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]