The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus Antipope Hippolytus 3005 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Apostolic Tradition of
Hippolytus

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus

Author: Antipope Hippolytus

Translator: Burton Scott Easton

Release date: March 14, 2020 [eBook #61614]
Most recently updated: October 17, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61614

Credits: Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF HIPPOLYTUS ***

THE
APOSTOLIC TRADITION
OF
HIPPOLYTUS
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY
BURTON SCOTT EASTON

ARCHON BOOKS

iv
Copyright 1934, Cambridge University Press
REPRINTED 1962 BY ARRANGEMENT WITH CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v

To
FRANK GAVIN

vii

PREFATORY NOTE

This book was originally planned as the joint work of my colleague, Dr
Frank Gavin, and myself. Other duties compelled him to withdraw from the
undertaking, but it none the less owes more than can be told to his expert
knowledge and lavishly given advice.

Appreciative thanks are also due to Dr E. R. Hardy for his generous help in
checking the translation from the Sahidic.

ix

CONTENTS

Prefatory Note page vii
Introduction 1
I. CHURCH ORDERS 1
II. HIPPOLYTUS 16
Translation 33
Notes 63
Indexes 107

xi

THE IMPORTANT BOOKS

Edmund Hauler. Didascalia Apostolorum Fragmenta Ueronensia Latina.
Accedunt Canonum qui Dicuntur Apostolorum et Aegyptiorum
Reliquiae. Leipzig, 1900.

Paul de Lagarde. Aegyptiaca. Göttingen, 1883.

George Horner. The Statutes of the Apostles or Canones Ecclesiastici.
London, 1904.

Since 1915 published by the Oxford University Press; the English
translations only are included.

R. Hugh Connolly. The So-called Egyptian Church Order and Derived
Documents. Cambridge, 1916.

Ernst Jungklaus. Die Gemeinde Hippolyts. Leipzig, 1928. At first included
in the Texte und Untersuchungen.

F. X. Funk. Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. Paderborn, 1905.

James Cooper and Arthur John Maclean. The Testament of Our Lord.
Edinburgh, 1902.

Wilhelm Riedel. Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien.
Leipzig, 1900.

John Wordsworth. Bishop Sarapion’s Prayer-Book. London, 1899.

Arthur John Maclean. The Ancient Church Orders. Cambridge, 1910.

Paul Wendland. Hippolytus Werke. Dritter Band. Refutatio Omnium
Haeresium. Leipzig, 1916.

In the Berlin Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller series. The best
text of the Philosophumena.

Francis Legge. [Hippolytus’s] Philosophumena. London, 1921.

The best English translation. Unfortunately Wendland’s critical text is
ignored.

1

INTRODUCTION

I. CHURCH ORDERS

The early Church Orders were systematic manuals of disciplinary and
liturgical rules for which the collective authority of the whole apostolate
was claimed. They made their appearance in the second century, grew to
considerable dimensions in the third, and reached their fullest development
toward the end of the fourth century. They are sources of importance for our
knowledge of the inner life of the church, and they were influential factors
in the formation of the later canon law.

That legislation of a fairly detailed and elaborate character should sooner or
later make its appearance in Christianity was inevitable. The local
congregations were made up of men and women practically isolated from
the rest of the world and brought into the closest contact with one another;
their church was to them almost their entire universe. If human beings
anywhere are to live together under such conditions, mutual affection and
forbearance—be they never so great—are not enough. Regulations, which
define rights and duties in unambiguous terms, are indispensable, and these
regulations are bound to increase in number and complexity as the
community grows.

As it happened, however, Christianity in its origins contained
extraordinarily little material that could be used in forming these
regulations. In theory Christians, for guidance in all matters, were to turn to
Jesus Christ their Lord, whose teaching they regarded as totally divine and
so the final authority in all things. But, as a matter of fact, Jesus’ concern
was not with concrete and specific problems, and when asked to rule on
[1]
2
such he brusquely refused. He occupied himself with ultimate moral

principles, and left to individuals the task of applying these principles to the
various special problems of their lives. Hence it is not at all surprising that
in the apostolic and post-apostolic ages direct citation of his sayings is
[2]
rarely used to settle disputed matters of practice; his words are employed
[3]
rather as general directives and to give inspiration to action.

Nor did the apostles attempt in any systematic way to supply the concrete
element that Jesus’ teaching might be thought to lack. In only one
[4]
instance does the New Testament give us anything that purports to be an
apostolic decree, and it gives this only in a matter of fundamental
importance. Yet even this brief ruling presents serious critical difficulties to
modern investigators, and probably something less than full apostolic
authority should be accorded it. In St Paul’s Epistles, indeed, it is laid down
as a fundamental principle that individual divergences should be tolerated
[5]
as far as possible even in the same community, so that the apostle turns
from general principles to detailed regulations only in the most extreme
instances. Each of his churches was left free to develop under the guidance
of the Spirit such customs as it might judge profitable—and was warned not
to make even these customs too authoritative. And there is no reason to
think that the other apostles differed greatly from St Paul in this regard.
That some of them may have drawn up certain specific rules for their own
communities is abstractly conceivable, but as to this there is no tradition at
all in the sources of the apostolic age and nothing of any value in later 3
writings.

As a consequence, Christian congregations in search for material to use for
legislative purposes could find very little in the primary authoritative
teaching of their religion, and were obliged to look elsewhere. But abundant
other sources were not lacking.

Of these the chief was the Old Testament, whose importance to the majority
of early Christians can hardly be exaggerated. The ceremonial legislation of
the Pentateuch was, to be sure, no longer regarded as binding on Christians;
the Pauline controversies had settled this principle, even though a dissenting
minority did not disappear until late in the second century. But acceptance

of the principle did not debar endless debate as to the principle’s precise
extent: just what Mosaic precepts should be classed as “purely
ceremonial”? St Paul, for instance, saw no inherent objection to eating
[6]
things sacrificed to idols, but in the decree of Acts 15. 28-29 abstinence
[7]
from such food is regarded as axiomatically “necessary”, and Christians
during the next three centuries generally took the same view. The duty of
Christian liberality was defined more closely by the adoption of the Jewish
law of tithing, and this law was even extended to include not only
[8]
agricultural produce but income of any kind. Or, even when the literal
force of an Old Testament precept was recognized as superseded, a
transferred sense might be discovered that revived the rule for Christianity.
So the command that tithes should be paid to the priests was construed to
[9]
give the church’s ministers a right to the Christian payments. Or the fact
that the Old Testament ministry was strictly regulated led to the argument
that divine regulations of equal strictness must hedge about the 4
[10]
Christian ministry as well.

Since so much permanent value was detected in the older ceremonial
legislation, it was only natural that the obligation of the “moral” laws
should usually be treated as absolute. This led to a true moral legalism; that
is, these laws were conceived to demand obedience not because of a higher
principle contained in them but simply because they were “written”. Such,
for instance, is the assumption throughout Clement’s letter to the
Corinthians, where almost every argument is made to rest ultimately on an
Old Testament precept. Nor does it occur at all to Clement that the
Corinthians may find anything amiss in his method; he takes for granted
that, no matter how much other parts of the Old Testament may have lost
their meaning, God’s moral statutes will remain in immutable force for ever.
And, we can scarcely doubt, such was a common opinion in Christianity
from the very beginning, outside of Pauline and a few other circles; it was
an attitude very like Clement’s that St Paul combated in his Epistle to the
Romans.

This common opinion, moreover, was strongly reinforced by pedagogical
needs. The sweep of the new religion and its gathering in converts from all
sorts of curious moral highways and hedges had created a situation that
taxed to the uttermost the powers of the Christian teachers. Multitudes of
neophytes were constantly demanding instruction, and to teach each one of
them how to apply Christ’s deeper principles to involved special problems
seemed utterly impracticable; why engage in so intricate a task when a
succinct Old Testament precept could settle the matter instantly? So
catechetical moral training was usually given by means of short digests
based on Old Testament laws, some of these digests being undoubtedly 5
[11]
of Jewish origin. But it is interesting to note that the most
authoritative brief digest of Jewish morality—the Decalogue—does not
[12]
appear as a whole in the Christian teaching.

In Gentile Christianity concrete rules were taken likewise from Greek
ethical works, whose standard was usually high. Only the learned, of
course, could appreciate the moral treatises of the great philosophers, but a
long succession of teachers—chiefly Stoics—had devoted themselves to
bringing an understanding of good conduct within the reach of all. Among
other means, these teachers achieved their purpose by requiring their pupils
to memorize short gnomic formulas, or—the ultimate extremity of
[13]
simplification—bare lists of virtues to be imitated or vices to be avoided.
This last device was so convenient that even Greek-speaking Jews adopted
[14]
it, and Christians found it invaluable. In fact they did not hesitate to take
[15]
ready-made lists from Stoic and other sources, so giving Greek ethical
concepts an unnoticed but authoritative entrance into Christianity.

Less formal but very real was the influence of established customs and
conventions—on occasion, even superstitions—in contemporary life,
whether Jewish or Gentile. St Paul, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 11. 4
holds it to be obvious that men should pray with their heads uncovered, and
this passage has influenced all subsequent Christian practice. Yet the 6
ruling rests on nothing more profound than the religious habits of the
particular Jews among whom St Paul was brought up; other Jews in his day

believed that God should be approached only when the head was covered,
and this came to be the accepted Jewish practice. If St Paul had lived
elsewhere—or if he had been born somewhat later—the declaration in 1
Corinthians 11. 4 would have shocked him.

To these customs inherited from their pre-conversion days, the various local
churches gradually added customs of their own. Some of these were
certainly introduced for very good reasons, others perhaps for no particular
reason and more or less accidentally. But in religious bodies everywhere
customs quickly grow to be revered simply because they are the custom,
and are clung to tenaciously. Yet, to a certain degree, the churches were
willing to learn from one another. The Christian communities in any
geographical subdivision of the Empire had strong interests in common,
and, in particular, they recognized as right and proper a certain leadership
on the part of the church in their political capital. So the customs of this
church were generally accepted as models for the whole region, with the
result that by the end of the second century “local” use was quite generally
converted into “provincial” use. And very large and important churches—
especially Antioch, Alexandria and Rome—gained a corresponding
ascendency over the smaller capitals within their respective areas.

In some instances, in fact, rulings by outstanding churches or individuals
might acquire an almost world-wide influence. 1 Clement, which states the
Roman conception of certain rules governing the ministry, was accepted as
authoritative in circles far away from the Corinthians for whom it was
written. Indeed, many Christians came actually to regard it as an inspired
New Testament writing, and in various later documents Clement 7
figures as the medium through whom the apostles issued their decrees.
Of equal significance was Ignatius of Antioch, whose directions on church
organization appear to have been obeyed even in Rome itself. Just so later
Church Orders were regarded as legally binding in provinces remote from
their place of origin.

In most quarters this trend toward uniformity in the second century was
[16]
simply taken for granted. Practices with a century of tradition behind
them were practically treated as irreformable: “This custom has been
handed down from the days of the apostles and consequently has the

apostles’ authority behind it”. But even by the end of the first century the
apostles were regarded as a wholly inspired group, who were the divinely
[17]
appointed custodians and interpreters of the faith. Hence, it was
commonly assumed, they must have been unanimous in all things; what one
apostle taught all apostles must have taught. All Christianity rests on a
common norm of doctrine and practice that was delivered to the church by
[18]
the apostles.

It is this conviction that lies behind the Church Orders and that gives them
their peculiar form.

The most obvious objection to this theory, naturally, was the very evident
fact that approved practices in different localities varied considerably; these
could not all go back to a common origin. And in minor matters, assuredly,
[19]
second- and third-century Christianity tolerated or even encouraged
differences. But in anything regarded as important local divergences 8
could lead to bitter conflict. When the second-century Asia Minor
churches were asked to change their date for Easter, they replied, “We must
[20]
obey God rather than men”, and a schism in the church resulted. And in
this clash apostolic authority was passionately claimed by both sides, with
the constant premise that such authority must in the main lead to uniformity.

Yet there were definite limits to the process of unification. As the
generations grew into centuries, the general “ethos” of the more important
local types of Christianity acquired a venerable dignity that commanded
respect even from churches whose customs were different. In major matters
of practice, moreover, a substantial agreement had been achieved, and the
churches were organized along the same main lines everywhere. So when
any church claimed apostolic teaching in support of special usages of its
own—and such claims were made frequently—it usually did so fully aware
that other churches could make similar claims with equal validity, and that
its special usages might very well have been different. This fact led to a
revision of the theory of apostolic unanimity. The complete agreement of
the apostles was now thought to extend only to doctrine and the vitally
important rules of practice; in other regards each apostle within his own

territory had established a use of his own—and each of these uses was
equally legitimate. So Alexandria appealed to St Mark, Jerusalem to St
James, Ephesus to St John, Rome to St Peter, and so on; in due course the
far east was to appeal to St Thomas or St Thaddeus.

Such a theory was not entirely novel; Irenaeus, for instance, urged it in an
unsuccessful attempt to settle the paschal controversy. But as local customs
became fixed the theory was more and more invoked, and it finally became
a settled principle throughout Christendom. The fourth century was 9
here the definite turning point; when the ecumenical councils met, they
made no attempt to legislate in full details for the whole church. So when
the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions ca. 375 revived the Church
Order formula that made all the apostles legislate minutely, we may
presume that he was consciously adopting a style that was already
somewhat obsolescent; Christians by now were becoming aware that
collective apostolic authority could not be claimed for so wide an extent of
regulations. And this consciousness brought with it the eventual end of the
Church Orders; they were replaced by explicitly local collections of canons
and by liturgical service books. Yet in many parts of the church the old
Church Orders retained their authority, and they were incorporated into the
manuals of canon law.

The following are the chief Church Orders:

THE DIDACHE

As this work is familiar to everyone its contents need not be described.
Most scholars date it in the early years of the second century, but the
possibility that its compiler used the Epistle of Barnabas as a source cannot
[21]
be wholly disregarded. Barnabas is usually dated about 131, with a
possibility of belonging some fifteen years earlier, so if the dependence is
accepted the Didache could scarcely have originated before the second
quarter of the century and may even be somewhat later.

The influence of the Didache in the early church was wide and it was held
in high honour. It was incorporated into the Didascalia, the Apostolic
Church Order and the Apostolic Constitutions. So eminent and orthodox a
saint as Athanasius speaks of it as a book very profitable for neophytes
[22]
“who wish for instruction in the word of godliness”, and he cites it 10
as an authority more than once, even though he—very properly—refuses to
[23]
recognize it as a canonical New Testament writing. There consequently
can be no reasonable doubt that the Didache originated in the broad stream
of orthodox Christian tradition, not in some obscure heretical sect.

Much the most convenient edition of the Greek text is that edited by Dr
[24]
Hans Lietzmann in his Kleine Texte series; it contains an excellent
critical apparatus and is very inexpensive. There are many accessible
English translations.

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

This work of Hippolytus, the subject of the present volume, is named here
to preserve the chronological sequence. In its Coptic and other versions it
was formerly known as the Egyptian Church Order.

THE DIDASCALIA

A substantial “handbook for the churches”, written probably in Syria, not
far either way from 250. Its original language was Greek, but it has been
preserved in Syriac and Latin; the latter is defective. It is concerned almost
wholly with rules for church organization, church finance and church
discipline, treating doctrine hardly at all and liturgical matters only
incidentally. Its author was acquainted with the more important Christian
literature of the second century, and there is some evidence that he knew
Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition.

The Didascalia is best studied in Dom R. H. Connolly’s English 11
[25]
version, which he has provided with judicious introduction and
notes. Attention should be directed to his words on p. xlv: “It is now
generally recognized that the author’s theological outlook was entirely
Catholic, and that he writes as a champion of the Great Church as opposed
to all manner of heresy and schism”.

THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH ORDER
[26]
This work so nearly resembles the Didache in both size and arrangement
that there is good reason to believe that it was originally issued as a
“revised” edition of the older work. Chapters 1-3 describe a meeting of the
Twelve Apostles at which they decided to publish this Order. Chapters 4-13
are Didache 1-4, slightly rearranged and expanded. Chapter 14 is apparently
derived from Barnabas 14 and closes with Didache 4. 13. Chapters 15-28
treat of church organization, beginning with the election of bishops and
ending with the duties of women: the conditions described indicate a date
not earlier than the end of the third century. Chapter 29 contains an
adjuration to charity and chapter 30 a final appeal to apostolic authority.

This Order, whose orthodoxy is unimpeachable, was written in Greek and is
probably (not certainly) of Egyptian origin. Its popularity is shown by the
fact that Latin, Syriac, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic and other versions have
been preserved, as well as the original Greek. A complete critical edition
has not yet been prepared. The best edition of the Greek text is in Theodor
[27]
Schermann’s Die allgemeine Kirchenordnung, 1, pp. 1-34. The English
versions, such as they are, are not very accessible, but the translations 12
[28]
of the Ethiopic, Arabic and Sahidic in Horner are adequate.

THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS

This, the most ambitious of all the Church Orders, undertook to provide a
practically complete treatise on church law and liturgics by collecting and
revising earlier authoritative sources. Books I-VI are an enlarged edition of
the Didascalia. Chapters 1-32 of Book VII treat the Didache similarly;
chapters 33-45 contain a collection of prayers obviously based on Jewish
synagogue forms; the source of chapters 46-49 is uncertain. Chapters 1-2 of
Book VIII are now generally held to utilize a lost work of Hippolytus,
Concerning Gifts. Chapters 3-46 contain his Apostolic Tradition, greatly
[29]
expanded, especially in the so-called Clementine Liturgy of chapters 6-
15.

The Constitutions were compiled around 375, either in Syria or
Constantinople. The author had no hesitation about drastically rewriting
archaic material, but the great bulk of his expansions are simply expository
and homiletic. His verbosity is irksome to modern readers, but it was quite
in accord with the taste of his age. Theologically he shows Arian leanings,
but these are often rather difficult to detect without comparing his text with
its sources; his work as a whole is certainly not “Arian”.

The extent of the later influence of the Constitutions has not yet been
satisfactorily estimated. That the work in its entirety was not apostolic was
recognized at once and various church councils branded it as apocryphal.
But later writers not infrequently cite passages from the Constitutions as
authoritative; these citations as a whole, however, have not thus far 13
been collected and analysed. Apparently the most influential part of
the book was its “Clementine Liturgy”, which deeply influenced subsequent
Eastern rites.

The classic edition of the Greek text is that of Funk. The English translation
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers is generally adequate.

THE APOSTOLIC CANONS

A collection of eighty-five canons, appended to the Constitutions. They
were compiled by its author partly from earlier synodic sources, partly from

the Constitutions themselves. In the Eastern Church these canons were
accepted as a whole and were translated into many languages; in the
Western Church only the first fifty were received.

THE EPITOME

“The Epitome of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions” is the title
—and something of a misnomer—for what is little more than a copy of the
sections of this Book of the Constitutions that deal with organization and
discipline. It is divided into five parts, A-E. The first two chapters of the
Constitutions are reproduced in A, chapter 32 in C, chapter 46 in E. D
contains chapters 33-34, 42-45, practically intact.

B is headed “The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles concerning Ordination
[30]
through Hippolytus”, a title not infrequently used to describe the entire
work as “The Constitutions through Hippolytus”. It begins with chapter 3 of
the Constitutions, describing the election of a bishop. But the ordination
prayer that follows is taken directly from Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition,
not from the Constitutions. Then comes chapter 16 of the 14
Constitutions on the ordination of presbyters. The opening sentences
are given literally, but the ordination prayer is about midway in length
between the compact version in Hippolytus and the elaborate wording of
the Constitutions. Chapters 18-21 are copied with minimal variations, but in
chapter 22 the ordination of readers is dismissed in a brief sentence from
Hippolytus. Chapters 23-28 and 30-31, almost unchanged, conclude the
section.

Even as late as the beginning of the twentieth century the Epitome was
often taken to be a source used in the Constitutions. But this is now
recognized to be wrong: the Epitome is extracted from the Constitutions,
with a few reversions to Hippolytus. As it contains nothing independent
there is no way to judge its date or place of origin.

The Greek text will be found in Funk, II, pp. 72-96. The three passages that
[31]
really differ from the Constitutions are translated in the present volume.

THE TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD

This work is divided into two Books, of 47 and 27 chapters respectively. In
Book I, after an apocalyptic introduction in chapters 1-13, the risen Christ
solemnly declares (chapters 14-18) to the apostles the divine obligation of
the rules that follow. The remainder of the work is based on Hippolytus’s
Apostolic Tradition, although often greatly changed and expanded: there are
added, for instance, rules for church architecture, descriptions of clerical
duties and much liturgical matter. But Hippolytus’s order is faithfully
followed and his text is often reproduced verbally. Book I, chapter 28, a
“mystagogic” treatise on Christology in semi-credal form, is perhaps a later
addition.

The date of the Testament is probably a little later than that of the 15
Constitutions; in any case it is hardly earlier than 360. For its place of
origin Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt all have their advocates, with Egypt
probably the least likely. The original Greek is lost, but the work has been
transmitted in Syriac, Ethiopic and Arabic. Its Christology has an
[32]
“Apollinarian” flavour, but “there is no actual heresy in the Testament”.
The English version of Cooper and Maclean is standard, although certain of
their elaborate notes now require revision.

THE CANONS OF HIPPOLYTUS

A work containing thirty-eight “canons”, which “Hippolytus, the chief of
the bishops of Rome, wrote according to the commands of the apostles”.
This paraphrase for his “Apostolic Tradition” indicates the source with an
explicitness unusual in a Church Order. Its alterations are much less radical
than those in the Testament, and wholly new matter is limited to a brief
introduction and an appendix concerned chiefly with moral and ascetic
directions. The revision was made almost certainly in the fifth century and
beyond reasonable doubt in Egypt.

The text (originally Greek) has been preserved only in an Arabic version.
The only reliable edition is the German translation by Riedel; an English

version is badly needed.

For the sake of completeness there may be added:

SARAPION’S PRAYERS

This work is not a true Church Order: it makes no pretence to apostolic
origin and consists wholly of a collection of prayers drawn up by Sarapion,
bishop of Thmuis, about 350. It opens with the celebrant’s part at the
eucharist and closes with various benedictions. The eucharistic prayer 16
has been strongly influenced by the Didache, the ordination prayers
by Hippolytus. The most accessible edition of the Greek text is in Funk, II,
pp. 158-195. Bishop John Wordsworth edited an excellent English
translation.

II. HIPPOLYTUS

Hippolytus is a unique figure in Christian history, for he, a schismatic
bishop of Rome, is honoured by the Roman church as a saint and martyr.
This curious combination of qualities made him for centuries a highly
enigmatic personality, of whom almost nothing was known. Many of his
voluminous works were preserved and studied, and were translated into
Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, Armenian and even Old Slavic. But his creation of a
schism and his acceptance of its episcopate were acts so contrary to
established principles that Eusebius, writing less than a century later, can
[33]
describe him only as the bishop “of a church somewhere”; to which
description Jerome adds: “the name of whose city I have been unable to
[34]
learn”. That this city was in fact Rome is, to be sure, stated by not a few
late patristic and medieval writers, especially in the East, but these do not
hint that there was anything irregular about his tenure. Or he is assigned
sees in widely different localities, sometimes as far off as Arabia and
sometimes as near Rome as Portus: this last place—due, apparently, to
confusion with some other martyr—was especially popular. But among
Western writers Hippolytus’s episcopal rank is commonly ignored and he
appears simply as “a presbyter”: the present Roman Catholic service
[35]
books do not call him “bishop”. The sole general agreement was as to
the date of his death, which the martyrologies and other early testimony
place about 235.

In 1551 excavations in Rome brought to light a third-century statue of 17
Hippolytus, now in the Lateran Museum; the upper part of the body
has been “restored”. On the sides are inscribed an “Easter Canon” that he

[36]
computed and a partial list of his works. The posture of the body, which
is that of a seated teacher, made episcopal dignity more than probable, so
for the official description of the statue Pius IV, the next pope, adopted the
Portus tradition. Hence as “Bishop of Portus” the saint was generally
known until the middle of the nineteenth century.

In 1701 Jakob Gronov published, in the tenth volume of his Thesaurus
Graecarum Antiquitatum, Book I—no more was then known—of a work
called “Philosophumena” or “Philosophizings”, that was commonly,
although not universally, referred to Origen. Books IV-X of this work were
discovered in 1842 and nine years later were published as Origen’s by the
[37]
editor, B. E. Miller. But the contents of the work were soon proved by
[38]
competent scholars—notably Döllinger —to make Origen’s authorship
impossible; the necessary conditions were fulfilled by Hippolytus alone.
This proof established also the Hippolytean authorship of certain other
disputed works; and the evidence thus assembled showed that Hippolytus
was both a bishop and a Roman. Incidentally, it has been established also
that the correct title for the above work is “Refutation of All Heresies”, and
that “Philosophumena” was the sub-title of Books I-IV (not as is sometimes
stated of Book I alone). But “Philosophumena” is generally accepted by
modern writers.

The Portus tradition, however, still lingered on for a time and is 18
accepted in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, both by the original editor J. H.
Macmahon (1868) and by the American reviser Bishop A. C. Coxe (1886).
Bishop Lightfoot supported a compromise theory that made of Hippolytus a
[39]
sort of suffragan bishop of Rome with special jurisdiction over Portus.
But neither position is now tenable.

For the facts of Hippolytus’s life we have practically only what he himself
tells us in scattered allusions; only once (Philosophumena IX, 7) does he
relate contemporary events at any length. Since in his later works he speaks
of himself as aged, his birth must be placed ca. 160. Tradition makes him a
disciple of Irenaeus, a highly probable supposition even though his works
are silent on the subject. He became a presbyter of the Roman church under

Zephyrinus (198?-217, or perhaps earlier) and won great respect for his
learning and eloquence: on one occasion he was deputed to preach in the
[40]
presence of Origen. But his learning brought him into a mortal conflict
with a fellow presbyter, one Callistus.

This Callistus had had in earlier years a career that was at least ambiguous.
The servant of a wealthy Christian, he was permitted by his master to
undertake in Rome the experiment of a “Christian bank”, in which many of
the faithful deposited their savings. As has usually been the case with such
experiments, the bank failed, and in this case no assets could be discovered.
Callistus fled, but was brought back to Rome and sentenced to the
treadmill. After a while he was released and sought to regain favour with
the Christians by interrupting a Jewish synagogue service and 19
[41]
preaching Christianity to the congregation. For this he was sent to
the Sardinian convict mines. All of this appears to have taken place during
the ninth decade of the second century; in any case Callistus was still a
prisoner when Bishop Victor succeeded in obtaining from the Emperor
Commodus the release of many Christian prisoners in the year 190 or
[42]
thereabouts. The list of names drawn up by Victor and sent to Sardinia
did not include Callistus, but he contrived to secure his discharge as well,
[43]
and he returned to Italy as at least technically a “martyr”. Victor,
however, did not permit him to remain in Rome and dismissed him to
Antium, where he lived until Victor’s death, receiving from the church’s
fund a monthly allowance that enabled him to avoid suffering.

Victor was succeeded by Zephyrinus, an easy-going man of small
intelligence, who in past years had conceived an intense admiration for
Callistus. He immediately recalled the latter to Rome, ordained him
[44]
presbyter, and made him his chief lieutenant; during Zephyrinus’s
episcopacy Callistus was the real power at Rome. His only significant rival
was Hippolytus.

Two more different men can scarcely be imagined. Both were equally
determined to have their own way. But Callistus was suave and ingratiating,

little concerned with theological speculation, desirous of immediate
practical results and none too scrupulous as to ways and means, 20
indifferent to precedents and perfectly willing to try novel
[45]
experiments. Hippolytus was dour and irascible, convinced that
meticulous theology must be maintained though the heavens fell,
scandalized at the mere thought of relaxing discipline, a traditionalist to his
finger tips, who believed that any new idea was necessarily Satanic.
Between such antagonists a relentless war was inevitable.

They appear to have fought on most questions, but one cause of conflict
was paramount: Christology. During the second century the church was
constantly tormented by the problem of reconciling the rigid monotheism
inherited from the Jews with the divine honours that were unquestioningly
paid to Christ. The solution that Hippolytus proposed followed in general
the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel: God from before creation has
[46]
begotten from Himself His Logos, itself divine. This doctrine rests on
speculative metaphysical premises that are none too easy of comprehension;
to many thinkers in the second century it seemed either (a) to subordinate
the Son to the Father in such a way as to detract from the Son’s true
divinity, or (b) to make of the Son an independent deity and so destroy
monotheism. Hippolytus endeavoured to avoid both extremes, but with
what success specialists—ancient or modern—are unable to agree; it must
be remembered, however, that he wrote as a pioneer in an age when the real
questions were not yet clearly stated, let alone answered, and that he
employed a philosophy originally devised for a very different purpose. The
most popular alternative to his theory was what is rather cumbrously known
as “modalistic monarchianism”; this was quite within the grasp of the 21
most unphilosophical, since it disregarded all metaphysical
refinements. It argued: “We worship Christ as God, and God is One.
Therefore Christ is God and God is Christ; ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are only titles
that describe the same Person in different aspects or ‘modes’”.

Later on this modalism was regarded as heresy of the most extreme type,
but even in the late second century it was widely taught and was
uncondemned; in part the church authorities wished to preserve peace
above all things and in part they were really in doubt as to the points at

issue. Many teachers, to be sure, attacked it violently and none with greater
passion than Hippolytus, who at the beginning of the third century was
making the Roman church hot with his invectives. But, despite him, when
Sabellius, the great apostle of modalism, came to Rome he was received
cordially by Zephyrinus and Callistus.

Still, even Hippolytus was forced to admit that Sabellius was an honest and
open-minded man, and one with whom he could argue so frankly that he
had great hopes of converting him. But Callistus interfered. Not that he
himself was quite a modalist; his own Christology, while having strong
modalistic leanings, was saved from downright modalism by dexterous
qualifications. But he regarded Hippolytus’s doctrine—which he probably
could not really understand—as the worse of the two evils. So Sabellius,
finding the two great Roman leaders at loggerheads, reverted to his former
position. To Hippolytus this was the last straw and he publicly denounced
[47]
Callistus as a heretic. Callistus retorted by hurling at Hippolytus the final
insult: “Ditheist!” The result was a schism.
[48]
It took place, apparently, in the last years of Zephyrinus, who died in
217. Hippolytus and his disciples fled from the—to them—polluted 22
and heretical communion of the regular bishop and proclaimed that
they and they alone were the true church of Rome. They were not numerous
but their standing appears to have been high; at any rate they were able to
find bishops willing to consecrate their leader to the episcopate. But their
withdrawal left the “regular” church completely under Callistus’s control,
and at Zephyrinus’s death he was elected to succeed him. This election, of
course, Hippolytus treated as wholly null, asserting contemptuously that
what Callistus had done was to become the leader of a “school of
Callistans”, not of a “church of Christians”.

Callistus disposed of the Christological controversy by excommunicating
both Sabellius and Hippolytus, and then turned his attention to the most
thorny practical question that perplexed contemporary Christians, the
problem of mortal sin after baptism. From the beginning of the post-
[49]
apostolic age the church almost universally held that such sin could not
receive absolution, so that the sinners were permanently excommunicate

[50]
and without hope of restoration. The only “orthodox” voice in opposition
to this rigorism was raised by the Shepherd of Hermas, and even its author
dared oppose the universal teaching of his age only because he had received
a special revelation from God; nor did he venture to promise more than the
remission of one post-baptismal sin for anyone. In many quarters, indeed,
even this mild relaxation of the rule was passionately resisted, and the most
vigorous religious movement of the second century—Montanism—took as
its watchword, “No second remission!”

By the beginning of the third century a final settlement of the question had
become a necessity. The Christians had been successful beyond their
dreams in attracting converts, but probably the majority possessed 23
only general good moral qualities and lacked the heroic virtues. What
was to be done with them? Should the church dismiss them as unworthy
and so reduce its numbers drastically? Or should it do what it could for
those whose intentions were good, without expecting too much of them? To
Hippolytus the church’s constant teaching since the apostles’ time removed
the problem from debate: Christians must be saints in the fullest sense of
the word. So his flock was constantly purged by excommunications.
Callistus, on the contrary, took the bold step of brushing aside tradition
altogether and of appealing directly to the New Testament: “Let the tares
[51]
grow with the wheat until the harvest”, and, “Who art thou that judgest
[52]
another man’s servant?" Sinners were, of course, put to penance, but if
they proved their good faith they could be absolved, no matter what their
offence nor how often it had been committed. This decision of Callistus was
nothing short of revolutionary, and it was destined to change the ideal of
church membership for all time. Naturally it shocked Hippolytus beyond
measure—and his horror was intensified when those whom he himself had
excommunicated were received into communion by Callistus.

The latter, in fact, went so far in the abolition of the stricter rules that his
own successors at Rome withdrew or seriously modified some of his
concessions. He pronounced that second and even third marriages
constituted no impediment to ordination, and allowed clerics to marry after
they had been ordained. And he declined to recognize for Christian
marriage the impediment of disparity of status in the Roman civil law; as a

result the church permitted marriages that the parties could disown to the
state—with some curious consequences.

All of this so incensed Hippolytus and his party that Callistus’s death 24
in 222 did not end the schism; it continued under his successors
Urbanus (222-230)—of whom nothing is certainly known—and Pontianus
(230-235). But in 235 Maximinus became emperor and he undertook a
persecution that singled out the Christian leaders. So in Rome both
Pontianus and Hippolytus were arrested and sent to Sardinia, where they
shortly afterward succumbed to the hardships of convict life. This healed
the breach in the church, and the reunited factions completed the
reconciliation by pronouncing both bishops to be saints and martyrs.

This action has been taken by some scholars—arguing from the premises of
a later day—as evidence that Hippolytus made a retractation before his
death. But Hippolytus was not the man to retract anything. And the Roman
church of the next generation would never have allowed the erection of his
statue if they had held him to be saved only by a deathbed repentance; still
less would they have permitted the public and honourable inscription of the
[53]
titles of works in which he glories in his conduct. The church really
acknowledged that both sides had made mistakes, and that Hippolytus’s
errors—whatever they may have been—were due to an excess of zeal for
righteousness and were not to be weighed against his consecrated learning
and his burning devotion.

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

For a list and description of Hippolytus’s works reference must be made to
the treatises on patrology; he was a prolific writer on exegetical, doctrinal
and practical themes, who published at least fifty books and probably 25
many more. But after he had been consecrated bishop of his separatist
congregation, his first task was to provide treatises to perpetuate the
principles for which he was contending so bitterly. One of these was Of
Gifts, to which he alludes in 1. 1; it has not been preserved, although traces

appear to be incorporated in Constitutions VIII, i-ii. And it was followed
immediately by the Apostolic Tradition.

Its introduction fixes its date and purpose. A “lapse or error” had “recently
occurred” (1. 4), and Hippolytus undertakes to guard against its effects by
setting forth the true doctrine “which has continued up to now”. And he
recurs to the same theme at the close: “the many heresies have increased
because their leaders would not learn the purpose of the apostles”, but “over
all who hear the apostolic tradition and keep it, no heretics or any other man
will prevail” (38. 2-3). The date accordingly must be close to 217 and the
purpose is to cleave to the old ways, rejecting every innovation; the
tradition which Hippolytus received from the presbyters before him (36. 12)
must be maintained inviolate.

In content the book consists mainly of laws for church organization and the
conduct of worship, but these are interspersed freely with comment and
explanation. The source of the laws themselves is not doubtful: they
represent the normal practices at Rome in Hippolytus’s younger days, and
he is quite sincere in believing that they are truly apostolic and therefore
unalterable. And that they actually are rules of real antiquity is shown by
the corroboration they receive from other early Christian writers, among
whom Tertullian in particular describes usages extraordinarily like those
expounded by his Roman contemporary. The Apostolic Tradition,
consequently, is more than a source for Roman customs at the beginning of
the third century; it may with equal safety be invoked for the practice of
[54]
thirty or even fifty years earlier. In the words of Harnack: “Here is 26
the richest source that we in any form possess for our knowledge of the
polity of the Roman church in the oldest time, and this Roman polity may,
in many regards, be accepted as the polity held everywhere”.

The same, naturally, cannot always be said of the material in Hippolytus’s
comments. Here too, unquestionably, much is inherited; it is for one of his
explanations that he appeals to the presbyters in 36. 12. But it is
occasionally evident—chapter 9 is an instance—that the ceremonies he
faithfully describes do not fully accord with his interpretations, and that he
himself does not invariably understand his material. Some of the wording of

his prayers, moreover, is unmistakably his own, but in his day (10. 4-6)
each Christian leader still felt free to frame prayers as he would.

Hippolytus designed his work for “the churches” (1. 3), a phrase most
naturally understood of Christendom at large. His own church of Rome
appears to have appreciated his work the least, for the majority of Roman
Christians gave their allegiance to his rivals and accepted their legislation; it
was the reforms of Callistus and not the conservatism of Hippolytus that
directed subsequent Roman polity. Probably, too, despite his canonization,
his memory was always slightly suspect; the Roman church certainly
managed to forget very quickly who he really was. By the middle of the
third century, moreover, his church finally abandoned Greek as its official
language and became wholly Latinized, so that his writings were no longer
accessible. And what was true of Rome was true of the West in general.

In the East, however, especially in Egypt and Syria, Hippolytus’s work was
accepted as possessing high authority. It was of course not treated as
infallible, for later legal writers do not hesitate to amend or omit laws
disagreeing with local usage. Yet the title Hippolytus chose for his 27
[55]
work was taken really seriously, and he, more than any other
Church Father, gave the laws and the liturgy of the Eastern Church their
permanent form.

The Apostolic Tradition was first made known to the Western world in 1691
by Job Ludolf in Ad suam Historiam Aethiopicam Commentarius; in this he
published in incomplete form the Ethiopic work containing it, to which he
gave the title—still in use—of Statuta Apostolorum. But he naturally was
unable to identify the author. It was not until 1848 that the next contribution
was made, Tattam’s The Apostolic Constitutions or Canons of the Apostles
[56]
in Coptic, which gave the Bohairic text with an English translation. The
Sahidic text appeared thirty-five years later on pp. 248-266 of Lagarde’s
Aegyptiaca, and this is still the standard edition. A German translation (by
Steindorff) was published in 1891 by Achelis in his Die ältesten Quellen
[57]
des orientalischen Kirchenrechtes: this monograph opened the really
critical study of the material and is not yet wholly obsolete. But Hauler’s
discovery of the Latin text was the most important event of all. He

published his find in 1900 but did not appreciate the full importance of what
[58]
he describes only as “Aegyptiorum reliquiae” at the end of his long title.
And even such an intensely able scholar as Funk, in making his own Latin
version of “The Egyptian Church Order”, still preferred to follow the
[59]
Sahidic. Horner’s Statutes of the Apostles (1904) finally supplied critical
Ethiopic and Arabic texts, with scientifically literal translations of these and
of the Sahidic as well.

The basic significance of the Latin version was glimpsed by Cooper 28
[60]
and Maclean in their edition of the Testament (1902); their use of
[61]
“Hauler” is often penetrating. In 1906 Baron Eduard von der Goltz
finally identified certain sections as definitely Hippolytean, and four years
[62]
later Dr Eduard Schwartz reached the definite conclusion: the Latin text
represents substantially what Hippolytus wrote. Dr Schwartz’s monograph,
however, was brief and left many problems unexplored; the detailed
demonstration was the—wholly independent—work of Dom Connolly in
1916.

In 1928 Dr Jungklaus published a German translation of Hippolytus’s work,
with an elaborate introduction; in some regards it proved unsatisfactory but
it should on no account be neglected.

The textual evidence is as follows:

The original Greek of chapters 3 and 12 is preserved in the Epitome, and
that of 25. 1-2 in the Vienna fragment printed (e.g.) by Funk (II, p. 112). The
Constitutions also give some aid in reconstructing the Greek text elsewhere.
[63]
The Latin codex, now in Verona, is a palimpsest, probably of the sixth
century, over which some two centuries later three books of Isidore of
Seville’s Sentences were written. The translation itself appears to have been
made in the fourth century, and is a rendition of a Greek book of church
laws, in which Hippolytus’s book is preceded by portions of the Didascalia

and the complete Apostolic Church Order. The translator, who presumably
had no idea of the authorship of the closing portion, made his version
pedantically literal; a great advantage to the modern student. 29
Unquestionably neither the sixth-century copyist, the translator nor
the Greek text used was infallible; the last certainly contained duplications.
[64]
But the version is incomparably the best guide that we have. It includes
1. 1-9. 11a, 21. 14-24. 12a, 26. 3b-38. 2a.
[65]
The Oriental manuscripts, all comparatively modern, are fairly
[66]
numerous, and are likewise collections of laws. The Sahidic—known
also as the Egyptian Heptateuch, from its seven Books—begins with the
Apostolic Church Order. Then (Book II) comes Hippolytus’s work, in which
chapters 1, 3, 4. 4-13, 5-6, 8. 2-5, 9. 9-12 are omitted and chapters 11-14 are
[67]
arranged in the order 12, 14, 11, 13; there are also minor variations to
which attention is usually called in the translation and notes. Books III-VI are
parallel to Constitutions VIII; Book VII contains the Apostolic Canons. Like
other Coptic ecclesiastical writings it teems with transliterated Greek
words, so that the original terms are obvious. But the first translator was
evidently often in doubt as to the meaning of the original, and his
indecisions have not been clarified by later copyists.

