lyons in 177, St. Justin the Apologist, and
St. Cecelia in Rome are famous victims of his reign. Emperor Commodus (180-192), the
degenerate son of Marcus Aurelius, influenced by his Christian favorite Marcia and other
Christians at court, granted pardons to imprisoned Christians and relaxed the rigid application
of the law against them, without, however, abrogating it.

(iii) The third century: struggle for power

This was a time of crisis in the Roman empire. Weakness and signs of decay appeared
both in domestic life and in foreign relations. As the control of the Empire shifted into the
hands of provincials from Africa, Syria and the Balkans, the racial strains of the Roman
people, already much weakened, became further attenuated. The struggle for power brought
dozens of “barrack” emperors to the throne in quick succession.
Gradually the republican flavor of the principate changed into pure autocracy; “Lord
and god” became the accepted form of address for increasingly tyrannical and suspicious
emperors. All these developments had repercussions on the state’s attitude toward
Christianity. Persecutions however, remained intermittent and long periods of peace
intervened. Yet the later persecutions made up in bitterness what they lost in duration and
therefore were much more serious.

(iv) Emperor Septimius Severus(193-211)

This emperor continued for a while the toleration introduced by Commodus, but in
A.D. 201 he unexpectedly issued an edict forbidding conversions to Christianity. The decree
did not concern those already in the church, only converts and catechists. Among the victims
were Felicites and Perpetua from North Africa.
With septimius’ demise persecution ceased and peace reigned for twenty-four years.
But a dangerous precedent had been set by Septimius’ decree, and a new, more rational
approach to the attacks on Christianity is evident in the attempt to dry up the stream of
converts. Under the remaining Severi (emperors related to Septimius) Syncretism flourished
and toleration was the order of the day. Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235) honored

59
Christ along with pagan gods in his private chapel. His mother Julia Mamaea discussed
Christianity with Origen. At this time there is record of the church owning property and even
suing (and winning its case) in a Roman court of law.
The Severian truce collapsed with the accession of Maximin in 235. This emperor
issued orders to renew the persecution, hence reversing the policies of his predecessors.
According to Eusebius of Caesarea, whose work Ecclesiastical History is the chief Christian
source for the study of the persecutions, Maximin’s decree was directed only at clergy and
bishops. Pope Pontian was deported to the Sardinian Mines, but other important bishops went
into hiding. Peace was restored when Maximin died.

9.2.2. General Persecutions

Emperor Maximin’s action marked a portentous departure from the established

procedure, for he let the state take the initiative, not against converts only as Septimius had
but against fullpledged Christians, thereby superseding Trajan’s order that suits originate only
with private individuals. Thus the way was prepared for a change from sproradic, limited
attacks to a concerted aggression against Christians simultaneously throughout the empire,
having behind it the full power of the state. The first such general persecutions came with
emperor Decius (249-251).

(i) Decian Persecutions

Faced with the threatened total collapse of the empire, Decius undertook radical
measures of recovery, one of which was a total war on Christianity as a subversive element
weakening the internal stability of the state. In the year 250 he issued a general edict ordering
all inhabitants of the empire to perform public acts of worship to the gods of the state.
Certificates testifying to compliance had to be obtained from officials in every city. Those
who refused suffered death, although the magistrates first applied torture to induce obedience.
Pope Fabian and Origen were eminent victims, the former suffering execution and the
latter dying as a result of tortures. Some outstanding figures escaped, however, such as
Bishops Cyprian of Carthage and Dionysus of Alexandria the former by concealment and the
latter by being rescued from his captors by pagan Egyptian peasants. As state hostility waxed,
that of the people waned, for several sources indicate that the populace openly sympathized
with the victims.
There were also Christians who did not pass the test. These ones apostatized including
the Spanish Bishop Balilides of Leon and Bishop Martial of Merida. There were different
degrees of apostasy: some offered sacrifices, others merely burned abit of incense, and still
others bribed the magistrates to give them the necessary certificates without any act of
worship. Fortunately Decius soon had to concentrate his attention on the Gothic war. By the
end of 250 the persecution lessened and after Decius’ death Gallus soon allowed it to cease.

(ii) Emperor Valerian (257-261)

The rapid turnover of the third century emperors brought Valerian to the throne from
257 to 261, and with him a vigorous renewal of persecution. In 257 he produced an edict
commanding all Christian bishops, priests and deacons to sacrifice to pagan gods or suffer
exile, ordered the cessation of Christian worship, and closed Christian cemeteries which,
especially the catacombs in Rome, might in emergency be used for religious assemblies,
although they were not normally used for such purposes.
A second edict in 258 condemned the recalcitrant clergy to death and prescribed
degradation, exile, slavery, or death for the laity as well. The great Bishop Cyprian of

60
Carthage and Dionysius of Alexandria, Pope Sixtus and his deacon Lawrence, and many
other priests were martyred. Once again foreign wars saved the church. In 261 Valerian fell
prisoner to the Persians.

Recognizing the failure of attempts to exterminate the Christian church, the new emperor
Gallienus, not only ended persecution but also promulgated an edict of toleration. Places of
worship, cemeteries and property were restored. For the first time since its foundation,
Christianity enjoyed full freedom. On the whole the forty years from 261 to 302 were
peaceful and provided needed respite for the church before the final grand assault. Gallienus’
toleration, it should be noted, was dictated by no love for Christianity. He simply recognized
that force could not crush it. He was a syncretic acquainted with the anti-christian Neo-
Platonic circles and he anticipated the conquest of Christianity by these subtle forces rather
than by brutality.

(iii) Diocletian Persecutions

Diocletian (284-305) ranks with the greatest of the later Roman emperors. His
reorganization ensured two centuries more of life to the Empire. In a attempt to end the costly
succession disputes he divided the empire into four prefectures ruled by himself and
Maximian as Augusti, and Galerius and Constantius with the titles of Caesar.
Towards Christianity Dioclesian displayed no hostility for nineteen years. His wife
and daughter were catechumens if not actually Christians. His later hostile attitude towards
Christianity thought probably to have been the influence of his son-in-law and Caesar
Galerius who began a purge of Christians from his army in 302. An unfortunate incident at a
pagan ceremony attended by Diocletian and two mysterious fires in the imperial palace, all of
which were blamed on the Christians, provided the occasion for Diocletians’s bitter
persecution.
Four general edicts in 303 and 304 inaugurated the attack. The first ordered the
destruction of (1) churches, (2) Christian books, (3) dismissed Christians from all positions in
the imperial service, and (4) deprived them of all judicial rights. Two additional edicts soon
ordered the (1) arrest and (2) imprisonment of the clergy and commanded them to sacrifice to
the gods. Finally, the fourth decree in 304 ordered all citizens everywhere to sacrifice
publicly as proof of their paganism.
This persecution hit the church very hard. In Egypt the persecution fell with great
cruelty. The fortunate victims were executed or drowned quickly; hundreds of others, blinded
in one eye and crippled in one leg, were sentenced to penal servitude in the deadly mines. At
Rome, St. Agnes and Pope Marcellinus were martyred. Disastrous also was the wholesale
destruction of Christian books and records such as the library and archive of the Roman
bishops.
Dioclesian and Maximien abdicated in 305. Their successors in the West immediately
halted the persecution, but East of the Adriatic it raged on. Both Galerius and his ferocious
colleague Maximian Daia hated Christianity and applied the earlier edicts without mercy.
After five years, however, Galerius real author of the persecution, weakened. Political
problems and illness afflicted him so that he was forced to admit defeat. Shortly before his
death he proclaimed full liberty for Christians to believe and assemble freely, and he even
requested their prayers for himself.
Although Galerius act of toleration was intended to be as universal as Gallienus’ had
been in 260, Maximin Daia refused to heed it in his provinces – Asia, Syria and Egypt. He
established a hierarchy of pagan priests in imitation of christian clergy, with a high priest in
each city charged with offering daily sacrifice and restraining Christians from public and
private services. Efforts were made to incite the common people against the church. But Daia

61
was trying to stem an irresistible tide; within a year he too yielded and came to terms with
Licinius and Constantine admitting Christianity to the full freedom intended by Galerius.

(iv) Emperor Constantine and the Constantinian peace

Constantine was born around the year 285 at Naissus in Upper Dacia, part of the
Roman lands along the river Danube. His father was called Constantius or emperor
Constantius I Chlorus and his mother St. Helena. Constantine was given an excellent
education and served in the court of emperor Diocletian from around 293 when his father was
named Caesar (or junior emperor); he then took part in military campaigns against the
Persians and was a hostage to the suspicious other Junior emperor, Galerius, until 305 when
Constantius became Senior emperor.
In 306, Constantine journeyed to Britain to join his father, who died in July. The
troops in Britain hailed Constantine emperor, a development accepted by emperor Galerius,
although he would have agreed only to Constantine serving as junior emperor. That same
year, however, the system of imperial rule established by Diocletian – that of the tetrarchy,
comprising two senior and two junior emperors – fell apart with the usurpation of Maxentius,
son of emperor Maximian. There followed several years of civil and political struggle,
finding resolution in two phases. The first phase came in October 312 with the defeat of
Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the second phase in 324 when Constantine
crushed his fellow emperor Licinius Licinianus at Adrianople, making him sole master of the
Roman empire.

