Page images
PDF
EPUB

authority. We shall now proceed to show how this thing was understood by the immediate disciples of the Apostles.

Clement, of Rome, A. D. 87, says: "We ought to take heed, that looking into the depths of divine knowledge, we do all things in order,* whatsoever our LORD hath commanded us to do that we perform eucharistic offering and public worship to GOD, at their appointed seasons; for these he hath commanded to be done, not rashly and disorderly, but at certain determinate times and hours. He hath, himself, ordained by his supreme will, both when and by whom they are to be performed." And in another place: "The Apostles have preached to us from our LORD JESUS CHRIST; JESUS CHRIST from GOD. CHRIST, therefore, was sent by GOD; and the Apostles by CHRIST. Thus both were orderly sent, according to the will of GOD. For having received their command,

they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of GoD was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits of their conversions to be OVERSEERS and ministers over such as should afterwards believe." In the opinion of Clement, therefore, the ministry was of divine appointment. Ignatius entertained the same opinion. But we shall understand his language better by considering that of Clement, of Alexandria, first.

Clement, of Alexandria, says: "In the Church, the celestial, is the image of the terrestrial." And in another place he adds: "I take the progressions of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, to be imitations of the Angelic glory." The point here brought out, is, that the Church Militant, is a type of the Church Triumphant. This scems evidently to have been the opinion of Ignatius, and explains language which on any other hypothesis it is not easy to understand. We quote a

*Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 40. § Strom. iv. p. 500.

† C. 40.
Strom. vi. p. 667.

+C. 42.

SECOND CENTURY TO BE OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT.

245

few sentences, inserting in brackets what the language evidently implies, according to this figurative, or typical character of the Church.

To the Magnesians, he says: "I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord, your Bishop presiding [in the Church Militant, as] in the place of GOD [in the Church Triumphant ;] and your Presbyters [filling in the Church Militant,] the place of the council of the Apostles [in the Church in heaven."]

To the Trallians:† "Let all reverence the Deacons as [the visible ministers of the invisible minister,] JESUS CHRIST; and the Bishop, as [the representative in the visible Church of] the Father [in the invisible ;] and the Presbyters, as [the visible representatives in the Church on Earth of] the council of GoD and assembly of the Apostles [in the Church above."]

This interpretation gives a common sense meaning to language, which otherwise does not seem to have any meaning at all, or at least a very extravagant or strange one. And if this be the meaning, there can be no doubt Ignatius considered the ministry of divine appointment. In another place,‡ he speaks without figure. "The Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, appointed according to the will of JESUS CHRIST."

We see, therefore, that Clement, of Rome, A. D. 87, Ignatius, A. D. 107, or 116, and Clement, of Alexandria, A. D. 175, all held the Church to be divine, and its ministry of divine appointment. To which we may add Irenæus and Tertullian, about the same age. But we need not enlarge upon this point, as all the evidence tends to prove that this was the universal opinion in that time.

*C. 6.

+ C. 3.

+Intd. Ep. Phil.

Adv. Hær. iii. 3.

De. Præs. Hær. cc. 21, 37.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER XVIII.

BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.

THE next point to which our attention is naturally turned, is, were the Bishops of the second century considered successors of the Apostles in governing the Churches? To this we answer yes, as is evident from all the Fathers who have written on the subject. Thus Clement, of Rome, A. D. 87, says: "Our Apostles knew by our LORD JESUS CHRIST, that contentions would arise concerning the office of Bishop, (epi tou onomatos tes episkopos.) And, therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave direction in what manner, when they should die, other approved men should succeed in their min istry.' Here then is the doctrine of a future succession, taught so explicitly that it can not be misapprehended. The Church of Ephesus was commended A. D. 107, as one who had "always agreed with the Apostles" and the Trallians for "continuing in the Apostolic character." So Ignatius is said by those who witnessed his martyrdom, to be “a man in all things like unto the Apostles who governed the Church at Antioch with care ;" and the Church at Smyrna describes Polycarp as "a truly Apostolical prophetical teacher and Bishop of the Church at Smyrna." The whole tenor of the language at this period denotes that those Churches were considered the most eminent, and their opinions entitled to the most weight, who had an Apostolic man for a Bishop, and had ever maintained their Apostolic character.

In the latter part of this century, however, when all the

Ep. Cor. c. 44. § Martyr. Ing. c. 1.

† Eph. c. 11.
|| Martyr. Pol. c. 16.

+ Trall. Introd.

[ocr errors]

BISHOPS SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.

247

Bishops who had been ordained by the Apostles were dead, another mode of reasoning became necessary, and gave rise to another mode of proceeding, to prove their Apostolic character. This consisted in appealing, to the succession of Bishops, and that Church which could not trace its succession, so that its first Bishop should have been ordained by an Apostle, or one commissioned by an Apostle, was considered as wanting in one of the essentials of a Christian Church. And the minister who could not trace his succession in the registers of the office, was left out of the priesthood, as was done in the days of Nehemiah.* Thus Tertullian, in reply to the Heretics, A. D. 190, says: "If any dare to mingle themselves with the Apostolic age, so that they may appear to be handed down from the Apostles, because they were under the Apostles, we are able to say, let them produce the origin of their Churches, let them set forth the series of their Bishops, so running down from the beginning BY SUCCESSIONS, that the first Bishop may have some of the Apostles, or Apostolic men who continued with the Apostles, for their author or predecessor. For in this manner the Apostolical Churches trace their origin, as the Church of Smyrna, having Polycarp, relates that he was placed there by St. John. In like manner also, the rest of them show that they have grafts of the Apostolic seed, who were appointed to the Episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics do any thing like this." Now if it had not been in the days of Tertullian a well known fact, that all the Apostolic or orthodox Churches were able to trace the succession of their Bishops as such, to the days of the Apostles, and to show that the first Bishop had been ordained by an Apostle, or some one authorized by an Apostle, this public challenge to the heretics would never have been made, as it would have recoiled upon himself with redoubled force.

[blocks in formation]

But we are not obliged to rely on the testimony of Tertullian alone, for proof of this fact. Irenæus, who lived and wrote about the same time, and who had himself been a pupil of Polycarp, says: "We can enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles, Bishops in the Churches, and their successors, even unto us." And again, "The Apostles wished those to be very perfect and irreprehensible, in all things, whom they left their successors, delivering to them their own place of government." But because it would be tedious to enumerate the succession in all the Churches, he gave only that of Rome, when he adds: " By this ordination and succession, the tradition which is from the Apostles, and the doctrine of the truth hath come even to us.' 19* We have, therefore, the positive testimony of Irenæus and Tertullian, that all the Orthodox Churches of their day, that is, from A. D. 150 to A. D. 200, were able to trace the succession of their Bishops, back to those who were appointed Bishops by the Apostles, and to whom the Apostles delivered their own place of government in the Churches. There is, therefore, no room for doubt, that the Bishops of the second century were believed to be the successors of the Apostles in governing the Churches. Indeed, the primitive writers of the Church seem not to have entertained, or thought of the possibility of any other lawful organization. They believed that all legitimate authority must come from the Apostles; and, consequently, that all lawful rulers in the Church must have derived their authority from the Apostles, or some of the Apostolic men. They knew of no other foundation of Christian communities, than the institution of CHRIST, or his Apostles, and they knew no other mode of transmitting it, than that of regular succession, in the way pointed out, or sanctioned by the founders of the Churches. Those, therefore, who would seek authority

*Adv. Hær. iii. 3.

« PreviousContinue »