¹ Cf. e.g. E. Bishop, Observations on the Liturgy of Narsai (Texts and Studies, viii.1.145).

² Texts and Studies viii (ed. R. H. Connolly), pp. 4, 22, 29.

³ In a subsequent passage Narsai uses the phrase “medicine of immortality” to include both the bread and the wine, when it could so well have been reserved for the wine alone. It is interesting that the logos-epiclesis of Sarapion does exactly the same. Can this be explained except by the hypothesis that the wine was traditionally regarded as subsidiary?

⁴ The combination of Eastern and Western elements in Hippolytus has not received sufficient attention; nor has that in Justin, of whose eucharistia the liturgy of Hippolytus may well be a formalized expression. Justin was a native of the East who came under the influence of Rome; Hippolytus was apparently of Roman birth, but his teacher, Irenaeus, had been a disciple of Polycarp; and this mixture of influences is proportionately reflected in their rites. See infra, p. 132 concerning Justin's rite. In that of Hippolytus, the central and controlling position given to the words of institution is a definitely Western trait; and because they acquired that position early in the West, their expansion from the brief “This is my body,” even though made under Eastern influences, could take place earlier than in the East itself, where the recital of institution seems for long to have formed no essential part of the eucharistia. See pp. 141.

⁵ In the English edition of Lietzmann's Messe und Herrenmahl, by D. H. G. Reeve and R. D. Richardson. Cf. A. D. Nock in The Trinity and The Incarnation, ed. J. A. Rawlinson, p. 130.

⁶ The words for the cups of water, milk and wine in the Paschal eucharist here described have no closeness to the thing signified and are plainly secondary. They consist merely in a Trinitarian formula (to which is added a mention of the Church) spread over the administration of each cup thrice: “In God the Father Almighty; And in the Lord Jesus Christ; And in (the) Holy Spirit (and) in the Holy Church.” Cf. Ed. G. Dix, p. 42.

⁷ Ignatius of course stresses not only the union of Christians but also their need of ecclesiastical unity; yet when he turns to the “sacrifice of the altar” in support of it, his appeal is based chiefly on the broken bread: “breaking one bread” etc. He refers only once to the cup in this connection. Cf. ad Ephes. v, xx, ad Phil. iv.2. This is particularly interesting if the letters are not genuine, but belong to the middle of the second century.

⁸ Rom. xii. 4f, I Cor. xii. 12ff, Ephes. iv. 4ff.

⁹ de Spiritu Sancto xxvii.2.

¹⁰ iv.4.14.

¹¹ ad Monimum ii.7.

¹² in Ioann. Tract lxxx.3.

¹³ Ep. lxii.2.

¹⁴ adv. Marc. iii.51, iv.220, v.255.

¹⁵ Apost. Trad. (ed. Dix) xxiii.1, iv.9.

¹⁶ c. Donat. vi.1.2.

¹⁷ Just. I Apol. lxvi. The passage is difficult to interpret, the argument itself being confused, but the tendency to translate τὴν δι᾽ ɛὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ by “the word of prayer that proceeded from him,” i.e. the words of institution, seems too modern in its implications and, philosophically speaking, anachronistic. Justin is steeped in the Logos theology and chooses this expression because it furnishes some parallel with the Incarnation. Irenaeus has strong links with Justin and a definite logos-epiclesis; adv. Haer. v.ii.3.

¹⁸ Epiph. Haer. 1. 3 etc. Cf. J. Drummond, The Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, ch.viii, for a full discussion and references.

¹⁹ We now see that the Roman bread-recital cannot have its source in Matthew, for this, Eastern, Gospel attempts to weaken Mark's interpretation in favor of the Eastern view of the Passover; Mk. xiv.12 cf. Mt. xxvi.17; Mk. xiv.14 cf. Mt. xxvi.18.

