We continue this week with our analysis of the works of Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD). We have been assessing the claims of a former Protestant who converted to Roman Catholicism because of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius, he claims, “red pilled” him into the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Joshua T. Charles, former White House speech writer, former Protestant and now apologist, has read “tens of thousands of pages” of the Early Church Fathers and claims to have found Roman Catholicism “absolutely everywhere.” He was particularly surprised to find “profoundly [Roman] Catholic doctrine” in Ignatius’ letters, “point by point,” which “was apparent in just seven short letters.” As we showed last week, however, in his claims regarding the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Mr. Charles is reading those “thousands of pages” through a myopic medieval lens, leading to an interpretation that the native context does not bear out. To Ignatius, “the Eucharist” was the tithe offering for the widow, the orphan and the stranger (Smyrnæans, 6), and the ancient church indeed sacrificed the Eucharist as part of its weekly worship. But to them, the Eucharist was the offertory, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (Philippians 4:18; Hebrews 13:15-16), a sacrifice Protestants still offer today. Additionally, we showed that in Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnæans, which Mr. Charles provided as evidence, all three uses of “Eucharist” were in reference to unconsecrated bread, and therefore cannot be references to the “real presence” of Christ. In sum, it is true that the ancient Church included an offertory in their weekly gatherings, but it is also true they did not believe Jesus was “really present” in the Eucharist and they did not believe they were sacrificing Him in the Lord’s Supper. What we continue to find as we evaluate Mr. Charles’ claims is that he tends to reject that which contradicts his preconceptions, and is naïvely receptive of data known to be spurious, redacted and fraudulent. Because of this, his reading of Ignatius is foreign to, and ignorant of, the native context of his letters.

 Of the ten “points” Mr. Charles identified from Ignatius, we covered two last week — the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real Presence — and will address three more in this entry:

2. The New Testament ministerial priesthood;

6. Authority in the Church is exercised by bishops who are successors of the Apostles (apostolic succession);

7. Lay Christians must be under a successor of the Apostle’s authority, and cannot start their own independent congregations;

By way of reminder, Roman Catholicism teaches that “the apostolic preaching … was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time,” and this responsibility “devolves on sacred bishops ‘who have the apostolic teaching’ “ (Dei Verbum 8, 25). According to Rome, it is the bishops to whom we must turn if we would learn the truth of the apostles and the mysteries of Christ. Thus, Mr. Charles was “startled, as a protestant” by Ignatius’ “repeat[ed] claims about the hierarchy of the Church, primarily the bishops” (Becoming Catholic #5). To Mr. Charles, this sounded very Roman Catholic. And it was not Ignatius alone who made such claims, Mr. Charles reminds us, for Ignatius quoted the very words of Christ (Luke 10:16) “to refer to an actual Christian priesthood” comprised “primarily of bishops.”

The New Ministerial Priesthood

We dismiss outright Mr. Charles’ claim of a New Testament ministerial priesthood in Ignatius’ letters. As we pointed out in the introductory post to this series, Mr. Charles has relied on the longer Greek recension, on which the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia demurs. It concedes not only that Mr. Charles’ “evidence” is “incapable of bearing witness” to Ignatius, but also that it comes from an unknown author two centuries removed from him:

Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Ignatius) (emphasis added)

As we noted at that time, the longer recension quotes Jesus as saying to the Apostles and their successors, “He that heareth you, heareth Me” (Luke 10:16). The shorter recension does not. In truth, Jesus did not say “He that heareth you, heareth Me” to the Apostles, nor did Ignatius claim that He did. According to the Scriptures, Jesus said “He that heareth you, heareth Me” to the Seventy, among whom there was not one Apostle to be found (Luke 9-10), and according to the shorter recension, Ignatius did not cite Luke 10:16 at all. Thus, Mr. Charles has neither found in Ignatius an episcopal priesthood, nor any priests offering Jesus’ body and blood liturgically. And if Mr. Charles truly believes Luke 10:16 “He that heareth you, heareth Me” refers to a sacrificial priesthood, then by his own reasoning, he must repent of his belief that apostolic authority resides only in the successors of the Apostles, and accept that it resides in the successors to the Seventy as well.

