Palmer: Origines Liturgicæ 01.

Vol. I: Diss. on Primitive Liturgies, Sect. I.

[15]

| Introduction | Contents | Section II |

Project Canterbury

SECTION I.

LITURGY OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH.

THE

 patriarchate of Antioch originally included that of Jerusalem, and comprised the countries of Judæa, Mesopotamia, Syria, and some provinces of the southern part of Asia Minor1. The liturgy which prevailed in these countries merits our particular attention for several reasons. First, because the church of Jerusalem was the mother-church of Christendom, and the faithful first received the title of Christians at Antioch; secondly, because the liturgy used there, appears likewise to have prevailed to a great extent in the adjoining regions; and thirdly, because we have more ancient and numerous notices of this liturgy in the writings of the Fathers, than of any other in existence.

In proceeding to ascertain its nature, our first step is to inquire what liturgies are now used there, and [16]

 whether any of them profess, or appear to be, the original or apostolical liturgy of that country.

The patriarchate of Antioch is chiefly inhabited by the Jacobites or Monophysites, and the Melchites or orthodox. The Monophysites derive their origin from Eutyches, whose errors were condemned by the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451 ; they derive their appellation from their doctrine, for they appear to deny the existence of the human nature of Christ, which they affirm to be absorbed in the divinity, and made one with it. They are also called Jacobites from Jacob Baradæus, an eminent leader of this sect in the sixth century. The orthodox (termed Melchites or Royalists by their opponents, from their attachment to the emperors of the east) have always adhered to the profession of the catholic faith, and the communion of the patriarch of Constantinople.

The Monophysites and the orthodox in the patriarchate of Antioch, have long agreed in using liturgies bearing the venerable name of the apostle James; who, according to universal tradition, was the first bishop of Jerusalem. The Monophysites still retain their ancient liturgy. The orthodox have in the course of ages received the liturgies of the Greek or Constantinopolitan church into common use, so that now their ancient liturgy of St. James is only read on one day in the year, namely, the feast day of that Apostle. The Monophysite liturgy of St. James is written in the Syriac language, the orthodox in Greek.

A liturgy of St. James has been used from a very remote period in the churches of the Syrian Monophysites. Barsalibi, archbishop of Amida, a Syrian Monophysite, who lived in the eleventh century, [17]

 testified its use in the Syrian church by a commentary which he wrote upon it2. According to Abraham Echellensis3, the Syrians or Monophysites all assert that St. James wrote a liturgy; and this he confirms by the testimony of Joannes Maron, (who lived in the sixth or seventh century4,) Dionysius bishop of Amida, and Jacobus Edessenus; who affirm that their liturgy had descended to them from the age of the apostles, and that St. James was its author.

A liturgy of St. James has also been used from a remote period by the orthodox of Jerusalem and Syria. In the twelfth century Theodore Balsamon, orthodox patriarch of Antioch, said that the liturgy of St. James was used in Jerusalem and Palestine on the great feast days5; though it appears from the context, that the liturgies of Constantinople had by that time come into general use at Antioch. The use of this liturgy in the church of Jerusalem was mentioned about the same time by Marcus, orthodox patriarch of Alexandria, in his questions to Theodore Balsamon. He inquired, whether the [18] liturgies read in the parts about Alexandria and Jerusalem, and said to have been written by the holy apostles James and Mark, were to be received or not6. In the ninth century, the emperor Charles the Bald, in an epistle to the clergy of Ravenna, said, "The liturgy was celebrated before us according to the rite of Jerusalem, whose author was James the Apostle7." The most important testimony to the antiquity of an orthodox liturgy of St. James, is contained in the thirty-second canon of the council in Trullo held at Constantinople, A. D. 691. The two hundred and twenty-seven bishops there assembled, commanded that water should be mixed with the wine of the eucharist; according to the ancient custom of the church, which was transgressed by the Armenians. And they fortify this decree by the authority of a written liturgy of St. James. "For James, brother (according to the flesh) of Christ our God, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem was first committed, and Basil, archbishop of the church of Cæsarea, whose fame has extended throughout the whole world, delivering to us the mysterious liturgy in writing, have appointed," &c.8

[19]

 It appears, therefore, that the Monophysites and orthodox of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem have, from a very remote period, agreed in ascribing their liturgies to St. James the Apostle, who was frequently entitled first bishop of Jerusalem. This fact affords some reason for thinking that they esteemed their liturgies to be very much alike. It is also probable that the Christians of this patriarchate commonly ascribed their liturgy to St. James before the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. For a complete separation took place at that time between the orthodox and the Monophysites; thenceforward each side regarded the other as heretical, and accordingly they held no communion. It is highly improbable that either party, under these circumstances, would borrow from the other a title for their liturgy. All must therefore have received this title from their predecessors who lived before the council of Chalcedon.

[20]

 However, though there is reason to think, that the Christian churches in the patriarchate of Antioch referred their liturgy to the apostle James before the council of Chalcedon, I am not prepared to contend that they had long done so; much less am I disposed to vindicate the genuineness of St. James’s liturgy; that is, to maintain that he was either its author or writer. It will appear, however, in the sequel, that I am far from denying the apostolical antiquity of this liturgy in some respects.

Before I proceed to deduce the common origin of the Monophysite and orthodox liturgies of St. James from actual comparison, I must endeavour to establish their texts, and to decide which portions of each may be considered certain, and which uncertain.

The Monophysite liturgy of St. James was first translated from the Syriac into Latin by Renaudot, who published it in the second volume of his valuable work, entitled, "Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio," and added copious and learned explanatory notes. This liturgy, like all other oriental liturgies, may be divided into two parts. The first part, or Introduction, extends to the beginning of the Anaphora or solemn prayer, containing the preface, consecration, &c. and terminates before the priest blesses the people, saying, "The love of God, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.9" The second part, or Anaphora, extends from this benediction to the end of the liturgy. The Introduction is rarely found in the MSS. of Syriac liturgies, and varies very considerably in different MSS. Renaudot has published two forms of it, which agree in very few respects.10 Neither [21] 

of these is of any antiquity. For there is no mention of the prayers and dismissal of catechumens, energumens, and penitents, in them; yet we know that these rites were formerly used in the liturgy of Antioch, as well as in all the east; and other liturgies still retain some memorials of them.