²⁰ We see this clearly in later times, when the evidence is fuller; and it seems likely that the eating of a lamb in early times in the West, as well as in the East, but during the Sunday of the Pascha, and sometime after communion, was gradually brought more closely into conjunction with the eucharist itself. In the 9th century, East charged West with sacrificing a lamb, together with the Lord's body, upon the altar; certainly a lamb was offered in some way. Later, it was eaten, roasted, by the Pope and eleven Cardinals “in figure of” the Last Supper. Finally, the eating of the lamb was replaced by distributing wax cakes in the form of a lamb, a custom continued to modern times. Cf. the old Ordo Romanus (Mabillon, Museum Italicum, Luteciae-Parisiorum, 1689, t.ii, p. 142); Bingham Ant. xv.2.3; E. Hatch, Hibbert Lectures 1888, pp. 296ff; DACL. Art. Agneau Pascal; J. Drummond, op. cit., pp. 455ff.

²¹ It should be noted that the bread distributed to the multitude and the manna bestowed in the wilderness are the sole types of the Bread of Heaven throughout John vi. Only towards the end, in four consecutive verses (which, incidentally, are otherwise repetitive) is there any reference to drinking Christ's blood; while the blood and the flesh together stand for the one Christ, who is still typified by bread only. There is no mention of wine in this sacramental discourse.

²² Cf. B. W. Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, ch. xiv.

²³ Cf. G. Dix, The Apostolic Tradition, pp. 74f.

²⁴ Cf. J. H. Srawley, The Early History of the Liturgy, pp. 133, 227.

²⁵ Cf. A.C. viii and its later Syro-Byzantine developments.

²⁶ Jn. iii.13, vii.34.

²⁷ ix and x.

²⁸ ad. Rom. vi and vii; ad Ephes. xx.

^{29, 30} Ed. R. H. Connolly, pp. 252f, 244f. See also p. lxxxix of the same work.

³¹ G. Dix, op. cit., p. 79, although arguing strongly against the genuineness of this epiclesis, rightly hesitates to exclude it. If it is to be omitted, then Hippolytus merely becomes more strongly Western and his evidence does not affect this section of the present essay. C. C. Richardson confirms my view, HTR. xl.2.

³² J. H. Srawley, op. cit., p. 77.

³³ Cf. W. O. E. Oesterley, Jewish Background, pp. 224ff for a careful exposition of this view, and contrast Lietzmann, op. cit., pp. 68ff.

³⁴ “Thy Holy Spirit come upon us and make us pure” as a substitute for “Thy kingdom come” in the Lord's Prayer (Greg. Nyss., Maximus, 700 and 162) reflects the Byzantine liturgies. Burkitt and Creed seem to be right, as against Streeter, in holding that this was not the reading of Q.

³⁵ Excerpta ex Theodoto, lxxxii.

³⁶ in Matt, xi.14: cf. also c. Cels. viii.33 and in I Cor. vii.5.

³⁷ Cf. W. H. Frere, The Anaphora, p. 42.

³⁸ Lietzmann has tried to disengage this Urtyp in Messe and Herrenmahl, ch. xi. For a careful criticism see A. D. Nock, JTS xxx, pp. 382ff.

³⁹ Lietzmann translates προσηνέγκαμɛν by “we have offered,” but A. D. Nock, op. cit., has pointed out that the aorist is unlikely to carry this precise significance.

⁴⁰ Lietzmann's discussion of words like ὁμοίωμα, ἀντίτυπον, σύμβολον is valuable; pp. 190ff.

⁴¹ I am glad to find that G. Dix, with whom I am so often in disagreement, here reaches the same conclusion. Cf. The Shape of the Liturgy, pp. 196ff.

⁴² Cf. F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, p. 216, and M. R. James, Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 228, 388, 422.

⁴³ Cf. Lietzmann, op. cit., pp. 243ff, or M. R. James, op. cit, pp. 388, 422.

⁴⁴ E. C. Ratcliff argues that the epiclesis in Addai and Mari is out of place; and his suggestion that it may have come originally before the act of communion gives greater weight to the conclusions of this essay. See JTS xxx, pp. 29f. G. Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, p. 182, would seem to be misled, here as elsewhere, by overworking his theory of Jewish derivations.

⁴⁵ Ed. R. H. Connolly, The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (Texts and Studies, viii, pp. 17ff, 24).

