4. 12, however, shows a later concept. In the age of Hippolytus the consecratory effect of thanksgiving was growing unfamiliar, and a special petition was thought needful in order that the bread and wine might truly be made “a communion” of the body and blood of Christ. The liturgy’s thought is simple: if earthly food is truly to become “spiritual” food,[171] God must send upon it the Spirit. The prayer is phrased accordingly, and is the first known instance of what is technically known as the “invocation”, universal in Eastern liturgies, although absent from the present Roman. But the testimony of Irenaeus shows that in the late second century at Rome the invocation was regarded as the truly consecratory formula,[172] and Hippolytus continues Irenaeus’ tradition. Hippolytus’s use of the invocation shows that only bread and wine are offered to God at the oblation. For his doctrine of communion see on 23. 1. 4 2. “All the presbytery” join with the bishop in offering the gifts; the “concelebration” of a later terminology. The custom is derived from a time when the local monarchical episcopate was not yet established and the presbyters were normal officiants at worship.[173] They act in their corporate capacity; compare on chapter 8. 4. If 11 is construed strictly, the “we” of this prayer should be “we, the bishop and presbyters”. But the plural pronoun originally—and probably in Hippolytus’s opinion also—meant “all we Christians in this congregation”; compare 4. 12, “your sacrifice” in Didache 14 and the explicit language in Justin, Dialogue 116-117. “Messenger of thy counsel” is from the Septuagint of Isaiah 9. 6; it recurs in Hippolytus’s Daniel commentary (III, 9, 6) and is used here as an anti-modalist term. 5. This whole sentence is anti-modalist. 6. As in 3. 4 the language is more theological than liturgic. 7. Christ’s hands were spread out in appeal (Isaiah 65. 2, Lamentations 1. 17). 8. The “boundary post” is the Cross, dividing the realms of life and death. 9. The terms in Christ’s words regarding the bread and the cup are given liturgical balance by introducing κλώµενον, “which is broken”, after “body”; this addition found its way into many manuscripts of 1 Corinthians 11. 24. 10. The terseness of this phrase is effective. In the Latin translator’s “commemorationem facitis” the indicative is certainly a mistake,[174] while his “perform a memorial” may be merely a Latinistic simplification of “do this in memory of me”; the Pseudo-Ambrosian _De Sacramentis_ has similarly “commemorationem facietis” and the present Roman liturgy “memoriam facietis”. By what follows the phrase here means “recall to our mind”. 11. To “death” in 1 Corinthians 11. 26 “resurrection” has been added; later liturgies at this point expand freely. Later liturgical development also connected “memory” and “offer” closely, pleading Christ’s death before the Father.