13. Greek education included much time spent on Homer, whose mythology the Christians naturally regarded as unedifying. But the permission given to schoolmasters to continue their calling in case of necessity shows that no one took the Homeric deities very seriously.
17. In many cases soldiers were utilized only for police duty, but Christian soldiers were always in danger of being given tasks inconsistent with their religion. Hippolytus probably does not consider the rather infrequent possibility of soldiers being sent to defend the frontiers against barbarians. The “oath” invoked heathen deities.
18. Judges and military officers were constantly called on to pronounce and inflict capital punishment. They were also inextricably involved in the support of emperor-worship.
19. A man who was already a soldier could be accepted under the conditions of 17. But no believer was permitted voluntarily to expose himself to such temptations.
23. Since the woman in such a case had no power to alter her condition, Hippolytus’s rule is sensible and humane.
24. Men, who could control their conduct, were granted no such concession.
25. A remnant of the older charismatic teaching; Compare38. 4. It is conjoined somewhat oddly with these detailed legalistic prescriptions; the right to judge spiritually may be exercised only where the law is not explicit. And only the clergy exercise the gift.
A three years catechumenate has parallels in later practice, but it represents about the maximum.
1. Separation of catechumens from believers and men from women was carried out rigorously throughout the Patristic age.
3-4. Contrast22. 6. The kiss of peace marked the close of the service that preceded the eucharist (e.g., ConstitutionsVIII, 11, 9).
5. 1 Corinthians 11. 10.
1. The imposition of hands was partly in blessing, partly in exorcism (20. 3). In later days the first of these impositions was regarded as the formal admission to the catechumenate.
2. A universal Patristic teaching.
2. Hippolytus knows only two classes of catechumens, the hearers and those “set apart”. Subsequently the latter were called “elect”, “competent” or “enlightened”, and an intermediate class (“kneelers”) was introduced. Hippolytus says nothing about the duration of this last stage, but four to six or more weeks is later common.
3. Exorcism before baptism was universally practised and has survived in some form or other in practically all the traditional baptismal liturgies. It lacks New Testament precedent, but is based on the dualism found inJohn 14. 30, etc., according to which this world—and so all its unregenerate inhabitants—is under the sway of Satan and his angels. In Hippolytus’s community the exorcisms were presumably performedby the teachers, as he does not recognize exorcists as a separate class (compare onchapter 15).
4. The text of the last clause is so uncertain that the meaning of the whole is dubious. The Testament, however, asserts that the episcopal exorcism is bound to make an unworthy candidate betray himself, and there is no reason to doubt that Hippolytus believed the same.
5. The final selection and instruction took place on the Thursday before Easter. “Bathing” was done in a public bath-house, with a supplementary “washing” at home; compare John 13. 10.
6. Most religions, as well as Judaism, regarded a menstruous woman as unclean.
7. All believers fasted on Good Friday (29. 1); for the catechumens the fast was probably thought to be purifying.
8. The Testament gives a lengthy form for this last pre-baptismal exorcism. Popular belief in the life-giving power of breath (Genesis 2. 7, etc.) was very widespread; compare36. 11. Mark 7. 34 may have been specially in mind.[200]The “seal” was the sign of the cross. Comparechapter 37.
9. No further opportunity was given to contract defilement.
10. This direction, misunderstood in the Arabic and Ethiopic, is explained by23. 1-2. Those about to be baptized brought with them as their first Christian “offering” the bread, wine, milk and honey needed for the baptismal eucharist. The Testament reduces this offering to one loaf from each of them. The rule should not be explained fromchapter 32, which is not by Hippolytus.
1. Hippolytus gives no form for the blessing of the water, but the Constitutions (VII, 43) direct an elaborate thanksgiving, concluding with the words “Sanctify this water and give it grace and power”, etc. Clement of Alexandria (PedagogueI, vi (50, 4)) appears to presuppose a petition for the descent of the Logos into the font.
2. The superior sanctity of “living” water is a common belief, and the Testament and the Canons allow no other for baptism. Compare Didache 7. 1.
3. Every non-Jew in the Graeco-Roman world was so accustomed to the public baths that the baptismal usage would not suggest the slightest impropriety.
5. To Hippolytus the ornaments as “alien” carry contagion. The Jews have a similar prohibition for women bathing after ceremonial impurity, but the reason given is that complete contact with the water is prevented.
6. The first mention of anointing in connection with baptism is in Tertullian,On Baptism7 (ca.205). He explains the practice as derived from the Old Testament anointing of priests, and in view of 1 Peter 2. 9 and Revelation 1. 6; 5. 10[201]this may well express the original meaning of the ceremony. Or it may have been thought to convey the gift of the Spirit, as in 1 Samuel 16. 13, or may rest on more general conceptions of anointing as consecration, or may even be somehow connected with the title “Christ” (= “The Anointed One”). But, whatever the origin, unction after baptism is found practically everywhere in Christendom after the third century.
In Hippolytus the blessing is still a thanksgiving and the oil is named accordingly. In the Constitutions (VII, 44) the formula is petitionary,[202]and the oil is called “mystical”. The common later title for this oil—to which other substances, such as balsam, are often added—is “chrism”. The Latin formula for blessing it still includes a solemn thanksgiving.
7. The anointing before baptism is derived from the ancient belief in the curative powers of oil, from which its use in religious healing (Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14) was developed. To Hippolytus this oil aids in the final and supreme exorcism, and it is exorcised, not blessed, and derives its name from its purpose. In later Latin usage it is called “oil of the catechumens”.
The Constitutions note (VII, 22, 3) that if the oils are lacking “the water is sufficient”. And this was the universal belief.
9. Some form of renunciation of Satan is a feature in all traditional baptismal liturgies.
10. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures20, 3) says that this anointing is performed “from the very hairs of your head to your feet”. By22. 2Hippolytus has probably the same conception.
11. The pronouns are ambiguous and confusing, but the sense seems to be that the presbyter who performs the actual baptism stands on the bank of the stream (or the edge of the font), while the deacon stands in the water with the candidate, to instruct and assist him.
12-18. In the Jewish rites that require complete immersion (the baptism of a proselyte, the cleansing of a woman, etc.) the ceremony is performed entirely by the person concerned in the presence of a proper witness; i.e., such a rite is simply an extension of the Old Testament prescriptions[203]that certain impurities must beremoved by bathing. Early Christianity shared this conception, and in New Testament Greek the middle voice is used for the act of baptism in Acts 22. 16, 1 Corinthians 6. 11; 10. 2; compare the reading of D and Old Latin manuscripts in Luke 3. 7, “to be baptized in his presence”. In Hippolytus the presbyter acts to the extent of laying his hand on the candidate’s head, but he uses no baptismal formula.[204]In the Jewish rites the person after immersion utters a benediction; in Hippolytus each immersion is preceded by a declaration of belief. In the apostolic church this declaration certainly had the form “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10. 9, etc.) and there was only one immersion. The additional confessions of the Father and the Spirit appear in Didache 7. 1,[205]and each was presumably accompanied by the corresponding immersion that Hippolytus directs.
