wrote to remonstrate.' And he adds that this venerable document clearly proves that, at the period when it was written probably towards the end of the first century-the Churches of Rome and Corinth were under the rule of presbyter-bishops, with a very limited jurisdiction, and subject to dismissal from their office at the caprice of the people." Now, if this were really the constitution of the Church in the first century, the Corinthians acted fully within their rights in cashiering officers who had ceased to be acceptable to them; and the interference of the Roman Church is inexplicable, unless it possessed, or at least claimed, the right of controlling the independent action of foreign Churches. But it is remarkable that there is no trace in the letter itself of any pretension of the kind. Not a hint is given that the question of deposing presbyters was one on which Rome ought to have been consulted, or one which it had any right to review. It is not stated that there had been any appeal to Rome on the part of the displaced presbyters, but only that the transactions at Corinth had become notorious, and had brought great discredit on their Church (TE τὸ σεμνὸν καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀξιαγάπητον ὄνομα ὑμῶν μεγάλως Braonμnoĥvai). This letter claims no superiority for the Roman Church; and if the writer declares that its remonstrances cannot be disregarded without sin, it is because of his conviction of the enormity of the evil which called them forth. For, far from thinking with Dr. Cunningham that it lies within the discretion of a Church to turn off its presbyters when so disposed, he treats the deposition of presbyters, against whom no misconduct had been alleged, as a monstrous and unheard-of thing. In the view of later times, what had taken place at Corinth might be described as feuds or dissensions; but, in the view of the writer, rebellion against the authority of the duly-appointed presbyters was 'a detestable and impious sedition, madly stirred up by a few headstrong and self-willed persons' (μapas kaì ảvoσíov στάσεως ἣν ὀλίγα πρόσωπα προπετῆ καὶ αὐθάδη ὑπάρχοντα εἰς τοσοῦτον ἀπονοίας ἐξέκαυσαν). He argues that it is necessary to the well-being of every society that duly-constituted order should be respected; and (c. 44) that the order constituted

xx.]

CLEMENT'S INTERFERENCE WELL JUSTIFIED.

379

in the Christian society owed its origin to apostolic appointment. He has no other terms of peace to counsel than that those who had rebelled should penitently submit to lawful authority, even going into voluntary exile, if, for the sake of peace, that should be necessary. Such a letter as this could clearly not be regarded as an attempt by Rome to domineer over provincial Churches. On the contrary, the constituted authorities of every Church would be grateful for the moral support generously given them by the Church of the chief city; while the general acknowledgment of the principle, contended for in the letter, of the stability of the sacred office would do much to increase the reputation of the Church which had been its successful champion. Even those whose conduct was censured in this letter could take no offence at its tone, which is only that of the loving remonstrance which any Christian is justified in offering to an erring brother.

But it is necessary to remark that Clement's letter is in the name, not of the bishop of Rome, but of the Church of Rome. Clement's name is not once mentioned. It is from independent sources (the earliest, Dionysius of Corinth, has been just mentioned) we learn that Clement was the writer; but from the letter itself we should not so much as discover that Rome had any bishop. The later Roman theory supposes that the Church of Rome derives all its authority from the bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter. History inverts the relation, and shows that, as a matter of fact, the power of the bishop of Rome was built upon the power of the Church of Rome. It was originally a primacy, not of the episcopate, but of the Church.'*

All through the second century this subordination of the bishop to the Church continues. The bishop only addresses foreign Churches as the mouthpiece of his Church. We have the letter already referred to, written by Dionysius of Corinth, (about 170) in the name of his Church, addressed to the Church of Rome, and acknowledging the benefactions sent through their bishop Soter. The letter to which he replies

*Lightfoot's Clement, p. 251

had been written, not in Soter's name, but in that of his Church, as appears from the use of the plural number. 'Today we kept the Lord's holy day, on which we read your letter; by which we shall be able to be constantly admonished, reading it from time to time, in the same manner as your former letter to us, written by the hands of Clement.**

At the very end of the century, the proceedings with which the name of Victor is associated, taken with a view of excluding Quartodecimans from communion, were taken, not in the bishop's own name, but in that of his Church. There is so far an advance in the prominence of the bishop, that Victor does not suppress his own name as did Clement; but still the letter is not his, but that of his Church.f And the plural number is still used in the reply of Polycrates, in which also it is implied that the request that he should take the opinion of the neighbouring bishops had been made in the name of the Church, not the bishop, of Rome.‡

What has been said as to the fact that in the first century the importance of the bishop of Rome was merged in that of his Church receives singular confirmation from the Ignatian Epistles. Among non-canonical writers, Ignatius is the first distinct witness to the episcopal form of Church government. His letters to the Asiatic Churches are full of exhortations to obey the bishop and to be united to him; but in his letter to the Church of Rome no hint is given that there is a bishop entitled to the obedience (not to say of foreign Christians, but even) of his own people. No salutation is sent to the bishop; and, in short, we should not discover from this letter that there was a bishop of Rome. I am not prepared to adopt the inference some have drawn, viz. that episcopacy was a form of Church Government which developed itself first in Asia Minor, and which, when Ignatius wrote, had not yet extended itself to Rome. But there seems reason to

τὴν σήμερον οὖν Κυριακὴν ἁγίαν ἡμέραν διηγάγομεν, ἐν ᾗ ἀνέγνωμεν ὑμῶν τὴν ἐπιστολήν· ὴν ἕξομεν ἀεί ποτε ἀναγινώσκοντες νουθετεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν (Euseb. Η. Ε. iv. 23.)

