« السابقةمتابعة »
next the general prayers for all men and things, the commemoration of the living and dead"; and the heads of petitions which he mentions are all found in the corresponding part of the orthodox and the Monophysite liturgies of St. James. His remarks on the Lord's Prayer are next in order', and he speaks of the form rā āyta roic àytoto, and the response of the people"; all which occur in the liturgies under consideration. The thirty-third Psalm, “Gustate et videte,” was sung while the people received the sacraments". Jerome also testifies that this custom prevailed in Palestine". After communion Cyril says there was a prayer of thanksgiving". All this critically agrees with the order, the substance, and the expressions of the Anaphora, which may be deduced from a comparison of the orthodox and the Monophysite liturgies of St. James. And we have already seen the same sort of agreement with the writings of Theodoret, Jerome, Ephrem, and Chrysostom; and these lived at Cyrus, Bethlehem, Edessa, and Antioch, all within the patriarchate of Antioch. This affords strong reason for believing, that a liturgy, substantially the same in every church, prevailed throughout the whole patriarchate of Antioch in the early part of the fourth century. The next monument of antiquity to which I would refer, as illustrative of the ancient liturgy of the patriarchate of Antioch, is the liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions. The Apostolical Constitutions are quoted by Epiphanius, archbishop of Salamis, who lived in the fourth century; and they are generally considered by the learned to be older than the council of Nice, A.D. 325, or at least to represent the customs and discipline of the Christian church before that period. The liturgy which bears the name of Clement, bishop of Rome, and which occurs in the eighth book of the Apostolical Constitutions, is certainly a monument of venerable antiquity. I cannot think, however, that it is to be considered as an accurate transcript of the liturgy of any church. In the first place, there is no evidence that it was used any where. Secondly, although from its title we should say that it was the liturgy of the Roman church, it is nevertheless totally unlike the primitive liturgy of that church, while it agrees in substance and order with the liturgies of the east. An author, who affixed to this liturgy a title which could not have been rightly given to it, would not have felt any scruples in altering or improving the liturgy which he published ; and indeed he bears witness to the fact of his having made some alteration, by giving the name of a foreign bishop to that liturgy. Had this author simply transcribed the liturgy of Antioch, or of any other eastern church, as used in his time, why should he have given the name of Clement to it, when every one would immediately have detected the impropriety of that appellation? It appears to me, for these reasons, that this liturgy, however ancient it may be, ought not to be regarded as an authentic copy of the liturgy of any church. Yet, as it agrees more closely with the liturgy of Antioch in the fourth century than with any other, I may fairly use it as a confirmation of the antiquity of that liturgy. In its order, its substance, and many of its expressions, the liturgy of Clement is identical with that of St. James. But the author has evidently permitted his learning and devotion to enrich the common formularies with numerous ideas full of piety and beauty. We must therefore be content to receive the evidence of the Clementine liturgy in subservience to, and in confirmation of that liturgy of the patriarchate of Antioch, which I have already traced by authentic documents to the fourth century. According to the Clementine liturgy, the lessons from the Old and New Testament were first read; after which the sermon was delivered". Then follow prayers for the catechumens, energumens, competents, and penitents; and after their successive dismissal, the prayer of the faithful", the kiss of peace, and the ablutions of hands succeed". The Anaphora or Canon now begins, with the apostolical benediction of “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God”,” &c. The form Sursum corda, &c. follows; and the thanksgiving, in which the author appears to have exerted all his powers to render it worthy of the occasion. However, all the topics of the thanksgiving in St. James's liturgies are introduced, though at great length". After this follows the hymn Tersanctus, and a long continuation of thanksgiving in the same strain. Then a commemoration of our Saviour's deeds and words at the last supper, a verbal oblation, somewhat different from that of St. James, the invocation of the holy Ghost, and solemn prayers for all men and things, to which the people answered Amen". After this, there is a prayer of the deacon, and benediction of the faithful. Then the form rā āya roic äytoic, &c. and the communion '. The office terminates with a prayer of thanksgiving, another prayer by the deacon, and a benediction". All this accords remarkably with the liturgy of the patriarchate of Antioch in the fourth century. And we may consider it as a proof, that the order and substance, together with many of the expressions of that liturgy, were used in the third century. A remarkable sign of antiquity in the Clementine liturgy, is, the omission of the Lord's Prayer between the prayer of the deacon and benediction of the faithful, which precedes the form rā āya, &c. It seems that the Lord's Prayer was used in this place, according to the liturgy of Antioch, before the council of Chalcedon. We have seen that Chrysostom and Cyril enable us to trace back this custom to the fourth century. Without doubt, the Lord's Prayer was used in this position 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. Now it is not credible that the author would have omitted this Prayer, if it had been long used 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. The liturgy of Clement may therefore be justly referred to the end of the third century or beginning of the fourth; and by means of it we can ascertain what parts of the liturgies of St. James may be traced back from the fifth to the third century. Having shewn that there are strong reasons for believing, that the same liturgy, in point of substance and order, prevailed all through the patriarchate of Antioch in the fourth century, it would seem to follow as a matter of course, that this liturgy had been long prevalent there: certainly, where such a case has been made out, I have a right to infer this, unless something can be brought from the monuments of antiquity which contradicts the inference. We have just perceived a verification of the justice of such a conclusion from the Clementine liturgy, which may be referred to the third century. We are about to receive a proof, that the same order of liturgy had been used in the second century. Justin Martyr was a native of Samaria, and lived within the district which was afterwards known as the patriarchate of Antioch. Justin describes the order of the Christian liturgy in his
* P. 297. Compare Renau- ° “Quotidie coelesti pane dot, p. 93. Assemani, p. 40. saturati dicinus, ‘gustate et | P. 298–300. videte.’” Hieronymi lib. ii.
in P. 300. in Esai. c. 5. * Ibid. P P. 301.
4 Apost. Const. lib. viii. c. 5, * Cap. 11. p. 398. p. 392, edit. Clerici. t C. 12. p. 399–402. * Ibid. c.6–11. p.393—398.