What do you think?
Rate this book
The Penguin History of the Church #1
The Early Church
Examines the beginning of the Christian movement during the first centuries AD, and the explosive force of its expansion throughout the Roman world.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
About the author
Henry Chadwick
131 books39 followersHenry Chadwick was a British academic, theologian and Church of England priest. A former dean of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford – and as such, head of Christ Church, Oxford – he also served as master of Peterhouse, Cambridge.
A leading historian of the early church, Chadwick was appointed Regius Professor at both the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He was a noted supporter of improved relations with the Catholic Church, and a leading member of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission. An accomplished musician, having studied music to degree level, he took a leading part in the revision and updating of hymnals widely used within Anglicanism, chairing the board of the publisher Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd. for 20 years.
A leading historian of the early church, Chadwick was appointed Regius Professor at both the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He was a noted supporter of improved relations with the Catholic Church, and a leading member of the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission. An accomplished musician, having studied music to degree level, he took a leading part in the revision and updating of hymnals widely used within Anglicanism, chairing the board of the publisher Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd. for 20 years.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews
Read
February 5, 2012This is the first volume of the penguin history of the church and not the beginning of a history of Christianity.
Implicit in this book is the idea that orthodoxy has always existed. This is a problem and a grave weakness. In the absence of a creed, a canon of agreed genuine holy books there is only tradition which Chadwick believes was unitary. In this Chadwick doesn't escape his professional background, and presumably his faith, as a Church of England Priest. It is accepted that apostolic succession was an actual occurrence and by implication all the apostles were of one mind. The reader may suspect that the reality was considerably more messy.
Early Christianity for Chadwick is not a wide field full of people adapting popular and occasionally written traditions about Jesus, increasingly ignorant of his Jewish background in the context of the religious and philosophical environment of the Mediterranean world but rather the doughty defence of Orthodoxy against the wrong-headed even before Orthodoxy ever existed.
In this Chadwick sets the tone for the entire series which isn't the history of the Church but a history of a Church. If you're a Coptic Christian there's nothing for you here, except finding out that you are not Orthodox.
I read the revised edition, I'm not sure if the 1967 text was revised, the only alteration mentioned is that the suggested reading was updated.
I would have liked more on the emergence of a biblical canon and more of a sense of what texts (and of what quality) different figures and movements in Christian history were drawing from - but again this may well be constrained by the nature of the surviving source material.
Implicit in this book is the idea that orthodoxy has always existed. This is a problem and a grave weakness. In the absence of a creed, a canon of agreed genuine holy books there is only tradition which Chadwick believes was unitary. In this Chadwick doesn't escape his professional background, and presumably his faith, as a Church of England Priest. It is accepted that apostolic succession was an actual occurrence and by implication all the apostles were of one mind. The reader may suspect that the reality was considerably more messy.
Early Christianity for Chadwick is not a wide field full of people adapting popular and occasionally written traditions about Jesus, increasingly ignorant of his Jewish background in the context of the religious and philosophical environment of the Mediterranean world but rather the doughty defence of Orthodoxy against the wrong-headed even before Orthodoxy ever existed.
In this Chadwick sets the tone for the entire series which isn't the history of the Church but a history of a Church. If you're a Coptic Christian there's nothing for you here, except finding out that you are not Orthodox.
I read the revised edition, I'm not sure if the 1967 text was revised, the only alteration mentioned is that the suggested reading was updated.
I would have liked more on the emergence of a biblical canon and more of a sense of what texts (and of what quality) different figures and movements in Christian history were drawing from - but again this may well be constrained by the nature of the surviving source material.
May 4, 2013
A fairly one sided look at the early western church
4 March 2013
The problem with the time period that Chadwick is writing about here is that the main source that we rely upon is Eusebius, and many people are somewhat concerned about his objectively in relation to the church prior to it becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire. It is not that we do not have many primary sources, we have quite a lot, but most of them deal with how one should conduct themselves as a Christian, or how a church should operate. Eusebius, outside of the New Testament, is really the first person who sat down to write a history of the church.
Eusebius was a Roman bishop who pretty much came to fame after Constantine 'converted' to Christianity, though the reasons behind his conversion are dubious at best. Some suggest that the reason he waited until his dying breath to become baptised was because of the belief that one could lose salvation if one was baptised too early. However the other idea (and one that I tend to hold) was that Constantine's conversion was more of a political decision rather than a personal spiritual decision. As the story goes, he had a dream before a major battle where he was told that he would conquer by the Cross, so he had all of his men paint a cross on their shields and go into battle.
