Church Laws
25. Fasting is here conceived to intensify prayer’s efficacy. The
widows and virgins were especially dedicated to the work of
intercession.
The other versions have “pray _in_ the church”, but the Greek gives a
more primitive impression.
The bishop, on account of the nature of his duties, was not permitted
to vow a fast to last for any set time; he might, of course, abstain
from food informally if he wished. Good Friday and Holy Saturday
(chapter 29) were the only fixed fast-days, but special fasts for all
might be directed on any special occasion.
26
THE AGAPE
The agape, or “love-feast”, was a Christian meal of a definitely
religious character. Since both Tertullian (_Apology_ 39) and Clement
of Alexandria (_Pedagogue_ II, i (4-7)) speak of it as an established
Christian custom, its origin must lie far behind the third century,
and the importance and liturgical colouring given by the Evangelists
to the accounts of the feedings of the multitudes[214] are explicable
only as reflecting deep first-century interest in the rite. Its origin
in Christianity, consequently, must be primitive, while the Gospels
indicate that in the apostolic church it was regarded as a
continuation of the (many) meals shared by Christ and his disciples.
The emphasis on the numbers who were satisfied by the bread and fish,
taken together with Acts 6. 1-3[215] and the later history of the
agape, show that a primary purpose of these meals was to provide food
for the needy: it is presumably from this aim that the name
“love-feast” was derived. And the Gospel accounts indicate that in the
agapes Christ was felt to be acting as head of his household: that he
was in some manner present.
The agape and the eucharist, consequently, were closely associated; in
1 John 6 the feeding of the multitudes leads into the elaborate
eucharistic discourse. So Ignatius uses “eucharist” and “agape” as
synonyms,[216] while “The Lord’s Supper”, the term employed by St
Paul[217] and later writers generally for the eucharist, is
Hippolytus’s title here for the agape. The confusion was due to the
fact that in the first century the eucharist was generally celebrated
in conjunction with an agape; indeed, in 1 Corinthians 11 it is clear
that the Corinthians were stressing the banquet elements of their
common meals so strongly that their eucharistic aspect had been
forgotten.[218] Hence in Jude 12 the “love-feasts” are most naturally
understood to be the combined agape-eucharists.
During the second century the rites were separated, the eucharist
being transferred to the morning, while the agape normally remained as
an evening meal, although it could of course be held at any hour. But
Hippolytus preserves remnants of the old association; as regards the
eucharist the oil, cheese and olives of chapters 5-6, as regards the
agape the title “Lord’s Supper” and details of the ceremonial.
According to Hippolytus’s description the agapes are meals given by
individuals in their own homes; the host provides the food and invites
the guests, who in return are expected to pray for him. Each person
breaks his own bread and “offers” his own cup; this is in accord with
the rule in Berakhoth vi. 6 for the less solemn meals among the Jews:
“If men sit for a meal, each shall pronounce the blessing for himself;
but if they recline, one shall pronounce the blessing for them all”.
This procedure, moreover, appears to throw light on the account in 1
Corinthians 11, where the church is blamed because “each taketh before
other his own supper” (verse 21) and the remedy prescribed is “wait
for one another” (verse 33); it is difficult to see how the Corinthian
disorders could have arisen if there were a single officiant. In
Hippolytus orderliness is procured by the presence of a
cleric—preferably the bishop, although a deacon will suffice—who
presides over the supper and begins it by blessing and distributing a
loaf specially named; this ceremony is superadded to a ritual
otherwise complete in itself, and appears to be a local Roman custom.
1-2. In the earliest Christianity “blessing” and “thanksgiving” were
indistinguishable,[219] but to Hippolytus they are no longer always
synonyms; perhaps the “blessing” was accomplished by signing with the
cross, as in the Canons.
After blessing, the bishop breaks the loaf, eats a portion himself,
and distributes the remainder to all the baptized members of the
company: a procedure exactly like that of the eucharist. In the
earlier combined service, in fact, this bread would have been actually
eucharistic, for which after the separation “blessed” bread was
substituted to enable the traditional agape ceremonial to continue
with a minimum of external change. The final separation must have been
comparatively recent, for Hippolytus feels obliged to emphasize the
difference between the two rites; in later times there was no danger
of confusion, and his translators consequently do not seem to have
grasped his point.
2. The breaking of each one’s bread would be accompanied by a proper
benediction.
3. Roughly parallel is Berakhoth vi. 6: “If wine is brought during a
meal, each one must pronounce the blessing for himself”.
4. For the distinction between “blessing” and “exorcism” of objects,
compare 21. 6-7. The Arabic and Ethiopic substitute “blessed bread”,
even for the catechumens. Whether the catechumens also broke their
“own” bread is left uncertain. “Offer” is here a mere synonym for
“give thanks”, a usage not found in the other versions.
