Cyril Of Jerusalem And The Nature Of Baptism

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

I have been looking for this information for the longest time. I had some years ago had a book about Early Christian teachings and practices (non lds related) and could not remember the title of the book. In this book, there was porported to be an evidence of an Early Christian baptismal rite of the Euchemen where they were washed and anointed with oil in an ordinance and ritualistic manner that was not just a mere baptism of immersion.

I have just recently come across this and found the information contained in Cyril of Jerusalem.

Chapter IV.—Ceremonies of Baptism and Chrism.

If this has any similarities to that of Temple Endowment ceremonies, then I have more reasons to reconsider the LDS Faith as being what it claims to be.

I am interested in thoughts and discussions on this and how this is similar or different from the LDS Perspective.

Here is the most interesting part of this:

First ye entered into the outer chamber of the Baptistery, and there facing towards the West (as the region of darkness) ye heard the command to stretch forth your hand, and as in the presence of Satan to renounce him167167 Myst. i. § 2..” For the formula of renunciation in the Apostolical Constitutions, see note 2 on Mystag. i. § 8; it corresponds closely with Cyril’s, except that this is addressed to Satan as if personally present: “ I renounce thee, Satan 168168 § 4., and all thy works169169 § 5., and all thy pomp170170 § 6., and all thy worship171171 § 8..”

§ 2. Profession of Faith. After the renunciation of Satan the Candidate immediately turned to the East and said, “And I associate myself (συντάσσομαι ) with Christ.” Cyril does not give the words, but seems to allude to the custom, when he speaks of the Candidates “turning from the West to the East, the place of light172172 § 9, note 3..”

Then, still facing the East, the Candidate was bidden to say, “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance173173 Compare xviii. 22: “One Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”.” We have seen that in Cat. xviii. 22, 32, Cyril intimated to his Candidates that they would be required to profess publicly the Creed which he had delivered to them and which they had repeated after him. This public profession of faith (῾Ομολογία, “Redditio Symboli”) was in some Churches made on Holy Thursday, according to Canon 46 of the Synod of Laodicea: “Those to be baptized must learn the Creed by heart, and recite it to the Bishop or xxxPresbyters on the fifth day of the week.” But in the Apostolic Constitutions, c. xli., Candidate is required to recite the whole Creed immediately after the Renunciation: “And after his renunciation let him in his consociation (συντασσόμενος) say: ‘And I associate myself to Christ, and believe and am baptized into One Unbegotten Being, the Only True God Almighty, the Father of Christ,.…and into the Lord Jesus Christ.…and I am baptized into the Holy Ghost,.…into the resurrection of the flesh, and into the remission of sins, and into the kingdom of heaven, and into the life of the world to come.’ And after this vow he comes in order to the anointing with oil.”

Such appears to have been the custom of the Eastern Churches in general and of Jerusalem in Cyril’s time, although he mentions only those articles of the Creed which were commonly held to be indispensable to a valid profession of Christian belief.

Dr. Swainson174174 Creeds of the Church, p. 17. represents the matter somewhat differently: “When we come to the profession of his own personal faith which was made at Jerusalem by the Candidate for Baptism, we find that this was far briefer not only than the collection of ‘necessary things’ (Cat. iv.), but also than the Creed of the Church of Jerusalem.” Then after quoting the short form in Cyril, Myst. i. § 9, “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance,” Dr. Swainson adds: “The words are clear and definite. In these words each answered the question of which we read elsewhere, ‘Did he believe in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?’ In this his reply the Candidate ‘confessed’ what Cyril called ‘the saving confession.’”

It is evident that two separate parts of the Baptismal Service are here confused: the question to which Dr. Swainson alludes, and “the saving confession” of which Cyril speaks in Mystag. ii. § 4, belong, as we shall presently see, to a later stage of the ceremony.

§ 3. First Unction. On passing from the outer to the inner chamber of the Baptistery, the Candidate who had made his renunciation and profession barefoot and wearing his tunic (Χιτών)175175 Pseudo-Dionysius Areopag. Eccl. Hierarch. iii. only, now put off this inner garment also, as an emblem of putting off the man with his deeds176176 Mystag. ii. § 2.. A further significance is ascribed by Cyril to this unclothing of Candidate, as being an imitation both of Christ, who hung naked177177 This passage has recently (1891) acquired a special interest from the controversy concerning Mr. Calderon’s picture, representing St. Elisabeth of Hungary as kneeling naked before the altar. The word “naked” (γυμνός, nudus) is not in itself decisive, but here in St. Cyril’s account of Baptism absolute nakedness seems to be implied; for though women sometimes wore an under-tunic (χιτώνιον), men had nothing beneath the tunic proper (χιτών), which is here said to be put off. According to Theophylact, on Matt. v. 40, the chiton was properly τὸ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν λεγόμενον ὑποκάμισοε. See Dictionary of Biblical Antiquities, “Baptism,” § 48. on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, and “of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.”

“Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil, from the very hairs your head to your feet178178 Ib. § 3..” The consecration of the “exorcised oil” is thus described179179 Const. Apost. vii. c. 42.: “Now this is blessed by the chief-priest for the remission of sins, and the first preparation for Baptism. For he calls thus upon the Unbegotten God, the Father of Christ, the King of all sensible and intelligent natures, that He would sanctify the oil in the name of the Lord Jesus, and impart to it spiritual grace and efficacious strength, the remission of sins, and the first preparation for the confession of Baptism, that so the Candidate for Baptism, when he is anointed may be freed from all ungodliness, and may become worthy of initiation, according to the command of the Only-begotten.”

Bingham’s observation, that Cyril describes this first unction as used “between the renunciation and the confession180180 Ant. XI. c. 9, § 1.” is not quite accurate: in fact it came between two confessions, the one made, as we have seen, immediately after the renunciation in the outer xxxichamber, the other at the very time of immersion. Chrysostom181181 Ephes. i. Hom. i. § 3. clearly distinguishes two Confessions, but places one before Baptism, and the other after: “What can be more beautiful than the words by which we renounce the devil? Or those by which we associate ourselves with Christ? Than that confession which comes before the washing? Or that which comes after the washing?”

This first unction is not mentioned by Tertullian, nor in any genuine work of Justin Martyr, but in the Responsiones ad Orthodoxos, a work which though still early is regarded as certainly spurious, we find the question put, “Why are we first anointed with oil, and then, having performed the before-mentioned symbolic acts in the Laver, are afterwards sealed with the ointment, and do not regard this as done in opposition to what took place in our Lord’s case, who was first anointed with ointment and then suffered182182 Quæstio 137.?” And in the answer it is stated that “We are anointed with the simple oil that we may be made Christs (Χριστοί), but with the ointment in remembrance of our Saviour Christ, who regarded the anointing with ointment as His burial, and called us to the fellowship of His own sufferings and glory, typically in the present life but truly in the life to come.”

Cyril attributes to this “exorcised oil” the same power as to Exorcism itself, “not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sin, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one183183 Mystag. ii. § 3..”

According to the directions concerning this first unction in the Apostolical Constitutions184184 Lib. iii. c. 15., the Bishop was first to anoint the head only, the anointing of the whole body being then completed by the Deacon or Deaconess.

§ 4. Baptism. After this anointing the Candidates were “led by the hand to the sacred pool of Holy Baptism185185 Mystag. ii. § 4..” This pool (κολυμβήθρα) was supplied with water raised from the reservoirs, of which, as we shall see, the Bordeaux Pilgrim speaks in his description of the Basilica.

As great multitudes both of men and women were baptized at the special seasons, the Baptisteries were large buildings outside the Church, such as the Baptistery of the Lateran, said to have been originally built by Constantine. The font itself also was large enough for several persons to be baptized at the same time. In some places the men were baptized first, and then the women: in others different parts of the Baptistery were assigned to them, and curtains were hung across the Font itself186186 Bingham, Ant. VIII. c. 7, § 2; XI. c. 11, § 3..

The consecration of the water is not mentioned in the Didache or Justin Martyr; but Tertullian thus describes its effect: “The waters after invocation of God acquire the sacramental power of sanctification; for immediately the Spirit comes down from heaven upon the waters, and rests upon them, sanctifying them from Himself, and they being thus sanctified imbibe a power of sanctifying187187 De Baptismo, c. iv..”

In the prayer of consecration given in the Apostolic Constitutions the Bishop is directed first to offer adoration and thanksgiving to the Father and Son, and then to call upon the Father and say: “Look down from heaven, and sanctify this water, and give it grace and power, that so he that is to be baptized, according to the command of Thy Christ, may be crucified with Him, and may die with Him, and may be buried with Him, and may rise with Him to the adoption which is in Him, that he may be dead to sin, and live to righteousness188188 VII. c. 43..”

Cyril ascribes the like effect to the consecration of the water, as imparting to it a new power of holiness by “the invocation of the Holy Ghost, and of Christ, and of the Father189189 Cat. iii. § 3. See also Introduction, ch. vi. § 2..”

While standing in the water the Candidate made what Cyril calls “the saving conxxxiifession190190 Mystag. ii. § 4..” The whole Creed having been already recited (Redditio Symboli) in the outer chamber immediately after the Renunciation, a short form was now employed containing only the necessary declaration of faith in the Holy Trinity, and in the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins.

§ 5. Trine Immersion. This short confession appears to have been ‘made by way of question and answer thrice repeated. “Thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? Thou saidst, I believe, and dippedst thyself, that is, wast buried. Again thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Cross? Thou saidst, I believe, and dippedst thyself; therefore thou wast buried with Christ also: for he who is buried with Christ, rises again with Christ. A third time thou wast asked, Dost thou believe also in the Holy Ghost? Thou saidst, I believe, a third time thou dippedst thyself; that the threefold confession might absolve the manifold fault of thy former life191191 Pseudo-Ambros. de Sacramentis, II. c. 7..” But Cyril of Alexandria, as quoted by Bingham192192 Ant. XI. c. 7, § 11., “makes these answers not only to be a confession of the three Persons of the Trinity, but a triple confession of Christ; which implies a repetition of the Creed (the shortened form?) three times over.”

In which of these ways the threefold interrogation (“usitata et legitima verba interrogationis”) was made at Jerusalem, is not quite certain from Cyril’s words: “Each was asked, Dost thou believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and ye made that saving confession, and went down thrice into the water193193 Mystag. iii. § 4..” The Didaché194194 Cap. vii. enjoins baptism simply into the names of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Justin Martyr195195 Apolog. I. c. adds a few words only to the names “of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit;” and Tertullian196196 De Baptismo, c. vi. observes that “Wherever there are three, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church, which is a body of three.” The trine immersion had reference not only to the Trinity, but was also a symbol of the three days of our Saviour’s burial197197 Mystag. ii. § 4, note 3.. The use of the three Holy Names was made more strictly indispensable as heresies were multiplied: thus the 49th Apostolic Canon, which, Hefele says, “must be reckoned among the most ancient Canons of the Church,” orders that “If any Bishop or Presbyter does not baptize, according to the Lord’s command, into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but into three Beings without beginning, or into three Sons, or three Comforters, he shall be deprived.”

We see here that the power of administering Baptism was not restricted to the Bishop: and Cyril speaks of it as possessed by “Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons,” assigning as the reason the great increase of believers, “for the grace is everywhere, in villages and in cities, on them of low as on them of high degree, on bondsmen and on freemen198198 Cat. xvii. 35..”

Thus the rule of Ignatius199199 Ad Smyrn. c. viii., that “it is not lawful either to baptize or to hold a love-feast apart from the Bishop (χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου),” must be understood to mean “without the authority and permission of the Bishop.”

Of certain minor ceremonies connected with Baptism, such as the “Kiss of peace,” and the taste of milk and honey administered to the neophyte200200 Bingham, Ant. XII. c. 4, §§ 5, 6., no mention is made by Cyril.

§ 6. Chrism. The custom of anointing the baptized with consecrated ointment is regarded by Cyril as a sacramental act representing the anointing of Jesus by the Spirit at His Baptism. “As the Holy Ghost in substance lighted on Him, like resting upon like, so, after you had come up from the pool of the sacred waters, there was given to you an unction the counterpart (τὸ ἀντίτυπον) of that wherewith He was anointed, and this is the Holy Ghost201201 Mystag. iii. § 1..” As “He was anointed with a spiritual oil of gladness, that is with the Holy Ghost, xxxiiicalled oil of gladness, because He is the author of spiritual gladness, so ye were anointed with ointment, and made partakers and fellows of the Christ202202 Mystag. iii. § 2..” The ceremony was very ancient: there is probably a reference to it in the words of Theophilus of Antioch203203 Ad Autolycum, i. (c. a.d. 170): “We are called Christians, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” Tertullian, a little later, after speaking of Baptism, says: “Immediately on coming out of the Laver we are thoroughly anointed with a consecrated unction204204 De Bapt. c. 7.;” and again, “After that, the hand is laid upon us in benediction, invoking and inviting the Holy Ghost205205 Ib. c. 8..” In another passage206206 De Resurr. Carnis, c. 8. he mentions also the sign of the Cross: “The flesh is washed, that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated, the flesh is signed [with the Cross] that the soul also may be guarded; the flesh is overshadowed by imposition of the hand, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit.”

The consecration of the ointment is compared by Cyril to the consecration of the Eucharist; after the invocation of the Holy Ghost it is no longer simple or common ointment, but a gift (Χάρισμα) of Christ, and by the presence of the Holy Ghost is able to impart of His Divine Nature. And this ointment is symbolically applied to thy forehead, and thy other organs of sense207207 Ib. § 3..”

The ears, nostrils, and breast were each to be anointed, and Cyril explains the symbolical meaning in each case by appropriate passages of Scripture208208 Myst. iii. § 4..

The consecration of the chrism could be performed by none but the Bishop, and he alone could anoint the forehead209209 Apost. Const. iii. § 16: “Let the Bishop anoint those that are baptized with ointment (μύρῳ).”, Presbyters being allowed to anoint the breast, but only with chrism received from the Bishop210210 See the authorities in Bingham, Ant. xii. c. 2, §§ 1, 2.. The several ceremonies are thus explained in the Apostolical Constitutions211211 iii. 17.: “This baptism is given into the death of Jesus: the water is instead of the burial, and the oil instead of the Holy Ghost; the seal instead of the Cross; the ointment is the confirmation of the Confession212212 Const. Apost. vii. c. 22..”

In like manner the chrism is explained again, “The ointment is the seal of the covenants213213 Ib. vii. c. 43. Cf. Cat. iii. 17.,” that is, both of God’s promises, and of the Baptismal vows.

The members to be anointed were not the same in all Churches, but everywhere the chief ceremony was the anointing of the forehead with the sign of the Cross. This is what Cyril calls “the Royal Sign214214 Cat. iv. § 14.,” and “the Royal Seal to be borne upon the forehead of Christ’s soldiers215215 Ib. xii. § 8.,” and again, “The Seal of the fellowship of the Holy Ghost216216 Ib. xviii. 33..”

These last were probably the very words pronounced by the Bishop in making the sign of the Cross on the forehead, for by Canon 7 of the Second General Council at Antioch (381), converts from heretical sects were to be “sealed or anointed with the holy ointment on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears. And in sealing them we say, ‘The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.’”

An additional prayer to be said by the Bishop is given in the Apostolical Constitutions217217 vii. c. 44.: “O Lord God, the Unbegotten, who hast no Lord, who art Lord of all, who madest the odour of the knowledge of the Gospel to go forth among all nations, grant also now that this ointment may be efficacious upon him that is baptized (βαπτιζομένῳ), that the sweet odour of thy Christ may remain firm and stable in him, and that having died with Him, he may arise and live with Him.”

The whole ceremony was called by the Greeks “Chrism,” the “Unction” being regarded by them as the chief part. In the Latin Church the name Confirmation is of later date, and indicates that greater importance was then attached to the “Laying on of Hands” with prayer.

xxxivAnother ceremony, not alluded to by Cyril, was the saying of the Lord’s Prayer by the neophyte, standing up, and facing towards the East218218 Const. Apost. vii. c. 44., after which he was also to pray, “O God Almighty, the Father of Thy Christ, Thine Only-begotten Son, give me a body undefiled, a clean heart, a watchful mind, an unerring knowledge, the influence (ἐπιφοίτησιν) of the Holy Ghost for attainment and full assurance of the truth, through Thy Christ, by whom be glory to Thee in the Holy Ghost for ever. Amen.”

It appears that the Baptismal ordinance here is very involved and very ritualistic than what modern Christians and Mormon's relegate it to.

What are your thoughts on this and what similarities and differences does this have in the Temple Ordinances?

[jwhitlock]

Cyril is kind of late in the game (he died in the 5th century, I believe). What he is describing appears to be something that is very different from what the original apostles were doing. The whole ceremony and ritual of baptism went through significant changes from the second century on, and I'm not sure I would think this particular description is early enough (it appears to be a description of how it is done in Cyril's time) to be much of a reliable guide in confirming or discounting practices we have today.

By the time the councils and creeds came along, things were very, very different in practice and in doctrine from what had been taught at the time of the apostles.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Cyril is kind of late in the game (he died in the 5th century, I believe). What he is describing appears to be something that is very different from what the original apostles were doing. The whole ceremony and ritual of baptism went through significant changes from the second century on, and I'm not sure I would think this particular description is early enough (it appears to be a description of how it is done in Cyril's time) to be much of a reliable guide in confirming or discounting practices we have today.

By the time the councils and creeds came along, things were very, very different in practice and in doctrine from what had been taught at the time of the apostles.

From what I have gathered, Cyril of Jerusalem was not a pleasent person to begin with, but a very educated and acedemic leveled individual who became a monk and a theologian.

My curiousity is of the washing and anointing aspect described here and how it may or may not relate to the temple washing and anointing.

[bjw]

After reading through that I can say I can see many similarities between that and the LDS Temple Initiatory. Very interesting.

[Doctor Steuss]

After reading through that I can say I can see many similarities between that and the LDS Temple Initiatory. Very interesting.

Evensen in Gainsayers edits Cyril's writings to make the similarities very apparent. Although I haven't been through the temple, a friend of mine who I read the pertinent passages to was rather speechless afterwards (and at first thought that I was reading from an "anti" book) -- anecodotal, so take it for what that's worth.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Evensen in Gainsayers edits Cyril's writings to make the similarities very apparent. Although I haven't been through the temple, a friend of mine who I read the pertinent passages to was rather speechless afterwards (and at first thought that I was reading from an "anti" book) -- anecodotal, so take it for what that's worth.

I used to have that book and lost it somehow and have been trying to find it...

[Doctor Steuss]

I used to have that book and lost it somehow and have been trying to find it...

It's available through Amazon if you are never able to find it again. To date (despite the author's, ummm... interesting history) it is one of my favorite apologetic books. There were a few things I took issue with (such as the mock dialogue at the end), but overall it's a nice little collection of interesting tidbits.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

It's available through Amazon if you are never able to find it again. To date (despite the author's, ummm... interesting history) it is one of my favorite apologetic books. There were a few things I took issue with (such as the mock dialogue at the end), but overall it's a nice little collection of interesting tidbits.

Oh, I remember him now... He was the first LDS Apologist that when I started getting into reading Apologetics and defending the LDS Faith, he stated that Origen and other Early Church Fathers taught the doctrine of Pre-Existence and I had spent many years trying to find the source for some of his position of some of the things he claims he found from Early Church Fathers that seemed to support the LDS Apologist position.

His book is the one where he starts out with describing the "Saints Alive" movement by Ed Decker (Which I have disdain for because I personally think he is very deceptive and will defend his marriage now that started out as an adultrous affair - blaming the LDS Church for his first wife leaving and divorcing him).

Or, am I thinking of someone else?

And, why doesn't the LDS Bookstores no longer carry such LDS Apologetics works?

[Doctor Steuss]

Oh, I remember him now... He was the first LDS Apologist that when I started getting into reading Apologetics and defending the LDS Faith, he stated that Origen and other Early Church Fathers taught the doctrine of Pre-Existence and I had spent many years trying to find the source for some of his position of some of the things he claims he found from Early Church Fathers that seemed to support the LDS Apologist position.

His book is the one where he starts out with describing the "Saints Alive" movement by Ed Decker (Which I have disdain for because I personally think he is very deceptive and will defend his marriage now that started out as an adultrous affair - blaming the LDS Church for his first wife leaving and divorcing him).

Or, am I thinking of someone else?

You've got the right guy. He was a member of ex-Mormons for Jesus for a period of time (and comments about how few of the members were actually "ex-Mormons.")

And, why doesn't the LDS Bookstores no longer carry such LDS Apologetics works?

The shelf-life of an LDS book is usually pretty short. However, I did recently see several copies of Peterson and Ricks' book Offenders for a Word... at Deseret Book here in Vegas recently. They also had a copy of A Different Jesus?.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

You've got the right guy. He was a member of ex-Mormons for Jesus for a period of time (and comments about how few of the members were actually "ex-Mormons.")

The shelf-life of an LDS book is usually pretty short. However, I did recently see several copies of Peterson and Ricks' book Offenders for a Word... at Deseret Book here in Vegas recently. They also had a copy of A Different Jesus?.

I will have to check into that.

I have had some good books and resources and a very good library I had built. Unfortunately, between moving and my parents "discarding" some of the books I had, I am attempting to replenish some of the books I lost.

Some of these books were pretty interesting that did not deal with LDS Doctrine. One book I am having a hard time finding is about "Natural Theology" and Romans 1. Another was an Old Jamieson, Faucett and Brown commentary (however, I downloaded that one from CCEL at www.ccel.org).

Several others dealt with Christian History and Doctrines. For instance James Stuart Russell's book the Parousia: A look at the New Testament Doctrine of Jesus's Second Coming (which can be viewed online and downloaded at the Preterist Archives). R.C. Sproul's The Last Days according to Jesus.