Constantine’s reign: concern for State’s unity

He brought about extensive reforms in the military, political, and economic life of the
empire that were to transform the Roman world and permit it to survive in the West for
another century and in the East for over a millennium. His government reforms were
characterized by a continuation of the process of centralization that had been started under
Diocletian. The central imperial administration grew more efficient, but its heightened
authority also represented and epitomized Constantine’s firm belief in the unity of the state
with society. This policy was clearly displayed with Christianity.

Caesaropapism
Constantine’s first important association with Christianity came just before the Battle
of the Milvian Bridge when he reputedly received the vision of the cross, placing the
Christian symbol on his standards and triumphing over Maxentius. He then agreed with
Licinius to cease the persecution of the Christian faith, working to secure a favored position
for the creed. As its foremost patron, he was able to make himself an active participant in its
affairs, starting the long-enduring imperial policy of Caesaropapism, by which rulers
involved themselves in the temporal and ecclesiastical concerns of the Christian church.
He influenced the council of Nicaea (325), even though he was not a baptized
Christian. He supported orthodoxy in doctrinal matters against the Arians and Donatists. He
however, banished some orthodox leaders such as St. Athanasius in 336 through the
instigation of the Arians whom Athanasius (bishop of Alexandria) opposed strongly.
Athanasius returned after the death of Emperor Constantine in 337.
Constantine constructed Great churches in Rome, and the major imperial city of
Constantinople (built by Constantine from 324-330) was a Christian center. While, according
to legend, Pope Sylvester baptized him in the Lateran, in fact, he received baptism from
Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia only a few days before his death, on May 22, 337.
As regards the edict of Milan, a decree issued around 313, the two emperors
Constantine of the West and Licinius Licinianus of East were the masterminds. This edict

62
effectively ended the persecution of Christianity within the Roman empire. It marked a new
era for the church and would lead to the eventual supremacy of Christian belief in the affairs
of the empire. While Constantine was actually the leading force behind the decree, it is worth
noting, however, that after the meeting of the two emperors at Milan early on 313, the famous
decree they formulated was not declared publicly nor was it really an edict. It was emperor
Licinus who in June 313, published the decree formally at Nicomedia.
The question of Constantine’s turning to Christianity, the fact, its course and its date
was and is hotly disputed among historians and this is partly due to the nature of the sources
capable of providing an answer. Constantine’s own historiographer, bishop Eusebius of
Caesarea, a friend of the emperor from 325 onwards, was profoundly convinced of his hero’s
providential mission and he views all the events of his life, which changed the complexion of
the age, in the light of this.
There is little in the sources about the childhood and youth of Constantine or of his
religious development at that period. Constantius and Helena, his parents, were certainly
pagans at the time of his birth in 285. His attachment to his mother was deep and lasting.
Through her son Helena made her way to Christianity; and when he became sole ruler,
Constantine was able to give her the position of first lady in the empire and she filled it to
perfection.
Eusebius characterized Constantius as an adherent of monotheism and so probably
viewed the emperor as a representative of the religious trend in the third century which gave
increasing predominance to the one divine being, the “Summus deus” which transcended all
other deities. The general atmosphere of Constantine’s father’s house was rather well-
disposed toward Christians and that is how Constantine found it when in 305 he went to his
father in the West after his flight from Nicomedia. When in 306 Constantine was elevated by
his father’s troops to the position of Augustus, he maintained his father’s religious policy, one
of far-reaching toleration toward his Christian subjects and of conscious independence of the
rulers in the East.
Of particular importance is the unmistakable tendency of the emperor Constantine’s
tendency to call on the moral and religious values of the Christian religion and the authority
of the Christian church leaders, for the benefit of the state. As a consequence, various features
of the public life of the age already received a Christian stamp. His attitude to paganism is in
principle tolerant, but in the law against augury the first limitations of its freedom of action is
seen. Constantine had a clearly defined aim, the restoration of the Christian church. But his
statesmanship never allowed him to persecute the adherents of paganism or force them to
become Christians; freedom of conscientious decision was guaranteed: “each must hold what
his heart bids him.”

The scope and the import of the Constantinian turning point

There is general agreement that the complete change is the relation between Christian
church and Roman state wrought by Constantine was an event of the first importance in the
history of the world. This closer relationship had not, as a matter of fact, the radically
revolutionary character that is sometimes attributed to it.
Pre-Constantinian Christendom had already sought a tolerable relation even toward
the pagan state because, as St. Paul had taught (Rom. 13:1-7), behind every secular power the
will of God was discerned. Religion and the state in late Antiquity were not known except as
related to one another in principle. It would have been revolutionary if the Roman emperor
and the state had made absolute neutrality in regard to all religious cults a lasting principle of
its policy and had thus been uninterested in any relations at all between the state and
religions. Consequently, it was a perfectly normal way of thinking for Christians of the time

63
to expect that under an emperor whose sincere conversion to their faith was not to be
doubted, Christianity would seem take the place of pagan worship.
The positive as well as negative possibilities that presented themselves to the
Christian church at the beginnings of Constantine’s period of sole rule may be summarized as
follows:-
a) The freedom granted to the church released strong forces that could be devoted to the
unhampered building-up of life within the church.
b) Law guaranteed freedom of worship and of preaching within the church.
c) New conditions were created for the worthy performance of the liturgy through the
possibility of reconstruction and the erection of new Christian places of worship, which were
very generously accorded by the state.
d) The religious care for the faithful in the various forms of catechetical instruction;
preaching and sacramental life was no longer subject to any restriction.
e) New and attractive tasks appeared for ecclesiastical writers in unhampered work in
pastoral and theological literature.
f) The missionary function of the church was likewise no longer impeded by any restrictions
and was able to develop in a particularly fruitful way, for freedom of conscience was
guaranteed in the profession of a religious faith.
g) It was now also possible for the church to undertake the enormous task of (1)
christianizing secular culture, (2) public life and (3) to develop and give a Christian stamp to
an interllectual life of her own. Here the church faced perhaps her most radical task of
adaptation.
Previously, she had lived consciously at a distance from the cultural world around her
and had withdrawn from the completely pagan public life into her own specific moral and
religious domain which was easier to preserve in her complete isolation. When this new
found freedom enticed her out of that isolated ghetto-like existence, it also exposed her to
greater risks, and it made her vulnerable to alien elements, which could adulterate her beliefs
and her morality. This imposed a heavy burden upon Christian leaders. Again, the influx of
vast numbers into the church for political and religious social reasons posed risks to her high
moral and religious standards.
Objectively, the most difficult task for the church was the discovery of the right
mental attitude to the new relation of church and state. The double danger present was not
consciously realized from the start. Even Eusebius was still quite unconcerned and full of
praise for Constantine when reporting that now “the bishops received imperial documents and
honors and subsidies.” It would have been a temptation for many bishops especially in the
East, after having been oppressed for so long, to sun themselves in the imperial favor and so
lose their freedom.
More dangerous was the tendency, deriving from the emperor’s view, not to consider
the church as a partner “sui generis,” but to make her serviceable to the interests of the state
and so to stifle her independence and necessary freedom in the realm of internal church
affairs. Only the bitter experiences under Emperor Constantius could give the episcopate
some idea of how exceedingly difficult it could be to achieve a healthy, fruitful equilibrium in
the mutual relations between a state under Christian leadership and the Catholic Church.
Nevertheless, the ultimate triumph of Christianity is bound up with the name of
emperor Constantine the Great (306-337). From his father Constantius, one of the original
tetrarchs, Constantine inherited not only jurisdiction over Gaul and Britain but also the
former’s tolerant disposition toward the followers of Christ, an attitude based on the family’s
syncretistic and monotheistic tendencies.
According to a contemporary account, some time before the battle Constantine saw in
bright daylight a cross in the sky with the Greek words, “Conquer by this.” A second story

64
speaks only of a vision during sleep representing the Chi Rho Insignia for the name of Christ.
Encouraged by these marvels, Constantine hastily marked the shields of his troops with the
monogram, won his victory and professed belief in Christ. The outcome of the battle
contributed to the emancipation of Christianity. Immediately Constantine ordered the
restoration of Christian property, freed the clergy from certain civil obligations, and took
steps against Donatist heretics in Africa.
Early in 313 Constantine met his colleague Licinius at Milan for discussions on
imperial affairs and on the state of Christianity. When Licinius returned to the East, he
defeated Maximin Daia, thereby definitely terminating the latter’s persecution. From
Nicomedia in 313 Licinius himself a pagan, then issued the decree known as the edict of
Milan embodying the substance of his agreement with Constantine concerning freedom for
the Christians.

9.2.3. The Edict of Milan (313)

It granted toleration and positive encouragement as a civic virtue to everyone,

especially Christians, to practice whatever religion he desired. It provided for the return to the
church and to individual Christian of property confiscated from them, with the state treasury
in some cases compensating illegal possessions. It is worded in such vague phrases that it
does not clearly reveal the religious preferences of its authors.
Constantine never received instructions as a catechumen, accepted baptism only on
his deathbed, retained his ex officio title of Pontifex Maximus in the Roman state cults and
indicated on occasion that Christian morality meant little to him. He always instisted on legal
equality of all religions and at first made no attempts to suppress paganism.

