The rest of the seventh book consists chiefly of liturgical matter, of which no source is known.

On the Didache see Harnack op. cit. pp. 86 sqq.: on minor sources used in bk. vii, Funk pp. 118-120.

3. Bk. viii falls into four parts:

a. CC. I, 2 meрì xapio párov, which perhaps includes an otherwise lost Пepì xapioμáτwv of S. Hippolytus: in any case, much of it is the work of the compiler.

5

On the work of S. Hippolytus and its possible relation to these chapters see Funk pp. 136-142; Harnack p. 643; Achelis die Canones Hippolyti in Gebhardt- 10 Harnack Texte u. Untersuch. vi. 4, Leipz. 1891, pp. 269 sqq. On the signs of

the compiler's hand in the present form see Funk pp. 139-141, Achelis Pp. 272-274, 278-280.

B. cc. 3-27 Tepi xepотоvior, consisting chiefly of the formulae for conferring all the orders and including the 'Clementine' 15 liturgy (5-15) as the mass at the consecration of a bishop.

7. cc. 28-46 пeрì κavóvwv, being a collection of canons on various subjects put into the mouths mostly of individual apostles and including regulations and formulae for the blessing of oil or water (29), for the office of evening (35-37) 20 and morning (37-39), for the offering of first-fruits (40) and for funerals (41).

Most of the matter of a-y occurs also in other documents outside the Constitutions. No completely satisfactory interpretation of their relations to one another and to the Constitu- 25 tions has yet been, or perhaps with the present materials is likely to be, arrived at. The documents are the following.

(1) In Greek, besides a number of mss, containing fragments of various lengths of the matter of bk. viii, which are of no importance for the present purpose, there is an important 30 group containing substantially c. 1 sq., 4 sq., 16-28, 30-34, 42-46, i. e. the περὶ χαρισμάτων, the περὶ χειροτονιών omitting the liturgy (and with shorter forms of the prayers for the bishop and the presbyter and a different regulation as to the reader), and the Tepi Kavóvov omitting all the liturgical elements: the 35 ascriptions to particular apostles are omitted throughout.

5

This document is perplexing in some respects, and perhaps the only view of it which is possible at present is one which regards it as a preliminary draft of the eighth book by the hand of the compiler himself or an excerpt from such a form.

For the mss. see Pitra Juris eccl. graec. hist. et mon. i, Romae 1864, pp. 46 sq. (but the list seems incomplete and the description of the contents not always accurate), Achelis Can. Hippol. pp. 240 sqq., Funk pp. 142-144. The text is printed from three mss. in Lagarde Reliquiae juris eccl. antiquiss. graece Vindob. 1856, pp. 1-18, under the titles Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγ. ἀποστ. περὶ χαρισμάτων (= A. C. To viii. I sq.) and Διατάξεις τῶν αὐτῶν ἁγ. ἀποστ. περὶ χειροτονιῶν διὰ Ιππολύτου (=4-46), and the latter also in his Hippolyti romani quae feruntur omnia graece Lips. 1858, pp. 73-89. The ascription to Hippolytus is sometimes omitted, sometimes given to the whole of this latter, sometimes only to the section corresponding to A. C. viii. 4-31: see Funk p. 143.

15

As to the relation of this document to A. C. viii: Lagarde (opp. citt. viii and 89 respectively) and Funk (pp. 147 sqq.) regard it as an excerpt from the latter, Achelis (p. 243) as a proximate source, and Harnack (p. 643) as an excerpt from an older form of A. C. viii. On the one hand it refers to previous regulations, which find no place in the document itself, while they occur in 20 the earlier books of A. C. (Lagarde Hippol. p. 74, c. 1=A. C. viii. 4, cp. ii. 1 sqq.: p. 82, c. 20 = A. C. viii. 32 § 12, cp. iv. 12: p. 82, c. 21 = A. C. viii. 33 § 1, cp. vii. 23 § 2); the signs of the compiler's hand are marked (see below); and in view of the festal cycle in c. 21( = A. C. viii. 33) it cannot be dated earlier than the middle of the fourth century (see below). On the other hand, the prayers for 25 the consecration of the bishop, c. 2, and for the ordination of the presbyter, c. 4, are in a shorter form than in A. C. viii. 5, 16, and the passages they omit are those in which the compiler's hand is most clearly marked; so that the omissions can scarcely be the result of excerption. The simplest solution therefore seems to be that given above. Against the Hippolytean origin of anything except the 30 Пeрì xарioμáтav see Funk pp. 145–147.

