CHAPTER IV.

I HAVE already in the last chapter noticed the various books which were anciently used in the celebration of the eucharist. The particular details relating to the liturgy of the church of England will be found in the following chapter; but I wish first to consider some of the objections made to it, which, though in a few instances treated more at large in other parts of this work, I think it advisable to bring together here, that the reader may be able to estimate their amount and value.

I do not mean to produce the multiplied objections of the more irregular sects who have unhappily departed from the church in this empire, because they have been already answered by many writers. Yet the present work may convince them, of the injustice of representing the English ritual [2] as derived from the modern offices of the Roman church. It will be seen that Romanists are loud in their hostility to our liturgy, which in form and substance rather resembles the ancient Gallican, Spanish, Egyptian, and Oriental liturgies, than the Roman; while the expressions of our ritual are either taken from those liturgies just mentioned, or else from the ancient English offices which had been used in this country from the sixth century, and were then derived from the primitive Roman offices of the first four or five centuries after Christ. So that most of the expressions of the English ritual have continued in this church for above twelve hundred years, and in the Christian church for fourteen hundred years; many parts we trace back for sixteen hundred years, much to the apostolic age. If the modern Roman offices bear any resemblance to the English, it is in those points in which both resemble the offices of the primitive church.

The objections advanced by Romanists seem to merit more attention in this place, first, because they are more plausible and dangerous; secondly, a few of them have not yet perhaps been so formally refuted as their nature requires; and, thirdly, being advanced by men who preserve some external unity amongst themselves, they are uniform in their character and definite in their number. I have therefore taken considerable pains to collect all the arguments which such men have advanced against the English ritual, and will now proceed with the greatest brevity to notice and refute them. The objections resolve themselves into two classes; first, general objections against the whole ritual; secondly, objections against particular parts of it.

FIRST, It is argued that the English ritual having only been authorized by the king and parliament, who had no lawful jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs; and having been resisted and condemned by the bishops and clergy, who had the lawful jurisdiction in such matters; it is devoid of all spiritual sanction and authority, uncanonical and illegitimate¹.

But if it should appear that Christian princes have some authority in ecclesiastical affairs; that the crown of England exercised in the present instance an authority for which there are precedents in ecclesiastical history; and that the bishops and churches of England assented to the introduction of the English ritual; the objection falls to the ground.

First,

it is not true that Christian princes have no authority and jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs. The Christian church indeed does not derive her peculiar and spiritual right of jurisdiction from man, but from GOD ; and of that power she can only be deprived by him who gave it. The pastors and teachers of the church are those whom Christ has given us for "the work of the ministry," for the preservation of unity and truth: and the Holy Ghost has commanded us to "obey" them. It is, however, also true, that "the powers that be are ordained of God," and that the duty of obedience to the civil government is imperative on Christians. Now while it is certain that ecclesiastical affairs [4] belong chiefly to the church, and civil affairs to the state, yet the word of God does not expressly mark the particular cases which form the limit of civil jurisdiction, and in fact the church has always allowed it to extend to many points of the ecclesiastical polity. It is indisputable that Christian emperors and kings have erected bishoprics, promoted sees from the suffragan to the metropolitan and patriarchal rank and jurisdiction; withdrawn churches from the jurisdiction of one patriarch, and placed them under another; given to bishops the power of receiving appeals in ecclesiastical causes; summoned, presided in, and confirmed, councils national and general; made constitutions and canons on every subject relative to ecclesiastical discipline; confirmed and invested bishops directed special prayers to be repeated in churches and made regulations for the performance of divine service. This sort of authority has been conceded and fortified by the church, not only as a tribute of high respect to rulers, but because it tends to dispose them to be favourable towards religion, and to assist, or at least not to oppose, the spread of the gospel. But some limits there are where concession must cease. No human authority and power can justify the enactment of any thing contrary to the law of God, or the essential discipline of the church. No prince can have such a right, his jurisdiction would in that instance be annulled, and the church would be bound by her allegiance to the King of kings, of whom all earthly princes are the "ministers," to suffer every extremity of persecution rather than obey. If Christ said, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," he added, "and unto God the things [5] that are God's." But the authority of Christian kings and governors in ecclesiastical affairs, when properly exerted, is certainly very great; and to deny its existence, and the validity of all its acts, is to oppose ourselves to the universal practice of the catholic church.

