that it is an unwarrantable hypothesis that the see of Corinth was vacant when Clement wrote. But it does not therefore follow that there is not in this Epistle, as in the Didache, the recognition of a superior authority though it has yet no localized representation in the particular Church addressed. On the contrary Clement's language seems to suggest, or even to require, some such supposition. Besides the presbyters whom the Corinthians are to 'honour,' there is mention on two occasions1 of their rulers whom they are to reverence and obey. This repeated mention of 'rulers' as distinct from 'presbyters,' more particularly as we find the same distinction in the Shepherd of Hermas, cannot be overlooked; and the title 'ruler' is already familiar to us as applied to men of the highest order in the Church, like the prophets Judas and Silas, and those who first brought the Gospel to 'the Hebrews,' and the members of the royal family of Christ who 'ruled' in the Churches of Palestine.2 Again there have been certain 'distinguished men,' who in accordance with the arrangement made by the Apostles have, since their death, appointed the presbyters. It appears then that Clement does recognise a body of men who at least appointed the presbyters at Corinth, and whom it is natural to identify with the 'rulers' mentioned elsewhere. 'Rulers' is a general term and we cannot tell what further official 1 cc. 1, 21. Hermas makes a similar distinction (Vis. iii. 9). See Hilgenfeld in Zeitschr. für wiss. Theol., 1886, p. 23. 2 Acts xv. 22; Euseb. H.E. iii. 32 прoŋyoûνтaι náons ékkλnoías; Heb. xiii. 7. Here the youμevo are those apostolic preachers who have passed away; but in ver. 17 the present authorities amongst the Hebrews, 'who watch for their souls as men who shall give account,' and whom they are to greet (ver. 24), are also called youμevo. These would more naturally be local 'presbyters' but not necessarily, more especially as the Epistle is not written to any one community: see on these 'rulers' Harnack Texte u. Untersuch Band ii, Heft 1. pp. 95, 96. Later the expression is generally used for bishops (Euseb. H.E. iii. 36; Apost. Const. ii. 46) but not always. title they had, if any, but we must recollect that there is the same absence of a definite official title for the 'men of distinction' like Timothy and Titus, who probably filled exactly the same position during the lifetime of the Apostles. It is quite natural that they should have been known sufficiently well as individuals and as men of quasi-apostolic authority to make an exact title a matter of indifference. Definite terminology is in the region of administration as of theology a gradual growth. It is enough that we should recognise that certain men in the Church were understood to have the apostolic authority to ordain elders and presumably the powers of control which always accompanied that authority. This is a class of men probably similar to the 'prophets' and 'teachers' of the Didache, whose authority, as we saw reason to believe, passed over to the local presidents who were known as 'bishops.' Some of them may have been already localized in other Churches of Greece, only (as it appears) there was not one on the spot at Corinth, though before the time of Hegesippus a regular succession of diocesan bishops was existing there as elsewhere. The fact that no one of this order was yet resident in Corinth may account for Clement's authoritative appeal to that Church.1 (4) For, though Clement cannot have been called a (4) which Clement represented 1 It becomes natural then, as the prophet is called the Christian high-priest in the in Rome. Didache, to see in Clement's analogical use of 'high-priest, priest, and Levite,' in speaking of the Christian ministry, a reference to the three orders, of whom the second and third are presbyter-bishops and deacons, but of whom the highest are these 'rulers' and 'distinguished men,' who correspond to the prophets of the Didache. I do not wish to imply that the term λλóуiuos ȧvýp was at all a title reserved for these apostolic men. Clement uses it quite generally of the Corinthian Church (c. 62): ἀνδράσι πιστοῖς καὶ ἐλλογιμωτάτοις καὶ ἐγκεκυφόσιν κ.τ.λ. So he uses youμevo also of secular rulers (c. 37, 61). 'bishop' in the later sense, his position in the earliest tradition is so prominent that he must in fact have been what would have been designated in later times by that name. He merges his own authority, as he writes, in the Church which he represents, but in the Church 2 not in the presbyterate, and the letter therefore affords no evidence at all as to Clement's relation to the other church officers. Thus, if we could get behind the scenes, we should probably find that the chief authority really belonged to him, and that he was one of those 'men of reputation,' one of those 'rulers,' who since the Apostles' death had exercised that part of their ministry which was to become permanent in the Church. One of this order must, we should suppose, always have existed in so eminent a Church as Rome. 1 The evidence of the Clementines is enough to show us that Clement's personality made a great impression on his own generation and those that succeeded, and it was as a church ruler and bishop that he impressed himself on the memory. It