The Fourth and Fifth Centuries

Xn many ways the fourth and fifth centuries, despite the bitter con­ troversy with which they were marked, were the golden age of the episco­ pacy. Emerging from the period of persecution as the unquestioned lead­ ers of the Christian communities, grounding this leadership in the ideas developed by Cyprian and Irenaeus and the Didascalia, the bishops of that period clearly dominated the life of the Church, and immensely enriched its intellectual heritage.

This was a period of rapid and basic evolution in the social exis­ tence of the Church. The Edict of Milan had created a new context for Christian existence; large scale conversion introduced greater complexity into Church organization; increasing absorption of cultural traditions and forms brought with it a pluralism of religious and theological ex­ pressions of the gospel - a source of enrichment but also a danger to Christian unity. Prominent as it was, the episcopacy found itself at the very center of this change.

To quite an extent the Christian communities of the first couple of centuries had existed as islands in the midst of a cultural and political world that was at first oblivious and then alternately indifferent and hostile to Christianity. With the reign of Constantine, all this changed rapidly. Although with brief reversals (such as the reign of Julian), the Christian Church passed from rejection to official toleration, and

from toleration to involvement. Almost immediately, bishops found them­ selves in the position of part-time functionaries in the civil sphere. There were the special assignments given by the emperor to bishops be-

59 cause of their prominence and acknowledged ability and influence.

There were also the regular functions, such as presiding over episcopal courts which then had received full civil recognition.^ Moreover, with the rapid growth of the Church, ecclesiastical activities and disputes began to have a noticeable impact on the well-being of the civil society; consequently, civil authorities worked increasingly with the bishops to guarantee tranquility within the Church.^ And increasingly the relation between the Church and civil society came to the fore as a theological

62 question.

One of the most striking features of the fourth and fifth centuries is the extent to which the episcopacy was prepared to move aggressively into the post-Nicene situation and exploit its opportunities. In so do­ ing, the episcopacy realized its potential as it had not been able to pre­ viously, but this development was in continuity with the preceding two centuries. The same cannot be said for the presbyterate. Increasingly it lost the relative independence and initiative it had possessed, it lost its role as chief council for the Church and the bishop (except for some residue in its part in electing a bishop), and it lost its corporate iden- 59. E.g., Valentinian Il’s use of Ambrose in negotiations with Maximus, "the first employment of a bishop on a secular diplomatic mission," ac­ cording to Greens lade, pp. 218-25.

60. E. Pickman, The Mind of Latin Christendom (London, 1937), pp. 259-62 61. Perhaps the most prominent early instance of this was Constantine’s role in convoking the Council of Nicea. See W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church (Edinburgh, 1922), pp. 116-17.

tity and function (except in large cities in solemn liturgical functions)* Instead, presbyters were ordained as helpers for the bishop (what was pre­ viously true of the deacons in the Apostolic Tradition)* They tended in­ creasingly to be given individual assignments as "little bishops" caring for branch communities, and became part of the bishop’s charge and "bur-

63 den," rather than fellow members who selected him to head their "college*"

Unquestionably, the presbyterate was overshadowed by the episcopacy during these two centuries. One reason for this was, quite simply, the fact that there were many great bishops. They were gifted men, many of them well-educated, quite a number endowed with considerable natural lea­ dership, some possessed a high degree of Christian sanctity. Not unim­ portantly, many of them were politically powerful both within the workings of the Church (which was becoming rapidly politicized in its operations) and with the civil rulers. In several instances, Ambrose in Milan is a classic example, bishops wielded power and influence far beyond what flowed intrinsically from their episcopal authority. It would be a mistake, how­ ever, to see this as a move by the bishops into the realm of civil politics and temporal power. Some of this there was, and generally for the sake of protecting Christians from oppression or exploitation, but for the most part it was a question of the extraordinary moral power exerted by these men upon their contemporaries.^

To a surprising degree, the bishops of this period, despite their ex­ panding involvement in various types of administration, retained the pri- 63. H.R. Niebuhr and D.D. Williams, ed., The Ministry in Historical Per­ spectives (New York, 1956), pp. 56-59

macy of preaching in their ministry. Not only did bishops preach, but they insisted that it was their special prerogative to preach. If pres­ byters preached it was by way of delegation or appointment from the bishop,

65 ’

as with Chrysostom in Antioch.

The responsibility of teaching was seen to flow from two principles: (1) as successors of the apostles and entrusted with the tradition that comes from them, it is the bishops above all who are charged with preaching that gospel to the world; and (2) as shepherds of their people, they must care for them and "not hesitate to lay down their lives in order to give them the gospel."^

Apparently, the bishops of these two centuries considered the pursuit of theology to be an intrinsic part of the episcopal function. It is not clear whether they thought of theology as officially reserved to them (and perhaps delegated to others under their guidance), or whether they thought they were to function normatively in theological investigation. Unques­ tionably the bishops of this period saw themselves corporately charged with preserving orthodoxy of belief and therefore with opposing any misleading or false explanations of the Christian faith. Thus, while they did not formally develop any theory of their role in the theological enterprise, in actuality their synodal and conciliar judgments did regulate the course of theological speculation.

Few periods in the Church’s history can challenge the fourth and fifth centuries so far as theological and doctrinal ferment is concerned. With 65. J. Wordsworth, The Ministry of Grace (London, 1901), pp. 163-65

66. Basil, The Morals 80:16 67. Walker, pp. 143-53

the great councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon as focal points, much of the Church was embroiled in bitter and divisive polemics about the doctrines of God, Christ, grace, and sin. And in this period of astonishing theological debate and development, practically all the outstanding theologians were bishops. And the coincidence of theolo­ gian with bishop was not accidental: functioning as theologians was seen by such bishops as Augustine, Hilary or Chrysostom as a necessary part of their episcopal office. How else could they preserve their flock from the contagion of error?

If these two centuries were the period of great individual bishops, it was also a period of greatly increased corporate activity of the epis­ copacy. Alongside the four great councils, themselves preceded and fol­ lowed by a number of smaller synodal meetings in various parts of the

68 Church, there developed a regular pattern of regional synodal meetings. While the need to deal with suspected doctrinal aberrations played a

large part in many of these meetings, they were also concerned with the basic governance of the Church’s life and issued regulations concerning such items as clerical behavior, liturgy, and church property. The dis­ ciplinary canons of these synods provide us with one of our most valuable witnesses to ecclesiastical life and structure, because they played such a basic role in the governance of the Church. They were not only the

69 equivalent but actually the beginnings of canon law.

68. We know from the Cyprianic epistles, for example, that the African bishops were by 250 in the custom of meeting annually after the Paschal celebration.

69. ’’Canon Law, History of,” in Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967),

Thus, despite the individual eminence of so many bishops of this period,, the increasing pattern of regional synods indicates the extent to which the collegial nature of the episcopacy was appreciated. In the fourth and fifth centuries there was still great local insistence on the prerogatives of the local church and its bishop, but there was also a strong awareness of the catholic Church and of the corporate unity of its priesthood.

It is interesting to notice that this period, which saw the bishops increasingly caught up in administration and increasingly acting “offi­ cially," also saw a rapid crystallization of their ceremonial role in Christian liturgy.^ The name sacerdos was applied to them frequently and properly; there are enough texts to indicate that the sacerdotium

71 was seen to extend to lower clergy (at least to the presbyters), but

the view of the bishop as the priest was so widespread that one can take for granted in texts of this period that sacerdos (when used without fur­ ther qualification) is referring to the bishop.

What is much less clear is the mentality that lies behind this de­ nomination of the bishops. Apparently there was a considerable shift in view from the first two centuries, when there seems to have been reluc­ tance to use hiereus or sacerdos of Christian ministers. There seems little doubt that fourth and fifth century use of sacerdos had primarily 70. Not that there is any substantial change from their liturgical activity in the preceding century, but this is the period when many of the basic liturgies were formulated.

71. Optatus (1:13) in North Africa applies the dignitas officii sacerdo- talis to both presbyters and deacons. The application to the deacons is a bit unexpected. (Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition had explicitly excluded the deacons from the sacerdotium); it may reflect the increasing power of the deacons, against which Jerome and others protested.

in mind the ritual function of the bishop in the Eucharist, secondarily 72

his role in the other sacraments. He was the leitourgos, and in the post-Constantinian movement of Eucharistic liturgy into larger and more splendid quarters the ceremonial role of the bishop became more observ-

73

able. Like the high priest of the old Jerusalem Temple he offered ”a clean oblation’1 in a new temple situation; it is not surprising to see more and more comparisons of the Old Testament high priests to the bi­ shops (and other Old Testament priests to Christian presbyters)•Yet, the priesthood possessed by Christian clergy is that of Christ, a priest­ hood ’’according to the order of Melchizedek.” While in this period only Christ and not the ordained Christian minister is paralleled with Mel­ chizedek, the overtones touch the bishop whose priesthood is a share in

75 that of Christ.

What is true of sacerdos as applied to the bishop extends, mutatis mutandis, to the role of presbyters and deacons in the sacramental litur­ gies. With Eucharistic concelebration the basic pattern in all the larger communities, with the presbyterate sharing in the imposition of hands for

72. Typically, Chrysostom speaks of the power of the priest who can beget men to new life (On the Priesthood 3:5), who can help ward off greater evil by imposing penance (3:67. But the priest’s loftiest dignity is con­ nected with his Eucharistic role: ’’But when he invokes the Holy Spirit and offers that awful sacrifice and keeps on touching the common Master of us all, tell me, where shall we rank him? What purity and what piety shall we demand of him? ...Ought anyone to have a purer and holier soul than one who is to welcome this great Spirit?” (6:4). See also Jean-Paul Audet, Structures of Christian Priesthood (London, 1967), pp. 134-39.

