The blessed apostles, then, founded and built up the church [in Rome]. They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.416.
When the blessed Polycarp was visiting in Rome in the time of [bishop] Anicetus, . . . they were at once well inclined towards each other. They were not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this matter. Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [of his Easter customs]. For these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom Polycarp had been conversant. Nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [Easter in his way]. For Anicetus maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs, they held fellowship with each other. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.569.
The heretics say that . . . the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, and that beginning with his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth was falsified. . . . Since the doctrine of the church, then, has been proclaimed so many years ago, how is it possible that men have preached in the manner claimed by these men, up to the time of Victor? And how are these [heretics] not ashamed to utter these calumnies against Victor? For they well know that Victor excommunicated Theodotus the tanner, the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy? Eusebius, quoting Caius (c. 215, W), 5.601.
At that time, Zephyrinus [bishop of Rome] imagined that he administered the affairs of the church. He was an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man. He, being persuaded by proffered gain, was accustomed to connive at those who were present for the purpose of becoming disciples of Cleomenes. But after a while, he himself was enticed away. So he hurried headlong into the same opinions [of Monarchianism]. And he had Callistus as his adviser and a fellow champion of these wicked tenets. . . . During their oversight, the school of these heretics continued to acquire strength and augmentation from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus [bishops of Rome] helped them to prevail. Never at any time, however, have I been guilty of collusion with them. Instead, I have frequently opposed them, refuted them, and have forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.125.
Callistus attempted to confirm this heresy [of Monarchianism]. He was a man cunning in wickedness. He was subtle where deceit was concerned, and he was goaded on by restless ambition to mount the episcopal chair [of Rome]. Now, this man molded to his purpose Zephyrinus, an ignorant and illiterate man—one unskilled in ecclesiastical definitions. Inasmuch as Zephyrinus was covetous and was accessible to bribes, Callistus was able to seduce him into whatever course of action he wanted—luring him through gifts and illicit demands. . . . But Callistus perverted Sabellius himself. And he did this, even though he had the ability of rectifying [his errors]. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.128.
The impostor [i.e., Callistus, bishop of Rome], having ventured on such opinions, established a school in antagonism to the church. And he adopted the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard to their indulgence in pleasures, saying he could forgive the sins of everyone. For if anyone commits any transgression, they say the sin is not counted unto him—provided only he hurries off to the school of Callistus. This is true even if the person is in the habit of attending the congregation of anyone else. He only needs to be called a Christian. And many persons were gratified with his regulation. . . . However, some of them, in accordance with my condemnatory sentence, had been by me forcibly ejected from the church. Yet, they passed over to him and served to crowd his school. Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.131.
[Callistus, bishop of Rome,] propounded the opinion that if a bishop were guilty of any sin—even a sin unto death—he should not be deposed. About the time of this man, bishops, presbyters, and deacons who had been twice married—even thrice married—began to retain their place among the clergy. Furthermore, if anyone who was in holy orders became married, he permitted such a one to continue in holy orders as though he had not sinned. And, he alleged that what has been spoken by the apostle refers to such a person: “Who are you to judge another man’s servant?” . . .
In contempt of God, [the hearers of bishop Callistus] do not place restraint on the commission of sin, alleging that they pardon those who acquiesce. For Callistus even also permitted the following to females: If they were unmarried and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not inclined to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, he permitted them to choose whomever they wanted as a bedfellow—whether slave or free. He said that, although they were not legally married, they could consider such a one as a husband. For that reason, women who were reputed believers began to resort to drugs for producing sterility. They also began to gird themselves around, so as to expel what was being conceived. For they did not wish to have a child by either a slave or by any paltry fellow—for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great an impiety the lawless one has proceeded: inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! They have no shame. For, after such audacious acts, they attempt still to call themselves a catholic church! Hippolytus (c. 225, W), 5.131.
[FROM A LETTER WRITTEN TO CORNELIUS, BISHOP OF ROME:] Cyprian to Cornelius, his brother, greeting. I have thought it both obligatory on me and necessary for you, dearest brother, to write a short letter to the confessors who are there with you. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.320.
You intimated that you did not hold communion with Novatian. Rather, you followed my advice and held one common agreement with Cornelius our co-bishop. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.327.
Lest perhaps the number of bishops in Africa might seem unsatisfactory, we also wrote to Rome, to Cornelius, our colleague, concerning this thing. He himself was also holding a council with very many bishops, which had concurred in the same opinion as we had held. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.328, 329.
Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ. This was by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the election of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men. . . . This occurred when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the priestly chair, was vacant. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.329.
[FROM A LETTER WRITTEN TO CORNELIUS, BISHOP OF ROME:] I have read your letter, dearest brother, which you sent by Saturus our brother, the acolyte. . . . But, dearest brother, ecclesiastical discipline is not on that account to be forsaken, nor priestly censure to be relaxed. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.338, 339.