Although some historians insist that Constantine’s acceptance of Christianity was

motivated solely by political expediency or a general policy of religious syncretism, his
active share in ecclesiastical affairs like the Nicene Council (325), his construction of a new
Christian capital for the empire at Constantinople, his generosity – he gave the Pope the
Lateran palace and aided in building the Lateran Basilica and the original St. Peter’s in Rome
– and the decided Christian flavor of his enactment indicate where his personal preference
lay.
In 313 no more than ten per cent of the empire’s population professed Christianity.
The Edict of Milan prescribed toleration for Christianity but scarcely equality, for paganism
continued as the established religion. Licinius’ brief departure from his policy ended with his
defeat in 324. To the end Constantine himself made no further adjustment in the relative
position of Christianity and paganism. But with his sons began a general trend toward
suppression of paganism, even though their own Christianity was sometimes of the heretical
Arian type.

(v) Emperor Julian (361-363)

Julian was not a real Christian and therefore does not deserve the name “Apostate”
which history has attributed to him. When he assumed the throne he instituted a reaction
against the progressive christianization of the empire. On the one hand he placed obstacles in
the way of the church: anti-christian riots went unpunished; all schools and the teaching
profession were closed to Christians; imperial service was restricted to pagans. On the
positive side, Julian aimed to rejuvenate paganism along lines suggested by Maximin Daia in
311, that is, by purifying the state cults, instituting a hierarchy of priests dedicated to
preaching and austerity, and fashioning a pagan creed.

65
The Proscription of Paganism
It was emperor Gratian (375-383, of the West) who finally ended the alliance of
Roman paganism with the state by renouncing the title of Pontifex Maximus and revoking the
revenues allotted to the priestly colleges and vestal virgins. Absolute equality now existed,
but without governmental support paganism faded rapidly. Theodosius I (379-395 made
emperor of the East by Gratian ) legislated vigorously against paganism. In 391 he forbade
pagan ceremonies in Rome and Egypt. The next year a comprehensive edict issued from
Constantinople banned all sacrifices, public and private, and even devotions to the household
deities. Orthodox Christianity became the official state religion.
In short, the most lasting result of the persecutions was the tradition of heroic
fortitude of the early Christians which, magnified, perhaps, by distance and encouraged by
the cult of relics and the memory of the saints, has ever since served as an example for the
faithful of later centuries to guide them through adversities of their own.

10.0. THE PRIMACY OF ROME

10.1. Rome

The head of this see came to be known as the head of the church universal, patriarch of the
west and metropolitan of Italy. Each of these titles indicated a particular aspect of his
jurisdiction. The word “pope,” a title of respect applied to any important bishop and even to
priests in Asia, first appears in the sources in reference to the Roman bishop in a decree of a
Spanish council at Toledo in the year 400.
As metropolitan, Rome’s jurisdiction extended originally over all Italy, but after 378
Milan acquired primatial rights in the north, and so soon did Aquileia and Ravenna, Below
Tuscany, however, Rome’s control remained complete, the sovereign pontiff consecrated all
bishops of his province, guided their administration, deposed them if necessary, and
summoned them to annual synods at Rome.
The honorary rank as first bishopric of Christendom was universally accorded to
Rome in ancient times. The third Canon of Constantinople unmistakably reflects the
sentiments of the eastern prelates. Occasionally the Roman position suffered temporary
eclipse, as when Milan under St. Ambrose overshadowed Rome in the last quarter of the
fourth century. Yet the prestige of Milan and of other sees in similar circumstances derived
from the illustrious personality of their bishop, while at Rome the pre-eminence of the see
clothed even weak incumbents with its own greater authority. This jurisdiction was not
impaired by difficulties the popes encountered in Rome itself. Pope Damasus (366-384),
accused of murder, opposed by antipope Ursinus, defied by heretical sects, could scarcely
control his own see, yet he was an outstanding pontiff. Zozimius (417-418) had a talent for
making mistakes, but no one denied the prerogatives of his see for that reason.
More fundamental to the papal position was its jurisdictional authority, as distinct
from its honorary position; the right to speak with finality on doctrinal questions and to
decide disciplinary matters as a court of last appeal. The fourth century witnessed numerous
examples of the acknowledgement and exercise of this power in the west. The first juridical
recognition was the formula of the council of Sardica (343 or 344) that appeals might be
taken from any province to the Apostolic see. Priscillian, a Spanish bishop, turned to Rome
for judgement when accused of heresy, Pope Siricius in 385 issued the first decretals
(authoritative letters) in response to inquiries of bishop Himerus of Tarragona. Pope Innocent
I ‘s letters (409-417) commanded that customs accepted by the Roman Church should be
given precedence over local usage elsewhere. St. Augustine’s statement, “the case is
finished,” after Innocent had spoken on the pelegian question, indicated Africa’s position.

66
 Candid admission of papal prerogatives of jurisdiction was not so willingly granted by
the eastern sees. Petty jealousies, ambition, and political considerations accentuated the desire
for autonomy of the oriental bishops. With the fifth century the popes took a decidedly firmer
stand and instances of eastern recognition of Rome’s prerogatives became more frequent.
Even the bishop of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom, appealed to the pope in 404 when
the emperor (Empress Eudoxia) and the bishop of Alexandria (Theophilus) unjustly deposed
him. Pope Innocent I excommunicated John’s enemies and compelled them to submit. This is
particularly significant case since it brought about acknowledgement of the papal primacy by
all three eastern patriarchs.

10.2. St. Peter and the Church in Rome

We know much about Paul because of the survival of his epistles and also because of
the prominent place assigned to him by St. Luke his friend in the Acts. Actually our
knowledge of the apostle of the Gentiles is much fuller than of the any other apostles.
Nevertheless, the part played by Peter in the original development of the Christian
community was of capital importance.
Peter was always spokesman for the rest in whatever crises occurred – at Pentecost, in
the evangelization of Jerusalem, the conversion of Cornelius, and the apostolic council. From
the middle of the century Peter’s movements become obscure.
He is mentioned at Antioch and Corinth. His first epistle, written to the Christians of Asia
Minor, indicates that he visited those parts. But by far the most outstanding fact of his
missionary career is his work at Rome.
The surviving sources do not tell us who were the first Christians in Rome and when
they appeared there. Nevertheless, it has been plausibly suggested that the earliest Roman
Christians were among those who heard Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and who returned to
their home after being baptized to found the Christian community in the empire’s capital.
Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome about A.D. 49; among these were two
Christians whom Paul met at Corinth.
Concerning Peter at Rome, two facts are established indisputably: he was there and he
was martyred there under Nero. When he arrived, how long he sojourned there, and what he
did is unknown.
The tradition of the 25-year episcopate is unreliable, albeit possible. Valid evidence
substantiating these facts is found in Peter’s first epistle, dated from Babylon, (1 Pt. 5:13)
which is interpreted to mean “modern” sinful city i.e. Rome.
Peter’s martyrdom was always associated with Paul’s, and there is no doubt that the latter
died at Rome.
Between 90 A.D. and 110 St. Clement of Rome, Peter’s third successor, St. Ignatius
of Antioch both clearly imply Peter’s presence in Rome (Jedin pg. 29).
St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Dionysius of Corinth, Cyprian, Origen, Tetullian and others confirm the
tradition in the second and later centuries.
Archaeological evidence affords additional confirmation. The excavations conducted
under the church of St. Peter’s in Rome since World War II have yielded, in the words of
Pope Pius XII, “Incontestable archaeological evidence” of Peter’s burial in the place.

10.3. Peter’s Role

67
 Among those holding the office of apostle, Peter displayed an activity which shows
that he, in this turn, occupied a leading place among the Twelve, which could have been
given him only by a higher authority.
Peter conducts the election to the college of apostles. He composes the prayer recited
on that occasion and he is the spokesman on the discipline at the first Pentecost (Acts 2:15ff).
He preaches after the healing of the man born lame (Acts 3:1)
He is again the spokesman of the apostles before the scribes and elders (Acts 4:8), as well as
before the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:20). He appears with judicial authority in the episodes of
Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3) and with Simon Magus (Acts 8:19).
His visits to the “Saints” outside Jerusalem have the character of a visitation (Acts
9:32). His decision to admit pagan Cornelius to baptism was of great significance for the
future, because it authoritatively proclaimed that the Gospel was not addressed exclusively to
“those of the circumcision” but also to the Gentiles and thus had a universal character.
This step did indeed lead to a dispute with some of the Jewish Christians but by that
very fact it shows Peter to have been the responsible leader of the primitive church.
St. Paul confirms the position of Peter, when he says that after his Damascus flight he went to
Jerusalem “to visit Cephas” (Gal. 1:18), obviously Paul’s recognition by the community
depended on Peter.
Peter’s whole work in the primitive church up to the time when he finally left
Jerusalem to engage actively in the mission to the Gentiles can be rightly understood only if
one regards it as the fulfilment of the task given to him by his master, of which not only
Matthew but also Luke and John tell us when they write that Peter was called by the Lord to
strengthen the brethren and to feed Christ’s flock.

