Full text of "The early history of the liturgy"

FROM THE LIBRARY OF THE LATE

REVEREND RICHARD DAVIDSON

M.A., PH.D., D.D.

1876-1944
PRINCIPAL OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE

1932-1943

EMMANUEL COLLEGE

SHELF No.

VwZ&lt;&^^

VSTUDIA IN 7

THE LIBRARY

of
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY

Toronto

The Cambridge Handbooks of Liturgical Study

GENERAL EDITORS :

H. B. SWETE, D.D.
J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D.

THE EARLY HISTORY OF
THE LITURGY

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

HonUon: FETTER LANE, E.G.

C. F. CLAY, MANAGER

100, PRINCES STREET

Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.

ILctpjig: F. A. BROCKHAUS

#eto gotft: G. P. PUTNAM S SONS

Bombao anfc Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.

THE EARLY HISTORY OF
THE LITURGY

BY
J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D.

Rector of Weeting, Norfolk
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Lichfield
Sometime Tutor of Selwyn College, Cambridge

Cambridge :

at the University Press

1913

feW

185

Cambridge:

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

OCT 3 1957

NOTE BY THE EDITORS

THE purpose of The Cambridge Handbooks of
Liturgical Study is to offer to students who
are entering upon the study of Liturgies such help
as may enable them to proceed with advantage to
the use of the larger and more technical works upon
the subject which are already at their service.

The series will treat of the history and rationale
of the several rites and ceremonies which have found
a place in Christian worship, with some account of
the ancient liturgical books in which they are
contained. Attention will also be called to the im
portance which liturgical forms possess as expressions
of Christian conceptions and beliefs.

Each volume will provide a list or lists of the
books in which the study of its subject may be
pursued, and will contain a table of Contents and
an Index.

The editors do not hold themselves responsible
for the opinions expressed in the several volumes
of the series. While offering suggestions on points
of detail, they have left each writer to treat his
subject in his own way, regard being had to the
general plan and purpose of the series.

H. B. S.
J. H. S.

PREFACE

THE present handbook is intended to set before
beginners in the study of the early liturgy the
main factors in the history of its developement. It
makes no pretension to completeness, nor has it been
found possible, within the limits of space available, to
treat in detail many of the perplexing problems which
meet the student in this field of study. My object
has been to select from the mass of materials
accumulated in the larger works which are available
those facts in the evidence which seemed to be of
crucial importance, and to reserve judgement where
the evidence seemed inconclusive. Many theories
(e.g. with regard to the Roman Canon) have been
passed over without detailed discussion, as it seemed
better to put the young student in possession of the
main facts, before introducing him to the various
conjectural reconstructions of the history which have
been put forward in recent times.

My debt to the larger and more important works
of reference is indicated in the Bibliography and notes.
I owe much to Mr Brightman s Liturgies Eastern
and Western and to the contributions to the subject
of the early liturgy in the Journal of Theological
Studies and elsewhere from the pen of Mr Edmund
Bishop. To the latter I am indebted for help of
a more personal kind. He generously undertook to

PREFACE Vll

read through the manuscript of the present book, and
has offered many criticisms of its general method and
treatment, as well as detailed suggestions with regard
to the contents of the first six chapters. The help
thus given has been a stimulus to my own studies,
and I can only express the hope that the final form
of the book will shew that it has borne fruit. From
Dr Swete, my co-editor in the present series, and
from Dr W. H. Frere, of Mil-field, I have received
help of various kinds. The Rev. G. H. Clayton, Dean
of Peterhouse, Cambridge, has kindly assisted me in
the reading of the proofs. Lastly, my best thanks
are due to the workmen and staff of the Cambridge
University Press.

J. H. S.
Easter, 1913.

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION ix

BIBLIOGRAPHY xvi

I. THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST AND

ITS CELEBRATION IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
The Synoptists and St Paul. The Last
Supper and the Paschal Meal. The
Eucharist in the Apostolic age. Con
nexion with other acts of worship and
religious practices. Influence of the N.T.
on liturgical language and worship . . 1

II. THE EUCHARIST IN THE SUB- APOSTOLIC AGE,

AND IN JUSTIN AND IRENAEUS. The

prayers in the Didache. Clement, Igna
tius, Pliny. The liturgy in Justin Martyr.
Irenaeus. The Gnostics .... 22

III. THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE LlTURGY AT

ALEXANDRIA AND IN EGYPT. Keferences
in Alexandrine and other Egyptian
Church Fathers. The Ethiopic Church
Order and cognate documents. Sarapion.
The Oxford papyrus. Characteristics of
the early Egyptian rite .... 45

IV. THE LITURGY IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA.

Cyril of Jerusalem and the Peregrinatio
Silviae. The Didascalia. Chrysostom.
The Apostolic Constitutions. Character
istics of the early Syrian rite . . . 81

CONTENTS IX

CHAP. PAGE

V. THE LITURGY IN OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES.

Asia (the Canons of Laodicea). Influence
of the Church of Antioch on liturgical
developement. Cappadocia (Firmilian,
Gregory Thaumaturgus, the Cappadociau
Fathers). Constantinople (Chrysostom).
The liturgy of Adai and Mari. Summary 112

VI. THE LITURGY IN THE NORTH AFRICAN

CHURCH. Tertullian and Cyprian. Opta-
tus and Augustine. Relation of the North
African rite to other Western rites . 129

- VII. THE LITURGY IN NORTH ITALY AND AT
ROME. Ambrose. The de Sacramentis.
The early Roman liturgy. Jerome.
Ambrosiaster. The Epistle of Innocent
to Decentius. The Roman Canon.
Divergent usages in the West . . 159

VIII. THE DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LlTURGY IN EAST

AND WEST. Early stages of developement.
The * service of the word and the missa
fidelium. Prayers of the faithful and the
diaconal Litany. The Kiss of peace and
the people s offering. The Eucharistic
Prayer. The history of the Invocation.
The Intercessions and Diptychs. Other
features. Origin of local rites . . 195

IX. EARLY CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST AS

ILLUSTRATKD BY THE HISTORY OF THE

LITURGY. The Christian thank-offering.
The Eucharistic prayer. Theories of
consecration and its effects. Conceptions
of the Eucharistic sacrifice. Types of
Eucharistic devotion. The sense of
mystery and awe. The Sacrament of
unity . . . . . . . 224

INDEX . . . . .... . .247

INTRODUCTION

THE word Liturgy is used in the present volume
to denote the order of service employed in the central
rite of the Christian Church, the Eucharist. In its
original significance the word had a wider meaning.
It was taken over by the Christian Church from the
Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, in which
it had been used to denote the service of the priests
and Levites in the Tabernacle and in the Temple 1 .
In the New Testament, in addition to this use 2 , we
find the kindred verb applied to the worship of the
Christian community 3 , and the word itself used in
a more figurative sense of good works and acts of
charity 4 . In later writers it is used to denote either
the whole service of God 5 , or more especially the
duties of the sacred ministry, whether of bishops,
priests, or deacons 6 . The more restricted sense of
the term as applied to the Eucharist is found in
Theodoret 7 (tc. 457 A.D.), who says that the bene
diction (2 Cor. xiii. 14) was used in all churches as
a preface to the mystic liturgy. In later usage the

1 Num. viii. 22, 25, xviii. 4 ; 2 Chron. viii. 14 etc.

2 Lk. i. 23 ; Heb. ix. 21. Acts xiii. 2.

4 2 Cor. ix. 12; Phil. ii. 17, 30. Clement, ad Cor. 41.

6 Clement, ad Cor. 44 ; Eusebius, H. E. iv. 1 ; Council of
Antioch (341 A.D.) can. 4; Sarapion 25; Ap. Canons 28, 36.

7 ad loann. Oec. Ep. 146 (ed. Sirm. ni. 1032).

INTRODUCTION XI

term became normally restricted to this narrower
sense 1 .

The object of the present volume is to trace the
developement of the Liturgy, in this proper and
restricted sense of the term, out of the simple
beginnings recorded in the New Testament, and the
process by which it attained a certain fixity of form
during the period roughly represented by the first
four centuries. Occasionally these limits have been
somewhat exceeded, in order to allow of the discussion
of materials, without which the history cannot
adequately be treated.

The materials available include, in addition to
the evidence of the Fathers, the early Church Orders,
which have preserved many archaic features, and
enable us to trace the stages through which the more
developed rite, as it appears at the end of the fourth
century, has passed. The period of the fourth century
was especially a time of considerable liturgical deve
lopement, under the influence of changed conceptions
and beliefs, which find expression in the Eastern
church alike in the writings of Eastern Fathers and
in liturgical formulae. The extant liturgies have
been appealed to for illustration, though in their
present form they include many later elements, and
will form the subject of later volumes in the present
series. In the case of the Roman Canon of the
Mass a fuller discussion has been found necessary,
though in the form in which it appears in the

1 For its use to denote the morning and evening services see
Suicer, s.v.

Xll INTRODUCTION

Gelasian Sacramentary it falls outside our period.
But in any discussion of the liturgy of the first four
centuries it is impossible to rule out the evidence
of the extant liturgies, though the sifting of that
evidence and the task of distinguishing earlier from
later elements is a problem which calls for expert
knowledge of the best kind. The approximation of
liturgical forms in the different centres of Christendom
to the types exhibited in the extant liturgies suggests
that by the end of the fourth century considerable
progress had been made towards the forms exhibited
in these liturgies, and in the present work the attempt
has been made to note these parallels and take
account of their significance.

The process by which the prayers of the liturgy
attained a fixed form was a slow one. Quite early
indeed, as we see from Justin Martyr s account of
the Sunday worship of the Christians, the general
scheme of the service had attained a certain fixity,
which is reproduced in all later forms. And during
the same period the Church was acquiring a liturgical
language of its own, based upon reminiscences of the
Old Testament, Jewish liturgical prayers, and the
language of the Apostolic writers. In this way a
defined type of prayer came to be current, in
cluding certain stereotyped phrases, which attained
in Christendom generally a certain vogue. Such are
the opening words of the Preface, the Sursum corda
with its response, which k found in Cyprian. The
Church Orders have preserved many primitive features,
which probably go back in some cases to the third

INTRODUCTION Xlll

century. But this approximation to stereotyped
forms was consistent with very considerable variation
in other respects. In the earliest period extemporary
prayer in the Christian assemblies was widely prac
tised. According to the Didacke (c. 10) prophets at
the Eucharist are to be allowed to give thanks as
much as they desire, while Justin represents the
president at the Eucharist as offering up prayers and
thanksgivings as far as he is able 1 . This free use of
extemporary prayer in the Christian assemblies was
a survival of the earlier period, when the exuberant
sense of new spiritual life, following upon the out
pouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, found expression
in the utterances of prophecy and the gift of tongues.
In the spontaneity and freedom of the first days
there was little room for the developement of a fixed
liturgy. This consideration, and the facts which
have been adduced, shew that the attempt to trace
in any existing liturgical forms an Apostolic liturgy
is doomed to failure, ignoring as it does the conditions
under which the liturgy developed. Our earliest
liturgical prayers (found in the Church Orders)
cannot safely be dated earlier than the third century,
and all the evidence tends to shew that, apart from
the general scheme of the liturgy, and certain fixed
formulae, there was still considerable liberty accorded
to the local leaders of the Church in the forms
employed. The liturgy of Sarapion may be regarded
as an example of this, exhibiting as it does features
that are at least strange and unfamiliar to us, along

1 Ap. i. 67 o&lt;rtj Suva/mis avTui,

XIV INTRODUCTION

with the use of certain stereotyped phrases, and a
conformity to the common liturgical scheme. The
same applies to the liturgy of the Apostolic Con
stitutions, which represents a free composition, based
upon older materials, and conforming to an existing
type.

Nor again does the evidence of Christian writers
during the second and third centuries support the
conclusion that we can trace back the forms of the
liturgy to Apostolic times. In spite of the services
which were rendered to liturgical study by the pains
taking labours of Dr Probst it must be confessed that
the use which he makes of the evidence accumulated
in his Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhun-
derte is often fanciful and uncritical. Many of the
parallels which he adduces between phrases of the
early Fathers and passages in our existing liturgies
are mere commonplaces of Christian thought, and
even when they are most striking we need to be
cautious in the inferences which we draw from them.
Such parallels need indicate nothing more than that
certain phrases were in the making, and that when
once coined they entered into the general language
of the Church and found a place in the liturgy.
That some of these formulae possess a high antiquity,
and that the general scheme of the liturgy, as
exhibited in Justin, goes back to an early date, may
be conceded, but in any deductions which we may
draw from this fact, regard must be had to the
conditions of the period, and to the informal, tentative,
and fluid character of early liturgical forms, That

INTRODUCTION XV

some forms survived, while others vanished, was due
partly to the fact that the former commended them
selves to later generations of Christians, and partly
to the example of great and influential churches
which encouraged other churches to adopt their
customs and forms.

But there is one direction in which it has been
thought possible to find a connexion between early
liturgical forms and the Apostolic age. The com
parison of these forms, and more especially of the
liturgy in the eighth book of the Apostolic Con
stitutions, with the prayers used in the Jewish
Synagogue worship and in the Passover ritual has
led to the suggestion that it is in these latter that
we are to find the type and pattern on which the
Christian liturgy was modelled. The most important
exponent of this view was Dr G. Bickell in his Messe
und Pascha. The more important parallels which
he has adduced will be referred to in the course of
the present volume. But apart from the purely
accidental character of many of these parallels and
the highly conjectural character of the scheme on
which his theory is modelled, there remains the
difficulty that none of the descriptions of the Jewish
ritual of the Passover which we possess are con
temporary with the Apostolic age. In spite of the
conservatism of the Jewish character, this fact
renders precarious the theory of such a direct
influence of the Paschal ritual upon the Christian
liturgy.

Within a more limited field of study than the

XVI INTRODUCTION

preceding, we may notice two recent attempts to
investigate the relations of Jewish prayers and ritual
to the primitive Eucharist. The first is Mr Box s
article on The Jewish antecedents of the Eucharist
in the Journal of Theological Studies 1 . The second
is the monograph of E. F. von der Goltz, Tischgebete
und Abendmahlsgebete in der altchr. und in der
griech. Kirche*. In these discussions the original
Jewish setting of the Last Supper and the apostolic
breaking of bread is examined, and an attempt
is made to estimate the nature of the influence
which this original setting exercised upon the subse
quent form of the liturgy. But before any assured
results can be attained in this direction, the higher
criticism 7 of these Jewish sources needs to be carried
out more thoroughly than has yet been attempted.

1 in. 357 f. (1902). See also the article Eucharistie by Drews
in PRE*

2 See also his earlier study, Das Gebet in der dltesten Christen-
heit (Leipzig, 1901).

BIBLIOGEAPHY

I. DOCUMENTS AND PATRISTIC REFERENCES.

ACHELIS, H. Die Canones Hippolyti ( Texte u. Unters. vi. 4,
Leipzig, 1891).

ACHELIS-FLEMMING. Die syrische Didaskalia (Texte u.
Unters. xxv. 2, Leipzig, 1904).

BINGHAM, J. Origines Ecclesiasticae ; or the Antiquities of
the Christian Church (ed. J. R. Pitman, London, 1840),
9 vols. Vols. iv and v deal with the Liturgy, and
contain many original texts.

BRIGHTMAN, F. E. Liturgies Eastern and Western. Vol. I.

Eastern Liturgies, Oxford, 1896 (cited as LEW}.

Appendices contain valuable patristic references.
BRIGHTMAN, F. E. The Sacramentary of Serapion of

Tkmuis, in Journal of Theological Studies (cited as

J.Th.St.\ i. 88 f.

CABROL, DOM F. Dictionnaire tfarcheologie chretienne et
de Liturgie (Paris, in progress). Cited as DACL.
See esp. arts. Afrique (liturgie), Alexandrie (liturgie),
Ambrosien (rit.), * Antioche (liturgie).

CABROL (Don F.) and LECLERCQ (DoM H.) Monumenta
ecclesiae liturgica, I., Paris (1900-1902).

COOPER-MACLEAN. The Testament of our Lord (Edin
burgh, 1902). E. tr. and notes.

FUNK, F. X. Didascalia et Constitutions Apostolorum.
Vol. i. (Paderborn, 1905).

XV111 BIBLIOGRAPHY

HAULER, E. Didascaliae Apostolorum Fragmenta Vero-

nensia Latina, vol. I (Leipzig, 1900).
HORNER, G. The Statutes of the Apostles or Canones

Ecclesiastici (London, 1904). Text of Ethiopic Church

Order and cognate documents.
PROBST, F. Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderte

(Tubingen, 1870) ; Liturgie des vierten Jahr. u. deren

Reform (Munster, 1893).
SWAINSON, C. A. The Greek Liturgies chiefly from original

authorities (Cambridge, 1S84).
WARREN, F. E. Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene

Church? (London, S.P.C.K., 1912). *

WILSON, H. A. The Gelasian Sacramentary (Oxford,

1894).

WOOLLEY, R. M. Liturgy of the primitive Church (Cam
bridge, 1910). Contains a useful Appendix of original
texts.
WORDSWORTH, Bishop J. Bishop Sarapion s Prayer Book

(London, S.P.C.K., 2nd ed. 1910).
The text of the Oxford papyrus is given in Cabrol,
DACL, art. Canon. See also Dorn Puniet, Revue bene-
dictine, xxvi. i, and Echos d Orient, xn. 329, xin. 329 (the
latter notice by S. Salaville) ; it is edited by Schermann,
in Texte u. Unters. xxxvi. i b (Leipzig, 1910).

II. THE HISTORY OF THE LITURGY.

BISHOP, EDMUND. Appendix to Connolly, The Liturgical
Homilies of Narsai. Texts and Studies, vni. 1
(Cambridge, 1909). Contains valuable discussions of
various questions connected with the Liturgy. See
also arts, in Journal of Theological Studies, referred
to in text.

BIBLIOGRAPHY XIX

CABROL, F. DA CL (as above), arts. Anaphore, Anam-
nese, Benediction episcopate/ Canon.

DUCHEBNE, L. Christian Worship: its origin and evolution
(E. tr., 3rd ed., London, S.P.C.K., 1910).

HAUCK-HERZOG. Realencyklopiidie fur protest. Theol.
(cited as PR E 3 ). Articles Abendmahl, Eucharistie,
Messe.

PROBST, F. In addition to works cited above, see Die
abendlandische Messe (Miinster, 1896).

SCUDAMORE, W. E. Notitia Eucharistica. 2nd ed.
(London, 1876).

WIELAND, F. Mensa und Confessio (Munich, 1906). On
the Christian altar.

WORDSWORTH, J., Bp of Salisbury. The Holy Communion,
3rd ed., 1910.

III. SPECIAL TREATISES AND ARTICLES.

(a) The Liturgy and Jewish forms of prayer :

BICKELL. Messe und Pascha (Maintz, 1872) ; E. tr. in

W. F. Skene, The Lords Supper and the Passover

ritual (Edinburgh, 1891).

Box, G. H. The Jewish antecedents of the Eucharist, in
J. Th. St. in. 357 f.

VON DER GOLTZ, E. F. Das Gebet in der alt. Christenheit
(Leipzig, 1901); Tischgebete u. Abendmahlsgebete in
der altchristl. u. in der griech. Kirche (Leipzig, 1905).

(6) The Church Orders :

FUNK, F. X. Das Testament unseres Herrn und die
verwandten Schriften (Mainz, 1901).

MACLEAN, A. J., Bp. The ancient Church Orders (Cam
bridge, 1910).

XX BIBLIOGRAPHY

BATIFFOL, P. Articles in Revue du clerge fran? ais, vol.

LIX. (1908).
BISHOP, E. See Appendix to Connolly s Narsai, as above,

and Guardian, Dec. 22, 1909, p. 2069.

BISHOP, W. C. The primitive form of consecration of the
Holy Eucharist, in Church Quarterly Review, LXVI.
385 f. (London, 1908.)

GUMMEY, H. R. The consecration of the Eucharist (Phila
delphia, 1908).

HOPPE, L. A. Die Epiklesis der griech. u. oriental.
Liturgieen u. der rom. Consekrationskanon (Schaff-
hausen, 1864).

WATTERICH, J. Der Konsekrationsmoment im heiligen
Abendmahl (Heidelberg, 1896).

(d) The Roman Canon :

For a useful summary of modern theories, with
literature, see Cabrol, DACL, art. Canon. 3 See also
Dom Cagin in Paleographie Musicale, v. 68 f. (Solesmes,
1896) and Cabrol, Les origines liturgiques, pp. 317ff.
(Paris, 1906).

CHAPTER I

THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST AND
ITS CELEBRATION IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE

THE word Eucharist has its origin in the
thanksgivings pronounced over the bread and the
cup hy Christ at the Last Supper. Hence the name
came to be applied to the Christian * thank-offering; 1 ,
in which the simple rite of the Last Supper was
perpetuated by the Church. There are no certain
instances of the latter use of the word in the New
Testament 2 , though it is found in the Didache and
in Ignatius 3 , while Justin applies the word to the
consecrated elements over which the thanksgiving
has been pronounced 4 .

It is no part of the purpose of the present volume
to discuss the many critical problems connected with
the four narratives of the Last Supper found in the
New Testament (Mt xxvi. 26-30 ; Mk xiv. 22-25 ;
Lk xxii. 15-20; 1 Cor. xi. 23-26) 5 . Our present

1 For evxapiaTelv, ev^apiffria see Hort, J. TTi. St. iii. 594 f.

2 Some have seen a Eucharistic reference in 1 Cor. xiv. 16.

3 Didache 9; Ignatius, Philad. 4, Smyrn. 6.

4 Ap. i. 66.

5 For a fuller discussion of the narratives and the critical
problems see Sanday s Outlines of Life of Christ, 157 f., and the
art. Eucharist in Hastings Encycl. of Religion and Ethics.

8. L. 1

2 THE NEW TESTAMENT

enquiry is limited to the task of shewing how far
those narratives, together with the primitive practice
of the breaking of bread recorded in Acts, and the
references of St Paul to the Eucharist at Corinth,
throw light upon the developement of the later
Eucharist, We may notice the following points :

(1) Jesus began by a blessing (evAoyr/Vas, Mt,
Mk) or thanksgiving (evxapKmfo-a?, Lk, PI) pro
nounced over the bread, which was followed by a
similar thanksgiving (evxapio-n/Vas, Mt, Mk) over
the cup. The words used (euXoyetv, c^apta-reiv) are
nearly synonymous 1 , and denote an act of praise or
thanksgiving, addressed to God, for the food of which
they were about to partake 2 . The description accords
with Jewish forms of grace used at meals (e.g. the
blessing over wine, Blessed be thou, Lord our God,
King of the world, that thou hast created the fruit of
the vine 8 ), and also with the prayers of the Didache 4 ,
where the thanksgiving is expanded so as to include
a reference to the blessings of salvation.

(2) Jesus broke the bread for distribution among

1 Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 16.

2 In 1 Cor. x. 10 the cup of blessing which we bless is equi
valent to the cup over which we bless or praise GOD. Cf.
Theophylact: r6 iroTiipiov rfa euXoyias, TOinreVri TTJS ei&gt;x-
pHr-ria?. In the accounts of the Last Supper Mt and Mk use
ei/XoyeTi/ of the bread, evxapiffrelv of the cup. The later sense of
bless = consecrate, as applied to objects, is different, though
1 Tun. iv. 4 f. shews that such grace before meals was regarded as
a hallowing of the meal.

3 See Von der Goltz, Tisdigeltete . Abendmahhyebete, p. 7.

4 Didache, 9, 10. Cf. Justin, Ap. i, 67, euXoyoD^uei/ r6v iroir\T^v
KT\. On the whole question see Lindens in Zeitsclirift fiirkathol-
ische Theoloftie, xxi. (1897), pp. 54 f .

THE NEW TESTAMENT 3

the disciples. The expression breaking of bread is
the name given in Acts (ii. 42, 46; xx. 7, 11) to the
common meal of the early Christians. It is found
elsewhere, being used of the act of Jesus in the meal
at Emmaus (Lk xxiv. 30), and may recall the memory
of previous meals which Jesus had shared with the
disciples, and so serve to perpetuate the table-
fellowship which they had enjoyed with Him during
His ministry. The description in Acts xxvii. 35 of
St Paul s breaking of bread during the voyage to
Rome has probably no eucharistic reference, but the
terms employed both there and in Lk xxiv. 30 present
a close correspondence with the language used of
Jesus at the Supper 1 , and may serve to shew the link
which the action had in each case with the procedure
at ordinary Jewish meals.

(3) Jesus distributed the bread to the disciples
with the formula Take, this is my body (Mk), and
-similarly the cup, with the words * This is my blood
of the covenant, which is shed for many (Mk). That
these words are associated with the distribution of
the bread and the delivery of the cup, seems apparent
from all four narratives, and especially from that of
St Mark, who interposes the words he gave [the
cup] to them : and they all drank of it, before he
records the saying This is my blood.

(4) This association of the distribution of the
bread and the delivery of the cup with the words

1 Note especially the phrases common to all three accounts :
\a/3eii/ dpTov, euAoyeti/ (eu^apicrrelv Ac. xxvii. 35), K\I&gt;. Cf.
also the accounts of the feeding of the 5000 (Mk vi. 41 and
parallels).

4 THE NEW TESTAMENT

This is my body (St Paul adds * which is for you ),
This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for
many, connects the meal with the death of Christ
conceived of as a sacrifice which ratifies a new covenant
of fellowship with GOD. There is a clear reference in
the terms employed to the covenant sacrifice of Sinai
(Ex. xxiv. 8), while the term new covenant, found
in St Paul s account and the longer text of St Luke,
interprets this language with a possible reference to
Jer. xxxi. 31. This connexion with the death of
Christ is made explicit in the command recorded by
St Paul and in the longer text of St Luke, Do this
in remembrance of me 1 . This aspect of the rite as
a commemoration of the death of Christ is still more
plainly indicated by St Paul in the words For as
often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye
proclaim the Lord s death till he come 2 .

(5) The idea of a communion-feast, in which the
disciples are pointed forward to their future fellowship
with Jesus in His glory, is implicit in the narratives
of the Synoptists, alike in the eschatological language
which they record, in the association of the bread
and wine with His body and His blood, and in the
delivery of them to the disciples to be partaken of,
with the words Take (Mk, Mt), drink ye all of it
(Mt). Hence we can explain St Paul s language in
1 Cor. x. 16 in which the cup of blessing and the

1 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25; Lk xxii. 19. St Paul has the words in
connexion with both the bread and the cup. They are absent in
the latter place in Lk. The Western text in Lk omits all mention
of the Eucharistic cup which follows the blessing of the bread.

a 1 Cor. xi. 26.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 5

broken bread are spoken of as a communion (or
fellowship) of the blood and body of Christ, and his
implied reference to the Christian sacraments, when
he speaks of the manna and water in the wilderness
as spiritual food and * spiritual drink/

These features in the Last Supper help to explain
the lines along which the later Eucharist developed
within the Church. There was first of all the central
act of thanksgiving (* to the Father through the Son
and Holy Spirit ; Justin 1 ) over the bread and wine.
Then the bread was broken and distributed, and the
cup was passed round, as the symbols and pledge of
the communion of the faithful with Christ and with
one another (for the latter thought see 1 Cor. x. 17, and
cf. Didache 9). Hence arose the names Eucharist,
Breaking of bread (y KXao-ts rov aprov, fractio panis),
1 Communion (KOIVWIO.) applied to the rite.

Can we attain a still clearer conception of the
actual surroundings of the Last Supper, such as may
help us to understand the nature of the developements
which the Christian sacred meal underwent in the
Apostolic age and the subsequent period? We are
confronted first of all with the question, Was the
Last Supper a Passover meal? The question can
only be briefly discussed here 2 . On the one hand,
the narratives of the Synoptists all imply that it was
with the object of eating the Passover that Jesus
went with His disciples to the upper room (Mt xxvi.

1 Ap. i. 65.

2 For a fuller discussion see Sanday, Outlines of the Life of
CTirist, pp. 148 f.

6 THE NEW TESTAMENT

17 f., Mk xiv. 12 f., Lk xxii. 7f.). A similar con
clusion has been drawn from the words of Lk xxii. 15
( With desire I have desired to eat this Passover
with you before I suffer ), though the words them
selves, apart from their context, are consistent with
the idea of an unfulfilled desire. Hence it has been
suggested that in the original source of St Luke s
narrative the words were a declaration that Jesus
would not share the Passover which was approaching
with His disciples 1 . The narrative of the fourth
Gospel, which is inconsistent with the account of the
Synoptists, represents the Supper as taking place
before the Passover (John xiii. 1, xviii. 28, xix. 14, 36).
There are also facts in the Synoptic account which
point to some inconsistency in their narratives 2 , nor
do they exhibit any clearly Paschal features in their
description of the Supper, but refer instead to the
covenant sacrifice of Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 8 ; cf. Mk xiv. 24
and parallels). Various attempts have been made to
solve this difficulty by resort to the assumption of
an anticipated Passover 3 , but none of them can be
pronounced satisfactory. Notice however may be
here taken of an alternative theory, according to
which Jesus did not keep the actual Passover with
the disciples, but only the Kiddush 4 , a domestic
ceremony preceding the Sabbath and great festivals

1 See Burkitt and Brooke in J. Th. St. ix. 569 f.

2 See Sanday, L c.

3 For these see Chwolson, Das letzte Passahmahl Christi (ed.
1908) and Lambert, J. Th. St. iv. 191 f.

4 The word Kiddfish means sanctification. The rite was the
* sanctification of the Sabbath or festival which it preceded.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 7

and connected with the evening meal. In this
ceremony, before the evening meal began, a blessing
was pronounced over a cup of wine by the head of
the household, who then drank from it and passed it
round to the rest of the company. Then followed
the washing of hands, after which a blessing was
pronounced over the bread, one loaf being cut up
and distributed to the company 1 . It is claimed that
the ceremony here described is of great antiquity,
and that it goes back to pre-Christian times 2 . It
presents some interesting parallels with the narratives
of the Last Supper and the prayers contained in the
Didacke (c. 9). With reference to the relative order
of the cup and the bread appeal is made in con
firmation of the theory to the account of St Luke as
given in the text of Westcott and Hort, which omits
the mention of the second cup, and to the order
of the prayers in the Didache (c. 9), in both of which
the thanksgiving over the cup precedes that over the
bread (cf. also the order in 1 Cor. x. 16). Against
this has to be set the order of St Mark (who is
followed by St Matthew) and of St Paul (1 Cor. xi. 23 f.).
Moreover the notes of time in our accounts create a
difficulty. According to St Mark it was while they
were eating that Jesus broke bread, and St Paul
describes the blessing of the cup as taking place after
the supper (so Luke according to the longer text).

1 See Box, The Jewish antecedents of the Eucharist, in /. Th. St.
iii. 357 f. Cf. also Spitta, Urchristenthum, i. 247, and Drews, art.
Eucharistie in PRE*

2 Cf. Box, L c., p. 360.

8 THE NEW TESTAMENT

A similar theory, which attempts to escape from
some of these difficulties, is propounded by E. F. Von
der Goltz in his Tisckgebete und Abendmahlsgebete
(1905). This writer accepts the view that the Last
Supper was not the Passover rneal, but a ceremonial
meal (like the Kiddush), in which there was a pre
liminary blessing over a cup of wine and bread,
followed at the end of the meal by a liturgical
thanksgiving or table-blessing. It was in connexion
with this concluding thanksgiving that the words
and acts of Jesus recorded in our accounts occurred.
He explains the divergence in the order of the bread
and the cup in 1 Cor. x. 16 and xi. 23 f. by assuming
that the former passage refers to the introductory
blessing, while the latter records the concluding
thanksgiving. But our accounts are too short and
the writers probably too little interested in the
external procedure at the Last Supper to admit of
our attaining any certainty as to the exact details.
The general structure of the Jewish ceremonial
prayers to which reference has been made appears to
have been much the same as those of the ordinary
Jewish household prayers, and the parallels adduced
prove little more than the fact that our Lord availed
himself at the Last Supper of the ordinary Jewish
forms of blessing employed at meals.

These theories reflect a growing tendency among
scholars, for which there is a good deal of support in
the evidence of our sources, to regard the Last Supper
not as a Passover meal, but as a meal preceding the
Passover and possibly in some way connected with

THE NEW TESTAMENT 9

it. The conception of Christ as the paschal lamb
(1 Cor. v. 8, John xix. 36) would naturally lead to
the association of paschal ideas with the solemn
memorial of His death made in the Christian sacred
meal, and to the conception of it as a Christian
Passover. It is possible that the accounts of the
Synoptists shew traces of this influence and that it
has affected their conception of the actual setting of
the Last Supper, in which, as we have seen, their
accounts are in conflict with that of the Fourth
Gospel. The Paschal features are especially pro
minent in St Luke, and to the influence of this idea
we may possibly attribute the setting in which he has
placed the words with desire I have desired to eat
this passover with you before I suffer, as well as the
presence of the two cups in his account, if the words
which contain the mention of the second cup are
genuine.

In the Passover ritual a prominent feature is the
Haggada, in which is recounted the story of God s
redemptive dealing with His people. It has been
suggested that this may have given rise to a similar
recital of the redemption effected through Christ in
the Christian service, and that there is some such
reference in St Paul s words (1 Cor. xi. 26) As often
as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim
the Lord s death. Other paschal references have
been seen in St Paul s account of the institution,
e.g. the words do this in remembrance of me (efc
rrfv ^v avdp.vr)&lt;nv ; cf. Ex. xii. 14 this day shall be
unto you for a memorial (/xv^oo-wov) ) ; and the cup

10 THE NEW TESTAMENT

of blessing (1 Cor. x. 16), corresponding to the third
cup of the Passover meal. But the former of these
parallels is too slight to have any weight, and the
latter rests upon a misconception, as St Paul s words
are explained by the addition which we bless/
whereas the so-called cup of blessing in the Paschal
ritual has the fuller title the cup of blessing over
meat 1 .

Those who maintain that the Last Supper was a
Passover meal in the proper sense of the word have
endeavoured to identify the blessing of the cup with one
or other of the cups which had a place in the Jewish
ritual of the feast, and to find not only in the narrative of
the Last Supper, but in the subsequent developement
of the Christian liturgy, traces of the influence of the
Paschal ritual. The most thorough-going of these attempts
is that of Dr Bickell in his Messe und Pascha. He starts
from the account of St Luke, as represented in the longer
form (containing w. 19 b and 20) and identifies the cup
there spoken of with the fourth cup of the Passover, or
* the cup of the Hallel, which was sung after the supper
was ended. At this stage Jesus took one of the cakes of
bread and filled the cup, directing that all should sub
sequently drink of it. Then He recited the second part
of the Hallel (Pss. cxv. cxviii.) and the subsequent prayer
and began the Great Hallel (Ps. cxxxvi.). Before v. 25
( Who giveth food to all flesh... ) He consecrated the
bread and wine, and finished the Great Hallel. He then
distributed the consecrated bread and passed round the
cup. The hymn which was sung before the disciples
left the supper-chamber was probably a particular psalm

1 See Box, I. c., p. 362; Bickell, Messe und Pascha (E. tr. by
Skeue, The Lord s Slipper and the Passover Ritual, p. 163).

THE NEW TESTAMENT 11

sung as a thanksgiving, and not the Hallel, as is the more
usual opinion.

According to the same detailed and highly conjectural
scheme Dr Bickell seeks to explain the subsequent develope-
rnent of the Christian liturgy, using as his chief source
the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. By an
elaborate and highly artificial comparison of the Anaphora
of the liturgy there set forth with the Hallel of the
Paschal ritual, he concludes that the former was modelled
upon the latter. And he sees in this conclusion, together
with other evidence which he adduces, a proof of the
apostolic origin of the Clementine liturgy. There is little
need to discuss this theory, as few scholars will be found
at the present time to admit the highly precarious and
uncritical assumptions on which it is based. As we have
already indicated 1 , any detailed comparison of Jewish
ritual forms with Christian documents of the first century
A.D. is rendered precarious by the doubt as to the antiquity
of these forms, and as we shall see, the character of early
liturgical developement forbids the supposition that the
form of the liturgy was from the earliest times of so
stereotyped a character.

We may now pass on to consider briefly the
characteristics of the early Christian meal, which
appears in the Acts of the Apostles under the name
of the breaking of bread, and its connexion with
the Last Supper and the rite described by St Paul
in 1 Cor. x. 16f., xi. 23 f.

The early chapters of Acts contain a description
of the life of the primitive Christian community at
Jerusalem. Among the features which characterized
its daily life and shewed its consecrated character

1 Introduction, p. xivf.

12 THE NEW TESTAMENT

are mentioned the apostles teaching/ the spirit of
* fellowship which pervaded its members, the break
ing of bread, and the prayers (Acts ii. 42). In a
later passage (ii. 46) a distinction is drawn between
the continued attendance of the disciples at the
Temple worship as Jews, and the characteristically
Christian meetings for the breaking of bread in
their household (KGLT oucoi/) gatherings 1 . Like the
corresponding Jewish meals this breaking of bread
would be accompanied by simple forms of blessing
or thanksgiving. But in its new Christian setting
it was an expression of the Christian fellowship of
the disciples. It would recall the similar meals
which they had shared with the Lord during His
ministry, and it would naturally include the memory
of the Last Supper. Hence the meal would assume
a eucharistic character (cf. Spitta, Urchristenthum,
p. 289).

In the account of St Paul s stay at Troas (Acts
xx. 7 11) we have a reference to the breaking of
bread in different surroundings and at an interval
of some years after the events described above. The
earlier account describes the common life of the first
disciples, when their numbers were small, and they
lived in intimate daily relations with one another.