is Clement in the Shepherd who is to communicate the messages given to Hermas to the Churches of the other cities (εἰς τὰς ἔξω πόλεις, ἐκείνῳ γὰρ ÉжITÉTρаптαι). He appears in the third place in the succession of Roman bishops given by Irenaeus, and he doubtless held this place in the 'succession' which Hegesippus drew up. It does not seem to me that the absence of specific mention of the bishop in Ignatius' letter to the Church of Rome is any evidence at all against there having been one. See Lightfoot Ignat. i. p. 381, also Dissert. p. 221, where he remarks: 'the reason for supposing Clement to have been a bishop is as strong as the universal tradition of the next ages can make it.' See also Clement i. p. 68. Clement cannot have been called a 'bishop' in the later sense of the term, because in his epistle he clearly calls the presbyters bishops, and this must reflect the usage of the Roman Church. Perhaps, as suggested above, the distinction of men like him, who bore some measure of the apostolic authority, may have made a fixed title not yet indispensable. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iv. 17, 195) quotes him as the 'apostle Clement.' His eucharistic prayer, as well as the teaching authority which breathes in his epistle, and which is probably his own, suggests the prerogative freedom of teaching and Eucharist which is assigned to the prophets in the Didache (x. 7, xi, xii). 2 Dr. Salmon, Introd. p. 565 n., calls attention to the fact 'how all through the first two centuries the importance of the bishop of Rome is merged in the importance of his Church'; for instance, how Dionysius of Corinth writes to the Church of Rome (Euseb. H.E. iv. 23), and how 'when Victor attempted to enforce uniformity of Easter observance, it was still in the name of his church that he wrote. . . ... This is evidenced by the plural nσare in the reply of Polycrates' (Euseb. v. 24). That this was the case is a good deal more than matter of surmise. Irenaeus records1 how 'the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, having founded and built up the Church (at Rome) committed to Linus the office of the Episcopate. This is the Linus of whom Paul makes mention in his letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric; a man who had both seen the blessed apostles and had had intercourse with them, in whose ears their preaching was still echoing and their tradition was still before his eyes; and not his alone; for there were still many surviving who had been taught by the apostles.' This catalogue of the early Roman succession, which rests probably on the investigations of Hegesippus as well as of Irenaeus,2 cannot, as Dr. Lightfoot says, 'be treated otherwise than with the highest respect. We can trace it back to a few years later than the middle of the second century. It comes from Rome itself. It was diligently gathered there and deliberately recorded by two several writers from different parts of Christendom.' It is only necessary to recognise that the Bishops of Rome down to Clement did not bear the episcopal name. 1 See above p. 111. 2 See above pp. 115-16. 3 3 Bishop Lightfoot's investigations into the early Roman succession have vindicated the Irenaean tradition as the only one which deserves the name. According to this tradition Linus, Anencletus, and Clement are plainly bishops in succession one to another. See, on the whole subject, his Clement i. pp. 66-8, and the discussion, pp. 201 ff. He practically treats this succession as certainly historical, pp. 76 ff. V. The V The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians was written under the following circumstances. Ignatius, Its occasion. in company with others of the 'noble army of martyrs' bound with the 'sacred fetters,' had passed from Troas to Philippi on his way to Rome. There he had held intercourse with the Philippian Christians, and had bidden them, as he had bidden the other Churches, send a letter to the bereaved Church of Antioch. It was too far for them however to send a messenger; so they wrote to Polycarp of Smyrna to request that his messenger might take their letter, and to request him further to let them have any of Ignatius' letters-whether to his own Church or to others that he might have in his possession. It was in assent to this request that Polycarp wrote the letter which has been preserved to us. It implies bishop at Philippi; This Epistle is remarkable for its exhibition of the absence of a saint's character, but remarkable also because of the light it throws on the constitution of the Church of Philippi. Polycarp writes no doubt as a bishop'Polycarp and the presbyters with him' but he speaks of no bishop at Philippi, only of elders and deacons, and bids the Philippians obey 'the elders and deacons as God and Christ,' as if there was no higher officer in question there. The elders moreover are exhorted in terms which imply that the exercise of discipline and the administration of alms belongs 1 Dr. Hatch (B. L. p. 88 n.5) denies that Polycarp is here distinguishing himself from his presbyters, but whatever the ambiguities of the phrase, it is cleared up by the letters of Ignatius to Polycarp and to the Church of Smyrna. Polycarp was admittedly bishop of Smyrna. He writes moreover in the first person. |