Printed by Hassall & Lucking Ltd, Cross Street Long Eaton. Nottingham, NG10 1HO

IN T lE

£1050

By

PAUL BRADSHAW

EARLY CHURCH

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY99VM011291~lllllllill~IIII~llllillill~1

ISBN 0 907536 60 3ISSN 0306-0608

THE LITURGY AND MUSIC: A Study of the UTraditions by Robin A. LeaverWHAT DIDCRANMER THINK HE WAS DOHIPPOLYTUS: A Text for students with tra.by Geoffrey J. CumingLAY PRESIDENCY AT THE EUCHARIST? Edited by Trevor L10ydGREGORY DIX-TWENTY-FIVE YEARS ON by Kenneth StevensonUSING THE BIBLE IN WORSHIP Edited by Christopher ByworthWORSHIP IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by C. F. D. Moule (£3)THE END OF THE OFFERTORY: An Anglican Study by Colin BuchananESSAYS ON HIPPOLYTUS Edited by Geoffrey CumingLITURGY AND SYMBOLISM by Nicholas SagovskyAUTHORITY AND FREEDOM IN THEUTURGYEdited by Kenneth StevensonCHARLES SIMEON. PREACHER EXTRAORDINARYby Hugh Evan HopkinsEUCHARISTIC OFFERING IN THE EARLY CHURCHby Richard P. C. Hanson (28 pages)THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW EUCHARISTIC PRAYERS OF THE CHURCHOF ENGLAND Edited by Colin BuchananTHE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC WORSHIPWith an introduction by lan BrewardE. C. RATCLlFF: REFLECTIONS ON LITURGICAL REVISIONEdited by David H. TrippSYMBOLISM AND THE LITURGY (i) Edited by Kenneth StevensonADDAI AND MARI-THE ANAPHORA OF THE APOSTLES: A TEXT FORSTUDENTS Edited by Bryan SpinksMAKING THE LITURGICAL PSALTER by David FrostSYMBOLISM AND THE LITURGY (ii) Edited by Kenneth StevensonINFANT COMMUNION-THEN AND NOW by David HoletonHE GAVE THANKS: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYERby Geoffrey CumingTHE LITURGICAL PORTIONS OF THE DIDASCALlAEdited by Sebastian Brock and Michael VaseyLUTHER'S LITURGICAL CRITERIA AND HIS REFORM OF THE CANON OF THEMASS by Bryan SpinksEUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE-THE ROOTS OF A METAPHORby Rowan WilliamsWHOSE OFFICE? DAILY PRAYER FOR THE PEOPLE OF GODby David Cutts and Harold MillerANGLD-CATHOLlC WORSHIP: An Evangelical Appreciation after 150 yearsEdited by Colin BuchananEUCHARISTIC LITURGIES OF EDWARD VI: A Text for StudentsEdited by Colin BuchananBACKGROUND DOCUMENTS ON LITURGICAL REVISION 1547-1549Edited by Colin BuchananLITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCHby Paul Bradshaw (28 pages)WHY LITURGICAL WORSHIP AT ALL?by Michael Sansom (March 1984)

6

37

36

30

31

32

33

34

35

18

19

20

21

22

2324

·7·8

./ 25V 26

271/ 28

J 29

GROVE BOOKS

BRAMCOTE NOTTS. NG9 3DS (0602-251114

91011

·12/1314151617

GROVE LITURGICAL STUDIES (32 or 40 pages-pricebegan in March 1975, and is published quarterly. Nos. 1designed to be weightier, whilst still within the range of intEAsterisked numbers have been reprinted.

IVI.ENIGliEfSFAI(ULTEI'ETSBIBLIOTEK

•Liturgical Presidency

in theEarly Church

by

Vice-Principal of Ripon College, Cuddesdon, Oxford

Member of the Church of England Liturgical Commission

BRAMCOTE

GROVE BOOKS

NOTTS. NG93DS

•1. THE JEWISH BACKGROUND

This study is a revised and expanded version of a paper with the sametitle originally presented to the Society for Liturgical Study at itsmeeting in Cambridge in April 1983.

First Impression December 1983

AUTHOR'S NOTE

1 See J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (SCM, London, 1969) pp.198-207.2 Ta'an. 4.2, in H. Danby, The Mishnah (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1933) p.794.3 Babylonian Talmud, Ber. 46a.4 See 1 OS 6.4-6; OSa 2.17-21; Josephus, Jewish War 2.131.

3

First-century Judaism appears to have known a number of differentforms of what might be described as liturgical presidency. First of all,there was that exercised in the temple cult by the priesthood. This wasa professional (and hereditary) group whose principal function had bythis time become the offering of sacrifice of behalf of the nation,though even this was not a full-time occupation. The priests and leviteswere divided into twenty-four clans or courses, each consisting of anaverage of 300 priests and 400 levites. The courses came up toJerusalem in turn to perform one week of service in the temple fromsabbath to sabbath, and lived at home in their towns and villages forthe rest of the year, where only very rarely did they exercise any priestlyfunction, such a declaring a leper clean after he had been healed (seeMatt. 8.4; Luke 17.14). They received various tithes and taxes, but thiswas not sufficient to keep them throughout the year, and they wereobliged to undertake other work to supplement their income. 1

The only real way in which others might associate themselves withtheir liturgical functions was through the institution of the ma'amadothor 'standing-posts', groups of pious laymen attached to each of thetwenty-four courses. As each course came up to Jerusalem to fulfil itsweek of duty, part of the corresponding ma'amad accompanied it andwas present at the daily sacrifices in order to represent the people as awhole, and part of the group remained behind in the town or villageand came together at the times of the sacrifices, when they read theaccount of creation in Genesis and prayed, thus associating themselveswith the offering at a distance.2

Outside the temple cult, however, things were very different, and theordinary lay person had considerable opportunities for activeparticipation in liturgical ministry. In domestic liturgical practice it wasthe prerogative of the head of the household, the host, or the seniorperson present if it were a gathering of friends or colleagues, to presideat a communal meal and to pronounce the appropriate blessings overthe food and drink in the name of all, though some Rabbis taught thathe might invite an honoured guest to say the grace at the end of themeal instead, so that he could include within it a prayer for the hosthimself: 'may it be God's will that our host should never be ashamed inthis world nor disgraced in the next world.'3 Thus presidency here wasdetermined entirely on the basis of status within the community, andso, for example, among the Essenes at Qumran the priests presidedover the communal meals not because of their priestly role but becausethey were the leaders of that community.4

Finally, there was the synagogue, and here there were a number ofdifferent roles which should be carefully distinguished from oneanother.

9

15

21

25

Page3

6

/1f

CONTENTS

ISSN 0306-0608

ISBN 0 907536 60 3

Copyright Paul Bradshaw 1983

• ~' .•~:",~I,~·q~::~.~;"-""":·":~"~ '''t.··,,\,.~,· • , '., '~".'.: ,,-.:PostsCript , , , . . 28

The Clericali~atiorl, pLLitu{giGqJI·fl,lnxtip.f1~· 'n':'!"'r,''''" '....: lVdJ'!!CITll' ,')hl!,\.ULIL ..... 1,) ,

From Corporate to Individuahrms"iR~t'ftK"""""""

The Delegati6n of Presidency , . , .

From Charism t6~'·Office , , , .;'~, , " .-: . :i..: . "

The Jewish Background .

Christian Origins ,., , , .

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

Firstly, ultimate control over the synagogue and its members restedwith a body of elders, but they had no specific liturgical responsibility,and thus the influence which they exercised on its worship wasessentially indirect, perhaps somewhat analogous to that of a ParochialChurch Council in the Church of England.

Secondly, there was the hazzan or 'attendant', mentioned in Luke 4.20.He was a paid official who had care of the synagogue building and itsfurnishings, and especially the scrolls. He also announced from thesynagogue roofthe beginning of the sabbath and of festivals, and oftenacted as schoolmaster (though this was not an essential part of hisduties), as well as serving as the officer of the synagogue court for theadministration of punishment, especially carrying out the sentence ofscourging. There might thus be thought to be some parallels betweenhis role and that of the deacon in the early church, or of a verger in thepresent-day church, but in no sense did he exercise anything whichcould be called 'presidency'.

Thirdly, there was the archisunagogos or 'ruler of the synagogue'(mentioned in Luke 8.41, 49; 13.14; Acts 13.15), apparently a kind ofpermanent superintendent, though precise details of the appointmentare not clear. Some scholars have described him as the chief of theelders of the synagogue, while others have argued that his office wasquite different from theirs. Some believe that he was elected for alimited period, perhaps a year, others that the office was hereditary.The suggestion has also been made that there might have been morethan one such person in each synagogue, and even that the officecould have been held by women. 1

The primary responsibility of the archisunagogos was the maintenanceof order and the supervision of the conduct of worship. It is vital torecognize, however, a distinction between, on the one hand,presidency proper, in the sense of oversight and direction of thesynagogue's liturgy, and, on the other hand, the actual leading of theworship itself. The archisynagogos had the duty of inviting others toofficiate in the various parts of the service-to lead the congregation inprayer, to read the Scriptures, and to deliver an exposition or homily.He therefore exercised control over the synagogue service, in effectacting as chairman or' compere' of the proceedings, and in that sensemay rightly be described as its liturgical president, but it must bestressed that he did not have any other liturgical functions which werehis exclusive prerogative: in New Testament times the reading of theScriptures and the delivery of an address could be, and were,performed by any competent person present at the invitation of thearchisunagogos, and were not limited to an ordained or permanentclergy, for the synagogue was essentially a lay movement in Judaism.According to the M ishnah (Yoma 7.1; Sotah 7.7), when the time camein the service for the reading of the Scriptures, the scroll was handed to

1 See for example H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel (SPCK, London, 1967)p.232; Bernadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (BrownJudaic Studies 36, Scholars Press, Chico, California, 1982).

4

THE JEWISH BACKGROUND

the archisunagogos by the hazzan, and he then handed it to the personwho was to read. It was precisely this role which we hear of Jesushimself performing at the synagogue in Nazareth when the book ofIsaiah was given to him and he read from it; he then handed it back tothe hazzan and expounded its fulfilment in himself (Luke 4.16-20).Furth~rm.ore, in Acts 13: 15 the archisunagogoi (note the unusual pluralhere) invited Paul and SlIas to address the assembly after the reading ofthe law and the prophets.

Similarly, no special qualifications were required at this time forsomeo~e to be invited by the archisunagogos to function as the prayer­leader In the synagogue service, or sheliach tzibbur, 'the messenger ofthe people', as it was called: his intercession was not considered aseffective because of any personal piety, but because he was acting asthe spokesman of the community, and God would listen to himbecause God was committed to his covenant with Israel. 1 In no sense,therefore, was such a person set over against the rest of thec~nwegation, but was seen as a part of it, exercising a liturgical~InIStry on behalf of all from within the community and not from aboveIt.

At this period the precise wording of the prayers to be said in thesynagogue service had not been definitively fixed, as it was to be later,and ~he prayer-leader was free either to compose his own formulation,provided t~at he adhered to the traditional themes and objects ofprayer, or, If he were unable to do this, to recite one of the commonversions which he had heard used by others.2 However, he was notpermitted to use any prayer-formula which addressed the congregationin the 'you' style, since anyone who employed such a formula waseffectively setting himself apart from the rest of the congregation. Toqllot~ that noted Jewish liturgical scholar Joseph Heinemann,

the prayer-leader of the synagogue is not an officiating" minister"apart from the people and elevated above them. He is rather their"emissary" ... and for this reason he is obliged to refrain from anyexpression which would be interpreted as if he were disassociat­ing himself from the congregation:3

In later centuries, however, desirable characteristics for a sheliachtzibbur began to be defined, and eligibility for the role became muchmore restricted, until it tended in most instances to be taken over bythe hazz(Jn. 4

1 See G. BI!dstein, 'Sheliach Tzibbur. Historical and Phenomenological Observations' inTradItIon 14 (1971) p. 71. I am greatly indebted to Edward Foley's excellent article,'The Cantor in Historical Perspective' in Worship 56 (1982) pp.194-213, for thisreference.

~ S~e Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud (De Gruyter, Berlin, 1977) p.51.IbId., p.105.

4 See Foley, op. cit., pp.198-200.

5

2. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

Although New Testament evidence is notoriously scanty, one. m~ysurely presume that the Jewish pattern of volunteer. leadersh.IP. Inworship would have been continued by. ~he earll~st Ch.ns.tlancommunities. Not only would it have been. familiar .to Jewish Christiansfrom their past, but participation in wor~hlp by van.o~s members of ~hecongregations was entirely in accord with the ~hnstla.n understandingof ministry especially as delineated in the Paullne ~plstles, where t.he

rinciple i~ affirmed that everything is to be done In accordance withfhe individual gifts which each ha~ r~ceived from God t~rou\lh the HolySpirit. The locus classicus for this IS, of cour~e, 1 COrl.nthlans 12.4f.,where Paul states that there are vari~ti~s of gifts. (cha~/sma~a), but allderiving from one Spirit; there are varieties of service (dlakomal), ~ut allderiving from the service of the one Lord; and there ar~ vanetles ofactivities (energemata), but all deriving fror:n one God. It IS, mor~o".er,supported by such evidence as we ~av~ with regard. to e.arly Christianpractice, and especially by 1 Connthlans 14, which. Ind.lcates theinvolvement of different people in making various contnbutlons to thecommunity's worship:

'when you come together, each one has a hymn,. a lesson, arevelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be donefor edification. If any speak in a tongue, let. there be only.two or ~tmost three, and each in turn; and let one Int~rpret. .But If there ISno one to interpret, let each of them keep Silence In church andspeak to himself and to God. ~et t~o or three prop.hets. speak, andlet the others weigh what IS said. If a revelation IS made toanother sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesyone by one, so that all may learn and all be encou~aged; and thespirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God IS not a God ofconfusion but of peace.' (1 Cor. 14.26-33).

Similarly in verse 16 of the same chapter Paul is c:ritical of those in thecommunity who pray in tongues, and expresses his own preference forprayer in intelligible speech; and once again the context suggests ~hatthe remarks are addressed to the congregation as a whole and !lot Justto a clearly defined class of 'mi~isters' W~? were responsible forleading the prayers: 'if you bless with the SPirit, how can anyone whooccupies the place of an ordinary person say the Ame.n t? yourthanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saYing?

We may surely also presume that the Christian commu.nity-Ie~d.erstookover a role analogous to that of the archisunagogos In presldln~ overthe liturgical assembly and attempting to co-ordinate the. diversecontributions made by members of the congregation. The testimony of1 Corinthians 11 and 14 suggests that their task was not alw~ys easyand that they sometimes failed to keep contro~ o~er the excitement,enthusiasm or just plain selfishness of those Wishing to take part.. Onthe other h~nd, it should be noted that, at least in Paul's understand.lng,the primary responsibility for disc~rning w~o poss~sse~ the vanousgifts of the Spirit and might exercise them In the liturgical assembly

6

CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

appears to have rested with the Christian community as a whole ratherthan with a.ny.individual leaders. 1 The latter's function was presumably,therefore, limited to enabling the congregation to arrive at a commonmind and then putting its resolution into effect. If we may borrow ajudicial metaphor at this point, the whole community acted as' jury', theleaders merely as 'judge'.

As is well known, the New Testament evidence with regard to suchcommunity-leaders is extremely sparse. Indeed, there are those whowould doubt the existence of any permanent leaders at all in theearliest Christian communities. Attractive though this idea may be, itdoes not do justice to the New Testament data2, but it does offer aproper caution against assuming too readily that there was a formalappointment of leaders everywhere from the first. It is possible that inso~e places, following the Jewish model. elders (presbyterOl) wereassigned to. take responsibility for the community from early times.Edward Schlllebeeckx, for example, has argued that the statement inActs 1~.23, that Paul and Barnabas appointed presbyters in everychurch In Lycaonia and Phrygia, is historically reliable. 3 On the otherhand, in other places there seems rather to have been the naturalassumption of the position of responsibility, without any formalordination or appointment procedure, by those who had founded theparti?ular Christian community there, or who displayed what wereconSidered to be appropriate gifts of leadership. For, as James Dunnhas . clai~e~, 'authority in the primitive Church was primarilychansmatlc In nature.'4 From the various titles which are used of those~pparentlyoccupying such positions, especially 'prophet' and 'teacher',It would seem that a major element in the gifts they were expected tohave was the ability to 'speak the word of God' in some form, whichwould be entirely natural in a movement with its foundation so firmlyrooted in response to the word of God. We may reasonably suppose,therefore, that they themselves would have taken a prominent part inthe ~itur\lical ministry of the word as well as overseeing thecontributions to the worship made by other members of thecommunity.

What, however, of the community's eucharistic meals? Who wasresponsible for saying the blessing over the bread and wine at these?Was this a function which any member of the congregation mightundertake, or was it permanently invested in one individual? The NewT.estament of course does not tell us, and whilst arguments fromsilence are often dangerous, surely its silence on this point may be~aken ~s stro~g evidence that there was no ministry which had this asItS main function: no one was ordained or appointed to an office which

1 See for example 1 Thess. 5.19f.; cf. James D. G. Dunn. Jesus and the Spirit (SCM,London. 1975) pp.291 ff. .

2 " " ,',See for example the arguments for th'e' existence of Someone in c,~arge of worship in

the New Testament churches plJt forward by Colin Buchanan. Leadin!'F Worship '"(Grove Worship Series No. 76. 1981) pp.4-6.

: Edward Schillebeeckx, Ministry: a Case fWtI!iN!JfJ:~~M,'"J.~,',•. 0r.~~~8~),~~p.14-15.Dunn. op. Clt.• p.182. '. . LL.f /;I\.ULJETI.

~ 7 BLBLIOTEi('~

8

1 See Bernard Cooke. Ministry to Word and Sacraments (Fortress Press; Philadephia,1976) pp.529-30; H.- M. Legrand, 'The Presidency of the Eucharist According tothe Ancient Tradition' in Worship 53 (1979) pp.414-16.

consisted primarily of saying the eucharistic prayer, but whoever said itdid so as the natural expression of what they already were within thecommunity. We should not. I believe, be tempted to argue from theapparent continuation of the sheliach tzibbur in Christian worship anda general participation in prayer-leadership that it necessarily followsthat anyone from the congregation might have been called upon tofulfil this function. We must remember that the two things derive fromquite separate traditions within Judaism, the voluntary participationfrom the synagogue service and the saying of meal-blessings from thedomestic situation, where there is certainly no indication that thesaying of grace was performed in rotation by different members of afamily. Thus because of their status within the community we shouldnaturally expect the leaders to have assumed this function. Moreover,since the eucharistic prayer had to be improvised and essentiallyinvolved the recounting of the mighty acts of God, it is again natural tosuppose that it would have fallen to someone with the gift ofproclamation. Therefore on the grounds not only of status within thecommunity but also of charism, one of the leaders would have been theobvious person to have presided at the eucharistic assembly.1

•3. FROM CHARISM TO OFFICE

9

As time went on, however, and the original founders and leaders of acommunity died, it would presumably not always be clear who shouldsucceed to the position of leadership and more necessary for there tobe s.ome reco~nized appointment procedure, especially when thepossible candidates were not so unmistakeably endowed withcharismata as the previous leaders had been. This would account forthe apparent widespread adoption of a more formal structure ofleadership and ordination in the church around the end of the firstcentury. Within this gradual process it seems possible to detect at leastthree different stages.

(a) Office as substitute for charismThis seems to be the situation reflected in the Didache a documentwhich has been variously dated by scholars anywhere between the firstand the third centuries, though recent opinion tends to place it earlierra~h.er than later. 1 It appears to presuppose a background in which theministry of those called 'apostles', 'prophets', and 'teachers' was stillknown,. and it explicitly states that the prophets may give thanks at theeuchanst and, as we would expect, be free to use their own words forthis (10.7). It implies, however, that such ministers would have beenitinerant more often than resident at this period, and so it instructs itsreaders to provide more permanent substitutes for them (15.1-2):

.Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of theLord, ~en meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for theytoo minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers.Therefore do not despise them, for they are those who are to behonoured by you with the prophets and teachers:

These efforts to persuade the congregation that status should beaccorded to the episcopoi and diaconoi equal to that already given tothe prophets and teachers suggest that the former are a recentinnovation, at least in this particular ecclesiastical situation, and thatthere was _a not unnatural reluctance on the part of Christians to acceptthem as the equals of the more obviously gifted leaders they hadknown previously, and a tendency to prefer someone able todemonstrate more evident liturgical skills as their president

This perhaps provides a clue as to why the Didache includes within itcerta.in written prayer-forms (chs. 9-10). There has again been aconSiderable scholarly debate as to whether these were intended for aeucharist, an agape, or a eucharist-agape2, but whatever conclusionsare reach~d on that question, what is most interesting for our presentpurpos~ IS .that the prayers were written down at all, somethingoth~rwlse .vlrtually unknown in the early Christian period, and indeedforbidden In the early Jewish tradition.3 The prayers were doubtless tobe used by the newly emerging episcopoi (though this is not explicitly

1 See for example Willy Rordorf in The Eucharist of the Early Christians (Pueblo, NewYork, 1978) pp.1-2.

2 Ibid.. pp.3-9.3 Babylonian Talmud. Shabbath 115b.

•LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

stated), and hence it may well be that the unusual step of providing awritten prayer-text was taken by the author in order to help preventthem from appearing quite as liturgically incompetent, in comparisonwith those leaders possessing the charism of propheteia, as they mightotherwise have done if they had been required to extemporize prayer.

(b) Office as bestowing charismIt is not really surprising that such formally appointed community­leaders were not generally content with a second-class status andbegan to claim endowment, through their appointment to office, withthe same charismata which their predecessors had possessed, andwith the right to exercise the same liturgical functions within thecongregation, not merely the presidency of the assembly and theimprovisation of the eucharistic prayer, but also a major responsibilityfor the teaching of the community. Indeed, their adoption of this latterfunction was almost ineVitable. Not only would their 'charismatic'predecessors have made a considerable contribution to the ministry ofthe word, and the ordained ministers would not have wanted to beoutdone by them, but it was, as Bernard Cooke has said,

'a logical implication of their role in the community. It would bequite difficult to envisage a situation in which responsibility forthe well-being of a faith community and leadership in thatcommunity would not include some form of teaching.'l

This movement can be seen in the Pastoral Epistles where, forexample, Timothy is said to have received a gift when hands were laidon him (1 Tim. 4.14; 2 Tim. 1.6), and teaching is obviously a centralfeature of leadership, though 1 Timothy 5.17 may imply that only some,and not all, presbyters had begun to 'labour in preaching andteaching'2, whereas Titus 1.9 assumes that giving 'instruction in sounddoctrine' is a normal part of the episcopal function.

The link between charism and appointment to office also featuresprominently in the earliest extant ordination prayers, those of theApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, which is thought to date from thebeginning of the third century, though the substance of the prayers maygo back earlier than that. Here the prayers to be used at the ordinationof a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon pray for the gifts of the Spiritwhich are thought to be requisite for each office: that for the bishopasks for 'that power which is from you, of the princely Spirit which yougranted through your beloved Son Jesus Christ to your holy apostles';that for a presbyter 'the Spirit of grace and counsel of the presbyterate,that he may help and govern your people with a pure heart'; and that fora deacon 'the holy Spirit of grace and caring and diligence'.3

1 Cooke, op. cit, p.227.2 It has to be recognized that this division of presbyters, which in the sixteenth century

became foundational to a Presbyterian polity, is not wholly clear from the originalGreek of this verse.

3 Chs. 3, 7, and 8: see G. J. Cuming, Hippolytus: a text for students (Grove LiturgicalStudy No. 8. 1976) pp.9, 12-13.

10

FROM CHARISM TO OFFICE

(c) Office versus charismThere is at first no evidence that others besides the formally appointedpresbyteroi-episcopoi were not still regarded as possessing gifts of theSpirit and able to act as liturgical presidents or ministers of the word.On the other hand, in 1 Clement we do see a desire to take thingssomewhat further. This letter, usually considered to have been writtenaround AD. 96, was sent from the church at Rome to the church atCorinth, where trouble had just erupted. Although its author does hisbest to play down the seriousness of what had taken place and toattribute everything to the work of one or two agitators (47.6) or 'a fewreckless and arrogant individuals' (1.1), it is apparent that thecongre~ation at Corinth had ousted the presbyters there and replacedthem With other leaders of their own choosing, and the whole of thislong letter is a series of impassioned arguments against this action andin favour of their reinstatement. It is usually assumed that, in so doing,the author was merely enunciating what was already the accepted rulethroughout the Church at that time, that those appointed to office wereto serve for life and could not be dismissed. If so, it is strange that henever once refers to such a rule or tries to rest his case upon whatwould have been a very strong argument, but instead spends so muchtime contending for this principle upon many other grounds. Thissuggests that we ought to view the letter in a somewhat different light,not as stating what was the universally agreed doctrine of the ministryat that period but rather as one view, and perhaps only a minority view,which had yet to win general acceptance.

The author turns to the liturgical precedents of the Old Testament as animportant element in his argument: God had there decreed that certainroles in liturgical matters belonged to certain ministers:

'the offerings and services he has commanded to be performedcarefully, and not to be done haphazardly or without order, but atfixed times and hours. Where and by whom he wishes them to beperformed, he has himself determined by his supreme will, so thateverything may be done in a holy manner according to his goodpleasure and may be acceptable to his will. Those, therefore, whomake their offerings at the appointed times are acceptable andblessed, for by following the prescriptions of the Lord they do notgo astray. For to the high priest have been given his own properservices, and to the priests their own place has been assigned,and for the levites their own ministrations are laid down. The layman is bound by the prescriptions for the laity.'

From this he goes on to draw the conclusion that'each of you, brethren, should offer the eucharist to God in hisown order, being· of a good conscience, not transgressing theprescribed rule of his service',

and he adds a stern warning of the consequences of disobedience:'those, therefore, who do anything contrary to his [Le. God's] willhave death as the penalty. You see, brethren, the more knowledgewe have been given, the greater the danger we incur' (1 Clement40.2-5; 41.1, 3-4).

11

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

He is thus firmly convinced that there are strict rules governing thepresidency of the eucharist which limit this function to those properlyordained and exclude those whom he regards as 'Iaymen'-the first useof the term in this sense by aChristian writer. The people of Corinth, onthe other hand, seem to be unaware of any such rules and to be equallyconvinced that they are free to invite others to fulfil that role.

A not dissimilar situation appears to lie behind the letters of Ignatius ofAntioch early in the second century, which provide the first clearevidence we have for the existence of the office of a bishop, as theleader of a body of presbyters in charge of a local church. ThoughIgnatius implies that he himself possesses the gift of prophecy(doubtless to lend greater authority to his views) 1, yet he argues thatauthority over the Christian community should rest with the bishoprather than the prophet:

'For even though certain persons wished to deceive me after theflesh, yet the spirit is not deceived, being from God, for it knowswhence it comes and whither it goes, and searches out thehidden things. I cried out when I was among you, I spoke with aloud voice, the voice of God, "Obey the bishop and the presbyteryand deacons." Some suspected me of saying this because Ialready knew of division among you, but he in whom I am boundis my witness that I did not learn it from human flesh. The spiritpreached it, speaking thus: "do nothing without the bishop; keepyour flesh as the temple of God; cherish unity; shun divisions; beimitators of Jesus Christ. as he himself was of his Father.'"(Philadelphians 7).

He believes that the people should be subject to the presidency of thebishop simply because he is the bishop, even if he happens to be a'silent' bishop, lacking the charism of propheteia. 2 As in 1 Clement. inthe last analysis it is the possession of office and not the externalmanifestation of charismata which is to be the decisive criterion forjudging who is to be regarded as a true minister of the Church. Hencehe is of the view that only those celebrations of the eucharist,baptisms, and agapes are to be accounted genuine which are presidedover by the bishop or by someone authorized by him:

'Avoid divisions, as the beginning of evils. Follow the bishop, allof you, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery asthe apostles; and to the deacons pay respect. as to a

1 See Christine Trevett•. Prophecy and Anti-episcopal Activity: A Third Error Combatedby Ignatius?'. in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983) pp.5ft.

2 The phenomenon of 'silent' bishops in Philadelphians 1 and Ephesians 6 has beenmuch debated and variously interpreted: see for example Henry Chadwick, 'Thesilence of bishops in Ignatius' in Harvard Theological Review 43 (1950) pp.169­72; W. Bieder, 'Zur Deutung des kirchlichen Schweigens bei Ignatius vonAntiochen' in Theologische Zeitschrift 12 (1956) pp.28-43; P. Meinhold,'Schweigende Bischofe: die Gegensiitze in der kleinasiatischen Gemeinde nachden Ignatianen' in Glaube und Geschichte (Festgabe fur J. Lortz, Bd 2, BadenBaden 195B) pp.467-90.

12

FROM CHARISM TO OFFI~E

commandment of God. Let no one do anything concerning thechurch apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valideucharist which is under the bishop or someone to whom he hasentr.usted it. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the peoplebe; Just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal church.It is n.ot permitted either to baptize or to hold an agape apart fromthe bishop; but whatever he approves, this is also acceptable toGod, so that everything you do may be sure and valid: 1

Nevertheless, at the same time his letters provide unmistakeableindications that there were others who did not share his opinions andwho rejected the claims to sole authority which he was making onbehalf of the newly emerging episcopate. As Christine Trevett hasobserved in a recent detailed study of this question,

'Ignatiu~' spirited defence of the episcopal office, his manycomplaints of lack of loyalty to officers and his appeals for unity(in sUbmi.ssion to the bishop and his fellow ministers) provideample eVidence that ... there were still active Christians whoseloyalty was not wholly given to the kind of ecclesiology Ignatiusfavoured.'2

Many of these were apparently holding their own assemblies forworship on the basis of the charismatic gifts which they claimed tohave received. Thus, for example, Ignatius criticizes those who

'address a man as bishop but do everything apart from him. Suchmen do not seem to me to act in good conscience since they donot assemble validly according to the commandment.'3

As in the ~as; o,f 1 Clement, therefore, we should refrain from assumingthat Ignatlus views represented the orthodoxy of his time, althoughthey came to b.e. espoused by the later church, and we should recognizethat the tranSition to the ecclesiology which he advocated was notachieved without a considerable struggle. In the end, however, it didprevail. and eventually office triumphed over charism everywhere. Thechurch was persuaded of the difficulty of distinguishing true prophetfrom false (a problem of which both the New Testament and theDidache had not been unaware) and of the danger of claims to privatesources of revelation, especially as they generally seemed to lead toconclusions in belief and practice at variance with those which hadhitherto prevailed. Thus the authority of prophets and teachers came tobe qu~stioned more and. ~ore, and in the course of the second centurythey fmally lost any POSitions of leadership they had held in Christiancommunities (th?ugh this transition may not have happened as early inevery pl?ce as IS u.sually supposed). The presidency of all liturgicalass.emblJes was entirely taken over by the bishop, who also continuedto Improvise the eucharistic prayer as his 'charismatic' predecessors

1 Smyrnaeans 8. cf. also M. Jourjon, 'La pnisidence de I' eucharistie chez Ignaced'Antioc~~' in Lumiere et Vie 16 (1967) pp.26-32; R. Padberg, 'DasAmtverstandnts der Ignatiusbriefe' in Theologie und Glaube 62 (1972) pp.47-54.

2 Chnstlne Trevett, op. cit., pp.3-4.3 Magnesians 4; see also ibid 7; Philadelphians 4.

13

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

had done, and the influence of prophets and teachers declinedmarkedly, though they themselves did not totally disappear, as we shallsee later. Those who remained within the mainstream church, however,came increasingly under episcopal control and judgment, and only inMontanism, Marcionism, and other movements judged heretical by thechurch, was there opportunity for them to continue to flourish asindependent ministries. Perhaps one of the last traces of anauthoritative 'charismatic' ministry within th.e early church can be seenin the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus at the beginning of the thirdcentury. Here it is directed that those who have suffered because oftheir witness to Christ are to be recognized as members of thepresbyterate without the need for any form of ordination but,apparently, simply on this evidence of their having received a charismfrom God to confess the faith:

'But a confessor, if he was in chains for the name of the Lord, shallnot have hands laid on him for the diaconate or the presbyterate,for he has the honour of the presbyterate by his confession. But ifhe is appointed bishop, hands shall be laid on him.'1

1 Ch. 9: Cuming, op. cit., p.14. See also M. Lods, Confesseurs et Martyrs, successeursdes prophetes dans I'Eglise des trois premiers siecles, (Paris, 1950).

14

,1

\I

4. THE CLERICeZATION OF LITURGICAL FUNCTIONS,Not only did bishops assume the presidency of all liturgical rites, theyalso increasingly laid claim to various liturgical acts which hadoriginally been exercised by others, and so eventually brought to anend much of the active participation by the laity in leading worshipwhich had been a feature of primitive Christianity.

We saw earlier how in Judaism the leading of prayer was somethingwhich might be performed by any member of the congregation, andsuggested that this would have continued in early Christianity. Thepractice may be implied in Justin Martyr's account of the 'commonprayers' in his description of the eucharist at Rome in the middle of thesecond century. Although he says nothing explicitly about their form,his continued use of the first person plural with regard to them and theabsence of any direct reference to the president here, in contrast to hisdescription of the eucharistic prayer itself, or even to the deacons, maypossibly suggest that others still had a vocal part to play in them:

'After we have thus baptized him who has believed and has givenhis assent, we take him to those who are called brethren wherethey are assembled, to make common prayers earnestly, forourselves, and for him who has been enlightened, and for allothers everywhere, that having learned the truth, we may bedeemed worthy to be found good citizens in our actions andguardians of the commandments, so that we may be saved witheternal salvation. When we have ended the prayers, we greet oneanother with a kiss.'1

Certainly even in the third century, at least in some situations, laypeople might still offer public prayer. The Apostolic Tradition ofHippolytus records that, at the gatherings for the instruction of thosepreparing for baptism, the teacher, whether he is a cleric or a layman, isto lay hands on them and pray before dismissing them (ch. 19).Similarly, the third-century Syrian Didascalia permits widows to prayover and lay hands on the sick at the command of the bishop ordeacon.2

This practice, however, did not last, and later evidence indicates that atsome stage the leading of prayer became an exclusively clericalactivity. In the 'common prayers' in liturgical services the contributingof biddings became formalized and placed entirely in the hands of thedeacon3, and the people now prayed in silence, or made the response

1 Justin Martyr, First Apology. 65.1-2; see also 67.5: 'then we all stand up together andoffer prayers; and as we said before, when we have finished praying .. .-

2 Didascalia 3.8: see Sebastian Brock and Michael Vasey (eds.), The Liturgical Portionsof the Didascalia (Grove Liturgical Study No. 29, 1982) p.20.3 There seems to be nothing to substantiate the claim by Josef Jungmann, following

Anton Baumstark, that originally the president himself always pronounced thebiddings and only later did the deacon take a more prominent part, and it wouldseem rather that the Western practice, in which the deacon came to have only avery minor role in signalling the people to kneel, was the later development seeA Baumstark, Die Messe im Morgenland (Munchen 1906), pp.100f.; J. A.Jungmann, Mass of the Roman Rite (New York 1951) I, pA81; cf. R. H. Connolly,'Liturgical Prayers of Intercession' in Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1920)pp.223-5. .

15

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH e'Lord, have mercy', while the president himself articulated theirintercessions by reciting a concluding prayer. Presumably the bishop'sacknowledged right to improvise the eucharistic prayer, encouragedperhaps by a desire to ensure the orthodox content of anything prayedin the name of the church, had led to this assumed exclusive right toimprovise all public prayer, which we find to be the rule by the fourthcentury. So firm was this clerical privilege that it seems to havepresented something of a problem for the early monastic communitieswhen they came together at the hours of prayer. In Jerusalem, forexample, according to Egeria, presbyters were required to attend themonastic night office in turn to deputize for the bishop and say theprayers which followed each psalm. 1

Not only did prayer-leadership by lay people disappear, but the customof individuals making a contribution to the ministry of the word alsodeclined. We have already seen that the charisms of prophet andteacher tended to be claimed by the presbyterate, and subsequently bythe episcopate when it emerged as a separate office, and wereascribed to them by others. Polycarp of Smyrna, for example, whosuffered martyrdom in the middle of the second century, was describedas 'bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna and a teacher in our ownday who combined both apostle and prophet in his own person.'2 EvenCyprian in the third century implied that he too had propheticendowment. 3

Bishops, however, did not merely assume an authoritative teaching rolewithin the Christian community, but eventually began to claim theexclusive right to proclaim the word of God. Indeed the evidence ofJustin Martyr's description of the Sunday eucharist. where it is thepresident who' in a discourse admonishes and exhorts'4, has usuallybeen interpreted as implying that by the middle of the second centuryonly a bishop might deliver the homily at a liturgical assembly, and theJewish (and early Christian) practice or inviting others to give anexposition of the Scriptures had already disappeared. This develop­ment, however, does not seem to have been quite as rapid and asstraightforward as that in every place, and may not even have been soat Rome.

There are, for example, indications that it was some time beforeteaching was regarded as a normal and universal feature of theepiscopal office. We have mentioned earlier that Ignatius of Antiochknew of the existence in the second century of 'silent' bishops whomade no pretence to this gift, and that very conservative third-centurydocument, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, likewise gives verylittle prominence to this aspect of a bishop's ministry. It does not

1 Peregrinatio Egeriae 24. 1; see Paul F. Bradshaw. Daily Prayer in the Early Church(Alcuin Club/SPCK, London 1981) pp.77-8.

2 Martyrdom of Polycarp 16.2.3 Cyprian Ep. 16.4; 66.10.4 First Apology 67.4.

16

e THE CLERICALlZATION OF LITURGICAL FUNCTIONS

contain a description of the ministry of the word at a normal Sundayeucharist so we have no way of knowing whether the bishop wasexpected' to be the regular preacher at that, but we do h~~e itsordination prayer for a bishop, which, perhaps r~th~r surprlsln~ly,contains no mention at all of the ministry of the word In Its enumerationof episcopal functions, unless it is to be assumed under the generalexpression 'feed your holy flock'. Else~here in th~ docum~nt others,not only clerics but laity too, are deSignated as teachers and takeresponsibility both for the pre-baptismal c~teche.si~ and also for thedaily instruction of the faithful, and all. that IS expllc.ltly reserved t? thebishop is the giving of the mystagoglcal ca.teche.sls at ~he bap~lsmaleucharist itself. 1 On the other hand, the Syrian Dldascalia later In thethird century does regard the ability to preach and teach. as norm~1attributes of a bishop. It expects a candidate for the episcopate, Ifpossible to be

'educated and able to teach; but if he is uneducated, he should becapable and wise in speech. '.' He sho~l? be dil.igent in ~isteaching, and constant in reading the diVine SCripture? Withdiligence, so that he can interpret and expound the SCripturesreliably.'2

Furthermore, although in the West preaching certainly did event~allybecome restricted entirely to bishops, we have the testimony of Orlgenthat when he visited Rome at the beginning of the third century, he

, 3 d' hheard a sermon given by a certain presbyter, Hippolytus ; an In t eEast presbyters regularly participated in this function. The fourth­century evidence of Egeria for Jerusalem~, John. Ch.rysostom forAntioch and Constantinople5 , the ApostolIC ConstItutIons also forSyria6 and Jerome for Bethlehem7 reveals the practice of multipleserma'ns as the norm: a number of presbyters would preach in turn, andthen the bishop last of all. Apparently the same custom o~ce obta.ineadin Alexandria and was stopped there only after the hereSies of Arlus ,while in North Africa Bishop Valerius of Hippo, himself a Gree~, we':ltagainst the Western rule and allowed Augustine to preach while stilionly a presbyter.9

Some have regarded this Eastern custom as essentially .a delegation ~othe presbyters of what was properly an episcopal functl<;>n, but certal.nother considerations need to be taken into account. Firstly, there ISsome evidence to suggest the continued existence of other teachingministries besides that of the bishop or presbyters in the second

1 Apost. Trad. Chs. 3. 15, 18. 19.21.39.41.2 Didascalia 2.1. 5: Brock and Vasey. op. cit., pp.7, 8.3 See J. Quasten, Patrology (Spectrum, Utrecht 1953), 11, p.163.4 25.1; 26.1; 27.6-7; 42.1; 43.2, 3.5 See the texts listed in V. van de Paverd. Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in

Antiocheia und Constantinopel gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts (OrientaliaChristiana Analecta 187. Rome, 1970) p.131.

6 Apost. Con. 2.57.9.7 Sancti Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Hom/fiae in Psalmos (Anecdota

Maredsolana 3/2; Maredsous 1897) pp. 140, 342. 343.B See Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5.22; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History 7.19.9 Augustine, Vita 5.3.

17

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

century. Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr, for example, wereboth 'teachers' who were not ordained, and Justin in his dialogue withTry~h? the.Je~ refers to the continuation of the gift of prophecy amongChnstlan

1s In hiS own .day, apparently bestowed on women as well as

on men. Then there IS the Shepherd of Hermas, where the author isinstructed to write ~own his prophetic vision and present it to 'thepresbyters \/\:,ho pre.slde over the church'2, which certainly suggests thatpr~phecy might stili have been granted a hearing by a congregation.This work also refers to 'bishops and teachers and deacons' in such away that one r:ni~ht suppose that the teachers could still be recognizedas a group distinct from the ordained ministry.3

Of ~o~rs~ no.ne of th!s. evidence actually proves that there was anypartlclp~tlo~ In the ministry of ~he word at liturgical services as such,and so It might. be argued that It ~a~ the bishop alone who preachedthere and tea?hlng by .others was limited to a non-liturgical context, tothe assemb.lies for Instruction and the pre-baptismal catechesisreferred to In the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. This certainlysee~s to have been the case later in the third century, which canprovide no examples of prophets with the influence of Hermas orteachers with the autonomy of Clement of Alexandria. On the otherhand, e~en then t~ere ar~ still scattered traces of the involvementof laypeople In preachln~ which sugg~st that the custom might once havebeen. m~ch more widespread. Ongen, for example, while still a laymanwa.s invited to preach before the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem.Thrngs were apparently much more clericalized in Alexandria, and hewas subsequently recalled there by his bishop, Demetrius, who claimedthat the practice was 'unheard of, but it was defended by the bishopsof Caesarea and Jerusalem, who cited other instances of it:

'where t~er~ are found persons suited to help the brethren, theyalso are rnvlt~d to preach to the people by the holy bishops, as,for example, In Laranda Euelpis by Neon, and in Iconium Paulinusby Celsu~, and in Synnada Theodore by Atticus, our blessedbrother blshop.s. And it is likely that this thing happens in otherplaces also without our knowing it.'4

It is ironical that Origen was later to be one of the staunchest defenders~f the exclusive teaching right of bishops and presbyters. 5 Even in thefifth century monks were preaching at Antioch, a practice condemnedby Pope Leo, who. maintained that, apart from 'the priests of the Lord,none ought to preach or teach:6

Moreover, it \/\:,ould appear that, .at least at first, not all presbyters in theEast had the nght to teach, but In the third century there existed within

1 Dialogue with Trypho 82.1; 88.1.2 Vis. 2.4.1 -3.3 Vis. 3.5; see also Mand. 4.3.4 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.19.16-18.5 See Albano Vile la, La condition collegiale des pretres au /lie siecle (Beauchesne,

Pans 1971) pp.128-36.6 Leo, Ep. 119.6; 120.6.

18

e THE CLERICALlZATION OF LITURGICAL FUNCTIONS

the presbyterate a recognizable group designated as ' presbyters andteachers', most clearly evidenced at Alexandria 1, and vestiges of thisdouble title can be detected at Jerusalem and Antioch in the fourthcentury. 2 Although such a twofold appellation might have been nomore than a way of indicating which of the presbyters shared in theteaching function, it could be thought also to imply that the two roleswere still to some degree distinguishable from one another, that just asthere were some presbyters who were not also teachers, so too theremay have been some teachers who were not presbyters; in otherwords, that it reflects a situation similar to that described in theApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus which we have already referred to,where teachers might be clerics or laymen. This would explain themore restricted use of the title in the fourth century with the growingidentification of the two roles then.

Some support for this conclusion is provided by evidence from NorthAfrica. Here too there are third-century references to a similar groupknown as 'presbyter-teachers', but also other references simply to'teachers'.3 In particular Cyprian uses both terms in the same sentencein one of his letters: 'when with the presbyter-teachers we werecarefully examining lectors, we appointed Optatus among the lectors ofthe teachers of the hearers:4 It has commonly been assumed that theteachers of the' hearers' or catechumens were also presbyters5 , but thetext does not require this: the fact that they were assisted by lectorsdoes not necessarily mean that they themselves must have occupiedsome higher rank in the clerical hierarchy. Indeed we know that somelay involvement in teaching persisted elsewhere to a much later date:the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions, for example, acknowledges,albeit somewhat grudgingly, the continued existence of lay catechists6 ,and even in fifth-century Gaul apparently a layman might still teach inthe presence of clergy if invited to do SO.7

Taken together, all these considerations suggest that the fourth­century participation of presbyters in preaching may not have been adelegation downwards from the bishop, but on the contrary part of amovement upwards, the increasing clericalization of preaching andteaching, which proceeded more rapidly in some places than in others.In most places in the course of the third century, if not sooner, itbecame accepted that preaching at liturgical services was normally tobe restricted to the c1er~y and was not open simply to any whodisplayed appropriate gifts, with presbyters and bishop continuing to

1 See Vilela, op. cit., pp.l 60-1 .2 See Charles Renoux, 'Liturgical Ministers at Jerusalem in the Fourth and Fifth

Centuries', in Roles in the Liturgical Assembly: the twenty-third LiturgicalConference Saint Serge (Pueblo. New York 1981) pp.222-3.

3 Vilela, op. cit., pp.311-12.4 Cyprian, Ep. 29.5 See Vilela, op. cit., p.312; Victor Saxer, Vie liturgique et quotidienne aCarthage vers

le milieu du /lie siecle (Vatican City, 1969) pp.82-3, 107.6 Apost. Const. 8.31.7 Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua 98.S See Baumstark, op. cit., pp.96-7.

19

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

share together in this ministry in some places, retaining an element ofits earlier corporate nature, and the bishop eventually taking it overentirely in others, a process no doubt encouraged by a lack of educatedpresbyters and the fear of heretical teaching. Lay participation incatechesis, however, lasted much longer, though female involvementin this was all but ended at an early stage. We cannot be sure whetherwomen were ever allowed to preach at liturgical services, but alreadyby the end of the second century the custom only obtained in hereticalgroups, and women were not even allowed to catechize in NorthAfrica1, while the third-century Didascalia has a similar regulation,instructing enquirers to be passed on to 'the leaders'.2 On the otherhand, it would seem that in fifth-century Gaul a woman was stillallowed to catechize women, especially in country districts, but not toteach men, 'however learned and holy she is'. 3

The laity, therefore, had lost almost entirely any active part in theministry of the word in any form. Even the reading of the scriptures atliturgical services became professionalized at an early stage. It is notclear from Justin Martyr's account of the eucharist whether those whoread the' records of the apostles and the writings of the prophets' werepermanently appointed officials or whether anyone might still be askedto perform this task at a service, but certainly, according to theApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, by the beginning of the third centurya distinct office of reader had emerged, appointment to which wasmade by the bishop handing to the person the book from which hewould read-the same gesture as the archisunagogos had used wheninviting someone to ~ead the scriptures in the synagogue. 4 Hencealmost the only place left for individual lay participation was the agape,where different people might continue to stand up and sing psalms andhymns of their own choosing5 , but even this final vestige of NewTestament practice disappeared with the eventual demise of thiscommunal meal.

1 See Tertullian, De Bapt. 17; De Virgo Vel. 9.2 Didascalia 3.5-6; Brock and Vasey, op. cit.. p.19.3 Stat. Eccl. Ant. 12, 99, 100.4 Apost. Trad. 11: Cuming, op. cit.. p.15.5 See Tertullian, Apol 39; Cyprian, Ep. 1.16.

20

5. FROM COR&ATE TO INDIVIDUAL PRESIDENCY

The bishop thus ultimately became established not only .as th.e .normalpresident of all liturgical assemblies but also as the chief mmlster ofboth word and sacrament. It cannot be stressed enough, however, that,at least at first, this presidency was set firmly within a collegial context.The New Testament evidence, such as it is, suggests that communityleadership generally tended to be exercised by a group of people ratherthan by one individual. Even at Jerusalem, where James, 'the brother ofthe Lord', seems to have had a position of pre-eminence, there was acollege of presbyters who shared with him in decision-maki~g (seeActs 11.30; 15.2ff.). Precisely how such corporate leadership wasexpressed liturgically within the various communities of the earlychurch we do not know. Perhaps each of the leaders took a turn atpresiding over the assembly, or perhaps it tended to be the duty of th.esenior member or 'chairman' of the body regularly to assume thiSfunction, acting on behalf of all.

Moreover, even after the emergence of the episcopate, t~epresbyterate seems to have retained in a larg~ measure its. earliercollective responsibility for the general oversight of the life andworship of the local Christian community, and the bishop presided asthe head of his corporate body. Even Ignatius of Antioch, who isfrequently depicted as advocating a monarchical style of episcopate,does not speak of the bishop in isolation but always in conjunctionwith the rest of the clergy. So, for example, he writes, in his letter to theMagnesians:

'Be zealous to do everything in godly concord, the bishoppresiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after ~helikeness of the council of the apostles ... Let there be nothmgamong you which is able to divide you, but be united with t~ebishop and with those who preside as an example and a lesson Inincorruptibility. Therefore as the Lord did nothing without theFather, either in person or through the apostles, so you are to donothing without the bishop and the presbyters'.1

This corporate leadership was not merely an abstract idea in the mindsof theologians, but received concrete expression in the liturgicalpractice of the church, where the bishop did not preside alone but satin the midst of a semi-circle of presbyters, thus offering a very vividvisual symbol of the collegiate nature of the ordained ministry.2 Thisarrangement may well go back long before the emergence of theepiscopate as a separate office, and even to the very roots of theChristian tradition. It has, for example, been thought that the image of

1 Magn. 6-7. cf. also A. Vile la, 'Le Presbyterium selon S. Ignace d'Antioche' in Bulletinde litterature ecclesiastique 74 (1973) pp.161-86; M. Thurian, 'L'organisation duministere dans I'Eglise primitive seIon saint Ignace d'Antioche' in Verbum carD 81(1967), pp.26-38; B. Botte, 'The Collegiate Character of the Presbyterate andEpiscopate', in The Sacrament of Holy Orders (Aquin, London 1962) pp.75-97; G.D'Ercole, 'The Presbyteral Colleges in the Early Church' in Con cilium 7.2 (1966)pp.12-18.

2 See for example Didascalia 2.57.3-4: Brock and Vasey, op. cit.• p.15.

21

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH FROM CORPORATE TO INDIVIDUAL PRESIDENCYethe worship of heaven in Revelation 4.2-4, where the thrones of theelders sur~ound th~ throne of God, may be derived, at least in part, fromthe author s expenence of the actual ordering of the earthly worship ofthe church. 1

It is true that in this corporat.e liturgical presidency of the early churchthere would have been very little for the presbyters to do in the courseof a service. We shoul? not be tempted to conclude from this, however,that they were considered to be relatively unimportant. We mustr~membe~ that in the. Jewis.h synagogue those who presided actuallydid very little, and were mainly concerned to control and co-ordinatethe .activitie.s ?f others, a~d the same was almost certainly true in theearliest Chnstlan assemblies. There would have been little thereforeby way of activity in which the presbyters could have sha;ed and s~t~eyexpressed th~ir leadership-role in the assembly simply b'y sittingsilently ~r?und th~lr spokesr:nan, displaying their assent to his authority~nd declslon-mak.lng by their physical association with him. Moreover,In the course of ~Im~, as f~nctions which had once been exercised byoth.ers were clencallzed, It was almost always the bishop who laidclal~ to them and came to be thought of as having the necessaryc~a~lsms for them, and not the presbyterate. With the exception of theministry of the word, where, as we have seen, from early times at leastsome presyters were included in the ranks of those who taught, theirrole dl? ~ot dev~lop at all beyond the original concept of leadership,and ~~IS IS weI! Illustrated by the ordination prayers in the ApostolicTraditIOn of Hlppolytus. Here the prayer for a new presbyter simplyasks for the gift of ' the Spirit of grace and counsel of the presbyterate,that he ma~ help and govern your people with a pure heart', whereasthat ~or a bishop enumerates the episcopal functions at some length:

to feed your holy flock and to exercise the high-priesthood beforeyou blamelessly, s~rving night and day; to propitiate yourcountenance unceasln.g.ly, an~ to o~er to you the gifts of your holyChurch; and by the splnt of hlgh-pnesthood to have the power toforgive sins according to your command, to confer ordersaccording to your bidding, to loose every bond according to thepower which you gave to the apostles .. .'2

On .the other hand, when there were opportunities for them to expresstheir corporate pa~icipation in liturgical presidency in more positiveyvays, .t~en they did so. They apparently joined in the gesture of theImposltlo~ ~f hand~ whenever this occurred. The Apostolic Traditionatt~sts thiS In relation to the eucharist where the presbyters join inlaying hands on the bread and wine with the bishop before he recitesthe eucharistic prayer, and also in relation to the ordination of apresbyter, where again they lay hands on the candidate while the~ishop recites the ordination prayer. 3 It is even possible that at onetlm~ the pres?yters presided over the ordination of a new bishop fortheir community, laying hands on him corporately while one of them

1 G. A. Michell. Landmarks in Liturgy (DLT. London, 1961). pp.86-7.2 Aposr. Trad. 3, 7: Cuming, op. cir.. pp.9, 12.3 Apost. Trad. 4, 7: Cuming. op. cit.• pp.l0, 12.

22

erecited the ordination prayer, and that only later neighbouring bishopsbegan to take over this function. 1 Cyprian informs us that they weresimilarly involved in the imposition of hands with the bishop at thereconciliation of a penitent. 2 Furthermore, in the rites of baptism,which offered greater possibilities for their active involvement we findthem playing a bigger part. Here the Apostolic Tradition tells of themparticipating in anointing the candidates with the oil of exorcism andwith the oil of thanksgiving, as well as in the immersion itself. 3

Although in later centuries in a number of Eastern rites the expressionof collegiality in the presidency of the eucharist was extended, whenwritten texts became current, with different prayers being distributed todifferent presbyters, in a manner somewhat parallel to the distributionof the preaching of the word4 , it was perhaps almost inevitable thatelsewhere the presbyter's liturgical role should eventually come to beseen as relatively unimportant and ultimately dispensable, a meredecorative or ceremonial addition to the' real' presidency of the bishop,especially as other factors were moving the episcopate in the directionof an absolute monarchy with the presbyters as no more thanassistants. to the episcopal office. First steps in this direction canalready be detected in the third century, and the process increased intire fourth and fifth centuries.s Thus, although the Didascalia stillinsists that the presbyters should be honoured' as the apostles, and asthe counsellors of the bishop, and as the crown of the church, for theyare the upholders and counsellors of the church',6 and expects them tobe involved in settling disputes and disciplining members of thecongregation7 , in the rest of the document the presbyterate tends torecede into the background, and authority and responsibility seem tobe concentrated more in the hands of the bishop; he it is, for instance,who is said to appoint the deacons.s Similarly, although Cyprian at firstmade it a rule to do nothing withouton this and more on independentepiscopal action, in reconciling penitents, in ordaining, and in otherrespects, especially after certain presbyters had taken it uponthemselves to act independently of him and to reconcile the lapsedwithout his approval!9

1 See Paul Bradshaw. 'Ordination', in G. J. Cuming (ed.), Essays on Hippolyrus (GroveLiturgical Study No. 15, 1978) pp.33-5.

2 Cyprian, Ep. 15.1; 16.2; 17.2; see Vilela, Condition collegiale. pp.314-17; cf. alsoevidence of a similar practice in the writings of Origen, ibid.. pp.142-7.

3 Apost. Trad. 21.4 See R. Taft, 'Ex Oriente Lux? Some Reflections on Eucharistic Concelebration' in

Worship 54 (1980), pp.308ff.; though he believes that the custom grew out of thepractice of 'eucharistic hospitality' (see below. p.26) and not from the idea ofcollegiality.

5 See Cooke. op. cit.• pp.77-81, 199-200.6 Didascalia 2.28.4; cf. also 2.34.3.7 Ibid. 2.46.6; 47.1.8 Ibid. 3.12.9 See Vilela, Condition collegiale. pp.273-303.

23

LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH•

eA major influence in changing the nature of liturgical presidency wasthe growing need for celebrations of the eucharist in outlying parts of adiocese, which resulted in presbyters having to deputize for theirbishop on a regular basis and to preside alone in such situations. Ourearliest explicit evidence for this comes from North Africa in the thirdcentury1, and the practice spread extensively in the fourth century withthe rapid growth of the church then. Thus, although a more corporatecelebration of the eucharist continued to be. maintained by the bishophimself for several centuries longer, and although efforts weresometimes made to retain some link between the individual presbytersand the bishop2, nevertheless the common experience of eucharisticworship came to be of a service with a single presbyter accompaniedby no more than one deacon or other assistant minister. 3 This cannotbut have made a very significant contribution, not only to the view ofthe presbyter as the assistant to the bishop, but also to the notion ofliturgical presidency as an individual rather than a corporate activity.

1 Cyprian, Ep. 5.2.2 At Rome, for example, the Pope would send a piece of bread. called the fermentum,

consecrated at the eucharist over which he was presiding in person, to each of thepresbyters presiding over eucharistic celebrations elsewhere in the city, as a signof unity.

3 See Jungmann, op. cit., I, pp.207ft.

24

e6. THE DELEGATION OF PRESIDENCY

(a:) Eucharistic hospitalityThe growing stress on the episcopal office and the gradual attraction ofall major liturgical functions to the bishop did not mean that it wasimpossible for others ever to exercise them. Indeed a bishop might wellinvite a visiting colleague to assume his place at the eucharist. Theearliest clearly recorded instance of this appears to be at the visit ofPolycarp to Rome in the middle of the second century, when (accordingto the church historian Eusebius) Anicetus, the Bishop of Rome,'yielded the eucharist to Polycarp, manifestly out of respect: 1 ColinBuchanan has asked whether the church took a wrong turning at thispoint. in allowing enormous respect for an ageing teacher of the faiththe replace the normal relationship of pastor and pastored as a basis forpresiding at the eucharist. 2 This 'eucharistic hospitality', however, maynot have been a sudden burst of generosity on the part of Anicetus,disturbing the otherwise stable basis for liturgical presidency, butrather a natural part of early Christian practice. We have alreadyencountered a precedent for it in Judaism, where a host might invite anhonoured guest to take over his role and say the grace at the end of ameal3, and we may presume that in the situation underlying theDidache, if not more generally in early Christianity, itinerant prophetswould not only have contributed to the ministry of the word when theyvisited a Christian community but also have said the eucharistic prayer.Otherwise, why should the Didache have given instruction that theprophets should be free to give thanks as they wished?4

This suggests that at least in some early Christian thinking the linkbetween a particular community and its eucharistic ministers may nothave been viewed so narrowly as one might have thought, but that itwas considered right for a congregation to invite a visitor whose giftsof proclamation were recognized as equalling or exceeding those of theresident ministers to exercise those gifts and improvise the eucharisticprayer. In view of Polycarp's standing as a great prophet and teacher itis more than likely that this formed a part of the motivation behind theaction of Anicetus, as well as his desire to give some liturgicalexpression to the unity existing between them. It should be viewed notso much as a surrender of presidency itself as the delegation of aparticular function usually exercised by the president to someone morefitted to perform it.

On the other hand, the extensive instructions in the third-centuryDidascalia concerning eucharistic hospitality reveal a further dimen­sion to the practice:

'But if a brother or sister should come from another congregation,let the deacon enquire of her and find out whether she is married,or again, whether she is a widow who is a believer, and whether she

1 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 5.24.17.2 Colin Buchanan, Leading Worship, p.7.3 See above, p.a.4 See above, p.9.

25

•LITURGICAL PRESIDENCY IN THE EARLY CHURCH

is a daughter of the Church, or possibly belongs to one of theheresies; and then let him conduct her to the appropriate place.

But if a presbyter should come from another congregation, you,the presbyters, should receive him in fellowship in your place.And if he is a bishop, let him sit with the bishop, who shouldaccord to him the honour of his rank, even as himself. And do you,the bishop, invite him to give a homily to your people; for theexhortation and admonition of strangers is very helpful, especiallyas it is written, "There is no prophet that is acceptable in his ownplace." And when you offer the oblation, let him speak the words;but if he is wise and gives the honour to you, and is unwilling tooffer, at least let him speak the words over the CUp:1

Here we go beyond recognizing the particular gifts of a visitor andallowing them to be exercised to recogrizing the status which allvisitors possess in their home community and granting them the samestatus within the community in which they are guests. This presumablyarose because of the sense of unity and solidarity which was feltbetween the different individual congregations. Thus a presbyter fromanother community is not regarded merely as a lay person in thecommunity he visits, but treated as a presbyter there too and given aseat among the presbyters. Similarly, a visiting bishop is to be invitedto undertake what have become the principal liturgical functions of thatoffice-preaching and the saying of the eucharistic prayer-though it isnot entirely clear what the document means by letting him 'speak thewords over the cup' if he declines the invitation to usurp the eucharisticprayer, as he is apparently expected to do. Is it an archaism from thetime when there were separate prayers over bread and cup, and, as inJewish custom, the host might perform the former and the visitor thelatter; or does it now refer to some feature of an agape which mightfollow?(b) Episcopal deputiesThe bishop might also delegate his functions to someone within hisown congregation, if he were unable to be present at a liturgicalassembly. We have already seen that Ignatius of Antioch recognizedthat a bishop might authorize someone else to preside in his stead at aeucharist, a baptism, or an agape2, and later sources are all agreed thata presbyter is a proper person to deputize for the bishop in all thesecases, not surprisingly in view of the close relationship which existedbetween the episcopate and the presbyterate at this early period. Butthey are less unanimous about whether the delegation of presidencymay be extended further, to include the diaconate or the laity.

With regard to baptism, Tertullian draws a distinction betweenpresbyters and deacons, on the one hand, who may baptize with thebishop's authorization, and lay men (but not women!) who may take itupon themselves to do so in cases of genuine necessity only.3 Later

1 Didasi:alia 2.58: Brock and Vasey, op. cit., p.16. Parallel. though briefer, instructionsare found in the fifth century Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua 56.

2 See above. p.13.3 Tertullian. De Baptismo 17.

26

THE DELEGATION OF PRESIDENCY

practice, however, was to regard only bishops and presbyters as normalministers of baptism, and not deacons, who, like laymen, might onlyact in cases of extreme urgency. The Apostolic Constitutions, forexample, is very firm in its denial of the right of ministering baptism todeacons. 1 Cyprian was quite prepared to permit a deacon to effect thereconciliation of penitents, if no presbyter were available to do it2

(though we have no later instances of such a practice), and theApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus directed that, when a bishop wasabsent, a presbyter or a deacon might preside at the agape and blessthe bread, but not a layman, 'for a layman cannot make the blessedbread'. 3 With regard to the eucharist itself, we have the claim byTertullian that in cases of necessity even a layman might preside, for'where three are, there is the church, even if they are laymen'4, andlater canon 15 of the Council of Aries (A.D. 314) stated that deaconswere presiding at the eucharist 'in many places' and ordered this tocease.

Though such evidence is very scanty and unequal in value, it doesseem to suggest that at first the limits of episcopal delegation were notentirely obvious, and it was not until the fourth century, whenpresbyters began to deputize for their bishops on a more regular basis,that they came to be thought of as possessing certain inherentliturgical functions, which were consequently to be denied to thediaconate and the laity, in other words that such powers were treatedas theirs by right and not merely by concession. To quote Robert Taft,'from the fourth century we see a growing consciousness thatpresbyters celebrating the eucharist together with the bishop are doingsomething that the laity cannot do, something only they have themandate to perform.'s This also marks the beginning of a further shift inthe whole understanding of the liturgical role of bishop and presbyters,away from the notion of presiding over a rite celebrated corporately bythe whole church to the idea of their doing something for and on behalfof the people. It was not until some time later, however, that the term'priest', which had been applied to the bishop since at least thebeginning of the third century, began also to be used of presbytersindividually, and not just in their association with the bishop.6 Eventhen, presbyters did not assume the right to all the liturgical functionswhich had previously been exercised by the bishop. Some, likeordination, which there seemed no pressing need to delegate,continued to be retained by the bishop alone.

1 Apost. Const. 3.11, 20; 8.28. 46.2 Cyprian, Ep. 18.1.3 Apost. Trad 28.4 Tertullian. De Exhort. Cast. 7.3: see G. Otrano, 'Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus?

(Exhort. Cast. 7.3)' in Vetera Christianorum 8 (1971), pp.27-47; C. Vo~el, 'Leministre charismatique de I' eucharistie: approche rituelle', in Ministeres etcelebration de I'eucharistie (Studia Anselmiana 61. Rome 1973), pp.198-204.

5 Taft, op. cit.• p.318.6 See Schillebeeckx, op. cit., pp.44. 48-9; but cf. Vilela, Condition collegiale, pp.83-98,

281-5, for the beginnings of sacerdotal terminology concerning presbyters inrelation to the bishop in Origen and, Cyprian.

27

•

POSTSCRIPT

The history of liturgical presidency in the early church is, therefore, astory of continuous evolution, from a situation in which the oversight ofworship, on the one hand, and the exercise of major liturgical functions(reading, preaching, and prayer), on the other, were quite clearlydistinguished from one another, to a situation in which any suchdistinction had totally disappeared; from a situation in which liturgicalaction was understood in a corporate sense to one in which it wasfirmly concentrated in the hands of one group of ministers or theirassistants, who acted on behalf of the rest from a situation in which'charism' played a major part to one in which 'office' was almostentirely determinative; from a situation in which presidency wasexercised in a collegiate manner to one in which it was conceivedexclusively in individualistic terms. In many ways such a movementseems in retrospect to have been more or less inevitable, given thecontexts in which the church found itself, with, for example, thepressure from heretical groups in the second century and the problemsof growing numbers of members and a lack of education in the fourth.There may have been some valuable gains in the transition, but onecannot help concluding that there were also significant losses, and thatour own contemporary situation might be helped if we were able toretrace our steps somewhat. if, for instance, the distinction betweenpresidency proper and the exercise of other liturgical functions were tobe taken seriously once more. The task of the liturgical historian,however, is only to show how and why practices have changed: it is forthe church to determine whether and how they should do so again.

28