The Bohairic was made from an inferior Sahidic manuscript in the early
nineteenth century. All readings of any consequence are listed by Horner.

The Arabic was made from the Sahidic, which it follows in most regards,
although chapters 11-14 are not disarranged; it was therefore made from a
manuscript other than the archetype of the known Sahidic codices and has a
certain independent textual value. Otherwise its features are just about those
to be expected in a secondary version.

The Ethiopic is divided into seventy-two “Statutes”, of which the first 30
twenty-one are the Apostolic Church Order. Statute 22 = Hippolytus’s
chapters 2-5, concluding with communion prayers. Chapter 6 of Hippolytus
is omitted. Statutes 23-27 = chapters 8-15, with no changes in order.
Statutes 28-35 = chapters 16-24, concluding with a brief additional section

on the regular weekly eucharists (p. 58). Statutes 36-38 = chapters 25-26,
followed by sections on the communion of the sick and on evening services
(p. 58) and a repetition of chapter 26. 2, 10b-13. Statute 39 = chapter 27.
Statute 40 is a long baptismal office, containing reminiscences of chapters
21-23 but opening with chapter 1, which is not in the Sahidic or Arabic.
Statutes 40 (end)-48 = chapters 28-38. The remaining Statutes parallel
Constitutions VIII, like the other versions, but there are certain variations;
Statute 52, for instance, contains a considerable section of the Didache, a
little of the Didascalia, and a bit (38. 4) of Hippolytus. At the end there is a
collection of prayers.

The Ethiopic is a tertiary version, made from the Arabic. Statute 40, which
gives chapter 1, was evidently derived from a different source which used
the Apostolic Tradition independently, and its inclusion here was more or
less accidental. But the presence of the other chapters not in the present
Arabic texts is best explained by assuming that the Ethiopic was derived
from an older Arabic form—which in turn presupposes an older Sahidic
form; in these the omissions to avoid conflict with local usages had not yet
[68]
taken place.

The additional material in Statutes 5, 35 and 37-38 is printed by both
[69]
Connolly and Jungklaus, although both recognize the liturgical prayers
in 5 to be post-Hippolytean; it is consequently not included in the 31
present edition. But neither do the other two sections appear to be
genuine. The rules in Statute 35 are so general and unobjectionable that
their omission in the Sahidic and Arabic would be difficult to explain, while
the reverence deacons must pay to presbyters seems to point to a later date.
Similarly the description of the care of the sick and of the evening service
in Statute 37 presents nothing that could have troubled the Sahidic and
Arabic translators; the insertion of such widespread usages is easier to
understand than their omission. And the repetition of earlier matter at the
end of Statute 37 and in all of Statute 38 shows a bad textual tradition.

In general, then, the evidence of the Ethiopic is of minor consequence. In
the only place where it stands alone (9. 11-12) it has a text that does not
appear to be possible.

Summarizing: The original Greek of the Apostolic Tradition has not been
recovered, except in small fragments. The Latin is generally trustworthy,
but is incomplete. The only other primary version, the Sahidic, is likewise
incomplete, and the results of the moderate abilities of its translator have
been further confused in later transmission. The Arabic is a secondary text,
offering little that the Sahidic does not contain. The only practically
[70]
complete version, the Ethiopic, is tertiary and is otherwise unreliable. All
four of these versions presuppose a common Greek original, in which two
different endings have been conflated. The other sources, the Constitutions,
the Testament and the Canons, are frank revisions, in which the original is
often edited out of recognition or even flatly contradicted. Under these
conditions the restoration of a really accurate text is manifestly impossible.

None the less the material is abundant and independent enough to warrant
confidence that the substance and in most cases even the original 32
wording of Hippolytus’s rules have really been preserved: only the
ordination prayer for deacons presents difficulties that appear insuperable.

The chapter divisions are those of Jungklaus, altered only at chapter 22. To
facilitate reference the sentences have been numbered as “verses”.

33

THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF
HIPPOLYTUS
TRANSLATION

LAT 1. ¹We have duly completed what needed to be said about “Gifts”,
describing those gifts which God by His own counsel has bestowed
on men, in offering to Himself His image which had gone astray.
²But now, moved by His love to all His saints, we pass on to our
most important theme, “The Tradition”, our teacher. ³And we
address the churches, so that they who have been well trained, may,
by our instruction, hold fast that tradition which has continued up to
now and, knowing it well, may be strengthened. ⁴This is needful,
because of that lapse or error which recently occurred through
ignorance, and because of ignorant men. ⁵And [the] Holy Spirit will
supply perfect grace to those who believe aright, that they may
know how all things should be transmitted and kept by them who
rule the church.

PART I

2. ¹Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the
people. ²When he has been named and shall please all, let him, with
the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with
the people on a Sunday. ³While all give their consent, the bishops
shall lay their hands upon him, and the presbytery shall stand by in
silence. ⁴All indeed shall keep silent, praying in their heart for the

descent of the Spirit. ⁵Then one of the bishops who are present shall,
at the request of all, lay his hand on him who is ordained bishop,
and shall pray as follows, saying:
[71]
34
GRE 3. ¹God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies
and God of all comfort, who dwellest on high yet hast respect to the
lowly, who knowest all things before they come to pass. ²Thou hast
appointed the borders of thy church by the word of thy grace,
predestinating from the beginning the righteous race of Abraham.
³And making them princes and priests, and leaving not thy sanctuary
without a ministry, thou hast from the beginning of the world been
[72]
well pleased to be glorified among those whom thou hast chosen.
⁴Pour forth now that power, which is thine, of thy royal Spirit,
which
[73] [74]
LAT thou gavest to thy beloved Servant Jesus Christ, which he
bestowed on his holy apostles,
GRE who established the church in every place, the church which thou
hast sanctified unto unceasing glory and praise of thy name. ⁵Thou
[75]
who knowest the hearts of all, grant to this thy servant, whom
[76]
thou hast chosen to be bishop, [to feed thy holy flock] and to
serve as thy high priest without blame, ministering night and day, to
propitiate thy countenance without ceasing and to offer thee the gifts
of thy holy church. ⁶And by the Spirit of high-priesthood to have
authority to remit sins according to thy commandment, to assign the
lots according to thy precept, to loose every bond according to the
authority which thou gavest to thy apostles, and to please thee in
meekness and purity of heart, offering to thee an odour of sweet
savour. ⁷Through thy Servant Jesus Christ our Lord, through 35
whom be to thee glory, might, honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in
[77]
[the] holy church, both now and always and world without end.
Amen.

LAT 4. ¹And when he is made bishop, all shall offer him the kiss of
peace, for he has been made worthy. ²To him then the deacons shall
bring the offering, and he, laying his hand upon it, with all the
presbytery, shall say as the thanksgiving:

³The Lord be with you.

And all shall say

And with thy spirit.

Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up unto the Lord.

Let us give thanks to the Lord.
It is meet and right.

And then he shall proceed immediately:

⁴We give thee thanks, O God, through thy beloved Servant Jesus
Christ, whom at the end of time thou didst send to us a Saviour and
Redeemer and the Messenger of thy counsel. ⁵Who is thy Word,
inseparable from thee; through whom thou didst make all things and
in whom thou art well pleased. ⁶Whom thou didst send from heaven
into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was
made flesh, and was manifested as thy Son, being born of [the] Holy
Spirit and the Virgin. ⁷Who, fulfilling thy will, and winning for
himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer,
that by his death he might set free them who believed on thee.
⁸Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he 36
might bring to nought death, and break the bonds of the devil,
and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous, and set up
a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and
giving thanks to thee said: ⁹Take, eat: this is my body, which is
broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood,
[78]
which is shed for you. ¹⁰As often as ye perform this, perform my
memorial.

¹¹Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer
to thee the bread and the cup, yielding thee thanks, because thou
hast counted us worthy to stand before thee and to minister to thee.

¹²And we pray thee that thou wouldest send thy Holy Spirit upon the
offerings of thy holy church; that thou, gathering them into one,
wouldest grant to all thy saints who partake to be filled with [the]
Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may
praise and glorify thee. ¹³Through thy Servant Jesus Christ, through
whom be to thee glory and honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy
[79]
church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.

5. ¹If anyone offers oil, he shall give thanks as at the offering of the
bread and wine, though not with the same words but in the same
[80]
general manner, saying:

²That sanctifying this oil, O God, wherewith thou didst anoint kings,
priests and prophets, thou wouldest grant health to them who use it
and partake of it, so that it may bestow comfort on all who 37
taste it and health on all who use it.

6. ¹Likewise, if anyone offers cheese and olives, let him say thus:

²Sanctify this milk that has been united into one mass, and unite us
to thy love. ³Let thy loving kindness ever rest upon this fruit of the
[81]
olive, which is a type of thy bounty, which thou didst cause to
flow from the tree unto life for them who hope on thee.

⁴But at every blessing shall be said:

Glory be to thee, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now
and always and world without end. [Amen.]

[82]
8. ¹But when a presbyter is ordained, the bishop shall lay his
hand upon his head, while the presbyters touch him, and he shall say
according to those things that were said above, as we have
prescribed above concerning the bishop, praying and saying:

²God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look upon this thy
servant, and grant to him the Spirit of grace and counsel of a
[83]
presbyter, that he may sustain and govern thy people with a pure
heart; ³as thou didst look upon thy chosen people and didst
command Moses that he should choose presbyters, whom thou didst
fill with thy Spirit, which thou gavest to thy servant. ⁴And now, O
Lord, grant that there may be unfailingly preserved amongst us the
Spirit of thy grace, and make us worthy that, believing, we 38
may minister to thee in simplicity of heart, praising thee.
⁵Through thy Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to thee glory
and honour, with [the] Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and
always and world without end. Amen.

9. ¹But the deacon, when he is ordained, is chosen according to
those things that were said above, the bishop alone in like manner
laying his hands upon him, as we have prescribed. ²When the
deacon is ordained, this is the reason why the bishop alone shall lay
his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood but to serve
the bishop and to carry out the bishop’s commands. ³He does not
take part in the council of the clergy; he is to attend to his own
duties and to make known to the bishop such things as are needful.
⁴He does not receive that Spirit that is possessed by the presbytery,
in which the presbyters share; he receives only what is confided in
him under the bishop’s authority.

⁵For this cause the bishop alone shall make a deacon. ⁶But on a
presbyter, however, the presbyters shall lay their hands because of
the common and like Spirit of the clergy. ⁷Yet the presbyter has only
the power to receive; but he has no power to give. ⁸For this reason a

presbyter does not ordain the clergy; but at the ordination of a
presbyter he seals while the bishop ordains.

⁹Over a deacon, then, he shall say as follows: 39

¹⁰O God, who hast created all things and hast ordered them by thy
Word, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom thou didst send to
minister thy will and to manifest to us thy desire; ¹¹grant [the] Holy
Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this thy servant, whom thou
hast chosen to serve the church and to offer
[84]
TEST in thy holy sanctuary the gifts that are offered to thee
[85]
ETH by thine appointed high priests,
[86]
TEST so that serving without blame and with a pure heart he may be
[87]
counted worthy of this exalted office, by thy goodwill, praising
thee continually. ¹²Through thy Servant Jesus Christ, through whom
be to thee glory and honour, with [the] Holy Spirit, in the holy
[88]
church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.

SAH 10. ¹On a confessor, if he has been in bonds for the name of the
Lord, hands shall not be laid for the diaconate or the presbyterate,
for he has the honour of the presbyterate by his confession. But if he
is to be ordained bishop, hands shall be laid upon him.

²But if he is a confessor who was not brought before the authorities
nor was punished with bonds nor was shut up in prison, but was
insulted (?) casually or privately for the name of the Lord, even
though he confessed, hands are to be laid upon him for every office
[89]
of which he is worthy.
[90]
40
³The bishop shall give thanks [in all ordinations] as we
[91]
have prescribed. ⁴It is not, to be sure, necessary for anyone to

recite the exact words that we have prescribed, by learning to say
them by heart in his thanksgiving to God; but let each one pray
according to his ability. ⁵If, indeed, he is able to pray competently
with an elevated prayer, it is well. ⁶But even if he is only moderately
[92]
able to pray and give praise, no one may forbid him; only let him
pray sound in the faith.

[93]
11. ¹When a widow is appointed, she shall not be ordained but
she shall be appointed by the name. ²If her husband has been long
dead, she may be appointed [without delay]. ³But if her husband has
died recently, she shall not be trusted; even if she is aged she must
be tested by time, for often the passions grow old in those who yield
to them.

⁴The widow shall be appointed by the word alone, and [so] she shall
be associated with the other widows; hands shall not be laid upon
her because she does not offer the oblation nor has she a sacred
[94]
ministry. ⁵Ordination is for the clergy on account of their
[95]
ministry, but the widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the
duty of all.

[96]
GRE 12. ¹The reader is appointed by the bishop’s giving him the book, for
he is not ordained.

SAH 13. ¹Hands shall not be laid upon a virgin, for it is her purpose alone
that makes her a virgin.

41
14. Hands shall not be laid upon a subdeacon, but his name
shall be mentioned that he may serve the deacon.

15. If anyone says, “I have received the gift of healing”, hands shall
not be laid upon him: the deed shall make manifest if he speaks the
truth.

PART II
[97]
16. ¹New converts to the faith, who are to be admitted as hearers
of the word, shall first be brought to the teachers before the people
assemble. ²And they shall be examined as to their reason for
embracing the faith, and they who bring them shall testify that they
are competent to hear the word. ³Inquiry shall then be made as to the
[98] [99]
nature of their life; whether a man has a wife or is a slave. ⁴If
he is the slave of a believer and he has his master’s permission, then
let him be received; but if his master does not give him a good
character, let him be rejected. ⁵If his master is a heathen, let the
[100]
slave be taught to please his master, that the word be not
[101]
blasphemed. ⁶If a man has a wife or a woman a husband, let the
man be instructed to content himself with his wife and the woman to
content herself with her husband. ⁷But if a man is unmarried, let him
be instructed to abstain from impurity, either by lawfully marrying a
[102]
42
wife or else by remaining as he is. ⁸But if any man is
possessed with demons, he shall not be admitted as a bearer until he
is cleansed.

⁹Inquiry shall likewise be made about the professions and trades of
those who are brought to be admitted to the faith. ¹⁰If a man is a
[103]
pander, he must desist or be rejected. ¹¹If a man is a sculptor or
painter, he must be charged not to make idols; if he does not desist
he must be rejected. ¹²If a man is an actor or pantomimist, he must
desist or be rejected. ¹³A teacher of young children had best desist,
but if he has no other occupation, he may be permitted to continue.
¹⁴A charioteer, likewise, who races or frequents races, must desist or

be rejected. ¹⁵A gladiator or a trainer of gladiators, or a huntsman [in
[104]
the wild-beast shows], or anyone connected with these shows,
or a public official in charge of gladiatorial exhibitions must desist
or be rejected. ¹⁶A heathen priest or anyone who tends idols must
[105]
desist or be rejected. ¹⁷A soldier of the civil authority must be
taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and
[106]
to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must
be rejected. ¹⁸A military commander or civic magistrate that wears
the purple must resign or be rejected. ¹⁹If a catechumen or a believer
seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have
[107]
despised God. ²⁰A harlot or licentious man or one who has
castrated himself, or any other who does things not to be named,
must be rejected, for they are defiled. ²¹A magician must not [even]
be brought for examination. ²²An enchanter, an astrologer, a diviner,
a soothsayer, a user of magic verses, a juggler, a mountebank, 43
[108]
an amulet-maker must desist or be rejected. ²³A concubine,
who is a slave and has reared her children and has been faithful to
her master alone, may become a hearer; but if she has failed in these
matters she must be rejected. ²⁴If a man has a concubine, he must
desist and marry legally; if he is unwilling, he must be rejected.

²⁵If, now, we have omitted anything (any trade?), the facts [as they
occur] will instruct your mind; for we all have the Spirit of God.

17. ¹Let catechumens spend three years as hearers of the word. ²But
if a man is zealous and perseveres well in the work, it is not the time
but his character that is decisive.

18. ¹When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens shall
pray by themselves, apart from the believers. ²And [all] women,
whether believers or catechumens, shall stand for their prayers by
themselves in a separate part of the church.

³And when [the catechumens] finish their prayers, they must not
give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure. ⁴Only believers
shall salute one another, but men with men and women with women;
a man shall not salute a woman.

⁵And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque
cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering.

19. ¹At the close of their prayer, when their instructor lays his hand
upon the catechumens, he shall pray and dismiss them; whoever
gives the instruction is to do this, whether a cleric or a layman.

²If a catechumen should be arrested for the name of the Lord, 44
let him not hesitate about bearing his testimony; for if it should
happen that they treat him shamefully and kill him, he will be
justified, for he has been baptized in his own blood.

20. ¹They who are to be set apart for baptism shall be chosen after
their lives have been examined: whether they have lived soberly,
whether they have honoured the widows, whether they have visited
the sick, whether they have been active in well-doing. ²When their
sponsors have testified that they have done these things, then let
them hear the Gospel. ³Then from the time that they are separated
from the other catechumens, hands shall be laid upon them daily in
exorcism and, as the day of their baptism draws near, the bishop
[109]
himself shall exorcise each one of them that he may be
personally assured of their purity. ⁴Then, if there is any of them who
is not good or pure, he shall be put aside as not having heard the
word in faith; for it is never possible for the alien to be concealed.
[110]

⁵Then those who are set apart for baptism shall be instructed to
bathe and free themselves from impurity and wash themselves on
Thursday. ⁶If a woman is menstruous, she shall be set aside and
baptized on some other day.

⁷They who are to be baptized shall fast on Friday, and on Saturday
the bishop shall assemble them and command them to kneel in
prayer. ⁸And, laying his hand upon them, he shall exorcise all evil
spirits to flee away and never to return; when he has done this he
shall breathe in their faces, seal their foreheads, ears and 45
noses, and then raise them up. ⁹They shall spend all that night
in vigil, listening to reading and instruction.

¹⁰They who are to be baptized shall bring with them no other vessels
than the one each will bring for the eucharist; for it is fitting that he
who is counted worthy of baptism should bring his offering at that
time.

21. ¹At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. ²The stream
shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it from above
when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is a scarcity, whether
[111]
constant or sudden, then use whatever water you can find.

³They shall remove their clothing. ⁴And first baptize the little ones;
if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their
parents or other relatives shall speak for them. ⁵Then baptize the
men, and last of all the women; they must first loosen their hair and
put aside any gold or silver ornaments that they were wearing: let no
one take any alien thing down to the water with them.

⁶At the hour set for the baptism the bishop shall give thanks over oil
and put it into a vessel: this is called the “oil of thanksgiving”. ⁷And
he shall take other oil and exorcise it: this is called “the oil of
[112]
exorcism”. [The anointing is performed by a presbyter.] ⁸A
deacon shall bring the oil of exorcism, and shall stand at the
presbyter’s left hand; and another deacon shall take the oil of
thanksgiving, and shall stand at the presbyter’s right hand. ⁹Then the
presbyter, taking hold of each of those about to be baptized, shall
command him to renounce, saying:

I renounce thee, Satan, and all thy servants and all thy works.

¹⁰And when he has renounced all these, the presbyter shall 46
anoint him with the oil of exorcism, saying:

Let all spirits depart far from thee.
[113]
TEST ¹¹Then, after these things, let him give him over to the presbyter
who baptizes, and let the candidates stand in the water, naked, a
[114]
deacon going with them likewise. ¹²And when he who is being
baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his
hand on him, shall say thus:
[115]
Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?

¹³And he who is being baptized shall say:

I believe.

¹⁴Then
LAT holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once.
¹⁵And then he shall say:

Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius
Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive
from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right 47
hand of the Father, and will come to judge the quick and the
dead? ¹⁶And when he says:

I believe,

he is baptized again. ¹⁷And again he shall say:

Dost thou believe in [the] Holy Ghost, and the holy church, and the
resurrection of the flesh?

¹⁸He who is being baptized shall say accordingly:

I believe,
[116]
and so he is baptized a third time.

¹⁹And afterward, when he has come up [out of the water], he is
anointed by the presbyter with the oil of thanksgiving, the presbyter
saying:

I anoint thee with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ.

²⁰And so each one, after drying himself, is immediately clothed, and
then is brought into the church.

[117]
22. ¹Then the bishop, laying his hand upon them, shall pray,
saying:

O Lord God, who hast made them worthy to obtain remission of sins
through the laver of regeneration of [the] Holy Spirit, send into them
thy grace, that they may serve thee according to thy will; for thine is
the glory, to the Father and the Son, with [the] Holy Spirit in the
[118]
holy church, both now and world without end. Amen.

