The understanding of the status of leadership of the Christian church evolved significantly in Africa. Tertullian asserted that all baptized male Christians shared the religious power necessary to govern the congregation and lead its worship. Individuals were chosen for office on the basis of their character and talents; roles were distinguished among Christians to maintain good order within the church.
Cyprian developed a significantly different understanding of the role of the clergy in the church. Through their selection and ordination, the bishops were authorized to act in the place of Christ, endowed with powers of sanctification not generally shared in the community. The bishops received these powers through their induction — by ordination — into the worldwide communion of bishops and then used them for sanctifying their people. Their standing before God and among their fellow bishops was essential to their ministry. The local bishop delegated the exercise of this authority and power to his presbyters and deacons.
At the beginning of the fourth century, attempts to enforce Cyprian’s understanding of the bishop’s status led to a major division within the African church, the Donatist schism. Both parties to the dispute had modified the third-century theory, but the Caecilianist bishops were required by their overseas colleagues to accept some of the very practices that Cyprian and his colleagues had rejected. Only late in the fourth century and early in the fifth century did the Donatist Parmenian of Carthage and the Caecilianists Optatus of Milevis and Augustine of Hippo attempt to develop the theoretical foundations that would enable their competing communions to respond more creatively, if not successfully, to the schism. Augustine, in particular, recovered much of Tertullian’s perspective in his modifications of Cyprian.
At the beginning of the fifth century, the Catholic bishops also developed a system of deliberative meetings, which produced a coherent body of legislation to guide the life of their congregations and the ministry of their clergy.
Tertullian did not claim to be among the clergy of the church of Carthage, and his writings do not assert any essential difference between the clergy and the laity. Unlike later writers, and even some of his contemporaries, he rejected the bishop’s claims for special powers and understood the distinction of clergy from laity as functional and necessary primarily for maintaining order and unity within the community.
On a number of occasions, Tertullian listed the three ranks of the clerical order of the church: bishop, presbyter, and deacon. In most cases, the three were named together,1 though the bishop and the deacon were mentioned in one case without reference to the office of presbyter.2
The bishop was clearly the leader of the community with the responsibility of admitting members through baptism,3 leading them in communal prayer and eucharistic offering,4 excluding5 and readmitting through reconciliation6 those who sinned. The bishop also guided the common life of the congregation in such matters as fasting.7 His may have been the primary teaching office as well, since Tertullian appealed to the succession of bishops in the churches deriving from the Apostles as a guarantee of the preservation of true doctrine and right interpretation of scripture.8
The presbyter and the deacon were in subordinate ranks; they owed deference and obedience to the bishop. They could baptize by delegation of the bishop; otherwise they could do so only in emergency, a time when any Christian was obligated to act.9 The presbyters (seniores) were among the leaders of the community, chosen for their worthy character.10 They were singled out as persons to whom the petitions of the penitents for intercessory prayer were addressed, but they do not seem to have been directly engaged in supervising the penitential process and performing the reconciliation ritual.11 Tertullian also mentioned their ministry in offering prayers for the dead prior to burial.12 The role of the presbyters in the congregation’s celebration of the eucharist is not explicit in Tertullian’s writings. They may have been the leaders from whom the bread and wine were received in the common worship.13 Their role in the evening love feasts,14 which are presumed to have served subgroups of the community in multiple locations simultaneously, was mentioned only indirectly: the leaders were given double portions at those meals.15
In contrast to the practice of the heretics, Tertullian asserted, the orders of the true church were stable and regular. A person assigned to one rank did not take over the office of another.16 Clerics were not to be converts from heresy and should be communicants of long standing.17 They were held in honor and, as noted, given double portions at community banquets.18 Bishops, presbyters, and deacons all were required to submit to the discipline of monogamy: they could be married only once after baptism. Upon the death of a spouse, they were required to remain widowers. If they married again, they were to be removed from office, though Tertullian implied that this rule was not always obeyed or enforced. (He argued that it should be applied to all Christians.)19 Neither were those in clerical orders to be engaged in business that would compromise their suitability for leadership in the church.20 Although Tertullian did not specify this second restriction with the same care as he did that of monogamy, the concern seems to have been with occupations that might require or risk indirect contact with idolatry. Holding public office, for example, might involve cooperating, even if only indirectly, in idolatrous practices.21 Trading — as distinguished from farming — not only gave free rein to covetousness, but it often required contact with the materials used in the sacrifices and other rituals of the polytheist idolaters. Such, he contended, was forbidden to all Christians.22
Even in the apostolic age, Tertullian asserted, the congregations were organized by the distinction of clergy and people, and by the three ranks of the clerical order. He did not, however, identify the Twelve as bishops.23 The difference between the ordo and the plebs was for the good order and administration of the church; it did not reflect special powers belonging only to the clergy. Instead, Tertullian insisted that all Christians were fundamentally equal in being made priests by God, and all were to follow the same priestly discipline. For peace and good order, the laity were not to infringe on the sacramental ministry of the clergy in meetings of the congregation. When the faithful were alone or in a small group, however, any (male) Christian could perform the functions of the priesthood. Tertullian based this assertion on two principles: (1) a person could give whatever had been received; and (2) the sacraments belonged to God, who intended that they be available at all times. Thus every member of the community had the right of priesthood. Each might offer prayer or the eucharist in private and must be prepared to confer baptism in an emergency.24 He explicitly restricted the application of these principles to male Christians. Women could not baptize, offer the eucharist, teach, lead the community in prayer, or exercise any priestly office.25 Although Tertullian used this principle of universal male priesthood as an argument for the extension of the discipline of monogamy to the entire community, the position could not have been developed for that purpose alone: it had to have been independently accepted — at least by some portion of the congregation — to offer support for his contention that all were subject to the rule of one marriage.26 When he challenged a bishop who claimed the power to forgive the sins of adultery and fornication, he conceded that the church itself held the power to forgive sins but asserted that this was to be exercised through the spiritual persons rather than being the prerogative of a particular office or role, such as bishop, confessor, or even martyr.27 Tertullian seems to have believed that the sacramental powers were conferred upon the church itself and thus belonged to all the faithful, though they should be exercised in general assemblies only by properly designated males. In practice, therefore, this would have restricted nonclerical Christians to performing baptism in emergency and presiding at prayer or eucharist only in household gatherings.
Tertullian’s views may not have been shared by the majority of his fellow Christians in Carthage. His argument that all the baptized were subject to the discipline of monogamy because they all shared the priesthood had to be qualified to meet an anticipated objection. Someone might respond that the laity could perform priestly functions only in emergency and the discipline of monogamy was not required of them. Tertullian then added a second argument for lay monogamy: if the laity were not monogamous, where would candidates for the clerical order be found?28 This may indicate that his audience regarded the clergy as subject to this discipline of single marriage specifically because they were sanctified for the sacramental ministry.29 Similarly, the bishop with whom Tertullian disagreed on the forgiveness of deadly sins seems to have claimed that the power given to Peter had been attached to the episcopal office rather than bestowed on the church as a whole.30 Thus, his community may have attributed a special power and status to the clergy that was not shared by the laity.
In other areas, however, Tertullian reflected the general practice of the congregation in assigning sacred functions to the laity. Male Christians performed exorcisms31 and cures;32 they taught and defended the faith.33 The office of reader may not yet have been among the clerical roles at this time.34 The only function that Tertullian seemed to allow to women was seeking revelations.35 The virgins and widows were mentioned as occupying a special place of honor among the laity but were not assigned sacral functions.36 As long as the Christian communities in Africa were still meeting in homes for the evening love feast, a significant minority of the membership might have exercised some office, at least in these small assemblies.
The martyrs constituted a special class within the Christian church even in Tertullian’s time. The term was used for all who suffered for public witness to Christ, even if they did not lose their lives in the process.37 Thus, martyrs could be found living within the community after winning their victories. While confessing the faith might have been regarded as a particular qualification for selection as a cleric, it did not itself confer that rank in Africa.38 The exercise of powers assigned to the martyrs — particularly in giving the peace of the church to sinners — could infringe on the responsibilities of the clergy and upset the good order of the local church. In his early exhortation to the martyrs incarcerated in Carthage, Tertullian observed that they were acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit, without whose power they would not have gained the status of public witnesses. They should be careful, therefore, to follow the guidance of the Spirit and, in particular, to preserve peace and harmony among themselves. Sinners who had lost the peace of the church would seek to recover it from these confessors.39 Toward the end of his career, however, Tertullian contradicted both points. He did not allow that the martyrs were filled with the Spirit in the way that Israelite prophets and Christian apostles had been; they could not therefore claim the power to forgive sins. Nor could anyone still surrounded by the temptations of earthly life enjoy such security in their own fidelity as to promise the Spirit’s forgiveness to someone else. The martyrs would be fortunate to win their own salvation by giving their lives for Christ; they should not burden themselves with the sins of others.40 If Tertullian’s descriptions of the claims made for the martyrs reflected actual practice, they would have constituted a serious challenge to the authority of the bishop. The surviving evidence does not indicate the severity of the problem. Such a conflict would, however, erupt into open schism in the middle of the century, as has been seen in the discussion of penance.41
Tertullian also named the prophets as a special group within the church who were not among the clergy. Careful study of the oracles that are reported by Tertullian and in the surviving Montanist writings indicate that these prophets often worked by developing and expanding verses of scripture to make them applicable to the questions currently faced by the church.42 The oracle to which Tertullian appealed — “The church can indeed forgive sins, but I will not do it, lest others sin” — seems to be an elaboration of the texts conferring this power on Peter, the church, and the disciples in Matthew (16:18-19; 18:15-20) and John (20:22-23). Other oracles came in the form of visions experienced during the liturgy; these were recounted, written down, and tested by a group within the congregation. Tertullian himself had a significant role in this process, to which he only alludes.43 In defending these revelations, he proposed rules by which their authenticity could be judged: they should be doctrinally orthodox; they should tighten rather than relax discipline; and they should be concordant with the scriptures.44
Finally, Tertullian may be read as indicating a role for lay elders, distinct from the clerical order. The single statement referring to leadership in the general assemblies of the community is, however, ambiguous at best.45 Tertullian also alluded to a special role for those in the community who had the literary skills to record and catalog visions and prophecies.46 In The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, however, the seniores exercise a role in the heavenly liturgy that might parallel that in the earthly one. They are, moreover, distinguished from the presbyteri.47 The distinction between clergy and laity was still being developed, particularly in the context of the smaller assemblies. Thus, some “leaders” of these communities may have been informally recognized rather than ritually authorized to act on their behalf.
In Tertullian’s view, the clergy were authorized by the congregation to act for it: they were assigned jurisdiction over the life of the church. They were not, however, the holders and conveyers of special powers that did not belong to every Christian. He did accord such a role to the spiritual persons within the church, particularly the devotees and practitioners of the New Prophecy. In both these judgments, however, he may have differed sharply from others — even the majority — of the Christians of Carthage. The general view may have regarded the bishops, presbyters, and deacons as endowed by God with distinctive powers and therefore subject to a corresponding discipline of separation or purity.
Because he was himself a bishop and involved in conflicts between bishops in Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Rome, Cyprian’s writings provide significant information on this office and its functioning in the third-century church. His letters provide incidental evidence for the roles of other members of the clergy.
Cyprian employed the Greek term hypodiaconus, in contrast to the Latinized subdeaconus used by the Roman clergy in their correspondence.48 The only responsibility specified for the six Carthaginians who held this office was carrying letters.49 They, along with other clergy, were salaried by the church and must have had additional roles.50
Acolytes shared the responsibility for episcopal correspondence,51 but more regularly were charged by Cyprian during the Decian persecution with delivering funds or material assistance. One of the acolytes brought funds from Cyprian’s place of refuge into Carthage for the support of the refugees and the poor.52 During the Valerian persecution, Cyprian entrusted a subdeacon and three acolytes with letters and supplies for the confessors who had been condemned to the mines.53 A total of six acolytes were named in Cyprian’s writings, but no reference was made to their liturgical functions.54 The acolytes also received a monthly stipend from the community.55
Readers (lectores) were charged with sounding out the texts of scripture (including the gospel) from the raised pulpit in the assembly56 and with assisting the presbyters in the instruction of the catechumens.57 Later evidence indicates that they may have been responsible for preserving the books themselves.58 Readers were also used as carriers of episcopal correspondence, Saturus being ordained specifically for this responsibility.59 In ordaining two confessors to the order of reader, Cyprian directed that they receive the stipend fixed for the presbyters.60 Thus, readers themselves might not have received a regular salary. Clerical careers might often have begun with the reader’s office, in which a person received basic training in literacy, which qualified the candidate for the higher offices of subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter.61
The office of exorcist is not well attested. An unnamed exorcist is cited as witness to the general decree of forgiveness issued by the confessors in prison during the persecution.62 Exorcism itself seems to have been performed, even repeatedly, in preparation for baptism.63
The Roman clergy also referred to church officers responsible for collecting and burying the bodies of the martyrs.64 The one individual credited with performing this role in Carthage, Tertullus, seems to have acted out of personal devotion rather than as a designated officer of the church.65
The deacons had a more significant role in the church than any of the lower clergy. When Cyprian was in exile from Carthage and Rome’s martyred bishop had not been replaced, his letters to the two churches were regularly addressed to the presbyters and deacons, without mention of the other clergy.66 He included the deacons among the officers responsible for governing the community.
The deacon ministered the cup at the eucharist.67 When the presbyter went to celebrate the eucharist in prison, he was accompanied by a deacon; the personnel were changed so that attention would not be drawn to any individual.68 One of the deacons accompanied Cyprian into exile.69 In Carthage, deacons may have served with a specific presbyter.70 The deacons were not the ordinary ministers of the rituals, though they were authorized by Cyprian to baptize catechumens and to grant the peace of the church to dying penitents in case of emergency.71 The deacons may have been responsible for the material resources of the church. They were specifically assigned primary responsibility for the material care of the confessors who were in prison.72 Perhaps as a result of this work, two of the deacons in Carthage were subsequently accused of misusing church funds.73 Cyprian also used deacons to carry and interpret important correspondence.74
The deacon Felicissimus, perhaps by force of personality rather than authority of office, played a major role in opposing Cyprian’s penitential policy and in organizing the schismatic community in Carthage.75 He served as that group’s emissary to Rome, attempting to discredit Cyprian and to shift the recognition of the Roman church to Fortunatus, the bishop established by the laxist schismatics.76 This mission would indicate that his diaconal office made him a member of the governing council of the church, both in Carthage and in Rome.
The presbyters were men of maturer years, subject to an age requirement, which is not specified in the surviving evidence.77 In support of their ministry, they received what must have been a higher stipend than the lower clergy.78 They could have been married and already have raised children.79 In the assembly, they were seated with the bishop in a place of honor.80 The presbyters do not appear to have participated in offering the eucharist in the presence of the bishop.81 They were, however, normally authorized to celebrate the eucharist in his absence (as during Cyprian’s two exiles),82 and may have been responsible for regional communities in various parts of Carthage.83 They offered the sacrifice for the confessors in prison.84 They were charged with emergency care for the dying: baptizing catechumens and reconciling penitents.85 Some of the presbyters also were designated as teachers and charged with preparing the catechumens for baptism.86
The presbyters took full responsibility for the administration of the church in Carthage while Cyprian was in exile during the Decian and Valerian persecutions, each more than a year in length.87 The presbyters in Rome also undertook this role after the death of Fabian; they acted as a council in governing that church throughout the Decian persecution.88 Although Cyprian stressed the essential role of the bishop in the constitution of the church, he dealt with the Roman council of presbyters as equals rather than subordinates.89 Presbyters were charged with carrying particularly important letters; they not only could deliver written messages but could expand on the circumstances to which the letters referred.90
Determination of the number of presbyters in Carthage at any given time has proven quite difficult. Four of them opposed the election of Cyprian as bishop and later formed the core of the schismatic communion.91 An equal number may have supported him.92 Other presbyters lapsed during the persecution, though none of them is named in the surviving correspondence.93 In the desperate shortage caused when five presbyters went into schism, Cyprian received a confessor who had been serving as presbyter for another bishop.94 At one point in the conflict over his penitential policy, Cyprian could apparently count on the support of only three presbyters in the city.95 An additional presbyter was later mentioned by name for the first time six years later.96 A full complement of presbyters in Carthage before the persecution began would have been less than ten.
