Restoring the New Testament Church By Looking Backwards

The term "restoring the New Testament church" is popular in our time.  Church plants often trumpet a vision around this theme, and that's not a bad thing.  It acknowledges that our present practice of church life is lacking something compared to what is described in the New Testament.  It's not difficult to get a group of Christians to agree to the question, "Should we build a New Testament church?"  However, agreeing to do this and actually creating such a church are very different things.

What is a New Testament church?

After agreeing to the first question, the next question becomes, "What exactly does a New Testament church look like?"

The fact is there is no single ideal New Testament church example that we can follow.  We see some variety, but more importantly we see failure mixed in with success.  The Jerusalem church leaders had trouble distributing the food to the widows and needed financial support from the other churches when a famine hit, the Galatian church was sidetracked by legalism, and the Corinthian church had chaotic meetings and members who sued each other.  The church at Sardis had a reputation for being alive but was dead, and the Laodician church was lukewarm.  Each one of these was a New Testament church, but when folks say, "Let's build a New Testament church," they probably aren't referring to these specific characteristics.

Some people see the New Testament church as one that emphasized evangelism, or practiced intimate community life among its members, or every member serving rather than letting a paid professional staff do all the work, or team eldership, or the full functioning of the spiritual gifts, or an emphasis on relational ministry rather than a focus on church buildings and programs.  Any of these goals are noble and would represent a step towards the original behaviour of the New Testament churches.

But getting agreement on the specific qualities of a New Testament church is still not the most difficult question.  That crown belongs to this question:

How do we actually build a New Testament church?

Answers to this question are harder to come by, at least by successful practitioners.  Critics are a dime a dozen, but leaders who have actually accomplished what they set out to do are fewer.  Setting out a vision and achieving that vision are very different things.

Many church planting methods are out there, and some of them actually work.  I have no desire to repeat or debate those -- others are better qualified at that than I am.

However, as we are busy restoring an aspect or two of the New Testament church, how do we keep from losing some of our existing church traits that are good?  How can we ensure we move forward in one area without taking a step backward in another?

I propose to tackle this question of restoring the New Testament church from a completely different perspective.

Learn By Looking Backwards

If we are lacking characteristics from the original New Testament churches, that means at some point along the journey the church lost those characteristics.  It seems therefore that if we understand why and how the church lost those traits in the first place, it may help us both to restore them and how to avoid losing them again in our generation.

So in coming blog posts, I want to try to answer questions such as, "How did the church ...

• ... lose baptism by faith and adopt infant baptism?"
• ... lose team eldership and vest church authority in a lone bishop?"
• ... lose symbolic communion and believe the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Christ?"
• ... lose the priesthood of all believers and adopt a distinction between clergy and laity?"
• ... lose the independence of each local congregation and adopt a central hierarchy that imposed decisions on other churches?"

... and numerous other similar questions.

It's not always possible to answer these questions with absolute authority because historical church records were not written for the purpose of answering these questions.  Therefore, most of the time the answers will have to be inferred.  However, I believe we can glean enough information to understand what caused the church to lose these traits in generations past, and therefore understand what errors we need to avoid in our time.

Donatus and the Second Church Split

While the first church split (the Novatians) centered on the issue of how to deal with believers who had lapsed during persecution that ended in 250 A.D., the second church split focused on the character of church leaders who appeared to cooperate with the persecutors during the persecution that ended around 305 A.D.  At the heart of the disagreement were two simple questions:

1. Should church leaders who demonstrate unethical, immoral, or just un-Christian behaviour be removed from their positions of authority in the church?  (Or be prevented from promotion into those positions in the first place?)
2. Do local bishops, priests, and believers have any say in who gets appointed bishop over them?

At the end of the discussions, the Catholic Church answered both questions with a resounding, "NO."

The Story of Donatism

The controversy started during the persecution under Emperor Diocletian (coin shown at right).  The punishments were not always equally applied across all regions of the empire.  Some were forced to sacrifice to idols or face death, and in other places holy books were handed over to be destroyed and that was sufficient demonstration of compliance with the Emperor's decree.  To the shock of some believers, some Catholic priests and bishops were seen willingly handing over precious Scriptures to the Roman governors in order to avoid being killed.  They were called "traditor" or "surrenderers."