There is, in fact, only one mention of priests in all of his genuine letters, and it is this: the Old Testament priests have been replaced by a superior High Priest:

The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest is better (to the Philadelphians, 9)

That’s right. The only actual mention of a “new priesthood” in Ignatius’ letters was that Jesus’ New Testament priesthood is superior to the Old. Mr. Charles claimed to be “startled” to discover in Ignatius evidence of a ministerial sacrificial priesthood offering the body and blood of Christ each week in the Eucharist. Yet none can be found in his letters. What is startling, rather, is Charles’ propensity to pass off data known to be unreliable and untrue as if it were the genuine article, and to find in Ignatius things he did not say.

We note in passing that there are plenty of references to priests in the ancient writers, even a reference to “prophets” and “teachers” as our “high priests” (Didache, 13). It is quite clear in context, however, that they are merely “high priests” in regard to the tithe offering of prayer and first fruits, nothing more. The Didascalia, by way of a similar example, has the Eucharist offerings presented to the bishop, “for this is collected (and brought) to the bishop” because he knows “those who are in distress, and dispenses and gives to each one as is fitting for him.” But these are not episcopal, priestly offerings of Christ’s body and blood. Just offerings of thanks.

Authority is Exercised by Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons

Now, that is not to say Ignatius had nothing say about bishops, presbyters and deacons, for even the shorter Greek recension is full of such references. But, Ignatius’ references to them have a context of which Mr. Charles appears to be quite ignorant. As we observed last week, Ignatius’ letters were not written in a high-medieval liturgical context, but rather “from the trenches” on a war footing in which the young churches of Asia minor were facing the onslaught of gnostic teachings. When read in context, Ignatius’ admonitions to the young churches are perfectly reasonable, and unoffensive to the Protestant mind.

To illustrate our point, the U.S. Government appealed to ordinary citizens to grow marijuana in the 1940s (Hemp for Victory!). We can easily imagine such evidence, in the hands of Mr. Charles, being used to prove the prevailing, profoundly pro-drug culture of the World War II era. But such evidence has context, and the context does not support that characterization. The truth is, due to the shortage of fibrous industrial material needed for rope-making, the Navy needed a domestic natural source. That is the context: there was no “pro-drug culture.” The same is true of Ignatius’ very sound admonition that the young churches honor and obey their church leadership. There is a context.

The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter

At the time of Ignatius’ letters, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter had been circulating in Asia Minor. In addition to its claim that Jesus did not have a physical body, it also claimed that “bishops” and “deacons” had not really received their authority from God, and eventually the sheep would rise up and cast them off:

“And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals. …

For a time determined for them in proportion to their error they will rule over the little ones. And after the completion of the error, the never-aging one of the immortal understanding shall become young, and they (the little ones) shall rule over those who are their rulers.” (Apocalypse of Peter)

Such teaching was not only dangerous. It was unbiblical. The bishops and deacons had indeed received their authority legitimately, as the Scriptures plainly attest (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1-5). The sheep were not to heed such ungodly gnostic instruction, and were by no means to attempt to rebel against godly church officers.

To that end, Ignatius instructed the flocks of Asia Minor to submit to their elders who had indeed received their authority from God. Was the bishop too quiet? He ought to be revered for his silence, “for we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household” (to the Ephesians 6). Was the bishop too young? The flock ought not “treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth” yielding “all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father” (to the Magnesians, 3). In fact, this theme emerges constantly in his letters, as he attempts to correct the gnostic teaching that “bishops” and “deacons” were not appointed by God. How should Ignatius respond to such a threat? Simple: remind the sheep that “bishops” and “deacons” were appointed by God. The following quotes are only a sample of this:

“It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that … and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.” (to the Ephesians 2)

“… with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God.” (to the Magnesians 13)

“… 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 sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles.” (to the Trallians 3)

“I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ.” (to the Philadelphians greeting)

“… follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God” (to the Smyrnæans 8)

“Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!” (to Polycarp, 6)

As Ignatius rightly observes, the gnostic claims were false. These biblical offices had been instituted by God according to the mind of Christ. There is therefore only one possible legitimate response to Ignatius’ repeated emphasis to submit to the bishops, the presbyters and the deacons as to God: “Hemp for victory!”

