PART II

Baptism

16-20 CATECHUMENS

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

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

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 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.

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 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 mind.[200] 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.

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. 6; 5. 10[201] this may well express the original meaning of the ceremony. Or it may have been thought to convey the gift of the Spirit, as in 1 Samuel 16. 13, or may rest on more general conceptions of anointing as consecration, or may even be somehow connected with the title “Christ” (= “The Anointed One”). But, whatever the origin, unction after baptism is found practically everywhere in Christendom after the third century.

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

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

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

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

10. Cyril of Jerusalem (_Catechetical 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., such a rite is simply an extension of the Old Testament prescriptions[203] that certain impurities must be removed by bathing. Early Christianity shared this conception, and in New Testament Greek the middle voice is used for the act of baptism in Acts 22. 16, 1 Corinthians 6. 11; 10. 2; compare the reading of D and Old Latin manuscripts in Luke 3. 7, “to be baptized in his presence”. In Hippolytus the presbyter acts to the extent of laying his hand on the candidate’s head, but he uses no baptismal formula.[204] In the Jewish rites the person after immersion utters a benediction; in Hippolytus each immersion is preceded by a declaration of belief. In the apostolic church this declaration certainly had the form “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10. 9, etc.) and there was only one immersion. The additional confessions of the Father and the Spirit appear in Didache 7. 1,[205] and each was presumably accompanied by the corresponding immersion that Hippolytus directs.

Each of these three confessions was then further expanded, so producing the various baptismal creeds. The one in use at Rome in the early fourth century—the basis of the later “Apostles’ Creed”—can be reconstructed accurately from Rufinus’ _Exposition_, and agrees closely with the form in the Latin version of Hippolytus, the only significant addition being “and the forgiveness of sins” near the close. This clause, in fact, seems to be due eventually to Hippolytus’s arch-enemy, Callistus, to express a doctrine that the former abhorred. On the other hand, there is some evidence that the official Roman 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 through the holy church”.[206]

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

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

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

For the use of the Lord’s Prayer after baptism see 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 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 theologians[208] might feel existed between the symbols and the things signified was overshadowed by the realistic connection that existed between them. But in the earlier Patristic period the deeper nature of this connection was left unexplored.

2. Tertullian (_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 solemn day for the mystery of infants,[209] although offered on the altar should have a blessing of their own, that they may be distinguished from the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood”.

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

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

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

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

The little four-clause creed is interesting.

12. An admirable little summary of Christian duty.

13. Hippolytus (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 secret as the doctrine of the resurrection[212] is excluded. The only other possibility would appear to be the Lord’s Prayer, on which Hippolytus is strangely silent. Christians of this age regarded the Prayer as having an almost magical efficacy. It was, moreover, allowed to none but the baptized and was first uttered by Christians immediately after their baptism,[213] a custom which in the light of Romans 8. 15 and Galatians 4. 6 may actually go back to apostolic times.