« السابقةمتابعة »
attended by the bishops of Asia and Phrygia, that is, of the exarchate of Ephesus. The nineteenth canon of this council has long been celebrated for the minute directions which it gives for the celebration of the liturgy; being in fact almost the only canon made during several centuries, that appears to regulate the order of divine service. Such a canon could not have been made without some cause ; and I see none more probable than this; that a different order of liturgy had previously been used, which it was then thought expedient to alter. It seems to me that this canon appoints an order similar to that which is now used in those churches, namely, that of the liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom. First, it directs a homily of the bishop. This is well known to have been customary in those liturgies at all times. Secondly, the prayer of catechumens. This is preserved by the above liturgies". Thirdly, the prayer of penitents. This was formerly used according to Joannes Zonaras"; but the extinction of the penitential discipline rendered it useless, and therefore it had been omitted. Fourthly, three prayers of the faithful; the first said in silence, the two others, 8ta trpoopovágstoc. There are certainly three prayers in this part of Basil's and Chrysostom's liturgies"; but the difficulty is, that the two former only are entitled “Prayers of the Faithful.” However, I think it not improbable, either that the third prayer may have altered its title to “a Prayer of Oblation;” or else that it may have been more recent than the council of Laodicea, and the silent prayer formerly said before the existing “Prayers of the Faithful,” may in process of time have become obsolete, as happened in the western liturgies". And in either case we have the number of prayers mentioned by the council of Laodicea. Fifthly, this canon appointed the kiss of peace to be given, and the oblation or liturgy to be celebrated; which accords with the order of the liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom. It seems to be, therefore, that the council of Laodicea established within the patriarchate of Ephesus the same order of liturgy which now prevails there; and if so, we may suspect that an order different from that of the liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom formerly prevailed; and further, that it differed from them chiefly in that part which intervened between the sermon and the beginning of the oblation or thanksgiving, because it is only this part of the liturgy that is regulated by the canon which we are considering. In the ninth section of this Dissertation the reader will see, that there are several reasons for thinking the ancient Gallican liturgy had been originally derived from that of the exarchate of Ephesus, or of the churches of Asia and Phrygia. Perhaps by examining the order of this Gallican liturgy, we may find some clue to guide us through the intricacies of this subject. It seems to me that the liturgy referred to, differed from those of Basil and Chrysostom exactly in that part which is so carefully regulated by the council of Laodicea. First, we have no account of any prayers made after the sermon for catechumens and penitents, during the earliest ages of the Gallican and Spanish churches, who used the same liturgy. They are not mentioned by Gregory of Tours, by Isidore of Seville, nor by any of the authors referred to by Mabillon, in his treatise on the Gallican liturgy. It is true that Martene understands the author of the tract which he has published, and which is referred to Germanus bishop of Paris, to speak of prayers for catechumens". But I confess, that in perusing the passage to which he alludes, I am unable to see that the author of the tract does more than refer to prayers for catechumens, as an ancient custom of the church, which he seems to describe as a thing not then practised, and which he does not affirm to have been used in the Gallican church. Supposing, however, that these prayers for catechumens were used in Gaul, of which we have no sort of authentic evidence, they might very probably have been imported from the east about the same time as the Trisagios, which is prescribed in that tract, and which was first introduced into the eastern liturgy in the fifth century". Secondly, we have no account of any prayer or prayers “of the faithful,” in
* Liturgia Chrysostomi,Goar, p. 70. Basilii id. p. 161.
* In his Commentary on the nineteenth canon of the council of Laodicea. Wid. Beveregii Pandect. tom. i. p. 461.
* I say three, because the
prayer of the cherubic hymn is not so ancient as the rest. For, according to Cedrenus, this hymn was not used till the time of the Emperor Justin. Goar, p. 131, not. 101, in Chrysost. Liturg.
* Bingham shews that silent ticed in section 7 of this Disprayers were used in the east sertation in speaking of the and west. Book xv. chapter i. collect of the Milan liturgy section 1. This subject is no- called “super sindonem.”
* See Martene, Thesaurus mentioned here, must not be Anecdotorum, tom. v. p. 94. confounded with the seraphic
* See Martene ut supra, p. hymn, or Tersanctus, which 91, and Goar, Rituale Graecum, occurs in the course of the sop. 126, not. 80, in Liturg. lemn thanksgiving, before the Chrys. The hymn Trisagios consecration.
the Gallican liturgy. But instead of this, the elements were placed on the altar, and the diptychs, containing the names of the living and dead, recited; after which the priest made a prayer. The kiss of peace and oblation succeeded, as in the liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom.
It seems, therefore, that the Gallican liturgy differed from those just mentioned, exactly in that part which is regulated by the canon of Laodicea". And since we should be able to account for that canon, by supposing that a liturgy like the ancient Gallican, prevailed in Asia and Phrygia before the council of Laodicea ; and further, since we have independent reasons for thinking that the Gallican liturgy was derived in the second century from that of Asia and Phrygia; it seems to me highly probable that a liturgy which resembled the ancient Gallican prevailed in the exarchate of Ephesus until the fourth century, when it was altered by the council of Laodicea, in order to make it conformable to the great oriental rite, which has been used there ever since.
* It may be objected that I remark in the ninth section, that there was another difference between the Gallican and oriental liturgies; namely, that the Gallican did not contain the long prayers for all estates of men, and for all things, which in the oriental occurred after the consecration. But there is no sort of improbability in the idea, that the
churches of Asia and Phrygia may have received such prayers into that part of the liturgy before the council of Laodicea; in which case their “oblation.” or canon would have exactly agreed with that of the oriental liturgy; and the council of Laodicea would only have had to direct the “oblation,” or canon, to follow the kiss of peace, as it actually did.
LITURGY OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF ROME.
IT has been much debated among learned men, whether the Roman liturgy can justly claim any considerable antiquity. Some have referred its composition to Gregory the First, commonly called “the Great,” patriarch of Rome, A.D. 590. Others think it impossible at this day to ascertain the text, even as it stood in the time of that prelate *. This subject has been confused, by mistaking for each other two very different things, the missal and the liturgy. The Roman missal (formerly called Sacramentary, or book of Sacraments) was a large volume containing a number of missae or offices for particular days, which were to be added, in the proper place, to the canon in which the more solemn prayers and the consecration were contained. By the Roman liturgy I understand the canon which did not vary, and the number and order of the prayers which were to be added from the missal.
* Dupin, Hist. Eccl. cent. vi. tom. v. p. 102. Brett's Collection of Liturgies, p. 333, &c.