What do you think?
Rate this book
The Faith of the Early Fathers #1
The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1
Volume 1
A source-book of theological and historical passages from the Christian writings of the Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras. Volume 1 ends circa 382.
Volume 1: the Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras
Volume 2: the Post-Nicene era through St. Jerome;
Volume 3: St. Augustine to the end of the patristic period.
The passages selected are keyed to the numerical order established in M. J. Rouët de Journel's Enchiridion Patristicum . In no sense, however, are these volumes a translation of that standard work. The author has made his own investigation of theological textbooks in common use and has selected the patristic passages most frequently cited, including much that is in Rouët and much that is not. All passages have been freshly and accurately translated from the best critical editions.
Preceding each selection is a brief introduction treating the authorship, date and place of composition, and the purpose of the work from which the selection is taken. The author's scholarship and sprightly sense of humor are evident in these prefatory remarks.
Of immense value to the reader is the Doctrinal Index provided for each volume. Here one can find the texts pertinent to particular doctrinal points, a method especially useful to homilists. In addition, each volume is enhanced by comprehensive Scriptural and General Indices.
A source-book of theological and historical passages from the Christian writings of the Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras. Volume 1 ends circa 382.
Volume 1: the Pre-Nicene and Nicene eras
Volume 2: the Post-Nicene era through St. Jerome;
Volume 3: St. Augustine to the end of the patristic period.
The passages selected are keyed to the numerical order established in M. J. Rouët de Journel's Enchiridion Patristicum . In no sense, however, are these volumes a translation of that standard work. The author has made his own investigation of theological textbooks in common use and has selected the patristic passages most frequently cited, including much that is in Rouët and much that is not. All passages have been freshly and accurately translated from the best critical editions.
Preceding each selection is a brief introduction treating the authorship, date and place of composition, and the purpose of the work from which the selection is taken. The author's scholarship and sprightly sense of humor are evident in these prefatory remarks.
Of immense value to the reader is the Doctrinal Index provided for each volume. Here one can find the texts pertinent to particular doctrinal points, a method especially useful to homilists. In addition, each volume is enhanced by comprehensive Scriptural and General Indices.
Paperback
First published July 1, 1978
19 people are currently reading
257 people want to read
About the author
William A. Jurgens
10 books20 followersFr. William A. Jurgens (July 3, 1928 – September 1, 1982) was a Catholic priest, composer, historian, and translator of patristic and other works.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 12, 2009
It's a great book to read in snippets (much of my reading falls into that category these days). Primary sources on patristic writings. Fascinating.
July 18, 2014
After reading these 3 volumes, my friend became a Priest! Excellent reading on the Holy Eucharist from the earliest days of the Church!
reference
March 3, 2014In The Mountain of Silence: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality Father Maximos kept referring to the early Church fathers which made me want to get this back out and at least dip into it a little more often. It's a book I have marked as Reference, so I don't think I'll ever sit down and read it cover-to-cover (although anythings possible!) but often, especially during Lent, I find such books very nutritional reading.
September 2, 2025
THE FIRST OF THREE VOLUMES OF THIS VERY HELPFUL SERIES
William A. Jurgens (1928-1982) was a Catholic priest, historian, and translator. He wrote in the Foreword to this 1970 book, “No Catholic today can afford to be ignorant of the past… Our book is published for a primary audience of theological students engaged directly in a theological course of studies, but its secondary audience is every interested layman.
“In the early forties of the present century there has been a revival of interest in patristic studies, which never quite bore its promised fruit. With the advent of Vatican II and its monumental re-assessments, the revival of patristic interest has been renewed; and while not positing a direct cause and effect relationship between the two, it is probably fair to say that the measure of Vatican II’s successful effectiveness will be similar to the fate of the new revival of patristics. Should the former succeed, so also will the latter; and should the latter die on the vine as once before it died, so also will be the former.” (Pg. ix)
He continues, “The plan is a simple one. In a nearly chronological sequence we quote such passages from the writings of the first three and one-half or four centuries of the Christian era, as have special theological or historical significance, and which are most frequently referred to by theological authors of the present day.” (Pg. x) He adds, “All passages in the present work have been newly translated from the best critical editions.” (Pg. xii)
In his introduction to St. Clement of Rome [late 1st century] he explains, “The various early lists of the Bishops of Rome make Clement either the first, second, or third successor of St. Peter. The better evidence and that generally accepted would have him Peter’s third successor… To base Clement’s title of Apostolic Father on his supposed association with St. Peter is at best somewhat tenuous. But whether or not he was Peter’s convert… whether or not he was consecrated Peter’s successor, and by Peter himself, as Tertullian would have it; still, he is an Apostolic Father, and the title is firmly his, simply by reason of the factthat he is a man of the apostolic age. The traditional dates of Clement’s pontificate, A.D. 92-101, are unworthy of credence. Believing that there is good evidence for dating his sole extant authentic writing ca. A.D. 80, a work clearly written while he was Bishop of Rome, the present author dates Clement’s pontificate accordingly.” (Pg. 6)
He states, “‘The Martyrdom of Polycarp’ is the oldest extant detailed and authentic account of martyrdom. In the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna to the Christian community of Philomelium in Greater Phrygia, it is a most precious document, and even after eighteen hundred years it is a singularly implacable person who can read it without tears.” (Pg. 30)
He suggests, “St. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. According to Irenaeus … he was not only a friend of Polycarp… but also a hearer of the Apostle John; and it is on the strength of that remark that Papias is generally regarded as an Apostolic Father. As Eusebius … points out, however, Papias himself makes it clear that he was a hearer not directly of the Apostles, but of acquaintances of the Apostles. Since the tendency today is to take a more restrictive view in the matter of who is to be called an Apostolic Father, it is probable that Papias ought to be deprived of the title.” (Pg. 38)
He states, “St. Irenaeus was the second bishop of Lyons, succeeding the martyred bishop Sr. Pothinus in the year 177 or 178 A.D. … Not until Gregory of Tours wrote his ‘History’ do we find Irenaeus mentioned as a martyr; and such late testimony is necessarily suspect, especially in view of the fact that Eusebius, who has good knowledge of Irenaeus, says nothing of his supposed martyrdom.” (Pg. 84)
He notes, “Jerome says that Tertullian was a priest. Opinion on this point, however, is still very much divided… Certainly his writings were widely known and widely read; but… this is understandable … when we remember that he was the first to write in Latin, the new vernacular… We find nothing in his writings to indicate that he was a priest, or a cleric of any kind, and… he generally reveals the attitude of a layman rather than that of a cleric.” (Pg. 111)
He points out, “St. Hippolytus of Rome is the first anti-pope, and the only one of the two or three dozen anti-popes of various times to whom the Church accords the title of ‘sanctus’ and the honors of the altar… Hippolytus’ position of anti-pope, strangely enough, was literally forgotten at an early date… A tradition grew up, current as early as St. Jerome, that Hippolytus of … one of the suburban Roman sees.” (Pg. 162)
He reports, “There are more biographical details available for Origen than for any of the other early theologians… The disputes known as the Origenist controversies, in respect to the orthodoxy of his doctrine, arose never during his life, but three times after his death… He was a great scholar… Yet, he came finally to be regarded as a heretic, which accounts largely for the fact that so many of his writings have perished entirely, while much that is extant has suffered terribly at the hands of expurgators, interpolators, and translators… while reinvestigation of Origen is much needed… One thing we can say of him… that he deserves the title of greatest scholar of Christian antiquity.” (Pg. 189)
He explains, “Origen’s most important apologetic treatise is his ‘Against Celsus,’ written about the year 248 A.D. It is a refutation of ‘The True Doctrine,’ a work written about 178 A.D. by Celsus, the pagan philosopher. Celsus’ work… can be almost entirely reconstructed from Origen’s refutation of it… Eusebius was so taken by the power of Origen’s refutation that he declared it an adequate answer even to all future heresies.” (Pg. 213)
He recounts, “The first ecumenical council of the Church and the first council of Nicaea was convened… in the year 325 A.D., by the order of Constantine, his purpose being to put an end to the quarrels and dissension which had arisen over the doctrine of the heresiarch Arius… The exact number of canons promulgated by Nicaea has been … very much disputed. The Greek and Latin collections of conciliar decrees… attribute only twenty canons to Nicaea… at least one other canon was discussed, and finally rejected: the question of imposing clerical celibacy… the Council did not require celibacy of the clergy. Fortunately for the Western Church… celibacy remains today… a great source of strength to the Church throughout the West.” (Pg. 280)
He continues, “If there be any who expect to find here the so-called Nicene Creed recited in the liturgy, they will be disappointed. The substance is here, of course; but the liturgical creed… is actually the revision of the Nicene Creed still often referred to as the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, under the misapprehension that it originated as a re-statement of the Creed of Nicaea made at Constantinople in 381 A.D. … it is a joint effort of the Fathers of the Council. In their hands it was debated, pulled apart and re-worked, until it was the masterpiece that has stood the test of time.” (Pg. 281)
He reports, “St. Athanasius was… principal champion of Nicene doctrine against the onslaughts of the Arians… Exiled from his see five times, he finally regained his place again in 366 A.D., and his last years … were spent in comparative peace.” (Pg. 320)
He states, “St. Hilary [of Poitiers], the Athanasius of the West, so-called because of his staunch support of Nicene doctrine against the Arians… That Arianism in the West crumbled so quickly after the death of Constantius … is due largely to the long-standing and strenuous efforts of Hilary.” (Pg. 372)
This book (and the following two volumes) will be of great interest to those studying the writings of the early Christian Fathers.
William A. Jurgens (1928-1982) was a Catholic priest, historian, and translator. He wrote in the Foreword to this 1970 book, “No Catholic today can afford to be ignorant of the past… Our book is published for a primary audience of theological students engaged directly in a theological course of studies, but its secondary audience is every interested layman.
“In the early forties of the present century there has been a revival of interest in patristic studies, which never quite bore its promised fruit. With the advent of Vatican II and its monumental re-assessments, the revival of patristic interest has been renewed; and while not positing a direct cause and effect relationship between the two, it is probably fair to say that the measure of Vatican II’s successful effectiveness will be similar to the fate of the new revival of patristics. Should the former succeed, so also will the latter; and should the latter die on the vine as once before it died, so also will be the former.” (Pg. ix)
He continues, “The plan is a simple one. In a nearly chronological sequence we quote such passages from the writings of the first three and one-half or four centuries of the Christian era, as have special theological or historical significance, and which are most frequently referred to by theological authors of the present day.” (Pg. x) He adds, “All passages in the present work have been newly translated from the best critical editions.” (Pg. xii)
In his introduction to St. Clement of Rome [late 1st century] he explains, “The various early lists of the Bishops of Rome make Clement either the first, second, or third successor of St. Peter. The better evidence and that generally accepted would have him Peter’s third successor… To base Clement’s title of Apostolic Father on his supposed association with St. Peter is at best somewhat tenuous. But whether or not he was Peter’s convert… whether or not he was consecrated Peter’s successor, and by Peter himself, as Tertullian would have it; still, he is an Apostolic Father, and the title is firmly his, simply by reason of the factthat he is a man of the apostolic age. The traditional dates of Clement’s pontificate, A.D. 92-101, are unworthy of credence. Believing that there is good evidence for dating his sole extant authentic writing ca. A.D. 80, a work clearly written while he was Bishop of Rome, the present author dates Clement’s pontificate accordingly.” (Pg. 6)
He states, “‘The Martyrdom of Polycarp’ is the oldest extant detailed and authentic account of martyrdom. In the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna to the Christian community of Philomelium in Greater Phrygia, it is a most precious document, and even after eighteen hundred years it is a singularly implacable person who can read it without tears.” (Pg. 30)
He suggests, “St. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. According to Irenaeus … he was not only a friend of Polycarp… but also a hearer of the Apostle John; and it is on the strength of that remark that Papias is generally regarded as an Apostolic Father. As Eusebius … points out, however, Papias himself makes it clear that he was a hearer not directly of the Apostles, but of acquaintances of the Apostles. Since the tendency today is to take a more restrictive view in the matter of who is to be called an Apostolic Father, it is probable that Papias ought to be deprived of the title.” (Pg. 38)
He states, “St. Irenaeus was the second bishop of Lyons, succeeding the martyred bishop Sr. Pothinus in the year 177 or 178 A.D. … Not until Gregory of Tours wrote his ‘History’ do we find Irenaeus mentioned as a martyr; and such late testimony is necessarily suspect, especially in view of the fact that Eusebius, who has good knowledge of Irenaeus, says nothing of his supposed martyrdom.” (Pg. 84)
He notes, “Jerome says that Tertullian was a priest. Opinion on this point, however, is still very much divided… Certainly his writings were widely known and widely read; but… this is understandable … when we remember that he was the first to write in Latin, the new vernacular… We find nothing in his writings to indicate that he was a priest, or a cleric of any kind, and… he generally reveals the attitude of a layman rather than that of a cleric.” (Pg. 111)
He points out, “St. Hippolytus of Rome is the first anti-pope, and the only one of the two or three dozen anti-popes of various times to whom the Church accords the title of ‘sanctus’ and the honors of the altar… Hippolytus’ position of anti-pope, strangely enough, was literally forgotten at an early date… A tradition grew up, current as early as St. Jerome, that Hippolytus of … one of the suburban Roman sees.” (Pg. 162)
He reports, “There are more biographical details available for Origen than for any of the other early theologians… The disputes known as the Origenist controversies, in respect to the orthodoxy of his doctrine, arose never during his life, but three times after his death… He was a great scholar… Yet, he came finally to be regarded as a heretic, which accounts largely for the fact that so many of his writings have perished entirely, while much that is extant has suffered terribly at the hands of expurgators, interpolators, and translators… while reinvestigation of Origen is much needed… One thing we can say of him… that he deserves the title of greatest scholar of Christian antiquity.” (Pg. 189)
He explains, “Origen’s most important apologetic treatise is his ‘Against Celsus,’ written about the year 248 A.D. It is a refutation of ‘The True Doctrine,’ a work written about 178 A.D. by Celsus, the pagan philosopher. Celsus’ work… can be almost entirely reconstructed from Origen’s refutation of it… Eusebius was so taken by the power of Origen’s refutation that he declared it an adequate answer even to all future heresies.” (Pg. 213)
He recounts, “The first ecumenical council of the Church and the first council of Nicaea was convened… in the year 325 A.D., by the order of Constantine, his purpose being to put an end to the quarrels and dissension which had arisen over the doctrine of the heresiarch Arius… The exact number of canons promulgated by Nicaea has been … very much disputed. The Greek and Latin collections of conciliar decrees… attribute only twenty canons to Nicaea… at least one other canon was discussed, and finally rejected: the question of imposing clerical celibacy… the Council did not require celibacy of the clergy. Fortunately for the Western Church… celibacy remains today… a great source of strength to the Church throughout the West.” (Pg. 280)
He continues, “If there be any who expect to find here the so-called Nicene Creed recited in the liturgy, they will be disappointed. The substance is here, of course; but the liturgical creed… is actually the revision of the Nicene Creed still often referred to as the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, under the misapprehension that it originated as a re-statement of the Creed of Nicaea made at Constantinople in 381 A.D. … it is a joint effort of the Fathers of the Council. In their hands it was debated, pulled apart and re-worked, until it was the masterpiece that has stood the test of time.” (Pg. 281)
He reports, “St. Athanasius was… principal champion of Nicene doctrine against the onslaughts of the Arians… Exiled from his see five times, he finally regained his place again in 366 A.D., and his last years … were spent in comparative peace.” (Pg. 320)
He states, “St. Hilary [of Poitiers], the Athanasius of the West, so-called because of his staunch support of Nicene doctrine against the Arians… That Arianism in the West crumbled so quickly after the death of Constantius … is due largely to the long-standing and strenuous efforts of Hilary.” (Pg. 372)
This book (and the following two volumes) will be of great interest to those studying the writings of the early Christian Fathers.
March 27, 2024
Writings from the early fathers of the Christian church. Writings range from the 1st through the 4th centuries. I’m very interested in the beliefs and practices of the early Christians in comparison to our beliefs today. I didn’t find anything significantly different, although I found a few concepts I want to dig a little deeper into.
This is VERY dense reading. Could be a higher rating for someone with a different purpose, it was just OK for mine.
This is VERY dense reading. Could be a higher rating for someone with a different purpose, it was just OK for mine.
December 29, 2025
I enjoyed this overview of the church fathers from the Didache to the councils of Constantinople and Rome in AD 382. Putting some of the names of various saints and councils in chronological order had been very helpful in understanding the development of Christian doctrine and its heresies. St.s Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Hilary of Poitiers had the longest excerpts and I would like to read more of their work after finishing the next two volumes of Jurgens' Patrology.
March 21, 2021
I have often heard it said that many a Protestant has no other choice except to become Catholic after reading the early Church fathers. I understand why now.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews