| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus - Translated into English with Introduction and Notes
Author: Easton, Burton Scott
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus - Translated into English with Introduction and Notes" ***
THE
APOSTOLIC TRADITION
OF
HIPPOLYTUS
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY
BURTON SCOTT EASTON
ARCHON BOOKS
Copyright 1934, Cambridge University Press
REPRINTED 1962 BY ARRANGEMENT WITH CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_To_
FRANK GAVIN
PREFATORY NOTE
This book was originally planned as the joint work of my colleague, Dr
Frank Gavin, and myself. Other duties compelled him to withdraw from
the undertaking, but it none the less owes more than can be told to
his expert knowledge and lavishly given advice.
Appreciative thanks are also due to Dr E. R. Hardy for his generous
help in checking the translation from the Sahidic.
CONTENTS
_Prefatory Note_ _page_ vii
Introduction 1
I. CHURCH ORDERS 1
II. HIPPOLYTUS 16
Translation 33
Notes 63
Indexes 107
THE IMPORTANT BOOKS
Edmund Hauler. _Didascalia Apostolorum Fragmenta Ueronensia Latina.
Accedunt Canonum qui Dicuntur Apostolorum et Aegyptiorum
Reliquiae._ Leipzig, 1900.
Paul de Lagarde. _Aegyptiaca_. Göttingen, 1883.
George Horner. _The Statutes of the Apostles or Canones
Ecclesiastici_. London, 1904.
Since 1915 published by the Oxford University Press; the English
translations only are included.
R. Hugh Connolly. _The So-called Egyptian Church Order and Derived
Documents_. Cambridge, 1916.
Ernst Jungklaus. _Die Gemeinde Hippolyts_. Leipzig, 1928. At first
included in the _Texte und Untersuchungen_.
F. X. Funk. _Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum_. Paderborn,
1905.
James Cooper and Arthur John Maclean. _The Testament of Our Lord._
Edinburgh, 1902.
Wilhelm Riedel. _Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats
Alexandrien._ Leipzig, 1900.
John Wordsworth. _Bishop Sarapion’s Prayer-Book._ London, 1899.
Arthur John Maclean. _The Ancient Church Orders._ Cambridge, 1910.
Paul Wendland. _Hippolytus Werke._ Dritter Band. _Refutatio Omnium
Haeresium._ Leipzig, 1916.
In the Berlin _Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller_ series.
The best text of the _Philosophumena_.
Francis Legge. _[Hippolytus’s] Philosophumena._ London, 1921.
The best English translation. Unfortunately Wendland’s critical text
is ignored.
INTRODUCTION
I. CHURCH ORDERS
The early Church Orders were systematic manuals of disciplinary and
liturgical rules for which the collective authority of the whole
apostolate was claimed. They made their appearance in the second
century, grew to considerable dimensions in the third, and reached
their fullest development toward the end of the fourth century. They
are sources of importance for our knowledge of the inner life of the
church, and they were influential factors in the formation of the
later canon law.
That legislation of a fairly detailed and elaborate character should
sooner or later make its appearance in Christianity was inevitable.
The local congregations were made up of men and women practically
isolated from the rest of the world and brought into the closest
contact with one another; their church was to them almost their entire
universe. If human beings anywhere are to live together under such
conditions, mutual affection and forbearance—be they never so
great—are not enough. Regulations, which define rights and duties in
unambiguous terms, are indispensable, and these regulations are bound
to increase in number and complexity as the community grows.
As it happened, however, Christianity in its origins contained
extraordinarily little material that could be used in forming these
regulations. In theory Christians, for guidance in all matters, were
to turn to Jesus Christ their Lord, whose teaching they regarded as
totally divine and so the final authority in all things. But, as a
matter of fact, Jesus’ concern was not with concrete and specific
problems, and when asked to rule on such he brusquely refused.[1] He
occupied himself with ultimate moral principles, and left to
individuals the task of applying these principles to the various
special problems of their lives. Hence it is not at all surprising
that in the apostolic and post-apostolic ages direct citation of his
sayings is rarely used to settle disputed matters of practice;[2] his
words are employed rather as general directives and to give
inspiration to action.[3]
Nor did the apostles attempt in any systematic way to supply the
concrete element that Jesus’ teaching might be thought to lack. In
only one instance[4] does the New Testament give us anything that
purports to be an apostolic decree, and it gives this only in a matter
of fundamental importance. Yet even this brief ruling presents serious
critical difficulties to modern investigators, and probably something
less than full apostolic authority should be accorded it. In St Paul’s
Epistles, indeed, it is laid down as a fundamental principle that
individual divergences should be tolerated as far as possible even in
the same community,[5] so that the apostle turns from general
principles to detailed regulations only in the most extreme instances.
Each of his churches was left free to develop under the guidance of
the Spirit such customs as it might judge profitable—and was warned
not to make even these customs too authoritative. And there is no
reason to think that the other apostles differed greatly from St Paul
in this regard. That some of them may have drawn up certain specific
rules for their own communities is abstractly conceivable, but as to
this there is no tradition at all in the sources of the apostolic age
and nothing of any value in later writings.
As a consequence, Christian congregations in search for material to
use for legislative purposes could find very little in the primary
authoritative teaching of their religion, and were obliged to look
elsewhere. But abundant other sources were not lacking.
Of these the chief was the Old Testament, whose importance to the
majority of early Christians can hardly be exaggerated. The ceremonial
legislation of the Pentateuch was, to be sure, no longer regarded as
binding on Christians; the Pauline controversies had settled this
principle, even though a dissenting minority did not disappear until
late in the second century. But acceptance of the principle did not
debar endless debate as to the principle’s precise extent: just what
Mosaic precepts should be classed as “purely ceremonial”? St Paul, for
instance, saw no inherent objection to eating things sacrificed to
idols,[6] but in the decree of Acts 15. 28-29 abstinence from such
food is regarded as axiomatically “necessary”,[7] and Christians
during the next three centuries generally took the same view. The duty
of Christian liberality was defined more closely by the adoption of
the Jewish law of tithing, and this law was even extended to include
not only agricultural produce but income of any kind.[8] Or, even when
the literal force of an Old Testament precept was recognized as
superseded, a transferred sense might be discovered that revived the
rule for Christianity. So the command that tithes should be paid to
the priests was construed to give the church’s ministers a right to
the Christian payments.[9] Or the fact that the Old Testament ministry
was strictly regulated led to the argument that divine regulations of
equal strictness must hedge about the Christian ministry as well.[10]
Since so much permanent value was detected in the older ceremonial
legislation, it was only natural that the obligation of the “moral”
laws should usually be treated as absolute. This led to a true moral
legalism; that is, these laws were conceived to demand obedience not
because of a higher principle contained in them but simply because
they were “written”. Such, for instance, is the assumption throughout
Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, where almost every argument is
made to rest ultimately on an Old Testament precept. Nor does it occur
at all to Clement that the Corinthians may find anything amiss in his
method; he takes for granted that, no matter how much other parts of
the Old Testament may have lost their meaning, God’s moral statutes
will remain in immutable force for ever. And, we can scarcely doubt,
such was a common opinion in Christianity from the very beginning,
outside of Pauline and a few other circles; it was an attitude very
like Clement’s that St Paul combated in his Epistle to the Romans.
This common opinion, moreover, was strongly reinforced by pedagogical
needs. The sweep of the new religion and its gathering in converts
from all sorts of curious moral highways and hedges had created a
situation that taxed to the uttermost the powers of the Christian
teachers. Multitudes of neophytes were constantly demanding
instruction, and to teach each one of them how to apply Christ’s
deeper principles to involved special problems seemed utterly
impracticable; why engage in so intricate a task when a succinct Old
Testament precept could settle the matter instantly? So catechetical
moral training was usually given by means of short digests based on
Old Testament laws, some of these digests being undoubtedly of Jewish
origin.[11] But it is interesting to note that the most authoritative
brief digest of Jewish morality—the Decalogue—does not appear as a
whole in the Christian teaching.[12]
In Gentile Christianity concrete rules were taken likewise from Greek
ethical works, whose standard was usually high. Only the learned, of
course, could appreciate the moral treatises of the great
philosophers, but a long succession of teachers—chiefly Stoics—had
devoted themselves to bringing an understanding of good conduct within
the reach of all. Among other means, these teachers achieved their
purpose by requiring their pupils to memorize short gnomic formulas,
or—the ultimate extremity of simplification—bare lists of virtues to
be imitated or vices to be avoided.[13] This last device was so
convenient that even Greek-speaking Jews adopted it,[14] and
Christians found it invaluable. In fact they did not hesitate to take
ready-made lists from Stoic and other sources,[15] so giving Greek
ethical concepts an unnoticed but authoritative entrance into
Christianity.
Less formal but very real was the influence of established customs and
conventions—on occasion, even superstitions—in contemporary life,
whether Jewish or Gentile. St Paul, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 11.
4 holds it to be obvious that men should pray with their heads
uncovered, and this passage has influenced all subsequent Christian
practice. Yet the ruling rests on nothing more profound than the
religious habits of the particular Jews among whom St Paul was brought
up; other Jews in his day believed that God should be approached only
when the head was covered, and this came to be the accepted Jewish
practice. If St Paul had lived elsewhere—or if he had been born
somewhat later—the declaration in 1 Corinthians 11. 4 would have
shocked him.
To these customs inherited from their pre-conversion days, the various
local churches gradually added customs of their own. Some of these
were certainly introduced for very good reasons, others perhaps for no
particular reason and more or less accidentally. But in religious
bodies everywhere customs quickly grow to be revered simply because
they _are_ the custom, and are clung to tenaciously. Yet, to a certain
degree, the churches were willing to learn from one another. The
Christian communities in any geographical subdivision of the Empire
had strong interests in common, and, in particular, they recognized as
right and proper a certain leadership on the part of the church in
their political capital. So the customs of this church were generally
accepted as models for the whole region, with the result that by the
end of the second century “local” use was quite generally converted
into “provincial” use. And very large and important
churches—especially Antioch, Alexandria and Rome—gained a
corresponding ascendency over the smaller capitals within their
respective areas.
In some instances, in fact, rulings by outstanding churches or
individuals might acquire an almost world-wide influence. 1 Clement,
which states the Roman conception of certain rules governing the
ministry, was accepted as authoritative in circles far away from the
Corinthians for whom it was written. Indeed, many Christians came
actually to regard it as an inspired New Testament writing, and in
various later documents Clement figures as the medium through whom the
apostles issued their decrees. Of equal significance was Ignatius of
Antioch, whose directions on church organization appear to have been
obeyed even in Rome itself. Just so later Church Orders were regarded
as legally binding in provinces remote from their place of origin.
In most quarters this trend toward uniformity in the second century
was simply taken for granted. Practices with a century of
tradition[16] behind them were practically treated as irreformable:
“This custom has been handed down from the days of the apostles and
consequently has the apostles’ authority behind it”. But even by the
end of the first century the apostles were regarded as a wholly
inspired group, who were the divinely appointed custodians and
interpreters of the faith.[17] Hence, it was commonly assumed, they
must have been unanimous in all things; what one apostle taught all
apostles must have taught. All Christianity rests on a common norm of
doctrine and practice that was delivered to the church by the
apostles.[18]
It is this conviction that lies behind the Church Orders and that
gives them their peculiar form.
The most obvious objection to this theory, naturally, was the very
evident fact that approved practices in different localities varied
considerably; these could not all go back to a common origin. And in
minor matters, assuredly, second- and third-century Christianity
tolerated or even encouraged[19] differences. But in anything regarded
as important local divergences could lead to bitter conflict. When the
second-century Asia Minor churches were asked to change their date for
Easter, they replied, “We must obey God rather than men”, and a schism
in the church resulted.[20] And in this clash apostolic authority was
passionately claimed by both sides, with the constant premise that
such authority must in the main lead to uniformity.
Yet there were definite limits to the process of unification. As the
generations grew into centuries, the general “ethos” of the more
important local types of Christianity acquired a venerable dignity
that commanded respect even from churches whose customs were
different. In major matters of practice, moreover, a substantial
agreement had been achieved, and the churches were organized along the
same main lines everywhere. So when any church claimed apostolic
teaching in support of special usages of its own—and such claims were
made frequently—it usually did so fully aware that other churches
could make similar claims with equal validity, and that its special
usages might very well have been different. This fact led to a
revision of the theory of apostolic unanimity. The complete agreement
of the apostles was now thought to extend only to doctrine and the
vitally important rules of practice; in other regards each apostle
within his own territory had established a use of his own—and each of
these uses was equally legitimate. So Alexandria appealed to St Mark,
Jerusalem to St James, Ephesus to St John, Rome to St Peter, and so
on; in due course the far east was to appeal to St Thomas or St
Thaddeus.
Such a theory was not entirely novel; Irenaeus, for instance, urged it
in an unsuccessful attempt to settle the paschal controversy. But as
local customs became fixed the theory was more and more invoked, and
it finally became a settled principle throughout Christendom. The
fourth century was here the definite turning point; when the
ecumenical councils met, they made no attempt to legislate in full
details for the whole church. So when the compiler of the Apostolic
Constitutions _ca._ 375 revived the Church Order formula that made all
the apostles legislate minutely, we may presume that he was
consciously adopting a style that was already somewhat obsolescent;
Christians by now were becoming aware that collective apostolic
authority could not be claimed for so wide an extent of regulations.
And this consciousness brought with it the eventual end of the Church
Orders; they were replaced by explicitly local collections of canons
and by liturgical service books. Yet in many parts of the church the
old Church Orders retained their authority, and they were incorporated
into the manuals of canon law.
The following are the chief Church Orders:
THE DIDACHE
As this work is familiar to everyone its contents need not be
described. Most scholars date it in the early years of the second
century, but the possibility that its compiler used the Epistle of
Barnabas as a source cannot be wholly disregarded.[21] Barnabas is
usually dated about 131, with a possibility of belonging some fifteen
years earlier, so if the dependence is accepted the Didache could
scarcely have originated before the second quarter of the century and
may even be somewhat later.
The influence of the Didache in the early church was wide and it was
held in high honour. It was incorporated into the Didascalia, the
Apostolic Church Order and the Apostolic Constitutions. So eminent and
orthodox a saint as Athanasius speaks of it as a book very profitable
for neophytes “who wish for instruction in the word of godliness”,[22]
and he cites it as an authority more than once, even though he—very
properly—refuses to recognize it as a canonical New Testament
writing.[23] There consequently can be no reasonable doubt that the
Didache originated in the broad stream of orthodox Christian
tradition, not in some obscure heretical sect.
Much the most convenient edition of the Greek text is that edited by
Dr Hans Lietzmann in his _Kleine Texte_ series;[24] it contains an
excellent critical apparatus and is very inexpensive. There are many
accessible English translations.
THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
This work of Hippolytus, the subject of the present volume, is named
here to preserve the chronological sequence. In its Coptic and other
versions it was formerly known as the Egyptian Church Order.
THE DIDASCALIA
A substantial “handbook for the churches”, written probably in Syria,
not far either way from 250. Its original language was Greek, but it
has been preserved in Syriac and Latin; the latter is defective. It is
concerned almost wholly with rules for church organization, church
finance and church discipline, treating doctrine hardly at all and
liturgical matters only incidentally. Its author was acquainted with
the more important Christian literature of the second century, and
there is some evidence that he knew Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition.
The Didascalia is best studied in Dom R. H. Connolly’s English
version,[25] which he has provided with judicious introduction and
notes. Attention should be directed to his words on p. xlv: “It is now
generally recognized that the author’s theological outlook was
entirely Catholic, and that he writes as a champion of the Great
Church as opposed to all manner of heresy and schism”.
THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH ORDER
This work[26] so nearly resembles the Didache in both size and
arrangement that there is good reason to believe that it was
originally issued as a “revised” edition of the older work. Chapters
1-3 describe a meeting of the Twelve Apostles at which they decided to
publish this Order. Chapters 4-13 are Didache 1-4, slightly rearranged
and expanded. Chapter 14 is apparently derived from Barnabas 14 and
closes with Didache 4. 13. Chapters 15-28 treat of church
organization, beginning with the election of bishops and ending with
the duties of women: the conditions described indicate a date not
earlier than the end of the third century. Chapter 29 contains an
adjuration to charity and chapter 30 a final appeal to apostolic
authority.
This Order, whose orthodoxy is unimpeachable, was written in Greek and
is probably (not certainly) of Egyptian origin. Its popularity is
shown by the fact that Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic and
other versions have been preserved, as well as the original Greek. A
complete critical edition has not yet been prepared. The best edition
of the Greek text is in Theodor Schermann’s _Die allgemeine
Kirchenordnung_,[27] 1, pp. 1-34. The English versions, such as they
are, are not very accessible, but the translations of the Ethiopic,
Arabic and Sahidic in Horner are adequate.[28]
THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS
This, the most ambitious of all the Church Orders, undertook to
provide a practically complete treatise on church law and liturgics by
collecting and revising earlier authoritative sources. Books I-VI are
an enlarged edition of the Didascalia. Chapters 1-32 of Book VII treat
the Didache similarly; chapters 33-45 contain a collection of prayers
obviously based on Jewish synagogue forms; the source of chapters
46-49 is uncertain. Chapters 1-2 of Book VIII are now generally held
to utilize a lost work of Hippolytus, _Concerning Gifts_. Chapters
3-46 contain his Apostolic Tradition, greatly expanded, especially in
the so-called Clementine Liturgy[29] of chapters 6-15.
The Constitutions were compiled around 375, either in Syria or
Constantinople. The author had no hesitation about drastically
rewriting archaic material, but the great bulk of his expansions are
simply expository and homiletic. His verbosity is irksome to modern
readers, but it was quite in accord with the taste of his age.
Theologically he shows Arian leanings, but these are often rather
difficult to detect without comparing his text with its sources; his
work as a whole is certainly not “Arian”.
The extent of the later influence of the Constitutions has not yet
been satisfactorily estimated. That the work in its entirety was not
apostolic was recognized at once and various church councils branded
it as apocryphal. But later writers not infrequently cite passages
from the Constitutions as authoritative; these citations as a whole,
however, have not thus far been collected and analysed. Apparently the
most influential part of the book was its “Clementine Liturgy”, which
deeply influenced subsequent Eastern rites.
The classic edition of the Greek text is that of Funk. The English
translation in the _Ante-Nicene Fathers_ is generally adequate.
THE APOSTOLIC CANONS
A collection of eighty-five canons, appended to the Constitutions.
They were compiled by its author partly from earlier synodic sources,
partly from the Constitutions themselves. In the Eastern Church these
canons were accepted as a whole and were translated into many
languages; in the Western Church only the first fifty were received.
THE EPITOME
“The Epitome of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions” is the
title—and something of a misnomer—for what is little more than a copy
of the sections of this Book of the Constitutions that deal with
organization and discipline. It is divided into five parts, A-E. The
first two chapters of the Constitutions are reproduced in A, chapter
32 in C, chapter 46 in E. D contains chapters 33-34, 42-45,
practically intact.
B is headed “The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles concerning
Ordination through Hippolytus”, a title not infrequently[30] used to
describe the entire work as “The Constitutions through Hippolytus”. It
begins with chapter 3 of the Constitutions, describing the election of
a bishop. But the ordination prayer that follows is taken directly
from Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition, not from the Constitutions.
Then comes chapter 16 of the Constitutions on the ordination of
presbyters. The opening sentences are given literally, but the
ordination prayer is about midway in length between the compact
version in Hippolytus and the elaborate wording of the Constitutions.
Chapters 18-21 are copied with minimal variations, but in chapter 22
the ordination of readers is dismissed in a brief sentence from
Hippolytus. Chapters 23-28 and 30-31, almost unchanged, conclude the
section.
Even as late as the beginning of the twentieth century the Epitome was
often taken to be a source used in the Constitutions. But this is now
recognized to be wrong: the Epitome is extracted from the
Constitutions, with a few reversions to Hippolytus. As it contains
nothing independent there is no way to judge its date or place of
origin.
The Greek text will be found in Funk, II, pp. 72-96. The three
passages that really differ from the Constitutions are translated in
the present volume.[31]
THE TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD
This work is divided into two Books, of 47 and 27 chapters
respectively. In Book I, after an apocalyptic introduction in chapters
1-13, the risen Christ solemnly declares (chapters 14-18) to the
apostles the divine obligation of the rules that follow. The remainder
of the work is based on Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition, although
often greatly changed and expanded: there are added, for instance,
rules for church architecture, descriptions of clerical duties and
much liturgical matter. But Hippolytus’s order is faithfully followed
and his text is often reproduced verbally. Book I, chapter 28, a
“mystagogic” treatise on Christology in semi-credal form, is perhaps a
later addition.
The date of the Testament is probably a little later than that of the
Constitutions; in any case it is hardly earlier than 360. For its
place of origin Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt all have their advocates,
with Egypt probably the least likely. The original Greek is lost, but
the work has been transmitted in Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic. Its
Christology has an “Apollinarian” flavour, but “there is no actual
heresy in the Testament”.[32] The English version of Cooper and
Maclean is standard, although certain of their elaborate notes now
require revision.
THE CANONS OF HIPPOLYTUS
A work containing thirty-eight “canons”, which “Hippolytus, the chief
of the bishops of Rome, wrote according to the commands of the
apostles”. This paraphrase for his “Apostolic Tradition” indicates the
source with an explicitness unusual in a Church Order. Its alterations
are much less radical than those in the Testament, and wholly new
matter is limited to a brief introduction and an appendix concerned
chiefly with moral and ascetic directions. The revision was made
almost certainly in the fifth century and beyond reasonable doubt in
Egypt.
The text (originally Greek) has been preserved only in an Arabic
version. The only reliable edition is the German translation by
Riedel; an English version is badly needed.
For the sake of completeness there may be added:
SARAPION’S PRAYERS
This work is not a true Church Order: it makes no pretence to
apostolic origin and consists wholly of a collection of prayers drawn
up by Sarapion, bishop of Thmuis, about 350. It opens with the
celebrant’s part at the eucharist and closes with various
benedictions. The eucharistic prayer has been strongly influenced by
the Didache, the ordination prayers by Hippolytus. The most accessible
edition of the Greek text is in Funk, II, pp. 158-195. Bishop John
Wordsworth edited an excellent English translation.
II. HIPPOLYTUS
Hippolytus is a unique figure in Christian history, for he, a
schismatic bishop of Rome, is honoured by the Roman church as a saint
and martyr. This curious combination of qualities made him for
centuries a highly enigmatic personality, of whom almost nothing was
known. Many of his voluminous works were preserved and studied, and
were translated into Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian and even Old
Slavic. But his creation of a schism and his acceptance of its
episcopate were acts so contrary to established principles that
Eusebius, writing less than a century later, can describe him only as
the bishop “of a church somewhere”;[33] to which description Jerome
adds: “the name of whose city I have been unable to learn”.[34] That
this city was in fact Rome is, to be sure, stated by not a few late
patristic and medieval writers, especially in the East, but these do
not hint that there was anything irregular about his tenure. Or he is
assigned sees in widely different localities, sometimes as far off as
Arabia and sometimes as near Rome as Portus: this last place—due,
apparently, to confusion with some other martyr—was especially
popular. But among Western writers Hippolytus’s episcopal rank is
commonly ignored and he appears simply as “a presbyter”: the present
Roman Catholic service books[35] do not call him “bishop”. The sole
general agreement was as to the date of his death, which the
martyrologies and other early testimony place about 235.
In 1551 excavations in Rome brought to light a third-century statue of
Hippolytus, now in the Lateran Museum; the upper part of the body has
been “restored”. On the sides are inscribed an “Easter Canon” that he
computed and a partial list of his works.[36] The posture of the body,
which is that of a seated teacher, made episcopal dignity more than
probable, so for the official description of the statue Pius IV, the
next pope, adopted the Portus tradition. Hence as “Bishop of Portus”
the saint was generally known until the middle of the nineteenth
century.
In 1701 Jakob Gronov published, in the tenth volume of his _Thesaurus
Graecarum Antiquitatum_, Book I—no more was then known—of a work
called “Philosophumena” or “Philosophizings”, that was commonly,
although not universally, referred to Origen. Books IV-X of this work
were discovered in 1842 and nine years later were published as
Origen’s by the editor, B. E. Miller.[37] But the contents of the work
were soon proved by competent scholars—notably Döllinger[38]—to make
Origen’s authorship impossible; the necessary conditions were
fulfilled by Hippolytus alone. This proof established also the
Hippolytean authorship of certain other disputed works; and the
evidence thus assembled showed that Hippolytus was both a bishop and a
Roman. Incidentally, it has been established also that the correct
title for the above work is “Refutation of All Heresies”, and that
“Philosophumena” was the sub-title of Books I-IV (not as is sometimes
stated of Book I alone). But “Philosophumena” is generally accepted by
modern writers.
The Portus tradition, however, still lingered on for a time and is
accepted in the _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, both by the original editor J.
H. Macmahon (1868) and by the American reviser Bishop A. C. Coxe
(1886). Bishop Lightfoot supported a compromise theory that made of
Hippolytus a sort of suffragan bishop of Rome with special
jurisdiction over Portus.[39] But neither position is now tenable.
For the facts of Hippolytus’s life we have practically only what he
himself tells us in scattered allusions; only once (Philosophumena IX,
7) does he relate contemporary events at any length. Since in his
later works he speaks of himself as aged, his birth must be placed
_ca._ 160. Tradition makes him a disciple of Irenaeus, a highly
probable supposition even though his works are silent on the subject.
He became a presbyter of the Roman church under Zephyrinus (198?-217,
or perhaps earlier) and won great respect for his learning and
eloquence: on one occasion he was deputed to preach in the presence of
Origen.[40] But his learning brought him into a mortal conflict with a
fellow presbyter, one Callistus.
This Callistus had had in earlier years a career that was at least
ambiguous. The servant of a wealthy Christian, he was permitted by his
master to undertake in Rome the experiment of a “Christian bank”, in
which many of the faithful deposited their savings. As has usually
been the case with such experiments, the bank failed, and in this case
no assets could be discovered. Callistus fled, but was brought back to
Rome and sentenced to the treadmill. After a while he was released and
sought to regain favour with the Christians by interrupting a Jewish
synagogue service and preaching Christianity to the congregation.[41]
For this he was sent to the Sardinian convict mines. All of this
appears to have taken place during the ninth decade of the second
century; in any case Callistus was still a prisoner when Bishop Victor
succeeded in obtaining from the Emperor Commodus the release of many
Christian prisoners in the year 190 or thereabouts.[42] The list of
names drawn up by Victor and sent to Sardinia did not include
Callistus, but he contrived to secure his discharge as well, and he
returned to Italy as at least technically a “martyr”.[43] Victor,
however, did not permit him to remain in Rome and dismissed him to
Antium, where he lived until Victor’s death, receiving from the
church’s fund a monthly allowance that enabled him to avoid suffering.
Victor was succeeded by Zephyrinus, an easy-going man of small
intelligence, who in past years had conceived an intense admiration
for Callistus. He immediately recalled the latter to Rome, ordained
him presbyter,[44] and made him his chief lieutenant; during
Zephyrinus’s episcopacy Callistus was the real power at Rome. His only
significant rival was Hippolytus.
Two more different men can scarcely be imagined. Both were equally
determined to have their own way. But Callistus was suave and
ingratiating, little concerned with theological speculation, desirous
of immediate practical results and none too scrupulous as to ways and
means, indifferent to precedents and perfectly willing to try novel
experiments. Hippolytus was dour and irascible,[45] convinced that
meticulous theology must be maintained though the heavens fell,
scandalized at the mere thought of relaxing discipline, a
traditionalist to his finger tips, who believed that any new idea was
necessarily Satanic. Between such antagonists a relentless war was
inevitable.
They appear to have fought on most questions, but one cause of
conflict was paramount: Christology. During the second century the
church was constantly tormented by the problem of reconciling the
rigid monotheism inherited from the Jews with the divine honours that
were unquestioningly paid to Christ. The solution that Hippolytus
proposed followed in general the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel: God
from before creation has begotten[46] from Himself His Logos, itself
divine. This doctrine rests on speculative metaphysical premises that
are none too easy of comprehension; to many thinkers in the second
century it seemed either (_a_) to subordinate the Son to the Father in
such a way as to detract from the Son’s true divinity, or (_b_) to
make of the Son an independent deity and so destroy monotheism.
Hippolytus endeavoured to avoid both extremes, but with what success
specialists—ancient or modern—are unable to agree; it must be
remembered, however, that he wrote as a pioneer in an age when the
real questions were not yet clearly stated, let alone answered, and
that he employed a philosophy originally devised for a very different
purpose. The most popular alternative to his theory was what is rather
cumbrously known as “modalistic monarchianism”; this was quite within
the grasp of the most unphilosophical, since it disregarded all
metaphysical refinements. It argued: “We worship Christ as God, and
God is One. Therefore Christ is God and God is Christ; ‘Father’ and
‘Son’ are only titles that describe the same Person in different
aspects or ‘modes’”.
Later on this modalism was regarded as heresy of the most extreme
type, but even in the late second century it was widely taught and was
uncondemned; in part the church authorities wished to preserve peace
above all things and in part they were really in doubt as to the
points at issue. Many teachers, to be sure, attacked it violently and
none with greater passion than Hippolytus, who at the beginning of the
third century was making the Roman church hot with his invectives.
But, despite him, when Sabellius, the great apostle of modalism, came
to Rome he was received cordially by Zephyrinus and Callistus.
Still, even Hippolytus was forced to admit that Sabellius was an
honest and open-minded man, and one with whom he could argue so
frankly that he had great hopes of converting him. But Callistus
interfered. Not that he himself was quite a modalist; his own
Christology, while having strong modalistic leanings, was saved from
downright modalism by dexterous qualifications. But he regarded
Hippolytus’s doctrine—which he probably could not really understand—as
the worse of the two evils. So Sabellius, finding the two great Roman
leaders at loggerheads, reverted to his former position. To Hippolytus
this was the last straw and he publicly denounced Callistus[47] as a
heretic. Callistus retorted by hurling at Hippolytus the final insult:
“Ditheist!” The result was a schism.
It took place, apparently, in the last years of Zephyrinus,[48] who
died in 217. Hippolytus and his disciples fled from the—to
them—polluted and heretical communion of the regular bishop and
proclaimed that they and they alone were the true church of Rome. They
were not numerous but their standing appears to have been high; at any
rate they were able to find bishops willing to consecrate their leader
to the episcopate. But their withdrawal left the “regular” church
completely under Callistus’s control, and at Zephyrinus’s death he was
elected to succeed him. This election, of course, Hippolytus treated
as wholly null, asserting contemptuously that what Callistus had done
was to become the leader of a “school of Callistans”, not of a “church
of Christians”.
Callistus disposed of the Christological controversy by
excommunicating both Sabellius and Hippolytus, and then turned his
attention to the most thorny practical question that perplexed
contemporary Christians, the problem of mortal sin after baptism. From
the beginning of the post-apostolic age[49] the church almost
universally held that such sin could not receive absolution, so that
the sinners were permanently excommunicate and without hope of
restoration.[50] The only “orthodox” voice in opposition to this
rigorism was raised by the Shepherd of Hermas, and even its author
dared oppose the universal teaching of his age only because he had
received a special revelation from God; nor did he venture to promise
more than the remission of _one_ post-baptismal sin for anyone. In
many quarters, indeed, even this mild relaxation of the rule was
passionately resisted, and the most vigorous religious movement of the
second century—Montanism—took as its watchword, “No second remission!”
By the beginning of the third century a final settlement of the
question had become a necessity. The Christians had been successful
beyond their dreams in attracting converts, but probably the majority
possessed only general good moral qualities and lacked the heroic
virtues. What was to be done with them? Should the church dismiss them
as unworthy and so reduce its numbers drastically? Or should it do
what it could for those whose intentions were good, without expecting
too much of them? To Hippolytus the church’s constant teaching since
the apostles’ time removed the problem from debate: Christians must be
saints in the fullest sense of the word. So his flock was constantly
purged by excommunications. Callistus, on the contrary, took the bold
step of brushing aside tradition altogether and of appealing directly
to the New Testament: “Let the tares grow with the wheat until the
harvest”,[51] and, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s
servant?"[52] Sinners were, of course, put to penance, but if they
proved their good faith they could be absolved, no matter what their
offence nor how often it had been committed. This decision of
Callistus was nothing short of revolutionary, and it was destined to
change the ideal of church membership for all time. Naturally it
shocked Hippolytus beyond measure—and his horror was intensified when
those whom he himself had excommunicated were received into communion
by Callistus.
The latter, in fact, went so far in the abolition of the stricter
rules that his own successors at Rome withdrew or seriously modified
some of his concessions. He pronounced that second and even third
marriages constituted no impediment to ordination, and allowed clerics
to marry after they had been ordained. And he declined to recognize
for Christian marriage the impediment of disparity of status in the
Roman civil law; as a result the church permitted marriages that the
parties could disown to the state—with some curious consequences.
All of this so incensed Hippolytus and his party that Callistus’s
death in 222 did not end the schism; it continued under his successors
Urbanus (222-230)—of whom nothing is certainly known—and Pontianus
(230-235). But in 235 Maximinus became emperor and he undertook a
persecution that singled out the Christian leaders. So in Rome both
Pontianus and Hippolytus were arrested and sent to Sardinia, where
they shortly afterward succumbed to the hardships of convict life.
This healed the breach in the church, and the reunited factions
completed the reconciliation by pronouncing both bishops to be saints
and martyrs.
This action has been taken by some scholars—arguing from the premises
of a later day—as evidence that Hippolytus made a retractation before
his death. But Hippolytus was not the man to retract anything. And the
Roman church of the next generation would never have allowed the
erection of his statue if they had held him to be saved only by a
deathbed repentance; still less would they have permitted the public
and honourable inscription of the titles of works in which he glories
in his conduct.[53] The church really acknowledged that both sides had
made mistakes, and that Hippolytus’s errors—whatever they may have
been—were due to an excess of zeal for righteousness and were not to
be weighed against his consecrated learning and his burning devotion.
THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
For a list and description of Hippolytus’s works reference must be
made to the treatises on patrology; he was a prolific writer on
exegetical, doctrinal and practical themes, who published at least
fifty books and probably many more. But after he had been consecrated
bishop of his separatist congregation, his first task was to provide
treatises to perpetuate the principles for which he was contending so
bitterly. One of these was _Of Gifts_, to which he alludes in 1. 1; it
has not been preserved, although traces appear to be incorporated in
Constitutions VIII, i-ii. And it was followed immediately by the
Apostolic Tradition.
Its introduction fixes its date and purpose. A “lapse or error” had
“recently occurred” (1. 4), and Hippolytus undertakes to guard against
its effects by setting forth the true doctrine “which has continued up
to now”. And he recurs to the same theme at the close: “the many
heresies have increased because their leaders would not learn the
purpose of the apostles”, but “over all who hear the apostolic
tradition and keep it, no heretics or any other man will prevail” (38.
2-3). The date accordingly must be close to 217 and the purpose is to
cleave to the old ways, rejecting every innovation; the tradition
which Hippolytus received from the presbyters before him (36. 12) must
be maintained inviolate.
In content the book consists mainly of laws for church organization
and the conduct of worship, but these are interspersed freely with
comment and explanation. The source of the laws themselves is not
doubtful: they represent the normal practices at Rome in Hippolytus’s
younger days, and he is quite sincere in believing that they are truly
apostolic and therefore unalterable. And that they actually are rules
of real antiquity is shown by the corroboration they receive from
other early Christian writers, among whom Tertullian in particular
describes usages extraordinarily like those expounded by his Roman
contemporary. The Apostolic Tradition, consequently, is more than a
source for Roman customs at the beginning of the third century; it may
with equal safety be invoked for the practice of thirty or even fifty
years earlier. In the words of Harnack:[54] “Here is the richest
source that we in any form possess for our knowledge of the polity of
the Roman church in the oldest time, and this Roman polity may, in
many regards, be accepted as the polity held everywhere”.
The same, naturally, cannot always be said of the material in
Hippolytus’s comments. Here too, unquestionably, much is inherited; it
is for one of his explanations that he appeals to the presbyters in
36. 12. But it is occasionally evident—chapter 9 is an instance—that
the ceremonies he faithfully describes do not fully accord with his
interpretations, and that he himself does not invariably understand
his material. Some of the wording of his prayers, moreover, is
unmistakably his own, but in his day (10. 4-6) each Christian leader
still felt free to frame prayers as he would.
Hippolytus designed his work for “the churches” (1. 3), a phrase most
naturally understood of Christendom at large. His own church of Rome
appears to have appreciated his work the least, for the majority of
Roman Christians gave their allegiance to his rivals and accepted
their legislation; it was the reforms of Callistus and not the
conservatism of Hippolytus that directed subsequent Roman polity.
Probably, too, despite his canonization, his memory was always
slightly suspect; the Roman church certainly managed to forget very
quickly who he really was. By the middle of the third century,
moreover, his church finally abandoned Greek as its official language
and became wholly Latinized, so that his writings were no longer
accessible. And what was true of Rome was true of the West in general.
In the East, however, especially in Egypt and Syria, Hippolytus’s work
was accepted as possessing high authority. It was of course not
treated as infallible, for later legal writers do not hesitate to
amend or omit laws disagreeing with local usage. Yet the title
Hippolytus chose for his work was taken really seriously,[55] and he,
more than any other Church Father, gave the laws and the liturgy of
the Eastern Church their permanent form.
The Apostolic Tradition was first made known to the Western world in
1691 by Job Ludolf in _Ad suam Historiam Aethiopicam Commentarius_; in
this he published in incomplete form the Ethiopic work containing it,
to which he gave the title—still in use—of _Statuta Apostolorum_. But
he naturally was unable to identify the author. It was not until 1848
that the next contribution was made, Tattam’s _The Apostolic
Constitutions or Canons of the Apostles in Coptic_,[56] which gave the
Bohairic text with an English translation. The Sahidic text appeared
thirty-five years later on pp. 248-266 of Lagarde’s _Aegyptiaca_, and
this is still the standard edition. A German translation (by
Steindorff) was published in 1891 by Achelis in his _Die ältesten
Quellen des orientalischen Kirchenrechtes_:[57] this monograph opened
the really critical study of the material and is not yet wholly
obsolete. But Hauler’s discovery of the Latin text was the most
important event of all. He published his find in 1900 but did not
appreciate the full importance of what he describes only as
“Aegyptiorum reliquiae” at the end of his long title.[58] And even
such an intensely able scholar as Funk, in making his own Latin
version of “The Egyptian Church Order”, still preferred to follow the
Sahidic.[59] Horner’s _Statutes of the Apostles_ (1904) finally
supplied critical Ethiopic and Arabic texts, with scientifically
literal translations of these and of the Sahidic as well.
The basic significance of the Latin version was glimpsed by Cooper and
Maclean in their edition of the Testament[60] (1902); their use of
“Hauler” is often penetrating. In 1906 Baron Eduard von der Goltz[61]
finally identified certain sections as definitely Hippolytean, and
four years later Dr Eduard Schwartz reached the definite
conclusion:[62] the Latin text represents substantially what
Hippolytus wrote. Dr Schwartz’s monograph, however, was brief and left
many problems unexplored; the detailed demonstration was the—wholly
independent—work of Dom Connolly in 1916.
In 1928 Dr Jungklaus published a German translation of Hippolytus’s
work, with an elaborate introduction; in some regards it proved
unsatisfactory but it should on no account be neglected.
The textual evidence is as follows:
The original Greek of chapters 3 and 12 is preserved in the Epitome,
and that of 25. 1-2 in the Vienna fragment printed (e.g.) by Funk (II,
p. 112). The Constitutions also give some aid in reconstructing the
Greek text elsewhere.
The Latin codex, now in Verona, is a palimpsest,[63] probably of the
sixth century, over which some two centuries later three books of
Isidore of Seville’s _Sentences_ were written. The translation itself
appears to have been made in the fourth century, and is a rendition of
a Greek book of church laws, in which Hippolytus’s book is preceded by
portions of the Didascalia and the complete Apostolic Church Order.
The translator, who presumably had no idea of the authorship of the
closing portion, made his version pedantically literal; a great
advantage to the modern student. Unquestionably neither the
sixth-century copyist, the translator nor the Greek text used was
infallible; the last certainly contained duplications.[64] But the
version is incomparably the best guide that we have. It includes 1.
1-9. 11a, 21. 14-24. 12a, 26. 3b-38. 2a.
The Oriental manuscripts, all comparatively modern,[65] are fairly
numerous,[66] and are likewise collections of laws. The Sahidic—known
also as the Egyptian Heptateuch, from its seven Books—begins with the
Apostolic Church Order. Then (Book II) comes Hippolytus’s work, in
which chapters 1, 3, 4. 4-13, 5-6, 8. 2-5, 9. 9-12 are omitted and
chapters 11-14 are arranged in the order[67] 12, 14, 11, 13; there are
also minor variations to which attention is usually called in the
translation and notes. Books III-VI are parallel to Constitutions
VIII; Book VII contains the Apostolic Canons. Like other Coptic
ecclesiastical writings it teems with transliterated Greek words, so
that the original terms are obvious. But the first translator was
evidently often in doubt as to the meaning of the original, and his
indecisions have not been clarified by later copyists.
The Bohairic was made from an inferior Sahidic manuscript in the early
nineteenth century. All readings of any consequence are listed by
Horner.
The Arabic was made from the Sahidic, which it follows in most
regards, although chapters 11-14 are not disarranged; it was therefore
made from a manuscript other than the archetype of the known Sahidic
codices and has a certain independent textual value. Otherwise its
features are just about those to be expected in a secondary version.
The Ethiopic is divided into seventy-two “Statutes”, of which the
first twenty-one are the Apostolic Church Order. Statute 22 =
Hippolytus’s chapters 2-5, concluding with communion prayers. Chapter
6 of Hippolytus is omitted. Statutes 23-27 = chapters 8-15, with no
changes in order. Statutes 28-35 = chapters 16-24, concluding with a
brief additional section on the regular weekly eucharists (p. 58).
Statutes 36-38 = chapters 25-26, followed by sections on the communion
of the sick and on evening services (p. 58) and a repetition of
chapter 26. 2, 10b-13. Statute 39 = chapter 27. Statute 40 is a long
baptismal office, containing reminiscences of chapters 21-23 but
opening with chapter 1, which is not in the Sahidic or Arabic.
Statutes 40 (end)-48 = chapters 28-38. The remaining Statutes parallel
Constitutions VIII, like the other versions, but there are certain
variations; Statute 52, for instance, contains a considerable section
of the Didache, a little of the Didascalia, and a bit (38. 4) of
Hippolytus. At the end there is a collection of prayers.
The Ethiopic is a tertiary version, made from the Arabic. Statute 40,
which gives chapter 1, was evidently derived from a different source
which used the Apostolic Tradition independently, and its inclusion
here was more or less accidental. But the presence of the other
chapters not in the present Arabic texts is best explained by assuming
that the Ethiopic was derived from an older Arabic form—which in turn
presupposes an older Sahidic form; in these the omissions to avoid
conflict with local usages had not yet taken place.[68]
The additional material in Statutes 5, 35 and 37-38 is printed by both
Connolly and Jungklaus, although both[69] recognize the liturgical
prayers in 5 to be post-Hippolytean; it is consequently not included
in the present edition. But neither do the other two sections appear
to be genuine. The rules in Statute 35 are so general and
unobjectionable that their omission in the Sahidic and Arabic would be
difficult to explain, while the reverence deacons must pay to
presbyters seems to point to a later date. Similarly the description
of the care of the sick and of the evening service in Statute 37
presents nothing that could have troubled the Sahidic and Arabic
translators; the insertion of such widespread usages is easier to
understand than their omission. And the repetition of earlier matter
at the end of Statute 37 and in all of Statute 38 shows a bad textual
tradition.
In general, then, the evidence of the Ethiopic is of minor
consequence. In the only place where it stands alone (9. 11-12) it has
a text that does not appear to be possible.
Summarizing: The original Greek of the Apostolic Tradition has not
been recovered, except in small fragments. The Latin is generally
trustworthy, but is incomplete. The only other primary version, the
Sahidic, is likewise incomplete, and the results of the moderate
abilities of its translator have been further confused in later
transmission. The Arabic is a secondary text, offering little that the
Sahidic does not contain. The only practically complete version,[70]
the Ethiopic, is tertiary and is otherwise unreliable. All four of
these versions presuppose a common Greek original, in which two
different endings have been conflated. The other sources, the
Constitutions, the Testament and the Canons, are frank revisions, in
which the original is often edited out of recognition or even flatly
contradicted. Under these conditions the restoration of a really
accurate text is manifestly impossible.
None the less the material is abundant and independent enough to
warrant confidence that the substance and in most cases even the
original wording of Hippolytus’s rules have really been preserved:
only the ordination prayer for deacons presents difficulties that
appear insuperable.
The chapter divisions are those of Jungklaus, altered only at chapter
22. To facilitate reference the sentences have been numbered as
“verses”.
THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF HIPPOLYTUS
TRANSLATION
LAT 1. ¹We have duly completed what needed to be said about
“Gifts”, describing those gifts which God by His own counsel
has bestowed on men, in offering to Himself His image which
had gone astray. ²But now, moved by His love to all His
saints, we pass on to our most important theme, “The
Tradition”, our teacher. ³And we address the churches, so that
they who have been well trained, may, by our instruction, hold
fast that tradition which has continued up to now and, knowing
it well, may be strengthened. ⁴This is needful, because of
that lapse or error which recently occurred through ignorance,
and because of ignorant men. ⁵And [the] Holy Spirit will
supply perfect grace to those who believe aright, that they
may know how all things should be transmitted and kept by them
who rule the church.
PART I
2. ¹Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all
the people. ²When he has been named and shall please all, let
him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present,
assemble with the people on a Sunday. ³While all give their
consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the
presbytery shall stand by in silence. ⁴All indeed shall keep
silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit.
⁵Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request
of all, lay his hand on him who is ordained bishop, and shall
pray as follows, saying:
GRE[71] 3. ¹God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies
and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect
to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass.
²Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of
thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous
race of Abraham. ³And making them princes and priests, and
leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from
the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified
among those[72] whom thou hast chosen. ⁴Pour forth now that
power, which is thine, of thy royal Spirit, which
LAT[73] thou gavest to thy beloved Servant[74] Jesus Christ, which he
bestowed on his holy apostles,
GRE who established the church in every place, the church which
thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy
name. ⁵Thou who knowest the hearts of all,[75] grant to this
thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy
holy flock][76] and to serve as thy high priest without blame,
ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance
without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy
church. ⁶And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have
authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to
assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond
according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles,
and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering
to thee an odour of sweet savour. ⁷Through thy Servant Jesus
Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour,
with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and
always and world without end.[77] Amen.
LAT 4. ¹And when he is made bishop, all shall offer him the kiss
of peace, for he has been made worthy. ²To him then the
deacons shall bring the offering, and he, laying his hand upon
it, with all the presbytery, shall say as the thanksgiving:
³The Lord be with you.
And all shall say
_And with thy spirit._
Lift up your hearts.
_We lift them up unto the Lord._
Let us give thanks to the Lord.
_It is meet and right._
And then he shall proceed immediately:
⁴We give thee thanks, O God, through thy beloved Servant Jesus
Christ, whom at the end of time thou didst send to us a
Saviour and Redeemer and the Messenger of thy counsel. ⁵Who is
thy Word, inseparable from thee; through whom thou didst make
all things and in whom thou art well pleased. ⁶Whom thou didst
send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who,
dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as thy
Son, being born of [the] Holy Spirit and the Virgin. ⁷Who,
fulfilling thy will, and winning for himself a holy people,
spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death
he might set free them who believed on thee. ⁸Who, when he was
betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to nought
death, and break the bonds of the devil, and tread hell under
foot, and give light to the righteous, and set up a boundary
post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving
thanks to thee said: ⁹Take, eat: this is my body, which is
broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my
blood, which is shed for you. ¹⁰As often as ye perform this,
perform[78] my memorial.
¹¹Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we
offer to thee the bread and the cup, yielding thee thanks,
because thou hast counted us worthy to stand before thee and
to minister to thee.
¹²And we pray thee that thou wouldest send thy Holy Spirit
upon the offerings of thy holy church; that thou, gathering
them into one, wouldest grant to all thy saints who partake to
be filled with [the] Holy Spirit, that their faith may be
confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify thee.
¹³Through thy Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to thee
glory and honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church,
both now and always and world without end.[79] Amen.
5. ¹If anyone offers oil, he shall give thanks as at the
offering of the bread and wine, though not with the same words
but in the same general manner,[80] saying:
²That sanctifying this oil, O God, wherewith thou didst anoint
kings, priests and prophets, thou wouldest grant health to
them who use it and partake of it, so that it may bestow
comfort on all who taste it and health on all who use it.
6. ¹Likewise, if anyone offers cheese and olives, let him say
thus:
²Sanctify this milk that has been united into one mass, and
unite us to thy love. ³Let thy loving kindness ever rest upon
this fruit of the olive,[81] which is a type of thy bounty,
which thou didst cause to flow from the tree unto life for
them who hope on thee.
⁴But at every blessing shall be said:
Glory be to thee, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church,
both now and always and world without end. [Amen.]
8.[82] ¹But when a presbyter is ordained, the bishop shall lay
his hand upon his head, while the presbyters touch him, and he
shall say according to those things that were said above, as
we have prescribed above concerning the bishop, praying and
saying:
²God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look upon this thy
servant, and grant to him the Spirit of grace and counsel of a
presbyter,[83] that he may sustain and govern thy people with
a pure heart; ³as thou didst look upon thy chosen people and
didst command Moses that he should choose presbyters, whom
thou didst fill with thy Spirit, which thou gavest to thy
servant. ⁴And now, O Lord, grant that there may be unfailingly
preserved amongst us the Spirit of thy grace, and make us
worthy that, believing, we may minister to thee in simplicity
of heart, praising thee. ⁵Through thy Servant Jesus Christ,
through whom be to thee glory and honour, with [the] Holy
Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world
without end. Amen.
9. ¹But the deacon, when he is ordained, is chosen according
to those things that were said above, the bishop alone in like
manner laying his hands upon him, as we have prescribed. ²When
the deacon is ordained, this is the reason why the bishop
alone shall lay his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the
priesthood but to serve the bishop and to carry out the
bishop’s commands. ³He does not take part in the council of
the clergy; he is to attend to his own duties and to make
known to the bishop such things as are needful. ⁴He does not
receive that Spirit that is possessed by the presbytery, in
which the presbyters share; he receives only what is confided
in him under the bishop’s authority.
⁵For this cause the bishop alone shall make a deacon. ⁶But on
a presbyter, however, the presbyters shall lay their hands
because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. ⁷Yet the
presbyter has only the power to receive; but he has no power
to give. ⁸For this reason a presbyter does not ordain the
clergy; but at the ordination of a presbyter he seals while
the bishop ordains.
⁹Over a deacon, then, he shall say as follows:
¹⁰O God, who hast created all things and hast ordered them by
thy Word, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom thou didst
send to minister thy will and to manifest to us thy desire;
¹¹grant [the] Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to
this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to serve the church
and to offer
TEST in thy holy sanctuary[84] the gifts that are offered to thee
ETH by thine appointed high priests,[85]
TEST so that serving without blame[86] and with a pure heart he may
be counted worthy of this exalted office,[87] by thy goodwill,
praising thee continually. ¹²Through thy Servant Jesus Christ,
through whom be to thee glory and honour, with [the] Holy
Spirit, in the holy church, both now and always and world
without end. Amen.[88]
SAH 10. ¹On a confessor, if he has been in bonds for the name of
the Lord, hands shall not be laid for the diaconate or the
presbyterate, for he has the honour of the presbyterate by his
confession. But if he is to be ordained bishop, hands shall be
laid upon him.
²But if he is a confessor who was not brought before the
authorities nor was punished with bonds nor was shut up in
prison, but was insulted (?) casually or privately for the
name of the Lord, even though he confessed, hands are to be
laid upon him for every office of which he is worthy.[89]
³The bishop shall give thanks [in all ordinations][90] as we
have prescribed. ⁴It is not,[91] to be sure, necessary for
anyone to recite the exact words that we have prescribed, by
learning to say them by heart in his thanksgiving to God; but
let each one pray according to his ability. ⁵If, indeed, he is
able to pray competently with an elevated prayer, it is well.
⁶But even if he is only moderately able to pray and give
praise, no one may forbid him;[92] only let him pray sound in
the faith.
11.[93] ¹When a widow is appointed, she shall not be ordained
but she shall be appointed by the name. ²If her husband has
been long dead, she may be appointed [without delay]. ³But if
her husband has died recently, she shall not be trusted; even
if she is aged she must be tested by time, for often the
passions grow old in those who yield to them.
⁴The widow shall be appointed by the word alone, and [so] she
shall be associated with the other widows; hands shall not be
laid upon her because she does not offer the oblation nor has
she a sacred ministry.[94] ⁵Ordination is for the clergy on
account of their ministry,[95] but the widow is appointed for
prayer, and prayer is the duty of all.
GRE[96] 12. ¹The reader is appointed by the bishop’s giving him the
book, for he is not ordained.
SAH 13. ¹Hands shall not be laid upon a virgin, for it is her
purpose alone that makes her a virgin.
14. Hands shall not be laid upon a subdeacon, but his name
shall be mentioned that he may serve the deacon.
15. If anyone says, “I have received the gift of healing”,
hands shall not be laid upon him: the deed shall make manifest
if he speaks the truth.
PART II
16. ¹New[97] converts to the faith, who are to be admitted as
hearers of the word, shall first be brought to the teachers
before the people assemble. ²And they shall be examined as to
their reason for embracing the faith, and they who bring them
shall testify that they are competent to hear the word.
³Inquiry shall then be made as to the nature of their life;
whether a man has a wife[98] or is a slave.[99] ⁴If he is the
slave of a believer and he has his master’s permission, then
let him be received; but if his master does not give him a
good character, let him be rejected. ⁵If his master is a
heathen, let the slave be taught to please his master,[100]
that the word be not blasphemed.[101] ⁶If a man has a wife or
a woman a husband, let the man be instructed to content
himself with his wife and the woman to content herself with
her husband. ⁷But if a man is unmarried, let him be instructed
to abstain from impurity, either by lawfully marrying a wife
or else by remaining as he is.[102] ⁸But if any man is
possessed with demons, he shall not be admitted as a bearer
until he is cleansed.
⁹Inquiry shall likewise be made about the professions and
trades of those who are brought to be admitted to the faith.
¹⁰If a man is a pander,[103] he must desist or be rejected.
¹¹If a man is a sculptor or painter, he must be charged not to
make idols; if he does not desist he must be rejected. ¹²If a
man is an actor or pantomimist, he must desist or be rejected.
¹³A teacher of young children had best desist, but if he has
no other occupation, he may be permitted to continue. ¹⁴A
charioteer, likewise, who races or frequents races, must
desist or be rejected. ¹⁵A gladiator or a trainer of
gladiators, or a huntsman [in the wild-beast shows],[104] or
anyone connected with these shows, or a public official in
charge of gladiatorial exhibitions must desist or be rejected.
¹⁶A heathen priest or anyone who tends idols must desist or be
rejected. ¹⁷A soldier of the civil authority[105] must be
taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is
commanded, and to refuse to take an oath;[106] if he is
unwilling to comply, he must be rejected. ¹⁸A military
commander or civic magistrate that wears the purple must
resign or be rejected. ¹⁹If a catechumen or a believer seeks
to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have
despised God. ²⁰A harlot or licentious man[107] or one who has
castrated himself, or any other who does things not to be
named, must be rejected, for they are defiled. ²¹A magician
must not [even] be brought for examination. ²²An enchanter, an
astrologer, a diviner, a soothsayer, a user of magic verses, a
juggler, a mountebank, an amulet-maker[108] must desist or be
rejected. ²³A concubine, who is a slave and has reared her
children and has been faithful to her master alone, may become
a hearer; but if she has failed in these matters she must be
rejected. ²⁴If a man has a concubine, he must desist and marry
legally; if he is unwilling, he must be rejected.
²⁵If, now, we have omitted anything (any trade?), the facts [
as they occur] will instruct your mind; for we all have the
Spirit of God.
17. ¹Let catechumens spend three years as hearers of the word.
²But if a man is zealous and perseveres well in the work, it
is not the time but his character that is decisive.
18. ¹When the teacher finishes his instruction, the
catechumens shall pray by themselves, apart from the
believers. ²And [all] women, whether believers or catechumens,
shall stand for their prayers by themselves in a separate part
of the church.
³And when [the catechumens] finish their prayers, they must
not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure.
⁴Only believers shall salute one another, but men with men and
women with women; a man shall not salute a woman.
⁵And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque
cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true
covering.
19. ¹At the close of their prayer, when their instructor lays
his hand upon the catechumens, he shall pray and dismiss them;
whoever gives the instruction is to do this, whether a cleric
or a layman.
²If a catechumen should be arrested for the name of the Lord,
let him not hesitate about bearing his testimony; for if it
should happen that they treat him shamefully and kill him, he
will be justified, for he has been baptized in his own blood.
20. ¹They who are to be set apart for baptism shall be chosen
after their lives have been examined: whether they have lived
soberly, whether they have honoured the widows, whether they
have visited the sick, whether they have been active in
well-doing. ²When their sponsors have testified that they have
done these things, then let them hear the Gospel. ³Then from
the time that they are separated from the other catechumens,
hands shall be laid upon them daily in exorcism and, as the
day of their baptism draws near, the bishop himself shall
exorcise[109] each one of them that he may be personally
assured of their purity. ⁴Then, if there is any of them who is
not good or pure, he shall be put aside as not having heard
the word in faith; for it is never possible for the alien to
be concealed.[110]
⁵Then those who are set apart for baptism shall be instructed
to bathe and free themselves from impurity and wash themselves
on Thursday. ⁶If a woman is menstruous, she shall be set aside
and baptized on some other day.
⁷They who are to be baptized shall fast on Friday, and on
Saturday the bishop shall assemble them and command them to
kneel in prayer. ⁸And, laying his hand upon them, he shall
exorcise all evil spirits to flee away and never to return;
when he has done this he shall breathe in their faces, seal
their foreheads, ears and noses, and then raise them up. ⁹They
shall spend all that night in vigil, listening to reading and
instruction.
¹⁰They who are to be baptized shall bring with them no other
vessels than the one each will bring for the eucharist; for it
is fitting that he who is counted worthy of baptism should
bring his offering at that time.
21. ¹At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. ²The
stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it
from above when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is
a scarcity, whether constant or[111] sudden, then use whatever
water you can find.
³They shall remove their clothing. ⁴And first baptize the
little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do
so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for
them. ⁵Then baptize the men, and last of all the women; they
must first loosen their hair and put aside any gold or silver
ornaments that they were wearing: let no one take any alien
thing down to the water with them.
⁶At the hour set for the baptism the bishop shall give thanks
over oil and put it into a vessel: this is called the “oil of
thanksgiving”. ⁷And he shall take other oil and exorcise it:
this is called “the oil of exorcism”. [The anointing is
performed by a presbyter.][112] ⁸A deacon shall bring the oil
of exorcism, and shall stand at the presbyter’s left hand; and
another deacon shall take the oil of thanksgiving, and shall
stand at the presbyter’s right hand. ⁹Then the presbyter,
taking hold of each of those about to be baptized, shall
command him to renounce, saying:
I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy servants and all thy
works.
¹⁰And when he has renounced all these, the presbyter shall
anoint him with the oil of exorcism, saying:
Let all spirits depart far from thee.
TEST ¹¹Then, after these things, let him give him over to the
presbyter[113] who baptizes, and let the candidates stand in
the water, naked, a deacon going with them likewise.[114]
¹²And when he who is being baptized goes down into the water,
he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus:
Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?[115]
¹³And he who is being baptized shall say:
I believe.
¹⁴Then
LAT holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him
once. ¹⁵And then he shall say:
Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was
born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified
under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again
the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven,
and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to
judge the quick and the dead? ¹⁶And when he says:
I believe,
he is baptized again. ¹⁷And again he shall say:
Dost thou believe in [the] Holy Ghost, and the holy church,
and the resurrection of the flesh?
¹⁸He who is being baptized shall say accordingly:
I believe,
and so he is baptized a third time.[116]
¹⁹And afterward, when he has come up [out of the water], he is
anointed by the presbyter with the oil of thanksgiving, the
presbyter saying:
I anoint thee with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ.
²⁰And so each one, after drying himself, is immediately
clothed, and then is brought into the church.
22.[117] ¹Then the bishop, laying his hand upon them, shall
pray, saying:
O Lord God, who hast made them worthy to obtain remission of
sins through the laver of regeneration of [the] Holy Spirit,
send into them thy grace, that they may serve thee according
to thy will; for thine is the glory, to the Father and the
Son, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and
world without end. Amen.[118]
²Then, pouring the oil of thanksgiving from his hand and
putting it on his forehead, he shall say:
I anoint thee with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty
and Christ Jesus and [the] Holy Ghost.
³And signing them on the forehead he shall say:
The Lord be with thee;
and he who is signed shall say:
And with thy spirit.
⁴And so he shall do to each one.
⁵And immediately thereafter they shall join in prayer with all
the people, but they shall not pray with the faithful until
all these things are completed. ⁶And at the close of their
prayer they shall give the kiss of peace.
23. ¹And then the offering is immediately brought by the
deacons to the bishop, and by thanksgiving he shall make the
bread into an image[119] of the body of Christ, and the cup of
wine mixed with water according to the likeness[120] of the
blood, which is shed for all who believe in him. ²And milk and
honey mixed together for the fulfilment of the promise to the
fathers, which spoke of a land flowing with milk and honey;
namely, Christ’s flesh which he gave, by which they who
believe are nourished like babes, he making sweet the bitter
things of the heart by the gentleness of his word. ³And the
water into an offering in a token of the laver, in order that
the inner part of man, which is a living soul, may receive the
same as the body.
