When you read the early histories of the Church, you find accounts of the bishops in each city. For example, James the Righteous was the first bishop of Jerusalem. He was the author of the epistle of James. The account of his martyrdom is given by Hegesippus, a man from the first generation after the Apostles who also catalogued the early list of Roman bishops. James the Righteous was pushed off a high wall in Jerusalem by the Scribes and Pharisees, but he survived the fall. He got up on his knees and began to pray for those who were throwing stones at him, saying, "I beseech Thee, Lord God and Father, forgive them; they do not know what they are doing." Then a fuller took the club which he used to beat out the clothes, and "brought it down on the head of the Righteous one", and he died. That was 62-63 A.D.

Mark travelled to Egypt, and in that same year (62 AD) appointed the first bishop of Alexandria, Annianus. Polycarp (69 - 155 AD) became bishop of Smyrna. Papias (AD 60 - 130) became the bishop of Hierapolis. Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus. Titus was the first bishop of Crete. Peter appointed Evodius first bishop of Antioch. Ignatius (b. 35, d. 106-116) later succeeded Evodius probably in the mid 80s; Ignatius was martyred in Rome.) Peter served as bishop of Rome for 25 years, from AD 42 - 67. Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome by Nero on the very same day in AD 67. Linus (mentioned in 2 Tim 4:21) was the bishop of Rome after their martyrdom. He served as bishop from AD 67 - 76.

Of Linus, Irenaeus (c. 130 - 200 AD) wrote:

"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus."

Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, and according to Irenaeus, Polycarp "was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna."

Anacletus served as bishop of Rome from 76-88, and then Clement I from 88-97. Clement had been trained directly by Peter for the bishopric, while Peter was still living. While bishop of Rome, Clement wrote an authoritative letter to the Corinthians, a letter that was circulated widely among the various churches. In one place Clement writes,

"From land to land, accordingly, and from city to city [the Apostles] preached, and from their earliest converts appointed men whom they had tested by the Spirit to act as bishops and deacons for the future believers. [Compare 2 Tim 2:2] And this was no innovation, for, a long time before the Scripture had spoken about bishops and deacons; for somewhere it says: 'I will establish their overseers [i.e. bishops] in observance of the law and their ministers in fidelity.' Our Apostles, too were given to understand by our Lord Jesus Christ that the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, equipped as they were with perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry."

The point is that in every major city the Apostles appointed bishops to succeed them. After the Apostles, these bishops carried the authority in the Church. The bishops had their authority precisely because they had been given this authority by the Apostles. Irenaeus explains that it is precisely by their record of succession of bishops from the Apostles (what is today called "valid orders"), and by their agreement with the church in Rome which can trace its bishops to Peter and Paul, that the true Church is distinguished from those who, "in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings".

In the early Church, it was very important to be be able to distinguish the true Church from the false churches and assemblies of heretics. What distinguished the true Church from the assemblies of the heretics was the authority of the bishops. The true Church could always be distinguished because its bishops had been ordained in a line of succession that could be traced back to the Apostles, and because it was in agreement with the church in Rome that could trace its bishops to Peter and Paul.

It is hard for us to understand the concept of "unauthorized meetings", or even of the authority of bishops. The notion was abandoned by most Protestants (though not Anglicans). But it was universally understood in the early Church. The authority rested in the bishops.

This is why Ignatius (who learned directly from the Apostles) could say that no Christian should do anything (ecclesiastical) apart from the bishop (i.e. without the bishop's permission).

So, what about us today? Are we engaged in "unauthorized meetings"? Are we acting apart from our bishop? Are we interpreting the Bible in a way contrary to the bishop? In order to answer those questions, we have to know who is our bishop. And in order to know that, we have to know how to determine the true bishop from false 'bishops'. If we follow the practice of the early church we must conclude that the true bishops not only have valid orders (can trace their succession back to the Apostles), but are in agreement with the church in Rome whose bishop can trace his succession back to the Apostles.

One summer about eight years ago, I met with two Mormon missionaries once a week. It soon became clear that they believed that right after the death of the Apostles, the Church had basically ceased to exist for about 1800 years, until Joseph Smith restored the *true* Gospel in the 1800s. It dawned on me that I had a very similar view, except my person was Martin Luther, and my restoration time was 1517. But essentially, we were the same. We both rejected the promise of God to guide His Church into all truth, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. We were both essentially deists about Christ's relation to His Church. We both believed Christ formed a Church, and then let it fall into pieces, and restored it at least 1500 years later.

But when you really study the early Church, you don't see anything at all like a massive defection. You see instead strong commitment (even to the point of martyrdom) to maintain firmly the teaching that was handed on to them by the Apostles. Moreover, you see that the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura has so disconnected us from the history of the Church that we now read the Bible anachronistically, disconnected from its history, and disconnected from the Church that produced it. This is why John Henry Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".