73. Audet, pp. 157-72

74. In the West, e.g., Ambrose, Letter 63, to the church at Vercellae, and in the East, Chrysostom, On the Priesthood 3:6.

presbyteral ordinations, the collegiality of bishop and presbyters in the one Christian priesthood was clearly evidenced. While the bishop is the high priest of the Church, the presbyters assist and surround him as did the Old Testament priests for the high priest of the Temple

Increasingly, presbyters were found in situations of autonomous ac­ tivity; as the number of Christians grew rapidly and as evangelization touched the rural areas and smaller villages, presbyters were established as resident pastors for those outlying communities. Such communities re­ tained a fairly close bond with the "mother church" and the pastor with the bishop whose representative and "extension" he was. Yet by the very nature of the situation, he grew more independent in his activity, pro­ viding for his flock what the bishop did for the urban community (in­ struction, celebration of sacraments, counsel in Christian living, and a good example of the latter). So, too, was applied to them in their li­

turgical and homiletic activity the notion of "ministers of Christ"; they made possible (and present) for their people the priestly mediation of Christ himself.??

Despite the collegiality that existed in liturgical celebrations, this period saw (as we suggested earlier) an increasing movement away from the earlier Christian pattern of including the bishop within the presbyteral collegium. Already firmly established was the view of the presbyters as part of the "lower clergy." They were less colleagues and more assistants, something that was required practically because of the size of the community rather than something that belonged intrinsically 76. This is already clearly expressed in the Didascalia 8-9.

to the structures of the Christian community* As the bishop’s assist- 78

ants, they were under his charge and guidance and supervision. The image of their relationship was clearly vertical rather than horizontal, a verticality that would find its final expression in the papal primacy as viewed by Gregory VII, Innocent III, and Boniface VIII.

Yet their subordination in rather complete fashion to the bishops did not receive total acceptance, either practically or theoretically, from the presbyters. Letters of some of the bishops to or about their presbyters indicate some claim to more autonomy on the part of the pres­ byters, even in formulating appropriate liturgy for their people; synodal

79

canons reflect the same* The most famous and influential formulation of 80

presbyteral counterclaims was that of Jerome* Actually, Jerome’s posi­ tion was quite nuanced. He recognized as legitimate the episcopal domina-

81

tion of his day, but claimed that it was not so in the primitive Church 82

where a truly collegial presbyterate was the pattern. He did say expli­ citly, "Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod Presbyter non

83

faciat?" and the evidence is now rather decisive that he did know what he was talking about when he reported the custom of the Alexandrian church

84

to have been presbyteral consecration of their bishop. This will have its theological repercussions later, when the theologians of the Middle 78. Ambrose’s relations with his presbyters was a classic example; see F. Dudden, The Life and Times of St* Ambrose (Oxford, 1935), vol. 1, pp. 131-32.

79. K. Morrison, Tradition and Authority in the Western Church 300-1140 (Princeton, N.J., 1969), pp. 87-97

80. Letter 146 81. Letter 15:2 82. Letter 146 83. 146:1

84. W. Telfer, "Episcopal Succession in Egypt," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, III (1952), pp. 1-13

Ages will refuse to see episcopacy as an order distinct from the pres­ byterate; rather, they will see it as the ’’fullness,” or as the pres­ byterate ’’unleashed.”85

By the death of Gregory I at the beginning of the seventh century the pattern had been firmly established that would eventuate in the no­ tion of the societas Christiana in the medieval mentality. It would be a society viewed as basically one unified structure where, by divine or­ dination, the clergy were located on the higher rungs of the ladder, and within the clergy the bishops above the presbyters, presbyters above the deacons. But the essential functions which were to remain the preroga­ tive of the bishop had emerged (even though the secular affairs of the later bishops would threaten to obscure them) and no significant additions were made.^ Occupants of important episcopal sees were men of consider­ able prestige; they possessed great wealth, dealt with the other prosper­ ous and powerful elements in the society of their day, and generally

behaved in princely fashion, even as ’’princes of the Church.” The stage was set for the emergence of the prince bishop, and in his train the power, worldliness, and consequent corruption which, seven hundred years later, would help call the Protestant Revolt into being.

85. These repercussions will be discussed more fully in the next chapter on the development of episcopal identity.

86. The growth of the papal primacy may be seen as a significant subtrac­ tion from the bishop's authority in his own right as a member of the epis­ copal college, but it did not encroach upon the established functions of liturgical presidency, preaching, guardianship of the faith, and adminis­ trator within the diocese. Such encroachment did occur later in the fuller development of the Roman system as we will see in Part II of this chapter.