(2) The Sahidic Ecclesiastical Canons, cc. 63-79, are a document substantially coincident with A. C. viii, omitting the prayers throughout and both the rubrics and the prayers of cc. 35-40. It may be assumed to be an excerpt from either the present 35 or the earlier form of A. C. viii. The passage corresponding to cc. 5-15 of the latter, which alone concerns the present purpose, is given below in Appendix A 1, pp. 461-3: by the omission of the prayers the text is reduced to little more than a rubrical scheme: otherwise it is only slightly modified.

40

The text of the Ecclesiastical canons is in Lagarde Aegyptiaca Götting. 1883, pp. 239-291: a late (1804) boheiric version from the sahidic with an english

translation in Tattam The Apostolical Constitutions or Canons of the Apostles in coptic Lond. 1848: the ms. (Berlin Or. 519) from which Tattam's text is taken contains also an arabic version, and there are several other known arabic mss. (Funk p. 245). The boheiric is divided into seven books, of which cc. 63-79 occupy iii-vi: Tattam's text omits Lagarde's cc. 74, 75 a, 5 corresponding to A. C. viii. 32 § 1-10. On the whole see Funk pp. 243-245. Cc. 63-79 are generally regarded as an excerpt from A. C. viii: Funk p. 256. But Kleinert, in an article Bemerkungen zur Komposition d. Clemensliturgie in Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1883, pp. 41 sq., treats them as derived from a source of A. C. viii and not from the latter itself, but on no sufficient grounds: the 10 divergences from A. C. viii in the liturgical section prove nothing as to its priority, and in the only important cases they can be explained as assimilations to egyptian forms due to the sahidic translator; while the use of ȧpxiepeús, p. 462. 23 (cp. 14. 8 sqq.), is almost decisive in favour of the whole being an excerpt. In any case the festal cycle in c. 75 fixes its date as not earlier than 15 the middle of the fourth century.

(3) In Syriac, besides some unimportant mss. containing the matter of A. C. viii from c. 27 or 28 onwards, there is one (Paris S. Germ. 38) containing a document, part of which corresponds to the sahidic document above. This has been edited by 20 Lagarde and is called by him the Clementine Octateuch. According to the colophon, bks. iii-vi are apparently identical with (2), and in the text bks. iii and vi correspond respectively to the beginning and the end of it (=A. C. viii. 1 sq. and 28 sqq.), but bks. iv and v are wanting and are therefore unknown in detail. 25 The document may be assumed to be identical in origin with the sahidic and to represent an excerpt from A. C. viii.

The text is in Lagarde Rel. jur. eccl, ant, syr. Vindob. 1856. Cp. id. Rel. jur. eccl. ant. graec. p. xvii: Funk pp. 247 sqq. For the mss. first mentioned see Funk p. 144.

30

(4) The Sahidic Ecclesiastical Canons, cc. 31-62, form the so-called Egyptian Church Ordinances. This document includes a large amount of matter contained also in A. C. viii. 4-34, but with considerable differences in detail and disposed in a somewhat different order. Much of the contents other than what it 35 shares with A. C. suggests an early date, and it is impossible to put it later than the latter or to regard it as derived from it, unless it is to be regarded as an elaborate and successful piece of antiquarianism. Its origin will be referred to lower down.

Meanwhile it is enough to notice that it must be a source of A. C. viii, or rather, closely related to a source. Of the matter corresponding to A. C. viii. 5-15, with which we are concerned, c. 31 contains the rubrics for the consecration of a bishop, 5 followed by the offertory and the beginning of an anaphora (given below Append. A 2, p. 463) corresponding to pp. 13. 33 and 14. 11-24 below and c. 43 corresponds to pp. 3. 10, 5. 29 and 13. 13 sq. C. 46 contains the baptismal rite, of which the outline of the offertory and anaphora, given below App. A 3, 10 pp. 463 sq., forms a part.

