First of all, concerning early historical evidence, since the orders of the ministry had not evolved into the bishop's office as a third order at that time because that was not in place for another 150 years or so, the office of Ignatius was equivalent to that of a senior pastor. There was no office of monarchial bishop until much later.
I must say that this is an interesting response, and it is presumptive on different levels. I wasn't in any way arguing for the 'office of monarchial bishop' (whatever you may happen to mean by that) by quoting Ignatius in my post--I was simply citing his statement as
early evidence that '
pastor-only-administered ordinances/sacraments' (which is the topic of the thread, is it not?) was the practice of the primitive church, at least in certain areas. This is whether you want to call it 'bishop' or 'senior pastor' or whatever.
Secondly, it is curious that you'd assert that the bishop's office wasn't yet a 'third order', when Ignatius himself in his epistles
consistently distinguishes between 'bishop' and 'presbyter'. Sure, one may quibble that the 'bishop' was 'only' a 'senior pastor', supposedly in distinction to some other office that one alternatively labels as 'monarchial bishop' which allegedly only developed after 'another 150 years or so'--and I wouldn't necessarily object to so calling the 'bishop' a 'senior pastor' (since that's what he is), nor to the idea that there was indeed a structural development afterwards
within the three-fold order. But the fact remains that by the early 2nd century, there was already a distinction between the 'bishop' (or if you prefer, the 'chief pastor') and 'presbyters' (or, the 'associate pastors') in the cities of Asia Minor, and the Ignatian evidence is that there was in that locale one 'bishop' per city (whether one wants to call him 'monarchial' or not) as Ignatius addresses them by name in his epistles.
But again, the purpose of my previous response was not to argue for the propriety of the historic three-fold order (though I certainly could do so elsewhere), let alone for something called a 'monarchial bishop' (whatever that means).
Even your own Anglican Communion admits that the "historic episcopate" was just that, a historical development which gradually, after the NT period closed, evolved and was established as the churches grew and expanded.
Again, this is not really relevant to the point I was making, though I could argue in another thread, if so I'm so inclined, that the
pattern upon which the three-fold order is based (and which became universal) is actually found in the NT even during the time when the
specific terms 'bishop' and 'presbyter' were still interchangeable.
Secondly, was Ignatius an apostle who wrote scripture? If his views cannot be substantiated by scripture -- and they cannot -- then they are not authoritative.
I never said Ignatius was an apostle nor that what he wrote was 'Scripture'. Again, it seems you were trying to pick an argument with me over a point I wasn't specifically making. I merely cited him as 'early historical evidence' for a Church practice, which he undoubtedly provides. It may not have been explicitly spelled out in the NT, but I don't think the early Churches looked at the Gospels or the Epistles as being detailed (or exhaustive) Church manuals, especially since it was that in many cases the particular local Churches were established and functioning
before there were any Canonical NT writings penned--all these Churches had to go on initially was the OT Scriptures and the Apostles' oral teachings. Even after the NT writings began to be written and then circulated, none of them individually or collectively provided an exact comprehensive 'how to do Church' manual, but were rather to teach doctrine and correct errors.
So, your conclusion that 'whatever can't be substantiated by Scripture is therefore not authoritative' is debatable, particularly for the
early Church, as it assumes an anachronistic idea of 'sola Scriptura', as well as a definitely fixed and universally agreed upon closed Canon which didn't take place for about another 300 years.
While as an Anglican (since you decided to bring that up), I certainly would agree that whatever is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION is contained in the Scriptures and can be proved thereby (per Article VI), I also believe the Church has authority in Rites and Ceremonies (just as long as they don't CONTRADICT Canonical Scripture) in matters not specifically spelled out the Scripture (per Articles XX and XXXIV) so that things are done decently and orderly within the Church.