An additional component of the controversy stemmed from the pain and grief from the loss of so many Christian martyrs.  This generated a lot of respect and honour for them among the surviving believers, so much so that some Christians actively sought the honour of martyrdom by trying to get themselves killed.  They would state they had some Christian documents (which they didn't) and then refused to hand them over to the authorities.  The result was a sure death sentence.

The church leaders rightly were concerned about this growing practice of "intentional martyrdom" and taught against it.  In North Africa, the practice was growing in popularity and Carthage Bishop Mensurius decided to send his archdeacon Caecilian to disperse the crowd who were visiting and encouraging the imprisoned Christians.  While some prisoners were likely those who had intentionally got themselves arrested, not all the prisoners were there voluntarily and the Christians were deeply upset at Caecilian's actions and the fact that he appeared to be taking the side of the persecutors.  Later when this incident was recounted, he was described as a "tyrant" and "butcher."  He obviously did not win a lot of friends that day!

To add insult to injury, after Mensurius' death Caecilian was appointed Bishop of Carthage.  This infuriated the believers, priests and bishops who were already angry with him.  They elected their own candidate for bishop, Majorinus, and the stage was set for a showdown.  As Majorinus died shortly after his appointment, Donatus of Casae Nigra (died ~355 A.D.), sometimes called Donatus Magnus, was appointed in his place.  As Donatus led the movement for a number of decades, the movement became known as Donatism.

A hearing was given at Rome and the verdict came down in favour of Caecilian.  Instead of theology being determined by the vote of the majority of bishops, as it had been in Novatian's day, this now was a minority overruling a majority.  The Donatists complained why an opinion held by 20 bishops should overrule the opinion of 70 bishops.  The decision was appealed and appealed again, and every hearing resulted in the same verdict.  Even Emperor Constantine got involved and delivered the same decision.  For the first time in history (but not the last) the head of government would rule on the theology of the church.

To complicate matters, a violent group of fanatical believers known as Circumcelliones roamed throughout North Africa dispensing their own brand of vigilante justice.  They harrased Catholic bishops and priests, vandalized Catholic churches, and even resorted to murder when it suited them.  They supported the Donatists, although the Donatist teachings did not condone such behaviour.  However, the punishments that the Circumcelliones brought on themselves were also dispensed to the Donatists in general.  Rightly or wrongly, their lots became intertwined.

While initially the Donatists were only considered schismatics, eventually they were declared heretics and their churches were to be confiscated.  At times and in certain places, such edicts were carried out, but because the Donatists outnumbered the Catholics in many places in North Africa, the Donatists survived as a parallel church system for centuries.  Donatus himself was eventually captured by the authorities and died while in exile.

The Theology of Donatism

At the heart of the debate was the issue of character and discipline.  Should church leaders model the behaviour they teach to others?  If a bishop recants his faith in the face of persecution, should he be allowed to return to his position of authority in the church?  If a fallen bishop ordains other bishops, are those ordinations valid?

To the Donatists, these questions were very clear.  Church leaders needed to demonstrate worthy, Godly behaviour to receive and continue in their offices of authority.  They created a separate group of churches that considered the Catholic Churches to be populated with unbelievers.  Converts from Catholicism to Donatism were often rebaptized.  They built their church on the basis of believers who demonstrated Christian faith, not just adherents to a religion.  

As the years passed, the original issues around the persecution faded into the background, but the issue of church leadership never did.  As Augustine waded into the debate decades later, he taught forcefully against Donatism while begging the Donatists to return to the Catholic Church.  He did not meet with much success.

The issue of fallen church leaders was subtle.  If a church leader fails or sins, does that invalidate the ordinations he performed?  What about the baptisms he performed?  Clearly it should not automatically follow that an ungodly priest or bishop makes everyone he has ordained or baptized ungodly too.  It implied guilt by association.

So there were two distinct issues at play:  1) Should character matter when choosing a church leader? and 2) Does the work performed by an ungodly church leader become invalid because of the leader's sinfulness?  The correct answers were 1) Yes and 2) No.  Unfortunately no one separated the issues.  The Donatists said everything performed by the ungodly leader was invalid because character was important, and Augustine said character was unimportant for church leaders as the power lay in the office and sacraments themselves.  Both extremes were destructive.  It ultimately didn't matter which camp won because both were going to harm the church.

The End of Donatism

The Roman Catholic Church established clearly in the time of Donatus that churches had no role in the appointment of their leaders, they had no freedom to disagree with those church leaders, and there was no requirement that church leaders should behave in a Christian manner.  The church was sliding down a slippery slope with increasing speed.

The Donatist issues were never resolved, just repeatedly overruled.  As coexistence was not permitted by the Catholic Church, persecution was the only method left.  A few Donatist churches survived until about 600 A.D. when the Muslim hoards solved the issue for them by destroying both the Catholic and Donatist Christians in North Africa with the sword.

  

Novatian and the First Church Split

The first significant church split occurred with the Novatians in Rome in 251 A.D. and quickly spread throughout the empire. Splits had occurred in the church before this, but it had always involved heresy such as with the Marcionites.  The Montanists tried to stay within the Catholic Church but were forced out, and while they were not exactly heretical, they had error mixed in with their desire for renewal and it muddied their situation.  Not so with the Novatians.  There was no heresy involved, just a disagreement over a theological issue.  They intentionally elected a separate bishop and created separate churches and they continued to be orthodox in all their doctrines.  That's what makes this situation such an interesting precedent in the history of the church.  It allows us to see the original response of the Catholic Church to a disagreement over theology and how that response changed over the centuries.

Novatian (~200-258 A.D.) was baptized on his death bed and then unexpectedly recovered.  He was a priest in Rome when Fabian, the Bishop of Rome, was martyred in 250 A.D.  Because of the intense persecution, the role of bishop was left vacant for a year.

When the persecution subsided with the death of Emperor Decius (his coin pictured) in June 251 A.D., a question arose among the churches all over the empire about those believers who had "lapsed" and sacrificed to idols in order to escape death.  Should they be admitted back into the church or not?  If yes, what should the process be for readmitting them?  Should all be readmitted or just those who relapsed under extreme torture?  Should the church practice forgiveness or should the church treat them as unbelievers?

During this same time, the churches were also dealing with the grief for those believers who had remained faithful in the face of persecution and lost their lives.  Believers honoured the memory of the martyrs by celebrating their "birthdays" into eternal life.  In Carthage, some believers felt the martyrs had access to incredible supernatural power when they faced death and that their excess merit was sufficient to cover the failures of others.  They even urged their bishop, Cyprian, to issue a blanket pardon for all those who had lapsed and sacrificed to idols based on this alleged power of the martyrs.  It was the earliest seeds of the modern Catholic practice of venerating saints.

Cyprian rightly declined this request on the basis that martyrs do not have the power to forgive sins.  However, the question of readmission of lapsed believers was a sticky one.  The traditional approach was that any serious sins such as apostasy resulted in believers being permanently excommunicated from the church.  Cyprian proposed a new and more moderate approach that they be readmitted based on the seriousness of the sin.  Leniency should be shown for those who failed during the worst kinds of physical torture, while those who willingly went to sacrifice to idols should be punished severely.  Additionally, sufficient remorse should be evident on the part of the lapsed.

This approach led the church leaders to establish a graded system of "penance," or actions that demonstrated repentance based on the seriousness of the sin.  After the required acts of humility and the required time had elapsed, the person was declared absolved of their sins by the bishop, readmitted to the church and could participate once again in the sacraments.

While there was agreement with Cyprian's solution among some churches and leaders, support was not unanimous.  Novatian in Rome led the opposition on the basis that only God can forgive men from their sins, especially serious sins like apostasy or murder.  Cyprian had simply moved that supposed power of forgiveness away from martyrs and gave it to the bishops instead, and Novatian argued it belonged to neither.  Further, the church had taught clearly against sacrificing to idols before and during the persecution.  They encouraged believers to face death with courage.  Now those same leaders were welcoming back those who had failed that test.  Wasn't this dishonouring the sacrifice of those martyrs who had proven faithful to Christ?  How would you feel if those martyrs included your family members?  Why hadn't those same church leaders taught this during the persecution?  Wouldn't that have avoided a lot of unnecessary deaths?  Did this mean the church leaders were admitting their previous teachings were wrong?  One can imagine the strong emotions that must have been present on both sides of the debate.  It was not a theoretical exercise -- it had intensely practical implications for each congregation.

Another priest in Rome named Cornelius took Cyprian's position and argued that bishops did in fact possess the power to forgive sins.  This set the stage for a showdown when the election for Bishop of Rome took place.

The majority of bishops sided with Cornelius and he was elected Bishop of Rome in 251 A.D.  However, Novatian and those who agreed with his position on the lapsed were not content to accept this change in church practice.  Just because a new bishop decrees a new practice in the church, did that mean the believers who disagreed with him had to adopt that practice even if it was contrary to the Scriptures?  What options did they have?