1 The words they took their food with gladness and singleness
of heart, which form the principal clause of the sentence introduced
by the participial clauses continuing in the temple... and breaking
bread, maybe,asBatiffol suggests (Etudes d histoire et detheologie
2)ositive. 2ttme serie (1905), p. 38), a general summary, expressing
in biblical phraseology (Lev. xxvi. 5) the joy which pervaded the
life of the first days, or they may refer to the meal already indicated
in the phrase breaking bread.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 13

The account of the incident at Troas speaks of a
gathering on the first day of the week 1 and suggests
a weekly gathering for worship, in which the central
feature was the breaking of bread. The account is
too slight to enable us to fill in the details of the
picture, but it exhibits a greater formality than is
shewn in the earlier passage of Acts. There is a
mention of many lights, the day and purpose of the
gathering are dwelt upon ( when we were gathered
together on the first day of the week to break bread ) ;
St Paul discoursed at length, and then broke bread
after midnight. Here too, as at Jerusalem, the meal
appears to have been eucharistic.

The fragmentary notices of Acts are supplemented
by the fuller and more detailed account of St Paul.
His narrative of the institution of the rite (1 Cor.
xi. 23 f.) has been thought to exhibit traces of being
a liturgical formula 2 . This, however, is improbable,
though its more formal language may indicate that
the account of the Last Supper was already acquiring
in oral tradition a stereotyped form. St Paul traces
the origin of the Christian meal to a command of the
Lord do this in remembrance of Me, and regards it
as a memorial of the death of Christ. From his
words as often as ye eat this bread and drink the
cup, ye shew forth the Lord s death until He come,
it has been conjectured that there was already in the
Church at Corinth a solemn commemoration, during

1 For the Christian commemoration of the first day of the week
see 1 Cor. xvi. 1 and Rev. i. 10 (evrfj Kvpianrj i]ftcpa).

2 Box, /. Th. St. iii. 362.

14 THE NEW TESTAMENT

the meal, of the death of Christ, corresponding to the
Haggada of the Paschal ritual 1 .

The words do this in remembrance of Me
are best taken in their simple and natural sense.
The word do (Troicn-e) refers to the whole act
implied in gave thanks, brake, etc. The word
remembrance (di/a/xi^o-i?) brings the action of thanks
giving and participation into connexion with Christ s
death, which it was the purpose of the meal to com
memorate. It is reading too much into the words
Trout? and avafjLvrjo-is to attribute to them the particular
sacrificial sense in which they are occasionally used
in the Greek Old Testament 2 .

From the references of St Paul in 1 Cor. x. 16 we
gather that the meal included a blessing over a cup
of wine and a breaking of bread 3 . Though the richer
brethren brought their own contributions for the

1 Cf . Von der Goltz, op. cit. p. 15.

2 For the contention that troielv = offer see Andersen, Das
Abendmahl (Giessen, 1904), p. 14 f. ; E. F. Willis, Sacrificial aspect
of the Holy Eucharist (Oxford, 1878), p. 16 f . The latter appeals
to passages in the LXX. where iroic~iv has as its object such words
as dfjivov, fio&lt;rxov or alfia (Ex. xxix. 39 ; Lev. iv. 20; Lev. xvi. 15).
There is perhaps more to be said for the sacrificial sense of
aW/ui/tjo-ts which he maintains on the strength of the LXX. ren
dering in Lev. xxiv. 7, Nu. x. 10, and the titles of Pss. xxxvii.
(xxxviii.), Ixix. (Ixx.). But the word is used in the more general
sense of remembrance in Symmachus rendering of Ex. iii. 15,
Ps. vi. 6 ; see also Wisdom xvi. 6 ; Heb. x. 3 (cf . Nu. v. 15, and see
Westcott in loco). T. K. Abbott (Essays on the original texts of
0. and N.T. (1891), pp. 110 f.) controverts the sacrificial sense of
both words, after a careful examination of the passages quoted
above.

s On the difference in the order of the cup and the bread in
1 Cor. x. 16, xi. 23 f. see the reference to the theory of Von der
Goltz, p. 8.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 15

meal and had misused it by their selfishness and
excess, yet in idea and purpose the whole meal was
sacred and was to be regarded as a supper of the
Lord (KvpiaKw S7n ov). By their selfishness they
had turned it into a private meal (TO tStov SCITTVOI/).
Other features on which St Paul dwells are : (1) the
fellowship (/cou/ama) or communion of the Body
and Blood of Christ involved in the participation in
the meal : it was a communion feast : (2) the unity
of the worshippers, expressed in the symbolism of the
one loaf, which was a type of the one body. See
1 Cor. x. 16 f.

St Paul s parallel between the heathen sacrificial
feasts and the Christian Eucharist in 1 Cor. x. 18 f.
is an argumentum ad hominem. It throws no light
on the surroundings of the Eucharist as such at
Corinth, and does not justify the conjecture that
St Paul adapted Greek customs to Christian purposes,
as a setting for the Eucharist, still less that it was
the influence of Greek customs which led St Paul to
institute the Eucharist as has been supposed 1 . The
whole setting of the Eucharist as described in
1 Corinthians accords with what we have already
seen of its connexion with Jewish household meals
(e.g. the blessing over the cup, the thanksgiving,
the expression break bread ). At the same time
the existence of such religious meals in Greek life
would facilitate the transference of the Christian rite
from Jewish to Gentile soil.

The meal with which the distinctive Eucharistic

1 e.g. by P. Gardner, Origin of the Lord s Supper (1893).

16 THE NEW TESTAMENT

acts were associated in the Apostolic age has com
monly been identified with the Agape, or Love-
feast, which is first expressly mentioned by name iu
Jude 12 (cf. also 2 Pet. ii. 13 with Mayor s note).
But St Paul s account in 1 Cor. xi. already implies
that these gatherings provided indirectly an op
portunity for feeding the poorer brethren (w. 21, 22),
and that the richer brethren brought with them their
own provisions. Thus the meal was a pledge of
brotherly love and fellowship, which had been violated
at Corinth by the selfish behaviour of some converts.
But the use of the term Agape, and the distinction
between the Agape and the Eucharist, as applied to
the conditions described in Acts and 1 Corinthians,
are possibly anachronisms. As yet there was no
sharp distinction between the two parts of the meal,
such as took place when the specially eucharistic
features assumed a more developed liturgical form.
The whole meal in St Paul s thought has the character
of a sacred meal. It is a supper of the Lord. It
was only when the social side of the meal came to be
distinguished from the more solemn liturgical acts
connected with it, that the Agape was conceived of
as separate from the Eucharist, and came to be finally
dissociated from it 1 .

Another question which remains to be discussed
is the connexion in the Apostolic age between the
Christian sacred meal and the other acts of worship
of which St Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians.

i On the Agape see Keating, The Agape and the Eucharist, and
art. Agape in Hastings Encycl. of Religion and Ethics.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 17

In the early chapters of Acts we are told that
the first disciples continued to attend the Temple
worship (ii. 46, iii. 1), while the distinctive features
of their new life include, in addition to the breaking
of bread/ the Apostles teaching and the prayers.
The Apostles taught publicly in the Temple as well
as in their house gatherings (iv. 2, v. 21, 25, 42).
The prayers may include both the Temple prayers
(iii. 1) and the domestic prayers of the Christian
gatherings (cf. Acts i. 24, iv. 23 f., xii. 12). When
we pass to the Gentile churches we find in 1 Cor. xiv.
26 f. mention of gatherings in which teachings, psalms,
and the special utterances of the gifts of tongues
and of prophecy found a place. How far these were
distinct from the gatherings at which the Eucharist
was celebrated (1 Cor. xi. 20 f.) it is difficult to say 1 .
Elsewhere St Paul refers to the use of psalms and
hymns by Christians (Col. iii. 16, Eph. v. 19) and to
the public reading of his own letters in the churches
(Col. iv. 16, 1 Thess. v. 27). From Acts xx. 7f. we
learn that the breaking of bread at Troas was pre
ceded by a discourse from St Paul. But further than
this we are unable to judge how far the Eucharist
was accompanied by other acts, such as the reading

1 It has been suggested that 1 Cor. xiv. 16 ( l if thou bless in the
spirit, how shall he that tilleth the place of the unlearned say,
Amen, at thy giving of thanks ) contains a reference to the
blessing or thanksgiving pronounced over the bread and the
cup. The suggestion is not impossible. The importance assigned
to the charismatic gifts (cf. Didache 10, of the prophets, at the
Eucharist) would explain the words in the spirit, and the use of
euXoyeT/; and euxa/oto-reTj/ corresponds with the language of Mk
xiv. 22, 23 and parallels in Mt.

S. L. 2

18 THE NEW TESTAMENT

of Scripture or Apostolic letters, and the singing of
psalms. The influence of the Jewish synagogue
worship must be reckoned as one of the factors which
helped to mould the Christian service of the word 1 ,
and the account which Justin Martyr gives of the
service which preceded the Eucharist proper in his
day shews traces of this influence. The separation
of the Eucharist from the meal with which it was at
first associated would hasten the fusion of the two
elements, the service of the word, and the Eucharist
proper. But it is possible that before this date the
latter already included elements of the former 2 .

There are a few other references in Apostolic
writers to customs and practices which may have
had an influence on the developement of the liturgy.

(1) As we have seen, St Paul refers to the
practice at Corinth of bringing provisions for the holy
meal. This practice survived, even when the Eucharist
had become separated from the meal, and attached
itself to the conception of the Eucharist as a * thank-
offering or oblation of gifts, which appears in the ac
counts of Clement, the Didache, Justin, and Irenaeus.

(2) The mention of the kiss of peace in several
New Testament passages (e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 20, 2 Cor.
xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 26, 1 Pet. v. 14) is the starting-
point of the later liturgical custom of giving the kiss
of peace in connexion with the Eucharist. But it
does not appear to have been in early times a peculiar
feature of the liturgy, but was found in other services
as well*.

i See p. 37, n. 4. a See p. 38. See ch. viii.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 19

(3) The practice of almsgiving is enjoined in
several passages of the New Testament (1 Cor. xvi. 1 f.,
2 Cor. viii. ix, Horn. xii. 13, Heb. xiii. 16). From
the reference in the first of these passages to the
1 laying by of alms on the first day of the week
(cf. Acts xx. 7) it might be conjectured that the
alms were presented at the Christian gathering on
that day, but St Paul s words suggest rather a laying
by in private (-Trap* eavrw). The account of Justin
shews that by the middle of the second century the
practice of bringing alms to the Sunday gathering-
was established.

There is one other direction in which the influence
of the Apostolic age is shewn in the later develope-
ments of the liturgy. The transference by Apostolic
writers to the Christian life and its duties of the
sacrificial language of the Old Testament created a
new Christian terminology, in which sacrificial terms
are freely applied to the spiritual acts and worship of
believers. Thus St Paul 1 speaks of himself as the
minister (or * ministering priest/ AarovpyoV) of Christ
Jesus, doing the sacrificial work (tepovpyovn-a) of the
Gospel of God, that the offering (7rpo&lt;r&lt;opa) of the
Gentiles may be acceptable (evTrpoo-^e/cTo?), * sanctified

in the Holy Spirit (Tyyiaa/xevr; ev TrvfvfjiaTL ayi &lt;j&gt;). Of

the duty of self-consecration he speaks as a living
sacrifice, a reasonable (or "spiritual") service (Aoyuo/i/
Aarpei av) 2 ; of the devotion of the Philippians as the
sacrifice and service (Aeirovpyia) of faith 3 . St Peter
speaks of Christians as forming a spiritual house for

1 Rom. xv. 16. 2 -Rom. xii. 1. s Phil. ii. 17.

20 THE NEW TESTAMENT

a holy act of priesthood (UpaVcv/xo), to offer spiritual
sacrifices, holy, acceptable to God through Jesus
Christ 1 . In Hebrews reference is made to the
Christian altar, whereof they have no right to eat
who serve the tabernacle 2 ; the readers are bidden to
offer a sacrifice of praise (Ova-Lav aweo-cu?) through
Jesus Christ continually to God 3 ; while of almsgiving
it is said that with such sacrifices God is well-pleased 4 .
Such language supplied Christian devotion with a
means of expressing its own highest conceptions when
engaged in public worship, and helped to create a
liturgical phraseology, which in time became stereo
typed and found a permanent place in the written
liturgies of the Church.

There are especially two books of the New Testa
ment, the influence of which appears not only in the
liturgical language of the Church, but in the under
lying conceptions which form the background of later
eucharistic worship. The conception of the heavenly
priesthood of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and the pictures of the worship of Heaven in the
Apocalypse, have played a large part in the guidance
of Christian devotion in connexion with the Eucharist.
To the former book we owe the thought of Christ as
the high priest of our offerings (Clement of Rome,
Origen), which underlies many later liturgical prayers.

i 1 Pet. ii. 5. Heb. xiii. 10.

3 Heb. xiii. 15. The phrase Qvaria alv&lt;reta* in the LXX. is a
translation of the Hebrew rn tfin I"QJ which denotes the highest
form of the peace-offering, the thank -offering. See Lev. vii. 12
and other passages cited by Westcott in loco.

* Heb. xiii. 16.

THE NEW TESTAMENT 21

To the latter book is due the conception of the
heavenly altar, which figures in the later liturgies
of East and West 1 , while the picture of the adoration
of the Lainb, standing as slain 2 , in the same book,
supplies the background of the eucharistic language
of St Chrysostom.

1 See Rev. vi. 9 ; viii. 3 ; ix. 13. For the use of the phrase by
Irenaeus, see p. 41.

2 Rev. v. 6, 9, 12 ; xiii. 8.

CHAPTER II

THE EUCHARIST IN THE SUB-APOSTOLIC
AGE AND IN JUSTIN AND IRENAEUS

AMONG the scanty Christian literature of the sub-
apostolic age the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles calls first for notice. Lightfoot assigns the
document to the later decades of the first century or
the beginning of the second century. Harnack gives
the broader limits 131 160 A.D. Doubts have been
cast upon the historical value of the presentation of
Church life which the writer gives 1 , but with regard
to the forms of prayer which he supplies for use in
connexion with the Eucharist, as well as his general
description of the Eucharist, it cannot be said that
these doubts seem well grounded, and we shall see
reason to believe that both are primitive in character,
however strange they may appear to later generations
of Christian readers.

The latter portion of the document (chs. 7 15)
contains a primitive Church order. After directions

1 See J. A. Robinson in /. Th. St. xiii. 339 f.; Bigg, Doctrine of
xii. Apostles (S.P.C.K., London, 1898), pp. 12 f. The latter 1 s
contention that the work is a fourth century production has not
won assent.

THE SECOND CENTURY 23

about Christian baptism (c. 7) and its preliminary
fast, the writer gives instruction on fasting and
prayer (c. 8), and then proceeds to give forms of
prayer to be used in connexion with the thank-
offering or Eucharist (^apio-Tia). They are in
troduced by the words (c. 9) Concerning the thank-
offering (cvxapto-Tias) 1 give thanks (evxapio-r^VaTe) in
this manner. Then follow two prayers (1) for the
cup, (2) for the broken bread (KAaoyxaTos). The
prayers are Jewish in character and recall the similar
Jewish forms of blessing before meals 2 . The prayer
for the cup runs :

We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of Dcavid
thy servant, which thou didst make known to us through
Jesus thy servant. Glory be to thee for ever.

The prayer over the broken bread is parallel in
form, but contains a supplementary petition for the
gathering of the Church from the ends of the earth
into the kingdom.

We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge
which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy
servant. Glory be to thee for ever. As this bread that
is broken was scattered upon the mountains and gathered
together and became one, so let thy Church be gathered

1 On euxapi&lt;rri see Hort, /. Th. St. iii. 594 f. ; Von der Goltz,
Das Oebef. in der alt. Christenkeit, p. 214. As the latter says,
fv^upKTTia is a comprehensive expression for the whole meal, of
which the several parts are subsequently denoted in the expressions

TTfpl TOV TTOTriploV, TTpl TOU K\d&lt;TfiaTOV.

2 The graces hefore and after meals in the de Viryinitate (now
attributed to Athanasius) appear to be derived from, or based on
the same sources as, these prayers in the Dldache. See de Virg.
13, 14.

24 THE SECOND CENTURY

together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom :
for thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ
for ever.

Then follows a direction that no one is to eat or
drink of the thank-offering, but those that are
baptized, because the Lord has said Give not that
which is holy to the dogs.

In ch. 10 there is a form of thanksgiving after
ye are filled (/xera TO e/ATrAr/o-tf^cu). It is similar in
form and contents to the earlier prayers 1 , and like
the second prayer, contains a petition for the per
fecting and gathering together of the Church into the
kingdom. It refers, however, unlike the former
prayers, to the gift of food and drink, and the further
gift of spiritual food and drink and life eternal
through thy servant. The prayer is as follows :

We thank thee, holy Father, for thy holy name,
which thou hast made to dwell in our hearts, and for
the knowledge, faith, and immortality, which thou didst
make known to us through Jesus thy servant. Glory be
to thee for ever. Thou, Almighty Lord, didst create all
things for thy name s sake, and gavest food and drink for
men to enjoy, that they might give thanks unto thee ; and
to us didst vouchsafe spiritual food and drink and life
eternal through thy servant. Above all we thank thee
because thou art mighty. Glory be to thee for ever.
Remember, Lord, thy Church, to deliver it from all evil,
and to perfect it in thy love, and gather it together from
the four winds, even the Church which has been sanctified
into thy kingdom which thou didst prepare for it. For
thine is the power and the glory for ever.

i Von der Goltz (Das Gebet, p. 211), and Batiffol (Etudes, n.
pp. 114 f.), suggest that it is a doublet.

THE SECOND CENTURY 25

This prayer is followed by some short fragments
consisting of :

(1) The petition, Come grace, and let this world
pass away.

(2) Hosanna to the God of David.

(3) The invitation, If any is holy let him come :
if any is unholy, let him repent.

(4) Maranatha, and the Amen.

A direction that prophets are to be allowed to give
thanks as much as they will concludes the section.

Various theories have been held as to the relation
of these prayers to the Eucharist on the one hand
and the Agape on the other. Some scholars regard
all three prayers as having reference only to the
Agape, and this view has recently been restated by
Dom Cagin 1 , who finds a parallel to the injunction of
the Didache (c. 9), that none are to eat and drink of
the thank-offering but only the baptized, in the
direction of the Church Orders that catechumens are
to be excluded from the Agape ; and he similarly
finds support in these Church Orders for the priority
of the benediction of the cup in the Agape. But it
is ditficult to believe that the writer is not thinking
of the Eucharist in his account. The explicit use
of the term cv^apicrna or thank-offering for the
consecrated food (c. 9), the reference to spiritual
food and drink (c. 10), lastly the parallel which
these prayers present with similar Gnostic prayers
found in the Acts of John 2 (where the reference is

1 L euchologie latine, 2. L eucharistia, pp. 259 f.

2 cc. 85, 109 (ed. Lipsius and Bonnet).

26 THE SECOND CENTURY

undoubtedly eucharistic), suggest that we have here
to deal with some primitive formulae employed in
connexion with the Eucharist.

Zahn 1 and others maintain that the prayers in
ch. 9 are the introductory prayers to the Agape,
while the prayer in ch. 10 introduces the Eucharist
proper. On the other hand many recent scholars
(Julicher, Spitta, Drews, Von der Goltz) refuse to
see any such sharp distinction between the two, and
contend that the whole meal with which the prayers
are connected constitutes a unity. The prayer in
ch. 10 is certainly more naturally regarded as a
concluding thanksgiving for the holy meal, corre
sponding to the table-blessing of Jewish prayers.
The question is complicated by the concluding frag
ments in ch. 10, and especially by the invitation if
any is holy, let him come. It is possible that these
are an insertion of the editor and have no original
connexion with the preceding prayers 2 . The words
1 Come grace, and let this world pass away may be
a fragment of a Christian hymn 3 . The following
Hosanna recalls the Hosanna after the Sancta sanctis
in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, im
mediately before Communion, where it is followed by
the Benedictus qui uenit. Ps. cxviii. from which the
words are taken was sung at the conclusion of the
Passover ritual. The invitation which follows has

1 Forseft. z. Gesch. des neutest. Kanons, in. pp. 293 f.

2 Von der Goltz, Dan Gebet, pp. 212 f.

8 Von der Goltz compares Acta Thomae, 27, 50, for similar
forms.

THE SECOND CENTURY 27

been taken by some scholars to be an invitation to
Communion, and the Maranatha in the sense, Lord
come, has been thought to have a similar reference.
But Harnack suggests that they are connected with
the thought of the coming of the Messianic kingdom.
The faithful, after partaking of the table of the Lord,
express their longing for His visible return. The
warning * let him repent would be more appropriate
to the thought of the Second Coming than to the
idea of an invitation to the communion which is to
follow 1 .

Assuming that the prayers have a eucharistic
character, we may notice that they contain no
reference to the death of Christ or to the Last
Supper. Attention is fixed upon the community and
the gathering of the Church into the Kingdom.
The prayers are strongly Jewish in character and
shew the influence of Jewish liturgical prayers. The
feast is a communion feast in which the presence of
Christ is conceived of in mystical language. Thanks
are given for the holy vine of David thy servant
(ch, 9), and for thy holy name which thou hast
made to dwell in our hearts (c. 10). In the former
phrase the idea of the consecrated gift of GOD,
the wine, passes into the thought of the gift of
Messiah 2 . In the latter the dwelling of thy holy
name is an Old Testament expression for the presence

1 Harnack, Ckronoloyie, I. 430, n. 1 ; cf. G-oguel, L euckanstie,
p. 234.

2 On the title Vine of David as applied to the Messiah see
Taylor, Teaching of xii. Apostles, p. 70.

28 THE SECOND CENTURY

of GOD*. The prayers appear in fact to come from
some Jewish Christian circle in which the mystical
and eschatological elements in early Christian teaching
were dominant. As we have seen, they find their
nearest parallel in the prayers of the Gnostic Acts
of John. This fact should make us cautious of
accepting the hypothesis 2 that the prayers in the
Didache were written with a view to the needs of
the community as a whole, not of its officers, and
that the forms of thanksgiving provided in it were
for the use of the recipients, not a formula of con
secration for the celebrant.

The concluding direction in ch. 10 that the
prophets are to be allowed to give thanks as much
as they will shews that the forms supplied are not
intended to be stereotyped prayers, from which no
divergence was to be allowed. They represent rather
the type and model of such prayers, and their use is
consistent with a large liberty of improvisation.

Whatever doubt there may be as to the significance
and intention of the prayers in chs. 9 10, in ch. 14
the Didache presents us with an account of the
Sunday Eucharist which is on the same lines as
the evidence of other second century sources. The
description given points to greater formality, and has
suggested the possibility (Drews) that, while the
prayers in chs. 9 10 refer to small household
gatherings, the account in ch. 14 deals with the

1 Von der Goltz, Das Gebet, p. 219. Cf. Jer. vii. 12; Neb. i. 9;
Ez. xliii. 7; Ps. Ixxiv. 7.

2 See Box, /. Th. St. iii. 307 f.

THE SECOND CENTURY 29

formal weekly gatherings for worship. The account
is introduced as follows : On the Lord s own day
gather together and break bread and give thanks.
The Eucharist is to be preceded by a confession of
sins, that your sacrifice (Ovo-ia) may be pure, and
it is identified with the pure offering of Mai. i. 11.
In close connexion with this mention of the Sunday
Eucharist is the injunction (c. 15) Elect therefore
for yourselves overseers and deacons, which suggests
that these officials were specially connected with its
administration l .

The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,
written about 95 A.D., contains few allusions to the
Eucharist. In c. 41 the writer says Let each of
you, brethren, in his own order, give thanks (f^x a ~
pioTi ra&gt;) unto God, preserving a good conscience,
and adhering to the appointed rule of his service
(AeiToupytas) with all reverence. Here there seems
to be an allusion to the public service of the Church
and to the principal act of Christian thanksgiving,
the Eucharist (Lightfoot) 2 . In the second passage
(c. 44) Clement says, with reference to the disorders
at Corinth, We shall be guilty of no small sin, if we
reject men who have holily and without offence
offered the gifts pertaining to the office of the over
seer (TO, SoJpa 1^75 eTriovcoTnfc). The allusion seems to
be, as Lightfoot says, to the presentation by the
presbyters (or overseers) of the alms, the elements

1 Cf . Ignatius, Smyrn. 8 ; Justin, Ap. i. 65, 67.

2 Lightfoot illustrates the words in his own order by Justin s
words (Ap. i. 65) euj(apt&lt;TTT) &lt;roi/Tos tie TOV Tr/ooeo-Ttoros /cat eircv-
&lt;/&gt;rj/itj(rai/TO Trai/Tos TOV Xaov.

30 THE SECOND CENTURY

for the Eucharist, and possibly the contributions for
the Agape, over which prayers and thanksgivings
were offered in the name of the whole body. The
whole act constituted a Christian thank-offering or
sacrifice in the sense of the Didache and Ignatius.

In two other passages Clement has been thought
to make use of liturgical language current in the
worship of the Church. In the former passage (c. 34)
he refers to the ministry of angels, and quotes
Dan. vii. 10 and Isaiah vi. 3, followed at a short
interval by a reminiscence of 1 Cor. ii. 9 (itself based
on Isaiah Ixiv. 4). The association of Dan. vii. 10
with Isaiah vi. 3 suggests the similar association of
the two passages in the Preface and Sanctus of the
later liturgies 1 , while the reference to 1 Cor. ii. 9
recalls the liturgical use of the same passage 2 . In
the words which intervene between the two sets of
quotations Clement says, Let us also meet together
(eVi TO avro &lt;7wax#eVrs) therefore with our inmost
hearts in concord, and with fervour (CKTCI WS) let us
cry unto him as with one mouth ( e/os O-TO/AUTOS),
that we may be made partakers in his great and
glorious promises. Here again the phrases, of which
the original Greek has been quoted, are familiar in
later liturgical usage 3 .

1 See A. C. (LEW. 18. 27 f.) ; Mark (LEW. 131. 23 f.) ; Coptic
(LEW. 175. 20 f.); Abyssinian (LEW. 231. 12 f.).

2 See James (LEW. 53. 10 f.) and Mark (LEW. 129. 13).

3 2i5i&gt;ai is used of a litui gical gathering. See LEW. Index.
For eKTefws see A. C. (LE W. 6. 11 ; 7. 5, 12, 29 ; 8. 28 ; 12. 7). With
e kvo? o-To/uaTos cf. ei/ evi trro/iaTt in Basil (LEW. 337. 20) and
the Byzantine rite (LEW. 390. 2).

THE SECOND CENTURY 81

In the second passage (cc. 59 61) we find a long
liturgical prayer, which exhibits parallels in language
and ideas not only with the Eighteen Benedictions
of Jewish prayers, but also with the phraseology of
later liturgies 1 . The whole prayer, as Duchesne
has said, may perhaps be regarded as an excellent
example of the style of solemn prayer in which the
ecclesiastical leaders of that time were accustomed to
express themselves at meetings for worship 2 .

These passages then suggest that certain ideas
and stereotyped phrases had found a place in the
language of Christian worship, and that a certain
defined type of prayer had become current, based
upon Christian terminology, the Old Testament, and
the forms of the synagogue worship.

The epistles of Ignatius (110 117 A.D.) contain
a few references to the Eucharist and its position in
public worship. The terms thank-offering 3 , and
breaking of bread 4 are applied to it. The one
Eucharist is the pledge of unity, and is not to be
celebrated apart from the bishop 5 . Whether it was
already separated from the Agape is uncertain.
Lightfoot, who is followed by most scholars, has
concluded that the two were still conjoined, on the
ground that the words in Smyrn. 8, it is not lawful
apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a

1 See Lightfoot, Clement, vol. i. (ed. 2) pp. 382 ff., and notes on
the passage in Clement. See also E. F. Von der Goltz, Dan. Gebet,
199 f.

2 Chr. Worship (E. tr. 8 ), p. 50.

8 Euxapto-ria. See Philad. 4; Smyrn. 6.

4 Eph. 20, eva aprov K\wj/Tes. 5 Philad. 4; Smyni. 8.

32 THE SECOND CENTURY

love-feast, must include a reference to the Eucharist
as well as to the Agape, for otherwise the omission
of the Eucharist is inexplicable. But the cogency
of this conclusion is lessened by the fact that the
Eucharist has already been referred to a few sentences
previously, where Ignatius says let that be held a
valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or him to
whom he commits it/ Elsewhere Ignatius refers to
the common thanksgiving and prayer of the Church 1 .
In four passages 2 he speaks of the Christian assembly
as a sanctuary (or place of sacrifice, Ovo-iaa-njpLov ),
and in two of these passages 3 there is a reference to
the Eucharist in connexion with it. On this word

Bvo-Laarijpiov Lightfoot says 4 : OvaLacmjptov, being at

once the place of sacrifice and the court of the
congregation, was used metaphorically for the Church
of Christ/ The spiritual sacrifices of the Church were
concentrated in the Eucharist, which was the supreme
offering. Ignatius however does not, like the Didache,
use the term sacrifice (Bvo-ia) to denote this offering,
but speaks simply of the thank-offering (77 evxa-
pto-ria) 5 . Elsewhere he emphasizes the conception of
the Eucharist as a communion feast upon the flesh
and blood of Christ 6 .

The passage in Pliny s letter to Trajan (Ep. x.
96 (97)), written in 112 A.D., is referred to by Lightfoot
(Ignatius i. 52 n.) as an indication that the Eucharist

1 Eph. 5, 13; Mayn. 7; Smyrn. 6.

3 Eph. 5 ; Troll. 1 ; Philad. 4 ; Magn. 7.

3 Eph. 5 ; Philad. 4. 4 See his note oil Eph. 5.

On his use of the word see Hort, /. Th. St. iii. 595.

Philad. 4 ; Smyrn. 6 ; cp. Eph. 5. 20; Rom. 1.

THE SECOND CENTURY 33

had been separated from the Agape in Pliny s time.
Pliny records that the Christians met before dawn on
a fixed day (state die : probably Sunday), and sang
a hymn by turns (inuicem, i.e. l antiphonally ) to
Christ as God, and bound themselves by an oath
(sacramento) to abstain from certain crimes. Later
in the day they met again for an ordinary and
common meal 1 , which, however, Pliny s informants
(who were apostate Christians) asserted that they
had given up after the Emperor s edict. Lightfoot
concludes that the earlier gathering was for the
EuGharist and the later for the Agape. But this
conclusion is doubtful. The * ordinary and harmless
meal may well refer to the Eucharist, the phrase
being used with reference to heathen suspicions as to
the character of the Christian meals. It is possible,
however, that in consequence of the Emperor s edict,
some change may have been effected, e.g. the common
meal may have been given up, and the Eucharist,
with this modification, transferred to the earlier hour 2 .
The language used by Pliny s informants suggests
that they are referring to something which bore the
character of a meal, rather than of a formal rite,
such as the Eucharist is shewn to have been in
Justin s time. In that case, the earlier gathering
referred to may have corresponded to the later
vigil service which preceded the Sunday liturgical
gathering 3 . But we must admit that no certain

1 Pliny s words are cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxiwm.

a Cf. Goguel, L Eucharistie, p. 264.

3 See Batiffol, Histoire du brtviaire romain, p. 4.

S. L. 3

34 THE SECOND CENTURY

conclusions can be drawn from the language of
Ignatius and Pliny with regard to the relations of
the Agape and the Eucharist in the early years
of the second century in Syria and Bithynia.

Justin Martyr s First Apology written about the
middle of the second century contains two accounts
of the Eucharist (ch. 6567). The former (ch. 65, 66)
refers to the baptismal Eucharist, the latter (ch. 67)
to the Sunday gathering. There are also incidental
references in the Dialogue with Trypho (see esp. ch. 41).
By putting together these accounts we obtain the
following scheme of the service:

(1) Lections, consisting of memoirs of the
apostles or the writings of the prophets (c. 67) 1 .

(2) Sermon by the c president (6 Trpoeo-rws, ibid.).

(3) Common prayers for all men, said standing
(chs. 65, 67).

(4) The kiss of peace (c. 65).

(5) Presentation to the president of bread and a
cup of wine and water (chs. 65, 67).

(6) Praise, prayer, and thanksgiving, offered to
the Father through the Son and Holy Spirit, for the
creation of the world and all that therein is for man s
sake, and for deliverance from evil, and redemption
through the Passion (Ap. i. 65 ; Dial. 41). This is
offered by the president and is extempore (oo-rj
8vVa/xt? avraJ, c. 67 ; cf. Did. 10). It is responded to
by the congregation with the Amen (c. 67).

1 Note Justin s reference to o dvayivtatFKwv (Ap. i. 67), and on
the rise of the order of readers see C. H. Turner, Cambridge
Medieval History, i. 149 ; Maclean, Ancient Church Orders, pp. 85 f.

THE SECOND CENTURY 35

(7) The deacons administer to those present the
bread and the cup over which thanks have been
given, and convey them to the absent (chs. 65, 67).

Mention is also made of the collection of alms,
which are kept by the president and distributed to
the relief of the needy (c. 67). Justin further says
that this consecrated food is called Eucharist
(c. 66), and that the bread of the Eucharist is
offered as a memorial of the Passion (Dial. 41).
In this connexion he refers, like the author of the
Didache, to Malachi i. 11.

In discussing the significance of the Eucharist
Justin says As through the Word of God Jesus
Christ our Saviour was incarnate and took flesh and
blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught
that the food over which thanks have been given
through the prayer of the Word (or word of prayer ;

8t tvxrjs Xoyov) 1 which is from him (rot) Trap* avrov), by

which food our blood and flesh are nourished by
assimilation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who
became incarnate 2 . These words have given rise to
much discussion. Brightman 3 translates the words
Si 1 ev^^s Xoyov TOV ?rap avrov, the word of prayer
which came from him/ and sees in them a reference
to the liturgical thanksgiving based upon the thanks
giving pronounced at the Last Supper by Jesus over
the bread and the cup. Others understand Justin
to refer to the Logos or Word (Ao yov being understood

1 Other suggested renderings are the prayer of the word or
the word of the prayer.

2 Ap. i. 66. s /. 77,. Stf i 112 .

36 THE SECOND CENTURY

in a personal sense), while the words which is from
him will then refer to God, according to a terminology
found elsewhere in Justin and also in Athenagoras 1 .
This interpretation has the advantage of bringing
out the parallelism between the operative power of
the Logos in the Incarnation and in the Eucharist,
which is suggested by Justin s language. The attri
bution to the Logos of functions which later on were
associated with the Holy Ghost is a feature of the
theology of Justin 2 and represents an early phase of
thought of which, as we shall see, there may be
indications in Irenaeus 3 , while the association of the
Logos with the Eucharist appears to have been
traditional at Alexandria 4 .

Some writers, on the strength of the supposed
parallel afforded by the invocation of the Logos in
the liturgy of Sarapion, suggest that Justin s liturgy
contained an express invocation of the Logos. But
it is hazardous to read into Justin s obscure and
condensed language such an explicit reference to the
existence of forms employed later on in the Eucharist.
Where he is actually describing the service, in both
cases the emphasis is on the thanksgiving 5 , and the

1 See E. Bishop iu Appendix to Connolly s Liturgical Homilies
of Narsai (Texts and Studies, viii. 1), pp. 158 ff. The words \6yov
TOV Trap avTov would then correspond to the preceding \6yov Qeov
(for parallels to Xoyos 6 Trap O.VTOV (= trapd TOV Qeov) see Justin,
Ap. i. 6, 32, 33 ; Athenagoras, Legat . 4, 6, 10, 12).

2 For the operation of the Logos in the Incarnation see Ap.
i. 33, 46.

s p. 40 f . * pp. 50, 55.

5 c. 65 alvov Kal 66av...dva.irenTrei, Kal evyapi&lt;TTia.i&gt;...6Tri TTO\V
ov &lt;TvvTf\eaavTO&lt;: ras eux a Kai TI J 1/ tv^apiffriaV. ibid.

THE SECOND CENTURY 37

same statement is true of his description in the
Dialogue with Trypho (c. 41), where he gives the
general tenour of this thanksgiving. As Batiffbl 1
says, his description recalls the prayers of the Didache
and the Gnostic Acts of John. The same is the case
when Justin describes the Last Supper in justification
of the Christian practice and in support of the beliefs
entertained about it 2 . While omitting other features
recorded by the Evangelists, he emphasizes the giving
of thanks by Christ in the case of both the bread
and the cup 3 . This suggests that in the passage
under discussion, when he speaks of the * prayer of
the Word, he is thinking of the * giving of thanks
by Christ at the Last Supper. The sketch which
Justin gives of the Sunday Eucharist shews that
the separation of the Eucharist from the Agape
had already been effected, and the service of
the word 4 , which in later times was known as the
Missa catechumenorum, consisting of lessons from the
Old and New Testaments, a sermon, and prayers,
had established itself as the introductory portion of
the liturgy. This preliminary service of the word
shews the influence of the religious services of the
Jewish synagogues, which included the same three

rov irpoecrT(aTOS...i&gt;a&lt;Tiv...fJL6Ta\a{leiv diro
: c. 67 evicts o/uoteos nai evxapia-rias...
: / /u.eTct\t|v|/i ctiro TtOtv eu^apia TriQfV rwv.

1 Etudes, ii. (1905), p. 141.

2 c. 66.

3 Cf. Batiffol, op. cit., p. 144.

* Cf. Tertullian, de Cult. fern. ii. 11, aut sacrificium offertur,
aut del sermo administrator. In Acts vi. 4 } diaKovta TOV \6yov
is used of the ministry of preaching.

38 THE SECOND CENTURY

elements, prayers, lessons, and homily 1 . But at
what period before the time of Justin it came to be
attached to the Eucharist proper our evidence does
not enable us to say. As we have seen 2 , it is probable
that, though there may have been originally two
types of Christian gatherings, the one Eucharistic,
and the other consisting of prayers, readings, psalms
and lessons, some of the elements of the latter were
associated quite early, if not from the first, with the
Christian sacred meal. The separation of the common
meal from the Eucharist proper would facilitate the
developement of these features in the service 3 .

