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”.