There is indeed no air of antiquity in the Introduction until we come to the prayer entitled "ante osculum pacis"11 which is found in all the copies of St. James’s liturgy in Syriac, and which is also cited expressly from it in the very ancient Coptic liturgy of Basil12. The text of the liturgy intervening between this prayer and the blessing, beginning, "The love of the Father," &c.13 already alluded to, may be considered certain, and is probably very old.

The order and text of the Syriac Anaphora of St. James, beginning from, "The love of the Father," &c. and including the thanksgiving, consecration, and solemn prayers, is perfectly ascertained not only by means of MSS. of various ages, but by ancient commentaries which all accord with it.

I shall now proceed to examine the text of the orthodox liturgy of St. James, which is written in the Greek language. This liturgy was first edited at Rome in A.D. 1526. by Demetrius Ducas14, and no other copy of the liturgy of St. James in Greek was known to exist until the middle of the eighteenth [22]

 century; when Assemani published another text of St. James’s liturgy, from a MS. of the tenth century, and the various readings of a MS. of the twelfth century15. These three copies, though they apparently differ frequently in order, yet appear on examination to exhibit very nearly the same text. The variations are generally to be accounted for, by the necessity of writing successively, prayers which were in practice repeated at the same time by different persons; by the introduction of a variety of prayers from other known and respectable sources; and by the adaptation of the prayers and commemorations to the peculiar circumstances of different places and times.

In speaking of these variations, however, I would be understood chiefly to refer to the introduction of this liturgy, namely, to that part which precedes the blessing, beginning "The love of the Lord and Father," &c. The Anaphora, or solemn thanksgiving, consecration, and prayer which follows, is found in the three texts of St. James’s Greek Liturgy, without any other difference than a slight variety in the order of the petitions for God’s grace, or in the names of those persons who were commemorated in the prayers.

The liturgy of St. James, in the Greek language, has given rise to much controversy, and to great confusion of ideas. Shortly after it was first published, some controversialists of that age employed it to support their doctrines; and while these persons thought themselves obliged to defend the title of this liturgy, and to ascribe its composition to St. James the Apostle, others pronounced it altogether [23]

 spurious and modern. Baronius, Bellarmine, Leo, Allatius, Bona, and Benedict the fourteenth, have endeavoured to prove that it was actually the production of St. James. Cave, Fabricius, Dorschæus, Basnage, Dupin, and Tillemont, and many others, have rejected it as possessing no legitimate claims to such an antiquity, but exhibiting many signs of interpolation and novelty. Grancolasius, Assemani, and Zaccaria, admit that it contains some things which are not as old as the apostolic age, but yet think that the main structure may be referred to St. James.

A diligent investigation of the subject has led me to conclude that this liturgy, as now extant, is to be regarded as the liturgy of the orthodox of Jerusalem and Palestine, which some time before the tenth century had received several additions and alterations, to adapt it to the formularies of the church of Constantinople.

After the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, the orthodox of Antioch and Jerusalem were not many in number; and when the Mahommedans invaded those parts in the seventh century, they protected the Monophysites, while they depressed and persecuted the orthodox. Under these afflicting circumstances, the orthodox Syrians became entirely dependent on the patriarchs of Constantinople, and in consequence the liturgies then used at Constantinople, namely, those of Basil and Chrysostom, were introduced. And by the twelfth century they had come into such general use amongst the orthodox of Syria and Palestine, that no other seem to have been used at Antioch; and even at Jerusalem they appear to have been used on all occasions except [24] 

the greater feast days, when St. James’s liturgy. was still employed16. These circumstances render,. it probable that several alterations would have been made in the liturgy of St. James, in order to adapt it to the rites of the Greek church, if any such adaptation were possible.

Let us, then, examine the liturgy of St. James, and see whether there are not evident signs of alterations and adaptations to the Greek rite. We find in this liturgy a hymn resembling hoi ta cheroubim mustikôs17 which last occurs in the liturgies of Constantinople in the same place18. This hymn was first introduced into the liturgy of the church of Constantinople in the time of the emperor Justin, in the seventh century19; and there is no presumption that it was then derived from the liturgy of any other church. This hymn was therefore peculiar to the Constantinopolitan liturgy, and was introduced into the liturgy of the orthodox of Jerusalem in imitation of it. Certainly this hymn was not known in Syria before the council of Chalcedon, for the Monophysites do not use it. Secondly, the elements are carried to the altar in procession at the same time as in the Constantinopolitan liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom, and the prayer then said, beginning ho Theos ho Theos hêmôn, is taken word for word from Chrysostom’s liturgy20. Thirdly, the prayer [25]

 beginning kurie ho Theos ho ktisas, is taken entirely from Basil’s liturgy21, and in one MS. is expressly ascribed to him22. Fourthly, the anthem sung before or after the name of the holy virgin in the commemorations23, is derived from the Constantinopolitan rite, which prescribes such an anthem in this place24; and the very anthems of chaire kecharitômenê and axion estin ôs alêthôs are found in the printed copies and MSS. of Chrysostom’s liturgy in the same position25. There is no trace in any of the liturgies of the Nestorians, or the Monophysites, of any anthem like these; and as we cannot assign any reason why they should have omitted such an anthem, if they had ever used it, we must conclude that these anthems were not used by the eastern churches before the council of Chalcedon, for otherwise we should have met with them in the liturgies of the Monophysites. When these anthems were first used I cannot precisely say. But it certainly is probable that they were devised at Constantinople, since I find that the orthodox churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem both adopted them, and it is more probable that both followed the rite of Constantinople in this respect, than that either originated a custom which was adopted by the church of Constantinople and the other. Fifthly, the anthem ho monogenês huios is sung before the hymn Tersanctus, as it is in the Constantinopolitan liturgy26. Sixthly, one of [26] the MSS. published by Assemani contains a prayer taken from Basil’s liturgy27; and the other manuscript, whose various readings he has given, also includes the same prayer which likewise occurs in the liturgy of Chrysostom28.

It appears, therefore, that the orthodox of Jerusalem and Palestine did not hesitate to introduce into their own liturgy of St. James several rites and prayers, with or without acknowledgment, from the liturgies of Constantinople. The first MS. of St. James’s liturgy, published by Assemani, enables us to determine the text as it was in the tenth century. It was before this time that the alterations or additions which I have described took place. However, besides the prayers and rites which are in this way accounted for, a large number of others remain, (especially in the introduction of St. James’s Greek Liturgy,) which we must refer to the orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem, between the fifth and tenth centuries, as it is impossible to trace them to a more remote antiquity, and they do not appear in the liturgy of any other church.

These remarks will, I trust, be thought sufficient to shew, that the Greek liturgy of St. James, as now extant, is to be regarded as the old liturgy of the Melchites, or orthodox of the church of Jerusalem and the neighbourhood, some time before the tenth century; and that this liturgy had received many additions from the rites of the church of Constantinople before that time.

Having endeavoured to give a clear idea of the view which we are to take of the liturgy of St. James as now extant, I defer for the present any [27]

 consideration of the question, whether St. James is to be considered as the originator of this liturgy, for this question will more properly be discussed when I have traced the substance of St. James’s liturgy to a period antecedent to the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451.

If it appears that the Monophysites and the orthodox, who held no communion from the period of that council, nevertheless had liturgies which were both ascribed to St. James, and which in order, substance, and expressions, were almost exactly the same; we have reason to think that they were derived from the same original, namely, from the liturgy used by all the Christians of Antioch and Jerusalem before the division.

Let us, then, proceed to compare the Monophysite with the orthodox liturgy of St. James. I have observed that the introduction of the Monophysite liturgy is uncertain as regards its text, and that it bears no marks of antiquity. I have also remarked that the introduction of the orthodox liturgy was interpolated from the Greek rite, and some other source, before the tenth century. Omitting, therefore, any comparison of the introductions of these two liturgies, (which originally consisted only in the reading of scripture,) I will compare their Anaphoræ, or solemn offices, the text of which is well ascertained, and is generally free from interpolations.

These liturgies begin the Anaphora with the benediction, "The love of God, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Then follow the address, "Sursum corda," &c. and a preface or thanksgiving; [28]

 then the hymn Tersanctus, followed by a continuation of thanksgiving; then a commemoration of our Saviour’s deeds and words at the last supper, a verbal oblation, and a prayer for the Holy Ghost to sanctify the elements into the sacraments of Christ’s body and blood.29 Whoever compares these parts of the orthodox and Monophysite liturgies together, will be surprised at their minute agreement in sentiments and expressions, when he considers the centuries that have elapsed since the separation of the orthodox and the Monophysites. After this, the solemn prayers for all estates of men and for all things succeeds.30 The order of these prayers is a little different in these two liturgies, but their substance and the words of the petitions generally agree. And it may be remarked, that such prayers as these appear to have been arranged differently in many of the eastern liturgies, being regarded as an accessory part of the liturgy, and admitting of a variety which would have been regarded as unsafe, if it had been introduced into the essential parts of the office. The difference between these prayers, as to expressions, is chiefly caused by a greater fulness and variety of epithet in one than in the other.

After the prayers and commemorations follow a salutation, and a bidding prayer by the deacon.31 Then a collect introductory to the Lord’s Prayer; then the Lord’s Prayer and a benediction.32 After this comes the form of address, ta hagia tois hagiois, the [29]

 bread is broken with some rites which are not probably of any primitive antiquity, and communion takes place.33 After which come a prayer of thanksgiving, and a benediction of the people.34 The orthodox liturgy gives these last forms at greater length than the Monophysite.

Whoever compares these venerable monuments will not fail to perceive a great and striking resemblance throughout. He will readily acknowledge their derivation from one common source; and will admit that they furnish sufficient means for ascertaining all the substance, and many of the expressions, which were used in the solemn Anaphora of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, before the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451.

I have already remarked, that the title of St. James’s liturgy is older than the council of Chalcedon; and we may reasonably infer, that the liturgy which bore this title generally in the fifth century, must have been considered at that time to be very ancient; and therefore must really have been long used in the church. Let us, then, advance another step, and inquire whether the Christian writers of the patriarchate of Antioch enable us to trace back the substance and order of St. James’s liturgy to a more remote period. In the early part of the fifth century lived Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in the northern part of the patriarchate of Antioch. In a letter to Joannes Œconomus he speaks of the apostolical benediction, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all;" and adds, "this [30]

 is the beginning of the mystical liturgy in all churches."35 When we refer to the Monophysite and orthodox liturgies of St. James, we find both beginning the mystical liturgy, or Anaphora, with this very benediction36.

Shortly before, probably about the end of the fourth century, Jerome, who also lived within the patriarchate of Antioch, said, "Every day the voices of priests celebrate ho monos anamartêtos" This expression is found in the orthodox and Monophysite liturgies of St. James, and it is there appointed to be said by the priest only37. In another place he refers to the use of the Lord’s Prayer in the liturgy: "Christ taught his apostles to dare to say daily, with faith, in the (commemorative) sacrifice of that body, Our Father,"38 &c.

Let us turn to those works of Chrysostom, which were written while he was a presbyter of the church of Antioch. From him, as well as from almost every other writer, we learn that the liturgy commenced with lessons from the Old and New Testaments; which were followed by the [31]

 exhortations and sermons of the presbyters and bishops.39

Chrysostom gives the order of the introduction, after the sermon, as follows. He describes the prayers for the energumens, or those afflicted with evil spirits, the catechumens, or those who were preparing to receive the sacrament of baptism, and the penitents40. These prayers were made in the form of a litany by the deacon and people; and after each prayer the objects of it were dismissed. Then followed an address, and a prayer of the faithful41. This was succeeded by a salutation or kiss of peace42.

[32]

  I now proceed to those passages of Chrysostom which refer to the Anaphora, or mystical liturgy. He mentions the benediction of "The grace of our Lord."43 &c. the address, "Sursum corda,"44 &c. the solemn thanksgiving; which he describes in such terms as leave no doubt of its identity with that of the Monophysite and the orthodox liturgies of St. James45: the hymn "Tersanctus."46

[33]

  Chrysostom most probably refers to the commemoration of our Saviour’s deeds and words at the last supper, as used in the liturgy, when he attributes such great importance to the words of institution of our Lord, which he considers as still chiefly efficacious in the consecration of the eucharist47. He often speaks of the eucharist under the title of an unbloody sacrifice, which is quite consistent with the words of verbal oblation in the liturgies of St. James; and in one place he distinctly refers to the invocation of the Holy Spirit48. On this part of the liturgy, namely, the words of Christ, the verbal oblation, and the invocation of the holy Spirit, the Christian writers generally spoke but little, and with caution. It was contrary to the discipline of the church to reveal openly to heathens or heretics the form of consecration, and some other practices and doctrines which were likely to excite opposition or ridicule. With the wisdom of serpents, as well as the harmlessness of doves, the primitive Christians did not give that which was holy unto the dogs, nor cast their pearls before swine; remembering the admonition of Christ, and his salutary caution, "lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

Chrysostom speaks plainly of the general prayers [34]

 which follow, and especially of the commemoration of the living and the dead49. He mentions. the use of the Lord’s Prayer50, the form ta hagia tois hagiois51, the breaking of the bread52, and the communion. Altogether, it may be said, that there is nothing in the writings of Chrysostom which is inconsistent with the Anaphora, as ascertained by a comparison of the orthodox and the Monophysite liturgies of St. James. On the contrary, he confirms its order, substance, and sentiments, in a remarkable manner; and we may therefore say, that the same liturgy (substantially) was used at Antioch in the latter part of the fourth century, as I have shewn to have been used there before the middle of the fifth.

In the same century as Chrysostom, but at an earlier period, lived Ephrem Syrus, deacon of the church of Edessa, beyond the Euphrates, but still within the patriarchate of Antioch. In his discourse "de Sacerdotio," he speaks mystically or ænigmatically of the eucharist, covering his meaning as far as possible from the understandings of those who were not initiated into the Christian religion. However, he plainly refers to the order of the solemn prayer used in the consecration of the eucharist. He speaks of the oblation, then of the player of deprecation and repentance to God, then of the invocation of the Holy Spirit to sanctify the gifts, then of the prayer of the priest for all things, [35]

 then of the communion53. At the end of the treatise he plainly refers to the latter part of the thanksgiving, and the hymn Tersanctus54. The allusions are such as would be clearly understood by those who were permitted to be present during the celebration of the eucharist, and by none others; and they confirm remarkably the text of the Syriac liturgy of St. James. He also speaks of the custom of praying or making a commemoration for the departed in the liturgy55, which agrees with the liturgies of St. James.

Let us now turn our attention towards the writings of Cyril bishop of Jerusalem, whose diocese lay within the patriarchate of Antioch. Cyril probably [36]

 wrote the work which we are going to consider about the years 330 or 340. In his fifth mystical catechesis, addressed to those who were recently baptized, he describes the solemn liturgy which was celebrated after the dismissal of catechumens and infidels, with a minuteness which is most satisfactory, and which establishes in a remarkable manner the antiquity of St. James’s liturgy.

Cyril begins by speaking of the ceremony of the bishop or priest’s washing his hands, as denoting the purity which on this occasion should be in the mind. He then mentions the kiss of peace56. These things belong to the introduction of the liturgy; what follows bears on the Anaphora. He mentions the form of Sursum corda57, and then most minutely describes the thanksgiving down to the hymn Tersanctus58. Whoever compares the orthodox and the Monophysite thanksgivings of St. James59 with this passage of Cyril, will acknowledge that the order, sentiments, and expressions are the same; and will perceive that this portion of the liturgy of St. James can be proved beyond question to be older than the middle of the fourth century, and that it was then used at Antioch and Jerusalem. Cyril does not allude to the words of our Lord, but he plainly refers to the solemn oblation of the gifts60. He then proceeds to speak of the invocation and prayer for the Holy Ghost to make the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ61. Cyril notices [37] 

next the general prayers for all men and things, the commemoration of the living and dead62; 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 order63, and he speaks of the form ta hagia tois hagiois, and the response of the people64; all which occur in the liturgies under consideration. ‘The thirty-third Psalm, "Gustate et videte," was sung while the people received the sacraments65. Jerome also testifies that this custom prevailed in Palestine66. After communion Cyril says there was a prayer of thanksgiving67.

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 [38]

 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 lie 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. [39] 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 delivered68. Then follow prayers for the catechumens, energumens, competents, and penitents; and after their successive dismissal, the prayer of the faithful69, the kiss of peace, and the ablution of hands succeed70. The Anaphora or Canon now begins, with the apostolical benediction of "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God70," &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 length71. After this follows the hymn Tersanctus, and a long continuation of thanksgiving in the same strain. [40]

 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 Amen72. After this, there is a prayer of the deacon, and benediction of the faithful. Then the form ta hagia tois hagiois, &c. and the communion73. The office terminates with a prayer of thanksgiving, another prayer by the deacon, and a benediction74. 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 in use 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 ta hagia, &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 [41]

 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 [42]

 describes the order of the Christian liturgy in his days; and, as far as it goes, his description agrees exactly with the liturgy of Antioch in after-times. He speaks of the lessons, the sermon, the prayer of the faithful, and the kiss of peace75. He mentions the thanksgiving to God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, for the benefits which he has conferred on us76. He appears to speak of the words of our Lord77. If he does not refer directly to the verbal oblation of bread and wine, he considers an oblation to be made78. The invocation of the Holy Ghost is probably to be inferred from his speaking of the bread and wine being sanctified by the prayer79.

He mentions prayers made by the priest at this time, besides the prayer of the faithful before the thanksgiving; and he informs us that the people answered Amen at the close of the liturgy80. As far as this goes, it gives every reason to say, that the [43]

 liturgy of Antioch was substantially the same in the time of Justin, as it was one or two hundred years afterwards.

In conclusion I may remark, that there are satisfactory means of ascertaining the order, substance, and generally the expressions, of the solemn liturgy used all through the patriarchate of Antioch and Jerusalem, before the year 451; that the liturgy thus ascertained, coincides with the notices which the Fathers of that country give concerning their liturgy, during the fifth and fourth centuries; that this liturgy was used in the whole patriarchate of Antioch in the fourth century, with little variety; that it prevailed there in the third century, and even in the second. The liturgy of St. James in Greek and Syriac may therefore be considered to be derived from the most primitive times. And should we say, that the same form in its principal features had existed from the time of the Apostles, I think that we should have good reasons for making the assertion. We cannot, however, rely on the expressions of this liturgy as a sure guide to the sentiments of the earliest ages. Unsupported by corroborative testimony, they are of little value beyond the fifth century, and only a certain portion can be corroborated by testimonies of the fourth and third centuries. Nor can we affirm that every part of the substance of the liturgy in the fifth century had existed from the beginning; but we may safely say, that whatever parts of the liturgy had existed from the beginning had likewise existed always in the same order relatively to each other; and this order it is, which essentially and mainly constitutes the identity of liturgies.

