The West. of the suc authority, however, of the survivors of the Twelve seems to have promoted a transition to a state of things in which we have a ruler-in-chief localized in each community, like Ignatius in Syria,1 Polycarp at Smyrna, and the other bishops whom Ignatius' letters present to us. These rulers, though they bear a name transferred from the presbyterate, hold that office of representing the supreme authority of Christ and of the Father, which had belonged to James and his successors at Jerusalem, to prophets and teachers, and to apostolic legates, but never to the presbyters. There was not indeed such a localized ruler in every church in the age immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem; but there is no reason why we should not believe such a tradition as assigns to St. Peter the foundation of the episcopate at Antioch, i.e. there is no reason against believing that there was from the first a representative of apostolic authority localized at Antioch, or indeed at the other chief centres of Christian life. But, even if this and similar traditions present us with the facts somewhat idealized, as is the habit of tradition, at least they do not misrepresent the facts. It would certainly appear that the episcopal authority at Antioch and elsewhere was derived direct from that of 'apostles and prophets' and had never passed through the presbyterate. It was an authority which represents devolution from above and not delegation from below. It will not have been forgotten with what strength tion in favour of conviction the western traditions of the later half of the second century represent the authority of the the Apostles. episcopal successions then existing as derived from the Apostles. It is enough to recall the testimony cession of bishops from 1 Ignatius was known in church history as bishop of Antioch. But he speaks of himself as having been bishop of Syria' or ' of the church in Syria' (ad Rom. 2, 9), as if there were no other bishop there: see below p. 291 n.'. It is surprising to find Harnack (Expansion ii. 89) declaring that Ignatius was already metropolitan of Syria' with other bishops under him. of Irenaeus, corroborated as it is by that of the somewhat earlier Hegesippus, as to the list of bishops of Rome, running back through Clement to Linus who was entrusted with the episcopate by the Apostles Peter and Paul after they had founded the church, and the assertion of Dionysius of Corinth (writing about A.D. 170) that his namesake the Areopagite had been the first to be entrusted with the episcopate at Athens.1 The confidence of these immemorial traditions at this early date is at least very impressive. 'Episcopacy,' Dr. Lightfoot says, 'is so inseparably interwoven with all the traditions and beliefs of men like Irenaeus and Tertullian, that they betray no knowledge of a time when it was not. . . . Their silence [as to any controversy about it] suggests a strong negative presumption, that while every other point of doctrine or practice was eagerly canvassed, the form of Church government alone scarcely came under discussion.' 2 links: We have then now to enquire how far this 'con- Historical fidence of boasting' about the apostolic succession is justified by the indications which history gives us of the development of the ministry in the Churches of Europe between the period of apostolic presidency and the age of Dionysius and Irenaeus. Historical links are afforded by three documents: the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, that of Polycarp to the Philippians, and the Shepherd of Hermas, IV Clement, who is the real writer of the Epistle which IV. Epistle commonly bears his name, though he merges his 1 Euseb. Η. Ε. iv. 23 : πρῶτος τῆς ̓Αθήνῃσι παροικίας τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν ἐγκεχείριστο * Dissertation p. 227. It should be noticed that the views of Ambrosiaster, Jerome, etc., as to the original government of the churches by equal presbyter-bishops and the subsequent creation of the monarchical episcopate, do not rest on tradition, except perhaps at Alexandria, but were simply based on exegetical grounds of New Testament interpretation like the views of later scholars. • As Dionysius of Corinth first assures us. S of Clement. The writer. personality in his church and writes as Jerome says 'ex persona ecclesiae Romanae,' is a very different man from the intense, abrupt, fervid Ignatius. But, though he writes in a very different tone, it is with the same general purpose as moved Ignatius-it is to uphold the authority of the church ministry against schismatic aggression. Whatever may have been his origin,1 Clement is a thorough Roman in his respect for the principle of order, and he insists upon it with a strong yet gentle reasonableness, or (to quote a phrase which occurs twice in his letter) with an 'intense moderation.' 