THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS, AND THE GENESIS OF PRELACY.
1. _The Testimony of Irenaeus._
The only two vouchers of the second century produced in support of
the claims of the Epistles attributed to Ignatius, are the letter of
Polycarp to the Philippians and a sentence from the treatise of Irenaeus
_Against Heresies_. The evidence from Polycarp's Epistle has been
discussed in a preceding chapter. When examined, it has completely
broken down, as it is based on an entire misconception of the meaning
of the writer. The words of Irenaeus can be adduced with still less
plausibility to uphold the credit of these letters. The following is
the passage in which they are supposed to be authenticated: "_One of our
people said_, when condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony
towards God--'As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth of
beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God.'" [53:1] It is worse
than a mere begging of the question to assert that Irenaeus here gives
us a quotation from one of the letters of Ignatius. In the extensive
treatise from which the words are an extract, he never once mentions
the name of the pastor of Antioch. Had he been aware of the existence
of these Epistles, he would undoubtedly have availed himself of their
assistance when contending against the heretics--as they would have
furnished him with many passages exactly suited for their refutation.
The words of a man taught by the apostles, occupying one of the highest
positions in the Christian Church, and finishing his career by a
glorious martyrdom in the very beginning of the second century, would
have been by far the weightiest evidence he could have produced, next
to the teaching of inspiration. But though he brings forward Clemens
Romanus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, [54:1] and others to confront
the errorists, he ignores a witness whose antiquity and weight of
character would have imparted peculiar significance to his testimony. To
say that though he never names him elsewhere, he points to him in this
place as "one of our people," is to make a very bold and improbable
statement. Even the Apostle Paul himself would not have ventured to
describe the evangelist John in this way. He would have alluded to
him more respectfully. Neither would the pastor of a comparatively
uninfluential church in the south of Gaul have expressed himself after
this fashion when speaking of a minister who had been one of the most
famous of the spiritual heroes of the Church. Not many years before, a
terrific persecution had raged in his own city of Lyons; many had been
put in prison, and some had been thrown to wild beasts; [55:1] and it is
obviously to one of these anonymous sufferers that Irenaeus here directs
attention. The "one of our people" is not certainly an apostolic Father;
but some citizen of Lyons, moving in a different sphere, whose name the
author does not deem it necessary to enrol in the record of history.
Neither is it to a _written_ correspondence, but to the _dying words_
of the unknown martyr, to which he adverts when we read,--"One of our
people _said_, As I am the wheat of God, I am also ground by the teeth
of beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God."
The two witnesses of the second century who are supposed to uphold the
claims of the Ignatian Epistles have now been examined, and it must be
apparent that their testimony amounts to nothing. Thus far, then, there
is no external evidence whatever in favour of these letters. The result
of this investigation warrants the suspicion that they are forgeries.
[55:2] The internal evidence abundantly confirms this impression. Any
one who carefully peruses them, and then reads over the Epistle of
Clemens Romanus, the Teaching of the Apostles, the writings of Justin
Martyr, and the Epistle of Polycarp, may see that the works just named
are the productions of quite another period. The Ignatian letters
describe a state of things which they totally ignore. Dr. Lightfoot
himself has been at pains to point out the wonderful difference between
the Ignatian correspondence and the Epistle of Polycarp. "In
whatever way," says he, "we test the documents, the contrast is very
striking,--more striking, indeed, than we should have expected to
find between two Christian writers who lived at the same time and were
personally acquainted with each other." [56:1] He then proceeds to
mention some of the points of contrast. Whilst the so-called Ignatius
lays stress on Episcopacy "as the key-stone of the ecclesiastical
order," Polycarp, in his Epistle, from first to last makes "no mention
of the Episcopate," and "the bishop is entirely ignored." In regard to
doctrinal statement the same contrariety is apparent. Ignatius speaks of
"the blood of God" and "the passion of my God," whilst no such language
is used by Polycarp. Again, in the letter of the pastor of Smyrna, there
is "an entire absence of that sacramental language which confronts us
again and again in the most startling forms in Ignatius." [57:1]
"Though the seven Ignatian letters are many times longer than Polycarp's
Epistle, the quotations in the latter are incomparably more numerous as
well as more precise than in the former." In the Ignatian letters, of
"quotations from the New Testament, strictly speaking, there is none."
[57:2] "Of all the Fathers of the Church, early or later, no one is more
incisive or more persistent in advocating the claims of the threefold
ministry to allegiance than Ignatius." [57:3] Polycarp, on the
other hand, has written a letter "which has proved a stronghold of
Presbyterianism." [57:4] And yet Dr. Lightfoot would have us to believe
that these various letters were written by two ministers living at
the same time, taught by the same instructors, holding the closest
intercourse with each other, professing the same doctrines, and adhering
to the same ecclesiastical arrangements!
The features of distinction between the teaching of the Ignatian
letters and the teaching of Polycarp, which have been pointed out by Dr.