[44]

  I have not as yet considered whether the liturgies of Antioch and Jerusalem are properly to be ascribed to St. James. It is obvious, from what has been said, that the text of St. James’s liturgies in Syriac and Greek are not to be referred to, as immaculate, and free from the additions and alterations of later ages. With regard to the authorship of St. James, I think there is no sufficient proof for it, while there are many things against it. In fact we cannot trace back the appellation of St. James’s liturgy, as given to that of Jerusalem and Antioch, beyond the fifth century. I am persuaded that this appellation began after the time of Basil, exarch of Caesarea about A.D. 380. He composed, or rather enriched and beautified, the liturgy of his church; and this liturgy, under the name of Basil’s liturgy, was soon extensively used in the east. The celebrity of Basil gave lustre to this liturgy, and the church of Jerusalem probably began to affix the name of St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem, to their liturgy, in order that it might not seem inferior to that of their neighbours. The liturgy of Jerusalem being the same as that of Antioch, the title became general throughout the patriarchate of Antioch. Thus, I think, we may account for the origin of this appellation.

 

| Introduction | Top | Section II |

Project Canterbury

 

 

1 Bingham's Antiq. book ix. c. I. §. 6. c. 2. §. 8, 9. The bishop of Jerusalem, though given honorary precedence by the council of Nice, only obtained the jurisdiction of a patriarch in the fifth century, when the council of Chalcedon confirmed this dignity to him, placing under his jurisdiction the three provinces of Palestine, containing about fifty bishoprics, which were abstracted from the patriarchate of Antioch.

2 Renaudot. Liturg. Orient. Collectio. tom. ii. P. 454.

3 In his Annotations on Hebedjesu de Scriptoribus Chaldaicis. p. 135.

4 "Hoc est principium Liturgiæ D. Jacobi Apostoli, quæ omnium liturgiarum antiquissima est, ideoque juxta illius ordinem suas instituerunt cæteri." Joannes Maron cited by Abraham Echellensis not. in Hebedjesu p. 138. In speaking of "cæteri," he alluded to the authors of the other liturgies used by the Syrian Monophysites, which are very numerous.

5 Sêmeiôsai apo tou parontos kanonos, hoti prôtos ho hagios Iakôbos ho adelphotheos, hôs prôtos archierateusas tês Hierosolumitôn ekklêsias, paredke tên theian hierotelestian hêtis par’ hêmin agnoeitai para de tois Hierosolumitais kai tois Palaistinaiois energeitai en tais megalais heortais.

 Theodor. Balsamon, not. in Can. 32. Concil. in Trullo. Bevereg. Pandect. tom. i. p. 193.

6 Hai peri ta merê tês alexandreias, kai tôn Hierosolumôn anaginôskomenai leitourgiai, kai kegomenaisuggpraphênai para tôn hagiôn apostolôn Iakôbou tou adelphotheou, kai Markou, dektai eisi tê hagia kai katholikê ekklêsia, ê ou, Marcus Alexandrin. cited by Renaudot, Lit. Orient. tom. i. p.lxxxviii.

7 "Celebrata etiam sunt coram nobis Missarum officia more Hierosolymitano auctore Jacobo apostolo." Carolus,Calvus Epist. ad Cler. Ravennat.

8 Kai gar kai Iakôbos ho kata sarka Christou tou Theou hêmôn adelphos hostês Hierosolumiôn ekklêsias prôtos ton thronon enepisteuthê, kai Basileios ho tês Kaisareôn ekklêsias archiepiskopos, ou to kleos kata pasan tên oikoumenên diedramen, eggraphôs tên mustikên hêmin Hierourgian paradedôkotes, teleioun en tê theia leitourgia ex hudatos kai oinou to Hieron potêrion ekdedôkasin. Canon xxxii. Concil in Trullo. Bevereg. tom. i. p.191.

I have not cited the tract ascribed to Proclus, archbishop of Constantinople, who died A. D. 446, and which speaks directly of St. James’s liturgy, for strong doubts are entertained of its genuineness by Fabricius, Simon, Leo Allatius, and Le Brun. The latter justly observes, that the name of Chrysostom, applied in this tract to St. John of Constantinople, shews that it could not have been written for at least 300 years after his death. (Expl. de In Messe, iii. 380.) In fact, had Proclus really written it, it is not credible (considering the interesting nature of its contents) that no notice should have been taken of it by the succeeding ecclesiastical writers. Yet it appears never to have been cited by any writer till the thirteenth or fourteenth century; and the silence of nine hundred years (it must be confessed) throws an additional and serious doubt on the genuineness of this tract.

9 Renaudot, Liurg. Oriental. tom. ii. p. 30.

10 Ibid. pp. 1, 12.

11 Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. tom. ii. p. 29.

12 Ibid. tom. i. p. 13.

13 Ibid. tom. ii. p. 30.

14 From the edition of Ducas it was copied into the Bibliothca Patrum. It is also found in the Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, tom. iii. by Fabricius; in Assemani’s Codex Liturgicus, tom. v. which is the edition to which I shall refer; and the latter part, or Anaphora, translated into English by Dr. Brett in his Collection of Liturgies, p. 14.

15 Assemani Codex Liturgicus, tom. v. p. 68, 400.

16 This appears by the evidence of Theodore Balsamon, orthodox patriarch of Antioch, in his reply to the queries of Marcus, patriarch of Alexandria; and by his Annotations on the Thirty-second Canon of the Council in Trullo.

17 Liturgia Jacobi, Assemani, tom. v. p. 16.

18 Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 72. et not. 108. in Chrysost. Liturg.

19 Ibid. p. 131.

20 Liturg. Jacobi, Assemani, tom. v. p. 17. Liturgia Chrysostomi, Goar, p. 63.

21 Assemani Cod. Lit. tom. v. p. 8. Goar, Liturgia Basilii, p. 164.

22 The Codex Messanensis Assemani, p.77.

23 Assemani Cod. Lit. tom. v. p. 44, 45. 86.

24 Liturgia Chrysost. Goar, p. 78. Basilii, ibid. p. 170.

25 Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 78. 103.

26 Liturgia Jacobi, Assemani, p. 6. Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 101.

27 Assemani, p. 74. Goar, 163.

28 Ibid. p. 402. Goar, 72.

29 Liturgia Jacobi Syriacè Renaudot, tom. ii. p. 30-34. Liturgia Jacobi Græcè Assemani, tom. v. p. 32-41.

30 Renaudot, p. 34-38. Assemani, 1). 41-48.

31 Ibid. p. 38, 39. Assemani, p. 48, 49.

32 Ibid. p. 39, 40. Assemani, p. 49-52.

33 Ibid. p. 40-42. Assemani, p. 53-58.

34 Ibid. p. 42. Assemani, p. 60-63.

35 Hê charis tou kuriou hêmôn k. t. l. — touto de en pasais tais ekklêsiais tês mustikês esti leitourgias prooimion. Theodoret. Epist. Joanni Œconomo, tom. iii. p. 132. Oper. a Sirmond. Paris. 1642.

36 Liturgia Jacobi Syr. Renaudot, tom. ii. p. 30. Lit. Jac. Græc. Assemani, tom. v. p. 32.

37 "Sacerdotum quotidie ora concelebrant ho monos anamartêtos, quod in lingua nostra dicitur: Qui solus est sine peccato. Quæ laus juxta sententiam tuam frustra Deo reputatur, si est communis cum cæteris." Hieronymus, lib. ii. adv. Pelagium. Compare Liturg. Jacobi Syr. Renaudot, p.38. Græc. Assemani, p. 47.

38 "Sic docuit Christus apostolos suos, ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui, Pater noster qui es in cœlis," &c. Adv. Pelag. lib. iii. c. 15. Compare Renaudot, 39, 40. Assemani, 49-52.

39 Chrysostomi Hom. vii. p. 106. tom. i. edit. Commelin. Hom. xviii. p. 226.

40 Kai gar huper tôn energoumenôn, huper tôn en metanoia, koinai kai para tou Hiereôs kai par autôn giontai euchai kai pantes mian legousin euchên tên eleou gemousan. Palin epeidan eirxômen tôn hierôn peribolôn tous ou dunamenous tês hieras metaschein trapezês, heteran dei genesthai euchên, kai pantes homoiôs ep’ edaphous keimetha kai pantes homoiôs anistametha hotan eirênês palin metalambanein, kai metadidonai deê, pantes homoiôs aspazometha. Ep’ autôn tôn phrikôdestatôn mustêriôn epeuchetai de ho hiereus tô laô epeuchetai de ho laos tô hierei. to gar, meta tou pneumatos sou, ouden allo estin, ê touto. Ta tês eucharistias palin koina. Oude gar ekeinos eucharistei monos, alla kai ho laos hapas. Proteron gar autôn labôn phônên, eita suntithemenôn, hoti axiôs touto ginetai, tote archetai tês eucharistias. Kai ti thaumazeis ei pou meta tou hiereôs ho phtheggetai, hopouge kai met’ autôn tôn cheroubim, kai tôn anô dunameôn, koinê tous hierous ekeinous humnous anapemtei, Chrysostomi Hom. xviii. in Epist. 2. ad Corinth. tom. ix. p. 873. ed. Commelin. Paris. 1609—1617. See Hom xxviii. p. 365. tom. i. same edition. Hom. lxxii. in Matth. p. 624. tom. vii. Hom. vii. in Epist. ad Rom. p. 68. tom. ix. Hom. ii. in 2 Ep. ad Cor. p. 740. tom. ix.

41 See the passage quoted in the last note, and this. Kai hê prôtê de deêsis eleous gemei, hotan huper tôn energoumen. Kai hê de deêsis eleous gemei, hotan huper tôn energoumenôn parakalômen. Kai hê deutera palin huper heterôn tôn en metanoia polu to eleos epizêtousa kai hê tritê de palin huper hêmôn autôn. Chrysost. Hom. lxxii. in Matth. p. 624. tom. vii.

42 Hom. xviii. in Ep. 2. ad Cor. as quoted in last note but one. en tois mustêriois hapazometha allêlous. Hom. lxxvii. in Joannem, tom. viii. p. 399.

43 Dia touto ouk anabainonti monon oude dialegoumenô pros humas oude euchomenô huper humôn, psautên epiphtheggesthe tên rêsin, all’ hotan para tên hieran tautên estêkê trapezan, hotan tên phriktên ekeinên Thusian anapherein mellê; isasi gar hoi memuêmenoipso legoumenon. ou proteron haptetai tôn prokeimenôn, heôs an humin autos eteuxêtai tên para tou kuriou charin, kai humeis epiphthegxêsthe autô, kai tô pneumati sou.

memuhme,noiyo. lego,menon) ouv pro,teron a[ptetai tw/n prokeime,nwn( e[wj a;n u`mi/n auvto.j evteu,xhtai th.n para. tou/ kuri,ou ca,rin( kai. u`mei/j evpifqe,gxhsqe auvtw/|( kai. tw/| pneu,mati, sou)

Hom. xxxvi. de Pentecost. p. 553. tom. v.

44 Ouch hupeschou tô hierei eiponti, Anô schômen hêmôn ton noun kai tas kardias? kai eipas, echomen pros ton kurion?

Ouvc u`pe,scou tw/| i`erei/ eivpo,nti( :Anw scw/men h`mw/n to.n nou/n kai. ta.j kardi,aj* kai. ei=paj( e;comen pro.j to.n ku,rion* Hom. xxxviii. de Eucharist. p. 569. tom. v. Ta tês eucharistias palin koina. oude gar ekeinos Ta. th/j euvcaristi,aj pa,lin koina,) ouvde. ga.r evkei/noj (sacerdos) eucharistei monos, alla kai ho laos hapas. protero gar autôn labôn phônên, eita suntithemenôn. hoti axiôs kai dikaiôs touto ginetai, tote archetai tês eucharistias. kai ti thaumazeis eipou meta tou hiereôs ho laos phtheggetai hopouge kai met’ autôn tôn cheroubim, kai tôn anô dunameôn, koinê tous hierous ekeinous humnous anamemtai? euvcariste,i mo,noj( avlla. kai. o` lao.j a[paj) pro,terov ga.r auvtw/n labw.n fwnh.n( ei=ta suntiqeme,nwn( o[ti avxi,wj kai. dikai,wj tou.to gi,netai( to,te a;rcetai th/j euvcaristi,aj) kai. ti, qauma,zeij ei;pou meta. tou/ i`ere,wj o` lao.j fqe,ggetai o[ouge kai. metV auvtw/n tw/n ceroubi.m( kai. tw/n a;nw duna,mewn( koinh/| tou.j i`erou.j evkei,nouj u[mnouj avname,mtai* Hom. xviii. in 2 Cor. p. 873. tom. ix.

45 See last quotation, which refers to the part of the thanksgiving immediately before Tersanctus. The following passage refers to the thanksgiving more at large. In speaking of "the cup of blessing," he says, Ou gar mikron to eirêmenon. eulogian gar hotan eipô, panta anaptussô ton tês euergesias tou Theou thêsauron, kai tôn megalôn anamimnêskô dôreôn. kai gar kai hêmeis epileguntes tô potêriô tas aphatous euergesias tou Theou, kai hosôn apolelaukamen, houôs auto prosagomen, kai koinônoumen, eucharistountes, hoti tês planês apêllaxe to tôn anthrôpôn genos, hoti makran ontas, eggus epoiêsen, hoyi elpida mê echontas kai atheous en tô kosmô, adelphous heatou kateskeuasthe kai sugklêronomous.

Ouv ga.r mikro.n to. eivrhme,non) euvlogi,an ga.r o[tan ei;pw( pa,nta avnaptu,ssw to.n th/j euvergesi,aj tou/ Qeou/ qhsauro.n( kai. tw/n mega,lwn evkei,nwn avnamimnh,skw dwrew/n) kai. ga.r kai. h`mei/j evpile,guntej tw/| pothri,w| ta.j avfa,touj euvergesi,aj tou/ Qeou/( kai. o[swn avpolelau,kamen( ou[wj auvto. prosa,gomen( kai. koinwnou/men( euvcarisou/ntej( o[ti th/j pla,nhj avph,llaxe to. tw/n avnqrw,pwn ge,noj( o[ti makra.n o;ntaj( evggu.j evpoi,hsen( o[ti evlpi,da mh. e;contaj kai. avqe,ouj evn tw/| ko,smw|( avdelfou.j e`atou/ kateskeu,ase kai. sugklhrono,mouj) Hom. xxiv. in I Cor. p. 532. tom. ix.

46 See Hom. xviii. in 2 Cor. p. 873. already quoted

. Dia touto kai ho megas houtos archiereus Dia. tou/to kai. o` me,gaj ou-toj avrciereu.j (Christus) epeidan epi tês hagias tautês estêkê trapezês, tên logikên anapherôn latreian, tên anaimakton prospherôn thusian ouch haplôs hêmas epi tên euphêmian tautên kalei, alla proteron ta Cheroubeim eipôn, kai tôn Serapheim anamnêsas, houtô parakeleuetai pasin anapempsai tên phrikôdestatên phônên — tên dianoian hêmôn apo tês gês anaspôn, kai mononouchi boôn pros hekaston hêmôn, kai legôn, meta tôn Serapheim adeis, meta tôn Serapheim stêthi, met’ ekeinôn tas pterugas petason, met’ ekeinôn periiptaso ton thronon ton basilikon. evpeida.n evpi. th/j a`gi,aj tau,thj e`sth,kh| trape,zhj( th.n logikh.n avnafe,rwn latrei,an( th.n avnai,makton prosfe,rwn qusi,an( ouvcV a`plw/j h`ma/j evpi. th.n euvfhmi,an tau,thn kalei/( avlla. pro,terov ta. Ceroubei.m eivpw.n( kai. rw/n Serafei.m avnamnh,saj( ou[tw parakeleu,etai pa/sin avnape,myai th.n frikwdesta,thn fwnh.n —— th.n dia,noian h`mw/n avpo. th/j gh/j avnaspw/n( kai. mononouci. bow/n pro.j e[kaston h`mw/n( kai. le,gwn,( meta, tw/n Seragei.m a;|deij( meta. tw/n Serafei.m sth/qi( metV evkei,nwn ta.j pte,rugaj pe,tason( metV evkei,nwn perii,ptaso to.n qro,non to.n basiliko,n) Serm. vi., in Esaiam. p. 890. tom. iii.

47 Oude gar anthrôpos estin ho poiôn ta prokeimena genesthai sôma kai haima Christou, all’ autos ho staurôtheis huper hêmôn Christos schêma plêrôn hestêken ho hiereus ta rêmata phtheggomenos ekeina, hê de dunamis kai he charis tou Theou esti. touto mou esti to sôma phêsi. touto to rêma metarruthmizei ta prokeimena.

Ouvde. ga.r a;nqrwpo,j evstin o` poiw/n ta. prokei,mena gene,sqai sw/ma kai. ai-ma Cristou/( avllV auvto.j o` staurwqei.j u`pe.r h`mw/n Cristo,j sch/ma plhrw/n e[sthken o` i`ereu.j ta. r`h,mata fqeggo,menoj evkei/na( h` de. du,namij kai. h` ca,rij tou/ Qeou/ evsti) tou/to, mou, evsti to. sw/ma fhsi,) tou/to to. r`h/ma metarvr`uqmi,zei ta. prokei,mena) De Prodit. Judæ, tom. v. p. 463.

48 Hotan hestêkê pro tês trapezês ho hiereus, tas cheiras anateinôn eis ton ouranon, kalôn to Pneuma to Hagion, tou paragenesthai kai apsasthai tôn prokeimenôn, polê hêsuchia, pollê sigê.

{Otan e`sth,kh| pro. th/j trape,zhj o` i`ereu.j( ta.j cei/raj avnatei,nwn eivj to.n ouvrano.n( kalw/n to. Pneu/ma to. {Agion( tou/ paragene,sqai kai. a;yasqai tw/n prokeime,nwn( polh. h`suci,a( pollh. sigh,) Homil. in Cœmeterii appellat. tom. v. p. 486.

