¹ The southeastern provinces of Roman Gaul were treated in volume one (Paris: 1894; 2d ed., Paris: 1907), Aquitaine and the Lyonnaise in volume two (Paris, 1899; ed. 2, Paris, 1910), and the provinces of the north and east in volume three (Paris: 1915). A decade before volume one first appeared, Léopold Delisle had begun to review the ancient Gallic episcopal catalogs, declaring that it was time to do for them what M. O. Holder-Egger had done for the German ones in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Delisle's work, “Anciens catalogs des évêques des églises de France,” in L'histoire littéraire de la France (1884) 386–454Google Scholar, drew no general historical conclusions. For his part, Duchesne also investigated the diptychs, bishops' lives, and foundation legends. His conclusions about the alleged apostolicity of Gallic sees are set out in the preliminary chapter of Fastes épiscopaux 1. 1–62, which had previously appeared in Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de France (1889).Google Scholar

² The Bollandist Hippolyte Delehaye should be at least mentioned here, for his later hagiographic criticism in the Analecta Bollandiana and in numerous books neatly reinforced Duchesne's conclusions.

^* I am indebted for advice to Professor Jean Gaudemet and for substantial criticism to Professor Jean-Rémy Palanque, who should not however be taken necessarily to agree with my views. Further, I should like to thank the American Council of Learned Societies for financial aid which enabled me to complete this work.

³ Duchesne, Fastes épiscopaux 1. 40: “Il en resulte que, dans l'ancienne Gaule celtique, avec ses grands subdivisions en Belgique, Lyonnaise, Aquitaine et Germanie, une seule église existait au II^e siècle, celle de Lyon.” Griffe, Elie, La Gaule chrétienne à l'époque romaine, 1: Des origines chrétiennes à la fin du IV^e siècle (2d ed., Paris: 1964) 79Google Scholar n. 87, would include also Narbonnese Gaul in this list; such an inclusion is certainly implicit in Duchesne's work. Lyon is called an “église-mère” by Duchesne, in his Histoire ancienne de l'église 1 (6th ed., Paris: 1911) 254Google Scholar.

⁴ Duchesne's best French opposition probably was that of Bellet, Charles-Félix, Les origines des églises de France et les fastes épiscopaux (Paris: 1896; 2d ed., Paris: 1898).Google Scholar Some of Bellet's criticism was shared by Otto Hirschfeld (Bellet, Les origines 127 quoted a letter from him); but, of the Germans, it was first Harnack, Adolf von, in his Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1902; 4th ed., 2 vols., Leipzig: 1924)Google Scholar, who systematically attacked Duchesne. See especially Die Mission 1. 459–85. Neither Bellet nor Harnack showed awareness of the problems implied in the historical development of the monarchic episcopate. Harnack, however, did say (Die Mission 1. 454): “Innerhalb der Gemeindeverfassung war die bedeutendste und wichtigste Schöpfung der monarchische Episkopat”; and in a footnote thereto: “Ich lasse alle Vorstufen [scil., before Antoninus Pius, A.D. 138–161] beiseite. … Die Untersuchungen über die Vorstufen … fallen nicht in diese Darstellung.” It should be noted that Harnack did not attack Duchesne's critical work on the episcopal lists, but his alleged misinterpretation of passages from Irenaeus, Cyprian, Eusebius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. For criticism of a particular list see Hubert, Jean, “La liste épiscopale de Sens,” in Mélanges Felix Grat 1 (Paris: 1946) 147–52.Google Scholar For general criticism of the lists and of Duchesne's use of them, see Bellet, Les origines 1–46; Zeiller, Jacques, “Les origines chrétiennes en Gaule,” in Victor Carrière, Introduction aux études d'histoire ecclésiastique locale 3 (Paris: 1940) 45–46Google Scholar; Fliche, Augustin, “A propos des origines chrétiennes de la Gaule,” in Mélanges Jules Breton, 2 ( = Recherches de science religieuse [1952]) 158–67Google Scholar; and esp. Dubois, Jacques, “La composition des anciennes listes épiscopales,” Bulletin de la société nationale des antiquaires de France (1967) 74–104. Dubois concluded that the lists and Duchesne's work are still generally reliable.Google Scholar