⁴The bishop shall explain the reason of all these things to
those who partake. ⁵And when he breaks the bread and
distributes the fragments he shall say:
The heavenly bread in Christ Jesus.
⁶And the recipient shall say, Amen.
⁷And the presbyters—or if there are not enough presbyters, the
deacons—shall hold the cups, and shall stand by with reverence
and modesty; first he who holds the water, then the milk,
thirdly the wine. ⁸And the recipients shall taste of each
three times, he who gives the cup saying:
In God the Father Almighty;
and the recipient shall say, Amen. ⁹Then:
In the Lord Jesus Christ;
[and he shall say, Amen. ¹⁰Then:
In][121] [the] Holy Ghost and the holy church;
and he shall say, Amen. ¹¹So it shall be done to each.
¹²And when these things are completed, let each one hasten to
do good works,
SAH and to please God and to live aright, devoting himself to the
church, practising the things he has learned, advancing in the
service of God.
¹³Now we have briefly delivered to you these things concerning
the holy baptism and the holy oblation, for you have already
been instructed concerning the resurrection of the flesh and
all other things as taught in Scripture.¹⁴Yet if there is any
other thing that ought to be told [to converts], let the
bishop impart it to them privately after their baptism; let
not unbelievers know it, until they are baptized: this is the
white stone of which John said: “There is upon it a new name
written, which no one knoweth but he that receiveth the
stone”.
PART III
GRE[122]25.[123] ¹Widows and virgins shall fast frequently and shall
pray for the church; presbyters, if they wish, and laymen may
fast likewise. ²But the bishop may fast only when all the
people fast.
26. ¹For it constantly happens that some one wishes to make an
offering—and such a one must not be denied—and then the
bishop, after breaking the bread, must in every case taste
SAH and eat it with the other believers. ²[At such an offering]
each shall take from the bishop’s hand a piece of [this] bread
before breaking his own bread. [This service has a special
ceremonial][124] for it is “a Blessing”, not “a Thanksgiving”,
as is [the service of] the Body of the Lord.[125] ³But before
drinking, each one,
LAT as many of you as are present,
SAH must take a cup and give thanks over it,
LAT and so go to your meal.
⁴But to the catechumens is given exorcised bread, and each of
them must offer the cup. ⁵No catechumen shall sit at the
Lord’s Supper.
⁶But at each act of offering, the offerer must remember his
host, for he was invited to the latter’s home for that very
purpose. ⁷But when you eat and drink, do so in an orderly
manner and not so that anyone may mock, or your host be
saddened by your unruliness, but behave so that he may pray to
be made worthy that the saints may enter his dwelling: “for
ye”, it is said, “are the salt of the earth”.
⁸If the offering should be one made to all the guests
jointly,[126] take your portion from your host [and depart].
⁹But if all are to eat then and there, do not eat to excess,
so that your host may likewise send some of what the saints
leave to whomsoever he will and [so] may rejoice in the faith.
¹⁰But while the guests are eating, let them eat silently, not
arguing, [attending to][127] such things as the bishop may
teach, but if he should ask any question, let an answer be
given him; and when he says anything, everyone in modest
praise shall keep silence until he asks again.
¹¹And even if the bishop should be absent when the faithful
meet at a supper, if a presbyter or a deacon is present they
shall eat in a similar orderly fashion, and each shall be
careful[128] to take the blessed bread from the presbyter’s or
deacon’s hand; and in the same way the catechumens shall take
the same exorcised bread.
¹²But if [only] laymen meet, let them not act presumptuously,
for a layman cannot bless the blessed bread.[129]
¹³Let each one eat in the name of the Lord; for this is
pleasing to the Lord that we should be jealous [of our good
name] even among the heathen, all sober alike.[130]
27. ¹If anyone wishes to give a meal to widows of mature
years, let him dismiss them before evening. ²But if, on
account of existing conditions,[131] he cannot [feed them in
his house], let him send them away, and they may eat of his
food at their homes in any way they please.
28. ¹As soon as first-fruits appear, all shall hasten to offer
them to the bishop. ²And he shall offer them, shall give
thanks and shall name him who offered them, saying:
³We give thee thanks, O God, and we offer thee the
first-fruits; which thou hast given us to enjoy, nourishing
them through thy word, commanding the earth to bring forth her
fruits for the gladness and the food of men and all beasts.
⁴For all these things we praise thee, O God, and for all
things wherewith thou hast blessed us, who for us adornest
every creature with divers fruits. ⁵Through thy Servant Jesus
Christ, our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, world without
end. Amen.
⁶Only certain fruits may be blessed, namely grapes, the fig,
the pomegranate, the olive, the pear, the apple, the mulberry,
the peach, the cherry, the almond, the plum. ⁷Not the pumpkin,
nor the melon, nor the cucumber, nor the onion nor garlic nor
anything else having an odour.
⁸But sometimes flowers too are offered; here the rose and the
lily may be offered, but no other.
⁹But for everything that is eaten shall they [who eat it] give
thanks to the Holy God, eating unto His glory.
29. ¹Let no one at the paschal season[132] eat before the
offering is made,[133] otherwise he shall not be credited with
the fast. ²But if any woman is with child, or if anyone is
sick and cannot fast for two days, let such a one, on account
of his need, [at least] fast on Saturday, contenting himself
with bread and water. ³But if anyone on a voyage or for any
other necessary cause should not know the day, when he has
learned the truth he shall postpone his fast until after
Pentecost. ⁴For the ancient type has passed away, and so the
[postponed] fast [of Numbers 9. 11] in the second month has
ceased, and each one ought to fast in accord with his
knowledge of the truth.[134]
30. ¹Each of the deacons, with the subdeacons, shall be alert
on the bishop’s behalf, for the bishop must be informed if any
are sick so that, if he pleases, he may visit them; for a sick
man is greatly comforted when the high priest is mindful of
him.
SAH 33.[135] ¹Let the deacons and the presbyters assemble daily at
the place which the bishop may appoint; let the deacons [in
particular] never fail to assemble unless prevented by
sickness. ²When all have met they shall instruct those who are
in the church, and then, after prayer, each shall go to his
appointed duties.
34. ¹No exorbitant charge shall be made for burial in the
cemetery, for it belongs to all the poor; only the hire of the
grave-digger and the cost of the tile [for closing the niche
in the catacombs] shall be asked. ²The wages of the caretakers
are to be paid by the bishop, lest any of those who go to that
place be burdened [with a charge].
PART IV
35. ¹Let all the faithful, whether men or women, when early in
the morning they rise from their sleep and before they
undertake any tasks, wash their hands and pray to God; and so
they may go to their duties. ²But if any instruction in God’s
word is held [that day], everyone ought to attend it
willingly,[136] recollecting that he will hear God speaking
through the instructor and[137] that prayer in the church
enables him to avoid the day’s evil; any godly man ought to
count it a great loss if he does not attend the place of
instruction, especially if he can read.
³If a [specially gifted][138] teacher should come, let none of
you delay[139] to attend the place where the instruction is
given, for grace will be given to the speaker to utter things
profitable to all, and thou wilt hear new things,[140] and
thou wilt be profited by what the Holy Spirit will give thee
through the instructor; so thy faith will be strengthened by
what thou hearest, and in that place thou wilt learn thy
duties at home; therefore let everyone be zealous to go to the
church, the place where the Holy Spirit abounds.[141]
36. ¹But if on any day there is no instruction, let everyone
at home take the Bible and read sufficiently in passages that
he finds profitable.
²If at the third hour thou art at home, pray then and give
thanks to God; but if thou chance to be abroad at that hour,
make thy prayer to God in thy heart. ³For at that hour Christ
was nailed to the tree; therefore in the old [covenant] the
law commanded the showbread to be offered continually for a
type of the body and blood of Christ, and commanded the
sacrifice of the dumb lamb, which was a type of the perfect
Lamb; for Christ is the Shepherd, and he is also the Bread
that came down from heaven.
⁴At the sixth hour likewise pray also, for, after Christ was
nailed to the wood of the cross, the day was divided and there
was a great darkness; wherefore let [the faithful] pray at
that hour with an effectual prayer, likening themselves to the
voice of him who prayed [and] caused all creation to become
dark for the unbelieving Jews.
⁵And at the ninth hour let a great prayer and a great
thanksgiving be made, such as made[142] the souls of the
righteous ones, blessing the Lord,
LAT the God who does not lie, who was mindful of his saints and
sent forth his Word to enlighten them. ⁶At that hour,
therefore, Christ poured forth from his pierced side water and
blood, and brought the rest of the time of that day with light
to evening; so, when he fell asleep, by making the beginning
of another day he completed the pattern of his resurrection.
⁷Pray again before thy body rests on thy bed.
⁸At midnight arise, wash thy hands with water and pray. ⁹And
if thy wife is with thee, pray ye both together; but if she is
not yet a believer, go into another room and pray, and again
return to thy bed; be not slothful in prayer.
¹⁰He who has used the marriage bed is not defiled; for they
who are bathed have no need to wash again, for they are clean.
¹¹By signing thyself with thy moist breath, and so spreading
spittle[143] on thy body with thy hand, thou art sanctified to
thy feet; for the gift of the Spirit and the sprinkling with
water, when it is brought with a believing heart as it were
from a fountain, sanctifies him who believes.
¹²It is needful to pray at this hour; for those very elders
who gave us the tradition taught us that at this hour all
creation rests for a certain moment, that all creatures may
praise the Lord: stars and trees and waters stand still with
one accord, and all the angelic host does service to God by
praising Him, together with the souls of the righteous. ¹³For
this cause believers should be zealous to pray at this hour;
for the Lord, testifying to this, says: “Behold at midnight is
a cry, Behold the Bridegroom cometh! Rise up to meet him!”;
and he adds insistently: “Watch ye therefore, for ye know not
at what hour he cometh”.
¹⁴And at cockcrow rise up and pray likewise, for at that hour
of cockcrow the children of Israel denied Christ, whom we have
known by faith; by which faith, in the hope of eternal life at
the resurrection of the dead, we look for his Day.
¹⁵And so, all ye faithful, if ye thus act, and are mindful of
these things, and teach them to one another, and cause the
catechumens to be zealous, ye can neither be tempted nor can
ye perish, since ye have Christ always in your minds.
37.[144] ¹But imitate him always, by signing thy forehead
sincerely; for this is the sign of his Passion, manifest and
approved against the devil if so thou makest it from faith;
not that thou mayest appear to men, but knowingly offering it
as a shield. ²For the adversary, seeing its power coming from
the heart, that a man displays the publicly formed image of
baptism,[145] is put to flight; not because thou spittest, but
because the Spirit in thee breathes him away. ³When Moses
formed it by putting the blood of the Paschal lamb that was
slain on the lintel and anointing the side-posts, he signified
the faith which now we have in the perfect Lamb.
38.[146] ¹And so, if these things are accepted with
thanksgiving and right faith, they give edification in the
church and eternal life to believers. ²I counsel that these
things be kept by all who know aright; for over all who hear
the apostolic tra[dition]
SAH and keep it, no heretics or any other man will prevail to lead
them astray. ³For the many heresies have increased because
their leaders would not learn the purpose of the apostles but
acted according to their own wills, following their lusts and
not what was right.
⁴Now, beloved, if we have omitted anything, God will reveal it
to those who are worthy, guiding the holy church to its
mooring in [God’s] quiet haven.
LATER ADDITIONS
ETH 24. ¹On Saturday and Sunday the bishop shall whenever possible
give the people the bread with his own hand, while the deacons
break it. ²The presbyters too shall break the bread to be
delivered; and whenever a deacon approaches a presbyter he
shall hold out his robe,[147] and the presbyter shall take the
bread and deliver it to the people with his hand.
³On other days they shall give the bread as the bishop
determines.
On this section compare p. 31. It may be further observed that
section 2 is pretty clearly an addition.
ETH 26. ¹⁴In time of need the deacon shall be diligent in giving
the blessed bread[148] to the sick. ¹⁵If there is no presbyter
to give out what is to be distributed, the deacon shall
pronounce the thanksgiving and shall supervise[149] those who
carry it away, to make sure that they attend to their duty and
[properly] distribute the blessed food; the distributors must
give it to the widows and the sick. ¹⁶Whoever is entrusted
with the duty by the church[150] must distribute it on the
same day; if he does not, he must [at least] do so on the next
day with the addition of what is then given him. ¹⁷For [it is
not his own property]; it is given him only [in trust] as
bread for the poor.
¹⁸When evening has come and the bishop is present, the deacon
shall bring in a lamp. ¹⁹Then the bishop, standing in the
midst of the believers, before giving thanks shall first give
the salutation:
The Lord be with you all.
²⁰And the people shall say:
[And] with thy spirit.
²¹And the bishop shall say:
Let us give thanks to the Lord.
²²And the people shall say:
It is meet and right:
Majesty, exaltation and glory are due to Him.
²³But they shall not say “Lift up your hearts”, for that
belongs to the oblation. ²⁴And he prays thus, saying:
We give thee thanks, O God, because thou hast enlightened us
by revealing the incorruptible light. ²⁵So we, having finished
the length of a day, and being come to the beginning of the
night, satisfied with the light of the day that thou hast
created for our satisfaction; and now, since by thy grace we
lack not a light for the evening, we sanctify thee and we
glorify thee. ²⁶Through thine only Son our Lord Jesus Christ,
through whom be to thee with him glory and might and honour
with [the] Holy Spirit, now, etc.[151]
²⁷And they shall all say: Amen.
²⁸Then, rising up after supper, the children and virgins
having prayed, they shall sing psalms. ²⁹Then the deacon,
holding the mixed cup of the offering, shall say a Hallelujah
Psalm.[152] ³⁰Then, the presbyter having commanded, “And also
such-and-such Psalms”, after the bishop has offered the
cup[153] with the proper thanksgiving, all shall say
“Hallelujah” as the Psalms are sung. ³¹And they shall say:
We praise Him who is God most high;
Glorified and praised is He,
Who founded the world with a single word.[154]
³²Then, when the Psalm is completed, he shall give thanks over
the bread, and shall give the fragments to all the believers.
On these sections compare p. 31. An evening service, that
included bringing in the lamp, is widespread in early
Christianity and is eventually derived from Judaism; the
particular service described here is a prelude to a
congregational agape. There is nothing in sections 18-32 that
necessarily implies a date later than Hippolytus, but the
ceremony is badly placed between the private agapes and the
equally private meals for the widows, and it is followed by a
duplication of 26. 2, 10-12.
LAT 31. ¹The faithful, early in the morning, as soon as they have
awaked and arisen, before they undertake their tasks shall
pray to God and so may then go to their duties. ²But if any
instruction in the word is held, let each give first place to
that, that he may attend and hear the word of God, to his
soul’s comfort; so let each one hasten to the church, where
the Spirit abounds.
32. ¹But let each of the faithful be zealous, before he eats
anything else, to receive the eucharist; for if anyone
receives it with faith, after such a reception he cannot be
harmed even if a deadly poison should be given him. ²But let
each one take care that no unbeliever taste the eucharist, nor
a mouse nor any other animal, and that nothing of it fall or
be lost; for the body of Christ is to be eaten by believers
and must not be despised. ³The cup, when thou hast given
thanks in the name of the Lord, thou hast accepted as the
image of the blood of Christ. ⁴Therefore let none of it be
spilled, so that no alien spirit may lick it up, as if thou
didst despise it; thou shalt be guilty of the blood, as if
thou didst scorn the price with which thou hast been
bought.[155]
In the Oriental versions the position of chapters 31-32
between chapters 30 and 33 is impossible. Chapter 30 addresses
the church’s officers, chapters 31-32 individuals, chapters
33-34 the officers, and chapter 35 individuals again; chapter
31, in addition, is only a condensation of 35. 1-3. But the
Hauler manuscript clears up the difficulty. In it chapter 32
is followed immediately by the Latin A form of 37. 1-38. 2a,
breaking off at the end of a leaf with “apo” (for
“apostolic”). The next leaf begins with “God” in the middle of
36. 5, and the text continues through 36, gives the Latin B
form of 37. 1-38. 2a and breaks off this time with “tra” for
“tradition”. So two versions of the work were current with
different endings; in one chapter 30 was followed by 31-32 and
the A conclusion, in the other it was followed by 33-35 and
the B conclusion. In the Hauler manuscript both endings were
reproduced, although the leaves containing the last two
sentences of the first and a considerable part of the second
have been lost. In the Oriental versions—or the Greek codex
underlying them—the glaring duplication caused by the ending
after 32 was suppressed, although the doubling of 35. 1-3 in
31 remained.
Since chapter 34 is unmistakably Roman and consequently
Hippolytean, the longer ending is original; chapter 33,
moreover, is perfectly in place after chapter 30. So
Schwartz[156] and Jungklaus are correct in holding[157] that
chapter 32 is not by Hippolytus; the only alternative would be
to assume that he issued two versions of his book with
different endings—a difficult supposition that would leave
unexplained why the very important practice stressed in
chapter 32 is omitted in the longer version.
On the other hand it is true, as Connolly argues,[158] that
the rules of chapter 32 are truly third-century. The custom
according to which each Christian kept the consecrated
eucharist in his house and received it each morning is
attested in Tertullian’s _To his Wife_ II, 5, and the reason
given (Mark 16. 18) for receiving fasting is not that of the
later church (compare on chapter 29); Connolly observes
further that the home reservation of consecrated wine as well
as consecrated bread is unknown elsewhere.
Very curious, too, is the phrase “when _thou_ hast given
thanks” in section 3, for the section as a whole is addressed
to the laity. Is there here some reminiscence of earlier
corporately celebrated eucharists, like the agapes in chapter
26? Or are 3-4 a later addition, addressed to the clergy? Or
is there textual confusion?
NOTES
1
Characteristic of Hippolytus’s style are his frequent summaries of the
progress of his treatises; compare 16. 25; 23. 13; Philosophumena,
Proem.; i, 23. 4, etc.
The opening sentence is obscure, but Connolly’s explanation (pp.
161-162) appears the most likely: Man, made in God’s image, went
astray, but through the Incarnation God restored humanity by
presenting to Himself Christ, the perfect Man.
2. On the phrase translated “most important theme” compare Connolly,
p. 161; the original Greek word was presumably κορυφή.
3. If the “churches” are the different Roman congregations—an unusual
sense—Hippolytus speaks simply as a bishop; if the meaning is “at Rome
and elsewhere” he speaks not only as a bishop but as a teacher of
eminent authority.
4. The “lapse or error” is the Zephyrinus-Callistus “schism”. As
Hippolytus speaks of it as a recent event, the date of the treatise
cannot be far from 217.
PART I
Ordination
2
THE BISHOP
An episcopal election is still in the hands of the “multitude”
(compare Acts 6. 2), the clergy as yet having no distinct voice in
theory. Rather curiously no qualifications are given for the bishop;
contrast, e.g., 1 Timothy 3. 2-7 or the expansions in the
Constitutions and the Testament. The bishop’s functions are
essentially the same as in the Ignatian Epistles: as the embodiment of
his church’s unity he is the centre and head of all its activities,
whether in teaching, worship, or discipline.
The title “high priest”, however, is not used by Ignatius, and in the
extant Christian literature first occurs in Tertullian, _On Baptism_
17 (_ca._ 205); Hippolytus also uses “high-priesthood” of the
episcopal office in Philosophumena, Proem. 6. Similarly Tertullian
calls the presbyters “priests” in his _Exhortation to Chastity_ 7, 11
(_ca._ 210), and in 9. 2 of our treatise Hippolytus describes their
work as “priesthood”.
This appearance of sacerdotal titles for Christian ministers—something
that is foreign to the New Testament—was a consequence of the adoption
of sacrificial terms for Christian worship:[159] sacrifices are
offered by priests. So Didache 13. 3 describes the prophets as “your
high priests” (compare 15. 1), while Ignatius (_Philadelphians_ 4)
writes “one altar, as one bishop”. Consequently it is more than
probable that “high priest” and “priest” were in common—although by no
means universal—use among Christians by the middle of the second
century. Hippolytus’s distrust of innovations corroborates this; apart
from anti-modalist additions the terminology of his consecration
prayer can scarcely be thought to depart much from the forms in use in
his younger days.
Otherwise the bishop is said to “feed the flock”, a New Testament
phrase[160] that was of course traditional; to Hippolytus it would
include both correct teaching of doctrine and faithful administration
of the sacraments. Since in Philosophumena IX, 7 he inveighs fiercely
against Callistus’s claim to absolve grave sins, “to remit” here can
refer only to minor offences. “To assign the lots” strictly construed
would mean “to appoint the clergy”, but compare on 9. 1. “To loose
every bond” is probably only a traditional liturgical generality.
THE CHRISTIAN “SACRIFICES”
Sacrificial terms in the New Testament, except when used to describe
the Atonement, are employed within Christianity only in a transferred
sense: the Christian sacrifices are either acts of righteousness,[161]
the rendering of prayer and praise,[162] or gifts given to
fellow-Christians.[163] In the post-apostolic age this last sense was
popular and in one particular application it was made a definitely
technical term. Christian worship and Christian social life centred in
a “table-bond”; the specifically Christian act of worship was the
eucharist, which in apostolic times was regularly celebrated in
conjunction with a meal of some sort,[164] and even in Hippolytus’s
day had not lost all traces of the earlier custom (chapters 5-6). But
the Christians were extremely fond of other common meals as well, the
“agapes”, of a less sacred but still definitely religious nature
(chapter 26). In all of these meals the amount of food required was
considerable, and providing it naturally entailed real expense. To
supply this food, consequently, was a meritorious act, which not only
satisfied the needs of the brethren but enabled the church to hold a
liturgical service, at which the food was placed in the midst of the
congregation and “blessed”.[165] Hence the various foods were
naturally called “offerings”, and from this it was only a short step
to calling the service itself a “sacrifice”.
The word first appears in Didache 14. 1-2, where it is used of the
eucharist or (more probably) the eucharist-agape. When the term was
definitely adopted into the Christian vocabulary, its further
definition in Old Testament language was inevitable. Here the nearest
analogue might have been found in the “peace-offerings”, which were
eaten by those who offered them. But the Christians did not usually
follow Levitical distinctions closely, and Hippolytus (3. 5) speaks of
the bishop as “propitiating God’s countenance”, language that more
properly belongs to the “sin-offerings”.
A special type of Christian offering were the first-fruits (chapter
28), which were likewise solemnly presented and “blessed” by the
bishop. There were again explicit Old Testament analogies, but in
Christianity “sacrifice” did not permanently become a term for this
custom.
2. Notice of the election and of the Sunday appointed for the
consecration was sent to the neighbouring churches, whose bishops
would naturally attend as far as they were able.
3. The assent of the people was given by acclamation; according to the
Canons in the form “We choose him!” The explicit injunction that the
presbyters must not join in the imposition of hands should be noted;
the Arabic omits the prohibition, perhaps accidentally, but the Canons
read “One of the bishops and presbyters shall be chosen to lay his
hand upon his head”. Compare on 9. 5-8.
In the Constitutions the deacons hold the book of the Gospels over the
person to be consecrated.
3
The Jewish background of this prayer is extremely marked, and 2-3 may
well have been taken bodily from some synagogue formula; Christianity
is regarded as the orderly continuation of Old Testament Judaism.
4. “Royal” (more precisely “princely”) renders ἡγεµονικός, taken from
the Septuagint version of Psalm 51. 12 (50. 14).
The Epitome’s abbreviation in this passage avoids suggesting that
until a definite moment the Son did not possess the Spirit (Connolly,
p. 151). The unabbreviated text is practically only a combination of
Matthew 3. 16 and John 20. 22, but the result is so definitely
anti-modalistic that it is probably the work of Hippolytus; the
language is over-precise for a prayer.
5. “Thou who knowest the hearts of all” is from Acts 1. 24, but such
exact Scriptural language is more characteristic of the fourth century
than the third. While the emphasis is on the bishop’s offering the
“gifts”, his prayers for his flock are certainly not excluded as part
of his high-priestly ministry (Hebrews 7. 25, etc.).
6. The “odour of sweet savour” is the offering of a holy life, as in
Romans 12. 1.
7. The doxology is that given in the Epitome and presupposed in the
Canons and Testament, with the substitution of “through whom” (so the
other sources) for “with whom” (a peculiarity of the Epitomist). After
“honour” the Latin and Ethiopic insert “to the Father and the Son”.
“Servant” as a liturgical title for Christ comes from Acts 4. 27, 30;
the later versions naturally substitute “Son”.
The Sahidic and the Arabic omit the consecration prayer entirely,
presumably because it did not accord with local use. The Canons
paraphrase Hippolytus’s form slightly; the Constitutions and the
Testament enlarge it greatly. For the sake of comparison Sarapion’s
prayer may be given:
Thou who didst send the Lord Jesus for the gain of the whole world,
thou who didst through him choose the apostles, thou who generation
by generation didst ordain holy bishops, O God of truth, make this
bishop also a living bishop, worthy (?) of the succession of the
holy apostles, and give to him grace and divine Spirit, that thou
didst freely give to all thine own servants and prophets and
patriarchs: make him to be worthy to shepherd thy flock, and let him
still continue unblamably and unoffendingly in the bishopric.
It will be observed that here the references to the Old Testament are
almost non-existent and that there is no mention of high-priestly
functions.
4-6
THE EUCHARIST
Fundamental for any comprehension of the first liturgical history of
the eucharist is the fact that among Jews a “blessing” of food is
without exception a “thanksgiving”; a Jew never says “Bless this
food”, but always “Blessed be God”. So in the New Testament, when such
a blessing is in question, εὐχαριστέω and εὐλογέω are used without
distinction; compare, e.g., Mark 8. 6-7.
The various Jewish blessings in their oldest literary forms are
collected in the Mishnah tractate _Berakhoth_;[166] this was finally
compiled in the third century, but most of its contents are much
earlier; note in chapter 8 the account of the pre-Christian
controversy between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The form of all
the blessings is the same; after the opening words of praise the
worshipper recites the particular act of God for which thanksgiving is
due. So over bread the formula is:
Blessed be thou, O God, King of the universe, who hast brought forth
bread from the ground;
and over wine:
Blessed be thou, O God, King of the universe, who hast created the
fruit of the vine.
There is no real reason to doubt that these were the words used by
Christ at the Last Supper when he “gave thanks”; Mark 14. 25 takes up
the blessing used over the cup.
To eat without thanksgiving was a sin, and he who did so at least
violated God’s law commanding thankfulness. But most Jews would also
have held that unblessed food is unfit for consumption, and that
pronouncing the benediction removes this quasi-uncleanness, i.e.,
“hallows” it: “Nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with
thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God[167] and
prayer”.[168] In other words, the act of thanksgiving was construed as
having a consecratory effect, potent even for ordinary food and
therefore especially potent for sacred food. So St Paul writes in 1
Corinthians 10. 16: “The cup of thanksgiving over which we give
thanks, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?” In Hippolytus
the same conception appears unambiguously in 21. 6 and 23, but it also
underlies his use of “thanksgiving” in 4. 2 and 10. 4.
Accordingly, since at the Christians’ greatest liturgical service the
essential formula was a solemn thanksgiving, the service itself and
food consecrated at the service both came to be called simply “The
Thanksgiving” or (in Greek) “The Eucharist”.[169] And—certainly in the
second century, since Hippolytus gives the formula—the eucharistic
prayer was prefaced by the invitatory, “Let us make our thanksgiving
to the Lord”, and this in turn by the appropriate words, “Lift up your
hearts”.
Since extempore prayer was still largely practised (4), the contents
of the Christian thanksgivings naturally varied widely, but it would
appear inevitable that at first, in accord with Christ’s example,
God’s provision of food for men was the normal topic: the beautiful
prayer in the Didache is formed on this model, which Hippolytus
follows closely in chapters 5-6. But the thought of food in the bread
and wine was overshadowed by the thought of redemption, and even in
the Didache the earthly species only typify the salvation wrought in
Christ. In chapter 4 of Hippolytus the “table” form of the blessing is
abandoned altogether for the praise of Christ’s redeeming works, and
the same is true of practically all later liturgies. As is entirely
natural, Hippolytus’s thanksgiving concludes with reciting the work of
Christ most vividly in mind at the moment: his institution of the rite
that the church was engaged in celebrating.[170]
The evidence of the later liturgies shows us that the purely Christian
objects of thanksgiving in Hippolytus were by no means the only ones
for which God was blessed; thanks could be given with entire
appropriateness to the Father for any of His benefits from creation
on. For such prayers Jewish synagogue formulas provided models that
were freely utilized; compare, e.g., Constitutions VII, 33-38. These
thanksgivings often included (VII, 35, 3) or culminated in the hymn of
Isaiah 6. 3 (“Sanctus”), and in this way this hymn passed into the
Christian eucharistic prayers, to become an all but universal feature
in them. In the liturgy in the Constitutions it stands at a place that
shows its origin, at the close of the (Jewish) thanksgivings for Old
Testament benefits (VIII, 12, 27) and before the (Christian)
thanksgivings for Christ’s incarnate acts.
After the completion of the thanksgiving (4. 10) Hippolytus makes
certain additions. 4. 11 declares that in performing the rite the
church remembers Christ according to his command: this is the germ of
what in the later liturgies is known as the “anamnesis”. And the
offering is formally presented to God; this likewise reoccurs
regularly and is called the “oblation”. Either or both of these
features could have been used in any eucharistic prayer from the
earliest time.
4. 12, however, shows a later concept. In the age of Hippolytus the
consecratory effect of thanksgiving was growing unfamiliar, and a
special petition was thought needful in order that the bread and wine
might truly be made “a communion” of the body and blood of Christ. The
liturgy’s thought is simple: if earthly food is truly to become
“spiritual” food,[171] God must send upon it the Spirit. The prayer is
phrased accordingly, and is the first known instance of what is
technically known as the “invocation”, universal in Eastern liturgies,
although absent from the present Roman. But the testimony of Irenaeus
shows that in the late second century at Rome the invocation was
regarded as the truly consecratory formula,[172] and Hippolytus
continues Irenaeus’ tradition.
Hippolytus’s use of the invocation shows that only bread and wine are
offered to God at the oblation. For his doctrine of communion see on
23. 1.
4
2. “All the presbytery” join with the bishop in offering the gifts;
the “concelebration” of a later terminology. The custom is derived
from a time when the local monarchical episcopate was not yet
established and the presbyters were normal officiants at worship.[173]
They act in their corporate capacity; compare on chapter 8.
4. If 11 is construed strictly, the “we” of this prayer should be “we,
the bishop and presbyters”. But the plural pronoun originally—and
probably in Hippolytus’s opinion also—meant “all we Christians in this
congregation”; compare 4. 12, “your sacrifice” in Didache 14 and the
explicit language in Justin, Dialogue 116-117. “Messenger of thy
counsel” is from the Septuagint of Isaiah 9. 6; it recurs in
Hippolytus’s Daniel commentary (III, 9, 6) and is used here as an
anti-modalist term.
5. This whole sentence is anti-modalist.
6. As in 3. 4 the language is more theological than liturgic.
7. Christ’s hands were spread out in appeal (Isaiah 65. 2,
Lamentations 1. 17).
8. The “boundary post” is the Cross, dividing the realms of life and
death.
9. The terms in Christ’s words regarding the bread and the cup are
given liturgical balance by introducing κλώµενον, “which is broken”,
after “body”; this addition found its way into many manuscripts of 1
Corinthians 11. 24.
10. The terseness of this phrase is effective. In the Latin
translator’s “commemorationem facitis” the indicative is certainly a
mistake,[174] while his “perform a memorial” may be merely a
Latinistic simplification of “do this in memory of me”; the
Pseudo-Ambrosian _De Sacramentis_ has similarly “commemorationem
facietis” and the present Roman liturgy “memoriam facietis”. By what
follows the phrase here means “recall to our mind”.
11. To “death” in 1 Corinthians 11. 26 “resurrection” has been added;
later liturgies at this point expand freely. Later liturgical
development also connected “memory” and “offer” closely, pleading
Christ’s death before the Father.
12. The prayer for unity echoes the habitual Jewish prayers for the
return of all Israel to Palestine; compare the Didache.
13. Compare on 3. 7.
In this prayer as a whole the accumulation of phrases in 5-6 is
largely due to Hippolytus, who may likewise be responsible for parts
of 7-8. But, even as it stands, it is noteworthy for its sobriety and
directness, both characteristic of the later Roman liturgy until
Gallican floridity affected it.
The liturgical influence of this prayer has been incalculable. It is
the basis of the liturgy in the Constitutions, through which it
determined the form and in part the wording of the great Eastern
liturgies, St James,[175] St Basil and St Chrysostom. In the other
Eastern rites its influence is usually perceptible, though less
fundamental, while in the Ethiopic church it is still used almost
unchanged. In the West, however, later eucharistic conceptions led to
a different type of liturgy.
Hippolytus gives only the vital part of the ceremony, which otherwise
was presumably much as it is described in Justin, _Apology_ 67. But
perhaps at a consecration service the opening lessons and instruction
were omitted.
5-6
This blessing at the eucharist of food other than the bread and wine
is a remnant of the primitive custom when the rite included a meal; in
Hippolytus’s day, presumably, the cheese and olives were eaten at the
service and part of the oil was sipped, the remainder being reserved
for anointing the sick.[176] Perhaps only Hippolytus’s exaggerated
reverence for the past preserved the usage, which at any rate soon
disappeared. None of the other versions of his treatise retain chapter
6, for which the Canons[177] substitute a blessing of first-fruits. In
the Testament the oil is blessed solely for the sick,[178] and this is
probably the conception in the Ethiopic and the Canons. The Sahidic
and Arabic replace all of 4-6 with a note that the bishop should
follow “the (local) custom”.
The usual Old Testament background to these prayers need hardly be
pointed out.
The prayer at the blessing of the oil has real affinities with the
prayer still used in the Roman church for blessing the “oil of the
sick” at the bishop’s Maundy Thursday eucharist.
6
2. This ingeniously worded prayer has no parallel.
3. Compare Zechariah 4. 12.
4. Compare the Jewish use of fixed _initial_ clauses in benedictions.
8
PRESBYTERS
“Presbyter” is a technical term in Judaism, which early Christianity
took over.[179] The Jewish conceptions at the beginning of the
Christian era are best seen in the Mishnah tractate _Sanhedrin_:[180]
the presbyters, in virtue of their divinely instituted office (Exodus
24. 9), preserved, interpreted and applied the received tradition of
God’s revelation, and so were the divinely appointed rulers of Israel.
In consequence, every Jewish community, even the smallest, had its
presbytery,[181] which exercised all local governmental functions.
When a vacancy occurred, the presbytery elected a new member; if he
had served as a presbyter elsewhere, he was simply caused to “take his
seat”; if not, the presbytery ordained him by the imposition of hands.
Individual presbyters had no authority, which was possessed solely by
the body as a whole; this principle was maintained so rigorously that
there were not even regular presiding officers.[182] If a priest was
elected as a presbyter, he was ordained like anyone else.[183] The
same seems to have been true of the Rabbis[184] before A.D. 70; after
that year they took over what was left of the presbyters’ duties and
were always ordained.
It must be borne in mind that the Jewish presbyters were community
officers, not cult officials. They could determine how worship should
be conducted, but as presbyters they had no special share in
conducting it: this was the equal privilege of all male
Israelites.[185] In particular, while the presbyters, among their
other duties, administered the affairs of the local synagogue, to
define them as “elders of the synagogue” is totally to misunderstand
them.
The introduction of the presbyterial system into Christianity offers a
complicated problem, into which it is unnecessary to enter here. It is
enough to note that in the New Testament when the office is fully
developed—as in Acts and the Pastoral Epistles—the Jewish analogies
are evident. In Hippolytus’s ordination prayer the Jewish origin is
explicitly recognized; so much so that the institution of the office
is attributed to Moses, whose seventy elders possessed the same gifts
and functions as their Christian namesakes. Accordingly the essential
duties of a presbyter are simply to “sustain and govern”,[186] and no
other specific gifts are prayed for. So it is really conceivable that
Hippolytus’s formula reproduces the substance of a Jewish ordination
prayer.
In Christianity, however, the most important service was a feast in
which the whole community joined, while in Judaism the (numerous)
sacral meals were held by each family separately.[187] Hence the
Christian presbyters could be called on for duties unlike those of the
Jewish officials; as the leaders of the community they might well
appear as the leaders of the community’s feast. And in fact, as the
“charismatic” prophets, teachers, etc., gradually disappeared, the
presbyters became the normal officiants at the eucharist.[188] So it
was only a question of time until they acquired sacerdotal titles;
compare 9. 2 in our treatise.
The introduction of the local monarchical episcopate transformed the
presbytery from the ruling body into a mere council of advice for the
bishop, and so reduced radically the importance of its members. They
had a voice in disciplinary affairs, and they clung tenaciously to
their share in offering the eucharist and in the ordination of a new
member to their ranks. Otherwise during the late second and third
centuries their duties[189] might be little more than honorary, and in
most communities[190] the presbyters probably devoted their weekdays
to secular occupations; in contrast to the bishop and the deacons.
1. In 1 Timothy 4. 14, as in Judaism, ordination is by the presbytery.
A different conception appears in 2 Timothy 1. 6, and harmonization of
the two produced ordination by the bishop _and_ the presbytery, the
practice still maintained in the Roman and Anglican Communions. For
Hippolytus’s theory compare 9. 4-8.
2. The verbs “sustain and govern” are the cognates of the nouns
translated “helps, governments” in 1 Corinthians 12. 28. But in 1
Corinthians _two_ offices are meant.
3. Compare Exodus 24. 9-11. That these elders were “filled with the
Spirit” is from Numbers 11. 25, but the specific mention of this in an
ordination prayer seems Christian rather than Jewish.
4. The bishop here includes himself with the presbytery, perhaps a
survival of a form used in pre-episcopal days.
In the Ethiopic this prayer is reproduced almost unchanged. The
Epitome has:
Almighty lord, who through Christ hast created all things and
through him hast foreseen all things; look even now upon thy holy
church, and give it increase, and multiply its rulers, and grant
them might to labour with word and work for the building up of thy
people. And now look upon this thy servant, who by the voice and
judgment of all the clergy is chosen for the presbytery, and fill
him with the Spirit of grace and counsel, that he may sustain and
govern thy people with a pure heart—as thou didst look upon thy
chosen people and didst command Moses that he should choose
presbyters, whom thou didst fill with the Spirit—that he, being
filled with powers of healing and words of teaching in meekness, may
diligently instruct this thy people with a pure mind and a willing
soul, and may blamelessly complete the ministrations for thy people.
Through thy Christ, with whom be to thee glory and worship, with the
Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.
This prayer is evidently Hippolytus’s, somewhat enlarged and slightly
revised, and the only real difference is that the bishop no longer
associates himself with the presbytery. The Constitutions merely
expand the Epitome’s prayer still further with a recital of God’s
attributes. In the Testament there is an independent expansion of
Hippolytus’s form, but again without significant variations. Sarapion
has still another paraphrase, but one equally centred about the
presbyter’s teaching office.
The Sahidic and the Arabic, however, provide that the prayer used for
the consecration of a bishop shall also be used at the ordination of a
presbyter. With this the Canons agree, reading: “When a presbyter is
ordained, let all things take place for him as take place for the
bishop, with the exception of the word ‘bishop’. The bishop is in
every regard like the presbyter, apart from the throne and the
ordination, for to the latter no power to ordain is given”. This
evidence is in accord with the well-known fact that the introduction
of the monarchical episcopate came later in Egypt than elsewhere.
9
DEACONS
The development of the diaconate in the first century is extremely
obscure, but in the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Clement “presbyters” are
divided into “bishops and deacons”—in these works the three terms are
never used together—indicating specializations within the
presbyterate. Some presbyters were especially concerned in
“overseeing” the community and others with “serving” it—particularly
in charitable works; compare the “governments” and “helps” in 1
Corinthians 12. 28. When monarchical episcopacy was introduced, the
now more or less supernumerary “overseers” were less important than
the “servers”, who became the personal assistants of the bishops. The
respective status in the third century is set forth in Didascalia,
chapter 9 (= Constitutions II, 26, 4-7): “Let the bishop ... be
honoured by you as God.... The deacon is with you as a type of Christ,
so let him be loved by you. Let the deaconess be honoured by you as a
type of the Holy Spirit. Let the presbyters be looked on by you as a
type of the apostles”.
1. The reference is apparently to chapter 2, with no explanation how
choice by the people is reconciled with 3. 6. The Sahidic, the
Testament and the Canons agree with the Latin, but the Arabic,
Ethiopic and the Constitutions speak only of the bishop. But the close
relations between the bishop and the deacons would seem to make his
freedom of choice necessary.
Does the absence of any provision for election in chapter 8 indicate
that the presbyters were still chosen by the presbytery?
2-4. Any (surviving?) remnant of the conception of deacons as “serving
presbyters” is dismissed summarily.
5-8. Hippolytus is attempting to reconcile a ceremonial survival of
the days when presbyters ordained with the doctrine that ordination is
the prerogative of bishops. The result is incoherent; if a presbyter
has no power to “give”, what is said of the “common and like Spirit”
is pointless. And, although the passage appears intact (or expanded)
in the other versions, 7-8 read like a later addition. But perhaps
these are a theory of Hippolytus’s, glossed on a traditional phrase.
10-12. The original text of this passage is very uncertain. The Latin
breaks off with “offere”, and the following words in the Ethiopic and
the Testament stress what in Hippolytus is a minor and not
characteristic function of the deacons (4. 2), while their chief
duties are ignored. Moreover, neither the Constitutions, the Canons
nor Sarapion have anything corresponding; all three—in widely
different terms—petition for “faithfulness” and “wisdom”; all three,
incidentally, quote Acts 6. It is worth noting that none of the
sources call the deacons “Levites”; this title[191] appears to come in
a later age when—through the change from local to diocesan
episcopacy—the deacons became the assistants of the presbyters.
The Ethiopic[192] and the Constitutions speak of the diaconate as a
preparation for the presbyterate: this conception belongs to the
fourth, not the third, century.
10
CONFESSORS
1. A true confessor is, _ipso facto_, a presbyter. This
declaration—which other conceptions have altered in the Ethiopic and
the Constitutions—follows logically from the original definition of a
presbyter’s duties: since his primary function is to bear witness to
the truth, and since no witness can be more impressively borne than
when in danger of death, a confessor proves that he has the Spirit of
the presbyterate. Hence ordination would be otiose.
A still earlier theory is that set forth in Hermas, _Visions_ III, i,
where the correct ranks of those who occupy the “bench” (of the
clergy) is given as “confessors,[193] prophets, presbyters”, as three
distinct orders; in Hippolytus the prophets disappear and the
confessors are merged with the “regular” presbyters.
In the third century, as confessors multiplied, observance of this
rule would have overloaded the presbyterate to an impracticable
degree,[194] although in the small community of Hippolytus the
difficulty would not be felt and the traditional practice could be
maintained inviolate. But elsewhere the modification in Constitutions
VIII, 23 was no doubt widely accepted: the office of a confessor was
one of great dignity,[195] but it did not include its holder among the
clergy.[196] The Ethiopic compromises: a confessor is not yet a
presbyter, but can claim episcopal ordination to the presbyterate as a
right.
2. Hippolytus treats these “minor” confessors as the Constitutions
treat the true confessors. The other sources (except the
Constitutions) deal with them more generously. In the Ethiopic they
can _claim_ ordination to the diaconate, in the Arabic and the Canons
to the presbyterate, in the Sahidic to any office of which they are
worthy; compare the Testament.
The Canons have a curious provision for a confessor who is a slave
(and therefore incapable of receiving ordination); such a one is “a
presbyter for the congregation”, even though he does not receive “the
insignia of the presbyterate”.
CONCLUSION OF ORDINAL
3. “At every ordination the eucharist must be offered.”
4. Compare Justin, _Apology_ 67, where the “president” offers prayers
“according to his ability” (ὅση δύναµις αὐτῷ), and Tertullian,
_Apology_ 30: “we pray ... without a monitor, for our prayers are from
the heart”. But extempore prayer in no way excludes frequent use of
traditional formulas.
11-15
MINOR ORDERS
In the major orders an endowment of the Spirit is sought by the
imposition of hands; in the minor orders persons are officially
admitted to the exercise of gifts that they already possess.
11
2-3. The eventual source is 1 Timothy 5. 1-16.
4-5. In 1 Timothy the widows engage both in prayer (verse 5) and in
active work (verse 10). In the Didascalia and Constitutions these
duties are divided: prayer is the sole task of the “widows”, while
those to whom the active work is committed are called “deaconesses”.
The latter, except that they have no part in the liturgy, correspond
in all respects to the deacons, and so naturally receive an
ordination, while the “widows” are merely “named”. So, before the
distinction was established, ordination of (all?) widows was
presumably fairly usual; otherwise the vigour of Hippolytus’s protest
is difficult to explain.
In Rome, unlike Syria, active church work by women was discountenanced
and the deaconesses did not make their appearance. On the general
subject of women’s work the Didascalia is a mine of information.
12
Men who could read easily and clearly from a manuscript were not too
common, so that the reader had a position of some dignity. The
Constitutions, in fact, make a major order of the office and the
prayer (VIII, 22) beseeches “the prophetic Spirit”, suggesting that
readers were expected to give some exposition and teaching. Both the
Constitutions and the Testament treat readership as a step toward
higher advancement. In the Sahidic the reader is given St Paul’s
Epistles; Schwartz (p. 32) thinks this is original.
13
For the development of the status of virgins in the church reference
must be made to the special literature. Hippolytus, in marked contrast
to the Testament, dismisses the subject very briefly and refers to
virgins again only in 25. 1, although this brevity of treatment in a
law book does not prove lack of practical interest in the subject. As
the “purpose” was publicly announced, it corresponded to the later
formal vow.
14
The account in Acts 6 was generally interpreted as limiting the number
of deacons in any place to seven, far too few for effective service in
large churches. So each deacon was given an assistant to “serve” him;
compare chapter 30. But even this was inadequate in very large
communities, and at Rome _ca._ 250 the seven deacons and their
subdeacons were further assisted by forty-two acolytes
(“followers”).[197] The subdiaconate eventually became a major order
and it is so treated in the Constitutions and the Testament.
15
The gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12. 28, etc.) was the only one of
the primitive charismatic gifts to survive into the third century in
its original form, and in Hippolytus its purely charismatic nature is
still recognized; not only is there no ordination but the healer is
not even “named”. But healers in the specialized form of “exorcists”
form a minor order in Rome a generation later.[198] One of their most
important functions was to assist in preparing catechumens for
baptism; compare 20. 3.
PART II
Baptism
16-20
CATECHUMENS
In the apostolic age converts were accepted with little question and
were baptized immediately on profession of faith;[199] the missionary
zeal of the new religion, heightened by the expectation of the end of
the world, sought only to compel men to come in. Naturally this
enthusiasm was always tempered with common sense—no teacher could have
baptized every applicant—but the doors were opened wide, and the New
Testament gives no hint of any formal training before reception. The
hope that defects would be made up by Christian grace was doubtless
fulfilled to a surprising degree, but it was also often grievously
disappointed: men were admitted into Christianity who neither
understood its teachings nor desired to follow them, and it was from
this class that Gnosticism and other vagaries drew their recruits. The
account in Acts 8. 18-24 is typical.
The result was a violent reaction that made entry into the church
extremely difficult, and no one was permitted baptism until he had
passed through a long and searching probation called the
“catechumenate”. As it appears fully developed in the early third
century, it must reach far back into the second or perhaps even into
the first.
16
1. “Hearers” is perhaps used here in its later technical sense as a
title for catechumens in their first stage. In Hippolytus the “word”
that they are permitted to hear does not include the Gospel (20. 2);
elsewhere they were allowed to remain at the Sunday service until all
the liturgical lessons had been read and the sermon had been preached.
The “teachers” were those employed in the instruction of the
catechumens; they were not necessarily clerics (19. 1) and did not
form a special class.
2-24. The reason for most of these rules is self-evident.
13. Greek education included much time spent on Homer, whose mythology
the Christians naturally regarded as unedifying. But the permission
given to schoolmasters to continue their calling in case of necessity
shows that no one took the Homeric deities very seriously.
17. In many cases soldiers were utilized only for police duty, but
Christian soldiers were always in danger of being given tasks
inconsistent with their religion. Hippolytus probably does not
consider the rather infrequent possibility of soldiers being sent to
defend the frontiers against barbarians. The “oath” invoked heathen
deities.
18. Judges and military officers were constantly called on to
pronounce and inflict capital punishment. They were also inextricably
involved in the support of emperor-worship.
19. A man who was already a soldier could be accepted under the
conditions of 17. But no believer was permitted voluntarily to expose
himself to such temptations.
23. Since the woman in such a case had no power to alter her
condition, Hippolytus’s rule is sensible and humane.
24. Men, who could control their conduct, were granted no such
concession.
25. A remnant of the older charismatic teaching; Compare 38. 4. It is
conjoined somewhat oddly with these detailed legalistic prescriptions;
the right to judge spiritually may be exercised only where the law is
not explicit. And only the clergy exercise the gift.
17
A three years catechumenate has parallels in later practice, but it
represents about the maximum.
18
1. Separation of catechumens from believers and men from women was
carried out rigorously throughout the Patristic age.
3-4. Contrast 22. 6. The kiss of peace marked the close of the service
that preceded the eucharist (e.g., Constitutions VIII, 11, 9).
5. 1 Corinthians 11. 10.
19
1. The imposition of hands was partly in blessing, partly in exorcism
(20. 3). In later days the first of these impositions was regarded as
the formal admission to the catechumenate.
2. A universal Patristic teaching.
20
2. Hippolytus knows only two classes of catechumens, the hearers and
those “set apart”. Subsequently the latter were called “elect”,
“competent” or “enlightened”, and an intermediate class (“kneelers”)
was introduced. Hippolytus says nothing about the duration of this
last stage, but four to six or more weeks is later common.
3. Exorcism before baptism was universally practised and has survived
in some form or other in practically all the traditional baptismal
liturgies. It lacks New Testament precedent, but is based on the
dualism found in John 14. 30, etc., according to which this world—and
so all its unregenerate inhabitants—is under the sway of Satan and his
angels. In Hippolytus’s community the exorcisms were presumably
performed by the teachers, as he does not recognize exorcists as a
separate class (compare on chapter 15).
4. The text of the last clause is so uncertain that the meaning of the
whole is dubious. The Testament, however, asserts that the episcopal
exorcism is bound to make an unworthy candidate betray himself, and
there is no reason to doubt that Hippolytus believed the same.
5. The final selection and instruction took place on the Thursday
before Easter. “Bathing” was done in a public bath-house, with a
supplementary “washing” at home; compare John 13. 10.
6. Most religions, as well as Judaism, regarded a menstruous woman as
unclean.
7. All believers fasted on Good Friday (29. 1); for the catechumens
the fast was probably thought to be purifying.
8. The Testament gives a lengthy form for this last pre-baptismal
exorcism. Popular belief in the life-giving power of breath (Genesis
2. 7, etc.) was very widespread; compare 36. 11. Mark 7. 34 may have
been specially in mind.[200] The “seal” was the sign of the cross.
Compare chapter 37.
9. No further opportunity was given to contract defilement.
10. This direction, misunderstood in the Arabic and Ethiopic, is
explained by 23. 1-2. Those about to be baptized brought with them as
their first Christian “offering” the bread, wine, milk and honey
needed for the baptismal eucharist. The Testament reduces this
offering to one loaf from each of them. The rule should not be
explained from chapter 32, which is not by Hippolytus.
21
THE BAPTISMAL CEREMONY
1. Hippolytus gives no form for the blessing of the water, but the
Constitutions (VII, 43) direct an elaborate thanksgiving, concluding
with the words “Sanctify this water and give it grace and power”, etc.
Clement of Alexandria (_Pedagogue_ I, vi (50, 4)) appears to
presuppose a petition for the descent of the Logos into the font.
2. The superior sanctity of “living” water is a common belief, and the
Testament and the Canons allow no other for baptism. Compare Didache
7. 1.
3. Every non-Jew in the Graeco-Roman world was so accustomed to the
public baths that the baptismal usage would not suggest the slightest
impropriety.
5. To Hippolytus the ornaments as “alien” carry contagion. The Jews
have a similar prohibition for women bathing after ceremonial
impurity, but the reason given is that complete contact with the water
is prevented.
6. The first mention of anointing in connection with baptism is in
Tertullian, _On Baptism_ 7 (_ca._ 205). He explains the practice as
derived from the Old Testament anointing of priests, and in view of 1
Peter 2. 9 and Revelation 1. 6; 5. 10[201] this may well express the
original meaning of the ceremony. Or it may have been thought to
convey the gift of the Spirit, as in 1 Samuel 16. 13, or may rest on
more general conceptions of anointing as consecration, or may even be
somehow connected with the title “Christ” (= “The Anointed One”). But,
whatever the origin, unction after baptism is found practically
everywhere in Christendom after the third century.
In Hippolytus the blessing is still a thanksgiving and the oil is
named accordingly. In the Constitutions (VII, 44) the formula is
petitionary,[202] and the oil is called “mystical”. The common later
title for this oil—to which other substances, such as balsam, are
often added—is “chrism”. The Latin formula for blessing it still
includes a solemn thanksgiving.
7. The anointing before baptism is derived from the ancient belief in
the curative powers of oil, from which its use in religious healing
(Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14) was developed. To Hippolytus this oil aids
in the final and supreme exorcism, and it is exorcised, not blessed,
and derives its name from its purpose. In later Latin usage it is
called “oil of the catechumens”.
The Constitutions note (VII, 22, 3) that if the oils are lacking “the
water is sufficient”. And this was the universal belief.
9. Some form of renunciation of Satan is a feature in all traditional
baptismal liturgies.
10. Cyril of Jerusalem (_Catechetical Lectures_ 20, 3) says that this
anointing is performed “from the very hairs of your head to your
feet”. By 22. 2 Hippolytus has probably the same conception.
11. The pronouns are ambiguous and confusing, but the sense seems to
be that the presbyter who performs the actual baptism stands on the
bank of the stream (or the edge of the font), while the deacon stands
in the water with the candidate, to instruct and assist him.
12-18. In the Jewish rites that require complete immersion (the
baptism of a proselyte, the cleansing of a woman, etc.) the ceremony
is performed entirely by the person concerned in the presence of a
proper witness; i.e., such a rite is simply an extension of the Old
Testament prescriptions[203] that certain impurities must be removed
by bathing. Early Christianity shared this conception, and in New
Testament Greek the middle voice is used for the act of baptism in
Acts 22. 16, 1 Corinthians 6. 11; 10. 2; compare the reading of D and
Old Latin manuscripts in Luke 3. 7, “to be baptized in his presence”.
In Hippolytus the presbyter acts to the extent of laying his hand on
the candidate’s head, but he uses no baptismal formula.[204] In the
Jewish rites the person after immersion utters a benediction; in
Hippolytus each immersion is preceded by a declaration of belief. In
the apostolic church this declaration certainly had the form “Jesus is
Lord” (Romans 10. 9, etc.) and there was only one immersion. The
additional confessions of the Father and the Spirit appear in Didache
7. 1,[205] and each was presumably accompanied by the corresponding
immersion that Hippolytus directs.
Each of these three confessions was then further expanded, so
producing the various baptismal creeds. The one in use at Rome in the
early fourth century—the basis of the later “Apostles’ Creed”—can be
reconstructed accurately from Rufinus’ _Exposition_, and agrees
closely with the form in the Latin version of Hippolytus, the only
significant addition being “and the forgiveness of sins” near the
close. This clause, in fact, seems to be due eventually to
Hippolytus’s arch-enemy, Callistus, to express a doctrine that the
former abhorred. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the
official Roman creed _ca._ 200 did not contain “and the holy church”,
on which Hippolytus lays stress (6. 4; 23. 10); this clause may be his
own addition to protest—against Callistus—that the “holy” church
should not contain sinners. Later Roman Christianity adopted both
phrases with no feeling of incongruity; compare Cyprian’s “forgiveness
of sins through the holy church”.[206]
19. This anointing, like the former, presumably covered the whole
body.
20. In the later Patristic church at this point the newly baptized put
on white garments, which they wore for seven days.
22
CONFIRMATION
Hippolytus contributes little to clarifying the difficult subject of
confirmation. In Acts 8. 17 and 19. 6 the rite conveys the gift of the
Spirit, but Hippolytus’s prayer, which cites Titus 3. 5, follows the
Pauline-Johannine[207] doctrine in attributing this gift to baptism,
in accord with the special immersion after confessing the Spirit. So
only grace for service is besought. But, as in Acts, the essential
ceremony is the imposition of hands, so that the anointing and the
sign of the cross are only supplementary rites. Curiously enough,
however, only the anointing was preserved in both the Latin and the
Orthodox Eastern churches.
For the use of the Lord’s Prayer after baptism see on 23. 14.
23
THE BAPTISMAL EUCHARIST
Compare the distinction between the baptismal and the regular
eucharist in Justin, _Apology_ 65 and 67 and in Didache 9-10 and 14.
1. The conception of consecration by thanksgiving is stated so baldly
that the Latin (“gratias agat panem quidem in exemplum”) is wholly
unidiomatic, but in all probability the prayer normally included an
invocation like that in 4. 12. Here, in place of the “spiritual food”
language in 4. 12, the result of the consecration is expressed in the
terms of the institution. Yet Hippolytus appears to shrink a little
from calling the species absolutely the body and blood of Christ: the
bread is the “image” (ἀντίτυπον) of the body and the cup the
“likeness” (ὁµοίεµα) of the blood. The former word is used in the same
way by Cyril of Jerusalem (23, 20; as an adjective) and the latter by
Sarapion in his first oblation before the words of institution;
compare “figura” in Tertullian, _Against Marcion_ III, 19 and IV, 40,
and the prayer in the Constitutions (VIII, 12, 39) that the species
may be made to “appear” (ἀποφάναι) as the body and blood. None of this
language, however, is “symbolic” in the modern sense; whatever
unlikeness theologians[208] might feel existed between the symbols and
the things signified was overshadowed by the realistic connection that
existed between them. But in the earlier Patristic period the deeper
nature of this connection was left unexplored.
2. Tertullian (_chaplet_ 3, _Against Marcion_ I, 14) and Clement of
Alexandria (_Pedagogue_ I, vi (45, 1)) bear contemporary testimony to
the custom of giving new Christians milk and honey, so the rite must
have been widespread. It is not in the Constitutions or the Testament,
but the other sources have it. And the 24th canon of the Third Council
of Carthage (397) reads: “The first-fruits, namely milk and honey,
which are offered on a most solemn day for the mystery of
infants,[209] although offered on the altar should have a blessing of
their own, that they may be distinguished from the sacrament of the
Lord’s body and blood”.
Clement of Alexandria, like Hippolytus, cites the Old Testament
prophecies of the promised land,[210] so the meaning of the rite was
to assure the participants of a share in salvation. But Hippolytus
adds a further explanation of his own; the milk represents Christ’s
flesh and the honey his gentleness. The Canons—possibly with a
misrecollection of Isaiah 7. 15—interpret the food as proper for the
newly born.
3. The purpose of the water is to extend the baptismal washing into
the inner man; a somewhat pedantic ceremony that reappears only in the
Ethiopic, although the Testament applies the theory to the water in
the mixed eucharistic chalice.
5. This is the earliest known formula for eucharistic administration.
7-11. What is most curious about these directions is that the
sacramental wine is not distinguished in administration from the other
two cups; the other versions correct this.[211] Perhaps in this
ceremony there has survived something of the tradition in the earliest
text of Luke 22. 19-20, where the whole emphasis is laid on the bread.
The little four-clause creed is interesting.
12. An admirable little summary of Christian duty.
13. Hippolytus (compare I. 1) refers to some earlier work or works of
his own, possibly _Concerning God and the Resurrection_, whose title
is listed on his statue.
14. By the “white stone” (Revelation 2. 17) evidently something very
concrete is implied. This cannot be any part of the creed, which is
recited while baptism is in progress, and so the Testament’s
explanation of the secret as the doctrine of the resurrection[212] is
excluded. The only other possibility would appear to be the Lord’s
Prayer, on which Hippolytus is strangely silent. Christians of this
age regarded the Prayer as having an almost magical efficacy. It was,
moreover, allowed to none but the baptized and was first uttered by
Christians immediately after their baptism,[213] a custom which in the
light of Romans 8. 15 and Galatians 4. 6 may actually go back to
apostolic times.
PART III
Church Laws
25. Fasting is here conceived to intensify prayer’s efficacy. The
widows and virgins were especially dedicated to the work of
intercession.
The other versions have “pray _in_ the church”, but the Greek gives a
more primitive impression.
The bishop, on account of the nature of his duties, was not permitted
to vow a fast to last for any set time; he might, of course, abstain
from food informally if he wished. Good Friday and Holy Saturday
(chapter 29) were the only fixed fast-days, but special fasts for all
might be directed on any special occasion.
26
THE AGAPE
The agape, or “love-feast”, was a Christian meal of a definitely
religious character. Since both Tertullian (_Apology_ 39) and Clement
of Alexandria (_Pedagogue_ II, i (4-7)) speak of it as an established
Christian custom, its origin must lie far behind the third century,
and the importance and liturgical colouring given by the Evangelists
to the accounts of the feedings of the multitudes[214] are explicable
only as reflecting deep first-century interest in the rite. Its origin
in Christianity, consequently, must be primitive, while the Gospels
indicate that in the apostolic church it was regarded as a
continuation of the (many) meals shared by Christ and his disciples.
The emphasis on the numbers who were satisfied by the bread and fish,
taken together with Acts 6. 1-3[215] and the later history of the
agape, show that a primary purpose of these meals was to provide food
for the needy: it is presumably from this aim that the name
“love-feast” was derived. And the Gospel accounts indicate that in the
agapes Christ was felt to be acting as head of his household: that he
was in some manner present.
