Does 1 Clement Support Roman Apostolic Succession or Roman Primacy?

Quick Facts

Question: Does 1 Clement, written around 95 to 96 A.D., prove Roman primacy or Apostolic succession through a single line of bishops?
Short answer: No. The epistle never tells the Corinthians that Rome has final authority, and it says the Apostles appointed multiple bishops and deacons, not one bishop.
Author: Traditionally said to be Clement of Rome, though this article argues the attribution is dubious.
Dating: 1 Clement is dated around 95 to 96 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch's epistles are dated around the mid 110s, though some say 140 to 150 A.D. In every case, 1 Clement is closer to the Apostles.
Key texts: 1 Clement 5:1, 7:1, 42:1-5, 44:1-5, 47:6, 54:2, and 57:1, plus the letters of Ignatius of Antioch.
Ignatius and Rome: Ignatius mentions a bishop in his letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, and Polycarp, but none in his letter to the Romans.
Conflicting succession lists: Tertullian says Peter appointed Clement. Irenaeus says Peter appointed Linus. Eusebius says Peter, then Linus, then Clement.
Catholic response examined: John Henry Newman's development of doctrine, which this article argues introduces an unverifiable variable and begs the question.

Summary

Catholic apologists point to 1 Clement to justify Apostolic succession and Roman primacy. This article argues the epistle does neither. It contains no claim of Roman authority over Corinth, and it describes the Apostles appointing multiple bishops. A single bishop first appears in Ignatius of Antioch, decades later, and Ignatius names no bishop in Rome. If the legitimacy of Rome rests on a single line of succession, but a single bishop is a later development from what the Apostles established, then Rome's argument depends on an unverifiable assumption.

Does 1 Clement Prove Roman Primacy?

Clement of Rome isn't Catholic on leadership.

Catholic apologists will use 1 Clement to justify Apostolic succession and Roman primacy.

Does it do this? No.

I am writing this from a Baptist and Protestant view. If you wish to read my other writings on Clement of Rome, you are free to.

First, does it prove Roman primacy?

No.

The epistle starts with this:

"The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied."

The writers of the epistle do not tell the Corinthians Roma locuta; causa finita est (Rome has spoken, the matter is finished). The justification the Roman church gives for why the Corinthians should not have deposed their bishops is that those men were appointed by, well, the Apostles.

1 Clement 42:1-5

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.
Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come.
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith."

1 Clement 44:4

"Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place."

1 Clement 44:5

"For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by them blamelessly."

The letter does not speak as a superior either. In 1 Clement 7:1 the Romans write as fellow strugglers with the Corinthians:

1 Clement 7:1

"These things, dearly beloved, we write, not only as admonishing you, but also as putting ourselves in remembrance. For we are in the same lists, and the same contest awaiteth us."

Catholics will point to two places where the Romans sound authoritative:

1 Clement 59:1

"But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger;"

1 Clement 63:2

"For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter."

But look at who is speaking. Both verses say "us" and "we." The letter comes from "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome," not from a bishop, and no single man's name or office is ever attached to it. In 7:1, quoted above, the same writers say they are in the same contest as the Corinthians.

The obedience they ask for is also not a matter of tradition or of a teaching office. It is more like the obedience Christians owe their pastors, much like Hebrews 13:17, which tells believers to obey those who have the rule over them. The letter even points that obedience at the Corinthians' own presbyters (57:1, quoted above), not at Rome. And where the letter grounds its appeals, it grounds them in Scripture and the Apostles. The Corinthians are told that they have "searched the scriptures, which are true" (45:2) and to "take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle" (47:1). Peter appears in 5:4 as an example of endurance and is never presented as the source of Rome's authority.

The claim that the letter was written "through the Holy Spirit" is a claim about this letter's message, not a claim that Rome holds an office that binds other churches. A church urging a sister church to heed its own pastors is asking to be heard. It is not claiming the right to rule.

There is nothing in the text to support the idea of Roman primacy without doing eisegesis.

Does 1 Clement Prove Apostolic Succession?

But what about Apostolic succession?

Remember what I said earlier about it being dubious that a Clement wrote this?

In the words of Joshua Schachterle, Ph.D.:

"It's possible that this brief reference inspired the later identification of Clement with the author of the epistle, although the name Clement (Latin: Clemens) was a common name in 1st and 2nd-century Rome, according to Elmer Merrill. However, later Christian authors added fuel to the fire. Bart Ehrman notes that we get conflicting reports about the place of Clement in the church of Rome depending on which author or text we read. In Against Heresies, for instance, Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in the 2nd century, says that Peter and Paul appointed someone named Linus as bishop of Rome before they were executed.
Eusebius, however, whose 4th-century Church History is a foundational document for the early centuries of the church, says “the first to be called bishop after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul was Linus.” In other words, Eusebius believes Linus’ appointment happened after Peter and Paul’s deaths, meaning that he must have been appointed by someone else.
Eusebius goes on to say that after Linus, there came “Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome….” So if you’re keeping score, Eusebius seems to count Peter as the first bishop of Rome, Linus as the second, and Clement as the third. But wait! There’s more! In his book The Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian, a 2nd-century North African Christian, writes instead that Clement was the first bishop of Rome and was appointed directly by Peter. Figuring out who (if anyone) to believe is quite the historical pickle.
Ehrman points out that in Paul’s letters—written mostly in the 50s CE and including the one written to the church of Rome—there is no mention of a designated leader of Christian communities. That is, in the 50s CE, Christian communities did not feel the need for a bishop or other titled leader. Sixty years later, when the martyr Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writes his farewell exhortations to Christian communities in several cities, he assumes there are bishops over each of them except Rome, where he writes to the entire community instead.
Moreover, the author of 1 Clement assumes not that a bishop is head of the church of Corinth to which he is writing, but that they are governed by a kind of panel of presbyters, all of whom have been deposed by the congregation. Therefore, if, indeed, this letter was written by Clement of Rome, it seems unlikely he was sole bishop of Rome at the time, although he could certainly have been a member of their board of presbyters."

Now enters the problem: 1 Clement assumes multiple bishops, while Ignatius himself assumes a single bishop everywhere except Rome. Ignatius writes:

"Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God."

However, as 1 Clement is earlier than Ignatius of Antioch's epistles, 1 Clement should be viewed as closer to the Apostles. We directly see Clement of Rome say the following in 1 Clement 5:1 before mentioning Peter and Paul:

"But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation."

1 Clement is dated around 95 to 96 A.D.

Ignatius of Antioch's epistles are dated around the mid 110s, though some say 140 to 150 A.D.

For the sake of argument, let's assume 1 Clement was written in 95 A.D. and that Ignatius of Antioch's epistles were written around 115 A.D. or 140 A.D.

With the mid 110s estimate, there is a 20-year gap.

Assuming 140 A.D., it is a 45-year gap.

At 150 A.D., it is a 55-year gap.

In every case, 1 Clement is closer to the Apostles, and so to the early Church, than Ignatius of Antioch is.

1 Clement records multiple bishops for Corinth and says the Apostles appointed multiple bishops. It also uses "bishop" and "presbyter" for the same group of men, and the text shows it.

In 1 Clement 42:4-5, quoted above, the Apostles appoint "bishops and deacons." No third group of presbyters is listed. Yet the leaders of the Corinthian church are called presbyters throughout the letter. Chapter 44 shows the two words describing one office:

1 Clement 44:1-3

"And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office.
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily."

In 44:3 the men put out are those who held "the bishop's office." Verse 4, quoted above, then calls the older holders of that office "presbyters," and the letter keeps using that word for the Corinthian leaders, always in the plural:

1 Clement 47:6: "for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters."
1 Clement 54:2: "only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters."
1 Clement 57:1: "Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart."

Catholics will point to 44:2 as proof of succession, and it does describe men succeeding to a ministration. But the verse says "other approved men should succeed to their ministration," which is plural men taking over from plural men. Later appointments are made "by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church." That is a plural succession with the whole Church consenting, not a single line from one bishop to the next.

The point is that the early Church had multiple bishops, according to 1 Clement.

The Problem with a Single Bishop

So here is the problem.

To take the spirit of 1 Clement, if the Corinthians should have followed the bishops the Apostles appointed for them, then why does Apostolic succession work from one bishop to the next bishop instead of through multiple bishops?

Why is one man appointed by the Apostles any less important than any other?

And here is the problem which Schachterle pointed out: Ignatius of Antioch, in every letter he wrote except the one to the Romans, named or anonymously mentioned a bishop.

1. The Epistle to the Ephesians

"I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. For, on hearing that I came bound from Syria for the common name and hope, trusting through your prayers to be permitted to fight with beasts at Rome, that so by martyrdom I may indeed become the disciple of Him who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God, Ephesians 5:2 [you hastened to see me ]. I received, therefore, your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. And blessed be He who has granted unto you, being worthy, to obtain such an excellent bishop." - Chapter 1

2. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

"Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ, [I now write to you]." - Chapter 2

3. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

"I know that you possess an unblameable and sincere mind in patience, and that not only in present practice, but according to inherent nature, as Polybius your bishop has shown me, who has come to Smyrna by the will of God and Jesus Christ, and so sympathized in the joy which I, who am bound in Christ Jesus, possess, that I beheld your whole multitude in him. Having therefore received through him the testimony of your good-will, according to God, I gloried to find you, as I knew you were, the followers of God." - Chapter 1

4. The Epistle to the Romans

No bishop is ever cited or even mentioned.

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God." - Chapter 1

5. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians

He never directly names the bishop, yet he praises him.

"Which bishop, I know, obtained the ministry which pertains to the common [good], not of himself, neither by men, Galatians 1:1 nor through vainglory, but by the love of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ; at whose meekness I am struck with admiration, and who by his silence is able to accomplish more than those who vainly talk. For he is in harmony with the commandments [of God], even as the harp is with its strings. Wherefore my soul declares his mind towards God a happy one, knowing it to be virtuous and perfect, and that his stability as well as freedom from all anger is after the example of the infinite meekness of the living God." - Chapter 1

6. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

He doesn't name Polycarp in the epistle to the Smyrnaeans itself, but he does in a sister letter. He praises him.

