It was nothing extraordinary for leaders of one church to
send a letter of advice and warning to another congregation. The apostolic prerogative
exercised by Paul had set a wide precedent which was followed by the author of
the seven letters in the Revelation, by Ignatius, by Polycarp, by Dionysius of Corinth,
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, ch. 23) by Serapion, (Ibid., V, ch.
19; VI, 12:3-6) and by many others. Each Christian community seems to have felt
a sufficient sense of responsibility for the others so that its leaders could
admonish them with solicitude. In some instances, of course, the authors
claimed a special right to speak. The seer of the Revelation and the martyr Ignatius
are examples. But the point to bear in mind is that the local churches did not
conceive of themselves as isolated and autonomous units. They were part of the
wider Church, and were not unconcerned with what happened in other
congregations. This is most forcibly brought home to us by the style of our document.
For it is not written in the name of an individual, but a congregation. It is
very far from a papal decree, though it was doubtless written by one of the
leaders of the Roman church. It makes no claim to superior authority, but,
basing itself on the authority of Scripture, it tries to persuade an errant
congregation to return to the right way.
Furthermore, that Rome should intervene in the internal affairs
of the Corinthian church is partly to be explained by the close relations
between the two cities. Refounded as a Roman colony in the middle of the first
century, Corinth had built up a peculiarly intimate connection in trade and
culture with the mother city. Indeed, excavations have made clear how exactly Corinth
tried to mimic Rome—in its sculpture, architecture, organization, and even its
names. Neither the church at Rome nor that at Corinth was, it is true, Latin in
race or language. The predominant element in both congregations was doubtless
converted Hellenistic Jews. Yet these affinities between the two cities help to
explain even the Christian connections. Corinth, moreover, by being a natural
halt on the route between Rome and the East, would be in constant touch with
the imperial capital.
Yet it cannot be denied that these two explanations do
not fully account for the tone of the letter. Rome very definitely regards it
as her duty to intervene (ch. 63) and sends envoys to see that matters are put
right (ch. 65). Something of her unique place at the church of the imperial
city, and the church of Peter and Paul (ch. 5), must surely have been in the
writer’s mind. Among the Roman clergy (as we learn from Hermas, Vis., II, ch. 4)
there seems to have been one who acted as a sort of “foreign secretary” for the
church, sending abroad various advices and exhortations as well as gifts of
charity. (The far-flung charity of the Roman church is noted by Ignatius, Rom.
1.2. Cf. Dionysius of Corinth apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. IV.
23:10) This implies more than a casual relation with other churches; and while
this should not be pressed to vindicate much later papal claims, it does
indicate that the Roman community took most seriously its responsibility as a
sister church for the welfare of other congregations. Here, in germ, is that
exercise of authority which was to become the papal primacy. (Cyril C.
Richardson, Early Christian Fathers [New York: Collier Books, 1970], 35-36)
To Support this Blog:
