{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61614/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61614","id":"gutenberg_61614","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61614","summary":null,"tags":["Canon law -- Early church, ca. 30-600","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church orders, Ancient"],"text":"THE\n                         APOSTOLIC TRADITION\n                                  OF\n                              HIPPOLYTUS\n\n\n                       TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH\n                    WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY\n                         BURTON SCOTT EASTON\n\n\n                             ARCHON BOOKS\n\n              Copyright 1934, Cambridge University Press\n    REPRINTED 1962 BY ARRANGEMENT WITH CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n               PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n                                 _To_\n                             FRANK GAVIN\n\n\n\n\n                            PREFATORY NOTE\n\n\nThis book was originally planned as the joint work of my colleague, Dr\nFrank Gavin, and myself. Other duties compelled him to withdraw from\nthe undertaking, but it none the less owes more than can be told to\nhis expert knowledge and lavishly given advice.\n\nAppreciative thanks are also due to Dr E. R. Hardy for his generous\nhelp in checking the translation from the Sahidic.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS\n\n\n  _Prefatory Note_                                      _page_ vii\n  Introduction                                                   1\n  I. CHURCH ORDERS                                               1\n  II. HIPPOLYTUS                                                16\n  Translation                                                   33\n  Notes                                                         63\n  Indexes                                                      107\n\n\n                             THE IMPORTANT BOOKS\n\nEdmund Hauler. _Didascalia Apostolorum Fragmenta Ueronensia Latina.\n    Accedunt Canonum qui Dicuntur Apostolorum et Aegyptiorum\n    Reliquiae._ Leipzig, 1900.\n\nPaul de Lagarde. _Aegyptiaca_. G\u00f6ttingen, 1883.\n\nGeorge Horner. _The Statutes of the Apostles or Canones\n    Ecclesiastici_. London, 1904.\n\n  Since 1915 published by the Oxford University Press; the English\n  translations only are included.\n\nR. Hugh Connolly. _The So-called Egyptian Church Order and Derived\n    Documents_. Cambridge, 1916.\n\nErnst Jungklaus. _Die Gemeinde Hippolyts_. Leipzig, 1928. At first\n    included in the _Texte und Untersuchungen_.\n\nF. X. Funk. _Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum_. Paderborn,\n    1905.\n\nJames Cooper and Arthur John Maclean. _The Testament of Our Lord._\n    Edinburgh, 1902.\n\nWilhelm Riedel. _Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats\n    Alexandrien._ Leipzig, 1900.\n\nJohn Wordsworth. _Bishop Sarapion\u2019s Prayer-Book._ London, 1899.\n\nArthur John Maclean. _The Ancient Church Orders._ Cambridge, 1910.\n\nPaul Wendland. _Hippolytus Werke._ Dritter Band. _Refutatio Omnium\n    Haeresium._ Leipzig, 1916.\n\n  In the Berlin _Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller_ series.\n  The best text of the _Philosophumena_.\n\nFrancis Legge. _[Hippolytus\u2019s] Philosophumena._ London, 1921.\n\n  The best English translation. Unfortunately Wendland\u2019s critical text\n  is ignored.\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION\n\n\n\n\n                           I. CHURCH ORDERS\n\n\nThe early Church Orders were systematic manuals of disciplinary and\nliturgical rules for which the collective authority of the whole\napostolate was claimed. They made their appearance in the second\ncentury, grew to considerable dimensions in the third, and reached\ntheir fullest development toward the end of the fourth century. They\nare sources of importance for our knowledge of the inner life of the\nchurch, and they were influential factors in the formation of the\nlater canon law.\n\nThat legislation of a fairly detailed and elaborate character should\nsooner or later make its appearance in Christianity was inevitable.\nThe local congregations were made up of men and women practically\nisolated from the rest of the world and brought into the closest\ncontact with one another; their church was to them almost their entire\nuniverse. If human beings anywhere are to live together under such\nconditions, mutual affection and forbearance\u2014be they never so\ngreat\u2014are not enough. Regulations, which define rights and duties in\nunambiguous terms, are indispensable, and these regulations are bound\nto increase in number and complexity as the community grows.\n\nAs it happened, however, Christianity in its origins contained\nextraordinarily little material that could be used in forming these\nregulations. In theory Christians, for guidance in all matters, were\nto turn to Jesus Christ their Lord, whose teaching they regarded as\ntotally divine and so the final authority in all things. But, as a\nmatter of fact, Jesus\u2019 concern was not with concrete and specific\nproblems, and when asked to rule on such he brusquely refused.[1] He\noccupied himself with ultimate moral principles, and left to\nindividuals the task of applying these principles to the various\nspecial problems of their lives. Hence it is not at all surprising\nthat in the apostolic and post-apostolic ages direct citation of his\nsayings is rarely used to settle disputed matters of practice;[2] his\nwords are employed rather as general directives and to give\ninspiration to action.[3]\n\nNor did the apostles attempt in any systematic way to supply the\nconcrete element that Jesus\u2019 teaching might be thought to lack. In\nonly one instance[4] does the New Testament give us anything that\npurports to be an apostolic decree, and it gives this only in a matter\nof fundamental importance. Yet even this brief ruling presents serious\ncritical difficulties to modern investigators, and probably something\nless than full apostolic authority should be accorded it. In St Paul\u2019s\nEpistles, indeed, it is laid down as a fundamental principle that\nindividual divergences should be tolerated as far as possible even in\nthe same community,[5] so that the apostle turns from general\nprinciples to detailed regulations only in the most extreme instances.\nEach of his churches was left free to develop under the guidance of\nthe Spirit such customs as it might judge profitable\u2014and was warned\nnot to make even these customs too authoritative. And there is no\nreason to think that the other apostles differed greatly from St Paul\nin this regard. That some of them may have drawn up certain specific\nrules for their own communities is abstractly conceivable, but as to\nthis there is no tradition at all in the sources of the apostolic age\nand nothing of any value in later writings.\n\nAs a consequence, Christian congregations in search for material to\nuse for legislative purposes could find very little in the primary\nauthoritative teaching of their religion, and were obliged to look\nelsewhere. But abundant other sources were not lacking.\n\nOf these the chief was the Old Testament, whose importance to the\nmajority of early Christians can hardly be exaggerated. The ceremonial\nlegislation of the Pentateuch was, to be sure, no longer regarded as\nbinding on Christians; the Pauline controversies had settled this\nprinciple, even though a dissenting minority did not disappear until\nlate in the second century. But acceptance of the principle did not\ndebar endless debate as to the principle\u2019s precise extent: just what\nMosaic precepts should be classed as \u201cpurely ceremonial\u201d? St Paul, for\ninstance, saw no inherent objection to eating things sacrificed to\nidols,[6] but in the decree of Acts 15. 28-29 abstinence from such\nfood is regarded as axiomatically \u201cnecessary\u201d,[7] and Christians\nduring the next three centuries generally took the same view. The duty\nof Christian liberality was defined more closely by the adoption of\nthe Jewish law of tithing, and this law was even extended to include\nnot only agricultural produce but income of any kind.[8] Or, even when\nthe literal force of an Old Testament precept was recognized as\nsuperseded, a transferred sense might be discovered that revived the\nrule for Christianity. So the command that tithes should be paid to\nthe priests was construed to give the church\u2019s ministers a right to\nthe Christian payments.[9] Or the fact that the Old Testament ministry\nwas strictly regulated led to the argument that divine regulations of\nequal strictness must hedge about the Christian ministry as well.[10]\n\nSince so much permanent value was detected in the older ceremonial\nlegislation, it was only natural that the obligation of the \u201cmoral\u201d\nlaws should usually be treated as absolute. This led to a true moral\nlegalism; that is, these laws were conceived to demand obedience not\nbecause of a higher principle contained in them but simply because\nthey were \u201cwritten\u201d. Such, for instance, is the assumption throughout\nClement\u2019s letter to the Corinthians, where almost every argument is\nmade to rest ultimately on an Old Testament precept. Nor does it occur\nat all to Clement that the Corinthians may find anything amiss in his\nmethod; he takes for granted that, no matter how much other parts of\nthe Old Testament may have lost their meaning, God\u2019s moral statutes\nwill remain in immutable force for ever. And, we can scarcely doubt,\nsuch was a common opinion in Christianity from the very beginning,\noutside of Pauline and a few other circles; it was an attitude very\nlike Clement\u2019s that St Paul combated in his Epistle to the Romans.\n\nThis common opinion, moreover, was strongly reinforced by pedagogical\nneeds. The sweep of the new religion and its gathering in converts\nfrom all sorts of curious moral highways and hedges had created a\nsituation that taxed to the uttermost the powers of the Christian\nteachers. Multitudes of neophytes were constantly demanding\ninstruction, and to teach each one of them how to apply Christ\u2019s\ndeeper principles to involved special problems seemed utterly\nimpracticable; why engage in so intricate a task when a succinct Old\nTestament precept could settle the matter instantly? So catechetical\nmoral training was usually given by means of short digests based on\nOld Testament laws, some of these digests being undoubtedly of Jewish\norigin.[11] But it is interesting to note that the most authoritative\nbrief digest of Jewish morality\u2014the Decalogue\u2014does not appear as a\nwhole in the Christian teaching.[12]\n\nIn Gentile Christianity concrete rules were taken likewise from Greek\nethical works, whose standard was usually high. Only the learned, of\ncourse, could appreciate the moral treatises of the great\nphilosophers, but a long succession of teachers\u2014chiefly Stoics\u2014had\ndevoted themselves to bringing an understanding of good conduct within\nthe reach of all. Among other means, these teachers achieved their\npurpose by requiring their pupils to memorize short gnomic formulas,\nor\u2014the ultimate extremity of simplification\u2014bare lists of virtues to\nbe imitated or vices to be avoided.[13] This last device was so\nconvenient that even Greek-speaking Jews adopted it,[14] and\nChristians found it invaluable. In fact they did not hesitate to take\nready-made lists from Stoic and other sources,[15] so giving Greek\nethical concepts an unnoticed but authoritative entrance into\nChristianity.\n\nLess formal but very real was the influence of established customs and\nconventions\u2014on occasion, even superstitions\u2014in contemporary life,\nwhether Jewish or Gentile. St Paul, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 11.\n4 holds it to be obvious that men should pray with their heads\nuncovered, and this passage has influenced all subsequent Christian\npractice. Yet the ruling rests on nothing more profound than the\nreligious habits of the particular Jews among whom St Paul was brought\nup; other Jews in his day believed that God should be approached only\nwhen the head was covered, and this came to be the accepted Jewish\npractice. If St Paul had lived elsewhere\u2014or if he had been born\nsomewhat later\u2014the declaration in 1 Corinthians 11. 4 would have\nshocked him.\n\nTo these customs inherited from their pre-conversion days, the various\nlocal churches gradually added customs of their own. Some of these\nwere certainly introduced for very good reasons, others perhaps for no\nparticular reason and more or less accidentally. But in religious\nbodies everywhere customs quickly grow to be revered simply because\nthey _are_ the custom, and are clung to tenaciously. Yet, to a certain\ndegree, the churches were willing to learn from one another. The\nChristian communities in any geographical subdivision of the Empire\nhad strong interests in common, and, in particular, they recognized as\nright and proper a certain leadership on the part of the church in\ntheir political capital. So the customs of this church were generally\naccepted as models for the whole region, with the result that by the\nend of the second century \u201clocal\u201d use was quite generally converted\ninto \u201cprovincial\u201d use. And very large and important\nchurches\u2014especially Antioch, Alexandria and Rome\u2014gained a\ncorresponding ascendency over the smaller capitals within their\nrespective areas.\n\nIn some instances, in fact, rulings by outstanding churches or\nindividuals might acquire an almost world-wide influence. 1 Clement,\nwhich states the Roman conception of certain rules governing the\nministry, was accepted as authoritative in circles far away from the\nCorinthians for whom it was written. Indeed, many Christians came\nactually to regard it as an inspired New Testament writing, and in\nvarious later documents Clement figures as the medium through whom the\napostles issued their decrees. Of equal significance was Ignatius of\nAntioch, whose directions on church organization appear to have been\nobeyed even in Rome itself. Just so later Church Orders were regarded\nas legally binding in provinces remote from their place of origin.\n\nIn most quarters this trend toward uniformity in the second century\nwas simply taken for granted. Practices with a century of\ntradition[16] behind them were practically treated as irreformable:\n\u201cThis custom has been handed down from the days of the apostles and\nconsequently has the apostles\u2019 authority behind it\u201d. But even by the\nend of the first century the apostles were regarded as a wholly\ninspired group, who were the divinely appointed custodians and\ninterpreters of the faith.[17] Hence, it was commonly assumed, they\nmust have been unanimous in all things; what one apostle taught all\napostles must have taught. All Christianity rests on a common norm of\ndoctrine and practice that was delivered to the church by the\napostles.[18]\n\nIt is this conviction that lies behind the Church Orders and that\ngives them their peculiar form.\n\nThe most obvious objection to this theory, naturally, was the very\nevident fact that approved practices in different localities varied\nconsiderably; these could not all go back to a common origin. And in\nminor matters, assuredly, second- and third-century Christianity\ntolerated or even encouraged[19] differences. But in anything regarded\nas important local divergences could lead to bitter conflict. When the\nsecond-century Asia Minor churches were asked to change their date for\nEaster, they replied, \u201cWe must obey God rather than men\u201d, and a schism\nin the church resulted.[20] And in this clash apostolic authority was\npassionately claimed by both sides, with the constant premise that\nsuch authority must in the main lead to uniformity.\n\nYet there were definite limits to the process of unification. As the\ngenerations grew into centuries, the general \u201cethos\u201d of the more\nimportant local types of Christianity acquired a venerable dignity\nthat commanded respect even from churches whose customs were\ndifferent. In major matters of practice, moreover, a substantial\nagreement had been achieved, and the churches were organized along the\nsame main lines everywhere. So when any church claimed apostolic\nteaching in support of special usages of its own\u2014and such claims were\nmade frequently\u2014it usually did so fully aware that other churches\ncould make similar claims with equal validity, and that its special\nusages might very well have been different. This fact led to a\nrevision of the theory of apostolic unanimity. The complete agreement\nof the apostles was now thought to extend only to doctrine and the\nvitally important rules of practice; in other regards each apostle\nwithin his own territory had established a use of his own\u2014and each of\nthese uses was equally legitimate. So Alexandria appealed to St Mark,\nJerusalem to St James, Ephesus to St John, Rome to St Peter, and so\non; in due course the far east was to appeal to St Thomas or St\nThaddeus.\n\nSuch a theory was not entirely novel; Irenaeus, for instance, urged it\nin an unsuccessful attempt to settle the paschal controversy. But as\nlocal customs became fixed the theory was more and more invoked, and\nit finally became a settled principle throughout Christendom. The\nfourth century was here the definite turning point; when the\necumenical councils met, they made no attempt to legislate in full\ndetails for the whole church. So when the compiler of the Apostolic\nConstitutions _ca._ 375 revived the Church Order formula that made all\nthe apostles legislate minutely, we may presume that he was\nconsciously adopting a style that was already somewhat obsolescent;\nChristians by now were becoming aware that collective apostolic\nauthority could not be claimed for so wide an extent of regulations.\nAnd this consciousness brought with it the eventual end of the Church\nOrders; they were replaced by explicitly local collections of canons\nand by liturgical service books. Yet in many parts of the church the\nold Church Orders retained their authority, and they were incorporated\ninto the manuals of canon law.\n\n\nThe following are the chief Church Orders:\n\n\n                             THE DIDACHE\n\nAs this work is familiar to everyone its contents need not be\ndescribed. Most scholars date it in the early years of the second\ncentury, but the possibility that its compiler used the Epistle of\nBarnabas as a source cannot be wholly disregarded.[21] Barnabas is\nusually dated about 131, with a possibility of belonging some fifteen\nyears earlier, so if the dependence is accepted the Didache could\nscarcely have originated before the second quarter of the century and\nmay even be somewhat later.\n\nThe influence of the Didache in the early church was wide and it was\nheld in high honour. It was incorporated into the Didascalia, the\nApostolic Church Order and the Apostolic Constitutions. So eminent and\northodox a saint as Athanasius speaks of it as a book very profitable\nfor neophytes \u201cwho wish for instruction in the word of godliness\u201d,[22]\nand he cites it as an authority more than once, even though he\u2014very\nproperly\u2014refuses to recognize it as a canonical New Testament\nwriting.[23] There consequently can be no reasonable doubt that the\nDidache originated in the broad stream of orthodox Christian\ntradition, not in some obscure heretical sect.\n\nMuch the most convenient edition of the Greek text is that edited by\nDr Hans Lietzmann in his _Kleine Texte_ series;[24] it contains an\nexcellent critical apparatus and is very inexpensive. There are many\naccessible English translations.\n\n\n                       THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION\n\nThis work of Hippolytus, the subject of the present volume, is named\nhere to preserve the chronological sequence. In its Coptic and other\nversions it was formerly known as the Egyptian Church Order.\n\n\n                            THE DIDASCALIA\n\nA substantial \u201chandbook for the churches\u201d, written probably in Syria,\nnot far either way from 250. Its original language was Greek, but it\nhas been preserved in Syriac and Latin; the latter is defective. It is\nconcerned almost wholly with rules for church organization, church\nfinance and church discipline, treating doctrine hardly at all and\nliturgical matters only incidentally. Its author was acquainted with\nthe more important Christian literature of the second century, and\nthere is some evidence that he knew Hippolytus\u2019s Apostolic Tradition.\n\nThe Didascalia is best studied in Dom R. H. Connolly\u2019s English\nversion,[25] which he has provided with judicious introduction and\nnotes. Attention should be directed to his words on p. xlv: \u201cIt is now\ngenerally recognized that the author\u2019s theological outlook was\nentirely Catholic, and that he writes as a champion of the Great\nChurch as opposed to all manner of heresy and schism\u201d.\n\n\n                      THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH ORDER\n\nThis work[26] so nearly resembles the Didache in both size and\narrangement that there is good reason to believe that it was\noriginally issued as a \u201crevised\u201d edition of the older work. Chapters\n1-3 describe a meeting of the Twelve Apostles at which they decided to\npublish this Order. Chapters 4-13 are Didache 1-4, slightly rearranged\nand expanded. Chapter 14 is apparently derived from Barnabas 14 and\ncloses with Didache 4. 13. Chapters 15-28 treat of church\norganization, beginning with the election of bishops and ending with\nthe duties of women: the conditions described indicate a date not\nearlier than the end of the third century. Chapter 29 contains an\nadjuration to charity and chapter 30 a final appeal to apostolic\nauthority.\n\nThis Order, whose orthodoxy is unimpeachable, was written in Greek and\nis probably (not certainly) of Egyptian origin. Its popularity is\nshown by the fact that Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic and\nother versions have been preserved, as well as the original Greek. A\ncomplete critical edition has not yet been prepared. The best edition\nof the Greek text is in Theodor Schermann\u2019s _Die allgemeine\nKirchenordnung_,[27] 1, pp. 1-34. The English versions, such as they\nare, are not very accessible, but the translations of the Ethiopic,\nArabic and Sahidic in Horner are adequate.[28]\n\n\n                     THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS\n\nThis, the most ambitious of all the Church Orders, undertook to\nprovide a practically complete treatise on church law and liturgics by\ncollecting and revising earlier authoritative sources. Books I-VI are\nan enlarged edition of the Didascalia. Chapters 1-32 of Book VII treat\nthe Didache similarly; chapters 33-45 contain a collection of prayers\nobviously based on Jewish synagogue forms; the source of chapters\n46-49 is uncertain. Chapters 1-2 of Book VIII are now generally held\nto utilize a lost work of Hippolytus, _Concerning Gifts_. Chapters\n3-46 contain his Apostolic Tradition, greatly expanded, especially in\nthe so-called Clementine Liturgy[29] of chapters 6-15.\n\nThe Constitutions were compiled around 375, either in Syria or\nConstantinople. The author had no hesitation about drastically\nrewriting archaic material, but the great bulk of his expansions are\nsimply expository and homiletic. His verbosity is irksome to modern\nreaders, but it was quite in accord with the taste of his age.\nTheologically he shows Arian leanings, but these are often rather\ndifficult to detect without comparing his text with its sources; his\nwork as a whole is certainly not \u201cArian\u201d.\n\nThe extent of the later influence of the Constitutions has not yet\nbeen satisfactorily estimated. That the work in its entirety was not\napostolic was recognized at once and various church councils branded\nit as apocryphal. But later writers not infrequently cite passages\nfrom the Constitutions as authoritative; these citations as a whole,\nhowever, have not thus far been collected and analysed. Apparently the\nmost influential part of the book was its \u201cClementine Liturgy\u201d, which\ndeeply influenced subsequent Eastern rites.\n\nThe classic edition of the Greek text is that of Funk. The English\ntranslation in the _Ante-Nicene Fathers_ is generally adequate.\n\n\n                         THE APOSTOLIC CANONS\n\nA collection of eighty-five canons, appended to the Constitutions.\nThey were compiled by its author partly from earlier synodic sources,\npartly from the Constitutions themselves. In the Eastern Church these\ncanons were accepted as a whole and were translated into many\nlanguages; in the Western Church only the first fifty were received.\n\n\n                             THE EPITOME\n\n\u201cThe Epitome of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions\u201d is the\ntitle\u2014and something of a misnomer\u2014for what is little more than a copy\nof the sections of this Book of the Constitutions that deal with\norganization and discipline. It is divided into five parts, A-E. The\nfirst two chapters of the Constitutions are reproduced in A, chapter\n32 in C, chapter 46 in E. D contains chapters 33-34, 42-45,\npractically intact.\n\nB is headed \u201cThe Constitutions of the Holy Apostles concerning\nOrdination through Hippolytus\u201d, a title not infrequently[30] used to\ndescribe the entire work as \u201cThe Constitutions through Hippolytus\u201d. It\nbegins with chapter 3 of the Constitutions, describing the election of\na bishop. But the ordination prayer that follows is taken directly\nfrom Hippolytus\u2019s Apostolic Tradition, not from the Constitutions.\nThen comes chapter 16 of the Constitutions on the ordination of\npresbyters. The opening sentences are given literally, but the\nordination prayer is about midway in length between the compact\nversion in Hippolytus and the elaborate wording of the Constitutions.\nChapters 18-21 are copied with minimal variations, but in chapter 22\nthe ordination of readers is dismissed in a brief sentence from\nHippolytus. Chapters 23-28 and 30-31, almost unchanged, conclude the\nsection.\n\nEven as late as the beginning of the twentieth century the Epitome was\noften taken to be a source used in the Constitutions. But this is now\nrecognized to be wrong: the Epitome is extracted from the\nConstitutions, with a few reversions to Hippolytus. As it contains\nnothing independent there is no way to judge its date or place of\norigin.\n\nThe Greek text will be found in Funk, II, pp. 72-96. The three\npassages that really differ from the Constitutions are translated in\nthe present volume.[31]\n\n\n                      THE TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD\n\nThis work is divided into two Books, of 47 and 27 chapters\nrespectively. In Book I, after an apocalyptic introduction in chapters\n1-13, the risen Christ solemnly declares (chapters 14-18) to the\napostles the divine obligation of the rules that follow. The remainder\nof the work is based on Hippolytus\u2019s Apostolic Tradition, although\noften greatly changed and expanded: there are added, for instance,\nrules for church architecture, descriptions of clerical duties and\nmuch liturgical matter. But Hippolytus\u2019s order is faithfully followed\nand his text is often reproduced verbally. Book I, chapter 28, a\n\u201cmystagogic\u201d treatise on Christology in semi-credal form, is perhaps a\nlater addition.\n\nThe date of the Testament is probably a little later than that of the\nConstitutions; in any case it is hardly earlier than 360. For its\nplace of origin Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt all have their advocates,\nwith Egypt probably the least likely. The original Greek is lost, but\nthe work has been transmitted in Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic. Its\nChristology has an \u201cApollinarian\u201d flavour, but \u201cthere is no actual\nheresy in the Testament\u201d.[32] The English version of Cooper and\nMaclean is standard, although certain of their elaborate notes now\nrequire revision.\n\n\n                       THE CANONS OF HIPPOLYTUS\n\nA work containing thirty-eight \u201ccanons\u201d, which \u201cHippolytus, the chief\nof the bishops of Rome, wrote according to the commands of the\napostles\u201d. This paraphrase for his \u201cApostolic Tradition\u201d indicates the\nsource with an explicitness unusual in a Church Order. Its alterations\nare much less radical than those in the Testament, and wholly new\nmatter is limited to a brief introduction and an appendix concerned\nchiefly with moral and ascetic directions. The revision was made\nalmost certainly in the fifth century and beyond reasonable doubt in\nEgypt.\n\nThe text (originally Greek) has been preserved only in an Arabic\nversion. The only reliable edition is the German translation by\nRiedel; an English version is badly needed.\n\nFor the sake of completeness there may be added:\n\n\n                          SARAPION\u2019S PRAYERS\n\nThis work is not a true Church Order: it makes no pretence to\napostolic origin and consists wholly of a collection of prayers drawn\nup by Sarapion, bishop of Thmuis, about 350. It opens with the\ncelebrant\u2019s part at the eucharist and closes with various\nbenedictions. The eucharistic prayer has been strongly influenced by\nthe Didache, the ordination prayers by Hippolytus. The most accessible\nedition of the Greek text is in Funk, II, pp. 158-195. Bishop John\nWordsworth edited an excellent English translation.\n\n\n\n\n                            II. HIPPOLYTUS\n\n\nHippolytus is a unique figure in Christian history, for he, a\nschismatic bishop of Rome, is honoured by the Roman church as a saint\nand martyr. This curious combination of qualities made him for\ncenturies a highly enigmatic personality, of whom almost nothing was\nknown. Many of his voluminous works were preserved and studied, and\nwere translated into Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian and even Old\nSlavic. But his creation of a schism and his acceptance of its\nepiscopate were acts so contrary to established principles that\nEusebius, writing less than a century later, can describe him only as\nthe bishop \u201cof a church somewhere\u201d;[33] to which description Jerome\nadds: \u201cthe name of whose city I have been unable to learn\u201d.[34] That\nthis city was in fact Rome is, to be sure, stated by not a few late\npatristic and medieval writers, especially in the East, but these do\nnot hint that there was anything irregular about his tenure. Or he is\nassigned sees in widely different localities, sometimes as far off as\nArabia and sometimes as near Rome as Portus: this last place\u2014due,\napparently, to confusion with some other martyr\u2014was especially\npopular. But among Western writers Hippolytus\u2019s episcopal rank is\ncommonly ignored and he appears simply as \u201ca presbyter\u201d: the present\nRoman Catholic service books[35] do not call him \u201cbishop\u201d. The sole\ngeneral agreement was as to the date of his death, which the\nmartyrologies and other early testimony place about 235.\n\nIn 1551 excavations in Rome brought to light a third-century statue of\nHippolytus, now in the Lateran Museum; the upper part of the body has\nbeen \u201crestored\u201d. On the sides are inscribed an \u201cEaster Canon\u201d that he\ncomputed and a partial list of his works.[36] The posture of the body,\nwhich is that of a seated teacher, made episcopal dignity more than\nprobable, so for the official description of the statue Pius IV, the\nnext pope, adopted the Portus tradition. Hence as \u201cBishop of Portus\u201d\nthe saint was generally known until the middle of the nineteenth\ncentury.\n\nIn 1701 Jakob Gronov published, in the tenth volume of his _Thesaurus\nGraecarum Antiquitatum_, Book I\u2014no more was then known\u2014of a work\ncalled \u201cPhilosophumena\u201d or \u201cPhilosophizings\u201d, that was commonly,\nalthough not universally, referred to Origen. Books IV-X of this work\nwere discovered in 1842 and nine years later were published as\nOrigen\u2019s by the editor, B. E. Miller.[37] But the contents of the work\nwere soon proved by competent scholars\u2014notably D\u00f6llinger[38]\u2014to make\nOrigen\u2019s authorship impossible; the necessary conditions were\nfulfilled by Hippolytus alone. This proof established also the\nHippolytean authorship of certain other disputed works; and the\nevidence thus assembled showed that Hippolytus was both a bishop and a\nRoman. Incidentally, it has been established also that the correct\ntitle for the above work is \u201cRefutation of All Heresies\u201d, and that\n\u201cPhilosophumena\u201d was the sub-title of Books I-IV (not as is sometimes\nstated of Book I alone). But \u201cPhilosophumena\u201d is generally accepted by\nmodern writers.\n\nThe Portus tradition, however, still lingered on for a time and is\naccepted in the _Ante-Nicene Fathers_, both by the original editor J.\nH. Macmahon (1868) and by the American reviser Bishop A. C. Coxe\n(1886). Bishop Lightfoot supported a compromise theory that made of\nHippolytus a sort of suffragan bishop of Rome with special\njurisdiction over Portus.[39] But neither position is now tenable.\n\nFor the facts of Hippolytus\u2019s life we have practically only what he\nhimself tells us in scattered allusions; only once (Philosophumena IX,\n7) does he relate contemporary events at any length. Since in his\nlater works he speaks of himself as aged, his birth must be placed\n_ca._ 160. Tradition makes him a disciple of Irenaeus, a highly\nprobable supposition even though his works are silent on the subject.\nHe became a presbyter of the Roman church under Zephyrinus (198?-217,\nor perhaps earlier) and won great respect for his learning and\neloquence: on one occasion he was deputed to preach in the presence of\nOrigen.[40] But his learning brought him into a mortal conflict with a\nfellow presbyter, one Callistus.\n\nThis Callistus had had in earlier years a career that was at least\nambiguous. The servant of a wealthy Christian, he was permitted by his\nmaster to undertake in Rome the experiment of a \u201cChristian bank\u201d, in\nwhich many of the faithful deposited their savings. As has usually\nbeen the case with such experiments, the bank failed, and in this case\nno assets could be discovered. Callistus fled, but was brought back to\nRome and sentenced to the treadmill. After a while he was released and\nsought to regain favour with the Christians by interrupting a Jewish\nsynagogue service and preaching Christianity to the congregation.[41]\nFor this he was sent to the Sardinian convict mines. All of this\nappears to have taken place during the ninth decade of the second\ncentury; in any case Callistus was still a prisoner when Bishop Victor\nsucceeded in obtaining from the Emperor Commodus the release of many\nChristian prisoners in the year 190 or thereabouts.[42] The list of\nnames drawn up by Victor and sent to Sardinia did not include\nCallistus, but he contrived to secure his discharge as well, and he\nreturned to Italy as at least technically a \u201cmartyr\u201d.[43] Victor,\nhowever, did not permit him to remain in Rome and dismissed him to\nAntium, where he lived until Victor\u2019s death, receiving from the\nchurch\u2019s fund a monthly allowance that enabled him to avoid suffering.\n\nVictor was succeeded by Zephyrinus, an easy-going man of small\nintelligence, who in past years had conceived an intense admiration\nfor Callistus. He immediately recalled the latter to Rome, ordained\nhim presbyter,[44] and made him his chief lieutenant; during\nZephyrinus\u2019s episcopacy Callistus was the real power at Rome. His only\nsignificant rival was Hippolytus.\n\nTwo more different men can scarcely be imagined. Both were equally\ndetermined to have their own way. But Callistus was suave and\ningratiating, little concerned with theological speculation, desirous\nof immediate practical results and none too scrupulous as to ways and\nmeans, indifferent to precedents and perfectly willing to try novel\nexperiments. Hippolytus was dour and irascible,[45] convinced that\nmeticulous theology must be maintained though the heavens fell,\nscandalized at the mere thought of relaxing discipline, a\ntraditionalist to his finger tips, who believed that any new idea was\nnecessarily Satanic. Between such antagonists a relentless war was\ninevitable.\n\nThey appear to have fought on most questions, but one cause of\nconflict was paramount: Christology. During the second century the\nchurch was constantly tormented by the problem of reconciling the\nrigid monotheism inherited from the Jews with the divine honours that\nwere unquestioningly paid to Christ. The solution that Hippolytus\nproposed followed in general the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel: God\nfrom before creation has begotten[46] from Himself His Logos, itself\ndivine. This doctrine rests on speculative metaphysical premises that\nare none too easy of comprehension; to many thinkers in the second\ncentury it seemed either (_a_) to subordinate the Son to the Father in\nsuch a way as to detract from the Son\u2019s true divinity, or (_b_) to\nmake of the Son an independent deity and so destroy monotheism.\nHippolytus endeavoured to avoid both extremes, but with what success\nspecialists\u2014ancient or modern\u2014are unable to agree; it must be\nremembered, however, that he wrote as a pioneer in an age when the\nreal questions were not yet clearly stated, let alone answered, and\nthat he employed a philosophy originally devised for a very different\npurpose. The most popular alternative to his theory was what is rather\ncumbrously known as \u201cmodalistic monarchianism\u201d; this was quite within\nthe grasp of the most unphilosophical, since it disregarded all\nmetaphysical refinements. It argued: \u201cWe worship Christ as God, and\nGod is One. Therefore Christ is God and God is Christ; \u2018Father\u2019 and\n\u2018Son\u2019 are only titles that describe the same Person in different\naspects or \u2018modes\u2019\u201d.\n\nLater on this modalism was regarded as heresy of the most extreme\ntype, but even in the late second century it was widely taught and was\nuncondemned; in part the church authorities wished to preserve peace\nabove all things and in part they were really in doubt as to the\npoints at issue. Many teachers, to be sure, attacked it violently and\nnone with greater passion than Hippolytus, who at the beginning of the\nthird century was making the Roman church hot with his invectives.\nBut, despite him, when Sabellius, the great apostle of modalism, came\nto Rome he was received cordially by Zephyrinus and Callistus.\n\nStill, even Hippolytus was forced to admit that Sabellius was an\nhonest and open-minded man, and one with whom he could argue so\nfrankly that he had great hopes of converting him. But Callistus\ninterfered. Not that he himself was quite a modalist; his own\nChristology, while having strong modalistic leanings, was saved from\ndownright modalism by dexterous qualifications. But he regarded\nHippolytus\u2019s doctrine\u2014which he probably could not really understand\u2014as\nthe worse of the two evils. So Sabellius, finding the two great Roman\nleaders at loggerheads, reverted to his former position. To Hippolytus\nthis was the last straw and he publicly denounced Callistus[47] as a\nheretic. Callistus retorted by hurling at Hippolytus the final insult:\n\u201cDitheist!\u201d The result was a schism.\n\nIt took place, apparently, in the last years of Zephyrinus,[48] who\ndied in 217. Hippolytus and his disciples fled from the\u2014to\nthem\u2014polluted and heretical communion of the regular bishop and\nproclaimed that they and they alone were the true church of Rome. They\nwere not numerous but their standing appears to have been high; at any\nrate they were able to find bishops willing to consecrate their leader\nto the episcopate. But their withdrawal left the \u201cregular\u201d church\ncompletely under Callistus\u2019s control, and at Zephyrinus\u2019s death he was\nelected to succeed him. This election, of course, Hippolytus treated\nas wholly null, asserting contemptuously that what Callistus had done\nwas to become the leader of a \u201cschool of Callistans\u201d, not of a \u201cchurch\nof Christians\u201d.\n\nCallistus disposed of the Christological controversy by\nexcommunicating both Sabellius and Hippolytus, and then turned his\nattention to the most thorny practical question that perplexed\ncontemporary Christians, the problem of mortal sin after baptism. From\nthe beginning of the post-apostolic age[49] the church almost\nuniversally held that such sin could not receive absolution, so that\nthe sinners were permanently excommunicate and without hope of\nrestoration.[50] The only \u201corthodox\u201d voice in opposition to this\nrigorism was raised by the Shepherd of Hermas, and even its author\ndared oppose the universal teaching of his age only because he had\nreceived a special revelation from God; nor did he venture to promise\nmore than the remission of _one_ post-baptismal sin for anyone. In\nmany quarters, indeed, even this mild relaxation of the rule was\npassionately resisted, and the most vigorous religious movement of the\nsecond century\u2014Montanism\u2014took as its watchword, \u201cNo second remission!\u201d\n\nBy the beginning of the third century a final settlement of the\nquestion had become a necessity. The Christians had been successful\nbeyond their dreams in attracting converts, but probably the majority\npossessed only general good moral qualities and lacked the heroic\nvirtues. What was to be done with them? Should the church dismiss them\nas unworthy and so reduce its numbers drastically? Or should it do\nwhat it could for those whose intentions were good, without expecting\ntoo much of them? To Hippolytus the church\u2019s constant teaching since\nthe apostles\u2019 time removed the problem from debate: Christians must be\nsaints in the fullest sense of the word. So his flock was constantly\npurged by excommunications. Callistus, on the contrary, took the bold\nstep of brushing aside tradition altogether and of appealing directly\nto the New Testament: \u201cLet the tares grow with the wheat until the\nharvest\u201d,[51] and, \u201cWho art thou that judgest another man\u2019s\nservant?\"[52] Sinners were, of course, put to penance, but if they\nproved their good faith they could be absolved, no matter what their\noffence nor how often it had been committed. This decision of\nCallistus was nothing short of revolutionary, and it was destined to\nchange the ideal of church membership for all time. Naturally it\nshocked Hippolytus beyond measure\u2014and his horror was intensified when\nthose whom he himself had excommunicated were received into communion\nby Callistus.\n\nThe latter, in fact, went so far in the abolition of the stricter\nrules that his own successors at Rome withdrew or seriously modified\nsome of his concessions. He pronounced that second and even third\nmarriages constituted no impediment to ordination, and allowed clerics\nto marry after they had been ordained. And he declined to recognize\nfor Christian marriage the impediment of disparity of status in the\nRoman civil law; as a result the church permitted marriages that the\nparties could disown to the state\u2014with some curious consequences.\n\nAll of this so incensed Hippolytus and his party that Callistus\u2019s\ndeath in 222 did not end the schism; it continued under his successors\nUrbanus (222-230)\u2014of whom nothing is certainly known\u2014and Pontianus\n(230-235). But in 235 Maximinus became emperor and he undertook a\npersecution that singled out the Christian leaders. So in Rome both\nPontianus and Hippolytus were arrested and sent to Sardinia, where\nthey shortly afterward succumbed to the hardships of convict life.\nThis healed the breach in the church, and the reunited factions\ncompleted the reconciliation by pronouncing both bishops to be saints\nand martyrs.\n\nThis action has been taken by some scholars\u2014arguing from the premises\nof a later day\u2014as evidence that Hippolytus made a retractation before\nhis death. But Hippolytus was not the man to retract anything. And the\nRoman church of the next generation would never have allowed the\nerection of his statue if they had held him to be saved only by a\ndeathbed repentance; still less would they have permitted the public\nand honourable inscription of the titles of works in which he glories\nin his conduct.[53] The church really acknowledged that both sides had\nmade mistakes, and that Hippolytus\u2019s errors\u2014whatever they may have\nbeen\u2014were due to an excess of zeal for righteousness and were not to\nbe weighed against his consecrated learning and his burning devotion.\n\n\n                       THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION\n\nFor a list and description of Hippolytus\u2019s works reference must be\nmade to the treatises on patrology; he was a prolific writer on\nexegetical, doctrinal and practical themes, who published at least\nfifty books and probably many more. But after he had been consecrated\nbishop of his separatist congregation, his first task was to provide\ntreatises to perpetuate the principles for which he was contending so\nbitterly. One of these was _Of Gifts_, to which he alludes in 1. 1; it\nhas not been preserved, although traces appear to be incorporated in\nConstitutions VIII, i-ii. And it was followed immediately by the\nApostolic Tradition.\n\nIts introduction fixes its date and purpose. A \u201clapse or error\u201d had\n\u201crecently occurred\u201d (1. 4), and Hippolytus undertakes to guard against\nits effects by setting forth the true doctrine \u201cwhich has continued up\nto now\u201d. And he recurs to the same theme at the close: \u201cthe many\nheresies have increased because their leaders would not learn the\npurpose of the apostles\u201d, but \u201cover all who hear the apostolic\ntradition and keep it, no heretics or any other man will prevail\u201d (38.\n2-3). The date accordingly must be close to 217 and the purpose is to\ncleave to the old ways, rejecting every innovation; the tradition\nwhich Hippolytus received from the presbyters before him (36. 12) must\nbe maintained inviolate.\n\nIn content the book consists mainly of laws for church organization\nand the conduct of worship, but these are interspersed freely with\ncomment and explanation. The source of the laws themselves is not\ndoubtful: they represent the normal practices at Rome in Hippolytus\u2019s\nyounger days, and he is quite sincere in believing that they are truly\napostolic and therefore unalterable. And that they actually are rules\nof real antiquity is shown by the corroboration they receive from\nother early Christian writers, among whom Tertullian in particular\ndescribes usages extraordinarily like those expounded by his Roman\ncontemporary. The Apostolic Tradition, consequently, is more than a\nsource for Roman customs at the beginning of the third century; it may\nwith equal safety be invoked for the practice of thirty or even fifty\nyears earlier. In the words of Harnack:[54] \u201cHere is the richest\nsource that we in any form possess for our knowledge of the polity of\nthe Roman church in the oldest time, and this Roman polity may, in\nmany regards, be accepted as the polity held everywhere\u201d.\n\nThe same, naturally, cannot always be said of the material in\nHippolytus\u2019s comments. Here too, unquestionably, much is inherited; it\nis for one of his explanations that he appeals to the presbyters in\n36. 12. But it is occasionally evident\u2014chapter 9 is an instance\u2014that\nthe ceremonies he faithfully describes do not fully accord with his\ninterpretations, and that he himself does not invariably understand\nhis material. Some of the wording of his prayers, moreover, is\nunmistakably his own, but in his day (10. 4-6) each Christian leader\nstill felt free to frame prayers as he would.\n\nHippolytus designed his work for \u201cthe churches\u201d (1. 3), a phrase most\nnaturally understood of Christendom at large. His own church of Rome\nappears to have appreciated his work the least, for the majority of\nRoman Christians gave their allegiance to his rivals and accepted\ntheir legislation; it was the reforms of Callistus and not the\nconservatism of Hippolytus that directed subsequent Roman polity.\nProbably, too, despite his canonization, his memory was always\nslightly suspect; the Roman church certainly managed to forget very\nquickly who he really was. By the middle of the third century,\nmoreover, his church finally abandoned Greek as its official language\nand became wholly Latinized, so that his writings were no longer\naccessible. And what was true of Rome was true of the West in general.\n\nIn the East, however, especially in Egypt and Syria, Hippolytus\u2019s work\nwas accepted as possessing high authority. It was of course not\ntreated as infallible, for later legal writers do not hesitate to\namend or omit laws disagreeing with local usage. Yet the title\nHippolytus chose for his work was taken really seriously,[55] and he,\nmore than any other Church Father, gave the laws and the liturgy of\nthe Eastern Church their permanent form.\n\nThe Apostolic Tradition was first made known to the Western world in\n1691 by Job Ludolf in _Ad suam Historiam Aethiopicam Commentarius_; in\nthis he published in incomplete form the Ethiopic work containing it,\nto which he gave the title\u2014still in use\u2014of _Statuta Apostolorum_. But\nhe naturally was unable to identify the author. It was not until 1848\nthat the next contribution was made, Tattam\u2019s _The Apostolic\nConstitutions or Canons of the Apostles in Coptic_,[56] which gave the\nBohairic text with an English translation. The Sahidic text appeared\nthirty-five years later on pp. 248-266 of Lagarde\u2019s _Aegyptiaca_, and\nthis is still the standard edition. A German translation (by\nSteindorff) was published in 1891 by Achelis in his _Die \u00e4ltesten\nQuellen des orientalischen Kirchenrechtes_:[57] this monograph opened\nthe really critical study of the material and is not yet wholly\nobsolete. But Hauler\u2019s discovery of the Latin text was the most\nimportant event of all. He published his find in 1900 but did not\nappreciate the full importance of what he describes only as\n\u201cAegyptiorum reliquiae\u201d at the end of his long title.[58] And even\nsuch an intensely able scholar as Funk, in making his own Latin\nversion of \u201cThe Egyptian Church Order\u201d, still preferred to follow the\nSahidic.[59] Horner\u2019s _Statutes of the Apostles_ (1904) finally\nsupplied critical Ethiopic and Arabic texts, with scientifically\nliteral translations of these and of the Sahidic as well.\n\nThe basic significance of the Latin version was glimpsed by Cooper and\nMaclean in their edition of the Testament[60] (1902); their use of\n\u201cHauler\u201d is often penetrating. In 1906 Baron Eduard von der Goltz[61]\nfinally identified certain sections as definitely Hippolytean, and\nfour years later Dr Eduard Schwartz reached the definite\nconclusion:[62] the Latin text represents substantially what\nHippolytus wrote. Dr Schwartz\u2019s monograph, however, was brief and left\nmany problems unexplored; the detailed demonstration was the\u2014wholly\nindependent\u2014work of Dom Connolly in 1916.\n\nIn 1928 Dr Jungklaus published a German translation of Hippolytus\u2019s\nwork, with an elaborate introduction; in some regards it proved\nunsatisfactory but it should on no account be neglected.\n\nThe textual evidence is as follows:\n\n\nThe original Greek of chapters 3 and 12 is preserved in the Epitome,\nand that of 25. 1-2 in the Vienna fragment printed (e.g.) by Funk (II,\np. 112). The Constitutions also give some aid in reconstructing the\nGreek text elsewhere.\n\nThe Latin codex, now in Verona, is a palimpsest,[63] probably of the\nsixth century, over which some two centuries later three books of\nIsidore of Seville\u2019s _Sentences_ were written. The translation itself\nappears to have been made in the fourth century, and is a rendition of\na Greek book of church laws, in which Hippolytus\u2019s book is preceded by\nportions of the Didascalia and the complete Apostolic Church Order.\nThe translator, who presumably had no idea of the authorship of the\nclosing portion, made his version pedantically literal; a great\nadvantage to the modern student. Unquestionably neither the\nsixth-century copyist, the translator nor the Greek text used was\ninfallible; the last certainly contained duplications.[64] But the\nversion is incomparably the best guide that we have. It includes 1.\n1-9. 11a, 21. 14-24. 12a, 26. 3b-38. 2a.\n\nThe Oriental manuscripts, all comparatively modern,[65] are fairly\nnumerous,[66] and are likewise collections of laws. The Sahidic\u2014known\nalso as the Egyptian Heptateuch, from its seven Books\u2014begins with the\nApostolic Church Order. Then (Book II) comes Hippolytus\u2019s work, in\nwhich chapters 1, 3, 4. 4-13, 5-6, 8. 2-5, 9. 9-12 are omitted and\nchapters 11-14 are arranged in the order[67] 12, 14, 11, 13; there are\nalso minor variations to which attention is usually called in the\ntranslation and notes. Books III-VI are parallel to Constitutions\nVIII; Book VII contains the Apostolic Canons. Like other Coptic\necclesiastical writings it teems with transliterated Greek words, so\nthat the original terms are obvious. But the first translator was\nevidently often in doubt as to the meaning of the original, and his\nindecisions have not been clarified by later copyists.\n\nThe Bohairic was made from an inferior Sahidic manuscript in the early\nnineteenth century. All readings of any consequence are listed by\nHorner.\n\nThe Arabic was made from the Sahidic, which it follows in most\nregards, although chapters 11-14 are not disarranged; it was therefore\nmade from a manuscript other than the archetype of the known Sahidic\ncodices and has a certain independent textual value. Otherwise its\nfeatures are just about those to be expected in a secondary version.\n\nThe Ethiopic is divided into seventy-two \u201cStatutes\u201d, of which the\nfirst twenty-one are the Apostolic Church Order. Statute 22 =\nHippolytus\u2019s chapters 2-5, concluding with communion prayers. Chapter\n6 of Hippolytus is omitted. Statutes 23-27 = chapters 8-15, with no\nchanges in order. Statutes 28-35 = chapters 16-24, concluding with a\nbrief additional section on the regular weekly eucharists (p. 58).\nStatutes 36-38 = chapters 25-26, followed by sections on the communion\nof the sick and on evening services (p. 58) and a repetition of\nchapter 26. 2, 10b-13. Statute 39 = chapter 27. Statute 40 is a long\nbaptismal office, containing reminiscences of chapters 21-23 but\nopening with chapter 1, which is not in the Sahidic or Arabic.\nStatutes 40 (end)-48 = chapters 28-38. The remaining Statutes parallel\nConstitutions VIII, like the other versions, but there are certain\nvariations; Statute 52, for instance, contains a considerable section\nof the Didache, a little of the Didascalia, and a bit (38. 4) of\nHippolytus. At the end there is a collection of prayers.\n\nThe Ethiopic is a tertiary version, made from the Arabic. Statute 40,\nwhich gives chapter 1, was evidently derived from a different source\nwhich used the Apostolic Tradition independently, and its inclusion\nhere was more or less accidental. But the presence of the other\nchapters not in the present Arabic texts is best explained by assuming\nthat the Ethiopic was derived from an older Arabic form\u2014which in turn\npresupposes an older Sahidic form; in these the omissions to avoid\nconflict with local usages had not yet taken place.[68]\n\nThe additional material in Statutes 5, 35 and 37-38 is printed by both\nConnolly and Jungklaus, although both[69] recognize the liturgical\nprayers in 5 to be post-Hippolytean; it is consequently not included\nin the present edition. But neither do the other two sections appear\nto be genuine. The rules in Statute 35 are so general and\nunobjectionable that their omission in the Sahidic and Arabic would be\ndifficult to explain, while the reverence deacons must pay to\npresbyters seems to point to a later date. Similarly the description\nof the care of the sick and of the evening service in Statute 37\npresents nothing that could have troubled the Sahidic and Arabic\ntranslators; the insertion of such widespread usages is easier to\nunderstand than their omission. And the repetition of earlier matter\nat the end of Statute 37 and in all of Statute 38 shows a bad textual\ntradition.\n\nIn general, then, the evidence of the Ethiopic is of minor\nconsequence. In the only place where it stands alone (9. 11-12) it has\na text that does not appear to be possible.\n\nSummarizing: The original Greek of the Apostolic Tradition has not\nbeen recovered, except in small fragments. The Latin is generally\ntrustworthy, but is incomplete. The only other primary version, the\nSahidic, is likewise incomplete, and the results of the moderate\nabilities of its translator have been further confused in later\ntransmission. The Arabic is a secondary text, offering little that the\nSahidic does not contain. The only practically complete version,[70]\nthe Ethiopic, is tertiary and is otherwise unreliable. All four of\nthese versions presuppose a common Greek original, in which two\ndifferent endings have been conflated. The other sources, the\nConstitutions, the Testament and the Canons, are frank revisions, in\nwhich the original is often edited out of recognition or even flatly\ncontradicted. Under these conditions the restoration of a really\naccurate text is manifestly impossible.\n\nNone the less the material is abundant and independent enough to\nwarrant confidence that the substance and in most cases even the\noriginal wording of Hippolytus\u2019s rules have really been preserved:\nonly the ordination prayer for deacons presents difficulties that\nappear insuperable.\n\nThe chapter divisions are those of Jungklaus, altered only at chapter\n22. To facilitate reference the sentences have been numbered as\n\u201cverses\u201d.\n\n\n\n\n                THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF HIPPOLYTUS\n                             TRANSLATION\n\n\nLAT     1. \u00b9We have duly completed what needed to be said about\n        \u201cGifts\u201d, describing those gifts which God by His own counsel\n        has bestowed on men, in offering to Himself His image which\n        had gone astray. \u00b2But now, moved by His love to all His\n        saints, we pass on to our most important theme, \u201cThe\n        Tradition\u201d, our teacher. \u00b3And we address the churches, so that\n        they who have been well trained, may, by our instruction, hold\n        fast that tradition which has continued up to now and, knowing\n        it well, may be strengthened. \u2074This is needful, because of\n        that lapse or error which recently occurred through ignorance,\n        and because of ignorant men. \u2075And [the] Holy Spirit will\n        supply perfect grace to those who believe aright, that they\n        may know how all things should be transmitted and kept by them\n        who rule the church.\n\n\n                                                PART I\n\n        2. \u00b9Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all\n        the people. \u00b2When he has been named and shall please all, let\n        him, with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present,\n        assemble with the people on a Sunday. \u00b3While all give their\n        consent, the bishops shall lay their hands upon him, and the\n        presbytery shall stand by in silence. \u2074All indeed shall keep\n        silent, praying in their heart for the descent of the Spirit.\n        \u2075Then one of the bishops who are present shall, at the request\n        of all, lay his hand on him who is ordained bishop, and shall\n        pray as follows, saying:\n\nGRE[71] 3. \u00b9God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies\n        and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect\n        to the lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass.\n        \u00b2Thou hast appointed the borders of thy church by the word of\n        thy grace, predestinating from the beginning the righteous\n        race of Abraham. \u00b3And making them princes and priests, and\n        leaving not thy sanctuary without a ministry, thou hast from\n        the beginning of the world been well pleased to be glorified\n        among those[72] whom thou hast chosen. \u2074Pour forth now that\n        power, which is thine, of thy royal Spirit, which\nLAT[73] thou gavest to thy beloved Servant[74] Jesus Christ, which he\n        bestowed on his holy apostles,\nGRE     who established the church in every place, the church which\n        thou hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy\n        name. \u2075Thou who knowest the hearts of all,[75] grant to this\n        thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy\n        holy flock][76] and to serve as thy high priest without blame,\n        ministering night and day, to propitiate thy countenance\n        without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts of thy holy\n        church. \u2076And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have\n        authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to\n        assign the lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond\n        according to the authority which thou gavest to thy apostles,\n        and to please thee in meekness and purity of heart, offering\n        to thee an odour of sweet savour. \u2077Through thy Servant Jesus\n        Christ our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, might, honour,\n        with [the] Holy Spirit in [the] holy church, both now and\n        always and world without end.[77] Amen.\n\n\nLAT     4. \u00b9And when he is made bishop, all shall offer him the kiss\n        of peace, for he has been made worthy. \u00b2To him then the\n        deacons shall bring the offering, and he, laying his hand upon\n        it, with all the presbytery, shall say as the thanksgiving:\n\n          \u00b3The Lord be with you.\n\n        And all shall say\n\n          _And with thy spirit._\n\n          Lift up your hearts.\n          _We lift them up unto the Lord._\n\n          Let us give thanks to the Lord.\n          _It is meet and right._\n\n        And then he shall proceed immediately:\n\n        \u2074We give thee thanks, O God, through thy beloved Servant Jesus\n        Christ, whom at the end of time thou didst send to us a\n        Saviour and Redeemer and the Messenger of thy counsel. \u2075Who is\n        thy Word, inseparable from thee; through whom thou didst make\n        all things and in whom thou art well pleased. \u2076Whom thou didst\n        send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who,\n        dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as thy\n        Son, being born of [the] Holy Spirit and the Virgin. \u2077Who,\n        fulfilling thy will, and winning for himself a holy people,\n        spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death\n        he might set free them who believed on thee. \u2078Who, when he was\n        betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to nought\n        death, and break the bonds of the devil, and tread hell under\n        foot, and give light to the righteous, and set up a boundary\n        post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving\n        thanks to thee said: \u2079Take, eat: this is my body, which is\n        broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my\n        blood, which is shed for you. \u00b9\u2070As often as ye perform this,\n        perform[78] my memorial.\n\n        \u00b9\u00b9Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we\n        offer to thee the bread and the cup, yielding thee thanks,\n        because thou hast counted us worthy to stand before thee and\n        to minister to thee.\n\n        \u00b9\u00b2And we pray thee that thou wouldest send thy Holy Spirit\n        upon the offerings of thy holy church; that thou, gathering\n        them into one, wouldest grant to all thy saints who partake to\n        be filled with [the] Holy Spirit, that their faith may be\n        confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify thee.\n        \u00b9\u00b3Through thy Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to thee\n        glory and honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church,\n        both now and always and world without end.[79] Amen.\n\n\n        5. \u00b9If anyone offers oil, he shall give thanks as at the\n        offering of the bread and wine, though not with the same words\n        but in the same general manner,[80] saying:\n\n\n        \u00b2That sanctifying this oil, O God, wherewith thou didst anoint\n        kings, priests and prophets, thou wouldest grant health to\n        them who use it and partake of it, so that it may bestow\n        comfort on all who taste it and health on all who use it.\n\n\n        6. \u00b9Likewise, if anyone offers cheese and olives, let him say\n        thus:\n\n        \u00b2Sanctify this milk that has been united into one mass, and\n        unite us to thy love. \u00b3Let thy loving kindness ever rest upon\n        this fruit of the olive,[81] which is a type of thy bounty,\n        which thou didst cause to flow from the tree unto life for\n        them who hope on thee.\n\n\n        \u2074But at every blessing shall be said:\n\n        Glory be to thee, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church,\n        both now and always and world without end. [Amen.]\n\n\n        8.[82] \u00b9But when a presbyter is ordained, the bishop shall lay\n        his hand upon his head, while the presbyters touch him, and he\n        shall say according to those things that were said above, as\n        we have prescribed above concerning the bishop, praying and\n        saying:\n\n        \u00b2God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look upon this thy\n        servant, and grant to him the Spirit of grace and counsel of a\n        presbyter,[83] that he may sustain and govern thy people with\n        a pure heart; \u00b3as thou didst look upon thy chosen people and\n        didst command Moses that he should choose presbyters, whom\n        thou didst fill with thy Spirit, which thou gavest to thy\n        servant. \u2074And now, O Lord, grant that there may be unfailingly\n        preserved amongst us the Spirit of thy grace, and make us\n        worthy that, believing, we may minister to thee in simplicity\n        of heart, praising thee. \u2075Through thy Servant Jesus Christ,\n        through whom be to thee glory and honour, with [the] Holy\n        Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world\n        without end. Amen.\n\n\n        9. \u00b9But the deacon, when he is ordained, is chosen according\n        to those things that were said above, the bishop alone in like\n        manner laying his hands upon him, as we have prescribed. \u00b2When\n        the deacon is ordained, this is the reason why the bishop\n        alone shall lay his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the\n        priesthood but to serve the bishop and to carry out the\n        bishop\u2019s commands. \u00b3He does not take part in the council of\n        the clergy; he is to attend to his own duties and to make\n        known to the bishop such things as are needful. \u2074He does not\n        receive that Spirit that is possessed by the presbytery, in\n        which the presbyters share; he receives only what is confided\n        in him under the bishop\u2019s authority.\n\n        \u2075For this cause the bishop alone shall make a deacon. \u2076But on\n        a presbyter, however, the presbyters shall lay their hands\n        because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. \u2077Yet the\n        presbyter has only the power to receive; but he has no power\n        to give. \u2078For this reason a presbyter does not ordain the\n        clergy; but at the ordination of a presbyter he seals while\n        the bishop ordains.\n\n        \u2079Over a deacon, then, he shall say as follows:\n\n\n        \u00b9\u2070O God, who hast created all things and hast ordered them by\n        thy Word, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom thou didst\n        send to minister thy will and to manifest to us thy desire;\n        \u00b9\u00b9grant [the] Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to\n        this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen to serve the church\n        and to offer\nTEST    in thy holy sanctuary[84] the gifts that are offered to thee\nETH     by thine appointed high priests,[85]\nTEST    so that serving without blame[86] and with a pure heart he may\n        be counted worthy of this exalted office,[87] by thy goodwill,\n        praising thee continually. \u00b9\u00b2Through thy Servant Jesus Christ,\n        through whom be to thee glory and honour, with [the] Holy\n        Spirit, in the holy church, both now and always and world\n        without end. Amen.[88]\n\n\nSAH     10. \u00b9On a confessor, if he has been in bonds for the name of\n        the Lord, hands shall not be laid for the diaconate or the\n        presbyterate, for he has the honour of the presbyterate by his\n        confession. But if he is to be ordained bishop, hands shall be\n        laid upon him.\n\n        \u00b2But if he is a confessor who was not brought before the\n        authorities nor was punished with bonds nor was shut up in\n        prison, but was insulted (?) casually or privately for the\n        name of the Lord, even though he confessed, hands are to be\n        laid upon him for every office of which he is worthy.[89]\n\n        \u00b3The bishop shall give thanks [in all ordinations][90] as we\n        have prescribed. \u2074It is not,[91] to be sure, necessary for\n        anyone to recite the exact words that we have prescribed, by\n        learning to say them by heart in his thanksgiving to God; but\n        let each one pray according to his ability. \u2075If, indeed, he is\n        able to pray competently with an elevated prayer, it is well.\n        \u2076But even if he is only moderately able to pray and give\n        praise, no one may forbid him;[92] only let him pray sound in\n        the faith.\n\n\n        11.[93] \u00b9When a widow is appointed, she shall not be ordained\n        but she shall be appointed by the name. \u00b2If her husband has\n        been long dead, she may be appointed [without delay]. \u00b3But if\n        her husband has died recently, she shall not be trusted; even\n        if she is aged she must be tested by time, for often the\n        passions grow old in those who yield to them.\n\n        \u2074The widow shall be appointed by the word alone, and [so] she\n        shall be associated with the other widows; hands shall not be\n        laid upon her because she does not offer the oblation nor has\n        she a sacred ministry.[94] \u2075Ordination is for the clergy on\n        account of their ministry,[95] but the widow is appointed for\n        prayer, and prayer is the duty of all.\n\n\nGRE[96] 12. \u00b9The reader is appointed by the bishop\u2019s giving him the\n        book, for he is not ordained.\n\n\nSAH     13. \u00b9Hands shall not be laid upon a virgin, for it is her\n        purpose alone that makes her a virgin.\n\n\n        14. Hands shall not be laid upon a subdeacon, but his name\n        shall be mentioned that he may serve the deacon.\n\n\n        15. If anyone says, \u201cI have received the gift of healing\u201d,\n        hands shall not be laid upon him: the deed shall make manifest\n        if he speaks the truth.\n\n\n                                               PART II\n\n        16. \u00b9New[97] converts to the faith, who are to be admitted as\n        hearers of the word, shall first be brought to the teachers\n        before the people assemble. \u00b2And they shall be examined as to\n        their reason for embracing the faith, and they who bring them\n        shall testify that they are competent to hear the word.\n        \u00b3Inquiry shall then be made as to the nature of their life;\n        whether a man has a wife[98] or is a slave.[99] \u2074If he is the\n        slave of a believer and he has his master\u2019s permission, then\n        let him be received; but if his master does not give him a\n        good character, let him be rejected. \u2075If his master is a\n        heathen, let the slave be taught to please his master,[100]\n        that the word be not blasphemed.[101] \u2076If a man has a wife or\n        a woman a husband, let the man be instructed to content\n        himself with his wife and the woman to content herself with\n        her husband. \u2077But if a man is unmarried, let him be instructed\n        to abstain from impurity, either by lawfully marrying a wife\n        or else by remaining as he is.[102] \u2078But if any man is\n        possessed with demons, he shall not be admitted as a bearer\n        until he is cleansed.\n\n        \u2079Inquiry shall likewise be made about the professions and\n        trades of those who are brought to be admitted to the faith.\n        \u00b9\u2070If a man is a pander,[103] he must desist or be rejected.\n        \u00b9\u00b9If a man is a sculptor or painter, he must be charged not to\n        make idols; if he does not desist he must be rejected. \u00b9\u00b2If a\n        man is an actor or pantomimist, he must desist or be rejected.\n        \u00b9\u00b3A teacher of young children had best desist, but if he has\n        no other occupation, he may be permitted to continue. \u00b9\u2074A\n        charioteer, likewise, who races or frequents races, must\n        desist or be rejected. \u00b9\u2075A gladiator or a trainer of\n        gladiators, or a huntsman [in the wild-beast shows],[104] or\n        anyone connected with these shows, or a public official in\n        charge of gladiatorial exhibitions must desist or be rejected.\n        \u00b9\u2076A heathen priest or anyone who tends idols must desist or be\n        rejected. \u00b9\u2077A soldier of the civil authority[105] must be\n        taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is\n        commanded, and to refuse to take an oath;[106] if he is\n        unwilling to comply, he must be rejected. \u00b9\u2078A military\n        commander or civic magistrate that wears the purple must\n        resign or be rejected. \u00b9\u2079If a catechumen or a believer seeks\n        to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have\n        despised God. \u00b2\u2070A harlot or licentious man[107] or one who has\n        castrated himself, or any other who does things not to be\n        named, must be rejected, for they are defiled. \u00b2\u00b9A magician\n        must not [even] be brought for examination. \u00b2\u00b2An enchanter, an\n        astrologer, a diviner, a soothsayer, a user of magic verses, a\n        juggler, a mountebank, an amulet-maker[108] must desist or be\n        rejected. \u00b2\u00b3A concubine, who is a slave and has reared her\n        children and has been faithful to her master alone, may become\n        a hearer; but if she has failed in these matters she must be\n        rejected. \u00b2\u2074If a man has a concubine, he must desist and marry\n        legally; if he is unwilling, he must be rejected.\n\n        \u00b2\u2075If, now, we have omitted anything (any trade?), the facts [\n        as they occur] will instruct your mind; for we all have the\n        Spirit of God.\n\n\n        17. \u00b9Let catechumens spend three years as hearers of the word.\n        \u00b2But if a man is zealous and perseveres well in the work, it\n        is not the time but his character that is decisive.\n\n\n        18. \u00b9When the teacher finishes his instruction, the\n        catechumens shall pray by themselves, apart from the\n        believers. \u00b2And [all] women, whether believers or catechumens,\n        shall stand for their prayers by themselves in a separate part\n        of the church.\n\n        \u00b3And when [the catechumens] finish their prayers, they must\n        not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure.\n        \u2074Only believers shall salute one another, but men with men and\n        women with women; a man shall not salute a woman.\n\n        \u2075And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque\n        cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true\n        covering.\n\n\n        19. \u00b9At the close of their prayer, when their instructor lays\n        his hand upon the catechumens, he shall pray and dismiss them;\n        whoever gives the instruction is to do this, whether a cleric\n        or a layman.\n\n        \u00b2If a catechumen should be arrested for the name of the Lord,\n        let him not hesitate about bearing his testimony; for if it\n        should happen that they treat him shamefully and kill him, he\n        will be justified, for he has been baptized in his own blood.\n\n\n        20. \u00b9They who are to be set apart for baptism shall be chosen\n        after their lives have been examined: whether they have lived\n        soberly, whether they have honoured the widows, whether they\n        have visited the sick, whether they have been active in\n        well-doing. \u00b2When their sponsors have testified that they have\n        done these things, then let them hear the Gospel. \u00b3Then from\n        the time that they are separated from the other catechumens,\n        hands shall be laid upon them daily in exorcism and, as the\n        day of their baptism draws near, the bishop himself shall\n        exorcise[109] each one of them that he may be personally\n        assured of their purity. \u2074Then, if there is any of them who is\n        not good or pure, he shall be put aside as not having heard\n        the word in faith; for it is never possible for the alien to\n        be concealed.[110]\n\n        \u2075Then those who are set apart for baptism shall be instructed\n        to bathe and free themselves from impurity and wash themselves\n        on Thursday. \u2076If a woman is menstruous, she shall be set aside\n        and baptized on some other day.\n\n        \u2077They who are to be baptized shall fast on Friday, and on\n        Saturday the bishop shall assemble them and command them to\n        kneel in prayer. \u2078And, laying his hand upon them, he shall\n        exorcise all evil spirits to flee away and never to return;\n        when he has done this he shall breathe in their faces, seal\n        their foreheads, ears and noses, and then raise them up. \u2079They\n        shall spend all that night in vigil, listening to reading and\n        instruction.\n\n        \u00b9\u2070They who are to be baptized shall bring with them no other\n        vessels than the one each will bring for the eucharist; for it\n        is fitting that he who is counted worthy of baptism should\n        bring his offering at that time.\n\n\n        21. \u00b9At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. \u00b2The\n        stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it\n        from above when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is\n        a scarcity, whether constant or[111] sudden, then use whatever\n        water you can find.\n\n        \u00b3They shall remove their clothing. \u2074And first baptize the\n        little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do\n        so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for\n        them. \u2075Then baptize the men, and last of all the women; they\n        must first loosen their hair and put aside any gold or silver\n        ornaments that they were wearing: let no one take any alien\n        thing down to the water with them.\n\n        \u2076At the hour set for the baptism the bishop shall give thanks\n        over oil and put it into a vessel: this is called the \u201coil of\n        thanksgiving\u201d. \u2077And he shall take other oil and exorcise it:\n        this is called \u201cthe oil of exorcism\u201d. [The anointing is\n        performed by a presbyter.][112] \u2078A deacon shall bring the oil\n        of exorcism, and shall stand at the presbyter\u2019s left hand; and\n        another deacon shall take the oil of thanksgiving, and shall\n        stand at the presbyter\u2019s right hand. \u2079Then the presbyter,\n        taking hold of each of those about to be baptized, shall\n        command him to renounce, saying:\n\n        I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy servants and all thy\n        works.\n\n        \u00b9\u2070And when he has renounced all these, the presbyter shall\n        anoint him with the oil of exorcism, saying:\n\n        Let all spirits depart far from thee.\n\nTEST    \u00b9\u00b9Then, after these things, let him give him over to the\n        presbyter[113] who baptizes, and let the candidates stand in\n        the water, naked, a deacon going with them likewise.[114]\n        \u00b9\u00b2And when he who is being baptized goes down into the water,\n        he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus:\n\n        Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?[115]\n\n        \u00b9\u00b3And he who is being baptized shall say:\n\n        I believe.\n\n        \u00b9\u2074Then\nLAT     holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him\n        once. \u00b9\u2075And then he shall say:\n\n        Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was\n        born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified\n        under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again\n        the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven,\n        and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to\n        judge the quick and the dead? \u00b9\u2076And when he says:\n\n        I believe,\n\n        he is baptized again. \u00b9\u2077And again he shall say:\n\n        Dost thou believe in [the] Holy Ghost, and the holy church,\n        and the resurrection of the flesh?\n\n        \u00b9\u2078He who is being baptized shall say accordingly:\n\n        I believe,\n\n        and so he is baptized a third time.[116]\n\n        \u00b9\u2079And afterward, when he has come up [out of the water], he is\n        anointed by the presbyter with the oil of thanksgiving, the\n        presbyter saying:\n\n        I anoint thee with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ.\n\n        \u00b2\u2070And so each one, after drying himself, is immediately\n        clothed, and then is brought into the church.\n\n\n        22.[117] \u00b9Then the bishop, laying his hand upon them, shall\n        pray, saying:\n\n        O Lord God, who hast made them worthy to obtain remission of\n        sins through the laver of regeneration of [the] Holy Spirit,\n        send into them thy grace, that they may serve thee according\n        to thy will; for thine is the glory, to the Father and the\n        Son, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and\n        world without end. Amen.[118]\n\n        \u00b2Then, pouring the oil of thanksgiving from his hand and\n        putting it on his forehead, he shall say:\n\n        I anoint thee with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty\n        and Christ Jesus and [the] Holy Ghost.\n\n        \u00b3And signing them on the forehead he shall say:\n\n        The Lord be with thee;\n\n        and he who is signed shall say:\n\n        And with thy spirit.\n\n        \u2074And so he shall do to each one.\n\n        \u2075And immediately thereafter they shall join in prayer with all\n        the people, but they shall not pray with the faithful until\n        all these things are completed. \u2076And at the close of their\n        prayer they shall give the kiss of peace.\n\n\n        23. \u00b9And then the offering is immediately brought by the\n        deacons to the bishop, and by thanksgiving he shall make the\n        bread into an image[119] of the body of Christ, and the cup of\n        wine mixed with water according to the likeness[120] of the\n        blood, which is shed for all who believe in him. \u00b2And milk and\n        honey mixed together for the fulfilment of the promise to the\n        fathers, which spoke of a land flowing with milk and honey;\n        namely, Christ\u2019s flesh which he gave, by which they who\n        believe are nourished like babes, he making sweet the bitter\n        things of the heart by the gentleness of his word. \u00b3And the\n        water into an offering in a token of the laver, in order that\n        the inner part of man, which is a living soul, may receive the\n        same as the body.\n\n        \u2074The bishop shall explain the reason of all these things to\n        those who partake. \u2075And when he breaks the bread and\n        distributes the fragments he shall say:\n\n        The heavenly bread in Christ Jesus.\n\n        \u2076And the recipient shall say, Amen.\n\n        \u2077And the presbyters\u2014or if there are not enough presbyters, the\n        deacons\u2014shall hold the cups, and shall stand by with reverence\n        and modesty; first he who holds the water, then the milk,\n        thirdly the wine. \u2078And the recipients shall taste of each\n        three times, he who gives the cup saying:\n\n        In God the Father Almighty;\n\n        and the recipient shall say, Amen. \u2079Then:\n\n        In the Lord Jesus Christ;\n\n        [and he shall say, Amen. \u00b9\u2070Then:\n\n        In][121] [the] Holy Ghost and the holy church;\n\n        and he shall say, Amen. \u00b9\u00b9So it shall be done to each.\n\n        \u00b9\u00b2And when these things are completed, let each one hasten to\n        do good works,\nSAH     and to please God and to live aright, devoting himself to the\n        church, practising the things he has learned, advancing in the\n        service of God.\n\n        \u00b9\u00b3Now we have briefly delivered to you these things concerning\n        the holy baptism and the holy oblation, for you have already\n        been instructed concerning the resurrection of the flesh and\n        all other things as taught in Scripture.\u00b9\u2074Yet if there is any\n        other thing that ought to be told [to converts], let the\n        bishop impart it to them privately after their baptism; let\n        not unbelievers know it, until they are baptized: this is the\n        white stone of which John said: \u201cThere is upon it a new name\n        written, which no one knoweth but he that receiveth the\n        stone\u201d.\n\n\n                                               PART III\n\nGRE[122]25.[123] \u00b9Widows and virgins shall fast frequently and shall\n        pray for the church; presbyters, if they wish, and laymen may\n        fast likewise. \u00b2But the bishop may fast only when all the\n        people fast.\n\n\n        26. \u00b9For it constantly happens that some one wishes to make an\n        offering\u2014and such a one must not be denied\u2014and then the\n        bishop, after breaking the bread, must in every case taste\nSAH     and eat it with the other believers. \u00b2[At such an offering]\n        each shall take from the bishop\u2019s hand a piece of [this] bread\n        before breaking his own bread. [This service has a special\n        ceremonial][124] for it is \u201ca Blessing\u201d, not \u201ca Thanksgiving\u201d,\n        as is [the service of] the Body of the Lord.[125] \u00b3But before\n        drinking, each one,\nLAT     as many of you as are present,\nSAH     must take a cup and give thanks over it,\nLAT     and so go to your meal.\n\n        \u2074But to the catechumens is given exorcised bread, and each of\n        them must offer the cup. \u2075No catechumen shall sit at the\n        Lord\u2019s Supper.\n\n        \u2076But at each act of offering, the offerer must remember his\n        host, for he was invited to the latter\u2019s home for that very\n        purpose. \u2077But when you eat and drink, do so in an orderly\n        manner and not so that anyone may mock, or your host be\n        saddened by your unruliness, but behave so that he may pray to\n        be made worthy that the saints may enter his dwelling: \u201cfor\n        ye\u201d, it is said, \u201care the salt of the earth\u201d.\n\n        \u2078If the offering should be one made to all the guests\n        jointly,[126] take your portion from your host [and depart].\n        \u2079But if all are to eat then and there, do not eat to excess,\n        so that your host may likewise send some of what the saints\n        leave to whomsoever he will and [so] may rejoice in the faith.\n\n        \u00b9\u2070But while the guests are eating, let them eat silently, not\n        arguing, [attending to][127] such things as the bishop may\n        teach, but if he should ask any question, let an answer be\n        given him; and when he says anything, everyone in modest\n        praise shall keep silence until he asks again.\n\n        \u00b9\u00b9And even if the bishop should be absent when the faithful\n        meet at a supper, if a presbyter or a deacon is present they\n        shall eat in a similar orderly fashion, and each shall be\n        careful[128] to take the blessed bread from the presbyter\u2019s or\n        deacon\u2019s hand; and in the same way the catechumens shall take\n        the same exorcised bread.\n\n        \u00b9\u00b2But if [only] laymen meet, let them not act presumptuously,\n        for a layman cannot bless the blessed bread.[129]\n\n        \u00b9\u00b3Let each one eat in the name of the Lord; for this is\n        pleasing to the Lord that we should be jealous [of our good\n        name] even among the heathen, all sober alike.[130]\n\n\n        27. \u00b9If anyone wishes to give a meal to widows of mature\n        years, let him dismiss them before evening. \u00b2But if, on\n        account of existing conditions,[131] he cannot [feed them in\n        his house], let him send them away, and they may eat of his\n        food at their homes in any way they please.\n\n\n        28. \u00b9As soon as first-fruits appear, all shall hasten to offer\n        them to the bishop. \u00b2And he shall offer them, shall give\n        thanks and shall name him who offered them, saying:\n\n        \u00b3We give thee thanks, O God, and we offer thee the\n        first-fruits; which thou hast given us to enjoy, nourishing\n        them through thy word, commanding the earth to bring forth her\n        fruits for the gladness and the food of men and all beasts.\n        \u2074For all these things we praise thee, O God, and for all\n        things wherewith thou hast blessed us, who for us adornest\n        every creature with divers fruits. \u2075Through thy Servant Jesus\n        Christ, our Lord, through whom be to thee glory, world without\n        end. Amen.\n\n        \u2076Only certain fruits may be blessed, namely grapes, the fig,\n        the pomegranate, the olive, the pear, the apple, the mulberry,\n        the peach, the cherry, the almond, the plum. \u2077Not the pumpkin,\n        nor the melon, nor the cucumber, nor the onion nor garlic nor\n        anything else having an odour.\n\n        \u2078But sometimes flowers too are offered; here the rose and the\n        lily may be offered, but no other.\n\n        \u2079But for everything that is eaten shall they [who eat it] give\n        thanks to the Holy God, eating unto His glory.\n\n\n        29. \u00b9Let no one at the paschal season[132] eat before the\n        offering is made,[133] otherwise he shall not be credited with\n        the fast. \u00b2But if any woman is with child, or if anyone is\n        sick and cannot fast for two days, let such a one, on account\n        of his need, [at least] fast on Saturday, contenting himself\n        with bread and water. \u00b3But if anyone on a voyage or for any\n        other necessary cause should not know the day, when he has\n        learned the truth he shall postpone his fast until after\n        Pentecost. \u2074For the ancient type has passed away, and so the\n        [postponed] fast [of Numbers 9. 11] in the second month has\n        ceased, and each one ought to fast in accord with his\n        knowledge of the truth.[134]\n\n\n        30. \u00b9Each of the deacons, with the subdeacons, shall be alert\n        on the bishop\u2019s behalf, for the bishop must be informed if any\n        are sick so that, if he pleases, he may visit them; for a sick\n        man is greatly comforted when the high priest is mindful of\n        him.\n\n\nSAH     33.[135] \u00b9Let the deacons and the presbyters assemble daily at\n        the place which the bishop may appoint; let the deacons [in\n        particular] never fail to assemble unless prevented by\n        sickness. \u00b2When all have met they shall instruct those who are\n        in the church, and then, after prayer, each shall go to his\n        appointed duties.\n\n\n        34. \u00b9No exorbitant charge shall be made for burial in the\n        cemetery, for it belongs to all the poor; only the hire of the\n        grave-digger and the cost of the tile [for closing the niche\n        in the catacombs] shall be asked. \u00b2The wages of the caretakers\n        are to be paid by the bishop, lest any of those who go to that\n        place be burdened [with a charge].\n\n\n                                               PART IV\n\n        35. \u00b9Let all the faithful, whether men or women, when early in\n        the morning they rise from their sleep and before they\n        undertake any tasks, wash their hands and pray to God; and so\n        they may go to their duties. \u00b2But if any instruction in God\u2019s\n        word is held [that day], everyone ought to attend it\n        willingly,[136] recollecting that he will hear God speaking\n        through the instructor and[137] that prayer in the church\n        enables him to avoid the day\u2019s evil; any godly man ought to\n        count it a great loss if he does not attend the place of\n        instruction, especially if he can read.\n\n        \u00b3If a [specially gifted][138] teacher should come, let none of\n        you delay[139] to attend the place where the instruction is\n        given, for grace will be given to the speaker to utter things\n        profitable to all, and thou wilt hear new things,[140] and\n        thou wilt be profited by what the Holy Spirit will give thee\n        through the instructor; so thy faith will be strengthened by\n        what thou hearest, and in that place thou wilt learn thy\n        duties at home; therefore let everyone be zealous to go to the\n        church, the place where the Holy Spirit abounds.[141]\n\n\n        36. \u00b9But if on any day there is no instruction, let everyone\n        at home take the Bible and read sufficiently in passages that\n        he finds profitable.\n\n        \u00b2If at the third hour thou art at home, pray then and give\n        thanks to God; but if thou chance to be abroad at that hour,\n        make thy prayer to God in thy heart. \u00b3For at that hour Christ\n        was nailed to the tree; therefore in the old [covenant] the\n        law commanded the showbread to be offered continually for a\n        type of the body and blood of Christ, and commanded the\n        sacrifice of the dumb lamb, which was a type of the perfect\n        Lamb; for Christ is the Shepherd, and he is also the Bread\n        that came down from heaven.\n\n        \u2074At the sixth hour likewise pray also, for, after Christ was\n        nailed to the wood of the cross, the day was divided and there\n        was a great darkness; wherefore let [the faithful] pray at\n        that hour with an effectual prayer, likening themselves to the\n        voice of him who prayed [and] caused all creation to become\n        dark for the unbelieving Jews.\n\n        \u2075And at the ninth hour let a great prayer and a great\n        thanksgiving be made, such as made[142] the souls of the\n        righteous ones, blessing the Lord,\nLAT     the God who does not lie, who was mindful of his saints and\n        sent forth his Word to enlighten them. \u2076At that hour,\n        therefore, Christ poured forth from his pierced side water and\n        blood, and brought the rest of the time of that day with light\n        to evening; so, when he fell asleep, by making the beginning\n        of another day he completed the pattern of his resurrection.\n\n        \u2077Pray again before thy body rests on thy bed.\n\n        \u2078At midnight arise, wash thy hands with water and pray. \u2079And\n        if thy wife is with thee, pray ye both together; but if she is\n        not yet a believer, go into another room and pray, and again\n        return to thy bed; be not slothful in prayer.\n\n        \u00b9\u2070He who has used the marriage bed is not defiled; for they\n        who are bathed have no need to wash again, for they are clean.\n        \u00b9\u00b9By signing thyself with thy moist breath, and so spreading\n        spittle[143] on thy body with thy hand, thou art sanctified to\n        thy feet; for the gift of the Spirit and the sprinkling with\n        water, when it is brought with a believing heart as it were\n        from a fountain, sanctifies him who believes.\n\n        \u00b9\u00b2It is needful to pray at this hour; for those very elders\n        who gave us the tradition taught us that at this hour all\n        creation rests for a certain moment, that all creatures may\n        praise the Lord: stars and trees and waters stand still with\n        one accord, and all the angelic host does service to God by\n        praising Him, together with the souls of the righteous. \u00b9\u00b3For\n        this cause believers should be zealous to pray at this hour;\n        for the Lord, testifying to this, says: \u201cBehold at midnight is\n        a cry, Behold the Bridegroom cometh! Rise up to meet him!\u201d;\n        and he adds insistently: \u201cWatch ye therefore, for ye know not\n        at what hour he cometh\u201d.\n\n        \u00b9\u2074And at cockcrow rise up and pray likewise, for at that hour\n        of cockcrow the children of Israel denied Christ, whom we have\n        known by faith; by which faith, in the hope of eternal life at\n        the resurrection of the dead, we look for his Day.\n\n        \u00b9\u2075And so, all ye faithful, if ye thus act, and are mindful of\n        these things, and teach them to one another, and cause the\n        catechumens to be zealous, ye can neither be tempted nor can\n        ye perish, since ye have Christ always in your minds.\n\n\n        37.[144] \u00b9But imitate him always, by signing thy forehead\n        sincerely; for this is the sign of his Passion, manifest and\n        approved against the devil if so thou makest it from faith;\n        not that thou mayest appear to men, but knowingly offering it\n        as a shield. \u00b2For the adversary, seeing its power coming from\n        the heart, that a man displays the publicly formed image of\n        baptism,[145] is put to flight; not because thou spittest, but\n        because the Spirit in thee breathes him away. \u00b3When Moses\n        formed it by putting the blood of the Paschal lamb that was\n        slain on the lintel and anointing the side-posts, he signified\n        the faith which now we have in the perfect Lamb.\n\n\n        38.[146] \u00b9And so, if these things are accepted with\n        thanksgiving and right faith, they give edification in the\n        church and eternal life to believers. \u00b2I counsel that these\n        things be kept by all who know aright; for over all who hear\n        the apostolic tra[dition]\nSAH     and keep it, no heretics or any other man will prevail to lead\n        them astray. \u00b3For the many heresies have increased because\n        their leaders would not learn the purpose of the apostles but\n        acted according to their own wills, following their lusts and\n        not what was right.\n\n        \u2074Now, beloved, if we have omitted anything, God will reveal it\n        to those who are worthy, guiding the holy church to its\n        mooring in [God\u2019s] quiet haven.\n\n\n                                           LATER ADDITIONS\n\nETH     24. \u00b9On Saturday and Sunday the bishop shall whenever possible\n        give the people the bread with his own hand, while the deacons\n        break it. \u00b2The presbyters too shall break the bread to be\n        delivered; and whenever a deacon approaches a presbyter he\n        shall hold out his robe,[147] and the presbyter shall take the\n        bread and deliver it to the people with his hand.\n\n        \u00b3On other days they shall give the bread as the bishop\n        determines.\n\n        On this section compare p. 31. It may be further observed that\n        section 2 is pretty clearly an addition.\n\n\nETH     26. \u00b9\u2074In time of need the deacon shall be diligent in giving\n        the blessed bread[148] to the sick. \u00b9\u2075If there is no presbyter\n        to give out what is to be distributed, the deacon shall\n        pronounce the thanksgiving and shall supervise[149] those who\n        carry it away, to make sure that they attend to their duty and\n        [properly] distribute the blessed food; the distributors must\n        give it to the widows and the sick. \u00b9\u2076Whoever is entrusted\n        with the duty by the church[150] must distribute it on the\n        same day; if he does not, he must [at least] do so on the next\n        day with the addition of what is then given him. \u00b9\u2077For [it is\n        not his own property]; it is given him only [in trust] as\n        bread for the poor.\n\n        \u00b9\u2078When evening has come and the bishop is present, the deacon\n        shall bring in a lamp. \u00b9\u2079Then the bishop, standing in the\n        midst of the believers, before giving thanks shall first give\n        the salutation:\n\n          The Lord be with you all.\n\n        \u00b2\u2070And the people shall say:\n\n          [And] with thy spirit.\n\n        \u00b2\u00b9And the bishop shall say:\n\n          Let us give thanks to the Lord.\n\n        \u00b2\u00b2And the people shall say:\n\n          It is meet and right:\n          Majesty, exaltation and glory are due to Him.\n\n        \u00b2\u00b3But they shall not say \u201cLift up your hearts\u201d, for that\n        belongs to the oblation. \u00b2\u2074And he prays thus, saying:\n\n        We give thee thanks, O God, because thou hast enlightened us\n        by revealing the incorruptible light. \u00b2\u2075So we, having finished\n        the length of a day, and being come to the beginning of the\n        night, satisfied with the light of the day that thou hast\n        created for our satisfaction; and now, since by thy grace we\n        lack not a light for the evening, we sanctify thee and we\n        glorify thee. \u00b2\u2076Through thine only Son our Lord Jesus Christ,\n        through whom be to thee with him glory and might and honour\n        with [the] Holy Spirit, now, etc.[151]\n\n        \u00b2\u2077And they shall all say: Amen.\n\n        \u00b2\u2078Then, rising up after supper, the children and virgins\n        having prayed, they shall sing psalms. \u00b2\u2079Then the deacon,\n        holding the mixed cup of the offering, shall say a Hallelujah\n        Psalm.[152] \u00b3\u2070Then, the presbyter having commanded, \u201cAnd also\n        such-and-such Psalms\u201d, after the bishop has offered the\n        cup[153] with the proper thanksgiving, all shall say\n        \u201cHallelujah\u201d as the Psalms are sung. \u00b3\u00b9And they shall say:\n\n          We praise Him who is God most high;\n          Glorified and praised is He,\n          Who founded the world with a single word.[154]\n\n        \u00b3\u00b2Then, when the Psalm is completed, he shall give thanks over\n        the bread, and shall give the fragments to all the believers.\n\n        On these sections compare p. 31. An evening service, that\n        included bringing in the lamp, is widespread in early\n        Christianity and is eventually derived from Judaism; the\n        particular service described here is a prelude to a\n        congregational agape. There is nothing in sections 18-32 that\n        necessarily implies a date later than Hippolytus, but the\n        ceremony is badly placed between the private agapes and the\n        equally private meals for the widows, and it is followed by a\n        duplication of 26. 2, 10-12.\n\n\nLAT     31. \u00b9The faithful, early in the morning, as soon as they have\n        awaked and arisen, before they undertake their tasks shall\n        pray to God and so may then go to their duties. \u00b2But if any\n        instruction in the word is held, let each give first place to\n        that, that he may attend and hear the word of God, to his\n        soul\u2019s comfort; so let each one hasten to the church, where\n        the Spirit abounds.\n\n\n        32. \u00b9But let each of the faithful be zealous, before he eats\n        anything else, to receive the eucharist; for if anyone\n        receives it with faith, after such a reception he cannot be\n        harmed even if a deadly poison should be given him. \u00b2But let\n        each one take care that no unbeliever taste the eucharist, nor\n        a mouse nor any other animal, and that nothing of it fall or\n        be lost; for the body of Christ is to be eaten by believers\n        and must not be despised. \u00b3The cup, when thou hast given\n        thanks in the name of the Lord, thou hast accepted as the\n        image of the blood of Christ. \u2074Therefore let none of it be\n        spilled, so that no alien spirit may lick it up, as if thou\n        didst despise it; thou shalt be guilty of the blood, as if\n        thou didst scorn the price with which thou hast been\n        bought.[155]\n\n\n        In the Oriental versions the position of chapters 31-32\n        between chapters 30 and 33 is impossible. Chapter 30 addresses\n        the church\u2019s officers, chapters 31-32 individuals, chapters\n        33-34 the officers, and chapter 35 individuals again; chapter\n        31, in addition, is only a condensation of 35. 1-3. But the\n        Hauler manuscript clears up the difficulty. In it chapter 32\n        is followed immediately by the Latin A form of 37. 1-38. 2a,\n        breaking off at the end of a leaf with \u201capo\u201d (for\n        \u201capostolic\u201d). The next leaf begins with \u201cGod\u201d in the middle of\n        36. 5, and the text continues through 36, gives the Latin B\n        form of 37. 1-38. 2a and breaks off this time with \u201ctra\u201d for\n        \u201ctradition\u201d. So two versions of the work were current with\n        different endings; in one chapter 30 was followed by 31-32 and\n        the A conclusion, in the other it was followed by 33-35 and\n        the B conclusion. In the Hauler manuscript both endings were\n        reproduced, although the leaves containing the last two\n        sentences of the first and a considerable part of the second\n        have been lost. In the Oriental versions\u2014or the Greek codex\n        underlying them\u2014the glaring duplication caused by the ending\n        after 32 was suppressed, although the doubling of 35. 1-3 in\n        31 remained.\n\n        Since chapter 34 is unmistakably Roman and consequently\n        Hippolytean, the longer ending is original; chapter 33,\n        moreover, is perfectly in place after chapter 30. So\n        Schwartz[156] and Jungklaus are correct in holding[157] that\n        chapter 32 is not by Hippolytus; the only alternative would be\n        to assume that he issued two versions of his book with\n        different endings\u2014a difficult supposition that would leave\n        unexplained why the very important practice stressed in\n        chapter 32 is omitted in the longer version.\n\n        On the other hand it is true, as Connolly argues,[158] that\n        the rules of chapter 32 are truly third-century. The custom\n        according to which each Christian kept the consecrated\n        eucharist in his house and received it each morning is\n        attested in Tertullian\u2019s _To his Wife_ II, 5, and the reason\n        given (Mark 16. 18) for receiving fasting is not that of the\n        later church (compare on chapter 29); Connolly observes\n        further that the home reservation of consecrated wine as well\n        as consecrated bread is unknown elsewhere.\n\n        Very curious, too, is the phrase \u201cwhen _thou_ hast given\n        thanks\u201d in section 3, for the section as a whole is addressed\n        to the laity. Is there here some reminiscence of earlier\n        corporately celebrated eucharists, like the agapes in chapter\n        26? Or are 3-4 a later addition, addressed to the clergy? Or\n        is there textual confusion?\n\n\n\n\n                                NOTES\n\n\n                                  1\n\nCharacteristic of Hippolytus\u2019s style are his frequent summaries of the\nprogress of his treatises; compare 16. 25; 23. 13; Philosophumena,\nProem.; i, 23. 4, etc.\n\nThe opening sentence is obscure, but Connolly\u2019s explanation (pp.\n161-162) appears the most likely: Man, made in God\u2019s image, went\nastray, but through the Incarnation God restored humanity by\npresenting to Himself Christ, the perfect Man.\n\n2. On the phrase translated \u201cmost important theme\u201d compare Connolly,\np. 161; the original Greek word was presumably \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03ae.\n\n3. If the \u201cchurches\u201d are the different Roman congregations\u2014an unusual\nsense\u2014Hippolytus speaks simply as a bishop; if the meaning is \u201cat Rome\nand elsewhere\u201d he speaks not only as a bishop but as a teacher of\neminent authority.\n\n4. The \u201clapse or error\u201d is the Zephyrinus-Callistus \u201cschism\u201d. As\nHippolytus speaks of it as a recent event, the date of the treatise\ncannot be far from 217.\n\n\n                                PART I\n                              Ordination\n\n\n                                  2\n                              THE BISHOP\n\nAn episcopal election is still in the hands of the \u201cmultitude\u201d\n(compare Acts 6. 2), the clergy as yet having no distinct voice in\ntheory. Rather curiously no qualifications are given for the bishop;\ncontrast, e.g., 1 Timothy 3. 2-7 or the expansions in the\nConstitutions and the Testament. The bishop\u2019s functions are\nessentially the same as in the Ignatian Epistles: as the embodiment of\nhis church\u2019s unity he is the centre and head of all its activities,\nwhether in teaching, worship, or discipline.\n\nThe title \u201chigh priest\u201d, however, is not used by Ignatius, and in the\nextant Christian literature first occurs in Tertullian, _On Baptism_\n17 (_ca._ 205); Hippolytus also uses \u201chigh-priesthood\u201d of the\nepiscopal office in Philosophumena, Proem. 6. Similarly Tertullian\ncalls the presbyters \u201cpriests\u201d in his _Exhortation to Chastity_ 7, 11\n(_ca._ 210), and in 9. 2 of our treatise Hippolytus describes their\nwork as \u201cpriesthood\u201d.\n\nThis appearance of sacerdotal titles for Christian ministers\u2014something\nthat is foreign to the New Testament\u2014was a consequence of the adoption\nof sacrificial terms for Christian worship:[159] sacrifices are\noffered by priests. So Didache 13. 3 describes the prophets as \u201cyour\nhigh priests\u201d (compare 15. 1), while Ignatius (_Philadelphians_ 4)\nwrites \u201cone altar, as one bishop\u201d. Consequently it is more than\nprobable that \u201chigh priest\u201d and \u201cpriest\u201d were in common\u2014although by no\nmeans universal\u2014use among Christians by the middle of the second\ncentury. Hippolytus\u2019s distrust of innovations corroborates this; apart\nfrom anti-modalist additions the terminology of his consecration\nprayer can scarcely be thought to depart much from the forms in use in\nhis younger days.\n\nOtherwise the bishop is said to \u201cfeed the flock\u201d, a New Testament\nphrase[160] that was of course traditional; to Hippolytus it would\ninclude both correct teaching of doctrine and faithful administration\nof the sacraments. Since in Philosophumena IX, 7 he inveighs fiercely\nagainst Callistus\u2019s claim to absolve grave sins, \u201cto remit\u201d here can\nrefer only to minor offences. \u201cTo assign the lots\u201d strictly construed\nwould mean \u201cto appoint the clergy\u201d, but compare on 9. 1. \u201cTo loose\nevery bond\u201d is probably only a traditional liturgical generality.\n\n\n                      THE CHRISTIAN \u201cSACRIFICES\u201d\n\nSacrificial terms in the New Testament, except when used to describe\nthe Atonement, are employed within Christianity only in a transferred\nsense: the Christian sacrifices are either acts of righteousness,[161]\nthe rendering of prayer and praise,[162] or gifts given to\nfellow-Christians.[163] In the post-apostolic age this last sense was\npopular and in one particular application it was made a definitely\ntechnical term. Christian worship and Christian social life centred in\na \u201ctable-bond\u201d; the specifically Christian act of worship was the\neucharist, which in apostolic times was regularly celebrated in\nconjunction with a meal of some sort,[164] and even in Hippolytus\u2019s\nday had not lost all traces of the earlier custom (chapters 5-6). But\nthe Christians were extremely fond of other common meals as well, the\n\u201cagapes\u201d, of a less sacred but still definitely religious nature\n(chapter 26). In all of these meals the amount of food required was\nconsiderable, and providing it naturally entailed real expense. To\nsupply this food, consequently, was a meritorious act, which not only\nsatisfied the needs of the brethren but enabled the church to hold a\nliturgical service, at which the food was placed in the midst of the\ncongregation and \u201cblessed\u201d.[165] Hence the various foods were\nnaturally called \u201cofferings\u201d, and from this it was only a short step\nto calling the service itself a \u201csacrifice\u201d.\n\nThe word first appears in Didache 14. 1-2, where it is used of the\neucharist or (more probably) the eucharist-agape. When the term was\ndefinitely adopted into the Christian vocabulary, its further\ndefinition in Old Testament language was inevitable. Here the nearest\nanalogue might have been found in the \u201cpeace-offerings\u201d, which were\neaten by those who offered them. But the Christians did not usually\nfollow Levitical distinctions closely, and Hippolytus (3. 5) speaks of\nthe bishop as \u201cpropitiating God\u2019s countenance\u201d, language that more\nproperly belongs to the \u201csin-offerings\u201d.\n\nA special type of Christian offering were the first-fruits (chapter\n28), which were likewise solemnly presented and \u201cblessed\u201d by the\nbishop. There were again explicit Old Testament analogies, but in\nChristianity \u201csacrifice\u201d did not permanently become a term for this\ncustom.\n\n2. Notice of the election and of the Sunday appointed for the\nconsecration was sent to the neighbouring churches, whose bishops\nwould naturally attend as far as they were able.\n\n3. The assent of the people was given by acclamation; according to the\nCanons in the form \u201cWe choose him!\u201d The explicit injunction that the\npresbyters must not join in the imposition of hands should be noted;\nthe Arabic omits the prohibition, perhaps accidentally, but the Canons\nread \u201cOne of the bishops and presbyters shall be chosen to lay his\nhand upon his head\u201d. Compare on 9. 5-8.\n\nIn the Constitutions the deacons hold the book of the Gospels over the\nperson to be consecrated.\n\n\n                                  3\n\nThe Jewish background of this prayer is extremely marked, and 2-3 may\nwell have been taken bodily from some synagogue formula; Christianity\nis regarded as the orderly continuation of Old Testament Judaism.\n\n4. \u201cRoyal\u201d (more precisely \u201cprincely\u201d) renders \u1f21\u03b3\u03b5\u00b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, taken from\nthe Septuagint version of Psalm 51. 12 (50. 14).\n\nThe Epitome\u2019s abbreviation in this passage avoids suggesting that\nuntil a definite moment the Son did not possess the Spirit (Connolly,\np. 151). The unabbreviated text is practically only a combination of\nMatthew 3. 16 and John 20. 22, but the result is so definitely\nanti-modalistic that it is probably the work of Hippolytus; the\nlanguage is over-precise for a prayer.\n\n5. \u201cThou who knowest the hearts of all\u201d is from Acts 1. 24, but such\nexact Scriptural language is more characteristic of the fourth century\nthan the third. While the emphasis is on the bishop\u2019s offering the\n\u201cgifts\u201d, his prayers for his flock are certainly not excluded as part\nof his high-priestly ministry (Hebrews 7. 25, etc.).\n\n6. The \u201codour of sweet savour\u201d is the offering of a holy life, as in\nRomans 12. 1.\n\n7. The doxology is that given in the Epitome and presupposed in the\nCanons and Testament, with the substitution of \u201cthrough whom\u201d (so the\nother sources) for \u201cwith whom\u201d (a peculiarity of the Epitomist). After\n\u201chonour\u201d the Latin and Ethiopic insert \u201cto the Father and the Son\u201d.\n\u201cServant\u201d as a liturgical title for Christ comes from Acts 4. 27, 30;\nthe later versions naturally substitute \u201cSon\u201d.\n\nThe Sahidic and the Arabic omit the consecration prayer entirely,\npresumably because it did not accord with local use. The Canons\nparaphrase Hippolytus\u2019s form slightly; the Constitutions and the\nTestament enlarge it greatly. For the sake of comparison Sarapion\u2019s\nprayer may be given:\n\n  Thou who didst send the Lord Jesus for the gain of the whole world,\n  thou who didst through him choose the apostles, thou who generation\n  by generation didst ordain holy bishops, O God of truth, make this\n  bishop also a living bishop, worthy (?) of the succession of the\n  holy apostles, and give to him grace and divine Spirit, that thou\n  didst freely give to all thine own servants and prophets and\n  patriarchs: make him to be worthy to shepherd thy flock, and let him\n  still continue unblamably and unoffendingly in the bishopric.\n\nIt will be observed that here the references to the Old Testament are\nalmost non-existent and that there is no mention of high-priestly\nfunctions.\n\n\n                                 4-6\n                            THE EUCHARIST\n\nFundamental for any comprehension of the first liturgical history of\nthe eucharist is the fact that among Jews a \u201cblessing\u201d of food is\nwithout exception a \u201cthanksgiving\u201d; a Jew never says \u201cBless this\nfood\u201d, but always \u201cBlessed be God\u201d. So in the New Testament, when such\na blessing is in question, \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c9 and \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03c9 are used without\ndistinction; compare, e.g., Mark 8. 6-7.\n\nThe various Jewish blessings in their oldest literary forms are\ncollected in the Mishnah tractate _Berakhoth_;[166] this was finally\ncompiled in the third century, but most of its contents are much\nearlier; note in chapter 8 the account of the pre-Christian\ncontroversy between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. The form of all\nthe blessings is the same; after the opening words of praise the\nworshipper recites the particular act of God for which thanksgiving is\ndue. So over bread the formula is:\n\n  Blessed be thou, O God, King of the universe, who hast brought forth\n  bread from the ground;\n\nand over wine:\n\n  Blessed be thou, O God, King of the universe, who hast created the\n  fruit of the vine.\n\nThere is no real reason to doubt that these were the words used by\nChrist at the Last Supper when he \u201cgave thanks\u201d; Mark 14. 25 takes up\nthe blessing used over the cup.\n\nTo eat without thanksgiving was a sin, and he who did so at least\nviolated God\u2019s law commanding thankfulness. But most Jews would also\nhave held that unblessed food is unfit for consumption, and that\npronouncing the benediction removes this quasi-uncleanness, i.e.,\n\u201challows\u201d it: \u201cNothing is to be rejected, if it be received with\nthanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God[167] and\nprayer\u201d.[168] In other words, the act of thanksgiving was construed as\nhaving a consecratory effect, potent even for ordinary food and\ntherefore especially potent for sacred food. So St Paul writes in 1\nCorinthians 10. 16: \u201cThe cup of thanksgiving over which we give\nthanks, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?\u201d In Hippolytus\nthe same conception appears unambiguously in 21. 6 and 23, but it also\nunderlies his use of \u201cthanksgiving\u201d in 4. 2 and 10. 4.\n\nAccordingly, since at the Christians\u2019 greatest liturgical service the\nessential formula was a solemn thanksgiving, the service itself and\nfood consecrated at the service both came to be called simply \u201cThe\nThanksgiving\u201d or (in Greek) \u201cThe Eucharist\u201d.[169] And\u2014certainly in the\nsecond century, since Hippolytus gives the formula\u2014the eucharistic\nprayer was prefaced by the invitatory, \u201cLet us make our thanksgiving\nto the Lord\u201d, and this in turn by the appropriate words, \u201cLift up your\nhearts\u201d.\n\nSince extempore prayer was still largely practised (4), the contents\nof the Christian thanksgivings naturally varied widely, but it would\nappear inevitable that at first, in accord with Christ\u2019s example,\nGod\u2019s provision of food for men was the normal topic: the beautiful\nprayer in the Didache is formed on this model, which Hippolytus\nfollows closely in chapters 5-6. But the thought of food in the bread\nand wine was overshadowed by the thought of redemption, and even in\nthe Didache the earthly species only typify the salvation wrought in\nChrist. In chapter 4 of Hippolytus the \u201ctable\u201d form of the blessing is\nabandoned altogether for the praise of Christ\u2019s redeeming works, and\nthe same is true of practically all later liturgies. As is entirely\nnatural, Hippolytus\u2019s thanksgiving concludes with reciting the work of\nChrist most vividly in mind at the moment: his institution of the rite\nthat the church was engaged in celebrating.[170]\n\nThe evidence of the later liturgies shows us that the purely Christian\nobjects of thanksgiving in Hippolytus were by no means the only ones\nfor which God was blessed; thanks could be given with entire\nappropriateness to the Father for any of His benefits from creation\non. For such prayers Jewish synagogue formulas provided models that\nwere freely utilized; compare, e.g., Constitutions VII, 33-38. These\nthanksgivings often included (VII, 35, 3) or culminated in the hymn of\nIsaiah 6. 3 (\u201cSanctus\u201d), and in this way this hymn passed into the\nChristian eucharistic prayers, to become an all but universal feature\nin them. In the liturgy in the Constitutions it stands at a place that\nshows its origin, at the close of the (Jewish) thanksgivings for Old\nTestament benefits (VIII, 12, 27) and before the (Christian)\nthanksgivings for Christ\u2019s incarnate acts.\n\nAfter the completion of the thanksgiving (4. 10) Hippolytus makes\ncertain additions. 4. 11 declares that in performing the rite the\nchurch remembers Christ according to his command: this is the germ of\nwhat in the later liturgies is known as the \u201canamnesis\u201d. And the\noffering is formally presented to God; this likewise reoccurs\nregularly and is called the \u201coblation\u201d. Either or both of these\nfeatures could have been used in any eucharistic prayer from the\nearliest time.\n\n4. 12, however, shows a later concept. In the age of Hippolytus the\nconsecratory effect of thanksgiving was growing unfamiliar, and a\nspecial petition was thought needful in order that the bread and wine\nmight truly be made \u201ca communion\u201d of the body and blood of Christ. The\nliturgy\u2019s thought is simple: if earthly food is truly to become\n\u201cspiritual\u201d food,[171] God must send upon it the Spirit. The prayer is\nphrased accordingly, and is the first known instance of what is\ntechnically known as the \u201cinvocation\u201d, universal in Eastern liturgies,\nalthough absent from the present Roman. But the testimony of Irenaeus\nshows that in the late second century at Rome the invocation was\nregarded as the truly consecratory formula,[172] and Hippolytus\ncontinues Irenaeus\u2019 tradition.\n\nHippolytus\u2019s use of the invocation shows that only bread and wine are\noffered to God at the oblation. For his doctrine of communion see on\n23. 1.\n\n\n                                  4\n\n2. \u201cAll the presbytery\u201d join with the bishop in offering the gifts;\nthe \u201cconcelebration\u201d of a later terminology. The custom is derived\nfrom a time when the local monarchical episcopate was not yet\nestablished and the presbyters were normal officiants at worship.[173]\nThey act in their corporate capacity; compare on chapter 8.\n\n4. If 11 is construed strictly, the \u201cwe\u201d of this prayer should be \u201cwe,\nthe bishop and presbyters\u201d. But the plural pronoun originally\u2014and\nprobably in Hippolytus\u2019s opinion also\u2014meant \u201call we Christians in this\ncongregation\u201d; compare 4. 12, \u201cyour sacrifice\u201d in Didache 14 and the\nexplicit language in Justin, Dialogue 116-117. \u201cMessenger of thy\ncounsel\u201d is from the Septuagint of Isaiah 9. 6; it recurs in\nHippolytus\u2019s Daniel commentary (III, 9, 6) and is used here as an\nanti-modalist term.\n\n5. This whole sentence is anti-modalist.\n\n6. As in 3. 4 the language is more theological than liturgic.\n\n7. Christ\u2019s hands were spread out in appeal (Isaiah 65. 2,\nLamentations 1. 17).\n\n8. The \u201cboundary post\u201d is the Cross, dividing the realms of life and\ndeath.\n\n9. The terms in Christ\u2019s words regarding the bread and the cup are\ngiven liturgical balance by introducing \u03ba\u03bb\u03ce\u00b5\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cwhich is broken\u201d,\nafter \u201cbody\u201d; this addition found its way into many manuscripts of 1\nCorinthians 11. 24.\n\n10. The terseness of this phrase is effective. In the Latin\ntranslator\u2019s \u201ccommemorationem facitis\u201d the indicative is certainly a\nmistake,[174] while his \u201cperform a memorial\u201d may be merely a\nLatinistic simplification of \u201cdo this in memory of me\u201d; the\nPseudo-Ambrosian _De Sacramentis_ has similarly \u201ccommemorationem\nfacietis\u201d and the present Roman liturgy \u201cmemoriam facietis\u201d. By what\nfollows the phrase here means \u201crecall to our mind\u201d.\n\n11. To \u201cdeath\u201d in 1 Corinthians 11. 26 \u201cresurrection\u201d has been added;\nlater liturgies at this point expand freely. Later liturgical\ndevelopment also connected \u201cmemory\u201d and \u201coffer\u201d closely, pleading\nChrist\u2019s death before the Father.\n\n12. The prayer for unity echoes the habitual Jewish prayers for the\nreturn of all Israel to Palestine; compare the Didache.\n\n13. Compare on 3. 7.\n\nIn this prayer as a whole the accumulation of phrases in 5-6 is\nlargely due to Hippolytus, who may likewise be responsible for parts\nof 7-8. But, even as it stands, it is noteworthy for its sobriety and\ndirectness, both characteristic of the later Roman liturgy until\nGallican floridity affected it.\n\nThe liturgical influence of this prayer has been incalculable. It is\nthe basis of the liturgy in the Constitutions, through which it\ndetermined the form and in part the wording of the great Eastern\nliturgies, St James,[175] St Basil and St Chrysostom. In the other\nEastern rites its influence is usually perceptible, though less\nfundamental, while in the Ethiopic church it is still used almost\nunchanged. In the West, however, later eucharistic conceptions led to\na different type of liturgy.\n\nHippolytus gives only the vital part of the ceremony, which otherwise\nwas presumably much as it is described in Justin, _Apology_ 67. But\nperhaps at a consecration service the opening lessons and instruction\nwere omitted.\n\n\n                                 5-6\n\nThis blessing at the eucharist of food other than the bread and wine\nis a remnant of the primitive custom when the rite included a meal; in\nHippolytus\u2019s day, presumably, the cheese and olives were eaten at the\nservice and part of the oil was sipped, the remainder being reserved\nfor anointing the sick.[176] Perhaps only Hippolytus\u2019s exaggerated\nreverence for the past preserved the usage, which at any rate soon\ndisappeared. None of the other versions of his treatise retain chapter\n6, for which the Canons[177] substitute a blessing of first-fruits. In\nthe Testament the oil is blessed solely for the sick,[178] and this is\nprobably the conception in the Ethiopic and the Canons. The Sahidic\nand Arabic replace all of 4-6 with a note that the bishop should\nfollow \u201cthe (local) custom\u201d.\n\nThe usual Old Testament background to these prayers need hardly be\npointed out.\n\nThe prayer at the blessing of the oil has real affinities with the\nprayer still used in the Roman church for blessing the \u201coil of the\nsick\u201d at the bishop\u2019s Maundy Thursday eucharist.\n\n\n                                  6\n\n2. This ingeniously worded prayer has no parallel.\n\n3. Compare Zechariah 4. 12.\n\n4. Compare the Jewish use of fixed _initial_ clauses in benedictions.\n\n\n                                  8\n                              PRESBYTERS\n\n\u201cPresbyter\u201d is a technical term in Judaism, which early Christianity\ntook over.[179] The Jewish conceptions at the beginning of the\nChristian era are best seen in the Mishnah tractate _Sanhedrin_:[180]\nthe presbyters, in virtue of their divinely instituted office (Exodus\n24. 9), preserved, interpreted and applied the received tradition of\nGod\u2019s revelation, and so were the divinely appointed rulers of Israel.\nIn consequence, every Jewish community, even the smallest, had its\npresbytery,[181] which exercised all local governmental functions.\nWhen a vacancy occurred, the presbytery elected a new member; if he\nhad served as a presbyter elsewhere, he was simply caused to \u201ctake his\nseat\u201d; if not, the presbytery ordained him by the imposition of hands.\nIndividual presbyters had no authority, which was possessed solely by\nthe body as a whole; this principle was maintained so rigorously that\nthere were not even regular presiding officers.[182] If a priest was\nelected as a presbyter, he was ordained like anyone else.[183] The\nsame seems to have been true of the Rabbis[184] before A.D. 70; after\nthat year they took over what was left of the presbyters\u2019 duties and\nwere always ordained.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that the Jewish presbyters were community\nofficers, not cult officials. They could determine how worship should\nbe conducted, but as presbyters they had no special share in\nconducting it: this was the equal privilege of all male\nIsraelites.[185] In particular, while the presbyters, among their\nother duties, administered the affairs of the local synagogue, to\ndefine them as \u201celders of the synagogue\u201d is totally to misunderstand\nthem.\n\nThe introduction of the presbyterial system into Christianity offers a\ncomplicated problem, into which it is unnecessary to enter here. It is\nenough to note that in the New Testament when the office is fully\ndeveloped\u2014as in Acts and the Pastoral Epistles\u2014the Jewish analogies\nare evident. In Hippolytus\u2019s ordination prayer the Jewish origin is\nexplicitly recognized; so much so that the institution of the office\nis attributed to Moses, whose seventy elders possessed the same gifts\nand functions as their Christian namesakes. Accordingly the essential\nduties of a presbyter are simply to \u201csustain and govern\u201d,[186] and no\nother specific gifts are prayed for. So it is really conceivable that\nHippolytus\u2019s formula reproduces the substance of a Jewish ordination\nprayer.\n\nIn Christianity, however, the most important service was a feast in\nwhich the whole community joined, while in Judaism the (numerous)\nsacral meals were held by each family separately.[187] Hence the\nChristian presbyters could be called on for duties unlike those of the\nJewish officials; as the leaders of the community they might well\nappear as the leaders of the community\u2019s feast. And in fact, as the\n\u201ccharismatic\u201d prophets, teachers, etc., gradually disappeared, the\npresbyters became the normal officiants at the eucharist.[188] So it\nwas only a question of time until they acquired sacerdotal titles;\ncompare 9. 2 in our treatise.\n\nThe introduction of the local monarchical episcopate transformed the\npresbytery from the ruling body into a mere council of advice for the\nbishop, and so reduced radically the importance of its members. They\nhad a voice in disciplinary affairs, and they clung tenaciously to\ntheir share in offering the eucharist and in the ordination of a new\nmember to their ranks. Otherwise during the late second and third\ncenturies their duties[189] might be little more than honorary, and in\nmost communities[190] the presbyters probably devoted their weekdays\nto secular occupations; in contrast to the bishop and the deacons.\n\n1. In 1 Timothy 4. 14, as in Judaism, ordination is by the presbytery.\nA different conception appears in 2 Timothy 1. 6, and harmonization of\nthe two produced ordination by the bishop _and_ the presbytery, the\npractice still maintained in the Roman and Anglican Communions. For\nHippolytus\u2019s theory compare 9. 4-8.\n\n2. The verbs \u201csustain and govern\u201d are the cognates of the nouns\ntranslated \u201chelps, governments\u201d in 1 Corinthians 12. 28. But in 1\nCorinthians _two_ offices are meant.\n\n3. Compare Exodus 24. 9-11. That these elders were \u201cfilled with the\nSpirit\u201d is from Numbers 11. 25, but the specific mention of this in an\nordination prayer seems Christian rather than Jewish.\n\n4. The bishop here includes himself with the presbytery, perhaps a\nsurvival of a form used in pre-episcopal days.\n\nIn the Ethiopic this prayer is reproduced almost unchanged. The\nEpitome has:\n\n  Almighty lord, who through Christ hast created all things and\n  through him hast foreseen all things; look even now upon thy holy\n  church, and give it increase, and multiply its rulers, and grant\n  them might to labour with word and work for the building up of thy\n  people. And now look upon this thy servant, who by the voice and\n  judgment of all the clergy is chosen for the presbytery, and fill\n  him with the Spirit of grace and counsel, that he may sustain and\n  govern thy people with a pure heart\u2014as thou didst look upon thy\n  chosen people and didst command Moses that he should choose\n  presbyters, whom thou didst fill with the Spirit\u2014that he, being\n  filled with powers of healing and words of teaching in meekness, may\n  diligently instruct this thy people with a pure mind and a willing\n  soul, and may blamelessly complete the ministrations for thy people.\n  Through thy Christ, with whom be to thee glory and worship, with the\n  Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.\n\nThis prayer is evidently Hippolytus\u2019s, somewhat enlarged and slightly\nrevised, and the only real difference is that the bishop no longer\nassociates himself with the presbytery. The Constitutions merely\nexpand the Epitome\u2019s prayer still further with a recital of God\u2019s\nattributes. In the Testament there is an independent expansion of\nHippolytus\u2019s form, but again without significant variations. Sarapion\nhas still another paraphrase, but one equally centred about the\npresbyter\u2019s teaching office.\n\nThe Sahidic and the Arabic, however, provide that the prayer used for\nthe consecration of a bishop shall also be used at the ordination of a\npresbyter. With this the Canons agree, reading: \u201cWhen a presbyter is\nordained, let all things take place for him as take place for the\nbishop, with the exception of the word \u2018bishop\u2019. The bishop is in\nevery regard like the presbyter, apart from the throne and the\nordination, for to the latter no power to ordain is given\u201d. This\nevidence is in accord with the well-known fact that the introduction\nof the monarchical episcopate came later in Egypt than elsewhere.\n\n\n                                  9\n                               DEACONS\n\nThe development of the diaconate in the first century is extremely\nobscure, but in the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Clement \u201cpresbyters\u201d are\ndivided into \u201cbishops and deacons\u201d\u2014in these works the three terms are\nnever used together\u2014indicating specializations within the\npresbyterate. Some presbyters were especially concerned in\n\u201coverseeing\u201d the community and others with \u201cserving\u201d it\u2014particularly\nin charitable works; compare the \u201cgovernments\u201d and \u201chelps\u201d in 1\nCorinthians 12. 28. When monarchical episcopacy was introduced, the\nnow more or less supernumerary \u201coverseers\u201d were less important than\nthe \u201cservers\u201d, who became the personal assistants of the bishops. The\nrespective status in the third century is set forth in Didascalia,\nchapter 9 (= Constitutions II, 26, 4-7): \u201cLet the bishop ... be\nhonoured by you as God.... The deacon is with you as a type of Christ,\nso let him be loved by you. Let the deaconess be honoured by you as a\ntype of the Holy Spirit. Let the presbyters be looked on by you as a\ntype of the apostles\u201d.\n\n\n1. The reference is apparently to chapter 2, with no explanation how\nchoice by the people is reconciled with 3. 6. The Sahidic, the\nTestament and the Canons agree with the Latin, but the Arabic,\nEthiopic and the Constitutions speak only of the bishop. But the close\nrelations between the bishop and the deacons would seem to make his\nfreedom of choice necessary.\n\nDoes the absence of any provision for election in chapter 8 indicate\nthat the presbyters were still chosen by the presbytery?\n\n2-4. Any (surviving?) remnant of the conception of deacons as \u201cserving\npresbyters\u201d is dismissed summarily.\n\n5-8. Hippolytus is attempting to reconcile a ceremonial survival of\nthe days when presbyters ordained with the doctrine that ordination is\nthe prerogative of bishops. The result is incoherent; if a presbyter\nhas no power to \u201cgive\u201d, what is said of the \u201ccommon and like Spirit\u201d\nis pointless. And, although the passage appears intact (or expanded)\nin the other versions, 7-8 read like a later addition. But perhaps\nthese are a theory of Hippolytus\u2019s, glossed on a traditional phrase.\n\n10-12. The original text of this passage is very uncertain. The Latin\nbreaks off with \u201coffere\u201d, and the following words in the Ethiopic and\nthe Testament stress what in Hippolytus is a minor and not\ncharacteristic function of the deacons (4. 2), while their chief\nduties are ignored. Moreover, neither the Constitutions, the Canons\nnor Sarapion have anything corresponding; all three\u2014in widely\ndifferent terms\u2014petition for \u201cfaithfulness\u201d and \u201cwisdom\u201d; all three,\nincidentally, quote Acts 6. It is worth noting that none of the\nsources call the deacons \u201cLevites\u201d; this title[191] appears to come in\na later age when\u2014through the change from local to diocesan\nepiscopacy\u2014the deacons became the assistants of the presbyters.\n\nThe Ethiopic[192] and the Constitutions speak of the diaconate as a\npreparation for the presbyterate: this conception belongs to the\nfourth, not the third, century.\n\n\n                                  10\n                              CONFESSORS\n\n1. A true confessor is, _ipso facto_, a presbyter. This\ndeclaration\u2014which other conceptions have altered in the Ethiopic and\nthe Constitutions\u2014follows logically from the original definition of a\npresbyter\u2019s duties: since his primary function is to bear witness to\nthe truth, and since no witness can be more impressively borne than\nwhen in danger of death, a confessor proves that he has the Spirit of\nthe presbyterate. Hence ordination would be otiose.\n\nA still earlier theory is that set forth in Hermas, _Visions_ III, i,\nwhere the correct ranks of those who occupy the \u201cbench\u201d (of the\nclergy) is given as \u201cconfessors,[193] prophets, presbyters\u201d, as three\ndistinct orders; in Hippolytus the prophets disappear and the\nconfessors are merged with the \u201cregular\u201d presbyters.\n\nIn the third century, as confessors multiplied, observance of this\nrule would have overloaded the presbyterate to an impracticable\ndegree,[194] although in the small community of Hippolytus the\ndifficulty would not be felt and the traditional practice could be\nmaintained inviolate. But elsewhere the modification in Constitutions\nVIII, 23 was no doubt widely accepted: the office of a confessor was\none of great dignity,[195] but it did not include its holder among the\nclergy.[196] The Ethiopic compromises: a confessor is not yet a\npresbyter, but can claim episcopal ordination to the presbyterate as a\nright.\n\n2. Hippolytus treats these \u201cminor\u201d confessors as the Constitutions\ntreat the true confessors. The other sources (except the\nConstitutions) deal with them more generously. In the Ethiopic they\ncan _claim_ ordination to the diaconate, in the Arabic and the Canons\nto the presbyterate, in the Sahidic to any office of which they are\nworthy; compare the Testament.\n\nThe Canons have a curious provision for a confessor who is a slave\n(and therefore incapable of receiving ordination); such a one is \u201ca\npresbyter for the congregation\u201d, even though he does not receive \u201cthe\ninsignia of the presbyterate\u201d.\n\n\n                        CONCLUSION OF ORDINAL\n\n3. \u201cAt every ordination the eucharist must be offered.\u201d\n\n4. Compare Justin, _Apology_ 67, where the \u201cpresident\u201d offers prayers\n\u201caccording to his ability\u201d (\u1f45\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u00b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7), and Tertullian,\n_Apology_ 30: \u201cwe pray ... without a monitor, for our prayers are from\nthe heart\u201d. But extempore prayer in no way excludes frequent use of\ntraditional formulas.\n\n\n                                11-15\n                             MINOR ORDERS\n\nIn the major orders an endowment of the Spirit is sought by the\nimposition of hands; in the minor orders persons are officially\nadmitted to the exercise of gifts that they already possess.\n\n\n                                  11\n\n2-3. The eventual source is 1 Timothy 5. 1-16.\n\n4-5. In 1 Timothy the widows engage both in prayer (verse 5) and in\nactive work (verse 10). In the Didascalia and Constitutions these\nduties are divided: prayer is the sole task of the \u201cwidows\u201d, while\nthose to whom the active work is committed are called \u201cdeaconesses\u201d.\nThe latter, except that they have no part in the liturgy, correspond\nin all respects to the deacons, and so naturally receive an\nordination, while the \u201cwidows\u201d are merely \u201cnamed\u201d. So, before the\ndistinction was established, ordination of (all?) widows was\npresumably fairly usual; otherwise the vigour of Hippolytus\u2019s protest\nis difficult to explain.\n\nIn Rome, unlike Syria, active church work by women was discountenanced\nand the deaconesses did not make their appearance. On the general\nsubject of women\u2019s work the Didascalia is a mine of information.\n\n\n                                  12\n\nMen who could read easily and clearly from a manuscript were not too\ncommon, so that the reader had a position of some dignity. The\nConstitutions, in fact, make a major order of the office and the\nprayer (VIII, 22) beseeches \u201cthe prophetic Spirit\u201d, suggesting that\nreaders were expected to give some exposition and teaching. Both the\nConstitutions and the Testament treat readership as a step toward\nhigher advancement. In the Sahidic the reader is given St Paul\u2019s\nEpistles; Schwartz (p. 32) thinks this is original.\n\n\n                                  13\n\nFor the development of the status of virgins in the church reference\nmust be made to the special literature. Hippolytus, in marked contrast\nto the Testament, dismisses the subject very briefly and refers to\nvirgins again only in 25. 1, although this brevity of treatment in a\nlaw book does not prove lack of practical interest in the subject. As\nthe \u201cpurpose\u201d was publicly announced, it corresponded to the later\nformal vow.\n\n\n                                  14\n\nThe account in Acts 6 was generally interpreted as limiting the number\nof deacons in any place to seven, far too few for effective service in\nlarge churches. So each deacon was given an assistant to \u201cserve\u201d him;\ncompare chapter 30. But even this was inadequate in very large\ncommunities, and at Rome _ca._ 250 the seven deacons and their\nsubdeacons were further assisted by forty-two acolytes\n(\u201cfollowers\u201d).[197] The subdiaconate eventually became a major order\nand it is so treated in the Constitutions and the Testament.\n\n\n                                  15\n\nThe gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12. 28, etc.) was the only one of\nthe primitive charismatic gifts to survive into the third century in\nits original form, and in Hippolytus its purely charismatic nature is\nstill recognized; not only is there no ordination but the healer is\nnot even \u201cnamed\u201d. But healers in the specialized form of \u201cexorcists\u201d\nform a minor order in Rome a generation later.[198] One of their most\nimportant functions was to assist in preparing catechumens for\nbaptism; compare 20. 3.\n\n\n                               PART II\n                               Baptism\n\n\n                                16-20\n                             CATECHUMENS\n\nIn the apostolic age converts were accepted with little question and\nwere baptized immediately on profession of faith;[199] the missionary\nzeal of the new religion, heightened by the expectation of the end of\nthe world, sought only to compel men to come in. Naturally this\nenthusiasm was always tempered with common sense\u2014no teacher could have\nbaptized every applicant\u2014but the doors were opened wide, and the New\nTestament gives no hint of any formal training before reception. The\nhope that defects would be made up by Christian grace was doubtless\nfulfilled to a surprising degree, but it was also often grievously\ndisappointed: men were admitted into Christianity who neither\nunderstood its teachings nor desired to follow them, and it was from\nthis class that Gnosticism and other vagaries drew their recruits. The\naccount in Acts 8. 18-24 is typical.\n\nThe result was a violent reaction that made entry into the church\nextremely difficult, and no one was permitted baptism until he had\npassed through a long and searching probation called the\n\u201ccatechumenate\u201d. As it appears fully developed in the early third\ncentury, it must reach far back into the second or perhaps even into\nthe first.\n\n\n                                  16\n\n1. \u201cHearers\u201d is perhaps used here in its later technical sense as a\ntitle for catechumens in their first stage. In Hippolytus the \u201cword\u201d\nthat they are permitted to hear does not include the Gospel (20. 2);\nelsewhere they were allowed to remain at the Sunday service until all\nthe liturgical lessons had been read and the sermon had been preached.\nThe \u201cteachers\u201d were those employed in the instruction of the\ncatechumens; they were not necessarily clerics (19. 1) and did not\nform a special class.\n\n2-24. The reason for most of these rules is self-evident.\n\n13. Greek education included much time spent on Homer, whose mythology\nthe Christians naturally regarded as unedifying. But the permission\ngiven to schoolmasters to continue their calling in case of necessity\nshows that no one took the Homeric deities very seriously.\n\n17. In many cases soldiers were utilized only for police duty, but\nChristian soldiers were always in danger of being given tasks\ninconsistent with their religion. Hippolytus probably does not\nconsider the rather infrequent possibility of soldiers being sent to\ndefend the frontiers against barbarians. The \u201coath\u201d invoked heathen\ndeities.\n\n18. Judges and military officers were constantly called on to\npronounce and inflict capital punishment. They were also inextricably\ninvolved in the support of emperor-worship.\n\n19. A man who was already a soldier could be accepted under the\nconditions of 17. But no believer was permitted voluntarily to expose\nhimself to such temptations.\n\n23. Since the woman in such a case had no power to alter her\ncondition, Hippolytus\u2019s rule is sensible and humane.\n\n24. Men, who could control their conduct, were granted no such\nconcession.\n\n25. A remnant of the older charismatic teaching; Compare 38. 4. It is\nconjoined somewhat oddly with these detailed legalistic prescriptions;\nthe right to judge spiritually may be exercised only where the law is\nnot explicit. And only the clergy exercise the gift.\n\n\n                                  17\n\nA three years catechumenate has parallels in later practice, but it\nrepresents about the maximum.\n\n\n                                  18\n\n1. Separation of catechumens from believers and men from women was\ncarried out rigorously throughout the Patristic age.\n\n3-4. Contrast 22. 6. The kiss of peace marked the close of the service\nthat preceded the eucharist (e.g., Constitutions VIII, 11, 9).\n\n5. 1 Corinthians 11. 10.\n\n\n                                  19\n\n1. The imposition of hands was partly in blessing, partly in exorcism\n(20. 3). In later days the first of these impositions was regarded as\nthe formal admission to the catechumenate.\n\n2. A universal Patristic teaching.\n\n\n                                  20\n\n2. Hippolytus knows only two classes of catechumens, the hearers and\nthose \u201cset apart\u201d. Subsequently the latter were called \u201celect\u201d,\n\u201ccompetent\u201d or \u201cenlightened\u201d, and an intermediate class (\u201ckneelers\u201d)\nwas introduced. Hippolytus says nothing about the duration of this\nlast stage, but four to six or more weeks is later common.\n\n3. Exorcism before baptism was universally practised and has survived\nin some form or other in practically all the traditional baptismal\nliturgies. It lacks New Testament precedent, but is based on the\ndualism found in John 14. 30, etc., according to which this world\u2014and\nso all its unregenerate inhabitants\u2014is under the sway of Satan and his\nangels. In Hippolytus\u2019s community the exorcisms were presumably\nperformed by the teachers, as he does not recognize exorcists as a\nseparate class (compare on chapter 15).\n\n4. The text of the last clause is so uncertain that the meaning of the\nwhole is dubious. The Testament, however, asserts that the episcopal\nexorcism is bound to make an unworthy candidate betray himself, and\nthere is no reason to doubt that Hippolytus believed the same.\n\n5. The final selection and instruction took place on the Thursday\nbefore Easter. \u201cBathing\u201d was done in a public bath-house, with a\nsupplementary \u201cwashing\u201d at home; compare John 13. 10.\n\n6. Most religions, as well as Judaism, regarded a menstruous woman as\nunclean.\n\n7. All believers fasted on Good Friday (29. 1); for the catechumens\nthe fast was probably thought to be purifying.\n\n8. The Testament gives a lengthy form for this last pre-baptismal\nexorcism. Popular belief in the life-giving power of breath (Genesis\n2. 7, etc.) was very widespread; compare 36. 11. Mark 7. 34 may have\nbeen specially in mind.[200] The \u201cseal\u201d was the sign of the cross.\nCompare chapter 37.\n\n9. No further opportunity was given to contract defilement.\n\n10. This direction, misunderstood in the Arabic and Ethiopic, is\nexplained by 23. 1-2. Those about to be baptized brought with them as\ntheir first Christian \u201coffering\u201d the bread, wine, milk and honey\nneeded for the baptismal eucharist. The Testament reduces this\noffering to one loaf from each of them. The rule should not be\nexplained from chapter 32, which is not by Hippolytus.\n\n\n                                  21\n                        THE BAPTISMAL CEREMONY\n\n1. Hippolytus gives no form for the blessing of the water, but the\nConstitutions (VII, 43) direct an elaborate thanksgiving, concluding\nwith the words \u201cSanctify this water and give it grace and power\u201d, etc.\nClement of Alexandria (_Pedagogue_ I, vi (50, 4)) appears to\npresuppose a petition for the descent of the Logos into the font.\n\n2. The superior sanctity of \u201cliving\u201d water is a common belief, and the\nTestament and the Canons allow no other for baptism. Compare Didache\n7. 1.\n\n3. Every non-Jew in the Graeco-Roman world was so accustomed to the\npublic baths that the baptismal usage would not suggest the slightest\nimpropriety.\n\n5. To Hippolytus the ornaments as \u201calien\u201d carry contagion. The Jews\nhave a similar prohibition for women bathing after ceremonial\nimpurity, but the reason given is that complete contact with the water\nis prevented.\n\n6. The first mention of anointing in connection with baptism is in\nTertullian, _On Baptism_ 7 (_ca._ 205). He explains the practice as\nderived from the Old Testament anointing of priests, and in view of 1\nPeter 2. 9 and Revelation 1. 6; 5. 10[201] this may well express the\noriginal meaning of the ceremony. Or it may have been thought to\nconvey the gift of the Spirit, as in 1 Samuel 16. 13, or may rest on\nmore general conceptions of anointing as consecration, or may even be\nsomehow connected with the title \u201cChrist\u201d (= \u201cThe Anointed One\u201d). But,\nwhatever the origin, unction after baptism is found practically\neverywhere in Christendom after the third century.\n\nIn Hippolytus the blessing is still a thanksgiving and the oil is\nnamed accordingly. In the Constitutions (VII, 44) the formula is\npetitionary,[202] and the oil is called \u201cmystical\u201d. The common later\ntitle for this oil\u2014to which other substances, such as balsam, are\noften added\u2014is \u201cchrism\u201d. The Latin formula for blessing it still\nincludes a solemn thanksgiving.\n\n7. The anointing before baptism is derived from the ancient belief in\nthe curative powers of oil, from which its use in religious healing\n(Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14) was developed. To Hippolytus this oil aids\nin the final and supreme exorcism, and it is exorcised, not blessed,\nand derives its name from its purpose. In later Latin usage it is\ncalled \u201coil of the catechumens\u201d.\n\nThe Constitutions note (VII, 22, 3) that if the oils are lacking \u201cthe\nwater is sufficient\u201d. And this was the universal belief.\n\n9. Some form of renunciation of Satan is a feature in all traditional\nbaptismal liturgies.\n\n10. Cyril of Jerusalem (_Catechetical Lectures_ 20, 3) says that this\nanointing is performed \u201cfrom the very hairs of your head to your\nfeet\u201d. By 22. 2 Hippolytus has probably the same conception.\n\n11. The pronouns are ambiguous and confusing, but the sense seems to\nbe that the presbyter who performs the actual baptism stands on the\nbank of the stream (or the edge of the font), while the deacon stands\nin the water with the candidate, to instruct and assist him.\n\n12-18. In the Jewish rites that require complete immersion (the\nbaptism of a proselyte, the cleansing of a woman, etc.) the ceremony\nis performed entirely by the person concerned in the presence of a\nproper witness; i.e., such a rite is simply an extension of the Old\nTestament prescriptions[203] that certain impurities must be removed\nby bathing. Early Christianity shared this conception, and in New\nTestament Greek the middle voice is used for the act of baptism in\nActs 22. 16, 1 Corinthians 6. 11; 10. 2; compare the reading of D and\nOld Latin manuscripts in Luke 3. 7, \u201cto be baptized in his presence\u201d.\nIn Hippolytus the presbyter acts to the extent of laying his hand on\nthe candidate\u2019s head, but he uses no baptismal formula.[204] In the\nJewish rites the person after immersion utters a benediction; in\nHippolytus each immersion is preceded by a declaration of belief. In\nthe apostolic church this declaration certainly had the form \u201cJesus is\nLord\u201d (Romans 10. 9, etc.) and there was only one immersion. The\nadditional confessions of the Father and the Spirit appear in Didache\n7. 1,[205] and each was presumably accompanied by the corresponding\nimmersion that Hippolytus directs.\n\nEach of these three confessions was then further expanded, so\nproducing the various baptismal creeds. The one in use at Rome in the\nearly fourth century\u2014the basis of the later \u201cApostles\u2019 Creed\u201d\u2014can be\nreconstructed accurately from Rufinus\u2019 _Exposition_, and agrees\nclosely with the form in the Latin version of Hippolytus, the only\nsignificant addition being \u201cand the forgiveness of sins\u201d near the\nclose. This clause, in fact, seems to be due eventually to\nHippolytus\u2019s arch-enemy, Callistus, to express a doctrine that the\nformer abhorred. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the\nofficial Roman creed _ca._ 200 did not contain \u201cand the holy church\u201d,\non which Hippolytus lays stress (6. 4; 23. 10); this clause may be his\nown addition to protest\u2014against Callistus\u2014that the \u201choly\u201d church\nshould not contain sinners. Later Roman Christianity adopted both\nphrases with no feeling of incongruity; compare Cyprian\u2019s \u201cforgiveness\nof sins through the holy church\u201d.[206]\n\n19. This anointing, like the former, presumably covered the whole\nbody.\n\n20. In the later Patristic church at this point the newly baptized put\non white garments, which they wore for seven days.\n\n\n                                  22\n                             CONFIRMATION\n\nHippolytus contributes little to clarifying the difficult subject of\nconfirmation. In Acts 8. 17 and 19. 6 the rite conveys the gift of the\nSpirit, but Hippolytus\u2019s prayer, which cites Titus 3. 5, follows the\nPauline-Johannine[207] doctrine in attributing this gift to baptism,\nin accord with the special immersion after confessing the Spirit. So\nonly grace for service is besought. But, as in Acts, the essential\nceremony is the imposition of hands, so that the anointing and the\nsign of the cross are only supplementary rites. Curiously enough,\nhowever, only the anointing was preserved in both the Latin and the\nOrthodox Eastern churches.\n\nFor the use of the Lord\u2019s Prayer after baptism see on 23. 14.\n\n\n                                  23\n                       THE BAPTISMAL EUCHARIST\n\nCompare the distinction between the baptismal and the regular\neucharist in Justin, _Apology_ 65 and 67 and in Didache 9-10 and 14.\n\n1. The conception of consecration by thanksgiving is stated so baldly\nthat the Latin (\u201cgratias agat panem quidem in exemplum\u201d) is wholly\nunidiomatic, but in all probability the prayer normally included an\ninvocation like that in 4. 12. Here, in place of the \u201cspiritual food\u201d\nlanguage in 4. 12, the result of the consecration is expressed in the\nterms of the institution. Yet Hippolytus appears to shrink a little\nfrom calling the species absolutely the body and blood of Christ: the\nbread is the \u201cimage\u201d (\u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd) of the body and the cup the\n\u201clikeness\u201d (\u1f41\u00b5\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u00b5\u03b1) of the blood. The former word is used in the same\nway by Cyril of Jerusalem (23, 20; as an adjective) and the latter by\nSarapion in his first oblation before the words of institution;\ncompare \u201cfigura\u201d in Tertullian, _Against Marcion_ III, 19 and IV, 40,\nand the prayer in the Constitutions (VIII, 12, 39) that the species\nmay be made to \u201cappear\u201d (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) as the body and blood. None of this\nlanguage, however, is \u201csymbolic\u201d in the modern sense; whatever\nunlikeness theologians[208] might feel existed between the symbols and\nthe things signified was overshadowed by the realistic connection that\nexisted between them. But in the earlier Patristic period the deeper\nnature of this connection was left unexplored.\n\n2. Tertullian (_chaplet_ 3, _Against Marcion_ I, 14) and Clement of\nAlexandria (_Pedagogue_ I, vi (45, 1)) bear contemporary testimony to\nthe custom of giving new Christians milk and honey, so the rite must\nhave been widespread. It is not in the Constitutions or the Testament,\nbut the other sources have it. And the 24th canon of the Third Council\nof Carthage (397) reads: \u201cThe first-fruits, namely milk and honey,\nwhich are offered on a most solemn day for the mystery of\ninfants,[209] although offered on the altar should have a blessing of\ntheir own, that they may be distinguished from the sacrament of the\nLord\u2019s body and blood\u201d.\n\nClement of Alexandria, like Hippolytus, cites the Old Testament\nprophecies of the promised land,[210] so the meaning of the rite was\nto assure the participants of a share in salvation. But Hippolytus\nadds a further explanation of his own; the milk represents Christ\u2019s\nflesh and the honey his gentleness. The Canons\u2014possibly with a\nmisrecollection of Isaiah 7. 15\u2014interpret the food as proper for the\nnewly born.\n\n3. The purpose of the water is to extend the baptismal washing into\nthe inner man; a somewhat pedantic ceremony that reappears only in the\nEthiopic, although the Testament applies the theory to the water in\nthe mixed eucharistic chalice.\n\n5. This is the earliest known formula for eucharistic administration.\n\n7-11. What is most curious about these directions is that the\nsacramental wine is not distinguished in administration from the other\ntwo cups; the other versions correct this.[211] Perhaps in this\nceremony there has survived something of the tradition in the earliest\ntext of Luke 22. 19-20, where the whole emphasis is laid on the bread.\n\nThe little four-clause creed is interesting.\n\n12. An admirable little summary of Christian duty.\n\n13. Hippolytus (compare I. 1) refers to some earlier work or works of\nhis own, possibly _Concerning God and the Resurrection_, whose title\nis listed on his statue.\n\n14. By the \u201cwhite stone\u201d (Revelation 2. 17) evidently something very\nconcrete is implied. This cannot be any part of the creed, which is\nrecited while baptism is in progress, and so the Testament\u2019s\nexplanation of the secret as the doctrine of the resurrection[212] is\nexcluded. The only other possibility would appear to be the Lord\u2019s\nPrayer, on which Hippolytus is strangely silent. Christians of this\nage regarded the Prayer as having an almost magical efficacy. It was,\nmoreover, allowed to none but the baptized and was first uttered by\nChristians immediately after their baptism,[213] a custom which in the\nlight of Romans 8. 15 and Galatians 4. 6 may actually go back to\napostolic times.\n\n\n                               PART III\n                             Church Laws\n\n25. Fasting is here conceived to intensify prayer\u2019s efficacy. The\nwidows and virgins were especially dedicated to the work of\nintercession.\n\nThe other versions have \u201cpray _in_ the church\u201d, but the Greek gives a\nmore primitive impression.\n\nThe bishop, on account of the nature of his duties, was not permitted\nto vow a fast to last for any set time; he might, of course, abstain\nfrom food informally if he wished. Good Friday and Holy Saturday\n(chapter 29) were the only fixed fast-days, but special fasts for all\nmight be directed on any special occasion.\n\n\n                                  26\n                              THE AGAPE\n\nThe agape, or \u201clove-feast\u201d, was a Christian meal of a definitely\nreligious character. Since both Tertullian (_Apology_ 39) and Clement\nof Alexandria (_Pedagogue_ II, i (4-7)) speak of it as an established\nChristian custom, its origin must lie far behind the third century,\nand the importance and liturgical colouring given by the Evangelists\nto the accounts of the feedings of the multitudes[214] are explicable\nonly as reflecting deep first-century interest in the rite. Its origin\nin Christianity, consequently, must be primitive, while the Gospels\nindicate that in the apostolic church it was regarded as a\ncontinuation of the (many) meals shared by Christ and his disciples.\nThe emphasis on the numbers who were satisfied by the bread and fish,\ntaken together with Acts 6. 1-3[215] and the later history of the\nagape, show that a primary purpose of these meals was to provide food\nfor the needy: it is presumably from this aim that the name\n\u201clove-feast\u201d was derived. And the Gospel accounts indicate that in the\nagapes Christ was felt to be acting as head of his household: that he\nwas in some manner present.\n\nThe agape and the eucharist, consequently, were closely associated; in\n 1 John 6 the feeding of the multitudes leads into the elaborate\neucharistic discourse. So Ignatius uses \u201ceucharist\u201d and \u201cagape\u201d as\nsynonyms,[216] while \u201cThe Lord\u2019s Supper\u201d, the term employed by St\nPaul[217] and later writers generally for the eucharist, is\nHippolytus\u2019s title here for the agape. The confusion was due to the\nfact that in the first century the eucharist was generally celebrated\nin conjunction with an agape; indeed, in 1 Corinthians 11 it is clear\nthat the Corinthians were stressing the banquet elements of their\ncommon meals so strongly that their eucharistic aspect had been\nforgotten.[218] Hence in Jude 12 the \u201clove-feasts\u201d are most naturally\nunderstood to be the combined agape-eucharists.\n\nDuring the second century the rites were separated, the eucharist\nbeing transferred to the morning, while the agape normally remained as\nan evening meal, although it could of course be held at any hour. But\nHippolytus preserves remnants of the old association; as regards the\neucharist the oil, cheese and olives of chapters 5-6, as regards the\nagape the title \u201cLord\u2019s Supper\u201d and details of the ceremonial.\n\nAccording to Hippolytus\u2019s description the agapes are meals given by\nindividuals in their own homes; the host provides the food and invites\nthe guests, who in return are expected to pray for him. Each person\nbreaks his own bread and \u201coffers\u201d his own cup; this is in accord with\nthe rule in Berakhoth vi. 6 for the less solemn meals among the Jews:\n\u201cIf men sit for a meal, each shall pronounce the blessing for himself;\nbut if they recline, one shall pronounce the blessing for them all\u201d.\nThis procedure, moreover, appears to throw light on the account in 1\nCorinthians 11, where the church is blamed because \u201ceach taketh before\nother his own supper\u201d (verse 21) and the remedy prescribed is \u201cwait\nfor one another\u201d (verse 33); it is difficult to see how the Corinthian\ndisorders could have arisen if there were a single officiant. In\nHippolytus orderliness is procured by the presence of a\ncleric\u2014preferably the bishop, although a deacon will suffice\u2014who\npresides over the supper and begins it by blessing and distributing a\nloaf specially named; this ceremony is superadded to a ritual\notherwise complete in itself, and appears to be a local Roman custom.\n\n\n1-2. In the earliest Christianity \u201cblessing\u201d and \u201cthanksgiving\u201d were\nindistinguishable,[219] but to Hippolytus they are no longer always\nsynonyms; perhaps the \u201cblessing\u201d was accomplished by signing with the\ncross, as in the Canons.\n\nAfter blessing, the bishop breaks the loaf, eats a portion himself,\nand distributes the remainder to all the baptized members of the\ncompany: a procedure exactly like that of the eucharist. In the\nearlier combined service, in fact, this bread would have been actually\neucharistic, for which after the separation \u201cblessed\u201d bread was\nsubstituted to enable the traditional agape ceremonial to continue\nwith a minimum of external change. The final separation must have been\ncomparatively recent, for Hippolytus feels obliged to emphasize the\ndifference between the two rites; in later times there was no danger\nof confusion, and his translators consequently do not seem to have\ngrasped his point.\n\n2. The breaking of each one\u2019s bread would be accompanied by a proper\nbenediction.\n\n3. Roughly parallel is Berakhoth vi. 6: \u201cIf wine is brought during a\nmeal, each one must pronounce the blessing for himself\u201d.\n\n4. For the distinction between \u201cblessing\u201d and \u201cexorcism\u201d of objects,\ncompare 21. 6-7. The Arabic and Ethiopic substitute \u201cblessed bread\u201d,\neven for the catechumens. Whether the catechumens also broke their\n\u201cown\u201d bread is left uncertain. \u201cOffer\u201d is here a mere synonym for\n\u201cgive thanks\u201d, a usage not found in the other versions.\n\n5. Perhaps the catechumens stood during the agape; perhaps they ate at\na separate table.\n\n6. Each blessing at an agape must include a prayer for the host, who\nis thus repaid for his bounty. For \u201coffer\u201d the other versions\nsubstitute \u201ceat\u201d, spoiling the force.\n\n7. From 1 Corinthians 11. 21 to the final abolition of the agapes in\nChristianity (in the eighth century?) there were constant complaints\nof disorderly conduct at these meals; Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._)\nfor this reason objects to their name. Hippolytus cites Matthew 5. 13.\n\n8. \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd is simply \u201cthat which is carried away\u201d and is used in\nits etymological sense; other meanings, such as the associated \u201ca gift\ngiven to dinner guests\u201d, are immaterial here. The \u201capoforetum\u201d began\nlike the regular agape with the distribution of the blessed bread and\n(presumably) with public benedictions over bread and wine, but the\nrest of the meal was eaten at each one\u2019s home.\n\n9. The Gospel accounts of the miraculous feedings lay similar stress\non gathering up the fragments.\n\n10. The complete dominance of the meal by the bishop would seem to\nmake the above warnings against disorder needless; as Hippolytus\npictures it an agape would have been the reverse of hilarious.\n\n11-12. Compare Ignatius, _Smyrnaeans_ 8. 1: \u201cLet that be counted a\ngenuine[220] eucharist that is held by the bishop or by someone to\nwhom he gives permission\u201d; for the last clause as regards the agapes\nHippolytus simply substitutes \u201cor one of the clergy\u201d. In later theory\nonly a priest can \u201cbless\u201d, and any formula that can be pronounced\nvalidly by a deacon can be pronounced just as \u201cvalidly\u201d, although\nperhaps not \u201clicitly\u201d, by a layman. But this distinction between\n\u201cvalid\u201d and \u201clicit\u201d would not have been drawn by Ignatius or\nHippolytus; what a Christian cannot do licitly he cannot do at all.\nEvidently Hippolytus regards the blessed bread as of the essence of\nthe agape.\n\nThe Testament agrees in general with Hippolytus. In the Canons the\nagape becomes a memorial feast (\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u00b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) for the dead. It is\nforbidden on Sunday. The participants first make their communions and\nthen meet for the meal. The bread distributed is \u201cexorcised\u201d;[221]\nexplained as signed with the cross. The presence of a cleric\u2014normally\na presbyter\u2014while desirable does not seem to be quite essential.\n\n\n                                  27\n\nThe widows were special objects of the church\u2019s charity, but\nprecautions had to be taken lest even they became disorderly. The\n\u201cexisting conditions\u201d may refer to persecutions, but the phrase is\nmore simply understood of the donor\u2019s inability to entertain a large\nparty in his own home; compare the _apoforetum_.\n\n\n                                  28\n\nHippolytus, like Didache 13. 3, regards the law of Deuteronomy 18. 4\nas binding on Christians; he says nothing, however, of an obligation\nto tithe. The Jewish background of his prayer is evident; compare\nparticularly Berakhoth vi. 2 \u201cthrough whose word all things come to\npass\u201d, and Rabbi Jehudah\u2019s formula in vi. 1 \u201cwho hast created divers\nfruits\u201d. The only Christian touch is at the end, and the rest of the\nprayer may have been taken bodily from a Jewish source.\n\nThe reasons for the distinctions in 6-7 are probably irrecoverable,\nbut vegetables of the gourd family were favoured food among ascetics\nof the gnostic type. Perhaps Canticles 2. 1 gave the lily and the rose\ntheir privileged status.\n\nIn Hippolytus\u2019s day these first-fruits constituted the chief source of\nsupport for the clergy. A writer\u2014probably Hippolytus himself\u2014in\nEusebius V, 28. 10-12 speaks with detestation of the payment of money\nsalaries by heretics to their leaders.\n\n\n                                  29\n\nOn Good Friday and Holy Saturday all Christians were expected to fast\naccording to their ability; a meritorious act whose credit would be\nlost if terminated too soon.[222] If neglected through ignorance it\ncould be made up later, but not between Easter and Pentecost, when all\nfasting was everywhere forbidden to orthodox Christians. It may be\nobserved that Hippolytus\u2019s conception of the repeal of the \u201cancient\nlaw\u201d extends only to the particular date set by Numbers 9. 11;\notherwise it is still fully binding. Compare Didache 8. 1.\n\nThis fast, it should be noted, is directed only before the Easter\ncommunion; later writers, like the Testament, treat the breach of a\nfast (from midnight, generally) before any communion as a mortal sin.\nCompare, further, chapter 32.\n\n\n                                  30\n\nHippolytus presupposes a congregation still small enough to enable the\nbishop to visit the sick personally, but large enough to make his\nvisit a great event to the sick person.\n\n\n                                  33\n\nThis daily session of the presbyters was the Christian \u201csanhedrin\u201d, to\nwhich individuals brought their problems and controversies for\n\u201cinstruction\u201d. At these gatherings, in addition, the clergy received\nassignments for their duties of that day; in these latter the deacons\nwere more important than the presbyters and their absence a more\nserious fault.\n\n\n                                  34\n\nCallistus is commemorated by the Roman catacombs that still bear his\nname; probably dissatisfaction with his rival\u2019s regulations led\nHippolytus to treat this rather specialized subject. The other\nversions miss the point of the \u201ctiles\u201d\u2014on which compare Connolly, pp.\n116-119\u2014and adapt the rules to local burial customs; the Testament,\nfor instance, discusses embalming.\n\n\n                               PART IV\n                            Lay Devotions\n\nThe devotional life of a layman is centred around the declaration of\nPsalm 119. 164, \u201cSeven times a day do I praise thee\u201d, at rising, at\nthe third, sixth and ninth hours, at bedtime, at midnight and at\ncockcrow. This distribution corresponds approximately to the later\n\u201ccanonical hours\u201d, but in Hippolytus\u2019s day these prayers were still\nwholly private.\n\n\n                                  35\n\n1. Following the general\u2014especially Jewish\u2014belief demanding ceremonial\npurification before approaching God, Hippolytus requires hand-washing\n(at least) at morning and midnight; the Canons extend this rule to all\nprayer. Tertullian (_On Prayer_ 13) recognizes the prevalence of the\ncustom and says that Christians defended it by quoting Matthew 27. 24;\nhe, however, regards it as pointless. Compare Mark 7. 1-15.\n\n2. Hippolytus doubtless does not think it necessary to prescribe\nattendance at the Sunday eucharists, assuming that no true believer\nwould willingly absent himself. Regular weekday eucharists were not\nyet customary, although they were held at times of special prayer and\nfasting;[223] compare 25. 2. So the only weekday meetings he\npresupposes are gatherings for prayer and instruction according to the\nsynagogue pattern. Evidently the emphasis was laid on instruction,\nwith the Bible as textbook, and those who could read were expected to\nfollow the passages cited. 1 and 2 Clement give an idea of the content\nand style of the teaching, which would be given by instructors like\nthose of 16. 1.\n\n3. On occasion local meetings were visited and addressed by teachers\nof higher rank, who are described in terms reminiscent of the New\nTestament prophets.\n\n\n                                  36\n\n1. Complete manuscript Bibles were very expensive, and few lay\nChristians could have owned one. But portions of Scripture were within\nthe reach of all.\n\n2-3. Hippolytus follows Mark 15. 25, not John 19. 14, here. He deduces\nthe hours of the Jewish ceremonies from his typology; no definite hour\nis prescribed in the Old Testament,[224] while in the Temple the\nmorning sacrifice was offered before sunrise and the showbread was\nchanged (on the Sabbath) still earlier. He cites John 10. 14; 6. 50.\n\n4. Mark 15. 33. Hippolytus adds that the darkness came in answer to\n(Christ\u2019s[225]) prayer; possibly a conjecture of his own but more\nlikely a \u201ctradition\u201d.\n\n5. At the ninth hour, as soon as Christ died, he went to the lower\nworld and released the spirits in prison, who rejoiced with a great\nthanksgiving. The belief was very widespread[226] but the other\nversions seem to miss the point.\n\n6. John 19. 34. The darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour,\nfollowed by daylight until evening, made a \u201cnight\u201d and a \u201cday\u201d; so the\nSon of Man by Easter morning had truly been \u201cthree days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth\u201d (Matthew 12. 40). Compare\nConstitutions V, 14. 9-13.\n\n9. On the custom of rising during the night for prayer, compare, e.g.,\nTertullian, _To his Wife_ II, 5. Hippolytus\u2014rather more than\nTertullian\u2014insists that unbelievers should not witness Christian\ndevotions.\n\n10. John 13. 10 repeals the provisions of Leviticus 15. 16-18.\n\n11. Despite the principle just enunciated Hippolytus cannot rid\nhimself of a belief that a purification is needed; he compromises by\ndeclaring that a small ceremony will suffice. Compare chapter 37.\n\n12. This quaint doctrine\u2014which the other versions omit or alter\u2014came\nfrom the authorities who gave Hippolytus the rest of his \u201ctradition\u201d.\nHe mentions them here only, but in Irenaeus similar appeals to \u201cthe\npresbyters\u201d are numerous.\n\n13. Matthew 25. 6, 13 in an unusual text form.\n\n14. Peter\u2019s denial (Matthew 26. 74) is synchronized with the\ncondemnation of Christ by the Sanhedrin.\n\n\n                                  37\n\nThe sign of the cross is performed after first breathing on the hand,\nso that it is wet with saliva. Belief in the power of spittle to repel\nevil spirits is widespread[227] and, despite Hippolytus\u2019s disclaimer,\nlies behind the practice he advocates. His own interpretation of the\nceremony is none the less ingenious; the mixture of moisture and\nbreath[228] corresponds to the water and the Spirit in baptism and so\nmakes the sign of the cross the \u201cimage\u201d of baptism, accomplishing a\nsort of rebaptism[229] (36. 11). Only Latin A has the original; Latin\nB and the other versions do not understand the custom and replace\n\u201cbaptism\u201d by \u201cthe Word\u201d.\n\nThe interpretation of Exodus 12. 22 is in the style of Barnabas.\n\n\n                                  38\n                              CONCLUSION\n\nHippolytus closes with a final adjuration to avoid all novelties; the\nway of peace consists solely in strict adherence to the past.\n\n\n\n\n                              FOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1]Luke 12. 13-16.\n\n[2]For exceptions see, e.g., Romans 14. 14 (= Matthew 15. 11), 1\n    Corinthians 7. 10 (= Matthew 19. 9), 1 Clement 46. 8 (= Matthew\n    18. 6, in substance), 2 Clement 12. 2 (apocryphal).\n\n[3]Especially in 2 Clement.\n\n[4]Acts 15. 28-29.\n\n[5]Romans 14, in particular.\n\n[6]1 Corinthians 8. 8; 10. 25-26.\n\n[7]Compare Revelation 2. 14, 20.\n\n[8]Didache 13. 7, etc.\n\n[9]Didache 13. 3, etc.\n\n[10]So very emphatically in 1 Clement 40-41. But Clement does not\n    argue for a detailed parallelism between the two ministries.\n\n[11]Didache 3. 1-6 is an instance.\n\n[12]The reason for this appears to be that at this period the Fourth\n    Commandment was conceived to be wholly \u201cceremonial\u201d, and to \u201ckeep\n    the Sabbath\u201d was regarded as Judaizing (Ignatius, _Magnesians_ 9.\n    1, etc.). The belief that in Christianity the Sabbath laws have\n    been transferred to Sunday is of medieval origin.\n\n[13]On these methods compare especially K. E. Kirk, _The Vision of\n    God_ (London, 1931), pp. 119-124.\n\n[14]As in Wisdom 14. 25-26.\n\n[15]Romans 1. 29-31 is largely of Greek origin; 1 Timothy 3. 2-3 and\n    Titus 3. 1-2 are wholly so.\n\n[16]In 1 Clement 47. 6 the forty-five year old Corinthian church is\n    called \u201cancient\u201d.\n\n[17]Jude 17, Revelation 21. 14, etc. The meaning in Ephesians 2. 20 is\n    probably a little different.\n\n[18]1 Clement 42. 4; 44. 1-2, etc.\n\n[19]Even in the third century liturgical prayers were still normally\n    extempore, and use of a fixed form was regarded as a weakness on\n    the part of the officiant.\n\n[20]Eusebius, _HE_, v, 24.\n\n[21]See especially James Muilenburg, _The Literary Relations of the\n    Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_,\n    Marburg, 1929.\n\n[22]39th Festal Letter (367), 7.\n\n[23]The details of the Patristic testimony are best seen in J. R.\n    Harris, _The Teaching of the Apostles_, Baltimore and London,\n    1887.\n\n[24]_Die Didache_, Bonn; many editions.\n\n[25]_Didascalia Apostolorum_, Oxford, 1929.\n\n[26]Also known as Third Clement. Occasionally\u2014and unfortunately\u2014called\n    the Apostolic Canons or the Roman Church Order.\n\n[27]Paderborn, 1914. Dr Schermann\u2019s theory of a very early date for\n    the document is individualistic.\n\n[28]Pp. 127-138, 233-244, 295-306.\n\n[29]Often reprinted separately.\n\n[30]But incorrectly.\n\n[31]Pp. 34, 78, 40.\n\n[32]Cooper and Maclean, p. 18.\n\n[33]_HE_, VI, 20.\n\n[34]_Vir. ill._ 61.\n\n[35]His festival is on August 13.\n\n[36]Not completely legible; reproductions are not always to be\n    trusted.\n\n[37]_Origenis Philosophumena_, Oxford. Books II-III are presumably\n    still missing, although it has been argued that what is ordinarily\n    called Book IV may contain them; Wendland, however, rejects this\n    theory (p. xvi).\n\n[38]Especially in his _Hippolytus and Callistus_, 1853.\n\n[39]_St Clement of Rome_, II, pp. 317-477. First published in 1869; in\n    the later editions the argument is slightly expanded but is\n    otherwise unchanged.\n\n[40]Jerome, _Vir. ill._ 61.\n\n[41]Legge (II, p. 127) unfortunately revives D\u00f6llinger\u2019s remarkable\n    explanation of this occurrence: Callistus had lent the bank\u2019s\n    funds to the Jews and went to the synagogue to recover his\n    depositors\u2019 money. As if anyone would expect Jews to transact\n    business on the Sabbath and at a synagogue service!\n\n[42]Victor\u2019s accession occurred about 189, and Commodus died in 192.\n\n[43]The distinction between \u201cmartyr\u201d and \u201cconfessor\u201d was not yet\n    developed.\n\n[44]Or perhaps restored the privileges of the office to him; when and\n    where Callistus was ordained is uncertain. Possibly he had the\n    confessor\u2019s ordination (p. 39).\n\n[45]Hippolytus\u2019s account of his controversy with Callistus is, in\n    fact, so bitter that modern historians feel obliged to interpret\n    it in the sense that will make the greatest allowance for the\n    latter. Hence less than full justice is perhaps done nowadays to\n    Hippolytus.\n\n[46]The antithesis \u201cIn time or in eternity?\u201d seems hardly to have been\n    stated squarely until the beginnings of the Arian controversy.\n\n[47]And Zephyrinus?\n\n[48]Less probably after Zephyrinus\u2019s death.\n\n[49]Hebrews 6. 4-8, 10. 26-31, 12. 17.\n\n[50]Except, perhaps, through martyrdom.\n\n[51]Matthew 13. 30.\n\n[52]Romans 14. 4.\n\n[53]His most violent treatise\u2014the Philosophumena\u2014was perhaps omitted,\n    but time has so defaced the list that we cannot be certain. The\n    Apostolic Tradition, however, was duly listed, and it certainly\n    contains polemic enough.\n\n[54]_Theologische Literaturzeitung_, 1920, col. 225.\n\n[55]Compare the Epitomist\u2019s \u201cThe Constitutions of the Holy Apostles\n    through Hippolytus\u201d.\n\n[56]London.\n\n[57]Leipzig (_Texte und Untersuchungen_, VI, 4).\n\n[58]Hippolytus\u2019s work is printed on pp. 101-121; reprinted in Connolly\n    (pp. 175 ff.), and in part in the fifth edition of Duchesne\u2019s\n    _Christian Worship_, London, 1919.\n\n[59]II, pp. 97-119.\n\n[60]The notes are systematized and amplified in the latter\u2019s _Ancient\n    Church Orders_.\n\n[61]_Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlichen Gemeindeordnungen_, Berlin\n    Academy.\n\n[62]_\u00dcber die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen_, Strassburg.\n\n[63]Facsimiles in Hauler.\n\n[64]Compare p. 60.\n\n[65]The oldest (Sahidic) is dated _ca._ 1005.\n\n[66]Details in Horner.\n\n[67]More logical and so secondary.\n\n[68]This seems easier than Schwartz\u2019s theory (p. 7) of a _later_\n    Sahidic text enlarged from the original Greek.\n\n[69]The former cautiously.\n\n[70]It lacks chapter 6.\n\n[71]Epitome 4.\n\n[72]Possibly \u201cin those places\u201d; so Horner interprets the Ethiopic.\n\n[73]And Ethiopic. The Greek has \u201cthrough thy beloved Son Jesus Christ\n    thou gavest to thy holy apostles\u201d.\n\n[74]So the Greek, not the Latin.\n\n[75]Latin and Ethiopic (MSS), \u201cFather, who knowest the heart\u201d; perhaps\n    better.\n\n[76]Not in the Epitome but in the Latin, Ethiopic, Constitutions,\n    Testament and Canons.\n\n[77]The doxologies suffer probably more than any other phrases by\n    transmission. The translation given follows no text precisely but\n    represents what seems to be the most likely original form.\n\n[78]The indicative, \u201cye perform\u201d, of the Latin is a misrendering of\n    the (ambiguous) original Greek.\n\n[79]On the doxology compare note on 3. 7.\n\n[80]The Latin might also be rendered \u201cNot with ordinary words but with\n    similar power\u201d. But the Ethiopic confirms the above translation.\n\n[81]Literally \u201cCause that from thy sweetness there may not recede this\n    fruit of the olive\u201d.\n\n[82]An Ethiopic section (Statute 5) generally printed here (7) is not\n    by Hippolytus; compare pp. 30-31.\n\n[83]Reading \u201cpresbyteri\u201d for \u201cpresbyteris\u201d.\n\n[84]Testament \u201cin holiness to thy holy place\u201d; Ethiopic \u201cin thy holy\n    of holies\u201d.\n\n[85]Testament \u201cfrom the inheritance of thy high-priesthood\u201d.\n\n[86]Testament adds \u201cand purely and holily\u201d.\n\n[87]Testament \u201chigh and exalted office\u201d. The Ethiopic manuscripts\n    differ considerably in their renderings of \u201che may ... office\u201d;\n    Horner\u2019s _a_ reads \u201chaving served the degrees of ordination he may\n    obtain the exalted priesthood\u201d. But only _a_ reads \u201cpriesthood\u201d.\n\n[88]Doxology conformed to preceding; that in the Testament is rather\n    different.\n\n[89]With the Sahidic agree almost exactly the Arabic, the Testament\n    and the Canons. The Ethiopic has been edited from a different view\n    point.\n\n[90]These words seem clearly implied by the context; Hippolytus has\n    now concluded the discussion of ordinations proper.\n\n[91]Ethiopic and Arabic omit this \u201cnot\u201d, making the passage senseless.\n\n[92]The Ethiopic makes the sense of the original clear.\n\n[93]In the Sahidic the readers and subdeacons precede the widows.\n\n[94]So the Ethiopic and Arabic. Sahidic reads \u201cnor does she conduct\n    _liturgia_\u201d.\n\n[95]Compare last note.\n\n[96]Epitome 13.\n\n[97]The Sahidic misjoins \u201cnew\u201d with \u201cfaith\u201d.\n\n[98]The Ethiopic adds \u201cor if a woman has a husband\u201d.\n\n[99]Following the variant Sahidic reading in Horner, p. 436.\n\n[100]The Constitutions show that the Sahidic is right against the\n    other evidence (\u201clet his master\u2019s permission be gained\u201d).