Lightfoot himself, are sufficiently striking; but his Lordship has not
exhibited nearly the full amount of the contrast. Ignatius is described
as offering himself voluntarily that he may suffer as a martyr, and
as telling those to whom he writes that his supreme desire is to be
devoured by the lions at Rome. "I desire," says he, "to fight with wild
beasts." [57:5] "May I have joy of the beasts that have been prepared
for me ... I will entice them that they may devour me promptly." [58:1]
"Though I desire to suffer, yet I know not whether I am worthy." [58:2]
"I delivered myself over to death." [58:3] "I bid all men know that
of my own free will I die for God." [58:4] The Church, instructed by
Polycarp, condemns this insane ambition for martyrdom. "We praise not
those," say the Smyrnaeans, "who deliver themselves up, _since the
gospel does not so teach us_." [58:5] In these letters Ignatius speaks
as a vain babbler, drunken with fanaticism; Polycarp, in his Epistle,
expresses himself like an humble-minded Presbyterian minister in his
sober senses. Ignatius is made to address Polycarp as if he were a
full-blown prelate, and tells the people under his care, "He that
honoureth the bishop is honoured of God; he that doth aught against
the knowledge of the bishop, rendereth service to the devil" [58:6]
Polycarp, on the other hand, describes himself as one of the elders, and
exhorts the Philippians to "submit to the presbyters and deacons," and
to be "all subject one to another." [58:7] When their Church had got
into a state of confusion, and when they applied to him for advice,
he recommended them "to walk in the commandment of the Lord," and
admonished their "presbyters to be compassionate and merciful towards
all men," [58:8]--never hinting that the appointment of a bishop would
help to keep them in order; whereas, when Ignatius addresses various
Churches,--that of the Smyrnaeans included,--he assumes a tone of High
Churchmanship which Archbishop Laud himself would have been afraid,
and perhaps ashamed, to emulate. "As many as are of God and of Jesus
Christ," says he, "they are with the bishop." "It is good to recognise
God and the bishop!" "Give ye heed to the bishop, that God may also give
heed to you." [59:1]
The internal evidence furnished by the Ignatian Epistles seals their
condemnation. I do not intend, however, at present to pursue this
subject. In a work published by me six and twenty years ago, [59:2]
I have called attention to various circumstances which betray the
imposture; and neither Dr. Lightfoot, Zahn, nor any one else, so far as
I am aware, has ever yet ventured to deal with my arguments. I might now
add new evidences of their fabrication, but I deem this unnecessary. I
cannot, however, pass from this department of the question in debate,
without protesting against the view presented by the Bishop of Durham of
the origin of Prelacy. "It is shown," says he, referring to his _Essay
on the Christian Ministry_, [59:3] "that though the New Testament
itself contains as yet no direct and indisputable notices of a localized
episcopate in the Gentile Churches, as distinguished from the moveable
episcopate exercised by Timothy in Ephesus and by Titus in Crete, yet
there is satisfactory evidence of its development in the later years
of the apostolic age, ... and that, in the early years of the second
century, the episcopate was widely spread and had taken firm root, more
especially in Asia Minor and in Syria. If the evidence on which its
extension in the regions east of the Aegaean at this epoch be resisted,
_I am at a loss to understand what single fact relating to the history
of the Christian Church during the first half of the second century can
be regarded as established_." [60:1]
In this statement, as well as in not a few others already submitted
to the reader, Dr. Lightfoot has expressed himself with an amount of
confidence which may well excite astonishment. It would not be difficult
to show that his speculations as to the development of Episcopacy
in Asia Minor and Syria in the early years of the second century, as
presented in the Essay to which he refers, are the merest moonshine.
On what grounds can he maintain that Timothy exercised what he calls a
"moveable episcopate" in Ephesus? Paul besought him to abide there for a
time that he might withstand errorists, and he gave him instructions as
to how he was to behave himself in the house of God; [60:2] but it did
not therefore follow that he was either a bishop or an archbishop. He
was an able man, sound in the faith, wise and energetic; and, as he
was thus a host in himself, Paul expected that meanwhile he would be
eminently useful in helping the less gifted ministers who were in the
place to repress error and keep the Church in order. That Paul intended
to establish neither a moveable nor an immoveable episcopate in Ephesus,
is obvious from his own testimony; for when he addresses its elders,--as
he believed for the last time,--he ignored their submission to
any ecclesiastical superior, and committed the Church to their own
supervision. [61:1] And if he left Titus in Crete to take charge of the
organization of the Church there, he certainly did not intend that the
evangelist was to act alone. In those days there was no occasion for the
services of a diocesan bishop, inasmuch as the Christian community
was governed by the common council of the elders, and ordination was
performed "with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." [61:2]
Titus was a master builder, and Paul believed that, proceeding in
concert with the ministers in Crete, he would render effectual aid in
carrying forward the erection of the ecclesiastical edifice. And what
proof has Dr. Lightfoot produced to show that "the episcopate was widely
spread in Asia Minor and in Syria" in "the early years of the second
century"? If the Ignatian Epistles be discredited, he has none at all.