²Then, pouring the oil of thanksgiving from his hand and putting it
on his forehead, he shall say:

I anoint thee with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty 48
and Christ Jesus and [the] Holy Ghost.

³And signing them on the forehead he shall say:

The Lord be with thee;

and he who is signed shall say:

And with thy spirit.

⁴And so he shall do to each one.

⁵And immediately thereafter they shall join in prayer with all the
people, but they shall not pray with the faithful until all these things
are completed. ⁶And at the close of their prayer they shall give the
kiss of peace.

23. ¹And then the offering is immediately brought by the deacons to
the bishop, and by thanksgiving he shall make the bread into an
[119]
image of the body of Christ, and the cup of wine mixed with
[120]
water according to the likeness of the blood, which is shed for
all who believe in him. ²And milk and honey mixed together for the
fulfilment of the promise to the fathers, which spoke of a land
flowing with milk and honey; namely, Christ’s flesh which he gave,
by which they who believe are nourished like babes, he making
sweet the bitter things of the heart by the gentleness of his word.
³And the water into an offering in a token of the laver, in order that
the inner part of man, which is a living soul, may receive the same
as the body.

⁴The bishop shall explain the reason of all these things to those who
partake. ⁵And when he breaks the bread and distributes the
fragments he shall say:

The heavenly bread in Christ Jesus.

⁶And the recipient shall say, Amen.

⁷And the presbyters—or if there are not enough presbyters, the 49
deacons—shall hold the cups, and shall stand by with
reverence and modesty; first he who holds the water, then the milk,
thirdly the wine. ⁸And the recipients shall taste of each three times,
he who gives the cup saying:

In God the Father Almighty;

and the recipient shall say, Amen. ⁹Then:

In the Lord Jesus Christ;

[and he shall say, Amen. ¹⁰Then:

[121]
In] [the] Holy Ghost and the holy church;

and he shall say, Amen. ¹¹So it shall be done to each.

¹²And when these things are completed, let each one hasten to do
good works,
SAH and to please God and to live aright, devoting himself to the church,
practising the things he has learned, advancing in the service of
God.

¹³Now we have briefly delivered to you these things concerning the
holy baptism and the holy oblation, for you have already been
instructed concerning the resurrection of the flesh and all other
things as taught in Scripture.¹⁴Yet if there is any other thing that
ought to be told [to converts], let the bishop impart it to them
privately after their baptism; let not unbelievers know it, until they
are baptized: this is the white stone of which John said: “There is
upon it a new name written, which no one knoweth but he that
receiveth the stone”.

50

PART III
[122] [123]
GRE 25. ¹Widows and virgins shall fast frequently and shall pray for
the church; presbyters, if they wish, and laymen may fast likewise.
²But the bishop may fast only when all the people fast.

26. ¹For it constantly happens that some one wishes to make an
offering—and such a one must not be denied—and then the bishop,
after breaking the bread, must in every case taste
SAH and eat it with the other believers. ²[At such an offering] each shall
take from the bishop’s hand a piece of [this] bread before breaking
[124]
his own bread. [This service has a special ceremonial] for it is “a
Blessing”, not “a Thanksgiving”, as is [the service of] the Body of
[125]
the Lord. ³But before drinking, each one,
LAT as many of you as are present,
SAH must take a cup and give thanks over it,
LAT and so go to your meal.

⁴But to the catechumens is given exorcised bread, and each of them
must offer the cup. ⁵No catechumen shall sit at the Lord’s Supper.

⁶But at each act of offering, the offerer must remember his host, for
he was invited to the latter’s home for that very purpose. ⁷But when
you eat and drink, do so in an orderly manner and not so that anyone
may mock, or your host be saddened by your unruliness, but behave
so that he may pray to be made worthy that the saints may 51
enter his dwelling: “for ye”, it is said, “are the salt of the
earth”.
[126]
⁸If the offering should be one made to all the guests jointly, take
your portion from your host [and depart]. ⁹But if all are to eat then
and there, do not eat to excess, so that your host may likewise send
some of what the saints leave to whomsoever he will and [so] may
rejoice in the faith.

¹⁰But while the guests are eating, let them eat silently, not arguing,
[127]
[attending to] such things as the bishop may teach, but if he
should ask any question, let an answer be given him; and when he
says anything, everyone in modest praise shall keep silence until he
asks again.

¹¹And even if the bishop should be absent when the faithful meet at
a supper, if a presbyter or a deacon is present they shall eat in a
[128]
similar orderly fashion, and each shall be careful to take the
blessed bread from the presbyter’s or deacon’s hand; and in the
same way the catechumens shall take the same exorcised bread.

¹²But if [only] laymen meet, let them not act presumptuously, for a
[129]
layman cannot bless the blessed bread.

¹³Let each one eat in the name of the Lord; for this is pleasing to the
Lord that we should be jealous [of our good name] even among the
[130]
heathen, all sober alike.

27. ¹If anyone wishes to give a meal to widows of mature years, let
him dismiss them before evening. ²But if, on account of 52
[131]
existing conditions, he cannot [feed them in his house], let
him send them away, and they may eat of his food at their homes in
any way they please.

28. ¹As soon as first-fruits appear, all shall hasten to offer them to
the bishop. ²And he shall offer them, shall give thanks and shall
name him who offered them, saying:

³We give thee thanks, O God, and we offer thee the first-fruits;
which thou hast given us to enjoy, nourishing them through thy
word, commanding the earth to bring forth her fruits for the
gladness and the food of men and all beasts. ⁴For all these things we
praise thee, O God, and for all things wherewith thou hast blessed
us, who for us adornest every creature with divers fruits. ⁵Through
thy Servant Jesus Christ, our Lord, through whom be to thee glory,
world without end. Amen.

⁶Only certain fruits may be blessed, namely grapes, the fig, the
pomegranate, the olive, the pear, the apple, the mulberry, the peach,

the cherry, the almond, the plum. ⁷Not the pumpkin, nor the melon,
nor the cucumber, nor the onion nor garlic nor anything else having
an odour.

⁸But sometimes flowers too are offered; here the rose and the lily
may be offered, but no other.

⁹But for everything that is eaten shall they [who eat it] give thanks
to the Holy God, eating unto His glory.

[132]
29. ¹Let no one at the paschal season eat before the offering is
[133]
made, otherwise he shall not be credited with the fast. ²But 53
if any woman is with child, or if anyone is sick and cannot fast for
two days, let such a one, on account of his need, [at least] fast on
Saturday, contenting himself with bread and water. ³But if anyone
on a voyage or for any other necessary cause should not know the
day, when he has learned the truth he shall postpone his fast until
after Pentecost. ⁴For the ancient type has passed away, and so the
[postponed] fast [of Numbers 9. 11] in the second month has ceased,
and each one ought to fast in accord with his knowledge of the truth.
[134]

30. ¹Each of the deacons, with the subdeacons, shall be alert on the
bishop’s behalf, for the bishop must be informed if any are sick so
that, if he pleases, he may visit them; for a sick man is greatly
comforted when the high priest is mindful of him.

[135]
SAH 33. ¹Let the deacons and the presbyters assemble daily at the
place which the bishop may appoint; let the deacons [in particular]
never fail to assemble unless prevented by sickness. ²When all have
met they shall instruct those who are in the church, and then, after
prayer, each shall go to his appointed duties.

34. ¹No exorbitant charge shall be made for burial in the cemetery,
for it belongs to all the poor; only the hire of the grave-digger and
the cost of the tile [for closing the niche in the catacombs] shall be
asked. ²The wages of the caretakers are to be paid by the bishop, lest
any of those who go to that place be burdened [with a charge].

54

PART IV

35. ¹Let all the faithful, whether men or women, when early in the
morning they rise from their sleep and before they undertake any
tasks, wash their hands and pray to God; and so they may go to their
duties. ²But if any instruction in God’s word is held [that day],
[136]
everyone ought to attend it willingly, recollecting that he will
[137]
hear God speaking through the instructor and that prayer in the
church enables him to avoid the day’s evil; any godly man ought to
count it a great loss if he does not attend the place of instruction,
especially if he can read.
[138]
³If a [specially gifted] teacher should come, let none of you
[139]
delay to attend the place where the instruction is given, for grace
will be given to the speaker to utter things profitable to all, and thou
[140]
wilt hear new things, and thou wilt be profited by what the Holy
Spirit will give thee through the instructor; so thy faith will be
strengthened by what thou hearest, and in that place thou wilt learn
thy duties at home; therefore let everyone be zealous to go to the
[141]
church, the place where the Holy Spirit abounds.

36. ¹But if on any day there is no instruction, let everyone at home
take the Bible and read sufficiently in passages that he finds
profitable.

²If at the third hour thou art at home, pray then and give thanks to
God; but if thou chance to be abroad at that hour, make thy prayer to
God in thy heart. ³For at that hour Christ was nailed to the tree; 55
therefore in the old [covenant] the law commanded the
showbread to be offered continually for a type of the body and blood
of Christ, and commanded the sacrifice of the dumb lamb, which
was a type of the perfect Lamb; for Christ is the Shepherd, and he is
also the Bread that came down from heaven.

⁴At the sixth hour likewise pray also, for, after Christ was nailed to
the wood of the cross, the day was divided and there was a great
darkness; wherefore let [the faithful] pray at that hour with an
effectual prayer, likening themselves to the voice of him who prayed
[and] caused all creation to become dark for the unbelieving Jews.

⁵And at the ninth hour let a great prayer and a great thanksgiving be
[142]
made, such as made the souls of the righteous ones, blessing the
Lord,
LAT the God who does not lie, who was mindful of his saints and sent
forth his Word to enlighten them. ⁶At that hour, therefore, Christ
poured forth from his pierced side water and blood, and brought the
rest of the time of that day with light to evening; so, when he fell
asleep, by making the beginning of another day he completed the
pattern of his resurrection.

⁷Pray again before thy body rests on thy bed.

⁸At midnight arise, wash thy hands with water and pray. ⁹And if thy
wife is with thee, pray ye both together; but if she is not yet a
believer, go into another room and pray, and again return to thy bed;
be not slothful in prayer.

¹⁰He who has used the marriage bed is not defiled; for they who are
bathed have no need to wash again, for they are clean. ¹¹By signing
[143]
thyself with thy moist breath, and so spreading spittle on 56
thy body with thy hand, thou art sanctified to thy feet; for the gift of

the Spirit and the sprinkling with water, when it is brought with a
believing heart as it were from a fountain, sanctifies him who
believes.

¹²It is needful to pray at this hour; for those very elders who gave us
the tradition taught us that at this hour all creation rests for a certain
moment, that all creatures may praise the Lord: stars and trees and
waters stand still with one accord, and all the angelic host does
service to God by praising Him, together with the souls of the
righteous. ¹³For this cause believers should be zealous to pray at this
hour; for the Lord, testifying to this, says: “Behold at midnight is a
cry, Behold the Bridegroom cometh! Rise up to meet him!”; and he
adds insistently: “Watch ye therefore, for ye know not at what hour
he cometh”.

¹⁴And at cockcrow rise up and pray likewise, for at that hour of
cockcrow the children of Israel denied Christ, whom we have
known by faith; by which faith, in the hope of eternal life at the
resurrection of the dead, we look for his Day.

¹⁵And so, all ye faithful, if ye thus act, and are mindful of these
things, and teach them to one another, and cause the catechumens to
be zealous, ye can neither be tempted nor can ye perish, since ye
have Christ always in your minds.

[144]
37. ¹But imitate him always, by signing thy forehead sincerely;
for this is the sign of his Passion, manifest and approved 57
against the devil if so thou makest it from faith; not that thou
mayest appear to men, but knowingly offering it as a shield. ²For the
adversary, seeing its power coming from the heart, that a man
[145]
displays the publicly formed image of baptism, is put to flight;
not because thou spittest, but because the Spirit in thee breathes him
away. ³When Moses formed it by putting the blood of the Paschal
lamb that was slain on the lintel and anointing the side-posts, he
signified the faith which now we have in the perfect Lamb.

[146]
38. ¹And so, if these things are accepted with thanksgiving and
right faith, they give edification in the church and eternal life to
believers. ²I counsel that these things be kept by all who know
aright; for over all who hear the apostolic tra[dition]
SAH and keep it, no heretics or any other man will prevail to lead them
astray. ³For the many heresies have increased because their leaders
would not learn the purpose of the apostles but acted according to
their own wills, following their lusts and not what was right.

⁴Now, beloved, if we have omitted anything, God will reveal it to
those who are worthy, guiding the holy church to its mooring in
[God’s] quiet haven.

58

LATER ADDITIONS

ETH 24. ¹On Saturday and Sunday the bishop shall whenever possible
give the people the bread with his own hand, while the deacons
break it. ²The presbyters too shall break the bread to be delivered;
and whenever a deacon approaches a presbyter he shall hold out his
[147]
robe, and the presbyter shall take the bread and deliver it to the
people with his hand.

³On other days they shall give the bread as the bishop determines.

On this section compare p. 31. It may be further observed that
section 2 is pretty clearly an addition.

ETH 26. ¹⁴In time of need the deacon shall be diligent in giving the
[148]
blessed bread to the sick. ¹⁵If there is no presbyter to give out
what is to be distributed, the deacon shall pronounce the
[149]
thanksgiving and shall supervise those who carry it away, to
make sure that they attend to their duty and [properly] distribute the
blessed food; the distributors must give it to the widows and the

[150]
sick. ¹⁶Whoever is entrusted with the duty by the church must
distribute it on the same day; if he does not, he must [at least] do so
on the next day with the addition of what is then given him. ¹⁷For [it
is not his own property]; it is given him only [in trust] as bread for
the poor.

¹⁸When evening has come and the bishop is present, the deacon shall
bring in a lamp. ¹⁹Then the bishop, standing in the midst of the
believers, before giving thanks shall first give the salutation:

The Lord be with you all.

²⁰And the people shall say:

[And] with thy spirit.

²¹And the bishop shall say:

Let us give thanks to the Lord.

²²And the people shall say: 59

It is meet and right:
Majesty, exaltation and glory are due to Him.

²³But they shall not say “Lift up your hearts”, for that belongs to the
oblation. ²⁴And he prays thus, saying:

We give thee thanks, O God, because thou hast enlightened us by
revealing the incorruptible light. ²⁵So we, having finished the length
of a day, and being come to the beginning of the night, satisfied with
the light of the day that thou hast created for our satisfaction; and
now, since by thy grace we lack not a light for the evening, we
sanctify thee and we glorify thee. ²⁶Through thine only Son our Lord
Jesus Christ, through whom be to thee with him glory and might and
[151]
honour with [the] Holy Spirit, now, etc.

²⁷And they shall all say: Amen.

²⁸Then, rising up after supper, the children and virgins having
prayed, they shall sing psalms. ²⁹Then the deacon, holding the
[152]
mixed cup of the offering, shall say a Hallelujah Psalm. ³⁰Then,
the presbyter having commanded, “And also such-and-such
[153]
Psalms”, after the bishop has offered the cup with the proper
thanksgiving, all shall say “Hallelujah” as the Psalms are sung.
³¹And they shall say:

We praise Him who is God most high;
Glorified and praised is He,
[154]
Who founded the world with a single word.

³²Then, when the Psalm is completed, he shall give thanks over the
bread, and shall give the fragments to all the believers.

On these sections compare p. 31. An evening service, that included
bringing in the lamp, is widespread in early Christianity and is
eventually derived from Judaism; the particular service described
here is a prelude to a congregational agape. There is nothing in
sections 18-32 that necessarily implies a date later than Hippolytus,
but the ceremony is badly placed between the private agapes and the
equally private meals for the widows, and it is followed by a
duplication of 26. 2, 10-12.

60
LAT 31. ¹The faithful, early in the morning, as soon as they have
awaked and arisen, before they undertake their tasks shall pray to
God and so may then go to their duties. ²But if any instruction in the
word is held, let each give first place to that, that he may attend and
hear the word of God, to his soul’s comfort; so let each one hasten to
the church, where the Spirit abounds.

32. ¹But let each of the faithful be zealous, before he eats anything
else, to receive the eucharist; for if anyone receives it with faith,
after such a reception he cannot be harmed even if a deadly poison
should be given him. ²But let each one take care that no unbeliever
taste the eucharist, nor a mouse nor any other animal, and that
nothing of it fall or be lost; for the body of Christ is to be eaten by
believers and must not be despised. ³The cup, when thou hast given
thanks in the name of the Lord, thou hast accepted as the image of
the blood of Christ. ⁴Therefore let none of it be spilled, so that no
alien spirit may lick it up, as if thou didst despise it; thou shalt be
guilty of the blood, as if thou didst scorn the price with which thou
[155]
hast been bought.

In the Oriental versions the position of chapters 31-32 between
chapters 30 and 33 is impossible. Chapter 30 addresses the church’s
officers, chapters 31-32 individuals, chapters 33-34 the officers, and
chapter 35 individuals again; chapter 31, in addition, is only a
condensation of 35. 1-3. But the Hauler manuscript clears up the
difficulty. In it chapter 32 is followed immediately by the Latin A
form of 37. 1-38. 2a, breaking off at the end of a leaf with “apo” (for
“apostolic”). The next leaf begins with “God” in the middle of 36. 5,
and the text continues through 36, gives the Latin B form of 37. 1-
38. 2a and breaks off this time with “tra” for “tradition”. So two
versions of the work were current with different endings; in one
chapter 30 was followed by 31-32 and the A conclusion, in the other
it was followed by 33-35 and the B conclusion. In the Hauler
manuscript both endings were reproduced, although the leaves
containing the last two sentences of the first and a 61
considerable part of the second have been lost. In the Oriental
versions—or the Greek codex underlying them—the glaring
duplication caused by the ending after 32 was suppressed, although
the doubling of 35. 1-3 in 31 remained.

Since chapter 34 is unmistakably Roman and consequently
Hippolytean, the longer ending is original; chapter 33, moreover, is

[156]
perfectly in place after chapter 30. So Schwartz and Jungklaus
[157]
are correct in holding that chapter 32 is not by Hippolytus; the
only alternative would be to assume that he issued two versions of
his book with different endings—a difficult supposition that would
leave unexplained why the very important practice stressed in
chapter 32 is omitted in the longer version.
[158]
On the other hand it is true, as Connolly argues, that the rules of
chapter 32 are truly third-century. The custom according to which
each Christian kept the consecrated eucharist in his house and
received it each morning is attested in Tertullian’s To his Wife II, 5,
and the reason given (Mark 16. 18) for receiving fasting is not that
of the later church (compare on chapter 29); Connolly observes
further that the home reservation of consecrated wine as well as
consecrated bread is unknown elsewhere.

Very curious, too, is the phrase “when thou hast given thanks” in
section 3, for the section as a whole is addressed to the laity. Is there
here some reminiscence of earlier corporately celebrated eucharists,
like the agapes in chapter 26? Or are 3-4 a later addition, addressed
to the clergy? Or is there textual confusion?
63

NOTES

1

Characteristic of Hippolytus’s style are his frequent summaries of the
progress of his treatises; compare 16. 25; 23. 13; Philosophumena, Proem.;
i, 23. 4, etc.

The opening sentence is obscure, but Connolly’s explanation (pp. 161-162)
appears the most likely: Man, made in God’s image, went astray, but
through the Incarnation God restored humanity by presenting to Himself
Christ, the perfect Man.

2. On the phrase translated “most important theme” compare Connolly, p.
161; the original Greek word was presumably κορυφή.

3. If the “churches” are the different Roman congregations—an unusual
sense—Hippolytus speaks simply as a bishop; if the meaning is “at Rome
and elsewhere” he speaks not only as a bishop but as a teacher of eminent
authority.

4. The “lapse or error” is the Zephyrinus-Callistus “schism”. As Hippolytus
speaks of it as a recent event, the date of the treatise cannot be far from 217.

PART I
Ordination

2
THE BISHOP

An episcopal election is still in the hands of the “multitude” (compare Acts
6. 2), the clergy as yet having no distinct voice in theory. Rather curiously
no qualifications are given for the bishop; contrast, e.g., 1 Timothy 3. 64
2-7 or the expansions in the Constitutions and the Testament. The
bishop’s functions are essentially the same as in the Ignatian Epistles: as the
embodiment of his church’s unity he is the centre and head of all its
activities, whether in teaching, worship, or discipline.

The title “high priest”, however, is not used by Ignatius, and in the extant
Christian literature first occurs in Tertullian, On Baptism 17 (ca. 205);
Hippolytus also uses “high-priesthood” of the episcopal office in
Philosophumena, Proem. 6. Similarly Tertullian calls the presbyters
“priests” in his Exhortation to Chastity 7, 11 (ca. 210), and in 9. 2 of our
treatise Hippolytus describes their work as “priesthood”.

