HAH01D& LEI llfrtfit.
3VQ U
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Brigham Young University
http://www.archive.org/details/massstudyofromanOOfort
THE WESTMINSTER LIBRARY
A SERIES OF MANUALS FOR CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND STUDENTS
EDITED BY
The Right Rev. Mgr. BERNARD WARD
PRESIDENT OF ST. EDMUND'S COLLEGE AND
The Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J.
THE MASS
A STUDY OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
BY
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
NEW EDITION
,<\
I <
»•
>.
LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK, BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA
1914
JJthil xrb*tat:
F. THOS. BERGH, O.S.B.,
Censor dcputatus.
Imprimatur :
Edm. Can. Surmont,
Vic. gen.
Westmonasterii, die 28 Martii, igia.
HAROLD B LEE BRIGHAM Y(
PROVO, UTAH
EDITORS' PREFACE.
This series of Handbooks is designed to meet a need, which, the Editors believe, has been widely felt, and which results in great measure from the predominant importance attached to Dogmatic and Moral Theology in the studies preliminary to the Priesthood. That the first place must of necessity be given to these subjects will not be disputed. But there re- mains a large outlying field of professional knowledge which is always in danger of being crowded out in the years before ordination, and the practical utility of which may not be fully realised until some experience of the ministry has been gained. It will be the aim of the present series to offer the sort of help which is dictated by such experience, and its develop- ments will be largely guided by the suggestions, past and future, of the Clergy themselves. To provide Textbooks for Dogmatic Treatises is not contemplated — at any rate not at the outset- On the other hand, the pastoral work of the missionary priests will be kept constantly in view, and the series will also deal with those historical and liturgical aspects of Catholic belief and practice which are every day being brought more into prominence.
vi EDITORS' PREFACE
That the needs of English-speaking countries are, in these respects, exceptional, must be manifest to all. In point of treatment it seems desirable that the volumes should be popular rather than scholastic, but the Editors hope that by the selection of writers, fully competent in their special subjects, the information given may always be accurate and abreast of modern research.
The kind approval of this scheme by His Grace the Archbishop of Westminster, in whose Diocese these manuals are edited, has suggested that the series should be introduced to the public under the general title of The West- minster Library. It is hoped, however, that contributors may also be found among the distinguished Clergy of Ireland and America, and that the Westminster Library will be repre- sentative of Catholic scholarship in all English- speaking countries.
PREFACE.
This book is intended to supply information about the history of the Roman liturgy. The dogmatic side of the Mass is discussed by the Bishop of Newport in the same series.1 The title shows that it is a study of the Roman rite. It is only in the Roman (or Gallican) rite that the Eucharistic service can correctly be called Mass. The chapter about other liturgies md the frequent references to them throughout are meant only to put our Roman Mass in its proper perspective and to illustrate its elements by com- parison. In spite of the risk of repetition, the clearest plan seemed to be to discuss first the origin and development of the Mass in general ; and then to go through the service as it stands now, adding notes to each prayer and ceremony. The present time is perhaps hardly the most convenient for attempting a history of the Mass. For never before have there been so many or so various theories as to its origin, as to the develop- ment of the Canon, the Epiklesis and so on. Where the best authorities differ so widely it
1 The Holy Eucharist, Longmans, Green & Co., 1907.
viii PREFACE
would be absurd to pretend to offer a final solu- tion. I have no pretence of supplying a new answer to any of these questions, or even of taking a side finally among theories already pro- posed. The only reasonable course seems to be to state the chief systems now defended and to leave the reader to make up his own mind. I have however shewn some preference for the main ideas of Dr. Drews and Dr. Baumstark and for certain points advanced by Dr. Buch- wald. And I have added a few general remarks on the points which seem to me to be fairly established. But this has not, I think, prevented a fair statement of other theories ; nor should it make it more difficult for the reader to see the present state of the difficult questions. I doubt if it be possible to think of a solution of the main question (the order of the Canon) which has not yet been proposed, or of one that has not some difficulties. At any rate I have thought of none such.
The list of books at the end represents the chief sources used in writing this one. Though ob- viously exceedingly incomplete (a bibliography of the Mass would be a gigantic undertaking), it will perhaps be of some use as a first guide to further study. If a reference in the notes is not complete it will be found complete there. Throughout the book I have aimed at giving my reference for every statement. Nothing is more useless or irritating than a vague allusion to early use or mediaeval practice, without a reference to control it. I have repeated the references con-
PREFACE ix
tinually. I have spent too much weary time, turning back the pages of books to find what op. cit. means, not to wish to spare other people such trouble. And I think we owe it to the people who do us the honour of reading what we write to make it as easy as possible for them to control our statements. P. L. and P.G. mean Migne : Patrologia latina and grceca.
I have to thank Father Herbert Thurston, S.J. for reading the manuscript and making valuable suggestions. But I have, of course, no claim to his authority for any of my views. Mgr. George Wallis and Dr. Edwin Burton have also given me valuable information.
I have constantly used and quoted Cardinal Bona. He supplies very well what I would say here too :
Ssepe enim volenti et conanti vel ingenii vires vel rerum antiquarum notitia vel alia subsidia defuerunt ; nee fieri potuit quin per loca sale- brosa in tenebris ambulans interdum offenderim. Cumque aliquid incautius et negligentius a me scriptum offenderit, ignoscat primum lector, deinde arnica manu corrigat et emendet, et quae omisi suppleat {Rerum liturgicarum II, xx, 6).
A. F.
Letch worth, Easier^ 1912.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
For this second edition the book has been care- fully revised throughout. I have corrected all mistakes, less accurate, or not sufficiently clear statements that I have discovered. I have also in some paragraphs substituted for the elaborate discussion of some detail matter which seems to be of more general importance.
In revising the book I have had the advantage not only of published reviews but of many sug- gestions by friends. It is impossible to thank all these here, as I should like to do. But there is one name that I cannot omit. Of all critics the Reverend W. Chatterley Bishop has been the kindest, the most encouraging and the most useful. Mr. Bishop has not only enabled me to give a more correct statement of his own view (pp. 146-148); through the whole book he has made suggestions and corrections. In examining these I have always found how sound is his judg- ment and how reliable his knowledge. It would be difficult to say adequately how much I owe to his kindness ; at any rate, as an obvious act of justice, I must tell the reader that, if he finds
xi
xii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
improvements in this edition, he owes them far more to Mr. Bishop than to anyone else.
Finally I would add a word about two chief points discussed in the book, the question of a primitive universal rite and that of a possible later reconstruction of the Roman Canon. In both we must distinguish between the general issue, which seems fairly certain, and a particular view, which is admittedly much less so. With regard to the primitive rite, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the statement that the great centres of Christendom during the first three centuries had, at least in general out- line and in many details, a uniform manner of celebrating the holy mysteries. How far this rite is represented in the so-called Church Orders, Apostolic Constitutions or another, is much less certain. So also it seems fairly certain that the present Roman Canon is a reconstruction and rearrangement of an older form. But the various attempts to discover that earlier form are only more or less plausible conjectures.
There is no reason to be surprised at the idea that the present Canon is not exactly the original form ; still less is there any controversial capital to be made out of this. After all, every liturgi- cal form was composed by someone at some time. No one now believes that our Mass comes down unaltered from St. Peter. All we need say is that the early Pope who composed it had still earlier material before him ; that he used this material, as he naturally would. He short- ened and rearranged the prayers for good reasons.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xiii
We accept and use the form he gave us with entire respect. But it is not forbidden to discuss, as a matter of archaeology, when and how our Canon was composed. Nor does such a dis- cussion in the least affect our devotion when saying Mass. Undoubtedly our Canon, as we have it, is a most beautiful and venerable form. As it stands it may be said, it is said daily by thousands of priests in the plain meaning of the words, with entire devotion. The supposed signs of what I call ''dislocation" affect no one but the student, who may find in them interest- ing evidences of an early reconstruction. The question is merely one of archaeology. It would be absurd for anyone to be troubled in saying Mass by such a matter as this. Without ques- tion, our Canon is one of the very oldest, the most splendid forms of prayer in Christendom. We, whose honour it is to say it daily, repeat these venerable words, fragrant with the associa- tions of centuries, without being at all disturbed by the purely archaeological question, whether Gelasius I, or some other Pope at about that time, did or did not compose the prayers we use by rearranging still older ones.
A. F.
Letchworth, St. Peter and St. Paul, 19 13.
CONTENTS.
Part I. The History of the Mass,
Chap. I. The Eucharist in the first three Centuries
§i. Liturgical Fragments in the New Testament
§ 2. The Liturgy in the Apostolic Fathers,
§3. The Liturgy in the Second Century,
§4. The Fathers of the Third Century,
§ 5. Liturgical Uniformity in the first three Centuries,
§ 6. The Liturgy in the early Church Orders,
§ 7. The Liturgy in Apostolic Constitutions VIII
§ 8. Some Special Points, ....
§ 9. Influence of Jewish Ritual, .
Chap. II. The Parent Rites and their Descendants, § 1. The Development of the Parent Rites, § 2. The Antiochene Rite, . § 3. Liturgies derived from Antioch, §4. The Alexandrine Rite, . §5. The Gallican Rite, § 6. Table of Liturgies,
Chap. III. The Origin of the Roman Ritt, § 1. State of the Question, .
Earliest Liturgical Books,
Latin as the Liturgical Language,
First Traces of the Roman Mass,
Conjectured Reconstructions of the Mass,
Bunsen's theory, .
Probst and Bickell,
Dom Cagin, .
Mr. W. C. Bishop,
Dr. Baumstark,
Dr. Buchwald, § 12. Dr. Drews, . . . §13. Dom Cabrol, § 14. Concluding Remarks, .
§ 2. § 3- § 4- § 5- § 6. § 7- § 8- § 9. §10.
§11.
Chap. IV. The Mass since Gregory I,
§ 1. From Gregory I to Adrian I (590-795),
§ 2. The Spread of the Roman Rite, .
§ 3. Gallican Influence,
§ 4. Different kinds of Mass. Low Mass,
§5. Mediaeval and later Commentators,
§fj. Mediasval Derived Rites,
§7. The Reform of Pius V (1570),
§8. Later Revisions and Modern Times,
1 1
1 8
16 28 47
53 61
66 70
76 76
79 84
93
97
107
no no
113
126 128
138 140 141 144
146 148
151
156 166 169
172 172
177 182 184
193 199 205 208
xvi CONTENTS
PAGE
Part II. The Order of the Mass, 214
Chap. V. To the Collects, 214
§1. Arrangements of the Parts of the Mass, . . . 214
§2. The Introit, 216
§3. The Celebrant's Preparation, 225
§4. First Incensing of the Altar, 228
§ 5. Kyrie Eleison, 230
§ 6. Gloria in Excelsis, 239
§7. Collects, 244
Chap. VI. The Lessons, 254
§ 1. The Lessons in General, ...... 254
§2. Epistle, 262
§ 3. Gradual, Alleluia, Tract and Sequence, . . . 265
§4. Gospel, 280
§5. Homily and Creed, 284
Chap. VII. The Mass of the Faithful, to the Encharistic Prayer, 293
§ 1. The Prayers of the Faithful, 293
§ 2. The Offertory Act 296
§ 3. Azyme Bread, 300
§ 4. The Offertory Chant, 303
§5. Offertory Prayers, 304
JjJL_ The Incensing and Washing of Hands, . . . 308
§7. Secrets, 311
Chap. VIII. The Canon, 315
§1. The Preface, 315
§2. Sanctus, 320
§ 3. Name, Extent and general Character of the Canon, . 323
§4. Te Igitur to the Words of Institution, .... 328
§ 5. The Elevation, 337
§ 6. To the End of the Canon, ... . . 345
Chap. IX. The Communion, 361
§ 1. The Lord's Prayer, 361
§ 2. Fraction, Commixture, Fermentum, . . . .364
§ 3. Kiss of Peace, 370
§ 4. The Communion Act, 372
§5. Communion under one kind, ..... 376
§6. Communion Prayers, ....... 381
§ 7. Agnus Dei and Communion Antiphon, .... 385
Chap. X. After the Communion, ...... 389
§ 1. Postcommunion and Oratio super Populum, . . 389
§2. Dismissal, 391
§ 3. After the Dismissal, 392
Appendix I. The Names of the Mass, ..... 397
Appendix II. The Epiklesis, 402
List of Books 408
Index t 413
PART I. THE HISTORY OF THE MASS.
CHAPTER I.
THE EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES.
§ i. Liturgical Fragments in the New Testament.
THE first source for the history of the Mass is ob- viously the New Testament. In the New Testament we find the root of the whole matter in the account of the Last Supper. It was because our Lord told us to do what he had done, in memory of him, that liturgies exist. So, obviously, whatever else may vary, in every rite the first thing is to obey that com- mand, to do this, namely, what Christ himself had done. By putting together the four accounts of the Last Supper (Mt. xxvi, 26-28 ; Mk. xiv, 22-24 J Lk. xxii, 19-20; 1 Cor. xi, 23-25) we have the essential nucleus of the holy liturgy in any rite. This at least, we may be sure, was constant from the beginning. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the celebrant had not done at least this.
Our Lord took bread, gave thanks, blessed and broke it, said over it the words of Institution and gave it to his apostles to eat ; then he took a cup of wine, again gave thanks (Luke and Paul do not add this second thanksgiving), said the words of Institution over
1
2 THE MASS
it and gave it to them to drink. An unimportant dis- placement of the order postponed the Communion till after both bread and wine were consecrated ; the merely verbal discrepancy in the words of Institution between Matthew and Mark on the one hand and Luke and Paul on the other produced a slight variety in the Eucharistic form. Otherwise we have from the New Testament at least this essential rite: I. Bread and wine are brought to the altar. 2. The celebrant gives thanks. 3. He takes the bread, blesses it and says the words of Institution. 4. He does the same over the wine. 5. The bread is broken, it and the consecrated wine are given to the people in Com- munion.
But we can find more than this about the earliest liturgy in the New Testament. A number of allusions, though in no fixed order, enables us to add other elements to this nucleus. None of these allusions gives a full description of the way the apostles cele- brated the Eucharist. It is only by putting them together that we can to some extent represent the whole rite. Nor is it safe to insist too much on the order in which the functions are mentioned. We see, for instance, in the accounts of the Last Supper that there are slight misplacements of the order (Mt. xxvi, 26; Lk. xxii, 19), even in the words, (Mt. xxvi, 28; 1 Cor. xi, 25, etc.). The most we can say with cer- tainty is that already in the New Testament we find the elements which make up the liturgy according to the earliest complete account of it (in Justin Martyr), and that in many cases these elements are named in the order they follow in such later accounts.
The Jewish Christians at first continued to attend the services of the Temple with their neighbours (Acts iii, 1 ; Lk. xxiv, 52, 53). Following the example of our Lord (Lk. iv, 15, 16; vi, 6; John xviii, 20)
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 3
they also went to the Synagogues (Acts ix, 20, etc.). But even betore the final breach with Judaism Chris- tians had their own meetings too, where they could worship God according to their belief in Christ. These assemblies are occasionally called Synagogues (James ii, 2 ; Heb. x, 25). As distinct from the Sabbath they were made chiefly on Sunday (Acts xx, 7 ; 1 Cor. xvi, 2). At these exclusively Christian meetings naturally they followed the normal order of the Jewish Syna- gogue service, but with Christian ideas : the services were those of the Synagogue Christianized. There were readings from the holy books, as among the Jews (Acts xiii, 15). St. Paul tells Timothy to read as well as to preach (1 Tim. iv, 13); his own letters are to be read out to all the brethren (1 Thess. v, 27 ; Col. iv, 16). Evidently Christians read their own books as well as the Old Testament. After the readings came sermons, expositions of what had been read (1 Cor. xiv, 26 ; Acts xx, 7). They sang psalms (1 Cor. xiv, 26) and hymns (Eph. v, 19; Col. iii, 16). The two are ob- viously distinct in these texts. There are fragments of rhymed prose in St. Paul, which are supposed to be examples of the first Christian hymns (Rom. xiii, 11, 12; Eph. v, 14; 1 Tim. iii, 16; 2 Tim. ii, n-13).1
There were prayers said publicly for all kinds of people (1 Tim. ii, 1-2 ; Acts ii, 42). At the meetings collections of alms were made for the poor (Rom. xv, 26 ; I Cor. xvi, 1-2 ; 2 Cor. ix, 10-13). These elements, readings, sermons, psalms, hymns, prayers and the collection of alms, we know to have been those of the Synagogue services.2 Together they formed the normal Christian morning service, as distinct from the
1 Warren : Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church, 34-35.
2 Conjecturally we can suggest a much more exact reproduction of the Jewish service in the first Christian assemblies than merely the continuation of these elements. See pp. 70-75.
I *
4 THE MASS
Eucharist.1 To this picture of the morning service we can add details. The people prayed standing, with uplifted hands (Phil, i, 27; Eph. vi, 14; 1 Tim. ii, 8). This was the Jewish position (Ps. cxxxiii, I ; cxxxiv, 2 ; Lk. xviii, 11, 13 ; Mt. v, 5 ; Ps. cxl, 2 ; lxii, 5 ; cxxxiii, 2). The men were bareheaded, the women veiled (1 Cor. xi, 6-7). Women were not allowed to speak in Church (1 Cor. xiv, 34-35). There was a kiss of peace (1 Thess. v, 26 ; Rom. xvi, 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi, 20; 1 Pet. v, 14), a public profession of faith (1 Tim. vi, 12). The people continued the use of the old Hebrew formula Amen (ft?N as an adverb, " certainly," " truly " ; so con- stantly in the Old Testament, Deut. xxvi, 15-26; Ps. xl, 14 etc.) as the sign of their assent after a prayer (1 Cor. xiv, 16); it occurs in the archetype of all prayers, the Our Father (Mt. vi, 13). We may sup- pose other formulas that occur constantly in St. Paul to be well-known liturgical ones in the Church, as they had been in the Synagogue. Such formulas are " for ever and ever " (again a Hebraism, Rom. xvi, 27 ; Gal. 1, 5 ; cfr. Heb. xiii, 21 ; I Pet. iv, 1 1 ; v. 1 1 ; Apoc. i, 6 etc.). " God blessed for ever" ( Rom. ix, 5 ; i. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi, 31). Such doxologies and blessings as 2 Cor. xiii, 14; Rom. xi, 36, and the form " Through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. v, II, 21 ; cfr. vi, 12 etc.) have the look of liturgical formulas.
There were two other functions of the first Chris- tian assemblies which disappeared after the first century. These were the Love Feast {Agape, 1 Cor. xi, 20-22; Jud. 12)2 and the effusion of the
1 R. M. Woolley : The Liturgy of the Primitive Church (Cambridge, 1910), describes this service, which he thinks was distinguished from the Eucharist till the end of the 4th century (pp. 25-36).
2 There is a large literature on the Agape. Of late works E. Baumgartner, O.M. Cap : Eucharistie und Agape (Solothurn, 1909) may be recommended. J. F. Keating: The Agape and the Eucharist (London, 1901) has some good things. H. Leclercq, O.S.B. : Agape
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 5
Holy Ghost among the people, producing prophecies, ecstasies, speaking in strange tongues, exorcisms and miracles (1 Cor. xiv, 1-40).1 We meet both again in the Didache ; 2 soon after they disappear, Both were obviously open to abuses. St. Paul is not pleased with the way the Agape was held in his time (1 Cor. xi, 22); the effusion of the Holy Ghost dis- appeared naturally when the first fire of the new movement cooled and enthusiasm gave place to ordered regulations. We may then leave aside these two features and consider only the normal elements that remained, that still exist in all liturgies. There was not a Eucharist at every Christian assembly ; but when it was celebrated it was joined to the Chris- tianized Synagogue service described above. In 1 Cor. xi, 20-34 we see ft connected with the Agape ; it may be conjectured that it followed that feast.3 The Eucharist was a well-known service among St. Paul's converts (1 Cor. x, 16); it was a recognized standard by which Christians were known (Acts ii, 42, 46) ; it took place especially on Sunday (Acts xx, 7). From the order of Acts ii, 42 (the teaching of the Apostles, "Communion," breaking of bread, prayers), still more from the invariable order we find in later documents, we may conclude that the Eucharist came at the end of the other service. The people met together, read their books, heard sermons,
in the Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie (i. 775-848) amounts to a long treatise and gives copious bibliography.
1 Duchesne : Histoire ancienne, i. 47-49 ; Origines, 47-48.
2 See below, p. 9.
3 There are many difficulties about this text. It is difficult to see when St. Paul is speaking of the feast and when of the Eucharist. The two rites are still woven in one another. But his account of the Last Supper and the expressions " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord " (v. 27), " to show forth the death of the Lord " (v. 26) ; " dis- cerning the body of the Lord " (v. 29), make the interpretation that he means only an ordinary love-feast impossible.
6 THE MASS
sang and prayed ; then the bread and wine were brought up and the Eucharist was celebrated. The texts show, as we should in any case have foreseen, that this celebration followed exactly the lines of our Lord's action at the Last Supper. His command was to do this — what he had just done. The repeti- tion of the whole story of the institution, including the words, in I Cor. xi, 23-26 argues that the cele- brant repeated those actions and said those words. We notice especially the idea of a thanksgiving prayer as part of the rite. In 1 Cor. xiv, 16 the Amen said by the people is an answer to "thy thanksgiving"; among the kinds of prayer demanded in 1 Tim. ii, 1 are thanksgivings. After the Consecration came " prayers " (Acts ii, 42). Since both our Lord and St. Paul insist on the idea that the Eucharist is a memory of Christ (Lk. xxii, 19), a shewing forth of the Lord's death (1 Cor. xi, 24-26), we may conclude that the prayers contained a reference to this. On one occasion at least, at Troas when the young man fell out of a window, a sermon seems to follow the Communion (Acts xx, 1 1 , e<£' iicavov re 6fjLi\rjaa$).
Putting together what we know or may deduce with reasonable certainty from the texts of the New Testa- ment, we have this picture of the liturgy : —
1 . The Synaxis based on a Synagogue Service :
Readings from the Bible (1 Tim. iv, 13 ; 1 Thess. v, 27 ; Col. iv, 16). Sermons on what has been read (1 Cor. xiv, 26 ; Acts xx, 7).
Psalms (1 Cor. xiv, 26).
Hymns (Eph. v, 19; Col. iii, 16).
Prayers (Acts ii, 42 ; 1 Tim. ii, 1-2).
Almsgiving (Rom. xv, 26 ; 1 Cor. xvi, 1 -2 ; 2 Cor. ix, 10-13).
Profession of Faith (1 Tim. vi, 12).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 7
Kiss of Peace (Rom. xvi, 16; I Cor. xvi, 20; I Thess. v, 26; I Pet. v, 14).
2. The Eucharist Proper ;
A prayer of thanksgiving (Lk. xxii, 19 ; 1 Cor. xi, 23 ; xiv, 16 ; 1 Tim. ii, 1).
The blessing of bread and wine by the words of Institutional Cor. x, 16; Mt xxvi, 26-28; Mk. xiv, 22-24; Lk. xxii, 19-20; I Cor. xi, 23).
Prayers, remembering Christ's death (Acts ii, 42 ; Lk. xxii, 19 ; I Cor. xi, 23, 25, 26).
The people eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine (Mt. xxvi, 26, 27 ; Mk. xiv, 22, 2351 Cor. xi, 26-29).
We shall notice especially that the distinction be- tween these two services, the ordinary Synaxis and the Eucharist proper, remains in all liturgies.2 It can still be seen, a perceptible joining together of two functions in every rite, including our Roman Mass. For the rest, our knowledge of the details of the whole composite service increases from the earliest fathers, and so on each century. The details developed naturally, the prayers and formulas, eventually the ceremonial actions crystallized into set forms. But the service is always the same. Different arrangements of subsidiary parts, greater insistence on certain elements in various places produce different liturgies ; but all go back eventually to this outline. The Roman Mass is one form of a service that we find first, not in the laws of some mediaeval Pope, but in the Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospels.3
1 Mr. W. C. Bishop contends that in the N.T. these are words of administration, not of consecration. See p. 146.
2 The Per. Silviae (see p. 82), still distinguishes these as separate services, held in different churches (xxv, 1-3; ed. Heraeus, pp. 31-32).
8 The liturgical texts in the N.T. are collected in Cabrol and Leclercq : Monumenta Eccl. Liturgica, I, i, 1-51.
8 THE MASS
§ 2. The Liturgy in the Apostolic Fathers.
The little book that is apparently the earliest extant Christian work after the New Testament, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didache),1 contains two allusions to the holy Eucharist. Chap. xiv. I says : "Every Sun- day of the Lord (Kara fcvptafcrjv 8e tcvpiov), having assem- bled together, break bread and give thanks (ev^apLarr}- o-are), having confessed your sins, that your sacrifice be pure ". From this we have two conclusions of dogmatic importance, confession before Communion (it is a real confession made "in church" ; see iv. 14) and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. For its ritual we have that it was celebrated every Sunday and that already its name is " Thanksgiving " {evxap^crria, Eucharist). The other text is curious and has many difficulties: (ix, 1), " Concerning the Thanksgiving {evyapicFTia, one might already use the word Eucharist), give thanks thus, (2) First for the cup : We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy vine of thy servant David which thou hast shown us through thy servant2 Jesus. Glory to thee for ever. (3) But for the broken (bread) : We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the life and wisdom which thou hast shewn us through thy servant Jesus. Glory to thee for ever. (4) As this broken bread was scattered over the mountains, and has been gathered together and made one, so may thy Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom ; for thine is the glory and the power, through Jesus Christ for ever. (5) But no one is to eat or drink of your Thanksgiving except those who are baptized in the name of Jesus ; for
1 About the years 80-100. It is now generally recognized as a Christian redaction of a Jewish book. Cfr. A. Harnack : Die Lehre der zivolf Apostel (Texte u. Untersuchungen, II, 1-2, Leipzig, 1884), etc.
2Uais, the same word has just been used for David. At this time it commonly means servant (Lk. vii, 7, etc.).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 9
because of this the Lord said : Do not give the holy thing to dogs. (x, i) After you are filled give thanks thus : (2) We give thanks to thee, holy Father, for thy holy name which thou hast made to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and im- mortality which thou hast shewn us through thy servant Jesus. Glory to thee for ever. (3), Thou, almighty Lord, hast created all things for thy name's sake and thou hast given food and drink to men to enjoy that they may give thanks to thee ; and to us thou hast given spiritual food and drink and life everlasting- through thy servant. (4) Above all we thank thee because thou art mighty. Glory to thee for ever. (5) Remember, O Lord, thy Church to free her from all evil and make her perfect in thy love ; gather her from the four winds and make her holy in thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for her ; for thine is the power and the glory for ever. (6) Let grace come and let this world perish. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone be holy let him draw nigh, if anyone be not, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. (7) But let the prophets give thanks as much as they will."
There are difficulties about this account, so that some people think that it is not about the holy Eucharist at all but only about an Agape. Others think it con- cerns a private Eucharist celebrated at home, not the official one in public.1 On the other hand the allusions to the Eucharist seem too obvious to allow any doubt ; as for the private Eucharist, its existence in the early Church remains to be proved. The reasonable inter- pretation of the passage in the Didache seems to be that it is an incomplete description of an abnormal
1 A good short account of this discussion with references will be found in Rauschen : Eucharistie und Busssakrament (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1910), pp. 95-98. See also Batiffol : Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive, 2 serie (2nd ed., Paris, 1905, 108- 117).
io THE MASS
type of Eucharistic service. Supposing this, we notice in the first place that the prayers are modelled on the Jewish prayers for blessing bread and wine on the eve of the Sabbath.1 In this case too the book shews it- self to be a Christian remodelling of Jewish texts. The abnormal points are that the wine is blessed before the bread — this is unique in all Christian literature — that there is no mention of the Last Supper, no reference to the words of Institution, only the vaguest allusion to the Real Presence.2 We have however in this account certain elements that we shall find constant in the normal liturgy. There is first the Thanksgiving- prayer. God is thanked for the benefit of creation and for his gifts in nature (x, 3), then for his grace given to us through Christ (ib. x, 2 ; ix, 2, 3).3 This is quite the usual form of that prayer. There is a thanks- giving before and another after Communion. There is also a double Intercession-prayer for the Church (ix, 4 and x, 5). The Thanksgiving and Intercession ends with the formula : " Hosanna to the God of David ". This resembles part of the Sanctus, in its usual place. We see the restriction of Communion to those who are baptized (ix, 5), the breaking of the bread (ix, 3), the word Eucharist (thanksgiving) almost, but not quite, the technical name for the rite of the Lord's Supper.4 The Lord's Prayer is not mentioned at the breaking of bread, but it is quoted in full just before
1 The original Jewish forms are in the treatise Berakhoth (=" Blessings," the first treatise in the Mishna, chap. 6) in the Talmud. Cfr. Sabatier : La Didache (Paris, 1885) pp. 99 seq. Some parallel Jewish prayers will be found in Cabrol-Leclercq : Monum. Reel. Lit., I, i, xvii-xxiii.
2 In x,3 the " spiritual food and drink," though it might mean only Christ's teaching, may yet well refer to the Eucharistic food, in dis- tinction to the ordinary food and drink given to all men (above, p. 9).
3 Compare especially here the Jewish thanksgiving-prayers, e. gr. : Cabrol-Leclercq, op. cit. p. xviii, Shemone-Esre 1.
4 " To eat and drink of your Eucharist " (ix, 5) ; but the prophesy- ing in x, 7 is also a " Eucharist ".
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 1 1
(viii, 2) with a doxology ( " for thine is the power and the glory for ever"); people are told to " pray thus thrice in the day" (viii, 3). There are also a number of liturgical forms: "Glory be to thee for ever" {aoi r\ Soga et9 tovs alwvas, ix, 2, 3 ; x, 2, 4), " Thine is the power and the glory for ever" (x, 5), "Through thy servant Jesus (<Ha 'Irjaov rov ttcuSos gov, x, 2). The form: "We give thee thanks because thou art mighty" (x, 4) recalls: "We give thee thanks for thy great glory " in the Gloria in excelsis. For the rest the tone of this document is that of an excited, eager Jewish Christianity, unlike the calmer atmosphere we shall see in the more normal development. The Chiliast expectation is very pronounced (x, 6 ; cfr. 1 Thess. iii, 13 ; iv, 17 ; v, 23 ; Apoc. xxii, 20); the form
Maran atha (x, 6, Aramaic: 7\TS\& bWlft "our Lord comes " ; cfr. 1 Cor. xvi, 22) and the " Kingdom " into which the scattered Church is to be collected (x, 5) be- long to the same idea. The Prophets may still "give thanks " as much as they like (x, 7).
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians1 con- tains little direct reference to the liturgy. On the other hand, there are prayers in it that everyone admits to be full of liturgical forms. Indeed the chief prayer in this letter is the basis of a theory which, if true, throws a flood of light on the liturgy of the first cen- tury.2 Meanwhile, on the principle of distinguishing between the actual remains and conjectural theories, we here quote only what the letter itself tells us. Chapters xl and xli show that there was a regulated order for the worship of God: xl, 1, "We must do all things that the Lord told us to do at stated times,
1 Written about the years 96-98 to pacify a schism in the Church of Corinth. As late as the time of Eusebius it was still read publicly in churches (H.E. Ill, 16).
2 See below, pp. 63-65.
12 THE MASS
in proper order. 2. For he commanded that the offerings and services 1 should be performed, not rashly nor in disorder, but at fixed times and hours. 3. And he himself by his most high will arranged where and by whom they should be celebrated, so that every- thing should be done piously according to his command and should be agreeable to his will. 4. Therefore those who make their offerings 2 at the appointed times are well pleasing and blessed ; they follow the command of the Lord and do not err. 5 . To the high priest 3 his own services (Xeirovpyiat) are appointed ; a special place is given to the priests, and levites 4 have their offices {hiaicoviat). The layman is commanded by lay laws, xli, 1. Each of us, brothers, should please God honourably in his own place with a good conscience, not transgressing the appointed order of his services (XecTovpyicu) " etc. (a comparison with the order of the temple follows).
From this text we have some points of dogmatic im- portance. There is a graduated hierarchy, of which each order has its own duties,5 the clergy are clearly distinguished from the laity. We have also for our purpose the fact that already in the first century the services of the Church are performed in a fixed order, which was believed to come from our Lord. So even in the very earliest period these services are not merely prayer-meetings arranged according to the caprice of the people. This point is important since it forms the necessary supposition for any attempt to reconstruct
1 Atirovpyiai, ' liturgies '.
2 Both here and above irpocr<popal, ' oblations ' which soon became the technical name for the offering of the holy Eucharist. Here it may still include the offerings for the poor.
3 apx^p^vs, the bishop. It is the word always used in the Bible for the Jewish high priest and in Hebr. v, 5 etc. for Christ.
4 Deacons.
5 The hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons occurs several times in this letter, xlii, 4, 5 ; i, 3 etc.
E UCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 1 3
the order of these earliest services. Whether our attempts are successful or not, we know that there certainly was an order fixed, at least in its main out- line. The letter contains a number of formulas that are clearly liturgical, for instance : tl Since we have all these things from him, we must give thanks for all things to him, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen ".1 It also gives us an allusion to the Sanctus, an element of nearly all liturgies: xxxiv, 6. "The Scripture says : Ten thousand times ten thousand waited on him, and a thousand thousand served him and cried : Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts, every creature is full of thy glory.2 (7) And we, guided by our conscience, gathered together in one place, cry to him constantly as with one voice, that we become sharers in his great and glorious promises."
And then especially, besides other prayers and formulas, there is the long prayer of chap, lix-lxi, in which everyone recognizes a magnificent example of an early Christian thanksgiving.3 The prayer is full of quotations from the Bible. It thanks God for creation, for his various benefits in nature and especi- ally for his grace in Jesus Christ, his beloved Son. It prays for all kinds of men, for kings and governors, for the conversion of pagans and sinners, for the Chris- tians themselves, for peace and grace, and ends with a doxology : " We confess thee, who alone canst give us these and more good things, by Jesus Christ the high priest and protector of our souls, through whom be glory and majesty to thee now, for ever and ever and for ages and ages. Amen " (lxi, 3).
In short this prayer contains just the ideas of the Eucharistic prayer (our preface) and the Intercession that we find in the liturgies written later.
1xxxviii, 4; cfr. xliii, 6; 1, 7 ; lviii, 2 etc.
8 Dan. vii, 10; Is. vi, 3. a Duchesne: Origines, 49-51.
14 THE MASS
The Epistle of Barnabas 1 has a reference to Sunday : " We celebrate the eighth day in joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead " (xv, 9), and one or two liturgical formulas.2 The letters of St. Ignatius 3 contain a number of liturgical formulas and prayers.4 He insists most of all always on the hierarchy,5 the necessity of doing all things in union with the bishop,6 the wicked- ness of schism and dissension.7 The holy Eucharist is to him, as to St. Paul (1 Cor. x, 17), the bond of union between Christians ; hence his insistence on the unity of the Eucharist : Magn. vii, 1 : " As the Lord did nothing without the Father, being always united to him, neither himself nor by the apostles, so do you do nothing without the bishop and the presbyters, nor allow anything to seem decent to you if it be done separately ; but when you come together let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope in love and in holy joy, and this is Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better. 2. Come together all of you as to one temple of God, to one altar, to one Jesus Christ who came forth from one Father, was with one (Father) and went back to him." Phil, iv: " Be careful to use one Eucharist 8 ; for there is one body of our Lord Jesus Christ and one chalice in the unity of his blood ; one altar 9 as there is one bishop with the priesthood and deacons." To separate oneseli from this common service under the bishop10 is a
1 Probably written about the time of Nerva (g6-g8) ; the attribution to the apostle St. Barnabas is apocryphal.
2 vi, 10 ; xvi, 8 ; xxi, 9.
3 Bishop of Antioch (f 107) ; seven letters are authentic.
4 E. gr. Phil, vi, 3 ; Smyrn. i, and ii ; x, 1. ; xii, 2.
8 E. gr. Magn. vi, 1. ; xiii, 1 ; Trail, ii, 2-3 ; iii, 1, dc.
6 Eph. iv, 1-2 ; Trail, ii, 1 ; Smyrn. viii, 1 ; etc.
7 Eph. v, 1-3; vii, 1-2; xvi, 1-2 ; Trail, vii, 1-2; etc.
8 Always used by Ignatius in the special technical sense.
9 Bvariacrriipiov, the sacrificial word.
10 " That Eucharist is valid (/SejSato, certain, safe) which is celebrated by the bishop or by whom he has appointed " (Smyrn. viii, 1).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 1 5
grievous sin of schism.1 The crime of the schismatical Docetes is that "they abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the body of our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Smyrn. vii, 1). "Eucharist and prayer" means the whole complex of the liturgical sendee. Ignatius does not mean that the Docetes say no prayers. Indeed from the text below (viii, 1) we see that they had their own Eucharist too. The sin is that they abstain from the Catholic liturgy held in communion with the bishop.2 Ignatius speaks of Sunday as the Christian holy day too.3 These texts are of great importance dogmatically ; for the student of liturgy they contain little beyond the evident importance of an official liturgy as the sign of union, and the mention of Sunday ; unless indeed we may deduce a certain uni- formity of rite from the insistence on the one Eucharist.
St. Polycarp 4 in his letter speaks again of the same hierarchy, quotes the Our Father as said by Christians,5 and gives a specimen of a prayer that has a liturgical look.6
The curious little work known as the Shepherd of Hermas 7 contains a number of formulas, ceremonies, and other liturgical matter mixed up in its strange visions and allegories, but it has little or nothing new for our purpose. Nor shall we find more in the anonymous letter to Diognetus.8
We have then from the Apostolic Fathers the fact that there was at any rate a certain amount of uniformity in the Liturgy of the first century, a few allusions that seem to be liturgical, such as the Sanctus and Our Father, references to Sunday as supplanting the Sabbath,
1 Eph. v, 2-3. 2 Funk . patres apost [t 28l note<
3 Magn. ix, 1. * Bishop of Smyrna, martyred in 155.
5 ad Phil, vi, 2 ; vii, 2. 6 xii, 2-3.
7 Probably about the middle of the second century.
8 Second century.
1 6 THE MASS
a long liturgical prayer in Clement of Rome, and the description of a somewhat abnormal rite in the Didache. Our knowledge increases enormously in the next period, chiefly through Justin Martyr's classical de- scription.
§ 3. The Liturgy in the Second Century.
Our first witness in the second century is a Pagan Roman, the younger Pliny (C. Plinius Caecilius), at that time Governor of Bithynia. About the years 1 1 1-1 1 3 he writes to his master, the Emperor Trajan, to ask how he is to treat Christians. He describes what he has learned about this sect from Christians who had apostatized under torture : " All (his informers) have worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and have cursed Christ". Then they told him about the Christian meetings : " They assert that this is the whole of their fault or error, that they were accustomed on a certain day (stato die) to meet together before daybreak (ante lucem), and to sing a hymn alternately (secum invicem) to Christ as a god,1 and that they bound themselves by an oath (sacramento) not to do any crime, but only not to commit theft nor robbery nor adultery, not to break their word nor to refuse to give up a deposit When they had done this it was their custom to depart, but to meet again to eat food — ordinary and harmless food however. They say that they (the apostate informers) have stopped doing this after my edict in which I forbade private assemblies (hetaerias) as you commanded."2
1 So Ignatius, Eph. iv, 1 : " Therefore you sing to Jesus Christ in unity and loving concord ".
2 The whole letter (no. 96 or 97) in Teubner's Bibl. Script. Gr. et Rom. : C. Plin. Ccec. Secundi epist. libri novem (ed. Keil, Leipzig, 1896), p. 231 ; also in E. Preuschen's Analecta (Samml. ausgew. kirchen- u. dogmengesch. Quellenschriften, 8), Freiburg i. Br. Mohr, 1893, pp. 14-16 ; or in Kirch : Enchiridion fontium historice ecclesi asticce antique?, Freiburg im B., Herder, 1910, pp. 18-19.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 17
The " status dies " is certainly Sunday. There are two meetings, the early one in which they sing their hymn and a later one (in the evening ?) when they eat food — the Agape or Eucharist1 It seems that the oath to do no wrong is a confusion of Pliny's mind, who took it for granted that these secret meetings must involve some kind of conspirator's oath, whereas the only obligation of which his informers could tell him was not to do wrong.2
This slight allusion does not perhaps add much to our knowledge of the early liturgy, but it seems worth while to quote that picture (one of the first mentions of Christianity by a pagan) of the Christians meeting before daybreak and singing their hymn to Christ as God.
St. Justin Martyr is the chief of the early apologists. He was a pagan convert martyred about the year 167. Not the least of the benefits we owe to him is his detailed account of how the Christians of Rome in his time celebrated the holy Liturgy. In the First Apology \ addressed to Antoninus Pius (13 8- 161) and to his adopted sons, the Senate and Roman people, he is con- cerned to show the harmlessness of Christianity, especi- ally of the mysterious Christian meetings, which were illegal, about which pagans believed horrible things. In reading his description we must remember that he writes for this purpose, not to supply future archaeolo- gists with a complete picture of liturgical practices. Nevertheless his defence takes the form of an outline ol the service which to the liturgist is the most precious document of the first three centuries.
In the chapters lxi-lxiv he writes of baptism ; chapters lxv-lxvii describe the Eucharist The passage is too important not to be quoted in full.
1 For this much discussed question see E. Baumgartner : Euch. u Agape, pp. 247-270.
2 See G. Rietscael : Lehrbuch dcr Liturgik, pp. 244-246.
2
18 THE MASS
lxv, I. " But we, after we have thus cleansed him who believes and is joined to us, lead him to those who are called the brethren,1 where they are gathered together, in order to say common prayers intently for ourselves, for him who has been enlightened 2 and for all others everywhere ; that we, having learned true things, may be worthy to be found good workers in deeds and keepers of the commands, and so may be saved with eternal salvation. 2. When we have finished the prayers we greet each other with a kiss. 3 . Then bread and a cup of wine 3 are brought to the president 4 of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and makes thanksgiving at length 5 because we are granted these favours 6 by him (the Father). When he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving all the people present cry out, saying Amen. 4. But the word Amen in the Hebrew language means so be it. 5. And after the president has given thanks (made the Eucharist) 7 and all the people have cried out, those who are called by us deacons give to each one present to share the Eucharistic8 bread and wine9 and water, and carry them to those not present.
1 Those who are baptized, the faithful. a (pwTio-Oeis, the man just baptized.
3 Kpafia, literally ' mixture,' but very commonly used for wine.
4 irpoeorTcas, the bishop. 5 iirl tto\v, namely, it is a long prayer.
6 u7rep rod KaT^iSxrOai tovtwv Trap' avrov.
7 sbxa.piGT'hva.vTOs $€ rod irpoeaTooros. The word evxapicrla may now generally be translated Eucharist. We shall see below (lxvi, 1) that it is already the technical name.
8 6 ebxapi(TTr)9ih &pros.
9 olvos here, the regular word for wine. Harnack thinks that the elements in Justin are bread and water (Tcxte und Untersuchungen, 1891, vii, 2, pp. 115-144). He has been refuted by many people, both Catholic and Protestant. See especially Funk: Die Abendmahlsele- mente bet Justin in his KirchengeschichtlicheAbhandlungen und Unter- suchun gen, i, (Paderborn, 1897), 278-292, and A. W. F. Blunt in his edition of The Apologies of Justin Martyr, Cambridge, 191 1, Intro- duction, pp. xlii.-xliv.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 19
lxvi, 1. And this food is called by us Eucharist, of which no one else may have a share, except he who believes that our teaching is true and has been cleansed by the washing for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, and so lives as Christ taught. 2. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink ; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour having been made flesh by a word of God : had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have learned that the food, made a Eucharist by a word of prayer that comes from him,2 from which our blood and flesh are nourished, by change are the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus. 3. For the apostles in the commen- taries made by them, which are called Gospels, have handed down that it was taught to them so : that Jesus having taken bread and having given thanks said 3 : Do this in memory of me : this is my body ; and in the same way having taken the cup and having given thanks he said : This is my blood, and gave only to them. 4. The wicked demons, imitating this, have taught that it should be done in the mysteries of Mithra. You know or may learn that bread and a cup of water are placed there with certain hymns in the rites of initiation.
lxvii, I. But we after this4 always remind each
1 Sta \6yov deov crapKoiroirjdeh 'h]crovs. There is considerable dis- cussion whether " word of God " here means the personal Logos, or merely a word of command. See pp. 22-24.
2 r^v 81' evxvs A.J70U tov Trap' avrov £vxapi(m)Q eiffav rpocprjv, a famous and much disputed clause. See pp. 22-24.
3rbv 'lyvovv XafS6vTa &pTov eu^aptiTTTjo'aj'TO enre?v. This may be translated : " Jesus, having taken bread and made it a Eucharist, said . . . ". It is impossible to say when Justin has in his mind the technical sense of euxa/)t0^T€'a'• ^n anY case tne pagans for whom he wrote would always read it as ' to give thanks ' and would probably be puzzled when he uses it as an active or passive verb.