Each of these three confessions was then further expanded, so producing the various baptismal creeds. The one in use at Rome in the early fourth century—the basis of the later “Apostles’ Creed”—can be reconstructed accurately from Rufinus’Exposition, and agrees closely with the form in the Latin version of Hippolytus, the only significant addition being “and the forgiveness of sins” near the close. This clause, in fact, seems to be due eventually to Hippolytus’s arch-enemy, Callistus, to express a doctrine that the former abhorred. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the official Roman creedca.200 did not contain “and the holy church”, on which Hippolytus lays stress (6. 4;23. 10); this clause may be his own addition to protest—against Callistus—that the “holy” church should not contain sinners. Later Roman Christianity adopted both phrases with no feeling of incongruity; compareCyprian’s “forgiveness of sins through the holy church”.[206]
19. This anointing, like the former, presumably covered the whole body.
20. In the later Patristic church at this point the newly baptized put on white garments, which they wore for seven days.
Hippolytus contributes little to clarifying the difficult subject of confirmation. In Acts 8. 17 and 19. 6 the rite conveys the gift of the Spirit, but Hippolytus’s prayer, which cites Titus 3. 5, follows the Pauline-Johannine[207]doctrine in attributing this gift to baptism, in accord with the special immersion after confessing the Spirit. So only grace for service is besought. But, as in Acts, the essential ceremony is the imposition of hands, so that the anointing and the sign of the cross are only supplementary rites. Curiously enough, however, only the anointing was preserved in both the Latin and the Orthodox Eastern churches.
For the use of the Lord’s Prayer after baptism see on23. 14.
Compare the distinction between the baptismal and the regular eucharist in Justin,Apology65 and 67 and in Didache 9-10 and 14.
1. The conception of consecration by thanksgiving isstated so baldly that the Latin (“gratias agat panem quidem in exemplum”) is wholly unidiomatic, but in all probability the prayer normally included an invocation like that in4. 12. Here, in place of the “spiritual food” language in4. 12, the result of the consecration is expressed in the terms of the institution. Yet Hippolytus appears to shrink a little from calling the species absolutely the body and blood of Christ: the bread is the “image” (ἀντίτυπον) of the body and the cup the “likeness” (ὁμοίεμα) of the blood. The former word is used in the same way by Cyril of Jerusalem (23, 20; as an adjective) and the latter by Sarapion in his first oblation before the words of institution; compare “figura” in Tertullian,Against MarcionIII, 19 andIV, 40, and the prayer in the Constitutions (VIII, 12, 39) that the species may be made to “appear” (ἀποφάναι) as the body and blood. None of this language, however, is “symbolic” in the modern sense; whatever unlikeness theologians[208]might feel existed between the symbols and the things signified was overshadowed by the realistic connection that existed between them. But in the earlier Patristic period the deeper nature of this connection was left unexplored.
2. Tertullian (chaplet3,Against MarcionI, 14) and Clement of Alexandria (PedagogueI, vi (45, 1)) bear contemporary testimony to the custom of giving new Christians milk and honey, so the rite must have been widespread. It is not in the Constitutions or the Testament, but the other sources have it. And the 24th canon of the Third Council of Carthage (397) reads: “The first-fruits, namely milk and honey, which are offered on a most solemn day for the mystery of infants,[209]although offered on the altar should have a blessing oftheir own, that they may be distinguished from the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood”.
Clement of Alexandria, like Hippolytus, cites the Old Testament prophecies of the promised land,[210]so the meaning of the rite was to assure the participants of a share in salvation. But Hippolytus adds a further explanation of his own; the milk represents Christ’s flesh and the honey his gentleness. The Canons—possibly with a misrecollection of Isaiah 7. 15—interpret the food as proper for the newly born.
3. The purpose of the water is to extend the baptismal washing into the inner man; a somewhat pedantic ceremony that reappears only in the Ethiopic, although the Testament applies the theory to the water in the mixed eucharistic chalice.
5. This is the earliest known formula for eucharistic administration.
7-11. What is most curious about these directions is that the sacramental wine is not distinguished in administration from the other two cups; the other versions correct this.[211]Perhaps in this ceremony there has survived something of the tradition in the earliest text of Luke 22. 19-20, where the whole emphasis is laid on the bread.
The little four-clause creed is interesting.
12. An admirable little summary of Christian duty.
13. Hippolytus (compareI.1) refers to some earlier work or works of his own, possiblyConcerning God and the Resurrection, whose title is listed on his statue.
14. By the “white stone” (Revelation 2. 17) evidently something very concrete is implied. This cannot be any part of the creed, which is recited while baptism is in progress, and so the Testament’s explanation of thesecret as the doctrine of the resurrection[212]is excluded. The only other possibility would appear to be the Lord’s Prayer, on which Hippolytus is strangely silent. Christians of this age regarded the Prayer as having an almost magical efficacy. It was, moreover, allowed to none but the baptized and was first uttered by Christians immediately after their baptism,[213]a custom which in the light of Romans 8. 15 and Galatians 4. 6 may actually go back to apostolic times.
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 “prayinthe 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.
The agape, or “love-feast”, was a Christian meal of a definitely religious character. Since both Tertullian(Apology39) and Clement of Alexandria (PedagogueII, 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 aspecthad 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 ofchapters 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 aritual 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, compare21. 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.ἀποφόρητονis 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,Smyrnaeans8. 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.
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 theapoforetum.
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 EusebiusV, 28. 10-12 speaks with detestation of the payment of money salaries by heretics to their leaders.
On Good Friday and Holy Saturday all Christians were expected to fast according to their ability; a meritorious act whose credit would be lost if terminated too soon.[222]If neglected through ignorance it could be made up later, but not between Easter and Pentecost, when all fasting was everywhere forbidden to orthodox Christians. It may be observed that Hippolytus’s conception of the repeal of the “ancient law” extends only to the particular date set by Numbers 9. 11; otherwise it is still fully binding. Compare Didache 8. 1.
This fast, it should be noted, is directed only before the Easter communion; later writers, like the Testament, treat the breach of a fast (from midnight, generally) before any communion as a mortal sin. Compare, further,chapter 32.
Hippolytus presupposes a congregation still small enough to enable the bishop to visit the sick personally, but large enough to make his visit a great event to the sick person.
