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 ????f?. 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. 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 ??e??????, 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. 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, e??a??st?? and e?????? 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. 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 ???e???, “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. 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. 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” (?s? d??a?? a?t?), 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. A three years catechumenate has parallels in later practice, but it represents about the maximum. 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. 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. 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” (??t?t?p??) of the body and the cup the “likeness” (???ea) 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” (?p?f??a?) 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. ?p?f???t?? 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 (????????) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
|
  |