It may be replied, that the cases are different; for, in the first place, the patriarch of Rome approved of the changes in Gaul and Spain, and disapproved of those in Britain. I reply, that this patriarch had no right to interfere in the business, except in the way of friendly advice and counsel. For he never had, either by divine right, by the canons, or in fact, any universal jurisdiction over the catholic church; nor did he by the decree of any lawful general council, or by primitive custom, possess any patriarchal jurisdiction over Gaul, Spain, or Britain⁴. Therefore his constitutions relative to these churches were indebted for their authority solely to the consent of the catholic bishops and Christian princes therein; and of course his approbation or disapprobation did not affect the lawfulness of changes that were made in the ecclesiastical affairs of those churches. Therefore, although he approved of the changes in Gaul and Spain, and disapproved of that in Britain, those changes were all equally valid.

It may be objected, in the second place, that the cases are different, because the liturgy to be introduced in Gaul and Spain was orthodox, while that to be introduced in Britain was heretical. I reply, [7] that there is no truth in the assertion. It is impossible to shew one single spot of heresy in the English liturgy and ritual, it never has been done; and while the holy scriptures and the writings of the orthodox Fathers remain in the Christian church, it never will be done.

Thirdly,

it may be said, that the Roman rites were efficacious for communicating the graces of the sacraments, while the English were not; and therefore the former might lawfully be introduced, while the latter might not. I reply, that the English ritual is effectual and valid for communicating the graces of the sacraments, as may be seen by the following replies to all the particular objections urged against its validity, and by the whole substance of this book.

Since therefore Christian princes have authority in ecclesiastical affairs; since the British crown did not exercise an unlawful authority in promoting the change of the liturgy; and since the English ritual has received the approbation and assent of the church; it is not schismatical, uncanonical, or in any manner illegitimate; but, on the contrary, is invested with that sacred and spiritual authority, [9] to which Christians are bound to yield their devoted and affectionate obedience.

SECONDLY. It has been calumniously asserted, that the English liturgy retains nothing of the primitive liturgies, except the preface and the words of our Redeemer⁵. For a refutation of this, I would refer the reader to the following chapter. In the same spirit of misrepresentation it has been said, that the object of the revisers of the English liturgy was, to remove from it all traces of antiquity⁶. To this I make the same reply.

FIRST. There is no consecration of the elements in the eucharist, because while we are commanded by the gospel to take the bread in our hands, to bless it, and break it, all this is omitted in the English liturgy⁷.

I reply, that some things in our blessed Saviour's administration were essential, and others were not. To take, bless, and receive the bread was essential: to take it in his hands, to break it, to receive it at supper, and before the blessing of the cup, was not. The church of Constantinople and all the east omit the ceremony of taking the bread into the hands⁸. The Roman ritualist Zaccaria says, that no one will contend that the breaking of bread is essential⁹. There could therefore be no objection to the validity [10] of the consecration in the English liturgy, even if the priest did not take the bread in his hands, and break it, (which however he does.) The bread is blessed, according to the universal custom, with prayer and the word of God. The validity of the consecration in the English liturgy is therefore certain.

SECOND. There is no invocation of the Holy Ghost that the bread may be made the body, and the wine the blood, of Christ¹⁰; therefore the English liturgy is unlawful.

Answer.

So is the Roman, if this invocation be necessary; for there is no more express invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Roman canon than in the English. It would be well therefore if Romanists would remember, before they bring such a charge against the English liturgy, that their own liturgy is open to the same objection, and that it would arm the Greek doctors with an irresistible argument against them. However, in another place I shall prove that the English liturgy is not deficient in this respect¹¹.

THIRD. There is no intention in the minds of the English priests to consecrate the bread and wine; but this intention is essential to a valid consecration; therefore the elements are not consecrated¹².

I reply, first, that it is not the doctrine of the catholic church, that a right intention is essential to the valid administration of the sacraments. No Romanist even is obliged to believe this¹³; for although [11] most of the schoolmen and modern controversialists teach the doctrine, yet that is not sufficient to make it an article of faith; and the council of Trent uses expressions on the subject, which by no means prove the point. It denounces an anathema against any one who saith, that "an intention at least of doing what the church doth, is not requisite in the ministers while they make and confer the sacraments¹⁴." But whether this intention be requisite for the valid administration of the sacraments, or for their religious administration, is not decided by these words. The acts of the council of Florence (or rather pope Eugenius) affirm, that "after the words of the consecration of the body have been repeated by the priest, with the intention of consecrating, the bread is transubstantiated into the very body of Christ¹⁵." But this passage occurs in a decree for the Armenians, which was made after the council of Florence had been broken up, and therefore is denied by eminent [12] Romanists to form part of its decrees¹⁶. And even the words themselves do not prove the absolute necessity of intention; for although a certain effect is here said to follow the repetition of the words of consecration, with an intention of consecrating, there is no direct assertion, or necessary consequence, that the same effect does not follow without that intention.

