Brent—How Irenaeus Has Misled the Archaeologists 39with the “ministry of episcopal oversight [τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λειτουργίαν],” which both
Peter and Paul had “placed in his hands [ἐνεχείρισαν].” After Linus succeeds Anacle-
tus and then: “After the latter, in third place from the apostles, Clement received the
inheritance of the episcopate [τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν κληροῦται] .”^18 Why should we not accept
Irenaeus’s evidence quite independently from that of Eusebius?
The problem is that Irenaeus now associates the inheritor of the teaching office that
is Clement with the extant letter of the Roman Church to the Corinthians. “At the time
of Clement, when no small insurrection had arisen with the brethren in Corinth, the
Church in Rome issued orders in a written letter of substance [ἐπέτειλεν... ἱκανωτάτην
γραφήν] to the Corinthians that brought about peace.. .” From the preface of the letter
that survives, we find that it is anonymous and simply claims to be written in the name
of “the Church of God, which resides in Rome to the Church of God which resides in
Corinth.”^19
Irenaeus clearly associates the letter with Clement, written “in his time” and by
implication with his agreement but does not directly claim that he was its writer. It is
the letter of Dionysius of Corinth cited by Eusebius that reveals Clement’s authorship.
In his letter to Soter, addressed as “blessed bishop” and to whom Irenaeus ascribes
“twelfth place” in the succession list, Dionysius mentions the reading out in church
of the letter “that was formerly sent to us through Clement [τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ
Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν] .”^20 We conclude that the anonymous letter of the Church in
Rome to that in Corinth was sent “through Clement,” who wrote it not on his own
authority but on that of the Roman community.
But what evidence do we find in that letter for Clement and for church order at his
time, whether in Rome or in Corinth? It is in the light of such evidence that we will
be in a position to evaluate both the claims of Irenaeus and those of Hegesippus. In
the light of such evidence also, we shall be able to assess in what sense Dionysius of
Corinth and Soter of Rome, cited by Eusebius,^21 or indeed Primus, cited by Hegesip-
pus, could be said to hold Episcopal office. It will be the actual documentary evidence
available to both Irenaeus and ourselves that will enable us to reconstruct the nature of
their office and not a purely hypothetical chronographical list that would have needed
to include a column for bishops as successors to high priests and in parallel with pagan
kings and consuls.
Clement originally claimed to be writing on behalf of the Roman community to
that of Corinth and not in exercise of his sole episcopal office. If he had claimed sole
episcopal office, he would no doubt have sought to locate a counterpart in the church
at Corinth, like Ignatius addressing Polycarp as sole bishop of Smyrna, as he claimed
himself to be of Antioch, even though Polycarp is content to be a presbyter with his
fellow presbyters, however personally distinguished was his name.^22 It is not possible to
infer that though a plurality of presbyter-bishops administered the church at Corinth,
nevertheless Clement was the single bishop and supreme teacher at Rome, in the kind
of role that he appears to have in the later succession lists, including that of Irenaeus.
This point becomes even stronger when the letter goes on to make clear that there
was no single bishop at Corinth in Clement’s time: the blameless πρεσβύτεροι whom the
Corinthians had expelled from office were a plurality, and were also called ἐπίσκοποι,