10.4. The other Apostles

As regards other apostles, very little can be said about them. James the Greater,
brother to John the Evangelist suffered martyrdom under King Agrippa. He seems never to
have left Judea at all. James the less “the brother of the Lord” held an eminent position in the
church at Jerusalem. He is considered Jerusalem’s first bishop although as long as Peter
remained in Judea Peter overshadowed his colleague.
John the Evangelist lived until about A.D. 100. He attended the council, but he
dropped from sight therefore, not to reappear until year later in Asia Minor where he
composed the fourth Gospel, the apocalypse, and the Johnine epistles. During Domitian’s
persecution John was brought to Rome and then exiled to the island of Patmos-Ephesus
provided the refuge where he died.
Of the other apostles the Gospels and epistles reveal nothing. At the end of the next
century various apocryphal legends came into being to fill this gap. These accounts must be
treated with caution; while not historical, they are not to be carelessly dismissed.
Agrippa’s persecution in A.D. 42 marked the dispersal of the twelve. Tradition allots
Scythia to Andrew, Ethiopia to Matthew, Phrigia to Philip, Edessa to Thaddeus.
It cannot be proved that Bartholomew and Thomas labored in Persia or India, the Generic
Roman designation for the area Southwest of the Empire’s borders.
St. Mark is said to have labored in Alexandria in Egypt after mid-century

11. 0. CHURCH COUNCILS

They are formal assemblies of cardinals, bishops, theologians and heads of religious
orders as well as other Church representatives who have been convened to examine or discuss

68
matters of religious or doctrinal importance or to formulate regulations on Church teaching or
discipline. Councils have varied throughout history in size and importance. For example there
are so-called local councils that bring together the religious leadership of a region – province
or patriarchate – that have only limited authority, with jurisdiction extending to clearly
defined boundaries. The most important councils are the general, or ecumenical, councils of
the Church, bringing together the bishops and representatives from the entire world.
These ecumenical councils act with the highest of all possible authority and thus must
be summoned by the pope and its acts approved by him. There have been twenty-one general
councils in history; the last was Vatican Council II (1962-1965). By custom, the first council
was described in Acts (15:6) when “The apostles and the elders were gathered together” at
Jerusalem, hence the Jerusalem Council of 49 AD.
However, the enumeration of the twenty-one ecumenical (or general) councils begins
with; 1. the Council of Nicaea ( 325) convoked by Emperor Constantine to condemn and
depose the priest known as Arius; it proclaimed that the Word is consubstantial with the
Father, and drew up a formulary of faith which became the “Nicean Creed”.2.
Constantinople I (381) convoked by Emperor Theodosius I (Pope Damasus was not invited)
and gathered together only Oriental bishops; it condemned the “Macedonians”, those who
denied the divinity and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit; but did not draw up any dogmatic
formulary 3. Ephesus (431) convoked by Emperor Theodosius II and presided over by St.
Cyril acting as the delegate of pope Celestine I; it condemned and deposed Nestorius who
denied that Mary was the Mother of God (Theotokos); it did not draw up any dogmatic
formulary but approved the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius. 4. Chalcedon (451)
convoked by emperor Marcion and approved by St. Leo; it condemned and defined the
existence of two natures in Christ, devine and human.
5. Constantinople II (553) convoked by emperor Justinian, despite the opposition of
pope Vigilius, and condemned the Three Chapters, the writings of Theodore of Mopsuesta,
Theodoret and Ibas, who were suspected of Nestorianism. 6. Constantinople III (680)
Condemned Monothelitism and defined the existence of two wills in Christ; it was approved
popes Agatho and Leo II. 7. Nicaea II (787) defined the legitimacy of the veneration of
images against the iconoclasts. 8. Constantinople IV (869-870) deposed Photius 9. Lateran I
(1123) was the first ecumenical council of the West and was concerned with the investiture
problem. 10. Lateran II (1139) on Simony, usury and clerical continence.
11. Lateran III (1179), condemned the Catharists( in a French town of Albi, hence the
Albigensians or Catharists), a group in southern France with dualistic tendency of belief in
two supreme principles in conflict and the world being the battle field, one representing the
good and the other one representing evil. 12. Lateran IV (1215) under pope Innocent III, the
greatest council of the Middle Ages, condemned the Albigensians and regulated important
disciplinary questions (sacraments, marriage, organization of preaching). 13. Lyons I (1245)
against Frederick II. 14. Lyons II (1274) was convoked by Gregory X, with the participation
of Michael Paleologus, and attempted reunion with the Greeks. 15. Vienne (1311-1312),
under Clement V, condemned the Templars.
16. Constance 1414-1418, convoked by the antipope John XXIII at the insistence of
Emperor Sigismund. The main purpose of the council was to bring about a solution to the
division of the papacy into three camps, representing three papal claimants; Antipope John
XXIII in Pisa, Antipope Benedict XIII in Avignon and Pope Gregory XII in Rome. It ended
the Great Schism that had divided the Church since 1378. It also tried,convicted and executed
Jan Hus for heresy, condemned John Wycliffe. 17. Ferrara-Florence (1431-1445) under pope
Eugene IV, it tried again for reunion with the Greeks and issued some important dogmatic
documents (Decrees for the Jacobites and the Armenians), although thier authority is not

69
absolute. 18. Lateran V (1512-1517) under popes Julius II and Leo X, worked for the reform
of the clergy.

11.1. The Council of Trent (1545-1563)

convoked by pope Paul III, and continued with interruptions and movements from place to
place; it produced a considerable amount of work in opposition to the Protestant Reform and
issued important dogmatic decress on original sin, justification, the sacraments, etc. The work
of Trent has dominated all the thought, spirituality and life of the Church since the sixteenth
century. 20. Vatican I (1869-1870), convoked by Pius IX. It produced two dogmatic
definitions: the Constitution Dei Filius on faith and reason and the Constitution Pater
Aetrenus on Papal infallibility.

11.2. The Council of Vatican II (1962-1965)

convoked by pope John XXIII. One of the most important councils in the history of the
Church. It addressed the challenges confronting the faith in the radically changed world
following the global conflict of World War II. It issued sixteen documents; that is, four
constitutions (two dogmatic[on the Church Lumen Gentium and on divine Revelation Dei
Verbum] and two pastoral[ on sacred liturgy Sacrosanctum concilium and on the Church in
the modern World Gaudium et Spes], which were the heart of the reforms); nine decrees( on
instruments of social communication, on Ecumenism, on priestly formation, on apostolate of
the laity, etc) and three declarations.(on Christian education, on relationship of the church to
Non-Christian Religions and on Religious freedom).

22.The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea

After defeating Licinius at Adrinople in 324, Constantine began to move the seat of
government at Byzantium, renamed Constantinople. It was from this position that he was able
to gain first-hand knowledge of the theological questions, which threatened to divide the
church.
The immediate problem originated in Alexandria where a priest named Arius claimed
that the Son was a creature, and, therefore not God, as the Father is God. His bishop,
Alexander, condemned him, who then went to Caesarea where Bishop Eusebius befriended
him. This division within the church was precisely the situation Constantine wanted to avoid.
The emperor tried to silence both parties created by Arius and then to arbitrate
between them but it failed. So he had to summon a general council, inviting the bishops to
assemble promptly at Nicaea. This was to be the first formal meeting of the bishops,
representing the whole church, convened for the purpose of formulating doctrine.
In opening the council in 325, Constantine left the bishops, possibly as many as three
hundred and mostly from Asia Minor, in no doubt that their task was to reach unanimity in
their theological formulation. Apart from four bishops, the rest were from the East. The four
came from Carthage, Calabria, Die and Cordoba. Two Roman priests also came but as
delegates for the aged Pope Sylvester. The council had Hosius, bishop of Cordoba as the
president.

The Nicene Creed

70
 Arius presented the immediate problem as stated above. Twenty-two bishops
tentatively defended him, but readings from “Thalia” convinced the assembly of Arius’
heresy and his condemnation was unanimously voted. The council Fathers quickly
recognized that condemning Arius was a simple matter, but agreeing to a formula, which
would satisfactorily state the truth of the relationship between the Father and the Son, was
less easy. To provide a standard of the true faith it was proposed to formulate a statement of
the traditional doctrine.
From the discussions emerged the brief original Nicene Creed proclaiming that the
Son of God is “of the same substance of the Father ……true God from true God, begotten
not made, Consubstantial with the Father.” Only two bishops refused to subscribe to it and
together with Arius they were exiled. However, as soon as Constantine’s influence was
removed three other bishops including Eusebius of Nicomedia retracted their signatures.
Constantine exiled them at once, but uneasiness remained.
Though the bishops had given their assent to the Creed of Nicaea, it became clear
later that they had not understood clearly the formula. Although the West and Egypt found
the Creed acceptable, many Greeks without accepting Arius, did not. The key word
“Consubstantial” (in Latin – Consubstantialis, in Greek Homoousion) was perfectly clear in
Latin but slightly ambiguous in the Greek translation.
Actually, a half century earlier the East had condemned as a heretic, Paul of Samosata
who had employed this very word “homoousion,” which to the Greeks smacked of the
modalist heresy of Sabellius: a denial of the real distinction between Father and Son. That the
danger was more than imaginary is proved by the career of Marcellus of Ancyra, one of the
ardent pro-nicene bishops, who was eventually unmasked as a Sabellian. Nevertheless a
seeming inability of Greeks and Latins to comprehend each other’s difficulties obstructed a
peaceful solution to the problems raised by Arius.
While Constantine lived, the Nicene Creed held firm, for none dared challenge what
the emperor considered a personal achievement. But if the Eusebians could not attack the
Creed, they could strike down its staunchest defenders. Of the numerous characters involved
in the long Arian controversy, none attained such heroic proportions as St. Athanasius, bishop
of Alexandria from 328 to 373. The Eusebian bishops at Tyre in 335 condemned Athanasius
and exonerated Arius.
When Athanasius appealed to Constantine, his enemies charged him with blocking the
normal food exports from Egypt to Constantinople, whereupon Constantine exiled him to
Gaul. The Eusebians were on the point of installing Arius as bishop of Constantinople when
he died in 336. The next year, 337 Constantine died.
After preliminary skirmishing, Constans, an orthodox Catholic, gained the West (337-
350) while Constantius II a convinced Arian acquired the East (337-361). Athanasius was
allowed by Constantius in 337 to return to Alexandria, but the Eusebians rallied and appealed
to Rome against him but it failed after a canonical investigation was made at the order of
Pope Julius (337-352).
Things worsened when Constantius II became sole ruler in 350. Through threat of
force combined with shrewd deceit he brought the desired signatures to resolutions
denouncing Athanasius. Pope Liberius (353-366) resisted Constantius to his face in a famous
interview where the emperor asserted, “My will is the Canon Law in this matter.”
Constantius exiled Pope Liberius and promoted Felix II as antipope, but two years
later, in 357, Liberius succumbed, accepted the condemnation of Athanasius, and signed a
vague substitute for the Nicene Creed. Here and there voices were heard against Arianism,
but the cause of orthodoxy had reached its lowest ebb. Even Germanic barbarians beyond the
empire’s frontier received Arianism from zealous missionaries such as bishop Ulfilas. All the
important sees of Christendom were occupied by heretics or compromised Catholics.

71
 In the hour of triumph, between 350 and 361, the Arians, however, discovered their
own disunity. Three factions now struggled for control. Anomeans, Homoiousians and
Homoians. Anomeans insisted the Son is unlike the Father, Homoiousians said the Son is
similar to the Father but not of the same substance, while Homoians declared that the Son is
similar to the Father but not in substance or in person. Chaos reigned throughout the Eastern
Church.

Anomeans were led by George in Alexandria and Eudoxius in Antioch. The Homoians were
satisfied with the statement “according to the scripture there is a similarity between the Father
and the Son.” The Homoiousians who were semi-Arians used the term Homoiousios, which
avoided the idea of Consubstantiality but stressed the likeness between Father and Son. This
third group was the one which initially entered negotiations with the orthodox party, which
eventually paved the way for unity.
The death of Constantius in 361 left Arians bereft of their greatest champion and
opened the way for the re-emergence of orthodoxy. At no time were theological principles
the decisive factor in the overwhelming strength of Arianism. It flourished when supported
by the state; it died when that support was removed.
Valens (364-378) was the last Arian emperor. When Theodosius I (379-395) came on
the scene, Arianism was doomed. This was the same emperor who made Christianity the state
religion of the empire, and he determined to establish standard of orthodoxy. Three edicts in
380 and 381 enjoined on all his subjects acceptance of the Nicene Creed and also deprived
Arians of the right to hold churches and to ordain bishops.
When Athanasius returned again to his see he held a council at Alexandria (362),
which helped to facilitate the eventual reconciliation between the semi-Arians and the pro-
Nicene party, despite the activities of the Eastern emperor Valens (364-378) who was a strict
Arian. In the West the emperor Valentinian was favorable towards the Nicene position and
with the help of Damasus, bishop of Rome from 366 to 384, orthodoxy flourished.
In 373 Athanasius died having survived several periods of exile and half a century of
hardships. With his death the leadership of the Nicene party in the East passed to the
Cappadocian Fathers, Basil of Caesarea (d. 379), his brother Gregory of Nyssa (d.394) and
Gregory Nazianzus (d.390). Together they prepared the ground for the final victory of
orthodox Nicene theology under the emperor Theodosius the Great at the Council of
Constantinople.

This council, which met from may to July of 381 with about 150 bishops present,
reaffirmed the decisions of Nicaea, and added the following carefully worded statement about
the Holy Spirit; “and (we believe) in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who
spoke by the prophets.”
It also condemned other heresies and added various disciplinary canons. The Roman
church, at a synod in 382 presided over by Damasus, added its agreement to the Creed and in
so doing effectively ended the Arian attempt to take over the church. Arianism did gain a
foothold among some of the Germanic tribes, but the conversion of the franks at the end of
the fifth century signaled its death-knell.
Arianism was not the only heresy dealt with at Constantinople, Canon I had
condemned as heretical the theology of Appolinarius (310-395) who taught that in Christ the
human spirit had been replaced by the divine logos, thus questioning the full humanity of
Christ.
When the council at Constantinople was held in 381, the 36 intransigent Arian
bishops were refused admittance. The addition in the Nicene Creed related to the Holy Spirit

72
was a move in refutation of the Macedonians or Pneumatomachi who, carrying Arianism a
step further, had lately denied the divinity of the third person of the Trinity. This gave the
church the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed still used, with a slight later addition in the
Mass.
The other point to be noted in relation to the council of Nicaea, is that the bishops
fixed also the date of Easter. The legislation about the date of Easter came about as a reaction
against a schismatic Egyptian bishop Melitius. They thus decreed that Easter be celebrated
everywhere on the same Sunday, and promulgated 20 Canons on disciplinary matters.

12.0. THE RISE OF MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY

12.1. Breaking up with the Roman Empire

In order for the medieval world to begin, the papcy had to break definitively and
formally with what remained of the Roman Empire – that is, with the Emperors who ruled
from constantinople, and with their claims to the territory of the old western Empire, which
had come to an end in 476. After the year 600, the Empire of the East became more and more
occupied with its own problems. Slavic, Bulgar, and Avar tribes were poised on the borders,
and were making tentative forays into the Empire. In about 605 the Persians began to move
against the Empire, and they had conquered Egypt by 619. They were not finally defeated
until 627, outside the ancient city of Nineveh. But no sooner were the Persians beaten than a
more formidable threat appeared, that of Islam.
By the time the tenth century dawned, Europe was almost precisely at the mid-point
of its darkest age. The tide of civilization had receded and was now at low ebb. The Empire
of Emperor Charles the Great (Charlemagne) lay in ruins and there was no central civil or
religious authority to unite the peoples of the continent. The cities had declined and the
overwhelming majority of the population dwelt in the rural areas, where they lived in
grinding poverty. Most of the land belonged to members of the nobility, who were little better
than robber barons.
The faith of most people during this epoch seems to have been more superficial than
at other periods of history. This was because many were baptized en masse at the time of the
great “conversions”. Neither their faith nor the faith of their descendants had ever been
deepened to any significant degree, because the Carolingian renaissance had lasted for all too
short a time. The clergy, who should have been devoting themselves to this task, were often
ignorant and incompetent. Most priests picked up what little training they received from those
who had been priests before them in the village – often their biological fathers, since the law
of celibacy was frequently not observed. These priests received part of their support from
fees charged for the administration of the sacraments, and this opened the way to multiple
abuses. Higher offices in the Church had huge benefices attached to them and this led to the
practice of simony – the buying and selling of Church offices.

12.2. Spiritual renewal

The founding of the monastery at Cluny( in 909) in the province of burgundy in

France saw the foundation for reform laid in Europe’s darkest hour. Its goal was the revival
of the monastic spirit of Benedict of Nursia. This monastery was one of the two sources of a
spiritual renewal which revitalized church life in less than one hundred and fifty years: and

