¹ The Apostolic Tradition (1937) pp. 75–9 (cited as A. T.); and see his articles in Theology vol. 28, pp. 125 ff; 187 ff; and vol. 29, pp. 287 ff.

² In his Shape of the Liturgy (1944) he suggests it is a fourth century interpolation, p. 158 n.

³ For the infinitive construction with “dare” cf. A. T. 3. 4 (p. 5).

⁴ The Testament of Our Lord, edited by Cooper and Maclean, 1902, cited as T. D.

⁵ A. T., pp. Iv ff; lxvi ff.

⁶ “(Thy Word) inseparable” (A. T. 4. 5), must have been just as difficult in his Greek text as in the Latin. T. D. substitutes, “Son of (Thy) counsel and Son of Thy promise” (op. cit. p. 72).

⁷ “You offer my resurrection,” for, “You do my anamnesis” (A. T. 4. 10).

⁸ A. T. 23. 1; T. D. p. 73.

⁹ E.g. “gave it to His disciples” (T. D. p. 73), for, “giving thanks” (A. T. 4. 9).

¹⁰ Cf. his treatment of A. T. 4. 4–5.

¹¹ Cf. Didache 9–10.

¹² Cf. Origen's view, De Princ. 1. 3. 5, 7; but, if the translation by Rufinus is to be trusted, this is not consistent with Horn. 13 in Lev. 6 ad fin., “the Holy Spirit by whom everything is hallowed that is holy.” Consistency, however, is scarcely Origen's long suit.

¹³ T. D. p. 78. The reference to the Holy Spirit in the words of administration of the Eucharist is no less bewildering than other things in T. D. It may partly be accounted for by the fact a Baptismal Eucharist is being described, and the compiler may be giving an unusual form, stressing the gift of the Spirit, for this reason (cf. A. T. 23. 7 ff. on the cups at the Paschal Eucharist). But Whether the text is corrupt, and exactly what it means are dark questions indeed. It can scarcely involve the Syrian idea that the content of the Eucharist is “Spirit,” since the compiler has no invocation of the Spirit, and his clear trinitarian doctrine precludes a deliberate confusion of the two Persons.

¹⁴ One little peculiarity can be pointed out for what it is worth, viz. the transposition, “this drink and this food” (T. D. p. 74). The Anaphora of Our Lord has purposely changed the phrase to the familiar order. Can it be a mark of T. D.'s primitive source — presupposing the order “cup — bread,” as in the Didache? The reason for this order in the Didache is perhaps the desire to transpose the offering of the cup from the end of the meal (as in Judaism) to the very beginning (as in cult libations). Cf. I Cor. 10. 16, where the parallel with the cults necessitates this order to make the point clear, though it does not indicate anything about Paul's manner of celebrating. The sentence in T. D. is unfortunately corrupt, and certainly did not make much sense to the compiler of the Anaphora of Our Lord. The reconstruction, however, which the editors of T. D. suggest (p. 173), sounds very reasonable, “We have brought this drink and this food to Thy Holiness.”

¹⁵ E.g. for all his Trinitarianism, he still most frequently uses the ancient form of the doxology.

¹⁶ For the absolute use of μετέχειν cf. 1 Cor. 9. 10; 10. 30. The absolute use of μεταλαμβάνειν seems much later, cf. Theophylact P. G. 123. col. 300.

¹⁷ Vide a recent issue of the Anglican Theological Review.

¹⁸ Cf. Serapion, who attributes the change of the elements both to the Dominical Words and to the descent of the Logos.

¹⁹ E.g. the prayer for the Spirit in Addai and Marl, and several references in Ephraem.

²⁰ Cf. the confusion in Serapion's prayer over the font (II. 7). There is an abrupt transition from a petition that the waters be filled with “Holy Spirit,” to one for the descent of the Logos.