Note: I made this part 2 of my “Church History Focused on the Parts that Interest You” series. Part 1 has links to the entire series.

This is a response to “Restless Pilgrim’s” post, “Before 300: Pre-Constantinian Christianity.” There he has a list of 21 things the churches believed before the year 300. I will not be able to cover them all in this post, of course. My intent was to do 3 today, but I only had room for 1.

My answers give and example of why I originally named this blog “The Rest of the Old, Old Story.” Things can be perceived one way, but once the whole truth is shown, they no longer seem that way. Let’s get into this:

 1. The Church is Catholic

This is almost meaningless in any practical senses, unless it is an exhortation to all Christians to unite their churches. In the early church fathers, “catholic” refers to all the churches united and following the teachings of the apostles, over and against the gnostics who did not teach apostolic doctrine (then later, other heresies).

[The apostles] after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches, they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in unity, by their peaceful communion, title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality. (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 20; brackets mine, parentheses in original)

I apologize for the long quote, but in a refutation I like to put things in context. Of course, I always link my quotes from early Christian writers so you can read the context yourself.

I am relatively sure Restless Pilgrim would be satisfied that the quote above is what Christians, around the year 200 when Tertullian wrote, considered “catholic” in reference to churches. “Apostolic” and “Catholic” are both descriptions of the one holy church in ancient creeds, such as the Nicene Creed. The Apostles Creed, favored by Roman Catholic churches says only, “… Holy Catholic Church,” but the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin. (par. 863)

Note: There is no reason to link the Catechism of the Catholic Church because you can find anything in it by typing “Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 863” (for example) into any search engine.

While  Tertullian’s quote is much longer than the Catechism quote, you can see that both say that being a catholic church is tied to having a bishop descended from the apostles. I am certain that any Roman Catholic today would love his quote.

He does add, however:

Let [the heretics] produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. … But should they even effect the contrivance [produce such a roll], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 32)

Apparently, this apologist from the turn of the 3rd century believes that there are 2 requirements for being Catholic, and the second, to be able to show that your doctrines are from the apostles, triumphs over the first, because apostolic tradition is more important than apostolic succession.

What I mean by that is that holding to the one faith, the one set of doctrines, is more important than showing that your church was founded by the apostles. Not long before Tertullian wrote, Irenaeus writes an explanation for Tertullian’s arguments:

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these things just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. …  But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, ch. 10)

Note: At that same link you can find his “rule of faith,” the summation of what constitutes “the faith” that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

Restless Pilgrim’s Reference for Point 1

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

Note: You have to ignore the second paragraph in that link. Someone added a lot of text to Ignatius authentic letters and even wrote other letters in his name that were not his. Today scholars agree that the short version of seven letters. What Restless Pilgrim wrote is authentically from Ignatius. It was written either in AD 107 or 116. The dates have to do with the two times Hadrian was in Asia Minor near Ignatius to sentence him to death in the arena in Rome.

Restless Pilgrim is using this passage to say that “the Church is Catholic.” Great. Above, I have given the early Christian definition of what a catholic church is.

An Excursus on Bishops and Colleges of Elders

As an aside, it is very likely that only the churches in Asia Minor had one bishop leading a group of elders. I explain this in my article on Ignatius at Christian-history.org, so I won’t repeat it here. Tertullian, quoted above, refers to the churches in Asia Minor as “John’s foster churches” (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.v.v.html). Those churches would include the churches Jesus wrote to in Revelation 2-3, all of which were located within 100 miles of Ephesus. Ignatius wrote to Rome and 5 other churches, which were all also within 100 miles of Ephesus, in an area known as Asia Minor

The churches of Asia Minor were also unique for celebrating Passover on the same day as the Jews, which caused a controversy because the rest of the empire’s churches celebrated Passover on Sunday. This was a controversy from the mid-second century until the Council of Nicea pressured Ephesus and the churches around it to conform to the rest of the churches.

Ignatius was not from Asia Minor, but from Antioch of Syria, nevertheless tradition has it that he was appointed by John, and the fact that he addressed the same churches that Jesus did, through John, in the Revelation ties Ignatius to John as well.

Anyway, the point in that article I just linked is that Paul and Peter established churches in which all the elders were also bishops (lit. overseers or supervisors; Acts 20:17,28; 1 Peter 5:4). Historians call this a “college of elders.” It is likely that the churches of Asia Minor and also Antioch had one bishop over the college of elders, something done by John and therefore having apostolic authority.

I will add that the very early letters, “1 Clement” and “The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians” give strong evidence that Paul and Peter’s churches continued to be led by a college of elders at least into the early 100s. Even Ignatius’ “Epistle to the the Romans” makes no mention of a bishop, which is unique among Ignatius’ letters.

Let me reiterate something that I mentioned to Restless Pilgrim on Facebook. I suppose this excursus on Ignatius in regard to bishops and elders is history with no real application because all the Roman Empire’s and Europe’s churches had a monepiscopal bishop and a college of elders by AD 150 at the latest.