The Ancient Church Orders (Maclean)

The Ancient Church Orders (Maclean)

continued

Chapter VII: Doctrine

In this chapter it is proposed to glance at the doctrinal pre-suppositions of the Church Orders, as the determination of them will be a help in ascertaining the dates when the various books were written. In two of them, AC and Test, the dogmatic position is clearly marked. 1. The Didache has but few doctrinal indications. Its tone is slightly ascetic, and the reference to the prophets has led Hilgenfeld and Bigg to treat it as having a Montanistic tendency. But this view is generally rejected. There is in D no trace of the Montanistic idea that true prophecy consisted in the prophet being a passive and self-abandoning channel of the Spirit. The Christological indications are negative. There is no clear assertion of our Lord's divinity, except that the Trinitarian formula is prescribed for baptism. There is no prominence given to our Lord's death*. Thus it is * Prof. Lake has lately (Guardian, Feb. 17, 1909) called attention to the fact that we find the same thing in the Apology of Aristides, and suggests that perhaps both it and D represent a point of view little influenced by St Paul's teaching. Certainly D does not seem to refer to the Pauline Epistles anywhere.

thought that D, which was intended (as the title shows) for the Gentiles, emanated from some not very well instructed Christian, probably from one who lived in a secluded community. 2. The Apostolic Church Order has no decided dogmatic tone. It shows some Montanistic leanings, as in the remark about the two widows who are to expect revelations (21); it shows a desire that bishops and presbyters should be celibates or widowers (16, 18; see above, p. 90 f.). But it is more concerned with moral precepts and canonical provisions than with doctrine. Both ApCO and D advocate liberality and almsgiving 'as a redemption for sins' (ApCO 13 = D 4). 3. The Didascalia also shows no strong doctrinal leanings. The chief indications of the writer's position may be seen in the sections on heresies and schisms corresponding to AC vi. (DidCA i. 302—384, H₁ pp. 60—90, Gibson, pp. 102—112; but the MS used by Mrs Gibson ends with the passage corresponding to AC vi. 18). Simon Magus and Cleobius are the only heretics named (H₁ p. 61); and the chief heresy ascribed to Simon (who is spoken of as meeting St Peter in Rome and as pretending to fly in the air, as in the Clementines) is the denial of the resurrection of the flesh. The Judaistic tradition ('secundatio' = Mishna) regarding the distinction between clean and unclean things is attacked. Bp Wordsworth (MG p. 38) sees an anti-

M. Montanistic aversion to austerity in Didasc, Harnack a polemic against Novatianism. At any rate the tendency of the book is such that we can understand why the AC compiler, who exhibits the same trend of thought, adopted and amplified it in his own work. 4. The Egyptian and Ethiopic Church Orders and the canonical part of the Verona fragments (H₃) may for this purpose be taken together. The first, however, yields but little result, as it has hardly any liturgical forms. Taking EthCO and H₃, we find emphasis laid on the work of the Holy Spirit, though no technical or controversial terms are introduced which would lead us to think that the Macedonian controversy had begun; nor is anything said about the personality of the Third Person. Prayer is offered that he may descend on bishops and presbyters at their ordination; in the Eucharistic Thanksgiving his work in the Incarnation is spoken of (so in the baptismal Creed), and he is prayed for by name that he may cause the Eucharistic oblation to convey holiness to the communicants, and that they may be filled with him; in the baptismal Creed he is the Sanctifier (Eth) or Lifegiver (Eg); he is prayed for in the Confirmation prayer (for H₃ see above, p. 106 f.); he is in the Church (EgCO 57, 62 = EthCO 43, 48).—The Eucharistic Thanksgiving also touches on the voluntary death of Jesus (cf. CH xxv. 233) who 'spread out his hands for suffering,' and the harrowing of hell—points much emphasised also in Test i. 23, 28; it speaks of our Lord as the Son, the Word, the Instrument in Creation, and as sent by the Father from heaven into the Virgin's womb. Trinitarian doctrine is taught by some of the doxologies to the prayers (see below, p. 124 f.); by the answer to the Sancta Sanctis in the EthCO Liturgy (but for this see above, p. 39); and by the emphatic phrase 'consubstantial Trinity' (EgCO-sah, boh) or 'Trinity equal in Godhead' (EgCO-arab, EthCO) in the baptismal Creed. H₃ shares with EthCO all the above indications except those in the baptismal Creed, and such as are indicated above.

