NOTES

Characteristic of Hippolytus’s style are his frequent summaries of the progress of his treatises; compare16. 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 presumablyκορυφή.

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.

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 Baptism17 (ca.205); Hippolytus also uses “high-priesthood” of the episcopal office in Philosophumena, Proem. 6. Similarly Tertullian calls the presbyters “priests” in hisExhortation to Chastity7, 11 (ca.210), and in9. 2of 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” (compare15. 1), while Ignatius (Philadelphians4) 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 PhilosophumenaIX, 7 he inveighs fiercelyagainst 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 on9. 1. “To loose every bond” is probably only a traditional liturgical generality.

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 (chapters5-6). 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 on9. 5-8.

In the Constitutions the deacons hold the book of the Gospels over the person to be consecrated.

The Jewish background of this prayer is extremely marked, and 2-3 may well have been taken bodily from some synagogue formula; Christianity is regarded as the orderly continuation of Old Testament Judaism.

4. “Royal” (more precisely “princely”) rendersἡγεμονικός, 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 accordwith 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:

Thouwho didst send the Lord Jesus for the gain of the whole world, thou who didst through him choose the apostles, thou who generation by generation didst ordain holy bishops, O God of truth, make this bishop also a living bishop, worthy (?) of the succession of the holy apostles, and give to him grace and divine Spirit, that thou didst freely give to all thine own servants and prophets and patriarchs: make him to be worthy to shepherd thy flock, and let him still continue unblamably and unoffendingly in the bishopric.

It will be observed that here the references to the Old Testament are almost non-existent and that there is no mention of high-priestly functions.

Fundamental for any comprehension of the first liturgical history of the eucharist is the fact that among Jews a “blessing” of food is without exception a “thanksgiving”; a Jew never says “Bless this food”, but always “Blessed be God”. So in the New Testament, when such a blessing is in question,εὐχαριστέωandεὐλογέωare used without distinction; compare, e.g., Mark 8. 6-7.

The various Jewish blessings in their oldest literary forms are collected in the Mishnah tractateBerakhoth;[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:

Blessedbe thou, O God, King of the universe, who hast brought forth bread from the ground;

and over wine:

Blessedbe 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 in21. 6and23, but it also underlies his use of “thanksgiving” in4. 2and10. 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 inchapters 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. Inchapter 4of 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 thepurely 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., ConstitutionsVII, 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. 11declares 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 Easternliturgies, 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 on23. 1.

2. “All the presbytery” join with the bishop in offering the gifts; the “concelebration” of a later terminology. The custom is derived from a time when the local monarchical episcopate was not yet established and the presbyters were normal officiants at worship.[173]They act in their corporate capacity; compare onchapter 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”; compare4. 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 in3. 4the 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 introducingκλώμενον, “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-AmbrosianDe Sacramentishas 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 on3. 7.

In this prayer as a whole the accumulation of phrases in5-6is 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,Apology67. But perhaps at a consecration service the opening lessons and instruction were omitted.

This blessing at the eucharist of food other than the bread and wine is a remnant of the primitive custom when the rite included a meal; in Hippolytus’s day, presumably, the cheese and olives were eaten at the service and part of the oil was sipped, the remainder being reserved for anointing the sick.[176]Perhaps only Hippolytus’s exaggerated reverence for the past preserved the usage, which at any rate soon disappeared. None of the other versions of his treatise retainchapter 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 of4-6with a note that the bishop should follow “the (local) custom”.

The usual Old Testament background to these prayers need hardly be pointed out.

The prayer at the blessing of the oil has real affinities with the prayer still used in the Roman church for blessing the “oil of the sick” at the bishop’s Maundy Thursday eucharist.

2. This ingeniously worded prayer has no parallel.

3. Compare Zechariah 4. 12.

4. Compare the Jewish use of fixedinitialclauses in benedictions.

“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 tractateSanhedrin:[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 thatthere 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]beforeA.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 reallyconceivable 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; compare9. 2in 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 bishopandthe presbytery, the practicestill maintained in the Roman and Anglican Communions. For Hippolytus’s theory compare9. 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 Corinthianstwooffices 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.

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 (= ConstitutionsII, 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 tochapter 2, with no explanation how choice by the people is reconciled with3. 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 inchapter 8indicate 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 thefollowing 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, quoteActs 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.

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,VisionsIII, 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 ConstitutionsVIII, 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 canclaimordination 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”.

3. “At every ordination the eucharist must be offered.”

4. Compare Justin,Apology67, where the “president” offers prayers “according to his ability” (ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ), and Tertullian,Apology30: “we pray ... without a monitor, for our prayers are from the heart”. But extempore prayer in no way excludes frequent use of traditional formulas.

In the major orders an endowment of the Spirit is sought by the imposition of hands; in the minor orders persons are officially admitted to the exercise of gifts that they already possess.

2-3. The eventual source is 1 Timothy 5. 1-16.

4-5. In 1 Timothy the widows engage both in prayer (verse 5) and in active work (verse 10). In the Didascalia and Constitutions these duties are divided: prayer is the sole task of the “widows”, while those to whom the active work is committed are called “deaconesses”. The latter, except that they have no part in the liturgy, correspond in all respects to the deacons, and so naturally receive an ordination, while the “widows” are merely “named”. So, before the distinction was established, ordination of (all?) widows was presumably fairly usual; otherwise the vigour of Hippolytus’s protest is difficult to explain.

In Rome, unlike Syria, active church work by women was discountenanced and the deaconesses did not make their appearance. On the general subject of women’s work the Didascalia is a mine of information.

Men who could read easily and clearly from a manuscript were not too common, so that the reader had a position of some dignity. The Constitutions, in fact, make a major order of the office and the prayer (VIII, 22) beseeches “the prophetic Spirit”, suggesting that readers were expected to give some exposition and teaching. Both the Constitutions and the Testament treat readership as a step toward higher advancement. In the Sahidic the reader is given St Paul’s Epistles; Schwartz (p. 32) thinks this is original.

For the development of the status of virgins in the church reference must be made to the special literature. Hippolytus, in marked contrast to the Testament, dismisses the subject very briefly and refers to virgins again only in25. 1, although this brevity of treatment in a law book does not prove lack of practical interest in the subject. As the “purpose” was publicly announced, it corresponded to the later formal vow.

The account in Acts 6 was generally interpreted as limiting the number of deacons in any place to seven, far too few for effective service in large churches. So each deacon was given an assistant to “serve” him;comparechapter 30. But even this was inadequate in very large communities, and at Romeca.250 the seven deacons and their subdeacons were further assisted by forty-two acolytes (“followers”).[197]The subdiaconate eventually became a major order and it is so treated in the Constitutions and the Testament.

The gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12. 28, etc.) was the only one of the primitive charismatic gifts to survive into the third century in its original form, and in Hippolytus its purely charismatic nature is still recognized; not only is there no ordination but the healer is not even “named”. But healers in the specialized form of “exorcists” form a minor order in Rome a generation later.[198]One of their most important functions was to assist in preparing catechumens for baptism; compare20. 3.

In the apostolic age converts were accepted with little question and were baptized immediately on profession of faith;[199]the missionary zeal of the new religion,heightened by the expectation of the end of the world, sought only to compel men to come in. Naturally this enthusiasm was always tempered with common sense—no teacher could have baptized every applicant—but the doors were opened wide, and the New Testament gives no hint of any formal training before reception. The hope that defects would be made up by Christian grace was doubtless fulfilled to a surprising degree, but it was also often grievously disappointed: men were admitted into Christianity who neither understood its teachings nor desired to follow them, and it was from this class that Gnosticism and other vagaries drew their recruits. The account in Acts 8. 18-24 is typical.

The result was a violent reaction that made entry into the church extremely difficult, and no one was permitted baptism until he had passed through a long and searching probation called the “catechumenate”. As it appears fully developed in the early third century, it must reach far back into the second or perhaps even into the first.

1. “Hearers” is perhaps used here in its later technical sense as a title for catechumens in their first stage. In Hippolytus the “word” that they are permitted to hear does not include the Gospel (20. 2); elsewhere they were allowed to remain at the Sunday service until all the liturgical lessons had been read and the sermon had been preached. The “teachers” were those employed in the instruction of the catechumens; they were not necessarily clerics (19. 1) and did not form a special class.

2-24. The reason for most of these rules is self-evident.

Back to Index Next