The Kiss of Peace is mentioned as having been
given at the close of the prayers a position which it
occupied in the East in later times. Then the bread
and wine of the brethren are brought to the president :
and herein we see the beginnings of what afterwards
became the ritual offertory, though in Justin s day
it would be quite informal. Whether the alms of
which Justin speaks were presented at this point
of the service we cannot say. The Eucharistic prayer
is still extempore in character 4 , though it is based
on a fixed theme, and commemorates God s work
in creation and redemption. This corresponds in
its general idea and plan to the Anaphora of the
Eastern liturgies as it appears in the Apostolic Con
stitutions and Cyril of Jerusalem. The Amen with

1 See ch. viii. 2 g ee p. 18.

8 See further on the question Cabrol, Les origines liturgiqnea
pp. 334 f.

4 Note fuxs o/u.oio&gt;s &lt;cai eu^aptcrTia^, o&lt;ri] tiuva/jus UVTW, cti/a-
(c. 67).

THE SECOND CENTURY 39

which the people respond at the close of the Eucha-
ristic prayer finds a place in several early accounts
of the liturgy (e.g. Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of
Jerusalem, Augustine). The administration of the
communion is assigned by Justin to the deacons,
who also carry the consecrated elements to those who
are absent. This early prominence of the deacons in
connexion with the Eucharist was later on restricted,
and the question arose whether they might give
communion to the presbyters. They still retained
however the duty of administering the chalice 1 .

The only other writer of the second century to
whom reference need be made is Irenaeus, Bishop of
Lyons in South Gaul, who in his work adversus
Haereses, written about 180 A.D., has several in
cidental references to the Eucharist. The various
titles under which he alludes to it are Eucharist/
the oblation of the Church, the new oblation of
the new covenant, the pure sacrifice (in reference
to Mai. i. II) 2 . "While Justin emphasizes the offering
of the Eucharist as a memorial of the Passion 3 , in
Irenaeus the leading thought is that the Eucharist is
an offering of the first-fruits of the earth as an
expression of gratitude to God and as sanctifying the
creature 4 . At the same time he connects these ideas
with the fact that Christ acknowledged the bread to
be His body and the cup His blood and taught us
the new oblation of the new covenant, which the

1 On the whole question see Maclean, Ancient Church Orders,
pp. 46 f. ; Bright, Canons of First Four Gen. Councils, pp. 59 f. ;
C. H. Turner, Cambridge Medieval History, i. 149, 154 f.

2 iv. 17. 5 ; 18. 1, 4. 8 Di aL 41 . 4 i v . 17. 5 . is. 6.

40 THE SECOND CENTURY

Church receiving from the Apostles offers throughout
the whole world to God 1 . From his references to
the rite we may gather that it included: (1) an
offering of the first-fruits of the creatures (after
wards explained as bread and the cup ) 2 : (2) a
thanksgiving pronounced over them 3 : (3) in connexion
with this thanksgiving Irenaeus speaks of the bread
and cup as receiving the invocation of God or
receiving the word of God (whatever precise meaning
we may attach to this ambiguous expression), in virtue
of which they become the Eucharist, i.e. the body
and blood of Christ 4 . Whether this invocation
(eTTtKXryo-i?) is a distinct part of the prayer of thanks
giving or is identical with it, the language of Irenaeus
does not enable us to decide conclusively. In favour
of the latter view it might be urged that in speaking
of the prayer in virtue of which the bread is con
stituted the body of Christ, he uses the words bread
over which thanks have been given 5 as synonymous
with the words bread receiving the invocation of
God/ On the other hand it is possible that &fwmal
invocation of the divine power upon the elements
was already making its way into the churches in the
time of Irenaeus, and, as we shall see 6 , the evidence
of Gnostic practices points to its existence in heretical
circles. In the other passage referred to, in which
Irenaeus speaks of the elements as receiving the
word of God 7 , it is possible that, as in Justin, there
is a reference to the personal Word or Logos, and

i iv. 17. 5. 2 ibid. 3 iv. 18. 4. 4 iv. 18. 5 ; v. 2. 3.

5 iv. 18.4. 6 pp. 43 f. 7 v . 2. 3.

THE SECOND CENTURY 41

that this language may be explained by the previous
statement 1 that on receiving the invocation the
bread is no longer common bread, but Eucharist,
consisting of two things, an earthly element and a
heavenly 2 .

On the benefits of communion Irenaeus has much
to say, and, like Ignatius 3 , he emphasizes the idea
that the Eucharist imparts life to the body and soul
of man, preserving them from corruption, and guaran
teeing to them the hope of the resurrection 4 .

Like Justin, Irenaeus refers to the mixed cup of
wine and water 5 , and in another passage he alludes
to the altar in heaven to which the prayers and
oblations are directed 6 . This is the first appearance
in patristic literature of an idea which finds frequent
expression in the later liturgies 7 .

The period which has been passed in review in the
present chapter exhibits considerable developement
in connexion with the Eucharist. The home-like
communion feast of early apostolic days, in being-
divorced from its setting in a common meal, has
taken on the character of a more formal act of
worship. This transition was in progress already in
the days of St Paul. It appears still more in the
account which the Didache gives of the Sunday

1 iv. 18. 5.

2 For Justin see pp. 35 f ., and on the personal sense of Xoyos in
these passages cf. E. Bishop in Connolly s Narsai, pp. 136 f. For
the other sense of word of God reference is made to 1 Tim. iv. 5,
which however appears to have been interpreted in the personal
sense (= Word) by Origeu and Gregory of Nyssa. See pp. 50, 120.

8 Eph. 20. * iv. 18. 5. 5 v . 2 . 3.

6 iv. 18. 6. 7 Cf. also de Sacmmentis, iv. 6. 27.

42 THE SECOND CENTURY

worship, and in the few references supplied by Clement
of Rome. With the conceptions of an offering of
gifts (Clement), a Christian * sacrifice (Didache) l , a
memorial offering connected with the Passion (Justin),
a new oblation of the new covenant, parallel to,
though expressing a different spirit from, the sacrifices
of the old covenant (Irenaeus), the Eucharist entered
upon a new developement, which finally severed it
from its local Jewish origin and its association with
Jewish meals.

As we have seen, Justin is the first writer after
St Paul who brings the Eucharist into connexion
with the Last Supper, and the first to attest the
conjunction with it of the preparatory * service of the
word. Similarly Irenaeus is the first writer who
appears to attest the existence of an invocation in
the Eucharistic service. These points need to be
borne in mind, as constituting landmarks in the
developement of the rite.

The references to liturgical customs and practices
among the Gnostics have /been collected by Struckmann,
Die Gegenwart Christi in der hi. Eucharistie nack den
schriftl. Quellen der vornizdn. Zeit, pp. 90 f., and Woolley,
Liturgy of Primitive Church, pp. 53 f., 138f.

(1) Irenaeus (adv. Haer. i. 13. 2) gives a description
of the liturgy celebrated among the followers of the
Valentinian Marcus. A mixed cup of wine and water is

1 See Did. 14 Kara nvpiaK^v 6c Kvpiov avvayQewTfi
dp-rov KOL evyapHTTricrare 7rpoeo/uo\oyr}&lt;ra/uei/oi Ta Trapa
v/j.wi&gt;, OTTCOS KaOapd &gt;) Ovaria ufioav p. Ilav &lt;5e %&lt;jov Tt\v (i/uL(pifio\iav
yucTa TOU CTuipov avTou /JLI] (ruyeXOeTco f/xTi/, t co* ou &ia\\a yu&gt;o iv
(Mt V. 23 f.), Vi/o /ni| KoivtaQfj n Qvoia V/JLWV. CUT?) yap SOTIV ij
VTTO Kvpiov Ej/ iravrl TOTTU&gt; KT\. (cf. Mai. i. 11).

THE SECOND CENTURY 43

placed before Marcus, who pronounces a thanksgiving over
it (cvxapHTTflv}, and while he prolongs the word of invoca
tion (TOV \6yov rijs 7riK\r)&lt;T&lt;t&gt;s) he causes the contents of
the cup to assume a purple and ruddy colour, so that in
virtue of the invocation (8ta rr/s (7rtK\r](r(a&gt;s) Grace (xdpis)
distils her blood into the cup.

(2) In the Pistis Sophia, an Ophite work, which in its
present form dates from the first part of the third century
and is of Egyptian origin, we have an account of a
complicated ritual containing elements suggestive of the
Christian sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. The
portion of the Pistis Sophia in which it is contained
(Book iv.) appears to be older than the remaining portions
of the work. The account contains a mention of bread
and a cup of wine, and at the moment when the invocation
is pronounced the wine on the right of the oblation
(Qvvia) is changed into water. The disciples come before
Jesus, who baptizes them and distributes the offering
(irpoo-fapd} to them, and seals (&lt;r(ppayi(i) them with this
seal.

(3) In the Gnostic Acts of John (circa 150180 A.D.)
and of Thomas (early in the third century) there are some
liturgical forms connected with the Eucharist. In the
Acts of John (ed. Bonnet (1898), c. 85) we find a thanks
giving over the Eucharistic food, which, like the prayers
in the Didache, seems to be an adaptation of the grace at
meals and contains no Invocation. Cf. also c. 109.

On the other hand, in the Acts of Thomas, which are
later in date, we find (cc. 4950, 133, ed. Bonnet (1903))
two forms of Eucharistic prayer, both of which contain
Invocations. The latter of the two prayers is as follows :
Come, prayer of the blessing, and let the bread be
established, that all the souls who partake may be washed
from their sins. ; In c. 158 there is a Eucharistic formula
which is a prayer for communicants.

Of the Syriac Acts of Thomas published by Wright
(Apocr. Acts, E. tr. n. 146 f.) and cited by Woolley (Lit. of

44 THE SECOND CENTURY

Prim. Church, p. 141 f.), Preuschen (in Hennecke, Neutest.
Apokryphen (1904), p. 475) says that their value is
impaired by the fact that they have been revised in a
Catholic sense.

On the dates of the Acts of John and Thomas see
Preuschen in Hennecke, op. cit. pp. 423 f., 479.

This evidence is of interest in two ways. (1) It
supplements and confirms the evidence derived from other
second century sources as to the character of the liturgical
developements of the period. Thus it throws some light
incidentally on the prayers of the IHdache, and shews
that the style of prayer exhibited in them was not so
abnormal as has commonly been supposed. In the Acts
of John, as in the Didache, the central act of the liturgy is
a thanksgiving, in which there is only a general reference
to the blessings of salvation, with no mention of the Last
Supper or the Body and Blood of Christ. On the other
hand, in the later Acts of Thomas the language is more
explicit in its references to the Body and Blood and to the
Passion, and we find prayers which have the character of
Invocations.

(2) In one respect the evidence of these Gnostic
sources advances beyond that of the writers referred to in
this chapter. The reference to the Invocation in the
account of Marcus and in the narrative of the Pistis
Sophia, while it supports the evidence derived from
Irenaeus, goes beyond it in the greater definiteness with
which it seems to associate the Invocation with the
moment of consecration a developement which appears
in Catholic circles in the East only at a later period.

CHAPTER III

THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE LITURGY AT
ALEXANDRIA AND IN EGYPT

UNTIL recent times the materials available for
the study of the early history of the Egyptian liturgy
were of the most meagre description. The vague and
scanty references contained in the Christian writings
of Alexandrine origin, and the comparatively late
date of our earliest manuscripts of the liturgies con
nected with the Church of Egypt (the earliest dating
from the twelfth century), rendered the task of re
constructing the course of liturgical developement in
this part of Christendom extremely precarious. The
discovery in 1899 of the liturgical prayers ascribed
to Sarapion, bishop of Thmuis in the Nile Delta, has
however thrown a fresh light on this obscure part of
the subject and has enabled us to trace the existence
in the fourth century of a specifically Egyptian type
of liturgy and to shew its general relations to the
type found in Syria and elsewhere.

A preliminary difficulty meets us in dealing with
the early liturgy in Egypt. During the last twenty
years much attention has been devoted to the Church
Orders, and to some of these scholars have commonly

46 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

assigned an Egyptian origin 1 . The Church Orders
which have a special importance for the purpose of
this book, as containing liturgical forms and prayers,
or describing the celebration of the Eucharist, are
as follows:

(1) The Ethiopia Church Order, which contains
a text of the prayers of the liturgy 2 . A Latin version
of these prayers is found in the Verona fragments
published by Hauler 8 . The anaphora contained in
these texts is the foundation of the normal anaphora
of the Ethiopic Church 4 .

(2) The Testament of our Lwd 5 , which also
contains a text of the prayers of the liturgy related
in some respects to (1). From this is derived the
Ethiopic Anaphora of our Lord 8 .

(3) The Sahidic Ecclesiastical Canons (can. 64),
which contain rubrics of the service, without the text
of the prayers. This section of the work, however,
appears to be founded on the Apostolic Constitutions,
with modifications intended to bring it into conformity
with the ideas of a later age 7 .

It should be noted that there is no trace of the

1 See e.g. the discussion in Maclean, Ancient Church
pp. 161 f.

2 For text see LEW. 189193.

8 Hauler, Didascaliae Apostolorum fragmenta Veronemia la-
tina, i.

4 For text see LEW. 228 f.

6 English translation by Cooper-Maclean, The Testament of our
Lord.

6 English translation in Cooper-Maclean, Testament, App. i.

7 See Maclean, Ancient Church Orders, p. 23, and cf . E. Bishop,
J. Th. St. xiv. 56. For the text see LE W. App. A. i., pp. 461463.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 47

influence of (1) and (2) on the liturgies belonging to
the region of Alexandria (Sarapion and St Mark),
but that their influence is found only in the remote
region of Ethiopia, i.e. in the Abyssinian Church.
But though the liturgical formulae represented in (1)
and (2) have thus been naturalized in Egypt, mention
ought to be made of the opinion of some scholars,
that they are really Syrian and belong to the patri
archate of Antioch 1 . If this view should be eventually
established, the treatment of the formulae men
tioned above would more properly find a place in
the chapter devoted to the liturgy of Antioch and
Syria. But space forbids us to pursue the matter
further here. It is enough, while practically ac
quiescing in the hitherto dominant view, to indicate
the possibilities of the future.

The earliest of the Alexandrine Fathers, Clement,
supplies few allusions to the liturgy. In his descrip
tion of the Christian life as a life of thanksgiving he
refers to divine reading, true enquiry, holy offering,
blessed prayer as forms of the activity in which that
life expressed itself, and speaks of the soul as
praising, hymning, blessing, and singing psalms 2 .
But he is more concerned with prayer as an expression
of the inner converse of the heart with God than
with its public expression in worship. If Christians
raise the head and lift the hands towards heaven,

1 For the views of Funk see Das Testament unseres Hewn und
die vertcandten Schriften (Mainz, 1901). Cf. also the remarks of
E. Bishop, /. Th. St. xiv. 56. For a useful review of modern
discussions see Bardenhewer, Patrology (Eng. tr., 1908), pp. 353 f.

2 Strom, vi. 14 (p. 797, Potter).

48 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

and stand on tiptoe as they join in the closing
outburst of prayer 1 , it is because they seek to follow
the eager flight of the spirit into the intelligible
world 2 .

Elsewhere he alludes to the kiss of peace 3 , and
the offering of bread and of wine mixed with water,
and mentions the custom of some who used water
alone 4 . He has been thought to refer to the Sanctus
in a passage of the Stromateis* , where he speaks of
giving thanks always to God, like the creatures
which give glory to God in Isaiah s allegory. Lastly,
he refers to the Fraction, and the practice (of which
he apparently disapproves) of allowing the com
municants to take each his portion, instead of receiving
it at the hands of others 8 .

The references of Origen are fuller, though in
cidental in character, much of the evidence commonly
adduced being of doubtful value. He implies the
distinction between the two parts of the service, the
missa catechumenwum and the missa fideUum 7 , and

1 The words /caret Trjv T\cvraiav TJS eixjs trvveK&lt;^u&gt;vt]triv may
refer to the final Amen in the public prayers. Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 16 ;
Justin, Ap. i. 65.

2 Strom, vii. 7 (p. 854, Potter).

3 Paed. iii. 11 (p. 301, Potter).

4 Strom, i. 19 (p. 375, Potter) vii. 12 (p. 880, Potter).

e Strom, i. 1 (p. 318, Potter). The relations of the Agape and
the Eucharist in the time of Clement have been much discussed.
Bigg (Chr. Platonists, pp. 102 f.) maintains their close association;
Keating (Agape, pp. 79 f.) denies it. The two were certainly
distinct in Rome and Carthage at this period.

7 See the reference to the disciplina arcani in in Lev. ix. 10.
On the disciplina arcani see Batiffol, Etudes, i. 1 f . ; Funk,
Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen, in. 42 f.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 49

the presence of catechumens at the sermon 1 . The
lessons included passages from the Old Testament
and were followed by expositions and exhortations 2 .
Many of the homilies of Origen on the Scriptures
were of this character. The sermon was followed by
prayers said standing 3 . In this connexion Origen in
one passage speaks of praying to God * that we may
be worthy to offer Him gifts, which He may restore
to us, and bestow upon us in Christ Jesus heavenly
things in exchange for earthly* From the parallel
between these last words and similar language found
in the deacon s litany of the Apostolic Constitutions
and in the intercessions in the Preface of St Mark s
Liturgy, it has been suggested that Origen is here
quoting a liturgical formula. But the idea is Scriptural
and a commonplace of Christian thought 5 . Origen
refers to the kiss of peace 8 following the prayers, and
to the offering of the gifts of bread and wine 7 .

1 in Luc. horn. vii.

2 in Exod. horn. xiii. 1 ; c. Cds. iii. 50.

3 in Num. horn. xx. 5. With the formula et ideo surgentes
oremus, found in Origen, compare the African formula in Augustine
conuersi ad doiniiium, and Sarapion, /nerd TO di/ao-rrji/ai diro T7?

4 in Luc. horn, xxxix.

Cf . 1 Cor. ix. 25 ; Jn iii. 12 ; 2 Cor. iv. 18. Another parallel
with Lit. of St Mark is found in the prayer which Origeu quotes in
a homily on Jeremiah (xiv. 14), Grant us our portion (fiepiia) with
the prophets. Grant us our portion with the Apostles of the Lord.
Cf. LEW. 129. 18. This again was a commonplace. Cf. Col. i. 12,
and see E. Bishop in J. Th. St. x. 595 f.

6 in Bom. x. 33.

7 in Luc. horn, xxxix ; c. Cds. viii. 34 (rdv aTrapyd* diro&ito-

S. L.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

Brightman sees possible reminiscences of Eucha-
ristic preface-forms in some words of Origen s treatise
Against Celsus 1 , in which he says :

And if we wish to have besides a number of beings
whom we desire to find friendly, we learn that thousand
thousands stood before Him, and ten thousand times ten
thousand ministered unto Him, and these regarding all as
their kinsmen and friends who imitate their piety towards
God... work along with them for their salvation.

In a passage of his H ami lies on Leviticus* Origen
alludes to the commemoration of the Passion made
in the Eucharist, in accordance with the command
do this in remembrance of Me/ and speaks of it as
making God propitious to men (he is comparing
the Jewish shewbread and the Christian Eucharist).
He refers more than once to the prayer pronounced
over the elements. Thus he speaks of the bread
sanctified by the Word of God and prayer 3 / of the
holy food as becoming profitable in virtue of the
prayer pronounced over it 4 / and of the loaves which
are offered with thanksgiving and prayer as becoming
on account of the prayer a certain ,holy body, which
sanctifies those who use it with right purpose 5 .
Elsewhere he has been thought to refer to the Sancta
sanctis*.

1 viii. 34. Cf. LEW. 508, n. 18.

2 in Lev. horn. xiii. 3.

in Matt. xi. 14. Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 5. Ao you is probably personal
in Origen s view. See p. 41 n., and cf. E. Bishop in Connolly s
Narsai, p. 156.

* in Matt. I. c. 5 c. Cels. viii. 33.

6 in Lev. ftom. xiii. 5, 6. Note the words sancta enira sanctorum
sunt. But this must not be pressed.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 51

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria (247 265 A.D.),
has a few passing allusions to liturgical customs. He
speaks of the Eucharistic prayer and the Amen at its
close, and of the communicant standing at the altar
and putting forth his hands to receive the holy food 1 .
He also refers to the custom of carrying or sending
the Eucharist to the sick 2 .

The writings of the Egyptian Fathers of the fourth
and fifth centuries enable us to supplement the frag
mentary references of Origen. Of the arrangement
of the churches we have several notices. The sanctuary,
which the laity might not enter, was screened off by
a lattice or rail (KayKeAAot, /ayKAi 8es). Altar veils
are mentioned by Synesius about 411 A.D. Within
was the altar, sometimes made of wood, sometimes a
slab supported on pillars. The bishop s throne and
the seats of the clergy around the altar are also
referred to. Mention is made of the pallium (w/xo-
&lt;optoi/) worn by the bishop, of the deacon s stole
(666 vrj), and of the use of albs (a-roixdpia. Xtva) 3 . These
elaborations exhibit the considerable developements
which took place in the furniture and appointments
of the churches during the fourth and fifth centuries.

Athanasius, describing a vigil service which pre
ceded the communion, mentions the reading of lessons,
and also refers to the deacon as reading a psalm to
which the people make response for His mercy

1 Ep. ad Xystum (ed. Feltoe, p. 58).

2 Ep. ad Fab. (ed. Feltoe, pp. 20 f.), where the priest, who is
himself sick, allows a boy to carry the Eucharist to the sick man.

3 For the references see LEW, 506.

52 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

endureth for ever 1 . Macarius similarly refers to the
lessons and psalmody which precede the celebration
of the mysteries 2 . The story of Antony supplies
evidence of the reading of the Gospel 3 . From Sozomen
we learn that it was the exclusive right of the arch
deacon at Alexandria to read the Gospel, and that
when it was read the bishop did not rise from his
seat, contrary to the custom of other churches 4 .
Athanasius refers to the fact that the catechumens
were not allowed to be present at the mysteries 5 , and
Cyril of Alexandria speaks of their departure before
the more solemn parts of the service began 6 . Cyril 7
also refers to the various proclamations made by the
deacons during the service, including their bidding
to stand for prayer. We find repeated allusions to
prayers for the Emperor, one such form being quoted
by Athanasius 8 . In Cyril s Letter to John of Antioch 9
he says, We have been taught to say in prayers (ep
Trpoo-evxats) " Lord our God, grant us peace : for thou
hast given us all things ". The same words occur in
one of the three prayers of the Coptic Liturgy 10 .
But it would be precarious to quote this text as
evidence for the liturgy in Cyril s day, for (1) Cyril
does not expressly refer to the liturgy : (2) the words

1 Hist. Ai-ian. 81 ; de Fuga 24. For the respond see p. 100.
8 de Charitate 29. 8 Vita Antonii 2, 3.

4 H. E. vii. 19. Elsewhere, as we learn from Isidore (Ej&gt;p.
i. 136), the bishop rose at the Gospel and put off his pallium .

8 Ap. c.Arian. 28, 46.

6 de Ador. in Spir. et Vent. xii. (i. b. 445, ed. Aubert).

7 Ibid. xiii. (p. 454). Cf. the Coptic eiri irpoaevxnv &lt;rTa6iJTe
(LEW. 158. 35). Ap. ad Const. 10.

9 Ep. ad loann. Ant. (v. c. 105). w LEW. 160. 20.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 53

are a literal reproduction of the LXX. of Is. xxvi. 12 :
(3) the Coptic litany referred to is quite different
from that of the Greek St Mark at this point of the
service, and as Brightman indicates 1 is borrowed
from the Coptic morning service : (4) the difference
of the two litanies (St Mark and the Coptic) suggests,
as Mr E. Bishop has pointed out to me, that their
insertion in both cases took place at a time when the
Greek and Coptic texts had already bifurcated.

Cyril further refers to the salutation, Peace be
with you all/ and the response, as uttered at the
very beginning of the mysteries 2 / Timothy of
Alexandria alludes to a proclamation by the deacon,
bidding non-communicants withdraw before the kiss
of peace 3 .

Athanasius 4 refers to the presentation and offering
of the oblations, and the custom still survived at
Alexandria towards the end of the century, for we
find Theophilus (whose episcopate covered the period
385 412 A.D.) directing in one of his Canons that
what remained over from the offerings, after there
had been taken from them the portions needed for
the mysteries, was to be distributed among the clergy
and the faithful, and that catechumens were not to
partake of them 6 . The Egyptian writers of the period
give no clear information as to the place which this

1 LEW. 159u.

3 in loann. xii. 1 (iv. 1093). Brightman places the salutation
in connexion with the offertory (LEW. 504. 27 f.). But in the
Coptic it precedes the prayer of the kiss of peace.

8 resp, can. 9. 4 Ap. c. Arian. 28.

6 Can. 1 (P. G. Ixv. 41 A).

54 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

offering occupied in the liturgy. Probably it followed
the kiss of peace, and, as Brightman points out, the
liturgy of St Mark shews in the deacon s proclamations
traces of the previous existence of the offertory at this
point 1 .

It is possible that the deacon s proclamation to
stand in order and be quiet/ to which Cyril alludes,
may belong to the beginning of the Anaphora, and
that the further proclamation, bidding the people * to
sing a hymn of praise (v/xvoAoyetv), may have pre
ceded the Sanctus*. Athanasius alludes to the com
memoration of the hymn of the Seraphim in all the
churches of the East and "West in his time 8 , and in
the words in which both Athanasius and Didymus
speak of the Seraphs hymn there may be possibly
reminiscences of liturgical forms 4 .

In Cyril s third letter to Nestorius 5 we have what
seems to be a clear reminiscence of the Anamnesis of
the liturgy. His words are :

Proclaiming the death after the flesh of the only-
begotten Son of God... and confessing his return to life

1 LEW. 508, n.13.

2 Cyril, de Ador. in Spir. et Vent. xiii. (i. 454). The Coptic has
Trpo&lt;r&lt;f&gt;epeiv Kara Tpo/mov (v.L Tpoirov) (rratitiTf (JjEW. 164. 8),
and before the Sanctus the proclamation irpoa-xwutv-

8 de Trin. et Spir. s. 16.

4 Ath., in illud Omnia mihi 6. Note rd ri/jna uia Tavra, and
cf. Sarapion, TO 5o r tuna-Tarn. crcpaQein, and St Mark (LEW.
131. 25). With Didymus, de Trin. ii. 6. 18 uvravafytavovvriav
aViyfJTOis o"ro/ua&lt;rt /cat ctKaTaTrauerra) &lt;/&gt;u)i/p, cf. Mark, A. (7., James
(LEW. 131. 28 f. ; 18. 30; 50. 26 f.). Lastly, with Isidore (Epp.
\. 151), iroXvofjLfiaTa wa, cf. Mark and James (LEW. 131. 26;
50. 23).

s y. 72 c (Aubert).

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 55

from the dead (r^v CK v&lt;pa&gt;v avafiiuxnv] and his assumption
into Heaven, we celebrate the unbloody sacrifice 1 in our
churches, and thus approach the mystic blessings, and are
sanctified, becoming partakers of the holy flesh and the
precious blood of Christ the Saviour of us all.

The words underlined exhibit considerable paral
lelism with the Anamnesis in the liturgy of St Mark 2 ,
with the exception that Cyril uses a different word
to denote the resurrection (dva/StWis ; dvaa-rao-i? in
St Mark). In both we find the addition from the
dead/ and the reference to the Ascension 3 .

The earliest reference to the Invocation of the
Holy Spirit in Egyptian Church writers is found in
Peter of Alexandria (the successor of Athanasius),
who speaks of the * holy altar where we invoke the
descent of the Holy Spirit 4 . Theophilus of Alex
andria attributes the consecration of the elements to
* the invocation and advent of the Holy Spirit 5 , and
similarly Isidore of Pelusium 6 . On the other hand,
Athanasius, in accordance with what appears to have
been the Alexandrine tradition (e.g. Clement and
Origen), connects the consecration with the operation
of the Logos, and says, * when the great prayers and
holy supplications have been sent up, the Word
comes down into the bread and the cup, and they

1 Qvaiav. v.l. \aTptiav = service."

* LEW. 133. 22 f. Cf. St James (LEW. 52. 21 f.).

3 The words from the dead are not found in the Coptic or
Abyssinian, though both contain the reference to the Ascension.

4 See Theodoret, H. E. iv. 19.

5 Lib. paschal, i. (in Jerome, Ep. xcviii. 13).
Epp. i. 313.

56 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

become His Body 1 . Cyril alludes to the Fraction 2 .
The use of the Lord s Prayer in the liturgy is referred
to by Synesius 3 , but there is no mention of it in
Cyril, and fourth-century evidence for it is wanting.
There is no explicit reference to the Sancta sanctis
in the liturgy in any Egyptian father earlier than
Cyril 4 (see however p. 50). Lastly Athanasius speaks
of the dismissal 5 .

Reference has been made earlier in the present
chapter to the liturgy contained in the Ethiopic
Church Order, of which we have also an ancient
Latin translation (made independently of the Ethiopic)
in the Verona Fragments published by Hauler 6 . What
ever be the date and provenance of the Church Order
in which it is embedded 7 , this liturgy is undoubtedly
of the utmost value to the student of early liturgy.
The description which it gives occurs in connexion
with the consecration of a bishop. After his con
secration he is to receive the kiss of peace from all,

1 ad nuper baptizatos (P. G. xxvi. 1325).

See catena quoted in LEW. 508, n. 21.

3 de RegnOj p. 9 (reading ndrep ij/uwi/ eK/3ou&gt;&lt;rai).

* in loann. xii. (iv. 1086). Didymus shews acquaintance with
the formula Els a-yios KT\., but does not connect it with the liturgy.
See LEW. 509, n. 26.

5 Hist. Arian. 55.

For text see Hauler, op. cit. 106, 107 (Latin) ; for the Ethiopic
see Horner, Statutes of Apostles, 139 f. There is a parallel account
as far as the opening words of the Preface in the Coptic (Horner,
p. 307 ; this is the Egyptian Church Order of Maclean, Ancient
Church Orders, p. 8), and in the Canons of Hippolytus, c. iii.
(Achelis).

7 See Maclean, op. cit. pp. 160 f. ; Funk, Das Testament unseres
Herrn u. die verivandten Schriften (1901), pp. 29 f.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 57

and then the deacons are to bring to him the oblation,
and he is to lay his hands upon it with all the
presbyters, and then say the thanksgiving. This is
prefaced with the salutation in the form, * The Lord
be with you, followed by the response and with thy
spirit. Then follows the dialogue of the Preface Lift
up your hearts, to which response is made we have
them with the Lord. Again the bishop says Let us
give thanks to the Lord, and the people respond it
is meet and right. The Eucharistic thanksgiving is
short, and commemorates the Incarnation, Passion,
and Institution of the Eucharist. The account of
the institution is simple and undeveloped 1 . A short
Anamnesis and oblation follow in the form :

Remembering therefore his death and resurrection we
offer thee the bread and the cup, giving thanks to thee
that thou hast made us worthy to stand before thee and
minister unto thee 2 .

The Invocation is simple in character. It contains
no prayer (as in later forms) for the operation of the
Holy Spirit upon the elements that they may become
the Body and Blood of Christ, but has in view the
blessings to be obtained from Communion. It runs
as follows in the Ethiopic text 3 :

And we beseech thee to send thy Holy Spirit upon
this oblation of the Church, that in joining (them) together 4
thou mayest grant to them, to all of them, to them who
take of it, that it may be to them for holiness and for

1 The only later addition is which is broken (of the hread).

2 The Latin version is given. Homer, p. 141.

* The rendering is doubtful. The Latin has ?i unum congregant
des omnibus.

58 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

filling (them) with the Holy Spirit, and for strengthening
of faith in truth, that thee they may glorify and praise
through thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.

The general form of this Invocation resembles
that found in the Apostolic Constitutions, but the
latter shews considerable developement and exhibits
the hand of the compiler, who has not only expanded
the form before him and introduced into it his own
characteristic phraseology, but has also made the
Invocation a prayer that the elements may become
the Body and Blood of Christ 1 . We may therefore
regard the Invocation given above as a primitive
formula which goes back to an earlier stage of
developement than that found in Cyril of Jerusalem,
Sarapion, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

The account in the Verona Fragments concludes
the Invocation with an ascription of praise to the
Trinity, and then gives a prayer for the blessing of
oil and cheese and olives (these last words are
omitted in the Ethiopic Church Order). This finds a
parallel in the Canons of Hippolytus 2 , where pro
vision is made at the close of the Eucharistic prayer
for the blessing of oil and first-fruits, followed in each
case by the Gloria patri*.

Here the account in the Verona Fragments ends,
but the Ethiopic Church Order supplies further forms

1 The actual words are: caTa7re ^n/ATjs TO oiytov a-ov iri/ey/ua...
OTTO)? a.Tro&lt;f&gt;j)vri TOV aprov TOVTOV troika TOV ^pKrrov trov KT\.

2 C. iii.

8 Similarly in the Roman rite the consecration of oils on Maundy
Thursday, and the blessing of first-fruits on Ascension Day take
place before the per quern haec omnia at the end of the Canon.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 59

beginning with the doxology of the people As it
was, is, and shall be to generation of generation, and
to age of age. Amen. This forms the response of
the people to the Eucharistic prayer, and finds a
parallel in Sarapion 1 . It is followed by two prayers
for communicants said by the bishop, with a bidding
by the deacon, Pray ye, before the second, at the
conclusion of which there is a blessing by the bishop,
preceded by the deacon s bidding As ye stand, bow
down your heads. The Sancta sanctis follows in the
form Holiness to the saints, with the response One
Holy Father, one Holy Son, one is the Holy Spirit.
The communion is preceded by the salutation The
Lord be with you all and the response And with
thy spirit, after which occurs the rubric And then
they shall lift up their hands for glorifying, and the
people shall come in for the salvation of their souls,
in order that their sins may be remitted. A form of
thanksgiving follows the communion. An imposition
of hands with prayer by the presbyter, a final saluta
tion by the bishop, and the dismissal by the deacon,
conclude the account.

Bishop Maclean 2 regards the whole of this account
in the Ethiopic Church Order which follows the
blessing of oils as a later interpolation, owing to its
absence from the Verona Fragments. But it exhibits
some early features (notably the prayers for com
municants and the absence of the intercessions) and
is in accord with the general spirit of the rite as
exhibited in the earlier portions.

1 See p. 70. 2 Ancient Church Orders, pp. 39, 53.

60 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

The account of the baptismal Eucharist adds a
few details to the above 1 . Directions are given for
the fraction of the bread and its distribution with
the formula This is the heavenly bread, the Body of
our Lord Christ 2 / while the cup is administered with
the words This is the Blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ. The communicants respond in each case
Amen. Milk and honey are given to the newly-
baptized at the time of communion.

We may now proceed to consider some features
of the liturgy described in the preceding account.

(1) The absence of all mention of the Sanctus
may point to the fact that this was one of the
elements which had not as yet attained a fixed place
in the liturgy.

(2) The absence of Intercessions after the close
of the Anaphora, when compared with the recital of
names of the departed in Sarapion and the very full
intercessions in the Apostolic Constitutions, is a
further indication of early date.

(3) The absence of the Lord s Prayer accords
with what we have already noticed with regard to
the silence of Egyptian Church writers during the
fourth century as to its use in the liturgy 3 .

(4) The omission of the Fraction in the account
of the Ethiopic Church Order is probably accidental,
as it is referred to in the account of the baptismal
Eucharist.

1 Homer, pp. 155 f. Cp. Canons of Hippolytus, c. xix.
* The Latin has panis caelestis in Christo lesu.
8 See further, pp. 56, 70.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 61

(5) The rubric enjoining the bishop to put his
hand on the oblation with the presbyters and to say
the thanksgiving appears to refer to the practice of
1 concelebration, in which the presbyters were closely
associated with the bishop in the celebration of the
Eucharist 1 .

The Testament of our Lord 2 is a document of uncertain
date and provenance. Zahn and Maclean assign to it a
date about 350 A.D., but Funk places it in the fifth century
and Harnack also now inclines to a late date. The com
piler appears to have had before him a liturgy almost
identical with that of the Ethiopic Church Order for the
portions between the Offertory and the Invocation, but he
has expanded and freely interpolated his material. Hence
the work cannot be adduced with any confidence as evidence
for early usage, though it has preserved some primitive
features derived from earlier sources. Like the Ethiopic
Church Order it does not contain the Sanctus or the
Lord s Prayer. The Invocation, addressed to the Trinity
and in this respect perhaps not representing the original
text, resembles that of the Ethiopic Church Order in
character, in so far as it asks merely that the drink and food
presented may be * not for condemnation, not for reproach,
not for destruction, but for the medicine and support of our
spirit. 3 Other features are (1) the position of the Sancta
sanctis which is found (with the response * in heaven and
on earth without ceasing ) after the Sursum corda, not, as
in other rites, before Communion : (2) the Benedictus qui
venit, which comes, as in the Apostolic Constitutions,
before the Communion, and does not include the Hosanna :
(3) the service of prayers, psalmody, lessons and instruction
provides for the dismissal of catechumens with laying
on of hands, but no forms are given: (4) the deacon s

i See Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace*, pp. 156 f.

a See Cooper-Maclean, Testament of our Lord, pp. 69 ff.

62 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

Ectene (or litany) exhibits a developed form, and concludes
with a rubric directing the bishop to complete (the
prayer 1 ) : (5) there is a short intercession icithin the
Anaphora.

From the Testament is derived the Abyssinian Ana
phora of our Lord 2 , though the latter has been expanded
with other material derived from the normal Abyssinian
anaphora. The most characteristic feature of the A naphora
of our Lord is its insertion of an intercession in the middle
of the Eucharistic thanksgiving, a feature which it shares
with, and probably derives from, the normal Abyssinian
rite, and which also appears in the Greek St Mark and
the Coptic rite. But, as Mr E. Bishop has shewn 3 , when
resolved into its constituent elements, the Anaphora of
our Lord ceases to be an independent witness to the
liturgical customs of early times.

