Ignatius of Antioch: an early second century witness to the end of the apostolic age

My November 8, 2025 thread—The 'Great Apostasy' and Ignatius of Antioch—(link) saw renewed interest in March via some interesting and informative comments posted by two knowledgeable members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Errol and TOm). Their comments and responses from Rory and myself produced 23 new posts in the thread.  In this post, I want to emphasize a point that was not adequately addressed in the November thread: Ignatius of Antioch as an early and definitive witness to the end of the apostolic age.

Errol in his March 2, 2026-7:23 PM post (link) wrote:

>>Typically when Latter-day Saints refer to a particular date on which "the Apostasy" occurred they're referring specifically to the loss of Apostolic authority. And while this is certainly a significant milestone in the gradual process which would be the Apostasy there are various other contributing factors such as the subsequent loss of lesser priesthood keys and etcetera. Indeed, Ignatius, for all of his emphasis on Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship:

“I do not command you as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles; I am a condemned man.” (Ignatius, ca. 107, To the Romans 4, in Fathers of the Church 1:109-110)>>

I concur with Errol's assessment that, "Bishops in the 2nd century, arguably didn't imagine that the bishopric was equal in authority to Apostleship".

In addition to Errol's above quote from Ignatius's letter to the Romans, we also read the following from his letter to the Trallians:

3.3 Because Ι love you Ι am sparing you, though Ι could write more sharply on his behalf. But Ι did not think myself qualified for this, that Ι, a convict, should give you orders as though Ι were an apostle. (Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 2007, p. 217)

The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and High Anglican understanding of ‘Apostolic Succession’ also agrees with Errol—i.e. bishops are not ‘equal in authority’ to the Apostles. Bishops are not actual eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus Christ, they do not perform Apostolic ‘wonders and signs’, and they do not write Scripture. However, they have received authority from the Apostles to preach to the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, to appoint and ordain presbyters and deacons, and to teach ‘the faith which was once delivered unto the Saints’ (Jude 3).

Now to the main point of this post that I would like to make: in Ignatius’ seven authentic epistles we are given no evidence that any Apostles are still alive. We also have no indication that living Apostles were expected to be a continuing office that Christians could turn to. What we do find in Ignatius’ epistles is an adamant appeal to Christians that they are to look to and obey their local bishop, presbyters and deacons. All this indicates to me that the Apostolic office of the first century was foundational in nature, a foundation that succeeding generations of Christians would build upon, and not an office that was to be perpetuated.

 

Grace and peace,

David