PART I

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.