Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words

I have been meaning for several years now to delve into the writings of the early church fathers -- those Christian pastors from the first few centuries after Christ, some of whom learned the Christian faith directly from one or more of Jesus's apostles. However, I have been somewhat daunted by most of the existing collections of the early church fathers, in that the their writings can often make for slow reading, and that many of the existing collections are quite large. But I found "Four Witnesses" by Rod Bennett to be a terrific introduction to these writings.

As its name implies, "Four Witnesses" focuses mainly on the lives and writings of four particular church fathers, all of whom lived prior to 200 A.D.: Clement, the fourth bishop of Rome; Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was martyred in Rome in the early second century; Justin Martyr, a Christian philosopher who was one of the first apologists for the Christian faith; and Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in Gaul (modern France) who wrote extensively in refutation of Gnosticism. Bennett blends his own narrative text with numerous excerpts from the writings of these four men (plus excerpts from some other patristic writings) to tell a story of the Christian church throughout much of its first two centuries of existence. Central to this story are the persecutions which were ordered by various Roman emperors, and the constant struggle against other competing quasi-Christian belief systems. By quoting these "four witnesses" extensively, Bennett allows us to see first-hand what these early Christians believed, the challenges they faced, and how they responded to those challenges. The result is something that is difficult to achieve: a historical account that is compelling and interesting to read, while still containing numerous lengthy quotes from primary sources.

There are some places in the narrative text where Bennett takes artistic license, such as when he gives a detailed account of Irenaeus receiving the news of Polycarp's martyrdom, even though such details have been lost to history. However, such instances involve only minor details. Bennett has done extensive research with the goal of portraying all of the major events in his narrative as accurately as possible. In fact, I heard a radio interview with the author in which he said that he spent an entire year doing little else besides reading the writings of the early church fathers, and that "Four Witnesses" tells the story that gradually coalesced in his mind as he read more and more of these eyewitness accounts of the early church.

"Four Witnesses" also contains an afterword which consists of an abbreviated account of the author's conversion from Protestant Christianity to Catholic Christianity, which came as a result of his research into the early church fathers. The book also has an appendix which gives additional quotes from the church fathers in support of various Catholic beliefs, in order to demonstrate that these beliefs date back to the earliest centuries of Christianity. Though I agree with the points that Bennett makes in these additional sections, I almost wish that he had left them out, because I am afraid that they could turn off some non-Catholic Christians who otherwise might find this book both enjoyable and informative. However, these sections do contain some valuable information, and the reader is free to skip them, so it is a tough call.

In conclusion, I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for an entertaining and readable introduction to the writings of the early church fathers.

This book is well done in some aspects, but terrible in others (below). For the good aspects I was going to give it a 3 star as "Ok", but because of the negative aspects that lead people astray from Biblical truth, I give it a "2 star".

It is an imaginative and exciting read in the story telling parts of trying to imagine the context and history of these four men. I like his method of seeking to "fill in the blanks" as long as it is consistent and reasonable. The book is a Roman Catholic apologetic and biased popular introduction to these four men in early church (adding others in also to expand the RC idea that the whole early church agreed with Roman Catholic centuries later doctrines and dogmas). Rod certainly makes history come alive with his vivid descriptions and story-telling skills, and he also does a good job of weaving other writers and church history in his story. He also makes extensive use of Eusebius, Polycarp, Tertullian, and Cyprian to relate and harmonize the early centuries of Christianity together. He states his main purpose is to let the Early church speak for itself in her own words. (page 17) He does this to an extent, but he also leaves out some key parts of Clement (page 87, see below), and especially Irenaeus that actually go against his stated purpose. (to let the early church speak for itself) He skewed Cyprian of Carthage (died, being beheaded, around 258 AD) by leaving out important aspects of his life and writings, that pertain to the whole Roman Catholic vs. Protestantism debate. However his real purpose seems to be - to show that Protestantism is not historical, which is subtle. His main purpose seems to be to show that Sola Scriptura and Protestantism is wrong, especially when we read the afterward and the appendix of all the Roman Catholic distinctive doctrines that are the main issues that Protestants have against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

Rod is a friend (I hope all my criticisms are against the doctrines, issues and principles and not against him as a person) a good story teller, and the aspects of early church history that he treats fairly that Protestant's agree with is great. The intro is skewed in a few places toward the RC side of things, as is the Afterward and the Appendix; - the last 2 sections of the book, Afterward, and on "Catholic Teaching in the Early Church" and "Catholic Teaching Today" are very skewed, in that they are trying to show that the doctrines and dogmas of the RCC that Protestants dis-agree with were there from the beginning of church history. They were not.

The biggest problem is that he leaves out key elements of the quotes from Clement, which would show that Clement treated presbyteroi (elders) and episcopoi (overseers/bishops) as one church office/same person - as in Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4; 1 Timothy chapter 3. Since Clement, along with the Didache are the earliest writings outside of the NT and they are compatible with a two office local church government (elders/overseers who do the work of shepherd/pastors and deacons); and all scholars of church history agree, and Rod agreed with me when I pointed this out, that it was not until Ignatius around 107-117 AD, who exalted one of the presbyers out from the college of presbyters and made him the mono-episcopate (one bishop over the college of elders. When I pointed this out, Rod eventually agreed with me that he will need to add information in a subsequent edition on that issue. The way Clement is left, he has made it appear that the early church from the beginning had a three office structure, rather than just two.

Getting a grip on early church is hard work, and Rod provides us with some handles, such as the context of the Roman persecutions and the heroic Christianity of Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin Martyr in dying for the sake of Christ, and Irenaeus in defending the doctrines of Christ against Heresies. Rod has also challenged evangelicals to know and study church history and for that, we are grateful for his contribution.

But there are many things that he leaves out, that, if they had been included, would weaken his case against Protestantism. He is a former Protestant, a Southern Baptist, and evangelical, and by leaving out certain parts of Irenaeus and Clement, at the exact places that balance these men and their writings a little more toward Protestantism, his purpose seems clear. I am not saying that these four men, or the early church was Protestant or Evangelical in the modern, fully developed forms of Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. and other Protestants. Not at all. They were "catholic" (universal), and they provide the trunk of the tree that later branched off into Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism.

Now, there is nothing wrong with being selective, and no one can include everything in his or her research, otherwise, one would just have to rehash too much material with no analysis, and what would be the point of that? We don't expect just a complete re-stating of all of Irenaeus' great work, "Against Heresies". And certainly, I realize that I would be accused of the same thing, if I wrote an apologetic for Protestantism and the early church and I leave out some parts of Irenaeus and Tertullian that seem to teach Mary as the New Eve (that, according to R. Catholic claims, provide seeds of the later ideas of the intercession of Mary, prayers to Mary, that she is an advocate for us, a co-mediatrix ideas of Mary); or if I leave out other passages of other early church fathers/writers that seem to teach some kind of baptismal regeneration or apostolic succession. Those three issues have Protestant responses; my point is that I understand that this tendency can work both ways, and it is a massive task to thoroughly cover all the issues in a small book. Some ancient passages are anachronistically interpreted to be something about the Roman Catholic church, the Pope, etc.; but they do not really teach that at the time of the early church, in the Roman Catholic Papal sense that took centuries to develop. An author has every right to pick and choose what he wants to in order to make his case; my only point is that someone else also the right to come along and show how certain things have been left out, and at just the precise place, so as to seemingly, although innocently, skew the evidence. Giving Rod the benefit of the doubt, I wish to say that leaving these things out may be just an oversight that, as he said to me when I pointed this out, did not occur to him at the time. But he later agreed with me on that.

Clement of Rome
In his section on Clement, on page 87, Rod Bennett stops the quote short of confirming that episcopais (overseer or bishop) and presbuteras (elder) are used interchangeable and teach that they are the same office in the local church. (see I Clement 43:6 - 44:1-4) In 44:3-6, if the quote is allowed to continue, shows that the earliest churches, closest to the written Scriptures, still held to the teaching that elders and overseers were one and the same office in the church, charged with the responsibility of teaching, pastoring, and guarding the flock from false teaching. (Acts 20:17-30, Titus 1:5-7, I Timothy 3, I Peter 5:1-5) All of these passages show that elders and bishops are the same, and that their job is to pastor/ feed/ shepherd the flock, and do the work of "overseeing" (leading).

Clement agrees with this, with the Scriptures, that elders and bishops are the same, so this is hardly an early church document in which teaches a papacy or Roman Catholicism. Rod claims that he "found only Catholicism" (page 281) , when reading and studying the Early Church Fathers. We can agree with this, if he means "catholic' with a little "c", in the sense of "universal", spreading throughout the world, believers from all nations (Revelation 5:9; 7:9), and which is orthodox and is unified on the "rule of faith" and is against the heretics, such as Gnosticism, Arianism, Judaistic legalism, and other anti-trinitarian heresies. Historic Protestants agree with the early centuries and the develpment of the doctrine of the Trinity (and the early councils and creeds on doctrinal issues - Nicean, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Athanasian Creed), because it was all based on consistent exegesis of all the texts. He is wrong, if he means in the later "Roman Catholic" way, which took centuries to develop, which is what he is really claiming.