Actually, Constantine didn't go into battle, he ended up letting the battle come to him, so as it turned out, his victory was not some spiritual intervention (like some in the Bible) but a rather clever strategy. Basically the armies were standing on the opposite ends of a bridge, and Constantine remained where he was while his enemy (a rival claimant to the imperial throne) crossed the bridge and was slaughtered.
The reason for making Christianity the state religion was, once again, not some spiritual decision but rather a pragmatic one. Rome had been struggling with multiple claimants to the throne for decades and now Constantine had risen to become the sole emperor. One of the best ways to stamp your rule onto an empire is through the use of religion. The traditional Roman religions were eclectic at best, with no one particular god holding sway. Basically people worshipped how they say best. What Christianity offered was consistency, namely one God and one set of rules to follow. Therefore, the idea was to get rid of the multitude of gods and personal morality to replace it with a single God with a single set of rules.
Eusebius formed part of the council of Nicea, which was the council set up after Constantine decreed that Christianity would be the sole religion of the empire, and worked to lay out a strict, consistent, foundation. This included bringing the Bible together as a consistent book. The Bible that we have now was basically determined by vote from this particular council. Mind you, I do not have a problem with the content of our modern Bible, or with its teachings, however I do have a problem with people's interpretation of its teachings.
This is an interesting, second source account of the early church, and I also suspect that Chadwick uses more sources than just Eusebius in writing this. I wouldn't necessarily refer people to Eusebius though, because he tends to waffle on a lot using a lot of theological writing. He is typical of what one would expect from a Christian author writing a Christian history, and no doubt writing something that is revisionist as well.
4 March 2013
The problem with the time period that Chadwick is writing about here is that the main source that we rely upon is Eusebius, and many people are somewhat concerned about his objectively in relation to the church prior to it becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire. It is not that we do not have many primary sources, we have quite a lot, but most of them deal with how one should conduct themselves as a Christian, or how a church should operate. Eusebius, outside of the New Testament, is really the first person who sat down to write a history of the church.
Eusebius was a Roman bishop who pretty much came to fame after Constantine 'converted' to Christianity, though the reasons behind his conversion are dubious at best. Some suggest that the reason he waited until his dying breath to become baptised was because of the belief that one could lose salvation if one was baptised too early. However the other idea (and one that I tend to hold) was that Constantine's conversion was more of a political decision rather than a personal spiritual decision. As the story goes, he had a dream before a major battle where he was told that he would conquer by the Cross, so he had all of his men paint a cross on their shields and go into battle.
Actually, Constantine didn't go into battle, he ended up letting the battle come to him, so as it turned out, his victory was not some spiritual intervention (like some in the Bible) but a rather clever strategy. Basically the armies were standing on the opposite ends of a bridge, and Constantine remained where he was while his enemy (a rival claimant to the imperial throne) crossed the bridge and was slaughtered.
The reason for making Christianity the state religion was, once again, not some spiritual decision but rather a pragmatic one. Rome had been struggling with multiple claimants to the throne for decades and now Constantine had risen to become the sole emperor. One of the best ways to stamp your rule onto an empire is through the use of religion. The traditional Roman religions were eclectic at best, with no one particular god holding sway. Basically people worshipped how they say best. What Christianity offered was consistency, namely one God and one set of rules to follow. Therefore, the idea was to get rid of the multitude of gods and personal morality to replace it with a single God with a single set of rules.
Eusebius formed part of the council of Nicea, which was the council set up after Constantine decreed that Christianity would be the sole religion of the empire, and worked to lay out a strict, consistent, foundation. This included bringing the Bible together as a consistent book. The Bible that we have now was basically determined by vote from this particular council. Mind you, I do not have a problem with the content of our modern Bible, or with its teachings, however I do have a problem with people's interpretation of its teachings.
This is an interesting, second source account of the early church, and I also suspect that Chadwick uses more sources than just Eusebius in writing this. I wouldn't necessarily refer people to Eusebius though, because he tends to waffle on a lot using a lot of theological writing. He is typical of what one would expect from a Christian author writing a Christian history, and no doubt writing something that is revisionist as well.
February 27, 2012
This was required reading when I was studying theology at GTU in the early 1980's. It opened a whole new door for me onto the christian tradition. I had not realized it was so fragmented from day one. Very interesting! As I read and learned, I realized I was especially drawn to the Alexandrian tradition, which believed that the purpose of Christ's life was to teach 'deification' to his followers, ie how to become a god-man like himself. This was exactly what I was searching for in christianity after my earlier forays into Indian spirituality, but when I asked for direction in learning more about ORigen and Clement of Alexandria, I was told by my scholastic advisor that 'we aren't interested in them.' I didn't understand then, the Antiochean emphasis within Catholicism and really all mainstream Christianity in the West. I enjoyed Chadwick's book, learned a lot, and was happy to 'graduate' to Peter Brown who covers the same territory but with a much less biased perspective, more historical and capable of giving everyone their due without the need for judgement of any kind. This book is more 'towing the party line.'