49 Hom. xxi. on Acts, tom. viii. Hom. xli. on I Cor. p. 702. tom. ix.

50 An touto katorthôsômen, dunêsometha meta katharas suneidêseôs kai tê hiera tautê trapezê proselthein, kai ta rêmata ekeina ta tê euchê sunezeugmena meta parrêsias phthegxasthai,

:An tou/to katorqw,swmen( dunhso,meqa meta. kaqara,j suneidh,sewj kai. th/| i`era/| tau,th/| trape,zh|proselqei/n( kai. ta. r`h,mata evkei/na ta. th/| euvch/| sunezeugme,na meta. parvr`his,aj fqe,gxasqai( referring to these words, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them" &c. Hom. xxvii. in Genes. p. 358. tom. ii.

51 Hom. vii. in Matth. p. 70. tom. vii.

52 Hom. xxiv. in I Cor.

53 He calls the wine mystically "palmes vitis," the bread, "granum frumenti." When these are together with the priesthood, or in the hand of the priest, then "thesauros offert Regi," he offers an oblation to God. (Compare Lit Jacobi Renaudot, p. 32. Assemani, p. 38.) Then the priest "ante excelsum thronum instanter pro servis orat Dominum, lacrymas et gemitus conservorum deportans, proprioque similiter Domino ferventem deprecationem simul et pœnitentiam offerens, misericordiam et indulgentiam à Rege misericorde postulans (compare Lit. Jac. Ren. p. 32, 33. Assemani, p. 38, 39.) ut Spiritus Sanctus pariter descendat, sanctificetque dona in terris proposita. (Compare Lit. Jac. Ren. p 33. Assemani, p. 39, 40). Cumque oblata fuerint tremenda mysteria immortalitate plena, prævio sacerdote orationem pro cunctis faciente, (compare Ren. p. 34, &c. Assemani, p. 41, &c.) tunc animæ accedentes, per illa tremenda mysteria macularum purificationem accipiunt.", Ephraem Syrus de Sacerdotio, tom. i. p. 1. Oper. Romæ, 1589.

54 "Hujus, inquam, semper memineris vocis, et attende ut possideas thesaurum, animum tranquillum, quo possis spiritaliter in metropolim Hierusalem supernam ascendere, spiritaliaque sacrificia Regi Deo inaccessibili offerre, ubi texantur coronæ immarcessibiles et incorruptibiles, ibique tu coram angelis à Christo coroneris coronâ immortalitatis, ipseque cum supernis illis choris hymnum victoriæ decantes sanctissimæ Trinitati in sæcula sæculorum." Compare. Renaudot, Lit. Jacobi, tom. ii. p. 31. Assemani, tom. v. p. 33.

55 See p. 294. tom. iii.

56 Cyrilli Opera a Milles, p. 295.

57 Ibid. p. 296.

58 P.296,297.

59 Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. tom. ii. p. 3 1. Assemani, Codex Liturg. tom. v. p. 33.

60 eita meta to amartisthênai tên pneumatikên thusian, tên anaimakton latreian epi t thusias ekeinês tou hilasmou,

ei=ta meta. to. avmartisqh/nai th.n pneumatikh.n qusi,an( th.n avnai,makton latrei,an evpi. th/j qusi,aj evkei,nhj tou/ i`lasmou/( p. 297.

61 P. 297.

62 P. 297. Compare Renaudot, p. 33. Assemani, p. 40.

63 P. 298–300.

64 P. 300.

65 Ibid.
66 "Quotidie cœlesti pane saturati dicimus, ‘gustate et videte.’" Hieronymi lib. ii. in. Esai. c. 5.
67 P. 301.
68 Apost. Const. lib. viii. c. 5. p. 392. edit. Clerici.

69 Ibid. c. 6-11. p. 393-398.

70 Cap. 11. p. 398.

71 C. 12. p. 399-402.

72 C. 12. p. 402-404.

73 C. 13. p. 404, 405.

74 C. 14, 15. p. 405, 406.

75 tê tou hêlion legoumenê hemera pantôn kata poleis ê agrous menontôn epi to auto suneleusis ginetai kai ta apomnêmoneumata tôn apostolôn, ê ta suggrammata tôn prophêtôn anaginôsketai mechris egchôrei eita, pausamenou tou anaginôskontos, ho proestôs dia logou tên nouthesian kai proklêsin tês tôn kalôn toutôn mimêseôs poieitai epeita anisstametha. koinê pantes, kai euchas pempomen.

sune,leusij gi,netai( kai. ta. avpomnhmoneu,mata tw/n avposto,lwn( h= ta. suggra,mmata tw/n profhtw/n avnaginw/sketai me,crij evgcwrei/ ei=ta( pausame,nou tou/ avnaginw,skontoj( o` proestw.j dia. lo,gou th.n nouqesi,an kai. pro,klhsin th/j tw/n kalw/n tou,twn mimh,sewj poiei/tai e;peita avnissta,meqa) koinh/| pa,ntej( kai. euvca.j pe,mpomen

Apolog. 1. ed. Thirlby, p. 97.

76 epeita prosphetetai tô proestôti tôn adelphôn artos, kai potêrion hudatos kai kramatos. kai houtos labôn, ainon kai doxan tô patri tôn holôn, dia tou onomatos tou huiou, kai tou pneumatos tou hagiou, anapempei; kai eucharistian huper tou katêziôsthai toutôn par’ autou epi polu poieitai. Ibid. p. 96.

77 tên di’ euchês logou tou par’ autou eucharistêtheisan trophên, k.t.l. p.96.

78 pantas oun hoi dia tou onomatos toutou thusias (autô prospherousin) ha paredôken Iêsous ho Christos ginesthai toutesti epi tê eucharistia tou artou kai tou potêriou, tas en panti topô tês gês ginomenas hupo tôn Christianôn, prolabôn ho Theos marturei euarestous huparchein autô. Justin. Dialog. cum Tryph. pars ii. p. 386. ed. Thirlby.

79 See note 77.
80 hou suntelesantos tas euchas kai tên eucharistian pas ho parôn laos epeuphêmei legôn, Amên. p. 96 Apolog. 1.

 

| Introduction | Top | Section II |

 Project Canterbury