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

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

During the second century the rites were separated, the eucharist being transferred to the morning, while the agape normally remained as an evening meal, although it could of course be held at any hour. But Hippolytus preserves remnants of the old association; as regards the eucharist the oil, cheese and olives 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, and appears to be a local Roman custom.

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

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

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

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

4. For the distinction between “blessing” and “exorcism” of objects, 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 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 genuine[220] eucharist that is held by the bishop or by someone to whom he gives permission”; for the last clause as regards the agapes Hippolytus simply substitutes “or one of the clergy”. In later theory only a priest can “bless”, and any formula that can be pronounced validly by a deacon can be pronounced just as “validly”, although perhaps not “licitly”, by a layman. But this distinction between “valid” and “licit” would not have been drawn by Ignatius or Hippolytus; what a Christian cannot do licitly he cannot do at all. Evidently Hippolytus regards the blessed bread as of the essence of the agape.

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

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 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 terminated too soon.[222] If neglected through ignorance it could be made up later, but not between Easter and Pentecost, when all fasting was everywhere forbidden to orthodox Christians. It may be observed that Hippolytus’s conception of the repeal of the “ancient law” extends only to the particular date set by Numbers 9. 11; otherwise it is still fully binding. Compare Didache 8. 1.

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

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.

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.