of Polycarp's were Clement of Rome and Papias. Do
they give no testimony to the development of monarchical episcopacy in
the later years of the Apostolic Age? Polycarp, if not acquainted with
Clement personally, was yet intimately acquainted with his genuine
letter, the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In this letter there is no
mention of episcopacy properly so-called. With St. Clement, as in the
New Testament, bishop and presbyter are convertible terms. He even drops
all mention of his own name though bishop of the Church in Rome. There
is not even the 'I' of Polycarp, but a 'we,' which defines that the
letter is written in the name of the Church and speaks with the
authority of the Church. The name and personality of the individual are
absorbed in the Church of which he is the spokesman.[83] The same
phenomena are observed in the letter written by Ignatius to the very
Church--Rome--in which alone they are noticed as occurring. The Epistle
of Ignatius to the Romans--save for the mention of his own
rank--contains no indication of the existence of the episcopal office,
inculcates no obedience to bishops, and says not a word about a bishop
of Rome. A like phenomenon is to be noticed in the next (chronologically
speaking) document, emanating from the Church of Rome--viz. the Shepherd
of Hermas. What does this contrast throughout mean, but that where--as
in Asia Minor--false doctrine and schismatical teachers prevailed, there
episcopacy was a safeguard; where these were absent--as in Rome--there
the episcopate had not yet assumed the same sharp and well-defined
monarchical character as in the Eastern churches: and what does this
contrast tend to disprove but the opinion of Dr. Harnack?--'Apart from
the Epistles of Ignatius we do not possess a single witness to the
existence of the monarchical episcopate in the churches of Asia Minor so
early as the times of Trajan or Hadrian' (_i. e._ A. D. 98-138).

Turning to the other point--the Theological Polemics--disputed by
Harnack, Bishop Lightfoot has dealt with the subject on its positive and
negative sides respectively. The positive side yields results of real
importance in attestation of the date of the letters. The heresy
combated by Ignatius is a type of Gnostic Judaism, the Gnostic element
manifesting itself in a sharp form of Docetism. This marked type of
Docetism, far from being a difficulty, is an indication of early date,
since the tendency of Docetism was to mitigatio