The agape and the eucharist, consequently, were closely associated; in
1 John 6 the feeding of the multitudes leads into the elaborate
eucharistic discourse. So Ignatius uses “eucharist” and “agape” as
synonyms,[216] while “The Lord’s Supper”, the term employed by St
Paul[217] and later writers generally for the eucharist, is
Hippolytus’s title here for the agape. The confusion was due to the
fact that in the first century the eucharist was generally celebrated
in conjunction with an agape; indeed, in 1 Corinthians 11 it is clear
that the Corinthians were stressing the banquet elements of their
common meals so strongly that their eucharistic aspect had been
forgotten.[218] Hence in Jude 12 the “love-feasts” are most naturally
understood to be the combined agape-eucharists.
During the second century the rites were separated, the eucharist
being transferred to the morning, while the agape normally remained as
an evening meal, although it could of course be held at any hour. But
Hippolytus preserves remnants of the old association; as regards the
eucharist the oil, cheese and olives of chapters 5-6, as regards the
agape the title “Lord’s Supper” and details of the ceremonial.
According to Hippolytus’s description the agapes are meals given by
individuals in their own homes; the host provides the food and invites
the guests, who in return are expected to pray for him. Each person
breaks his own bread and “offers” his own cup; this is in accord with
the rule in Berakhoth vi. 6 for the less solemn meals among the Jews:
“If men sit for a meal, each shall pronounce the blessing for himself;
but if they recline, one shall pronounce the blessing for them all”.
This procedure, moreover, appears to throw light on the account in 1
Corinthians 11, where the church is blamed because “each taketh before
other his own supper” (verse 21) and the remedy prescribed is “wait
for one another” (verse 33); it is difficult to see how the Corinthian
disorders could have arisen if there were a single officiant. In
Hippolytus orderliness is procured by the presence of a
cleric—preferably the bishop, although a deacon will suffice—who
presides over the supper and begins it by blessing and distributing a
loaf specially named; this ceremony is superadded to a ritual
otherwise complete in itself, and appears to be a local Roman custom.
1-2. In the earliest Christianity “blessing” and “thanksgiving” were
indistinguishable,[219] but to Hippolytus they are no longer always
synonyms; perhaps the “blessing” was accomplished by signing with the
cross, as in the Canons.
After blessing, the bishop breaks the loaf, eats a portion himself,
and distributes the remainder to all the baptized members of the
company: a procedure exactly like that of the eucharist. In the
earlier combined service, in fact, this bread would have been actually
eucharistic, for which after the separation “blessed” bread was
substituted to enable the traditional agape ceremonial to continue
with a minimum of external change. The final separation must have been
comparatively recent, for Hippolytus feels obliged to emphasize the
difference between the two rites; in later times there was no danger
of confusion, and his translators consequently do not seem to have
grasped his point.
2. The breaking of each one’s bread would be accompanied by a proper
benediction.
3. Roughly parallel is Berakhoth vi. 6: “If wine is brought during a
meal, each one must pronounce the blessing for himself”.
4. For the distinction between “blessing” and “exorcism” of objects,
compare 21. 6-7. The Arabic and Ethiopic substitute “blessed bread”,
even for the catechumens. Whether the catechumens also broke their
“own” bread is left uncertain. “Offer” is here a mere synonym for
“give thanks”, a usage not found in the other versions.
5. Perhaps the catechumens stood during the agape; perhaps they ate at
a separate table.
6. Each blessing at an agape must include a prayer for the host, who
is thus repaid for his bounty. For “offer” the other versions
substitute “eat”, spoiling the force.
7. From 1 Corinthians 11. 21 to the final abolition of the agapes in
Christianity (in the eighth century?) there were constant complaints
of disorderly conduct at these meals; Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._)
for this reason objects to their name. Hippolytus cites Matthew 5. 13.
8. ἀποφόρητον is simply “that which is carried away” and is used in
its etymological sense; other meanings, such as the associated “a gift
given to dinner guests”, are immaterial here. The “apoforetum” began
like the regular agape with the distribution of the blessed bread and
(presumably) with public benedictions over bread and wine, but the
rest of the meal was eaten at each one’s home.
9. The Gospel accounts of the miraculous feedings lay similar stress
on gathering up the fragments.
10. The complete dominance of the meal by the bishop would seem to
make the above warnings against disorder needless; as Hippolytus
pictures it an agape would have been the reverse of hilarious.
11-12. Compare Ignatius, _Smyrnaeans_ 8. 1: “Let that be counted a
genuine[220] eucharist that is held by the bishop or by someone to
whom he gives permission”; for the last clause as regards the agapes
Hippolytus simply substitutes “or one of the clergy”. In later theory
only a priest can “bless”, and any formula that can be pronounced
validly by a deacon can be pronounced just as “validly”, although
perhaps not “licitly”, by a layman. But this distinction between
“valid” and “licit” would not have been drawn by Ignatius or
Hippolytus; what a Christian cannot do licitly he cannot do at all.
Evidently Hippolytus regards the blessed bread as of the essence of
the agape.
The Testament agrees in general with Hippolytus. In the Canons the
agape becomes a memorial feast (ἀνάληµψις) for the dead. It is
forbidden on Sunday. The participants first make their communions and
then meet for the meal. The bread distributed is “exorcised”;[221]
explained as signed with the cross. The presence of a cleric—normally
a presbyter—while desirable does not seem to be quite essential.
27
The widows were special objects of the church’s charity, but
precautions had to be taken lest even they became disorderly. The
“existing conditions” may refer to persecutions, but the phrase is
more simply understood of the donor’s inability to entertain a large
party in his own home; compare the _apoforetum_.
28
Hippolytus, like Didache 13. 3, regards the law of Deuteronomy 18. 4
as binding on Christians; he says nothing, however, of an obligation
to tithe. The Jewish background of his prayer is evident; compare
particularly Berakhoth vi. 2 “through whose word all things come to
pass”, and Rabbi Jehudah’s formula in vi. 1 “who hast created divers
fruits”. The only Christian touch is at the end, and the rest of the
prayer may have been taken bodily from a Jewish source.
The reasons for the distinctions in 6-7 are probably irrecoverable,
but vegetables of the gourd family were favoured food among ascetics
of the gnostic type. Perhaps Canticles 2. 1 gave the lily and the rose
their privileged status.
In Hippolytus’s day these first-fruits constituted the chief source of
support for the clergy. A writer—probably Hippolytus himself—in
Eusebius V, 28. 10-12 speaks with detestation of the payment of money
salaries by heretics to their leaders.
29
On Good Friday and Holy Saturday all Christians were expected to fast
according to their ability; a meritorious act whose credit would be
lost if terminated too soon.[222] If neglected through ignorance it
could be made up later, but not between Easter and Pentecost, when all
fasting was everywhere forbidden to orthodox Christians. It may be
observed that Hippolytus’s conception of the repeal of the “ancient
law” extends only to the particular date set by Numbers 9. 11;
otherwise it is still fully binding. Compare Didache 8. 1.
This fast, it should be noted, is directed only before the Easter
communion; later writers, like the Testament, treat the breach of a
fast (from midnight, generally) before any communion as a mortal sin.
Compare, further, chapter 32.
30
Hippolytus presupposes a congregation still small enough to enable the
bishop to visit the sick personally, but large enough to make his
visit a great event to the sick person.
33
This daily session of the presbyters was the Christian “sanhedrin”, to
which individuals brought their problems and controversies for
“instruction”. At these gatherings, in addition, the clergy received
assignments for their duties of that day; in these latter the deacons
were more important than the presbyters and their absence a more
serious fault.
34
Callistus is commemorated by the Roman catacombs that still bear his
name; probably dissatisfaction with his rival’s regulations led
Hippolytus to treat this rather specialized subject. The other
versions miss the point of the “tiles”—on which compare Connolly, pp.
116-119—and adapt the rules to local burial customs; the Testament,
for instance, discusses embalming.
PART IV
Lay Devotions
The devotional life of a layman is centred around the declaration of
Psalm 119. 164, “Seven times a day do I praise thee”, at rising, at
the third, sixth and ninth hours, at bedtime, at midnight and at
cockcrow. This distribution corresponds approximately to the later
“canonical hours”, but in Hippolytus’s day these prayers were still
wholly private.
35
1. Following the general—especially Jewish—belief demanding ceremonial
purification before approaching God, Hippolytus requires hand-washing
(at least) at morning and midnight; the Canons extend this rule to all
prayer. Tertullian (_On Prayer_ 13) recognizes the prevalence of the
custom and says that Christians defended it by quoting Matthew 27. 24;
he, however, regards it as pointless. Compare Mark 7. 1-15.
2. Hippolytus doubtless does not think it necessary to prescribe
attendance at the Sunday eucharists, assuming that no true believer
would willingly absent himself. Regular weekday eucharists were not
yet customary, although they were held at times of special prayer and
fasting;[223] compare 25. 2. So the only weekday meetings he
presupposes are gatherings for prayer and instruction according to the
synagogue pattern. Evidently the emphasis was laid on instruction,
with the Bible as textbook, and those who could read were expected to
follow the passages cited. 1 and 2 Clement give an idea of the content
and style of the teaching, which would be given by instructors like
those of 16. 1.
3. On occasion local meetings were visited and addressed by teachers
of higher rank, who are described in terms reminiscent of the New
Testament prophets.
36
1. Complete manuscript Bibles were very expensive, and few lay
Christians could have owned one. But portions of Scripture were within
the reach of all.
2-3. Hippolytus follows Mark 15. 25, not John 19. 14, here. He deduces
the hours of the Jewish ceremonies from his typology; no definite hour
is prescribed in the Old Testament,[224] while in the Temple the
morning sacrifice was offered before sunrise and the showbread was
changed (on the Sabbath) still earlier. He cites John 10. 14; 6. 50.
4. Mark 15. 33. Hippolytus adds that the darkness came in answer to
(Christ’s[225]) prayer; possibly a conjecture of his own but more
likely a “tradition”.
5. At the ninth hour, as soon as Christ died, he went to the lower
world and released the spirits in prison, who rejoiced with a great
thanksgiving. The belief was very widespread[226] but the other
versions seem to miss the point.
6. John 19. 34. The darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour,
followed by daylight until evening, made a “night” and a “day”; so the
Son of Man by Easter morning had truly been “three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12. 40). Compare
Constitutions V, 14. 9-13.
9. On the custom of rising during the night for prayer, compare, e.g.,
Tertullian, _To his Wife_ II, 5. Hippolytus—rather more than
Tertullian—insists that unbelievers should not witness Christian
devotions.
10. John 13. 10 repeals the provisions of Leviticus 15. 16-18.
11. Despite the principle just enunciated Hippolytus cannot rid
himself of a belief that a purification is needed; he compromises by
declaring that a small ceremony will suffice. Compare chapter 37.
12. This quaint doctrine—which the other versions omit or alter—came
from the authorities who gave Hippolytus the rest of his “tradition”.
He mentions them here only, but in Irenaeus similar appeals to “the
presbyters” are numerous.
13. Matthew 25. 6, 13 in an unusual text form.
14. Peter’s denial (Matthew 26. 74) is synchronized with the
condemnation of Christ by the Sanhedrin.
37
The sign of the cross is performed after first breathing on the hand,
so that it is wet with saliva. Belief in the power of spittle to repel
evil spirits is widespread[227] and, despite Hippolytus’s disclaimer,
lies behind the practice he advocates. His own interpretation of the
ceremony is none the less ingenious; the mixture of moisture and
breath[228] corresponds to the water and the Spirit in baptism and so
makes the sign of the cross the “image” of baptism, accomplishing a
sort of rebaptism[229] (36. 11). Only Latin A has the original; Latin
B and the other versions do not understand the custom and replace
“baptism” by “the Word”.
The interpretation of Exodus 12. 22 is in the style of Barnabas.
38
CONCLUSION
Hippolytus closes with a final adjuration to avoid all novelties; the
way of peace consists solely in strict adherence to the past.
FOOTNOTES
[1]Luke 12. 13-16.
[2]For exceptions see, e.g., Romans 14. 14 (= Matthew 15. 11), 1
Corinthians 7. 10 (= Matthew 19. 9), 1 Clement 46. 8 (= Matthew
18. 6, in substance), 2 Clement 12. 2 (apocryphal).
[3]Especially in 2 Clement.
[4]Acts 15. 28-29.
[5]Romans 14, in particular.
[6]1 Corinthians 8. 8; 10. 25-26.
[7]Compare Revelation 2. 14, 20.
[8]Didache 13. 7, etc.
[9]Didache 13. 3, etc.
[10]So very emphatically in 1 Clement 40-41. But Clement does not
argue for a detailed parallelism between the two ministries.
[11]Didache 3. 1-6 is an instance.
[12]The reason for this appears to be that at this period the Fourth
Commandment was conceived to be wholly “ceremonial”, and to “keep
the Sabbath” was regarded as Judaizing (Ignatius, _Magnesians_ 9.
1, etc.). The belief that in Christianity the Sabbath laws have
been transferred to Sunday is of medieval origin.
[13]On these methods compare especially K. E. Kirk, _The Vision of
God_ (London, 1931), pp. 119-124.
[14]As in Wisdom 14. 25-26.
[15]Romans 1. 29-31 is largely of Greek origin; 1 Timothy 3. 2-3 and
Titus 3. 1-2 are wholly so.
[16]In 1 Clement 47. 6 the forty-five year old Corinthian church is
called “ancient”.
[17]Jude 17, Revelation 21. 14, etc. The meaning in Ephesians 2. 20 is
probably a little different.
[18]1 Clement 42. 4; 44. 1-2, etc.
[19]Even in the third century liturgical prayers were still normally
extempore, and use of a fixed form was regarded as a weakness on
the part of the officiant.
[20]Eusebius, _HE_, v, 24.
[21]See especially James Muilenburg, _The Literary Relations of the
Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_,
Marburg, 1929.
[22]39th Festal Letter (367), 7.
[23]The details of the Patristic testimony are best seen in J. R.
Harris, _The Teaching of the Apostles_, Baltimore and London,
1887.
[24]_Die Didache_, Bonn; many editions.
[25]_Didascalia Apostolorum_, Oxford, 1929.
[26]Also known as Third Clement. Occasionally—and unfortunately—called
the Apostolic Canons or the Roman Church Order.
[27]Paderborn, 1914. Dr Schermann’s theory of a very early date for
the document is individualistic.
[28]Pp. 127-138, 233-244, 295-306.
[29]Often reprinted separately.
[30]But incorrectly.
[31]Pp. 34, 78, 40.
[32]Cooper and Maclean, p. 18.
[33]_HE_, VI, 20.
[34]_Vir. ill._ 61.
[35]His festival is on August 13.
[36]Not completely legible; reproductions are not always to be
trusted.
[37]_Origenis Philosophumena_, Oxford. Books II-III are presumably
still missing, although it has been argued that what is ordinarily
called Book IV may contain them; Wendland, however, rejects this
theory (p. xvi).
[38]Especially in his _Hippolytus and Callistus_, 1853.
[39]_St Clement of Rome_, II, pp. 317-477. First published in 1869; in
the later editions the argument is slightly expanded but is
otherwise unchanged.
[40]Jerome, _Vir. ill._ 61.
[41]Legge (II, p. 127) unfortunately revives Döllinger’s remarkable
explanation of this occurrence: Callistus had lent the bank’s
funds to the Jews and went to the synagogue to recover his
depositors’ money. As if anyone would expect Jews to transact
business on the Sabbath and at a synagogue service!
[42]Victor’s accession occurred about 189, and Commodus died in 192.
[43]The distinction between “martyr” and “confessor” was not yet
developed.
[44]Or perhaps restored the privileges of the office to him; when and
where Callistus was ordained is uncertain. Possibly he had the
confessor’s ordination (p. 39).
[45]Hippolytus’s account of his controversy with Callistus is, in
fact, so bitter that modern historians feel obliged to interpret
it in the sense that will make the greatest allowance for the
latter. Hence less than full justice is perhaps done nowadays to
Hippolytus.
[46]The antithesis “In time or in eternity?” seems hardly to have been
stated squarely until the beginnings of the Arian controversy.
[47]And Zephyrinus?
[48]Less probably after Zephyrinus’s death.
[49]Hebrews 6. 4-8, 10. 26-31, 12. 17.
[50]Except, perhaps, through martyrdom.
[51]Matthew 13. 30.
[52]Romans 14. 4.
[53]His most violent treatise—the Philosophumena—was perhaps omitted,
but time has so defaced the list that we cannot be certain. The
Apostolic Tradition, however, was duly listed, and it certainly
contains polemic enough.
[54]_Theologische Literaturzeitung_, 1920, col. 225.
[55]Compare the Epitomist’s “The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
through Hippolytus”.
[56]London.
[57]Leipzig (_Texte und Untersuchungen_, VI, 4).
[58]Hippolytus’s work is printed on pp. 101-121; reprinted in Connolly
(pp. 175 ff.), and in part in the fifth edition of Duchesne’s
_Christian Worship_, London, 1919.
[59]II, pp. 97-119.
[60]The notes are systematized and amplified in the latter’s _Ancient
Church Orders_.
[61]_Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlichen Gemeindeordnungen_, Berlin
Academy.
[62]_Über die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen_, Strassburg.
[63]Facsimiles in Hauler.
[64]Compare p. 60.
[65]The oldest (Sahidic) is dated _ca._ 1005.
[66]Details in Horner.
[67]More logical and so secondary.
[68]This seems easier than Schwartz’s theory (p. 7) of a _later_
Sahidic text enlarged from the original Greek.
[69]The former cautiously.
[70]It lacks chapter 6.
[71]Epitome 4.
[72]Possibly “in those places”; so Horner interprets the Ethiopic.
[73]And Ethiopic. The Greek has “through thy beloved Son Jesus Christ
thou gavest to thy holy apostles”.
[74]So the Greek, not the Latin.
[75]Latin and Ethiopic (MSS), “Father, who knowest the heart”; perhaps
better.
[76]Not in the Epitome but in the Latin, Ethiopic, Constitutions,
Testament and Canons.
[77]The doxologies suffer probably more than any other phrases by
transmission. The translation given follows no text precisely but
represents what seems to be the most likely original form.
[78]The indicative, “ye perform”, of the Latin is a misrendering of
the (ambiguous) original Greek.
[79]On the doxology compare note on 3. 7.
[80]The Latin might also be rendered “Not with ordinary words but with
similar power”. But the Ethiopic confirms the above translation.
[81]Literally “Cause that from thy sweetness there may not recede this
fruit of the olive”.
[82]An Ethiopic section (Statute 5) generally printed here (7) is not
by Hippolytus; compare pp. 30-31.
[83]Reading “presbyteri” for “presbyteris”.
[84]Testament “in holiness to thy holy place”; Ethiopic “in thy holy
of holies”.
[85]Testament “from the inheritance of thy high-priesthood”.
[86]Testament adds “and purely and holily”.
[87]Testament “high and exalted office”. The Ethiopic manuscripts
differ considerably in their renderings of “he may ... office”;
Horner’s _a_ reads “having served the degrees of ordination he may
obtain the exalted priesthood”. But only _a_ reads “priesthood”.
[88]Doxology conformed to preceding; that in the Testament is rather
different.
[89]With the Sahidic agree almost exactly the Arabic, the Testament
and the Canons. The Ethiopic has been edited from a different view
point.
[90]These words seem clearly implied by the context; Hippolytus has
now concluded the discussion of ordinations proper.
[91]Ethiopic and Arabic omit this “not”, making the passage senseless.
[92]The Ethiopic makes the sense of the original clear.
[93]In the Sahidic the readers and subdeacons precede the widows.
[94]So the Ethiopic and Arabic. Sahidic reads “nor does she conduct
_liturgia_”.
[95]Compare last note.
[96]Epitome 13.
[97]The Sahidic misjoins “new” with “faith”.
[98]The Ethiopic adds “or if a woman has a husband”.
[99]Following the variant Sahidic reading in Horner, p. 436.
[100]The Constitutions show that the Sahidic is right against the
other evidence (“let his master’s permission be gained”).
[101]The Constitutions (32. 3) have preserved the original here, which
the Sahidic renders freely.
[102]The Sahidic, against the other evidence, adds “according to the
law”.
[103]The Sahidic amplifies.
[104]Supplied to give the obvious sense.
[105]The Ethiopic shows that this is the sense; the Sahidic has
misunderstood the use of “authority”.
[106]Literally “nor cause him to swear”.
[107]“Male harlot”?
[108]This Sahidic list has been interpreted from the list in
Constitutions 32. 11.
[109]So the Sahidic and the Testament. The Ethiopic and Arabic have
“shall exact an oath from each one of them”.
[110]Obscure, but apparently original. The Ethiopic and Arabic have
“for it is not possible for an alien to be baptized”; the
Testament “for the vile and alien spirit abides in him”.
[111]Sahidic “and”.
[112]Supplied for clarity.
[113]The Sahidic and Ethiopic have “to the bishop or presbyter”; the
Arabic has “to the bishop”.