4 That is : after baptism and the first Eucharist that followed it immediately.
20 THE MASS
other of these things ; those who can, help the desti- tute, and we are always united amongst ourselves. 2. And we bless the maker of all things for all we receive, through his son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Ghost. 3. And on the day called of the Sun an as- sembly in one place is made of all who live in the towns and in the country ; and the commentaries of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. 4. Then, when the reader has stopped, the president makes a warning and an exhortation about the memory of these admirable things in a speech. 5. Then we all stand up together and send up prayers and, as I have said, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought up and wine and water, and the president sends up prayers and likewise l thanksgivings, as far as he has the power, and all the people cry out saying : Amen, and each one receives a distribution and share of the Eucharist and it is taken to those not present by the deacons. 6. But the wealthy people who wish to do so give what they please, each one as he likes, and what has been collected is handed over to the President and he supports orphans and widows and those who are in difficulties through sickness or any other cause, and prisoners and strangers on their travels ; and in general he is the protector of all who are in want. 7. We all make our reunion on the day of the sun, since that is the first day on which God, changing the darkness and matter, made the world ; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For they cruci- fied him on the eve of the day of Kronos and on the day after that of Kronos, which is the day of the sun,
1 Sfxolcos Kal. Drews (Untersuchungen u. s. w., 70-71), translates this *' in the same way and," and thinks that it means that the " prayers " were said in the same way as those of the people, just mentioned (so are an Intercession). In view of Justin's frequent use of the formula I no longer think this can really be urged. But see what he says (loc. cit.).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 21
appearing to his apostles and disciples he taught them these things which I offer to your consideration." That is a literal translation of this famous passage. Its length, redundance and awkwardness of expression are characteristic of Justin's style.
We notice first that he describes the service of the Holy Eucharist twice over. It occurs first as the rite that immediately follows baptism (lxv, 1-5) ; then after an explanation of what it means (lxvi) he goes on to describe the normal life of a Christian and so explains that on Sunday Christians meet together and celebrate the Eucharist, which he describes over again (lxvii, 3-7). Both accounts refer to the same Eucharistic rite,1 as he says (lxvii, 5: "as I have mentioned"). We may therefore combine them to form a complete picture. The word "Eucharist" is now clearly the technical name for the consecrated bread and wine (lxvi, 1 : "this food is called by us Eucharist"). We need in future have no scruple in understanding it so and need no longer translate it "Thanksgiving". Justin's open and complete account of the whole service and of its meaning argues that there is as yet no discipline/, arcani. He attributes the rite to our Lord's institution as con- tained in the gospels (lxvi, 3), though his account is not an exact quotation from any one evangelist. He insists on Sunday as the day of its celebration (lxvii, 3, 7).2 Only the baptized who lead good lives may attend and receive Communion (lxvi, 1). This implies the possibility of excommunication of wicked people. The Eucharist is the sign and bond of union between Christians (lxvii, 1), the memory of Christ's life and
1 Except that in the baptismal Eucharist the baptism takes the place of the liturgy of the catechumens. It is followed at once by the liturgy of the faithful beginning with their prayers and the kiss of peace. This again argues that the two services were essentially different rites.
2 But it is also celebrated on other days, as for example immediately after a baptism.
22 THE MASS
passion (ib.),1 an act of thanksgiving to God for all his benefits (lxvii, 2) and "the flesh and blood of the in- carnate Jesus " (lxvi, 2). Certain passages of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 2 confirm these points : bread with wine and water are the species consecrated (Dial. 41, 70, 117), Sunday is mentioned in c. 41. We can add from the Dialogue that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice offered only by priests (116) and that it con- tained a prayer explicitly naming our Lord's passion and death (the Anamnesis: 41, 117).
We come then to the question whether Justin implies that the words of Institution were recited in the Eucharist. This is connected with that of the inter- pretation of the clause : rrjv Bif ezr^r}? \6yov rod irap avrov evxapHTTTjOe'lcrav rpcxfrr/v, which we have trans- lated : the food made a Eucharist by a word of prayer that comes from him. The passage has been much discussed. It is obviously parallel to the former one : 81a \6yov Oeov aapKOTroirjOels 'Irjcrovs XpLaros (Jesus Christ having been made flesh by a word of God). The same " word " that caused the incarnation now causes the bread and wine to be made a Eucharist. What is this " word " ? Many writers take it for granted that in the first clause it is the personal Word of God.3 Supposing this, it seems natural that in the second clause too it should be understood personally. A number of people therefore translate oY evxys \6yov tov irap avrov (turning round the two genitives) as :
xCfr. Dial. 41, 70, 117.
2 An artificial dialogue with a Jew Trypho (Rabbi Tarphon ?) writ- ten later, in which Justin explains that the Jewish ceremonial law had only a temporary value (9-47), that to adore Christ is not polytheism (48-108), that Gentiles also are called to the Christian Church (109-142).
3 Scheiwiller : Die Elemente der Eucharistie in den ersten 3 jfhrhdtn (Mainz, 1903) p. 35 ; Watterich : Der Consecrationsmomcnt im hi. Abendmahl (Heidelberg, 1896) p. 41 ; Hoppe : Die Epiklesis (Schaff- hausen, 1864) pp. 251-253, Struckmann: Die Gegenwart Christi in der hi. Euch. (Vienna, 1905) p. 54, etc.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 23
"by the prayer of the Word who came from him (God)," that is : the bread and wine are made a Eucharist by the prayer of our Lord who is the Word proceeding from God.1 In spite of Salaville's objec- tion 2 this does not seem impossible grammatically, at least as far as the clause rod irap avTov is concerned. Others understand Logos personally in the first clause, but as meaning simply ' word,' ' formula ' (in the usual sense) in the second clause.3
The right interpretation seems to be that in both clauses Logos means, not the personal Word of God, but a word of power, an almighty command that causes effects above nature. This mighty word of God caused the Incarnation : in the same way the word of prayer that we have from Christ causes the consecration of the Eucharist4 So the use of Logos is parallel in both cases. The most obvious argument for this position is that in both clauses Justin uses it without the article — Sia \6yov deov — cV evxv? \6yov. For the personal Word of God o Xoyo? would seem more natural, as 6 vlos and to wvev/xa in lxv, 3.5 There are moreover parallel examples for both clauses in this sense. In the Dialogue with Trypho Justin says that Eve received the word (X0709) of the Serpent and brought forth disobedi- ence and death, but Mary received the message of the angel saying : * Be it done unto me according
1 So Watterich op. cit. (except that he thinks Logos to be the Holy Ghost in both cases : the principle would be the same as far as we are concerned — it would be a person). Mr. Edmund Bishop takes the view that it is the Second Person in both cases (in Dom. R. H. Connolly's Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, Cambridge : Texts and Studies viii, 1, 1909, pp. 158-163).
2 In the Echos d'Orient, xii (1909), p. 222.
3 Scheiwiller, I.e., Hoppe, I.e., etc.
4 So Dreher : Die Zeugnisse des Ignatius, Justin und Irendus uber die Eucharistie (Sigmaringen, 1871) p. 12 (quoted by Salaville, I.e. p. 134).
5 But he does use Tcv^vjxa ayiov for the Holy Ghost (lxi, 3, 13) and 5vva/j.is (without the article) for the Son (xxxiii, 4, 6, etc.).
24 THE MASS
to thy word' and brought forth the Son of God.1 Here logos plainly means only a message, a word of command. In another part of the first Apology he says that we praise God as much as we can by " a word of prayer and thanksgiving" (\6y<a evxvs koX eu%a- pia-rla^y2. Here there is no doubt as to the construc- tion ; evxn can only be the genitive after X0709. So we may take X0705 evxv? m our passage in the same sense and translate : " a word of prayer that comes from him (Christ)."3 What is this "word of prayer"? The question concerns the controversy about the Epiklesis. It is a prayer of thanksgiving, since by it the bread and wine are " made a Eucharist," and it is a. prayer, not merely the statement: "This is my body etc." 4 It seems most reasonable to understand it of the whole prayer of Consecration, the whole Anaphora which consecrates the gifts, which in the opinion of the Fathers of Justin's time was handed down entire by our Lord and his apostles.5
But it may be taken as certain that this traditional " word of prayer," whether it involves also an Epiklesis or not, at least includes the words of Institution, in Justin's account. He insists on the fact that our Lord commanded the memory of his Passion to be made in the Eucharist (Dial. 41 and 117). This memory must include that of the Last Supper and of the words he spoke then, which are the only ones mentioned by Justin in this connexion (1 Apol. lxvi, 3, above p. 19).6 We may then conclude certainly that the
1 Dial. 100. a 1 Apol. xiii.
3 So Struckmann : " das von ihm herkommende Wort des Gebets " (op. cit. p. 48), Batiffol : " une parole de priere qui vient de lui " (Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive, 2e. sene, Paris, 1906, p. 139).
4 Rudelbach thought it was the Lord's Prayer (Die Sacramentsworte, Nordlingen, 185 1, p. 67, quoted by Hoppe and Salaville, I.e.).
5 See below, pp. 51-52.
15 So Drews : Untersuchungen ilber die sogen. Clem. Lit. p. 73. All this is set forth and defended at length by S. Salaville : La liturgie
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 25
words of Institution were recited in Justin's liturgy. Putting together then the two liturgies described above (pp. 18-21) we have this scheme of the Euchar- istic service at Rome in the early second century : —
1. Lessons from the Bible are read (lxvii, 3), appar- ently an indefinite number, "as long as time allows."
2. Sermon by the bishop (lxvii, 4).
3. A prayer said by all standing for all kinds of people. Presumably this prayer is said only by the Faithful (baptized), since the man just baptized is at once admitted to it {Prayers of the Faithful, lxv, 1 ; lxvii, 5).
4. Kiss of Peace (lxv, 2).
5. Bread and wine with water are brought up and received by bishop (lxv, 3 ; lxvii, 5).
6. The Thanksgiving (Eucharistic prayer, Anaphora) said by the bishop " at length " and " as far as he has the power" ("praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," lxv, 3). The Anaphora contains "prayers" (e£%<zt) as well as " thanksgivings " (eu^a/oto-rtat), I Apol. lxvii, 5.
7. Memory of our Lord's passion, including the words of institution (Dial. 41, 117 ; 1 Apol. lxvi, 2-
3)-
8. The people end this prayer saying Amen (lxv, 3 ; lxvii, 5).
9. Communion under both kinds, also taken by the deacons to those who are absent (lxv, 5 ; lxvii, 5).
10. A collection for the poor, of which the place in the service is not clearly indicated (lxvii, 6).
decrite par S. Justin et Vepiclese, in the Echos d'Orient xii, (1909) 129- 136 and 222-227. Buchwald and others think that the " word of
prayer" in Justin is the "blessing" (j"Tl3*^!2) spoken by our Lord at the last supper (evxapio'T^cras) ; see pp. 404-405.
26 THE MASS
We have then from St. Justin a fairly complete out- line of the Roman Liturgy of his time. No other ante- nicene writer gives us as complete a description of the rite. But from a great number of incidental allusions in other early Fathers we can verify each detail of St. Justin's account. We shall find that all these allusions confirm Justin ; though without him we should often be uncertain as to the place of each element in the service. Justin's description then forms the background for our further enquiry. The other allusions give us sufficient ground for supposing in this first period a considerable uniformity in the service of the Holy Eucharist throughout the Church.1
Two other apologists of the second century, Athen- agoras of Athens 2 and Theophilus of Antioch 3 add little to our knowledge of the liturgy. Athenagoras contrasts with pagan sacrifices that of the Christians, who recognize God as the maker of all things, heaven, earth, water, light and darkness, stars, plants, beasts and men, and lift up pure hands to him.4 There is nothing in this obviously about the Eucharistic sacri- fice, but his enumeration of the creatures is significant as agreeing with the lists in early prefaces5 and we have at least one liturgical point — prayer with uplifted hands. In another place he mentions prayer for the emperor,6 again an important element of the " prayers of the faithful " in the liturgy. Theophilus too speaks of prayer for the emperor.7
1The question of uniformity in the first three centuries is discussed below, pp. 47-53-
2 Author of a " Defence of Christians" (Upeafieia irepl xpiVTwoiv. Legatio pro christianis) about the year 177 and of a work : Of the resurrection of the dead, written soon afterwards.
s Bishop of Antioch, author of an apology addressed to a pagan friend Autolycus {Ad Autolycum) written soon after 180.
4 Leg. pro Christ, xiii. 5 See p. 64, etc.
*Leg. pro Christ, xxxvii. 7 Ad Autol. I. ii.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 27
St. Irenceus has many allusions to liturgical ritual and prayers. He speaks of the Lessons read in church ; x the offerings made according to Christ's command 2 are wine from the vine and bread from corn, first fruits of the earth, by which we glorify God their maker.3 These receive " the word of God " and become the flesh and blood of Christ.4 He quotes the words of institution and applies to the holy Eucharist Malachy's prophecy (Mali. 10-11).5 He complains of the (Gnostic) followers of one Mark that they change the rite of the Eucharist. Mark " pretending to make a Eucharist of chalices {evyapurTeZv Trorypca) mixed with wine, drags out at length the word of the invocation (top \6jov T?}? €7rtK\ija6Q)<;) " and he allows women to make the Eucharist in his presence.6 So Irenaeus knows a form of Consecration that he calls " the word of the in- vocation " or " the word of God ". In another place he speaks of the consecrating form as " the invocation of God ".7 He mentions "Amen," " said by us together," 8 the sermon,9 hymns,10 offertory n and various liturgical forms.12
The apocryphal Acts of Apostles1* contain some liturgical matter. The Acts of fohn u twice give a Eucharistic prayer in the form of a thanksgiving. Then the bread is broken and given to all, and finally the form : " Peace be with you all, beloved ".15 The Acts
1 Adv. hcer. IV, xxxiii, 8. 2Ib. IV, xvii, 5. 3 Ib. IV, xviii, 4.
4 V, ii, 3 ; cfr. IV, xviii, 4, 5. 5 IV, xvii, 5. 6 I, xiii, 2.
7 IV, xviii, 5. See p. 403. 8 I, xiv, 1.
9 I, ix, 5 ; IV, xxiv, 2 ; xxxiii, 8.
10 II, ix, 1 ; xxviii, 3. n IV, xviii, 1, 2, 4, 6.
12 I, iii, 1 {els robs alwvas tS>v aldvcov) ; I, x, 3 ; I, x, 1-2 (a creed).
13 Gnostic legends of the II-III centuries. Greek texts in R. A. Lipsius and M. Bonnet: Acta apostolorum apocrypha (3 vols., Leipzig, 1898), and Bonnet : Supplementnm codicis apocryphi (ib. 1883) ; Syriac texts with Engl, version in W. Wright : Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (2 vols., London, 1871).
14 Lipsius and Bonnet : op. cit. II (i), 160-215.
15 Ib. chap. 85-86 (p. 193); chap. 109-110 (pp. 207-208).
28 THE MASS
of Judas Thomas 1 also give two accounts of a Liturgy. In one the name of the Trinity is invoked over the bread and wine and there is an Invocation of "the power of the blessing and the thanksgiving" to "come and abide upon this bread ".2 The other has an Anamnesis and a form of administration.3
We have then from the second century a number of allusions to the Eucharistic service and the one invalu- able description of St. Justin Martyr.
§ 4. The Fathers of the Third Century.
In this time the number of the Fathers and the ex- tent of their works increase so much that it is no longer possible to trace all the allusions. Two circumstances moreover modify the situation. First, the growing practice of the disciplina arcani makes people reticent about the holy Eucharist. We have in the third cen- tury nothing like Justin's description. Secondly, instead of the uniformity (at least in the main lines) 4 of the service in the earliest period, we see already traces of the different practices in different countries which eventually brought about the different liturgies. From this time we must consider the rite of each local Church separately.
In the East we have as witnesses for Alexandria and Egypt, Clement of Alexandria (f c. 215) and Origen (j* 251). Already in their writings we find points that we know to be peculiarities of the Alexandrine rite. Clement in his "Warning to the Gentiles " 5 invites them to leave their mysteries and the songs of the Maenads. He will show them in- stead the mysteries of the Logos, the chants of the
1 Gnostic, early 3rd cent. In Wright : op. cit. II, 146-298.
2 lb. chap. 133 (p. 240). 3 Chap. 158 (pp. 268-269).
4 See pp. 51-57. 5 Cohortatio ad Gentes (P.G. viii, 237-246).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 29
Angels, the lessons of the Prophets. There follows a poetic allusion to the Eucharist : " The song is a hymn to the King of all things, the maidens sing psalms, the Angels praise him, the Prophets teach. O truly holy mysteries ! The torches are borne in front and I see heaven and God. I am holy since I am consecrated (by my attendance). The Lord is the Priest, he seals the enlightened (baptized) and presents to the Father the faithful now saved for ever. . . . This eternal Jesus, the great Higli Priest of the one God, who is one with the Father, prays for men and teaches men. Come to me, that with me you may receive the gift of immortality. I give you the Logos, the knowledge of God and of yourself." l The people then sing psalms (Clement mentions maidens because of the pagan Maenads). Is the praise of the Angels the Sanctus? Lessons are read from the Prophets. We learn too that lights are carried in the liturgy. It is a sacrifice, celebrated by Christ, in which we are taught by him (in the reading of the Gospel) and he prays for us. In it we receive himself, the Logos ; this is the gift of immortality.
In other places Clement speaks of the lessons read in church,2 the singing of psalms 3 and hymns.4 He distinguishes the various kinds of liturgical prayer. Probst says that alrrjcreis and herjae^ are for the cate- chumens, and that eu%at are the prayers of the faithful.5
After the lessons a sermon follows.6 There is a kiss of peace.7 Clement alludes again to the Sanctus
1 Cohortatio ad Gentes, xii, 240-241 (condensed).
2 Stromata, vii, 7 (P.G. ix, 469).
3 Padagogus, ii, 4 (P.G. viii, 444) ; Strom, i, 1 (ib. 705).
4 Peed, ii, 4 (P.G. viii, 445) ; Strom, vii, 7 (P.G. ix, 469). A famous hymn by Clement is extant : ^rS/uiov irdeXcw aSa&v (Bridle of colts untamed), P.G. viii, 681-684. See Julian : Dictionary of Hymnology (London, 1892), ad voc.
BCfr. Probst : hit. der drei ersten christl. Jhrhdte, p. 135.
» Strom, vi, 14 (P.G. ix, 337). 7 Pad. iii, 11 (P.G. viii, 660).
3<J THE MASS
in the liturgy when he says that we " ever give thanks to God, as do the creatures (£wa) who praise him with hymns, of whom Isaias speaks in an allegory tt.1 These £coa are the Seraphim of Is. vi, 2-3. We learn further that the Eucharist was broken and given to the people.2
Origen refers constantly to the Eucharistic service.3 In his homilies he turns to the catechumens,4 but he is careful not to speak of the mysteries before the un- initiated. So we have a distinction between the liturgy of the catechumens and that of the faithful. In the first there were readings from the Bible ; 5 Origen often says in his homily : " Let us attend to what has been read ".6 The homilies themselves prove that the lessons were followed by a sermon, of which too he often speaks.7 Psalms and hymns were sung : 8 he mentions the melodies of psalms.9 He distinguishes the different kinds of prayers, according to 1 Tim. ii, I,10 insists on public prayer in church,11 quotes liturgical prayers,12 in- cluding the Lord's Prayer 13 and speaks of the attitudes
I Strom, vii, 12 (P.G. ix, 512). 2 Ib. i, 1 (P.G. viii, 692).
3 From 231 to his death in 254 or 255 Origen lived mostly at Cassarea Pal. ; so many references in his later works may refer rather to the rite of Palestine in his time.
4 In Luc. horn, vii (P.G. xiii, 1819).
5 lb. ; In Gen. horn, i, 17 (P.G. xii, 160); iv, 1 (ib. 183); viii, 1 (ib. 203); In Ex. horn, i, 1 (P.G. xii, 297); In Lev. hom. i, 5 (ib. 411).
6 In. Gen. hom. i, 17 (P.G. xii, 160).
7 In Gen. hom. x, 1 (P.G. xii, 215). Cfr. In Ex. hom. vii, 8 (P.G. xii, 349) ; In Lev. hom. iv, 9 (P.G. xii, 444).
8 In Iudic. hom. vi, 2 (P.G. xii, 974) ; In Psalm, hom. (P.G. xii, 1070).
9 In Ps. hom. (P.G. xii, 1071). a0 de Orat. 14 (P.G. xi, 460-461).
II In Gen. hom. vii, 6 (P.G. xii, 203) ; In Lev. hom. vi, 6 (ib. 475) ; in Num. hom. x, 3 (ib. 640) ; xxiii, 3 (ib. 748) ; contra Cels. viii, 34 (P.G. xi, 1568).
12 In Gen. hom. i, 17 (P.G. xii, 161) ; ii, 6 (ib. 175) ; vii, 6 (ib. 203) ; xiv, 4 (ib. 240) ; In Exod. hom. x, 4 (ib. 374) ; In Ier. hom. vi, 3 (P.G. xiii, 329), etc.
13 de Orat. 18 (P.G. xi, 473) ; 21-30 (ib. 480-549).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 31
of prayer.1 After the prayers followed the kiss of peace.2 Origen knows the liturgical Sanctus. In his commentary on Isaias, when he comes to Is. vi, 3, he says: "the coming of my Jesus is announced; there- fore is the whole earth now full of his glory ",3 clearly an allusion to its use in the liturgy. In his work against Celsus he describes the consecration: "We who give thanks (ev^apccrrovvres:) to the maker (£77- fiiovpyos) of all, eat the bread offered with thanksgiving and prayer which has become a certain holy body, which sanctifies those who eat it with healthy intention".4 This was, however, written about 248, while he lived at Caesarea Pal., and so refers rather to Palestine.
In another place he speaks of the " food sanctified by a word of God and prayer ".5 The indefinite " certain holy body *' (aw/ia ayiov n), an expression chosen no doubt because of the arcanum, suggests the form used almost exclusively for the Blessed Sacrament in the Alexandrine liturgy.6 Thus at the Communion in that rite the form was originally only : " Holy Body " (acofjua ayiov).7 In his treatise on Prayer Origen seems
1 In Num. horn, xx, 1 (Cabrol-Leclercq : Monumcnta ecclcsice liturgica, I. no. 1246).
In Exod. horn, iii, 3 (P.G. xii, 316); in Reg. hom. i, 9 (ib. 1005); de Orat. 31 (P.G. xi, 549).
In Num. horn, v, 1 (P.G. xii, 603) ; de Orat. 32 (P.G. xi, 556). Com- pare in the Alexandrine liturgy the deacon's exclamation : " Look towards the East " before the Sanctus (Brightman : Eastern Liturgies,
P- 131).
In Num. hom. x, 3 (P.G. xii, 640).
In Iesu Nave hom. x, 3 (ib. 881).
de Orat. 31 (P.G. xi, 552) ; in Num. hom. v, 1 (P.G. xii, 603).
2 In Rom. hom x, 33 (P.G. xiv, 1282).
3 In Is. hom. i, 2 (P.G. xiii, 222). There is, of course, nothing about the coming of our Lord in the original text.
4 C. Cels. viii, 33 (P.G. xi, 1565).
B In Mat. hom. xi, 14 (P.G. xiii, 948) ; cfr. 1 Tim. iv, 5.