⁵ Duchesne's “Avertissement sur la seconde édition” of Fastes épiscopaux states: “Sur un point seulement j'ai modifié mon attitude première; après mur examen il m'a semblé que les signatures jointes au faux concile de Cologne méritaient d'être traitées avec plus de considération que je ne l'avais fait d'abord.” He was not unaware of negative criticism by any means, for he replied directly to Harnack at 43 n. 2, 44 n. 1, and 46 n. 1. Harnack, too, refused to budge: Die Mission 1. 485–86 n. 2: “… aber ich halte an meiner Auffassung in allen Punkten fest. …” The primacy of Duchesne's views is apparent from a glance at Leclercq's articles, “Listes épiscopates” and “Lyon,” in the Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes et liturgie or at the first volume of Griffe's now-standard La Gaule chrétienne.

⁶ It has not been easy to bring in the wreckers. See Zeiller, “Les origines” 48–51, for a bibliogrophy of works since 1903 which argue for apostolicity. This complements Houtin, A., La controverse de l'apostolicité des églises de France au XIX^e siècle (3d ed., Paris: 1903).Google Scholar One should also note careful criticism of the literary evidence by Schuler, Matthias, “Über die Anfänge des Christentums in Gallien und Trier mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der These von Duchesne,” Trierer Zeitschrift (1931) 80–103Google Scholar, who nevertheless did not distinguish well between Eusebius and the documents quoted by Eusebius. Most opponents of Duchesne, however, have foundered on the legends; in a book review in Revue d'histoire de l'église de France (1953) 78, Etienne Delaruelle, whose words and tone speak for contemporary critical historians, said: “Il est navrant de penser que des savants doivent aujourd'hui recommencer une démonstration depuis longtemps administrée avec évidence, pour maintenir les règles de la vraie méthode historique contre les infiltrations de la légende.”Google Scholar

⁷ See, e.g., Zeiller, , “Les origines” 45–46. My impression of pp. 8–10 of Duchesne's Origines du culte chrétien: Etude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne (3d ed., Paris: 1902) and pp. 84–95Google Scholar of his Histoire ancienne de l'église 1, which are roughly contemporaneous with his work on the episcopal lists, is that he thought that the monarchic episcopate developed earlier throughout the Church than we now think it did. Cf. the “problems and methods” section in the programmatic outline of Eugène Jarry and Jean-Rémy Palanque, “Une nouvelle collection: [Histoires des diocèses de France],” Revue d'histoire de l'église de France (1959) 5–24Google Scholar, esp. 9: “La fondation de l'évêché représente, théoriquement, un problème distinct de celui de l'évangélization, mais qui ne peut, le plus souvent, être traité séparément. Les conclusions de Mgr Duchesne ne sont pas toujours intangibles, mais elles offrent une base solide.”

⁸ Duchesne apparently unconsciously switched from thinking of “bishoprics” to thinking of “churches.” Let this example, from Fastes épiscopaux 1. 60–61, stand for several possible ones: “Avant la fin du III^e siècle [il y avait] peu d'évêchés en Gaule et cela seulement dans les villes les plus importantes. A l'origine, au premier siècle chrétien pour notre pays (150–250), [il y avait] une seule église, celle de Lyon….” Bellet, Les origines vi shows (in chiastic order) the same exchange of terms as he sums up Duchesne's thesis: “Elle peut se résumer en ces termes: En dehors de l'église de Lyon, établie vraisemblablement au milieu du II^e siècle, aucune église n'a été fondée dans les Gaules — la Narbonnaise exceptée — avant le milieu du siècle suivant, soit vers l'an 250. Jusqu'à cette date il n'y avait qu'un seul et unique siège épiscopal, celui de Lyon.”

