6

The meagreness and inadequacy of the whole conception of the Eucharist strikes every one at once. It is fenced indeed by the preliminary requirement of baptism1 and the injunction of previous public confession of sins 2; it is regarded as the Christian sacrifice or thankoffering, in which is fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi about the 'pure sacrifice' of the new covenant (xiv. 3), and which, it is probably implied, our Lord alluded to when he spoke of 'bringing our gift to the altar'; it is also called spiritual food and drink (unless indeed these words refer to the teaching of Christ), and is celebrated in definite anticipation of His second coming (x. 6): but the whole con. ception of it is more Jewish than Christian. Sabatier says truly: the baptized. This practice in the case of the baptizer did not apparently die out, as the commentators seem to think: see St. Chrysostom's answer to his accusers, Ερ. cxxv. p. 668 : καθελέτωσαν καὶ τὸν Παῦλον ὃς μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι ὁλόκληρον Tòv oikov éßántiσev. He seems to mean that St. Paul baptized after eating, and that this would be an ecclesiastical offence. He is, however, forgetting the order of events in the original passage, Acts xvi. 33, 34; and the context possibly makes his meaning ambiguous. (4) For the bearing of these Judaic regulations on the history of infant baptism. The Christian Church would presumably have carried on the Jewish practice of infant baptism. See Taylor on the 'little proselytes,' pp. 55-58 (very suggestive on the theory of infant baptism); and Sabatier La Didachè pp. 8488: L'Église, en donnant au baptême une signification nouvelle, ne s'écarta cepen. dant pas beaucoup dans le principe de la discipline du baptême juif.'

1 ix. 5.

2 κίν. 1: προ[σ]εξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, cf. iv. 14: “In the Church thou shalt confess thy transgressions,' i.e. before public prayer. This throws a strong light on the history of public confession in the Christian Church, see St. James v. 14-16, 1 St. John i. 9 (Westcott's note). This confession is still maintained in Canons of Hippolytus c. ii., but in the later Apostolical Constitutions (vii. 14), it is turned into 'Thou shalt confess thy sins to the Lord thy God.'

3 xiv. 1.

4 c. ix. 'Eucharist' is clearly used technically. Thus the Didache throws back the date of the technical use of the word.

5 xiv. 2: Let no man who has a dispute with his fellow come together with you until they be reconciled [dtaλλaywσiv, cf. St. Matt. v. 24], that your sacrifice be not defiled,' seems to refer to the saying of our Lord.

6 x. 3. See Sabatier .c. p. 104.

7 See Salmon Introd. p. 607. Thus the Prayer of Thanksgiving over the bread is reproduced as a sort of 'grace before meat' in the pseudo-Athanasius de Virginitate 13; see Schaff .c. p. 194. There is nothing in it to raise it above the level of such a use. There are, however, indications that these prayers in the Didache are really prayers for the Agape, and that the actual communion is meant to occur after x. 6. The word Eucharist may well include the Agape. Thus the cup in ix. 2 corresponds (cf. St. Luke xxii. 17) to the second paschal cup. The expression 'after being filled' (x. 1) refers to the preliminary eating, and Dr. Taylor quotes a most suggestive parallel from Jewish language about the passover, l.c. p. 130: 'The chagigah was eaten first that the passover might be eaten after being filled.' Thus the occurrence of the Holy Communion after the Agape would rest upon a Jewish practice. Then the exclamations of Did. x. 6: If any one is holy, let him come: if any one is not, let him repent,' refer, as they naturally should, to the subsequent eating of the holy things. This again would explain the meaning of the rule of xi. 9, that the prophet

'Our document cannot but surprise those who read for the first time its liturgy of the Eucharist. We have here a form without analogy anywhere. It separates itself much less from the Jewish ritual than from the Christian.' 'It is an ordinary repast just touched by a breath of religious mysticism, such as is the outcome of the importance which belongs, in Jewish and oriental idea, to repasts taken in common.'1 There is, in fact, nothing to recall to our mind our Lord's words in the institution of the Eucharist, of which, we must remark, we have the form given us in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians,-nothing to recall to us St. Paul's language about the significance of the communion. It is a Jewish feast Christianized in a measure by the recognition of the Messiahship of Christ and the expectation of His second coming.

It must not indeed be supposed that the mere absence of later ritual would mean the absence of sacramental idea. This view has been combated already (pp. 164, 165). We find in some cases an absence of elaborate ritual coinciding with the fullest appreciation of the spiritual efficacy of a sacrament. In the Teaching it is the idea that is absent. This falls in further with the absence of grasp on the principle of the Incarnation. Of course Trinitarian doctrine is implied in the use of the Trinitarian formula of baptism, but the author seems to be quite uninfluenced by the teaching of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John on the Incarnation and the Atonement and the Holy Spirit.3 The Christology indeed is barely as full

who 'orders a table in the spirit' is, as a test of his disinterestedness, not to eat of it he is not to eat of the Agape, not to fill himself,' and is, of course, to communicate at the subsequent Eucharist. This interpretation of the 'eucharistic' prayers would seem the most natural, I think, but for the immense difficulty for suggesting a reason for the silence about the Holy Communion, unless we can introduce the idea of reserve about 'the mysteries': cf. Taylor .c. p. v. Perhaps, however, the difficulty is less great if these benedictions are based on formulas in use amongst the Jews at religious meals, as seems very probable; see Rendall Theol. of Hebr. Chr. p. 89 f.

1 Sabatier .c. pp. 109, 112.

2 Schaff maintains that the author of the Didache in the phrase ' Hosanna to the God of David' (x. 6) refers to Christ as God. If the reading is right, however, it more probably refers to the Father. Nor does the 'Lord' of xiv. 3 seem to refer to Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament. It is a simple reference to the words of the original. It is not that the author is heretical, but he is inadequate.

3 It is indeed well open to question whether he had any acquaintance with their writings:

(a) His supposed references to St. Paul are not at all convincing. Did. iii. 1: 'Flee from evil and all that is like it' is a reference not to 1 Thess. v. 22, but to a Jewish saying (see Taylor, p. 24); ν. 2: οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ οὐδὲ κρίσει δικαίᾳ does suggest Rom. xii. 9, but κoλλâσbai is a common word e.g. with St. Luke. Πνευματική τροφὴ καὶ ποτός (x. 3) applied to the Gospel or the Eucharist does not necessarily depend upon 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. The connection of the Church's unity with

as that of the early speeches in the Acts.

Perhaps, however, we

can best characterize the tone of the Didache by saying that it would represent the beliefs of a Jewish Christianity yet unleavened by the deeper teaching of the Apostles,' which was to follow that first earnest emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus, of which the early chapters of the Acts give us the record.1

Of course there is teaching implied in the writing which is not given. the unity of the bread in Did. ix. 4 is strikingly different from that in 1 Cor. x. 17, and the account of Antichrist in c. xvi. shows great independence of St. Paul's treatment, though acquaintance with the idea that he is using.

(b) The reference in i. 4 to 1 Peter ii. 11 occurs in the interpolated portion (cf. also 4 Macc. i. 32).

(c) The supposed references to St. John seem on examination to be very unconvincing. The Vine of David (ix. 2) is the Church, not Christ, and suggests therefore ignorance of St. John xv. The phrase (x. 2) εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου, οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν [ἡμῶν] καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καί ἀθανασίας ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σοῦ is in fact a reference to Jerem. vii. 12 kateσkývwσa tò ovoμá μov, and further suggests familiarity with the language used in the early chapters of the Acts, ii. 28 ἐγνώρισάς μοι ὁδοὺς ζωῆς, iii. 13 ὁ ἅγιος παῖς Ἰησοῦς, cf. iii. 26, iv. 27-30, language which again is in direct reference to the Old Testament. St. John never uses ábavaσía or yvwσis. Indeed 'Holy Father' is the only phrase which recalls St. John in his report of our Lord's Prayer, and our author is fond of the word ayos. Altogether there is no reason to think he knew St. John's Gospel.

(d) Did the author of the Didache know either of the other Gospels? The Lord's Prayer and the baptismal formula would be an element in any tradition. Beyond these we have only a record of those 'sententious' sayings of our Lord, such as are most easily handed down in real tradition : οἱ πραεῖς κληρονομήσουσι τὴν γῆν, μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσίν, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ (iii. 7, ix. 5, xiii. 2). The acquaintance with our Lord's eschatological discourses, shown in c. xvi, is very independent of the Gospels. He refers to 'the gospel of the Lord' (xv. 4), but it is doubtful whether it is a document. See, however, on the whole question, Taylor pp. 108-112.

1 Certainly the connection of the Didache with the language of St. Peter's first sermons, and the phraseology of these chapters, is very striking. It is more than a coincidence of mere language.

(a) With ix. 2 'Inσoûs ò mais σov, cf. Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30. See Clement's Epistle, c. 59. In Mart. Polyc. 14, as in the Apost. Const., it has a new meaning; it is no longer servant as in the Didache (used alike of David and Jesus in the same clause), with reference to the 'servant of Jehovah' in Isaiah; it has got the meaning of 'Son '-'My beloved Son.' See Lightfoot on Clement, in loc.

(b) With x. 2 quoted above, and ix. 2, cf. Acts ii. 28., éyvúpɩσás μoi òdovs (wŷs. (c) For the whole idea of the Acts, ii. 42 ἦσαν δὲ προσκαρτεροῦντες τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων. τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς, cf. ix. 3, xiv. I, τὸ κλασμα, κλάσατε ἄρτον.

(α) With iv. 8 συγκοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι, cf. Acts iv. 32 οὐδὲ εἰς τι . . . ἔλεγεν ἴδιον εἶναι . ἅπαντα κοινά.

(e) For the coupling of fasting and prayer, cf. Acts xiii. 3.