Also, in the Irenaeus section, he cuts the quotes and re-arranges them out of order in such a way as to give a false impression.

Irenaeus believed in the rule of faith, but how does Irenaeus define the rule of faith?

Irenaeus
On page 246, he leaves out part of the quote that shows that Irenaeus is using Scriptural proofs for his arguments against the Gnostics.

On page 247, Rod claims that the Gnostics always appealed to Scripture for their views:

"To what did they appeal when they offered their various insights? To Scripture always . . . though always to Scripture properly understood of course."

Where is the proof of this? I have not found this anywhere in Irenaeus. Rod is making it seem like Protestantism is like Gnosticism. Actually, Irenaeus says just the opposite!
He says that the Gnostics:
a. gather their knowledge from other sources other than the Scriptures. (Against Heresies, 1:8:1)
b. claim that the Jesus gave the apostles a secret, oral tradition. (3:2:1)
c. accuse the Scriptures of being unclear and ambiguous. (3:2:1)

But these 3 things are what the Roman Catholic church actually does do. They have other sources of authority that the Scriptures. Secret oral tradition, historical development of interpretation throughout history, the other councils after the first four ecumenical councils, creeds, and interpetations that grew centuries later, writings of the Popes, and the Apocrapha books, which are called "Deutero-canonicals", meaning, "secondarily received into the canon as God-breathed." Jerome and Athanaisus and Melito of Sardis have enough evidence to show the Apocrapha books were not inspired or part of the canon in the way that Roman Catholic apologists try to make them out to be.

Roman Catholics say the Scriptures are unclear, whereas Protestantism says that the Scriptures are clear to those who are born again by God's Spirit and are willing to honestly look at them and do proper exegesis. ("My sheep hear My voice . . . " John 10:27-30) This is not to say that all things are equally clear; (granted some secondary and minor things are unclear), but only to say that the main things necessary for salvation are clear. This is called the Protestant doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripture", which the Roman Catholic denies.

Knowledgeable Evangelical Protestants do not hate the word, "tradition", nor "Eucharist", nor "catholic". Properly understood, there is no problem with these words as originally meant. When reading the early church fathers, those words come up a lot; but that does not mean that the early church was Roman Catholic.

What is "the tradition"?
The tradition that Irenaeus is talking about, is the right Biblical tradition, he defines it, in context (belief in One God, who created all things, Jesus as Son of God, the same God in OT as NT, against Gnosticism, etc.)
(See, Against Heresies, 1:10:1 and 1:10:2; 3:4:2)

On page 250, leaves out a key part of Irenaeus that defines what the "faith", the preaching, the tradition is. He quotes 1:10:2 and makes it seem like what Irenaeus is saying is that tradition that the church protects is some thing different from the basic doctrines of the apostles creed, and the Nicean Creed.

The way he treated Cyprian (bishop of Carthage, lived around 200-258 AD) was very problematic (pages 272-273, as part of Irenaeus), leaving out key aspects and historical information. While Cyprian operated on the mono-espiscopate principle, which started with Ignatius; he did not agree with any kind of "univeral bishop over all other bishops", that Rod skews it toward. The chair of Peter, the faith of Peter, only meant the doctrinal content of Matthew 16, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. It did not mean any kind of "ex cathedra Papal sense" of the 1870 dogma. Cyprian, Firmillian and 85 other bishops from all over the Christian empire in the 7th Council of Carthage wrote; "no one has the right to claim he is bishop over all the other bishops" - the claim that Stephen, bishop of Rome, made. This was an arrogant claim, and those 86 bishops rightly rebuked Stephen. There is no such office as "Pope" in the early centuries of Christianity. Even Gregory, bishop of Rome in 601 AD argued against the concept in his disagreement with John of Constantinople.

There is much more I could write, but these are the main issues for now.

I've bought 4 copies of this book after reading my college professor's copy 10 years ago. I can't like this enough and love to distribute them to those struggling with their faith. To study the early Church is to envelope yourself in Christianity. There's probably some artistic license in the stories of these 4 saints, but they were truly the finest of Christ's disciples.

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians do not make an effort to study the history of the faith beyond the first generation included in the New Testament. In fact, most Christians do not study anything about the Apostles beyond the Biblical texts. That is sad considering that Christianity has such a rich history and the story of how it eventually came to dominate the Roman Empire tends to be ignored by Christians who do not attempt to do a deeper historical study of their faith.