As a result, some priests in the Catholic Church elected Novatian bishop in open defiance of Cornelius.  We don't have any versions of this process from Novatian, only from his enemies, so it's unclear how much of their version of events is embellished, but Novatian may have engineered his election using some priests who were not entirely aware of what they were doing.  However, Novatian had a significant following and they immediately began establishing new churches under his leadership and appointed new bishops in other cities.  Suddenly there was a parallel network of churches and church leaders all over the Roman Empire.

While it is possible the Novatian schism was caused in part by a personality clash between Cornelius and Novatian, it could not be the main cause.  Cornelius was martyred just two years after becoming bishop, Novatian was martyred 5 years after that, and Cyprian was martyred the same year as Novatian.  By 258 A.D. all of the original players in the schism were gone from the scene, but Novatian churches continued to exist for centuries.  It is much more likely that the schism was primarily caused by differences of theology rather than of personality.

Initially the Catholic leaders called the Novatians a schism (meaning division) which is what they were, but over time leaders such as Cyprian changed their tone and declared them heretics.  Their only heresy was that they refused to acknowledge the power of the church to absolve sins.  This is strange, because that was a new teaching in Novatian's lifetime that was adopted by the Catholic Church leadership even though it had no Scriptural basis.  (Tertullian had opposed a similar issue decades earlier when a Bishop of Rome declared an adulterer forgiven.)  Novatian was declared a heretic because he did not accept a newly-invented doctrine that had been voted for by a majority of Catholic bishops and priests.  The definition of heresy now became anything contrary to what the Catholic Church taught.  Spiritual truth was determined by democratic vote.  Those in the majority were orthodox, while those in the minority were heretics.  It had nothing to do with what the Bible taught.  There was no room for multiple opinions on any matter of church life.  This definition of heresy has been used by the Catholic Church down to the present day.

In this short period of church history, the Catholic Church invented a brand new sacrament.  Instead of just baptism and communion, there was now penance and absolution of sins.  The church had gotten into the business of setting the price for and dispensing forgiveness of sins.  It began with trivial punishments and outward signs of humility, but it would be a small step in later centuries to make that price for forgiveness purely monetary -- indulgences would be the logical conclusion of this doctrine, and it would be one of the driving causes for the Protestant Reformation.

The Novatians called themselves "Cathars" from the Greek word for "pure," so in a sense they were the first Puritans.  Some of their churches also re-baptized converts from the Catholic Church, so in a sense they were the first Anabaptists.  They strongly opposed the teaching that the Catholic Church could absolve sins and they expected that Christians' lives should show evidence of their faith in how they behave.  Their bishops were admired for their Godly behaviour and Constantine invited the Novatian bishop from Constantinople to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.  The bishop approved all the decrees that the council put forward but refused union with the Catholic Church.

Since the Catholic Church declared them to be heretics, Novatians were persecuted on and off for centuries, sometimes having their church buildings closed or confiscated and at other times being reluctantly tolerated.  The last reference to them is in Alexandria, Egypt around 600 A.D.

The Novatians were essentially orthodox in all the foundational doctrines of Christianity, but they rejected the un-Biblical ordinances that the Catholic Church had begun to adopt.  Their punishment was excommunication from the Catholic Church, but they didn't seem to care.

Cyprian

Like Tertullian, Cyprian (~200 - 258 AD) lived in Carthage (modern Tunis) in North Africa.  He was not baptized as a Christian until the mid-240's AD, but was rapidly put into church leadership roles including bishop in 249 AD.  He was fairly wealthy from a career in the legal profession, and gave some of his wealth to the poor after his baptism.  He was martyred in 258 AD.

His writings deal with controversies in the church during his time in leadership.  He also wrote about the plague that ravaged Carthage during Emperor Valerian's reign, encouraging the Christian's to stay strong in their faith and to help the sick.

One controversy he was involved in was how to deal with believers who had renounced their faith and worshiped the emperor during times of persecution and then desired to return to the church later.  One camp refused to allow them back in the church, while the opposite camp accepted all of them without question.  Cyprian took a middle ground, one that the bishop of Rome agreed with.

Cyprian was also the first early church father who championed infant baptism.  He felt they should be baptized as early as possible. Under his influence, 66 bishops declared themselves in favour of infant baptism in 253 A.D. and within a generation it had become standard practice in the North African churches.

Cyprian based many of his arguments around the term "Catholic Church" meaning the central, authoritative, and traditional church organization that claimed descent from the Apostle Peter.  In his Treatise "On the Unity of the Church" Cyprian refers to Matthew 16:18 where Jesus tells Peter that "on this rock I will build my church" and concludes that the authority given to Peter rests only with the Catholic Church.  Anyone who disagrees with the church leaders is causing disunity and is not part of the true church.  As Broadbent states in The Pilgrim Church (p.34), Cyprian went as far as claiming, "He who is not in the Church of Christ is not a Christian."

The church had now begun to exclude any and all Christians who disagreed with the most powerful bishops on non-core doctrines.  (By "non-core" I mean any doctrines of faith not expressly addressed in the New Testament.)

This large-scale excommunication of Christian believers created new practical problems in the church that had never existed before.  If an excommunicated group baptized people in the name of Christ, are those converts really Christians?  If those converts later come to the Catholic Church and renounce whatever "heresies" that existed in that group, do they need to be baptized again?  Cyprian argued yes; other bishops argued no, but it was an issue that was not resolved in his lifetime.

For the first time in history, it was no longer enough to be baptized in the name of Christ;  Cyprian now taught that one needed to be baptized in the Catholic Church to be a true Christian.

Origen

Origen (c 185 - c 254 AD) was born in Alexandria to Christian parents, who named him Origenes Adamantius.  His father Leonides was martyred in 202 AD, and Eusebius relates a story that young Origen wanted to be martyred with his father but was thwarted by his mother who hid his clothes.

Origen was a gifted teacher of the Scriptures and discovered this gift and passion at a young age.  At age 18 (203 AD), the bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius, appointed him to succeed Clement as the leader of the theological school there.  He performed this role for a dozen years until persecution in 215 AD forced him to flee.
Origen traveled through a number of places in his lifetime, including Rome, but he stayed the longest at Caesarea in Palestine.  There he was invited by the bishops to preach in their churches.
Despite his teaching experience and ability, Origen was still a layman and Demetrius was not happy that a layman from his city was preaching in churches in other cities, despite the approval of the local bishops.  He ordered him back to Alexandria, so Origen obeyed and he took up his position at the school.  However, in 230 AD Origen was on his way to Greece when he visited Caesarea again.  The bishops there ordained him, and this really got Demetrius upset.  When Origen returned, he was removed from his teaching position in the school and excommunicated from the church.
Origen returned to Caesarea and opened a new theological school, continued his writings and teaching, and spent the remainder of his life in Palestine.  During another persecution in 250 AD, he was arrested and tortured and died a few years later as a result.

From Origen's teachings and life events, we see the early church changing in the following ways.

1. Infant baptism is now commonly practiced.  Origen states in his commentary on Romans that infants were baptized in keeping with apostolic tradition, and his writings do not appear to show he disagreed with that tradition.
2. Church leadership was becoming formalized and separated from the rest of the people in the church.  The idea of clergy and laity had already become entrenched.  The fact that Origen was a more gifted teacher than many bishops did not matter to Demetrius, who excommunicated him for preaching in other churches and being ordained without his approval.  Laymen could teach in a school of theology, but not in a church!
3. Bishops had absolute authority over church affairs in their own city.  Demetrius excommunicated Origen not because the Christians in Alexandria found him behaving sinfully or because his theology was heretical, but simply because Demetrius was jealous of his abilities and his influence with other bishops.  
4. Bishops could determine arbitrarily who was part of Christ's church and who was not.  Again, Origen was not excommunicated for immorality but for simply breaking the rules of church procedure.  This is a novel development, for following church rules was never a requirement for being a Christian in the New Testament.
5. Despite Demetrius' absolute authority in the church in Alexandria, he appears to have had no authority in Palestine, where those bishops openly ignored his decisions and allowed Origen to open a new school and teach in their churches for the final 20 years of his life.  Therefore, churches in each city still operated somewhat independently, each under their own bishop.

Tertullian

Tertullian (c 160 - c 225 AD) was a prolific Christian writer from Carthage, North Africa.  He was the first to use the term Trinity and explain that doctrine.  He never refers to himself with any title, so he may have simply been an educated layman in the church.

