church1 not in the presbyterate, and the letter therefore affords no evidence at all as to Clement's relation to the other church officers. Thus, if we could get behind the scenes, we should probably find that the chief authority really belonged to him, and that he was one of those 'men of reputation,' one of those 'rulers,' who since the Apostles' death had exercised that part of their ministry which was to become permanent in the Church. One of this order must, we should suppose, always have existed in so eminent a church as Rome. That this was the case is a good deal more than matter of surmise. Irenaeus records 2 how 'the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the church (at Rome) committed to Linus the office of the episcopate. This is the Linus of whom Paul makes mention in his letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric; a man who had both seen the blessed apostles and had had intercourse with them, in whose ears their preaching was still echoing and their tradition was still before his eyes; and not his alone, for there were still many then surviving who had been taught by the apostles.' This catalogue of the early Roman succession, which rests probably on the investigations of Hegesippus as well as of Irenaeus, cannot, as Dr. Lightfoot says, 'be treated otherwise than with the highest respect. We can trace it back to a few years later than the middle of the second century. It comes from Rome itself. It was diligently 'Dr. Salmon, Introd. p. 572 n., calls attention to the fact how all through the first two centuries the importance of the bishop of Rome is merged in the importance of his Church'; for instance, how Dionysius of Corinth writes to the Church of Rome (Euseb. H.E. iv. 23. 10), and how 'when Victor attempted to enforce uniformity of Easter observance, it was still in the name of his Church that he wrote. . . . This is evidenced by the plural oare in the reply of Polycrates' (Euseb. v. 24.8). * See above p. 104 n.3. See above p. 109, and Lightfoot Clement i. 328 ff. (referred to in n.' on the previous page). gathered there and deliberately recorded by two several writers from different parts of Christendom.'1 It is only necessary to recognise that the Bishops of Rome down to Clement did not bear the episcopal name. V. The V The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians was written under the following circumstances. Ignatius, Its occasion. in company with others of the 'noble army of martyrs' It implies absence of a bishop at Philippi; bound with the 'sacred fetters,' had passed from Troas to Philippi on his way to Rome. There he had held intercourse with the Philippian Christians, and had bidden them, as he had bidden the other churches, send a letter to the bereaved church of Antioch. It was too far for them, however, to send a messenger; so they wrote to Polycarp of Smyrna to request that his messenger might take their letter, and to request him further to let them have any of Ignatius' letters-whether to his own church or to others that he might have in his possession. It was in assent to this request that Polycarp wrote the letter which has been preserved to us. This Epistle is remarkable for its exhibition of the saint's character, but remarkable also because of the light it throws on the constitution of the church of Philippi. Polycarp writes no doubt as a bishop'Polycarp and the presbyters with him '2-but he speaks of no bishop at Philippi, only of elders and 1 Clement, i. 66: Bishop Lightfoot's investigations into the early Roman succession have vindicated the Irenaean tradition as the only one which deserves the name. According to this tradition Linus, Anencletus, and Clement are plainly bishops in succession one to another. See, on the whole subject, his Clement i. pp. 66-8, and the discussion ib. pp. 201 ff. He practically treats this succession as certainly historical, PP. 76 ff. Dr. Hatch (B. L. p. 88 n.") denies that Polycarp is here distinguishing himself from his presbyters; but whatever the ambiguities of the phrase, it is cleared up by the letters of Ignatius to Polycarp and to the church of Smyrna. Polycarp was admittedly bishop of Smyrna. He writes moreover in the first person singular. deacons, and bids the Philippians obey 'the elders and deacons as God and Christ,' as if there was no higher officer in question there: the elders moreover are exhorted in terms which imply that the exercise of discipline and the administration of alms belongs to them.1 It is of course possible that amongst the presbyters may have been one who was their president and was known as 'bishop,' but Polycarp's language does not suggest it,2 nor is it a very reasonable hypothesis that the see was vacant. Are we then to conclude that the only church authorities recognised at Philippi were the presbyters and the deacons? There is one consideration which seems to make this view almost untenable. We have which must already seen that Ignatius when he wrote his epistles with Ignafrom Smyrna certainly regarded episcopacy as extended to the ends of the earth':3 with equal 1 The following passages are here referred to: cc. 5, 6: Eidóres oùv ötɩ beòs où μυκτηρίζεται, ὀφείλομεν ἀξίως τῆς ἐντολῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ δόξης περιπατεῖν. ὁμοίως διάκονοι ἄμεμπτοι κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὡς θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ διάκονοι καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώπων· μὴ διάβολοι, μὴ δίλογοι, ἀφιλάργυροι, ἐγκρατεῖς περὶ πάντα, εὔσπλαγχνοι, ἐπιμελεῖς, πορευόμενοι κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ Κυρίου, ὃς ἐγένετο διάκονος πάντων. Here follow some admonitions to the younger men (verepo) to be blameless and pure, self-controlled in their lives, keeping free from sensual sin; then he continues: διὸ δέον ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων, ὑποτασσομένους τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις καὶ διακόνοις ὡς θεῷ καὶ Χριστῷ· τὰς παρθένους ἐν ἀμώμῳ καὶ ἁγνῇ συνειδήσει περιπατεῖν. Καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι δὲ εὔσπλαγχνοι, εἰς πάντας ἐλεήμονες, επιστρέφοντες τὰ ἀποπεπλανημένα, επισκεπτόμενοι πάντας ἀσθενεῖς, μὴ ἀμελοῦντες χήρας ἢ ὀρφανοῦ ἢ πένητος· ἀλλὰ προνοοῦντες ἀεὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐνώπιον θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἀπεχόμενοι πάσης ὀργῆς, προσωποληψίας, κρίσεως ἀδίκου, μακρὰν ὄντες πάσης φιλαργυρίας, μὴ ταχέως πιστεύοντες κατά τινος, μὴ ἀπότομοι ἐν κρίσει κ.