Early Church History

 Introduction, The Pattern and the Promise

The story of the church does not begin in cathedrals, councils, or creeds. It begins on a mountainside in Galilee, when the Lord Jesus Christ called out a handful of men from among the many who followed Him. Luke records the moment:

"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve…"   Luke 6:13

This was the first visible act of Christ forming His ecclesia, a called‑out assembly gathered under His authority, instructed by His Word, and commissioned for His work. From this small beginning, He made a promise that would shape all of history:

"I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."   Matthew 16:18

The church He promised to build was not an institution of empire, nor a hierarchy of ranks, nor a sacramental system dispensing grace. It was a local, visible congregation of baptized believers, governed by Scripture, led by elders, and united in the fellowship of the gospel.

The book of Acts reveals this pattern with clarity. Believers were baptized upon confession of faith. Congregations gathered in cities and towns. Elders were appointed in every church. The Lord’s Supper was observed as a memorial. The Word of God was received as the final authority. Christ alone was acknowledged as the Head.

This is the apostolic pattern, simple, pure, and sufficient.

Yet even in the earliest centuries, another line began to form. As some believers clung to the pattern Christ gave, others began to add to it: elevating bishops, introducing sacramental theology, blending tradition with Scripture, and eventually merging the church with the power of the state.

From these two impulses, one toward Scripture, the other toward structure, two lines emerged: the line of continuity, preserved by the remnant; and the line of departure, developed into hierarchy. These lines run side by side through all of church history. One is often small, persecuted, and hidden. The other is often large, visible, and politically favored. One preserves the apostolic pattern. The other replaces it.

The promise still stands. 
The pattern still holds. 
The remnant still remains.

Part 1, From Christ to the Early Drift

The story of the church begins with Christ calling out a specific group of men from among the larger body of disciples. Luke writes:

"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles."   Luke 6:13

Mark adds:

"And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach."   Mark 3:14

From the larger body of disciples, Jesus called out twelve, the nucleus of the ecclesia He would build. Later, standing with these same men in the region of Caesarea Philippi, He declared:

"I will build my church."   Matthew 16:18

The church He promised to build was not a state institution, not a hierarchy, not a sacramental system. It was a local, visible assembly of believers, gathered, instructed, and governed by His Word.

The Apostolic Pattern

Acts shows this pattern unfolding. Local congregations formed   Acts 2:41–47; Acts 11:26. Believers were baptized upon confession of faith   Acts 2:41; Acts 8:36–38. The Lord’s Supper was observed as a memorial   1 Corinthians 11:23–26. Elders were appointed in every church   Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5. Scripture was received as the final authority   2 Timothy 3:16–17.

The hermeneutic was clear:

"Precept upon precept… line upon line…"   Isaiah 28:10 
"Comparing spiritual things with spiritual."   1 Corinthians 2:13 
"No prophecy… of any private interpretation."   2 Peter 1:20

The Bereans modeled it:

"They… searched the scriptures daily…"   Acts 17:11

This was the faith once delivered   Jude 3.

The Early Eyewitnesses

After the apostles, early Christian writers, not "fathers," for Christ forbade such titles Matthew 23:9, serve as witnesses. Clement of Rome wrote of bishops and deacons in the plural. Polycarp urged obedience to apostolic teaching. Papias recorded sayings from those who heard the apostles. Mathetes described Christians governed by the Word.

But by the early 2nd century, a shift begins.

Ignatius of Antioch and the Rise of the Single Bishop

The earliest and clearest shift away from the apostolic pattern appears in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch   c. AD 110. Facing persecution, false teachers, and internal division, Ignatius urged the churches to rally around a single bishop in each city. His intentions were pastoral, he believed a strong, central figure would preserve unity and protect the flock.

But the effect was profound.

Where the New Testament consistently presents each local church being led by its own pastor and elders, Ignatius introduced a different structure. He elevated one man above the others. The shared leadership seen in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 gave way to what later writers called the monarchical bishop, a single overseer placed above the other leaders and above the congregation.

This structural shift became the foundation for later systems that place authority over the local church, including Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, and other denominational hierarchies. Though these groups differ widely in doctrine, they share the same underlying departure: leadership rising above the local congregation instead of remaining within it.