(f) With vi. 1-3, on 'bearing the yoke,' and 'guarding oneself from that which is offered to an idol,' cf. Acts xv. 10-28.

(g) 'The way' of life suggests the use of 'the way' in the Acts as a synonym for Christianity.

Why should Christians 'fast on Wednesday and Friday'? The answer to this question at least implies a record of historical facts about our Lord, though not more. Why should God be glorified through Jesus Christ' (ix. 4)? Here is involved some doctrine of mediation. Why are Christians baptized into the name of the Son and the Spirit as well as of the Father? This must carry with it some teaching about the Persons represented by these Divine names. Thus there is a teaching implied which is not given, and apparently, we must add, not realized.

Our mind naturally goes back to those Jewish Christians to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. Here were Christians who only half realized what their religion meant-who knew its first principles,'-those which a Jew could most easily realize-'repentance from dead works and faith toward God, the teaching of baptisms and of laying-on hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.' Is not the Christianity of this Teaching very much the sort of inadequate Christianity which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews sought to lift into a complete realization of the divine majesty of Christ, of the mystery of His eternal high-priesthood and the Church's fellowship with Him and in Him? Not indeed that our document presents all the features of the Judaism which the author of that great Epistle had in view; there is no sign here of falling away, no craving after the 'worldly' ritual of the old covenant; but the instruction given in the Didache embodies first principles' closely resembling those which the Hebrews had made their own: the belief in God and the moral duties of obedience and repentance which follow from that belief; the due and careful performance of the ceremonial and religious duties of religion and the reverence due to its teachers; the keen expectation of 'the end' and the coming of the kingdom, with the judgment and the resurrection.1

We have then to do with a Jewish Christian document of very early date. Sabatier would have us put it back as early as the middle of the first century, before St. Paul's Epistles, but it is perhaps more likely that its author escaped the influence of St. Paul by remoteness of situation rather than by priority in the date of his writing. In any case, we can with very great security date the Didache within the first century. Not only does its whole tone remind us of the Jewish cradle of Christianity, but other indications coincide with this. The Church's enemy is as yet simple imposture and self-seeking, and there are no traces of any prevalent heresy. Again, the state of the Christian

1 Sabatier calls attention to the entire absence of any mention of women, as emphasizing its Jewish origin and early date (p. 153): 'La plupart des documents d'origine juive ignorent la femme.'

ministry, which is discussed elsewhere, suggests a date iong anterior to Ignatius.1

Have we any grounds on which to fix the district in which the Didache was written?

Harnack's suggestion of Alexandria or Egypt seemed to some of us excluded by the physical features alluded to in the words 'the bread scattered upon the mountains and gathered together." On the other hand Dr. Taylor remarked (p. 116): Sowing upon the mountains suits no place better than northern Palestine.' (Or it seemed agreeable to Syria in general.) Other indications were felt to point in the same direction. Thus, in vii. 2, there is a remarkable permission to baptize in warm water, where cold could not safely be used, and 'it stands recorded in the Gemara that a fruitless attempt was made in the days of R. Jehoshua ben Levi (cent. ii-iii) to obtain dispensation from the practice of purificatory immersion in certain cases, in the interest of the women of Galilee, who were said to be afflicted with barrenness by the cold. But it was permitted to warm the water for the use of the high-priest on the Day of Atonement, if he was aged or delicate' (Taylor, pp. 54 f.). The Christian Judaism of Galilee would appear here as granting to all what Pharisaic Judaism refused. Again, before the publication of this document, Drs. Westcott and Hort had declared that there could be little doubt that the doxology [to the Lord's Prayer] originated in liturgical use in Syria,' and that doxology appears in our manual as a substitute for the Amen in Jewish fashion at the end of the eucharistic thanksgiving, as well as the Lord's Prayer.* The present writer was therefore inclined to assign the document to Palestine or Syria, and to give the preference to an out-of-the-way district, such as that beyond the Jordan.

But the basis of this argument has now been undermined in part by the appearance in the eucharistic prayer of Bishop Serapion (see Wordsworth's Serapion's Prayer Book p. 17) of the phrase from the Didache as this bread has been scattered on the top of the mountains, and gathered together, came to be one.' This destroys the argument

1 See also Taylor, p. 118.

2 ix. 4: this argument was fortified by the fact that the words énávw Tŵv ópéwv are omitted in the grace before meat for use in Egypt, which is referred to above as reproducing this prayer.

3 New Testament-Notes on Select Readings p. 9. Harnack calls attention to the omission of ἡ βασιλεία before ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα. This omission occurs also in the Sahidic (Egyptian) version. This he thinks is a 'subtle' indication of Egyptian origin (l.c. p. 26). But the same reading appears in Gregory of Nyssa. It was probably the original Jewish form.

4 viii. 2, x. 5. It is hardly fair to quote the Aramaean Maranatha (x. 6) as an indication of Palestinian origin, in view of 1 Cor. xvi. 22. I suppose the produce of the land from which first-fruits are to be taken-cattle, flocks, corn, wine, oil-would suit most eastern countries.