The word 'trinity' (τριάς, trinitas) is as old as Theophilus of Antioch (c. A.D. 180) who says (ad Autol. ii. 15) that the three first days of creation 'are types of the trinity, God, and his Word, and his Wisdom'; but perhaps it is not here a technical term. It is also found in Hippolytus (c. Noet. 14: 'through this Trinity the Father is glorified; for the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested') and Tertullian (de Pudic. 21: 'the Trinity of the one Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit'; and adv. Prax. 2). But the emphasis on the consubstantiality and equality of the Trinity betokens a time after the Arian troubles had begun. 5. The Canons of Hippolytus have the same doctrinal tone as the manuals just mentioned, if we accept as part of the book the sections which Achelis brackets and rejects. Let us first take the supposition of their genuineness. There is not the same scope in CH for an examination of doctrine as in EthCO and H₃, since there are but few liturgical forms. The opening canon, however, speaks of our Lord as Son of the living God; the Word is the Son of God, who (the antecedent is uncertain) is Creator of every creature, visible and invisible (i. 1, 3); the Trinity is altogether equal in honour and glory and without beginning and end (i. 2). The Trinitarian equality is seen in the baptismal formula (xix. 133): 'I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, who is equal'; in the doxology over oil etc. (see below, p. 125); and in the direction, not in the other Church Orders, to teachers of heathen subjects, who are received into the Church, to say to their people: 'There is no God but Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' (xii. 69). The Holy Spirit is prayed for in the ordination prayers of bishops (iii. 13) and deacons (v. 39). In the Baptismal Creed the Holy Ghost is called 'the Paraclete, proceeding from the Father and the Son'; but it is difficult to suppose that the Filioque at least is not an interpolation. If, on the other hand, with Achelis we regard all that speaks of the 'equal Trinity' as interpolated, there is nothing doctrinal in CH which is inconsistent with the time of Hippolytus. For the alleged interpolations, see p. 158. There is no specially ascetic tone in this Church Order; see above, p. 94.

6. Sarapion does not exhibit any very decided theological characteristics. He is anti-Arian, as is shown by the phrase at the beginning of the Eucharistic thanksgiving 'We praise thee who art known of thy Son...We praise thee who knowest the Son,' where the Arian idea that the Son was ignorant of the Father and of his own essence is attacked (see Brightman, JThSt i. 91); he has a special fondness for the name 'Only-begotten' (Wordsworth counts 50 instances; it is frequent also in Test, etc.). Other favourite phrases are, (God's) 'love of mankind' (φιλανθρωπία, with φιλάνθρωπος, so often Test); 'living' or 'life'; and 'uncreated' (ἀγένητος), of the Father. For other characteristic phrases see Wordsworth's Sarapion, p. 28 f. He has a special fondness for the name 'The Word' for our Lord, and in the Epiclesis at the Eucharist the Word is prayed for instead of the Holy Spirit (above, p. 54 f.); he uses ἐπιδημία, ἐπιδημεῖν of the Incarnation, or of the coming of the Logos in the Eucharist, or of the Spirit in ordination. He has not a very strong hold on the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit; he generally uses the phrase πνεῦμα ἅγιον without the article, only twice with it. Generally, it may be said that Sarapion was a follower of Athanasius, but that he had not grasped the faith as fully as Athanasius; and that his doctrinal tendency indicates the period before the Macedonian controversy had arisen. For the doxologies see below, p. 124 f.

7. The Testament of our Lord shows a much more marked theological tendency. We may first notice the influence of Montanism on the book. The expectation of revelations and of charismatic gifts, the continuance of the prophets, the frequent references to the Apocalypse, the mention (once only, i. 24) of the 'Paraclete' (but this is common in AC and is often found in fourth century literature), the frequent references to works of the Spirit, to bearing the cross, and to 'children of the light,' together with some non-doctrinal characteristics, such as presbyteresses, and the college of clergy, might lead us to suppose that the author was a Montanist (see Cooper-Maclean, p. 15). The ascetic tone of Test has also been alleged in this connexion, but while it is more ascetic than AC with regard to celibacy, it is less so in regard to fasting; for the treatment of post-baptismal sin see above, p. 94 f. There are several non-Montanistic features; there are no prophetesses, and the widows (presbyteresses) are to be silent in the church (above, p. 84); so that while there is a Montanistic influence at work in this Church Order, it is not itself Montanistic.—The chief characteristic of the book is a strong dislike of Arianism and of anything like an exaggerated subordinationism. Thus, the Son is named before the Father and the Holy Ghost in the Eucharistic Epiclesis (i. 23), as in 2 Co. xiii. 14, Ignatius Magn. 13 and ConstH 1° (see p. 153 below). Several prayers to the Son are found, as in the middle of the Eucharistic Thanksgiving and in the Epiclesis and Intercession* (i. 23), in five of the six pro-anaphoral prayers (i. 26), and in the night prayer of widows (i. 43), all being apparently the work of the compiler. There is, moreover, in

* The Council of Hippo, A.D. 393, forbade prayer to be addressed to the Son instead of the Father, or the Father instead of the Son, except at the altar, when prayer shall always be addressed to the Father (can. 21; Hefele ii. 398). several of the prayers much confusion of the Persons addressed (i. 23 twice, 30, 43, ii. 7). The writer emphasises the truths that Christ dwells in Christians (i. pref., 1, 8, 17, 18, 22, 40, ii. 25), and that he clothed himself with 'man,' i.e. humanity (i. 28); he personifies Power, Thought, Wisdom, as names of our Lord, and is especially fond of using 'the Word' as a title (i. 23, 26 often, 28, 30, 32, 38, 43, ii. 7, 16, 24). The Word is the Creator (i. 26, first prayer). The writer has a strong hold on the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Ghost (i. 24, 26 twice, 28, 41, ii. 9, 10 [see Cooper-Maclean's note, p. 223]), but does not attack Macedonianism. The Holy Ghost is 'the Lord,' and the 'Maker of life' (ζωοποιός, i. 24, 41) and consubstantial with the Father (i. 41). Nothing is said about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The dogmatic bias of the writer makes it strange that the Holy Ghost is not prayed for in the Eucharistic Epiclesis, as almost certainly would have been the case in an author of his tone if he had written after the rise of the Macedonian heresy. The name Trinity is used (i. 19, 21, 23 thrice, ii. 7), and there are two prayers addressed to the Holy Trinity in i. 23. For other characteristics see Cooper-Maclean, p. 16 ff.

We have to consider some other tendencies which have been found in Test. Bp J. Wordsworth (Church Qu. Rev. Jan., Mar. 1900, Revue internat. de théol. 1900, vol. 31) has suggested that this Church Order arose in the school of the heretic Apollinarius, who seceded from the Church A.D. 375. There are certainly some phrases in Test, especially in the Mystagogia (i. 28), which are found in works written by, or ascribed to, Apollinarius. But there is no Apollinarian heresy in Test; and it seems unlikely that the writer should have used phrases common in the circle of Apollinarius without advocating his errors, if he had been of his school and had lived after his secession. The more probable conclusion is that Test used phrases common in extreme anti-Arian circles before the outbreak of Apollinarianism. It is noteworthy that || ArD has removed the quasi-Apollinarian phrases in the Mystagogia. This is an indication that ArD is later than the rise of that heresy.

Can we trace Aphtharto-doceticism in Test? This Church Order dwells much on the thought of the incorruptibility of Jesus and of ourselves in him (i. 26, 28 twice), of God (i. 21) who is the Treasure of incorruptibility (i. 23), and of incorruptibility as attained by us through the Eucharist (ii. 25, cf. || EgCO 58, EthCO 44, H₃ p. 117; compare also the prayer at the lamplighting in EthCO 37 which speaks of God revealing the incorruptible light). Harnack sees traces of Aphtharto-doceticism in i. 26: 'the only-begotten Son, the Firstborn, and Word of the Father...who hast an essence that cannot be injured, where neither moth nor worm doth corrupt.' This is thought to betray the teaching of that section of the Monophysites who in the sixth century upheld the incorruptibility of our Lord's body before the resurrection, as opposed to the Severians who only allowed it to be incorruptible after the resurrection (DCB i. 128).

Funk, who denies this idea (TUH p. 301), sees in Test language directed against Nestorianism (ib. p. 299 f.). In the Eucharistic Thanksgiving these words are used (i. 23):—'Thou, Lord, didst send thy Word who is of thy counsel and covenant, by whom thou madest all things, being well pleased with him, into a virgin womb; who, when he was conceived (and) made flesh, was shown to be thy Son, being born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin.' This, in a slightly shorter form, is also found in EthCO and in H₃ (see above, p. 50). It is not paralleled by anything in Sar, except that in this connexion (§1) Sar quotes Jn xvii. 3 'him whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ'; but in AC viii. 12f. we have a similar phrase, though the wording is quite different: 'Holy is also thine only-begotten Son our Lord and God Jesus Christ, who...was himself pleased, according to thy will, the Creator to become man ...being born (γενόμενος) of a Virgin, being born in the flesh, God the Word, the Beloved Son, the Firstborn of all Creation,...he who fashioneth all that are begotten was born of a virgin womb, the Fleshless became flesh, and he that was begotten before time was born in time.' But no one would suspect AC of being an anti-Nestorian polemic. A similar sentence occurs in the presbyter's daily prayer of Test (i. 32, apparently the compiler's own words): 'We praise thee, O Lord, who didst send thy Thought, thy Word, thy Wisdom, thy Energy, him who is of old and was with thee before the worlds, the uncreated Word of the Uncreated one (cf. Sar), but appeared incarnate in the end of times for the salvation of created man, thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ.'

Both these two ideas may probably be dismissed. There is nothing in these passages which a fourth century writer might not fitly use; and those cited in the last paragraph, if possible in the mouth of the AC writer before A.D. 400, are equally so in that of the Test writer in the same century. 8. The Apostolic Constitutions have also a clearly marked doctrinal tendency, though perhaps not so emphatic as that of Test, of whose dogmatic standpoint we find here almost the exact opposite. There is in AC a somewhat definite subordinationism. Thus: 'As Christ does nothing without the Father, so neither does a deacon do anything without his bishop, and as the Son without the Father is nothing, so..., and as the Son is subject to the Father, so..., and as the Son is messenger and prophet of the Father, so' etc. (ii. 30). 'Let the deacon refer all things to the bishop as Christ does to the Father..., receiving power from the bishop, as the Lord [Christ] did from the Father the power [of creation and] of providence'* (ii. 44). These sentences, except the italicised clause which is in || Didasc, are the work of the AC compiler. So in the sentence in the Eucharistic Thanksgiving (viii. 12): 'who in all things ministered to thee his God and Father.' So where Didasc says (DidCA i. 104): 'The deacon stands as a type of Christ; therefore let him be loved by you. But let the deaconess be honoured by you as a type of the Holy Ghost,' the || AC ii. 26 has: 'Let the deacon serve him (the bishop) as Christ serves the Father (some MSS omit the last phrase, or read: as the powers do to God,' orthodox corrections), and let him minister to him in all things without blame, as Christ, doing nothing of himself, ever does that which pleases the Father. Let also the deaconess be honoured by you as a type of the Holy Ghost, and not do or say anything without the deacon, as neither does the Paraclete do or say anything of himself, but, glorifying Christ, waits for his will.' Though the AC writer calls Jesus 'this Saviour, our King and God' (ii. 24), taking the phrase

* The || EthD 8 modifies this a little, and adds: 'There is one will of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' from || Didasc*, yet he avoids the use of Θεός absolutely for our Lord. These are a few out of a large number of instances.—The author never attributes a human soul to our Lord, and in one passage (vi. 26) is thought to deny it. 'Some...imagine the Lord to be a mere (ψιλόν) man, supposing him to consist of a soul and body; but others of them think that Jesus himself is the God over all, and glorify him as his own Father, and (think of him) as both Son and Paraclete. What can be more detestable than these (doctrines)?' Generally speaking, he inclines to semi-Arianism without being actually heretical. It will be remembered that the Arians put the Logos in the place of the human soul of our Lord. There is little probability in the idea of Funk, rejected by Lightfoot (Ignatius i. 271 f.), that the AC writer was an Apollinarian. His tendency is rather the opposite one.—We may notice also the stress that he lays on our being baptized into the death of Christ; e.g. ii. 7 (so || EthD 3), iii. 17, v. 7, vi. 15, 23, vii. 22, 25, 43, (not in || D or Didasc). For other doctrinal characteristics see Brightman LEW p. xxv f.; such as the emphasis on the title 'First begotten of all creation,' and on the high priesthood of Christ, on the frequent use of the name 'Paraclete' for the Holy Ghost, and on his witness (e.g. in the phrase in the Eucharistic Epiclesis [viii. 12] adopted by the Nonjurors' Liturgy of 1718: 'the witness of the

* But it omits the phrase of Didasc a few lines before 'Ye did not believe our Saviour God' which, as the context shows, refers to our Lord. sufferings of the Lord Jesus'; cf. Jn xv. 26, 1 Pet. v. 1). For the doxologies, see below. If we could be sure that the interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles was the same as the AC writer,—an identity which Brightman (LEW p. xxvii f.), Lagarde, Funk, Ussher, and Harnack affirm, but Lightfoot (Ignatius i. 265 ff., ed. 2) denies,—we could speak much more positively on the doctrinal standpoint, as the indications in the passages interpolated into the Ignatian epistles are more definite than those in AC. The interpolator certainly denied our Lord's human soul (Philipp. 5, Philad. 6), but also certainly was not an Arian, though his leanings were in that direction. See the matter treated fully in Lightfoot loc. cit. It has already been said (p. 91) that AC is not ascetic on clerical marriage. In vi. 26 he takes over from Didasc and extends a passage condemning those who 'abstain from meats and forbid to marry'; and generally he is against severity in dealing with penitents (p. 94).

9. Doxologies to the prayers, etc. The doxologies have been reserved to the end of this chapter, as we must consider all the Church Orders together with regard to them. The doxologies used may be thought to give indications of theological tendencies. The prayers usually end with an ascription of praise and glory to God in one of four ways: (a) through Christ to the Father, in or with the Holy Ghost; this is the most common form, and is found in CH three times, in EthCO six times (excluding the interpolated statute 40 A, where it is the regular form, occurring fourteen times, but including the latter part of the Liturgy which is probably an addition; see above p. 39), in Test seven times, in AC vii., viii. seven times, in ConstH five times, in Sar most frequently; also in Pseudo-Pionius Life of Polycarp, § 23 (Lightfoot, Ignatius iii. 455); cf. Basil de Spir. S., as below; (β) through Christ to the Father, as in EthCO once (once also in statute 40 A), Test twice, AC four times, Sar several times; (γ) 'to thee [the Father], to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' or 'glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost' (or similar phrase), as in CH for 'every single prayer said over oil, firstfruits, etc.,' (iii. 29, but see below), EthCO twice, H₃ twice, EgCO once (the only occasion where a doxology occurs in this manual), AC twice* (viii. 12, 15), Test five times; also with: 'through whom be glory...to thee, Father and Son with the Holy Ghost', twice in EthCO, thrice in H₃ and once in CH (xxxviii. 26); (δ) 'with Christ to the Father and to the Holy Ghost,' AC fourteen times (Funk's revised text). Besides this, CH (xxxvi. 193) has a doxology in a prayer over firstfruits 'through Christ and the Holy Ghost.' In AC some prayers end without a doxology, or with 'thine is

