The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus
The Apostolic Tradition of HippolytusINTRODUCTIONI. CHURCH ORDERSII. HIPPOLYTUSTHE APOSTOLIC TRADITION OF HIPPOLYTUS TRANSLATIONCONCLUSIONFOOTNOTESCopyright
The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus
Antipope Hippolytus
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 such
he brusquelyrefused.[1]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 rarely used to settle disputed matters of
practice;[2]his words are employed rather as general directives and to
give inspiration to action.[3]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 instance[4]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 as far as
possible even in the same community,[5]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 traditionat all in the sources of the apostolic age and nothing of any
value in later 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 things sacrificed to idols,[6]but in the decree of Acts 15. 28-29 abstinence from such food
is regarded as axiomatically “necessary”,[7]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 agricultural produce but
income of any kind.[8]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 give the
church’s ministers a right to the Christian payments.[9]Or the fact that the Old Testament ministry was strictly
regulated led to the argument that divine regulations
ofequal strictness must hedge about the Christian ministry as
well.[10]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 OldTestament laws, some of these digests being undoubtedly of
Jewish origin.[11]But it is interesting to note that the most authoritative
brief digest of Jewish morality—the Decalogue—does not appear as a
whole in the Christian teaching.[12]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 simplification—bare
lists of virtues to be imitated or vices to be
avoided.[13]This last device was so convenient that even Greek-speaking
Jews adopted it,[14]and Christians found it invaluable. In fact they did not
hesitate to take ready-made lists from Stoic and other
sources,[15]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 thispassage has influenced all subsequent Christian practice. Yet
the 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 theyarethe 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 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 simply taken for granted. Practices with a century of
tradition[16]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 appointed custodians and
interpreters of the faith.[17]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 the
apostles.[18]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, second- and third-century
Christianity tolerated or even encouraged[19]differences. But in anything regardedas important local divergences could lead to bitter conflict.
When the second-century Asia Minor churches were asked to change
their date for Easter, they replied, “We must obey God rather than
men”, and a schism in the church resulted.[20]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. Thefourth century was 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
Constitutionsca.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 DIDACHEAs 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 be wholly disregarded.[21]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
“ who wish for instruction in the word of
godliness”,[22]and he cites it as an authority more than once, even though
he—very properly—refuses to recognize it as a canonical New
Testament writing.[23]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 Hans Lietzmann in hisKleine
Texteseries;[24]it contains an excellent critical apparatus and is very
inexpensive. There are many accessible English
translations.THE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONThis 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 DIDASCALIAA 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 version,[25]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 ORDERThis work[26]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
Schermann’sDie allgemeine
Kirchenordnung,[27]1, pp. 1-34. The English versions,such as they are, are not very accessible, but the
translations of the Ethiopic, Arabic and Sahidic in Horner are
adequate.[28]THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS