Project Canterbury

IN treating of the liturgy, I would be understood to use the term in that restricted sense which it generally bears in the writings of the ancients as denoting the service used in the celebration of the eucharist. In the eastern churches, that service (though sometimes known by other appellations) has long borne the title of the "divine" or "mystical" liturgy. In the west, the eucharistic office has most commonly been called "missa;" but the term liturgy has also been frequently applied to it.

The study of ancient liturgies is one, which from various circumstances has made but slow progress. It can hardly be said to have commenced until the sixteenth century, when the liturgies of Basil, Chrysostom, James, Mark, and others of eastern origin, were first printed. Before this time, though some writers commented on the offices of their own churches, they were unable to compare various liturgies together, and thence to elicit the truth. At that period, none of the learned men of Europe, even though profoundly versed in general theology, and in the writings of the Fathers, were able to [4]

Combined with these circumstances were. others, which have much impeded the study of liturgies, and have tended to excite unreasonable prejudices against them. The learned writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who in their own provinces of literature remain unequalled, were yet generally destitute of that sort of knowledge which would [5]

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

It seems to have been often assumed by the learned, that there was originally some one apostolic form of liturgy in the Christian church, to which all the monuments of ancient liturgies, and the notices which the Fathers supply, might be reduced. Were this Hypothesis supported by facts, it would be very valuable. But the truth is, there are [6]

I have not therefore attempted to reduce all the liturgies, and notices of the Fathers, to one common original; but have rather sought for the original liturgies by a reference to acknowledged facts. The following is the course which I have pursued, in endeavouring to ascertain the nature of the primitive liturgies. Considering that the primitive church was divided into great portions, known by the appellations of Patriarchates, Exarchates,² or [7]

After a careful examination of the primitive liturgies of the Christian church, it appears to me, that they may all be reduced to four, which have been used in different churches from a period of profound antiquity. The first may be entitled the great Oriental Liturgy, as it seems to have prevailed in all the Christian churches from the Euphrates to the Hellespont, and from the Hellespont to the southern extremity of Greece. The second was the Alexandrian, which from time immemorial has been the liturgy of Egypt, Abyssinia, and the country extending along the Mediterranean sea towards the west. The third was the Roman, which prevailed throughout the whole of Italy, Sicily, and the civil diocese of Africa. The fourth was the Gallican, which was used throughout Gaul and Spain, and probably in the exarchate of Ephesus until the fourth century. These four great liturgies appear to have been the parents of all the forms now extant, and indeed of all which we can in any manner discover; and their antiquity was so very remote, their use so extensive in those ages when bishops were most independent, that it seems difficult to place their origin at a lower period than the apostolic age. The liberty which every Christian church plainly had and exercised, in the way of improving its formularies, confirms the antiquity of the four great liturgies; for where this liberty existed, it could have been scarcely any thing else but reverence for the apostolical source from which the original liturgies were derived, that prevented an infinite variety of formularies, and preserved the [9]

There can be little if any doubt that Christian liturgies were not at first committed to writing, but preserved by memory and practice. However, this did not prevent a substantial uniformity from being continually kept up. Each church might very easily preserve uniformity in its own liturgy; and if all who had originally received the same followed this plan, a general uniformity would be the result. That each church preserved continually the same liturgy is certain. It is impossible to peruse the notices supplied by the Fathers, without perceiving that the baptized Christians were supposed to be familiar with every part of the service; and continual allusions are made to various particulars as well known, which it would be impossible to explain, except by referring to the liturgies still extant. The order of the parts was always preserved, the same rites and ceremonies continually repeated, the same ideas and language without material variation, transmitted from generation to generation. The people always knew the precise points at which they were to repeat their responses, chant their sacred hymn, or join in the well-known prayer. If, then, each church preserved uniformity in its own liturgy, a general substantial uniformity would be found after the lapse of some centuries, in the liturgies of those churches which had originally received the same order. Thus, when we compare the liturgies of the patriarchates or exarchates of Antioch, Cæsarea, and Constantinople, as used in the fourth and fifth centuries, we find a substantial uniformity pervading them all. Those parts which are common [10] to all, are found arranged in the same order in all. The principal rites are identical. They agree in their principal ideas. Every thing, therefore, concurs to prove the original identity of all three. Nearly the same may be said of the liturgies of Rome, Milan, and Africa; and of those of Gaul and Spain. We have therefore the best reasons for affirming, that the catholic church from the beginning has always preserved an uniform order of liturgy. But this uniformity did not exclude improvement and variety. The bishop of each church appears plainly to have possessed the authority of improving his own liturgy by the addition of new ideas and rites: and the exercise of this power, either individually or collectively, accounts for the variations which we find in those liturgies now extant, originally derived from the same model. Nor does. it seem that variety of expression, under certain regulations, was excluded at any time by the Christian church. When we examine the remains of the Roman, Italian, Gallican, and Spanish liturgies, we find that they all permitted a variety of expression for every particular feast; always retaining, however, more or less of fixed and permanent matter, and uniformly preserving an identity of order, and the same series of parts. It appears to me that the practice of the western churches during the fifth and fourth centuries, in permitting the use of various "missæ" in the same church, affords room for thinking that something of the same kind had existed from a more remote period. For it does not seem that the composition of new "missæ" for the festivals excited any surprise in those ages, or was viewed as any thing novel in principle. Hence I [11]

