^{page 29 note 1} Didascaliae Apostolorum Fragmenta Ueronensia Latino. Acccedunt Canonum qua Dicuntur Apostolorum Et Aegyptiorum Reliquiae, Leipzig, 1900.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} Hauler, op. cit., p. 106 f.

^{page 30 note 2} op. cit., p. vii.

^{page 30 note 3} op. cit., p. viii.

^{page 30 note 4} See Dix, G., The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, 1937, p. livGoogle Scholar.

^{page 30 note 5} For reasons for assigning the treatise to circa A.D. 215, see Dix. op. cit., p. xxxv f.

^{page 30 note 6} See The So-called Egyptian Church Order and Derived Documents. Cambridge Texts and Studies, 1916. The independent work cf E. Schwartz, reaching the same main conclusion, and published in the tract, Ueber die pseudoapostolischen Kirchenordnungen, Strassburg, 1910Google Scholar, should not be forgotten.

^{page 30 note 7} See his article, ‘The Eucharistic Prayer of Hippolytus,’ Journal of Theological Studies (October, 1938), vol. 39, pp. 350 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 1} Hippolyte de Rome. La Tradition Apostolique. Texte Latin, Introduction, Traduction et Notes, Paris, 1946. Dom Botte here reprints the conjectural restoration of the Greek text made by Dom Connolly and published in his article.

^{page 31 note 2} op. cit., p. 22.

^{page 31 note 3} i.e. in moderate or mediocre style: so also Easton, B. S., The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, 1934, p. 40Google Scholar. Dix (op. cit., p. 19) renders ‘according to a fixed form’. The Ethiopic is admitted to be corrupt, but the antithesis appears to be between an inflated and rhetorical style and its opposite.

^{page 31 note 4} op. cit., p. 41 f.

^{page 31 note 5} op. cit., p. 25.

^{page 31 note 6} cc. 65–67.

^{page 32 note 1} c. 41.

^{page 32 note 2} ibid.

^{page 32 note 3} ibid, and c. 117.

^{page 32 note 4} cc. 41 and 70.

^{page 32 note 5} c. 66.

^{page 32 note 6} i.e. vincula diaboli dirumpat et infernum calcet et iustos inluminet.

^{page 33 note 1} c. 67.

^{page 33 note 2} Apol. 66.

^{page 33 note 3} op. cit., p. 75.

^{page 33 note 4} For text and discussion, see Dix, loc. cit.

^{page 33 note 5} Rahmani, I. E., Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, Mainz, 1899, p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 6} ibid., p. 44.

^{page 34 note 1} op. cit., p. 79; cf. Shape of the Liturgy, p. 158, n. 1.

^{page 34 note 2} Rahmani, op. cit., p. 44.

^{page 34 note 3} id. p. 46.

^{page 34 note 4} Swainson, The Greek Liturgies, p. 82, and Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, vol. i, p. 329 f. The oldest MS. containing this part of the anaphora is Grottaferrata P.B. vii, 1 of the ninth or tenth century. The consecratory epiclesis may be taken as a Byzantine insertion. It is not unlikely that the title, εὐχ, set above ἠμς δ πντας κτλ preserves the memory of its initial independence of the anaphora.

^{page 34 note 5} It is not possible to say when ‘communion prayers’ first made their appearance. There is no hint of them in Justin's eucharistic references. The earliest instances of, or parallels to, communion prayers are perhaps to be found in the Gnostic Acts of John, and the Gnostic Acts of Thomas. In four out of the five instances which these documents present the prayers might be described as ‘words of delivery’. The rise, use and development of such prayers in catholic, or orthodox, circles deserves special study.

^{page 35 note 1} Hauler, op. cit., p. 112.

^{page 35 note 2} See p. 363 of the article cited in n. 7 on p. 30 supra.

^{page 35 note 3} iv, 17: iv, 18.

^{page 35 note 4} v, 2.

^{page 35 note 5} ibid.

^{page 36 note 1} iv, 18 (ed. W. W. Harvey, vol. II, p. 204).

^{page 36 note 2} iv, 18.