I even had a copy of Joseph Smith: An American Prophet (which is out of print).

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't know if you have a DI (Deseret Industries) in your area, but if you do, you might want to stop by and see what they have available. The books are usually only $.50 - $2.00. Another source (one that I love) is this. Here's some listings for JS: An American Prophet.

[DrewM]

Here are some scriptures that seem to hint at the idea of esoteric teachings:

Unto you it is given to know the mysteries [Greek: musteria] of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given (Revised Version. Matt. 13:11)

And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the mystery [musterion] of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect [teleoi]: yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, which are coming to nought: but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery [musterion], even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory… And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it: nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal (Revised Version. 1 Cor. 1:1-2, 6-7; 3:1-3).

For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men [teleoi], even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil (Revised Version. Hebrews 5:12-14).

Here are some ante-nicene fathers' writings that seem to hint at the same thing:

For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. (Lactantius in Ante-Nicene Fathers 7:221)

And Peter said: “We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, ‘Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.’ Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but out statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths.” (Peter, Clementine Homilies, Ante-Nicene Fathers 8:336)

For the most sublime truths are best honoured by means of silence. (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8:83)

But if [simon Magus] remains wrapped up and polluted in those sins which are manifestly such, it does not become me to speak to him at all of the more secret and sacred things of divine knowledge (gnosis), but rather to protest and confront him, that he cease from sin, and cleanse his actions from vice. But if he insinuate himself, and lead us on to speak what he, while he acts improperly, ought not to hear, it will be our part to parry him cautiously. For not to answer him at all does not seem proper, for the sake of the hearers, lest haply they may think that we decline the contest through want of ability to answer him, and so their faith may be injured through their misunderstanding of our purpose. (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8:98)

But the same writer [Clement of Alexandria] in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge (gnosis) to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one...” (Eusebius. The Church History of Eusebius 2.1.4. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two. 1:104)

The science of nature, then, or rather observation, as contained in the gnostic tradition according to the rule of truth, depends on the discussion concerning cosmogony, ascending thence to the department of theology. (Clement of Alexandria. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:42)

Wherefore also all men are His; some through knowledge (gnosis), and others not yet so; and some as friends, some as faithful servants, some as servants merely. This is the Teacher, who trains the Gnostic by mysteries, and the believer by good hopes, and the hard of heart by corrective discipline through sensible operation. (Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2:524)

[T]he mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all and sundry, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions. (Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2:449)

Now, in answer to such statements, we say that it is not the same thing to invite those who are sick in soul to be cured, and those who are in health to the knowledge and study of divine things. We, however, keeping both these things in view, at first invite all men to be healed, and exhort thosewho are sinners to come to the consideration of the doctrines which teach men not to sin…And when those who have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the word, and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. “For we speak wisdom among them that are perfect.”…[W]hoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure…He who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.”… [Celsus] does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries! Not to participation in mysteries, then, and to fellowship in the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God ordained before the world to the glory of His saints, do we invite the wicked man, and the thief, and the housebreaker, and the poisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and the plunderer of the dead, and all those others whom Celsus may enumerate in his exaggerated style, but such as these we invite to be healed…God the Word was sent, indeed, as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already pure and who sin no more. (Origen, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 4:487-489)

In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric. (Origen. Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:399)

Here are some Nicene and Post-Nicene Father's writings that hint at it:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles... (Basil of Caesarea, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:40-41)

In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. “Dogma” and “Kerugma” are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. (Basil of Caesarea, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:42)

We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended. (Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 4:106)

But first I wish to remind you who are initiated of the response, which on that evening they who introduce you to the mysteries bid you make; and then I will also explain the saying of Paul: so this likewise will be clearer to you; we after all the other things adding this which Paul now saith [in 1 Corinthians 15:29]. And I desire indeed expressly to utter it, but I dare not on account of the uninitiated; for these add a difficulty to our exposition, compelling us either not to speak clearly or to declare unto them the ineffable mysteries. Nevertheless, as I may be able, I will speak as through a veil. (John Chrysostom. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One. 12:244)

I've been gathering info on this for a while. I'm convinced that there was an esoteric tradition in early Christianity that has it's roots in the NT. Of course, among all the Christian sects today, only one has esoteric rites, namely the LDS Church.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Thanks for posting this information. I find it very interesting that there are many similarities of early Christian rituals with current temple ordinances even a few centuries after the apostasy had occurred.