Although this book is written more from a Catholic perspective, the history covered here is relevant to all Christian denominations who align themselves with the traditional and orthodox Trinitarian theology. Other than the smaller heretical sects such as the Arians and the Gnostics, the Church had for the most part been unified in doctrine and theology until the Great Schism of 1054, with a few difficult periods prior, such as the 7th century issue over Iconoclasm. Thus, the history of the orthodox Church (meaning the churches of east and west that were in agreement with one another since the First Council of Nicaea in 325) is a common history. Moreover, for all Protestant Christians of the west, who did not begin to branch off from the western Church until the Reformation, they have a common history with the Catholic Church up to that point in time.

The relevant point here is that because of the doctoral barriers that are now in place due to denominational divisions within Christianity, most Protestants tend to completely ignore the history of the Church that occurs between the events covered in the New Testament up until their particular denomination comes into existence. There is a period of this history where all Christians have a common lineage and they need to understand that historical and theological foundation of their faith.

With all of this long winded, but important, build up now completed (which in a way is reflective of the author of this book's style of building up to his own points of his narrative), now we can get to the point why this book is essential to all Christians even if they are not Catholics.

This book provides a good introduction to four important figures from the second generation of Church History. Clement and Ignatius, for instance, are direct successors of the Apostle Peter and the Apostle John. What is more is that the four witnesses that this book centers on have writings that are available to us even to this day. They are a good reflection of how the orthodox theology and the doctrine of the faith began to evolve when the responsibility of the leadership of the Church fell to them. Ignatius of Antioch and his writings, for example, are just as relevant to a Southern Baptist and a Four Square church as they are to a Roman Catholic. I would even go as far to say that Ignatius, as well as other theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, should be studied by every minister of every Christian denomination when they go to seminary school.

Also, at the end of the book, there is a good serious of examples early Church writings provided that show the historical basis for various points of Catholic doctrine. If you do not agree with Catholic doctrine, these can still provide you with an element of understanding for its basis which will be helpful for intellectual discussion.

To anyone who is Christian but not Catholic, be open to the study of the history of Christianity in the context of the times and you will come to have a better understanding of your own personal faith. My personal faith as a Christian has become strengthened on a spiritual level and on a intellectual level because I began to study the history of Christianity and of Christian theology without a personal/denominational doctoral bias.

If you desire to follow a similar path that I have, use books such as this one as an introduction and then further your own study from there with the original writings of the Church Fathers. The wisdom of these men is just as relevant today for Christians of all doctrines as it was during the times that these men lived.

This was a critical introduction for me into the early Christian writings. I will advise that like any author, this one has his biases. I happen to agree with his main interpretations, but then I have my biases also. His references to other writings lead you to other important writings, and can start a study of great depth and reward.

This man has a gift for storytelling that places the early church in a living imagination.

I read the reviews by people bashing the non biblical (Catholic) dogma of this book. I'd like to remind them that according to their reasoning Trinity, Ascension, and Incarnation, are dogma also as these words are not biblical either. Neither is sola scriptura for that matter.

Excellent Book, quotes from the original Church Fathers and how the Early Christian Church started and flourished.

makes me proud of my faith and helps me to see the integrity of my faith

Contrary to popular belief, we know a lot about the first two hundred years of Christianity. In fact we have a very detailed picture not only of the lives of the apostles and the early followers of Christ but also of the persecution that many faced as a result of the competing theologies that existed at that time. In his book Four Witnesses, Rod Bennett provides an account of the lives of four of the early church fathers and in so doing gives us a flavor of just how much these and others fought in defense of their faith. Indeed as one reads Bennett's introduction to the first of his four witnesses- Clement of Rome- what becomes apparent is just how much the Roman culture of that time resembled our present day culture with all the different philosophies and religions trying to establish a following. It makes Clement's turn to Christ- under the teaching of the apostle Peter- that much more remarkable.

Born around 30 AD, Clement would most likely have been raised as, what Bennett calls, a 'heathen idol worshipper'. And yet despite being exposed later on in his life to the intellectual power behind the message of one of the founders of the Gnostic movement, Simon Magus, Clement swayed towards the authenticity of the teachings of Peter and the other apostles on the premise that only they had had the personal connections with Jesus. The Didache, the book used by the early church to define the moral and spiritual aspects of the Christian life, might have been used by Clement himself in his own life as a teacher. Nevertheless, the church soon suffered at the hands of the Roman emperor Nero who, obsessed as he was with political power, persecuted the early Christians, using them as a scapegoat for the societal ills that pervaded Rome at the time. With the execution of its founding fathers Peter and Paul, the church appeared to be in crisis. Sometime after, amidst the persecution of early Christians by the Roman emperor Domitia and the dissension within the church at Corinth, Clement became the bishop of Rome.