We may now pass to a document which is the
most important discovery of recent times for the
knowledge of the early liturgy in Egypt. The Sacra-
mentary of Sarapion, Bishop of Thmuis in the
Nile Delta, appears to have been written somewhere
about 350 356 A.D. Its author was a friend of
Athanasius. It contains a collection of prayers in
tended primarily for the use of a bishop. In the
Eucharistic Preface the language of these prayers
exhibits a close correspondence with the liturgy of
St Mark, though in other respects they have a
character distinct from that of other known forms.
There are scarcely any rubrics, and the contents of

1 The modern Abyssinian litany presents some close parallels
with that of the Testament. See LE W. 206 f .

2 English translation in Cooper-Maclean, Testament, App. i.
J. Th. tff.xii.399f.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 63

the collection are arranged without regard to their
proper order. This renders the reconstruction of
their order a matter of some uncertainty 1 . In what
follows the order suggested by Brightman has been
adopted.

The preliminary missa catechumenorum is repre
sented by the first prayer of the Lord s Day (19),
a prayer * after the rising up from the sermon (20),
a prayer for catechumens (21), and a benediction
(Xtpo0crta) of catechumens (28). The first of these
contains a petition for the Holy Spirit and for grace
to learn the divine Scriptures from the Holy Spirit
and to interpret clearly and worthily/ which recalls
the prayer of St Mark s liturgy, entitled cvxrj \&gt;
Tpio-ayiov 2 , and which undoubtedly preceded the
lessons, as does the prayer in St Mark 3 . There
is nothing corresponding to the prayer in the other
Eastern sources during the fourth century, and the
evidence of Chrysostom seems to shew that at Antioch
and Constantinople the lessons were simply preceded
by the salutation.

The prayer after the sermon is illustrated by the
words * let us arise and pray, which occur in some of
Origen s sermons. There is a corresponding prayer

1 For text see Wobberinin, Texte u. Untersuch. Neuefolge, ii. 36
(Leipzig, 1899) ; Brightman, /. Th. St. i. 99 f . There is an English
translation in J. Wordsworth s Bishop Sarapioris Prayer Book
(Early Church Classics), S.P.C.K., London, 2nd ed., 1910.

2 Note especially the words in Mark, K-aravyavov TOUS o&lt;/&gt;0o\-
fiovy T7? &lt;$iai/oia fj/uaii; els KaTavor\(riv Tiav detwv crov \oyiutv.

3 Bishop Wordsworth compares the title of this prayer with that
of the Coptic first prayer of the morning, but the position and
substance of the two prayers are different.

64 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

after the Gospel in the Coptic rite 1 , in which, as in
Sarapion, there is a reference to the fruitful under
standing of what has been read. The prayer for the
catechumens and their benediction are the only
prayers representing the ceremony of the dismissals.
There is no mention of the dismissal of the penitents,
such as we find in some other fourth century Eastern
sources (see pp. 91, 100, 113, 116).

The prayers which follow cannot be arranged in
their proper order with any certainty. They in
clude a prayer for the people (27) and a benediction
(XfipoOtaria) of the people (29), a prayer and benedic
tion of the sick (22, 30), a prayer for fruitfulness (23),
for the Church (24), and for the bishop and the church
(25) ; lastly a * prayer of bending of the knee

(yovv/cXunas, 26).

The great wealth of prayers exhibited at this
point of the service finds a parallel in the very full
intercessions which appear in the Egyptian rites. In
other fourth century Eastern sources we find in
the corresponding position the deacon s litany and
the bishop s prayers (Apostolic Constitutions), or the
* three prayers of the faithful mentioned in the
canons of the Council of Laodicea (can. 19) 2 . Bishop

1 LEW. p. 157. Brightman (J". Th. St. i. 94) compares also the
prayer 6 cftjx io as tj /xas in the Greek St James.

a See pp. 101, 113. Duchesne, Chr. Worship (E. tr.), p. 79, thinks
that all these prayers are not to be considered as part of the official
ordo lilurgicus of the Church of Thmuis, but that they are such
as might be used at a non-liturgical service, or a liturgical service
before the Anaphora. Brightman (J. Th. 8. i. 95) thinks that the
Egyptian use of table-prayers on Wednesdays and Fridays

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 65

Wordsworth suggests that the prayer of bending of
the knee was intended as a form of confession of sin,
preparatory to the offertory. It corresponds in its
general substance to the Prayer of the Veil in the
Coptic Liturgy 1 , and is a prayer for cleansing and
forgiveness.

There is no mention of the kiss of peace, though,
as we have seen, the evidence of Clement and Origen
points to its having found a place in the liturgy.
Nor is there any mention of the people s offering,
which, in the general absence of rubrics, is not sur
prising, though there is an allusion to those who
have offered the offerings in the prayers of the
Anaphora.

There is no mention of the Sursum Corda, though
this appears to be presupposed, as the Eucharistic
prayer, which is entitled * Offertory prayer of bishop
Sarapion (1), begins with the words It is meet and
right, which implies the usual framework of this
portion of the liturgy. The introduction to the
Sanctus is identical with the language of the Greek
and Coptic St Mark, beginning with the words For
thou art far above all rule and authority and power.
There is however no intercession interpolated before
these words, as is the case in St Mark. Sarapion
is free from the elaborations which in the Greek St
Mark follow the words spoken of the Cherubim and

(Socrates, H. E. v. 22) may explain the multiplication of prayers
here.

1 LEW. 158. This prayer however is a comparatively late
addition.

S. L. 5

66 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

Seraphim, * with twain they fly, and proceeds at once
with the words with whom receive also our hallow
ing (dyiaoyxoV) as we say Holy, holy, holy, Lord of
Sabaoth 1 . The Sanctus is quite simple and agrees
with Isaiah vi. 3, except that it speaks of Heaven
and earth. In this respect the Sanctus of Sarapion
accords with that found in St Mark and the
Abyssinian rite (except that the latter have the form
holy glory ), whereas the later Syrian, Byzantine and
Roman forms add the Hosanna and Benedictus qui
venit*.

The correspondence of Sarapion with St Mark is
continued in the words which follow the Sanctus.
Like St Mark, Sarapion takes up the cue of the
Sanctus from the word full and resumes the thanks
giving in the form Jutt is the heaven, full also is the
earth of thy excellent glory. Lord of Hosts, fill also
this sacrifice with thy power and thy participation.
This again is an Egyptian characteristic, whereas
in the Syrian form (Apostolic Constitutions and St
James; so also St Basil) the cue is taken from the
word holy, and the thanksgiving continues holy
art thou, etc.

The section of the Anaphora which follows contains
a preliminary form of Invocation Fill also this sacrifice

1 The intervening passage in St Mark (LEW. 131. 25132. 5) is
a later insertion, partly borrowed from St James (LEW. 50. 26 f.)
and partly due to independent elaboration. The Coptic (LEW.
175. 29 30) is nearer Sarapion, though it also has been retouched.
Without these additions St Mark and the Coptic present sub
stantially the same text as Sarapion.

2 On the Sanctus in the Apostolic Constitutions see p. 103.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 67

with thy power and thy participation, before the
recital of the Institution, in this resembling St Mark,
and it combines the recital of the Institution with a
statement of the purpose of the offering of the gifts.
But whereas in the Syrian form contained in the
Apostolic Constitutions the recital of the Institution
leads up to the Anamnesis and Oblation, in Sarapion
the account of the Institution, which is used to
justify the offering of the bread and the cup, is
preceded by the words to thee we have offered the
bread, the likeness of the body of the Only-begotten.
This bread is the likeness of the holy body, for the
Lord Jesus in the night, etc., and similar words are
spoken after the recital of the Institution. There is
similar language before and after the recital of the
institution of the cup 1 .

The recital of the institution is simple in character,
but contains a few additions which may be paralleled
from later Egyptian rites 2 . There is no mention of
the words he gave thanks or do this in remem
brance of me. There is a peculiar rendering of the
words spoken over the cup, the form being * This is
the new covenant, which (o) is my blood, which is
being shed for you for the remission of sins. Lastly,
between the two institutions there is a petition * We
beseech thee through this sacrifice be reconciled to all

1 On the significance of this language, cf. ch. ix.

2 Note (1) which is broken for remission of sins after body.
Cf. St Mark and Coptic (LEW. 132. 30; 177. 5) ; (2) take before
drink. Cf. Coptic (LEW. 177. 23); (3) He gave (said) to his
own disciples (based on Mk viii. 6). Cf. St Mark and Coptic
(132. 22 f.; 177. If.).

68 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

of us/ and a prayer for the gathering of the Church
into one, which recalls the language of the Didache 1 .

The Invocation is a prayer for the operation of
the Word, and not, as in the Ethiopic Church Order
and the Syrian fourth century sources, for the Holy
Spirit. This accords with the evidence of Athanasius
and with the spirit of the Alexandrine tradition
reflected in Clement and Origen 2 . On the other
hand the Invocation in Sarapion marks an advance
upon that found in the Ethiopic Church Order in
explicitly praying that the bread may become the
body of the Word and the cup the blood of the
Truth 3 .

The Invocation is followed by a prayer for the
congregation who are about to communicate that
they may receive a medicine of life for the healing
of every sickness and for the strengthening of all
advancement and virtue, not for condemnation... and
not for censure and reproach 4 . The prayer continues
Let this people receive mercy and proceeds to ask
for the companionship of angels to the people, * for
bringing to naught of the evil one and for establish
ment of the Church. At this stage there occurs an
intercession for the departed, with a rubric directing
that the latter part of the intercession is to be said

i ix. 4. 2 See pp. 50, 55 f.

8 On the word eiri$j/ue?i/ used of the Logos see Brightman,
J. Th. St. i. 97.

4 For this prayer for communicants cf. the Ethiopic Church
Order, Apostolic Constitutions, and the Litt. of SS. Mark, James,
Basil, and Chrysostom, in all of which it immediately follows the
Invocation.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 69

after the recital of the names (/xera TT)V v
TWJ/ oro/xarwv). The prayer is resumed with a request
to God to receive the thanksgiving (cuxapiori av) of
the people and to bless those who have offered the
offerings and thanksgivings. The whole of this
prayer from the words Let this people receive mercy
was regarded by the late Bishop of Salisbury as cor
responding to the Great Intercession in the Greek
liturgies. But Mr E. Bishop 1 has recently contended
that in its general structure (apart from the clauses
containing the intercession for the departed and the
rubric on the recital of names) it is a continuation
of the prayer for the communicants which immediately
follows the Invocation. The communicants, this
people (or the people ), the offerers, are but dif
ferent aspects of the same body, the congregation
engaged in the Eucharistic service. Thus the spirit
of this part of the anaphora in Sarapion would recall
the similar spirit of the Ethiopic Church Order, where
the prayers after the Invocation are concentrated
upon the coming communion 2 . The conclusion which
Mr E. Bishop draws from these features of the ana
phora in question is that the recital of names of the
departed with intercession for them was not an
original practice in the rite represented in Sarapion,
but was an importation. Sarapion is the earliest
document in which such recital of names occurs, but
the way in which Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the
commemoration of the departed after the consecration

1 /. Th. 8. xiv. 2736.

2 See further on this subject, ch. viii.

70 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

suggests that the practice was already current at
Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century, and
that it may have been imported thence into Egypt 1 .

The closing words of the anaphora are through
the only-begotten Jesus Christ in holy Spirit, after
which follows the formula as it was and is and shall
be to generations of generations and to all the ages
of the ages. Amen. This formula has no close
connexion with what precedes and Brightman regards
it as a response made by the people 2 . It was
evidently the conventional conclusion and corresponds
to forms found in the Egyptian rites (St Mark,
Copt., Abyss.).

A rubric follows : after the prayer comes the
Fraction and in the Fraction a prayer. Brightman
understands the words after the prayer to contain
a reference to the Lord s Prayer, which would thus
precede the Fraction. But this is not by any means
conclusive, nor may any great reliance be placed on
the words pray ye in the Ethiopic Church Order,
as evidence of the use of the Lord s Prayer at this
point of the service 3 .

The prayer of the Fraction is an Egyptian feature,
and as given in Sarapion is preparatory to communion 4 .
There is no allusion to the Sancta sanctis, which is
found however in the Ethiopic Church Order; nor
are the words of administration given. The order of

1 See/. Th. St. xiv. 36 f.

2 Cf. the Ethiopic Church Order, p. 59.

8 See p. 59 and Brightman, J. Th. St. i. 113.
4 The corresponding prayer in the Coptic rite (LEW. 181. 15 f.)
serves as an introduction to the Lord s Prayer.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 71

the concluding prayers in Sarapion is (a) a prayer of
benediction (\tipo6tcr to) of the people before com
munion ; (6) a prayer after the distribution to the
people (a thanksgiving for communion); (c) a final
benediction (xfipoOfo-ia). This order corresponds to
later Egyptian and Syrian usage.

Before the concluding benediction a form is pro
vided in Sarapion for the blessing of water and oil.
It is entitled prayer concerning the oils and waters
that are offered/ and it contains a petition that
healing power may be bestowed upon them 1 . The
position of the prayer differs from that of the similar
prayer found in the Ethiopia Church Order, and the
Canons of Hippolytus, where, as we have seen, it
comes at the close of the Anaphora. There is a
similar prayer in the Apostolic Constitutions 2 though
its position in relation to the liturgy is not indicated,
and the same statement applies to the corresponding-
prayer in the Testament of our Lord 3 , where, how
ever, it is referred to immediately after the account
of the liturgy.

The recent discovery in Upper Egypt of three
papyrus liturgical fragments has supplied a fresh
source of evidence for the history of the Egyptian
liturgy 4 . The date of these fragments is, according

1 The water is to be druiik; the oil is for anointing (oirut?.
ird&lt;ra j/ocros Sid Trfe Troffecas /cot Trjs a\eii//eeo airaXXayp).

2 viii. 29. i. 24, 25.

4 For a description of the fragments see Dom Puniet in Revue
benedictine, xxvi. (1909), p. 34 ; E. von der Goltz in Zeitschr. fiir
Kgesch. (1909), pp. 352 f . ; Cabrol, DACL. art. Canon. They
have been edited by T. Schermann, Der liturgische Papyrus von

72 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

to Mr W. E. Crum, the seventh or eighth century.
Dr Schermann, as the result of a careful study of
them, has restored their order as follows 1 :

(1) Common prayer of the Church (prayer of the
faithful). Fol. l r ~ v .

(2) Eucharistic thanksgiving, with Sanctus, In
vocation, Institution, and Anamnesis. Fol. l v 2 V .

(3) Prayer for the fruits of communion. Fol. 3 r .

(4) Short creed. Fol. 3 V .

This order is confirmed by that of the baptismal
Eucharist in the Verona fragments, where there is
also a short creed in connexion with the administration
of the chalice and milk to the newly- baptized 2 .

From this it would appear that the liturgy con
tained in the papyrus followed on baptism.

The contents of (1) are very fragmentary and
cannot be restored with any certainty. The prayer
contained in (3) runs as follows :

...of thy gift unto the power of the Holy Ghost, unto
confirmation and increase of faith, unto the hope of eternal
life to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
to thee the Father be glory with the Holy Ghost for ever.
Amen.

This prayer recalls the concluding words of the
Invocation found in the Ethiopic Church Order 3 and
in Sarapion. The doxology forms the conclusion of the
Anaphora. The Creed contained in (4) exhibits
parallels with the baptismal creed of the Ethiopic

Der-Balyzeh in Texte und Untersuch. xxxvi. 1 b (Leipzig, 1910).
See also his later work Agyptische Abendmahlsliturgien des ersten
Jakrtausends (1912).

1 op. cit. pp. 3 f. 2 Hauler, p. 113. 3 See pp. 57 f., 70.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 73

Church Order 1 (except that the latter has &lt;me God
and resurrection of the body ). It also agrees
closely with early Roman creed forms. Thus it has
/ believe in place of the Eastern we believe ; it
omits one before God, and it has the clause
resurrection of flesh. It concludes with holy catholic
church.

But the main interest of the new discovery centres
in (2) in which we find the central portion of the
Anaphora. It begins with a part of the Preface
leading up to the Sanctus. Then follows a short
introduction to the Invocation of the Holy Spirit,
which is in turn followed by the recital of the
institution and a short Anamnesis. The relationship
of the forms contained in the fragment to the cor
responding portions of the liturgy of Sarapion on the
one hand, and the liturgy of St Mark on the other,
may be illustrated by the following table, in which
the parallel passages of St Mark are given, while the
portions of the fragment found in Sarapion are
marked in italics. The reconstruction of Dom Puniet
has been followed.

Oxford Papyrus. St Mark.

[Around thee stand the Behind thee stand the

seraphim 2 ], the one [has six two most honourable living

wings], a[nd the other has creatures, the many-eyed

si]x [wings]. And with twain cherubim,and the six- winged

they covered their face, and seraphim, which with two

1 Horner, p. 173.

2 The reconstruction here is conjectural, as in other passages
which are bracketed.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

Oxford Papyrus.

with twain their feet, and
with twain they did fly. All
things always hallow thee,
but along with all who hallow
thee, receive also our hallow
ing, as we say to thee, Holy,
holy, holy, Lord of hosts.
Full is the heaven and the
earth of thy glory. Fill also
us with the glory that is
with thee, and vouchsafe to
send thy Holy Spirit upon
these creatures and [make]
the bread the body of our
[Lord and] Saviour Jesus
Christ, and the cup the
blood of the new [covenant.
For our Lord Jesus Christ
in the nig]ht [in which he
was being betrayed took
bread and gave than]ks,
a[nd when he had blessed
it, he brake it and gave it]
to h is disciples and apost]les,
saying, T[ake, eat all o]f it.
This [is my] body, which is
being given for you unto
remission of sins. Likfewise
aft\er supper he took the cup,
a[nd] when he had blessed
it and had drunk, he gave

St Mark.

wings covering their faces
and with two their feet, and
with two flying. ..All things
always hallow thee, but along
with all who hallow thee,
receive also our hallowing...
as we sing with them and
say Holy, holy, holy, Lord
of hosts. Full is the heaven
and the earth of thy holy
glory... Fill, God, also this
sacrifice with the blessing
which is from thee 1 .... that
he may make the bread the
body, and the cup the blood
of the new covenant of our
very Lord and God and
Saviour... For our Lord...
Jesus Christ... distributed it
to his holy and blessed
disciples and apostles say ing,
Take, eat.

This is my body, which
is being broken 2 for you
and distributed, unto remis
sion of sins. Likewise also
after he had supped, taking
the cup. . .when he had given
thanks and blessed it...
Drink 3 all of it.

This is my blood of the

1 Sarapion has similarly Fill also this sacrifice with thy power
and thy participation.

2 So Sarapion.

3 But the Coptic has take, drink.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 75

Oxford Papyrus. St Mark.

it to them saying, Take, new covenant 1 which is being
drink all of it. This is my shed for you and for many. . .
blood which is being shed for unto remission of sins... For
you unto remission of sins. as often as ye eat this bread
As [often] as ye eat this and drink this cup, ye pro-
bread, and drink this cup, claim my death and ye
ye proclaim my death, ye confess my resurrection [and
confess my resurrection 2 . ascension] until I come.
We p[roclaim] thy death, Proclaiming the death... of
we [confess] thy resurrec- thy only-begotten Son, and
tion, and intreat... confessing his... resurrection

and ascension 3 into heaven. . .

The parallels exhibited above shew that the
Oxford papyrus presents considerable correspondence
with Sarapion on the one hand and St Mark on the
other. It approaches more nearly to St Mark in
several respects. (1) It contains the words of the
Preface all things hallow thee, but along with all
who hallow thee/ which are absent from Sarapion.
(2) It has in the Invocation the words the cup, the
blood of the new covenant, as in St Mark. (3) It
agrees more closely with St Mark than does Sarapion
in its recital of the Institution 4 . (4) It has the

1 Sarapion has This is the new covenant, which is my blood.

2 Reading dvdaTaaiv for dvdfjLi&gt;tj&lt;riv, which is certainly corrupt.

3 The ascension is also mentioned by Cyril of Alexandria in his
Third Letter to Nestorius. See p. 55.

4 Note, e.g. disciples and apostles ; the form of the words
spoken over the cup; lastly, the words as often as ye eat. ..ye
proclaim my death, ye confess my resurrection. (For the intro
duction of 1 Cor. xi. 26 as part of the Institution at the Last Supper
cf. A. C., Testament of our Lord, and the Western de Sacramentis.)
Against these parallels we can only set body which is being

76 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

opening words of the Anamnesis of St Mark. In
view of these facts, and especially in view of the
more developed form of the Anamnesis, it seems
probable that the fragment is later than Sarapion.
Against this conclusion we have to set (1) the more
subjective character of the prayer, Fill also us with
the glory which is from thee, which replaces the
form fill this sacrifice with thy power (Sar.) or
with the blessing which is from thee (Mark). This
is regarded by Dom Puniet as an indication of early
date. But the Oxford fragment is lacking in many
of the early features of Sarapion, e.g. the description
of the bread and the cup as * a likeness of the body/
and a likeness of the blood ; the Invocation of the
Logos in place of the Holy Spirit ; lastly the prayer
from the Didache which is interposed between the
two parts of the Institution. Nor again is the com
parison of the fragment with the Anaphora of the
Ethiopic Church Order favourable to an earlier date.
It has none of the early features which the latter
exhibits, e.g. the absence of the fianctus, and the
simple form of Invocation in place of the prayer that
the elements may become the Body and Blood of
Christ. Its language in fact points to a stage of
developement in which liturgical forms are becoming
fixed, and more developed conceptions as to the agent
and effects of consecration are being entertained 1 .

broken (Sar., Mark) for given of the Oxford fragment. Note
when he had blessed it and kad dmnk. Cf. LEW. 177. 21.

1 These facts render very improbable the early date claimed for
the anaphora of this fragment by Von der Goltz (/. c.) who places it
before the fourth century documents, or of Schermaiin (op. cit.

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 77

The comparison of the fragment with Sarapion
and St Mark shews that it exhibits the characteristic
Egyptian features. The form of the Sanctus, with
the characteristic Egyptian cue by which the prayer
is resumed after the Sanctus 1 , the similarity of the
language of the Institution to that in St Mark s
liturgy, lastly the form of the Anamnesis, all point to
its Egyptian origin. One feature which has given
rise to much discussion is the position of the Invoca
tion (which in the later manner is a request for the
descent of the Holy Spirit to make the elements the
Body and Blood of Christ) before, instead of after,
the recital of the Institution. But the fragmentary
character of the document renders caution necessary
in drawing any conclusions from this fact, especially
as we are ignorant whether it contained any further
invocation in the normal place. The Invocation
exhibited in the text of the fragment may be nothing
more than a further elaboration of the preliminary
invocation found in St Mark 2 Fill this sacrifice with
the blessing which is from thee through the coming
upon it of thy all-holy Spirit.

The above description of the liturgy current in
Egypt, so far as it may be gathered from the quotations
of Egyptian Church writers and from liturgical forms
during our period, shews that certain features were
more or less developed. Among these we may notice :

(1) The Anaphora corresponded to the later

p. 39), who assigns it to the third century or the end of the second
century.

i p. 66. 2 LEW. 132. 13 f.

78 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

Egyptian forms in its general framework. The Sanctus
is simple in form and corresponds with that of the
liturgy of St Mark, omitting the additions found in
the Syrian, Roman, and Byzantine forms. The Preface
exhibited in Sarapion corresponds to the later Egyptian
plan and phraseology, taking its cue from the word
4 full (-rrXijprji) in the Sanctus, while the corresponding
Syrian form takes up the cue from the word holy
(ay 10?). The Anamnesis, as referred to by Cyril of
Alexandria, also accords with that of the later
Egyptian rite and differs from the Syrian and Roman
forms. Thus the central portion of the Anaphora
was acquiring during this period the character of a
more or less stereotyped prayer.

(2) In Sarapion there are two forms of Invocation.
The one ( fill this sacrifice ) precedes the recital of
the Institution and is undeveloped in character. The
second follows the Institution, and is the Invocation
proper, i.e. a prayer that the elements may become the
Body and Blood of Christ. This feature is also found
in the liturgy of St Mark. Attention has already
been called to the fact that in Sarapion it is the Logos
and not the Third Person of the Trinity whose opera
tion is invoked. This feature, as we have seen, is
characteristic of Alexandria and finds a parallel in the
language of Clement, Origen, and Athanasius.

(3) Sarapion is the earliest witness who clearly
attests the recital of the names of the dead, though,
as we have seen, the practice was probably an im
portation into the liturgy of his time, and that liturgy
bears witness to an earlier condition of things, in which

THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY 79

the prayers following the Invocation centred in the
thought of the coming communion, while the prayers
of a strictly intercessory character preceded the
Anaphora. In this respect Sarapion, while preserving
much that is old, witnesses to the new influences which
were affecting the worship of the Church in Eastern
Greek Christendom.

(4) The concluding prayers of the liturgy conform
in their general order to the scheme exhibited in the
Apostolic Constitutions and later Syrian and Egyptian
forms.

(5) In the pre-anaphoral portion there is less
indication of a fixed scheme. Sarapion exhibits a
simple and undeveloped form of the dismissals, which
contrasts with the elaborate Syrian scheme found in
Chrysostom and the Apostolic Constitutions, while
in the prayers of the faithful there is only a general
correspondence in subject-matter with later Egyptian
prayers.

(6) Lastly, we may notice the absence from all
Egyptian sources during this period of any explicit
mention of the Lord s Prayer. This may be accidental,
but the possibility must be reckoned with that it had
not attained, in Egypt at any rate, during this period
a fixed place in the liturgy 1 .

Hitherto we have been dealing in this summary
with the liturgy belonging to the region of Alexandria
(including the Nile delta). As we have already
indicated, there is no trace of the influence of the
Ethiopic Church Order on the liturgy of this region.

1 See further ch. viii.

80 THE EGYPTIAN LITURGY

It is in the Abyssinian rite that the influence of this
Church Order appears. From it is derived the ana
phora of the normal Abyssinian rite, which has been
further enlarged and enriched with elements taken
from the Greek Eastern rite 1 . We have however
noticed the appearance in the Ethiopic Church Order
of certain archaic features which are full of significance
and value for the student of early liturgy. They
are (1) the absence of the Sanctus, (2) the early
form of Invocation, and the absence from it of any
distinct prayer that the elements may become the
Body and Blood of Christ, (3) the absence of inter
cessions at the close of the Anaphora. Lastly, we
may notice that in this Church Order the opening
salutation before the Preface is in the form the
Lord be with you, as in the Roman and Egyptian
rites, whereas the Syrian form (found in the Apostolic
Constitutions), as well as the Byzantine form, is
derived from the words of 2 Cor. xiii. 14.

1 See E. Bishop in /. Th. St. xii. 398 f.

CHAPTEE IV

THE LITURGY IN PALESTINE AND SYRIA

OUR earliest sources of information about the
liturgy in Palestine date from the fourth century.
For the Church of Jerusalem we possess the very full
and detailed description of a great portion of the rite
in the Catecheses of Cyril, a presbyter, and sub
sequently bishop, of the Church of Jerusalem. These
Catecheses were delivered in 348 A.D., nos. i xviii
being preparatory to baptism, while the remainder
(xix xxiii) were given to the newly-baptized in Easter
week. The latter, known as the Mystagogic Catecheses,
contain instructions on Baptism, Confirmation, and
the Eucharist. The Pilgrimage of Ether ia l , the
work of an abbess, whose home was in Gaul or Spain,
contains much information on the rites of the Church
in Jerusalem, though it does not supply us with
details of the celebration of the liturgy. The work
has until recent years been assigned to the end of

1 Discovered and edited by J. F. Gamurrini (Rome, 1887). The
text is printed by Duchesne, Christian Worship (E. tr.) pp. 492 f.,
which is here cited for convenience. Recent discussions have
shewn that the writer s name was Etheria not Silvia.

S. L. 6

82 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

the fourth century, but in later discussions a date as
late as the sixth century has been suggested for it 1 .
A few additional features are indicated by the Church
historian, Eusebius (c. 1 339 A.D.), and by Jerome, who
resided at Bethlehem between the years 386 and
420 A.D.

From Cyril we learn that the term Synaxis
(crvVa^i?) 2 was applied to the Christian assembly on
the Lord s Day, while Etheria employs the term
oblation 3 to denote the Eucharist, and also uses
the word missa both in reference to the dismissal
at the close of the vigil and other services, and also
in the sense in which it is found in Ambrose to
denote the liturgy proper or the Mass 4 .

Elsewhere Cyril speaks of the reading of the
lessons 5 , of hearing the Gospel 6 (though not specially
in connexion with the Eucharist), and of the sermon 7 .
Jerome states that at Jerusalem in his time there
were discourses by several presbyters, concluding with
one by the bishop, and Etheria witnesses to the same
practice 8 . Jerome 9 mentions the use of lights as
a sign of joy at the reading of the Gospel, and

1 See K. Meister, De itinerario Aetheriae abbatissae perperam
nomine Silviae addicto in Rheinisches Museum filr Philologie (1909)
pp. 337 f . ; Delehaye, Analecta Bollandiana xxix. (1910) pp. 377 f .

a Cat. x. 14.

s oblatio, offerre are both employed of the Eucharist.

4 On missa see Funk, Kirchengesck. Abhandhingen, m. 134 f.

5 Procat. 4, Cat. iv. 1. Cat. vi. 29.

7 Procat. 4, 11.

8 On the evidence of Jerome see Dom G. Morin, La predication
de 8. Jerome in lievue d histoire et de lift, religieuse, i. (1896)
pp. 393 f. For Etheria see Duchesne, pp. 495, 501.

9 c. Vigilant. 7.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 83

says that it was universal in the churches of the
East. There is no distinct mention of the prayers
for the catechumens, or of the prayers of the faithful,
but Etheria 1 speaks of prayers and benedictions of
both catechumens and the faithful at the daily offices,
in a way which recalls the liturgical practice exhibited
in the Apostolic Constitutions and the writings of
Chrysostom.

In the account of Etheria there is no description
of the liturgy itself, but we have an interesting
account of the general character of the Sunday
services, as well as of the day offices. She carefully
distinguishes between the missa of the catechumens
and that of the faithful, from which latter catechumens
were excluded 2 . At cock-crow on the Sunday the
night office was said in the Church of the Anastasis,
and was attended by the bishop and clergy. At
daybreak there was a gathering at the greater Basilica,
built by Constantino, at Golgotha. At this gathering
there were sermons by the presbyters and bishop,
followed by the Dismissal (as in the daily offices).
After this the bishop was accompanied to the Church
of the Anastasis, where the faithful alone enter, and
the missa fidelium follows 3 . The distinction of the

i Duchesne, p. 492. 2 7^. p. 496.

3 Such appears to be the meaning of the passage, for the text
of which see Duchesne (op. cit., pp. 494f.). Etheria does not
expressly refer to the oblation, the term by which she usually
denotes the liturgy, though it seems to be implied in the reference
to the exclusion of catechumens, and the parallel descriptions of
the services on festivals. For the celebration of the liturgy proper
in a different church there is a parallel in North Africa in the time
of Augustine. See ch. vi.

84 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

missa fidelium from the missa catechumenorum is also
implied in the language which Eusebius attributes to
Constantino, at the time of the Emperor s request for
baptism. The Emperor, he says 1 , looked forward to
associating with the people of God, and uniting with
them in prayer as a member of His Church. It is
further implied in the statement of Cyril * we do not
speak clearly of the things concerning the mysteries
in the presence of catechumens 2 .

In his account 3 Cyril describes only the missa
fidelium, as this alone was unfamiliar to the newly-
baptized. At the beginning of the service the deacon
brings water for the washing of hands to the bishop
(TW Icpci) 4 and the presbyters who surround the altar.
In this connexion he refers to Ps. xxvi. 6 ( I will
wash my hands in innocency ). Then follows the
kiss of peace, preceded by the deacon s proclamation
let us greet one another. The people s offering is
not mentioned, but Cyril passes on to describe the
Preface, which the celebrant begins with the intro
ductory words Lift up your hearts, to which the
response is made we lift them up unto the Lord.
Again he says let us give thanks to the Lord and
there is the further response It is meet and right. In
the Preface mention is made of the creation * visible and
invisible, concluding with a reference to Isaiah vi. 3
and followed by the Sanctus. From the Samtus

i Vita Const, iv. 62. 2 Cat. vi. 29.

a See Cat. xxiii.

4 On this restriction of the word le/oews to the bishop in
early times see Batiffol, Etvdes d histoire et de thtoloyif
i. 145.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 85

Cyril passes on to the Invocation without mentioning
the further contents of the thanksgiving or the recital
of the Institution. Bat he had already expounded
the latter in the preceding Gatechesis (xxii) 1 , arid
his language shews that the operation of the Holy
Spirit is for him the ground of the consecration of
the elements. Of the invocation Cyril says :

Then when we have sanctified ourselves with these
spiritual hymns, we beseech the loving God to send forth
his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before us, that he may
make the bread the body of Christ, and the wine the
blood of Christ. For whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches
is sanctified and changed 2 .

We may notice here that the Invocation is an
explicit prayer for the operation of the Holy Spirit
to effect the change of the elements into the Body
and Blood of Christ. Cyril uses in this connexion
the word * make (iroiew), which is more definite and
explicit than the term * shew, found in the Apostolic
Constitutions (d7ro&lt;aiviv) and the Liturgy of St Basil
or even than the word become
found in Sarapion 3 . As will be shewn
later, this corresponds to the more advanced teaching

1 Brightman notes the following parallels with St James.

(1) TOVTO fjLov eo-Ti T&lt;} ffco pa. For this order cf. LEW. 52. 2. 13.

(2) Xo/Sere Triers. Cf . Syr. James (LE W. 87. 14) ; Eusebius, Dem.
Ev. viii. 1 (p. 380 c). The phrase eiri T&lt;MV d^pdvrwv \etpoav of
St James (LEW. 51. 27) is not in Cyril s account of the institu
tion, but is found in reference to the piercing of the hands with
the nails in Cat. xx. 5.

2 Cat. xxiii. 7. Note the parallels with St James, ea7ro&lt;rreT\ai
e-Tri rot irpoKfifjieva, Troiii&lt;rri.

3 See pp. 68, 105, 119.

86 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

exhibited in Cyril with regard to the effects of con
secration teaching to which there is no parallel in
any contemporary writer.

After the Invocation follow the Intercessions.
When the spiritual sacrifice, the unbloody service,
has been consummated, over that sacrifice of pro
pitiation we beseech God. 5 Supplication is made for
the peace of the churches, the well-being of the
world, kings, soldiers and allies, the sick, the afflicted,
and the needy. Then follows the commemoration of
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that by their
prayers and intercessions God would accept our
petition 1 . Finally prayer is made for the departed,
including holy fathers, bishops, and all who have
fallen asleep amongst us. Cyril justifies such prayers
on the ground that * it will be a great benefit to those
souls, for whom prayer is offered, while the holy and
awful sacrifice lies before us. These passages contain
the earliest references to the practice of offering-
intercessions after the Invocation, and they exhibit
at the same time an advanced conception alike of
the Eucharistic Presence and Sacrifice. Both Cyril
and Epiphanius deal with objections which had been
made to the commemoration of the dead, and from
the form which these objections took it has been
argued that such commemoration took the shape of a
recital of the names of particular departed persons 2 .

1 Cat. xxiii. 9. There is nothing corresponding to these last
words in St James or St Mark, but the idea is found in the
Byzantine liturgy (LEW. 388. 18f.).

2 See Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxv. 3, 8 (P.O. xlii. 508 A, 513 B)
6vofi.d^ l fTf...6v6fjLaTa T(Qvt(a r rtov, irepl rov ovofia-ra Xeyetv T&lt;JOV

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 87

The general contents of the intercession accord with
the language of St James and with references found
in Eusebius and Epiphanius 1 . Jerome 2 quotes the
words o /MoVos ava/xapT^Tos, which occur in the inter
cession of St James, and says that they were uttered
daily by priests.

After the Intercessions there followed the Lord s
Prayer, which Cyril expounds at length 3 . At the
conclusion the people respond Amen 4 . Then follows
the proclamation Holy things for the holy, and the
response There is one holy, one Lord Jesus Christ,
both of which occur in the Apostolic Constitutions and
in St James. During the Communion Psalm xxxiv. 9
( Taste^ and see, etc.) is sung 5 . The communicants
receive in the right hand, the left supporting it, with
hollowed palm, care being taken not to drop any
morsel. On receiving the cup they are bidden to
touch the eyes, forehead, and the other organs of
sense with the consecrated wine, while it is still
moist upon the lips. On reception they respond,

T\evn]&lt;rdvTCi)v ; cf. Cyril, Cat. xxiii. 10 edv e-Trt TT/S Trpoaev*xf\&lt;i
fjivnp-ovevijrai. See on the whole question E. Bishop, J. Th. St.
xiv. 34.

1 Euseb., Vita Const, iv. 45; Epiphanius, Haer. Ixxv. 7.

2 c. Pelag. ii. 23. Cf. for the phrase, Cyril, Cat. ii. 10 I juoi/os

3 Cyril introduces the Lord s Prayer with the words with a
pure conscience we claim God as our Father and say. Cf . St James,
ev KaQapq Kap8iq...ro\/j.av eTrt/caXeurOat &lt;re...iraTpa Kai Xeyeiv.
Other parallels between Cyril and St James are (1) TOV irovtjpov
used in a personal sense. (2) The addition of Lord, after Lead
us not into temptation.

4 Cat. xxiii. 18.

5 For this Psalm as a communion hymn cf. A. C.

88 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

Amen : then while waiting for the prayer, they are
to give thanks to God, who has counted them worthy
of such great mysteries *.

