49 [Hefele: "The Canons 77-79, inclusive, belong to the first three centuries of the Church; their origin is unknown."-R.]
50 [Comp. Apostolic Constitutions, viii. 32, p. 495, from which this may have been taken.-R.]
51 [Drey regards Canon 80 as an imitation of the second canon of Nicaea, which is, however, much fuller; comp. Hefele, i. p. 377. On the principle, comp. 1 Tim. iii. 6 and similar passages.-R.]
52 Can. iv. prius.
53 Matt. vi. 24.
54 [The contents of this canon point to a late date. Drey regards it as an abridgment of the third canon of Chalcedon (A.D. 451).-R.]
55 [Of unknown origin and date.-R.]
56 Matt. xxii. 21. [This also Drey traces to the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451 (Canon 7); but Hefele opposes this view here, as in the case of the other canons (30, 67, 74, 81) which Drey derives from that source.-R.]
57 [Or rather, "the emperor" (basile/a having that sense). Hefele refers this to the time of the Arian struggle, when the emperors were involved in ecclesiastical controversies.-R.]
58 [Hefele: "This is probably the least ancient canon in the whole collection." With this opinion there is general concurrence, since the mention of the Constitutions among the canonical books indicates the hand of the last compiler of that collection of writings. Whoever he was, he was not Clement of Rome.-R.]
59 1 Tim. ii. 1-3. Compare (poiei=sqai) the Greek here with that of the LXX. in Ex. xxix. 36, 38, 39, 41; also Ex. x. 25, and so throughout the Old Testament. Note also Eph. v. 19 and Col. iii. 16; and the kiss, 1 Cor. xvi. 20.
60 1 Cor. xi. 23. To me there is great significance in the fact that the Apostle received this as an original Gospel from the Lord Himself, Truly (2 Cor. xi. 5) he was not "a whit behind," even that chief Apostle who reclined in the bosom of the Great High Priest and adorable Lamb of God as He instituted the feast.
61 Matt. vi. 9. For this we have the important testimony of Gregory the Great, as preserved to his day: that the Apostles (SS. Peter and Paul must have been primarily in his mind, of course) delivered no other "custom" to the churches (i.e., as essential) than the words of Institution and the Lord's Prayer. He says:- "Orationem Dominicam, mox post precem, dicimus, quia mos Apostolorum erat, ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrare."-Epist. ad Joann. Episc. Syrac., lib. ix. Ep. xii., Opp., tom. id. p. 958, ed. Migne. Now, for the sense of post precem in the above, we have Justin Martyr for a primitive witness of Roman usage. He speaks of the words of Institution expressly (vol. i. cap. lxvi. p. 185) as "the Prayer of the Logos" (di' e0uxhj Lo/gou), in the use of which he makes the essential act of the Oblation to consist. Liturgic fulness may or may not require more, but the essentials are thus simple. So far, the Roman Missal to this day sustains the words of Gregory. It is overloaded with ceremonial, but does not include the noble features on which the Greeks lay so great stress: i.e., the conjoint Oblation and Invocation. See 1 Pet. ii. 5.
62 1 Cor. xi. 5, 6. Here men are equally enjoined not to follow the Jewish rite of covering their heads in prayer.
63 Eph. v. 14.
64 See the Greek in Hammond, p. 3, and the learned Introduction, p. lxx.
65 Hammond, Introduction, p. lxix.
66 See translation, p. 489, supra.
67 See translation, vol. i. (Fragment xxxvii.) p. 574, this series.
68 For purposes of comparison on many points connected with this inquiry, see the Fragment of an Ancient East-Syrian Liturgy in Hammond's Appendix, published separately, Oxford, 1879.
69 Concerning Pfaff, see p. 536, infra, and vol. i. p. 574, note 5, this series.