tory, and the post-communion are different. Upon the feast of the Conversion of S. Paul, the introit, the Psalm, the sequence, and the post-communion. Upon the feast of the Purification, the sequence, tract, offertory, and secret. Or again, compare one or two services from the Commune of the missals of Hereford and Bangor. The services "In natali unius martyris et pontificis," agree only in the Epistle and Gospel. For " many Martyrs," different lections, graduals, secrets, and communions are appointed. And, once more, in the service for a Confessor and Bishop, the tract, offertory, communion and post-communion are different. The Ordinary and the Canon therefore occupying, as I have said, only a small part of the Missal, the rest of that volume was filled with the various Collects, Epistles, Gospels, Sequences, Graduals, etc. proper to the great festivals and fasts, the sundays, and to especial occasions when the Church offered up especial prayers in behalf, for example, of the king, or in the time of any dearth, or pestilence. These were of course used, at least many of them, only once a year: but the Ordinary and the Canon were daily said. In these latter, moreover, were contained those rites which have been held from the earliest times to be essential to the valid consecration of the Holy Eucharist. The several collections by Asseman, Renaudot and others, of liturgies which have been used in different Patriarchates of the Catholic Church, contain those portions which are edited in the present volume: the other parts of many are altogether lost, and possibly some of the earlier liturgies had little else beside. As I shall have occasion presently to observe, so here also I may remind the 10 All that part, (says Bishop Rattray, speaking of the Liturgy of S. James) which precedes the Anaphora, both in this and the other ancient Liturgies, is a latter addition to the service of the Church, as appears from the account given thereof by Justin Martyr, from the reader, that the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord was never, since its institution, administered without the due observance of certain appointed ceremonies and prayers. These of course would be characterized during the first century of the existence of the Church, by a greater simplicity than in after years: and this, solely because many just reasons for the addition of other prayers and rites had not arisen, or they could not from the violence of persecution be allowed their due weight. But as time went on, and the roll of the saints and martyrs increased, commemorations of them were added, and collects, and hymns, and antiphons were increased in number, and the Faithful sought to shew their deep reverence for the Service itself, by a greater solemnity in its performance; all which was well fitting to the Church of Christ, when she was no longer driven to celebrate her mysteries in secret places, and hurriedly, and with the constant dread of cruel interruption. Clementine Liturgy, and from the 19th canon of the Council of Laodicea. By comparing of which with other ancient authorities, we plainly, find that the service of the Church began with reading of the Scriptures, intermixed with psalmody; after which followed the sermon. Then the ακροωμενοι and άπιστοι, the hearers and unbelievers, being dismissed, there followed in order, the bidding prayer of the deacon, and the collect of the bishop, first for the catechumens: then after they were dismissed, for the energumens: and after they were dismissed for the competentes or candidates for baptism and lastly, after dismissing them likewise, for the penitents. Then all these being dismissed, the Missa Fidelium, or Service of the Faithful, began with the Buxy dia. iwwys, the silent or mental prayer, which is the first of the three prayers mentioned in the Laodicean Canon: the second and third are said to be δια προσφωνήσεως. And these are the ἔυχαι κοιναι και ύπερ aurwÿ και άλλων πανταχου πανTwy in S. Justin. Then after the priests washing their hands and the kiss of peace and the μntis xara τινος, the deacons brought the δωρα, the gifts of the people, to the bishop, to be by him placed on the altar: and he having prayed secretly by himself, and likewise the priests, and making the sign of the cross, with his hand, upon his forehead, says the Apostolical Constitutions, began the Anaphora. Ancient Liturgy of S. James. CHAPTER II. HE chief Liturgies which have been preserved are those which are called St. James's, St. Mark's, St. Chrysostom's, St. Basil's, the Roman, and preeminent above all these, of an acknowledged greater antiquity than any, the Clementine. As I have reprinted this liturgy of St. Clement at the end of the present volume, it seems necessary that I should make one or two remarks, by which it is to be hoped the reader will be able to judge its value. Theological questions and doctrines of the highest importance, are