This daily session of the presbyters was the Christian “sanhedrin”, to which individuals brought their problems and controversies for “instruction”. At these gatherings, in addition, the clergy received assignments for their duties of that day; in these latter the deacons were more important than the presbyters and their absence a more serious fault.
Callistus is commemorated by the Roman catacombs that still bear his name; probably dissatisfaction with his rival’s regulations led Hippolytus to treat this rather specialized subject. The other versions miss the point of the “tiles”—on which compare Connolly, pp. 116-119—and adapt the rules to local burial customs; the Testament, for instance, discusses embalming.
The devotional life of a layman is centred around the declaration of Psalm 119. 164, “Seven times a day do I praise thee”, at rising, at the third, sixth and ninth hours, at bedtime, at midnight and at cockcrow. This distribution corresponds approximately to the later “canonical hours”, but in Hippolytus’s day these prayers were still wholly private.
1. Following the general—especially Jewish—belief demanding ceremonial purification before approachingGod, Hippolytus requires hand-washing (at least) at morning and midnight; the Canons extend this rule to all prayer. Tertullian (On Prayer13) recognizes the prevalence of the custom and says that Christians defended it by quoting Matthew 27. 24; he, however, regards it as pointless. Compare Mark 7. 1-15.
2. Hippolytus doubtless does not think it necessary to prescribe attendance at the Sunday eucharists, assuming that no true believer would willingly absent himself. Regular weekday eucharists were not yet customary, although they were held at times of special prayer and fasting;[223]compare25. 2. So the only weekday meetings he presupposes are gatherings for prayer and instruction according to the synagogue pattern. Evidently the emphasis was laid on instruction, with the Bible as textbook, and those who could read were expected to follow the passages cited. 1 and 2 Clement give an idea of the content and style of the teaching, which would be given by instructors like those of16. 1.
3. On occasion local meetings were visited and addressed by teachers of higher rank, who are described in terms reminiscent of the New Testament prophets.
1. Complete manuscript Bibles were very expensive, and few lay Christians could have owned one. But portions of Scripture were within the reach of all.
2-3. Hippolytus follows Mark 15. 25, not John 19. 14, here. He deduces the hours of the Jewish ceremonies from his typology; no definite hour is prescribed in the Old Testament,[224]while in the Temple the morning sacrifice was offered before sunrise and the showbreadwas changed (on the Sabbath) still earlier. He cites John 10. 14; 6. 50.
4. Mark 15. 33. Hippolytus adds that the darkness came in answer to (Christ’s[225]) prayer; possibly a conjecture of his own but more likely a “tradition”.
5. At the ninth hour, as soon as Christ died, he went to the lower world and released the spirits in prison, who rejoiced with a great thanksgiving. The belief was very widespread[226]but the other versions seem to miss the point.
6.John 19. 34. The darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour, followed by daylight until evening, made a “night” and a “day”; so the Son of Man by Easter morning had truly been “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12. 40). Compare ConstitutionsV, 14. 9-13.
9. On the custom of rising during the night for prayer, compare, e.g., Tertullian,To his WifeII, 5. Hippolytus—rather more than Tertullian—insists that unbelievers should not witness Christian devotions.
10. John 13. 10 repeals the provisions of Leviticus 15. 16-18.
11. Despite the principle just enunciated Hippolytus cannot rid himself of a belief that a purification is needed; he compromises by declaring that a small ceremony will suffice. Comparechapter 37.
12. This quaint doctrine—which the other versions omit or alter—came from the authorities who gave Hippolytus the rest of his “tradition”. He mentions them here only, but in Irenaeus similar appeals to “the presbyters” are numerous.
13. Matthew 25. 6, 13 in an unusual text form.
14. Peter’s denial (Matthew 26. 74) is synchronized with the condemnation of Christ by the Sanhedrin.
The sign of the cross is performed after first breathing on the hand, so that it is wet with saliva. Belief in the power of spittle to repel evil spirits is widespread[227]and, despite Hippolytus’s disclaimer, lies behind the practice he advocates. His own interpretation of the ceremony is none the less ingenious; the mixture of moisture and breath[228]corresponds to the water and the Spirit in baptism and so makes the sign of the cross the “image” of baptism, accomplishing a sort of rebaptism[229](36. 11). Only Latin A has the original; Latin B and the other versions do not understand the custom and replace “baptism” by “the Word”.
The interpretation of Exodus 12. 22 is in the style of Barnabas.
Hippolytus closes with a final adjuration to avoid all novelties; the way of peace consists solely in strict adherence to the past.
[1]Luke 12. 13-16.[2]For exceptions see, e.g., Romans 14. 14 (= Matthew 15. 11), 1 Corinthians 7. 10 (= Matthew 19. 9), 1 Clement 46. 8 (= Matthew 18. 6, in substance), 2 Clement 12. 2 (apocryphal).[3]Especially in 2 Clement.[4]Acts 15. 28-29.[5]Romans 14, in particular.[6]1 Corinthians 8. 8; 10. 25-26.[7]Compare Revelation 2. 14, 20.[8]Didache 13. 7, etc.[9]Didache 13. 3, etc.[10]So very emphatically in 1 Clement 40-41. But Clement does not argue for a detailed parallelism between the two ministries.[11]Didache 3. 1-6 is an instance.[12]The reason for this appears to be that at this period the Fourth Commandment was conceived to be wholly “ceremonial”, and to “keep the Sabbath” was regarded as Judaizing (Ignatius,Magnesians9. 1, etc.). The belief that in Christianity the Sabbath laws have been transferred to Sunday is of medieval origin.[13]On these methods compare especially K. E. Kirk,The Vision of God(London, 1931), pp. 119-124.[14]As in Wisdom 14. 25-26.[15]Romans 1. 29-31 is largely of Greek origin; 1 Timothy 3. 2-3 and Titus 3. 1-2 are wholly so.[16]In 1 Clement 47. 6 the forty-five year old Corinthian church is called “ancient”.[17]Jude 17, Revelation 21. 14, etc. The meaning in Ephesians 2. 20 is probably a little different.[18]1 Clement 42. 4; 44. 1-2, etc.[19]Even in the third century liturgical prayers were still normally extempore, and use of a fixed form was regarded as a weakness on the part of the officiant.[20]Eusebius,HE, v, 24.[21]See especially James Muilenburg,The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Marburg, 1929.[22]39th Festal Letter (367), 7.[23]The details of the Patristic testimony are best seen in J. R. Harris,The Teaching of the Apostles, Baltimore and London, 1887.[24]Die Didache, Bonn; many editions.[25]Didascalia Apostolorum, Oxford, 1929.[26]Also known as Third Clement. Occasionally—and unfortunately—called the Apostolic Canons or the Roman Church Order.[27]Paderborn, 1914. Dr Schermann’s theory of a very early date for the document is individualistic.[28]Pp. 127-138, 233-244, 295-306.[29]Often reprinted separately.[30]But incorrectly.[31]Pp.34,78,40.[32]Cooper and Maclean, p. 18.[33]HE,VI, 20.[34]Vir. ill.61.[35]His festival is on August 13.[36]Not completely legible; reproductions are not always to be trusted.[37]Origenis Philosophumena, Oxford. BooksII-IIIare presumably still missing, although it has been argued that what is ordinarily called BookIVmay contain them; Wendland, however, rejects this theory (p. xvi).[38]Especially in hisHippolytus and Callistus, 1853.[39]St Clement of Rome,II, pp. 317-477. First published in 1869; in the later editions the argument is slightly expanded but is otherwise unchanged.[40]Jerome,Vir. ill.61.[41]Legge (II, p. 127) unfortunately revives Döllinger’s remarkable explanation of this occurrence: Callistus had lent the bank’s funds to the Jews and went to the synagogue to recover his depositors’ money. As if anyone would expect Jews to transact business on the Sabbath and at a synagogue service![42]Victor’s accession occurred about 189, and Commodus died in 192.[43]The distinction between “martyr” and “confessor” was not yet developed.[44]Or perhaps restored the privileges of the office to him; when and where Callistus was ordained is uncertain. Possibly he had the confessor’s ordination (p. 39).[45]Hippolytus’s account of his controversy with Callistus is, in fact, so bitter that modern historians feel obliged to interpret it in the sense that will make the greatest allowance for the latter. Hence less than full justice is perhaps done nowadays to Hippolytus.[46]The antithesis “In time or in eternity?” seems hardly to have been stated squarely until the beginnings of the Arian controversy.[47]And Zephyrinus?[48]Less probably after Zephyrinus’s death.[49]Hebrews 6. 4-8, 10. 26-31, 12. 17.[50]Except, perhaps, through martyrdom.[51]Matthew 13. 30.[52]Romans 14. 4.[53]His most violent treatise—the Philosophumena—was perhaps omitted, but time has so defaced the list that we cannot be certain. The Apostolic Tradition, however, was duly listed, and it certainly contains polemic enough.[54]Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1920, col. 225.[55]Compare the Epitomist’s “The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles through Hippolytus”.[56]London.[57]Leipzig (Texte und Untersuchungen,VI, 4).[58]Hippolytus’s work is printed on pp. 101-121; reprinted in Connolly (pp. 175 ff.), and in part in the fifth edition of Duchesne’sChristian Worship, London, 1919.[59]II, pp. 97-119.[60]The notes are systematized and amplified in the latter’sAncient Church Orders.[61]Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlichen Gemeindeordnungen, Berlin Academy.[62]Über die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen, Strassburg.[63]Facsimiles in Hauler.[64]Comparep. 60.[65]The oldest (Sahidic) is datedca.1005.[66]Details in Horner.[67]More logical and so secondary.[68]This seems easier than Schwartz’s theory (p. 7) of alaterSahidic text enlarged from the original Greek.[69]The former cautiously.[70]It lacks chapter 6.[71]Epitome 4.[72]Possibly “in those places”; so Horner interprets the Ethiopic.[73]And Ethiopic. The Greek has “through thy beloved Son Jesus Christ thou gavest to thy holy apostles”.[74]So the Greek, not the Latin.[75]Latin and Ethiopic (MSS), “Father, who knowest the heart”; perhaps better.[76]Not in the Epitome but in the Latin, Ethiopic, Constitutions, Testament and Canons.[77]The doxologies suffer probably more than any other phrases by transmission. The translation given follows no text precisely but represents what seems to be the most likely original form.[78]The indicative, “ye perform”, of the Latin is a misrendering of the (ambiguous) original Greek.[79]On the doxology comparenote on 3. 7.[80]The Latin might also be rendered “Not with ordinary words but with similar power”. But the Ethiopic confirms the above translation.[81]Literally “Cause that from thy sweetness there may not recede this fruit of the olive”.[82]An Ethiopic section (Statute 5) generally printed here (7) is not by Hippolytus; comparepp. 30-31.[83]Reading “presbyteri” for “presbyteris”.[84]Testament “in holiness to thy holy place”; Ethiopic “in thy holy of holies”.[85]Testament “from the inheritance of thy high-priesthood”.[86]Testament adds “and purely and holily”.[87]Testament “high and exalted office”. The Ethiopic manuscripts differ considerably in their renderings of “he may ... office”; Horner’sareads “having served the degrees of ordination he may obtain the exalted priesthood”. But onlyareads “priesthood”.[88]Doxology conformed to preceding; that in the Testament is rather different.[89]With the Sahidic agree almost exactly the Arabic, the Testament and the Canons. The Ethiopic has been edited from a different view point.[90]These words seem clearly implied by the context; Hippolytus has now concluded the discussion of ordinations proper.[91]Ethiopic and Arabic omit this “not”, making the passage senseless.[92]The Ethiopic makes the sense of the original clear.[93]In the Sahidic the readers and subdeacons precede the widows.[94]So the Ethiopic and Arabic. Sahidic reads “nor does she conductliturgia”.[95]Compare last note.[96]Epitome 13.[97]The Sahidic misjoins “new” with “faith”.[98]The Ethiopic adds “or if a woman has a husband”.[99]Following the variant Sahidic reading in Horner, p. 436.[100]The Constitutions show that the Sahidic is right against the other evidence (“let his master’s permission be gained”).[101]The Constitutions (32. 3) have preserved the original here, which the Sahidic renders freely.[102]The Sahidic, against the other evidence, adds “according to the law”.[103]The Sahidic amplifies.[104]Supplied to give the obvious sense.[105]The Ethiopic shows that this is the sense; the Sahidic has misunderstood the use of “authority”.[106]Literally “nor cause him to swear”.[107]“Male harlot”?[108]This Sahidic list has been interpreted from the list in Constitutions 32. 11.[109]So the Sahidic and the Testament. The Ethiopic and Arabic have “shall exact an oath from each one of them”.[110]Obscure, but apparently original. The Ethiopic and Arabic have “for it is not possible for an alien to be baptized”; the Testament “for the vile and alien spirit abides in him”.[111]Sahidic “and”.[112]Supplied for clarity.[113]The Sahidic and Ethiopic have “to the bishop or presbyter”; the Arabic has “to the bishop”.[114]Or the sense may be that the presbyter, the candidate and the deacon all stand naked in the water; in the above translation “the candidates” was supplied for “them” and the following “them” was substituted for “him”.In the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic the deacon causes the candidate to repeat a rather elaborate creed: the Sahidic form is: “I believe in the only true God, the Father Almighty, and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and in [the] Holy Ghost, the life-giver to the universe, the Trinity in one substance, one Godhead, one Lordship, one Kingdom, one faith, one baptism in the Catholic apostolic holy church. Amen”.The Canons agree practically with the Testament.[115]This question is omitted in the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic, but it is found in the Canons.[116]The Canons add at this point: ‘Every time he says at the baptism: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of [the] Holy Ghost, the Trinity in unity”’. None of the other sources have anything corresponding.[117]Jungklaus includes this paragraph in the preceding chapter.[118]Here the doxology is given as it stands in the Latin. But compare the earlier doxologies.[119]The Latin adds “In Greekantitypum”.[120]The Latin adds “In Greeksimilitudinem”.[121]Evidently omitted by accident.[122]Vienna fragment.[123]An Ethiopic section generally printed here (24) is not in the other versions and is irrelevant to the context; it will be found onp. 58.[124]The apparent sense.[125]Or, “this bread is ‘blessed bread’; it is not ‘the bread of the thanksgiving’, as is the Body of the Lord”. The Sahidic translator probably did not understand the original Greek exactly.[126]The Latin adds, “What in Greek is called anapoforetum”.[127]The apparent sense.[128]Literally “make haste”.[129]Literally “make the blessing”.[130]Sahidic “that we all should be sober and that the heathen may envy us”. The Ethiopic adds a long section that has no parallel in other sources; seep. 58.[131]Literally, “on account of the lot that falls”. Perhaps: “because of his (their?) duties”?[132]Friday, Saturday and Sunday after midnight.[133]So the Latin and the Testament. The Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic have “before the proper time to eat”.[134]The texts have “when he has learned the truth”; the above, however, seems to be the meaning.[135]31-32 are omitted here; they will be found onp. 60.[136]Literally “let everyone choose for himself to go to that place”.[137]Sahidic “for”.[138]The apparent sense.[139]Literally “be the last”.[140]Literally “things thou thinkest not”.[141]Literally “breaks forth”; the Latin (31. 3) has “blooms”.[142]Interpreting the Sahidic (“that thou mayest know how”) by the Testament (“that is like to”).[143]Interpreting the ambiguous Latin with the Sahidic.[144]Latin B, which is followed by the Oriental versions, is translated above. Latin A (comparep. 60) reads: “But seek always modestly to sign thy forehead; for this sign of his Passion is manifested against the devil if it be made from faith; not as pleasing men, but knowingly offering it as a breastplate. For the adversary, seeing the power of the spirit coming from the heart in the publicly formed image of baptism, is put to flight, thou not yielding, but breathing at him. And this was that [sign formed] when Moses, as a type, put the blood of the lamb slain at the Passover on the lintel and anointed the two side-posts, signifying the faith which now we have in the perfect Lamb”.[145]Latin B and the Oriental versions have “the Word”. But “baptism” is needed for the sense.[146]In chapter 38 the two Latin texts are in virtual agreement.[147]A gesture of respect.[148]Literally “the sealing”. Perhaps all food sent to the sick is meant; but the passage is far from clear.[149]Literally “count”.[150]The apparent sense.[151]The Ethiopic manuscripts vary in the form of the doxology.[152]In Ethiopic use the Hallelujah Psalms are 104-106, 134-135, 145-150.[153]Compare26. 5-6.[154]The restoration of sections 30-31 is conjectural.[155]In this last sentence the (unintelligible) Latin has been corrected by the Sahidic.[156]P. 35.[157]Although not in discarding chapters 33-34 also.[158]Pp. 77-83.[159]Seebelow.[160]Acts 20. 28, etc.[161]Romans 12. 1, 1 Peter 2. 5.[162]Hebrews 13. 15, Revelation 8. 3.[163]Philippians 4. 18, Hebrews 13. 16.[164]1 Corinthians 11. 21.[165]Comparep. 68.[166]Many editions and translations; the best in English is A. L. Williams’ edition in the S.P.C.K. series ofTranslations of Ancient Documents, London, 1921.[167]Genesis 1. 31.[168]1 Timothy 4. 4-5.[169]Ignatius,Smyrnaeans7. 1, etc., and Didache 9. 1, 5, are the earliest instances.[170]It should be needless to remark that this recital of the institution is merely part of the historical narrative, and is wholly devoid of other implications. It was in no way thought necessary for the rite; compare the Didache and for later liturgies see, e.g., Cooper and Maclean, pp. 170-172.[171]1 Corinthians 10. 3, John 6. 63.[172]IV, 18, 4-5;I, 13, 2. Incidentally, Irenaeus teaches an invocation of the Logos, not the Spirit.[173]1 Clement 44. 4, Didache 15. 1.[174]Possibly a copyist’s error, misreading “facietis”. The Greek was of courseποιεῖτε.[175]Through its use in St James it supplied the model for the Scottish and American Prayer Books.[176]Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14.[177]Compare ConstitutionsVIII, 30.[178]Compareibid., 29.[179]The search for Greek antecedents has not been fruitful.[180]English edition by H. Danby (S.P.C.K., 1919).[181]πρεσβυτέριονorσυνέδριον; the latter word passed into Aramaic assanhedrin.[182]In Jerusalem, however, the high priest presided as the religious head of Israel.[183]In Judaism priesthood came by birth, not by ordination. The office had little dignity.[184]A Rabbi’s authority was that of his personal learning. Very few presbyters could have been Rabbis, except in Jerusalem.[185]The temple worship entered little into the outlook of most Jews. Outside the temple priests had almost no functions.[186]“Adjuvet et gubernet”; in Greek (ConstitutionsVIII, 16, 4, EpitomeVI, 2)ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ κυβερνᾶν.[187]Certain meals held by religious societies of Jews were only a specialized form of family devotions.[188]Didache 15. 1.[189]Best studied in the Didascalia.[190]In very large churches conditions were different.[191]Possibly implied in ConstitutionsVIII, 46, however.[192]Most explicitly in Horner’sa.[193]In Hermas “martyrs” (the word used) includes confessors. The Vision, of course, purports to describe a scene in heaven, but it naturally reflects the earthly status.[194]In Romeca.250 there were only forty-six presbyters (EusebiusVI, 43, 11); evidently confessors were not included.[195]E.g., EusebiusVI, 43, 6, where confessorship is called “the highest honour”.[196]Yet the fact that the section goes on to threaten confessors who made clerical claims shows a different tradition existed.[197]EusebiusVI, 43, 11.[198]Eusebius,l.c.The other minor orders were doorkeepers, readers and acolytes. All are still extant in the Roman Catholic church, although now only as stages through which candidates for the priesthood pass; the same is virtually true of the subdiaconate and diaconate also.[199]Acts 2. 41, 8. 38, 16. 33.[200]In this passage “he sighed” should be rendered “he breathed”.[201]Compare Justin,Dialogue116 f.[202]Compare Sarapion.[203]Leviticus 15. 5, etc.[204]Contrast the reading of the Canons given in 19. 18.[205]The trine formula in Matthew 28. 19 is textually insecure.[206]Epistle 70 (69). 2.[207]1 Corinthians 12. 13, etc., John 3. 5.[208]Popular Christian terminology was not so hesitant.[209]Baptism.[210]Exodus 3. 8, etc.[211]But the Testament has no words of administration for the wine.[212]Due, presumably, to combining this section with the preceding. The Canons add eternal life and the eucharist.[213]E.g., ConstitutionsVII, 45, 1. Compare the position of the Prayer in the Didache.[214]Mark 6. 30-44; 8. 1-10 and parallels.[215]Compare 1 Corinthians 11. 20-21.[216]Romans7. 3; compareSmyrnaeans7. 1. InSmyrnaeans8. 1-2 the words are perhaps distinguished.[217]1 Corinthians 11. 20.[218]Since the benedictions used over eucharistic bread and wine and agape bread and wine (if wine was to be had) may have been identical, early Christians may often have been in doubt as to the meaning of a meal.[219]P. 68.[220]Literally “steadfast”.[221]Riedel misses the meaning ofksms.[222]Compare Tertullian,On Prayer18-19 for exaggerations of the same thought.[223]The “stations” of Tertullian,On Prayer19.[224]Exodus 29. 39; 25. 30.[225]So explicitly in the Ethiopic.[226]1 Peter 3. 19.[227]E.g., Galatians 4. 14.[228]Impurity can also be blown away; compare20. 8and (e.g.) Tertullian (l.c.).[229]Connolly (p. 104) prefers to say that the ceremony “is in some sense an integral part of the one and original baptism”.
[1]Luke 12. 13-16.
[2]For exceptions see, e.g., Romans 14. 14 (= Matthew 15. 11), 1 Corinthians 7. 10 (= Matthew 19. 9), 1 Clement 46. 8 (= Matthew 18. 6, in substance), 2 Clement 12. 2 (apocryphal).
[3]Especially in 2 Clement.
[4]Acts 15. 28-29.
[5]Romans 14, in particular.
[6]1 Corinthians 8. 8; 10. 25-26.
[7]Compare Revelation 2. 14, 20.
[8]Didache 13. 7, etc.
[9]Didache 13. 3, etc.
[10]So very emphatically in 1 Clement 40-41. But Clement does not argue for a detailed parallelism between the two ministries.
[11]Didache 3. 1-6 is an instance.
[12]The reason for this appears to be that at this period the Fourth Commandment was conceived to be wholly “ceremonial”, and to “keep the Sabbath” was regarded as Judaizing (Ignatius,Magnesians9. 1, etc.). The belief that in Christianity the Sabbath laws have been transferred to Sunday is of medieval origin.
[13]On these methods compare especially K. E. Kirk,The Vision of God(London, 1931), pp. 119-124.
[14]As in Wisdom 14. 25-26.
[15]Romans 1. 29-31 is largely of Greek origin; 1 Timothy 3. 2-3 and Titus 3. 1-2 are wholly so.
[16]In 1 Clement 47. 6 the forty-five year old Corinthian church is called “ancient”.
[17]Jude 17, Revelation 21. 14, etc. The meaning in Ephesians 2. 20 is probably a little different.
[18]1 Clement 42. 4; 44. 1-2, etc.
[19]Even in the third century liturgical prayers were still normally extempore, and use of a fixed form was regarded as a weakness on the part of the officiant.
[20]Eusebius,HE, v, 24.
[21]See especially James Muilenburg,The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Marburg, 1929.
[22]39th Festal Letter (367), 7.
[23]The details of the Patristic testimony are best seen in J. R. Harris,The Teaching of the Apostles, Baltimore and London, 1887.
[24]Die Didache, Bonn; many editions.
[25]Didascalia Apostolorum, Oxford, 1929.
[26]Also known as Third Clement. Occasionally—and unfortunately—called the Apostolic Canons or the Roman Church Order.
[27]Paderborn, 1914. Dr Schermann’s theory of a very early date for the document is individualistic.
[28]Pp. 127-138, 233-244, 295-306.
[29]Often reprinted separately.
[30]But incorrectly.
[31]Pp.34,78,40.
[32]Cooper and Maclean, p. 18.
[33]HE,VI, 20.
[34]Vir. ill.61.
[35]His festival is on August 13.
[36]Not completely legible; reproductions are not always to be trusted.
[37]Origenis Philosophumena, Oxford. BooksII-IIIare presumably still missing, although it has been argued that what is ordinarily called BookIVmay contain them; Wendland, however, rejects this theory (p. xvi).
[38]Especially in hisHippolytus and Callistus, 1853.
[39]St Clement of Rome,II, pp. 317-477. First published in 1869; in the later editions the argument is slightly expanded but is otherwise unchanged.
[40]Jerome,Vir. ill.61.
[41]Legge (II, p. 127) unfortunately revives Döllinger’s remarkable explanation of this occurrence: Callistus had lent the bank’s funds to the Jews and went to the synagogue to recover his depositors’ money. As if anyone would expect Jews to transact business on the Sabbath and at a synagogue service!
[42]Victor’s accession occurred about 189, and Commodus died in 192.
[43]The distinction between “martyr” and “confessor” was not yet developed.
[44]Or perhaps restored the privileges of the office to him; when and where Callistus was ordained is uncertain. Possibly he had the confessor’s ordination (p. 39).
[45]Hippolytus’s account of his controversy with Callistus is, in fact, so bitter that modern historians feel obliged to interpret it in the sense that will make the greatest allowance for the latter. Hence less than full justice is perhaps done nowadays to Hippolytus.
[46]The antithesis “In time or in eternity?” seems hardly to have been stated squarely until the beginnings of the Arian controversy.
[47]And Zephyrinus?
[48]Less probably after Zephyrinus’s death.
[49]Hebrews 6. 4-8, 10. 26-31, 12. 17.
[50]Except, perhaps, through martyrdom.
[51]Matthew 13. 30.
[52]Romans 14. 4.
[53]His most violent treatise—the Philosophumena—was perhaps omitted, but time has so defaced the list that we cannot be certain. The Apostolic Tradition, however, was duly listed, and it certainly contains polemic enough.
[54]Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1920, col. 225.
[55]Compare the Epitomist’s “The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles through Hippolytus”.
[56]London.
[57]Leipzig (Texte und Untersuchungen,VI, 4).
[58]Hippolytus’s work is printed on pp. 101-121; reprinted in Connolly (pp. 175 ff.), and in part in the fifth edition of Duchesne’sChristian Worship, London, 1919.
[59]II, pp. 97-119.
[60]The notes are systematized and amplified in the latter’sAncient Church Orders.
[61]Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlichen Gemeindeordnungen, Berlin Academy.
[62]Über die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen, Strassburg.
[63]Facsimiles in Hauler.
[64]Comparep. 60.
[65]The oldest (Sahidic) is datedca.1005.
[66]Details in Horner.
[67]More logical and so secondary.
[68]This seems easier than Schwartz’s theory (p. 7) of alaterSahidic text enlarged from the original Greek.
[69]The former cautiously.
[70]It lacks chapter 6.
[71]Epitome 4.
[72]Possibly “in those places”; so Horner interprets the Ethiopic.
[73]And Ethiopic. The Greek has “through thy beloved Son Jesus Christ thou gavest to thy holy apostles”.
[74]So the Greek, not the Latin.
[75]Latin and Ethiopic (MSS), “Father, who knowest the heart”; perhaps better.
[76]Not in the Epitome but in the Latin, Ethiopic, Constitutions, Testament and Canons.
[77]The doxologies suffer probably more than any other phrases by transmission. The translation given follows no text precisely but represents what seems to be the most likely original form.
[78]The indicative, “ye perform”, of the Latin is a misrendering of the (ambiguous) original Greek.
[79]On the doxology comparenote on 3. 7.
[80]The Latin might also be rendered “Not with ordinary words but with similar power”. But the Ethiopic confirms the above translation.
[81]Literally “Cause that from thy sweetness there may not recede this fruit of the olive”.
[82]An Ethiopic section (Statute 5) generally printed here (7) is not by Hippolytus; comparepp. 30-31.
[83]Reading “presbyteri” for “presbyteris”.
[84]Testament “in holiness to thy holy place”; Ethiopic “in thy holy of holies”.
[85]Testament “from the inheritance of thy high-priesthood”.
[86]Testament adds “and purely and holily”.
[87]Testament “high and exalted office”. The Ethiopic manuscripts differ considerably in their renderings of “he may ... office”; Horner’sareads “having served the degrees of ordination he may obtain the exalted priesthood”. But onlyareads “priesthood”.
[88]Doxology conformed to preceding; that in the Testament is rather different.
[89]With the Sahidic agree almost exactly the Arabic, the Testament and the Canons. The Ethiopic has been edited from a different view point.
[90]These words seem clearly implied by the context; Hippolytus has now concluded the discussion of ordinations proper.
[91]Ethiopic and Arabic omit this “not”, making the passage senseless.
[92]The Ethiopic makes the sense of the original clear.
[93]In the Sahidic the readers and subdeacons precede the widows.
[94]So the Ethiopic and Arabic. Sahidic reads “nor does she conductliturgia”.
[95]Compare last note.
[96]Epitome 13.
[97]The Sahidic misjoins “new” with “faith”.
[98]The Ethiopic adds “or if a woman has a husband”.
[99]Following the variant Sahidic reading in Horner, p. 436.
[100]The Constitutions show that the Sahidic is right against the other evidence (“let his master’s permission be gained”).
[101]The Constitutions (32. 3) have preserved the original here, which the Sahidic renders freely.
[102]The Sahidic, against the other evidence, adds “according to the law”.
[103]The Sahidic amplifies.
[104]Supplied to give the obvious sense.
[105]The Ethiopic shows that this is the sense; the Sahidic has misunderstood the use of “authority”.
[106]Literally “nor cause him to swear”.
[107]“Male harlot”?
[108]This Sahidic list has been interpreted from the list in Constitutions 32. 11.
[109]So the Sahidic and the Testament. The Ethiopic and Arabic have “shall exact an oath from each one of them”.
[110]Obscure, but apparently original. The Ethiopic and Arabic have “for it is not possible for an alien to be baptized”; the Testament “for the vile and alien spirit abides in him”.
[111]Sahidic “and”.
[112]Supplied for clarity.
[113]The Sahidic and Ethiopic have “to the bishop or presbyter”; the Arabic has “to the bishop”.
[114]Or the sense may be that the presbyter, the candidate and the deacon all stand naked in the water; in the above translation “the candidates” was supplied for “them” and the following “them” was substituted for “him”.
In the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic the deacon causes the candidate to repeat a rather elaborate creed: the Sahidic form is: “I believe in the only true God, the Father Almighty, and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and in [the] Holy Ghost, the life-giver to the universe, the Trinity in one substance, one Godhead, one Lordship, one Kingdom, one faith, one baptism in the Catholic apostolic holy church. Amen”.
The Canons agree practically with the Testament.
[115]This question is omitted in the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic, but it is found in the Canons.
[116]The Canons add at this point: ‘Every time he says at the baptism: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of [the] Holy Ghost, the Trinity in unity”’. None of the other sources have anything corresponding.
[117]Jungklaus includes this paragraph in the preceding chapter.
[118]Here the doxology is given as it stands in the Latin. But compare the earlier doxologies.
[119]The Latin adds “In Greekantitypum”.
[120]The Latin adds “In Greeksimilitudinem”.
[121]Evidently omitted by accident.
[122]Vienna fragment.
[123]An Ethiopic section generally printed here (24) is not in the other versions and is irrelevant to the context; it will be found onp. 58.
[124]The apparent sense.
[125]Or, “this bread is ‘blessed bread’; it is not ‘the bread of the thanksgiving’, as is the Body of the Lord”. The Sahidic translator probably did not understand the original Greek exactly.
[126]The Latin adds, “What in Greek is called anapoforetum”.
[127]The apparent sense.
[128]Literally “make haste”.
[129]Literally “make the blessing”.
[130]Sahidic “that we all should be sober and that the heathen may envy us”. The Ethiopic adds a long section that has no parallel in other sources; seep. 58.
[131]Literally, “on account of the lot that falls”. Perhaps: “because of his (their?) duties”?
[132]Friday, Saturday and Sunday after midnight.
[133]So the Latin and the Testament. The Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic have “before the proper time to eat”.
[134]The texts have “when he has learned the truth”; the above, however, seems to be the meaning.
[135]31-32 are omitted here; they will be found onp. 60.
[136]Literally “let everyone choose for himself to go to that place”.
[137]Sahidic “for”.
[138]The apparent sense.
[139]Literally “be the last”.
[140]Literally “things thou thinkest not”.
[141]Literally “breaks forth”; the Latin (31. 3) has “blooms”.
[142]Interpreting the Sahidic (“that thou mayest know how”) by the Testament (“that is like to”).