⁹ The equation of churches with bishops is, of course, of long standing. Gibbon put it succinctly in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 15 n. 112: “Nulla Ecclesia sine Episcopo, has been a fact as well as a maxim since the time of Tertullian and Irenaeus” (ed. Bury, 2.42).

¹⁰ For instance: Bellet, Les origines xv said that geography alone suggests that Marseille, Narbonne, Aix, Aries, Avignon, and Vienne would have been evangelized before Lyon. Zeiller, “Les origines” 41–42 said about Provence that “Leur église principale [i.e., Marseille] a, malgré tout, des chances de rester la plus vieille de France.” Emilienne Demougeot, “A propos des martyrs lyonnais de 177,” Revue des études anciennes (1966) 323–31Google Scholar, wondered: “Pourquoi cette forte communauté chrétienne, dirigée par des Asiates, à Lyon, non à Marseille ou en Narbonnaise?” Cf. Palanque, Jean-Rémy et al., Le diocèse de Marseille (Paris: 1967) 14–16.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, 6 (tr. Kruger, Karl-H., London, 1966) 317Google Scholar: “The question of the episcopate within the Church, of its collegial unity and its function in the Church as the supreme bearer of power in union with the pope is one of the central questions of the Council now meeting.” The arguments which follow above cause no discomfort to modern theologians, if Rahner may be taken as representative, for in Theological Investigations 5. 274 he stated that to do justice to what we know of apostolic church structure “… it will be impossible to suppose that the tripartition of this office in the Church (i.e., the episcopal office, the sacerdotal office and the office of deacon) goes back directly to the explicit will of the historical Jesus before or after the Resurection.” Cf. Küng, Hans, Structures of the Church (tr. Attanasio, Salvator; New York, 1965) 185–86Google Scholar, for similar thoughts.

¹² The bibliography is enormous, for interest in the problem has by no means been confined to the last two decades. Important works from the mid-nineteenth century to 1967 are given on pp. 172–74 of Dauvillier, Jean, Les temps apostoliques, ler siècle (Paris: 1970)Google Scholar, which should be supplemented by the bibliography at the end of Lemaire, André, Les ministères aux origines de l'église (Paris: 1971).Google Scholar Both authors, curiously enough, seem unaware of the admirable work of Telfer, William, The Office of a Bishop (London: 1962)Google Scholar.

¹³ The summary that follows above is derived from Lemaire, Les ministères, a particularly lucid presentation and evaluation of the evidence, and is consonant with Hans von Campenhausen's masterful Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Tübingen: 1953)Google Scholar, now in English as Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (tr. Baker, J. A.; Stanford, 1969)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ With regard to early bishops and their history, Duchesne said (Fastes épiscopaux 1. 39): “Il y a done lieu de considérer Théodore comme exactement informé.” Harnack pooh-poohed Duchesne's credulity by dismissing Theodore's testimony as “undiskutierbar” (Die Mission 1. 463) and then proceeded with similar credulity to accept the testimony of Eusebius.

¹⁵ This distrust should not be limited, as are my comments, to Gallic ecclesiastical history.