The text is in Lagarde Aegyptiaca, pp. 248-266: a german translation in Achelis die Canones Hippolyti, pp. 39-137: an english translation from the boheiric in Tattam pp. 31-92. (The title Egyptian church ordinances [ägyptische Kirchenordnung] is that adopted by Achelis from Lagarde's Constitutiones 15 ecclesiae aegyptiacae in Bunsen Analecta antenicaena ii. p. 451: but this document is to be distinguished from Harnack's ägyptische sog. apostolische Kirchenordnung, u. s. pp. 451 sqq., which is the Sententiae apostolorum of Pitra hist, et mon. i. p. 75, and the apostolische Kirchenordnung or Canones ecclesiastici ss. apostolorum of Funk p. 249). Funk's argument, pp. 254 sqq., for the 20 priority of A. C. viii is unconvincing.

(5) The Ethiopic Statutes of the Apostles which form part of the Sinodōs, the law book of the Abyssinian church, are a form of the same document as is represented by the sahidic Ecclesiastical Canons, and stat. 21-71 correspond to cc. 31-62 25 of the latter, i. e. the Egyptian Church Ordinances. The ethiopic differs from the sahidic in containing the ordination prayers for the bishop and the presbyter, both in a short form (p. xx. 24 sqq. above) and the latter still shorter than that of the greek document (1). It is thus not derived from the present 30 form of the sahidic, but lies nearer to the form which must have been the common source of the ethiopic, the sahidic and A. C. viii: while the shortened form of the prayer for the presbyter is difficult to account for simply. In stat. 21, which corresponds to the sahidic c. 31 and to A. C. viii. 4-15, besides 35 the rubrics and the prayer for the consecration of a bishop, with the offertory and beginning of the anaphora, the ethiopic contains the whole anaphora given below, pp. 189-193. One passage of this, the Invocation, p. 190. 14–20, is obviously connected with the corresponding paragraph of the 'Clementine,'

p. 20. 28-29. 12: and this perhaps implies that the common source contained a liturgy in some form, if not the ethiopic form itself.

The text and a latin translation of the first twenty-three statutes are given in Ludolfus ad suam historiam aethiopicam Commentarius Francof. ad M. 1691, 5 pp. 314-328. On the mss. see Fell Canones apostolorum aethiopice Lips. 1871, pp. 8-11. See also Funk pp. 245 sqq. In the title below, p. 189, this section of the statutes is called The ethiopic church ordinances in correspondence with the accepted title of the egyptian. Whether it contains any more of the prayers cannot be discovered from Ludolfus' extract which extends only to the 10 ordination of the deacon: but apparently the deacon's prayer is wanting.

(6) The source of the document represented by (4) and (5) is to be found in the Canons of Hippolytus, which, though probably not due to S. Hippolytus himself, are a body of canons of the end of the second or the beginning of the third century 15 and of Roman origin. With some addition and some omission, and considerable modification, the Church Ordinances reproduce the Canons of Hippolytus, which are thus the ultimate source of a part of A. C. viii: while the fact that can. 3 contains the bishop's consecration prayer, in a form which is obviously the 20 basis of the later forms, indicates that, while the sahidic in its present form is not, the ethiopic so far is, in the direct line between the Canons of Hippolytus and A. C. viii. The canons do not concern us at this point further than to notice that in can. 2 sq. the directions for the consecration of a bishop consist 25 of the rubrical directions and the consecration prayer, with the offertory and the beginning of the anaphora as in the sahidic (App. A 2), and that can. 19, corresponding to the sahidic c. 46, contains the baptismal mass which is reproduced with some modifications in the sahidic (App. A 3).

339

30

The Canons of Hippolytus are extant only in arabic, a version of a version. A latin translation put in parallel with the Church ordinances and the correspond. ing passages of A. C. viii is given in Achelis die Canones Hippolyti, pp. 39-137. This work is a discussion of the origin of the canons, in the main satisfactory. Duchesne, in Bulletin critique, February 1891, pp. 41-46, while accepting 35 Achelis' argument as to the date, disputes the Hippolytean authorship, and attributes them to some contemporary pope. Funk, pp. 269 sqq., follows Duchesne as against the Hippolytean authorship, but his attempt to go further, and reversing the process of growth to derive the canons through the Church