October 28, 2022
I thought this book was about church services beginning before 9am, but it was really about church history in the 2-4th centuries.
JK that's what I expected. Anyways, the book was fine.
JK that's what I expected. Anyways, the book was fine.
June 27, 2012
Chadwick's history of the early church is widely regarded as the standard work on the subject, and it's easy to see why. It's a dense, dry read, jostling with facts and ideas about the development of Christianity between the ministry of Jesus and the Iconoclasm Controversy in the Early Middle Ages that marks the sundering of the Eastern and Western Churches.
Chadwick explores the complex interplay of social, political, and doctrinal forces that worked together to drive the history of the church forward. It's not easy reading and I wouldn't recommend it as a place to start. It greatly benefits from some familiarity with the historical context, particularly the late Roman Empire, and familiarity with the core disputes of early theology, such as the early Trinitarian controversies and the conflict between Catholic and Gnostic forms of Christianity.
By and large, the facts are presented without much context of big-picture-building. I was frustrated to find a serviceable presentation of the big picture only in the final pages, in the book's conclusion - it would have been helpful for me if his broad interpretation had been integrated into the story as he was telling it. I would recommend that most readers start with the conclusion, since it's not exactly going to give anything away, and possibly even refer back to it periodically throughout the read.
The book evidences several ignominious flaws, which, although commonplace in Christian literature, are no less tedious for it. Women receive little consideration, for example. One might think that not a single woman lived in all of Christendom between Monica and Hildegard of Bingen, reading this book. While the roots of monasticism are considered at length, the origins of the orders of nuns receive not a single word.
It probably goes without saying that extra-canonical views are generally treated unsympathetically, to say nothing of so-called "pagans." In the opinion of this reader, it is high time for that imprecise polemical term to be rejected by academic literature.
Despite all that, Chadwick does an admirable job in cooly surveying the various forces at work, and is often judicious in recognizing a meaningless political spat in theological guise for what it is. Armed with a general familiarity of the topic, any reader will certainly come away enriched.
Chadwick explores the complex interplay of social, political, and doctrinal forces that worked together to drive the history of the church forward. It's not easy reading and I wouldn't recommend it as a place to start. It greatly benefits from some familiarity with the historical context, particularly the late Roman Empire, and familiarity with the core disputes of early theology, such as the early Trinitarian controversies and the conflict between Catholic and Gnostic forms of Christianity.
By and large, the facts are presented without much context of big-picture-building. I was frustrated to find a serviceable presentation of the big picture only in the final pages, in the book's conclusion - it would have been helpful for me if his broad interpretation had been integrated into the story as he was telling it. I would recommend that most readers start with the conclusion, since it's not exactly going to give anything away, and possibly even refer back to it periodically throughout the read.
The book evidences several ignominious flaws, which, although commonplace in Christian literature, are no less tedious for it. Women receive little consideration, for example. One might think that not a single woman lived in all of Christendom between Monica and Hildegard of Bingen, reading this book. While the roots of monasticism are considered at length, the origins of the orders of nuns receive not a single word.
It probably goes without saying that extra-canonical views are generally treated unsympathetically, to say nothing of so-called "pagans." In the opinion of this reader, it is high time for that imprecise polemical term to be rejected by academic literature.
Despite all that, Chadwick does an admirable job in cooly surveying the various forces at work, and is often judicious in recognizing a meaningless political spat in theological guise for what it is. Armed with a general familiarity of the topic, any reader will certainly come away enriched.
September 16, 2011
This classic is a bit old-school now: the orthodox meta-narrative is a high road from which to look down on the impotently raging tides of heresy. Some will find that reassuring; some will find it frustrating. I tend towards the latter, mostly because I believe it was all a bit more complicated than Chadwick has scope to describe. There are also some questions concerning the philosophy of history lurking in the undergrowth.
Nevertheless, the path is easy. The prose is smooth and refined, and mostly clearly signed. There are occasional discontinuities, including implicit first mentions -- that is, mentions of people who haven't appeared yet in the story but that already presuppose the reader's familiarity with them -- that can confuse the newcomer. A tendency to thematise makes this unavoidable, I suspect, and outweighs this minor cost with the benefit of conceptual cohesion. At any rate, the particular newcomers I know seemed to think so.
In short, a decent read, especially as a first stroll into this territory, but perhaps best accompanied or followed by a more up-to-date account that does not gloss over the uncertainties surrounding the period.