⁴⁶ It cannot be assumed that from the beginning the fraction always took place after the eucharistia, as part of an ordered “fourfold shape” of the liturgy. It would on the one hand be natural not to break the bread until it had been blessed, but a feeling for dramatic symbolism may very easily have caused it to be broken at the mention of this word, and then perhaps again for distribution. There was no rule about it and no special ceremony until full liturgical development had taken place; e.g., Augustine says that the “mystic” eucharistic prayer is offered while the elements are blessed and consecrated and broken for distribution” (de Trin. iii.4; Sermo. 227). In some rites the fraction appears in a variety of places, — sure witness to the fact that it had no ancient, uniform position. A useful summary of the facts is to be found in Handbook to the Christian Liturgy, by James Norman, pp. 282 ff; cf. also 107 ff, 120 ff. G. Dix gives no proper account of the variations concerning the fraction. Its omission by Justin he dismisses as just “odd”; nor can I find that he mentions its omission in the usual place in A.C. Liturgists usually assume that it took place during the Deacon's litany after the consecration; it may have done so, or it may not. This omission from A.C. is important, as further witness to the fluidity of the rite from which all Syro-Byzantine liturgies were developed.

⁴⁷ Rom. xiii.1; Heb. xiii.15; Rev. v.8, viii. 3f; I Clem. lii, etc.

⁴⁸ E.g., Did. xiv.1; Justin, Trypho, 28, 41, 116; cf. I Apol. lxvi; also Iren., Tert., Clem. Al.

⁴⁹ The earliest elements of synagogue worship were developed from the Temple service and from the custom of sacrificial watches (Ma'amad) at the times of sacrifice. The Tannaim (70–c. 220 A.D.) began the systematic ordering of the Jewish liturgy, including one prayer in remembrance of the sacrifice; but nothing is more interesting in the comparative study of religions than the way in which the idea of sacrifice has in the end completely faded from Judaism while it lives on in Christianity as the result of the sacrificial interpretation of Christ's death.

⁵⁰ But W. Robertson Smith's theory that gift-sacrifice developed from communion-sacrifice seems no longer tenable. On communion-sacrifice among the ancient Greeks see L. R. Farnell, Greece and Babylon, pp. 232ff. and Hibbert Journal, 1904; also, for further modifications, A. D. Nock, The Cult of Heroes (HTR. xxx.vii.2). It appears that whilst the ancient Romans did not think of a communion with deities in food, the ancient Greeks felt that some measure of blessing attached to food after its consecration in sacrifice. This natural tendency to communion-sacrifice developed under the influence of the mysteries.

⁵¹ See Bingham, Antiquities, xv.2.5 and 3.35. Cardinal Bona's (1609–74) explanation of the change of practice as for convenience sake may be dismissed as a piece of rationalisation by a hard-pressed controversialist, especially in view of the general Roman argument that unleavened bread is primitive. Its doctrinal origin is plain, but we do not know how much earlier than the 11th century it may be. Can. 80 of the 2nd Trullan Council (A.D. 692) forbade all representations of Christ under the form of a lamb; and whereas the East continued to regard the sacred loaf as if it figured a lamb, it would be a natural step for the West to substitute Passover for ordinary bread. Cf. note 20.

⁵² Cf. also Ordo Romanus I (Migne P. L. lxxviii), in which one of the two loaves offered by the Pope is broken and one part placed on the altar, that it (i.e. the altar) may not be “without sacrifice upon it during the performance of the solemnities of the mass.”

⁵³ Cf. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, pp. 356 ff. English translation in The Liturgies, J. M. Neale and R. F. Littledale, pp. 179 ff.

⁵⁴ Cf. Lietzmann, op. cit., pp. 202 ff.

⁵⁵ There is no doubt an aetiological motive in Mark's description of the orderly Feeding of the Multitudes at eventide; and the evidence for a very early Western rite in which bread was of chief importance would be extended if, as F. C. Burkitt was the first to suggest, a lost sequel to Mark has provided some of the sourcematerial for the first half of Acts, with its stress on the “Breaking of Bread.”