In the assembly, the bishop presided from his raised chair, cathedra, the symbol of his authority in the community.97 He represented Christ as priest, pastor, and judge.98 He was the ordinary minister of the rituals of baptism, the eucharist, and the reconciliation of sinners; presbyters could perform these services as his delegates.99 He supervised the clergy of the community, who were chosen by him with the advice of the people.100 He was responsible for preaching the gospel and interpreting the standards of Christian life for the people.101 Finally, he had general responsibility for the property and finances of the community.102
The establishment of a new bishop required the collaboration of the bishops of other church communities. Each local church had a single bishop whose office was symbolized by the commissioning of Peter as the foundation of the church.103 A bishop was elected only upon the death or deposition of his predecessor; thus, individual bishops were not responsible for the selection and installation of their own successors.104 The candidate was chosen through the collaboration of the people and clergy of the church in question and the bishops of the neighboring churches, following — without casting lots — the precedent used by the Apostles for the replacement of Judas by Matthias.105 The clergy offered witness to the suitability of the candidate; the people accepted or rejected the proposal; and the neighboring bishops gave consent.106 The clergy might disagree with the people, as the majority of the presbyters did in the selection of Cyprian to be Bishop of Carthage, but the voice of the people could override the recommendation of the clergy.107 Cyprian explained that the people knew the candidates intimately and were fully acquainted with their way of life. A congregation that chose a bishop who was unworthy of the office thereby participated in his sin.108 Once the people had approved a candidate, he was installed in office by the bishops of the neighboring churches. Thereby he became not only the leader of the local church but a member of the episcopal college, which bore responsibility for the worldwide church.
Cyprian never reported the procedure of his own ordination but did provide information on others. Cornelius was made Bishop of Rome by sixteen bishops.109 When the presbyter Fortunatus was set up as a rival bishop of Carthage by the schismatic community, he claimed twenty-five consecrators.110 Each new bishop wrote to more distant colleagues, announcing his election and installation; they responded with letters of recognition and communion.111 When a succession was disputed, as happened when Novatian contested the selection of Cornelius at Rome, the successful candidate would be the one recognized by bishops outside the immediate dispute, who could thereby link his church to congregations in other regions. Both candidates in the Roman schism appealed to the African bishops, as well as those of other areas, for recognition. The Africans then sent a delegation to investigate the dispute (which recommended the recognition of that candidate whom they determined had been properly elected and installed). Only then did they begin to correspond with Cornelius.112 The African bishops maintained and distributed a list of their own members in good standing, so that usurpers and schismatics could not claim recognition by soliciting correspondence from overseas bishops.113 Thus, Cyprian upbraided Cornelius of Rome for giving a hearing to the envoys of the schismatic Bishop of Carthage, Fortunatus, whose name did not appear on the list he had been sent.114 This elaborate process of election and recognition identified the candidate whom God had selected to head a particular church. Those who continued to oppose a bishop once he was legitimately installed and recognized were, therefore, rebelling against the divine will.115
A bishop normally served for the remainder of his life. If he proved unworthy, however, he could be removed from office by a process similar to his selection and installation: by the judgment of a council of his colleagues, rejection by the people, and withdrawal of recognition by other bishops. A council of ninety bishops expelled Privatus from his office in Lambaesis for an unspecified crime.116 Other bishops were removed because they were guilty of sacrifice during the persecution.117 By general practice, a bishop who confessed his failure and relinquished his office would be accepted as a penitent and subsequently returned to communion among the laity through the ritual of reconciliation; he could not hold office again.118 Nor could anyone who had rebelled against the church ever hold office within it, since the crime of schism was judged equivalent to idolatry.119 The Roman church made some concessions to apostate bishops who were able to return their entire congregations to unity, allowing them to avoid public penance, though not to retain their office.120 The Africans made no such concessions themselves, to either apostates or schismatics: all were required to submit to public penance before being allowed to enter the church (among the laity).121 When the lapsed and schismatic bishops gathered by Privatus of Lambaesis sought reinstatement in their offices, they were consistently refused, even though they may have promised to bring congregations with them into unity.122
Within the unity of the church, unworthy bishops posed an immediate danger only to themselves: if they approached the altar with the impurity contracted by idolatrous rituals, they could suffer the punishment threatened against the Israelite priests who were impure.123 Once their sin was known, however, they had to be removed from office not only for their own protection but because they were incapable of representing the congregation before God. Having lost the Holy Spirit, Cyprian explained, such a priest could not sanctify the eucharistic offering or the waters of baptism;124 nor would God attend to the prayer a sinful bishop offered for his people.125 Although these principles should have invalidated the ministry of bishops whose sins were not yet manifest, Cyprian could apply them only when the crime was made known. He contended that God had allowed the persecution in order to unmask unworthy bishops through their public apostasy. Once God had made a bishop’s sin clear, a congregation that allowed him to remain in office would thereby share his sin and incur God’s condemnation.126 By implication, this applied to his fellow bishops who failed to break communion with a colleague known to be sinful.127
Cyprian claimed that, within each local church, the bishop exercised the authority of Christ between his Ascension and his return. At the Judgment to follow the Resurrection of all, the bishop’s decisions would be subjected to review: Christ would condemn anyone who had deceived the bishop and would hold the bishop responsible for anyone lost through his harshness or injustice.128 In practice, the bishop consulted with his colleagues in setting policy for the readmission and exclusion of sinners, and then with the local clergy and people in judging individual cases. During the Decian persecution, Cyprian had insisted that he would not consent to admitting the lapsed to communion under the patronage of the martyrs because this required a broad consultation of the whole church.129 The deliberations of the bishops on the appropriate penance for those who had failed included a review of the relevant teaching of scripture, the different forms of sin, and the circumstances of the failures. The bishops also considered such pastoral factors as the danger of sinners despairing of forgiveness from the church; they might then return to the idolatry of the imperial culture or accept the reconciliation and communion offered by the schismatics. The bishops also had to face the appeals made by some of the sinners’ dependents, whose apostasy had shielded and enabled them to remain in communion.130 When schismatics sought to return to the communion of the church, however, Cyprian had to labor to convince his people to accept and support them as penitents.131 Though a bishop might claim to speak for God, the exercise of his authority was clearly guided and even limited by his clergy and people. Cyprian and his episcopal colleagues changed their policies on extending reconciliation to the lapsed during the persecution, immediately after it, and in anticipation of a renewal of state action. The letters explaining these decisions clearly indicate the influence of the laity and clergy.132
Finally, Cyprian did not hesitate to claim that the bishop’s authority was equivalent to that of the Israelite priest or judge. God had amply demonstrated the punishments that awaited those who tried to usurp the position of Aaron: fire from heaven had consumed them; the earth had opened to swallow them up; their incense burners were beaten into plates and set up as warnings against future rebellions.133 He asserted that a similar condemnation awaited all who rejected episcopal authority.
Although the bishop might appear to be an officer appointed by the congregation and serving at its pleasure, Cyprian insisted that the people’s vote was itself the instrument for manifesting divine choice.134 The bishop had been selected to represent and act for Christ; he was, therefore, the true successor to the Israelite priest and the heir to Christ’s authority, even if only until his return to judge. The bishop represented the community before God and God to the community.
The ranks of the laity were regularly reviewed to identify appropriate candidates for promotion to the clergy. Saturus, whom Cyprian raised to the office of lector during his exile, had been placed in this rank, which was identified as “near to the clergy.” The term may have designated a special location where this group stood during the Christian assembly.135 The committee of bishops and presbyters that represented Cyprian in Carthage during the early months of 251 was charged with identifying suitable candidates for office to replace those who had failed during the persecution or gone into schism. These were to be selected by their age, situation, and merits. In the context, these qualifications certainly would have included their witness to the faith — at least by declining to act on the imperial command to sacrifice that began the Decian persecution — as well as their support of the bishops’ policy that those who had fallen were to be reconciled only through extended penance rather than by the patronage of the martyrs.136 While still in exile, Cyprian appointed two confessors to serve as readers with the proposal that they should be advanced to the presbyterate once they reached the required age for that office.137 Public confession of Christ did not of itself qualify a person for clerical status.138 Though Cyprian did appoint four confessors during his exile,139 he publicly rebuked others who refused to respect the moral standards of the community or the authority of its bishop.140
Clerical appointments were made by the bishop upon the advice and consent of the laity. During the Decian persecution, Cyprian had to dispense with the formal consultation of the laity because of his exile but explained to them his reasons for doing so.141 The term ordinare was used for placing individuals in office.142
Clergy who had failed in their duties were removed from office by an episcopal decision, usually after consultation of the faithful. The bishop, Cyprian explained, could remove any person he had placed in office.143 At the outbreak of the persecution, the presbyter Novatus was facing a formal hearing that was expected to result in his removal from office and excommunication.144 Cyprian warned that clerics who had taken flight during time of persecution without his approval145 or had allowed the unrepentant lapsed into their communion146 would be disciplined by the judgment of the congregation as a whole.147 Cornelius, the Bishop of Rome, received the approval of his congregation to reinstate a presbyter who was a confessor but had been guilty of schism by supporting the attempt to establish Novatian as bishop.148
The growing distinction of the clergy from the laity is evident in the restriction of their nonreligious activities and their receiving regular financial support from the community. All the clergy were expected to dedicate themselves to the work of the altar, to prayer, and to supplication for the community. Clergy were forbidden even from acting as trustees or taking responsibility for the finances of children.149 Instead, they were supported by both a monthly salary and a portion of the food gifts made by the faithful.150 They did, however, retain their own property and funds;151 they lived with their families;152 they adopted no distinctive garb.153
The authority of the local bishop was challenged, as it had been in Tertullian’s day, by the privilege assigned to the martyrs of gaining for other Christians the forgiveness of serious sins committed after baptism. Because of the large number of failures during the Decian persecution and doubts about the efficacy of the church’s ritual of reconciliation for dealing with idolatry, lapsed Christians besieged the martyrs with requests to intercede in heaven once they died for confession of Christ and immediately received their promised crowns from him.154 Their letters of peace authorized, and finally even instructed, the bishops to admit the sinners to the communion of the church. Some martyrs recognized the authority of the bishop — in consultation with the congregation — to examine the conduct and judge the sincerity of the penitents, and then to admit those they approved by the imposition of hands.155 The fallen themselves asserted, however, that the clergy had no right to delay or withhold the peace that had already been granted to them by Christ in heaven through the intercession of the martyrs.156
Initially, Cyprian recognized the right of the confessors and martyrs to advise the bishop and, thus, to recommend penitents for reconciliation — a right that he extended in some form to all the faithful communicants. He advised the imprisoned confessors to consider the gravity of the sin, the sincerity of the penitents’ remorse, and the satisfactory works the penitents had performed. Their letters, he explained, should always specify the recommended individuals by name, rather than refer to indefinitely large groups, such as a household.157 When the confessors issued a blanket grant of forgiveness, however, Cyprian broke off attempts to cooperate and opposed their claims.158
In the treatise On the Lapsed, which he addressed to the community upon his return from exile in spring 251, Cyprian moved to limit the authority of the confessors who had been brought before the imperial authorities and imprisoned. He praised those who had made public witness to Christ, but he extended the title of confessor to everyone who had declined to fulfill the requirements of the imperial decree by the specified deadline. Those who remained in the city had indicated thereby a readiness to confess Christ publicly. They were due the same status as those who had been brought before the authorities and those who had abandoned their possessions by taking flight into voluntary exile.159 His action increased the religious authority of those who had remained faithful and were supporting the bishops’ position against the demands of the lapsed and the claims they made for the martyrs.
Cyprian then insisted that the martyrs, who were represented by the letters they had given before their deaths and by the confessors claiming to have been commissioned as their agents, could exercise an intercessory function, but only in person at the Judgment, when they would sit as advisors to Christ. In the meantime, he observed, the bishop had been charged and authorized to exercise the function of judgment, with the advice of the faithful people who were alive in the church on earth. He pointed out, moreover, that the friends of Christ did not always receive the favors they requested. Without denying the authority of the martyrs, Cyprian effectively disenfranchised them within the church and warned the lapsed not to trust them as advocates in the final judgment.160 He asserted, moreover, that only those whom the bishops had first freed from the bondage of their sins would be able to plead their case before Christ and thereby benefit from the assistance of the martyrs.161
Cyprian provided no evidence of challenges from prophets who claimed to guide the church by oracles. Instead, he claimed divine guidance through dreams and visions for himself and his colleagues. In explaining the causes of the Decian persecution — why God had allowed these troubles to come upon the church — Cyprian recounted no less than three visions he had received in which the church had been warned and threatened.162 A bit later, he recounted two additional revelations: one was his own and the other a waking vision by young boys in his company.163 The confessor Celerinus also received a vision in which the personified church herself instructed him to accept the clerical appointment that Cyprian was urging upon him.164
When the bishops decided to change their program of demanding lifelong penance from those who failed by actually sacrificing to the idols and, instead, to grant them immediate reconciliation, Cyprian justified the decision by appealing to the signs and warnings received by the bishops. These indicated that persecution was about to be renewed. The Holy Spirit, he claimed, had guided and authorized the change in penitential policy.165 In rebuttal to a critic who disparaged his appeal to dreams and visions, Cyprian asserted that he had been granted an oracular warning to pass along: “Whosoever does not believe in Christ appointing a bishop shall begin to believe hereafter in Christ avenging that bishop.”166
This trust in divine inspiration may have been peculiar to Cyprian rather than characteristic of his church. Yet, in his Life of Cyprian, Pontius the Deacon continued this program of attributing prophetic dreams and oracles to Cyprian. He reported that on the second day of his final exile and one year before his death, Cyprian recounted a dream in which he had foreseen in detail his future trial and sentencing.167
Thus Cyprian claimed for his person, if not his episcopal office, the gifts of the spiritual prophet and confessor. His own confession as an episcopal martyr in Africa not only enhanced his stature but confirmed his teaching that the bishop, rather than the martyr or prophet, serves as Christ’s agent on earth.
Cyprian did not refer to elders (seniores) who were not ordained members of the clergy. Because his episcopate engaged the authority and roles of the clergy and laity, and because the records are relatively full, this omission is significant. One might have expected, for example, that during the persecution, when he was experiencing such difficulty in controlling the situation in Carthage, his letters addressed to the laity might have contained an appeal to any elders who were recognized as leaders.168 Similarly, in On the Lapsed, he made no reference to elders or their role in helping the church bear up under the persecution. Cyprian’s failure — or refusal — to acknowledge lay elders might, of course, have been part of his program of focusing leadership in the clergy.
The Apostle Peter held a central place in the emerging African understanding of the episcopate and the unity of the church it served. Peter was primarily the exemplar of the local bishop, who served as the foundation for each Christian community. Peter was also the symbol of the unity of the episcopate as a whole.
In commissioning Peter as the rock upon which he would build the church, Cyprian contended, Christ established the office of bishop. The successors of Peter in each and every church governed its actions and maintained its unity.169 Thus, Cyprian was outraged when the laxist rebels appealed to the church of Rome, which had been the see of Peter, in an attempt to break the unity of the church in Carthage.170 The local church, then, consisted of the people who remained united with their bishop, himself symbolizing Peter, upon whom the church was built.171
Peter was not the only bishop, nor was the church found in only one locality; rather, the church spread throughout the world, and the episcopate had expanded to serve it. Again, Peter served as an indicator of unity. Christ had charged Peter to feed his sheep, underscoring the one flock served by many pastors in unity.172 Christ had given the authority to bind and loosen, Cyprian explained, on two occasions: first to Peter alone, to show that it was a single power; and afterward to all the Apostles together, to show that they held and exercised it as a shared endowment.173 The Apostles were, then, the first bishops; their group of Twelve was the founding episcopal college. The episcopate itself was a unified body through which each of the bishops shared responsibility for the universal church.174
Yet, individual bishops were assigned different parts of the flock of Christ, and each was to govern his portion to the best of his ability, being answerable to the Lord for his decisions and actions.175 Thus, each bishop had a particular responsibility for his own local church and a shared responsibility for the whole church. Because of the unity of both the flock and the episcopate that served it, the bishops were required to collaborate with one another — and even intervene together — to assist any local church if its bishop failed or went wrong.176 The concord of the many bishops joined their individual churches together to realize the unity of the church and the episcopate that was grounded in the unity of God and Christ.177
This understanding of the episcopate and the unity of the church was manifest not only in councils that set common policy but also in the consultations among bishops in different parts of the world. Many of Cyprian’s letters respond to questions and problems of bishops in Africa, either in his own name or as presider at a council.178 He carried out extensive correspondence with the Roman bishops Cornelius,179 Lucius,180 and Stephen181 to coordinate the practices and even to urge joint efforts to solve problems in Spain and Gaul. He successfully intervened to resolve a dispute between Cornelius and a group of schismatic confessors in Rome.182
Cyprian also warned that the intentional union of the episcopal college could serve as a conduit for participation in the sin of another. A bishop who knowingly supported a sinful colleague would thereby share his sin, become equally unworthy of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and deprive himself and his community of the power of sanctification.183 Moreover, anyone who had been guilty of the sin of apostasy or schism could never serve as a bishop: the sincerity and efficacy of their repentance, their winning God’s forgiveness, and their consequent possession of the gift of the Holy Spirit could not be trusted.184 The local congregation could tolerate communicants of doubtful sanctity, helping them prepare for the Judgment of Christ; the episcopal college could not tolerate sinners because each of its members was a necessary instrument in the sanctification and salvation of others.