¹⁶ Kirsopp Lake, p. xxxiv of the introduction to the Loeb Library's edition of The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius (2 vols., London: 1926–1932).Google Scholar Cf. pp. 284–85 of Momigliano, Arnaldo, “Tradition and the Classical Historian,” History and Theory (1972) 279–93Google Scholar: “The ‘great’ Greek and Latin historians were dominated by the sense of change,” and “Ecclesiastical history — the record of the true faith in its fights against heresies and persecutors — was inconceivable in pagan Antiquity. Its appearance meant the beginning of a new era.” According to Harnack this historiographic attitude endured into the late nineteenth century to such an extent that “It is therefore impossible for a Catholic to make a free, impartial and scientific investigation of the history of dogma” (History of Dogma 1. 23 [tr. Buchanan, Neil in 1894 from the German edition of 1886]).Google Scholar Harnack surely would applaud the position of the modern Roman Catholic Hans Küng (in his Structures of the Church 6): “The Church historian's summary reply to all a priori distinctions will therefore be that the solid and heavy granite blocks of historical facts cannot be budged a single inch by such statements, profound as they are in themselves.” Elton, G. R. (The Practice of History [New York, 1967] 28–39) implies that he would applaud a similar statement by Marxists and social scientists whose doctrinaire approaches to history have replaced those of Christian theologiansGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ A basic bibliography for die historical study of the letter of the martyrs and of Irenaeus is given by Duval, Paul-Marie, La Gaule jusqu'au milieu du V^e siècle (2 vols., Paris: 1971)Google Scholar nos. 175 and 176. See also the useful introduction, text, and English translation of the letter in Musurillo, Herbert, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: 1972)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ The apostle Paul's presumed stop on his presumed trip to Spain is too tenuous for consideration. And whether Crescens' trip (2 Tim 4:10) was to Gaul or Galatia is uncertain; cf. Griffe, La Gaule chrétienne 1.15–17. Archeology offers little help, for the remains are few, late, and ambiguous; cf. Griffe, ibid. 74–82. The earliest dated Christian inscription of Gaul is from A.D. 334; cf. Blant, Edmond Le, Inscriptions chrétiennes de la Gaule (2 vols., Paris: 1866–1865)Google Scholar, esp. 1. lv. The problems of interpreting the several early Gallic Christian artifacts have recently been highlighted by J. Rougé, “A propos d'une inscription de Marseille. Martyrs ou péris enmer?”, Revue des études anciennes (1969) 85–99Google Scholar, who argues that CIL 12.489 = Le Blant 548a, sometimes interpreted as commemorating Christian martyrs who died vim ignis, really refers to pagan mariners who died vis marts.

¹⁹ For my purposes it is irrelevant whether the persecution took place in 177 or, as has been suggested, 175. It would be relevant that the persecution were a Galatian and not a Gallic one, as lean Colin (“Saint Irénée était-il évêque de Lyon?”, Latomus [1964] 81–85,Google Scholar“Martyrs grecs de Lyon ou martyrs galates?”, L'antiquité classique [1964] 108–15Google Scholar, and L'empire des Antonins ex les martyrs gaulois de 177 [(Antiquitas 1, Abh. z. Alten Gesch. 10; Bonn: 1964])Google Scholar, argues. The argument, however, fails to convince: see Demougeot, , “A propos des martyrs”; Sante Rossi, “Ireneo fu vescovo di Lione,” Giornale italiano di filologia (1964), 239–54Google Scholar, and “Il cristianesimo della Gallia e i martiri di Lione,” ibid. 289–320; and Jacques Dubois' review of Colin's book in Revue d'histoire de l'église de France (1964) 138–42Google Scholar.

²⁰ The origin or antecedents of Pothinus are unknown. His name was Greek; he spoke Greek; he was 90 years old and the local leader of the Christians when he was martyred. All else is speculation.

²¹ Even Ignatius, who had such clearly defined concepts of the three ministries and used the title “deacon” much as does modern Christianity, could use διακονία generically for the ministry of deacons (ep. ad Mag. 6.1) as well as for that of bishops (ep. ad Philad. 1.1). Cf. Lemaire, Les ministères 171 n. 17. As far as I know, however, no one clearly refers to a bishop, titled or generic, as διάκονος. The philological morass surrounding Sanctus is more formidable than Duchesne acknowledged, even after Bellet, Les origines 66 pointed it out. Valesius' reading of H.E. 5.1.17 was Σάγκτον διάκονον π βιέννης; that of Duchesne was Σάγκτον τν διάκονον π βιέννης. The τόν was important to Duchesne's argument (Fastes épiscopaux 1. 41) that Sanctus was a deacon at Vienne and subordinate to the church at Lyon. Whichever of the readings is true to the letter of the martyrs, Eusebius apparently took it to mean Σάγκτος διάκονος κ πόλεως βιέννης (Migne, Patrologia graeca 20.1521, a fragment of Eusebius' lost Acta martyrum), which gives me no more help. Nautin, Pierre (Lettres et écrivains chrétiens des II^e et III^e siècles [Paris, 1961] 94 n. 3 ), who discusses only Duchesne's reading (and concludes that Sanctus was from Vienne and a deacon of the independent church of Vienne), does not leave us firmly on dry land. The evidence is just insufficientGoogle Scholar.

²² This indefiniteness is evident also in the terms “parish” and “diocese”; cf. Labriolle, Pierre de, “Paroecia,” Bulletin du Cange: Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (1927) 196–205Google Scholar, reprinted in Recherches de sciences religieuses (1928) 60–72Google Scholar; and Müller, K., “Parochie und Diözese im Abendland im spätromischer und merowingischer Zeit,” ZNW (1933) 149–67Google Scholar.

²³ Hirschfeld, Otto ( “Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Lugdunum vor Constantin,” Sitzungs-Berichte der Berliner Akademie [April, 1895] 381–409Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften [Berlin: 1913] 154–85) suggested that Vienne is mentioned first because its Christian community was older. Nautin, Lettres et écrivains 94 conjectures also that Irenaeus was bishop of Vienne before he became bishop of LyonGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ This obvious explanation, which no one to my knowledge has previously put forth, was given to me by Kathleen Tyler.

²⁵ Nautin, Lettres et écrivains 54–61 attempts to prove that Irenaeus wrote the letter; but there simply is no evidence to adduce.

²⁶ Lemaire, Les ministères 175–76. Polycarp's church did not hesitate after his martyrdom to title him πίσκοπος: ep. ad Philomelium 16.2. Perhaps, in the half-century separating Ignatius' correspondence with Polycarp and this letter of the Smyrnans, Polycarp came to accept the episcopal title.

²⁷ Ignatius, who was martyred at Rome probably in the last decade of Trajan's reign, is most likely to have introduced the titles there. His great insistence on the importance of the (monarchic) episcopate is generally accepted; so it may be significant that he refers to a bishop in his letter to the Magnesians (3.1), to the Trallians (1.1), to the Philadelphians (1.1), to the Smyrnans (8.1), and to Polycarp (the salutation) — all in the East — but does not do so in his letter to the Romans. Perhaps he was ignorant of the Roman hierarchy. Or perhaps there was no titled bishop there. For the (possibly atypical) development of the Roman monarchic episcopate, see Telfer, Office of a Bishop 43–63. The importance of the bishop to Ignatius is stressed, e.g., by Brown, Milton P. (The Authentic Writings of Ignatius [Durham, N.C.: 1963] 123)Google Scholar and by Maccarrone, Michele (“Lo sviluppo dell'idea dell'episcopato nel II secolo e la formazione del simbolo della cattedra episcopale,” in Problemi di storia della chiesa: La chiesa antica, secoli II–IV [Milan: 1970] 85–206, esp. 91–99)Google Scholar.

²⁸ See, e.g., the textual discussion in Sagnard, F., Contre les hérésies, 3 (Sources chretiennes 34; Paris: 1952) 70–86Google Scholar.

²⁹ It seems to me at least arguable that Irenaeus did not envisage the episcopal succession always as the replacement of one bishop by one other, else he would have said successionem episcoporum and not successiones episcoporum at 3.3.2, just before giving the Roman list. (Cf. 3.2.2: successiones preshyterorum.) Such an argument might be countered by noting that it is not clear that successiones episcoporum at 3.2.2 refers only to the Roman church; but that it is clear that, after having given the list of those who held the Roman episcopate, Irenaeus refers (3.2.3) to what he has given as a successio (διαδοχή), and not as successiones. The whole problem — intricate, confused, conjectural — is not helped by our knowledge that Irenaeus' list is apparently derived from a lost one of Hegesippus, a Palestinian Jew who was visiting Rome in the mid-second century, when he composed it. As to Irenaeus' basic assertion, one can only echo the skepticism of Jean Colson, L'évêque dans les communautés primitives (Tradition paulinienne et tradition johannique de l'épiscopat des origines à saint Irénée) (Unam Sanctum 21; Paris: 1951) 116Google Scholar: “Heureux Irénée qui pouvait ainsi ‘énumerer les évêques’ institués par les ap'à lui!”

³⁰ 4.26.2 is a vexatious passage, for it also says that the presbyters in the Church have received, with the “episcopal succession,” the certain charisma of truth (τοῖς σὺν τῇ πισκοπικῇ διαδοχῇ τ χάρισμα τς ληθείας σϕαλς … εἰληϕόσι). Rousseau, 's translation (Sources chrétiennes 100. 2; Paris, 1965, p. 719)Google Scholar, “… et, avec la succession dans l'épiscopat, ils ont reçu ….” is not entirely satisfactory. πισκοπική is doubtlessly generic here, and does not refer to a titled episcopate (as the French may imply). Relevant to this line of argument is the reference in 4.27.1 to the presbyter (in all likelihood Polycarp of Smyrna) who taught Irenaeus these things and who himself learned them from the apostles. If it is Polycarp who is meant, is he not given the title because he never wanted it and/or never clearly assumed it? Or because Irenaeus is consistently speaking in generic terms? Throughout Adversus haereses Irenaeus distinguishes two categories of disciples of the apostles, “disciples” and “presbyters”: cf. Rousseau, , Sources chrétiennes 100.1 (Paris, 1965) 263–64. Polycarp would fall into the second categoryGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Against this cf. Palanque, Jean-Rémy in volume 1 of Histoire du Catholicisme en France (ed. Delaruelle, E. et al.; 3 vals., Paris: 1957–1962) 24: “… il n'est question désormais [by the time of the evangeliaztion of Gaul] que d'un épiscopat unitaire, chaque Eglise ayant son pasteur, qui a reçu ses pouvoirs par l'imposition des mains d'un autre évêque et qui confère le sacerdoce a des prêtres, assistés de diacres et d'autres clercs.”Google Scholar

³² Fastes épiscopaux 1. 40ff. Leclercq, Henri (Dictionnaire des antiquités chrétiennes et liturgie, 10 [1931] 73)Google Scholar called Duchesne's arguments “plus ingénieuses que démonstratives.” Nevertheless, they have been widely accepted: e.g., by Moreau, E. de, Histoire de l'église en Belgique 1 (ed. 2; Brussels: 1945) 23–24Google Scholar.

³³ See note 22.

³⁴ Whether Harnack was right, against Duchesne, that eadem provincia refers to the province of Lyonnaise and not to all of Gaul does not materially affect my argument. Griffe (La Gaule chrétienne 1. 88) has added his support to Duchesne's position.

³⁵ Jean Colson (“L'organisation ecclésiastique aux deux premiers siècles de 1'église,” in Problemi di storia 55–83) infers (pp. 79–80) such resistance from the letters of Ignatius. Contra, cf. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'église 1.91.

³⁶ I am here thinking of the bishop of Rome's possible reasons for sending the seven bishops to Gaul in c. A.D. 250. Was the mission part of the politics of those opposed to the Novatian schism? Cf. Leflon, J., Histoire de l'église de Reims du I^er au V^me siècle (Reims: 1941) 87–88, for the possibility that Sixtus, first bishop of Reims, was also sent out at this time from RomeGoogle Scholar.