6 Even at the end of his life, in Palestine, he may remember the liturgical forms of his youth in Egypt. Or perhaps Palestine had the same form.
7 Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, p. 140, cfr. p. 180.
32 THE MASS
to allude to the Anaphora, perhaps in the Alexandrine form. He calls it ttjv evxvv> a frequent name for this prayer (the petitions of the Liturgy of the Catechumens are herjcre^, ivrev^ec;, Trpoaevxds). The text is : " In the beginning and preface (jirpooifuov) of the prayer (•n}? evxv?) gl°ry 1S giyen to God according to our power,1 through Christ glorified with him in the Holy Ghost. After this each one should make thanksgivings in common for the favours granted to all and for those which he has received specially from God. After the thanksgiving let each be a penitent accuser of his sins before God and should ask first for help by which he may be set free from the habit of sin, then for forgive- ness for the past. After the confession, in the fourth place, a prayer should be added for great and heavenly things, for oneself, for all, for one's family and friends. And after all these things the prayer should be ended with a doxology of God through Christ in the Holy Ghost." 2 This corresponds to the main arrangement of the Anaphora in the liturgy of St. Mark.3 It begins 4 and ends 5 with a doxology, contains prayers praising God,0 thanking him for creation and re- demption,7 interceding for all kinds of people,8 asking forgiveness for sins 9 (the order is inverted here ; but both these last ideas run into one another).10 Com- munion was of course given under both kinds ; n the consecrated bread was taken in the hand and some- times carried home for Communion.12 It appears
1 An echo of Justin's expression, above, p. 20.
2 de Orat. 33 (P.G. xi, 557-56o)-.
3 But de Orat. too was written in Palestine. 4Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, p. 125.
5 lb. p. 137. 6P. 125. 7 126. 8 126-131.
9 P. 137, cfr. the Coptic form of the Epiklesis, p. 178 and p. 183.
10 The deacon takes up the Intercession again later, p. 138-139.
11 In Ioh. horn, xxviii, 4 (P.G. xiv, 688).
12 In Exod. xiii, 3 (P.G. xii, 391).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 33
that in Origen's time Ps. xxxiii, 9 ("Taste and see for the Lord is good ") was sung as a Communion Antiphon, as it is in the Antiochene liturgy.1 He explains that verse : "Perhaps David when he tells us to taste Christ indicates with these words his body, in which a symbol of the Law is contained, since the Eucharistic Body of Christ includes the shew-breads ".2 But the most famous allusion to the Alexandrine liturgy in Origen is : " We often say in the prayers : Almighty God, grant us a share in the prophets, grant us a share in the Apostles of thy Christ, grant that we may be found with Christ himself".3 In the liturgy of St. Mark we find in the Anaphora, after the diptychs of the departed, the words : " Grant us to have a share and a part with all thy saints " and there follows at once a memory of the saints of the Old and New Testaments and of their sacrifices.4 So also when Origen says: "Let us stand and pray God that we may be worthy to offer him gifts which he will give back to us, returning heavenly things for earthly " 5 he echoes the words in the same prayer: "Receive more- over their Eucharistic gifts and give back to them heavenly things for earthly, eternal for temporal ".6 Other liturgical forms and practices are found in Origen, such as the sign of the cross,7 the rudiment of vest- ments, inasmuch as the priest should be clothed in white linen,8 possibly incense ("the altar of the Lord
1 In the Alexandrine rite the Communion psalm is cl.
2 Probst: Lit. der 3 ersten Jhrdte, p. 174.
3 In Ier. hom. xiv, 14 (P.G. xiii, 421). 4 Brightman : op. cit. p. 129.
5 In Luc. hom. xxxix (P.G. xiii, igoi-1902).
8 Brightman : op. cit. p. 129. Mr. E. Bishop shows reason to believe that this clause is a later interpolation in the Mark liturgy, borrowed from Syria through Constantinople (Joum. The. St. x, 596- 599). So here too Origen may be echoing a Syrian, not Egyptian form.
7 In Exod. hom. vi, 8 (P.G. xii, 337) ; In Ps. xxxviii, hom. i, 5 (ib.
1405).
8 In Lev. hom. iv, 6 (ib. 440, D).
3
34 THE MASS
which should be fragrant with the sweetness of in- cense," l unless this be merely metaphorical), the idea of an ornate ritual in general,2 standing to receive Com- munion 3 and an allusion to the form : " Holy things for the holy," 4 common to all Eastern rites.5
Dionysius of Alexandria (f 264) furnishes us with some liturgical information about Egypt. Christians pray publicly for the emperor; in mentioning this he seems to quote a liturgical formula : "We worship and adore the one God and maker of all things who has given the empire to the most pious august Valerian and Gallienus. To him we offer continual prayers for their empire, that it may stand firm and unbroken."6 He describes the way in which Communion was received : "Who has heard the thanksgiving, has answered Amen with the others, who has stood at the table, and has stretched out the hands to receive the holy food and has taken a share in the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ " etc.7 A curious story about a sick priest who sent a particle of the blessed Sacrament to a dying man by a boy 8 gives us an idea of the way it was then reserved. Dionysius mentions psalms sung in church 9 and a doxology used in the liturgy: "To God the Father and the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Ghost, be glory and might for ever and ever. Amen."10
The Second Book of the Apostolic Constitutions
1 In Iud. horn, iii, 2 (ib. 965, A).
2 In Iesu Nave horn, x, 3 (ib. 881, C).
3 In Luc. horn, xv, (P.G. xiii, 1839, C).
4 In Lev. horn, xiii, 5 (P.G. xii, 551, B).
5 Brightman : op. cit. Alexandria p. 138, Antioch p. 62 etc.
6 Dionysius Alex. : ep. x, adv. Germanum, 5 (P.G. x, 1321, A) ; cfr. ep. xi, ad Hermammonem, 2 (ib. 1327, A).
7 Ep. iv, ad Sixtum ii (P.L. v, 97, A).
8 Ep. iii, ad Fabium Antioch. 11 (P.G. x, 1309-1312).
' Cabrol-Leclercq : Monumenta eccl. lituvgica, no. 1524 (p. 143). 10 Apol. ad Dionysium Rom. at the end (P.L. v, 128, B), also quoted by St. Basil ; de Spir, scto. xxix, 72 (P.G, xxxii, 201, B).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 35
(see p. 54 ) gives a fairly complete outline of a liturgy. This is generally supposed to be Antiochene. Dr. Baumstark thinks that it (and the fragments in Bk. vii) represent a different tradition from Bk. viii and are rather Egyptian in origin. Funk denies this and maintains that all Ap. Const, are compiled by the same person, in Syria.1 Written down in the IVth century, no doubt it represents an earlier tradition, presumably of Syria.
As set in order by Brightman 2 the rite is :
I. Liturgy of the Catechumens.
1. Two lessons read by a reader (dvayvoo(Tr7]<;) from the Old Testament
2. Two readers chant psalms in turn and the people " repeat the last words " (ra aKpocrTL^ta v7ro-^raX\erco). This is the "responsory psalm" in which the whole text is chanted (from a psalter ?) by one person and the people or choir echo the last cadences, possibly often the same form, as in our Invitatorium at Matins. Some psalms (e. gr. cxxxv) are evidently written to be sung in such a way).
3. The Acts of the Apostles and an Epistle are read.
4. A deacon or priest reads the Gospel, all standing in silence.
5. Some (not all) of the priests preach, lastly the bishop.
6. The catechumens and penitents are expelled. The doorkeepers and deaconesses watch the doors arrange the people and keep order.
JSee below, pp. 54-55.
2 Op. cit. 28-30. See also Cabrol-Leclercq : Monutn. eccl. liturg. I, i, pp. 225-226.
3*
36 THE MASS
II. Liturgy of the Faithful.
1. Prayers of the faithful, all standing towards the East
2. The deacons bring up the offerings (bread and wine), others look after the people and keep them in silence.
3. The deacon who assists the bishop says : c< No one (shall have any quarrel) against any one ; * no one in hypocrisy ". Kiss of peace.
4. The deacon prays for the Church, the world and all its parts, for the fruits of the earth, for priests and people, for the bishop and emperor, for peace, in the form of a litany (apparently the people answer each clause, as in the later forms of litany).
The bishop 2 prays : " Save thy people, O Lord, and bless thine inheritance, which thou hast acquired and dost possess by the precious blood of thy Christ, which thou hast called a royal priesthood and a holy nation ".
5 . " After this the sacrifice is made, the people all standing and praying in silence ".
6. Communion (under both kinds) ; the women receive veiled. And the doors are watched that no pagan nor catechumen come in.
We notice in this description how little the writer says about the Eucharistic prayer, how reticent he is about this part, compared with his full account of the liturgy of the catechumens. It is again the fear of be- traying the arcanum. But the Eucharist is called openly " the body of the Lord and the precious blood " 3. In spite of this reticence we have here a great deal of information about the liturgical use of an early local church ; its comparative agreement, as
1 NM) ris Kara riv6s. 2 He is called Upevs and apxiepevs.
3 Tt> KvpiaKbv ffwfxa Ka\ rb ri/xiov al/xa.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 37
far as it goes, with the other rite of the eighth book is significant.1
For the West we could wish we had any such ac- count of the liturgy of this time at Rome. Unfortu- nately between Justin Martyr and the fourth century there is hardly anything. Two Roman writers of the third century, Hippolytus and Novatian, give us only the vaguest direct allusions, though in another way we can perhaps deduce more from them.2
Hippolytus 3 speaks of churches as " houses of God " 4 and says that in them God is worshipped with prayers and hymns.5 In his commentary on the book of Pro- verbs he explains the text: "Wisdom has prepared herself a table" (Prov. ix, 1, 2) thus: "Every day his precious and immaculate body and his blood are consecrated and offered on the mystic and divine table, in memory of that memorable first table of the mysterious divine repast".6
Nor can we gather much from Novatian? In Chap. VIII of his de Trinitate, after a list of God's benefits to mankind, which seems to suggest the similar lists in the Preface of the earliest liturgies,8 he alludes to
1 See p. 61. 2 See p. 64.
3 The first antipope. He was a rival of Pope Callixtus I (217-222), a Subordinationist and author of ten books of Philosophumena, of which a part is extant (P.G. xvi, 3017-3454) and other works. He was eventually reconciled to the lawful Pope (Pontianus, 230-235) and died with him in exile in Sicily in 235. He writes in Greek. Con- cerning the so-called " Canons of Hippolytus " see below, pp. 56 59.
4 In Susannam, 22 (P.G. x, 693, C).
5 In Dan. (Mon. Eccl. liturg. no. 2285^ p. 204).
6 Hipp. In Prov. (P.G. x, 628, B).
7 Novatian was the second antipope, in the time of Cornelius (251- 253) ; he also founded a sect of Rigorists who refused any reconcilia- tion to people guilty of apostacy and other grave sins. His chief work is de Trinitate (ed. by Fausset, Cambridge Patristic Texts, 1909).
8 This already touches the question discussed below, pp. 61-66; see especially p. 64.
38 THE MASS
the angels in a way that suggests the liturgical Sanctus : "Hence he (God) sits above the Cherubim and under his throne are the animals (animalia) who have power above the others".1 Who are these "animals"? "Animalia" translates2 very well the £wa of Clement of Alexandria 3 and the Alexandrine liturgy,4 who are the Seraphim that sing the Sanctus. Otherwise we have nothing about the Roman liturgy in the third century.
The story told by Irenaeus in his letter to Pope Victor I, that when St. Polycarp (f c. 168) came to Rome in the time of Pope Anicetus (c. 157 — c. 168) the Pope "granted the (celebration of the) Eucharist in church to Polycarp as a mark of honour " 5 serves to confirm our impression of a certain uniformity in the liturgy in the second century.6 One may presume that such a concession would not have been possible unless Polycarp of Smyrna had celebrated in much the same way as the Romans. Tertullian, though an African, tells us of the Lessons read at Rome. The Roman Church, he says, "combines (miscet) the Law and the Prophets with the Gospels and the Apostolic letters and draws her faith from them. She signs it (her faith) with water, clothes it with the Holy Ghost, feeds it with the Eucharist " — clearly an allusion to the Liturgy and its lessons.7
We are more fortunate with regard to Africa. Most of our knowledge of the African rite comes from the writings of St. Augustine (f 430) and so is Post-
1 Novatian : de Trin. viii (P.L. iii, 899, C).
2 Novatian writes in Latin. 3 Above p. 30.
4" before thee stand thy two most honourable creatures ((wa), the many-eyed Cherubim and six-winged Seraphim" Brightman, p. 131. For the origin of this name see Hab. iii, 2. (in the LXX) ; Apoc. iv, 6 ; v, 11, 14, etc.
5 In Eusebius H.E. v, 24. 6 See below § 5, pp. 51-57.
7 De Prescript, (written about 200). 36, (P.L. ii, 49-50). The same text contains a rudimentary Roman Creed.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 39
Nicene. For the first three centuries we have chiefly Tertullian (f c. 220) and St. Cyprian (f 258).
The Church of Africa was the first to use Latin. The earliest known Christian Latin authors are Afri- cans. It seems that Latin was the liturgical language of Africa while Greek was still used at Rome.1 Ter- tullian gives a great deal of incidental information about the African rite of the Illrd cent. ; Abbot Cabrol considers that no other writer of the same antiquity supplies so much.2 But the disciplina arcani makes him reticent about the Canon. The Mass of the Catechumens contains lessons from Scripture, sung psalms, a sermon and prayers.3 Tertullian says that Africa agrees with Rome in having lessons.4 Among these pastoral letters of bishops are read.5 Psalms are sung alternately by two cantors between the lessons.0 The Catechumens and penitents are expelled after the sermon.7 The attitude of public prayer is standing with uplifted hands, facing the East.8 He describes the clauses of public prayer : " Lifting up our hands . . . we pray always for all the emperors, that they may have a long life, a firm empire, a safe home, strong armies, a faithful senate, loyal people, quiet territory and whatever else may be desired by men and by Caesar ".9 There was a kiss of peace after " prayer with the brethren ".10 This was usual in all public
1 See p. 126.
2 Dictionnaire d'archeologie chret. et de liturgie. Afrique (Liturgie anteniceenne) I, col. 593. 3 de Anima, 9 (P.L. ii, 660).
4 de Prescript. 36 (P.L. ii, 49) ; cfr. Apolog. 22 (P.L. i, 408).
5 de Pud. 1 (P.L. ii, 981) ; de Pressor. 51 (ib. 71).
6 ad Vxor. ii, 9 (P.L. i, 1304).
7 de Prcescr. 40 (ib. 56) ; cfr. Apol. 39 (P.L. i, 469), where " divina censura " seems to mean this expulsion.
8 Apol. 16 (P.L. i, 370-371) ; ad Nat. i, 13 (P.L. i, 579, A) ; de Spect. 25 (ib. 657, A) ; de Orat. 14 (ib. 1169, A).
9 Apol. 30 (P.L. i, 443) ; cfr. ib. 32 (P.L. i, 447, A), 39 (ib. 468) ; d Sea p. 2 (ib. 700, A) ; de Orat. 29 (ib. 1196, A).
10 de Orat. 18 (P.L. i, 1176-1178) ; cfr. ad Vxor. ii, 4 (ib. 1295).
40 THE MASS
prayers.1 Its place in the Mass is not here clearly defined. We know that later in Africa it came in connexion with the Lord's Prayer, before the Com- munion, as now at Rome (p. 370). After the " ad- ministration of the word " (Mass of the Catechumens) the " offering of the sacrifice " (Mass of the Faithful) follows.2 He alludes to the beginning of the preface and to the Sanctus : " Certainly it is right that God should be blessed by all men in every place and at all time for the due memory always of his benefits. . . . To whom that court of angels does not cease to say Holy, holy, holy. Wherefore we, fellows of the angels if we deserve to be, learn that heavenly voice towards God and the duty of future glory already here (sc. on earth)." 3 The " thanksgivings (gratiarum actiones) " are said over the bread ;4 he also calls this " to con- secrate (consecrare) ".5 He quotes the words of Insti- tution at the last Supper,6 but says nothing about their use at Mass. The Lord's Prayer was said,7 it is the " legitima oratio " ; 8 its place in the service is not defined. People received Communion under both' kinds, the celebrant giving the consecrated bread, the deacons the chalice.9 Apparently they received the form of bread in the hands ; 10 they are careful that nothing fall to the ground.11 To the form of ad-
1 Some people wanted to omit the kiss on fast days. Tertullian allows this omission only on Good Friday (which he calls " dies paschae "), de Orat. loc. cit.
2 de Cultu Fern, ii, n (P.L. i, 1329, B). He constantly calls Mass the Sacrifice ; cfr. de Orat. 14 (P.L. i, 1170) ; adv. Marc, iii, 22 (P.L.
»» 353). etc-
2de Orat. 3 (P.L. i, 1156).
4 adv. Marc, i, 23 (P.L. ii, 274, A) ; cfr. ib. iv, 9 (ib. 376, A).
6 de Anima, 17 (P.L. ii, 676, C). Other terms are benedictio {adv. Marc, iii, 22, ib. 353, B), eucharistia (de Cor. 3, P.L. ii, 79, A, etc.).
6 adv. Marc, iv, 40 (P.L. ii, 460, C).
7 de. Orat. 3-4 (P.L. i, 1156-1157). 8de Fuga, 2 (P.L. ii, 105). 9 de Corona, 3 (P.L. ii, 79-80). -° de. Idol. 7 (P.L. i, 669, A). 11 de Cor. 3 (P.L. ii, 80, A).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 41
ministration (presumably : " The body of Christ," "The blood of Christ")1 they answered Amen. The holy Eucharist could be taken home (in the form of bread only) and could be there received fasting.'2 Other liturgical details in Tertullian are : Sunday was the holy day on which particularly the Eucharist was celebrated;3 there were also station-days and feasts.4 But Mass was said every day too, very early in the morning.5 The altar contained relics ; 6 incense was used only for funerals.7 The Agape still exists in Africa ; here too it was becoming disorderly.8 Ter- tullian quotes several liturgical formulas. People sang Alleluia 9 ; they said : " For ever, from ever " in Greek (el<$ aloovas air' alwvos).10 In referring to the Lord's Prayer he says we prepare the way for prayer " me- moria praeceptorum," n which suggests its liturgical introduction ; in writing of prayer for the emperor he says we invoke " Deum aeternum, Deum verum, Deum vivum," 12 which also looks like a liturgical formula.
From St. Cyprian we have that the holy Eucharist was celebrated every day, early in the morning,13 and particularly in memory of martyrs on their feasts.14 The lessons, including the Gospel, are read by lectors
1 It was so in St. Augustine's time : Serm. cclxxii (P.L. xxxviii, 1247) ; ctra Faust, xii, 10 (P.L. xlii, 259).
2 ad Vxor. ii, 5 (P.L. i, 1296).
3 Apol. 16 (P.L. i, 371) ; ad Nat. i, 13 (ib. 579) ; de Idol. 14 (ib. 682).
4 de Orat. 19 (ib. 1181) ; de Cor. 11 (P.L. ii, 92).
5 adv. Marc, iv, 26 (P.L. ii, 425) ; de Cor. 3 (ib. 79).
6 Scorpiace, 12 (ib. 147).
7 Apol. 42 (P.L. i, 493) ; de Idol. 11 (ib. 676).
s Apol. 39 (ib. 470) ; de Ieiun. 17 (P.L. ii, 977).
9 de Orat. 27 (P.L. i, 1194).
10 de Sped. 25 (P.L. i, 657). n de Orat. 10 (P.L. i, 1166).
12 Apol. 30 (ib. 441). Compare in the Roman exorcism of salt : " per Deum vivum, per Deum verum, per Deum sanctum ".
13 Ep. lvii, 3 (Ed. Hartel, Vienna, 1868, ii, 652) ; Ep. lxiii, 15-16 (ib. 713-714); cfr. de dom. Orat. 18 (Hartel, i, 280).
14 Ep. xxxviiii, 3 (Hartel, ii, 583).
42 THE MASS
from a high ambo ; 1 they include bishops' pastoral letters.'2 Then comes a sermon.3 The Catechumens ars expelled before the Eucharist ; only the baptized may stay and receive Communion.4 A number of texts give us lists of objects for which public prayers were said ; these are the same that we see in Ter- tullian and in the earliest liturgical texts, namely the Church and her unity,5 the Pope,6 other bishops, priests, confessors in prison,7 benefactors,8 enemies, the conversion of sinners, removal of evils, peace, forgiveness of sins and the salvation of all men.9 He refers to the offertory10 and to the reading of the diptychs.11 The chalice contained wine and water. Some bishops of St. Cyprian's province wanted to use wine only. Against this abuse he protests vehemently, insisting on the mixture of wine and water, as our Lord had used it at the last Supper.12 The water represents the faithful joined to Christ.13 He even says that wine alone can no more be used than water alone.14 He quotes " Sursum corda " and the answer : " Habemus ad Dominum,"15 also the words of In- stitution, with the verb (in the form for the chalice) in the future (effundetur), as in the Roman rite,16 and insists on the necessity of doing everything just as
1 Ep. xxxviii, 2 (ib. 580-581) ; Ep. xxxviiii, 4-5 (ib. 583-584).
2 Ep. xi, 7 (ib. 500).
3de Mortalitate, i (Hartel, i, 297). He says that he preaches on the lesson just read.
4 Ep. lxiii, 8 (Haitel, ii, 706-707).
5 de dom. Orat. 8, 17 (Hartel, i, 271, 279).
* Ep. lxi, 4 (Hartel, ii, 697). 7 Ep. xxxvii, 1, 4 (ib. 576, 578). 8 Ep. lxii, 5 (ib. 700).
9Ep. xxx, 6 (ib. 554); de dom. Or. 3, 8, 17 (i, 268, 271, 279); ad Demetr. 25 (ib. 369-370).
10 Ep. xxxiiii, 1 (Hartel, ii, 568). The people offered bread and wine, de Opere et Eleem. 15 (i, 384).
11 Ep. i, 2 (ib. 466). 12 Ep. lxiii (ii, 701-717).
15 Ep. lxiii, 13 (ib. 711). 14 lb. 15 de dom. Orat. 31 (i, 289).
16 Ep. lxiii, 9, 10 (ii, 708).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 43
our Lord did at the last Supper.1 " We make mention of his passion in every sacrifice " s refers either to the anamnesis, or to such a formula as : " qui pridie quam pateretur". Whether another sentence in the same letter : "We celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning " 3 implies a formal mention of the resur- rection at Mass seems more doubtful. At the end of the service (sollemnibus adimpletis) came the Com- munion.4 It was received under both kinds, the deacon bearing the chalice ; it appears that all present were expected to receive the holy Eucharist/1 The consecrated bread was taken in the hand.0 A man who "although in sin dared, by concealing this, to receive his share of the sacrifice celebrated by the priest, could not handle and eat the holy thing of the Lord, but found on opening his hands that he held ashes ".7 The blessed Sacrament could be taken home in a little box for Communion later. " When a certain woman tried with unclean hands to open her box (arcam suam) in which was the holy thing of the Lord, she was frightened by fire which came out of it, lest she dare touch." 8 There was a formula of dismissal. A man being " dismissed from the house of the Lord (dimissus e dominico) and still carrying the Eucharist, as he was accustomed (et adhuc gerens secum ut assolet eucharistia) " bore the "holy body of Christ (Christi sanctum corpus) " to a house of bad repute.9 Among liturgical forms quoted by Cyprian we have already seen : " Sursum corda " and its answer. There are a few other expressions which may be echoes of such
1 Ib. 10 (ii, 709). 2 Ib. 17 (ii, 714).
3 lb. 16 (ii, 714). 4 de Lapsis, 25 (Hartel, i, 255). B lb.
0 de Lapsis, 15 (ib. i, 248).
7 de Lapsis, 26 (i, 256). 8 Ib.
9 de Spectaculis, 5 (Hartel/ iii, 8). This work is probably by Novatian. Cfr. Bardenhewer: Gesch. der altkirchl. Li t teratur (Frei- burg i. Br. 1903), ii, p. 443.
44
THE MASS
forms, such as : Inter caetera salutaria monita et praecepta divina . . , monuit et instruxit " of the Lord's prayer,1 which suggests its introduction. The formula "in mente habeamus" which occurs in St. Cyprian 2 and in several other African Fathers may well be a quotation from the deacon's litany at the " Prayers of the Faithful ".8
Commodian also quotes the " Sursum corda ".4 The Acts of the African martyrs, St. Perpetua and St. Felicitas (j* 6 March, 203, at Carthage), contain some liturgical details. The saints are in prison and there see a vision, in which are obvious memories of the liturgy. They come to a place whose walls seem made of light, before whose gate stand four angels. The angels say : " Come first, enter and greet the Lord," and clothe them in white. They hear united voices saying without ceasing : " Agios, agios, agios ".5 They give each other the kiss of peace. Saturus, one of their companions, says : " Perpetua, now you have what you want ". She answers : " Deo gratias ". Be- fore that Perpetua (in the vision) had received a mystic food (de caseo quod mulgebat quasi buccellam) from a shepherd (who is our Lord) ; she joins her hands, eats, and all answer " Amen ".6
The other African writers of this time, Arnobius and Lactantius, add little or nothing to our knowledge of
1 de dom. Orat. 2 (Hartel, i, 267).
2 Ep. lxii, 5 (Hartel, ii, 701) ; Ep. lxxviiii (ib. 838).
3 See W. C. Bishop : The African Rite (joum. of Theol. Studies, xiii, 1912, pp. 254-255).
i Instruct. 76 (P.L. v, 258). Commodian's date (III, IV or V cent.) and place (Africa, Gaul or Palestine) are doubtful. Barden- hewer : op cit. ii, 584-586.
s There seem to have been a number of Greek formulas in the early African rite. Tertullian quotes : els alwvas air' alai/os in Greek (above, p. 41)- *
6 Passio SS. Felicitatis et Perpetua, in Knopf: Ausgewahlte Mar tyreracten (Tubingen, 1901), pp. 52, 47.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 45
the liturgy.1 On the other hand in the fourth and fifth centuries there is a mass of liturgical matter in St. Augustine (f 430), and Optatus of Mileve (f before 400), of which, no doubt, much represents the rite of the ante-Nicene African Church.
Hitherto it has generally been supposed that Africa and Rome were liturgically allied. The Rev. W. C. Bishop has now shown reason to class the African rite rather among the non-Roman Western family, called by the general name Gallican (see p. 98). In particular he finds a resemblance between the liturgies of Africa and Spain. Most of his evidence is taken from St. Augustine; but he finds some in Cyprian and Ter- tullian too. Moreover, if we accept his thesis, we must also apply it to the earlier period. It is not to be supposed that the Church of Africa changed her rite between St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, though, no doubt, gradually she developed it. We should there- fore conclude that, as soon as a special rite was developed at all, Africa, like all the rest of the West, except Rome, evolved a liturgy of the Gallican type.
Mr. Bishop's arguments in outline are these. The Calendar has affinities to that of Spain. There are Rogation days and a Paschal Candle, which in Augus- tine's time were not Roman,2 but were Gallican and Mozarabic. The African lectionary (in St. Augustine) agrees closely with the Mozarabic cycle and differs from Rome.3 The catechumens were dismissed after the Gospel ; there is a blessing by the celebrant after the consecration ; the Postcommunion is a thanks- giving, there is an Invocation of the Holy Ghost. These are Gallican and Mozarabic, not Roman features
1 Liturgical texts from them will be found in Cabrol and Leclercq : Mon. Eccl. Lit. i, 188-190.
2 See Duchesne : Origines du Ciilte (ed. ii), pp. 277, 241.
3 For instance, Genesis in Lent and Acts in Eastertide (both attested by Augustine) are originally Mozarabic, not Roman, custom.
46 THE MASS
at that time (though the Invocation at Rome is much disputed; see pp. 405-407). Cyprian actually quotes the Spanish Prayers of the faithful ; 1 their formula " in mente habeamus " occurs in several African Fathers (p. 44 ). In the baptism rite there are definitely Span- ish features (but also Roman ones). On the other hand the kiss of peace came after the consecration, as now in the Roman rite.2 Lent lasted forty days (in- cluding Holy Week) as at Rome (and Milan) ; whereas in Spain it consisted of two parts, each three weeks long. Mr. Bishop's conclusion is that the early Afri- can rite was more like that of Spain than that of Rome, though it had its own special features and may, even as early as St. Augustine, already have been modified in some points in a Roman direction.3 He gives the order of the Mass, as he finds it in St. Augustine.4
Confining ourselves to the first three centuries, we find this general outline in Tertullian, St. Cyprian and the other sources already quoted : —
I. Mass of the Catechumens.
Lessons read from a high ambo by a reader. They consist of the Law, prophets, epistle, Gospel, also letters of bishops.
Between the lessons two cantors sing psalms. Alle- luia is also sung.
Sermon.
Expulsion of the catechumens and penitents.
3 Ep. lxii, 5 (see p. 44).
2 But this leads to another question : When was the Roman Pax put at its present place ? See p. 370.
3 W. C. Bishop : The African Rite (Journal of Theol. Studies, xiii, 1912, pp. 250-277). At the end (pp. 270-277) is a series of texts from which the rite may be reconstructed.
4 Loc. cit. p. 253.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 47
II. Mass of the Faithful.
Prayers of the faithful, presumably in litany form with a response. Probably the diptychs were read here.
Kiss of peace (in Tertullian) ?
Offertory of bread and wine. Collections for the poor were also made. The wine is mixed with water.
Sursum corda with its answer and the Eucharistic prayer.
Sanctus (in Greek ?).
Words of Institution.
Memory of Christ's passion (and resurrection ?)
Fraction and Lord's prayer.
Later writers (St. Augustine) put the kiss of peace here.
Communion under both kinds, the celebrant giving the consecrated bread, the deacons the chalice. Every- one present receives Communion (standing ; the form of bread in the hand ?). They answer Amen to the words of administration. The blessed Sacrament is reserved, in the form of bread only, and is so carried away.
Dismissal of the people.
§ 5. Liturgical Uniformity in the first three Cen- turies.
The accounts of the liturgy we have seen from different places, Rome, Gaul, Africa, Alexandria, Antioch, show considerable uniformity. The outlines given above agree in their general scheme. We have further direct evidence of uniformity in this time. For instance the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corin- thians is full of liturgical allusions, as is well known. He evidently refers to what was done at Rome ; yet it is equally evident that he expects the people of Corinth to understand his allusions. This argues
48 THE MASS
uniformity between Rome and Corinth. Clement says in so many words : " We must do all things that the Lord told us to do at stated times in proper order," etc. (above, pp. I i-i 2). The whole text shows that there was already a fixed order for the Eucharist. Ignatius of Antioch also insists on the one Eucharist in a way that implies a uniform rite (p. 15). What is specially important, as showing that the liturgy was at least to some extent uniform, is the constant belief of the Fathers that its arrangement was a tradition from Christ and his apostles. Clement attributes the order of the service to rules made by our Lord.1 So also Justin tells us that on Easter day our Lord appeared to his apostles and disciples and " taught them these things," 2 that is all the rite Justin has described. Eusebius even knows the place where this happened. St. Helen built a church on the Mount of Olives over a cave (the Church of the Ascension) ; " now true history tells us that the Saviour of all taught his apostles the secret mysteries in this very cave (fiveiv ra<; a7ropprjrov<; TeXera?)," 3 that is the ritual — they knew the essence of the mysteries already since the Last Supper. How far these Fathers are right in their idea that the service was drawn up by our Lord himself does not matter for our purpose. The point to be noted is that they could not have thought that unless there was in their time a fixed order.4 Against this we must place other texts that imply a certain amount of liberty and disagreement. The Didache says that the prophets may give thanks " as much as they will " ; 5 so Justin ; 6 and the Egyptian Church Order says that the celebrant may pray freely.7
1 Above, p. 12. * Apol. Ixvii, 7 ; p. 21 above.
3Euseb. Vita Constantini, iii, 43 (P.G. xx, 1104).
4 The idea that the Mithraists copied the Christian liturgy also argues a uniform scheme, which could be copied. See Justin : 1 Apol. lxvi, 4; Tertullian: de Prascr. 40 (P.L. ii, 54-55).
8 Did. x, 7 (above, p. 9).
6 1 Apol. lxv, 3 ; lxvi, 5 (above, pp. 18, 20).
7§ 34 (ed. Horner, p. 309).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 49
Much later Firmilian of Caesarea writes to St. Cyprian complaining of Pope Stephen I's rule about heretical baptism (in the middle of the Illrd century). In this letter he complains of the Pope's insistence on Roman customs for other Churches and points out that ritual is not the same everywhere. " Concerning many divine sacraments there are differences, nor are all things observed there (at Rome) as at Jerusalem, indeed in other provinces many things are varied according to the difference of men and places ; yet there is no schism from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church because of this ',.1 But this was written after the various rites had begun to be evolved. In the earlier period we must reconcile the two kinds of statement and understand the uniformity in this way : There was certainly no absolute uniformity in every prayer and every detail of ceremonial, as in our Missal now. The prayers were neither read from a book nor learned by heart. Liturgical books do not appear till later.2 The lessons were of course read from a Bible ; psalms and the Lord's prayer were known by heart ; otherwise the prayers were all extempore. As for ceremonial, there was none, or practically none. Things were done, as they had to be done for some practical purpose, in the simplest way. The bread and wine were brought when the moment came at which they were wanted, the lessons were read in a loud voice from a convenient place whence they could be heard, and everyone sat down to listen. Only we may naturally suppose that things were done decently and reverently, that gradually and inevitably signs of respect were made. All ritual grew naturally out of these purely practical actions, just as vestments evolved out of ordinary dress. The
1 Firm, ad Cypr. Among Cyprian's letters no. lxxv, 6 (Hartel, ii, 813). But Firmilian too speaks of an " ecclesiastica regula" for the liturgy (ib. 10, p. 818).
2 See pp. 113, 117. The fragment of Deir Balizeh (see p. 94) is of the Illrd or perhaps the end of the Ilnd cent. We may perhaps count written forms from about the Illrd cent.
50 THE MASS
only really ritual actions we find in the first two centuries or so are certain postures, kneeling or stand- ing for prayer, and such ceremonies as the kiss of peace, all of which were inherited from the Jews and are indeed common to all religions.1 But we can understand that the order, the general outline of the service would become constant almost unconsciously. People who do the same thing continually, naturally do it in much the same way. There was no reason for changing ; to reverse the order suddenly would disturb and annoy people. They knew for instance at which moment to expect the lessons, when to go up for their Communion, when to stand for psayer. The fact that the catechumens were present at some part of the service, but must not see other parts, involved a certain amount of uniform order.
But the prayers too, although there was as yet no idea of fixed forms, would naturally tend towards uni- formity, at least in outline. Here also habit and custom would soon fix their order. Everything was said aloud. The people knew when to expect the prayer for the emperor, the thanksgiving, the petitions. The dialogue form of prayer, of which we have many traces in this first period, also involves uniformity, at least in the general idea of the prayers. The people made their responses, Amen, ' Lord have mercy,' ' Thanks be to God ' and so on at certain points, because they knew more or less what the celebrant would say each time. In a dramatic dialogue each side must be pre- pared for the other. So the order and general arrange- ment of the prayers would remain constant. We are not surprised to find as a matter of fact that this is the case in the examples and fragments we have seen. Justin Martyr's outline (p. 25), that of the Second book of the Apostolic Constitutions (pp. 35-36), the liturgy as
1 Tertullian mentions the sign of the cross (de Cor. 3, P.L. ii, 80).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 51
represented by Tertullian and St. Cyprian (pp. 39-44), though they are respectively the services of Rome in the second century, of Antioch and Carthage in the third, agree in the disposition of their parts, in the main ideas of the prayers. But the uniformity and constancy of the rite went further. We find in many cases the very same words used ; whole formulas, some- times long ones, recur. This too can easily be under- stood. In the first place there were many formulas that occur in the Old or New Testament, that were well-known in the Jewish services. These were used as liturgical formulas by Christians too. Such forms are : Amen, Alleluia, ' Lord have mercy,' ' Thanks be to God,' ' For ever and ever,' ' Blessed art thou O Lord our God ' (the Jewish formula which begins all blessings : MTOt* (D!f nnN 7m) and so on. Moreover it will be noticed that extempore prayer always tends to fall into stereotyped formulas. A man who prays for the same object will soon begin to repeat the same words. This may be noticed in extempore preach- ing. It would hardly be possible for the bishop to use different words and forms each time he prayed (especi- ally since all early Christian language was saturated with Biblical forms), even if he tried to do so. And why should he try? So the same expressions re- curred over and over again in the public prayers.
But, it may be said, this explains a certain amount of uniformity in the prayers of the same celebrant or deacon ; it does not account for uniform expressions in the prayers of different people, still less for unifor- mity among different Churches. This too can be understood. A formula constantly heard would soon be considered the right one, especially as in some cases (the psalms and Lord's prayer) the liturgy already con- tained examples of constant forms. A younger bishop when his turn came to celebrate, what could he do
52 THE MASS
better than continue to use the very words (as far as he remembered them) of the venerable predecessor whose prayers the people, and perhaps himself as deacon, had so often followed and answered with reve- rent devotion ? As for other Churches, the new missions were founded from the great centres, Rome, Alexan- dria, Antioch, Jerusalem. The missioners when they celebrated the holy mysteries for their new converts would again repeat the forms they had heard in the mother-church, and their successors would imitate them. That strong feeling of loyalty to the mother-church whence they had the faith, that we notice in all the early missionary Churches, would make them anxious to follow her in everything. For the rest, travel- ling, the continual intercourse between all Churches, such cases as that of St. Polycarp celebrating in Rome (p. 38), the great reputation of certain famous bishops, disciples of the apostles, for the sake of which other bishops would imitate them, the strong sense of unity between the Churches as we see it in St. Ignatius (p. 14), the idea of this unity as expressed especially in the Eucharist (" Be careful to use one Eucharist . . one body . . one chalice . . one altar"),1 all these reasons would combine to produce a uniformity that went much further than the essential nucleus of the liturgy.
In any case, however we may explain it, it is a fact that during the first three centuries, although there were hardly yet books, nor a stereotyped rite, there was a remarkable uniformity in all the great Churches, as far as we see, from the beginning. But it was a uniformity of type rather than of detail, although in many cases the actual words are the same. In theory still each bishop prayed as he liked or could. So we find slight variations in the common forms. In the
1 Ign. ad. Phil, iv (above, p. 14).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 53
earliest complete Eastern liturgy that we know the bishop begins the Eucharistic prayer : "Avta rov vovv (Sursum mentem 1), St. Cyprian said : ' Sursum corda'. We must then conceive the ante-nicene liturgy as a uniform type, still fluid and liable to change in its details. Gradually more and more of these details are fixed. They become customs and are kept as the tradition of the Church, for nothing is so conservative as liturgical instinct ; but the whole rite is still more or less fluid, within a fixed outline. Out of this primi- tive fluid rite, by insistence on one detail in one place, on another somewhere else, by enlarging or shortening different parts in different Churches, the parent-rites, and then again, derived from them, all the old liturgies of Christendom are derived.2
§ 6. The Liturgy in the Early Church Orders.
There is a series of documents, known as " Church Orders," from which knowledge of the early liturgy may be gathered. Although most of these were com- piled in or after the IVth century, nevertheless they are generally believed to contain earlier material. By a literary fiction they are ascribed to our Lord, as injunctions given to the apostles, or by the apostles through some early saint, Clement of Rome or Hippolytus.
The most famous of these are the so-called Apostolic
1Apost. Const. VIII, xii, 5.
2 The various Lutheran, Anglican and other Prayer-books, Agendas and so on, do not enter into our scheme. These were composed by various Reformers, partly out of the mediaeval books (with considerable alterations according to the new theological ideas) and still more from copious new prayers and forms. They have no other connexion with any primitive rite than comes from the adaption of mediaeval services and a few features gathered at haphazard from ancient liturgies. They show not even an attempted restoration of any known historical rite. Their interest is in their practical usefulness, not in any spontaneous or historic development from the original type of liturgy.
54 THE MASS
Constitutions} They consist of eight books, thus com- piled : Books I-VI are a reproduction of an older work, the Didascalia, which we know in Syriac2 and in Latin fragments. But the compiler has made con- siderable modifications. Notably he has added the outline of a liturgy in Book II (pp. 34-36).3 Book VII, 1-32 is the Didache (p. 8) with interpolations; VII, 33-49 consists of liturgical matter from an unknown source. Book VIII is a Church Order, containing a complete liturgy (in connexion with a bishop's ordina- tion), whose relation with other Church Orders is much disputed. At the end follow eighty-five " Apostolic Canons ". It seems clear that the compiler of this work was a Syrian living at or near Antioch ; 4 he is now generally supposed to be the (possibly Apollinarist) composer of the pseudo-Ignatian letters. That he is Syrian is shown by his use of the Syrian civil calendar (V, xiv, I ; xvii, 3 ; xx, 3) and by his feasts, corre- sponding to those of Syria.5 The date of the compiler of Ap. Const, is now generally admitted t© be late IVth century. He writes after the conversion of the empire ; 6 yet not long after.7 Funk, however, dates the compilation as early Vth cent.,8 Harnack as be- tween 340 and 360.9 It is also generally admitted
1 Edited by Funk, with cognate documents: Didascalia et Constitu- tiones apostolorum, 2 vols. Paderborn, 1905.
2 In Syriac by Lagarde : Didascalia apost. Syriace, Leipzig, 1854 1 Latin in Funk : op. cit. parallel to the corresponding text of Ap. Const.
3 For his interpolation here see Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, xlvi-xlvii.
4 Maclean. Ancient Church Orders (Cambridge, 1910), p. 150, argues that the absence of metropolitans shows that he did not live at Antioch.
5 See the evidence in Funk: Die apostolischen Konstitutionen (Rottenburg, 1891), pp. 96-97, 164-165, 314, 366; Brightman: op. cit. xxviii-xxix ; Maclean : op. cit. 150.
6Ap. Const. VI, xxiv, 1-3. 7 Brightman, p. xxix.
sDie apost. Konst. p. 95 (see his reasons, pp. 78-96).
^Lchre der 12 Apostcl (Leipzig, 1884), pp. 241-268,
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 5 5
that the compiler of the whole work, the interpolator of Didascalia and Didache are the same person. But Dr. Baumstark thinks that the liturgical fragments in Ap. Const. II and VII show a different type of service from that of Book VIII. This is admittedly Antiochene. But, he says, the liturgy in II and VII is of the Egyptian type. In this liturgy all the historic books of the Old Test, occur for the first lesson, in VIII only the Law ; the kiss of peace comes after the Offertory, in VIII before; there are a litany by the deacon after the kiss and a blessing of the people before the anaphora, not in VIII. So he thinks that the compiler of I-VII used an Egyptian type of liturgy (possibly celebrated on the Phoenician coast) for his interpolations. The man who uses the Antio- chene rite in VIII would not have used another one for I-VII. Baumstark then concludes that Ap. Const. I-VII and VIII are separate compilations, only loosely joined.1 Against this we must place the "marked characteristics, literary and theological " 2 which are common to the whole work (and the Apost Canons), from which most people, with Brightman, conclude that "the constitutions are therefore a unity, and with thejCanons are the work of a single compiler ",8 Funk had already denied Baumstark's idea.4
We are chiefly concerned with the " Church Order " and Liturgy (often called the "Clementine" Liturgy)5 of Ap. Const. VIII. In order to appreciate it, its rela- tion with other similar works is of great importance.
lOriens Christianus (Rome), vol. vii (1907), pp. 388-407; Aegypt. oder antioch. Liturgietypus in A. K. I-VII ?
2 Brightman, p. xxiv.
3 East. Lit. pp. xxiv- xxv.
4 Kirchcngesch Abhandlungen u. Untersuchungen, III (Paderborn, 1907) no. xviii : Die Arabische Didaskalia (pp. 350-362).
5 Because Ap. Const, professes to be given by the Apostles through St. Clement of Rome,
56 THE MASS
Unfortunately it is about this point that opinions most differ. Four other documents here enter into consideration : The so-called Epitome of Ap. Const. VIII, the Canons of Hippolytus, Egyptian Church Order, and Testamentum Domini.
The Epitome ("Constitutions through Hippolytus") exists in Greek.1 In five books it contains much of the matter of Ap. Const. VIII, with omissions ; notably it has no liturgy. It is an excerpt from a larger work.2 Funk takes it to be an epitome of Ap. Const. VIII.3 The Canons of Hippolytus exist in Arabic and ^Ethiopic versions.4 They contain considerable litur- gical matter (p. 59). The Egyptian Church Order consists of three versions of one document. These are a Coptic Church Order,5 an Ethiopic Church Order,6 and Latin fragments, discovered at Verona by E. Hauler in 19007 ( = Veron.). Testamentum Domini is the name of a Syriac apocryphal work translated
1 First ed. (incomplete) by J. A. Fabricius among the works of Hippolytus (1716), complete by Lagarde: Rel. iuris eccl. ant. (1856) : in Funk : Didasc. II, 72-96.
2 The proof of this will be found in Maclean: Anc. Ch. Orders, pp. 150-151.
3 Didasc. II, pp. xiii-xvi.
4 Ed. in Arab, and Latin by de Haneberg (1870) ; by Achellis : Die Canones Hippolyti, Leipz. 1891 (Texte u. Unters. vi, 4). The Ethiopic version has not been published.