The cooperation of neighboring bishops, which was necessary for the selection and installation of a local bishop, formed a practical basis for more extensive episcopal collaboration in the governance of their regional church. This system of mutual consultation was functioning before the outbreak of the Decian persecution and the challenges it posed to episcopal leadership. Episcopal meetings already had decided to allow the reconciliation of adulterers,185 had reversed the policy of accepting baptism performed in heresy,186 and had removed unworthy bishops.187
During the Decian persecution, Cyprian was following such precedents when he insisted that a policy for the cleansing and reconciliation of the lapsed would have to be developed and approved by episcopal deliberations.188 In his correspondence, he began to build the foundation for cooperation, which was realized in the decisions that were made in the series of councils of the African bishops meeting in Carthage each year after Easter.189 In the council of 251, the bishops considered both the biblical teaching and the pastoral problems that faced them. They realized that scriptural arguments could be made for both permanent exclusion and immediate inclusion of the lapsed. They recognized that they were adapting to new circumstances when they set out the provisions for reconciling the fallen.190 In anticipation of a new persecution, the bishops later decided to offer immediate readmission to all the fallen who had submitted to the church’s penitential discipline.191 In other councils, the bishops of Africa worked out common policies regarding the engagement of the clergy in secular work, the status of schismatic clergy who returned to their communion, and the proper method of receiving converts who had been baptized in schismatic communions.192 In some instances, the councils allowed that any individual bishop could follow a more restrictive practice.193 However, they seem to have trusted that their decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit, which they shared. They questioned whether one who dissented was truly within the episcopal college.194
The numbers of bishops involved in these meetings can sometimes be determined from the letters that reported their decisions. Cyprian claimed that ninety bishops had met to condemn Privatus of Lambaesis.195 Sixty-six bishops met, probably in Spring 252, and responded to questions about baptizing infants.196 Forty-two bishops met in Spring 253 and decided to allow all the penitents to be reconciled.197 In Spring 254 or 255, thirty-two bishops of Proconsular Africa responded to a letter from eighteen Numidian bishops.198 A meeting of thirty-eight bishops was held somewhat later in this time frame in order to respond to an appeal from Spanish churches for help in excluding unworthy bishops.199 Seventy-one bishops met in Spring 256 to address the baptismal controversy.200 Finally, eighty-seven episcopal judgments were pronounced at the culminating meeting in September 256, which rejected Stephen of Rome’s directive that they cease rebaptizing schismatics.201 Thus, it appears that the bishops of Africa expected to travel to meetings, usually after the celebration of Easter, and to make common decisions. Sometimes they met in provincial groups; but for particularly important issues they assembled from throughout Africa, usually in Carthage.
In Africa, the Bishop of Carthage had a particular role in maintaining this collaboration among his colleagues. He was in closest contact with the Roman bishop and could control communication. Thus he informed his colleagues of the decision of the episcopal commission that they had sent to investigate the disputed election in Rome, and he collected their letters of communion for forwarding to Cornelius.202 Individual bishops and provincial councils referred questions to him that he placed before meetings of his colleagues or answered himself when necessary.203 During the Decian persecution, his church supported refugees from the smaller cities of Africa. Later, he organized a collection to provide ransom for Christian captives; during the Valerian persecution, he sent assistance to the confessors in the imperial mines.204 The Bishop of Lambaesis played a similar but more restricted role for the bishops of the province of Numidia.205 Thus, the system of first or metropolitan bishops was emerging.206
A system of seniority among bishops was also developing; bishops voted and were listed in communications according to the length of their service. The Bishops of Carthage and Lambaesis stood outside these rankings, as leaders whose position was based upon the prominence of their cities.207
Because his see was the largest city and the capital of Roman Africa, as well as by force of his own personality, Cyprian functioned as the leader of the African episcopate. His position was not yet formalized in the specific office of primate, which would emerge later in African ecclesial practice. It was regularized, however, in that his name always appeared first or alone in the heading of common letters.208
Cyprian’s writings provide a fully elaborated theory to justify the claims that his predecessor in Tertullian’s time had made for holding the powers that had been conferred upon Peter. He understood Peter not only as a figure of the local bishop but as a member of the college of bishops, which Christ had established in choosing the Twelve and endowing them with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Individual bishops shared a common power to govern and sanctify; they shared responsibility for the entire church, though each had his own portion to govern. This, in turn, provided a scriptural foundation for the authority of regional councils of bishops, which could limit the discretion of individual bishops and churches.
Thus, Cyprian was able to reject the claims of religious authority and power being made for the martyrs. He insisted that the clergy not only had been authorized to act for Christ but actually had been given the power necessary to do so. He based his jurisdictional claims, his right to act for Christ and to control access to the eucharist, on the power that had been communicated to him from Christ through apostolic succession within the episcopal college. The bishop had this power and made it available within the local church; it was not shared by all Christians by virtue of their baptismal initiation and eucharistic participation. The bishops, he contended, were chosen for their offices individually by God, who guided the election by the congregation and clergy, and they were inspired by the kinds of divine assistance that had earlier been the prerogative of the Spirit-filled prophets. The other clergy served as assistants to the bishop, exercising authority he delegated to them.
Thus, Cyprian witnessed to (and promoted) a growing differentiation between clergy and laity, in which the clergy were credited with powers peculiar to their offices and were required to follow disciplines of separation and holiness that were not required of all Christians. This focus on the clergy as the guarantors of the holiness of the church and the efficacy of its ministry, however, would not succeed. The failure of members of the African episcopate during the Diocletian persecution, their subsequent refusal to repent and give up their offices, and the consequent division of the church would force the development of a new theology that blended the viewpoints of Tertullian and Cyprian.
At the close of the Diocletian persecution, a group of bishops from Numidia, under the leadership of the primate, Secundus of Tigisis, brought charges of apostasy against one of the consecrators of the deacon Caecilian, who was elected to replace Mensurius as Bishop of Carthage. The Numidians, some of whom were themselves guilty of the very crime they alleged, then elected and consecrated a rival bishop; a competing episcopal college was formed.209
The conflict eventually came to judgment under the supervision of the emperor and the Roman bishop. In the process of judgment and appeal, a number of issues were decided. Apostate bishops were not to be subjected to the penitential regimen, but they were to be removed from office and allowed to communicate among the laity.210 The validity of an ordination was not affected by the prior apostasy of the consecrators.211 The crime of schism was addressed differently. Those bishops responsible for the original schism against Caecilian, as well as those they subsequently ordained in their competing communion, were to be allowed to return to the unity of the church and retain their status as bishops without being subjected to either penance or penalty.212 If this provision resulted in two bishops having a claim to the same congregation, the more recently consecrated one was to cede the position and be given a different congregation.213
A decade later, the disciplinary decrees of the Council of Nicaea dealt with similar issues. As Catholic Bishop of Carthage, Caecilian attended the council and brought home a copy of its decrees, disciplinary as well as dogmatic. Any Christian guilty of apostasy during persecution could never be a cleric; if such a person were ordained in error or by deception, he was to be removed from office as soon as the crime was discovered.214 Schismatic clergy were allowed to remain in their offices when they joined the unity of the Catholic church.215 The imposition of hands by which they were to be received was understood in different ways: the African Latin version of the canon specified it as reconciliation;216 other Latin and Greek versions identified it as ordination.217 Only one bishop was to govern a congregation: the converted schismatics were to be assigned as presbyters for an urban congregation or as bishops in a rural church;218 they had to remain subordinated permanently to an originally Catholic bishop.219
Numerous conflicts among these decisions and with traditional African practice are immediately evident. Cyprian and his colleagues had regarded schism as equivalent to apostasy, and they refused to allow anyone guilty of either to serve in the Catholic clergy. They subjected apostate and schismatic bishops to public penance, including the imposition of hands. Schismatic and known apostate bishops were judged incapable of sanctifying by either baptism or ordination: any ritual they performed had to be repeated by a Catholic bishop in good standing.220 The practice of the Roman church had been similar: following the Decian persecution, Cornelius had required penance of both apostate and schismatic bishops, accepting them into communion only as laity.221
The stipulations of the judges in Rome and Arles generally were accepted by the Catholics in Africa as the price of the recognition of Caecilian and their standing in the universal communion. They followed the Roman practice, rather than the later decree of the Council of Nicaea, by receiving schismatic clergy without the imposition of hands, and they did not subordinate a returning schismatic bishop to his Caecilianist counterpart. Evidence of Donatist bishops joining the Caecilianist communion under these provisions begins in the middle of the fourth century.222
Though it maintained an outpost in Rome, the Donatist church was otherwise found only in Africa. The Caecilianists enjoyed the communion of the universal church and the support of the imperial government. Within Africa, the two churches or parties maintained parallel governing structures, though they differed in their understanding of the sacraments of baptism and orders, and of the efficacy of the episcopal ministry.
Little evidence has survived of clerical office and the numbers of persons serving congregations during the fourth century. The records of imperial actions at Cirta in Numidia provide the names of the clergy of that church on two occasions, in 303 and 320. At the beginning of the century, Bishop Paulus was assisted by four presbyters, two deacons, four subdeacons, seven readers, and five gravediggers. The readers turned over to the imperial authorities thirty-four volumes of sacred books that were being kept in their houses. Two of these readers were identified as having other occupations: one was a grammarian and the other a tailor. In 320, Bishop Silvanus was assisted by five presbyters (one of whom had received the office by bribing Silvanus), three deacons, two subdeacons, and two gravediggers.223
Silvanus himself was accepted by a divided congregation as a replacement for Paulus in a tumultuous meeting over objections that as a subdeacon he had been guilty of apostasy by personally handing over one of the sacred vessels to Roman authorities.224 He was then consecrated by neighboring bishops — many of whom admitted the same crime — under the direction of the Primate of Numidia, Secundus of Tigisis.225
A good number of the clergy compromised with the imperial officials and became guilty of the crime of traditio, which was then understood as a form of apostasy.226 By Cyprian’s theology, which the church was nominally following, such bishops should have been removed from office, subjected to public penance, and, after reconciliation, allowed to communicate among the laity. The actions of the African bishops, as has been noted, did not follow exactly the requirements of Cyprian’s theory and practice.
In 313, Constantine exempted the Christian clergy from all civic responsibilities.227 In 326, he renewed the exemption but restricted it to the Catholics; heretics and schismatics were to be bound to the public service.228 A few years later, however, the Catholics had to appeal for imperial intervention to secure these privileges against Donatist aggression. Constantine affirmed the privileges, extending them to subdeacons and readers, and requiring the governor of Numidia to enforce the decree.229 Valentinian I excluded any bishop who engaged in rebaptism as unworthy of these immunities.230
At the beginning of the fourth century, a series of judicial procedures associated with the Diocletian persecution and the consequences of episcopal failure during the persecution provide clear indicators of the functioning of elders (seniores), within the Christian congregations in Africa. At the end of the century, the conflict within the Donatist church between Primian and Maximian also involved these elders.
The Passion of St. Felix (Felix was the Bishop of Thibiuca in Proconsular Africa) recounts that the local official first asked the elders to secure the turning over of the sacred books; he then turned to the presbyter and readers.231 It may be presumed that the elders themselves did not have access to the books, though they might have provided the names of the clergy who then were questioned. The elders may have been targeted because they were prominent persons, well known to the authorities.
The Gesta apud Zenophilum are the records of a hearing held in 320, during which the report of an imperial visitation at the church of Cirta in Numidia in 303 was read into evidence. The bishop at the time, Paulus, may have been executed for his refusal to cooperate. One of his subdeacons, Silvanus, was recorded as turning over a sacred vessel to the Roman authorities. This same Silvanus subsequently was a candidate for bishop of the church in a conflicted election. The elders and people strongly objected to Silvanus because he was generally known to have committed apostasy. They were, however, overcome by pressure from his supporters, including (it was alleged) prostitutes and a gladiator.232 One of the elders later admitted that he knew of Silvanus’s crime but claimed that the elders and people were unable to stop the election.233 A synod of bishops under the presidency of Secundus of Tigisis (discussed above) reviewed the situation and accepted the election.234 An episcopal report — which might have been a protest by some who had opposed the election and confirmation of Silvanus — served notice to the bishops who had supported him, as well as the clergy and elders of the church of Cirta, that they were fully aware that their bishop was both an apostate and a thief.235
A dozen years later, Silvanus got into a violent conflict with one of his deacons, Nundinarius. This deacon sought the assistance of neighboring bishops to resolve the dispute. Purpurius of Limata, a long-time associate of Silvanus, advised him to employ the clergy and elders to resolve the conflict.236 Purpurius himself then wrote directly to them, citing Exodus 12:21 on the consultation of the elders of Israel as a precedent for their intervention.237 The language of his letter clearly indicates that he expected the elders to exercise a judicial role, though perhaps an informal one.238 A second bishop, contacted by Nundinarius, also wrote to the clergy and elders, urging on them the responsibility for resolving disputes without recourse to secular courts, as the Apostle Paul had admonished the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 6:5-6).239 The record of these proceedings clearly indicates that the elders were distinct from the clergy. Their status among the people gave them a certain independence from the bishop, which empowered them to intervene in conflicts within the church.240
As these events were transpiring in Numidia, a division was developing within the church in Carthage, to which its elders contributed. Bishop Mensurius was arrested and sent to Rome for trial. Before leaving, he committed the treasures of the church to the elders for safekeeping. He took the precaution of entrusting an inventory to an old woman in the congregation, who was to deliver it to his successor in case he did not survive and return.241 Once Caecilian was elected bishop and received the inventory, he found that the elders were unable to account for the treasure. They then broke off communion with him and supported the action of the Numidian bishops against him.242
In the investigation of the charge of apostasy against Felix of Abthugni, the Donatist elders, rather than the clergy of the church, were the actors in the imperial judicial procedure.243 Donatist elders had been involved in the ecclesiastical charges as well. Felix was originally accused of apostasy by Ingentius, who had been a secretary to one of the city officials in Abthugni during the persecution. This charge was in retaliation for Felix’s own accusation against Maurus, the Bishop of Utica and a friend of the accuser. Ingentius proceeded to fabricate evidence against Felix. Taking three elders from Utica with him, he attempted to trick his former employers in Abthugni into implicating Felix in apostasy.244 The scheme was uncovered when the city officials testified before the proconsul in Carthage.245
At the end of the fourth century, the elders of the Donatist church in Carthage played a major role in the conflict between Bishop Primian and one of his deacons, Maximian. The elders sought the intervention of neighboring bishops in response to the aggressive actions of this new bishop, the successor of Parmenian. Primian refused to cooperate with the episcopal synod meeting in early 393, but he used agents to disrupt its proceeding and harass the participants. The elders themselves were attacked in the basilica, and some of them were killed.246 Primian was deposed by a council meeting at Cebarsussi in Byzacena, and Maximian was elected and consecrated bishop in Carthage. The Donatist council at Bagai subsequently overruled the actions taken against Primian and condemned the consecrators of Maximian. The elders of the Donatist churches at Musti and Assuras then instigated legal procedures for recovering their basilicas from the bishops who refused to submit to Primian.247
Because most of this fourth-century evidence is imbedded in imperial court records, it presents what may be too narrow a view of the role of the elders in the Christian congregations. The elders were part of the people rather than the clergy. Only Victor at Cirta was in both groups, identified as a reader during the imperial visitation in 303 and as an elder, both during the election of the bishop a few years later and at the trial in 320. Unlike the clergy who are identified by name and office in the official reports, the elders remain anonymous — even Victor’s dual role has to be inferred from Nundinarius’s questioning. The elders functioned somewhat independently of the clerical structure and thus were expected to help resolve conflicts, even within the clergy. They led the opposition to Silvanus’s election and later were asked by neighboring bishops to help rein in his abuse of power. Ingentius planned to use elders from Utica as witnesses against Felix of Abthugni. The Donatist elders of Carthage, rather than the clergy, attempted to resolve the conflict between Primian and the rest of that church. Elders also seem to have had some responsibility for the goods of the church. Mensurius entrusted the treasures of the Carthaginian church to them during the persecution; Donatist elders initiated the judicial action for recovery of the basilicas from their Maximianist bishops.
As nonclerical leaders within the congregation, the elders were peculiar to the African church; their presence and actions are evidenced nowhere else in the ancient church. Their functioning may have developed from the parallel role of elders in the towns and villages that did not use the Roman structures of municipal governance.248
The practice of holding synods of bishops continued in the fourth century, though the records of those meetings are quite limited. The African church divided into competing communions early in the century because of a conflict over the election and consecration of Caecilian as Bishop of Carthage in late 311 or early 312, as has been seen. Bishops from Numidia met in Carthage, probably shortly after Easter in 312, to reject Caecilian. They then elected and consecrated Mensurius as his replacement.249
A council of about 270 bishops met in 336, under the presidency of Donatus.250 He had been elected bishop of the anti-Caecilianist party upon the death of Mensurius sometime before October 313, the time when Donatus represented his party before the ecclesiastical tribunal convoked in Rome by Constantine.251 After the return from exile allowed by the emperor Julian, a council of Donatist bishops was held at Theveste in Numidia, where a Caecilianist bishop appeared to protest the killing of two of his deacons in the assault on his basilica.252
At the end of 392, the lay elders of the Donatist church of Carthage called for a council of bishops to deal with the conflict between the new bishop, Primian, and his clergy. Forty-three bishops, mostly from Proconsular Africa and Byzacena, gathered in Carthage early in 393. Primian refused to deal with this council and blocked its work.253 A second council met on 24 June 393 at Cebarsussi in Byzacena; its acta give the names of sixty supporters of the action against Primian.254 The following April, Primian and Optatus of Thamugadi gathered a council of about 310 bishops at Bagai in Numidia to put down the rebellion.255
After the imperial suppression of Donatism at the Conference of Carthage in 411, thirty bishops who clung to that communion held a council in 418 or 419; they offered to receive back into their communion any bishop or presbyter who had been forced to join the Caecilianists. If these clerics had not exercised their ministry as Caecilianists — by preaching or celebrating the eucharist — they would have been allowed to reclaim their office in the Donatist church.256
The Caecilianists met under their bishop of Carthage, Gratus, in 348, after the mission of Macarius and Paul, which attempted unification of the two churches. Seventeen bishops are indicated as present, and reference is made to one other bishop.257 The next Caecilianist meeting whose acta survive was in 390, under Geneclius in Carthage.258
In 393, the Caecilianists began a series of councils, which were held regularly until 427, under the direction of Aurelius of Carthage. The bishops deliberately collected and organized their legislative work. The decisions were edited as the Breuarium Hipponensis in 397, a collection was made in 419, the Canones in Causa Apiarii, and subsequently as the Registri Ecclesiae Carthaginensis Excerpta.259 These councils produced a comprehensive body of law, dealing primarily with the clergy.
By the fourth century, the ritual of orders was being understood in much the same way as baptism. Independent of the holiness of the minister, it effected a permanent change in a person’s standing before God and within the church. The influence of this way of thinking is evident in the decisions made regarding the Donatist charges against Caecilian. The Roman bishop Miltiades allowed the bishops opposing Caecilian and any whom they had ordained to rejoin the Catholic communion and exercise their ministry in it without being reordained.260 The Council of Arles in 314 insisted that an apostate bishop could ordain another bishop, who could then function in the Catholic communion, though the apostate himself had to be removed from office.261 Those who had been ordained, moreover, were not to be subjected to the rituals of penance, though they were to be removed from office if guilty of a major sin.262
The actions of the Donatist exiles returning in 362 demonstrated a similar concern with the long-lasting effects of the ritual of ordination. They scraped not only the wooden altars to purify them from the Caecilianist sacrifices but also shaved the heads of the priests who had served the communities.263
Optatus himself argued that the custom of the church was to respect the ordination and, thus, not to impose hands on the clergy in penance.264 To condemn the Donatist purifying of the priests, he appealed to the respect that God had commanded and that David had shown toward those whom God had chosen and anointed.265 Stephen, the Roman bishop, had made a similar argument against Cyprian’s practice of rebaptizing those upon whom Christ’s name had been invoked, albeit in schism.266 Augustine, in his own response to Parmenian, would formalize the argument, equating the efficacy and persistence of ordination with that of baptism, and noting that neither sacrament was to be repeated.267
This understanding of the sacramental nature of ordination was itself the foundation of a renewed practice of allowing Donatist clergy to exercise their offices when they joined Catholic communion.
Under the leadership of Aurelius of Carthage and the prodding of Augustine of Hippo, the Caecilianists took a new approach to the assimilation of Donatist clergy. The first of a series of councils over which Aurelius presided was held in Hippo Regius in 393. A proposal was made that Donatist bishops be welcomed to assume the episcopal office in the Caecilianist communion if either they had not practiced rebaptism of converts or they could bring their congregations with them into union.268 A second proposal was advanced in 397: to allow the ordination of converts who had been baptized as children in the Donatist communion.269 The proposals were aimed at meeting the needs of Donatist congregations coming into Catholic unity: they might retain their existing clergy and make new appointments from among their own membership. Some of these clergy, however, would have been guilty not only of participating in an established schism but also of repeating the baptism of a convert to their communion. The Caecilianist bishops noted that preceding councils had forbidden the acceptance of Donatist clerical converts in their orders, though no such evidence has survived for Africa. In 386, a Roman council, whose decisions were communicated to the Africans by Bishop Siricius, specified that Donatist converts were to be received by the imposition of hands “because they violated the baptisms of their converts.”270 This phrase probably referred to Catholics who had been rebaptized by Claudianus, the Donatist Bishop of Rome, and who had then returned to Catholic communion after his expulsion from the city.271 In Africa itself, the Roman decision might have been read as aimed specifically at Donatist clergy who had performed the ritual of rebaptism.272 The African bishops justified their proposal by observing that the Donatist laity and clergy had been following an allegiance and a practice handed down to them rather than acting on their own initiative.273 Moreover, the sins of such clergy — particularly that of rebaptism — could be forgiven through the prayers of the united congregations.274 They decided, however, to consult with Siricius in Rome and Simplician in Milan before proceeding.275
During the summer of 401, the Caecilianist bishops returned to the question of accepting Donatist clergy. In a meeting of the bishops of Proconsular Africa in June, Aurelius of Carthage proposed to send a new delegation to press for the advice of the overseas bishops on ordaining Donatist laymen and accepting clerics.276 When the general council of African bishops met in September of that year, the bishops decided to move ahead with their program, despite the apparently negative response their delegates had received in Italy.277 They decreed that any cleric who wished to come to the Catholic church from that of the Donatists might be accepted in his rank if the Caecilianist bishop of the place judged that the act would promote the peace of the church. The bishops knew that this had been the directive of the earlier Roman bishop, Miltiades, and the policy of the African church during the early days of the schism.278 The Africans promised to respect the authority of the overseas councils and to follow their judgments wherever and whenever that did not impede the peace and unity of their church.279
This initiative seems to have met with some success. In 402, the Caecilianist Bishop of Bagai resigned his office and was replaced by his brother; both were converts from the Donatists.280 The former may have been the same Maximianus who was seriously injured by a Donatist mob and whose subsequent appeal for redress sparked the imperial program that culminated in the Conference of Carthage in 411.281
On February 15, 405, Emperor Honorius issued a set of laws whose objective was an end to the schism.282 Legislation adopted by a plenary council of African bishops who met in Carthage in June 407 indicates that the program of accepting Donatist clergy with their congregations had met with further success. The bishops allowed Donatist congregations that entered Catholic unity with their own bishops the right to continue choosing a bishop of their own rather than submitting to the local Caecilianist bishop.283 The converted congregations might elect one of their own: a presbyter, a deacon, or a layman ordained or baptized in schism.
In anticipation of the imperial Conference of Carthage in 411, the Caecilianist bishops proposed a plan for transitional shared governance, gradually leading to a single bishop of a unified congregation in each place.284 This proposal was affirmed in the decision of the imperial commissioner at the end of the conference. The conference itself had been so acrimonious, however, that few of the Donatist bishops accepted the opportunity at that time.285 Some of these arrangements for transitional governance were modified at the general council of African bishops in 418.286 The general principle of accepting Donatist bishops into Catholic communion, however, remained firmly in place.
An exception to this generous practice was made by the Caecilianists, as it had been by the Donatists, for any who left their communion to join the rival church and then sought to return. Because such persons were deserters and subject to full public penance, they were forbidden to function as clergy, even if they had been ordained in the other church.287 Innocent, who was Bishop of Rome during much of the implementation of Aurelius’s program, also insisted that Caecilianist deserters must be subjected to lengthy penance and could not serve as clerics in that church.288
Augustine also specified, as his own practice, that if a Donatist cleric had been disciplined and removed from office, he should not escape that penalty by entering the Caecilianist church; he was not allowed to function as a cleric.289 He remonstrated with his Donatist counterparts for taking a very different approach to the problem of accepting Caecilianist clerics, even those who had been degraded for violations of the moral law. The Caecilianist deserter was treated as a pagan who had never been baptized. All prior sinfulness was removed by the administration of baptism; the convert could be ordained into the clergy without obstacle.290
Cyprian’s explanation of the status of the clergy provided the theological foundation for the Donatist objection to the leadership of Caecilian and their division from his communion at the beginning of the fourth century. The Donatists affirmed that the clergy had to be free of the crime of apostasy, both in their own conduct and in the conduct of the bishops with whom they entered into communion. In practice, the standard proved difficult to realize. Secundus of Tigisis and other initiators of the schism had ignored among themselves the very crime of which they charged Caecilian’s consecrators. Optatus of Thamugadi finally resolved the Maximianist schism by forcing back into Primian’s communion two of the bishops who had been condemned as instigators, without formal penance or penalty.
The Caecilianists had been able to establish, at least to the satisfaction of their overseas Catholic colleagues and that of the Roman government, that the bishops of their communion were not guilty of the crimes the Donatists alleged. Yet the decisions of the episcopal tribunals at Rome and Arles had made their corporate innocence theologically irrelevant: apostate bishops could consecrate validly; only those personally guilty need be removed from clerical office once discovered; schismatic clergy might be allowed to exercise their offices in the Catholic communion. The Caecilianists had no difficulty in meeting their standard for holiness; their challenge was to justify it. Their bishops were moving toward an understanding of orders that paralleled the validity of baptism. They had not, however, succeeded in clearly articulating and justifying either practice. That would be the work of Augustine.
The writings of Augustine, particularly his sermons, provide details not available for earlier periods about the clergy and their living arrangements. The severe clergy shortage that the Caecilianist church in Africa suffered at the end of the fourth century — caused in part by the efforts to assimilate Donatist congregations — moved the bishops to offer ordination to converting Donatists and then to invite Donatist bishops to exercise their offices within the Caecilianist communion. These innovative moves required historical and theological justification, which Augustine provided.
The writings and sermons of Augustine, along with the legislation of the councils of the African bishops in the first third of the fifth century, witness to the different clerical offices, their privileges and responsibilities. As is usual, more evidence is available for the office of bishop than for the other types of clergy.
The doorkeeper was a particularly important functionary in a time of competing communions and is witnessed for both Donatist and Caecilanist congregations. Augustine reported that this officer questioned strangers on their affiliations and turned away those who should not have been allowed to enter the church. He also would have been responsible for assuring that only the baptized remained for the prayers and eucharistic celebration that followed the sermon. The Donatist church might have been especially careful about nonmembers during periods of imperial suppression, when their assemblies were illegal.291
Albinus, the only acolyte named during the fifth century in Africa, appeared in the role of a letter carrier. He seems to have been a Roman serving as courier between Augustine and Sixtus.292 This office is otherwise unattested in the African church during the fifth century.293
The reader or lector was responsible for proclaiming the scriptures in the liturgy.294 The office is well documented as an entry-level position; those mentioned were often quite young. In one instance, however, the lector was an adult who was entering upon a clerical career.295 Augustine referred to the reader twice during his surviving sermons, in each case because he mistakenly had sung a psalm other than the one assigned.296 Readers may not have been formally ordained: under canonical legislation, anyone who had served even once in a church was considered a cleric belonging to that church and could not be moved to office in another without his bishop’s permission.297 The synodal laws indicated that not all the readers would continue in the service of the church: when they reached puberty, the boys were suspended from the exercise of their office until they either married or professed continence.298 Thereafter, they were not restricted in their marriage rights, except in being required to give up the office if they married a second time, after a spouse’s death.299 As boys being prepared for a clerical career, readers were precious to the bishops, who might have provided their training in literacy.
Subdeacons were counted among the professional clergy; theirs was the next step to which readers advanced.300 They were often assigned as assistants to the presbyters who served rural parishes.301 In Hippo, Augustine named only one among his clergy, Valens, who was living in the bishop’s house according to the discipline of common life. His brother was serving the church of Milevis in the same office.302 Subdeacons also appear in Augustine’s writings as letter carriers.303 The subdeacons may have been required to abstain from sexual relations with their wives, but the record is ambiguous.304
Most of the deacons to whom Augustine referred served in the bishop’s church.305 Only one is named as serving a rural congregation, and he may have been relegated to that role after some failure.306 In his sermon dealing with the possessions of the clergy living in his house, Augustine named four deacons who had property and indicated that the others, whose number he did not specify, did not own anything. The church might have had seven deacons, following the apostolic precedent.307 Faustinus and Severus were not natives of Hippo but had come to the service of its church. Another deacon, a native of Hippo, owned slaves whom he was preparing to emancipate.308 Heraclius (a deacon who would later become a presbyter and then be named Augustine’s successor as bishop) used his patrimony to make an investment in the name of the church.309 Another deacon, Lazarus, had read the section from the Acts of the Apostles that introduced the sermon.310 In the liturgical action, the deacons may have read the gospel texts; they also introduced the prayers and distributed the cup to the communicants.311 Heraclius clearly had responsibilities for managing property, an office that Augustine recognized as belonging to the Roman deacon and martyr Lawrence.312 Augustine also referred to two deacons of the Donatist church in Hippo who had lost their offices through sin.313 The deacons were required to abstain permanently from sexual relations with their wives and could not marry a second time after being widowed.314
The presbyters were the most important of Augustine’s clergy in Hippo. The sermon just discussed that accounted for the finances of the clergy of Hippo was occasioned by the death of the presbyter Januarius. Not only had he retained property he claimed to have given up, but he had made a will in which he assigned to the church funds that should already have passed to his son and daughter.315 In his report to the congregation, Augustine mentioned only two other presbyters in Hippo at the time, Leporius and Barnabas. The former was quite a wealthy man whose gifts had enlarged and elaborated the church complex. Barnabas was responsible for founding and supervising a monastery, apparently after he was already among the clergy.316 Augustine later nominated Heraclius, who had subsequently become a presbyter, to succeed him as bishop. The record of that nomination and the congregation’s approval repeats the names of Leporius, Barnabas, and Heraclius; it then adds four additional presbyters: Saturninus, Fortunatianus, Rusticus, and Lazarus. Lazarus, like Heraclius, had been named as a deacon in the earlier sermon accounting for clerical finances. An additional presbyter, Boniface, was mentioned in a letter written as much as twenty years earlier and does not appear in these sermons.317
The responsibilities of the presbyters were manifold. Augustine’s own preaching and engaging in controversy while still a presbyter were unusual at the time.318 He did this not only because of his personal ability but because the bishop, Valerius, was not fluent in Latin.319 Subsequently, however, presbyters were authorized and even encouraged to preach.320 Once Heraclius had been accepted by the congregation as Augustine’s successor, he took over many responsibilities of the church so that Augustine could devote his energies to finishing his writing projects.321 Barnabas and Boniface each were engaged with supervising a monastery.322 During Augustine’s many absences from Hippo, the presbyters would have been responsible for the liturgy and for discipline.323 When traveling, presbyters carried letters from their bishops certifying their status, which may have entitled them to privileges, such as hospitality, in churches they visited.324
Rural parishes were under the direction of presbyters, and ecclesial legislation regulated their actions.325 Thus, the presbyters were forbidden to sell or give away the property of the church without permission of the bishop.326 They had to secure the bishop’s permission for celebrating the eucharist outside a church and reconciling penitents, except in emergency.327
A local church had a single bishop who served that congregation from election to death. Only the bishop carried the Latin title of priest, sacerdos, though Augustine preferred the Latinized Greek title, episcopus, because it designated the function of oversight and guidance rather than the mediatorial role that the Donatists claimed for their leaders.328 This officer bore primary responsibility for the life of the community: Augustine understood their succession to the Apostles in this sense.329 In the basilica, the bishop sat on a raised throne in the center of the apse, with the presbyters seated on benches to his sides.330 The bishop was the primary minister of baptism, the eucharist, the reconciliation of sinners, the ordination of clergy, and preaching.
The bishop was responsible for the property of his church. He had to receive or purchase property and sell it when necessary. Augustine estimated that he managed property worth more than twenty times his own meager inheritance, which he had donated to the church at Thagaste upon his ordination for the church in Hippo.331 Augustine refused some gifts because of their implications. Thus, he judged that the shipping company offered by one of the faithful would expose the church to risks and conflicts that were inappropriate; he also refused to accept the gift of the presbyter Januarius that would have deprived his children of their rightful inheritance.332 The bishops had to raise money for building projects and the other needs of the churches.333 Before selling or giving away the property of his church, a bishop was required to obtain the permission of the primate of the province or at least the advice of neighboring bishops; he could be required to justify his actions to a council.334
In addition to his sacral and administrative functions, the bishop was authorized to hear and decide civil cases when both parties agreed to submit their dispute to him.335 Though he often tried to find a compromise, his judgment was final.336 He was also required to represent the church’s interests to the governing officials, most often by seeking enforcement of imperial decrees in favor of the church or by interceding to mitigate the punishment of the condemned.337 Bishops were regularly sent by councils to represent the interests of the African church at the imperial court.338 Individual bishops also could plead the interests of their own churches, though only with the permission of their provincial primate.339
The bishops bore a shared responsibility for the governance of the church at the provincial and regional levels. In all meetings, bishops spoke according to rank, based on the date of their ordination.340 The senior bishop in each of the ecclesial provinces was responsible for the affairs of the church and organizing his colleagues.341 The Bishop of Carthage served this function for Proconsular Africa — independently of his length of service — and bore general responsibility for the whole of Roman Africa.342 In other provinces, the primate seems to have been the bishop with the greatest seniority in office.343 A local bishop could be called upon to help supervise the election of a new bishop and participate in his ordination. Bishops also served as judges in the trials of their own clergy and those of other churches.344
The record of the work of elders in congregations during the fifth century is much more limited than it is for the fourth. They are mentioned explicitly in only a single case, but their intervention can be glimpsed in a second instance and inferred in others.
At the plenary council of Caecilianist bishops in June 407, Maurentius of Thubursicu complained that, for the third time, the elders of the village of Nova Germania had failed to appear and present their complaint against him, as they had been ordered by the primate of Numidia. Maurentius asked that his name be cleared. The bishop of a neighboring city, Placentinus of Madaura, intervened in support of the elders. The council then approved an alternative plan. The case was to be transferred back to Numidia and heard in Thubursicu by twelve judges, six chosen by each side. Maurentius named his six judges on the spot, and they were approved by the council. The primate was directed to arrange for the elders to select six more judges to fill out the panel.345 The elders of this small village in Numidia had succeeded in moving their hearing to the diocesan seat, instead of being required to travel to Carthage and argue their complaint before a council of bishops. By this concession, they could choose judges they considered sympathetic and could bring local witnesses to support their complaint against their bishop. This incident shows episcopal deference to these leaders of the laity, but it does not establish that these were seniores of the church.
That Augustine’s congregation in Hippo had its own elders is clear from three incidents. One letter is addressed to the “clergy, elders, and whole people of the church of Hippo whom I serve in the love of Christ.”346 Earlier, while still a presbyter, Augustine encountered significant opposition in reforming the festivals of the saints and martyrs, specifically of Leontius, who had built the principal basilica early in the fourth century. The final stage in overcoming opposition was an early morning meeting with a small group of congregants who were holding out for the traditional banquet. Once he had won them over, the matter was settled.347 Even if these were not formal elders, they certainly served the same purpose. A third instance is provided in Augustine’s account of the attempt of the congregation in Hippo Regius to draft Pinian into their clergy on the occasion of his visit to the church with his wife, Melania the Younger. Augustine provided a detailed account of the event, including his negotiations with members of the congregation who can be recognized in the role of elders. As the people were shouting for Pinian’s ordination, Augustine gathered a small group of respected and worthy men in the apse. He explained to them that he had promised Pinian that he would not participate in a forced ordination. They proposed bringing in another bishop to ordain Pinian for their church. Augustine responded that another bishop could act for their church only with his permission, which he could not give without breaking his promise to Pinian. He then explained that, if they forced Pinian to be ordained, he would flee from Hippo at the first opportunity, and they would have gained nothing. They refused to believe that Pinian would abandon his office, even if it were forced upon him. The renewed uproar of the people, down a few steps in the nave of the church, broke off the conversation.348 Pinian himself broke the impasse by swearing a carefully worded oath and then breaking it by leaving town the next morning.349 The role of these elders as mediators between the people and their bishop can be perceived in this incident. Apparently, they were not elected officials but respected men who could be trusted to deal fairly.
Augustine’s accounts of the extended conflict between Antony of Fusalla and his congregation do not mention any role for elders, though they do recognize the intervention of a property holder and her manager.350 On an estate, these persons might have assumed the responsibility for representing the interests of a congregation that its own elders would exercise in a village.
Some of the judicial interventions undertaken by the elders in the previous century were assigned to a new imperial officer, the defensor ecclesiae. The bishops of Africa petitioned for this assistance, and Emperor Honorius granted it in 407.351
The process of the selection of clergy is attested five times in Augustine’s writings. Each of these, however, was extraordinary. Augustine recounted his own selection for the presbyterate and then the episcopate.352 He had been trying to avoid clerical office but was drafted into the clergy of Hippo during a visit there. Later, he was made bishop while his predecessor, Valerius, was still alive, but limited in his ability to function. Through Augustine’s work on the assimilation of Donatist clergy, he came to realize that having two bishops in a city had been forbidden by the Council of Nicaea.353 Decades later, the Hippo congregation attempted to force the ordination of Pinian. Augustine blocked the popular will — which was viewed by Pinian’s family as a bold attempt to make his extreme wealth available for their church — by asserting that he would not ordain anyone to the clergy who was unwilling to take up its burden.354
Some of the bishops made provision for the selection of their successors, perhaps so that their church would not be hampered by a long delay while a suitable candidate was identified.355 Severus of Milevis decided upon his successor and secured the agreement of the clergy, but he did not present it to the laity. Upon his death, then, a controversy erupted when the people objected to the candidate. When Severus’s own intention was revealed, the candidate was finally approved and ordained. Augustine reported that the people certainly would have acceded to Severus’s recommendation had he made it to them himself.356 Forewarned, Augustine proposed to his own congregation that Heraclius, who had been a deacon and presbyter in the church, should succeed him as bishop after his death. The congregation approved. Heraclius then took over much of the day-to-day administration of the church so that Augustine could attend to his writing. He remained a presbyter, however, until after Augustine had died.357
Augustine also nominated one of his own clergy to be Bishop of Fussala, a rural parish belonging to the diocese of Hippo, in which a minority Catholic population was served by presbyters. When the Donatist congregation entered into Catholic unity, the enlarged church merited a bishop of its own. Augustine, whose responsibility it was to initiate the process, identified a presbyter who had the necessary qualifications, including facility in the Punic language. He invited the senior bishop of Numidia to come for the ordination. The selected candidate withdrew, however, and Augustine settled on Antony, who had the necessary language skills but whose clerical experience was limited to having served as a reader in the church of Hippo. Augustine proposed the candidate to the faithful, and they accepted the young man on his recommendation.358 He turned out to be a very troublesome bishop.
On another occasion, the people of Membliba apparently made a request for the services of Gitta, the deacon of another parish, to be their presbyter. Upon examination, Augustine found that the candidate had been guilty of an illicit sexual relationship; he had to remove the man from office altogether. He encouraged the people to continue looking for a presbyter and promised to provide a candidate himself if they did not identify one.359
The conciliar legislation set some guidelines for the appointment of clergy. Those who were subject to the rule of sexual continence — subdeacon, deacon, and presbyter — had to be at least twenty-five years old.360 They also had to be approved by the bishop and the people.361 All the members of their households, including the spouses of their children, had to be Catholic Christians.362 They had to put aside all secular occupations that would distract them from their duties, such as administering property, serving as bailiff of an estate, or serving as guardian of minors. All were forbidden to assign them such responsibilities after their ordination.363 Yet Augustine’s account of the financial affairs of his own clergy clearly indicated that some of them had these responsibilities for church property.364 Bishops, in addition, were often entrusted with the legacies of orphans and served as their protectors.365
One of the major problems facing the Caecilianist bishops was a shortage of clergy.366 This need resulted in attempts to recruit candidates from other dioceses. Augustine’s correspondence, for example, contains details of a disagreement with his friend Severus of Milevis over a reader recruited from one of his rural parishes367 and a complaint to Aurelius of Carthage over the ordination of a monk who had left the Hippo monastery without approval.368 Such problems resulted in legislation forbidding raids on the clergy of other dioceses.369 Bishops were also forbidden to recruit from monasteries outside their dioceses without the permission of the local bishop.370 One of the monks in Hippo wanted to enter the clergy, but Augustine withheld the required approval.371 Bishops could also request that a cleric be released for the needs of another church. The Bishop of Carthage was authorized by his colleagues to require the release when a presbyter was chosen to be bishop of another church.372
Augustine recognized that a person might decline the call to become a bishop because he considered himself unworthy or unqualified.373 A council specified, however, that any cleric who refused a promotion within his own diocese was to be removed from the clergy altogether.374 The transfer of a bishop from one church to another was forbidden, and the prohibition seems to have been enforced.375
The selection and ordination of bishops was different from that of other clergy in that it required the collaboration of other bishops; it was not only a local matter. The candidate had to be approved both by the congregation he was to serve and by his fellow bishops.376 The Donatists seem to have used twelve bishops as consecrators.377 Perhaps in response, the bishops of Numidia proposed that the Caecilianists also require twelve consecrators of a new bishop; the general council refused because of the lack of bishops in some provinces. Aurelius of Carthage observed that Tripolitana, for example, had only five bishoprics and could hardly muster more than three of the four surviving bishops for the ordination of a new colleague. The traditional minimum of three continued to be required.378 If the qualifications of the candidate were challenged, however, two additional bishops had to be summoned to decide whether the ordination should proceed.379 The senior bishop of the province had to approve of the ordination; he was often present to supervise the choice and lead the ritual of installation.380 When a new bishopric was being created, usually to provide for a Donatist congregation coming into unity, the bishop who had responsibility for the area (and thus from whose care the congregation was to be taken) also had to approve the new bishop.381 In some instances, bishops experienced great difficulty in finding a suitable candidate.382 The Donatists claimed that a primate had to be ordained by another primate, as their first bishop of Carthage had been by the Primate of Numidia.383 The Caecilianists did not follow this practice for their bishop of Carthage.384 Only the Bishop of Carthage became a primate upon his election and ordination; in other African provinces, the primate was the longest-serving bishop, and the Donatist “rule” was inapplicable.
Little information about the ordination ritual itself has survived. The imposition of hands by at least three other bishops was specified as essential.385 Optatus compared its effect to the anointing of an Israelite king or priest and to the commissioning of a prophet, which brought these individuals under divine protection. The reference in his text to anointing seems to have derived from the Psalm (105:15) that warned against attacking those whom God had chosen rather than a ritual, which would not have applied to a prophet.386 In his own discussion of priestly anointing, Augustine referred only to the baptismal ritual, which conferred Christ’s priesthood on all Christians; he never mentioned a second anointing as part of the ordination ritual.387
Augustine would have preferred to continue living in a monastic community after he was made bishop, but he found that the responsibilities for providing hospitality to visitors were impossible to fulfill in that context. Hence, he organized the clergy of the church in Hippo into a community, whose guiding rule of shared property was laid out in Acts 4:32-35.388 None of the subdeacons, deacons, or presbyters were married or retained private property. All lived by a common fund;389 all were required to eat at the common table.390
When Augustine discovered upon the death of the presbyter Januarius that some of his clergy had not divested themselves of their property, he provided to the congregation a full accounting of the financial status of each. In many instances, the claims of other members of the family upon the property meant that the cleric had not been able to liberate himself completely. Even in these cases, Augustine assured the people, the property met the cleric’s obligations to his parents or siblings, or it was used for the benefit of the church itself.391 At that point, early in 426, Augustine offered to relax the rule that required that all clergy of the cathedral live in the bishop’s house. He preferred that his colleagues have the option of retaining both their property and their offices rather than live in deceit.392 Apparently, none of them chose that option; all remained in the common life.393
In the bishop’s house, the clergy shared a common fund and received their other necessities in the same way. As bishop, Augustine was prepared to receive gifts of food and clothing, provided that they could be shared by all.394 The clergy of the church had a general right, he claimed, to be supported by the faithful. They were not to be treated as beggars.395
The presbyters who served the village churches outside Hippo, under Augustine’s supervision, were subject to the same requirement of disposing of their property.396 Because they were alone or assisted only by a subdeacon, however, they lived more independently. In certain instances, this freedom provided ample opportunities for transgression of their Christian commitments, and they had to be disciplined.397
Augustine’s arrangements were unusual. The conciliar legislation assumed that clerics would have families and children for whom they were responsible. It set strict limits on the women who could live in their homes: mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, and nieces, as well as other relatives to whom they had offered shelter before they were ordained. They could also accept into their homes the wives of their children and slaves.398 They could make gifts only to Christians399 and bequests only to relatives who were Christian.400 They could eat or drink in inns or shops only when they were traveling401 and could visit in another city or town only with the approval of the local bishop or presbyter.402
The councils showed particular concern in protecting the property of the church from being appropriated by the clergy.403 Any property that a cleric acquired after ordination was to be dedicated to the church he was serving or to some other religious purpose.404 Four instances of misuse of property are recorded in Augustine’s correspondence. The presbyter Abundantius had embezzled a gift made to his church.405 Bishop Paulus had disposed of his property at his ordination; he later purchased property for himself when a loan was repaid to him, and he used the church’s tax exemption to defraud the government. His successor had to straighten out the resulting mess.406 Antony of Fussala, though acquitted on charges of sexual misconduct, was found guilty of defrauding and abusing his congregation by stealing property, confiscating harvests, and even tearing down houses to use the stone in his own building projects.407 Finally, Augustine and Alypius had to settle the affairs of a presbyter who became a monk but failed to provide for the disposition of his property. The congregation he had been serving claimed his estate, as did his legal heirs. The bishops agreed that the civil law had to prevail, and they agreed to compensate the congregation.408
The church in Roman Africa was divided into a set of provinces that did not exactly correspond to the divisions of the provinces of the empire.409 Proconsular Africa was central because it was the seat of Roman administration at Carthage; it bordered Byzacena on the south and Numidia on the west. South and east of Byzacena was the small province of Tripolitana, which had only five bishops at the end of the fourth century. At the Council of Hippo in 393, the church in Mauretania — to the west — was separated from that in Numidia, though at that point no distinction was made between the two Roman provinces, Mauretania Sitifensis and Mauretania Caesariensis.410 At the Council of Carthage in May 419, however, the two Mauretanias were represented by distinct sets of three legates each, implying that they had been established as distinct ecclesiastical provinces.411 At the Council of Carthage in 418, legates from Hispania were also present.412
Each of these provinces had its own primate or “bishop of the first chair,” who was to be referred to as such and not as “Chief of the Priests” or “High Priest.”413 His was an administrative office, not one of higher rank above that of his fellow bishops. Only the Bishop of Carthage held his primacy on the basis of his city; all others apparently were determined on the basis of seniority of service. The Bishop of Carthage presided over the whole of the African church. He served as convener of the plenary councils of bishops, even when they were held in another province. In its name, he communicated the decisions of its councils to overseas bishops and issued the letters of instruction to episcopal legates who were sent on missions by their colleagues.414 His church maintained the list of recognized bishops of the Catholic communion in Africa.415 He communicated to the provinces the date on which Easter was to be observed and the plenary council held (if one was scheduled for that year).416 He was recognized as bearing responsibility for the whole African church and was empowered, as has been seen, to call presbyters from one church to be bishops of another. Between the councils at Hippo in 393 and 427, Bishop Aurelius of Carthage presided over nearly twenty plenary and provincial synods, most of them in Carthage. Nearly all the legislation of the African church that survives in the various collections was enacted under his leadership.
In each of the provinces, the senior bishop or primate was responsible for maintaining good order. He called and presided over any council of the bishops of his province and usually took part in any plenary council of Africa. He wrote the letters of his councils to overseas bishops.417 His approval was necessary for the ordination of a bishop, for establishing a new bishopric, and for selling church property. He normally oversaw the election and ordination of each new bishop, maintained the list of approved bishops of his province, and communicated changes to the Bishop of Carthage.418 Once he had received the date for the celebration of Easter from the Bishop of Carthage, the primate informed the bishops of his province. The primate had ultimate responsibility for appointing judges to hear charges against bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and he served as a manager of appeals of their decisions. If a bishop wished to travel overseas, to the court or the city of another bishop, he required the primate’s letter of approval for the mission.419
The provincial synod was to be held annually at a time and place specified by the primate. All the bishops of a province who were well enough to travel were expected to attend.420 This council ruled on issues that faced the church in the province. Its approval eventually was required for the establishment of new bishoprics;421 it could review and approve the sale of church property;422 it could act as a court of appeal for decisions of episcopal courts; and it could enforce depositions of bishops.423 It was also to elect and instruct three legates to the plenary council of Africa if one was to be held later in the year.424 In 416, provincial councils at Milevis in Numidia and at Carthage in Proconsular Africa took the lead in the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius. For the most part, however, the work of the provincial council was disciplinary rather than doctrinal.
The first of the plenary councils held under Aurelius, at Hippo in 393, ambitiously decided that a plenary council of the African church was to be held every year. Each province was to send three episcopal legates, excepting Tripolitana, which was to send only one.425 The plan was for the annual council to circulate among the provinces, but the three held in Numidia — at Hippo Regius in 393 and 427, and at Milevis in 402 — were the only ones recorded outside of Carthage. When the bishops of Mauretania objected in 397 that the council had not yet been held in their province, Aurelius explained that the distance of travel was simply too great and the journey too dangerous because of the number of barbarians in that part of the empire.426 A large number of Proconsular bishops sometimes attended the plenary councils rather than being represented only by the province’s three legates.427 By 401, special efforts were necessary to secure the participation of the delegates from other provinces.428 In 407, the council passed a resolution declaring the annual plenary councils onerous; it decided that, in the future, these would be called only when necessary and that provincial councils would be held annually to deal with ordinary business.429 But violent conflict with the Donatists required councils in the following years. After 411, however, the records of general councils show that they did not meet regularly, and greater reliance seems to have been placed on the provincial meetings. At the last general council of their episcopates, at Hippo in 427, Aurelius thanked Augustine for his efforts in bringing the bishops together.430
The African bishops were very conscious of their legislative role. Their meetings regularly repeated and approved the decisions of earlier councils. Moreover, Aurelius oversaw the preparation and approval of three significant collections of rulings. In August 397, the bishops of Byzacena arrived in Carthage on 13 August, more than two weeks before the scheduled opening of the council. Aurelius asked them to draw up a list of the decisions that had been made at the council of Hippo in 393. The resulting Breuarium Hipponensis, containing some 37 canons, was approved by the plenary council meeting on 28 August 397.431 When the bishop of Rome challenged the authority of the African bishops to make the final judgment on the charges against the priest Apiarius and to forbid any appeal outside Africa, the council meeting on 25 May 419 approved a new collection of the legislation of the African church. This was sent to Rome for the purpose of demonstrating to its bishop that the African church was quite capable of governing itself.432 The circumstances of the editing of the Registri Ecclesiae Carthaginensis Excerpta are unclear. It is limited to the councils under Aurelius but includes decrees beginning at the end of the Breuarium Hipponensis. It was probably the basis for the collection Canones in Causa Apiarii, and it was cited extensively in the council held under Bonifatius for the reconstitution of the Catholic hierarchy of Africa in 525.
In their meetings, the African bishops were most occupied with the judicial procedures necessary for handling accusations against themselves and their clergy. The sustained conflict with the Donatists had been provoked by charges of apostasy against a bishop at the end of the Diocletian persecution. The ecclesial and imperial processes by which Caecilian and his consecrators were judged failed to bring an acceptable solution to the conflict. In the years following, the bishops in his communion never tired of defending Caecilian and of pointing out the failings of the founding bishops of the Donatist church and their successors. This made the bishops particularly sensitive to the good reputation of their own clergy and anxious to demonstrate that they dealt fully and fairly with all accusations brought against them.
The African church claimed the right to discipline its own officers and members through its own courts. Any cleric who transferred the hearing of a criminal accusation against himself from church to imperial court was immediately deposed from his office. If he filed a claim for civil damages in an imperial court, he could retain his office only if he forfeited anything that was gained through the process. Clerics, the legislation insisted, must be satisfied with the judges that the church provided.433 If a cleric did make an appeal to the emperor, he was to petition for episcopal rather than imperial judges.434
Church courts, like the imperial judiciary, were not served by public prosecutors. A bishop or presbyter responsible for a church could initiate action against a cleric when a serious infraction came to his attention. Otherwise, an accuser had to bring and prove a charge. The church courts, like the imperial ones, disqualified some persons from making charges. Only those currently in good standing in the Caecilianist communion could accuse someone; those convicted of crimes and not yet returned to communion were barred.435 Anyone whom the imperial law disqualified in its court was also disqualified in ecclesiastical court: slaves, freed persons in cases against their patrons, persons who had lost civil rights after being convicted of certain crimes, and outsiders such as heretics, pagans, and Jews.436 These disqualified persons could not bring charges for violation of church law, though they could apply to church courts for redress of injuries afflicted upon them personally by a cleric.437 Those who were barred from accusing were also excluded as witnesses, as were members of an accuser’s household and persons less than fourteen years of age.438 Finally, if a person brought multiple charges, the failure to prove any one of them would result in the dismissal of the others.439
In certain instances, the local bishop could punish his clergy. In cases involving clerics who were below the rank of deacon, the bishop was authorized to make and enforce a judgment, whether he initiated the action or responded to an accusation.440 A presbyter charged with responsibility for a rural church could also take action against a subordinate, as one of Augustine’s presbyters did against a subdeacon named Rusticus, who then fled to the Donatist bishop, was received, rebaptized, and ordained deacon.441 Augustine also considered himself empowered to remove from office even presbyters subject to him for offenses that were reported to him by other members of the clergy.442 He threatened such action, for example, against any who concealed personal property while claiming to have disposed of it.443 In one instance, a monk of Augustine’s monastery and a presbyter of the church accused one another. Augustine strongly suspected that the monk was lying, but he could not be certain. He decided to send both to the shrine of Felix at Nola, where he hoped that God would reveal the truth of the matter — as a perjured thief had been forced to confess his crime at a shrine in Milan while Augustine was living there.444
When charges were brought against a bishop, presbyter, or deacon by someone other than the bishop, however, the canonical legislation required a more formal process. The bishop had to establish a court of episcopal judges to hear the accusation: six bishops for a presbyter or three for a deacon.445 The local bishop might sit on a panel judging his own presbyter or deacon.446 When the panel was hearing an appeal against the bishop’s own judgment, however, he would leave the case to neighboring bishops.447 When either the accuser or the accused had reason to fear violence, a change of venue for the hearing could be requested and granted.448
When a bishop was accused of wrongdoing, the matter was referred to the primate of the province, who established a panel of twelve episcopal judges. A letter was issued to the accused by the primate requiring him to appear before the court one month after the receipt of the summons. If necessary, he could be granted an additional month’s delay. If he failed to appear within this two-month period, however, the accused was suspended from communion until he had cleared his name. The accuser also was required to appear at the specified time. Failure to do so would result in the accuser’s suspension from communion and the restoration of the bishop, if he had been suspended. If, however, the accuser could show that some legitimate cause had prevented appearance, the case could still go forward.449 The same times and conditions were to be observed in the hearing of charges brought against presbyters and deacons.
A bishop might refuse to appear before a provincial tribunal and present himself directly before the next plenary council of Africa. If he failed to appear even there, however, he would remain suspended from communion with his fellow bishops and restricted to his own church.450 Thus, the Council of Carthage in September 401 asked the Primate of Numidia to warn Bishop Cresconius that he would be summarily condemned if he failed to appear at the next council.451 If the accusers then refused to appear before the general council, the bishops had to find some other means of settling the case. In one such case, the accuser first petitioned to appear before the general council but then changed his mind and withdrew. The council suspended the accused bishop, Quodvultdeus, from episcopal communion but refused to remove him from office until the case was actually determined.452 Five years later, another bishop, Maurentius, complained that his accusers had refused to appear, as ordered by the Primate of Numidia. Instead of condemning the accusers for obstinacy, the council directed the primate to set up a tribunal to hear the case. Maurentius chose his six judges on the spot, who were then appointed by the council itself; the primate was to insure that the accusers named their episcopal judges and that the matter was quickly settled.453
Appeals from the decisions of bishops were allowed but limited. A deacon or presbyter who had been disciplined by his bishop could appeal to a panel of three or six neighboring bishops, who might then effect a reconciliation. Augustine noted in the case of the presbyter Abundantius, whom he had dismissed, that this appeal had to be made within one year, thus reflecting the legislation of the Council of Carthage in 401.454 Any cleric might appeal to the primate or as a last resort to the plenary council of Africa.455 When the primate or council reversed the judgment of a panel of bishops, the action had no negative consequence for the bishops who were overruled.456 When the parties to the conflict had agreed upon the composition of the panel of judges, either for the trial or the appeal hearing, no further appeal was allowed: the parties had to be satisfied with the ruling.457
In two instances of which records survive, individuals made appeals beyond Africa to the Bishop of Rome. When the presbyter Apiarius appealed in 418, the African bishops challenged the authority of the Roman bishop to intervene in cases that fell within their jurisdiction. In response, the Roman bishop claimed that the canons of Nicaea had made him an appellate judge for the entire church. The African bishops asserted that no such canon could be found in the copies of the decrees of Nicaea that Caecilian had brought back to Carthage and suggested that Greek versions of the records be sought from Constantinople. In the meantime, however, they agreed to abide by the claim put forward by the Romans.458 A local court that Augustine had set up condemned Antony of Fussala for abuse of his office before the jurisdictional dispute was settled. Instead of appealing to the next council of Numidian bishops or the plenary council of Africa, Antony took his case directly to Rome. At the urging of Pope Boniface, the Africans accorded him a new trial in which his rights were protected scrupulously. When even this court, half of whose twelve judges had been selected by him, condemned Antony, he made a second appeal to Rome.459 Then the presbyter Apiarius got into trouble again, and the African bishops insisted that no appeals could be made to Rome. They demonstrated that the canons that the Roman bishops had cited to establish their jurisdiction were not in the Greek record of the Council of Nicaea and, thus, were not to be observed. With politeness barely cloaking their outrage, they admonished the Bishop of Rome to cease interfering in the workings of the African church.460 The bishops also decreed that, in the future, they would refuse communion throughout the whole of Africa to anyone who appealed beyond their plenary council.461
The normal penalty imposed on clerics was removal from office rather than excommunication. This was the action Augustine took against Abundantius.462 Excommunication or suspension from communion was often used, however, as a step in the judicial process.463 Thus, presbyters who had been excommunicated by their bishops were advised not to celebrate the eucharist in schism; they were to appeal instead to neighboring bishops and be reconciled to their own bishop.464 Other clerics who were awaiting a hearing after having been disciplined by their bishops were warned that they would pronounce sentence on themselves by communicating.465 Thus Augustine refused to accept a presbyter who had been suspended from communion by Aurelius; he required that the man await the disposition of his case in Carthage.466 Years before the problems with Apiarius’s appeal to Rome, a council at Carthage ruled that accepting communion overseas while being excommunicate in Africa would be punished by loss of clerical status.467 Bishops, presbyters, and deacons who were finally convicted of crimes were removed from office. They were not to have hands imposed on them in penitence but could communicate among the laity.468
As has been noted in the discussion of the clergy in the fourth century, the Donatist controversy forced a consideration of the clergy and the efficacy of their ministry. Augustine’s understanding of the ritual of ordination and the relation between Christ, the clergy, and the people was coordinated with his theory of the efficacy of baptism and the church’s power to forgive sins. He made a clear distinction between the church’s power to sanctify and the authority of the clergy to exercise that power. In particular, he clearly distanced himself from Cyprian’s teaching on the power of the bishop and recovered aspects of Tertullian’s emphasis on the faithful’s sharing in the gifts of the church, if not their exercise. This theology was developed in response to specific historical circumstances: the breakdown of Cyprian’s theory and the imperial attempts to re-unite the divided African church. These events and the Catholic response to them will be recalled briefly to clarify the problem to which Augustine was responding.
As has been noted in the discussion of the relation between the Donatist and the Caecilianist communions in the fourth century, attempts were made to bring the dissident clergy back into unity, beginning with the offer of the Roman bishop Miltiades and continuing through the restoration of freedom and property to the Donatists under the emperor Julian. The acrimony and conflict associated with the Donatist leaders’ repossession of the basilicas and congregations they had lost fifteen years earlier brought the attempts at reconciliation to an end. Thirty years later, when Donatists reintegrated their own Maximianist schismatics without depriving the clergy of their offices, the Caecilianists seized this precedent as a justification for renewing their own program of accepting Donatist clergy into communion in their offices. This program was supported — in a halting and inconsistent manner — by the imperial government, and it culminated in the Conference of Carthage in 411.
The acceptance of schismatic clergy into communion in their offices, by both Donatists and Caecilianists, violated the principles of Cyprian’s theology. The practice was required of the Caecilianists as a condition of their communion with the Roman and other overseas churches; the Donatists adopted it as a means of healing an embarrassing conflict within their church. Justifications of this practice have been preserved in the writings of Optatus, Augustine, and the records of the councils of Caecilianist bishops. Donatist defenses of the acceptance of the Maximianist schismatics have not survived independently.469
In his response to Parmenian of Carthage, Optatus of Milevis had compared a cleric to a king, priest, or prophet; each was set apart under God’s protection. As a result, he argued, clerics must not be subjected to public penance; the attack on their sin would defile the ordination as well.470 Anyone who had already submitted to public penance was barred from being ordained.471 Clergy were like waiters at the banquet of Christ, dispensing a feast that they had not prepared.472
Augustine developed Optatus’s argument in his own response to the letter of Parmenian and subsequent works. Like baptism, ordination — the power to confer baptism and to celebrate the eucharist — was an enduring sacramental reality that a schismatic retained upon leaving and brought upon returning to the unity of the church.473 A schismatic cleric might be allowed or forbidden to exercise his office in unity, but in no case was the sacrament itself to be dishonored either by a new ordination or by the ritual of penance.474 Augustine then compared baptism and orders. Both derived their efficacy from the invocation of the divine name rather than the holiness of the minister. They differed in that orders were given for the salvation of others, while baptism was for the good of the individual. Thus, an ordained minister was to be allowed and required to exercise his office when that would contribute to the good of the faithful in the unity of the church; he was to refrain or to be suspended when it would not.475 To drive this point home, Augustine constructed an ironic illustration. A Donatist bishop might persuade a layperson to desert Catholic unity and join his schism. Later, this same bishop might lead his whole congregation into Catholic unity. After having been confirmed in his episcopal office by a Caecilianist bishop, the formerly Donatist bishop would then supervise the extended penance required for the readmission of the lay deserter and finally impose hands in forgiveness for the very sin he had provoked. The bishop originally baptized and ordained in schism could hold an office in Catholic unity in which the fallen layperson was barred from communion because of the desertion and until the penance was completed.476
Once the Caecilianist program of accepting Donatists had been in place for some years, Augustine responded to an objection that it was inconsistent. The practice of the church, at least since Cyprian’s time, had been to bar from the exercise of clerical office anyone who had been guilty of serious sin and was therefore subjected to the ritual of penance. The Caecilianists insisted that the Donatists were sinning seriously by maintaining their schism and rebaptizing converts. Yet the Caecilianists were willing to receive Donatist clerics into communion without the ritual of penance and then allow them to exercise their offices. The objector concluded that either the Donatists were not wrong to be in schism or the Caecilianists had no concern for the holiness of their clergy. In response, Augustine contended that the church’s power to forgive sins and, thus, to restore fallen clerics to their ministry never had been in doubt. The practice of removing clerics from office had been adopted to promote the humility of the sinner and prevent a false repentance motivated only by the desire to retain a position of honor. When the good of the church outweighed that of the individual penitent, however, this prohibition could and should be lifted. Thus, the Caecilianist bishops’ willingness to accept Donatist clergy showed the high value they were placing on the unity of the church and the salvation of the Donatist faithful through their reunion.477 A canon attributed to the Council of Hippo in 393 made much the same argument: hearing the prayers of the community united in peace and love, God would be merciful to the sins of clerics who had come to unity from schism.478
The Caecilianist program responded to the acute shortage of clergy to staff the Donatist churches coming into Catholic communion. Aurelius of Carthage gave this explanation when he urged his colleagues to disregard the reservations of the overseas bishops, who would not approve the African plan to accept Donatist clerics in their offices: “We can ignore no longer the daily groans of the congregations that are dying out. Unless we provide some aid to them soon, the grave and inexcusable complaint of these innumerable perishing souls will stand against us before God.”479 Aurelius unwittingly echoed the words of his predecessor, Cyprian. Acting as spokesman for the Council of Carthage in 253, he urged his colleagues to grant reconciliation to all penitents in anticipation of renewed persecution: the bishop who refused “would have to render on the day of judgment an account to the Lord for his unseasonable severity and his inhuman harshness.”480 As Cyprian developed a new theory of the purity of the church to meet the pastoral crisis of his day, Aurelius called for a new understanding of the efficacy and holiness of its ministers.
Augustine’s explanation of the sacrament of orders did not base the minister’s authority to perform the rituals on his holding a power of sanctification granted only to the clergy, as Cyprian’s explanation had done. Instead, he drew on Tertullian’s theory that the clergy were authorized to exercise a power that all faithful Christians shared. Unlike Tertullian, however, he and his colleagues affirmed the legitimacy and efficacy of the hierarchal structures that Cyprian’s theology had attempted to justify. Though bishops and other clergy might be chosen by the congregations they were to serve, they were installed in office by the other bishops who ordained a new bishop and then by the bishop who ordained the presbyters, deacons, and other clergy of the local church. Bishops placed the chosen candidate in his office, and only bishops could suspend or remove one of their number who subsequently proved unworthy. The authority of the bishop and his clergy to govern and sanctify was not, however, dependent upon their individual participation in the gifts that Christ had bestowed upon the Apostles in their role as the episcopal college. Instead, Augustine developed Optatus’s judgment that the bishops and their clergy acted as agents of Christ and his ecclesial body, dispensing goods that were not their own.
Augustine did recognize that Tertullian and Cyprian were right in insisting that Christ had conferred the power of sanctifying upon the church. In his theology of baptism, he specified that this power, identified with the Holy Spirit’s gift of charity, was held by the faithful within the unity of the church and exercised through their prayers. His theology of the episcopate generalized this explanation and applied it to the ministry of the clergy.
Augustine’s explanation of the sacrament of orders was constructed largely in response to the challenge of admitting Donatist clergy into the clergy of Caecilianist communion without re-ordaining them. It followed the general lines of his parallel explanation of the admission of Donatist laity into the Caecilianist congregations without their rebaptism. His theology of priesthood also was structured by the Donatist controversy and his explanation of the efficacy of the sacraments in conferring holiness.481
The successor to Donatus as Bishop of Carthage, Parmenian, had asserted that the bishop functions as a mediator between God and the Christian people.482 He faithfully followed the theology of Cyprian. Augustine responded that assigning the bishop this role would not only multiply mediators, but would displace Christ, contradicting the Pauline assertion in 1 Timothy (2:5) that Christ was the one mediator between God and humanity, between God and his own body, the church.483 All the members of Christ’s body were anointed at baptism to share in the priesthood of Christ, their head. The bishops might be called priests, but that title properly belonged to the whole body. The bishops bore it only as members among the faithful and presiders at their offering.484 Christ was the only priest; the church was priestly as the body of Christ; the ministers were priestly as members of that body; so bishops were called priests because they presided over the church.485
Augustine next observed that nowhere in the Old Testament did one find prayer offered for the priest; rather, the priest interceded for the people. This foreshadowing was fulfilled in Christ alone: he prayed for himself, but no one else prayed for Christ. Rather, Christ prayed and interceded for his people.486 The Christian people prayed for one another and for their clergy but not for Christ.487 The bishops of a church, it will be recalled, were specifically included in the prayers for the faithful departed during the eucharistic prayer.488 The anniversaries of their death were also listed in the calendar of the church of Carthage.489
This explanation of the priesthood of Christ and the church paralleled the explanation of the power of sanctification that Augustine had developed in his reflections on baptism. The sanctifying power belonged to Christ as God, and Christ exercised it.490 It was, however, shared with the saints who formed Christ’s true body on earth. Those clergy who were counted among the good shared this priesthood; they exercised it as members of the body, no differently than the laity.
Although Augustine carefully rejected Cyprian’s explanation of the sanctifying power of the bishop, he seems to have accepted his assertion of the role of the bishops in governing the church. As has been seen, Augustine was an instigator and close collaborator with Aurelius of Carthage in the reform of the African church through extensive disciplinary legislation, all of it enacted and enforced by episcopal councils. Like those of the third century, councils of African bishops in this period never doubted their own authority: they adopted a policy of admitting Donatist clergy to office in Catholic unity that the bishops of Rome and Milan refused to endorse. They challenged the rulings of the bishops of Palestine and Rome on the orthodoxy of Pelagius and his disciples, and they insisted on their right to discipline their clergy and colleagues — Apiarius and Antony — without the interference of bishops outside Africa.
Yet Augustine never attempted to justify the authority of these synods of bishops, as Cyprian did, by appealing to an episcopal college founded by Christ, from which the universal church derived and upon which it depended. Against the Manichees, Augustine did cite the continuous succession of bishops as effective witnesses to the text of scripture and its interpretation.491 Against the Donatists, he pointed to the churches founded and addressed by apostles, from whom the schismatics had broken and refused to recognize, even as they continued to read the letters addressed to them by the apostles.492 Yet he never even referred to a college of apostles or bishops.
Almost as an aside, in explicating Psalm 45:16 (“sons are born to you in place of your fathers”), Augustine commented on the status of the bishops. The Apostles who were originally sent by Christ as fathers to the churches were now gone. The church, as mother, had brought forth sons and established them as fathers — i.e., as bishops — to whom she had assigned the places the Apostles had occupied.493 Elsewhere, he noted that all these bishops were pastors in the same way that they were priests, as bodily members of the one pastor who is Christ.494 Augustine seems to have believed that the bishops, individually and corporately, derived their governing authority in the same way as their sanctifying power. In both baptizing and ordaining, the bishops exercised the power the church shared with Christ as his bride and body.
Augustine still had to reckon with the clergy’s success and failure in teaching and in preaching the gospel. There he applied the guidance of Jesus regarding the teaching role of the Scribes and Pharisees, who spoke the truth given to Moses (Matt. 23:2-3). God could use evil bishops to speak the truth of the gospel, even though they might fail to act upon it. Their teaching for earthly profit made them hirelings, but it did not vitiate the truth they spoke.495 Those who chose to follow their examples rather than their teachings were responsible for their own failure.496 Augustine occasionally recognized the limits of this explanation: some bishops did not preach the gospel but promised earthly rewards rather than warning of persecution.497 They claimed a divine authority for themselves, appropriating to themselves what belonged to Christ and his church.498
Despite Augustine’s attempts to limit the role of the clergy to governance rather than sanctification, and to teach both his congregation and his colleagues that the holiness of the church depended upon the whole body of the faithful, African Christians continued to treat their bishops as the bearers of a sacred power. Clerical titles (episcopus, diaconus, lector, etc.) were among the few regularly included in Christian burial inscriptions (cf. figs. 126, 129, 141, 143, 148).499 The apse (or counter-apse) of a basilica was not only the site of the bishop’s throne but possibly of his tomb as well (cf. fig. 76). Bishops and clergy were more likely than other faithful to be buried in the interior of an urban or cemetery church (e.g., fig. 117). The fifth-century bishop Reparatus was buried in the counter-apse of the basilica in which he served at Castellum Tingitanum. The mosaic covering his tomb depicts a triple arch and includes this epitaph: “Here rests our father of holy memory, Reparatus the bishop, who served as priest for eight years and eleven months and went ahead of us in peace on the eleventh day before the Kalends of August in the 436th year of the province” (fig. 34).500 That same church also had an inscription near the presbyterium, in the form of an acrostic naming a Bishop Marinus.501
In Tipasa, the remains of several bishops were placed beneath an elevated area within a funerary chapel and marked with a mosaic attesting to their “righteousness.”502 The late-fourth-century founder of the chapel, Bishop Alexander, was buried there also (figs. 109, 110). Although the fourth century produced some Donatist martyrs, and although the Vandal occupation in the fifth gave many Nicene Christians the opportunity to suffer for their faith, African Christians tended to look upon at least some of their bishops and clergy as unusually endowed with the gifts of the Spirit, which guaranteed the holiness of the church. In this sense, at least, Augustine’s understanding of the status and role of the clergy failed to influence the practice of the African church.
Augustine’s theology of priesthood and ministry employed a distinction between sanctifying power and governing authority. He identified the first as the Holy Spirit’s gift of charity, which was shared by all the faithful within Catholic unity. Similarly, the governing authority exercised by the bishops, both individually and corporately, was conferred upon them by the church in its identification with Christ. The clergy would share this power and authority if they were among the faithful and holy. Their authority to minister, the efficacy of their rituals, the power of their teaching, and the legitimacy of their governing did not depend upon their personal holiness. It was a delegation, by ordination, to act for the church in its identity with Christ; it was given and withdrawn, exercised and restricted for the good of the church itself rather than the individual minister.
The relative status of the bishop and presbyters is apparent in the placement of the synthronon, a semicircular bench attached to the main apse, with a place for the episcopal cathedra in its center (cf. fig. 52). The bishop’s elevated and central seat was, thus, one focus of the congregation during the liturgy, since he would ordinarily have sat there to deliver his homily, while the people stood in the nave of the basilica.
Their burials also indicate the high status of the clergy, as has been noted above. Such burial not only indicated their status within the congregation but also suggests that they were regarded as officers endowed with a certain sanctity. They were perhaps not entirely different from martyrs, whose remains might be interred in a repository under the altar or in a counter-apse. The evidence for honorific burial of bishops and other clergy is particularly rich. The burial of Reparatus in the basilica at Castellum Tingitanum and of the bishops of Tipasa in the cemetery church constructed by Alexander already have been noted. The cemetery church of Lepti Minus included an apse mosaic identifying two priests, Pascasius (fig. 126) and Januarius.503
The remains of the fifth-century bishop Jucundus, found after some searching by a successor bishop, Amacius, seem to have been buried in the baptistery annexed to the church of Bellator in Sufetula.504 Similarly, the tombs inserted throughout the church at Uppenna included bishops (Honorius and Baleriolus, fig. 117) as well as a presbyter and a deacon (Emeritus and Crescentius, fig. 148). In this place (a shrine basilica), Bishop Baleriolus’s tomb was given an honored position near the martyrs’ tomb; Honorius’s tomb mosaic may depict an episcopal stole in its upper band.505 Another Bishop Honorius appears to have been buried in the main nave of the Byzantine church just outside of Sufetula.506 The deacon Crescentinus was honored by burial just in front of the apse in the funerary chapel in Thabraca. His tomb mosaic indicates that he may have been deemed a saint (fig. 143).507 The early-sixth-century tomb of a certain Paulus, identified as the Primate of Mauretania, was inserted into the baptistery of the basilica at Sidi Abiche, near the coast in Byzacena (fig. 129).508 His honorific burial at such a great distance from his episcopal city clearly indicates his honored status.509
Some of the figures depicted on portrait-type tomb mosaics wear garb that may reflect clerical status. One such item is a white stole (orarium) with fringed ends (fig. 137). Such an item might have been worn by a bishop, or perhaps even a deacon.510 Others are wearing a cloak (paenula — perhaps the precursor of a chasuble) that could have alluded to some special status (figs. 134, 140), although in no instance are these items worn by individuals who are specially identified as clergy. One of Augustine’s sermons offers some evidence for special dress for clergy, and even distinctive garb for bishops, although he disapproved of the practice. He said that he wished to receive as gifts only clothing that he could share in common with his fellow monks and clergy (those who lived with him).511
Clergy were also honored by inscriptions on baptismal fonts. Vitalis and Cardela, a presbyter and his wife, are named in the “new cathedral” of Sufetula; they appear to have provided the font as a votive gift (fig. 72). Cyprian, “Bishop and High Priest,” is honored along with Adelphius, a priest in “unity with him,” in the inscription found on the Clipea baptistery (fig. 38). Victoricus, a subdeacon, seems the likely donor of the font at Oumcetren bearing his name.512
The title “senior” or “elder” appears rarely in these contexts. The name “Nardus Senior” occurs on a tomb mosaic from Pupput (Hammamet), but this is followed by two other names (Turassus and Restitutus), each identified by the contrasting “iunior.”513 One indication of a senior identified with the church at Carthage also attests not only his status but his membership in a designated group of elders.514
These tomb memorials provide an independent witness to the ranks of clergy and to the high status they enjoyed in the community.
The clergy were generally assigned two roles: governance and sanctification. Under the pressure of events, the understanding of the relationship between the authority to govern and the power to sanctify changed radically during the centuries this study considers. These changes resulted in the recognition that ordination, like baptism, effected a permanent change in the religious or ecclesial status of the clergy. Ordination began to be understood as a sacrament not unlike baptism.
This understanding of orders derived from and helped explain the acceptance of baptism performed outside the unity of the church. Later, it allowed clergy from schismatic communions to exercise their ministry in unity when this would promote the good of the church as a whole.
A third development, again under the pressure of events, was the use of episcopal synods to decide questions that were not clearly addressed in the scriptures and that affected more than an individual congregation. In the third century, councils changed the penitential discipline and shifted the principal eucharistic celebration from evening to morning.515 In the fifth, Augustine argued that Christ had left certain matters — the eucharistic fast — to be determined by the apostles and bishops.516 This involved an understanding of the episcopal college as having been established by Christ to govern the church as a whole. In developing this theory, Cyprian explained that individual bishops were responsible not only for their local congregations but, in cooperation with their colleagues, for the universal church.
The relationship between the governing authority of the bishop and his exercise of the church’s power to sanctify proved difficult to manage for African Christians. Tertullian explicitly separated them by insisting that all Christians participated in the holiness of the church and the power to communicate that holiness through the rituals of baptism and eucharist. He based the clergy’s supervision of the common life of the congregation and privilege of presiding at community rituals on the need for harmony and good order. Other Christians in Carthage at the beginning of the third century vigorously disputed Tertullian’s understanding of the status of the clergy. The bishop claimed to have received with his office the powers that Christ had conferred specifically upon Peter. The confessors and martyrs were credited by some Christians with the power of winning forgiveness for sins, and the devotees of the New Prophecy claimed that power for themselves, under condition that they not exercise it.
Cyprian was caught between two schisms, each of which denied the bishop’s exclusive access to the power of forgiving and sanctifying, as well as his right to govern the congregation. The laxist clergy relied on the power of the martyrs to forgive sins and maintain the church’s relationship with God, while the rigorists recognized only the power of Christ to deal with sins committed against God. In response, Cyprian assigned the two powers of sanctifying and governing to the bishops both as individuals and as a unified group. Their power was not dependent upon the consent of the laity, though it could be maintained only on the condition of their fidelity to Christ and adherence to the unity of the church. Thus, Cyprian argued that the authority of the bishop arose not from the need for good order in the congregation but from the power to sanctify, which had been conferred upon the Apostles as a body, and which was held and exercised by the members of the episcopal college. He thereby justified the hierarchical organization of local churches, the authority of the regional synods, and the consultation that had already begun to function among primate bishops throughout the world.
Cyprian’s theory failed, however, because it could not be put into practice in the crisis following the Diocletian persecution. Charges were brought that certain bishops had lost the power to sanctify and the authority to govern their congregations. Bishops who refused to repudiate and to break communion with them would share the sin they tolerated. These charges implied that the whole episcopate could be rendered sinful and impotent by an error in judging the guilt of some of its members. In reality, many of the charges of apostasy could not be judged with any certitude, at least not to the satisfaction of the opposing parties in the African church.
The overseas churches that were called upon to judge the African conflict asserted that the authority to act for Christ depended neither upon possessing the power to sanctify nor upon adherence to the unity of the church. Instead, it derived from the ritual of ordination itself, which authorized its recipient to act as Christ’s delegate and empowered him to authorize others to do the same. A bishop who had been ordained could ordain another, even if both minister and recipient were apostates or in schism against the unity of the church. If convicted on firm evidence of apostasy or some other sin, a bishop should be removed from office, but a schismatic could be invited to continue his ministry in the unity of the church. Ordination, then, began to be treated like baptism — as a ritual that established a lasting relationship to Christ and was never to be repeated or dishonored.
During the fourth century, the Caecilianists labored to defend and justify the decisions of the overseas churches, which had undercut Cyprian’s justification of clerical authority and sanctifying power. The Donatists, for their part, upheld Cyprian’s theology; but they found themselves forced to restrict the list of crimes that would deprive a bishop of the power to sanctify and thereby disqualify him for office. At the beginning of the fifth century, Augustine demonstrated that Cyprian’s theory was completely unworkable.
Augustine finally proposed a theology that would rationalize the practice of recognizing the efficacy of the ministry of bishops who were not endowed personally with the power to sanctify, as this was identified with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The power that Cyprian had assigned to the bishops was recognized as the endowment of the church as a whole or, more specifically, of the saints united by charity within it. This priestly power belonged to Christ and was shared by his body. The authority to govern the church and to exercise sanctifying power as agents of Christ and his church was shared by all bishops by virtue of the sacrament of orders. Outside the unity of the church, the clergy might receive and give the sacrament of orders, just as they did that of baptism. As separated from the body of Christ, however, they could exercise the power to sanctify only as agents of the faithful living in the unity of the church.
Cyprian and his colleagues had insisted that anyone who had attempted to exercise clerical office in opposition to the unity of the church could be allowed into their communion as a layperson, but only after sustained penance. Not only had they engaged in sacrilegious rites, but they were responsible for the damnation of all those whom they had led astray.517
In an attempt to heal the division in the African church after the Diocletian persecution, however, the Roman church offered to accept in his office any schismatic bishop who returned to unity. The African church continued this policy during the first half of the fourth century and revived it at the beginning of the fifth century, even against the advice of the Bishops of Rome and Milan. The unity of the church was so precious and the need for clergy so dire that former Donatists would be allowed and encouraged to continue their ministry in Catholic unity. They explained that the united prayers of the formerly divided Caecilianist and Donatist congregations would certainly win God’s forgiveness of their bishop’s sins, even of the crime of rebaptizing.
