St. Ignatius on Church Government

Last time we looked at how St. Clement of Rome dealt with the subject of church government. Now we will consider another very early writer: St. Ignatius of Antioch.

First we need to know a little about him. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch in Syria. During the reign of the Emperor Trajan, he was arrested and taken to Rome to die a martyr’s death. As he is being carried to Rome, he writes letters to various churches. His seven epistles were written somewhere around the year 110 A.D.

So what did this early second century bishop tell us about church government? To be honest, quite a bit.

One stunning statement that is characteristic of the Ignatian canon is found in his Letter to the Ephesians:

It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord. [ANF 1:52, ch. 6]

In the same vein we should note the following statements:

To the Magnesians:

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. [ANF 1:61, ch. 6]

To the Smyrnaeans:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. [ANF 1:90, ch. 8]

These statements fly in the face of much of the rhetoric that is used to support congregational government. The level of respect accorded to the various levels of ministry galls some who feel that the ministry is unimportant. But these reflect the feeling of this early period toward the God-ordained church offices. If we are to be the Church they were, can we do any different?

The necessity of the episcopate is spelled out by Ignatius. as follows:

To the Ephesians:

Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, “God resisteth the proud.” Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God….Do ye, beloved, be careful to be subject to the bishop, and the presbyters and the deacons. For he that is subject to these is obedient to Christ, who has appointed them; but he that is disobedient to these is disobedient to Christ Jesus. And “he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” For he that yields not obedience to his superiors is self-confident, quarrelsome, and proud. [ANF 1:51, ch. V].

To the Trallians:

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that ye are of the same opinion. [ANF 1:67, ch. 3]

If Ignatius is correct (and I believe he is), then there are a lot of assemblies which are not churches because they have no deacons, presbyters or bishops. While we may disagree with him, we are left with absolutely no doubt as to where this saint stands on the issue of church government. We will be forced take this into account when trying to get back to the Early Church and to doing things the way they did them “way back then.”

St. Clement Church Government

The subject of church government is one in which there has been much debate and little agreement for many years. Each type has its proponents who vehemently defend it with Scriptural arguments and often practical considerations. There is congregational government, episcopal government, presbyterian government, and those which are a mixture of some of the above. My question, however, is which form was practiced by the Early Church? Which form most nearly conforms to their standard and accepted practices?

There has been in my present denomination a rapid disintegration of episcopal government and a swift move toward more congregationalism. Is this because of a Biblical mandate or because of a lack of adherence to the history and tradition of the Church? In other words, what would the Early Church have to say about such a move?

A good place to begin searching is the writing of Saint Clement of Rome. In his Epistle to the Church at Corinth observe the following:

Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, 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 labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” [ANF 1:14, ch. XLII]

But bishops appointed by the Apostles can only govern for so long. Who was to take over after them? Who would be the next generation of church government? Clement does not leave us to wonder or speculate.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. [ANF 1: 17, ch. 44]

The reason Clement writes to Corinth is because there has been a rebellion against the godly leaders and others have been installed in their place. St. Clement takes a very dim view of such activity.

For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. [ANF 1:17, ch. 44]

While at this early period there seems to be an almost synonymous use of the word presbyter (priest) and bishop, it is clear that the church was indeed governed by bishops. They were the overseers of the work of God. While the congregation played a part in the approval process of bishops, there was no thought of the congregation dismissing the bishop because they didn’t like him or his policies. According to Clement, there was only one reason for a bishop to be deposed: if he did not blamelessly and holily fulfill his duties.

St. Clement exhorts the rebellious with these words:

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that ye should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, ye should be cast out from the hope of His people.

These words may not be what the more congregationally minded want to hear today but then again the rebellious probably didn’t care to hear them in 95 A.D. when they were written.

Early Church Worship

As with a great many other subjects, I was always taught and led to believe that the worship of the early church was in great part similar to the worship in my modern Pentecostal church. They, no doubt, raised their hand, sang praise choruses, shouted, screamed, ran the aisles, and had all the noise and drama that we have in our services.

If we look solely to the New Testament, we, however, do not find any indication that this is the case. None of the above is spoken of in any of the services of the Apostolic Church that we have recorded for us. Truthfully, however, we don’t have very detailed records of the services (with the exception of the sermons) in the inspired record. Most of the incidents are given in brief, synopsis form. Thus, we come away with the most important facts but are left to speculate on the details.

What we are given is a more detailed description of services a bit later on in Church History. We have accounts in The Didache, in the writings of Justin Martyr, and in the writings of Hippolytus of Rome that offer us some very important detail.

Since I have already talked about the worship instructions in the Didache, I will concentrate on the other two. The First Apology of Justin Martyr provides us with information on the worship of the early church. Since it was written to the Emperor, it is only a brief overview but provides some interesting details.

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. [ANF 1: 185-6 ch. LXVII]

The service was reading, preaching, and communion. The Communion service has been detailed by Justin in previous chapters. This pattern of worship is based on the synagogue pattern of worship and follows the same general outline. Alexander Schmemann gives this telling tidbit: “No matter what disagreement may exist between the historians of the Christian cult, they all agree on the acceptance of a genetical (sic) link between this cult and the liturgical tradition of Judaism as it existed in that period.” [Introduction to Liturgical Theology, SVS Press p. 53]

What does this connection between the two types of worship mean? Let us hear what Schmemann says to that question:

It should be noted here in passing that the confirmation of this structural dependence of Christian upon Hebrew worship destroys the argument of those who are inclined to deny the existence of any “order” whatever in the early Church.” (p. 56)

The Apostolic Tradition by St. Hippolytus of Rome (the text of which can be found at http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html)was written early in the 3rd Century. It gives a detailed account of priestly, diaconal, and episcopal ordinations as well as, an order of service (so to speak) This writing, like The Didache, gives us the prayers that are to be prayed over the Communion.

The conclusion that we can draw from all of this is that the early Christians did indeed have a form as far as their worship is concerned. This is not to say that they were dead, dry or formal in the pejorative sense of the word. It does mean that they did ot make up a new service every time they got together. Another passage from A. Schmemann serves as an excellent conclusion to this matter:

The opinion has been held that early Christian worship was “charismatic” by nature and has a sort of ecstatic, fluid character which excluded the possibility of any fixed structure, of any unchangeable liturgical Ordo….]T]he comparative study of liturgical forms has led to the conclusion that the charismatic gifts did not exclude :rule” and that an Ordo, in the sense of a general structure, was indeed adopted by Christianity from Judaism.” (p 56)

While this may be hard for some to accept, it is nonetheless well attested by the facts of history and the writings of the Fathers of the Church. Rather than the Church progressing into cold formalism from Charismatic flames, it would seem that the wild flames overcame the order and beauty of the liturgy. Instead of coming up with a new and more exciting service each time they met, it is clear that the early Christians had a set order which they inherited from Judaism.