The period when liturgies were first committed to writing is uncertain, and has been the subject of some controversy. Le Brun contends that no liturgy was written till the fifth century; but his arguments seem quite insufficient to prove this, and he is accordingly opposed by Muratori and other eminent ritualists. It seems certain, on the other hand, that the liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions was written at the end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century; and there is no reason to deny that others may have been written about the same time, or not long after. Whoever compares the account which Cyril, in his fifth mystical Catechesis, gives of the thanksgiving in the liturgy of Jerusalem, with those of St. James’s liturgy in Greek and Syriac, will be strongly inclined to think, that St. James’s liturgy was already committed to writing in the time of Cyril, or before the middle of the fourth century.

Various obstacles are to be surmounted, before we can form a correct judgment of the value of existing liturgies. As these formularies were in continual use, they necessarily received various additions, and changes, to adapt them to the circumstances of [12]

The value of liturgies in affording evidence of the true nature of Christian faith and morality, would be very great, if we could refer unhesitatingly to the monuments in our possession, as exhibiting the text used during the most primitive ages. They must, however, under any circumstances, have a share in the great body of Christian evidence; and where we can shew them to have been used by certain churches, they must be considered as the public formularies of such churches, and therefore more authoritative than the sentiments of an individual. [13]

All this, however, was only heard and known by the baptized or perfect Christians; for it was a [14] 

This primitive discipline is sufficient to account for the facts, that very few allusions to the liturgy or eucharistic service are found in the writings of the Fathers; and that on the more solemn part of consecration, &c. they are almost entirely silent. I would entreat the reader to bear this in mind, if, in perusing the following pages, he should think the passages which I have collected from the Fathers, too few, or too indistinct, to warrant the inferences which I have deduced from them.

1 I have been informed that his Lordship delivered several private lectures, entirely on this topic, to a class of theological students in this University.

2 As I shall frequently have occasion to make use of these terms in the following work, I will now briefly explain them to the reader. The primitive church was ruled by bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs. The bishop of the chief city in each province was entitled metropolitan or primate, and afterwards archbishop, and had a certain jurisdiction over the bishops of that province. He ordained them—received appeals from them in ecclesiastical affairs—presided in provincial synods of bishops—visited the dioceses or paroiki,a of each. See Bingham’s Antiquities, &c. book ii. c. 16. The bishop of a metropolis of a civil diocese, which comprised several provinces, was called archbishop, or exarch, and afterwards patriarch; and had much the same sort of jurisdiction over all the metropolitans of that diocese, as each of them had over the bishops of his own province. See Bingham, c. 17. The office of metropolitan is probably as ancient as the apostolic age; that of patriarch is likewise very ancient, though we do not find it mentioned by that name till the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. However it certainly existed long before that time, as it seems that the bishop of Alexandria had this sort of jurisdiction in the third century. See Bingham, book ii. c. 16. §. 3. In fact, every bishop, as a successor of the apostles, had a certain, degree of influence and authority in the whole church; and they who joined to this, the importance which was derived from the dignity, power, and opulence of the metropolitan or capital cities over which they presided, acquired such a degree of weight and influence, that bishops and metropolitans voluntarily admitted their jurisdiction. The Roman empire about the time of Constantine was divided into thirteen civil dioceses, each of which was ruled by a governor called exarch, vicar of the empire, or prefect. It does not appear that there was a supreme bishop or patriarch in each of these dioceses. The exarchs or patriarchs of the church in the fourth century, were those of Alexandria, Antioch, Cæesarea, Ephesus, Constantinople, Thessalonica, Rome, Milan, and Carthage. To which were added afterwards Jerusalem and Justiniana. See Bingham, Antiq. book ix. Basnage, Hist. de l’Eglise, tome i.

Project Canterbury