the leading sentence of Paul’s remarks (1 Tim. 3:1): “Whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.” Theodore’s commentary on this passage survives only in Latin, where the Greek ergon (translated in the NRSV as “task”) is rendered with its exact Latin equivalent opus: “He does well to call it ‘work’ and not honor, for the discharge of ecclesiastical duties is not an honor, but work.”71 Theodore also agrees with John Chrysostom that the virtues required by Paul of an episkopos are not very demanding. John had explained this with reference to historical exigency that created the need for a large number of bishops of whom, it is implied, one ought not to expect too much. Theodore, by contrast, demands that the bishop should strive to match his elevated status within the church by intensifying his efforts to adhere to the code of conduct laid down by Paul.
The only extant detailed discussion in Latin of the First Letter to Timothy was composed as part of a series of commentaries on the Pauline epistles by Ambrosiaster, the elusive fourth-century author who passed himself off as Ambrose. He is mainly concerned with the selection of a suitable candidate and the moral conduct of the bishop. Ambrosiaster is aware that some seek the episcopal office out of ambition or greed, and that recent converts are prone to pride and boastfulness if they are appointed to the episcopate too soon. Such pitfalls can be avoided, Ambrosiaster recommends, if the potential bishop possesses the moral characteristics outlined by Paul, “for they are the markers of the episcopal dignity.” Only if he practices what he preaches will the bishop avoid the devil’s snare, and only then will his teaching be accepted as true.72 Like Ambrose and his other contemporaries, Ambrosiaster seems well acquainted with the phenomenon of unworthy bishops, the dissolution they can generate within their communities, and the discredit they can bring upon the Christian church. Another fourth-century author, Pseudo-Augustine, interprets the Christian ministry in much the same vein. The value of the Christian church is measured by the morality of its representatives, just as the silliness of the traditional religion is exposed by the heinous practices of the pagan priests.73
The tendency of fourth-century authors to regard Paul’s First Letter to Timothy as a catalog of specifically episcopal virtues is evident also in the more personal remarks of church fathers who were themselves bishops. At times, they hold up these criteria to praise their colleagues in office. Gregory of Nazianzus bestows high praise on Athanasius of Alexandria as a staunch adherent of Nicene orthodoxy and in this context finds it expedient to depict him as the perfect bishop whose life is in complete conformity with Paul’s precepts.74 At other times, these men of the church express their own fear of falling short of this yardstick. Gregory of Nazianzus explains that he absconded immediately after his father, Gregory the Elder, had ordained him to the priesthood, in part because he was afraid of his inability to meet the demands of his office. He finds it impossible for anyone to conform to the demands set out by Paul in his First Letter to Timothy, let alone those made by Christ.75 Basil pours his heart out in a letter to a “pious man,” in which he communicates his worry of failing to perform the duties imposed on him as a bishop. This is a heartfelt plea, not mere rhetoric or fishing for compliments. Basil beseeches his friend to pray for him so that he may be able to continue to lead a “chaste,” that is, God-fearing, life and that he may discharge his office in a manner that pleases God.76
Common to all these texts of the post-Constantinian era is the strong nexus they establish between the personal virtues of a bishop, the acceptance by others—including pagans—of his position of leadership, and the effectiveness of his pastoral care. These authors are finely attuned to the dialectical nature of leadership. The congregation, they point out, will accept a bishop’s guidance in spiritual and moral issues only if he shows himself to be of outstanding moral integrity. A bishop must practice what he preaches. Jerome puts this succinctly in his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus: “The future leader of the church should possess eloquence that is intimately linked with integrity of conduct, so that his actions are not silenced by his preaching, or his words are an embarrassment because his deeds are deficient.”77 This is what I call the dialectic of episcopal leadership, meaning that the bishop has to earn the recognition of his authority through his exemplary conduct. At the same time, it was the bishop’s possession of these virtues that first singled him out and recommended him for office. His role as bishop required that he act as a model who instilled in his community the desire to emulate and imitate him. In this regard, the ideal bishop of the fourth century fulfills a role comparable to that of the holy man.
TREATISES ON ECCLESIASTICAL LEADERSHIP
So far we have examined scattered references in a variety of texts—church orders, biblical commentaries, letters—to assemble a spectrum of approaches to the episcopal role in late antiquity. These references allow only a glimpse of each author’s approach, but their quantity and their distribution over time lends them significance as indicators of general attitudes and their development through the centuries.
In addition, there is a sizeable number of treatises devoted specifically to the nature of ecclesiastical leadership, to which I now turn. None of them were composed before the fourth century—a further indication that the newly gained public prominence of the Christian religion challenged the men of the church to give shape and definition to their position in an increasingly Christian society. Among modern scholars, these works are often referred to as treatises on pastoral care, which makes them sound like practical manuals for spiritual shepherds on how to tend their flock. In reality, they are much more than that. The works discussed below all address the nature of spiritual leadership, the conflict between the active and the contemplative life, and the personal qualifications of the Christian minister. It is this last aspect in particular that is of interest here.
The chronological range of these treatises extends from the late fourth to the late sixth century, beginning with Gregory of Nazianzus’s In Defense of His Flight and ending with Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care. The earlier texts in particular employ a very vague terminology with regard to the ecclesiastical ministry. It is by no means clear whether they speak of priests or bishops when they use the Latin sacerdos or the Greek hiereus. This distinction is a modern concern that imposes itself from hindsight.78 The authors well into the fifth century were content with the fact that they were discussing clergy who had been ordained through the imposition of hands, who could claim to be the successors of the apostles, and whose tasks revolved around preaching, the celebration of the eucharist, and ecclesiastical administration, especially of charity.
Gregory of Nazianzus gave voice to his views of the priesthood at a highly charged moment in his life. His father, Gregory the Elder, had ordained him to the priesthood at Christmas 361, thereby designating his son as his successor. This, Gregory claims not very convincingly, took him by surprise, and in his initial panic he hastened to return to the tranquility of the monastic retreat of his friend Basil in Pontus. But by Easter of the following year, he was back in Nazianzus. His Second Oration, entitled In Defense of His Flight, purports to be a sermon he delivered before the congregation in order to explain himself.79 The length and literary craftsmanship of this work, however, seem to indicate that it was intended for a reading public, at least in its present form. As the first coherent treatment of the nature of the priesthood in literature (as opposed to the church orders, which are rule books), Gregory’s Second Oration would exert great influence on later such works, especially those by John Chrysostom and Gregory the Great. 80
Having first rejected, and then accepted the priesthood, Gregory is in a position to argue for the awesome nature of the priestly office and the unattainable requirements made on the person of the priest, on the one hand, and the practical need to fill such appointments with reasonably suitable, if imperfect, candidates, on the other. His practical side comes through when he speaks of the church as one body, where each member must perform the task that is assigned to him, and when he mentions that in every organization there are those who rule and those who are ruled.81 He admits that he was moved to return also by his personal attachment to his elderly parents, by obedience to his father, and by his desire to reciprocate the affection that the congregation had shown
