As I shall have occasion presently to observe, so here also I may remind the reader, that the sacrament of the eucharist was never, since its institution, administered without the due observance of certain appointed ceremonies and prayers. These of course would be characterised 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 show 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. Τ CHAPTER II. HE chief liturgies which have been pre served 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.1 As this liturgy of St. Clement is reprinted 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 ta form some opinion of 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 not merely decisions upon the doctrine of the sacrament of the blessed eucharist but an accurate form 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 fifth 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 mys 14 "The liturgy of Clemens, the most ancient of those extant." Bishop Bull, vol. 2. p. 77. tico illo dominici corporis sacrificio positam reperissent, fusissime, longoque verborum ambitu missam decantabant." 15 St. Chrysostom also (cited by cardinal Bona) in his twenty-seventh homily enquires: "cum sacras cœnas accipiebant apostoli, quid tum faciebant? nonne in preces convertebantur et hymnos ?" On the other hand it has been argued that the founder of each patriarchal 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 holy eucharist is related by three of the evangelists, and by St. Paul in the first 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 mannef that he took the cup, and blessed it, and said "This is my Blood:" but whether any more words were used in blessing is not recorded. We cannot doubt that there was some form observed in the first communion which was celebrated by the apostles after the resurrection of their Lord; 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 15 See the whole passage cited in Gerbert, De cantu, tom. i. p. с 94; and in Bona, Rerum liturg. tom. i. p. 75. 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 increase 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." 16 There is a famous passage of Gregory the great : in which it has been said that he asserts, and therefore he has been called in to prove, that the apostles used no other prayer or ceremony than the Lord's prayer only. The words of St. 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 [forte orationem] quam redemptor noster composuit, super ejus corpus et sanguinem non diceremus." 17 But all writers 16 Ch. xi. ver. 34. Conf. van Espen, Jus eccles. pars ii. sect. i. tit. v, and St. Augustine, 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 fuerint a Domino apostoli, ut alia omnia quæ ad religionem Christianam constituendam pertinebant. Ab apostolis acceperunt illam eorum discipuli," &c. Dissert.p.2. 17 Lib. ix. epist. 12. agree (that is, supposing the passage not to be corrupt) either that this assertion of St. 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 they did not perform the whole service without reciting it. As cardinal Bona observes, 18 with whom agrees Le Brun,19 at least the words of institution must have been added: "additis procul dubio verbis consecrationis." That something must be understood to qualify the statement of St. Gregory is clear from the account of a very ancient writer, the author of the Gemma animæ: "missam in primis dominus Jesus, sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedech, instituit, quando ex pane et vino corpus et sanguinem suum fecit, et memoriam sui, suis celebrare hæc præcepit: hanc apostoli auxerunt, dum super panem et vinum verba quæ Dominus dixit, et dominicam orationem dixerunt. Deinde successores eorum epistolas et evangelia legi statuerunt, alii cantum, et alii alia adjecerunt qui decorem domus Domini dilexerunt."20 And another, Walafrid Strabo, who lived some centuries earlier and not long after St. Gregory, speaking of the practice of primitive ages "primis temporibus" declares that although the eucharist was then celebrated with more simplicity than afterwards, yet præmissa oratione dominica, et sicut ipse Dominus noster præcepit, commemoratione passionis ejus adhibita eos corpori dominico communicasse et sanguini, quos ratio permittebat." 18 Tom. i. p. 75. 20 Lib. i. cap. 86. 21 De rebus eccles. cap. xxii; Bibl. patrum auct. tom. i. p. 680. |