2 In his theology Clement shows his true character as a harmonizer-both by holding together the teaching of St. John, St. Paul, and St. James, and by emphasizing the motives which Christian theology suggests making for self-suppression and peace.3 But there is not much of theological insistence in Clement's letter, for he has no pressing heresy to combat. His mind's eye is constantly fixed in admiration on the divine order and harmony in things and on the duty which lies upon all men of respecting this principle in the several departments of life. For the order of civil government he has a Roman's veneration, and (though his church was still passing through the fiery furnace of Domitian's persecution) he welcomes the duty upon which St. Paul insists of praying for kings and all who are in authority, and gives the Roman state the full support of his church's intercessions.5 He emphasizes again that the strength of the army depends 1 Lightfoot thinks he was a Hellenist Jew. • See Lightfoot Clement i. pp. 96-7. • c. 16. • The contents of cc. 24-26, however, may indicate a renewed tendency among the Corinthians to disbelieve in the resurrection. cc. 60, 61. The date of the Epistle is about A.D. 95: on Domitian's persecution see Ramsay Ch. in the R. E. pp. 259 ff. Edmundson, however, in his Bampton Lectures The Church of Rome in the First Century (Longmans, 1913) argues with some reason for an earlier date, 70 A.D., see pp. 189 ff.: the reference would then be to the Neronian persecution. But on the whole I prefer the usual (later) date. upon each man knowing, and submissively keeping, his place in the common order.1 In the wider area, he loves to think of order as 'heaven's first law,' as the life of the whole of nature and the joy of the angelic hosts.2 His mind is akin to Richard Hooker's as he meditated when he lay a-dying 'the number and nature of angels and their blessed obedience and order, without which peace could not be in heaven; and oh that it might be so on earth!' Then finally in the kingdom of God's redemptive love there is order also. On this consideration are based the special exhortations to the suppression of selfish ambition and rivalry which Clement's church addresses under his guidance to the church at Corinth. For, led by one or two reckless and Occasion of ambitious young men,4 the Corinthians had rebelled against their legitimate hierarchy, had causelessly deposed some of their presbyters, and-whether or no they had other presbyters with them taking part in the rebellion-had raised a schism against them and left their obedience. The evil had lasted some time, but the Roman church had not hitherto been able to bring pressure to bear upon them owing to the 'sudden and successive calamities and disasters' it was passing through under the persecuting rule of Domitian. the letter; stance. The Epistle runs to this effect. The Corinthians its subare bidden to bear in mind the shame it will be if a reputation such as their church has borne is allowed. to be overthrown by the ambitions of two or three, and the foolish party spirit of the rest. They used to be men walking after the ordinances of God, in due submission to their spiritual rulers, holding in ⚫ He does not shrink from adducing examples of pagan self-sacrifice in the cause of unity : πολλοὶ ἐξεχώρησαν ἰδίων πόλεων ἵνα μὴ στασιάζωσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον (C. 55). • Their youth seems to follow from the emphasis Clement lays (c. 3) on the reverence due from youth to age. abomination all sedition and schism. But now there is a reversal of all this. There is amongst them a renewed outbreak of the old danger of partisan adherence to particular leaders,1 against which St. Paul had warned them. But the last evil is worse than the first, for their proclivities are directed now not to apostolic men but to self-interested schismatics. They should recognise how in Scripture and history, ancient and recent, all evils have come of jealousy and self-interest such as stir party leaders and their followers-even as in their own generation such tempers had caused St. Peter and St. Paul to be put to death-while all good, on the other hand, has come of obedience and humility. They should recognise how the divine principle of order prevails in nature, in civil and military government, in the organism of the human body, in the very mission of Christ—a divine principle which upon all men and things makes everywhere the claim of submission and obedience. Above all, this must be recognised in the Church. Of old there had been a divinely ordained ministry of Moses' appointment certificated by a special miracle of the budding rod, and the sanction of a miraculous punishment on those who invaded its peculiar privileges. And just as in the Jerusalem of the old covenant there is a divine law of service, a divine prescription of times and places and persons, under which high-priest, priest, Levite, and layman must each observe the appointed rule of his service, so also the principle has passed into the new covenant. Here too he that would serve God and offer his worship with acceptableness must submit to requirements of time and place and the appropriation of special functions to special orders. Thus under the Christian covenant the Apostles instituted in the churches which they founded a 1 c. 47 προσκλίσεις. |