The point of our facetious response, of course, is simply to expose Mr. Charles’ attempt to isolate Ignatius from his native context, and to extract from him things that he did not say. If the chief threat to church order in Asia Minor was the claim that “bishops” and “deacons” had not received their authority from God, then a perfectly reasonable response is to insist, according to the Scriptures, that the “bishops” and “deacons” had received their authority from God. If the gnostics were provoking the sheep to rebel from under their godly offices, then a perfectly reasonable response from Ignatius is to insist that the sheep not rebel against them. That is not “startling” information. What is startling is Mr. Charles’ attempt to put a medieval spin on Ignatius’ early second century exhortation to abide by the Scriptures.

The Unbroken “Succession of Deacons”

If we were to take Mr. Charles’ interpretation on its face, we would not only have to submit to the bishops and their successors as if they were God, and to the presbyters and their successors as if they were the apostles and the Sanhedrin of God, but also to the deacons and their successors. The deacons, after all, have been entrusted with the ministry and mysteries of Christ!

“… your deacons, … are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (to the Magnesians 6)

“… the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ” (to the Trallians 2)

If the deacons have been entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, and Jesus said “He that heareth you, heareth Me … He that despiseth you, despiseth Me” to the deacons, as Mr. Charles must surely allow since he is already willing for it to apply it to the Apostles, then we must search through “tens of thousands of pages” to find the original Seven deacons (Acts 6:5) and their successors, lest we be guilty of a “Protestant” rebellion against them! After all, not once does Ignatius say that the bishops “are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.” Only the Deacons!

The irony is made more poignant by Mr. Charles’ ostentatious claim (based on the longer recension) that Ignatius’ observations “about the hierarchy of the Church” were focused on “primarily the bishops.” That is simply false. Ignatius’ observations “about the hierarchy of the Church” were focused on “bishops” and “presbyters” as well as “deacons” alike, for that was the context in which Ignatius was writing. The Apocalypse of Peter had not impugned the authority of bishops only, but claimed rather that both “bishops” and “deacons” were illicit imposters and should be overthrown.

Under a more sober reading of Ignatius, of course, and based on the actual evidence, we need not conclude any more from his letters than what Ignatius plainly meant: the gnostics were wrong, and the offices of bishop (also presbyter (Acts 20:17-28)) and deacon are divinely instituted and the sheep ought not participate in an organized rebellion against their godly occupants.

Apostles: “Do not trust our successors”

Mr. Charles’ inconsistencies aside, we can say plainly that Ignatius did not believe that lay Christians must be under the authority of a successor to the Apostles. We need look no further than his letter to the Ephesians. Ignatius delighted to remind the Ephesians of what Paul had taught them, and his greeting mirrors Paul’s:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus … Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:1-6)

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the ages of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God. (Ignatius, to the Ephesians, greeting)

His familiarity with the Ephesians was not based solely on Paul’s letter to them, but also on other apostolic writings, for “in all his Epistles [Paul] makes mention of you” (Ignatius, to the Ephesians 12). Ignatius was also familiar with both Paul’s and Jesus’ interactions with them, as is evident from his references to the false apostles they had withstood.

We recall that Paul warned the Ephesians that grievous wolves would come to draw them away, and Jesus praised them for withstanding them:

“… after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29)

“… thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars” (Revelation 2:2)

Ignatius makes oblique reference to both exchanges in his epistle to them:

For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom you must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. (Ignatius, to the Ephesians 7)

Nevertheless, I have heard of some who have passed on from this to you, having false doctrine, whom you did not allow to sow among you, but stopped your ears, that you might not receive those things which were sown by them. (Ignatius, to the Ephesians 9)

The significance here is not so much that Ignatius’ was familiar with the Ephesians, but rather that he was familiar with what Paul and Jesus had said to them. Importantly, Paul’s warning was not merely that “grievous wolves” would “enter in among you,” but that some of the grievous wolves would arise even among the Ephesian bishops, the very successors to the apostles:

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:30-31)

Paul did not say this in his letter to the Ephesians. He said this to a very small gathering of Ephesian “bishops” at Miletus (Acts 20:28). He warned the Ephesian bishops whom he himself had appointed (Acts 19) that “grievous wolves” would not only “enter in” from without, but would also “arise” from within, “of your own selves.” To put a fine point on it, Paul was warning the Ephesian bishops, that there would arise among the Ephesian bishops, heretical Ephesian bishops who were “grievous wolves,” outwardly Ephesian bishops, but inwardly, “wolves … not sparing the [Ephesian] flock.” About such Ephesians bishops —about such Apostolic successors — Paul was quite worried. And Ignatius, too, was very much aware of that problem: Apostolic succession was not a reliable metric of truth. In fact, because Paul’s warning in Acts 20 was against “grievous wolves” who would arise among the Ephesian bishops, then some of those “ravening dogs … against whom you must be on your guard” (Ignatius, to the Ephesians 7), would themselves be Ephesian bishops. From this we can only conclude that Ignatius’ repeated instructions to submit to the bishop were not unconditional.