I reply, secondly, that the right intention of the minister is not absolutely requisite to the valid administration of the sacraments, when they are celebrated for the benefit of the church. For it is not the minister who confers the graces of the sacraments, but the supreme God, by whose commission lie acts in the Christian church. The minister is the instrument by whom God chooses, in the ordinary course of his providence, to convey certain benefits to the faithful. But that infinite power, wisdom, and love, which devised the means of grace, will doubtless make them effectual to those for whom they are ultimately intended, although the ordinary instrument be ill regulated; for otherwise all would be punished for the fault of one. And further, if an intention of doing what the church requires be essential, we should never know whether the consecration had taken place, and consequently could never approach the holy table but with a doubtful and troubled mind.

I reply, thirdly, by asserting, that there is as much intention to consecrate in the minds of our clergy, as there can be in any others whatsoever; and who shall prove the reverse?

[13]

FOURTH. The English priests, when they pronounce the words of our Lord, have no regard to the force of the expression, or the sacramental solemnity¹⁷.

This I deny. The English clergy have the same regard to these words which their predecessors had in the apostolical age; they esteem them to have great efficacy in the consecration.

FIFTH. There is no petition put up to God for the purpose of consecrating the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ¹⁸.

I reply, that there is as valid a prayer for this purpose in the English liturgy, as there is in the Roman for the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which Assemani declares to be essential¹⁹. If, then, the English prayer for consecration is invalid and illegitimate, so is the Roman. For a more full view of this subject, see section XIX. of the following chapter.

SIXTH. The wine of the eucharist is not mixed with water²⁰.

I reply, that even if we were to admit this custom to be of apostolical antiquity, it is yet not essential to consecration by the admission of Zaccaria and Bona, who say that "no one will contend that it is necessary²¹," and that "the opinion of theologians is fixed that it is not²²." But the church of England [14] has never prohibited this custom, which is primitive and canonical.

SEVENTH. It is objected that there is no oblation, at least no truth and certainty of oblation, in the English liturgy, and therefore it is illegitimate²³.

I reply, that every oblation recognised by the Christian church is contained in the English liturgy. There are the offerings of prayer and alms, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the oblation of God's creatures of bread and wine, the reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice of ourselves, our souls, and bodies unto God. There is the whole rational, unbloody, and spiritual service, including the commemoration of the sacrifice once offered by Christ, of his body pierced, and his blood shed, for mankind. All this holy service is offered to the honour and glory of God, and infinitely surpasses the bloody and typical sacrifices of the Law. And it is as validly and effectually administered by the English liturgy, as by any other in existence. It is absurd in Romanists to object, that the English liturgy is devoid of the service offered in commemoration of that sacrifice which Christ once completed; for some of their own doctors teach, that this oblation is effected by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, which they know to exist in the English liturgy. Not indeed that we admit this doctrine of theirs, for there is no proof that the memorial of Christ's sacrifice is performed by consecration alone, and not by the whole service which he has enjoined.

EIGHTH. The body of Christ is not appointed to [15] be venerated and adored by the English liturgy, therefore it is unlawful²⁴.

Answer.

If so, then the sacramentaries of Gelasius and Gregory, the liturgies of Mark, James, and many others, must also be illegitimate, for none of them contain any direction to venerate the body of Christ. But although the church of England gives no such direction in her liturgy, and protests against the idea of adoring " sacramental bread and wine," and abjures the imputation of worshipping "any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood²⁵;" as if she believed the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation; yet she believes in the mysterious presence of that Redeemer, whose "body and blood" she declares are "verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful²⁶." And to signify her "humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the holy communion as might otherwise ensue²⁷," She directs all her children to receive the sacrament kneeling; that is, in an attitude of humble devotion. If the priest places the consecrated elements on the table, it is to be done "reverently²⁸." If any of them remain after the communion, the [16] priest and others shall "reverently eat and drink the same²⁹." These things shew plainly, that the church of England is careful to express her humble devotion to Christ when mystically present at the holy communion, and to prevent any profanation of the sacred symbols: and such was the discipline of the primitive church. But the church of England certainly does not prescribe the elevation of the sacrament for the purpose of adoration, which was not practised in the Christian church for eleven hundred years after Christ³⁰, and was then introduced chiefly by those who were supporters of the evil doctrine of the corporal presence, or transubstantiation.