The Didascalia, which belongs to some time in
the third century (whether the earlier or the later
half of the century is a point in dispute among
scholars) 2 , may be adduced as possibly affording
evidence of the liturgical practices of Syria, though
the exact locality of its origin is doubtful. Its
references to the Eucharist are slight and incidental.
In addition to the regular synaxes, or gatherings for
worship in the churches, it refers to the gatherings
held in the cemeteries at the graves of the departed.
At these scriptures were read, prayers were offered,
and the Eucharist was celebrated. The writer speaks
of offering for those that are asleep, and also
mentions celebrations of the Eucharist in connexion
with their decease 3 . There are two interesting
features in connexion with the writer s description of
the Eucharist which call for notice. (1) He speaks
of offering the acceptable Eucharist which is according
to the likeness of the royal body of Christ*, a form of
expression to which we shall find parallels elsewhere 5 .
(2) He has been thought to point to the existence of
an invocation of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy.
Thus, referring to the case of one who might be
regarded as unfit for certain religious acts, and so

1 Cf. A. C. and St James (LEW. 25. 20; 65. 28ff.).

2 See Maclean, Ancient Church Orders, p. 170.

8 Didasc. vi. 22. 2 (Funk) ; cf. Achelis and Flemming, p. 143.
4 Ibid. s see cli. ix.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 89

not in a state of grace, he says that prayer is
accepted through the Holy Spirit and the Eucharist
is received and sanctified through the Holy Spirit,
and the Scriptures are the words of the Holy Spirit
and are holy 1 . Elsewhere, according to the old Latin
rendering, he says which is greater, the bread or the
Holy Spirit which sanctifies the bread ? This how
ever is replaced in Achelis translation from the
Syriac by the words which is greater, the bread or
the Spirit which thou possessest 2 ? Lastly, in the
passage already quoted about the Eucharist he speaks
of the pure bread which is sanctified by the in
vocation. This passage suggests the existence of
an invocation of some sort in the Liturgy, but the
other passages are not decisive as to the existence of
an invocation of the Holy Spirit, or a prayer asking
for His descent. In the first of the passages quoted,
all that is implied is a general operation of the Holy
Spirit in all religious acts, while in the second the
rendering given in the Syriac removes all reference
to such an invocation of the Holy Spirit as is suggested
by the form of the Latin 3 .

The writings of St Chrysostom, which belong to
the time of his residence at Antioch, fall within the
period 370398 A.D. They throw incidentally a
great flood of light upon the ceremonies and forms

1 So Achelis renders the passage from the Syriac (p. 139). But
the Latin rendering (Funk, p. 370) has gratiarum actio per
sanctum spiritum sanctificatur.

2 vi. 21. 2 (Funk). For the rendering of the Syriac see Achelis
and Flemmiug, p. 140.

3 Cf. E. Bishop in GiMrdian, Dec. 22, 1909, p. 2069.

90 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

with which the liturgy was celebrated at Antioch in
the last quarter of the fourth century, and they
witness to the growing splendour of the churches,
and the increased awe and reverence with which the
sacrament itself was regarded. They also point to the
growing fixity of liturgical formulae, and with their
help, and that of the Apostolic Constitutions, we can
supplement the account which is given by Cyril of
Jerusalem, and arrive at a fairly adequate conception
of the stage of liturgical developement which had
been reached in Syria and Palestine before the close
of the fourth century.

Incidentally Chrysostom throws light upon many
of the accessories of the Eucharistic worship of the
church at Antioch. Like Cyril he uses the word
Synaxis ((nW^is) 1 of the formal assembly of the
faithful for worship. He mentions the sanctuary
(/ftj/ta), the bishop s throne, and the altar or holy
table, which was sometimes made of silver, and
curtains which were drawn back before the com
munion 2 . He also alludes to the barriers which
separated the men from the women. From the ruined
churches of Syria, ranging in date from the fourth
to the sixth centuries, it appears that there was no
iconostasis, but only a balustrade, before the sanc
tuary 3 . Chrysostom makes mention also of the costly
vessels of gold, set with jewels, and of the albs of the
ministers.

1 For the references to what follows see LEW. 475 f.

2 See in 1 Cor. xxxvi. 6.

3 See Cabrol, DACL. i. ii. 2428, n. 7.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 91

The preliminary missa catechumenorum began
with the salutation Peace be with you, followed by
the response and with thy spirit 1 . Lessons were
read from the prophets, the Epistles (or Acts), and
the Gospel a . There is no certain evidence of the use
of psalms between the lessons 3 . The sermon was
prefaced by the salutation 4 , and was followed by the
dismissal of the various classes of persons who were
not allowed to be present at the Eucharist. On this
portion of the service Chrysostom gives very full
information and enables us to reconstruct not only
the general order, but much of the actual wording
of the forms employed 5 . These latter find a close
parallel in the corresponding portions of the liturgy
of the Apostolic Constitutions, according to which
the dismissals consisted of a bidding by the deacon
for each class in turn (catechumens, energumens,
penitents), the people responding Lord, have mercy 6 .
At the conclusion the proclamation is made Bow your
heads 7 , and then follows the salutation and the
blessing 8 , after which the dismissal takes place 9 .

1 in Matt, xxxii. 6.

2 in Rom. xxiv. 3 ; cur in Pentec. 5 ; in loann. xi (al. x) 1.

3 On this see Brightman, LEW. 477, n. 4.

4 adv. lud. iii. 6; in I Cor. xxxvi. 4. For several sermons see
in 1 Cor. xxxvi. 4 and cf. p. 82.

5 The two most important passages are in 2 Cor. ii. 5 8 and
xviii. 3, the latter of which also throws light on other points in the
liturgy. See LEW. 476.

6 This is implied, though not actually expressed, in Chrys., in
Matt. Ixxi (al. Ixxii) 4 ; de incompr. Dei nat. iv. 4 ; tn2 Cor. xviii. 3.

7 in 2 Cor. ii. 8 ; de incompr. Dei nat. iii. 7.

8 adv. lud. iii. 6.

9 For the formula of dismissal see in Eph. iii. 4. The whole

92 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

The same form was repeated for each class in turn,
except that the catechumens, after prayers have been
oifered for them, are bidden to rise, and follow the
deacon in a series of petitions, whereas there is in
Chrysostom s account nothing which points to a
similar procedure in the case of the energumens or
penitents, and he expressly says that the energumens
are not allowed to pray along with the brethren 1 .

When all had been dismissed, the doors were
shut 2 , and the liturgy proper began. First of all
came the deacon s litany, introduced by the formula
let us pray 3 , and including petitions for the world,
the Church, the bishops and clergy, kings and rulers
(possibly also for the sick, for those in the mines and
in hard bondage and for those possessed by evil
spirits 4 ), lastly for land and sea and for the weather 5 ,
concluding with a request for the angel of peace
and that all their purposes may be directed to a
peaceable end 6 . These petitions were probably fol
lowed, as in the case of the prayers in the missa

account should be compared with the similar ceremonies at the
daily offices in Jerusalem as described in the Pereyiinatio of
Etheria. See Duchesne, op. cit., p. 492.

1 in 2 Cor. ii. 8 ; de incompr. Dei nat. iii. 7.

2 in Matt, xxiii. 3. 8 de Prophet, obscurit. ii. 5.

4 de incompr. Dei nat. iii. 6, but there is no particular reference
to this part of the service.

5 For these petitions see de Prophet, obscurit. ii. 5 ; in 2 Cor. ii. 8.

6 adv. lud. iii. 6 ; in Ascens. 1. These petitions exhibit close
parallels of language with those in A. C. Note e.g. opOoro/jielv
TOV \6yov TIJS aXtjOeias (Chrys., A. C".), TWV kv /neraAAois (Chrys.,
A.C.), ei/ irt/c/oa dovXfia (A. C.), kv &lt;rK\ripal&lt;} dovXeiais (Chrys.).
The request for the angel of peace, which is mentioned by Chry-
sostom in connexion with both the prayers of the catechumen*

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 93

eatechumenorum, by the salutation and the blessing
of the faithful 1 .

There is apparently no clear reference in Chry-
sostom s writings to the practice of the offering of the
bread and the wine by the congregation 2 , and he does
not state at what point in the service the presentation
of the offering took place, beyond the fact that it was
preceded by the kiss of Peace 3 .

Passing to the Anaphora, we find in Chrysostom
a reference to the salutation which preceded the
Preface, and which appears to have been derived
from 2 Cor. xiii. 14. It was followed by the response
and with thy spirit 4 . The Sursum corda with the
response is found in a homily attributed to Chrysostom
(though of doubtful authenticity) 5 . The preface to
the thanksgiving, with the response * it is meet and
right/ and the angelic hymn (the Sanctus) are also
referred to 6 . Of the thanksgiving Chrysostom says 7 ,
We rehearse over the cup the ineffable blessings of

ami the diaconal litany in the missa fidelium, is found in the
diaconal litanies of St James and the Byzantine rite. On the
significance of the prayer see Bingham, Antiquities, Bk xrv. 5. 4.

1 See adv. lud. iii. 6, and cf. A. C. and St James (LEW. 12. 9f. ;
40. 17 f.).

2 The passage in loann. Ixii (al. Ixi) 5 (LEW. p. 479. n. 16) is
not decisive.

3 de Compunct. ad Demetr. i. 3.

* de s. Pentecoste, i. 4. Note the words eTreu^tjrat Ttjv irapd
TOV Kvptov -%apiv.

5 de Paenitentia, ix. 1. c in 2 Cot-, xviii. 3; de Bapt. Chr. 4.

7 in I Cor. xxiv. 1. The passage in ad eos qui scandalizantur
(7 sq.) may be a paraphrase of the Eucharistic thanksgiving, as it
presents many parallels of language with A. C. and St James.
But the work was written later, during Chrysostom s exile.

94 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

God and whatever benefits we enjoy; and so we offer
it at the holy table and communicate, giving him
thanks that he hath delivered mankind from error ;
that when we were afar off he hath made us near;
that when we had no hope and were without God he
hath made us brethren and fellow-heirs with himself.
For these and all the like blessings we give him thanks
and so draw nigh.

Chrysostom refers to the recital by the priest of
the words of institution and says this utterance
(i.e. This is my body ), once spoken, at every table
in the churches from that day until this and until
his coming perfects the sacrifice 1 . The invocation
of the Holy Spirit to come and touch the gifts
upon the altar is alluded to 2 , as also are the inter
cessions for living and dead. Like Cyril, Chrysostom
dwells upon the efficacy of prayer for the departed
at the moment when the common Sacrifice of the
world is before us. Therefore with boldness do we
then intreat for the whole world, and name their
names with those of martyrs, confessors, priests 3 .
The whole prayer concluded with the words unto
the ages of ages (ets TOVS &lt;u&lt;3va? TWI/ aia&gt;i/wv), and at
its close the people responded, Amen 4 . The use of the
Lord s Prayer in the liturgy is referred to in a way
which suggests that Chrysostom had in mind the
words with which it was introduced. Speaking of
the duty of forgiveness he says If we do this, we

1 de Prod. lud. i. 6. See ch. ix.

3 in coem. appellat. 3; de Sacerd. iii. 4. 3 in 1 Cor. xli. 4f.

4 in 1 Cor. xxxv. 3.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 95

may then with a pure conscience come to this holy
and tremendous table and boldly say the words that
are contained in that prayer 1 . A comparison with
the liturgy of St James suggests that the words in
italics were already part of a liturgical formula 2 .
The fraction followed 3 , and in connexion with
it Brightman suggests that there may have been
a litany, as in the Apostolic Constitutions. In the
passage to which he appeals Chrysostom says, when
the sacrifice is brought forth, and Christ, the Lord s
sheep, is sacrificed ; when thou hearest the words
"Let us all pray together," when thou beholdest the
curtains withdrawn, then think that the heaven is
parted and the angels are descending 4 . But Chry
sostom is plainly not giving the exact order, and it is
possible that his words refer to the intercession at
the close of the Anaphora. There may be an allusion
to the Sancta sanctis when Chrysostom speaks of
Christ as giving holy things to holy men/ but he is
not speaking specially of the liturgy 5 . Elsewhere we
learn that Psalm cxlv was sung alternately by priest
and people at the Lord s Table, chiefly because of
the words * The eyes of all wait upon thee, and thou
givest them their meat in due season 6 . But whether
this was during, or after, communion we are not told.
The liturgy concluded with a final thanksgiving 7 and
the dismissal by the deacon, Go in peace 8 .

1 in Genes, xxvii. 8.

2 See parallels in Cyril and St James quoted p. 87 n. 3.
8 in 1 Cor. xxiv. 2.

4 in Eph. iii. 5. 5 in Matt. vii. 6. in Ps. cxliv. 1.

7 de JBapt. Chr. 4. 8 adv. lud. iii. 6; cf. A. C. and St James.

96 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

One other source of information for the Syrian
liturgy is supplied by the eighth book of the Apostolic
Constitutions. The date of this work has been a
subject of much discussion, but there is now a fairly
general agreement that the whole work was compiled,
and the Church Order in Book viii written, by a single
writer, who appears to be identical with the author
of the Longer Recension of the Ignatian Epistles in
the latter part of the fourth century 1 . The locality
of the author appears to have been Syria. From the
absence of the mention of metropolitans in the
Church Order it has been conjectured that he did
not live at Antioch or in its immediate neighbour
hood 2 . But the liturgy contained in Book viii follows
the general lines of the Syrian rite, especially as
found at Antioch in the time of Chrysostom. A
comparison of the litany in the missa catechumenorum
of the Apostolic Constitutions with the similar
petitions quoted by Chrysostom shews that the writer
of A. C. has made use of current Antiochene forms,
many of the phrases being identical. Similarly a
comparison of Chrysostom s quotations from the
deacon s litany in the missa fid-elium with the cor
responding litany in A. C, on the one hand, and the
intercessions of the Anaphora of A. C. on the other,
suggest that here again the writer has made use of
the existing Antiochene forms. Further, the thanks
giving in A. C., when compared with the quotations

1 See Maclean, Ancient Church Orders, pp. 149 ff. Recent
opinion favours the date 375380 A.D.

2 Ibid. p. 150.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 97

of Chrysostom, and the corresponding parts of the
liturgies of St James and St Basil, exhibits certain
parallels of language and ideas, which suggest that
the writer has drawn upon the Syrian thanksgiving
existing in his time. Lastly there is a close parallel
between the Invocation in A. C. and that found in
the Ethiopic Church Order 1 . But though the writer
has thus drawn upon existing sources, a careful study
of his work shews that he has freely paraphrased and
expanded them, and that the prayers contained in
the liturgy of A. C. are in their present Jorm the
writer s own composition. This is shewn by the fact
that many of the prayers exhibit traces of the writer s
peculiar style as found elsewhere in his work, nor
does he appear to regard liturgical formulae as rigidly
fixed, but treats freely such well-known forms as the
Creed and the Gloria in excelsis -. Thus the chief
value of this liturgy is that, though in its actual
form it is a free composition, it serves at many points
as an additional confirmation of the evidence derived
from other Syrian writers of the fourth century, and
in some respects supplements that evidence.

The study of the literary relations of the liturgy
in A. C. to the whole work of which it forms a part,
and to the spurious Ignatian Epistles, as well as to
the quotations of Chrysostom, enables us to place it
in its proper setting. From this point of view its
importance is shewn to be neither more nor less than
can be claimed for the sources which it has embodied.

i Ibid. p. 51.

a See LE W. xxxiii. flf.

S. L. 7

THE SYRIAN LITURGY

Its history in fact is bound up with the history of
those sources.

A larger claim has indeed been made for the
liturgy of A. C. by some writers, notably by Dr Probst
in his Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderte.
This writer finds in it a representation, in its main
features, of the liturgy current in the ante-Nicene
Church, and regards it as in substance apostolic in
origin. The length of the prayers in A. C. he considers
to be a proof of a greater antiquity than that of other
liturgies, and he appeals to the parallel of the reforms
attributed to Basil and Chrysostom, who are said by
Proclus to have abbreviated the liturgies current in
their day. He appeals further to the parallels of
language found in Justin Martyr, as indicating the
antiquity of the A. C. liturgy 1 . But neither of these
arguments is convincing. For (1) the study of the
relations between the A. C. liturgy and the Ethiopic
Church Order exhibits a far greater developement on
the part of A. &lt;7. 2 (2) The parallels of language
found in Justin do not indicate the antiquity of the
prayers in which they occur in A. C., but only
the early existence of a type of phraseology which
later on became embodied in liturgical forms.

The antiquity of the A. C. liturgy has further
been defended by Dr BickelP, who, accepting Probst s
conclusions, contends that this liturgy is connected
both in the order of its parts and even in its

i Probst, op. cit. pp. 281295. 2 See pp. 105 f.

8 See Messe und Pascha (E. tr. by Skene, The Lord s Supper
and the Passover Ritual, pp. 86 ff.).

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 99

expressions with the ritual of the Jewish Passover
supper, while in the Canon it adheres in the smallest
point to the Hallel recited over the fourth and last
Passover cup 1 . This ingenious, though highly arti
ficial, theory has been already noticed 2 . Many of
the parallels adduced are purely accidental, nor do
the facts prove more than that the prayers of the
liturgy have derived their inspiration from the psalms
and canticles of the Old Testament, and that in their
earlier stages they may have been influenced to some
extent by the memory of the benedictions and prayers
in use among the Jews. They are insufficient to
prove that the framework of the liturgy, as seen in
A. C., is based upon the ritual of the Passover*.

A supplementary source of evidence to the account
of the liturgy in Book viii of the Apostolic Constitu
tions is to be found in the shorter notice contained
in Book ii of the same work 4 . This contains a
short description of the rite, with directions for the
ordering of the congregation. These directions are
based upon the Didascalia and thus belong in the
main to the third century, while the order of service
dates from the time of the compiler of A. C.

With the help of these sources we may now
briefly pass in review the chief features of the liturgy
as exhibited in A. C.

The building is oblong and faces East, having
sacristies at the east on both sides. The bishop s

1 Ibid. p. 68. 2 See p. 10.

8 For a criticism of BickelTs theory see Cabrol, Les origines
Utttrfjiques, pp. 328 ff.
* cc. 57, 58.

100 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

throne is in the centre, the presbyters are ranged on
either side of him, and the deacons stand near to
him. The men sit on one side, the women have a
place apart. The reader, standing on some high
place, reads two lessons from the Old Testament.
Then another sings psalms, the people taking up the
refrains 1 . Lessons are read from the Acts and
Epistles, and finally the Gospel is read by a deacon
or presbyter, the congregation standing. Then follow
homilies by the presbyters, concluding with one by
the bishop 8 . The sermon is preceded by the saluta
tion (2 Cor. xiii. 4), to which the people respond
And with thy spirit 3 / All stand up and the deacon
utters the proclamation Let none of the hearers, let
none of the unbelievers (remain).

Then follow the dismissals of the various classes
of persons, catechumens, energumens, candidates for
baptism (ot &lt;omo/ii/ot, competentes), and penitents 4 .
The account in Book viii of the Apostolic Constitutions
deals very fully with this portion of the rite, and is
in fact our chief authority for the exact form of
the dismissals, supplementing the more fragmentary
notices of Chrysostom. The deacon first of all bids
the catechumens to pray, and calls upon the faithful

1 A. C. ii. 57. 6 6 \aos TO aKpocrTi^ia viro\j/aX\eT(o.

2 Cf. the evidence of Jerome and Peregrin. Etkeriae quoted
on p. 82. See also p. 91.

8 In Chrysostoin the corresponding salutation is Peace be
with all.

4 Mr E. Bishop notes that in A.C. ii., as in Can. 19 of the
Council of Laodicea, only two dismissals (catechumens and penitents)
are mentioned. See /. Th. St. xiv. 53 n. 1.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 101

to pray for them, himself leading their prayers in a
series of petitions to which the people respond * Lord,
have mercy. At the conclusion the catechumens
are bidden to rise, and the deacon invites them to
join him in a further series of petitions 1 . Then he
bids them bend their heads to receive the blessing of
the bishop, who pronounces over them a prayer,
whereupon they are dismissed by the deacon with
the formula Catechumens, go forth in peace. Similar
petitions, followed by a blessing, are offered for each
of the other classes of persons (though they do not
rise and join in prayer, as do the catechumens), and
they are in turn dismissed 2 .

The second part of the service begins with a
bidding of prayers by the deacon. They include
petitions for the peace and welfare of the world, for
the Holy Catholic Church, for bishops and clergy,
and various estates of men, for the sick and suffering,
for enemies and persecutors, and for those who have
gone astray. Like the prayers in the preceding
portion of the rite, they are followed by the prayer
of the bishop for the faithful. Then in the account of
the compiler of Book viii, there follows the kiss of
peace preceded by the salutation and response.
Rubrics are given directing some of the deacons to
keep order and silence among the children and adults 3 ,

1 These petitions present some affinities of language to those
described by Chrysostoin. See pp. 91 f., and cf. LEW. 5. If. ;
471. 26 f.

2 Cf. the parallels in Chrysostom and Etheria, pp. 83, 91.

8 For parallels in A. C. Bk ii. see LE W. 28. 26 f. ; for Didascalia
see Funk, op. cit. 166. 23.

102 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

whilst others are to guard the doors 1 . Water is
brought for the hands of the priests (Upets), and a
series of proclamations by the deacon follows. The
first four of these are : (1) a warning against the
presence of catechumens, hearers, unbelievers, hetero
dox: (2) a bidding to those who have prayed the
first prayer to approach : (3) a command to mothers
to take charge of their children 2 ; (4) the admonition
Let none having aught against any, let none in
hypocrisy . . . These admonitions are strange, following
as they do upon the dismissals and the kiss of peace.
But in the description of the liturgy in Book ii of the
Apostolic Constitutions these difficulties disappear.
In this latter account rubrics are given enjoining
that some of the deacons are to attend to the offering
of the Eucharist, while others are to secure quietness
among the people. Then follows the proclamation
by the deacon, Let none having aught against any,
let none in hypocrisy, which introduces the kiss of
peace, followed by a short diaconal litany 3 , a blessing,
and the anaphora. The direction, given in A. C.,
Book ii, that deacons are to attend to the offering of
the Eucharist, appears to be based upon the direction
of the Didascalia that one of the deacons is always
to attend to the offerings of the Eucharist (oblationibus

1 For this cf. A. C. ii. (LEW. 28. 12 f.).

2 This and the parallel direction in A. C. ii. (LEW. 28. 21) ap
pear to be based on the Didascalia (Funk, 164. 45).

8 On this litany and other features of the liturgy in A. C. ii.
see E. Bishop, J. Th. St. xiv. 53 f. He finds a parallel to the
position of this litany in the prayer of intercession at the same
point in the East Syrian Litany of Adai and Mari (LE W. 281. 30 f.).

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 103

eucharistiae\ which refers to the collection of the
people s offerings by the deacon 1 . In Book viii there
is a proclamation by the deacon, let us with fear
and trembling stand up to offer, followed by the
rubric after which let the deacons bring the gifts to
the bishop at the altar. Here again we seem to have
a similar reference to the people s offering.

The presbyters now range themselves to the right
and left of the bishop, while two deacons wave fans
to keep away insects. After silent prayer the bishop
puts on a splendid vestment, makes the sign of the
cross upon his forehead, and begins the anaphora
with the salutation 2 and the Sursum corda, as in
Cyril and Chrysostom. The long Eucharistic prayer
which follows commemorates the majesty of God s
being, the wonders of creation in nature and man,
and the course of God s providence in human history
and in His dealings with the chosen people, culminating
in the description of the adoration of the angelic
hosts, with reference to Dan. vii. 10 and Isaiah vi. 2, 3.
Thereupon the people join in the Sanctus, which,
like that in St Mark and the Coptic and Abyssinian
rites, omits the Hosanna and the Benedictus qui
mnit 3 , and concludes blessed for ever. The bishop
now resumes the thanksgiving, taking his cue from
the Sanctus*, in the words * For holy indeed art thou

1 Cf. E. Bishop, I. c.

2 The form is a variation of 2 Cor. xiii. 14.

3 The Hosanna and JBenedictus however are found after the
Gloria in excelsis in the people s response to the Sancta sanctis.

4 The same cue (a ytos el) is found in the Syrian (James, Gr.,
Syr.), Nestorian, and Byzantine rites. For the Egyptian rites
see p. 66.

104? THE SYRIAN LITURGY

...and holy is also thine only-begotten Son. He
proceeds to commemorate the redemption of man by
the Incarnation, and rehearses the story of Christ s
ministry and Passion, concluding with the account of
the institution of the rite. This is introduced, as in
the Eastern rites generally, by the words in the
night in which he was delivered up. It is more
developed than the corresponding forms in the
Ethiopic Church Order and in Sarapion, and contains
several features found in other rites both Eastern
and Western 1 . The most striking is the expression
This is the mystery of the new testament with
which the words about the bread are introduced 2 .
The Anamnesis which follows conforms to the Syrian
and Byzantine type, being introduced by the words
remembering therefore 3 . It commemorates the
passion, death, resurrection, ascension, and return of

1 Note (1) in his holy and blameless hands. There are similar
phrases in most Eastern rites and in the de Sacramentis and
Roman Canon. (2) Looking up to thee, his God and Father.
The phrase looking up to heaven (cf . Mk vi. 41, the feeding of
the 5000) is found in James, and with the addition to thee his
Father or similar phrases in Mark, Coptic, Abyssinian, de Sacram.,
and Roman Canon. (3) Broken. Found in Eth. Ch. Order,
Sarapion, de Sacram., and most Eastern rites. (4) Unto remission
of sins (after broken ). So Sarapion, Mark, Copt., James (Gr.,
Syr.), Basil. (5) He mixed the cup with wine and water and
sanctified it. So James (Gr., Syr.) and Mark. Basil has mixed
only, the Coptic sanctified only. (6) The words of St Paul
(1 Cor. xi. 26) are in A. C. attributed to Christ. So James (Syr.),
Mark, Coptic, Basil. Similarly de Sacramentis has donee iterum
ueniam.

2 Cf . the words in the Roman Canon mysterium fidei in connexion
with the cup.

8 See pp. 54 f. for the corresponding Egyptian forms.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 105

Christ as judge of quick and dead, and contains an
oblation of the bread and wine in accordance with
his command. Lastly comes the Invocation, which
explicitly asks God to look favourably on the gifts
lying before Him, and to send the Holy Spirit, the
witness of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, upon the
sacrifice, that He may shew (aVex^Vr;) 1 the bread as
the body of Christ and the cup as His blood, that
those who receive them may be confirmed in godliness
and receive remission of sins and attain eternal life.

The Anamnesis and Invocation in the Apostolic
Constitutions exhibit many points of affinity with
those of the Ethiopic Church Order. The text of the
Ethiopic Church Order is here given in full, with
the parallel extracts from the Apostolic Constitutions.

APOSTOLIC ETHIOPIC CHURCH

CONSTITUTIONS ORDER

Remembering therefore Remembering therefore

his.... death and resurrec- his 2 death and his resur-

tion....we offer to thee.... rection, we offer to thee this

this bread and this cup, bread and this cup, giving

giving thanks to thee... be- thanks to thee because thou

cause thou hast made us hast made us worthy to

worthy to stand before thee stand before thee and minis -

1 For this use of diro(f&gt;aiveiv cf. the parallel use of d

in the Invocation of Lit. of St Basil (LEW. 329. 32) and the word
aW&lt;5eit in Basil, de Spir. s. xxvii. 66. See p. 119, n. 2. Cf. also
Theophilus of Alexandria, Lib. paschal, i. (translated by Jerome,
Ep. xcviii. 13) non recogitat...panem dominicum quo saluatoris
corpus ostenditur. The Invocation in Sarapion has Lva yevrjrai,
while Cyril of Jerusalem and St James have the more definite
word iroielv in this connexion.

2 So the Latin (Hauler, p. 107) and some texts of the Ethiopic
(Horner, p. 373).

106 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

and minister as priests to ter as priests 1 to thee. We

thee : and we beseech thee beseech thee to send thy

to send down thy Holy Holy Spirit upon this obla-

Spirit. ...upon this sacrifice, tion of the Church that

that... gathering them together 2

[Epiclesis] thou mayst grant to all

those who partake of it may them who partake [that it

be strengthened in godli- may be] for holiness and for

ness may be filled with filling with the Holy Spirit,

the Holy Spirit and for strengthening of
faith in truth.

Doxology Doxology

(LEW. 23. If.)

But while the compiler appears to have incor
porated a good deal of this common material, he has
freely interpolated into it additions characteristic of
his own style 3 . He has also modified his source in
some particulars in order to bring it more into accord
with the ideas of his own time. Thus, while the
Invocation in the Ethiopic Church Order has in view
the benefits which communicants are to receive from
the reception of the consecrated gifts, in the Apostolic
Constitutions the Invocation defines the effect of con
secration upon the elements themselves. In fact the
forms in the Apostolic Constitutions shew through
out the greater developement.

The intercessions which follow resemble closely in
character and even in phraseology those contained in

1 The Latin has simply ministrare.

2 The Latin, in unum congregans, appears to give the sense of
the original.

a Note especially the phrase used of the Holy Spirit 4 the witness
of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus. Cf. A. C. v. 1, 2.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 107

the deacon s litany of the missa fidelium, and the
parallels found in Chrysostom 1 . They also exhibit
several parallels with the intercessions found in the
Anaphora of the liturgy of St James, and appear to
be based upon the Antiochene scheme. They conclude
with an ascription of praise and the formula unto
the ages of ages perpetual and endless/ a formula
found in substance not only in Chrysostom, but also
in Tertullian 8 in the West. The people respond,
Amen.

The bishop again gives a salutation, and after a
proclamation by the deacon there follows a short
litany, which is in turn followed by a prayer by the
bishop. There is no reference to the Lord s Prayer
or to the Fraction. The former however is mentioned
by Cyril and probably referred to by Chrysostom,
who also alludes to the Fraction. It is possible that
the Litany in A. C. was said during the Fraction 3 .

The deacon now commands the attention of the
faithful, and the bishop proclaims Holy things for
holy persons, to which the response is made:

One holy, one Lord Jesus Christ, to the glory of God
the Father, blessed for evermore. Amen.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace ; good
will towards men.

Hosanna to the Son of David.

Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

God is the Lord and hath appeared unto us.

Hosanna in the highest.

1 See p. 92, n. 6. 2 See ch. vi.

8 This accords with the order of the Syriac St James. In the
Greek St James, as in St Mark, the litany of the Fraction follows
the Sancta sanctis. See LEW. 98. 16 f. ; 62. 8 f. ; 138. 20f.

108 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

The Hosanim and Benedictus qui wnit (as well
as the following words, God is the Lord, etc.) are
derived from Ps. cxviii. 25 27. Their position in
A. C. after the Sancta sanctis, instead of in connexion
with the Sanctus, as in all other rites except the
Egyptian, may indicate that originally the words
preceded the Communion, and have been shifted
back in other rites. We may recall the occurrence
of the Hosanna in the Didache (c. 10) immediately
before the words If any be holy, let him come 1 .
The use of these phrases from the Hallel psalms,
which have also suggested much other liturgical
language 2 , is adduced by Bickell in support of his
theory that the Anaphora was modelled on the
Hallel.

The communion now takes place. After the bishop,
presbyters, and deacons, the communicants approach
in the following order : sub-deacons, readers, singers,
ascetics, deaconesses, virgins, widows, children, and
the lay people in order. Women communicate veiled 3 .
The words of administration are * The body of Christ/
1 The blood of Christ, the cup of life. To each the
communicant responds, Amen. During the com
munion Psalm xxxiv (which contains the words * Taste

1 The Benedictus is found before Communion in the Testament
of our Lord, and in the modern Coptic and the later Byzantine rite
(this latter has also the words God is the Lord, etc.). See
LE W. 186. 11 ; 396. 2 f . But these parallels cannot be quoted as
independent evidence of any value.

2 Cf. Wordsworth, Ministry of G-race*, p. 309.

8 A. C. ii. 57. 21, where directions are also given to guard the
doors, that no unbeliever or uninitiated persou may enter-

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 109

and see how gracious the Lord is ) is sung 1 . The
consecrated elements are taken into the sacristy by
the deacons. The deacon now exhorts the people to
pray, whereupon they stand, and the bishop gives
thanks for the communion 2 . Then follows the dis
missal, the form of which corresponds with that
employed in the dismissals of the catechumens and
others. The deacon bids the faithful bow their
heads to receive the blessing, and the bishop prays
over them, whereupon the deacon announces the
dismissal in the words Ye are dismissed in peace 3 .

A comparison of the sources which have been
considered shews the existence in Syria and Palestine
of a well-defined type of liturgy, which agrees in its
main features with that which we know under the
name of St James. But in the latter the elaborate
dismissals in the missa catechumenorum have dis
appeared, owing to the changed conditions of Church
life. The liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions has
preserved some archaic features, which throw light
upon the earlier history of this liturgy in the period
before Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom. Such are
the absence of the Lord s Prayer, and the place of
the Hosanna and Benedictus in connexion with the
Sancta sanctis, immediately before communion. On

1 So Cyril of Jerusalem. Cf. p. 87.

2 The form of thanksgiving in the Greek St James is independent
of that in A. C., but we may note the parallels KaTTjiao- nV s
HCTaXaflctv TWV dyiiav crov /MUO-TTJ/OI OOI/ (-4. C.) and KaTa]~ioa&lt;ra?
&gt;/Ms fJLTaa"%f iv TauT;s rrjv eirovpaviov &lt;rov T/oaire} (James).

3 The form of dismissal in Chrysostom more closely resembles
St James than A. C.

110 THE SYRIAN LITURGY

the other hand, when compared with the liturgy of
the Ethiopia Church Order it shews signs of develope-
ment, notably in its form of Invocation which contains
(in the later manner) an express reference to the
Body and Blood of Christ, a feature already found in
Cyril of Jerusalem and Sarapion. Another sign of
developeinent is the very full scheme of intercessions
after the consecration.

In other respects we can recognize from our sources
the existence before the end of the fourth century of
characteristic features of the Syrian rite. Such are :

(1) The form of salutation at the opening of the
Anaphora The grace of our Lord, etc. \ as contrasted
with The Lord be with you, which latter is found
in the Egyptian and Roman rites.

(2) The cue which is taken up from the Sanctus
in the long Eucharistic prayer, Holy art thou ...
whereas in the Egyptian rites the cue is taken from
the words full is heaven and earth.

(3) As we have seen 2 , the actual phraseology in
the Eucharistic thanksgiving of A. C., when compared
with the quotations of Chrysostorn and with the
liturgy of St James, exhibits certain parallels in
language and ideas which suggest that this portion
of the rite was already beginning to acquire a stereo
typed form.

(4) The form of Anamnesis in A. C. corresponds
to the Syrian and Byzantine type, being introduced

1 The same form is found in the East Syrian liturgy of Adai
and Mari.

a See pp. 93 f., 103 f.

THE SYRIAN LITURGY 111

with the words remembering therefore/ while the
corresponding Egyptian type has proclaiming the
death, confessing the resurrection.

(5) Lastly, we may notice the fully developed
forms of the dismissals in the missa catechumenwum
and of the diaconal litany in the missa fidelium. The
very full evidence which Chrysostom supplies for
these portions of the rite, and the concurrent testimony
from the churches of Asia and Cappadocia \ point to
the fact that these developements were a characteristic
of the Church of Antioch, from which they probably
spread into other Eastern churches 8 .

1 See pp. 113, 116. See ch. viii.

CHAPTER V

THE LITURGY IN OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

NONE of the other churches of the East supply us
with information about the liturgy, during the period
covered by this volume, so complete as that which
we possess in the case of Antioch and Syria. But
we have more or less fragmentary pieces of evidence
which enable us to see the general characteristics of
the rite as found in the churches of Asia, of the
Pontic exarchate, and of Constantinople. The ancient
liturgy of the East Syrian Church, the liturgy of
Adai and Mari, though overlaid with later elements,
preserves in its Anaphora some primitive features,
which call for notice, but the fuller treatment of the
liturgy itself must be left for a later volume of the
present series.

For Asia we have only the scanty details supplied
by the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, the date
of which may be placed somewhere about 363 A.D.
From these it is possible to reconstruct some of the
leading features. The lessons were taken from the
Old and New Testaments 1 , and between each lesson

i Can. 59.

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 113

a psalm was recited from a pulpit (a/x/Jwv) 1 . A lesson
from the Gospel was included among them 2 . There
was a sermon by the bishop 3 , followed by the
prayer of the catechumens and their departure 4 .
This in turn was followed by the prayer of the
penitents, who received a blessing 5 , and then with
drew. Mention is made of three prayers of the
faithful 6 ; the first is said in silence (&a o-uoTnfc), the
second and third are to be said aloud (Sia trpoa--
&lt;wK;o-ea&gt;s). The prayers are presumably said by the
celebrant 7 . Brightman however sees in this canon a
reference to the biddings of the deacon, and regards
the word irpoa^wv^o-is as used in its technical sense 8 .
Whether however such diaconal litanies were in use
at Asia during this period we have not evidence
to shew.

The kiss of peace is given after the prayers of the
faithful, and then the holy offering is completed.

1 Can. 17, 15. The reference in Can. 17 is primarily to the
offices, but the principle of alternating lessons and psalms probably
extended to the liturgy also.

2 Can. 16. 8 Can. 19. * IUd.

5 Ibid. The term for receiving the blessing is TrpoaeXQelv VTTO
Xt/oa. Cf. Peregrin. Ethenae (Duchesne, p. 492 f.), ad manum
accedere.

6 Can. 19.

7 For the above interpretation cf . Palmer, Origines, i. 107 (ed. 4,
London, 1845).

8 LEW. 520, n. 9. With this interpretation the contrast is
between the prayer of the celebrant without biddings or responses
(&lt;5ia o-iooTrijs) and a prayer bidden by the deacon and responded to
by the people (Sid -Tr/xxr^Mj/fj o-etos). In the liturgy of A. C. irpoa-
(jMavetv is used occasionally of the bidding of the deacon (LEW.
5. 10; 7. 3), though /ctj/ouTTeiv and Xeyeiv are also used in this
connexion (LEW. 3. 12; 3. 14; 7. 27; 23. 13).

8. L. 8

114 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

During the communion the clergy enter the sanctuary
to receive; the rest communicate without the
sanctuary 1 .

It is impossible from these scanty notices to draw
any certain conclusions as to the relations of the
liturgy in Asia to other types of liturgy current in
the fourth century.

More important for the subsequent history of the
liturgy is the evidence which comes from two other
centres of Eastern Christianity, CaesareainCappadocia,
and Constantinople.

The developement of Church organization during
the fourth century led to the extension of the influence
of great sees over areas corresponding more or less to
the civil divisions of the Empire. Thus we find the
bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia exercising a kind
of patriarchal authority over the dioceses of Pontus,
while the bishop of Heraclea exercised a similar
authority over the dioceses of Thrace. But after the
Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) the see of Con
stantinople superseded Heraclea, and from that time
onwards, in virtue of the precedence granted to
it by the Council, pressed its claims to jurisdiction
over Asia and Pontus as well. The greatest centre
of ecclesiastical influence in the East in the latter
part of the third century and during the fourth
century was Antioch. The many important councils
held in that city during this period brought the

1 Can. 19. The direction in Can. 25 ori ou Sel uirijpcTas apTov
StSovai ovSk troTrtpiov cvXoyelv is understood by Brightman to
refer to the Agape (cf. Can. 27. 28) and to enjoin that no one
below the rank of a deacon is to say grace.

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 115

Church of Antioch into close relations with the
Churches of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Bithynia, and
its influence extended also to those of Thrace. The
Church of Constantinople in the same way experienced
the influence of Antioch, and it was from Antioch
(or Caesarea) that many of its bishops came, during
the period when it was rising into a position of pre
eminence. These facts help to explain the prevalence
alike in Cappadocia and at Constantinople of a type
of liturgy in all essential features corresponding to
that of Syria.

Our chief authorities for the liturgy of the Cappa-
docian Church during this period are Firmilian,
bishop of Caesarea, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, the
apostle of Cappadocia, in the third century; and
St Basil, St Gregory of Nazianzus (also his brother,
Caesarius), and St Gregory of Nyssa, in the fourth
century. There are also the Canons of the councils
of Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea (c. 315), and Gangra
(c. 358).

From these sources we may gain a fairly clear
picture of the order of the churches and the congrega
tions, as well as of the liturgy itself. Outside the
church stood the class of penitents known as the
Weepers (Trpoo-KXcuovres) asking for the prayers of
the faithful. Within the vestibule (vap0r?) stood the
Hearers (a^pow/xevoi) and the catechumens ; at the
bottom of the nave were the Kneelers (vTrorriVTorrc?),
and above them the Consistentes, i.e. those who stood
with the faithful throughout, but did not communicate.
The sanctuary was separated from the nave by a

116 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

lattice (KtyKAiY). It contained the bishop s throne
and the seats of the presbyters 1 . Mention is made
of lessons from the prophets, apostles, and the Lord
himself (i.e. the Gospel), as also of psalms 2 . The
people stood at the Gospel 3 . The sermon was pre
ceded, as at Antioch, by the salutation Peace be
with you 4 . The dismissals followed, the Hearers (ot
aKpow/xcvot) being first dismissed without prayer, after
the sermon 5 . Then in succession the catechumens,
the energumens (ot x/ Aa / Al/ot ) 6 &gt; an d the Kneelers
(ol v7T07rt7TTovTs) were dismissed after prayer 7 .

Passing to the liturgy proper, we find what appear
to be references to the biddings of the deacon in
the prayers of the faithful. Thus the Council of
Ancyra 8 includes among the deacon s duties that
of making proclamation (Kr/pvo-o-cti/), which pro
bably includes the bidding of prayers, as well as
other proclamations made during the service. Basil 9 ,
referring to certain intercessions which he specifies,
speaks of them as proclamations of the church

i For reff. see LE W. 523 f .
a Basil, in Ps. xxviii. 7; in s. Bapt. 1.
8 Philostorgius, H. E. iii. 5.

4 Greg. Naz., Or. xxii. 1. For the sermon see Greg. Thaum.,
Ep. can. 11 ; Basil, Ep. ccxvii. 75.
6 Greg. Thaum., Ep. can. 11.

6 Council of Ancyra, can. 17. The prayer of the catechumens
is not mentioned, though it is implied in the passage of Gregory
Thaumaturgus. Similarly the dismissal of the energumens may
be assumed (cf. A. (?.), though only their presence at the service
before this point is indicated.

7 Greg. Thaum., Z.c., only refers to the dismissal of the Kueelers
4 along with the catechumens, without stating the relative order.

8 Can. 2. 9 Ep. civ.

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 117

a), the reference most probably
being to the prayers of the faithful 1 . The intercessions
specified are too fragmentary to enable us to make a
comparison of them with those found in other Eastern
sources, but one or two expressions recall the language
of prayers found in the Apostolic Constitutions 2 .
There is nothing to indicate the relative order of the
kiss of peace and the presentation of the offering,
though both are referred to in our sources 3 . The
Second and Third Canonical Epistles of St Basil 4
(circa 375 A.D.) indicate that the custom of the people
making their offerings still continued in Pontus,
though generally in the East it seems to have been
dying out during the fourth century. The Council
of Ancyra (can. 2) includes among the deacon s
duties that of offering bread or a cup, probably
with reference to his bringing of the oblation to the
altar 5 . Gregory of Nyssa alludes to the use of the
Sanctus, the triumphal hymn 6 / which the six-winged
Seraphim sing in company with full-grown Christians 7 .

1 Probst (Lit. des viert. Jahrh. p. 150) thinks that K^pvyfia is
the liturgical Canon. He quotes Firmilian s letter to Cyprian
(Cyprian, Ep. Ixxv. 10 sacramento soUt&e praedicationis) in support.
The K-npvyna-ra would then be the intercessions in the Anaphora.

2 The most striking is the prayer for those who manifest the
spiritual fruits in the holy church, which appears in substance in
the Prayers of the Faithful in A. C. Cp. LE W. 11. 5.

3 For the kiss of peace see Basil, Poenae in monach. delinq. 38.
In the Lit. of St Basil the great Entrance precedes the kiss of

* Ep. Can. ii. 22, 44; iii. 56, 75, 77.

5 For the oblation see further Caesarius Naz., Dial. iii. 169.

6 in Resurr. Chr. iii. (P. G. XLVI. 645 B) 6 eiriviKio

Cf. the Preface to the Sanctus in Lit. of St Basil (LEW. 323. 27).

7 de Bapt. (P. G. XLVI. -421 c).

118 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

There are in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers
many close parallels of language to the thanksgiving
of the Anaphora which bears the name of St Basil,
and St Basil in one passage 1 has been thought to
have had the Eucharistic thanksgiving in mind. But
such parallels need to be used with caution, and
cannot be adduced with any security as evidence of
the existence of particular forms of prayer. They are
interesting attestations of the currency of ideas and
expressions which took shape in liturgical formularies,
but more cannot be claimed for them.

There is an interesting passage in Basil s treatise
On the Holy Spirit*, which refers to the recital of the
words of institution and to the Invocation in the
Liturgy. Speaking of unwritten traditions he says :
Which of the saints has left us the words of the
Invocation at the consecration (ai/a6Vet) of the bread
of the Eucharist and of the cup of blessing ? For we
are not satisfied with those words of which the
Apostle or the Gospel made mention, but we utter
both before and after them other words as having
great importance for the mystery, receiving them
from unwritten tradition. In this passage Basil
alludes to the account of the institution given by
St Paul and the Gospels, on which the recitation of
the institution during the liturgy was based.

Both Basil and Caesarius of Nazianzus quote the
words of institution at the Supper, but their quotations

1 Reg.fusius tract, ii. 3sq. For other parallels see LEW. 525.
n. 12.

2 de Spir. s. xxvii. 66.

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 119

appear to be made freely, and they do not enable us
to reconstruct any portion of the form used in the
liturgy, though Caesarius exhibits a knowledge of
variations in the text such as are found in some
existing liturgical forms 1 .

Basil speaks, as we have seen, of the Invocation
as taking place at the consecration (oFo3^) J of the
bread and the cup. We have still earlier evidence
from Cappadocia of the existence of an invocation in
some form at the Eucharist in the letter of Firmilian
of Caesarea to Cyprian, in which ,he refers to a
woman who pretended to sanctify bread by an in
vocation and celebrate the Eucharist 3 . As to the
exact form which the Invocation took in the Churches
of Pontus we have not sufficient evidence to judge.
Gregory of Nyssa refers to the power of the blessing
by which the elements are changed into the Body
and Blood of Christ 4 , and in dealing with the operative
divine power by which material things are consecrated
to sacred purposes he refers to the sanctification of
the Spirit as effecting the consecration of the bread

1 Basil, de Ba.pt. i. 3. 2; Caesarius, Dial. iii. 169. The latter
has the variations eat ye all of it, and take, drink." For the
former cf. A. C., Syr. -James, Coptic. For the latter cf. Cyril of
Jerusalem, Sarapion, Syr. -James, Coptic, Abyss.

2 With the word dvadeigtv cf . the use of a i/a&lt;$et/a/uvai in the Lit.
of St Basil, the Invocation of which contains the words eu\oyi]&lt;r&lt;u
avTa xai dyidcrai nal dvaSe i^aL (LEW. 329. 31 f.), while in the
account of the institution it is used of Christ shewing the bread
to the Father (LEW. 327. 29). See further the note on diroQalveiv
in the liturgy of A. C. (p. 105, n. 1).

3 Cyprian, Ep . Ixxv . 10, inuocatione noil contemptibili sanctificare
se panem et eucharistiam facere simularet.

* Or. Cat. 37.

120 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

and wine of the Eucharist, the oil of chrism, and the
wood of an altar 1 . Elsewhere the Cappadocian Fathers
re-echo the language of their favourite Alexandrine
teachers and refer to the operation of the Logos in
the Eucharist. Thus when Gregory of Nyssa speaks,
like Origen, of the bread of the Eucharist as sanctified
by the Word of God and prayer 2 / it seems probable
from the context that, like Origen, he understood
St Paul (1 Tim. iv. 5) to refer to the personal
Word. Similarly Gregory of Nazianzus shews traces
of the same Alexandrine influence when he says Do
not neglect to pray and intercede for us, when by
word you draw down the Word, when with bloodless
cutting you divide the Lord s body and blood, using
your voice as your sword 3 . But none of these writers
quote the form of Invocation used in the Liturgy 4 .

After the Anaphora came the blessing of the
people 5 . The use of the Lord s Prayer in the liturgy
is not mentioned, but Gregory of Nyssa in his dis
courses on the Lord s Prayer seems to shew acquaint
ance with the prefatory words by which it was
introduced in the liturgy 6 . Beyond incidental allusions
to the Fraction and Communion 7 our sources throw
no light on the concluding portion of the liturgy.

For the Church of Constantinople we have the

1 in Bapt. Chr. (P. G. XLVI. 582 c).

2 Or. Cat. 37. For Origen see p. 50. s Ep. clxxi.
4 See further p. 126. s (j reg&gt; Naz ^ Or xviii 29

6 de Or. Dom. ii (P.O. XLIV. 1140 c, 1141 D). Note especially
Tt/s Trappriaias, ToX/mrja-ai ebreu/, and eTrtKaXeladai /cat elirelv
Tldrep, and cf. the parallels in St Jaines, St Mark, and St Basil.

i Greg. Nyss., Or. Cat. 37 ; Caesarius Naz., Dial. Hi. 169 ;
Basil, Ep. xciii., and the other reff. in LEW. 536, n. 19.

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 121

evidence of the writings of Chrysostom which belong
to the period of his residence in that city, while a
few supplementary facts are supplied by the Church
historians of the fifth century, Socrates, Sozomen,
and Philostorgius.

The evidence is fragmentary and not so full as
that which is available for the Church of Antioch.
But it points to the existence in both churches of the
same general liturgical scheme. The opening saluta
tion 1 , the deacon s proclamation let us attend 8 , the
three lessons (prophet, apostle, gospel) 3 , the first
being introduced with the words Thus saith the
Lord 4 , are all referred to. The lessons were recited
by a reader from some raised place 5 . This represents
the earlier practice as found e.g. in Cyprian in the
West 6 . Later on the Gospel was read by a deacon, a
priest, or on high-days by a bishop 7 . The sermon,
which was preceded by the salutation, as at Antioch,
was followed by the dismissal of the catechumens 8 .
The prayer of the catechumens is not referred to, but
this is probably an accident, as it is very fully described
in Chrysostom s Antiochene writings, and it has in
fact survived in the later Byzantine liturgy. Nor is

1 Chrys., in Col. iii. 3. 2 ; ^ c ^ Ap x j x 5

3 in Heb. viii. 4.

4 in Act. Ap. xix. 5.

5 in Heb. viii. 4, dve\6&lt;ov b aWyfwo-rtjs, i.e. to the ambo (TO
ftf)u.(t T(JOV dvayvuMrT&v, Sozomen, H.E. viii. 5).

6 See ch. vi. 7 Sozomen, //. E. vii. 19.

8 Chrys., in Col. iii. 3. There were sometimes two sermons
(Chrys., horn, inedit. viii (title)}. The dismissal of the catechumens
is not definitely alluded to, but follows from what is said by
Chrysostom, in Phil. iii. 4.

122 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

there any mention of the dismissal of the various
orders of penitents. Chrysostom s silence on this
point has sometimes been explained by reference to
the fact that the predecessor of Chrysostom, the
patriarch Nectarius, in 391 A.D. had abrogated the
office of penitentiary. This office, according to
Socrates 1 , had been established in the third century
in the time of the Novatianist controversy with
the object of directing penitents, on confession of
their sins, as to the exercises required of them before
they were readmitted to communion. The account
of Socrates has been held to imply that with the
abolition of this office the system of public penitence
fell into disuse, for he adds that the presbyter who
advised Nectarius to take this course suggested that
every man should be left at liberty to partake of the
holy mysteries according to the direction of his own
conscience. Sozomen adds in his account the further
statement that almost everywhere the bishops followed
the example of Nectarius, though at Rome and in
the West the penitential system survived for some
centuries. But whatever effect the action of Nectarius
may have had on the penitential system, it is clear
from the Syriac documents published by Nau that, as
in the case of the catechumens, so in the case of the
penitents, the forms of dismissal in the liturgy survived
even when the conditions of Church life had changed,
and that the form for the dismissal of penitents was

1 Socrates, H. E. v. 19. Cf . Sozoinen, H. E. vii. 16. On the
whole question see Batiffol, Etudes i. 4 149 ff., and E. Schwartz,
Buss und Bussstufen (Strassburg, 1911).

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 123

in existence in the East and at Constantinople after
530 A.D. 1

The prayers of the faithful may be referred to in
a passage 2 in which Chrysostom speaks of the greater
efficacy of the common prayer of the Church than of
prayers offered in private. In such common prayers
he includes intercessions for the world, for the
church to the utmost bounds/ [for peace, and for
those who are suffering calamities 3 .

Theodoret 4 testifies to the fact that the grace
(2 Cor. xiii. 14) in its Byzantine form (which is
distinct from that of A. C. and St James) formed the
prelude to the liturgy in all the churches. Other
parts of the liturgy to which there are either direct
or implied references are the Sursum corda and the
Sanctus 5 . Reference has already been made to a
passage in a late work ad eos qui scandalizantur,
which Brightman thinks may have been modelled
upon the eucharistic thanksgiving 8 . As in his homilies
at Antioch, so at Constantinople Chrysostom dwells
upon the importance of the commemoration of the
martyrs and the intercessions for the living and the
dead at the moment of the sacrifice. From his language

1 Nau, Litterature canonique syriaque inddite in Revue de
V orient chretien, xiv. (1909) pp. 46 48. The language of the prayer
over the auditor es there given presents some parallels with the
prayer of the catechumens in Lit. of St Basil (e.g. pardon of sins,
robe of incorruptibility). Cf . LE W. 315. 23 f . , and for the liturgy

2 in Act. Ap. xxxvii. 3.

3 For similar prayers at Antioch see p. 92. Cf. p. 101.
* ad loann. oec. ep. 146 (ed. Sinnond, m. 1032).

5 in Heb. xxii. 3 ; in Col. ix. 2. 6 See p. 93, n. 7.

124 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

it seems probable that these commemorations and
intercessions took place after the consecration. Thus
he speaks of intercessions for the departed when
* angels and archangels are present, the Son of God is
present. Of the martyrs he says that it is a great
honour for them to be named whilst the Master is
present, and he justifies the practice of intercession
at this point by the analogy of petitions addressed
to an emperor while sitting on his throne, and the
favours bestowed on the occasion of an imperial
triumph 1 . In addition to the commemoration of the
martyrs and intercessions for the departed, he speaks
of offerings made for the Church, the priesthood, and
the whole body (TOV TrX^pw/xaTos) 2 .

Of diptychs we have mention in the correspondence
of Cyril of Alexandria with Atticus, patriarch of
Constantinople (406 425 A.D.), from which we learn
that they were recited in the Churches of Antioch
and Constantinople in the first quarter of the fifth
century, and that the names of the living and the
dead were contained in two separate tablets or books 3 .
They appear to have been mere lists of the names of

1 in Act. Ap. xxi. 4 ; cf. in Phil. iii. 4.

2 inAct.Ap.-sai.4t. FoT rov 7r\np&lt;naTo?cf.A.C.(LEW. 2S.21).
Mr E. Bishop (J. Th. St. xn. 389 n. 2) notes the distinction
implied in the word used of the commemoration of martyrs
(&lt;Jj/&juoo-6&gt;]i/oi) and the word used of others for whom intercession
is offered (/ui/jf/urjs atov&lt;r0&lt;u). Before leaving the subject of the
Intercessions in Chrysostom we may notice a parallel between the
language of the prayer for the forgiveness of sins voluntary and
involuntary, which Chrysostom says was made at the time of the
offering (in Heb. xvii. 2), and the similar prayer in the Intercession
of St Basil (LEW. 336. 16 f.).

8 See E. Bishop in Connolly s Narsai, pp. 102 f.

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 125

those who were to be commemorated. From the
analogy of the practice described by Chrysostom
and from the position which the diptychs occupy in
the later Byzantine rite we may infer that they were
recited in the intercession after the consecration 1 .

Other passages in Chrysostom s writings of this
period allude to the use of the Lord s Prayer during
the mysteries 2 , the salutation when the sacrifice is
completed 3 , the Sancta sanctis, which is expressly
quoted, with the further proclamation if any is not
holy, let him not approach 4 , and the Communion 5 .
Chrysostom mentions that some communicated once
a year, others twice, others often, others again once
in two years 6 .

The general scheme of the liturgy exhibited in
the Pontic writers and in Chrysostom s writings which
belong to the period of his residence at Constantinople
accords with that which we have found in the Apostolic
Constitutions and in Chrysostom s Antiochene works.
The evidence of the Cappadocian Fathers and other
Pontic writers points to the existence of the same
elaborate system of dismissals in the missa catechu-
menorum as prevailed at Antioch in the latter part
of the fourth century, while at Constantinople, in
spite of the changes in the penitential system of the

1 On the recital of diptychs by the deacon, while the intercession
formed part of the prayers said aloud by the celebrant, see
E. Bishop, J. Th. St. xii. 396 f., where further evidence for : ,the
position of the intercession at Constantinople is also discussed.

2 -h om . in Eutrop. 5. i n Col. iii. 3.
4 in Heb. xvii. 5. $ Ib. xvii. 4.

6 Ib. xvn. 4.

126 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

Church and the silence of Chrysostom, we have found
reason to believe that the same system was current.

As we have seen, the Cappadocian Fathers are
silent as to any express invocation of the Holy Spirit
in the liturgy, though Basil refers to the existence of
an invocation of some kind, while the two Gregories
re-echo the language of Alexandrine writers and
associate with the Eucharist the operation of the Logos.
This however throws no light on the native usages
of Cappadocia, but is due to their literary affinities
with the Alexandrine school ; nor is there any
evidence that the liturgy in Cappadocia contained an
Invocation expressly asking for the operation of the
Logos. This latter form of Invocation appears to
have survived in the fourth century only at Alex
andria and in the Nile Delta, and even at Alexandria
it was displaced in the latter part of the century by
the express mention of the Holy Spirit. Hence we
may regard it as practically certain that in Cappadocia
and at Constantinople in the time of Basil and Chry
sostom (though they supply no positive evidence of
the fact) the Holy Spirit was named in the Invocation J .

Beyond these facts, and the parallels found in our
authorities to the language of some of the prayers
found in the Byzantine rite, the evidence adduced

1 We have no evidence to shew whether the Invocation in
Cappadocia was of the earlier character found in the Ethiopic
Church Order and Lit. of Adai and Mari, or whether it contained
the decisive words (found in Cyril of Jerusalem, St James, A. C.,
and St Basil) according to which it is the Holy Spirit who makes
or shews the bread and wine (to be) the Body and the Blood of
Christ.

OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES 127

supplies little material for the history of the distinctive
features of the rites of St Basil and St Chrysostom 1 .

For the East Syrian Church we have one source
of evidence which cannot be passed over, though a
fuller treatment of it must be left for a later volume
of this series. The Anaphora of the ancient liturgy
of Adai and Mari is probably earlier than 431 A.D.
Though overlaid with some later elements it preserves
ancient features which call for notice, and its evidence
is the more important because it comes from a region
which lay outside Greek-speaking Christendom and
was not affected so early or to so great an extent as
other regions in Eastern Christendom by the develope-
ments which were taking place in Greek-speaking
lands during the fourth century.

In this Anaphora we may notice the following
features :

(1) The words of institution are not found 2 , nor
is there any clear parallel to the formal Anamnesis
which finds a place after the recital of the Institution
in most Eastern and Western rites (except Sarapion) 3 .

1 Note e.g. the reference to the Byzantine form of the salutation
in Theodoret (p. 123) ; Basil s use of the word aW&lt;5eii (p. 119) ;
lastly the parallels to the language of Byzantine forms in the
Eucharistic prayer supplied by the writings of Basil and Chrysostom
(pp. 118, 123). On the other hand there are several parallels with
the language of liturgical forms in A. C. in the various interces
sions described by Basil and Chrysostom (pp. 117, 123).

2 There is no MS. authority for the insertion of the words as
found in Brightman (LEW. 285. 12 f.) or the S.P.C.K. translation
(Lit. of Holy Apostles Adai and Mari, p. 23). See the remarks
of Dom Connolly, Narsai, p. Ltiii.

8 The words celebrating... this great and awful and holy...
mystery, of the passion and death and burial and resurrection of

128 OTHER EASTERN CHURCHES

(2) The Invocation recalls that found in the
Ethiopic Church Order, in that it contains no prayer
for the change of the elements into the Body and
Blood of Christ, but asks that the Holy Spirit may
rest upon the oblation and bless and hallow it
and that it may be to us... for the pardon of debts
and for the forgiveness of sins and for the great hope
of resurrection from the dead and for new life in the
kingdom of heaven, with all those who have been
well-pleasing to theeV

(3) The remaining prayers before Communion,
like those in the Ethiopic Church Order, are in their
general tenour preparatory to Communion, and there
is nothing corresponding to the intercessions for the
dead described by Cyril of Jerusalem or the very full
intercessions which find a place here in the Apostolic
Constitutions 2 .

The significance of these features will be considered
later on. For the present it is sufficient to point out
the fact that in one quarter of Christendom there
survived early in the fifth century a type of liturgy,
which alike in the wording of its prayers and its
conceptions lay outside the type which from the
fourth century onwards became the normal type in
Greek-speaking lands.

...Jesus Christ, which introduce the Invocation, are regarded
as suspicious and possibly containing interpolated matter by
Mr E. Bishop (see Connolly s Narsai, p. 97, n. 1).

1 S.P.C.K. translation, p. 26.

2 The short prayer for peace (LEW. 288. 13 f.) does not really
constitute an exception to the above statement.

CHAPTER VI

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

FOR the reconstruction of the liturgy in North
Africa we have no such liturgical forms as are avail
able for the history of the liturgy in Egypt and Syria.
Nor do we possess any formal treatise on the liturgy,
like the Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem. On the
other hand, the fragmentary notices of Tertullian,
Cyprian, Optatus, and Augustine enable us to re
construct very fairly the scheme of the liturgy, and
supply us with occasional notices of some of the
shorter liturgical formulae which were current.

The references of Tertullian to the Christian
gatherings fall into three classes. (1) We have an
account in his Apology 1 of a service at which prayers
and intercessions were offered, the Scriptures were
read, and exhortations were delivered. There is a
description of a similar service, held on Sunday, in
his treatise On the Soul 2 . This also consisted of
readings from Scripture, psalms, addresses (adlocu-
tiones), and prayers* (2) In the chapter of the
Apology, already referred to, Tertullian describes a

1 c. 39. 2 c . 9.

8. L. 9

130 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

Christian meal which was preceded by prayer, and
which bore the character of a social gathering, ac
companied however by religious exercises. At its
close water for the washing of the hands, and lights,
were brought in, and the brethren sang praises to
God either from Scripture (i.e. Psalms) or of their
own composing. The feast concluded with prayer.
The whole description implies that the meal took
place in the evening, and it seems a legitimate
inference that it was the Agape. (3) Elsewhere 1
Tertullian refers to the Eucharist, of which, however,
he gives no detailed account. It was celebrated early
in the morning 2 .

From these indications we gather that the Eucha
rist was already distinct from the Agape in the time
of Tertullian 3 . But the question of its relation to
the first of the three kinds of gatherings described
above is not so easy to determine. The passage in
the treatise On the Soul has been interpreted to refer
to the Sunday vigil service, which was held before
dawn 4 . The existence of such vigil services in con
nexion with Easter is implied in Tertullian s reference
to the anxiety of the heathen husband at his wife s
absence all night long at the Paschal solemnities 5 ,

1 See e.g. de Orat. 14; de Corona 3; ad Uxor. ii. 4.

2 de Cor. 3.

3 Batiffol maintains that the Eucharist (not the Agape) is
described in Ap. 39. But his arguments are not convincing. On
the whole question see Keating, Agape, p. 62 f. ; Batiffol, Etudes
d histoire et de thtologie positive, i 4 . p. 300 f.; Funk, Kirckengesch .
Abhandlungen, m. (1907), pp. Iff.

* See Batiffol, Histoire du breviaire romain, p. 5.
5 ad Uxor. ii. 4.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 131

and we have further evidence that in the time of
Cyprian vigils were held in connexion with the
martyrs birthdays 1 / But there is no positive
evidence of the existence of a Sunday vigil in the
time of Tertullian in North Africa. On the other
hand, the passage from the treatise On the Soul has
been understood to refer to the Sunday missa catechu-
menorum*. From Justin we learn that at Rome in
the middle of the second century this * service of the
word was already associated with the Eucharist
proper and served as an introduction to it 3 . The
same may have been the case at Carthage. In one
passage, however, Tertullian seems to suggest that
the two might be distinct 4 , and traces of this dis
tinction will be noted when we come to examine the
evidence of Augustine 5 .

We have further details as to the character of this
preliminary service in several passages of Tertullian
and Cyprian. The former alludes to the reading of
the law, the prophets, the Gospels, and the letters of
Apostles 6 . Similarly Tertullian and Cyprian refer to
the office of reader 7 ; the latter also to the reading of
the Gospel, and to the pulpit (pulpitum) from which

1 Vita Cypriani 15.

2 Cf. Baumer (ed. Biron), Ifi.ttoire dii breviaire, pp. 99 f.

3 See p. 37. 4 See p. 37 n. 4.

6 p. 144. Cabrol, DACL. ai-t. Afrique (liturgie anteniceene
de 1 ), argues in favour of the distinction of the two.

6 de Praescr. 36; de Nonogam. 12 ; Ap. 22.

7 Tert. de Praescr. 41 ; Cyprian, Ep. xxxviii. (xxxiii.) 2. In the
letter of Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch the reader is
classed below acolytes and exorcists (Eus. H. E. vi. 43). See
Turner, Camb. Med. Hist. i. 149; Maclean, Anc. Oh. Orders, 85 f.

9-?

132 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

it was read 1 . In one passage Cyprian appears to
refer to a blessing or salutation preceding the lesson *.
With regard to the psalms of which Tertullian speaks
in one of the passages quoted above, it is doubtful
whether they came between the lessons or after them.
From Cyprian we learn that the sermon was some
times based upon one of the lessons which had been
read 3 . Lastly, Tertullian tells us that at the
Christian gatherings prayers were offered for the
Emperors and all in authority; for the condition of
the world, for peace, and for the delay of the end of
all things 4 .

The discipline which guarded the mysteries from
all but the faithful is familiar to Tertullian. In
speaking of the heretics he says that it is doubtful
who is a catechumen, and who is a believer. Alike
they approach, alike they hear, alike they pray, even
the heathen, if they come upon the scene ; they will
cast that which is holy to the dogs, and pearls,
though they be only false ones, before swine 5 . This
indiscriminate admission of all alike to their most
sacred rites by heretics seems to be contrasted with
Catholic custom, which fenced off the mysteries from
all but the faithful.

Passing to the Eucharist proper, we find in
Tertullian and Cyprian evidence of considerable
developements connected with it. It is called the
Lord s feast (Tert.), the sacrament of the Eucharist

1 Ep. xxxviii. (xxxiii.) 2. Cf. Ep. xxxix. (xxxiv.) 4.
a Ep. xxxviii. (xxxiii.) 2. 3 de Mortalit. 1.

&lt; Ap. 39. 5 de Pratscr. 41.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 183

(Tert.), the Lord s sacrifice (Cypr.). The phrases
to offer the Eucharist, to offer sacrifice, to partake
of the sacrifice are employed in connexion with it,
and the terms altar (altar e, ara) and priest
(sacerdos) are freely employed in a Christian sense 1 .
Cyprian however marks a considerable advance on
Tertullian in his conceptions of the sacrificial aspect
of the Eucharist. In Tertullian the term sacrifice
is still used in its earlier sense of the people s offering 2 ,
while Cyprian definitely conceives of the Eucharist
as the sacrifice of the Lord s Body and Blood 8 .

The Eucharist, as we have seen, was celebrated
early in the morning, and the communion appears to
have been received fasting 4 . Other details as to
customs observed in the North African Church are
as follows :

(1) Both Tertullian and Cyprian refer to the
practice of offering the Eucharist in commemoration
of the martyrs, the title natalitia or birthdays
being given to them 6 . These commemorations were
of a festal character, and in the time of Cyprian were
preceded by a vigil. They were intended to keep
alive the sense of the communion of the Church with
those who had attained to blessedness through
martyrdom. Of a different character were the annual

1 Swete, /. Th. St.iii. 166 f.

2 Cf . Wieland, Mensa M. Confessio, p. 53 f .

3 See p. 139. On Cyprian s use of sacrificial language see
E. W. Wutsou in Studia Billica, iv. 265 f.

Tert. de Cor. 3; Cyprian, Ep. Ixiii. 16; Tert. ad Uxor. ii. 5.
Cf. p. 143.

& Tert. de Cor. 3 ; Cyprian, Ep. xxxix. (xxxiv.) 3.

134 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

commemorations of the departed (other than martyrs),
in which the Eucharist was celebrated for their
repose (dormitio), and in which prayers were offered
for their refreshment (refrigerium), and that they
might obtain a part in the first resurrection 1 . Like
the corresponding commemorations mentioned in the
Didascalia, they would take place in the cemeteries,
and are to be distinguished from the Sunday synaxes
or gatherings for worship 2 . We have a still earlier
reference to such commemorations in the East in the
letter of the Church of Smyrna on the martyrdom of
Poly carp 8 .

(2) A second practice, which also appears for
the first time in the Church of North Africa, is that
of taking the Eucharist from Church and reserving
it at home to be partaken of in private 4 .

(3) Tertullian alludes to the rule of the Church
which forbade the practice of kneeling in worship on
Sundays and during the period between Easter and
Pentecost 5 .

We find what may be an allusion to the prayers
with which the liturgy proper began in the description
which Tertullian gives of the intercessions offered in
Christian worship, and in his account of the general
character of prayer as practised by Christians. In
his Apology 6 he speaks of Christians as praying for

1 Tert. de Monogam. 10; Cyprian, Ep. i. (Ixvi.) 2.

2 Wieland, Mensa it, Confessio, p. 57 f.

3 Mart. Polycarpi 18.

4 Tert. de Cor. 3; ad Uxor. ii. 5; de Orat. 19; Cyprian,
de Lapsis, 26.

Tert. de Cor. 3. Ap. 30, 31, 39.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 135

the Emperor and governors, for the Empire, the army,
the Senate and people, and for the peace of the
world. In his treatise On Prayer 1 he speaks of
Christians as offering intercessions for persecutors,
for the departed, the sick, the possessed, and for
prisoners. The description bears a general resemblance
to the subject matter of the Good Friday prayers in
the Roman rite and to the litany prayers of the
Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites. The phrase in mente
habere in orationibus employed by Cyprian and one
of his correspondents in connexion with requests for
the prayers of those to whom they write 2 finds a
parallel in the saying of St Fructuosus, a Spanish
martyr of the third century, who in reply to a request
of someone to remember him, answered I must have
in mind (in mente habere} the Catholic Church which
is spread from East to West 3 . In the deacon s
litany of the Mozarabic rite we find similar language
ecclesiam sanctam catholicam in orationibus in mente
habeamusV But it would be hazardous to assume 6
on the strength of these parallels that the phrase had
obtained a fixed place among the liturgical formulae
of the North African Church in the time of Cyprian.
The expression in mente habere is used by Tertullian 6 ,

1 de Orat. 29.

2 Cyprian, Ep. Ixii. (Ix.) 4; Ixxix. (Ixxx.); cf. Augustine,
Serm. 273. 2, where in mente Jtabere is used of the request, while in
the reply of Fructuosus orare is substituted.

8 Acta Fructnosi 3, in Ruinart, Acta mart, select, (ed. 1713),
p. 221.

4 Ed. Lesly, pp. 3, 224.

5 See e.g. W. C. Bishop in J. Th. St. xiii. 254 f.

6 ad Uxor. ii. 4.

136 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

not necessarily as a liturgical formula, though possibly
with reference to prayer for others. It is found in a
graffito at Pompeii, and occurs in Christian inscrip
tions at Rome, Aquileia, and in North Africa, some
times with the addition in orationibm 1 . Its early
currency in Christian phraseology would explain its
adoption into later liturgical use.

From two passages of Cyprian it has been inferred
that there was a public recital of the names of living
and departed members of the Church in the liturgy.
The former of the two passages 2 refers to the un
authorized reception to communion of those who
have lapsed, and speaks of their name being offered/
But the reading of the passage appears to be faulty,
and the more recent editors give the correction
offering is made in their name 3 . The second passage 4
refers to the decision of an earlier African Council to
the effect that those who appointed by their will a
cleric to be tutor or curator were to have no offering
made for them nor sacrifice celebrated for their repose.
Such an one, by wishing to divert the priests and
ministers from the altar, does not deserve to be

1 For Rome see Marucchi, Christian Epigraphy (Cambridge,
1912), p. 441, Marcianum Succession Severum spirita sancta in
mente havete et omnes fratres nostros; for Aquileia, ibid. p. 161,
martyres sancti in mente havite Maria; for North Africa see
Willmanns, Corpus Inscr. Lat. viii. n. 9708, in mente habeas
servum dei. Probably none of these inscriptions is earlier than
the fourth century. The parallel Greek phrase et furelav ex e&lt;r&lt;?
also occurs in inscriptions. For the addition in orationibus see
Marucchi, p. 440, saute Suste in inente habeas in horationes Aureliu
Repentinu. See further De Rossi, Roma sotterranea, ii. 18 f .

2 Ep. xvi. (ix.) 2.

8 Reading offertur nomine eontm (Hartel). 4 Ep. i. (Ixvi.) 2.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 137

mentioned in the prayer of the priests. But, as we
have seen, both Tertullian and Cyprian refer to the
custom of celebrating the Eucharist with special in
tention on behalf of the departed, and to the annual
commemorations of the dead, and this is probably all
that is meant in this passage. It is inadequate
evidence of the existence of a public recitation of the
names of the dead in the normal Eucharists of the
Church.

In one passage Cyprian mentions the fact that
some came to church without a sacrifice 1 . This is
a reference to the offerings of the people, which
consisted partly of gifts of bread and wine, out of
which the elements of the Eucharist were taken, and
partly of alms. This custom, which continued in the
"West longer than in the East, explains the constantly
recurring phrases in Tertullian and Cyprian oblationes
facere, oblationes annuae, offerre, which are used of
the people s offerings 2 . Cyprian also speaks of the
mixed cup of wine and water, and sees in it a
symbol of the union of Christ with His people 3 .

In Cyprian s treatise On the Lord s Prayer* 1 we
find the earliest reference to the Western Preface
Sursum corda, with the response Habemus addominum.
A possible allusion to the Sanctus has been suggested
in some words of Tertullian s treatise On Prayer*,
but there is no distinct reference to the Eucharist in

1 de of ere et eleem. 15.

3 Tert. Exhort, cast. 11; de Cor. 3; Cyprian, Ep. xvi. (ix.) 2.
3 Ep. Ixiii. 13. * de Orat. Dom. 31.

6 de Or. 3 cui ilia angelorum circumstantia non cessant dicere :
sanctus, sanctus, sanctus.

138 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

the passage. A more probable allusion is supplied
by some words in the Acts of Perpetua\ written
in North Africa about the beginning of the third
century. In them the martyr Saturus tells how in a
vision he had heard voices saying in one accord and
without ceasing Holy, holy, holy. The whole vision
seems to be modelled upon reminiscences of a Christian
assembly, as mention is made of elders who are placed
on the right and the left of the white-haired figure,
and who say Let us stand (for prayer) 2 . Moreover,
the actual words are given in their Greek form
(Agios, agios, agios), which suggests a liturgical
formula, while the preceding words, without cessa
tion, recall the familiar phrase (dKarairava-Tat&lt;s) of
Eastern liturgies 3 .

The Eucharistic thanksgiving is alluded to both
by Tertullian and Cyprian. The former, referring to
the Gnostic distinction of the supreme God from the
Creator, speaks of offering thanksgivings over strange
bread to another god 4 , while the latter says that it
was the custom in the Christian sacrifices and prayers
to give thanks unceasingly to God the Father and to
Christ His Son our Lord, and to pray and make
request 5 .

