This thesis makes two arguments. Firstly, traumatic experiences greatly contributed to Cyprian and Hermas’ innovations on exile and apostasy readmission. More specifically, Hermas, a second-century layman, and Cyprian, the esteemed third-century bishop of Carthage, both experienced trauma for their respective deemed religious failures. For Hermas, such a trauma manifested when he probably recanted Christ during captivity to spare his private property. Cyprian’s trauma manifested when his peers, the clergy at Rome, deemed him as a coward for fleeing, not remaining with his flock, during the Decian Persecution. While theorists hold that trauma responses are not uniform, it is clear, I argue, that both Hermas and Cyprian’s doctrinal innovations on post-baptismal sin remission for apostates (chapter 1) and exile (chapter 2) correspond to common trauma responses. For instance, theorists’ conclusions that victims rationalize and remediate their traumas accurately align with Hermas’ response to his denial. For Hermas remediated his trauma by offering himself and other apostates an opportunity for post-baptismal sin remission. Likewise, Cyprian, who openly admitted his pain over fleeing during persecution, responded to his trauma through sublimating the act from something sinful, if not suspect, into an act of religious virtue. Indeed, the sublimation response to trauma, as seen through Cyprian, also occurs among trauma victims. Secondly, this thesis argues that a controversial, yet understandable, logic of involuntary blame explains why Hermas and Cyprian faulted Christian deniers for recanting the faith under assiduous extenuating circumstances. Parties can still feel shame and guilt for actions perpetrated involuntarily. Therefore, mandating penance for such parties who abjured the faith involuntarily– even during torture– makes sense considering guilt’s objective to restore agents morally and communally. However, understanding this logic does not signify that inculpating Christians for abjuring Christ during torture is not controversial– both in antiquity and in post modernity. For instance, rival ancient Christian sects like the Elkesaite and the Felicissimus sects both ascribed to the neutrality of external manifestations of religious abjuration if a participant claimed a contrary internal intent. Therefore, by integrating a contemporary shame and guilt philosophical methodology into early Christian martyrology, this thesis answers an ignored historical, religious, and theological question: Why exactly did noted early Church figures and texts blame apostates for their involuntary abjurations?