The various readings of manuscript sacramentaries are supposed to render it impossible to determine the text as it stood in the time of Gregory; but on examining these difficulties, it will be found that they do not prevent us from ascertaining the liturgy for all the variations, interpolations, and uncertainties of these MSS. relate to the individual missæ. In these I readily admit that a great variation, both of words and sentiments, may be found; and it is therefore a matter of some difficulty to decide which of the missæ are as old as the time of Gregory. Such doubts and difficulties, however, do not extend to the number and order of the prayers in each missa, nor to the canon. On the contrary, we find in all the same number of prayers, arranged in the same order, and designated by the same titles. The canon, or invariable part, preserves the same text in all MSS. The only difference that occurs is the introduction of some short prayer, or of the name of some person to be commemorated: but such interpolations are very rare, and when found are easily detected; and in no case is the canon itself either mutilated or altered. We can therefore ascertain both the invariable and the variable parts of the Roman liturgy. This agreement of MSS. in one common order and text derives strength from a consideration of the different ages and countries in which they were written. Manuscripts of Italy, of England, Germany, and Gaul, whether written at the same period or not, all furnish the same order of prayers and canon. To this evidence we may add the writings of various liturgical commentators in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries; which, though composed in different countries,

all concur in establishing the same facts as the manuscripts.

It appears, then, that there is no difficulty in ascertaining what the Roman liturgy was in the time of Gregory the Great. It may however be inquired, whether Gregory is to be considered the author of that liturgy. To answer this question, we must have recourse to ancient history. We are there informed with minuteness of the amount of Gregory's alterations and improvements. He collected, arranged, improved, abbreviated the collects of the individual missæ". He inserted He inserted a short pas

sage (which is known) into the canon. And he joined the Lord's Prayer to the canon, from which it had previously been separated by the breaking of the bread. All this amounts to positive proof that Gregory was the reviser and improver, not the author of the Roman liturgy.

An attempt has been made to prove that the Roman liturgy was composed between the time of Vigilius and Gregory. The former, who lived fifty years before the latter, speaking of the canon, said,

"that they had received it from apostolical tradi"tion." Gregory spoke of the canon extant in his time, as having been composed by a scholastic, or learned man ". It is argued, that if the canon in Vigilius's time had been received from apostolical tradition, and if that in Gregory's time had been composed by a scholastic, the canons of Vigilius and Gregory must have been different, and the latter must have been written since the time of Vigilius.

h

I reply, first, that Gregory and Vigilius may very well have spoken of the same canon; for even if a scholastic had composed the canon, yet he might be supposed to have received its order, and substance, and principal expressions, from apostolical tradition; and therefore the canon so composed might be said to have come from apostolical tradition. It has been answered, "that this is no proof that the scholastic "lived before Vigilius "." It certainly is not; but on the other hand, there is no proof from what Gregory says, that the scholastic lived after Vigilius. Gregory does not hint when he lived. The scholastic may have lived five hundred years before Gregory or five only, as far as his testimony goes. But that the author of the Roman canon did not live within fifty years before Gregory the Great, may be considered certain from the silence of all antiquity on the subject. While ancient writers speak repeatedly of the care of Gregory, and of many of his predecessors,

f 66

Quapropter et ipsius canonicæ precis textum direximus subteradjectum, quem (Deo propitio) ex apostolica traditione suscepimus." _Vigil. Romanens. Epist. ad Euche

rium vel Profuturum Episcopum Bracarens.

Gregor. Magnus, lib. vii.

epist. 64.

h Brett, ubi supra, p. 332.

in regulating the Roman liturgy, they never speak of any author of that liturgy, who lived between the time of Vigilius and Gregory. To this argument may be added the improbability, that a form which Vigilius declared to have been derived from apostolic tradition, should in the course of a few years be exchanged for another, composed by a person, whose name and character have been ever since unknown. These arguments, and the total absence of all proof to the contrary, impel me to the conclusion, that the Roman liturgy was substantially the same in the days of Vigilius, as it was when Gregory was raised to the patriarchal chair of Rome.

Vigilius, patriarch of Rome, wrote in A.D. 538 an Epistle to Profuturus, bishop of Braga, in Spain, in which he says, that they had received the text of the canon from apostolical tradition. He also speaks of the various prayers which were used along with this canon, which he calls "capitula" and "preces." "In these,” he says, "they made commemoration of "the holy solemnity, or of those saints whose nati"vities they celebrated." The whole description which Vigilius gives, coincides accurately with the Roman liturgy in subsequent times'. The canon

i "Ordinem quoque precum in celebritate missarum nullo nos tempore, nulla festivitate significamus habere diversum, sed semper eodem tenore oblata Deo munera consecrare. Quoties vero Paschalis, aut Ascensionis Domini, vel Pentecostes et Epiphaniæ, sanctorumque Dei fuerit agenda festivitas, singula capitula diebus apta subjungimus, quibus com

memorationem sanctæ solennitatis, aut eorum facimus, quorum natalititia celebramus. Cætera vero ordine consueto prosequimur. Quapropter et ipsius canonicæ precis textum direximus subteradjectum, quem (Deo propitio) ex apostolica traditione suscepimus. Et ut charitas vestra cognoscat, quibus locis aliqua festivitatibus apta connectes, Paschalis diei

and order of prayers were therefore esteemed very ancient in the time of Vigilius, A.D. 538; and the correctness of this opinion is in fact supported by the testimonies of various writers. Symmachus, bishop of Rome before Vigilius, is said by Walafridus to have appointed the hymn Gloria in excelsis to be sung on Sundays and the nativities of the saints, before the liturgy. Here is nothing of a newly composed office or canon. It is related that Gelasius, patriarch of Rome A.D. 492, performed a work somewhat similar to that of Gregory the Great. He ordained prayers or collects, and prefaces composed with caution; and these he arranged in a sacramentary, which in subsequent ages commonly bore his name. Gelasius, however, did not alter the canon, or order of prayers. We do not read of any such alteration being made by him. Modern times have brought to light an ancient sacramentary ", which is with good reason considered by learned men to represent the Roman sacramentary as regu

preces similiter adjecimus." Vigil. Romanens. Epist. ad Profuturum Bracarens.

J Walafridus Strabo, de Reb. Eccl. c. 22.

k "Fecit sacramentorum præfationes et orationes cauto sermone. Anastasius, Bibliothecar. in Vita Gelasii.

1 In a list of books belonging to the abbey of S. Richerius, A. D. 731, the following passage occurs: "De libris sacrarii, qui ministerio altaris deserviunt, Missales Gregoriani tres; Missalis Gregorianus et Gelasianus modernis temporibus ab Albino ordinatus ; Missales Gelasiani xix." Lib. iii. c. 3.

Chronic. Abbat. Centulens. sive S. Richerii apud Dacherii Spicileg. tom. iv.

m The sacramentary of Gelasius was first published from a manuscript of great antiquity in the queen of Sweden's library, by Thomasius, in his work entitled "Codices Sacramentorum," &c. Romæ, 1680. Muratori in his "Liturgia Romana vetus," &c. tom. i. ed. Venetiis, 1748, reprinted this sacramentary, as did Assemani in his "Codex Liturgicus," tom. iv. Its authenticity is acknowledged by Mabillon, Muratori, Cave, and other eminent critics.