As we have already indicated, Cyprian s language
on the sacrifice in the Eucharist marks a considerable
advance on that of Tertullian and was probably in

1 c. 12.

2 Stemus ad orationem. The last two words are bracketed by
Gebhardt.

3 Cf. the incessdbih uoce of the Te Deum.

* adv. Marc. i. 23. Ep. Ixi. (Iviii.) 4.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 139

advance of that of his time. The two elements in
which this advance is shewn are (1) the definite con
ception of the Eucharistic sacrifice as the sacrifice
of the Body and Blood of Christ, (2) the association
of this sacrifice with the sacrifice of the Cross. He
compares the high-priesthood of Christ with that of
Melchizedek, and starting from the account of the
institution he asserts that Christ offered to God
the Father bread and wine, that is, His Body and
Blood. He further commanded this to be done in
remembrance of Him. Hence the priest discharging
the function of Christ (nice Christi fungitur) offers
to God the Father in the Church a true and full
sacrifice, when he imitates what Christ did and fully
carries out His words and acts 1 . Moreover, in this
sacrifice mention is made of His Passion; for the
Passion is the Lord s sacrifice which we offer.
Similarly he speaks of offering the blood of Christ,
or offering the cup in commemoration of His Passion 2 .
The ideas thus adumbrated are not worked out into
a systematic theory, and Cyprian still shews traces of
a symbolical view of the sacrifice 3 , but the forms in
which his devotion finds expression provided the
basis for later theological exposition.

Tertullian refers to the words of institution by
which Christ made the bread His Body, or as he
explains it, the figure of His Body 4 , while Cyprian,

i Ep, Ixiii. 4, 10, 14. 2 /fo^ 9, 17 .

3 Note e.g. imitates what Christ did, offering the cup in com
memoration of the Passion.

4 adv. Marc. iv. 40.

140 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

in language which reminds us of the Anamnesis,
says * we make mention of His Passion in all our
sacrifices/ we celebrate the Lord s resurrection early
in the morning 1 .

Of the consecration of the gifts Cyprian makes
mention in two passages. Speaking of an apostate
bishop, he says that the oblation cannot be sanctified
(sanctificari) where the Holy Spirit is not 2 . In
the second passage he speaks of the Lord s sacrifice
as celebrated with the appointed sanctification
(legitima sanctificatione)*. There is an interesting
point of contact with later Western liturgical phrase
ology in the reference to the sacrifice of Melchizedek,
which Cyprian compares with the offering of bread
and wine made by Christ at the Last Supper 4 . The
comparison may have been a commonplace of early
Christian thought in the West, and so have found its
way into the liturgy 5 .

In a passage of the de Spectaculis* Tertullian has
been thought to allude to the concluding words (in
saecula saeculorum) of the Eucharistic prayer. Re
ferring to those who frequent the games, he asks
them how they could give testimony to a gladiator
with that mouth wherewith they had answered Amen
at the Eucharist 7 , or say World without end (

i Ep. Ixiii. 17, 16. 2 Ep. Ixv. (Ixiv.) 4. 8 Ep. Ixiii. 9.

4 Ep. Ixiii. 4. Cf. the reference to the offering of Melchizedek
in the prayers of the de Sacramentis and the Roman Canon.

5 Cf. Tert., adv. ludaeos, 2. 6 c. 25.

7 The Latin is in sanctum. For the phrase sanctum dornini or
sanctum to denote the Eucharistic elements see Cyprian, de
Lapsis, 26. The Amen is that with which communicants responded
on reception.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 141

aV aion/os) l to any other but God and
Christ.

In the time of Augustine the Eueharistic prayer
was followed by the Lord s Prayer and the kiss of
peace. Of the use of the Lord s Prayer in the liturgy
in the time of Tertullian and Cyprian there is no
clear indication. Tertullian makes more than one
allusion to the kiss of peace, and reproves the custom
of some at Carthage, who when keeping a station
(he is referring apparently to private fasts) withheld
the kiss of peace after prayer with the brethren. He
urges upon them that the kiss of peace is the seal
of prayer 2 . No prayer and no sacrifice is complete
without it 3 . His language implies that it was not
exclusively a feature of the liturgy. What exactly
was its place in the liturgy the references of Tertullian
do not enable us to say 4 .

From Cyprian we gather that the faithful received
the communion in the right hand 5 , and from Tertullian
and the Acts of Perpetuci that they responded Amen

1 For the Greek formula compare the Greek form of the
Sanctus quoted from the Acts of Perpetua, p. 138.

* de Orat. 18 signaculum orationis. Cf. Innocent, Ep. ad
Decent. 1 omnia quae in mysteriis aguntur...finita esse pacis con-
cludentis siguaculo.

9 Ibid. But on Good Friday, which was a public fast, Tertullian
(ibid.) informs us that it was the general custom to omit the kiss
of peace. For the kiss of peace see also Acta Perpetttae, 12, 21.

4 Cabrol (DACL. art. Afrique (Lit. antenice ene de 1 ) ) con
cludes on insufficient grounds that the prayer with the brethren
(de Orat. 18) was the Lord s Prayer, and that the Pax closely
followed on it. Probst thinks it came, as in Justin, before the
Offertory (Lit. der drei erst. Jahrh., 373 f.).

* Ep. Iviii. (Ivi.) 9.

142 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

on reception 1 . The deacons administered the cup 2 ,
and, as we have seen, the faithful were allowed to
carry away with them the consecrated bread, which
was laid up in an area or casket for reception at
home 3 . The dismissal of the people is referred to by
Tertullian 4 .

Our next sources of information about the North
African liturgy follow at a considerable interval after
Cyprian. Optatus, bishop of Milevis, wrote his work
against the Donatists about 363 A.D. Augustine was
bishop of Hippo during the years 395 430 A.D. The
period covered by these writers was marked by some
important developements alike in Eucharistic concep
tions and liturgical practice. With regard to the
former we may notice in Optatus the greater definite-
ness of his language with regard to the Eucharist
when compared with that of the earlier period. The
altar is the seat of the body and blood of Christ, the
place * where His body and His blood used to dwell
for certain moments of time/ The chalices carry
the blood of Christ 5 . On the other hand Augustine
is singularly free from this localizing tendency, and
his thought is more closely related to that of Tertullian
and Cyprian, of which it represents a more reflective
and developed stage 6 . But it is possible that
Augustine is here less representative of popular piety
in North Africa than Optatus. Augustine is domi
nated by a theory of sacraments, the chief feature of

1 de Spectaculis, 25; Acta Perpetuae, 4.

2 Cyprian, de Lapsis, 25. 8 Ibid. 26.

* de Anima, 9. 5 c. Donat. vi. 1. 2. Batiffol, fttudes, n. 233.

THE LITURGY IX NORTH AFRICA 143

which is the distinction between the visible sign and
the invisible res. In this respect the influence of his
teaching held in check for some centuries in the
West the newer developements which from the fourth
century onwards tended to emphasize the conversion
of the elements and a localized view of the Eucharistic
presence. On the other hand, Augustine s conception
of the sacrifice of the Eucharist, while gathering up
the various elements in earlier thought, took shape
in a very explicit theory. Like Cypriati he dwells upon
the fact that it is the sacrifice of the body and blood
of Christ 1 . Like Cyprian again he relates it to the
sacrifice of the Cross 2 . But he advances beyond
Cyprian in his conception of its propitiatory value,
especially in connexion with the offering of it for the
departed 3 .

From Augustine we learn that the Eucharist was
in some places celebrated daily, in others at fixed
intervals 4 . The time was early in the morning and
before meals 5 , though the Third Council of Carthage
(397 A.D.) made an exception as to the rule of fasting
communion on Maundy Thursday 6 .

Augustine distinguishes the two parts of the
liturgy and speaks of the dismissal of catechumens

1 de An. et Orig. i. 11. 13; u. 15. 21; cf. Conf. ix. 12. 32,
saerificium pretii uostri.

2 c. Faust, xx. 18, 21 ; Ep. xcviii. 9 (ad Bonifacium}; de Civ.
Dei, x. 20.

3 See e.g. de An. et Orig. II. 15. 21 ; Enchirid. 110. Cf. Serm.
172. 2.

4 in loann. xxvi. 15; Ep. 228. 6. 5 Serm. 128. 4.
6 Can. 29.

144 THE LITUEGY IN NORTH AFRICA

after the sermon 1 . The preparatory service of lessons,
psalms, and sermon (known later as missa catecku-
menorum) was sometimes celebrated in another church
in Augustine s day 2 , as at Jerusalem in the time of
Etheria.

The missa catechumenorum was preceded by a
salutation 3 . The lessons were taken from the Epistles
and Gospels, though sometimes a lesson from the
Old Testament came first 4 . The Gospel was read
last, and was preceded by a psalm, which, though
called a lesson, was sung 5 . This psalm corresponds
to the Roman Gradual and the Milanese psalm.
Apparently the Acts of martyrs were also read on
the days on which they were commemorated 6 .
Augustine s reference to silence being kept before
the lessons 7 may indicate some injunction by the
deacon (cf. the silentium facite of the Mozarabic rite).
The lessons were followed by the sermon, after which
the catechumens were dismissed. At the conclusion
of many of Augustine s sermons we find the formula
Conu&rsi ad dominum, which appears to have been a
recognized cue, introducing a prayer, the full form of
which is given in several of his extant sermons 8 .

For the liturgy proper Augustine s evidence is

i Serm. 49. 8. 2 Serm. 325. 2.

8 Third Council of Carthage, can. 4 ; Augustine, Ep. 53. 1. 3.

4 For two lessons see Serm. 165. 1; 176. 1. For O.T. lessons
see Serm. 200. 2; Optatus, c. Donat. vi. 6.

8 Serm. 49. 1; 176. 1.

de Civ. Dei, xxii. 8. 22. 7 {^d. 8. 21.

e Sermones, 1, 18, 26. For the full form see Sermones, 34, 67,
272, 362.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 145

much fuller. He refers to the prayers of the faith
ful 1 , to the bishop s exhortation or bidding to
prayer, to the bishop s own prayer, and to the common
prayer enjoined by the proclamation of the deacon 8 .
The biddings referred to included petitions for
unbelievers that they might be converted, for cate
chumens that they might be inspired with a desire
for regeneration, for the faithful that they might
persevere 3 .

The indications thus afforded find some sort of
parallel in the Roman Good Friday prayers, which
Duchesne thinks may represent the original prayers
of the faithful 4 . In these we find a series of biddings,
with intervals of private prayer by the people, preceded
by the deacon s proclamation flectamus genua, and
followed by the corresponding leuate. A collect sums
up each series of petitions 5 . It is possibly some such
form of prayer to which the allusions in Augustine
point 6 .

Augustine s use of the word deprecari of the

1 Ep. 217. 29. The expression is not necessarily used in its
later technical sense. Earlier in the same epistle ( 13) Augustine
has orationes credenttum.

2 Ep. 217. 2, 26, 29; Ep. 55. 18. 34. Note in the last passage
communis oratio uoce diacoui indicitur.

3 Ep. 217. 2f. * Chr. Worship, p. 172.
5 Wilson, Gelasian Sacramentary, p. 75.

e Mr E. Bishop (J. Th. St. xii. 404 f.) contends that there is
no evidence of the use in the West of litanies after the Eastern
pattern earlier than the litanies of Alcuin and the Stowe Missal,
and he thinks that the compilers of these litanies drew their in
spiration from the Church of Constantinople. He would assign to
both documents a date in the latter years of the fifth century or
the early years of the sixth.

8. L. 10

146 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

bishop s prayer (or collect) 1 , when compared with the
form of bidding at the conclusion of one of his
sermons 2 , Conuersi ad dominum ipsum deprecemur
...dignetur, may point to the existence of a stereo
typed formula, into which particular biddings were
inserted. There is an interesting parallel to this use
of deprecari in the titles deprecatio Martini, de-
precatio Gelasii, given to later Western litany forms 3 ,
while the formula deprecamur dominum ut dignetur
is found in the Mozarabic Good Friday prayers for
penitents 4 .

In one of his epistles 5 , Augustine alludes to
offerings made by the people and especially to the
oblation of the holy altar/ i.e. the bread and the wine
from which the elements for consecration were taken,
and which were offered by the people through the
priest 6 . The Third Council of Carthage (can. 24)
enjoined that in the Eucharist only bread and wine
were to be offered, and that no further offering was
to be made in the sacrifices (another reading is * in
the first-fruits ) except grapes and corn. The Greek
and Latin collection of African canons mentions also
honey and milk (in connexion with the baptismal
rites), and these are to receive their own special
blessing to distinguish them from the sacrament of
the body and blood of Christ 7 .

1 Ep. 55. 18. 34. 2 Serm. 362 ad Jin.

See E. Bishop, J. Th. St. xii. 407. On the deprecatio Gelasii
see W. Meyer, Gildae oratio rhythmica, in Nachrichten v. der
konigl. Qesell. der Wissensch. zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, i.
(Berlin, 1912), pp. 87108. 4 Lesly, p. 171. 5 Ep. 149. 16.

c Ep. iii. 8. 7 Cod. Can. Afr. 37 (Labbe, Condi, ii. 1068).

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 147

The practice of singing a psalm before the Offertory
and also at the Communion is alluded to by Augustine,
who tells us that the custom was new in his time and
had excited opposition 1 .

Augustine refers to the recital at the altar of the
names of martyrs and deceased sanctimoniales (who
counted as martyrs), as well as of deceased bishops
of Carthage 2 . He also speaks of a general com
memoration of the departed, without any recital of
their names (etiam tacitis nominibus eorum)*. Lastly,
he draws a distinction between martyrs and other
deceased persons. The latter were prayed for, the
former were not 4 .

In the Gallican and Mozarabic rites this recital of
names occurred in connexion with the Offertory and
before the Preface. In the Roman rite there are two
commemorations of saints within the Canon 5 . But
as to the position which the recital of names occupied
in the African rite in the time of Augustine we have
no positive evidence. "We may have a reference to
some prayer for the Church used in connexion with

1 Retract, ii. 11.

a Serm. 159. 1 ; 325. 1; de Civit. Dei, xxii. 10; de s. Virginitate,
45. For the recital of the name of Caecilian, Bp of Carthage, see
Serm. 359 (Sirm. 37) 6, and the account of the Conference with the
Donatists at Carthage in 411 A.D. (Coll. iii. 230, in Labbe, Condi.
iii. 294). These last two references should be added to those
which Mr E. Bishop gives for the African rite in Connolly s Narsai,
p. 112, n. 2.

3 de euro, pro mort. gerenda 4; de An. et eius origine ii. 15. 21.

4 Serm. 159. 1.

5 The one (Communicantes) precedes the Quam oblationem ; the
other (Nobis quoque) is towards the close of the Canon, immediately
after the Supplices te.

102

148 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

the recital of names in a passage of Optatus, where,
speaking of the Donatists, he says that in the mysteries
they professed to offer for the one church spread
throughout the world 1 . There is a similar prayer
in the diptychs of the Mozarabic rite 2 , and in the
Te igitur of the Roman Canon 3 .

For the central portion of the liturgy the evidence
of Augustine is much fuller. The following passages
taken collectively supply the main outlines.

(1) In Serm. inedit. vi. Augustine refers to the
opening salutation the Lord be with you, 3 which
precedes the Surswn corda.

(2) In one of his epistles 4 , referring to St Paul s
words in 1 Tim. ii. 1, he applies them to the order of
the liturgy, and interprets the supplications to
refer to those made in celebrating the sacraments
before we begin to bless that which is on the Lord s
table. By the prayers he understands those made
when the elements are blessed and consecrated and
broken for distribution, * the whole of which petition,
he adds, almost the whole church concludes with
the Lord s Prayer/ The entreaties (interpellationes),
or requests (post ulat tones), as he tells us was the
reading of some African copies of the Scriptures, he
refers to the benedictions of the people by the bishop

1 c. Donat. ii. 12. 2 Duchesne, Chr. Worship, p. 208 f.

8 In Serm. 273. 7 Augustine asks if anyone had ever heard the
priest say I offer to thee, holy Theognis, or I offer to thee, Peter,
or I offer to thee, Paul. If any liturgical significance can be
attached to this, it perhaps finds its nearest parallel in the words
offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae in the Roman Canon. Augustine
is shewing that sacrifice is offered to God only.

* Ep. 149 (al. 59) 2. 16 (ad Paulinum).

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 149

with imposition of hands, while the giving of thanks
corresponded to the concluding thanksgiving after
communion.

(3) In Sermon 227 we have a more detailed
reference to some of the liturgical forms found in the
liturgy. Augustine quotes the Sursum corda 1 with
its response we lift them up unto the Lord, followed
by the words Let us give thanks unto our Lord God/
and the further response it is meet and right that
we should give thanks/ He then describes how
after the consecration of the sacrifice the Lord s
Prayer is said, followed by the salutation Peace be
with you and the kiss of peace.

(4) As we have seen 2 , Augustine refers to the
practice of singing a psalm at the Communion.

These passages suggest the following scheme for
the central part of the liturgy.

1. Salutation (dominus uobiscum).

2. Eucharistic Preface (Sursum corda with re
sponse, etc.).

3. * Consecration of the sacrifice.

4. Fraction.

5. Lord s Prayer.

6. Salutation (Pax uobiscum} and kiss of peace.

7. Blessing of people with laying on of hands.

8. Communion, with communion psalm.

9. Concluding thanksgiving.

(1), (2). Augustine refers in the passages quoted
above to the opening words of the Eucharistic Preface.

1 Augustine however uses the form Sursum cor. See Serm. 227 ;
Serm. inedit. 6. a See p. 147.

150 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

He nowhere appears to allude to the Sanctus, but it
is spoken of by two African writers, Victor Vitensis 1
and Vigilius of Thapsus 2 in the latter part of the
fifth century, and we have seen earlier traces of it in
the Acts of Per pet ua.

(3) The prayers which Augustine tells us were
said while the elements were blessed and consecrated
and broken for distribution correspond to the central
portion of the Canon of the Mass. Augustine else
where speaks of the bread and the wine as consecrated
by a mystic prayer 3 or by the word of God 4 .
Elsewhere 5 he speaks of the bread receiving the
benediction of Christ. Of the actual contents of the
prayers he tells us nothing. He is silent as to any
invocation of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy 6 . A
passage of Optatus, however, points to the existence
of an Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy in
some parts of North Africa during the fourth century.
Addressing the Douatists 7 he asks them what greater
sacrilege could there be than to pull down the altars

1 de Per sec. Vandal, iii. 23.

2 de Trin. xii (p. 319, ed. Chifflet). 8 de Trin. iii. 4.
4 tierm. 227. 5 Serm. 234. 2.

6 The passage in de Trin. iii. 4 in which Augustine speaks of
the elements taken from the fruits of the earth as sanctified to
become so great a sacrament only by the invisible operation of the
Spirit of God cannot with any security be adduced as evidence
that Augustine is thinking of the operation of the Third Person of
the Trinity in connexion with the Sacrament. As the context
shews, spiritus dei is here synonymous with God Himself (cf .
the words deus operetur in the immediate context : Augustine is
dealing with God s use of visible things as a means of manifesting
Himself).

7 c. Donat. vi. 1.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 151

of God whereon the vows of the people and the
members of Christ were borne, where Almighty God
was invoked and the Holy Spirit came down in
answer to supplication, where many received the
pledge of eternal salvation, the support of faith and
the hope of resurrection. The evidence of Fulgentius
in the sixth century shews that at that period an
invocation of the Holy Spirit found a place in some
churches of North Africa, for he not only speaks of
the Church as invoking the coming of the Holy
Spirit in the prayer of the sacrifice, and of the
coming of the Holy Spirit to consecrate the sacrifice
of the body of Christ 1 , but he also discusses the
rationale of such invocation, and deals with the
question why the sending of the Holy Spirit was
invoked 2 . Thus it is possible that in some parts of
North Africa an invocation of the Holy Spirit in
some form was found in the liturgy about the middle
of the fourth century, though the silence of Augustine
and his general conception of the sacraments rather
suggest that this was not the case at Hippo 3 .

Augustine alludes to the Amen at the close of
the Eucharistic prayer, and explains it as denoting
the assent of the people 4 .

(4) and (5). The close association of the mention
of the Fraction with the prayer of consecration in
one of the passages quoted above 5 suggests that it
preceded the Lord s Prayer. Augustine speaks of the
central prayers as made when the elements are

1 ad Monim. ii. 10, 12. &gt;2 Ib, ii. 6f. See ch. ix.

&lt; Serm. 6 (P.L. xlvi. 836). Ep. 149. 2. 16.

152 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

blessed and consecrated and broken for distribution,
and then adds that the whole of this petition,
almost the whole church concludes with the Lord s
Prayer. This corresponds with the original practice
of the Roman Church before Gregory the Great
transferred the Lord s Prayer and placed it directly
in connexion with the Canon and before the Fraction 1 .
A phrase of Augustine 2 , audemus dicere, used in con
nexion with the Lord s Prayer, has been cited as
parallel with the audemus dicere in the Roman
prologue to the Lord s Prayer.

(6) A further parallel with the Roman Canon is
afforded by the position of the kiss of peace which
precedes the Communion, whereas in the Gallican
and Mozarabic rites, as in the Eastern rites, it is
placed before the Preface 3 . In Augustine s time, as
in the Roman rite, it was introduced by the salutation
Pax uobiscum 4 , to which the response was made et
cum spiritu tuo s .

(7) Augustine, in another of the passages quoted
above 6 , refers to the benediction of the people with
laying on of hands. In three passages 7 he alludes to

i Duchesue, Chr. Worship, p. 184. g erntf no. 5.

8 In the Ambrosian rite there is an invitation by the deacon
Pacem habete before the prayer super sindonem, which Duchesne
(op. cit. 212 f.) thinks is a vestige of the custom of giving the Pax
before the Preface.

&lt; Scrm. 227.

s Enarr. in Ps. 124. 10. In the Acts of Perpetua (c. 12) there
is an account of a Christian gathering in which the kiss of peace is
given and Perpetua responds Deo gratias.

6 Ep. 149. 2. 16.

7 Ep. 179. 4 ; 175. 5 ; and the fragment of a sermon in Migne,
P.L. xxxix. 1721.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 153

forms of blessing employed by him on such occasions.
In two of these the phrase corrobomri per spiritum
tuum (or eius) is found, but in other respects his
language is either a free paraphrase, or suggests that
the forms had not attained a fixed character. This
benediction before communion is not found in the
Roman rite, but the Ambrosian 1 , Gallican, and
Mozarabic rites shew that it acquired a position in
the liturgies of Milan, Gaul, and Spain 2 .

Optatus has also been thought to allude to this
benediction, but an examination of the passage
referred to 3 suggests that he is really thinking of
something different. In dealing with the Donatists
claim that they constituted a pure church he refers
to their own rites as witnessing against the claim to
be free from sin. In so doing he alludes to their
treatment of those whom they won over from the
Catholics. To such converts they promise forgiveness
of sins (including in these cases the sin of schism),
and when they have laid hands upon them and
forgiven their offences, they turn to the altar and
recite the Lord s Prayer in which occur the words
Forgive us our debts. From this it appears that
the imposition of hands referred to is connected with
the rite of the reception of converts, which was
followed by their admission to communion. It cannot
be adduced as evidence of the benediction of all the
people before communion 4 .

1 For the Ambrosian rite see Duchesne, Chr. Worship, p. 223 f. ;
Cabrol, DACL. i. 1419.

2 See further ch. viii. c. Donat. ii. 20.
Cf. Palmer, Origines, I. 139.

154 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

(8) A constant phrase employed by Augustine
in connexion with Communion is accedere ad mensam.
This may have been a stereotyped expression, which
has influenced the later Sacramentaries and given
rise to the term ad Accedentes by which the prayers
at communion are known 1 . In one of the passages
already cited Augustine refers to the Communion
chant taken from the Psalms. Probably it was
Psalm xxxiv, as at Jerusalem and in Syria, for
Augustine connects the words Accedite ad eum et
illuminamim, found in the Vulgate version of that
Psalm, with the reception of the Sacrament 2 . With
regard to the formula of administration Augustine in
one of his sermons 3 says You hear the words "the
body of Christ," and you answer, Amen. It is possible
however that this is an abbreviation of the longer
form found in another sermon 4 , receive and eat the
body of Christ, receive and drink the blood of
Christ. The former of the two quotations just given
illustrates the response of the people on reception, of
which we have already found traces in Tertullian.

(9) The communion was followed by a thanks
giving, known later on in the West &spostcommunionem
or ad complendum.

The above review shews that a certain well-defined
type of liturgy had been developed in North Africa
by the close of the fourth or early in the fifth century.
The general order of service, the versicles of the

1 Cabrol, DACL. i. 637.

2 En. 2 in Ps. xxxiii. 10. The communion anthem in the
Mozarabic rite is taken from the same Psalm.

Serm. 272. * Serm. 3 (P.L. xlvi. 827).

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 155

priest and other shorter formulae, lastly the frame
work of some of the prayers had already attained a
certain fixity of character. On the other hand
Augustine supplies us with little evidence for any of
the longer formulae or prayers. There is evidence
to shew that the Western practice of variable mass-
formulae was current in the African Church, and that
the free composition of fresh liturgical forms needed
to he checked by Church authority. Thus the Third
Council of Carthage (can. 23) enacts that all prayers
at the altar are to be directed to the Father, and
that whatever prayers anyone had written for him
self or derived from other sources should not be used
by him till he had referred them to his more learned
brethren. Similarly the first Council of Milevis
(402 A.D.) enacts that only such prayers should be
used by all as had been approved in synod 1 .

We may now briefly summarise the points of
contact between the North African rite, so far as it
may be reconstructed from the evidence given above,
and the rites of Rome and other Western Churches.
The most striking feature which it has in common
with the Roman rite is the position of the kiss of
peace before Communion, instead of, as in other
Western rites and in the East, in connexion with the

1 Can. 12, ut preces uel orationes seu missae, quae probatae
fuerint in concilio, sine praefationes, siue commendationes seu
manus impositiones, ab omnibus celebrentur. Of the terms
employed missa is used in the later Western Sacramentaries to
denote the variable collects, etc. proper to any day; praefatio is
apparently the Eucharistic preface ; the commendationes seu manus
impositiones are probably the episcopal benedictions.

156 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

Offertory. This divergence of usage in the West is
attested for Italy by the letter of Pope Innocent to
Decentius early in the fifth century. The versicle
and response (Pax uobiscum, etc.) which preceded
the kiss of peace also accord with Roman usage.
Again, the description of the prayers of the faithful
given by Augustine suggests a scheme resembling
that of the ancient preces sokmnes in the Roman
Good Friday service.

On the other hand there are two features
mentioned by some African writers which find no
parallel in the Roman rite, though they are found in
the rites of other Western Churches. The benediction
of the people before Communion is first referred to
by Augustine, for, as we have seen 1 , the only passage
adduced as evidence for it from the writings of
Optatus does not support the interpretation placed
on it. The other feature is the Invocation of the
Holy Spirit which appears to be attested by Optatus
in the fourth century and is referred to by Fulgentius
in the sixth century. On the other hand Augustine
is silent as to any such Invocation. In view of these
facts and of the absence of both the features mentioned
from the Roman rite it may be suggested that both
the benediction of the people and the Invocation of
the Holy Spirit were practices introduced during the
fourth century, and that the latter (the Invocation
of the Holy Spirit) had not succeeded in establishing
itself at Hippo in the time of Augustine 2 .

With regard to another feature which the African

1 See p. 153. 2 See farther on this subject ch. viii.

THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA 157

rite has in common with other Western rites, the
frequent use of lessons from the Old Testament in
addition to the Epistle and Gospel, it may be noted
that this appears to have been the early custom at
Rome, though it disappeared probably some time in
the fifth century 1 .

The general style of the prayers which Augustine
quotes (e.g. the biddings after the sermon, and the
forms of benediction) resembles in character the more
flowing language of the Spanish and Gallican prayers
rather than the Roman type. This is what we should
expect from the temperament of these peoples as
contrasted with the greater restraint of the Roman
character.

We have already noticed the occurrence of some
primitive formulae in early African writers (Tertullian,
Acts of Perpetua), such as the Greek form of the
Sanctus and of the concluding words of the Canon,
also the response to the kiss of peace, Deo yratias 2 .
But it would be precarious to deduce, as is sometimes
done, from the Greek character of some of these
formulae the influence upon the early African Church
of the Greek-speaking Church of Rome 3 . Lastly we
may notice Augustine s use of certain phrases in
connexion with the bishop s prayer and bidding
(i.e. depreeari and (dominum) deprecemur . . .dignetur)
which appear to be already acquiring a stereotyped

1 Duchesne, Chr. Worship, p. 167.

2 See pp. 138, 140 f., 152 n. 5.

3 See e.g. the discussion by Lejay in Melanges Godefroid Kierth
(Lie ge, 1908), pp. 4147.

158 THE LITURGY IN NORTH AFRICA

character, and which find a place in later Western
formularies 1 .

Further than this it is precarious to go. In
discussing the relations of the African rite with other
non-Roman Western rites (e.g. the Mozarabic) 2 it
must be borne in mind that the latter have come
down to us overlaid with many later elements intro
duced at a period when Eastern influences had made
their way into the West and had largely aft ected the
original character of the various local rites. It is
possible that the North African rite in the fourth
century was already subject to some extent to this
influence. The presence of this element renders the
task of attempting to determine the original form of
these rites one of great complexity.

1 See p. 146.

2 See e.g. the article in J. Th. St. xiii. 250 f. on The African
rite by W. C. Bishop.

CHAPTER VII

THE LITURGY IN NORTH ITALY AND AT ROME

THE two most important documents for the history
of the liturgy during our period in North Italy and
Rome are the treatise de Sacramentis and the letter
of Pope Innocent I. to Decentius. The former supplies
the only extant Italian liturgical forms belonging to
this period. The latter throws light upon the diver
gent usages current in Italy. For North Italy we
have in addition the writings of Ambrose, bishop of
Milan (1397 A.D.), which supply us with little infor
mation beyond the mere outlines of the liturgy and
a few details. The writings of Jerome supply in
cidental references to particular details, and there
are other fragmentary notices in various Western
writers. But the evidence as a whole is singularly
meagre, and the problems connected with the history
of the early Roman liturgy are some of the most
debated questions at the present time.

160 ITALY AND ROME

I. NORTH ITALY.

The writings of Ambrose shew that the liturgy
was already known by the title of missa\ a word
which, as we have seen 2 , is also employed in this
sense in the Peregrinatio of Etheria. It appears to
have been celebrated daily 3 , and began with the
preparatory service of lessons and psalms, followed
by a sermon and the dismissal of the catechumens.
The lessons were three in number, and were taken
from the Old Testament, the Epistles, and the
Gospels 4 . Between the lessons psalms were sung 5 .
In the reading of the Gospel the name of Jesus
appears to have been preceded by the title, Lord,
a characteristic found in the Gallican rite and still
preserved at Milan 6 . Sermons were preached almost
daily 7 , and Ambrose, we are told by Augustine,
preached every Lord s Day 8 . In one of his epistles 9
Ambrose describes how after the lessons arid sermon,
when the catechumens had been dismissed, he in
structed some candidates for baptism (competentes)
in the Creed, and then began Mass. This passage

1 Ep. xx. 4. 5 ego tamen mansi in munere ; missam facere
coepi. Dum offero...cognoui.

a gee p. 82. 8 Ambrose, Ep. xx. 15.

4 In Ps. cxviii. 17. 10 prius propheta legitur, et apostolus, et
sic enangelinm. Propheta denotes the Old Testament generally.

6 Ep. xxii. 4. 7. Ambrose uses, however, the word legere, as
does Augustine in a similar connexion. See p. 144.

Ep. xli. 5 rogauit quidarn pharisaeus dominuin lesum :
Ep. Ixxx. 1 praeteriens dominus lesus uidit.

7 c. Auxent. 26 ; Ep. Ixiii. 10.

e Augustine, Con/, vi. 3. 4. 9 Ep. xx. 4.

ITALY AND ROME K)l

illustrates the distinction between the two parts of
the service, of which we have evidence from North
Africa and elsewhere. From the language of Ambrose
in his letter to Theodosius and from other indications
it has been inferred that while penitents were ex
cluded from communion, they were allowed to be
present at Mass throughout 1 .

Of the prayers of the faithful we have no par
ticulars, beyond the fact that Ambrose in his letter
to Gratian 2 speaks of prayer for the Emperor as
dictated not only by public duty but private affection.
Possibly there may be here an allusion to the prayers
offered for the Emperor in the Mass. With regard
to the people s offering, Ambrose in one passage
speaks of the baptized as permitted to offer their
gifts at the altar 3 . Elsewhere in his writings there
is a possible reference to the Sanctus, though Ambrose
is not specially speaking of the Liturgy 4 .

In the treatise de Mysteriis, the authenticity of
which has been disputed by some scholars 5 , Ambrose
treats at length of the Eucharist, and in proof of the
reality of the gift vouchsafed in the Sacrament he
appeals to the words of Christ This is my body/
1 this is my blood. It is evident from his language
that the recital of these words had acquired a fixed

1 Ep. li. 13, 15; Vita Ambrosii, 24 (P.L. xiv. 35). See Cabrol,
DACL. art. Ambrosien rit (i. 1404).

2 Ep. i. 2. 3 in Ps. cxviii. prol. 2.

4 de Spir. s. iii. 16. 110. Note indefessis uocibus laudaiit, and
cf. the Eastern a xaTairauo-Tois &lt;rro/uao-i and the incessabili uoce.
of the Te Deum.

Loofs, PJRE* art. Abeudmahl n, p. 61.

8.L. 11

162 ITALY AND ROME

place in the liturgy in his time, and that he regarded
them as playing an important part in the consecration
of the Sacrament. Sometimes indeed his language
does not go beyond that of Eastern writers who see
in the words of institution the historical warrant and
authority for the Sacrament 1 , as when he speaks of the
word of Christ as sanctifying (sanctificat) the sacrifice
which is offered 2 . But elsewhere his language goes
beyond this, and implies that this word of Christ as
often as it is pronounced in the Eucharist effects the
change of the elements into the body and blood of
Christ. In this connexion he says : if the blessing
of a man had so great power that it could change
nature, what are we to say of the consecration of
God, wherein the very words of the Lord and Saviour
have their operation? For that sacrament which
you receive is consecrated (conficitur) by the word of
Christ 3 . The Lord Jesus himself proclaims " This is
my body." Before the blessing of the heavenly words
another nature (species)* is named, after the conse
cration the body is indicated. He himself speaks
of his blood. Before the consecration it is called
something else, after consecration it is named blood 5 .
This association of the words of institution with the
consecration is still more clearly emphasized by the
author of the de Sacramentis 6 , and finds increasing

1 See ch. ix.

2 in Ps. xxxviii. 25.

3 de Myst. ix. 52. On conficere see p. 177, u. 3.

4 Species is the special character by which one kind of thing is
differentiated from another.

s de Myst. ix. 54. 6 See p. 165.

ITALY AND ROME 163

expression in later Western writers (e.g. Caesarius of
Aries) before the eleventh century.

Elsewhere Ambrose speaks more generally of the
consecration as effected by the mystery of the sacred
prayer 1 . In one passage 2 he has been thought to
refer to the Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the
liturgy, when he speaks of Him as named with the
Father and the Son by priests in baptism, and in
voked in the offerings (in oblationibus), and with the
Father and the Son proclaimed by the Seraphim
in heaven. But Ambrose makes no express refer
ence to Milan in the passage, and, as we have seen,
his treatment of the consecratory force of the words
of Christ in the Eucharist moves in a different plane
from that of Eastern writers like Cyril and Chrysostom,
and shews no reference to the operation of the Holy
Spirit. This fact renders caution necessary in drawing
any conclusion as to the character of the Invocation
in the liturgy at Milan in the time of Ambrose.

Of the prayers which form the central part of the
liturgy Ambrose tells us nothing. In dwelling upon
the commemorative aspect of the rite he says : as
often as we receive the sacraments, which by the
mystery of the sacred prayer are transformed into
flesh and blood, we proclaim the Lord s death 3 . But
beyond the parallel contained in these last words
with the formula which concluded the recitation of
the institution in many Eastern and Western rites,

1 de Fide iv. 10. 124.

2 de Spir. s. iii. 16. 112.
8 de Fide iv. 10. 124.

112

164 ITALY AND ROME

there is nothing which points to any liturgical refer
ence in his language.

At the close of the consecration, the people
responded, Amen 1 . There is apparently no reference
in Ambrose to the Lord s Prayer in the liturgy, but
he speaks of the kiss of peace 2 , though his language
does not enable us to say at what part of the service
it was given. There may be a reference to a bene
diction of the people in the liturgy in a passage
where he speaks of the people responding Amen to
the blessing of the priest, and so confirming for them
selves the blessing which he asks of God for them 3 .
In another passage 4 there is a possible reference to
a post-communion prayer and a communion chant
taken from Psalm xxiii.

Ambrose refers to the offering of the Eucharist
for the departed 5 , and to the practice of keeping the
Sacrament in private and even to the carrying of it
on journeys 6 .

A second source of evidence for the liturgy of
North Italy is supplied by the unknown author of
the work de Sacramentis which is printed among the
works of St Ambrose. This work is now generally
assigned to a date about the beginning of the fifth

i de Myst. ix. 54. 2 Ep. xli. 14. 15.

3 in Ps. xl. 36. For a relic of the benediction in the Ambrosian
rite see Duchesne, Chr. Worship, 223 f.; Cabrol, DACL. I. 1419
( Ambrosien rit ).

4 de Elia x. 34 merito dicunt singuli refecti spiritali cibo et
spiritali potu: Parasti in conspectu meo mensam, et poculum
tuum inebrians quam praeclarum.

6 de Excess. Satyri i. 80; de Obit. Valent. 56; Ep. xxxix. 4.
6 de Excess. Satyri i. 43.

