While on his way to being martyred in Rome, St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch wrote seven letters to various churches (these seven epistles are regarded by most scholars today as being his authentic ones). He speaks of bishops and presbyters on a number of occasions in his addresses. His remarks are always studied by any divine seeking to better understand church polity, particularly given his early date and comprehensiveness in speaking of the distinct offices (but as we will see, not distinct orders) of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. In the 19th century, disputes raged over the authenticity of the Ignatian epistles, but their genuine nature was forcefully argued and defended by John Lightfoot, who has edited a version of the Apostolic Fathers. I have not dug into these disputes and have always assumed and believed in the reliability of the seven epistles traditionally ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch, and I have not seen anything in them which would move me to have reason for serious doubt.
Ignatius' remarks on the government of the early church are numerous and profound. The following passages are the ones most commonly brought forward by the advocates of episcopacy:
All of the above quotations are the main ones cited by the advocates of jure divino episcopacy. But they do not help their cause. For though Ignatius does indeed speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, he nowhere says that the first two are distinct orders of the Christian ministry. We have seen earlier that a single minister presiding over others is not in principle contrary to the polity of the Reformed churches; this is most clearly seen in the case of the superintendent’s ministry within the Church of Scotland.
Indeed, it appears that the bishop in Ignatius’ writings presided over a single congregation rather than an entire diocese:
“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.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
To Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, Ignatius says: “Let not widows be neglected. Be, after the Lord, their protector and friend. Let nothing be done without your consent; neither do anything without the approval of God, which indeed you do not, inasmuch as you are steadfast.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to St. Polycarp, ch. 4)
“When Ignatius speaks of the church at worship, with the episkopos at the center, surrounded by a crown of presbyters, the picture that may readily be derived is one of a single domestic Christian community, like that of Apostolic Church Order.” (Alistair Stewart, The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014], pg. 265)
Ignatius also asserts that presbyters succeed the apostles, and that this is one of the grounds of the church’s submission to their authority:
“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.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 6)
“It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, ch. 2)
“See that you all 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.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)
How does Felix Cirlot respond to all of this? He insists that if we are to take Ignatius as teaching a presbyteral succession, then we must also confess the bishop to succeed Christ (Apostolic Succession: Is It True?, pgs. 611-612). Yet I respond that no such inference need be made here from this desperate attempt of Cirlot to evade Ignatius’ clear words. For though Ignatius does indeed confess some degree of preeminence of the bishop (though not a distinction of order, which is what must be proved), he is talking here about the obedience owed to Christian ministers. It is sufficient for us that he says that the church ought to follow the presbyters as those who preside “in place of” the apostles.
As for Ignatius himself, Alistair Stewart is correct to point that the fractured nature of the Christian communities of Antioch at the time of his epistles makes it difficult to see him as a monoepiskopos over that area (The Original Bishops, pgs. 259-60). It was unlikely for Jewish and Gentile congregations at this time to recognize such a leader over them.
We may also consider under the evidence of Ignatius his interactions with Polycarp of Smyrna. We do know that Ignatius refers to him as an episkopos (Epistle to Polycarp, ch. 1; Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 15). Yet the case becomes a little less clear in light of Polycarp addressing his greeting to the church of Philippi with “Polycarp and his fellow presbyters.” (Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians). Commenting on this, Allen Brent writes:
“The letter begins: ‘Polycarp and his fellow-presbyters.’ Though these words seem to indicate Polycarp’s de facto pre-eminence, they do not seem to suggest that he held an office distinct from the presbyterate that he could exercise de jure, as Ignatius’ claims about the bishop’s office would require.” (Allen Brent, “The Enigma of Ignatius of Antioch,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 57 [2006], pg. 433)
Alistair Stewart does indeed go a bit further than Brent wishes in terms of recognizing the primacy and leadership of Polycarp amongst the Christians of Smyrna. However, Stewart clarifies his position acutely: “If federation is a reality at Smyrna, there is no reason why he should not indeed be an episkopos, although his episkope is exercised within a single congregation…Although Polycarp comes to him and is recognized by Ignatius as an episkopos, it is clear that other households came to him, as they receive mention by name and greetings. The fact that other families visit him is an indication that there are multiple households in Smyrna and loose central organization. Again this implies that Polycarp may be an episkopos, but not that he is the monoepiskopos. Rather he is simply an episkopos among others in the Smyrnaean ecclesiastical community, and it is as a household episkopos that he visits Ignatius. Irenaeus, moreover,who was in a position refers to him as an episkopos.” (Alistair Stewart, The Original Bishops: Office and Order in the First Christian Communities [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014], pgs. 208-209)
“However, Ignatius is not clear. His language reflects the realities of a single domestic congregation; with a single episkopos and gathered presbyters, his vision, as [Allen] Brent reminds us, is liturgical rather than juridical, and the idea that Ignatius is encouraging Polycarp to become a monoepiskopos is predicated on the basis that collective leadership is more original than individual (the old consensus), and that reference to a sole bishop must be reference to a monoepiskopos rather than to a domestic leader. Clearly, Polycarp is no monoepiskopos.” (The Original Bishops, pg. 212)
Allen Brent’s most thorough treatment of the ecclesiology of the Ignatian corpus can be found in his paper “The Ignatian Epistles and the Threefold Ecclesiastical Order.” (The Journal of Religious History, Vol. 17, No. 1 [June 1992], 18-32). Based on several passages from Ignatius, Brent shows that he views the corporate personality of the church being spiritually united and represented in the bishop, presbyters, and deacons.
“The Magnesians he sees through ‘Damas your god-worthy bishop and the worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and my fellow slave, the deacon Zotion’ (Epistle to the Magnesians, 2). In these aforementioned persons, he claims to ‘see and have communion fellowship with your whole gathered church’ (Epistle to the Mag., 6.1). ‘Polybius your bishop’ reveals to Ignatius the ‘unwavering and blameless mind’ of the Trallians, and gives him such joy that he ‘sees their whole gathered church in him’ (Epistle to the Trallians, 1.1.” (Allen Brent, “The Ignatian Epistles and the Threefold Ecclesiastical Order,” pg. 20)
For Brent, Ignatius is thinking not in terms of strict ecclesiastical government, but in terms of an apocalyptic or visionary view of the church in its liturgical state:
“Just as, given the visionary nature of his description and the physical restrictions of his imprisonment, Ignatius’ evidence for the actual church Order of the churches of Asia to whom he wrote must be questioned, so must his evidence regarding the Roman community. His epistle to the Romans cannot be used against the existence of a bishop at Rome at this time any more than the letters to the churches of Asia can be used in favour of there being single-bishops there. Ignatius is not purporting to describe a situation but rather, as argued here, the literary form of his work is that of a vision.” (Allen Brent, “The Ignatius Epistles and the Threefold Ecclesiastical Order,” pg. 28)
I think Stewart has some forceful reasons for thinking the Ignatian episkopos is more akin to a congregational leader. At the same time, we should take into account that Ignatius sometimes names the bishop, e.g. Onesimus in his Epistle to the Ephesians. However, I don't see this as excluding Stewart's interpretation. We should also consider Allen Brent's argument that Ignatius is thinking in more apocalyptic terms rather than laying out a policy or form of ecclesiastical government. This would seem to make sense with the "mystical" tone in which Ignatius talks about church leaders.