73
this same monastery, Cluny, was a major factor in the creation of the High Middle Ages,
which ran from shortly after 1150 almost to the end of the thirteenth century.
By the middle of the eleventh century, more than two thousand communities belonged
to Cluny’s monastic reform movement. The Abbot of Cluny was something like a religious
superior over monks who lived in France, Spain, Italy, and England. Other monasteries which
did not actually associate themselves with Cluny were nevertheless influenced by its
example, so that monastic life throughout Western Europe experienced a profound and
lasting reform.
The other source the spiritual renewal was the East Frankish Kingdom. This
Kingdom included most of the German speaking areas that had belonged to Charlemagne’s
empire and which had now come into the hands of a family of strong and talented rulers.
Charles the Great (or Charlemagne as the Englishmen called him), son of Pippin had
received anointing at Rheims in 751 when he was only twelve years old. He became king of
the Franks in 768 and ruled until his death in 814. It was during his reign that the turning of
the papacy and the Church to the Franks and their kingdom became definitive. The threats
from the Lombards brought the papacy and the Franks together, for the Lombards were
moving towards Italy in readiness for attack forcing the Pope to turn to the Franks for
military help and Charlemagne came to his assistance and in 774 he defeated the Lombards.
After this victory Charles himself assumed control in northern Italy and repeated and
extended Pippin’s gift of much of the center and the south to the Pope. Charles (Karl) the
Great was a gifted military leader and he conquered much of central Europe in the name of
the Church and the Frankish Kingdom. He subdued the Saxons who lived mainly in the north
German plain and in 777, after an impressive victory, he ordered the defeated Saxons to
become Christians. The conversion of the Saxons was effected with a degree of brutality
unusual even in that brutal age. And yet, once converted, the Saxons became remarkably
effective defenders of the Christian faith with monasteries mashrooming in all the Saxon
lands.
Just as important as Charlemagne’s political and religious unification of Europe was
his dedication to culture, which led to the founding of schools in connection with the
monasteries and the larger urban churches. It was these schools which preserved much of the
literary patrimony of Rome for the medieval world. The city of Aachen, in Germany, was the
working capital of the Frankish Empire from about 790, and it was there that Charlemagne
founded what could be called a “court academy” – a gathering of the best scholars of Europe
and of the British Isles. Alcuin, the Anglo-Saxon Monk, presided over the academ, and
Charlemagne himself enjoyed taking part in the discussions.
Charlemagne modeled the Frankish liturgy closely on that of Rome and he insisted
on the reform of religious and clerical life according to Roman directives. As a result of this
policy, even when the appalling decline of the church and the Empire set in less than a
century after his death, the Frankish Church remained strong, eventually producing a
monastery (Cluny) which gave spiritual impetus for the restoration of papal power at the end
of the eleventh century. Charlemagne had no conception of what we refer to today as the
separation of church and state. He took the sacral or religious side of his royal office very
seriously, and joined it to the Old Testament idea of the King as the anointed son of God. He
expected the bishops in his Empire to render political service when called upon to do so, and
he did not hesitate to intervene directly in the affairs of the church. He regarded his military
ventures as holy wars, waged for the benefit of both the Frankish Kingdom and the church.
There is no doubt that the medieval phenomenon of the Crusade was derived largely from
Chalemagne’s concept of the holy war, directed against those who were outside the faith.
The family of strong and talented rulers of the Franks who came long after
Chalemagne’s death created, almost by accident, one of the institutions that gave medieval

74
Europe its distinctive stamp. Having failed to get able leaders from the secular world, even
from his own relatives, when he rose to power as the King of the East Franks in 936, Otto
decided to try something new. He turned to the bishops who headed the dioceses in his
kingdom and made them civil officials who were endowed with all of the privileges of office.
The move was brilliant for a number of reasons. Firsts, since bishops had no
(legitimate) heirs, there was was no danger that they would become the founders of princely
houses which would later threaten the monarchy. Second, although the bishops were hardly
learned men, they were among the best trained and talented that one could find during this
period of general decline and decay. These prince bishops served Otto well, and during the
following centuries they were firm in their support of the Empire. One great challenge for the
Christian faith was that Bishops who are servants of the state are not in a position to maintain
that distance from worldly power and secular authority which the prophetic side of the
Christian vocation demands. In the years after Otto’s restoration of the Holy Roman Empire
in 962, the state and the church entered into a kind of symbiosis which had within it the seed
of bitter conflict.the conflict which resulted ultimately led to the dissolution of the
specifically medieval unity and paved the way for the break-up of both the Church and the
Empire which was the signature of the Reformation period in the sixteenth century.
Otto was crowned Emperor in 962, and for the remaining eleven years of his life he
dedicated himself and his Empire to the reform and restoration of the Church. He aasumed
responsibility for the papacy itself, and in 963 he began a tradition which lasted for almost a
thousand years: from that time on, no pope could be elected without the consent of the
Emperor.
Apart from Cluny and the East Franks, the renewal of religious life in the thirteenth
century owes very much to two other religious orders which were founded in the early
years of that century. The first was the work of an Italian named Francis, who had been
born in Assisi in Italy in 1181. When Francis was about twenty-five, he had a religious
experience which led him to embrace the ideal of absolute poverty for the sake of Christ.
Francis’ way of life proved very attractive to many people in his age, and by the year 1210 he
had a number of followers who traveled with him through the countryside, preaching of the
joy to be found in being poor for Christ. He founded the Francisacan Order which outgrew
him, becoming the order of the great popular missionaries of the medieval period and the
great foreign missionaries of the age of discovery in the sixteenth century. He received papal
approval of his order in 1210. The Franciscan ideal of poverty was the perfect answer to the
obsession with money and property which had led to so much corruption in the Church
during the two centuries preceding Francis’ time. He died in 1226.
The second was the work of a Spaniard named Dominic. Dominic from Spain
founded the second of the two great medieval orders which embraced the life of poverty – the
Dominicans. Dominic was a priest and had served as a cathedral canon, but on a trip to
southern France he was deeply impressed by the spiritual need of the people of the region and
he conceived the ideal of winning the Catharists back to the faith. Like the Franciscans,
Dominic’s men were dedicated to poverty and to preaching, but unlike Francis, Dominic was
convinced that solid intellectual training, particularly in theology, was an absolute necessary.
Like Francis, he went to Rome to request papal approval for his order and he received it in
the year 1216. Of all the orders of this period of Church history, it was the Dominicans who
did the most for the intellectual life of the Church; from their ranks came Albert the Great,
andhis even more brilliant pupil, Thomas Aquinas, whose Summary of Theology is one of the
most profound theological ( and philosophical) works ever written.

12.3. The Inquisition

75
 In 1209 pope Innocent III called for a crusade against the Albigenses (Catharists) to
crush a despicable heresy. The development saw the formation of an Institution known as the
Inquisition. The Inquisition was a bureau or commission which had branches in most of the
larger dioceses in Spain, France, and Italy, and which was empowered to call on the civil
authoroties to help them detect heretical movements. Once heretics had been detected, the
Church authorities conducted a kind of judicial process to determine the guilt of the accused;
the peculiarity of the process was that guilt was assumed and the burden of proving
innocence rested on the accused parties. When it was determined that the accused party was
guilty, he was thenhanded over to the civil authorities for appropriate punishment. This whole
process led to appalling suffering,particularly after Pope Innocent IV, in the year 1252,
authorized the inquisitors to secure confessions by the use of torture.
The inquisition is beyond doubt the greatest scandal that has ever disfigured the life of
the Church, and attempts to explain it by pointing out that men of the day could not make a
clear distinction between heresy and revolution really miss the point. No such distinction was
made, but the Inquisition originated, not with princes or Emperors who wanted to use the
power of the Church to crush revolution, but with Churchmen who wanted to use the power
of the stste in its most brutal form in order to crush those whose picture of Jesus differed from
their own, or whom they perceived as a threat to their power or privilege.
A great change came over the papacy with the accession of pope Leo IX to the chair
of Peter in 1049. Leo and his successors to the end of the century had rediscovered a
conception of the papal office very much like that which had guided Pope Gregory the Great
at the end of the sixth century: the pope was the supreme bishop of all Christendom, and had
the responsibility and the authority for the spread and deepening of the faith throughout the
world.

12.4. The Lay Investiture

The rediscovery of the universal meaning of the papacy rescued it from the quagmire
of the Roman city politics. The problem was that the understanding of reform was not healthy
for many popes were conviced that it was not the papacy itself which needed reform, but
rather those civil and ecclesiastical institutions which limited the freedom of the Popes to act
as they wanted and which made the Pope subservient to the Emperor. These Popes directed
their reformong zeal above all at that institution which had been invented by Otto I about a
century before: that is, the institution of the prince-bishop, who, as an imperial vassal, firmly
supported the Empire, and who received all of the insignia of his office directly from the
Emperor. This practice of being invested with the insignia and symbols of civil and church
office clearly implied that it was the Emperor who was supreme in both dominions. In the
view of the reforming Popes from Gregory VII on, the Emperor, despite his high office, was
still a layman, and therefore not competent to determine who would receive offices in the
Church. They therefore combatted what they called lay investiture because it symbolized that
very relationship of church and state which they abhorred.
Two years after his election to the papacy, Gregory VII issued one of the most
important of medieval Church history – the so-called Dictatus Papae or Dictates of the Pope.
In this document he claimed that papal power, bothspiritual and temporal, was absolute, and
that the pope was, in all spheres, the supreme head of Christendom. He asserted that the
Roman church was founded by the Lord alone, and that the Roman Bishop is the only one
who can rightly be called universal. He alone has the right to make new laws, to found new
congregations and to depose bishops without the approval of a synod. He alone has the right
to wear imperial insignia, and he can depose Emperors. No general council can take place

76
without his approval, and he can be judged by no one. The Roman Church has never been in
error and never will be in error, and no one who is not in agreement with the Roman Church
is to be thought of as Catholic. Finally , and most significant, the Pope can free subjects from
the oath of loyalty which they have sworn to their superiors ( and by implication, from the
oath of loyalty they have sworn to the Emperor!).
According to the Dictatus Papae, it was absolutely forbidden to laymen, including the
Emperor, to interfere in the election of bishops and Popes, or to give to bishops the symbols
of their sacred office. In the year 1140 a very important summary and compilation of Church
law was issued, which made the principles of the Gregorian Reform into the official law of
the Church. This Decree of Gratian strongly emphasized the power and prerogatives of the
papcy, and it provided the legal and juridical weapons for the papacy in its struggle with the
Empire throughout the latter part of the twelfth century.

