THE EPICLESIS: SOME CONSIDERATIONS

My own generation of students lies under such obligations to

Mr. Atchley that the honour of a "Criticism" from him can
be received only with docility and the most careful reconsidera-
tion of positions. I should be much vexed if anything I am
to write should even suggest a disregard for the opinions of a
distinguished specialist. But I must confess at the outset that
I find some of his methods of argument a little unnerving.
This had better be illustrated. I had written, quite rightly,
that "Syrian liturgical traditions are abnormal, e.g. in ad-
ministering Confirmation before Baptism without imposition of
hands." The facts are notorious and universally admitted
(e.g. Liturgy and Worship, p. 449). In the extant Syriac
literature prior to c. 650 A.D. there is mention only of an unction
before immersion with no post-baptismal unction or imposition
of hands. (The evidence is conveniently summarized ap.
Connolly, Homilies of Narsai, p. xlii. sq.) Mr. Atchley roundly
styles such an- order "impossible" (p. 34). As it actually
existed I prefer the word "abnormal." If may be that
Mr. Atchley did not quite understand my allusion, but he
does both himself and me less than justice when he goes on
to "imagine" (his word) that 1 was involved in some compli-
cated perversity with a modern Syrian rite on which, to say
truth, 1 have never set eyes. The same paragraph of Mr.
Atchley's deplores my omissionto note what he reckons another
Syrian" abnormality "-" viz., the direction of the anamnesis
... to the Son instead of the Father." 1 could not do so-if
only because.so incomplete a repertory of texts as Lietzmann's
Messe und Herrenmahl contains (p. 61 sq.) more than a dozen
such anamneses addressed to the Son, framed on a non-Syrian
model, from Italy, Spain and Gaul.
Or again (I am taking points at random), Mr. Atchley asserts
flatly (p. 30) that no Monophysite "at any time" followed
Severns ill taking the Words of Institution as consecratory.
I am sorry to contradict him, but several of them do so, e.g.
the ninth-century Bishop John of Dara, Oomment. ad. c. ii.
Eccl. Hierarch. S. Dionys. There are others also. Yet upon
this quite erroneous assertion Mr. Atchley bases an insinuation
t~at the inconvenient evidence of Severns has been tampered
WIth or fabricated.
Or again (p. 28), Mr. Atchley is clear that the liturgy St.
Frumentius took to Abyssinia "must have been" that of
287
288 THEOWGY
Hippolytus or an early form of the Ethiopic Lit. of the Apostles
which is partly based on Hippolytus. I am not myself com-
petent to make precise statements as to the hypothetical rite
used by a half-legendary mission, but certain facts can, I think,
be established by evidence. (1) The Lit. of the Apostles is
(from its textual variants) based on that Ethiopic version of
Hippolytus' Ap. Trad. which is found in the Ethiopic Canon
Law, the Slnodos. (2) This version contains textual corruptions
only explicable as mistranslations from an Arabic version.
(I am in a position to supplement even the conclusive observa-
tions of Horner on this point.) (3) Arabic was not spoken in
Egypt (the original home of the Slnodos) before the seventh-
century Arab conquest. (4) St. Frumentius is said to have
been consecrated by St. Athanasius and certainly lived in the
fourth or fifth century. Some may think it likely that a purely
Egyptian mission used an Egyptian rite of the type of Serapion,
and an Abyssinian priest in the Rev. de l'Orient Chretien (xxix.,
1934, p. 187 sq.) has shewn reason to think that both the Ethiopic
Slnodos and the Lit. of the Apostles date from the fourteenth
century, and that the Lit. of St. 11!lark had previously been in
use. The earliest certain reference to the former with which
I am acquainted is in the" Church Law" of King Zar'a Jacob
(A.D. 1434-68) translated by Dillmann. Before this date we
know nothing certainly of the history of the Ethiopic Liturgy.
I have noted the consecrated total of thirty-nine such points
on which Mr. Atchley seems either excessively positive or even
not to accord with the evidence. Some of them (e.g. those
~bo,:e) sca:rcely affect the m~in ar~ent, ~ut t~~ir total effect
IS disturbing. I have no intention of sIgnahzm~ them all,
but it seems only due to Mr. Atchley's standing as a hturgiologist
and to the weight of received opinion which he undoubtedly
represents to examine the essential points of the evidence in
the light of his discussion.
First, what are we talking about 1 Mr. Atchley's last
paragraph reproaches me for broaching the question at all,
since to seek a " moment of consecration" is to foster division.
The blame for division must lie with the innovators, and I was
defending the English tradition of more than thirteen centuries.
Nor did I use the phrase he thrusts upon me; I spoke of " the
essential form of the Eucharist." And I put the matter thus
for a particular reason. The West finds this in the Institution
only, but modern Eastern pronouncements and theologians
make a consecratory epiclesis* an essential of the rite, and
* Le. a prayer that the Holy Ghost will (in some phrase) identify the Bread and
Wine with the Body and Blood of Christ. The Lit. of Addai and MaTi to which
Mr. Atohley appeals (p. 30) is technically invalid on both E. and W. requirements,
hut in its earliest known form (ap. Narsai. c. A.D. 500) both defeots seem to have
 THE EPIOLESIS: SOME OONSIDERATIONS 289
some Eastern writers tend to make it the only essential. Even
among ourselves peculiar language has been used. To name
no lesser men, Bishop Seabury at the first General Convention
of the American Church twice refused to celebrate because the
rite to be used was that of 1662, saying, "I hardly consider
the form to be used as strictly amounting to a consecration";
and Dr. White was eventually obliged to celebrate in his place.
It is pathetic that a commission of Russian theologians should
since have pronounced that Dr. Seabury's own epiclesis will not
" satisfy" Orthodox requirements (Alcuin Club Tracts, xii.,
p.2). In the circumstances, the rite of 1662 being what it is,
and "the Children of the East" among us being still " as the
grasshoppers for multitude," historical enquiry as to the anti-
quity and universality of the epiclesis is certainly not barred
to Anglicans.
What, then, is the early evidence 1 That of the only known
ante-Nicene rite, of Hippolytus, is clearly central.
This is found in two forms: (1) A version in Latin (L) and
Ethiopic (E) which has an epiclesis, but which will not as it
stands make Greek or even good sense or grammar. (2) A
Syriac text (T) which has no epiclesis, but which does make
Greek and sense and grammar. This is found in a document,
the Test. of our Lord, which elsewhere preserves one or two
readings of Hippolytus which LE adapt to later usage. (I
am prepared to illustrate this.) It seems clear that we cannot
assess Hippolytus' quite crucial evidence until we decide what
he actually wrote, and that this must be settled by the principles
of purely textual criticism and not on liturgiological grounds.
And it is quite certain that no one can or does accept the LE
text just as it stands, without some emendation. It is not
only the omission of the epiclesis by T (which restores the
grammatical soundness of the sentence) but the inherent
weakness of the LE text itself which raises difficulties.
Mr. Atchley champions the textually inferior JAE reading
(he does not say on what grounds) though this raises the" ad-
mittedly difficult problem" of why T "omitted" an epiclesis
standing in a text which T clearly respected. Mr. Atchley's
solution of this problem does, I am sure, some injustice to his
OWn knowledge of T's contents. It is that T " could not tolerate
a sentence which asked the Father to send the Holy Spirit"
and took it upon himself to suppress the epiclesis altogether,
lest by this intolerable phrase he seem to consent with the
prevailing subordination of the Holy Ghost by the Macedonians.
------------------------
been supplied, 8.8 also, apparently, in the time of Ebed-Jesus of Sobs (thirteenth
ce.ntury). But it certainly looks as though it properly should contain neither In-
stItutIOn nor prayer for the changing of the elements into the Body and Blood.
XXIX. 173 19
 290 THEOLOGY
T's intolerance was at all events not continuous. In his prayer
for the consecration of a Bishop (i. 21) this writer quite happily
retains the clause" Send to thy holy and pure Church . . . Him
who was given to thy Holy One," which seems more open to
misconstruction than the harmless epiclesis in LE, or indeed
than any epiclesis I remember. T has its vagaries, but it is
a little difficult to contend that a writer to whom this sort of
thing came naturally was really very fiercely on his guard
against Macedonianism. Nor do such mutilations of a text
usually result in a more coherent sentence than the original.
:Mr. Atchley styles his suppression-theory "the probable ex-
planation." I fear that to me it seems a pure hypothesis,
devoid of evidence and counter to observable facts, which does
not even attempt to meet one half of the problem, the incoherence
of LE at this point. I am not unbiased, but I still venture to
think the suggestion of interpolation in LE meets. all the facts
better than any other.
In default offurther ante-Nicene liturgical evidence my paper
gave attention to early eucharistic theology. Father Hebert,
S.S.M., had suggested (THEOLOGY, October 1933) that the
E. rites with their climax in the epiclesis and the W. with its
emphasis on the Dominical Words do in effect (with whatever
inward reconciliation) reflect two separate theological ideas,
eucharistic consecration by the Spirit and by the Son respec-
tively. I was at pains to point out (p. 126) that. both E.
and W. do in theory acknowledge both attributions, but I
accepted and accept Father Hebert's distinction as roughly true
both as regards the general theological emphasis of each Church
and the ethos of the two types of rite. What I endeavoured
to do was to trace back the two theological ideas, consecration
by the Spirit and by the Son, as far as possible.
So far as my knowledge carries me, and Mr. Atchley has not
supplemented it, the ante-Nicene evidence for consecration
by the Spirit is confined to certain Gnostic formulas and two
passing references in Catholic documents; all of Syrian origin.
After c. A.D. 330 both the doctrine and its liturgical expression
in the epiclesis of the Spirit can be traced with certainty in
Syria. Outside Syria no trace of either is to be found in the
extant evidence before c. A.D. 375.
I am uncertain whether :Mr. Atchley-seriously intended to
dispute this account of the matter, but he has produced (p. 34)
four passagesapparentlywith some suggestion that they ought to
have been included in my survey of the evidence. The most im-
portant from its origin and date-Rome c. A.D. 240-is Novatian
-(De Trin. 29), which he cites in the following form: "The Holy
Ghost 'marks out (or divides, distinxit ...) the Gospel sacra-
 THE EPIOLESIS: sou» CONSIDERATIONS 291
ments, Who was in them the enlightener of Divine things."
It will save space if instead of discussing this I give the passage
in the excellent translation of H. Moore (S.P.C.K., 1919, p. 126)
with which those who consult the original will not quarrel.
" And as the Lord was presently to go away into heaven, He
?ould not but give the Paraclete to His disciples. . .. For it
IS He who strengthened their souls and minds, who clearly
brought out for them the mysteries of the Gospel [evangelica
sacramenta distinxit], who threw light within them [sc. the
Apostles] upon Divine things, by whom they were made strong
to fear neither bonds nor imprisonment," etc. Mr. Atchley
will, I am sure, recognize that by mistranslating distinxit into
the present tense he has misled himself as to the relevance of
this account of the Apostles' inspiration.
Mr. Atchley also cites as teaching consecration by the Spirit
St. Basil (De Sp. S., 49): "The coming of Christ and the Spirit
goes before; in theflesh 1:n His coming, but the Spirit inseparable;
works of power, gifts of healing, but by the Holy Spirit; the
devils were cast out in the Spirit of God." By some misfortune
Mr. Atchley omitted the clauses italicized, though they make
the application of the whole passage to the incarnate ministry
of our Lord rather more clear.
On his other two passages Mr. Atchley states as a fact that
I "did not notice that Didymus of Alexandria (De Trin., i. 34)
states that' all things subsist through the Son while they are
hallowed by the Holy Spirit,' and again (ii, 5): 'as by the
Son all things came into being, so by the Spirit all things are
(sic) hallowed.''' I assure Mr. Atchley that I had observed this
and also that the first passage begins, "Though each Person
could create and make all things, it pleased God the Father
that all things should subsist through God the Son," etc., and
that the second runs in the original ". . . so by the Spirit all
things were (i.e. at the Creation) hallowed" (rrYLl1.CT(}Tj)' Both
p~ssages are concerned solely with the creation of the world,
WIth which my paper had nothing to do.
I hope it is not cavalier to enquire exactly what light any
or all of these passages may be supposed to cast on the use of
the liturgical epiclesis. If this is all which can be produced
after, presumably, exhaustive search, it goes some way towards
de~?nstrating my contention that neither the epiclesis of the
SPIrIt nor the doctrine of consecration it embodies can be traced
at all outside Syria before c. A.D. 375.
. Mr. Atchley has, however, his own explanation of this
sIlence-the epiclesis was being kept dark for controversial
reasons. " Where," he asks (p. 34) " was the sense of appealing
to a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit to be sent" when the world
 292 THEOLOGY
was full of Macedoniansclaiming that the Scriptural " sending"
of the Spirit was the very hall-mark of inferiority to the God-
head 1 One might answer that St. Ambrose, quite a sensible
person, did cite the epiclesis in proof of the Spirit's Deity at
the very climax of the controversy (De Sp. Soo iii. 16, A.D. 381).
But it really cannot be allowed that the doctrine of the Spirit's
" mission" presented any particular difficulty to the Doctors
of that age. They face and discuss every text raised by the
Subordinationists on that head. It is true they are careful to
guard this doctrine from misunderstanding and depravation,
but so guarded they teach it quite boldly as an integral part
of Trinitarian faith. Had the epiclesis been in general use, and
had it smacked quite as strongly of Macedonius to the fourth
century as it does to Mr. Atchley, it is long odds that it would
have been dragged into the controversy when men were quarrel-
ling over doxologies and hymns, and Catholics been forced to
explain or defend its use. Coming as the climax of vernacular
liturgies recited aloud, the scandal could scarcely be hushed
up, even by a conspiracy of silence among all the theologians
outside Syria. Does Mr. Atchley really contend that that
word "send" (which is not in all epicleses) constituted so
disastrous a point in favour of heresy that no Catholic writer
outside Syria ever dared mention the epiclesis or even the theology
it embodied 1 Writers like Basil and Didymus in works written
expressly to enumerate the Divine operations of the Spirit
devote chapter after chapter to His operations in Baptism.
Yet they never once so much as suggest that the Spirit has any
relation whatsoever to the eucharist. For men who heard or
used a consecratory epiclesis of the Spirit at every liturgy that
is a strange omission. Again it seems to me that Mr. Atchley
does not face more than half his difficulty.
Where we can trace the liturgical use of the epiclesis of
the Spirit-in fourth-century Syria-the doctrine it embodies
simultaneously finds explicit recognition, though Macedonianism
was at least as prevalent there as elsewhere. In the non-
Syrian evidence the position is reversed. Whereas the non-
Syrian theologians when they speak of the Spirit do not mention
the eucharist, when they speak of the eucharist they do mention
the Logos. And the only extant non-Syrian rite of the period,
Serapion's, clearly ascribes consecration to the Logos. Without
exception the ante-Nicene evidence outside Syria associates
consecration with the second, not the third, Person. The earliest
known anaphora, of Hippolytus, in what is on purely textual
grounds its more probable form, has no epiclesis but only the
Words of Institution, and is entirely concerned with the Logos.
The first patristic account of Catholic worship, in St. Justin's
 THE EPIOLESIS: SO~ME OONSIDERATIONS 293
Apology, cites the Words of Institution as "a form of prayer
which comes from" Jesus Himself "by which food is made
eucharist," and St. Justin associates consecration with the
Logos. (This Mr. Atchley admits, but contents himself with
dismissing St. Justin as " not an authorized exponent of Christian
dogma "-a difficult thing to be c. A.D. 150.) Nothing Mr.
Atchley has written removes anyone of these facts.
In some later evidence I adduced Mr. Atchley finds matter
for bleak disagreement, and I might find a little to say in reply.
But the main course of events after the fourth century is not
in dispute, and I will confine myself to the one point on which
I have a correction to acknowledge. I had pointed out a curious
hesitation between Eastern and Western viewsin SS. Chrysostom
and Ambrose, who both ascribe consecration now to the Son
and the Dominical Words and now to the epiclesis of the Spirit.
If by citing St. Chrysostom (De Prod. Juda3, i. 6) as "Christ
by the Priest recites ..." (as on p. 137) instead of (as, rightly,
on p. 193) "The Priest in the person of Christ recites' This is
My Body.' These words transform the elements "-1 should
have misled anyone as to the force of the passage, I must
express my regret. It was stupid, and I stand rebuked. But
Mr. Atchley (p. 30) insists that there is in these. Fathers " one
clear and consistent idea" and not, as I suggested, two un-
related ones. I have examined afresh all the eucharistic
passages known to me in these writers, and I can find none
ascribing consecration to the Son or the Dominical Words
which also mentions the epiclesis of the Spirit, or vice versa.
The point is not whether Mr. Atchley can conciliate the varying
utterances of these Fathers, but whether they themselves ever
tried to do so.
In the course of ages many admirable additions have been
made to the original simple essentials of the Church's sacra-
mental rites, whose sole purpose is only to explain, to enforce
or to adorn the vital sacramental action and form. But of
some of these adjuncts, most edifying and beautiful in them-
selves, the principal result has been a distortion of theology
and the obscuring, even the ousting of the scriptural essentials
~hemselves. Such cases as the Tradition of the Instruments
In Holy Order and the Eastern practice in Confirmation will
reCUr of themselves to all. When one considers the develop-
ment of Eastern eucharistic theology it becomes a matter for
concern whether the eucharistic epiclesis of the Spirit be not
°rf this class. A full investigation will raise questions which
have felt it expedient to skirt, and in particular will require
to pursue "the Origins of the Epiclesis" further than the
statements that 'lTV€vJLu a:ywv can in early writers mean the
294 THEOLOGY
Logos, and that the epiclesis of the Spirit proper first appears
in fourth-century Syria. There are alliances and affinities
between such documents as the Liturgy of Addai and Mari and
the newly published Liturgical Oatecheses of Theodore of
Mopsuestia on the one hand, and such things as the eucharistic
formulee of the Gnostic Acts of Thomas or the Samaritan epiclesis
of "the Spirit of God" over sacrificed sheep on the other,
which can scarcely be excluded from the discussion.
But there are bigger problems to which it may be that
the available evidence scarcely affords a conclusive solution.
As Constant says somewhere: "There is always one more fact
which upsets everything." I am content for the moment with
the submission that so far as the extant evidence carries us the
epiclesis of the Spirit and the doctrine it embodies is of purely
Syrian origin and remained unknown outside Syria until late
in the fourth century. The one primitive catholic essential
form of the eucharist is, as Justin and Hippolytus witness, the
narrative of the Institution alone. Not only the Book of
Common Prayer but such documents as the " Lambeth Quadri-
lateral" and the "South Indian Church Scheme" are in this
in line with the" Apostolic Tradition" of the rite as the second
century knew it. Surely, upon reflection this must prove as
gratifying to orientalizing Anglicans like Mr. Atchley as it is
to those other Anglicans who, on this point, "need no
repentance. "
GREGORY DIX, O.S.B.