puted; (3) Ignatius' testimony presents us with the 'mon- (3) undis archical episcopate' as 'firmly rooted,' 'completely beyond dispute.' We cannot doubt that he bases its authority on the ordinances of the Apostles.' 2 1 in the (4) Besides regarding episcopacy as of the essence (4) universal of a church and as of apostolic authority, he speaks Church. of it as co-extensive with the Church, that is, as existing everywhere. He speaks of the bishops as established in the farthest parts of the earth. He knows of no non-episcopal area. This of course is evidence to which it will be necessary to pay attention when we come to consider the state of the western churches, especially that of Philippi, through which he was to pass, and that of Rome, which he addresses in such high praise as 'enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, in flesh and in spirit united unto His every commandment.' 4 episcopate (5) Lastly, it is of great importance to see what (s) The answer Ignatius suggests to the question whether represents the monarchical episcopate came into existence by archy of no 'presbyterian' form of government in view, but it seems to me beyond fair question that he insists upon episcopacy as the only church government, and would have refused to recognise any other. It must be noticed that Ignatius claims prophetic gifts and as a prophet has received special communications on the subject of church order. He claims (ad Philad. 7) to have spoken with the voice of God: 'It was the preaching of the Spirit, who spake on this wise: "do nothing without the bishop; keep your flesh as a temple of God; cherish union; shun divisions; be imitators of Jesus Christ, as He Himself also was of His Father."' 1 Harnack Expositor, Jan. 1886, p. 16. Lightfoot disposes of the notion that VEшTEρLKÝ TÁķis (ad Magn. 3) refers to the episcopate as a 'newly instituted order.' 2 ad Trall. 7: οὖσιν ἀχωρίστοις [θεοῦ] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου καὶ τῶν διαταγμάτων τῶν ἀποστόλων. 'The reference [of the last four words] is doubtless to the institution of episcopacy' (Lightfoot in loc.). Cf. ad Trall. 12, where he orders the church and presbyters to comfort their bishop to the honour of the Father and of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles. Kühl has no grounds for his attempt to make Ignatius struggle to promote a new ideal; see Gemeindeord. pp. 132, 133. * ad Εph. 3 οἱ ἐπίσκοποι οἱ κατὰ τὰ πέρατα ὁρισθέντες; cf. ad Rom. 6 τὰ πέρατα TOÙ Kóσμov. 'Ignatius would be contemplating regions as distant as Gaul on the one hand and Mesopotamia on the other' (Lightfoot in loc.). He ascribes equal catholicity to the Church and to the episcopate. • ad Rom. inscr.; see also c. 4, where he specially speaks of the Roman church as having received commandments from the Apostles Peter and Paul, and cf. Lightfoot i. p. 357. the 'mon Christ. elevation out of the presbyterate, or whether it inherited functions which had belonged hitherto only to apostles and those who were fellow-workers with apostles or who subsequently had shared their authority. Now all the indications of Ignatius' letters seem to assure us that the latter is the true view. That is to say, the presbyters in the church of Asia, as in the churches of Palestine and Syria, never had held the office which Ignatius calls episcopal. They had indeed borne the name (which perhaps St. John's authority transferred to those whom he put in chief charge of the churches 1) but they had never held the office. The reasons for this view are these. Ignatius attributes to the bishops an authority essentially monarchical. He does not speak of them as succeeding to the Apostles, but he regards them as representing Christ or the Father, while the presbyters, the companions of the bishop, are like the circle of the Twelve round their Master.2 Thus each church with its bishop and presbytery is like a little 1 This transference of the title ' episcopus' need not surprise us. It will be noticed that St. Peter classes himself, though he is an apostle, among the presbyters (1 Peter v. 1; cf. Lightfoot Dissertation p. 198 on St. Paul's relation to the presbyterate at Corinth). Thus, when the 'vir apostolicus' like Timothy was put in charge of a church, he doubtless became a presbyter among presbyters, though he was their ruler, and would have been reckoned with them as holding the mokomý. But, where there was a distinction of office and power, a distinction of names was desirable; and it was most natural that the localized representative of apostolic authority, like 'bishops' James and Symeon, should have the title 'episcopus' reserved to him (while the title presbyter remained common to all who sat on the raised bench of church rulers), for it is in itself much more applicable to a single president than to the members of a college. (It is perhaps just worth notice that the term mokomý is first used-Acts i. 20-though with reference to the Psalm, for the apostolic office). The titles apostle,' 'evangelist,' 'teacher,' 'prophet,' were on the other hand, for different reasons, not suitable to describe the chief pastors of a particular Church. We have a parallel to this transference of a title from a lower to a higher use in the history of the term imperator. The comparison of the presbyters to the Apostles is the regular comparison in Ignatius. The comparisons for the bishop and deacons are more variable; see Lightfoot on ad Trall. 3. The bishop represents indifferently Christ or the Father: see ad Magn. 6, ad Trall. 2, 3 (cf. 13), ad Smyrn. 8. There are also vaguer phrases according to which the bishop represents the grace of God,' and the presbyters' the law of Jesus Christ' (ad Magn. 2). The deacons in a sense represent Christ as ministering (ad Magn. 6, ad Trall. 