Ignatius was not a heretic. 
He was not corrupt. 
He was not inventing a new religion.

He simply took a structural step, a sincere step, in the wrong direction.

Yet that step became the seed from which later ecclesiastical hierarchies grew. What began as a local attempt to preserve unity eventually expanded into regional authority, metropolitan bishops, patriarchs, and ultimately the vast superstructure of ecclesiastical hierarchy known today in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and other episcopal traditions.

The drift began not with doctrine, but with structure.

This was the first step in a long chain: presbyter to bishop; bishop to metropolitan; metropolitan to patriarch; patriarch to universal bishop. Sacramental thinking grew. Tradition rose. Clergy became a class.

A departure had begun.

By the end of the 2nd century, two lines had emerged. One line held to Scripture, local autonomy, believers’ baptism, the memorial supper, and separation from the world. The other embraced monarchical bishops, sacramentalism, tradition, and clerical hierarchy. One line would become the state‑church. The other would become the remnant.

Part 2, The Medieval Dissenters: The Remnant in the Shadows

As hierarchy fused with empire, the remnant did not disappear. It simply moved into the shadows. For God always preserves a remnant.

"I have left me seven thousand…"   1 Kings 19:18 
"A very small remnant…"   Isaiah 1:9 
"A remnant according to the election of grace."   Romans 11:5

Constantine and the State‑Church

When Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in AD 313, Christianity became legal. His mother, Helena, influenced him toward the hierarchical, sacramental form of Christianity already developing. Bishops became imperial officials. Councils legislated doctrine. Dissent became treason. Baptism became civic identity. The mass became sacrament. The bishop of Rome rose.

The falling‑away line was in full bloom.

But the remnant survived.

The Paulicians  7th–9th centuries

They rejected images, sacramentalism, and hierarchy. They emphasized Scripture and Christ as Head. Persecuted relentlessly, they endured.

A remnant.

The Bogomils   10th–12th centuries

They rejected priesthood, sacraments, and images. They emphasized Scripture and holiness.

A remnant.

The Albigenses  12th–13th centuries

They rejected corrupt clergy and sacramentalism. They emphasized purity and Scripture. Rome launched a crusade to exterminate them. Hundreds of thousands died.

Yet some survived.

A remnant.

The Petrobrusians and Henricians  12th century

They rejected infant baptism, the mass, and clerical hierarchy. They emphasized repentance and Scripture.

A remnant.

The Waldenses  12th century onward

They preached in the vernacular, circulated Scripture, rejected the mass and purgatory, and lived in congregational simplicity. Hunted, exiled, massacred, yet enduring.

A remnant.

The Lollards  14th–15th centuries

They translated Scripture into English, rejected transubstantiation, and opposed clerical corruption.

A remnant.

Across centuries, the remnant preserved Scripture, believers’ baptism, congregational simplicity, holy living, and Christ as Head. They were not perfect. But they were faithful.

Part 3, The Pre‑Reformation Anabaptist‑Type Believers

Before Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin, there were believers who rejected infant baptism, rejected sacramental salvation, rejected hierarchy, and emphasized Scripture and regenerate membership. They were not Protestants. They were the continuation of the remnant.

The Bohemian Brethren  15th century

They upheld Scripture, holy living, and congregational decision‑making.

A remnant.

The Hussite Remnant

They practiced some believers’ baptism, rejected the mass, and rejected hierarchy.

A remnant.

The Waldensian‑Anabaptist Connection

The Waldensians recognized the early Anabaptists as holding the same ancient convictions. The line of continuity became visible again.

The Swiss Brethren   1525

The term Anabaptist simply means "re‑baptizer." It was a label used by opponents to describe anyone who rejected baptismal regeneration and insisted on baptizing again those who had been baptized as infants for salvation. In other words, an Anabaptist was someone who believed baptism must follow personal faith, and therefore re‑baptized converts who had only received infant baptism.

With that definition in place, it becomes clear that Anabaptists existed long before the Reformation.

Many historians point to January 21, 1525 as the "birth" of the Anabaptist movement, but this date marks only the beginning of the Swiss Brethren, not the beginning of Anabaptism itself. The Swiss Brethren were former students of Ulrich Zwingli who broke from him when he refused to follow Scripture all the way to believers’ baptism and a truly free, local church. Their separation marked the beginning of the Radical Reformation within Switzerland.

