Paris by Morel, in 1595, cannot be St. Peter's, for the following reasons:- DUPIN. In it there is mention made of St. Sixtus, of Corneille, and of St. Cyprian. In it the Virgin is called the Mother of God, an expression which was not common before the error of Nestorius had been condemned The Canon of the Latin Mass, which St. Gregory said (had) been composed by a scholastic, that is to say, by a learned man of the fifth century, is inserted the whole (tout entier), it contains collects (prayers) drawn (borrowed) from the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, and from the Liturgies of St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom. In it they pray for the Patriarchs, an expression unknown before the end of the fourth century of the Church, and also for the very religious Emperors. In fine, if this Liturgy had been by St. Peter, the Romish Church would have used it, and it would not have been unknown during so many centuries. These reasons made the learned Cardinal Bona say, that this Liturgy was supposed or putative; and that it had been composed apparently by some Greek versed in the Latin tongue (latinisè), because it is taken in part from the Liturgy of the Greeks, and in part from that of the Latins, and that they gave it the name of the Liturgy of St. Peter, in order either that it might have more authority, or because it contained a great portion of the Liturgy of the Romish Church.

"The Mass of the Ethiopians, which bears the name of St. Matthew, is manifestly supposed. In it, they pray for the Popes, the Kings, the Patriarchs, and the Archbishops. In it the twelve Apostles are invoked. In it they commemorate the four Evangelists, and speak of the Synods of Nice, of Constantinople, and of Ephesus. In it they sing the Symbol of Nice, with the particle (Filioque). In it they make mention of St. Athanasius, of St. Gregory, and of St. Basil of Epretus, of the golden number, and of Trisagion. This shows that this Liturgy is very new.

We must pass the same judgment on the Liturgy of St. Mark given by Cardinal Sirlet, and published in Paris by Morel; in it is to be found the word Consubstantial and the Trisagion; in it they pray for the King, and St. Mark even; they also make mention of chalices, deacons, sub. deacons, choristers, monks, nuns, etc. Things which stamp it with novelty.

"There remains now only the Liturgy attributed to St. James, which some ingenious people took the trouble of defending, but to no purpose; for though it be more ancient than that we have just examined, since it was quoted in the Council which was held in the palace of the Emperor, after the fifth General Council; it cannot be said, nevertheless, that St. James was the author (of it), or that it had been composed in his time. For, 1st, in this Liturgy the Virgin is called the Mother of God; the Son and the Holy Ghost are said (in it) to be consubstantial with the Father, terms which were not in use in St. James' times. But granting that they had, is it credible that they would not have adduced that authority (argument) in the Councils of Nice, of Ephesus, and of Constantinople? 2nd. The terms-Trisagion and Doxology-are found in it, that is to say, the Sanctus and the Gloria Patri, which were not in common use in

CHAF. IV. the Church before the fifth century. For supposing it were proved (argued) that they were in use before, it must be acknowledged that the usage was not common in the Church. 3rd. They pray in it for those who are cloistered in monasteries; but who can say that any existed in St. James' times? 4th. Mention is made in it of confessors, a term which was only used in the divine office a long time after St. James, according to Bellarmine himself. 5th. This Liturgy speaks of temples, the incensing of altars; (but) who will believe that these things were in use in St. James' times? 6th. All this Liturgy is full of citations from the letters of St. Paul, the greater part of which were written after the death of St. James. And let them not come to tell us with the Bonas and the Bellarmines, that these things were added, because there is no appearance that they added (to it) in so many places, and moreover the sequel, and the ceremonies of all this Liturgy do not harmonize (tally) with the time of the Apostles.

Liturgies at first unwritten.

"I do not speak of other Liturgies cited by some authors, such as those of the Apostles mentioned by Abraham Echellensis, nor of that of S. Barnabe, spoken of by a certain monk, as they are unknown to me; nor of that which exists in the constitutions of St. Clement, nor of that which is in the books attributed to St. Denis the Areopagist, because these books being only supposed, as I shall show elsewhere, there is no doubt that the Liturgies they embrace are supposed in like manner."*

It is very clear that no doctrine can be proved from these Liturgies. None of them are apostolic, and all of them have suffered from innovation and interpolation.

It is confessed that Liturgies were not at first written. Palmer admits this, and Bingham thus reasons:

"If it be enquired, Why then none of the ancient Liturgies are now remaining, as they were at first composed for the use of particular Churches? I answer, several reasons may be assigned for this. 1. The very liberty which every Bishop had to frame the Liturgy of his own church was one reason why none of these are now remaining perfect and entire, as they were at first composed for the use of such a particular church. For the design of them being only for the use of such a particular church, there was no great reason to be very solicitous either to communicate and diffuse the knowledge of them to other churches, or to preserve them entire to posterity, who were not precisely tied up to the use of them, but might frame others at their own discretion.