NINTH. The English liturgy does not contain prayers for the departed which occur in all ancient liturgies. It is therefore illegitimate³¹.

I reply, that these prayers are not essential to oblation, consecration, or communion; they are therefore not necessary for the valid administration of the sacrament. And even supposing them to be of apostolical antiquity, there would be no just ground of objection to the English liturgy on account of their absence. For those apostolical customs which are not necessary to salvation, may be suspended or abrogated by the successors of the apostles, if there be good reasons for doing so. Thus the prohibition against eating blood and things strangled, the love [17] feasts, the giving of milk and honey, and of the eucharist to infants, trine immersion at baptism, the kiss of peace in the eucharist, prayer towards the east, &c. have all been suspended, altered, or annulled; yet all these are as ancient as prayers for the departed. In the tenth section of the following chapter I consider more particularly the reasons which justified the church of England in omitting these prayers.

TENTH. There is no worship nor commemoration of the saints³².

I reply, that Romanists admit the worship of saints not to be essential, and if we are to understand by that term, invocation and prayer to them, it has been found to have most injurious consequences. On this subject I refer the reader to chapter ii. page 289, &c. where I consider the reasons which justified the church in removing invocations of saints. That there is no commemoration of saints in the English liturgy is an error; for besides the festivals of the Apostles and martyrs, we celebrate the memory of "All Saints," and commemorate them in the eucharist and other offices.

ELEVENTH. None of the canon of the liturgy is said in secret. The liturgy is therefore illegitimate³³.

This objection of Assemani is refuted by his own admission, that the decree of the emperor Justinian, directing the liturgy to be repeated aloud, was only a confirmation of the ancient discipline of the eastern church³⁴.

[18]

TWELFTH. The Lord's Prayer is omitted after the canon of the liturgy³⁵.

I shew elsewhere that there are precedents in the primitive church for doing so³⁶.

THIRTEENTH. The priest reads the Epistle, which ought to be read by the sub-deacon³⁷.

I reply, that cardinal Bona has shewn that the Roman custom of appointing the sub-deacon to read the epistle was an innovation, the reader having formerly fulfilled that office. But if the priest reads the epistle in the English liturgy, it is only when there is no assistant minister present; a rule which is equally observed in the Roman and eastern liturgies.

FOURTEENTH. It is objected that confiteor, misereatur, Kyrie eleison, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Benedictions, sign of the cross, exsufflations, exorcisms, anointing, praying towards to the east, &c. have been omitted³⁸.

I reply, that most of these have not been omitted, and the remainder are unnecessary to the valid administration of the sacraments and offices.

These are all the objections I have been able to find against our liturgy and offices, except a few trifling cavils against the morning and evening prayer, which I have not thought it necessary to collect in this place, but have noticed them in the first chapter of this work.

We learn from the writings of Justin Martyr, and from other ecclesiastical monuments of the earliest antiquity, that the public service of the Christians began with lessons from holy scripture. "On the day which is called Sunday," says Justin, all who live in the city or the country meet together, and the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as circumstances permit³⁹." The author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who is admitted by the most learned critics to have lived about the end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century, concurs with Justin in representing the reading of scripture as the commencement of the liturgy or communion-service of the primitive church⁴⁰. It would be in vain, therefore, to attempt to trace any part of our communion-service, which precedes the lessons, to the earliest ages of the Christian church. It was probably in the fourth century that some of the eastern churches began to prefix psalms or anthems to the lessons. The author who bears the name of Dionysius the Areopagite probably lived in the latter part of this century, and he plainly speaks of psalmody at the beginning of the service⁴¹. Early in the following [20] century, we find that it had also extended into Africa, where Augustine wrote a book in its defence against Hilary, a layman of rank, who, he says, inveighed against the custom of singing hymns taken from the book of Psalms, either before the oblation, or during the distribution of the elements; which, Augustine says, was then beginning at Carthage⁴². If we rely on the author of the Liber Pontificalis, Cœlestine, bishop of Rome, who was a contemporary of Augustine, appointed that the Psalms of David should be sung before the sacrifice, or liturgy, "which," he adds, " was not done before, but only the epistles of Paul and the holy gospel were read⁴³." In after-ages, Gregory the Great selected anthems from the psalms, which he appointed to be sung before the lessons⁴⁴; and the same practice was adopted in the church of Milan, and in most of the west. This anthem before the lessons was called Introitus in the Roman liturgy, Ingressa⁴⁵ in the [21] Ambrosian, or that of Milan. and in the English church was formerly used under the name of Officium⁴⁶, or Introit.

It appears probable that some prayers likewise were used before and between the lessons from a period of great antiquity. It will appear in the third section, that we may trace back the original of collects to the fourth century at least, in the western churches, and that it is not improbable that in the patriarchate of Alexandria they may be of still greater antiquity. To present an idea of the variety which, from the fifth or sixth century, prevailed in different churches, with regard to that part of the liturgy which preceded the lessons, I shall briefly state the substance of this part of the ancient liturgies. In the patriarchate of Alexandria, the service began with a prayer of thanksgiving⁴⁷, followed by collects and petitions for the emperor of the east⁴⁸, the patriarch or pope of Alexandria⁴⁹, and other objects. At Milan, in Germany, and probably Ireland, we find an anthem sung at the beginning⁵⁰. This was followed by the form of Kyrie eleëson, derived from the eastern church, and a long litany, in which the deacon directed the people to pray for many different objects, and the people responded⁵¹. This form was manifestly taken from the ancient practice of the eastern church also⁵². After the [22] litany was concluded, the hymn Gloria in excelsis, was sung, and the collect read. At Rome the same rite prevailed, except that the Gloria in excelsis was not sung when the litany was said. In the patriarchate of Constantinople, the introduction to the lessons contained a litany, (which was probably the original of the western litanies just alluded to⁵³,) three anthems, and the celebrated hymn, Trisagios⁵⁴, which was introduced into that liturgy in the time of the emperor Theodosius the younger, when Proclus was patriarch of Constantinople.

In the churches of Gaul and Spain the liturgy commenced with an anthem, followed, by the hymn Trisagios, in imitation of the eastern rite; after which the "Song of the Prophet Zacharias," beginning Benedictus, was sung, and a collect was repeated by the priest before the lesson from the Old Testament⁵⁵.

It thus appears that a very great variety prevailed in the introductory part of the ancient liturgies during the ages which followed the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451; and that the Roman introduction was used in comparatively a small portion of the world.

In point of brevity, our own introduction to the reading of Scripture in the communion-service may he regarded as approaching nearer to the primitive customs than perhaps that of any other liturgy now [23] used. This introduction consists of the Lord's Prayer and collect for purity; to which, in places where they sing, an anthem is prefixed.

A custom prevails in the cathedral church of Worcester which is worthy of remark. There, the morning prayer being concluded at an early hour, after an interval of time the communion-service or liturgy begins with the litany. We have already seen, that the same order prevailed anciently in Italy, Germany, and Ireland; and that it derived its origin from the churches of the patriarchate of Constantinople. In the Roman liturgy this custom has long been relinquished; at Milan only is the litany repeated at the beginning of the liturgy during Lent. Goar and Bona agree that the litany continued to be used in this place till the ninth century in the west⁵⁶.

The Lord's Prayer and collect for purity had been long used by the English church in their present position, when the revision and reform of our offices took place in the reign of Edward the Sixth. They were found in the liturgy of Salisbury⁵⁷, which was revised and corrected by Osmund, bishop of that see about 1080. Whether they formed part of the liturgy in the time of that prelate we cannot determine, but certainly they had been long used before the time of Edward the Sixth. It was from the offices of the English church therefore, and not from any foreign source, that these prayers were derived. With regard to the antiquity of the collect for purity, we know that it is at least 900 years old; for it appears in a manuscript sacramentary of [24] the tenth century, which was used in England⁵⁸. The same collect appears in the sacramentary ascribed to Alcuin, a doctor of the Anglo-Saxon church, who was the friend of the emperor Charlemagne about the end of the eighth century.