That this was not unfamiliar territory to the Apostles and their young congregations is evident from Paul’s rebuke of some of his own disciples (1 Timothy 1:19-20; 2 Timothy 4:14-15) and from Peter’s similar warning to the scattered congregations:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. (2 Peter 2:1-2)

The only way “false teachers” can “privily” import error is to claim outwardly to be faithful to the teaching of the apostles, while holding to doctrines the apostles did not teach. No Christian is morally obligated to submit to an apostolic successor who is himself disobedient to the teachings of the apostles. In other words, valid apostolicity comes by adherence to the Scriptures, not by Succession.

If Mr. Charles disagrees, we invite him to travel to Rome and pay homage to the Inca fertility goddess there enshrined, which the “successor” to the apostles has openly displayed for veneration.  After all, Ignatius says “It is therefore fitting that you should obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do]” (to the Magnesians 3).

So how does Mr. Charles respond to that “apostolic successor” in Rome? Instead of doing what he suggests Protestants do (get under the authority of an apostolic successor), Mr. Charles has not only thought to correct Pope Francis based on 1 Corinthians 10:20-22, but has also corrected other bishops in union with him:

“So why do I write this blog post today?  Because of … particularly the claims by some Catholic Bishops … [and] a recent, again disturbing encounter with a Catholic Bishop over Twitter. I won’t mention his name, but in our interaction, he claimed that Pachamama was just a ‘cultural symbol.’ Addressing him with the respect due to him as ‘Your Excellency,’ I protested that his statement simply wasn’t true. I suggested he check out standard encyclopedic reference sources to see that this was so. I included a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on ‘Pachamama,’ which simply says ‘Andean deity.’ When I informed the Bishop about this, he merely said, ‘Happy Holy Week.’ That’s it.” (Pachamama is a Demon)

Oh, thank you so much for this, Joshua! While you are busy telling Protestants that they are obligated to stop interpreting Scriptures on their own and to get “under a successor of the Apostle’s authority,” you are busy protesting those very successors who do not agree with your personal interpretations of the Scriptures! Why not just trust that they know what they’re doing, and stop forming a schism against them? It’s easy! Here’s a nice blog series you might find helpful: Becoming Catholic: How I Came Into the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, by Joshua T. Charles. Remember, Joshua: Ignatius had some very special things to say about the Roman Church:

“[W]hile Ignatius warns every other church to avoid heretical doctrine, he speaks of the Roman church quite differently — as one “purified” from such things, making her, again, one uniquely credited by Ignatius with both authority and grace from God.” (Joshua Charles, Becoming Catholic #10 Church Authority)

So… no need to worry about that Pachamama idol, Joshua! It’s erected in a church in Rome, a church already purified from error. Ignatius says so! So you can freely pay respects to that Pachamama idol without any crisis of conscience. (About Mr. Charles’ misreading of Ignatius on the Roman Church, we shall have more to say next week.)

This is indeed the very problem Peter and Paul foresaw regarding the perils of “apostolic succession.” It cannot possibly guarantee truth.

Early Church: “Do not trust our successors”

What could possibly be the solution to “damnable heresies” imported by false apostles? Ignatius knew very well what the solution was. Instead of just accepting someone’s claim to be a successor to the apostles, the sheep are obligated to check what they say against the Scriptures to find out if they are really teaching apostolic truths. He lauded the Ephesians because they “have always been of the same mind with the apostles” (to the Ephesians, 11). He exhorted the Magnesians to “[s]tudy … to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles” (to the Magnesians, 13), and encouraged the Trallians to “continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles” (to the Trallians, 7). He instructed the Philadelphians that “the doctrine of Christ” may be found “in the ancient Scriptures,” for “[i]t is written” (to the Philadelphians 8). They were to submit to the officers of the church if the bishops and deacons were faithful to the Scriptures, and if they were not faithful to the Scriptures, the Ephesians were not obligated to submit to them. They had withstood false apostles before and were well-equipped to withstand them again.