This appearance of sacerdotal titles for Christian ministers—something that
is foreign to the New Testament—was a consequence of the adoption of
[159]
sacrificial terms for Christian worship: sacrifices are offered by priests.
So Didache 13. 3 describes the prophets as “your high priests” (compare 15.
1), while Ignatius (Philadelphians 4) writes “one altar, as one bishop”.
Consequently it is more than probable that “high priest” and “priest” were
in common—although by no means universal—use among Christians by
the middle of the second century. Hippolytus’s distrust of innovations
corroborates this; apart from anti-modalist additions the terminology of his
consecration prayer can scarcely be thought to depart much from the forms
in use in his younger days.

Otherwise the bishop is said to “feed the flock”, a New Testament
[160]
phrase that was of course traditional; to Hippolytus it would include
both correct teaching of doctrine and faithful administration of the
sacraments. Since in Philosophumena IX, 7 he inveighs fiercely 65
against Callistus’s claim to absolve grave sins, “to remit” here can
refer only to minor offences. “To assign the lots” strictly construed would

mean “to appoint the clergy”, but compare on 9. 1. “To loose every bond” is
probably only a traditional liturgical generality.

THE CHRISTIAN “SACRIFICES”

Sacrificial terms in the New Testament, except when used to describe the
Atonement, are employed within Christianity only in a transferred sense:
[161]
the Christian sacrifices are either acts of righteousness, the rendering of
[162] [163]
prayer and praise, or gifts given to fellow-Christians. In the post-
apostolic age this last sense was popular and in one particular application it
was made a definitely technical term. Christian worship and Christian social
life centred in a “table-bond”; the specifically Christian act of worship was
the eucharist, which in apostolic times was regularly celebrated in
[164]
conjunction with a meal of some sort, and even in Hippolytus’s day had
not lost all traces of the earlier custom (chapters 5-6). But the Christians
were extremely fond of other common meals as well, the “agapes”, of a less
sacred but still definitely religious nature (chapter 26). In all of these meals
the amount of food required was considerable, and providing it naturally
entailed real expense. To supply this food, consequently, was a meritorious
act, which not only satisfied the needs of the brethren but enabled the
church to hold a liturgical service, at which the food was placed in the midst
[165]
of the congregation and “blessed”. Hence the various foods were 66
naturally called “offerings”, and from this it was only a short step to calling
the service itself a “sacrifice”.

The word first appears in Didache 14. 1-2, where it is used of the eucharist
or (more probably) the eucharist-agape. When the term was definitely
adopted into the Christian vocabulary, its further definition in Old
Testament language was inevitable. Here the nearest analogue might have
been found in the “peace-offerings”, which were eaten by those who offered
them. But the Christians did not usually follow Levitical distinctions
closely, and Hippolytus (3. 5) speaks of the bishop as “propitiating God’s
countenance”, language that more properly belongs to the “sin-offerings”.

A special type of Christian offering were the first-fruits (chapter 28), which
were likewise solemnly presented and “blessed” by the bishop. There were
again explicit Old Testament analogies, but in Christianity “sacrifice” did
not permanently become a term for this custom.

2. Notice of the election and of the Sunday appointed for the consecration
was sent to the neighbouring churches, whose bishops would naturally
attend as far as they were able.

3. The assent of the people was given by acclamation; according to the
Canons in the form “We choose him!” The explicit injunction that the
presbyters must not join in the imposition of hands should be noted; the
Arabic omits the prohibition, perhaps accidentally, but the Canons read
“One of the bishops and presbyters shall be chosen to lay his hand upon his
head”. Compare on 9. 5-8.

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

67

3

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

4. “Royal” (more precisely “princely”) renders ἡγεμονικός, taken from the
Septuagint version of Psalm 51. 12 (50. 14).

The Epitome’s abbreviation in this passage avoids suggesting that until a
definite moment the Son did not possess the Spirit (Connolly, p. 151). The
unabbreviated text is practically only a combination of Matthew 3. 16 and
John 20. 22, but the result is so definitely anti-modalistic that it is probably
the work of Hippolytus; the language is over-precise for a prayer.

5. “Thou who knowest the hearts of all” is from Acts 1. 24, but such exact
Scriptural language is more characteristic of the fourth century than the
third. While the emphasis is on the bishop’s offering the “gifts”, his prayers
for his flock are certainly not excluded as part of his high-priestly ministry
(Hebrews 7. 25, etc.).

6. The “odour of sweet savour” is the offering of a holy life, as in Romans
12. 1.

7. The doxology is that given in the Epitome and presupposed in the Canons
and Testament, with the substitution of “through whom” (so the other
sources) for “with whom” (a peculiarity of the Epitomist). After “honour”
the Latin and Ethiopic insert “to the Father and the Son”. “Servant” as a
liturgical title for Christ comes from Acts 4. 27, 30; the later versions
naturally substitute “Son”.

The Sahidic and the Arabic omit the consecration prayer entirely,
presumably because it did not accord with local use. The Canons 68
paraphrase Hippolytus’s form slightly; the Constitutions and the
Testament enlarge it greatly. For the sake of comparison Sarapion’s prayer
may be given:

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

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

4-6
THE EUCHARIST

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

The various Jewish blessings in their oldest literary forms are collected in
[166]
the Mishnah tractate Berakhoth; this was finally compiled in the 69
third century, but most of its contents are much earlier; note in chapter 8 the
account of the pre-Christian controversy between the schools of Hillel and
Shammai. The form of all the blessings is the same; after the opening words
of praise the worshipper recites the particular act of God for which
thanksgiving is due. So over bread the formula is:

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

and over wine:

Blessed be thou, O God, King of the universe, who hast created the fruit
of the vine.

There is no real reason to doubt that these were the words used by Christ at
the Last Supper when he “gave thanks”; Mark 14. 25 takes up the blessing
used over the cup.

To eat without thanksgiving was a sin, and he who did so at least violated
God’s law commanding thankfulness. But most Jews would also have held
that unblessed food is unfit for consumption, and that pronouncing the
benediction removes this quasi-uncleanness, i.e., “hallows” it: “Nothing is
to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through
[167] [168]
the word of God and prayer”. In other words, the act of
thanksgiving was construed as having a consecratory effect, potent even for
ordinary food and therefore especially potent for sacred food. So St Paul
writes in 1 Corinthians 10. 16: “The cup of thanksgiving over which we
give thanks, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?” In Hippolytus
the same conception appears unambiguously in 21. 6 and 23, but it also
underlies his use of “thanksgiving” in 4. 2 and 10. 4.

Accordingly, since at the Christians’ greatest liturgical service the 70
essential formula was a solemn thanksgiving, the service itself and
food consecrated at the service both came to be called simply “The
[169]
Thanksgiving” or (in Greek) “The Eucharist”. And—certainly in the
second century, since Hippolytus gives the formula—the eucharistic prayer
was prefaced by the invitatory, “Let us make our thanksgiving to the Lord”,
and this in turn by the appropriate words, “Lift up your hearts”.

Since extempore prayer was still largely practised (4), the contents of the
Christian thanksgivings naturally varied widely, but it would appear
inevitable that at first, in accord with Christ’s example, God’s provision of
food for men was the normal topic: the beautiful prayer in the Didache is
formed on this model, which Hippolytus follows closely in chapters 5-6.
But the thought of food in the bread and wine was overshadowed by the
thought of redemption, and even in the Didache the earthly species only
typify the salvation wrought in Christ. In chapter 4 of Hippolytus the

“table” form of the blessing is abandoned altogether for the praise of
Christ’s redeeming works, and the same is true of practically all later
liturgies. As is entirely natural, Hippolytus’s thanksgiving concludes with
reciting the work of Christ most vividly in mind at the moment: his
[170]
institution of the rite that the church was engaged in celebrating.

The evidence of the later liturgies shows us that the purely Christian 71
objects of thanksgiving in Hippolytus were by no means the only ones
for which God was blessed; thanks could be given with entire
appropriateness to the Father for any of His benefits from creation on. For
such prayers Jewish synagogue formulas provided models that were freely
utilized; compare, e.g., Constitutions VII, 33-38. These thanksgivings often
included (VII, 35, 3) or culminated in the hymn of Isaiah 6. 3 (“Sanctus”),
and in this way this hymn passed into the Christian eucharistic prayers, to
become an all but universal feature in them. In the liturgy in the
Constitutions it stands at a place that shows its origin, at the close of the
(Jewish) thanksgivings for Old Testament benefits (VIII, 12, 27) and before
the (Christian) thanksgivings for Christ’s incarnate acts.

After the completion of the thanksgiving (4. 10) Hippolytus makes certain
additions. 4. 11 declares that in performing the rite the church remembers
Christ according to his command: this is the germ of what in the later
liturgies is known as the “anamnesis”. And the offering is formally
presented to God; this likewise reoccurs regularly and is called the
“oblation”. Either or both of these features could have been used in any
eucharistic prayer from the earliest time.

4. 12, however, shows a later concept. In the age of Hippolytus the
consecratory effect of thanksgiving was growing unfamiliar, and a special
petition was thought needful in order that the bread and wine might truly be
made “a communion” of the body and blood of Christ. The liturgy’s thought
[171]
is simple: if earthly food is truly to become “spiritual” food, God must
send upon it the Spirit. The prayer is phrased accordingly, and is the first
known instance of what is technically known as the “invocation”, universal
in Eastern liturgies, although absent from the present Roman. But the 72
testimony of Irenaeus shows that in the late second century at Rome

[172]
the invocation was regarded as the truly consecratory formula, and
Hippolytus continues Irenaeus’ tradition.

Hippolytus’s use of the invocation shows that only bread and wine are
offered to God at the oblation. For his doctrine of communion see on 23. 1.

4

2. “All the presbytery” join with the bishop in offering the gifts; the
“concelebration” of a later terminology. The custom is derived from a time
when the local monarchical episcopate was not yet established and the
[173]
presbyters were normal officiants at worship. They act in their
corporate capacity; compare on chapter 8.

4. If 11 is construed strictly, the “we” of this prayer should be “we, the
bishop and presbyters”. But the plural pronoun originally—and probably in
Hippolytus’s opinion also—meant “all we Christians in this congregation”;
compare 4. 12, “your sacrifice” in Didache 14 and the explicit language in
Justin, Dialogue 116-117. “Messenger of thy counsel” is from the
Septuagint of Isaiah 9. 6; it recurs in Hippolytus’s Daniel commentary (III,
9, 6) and is used here as an anti-modalist term.

5. This whole sentence is anti-modalist.

6. As in 3. 4 the language is more theological than liturgic.

7. Christ’s hands were spread out in appeal (Isaiah 65. 2, Lamentations 1.
17).

8. The “boundary post” is the Cross, dividing the realms of life and 73
death.

9. The terms in Christ’s words regarding the bread and the cup are given
liturgical balance by introducing κλώμενον, “which is broken”, after

“body”; this addition found its way into many manuscripts of 1 Corinthians
11. 24.

10. The terseness of this phrase is effective. In the Latin translator’s
[174]
“commemorationem facitis” the indicative is certainly a mistake, while
his “perform a memorial” may be merely a Latinistic simplification of “do
this in memory of me”; the Pseudo-Ambrosian De Sacramentis has
similarly “commemorationem facietis” and the present Roman liturgy
“memoriam facietis”. By what follows the phrase here means “recall to our
mind”.

11. To “death” in 1 Corinthians 11. 26 “resurrection” has been added; later
liturgies at this point expand freely. Later liturgical development also
connected “memory” and “offer” closely, pleading Christ’s death before the
Father.

12. The prayer for unity echoes the habitual Jewish prayers for the return of
all Israel to Palestine; compare the Didache.

13. Compare on 3. 7.

In this prayer as a whole the accumulation of phrases in 5-6 is largely due to
Hippolytus, who may likewise be responsible for parts of 7-8. But, even as
it stands, it is noteworthy for its sobriety and directness, both characteristic
of the later Roman liturgy until Gallican floridity affected it.

The liturgical influence of this prayer has been incalculable. It is the basis
of the liturgy in the Constitutions, through which it determined the 74
form and in part the wording of the great Eastern liturgies, St James,
[175]
St Basil and St Chrysostom. In the other Eastern rites its influence is
usually perceptible, though less fundamental, while in the Ethiopic church it
is still used almost unchanged. In the West, however, later eucharistic
conceptions led to a different type of liturgy.

Hippolytus gives only the vital part of the ceremony, which otherwise was
presumably much as it is described in Justin, Apology 67. But perhaps at a
consecration service the opening lessons and instruction were omitted.

5-6

This blessing at the eucharist of food other than the bread and wine is a
remnant of the primitive custom when the rite included a meal; in
Hippolytus’s day, presumably, the cheese and olives were eaten at the
service and part of the oil was sipped, the remainder being reserved for
[176]
anointing the sick. Perhaps only Hippolytus’s exaggerated reverence for
the past preserved the usage, which at any rate soon disappeared. None of
[177]
the other versions of his treatise retain chapter 6, for which the Canons
substitute a blessing of first-fruits. In the Testament the oil is blessed solely
[178]
for the sick, and this is probably the conception in the Ethiopic and the
Canons. The Sahidic and Arabic replace all of 4-6 with a note that the
bishop should follow “the (local) custom”.

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

The prayer at the blessing of the oil has real affinities with the prayer 75
still used in the Roman church for blessing the “oil of the sick” at the
bishop’s Maundy Thursday eucharist.

6

2. This ingeniously worded prayer has no parallel.

3. Compare Zechariah 4. 12.

4. Compare the Jewish use of fixed initial clauses in benedictions.

8
PRESBYTERS

“Presbyter” is a technical term in Judaism, which early Christianity took
[179]
over. The Jewish conceptions at the beginning of the Christian era are
[180]
best seen in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin: the presbyters, in virtue of
their divinely instituted office (Exodus 24. 9), preserved, interpreted and
applied the received tradition of God’s revelation, and so were the divinely
appointed rulers of Israel. In consequence, every Jewish community, even
[181]
the smallest, had its presbytery, which exercised all local governmental
functions. When a vacancy occurred, the presbytery elected a new member;
if he had served as a presbyter elsewhere, he was simply caused to “take his
seat”; if not, the presbytery ordained him by the imposition of hands.
Individual presbyters had no authority, which was possessed solely by the
body as a whole; this principle was maintained so rigorously that there 76
[182]
were not even regular presiding officers. If a priest was elected as
[183]
a presbyter, he was ordained like anyone else. The same seems to have
[184]
been true of the Rabbis before A.D. 70; after that year they took over
what was left of the presbyters’ duties and were always ordained.

It must be borne in mind that the Jewish presbyters were community
officers, not cult officials. They could determine how worship should be
conducted, but as presbyters they had no special share in conducting it: this
[185]
was the equal privilege of all male Israelites. In particular, while the
presbyters, among their other duties, administered the affairs of the local
synagogue, to define them as “elders of the synagogue” is totally to
misunderstand them.

The introduction of the presbyterial system into Christianity offers a
complicated problem, into which it is unnecessary to enter here. It is
enough to note that in the New Testament when the office is fully developed
—as in Acts and the Pastoral Epistles—the Jewish analogies are evident. In
Hippolytus’s ordination prayer the Jewish origin is explicitly recognized; so
much so that the institution of the office is attributed to Moses, whose
seventy elders possessed the same gifts and functions as their Christian
namesakes. Accordingly the essential duties of a presbyter are simply to

[186]
“sustain and govern”, and no other specific gifts are prayed for. So it is
really conceivable that Hippolytus’s formula reproduces the substance 77
of a Jewish ordination prayer.

In Christianity, however, the most important service was a feast in which
the whole community joined, while in Judaism the (numerous) sacral meals
[187]
were held by each family separately. Hence the Christian presbyters
could be called on for duties unlike those of the Jewish officials; as the
leaders of the community they might well appear as the leaders of the
community’s feast. And in fact, as the “charismatic” prophets, teachers, etc.,
gradually disappeared, the presbyters became the normal officiants at the
[188]
eucharist. So it was only a question of time until they acquired
sacerdotal titles; compare 9. 2 in our treatise.

The introduction of the local monarchical episcopate transformed the
presbytery from the ruling body into a mere council of advice for the
bishop, and so reduced radically the importance of its members. They had a
voice in disciplinary affairs, and they clung tenaciously to their share in
offering the eucharist and in the ordination of a new member to their ranks.
[189]
Otherwise during the late second and third centuries their duties might
[190]
be little more than honorary, and in most communities the presbyters
probably devoted their weekdays to secular occupations; in contrast to the
bishop and the deacons.

1. In 1 Timothy 4. 14, as in Judaism, ordination is by the presbytery. A
different conception appears in 2 Timothy 1. 6, and harmonization of the
two produced ordination by the bishop and the presbytery, the practice 78
still maintained in the Roman and Anglican Communions. For
Hippolytus’s theory compare 9. 4-8.

2. The verbs “sustain and govern” are the cognates of the nouns translated
“helps, governments” in 1 Corinthians 12. 28. But in 1 Corinthians two
offices are meant.

3. Compare Exodus 24. 9-11. That these elders were “filled with the Spirit”
is from Numbers 11. 25, but the specific mention of this in an ordination
prayer seems Christian rather than Jewish.

4. The bishop here includes himself with the presbytery, perhaps a survival
of a form used in pre-episcopal days.

In the Ethiopic this prayer is reproduced almost unchanged. The Epitome
has:

Almighty lord, who through Christ hast created all things and through
him hast foreseen all things; look even now upon thy holy church, and
give it increase, and multiply its rulers, and grant them might to labour
with word and work for the building up of thy people. And now look
upon this thy servant, who by the voice and judgment of all the clergy is
chosen for the presbytery, and fill him with the Spirit of grace and
counsel, that he may sustain and govern thy people with a pure heart—as
thou didst look upon thy chosen people and didst command Moses that
he should choose presbyters, whom thou didst fill with the Spirit—that
he, being filled with powers of healing and words of teaching in
meekness, may diligently instruct this thy people with a pure mind and a
willing soul, and may blamelessly complete the ministrations for thy
people. Through thy Christ, with whom be to thee glory and worship,
with the Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen.

This prayer is evidently Hippolytus’s, somewhat enlarged and slightly 79
revised, and the only real difference is that the bishop no longer
associates himself with the presbytery. The Constitutions merely expand the
Epitome’s prayer still further with a recital of God’s attributes. In the
Testament there is an independent expansion of Hippolytus’s form, but
again without significant variations. Sarapion has still another paraphrase,
but one equally centred about the presbyter’s teaching office.

The Sahidic and the Arabic, however, provide that the prayer used for the
consecration of a bishop shall also be used at the ordination of a presbyter.
With this the Canons agree, reading: “When a presbyter is ordained, let all
things take place for him as take place for the bishop, with the exception of
the word ‘bishop’. The bishop is in every regard like the presbyter, apart

from the throne and the ordination, for to the latter no power to ordain is
given”. This evidence is in accord with the well-known fact that the
introduction of the monarchical episcopate came later in Egypt than
elsewhere.

9
DEACONS

The development of the diaconate in the first century is extremely obscure,
but in the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Clement “presbyters” are divided into
“bishops and deacons”—in these works the three terms are never used
together—indicating specializations within the presbyterate. Some
presbyters were especially concerned in “overseeing” the community and
others with “serving” it—particularly in charitable works; compare the
“governments” and “helps” in 1 Corinthians 12. 28. When 80
monarchical episcopacy was introduced, the now more or less
supernumerary “overseers” were less important than the “servers”, who
became the personal assistants of the bishops. The respective status in the
third century is set forth in Didascalia, chapter 9 (= Constitutions II, 26, 4-
7): “Let the bishop ... be honoured by you as God.... The deacon is with you
as a type of Christ, so let him be loved by you. Let the deaconess be
honoured by you as a type of the Holy Spirit. Let the presbyters be looked
on by you as a type of the apostles”.

1. The reference is apparently to chapter 2, with no explanation how choice
by the people is reconciled with 3. 6. The Sahidic, the Testament and the
Canons agree with the Latin, but the Arabic, Ethiopic and the Constitutions
speak only of the bishop. But the close relations between the bishop and the
deacons would seem to make his freedom of choice necessary.

Does the absence of any provision for election in chapter 8 indicate that the
presbyters were still chosen by the presbytery?

2-4. Any (surviving?) remnant of the conception of deacons as “serving
presbyters” is dismissed summarily.

5-8. Hippolytus is attempting to reconcile a ceremonial survival of the days
when presbyters ordained with the doctrine that ordination is the
prerogative of bishops. The result is incoherent; if a presbyter has no power
to “give”, what is said of the “common and like Spirit” is pointless. And,
although the passage appears intact (or expanded) in the other versions, 7-8
read like a later addition. But perhaps these are a theory of Hippolytus’s,
glossed on a traditional phrase.

10-12. The original text of this passage is very uncertain. The Latin breaks
off with “offere”, and the following words in the Ethiopic and the 81
Testament stress what in Hippolytus is a minor and not characteristic
function of the deacons (4. 2), while their chief duties are ignored.
Moreover, neither the Constitutions, the Canons nor Sarapion have anything
corresponding; all three—in widely different terms—petition for
“faithfulness” and “wisdom”; all three, incidentally, quote Acts 6. It is
worth noting that none of the sources call the deacons “Levites”; this
[191]
title appears to come in a later age when—through the change from
local to diocesan episcopacy—the deacons became the assistants of the
presbyters.
[192]
The Ethiopic and the Constitutions speak of the diaconate as a
preparation for the presbyterate: this conception belongs to the fourth, not
the third, century.

10
CONFESSORS

1. A true confessor is, ipso facto, a presbyter. This declaration—which other
conceptions have altered in the Ethiopic and the Constitutions—follows
logically from the original definition of a presbyter’s duties: since his
primary function is to bear witness to the truth, and since no witness can be
more impressively borne than when in danger of death, a confessor proves
that he has the Spirit of the presbyterate. Hence ordination would be otiose.

A still earlier theory is that set forth in Hermas, Visions III, i, where the
correct ranks of those who occupy the “bench” (of the clergy) is given as
[193]
“confessors, prophets, presbyters”, as three distinct orders; in 82
Hippolytus the prophets disappear and the confessors are merged with the
“regular” presbyters.

In the third century, as confessors multiplied, observance of this rule would
[194]
have overloaded the presbyterate to an impracticable degree, although
in the small community of Hippolytus the difficulty would not be felt and
the traditional practice could be maintained inviolate. But elsewhere the
modification in Constitutions VIII, 23 was no doubt widely accepted: the
[195]
office of a confessor was one of great dignity, but it did not include its
[196]
holder among the clergy. The Ethiopic compromises: a confessor is not
yet a presbyter, but can claim episcopal ordination to the presbyterate as a
right.

2. Hippolytus treats these “minor” confessors as the Constitutions treat the
true confessors. The other sources (except the Constitutions) deal with them
more generously. In the Ethiopic they can claim ordination to the diaconate,
in the Arabic and the Canons to the presbyterate, in the Sahidic to any office
of which they are worthy; compare the Testament.

The Canons have a curious provision for a confessor who is a slave (and
therefore incapable of receiving ordination); such a one is “a presbyter for
the congregation”, even though he does not receive “the insignia of the
presbyterate”.

83

CONCLUSION OF ORDINAL

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

4. Compare Justin, Apology 67, where the “president” offers prayers
“according to his ability” (ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ), and Tertullian, Apology 30:

“we pray ... without a monitor, for our prayers are from the heart”. But
extempore prayer in no way excludes frequent use of traditional formulas.

11-15
MINOR ORDERS

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

11

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

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

In Rome, unlike Syria, active church work by women was 84
discountenanced and the deaconesses did not make their appearance.
On the general subject of women’s work the Didascalia is a mine of
information.

12

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

13

For the development of the status of virgins in the church reference must be
made to the special literature. Hippolytus, in marked contrast to the
Testament, dismisses the subject very briefly and refers to virgins again
only in 25. 1, although this brevity of treatment in a law book does not
prove lack of practical interest in the subject. As the “purpose” was publicly
announced, it corresponded to the later formal vow.

14

The account in Acts 6 was generally interpreted as limiting the number of
deacons in any place to seven, far too few for effective service in large
churches. So each deacon was given an assistant to “serve” him; 85
compare chapter 30. But even this was inadequate in very large
communities, and at Rome ca. 250 the seven deacons and their subdeacons
[197]
were further assisted by forty-two acolytes (“followers”). The
subdiaconate eventually became a major order and it is so treated in the
Constitutions and the Testament.

15

The gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12. 28, etc.) was the only one of the
primitive charismatic gifts to survive into the third century in its original
form, and in Hippolytus its purely charismatic nature is still recognized; not
only is there no ordination but the healer is not even “named”. But healers
in the specialized form of “exorcists” form a minor order in Rome a
[198]
generation later. One of their most important functions was to assist in
preparing catechumens for baptism; compare 20. 3.

PART II
Baptism

16-20
CATECHUMENS

In the apostolic age converts were accepted with little question and were
[199]
baptized immediately on profession of faith; the missionary zeal of the
new religion, heightened by the expectation of the end of the world, 86
sought only to compel men to come in. Naturally this enthusiasm was
always tempered with common sense—no teacher could have baptized
every applicant—but the doors were opened wide, and the New Testament
gives no hint of any formal training before reception. The hope that defects
would be made up by Christian grace was doubtless fulfilled to a surprising
degree, but it was also often grievously disappointed: men were admitted
into Christianity who neither understood its teachings nor desired to follow
them, and it was from this class that Gnosticism and other vagaries drew
their recruits. The account in Acts 8. 18-24 is typical.

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

16

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

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

13. Greek education included much time spent on Homer, whose 87
mythology the Christians naturally regarded as unedifying. But the
permission given to schoolmasters to continue their calling in case of
necessity shows that no one took the Homeric deities very seriously.

17. In many cases soldiers were utilized only for police duty, but Christian
soldiers were always in danger of being given tasks inconsistent with their
religion. Hippolytus probably does not consider the rather infrequent
possibility of soldiers being sent to defend the frontiers against barbarians.
The “oath” invoked heathen deities.

18. Judges and military officers were constantly called on to pronounce and
inflict capital punishment. They were also inextricably involved in the
support of emperor-worship.

19. A man who was already a soldier could be accepted under the
conditions of 17. But no believer was permitted voluntarily to expose
himself to such temptations.

23. Since the woman in such a case had no power to alter her condition,
Hippolytus’s rule is sensible and humane.

24. Men, who could control their conduct, were granted no such concession.

25. A remnant of the older charismatic teaching; Compare 38. 4. It is
conjoined somewhat oddly with these detailed legalistic prescriptions; the

right to judge spiritually may be exercised only where the law is not
explicit. And only the clergy exercise the gift.

17

A three years catechumenate has parallels in later practice, but it represents
about the maximum.

88

18

1. Separation of catechumens from believers and men from women was
carried out rigorously throughout the Patristic age.

3-4. Contrast 22. 6. The kiss of peace marked the close of the service that
preceded the eucharist (e.g., Constitutions VIII, 11, 9).

5. 1 Corinthians 11. 10.

19

1. The imposition of hands was partly in blessing, partly in exorcism (20.
3). In later days the first of these impositions was regarded as the formal
admission to the catechumenate.

2. A universal Patristic teaching.

20

2. Hippolytus knows only two classes of catechumens, the hearers and those
“set apart”. Subsequently the latter were called “elect”, “competent” or
“enlightened”, and an intermediate class (“kneelers”) was introduced.

Hippolytus says nothing about the duration of this last stage, but four to six
or more weeks is later common.

3. Exorcism before baptism was universally practised and has survived in
some form or other in practically all the traditional baptismal liturgies. It
lacks New Testament precedent, but is based on the dualism found in John
14. 30, etc., according to which this world—and so all its unregenerate
inhabitants—is under the sway of Satan and his angels. In Hippolytus’s
community the exorcisms were presumably performed by the 89
teachers, as he does not recognize exorcists as a separate class
(compare on chapter 15).

4. The text of the last clause is so uncertain that the meaning of the whole is
dubious. The Testament, however, asserts that the episcopal exorcism is
bound to make an unworthy candidate betray himself, and there is no reason
to doubt that Hippolytus believed the same.

5. The final selection and instruction took place on the Thursday before
Easter. “Bathing” was done in a public bath-house, with a supplementary
“washing” at home; compare John 13. 10.

6. Most religions, as well as Judaism, regarded a menstruous woman as
unclean.

7. All believers fasted on Good Friday (29. 1); for the catechumens the fast
was probably thought to be purifying.

8. The Testament gives a lengthy form for this last pre-baptismal exorcism.
Popular belief in the life-giving power of breath (Genesis 2. 7, etc.) was
very widespread; compare 36. 11. Mark 7. 34 may have been specially in
[200]
mind. The “seal” was the sign of the cross. Compare chapter 37.

9. No further opportunity was given to contract defilement.

10. This direction, misunderstood in the Arabic and Ethiopic, is explained
by 23. 1-2. Those about to be baptized brought with them as their first
Christian “offering” the bread, wine, milk and honey needed for the
baptismal eucharist. The Testament reduces this offering to one loaf from

each of them. The rule should not be explained from chapter 32, which is
not by Hippolytus.

90

21
THE BAPTISMAL CEREMONY

1. Hippolytus gives no form for the blessing of the water, but the
Constitutions (VII, 43) direct an elaborate thanksgiving, concluding with the
words “Sanctify this water and give it grace and power”, etc. Clement of
Alexandria (Pedagogue I, vi (50, 4)) appears to presuppose a petition for the
descent of the Logos into the font.

2. The superior sanctity of “living” water is a common belief, and the
Testament and the Canons allow no other for baptism. Compare Didache 7.
1.

3. Every non-Jew in the Graeco-Roman world was so accustomed to the
public baths that the baptismal usage would not suggest the slightest
impropriety.

5. To Hippolytus the ornaments as “alien” carry contagion. The Jews have a
similar prohibition for women bathing after ceremonial impurity, but the
reason given is that complete contact with the water is prevented.

6. The first mention of anointing in connection with baptism is in Tertullian,
On Baptism 7 (ca. 205). He explains the practice as derived from the Old
Testament anointing of priests, and in view of 1 Peter 2. 9 and Revelation 1.
[201]
6; 5. 10 this may well express the original meaning of the ceremony. Or
it may have been thought to convey the gift of the Spirit, as in 1 Samuel 16.
13, or may rest on more general conceptions of anointing as consecration,
or may even be somehow connected with the title “Christ” (= “The
Anointed One”). But, whatever the origin, unction after baptism is found
practically everywhere in Christendom after the third century.

91

In Hippolytus the blessing is still a thanksgiving and the oil is named
[202]
accordingly. In the Constitutions (VII, 44) the formula is petitionary, and
the oil is called “mystical”. The common later title for this oil—to which
other substances, such as balsam, are often added—is “chrism”. The Latin
formula for blessing it still includes a solemn thanksgiving.

7. The anointing before baptism is derived from the ancient belief in the
curative powers of oil, from which its use in religious healing (Mark 6. 13,
James 5. 14) was developed. To Hippolytus this oil aids in the final and
supreme exorcism, and it is exorcised, not blessed, and derives its name
from its purpose. In later Latin usage it is called “oil of the catechumens”.

The Constitutions note (VII, 22, 3) that if the oils are lacking “the water is
sufficient”. And this was the universal belief.

9. Some form of renunciation of Satan is a feature in all traditional
baptismal liturgies.

10. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 20, 3) says that this anointing
is performed “from the very hairs of your head to your feet”. By 22. 2
Hippolytus has probably the same conception.

11. The pronouns are ambiguous and confusing, but the sense seems to be
that the presbyter who performs the actual baptism stands on the bank of the
stream (or the edge of the font), while the deacon stands in the water with
the candidate, to instruct and assist him.

12-18. In the Jewish rites that require complete immersion (the baptism of a
proselyte, the cleansing of a woman, etc.) the ceremony is performed
entirely by the person concerned in the presence of a proper witness; i.e.,
[203]
such a rite is simply an extension of the Old Testament prescriptions
that certain impurities must be removed by bathing. Early Christianity 92
shared this conception, and in New Testament Greek the middle voice
is used for the act of baptism in Acts 22. 16, 1 Corinthians 6. 11; 10. 2;
compare the reading of D and Old Latin manuscripts in Luke 3. 7, “to be
baptized in his presence”. In Hippolytus the presbyter acts to the extent of
laying his hand on the candidate’s head, but he uses no baptismal formula.

[204]
In the Jewish rites the person after immersion utters a benediction; in
Hippolytus each immersion is preceded by a declaration of belief. In the
apostolic church this declaration certainly had the form “Jesus is Lord”
(Romans 10. 9, etc.) and there was only one immersion. The additional
[205]
confessions of the Father and the Spirit appear in Didache 7. 1, and
each was presumably accompanied by the corresponding immersion that
Hippolytus directs.

Each of these three confessions was then further expanded, so producing
the various baptismal creeds. The one in use at Rome in the early fourth
century—the basis of the later “Apostles’ Creed”—can be reconstructed
accurately from Rufinus’ Exposition, and agrees closely with the form in the
Latin version of Hippolytus, the only significant addition being “and the
forgiveness of sins” near the close. This clause, in fact, seems to be due
eventually to Hippolytus’s arch-enemy, Callistus, to express a doctrine that
the former abhorred. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the
official Roman creed ca. 200 did not contain “and the holy church”, on
which Hippolytus lays stress (6. 4; 23. 10); this clause may be his own
addition to protest—against Callistus—that the “holy” church should not
contain sinners. Later Roman Christianity adopted both phrases with no
feeling of incongruity; compare Cyprian’s “forgiveness of sins 93
[206]
through the holy church”.

19. This anointing, like the former, presumably covered the whole body.

20. In the later Patristic church at this point the newly baptized put on white
garments, which they wore for seven days.

22
CONFIRMATION

Hippolytus contributes little to clarifying the difficult subject of
confirmation. In Acts 8. 17 and 19. 6 the rite conveys the gift of the Spirit,
but Hippolytus’s prayer, which cites Titus 3. 5, follows the Pauline-

[207]
Johannine doctrine in attributing this gift to baptism, in accord with the
special immersion after confessing the Spirit. So only grace for service is
besought. But, as in Acts, the essential ceremony is the imposition of hands,
so that the anointing and the sign of the cross are only supplementary rites.
Curiously enough, however, only the anointing was preserved in both the
Latin and the Orthodox Eastern churches.

For the use of the Lord’s Prayer after baptism see on 23. 14.

23
THE BAPTISMAL EUCHARIST

Compare the distinction between the baptismal and the regular eucharist in
Justin, Apology 65 and 67 and in Didache 9-10 and 14.

1. The conception of consecration by thanksgiving is stated so baldly 94
that the Latin (“gratias agat panem quidem in exemplum”) is wholly
unidiomatic, but in all probability the prayer normally included an
invocation like that in 4. 12. Here, in place of the “spiritual food” language
in 4. 12, the result of the consecration is expressed in the terms of the
institution. Yet Hippolytus appears to shrink a little from calling the species
absolutely the body and blood of Christ: the bread is the “image”
(ἀντίτυπον) of the body and the cup the “likeness” (ὁμοίεμα) of the blood.
The former word is used in the same way by Cyril of Jerusalem (23, 20; as
an adjective) and the latter by Sarapion in his first oblation before the words
of institution; compare “figura” in Tertullian, Against Marcion III, 19 and IV,
40, and the prayer in the Constitutions (VIII, 12, 39) that the species may be
made to “appear” (ἀποφάναι) as the body and blood. None of this language,
however, is “symbolic” in the modern sense; whatever unlikeness
[208]
theologians might feel existed between the symbols and the things
signified was overshadowed by the realistic connection that existed between
them. But in the earlier Patristic period the deeper nature of this connection
was left unexplored.

2. Tertullian (chaplet 3, Against Marcion I, 14) and Clement of Alexandria
(Pedagogue I, vi (45, 1)) bear contemporary testimony to the custom of
giving new Christians milk and honey, so the rite must have been
widespread. It is not in the Constitutions or the Testament, but the other
sources have it. And the 24th canon of the Third Council of Carthage (397)
reads: “The first-fruits, namely milk and honey, which are offered on a most
[209]
solemn day for the mystery of infants, although offered on the altar
should have a blessing of their own, that they may be distinguished 95
from the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood”.

Clement of Alexandria, like Hippolytus, cites the Old Testament prophecies
[210]
of the promised land, so the meaning of the rite was to assure the
participants of a share in salvation. But Hippolytus adds a further
explanation of his own; the milk represents Christ’s flesh and the honey his
gentleness. The Canons—possibly with a misrecollection of Isaiah 7. 15—
interpret the food as proper for the newly born.

3. The purpose of the water is to extend the baptismal washing into the
inner man; a somewhat pedantic ceremony that reappears only in the
Ethiopic, although the Testament applies the theory to the water in the
mixed eucharistic chalice.

5. This is the earliest known formula for eucharistic administration.

7-11. What is most curious about these directions is that the sacramental
wine is not distinguished in administration from the other two cups; the
[211]
other versions correct this. Perhaps in this ceremony there has survived
something of the tradition in the earliest text of Luke 22. 19-20, where the
whole emphasis is laid on the bread.

The little four-clause creed is interesting.

12. An admirable little summary of Christian duty.

13. Hippolytus (compare I. 1) refers to some earlier work or works of his
own, possibly Concerning God and the Resurrection, whose title is listed

on his statue.

14. By the “white stone” (Revelation 2. 17) evidently something very
concrete is implied. This cannot be any part of the creed, which is recited
while baptism is in progress, and so the Testament’s explanation of the 96
[212]
secret as the doctrine of the resurrection is excluded. The only
other possibility would appear to be the Lord’s Prayer, on which Hippolytus
is strangely silent. Christians of this age regarded the Prayer as having an
almost magical efficacy. It was, moreover, allowed to none but the baptized
[213]
and was first uttered by Christians immediately after their baptism, a
custom which in the light of Romans 8. 15 and Galatians 4. 6 may actually
go back to apostolic times.

PART III
Church Laws

25. Fasting is here conceived to intensify prayer’s efficacy. The widows and
virgins were especially dedicated to the work of intercession.

The other versions have “pray in the church”, but the Greek gives a more
primitive impression.

The bishop, on account of the nature of his duties, was not permitted to vow
a fast to last for any set time; he might, of course, abstain from food
informally if he wished. Good Friday and Holy Saturday (chapter 29) were
the only fixed fast-days, but special fasts for all might be directed on any
special occasion.

26
THE AGAPE

The agape, or “love-feast”, was a Christian meal of a definitely religious
character. Since both Tertullian (Apology 39) and Clement of Alexandria

(Pedagogue II, i (4-7)) speak of it as an established Christian custom, 97
its origin must lie far behind the third century, and the importance and
liturgical colouring given by the Evangelists to the accounts of the feedings
[214]
of the multitudes are explicable only as reflecting deep first-century
interest in the rite. Its origin in Christianity, consequently, must be
primitive, while the Gospels indicate that in the apostolic church it was
regarded as a continuation of the (many) meals shared by Christ and his
disciples. The emphasis on the numbers who were satisfied by the bread
[215]
and fish, taken together with Acts 6. 1-3 and the later history of the
agape, show that a primary purpose of these meals was to provide food for
the needy: it is presumably from this aim that the name “love-feast” was
derived. And the Gospel accounts indicate that in the agapes Christ was felt
to be acting as head of his household: that he was in some manner present.

The agape and the eucharist, consequently, were closely associated; in 1
John 6 the feeding of the multitudes leads into the elaborate eucharistic
[216]
discourse. So Ignatius uses “eucharist” and “agape” as synonyms, while
[217]
“The Lord’s Supper”, the term employed by St Paul and later writers
generally for the eucharist, is Hippolytus’s title here for the agape. The
confusion was due to the fact that in the first century the eucharist was
generally celebrated in conjunction with an agape; indeed, in 1 Corinthians
11 it is clear that the Corinthians were stressing the banquet elements of
their common meals so strongly that their eucharistic aspect had been 98
[218]
forgotten. Hence in Jude 12 the “love-feasts” are most naturally
understood to be the combined agape-eucharists.

During the second century the rites were separated, the eucharist being
transferred to the morning, while the agape normally remained as an
evening meal, although it could of course be held at any hour. But
Hippolytus preserves remnants of the old association; as regards the
eucharist the oil, cheese and olives of chapters 5-6, as regards the agape the
title “Lord’s Supper” and details of the ceremonial.

According to Hippolytus’s description the agapes are meals given by
individuals in their own homes; the host provides the food and invites the
guests, who in return are expected to pray for him. Each person breaks his
own bread and “offers” his own cup; this is in accord with the rule in
Berakhoth vi. 6 for the less solemn meals among the Jews: “If men sit for a
meal, each shall pronounce the blessing for himself; but if they recline, one
shall pronounce the blessing for them all”. This procedure, moreover,
appears to throw light on the account in 1 Corinthians 11, where the church
is blamed because “each taketh before other his own supper” (verse 21) and
the remedy prescribed is “wait for one another” (verse 33); it is difficult to
see how the Corinthian disorders could have arisen if there were a single
officiant. In Hippolytus orderliness is procured by the presence of a cleric—
preferably the bishop, although a deacon will suffice—who presides over
the supper and begins it by blessing and distributing a loaf specially named;
this ceremony is superadded to a ritual otherwise complete in itself, 99
and appears to be a local Roman custom.

1-2. In the earliest Christianity “blessing” and “thanksgiving” were
[219]
indistinguishable, but to Hippolytus they are no longer always
synonyms; perhaps the “blessing” was accomplished by signing with the
cross, as in the Canons.

After blessing, the bishop breaks the loaf, eats a portion himself, and
distributes the remainder to all the baptized members of the company: a
procedure exactly like that of the eucharist. In the earlier combined service,
in fact, this bread would have been actually eucharistic, for which after the
separation “blessed” bread was substituted to enable the traditional agape
ceremonial to continue with a minimum of external change. The final
separation must have been comparatively recent, for Hippolytus feels
obliged to emphasize the difference between the two rites; in later times
there was no danger of confusion, and his translators consequently do not
seem to have grasped his point.

2. The breaking of each one’s bread would be accompanied by a proper
benediction.

3. Roughly parallel is Berakhoth vi. 6: “If wine is brought during a meal,
each one must pronounce the blessing for himself”.

4. For the distinction between “blessing” and “exorcism” of objects,
compare 21. 6-7. The Arabic and Ethiopic substitute “blessed bread”, even
for the catechumens. Whether the catechumens also broke their “own”
bread is left uncertain. “Offer” is here a mere synonym for “give thanks”, a
usage not found in the other versions.

5. Perhaps the catechumens stood during the agape; perhaps they ate 100
at a separate table.

6. Each blessing at an agape must include a prayer for the host, who is thus
repaid for his bounty. For “offer” the other versions substitute “eat”,
spoiling the force.

7. From 1 Corinthians 11. 21 to the final abolition of the agapes in
Christianity (in the eighth century?) there were constant complaints of
disorderly conduct at these meals; Clement of Alexandria (l.c.) for this
reason objects to their name. Hippolytus cites Matthew 5. 13.

8. ἀποφόρητον is simply “that which is carried away” and is used in its
etymological sense; other meanings, such as the associated “a gift given to
dinner guests”, are immaterial here. The “apoforetum” began like the
regular agape with the distribution of the blessed bread and (presumably)
with public benedictions over bread and wine, but the rest of the meal was
eaten at each one’s home.

9. The Gospel accounts of the miraculous feedings lay similar stress on
gathering up the fragments.

10. The complete dominance of the meal by the bishop would seem to make
the above warnings against disorder needless; as Hippolytus pictures it an
agape would have been the reverse of hilarious.

11-12. Compare Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 8. 1: “Let that be counted a
[220]
genuine eucharist that is held by the bishop or by someone to whom he
gives permission”; for the last clause as regards the agapes Hippolytus

simply substitutes “or one of the clergy”. In later theory only a priest can
“bless”, and any formula that can be pronounced validly by a deacon can be
pronounced just as “validly”, although perhaps not “licitly”, by a layman.
But this distinction between “valid” and “licit” would not have been 101
drawn by Ignatius or Hippolytus; what a Christian cannot do licitly
he cannot do at all. Evidently Hippolytus regards the blessed bread as of the
essence of the agape.

The Testament agrees in general with Hippolytus. In the Canons the agape
becomes a memorial feast (ἀνάλημψις) for the dead. It is forbidden on
Sunday. The participants first make their communions and then meet for the
[221]
meal. The bread distributed is “exorcised”; explained as signed with the
cross. The presence of a cleric—normally a presbyter—while desirable does
not seem to be quite essential.

27

The widows were special objects of the church’s charity, but precautions
had to be taken lest even they became disorderly. The “existing conditions”
may refer to persecutions, but the phrase is more simply understood of the
donor’s inability to entertain a large party in his own home; compare the
apoforetum.

28

Hippolytus, like Didache 13. 3, regards the law of Deuteronomy 18. 4 as
binding on Christians; he says nothing, however, of an obligation to tithe.
The Jewish background of his prayer is evident; compare particularly
Berakhoth vi. 2 “through whose word all things come to pass”, and Rabbi
Jehudah’s formula in vi. 1 “who hast created divers fruits”. The only
Christian touch is at the end, and the rest of the prayer may have been taken
bodily from a Jewish source.

The reasons for the distinctions in 6-7 are probably irrecoverable, but 102
vegetables of the gourd family were favoured food among ascetics of
the gnostic type. Perhaps Canticles 2. 1 gave the lily and the rose their
privileged status.

In Hippolytus’s day these first-fruits constituted the chief source of support
for the clergy. A writer—probably Hippolytus himself—in Eusebius V, 28.
10-12 speaks with detestation of the payment of money salaries by heretics
to their leaders.

29

On Good Friday and Holy Saturday all Christians were expected to fast
according to their ability; a meritorious act whose credit would be lost if
[222]
terminated too soon. If neglected through ignorance it could be made up
later, but not between Easter and Pentecost, when all fasting was
everywhere forbidden to orthodox Christians. It may be observed that
Hippolytus’s conception of the repeal of the “ancient law” extends only to
the particular date set by Numbers 9. 11; otherwise it is still fully binding.
Compare Didache 8. 1.

This fast, it should be noted, is directed only before the Easter communion;
later writers, like the Testament, treat the breach of a fast (from midnight,
generally) before any communion as a mortal sin. Compare, further, chapter
32.

30

Hippolytus presupposes a congregation still small enough to enable the
bishop to visit the sick personally, but large enough to make his visit a great
event to the sick person.

103

33

This daily session of the presbyters was the Christian “sanhedrin”, to which
individuals brought their problems and controversies for “instruction”. At
these gatherings, in addition, the clergy received assignments for their
duties of that day; in these latter the deacons were more important than the
presbyters and their absence a more serious fault.

34

Callistus is commemorated by the Roman catacombs that still bear his
name; probably dissatisfaction with his rival’s regulations led Hippolytus to
treat this rather specialized subject. The other versions miss the point of the
“tiles”—on which compare Connolly, pp. 116-119—and adapt the rules to
local burial customs; the Testament, for instance, discusses embalming.

PART IV
Lay Devotions

The devotional life of a layman is centred around the declaration of Psalm
119. 164, “Seven times a day do I praise thee”, at rising, at the third, sixth
and ninth hours, at bedtime, at midnight and at cockcrow. This distribution
corresponds approximately to the later “canonical hours”, but in
Hippolytus’s day these prayers were still wholly private.

35

1. Following the general—especially Jewish—belief demanding ceremonial
purification before approaching God, Hippolytus requires hand- 104
washing (at least) at morning and midnight; the Canons extend this
rule to all prayer. Tertullian (On Prayer 13) recognizes the prevalence of the

custom and says that Christians defended it by quoting Matthew 27. 24; he,
however, regards it as pointless. Compare Mark 7. 1-15.

2. Hippolytus doubtless does not think it necessary to prescribe attendance
at the Sunday eucharists, assuming that no true believer would willingly
absent himself. Regular weekday eucharists were not yet customary,
[223]
although they were held at times of special prayer and fasting; compare
25. 2. So the only weekday meetings he presupposes are gatherings for
prayer and instruction according to the synagogue pattern. Evidently the
emphasis was laid on instruction, with the Bible as textbook, and those who
could read were expected to follow the passages cited. 1 and 2 Clement
give an idea of the content and style of the teaching, which would be given
by instructors like those of 16. 1.

3. On occasion local meetings were visited and addressed by teachers of
higher rank, who are described in terms reminiscent of the New Testament
prophets.

36

1. Complete manuscript Bibles were very expensive, and few lay Christians
could have owned one. But portions of Scripture were within the reach of
all.

2-3. Hippolytus follows Mark 15. 25, not John 19. 14, here. He deduces the
hours of the Jewish ceremonies from his typology; no definite hour is
[224]
prescribed in the Old Testament, while in the Temple the morning
sacrifice was offered before sunrise and the showbread was changed 105
(on the Sabbath) still earlier. He cites John 10. 14; 6. 50.

4. Mark 15. 33. Hippolytus adds that the darkness came in answer to
[225]
(Christ’s ) prayer; possibly a conjecture of his own but more likely a
“tradition”.

5. At the ninth hour, as soon as Christ died, he went to the lower world and
released the spirits in prison, who rejoiced with a great thanksgiving. The
[226]
belief was very widespread but the other versions seem to miss the
point.

6. John 19. 34. The darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour, followed by
daylight until evening, made a “night” and a “day”; so the Son of Man by
Easter morning had truly been “three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth” (Matthew 12. 40). Compare Constitutions V, 14. 9-13.

9. On the custom of rising during the night for prayer, compare, e.g.,
Tertullian, To his Wife II, 5. Hippolytus—rather more than Tertullian—
insists that unbelievers should not witness Christian devotions.

10. John 13. 10 repeals the provisions of Leviticus 15. 16-18.

11. Despite the principle just enunciated Hippolytus cannot rid himself of a
belief that a purification is needed; he compromises by declaring that a
small ceremony will suffice. Compare chapter 37.

12. This quaint doctrine—which the other versions omit or alter—came
from the authorities who gave Hippolytus the rest of his “tradition”. He
mentions them here only, but in Irenaeus similar appeals to “the presbyters”
are numerous.

13. Matthew 25. 6, 13 in an unusual text form.

14. Peter’s denial (Matthew 26. 74) is synchronized with the condemnation
of Christ by the Sanhedrin.

106

37

The sign of the cross is performed after first breathing on the hand, so that it
is wet with saliva. Belief in the power of spittle to repel evil spirits is
[227]
widespread and, despite Hippolytus’s disclaimer, lies behind the

practice he advocates. His own interpretation of the ceremony is none the
[228]
less ingenious; the mixture of moisture and breath corresponds to the
water and the Spirit in baptism and so makes the sign of the cross the
[229]
“image” of baptism, accomplishing a sort of rebaptism (36. 11). Only
Latin A has the original; Latin B and the other versions do not understand
the custom and replace “baptism” by “the Word”.

The interpretation of Exodus 12. 22 is in the style of Barnabas.

38
CONCLUSION

Hippolytus closes with a final adjuration to avoid all novelties; the way of
peace consists solely in strict adherence to the past.

FOOTNOTES

[1]
Luke 12. 13-16.

[2]
For exceptions see, e.g., Romans 14. 14 (= Matthew 15. 11), 1
Corinthians 7. 10 (= Matthew 19. 9), 1 Clement 46. 8 (= Matthew 18. 6,
in substance), 2 Clement 12. 2 (apocryphal).

[3]
Especially in 2 Clement.

[4]
Acts 15. 28-29.

[5]
Romans 14, in particular.

[6]
1 Corinthians 8. 8; 10. 25-26.

[7]
Compare Revelation 2. 14, 20.

[8]
Didache 13. 7, etc.

[9]
Didache 13. 3, etc.

[10]
So very emphatically in 1 Clement 40-41. But Clement does not argue
for a detailed parallelism between the two ministries.

[11]
Didache 3. 1-6 is an instance.

[12]
The reason for this appears to be that at this period the Fourth
Commandment was conceived to be wholly “ceremonial”, and to “keep
the Sabbath” was regarded as Judaizing (Ignatius, Magnesians 9. 1,
etc.). The belief that in Christianity the Sabbath laws have been
transferred to Sunday is of medieval origin.

[13]
On these methods compare especially K. E. Kirk, The Vision of God
(London, 1931), pp. 119-124.

[14]
As in Wisdom 14. 25-26.

[15]
Romans 1. 29-31 is largely of Greek origin; 1 Timothy 3. 2-3 and Titus
3. 1-2 are wholly so.

[16]
In 1 Clement 47. 6 the forty-five year old Corinthian church is called
“ancient”.

[17]
Jude 17, Revelation 21. 14, etc. The meaning in Ephesians 2. 20 is
probably a little different.

[18]
1 Clement 42. 4; 44. 1-2, etc.

[19]
Even in the third century liturgical prayers were still normally
extempore, and use of a fixed form was regarded as a weakness on the
part of the officiant.

[20]
Eusebius, HE, v, 24.

[21]
See especially James Muilenburg, The Literary Relations of the Epistle
of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Marburg, 1929.

[22]
39th Festal Letter (367), 7.

[23]
The details of the Patristic testimony are best seen in J. R. Harris, The
Teaching of the Apostles, Baltimore and London, 1887.

[24]
Die Didache, Bonn; many editions.

[25]
Didascalia Apostolorum, Oxford, 1929.

[26]
Also known as Third Clement. Occasionally—and unfortunately—called
the Apostolic Canons or the Roman Church Order.

[27]
Paderborn, 1914. Dr Schermann’s theory of a very early date for the
document is individualistic.

[28]
Pp. 127-138, 233-244, 295-306.

[29]
Often reprinted separately.

[30]
But incorrectly.

[31]
Pp. 34, 78, 40.

[32]
Cooper and Maclean, p. 18.

[33]
HE, VI, 20.

[34]
Vir. ill. 61.

[35]
His festival is on August 13.

[36]
Not completely legible; reproductions are not always to be trusted.

[37]
Origenis Philosophumena, Oxford. Books II-III are presumably still
missing, although it has been argued that what is ordinarily called Book
IV may contain them; Wendland, however, rejects this theory (p. xvi).

[38]
Especially in his Hippolytus and Callistus, 1853.

[39]
St Clement of Rome, II, pp. 317-477. First published in 1869; in the later
editions the argument is slightly expanded but is otherwise unchanged.

[40]
Jerome, Vir. ill. 61.

[41]
Legge (II, p. 127) unfortunately revives Döllinger’s remarkable
explanation of this occurrence: Callistus had lent the bank’s funds to the
Jews and went to the synagogue to recover his depositors’ money. As if
anyone would expect Jews to transact business on the Sabbath and at a
synagogue service!

[42]
Victor’s accession occurred about 189, and Commodus died in 192.

[43]
The distinction between “martyr” and “confessor” was not yet
developed.

[44]
Or perhaps restored the privileges of the office to him; when and where
Callistus was ordained is uncertain. Possibly he had the confessor’s
ordination (p. 39).

[45]
Hippolytus’s account of his controversy with Callistus is, in fact, so
bitter that modern historians feel obliged to interpret it in the sense that
will make the greatest allowance for the latter. Hence less than full
justice is perhaps done nowadays to Hippolytus.

[46]
The antithesis “In time or in eternity?” seems hardly to have been stated
squarely until the beginnings of the Arian controversy.

[47]
And Zephyrinus?

[48]
Less probably after Zephyrinus’s death.

[49]
Hebrews 6. 4-8, 10. 26-31, 12. 17.

[50]
Except, perhaps, through martyrdom.

[51]
Matthew 13. 30.

[52]
Romans 14. 4.

[53]
His most violent treatise—the Philosophumena—was perhaps omitted,
but time has so defaced the list that we cannot be certain. The Apostolic
Tradition, however, was duly listed, and it certainly contains polemic
enough.

[54]
Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1920, col. 225.

[55]
Compare the Epitomist’s “The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
through Hippolytus”.

[56]
London.

[57]
Leipzig (Texte und Untersuchungen, VI, 4).

[58]
Hippolytus’s work is printed on pp. 101-121; reprinted in Connolly (pp.
175 ff.), and in part in the fifth edition of Duchesne’s Christian Worship,
London, 1919.

[59]
II, pp. 97-119.

[60]
The notes are systematized and amplified in the latter’s Ancient Church
Orders.

[61]
Unbekannte Fragmente altchristlichen Gemeindeordnungen, Berlin
Academy.

[62]
Über die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen, Strassburg.

[63]
Facsimiles in Hauler.

[64]
Compare p. 60.

[65]
The oldest (Sahidic) is dated ca. 1005.

[66]
Details in Horner.

[67]
More logical and so secondary.

[68]
This seems easier than Schwartz’s theory (p. 7) of a later Sahidic text
enlarged from the original Greek.

[69]
The former cautiously.

[70]
It lacks chapter 6.

[71]
Epitome 4.

[72]
Possibly “in those places”; so Horner interprets the Ethiopic.

[73]
And Ethiopic. The Greek has “through thy beloved Son Jesus Christ
thou gavest to thy holy apostles”.

[74]
So the Greek, not the Latin.

[75]
Latin and Ethiopic (MSS), “Father, who knowest the heart”; perhaps
better.

[76]
Not in the Epitome but in the Latin, Ethiopic, Constitutions, Testament
and Canons.

[77]
The doxologies suffer probably more than any other phrases by
transmission. The translation given follows no text precisely but
represents what seems to be the most likely original form.

[78]
The indicative, “ye perform”, of the Latin is a misrendering of the
(ambiguous) original Greek.

[79]
On the doxology compare note on 3. 7.

[80]
The Latin might also be rendered “Not with ordinary words but with
similar power”. But the Ethiopic confirms the above translation.

[81]
Literally “Cause that from thy sweetness there may not recede this fruit
of the olive”.

[82]
An Ethiopic section (Statute 5) generally printed here (7) is not by
Hippolytus; compare pp. 30-31.

[83]
Reading “presbyteri” for “presbyteris”.

[84]
Testament “in holiness to thy holy place”; Ethiopic “in thy holy of
holies”.

[85]
Testament “from the inheritance of thy high-priesthood”.

[86]
Testament adds “and purely and holily”.

[87]
Testament “high and exalted office”. The Ethiopic manuscripts differ
considerably in their renderings of “he may ... office”; Horner’s a reads
“having served the degrees of ordination he may obtain the exalted
priesthood”. But only a reads “priesthood”.

[88]
Doxology conformed to preceding; that in the Testament is rather
different.

[89]
With the Sahidic agree almost exactly the Arabic, the Testament and the
Canons. The Ethiopic has been edited from a different view point.

[90]
These words seem clearly implied by the context; Hippolytus has now
concluded the discussion of ordinations proper.

[91]
Ethiopic and Arabic omit this “not”, making the passage senseless.

[92]
The Ethiopic makes the sense of the original clear.

[93]
In the Sahidic the readers and subdeacons precede the widows.

[94]
So the Ethiopic and Arabic. Sahidic reads “nor does she conduct
liturgia”.

[95]
Compare last note.

[96]
Epitome 13.

[97]
The Sahidic misjoins “new” with “faith”.

[98]
The Ethiopic adds “or if a woman has a husband”.

[99]
Following the variant Sahidic reading in Horner, p. 436.

[100]
The Constitutions show that the Sahidic is right against the other
evidence (“let his master’s permission be gained”).

[101]
The Constitutions (32. 3) have preserved the original here, which the
Sahidic renders freely.

[102]
The Sahidic, against the other evidence, adds “according to the law”.

[103]
The Sahidic amplifies.

[104]
Supplied to give the obvious sense.

[105]
The Ethiopic shows that this is the sense; the Sahidic has
misunderstood the use of “authority”.

[106]
Literally “nor cause him to swear”.

[107]
“Male harlot”?

[108]
This Sahidic list has been interpreted from the list in Constitutions 32.
11.

[109]
So the Sahidic and the Testament. The Ethiopic and Arabic have “shall
exact an oath from each one of them”.

[110]
Obscure, but apparently original. The Ethiopic and Arabic have “for it
is not possible for an alien to be baptized”; the Testament “for the vile
and alien spirit abides in him”.

[111]
Sahidic “and”.

[112]
Supplied for clarity.

[113]
The Sahidic and Ethiopic have “to the bishop or presbyter”; the Arabic
has “to the bishop”.

[114]
Or the sense may be that the presbyter, the candidate and the deacon all
stand naked in the water; in the above translation “the candidates” was
supplied for “them” and the following “them” was substituted for
“him”.

In the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic the deacon causes the candidate to
repeat a rather elaborate creed: the Sahidic form is: “I believe in the
only true God, the Father Almighty, and His only-begotten Son, Jesus
Christ our Lord and Saviour, and in [the] Holy Ghost, the life-giver to
the universe, the Trinity in one substance, one Godhead, one Lordship,
one Kingdom, one faith, one baptism in the Catholic apostolic holy
church. Amen”.

The Canons agree practically with the Testament.

[115]
This question is omitted in the Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic, but it is
found in the Canons.

[116]
The Canons add at this point: ‘Every time he says at the baptism: “I
baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of [the] Holy
Ghost, the Trinity in unity”’. None of the other sources have anything
corresponding.

[117]
Jungklaus includes this paragraph in the preceding chapter.

[118]
Here the doxology is given as it stands in the Latin. But compare the
earlier doxologies.

[119]
The Latin adds “In Greek antitypum”.

[120]
The Latin adds “In Greek similitudinem”.

[121]
Evidently omitted by accident.

[122]
Vienna fragment.

[123]
An Ethiopic section generally printed here (24) is not in the other
versions and is irrelevant to the context; it will be found on p. 58.

[124]
The apparent sense.

[125]
Or, “this bread is ‘blessed bread’; it is not ‘the bread of the
thanksgiving’, as is the Body of the Lord”. The Sahidic translator
probably did not understand the original Greek exactly.

[126]
The Latin adds, “What in Greek is called an apoforetum”.