† [φέρεται γραφὴ] τῶν ἐπὶ Ῥώμης ὁμοίως ἄλλη περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ζητήματος, ἐπίσκοπον Βίκτορα δηλοῦσα.

† Εδυνάμην δὲ τῶν ἐπισκόπων τῶν συμπαρόντων μνημονεῦσαι, οὓς ὑμεῖς ἠξιώσατε μετακληθῆναι ὑπ' ἐμοῦ, καὶ μετεκαλεσάμην (Euseb. Η. Ε. ν. 24).

xx.]

THE IGNATIAN LETTERS.

381

think that the bishop of Rome was then only concerned with domestic government, and that Ignatius had not even heard his name. On the other hand, the dignity of the Church of Rome is fully acknowledged in this letter. It is addressed to the Church which presides in the place of the country of the Romans.'* The best commentary on these words is afforded by Tertullian, whose own language may possibly have been suggested by them (De Praescr. 36): ecclesias apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident.' Thus each of the Apostolic Churches is regarded as presiding in its own district: so that though it would cost us nothing to admit a pre-eminence of the Church of the world's metropolis over all other Churches, the language appears to limit the presidency to the Roman district.

While on this subject, I must not omit to discuss another early testimony to the eminence of the Roman Church. I have already (p. 358) mentioned how Church writers refuted the Gnostic pretence to the possession of secret apostolic traditions, by tracing the successions of their own bishops up to the Apostles, and thus showing that it was in their own Churches that the genuine apostolic tradition must have been handed down. Irenæus, who uses this argument (III. 3), says, that because it would be too long in a work like his to enumerate the successions in all the Churches, he will content himself with giving the succession of bishops in the Church of Rome: Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam (hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles) in qua semper, ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio.' The passage has only been preserved in a Latin translation, and commentators have their attempts to restore the Greek. have understood the first clause to of every Church to conform to that of Rome; but it has been pointed out with perfect justice that 'necesse est' is not the Latin equivalent for deî, which would be rendered 'oportet,'

differed very much in Some Romanist writers mean that it is the duty

* ἥτις προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ρωμαίων.

but for ȧváyên; and expresses not moral obligation but natural necessity. When our Lord said (Matt. xviii. 7), ảváyên yàp ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, he did not mean that it was a moral duty that offences should come. Making this correction, however, those who understand the clause to mean that other Churches would be sure to be found agreeing with the Church of Rome, have differed among themselves as to the reason given, propter potentiorem principalitatem'; some restoring the Greek so as to find in these words a claim founded on the civil greatness of Rome, others on the antiquity of the Church. These differences I need not discuss, because I feel no doubt that Grabe is right in considering that the words 'convenire ad' are not Latin for 'agree with,' but for resort to,' and that 'undique' is not to be taken as meaning no more than 'ubique'; so that the meaning of Irenæus is Rome is, on account of its civil greatness, a place to which every Church must resort: that is to say, every Church does not come thither officially, but Christians cannot help coming to the city from the Churches in every part of the world. We have no need, then, to examine the apostolic tradition of these Churches in their respective lands. We can learn it from their members to be found in Rome, who, being in communion with the Roman Church, must agree with it in doctrine; and thus the apostolic tradition preserved in the capital has been preserved not by native Romans only, but by the faithful collected in the city from every part of the world.' Understanding the passage thus, it is seen to have no relevance to modern controversies. I am surprised that Grabe's explanation has not been more generally adopted,* because it seems to me the only one which

*He is followed by Neander, who has an admirable note (Kirchengeschichte, i. 210), but was perversely misunderstood by Stieren, who says, 'miror Neandrum, qui sequitur Grabium, illud "convenire" de conventibus legatorum ex omnibus ecclesiis Romam missorum interpretari.' Of course Grabe and Neander were not thinking of embassies to the Church of Rome, but of the necessary recourse of Christians to the capital on account of civil business. Grabe quotes what Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 32) says of Constantinople: εἰς ἦν τὰ πανταχόθεν ἄκρα συντρέχει ; and the gth Canon of the Council of Antioch: ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει πανταχύθεν συντρέχειν πάντας τοὺς πράγματα ἔχοντας. Neander adds a still more apposite quotation from Athenaeus (i. 36), who describes Rome as an epitome of the world in which every city is found represented.