5 Forming Bk. II of the so-called Egyptian Heptateuch, ed. in the Bohairic dialect by Tattam : The Apost. Const. . . . in Coptic (1848), from a Sa'idic version by Lagarde : Aegyptiaca (1883) and Bouriant : Recueil de travaux, v (1884-1885). Book I of the Egypt. Hept. is a version of the Apostolic Church Order, which is merely an interpolated edition of the Didache. Books III-VI are either a later edition of Book II (so R. M. Woolley : The Liturgy of the Primitive Church, Cambridge, 1910, pp. 5-8), or a reproduction of Ap. Const. VIII with modifications (so Funk : Didasc. II, p. xxiii, and Maclean : op. cit. p. 8). Book VII is a version of the Apost. Canons.
6 Ed. in part by Job Ludolf: Ad suam hist. aeth. comm. (1691), complete in Aeth. and English by Horner : Statutes of the Apostles (1904).
7 Didasc. ap. fragm. V eronensia latina (1900). It forms the third of the fragments.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 57
from the Greek in the Vllth century and first pub- lished by Lord Ignatius Ephrem II Rahmani, Uniate Syrian Patriarch of Antioch.1
The dates and mutual relation of these documents are much discussed. Achellis thinks that the Canons of Hippolytus are an authentic work by him, com- posed at Rome about 220 (though interpolated later), that all the others are derived from this.2 Duchesne agrees as to the date of Can. Hipp.3 Funk believes Ap. Const. VIII (composed soon after 400) to be the original source. He takes the epitome to be derived and epitomized from this,4 the Egyptian Church Order from Epitome,5 the Canons of Hippolytus (Vlth cent.) from Eg. Ch. Order.6 His reasons for this scheme are such internal arguments as incomplete references, un- intelligible allusions in what he considers the later works, understood only by reference to Ap. Const. VIII. Hence the others are curtailed versions of this. He also finds signs of a later theology in the others. Their archaic features must be deliberate antiquarianism on the part of their compilers.7
A later theory is that of Dr. A. J. Maclean.8 He points out that the idea of a chain of derived documents, each more archaic than its predecessor, is unlikely. He would rather reverse the order of de- rivation, putting Ap. Const. VIII last, as being the most evolved. Its compiler has filled up the older
1 T estamentum Dni nostri (Mainz, 1899) with a Latin version and notes. English by Cooper and Maclean : The Testament of Our Lord (Edinb. 1902).
2 Die Canones Hippolyti {op. cit.), chap, vii, pp. 212-268.
3 Bulletin critique, Feb. 1891, pp. 41-46.
4 For his argument see his Didasc. II, p. xiv.
5 lb. pp. xxi-xxii. 6 lb. xxv-xxviii.
7 Funk discussed his theory at length in Die apost. Konst. {op. cit.) and in Das Testament uns. Herrn w. die Verwandten Schriften (Mainz, 1901).
8 Bishop of Moray in the Scotch Episcopal Church : The Ancient Church Orders (Cambridge, igio).
58 THE MASS
Church Order with long prayers compiled by himself. The Canons of Hippolytus especially have marked archaic features, such as a possible revival of persecu- tion (43-47),1 a very simple cycle of feasts (Easter and Pentecost only, 197- 1 98, 25 5-2 5 7),2 certain features like those seen in Tertullian, and so on.3 Its later features ("the equal Trinity," 2, 133, subdeacons, 49, 52, and the Filioque, xix, 131) 4 may well be later in- terpolations. The Egyptian Church Order too shows signs of an earlier date than Ap. Const. VIII. It has a Canon on Confessors, showing their claim to be equal to priests 5 (as they did about the time of the Decian persecution).6 Maclean also thinks that the proofs of dependence on Ap. Const. VIII quoted by Funk can be explained otherwise.7 He thinks that the parent of all these orders is not one of those now extant, but a lost original, though there may be further relationship between them.8 His idea of the dates and places of these Church Orders is as follows. The Canons of Hippolytus are the oldest and contain most of the lost original. They were composed in the first half of the IVth cent, in Egypt ; though the present text contains later additions. The Egyptian Church Order is also Egyptian, of about the same time. The Testament of our Lord is of the middle IVth century, perhaps from Asia Minor. The Epitome is older than our present Ap. Const. VIII, perhaps a shortened form of an earlier redaction of that work. Ap. Const. VIII is Syrian at the end of the IVth century. The relative position of these Church Orders is of consider- able importance in judging of the liturgies they re-
1 Ed. Achellis, pp. 67-68. 2 Ed. cit. pp. 116, 136.
8 Op. cit. 156-157. 4 Ed. Achellis, pp. 38, 133, 71, 74, 97.
5 Horner : op. cit. p. 309.
6 Cyprian, Ep. xxxix, 5; ed. Hartel, ii, 584-585; see Woolley: Lit. of Prim. Church, 11-12.
7 Anc. Ch, Orders, 152-154; 161-163. 8 lb. 142-149.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 59
present. It may be said at once that Ap. Const. VIII contains a much more developed service than any of the others. Where the others merely imply a prayer, or give it in a simple form, Ap. Const. VIII supplies a long text. If Funk's view be accepted nothing can be deduced from this. But if Ap. Const, is the latest, then its longer forms may probably be interpolations of a late Syrian compiler, formed perhaps on IVth century Syrian models.
The Canons of Hippolytus and the Coptic Church Order contain only fragmentary allusions to the liturgy. Of the same family (Egyptian) are the Ethiopic Church Order and Hauler's Verona Fragments. From these we have more material. There is reason to suppose that this goes back to the Greek and was also once in the Coptic. The agreement of Test. Dni, Egyptian Church Order and Ap. Const. VIII in outline confirms the idea of a general use throughout the main body of Christendom during the first three centuries. The scheme common to all is this : first the Liturgy of the Catechumens ; prayers and psalms, lessons and homilies, dismissal of the Catechumens. The Liturgy of the Faithful consists of their prayers, the kiss of peace and offertory, greeting and Sursum corda, Eucharistic prayer, reference to the last Supper and words of In- stitution, anamnesis and invocation of the Holy Ghost, Communion, dismissal. That this outline corresponds to that of Justin Martyr, Ap. Const. II. and Africa may be seen by comparing pp. 25, 35-36, and 46-47. The Coptic Order and Canons of Hippolytus have no anaphora. They give only the introductory dialogue and then add : " And let him pray also thus and say the things which come after these, according to the holy oblation".1 The Ethiopic and Verona texts are much more complete, containing the texts of the
1 Both Coptic and Can. Hipp, in Achellis: op. cit. 51.
60 THE MASS
anaphora. This was probably once in the Coptic text,1 although it says that the celebrant may pray freely (p. 48). The Ethiopic and Verona texts have at the beginning of the anaphora the bishop's greeting : " The Lord be with you (all)," then " Lift up your hearts," " Let us give thanks to the Lord," with the usual answers. The Thanksgiving follows ; it has no mention of the angels and no Sanctus.2 The words of Institu- tion come next, then an anamnesis and Epiklesis. Afterwards comes a blessing of oil and fruits of the earth.3 Then prayers for Communicants, " Holy things to the holy," a blessing, Communion, thanks- giving, blessing and prayer for the people, dismissal.4 Test. Dni has much the same order. But it adds the Liturgy of the Catechumens, a litany by the deacon and concluding prayer by the bishop. The kiss of peace comes just before the offertory. Before the " Sur- sum corda " the deacon proclaims an " admonition," warning unworthy people. Curiously the " Sancta Sanctis " comes at the beginning of the anaphora, after the response " Meet and right ". The Thanksgiving- prayer is obviously based on the same original as that of Eth. Ch. Order, but it has much additional matter. The angels are named, but there is no Sanc- tus. The words of Institution for the wine are not given. There is a vague Invocation addressed to the " eternal Trinity ". After the prayer for communi- cants comes a short Intercession. Before Communion the assistant priest says : " Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," etc. A prayer after Com- munion is based on the Our Father.5
1 See Woolley : op. cit. p. 84. 2 See p. 67.
3 Cheese and olives in Veron., which ends its account of the liturgy here (Hauler, p. 108).
4 G. Horner : Statutes of the Apostles, Stat. 22 (pp. 138-143) ; Hauler : op. cit. pp. 106-108.
5 Rahmani : op. cit. pp. 35-49> Cooper and Maclean : op. cit. pp. 6g-77-
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 61
Turning now to Ap. Const. VIII we find this outline filled up at considerable length. The lessons are five, from the Law, Prophets, Epistles, Acts, and Gospels. Pagans, catechumens, energumens, competentes1 and penitents are prayed for and dismissed in order. The Prayers of the Faithful are a long diaconal litany with a concluding prayer by the bishop. The kiss of peace, washing of hands and offertory follow. The anaphora begins, not with u The Lord be with you," but with 2 Cor. xiii, 13. The Thanksgiving is very long; it leads to the Sanctus, said by the people. The com- memoration of the last Supper, with the words of Institution follow. The text 1 Cor. xi. 26, in a slightly modified form, is supposed to be said by our Lord. Then come the anamnesis and a very explicit Epiklesis. Next a long Intercession for all kinds of people, following very much the ideas of the Prayers of the Faithful, a blessing, diaconal litany, the Eleva- tion with the form : " Holy things for the holy," R. " One is holy, one Lord Jesus Christ in the glory of God the Father," etc.,2 " Glory be to God on high " (Lc. ii, 14, and other verses). Then comes the Com- munion ; meanwhile Ps. xxxiii is sung. What is left of the holy Sacrament is put by deacons in tabernacles. A thanksgiving for Communion, blessing by the bishop and dismissal by the deacon follow.3
§ 7. The Liturgy in Apostolic Constitutions VIII.
The question then occurs, what value this complete liturgy in Ap. Const. VIII may have, as an index of the rite of the first three centuries. As far as it agrees
1 <pooTt£6iA€voi, people about to be baptized.
2 This is one of the points urged by Funk for the priority of Ap. Const. VIII. In the Eth. Church Order the answer to " Sancta Sanctis " is: " One holy Father, one holy Son, one is the Holy Spirit ". This, he says, is later language (Das Test. u. Herrn, p. 58).
3 The text is in Funk : Didascalia, i, 476-520 ; Brightman : op. cit. 3-27, in English in Warren : Liturgy of Ante-Nicene Church, 273-306.
62 THE MASS
with the other Church Orders, written in Egypt and perhaps from Asia Minor, as far as it has the same scheme as Justin Martyr at Rome, and in Africa, we may, no doubt, accept it (or them) as evidence of primitive use. Can we deduce anything from points special to Ap. Const. VIII, from the long prayers which, in most cases, it alone supplies?
Brightman and many others say that the prayers in Ap. Const. VIII show unmistakable signs of the compiler's hand.1 So he concludes that " the Clemen- tine Liturgy is constructed on the Antiochene scheme and includes the Antiochene diakonika, worked over and expanded by the compiler of the Apostolic Con- stitutions, who is also the pseudo-Ignatius, and filled in with prayers which, whatever sources they may include, are very largely the work of the same compiler".2
May be this is all one can say. There is, however, a theory, which has lately come again to the fore, which, if it be true, will throw considerably more light on the earliest liturgy. It is that the compiler of Ap. Const. VIII in his prayers quotes, or uses material from liturgical formulas of great antiquity. These prayers are also quoted by a number of early Fathers in East and West, from Clement of Rome and Justin down. The defenders of this theory argue from a number of striking parallels between such Fathers and the prayers in Ap. Const. VIII. They explain these by saying that the Fathers quote liturgical prayers well known to them, fragments of the liturgy of their time, which is thus seen to be, at any rate to a great extent, that of Ap. Const. VIII.
The author of this hypothesis is Dr. Ferdinand Probst.3 He maintained that this "Clementine" Liturgy dates, practically as it stands, from the apos-
1 East Lit. p. xxxiv-xliii. 2Ib. xliii.
3 Professor of Catholic theology at Breslau, f 1899.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 63
tolic age, that it was used down to about the IVth century by all Christendom. To prove this he finds parallels and quotations from it in nearly every early Father of the Church.1 It is admitted that many of his supposed parallels prove nothing. Lately, however, a modified form of Probst's theory has again come to the fore. The chief defender of this is Dr. Paul Drews.2 His view is, not that the liturgy of Ap. Const. VIII is exactly the primitive universal rite, but that it is a later redaction, written about the year 350, in which we have one example of the primitive type. Drews arrives at this conclusion by comparing it with texts of early Fathers. He shows that the long prayer in Clement of Rome (1 Cor. lix-lxi), admittedly a liturgical prayer,3 contains many clauses which recur in the Prayers of the Faithful and in the Anaphora of Ap. Const. VIII. Clement's list of saints of the Old Law (ix-xii) recurs, generally with the same epithets, in the Anaphora of the Liturgy (xii, 21-26). His reference to the Sanctus is parallel.4 He ends with the quotation Gen. i, 26 ; so does the Liturgy.5 In short, a con- siderable part of the Clementine liturgy occurs more or less exactly in Clement. Drews also finds many parallels in Justin Martyr. Justin too enumerates the details of creation and redemption,6 incidents in the Old Testament,7 the account of the last Supper,8 and uses formulas which recur, often exactly, in the Liturgy. Drews even thinks he can find allusions to parts of the
1 He defends his theory chiefly in two works : Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen J ahrhunderte (Tubingen, 1870) and : Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts u. der en Reform (Munster, 1893).
'2 See p. 156, n. 3.
3 So Duchesne: Orig. du Culte, 49-51, and many others.
4 Cfr. Clem. 1 Cor. xxxiv, 5-7, and Ap. Const. VIII, xii. 27.
5 1 Cor. xxxiii, 5 ; Ap. Const. VIII, xii, 16.
8 I Apol. xiii, 2 ; lxv, 3 ; II Apol. v, 2; Dial. 41, 70, 117.
7 I Apol. xxxii. 14 ; Dial. 43.
8 1 Ap. lxvi, 3 (cfr. Ap. Const. VIII, xii, 36-37),
64 THE MASS
Eucharistic service (such as the dismissals) in Justin, coming just where they come in Ap. Const VIII. He finds parallel passages in Novatian de Trin. I and 8 corresponding to Ap. Const. VIII, xii, and lastly, thinks that in the present Roman Mass there still remain elements (notably the secrets, the angels in the preface, the Pax formula, etc.), corresponding to details of Ap. Const. VIII.1 Since Drews wrote, his comparison with Novatian has been strengthened by Carl Weyman, who draws up in parallel columns two texts of Novatian 2 and two versions (Greek and Latin) of the Legendary Acts of the Cappadocian Martyrs, " Speusippos, Elasippos and Melesippos ".3 These again contain a list of benefits of creation, which agrees startlingly with the list in St. Clement (xx, 1-12 ; xxxiii, 2-6), and in Ap. Const. VIII, xii, 6-1 6.4 F. Skutsch has found other parallels in a (Christian) IVth cent, writer, Julius Firmicius Maternus, in Theophilus : ad Atitolycum and Minucius Felix.5 How then are we to account for these parallels? It would seem clear that the texts come from one source. The passages in St. Clement and Ap. Const. VIII have long been compared. Most authorities agree that the resemblance cannot be accidental.6 It might seem
1 For all this see Drews : Untersuchungen iiber die so gen. Clemen- tinische Liturgie (Tubingen, 1906),
2 The enumeration of creation, etc., in De Trin. I (P.L. iii, 886 B -887 B), and in Ps-Cyprian : de Spect. ix (P.L. iv, 786 A-B). Weyman has already shown de Sped, to be by Novatian (Hist. Jahrb. der Gorres Ges. xiii, 737 and xiv, 330).
:i Their legend is published in H. Gr£goire : Saints jumeaux et diem cavaliers (Paris, 1905).
4 So Weyman : Analecta VI (Liturgisches aus Novatian) in the Hist. Jahrbuch der Gbrres-ges. xxix (1908), 575-582.
5 Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, xiii (igio), pp. 291-305. The list oi benefits in Ap. Const. VIII, xii, recurs also in VII, xxxiv-xxxv which gives us yet another witness.
6 So Lightfoot : The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1890) I, vol. ii, p. 71 ; Funk : Patres Apostolici (Tubingen, 1901), i, 126, 142.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 65
more natural to suppose that the later document (Ap. Const.) quotes the earlier one (Clement). Yet these passages occur very naturally in the liturgy of Ap. Const. VIII ; it would be strange if they were merely a mosaic of quotations from other sources. Nor would this account for the parallel passages in other Fathers. What then is the common source from which all these passages are taken? Drews says it is the primitive liturgy. Even before it was written down, it may be supposed that many formulas, the list of benefits for which we thank God, lists of petitions and so on, occurring at every celebration, would become stereotyped and familiar to the celebrant and people. The Fathers, according to this view, quote these formulas. When we find the same texts arranged in a complete natural order in the " Clementine " liturgy, Drews concludes that we have here the primitive liturgy itself, or rather (since it was to a great extent fluid) one form of it.1
This theory is approved by a number of other competent scholars. Baumstark2 describes it as " un- doubtedly correct".8 C. Weyman considers that, as far as Novatian is concerned, Drews has " finally established the dependence of the Latin author on a liturgy of the ' Clementine ' type, which was already known to him as a written document".4 Abbot Cabrol sees much certain truth in this view and thinks it, as a whole, " fairly probable, but not ab- solutely certain".5 Others are not persuaded. They point out, as Brightman has shown, that Ap. Const, is a IVth century Syrian document ; that the text of
1 Drews' theory, with the parallel passages drawn up in columns, will be found exposed at length in his : Untersuchungen icber die sogen. Clement. Lit. (op. cit.).
2 See p. 148, n. 4. 3 Theologische Revue, 28 Oct., igi2.
4 Hist, jfahrb. der Gorres-Ges., 1908, p. 575.
5 Origiues Liturgiqncs, p. 329.
5
66 THE MASS
its prayers shows clear marks of the compiler's style ; that, as far as it shows anything more than his inven- tions, it is IVth century Antiochene practice ; * that such a document is an extremely doubtful witness for an alleged universal primitive rite. The opponents of Drews and Propst maintain rather that by the IVth century Syria had evolved many special characteristics which are inherited by its dependent rites. Ap. Const. VIII belongs to this class ; without independent au- thority it is impossible to affirm any of its character- istic points as also belonging to other centres, such as Rome.
In conclusion we may perhaps say this : the parallels between Ap. Const. VIII and early Fathers noted by Drews are too close to be accidental. Nor does it seem likely that in these cases the compiler quotes these Fathers. We should then admit the primitive liturgy as the common source and say that Ap. Const. VIII does contain a considerable amount of early liturgical matter. It is another thing to say that it is the primitive liturgy. The compiler may have imbedded this matter in the order of the Antiochene rite of his time, or into his own ideal arrangement. One would be wary of affirming that any one detail in Ap. Const. VIII is universal or primitive unless it be confirmed by independent witness elsewhere.
§ 8. Some Special Points.
There is however another point to consider. If we suppose that the liturgy of the three first centuries was uniform in its main arrangement, we have less need of witnesses from each centre for this arrange- ment. On this supposition it would be enough to verify the order in one or two places. Then, in as
1 Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, pp. xxiv-xxxiii.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 67
far as the general arrangement may be supposed to cover the point, we may affirm it of other places too. This consideration suggests an indirect way in which we might, at least conjecturally, supply for the want of direct evidence about Rome.
At least the general scheme common to all the Church Orders (p. 59) may be taken as practically universal during the first three centuries. Certain special points now demand consideration. The kiss of peace occurs in all the Church Orders at the begin- ning of the Liturgy of the Faithful, just before the Offertory.1 So it does in Justin Martyr (p. 18). In- deed, as far as Rome is concerned, we have good evidence that it was moved to its present place (just before Communion) about the IVth or Vth century (p. 371). We may then, no doubt, fix its original place at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful, a sign of peace and fellowship among them before they join in the holy sacrifice.
Abbot Cabrol thinks that the chant of the Sanctus is not primitive, at any rate in its present place.2 It is true that the Egyptian Church Orders and Test. Dni do not contain it. On the other hand Clement of Rome already refers to it and it occurs in every Liturgy, at the end of what we call the " Preface," ex- cept in the Abyssinian ''Anaphora of our Lord"3 which is derived from Test. Dni. It is also found in Sarapion,4 St. John Chrysostom 5 and St. Cyril of Jerusalem,6 and the Arabic text of Test. Dni supplies
1 In Eth. Ck. O. (ed. Horner, p. 139) and Verona Fragment (ed. Hauler, p. 106) the kiss seems to be identified with that given to the newly ordained bishop.
2 Les Origines liturgiques, p. 329 ; Le Livre de la Priere antique, p. III.
3 Printed in Cooper and Maclean : The Test, of our Lord, App. I, pp. 245-248.
4 Funk : Didascalia, II, 174.
5 Brightman : op. cit. 474. 6 lb. 465.
5*
68 THE MASS
it.1 It would then seem that its omission in Eg. Church Order and Test. Dni is, at most, an exception to the general rule.
Is the Lord's Prayer in the Liturgy primitive? None of the Church Orders, not even Ap. Const. VIII give it. But Test. Dni has a prayer to be said by each communicant after his Communion, which is an ar- rangement of its first four clauses.2 Brightman thinks it is implied in the Egyptian Church Order and Sara- pion.3 The Didache orders it to be said three times a day (VIII, 3). Chrysostom seems to imply it, so that Brightman includes it in the Liturgy of Antioch at his time,4 and St. Cyril and St. Jerome mention it as oc- curring in the Liturgy.5. All later liturgies contain it before Communion, except (as before) the Abyssinian " Anaphora of our Lord ".6
A much disputed question is that of the Intercession. By this we mean a general prayer for the Church and for all men, including the faithful departed, and a memory of the Saints in some form.7 In many cases there are two Intercessions, one at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful, generally (at least since the IVth century) in the form of a litany by the deacon with answers by the people8 and a concluding prayer
1 Ed. Rahmani, p. 3g.
2 Ed. Cooper and Maclean, p. 76.
3 Joum. Theol. Studies, I, 97.
4 Eastern Liturgies, p. 474 ; see the text (In Gen. xxvii, 8) quoted ib. p. 480, n. 28.
5 Brightman : pp. 466 and 469, n. 14. There is an essay by F. H. Chase: The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church (Texts and Studies, I, 3), Cambridge, 1891.
6 Which does not contain the Communion at all.
7 Such, at least, is the form of a perfect Intercession.
8 Mr. E. Bishop says that this litany form began at Antioch in the IVth cent, and spread thence. He quotes a number of authorities (Narsai, Cyril of Jer., Per. Silviae, the oldest known text of the St. James liturgy, Barsalibi), who while describing the liturgy in detail say nothing about a litany (Appendix to Dom R. H. Connolly's Homilies of Narsai, iv, pp. 117-121).
