that the pneumatophoros and some of the holy men we will encounter later chose to take upon themselves on behalf of their intimate associates.
John seems to be the earliest theoretician on the episcopate who draws attention to the manifold mundane tasks that are likely to distract the bishop from his spiritual resolve. All too easily the bishop may get drawn into a whirl of emotions that disturb the calm of his soul: “wrath, despondency, envy, strife, slanders, accusations, falsehood, hypocrisy, intrigues, anger,” and the list goes on.102 He mentions the care of widows and virgins in the community, the bishop’s judicial authority, and the daily round of visits expected of him.103 In order to ensure impartiality and immunity to pressure or bribery in all his administrative work, it is important, John notes, that the bishop does not accede to his position through favoritism of any kind, which would later leave him open to pressure or blackmail. He has harsh words to say about the fierce competition that often surrounded episcopal elections in his day.104 These indignities and distractions that affect the episcopate have to be counteracted by the appointment of worthy candidates who possess the proper preparation in faith, disposition, and virtue. For this reason, On the Priesthood has often been identified as a call for internal improvement and reform.105
The bulk of the work consists of considerations on the ideal qualities of the priesthood. John insists that the bishop should possess virtues in a perfect balance: “He ought to be dignified yet free from arrogance, formidable yet kind, apt to command yet sociable, impartial yet courteous, humble yet not servile, strong yet gentle.”106 One further essential qualification for a good bishop is introduced, namely, his rhetorical skill and his familiarity with scripture and theology.107 John’s insight into the importance of rhetoric, of course, betrays his own schooling in the classroom of Libanius of Antioch. But the urgency of his concern for the bishop’s teaching and preaching springs from his desire to counteract heresy from the pulpit and through Bible study. Suitable candidates for the priesthood may be found among experienced monks, John acknowledges, although the mere practice of fasting, vigils, and other deprivations alone is no guarantee of the possession of virtues. John himself, despite his earlier monastic training, was convinced of his own lack of suitability for ecclesiastical leadership.
In Chrysostom’s view, the proper exercise of the priesthood is a much greater accomplishment than the pursuit of the ascetic life can ever be, for there are many men and women who can perform feats of asceticism, but only very few who are qualified to become shepherds of their flock.108 Moreover, it is much more difficult to uphold a life of Christian virtues under the scrutiny of one’s congregation and in the face of daily administrative and personal challenges than it is to live a life of austerity in the seclusion of a hermitage.109 The priesthood, and not the ascetic life of the monk, is in John’s eyes the pinnacle of Christian perfection. Spiritual and ascetic authority may be valuable in themselves, but for those who have been elected to office, they are merely qualifications that assist them in their calling: “It behooves one who undertakes this care to have much understanding, and, before understanding, great grace from God, and uprightness of conduct, and purity of life and superhuman virtue.”110
John Chrysostom’s work draws attention to the necessity for priests and bishops to be exemplars of the holy life. The ideal candidates for the priesthood are therefore those who had already removed themselves from the congregation in order to take up the monastic life. John is well aware that his exalted view of the responsibilities of the priesthood results in expanding the divide between it and the laity: “Let the distinction between the pastor and his charge be as great as that between rational man and irrational creatures, not to say even greater, inasmuch as the risk is concerned with things of far greater importance.”111 John’s recognition of the vital importance of the manifold duties with which the priesthood is charged for the salvation of others will eventually lead him to disassociate the office of the bishop from the person who holds that office. This idea is still absent in On the Priesthood but is expressed in no uncertain terms in a later sermon: “We are God’s ambassadors to the people. If this claim seems harsh to you, consider that this concerns not us as individuals, but the episcopal office itself; it does not concern one or the other person, but the bishop. Nobody should hear me [as a person], but the dignity [of the office].”112
Within a few years of John Chrysostom’s composition of On the Priesthood, Ambrose of Milan wrote his On the Duties of the Clergy in 388 or 389, one and a half decades into his own episcopate. Its explicit intention was to provide the clergy with a guideline of the character traits and practical skills that are advantageous in gaining and maintaining the confidence of their congregation. 113 The work is inspired in form and content by Cicero’s De officiis. The first book deals with that which is virtuous, the second with that which is useful, and the third with a combination of both. Ambrose does not delineate the tasks and functions of the clergy in a systematic way, although he often refers to them. His focus is rather on providing ethical guidance on the acquisition and practice of those virtues that are particularly befitting to the clergy. He illustrates these virtues with extensive reference to biblical examples and, whenever he can, also to examples from classical literature. His concluding words emphasize that this method was the intention of his work:
These things I have left with you, my children, that you may guard them in your minds—you yourselves will prove whether they will be of any advantage. Meanwhile they offer you a large number of examples, for almost all the examples drawn from our forefathers, and also many a word of theirs, are included within these three books; so that, although the language may not be graceful, yet a succession of old-time examples set down in such small compass may offer much instruction.114
In his outline of the ideal character of priests and bishops, Ambrose borrows heavily from Paul’s catalog of episcopal virtues in 1 Timothy 3. Bishops ought to be hospitable, kind, just, without desire for the belongings of others, and they ought to avoid litigation at all costs, even to the point of suffering injustice.115 Earlier in the same treatise, he adds a further argument for the importance of sacerdotal virtues. Priests and bishops must be publicly perceived to be adorned with virtue so that those who observe them in the performance of their ministry at the altar will worship God who adorned them in this way and whose glory is reflected in his servants.116 Ambrose recognizes the bishop’s sacerdotal function and insists that it receives its justification from the bishop’s personal conduct. But where Chrysostom had called attention to the priest’s celebration of the eucharist to emphasize the importance of a pure life of the celebrant as its minister and mediator, Ambrose takes a step away from the altar, as it were, and acknowledges that the bishop has stepped into the public limelight. No longer an internal officer of an exclusive religious group, the bishop now performs his many tasks on behalf of an expanding Christian community under the scrutiny of pagan neighbors. He has become distinct from the community and is distinguishable to outsiders. The virtues that some theologians two centuries previously demanded of all Christians are now expected primarily of the bishop. He is perceived by insiders and outsiders alike as the representative of Christianity. It depends on his conduct whether the church is credited or discredited. Indeed, he may attract converts through his example. Augustine’s well-known story of his conversion under the impression of Ambrose’s preaching is testimony to the crucial role that individual bishops could play in this regard.
Next in chronological sequence comes Julianus Pomerius’s treatise On the Contemplative Life. The author was a well-respected professor of rhetoric in late fifth-century Gaul. The only other details known about his life are that he hailed from the province of Mauretania in North Africa, that in 497 he was the teacher of Caesarius of Arles, and that he maintained a friendly correspondence with Ennodius of Pavia and Ruricius of Limoges. He was known to have written three further works, all dealing with the practice of Christian virtues: On the Soul and Its Quality, On the Formation of Dedicated Virgins, and On Contempt for the World and for the Things That Will Perish.117 Pomerius composed On the Contemplative Life at the behest of a certain Julianus whom he respectfully addresses throughout the volume. This Julianus