12.5. The birth of Universities

This period also was marked by Intellectual development. Actually in the years after
1100, schools were founded in many of the larger cities of Western Europe. Many of these
schools came into existence in order to train those priests who would serve in the cathedral of
the diocese. Others were founded in connection with the monasteries, because by this time an
important work of many monks was the copying of scripture and of the religious and secular
texts of antiquity. For this, the monks had to be trained in reading and writing of Latin.
These monastic and cathedral schools developed throughout the twelfth century, and
their growth was fostered by more stable political and social conditions and by the
consequent increase of population, which had began shortly after the year 1100 andwas to
last until the early fourteenth century. These schools began to serve the needs of the growing
cities. New forms of municipal government were taking shape, which were needed if men
were to cope with the greater complexity of urban life. Both church and state needed
competent office staffs to fill the positions that were emerging and the schools originally
founded to train priests and monks found themselves faced with much more complex tasks.
To cope with this, the schools specialized – some concentrating on civil law, others on canon
(church) law, still others on medicine or arts ( Latin grammar and composition ) or Scripture.
Students and teachers in these schools shared many interests and concerns and felt
that they should band together in order to promote those common interests by means which
would be suitable in the new and more democratic climate. In the early thirteenth century, a
group of these schools in Paris came together to form a corporation; at about the same time,
similar developments took place in Bologna, Naples and Padua (all the three cities in Italy).
These corporations werenot specialized institutions; they included students and professors
who were dedicated to very different fields of study. For this reason they came to be known
as Universities – from the Latin word universum, which has given us the word “universal” in
the sense of “general, not limited to one sphere”.
In some places these universities quickly rose to importance and becamefamous
throughout Europe. They were given special privileges by the Popes, including freedom from
interference by the local bishop. Paris grew so quickly to a position of overwhelming
importance among the universities that in the year 1284 a clever contemporary writer was
able to sum up the contributions of Italy, Germany, and France to medieval society by listing
the three institutions which,in his mind, were of equal importance: Italy had the papacy,
Germany had the Empire, but France had the University of Paris.
Medieval life, if not profoundly religious was at least permeated by religion at every
level, and it was obvious that as intellectual life developed, those who were committed to this

77
life would try to understand the mysteries of their faith. They began to ask about the
relationship between the truth which faith knows and the truth which we seek in other areas
of life – medicine, law, literature, philosophy. The problem of the relation of faith to reason is
not a distintively modern one, and, more than any other, it was this problem which led to a
way of thinking, a way of posing questions and finding answers, which we call scholasticism
and which was the great intellectual achievement of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

13.0. ENCOUNTER WITH ISLAM

The Islamic religion was founded by Mohammad, a merchant who lived in the region
which we now call Saudi Arabia, where he had been born in 571. On his journeys he became
acquinted with Judaism and Christianity, and he was impressed by vertain aspects of both –
above all with their monotheistic faith and their consequent conviction of the absolute power
and transcendence of God. When Mohammad was in his forties, he had a religious experience
in the form of a revelation of the power and presence of God, which moved him to fashion a
faith that was based on total submission to this God. For this faith he fashioned a simple set
of teachings. He selected elements from both Judaism and Christianity, and he strongly
emphasized fatalism and God’s will that all submit to him, even if convinced only by force of
arms. This clear and simple faith appealed to the wild Arabian tribesmen, and as early as the
year 630 the tribes were converted and welded into a powerful military force, which
understood its mission as that of bringing the entire world to faith in the one true God, whose
prophet was mohammad. This blending of religion with military conquest was powerful
medicine, and in a short time the Moslems swept through the Near East. They conquered
Damascus in 635, Jerusalem in 637, and Egypt in 641.
The eastern Empire saw itself stripped of much of its territory by the Moslem drive,
and finally the Moslems turned against Constantinople itself, which was hit with wave after
wave of assault between 674 and 678, but which threw back the attacks with great heroism.
Meanwhile, the march across North Africa continued, and in 711 the Moslems crossed the
straits of Gibraltar and landed in Spain. Within twenty years, they had swept through the
Iberian Peninsula and crossed the Pyrenees. Here they were finally stopped at Tours, in
France, by Charle Martel, and they returned over the mountains to Spain, where they were to
remain for seve hundred years. The Moslem conquest left the city of Constantinople a capital
without an Empire, and the message of Charles’ victory at Tours in 732 was certainly not lost
on the papacy. If the church needed protection, it could not turn to the East; rather, it would
turn west, to Charles Martel and his sons, who were trying their best to preserve the Frankish
Kingdom from total collapse. And it was precisely at this moment that the papacy found itself
in need of political and military support.

13.1. The Crusades

It is impossible to talk about the political power of the papacy in the Early and High
Middle Ages without discussing the Crusades. They were called into existence by a Pope and
they were supported by his successors for the two hundred years of their duration. The Seljuk
Turks (Moslems) had conquered Jerusalem in the year 1071 and they had made it
increasingly difficult for Christians to visit their holy places in safety. The city of
Constantinople was under threat. In the face of this threat, the Byzantine Emperor appealed to
the Pope for help in defending both the church and the Empire, it was to this request that
Pope Urban II responded at Clermont in 1095, when he issued a call to the Knights of

78
Western Europe to undertake a holy war to free from Moslem control the Holy Land in which
Jesus had lived and died.
In economic and cultural terms, the crusades contributed much to the development of
modern Europe by stimulating trade and by introducing important new ideas to the West,
which prepared the way for the Christian appropriation of the riches of Greek Philosophy in
the thirteenth century. In political, and, above all, in religious terms, they were an
unmitigated disaster, for they poisoned relations between Christianity and Islam up to the
present day, and they hardened the estrangement of the Christian Churches of East and West.
When the city of Jerusalem was captured in 1099, the conquest was accompanied by the
indiscriminate slaughter of the inhabitants including the Jews.

14.0. DISINTEGRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MEDIEVAL PATTERN

The world of the Middle Ages is well described by the word Christendom. By birth,
one was a member of highly structured society, in which supreme political power belonged to
the Emperor and supreme spiritual power belonged to the Pope. In a sense, even the
existence of these two highest lords, one spiritual and one temporal, was an offense against
medieval man’s quest for unity. The medieval world had a center – Rome – and the power
which radiated from that city held all of medieval Europe in its sway.
Between the years 1300 and 1500, European unity came to an end. In the political
sphere, the Empire lost whatever power it still had, after its disastrous encounters with the
medieval papacy, for in the long struggle which had begun even before the time of Gregory
VII in 1076 and lasted until the papacy of Innocent III in the early thirteenth century, the
Popes were unquestionably the victors. The political mystique of Rome, which had inspired
Charlemagne and the medieval Emperors, was dead. The medieval papacy had succeeded in
wrestling secular power from the Emperors, but its very triumph called into existence
counter-forces which were purely secular and often hostile.
The period from 1300 to 1500 was a time of often conscious and deliberate rebellion
against the old order and against the foundations of its social and intellectual life. The
medieval world had been an ordered world. In feudal society, everyone had his assigned and
allotted place, from the Pope, the supreme lord who granted entire kingdoms to his vassals,
down to the serf who tilled the soil and was little better than a slave.
Intellectual life in the Middle Ages was vogorous and it was characterised by a great
trust in reason and profound confidence in the ability of human intelligence to discover the
truth about God and the world, and to find values to live by and to die by. Scholasticism was
a triumph of human intelligence and reason. But, as is always the case in history, the triumph
of reason in one epoch leads to the distrust of reason in the next. At the very beginning of the
fourteenth century, the emphasis shifted from intelligence to will, and men began to reflect on
the arbitrary power of God and his human vicars, rather than on intelligible order in matters
divine and human. These political, spiritual, and intellectual developments which heralded
the end of the medieval world might have been assimilated, and new forms of social and
intellectual life might have emerged which were in greater continuity with the old, had it not
been for an event which plunged fouteenth century Europe into the deepest despair, and
which made the achievements of the thirteenth century look like sad and even arrogant
illusions

14.1. The Black Death

79
 This was a quickly fatal disease spread by the black rat. the black death decimated the
population of europe, periodically flaring up every ten years or so after its initial outbreak in
Europe in 1347. it depopulated the convents, depleted the ranks of the clergy, and profoundly
disrupted monastic life.
The Black Death had passed from the Near East to Constantinople, where it broke out
in 1337, and it had been carried to Western Europe, probably by returning Crusaders. For
more than twenty years a series of epidemics devastated England and the continent The Black
Death was particularly hard on the new religious orders; the orders themselves were
decimated three times over by the plague, and thescarcity of vocations led to the acceptance
of candidates who were not really suited to religious life.
The period between 1300 and 1500 saw the breakdown of medieval unity and gradual
evolution of those institutions and systems of values which marked Western European life
until the early twentieth century.