We have no means of ascertaining the period at which the Lord's Prayer was first introduced into this part of the English liturgy. Certainly in primitive times, while the ancient discipline of the church with regard to catechumens existed, the Lord's Prayer could not have been recited at the beginning of the liturgy. The catechumens were those converts from heathenism who were under a course of discipline and instruction preparatory to the reception of the sacrament of baptism. The substance of the Christian faith was only communicated gradually to these persons in proportion as they were found fit to receive it. It was only after they had been for some time under instruction, when they had attained to the highest class, known by the name of "competentes," and were then immediately to be baptized, that they were for the first time taught the Lord's Prayer⁵⁹. The reason of this was, that the Lord's Prayer was looked on by the primitive Christians as peculiarly their own⁶⁰; [25] and it could only be used with propriety by those, who, by admission into the church by the sacrament of baptism, were entitled to call God their Father. It was termed "the prayer of the faithful," and regarded as the most sacred and precious of all prayers. To have recited it therefore in any part of the service when the catechumens and heathen were present, would have been to make public a prayer which was purposely kept secret. But while the lessons were read, and the sermon delivered, the catechumens, and even heathens, were allowed to remain in church⁶¹. The Lord's Prayer could not therefore have been recited before the lessons in the primitive church.

But when Christianity had prevailed, and infidelity had by the grace of God become extinct within the limits of the Christian churches, the necessity of adhering to the discipline which supposed the existence of heathens and of heathen converts ceased. Hence we find, that in the eighth and ninth centuries many prayers were brought into the introductory part of the liturgy, which could not have been placed there in primitive times ; and here in England, at length, even the Lord's Prayer came to be repeated in this part of the service.

At the first revision of the English liturgy in the reign of Edward the Sixth, a form of introduction somewhat similar to the Roman was retained. After the Lord's Prayer and collect for purity, the [26] form of "Lord have mercy upon us," &c., or Kyrie eleëson, was repeated; and then followed the hymn Gloria in excelsis. At the next revision these last forms were omitted; and there is now no resemblance between the Roman introduction and our own. The custom of the church of Worcester, already alluded to, resembles that of the eastern church during the fifth or sixth century, and was anciently used in many churches of the west.

[27]

SECTION II.

This part of our liturgy may be traced to the apostolic age. We know from scripture that the law and the prophets were read in the synagogues⁶⁴, and that our Lord himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth on the sabbath day⁶⁵. There can be no doubt that from the Lord and his apostles, the whole church received the custom of reading the scriptures in their public assemblies. When the gospels, and the epistles of the holy apostles were written, they also were read as canonical scripture in the church, after the law and prophets. We find this custom mentioned by Justin Martyr in the second century⁶⁶. Tertullian, at the end of the same century, speaks of the reading of scriptures in the church⁶⁷; and in one place more especially, he seems to tell us that the law and the prophets were read in Africa before the epistles and gospels⁶⁸. Towards the end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions represents the liturgy of the eastern church as beginning with the law of Moses⁶⁹. In the fourth [28] and fifth centuries we find that all churches read some portion of the Old Testament before they read the New Testament. Thus Basil, archbishop of Cæsarea, refers in one of his homilies to the lessons that were read that day, which were from Isaiah, Psalms, Acts, and Matthew⁷⁰. Chrysostom speaks of the prophets and apostles being read⁷¹. We learn from Augustine, that the lesson from the epistles was sometimes preceded by one from the prophets⁷². In the Gallican church, the epistle and gospel were always preceded by a lesson from the prophets or Old Testament. The same may be said of the Spanish or Mosarabic church, where to this day a lesson from the prophets is always read before the epistles⁷³. The Ambrosian liturgy, or the liturgy of Milan, still retains the same custom. The churches of the patriarchate of Constantinople frequently read lessons from the law and prophets and psalms, before the epistle and gospel. So it is also amongst the Monophysites, who have held the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria since the fifth century⁷⁴. [29] The church of England always reads a portion of the law of Moses before the epistle and gospel.

There are two things worthy of remark in this reading of the law according to the English liturgy. First, that the matter of it is invariable, being always taken from the twentieth chapter of Exodus, and comprising the commandments of God, which he delivered on Mount Sinai. It is from this circumstance that it is commonly known by the name of the "Ten Commandments;" a name which, though very proper, yet tends sometimes to make people forget that it is properly a lesson from the Old Testament. Secondly, this lesson from. the law is divided into short verses, or capitula, each of which is followed by a response.