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 69
by the celebrant ; then another by the celebrant him- self in the course of the Anaphora (sometimes again echoed by a diaconal litany).
For the first Intercession (which we now call the " Prayers of the Faithful," see pp. 293-296) we have the witness of Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. lxv, 1 ; lxvii, 5 (above, pp. 18, 20); it occurs in Ap. Const. VIII, x, and in Test. Dni, i, 35 2 (in both cases a litany) in all extant Eastern liturgies, and there is good evidence that it existed in the Gallican and originally in the Roman rite (see p. 294).
The second Intercession, in the Anaphora, occurs in Sarapion, xiii,2 in Test. Dni, i, 23 (quite short),3 at great length in Ap. Const. VIII, xii, 40-50 (followed by a diaconal litany, xiii, 3-9), in Cyril of Jerusalem 4 and Chrysostom.5 In all of these it follows the Epi- klesis. In the extant liturgies of the Antiochene family and the East Syrian rite 6 it has the same place ; in the Alexandrine class it comes before the Consecration. In the present Roman rite we have the elements of an Intercession throughout the Canon, part before and part after the Consecration. It is a question whether the Gallican liturgy had a second Intercession at all ; its diptychs were read at the Offertory, in connection with the first Intercession.7
It seems, then, that the primitive liturgy had two Intercessions, one in each of what were originally separate services. The old service of prayer {Liturgy of the Catechumens, pp. 5, 7) ended with prayers for all men (p. 3). These, attracted to the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful, became the " Prayers of the Faithful ".8 Then the Eucharistic prayer de-
1 Ed. Cooper and Maclean, pp. 100-101,
2 Funk : Didascalia, II, 176. 3 Cooper and Maclean, p. 75. 4 Brightman, p. 466. 5 lb. 474.
6 So also in Narsai, ed. Connolly, pp. 18-19. 7 See p. 103.
8 Woolley : Lit. of the Prim. Church, p. 124.
70 THE MASS
veloped its own Intercession, following naturally the Epiklesis. The Epiklesis prays first for the com- municants ; then the celebrant goes on to remember also those who are not present at this Communion, other Christians, living and dead (so also the Saints) and finally all men. The later Egyptian rites remove this second Intercession to bring it nearer to the first ; the Gallican rite, if it ever had a second one, eventually identified it with the first. The place of the diptychs at Rome is a much disputed question. Some think that they too were once at the Offertory (pp. 168, 170). In any case the existence of an " Intercession" in the Roman Canon can hardly be denied. Its order is the subject of much discussion (E. gr. p. 157, etc.).
§ 8. Influence of Jewish ritual.
Another point which has been much discussed is the connection between the early Christian liturgy and Jewish rites. That the first part of the liturgy, that of the catechumens, with its readings from the Bible, sermons and prayers is a Christianized form of the old Synagogue service may be taken as certain.1 It seems however that psalms were not sung generally in Syna- gogues, so that the Christians must have taken this detail from the service of the Temple.2
But various attempts have been made to establish a much greater dependence on Jewish rites than this. Gustav Bickell 3 thought that the catechumens' liturgy and the Prayers of the Faithful (that is the liturgy up to the offertory) correspond to the morning prayer
1 So Duchesne : Origines, 46-47.
2 Warren : Lit. of Ante-Nicene Church, p. 205. Warren thinks the whole service comes rather from the Temple than the Synagogue (ib. 205-207).
3 Messe und Pascha (Mainz, 1872, pp. 88-104). He was then extraord. Professor of Oriental Philology at Miinster; seep. 143, n. 2.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 71
said in the Synagogue on the Sabbath. This service contained psalms, so there is no need to look to the temple for them. It consisted of these elements : 1. A
blessing, 2. Lesson from the Law (JTlinQ), 3. Lesson
from the Prophets (rntODH), 4. Psalms, 5. Sermon
(tlTHE), 6. Eighteen blessings called mfctt? H3Dtt? (= "eighteen,"), 7. Prayer for all kinds of people, said by one man, to which all answer Amen, 8. Blessing by a priest, 9. Prayer for peace. It is not difficult to see the likeness of this service to the earliest known forms of the Christian liturgy. There we have in the same order : 2 and 3. lessons, 4. Gradual psalms, 5. sermon, 6 and 7. deacon's litanies and Prayers of the Faithful, 8. bishop's prayer and blessing, 9. Kiss of Peace.1 Bickell again 2 and with him Probst 3 connect the Liturgy of the Faithful with the Paschal supper as it was kept by our Lord the evening before he died. They conceive the connec- tion as this : The actual supper (Paschal lamb, etc.) ended with the mixing and drinking of the third cup of wine, over which a prayer (Grace after the meal) was said. Then followed the institution of the Holy Eucharist (" after he had supped," Lk. xxii, 20 ; I Cor. xi, 25). The fourth cup was mixed, the hands were washed and the second part of the Hallel psalms (cxiii, 9-cxvii) 4 was sung. Then followed the great Hallel
1 The two services in parallel columns in Cabrol and Leclercq : Monum. Eccl. liturg. I, i, pp. xix-xxiii. See also Cabrol : Orig. liturg. 33°-333- Baumstark compares the liturgy in Justin with the Sabbath service of the Synagogue. His view is that there was a very old form of prayer, witnessed by Neh. ix, 5-38, Ps. civ, cv, cxxxiv, cxxxv, Esra iv, Apoc. Baruch, Wisdom, Mace. iii. From this descend both the Syna- gogue service and the original Christian anaphora. See his Messe im Morgenland, 24-26, and Theologie u. Glaube, ii, 358-370.
2 Messe und Pascha, (pp. 105-122).
8 Lit. des iv Jahrhunderts u. deren Reform (Miinster, 1893), 6-16. 4 All texts are quoted as in the Vulgate.
72
THE MASS
(Ps. cxxxv). Both Ps. cxvii and Ps. cxxxv have a response : " for his mercy endures for ever " to each verse. Ps. cxxxv, 2-3 praises God as the highest of all, 4-9 celebrate creation, 10-22 mention the benefits he showed to his people, 23-24 apparently another kind of salvation from trouble, v. 25 is : " he gives food to all flesh ". Here our Lord instituted the Eucharist. The preceding verses, modified in a Christian sense, became the first part of the Euchar- istic prayer, thanking God for creation, his mercies in the Old Law and our redemption through Christ (= v. 23-24). The doxology at the end of the Eucharistic prayer corresponds to v. 26. The washing of hands before the offertory in most liturgies (not mentioned in Apost. Const.) corresponds in place to that of the Paschal supper. There are correspondences of formulas, thus :
Paschal Supper
Confitemini Domino quoniam bonus
(cxvii, 1). Dicat nunc Israel quoniam bonus,
etc. (cxvii, 2-4). Confitemini Domino (cxvii, 1). Benedictus qui venit in nomine
Domini (cxvii, 26).
Liturgy
Sursum Corda.
Habemus ad Dominum.
Gratias agamus . . . Sanctus . . . Benedictus.
The formula : " Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts : the whole earth is full of his glory " occurs in the morning service for Sabbaths.1
The chief argument against this theory is that the comparison is made with later Jewish forms. It is quite likely that much of the Passover ritual that we know from these later documents existed already in the time of our Lord ; but it must be remembered that there is an element of uncertainty. Secondly
1 Singer and N. M. Adler : Authorized daily Prayer Book of the united Hebrew Congregations, London, 1900, p. 131.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 73
Dom Cabrol at least considers that some of the Christian forms compared are later too. He considers the Sanctus especially to be a later addition to the liturgy.1
Continuing the idea of the Last Supper as the basis of the liturgy, Probst and others have found in the last discourse made by our Lord at the end of the supper (Jo. xiii, 31-xvii, 26) a further element of the service. The prayer in his name (xvi, 24) became the Intercession ; the comparison of the vine and its branches (xv, 1-6), the promise that the disciples should see him (xiv, 19), that he would come to them, stay with them, show himself to them (xiv, 18-23) are all Eucharistic and liturgical allusions that have found their echo in the rite.2 Especially do we notice the insistence on the Holy Ghost and his work (xiv, 16-17, 26; xv, 26 ; xvi, 7-1 1, 1 3-1 5) as a basis of the Epiklesis.3 This idea has been developed ingeniously by Dr. S. Salaville. The three promises : our Lord's return, the coming of the Holy Ghost, prayers heard when made in Christ's name are fulfilled in the Eucharist. A comparison of the parable of the vine in xiv, 6-xv, 5 with the promise of the Eucharist in Jo. vi, again shows that the vine is to be understood especially of this Sacrament.
" I am the life " (xiv, 6, 19). , "lam the bread of life " (vi, 35
etc.). " Remain in me and I in you " j " Who eats my flesh and drinks (xv, 4). my blood remains in me and
I in him " (vi, 56). " As a branch cannot bear fruit by i " Unless you eat the flesh of the
itself, unless it remain in the vine, so neither can you unless
Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life
you remain in me " (xv, 4). j in you " (vi, 53). 4
1Origines liturg. 329.
2 Probst: Lit. des iv Jhrhdts, 9-16. *Ib. 14-15.
4 Salaville : Les Fondements scripturaires de VEpiclese (Echos d'Orient, 1909, pp. 8-g).
74 THE MASS
And Salaville sees in the texts about the Holy Ghost in the last discourse a foundation in Scripture for the Epiklesis.
Another theory connects the earliest liturgy, not with the Passover ceremony but with the Sabbath meal held every Friday evening.1 This meal is a religious service ; its ritual is given in the Treatise Blessings
\T^yy2) of the Talmud2 and may be seen in any modern Jewish prayerbook.3 At the beginning of the meal bread is blessed with the form : " Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth". Then wine with the form: " Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine ". The head of the family (having said these forms) tastes of each and gives them to the others. These forms are the " blessings" (niD^l)| to say them is to " bless " (^pl) ; does not the statement that our Lord " blessed " {evXorfqcras, Mt. xxvi, 26 ; Mk. xiv, 22) mean that he used similar forms? 4 At the end of the meal a long grace is said, thanking God for food and for his other benefits, praying for benefactors etc. The guests answer Amen. It is especially the Eucharist in the Didache which resembles this Jewish service (pp. 8-9). The wine and bread are blessed before the meal with similar forms ; after the meal follows a thanksgiving-prayer just as in the Sabbath-meal.5 In conclusion we may take it for certain that there
1 This is defended by Goltz : Tischgebete u. Abendmahlsgebete (Texte u. Untersuchungen, xxix, 26, Leipzig, 1905), Drews: Ench- aristie in the Realenz. fur Prot. Theol. v, 560-572, Rauschen : Euchar. u. Busssakr. 78-80.
2Berakhoth is the first treatise of the first book (Zeratim) of the Mishna: it has 9 chapters. Chap. 6 and 7 contain the blessings for meals.
3 E. gr. the Authorised Daily Prayerbook quoted above, pp. 278-285.
4 Buchwald : Die Epiklese, 26. 6 See above p. 10, n. 3.
EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 75
are Jewish influences in the first Christian liturgy. We know that that is so with regard to many early Chris- tian prayers and ceremonies.1 But the question which Jewish services had most influence and points of dependence in detail are still uncertain. It is danger- ous to draw up parallel forms with any one Jewish set of prayers and to deduce that that particular set is the prototype of the Christian liturgy, for several reasons, one of the most obvious of which is that the same forms recur continually in the services of the Jews.
6 Famous cases are the Magnificat and Benedictus in the New Testament. Their verses can be paralleled closely from the Shemone- Esre ; see Cabrol and Leclercq : Mon. Eccl. Liturg. xvii. See in general Warren : Lit. of the Ante-Nicene Church, chap. iv. pp. 200-247.
CHAPTER II.
THE PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS. § i. The development of the Parent Rites.
BEFORE we come finally to the Roman Mass it will be well to establish its place among Christian liturgies by explaining in outline the development of all the old rites and their groups.
We have so far deduced from the Fathers of the first three centuries that there was in their time a liturgy, still fluid and liable to change in its details, made up of prayers chiefly extempore, but uniform in outline and in many of its formulas, throughout Christendom. The fourth century brings us to a great change. From this time we may find full information about liturgical matters in almost every detail. The Fathers such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem (f 386), St. Athanasius (f 373), St. Basil (f 379), St. John Chrysostom (f 407) give us elaborate descriptions of the rites they celebrated. It is unfortunate for our purpose that we know less about the earliest history of the Roman rite than about any other. Still, in general we have an abundance of liturgical information from the fourth century. As in the case of general Church History, the freedom of the Church under Constantine and, roughly, the first general council in 325 mark the great turning point for liturgical study. We have even more than the copious allusions of the Fathers. From about the
76
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 77
fourth century we have complete liturgical texts, the first Euchologia and Sacramentaries drawn up for use in Church. And in them and in the Fathers of this time we notice that the old fluid uniform rite has crystallized into different liturgies in different places. These different liturgies still all bear the marks of their common descent ; in all we see still the same outline in general ; there are very curious and complicated signs of mutual influence between them, so much so that almost every possible theory of dependence of each from another has its defenders. But from this time we have specifically different rites and we must consider these rites separately.
The way in which this came about must have been something like this. In various centres the old vaguer rite crystallized into different forms. Insistence on one part at one place, on another at another, different parts shortened or enlarged, slight re-arrangements of the order, caused for some practical reason, bring about different types of liturgy. The influence of these centres causes their customs to be followed in the country round and in the dependent dioceses. We see that three of the parent-types are those of the three old patriarchal cities, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. It was natural that the bishops of these patriarchates should imitate their chief in his liturgical practices. So from these centres new types spread. But they are still more or less fluid types of liturgy. Even within the area of each there was room for some difference. The prayers were still to a great extent said extempore. Our first period then introduces us to four general types of liturgy, the parents of all others in Christendom. The next stage is absolute uni- formity. The prayers are written down and read from a book. This naturally puts an end to any variety within the domain of each rite. But mean-
78 THE MASS
while, before final uniformity is reached, each of these parent types goes through the same development as did the original parent of all. Again, within the same type, there are differences. Outlying Churches evolve peculiarities of their own ; sometimes changes, shor- tening of parts that seem too long, the addition of some new ceremony or the expansion of an old one, are made deliberately. So we have the derived liturgies, each the daughter of one of the four great parents, obviously belonging to its family, and yet no longer to be considered the same rite. These too are then written down ; so we have the many liturgies now used, which however are not disconnected novelties, but may all be classified as either one of the original four, or derived from one of them.1
Mgr. Duchesne counts four parent-rites for all Christendom, two in the East, Antioch and Alex- andria, and two in the West, Rome and Gaul.2 Not everyone is satisfied with this division. Duchesne himself suggests that they may be reduced to two.3 Drews would apparently bring all back to Antioch.4 Mr. Edmund Bishop suggests a different basis of classification altogether, leading to two main types.5 Dr. Baumstark begins with four, not two, parent rites
1 The situation may be understood by the parallel case of language, Here too we see at first variety in the same class. The old Italic dialects for instance (Umbrian, Oscan, Latin etc.) belong to the same family. Then the dialect of some chief centre for some reason becomes the classical language of the whole country and books written in it spread uniformity. So the dialect of Rome — classical Latin. But meanwhile, while the language is still to some extent fluid, derived languages arise out of it (Italian, Spanish, French etc.). These then go through the same process, have their dialect forms and finally obtain uniformity by conforming to the dialect of the capital, chiefly through the influence of books. To make our parallel still more exact we shall remember that behind the whole process lurks the original Aryan language, as does the liturgy of the first three centuries behind all the development we have to trace in this chapter.
2Origines du Culte, 54. 3 lb.
4 In his Unters. iiber die so gen. clem. Lit., 126.
5 In Dom R. Connolly's Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, 145.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 79
in the East — those of Western Syria, East Syria, Asia Minor and Egypt.1 On the other hand this may be said for the classification under four heads : It is true that there have been cross influences between them ; it is also true that much may be said as to their mutual relations (for instance, the Gallican rite may be Antiochene in its origin). But in any case we have here four different rites, all extant, and from these four all others are derived. At most one might reduce the parent rites to three and count the Gallican liturgy as derived (from Antioch). But its Antiochene origin is doubtful. In any case it represents a large historically original Western class.
We have then this conception of the original fluid rite having evolved into these four, as our starting- point. In the case of three of them the reason of their importance is obvious. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch were the patriarchal cities in the fourth century. Naturally their influence was felt around them in their patriarchates. Syria followed Antioch, Egypt Alex- andria, only Rome at first seems not to have been followed. The origin of the Gallican rite is the mystery. Northern Italy, Gaul, Britain, Spain, were part of the Roman patriarchate. Why did they not use their Patriarch's rite, like the rest of Christendom ? At any rate we know they did not. Till about the sixth century these countries had their own liturgical use apparently independent of the Roman rite. Even now remnants of this so-called Gallican rite are found in the heart of the Roman patriarchate (at Milan and Toledo) as exceptions to the general rule that rite follows patriarchate.
§ 2. The Antiochene Rite.
This is the best known of the four. Antioch has the oldest complete rite extant and is also the source
1 Die Messe im Morgenland, Kempten and Munich, 1906.
80 THE MASS
of more derived rites than any other place. The first complete Antiochene liturgy extant is none other than that of the Eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions already described (pp. 55-61). Besides this we have allusions to early Antiochene use in the Hymns of Severus of Antioch (f 538). The collection under his name is not all by him. It contains a number of old Antiochene liturgical hymns (E. gr. for the Communion) translated into Syriac in the Vllth cent.1 Another witness of the early use of Antioch is the so-called Liturgy of St. Athanasius (in Syriac), written for a Syrian monastery in Egypt in the XVth cent.2 It is monophysite, but Baumstark thinks it represents an echo of the old pure Antiochene rite before the in- fluence of Jerusalem.3 Ap. Const. VIII was written in Syria and shows the liturgy as used at Antioch. It is suggested that the compiler was the same person as the author of the six spurious letters of St. Ignatius, and an Apollinarist.4 In any case he was a Syrian. He gives precedence to Antioch (VIII, x, 7 etc.); he mentions Christmas (VIII, xxxiii, 6), a feast kept at Antioch considerably earlier than in most Eastern Churches;5 Holy Week and Lent together make up seven weeks (V, xiii, 3) as at Antioch, whereas in Palestine Lent lasted eight weeks 6 and in Egypt six weeks;7 the chief source of his " Apostolic Canons" is the Synod of Antioch in encceniis (341) and his liturgy obviously follows the lines of that of Antioch as we see it in St. John Chrysostom.8
This liturgy then, apart from the question of whether
1 Ed. by E. W. Brooks in the Patr. Orient., vi, 3-179; vii, 595-802.
2 Ed. by A. Baumstark in the Oricns Christ, li (1902), 90 129.
3 lb.
4 Funk : Die apostolischen Konstitutionen, pp. 366-368 ; Brightman : Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896), pp. xxiv-xxix.
5 Kellner: Heortologie (Freiburg, 1901), pp. 82-86.
6 Per. Silviw, xxvii, 1. 7 Kellner, op. cit. p. 62. 8 Probst: Litnrgie des iv Jahrhdts, 156-202.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 81
it represents an old universal type, is in any case the starting-point of the group of Antiochene rites. But the Church of Antioch did not keep it ; instead she borrowed one of the daughter-rites derived from it. We have said that within each patriarchate there was still variety. The neighbouring Churches used the rite of the patriarchal Church with modifications of their own. One of these rites, derived from the original type of Antioch, was that of Jerusalem,1 the liturgy called after St. James, the "brother of the Lord" and first Bishop of Jerusalem. The Liturgy of St. James follows the main lines of that of the Apostolic Constitutions, but was plainly put together at Jerusalem. The first supplication of its prayers after the Epiklesis is "We offer to thee, O Lord, for thy holy places which thou hast glorified by the divine appearance of thy Christ and by the coming of thy holy Spirit, especially for the holy and glorious Sion, mother of all churches, and for thy holy Catholic and apostolic Church throughout the world. " 2 Among the prayers for the catechumens is an allusion to the cross : " lift up the horn of the Christians by the power of the venerable and life-giving cross," 3 referring apparently to the discovery of the true cross at Jerusalem in 326. This also gives us a date after which it must have been composed, at any rate in its present form. Other allusions show its composition to be still later. Among the diptychs for the living is an allusion to : " our all-holy, immaculate and highly praised Lady Mary, Mother of God and ever virgin " followed by two hymns to our Lady, evidently directed against the Nestorian heresy (431). But in establish- ing dates for the beginning of a liturgy we must
1 Jerusalem belonged to Antioch till the Council of Chalcedon (45 n made it an independent patriarchate.
2 Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, p. 54. 3 lb. p. 37.
6
82 THE MASS
remember that they fix only its present redaction and complete form ; the rites had been growing gradually long before that. We have certain dates at the other end for its final compilation. The fact that the Syrian Jacobites use the Liturgy of St. James complete shows that it was compiled before the Monophysite Schism during the latter half of the Vth century. St. Jerome (f 420) seems to know it. At Bethlehem he quotes as a liturgical form " who alone is sinless " which occurs in it.1 The Catechetical Instructions of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, held about 348/* the Pilgrimage of Aetheria (Silvia),3 a lady from Southern Gaul who, if we ac- cept the conclusions arrived at by Karl Meister, spent three years in Jerusalem about the year 5304 and describes the rites she saw there, show a liturgy that, as far as we see it, is that of St. James. We must then conceive the liturgy of St. James as existing in the IVth century, as being formed gradually before that and receiving some additions of detail since. Such is in general the only way the date of a liturgy can be fixed. The earliest known text of this one is a roll written at Damascus about the Vllth-VIIIth cent.,5 the next oldest a MS. at Messina (Xth-XIth cent.).6 This liturgy then corresponds in its main outline to
1 Adv. Pelagium, ii, 23 P,L xxiii, 561), cfr. Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, p. 57, 1. 30-32.
2P.G. xxxiii, cfr. Probst : Liturgie des IV, Jhrdts, 77-106.
3 Edited by Geyer : Itinera hierosolymitana, in the Vienna Corpus Script, eccl. latin, xxxix, (pp. 35-101), 1898. Cfr. Cabrol : Etude sur la Peregrinatio Silvia, Paris, 1895, for her name, date, rank as Abbess and place of origin see Karl Meister ; De itincrario Aetheria in the Rheinisches Museeum, 1909, pp. 337-392 and Heraeus : Silvia, vel potius Aetheria peregrinatio (Sammlung vulgarlateinischer Texte i, Heidelberg, 1908). I continue to call the book by the usual name : Peregrinatio Silvia.