3); cf. Lightfoot i. p. 382. ་ theocracy, in which the bishop represents the authority of God and is a fresh embodiment of that divine presence which was in the world when Christ moved about with His Apostles round Him. This appears to have been a Jewish-Christian way of representing the succession in the Church. We recall how Hegesippus spoke of James as 'receiving the Church in succession with the Apostles,' implying that he and the Apostles succeeded to Christ; so those who were of Christ's family were supposed to represent Him in Palestine as the King of the house of David; and so too in the third century the bishop ordained by Peter in the Clementines is given not only the chair of the Apostle but also 'the chair of Christ,'1 and this way of conceiving the succession appears also in the Didascalia, and is copied from thence into the Apostolic Constitutions.2 Thus, if the presbyters Relation of by this comparison represent the Apostles, they apostolic represent them as they were before Christ's ascension, not after it as they were when Christ was among them. After that each one of the Apostles became in his turn a representative of Christ, and that in a sense which gave him an authority far greater than 1 Ep. Clem. 17, Hom. iii. 70; and twelve presbyters are instituted, i.e. the number of the Apostles (Recogn. iii. 66, vi. 15, xi. 36). Didascalia: 'The bishop presides over you as a type of God... let the presbyters be regarded by you as a type of the Apostles': 'Let the portion customary for the bishop be set aside, even if he be not present, in honour of Almighty God... the presbyters shall equally with the deacons have a double portion, for they too should be honoured like the Apostles as counsellors of the bishop and the crown of the Church.' Apost. Const. ii. 26. 4, 7; 28. 2, 4; repeats these prescriptions with some modification of the language. It will be seen (p. 321 n.) that in the Maronite office for the ordination of bishops and in a passage of Ephraem Syrus the succession is traced from God on Mount Sinai, through Moses and Aaron, to John the Baptist, and so through Christ to His Apostles and the bishops: in each generation there have been persons who (more or less) represented God and His authority. This is a somewhat Judaistic way of conceiving the succession. It comes from emphasizing authority rather than grace; Ignatius, however, cannot in general be accused of any Judaism in his mode of representing Christ's relation to His Church. See esp. ad Rom. 3: For our God Jesus Christ, being in the Father, is the more plainly visible.' It is to be noticed that Dr. Hatch in describing this theocratic conception of the episcopal office says (B. L. p. 89): Upon this theory of ecclesiastical organization the existence of a president was a necessity; and the theory seems to go back to the very beginnings of the Christian societies.' I do not know how this admission is worked in with his general theory of the origin of church organization. this to the succession. The authority of the episcopate never held by the presbyters. Ignatius would dare to claim for himself or any of his contemporaries.1 In a sense, then, the Apostles according to Ignatius have no successors; in a sense, again, the presbyters in their relation to the bishop succeed to them in their relation to Christ when He was on earth; but in yet another sense the bishops alone succeed to that office of representing Christ and speaking with the authority of God which had been the special prerogative of the Apostles. Thus, though the bishops are conceived by Ignatius as representatives not of the Apostles but rather of Christ or God, they are clothed with that monarchical authority which had belonged to the Apostles but never to the presbyters: only the bishops are limited in the exercise of their authority to one church, whereas the apostolic office had been more general. Once again the office of the bishop in Ignatius is distinguished from the presbyterate, when he speaks of the 'youthful rank' of one who held it and bids his flock reverence him none the less, in words which recall St. Paul's exhortation to his apostolic legate to let no man despise his youth. The office of presbyter, we know, was not yet divorced from the qualifications and associations of age.3 The bishops then in Ignatius succeed to an authority which had been apostolic and had never belonged to the presbyters.4 1 ad Rom. 4 : οὐχ ὡς Πέτρος καὶ Παῦλος διατάσσομαι ὑμῖν· ἐκεῖνοι ἀπόστολοι, ἐγὼ KATάKρITOS. Cf. ad Trall. 3, ad Philad. 5. See further, on this idea of succession to Christ, Dr. Liddon in A Father in Christ3 p. xxv. f. ad Magn. 3: 1 Tim. iv. 12. • The mрeσBÚTεpou are still put in contrast to vewτepoι or véoɩ by Polycarp ad Phil. 5, as well as by Clement ad Cor. 1. So in the Apostolic Church Order, cc. 16-18, there is no requirement of age for the bishop, but there is for the presbyters, c. 18 nôn κεχρονικότας ἐπὶ τῷ κόσμῳ. Cf. p. 277 n. • Dr. Lightfoot emphasizes the absence of sacerdotalism in Ignatius, i. p. 381: There is not throughout these letters the slightest tinge of sacerdotal language in reference to the Christian ministry.' I think I have said enough on this subject already see pp. 70-80. Ignatius' words-ad Smyrn. 8: Let that be held a valid eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it'— are hardly what is commonly called unsacerdotal. There is indeed a striking absence of the false sacerdotalism which identifies church office with spiritual nearness to 1 It falls in with this conclusion that Ignatius, when he alludes to his own church of Syria' after he has been carried off towards Rome, speaks of it to the Romans as having God for its pastor in his place. 'Only Jesus Christ shall be its bishop and your love.' He speaks of it, that is to say, as a widowed church, not at all as if the remaining presbyters could supply the bishop's place. results from Syria, Asia. We are now in a position to sum up the results of Summary of our investigation with regard to the Judaic churches Palestine, and those of Syria and Asia. All the indications we have would lead to the belief that the chief authority of government, ministry, and ordination passed from the Apostles and those who ranked with them to the bishops of the period of Ignatius without ever having belonged to the presbyters. James, 'the first bishop,' is a man of apostolic rank and authority settled in Jerusalem, and his office devolved upon a line of bishops after him, who were in the church of Jerusalem what he had been, except so far as his position had depended upon his personal character and relation to our Lord. The Didache presents us with a chief ministry in the Church not yet localized, the holders of this Christian 'high-priesthood' being known as 'prophets' and associated with other evangelists known as 'apostles' or 'teachers.' The God, see ad Smyrn. 6: τόπος μηδένα φυσιούτω· τὸ γὰρ ὅλον ἐστὶν πίστις καὶ ἀγάπη, 1 ad Rom. 9. He says nothing about the provision of a successor. But he speaks |