But there is very decisive evidence to the contrary. The Teaching of the
Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Polycarp prove
the very reverse. And yet Dr. Lightfoot is at a loss to understand what
single fact relating to the history of the Christian Church during the
first half of the second century can be regarded as established, if we
reject his baseless assertion!
2. _The Genesis of Prelacy._
Jerome gives us the true explanation of the origin of the episcopate,
when he tells us that it was set up with a view to prevent divisions in
the Church. [62:1] These divisions were created chiefly by the Gnostics,
who swarmed in some of the great cities of the empire towards the middle
of the second century. About that time the president of the Presbytery
was in a few places armed with additional authority, in the hope that
he would thus be the better able to repress schism. The new system was
inaugurated in Rome, and its Church has ever since maintained the proud
boast that it is the centre of ecclesiastical unity. From the Imperial
city Episcopacy gradually radiated over all Christendom. The position
assumed by Dr. Lightfoot--that it commenced in Jerusalem--is without any
solid foundation. To support it, he is obliged to adopt the fable that
James was the first bishop of the mother Church. The New Testament
ignores this story, and tells us explicitly that James was only one of
the "pillars," or ruling spirits, among the Christians of the Jewish
capital. [62:2] The very same kind of argumentation employed to
establish the prelacy of James, may be used, with far greater
plausibility, to demonstrate the primacy of Peter. Dr. Lightfoot himself
acknowledges that, about the close of the first century, we cannot find
a trace of the episcopate in either of the two great Christian Churches
of Rome and Corinth. [63:1] "At the close of the first century," says
he, "Clement writes to Corinth, as at the beginning of the second
century Polycarp writes to Philippi. As in the latter Epistle, so in the
former, there is no allusion to the episcopal office." [63:2] He might
have said that, even after the middle of the second century, it did not
exist either in Smyrna or Philippi. He admits also, that "as late as the
close of the second century, the bishop of Alexandria was regarded as
distinct, and yet not as distinct from the Presbytery." [63:3] "The
first bishop of Alexandria," says he, "of whom any distinct incident is
recorded on trustworthy authority, was a contemporary of Origen," [63:4]
who flourished in the third century. Dr. Lightfoot tells us in the
same place, that "at Alexandria the bishop was nominated and apparently
ordained by the twelve presbyters out of their own number." [63:5]
Instead of asserting, as has been done, that no single fact relating to
the history of the Christian Church during the first half of the second
century can be regarded as established, if we deny that the episcopate
was widely spread in the early years of the second century in Asia Minor
and elsewhere, it may be fearlessly affirmed that, at the date here
mentioned, there is not a particle of proof that it was established
ANYWHERE.
Irenaeus could have given an account of the genesis of Episcopacy, for
he lived throughout the period of its original development; but he
has taken care not to lift the veil which covers its mysterious
commencement. He could have told what prompted Polycarp to undertake a
journey to Rome when burthened with the weight of years; but he has
left us to our own surmises. It is, however, significant that the
presbyterian system was kept up in Smyrna long after the death of its
aged martyr. [64:1] Dr. Lightfoot has well observed that "Irenaeus
was probably the most learned Christian of his time;" [64:2] and it is
pretty clear that he contributed much to promote the acceptance of the
episcopal theory. When arguing with the heretics, he coined the doctrine
of the apostolical succession, and maintained that the true faith was
propagated to his own age through an unbroken line of bishops from the
days of the apostles. To make out his case, he was necessitated to speak
of the presidents of the presbyteries as bishops, [64:3] and to ignore
the change which had meanwhile taken place in the ecclesiastical
Constitution. Subsequent writers followed in his wake, and thus it
is that the beginnings of Episcopacy have been enveloped in so much
obscurity. Even in Rome, the seat of the most prominent Church in
Christendom, it is impossible to settle the order in which its early
presiding pastors were arranged. "Come we to Rome," says Stillingfleet,
"and here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber itself; for here
Tertullian, Rufinus, and several others, place Clement next to Peter.
Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him; Epiphanius and Optatus,
both Anacletus and Cletus; Augustinus and Damasus, with others, make
Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus all to precede him. What way shall we find
to extricate ourselves out of this labyrinth?" [65:1] The different
lists preserved attest that there was no such continuous and homogeneous
line of bishops as the doctrine of the apostolical succession implies.
When Irenaeus speaks of Polycarp as having "received his appointment in
Asia from apostles as bishop in the Church of Smyrna," [65:2] he makes
a statement which, literally understood, even Dr. Lightfoot hesitates to
endorse. [65:3] The Apostle John may have seen Polycarp in his
boyhood, and may have predicted his future eminence as a Christian
minister,--just as Timothy was pointed out by prophecy [66:1] as
destined to be a champion of the faith. When Episcopacy was introduced,
its abettors tried to manufacture a little literary capital out of some
such incident; but the allegation that Polycarp was ordained to the
episcopal office by the apostles, is a fable that does not require
refutation. Almost all of them were dead before he was born. [66:2]