ancient remains, or to form any just or distinct notion of their merits. It was not until the middle of the seventeenth century, that light was first thrown on the Greek liturgies by Goar, in his edition of the Euchologium; and although that work is far from perfect, no one has since enlarged the sphere of its information, or corrected its errors. In this century also, Thomasius published the ancient Roman Sacramentary of Gelasius. Pamelius, in the preceding century, had edited that of Gregory, which was now illustrated with learned notes by Menard. In the eighteenth century the Roman Sacramentary of Leo was discovered. And not long before, the writings of Gavanti, Bona, Le Brun, Martene, and Muratori gave much information relative to the Roman liturgy. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the ancient Gallican liturgy was rescued from oblivion by Bona, Thomasius, and Mabillon. In the early part of the eighteenth, Renaudot first gave to the world much satisfactory information relative to the liturgies of Alexandria and Antioch, which had been hitherto almost entirely unknown. Thus it was not until the eighteenth century, that the materials of knowledge were supplied in such abundance, as to enable the student of liturgies to take an extended and unprejudiced view of his subject.

Combined with these circumstances were others, which have much impeded the study of liturgies, and have tended to excite unreasonable prejudices against them. The learned writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who in their own provinces of literature remain unequalled, were yet generally destitute of that sort of knowledge which

would have constituted them sufficient judges of the merit of liturgies; and hence their opinions were most contradictory on this subject. This circumstance alone was sufficient to impede the study of liturgies; for when the most learned men were divided on the merits of those remains, it seemed an endless labour to investigate the truth.

The controversies of the time also involved this subject in obscurity. Some persons deemed their doctrines supported by the ancient liturgies, and hence thought themselves obliged to contend for their genuineness, and the integrity of their text. Others proved that they contained many things more recent than the time of their reputed authors, remarked with triumph the variations of different manuscripts, and concluded that they were perfectly uncertain, if not altogether spurious. From these causes an opinion prevails amongst a large portion of the learned world, that the ancient liturgies are of little or no value. The following pages are intended to shew, that there are some means of ascertaining the substance and order of Christian liturgies during the primitive ages; and to facilitate the study of those venerable monuments, by directing the reader's attention to such remains, and in such a channel, as seem best calculated to merit his notice, and reward his labours.

It seems to have been often assumed by the learned, that there was originally some one apostolic form of liturgy in the Christian church, to which all the monuments of ancient liturgies, and the notices which the Fathers supply, might be reduced. Were this hypothesis supported by facts, it would be very valuable. But the truth is, there are

several different forms of liturgy now in existence, which, as far as we can perceive, have been different from each other from the most remote period. And with regard to the apparent propriety of the Apostles' instituting one liturgy throughout the world, it may be observed, that it is quite sufficient to suppose all liturgies originally agreed, in containing every thing that was necessary for the due celebration of the eucharist; but that they adopted exactly the same order, or received every where the same rites, is a supposition equally unnecessary and groundless.

I have not therefore attempted to reduce all the liturgies, and notices of the Fathers, to one common original; but have rather sought for the original liturgies by a reference to acknowledged facts. The following is the course which I have pursued, in endeavouring to ascertain the nature of the primitive liturgies. Considering that the primitive church was divided into great portions, known by the appellations of Patriarchates, Exarchates, or

a As I shall frequently have occasion to make use of these terms in the following work, I will now briefly explain them to the reader. The primitive church was ruled by bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs. The bishop of the chief city in each province was entitled metropolitan or primate, and afterwards archbishop, and had a certain jurisdiction over the bishops of that province. He ordained them-received appeals from them in ecclesiastical affairs-presided in provincial synods of bishops-visited

the diocese or apoikia of each. See Bingham's Antiquities, &c. book ii. c. 16. The bishop of the metropolis of a civil diocese, which comprised several provinces, was called archbishop, or exarch, and afterwards patriarch; and had much the same sort of jurisdiction over all the metropolitans of that diocese, as each of them had over the bishops of his own province. See Bingham, c. 17. The office of metropolitan is probably as ancient as the apostolic age; that of patriarch is likewise very ancient, though

national churches; and that the supreme bishops in these districts (where there were such bishops) had generally sufficient influence in latter ages, to cause their own liturgies to be universally received by their suffragans; I thought it advisable, in the first place, to examine the liturgies of such supreme churches, and inquire whether they appear to be derived from primitive antiquity. If it seem that some other liturgy was used before the existing formulary, I have endeavoured to trace it out. And finally, I have consulted the writings of those Fathers who lived in the immediate neighbourhood, and by means of them endeavoured to ascertain the extent of country through which each liturgy was used, and the antiquity to which we can trace its order and substance. This plan I have followed in all instances, except where there was no supreme church to guide me in the investigation; and I have

we do not find it mentioned by that name till the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. However, it certainly existed long before that time, as it seems that the bishop of Alexandria had this sort of jurisdiction in the third century. See Bingham, book ii. c. 16, § 3. In fact, every bishop, as a successor of the apostles, had a certain degree of influence and authority in the whole church; and they who joined to this, the importance which was derived from the dignity, power, and opulence of the metropolitan or capital cities over which they presided, acquired such a degree of weight and influence, that bishops and metro

politans voluntarily admitted their jurisdiction. The Roman empire about the time of Constantine was divided into thirteen civil dioceses, each of which was ruled by a governor called exarch, vicar of the empire, or prefect. It does not appear that there was a supreme bishop or patriarch in each of these dioceses. The exarchs or patriarchs of the church in the fourth century, were those of Alexandria, Antioch, Cæsarea, Ephesus, Constantinople, Thessalonica, Rome, Milan, and Carthage. To which were added afterwards Jerusalem and Justiniana. See Bingham, Antiq. book ix. Basnage, Hist. de l'Eglise, tome i.

then had recourse to those remains which appear with reason to represent the original local liturgy.

After a careful examination of the primitive liturgies of the Christian church, it appears to me, that they may all be reduced to four, which have been used in different churches from a period of profound antiquity. The first may be entitled the great Oriental Liturgy, as it seems to have prevailed in all the Christian churches from the Euphrates to the Hellespont, and from the Hellespont to the southern extremity of Greece. The second was the Alexandrian, which from time immemorial has been the liturgy of Egypt, Abyssinia, and the country extending along the Mediterranean sea towards the west. The third was the Roman, which prevailed throughout the whole of Italy, Sicily, and the civil diocese of Africa. The fourth was the Gallican, which was used throughout Gaul and Spain, and probably in the exarchate of Ephesus until the fourth century. These four great liturgies appear to have been the parents of all the forms now extant, and indeed of all which we can in any manner discover; and their antiquity was so very remote, their use so extensive in those ages when bishops were most independent, that it seems difficult to place their origin at a lower period than the apostolic age. The liberty which every Christian church plainly had and exercised, in the way of improving its formularies, confirms the antiquity of the four great liturgies; for where this liberty existed, it could have been scarcely any thing else but reverence for the apostolical source from which the original liturgies were derived, that prevented an infinite variety of formularies, and preserved the