Nevertheless, the path is easy. The prose is smooth and refined, and mostly clearly signed. There are occasional discontinuities, including implicit first mentions -- that is, mentions of people who haven't appeared yet in the story but that already presuppose the reader's familiarity with them -- that can confuse the newcomer. A tendency to thematise makes this unavoidable, I suspect, and outweighs this minor cost with the benefit of conceptual cohesion. At any rate, the particular newcomers I know seemed to think so.
In short, a decent read, especially as a first stroll into this territory, but perhaps best accompanied or followed by a more up-to-date account that does not gloss over the uncertainties surrounding the period.
December 1, 2018
This is one of the best books on the early church. Chronologically, it ranges from the beginning to around the time of Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604). This period of church history is crucial, because, as Chadwick states, “most of the main issues then faced by the church in its formative period have remained virtually permanent questions in Christian history – questions which receive an answer but are then reiterated in a modified shape in each age” (p. 285). The main questions Chadwick sees are these: the question of the continuity and discontinuity between the church and Israel (the role of the law; the status of the Old Testament); questions of authority (determining the canon of the New Testament; the rule of faith; and the role of bishops); theological questions of the nature of God (the Arian controversy), the person of Christ (the Nestorian controversy), and salvation (the Pelagian controversy); and the perennial questions of the relationship between church and society (persecution and martyrdom; church-state relations after the conversion of Constantine; ascetism and monasticism).
November 13, 2015
I recommend this book to anyone who is curious about the history of the Christian Church in its early centuries - from the end of the New Testament period to about 600 AD. It covers the early expansion of Christianity in the Roman Empire, how the controversies with the Gnostics spurred the development of doctrine and the canon of the New Testament, the effects of persecution, the effects of the Emperor Constantine's conversion, and the controversies that resulted in the early Ecumenical Councils. Also the growth of the Papacy and the growing differences between the eastern and western churches, and the rise of monasticism. And more.
October 27, 2023
*round 2! CVD was right, it’s a good bedtime read
November 19, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️ 1/2 stars
Church history is exciting! Chadwick, on the other hand, not so much. Reading him is like attending a class with a professor that everyone raved about. The classes are great…but he’s pretty boring. Church history buffs will enjoy it, but even they may need a strong cup of coffee to get through.
Church history is exciting! Chadwick, on the other hand, not so much. Reading him is like attending a class with a professor that everyone raved about. The classes are great…but he’s pretty boring. Church history buffs will enjoy it, but even they may need a strong cup of coffee to get through.
March 4, 2013
Mildly interesting but I found it slow going. The author presupposes a lot of knowledge and throws around a lot of concepts without defining all of them clearly. But the conclusion is excellent. You could probably read the conclusion, look up the concepts you don't understand on Wikipedia and skip the rest of the book.
TL;DR summary: In the early church various different factions interpreted bits of the religious writings differently and then spent decades arguing about who was right about something that no-one could possibly know the answer to. Oh and on occasion emperors got involved and people's heads fell off.
TL;DR summary: In the early church various different factions interpreted bits of the religious writings differently and then spent decades arguing about who was right about something that no-one could possibly know the answer to. Oh and on occasion emperors got involved and people's heads fell off.
February 25, 2026
A phenomenal introductory survey to the Patristic Age. Chadwick's writing is clear, concise, and has a flow that makes reading this history enjoyable. He does a great job at introducing key figures and events in light of the contextual factors that motivated them. He gives just enough detail to be comprehensive without being excessively thorough so that readers have a sufficient foundation and know where to dig further on the material if they are interested in doing so. 10/10, would recommend!
April 25, 2024
Such a great overview of the first 6 centuries of Christendom. Chadwick frames the development, as is common, of the Eastern and Western traditions separately when applicable, but also deals with the real interchanges that both dealt with. Arianism, the Donatist controversy, Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and the unique addition of the Christian development of art and music. This is the first book I have read that deals with liturgical prayers and music/art in the early church, for sure. Absolutely worth the read if this is your cup of tea!
January 14, 2026
I'm reading this for a class...while I am interested in the topic, this book could really use an editor. I keep reading the same sentence a few times trying to understand the meaning...there are so many times in the book where you read a sentence and wonder if it means one thing or the opposite of that thing. I hope there are better books out there on the history of the early church. While the time period and culture may have been confusing at this time, there is no reason the description of that confusing time needs to be confusing.
I finally finished it. The content was good...I'm glad to know more about early church history, but still wish it had been more carefully edited for ease of understanding.
I finally finished it. The content was good...I'm glad to know more about early church history, but still wish it had been more carefully edited for ease of understanding.