Tertullian was never made a saint in the Catholic Church because he held some controversial views.  However, he wrote against many heresies and covered a wide range of theological doctrines and church life, which help paint a picture of the church in his day.

In regards to church leadership, Tertullian mentions one bishop who has authority over the elders and deacons, similar to what Ignatius taught.  However, where Ignatius required the bishop to be present for baptism, Tertullian states that any believer can baptize with the bishop's permission.

"Of giving it [baptism], the chief priest (who is the bishop) has the right: in the next place, the presbyters and deacons, yet not without the bishop’s authority, on account of the honour of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved. Beside these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally received can be equally given."  (Tertullian, On Baptism, chapter XVII)

Tertullian argued that baptism should be permitted for children, but only when they were old enough to know Christ and to request it.

"The Lord does indeed say, 'Forbid them not to come unto me.'  Let them come then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning wither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ."  
"Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem at least to have given 'to him that asketh.' "  (Tertullian, On Baptism, chapter XVIII)

Broadbent suggests Tertullian is arguing against the baptism of infants, but Tertullian does not mention that per se.  He clearly is arguing for believer's baptism though.  Broadbent also mentions that Tertullian condemned the practice of baptizing the dead, but I could find no reference to that practice in Tertullian's writings on baptism.

Broadbent also quotes Tertullian regarding the freedom of religion.

"It is no part of religion to compel religion, which should be adopted freely, not by force."  (Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, p. 33 from Tertullian, Apologetic To Scapula, chapter II.)

This freedom would be severely jeopardized in later years as the Catholic Church sought to compel orthodoxy through brute force.

Ignatius

Ignatius (~35 AD - 107 AD) was Bishop of Antioch in Syria.  He was likely a student of the Apostle John, along with his friend Polycarp who was Bishop of Smyrna.  Ignatius was arrested and escorted by soldiers to Rome to be executed by wild beasts in the arena.  Along the way, he wrote 6 letters to churches and one letter to Polycarp.

Martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Antioch

While writing only about a decade after Clement, Ignatius' views on a number of issues are clearly diverging from what is found in the New Testament.

One area of difference is communion, or the eucharist.  Ignatius considers the bread to be the flesh of Jesus Christ, rather than just a symbol of Jesus' body.  It seems this position came out of his desire to correct a growing heresy that Jesus had not really risen from the dead with a physical body.  Regarding heretics, he says:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ."  Letter to the Smyrnaeans ch. 7

Another first we see in Ignatius' writings is the term "Catholic Church."  Catholic in Greek simply means whole, complete, or universal.  It was a generic term at the time and it seems that Ignatius intended to distinguish the majority of the churches (catholic) from the few that were following clearly heretical teaching.

The most significant change from the New Testament model is found in Ignatius' description of church leadership.  Unlike Clement, Ignatius treats bishops (i.e. overseers) and elders as separate roles in the church, with a lone bishop being in authority over the elders.  He equates the bishop with God the Father, and the elders with the Apostles, and teaches absolute obedience to the bishop as one would give to God.  In terms of church life, the bishop was the only one permitted to authorize baptisms and perform the Eucharist.  In his letter to Polycarp, he even says that people who marry should do so with the approval of the bishop.  Note that in the quotes below that "presbytery" is synonymous with "elders."
"I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually."  Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 12.
"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."  Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8.
"... your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons."  Letter to the Magnesians, ch. 6.
"It is well to reverence both God and the bishop.  He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does serve the devil."  Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 9.

It is not entirely clear how this new office of bishop was instituted, but it clearly was not just an anomaly in Antioch.   In his letter to the Ephesians, he states that bishops "settled everywhere to the utmost bounds" of the earth.  He also specifically mentions the bishop of Smyrna (Polycarp) and the bishop of Ephesus (Onesimus).  Clearly this practice of having a single bishop over the elders of a church had become widespread in a very short period of time after Clement.

Despite his pleas to the churches to obey their bishop, Ignatius is not simply power hungry.  He comes across as a gracious, Godly man in his tone and words.
"I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person.  For though I am bound for the name [of Christ], I am not yet perfect in Jesus Christ."  Letter to the Ephesians, ch. 3.

Ignatius' writings show how the early church was quickly adopting a new organizational structure to deal with the heresies that were creeping into the churches.  It seems to have been an intentional change, borne out of good motives to solve a very real and serious problem. However, the consequences would turn out to be severely detrimental in the years that followed.

