SECTION VIII.

There can be no doubt that it has been the universal custom of Christians since the apostolic age to offer alms and oblations to the glory of God. In the writings of the primitive fathers, and the acts of synods, we find this practice recognised throughout the whole world. We learn its prevalence in Africa from the writings of Optatus, Cyprian, Tertullian, and the decrees of the councils of Carthage¹. In the patriarchate of Antioch its existence is testified by Chrysostom, the Apostolical Constitutions, and Justin². Ambrose is a witness for Italy³; Gregory Nazianzen for Cæsarea and Pontus⁴; the council of Eliberis for Spain⁵; Irenæus, Cæsarius of Arles, and the council of Matiscon, for Gaul⁶; Augustine for [68] England⁷; and Patrick for Ireland⁸. The custom of offering voluntary oblations was therefore universal in the primitive church. These oblations were of various sorts. Some offered money, vestments, and other precious gifts, and all, it appears, offered bread and wine, from which the elements of the sacrament were taken. But though all the churches of the east and west agreed in this respect, they differed in appointing the time and place at which the oblations of the people were received. In the west, the people offered bread and wine in the public assembly, immediately after the catechumens were dismissed, and before the solemn prayers began. We have no authentic record of the prevalence of any such custom in the east. It appears that the oblations of the people were made in the eastern churches before the liturgy began, or at least not during the public assembly. No trace of the western oblation of the people and offertory is found in the ancient liturgies of Antioch, Cæsarea, Constantinople, and Alexandria. It is not alluded to by the Apostolical Constitutions, nor by the Fathers of the eastern churches. From whence it may be concluded, either that the oblations of the [69] people were not made during the liturgy of the eastern churches; or else, that the custom has been very long discontinued. In the churches of Gaul, Spain, Rome, Milan, and England, the people long continued to offer during the liturgy, and memorials of the custom remain to this day in most parts of the west. In the councils and the writings of the Fathers of those churches, we find many allusions to it, many injunctions regulating it. In time, when the clergy received donations of a more permanent nature, the oblations of the people fell off. In many places they became extinct, and in the rest there remained little more than the shadows and memorials of the primitive customs. Oblations are now in general never made by the laity in the Roman liturgy; yet in some remote parts the country people, according to Bona, still continue the practice⁹.

In the church of Milan, which has retained its peculiar rites for a long series of ages, and which did not receive the alterations made in the Roman liturgy by Gregory the Great, A.D. 590, the custom of offering bread and wine is still in some degree preserved. At the proper time the officiating priest, accompanied by his assistants, and preceded by two attendants with silver vessels to receive the oblations, descends from the altar to the entrance of the presbytery, where two old men of the school of St. Ambrose, attended by all their brethren, offer three cakes of bread, and a silver vessel full of wine. The priest and his attendants then descend to the entrance of the choir, where they receive the same sort of oblations from the women¹⁰.

[70]

 In England the people have been accustomed to offer oblations since the time of Augustine, who wrote in A.D. 601 to Gregory, patriarch of Rome, to consult him how the oblations of the people should be divided¹¹; but we can have no doubt that in the British church the same practice had prevailed long before, since no western church can be named in which the people had not made oblations from the most primitive ages. A synod also, held in Ireland in the time of Patrick, first archbishop of the Irish, in the fifth century, forbids the oblations of sinning brethren to be received¹². This shews that the practice of lay oblation prevailed then in Ireland. In England the oblations of the people gradually became less as the church was endowed with lands, and different rules as to the payment of offerings were adopted in different places. In 1287, the synod of Exeter, cap. 9, required all priests celebrating the communion in chapels annexed to churches, to restore fairly whatever oblations they received to the rector of the church¹³. Henry Woodloke, bishop of Winchester, in his Constitutions of A.D. 1308, enjoined every person above eighteen years of age, who had sufficient means, to offer due and customary oblations on four great feast days in the year¹⁴. In 1367, Simon [71] Langham, archbishop of Canterbury, took measures to try a dispute between the clergy of London and the citizens, who were unwilling to pay the oblations which the clergy alleged to be due from every house in proportion to its value¹⁵. We also find the subject alluded to in other canons of the English and Scottish churches¹⁶. Thus the custom of lay oblation was continually kept up in some degree in England, till the time when the reformation at last began, and then we find the church continuing and reinforcing it. The English liturgy, in the year 1549, contained this rubric: "In the mean time, while the clerks do sing the offertory, so many as are disposed, shall offer to the poor man’s box, every one according to his ability and charitable mind; and at the offering days appointed, every man and woman shall pay to the curate, the due and accustomed offerings." Afterwards the rubric was amended to its present form, in which the deacons or the officers of the church are required to collect the alms and devotions of the people: and the custom of oblation is to this day preserved in the church of England, having never been intermitted from the most primitive ages.

I have already observed, that when the people offered bread and wine, the elements for the sacrament were taken from their oblations. It was for this reason, partly, that we find the liturgies speaking in the plural number when the verbal oblation of the gifts was made, as if the bishop or priest [72] represented the members, and placed before God the offerings and prayers, of the whole church¹⁷.

In the primitive ages, the white linen cloth and the vessels for the sacrament were not placed on the table until this time, when the catechumens had been dismissed, and when the offerings of the faithful were to be received. In the church of Constantinople this practice continues to the present day, when the linen cloth, or eilêton, is laid by the priest, after the catechumens are dismissed¹⁸. In the church of Milan the same custom formerly prevailed¹⁹. It was always practised in the primitive Roman church²⁰. In the modern Roman liturgy the linen cloth is only laid at this time on solemn occasions²¹; at other times, they, like the church of England, and the Monophysites of Antioch and Alexandria²², place the cloth on the holy table before the liturgy begins. It was very usual in the primitive church to fill up [73] any intervals of divine service which might appear tedious, with psalmody. Thus in almost all churches a psalm was sung while the people communicated. On the same principle, the western churches sung a psalm while the people made their oblations. When this began, it is impossible to say. Bona refers to Augustine, lib. ii. Retract. c. 11. as proving that the offertory or anthem sung while the people offered was in use in the time of Augustine²³. But 1 think Augustine there refers to the anthem called Introit, sung before the lessons, which appears to have been introduced into the Roman church, about the time of Augustine, by Cœlestinus, bishop of Rome. There are anthems for the offertory in the Antiphonarium of Gregory, bishop of Rome²⁴, who is commonly, but without sufficient reason, reputed to have been the author of the offertory.

The anthem called offertory has without doubt been received in the English church since the end of the sixth century, when Augustine brought the sacramentary and other books of Gregory to England²⁵. But it may have been used long before by the British church. Formerly, this anthem was probably sung in choirs; but in the English church it has long been customary for the officiating priest to repeat or chant it with his ministers. It was [74] probably this reason which induced the revisers of the English liturgy to appoint the offertory to be said by the priest. "Then shall the priest return to the Lord’s table, and begin the offertory, saying one or more of these sentences following," &c. In the liturgy of York the rubric is, "Deinde dicitur offertorium²⁶;" in that of Hereford, "Sacerdos—canat cum suis ministris offertorium;" in that of Sarum, "Deinde dicitur offertorium²⁷." This shews sufficiently that the offertory was said by the priest formerly in the English church, as it is now.

SECTION IX.

In the western churches, the vessels and linen cloth having been laid on the table, and the oblations of the people received, as has been already remarked, the priest selected from them one or more cakes or loaves of bread, which he placed on the table, and wine, which he mingled with a small proportion of water in the cup. The elements were then covered with a veil, or a portion of the linen cloth²⁸. In the church of Constantinople a different rite has long prevailed. There, after the catechumens have been dismissed, the deacon and priest convey in solemn procession the discus and chalice, containing the bread and wine, from the table of prothesis to the altar²⁹. According to the Roman [75] liturgy, the bread is placed on the linen cloth, without any thing intervening³⁰. The custom of the church of Constantinople and the east is to retain the bread in the patena or discus, which is placed along with it on the cloth³¹.

The custom of mingling water with the wine of the eucharist, is one which prevailed universally in the Christian church from the earliest period. Justin Martyr of Syria, Irenæus of Gaul, Clemens of Alexandria, and Cyprian of Carthage, bear testimony to its prevalence in the second and third centuries³². There is, in fact, no sort of reason to deny that the apostles themselves had the same custom. It is even probable that the cup which our Saviour blessed at the last supper contained water as well as wine, since it appears that it was generally the practice of the Jews to mix the paschal cup, which our Saviour used in instituting the sacrament of his blood³³. It has, however, long been decided by theologians, that the mixture of water is not essential to the validity of the sacrament. Bona, presbyter cardinal of Rome, refers to Bernard as speaking of some persons who thought that water was essential; "but," lie adds, "the judgment of theologians is certain, that consecration is valid, even if water be [76] omitted, though he who omits it is guilty of a serious offence³⁴."

The Armenians were the first Christians who prohibited the mixture of water with the wine; but they were condemned for this in the council in Trullo, A.D. 691, and the decree has been received by all Christians, except by the Monophysites of Armenia, who have never since adopted the mixture, even to the present day. In the church of England, the wine of the eucharist was always, no doubt, mixed with water. In the canons of the Anglo-Saxon church, published in the time of king Edgar, it is enjoined, that "no priest shall celebrate the liturgy unless he have all things which pertain to the holy eucharist, that is, a pure oblation, pure wine, and pure water³⁵." In after-ages we find no canons made to enforce the use of water, for it was an established custom. Certainly none can be more canonical, and more conformable to the practice of the primitive church. In the English church it has never been forbidden or prohibited; for the rubric which enjoins the priest to place bread and wine on the table, does not prohibit him from mingling water with that wine.

Another circumstance worthy of notice, is connected with the preparation of the elements, is, the [77] unity of the bread. The bread or loaf which our Saviour used in celebrating the sacrament was whole and unbroken; for he took bread, and blessed it, and broke it. He did not break it before, but after, it was sanctified. The apostle Paul proves the unity of Christians from the unity of that bread of which they were all partakers: 1 Cor. x. 17. "For we being many, are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." And, accordingly, it has always been the practice of the Christian church to place the bread on the table whole and unbroken, and only to break and divide it into portions for distribution when it is consecrated. The eastern churches at the present day use cakes of bread, which, in order that they may be easily broken, are pressed with some instrument when they are made, so as to be deeply indented with transverse lines. This in fact appears to have been a usual mode in which bread was prepared in the earliest ages³⁶. It is not essential to the validity [78] of the sacrament that the bread should be whole and entire before consecration, and broken afterwards; but the universal practice of the Christian church, derived from the apostles and from Jesus Christ himself, ought not to be infringed in this matter.

SECTION X.

The bread and the cup having been placed on the table, the verbal oblation and prayers begin. This part of the liturgy comprises several very important particulars, and it will be necessary to examine each by itself, in order to observe that the church of England is authorized by ancient practice in assigning to it the place which it holds. The prayer entitled "for the church militant" may be divided into three parts: first, the oblation; secondly, the commemoration and prayers for the living; thirdly, the commemoration of the departed faithful.

THE OBLATION.

My present design does not lead me into a consideration of the various respects in which the eucharist was regarded by the primitive church as an oblation or sacrifice³⁷; but to inquire into the nature of the verbal and direct forms of oblation in the primitive liturgies, and to observe how far they [79] justify and support the English liturgy. By verbal oblation, I mean an oblation expressed in words, for all oblations are not so expressed. It is obvious to all readers, that the ancient liturgies contain certain passages in which something is directly and verbally offered to God. Let us begin with the form contained in the liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions, which represents the great oriental rite towards the end of the third, or beginning of the fourth, century. After the words of institution, and a commemoration of Christ’s death, resurrection, &c. the following passage occurs: "To thee, our King and God, we offer this bread and this cup, according to Christ’s institution; giving thanks to thee through him, because thou hast thought us worthy to stand before thee, and to minister unto thee³⁸." It would seem impossible to deny that this is an oblation, or sacrifice, of bread and wine to God. A prayer immediately follows, which is just as explicit, "that God would send his holy Spirit, the witness of Christ’s passion, upon this sacrifice, that he may make this bread the body of Christ, and this cup the blood of Christ³⁹." Here the bread and wine are evidently spoken of as the sacrifice; for when God is implored to send his holy Spirit on the sacrifice, that the bread may be made Christ’s body, and the wine his blood, it seems evident that the [80] bread and wine are identical with the sacrifice, otherwise there is no connection between the former and the latter parts of the prayer.

The liturgy of Cæsarea, which represents the great oriental rite as used at Cæsarea A.D. 370, and probably for centuries before, after the words of institution, and the verbal commemoration of Christ’s death, &c., as above, proceeds thus: "Offering to thee thine own things out of thine own,—we praise thee, we bless thee, we give thanks to thee, O Lord; and we pray, O Lord our God. Wherefore, most holy Father—we approach thy holy altar; and having set before thee the antitypes of the body and blood of thy Christ, we pray and beseech thee, O most holy, according to the good pleasure of thy beneficence, that thy holy Spirit may come upon us, and upon these gifts lying before thee, and bless them, and sanctify them," &c.⁴⁰ We here recognise the same sort of verbal oblation as in the former case. For the oblation to God of "things which are his own, taken out of his own," plainly refers to the bread and wine, which are God’s creatures, and therefore are his own; and, further on the elements are called gifts, that is, things given or offered, which God is implored to sanctify, and make Christ’s body and blood.

In the ancient liturgies of the Alexandrian [81] patriarchate, the same sort of oblation is found. Thus, "Before thy glory, O holy Father, we place these holy gifts, out of those things which are thine own:" then, "Send down from above—the Holy Spirit upon us thy servants, and upon these venerable gifts placed before thee, upon this bread, and upon this cup," &c.⁴¹ In another Alexandrian liturgy nearly the same words occur: "We, O Lord God, have set before thee thine own, out of thine own gifts, and we pray and beseech thee to send from on high—thy Holy Spirit upon these loaves, and these cups, to hallow and consecrate them⁴²," &c. In a very ancient Alexandrian liturgy the verbal oblation is simply, "We offer to thee this bread and this cup⁴³." It appears, therefore, that in the ancient Alexandrian liturgy, the bread and wine were verbally offered.

The liturgies of Rome and Italy contained two oblations; one before, the other after consecration. In both the elements are offered as they are bread and wine. The first is as follows: "We beseech thee, O Lord, propitiously to receive this oblation of our service, and of all thy family’s—which [82] oblation do thou, O Lord, deign to make in all respects blessed, received, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable that it may be made to us the body and blood of thy most beloved Son, our Lord God Jesus Christ⁴⁴." After consecration there is another oblation: "We do offer unto thy most excellent Majesty, out of thine own donations and gifts, a pure sacrifice, an immaculate sacrifice, the holy bread of eternal life, and the cup of everlasting salvation, upon which vouchsafe to look propitiously, and to accept them⁴⁵." This is evidently an oblation of the elements as they are bread and wine, God’s "donations and gifts" for the use of man. For it would be altogether vain, and indeed impious, to beseech God to "look propitiously" on the body of his own Son, and to "accept" it.

It appears, then, that in all these liturgies there was a verbal oblation of bread and wine, and there can be no reasonable doubt that the Fathers often speak of an oblation of bread and wine being used [83] in the Christian church, in token of humility and gratitude towards God.

I proceed now to consider the liturgy of Constantinople, in which it would appear that a second verbal oblation is introduced. "We offer to thee thine own, out of thine own—we praise thee, we bless thee, we give thanks to thee, and we pray thee, O Lord, our God. Moreover, we offer to thee this reasonable and unbloody worship⁴⁶." It appears, I think, that two things are here offered, the elements, and the reasonable and unbloody worship. This last probably means the whole service, comprising the devotions, thanksgivings, and commemoration, which may altogether be very properly so termed.

In the last place, let us look to the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem. The expressions in which the oblation is conveyed, can be traced back in this case to the fifth century; since they are found almost word for word the same in the liturgies of both orthodox and monophysites, who have held no communion since the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. After the words of institution, and the verbal commemoration of Christ’s death, &c. it proceeds thus: "We offer to thee this dreadful and unbloody sacrifice⁴⁷," These words form the direct verbal oblation in the liturgy of Antioch, and it would seem unreasonable to refer them to the oblation of bread and [84] wine; for though that sacrifice be unbloody, how could it be called dreadful or tremendous? This word signifies something mysterious and awful, and of greater dignity than any oblation of mere bread and wine could be, even if it were offered by the whole church. Neither can we refer these words of oblation to the elements considered as the body and blood of Christ, for after the above oblation is made this prayer follows: "Send thy holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, &c.—that coming, he may make this bread the life-giving body, the salutary body, &c.—and that he may make what is mixed in the cup, the blood of the new covenant, the salutary blood, &c.—of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ⁴⁸." Now this prayer supposes that the consecration had not taken place, or at least was imperfect when the oblation was made, and therefore the sacrifice then offered cannot be a sacrifice of the consecrated elements, as Christ’s body and blood.

It only remains, then, that we interpret the "dreadful and unbloody sacrifice" to be the whole service or worship then performed. So that the meaning is, "We offer to thee this whole unbloody sacrifice of thanksgiving and commemoration, dreadful from the sublime mysteries therein celebrated."

If this interpretation be correct, it appears first, that in the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem there [85] was no direct verbal oblation of the bread and wine; secondly, that in the other liturgies, (except that of Constantinople,) there was no verbal oblation of the whole sacrifice or service; thirdly, that the liturgy of Constantinople contained a verbal oblation of the elements, and of the service or worship also.

We may infer from these facts, that the validity of the Christian sacrifice does not depend on its verbal expression, or mention in the liturgy; for there is no one oblation that is found in all the liturgies. Some contain an oblation of the whole service, while others do not. Some contain an oblation of the elements, which is not found in the others. None contain a verbal oblation of Christ’s body and blood. This is not found in the Roman liturgy, nor is it a form that has at any time been used in the Christian church. Therefore the Christian Fathers, who contemplated several real oblations in the eucharist, could not have thought it necessary to express those oblations verbally in the liturgy; and consequently every oblation recognised by them may exist in the English liturgy, whether it be expressed verbally or not. We may infer in particular, that a verbal oblation of the bread and wine in the eucharist is not essential to a real oblation of those elements. For the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem had no such oblation. In truth the act of devoting or setting apart a certain portion of bread and wine for the service and honour of God, to be converted into the sacraments of Christ’s body and blood, would seem to be as valid an oblation as the act of the layman in presenting the elements to the priest. Now we know that the latter was considered a valid oblation, though it was not [86] offered with any form of words⁴⁹. and therefore the act of setting apart the bread and wine for the sacrament to the honour and glory of God, would appear to be a valid oblation of those elements. We may argue also, that a verbal oblation of the elements is not necessary to the validity of their oblation, because the thanksgiving, which is certainly a sacrifice to God, does not appear to have been verbally or formally offered to him in the liturgies, all of which, however, contain the thanksgiving. We may further argue for the validity of the oblation of the elements without any verbal oblation, from the mystical or commemorative sacrifice of the eucharist, which is not made by any verbal form of oblation, but consists in performing the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, which he has himself appointed.

If, therefore, the English liturgy were devoid of any verbal oblation of the bread and wine to God, it nevertheless would not be destitute of a valid oblation of those elements. However, the English liturgy is not without a verbal oblation. which occurs at the beginning of the prayers and commemorations. After the elements have been placed on the table, and thus devoted to the service and honour of God, the priest prays to God thus: "We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept our alms and oblations, and to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto thy divine Majesty." Here three species of sacrifice or oblation are verbally offered: [87] first, the "alms," which St. Paul describes as a sacrifice well pleasing to God⁵⁰; secondly, the "oblations," namely, the creatures of bread and wine; thirdly, the "prayers" which, according to Saint John, are offered with incense on the heavenly altar⁵¹, and of which the holy Fathers speak as a sacrifice and oblation to God⁵².

It may be said in conclusion, that it is indifferent in what part of the liturgy or communion-service the verbal oblation occurs. In the liturgies of Antioch, Cæsarea, Constantinople, and Alexandria, it took place before the elements were fully consecrated; in the liturgies of Milan and Rome, it occurred both before and after the consecration. If the verbal oblation is not an oblation of the elements as Christ’s body and blood, (a form of oblation which does not occur in any of the ancient liturgies,) it is indifferent in what part of the liturgy of the faithful it may be placed.

COMMEMORATIONS AND PRAYERS FOR THE LIVING.

This portion of the liturgy may be divided into five particulars: first, a prayer for the catholic church; secondly, for kings and rulers; thirdly, for bishops and clergy; fourthly, for the people and congregation; fifthly, for those that are in any [88] calamity or distress. The prayers for the living are accordingly divided into so many parts in the following pages; and to each part is annexed such portions of the ancient liturgies as confirm and illustrate our own. I must premise, however, that I do not cite these ancient liturgies, in the present instance, with any intention of exhibiting the exact originals of our prayers, but to evince their propriety and consistence with primitive customs. It would not indeed be a matter of much importance to prove that our forms were literally the same with some one of the primitive liturgies, for they all differ from each other in the mere expressions; whence it is evident, that the general sense is all that we need desire to know.

All the ancient liturgies contained prayers for the universal church, in conformity with the directions of St. Paul, to make "supplications for all saints, Eph. vi. 18; and that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men," 1 Tim. ii. 1. In none, however, is there a more comprehensive form than in our liturgy.

According to the apostolical direction, all the ancient liturgies contained prayers "for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty," 1 Tim. ii. 2. The words of the apostle are used in several of the ancient liturgies.

It has been always the custom of the Christian churches to pray for their own pastors, and for the bishops and clergy throughout the whole world. It was formerly customary to recite the name of the bishop of the church at this place; and if the church was within the limit of any patriarchate, the patriarch also was prayed for by name⁶⁵. This last [91] rule obviously, does not apply to the church within the British empire, which from the beginning was independent of all the patriarchs. And though more than patriarchal authority was for a time usurped by the bishop of Rome, the ancient liberties and independence of the catholic church in these realms have long since been vindicated and restored.

The petitions contained in this part of the prayer, are found in almost all the liturgies of the primitive church. In addition to prayers for the whole people, and the congregation then present, it was also common in primitive times to pray by name for those persons who had contributed liberally to the support of God’s ministers and of the poor^71.

Such petitions as these occur abundantly in the eastern liturgies of Constantinople, Cæsarea, Antioch, and Alexandria. But they are not found in the ancient liturgies of Milan and Rome. It is a matter of some surprise, that the western churches, who borrowed so many things from eastern liturgies, did not adopt these prayers, which breathe the very spirit of that "pure and undefiled religion" described by the apostle James.

We proceed, lastly, to a general commemoration of all the servants of God who have entered into [94] their rest since the beginning of the world. Here, though we name them not, we commemorate the patriarchs, the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and all the departed righteous, and testify our belief in the immortality of the soul, and in life everlasting.

In primitive times these commemorations were accompanied by prayers for the departed. When the custom of praying for the dead began in the Christian church has never been ascertained. We find traces of the practice in the second century, and either then or shortly after, it appears to have been customary in all parts of the church⁸⁰. The first person who objected to such prayers was Aërius, who lived in the fourth century; but his arguments were answered by various writers, and did not produce any effect in altering the immemorial practice of praying for those that rest. Accordingly, from that time all the liturgies in the world contained such prayers. These facts being certain, it becomes a matter of some interest and importance to ascertain the reasons which justified the omission of these prayers in the liturgy of the English church for the first time in the reign of king Edward VI. Some persons will perhaps say that this sort of prayer is unscriptural; that it infers either the Romish doctrine of purgatory, or something else which is contrary to the revealed will of God, or the nature of things. But when we reflect that the great divines of the English church have not taken this ground, [95] and that the church of England herself has never formally condemned prayers for the dead, but only omitted them in her liturgy, we may perhaps think that there are some other reasons to justify that omission⁸¹.

The true justification of the church of England is to be found in her zeal for the purity of the Christian faith, and for the welfare of all her members. It is too well known that the erroneous doctrine of purgatory had crept into the western churches, and was held by many of the clergy and people. Prayers for the departed were represented as an absolute proof that the church had always held the doctrine of purgatory⁸². The deceitfulness of this argument can only be estimated by the fact, that many persons at this day, who deny the doctrine of purgatory, assert positively that the custom of praying for the departed infers a belief in purgatory. If persons of education are deceived by this argument, which has been a hundred times refuted⁸³, how is it possible [96] that the uneducated classes could ever have got rid of the persuasion that their church held the doctrine of purgatory, if prayers for the departed had been continued in the liturgy? Would not this custom, in fact, have rooted the error of purgatory in their minds? If, then, the church of England omitted public prayer for the departed saints, it was to remove the errors and superstition of the people, and to preserve the purity of the Christian faith. According to scripture, they that die in the Lord are "blessed," and "rest" from their labours, although, as St. James saith, "in many things we offend all." According to the doctrine of the catholic Fathers, these souls rest in peace, and joyfully await the time of their resurrection and perfection in eternal glory; and if all prayers for them were omitted, they could not be made unhappy, nor would their felicity and refreshment be diminished. But, on the other hand, the living, who were yet in perils and temptations, might have been led astray, if prayers for the departed had been continued, and thus being brought into dangerous and presumptuous superstitions, might finally have offended God and been condemned.

Granting the doctrine of purgatory to be false, I think it is impossible to deny, that the danger which would have arisen to the living, had prayers for those that rest continued, would have been greater than any advantage that the souls of the blessed could have derived from those prayers. The satisfactory and sufficient reason, therefore, for the omission of such prayers in the English liturgy is, that [97] they were inexpedient. Considering the circumstances of the times, more evil than good would have been the result of the continuance of this practice. It was therefore relinquished, and the happy consequence was, that all the people gradually became free from the error of purgatory. Thenceforward the catholic doctrine prevailed in England, that the righteous after death are immediately translated to a region of peace, refreshment, and joy; while the wicked are consigned to a place of torment from whence there is no escape. And when the doctrine of purgatory had been extirpated, the English church restored the commemoration of saints departed in the liturgy, which had been omitted for many years from the same caution and pious regard to the souls of her children.

POSITION OF THE PRAYERS AND COMMEMORATIONS.

The general prayers and commemorations which we have been considering, occupied very different places in the different liturgies of the primitive church. In the patriarchates or exarchates of Antioch, Cæsarea, and Constantinople, these prayers followed the consecration of the elements⁹⁰. In the patriarchate of Alexandria and Æthiopia they preceded the consecration, and occurred in the middle of the thanksgiving, between Sursum corda and the hymn Tersanctus⁹¹. In the Roman patriarchate, the exarchate of Italy or Milan, and probably in Africa, the solemn prayers for the living occurred before the consecration, and for the departed after consecration, but both within the canon which followed [99] Tersanctus⁹². It appears from this, that the general prayers may be placed as well before the consecration as after it. None of these liturgies, however, afford an exact parallel to the order of the English liturgy, where the living and departed are commemorated not merely before consecration, but before the canon or more solemn part of the liturgy begins. We are not, however, without an ancient (I had almost said an apostolical) example of this practice. In the ancient liturgies of Gaul and Spain, the solemn commemoration of living and departed was made in exactly the same place as it is in the English liturgy. There, after the gifts of bread and wine were laid on the table, and before the canon, the names of the living and dead, including the names of kings, bishops, clergy, benefactors, &c. and of apostles, martyrs, and the departed faithful, were recited; and then the officiating priest offered a prayer for all⁹³.

return to Project Canterbury