at the time have appeared, we can clearly trace these important parts of the Holy Service: the general and the Eucharistical Prayer: the kiss of peace: the oblation of the elements: the mixture of water with the wine: the consecration of the elements, then no longer common Bread and common Wine: 28 and their after distribution to those present, or communion. Let us not, by the way, pass on without remembering, that there would have been no need of so much carefulness to conceal these mysteries from the world, from those who were without, if the Eucharist had been indeed nothing more than what later ages have endeavoured to reduce it to, a mere refreshing of our memories, or a renewal of our covenant, or a symbol of mutual love. But from this jealousy arose the evil of unjust accusations against the Christians,29 which, although terrible, they were content to bear, unprovoked to further explanation, with the bare reply of an indignant and unhesitating denial.

The rites then of the Christian Church in the first

28 S. Justini Apol. 1. 66, p. 83, edit. 1742. See also S. Irenæus, b. 4, c. 18. Ως γαρ απο γης άρτος προσλαμβανομενος την ἐπικλησιν του Θεον, όνκετι κοινος άρτος ἐστιν αλλ' ἐυχαριστια, ἐκ δυο πραγματων συνεστηκυία, ἐπιγειου τε και ουρανιου όντως και τα σωματα ἡμων μεταλαμβανοντα της ἐυχαριστιας μηκετι εισι φθαρτα, την έλπιδα της εις αιωνας ἀναστασεως έχοντα.

29 Cardinal Bona says of the heathens, "quia aliquid subobscure perceperant de Sacramento corporis, et sanguinis Christi, accusabant eos de cæde infantis et epulis Thyesteis. Dicimur sceleratissimi, ait Tertullianus Apolog. cap. 7, de sacramento infanticidii, et pabulo, inde et post convivium incesto. Cæcilius apud Minutium: Infantis sanguinem sitienter lambunt, hujus certatim membra dispertiunt, hac fœderantur hostia. Justinus Martyr in dialogo cum Tryphone: An vos etiam de nobis creditis, homines nos vorare, et post epulum lucernis extinctis nefario concubitu promiscue involvi? Theophylus ad Autolycum, lib. 3. Istud præterea et crudelissimum et immanissimum est, quod nobis intendunt crimen, nos humanis carnibus vesci. Rerum Liturgic. lib. 1. 4. 3.

centuries being handed down by tradition only, and carefully committed to memory by the priests, the earliest written Liturgy which we have is the Clementine.30 It forms a part of the 8th book of the Apostolical Constitutions: a work which most certainly was not compiled by those whose name it bears, viz. the Apostles', and therefore labours under all the disadvantages which must attach to writings not genuine. Still the authority of the Constitutions is very great, and will at least reach thus far that though we might hesitate to insist upon any statement, certainly of belief, perhaps also of practice, to be found there only, yet where these statements are confirmed, by incidental allusions, or by direct accounts of the same things in other writers earlier or contemporary, we may then fully rely upon them. We must remember also, that it was not an uncommon practice for authors and compilers of that age, the third and fourth centuries, to recommend their works by ascribing them to great saints and teachers who were dead. This may have been a practice at all times to be much regretted, most undoubtedly it is little according to modern opinions: yet it not only is not in itself a condemnation of every fact or doctrine so recommended, but it sprung from a sense of unworthiness and modesty which has long been lost, and was based upon a wellgrounded presumption that there existed in the people a reverence for their Fathers, which has well-nigh been lost also.

In the Apostolical Constitutions then is the Liturgy attributed to him whose name is in the Book of Life,

30 This is agreed upon by almost all writers upon the subject.

S. Clement: 31 and it will be sufficient, without entering into any unnecessary discussion, simply to state, that the most probable opinion upon it is this: that although we grant that it was never used exactly in the form in which we now have it in any portion of the Church, (neither indeed does it claim for itself any place or country in particular,) still it is to be looked upon as accurately representing to us the general mode prevalent · through the Christian world, during the first three centuries, of administering the Supper of the Lord: and it is a most strong evidence in its favour, that where the other primitive Liturgies are agreeable to each other, they agree with the Clementine: and that the Clementine contains nothing, either particularly in its arrangment, or generally in its manner of expression, which is not to be found in all the others. The most important omission is, that the Lord's Prayer forms no part of it: but this may, as has been suggested, 32 have arisen from the negligence of some transcriber in whose copy the first words only might have been written, (and those in contraction): or it might be readily allowed never to have been used in this Liturgy, because although proper to the Holy Service, yet most certainly it is not essential to the consecration of the Eucharist. Every other

31 Brett observes, in his Dissertation, that the language in which it is written is no more an argument against its genuineness, than against the acknowledged Epistle of S. Clement.

32 Brett, Dissertation, p. 204, &c. (edit. 1720.) His remarks should be consulted.

33 Mr. Palmer argues from its omission the great antiquity of this Liturgy, speaking of it as a remarkable sign. He says, “without doubt the Lord's prayer was used between the prayer of the deacon and benediction of the faithful, which precedes the form ra dyia, &c. all through the patriarchate of Antioch in the early part of the fourth century. Yet it does not occur in this part of the Clementine Liturgy.

Liturgy shews evident marks of the rites and ceremonies which have been added from time to time to the original form that form seems to stand clearest in the Clementine. How decided is the opinion of a very learned writer, 3+ "that if we had the very words in which S. Peter and S. Paul consecrated the Eucharist, it would not differ in substance from that which is contained in this most ancient Liturgy:" and of another also:35 “the Eucharistical office in the Apostolical Constitutions is the standard and test by which all others are to be tried. And by comparing them with this, the innovations and additions in after times, be they good or bad, will appear."

Being then so valuable a record, I cannot think that a reprint of it will be out of place in the present volume. We may use it as Bishop Hickes has recommended: we may look upon it with Johnson as, in substance, the Apostolic Form, and so learn to judge more truly than we otherwise might of old and modern Liturgies. As such a guide I would regard it, not to the exclusion of the Jerusalem or Alexandrian or Roman, (as if they had not also sprung from the teaching and example of Apos

Now it is not credible that the author would have omitted this prayer if it had been used long before his time. Yet from the manner and language of Chrysostom and Cyril we perceive that it must have been used long before their time. They both seem to regard this prayer as coeval with the rest of the Liturgy: they do not allude to the idea that it had not been formerly used in that part of the Liturgy. Since then, the Lord's Prayer was not used, or was but recently used, in the time of the author of the Apostolical Constitutions, and yet appears to have been long used in the time of Cyril and Chrysostom, we must infer that the Apostolical Constitutions were written much before the time of Chrysostom and Cyril." Origines Lit. i. p. 40.

34 Johnson, Unbl. Sacrifice and Altar unvailed, vol. ii. 148. 35 Hickes, Christian Priesthood, vol. i. 141. (Edit. 1711.) Both these well-known passages are cited very frequently by Brett.

tles,) but as containing, in an earlier form than (as we have them now) they do, those rites which are essential to a valid consecration and perfecting of the Eucharist, and without which no service, though it may claim the name, can be allowed to be a Christian Liturgy.

After the Council of Nice, and in the age immediately preceding, additions were unquestionably made to the original Form used in the various Churches. Most of these are easily to be traced: and the observation of S. Paul to the Corinthians in his first Epistle, where he says, "there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you," is as applicable to the public services and rituals of the Catholic Church, as to the opinions of her individual members.36 During the short space when there was indeed but one mind and one Faith, there was little need of cautious phrases, and additional safeguards by which the truth might be preserved: very different, however, was the case after the time of Arius, and Macedonius, and Nestorius; and epithets even became necessary, which in purer days would, perhaps, but have seemed to mar the earnest simplicity of the Church's prayers.

But we must pass on to consider the particular Liturgy from which the ancient uses of the Church of England are usually supposed to be more immediately

36 As Vincentius of Lirius says upon this text of S. Paul: “Ac si diceret: ob hoc hæreseôn non statim divinitus eradicantur auctores, ut probati manifesti fiant, id est, ut unusquisque quam tenax et fidelis, et fixus Catholicæ fidei sit amator, appareat. Et revera cum quæque novitas ebullit, statim cernitur frumentorum gravitas, et levitas palearum: tunc sine magno molimine excutitur ab area, quod nullo pondere intra aream tenebatur."

Adversus Hæreses. § 20.