But it did not mark the beginning of Anabaptism.

Long before 1525, there were believers in every century who rejected infant baptism, rejected baptismal regeneration, and practiced re‑baptism upon confession of faith. These earlier groups, the Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Bogomils, Petrobrusians, Henricians, Waldenses, and others, were all labeled "Anabaptists" by their opponents. They held to the same core convictions: a regenerate church membership, baptism after faith, and the authority of Scripture over ecclesiastical hierarchy.

These are the early Anabaptists, the ancient believers’‑church tradition that existed long before the Reformation.

The Swiss Brethren, by contrast, were later Anabaptists, emerging within the Reformation era, shaped by its debates, and reacting against both Catholic hierarchy and Protestant state‑church structures. They recovered the apostolic pattern, but they did so inside a world already dominated by magisterial reformers and political entanglements.

Still later came what some call Reformed Anabaptists, groups influenced by Reformation theology while retaining believers’ baptism and congregational autonomy. These were not part of the ancient line but were shaped by the theological currents of their time.

Thus, the Anabaptist name covers three distinct realities: early Anabaptists   the ancient, pre‑Reformation believers’‑church line, later Anabaptists   the Swiss Brethren beginning in 1525, and Reformed Anabaptists   post‑Reformation groups influenced by Protestant theology.

The Swiss Brethren were not the origin of Anabaptism. They were the Reformation‑era continuation of a much older, faithful stream. Not innovation. Restoration.

They returned to believers’ baptism, regenerate membership, the memorial supper, congregational autonomy, plurality of elders, Scripture alone, and Christ as Head. They called themselves Brethren. Their enemies called them Anabaptists.

Their theology was not Protestant. They did not derive doctrine from Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin. Their theology aligned with the apostolic pattern, the medieval remnant, the Waldensians, the Petrobrusians, the Paulicians, and the early churches.

Rome persecuted them. 
The Reformers persecuted them. 
The magistrates persecuted them.

Yet they endured.

Because God preserves a remnant.

Part 4, The Doctrinal Lineage Clarified

Two lines run through history.

The apostolic line, the remnant, holds to Scripture alone, believers’ baptism, regenerate membership, congregational autonomy, plurality of elders, the memorial supper, separation of church and state, holy living, and Christ as Head.

The hierarchical line, the state‑church, holds to tradition alongside Scripture, sacramentalism, clerical hierarchy, bishops over congregations, coercion, ritual over regeneration, and political power.

The Reformation did not create the apostolic pattern. It revealed it.

The remnant line leads to today.

Part 5, Why This Matters Today

Christ’s pattern was never meant to change. The apostolic pattern is divine, sufficient, and protective.

The falling‑away line still exists. The spirit of hierarchy and sacramentalism continues.

God still preserves a remnant. Always small. Always faithful.

Doctrine is preserved, not invented. The remnant did not innovate. They preserved.

The apostolic pattern safeguards the gospel. When the pattern is abandoned, error follows. When the pattern is kept, truth endures.

The remnant line leads to today. This is not institutional succession. It is doctrinal succession, a chain of truth, a lineage of belief.

The faith once delivered still must be contended for.

"Earnestly contend for the faith…"   Jude 3

The remnant contends.

Colophon

This little book was written to set in order the things most surely believed among us. Not new things. Not novel things. Not the inventions of men. But the old paths, the faith once delivered unto the saints, preserved by the remnant, carried through the shadows, and handed down to us by those who would not bow the knee to hierarchy, sacrament, or empire.

I have not written as a scholar, nor as a judge of history, but as a witness to the pattern Christ gave and the Spirit preserved. The line of continuity is not traced by institutions, but by obedience. Not by succession of hands, but by succession of truth. Not by the power of the many, but by the faithfulness of the few.

If anything in these pages is true, it is because the Scriptures are true. If anything endures, it is because Christ said His church would endure. If anything has been preserved, it is because God always keeps a remnant.

I offer this work with gratitude to those who suffered to keep the light burning, and with hope for those who will carry it after us. May the Lord find us faithful to the pattern He gave, and worthy of the lineage we have received.

A.K. Pritchard, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 2026


.