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness."

But there is no one named in Rome.

Newman's Argument and the Problem of Development

John Henry Newman, for what it's worth, argues this as well, albeit for a different point.

"When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated." - John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, The Papal Supremacy

So what makes one bishop more important than another bishop appointed by the Apostles? And even then, how do we know there was even a single bishop in Rome, considering Ignatius never names one?

I know the Catholic explanation is that this is a flawed argument, as it is arguing from silence. However, 1 Clement specifically says the Apostles ordained multiple bishops. The author never says the Corinthians were special in having multiple bishops. He cites this as the standard apostolic rule.

1 Clement 42:4-5

"So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith."

So even if you claim this is arguing from silence, you are still deviating from the earliest Christian writing on the subject, which specifically says that bishops were appointed instead of a single bishop. A single bishop is first found in Ignatius, who comes 20 years, or 40 to 50 years, after 1 Clement.

The point stands that if the Apostles specifically appointed multiple bishops, it is blatantly against the Apostles to have a single one.

What is more reliable? A 95-96 A.D. epistle which specifically states that there are to be multiple bishops, or Irenaeus of Lyons, in 180 A.D., saying that there was a line of succession from a single bishop? Irenaeus's monepiscopacy aligns more with Ignatius of Antioch, who is again later than 1 Clement, meaning it looks like Irenaeus was being anachronistic in saying Rome had a single bishop.

Tertullian says Peter appointed Clement.
Irenaeus says Peter appointed Linus.
Eusebius says Peter, then Linus, then Clement.
1 Clement says the Apostles appointed multiple bishops.

And this is where John Henry Cardinal Newman comes back.

"For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope's authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. When the Apostles were taken away, Christianity did not at once break into portions; yet separate localities might begin to be the scene of internal dissensions, and a local arbiter in consequence would be wanted. Christians at home did not yet quarrel with Christians abroad; they quarrelled at home among themselves. St. Ignatius applied the fitting remedy. The Sacramentum Unitatis was acknowledged on all hands; the mode of fulfilling and the means of securing it would vary with the occasion; and the determination of its essence, its seat, and its laws would be a gradual supply for a gradual necessity." - John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, The Papal Supremacy

The problem is that this is a contradictory argument. If the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church stems from Apostolic succession, yet a single bishop is a later development from what the Apostles originally intended, then you have gone from the idea of a sole man-to-man line from Peter to Pope Leo XIV (still keeping in mind the dubiousness of Apostolic succession) to the idea that at some point the office shifted from multiple bishops to a single bishop, which is itself an assumption, as we do not have anything written on it.

To put it in clearer words, the entire legitimacy of Rome comes from succession. If you invite the idea that a single bishop is a later idea (which you have to), then you have introduced an unverifiable variable into it. Arguably worse, it is moving the goalposts. There is no way to verifiably find out whether God did or didn't want single bishops after 95-96 A.D. (Romans 11:34, "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?")

What proof is there that the Apostles intended for multiple bishops to become a single bishop?

By introducing the idea that God shifted from bishops to a bishop, you are introducing an unverifiable variable which there is no means to prove wrong, as you are not arguing from Scripture or history, but instead supposing.

If you have rejected the Apostles' will to have multiple bishops, then, as the Roman Christians said (and remember, if Roman primacy is real, you should be heeding their words) in 1 Clement 57:2:

"Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God's roll, than to be had in exceeding honor and yet be cast out from the hope of Him."

If the cost of insubordination is damnation (which I do not believe), then a church which has a single bishop is rebelling against the apostolic order of multiple bishops.

Pre-emptive Arguments

"Yes, doctrine develops. But the development is organic, not corruptive. The papacy is the natural unfolding of the Petrine office, not a radical departure. And the Church has the authority to define doctrine, so the development is legitimate."

But that is still an assumption. What I said earlier to Newman is still applicable. The idea that the Church has the authority to define doctrine still assumes that a single bishop has authority over multiple bishops, which is a circular argument, as you cannot verifiably prove God intended bishops to be changed to a single bishop. Any argument from the Catholic side would be begging the question that it is fine to go from multiple bishops to a single bishop due to development, with one bishop saying it's fine.

Someone may also say that Newman's point covers every doctrine, including the Trinity: if development is accepted there, why not for the papacy? The two cases are not the same. The Trinity is argued from Scripture, which is where the early Church argued it. The papacy claims something different, that its authority rests on a succession from the Apostles themselves. A claim that rests on succession has to show the succession. If a single bishop is a later development from what the Apostles established, which is what 1 Clement suggests, then the succession claim loses its footing. Development can explain how a doctrine was clarified. It cannot repair a line that changed.

"No, the authority comes from Christ, not from the Bishop of Rome. Christ gave Peter the keys (Matthew 16:18-19). Peter passed this authority to his successors. The Church didn't grant itself authority; Christ granted it."

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Peter was granted the authority (which Luther disputed). How do we know it went to a single successor instead of multiple successors?

And how can you argue that it did without begging the question?