\n\n[101]The Constitutions (32. 3) have preserved the original here, which\n    the Sahidic renders freely.\n\n[102]The Sahidic, against the other evidence, adds \u201caccording to the\n    law\u201d.\n\n[103]The Sahidic amplifies.\n\n[104]Supplied to give the obvious sense.\n\n[105]The Ethiopic shows that this is the sense; the Sahidic has\n    misunderstood the use of \u201cauthority\u201d.\n\n[106]Literally \u201cnor cause him to swear\u201d.\n\n[107]\u201cMale harlot\u201d?\n\n[108]This Sahidic list has been interpreted from the list in\n    Constitutions 32. 11.\n\n[109]So the Sahidic and the Testament. The Ethiopic and Arabic have\n    \u201cshall exact an oath from each one of them\u201d.\n\n[110]Obscure, but apparently original. The Ethiopic and Arabic have\n    \u201cfor it is not possible for an alien to be baptized\u201d; the\n    Testament \u201cfor the vile and alien spirit abides in him\u201d.\n\n[111]Sahidic \u201cand\u201d.\n\n[112]Supplied for clarity.\n\n[113]The Sahidic and Ethiopic have \u201cto the bishop or presbyter\u201d; the\n    Arabic has \u201cto the bishop\u201d.\n\n[114]Or the sense may be that the presbyter, the candidate and the\n    deacon all stand naked in the water; in the above translation \u201cthe\n    candidates\u201d was supplied for \u201cthem\u201d and the following \u201cthem\u201d was\n    substituted for \u201chim\u201d.\n\n    In the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic the deacon causes the\n    candidate to repeat a rather elaborate creed: the Sahidic form is:\n    \u201cI believe in the only true God, the Father Almighty, and His\n    only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and in [the]\n    Holy Ghost, the life-giver to the universe, the Trinity in one\n    substance, one Godhead, one Lordship, one Kingdom, one faith, one\n    baptism in the Catholic apostolic holy church. Amen\u201d.\n\n    The Canons agree practically with the Testament.\n\n[115]This question is omitted in the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic, but\n    it is found in the Canons.\n\n[116]The Canons add at this point: \u2018Every time he says at the baptism:\n    \u201cI baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of\n    [the] Holy Ghost, the Trinity in unity\u201d\u2019. None of the other\n    sources have anything corresponding.\n\n[117]Jungklaus includes this paragraph in the preceding chapter.\n\n[118]Here the doxology is given as it stands in the Latin. But compare\n    the earlier doxologies.\n\n[119]The Latin adds \u201cIn Greek _antitypum_\u201d.\n\n[120]The Latin adds \u201cIn Greek _similitudinem_\u201d.\n\n[121]Evidently omitted by accident.\n\n[122]Vienna fragment.\n\n[123]An Ethiopic section generally printed here (24) is not in the\n    other versions and is irrelevant to the context; it will be found\n    on p. 58.\n\n[124]The apparent sense.\n\n[125]Or, \u201cthis bread is \u2018blessed bread\u2019; it is not \u2018the bread of the\n    thanksgiving\u2019, as is the Body of the Lord\u201d. The Sahidic translator\n    probably did not understand the original Greek exactly.\n\n[126]The Latin adds, \u201cWhat in Greek is called an _apoforetum_\u201d.\n\n[127]The apparent sense.\n\n[128]Literally \u201cmake haste\u201d.\n\n[129]Literally \u201cmake the blessing\u201d.\n\n[130]Sahidic \u201cthat we all should be sober and that the heathen may\n    envy us\u201d. The Ethiopic adds a long section that has no parallel in\n    other sources; see p. 58.\n\n[131]Literally, \u201con account of the lot that falls\u201d. Perhaps: \u201cbecause\n    of his (their?) duties\u201d?\n\n[132]Friday, Saturday and Sunday after midnight.\n\n[133]So the Latin and the Testament. The Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic\n    have \u201cbefore the proper time to eat\u201d.\n\n[134]The texts have \u201cwhen he has learned the truth\u201d; the above,\n    however, seems to be the meaning.\n\n[135]31-32 are omitted here; they will be found on p. 60.\n\n[136]Literally \u201clet everyone choose for himself to go to that place\u201d.\n\n[137]Sahidic \u201cfor\u201d.\n\n[138]The apparent sense.\n\n[139]Literally \u201cbe the last\u201d.\n\n[140]Literally \u201cthings thou thinkest not\u201d.\n\n[141]Literally \u201cbreaks forth\u201d; the Latin (31. 3) has \u201cblooms\u201d.\n\n[142]Interpreting the Sahidic (\u201cthat thou mayest know how\u201d) by the\n    Testament (\u201cthat is like to\u201d).\n\n[143]Interpreting the ambiguous Latin with the Sahidic.\n\n[144]Latin B, which is followed by the Oriental versions, is\n    translated above. Latin A (compare p. 60) reads: \u201cBut seek always\n    modestly to sign thy forehead; for this sign of his Passion is\n    manifested against the devil if it be made from faith; not as\n    pleasing men, but knowingly offering it as a breastplate. For the\n    adversary, seeing the power of the spirit coming from the heart in\n    the publicly formed image of baptism, is put to flight, thou not\n    yielding, but breathing at him. And this was that [sign formed]\n    when Moses, as a type, put the blood of the lamb slain at the\n    Passover on the lintel and anointed the two side-posts, signifying\n    the faith which now we have in the perfect Lamb\u201d.\n\n[145]Latin B and the Oriental versions have \u201cthe Word\u201d. But \u201cbaptism\u201d\n    is needed for the sense.\n\n[146]In chapter 38 the two Latin texts are in virtual agreement.\n\n[147]A gesture of respect.\n\n[148]Literally \u201cthe sealing\u201d. Perhaps all food sent to the sick is\n    meant; but the passage is far from clear.\n\n[149]Literally \u201ccount\u201d.\n\n[150]The apparent sense.\n\n[151]The Ethiopic manuscripts vary in the form of the doxology.\n\n[152]In Ethiopic use the Hallelujah Psalms are 104-106, 134-135,\n    145-150.\n\n[153]Compare 26. 5-6.\n\n[154]The restoration of sections 30-31 is conjectural.\n\n[155]In this last sentence the (unintelligible) Latin has been\n    corrected by the Sahidic.\n\n[156]P. 35.\n\n[157]Although not in discarding chapters 33-34 also.\n\n[158]Pp. 77-83.\n\n[159]See below.\n\n[160]Acts 20. 28, etc.\n\n[161]Romans 12. 1, 1 Peter 2. 5.\n\n[162]Hebrews 13. 15, Revelation 8. 3.\n\n[163]Philippians 4. 18, Hebrews 13. 16.\n\n[164]1 Corinthians 11. 21.\n\n[165]Compare p. 68.\n\n[166]Many editions and translations; the best in English is A. L.\n    Williams\u2019 edition in the S.P.C.K. series of _Translations of\n    Ancient Documents_, London, 1921.\n\n[167]Genesis 1. 31.\n\n[168]1 Timothy 4. 4-5.\n\n[169]Ignatius, _Smyrnaeans_ 7. 1, etc., and Didache 9. 1, 5, are the\n    earliest instances.\n\n[170]It should be needless to remark that this recital of the\n    institution is merely part of the historical narrative, and is\n    wholly devoid of other implications. It was in no way thought\n    necessary for the rite; compare the Didache and for later\n    liturgies see, e.g., Cooper and Maclean, pp. 170-172.\n\n[171]1 Corinthians 10. 3, John 6. 63.\n\n[172]IV, 18, 4-5; I, 13, 2. Incidentally, Irenaeus teaches an\n    invocation of the Logos, not the Spirit.\n\n[173]1 Clement 44. 4, Didache 15. 1.\n\n[174]Possibly a copyist\u2019s error, misreading \u201cfacietis\u201d. The Greek was\n    of course \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5.\n\n[175]Through its use in St James it supplied the model for the\n    Scottish and American Prayer Books.\n\n[176]Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14.\n\n[177]Compare Constitutions VIII, 30.\n\n[178]Compare _ibid._, 29.\n\n[179]The search for Greek antecedents has not been fruitful.\n\n[180]English edition by H. Danby (S.P.C.K., 1919).\n\n[181]\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; the latter word passed into Aramaic as\n    _sanhedrin_.\n\n[182]In Jerusalem, however, the high priest presided as the religious\n    head of Israel.\n\n[183]In Judaism priesthood came by birth, not by ordination. The\n    office had little dignity.\n\n[184]A Rabbi\u2019s authority was that of his personal learning. Very few\n    presbyters could have been Rabbis, except in Jerusalem.\n\n[185]The temple worship entered little into the outlook of most Jews.\n    Outside the temple priests had almost no functions.\n\n[186]\u201cAdjuvet et gubernet\u201d; in Greek (Constitutions VIII, 16, 4,\n    Epitome VI, 2) \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u00b5\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u1fb6\u03bd.\n\n[187]Certain meals held by religious societies of Jews were only a\n    specialized form of family devotions.\n\n[188]Didache 15. 1.\n\n[189]Best studied in the Didascalia.\n\n[190]In very large churches conditions were different.\n\n[191]Possibly implied in Constitutions VIII, 46, however.\n\n[192]Most explicitly in Horner\u2019s _a_.\n\n[193]In Hermas \u201cmartyrs\u201d (the word used) includes confessors. The\n    Vision, of course, purports to describe a scene in heaven, but it\n    naturally reflects the earthly status.\n\n[194]In Rome _ca._ 250 there were only forty-six presbyters (Eusebius\n    VI, 43, 11); evidently confessors were not included.\n\n[195]E.g., Eusebius VI, 43, 6, where confessorship is called \u201cthe\n    highest honour\u201d.\n\n[196]Yet the fact that the section goes on to threaten confessors who\n    made clerical claims shows a different tradition existed.\n\n[197]Eusebius VI, 43, 11.\n\n[198]Eusebius, _l.c._ The other minor orders were doorkeepers, readers\n    and acolytes. All are still extant in the Roman Catholic church,\n    although now only as stages through which candidates for the\n    priesthood pass; the same is virtually true of the subdiaconate\n    and diaconate also.\n\n[199]Acts 2. 41, 8. 38, 16. 33.\n\n[200]In this passage \u201che sighed\u201d should be rendered \u201che breathed\u201d.\n\n[201]Compare Justin, _Dialogue_ 116 f.\n\n[202]Compare Sarapion.\n\n[203]Leviticus 15. 5, etc.\n\n[204]Contrast the reading of the Canons given in 19. 18.\n\n[205]The trine formula in Matthew 28. 19 is textually insecure.\n\n[206]Epistle 70 (69). 2.\n\n[207]1 Corinthians 12. 13, etc., John 3. 5.\n\n[208]Popular Christian terminology was not so hesitant.\n\n[209]Baptism.\n\n[210]Exodus 3. 8, etc.\n\n[211]But the Testament has no words of administration for the wine.\n\n[212]Due, presumably, to combining this section with the preceding.\n    The Canons add eternal life and the eucharist.\n\n[213]E.g., Constitutions VII, 45, 1. Compare the position of the\n    Prayer in the Didache.\n\n[214]Mark 6. 30-44; 8. 1-10 and parallels.\n\n[215]Compare 1 Corinthians 11. 20-21.\n\n[216]_Romans_ 7. 3; compare _Smyrnaeans_ 7. 1. In _Smyrnaeans_ 8. 1-2\n    the words are perhaps distinguished.\n\n[217]1 Corinthians 11. 20.\n\n[218]Since the benedictions used over eucharistic bread and wine and\n    agape bread and wine (if wine was to be had) may have been\n    identical, early Christians may often have been in doubt as to the\n    meaning of a meal.\n\n[219]P. 68.\n\n[220]Literally \u201csteadfast\u201d.\n\n[221]Riedel misses the meaning of _ksms_.\n\n[222]Compare Tertullian, _On Prayer_ 18-19 for exaggerations of the\n    same thought.\n\n[223]The \u201cstations\u201d of Tertullian, _On Prayer_ 19.\n\n[224]Exodus 29. 39; 25. 30.\n\n[225]So explicitly in the Ethiopic.\n\n[226]1 Peter 3. 19.\n\n[227]E.g., Galatians 4. 14.\n\n[228]Impurity can also be blown away; compare 20. 8 and (e.g.)\n    Tertullian (_l.c._).\n\n[229]Connolly (p. 104) prefers to say that the ceremony \u201cis in some\n    sense an integral part of the one and original baptism\u201d.\n\n\n\n\n                               INDEXES\n\n\n  A. BIBLICAL CITATIONS BY HIPPOLYTUS\n  B. BIBLICAL REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES\n  C. PATRISTIC REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES\n  D. ANCIENT AND MODERN NAMES, WRITINGS AND SUBJECTS\n\n\n                 A. BIBLICAL CITATIONS BY HIPPOLYTUS\n\n  Exodus             12. 22  _page_ 57\n                     25. 30         55\n                     29. 39         55\n  Numbers             9. 11         53\n  Matthew             5. 13         51\n                      25. 6         56\n                     25. 13         56\n  John                6. 50         55\n                     10. 14         55\n                     13. 10         55\n  Acts                1. 24         67\n  1 Corinthians      11. 10         43\n                  11. 24-26         36\n  Revelation          2. 17         49\n\n\n           B. BIBLICAL REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES\n\n  Genesis             1. 31         69\n                       2. 7         89\n  Exodus               3. 8         95\n                     12. 22        106\n                      24. 9         75\n                   24. 9-11         78\n                     25. 30        104\n                     29. 39        104\n  Leviticus           15. 5         91\n                  15. 16-18        105\n  Numbers             9. 11        102\n                     11. 25         78\n  Deuteronomy         18. 4        101\n  1 Samuel           16. 13         90\n  Psalm              51. 12         67\n                   119. 164        103\n  Canticles            2. 1        102\n  Isaiah               6. 3         71\n                      7. 15         95\n                       9. 6         72\n                      65. 2         72\n  Lamentations        1. 17         72\n  Zechariah           4. 12         75\n  Wisdom          14. 25-26          5\n  Matthew             3. 16         67\n                     12. 40        105\n                     13. 30         23\n                     15. 11          2\n                      18. 6          2\n                      19. 9          2\n                      25. 6        105\n                     25. 13        105\n                     26. 74        105\n                     27. 24        104\n                     28. 19         92\n  Mark                6. 13     74, 91\n                   6. 30-44         97\n                    7. 1-15        104\n                      7. 34         89\n                    8. 1-10         97\n                     8. 6-7         68\n                     14. 25         69\n                     15. 25        104\n                     15. 33        105\n                     16. 18         61\n  Luke                 3. 7         92\n                  12. 13-16          2\n                  22. 19-20         95\n  John                 3. 5         93\n                          6         97\n                      6. 50        105\n                      6. 63         71\n                     10. 14        105\n                     13. 10    89, 105\n                     14. 30         88\n                     19. 14        104\n                     19. 34        105\n                     20. 22         67\n  Acts                1. 24         67\n                      2. 41         85\n                   4. 27-30         67\n                          6     81, 87\n                     6. 1-3         97\n                       6. 2         63\n                      8. 17         93\n                   8. 18-24         86\n                      8. 38         85\n                  15. 28-29       2, 3\n                     16. 33         85\n                      19. 6         93\n                     20. 28         64\n                     22. 16         92\n  Romans           1. 29-31          5\n                      8. 15         96\n                      10. 9         92\n                      12. 1     65, 67\n                     14. 14      2, 23\n  1 Corinthians       6. 11         92\n                      7. 10          2\n                       8. 8          3\n                      10. 2         92\n                      10. 3         71\n                     10. 16         69\n                  10. 25-26          3\n                      11. 4          5\n                     11. 10         88\n                  11. 20-21        65,\n                            97-98, 100\n                  11. 24-26         73\n                     11. 33         98\n                     12. 13         93\n                     12. 28     78, 85\n  Galatians            4. 6         96\n                      4. 14        106\n  Ephesians           2. 20          7\n  Philippians         4. 18         65\n  1 Timothy          3. 2-7         64\n                     3. 2-3          5\n                     4. 4-5         69\n                      4. 14         77\n                    5. 1-16         83\n  2 Timothy            1. 6         77\n  Titus              3. 1-2          5\n                       3. 5         93\n  Hebrews            6. 4-8         22\n                      7. 25         67\n                  10. 26-31         22\n                     12. 17         22\n                  13. 15-16         65\n  James               5. 14     74, 91\n  1 Peter              2. 5         65\n                       2. 9         90\n                      3. 19        105\n  Jude                   12         98\n                         17          7\n  Revelation           1. 6         90\n                      2. 14          3\n                      2. 17         95\n                      2. 20          3\n                      5. 10         90\n                       8. 3         65\n                     21. 14          7\n\n\n          C. PATRISTIC REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES\n\n  1 Clement                   40-41                  4\n                              42. 4                  7\n                              44. 1-2                7\n                              44. 4                 72\n                              46. 8                  2\n                              47.6                   7\n  2 Clement                   12. 2                  2\n  Ignatius\n    _Magnesians_              9. 1                   5\n    _Romans_                  7. 3                  97\n    _Philadelphians_          4                     64\n    _Smyrnaeans_              7. 1              70, 97\n                              8. 1-2           97, 100\n  Hermas\n    _Vision_                  III, i                81\n  Didache                     3. 1-6                 5\n                              7. 1              90, 92\n                              8. 1                 102\n                              8. 2                  96\n                              9-10                  93\n                              9. 1                  70\n                              9. 5                  70\n                              13. 3         3, 64, 101\n                              13. 7                  3\n                              14                72, 93\n                              14. 1-2               66\n                              15. 1         64, 72, 77\n  Justin\n    _Apology_                 65                    93\n                              67            74, 83, 93\n    _Dialogue_                116 f.                90\n  Irenaeus                    I, 13. 2              72\n                              IV, 18.               72\n                              4-5\n  Hippolytus\n    Daniel commentary         iii, 9. 6             72\n    Philosophumena            Proem.                63\n                              Proem. 6              64\n                              i, 23. 4              63\n                              ix, 7      18 ff., 64 f.\n  Clement of Alexandria\n    _Pedagogue_               I, 45. 1              94\n                              50. 4                 90\n                              II, 4-7          97, 100\n  Tertullian\n    _Apology_                 30                    83\n                              39                    96\n    _Baptism_                 7                     90\n                              17                    64\n    _Chaplet_                 3                     94\n    _Exhortation to chastity_ 7                     64\n                              11                    64\n    _Marcion_                 I, 14                 94\n                              III, 19               94\n                              IV, 40                94\n    _On prayer_               13                   104\n                              18-19                102\n                              19                   104\n    _To his Wife_             II, 5            61, 105\n  Cyprian Epistle             70. 2                 93\n  Eusebius\n    _History_                 V, 24                  8\n                              V, 28.               102\n                              10-12\n                              VI, 20                16\n                              VI, 43. 6             82\n                              VI, 43. 11        82, 85\n  Athanasius\n    Festal Letter             39                    10\n  Cyril of Jerusalem\n    _Catechetical Lectures_   20. 3                 91\n                              23. 20                94\n  Jerome\n    _Vir. ill._               61                16, 18\n  Sarapion                    12                    81\n                              13                    79\n                              14                    68\n  Mishnah Berakhoth           vi, 1-2              101\n                              1                 68, 69\n                              6                  98 f.\n\n\n          D. ANCIENT AND MODERN NAMES, WRITINGS AND SUBJECTS\n\n                                  A\n  Absolution, 22 f., 64 f.\n  Achelis, 27\n  Acolytes, 85\n  Agape, 50 f., 59, 65, 96 ff.\n  Anamnesis, 71, 73\n  Apophoretum, 51, 100 f.\n  Apostolic Canons, 13\n  Apostolic Church Order, 11\n  Apostolic Constitutions, 12\n\n                                  B\n  Baptism\n    Eucharist, 48 f., 89, 93 ff.\n    Formula, 47, 92\n    Image, 57, 106\n    Liturgy, 45 ff., 90 ff.\n  Baptism in blood, 44\n  Bathing, 44\n  Bible reading, 54, 104\n  Bishops\n    At agape, 50 f., 59, 98 ff.\n    At baptism, 44 ff., 88 ff.\n    At eucharist, 35 ff., 48 f., 58, 72, 77, 93 ff., 100 f.\n    Consecration, 34, 66 ff.\n    Election, 33, 63\n    Fasting, 50\n    Office, 64\n  Blessings, 68 ff., 98 ff.\n  Blessings of persons, 43, 88\n  Burial, 53, 103\n\n                                  C\n  Callistus, 18 ff., 63, 103\n  Canons of Hippolytus, 15\n  Carthage, Third Council, 94\n  Catechumens, 43 ff., 50 f., 56, 85 ff.\n  Charismata, 41, 43, 54, 57, 85, 87, 104\n  Cheese, 37, 74 f.\n  Chrism, 91\n  Christology, 20 ff., 63, 67, 72\n  Commodus, 19\n  Common Prayer, 74\n  Concelebration, 72\n  Confessors, 39, 81 f.\n  Confirmation, 47 f., 93\n  Connolly, 11, 27 f., 30, 61, 63, 67, 103, 106\n  Converts accepted, 41 ff., 86 f.\n  Cooper, J., 15, 28\n  Coxe, A. C., 18\n  Creed, 46, 92 f., 95\n\n                                  D\n  Deacons\n    At agape, 51, 58, 98, 100\n    At baptism, 45 f., 91 f.\n    At eucharist, 39, 48 f., 58, 80\n    Office, 38, 53, 58, 79 f., 103\n    Ordination, 38, 80 f.\n  Deaconesses, 80, 83 f.\n  De Sacramentis, 73\n  Didache, 9\n  Didascalia, 10\n  D\u00f6llinger, 17, 19\n  Doxologies, 67\n  Duchesne, 27\n\n                                  E\n  Epitome, 13\n  Eucharist\n    Administration, 95\n    Anamnesis, 71, 73\n    As sacrifice, 65 f., 71, 73\n    At baptism, 48 f., 89, 93 ff.\n    At ordinations, 39 f., 83\n    Celebrant, 72, 98, 100\n    Consecration, 48, 69 ff., 93 ff.\n    Fasting communion, 52 f., 60, 102\n    Invocation, 71 f.\n    Liturgy, 35, 40, 48, 58, 68 ff.\n    Name, 70\n    Relation to agape, 97 ff.\n  Evening service, 58 f.\n  Exorcism, 44, 50, 88 f., 91, 99, 101\n  Extempore prayer, 40, 70\n\n                                  F\n  Fasting, 44, 50, 52 f., 89, 96, 102\n  Fasting communion, 52 f., 60, 102\n  First-fruits, 52, 66, 74, 101 f.\n  Flowers, 52, 102\n  Funk, 13 f., 16, 28\n\n                                  G\n  Gnosticism, 86, 102\n  Goltz, 28\n  Gronov, 17\n\n                                  H\n  Harnack, 26\n  Harris, J. R., 10\n  Hauler, 27\n  Head-covering, 43\n  Healers, 41, 85\n  Hearers, 41, 86\n  Holy Week, 44 f., 52 f., 89, 96, 102\n  Honey, 48, 89, 94 f.\n  Horner, 12, 27, 29, 34\n  Hours of prayers, 54 ff., 103 ff.\n\n                                  I\n  Image of baptism, 57, 106\n  Invocation, 71 f.\n  Isidore of Seville, 28\n\n                                  J\n  Jungklaus, 28, 30, 32, 47, 61\n\n                                  K\n  Kirk, K. E., 5\n  Kiss of peace, 35, 43, 48, 88\n\n                                  L\n  Lagarde, 27\n  Legge, F., 19\n  Levites, 81\n  Lietzmann, 10\n  Lightfoot, 18\n  Lord\u2019s Prayer, 93, 96\n  Lord\u2019s Supper, 50 f.\n  Ludolf, 27\n\n                                  M\n  Maclean, 15, 28\n  Macmahon, J. H., 18\n  Marriage, 41, 55, 105\n  Maximinus, 24\n  Menstruation, 44, 89\n  Milk, 48, 89, 94 f.\n  Miller, B. E., 17\n  Minor orders, 40 f., 83 ff.\n  Modalism, 20 ff., 63, 67, 72\n  Moses, 37, 57, 76\n  Muilenberg, 9\n\n                                  O\n  _Of Gifts_, 12, 25, 33\n  Oil, 36, 45 ff., 74 f.\n  Olives, 37, 74\n\n                                  P\n  Pentecost, 53, 102\n  Pius IV, 17\n  Pontianus, 24\n  Prayer, 54 ff., 103 ff.\n  Presbyters\n    At agape, 51, 100\n    At baptism, 45 ff., 90 ff.\n    At eucharist, 35, 49, 58, 72, 77\n    Fasting, 50\n    Office, 53, 58, 75 ff., 80 f., 103\n    Ordination, 37, 75 ff.\n    Ordination power, 38, 66, 77 ff., 80\n  Priesthood, 34, 38 f., 53, 64, 77\n\n                                  R\n  Rabbis, 76\n  Readers, 40, 84\n  Reserved sacrament, 60 f.\n  Riedel, 15, 101\n  Rufinus, 92\n\n                                  S\n  Sabellius, 21\n  Sacrifices, 65 f.\n  Sanctus, 71\n  Sarapion, 15\n  Schermann, 11\n  Schoolmasters, 42, 87\n  Schwartz, 28, 30, 61\n  Sick, 53, 58, 74, 102\n  Sign of the cross, 45, 48, 55 ff., 89, 99, 101, 106\n  Soldiers, 42, 87\n  Spittle, 56, 106\n  Stoicism, 5\n  Subdeacons, 41, 53, 84\n\n                                  T\n  Tattam, 27\n  Testament of Our Lord, 14\n  Tithes, 3, 101\n\n                                  U\n  Unction, 36 f., 45 ff., 90 ff.\n  Urbanus, 24\n\n                                  V\n  Victor, 19\n  Virgins, 40, 50, 59, 84, 96\n\n                                  W\n  Washing, 54 f., 103 f.\n  Water, Baptismal, 45, 90\n  Water, Eucharistic, 48 f., 95\n  Weekday services, 54, 104\n  Wendland, 17\n  Widows, 40, 44, 50, 51, 58, 83 f., 96, 101\n  Williams, A. L., 68\n  Women, 40, 43 f., 87 f.\n  Wordsworth, John, 16\n\n                                  Z\n  Zephyrinus, 18 ff., 63\n\n\n\n\n                         Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n\n--Retained publication information from the printed edition: this\n  eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.\n\n--Silently corrected a few palpable typos.\n\n--Moved verse/sentence numbers from the right margin to the beginning\n  of the sentence.\n\n--In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by\n  _underscores_.","title":"The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus: Translated into English with Introduction and Notes","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":31327}