The Letter of Clement to the Church of Corinth, which dates to the latter part of the first century, is often appealed to as evidence that the church of Rome, and by way of implication the bishop of Rome, had a posture of leadership relative to the other churches within the Christian world, since the letter is sent to the church of Corinth to settle certain disputes they were having in response to the church of Corinth’s request for the church of Rome to intervene.
But some Protestants argue that the letter doesn’t speak in the first-person singular, which is what we’d expect if the letter were being issued by Clement, the bishop of Rome. Rather, the letter is written in the name of the church of Rome (“The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth”) and uses the first-person plural “we”: “We feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us.”
Moreover, some have argued that Clement wasn’t even the bishop of Rome when this letter was written. Clement wasn’t bishop until around A.D. 90. This letter, so it’s argued, was written some time before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. Clement, therefore, would have been a presbyter, apparently working as a secretary of sorts in the Roman church. The reason for this early dating of the letter is that Clement speaks of the Temple as if it were still standing in chapter forty-one of his letter.
For some Christians, these two details indicate that the early church of Rome wasn’t governed by a single bishop, like what the papacy would demand, but rather was governed by a council of presbyters.
There are two approaches we can take here. One is negative, and the other is positive.
Let’s start with the negative approach: The use of “we” doesn’t prove that the letter is issued by a council of presbyters and not a single bishop.
Notice that the objection assumes that a council of presbyters is the only explanation of the use of “we.” But that’s not true.
First, as mentioned already, some scholars believe that Clement wrote this letter during the time when he was merely a presbyter in the church of Rome, as a secretary. This being the case, Clement’s use of “we” doesn’t disprove a single bishop in Rome any more than a papal secretary’s use of “we” or “the Vatican” when he writes about the Vatican’s take on an issue would disprove the existence of a current bishop of Rome.
Secondly, there are several examples in the Bible and in magisterial teaching where “we” is used, and it doesn’t entail a group of individuals issuing an authoritative decree.
Consider, for example, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter uses the plural “we” when he settles the theological dispute over whether circumcision is necessary to be a Christian: “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (v. 11). The use of “we” here doesn’t mean the definitive declaration is being given by the council of presbyters and apostles. Rather, it’s Peter who’s giving it, and he speaks on behalf of the Church.
Paul used the plural “we” when addressing the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:23, 2 Cor. 1:24). Yet this didn’t nullify his unique authority as an apostle over the Corinthians.
Even Pope Pius XII uses “we” when he defines Mary’s bodily assumption in Munificentissimus Deus: “We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma” (44).
Pius XII’s use of “we” doesn’t entail that the definition is given by a council of presbyters or bishops. Rather, he gave the definition, like Peter at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
It’s good to keep in mind that the use of the “royal we” is not by any means new. Exalted figures have used “we” to refer to themselves since time immemorial. And so just because Clement’s letter to the Church of Corinth uses the first-person plural, “we,” that doesn’t mean there was no single bishop of Rome.
Let’s now turn to our positive approach, which involves providing positive arguments that the church of Rome would have been governed by a single bishop in the first century.
One argument is from early source attestation. Some early sources attest to a succession of bishops in the bishopric of Rome from St. Peter on, and such attestation is never contested.
Consider Irenaeus’s account in his work Against Heresies:
The blessed apostles, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus . . . (bk. 3, ch. 3, par. 3).
Fourth-century Church historian Eusebius confirms this succession in book five, chapter six of his Ecclesiastical History.
Given this evidence, a Protestant can’t claim that the early church of Rome was governed by a council of presbyters without saying that Irenaeus and Eusebius either were factually wrong or made up this idea of succession of bishops in the church of Rome, both of which seem implausible.
Now, a Protestant may just dig his heels in and hold to the claim that these early sources were just plain wrong.
If that’s the case, then we can challenge him by pointing out a potential double standard. Consider that most Protestants acknowledge, on account of the unanimous view of the Fathers, that the “Clement” to whom the letter is attributed is the same Clement whom Paul speaks of in Philippians 4:3.
For example, Irenaeus speaks of Clement as one who had “seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them,” and “might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes” (3.3.3).
Origen also affirms in his First Principles (2.3.6) that Clement was a disciple of the apostles.
Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (bk. 3, ch. 4), makes explicit that Clement is the one spoken of in Philippians 4:3. He writes, “Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.”
Now, if a Protestant accepts this early Christian testimony about “Clement,” then why would he deny Irenaeus’s testimony about the succession of bishops in the church of Rome that involved this same Clement? To simply assert that he’s wrong, without evidence, and at the same time say he’s right when it comes to “Clement,” is special pleading: using Irenaeus as a legitimate testimony when it comes to who Clement is, but in this special case of the succession of the bishops, without reason, not using Irenaeus as a legitimate testimony.
Another argument for there being a single bishop of Rome in the first century is that it’s highly improbable for there to be a drastic change of Church government without any sort of criticism.
Consider that by the time of Ignatius of Antioch, whose letters date to A.D. 107, part and parcel of Christian belief is that a bishop is necessary even to have a church. In his Letter to the Trallians, Ignatius writes, “Apart from these [the bishop, presbyters, and assembly of the apostles] there is no Church (ch. 3).
For Ignatius, this belief concerning the relation between a bishop and the church doesn’t seem to be a novelty, and it’s widespread throughout the Christian world (Letter to the Ephesians 3:2), which means that the belief itself would date to prior to the end of the first century—within the last decade (90-100).
So if this belief wasn’t present at the time of Clement’s letter, circa A.D. 70, and there wasn’t a single bishop of Rome giving legitimacy to the Church of Rome, then we’d have a major addition to Christian theology merely twenty years or so after Clement’s letter.
This isn’t impossible, but it’s highly improbable. And here’s the reason why: Clement’s letter was written to the Corinthian church in the first place because of “sedition against the [Corinth] presbyters” (ch. 47). Whenever the Christian understanding of proper church government is threatened, it becomes public and is dealt with. Jude’s reference to first-century Christians falling into the rebellion of Korah is evidence for this (Jude 1:11).
If Ignatius’s theology of the bishop and his relation to the church were a novelty conflicting with ancient Christian belief, someone would have made a stink about it. But there’s nothing of the sort.
For this reason, it’s highly improbable that Ignatius’s theology is an accretion to Christian theology. It’s more reasonable to think that it’s part and parcel of the Christian Tradition. And if that’s so, then we have reason to think that a bishop would have been governing the church of Rome at the time of Clement’s letter—according to early sources, this would have been Linus—and Clement, if anything, would have been subordinate to him and speaking on his behalf.
So whenever a Protestant challenges the early papacy with an appeal to Clement’s use of “we,” you’re now equipped to block his inference. Then you can show that the Catholic view—that there was a single bishop of Rome in the first century—fits best with the historical evidence.