There is nothing contrary to the canons or the customs of the church in appointing one portion of scripture to be read continually. During the primitive ages the scriptures were read in course in the church, according to the directions of the bishop. Afterwards, particular books were read at particular seasons. It was some time before any special lessons were appointed for each Sunday or other feast-day. When a particular portion of scripture was selected by the church, and annexed perpetually to the office of a particular day, it might by the same authority have been annexed to many offices, or to all. We find, in fact, that in a liturgy of the Irish church there was only the same epistle and [30] gospel for every day in the year⁷⁵. If the Irish church used the same epistle and gospel continually, the English church may likewise very well use the same lesson from the law. We also learn from Le Brun, that there is reason to think that in the church of Malabar in India, the same gospel and the same epistle were almost always used⁷⁶. In the office for the communion of the sick, the church of England acts again on the same principle. Here an epistle and gospel are prescribed, which never vary.

It will not be denied that the church of England has exercised a sound discretion in the selection which she has made from the law, for the continual admonition of her children. We here listen to that moral law to which God required obedience from the beginning of the world⁷⁷; and which was continued under the Mosaic dispensation, to receive extension and augmentation by the advent of God in the flesh, and to remain binding on all Christians to the end of the world⁷⁸.

[31]

 I have to remark, secondly, on the division of this lesson into short verses or little chapters, and on the responses which follow them. In the primitive church nothing was more common than to vary the reading of scripture by short prayers, or by responses and anthems from the Book of Psalms. In the patriarchate of Alexandria, it was customary at the beginning of the fifth century to repeat a collect after each psalm in morning and evening prayers⁷⁹. In other churches, as those of Asia and Phrygia. the psalms and lessons were read alternately⁸⁰. Thus it was in the church of England at the period when our liturgy was revised. In the liturgies⁸¹, and offices for morning and evening prayer as used before that time, we find lessons, sometimes long and sometimes short, followed by responses. The offices of morning prayer, especially, contained lessons which were frequently not above one or two verses long, and each of which was followed by a response⁸²: so that a chapter was divided into many little portions and lessons, just as our lesson from the law is.

Originally this custom of dividing the lessons by responses, was introduced to cause an agreeable variety; that the alternate repetition of lessons and psalms, and prayers, might relieve the mind, and enable it to proceed through the offices of devotion with greater ease and pleasure. It is no less true, that this custom was afterwards abused so as to [32] cause an interruption in the reading of scripture. In the church of England, however, the abuse was put an end to at the Reformation; for though the ancient system of varying the lessons by singing psalms and hymns, was retained in the morning and evening prayer, it would be impossible to maintain with any semblance of reason that it interrupts the reading of scripture: and although in the present instance the lesson from the law is divided into several parts by responses, yet the weight and importance of each part affords ample room for a separate meditation and prayer.

In the primitive church the lessons were read from the pulpit, or ambon, and in many places the custom has remained to the present day, especially in the patriarchate of Constantinople. According to Martene, the lessons are read from the pulpit in many of the churches of France⁸³. In the church of Rome the gospel was always read from the pulpit⁸⁴; though there is no direction about it in the modern missal. Pope Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in the third century, speaks familiarly of the lessons being read from the pulpit⁸⁵. The lessons were at first read by any one appointed by the bishop, but it was soon found expedient to set apart particular persons for this office, and thus began the ecclesiastical order of [33] readers. From the writings of Cyprian, we find this order completely established at Carthage so early as the third century, and they may have existed in many other places about the same time. Certainly it appears that in the following ages there were regular readers in all parts of the world⁸⁶. These persons were of course well instructed and fitted for their office. In the church of Constantinople the reader, or anagnôstês, according to the ancient usage, still reads the lessons which precede the gospel⁸⁷. In the Roman church. this has long fallen into disuse, the duty of reading the epistle having devolved on the sub-deacon since the eighth or ninth century⁸⁸. The lessons were always read from the pulpit in cathedral and collegiate churches in England⁸⁹, and in the injunctions of king Edward the Sixth, A.D. 1547, we find a direction that the epistle and gospel shall be read "in the pulpit, or in such convenient place as the people may hear the same⁹⁰." The Decalogue being a lesson also, would probably have been included in this direction, had it been at that time read in the English liturgy; but the reading of the law was not reestablished for some years afterwards.