Here one finds an application of Augustine’s theory that the power of sanctification and authority to govern resided in the unity of the saints within the church rather than in the clerical office.
The system of episcopal governance in individual congregations required collaboration among the bishops. A congregation could choose — or assent to the choice of — a bishop only after his predecessor’s death; the candidate had to be approved and ordained by the bishops of neighboring congregations. The newly ordained leader then had to be recognized by the bishops of other churches, particularly those of the larger cities in the region.
The need for coordinated action by the bishops to solve disciplinary problems and to establish shared norms for governance is also evident, even in the first part of the third century. Bishops in Africa met to decide at least two disputed questions: they rejected baptisms performed by heretics outside their own communion, and they allowed the reconciliation of adulterers after sustained penance.
By the time the Decian persecution threw the church into turmoil, the bishops had developed systems of collaboration that they then employed to deal with the laxist schism, to establish policy for the penance and reconciliation of the lapsed, and to respond to the rigorist schism in Rome. As Bishop of Carthage, Cyprian regularly received questions about practice, so he could present them to his colleagues for judgment at their meetings. Some of these, such as the reconciliation of penitent apostates and the rebaptism of converts from heretical or schismatic communities, were not clearly settled by the scriptures. The bishops had to seek the guidance of the Spirit in deciding how to proceed.518
The actual practice of episcopal collaboration, along with the challenge of the establishment of a laxist episcopate, moved Cyprian to develop a formal theory of the episcopal college. As he explained it, Christ had selected the Apostles and endowed them with an indivisible power of sanctifying, which authorized them to govern the church as his agents. Individual bishops were responsible for their congregations, but they shared a responsibility for the church as a whole. Cyprian refused to recognize the authority of any one bishop over another, but he judged that an individual who rebelled against the consensus of his colleagues might alienate himself from their unity and lose participation in their power and authority. He believed that the Holy Spirit guided the deliberations of bishops and brought them to agreement on the right course of action.
During the third century, the bishops met in provincial and regional councils; they consulted with the churches in Rome and other major cities. A more general consultation became possible when Constantine employed the resources of the imperial government to deal first with the schism in Africa, at a council of western bishops in Arles, and then a universal council at Nicaea once he had become sole ruler of the empire. By the time Augustine considered the deliberative process of bishops in his treatise On Baptism in the early fifth century, the church had extensive experience in reaching — and failing to reach — agreement on doctrinal and disciplinary matters. Augustine explained that the church learns the truth of the gospel by experience. The scripture stands as the norm, but it is not always clear and evident. The judgments of individual bishops were confirmed or corrected by their colleagues, particularly by councils of bishops. Regional councils were reviewed by plenary ones; earlier councils were corrected by subsequent ones.519 The Donatists, for example, were wrong to hold to Cyprian’s teaching once it had been shown inadequate, once it had been reviewed and corrected by larger and later meetings of bishops. Cyprian, Augustine insisted, always had been prepared to be corrected by others.
Under the leadership of Aurelius, the Caecilianist bishops of Africa had organized themselves into provincial and regional groups that met regularly to deal with routine questions and could respond quickly and effectively to emergencies and opportunities. They developed an organized body of legislation to govern their churches. Their disciplinary procedures were specified in detail, along with provision for appeals. When one of their presbyters attempted to evade their courts by appealing directly to the Bishop of Rome, they politely but firmly declined outside intervention, demonstrated the inaccuracy of the Roman church’s copy of the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, and sent over a copy of their procedures, the likes of which have not survived for the Roman church.
The African church developed a theology that addressed the clergy in its twin roles of governance and sanctification, as Augustine indicated, through experience. Theories were proposed to justify practices already in place; these were modified when experience demonstrated them to be inoperable. Unlike the Donatists, the Caecilianists were able to adapt in the transition from being a church only tolerated to one supported by the imperial government. They could govern their own church without resort to imperial force and could exploit the opportunities that imperial protection provided them to re-establish unity.
1. Tert. Praescr. 41.8; Bapt. 17.1; Fug. 11.1; Mon. 11.1.
2. Tert. Praescr. 3.5.
3. Tert. Bapt. 17.1.
4. Tert. Cor. 3.3; Bapt. 17.2-3.
5. Tert. Pud. 14.16.
6. Tert. Pud. 18.18; see also Paen. 10.8 and Pud. 1.6; 13.7; 21.16-17.
7. Tert. Ieiun. 13.3.
8. Tert. Praescr. 32.1; Marc. 4.5.1-2.
9. Tert. Bapt. 17.1.
10. Tert. Apol. 39.5 (CCSL 1:150.19-20). In this section the general assembly of the congregation is being described, so that the term senior seems to refer to the clerical officer rather than, as often later, a lay leader, as might be expected when he comes to discuss the cena at Apol. 39.16.
11. Tert. Paen. 10.8.
12. Tert. An. 51.6 recounts the marvel of a holy widow’s dead hands moving from her sides up into the gesture of petition as soon as the presbyter began to pray.
13. Tertullian used a form of the same word, “praesidere,” for those who administered the eucharist as he did for the leaders of the community: Apol. 39.5; Cor. 3.3. In both cases, plural forms of the nouns and verbs are used, indicating that the roles were not restricted to the bishop.
14. Tert. Apol. 39.16-19.
15. Tert. Ieiun. 17.4.
16. In contrast to the heretics: Tert. Praescr. 41.8.
17. Tert. Praescr. 41.6.
18. Tert. Ieiun. 17.4, reported with disapproval.
19. Tert. Cast. 7.2-6; Mon. 11.1, 4; 12.1-2.
20. Tert. Praescr. 41.6, again by contrast to the heretics.
21. Tert. Pud. 7.15.
22. Tert. Idol. 11.8.
23. Tert. Praescr. 32.1; Marc. 4.5.1-2.
24. Tert. Bapt. 17.1-3. The text of Bapt. 17.3 is somewhat obscure. This interpretation follows Evans’s construal: see Tertullian: de Baptismo Liber, Homily on Baptism, ed. and trans. Ernest Evans (London: SPCK, 1964), 34-36. Cast. 7.3-6 is much clearer: the laity must follow priestly discipline because they must perform priestly functions when necessary. For the restriction of communal performance, see also Praescr. 41.8.
25. Tert. Virg. 9.1.
26. Tert. Mon. 12.2.
27. Tert. Pud. 21.16-17; 22.
28. Tert. Cast. 7.6; Mon. 11.4, 12.1.
29. Tert. Cast. 7.5-6.
30. Tert. Pud. 21.9.
31. Tert. Spec. 29.3; Idol. 11.8; Praescr. 41.5.
32. Tert. Spec. 29.3; Praescr. 41.5.
33. Tert. Praescr. 41.5 — as he did himself. He also mentioned the doctores in Praescr. 3.5.
34. Tert. Praescr. 41.8 contrasts the presbyter and the reader in a series in which at least one if not both of the other members express a contrast between clergy and laity.
35. Tert. Spec. 29.3, by contrast with Praescr. 41.5, where he failed to object to women in heretical communions seeking revelations. As an adherent of the New Prophecy, he did recognize the revelations given to female prophets in his own community: An. 9.4; Virg. 17.3.
36. Tert. Praescr. 3.2; Mon. 11.1; Pud. 13.7.
37. The term is used broadly in Ad martyras, and especially in Pud. 22.1-2.
38. Tert. Val. 4.1. Trad. apos. 10 would assert that all who confessed Christ thereby attained clerical status and need not even be ordained; see The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr [Apostolikē Paradosis], trans. Gregory Dix (London: SPCK, 1937), 39-40. Alistair Steward-Sykes interprets this presbyterate as an honor rather than an office in his translation and commentary: Hippolytus: On the Apostolic Tradition, trans. Alistair Stewart-Sykes (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 92-93.
39. Tert. Mart. 1.3, 6.
40. Tert. Pud. 22.
41. See the discussion of the conflict between bishops and martyrs in the time of Cyprian, pp. 324-26.
42. Dennis Groh, “Utterance and Exegesis: Biblical Interpretation in the Montanist Crisis,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders, ed. Robert Jewett and Dennis Groh (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985), 73-95.
43. Thus Tert. An. 9.4 and Virg. 17.3. See William Tabbernee, “To Pardon or Not to Pardon? North African Montanism and the Forgiveness of Sins,” in Studia Patristica, ed. Maurice Frank Wiles, Edward Yarnold, and Paul M. Parvis (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 36:379-81.
44. Thus in the defense of the rule of monogamy, Tert. Mon. 2.2-4.
45. The statement in Tert. Apol. 39.5 may simply refer to the clergy: Praesident probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti, neque enim pretio ulla res Dei constat (CCSL 1:150.19-21). See the discussion of Brent D. Shaw, “ ‘Elders’ in Christian Africa,” in Mélanges offerts en hommage au Révérend Père Étienne Gareau, Cahiers des études anciennes 14 (1982):207-26 (Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa, 1982), 209, and in n. 10 above.
46. Tert. An. 9.4; Virg. 17.3. See the discussion in Tabbernee, “To Pardon or Not to Pardon?,” 380-81.
47. Pas. Perp. 12.4. The parallel to Rev. 4:8 is not exact. See the analysis in Shaw, “ ‘Elders’ in Christian Africa,” 209-10.
48. Cypr. Ep. 8.1.1; 9.1.1 both refer to the same Crementius, who may have been a member of the Roman clergy.
49. Thus Optatus (Ep. 29.1.2; 35.1.1); Fortunatus (Ep. 36.1.1); Mettius (Ep. 45.4.3; 47.1.2); and Herennianus, who headed the mission to the confessors in the mines (Ep. 77.3.2; 78.1.1; 79.1.1). Philumenus and a second Fortunatus fled during the Decian persecution (Ep. 34.4.1).
50. Cypr. Ep. 34.4.2, referring to two subdeacons. The payment may have been in kind rather than in coin.
51. Neciphorus carried a letter to Rome and brought Cornelius’s response (Cypr. Ep. 45.4.3; 47.1.2; 49.3.1; 52.1.1).
52. Cypr. Ep. 7.2.
53. Cypr. Ep. 77.3.2; 78.1.1; 79.1.1.
54. Narcius (Ep. 7.2); Neciphorus (Ep. 45.4.3; 49.3.1; 52.1.1); Lucanus, Maximus, and Amantius (Ep. 77.3.2; 78.1.1; 79.1.1; Amantius is omitted). The acolyte Favorinus fled during the persecution and was suspended from office (Ep. 34.4.1).
55. Cypr. Ep. 34.4.1.
56. Cypr. Ep. 39.4.1-2, 5.2.
57. This had been the role of Optatus, who was subsequently made a subdeacon (Cypr. Ep. 29.1.2).
58. Acta apud Zenophilum as Appendix 1 of Optat. Parm. (CSEL 26:186.21-31).
59. Cypr. Ep. 29.1.2. His discharging this responsibility is attested in Ep. 35.1.1. He may be identical with the Satyrus who was named as a lector and letter carrier in Ep. 32.1.2.
60. Cypr. Ep. 39.5.2. These two were not old enough to be made presbyters, though they were honored with the stipend appropriate for presbyters rather than of lectors (if lectors were salaried).
61. Optatus had been a lector before being made a subdeacon (Cypr. Ep. 29.1.2). The deacon Victor had been a lector (Ep. 13.7). The two confessors, Aurelius and Celerinus, were ordained lectors and destined to be presbyters (Ep. 38; 39). Reading and writing (by taking dictation) were valuable professional skills distinct from the literary education that only the wealthy received.
62. Cypr. Ep. 23.
63. Cypr. Ep. 69.15.2.
64. Cypr. Ep. 8.3.2.
65. Cypr. Ep. 12.2.1; he advised Cyprian to remain in exile (Ep. 14.1.2).
66. Cypr. Ep. 5; 7; 11; 12; 14; 15; 16; 18; 19; 26; 29; to Rome: Ep. 9; 20; 27; 25; 35.
67. Cypr. Laps. 25.
68. Cypr. Ep. 5.2.2.
69. Victor (Cypr. Ep. 5.2.2; 13.7). He sent 175 sesterces to supplement the 250 sesterces sent by Cyprian himself for the support of the confessors. He had been a lector.
70. Thus Gaius Didensis and his deacon are excommunicated (Cypr. Ep. 34.1). One of the offenses of Novatus was in taking Felicissimus to be his deacon — or perhaps in making Felicissimus a deacon — but in any case the two were closely associated (Ep. 52.2.3).
71. Cypr. Ep. 18.1.2, 2.2.
72. Cypr. Ep. 15.1.2.
73. Cypr. Ep. 41.2.1; 42.
74. Rogatianus was charged with a long journey to win the support of Firmilian of Caesarea during the controversy over the rebaptism of schismatics (Cypr. Ep. 75.1.1).
75. Augendus was also a leader in the schism (Cypr. Ep. 41.2.1-3; 42).
76. Cypr. Ep. 59.1.1.
77. Cypr. Ep. 39.5.2.
78. The presbyteral stipend was assigned to the readers who had been confessors (Cypr. Ep. 39.5.2). Cyprian himself, it may be presumed, was supported by his own funds, which he dispensed generously for the support of the community during the persecution.
79. Novatus was charged with causing his wife’s miscarriage (Cypr. Ep. 52.2.5). Numidicus was rescued by his adult daughter after his wife had been burned to death and he left for dead (Ep. 40.1). Cyprian himself was unmarried and had served as a presbyter (Pontius, Vita Cypr. 2-3); so also did Cornelius of Rome, who had gone through every grade of the clergy before being made bishop (Ep. 55.8.2-3).
80. Cyprian referred to the consessus (Ep. 39.5.2; 40.1; 45.2.5) and to the congestus of the clergy (Ep. 59.18.1).
81. Albano Vilela pointed out that the term celebrare, which would indicate the solemn ritual of the whole community, was used only for the bishop: Cypr. Laps. 26; Ep. 39.3.1; 57.3.2; 63.16.1-2. Offerre was used for the bishop as well (Ep. 39.3.1; 63.17.1-2; 73.9.2). The term offerre was used for presbyters serving the confessors in prison (Ep. 5.2.1), but thereafter only in the context of their unauthorized serving of the lapsed (Ep. 15.1.2; 16.2.3, 4.2; 17.2.1, 4.2; 34.1; 68.2.1). It was used for bishops and presbyters acting in schism: Ep. 67.6.3; 68.2.1; 69.8.3; 72.2.1; 73.2.3. See Albano Vilela, La condition collégiale des prêtres au IIIe siècle (Paris: Beauchesne, 1971), 321-22.
82. In Ep. 16.4.2, Cyprian threatened to prohibit the presbyters who were communicating with the lapsed from offering the eucharist.
83. The reading of “in monte” in Ep. 41.2.1 (CCSL 3B:197.34) may indicate a separate community on the Byrsa. In any case, the facility with which the laxists set up a separate communion in the city indicates that the church used multiple locations for some of its worship. Ep. 63.16.1 implies that the evening meal celebrations were held with portions of the community.
84. Cypr. Ep. 5.2.1.
85. Cypr. Ep. 18.1.2, 2.2; 19.2.1.
86. Cypr. Ep. 29.1.2; 73.3.2.
87. While Cyprian sent them explicit instructions, he was dependent upon their discretion in carrying them out. Eventually he decided to place a commission of exiled bishops and local presbyters in charge of the church (Ep. 41).
88. Some of their correspondence with the church in Carthage and with Cyprian survives (Ep. 8; 30; 36).
89. The relationship began badly (Cypr. Ep. 8-9) but was soon functioning smoothly (Ep. 20; 27; 35).
90. Thus Primitivus in Cypr. Ep. 44.2.2.
91. During the persecution, Donatus, Fortunatus, Novatus, and Gordius were already admitting the lapsed back into communion. The four wrote to Cyprian about the matter (Ep. 14.4); but it is clear that they were already giving communion to the fallen (Ep. 15.1.2; 16.1.2; 17.2.1). Gaius Didensis, who may have been a refugee from elsewhere, was later excommunicated (Ep. 34.1).
92. Sergius and Rogatianus were confessors early in the persecution and addressed in Cypr. Ep. 6. Rogatianus was subsequently entrusted with funds for support of the refugees and the poor (Ep. 7.2). Virtius was steadfast in his loyalty (Ep. 43.1.1). Primitivus was entrusted with a delicate mission to Cornelius in Rome immediately after Cyprian’s return from exile, though his name did not appear earlier in the surviving documents (Ep. 44.2.2).
93. Cypr. Ep. 14.1.1; 40.2.
94. Numidicus seems to have been serving in another church and was added to the presbyterate of Carthage after he survived a mob attack during the persecution itself (Cypr. Ep. 40).