[127]
The apparent sense.

[128]
Literally “make haste”.

[129]
Literally “make the blessing”.

[130]
Sahidic “that we all should be sober and that the heathen may envy us”.
The Ethiopic adds a long section that has no parallel in other sources;
see p. 58.

[131]
Literally, “on account of the lot that falls”. Perhaps: “because of his
(their?) duties”?

[132]
Friday, Saturday and Sunday after midnight.

[133]
So the Latin and the Testament. The Sahidic, Ethiopic and Arabic have
“before the proper time to eat”.

[134]
The texts have “when he has learned the truth”; the above, however,
seems to be the meaning.

[135]
31-32 are omitted here; they will be found on p. 60.

[136]
Literally “let everyone choose for himself to go to that place”.

[137]
Sahidic “for”.

[138]
The apparent sense.

[139]
Literally “be the last”.

[140]
Literally “things thou thinkest not”.

[141]
Literally “breaks forth”; the Latin (31. 3) has “blooms”.

[142]
Interpreting the Sahidic (“that thou mayest know how”) by the
Testament (“that is like to”).

[143]
Interpreting the ambiguous Latin with the Sahidic.

[144]
Latin B, which is followed by the Oriental versions, is translated above.
Latin A (compare p. 60) reads: “But seek always modestly to sign thy
forehead; for this sign of his Passion is manifested against the devil if it
be made from faith; not as pleasing men, but knowingly offering it as a
breastplate. For the adversary, seeing the power of the spirit coming
from the heart in the publicly formed image of baptism, is put to flight,
thou not yielding, but breathing at him. And this was that [sign formed]
when Moses, as a type, put the blood of the lamb slain at the Passover
on the lintel and anointed the two side-posts, signifying the faith which
now we have in the perfect Lamb”.

[145]
Latin B and the Oriental versions have “the Word”. But “baptism” is
needed for the sense.

[146]
In chapter 38 the two Latin texts are in virtual agreement.

[147]
A gesture of respect.

[148]
Literally “the sealing”. Perhaps all food sent to the sick is meant; but
the passage is far from clear.

[149]
Literally “count”.

[150]
The apparent sense.

[151]
The Ethiopic manuscripts vary in the form of the doxology.

[152]
In Ethiopic use the Hallelujah Psalms are 104-106, 134-135, 145-150.

[153]
Compare 26. 5-6.

[154]
The restoration of sections 30-31 is conjectural.

[155]
In this last sentence the (unintelligible) Latin has been corrected by the
Sahidic.

[156]
P. 35.

[157]
Although not in discarding chapters 33-34 also.

[158]
Pp. 77-83.

[159]
See below.

[160]
Acts 20. 28, etc.

[161]
Romans 12. 1, 1 Peter 2. 5.

[162]
Hebrews 13. 15, Revelation 8. 3.

[163]
Philippians 4. 18, Hebrews 13. 16.

[164]
1 Corinthians 11. 21.

[165]
Compare p. 68.

[166]
Many editions and translations; the best in English is A. L. Williams’
edition in the S.P.C.K. series of Translations of Ancient Documents,
London, 1921.

[167]
Genesis 1. 31.

[168]
1 Timothy 4. 4-5.

[169]
Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 7. 1, etc., and Didache 9. 1, 5, are the earliest
instances.

[170]
It should be needless to remark that this recital of the institution is
merely part of the historical narrative, and is wholly devoid of other
implications. It was in no way thought necessary for the rite; compare
the Didache and for later liturgies see, e.g., Cooper and Maclean, pp.
170-172.

[171]
1 Corinthians 10. 3, John 6. 63.

[172]
IV, 18, 4-5; I, 13, 2. Incidentally, Irenaeus teaches an invocation of the
Logos, not the Spirit.

[173]
1 Clement 44. 4, Didache 15. 1.

[174]
Possibly a copyist’s error, misreading “facietis”. The Greek was of
course ποιεῖτε.

[175]
Through its use in St James it supplied the model for the Scottish and
American Prayer Books.

[176]
Mark 6. 13, James 5. 14.

[177]
Compare Constitutions VIII, 30.

[178]
Compare ibid., 29.

[179]
The search for Greek antecedents has not been fruitful.

[180]
English edition by H. Danby (S.P.C.K., 1919).

[181]
πρεσβυτέριον or συνέδριον; the latter word passed into Aramaic as
sanhedrin.

[182]
In Jerusalem, however, the high priest presided as the religious head of
Israel.

[183]
In Judaism priesthood came by birth, not by ordination. The office had
little dignity.

[184]
A Rabbi’s authority was that of his personal learning. Very few
presbyters could have been Rabbis, except in Jerusalem.

[185]
The temple worship entered little into the outlook of most Jews.
Outside the temple priests had almost no functions.

[186]
“Adjuvet et gubernet”; in Greek (Constitutions VIII, 16, 4, Epitome VI,
2) ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ κυβερνᾶν.

[187]
Certain meals held by religious societies of Jews were only a
specialized form of family devotions.

[188]
Didache 15. 1.

[189]
Best studied in the Didascalia.

[190]
In very large churches conditions were different.

[191]
Possibly implied in Constitutions VIII, 46, however.

[192]
Most explicitly in Horner’s a.

[193]
In Hermas “martyrs” (the word used) includes confessors. The Vision,
of course, purports to describe a scene in heaven, but it naturally reflects
the earthly status.

[194]
In Rome ca. 250 there were only forty-six presbyters (Eusebius VI, 43,
11); evidently confessors were not included.

[195]
E.g., Eusebius VI, 43, 6, where confessorship is called “the highest
honour”.

[196]
Yet the fact that the section goes on to threaten confessors who made
clerical claims shows a different tradition existed.

[197]
Eusebius VI, 43, 11.

[198]
Eusebius, l.c. The other minor orders were doorkeepers, readers and
acolytes. All are still extant in the Roman Catholic church, although
now only as stages through which candidates for the priesthood pass;
the same is virtually true of the subdiaconate and diaconate also.

[199]
Acts 2. 41, 8. 38, 16. 33.

[200]
In this passage “he sighed” should be rendered “he breathed”.

[201]
Compare Justin, Dialogue 116 f.

[202]
Compare Sarapion.

[203]
Leviticus 15. 5, etc.

[204]
Contrast the reading of the Canons given in 19. 18.

[205]
The trine formula in Matthew 28. 19 is textually insecure.

[206]
Epistle 70 (69). 2.

[207]
1 Corinthians 12. 13, etc., John 3. 5.

[208]
Popular Christian terminology was not so hesitant.

[209]
Baptism.

[210]
Exodus 3. 8, etc.

[211]
But the Testament has no words of administration for the wine.

[212]
Due, presumably, to combining this section with the preceding. The
Canons add eternal life and the eucharist.

[213]
E.g., Constitutions VII, 45, 1. Compare the position of the Prayer in the
Didache.

[214]
Mark 6. 30-44; 8. 1-10 and parallels.

[215]
Compare 1 Corinthians 11. 20-21.

[216]
Romans 7. 3; compare Smyrnaeans 7. 1. In Smyrnaeans 8. 1-2 the
words are perhaps distinguished.

[217]
1 Corinthians 11. 20.

[218]
Since the benedictions used over eucharistic bread and wine and agape
bread and wine (if wine was to be had) may have been identical, early
Christians may often have been in doubt as to the meaning of a meal.

[219]
P. 68.

[220]
Literally “steadfast”.

[221]
Riedel misses the meaning of ksms.

[222]
Compare Tertullian, On Prayer 18-19 for exaggerations of the same
thought.

[223]
The “stations” of Tertullian, On Prayer 19.

[224]
Exodus 29. 39; 25. 30.

[225]
So explicitly in the Ethiopic.

[226]
1 Peter 3. 19.

[227]
E.g., Galatians 4. 14.

[228]
Impurity can also be blown away; compare 20. 8 and (e.g.) Tertullian
(l.c.).

[229]
Connolly (p. 104) prefers to say that the ceremony “is in some sense an
integral part of the one and original baptism”.

107

INDEXES

A. BIBLICAL CITATIONS BY HIPPOLYTUS
B. BIBLICAL REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
C. PATRISTIC REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
D. ANCIENT AND MODERN NAMES, WRITINGS AND SUBJECTS

109

A. BIBLICAL CITATIONS BY HIPPOLYTUS

Exodus 12. 22 page 57
25. 30 55
29. 39 55
Numbers 9. 11 53
Matthew 5. 13 51
25. 6 56
25. 13 56
John 6. 50 55
10. 14 55
13. 10 55
Acts 1. 24 67
1 Corinthians 11. 10 43
11. 24-26 36
Revelation 2. 17 49

B. BIBLICAL REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND
NOTES

Genesis 1. 31 69
2. 7 89
Exodus 3. 8 95
12. 22 106
24. 9 75
24. 9-11 78
25. 30 104
29. 39 104
Leviticus 15. 5 91
15. 16-18 105
Numbers 9. 11 102
11. 25 78
Deuteronomy 18. 4 101
1 Samuel 16. 13 90
Psalm 51. 12 67
119. 164 103
Canticles 2. 1 102
Isaiah 6. 3 71
7. 15 95
9. 6 72
65. 2 72
Lamentations 1. 17 72
Zechariah 4. 12 75
Wisdom 14. 25-26 5
Matthew 3. 16 67
12. 40 105
13. 30 23
15. 11 2
18. 6 2

19. 9 2
25. 6 105
25. 13 105
26. 74 105
27. 24 104
28. 19 92
Mark 6. 13 74, 91
6. 30-44 97
7. 1-15 104
7. 34 89
8. 1-10 97
8. 6-7 68
14. 25 69
15. 25 104
15. 33 105
16. 18 61
Luke 3. 7 92
12. 13-16 2
22. 19-20 95
John 3. 5 93
6 97
6. 50 105
6. 63 71
10. 14 105
13. 10 89, 105
14. 30 88
19. 14 104
19. 34 105
20. 22 67
Acts 1. 24 67
2. 41 85
4. 27-30 67

6 81, 87
6. 1-3 97
6. 2 63
8. 17 93
8. 18-24 86
8. 38 85
15. 28-29 2, 3
16. 33 85
19. 6 93
20. 28 64
22. 16 92
Romans 1. 29-31 5
8. 15 96
10. 9 92
12. 1 65, 67
14. 14 2, 23
1 Corinthians 6. 11 92
7. 10 2
8. 8 3
10. 2 92
10. 3 71
10. 16 69
10. 25-26 3
11. 4 5
11. 10 88
11. 20-21 65, 97-98, 100
11. 24-26 73
11. 33 98
12. 13 93
12. 28 78, 85
Galatians 4. 6 96

4. 14 106
Ephesians 2. 20 7
Philippians 4. 18 65
1 Timothy 3. 2-7 64
3. 2-3 5
4. 4-5 69
4. 14 77
5. 1-16 83
2 Timothy 1. 6 77
Titus 3. 1-2 5
3. 5 93
Hebrews 6. 4-8 22
7. 25 67
10. 26-31 22
12. 17 22
13. 15-16 65
James 5. 14 74, 91
1 Peter 2. 5 65
2. 9 90
3. 19 105
Jude 12 98
17 7
Revelation 1. 6 90
2. 14 3
2. 17 95
2. 20 3
5. 10 90
8. 3 65
21. 14 7

C. PATRISTIC REFERENCES IN INTRODUCTION AND
NOTES

1 Clement 40-41 4
42. 4 7
44. 1-2 7
44. 4 72
46. 8 2
47.6 7
2 Clement 12. 2 2
Ignatius
Magnesians 9. 1 5
Romans 7. 3 97
Philadelphians 4 64
Smyrnaeans 7. 1 70, 97
8. 1-2 97, 100
Hermas
Vision III, i 81
Didache 3. 1-6 5
7. 1 90, 92
8. 1 102
8. 2 96
9-10 93
9. 1 70
9. 5 70
13. 3 3, 64, 101
13. 7 3
14 72, 93
14. 1-2 66
15. 1 64, 72, 77
Justin
Apology 65 93

67 74, 83, 93
Dialogue 116 f. 90
Irenaeus I, 13. 2 72
IV, 18. 4-5 72
Hippolytus
Daniel commentary iii, 9. 6 72
Philosophumena Proem. 63
Proem. 6 64
i, 23. 4 63
ix, 7 18 ff., 64 f.
Clement of Alexandria
Pedagogue I, 45. 1 94
50. 4 90
II, 4-7 97, 100
Tertullian
Apology 30 83
39 96
Baptism 7 90
17 64
Chaplet 3 94
Exhortation to chastity 7 64
11 64
Marcion I, 14 94
III, 19 94
IV, 40 94
On prayer 13 104
18-19 102
19 104
To his Wife II, 5 61, 105
Cyprian Epistle 70. 2 93
Eusebius

History V, 24 8
V, 28. 10-12 102
VI, 20 16
VI, 43. 6 82
VI, 43. 11 82, 85
Athanasius
Festal Letter 39 10
Cyril of Jerusalem
Catechetical Lectures 20. 3 91
23. 20 94
Jerome
Vir. ill. 61 16, 18
Sarapion 12 81
13 79
14 68
Mishnah Berakhoth vi, 1-2 101
1 68, 69
6 98 f.

D. ANCIENT AND MODERN NAMES, WRITINGS AND
SUBJECTS

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S
T U V W X Y Z

A
Absolution, 22 f., 64 f.
Achelis, 27
Acolytes, 85
Agape, 50 f., 59, 65, 96 ff.
Anamnesis, 71, 73
Apophoretum, 51, 100 f.

Apostolic Canons, 13
Apostolic Church Order, 11
Apostolic Constitutions, 12

B
Baptism
Eucharist, 48 f., 89, 93 ff.
Formula, 47, 92
Image, 57, 106
Liturgy, 45 ff., 90 ff.
Baptism in blood, 44
Bathing, 44
Bible reading, 54, 104
Bishops
At agape, 50 f., 59, 98 ff.
At baptism, 44 ff., 88 ff.
At eucharist, 35 ff., 48 f., 58, 72, 77, 93 ff., 100 f.
Consecration, 34, 66 ff.
Election, 33, 63
Fasting, 50
Office, 64
Blessings, 68 ff., 98 ff.
Blessings of persons, 43, 88
Burial, 53, 103

C
Callistus, 18 ff., 63, 103
Canons of Hippolytus, 15
Carthage, Third Council, 94
Catechumens, 43 ff., 50 f., 56, 85 ff.
Charismata, 41, 43, 54, 57, 85, 87, 104
Cheese, 37, 74 f.
Chrism, 91
Christology, 20 ff., 63, 67, 72
Commodus, 19
Common Prayer, 74
Concelebration, 72

Confessors, 39, 81 f.
Confirmation, 47 f., 93
Connolly, 11, 27 f., 30, 61, 63, 67, 103, 106
Converts accepted, 41 ff., 86 f.
Cooper, J., 15, 28
Coxe, A. C., 18
Creed, 46, 92 f., 95

D
Deacons
At agape, 51, 58, 98, 100
At baptism, 45 f., 91 f.
At eucharist, 39, 48 f., 58, 80
Office, 38, 53, 58, 79 f., 103
Ordination, 38, 80 f.
Deaconesses, 80, 83 f.
De Sacramentis, 73
Didache, 9
Didascalia, 10
Döllinger, 17, 19
Doxologies, 67
Duchesne, 27

E
Epitome, 13
Eucharist
Administration, 95
Anamnesis, 71, 73
As sacrifice, 65 f., 71, 73
At baptism, 48 f., 89, 93 ff.
At ordinations, 39 f., 83
Celebrant, 72, 98, 100
Consecration, 48, 69 ff., 93 ff.
Fasting communion, 52 f., 60, 102
Invocation, 71 f.
Liturgy, 35, 40, 48, 58, 68 ff.
Name, 70

Relation to agape, 97 ff.
Evening service, 58 f. 112
Exorcism, 44, 50, 88 f., 91, 99, 101
Extempore prayer, 40, 70

F
Fasting, 44, 50, 52 f., 89, 96, 102
Fasting communion, 52 f., 60, 102
First-fruits, 52, 66, 74, 101 f.
Flowers, 52, 102
Funk, 13 f., 16, 28

G
Gnosticism, 86, 102
Goltz, 28
Gronov, 17

H
Harnack, 26
Harris, J. R., 10
Hauler, 27
Head-covering, 43
Healers, 41, 85
Hearers, 41, 86
Holy Week, 44 f., 52 f., 89, 96, 102
Honey, 48, 89, 94 f.
Horner, 12, 27, 29, 34
Hours of prayers, 54 ff., 103 ff.

I
Image of baptism, 57, 106
Invocation, 71 f.
Isidore of Seville, 28

J
Jungklaus, 28, 30, 32, 47, 61

K

Kirk, K. E., 5
Kiss of peace, 35, 43, 48, 88

L
Lagarde, 27
Legge, F., 19
Levites, 81
Lietzmann, 10
Lightfoot, 18
Lord’s Prayer, 93, 96
Lord’s Supper, 50 f.
Ludolf, 27

M
Maclean, 15, 28
Macmahon, J. H., 18
Marriage, 41, 55, 105
Maximinus, 24
Menstruation, 44, 89
Milk, 48, 89, 94 f.
Miller, B. E., 17
Minor orders, 40 f., 83 ff.
Modalism, 20 ff., 63, 67, 72
Moses, 37, 57, 76
Muilenberg, 9

O
Of Gifts, 12, 25, 33
Oil, 36, 45 ff., 74 f.
Olives, 37, 74

P
Pentecost, 53, 102
Pius IV, 17
Pontianus, 24
Prayer, 54 ff., 103 ff.
Presbyters
At agape, 51, 100

At baptism, 45 ff., 90 ff.
At eucharist, 35, 49, 58, 72, 77
Fasting, 50
Office, 53, 58, 75 ff., 80 f., 103
Ordination, 37, 75 ff.
Ordination power, 38, 66, 77 ff., 80
Priesthood, 34, 38 f., 53, 64, 77

R
Rabbis, 76
Readers, 40, 84
Reserved sacrament, 60 f.
Riedel, 15, 101
Rufinus, 92

S
Sabellius, 21
Sacrifices, 65 f.
Sanctus, 71
Sarapion, 15
Schermann, 11
Schoolmasters, 42, 87
Schwartz, 28, 30, 61
Sick, 53, 58, 74, 102
Sign of the cross, 45, 48, 55 ff., 89, 99, 101, 106
Soldiers, 42, 87
Spittle, 56, 106
Stoicism, 5
Subdeacons, 41, 53, 84

T
Tattam, 27
Testament of Our Lord, 14
Tithes, 3, 101

U
Unction, 36 f., 45 ff., 90 ff.
Urbanus, 24

V
Victor, 19
Virgins, 40, 50, 59, 84, 96

W
Washing, 54 f., 103 f.
Water, Baptismal, 45, 90
Water, Eucharistic, 48 f., 95
Weekday services, 54, 104
Wendland, 17
Widows, 40, 44, 50, 51, 58, 83 f., 96, 101
Williams, A. L., 68
Women, 40, 43 f., 87 f.
Wordsworth, John, 16

Z
Zephyrinus, 18 ff., 63

Transcriber’s Notes

Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook
is public-domain in the country of publication.
Silently corrected a few palpable typos.
Moved verse/sentence numbers from the right margin to the beginning
of the sentence.
In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE APOSTOLIC
TRADITION OF HIPPOLYTUS ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be
renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law
means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the
Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States
without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying
and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a
registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook,
except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying
royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge
anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg
eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do
practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by
U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any
other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you
agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License
available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work,
you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the
terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright)
agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement,
you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy
of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to
be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on
or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can
do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying
with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a
lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you
follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to
Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual
work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are

located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are
removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing
Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for
keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can
easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you
share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a
constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the
laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before
downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating
derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work.
The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status
of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied
or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from
texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice
indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the
work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without
paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a
work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on
the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs
1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the
permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply
with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed
by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project
Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the
copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License
terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any
other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently
displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or
immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the
official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no
additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of
exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work
in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format
must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph
1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing,
copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply
with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to
or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in
this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project

Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works
not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and
the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as,
but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription
errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that
damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except
for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to
you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE
THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT
EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE
THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you
can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund.
If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to

you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work
electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you
may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or
limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable
to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum
disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity
or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause
to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg
work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic
works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including
obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the

efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of
life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance
they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring
that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for
generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for
Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations
can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)
(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of
Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541.
Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s
laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516,
Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and
official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the
number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment

including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are
particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort,
much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not
received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have
not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against
accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us
with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any
statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the
United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods
and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including
checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with
anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg
eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions,
all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a

copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in
compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how
to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email
newsletter to hear about new eBooks.