[114]Or the sense may be that the presbyter, the candidate and the
deacon all stand naked in the water; in the above translation “the
candidates” was supplied for “them” and the following “them” was
substituted for “him”.
In the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic the deacon causes the
candidate to repeat a rather elaborate creed: the Sahidic form is:
“I believe in the only true God, the Father Almighty, and His
only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and in [the]
Holy Ghost, the life-giver to the universe, the Trinity in one
substance, one Godhead, one Lordship, one Kingdom, one faith, one
baptism in the Catholic apostolic holy church. Amen”.
The Canons agree practically with the Testament.
[115]This question is omitted in the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic, but
it is found in the Canons.
[116]The Canons add at this point: ‘Every time he says at the baptism:
“I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
[the] Holy Ghost, the Trinity in unity”’. None of the other
sources have anything corresponding.
[117]Jungklaus includes this paragraph in the preceding chapter.
[118]Here the doxology is given as it stands in the Latin. But compare
the earlier doxologies.
[119]The Latin adds “In Greek _antitypum_”.
[120]The Latin adds “In Greek _similitudinem_”.
[121]Evidently omitted by accident.
[122]Vienna fragment.
[123]An Ethiopic section generally printed here (24) is not in the
other versions and is irrelevant to the context; it will be found
on p. 58.
[124]The apparent sense.
[125]Or, “this bread is ‘blessed bread’; it is not ‘the bread of the
thanksgiving’, as is the Body of the Lord”. The Sahidic translator
probably did not understand the original Greek exactly.
[126]The Latin adds, “What in Greek is called an _apoforetum_”.
[127]The apparent sense.
[128]Literally “make haste”.
[129]Literally “make the blessing”.
[130]Sahidic “that we all should be sober and that the heathen may
envy us”. The Ethiopic adds a long section that has no parallel in
other sources; see p. 58.
[131]Literally, “on account of the lot that falls”. Perhaps: “because
of his (their?) duties”?
[132]Friday, Saturday and Sunday after midnight.
[133]So the Latin and the Testament. The Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic
have “before the proper time to eat”.
[134]The texts have “when he has learned the truth”; the above,
however, seems to be the meaning.
[135]31-32 are omitted here; they will be found on p. 60.
[136]Literally “let everyone choose for himself to go to that place”.
[137]Sahidic “for”.
[138]The apparent sense.
[139]Literally “be the last”.
[140]Literally “things thou thinkest not”.
[141]Literally “breaks forth”; the Latin (31. 3) has “blooms”.
[142]Interpreting the Sahidic (“that thou mayest know how”) by the
Testament (“that is like to”).
[143]Interpreting the ambiguous Latin with the Sahidic.
[144]Latin B, which is followed by the Oriental versions, is
translated above. Latin A (compare p. 60) reads: “But seek always
modestly to sign thy forehead; for this sign of his Passion is
manifested against the devil if it be made from faith; not as
pleasing men, but knowingly offering it as a breastplate. For the
adversary, seeing the power of the spirit coming from the heart in
the publicly formed image of baptism, is put to flight, thou not
yielding, but breathing at him. And this was that [sign formed]
when Moses, as a type, put the blood of the lamb slain at the
Passover on the lintel and anointed the two side-posts, signifying
the faith which now we have in the perfect Lamb”.
[145]Latin B and the Oriental versions have “the Word”. But “baptism”
is needed for the sense.
[146]In chapter 38 the two Latin texts are in virtual agreement.
[147]A gesture of respect.
[148]Literally “the sealing”. Perhaps all food sent to the sick is
meant; but the passage is far from clear.
[149]Literally “count”.
[150]The apparent sense.
[151]The Ethiopic manuscripts vary in the form of the doxology.
[152]In Ethiopic use the Hallelujah Psalms are 104-106, 134-135,
145-150.
[153]Compare 26. 5-6.
[154]The restoration of sections 30-31 is conjectural.
[155]In this last sentence the (unintelligible) Latin has been
corrected by the Sahidic.
[156]P. 35.
[157]Although not in discarding chapters 33-34 also.
[158]Pp. 77-83.
[159]See below.
[160]Acts 20. 28, etc.
[161]Romans 12. 1, 1 Peter 2. 5.
[162]Hebrews 13. 15, Revelation 8. 3.
[163]Philippians 4. 18, Hebrews 13. 16.
[164]1 Corinthians 11. 21.
[165]Compare p. 68.
[166]Many editions and translations; the best in English is A. L.
Williams’ edition in the S.P.C.K. series of _Translations of
Ancient Documents_, London, 1921.
[167]Genesis 1. 31.
[168]1 Timothy 4. 4-5.
[169]Ignatius, _Smyrnaeans_ 7. 1, etc., and Didache 9. 1, 5, are the
earliest instances.
[170]It should be needless to remark that this recital of the
institution is merely part of the historical narrative, and is
wholly devoid of other implications. It was in no way thought
necessary for the rite; compare the Didache and for later
liturgies see, e.g., Cooper and Maclean, pp. 170-172.
[171]1 Corinthians 10. 3, John 6. 63.
[172]IV, 18, 4-5; I, 13, 2. Incidentally, Irenaeus teaches an
invocation of the Logos, not the Spirit.
[173]1 Clement 44. 4, Didache 15. 1.
[174]Possibly a copyist’s error, misreading “facietis”. The Greek was
of course ποιεῖτε.
[175]Through its use in St James it supplied the model for the
Scottish and American Prayer Books.
[176]Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14.
[177]Compare Constitutions VIII, 30.
[178]Compare _ibid._, 29.
[179]The search for Greek antecedents has not been fruitful.
[180]English edition by H. Danby (S.P.C.K., 1919).
[181]πρεσβυτέριον or συνέδριον; the latter word passed into Aramaic as
_sanhedrin_.
[182]In Jerusalem, however, the high priest presided as the religious
head of Israel.
[183]In Judaism priesthood came by birth, not by ordination. The
office had little dignity.
[184]A Rabbi’s authority was that of his personal learning. Very few
presbyters could have been Rabbis, except in Jerusalem.
[185]The temple worship entered little into the outlook of most Jews.
Outside the temple priests had almost no functions.
[186]“Adjuvet et gubernet”; in Greek (Constitutions VIII, 16, 4,
Epitome VI, 2) ἀντιλαµβάνεσθαι καὶ κυβερνᾶν.
[187]Certain meals held by religious societies of Jews were only a
specialized form of family devotions.
[188]Didache 15. 1.
[189]Best studied in the Didascalia.
[190]In very large churches conditions were different.
[191]Possibly implied in Constitutions VIII, 46, however.
[192]Most explicitly in Horner’s _a_.
[193]In Hermas “martyrs” (the word used) includes confessors. The
Vision, of course, purports to describe a scene in heaven, but it
naturally reflects the earthly status.
[194]In Rome _ca._ 250 there were only forty-six presbyters (Eusebius
VI, 43, 11); evidently confessors were not included.
[195]E.g., Eusebius VI, 43, 6, where confessorship is called “the
highest honour”.
[196]Yet the fact that the section goes on to threaten confessors who
made clerical claims shows a different tradition existed.
[197]Eusebius VI, 43, 11.
[198]Eusebius, _l.c._ The other minor orders were doorkeepers, readers
and acolytes. All are still extant in the Roman Catholic church,
although now only as stages through which candidates for the
priesthood pass; the same is virtually true of the subdiaconate
and diaconate also.
[199]Acts 2. 41, 8. 38, 16. 33.
[200]In this passage “he sighed” should be rendered “he breathed”.
[201]Compare Justin, _Dialogue_ 116 f.
[202]Compare Sarapion.
[203]Leviticus 15. 5, etc.
[204]Contrast the reading of the Canons given in 19. 18.
[205]The trine formula in Matthew 28. 19 is textually insecure.
[206]Epistle 70 (69). 2.
[207]1 Corinthians 12. 13, etc., John 3. 5.
[208]Popular Christian terminology was not so hesitant.
[209]Baptism.
[210]Exodus 3. 8, etc.
[211]But the Testament has no words of administration for the wine.
[212]Due, presumably, to combining this section with the preceding.
The Canons add eternal life and the eucharist.
[213]E.g., Constitutions VII, 45, 1. Compare the position of the
Prayer in the Didache.
[214]Mark 6. 30-44; 8. 1-10 and parallels.
[215]Compare 1 Corinthians 11. 20-21.
[216]_Romans_ 7. 3; compare _Smyrnaeans_ 7. 1. In _Smyrnaeans_ 8. 1-2
the words are perhaps distinguished.
[217]1 Corinthians 11. 20.
[218]Since the benedictions used over eucharistic bread and wine and
agape bread and wine (if wine was to be had) may have been
identical, early Christians may often have been in doubt as to the
meaning of a meal.
[219]P. 68.
[220]Literally “steadfast”.
[221]Riedel misses the meaning of _ksms_.
[222]Compare Tertullian, _On Prayer_ 18-19 for exaggerations of the
same thought.
[223]The “stations” of Tertullian, _On Prayer_ 19.
[224]Exodus 29. 39; 25. 30.
[225]So explicitly in the Ethiopic.
[226]1 Peter 3. 19.
[227]E.g., Galatians 4. 14.
[228]Impurity can also be blown away; compare 20. 8 and (e.g.)
Tertullian (_l.c._).
[229]Connolly (p. 104) prefers to say that the ceremony “is in some
sense an integral part of the one and original baptism”.
INDEXES
A. BIBLICAL CITATIONS BY HIPPOLYTUS
B. BIBLICAL REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
C. PATRISTIC REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
D. ANCIENT AND MODERN NAMES, WRITINGS AND SUBJECTS
A. BIBLICAL CITATIONS BY HIPPOLYTUS
Exodus 12. 22 _page_ 57
25. 30 55
29. 39 55
Numbers 9. 11 53
Matthew 5. 13 51
25. 6 56
25. 13 56
John 6. 50 55
10. 14 55
13. 10 55
Acts 1. 24 67
1 Corinthians 11. 10 43
11. 24-26 36
Revelation 2. 17 49
B. BIBLICAL REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
Genesis 1. 31 69
2. 7 89
Exodus 3. 8 95
12. 22 106
24. 9 75
24. 9-11 78
25. 30 104
29. 39 104
Leviticus 15. 5 91
15. 16-18 105
Numbers 9. 11 102
11. 25 78
Deuteronomy 18. 4 101
1 Samuel 16. 13 90
Psalm 51. 12 67
119. 164 103
Canticles 2. 1 102
Isaiah 6. 3 71
7. 15 95
9. 6 72
65. 2 72
Lamentations 1. 17 72
Zechariah 4. 12 75
Wisdom 14. 25-26 5
Matthew 3. 16 67
12. 40 105
13. 30 23
15. 11 2
18. 6 2
19. 9 2
25. 6 105
25. 13 105
26. 74 105
27. 24 104
28. 19 92
Mark 6. 13 74, 91
6. 30-44 97
7. 1-15 104
7. 34 89
8. 1-10 97
8. 6-7 68
14. 25 69
15. 25 104
15. 33 105
16. 18 61
Luke 3. 7 92
12. 13-16 2
22. 19-20 95
John 3. 5 93
6 97
6. 50 105
6. 63 71
10. 14 105
13. 10 89, 105
14. 30 88
19. 14 104
19. 34 105
20. 22 67
Acts 1. 24 67
2. 41 85
4. 27-30 67
6 81, 87
6. 1-3 97
6. 2 63
8. 17 93
8. 18-24 86
8. 38 85
15. 28-29 2, 3
16. 33 85
19. 6 93
20. 28 64
22. 16 92
Romans 1. 29-31 5
8. 15 96
10. 9 92
12. 1 65, 67
14. 14 2, 23
1 Corinthians 6. 11 92
7. 10 2
8. 8 3
10. 2 92
10. 3 71
10. 16 69
10. 25-26 3
11. 4 5
11. 10 88
11. 20-21 65,
97-98, 100
11. 24-26 73
11. 33 98
12. 13 93
12. 28 78, 85
Galatians 4. 6 96
4. 14 106
Ephesians 2. 20 7
Philippians 4. 18 65
1 Timothy 3. 2-7 64
3. 2-3 5
4. 4-5 69
4. 14 77
5. 1-16 83
2 Timothy 1. 6 77
Titus 3. 1-2 5
3. 5 93
Hebrews 6. 4-8 22
7. 25 67
10. 26-31 22
12. 17 22
13. 15-16 65
James 5. 14 74, 91
1 Peter 2. 5 65
2. 9 90
3. 19 105
Jude 12 98
17 7
Revelation 1. 6 90
2. 14 3
2. 17 95
2. 20 3
5. 10 90
8. 3 65
21. 14 7
C. PATRISTIC REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
1 Clement 40-41 4
42. 4 7
44. 1-2 7
44. 4 72
46. 8 2
47.6 7
2 Clement 12. 2 2
Ignatius
_Magnesians_ 9. 1 5
_Romans_ 7. 3 97
_Philadelphians_ 4 64
_Smyrnaeans_ 7. 1 70, 97
8. 1-2 97, 100
Hermas
_Vision_ III, i 81
Didache 3. 1-6 5
7. 1 90, 92
8. 1 102
8. 2 96
9-10 93
9. 1 70
9. 5 70
13. 3 3, 64, 101
13. 7 3
14 72, 93
14. 1-2 66
15. 1 64, 72, 77
Justin
_Apology_ 65 93
67 74, 83, 93
_Dialogue_ 116 f. 90
Irenaeus I, 13. 2 72
IV, 18. 72
4-5
Hippolytus
Daniel commentary iii, 9. 6 72
Philosophumena Proem. 63
Proem. 6 64
i, 23. 4 63
ix, 7 18 ff., 64 f.
Clement of Alexandria
_Pedagogue_ I, 45. 1 94
50. 4 90
II, 4-7 97, 100
Tertullian
_Apology_ 30 83
39 96
_Baptism_ 7 90
17 64
_Chaplet_ 3 94
_Exhortation to chastity_ 7 64
11 64
_Marcion_ I, 14 94
III, 19 94
IV, 40 94
_On prayer_ 13 104
18-19 102
19 104
_To his Wife_ II, 5 61, 105
Cyprian Epistle 70. 2 93
Eusebius
_History_ V, 24 8
V, 28. 102
10-12
VI, 20 16
VI, 43. 6 82
VI, 43. 11 82, 85
Athanasius
Festal Letter 39 10
Cyril of Jerusalem
_Catechetical Lectures_ 20. 3 91
23. 20 94
Jerome
_Vir. ill._ 61 16, 18
Sarapion 12 81
13 79
14 68
Mishnah Berakhoth vi, 1-2 101
1 68, 69
6 98 f.
D. ANCIENT AND MODERN NAMES, WRITINGS AND SUBJECTS
A
Absolution, 22 f., 64 f.
Achelis, 27
Acolytes, 85
Agape, 50 f., 59, 65, 96 ff.
Anamnesis, 71, 73
Apophoretum, 51, 100 f.
Apostolic Canons, 13
Apostolic Church Order, 11
Apostolic Constitutions, 12
B
Baptism
Eucharist, 48 f., 89, 93 ff.
Formula, 47, 92
Image, 57, 106
Liturgy, 45 ff., 90 ff.
Baptism in blood, 44
Bathing, 44
Bible reading, 54, 104
Bishops
At agape, 50 f., 59, 98 ff.
At baptism, 44 ff., 88 ff.
At eucharist, 35 ff., 48 f., 58, 72, 77, 93 ff., 100 f.
Consecration, 34, 66 ff.
Election, 33, 63
Fasting, 50
Office, 64
Blessings, 68 ff., 98 ff.
Blessings of persons, 43, 88
Burial, 53, 103
C
Callistus, 18 ff., 63, 103
Canons of Hippolytus, 15
Carthage, Third Council, 94
Catechumens, 43 ff., 50 f., 56, 85 ff.
Charismata, 41, 43, 54, 57, 85, 87, 104
Cheese, 37, 74 f.
Chrism, 91
Christology, 20 ff., 63, 67, 72
Commodus, 19
Common Prayer, 74
Concelebration, 72
Confessors, 39, 81 f.
Confirmation, 47 f., 93
Connolly, 11, 27 f., 30, 61, 63, 67, 103, 106
Converts accepted, 41 ff., 86 f.
Cooper, J., 15, 28
Coxe, A. C., 18
Creed, 46, 92 f., 95
D
Deacons
At agape, 51, 58, 98, 100
At baptism, 45 f., 91 f.
At eucharist, 39, 48 f., 58, 80
Office, 38, 53, 58, 79 f., 103
Ordination, 38, 80 f.
Deaconesses, 80, 83 f.
De Sacramentis, 73
Didache, 9
Didascalia, 10
Döllinger, 17, 19
Doxologies, 67
Duchesne, 27
E
Epitome, 13
Eucharist
Administration, 95
Anamnesis, 71, 73
As sacrifice, 65 f., 71, 73
At baptism, 48 f., 89, 93 ff.
At ordinations, 39 f., 83
Celebrant, 72, 98, 100
Consecration, 48, 69 ff., 93 ff.
Fasting communion, 52 f., 60, 102
Invocation, 71 f.
Liturgy, 35, 40, 48, 58, 68 ff.
Name, 70
Relation to agape, 97 ff.
Evening service, 58 f.
Exorcism, 44, 50, 88 f., 91, 99, 101
Extempore prayer, 40, 70
F
Fasting, 44, 50, 52 f., 89, 96, 102
Fasting communion, 52 f., 60, 102
First-fruits, 52, 66, 74, 101 f.
Flowers, 52, 102
Funk, 13 f., 16, 28
G
Gnosticism, 86, 102
Goltz, 28
Gronov, 17
H
Harnack, 26
Harris, J. R., 10
Hauler, 27
Head-covering, 43
Healers, 41, 85
Hearers, 41, 86
Holy Week, 44 f., 52 f., 89, 96, 102
Honey, 48, 89, 94 f.
Horner, 12, 27, 29, 34
Hours of prayers, 54 ff., 103 ff.
I
Image of baptism, 57, 106
Invocation, 71 f.
Isidore of Seville, 28
J
Jungklaus, 28, 30, 32, 47, 61
K
Kirk, K. E., 5
Kiss of peace, 35, 43, 48, 88
L
Lagarde, 27
Legge, F., 19
Levites, 81
Lietzmann, 10
Lightfoot, 18
Lord’s Prayer, 93, 96
Lord’s Supper, 50 f.
Ludolf, 27
M
Maclean, 15, 28
Macmahon, J. H., 18
Marriage, 41, 55, 105
Maximinus, 24
Menstruation, 44, 89
Milk, 48, 89, 94 f.
Miller, B. E., 17
Minor orders, 40 f., 83 ff.
Modalism, 20 ff., 63, 67, 72
Moses, 37, 57, 76
Muilenberg, 9
O
_Of Gifts_, 12, 25, 33
Oil, 36, 45 ff., 74 f.
Olives, 37, 74
P
Pentecost, 53, 102
Pius IV, 17
Pontianus, 24
Prayer, 54 ff., 103 ff.
Presbyters
At agape, 51, 100
At baptism, 45 ff., 90 ff.
At eucharist, 35, 49, 58, 72, 77
Fasting, 50
Office, 53, 58, 75 ff., 80 f., 103
Ordination, 37, 75 ff.
Ordination power, 38, 66, 77 ff., 80
Priesthood, 34, 38 f., 53, 64, 77
R
Rabbis, 76
Readers, 40, 84
Reserved sacrament, 60 f.
Riedel, 15, 101
Rufinus, 92
S
Sabellius, 21
Sacrifices, 65 f.
Sanctus, 71
Sarapion, 15
Schermann, 11
Schoolmasters, 42, 87
Schwartz, 28, 30, 61
Sick, 53, 58, 74, 102
Sign of the cross, 45, 48, 55 ff., 89, 99, 101, 106
Soldiers, 42, 87
Spittle, 56, 106
Stoicism, 5
Subdeacons, 41, 53, 84
T
Tattam, 27
Testament of Our Lord, 14
Tithes, 3, 101
U
Unction, 36 f., 45 ff., 90 ff.
Urbanus, 24
V
Victor, 19
Virgins, 40, 50, 59, 84, 96
W
Washing, 54 f., 103 f.
Water, Baptismal, 45, 90
Water, Eucharistic, 48 f., 95
Weekday services, 54, 104
Wendland, 17
Widows, 40, 44, 50, 51, 58, 83 f., 96, 101
Williams, A. L., 68
Women, 40, 43 f., 87 f.
Wordsworth, John, 16
Z
Zephyrinus, 18 ff., 63
Transcriber’s Notes
--Retained publication information from the printed edition: this
eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.
--Silently corrected a few palpable typos.
--Moved verse/sentence numbers from the right margin to the beginning
of the sentence.
--In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by
_underscores_.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus - Translated into English with Introduction and Notes" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.