Persecution and splits among the early Christians were of course not uncommon. As the bishop of Antioch, Ignatius- the second of Bennett's 'four witnesses'- experienced similar rifts within his own following. Eager to be more in line with mainstream paganism, some of Ignatius' disciples set up their own church at Antioch proclaiming their faith to a God that had lost all His sovereignty- a God that was just one among many. Within such a framework the resurrection of Jesus became nothing more than, "a divine bit of play acting". God, according to these so-called semi-gnostic Docetists, could never have appeared in the flesh but instead had only ever existed in spirit. By radically changing this most fundamental aspect of Christianity the Docetists hoped to make their religion more palatable to the governors of Rome and thereby eliminate the persecution that had so troubled those who truly followed the teachings of the apostles. Ignatius was not part of this defection.

Because of his views on the uniqueness and exclusivity of Christ's message, Ignatius was sent to Rome to be sentenced to death. On this final journey, he wrote several letters to the emerging churches in the region imploring them to maintain the hierarchical order of the church leadership- the bishops, the deacons and the presbetyrs- and to steadfastly reject the teachings of those who had abandoned the truth of the resurrection. Ignatius faced his death with joy even though his followers must have mourned his loss. Standing in the Coliseum in Rome in front of thousands of spectators, he was mauled to death by lions in the most appalling of spectacles. But this is what Ignatius would have wanted. He died honorably knowing that he had fulfilled God's purpose for his life- a martyr in every sense of the word.

Bennett's third witness Justin Martyr defended his faith through philosophical argument. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Martyr discovered the true meaning of happiness bound not in the ecstasy of wisdom and knowledge but instead in the presence of the Holy Spirit and the truth of the risen Christ. Writing to the 'philosopher king' Marcus Aurelius of Rome, Martyr saw his opportunity to turn the tide against the persecution of Christians by becoming an apologist. Perhaps Martyr's greatest challenge was to convince his contemporaries of the exclusivity of Christianity with its call to worship a single God- this in an environment where the multi-deity practices of paganism and the distortions of Gnosticism were everywhere to be seen. His letter to Marcus Aurelius described in detail the reality of Christianity focusing as he did on the communal aspects of baptism and the sacrificial nature of the Last Supper.

But alas Marcus Aurelius did not receive Martyr's letter with the openness that one might have hoped for. Fixed as he was on the philosophy of Stoicism that his own father Antoninus Pius has brought into the empire, Marcus Aurelius was unwilling to make any concessions. Indeed Martyr and his own pupils were eventually beheaded because of their unwillingness to apostatize, going as far as to declare their faith in Christ in front of the governors of Rome.

Martyrdom represented the ultimate sacrifice when it came to defending the faith. Bennett's fourth and final witness is Irenaeus of Lyon, a man stunned into silence by the news that his friend and mentor- Polycarp- had himself been burnt at the stake by the Roman authorities in Galia (now Southern France). For Irenaeus this would have been devastating news; after all, Polycarp had been the last of those who had had personal contact with the apostles. But in truth Polycarp's death became somewhat of a triumph for the early church. Indeed for some time afterwards Irenaeus witnessed miracle upon miracle impacting those who had turned to Christ under Polycarp's tutelage.

Ireneus went on to write Against Heresies- a five volume compilation designed to refute the teachings of Gnosticism. His argument was simple- by contrasting the extremely diverse opinions of Gnostic sects with the unified message of the church, scattered as it was, "throughout the whole world", he brought to bear the truth of the Christian message. What did this message tell us? That not only had Jesus the son of God existed in the flesh bearing the sin of man through his crucifixion but that the Holy Spirit was 'the means of communion' with Christ. This was the ultimate conclusion of Irenaeus' writings.

We know little about the end of Irenaeus' life; some historians say he was martyred while others are not so sure. We do know however that his prayers for a revival in Roman-occupied Gaul were answered and that many turned to Christ through him. Indeed what differentiated this true movement of Christianity from the heretical deviations was its resilience throughout the ages. While the Gnostic teachings have come and gone, the truth of Christianity shines today as a beacon of hope.

In Four Witnesses Bennett provides a very nice introduction to the first 200 years of the Christian movement. Bennett makes some bold claims in his final discussions on the uniqueness of present day Catholicism. Indeed he concludes that Catholicism with its connections to Christ through the apostles is the only way to be truly in touch with Christ's calling. Yet his own reference to John Henry Newman's 'via media', the middle road between the modern Catholic and the Protestant churches, shows us that there is much that we can learn from both sides of this divide.