That this was common knowledge and openly practiced at the time is evident from the several applications of this very principle. Note well that the sheep’s knowledge of the Scriptures equipped them to assess the bishop’s claim to apostolicity. It was not the bishop’s claim of apostolicity that equipped the sheep to understand the Scriptures:

Clement (c. 60 AD), on the matter of Corinthian presbyters unjustly dismissed:
Content with the provision which God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words, you were inwardly filled with His doctrine … . … The commandments and ordinances of the Lord were written upon the tablets of your hearts. … Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient [in Proverbs 1:22-33], and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. (to the Corinthians 2, 58)

Dionysius of Alexandria (256 AD), on the matter of Bishop Stephen’s unbiblical teachings:
If then it was from the apostles, as we said above, that this custom took its beginning, we must adjust ourselves thereto, whatsoever may have been their reasons and the grounds on which they acted; to the end that we too may observe the same in accordance with their practice. For as to things which were written afterwards and which are until now still found, they are ignored by us; and let them be ignored, no matter what they are. How can these comply with the customs of the ancients ? (to Stephen of Rome)

Firmilian of Cæsarea (256 AD), on the matter of Bishop Stephen’s unbiblical teachings:
But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; … even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them.

[now addressing Stephen directly, citing Ephesians 4]: For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace, although he warned, and said, “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord…” (to Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 74 6, 24)

We are reminded as well that Cyprian of Carthage (253 AD) believed a congregation was only required to submit to the bishop as long as the bishop was teaching the truth of the Scriptures. Failing that, the congregation was within its rights to dismiss erring bishops on its own authority, and to elect others in their place.

A congregation in Spain had dismissed two of its bishops, Basilides and Martial, for failure to live godly lives according to the Scriptures. Stephen, bishop of Rome, disagreed with that decision and tried to get the disgraced bishops reinstated. The congregation at Spain wrote to Cyprian for a second opinion. He and 36 other bishops wrote back saying “Don’t ask us. Ask the Scriptures!”:

“Nevertheless to this your desire not so much our counsels as the divine precepts reply, in which it is long since bidden by the voice of Heaven and prescribed by the law of God, who and what sort of persons ought to serve the altar and to celebrate the divine sacrifices. .. Since these things are announced and are made plain to us, it is necessary that our obedience should wait upon the divine precepts; nor in matters of this kind can human indulgence accept any man’s person, or yield anything to any one, when the divine prescription has interfered, and establishes a law.” (Cyprian, to the Congregation in Spain, Epistle 67)

Remember, this was Cyprian’s response to “Pope” Stephen’s attempt to intervene in Spanish affairs. Cyprian’s response was not only that the “Pope” had no authority to intervene, but that the African church had no authority either! The Spanish congregation was free, and in fact authorized to dismiss bishops and replace them on its own. Cyprian insisted on it. The people were to elect their own officers, and the election was invalid if it was not by the consent of the lay people:

“Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony; … the ordination of priests ought not to be solemnized except with the knowledge of the people standing near, that in the presence of the people either the crimes of the wicked may be disclosed, or the merits of the good may be declared, and the ordination, which shall have been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all, may be just and legitimate. … which was done so diligently and carefully, with the calling together of the whole of the people, surely for this reason, that no unworthy person might creep into the ministry of the altar, or to the office of a priest. … And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct.” (Cyprian, to the Congregation in Spain, Epistle 67 4-5)

That “neighbouring bishops of the same province” were invited to celebrate and participate in the ordinations (Epistle 67 5), we do not deny, but that only highlights the fact that dismissal and replacement was a local affair and that it depended not on the consent of a distant pope, but upon the majority vote of the local lay people. The Spanish congregation never needed to start an “independent congregation” for the simple reason that it was already an independent congregation. Neither Stephen in Rome nor Cyprian in Carthage had authority to command them to do anything. Bishops who live and teach out of accordance with the Scriptures are not entitled to our submission and obedience, and may be lawfully dismissed by the people. That is what the Apostles and the early Church thought about bishops who vainly pretend the authority of the apostles while teaching contrary to the Scriptures — a privilege of which even Mr. Charles avails himself, even while insisting that Protestants submit to the Bishop of Rome.