τ.λ. Later on in c. 6 it is noticeable that the prophets who are mentioned after the Apostles are the Old Testament prophets who foretold Christ. c. 9. They are exborted to obey the word of righteousness and to practise all patience,' after the example of the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus and after others who had lived among them, as well as of the Apostles. Then (in c. 11, where the Greek fails us) mention is made of the case of a presbyter Valens, 'qui presbyter factus est aliquando apud vos, quod sic ignoret is locum qui datus est ei.' It appears that he had sinned through avarice and impurity and want of truth, and had shown himself quite unfit for an office of government. 'Valde ergo, fratres, contristor pro illo et pro coniuge eius, quibus det Dominus paenitentiam veram.' 2 Winterstein Der Episkopat p. 40 thinks that there must have been a 'bishop,' because only here are 'deacons' associated with presbyters; but this argument has no force for those who admit that the titles presbyter and episcopus were at one time synonymous. Polycarp of course would not call the presbyters bishops as St. Paul did (Phil. i. 1). The titles had become distinct. He speaks of presbyters and deacons only. • ad Eph. 3. T be reconciled tius' visit. Probable solution. certainty he regarded it as an essential of church organization—'without these [the three orders],' he had written, 'no church has a title to the name.'1 He moved from Smyrna to Troas, and his tone is still the same; there is the same insistence upon episcopacy. He went on to Philippi and enjoyed, as we gather, the same cordial intercourse which he had held in other churches.2 He left behind him when he passed on a venerated name. Had he rebuked them or remonstrated with them in any way, we must certainly have caught an echo of it through their correspondence with Polycarp. It is impossible, on the other hand, to believe that Ignatius suddenly dropped the urgent tone about episcopacy which had been one of the two main topics of all that he wrote in Asia. Can we then consistently with the phenomena of Polycarp's letter suppose some such state of things at Philippi as would not have shocked the mind of Ignatius? The hypothesis of a superior order in the Church, such as Clement's letter has been seen to imply, of which no representative was yet localized in the church at Philippi, seems to meet the conditions of the problem. This would suggest a special reason why the apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop' Polycarp should address his exhortations to them, as it suggested a reason for the similar appeal of 3 ... 1ad Trall. 3. I cannot think that Dr. Lightfoot is justified (Ignatius i. 382) in saying that 'There is no indication that he is upholding the episcopal against any other form of Church government, as for instance the presbyteral. If Ignatius had been writing to' a church which was under presbyteral government 'he would doubtless have required its submission "to the presbyters and deacons." As it is, he is dealing with communities where episcopacy had been already matured, and therefore he demands obedience to their bishops.' It seems to me as clear as day that Ignatius regarded episcopacy as universal, and as the only legitimate form of church government. This we gather from the tone in which Polycarp's letter implies that the Philippians had written about him; see c. 13. Ignatius himself, we should notice, had written to Polycarp from Philippi (ἐγράψατέ μοι καὶ ὑμεῖς καὶ 'Ιγνάτιος). • For Polycarp's prophetic character see his Martyrium cc. 5 and 16: èv Tois καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς χρόνοις διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικὸς καὶ προφητικὸς γενόμενος, ἐπίσκο ς τῆς ἐν Σμύρνῃ ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας. This would postulate Clement to the Corinthians. VI It only remains for us to consider the evidence of vi. The Shepherd the Shepherd. This document is one of those in the of Hermas. 1 On the position of Ignatius in Syria see ad Rom. 2: Tòv ¿níσkonov Zvpías κατηξίωσεν ὁ θεὸς εὑρεθῆναι εἰς δύσιν, ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς μεταπεμψάμενος. He also speaks of himself as representing the church in Syria' (ad Eph. 21, ad Magn. 14, ad Trall. 13, ad Rom. 9), as well as the church in Antioch of Syria' (ad Philad. 10, ad Smyrn. 11, ad Polyc. 7). Perhaps by 'Syria' would be meant only what after Hadrian's division was called Syria Coele or Magna Syria: see Dict. Gr. and Rom. Geogr. s.V. SYRIA. Dr. Lightfoot says (i. p. 383): 'Of a diocese, properly so called, there is no trace. . . . The bishop and presbyters are the ministry of a city, not of a diocese. What provision may have been made for the rural districts we are not told.' The suggestion above is that there was originally a ministry-in-chief unlocalized, and that only gradually was a representative of this ministry localized with the name of 'bishop' in every church. There is, however, no evidence against the bishop of a city having had from the first the supervision of the Christians in the surrounding district, until chorepiscopi were appointed. * See Eusebius' expression, H. Ε. ν. 23. 3: τῶν κατὰ Γαλλίαν παροικιῶν ἃς Εἰρηναῖος ¿meσкónel: cf. Duchesne Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule i. pp. 39-43. (The same expression, however, is used in the previous chapter of the different parishes' of Alexandria in the more modern sense; see App. Note B, p. 315 n.) In the fourth century we know that there was only one bishop in Scythia, and this was regarded as traditional; see Sozomen H. E. vi. 21: TOÛTO TO OVOS Toddàs μèv éxel καὶ πόλεις καὶ κώμας καὶ φρούρια μητρόπολις δέ ἐστι Τόμις, πόλις μεγάλη καὶ εὐδαίμων, παράλιος . . . εἰσέτι δὲ καὶ νῦν ἔθος παλαιὸν ἐνθάδε κρατεῖ τοῦ παντὸς ἔθνους ἕνα τὰς ἐκκλησίας ἐπισκοπεῖν. Thessalonica is reported by Origen, in his commentary on Rom. xvi. 23, to have had Gaius for its first bishop. |