"2. It is not improbable, but that, as a late learned French writer has observed, the ancient Liturgies were, for some ages, only certain forms of worship committed to memory, and known by practice, rather than committed to writing, which is the only certain way of preserving such sort of monuments to late posterity. This seems very probable, because in the persecutions under Diocletian and his associates, though a strict

New Lib. of Ec. Authors. Utrecht, 1731.

enquiry was made after the Books of Scripture, and other things belong- SUMMARY. ing to the Church, which were often delivered up by the traditores to be burnt, yet we never read of any Ritual books or books of Divine Service, delivered up to them. Which is an argument, that their forms of worship and administration of the sacraments, were not then generally committed to writing, or at least not compiled in books distinct from the Psalins or other Books of Scripture: otherwise it is very probable, that as the Scriptures, with other utensils and treasures of the Church, were often found by the heathens, or betrayed by apostatizing Christians, and delivered up to be burnt; so we should have heard something of their books of Divine Worship undergoing the same fate: since they who were so curious in enquiring after the cups, and lamps, and torches, vestments, and other utensils and vessels of the Church (as in some of their Kalendars and Breviats we find they were), would hardly have omitted their books of worship, as being more proper objects of their spite and malice, had they found any such in the Christian Churches. Mr. Daille argues well upon this fact against the use of the images in the ancient Church, because no such thing was ever found or betrayed to the heathen in the time of their most furious inquisition after any thing that related to the Christian Church or religion: and I think the argument will hold as well against having their Liturgies compiled into books and volumes, since it is scarce possible that such things in different times should have wholly escaped the notice and fury of their enemies.

"We are not hence to conclude (as some weak men might perhaps be inclined to do) that therefore they had no Liturgies or set Forms of Divine Worship in these persecuting ages of the Church, because there are undeniable evidences to the contrary, as we shall see by and by: but we are only to conclude, that they did not so generally compile them in books as in after ages, but used them by memory, and made them familiar to the people by known and constant practice, as many now use Forms of Prayer at this day without committing them to writing. And this is another reason why none of these ancient Liturgies are come to our hands perfect and entire, but only in scattered fragments, as the Fathers had occasion to mention them incidentally in their writings."*

SUMMARY.

The words Liturgy, Mass, and Sacrifice, anciently denoted not merely the Lord's supper, but every part of Divine service. There is no Liturgy which can be traced to Apostolic origin. The Liturgies of St James, Mark, and Peter are not genuine.

*P. 588, vol. i. ut supra.

THE
RUBRIC.

CHAP. V.

THE RUBRIC, SENTENCES, ADDRESS, CONFESSION AND

ABSOLUTION.

THE rubric is as follows:

"At the beginning of Evening Prayer the Minister shall read with a loud voice some one or more of these Sentences of the Scriptures that follow. And then he shall say that which is written after the said Sentences."

This at once leads to the terms which occur in the rubrics of reading, saying, and singing.

The rubrics direct some parts of the service to be said, others to be sung. In ordinary acceptation to say does not mean to intone, but to speak in the usual style, or to read, and that it bears this meaning in the rubrics is evident from the fact that what is sometimes described as being said, is at others, as being read. Of this the following are instances:

"Then shall be sung or said the Apostles' creed by the minister and the people standing; except only such days as the creed of St. Athanasius is appointed to be read."

But the rubric before the Athanasian creed directs it to "be sung or said." Here, in one instance, the creed is described as being said, in the other as being read, showing that said and read are used indifferently, as denoting the same thing.

This observation applies also to the rubric before the venite. In the preceding books, the direction was given as now:"then shall be said or sung this psalm following," to which was added in the rubric of 1661:

"Except on Easter day, upon which another anthem is appointed; and on the nineteenth day of every month it is not to be read here, but in the course of the Psalms."

This last rubric refers to the reading of the Psalms as identical with the saying of them.

Another instance is found in the rubric after the third collect in the Evening Service :

"Then these five prayers following are to be read here except when the Litany is read; and then only the two last are to be read, as they are there placed."

This rubric was added in 1661, and unless it could be shown that while the other collects are to be intoned or given in plain

THE RUBRIC, SENTENCES, ADDRESS, CONFESSION, ETC. 319

song, these are to be read, this proves that the expressions INTONING. reading and saying in the estimation of the last reviewers mean the same thing. Before the year 1661, the rubric before the Lord's Prayer in the Morning Service was as follows:

"Then shall the Minister begin the Lord's Prayer with a loud voice."

66

In 1661 it was brought to its present form :

Then the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lord's Prayer with an audible voice; the people also kneeling, and repeating it with him, both here, and wheresoever else it is used in divine service."

The people repeating evidently implies the people saying or reading, not singing, or intoning, which few can do. When this is taken in connexion with the substitution of the word "read" in the last act of uniformity for "sing" in former acts, it is an intimation of the animus of the revisers as to intoning and singing.

In all these instances, we observe that the changes of the last review were not in the direction of medievalism.

Until then, the rubric before the final address in the marriage service contained the following words :-" And after the Gospel shall be said a sermon." This was properly changed, but who will venture to assert that the old rubric intended that the sermon should be intoned? We ask, who ever intoned a sermon ?

That the Reformers and Revisers contemplated generally the reading, not the intoning of the service, is evident also from contemporary documents. The injunctions of Elizabeth contained the following paragraph:—

:

tions of

Elizabeth.

"That all ministers and readers of public prayers, chapters and homi- Injunelies shall be charged to read leisurely, plainly, and distinctly."* The visitation articles of the same year inquire "Whether the curates and ministers do leisurely, plainly and distinctly read the public prayers, chapters and homilies as they ought to do."+ The Romish party endeavoured to retain the Romish style of saying prayers, but the Reformers set their faces against this. Hooper describing the service in 1549, says:—

"And that Popery may not be lost, the mass Priests, although they are compelled to discontinue the use of the Latin language, yet most carefully observe the same tone, and manner of chanting, to which they were heretofore accustomed in the Papacy."‡

* Sparrow's Collection, p. 81. Lond. 1671.

† Cardwell's Doc. An. Original Letters, p. 72, vol. i. P. S.