Error in The Pilgrim Church Book

Broadbent attributes a misuse of Acts 20:17 to Ignatius.
"Commenting on Acts 20, he says that Paul sent from Miletus to Ephesus and called the bishops and presbyters, thus making two titles out of one description, and says that they were from Ephesus and neighboring cities, thus obscuring the fact that one church, Ephesus, had several overseers or bishops." p. 32

After reviewing all of Ignatius' writings, I could find no such reference to Acts 20.  I tracked down Broadbent's source, a book by Henry Alford entitled The Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary.  In Vol. 2, p. 227, Alford does describe this exact misuse of Acts 20, but attributes it to Irenaeus rather than Ignatius.  Problem solved!

Clement

Clement (~30 AD - ~100 AD) is also known as Saint Clement of Rome or Pope Clement I, although there was certainly no office of Pope in his lifetime.  He was a bishop (i.e. overseer) in the church at Rome, and Roman Catholic tradition says he was appointed by the Apostle Peter himself and is the same Clement that is mentioned in Philippians 4:3.  (I find the latter point doubtful, but no one knows for sure.)  He was banished by the Emperor Trajan to Crimea in the Ukraine to work in a stone quarry and was most likely martyred there.

He is known mainly for his letter to the church in Corinth, known as 1 Clement or the Epistle of Clement.  It was written in the mid-90's AD and is probably the oldest document from the early church that was not included in the New Testament.  In it, he apologizes for being tardy in addressing a dispute in the Corinthian church due to "sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us," presumably referring to persecution that occurred under the Emperor Domitian.  He also refers to the deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and mentions that Paul "reached the farthest bounds in the West" (1 Clem 5:6), apparently confirming that Paul completed his planned journey to Spain (Rom. 15:24, 28).

The issue in the Corinthian church was the removal of some elders, and Clement rebukes the people in the church who did this.  Apparently it was not due to any sin on the part of the leaders, but "for the sake of one or two persons." (1 Clem. 47:6)

Clement uses the terms "elders" and "overseers" interchangeably, just as they are used in the New Testament, and he refers to the leaders of the Corinthian church in the plural.  He also mentions "deacons" as serving the overseers/elders.  There is no sense that Clement considered himself to have any authority over the Corinthian church and he gives himself no title in the epistle.  Despite the Roman Catholic church assigning him the title "Bishop of Rome" centuries later, there is no evidence anyone called him that during his lifetime.  He writes as a brother who is on an equal footing with a fellow church.
"These things, dearly beloved, we write, not only as admonishing you, but also as putting ourselves in remembrance. For we are in the same lists, and the same contest awaiteth us."  1 Clem 7:1

There is a passage in this epistle used by the Roman Catholic church to affirm the succession of the popes beginning with Peter.  Clement says:
"And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.  For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration."  1 Clem 44:1-2

From the context of the epistle, it is clear that Clement is simply saying that the overseers who were appointed by the original Apostles were expected to be replaced when they died.  It's also interesting to see leaders were appointed "with the consent of the whole Church" and not by a single leader in authority over that church.

From my reading of the epistle, Clement's main arguments why the Corinthian church should not have deposed its overseers are:

1. They were appointed by the Apostles and the church should not overrule the decisions of the Apostles, as they were appointed by Jesus Christ personally.  I already quoted 1 Clem. 44:2 above, and 1 Clem. 42:4 says in regards to the Apostles:
   
   "So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe." 
   
   
2. The authority structure in the church is rooted in the Old Testament, and should not be challenged.  Clement quotes Isaiah 60:17 when he says:
   "And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith."  1 Clem. 42:5
   Note that Isaiah 60:17 (NIV) actually says, "I will make peace your governor and righteousness your ruler."  Clement also refers to God's choice of Aaron as priest (1 Clem 43), implying the absolute and life-long nature of the office. 

The key point that Clement's epistle demonstrates is that immediately after the New Testament is closed, the churches appear to be operating using the model of leadership outlined in the New Testament itself, namely plurality of elders/overseers and each church operating under its own autonomy but in relationship to neighbouring churches and leaders.  However, as Broadbent notes: "Yet even here the beginning of a distinction between clergy and laity is already evident, drawn from Old Testament ordinances." (The Pilgrim Church, p. 31)  The change in perspective is subtle, but these seeds of basing the authority of church leaders on Old Testament models and of the establishment of an hierarchical model of church authority would produce a lot of problems in the years that followed.