[FROM A LETTER WRITTEN TO CORNELIUS, BISHOP OF ROME:] From the mutual love that we owe and that we manifest towards each other, I know, dearest brother, that you always read my letters to the very distinguished clergy who preside with you there and to your very holy and large congregation. Yet, now I both warn and ask you to do by my request what at other times you do of your own accord and courtesy. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.346.
Since we have one church, a united mind, and an undivided peace, what priest does not congratulate himself on the praises of his fellowpriest [i.e., Cornelius, bishop of Rome], as if on his own? Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.351.
Cyprian to his brother, Stephen [bishop of Rome], greetings! Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.367.
Cornelius [bishop of Rome], our colleague, was a peaceable and righteous priest. . . . He had long ago decreed with us and with all the bishops appointed throughout the whole world that men of this sort . . . were prohibited from ordination to the clergy. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.371.
Peter—whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His church—did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those lately come! Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.377.
You have desired that what Stephen [bishop of Rome], our brother, replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge. Therefore, I have sent you a copy of his reply. On the reading of it, you will more and more observe his error in endeavoring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians. . . . For he judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. . . . He says, “Let nothing be innovated; rather, follow what has been handed down.” But where is that tradition [he speaks of]? Where do we find this practice descending from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel? Or where do we find it among the commandments and the epistles of the apostles? Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.386.
[WRITTEN CONCERNING STEPHEN, BISHOP OF ROME:] We must consider . . . whether the account can be satisfactory in the day of judgment for a priest of God who maintains, approves, and acquiesces in the baptism of blasphemers. . . . Does he give glory to God, who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the church? Does he give glory to God, who—a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians—thinks that the priests of God who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the church are to be excommunicated? . . . It happens by a love of presumption and of obstinacy that a man would rather maintain his own evil and false position than to agree in the right and true position that belongs to another. Foreseeing this, the blessed apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and warned him that a bishop must not be “quarrelsome or contentious, but gentle and teachable.” . . . For it behooves a bishop not only to teach, but to learn. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.388.
Let these things that were done by Stephen [bishop of Rome] be passed by for the present. Otherwise, while we remember his audacity and pride, we might bring a more lasting sadness on ourselves from the things that he has wickedly done. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.390.
However, those who are at Rome do not always observe those things that were handed down from the beginning. Yet, they vainly pretend the authority of the apostles. Anyone may know also from the fact that, concerning the celebration of Easter . . . he may see that there are some diversities. . . . Similarly, in very many other provinces, many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. Nevertheless, there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the catholic church on this account—such as Stephen has dared to make. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.391.
I am justly indignant at this open and manifest folly of Stephen [bishop of Rome]! He boasts of the place of his episcopate and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the church were laid. Yet, he introduces many other rocks and establishes the new buildings of many [heretical] churches! . . . He does not understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed—and, in some measure, abolished—by him when he betrays and deserts unity in this manner. . . . Stephen, who declares that he holds the chair of Peter by succession, is not stirred with zeal against heretics. For he concedes to them . . . the very greatest power of grace. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.394.
We join custom to truth. And we resist the Romans’ custom with custom—the custom of truth. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.395.
The following passage was written against Stephen, bishop of Rome, by Firmilian, an eastern bishop. The occasion was that Stephen had excommunicated all the churches who would not follow his practice of accepting baptism performed by heretics (requiring only that the bishop lay hands upon such heretics when coming to the church).
How great a sin you have heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is you yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself. For the real schismatic is the one who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. Although you think that everyone can be excommunicated by you, you have really excommunicated yourself alone from everyone else. Not even the teachings of an apostle have been able to mold you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned and said, “I . . . beseech you to walk worthy of the calling by which you are called, with all lowliness and meekness.” . . .
[SAID SARCASTICALLY:] How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of the apostle! How carefully he has first kept lowliness of mind and meekness! For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of conflict. At one time, he has broken with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know. At another time, he has broken with you who are in the south…. This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? He has cut himself off from the unity of love and made himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren. He has rebelled against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of rebellious dissension. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.396.
[ADDRESSED TO STEPHEN, BISHOP OF ROME:] Understand, however, my brother that all the churches located in the east . . . that were formerly in a state of division, are now made one again. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.101.
[LETTER TO SIXTUS II, BISHOP OF ROME:] Truly, brother, I have need of advice, and I desire your judgment. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.103.
The contention was between Victor, at that time bishop of the city of Rome, and Polycrates, who then appeared to hold the primacy among the bishops of Asia. And this contention was adjusted most rightfully by Irenaeus, who at that time was president of a part of Gaul. The result was that both parties kept to their own order and did not decline from the original custom of antiquity. Anatolius (c. 270, E), 6.148, 149.