14.2. The Avignon Papacy

Pope Innocent III was the last Pope whose claim to supreme religious and political
power in Western Europe was generally recognized. When Pope Boniface VIII tried to renew
these same claims at the very beginning of the fourteenth century, The French king, Philip the
Fair, reacted by clapping the Pope in Prison. Boniface VIII died soon after this, and as Philip
stepped in to fill the power vacuum created by the papacy’s victory over the medieval
Empire, his policy was clearly motivated by his desire to make the papacy a French national
institution. After the death of Boniface VIII, the number of French cardinals increased
rapidly, as a result of pressure fron the king, and the nine Popes who succeeded Boniface
were all Frenchmen.
The first two of this line already made it clear that they were not inclined to live for
any length of time in Rome – a city which by now had become an unimportant backwater,
noted mostly for its undisciplined and wild mobs and its appalling summer climate. When
Clement V was elected Pope in 1305, he did not even bother to go to Rome, and in 1309 he
selected the southern French city of Avignon as his residence.
This transfer of the papal residence was a highly symbolic move, and it marked the
end of the universal, supra-national claims of the medieval papacy. When the Popes were in
Rome there was no danger that the papacy would become an Italian national institution. For
one thing, there was as yet no emerging Italian national state. The Pope occupied a position
of a temporal lord governing the papal states. Rome had been the capital of the old Empire,
and in the same way it became the capital of the imperial papacy of the High Middle Ages.
There could be no clearer sign that the Middle Ages had abruptly ended than the transfer of
tha papacy to Avignon in 1309. It was obvious that these French Popes were Frenchmen first
and Popes second. At the beginning of the Avignon papcy, this meant that they were willing
to serve the interests of Philip the Fair, without doubt one of the most unattractive figures
ever to occupy the throne of France.
The domination of the church by Philip the Fair is evident from the affair of the
suppression of the Knights Templars – certainly one of the saddest chapters in the entire
history of the papacy. The Templars were a military order which had originated at the time of
the Crusades to guard the the holy places in Jerusalem. Many of them were French and when
the Crusades were over, most of them returned to France and lived there as Feudal lords.
Over the years they had acquired a great deal of wealth, and Philip the Fair was willing to use
any means to get his hands on their money and their land. In the year 1307 he had two
thousand members of the order of the Knights Templar arrested on a single day, claiming that

80
the members of the order were guilty of heresy and of all kinds of sexual crimes. Philip
pressured the Pope, Clement V, to suppress the order. The Pope meekly agreed, and at a
council held at Vienne in1312, and against the advice of a majority of bishops assembled
there, Clement decreed the suppression of the Knights Templar. Philip immediately
confiscated their property and had hundreds of them burned at stake in 1314 and 1315 so that
none would rise to claim for the confiscated property.
The Avignon papacy was coupled with corruption, levying charges for crusades
which never were. Archbishops were required to pay heavy fees in order to receive the
insignia of office, and for each and every administrative act of the papl court, money changed
hands. The sorry scandal of Avignon continued for almost seventy years, until in 1377, the
Italian mystic, Catherine of Siena, finally persuaded Pope Gregory XI(1370-1378) to return
to Rome.
The Avignon papacy prepared the way for the rebellion of northern Europe against
the papacy and the papal church in the sixteenth century and it ranks high on the list of causes
of the Reformation.

14.3. The Great Western Schism

The strict law governing the elcetion of a new Pope demanded that a new Pope would
be elected at the place where the reigning Pope died. When Pope Grefory XI died in 1378 in
Rome cardinals were already afraid of the wild mob of the city and so many of the French
cardinals were uncomfortable staying in the city. On the day before the election, an armed
mob broke into the palce where the conclave (the secret electoral meeting) was being held,
and informed the cardinals that if they wanted to live beyond the next day, it would be wise
to choose a Roman Pope. Faced with an offer which they could not refuse, the cardinals
obliged by choosing, not a Roman, but at least an Italian, the bishop of Bari, who took the
name of Pope Urban VI. The cardinals left Rome as quickly as they could after the election.
The cardinals returned to Rome ten days later for the coronation of the new Pope, and
swore their loyalty to him, as ancient custom demanded. But three months later, the French
cardinals left Rome again, returned to Avignon, and declared that the election of Urban had
been invalid, because the Roman mob had deprived them of true freedom of choice. They
proceeded to elect a new, French Pope, who took the name of Clement VII, and reigned from
1378 to 1394, most of the time in Avignon. Surprisingly, even the Italian cardinals went over
to the new Pope because the conduct of Urban VI was disastrous. But the official Catholic
position has always been that the true Popes were Urban VI and those who followed him in
the Roman line.
The new situation threw all of Christendom into utter confusion. There were now two
Popes and two papal courts and the two Popes had excommunicated each other. To some
degree all of Europe divided by nations, with France and Spain supporting the Popes of
Avignon, while Italy, England, Germany and the other northern European countries
supported the Popes of the Roman line. But the dispute about who was really Pope divided
each country, each diocese, and each parish.
Since the Emperor was no longer regarded as competent in such matters, and the
papcy itself was in dispute, it remained for the third great institution which had been inherited
from the medieval world – the University of Paris – to propose a solution to the dilemma. In
1394 the theologians of that university suggested three possibilities. The first proposal was
that both Popes abdicate and leave the field free for the election of a new Pope. The second
proposal was that both Popes submit their dispute to binding arbitration. The third possibility
was to call a general or ecumenical council of all of the bishops of the western church, and to

81
entrust the decision to that council. Eventually it was this final solution which was chosen,
and this led to the third great crisis of the church in the fourteent and fifteenth centuries.
The Popes, Benedict XIII and Gregory XII, were invited to present their cases before
the council delegates meeting at Pisa in 1409, but they refused to appear. The council took
the step of declaring both Popes deposed, and elected a new Pope, Alexander V. The other
two Popes refused to abdicate and so the Church saw herself now with three Popes. The
council of Pisa is not counted as an official ecumenical council because of the severe
irregularities of the proceedings and because it was not summoned by the Pope. However, the
council did lay the groundwork for the future council of Constance (1414-1418) which did
bring an end to the Great Western Schism

14.4. Conciliarism

Despite all of the uncertainty about when a Pope might be deposed and about who had
the authority to call a council, a nd despite all of the differences among the members of the
loose coalition known as the conciliar movement, it was becoming clear, as the fifteenth
century dawned, that an ecumenical councilwas the only way of ending the Schism. By 1408,
thierteen cardinals, some of them from Avignon and others from Rome, had been won to the
view that they, the cardinals, must summon the bishops to a council. They did precisely this,
and in 1409 the council met in the northern Italian city of Pisa and as already noted above
they deposed the two Popes and elected a new Pope who called himself Pope Alexander VI.
The Pope died soon afterwards and was succeeded by a man known as John XXIII who
convened the Council of Constance unfortunately the council was won to the view that to
solve the problem of the three Popes, all the three were to be deposed. On November 6, 1417,
cardinals entered in a conclave and elected a new Pope by the name Martin V. Forty years of
division and uncertainty were over, and the new Pope immediately took full control of the
council of Constance.
Conciliarism as a movement emerged as a result of the opponents of the papal power
uniting against the pro-French political stance of the Avignon Popes, as well as their
scandalous fiscal policies. Conciliar movement brought together men who were acting out of
the most diverse motives and whose attitudes toward the papacy covered a broad spectrum of
opinion. Some questioned the very foundation of papal primacy, while others wanted to
reform the institution so as to restore to the Pope the respect and authority which was due to
him as the supreme spiritual leader of the Christian world. But there was one thing on which
all the partisans of the conciliar movement agreed: no matter how frequently or how rarely it
might be exercised, ultimate legislative power in the Church belonged to the ecumenical
council – the gathering of the territorial bishops of the Christian world.

In conclusion

the ground was already set for the Reformation which spread like the bush-fire in the
sixteenth century. In the fourteenth, and even more in the fifteenth century, the call for reform
of the church in head and members had been raised again and again. But the one institution
from which reform could have issued in the Catholic Church of that period – the papacy –
lacked the vision, the will, and the spiritual depth to effect that reform. As a result, when
reform came, it did not take place within the Catholic church, but outside it, and it would split
the Christians of northern Europe from those of the south and divide Christians up to the
present day.

82
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

BAUR, John, 2000 Years of Christianity in Africa, Nairobi 1994.

BOKENKOTTER, Thomas, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, New York
1979.
BRIAN, Tierney, KAGAN D, et al., Great Issues in Western Civilization, vol. I, New
York 1992
DAVID, Chidester, Christianity, A Global History, England 2000.
GERALD, O’Collins S.J., and Mario Farrugia, Catholicism, the Story of Catholic
Christianity, New York 2003.
JEDIN, Hubert, ed., History of the Church, abridged edition, vol.2, New York 1993.
JOHN C. Dwyer, Church History, Twenty Centuries of Catholic Christianity, New
York 1985.
OKOTH Assa, A History of Africa 1855-1914, Nairobi 1979.
PAUL, Johnson, A History of Christianity, London 1976
PERRY. CHASE, JACOB et al, Western Civilization, A concise History, USA 1981

83