I have observed in the monuments of the English liturgy, an example of the celebration of the communion, which may remind us of this first part of our liturgy at present. On the eve of [34] Pentecost⁹¹, the office began with the Lord's Prayer, after which different persons read lessons from the law of Moses without titles, that is, without naming the books from which they were taken. Each lesson was followed by a response and collect; then, after some intermediate rites, the collect, epistle, and gospel were read. In the same manner our office begins with the Lord's Prayer and collect for purity, proceeds to lessons or capitula from the law, read without titles, each followed by a response, and then comes to the collect, epistle, and gospel.

A portion of the Decalogue was read in the church of England in Lent, beginning thus:

The lesson was followed by a response which is not unlike our own.

70 Basil. Hom. in Sanct. Baptisma, xiii. p, 114. tom. ii. Oper. ed. Garnier.

71 Chrysost. Hom. de David. et Saul. ii. p. 770. tom. iv. ed. Benedict.

72 August. Sermo xlvii. "Lectio prima prophetica quid nobis commendaverit, me commemorante recolite," p. 268. tom. v. ed. Benedict. See also the passage cited above, vol. i. p. 136, note 6.

73 See Dissertation on Primitive Liturgies, vol. i. p. 159. 173.

74 "Orientales Christiani Græcorum exemplo, plures Sacræ Scripturæ lectiones in Liturgia celebrant, et in quibusdam diebus aut solemnibus festis, legunt primo caput aliquod ex Veteri Testamento, et ex Prophetis, Psalmi semper interponuntur, nec in numerum veniunt. Sed in singulis Liturgiis fiunt lectiones ex Epistolis Pauli., et ex Catholicis." Renaudot, Collect. Oriental. Liturg. tom. i. p. 530. v. tom. ii. p. 68.

75 Dr. O'Conor says, that in the ancient Irish missal "we find no selection of epistles or gospels. Here is only the Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, and the Gospel of St. John, c. 6, which in parallel expressions record the institution of the eucharist .... Neither does St. Columbanus's missal, which was discovered in the monastery of Bobio, a thousand years after his death, and is now in the Ambrosian library, contain the selections for the Sundays of the year." Appendix to vol i. of Catalogue of Stowe MSS, p. 45.

76 Le Brun, Explication de la Messe, tom. vi. p. 487.

77 "Deus primo quidem per naturalia præcepta, quæ ab initio infixa dedit hominibus, admonenses eos, id est per Decalogum (quæ si quis non fecerit non habet salutem) nihil plus ab eis exquisivit." Irenæus adv. Hæres. lib. iv. c. 15. p. 244.

78 "In quam vitam præstruens hominem, Decalogi quidem verba ipse per semetipsum omnibus similiter Dominus loquutus est: et ideo similiter permanent apud nos, extensionem et augmentum, sed non dissolutionem accipientia per carnalem ejus adventum." Irenæus, lib. iv. c. i6. p. 247.

79 Cassian Institut. lib. ii. c. 5, 6, &c.

80 Canon 17. Concil. Laodicen. Peri tou, mê dein epistunaptein en tais sunaxesi tous psalmous, alla dia meson kath' hekaston psalmon ginesthai anagnôsin. Bevereg. Pandectæ, tom i. p. 460.

81 Miss. Sarisb. fol. 35, 36, 94.

82 Brev. Sarisb. fo1. 3, &c.

83 Martene de Antiq. Eccl. Rit. lib. i. c. 4. art. 4.

84 Bona 374.

85 Cyprian. Epist. 39. (al. 34.) Speaking of Celerinus whom he had appointed a reader, he says, "Hunc ad nos, fratres dilectissimi, cum tanta Domini dignatione venientem .... quid aliud quam super pulpitum, id est super tribunal ecclesiæ oportebat imponi, ut loci altioris celsitate subnixus, et plebi universæ pro honoris sui claritate conspicuus, legat præcepta et evangelium Domini, quæ fortiter ac fideliter sequitur?" p. 77. Epist. edit. Fell.

86 Bingham, Antiquities, book iii. c. 5.

87 Goar, Rituale Græcum, p.128,129. 57.

88 Bona, Rer. Lit. lib. ii. c. 7. p.373.

89 "Incepta vero ultima oratione ante epistolam, subdiaconus per medium chori ad legendum epistolam in pulpitum accedat. Et legatur epistola in pulpito omni die Dominica," &c. Miss. Sar. fol. x.

90 Sparrow's Collection of Articles, &c. p. 7.

91 Miss. Sarisb. fo1. 94, 95.

92 Miss. Sarisb. fo1. 42.

93 Ibid.

Project Canterbury