* Cf. also in the Gloria in excelsis: 'God the Father Almighty, Lord, Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and Holy Ghost' (AC vii. 47; so also in Codex Alex. [OT in Greek, ed. Swete, iii. 833]). But this may be an addition to AC (see above, p. 29), and the text is uncertain (see Funk DidCA i. 456). So AC vii. 48. the glory and power for ever' (vii. 27, cf. vii. 33), or merely 'through Jesus Christ' (vii. 34). H₃ (p. 115) has once merely: 'through whom be glory to thee'; EthS 40 A has once 'to Son and to Father,' and once 'to the Father with the Holy Ghost.' These facts have a considerable doctrinal significance. Mr Brightman says (JThSt i. 92) that α was perhaps the usual form, at least in some Churches; γ is said by Philostorgius (HE iii. 13) to have been first used by Flavian of Antioch, c. A.D. 350; 'but this is the prejudiced statement of an Arian, which is sufficiently refuted by St Basil de Spiritu Sancto.' This work of St Basil may be called a treatise on the doxology. The author says that he himself used in doxologies the form 'to the Father, with (μετά) the Son, together with (σύν) the Holy Ghost,' or 'to...through (διά)... in' (for the latter he quotes Eusebius of Caesarea and others), and affirms that they are both the same thing as saying 'to Father and Son and Holy Ghost,' joining the Three together as our Lord does [Mt xxviii. 19], and Clement of Rome [Cor. 58] and other fathers, or as in the ancient form in the thanksgiving at the Lamplighting: 'We praise Father, Son, and God's Holy Spirit'; there is (he adds) no one written form (see esp. §§ i., iv., xxv., xxix.).—The form α, which is the most common one in the Church Orders—we may class β with it—was probably the usual doxology in the first half or first three quarters of the fourth century. But the Arians and Macedonians took it up warmly as implying the inferiority of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and this caused it to decline in favour.

Sozomen (HE iii. 20) says that in the doxologies at the end of the antiphonal odes 'some offered praise to the Father and the Son,' regarding them as coequal in glory, and that others glorified 'the Father in the Son.' He is speaking of the times of Athanasius. But we find that in Egypt, c. A.D. 370, Didymus (de Trin. i. 32, 34, iii. 23) treats the form α as heretical, though Athanasius had sometimes used it. Its presence then in so many Church Orders is a mark of antiquity. Funk (TUH 53 f., 156 f., 235 f. holds that the predominance of α in AC and of γ in EthCO and H₃ is a sure proof of the priority of the first over the other two. This, however, is a very uncertain test, even if the facts were as stated. Much depends on the place of writing and on the tone of thought of the writer. In Egypt, in anti-Arian circles, the common form α soon sank into disfavour. We are not therefore surprised to find γ in CH, EgCO, EthCO, H₃. But elsewhere the change was much slower, as St Basil shows. The semi-Arian tendency of AC amply accounts for the occurrence in that work of the older form α, even though the writer lived in the last quarter of the fourth century (see below, p. 149 f.; he doubtless wrote in Syria). Yet the form γ is found twice (or once) in AC vii., viii., and the half-way form δ no less than fourteen times.

What is much more noteworthy is that in Test, a strongly anti-Arian work, the form α or β is used nine out of fourteen times. This points to that manual having been written before the controversy on the doxology became acute in the writer's country.

Chapter VIII: Festivals, Fasts, and Seasons

1. The Festal Cycle. The development of festivals in the early ages of Christianity was very gradual; and the Church Orders bear witness to this fact. In some places, towards the end of the fourth century, for example in Syria and at Jerusalem, it was more rapid than elsewhere; and we see traces in some authorities of a desire to increase the number of festivals. No festival is mentioned in D and ApCO; in Didasc only Easter; in CH, EgCO, EthCO, H₃, Pentecost also. Test, which gives elaborate rules for Easter, and one or two for Pentecost, adds also Epiphany (the commemoration of the Nativity), though it only just mentions it; it would almost seem that it had only recently been introduced. It is rather curious that EdCan calls Epiphany (on January 6, expressly) the chief of the festivals of the Church (can. 6). Now neither Epiphany (January 6) * Reference may be made to the author's article on 'The Christian Calendar' in DCG i. 251 ff., where the subject of this chapter is treated in greater detail.

2 nor Christmas (December 25) seems to have been observed as festivals before the fourth century, and it was not till the last quarter of that century that they were both observed together in the same Church. In AC (and || ConstH, also in || SEC 75 and EthS 67) we have a much more elaborate system: Easter, Ascension, Pentecost, Christmas, Epiphany (commemorating the baptism of Christ), the Apostles' days (plural), 'the day of Stephen...and the rest of the holy martyrs' are given in AC viii. 33 (Funk DidCA i. 541, and Horner, p. 214, understand the last to mean 'the day of Stephen...and the days of the other martyrs'; for St Stephen's day cf. also AC v. 8, which also mentions 'James the Bishop'). In v. 13. Christmas is said to fall on the 25th day of the ninth month, and Epiphany on the 6th day of the tenth month. We see here, then, a great extension of the cycle; it must be noticed that AC exhibits an enthusiastic desire to extend it beyond what had been customary. —In 'Silvia' c. A.D. 385, we have Epiphany with Octaves (Christmas was not yet a separate festival at Jerusalem); Presentation of our Lord in the Temple, forty days after Epiphany, which here is the commemoration of the Nativity; Palm Sunday; Easter with Octaves*; the fortieth day after Easter, apparently not the feast of the Ascension, which was commemorated, together with the descent of the Holy Ghost, at Pentecost; Pentecost; the Dedication

3 * Easter week is also mentioned in AC viii. 33 (slaves rest from work then) and in Augustine Ep. LV. 32 Ben., ad Januarium. So EdCan 9, but the reading is doubtful; cf. Barnabas 15, M. (Holy Cross day). Perhaps also there was a martyrs' festival, but there is a lacuna in the MS after the reference to the Dedication.—Of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, in the funeral oration on his brother St Basil (In laudem fratris Basilii, ad init.), mentions the commemoration of the Apostles and Prophets after Christmas, namely Stephen, Peter, James, John, Paul (perhaps all on one day). A Syriac Martyrology c. A.D. 400 (DCG i. 263) gives St Stephen on December 26, St James and St John on December 27, St Peter and St Paul on December 28. The death-days of martyrs (called in Latin natales) are ordered to be commemorated in EdCan 18; and of this we have other instances, e.g. the letter of the Smyrnaeans on the martyrdom of Polycarp, § 18, Cyprian Ep. xxxix. (xxxiii.) 3 (he mentions the Eucharist at such commemorations), and Basil Ep. xciii.

4 It appears from what has been said that in the fourth century there was a considerable development. The cycle of festivals in AC is the same as that of St Chrysostom (De beato Philogonio 3, A.D. 386); and this fact goes far to date and place this Church Order. The observance at Antioch of both December 25 and January 6 first took place less than ten years before 386 (Chrysostom in Diem Natal. 1); but the former festival was unknown to Epiphanius A.D. 375 where the Ascension is (perhaps) said to have taken place on a Sunday ('the eighth day,' so numbered because following the sabbath); some indeed have interpreted Barnabas as meaning that our Lord rose and ascended on the same day (so Harnack). See Swete, The Apostles' Creed, p. 68 f. (Haer. li. 16, 27), and, as we have just seen, at Jerusalem at a still later date. The fact that AC seems to press the separation of Epiphany and Christmas would point to a date at least as early as St Chrysostom's writings just quoted. In Alexandria we do not hear of their being separated before A.D. 432; but the division may have taken place some years before that, as Augustine tells us that in his time both days were observed (Serm. 199—204 Ben. (on the Epiphany): see especially Serm. 201; cf. DCG i. 262).

5 2. Date of Easter. Those of our authors who mention Easter are clearly no Quartodecimans. Easter with them always falls on a Sunday. But they do not all agree as to the computation of the Paschal fast and festival. CH (xxii. 195) says that the week when the Jews observe Pascha is to be carefully observed by all the people. So Didasc v. 17 (DidCA p. 286, Gibson p. 97) bids Christians keep this feast with all care 'when your brethren of the Nation keep the Passover.' And the fourth century Pseudo-Pionius (Life of Polycarp 2, Lightfoot, Ignatius iii. 434) says that Pascha is not to be kept outside the season of unleavened bread as the heretics do, especially the Phrygians [Montanists], nor yet on the other hand of necessity on the fourteenth day. But AC (v. 17, parallel to Didasc as above) enjoins independence of the Jews; the 'days of Pascha' (see below, p. 132) are to be observed exactly, and after the vernal equinox, so that

6 9—2 the 'memorial of the one Passion' be not kept twice in one year; Christians are not to be careful to keep the feast with the Jews, for there is no communion with them, and the Jews have erred in their calculation; the day of the Resurrection is always to be kept on a Sunday. So ApCan 7 deposes any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who keeps Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews (cf. can. 70). It is a little remarkable that the compilers of CH and Didasc, and Pseudo-Pionius should say what they do, for Hippolytus and others had made their careful (but, as it proved, inexact) calculations with the purpose of making the Christians independent of the Jews (DCG i. 258; Wordsworth MG 359 ff.). It appears therefore that these writers had not come under the influence of Hippolytus in this matter; whatever may be said of the CH writer, the other two, at least, lived long after Hippolytus' time. The other Church Orders do not allude to the subject.

7 3. 'Pascha' and 'Pentecost.' These terms in the Church Orders more frequently denote a season than a day. We read of 'the days of Pascha' or 'the forty days of Pascha,' meaning the season before the feast of the Resurrection (Test ii. 8, 18; so ApCan 69, but some MSS omit τοῦ πάσχα here). In Test i. 28, 'Pascha' is said to include the Saturday and Sunday of Easter, and in the context is joined to 'the days of Epiphany and of Pentecost.' The last week of 'Pascha' includes Maundy Thursday (ii. 11) and the 'end of Pascha' is Easter Even at midnight (ii. 12). On the other hand Test once mentions the 'feast of Pascha' (i. 42). In CH xxii. 197 Holy Week is called the 'time of Pascha.' In EgCO 55, H₃ p. 116, no one is to take anything 'in the Pascha' before [the Eucharist], where || EthCO 41 has 'during the fasts of Pascha'; while the same section of EgCO speaks of 'the day of the Pascha,' but || EthCO 41 and H₃ simply have 'the day.' In AC v. 13f. we read of 'the holy week of Pascha' and 'the fast of Pascha'; in v. 17, 18 (so || Didasc) of 'the days of Pascha.' But ApCan 7 speaks of 'the holy day of Pascha.'

8 Similarly 'Pentecost' means both the fifty days from Easter Day to Whitsunday, and also Whitsunday itself. For the former cf. 'the days of Pentecost' in Nicaea can. 20; and Test i. 28, 42, ii. 12, Tertullian de Bapt. 19 (both senses are used there), Origen c. Cels. viii. 22 (both senses), Basil De Spir. S. xxvii. (66). For the latter see Ac. ii. 1, xx. 16, 1 Co. xvi. 8, Elvira can. 43, 'Silvia' vi. and Tertullian de Cor. 3. The phrase 'after Pentecost' in CH xvii. 198, EgCO 55, EthCO 41, H₃ p. 116 (where one who could not fast in Pascha because of illness is told to carry out this duty at the later season) might fit either meaning. 4. Fasts. The germ of future fasts may perhaps be seen in D 7 f., which prescribes (a) fasts on Wednesday and Friday, in emulation of the Jews ('the hypocrites') who fasted on Monday and Thursday—so it is stated explicitly; (b) a fast of a day or two before baptism for the candidate, the baptizer, and others who are able. As Easter is not mentioned in this manual, the baptismal fast in it is very significant. The pre-baptismal fast for the candidate and others is alluded to in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 61, Tertullian de Bapt. 20; and in the Clementine Recognitions vii. 36, where it is for one day.

9 It will be convenient to collect the facts about the fasts from the Church Orders, and then to consider what deductions may be drawn from them. (i) Fast of Pascha. 10 (a) There is a two days' absolute fast before Easter in EgCO 55, EthCO 41, H₃ p. 116, Test ii 20, and no other Paschal fast is mentioned in these books. In Test, indeed, as stated above, the 'forty days of Pascha' are spoken of, but there is no word of fasting then (ii. 8); the people are to keep vigil and to pray in the church, hearing the Scriptures and hymns of praise and books of doctrine. Funk (TUH p. 65) thinks that the 'forty days' were probably fasts. But the evidence is the other way; the compiler is so particular in laying down rules, that if he does not do so, we are led to suppose that it is of set purpose, or else that the rules had not entered his head because they did not exist around him. It is true, as Funk says, that the injunction to fast absolutely on two days does not necessitate the absence of a partial fast on the preceding days (see below, β and ε). But the absence in these Church Orders of any direction to fast for forty days would be surprising if as a matter of fact the forty days' fast existed in their Churches. A parallel to the Test conception of the Forty Days merely as a solemn season may be seen in the fifth canon of Nicaea where the τεσσαρακοστή is only mentioned as a season before which synods are held;

11 nothing is said about fasting during the season, and it is not very likely that as early as A.D. 325 a forty days' fast was, at any rate, common. Irenaeus speaks of a variety of usage in the second century, mentioning fasts of one day, of two days, of forty hours; and shows that the variety in his time had long existed; Eusebius (HE v. 24) gives the passage. For the two days' fast see Tertullian de Jejun. 13 f. In these Church Orders sick persons who cannot fast the two days are allowed to fast on the Saturday only*. This has some bearing on the question whether the two days' fast was a Good Friday fast prolonged, or simply a fast in preparation for Easter; as a matter of fact, in the Church Orders mentioned above, the Friday before Easter is only mentioned in connexion with the preparation of candidates for baptism (see above, p. 97). It is not impossible that these compilers commemorated the Death and Resurrection of our Lord on the same day (see further, DCG i. 259); or at least that this was the case with their sources (see δ below).

12 (β) We find a Holy Week fast, not an absolute one, in CH xxii. 195—198, where bread, salt, and water are allowed, and in Didasc v. 14 (DidCA i. 278, Gibson p. 95): 'from the Monday fast fully six days, till the * So also AC v. 18. night after the sabbath.' This at first sight seems inconsistent with a later passage, v. 18 (DidCA i. 288, Gibson p. 98), but the inconsistency seems to be due to the quotation from Ex. xii. 3—6; the meaning is that from Monday to Thursday a partial fast is kept with bread, salt, and water (cf. CH), but that on Friday and Saturday an absolute fast is prescribed*. For the Holy Week fast see Dionysius of Alexandria Ep. ad Basiliden can. 1 (where he says that some fasted absolutely the whole six days, some two, some three, some four days, but others not even one day), and Epiphanius (Haer. l. 1—3, Exp. fid. 22), who says that the Quartodecimans only observed one day's fast.

13 (γ) The Montanists observed 'two weeks of xerophagies' (partial fasts) in the year, Saturdays and Sundays being excepted (Tertullian de Jejun. 15). This is expressly said to be more than the fasts of the Catholics. (δ) A forty days' fast is found in EdCan 7, which speaks of fasting for the 'forty days before the day of the passion of our Saviour'; 'then' Christians are to 'celebrate the day of the passion and the day of the resurrection.' The reason given for fasting for forty days is that our Lord, Moses, and Elijah fasted for that period. Thus the forty days included Holy Week, as in Test, or at least the greater part of it. It is possible that here also we have a relic of the observance of the Passion and the Resurrection on the same day (see above, a). * The chronology of Didasc as to the events of Holy Week is much confused.

14 (e) A forty days' fast and a Holy Week fast in addition are found in AC v. 13, 18, the last two days being kept as an absolute fast; Mk ii. 20 is quoted. So also Holy Week is an extra week of Lent in Pseudo-Ignatius Philipp. 13; the forty days are first mentioned, and then the 'week of the passion.' This makes a fast in all of nearly fifty days, and this is the custom of the Orthodox and of the East Syrians to this day. It seems to have been a common custom in the East from the latter years of the fourth century onwards, but not in Palestine or Egypt; nor did it obtain in the West (see Brightman LEW p. xxviii). In ApCan 69 it is not stated if the 'holy forty days [of Pascha]' include Holy Week or not, but they are a compulsory fast for all men; so also in CH xx. 154.

(ii) Baptismal fasts.

15 The fast before baptism is found in D 7 (as above); in CH xix 150—152 (bracketed by Achelis), for the candidates and others (cf. D. etc. as above p. 133), but the length of the fast is not stated; also in CH xix. 106 and || EgCO 45, EthCO 34 (H$2$ has a lacuna here) on the Friday before Easter, for the candidates; in || Test ii 6 the fast is extended to Friday and Saturday. In AC vii. 22 a fast is prescribed for the candidates—though its duration is not stated—because Jesus fasted after his baptism, and reasons are given for the difference of fasting before and after baptism.—Thus we have a double injunction to fast on these days, both as a preparation for Easter, and as a preparation for baptism. As baptism ordinarily took place early on Easter morning, this is a repetition, but doubtless an intentional repetition, since baptism might take place at another time, and moreover catechumens would hardly come under the stricter law of fasting which would be binding on the faithful. The suspicion arises that the fast before baptism is the real rationale of the fast before Easter; or at any rate that the author of the original of these parallel Church Orders considered it in that light (see further DCG i. 258 f.).

(iii) Weekly fasts.

16 Weekly fasts are found in most of the Church Orders. Wednesday and Friday fasts, as stated above, are found in D 8, and so in || AC vii. 23' which adds: 'or the entire five days,' i.e. from Monday to Friday inclusive (for Saturday fasting, except on Easter Eve, is forbidden in AC; see v. 20 18f., which also prescribes the Wednesday and Friday fasts). So also we find these two fasts in CH xx. 154, ArD 38, ApCan 69, Pseudo-Ignatius Philipp. 13, Tertullian de Jejun. 2, 14, Clement of Alexandria Strom. vii. 12. 75, Origen in Lev. Hom. x. 2, Peter of Alexandria Ep. canon. 15, Epiphanius Exp. Fid. 22. The mention in EdCan 3 f. of service on these two days points to their being fasts. But Test prescribes no fixed days for weekly fasts, only contemplating the contingency of a fast day happening in the week (i. 22). So Hermas (Sim. v. i)

17 does not say which were the fast days, and perhaps they were indeterminate in his time. Bp J. Wordsworth (MG p. 327) conjectures that except in Egypt the observance of the Wednesday and Friday fasts was not general, or died out, and that their restoration was due to Epiphanius. 'Silvia' speaks of the observance of Wednesday and Friday in Lent, and says that unless a festival of the martyrs fell on one of them even the catechumens fasted. Special fasts are prescribed in Test (i. 22) for bishops, first for three weeks after their ordination, and then on three days in every week for the rest of the first year, some relaxation being allowed on Sundays; but it is not stated which were the days. ArD 23, 38 has the same rule, but (§ 38) limits the three weeks' fast to the first five days of each week, and definitely excludes the season of Pentecost: also it introduces a mention of Wednesday and Friday fasts. In EgCO 47 (cf. EthCO 36; the || H₃ is wanting) widows and virgins are bidden to fast often; presbyters and laymen (Eth says 'deacons' also) are to fast 'at any time that they will'; but the bishop ought not to fast except when all the people fast.

18 We can now see what bearing these facts have upon the determination of the surroundings of the Church Orders. A forty days' Lenten fast was unknown till the fourth century*, and this at once determines that AC, EdCan, CH (unless interpolated * A reference to the forty days' fast in Rufinus' translation of Origen in Lev. Hom. x. 2 is doubtless his interpolation. here, as Achelis supposes), and Pseudo-Ignatius, are not earlier than that time. Fasting for forty days seems to have gradually grown during the fourth century. Even in the fifth century Socrates tells us (HE v. 22) that the Lenten fast varied; at Rome it was three weeks, save Saturday and Sunday; in Illyria and Greece and at Alexandria it was six weeks, elsewhere seven weeks, but still called τεσσαρακοστή. This will make us suspect that the name τεσσαρακοστή in the instances given above must not be tied down to the exact number forty. And the fact that in so many places the catechumenate lasted for forty days from the final choosing of the 'competentes'* may have done much to fix forty days as the length of the fast preparatory to Easter and to the Easter baptism. But the absence of a forty days' fast in EgCO, EthCO, H₃, Test, and Didasc, points to the comparatively early date of these Church Orders.

19 Fasting was forbidden on Sundays or in Pentecost; cf. AC v. 20 (not in || Didasc). So in Test ii. 12 it is forbidden to fast or kneel (cf. above p. 38) during these fifty days, and workmen are to relax their work 'in the days of Pentecost and on every first day of the week.' * At Elvira, c. A.D. 305, it lasted for two years, and, as we have seen (p. 16 f.), in EgCO, EthCO, H₃, Test, it lasted for three years, counting all the stages of it.