involved in enquiries into the origin and relative authority of the ancient liturgies. Some writers upon the subject have boldly argued that the Apostles themselves left an accurate Form, not merely of the doctrine of the sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, but of rites and ceremonies and prayers, in short, a Liturgy, according to which it should be administered: and that this still exists either in the liturgy of Antioch, or Alexandria, or Rome. Those who hold this opinion chiefly rely upon a passage in a treatise, generally attributed to Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople in the 5th Century, in which the writer states that the Apostles whilst they were together at Jerusalem, before their dispersion into various quarters of the world, were accustomed daily to meet and celebrate the Holy Communion ; "et cum multam consolationem in mystico illo Dominici Corporis sacrificio positam reperissent, fusissime, longoque verborum ambitu missam decantabant." S. 11 See the whole passage cited 94. And in Bona. Rerum Liturg. in Gerbert, De Cantu. tom. i. p. tom. i. p. 75. Chrysostom also, (cited by Cardinal Bona,) in his 27th Homily, enquires; "Cum sacras Conas accipiebant Apostoli, quid tum faciebant? nonne in preces convertebantur et hymnos?" On the other hand it has been argued that the founder of each Church required his converts to observe some certain rites, which were essential to the validity of the sacrament, and left them at liberty to add to these, other prayers and ceremonies as they might think proper. One thing is very certain; that the Holy Scriptures give us little information upon the subject: the institution of the Supper of the Lord is related by three of the Evangelists, and by St. Paul in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians: we are told that our Blessed Lord took bread, and blessed it, and said, "This is my Body," and in like manner that he took the cup, and blessed it, and said, "This is my Blood:" but the words which He used in blessing, and the exact form are not recorded. That there was some Form observed in the first communion which was celebrated by the Apostles after the resurrection of their Lord, I think, we cannot doubt: nor, that they who had been partakers and witnesses at the institution of the sacrament would be very careful, in their after celebrations, to imitate as far as possible the Saviour's example. Indeed, this was a Divine command: what He had done, they were to do; what He had said, they were to say; what He had offered, they were to offer; and power also was given to them, and through them, to the whole Church for ever, of altering, or adding to, or taking away from time to time, either prayers, or ceremonies, or rites, provided that they were not of the essence of the sacrament, and were intended to meet the requirements of various ages, climates, and countries, or to encrease the solemnity of the celebration, or to promote the devotion of the people. And it was this power which St. Paul claimed so unhesitatingly, as having been bestowed by our Blessed Lord, when in the same epistle before spoken of to the Corinthians, and upon the very subject of the Eucharist, he adds: “And the rest will I set in order when I come." 12 I must here consider a famous passage of Gregory the Great in which it has been said that he asserts, and therefore he has often been called in to prove, that the Apostles used no other prayer or ceremony than the Lord's Prayer only. The words of S. Gregory are. "Orationem dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solum modo orationem, oblationis hostiam consecrarent. Et valde mihi inconveniens visum est, ut precem, quam scholasticus composuerat, super oblationem diceremus, et ipsam traditionem, quam Redemptor noster composuit, super ejus Corpus et Sanguinem non diceremus." 13 But all writers agree, (that is, supposing the passage not to be corrupt,) either that this assertion of S. Gregory is incorrect, or that he himself intended more than the Lord's Prayer to be understood. His argument, as it seems to me, is not that the Lord's Prayer only was used by the Apostles, but that neither they did, nor we ought to perform the whole service without reciting it. As Cardinal Bona observes,1 with whom agrees Le Brun,15 at least the words of Institution must have been added; “additis procul dubio verbis consecrationis," That something must be added to qualify the statement of S. Gregory is clear from the account of a very 12 Ch. xi. v. 34. Conf. Van Espen. Jus. Eccles. Pars. II. sect. i. tit. v. and S. Augustin. Epist. liv. § 8. Also the place in Renaudot. "Verba Christi ad Apostolos, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, præceptum celebrandæ ex instituto Christi Eucharistiæ continent: formam qua celebrari deberet, non exprimunt. Nemo tamen Christianus dubitavit, quin eamdem edocti fue- p. 75. 15 Opera. tom. ii. p. 82. |