4 The earlier critics assigned this pilgrimage to the close of the fourth century and to this date many still adhere.
5 Described by Baumstark and Schermann in the Or. Christ, iii (1903), pp. 214-219.
6 For this and other MSS. see Brightman : op. cit. pp. xhx-ln.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 83
that of the Apostolic Constitutions ; its order and general arrangement are clearly West Syrian. Especi- ally in one important point it shows itself to belong to the Syrian group ; the intercession for all people, with the memory of the Saints, comes after the conse- cration, which at once follows the Sanctus. But it has developed since the earlier one. The prayers are longer, the ceremonies more elaborate. As we have it, it contains a complicated rite for the preparation of the offerings {TrpoaKOfjahrj), though this may be due to later Byzantine influence. The Nicene Creed is said immediately after the "Great Entrance" in which the offerings are brought to the altar (after the Prayers of the Faithful) and is followed by the kiss of peace. There is a definite Epiklesis after the words of institution ; the Lord's Prayer follows the inter- cession.
It spread to Antioch, displaced the older liturgy of that city and, starting out from that centre, became the rite of the whole patriarchate, that is of all Western Syria. It was used even further, in Greece and by Greek monks at Rome. The liturgy of St. James then may be considered a second source (after that of the Apostolic Constitutions) and as the head of the de- velopment in Syria, Asia Minor, Greece. But again this is only true of the type ; there were local varieties within its domain. It would be a mistake to consider all the derived rites of Antioch as coming from our Greek St. James as we have it. At any rate the rite as we know it was used at Antioch and the centre of the patriarchate before the Monophysite schism of the Vth century, since it descended to both Catholics and Monophy sites. The oldest form in which we know it is in Greek ;x but there was no principle of uniformity in language. It was used in Greek in the cities where
1Text in Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, 31-68. 6 *
84 THE MASS
that language was spoken, translated into Syriac for use in the villages. In this Syriac form it became the rite of the Syrian Monophysites (Jacobites). The text differs, not considerably, from the Greek version. The Jacobites have added to it a great number of alternative Anaphoras all formed on the line of its own (Anaphora of St. James) and joined to its first part (Liturgy of the Catechumens and Prayers of the Faithful). There are sixty-four of these Anaphoras, used for various occa- sions. Some of them are composed by well-known leaders of the Jacobites, others are called after Apostles or early Saints.1 The Melkites (Orthodox) of Syria used the liturgy of St. James in Greek or (more often) in Syriac till the XHIth century, when they substi- tuted the Byzantine rite for it. Among the Orthodox it is now only used (in Greek) at Zakynthos once a year on October 23 (St. James's feast) and on the Sunday after Christmas at Jerusalem. The Syriac version is used by all Jacobites, those of the Malabar Christians who have turned Jacobite and Syrian Uniates. There are also Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian versions, now no longer used.2 The Maronites now use a form of this rite with considerable modifications of a Roman- izing tendency.3 They have eight Anaphoras and one for the liturgy of the Presanctified.
§ 3. Liturgies derived from Antioch.
Edessa and Nisibis formed their own liturgical tra- ditions, in many ways apart from those of Western Syria. These East Syrian rites appear to be sufii-
1 The Jacobite liturgy with the Anaphora of St. James is printed (in English) in Brightman, op. cit. 69-110.
a For editions and versions see Brightman, xlviii-lxiii.
3 Missale chaldaicum iuxta ritnm ecclesice nationis Maronitarum, Rome, 1592, and often reprinted. For older Maronite use see Baum- stark in the Or. Christ, iv, 190-194 and 405-409.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 85
ciently related to those of the patriarchal city to be included in the great Antiochene family ; but they are the furthest removed of that family.1 We have some indications of the rite of Edessa in the fourth century from the writings of St. Ephrem (f 373).2 This East Syrian rite became that of the Nestorian Church in Persia, Kurdistan and its missions as far as India and China, whose centre was Seleucia-Ctesiphon on the Tigris. We see it again in the Nestorian writers, Barsauma and Narsai (f502).3 It is now represented by the Nestorian and Chaldee Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Marl} The liturgy begins with the prepa- ration of the offerings ; then comes an Enarxis (pre- paratory prayers) containing the Lord's Prayer. The Liturgy of the Catechumens begins with the Trisagion and has four lessons, the Law and Prophets, or Pro- phets and Acts, an Epistle and Gospel, divided by psalms, hymns and prayers. Then come a litany sung by the deacon, to each clause of which the people answer : " O our Lord, have mercy on us," a second litany with the answer : Amen, an inclination and blessing and the dismissal of the catechumens. The Liturgy of the Faithful begins with the bringing of the offerings from the Prothesis to the altar with prayers, then the Creed (a form of their own). The diptychs follow here, namely prayers for all kinds of people, living and dead, together with the memory of
1 Some writers (E. gr. Baumstark : Die Messe im Morgenland, 48-52) count the East Syrian rite as a separate class. According to the usual classification of all Eastern rites under the general headings Antioch and Alexandria, the East Syrian liturgy is included in those of the Antiochene family. So Duchesne : Origines du Culte, 68-69.
3 Probst: Lit. des iv Jahrhdts, pp. 308-318. The Chronicle of Scert, written perhaps in the XHIth cent. (Patr. Or. iv, 295), says that St. Ephrem composed a liturgy.
3 R. Connolly : The Liturgical Homilies of Narsai, Cambridge (Texts and Studies, viii, 1), 1909.
4 Brightman, op. cit. 247-305.
86 THE MASS
the Saints. The kiss of peace ends the proanaphoral part of the liturgy. The Anaphora begins as usual with the dialogue " Lift up your minds " etc. and the prayer of thanksgiving (leading to the Sanctus) that we call the Preface. The most remarkable fact about this liturgy is that it did not contain the words of in- stitution at all.1 It is sometimes said that the cele- brant was meant to repeat them by heart ; they are now inserted in the edition of Urmi2 and in the Uniate books, but obviously with no relation to the context. 3 A short intercession by the celebrant leads to the Epiklesis, the fraction, Lord's Prayer, elevation ("Holy things to the holy" and a doxology as at Antioch). Communion, blessing and dismissal follow in order.
Later the Nestorians added other Anaphoras to the first part of this liturgy instead of its own, to be used on special occasions. These other Anaphoras come from a different source. They are translations of Greek texts from the liturgical group of Asia Minor and Con- stantinople, fitted awkwardly into the order of the East-Syrian liturgy. The Anaphora of Diodore of Tarsus has disappeared. They still use those of Theo- dore the Interpreter^ and Nestorius on certain occasions. This Anaphora of Nestorius is either an older form ot the Byzantine liturgy, or a compilation from its two present forms (St. Basil and St. John Chrys.).5
The East-Syrian liturgy is used by the remnant of the Nestorian Church in Kurdistan and Persia, by a fraction of the schismatical Malabar Christians, by the
1 But Narsai mentions them (ed. Connolly, p. 17).
2 By the Anglican mission. 3 Brightman : op. cit. p. 285.
4 Theodore of Mopsuestia (f 428). There seems no reason to doubt that it was arranged by him.
5 Baumstark has shown reason to suppose that this " Anaphora of Nestorius " is the one used by St. John Chrysostom at Constantinople ; see: Chrysostomika (Rome, 1908), 771-857, and Die Konst. Messlit. vor dem ix Jahrh. in Lietzmann's Kleine Texte (no. 35, Bonn, 1909).
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 87
Uniate Chaldees (who have the three Anaphoras, calling the others "Second" and " Third ") and in a very Romanized form by the Malabar Uniates.
Asia Minor also had its own variants of liturgy ; though they were much nearer to those of Western Syria than the rites of Edessa, Nisibis and Seleucia- Ctesiphon. The canons of the Synod of Laodicea (in Phrygia) held in 363 show a liturgy of that place, not otherwise known. The Anaphora of Theodore used by the Nestorians is Cilician. But Cappadocia, grouped around its Metropolis Cccsarea, evolved a rite in Greek, distinctly Antiochene in type, that was destined to be- come of great importance. The letter of Firmilian of Csesarea 1 (256-257) contains the first indications of this rite ; St Gregory Thaumaturgus (f 270) and Cappadocian synods of the fourth century give further details.2 But it is especially St. Basil (f 379) who ar- ranged the liturgy of his Church. Many of his letters refer to this 3 and it is attested further by a number of more or less contemporary writers.4 These writers describe his work as shortening the rite he found. There is no reason to doubt that the famous Liturgy of St. Basil (the older of the two liturgies of Constanti- nople) represents the Saint's re-arrangement. Com- pared with the Liturgy of St. James (representing the rite of the Patriarchal city Antioch) it is found to follow its order, but to be considerably shorter. In other ways too it corresponds very well to the contemporary
1 Addressed to St. Cyprian and published among his letters (ed. by Hartel in the Vienna Corpus Script, eccl. Latin, vol. iii, pp. 810-827).
2 An outline of the liturgy from Cappadocian writers is given by Brightman, op. cit. Appendix N, pp. 521-526.
3 E. gr. Ep. cvii (P.G. xxxii, 763).
4 Gregory Naz. Or. xx (P.G. xxxv, 761), Gregory Nyss. (In laudem frat. Basil, P.G. xlvi, 808), Proklos of Const. (+ 446 : de trad. div. Missce, P.G. lx, 849).
88 THE MASS
accounts of what he did.1 This rite then spread to Constantinople and became the origin of the great By- zantine Liturgy. Additions and amplifications have been made to it since. A second liturgy modelled on this bears the name of St. John Chrysostom. Chry- sostom (f 407) is also said to have reformed and short- ened the rite he found at Constantinople.2 He may have had a share in producing this second liturgy. But in general it is later in date than his time. Long ceremonies, the preparation of the offerings (irpoa- Ko/xiSy), the rites accompanying the Little and Great Entrance, the removal of the Kiss of Peace to after the Great Entrance and so on are later additions.3
The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom exactly follows that of St. Basil in order. It does not change the deacon's part nor the chants of the choir, but it sub- stitutes a different (generally shorter) text for the prayers of the celebrant. This shortening is especi- ally noticeable in the first part of the Anaphora, before the Sanctus (corresponding to our Preface). A third Liturgy of the Presanctified, 4 attributed wrongly to St. Gregory I (f 604), completes the Eucharistic ser- vice of the Church of Constantinople. The earliest manuscript of these three liturgies is one of the VHIth or IXth century now in the Vatican library.5 This shows them in an earlier form than that in which they
1 This question is discussed at some length in the American Cath- olic Encyclopedia (article: Constantinople, rite of ). See also Baum- stark, op. cit. pp. 55-57.
2 Proklos. loc cit.
3 See the article in the Cath. Encyclopedia, and Brightman, App. O and P, pp. 527-539. Various articles in Chrysostomika (op. cit.) discuss the development of this liturgy and its old Armenian, Arabic, and Slavonic versions.
4 The Liturgy of the Presanctified (used in the Roman rite only on Good Friday) is much commoner in the East, being the usual service for the aliturgical days of Lent.
5 Barberini MSS. iii, reprinted in Brightman, pp. 309-352.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 89
are now used ; especially the rite of preparing the offerings at the beginning is much less complicated.1
The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom is the one commonly used in the Byzantine rite ; the older form (of St. Basil) is kept for a few days in the year only,2 that of the Presanctified lor week-days in Lent. The outline of either liturgy (Basil or Chrysostom) is this : The ministers vest, saying suitable prayers. Then comes the long preparatory rite of the TrpocrfcofjbtSrj, the preparation of the bread and wine at the credence table (Prothesis). The bread is cut up and arranged on the paten according to elaborate rules, the bread and wine are incensed and many prayers are said.3 The offerings are then left on the Prothesis and the celebrant and deacon go to the altar to begin the liturgy. The Liturgy of the catechumens begins with a litany (called avvairrrj) chanted by the deacon outside the Ikonostasion.4 To each clause the choir answers Kyrie eleison. Meanwhile the celebrant says a corresponding prayer at the altar in a low voice
1 For the development of this see the Echos d'Orient iii, pp. 65-78. La preparation des oblats dans le rite grec, and Brightman, Appendix
Q, pp. 53Q-549-
2 The Sundays in Lent (except Palm Sunday) Maundy Thursday, Easter Eve, the Eves of Christmas and Epiphany and St. Basil's feast (Jan. 1).
3 In comparing this with the Roman rite we have a typical example of the way in which one detail may evolve into a long ceremony in one place while it remains quite simple in another. At Rome the priest before he begins Mass puts an altar-bread on the paten and the server pours wine and water into the cruets. At High Mass the chalice and paten are put on the credence table. The Dominicans fill the chalice before Mass (a Gallican feature). That is all our Proskomide. On the other hand the reservation of the Blessed Sacra- ment, which in Eastern rites remains a mere practical detail involving no ceremony at all, has evolved in the West into a great feature of religious life, entailing visits of adoration, expositions, benediction, processions.
4 The great screen that in all Byzantine churches separates the sanctuary and hides the altar from the choir and nave. It has three doors, of which the central one is the Royal door and is covered with pictures.
go THE MASS
and, the litany being finished, sings the last clause of it aloud 1 to which the choir answers Amen. All litanies in this rite are formed in this way. An anthem is then sung. A second litany (the short Synapte) follows in the same way ; its anthem ends with the Movoyevtfs ; 2 then comes a third litany and anthem. Here follows the Little Entrance, that is the procession to the place where the Gospel is sung. During it troparia 3 are sung, ending with the Trisa- gion.4 There are now only two lessons ; originally there was an Old Testament lesson too. A reader chants the Epistle, a Gradual is sung, the deacon sings the Gospel. Prayers are said for the catechumens and they are dismissed.5 Here begins the Liturgy of the Faithful. First comes another litany (the Prayers of the Faithful) then follows the Great Entrance, in which the offerings are brought in solemn procession from the Prothesis to the altar while the Cherubic Hymn is sung.6 A litany follows, then the Kiss of Peace and the Nicene Creed. The Anaphora begins with a blessing (2 Cor. xiii, 14), " Let us lift up the hearts," and so on. The prayer of thanksgiving (our preface) is said silently, with an ekphonesis to which the people
1 This last part of a silent prayer sung aloud is called the eKcpdovrjo-is. The Roman rite has examples of this in the Per omnia scecula sceculovum before the Preface, Lord's Prayer and Pax.
2 A famous hymn to Christ generally attributed to Justinian (527- 565), probably really composed by Severus of Antioch (512-536).
3 Short verses in rhythmical prose.
4 The verse : " Holy God, holy and strong, holy and immortal, have mercy on us " that we sing in Greek and Latin on Good Friday. It is sung three times, then : " Glory be to the Father " etc., and it is re- peated again.
5 This ancient rite is still kept, although now it is a mere form.
6 The x€PovPlK6v, said to have been written by the Emperor Justin II (565-578), sung alwavs to a very elaborate tune as the Great En- trance is made, is one of the features of the Byzantine liturgy. By a curious anticipation of the consecration it refers to the bread and wine as " king of all things " See Cheroubicon in the Diet, d'archeologie chret.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 91
answer: " Holy, holy, holy" etc. The words of in- stitution (sung aloud) follow almost at once, then the Anamnesis and Epiklesis. Then comes the great Intercession, namely prayers for various classes of people with the diptychs of the living and the dead. This ends with a litany ; then the Lord's Prayer, sung by the people. An elevation of the holy Eucharist with the words: "Holy things for the holy" and a doxology 1 as answer prepares for the Communion. The holy bread is broken and part of it mixed with the consecrated wine, into which a little warm water is poured ; Communion is given in both kinds while the Communion Antiphon is sung. A few prayers and a blessing form the dismissal.2 It has been mentioned that the older liturgy of St. Basil differs from the other only in the longer prayers of the celebrant.
This rite of Constantinople (adopted from Cassarea in Cappadocia) because of the importance of the city in which it was used spread over all the Orthodox world. First it influenced the older liturgies of Jerusalem- Antioch (St. James) and Alexandria (St. Mark), both of which in the first manuscripts we have of them are considerably Byzantinized. Then in the Xlllth cen- tury it displaced them altogether among the Orthodox. It has been translated into many languages for the various Orthodox and Uniate Churches, in which there
1 " One is holy, one Lord, Jesus Christ in the glory of God the Father."
2 The Byzantine rite is printed in many books. It is contained in the official Euchologion (Orthodox editions at Venice, Uniate ones at Rome) in Greek and translated for the Churches that use other lan- guages. It will be found in Greek in Brightman, op. cit. (Chrysostom, PP- 353;399> Basil, 400-411). In Greek and English in J. Robertson : The divine Liturgies (London, 1894), Greek and French in P. de Meester : La divine Uturgie (Paris and Rome, 1897 ; only Chrysostom), English only in A. Fortescue : The divine Liturgy (London, 1908). A fuller description of the service is given in the article Constantinople, rite of in the Catholic Encyclopaedia and in Fortescue ; The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907, pp. 398-418),
92 THE MASS
is no principle of uniformity in liturgical language. The older versions are in Syriac (now no longer used), Arabic for Egypt, Syria and Palestine, Georgian (now only used by one Uniate Georgian congregation at Constantinople) and old Slavonic (for Russia and all the Slav Churches). In the XVIIth century the Rumanians translated it into their language. Later Russian missions have caused it to be used in German, Lettish, Esthonian, Finnish, Tartar, Eskimo, a dialect of North American Indian, Chinese and Japanese.1 One congregation by Lake Egerdir in Asia Minor uses Turkish. There is also an old Armenian version no longer used. In these various languages the Byzantine liturgy is used by all the Orthodox and by a great number of Uniates of this rite.2 It is thus after the Roman Mass the most wide-spread liturgy in Christendom.3 Meanwhile another rite from Caesarea that is almost an older form of the Byzantine became that of the Armenian Church. Armenia was evangel- ized from Cappadocia in the IVth century.4 For a time there was a Syrian influence too, and the holy liturgy was celebrated both according to the Cappadocian rite in Greek and in the East Syrian form in Syriac.5 Then the national liturgy was composed in Armenian in the Vth century, chiefly from that of Cappadocia. The Armenian litu/gy still has three lessons (from the Old Testament, an Epistle and a Gospel) and other archaic features that have disappeared from the sister-
1 Brightman (p. lxxxii) and Baumstark {op. cit. 63) mention an English version used in North America. This has been contradicted.
2 The list in Fortescue: The divine Liturgy, pp. 7-10.
3 There is a curious compilation of the Byzantine and Roman rites in Greek called the Liturgy of St. Peter. See Brightman, p. xci, and here below p. 161, n. 1.
4 St. Gregory the Illuminator, the apostle of Armenia, died about
35o.
5 There was also considerable influence from Jerusalem in the early Armenian Church. Its Lectionary and Calendar particularly show this. See F. C. Conybeare : Rituale Armenorum (Oxford, 1905), PP. 507-532.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 93
rite of Constantinople. The part before the Anaphora is almost entirely Cappadocian ; the Anaphora contains East-Syrian elements. Since about the XlVth century it has adopted certain Roman, or rather Dominican elements through the influence of Western (Dominican) missionaries. Of these elements the most noticeable are the Roman preparatory prayers and the last Gospel (St. John i, 1- 14) unknown in any other Eastern rite. The Armenians have another peculiarity in that they do not put water into the chalice ; this is unique.1 They once had a number of Anaphoras used at different times ; now only one is used. This liturgy is used exclusively by all Armenians, Gregorian or Uniate. This completes the liturgies of the Antiochene family. A salient point in all of them is that the Intercession follows the Consecration, which comes early in the liturgy, soon after the beginning of the Anaphora and Sanctus.
§ 4. The Alexandrine Rite.
The other great parent-rite in the East is that of Alexandria and Egypt. Here too we must conceive a type of liturgy crystallizing into different forms, which however are related more or less closely to one another. It would be a mistake to suppose that all the Egyptian and Abyssinian liturgies are derived from the one known as that of St. Mark. We have the first indications of Egyptian peculiarities in the works of Origen (f 254) and Clement of Alexandria (fa 215).2 Other Egyptian writers, Dionysius (f 265), St. Athan- asius (f 373),3 Cyril of Alexandria (-(-444) give us incidentally further information.4 The Arabic version
lA translation of the Armenian liturgy in Brightman, pp. 412-457. 3 See above pp. 28-34.
3 See Probst : Liturgie des iv Jahrhdts pp. 106-124.
4 An outline of the service from their references is given by Bright- man : Eastern Liturgies, Appendix J, pp. 504-509.
94 THE MASS
of the Didascalia (also in Books I-VI of the Apostolic Constitutions) substitutes an Egyptian rite for the Syrian one.1 The first text we have is the Prayer- book of Sarapion, Bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, a contemporary of St. Athanasius. It appears that this is an older form adapted by him.2 It contains among many prayers, blessings and ordination forms a " prayer of oblation " (Anaphora) in which the Word of God, not the Holy Ghost, is evoked after the words of institution. A fragment of a possibly still older text has come to light recently. This is a manuscript found in 1907 at Deir Balizeh near Asiut in Upper Egypt, now at the Bodleian, described by Dom P. de Puniet at the Eucharistic Congress at London in 1908.3 The MS. is of the Vllth or VHIth cent., the text much older. It throws an important light on the early Egyptian rite in several points. There is part of a litany (the Prayers of the Faithful) whose resemblance to the clauses of 1 Clem, lix-lxi, confirms the theory of an original universal rite in the sense described above (chap, i, § 5 ). There is also a creed more like the Roman form (Apostles' Creed) than that of Nicaea : " I believe in God the almighty Father, and in his only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, and resurrection of flesh and a holy
1 Brightman, op. cit. Appendix K, pp. 510-511.
2 So Baumstark in the Romische Quartalschrift, xviii, 129-142. The text is in Wobbermin : Altchristliche liturgische St'ucke (Texte u. U ntersnchungen , new series, ii, 3 b, Leipzig, i8g8) and rearranged in Funk; Didascalia (Paderborn, 1905) ii, pp. 158-195.
3 Report of the Nineteeth Eucharistic Congress (London, 1909) pp. 367-401. The text is Greek. See Dom P. de Puniet's article in the Revue benedictine, xxvi (1909) pp. 34-51 and his controversy about the Epiklesis of this fragment with S. Salaville in the Echos d'Orient, xii, 329-335; xui» 72-76, 133-134; Mgr. Batiffol in the Revue du Clerge Francais, lx, 522-530. See also Schermann: Der liturg. Fapyrus von Der-Balyzeh {Texte u. Vnters. xxxvi, 1) Leipzig, 1910.
PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 95
Catholic Church". The fragment of the Anaphora begins with the Sanctus, has no Benedictus and above all has the Epiklesis before the words of institution.1
The classical text is the so-called Liturgy of St. Mark, which holds the same place in this rite as that of St. James in the Syrian rite. It exists in Greek and in Coptic. The Greek text, of which the earliest manu- scripts are of the XII and XIII centuries/2 is consider- ably influenced by the Byzantine rite. It is not now used. The Monophysite Copts have kept the old Egyptian rite in Coptic. They call its original Anaphora that of St. Cyril. As alternative forms they have two other Anaphoras, of St. Gregory the Theo- logian and of St. Basil. These were once also used by the Orthodox. Both are translated from the Greek. The Anaphora of St. Gregory is addressed throughout to God the Son, an almost unique feature.3