This is in fact a practice to which Ignatius himself would attest. His constant theme was not “to submit to the bishop,” but rather to submit to bishops who themselves submit to the Scriptures. In Ignatius’ ecclesiology, every congregation was independent, and empowered to choose, or dismiss, its own bishops. It is well documented that Ignatius believed each congregation had a visible local shepherd, and an invisible Chief Shepherd in heaven. There was no intermediate chief shepherd in Rome. The Smyrnæan bishop had “as his own bishop God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (to Polycarp, greeting), and the Magnesian “bishop that is visible” had as his bishop “Him that is invisible” (to the Magnesians, 3). In Ignatius’ own absence from Antioch, “the Church in Syria … now has God for its shepherd, instead of me,” for “Jesus Christ alone will oversee it” (to the Romans, 9).

What is more, when the Corinthian church wrote to Clement of Rome asking for advice about presbyters who had been unjustifiably dismissed, Clement did not attempt to reinstate the dismissed presbyters, but rather insisted that the factious party “do whatever the majority commands” (Clement, to the Corinthians 54). Independent congregations do things independently. Of this Firmilian also attests. In the same letter in which he complained that the Roman Church had created a schism by trying to exert central control, he also said that the independent congregations remained in unity in spite of their many differences and independence:

“[A]ny one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them [the different congregations], and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. (to Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 74 6 (emphasis added))

We are reminded as well that neither Anicetus of Rome could persuade Polycarp of Smyrna to abandon what he had received from the Apostle John, nor could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to abandon what he had received from his predecessors, for each had received a different style and form for the Eucharist (Eusebius, Church History V.24.16). And when Victor of Rome attempted to enforce a carnal uniformity by force, Polycrates of Ephesus, and “a great multitude” of Asian bishops with him, responded that having “gone through every Holy Scripture” they were unimpressed by Victor’s overreach, and were “not affrighted by terrifying words” (Eusebius, Church History V.24.7).

Yes, the early congregations were fiercely independent and unique, and their bond of fellowship was not because they were Catholic but because they were Scriptural. To the degree that the many fledgling congregations adhered to the Scriptures, they were part of the “catholic” Church. As that very same ancient evidence attests, to the degree that the Roman Church departed from the plain teachings of Scripture, it was not part of the “catholic” Church, as Firmilian rightly noted in his rebuke of Stephen: “you have excommunicated yourself alone from all” (to Cyprian of Carthage, regarding Stephen, Epistle 74 24). If Mr. Charles disagrees, we invite him to attend one of the many Pride masses that will be available to “faithful Roman Catholics” throughout the world this month, and to travel to Rome to pay homage to the Pachamama goddess there. After all, it is his duty as a Roman Catholic to repent of his schismatic, protesant ways and obey the bishop.

So, how is Joshua T. Charles doing so far? He was wrong on the Eucharist and wrong on the “Real Presence.” He claimed, from a late fourth century, spurious letter that the Apostles had established a new priesthood to offer the Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Ignatius’ only known reference to priests is that Jesus’ New Testament High Priesthood is superior to the Old. Mr. Charles thought Ignatius supported “authority in the Church” exercised by “primarily the bishops,” utterly missing the context of Ignatius’ response to the gnostics. Taking Joshua’s flawed reasoning to its logical conclusion, authority must not only be exercised by the successors to Twelve, but also by successors to the Seventy, and by successors to the Seven. We wish him well in his search for them. He thinks lay Christians must be under a successor to the Apostles, while he himself chafes under those very successors, “protesting” against their authority and their unbiblical teachings. He claimed, anachronistically, that “Lay Christians” could not “start their own independent congregations,” utterly unaware that they did not need to, as they were already independent congregations, under a bishop of their own choosing, himself under the Chief Shepherd in Heaven. And as Cyprian also confirmed regarding the Spanish congregation that dismissed its bishops, the lay ignored Stephen’s objections and Charles’ invalid inferences from Ignatius, and dismissed their ungodly bishops, electing for themselves more suitable replacements “by the suffrage and judgment of all.”

Mr. Charles’ streak continues next week.