5. Perhaps the catechumens stood during the agape; perhaps they ate at
a separate table.
6. Each blessing at an agape must include a prayer for the host, who
is thus repaid for his bounty. For “offer” the other versions
substitute “eat”, spoiling the force.
7. From 1 Corinthians 11. 21 to the final abolition of the agapes in
Christianity (in the eighth century?) there were constant complaints
of disorderly conduct at these meals; Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._)
for this reason objects to their name. Hippolytus cites Matthew 5. 13.
8. ἀποφόρητον is simply “that which is carried away” and is used in
its etymological sense; other meanings, such as the associated “a gift
given to dinner guests”, are immaterial here. The “apoforetum” began
like the regular agape with the distribution of the blessed bread and
(presumably) with public benedictions over bread and wine, but the
rest of the meal was eaten at each one’s home.
9. The Gospel accounts of the miraculous feedings lay similar stress
on gathering up the fragments.
10. The complete dominance of the meal by the bishop would seem to
make the above warnings against disorder needless; as Hippolytus
pictures it an agape would have been the reverse of hilarious.
11-12. Compare Ignatius, _Smyrnaeans_ 8. 1: “Let that be counted a
genuine[220] eucharist that is held by the bishop or by someone to
whom he gives permission”; for the last clause as regards the agapes
Hippolytus simply substitutes “or one of the clergy”. In later theory
only a priest can “bless”, and any formula that can be pronounced
validly by a deacon can be pronounced just as “validly”, although
perhaps not “licitly”, by a layman. But this distinction between
“valid” and “licit” would not have been drawn by Ignatius or
Hippolytus; what a Christian cannot do licitly he cannot do at all.
Evidently Hippolytus regards the blessed bread as of the essence of
the agape.
The Testament agrees in general with Hippolytus. In the Canons the
agape becomes a memorial feast (ἀνάληµψις) for the dead. It is
forbidden on Sunday. The participants first make their communions and
then meet for the meal. The bread distributed is “exorcised”;[221]
explained as signed with the cross. The presence of a cleric—normally
a presbyter—while desirable does not seem to be quite essential.
27
The widows were special objects of the church’s charity, but
precautions had to be taken lest even they became disorderly. The
“existing conditions” may refer to persecutions, but the phrase is
more simply understood of the donor’s inability to entertain a large
party in his own home; compare the _apoforetum_.
28
Hippolytus, like Didache 13. 3, regards the law of Deuteronomy 18. 4
as binding on Christians; he says nothing, however, of an obligation
to tithe. The Jewish background of his prayer is evident; compare
particularly Berakhoth vi. 2 “through whose word all things come to
pass”, and Rabbi Jehudah’s formula in vi. 1 “who hast created divers
fruits”. The only Christian touch is at the end, and the rest of the
prayer may have been taken bodily from a Jewish source.
The reasons for the distinctions in 6-7 are probably irrecoverable,
but vegetables of the gourd family were favoured food among ascetics
of the gnostic type. Perhaps Canticles 2. 1 gave the lily and the rose
their privileged status.
In Hippolytus’s day these first-fruits constituted the chief source of
support for the clergy. A writer—probably Hippolytus himself—in
Eusebius V, 28. 10-12 speaks with detestation of the payment of money
salaries by heretics to their leaders.
29
On Good Friday and Holy Saturday all Christians were expected to fast
according to their ability; a meritorious act whose credit would be
lost if terminated too soon.[222] If neglected through ignorance it
could be made up later, but not between Easter and Pentecost, when all
fasting was everywhere forbidden to orthodox Christians. It may be
observed that Hippolytus’s conception of the repeal of the “ancient
law” extends only to the particular date set by Numbers 9. 11;
otherwise it is still fully binding. Compare Didache 8. 1.
This fast, it should be noted, is directed only before the Easter
communion; later writers, like the Testament, treat the breach of a
fast (from midnight, generally) before any communion as a mortal sin.
Compare, further, chapter 32.
30
Hippolytus presupposes a congregation still small enough to enable the
bishop to visit the sick personally, but large enough to make his
visit a great event to the sick person.
33
This daily session of the presbyters was the Christian “sanhedrin”, to
which individuals brought their problems and controversies for
“instruction”. At these gatherings, in addition, the clergy received
assignments for their duties of that day; in these latter the deacons
were more important than the presbyters and their absence a more
serious fault.
34
Callistus is commemorated by the Roman catacombs that still bear his
name; probably dissatisfaction with his rival’s regulations led
Hippolytus to treat this rather specialized subject. The other
versions miss the point of the “tiles”—on which compare Connolly, pp.
116-119—and adapt the rules to local burial customs; the Testament,
for instance, discusses embalming.