[143]Interpreting the ambiguous Latin with the Sahidic.
[144]Latin B, which is followed by the Oriental versions, is translated above. Latin A (comparep. 60) reads: “But seek always modestly to sign thy forehead; for this sign of his Passion is manifested against the devil if it be made from faith; not as pleasing men, but knowingly offering it as a breastplate. For the adversary, seeing the power of the spirit coming from the heart in the publicly formed image of baptism, is put to flight, thou not yielding, but breathing at him. And this was that [sign formed] when Moses, as a type, put the blood of the lamb slain at the Passover on the lintel and anointed the two side-posts, signifying the faith which now we have in the perfect Lamb”.
[145]Latin B and the Oriental versions have “the Word”. But “baptism” is needed for the sense.
[146]In chapter 38 the two Latin texts are in virtual agreement.
[147]A gesture of respect.
[148]Literally “the sealing”. Perhaps all food sent to the sick is meant; but the passage is far from clear.
[149]Literally “count”.
[150]The apparent sense.
[151]The Ethiopic manuscripts vary in the form of the doxology.
[152]In Ethiopic use the Hallelujah Psalms are 104-106, 134-135, 145-150.
[153]Compare26. 5-6.
[154]The restoration of sections 30-31 is conjectural.
[155]In this last sentence the (unintelligible) Latin has been corrected by the Sahidic.
[156]P. 35.
[157]Although not in discarding chapters 33-34 also.
[158]Pp. 77-83.
[159]Seebelow.
[160]Acts 20. 28, etc.
[161]Romans 12. 1, 1 Peter 2. 5.
[162]Hebrews 13. 15, Revelation 8. 3.
[163]Philippians 4. 18, Hebrews 13. 16.
[164]1 Corinthians 11. 21.
[165]Comparep. 68.
[166]Many editions and translations; the best in English is A. L. Williams’ edition in the S.P.C.K. series ofTranslations of Ancient Documents, London, 1921.
[167]Genesis 1. 31.
[168]1 Timothy 4. 4-5.
[169]Ignatius,Smyrnaeans7. 1, etc., and Didache 9. 1, 5, are the earliest instances.
[170]It should be needless to remark that this recital of the institution is merely part of the historical narrative, and is wholly devoid of other implications. It was in no way thought necessary for the rite; compare the Didache and for later liturgies see, e.g., Cooper and Maclean, pp. 170-172.
[171]1 Corinthians 10. 3, John 6. 63.
[172]IV, 18, 4-5;I, 13, 2. Incidentally, Irenaeus teaches an invocation of the Logos, not the Spirit.
[173]1 Clement 44. 4, Didache 15. 1.
[174]Possibly a copyist’s error, misreading “facietis”. The Greek was of courseποιεῖτε.
[175]Through its use in St James it supplied the model for the Scottish and American Prayer Books.
[176]Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14.
[177]Compare ConstitutionsVIII, 30.
[178]Compareibid., 29.
[179]The search for Greek antecedents has not been fruitful.
[180]English edition by H. Danby (S.P.C.K., 1919).
[181]πρεσβυτέριονorσυνέδριον; the latter word passed into Aramaic assanhedrin.
[182]In Jerusalem, however, the high priest presided as the religious head of Israel.
[183]In Judaism priesthood came by birth, not by ordination. The office had little dignity.
[184]A Rabbi’s authority was that of his personal learning. Very few presbyters could have been Rabbis, except in Jerusalem.
[185]The temple worship entered little into the outlook of most Jews. Outside the temple priests had almost no functions.
[186]“Adjuvet et gubernet”; in Greek (ConstitutionsVIII, 16, 4, EpitomeVI, 2)ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ κυβερνᾶν.
[187]Certain meals held by religious societies of Jews were only a specialized form of family devotions.
[188]Didache 15. 1.
[189]Best studied in the Didascalia.
[190]In very large churches conditions were different.
[191]Possibly implied in ConstitutionsVIII, 46, however.
[192]Most explicitly in Horner’sa.
[193]In Hermas “martyrs” (the word used) includes confessors. The Vision, of course, purports to describe a scene in heaven, but it naturally reflects the earthly status.
[194]In Romeca.250 there were only forty-six presbyters (EusebiusVI, 43, 11); evidently confessors were not included.
[195]E.g., EusebiusVI, 43, 6, where confessorship is called “the highest honour”.
[196]Yet the fact that the section goes on to threaten confessors who made clerical claims shows a different tradition existed.
[197]EusebiusVI, 43, 11.
[198]Eusebius,l.c.The other minor orders were doorkeepers, readers and acolytes. All are still extant in the Roman Catholic church, although now only as stages through which candidates for the priesthood pass; the same is virtually true of the subdiaconate and diaconate also.
[199]Acts 2. 41, 8. 38, 16. 33.
[200]In this passage “he sighed” should be rendered “he breathed”.
[201]Compare Justin,Dialogue116 f.
[202]Compare Sarapion.
[203]Leviticus 15. 5, etc.
[204]Contrast the reading of the Canons given in 19. 18.
[205]The trine formula in Matthew 28. 19 is textually insecure.
[206]Epistle 70 (69). 2.
[207]1 Corinthians 12. 13, etc., John 3. 5.
[208]Popular Christian terminology was not so hesitant.
[209]Baptism.
[210]Exodus 3. 8, etc.
[211]But the Testament has no words of administration for the wine.
[212]Due, presumably, to combining this section with the preceding. The Canons add eternal life and the eucharist.
[213]E.g., ConstitutionsVII, 45, 1. Compare the position of the Prayer in the Didache.
[214]Mark 6. 30-44; 8. 1-10 and parallels.
[215]Compare 1 Corinthians 11. 20-21.
[216]Romans7. 3; compareSmyrnaeans7. 1. InSmyrnaeans8. 1-2 the words are perhaps distinguished.
[217]1 Corinthians 11. 20.
[218]Since the benedictions used over eucharistic bread and wine and agape bread and wine (if wine was to be had) may have been identical, early Christians may often have been in doubt as to the meaning of a meal.
[219]P. 68.
[220]Literally “steadfast”.
[221]Riedel misses the meaning ofksms.
[222]Compare Tertullian,On Prayer18-19 for exaggerations of the same thought.
[223]The “stations” of Tertullian,On Prayer19.
[224]Exodus 29. 39; 25. 30.
[225]So explicitly in the Ethiopic.
[226]1 Peter 3. 19.
[227]E.g., Galatians 4. 14.
[228]Impurity can also be blown away; compare20. 8and (e.g.) Tertullian (l.c.).
[229]Connolly (p. 104) prefers to say that the ceremony “is in some sense an integral part of the one and original baptism”.