August 27, 2008
Learned quite a lot, but it was a bit on the slow side. Had no idea how much diversity there was in the early years of the church, and how much the early christians really hated other christians who believed slightly different things than themselves.
February 23, 2009
I feel Professor Chadwick did a remarkable job of cramming so much history into 290 pages. It is a book that needs to be read with pencil in hand.
June 11, 2022
Great introduction to the Early church. Chadwick is old-school, i.e. he recognizes that the early church self-identified itself as possessing an "Orthodoxy" that it was to guard, and not merely a confusion of differing local beliefs that was strong-armed into singularity by the State. Thus, he takes seriously the Apostolic writings, avoiding a sort of snobbish cynicism that one finds in more liberal quarters (Bauer Thesis).
I'm especially grateful for the last few chapters, where he takes a more case-study approach to different aspects of Church History (like the papacy, then another one on worship, etc.) that is helpful to have in one coherent narrative. Although I'm sure this volume is dated, it's still an enjoyable summary. The volume on the Reformation is the star of this series, but this one (the first of seven) shouldn't be overlooked.
I'm especially grateful for the last few chapters, where he takes a more case-study approach to different aspects of Church History (like the papacy, then another one on worship, etc.) that is helpful to have in one coherent narrative. Although I'm sure this volume is dated, it's still an enjoyable summary. The volume on the Reformation is the star of this series, but this one (the first of seven) shouldn't be overlooked.
December 23, 2021
Chadwick sets out a history of the ancient church in chronological and thematic chapters, covering main character, concepts, and events of the early Christian era. It's a concise book on a broad and complex subject, so it does what it intends to. A few of his own theological assumptions and progressive scholarship made its way into narrative, some of which I disagree with exegetically and other which have been disproven (the late authorship of John's Gospel by a later community, for example). Overall, it was enjoyable and useful in conjunction with some other works on the subject.
October 8, 2019
A decent overview of early Christianity. Christian history is relatively new to me, but I'm not sure a "good" history of the whole church could ever be written. 2,000 years is just such an incredible length of time and Christianity touches so many facets of life. As is, though, this is a good introduction and well-written.
April 1, 2021
Points for conciseness and comprehensiveness. Perhaps this isn't a fault of the intent of the book, but it seems to want to cover so much of history that it doesn't cover its historical figures with much depth. I recommend it for a general overview of the history it covers, but not to get to know the history makers.
December 14, 2020
This book is written by a respected historian, yet it is readable. It is "the story of emergent Christianity from the Apostolic age to the dividing of the ways between the Greek East and the Latin West." If I were to instruct someone about to read this book, I would urge them to read the conclusion first.
May 5, 2022
Chadwick's church histories read like excellent introductory lectures. Clean. Clear. Compelling. Quick paced. Really great overviews, giving you a good sense of the breadth and depth of the subject. Highly recommend.
September 20, 2026
Succinct, very accessible and remarkably entertaining, and he covers a lot of ground
October 26, 2026
Everyone should read a survey of the first five centuries of Christianity. This is an immensely helpful/accessible/dare I say fun? one. Knowing where we’ve been is the only way to know where we are.
October 15, 2018
Lively. Full of controversy. The persons are personalities, which can be hard to pull off in history this historical.
September 23, 2007
Chadwick's account of the earliest years and struggles of the Christian church is both readable and informative. probably why it was published by Penguin books. The history in general is difficult to take in as so much happens in such a short time and so much hinges on single syllables. you will still be confused just what the deal with homoousias and homoiousias is, but you will atleast recognize the terms.
chadwick also does a stellar job bringing out the extent to which the eastern churches dominated the story of early Christian development. it is stunning to think that the earliest centers of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc. have been gone from the Christian story for nearly 1400 years.
chadwick also does a stellar job bringing out the extent to which the eastern churches dominated the story of early Christian development. it is stunning to think that the earliest centers of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc. have been gone from the Christian story for nearly 1400 years.
June 29, 2014
An insightful yet edifying history of the first six (approximately) centuries of the Christian church. Chadwick is a Christian but writes as a fair historian. I find that as I look back in the past, I am much more confident about the ultimate triumph of the church as she faces new and dangerous challenges ahead.
April 30, 2011
Insightful look at the early church. It made me inquisitive being raised as a Catholic (now completely gone). It was a good pairing as I spent the year reading all the Graham Greene books and wanted to have a good perspective on that religion.
December 28, 2016
Här står det om dom alla, Guldmunnen, Stålmannen, och Damernas Öronkliare. Chadwick tillhandahåller alla kyrkofäders sköna smeknamn.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 137 reviews