ITALY AND ROME 165

century l . The author makes considerable use of the
de Mysteriis of Ambrose, and it has been suggested
by Probst and Dom Morin that the book may have
been compiled from notes taken by those who had
heard the addresses of Ambrose to the newly-baptized 2 .
Duchesne thinks that it was composed in some church
in North Italy, where the usages of Rome and Milan
were combined, possibly at Ravenna 3 .

Like Ambrose, the writer in commenting on the
Eucharist appeals to the words of Christ as the power
by which the elements are changed. It is in virtue
of the consecration that the bread becomes the Body
of Christ. If we ask by what words the consecration
is effected, the answer is, the words of Christ. * For
everything else which is said before is spoken by the
priest ; praises are offered to God, prayer is made for
the people, for kings, for others ; when the time
comes for consecrating (conficiatur) the venerable
sacrament, the priest no longer uses his own words,
but he uses the words of Christ. So then the word
of Christ consecrates (conficit) this sacrament 4 .

In this passage we may notice the passing refer
ence to the portions of the liturgy which preceded
the consecration. In the references to the praises
offered to God followed by prayer for various estates
of men Probst 6 finds an indication that the order

1 See Duchesne, Chr. Worship, p. 177.

2 Probst, Lit. des viert. Jahrh. p. 239; G. Morin, Revue bene-
dictim (1894) xi. 343 f.

3 op. cit. p. 177.

4 de Sacram. iv. 4. 14. On the word conficere see p. 177, n. 3.

5 op. cit. p. 249.

166 ITALY AND ROME

of the Canon, as known to the author of the de
Sacramentis, corresponded with the present order
in the Roman Canon, where the intercessions are
inserted after the Sanctus and before the recital
of the words of institution. This order, so far as
the intercessions are concerned, receives attestation
from the letter of Pope Innocent to Decentius, written
some few years after the de Sacramentis. But it
is possible that the writer is not giving the exact
order of the prayers, and the intercessions may be
those connected with the prayers of the faithful 1 .

But the chief importance of the de Sacramentis
consists in the quotations which it gives from the
prayers of the Canon as they were known to the
writer. The prayers are here given in full, with
the parallel portions of the Roman Canon as found
in the Gelasian Sacramentary 2 , the more important
parts peculiar to each being marked in italics. The
corresponding features of the Ambrosian Sacramen
tary of Biasca (cent, x.) are given in the footnotes.

DE SACRAMENTIS ROMAN CANON

(iv. 5. 21-23 ; 26, 27) (Wilson, Oelasian Sacra -

21. Fac nobis hanc mentary, p. 235)

oblationem adscriptam, ra- Quam oblationem tu,

tarn 3 , rationabilem, accep- deus, in omnibus, quae-

tabilem : quod figura est sumus, benedictam, adscrip-

1 Cf. Lejay, in Cabrol DACL. (art. Ambrosien rit ) 1. 1415, n. 5.

a Mr E. Bishop (J. Th. St. iv. 568 f.) has shewn that the text of
the Gelasianum in MS. Vat. Regin. 316 (cent. vii. viii.) is really
Gregorian. For our present purpose, however, the text quoted
above, apart from minute details, may be regarded as substantially
that of the Roman Canon in the sixth century.

8 The St Gall MS. (cent, vii.) omits ratam, but several MSS.

ITALY AND ROME

167

DE SACRAMENTIS

corporis et sanguinis domini
nostri lesu Christi.

Qui pridie quam patere-
tur, in sanctis manibus suis
accepit panem, respexit in
caelum ad te, sancte pater
omnipotens aeterne deus,
gratias agens, benedixit, fre-
git, fractumque apostolis
suis et discipulis suis tra-
didit, dicens, Accipite et
edite ex hoc omnes ; hoc
est enim corpus meum,
quod pro multis confrin-
getur.

22. Similiter etiam
calicem postquam coenatum
est, pridie quam pateretur,
accepit, respexit in caelum
ad te, sancte pater omni
potens aeterne deus, gratias
agens, benedixit, apostolis
suis et discipulis suis tra-
didit, dicens, Accipite et

ROMAN CANON
tarn, ratam, rationabilem,
acceptabilemque facere dig-
neris, ut nobis corpus et
sanguisjiat dilectissimi Jllii
tui domini dei nostri lesu
Christi.

Qui pridie quam patere
tur accepit panem in sanctas
ac uenerabiles manus suas 1 ,
eleuatis oculis in caelum
ad te deum patrem suum
omnipotentem, tibi gratias
agens, benedixit, fregit, de-
dit discipulis suis, dicens,
Accipite et manducate ex
hoc omnes. Hoc est enim
corpus meum. Simili modo,
posteaquam coenatum est,
accipiens et hunc prae-
clarum 2 calicem in sanctas
ac uenerabiles manus suas
item tibi gratias agens, bene
dixit, dedit 3 discipulis suis,
dicens, Accipite et bibite ex
eo omnes: hie est enim
calix sanguinis mei noui et
aeterni testamenti, myste-
rium fidei, qui pro uobis et

contain it, and Ftmk (Kirchengesch. Abhandl. iii. 98) argues that
it may easily have fallen out before rationabilem.

1 Sacr. of Biasca omits in. ..manus suas.

2 Sacr. of Biasca omits hunc praeclarum and the following in...
manus suas, but repeats eleuauit oculos etc. as above.

3 Sacr. of Biasca has tradidit here and dedit above, shewing
partial assimilation to the Roman Canon.

168

ITALY AND ROME

ROMAN CANON

pro multis effundetur in re-
missionem peccatorum.

Haec quotiescunque fe-
ceritis, in mei memoriam
facietis 1 .

Unde et memores sumus,
domine, nos tui serui, sed
et plebs tua sancta, Christi
filii tui do mini dei nostri tarn
beatae passionis necnon et
ab inferis resurrectionis,
sed et in caelis gloriosae
ascensionis : ofterimus prae-
clarae maiestati tuae de tuis
donis ac datis hostiam
puram, hostiam sanctam,
hostiam immaculatam, pa-
nem sanctum uitae aeternae
et calicem salutis perpetuae.
Supra quae p)*opitio ac se-
reno uultu respicere digneris,
et accepta habere, sicuti
accepta habere dignatus es
munera pueri tui iusti Abel,
et sacrificium patriarchae
nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi
obtulit summus sacerdos
tuus Melchisedech, sanctum

1 Sacr. of Biasca has in meam commemorationem facietis, and
addsworfew meam praedicabitis,rcsurrectionemmeam adnuntiabitisj
aduentum meum sperabitis, donee iterum de cadis ueniam ad uos.
The addition is also found in the Stowe Missal.

2 The Sacr. of Biasca also has hunc before panem. Otherwise
it follows with a few variations the Roman Canon.

DE SACRAMENTIS

bibite ex hoc omnes: hie
est enim sanguis meus.

26. Quotiescunque hoc
feceritis, toties commemora-
tionem mei facietis, donee
iterum adueniam.

27. Ergo memores
gloriosissimae eius passi
onis, et ab inferis resur
rectionis, et in caelum as
censionis, off erimus tibi
hanc immaculatam hostiam,
rationabilem hostiam, in-
cruentam hostiam, hunc 2
panem sanctum et calicem
uitae aeternae : et petimus
et precamur, ut hanc obla-
tionem susdpias in sublimi
altari tuo per manus ange-
lorum tuorum, sicut susci-
pere dignatus es munera
pueri tui iusti Abel, et sac
rificium patriarchae nostri
Abrahae et quod tibi ob
tulit summus sacerdos Mel
chisedech.

ITALY AND ROME 169

DE SACRAMENTIS ROMAN CANON

sacrificium, immaculatam
hostiam. Supplices te roga-
mus, omnipotens deus, iube
haec perferri per manus
angeli tui in sublime altare
tuum in conspectu diuinae
maiestatis tuae, ut quotquot
ex hac altaris participatione
sacrosanctum filii tui corpus
et sanguinem sumpserimus
omni benedictions caelesti
et gratia repleamur. Per
Christum dominum nostrum.
Amen.

A comparison of the structure of these two sets of
prayers exhibits a general correspondence in order as
far as the close of the Unde et memwes of the
Roman forms. We find also in the de Sacramentis
much of the contents of the Supra quae and the
Supplices te, which are, however, embodied in a single
prayer, with some difference of order from the Roman
forms, the reference to the reception of the gifts
on the heavenly altar preceding the allusion to
the gifts of Abel and the sacrifices of Abraham and
Melchizedek. Lastly, we may notice the character
istic "Western introduction of the recital of the In
stitution, Qui pridie quam pateretur, which differs
from the Eastern form and from the Mozarabic, these
latter following St Paul s words (1 Cor. xi. 23) eV rfj

WKTI 17 TrapcoYSero 1 .

1 Dom Cagin, however, appeals to the title invariably given in
the Mozarabic and Gallican rites to the prayer which follows the

170 ITALY AND ROME

With regard to the language of these prayers,
while there are many exact parallels with the language
of the Gelasian Canon, there are also divergences,
many of which however find parallels in other West
ern or Eastern liturgical forms. We may notice the
following :

(1) The most striking divergence from the
Gelasian Canon is in the prayer corresponding to
the Quam oblationem of the latter. In place of the
words ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat we find quod
figura est corporis et sanguinis. The nearest parallel
to this in existing liturgies is found in the words
which introduce the Invocation in St Basil \ offering
the types (TO. ai/riVvTra) of the holy body and blood of
thy Christ. But the words find an earlier parallel
in the language of Tertullian, and are in accord with
the character of much early Eucharistic terminology
in the West 2 . A similar vagueness in Eucharistic
terminology appears in the phrase holy bread and
cup of eternal life/ which is reproduced substantially
in the corresponding portion of the Gelasian Canon.

(2) In the account of the Institution there are
many divergences from the Gelasian Canon which in
nearly every case may be paralleled either from the Am-
brosian Sacramentary of Biasca or from Greek rites 3 .

recital of the Institution (Oratio post pridie) in support of the idea
that these rites also originally had the form Qui pridie. See
Paleo graphic musicale, v. 55 f. See further ch. viii.

i LE W. 329. 2325.

a Tertullian, adv. Marc. iii. 19, and for Home see Batiflfol,
Etudes ii. 306 f.

8 Note especially : (1) apostolis suis et, found in Mk, Syr.- James,
Bas., Chrys. (2) pro multis confringetur. James, Mk, Bas.

ITALY AND ROME 17 1

(3) The phrase unbloody offering (incruentam
hostiam) in the prayer Ergo memores is a common
phrase in early Greek fathers. It is also found in
Sarapion, in the liturgies of St James, St Basil,
St Chrysostom, and in some Gallican forms.

(4) The absence from the de Sacramentis of the
words sanctum sacriflcium, immaculatam hostiam in
the Supra quae of the Gelasian Canon may be ex
plained by the statement of the Liber pontificalis 1
that these words were an addition to the Canon made
by Pope Leo.

(5) The words angelorum tuorum are found in
place of the angeli tui of the * Gelasian Canon in the
Supplices te. This again finds a parallel in the
intercession of St Mark. Receive, God, the offer
ings... unto thy holy and heavenly and spiritual altar
...through the ministry of thy archangels (Sia rrjs
apX a yy*^ LK ys " ov AeiTovpyiias), where the Coptic has
thine holy angels and archangels 8 .

The conclusion which this review suggests is that
the characteristic features of the prayers in the de
Sacramentis, where they diverge from the * Gelasian

have K\oo/j.fvov ; A. C. 0/DUTn-o/uei/oj/. For a Galilean example
see DACL. i. 2. 1881 f. (3) The omission of kunc praedarum
before calicem, and of in...manus suas in the institution of the cup,
the repetition in the same passage of respexit in caelum...omnipotens,
the use of tradidit for dedit in the same connexion, lastly the
addition of kunc before panem in the prayer Ergo memores, all find
parallels in the Ambrosian Sacramentary of Biasca. (4) The
attribution to Christ of the words of 1 Cor. xi. 26 in the form donee
iterum ueniam finds a parallel in A.C., Syr.- James, Mk, Copt.
It is also found in Maximus of Turin (c. 450 A.D.). See P.L. Ivii.
690.

1 Ed. Duchesne, p. 239. 2 LEW. 129. 20 f.; 171. 2f.

172 ITALY AND ROME

Canon, are not due to the work of a compiler, but
represent genuine liturgical forms. Duchesne 1 thinks
that the de Sacramentis comes from some North
Italian Church, where the Roman use was combined
with that of Milan. But the prayers may represent
an older form of the Roman Canon itself. In this
connexion it may be noted that the writer asserts
his reverence for the practice of the Roman Church
whose pattern and form we follow in all things 2 .

In conclusion we may note that these prayers are
characterized by the primitive character of their eu-
charistic terminology alike as to the Eucharistic gift
and to the sacrifice. The phrases figure of the body
and blood, holy bread and cup of eternal life, illus
trate the former. The phrase reasonable offering and
the reference to the gifts of Abel, and to the sacrifices
of Abraham and Melchizedek, illustrate the latter,
and shew that in these prayers the conception of the
sacrifice is primarily eucharistic.

In his exposition of the Lord s Prayer the author
of the de Sacramentis refers to a doxology recited
by the priest after the words Libera nos a malo 3 .
This doxology corresponds to that found at the end
of the Lord s Prayer in the Greek rites (James, Mk,
Bas., Chrys.). A similar doxology is found at the
close of the Canon and before the Lord s Prayer in
the Ambrosian Sacramentary of Biasca and in the
Roman Canon. The parallel forms are as follows :

1 Chr. Worship, p. 177.

2 de Sacram. iii. 1. 5.

3 de Sacram. vi. 5. 24.

ITALY AND ROME 173

ST MARK. OTI a-ov ecmi&gt; 77 /JcurtAeia KCU r) 8vva/ous
KCU 77 &lt;$oa cis TOVS aiwvas T&lt;OV aiwKov.

ST JAMES, ST BASIL, ST CHRYSOSTOM. on o-ov

eoriv 77 /3ao-iAeia icai 17 5vca/u? KCU 77* Soa TOV Trarpos Kai
TOV vtov KOL rov aytov rrvcu/Aaros vvv Kai at /cai ts TOVS
aia)i a9 TWV atwvtov.

DE SACRAMENTIS. Per dominum nostrum lesum
Christum in quo tibi est, cum quo tibi est honor,
laus, gloria, magnificentia, potestas cum spiritu sancto
a saeculis et nunc et semper et in omnia saecula
saeculorum.

SACRAMENTARY OF BIASCA. Et est tibi deo patri
omnipotenti ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso omnis
honor, uirtus, laus, gloria, imperium, perpetuitas et
potestas in unitate spiritus sancti per infinita saecula
saeculorum.

GELASIAN CANON. Per ipsum et cum ipso et
in ipso est tibi deo patri omnipotenti in unitate
spiritus sancti omnis honor et gloria per omnia
saecula saeculorum.

In view of the presence of this doxology at the
close of the Lord s Prayer in the de Sacramentis
it has been suggested 1 that in North Italy it came
originally, not at the close of the Canon, as in the
Sacramentary of Biasca and the Gelasian Canon, but
as in the Eastern rites after the Lord s Prayer, and
that there has been a later transference of it to its
present position in the case of the Sacramentary
of Biasca. The parallels between the Western and
the Greek forms provide another illustration of the

i See Lejay, in DACL. ( Ambrosien rit ) i. 1. 1418.

174 ITALY AND ROME

relationship between Eastern and Western formulae,
of which we have had examples earlier in this chapter.

In another passage the author of the de Sacra-
mentis gives the words of administration of the
consecrated bread in the form Corpus Christi, and
adds that the communicant responded, Amen 1 .

Of other parts of the liturgy the writer tells us
scarcely anything. In his references to passages of
the Gospels he seems to be influenced, like Ambrose,
by the custom of prefacing the name of Jesus with
the title Lord (dominus) at the reading of the
Gospel 2 . He also alludes to the lessons from the
Epistles and the Gospels 3 .

II. ROME.

When we pass from the liturgy of the North
Italian churches to that of Rome we are confronted
with the difficulty that during the period covered in
this volume there is an almost complete absence of
Roman documents which can throw any light upon
its history.

The early church at Rome was mainly Greek in
character. The earliest pieces of Christian literature
proceeding from it are Greek, and the names of its
earliest bishops before the time of Victor are mainly
Greek. The description which Justin, writing from
Rome in the middle of the second century, gives of

1 iv. 5. 25.

2 See i. 1. 2 ; ii. 2. 6, 4. 1 ; v. 1. 4, 4. 18.

8 ii. 2. 3 quid lectum est heri? (Jn v. 4f.); iii. 1. 4 audisti
lectionem (Jn xiii. 4 f.) ; ii. 7. 23 clamat ergo apostolus, sicut
audistis in lectione praeseuti (Bom. vi. 3).

ITALY AND ROME 175

the Sunday Eucharist corresponds, as we have seen,
in its general scheme with that of the Apostolic
Constitutions and other Eastern forms (e.g. in the
place of the kiss of peace). But between the period
of Justin and the latter part of the fourth century
we have practically no sources of information which
enable us to trace the growth of the Roman liturgy.
Eusebius 1 quotes from a letter of Cornelius to Fabius
of Antioch a story about Novatian to the effect that
when he had made the offerings and distributed
a part to each man, as he gives it, he compels the
wretched man to swear in place of the blessing 2
Holding his hands in both his own, he will not
release him until he has sworn in this manner...
"Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ that you will never forsake me and
turn to Cornelius." And the unhappy man does not
taste until he has called down imprecations on him
self ; and instead of saying, Amen, as he takes the
bread, he says, " I will never return to Cornelius."
The phrase made the offerings (iroL-ija-as ras irpov-
&lt;opas) recalls the language of Clement s Epistle to
the Corinthians, in which he speaks of * offering the
gifts pertaining to the office of the episcopus 3 . What
is meant by the blessing at the time of communion
it is more difficult to say. It was apparently spoken
at the actual time of administration, and may be
simply the formula with which the consecrated ele
ments were delivered to the communicants 4 . We

1 H. E. vi. 43. 2 a v T i T0 v evXoyelv. c. 44.

4 Probst (Lit. der drei erst. Jahrh. p. 357 f.) compares the words

176 ITALY AND ROME

may notice also the Amen with which the communi
cants respond at reception.

Marius Victorinus, who was converted about 361
A.D. and practised as a rhetorician at Rome, quotes
a Greek prayer of oblation in which the words of
Titus ii. 14 a people for his own possession, zealous
of good works are introduced 1 . But whether he is
referring to the use of such a prayer at Rome or
elsewhere his words do not enable us to say.

It is not till the latter part of the fourth century
that we get further information about the liturgy
at Rome. The references of Jerome are scanty and
fragmentary. He mentions the reading of the Gospel
by the deacon 2 , and in two passages 3 he alludes to
the public recitation by the deacon of the names
of the offerers in the form He offers so much/
he has promised so much. In this connexion he
condemns the love of ostentation which prompts some
of the richer members, who have made their money

of administration in the Roman rite corpus domini custodial
animam. There is a similar expansion (in the form of a blessing)
of the words of administration in the Gnostic Acts of John (c. 110,
ed. Bonnet), and of Thomas (cc. 29, 50 (47), 158, ed. Bonnet).

1 adv. Arian. i. 30 sicuti in oblatione dicitur: munda tibi
populum circumuitalem, aemulatorem bonorum opemm, circa tuam
substantiam uenientem; cp. ibid. ii. 8 hinc oratio oblatioiiis in-
tellectu eodem precatur deum, o-aJo-ov trepiovcriov \aov tjA.u&gt;Tf/V
KoXuJj/ epywv. For the phrase a-wtrov Xaov cf. A. C. ii. 57 (LEW.
30. 29) ; for Xaov "i}\toTr\v naXdov epywv cf. Lit. of Adai and Mari
(LEW. 264. 4f.); for \a6v vepiovtnov cf. St Basil (LEW. 326.
26 f.).

2 Ep. cxlvii. (ad Sabinianum) 6.

8 Comm. in lerem. ii. 11; in Ezech. vi. 18 (P.L. xxiv. 755;
MV. 175).

ITALY AND ROME 177

by extortion, in giving their gifts. That he is re
ferring to the recitation of names in the liturgy
seems probable from the use of the term offerre, but
he seems mainly to have gifts of money in mind, and
he does not tell us whether the custom was practised
at Rome or elsewhere. That offerings were made
and that the names of offerers were recited at the
altar at the time of offering before this period in
the West is shewn by the Canons of the Council
of Elvira in Spain (305 or 306 A.D.), in which (cc. 28,
29) it is enjoined that bishops should not receive
a gift from him who does not communicate, and
that the names of energumens should not be recited
at the altar along with their oblation (cum oblatione).
The offerings referred to in these Canons were un
doubtedly the offerings from which the bread and
wine for the Eucharist were taken 1 . These references
will receive illustration, so far as Rome is concerned,
from the letter of Innocent to Decentius, which will
be dealt with later on. Elsewhere 2 Jerome refers to
the Sanctus, and to the prayers of the priest at which
the body and the blood of Christ is consecrated
(conficiturf. In another passage, speaking of bishops,

1 See E. Bishop in Connolly s Narsai, pp. 98 ff.

2 Ep. Ixxviii. (ad FaUolam) 2.

3 Ep. cxlvi. (ad Euangelum) 1. On the word conficere used here
it may be noted that (1) the word is used in class. Latin in the
general sense of celebrating sacred rites. Cf. Cicero, de Nat.
Deor. iii. 58 sacra Orphica.-.confici. With this we may compare
Hilary, in Mt xxx. 2 pascha accepto calice et fracto pane conficitur ;
Jerome, Ep. li. 1 qui sibi domini sacramenta conficerent; (2) hi
reference to the Eucharist it is used by Latin fathers of the fourth
century in a sense equivalent to consecrare. Cf. Hilary, Op. Hist,
fragm. 3. 9 sacrificium a sanctis.-.sacerdotibus confectum...canibus

S. L. 12

178 ITALY AND ROME

he says that they give baptism, and at the Eucharist
pray for the advent of the Lord 1 , which appears to be
a reference to some form of invocation (not, however,
a prayer for the Holy Spirit). Jerome refers to the
use of the Lord s Prayer in the liturgy and introduces
it in words suggestive of the prologue to the Lord s
Prayer in the Roman Canon 2 . In another passage 3
there is an allusion to the kiss of peace, of which he
says, speaking of the need of love and charity, does
anyone, when his hand is held out, turn away his face,

proicieudum iubebat (lie has previously said of a similar incident,
consecratum domini corpus ad sacerdotum colla suspensum...pro-
fanabat). This appears to be the sense in the above passage of
Jerome, for which cf. Ep. xiv. 8 Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt,
and the parallel words in Ep. Ixiv. 5. The same sense appears in
Ambrose, de Myst. ix. 52 (quoted p. 162) sacramentum istud quod
accipis Christi sermoue conficitur, and probably ibid. ix. 53 hoc
quod conncirnus corpus ex uirgine est. See also de Sacram. iv. 4. 14
ubi uenitur ut conficiatur... sacramentum. ..ergo sermo Christi hoc
conficit sacramentum. In this last sentence, however, as in the
last of the passages cited from Ambrose, it is possible to see how
easy the transition would be from the idea of consecrare to a sense
approaching that of ejficere, which is found in de Sacram. iv. 5. 23
sanguis Christi efficitur. This use of conficere must not be confused
with the use of iroielv in the Invocation found in Cyril of Jerusalem
and Lit. of St Basil. The latter word is used of the operation of
the Holy Spirit, while in the passages cited above conficere is used
of the celebrant. For other examples of the use of conficere in the
sense of consecrare cf. Siricius, Ep. x. (ad GaUos) 5 per quorum
manus et gratia baptismatis traditur et corpus Christi couficitur;
Augustine, Serm. Ixxi. 11. 17 ipsum manibus eius confectum sacra
mentum carnis et sanguinis eius, compared with Serm. cxii. 4
coenam manibus suis consecratam.

1 Comm. in Soplion. iii. (P. L. xxv. 1377).

2 c. Pelay. iii. 15 sic docuit apostolos suos, ut quotidie in
corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater noster. Cf.
the audemus dicere of the Roman Canon.

s Ep. Ixxxii. (ad Theophil.) 3.

ITALY AND ROME 179

and in the midst of the sacred feast proffer the kiss
of Judas 1 This seems to point to the fact that the
kiss of peace occupied the place which it still occupies
in the Roman Canon, before communion, as was the
case some years later in the time of Pope Innocent at
Rome, and in the time of Augustine in North Africa.
In the same passage Jerome refers to the Amen said
by the communicant at the administration.

In the Bremarium in psalmos attributed to
Jerome there appears to be a reminiscence of words
found in the Ncbis quoque of the Roman Canon 1 .
But the work is not a genuine work of Jerome, though
it is probably ancient.

The author of the work Quaestiones ueteris et noui
Testamenti (attributed to St Augustine, but now
ascribed to Isaac of Rome) 2 appears to have been
a contemporary of Pope Damasus. In dealing with
the priesthood of Melchizedek, whom he identifies
with the Holy Spirit, he refers to the presence of the
words summus sacerdos in the liturgy 3 . This points
to the presence of the words about the sacrifice of
Melchizedek in the Roman Canon in the latter part
of the fourth century, much as they are found to-day
in the prayer Supra quae.

1 in Ps. Ixxii. 27 in quorum nos consortium uon meritorum
inspector, sed ueniae largitor admittat Christus dominus. Cf . the
Roman Canon intra quorum nos consortium uon aestimator
meriti, sed ueniae, quaesumus, largitor admitte.

2 See Dom Morin, Revue d histoire et de lift. (1899) iv. 97 ff. ;
Souter,Ambrosiaster (Cambridge Texts and Studies, vii. 4), pp. 161f.

3 See the passage in Migne, P.L. xxxv. 2329 similiter et spiritus
sanctus, quasi antistes, sacerdos appellatus est excelsi dei, non
summus, sicut nostri in oblatione praesumunt.

122

180 ITALY AND ROME

The letter of Pope Innocent I. to Decentius, bishop
of Eugubium in Umbria, in 416 A.D. is a document
fall of interest because of the evidence which it
affords as to the liturgical customs current in Rome
and the surrounding churches. From it we learn
that the claims of the Roman See, which Innocent
had already asserted in matters of discipline in the
case of the churches of Africa and Gaul, were being
pressed in the interests of liturgical conformity with
the usages of Rome. The letter arose out of the
divergence from Roman practice exhibited in the
neighbouring churches with regard to the Eucharist
and other rites, and Decentius, after learning the
usages of the Roman Church, which he wished to
follow, consulted Innocent upon the matter. Innocent
begins 1 by a strong assertion of the obligation of all
to observe the traditions handed down to the Roman
Church by Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and ever
since guarded by that Church, and not to introduce
usages derived from any other source, especially as it
was clear that the churches of Italy, Gaul, Spain,
Africa, Sicily, and the adjacent islands owed the
foundations of their churches to those whom the
Apostle Peter or his successors had appointed bishops
(sacer dotes). He urges Decentius to instruct, warn,
or pass judgement on those who introduce novelties
or think that any other custom ought to be followed
than that of the Church of Rome. The points sub
mitted by Decentius were : (1) the position of the
kiss of peace, (2) the place at which the recital of

1 See the text in Migne, P. L. xx. 551 f.

ITALY AND ROME 181

the names should be made, (3) the confirmation
of infants by anyone other than the bishop, (4) the
Saturday fast, (5) the Roman practice of sending the
fermentum or consecrated Eucharist to the presbyters
of the suburbicarian churches. Other points dealt
with were exorcism and the unction of the sick.

Of the questions discussed (1), (2), and (5) alone
concern us here. (1) With regard to the kiss of
peace, Decentius refers to the custom of some who
gave it before the completion of the mysteries (ante
confecta mysteria), whereas the Roman custom, which
Innocent seeks to enforce, enjoined it at the close
of the Canon, and Innocent justifies this position as
marking the assent of the people to all that was done
in the mysteries and as setting their seal upon it 1 .

(2) Another divergence from Roman custom was
the practice of reciting the names of offerers before
the priest had said the prayer of consecration (jwecem),
and commended to God by his prayer (oratione) the
oblations of those whose names were to be recited.
Innocent enjoins, in accordance with Roman practice,
that the offerings are first to be commended to God,
and then the names are to be announced (edicendci),
in order that they may be mentioned in the sacred
mysteries (inter sacra mysteria), and not in the
preceding part of the rite, in order that by the
mysteries themselves we may open the way for
prayers to come 2 .

1 pax... per quam constet populum ad omnia, quae in niysteriis
aguntur...praebuisse consensum, ac finita esse pacis concludentis
signaculo demonstrentur.

2 ut ipsis mysteriis uiam futuris precibus aperiamus.

182 ITALY AND ROME

From this it would seem that the Roman Mass in
the time of Pope Innocent contained some prayer,
corresponding in its contents to the present Secreta
prayers, by which the offerings were commended to
God, and that after this the names of the offerers
were to be announced with a view to their recitation
in the Canon. The order implied in Innocent s
directions finds a parallel in the present Roman
Canon, in which the Memento, domine contains a
prayer for the offerers 1 .

(3) A third point on which Decentius had con
sulted Innocent related to the Roman practice of
sending the fermentum* or Eucharist that had been
consecrated by the bishop to the presbyters of the
several city churches (tituli) of Rome. This was
a relic of the time when all the presbyters met
together for a common Eucharist, and when the
unity of the body was expressed, as it is in the
Ignatian epistles, by the one Eucharist. When
this became no longer possible, the practice was
adopted of sending the consecrated Eucharist from
the church, where the bishop celebrated, to the

1 For a different interpretation of the language of Innocent,
which would bring the Koman custom into accord with that of the
Gallican and Mozarabic rites, and make the present position of the
recital of names in the Roman Canon a later innovation than
the time of Innocent, see Dom Cagin, PaUographie musicale, v. 75.

2 The word fermentum is also applied later on to the portion of
the reserved host kept from a previous Mass and put into the
chalice after each new consecration. The object here, too, was to
mark the unity of the different Masses. Duchesne, op. cit. 163, 185.
On the consecration of the chalice by thejermentum see Wordsworth ,
Ministry of Grace*, p. 160.

ITALY AND ROME 183

presbyters throughout the city. The reason which
Innocent gives for the practice is that on account
of the people entrusted to their charge, the presbyters
cannot meet together with us/ and so thefermentum
was sent to them by the acolytes, that they might
not think that they were separated from communion
with us. Innocent enjoins that the practice should
not be followed in dioceses (per paroecias) outside
Rome, because the sacraments ought not to be carried
a long distance. Even in Home itself, he says, the
presbyters in charge of the cemeteries do not receive
thefermentum, the right of consecrating the Eucharist
being conceded to them.

The reference in this letter to a divergence of
practice with regard to the kiss of peace and the
recital of names is an interesting indication of the
existence in the time of Pope Innocent, about 416 A.D.,
of two distinct uses in the West. One of these is
represented by the Roman Church, with which, at
least so far as the position of the kiss of peace is
concerned, the Church of North Africa in the time
of Augustine was in accord. The other use, which,
as we learn from Innocent s letter, was prevalent in
the regions north of Rome, accords, in the position
assigned to the recital of names and the kiss of peace,
with that found in the Gallican and Mozarabic rites,
while traces of an older position of the kiss of peace,
before the Canon, are found also in the Ambrosian
liturgy 1 .

We may now consider some facts bearing upon

1 Duchesne, Chr. Worship, pp. 212 f .

184 ITALY AND ROME

the relation of the Roman Canon at the end of the
fourth or in the first half of the fifth century to the
form in which it appears in the Gelasian Sacramen-
tary at the end of the seventh or early in the eighth
century 1 .

In the first place we may clear the ground by
taking note of certain modifications of the Canon in
the intervening period, of which we have evidence.

(1) The Liber Pontificalis* tells us that Pope
Gregory added to the Hanc igitur the words diesque
nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna dam-
natione nos eripi et in electorum tuorum iubeas grege
numerari.

(2) From the same authority 3 we learn that Pope
Leo added to the Canon the words sanctum sacrificium,
immaculatam hostiam, which are now found in the
prayer Supra quae.

(3) The intercession for the dead Memento etiam,
as Mr E. Bishop has pointed out 4 , was not originally
recited in public masses on Sunday, and did not
constitute an essential and regular element of the
Canon before the ninth century.

(4) To Pope Gregory was due the transference
of the Lord s Prayer to a place before the Fraction
instead of after it 5 .

The second of these statements shews that the
prayer Supw quae in its original form agreed more
closely with the corresponding portions of the prayers

1 On the character of the early texts of the Roman Canon see
E. Bishop, J. Th. St. iv. 568 f. 2 ed. Duchesne, p. 312.

s ibid. p. 239. 4 J. Th. St. iv. 570 sq. ; xii. 391 f.; xiv. 44.
s See Greg. M., Ep. ix. 12.

ITALY AND ROME 185

in the de Sacramentis. The third has, as we shall
see, an important bearing on the sequence of ideas
exhibited in the latter part of the Canon. The fourth
enables us to see that the order of the North African
liturgy, as represented in Augustine, conformed to
that of Rome in regard to the position of the Fraction,
the Lord s Prayer, and the kiss of peace, while the
introductory formula to the kiss of peace, Pax
uobiscum, appears in both.

In a fragment of a letter of Pope Gelasius (492-
496 A.D.) to Elpidius reference is made to the coming
of the heavenly Spirit at the consecration of the
divine mystery, and to the prayer of the priest
for His presence 1 . From this it has been argued
that the Roman Canon originally contained an in
vocation of the Holy Spirit. But whatever be the
exact meaning of the language of Gelasius 2 , such an
allusion to the invocation of the Holy Spirit would
stand isolated so far as Rome is concerned. Moreover
the statement of Gelasius is general in character, and
contains no express reference to Roman usage. Nor
do the parallel prayers in the de Sacramentis exhibit
any trace of such a form of Invocation. It has indeed
been argued 3 that the Roman Canon originally had
an Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and that it has
been whittled down in the Roman and other Western

1 Thiel, Epp. Bom. Pontif. i. 486 nam quomodo ad diuini
mysterii consecrationem caelestis spiritus adueniet, si sacerdos
et qni eum adesse deprecatur, criminosis plenus actionibus re-
probetur ?

2 Notice that Gelasius says caelestis spiritus not spiritus sanctvs.

3 See W. C. Bishop in Ch. Quarterly fieview, Ixvi. (1908) 393 f.

186 ITALY AND ROME

rites under the influence of the idea that the words
of Christ constitute the real form of consecration.
But no adequate evidence has been produced in
support of this conclusion, and the presumption
afforded by the de Sacramentis points the other way.
We may now summarise briefly the facts which
emerge from the evidence which has been adduced.

( 1 ) From the letter of Pope Innocent to Decentius
it appears that the Roman liturgy early in the fifth
century contained some prayer, like the present
Secreta prayers, commending the offerings to God,
and that this was followed by the announcement
of the names of the offerers, with a view to their
being mentioned in the course of the Canon 1 .

(2) The prayers in the de Sacramentis (about
400 A.D.) contain much of the substance of the
prayers found in the Roman Canon from the Quam
oblationem to the Supplices te, though in an earlier
stage of developement and with some striking diver
gencies (e.g. the phrase figura carports et sanguinis,
and the different arrangement of the contents of
the prayers Supra quae and Supplices te). Hence
we may draw one of two conclusions. Either the
prayers in the de Sacramentis represent a form nearly
related to that of the Roman Canon (as Duchesne
suggests), or they are an older form of the Roman
Canon itself.

1 Boniface I. and Celestine I. refer to prayers for the Empire
offered oblatis sacrificiis (Celestine, Ep. 23 (ad Theodosium) ;
P.L. 1. 544) or inter ipsa mysteria (Boniface, Ep. 7 (ad Honorium) ;
P.L. xx. 766). Leo refers to the recital of names of bishops at the
altar (Ep. Ixxx. 3).

ITALY AND ROME 187

(3) From the letter of Pope Gregory referred to
above we gather that before his time the Lord s
Prayer was recited, as in North Africa, after the
Fraction, instead of before it, as at present.

(4) From the evidence of Jerome and Pope
Innocent we learn that the kiss of peace preceded
Communion, as in the North African rite.

From these attestations of the Roman liturgy, de
rived mainly from external sources, we may now pass
on to a brief review of the contents of the Roman
Canon itself with a view to ascertaining what light
it throws upon the general character of the Roman
rite in early times.

When we compare the Roman Canon with the
corresponding portions of the liturgy current in
Greek-speaking Christendom at the close of the fourth
century, in such centres as Antioch and Jerusalem
(as witnessed to by the Apostolic Constitutions, the
writings of Chrysostom, or, still earlier, of Cyril of
Jerusalem), we are struck with the contrast which
is presented to us. This contrast has been a standing
problem to students of liturgy. But the difficulties
of the Roman Canon have arisen partly also from the
apparent obscurity in the tenour and sequence of the
prayers contained in it. Hence various theories have
been propounded with regard to it, based on the
supposition that its present form is due to later
revision or to the transposition of some of the
prayers 1 . It is not possible to enter into these in

1 For these theories see Cabrol, DACL. art. Canon, and
E. Burbidge in Giiardian, March 24, 1897.

188 ITALY AND ROME

the present volume or to discuss what elements of
truth they may contain. Taking the Canon as it
stands we may endeavour to form some estimate
of its general tenour and purport.

(1) After the Sanctus, which like the Syrian
and Byzantine forms (James, Bas., Chrys.) includes
the Hosanna and Benedictus qui uenit, there is a
request (Te igitur) for the acceptance of the gifts
and sacrifices, together with a prayer for the Church
and (Memento, domiiie) for the congregation * who
offer this sacrifice of praise, followed by a com
memoration of saints (Communicantes).

(2) The request for the acceptance of the oblation
is resumed in the prayer Hanc igitur, while in the
Quam oblationem God is invoked to bless it (benedictam
facere) and make it approved, ratified, reasonable,
and acceptable 1 , that it may become to us the body
and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord
Jesus Christ/

(3) The Qui pridie introduces the recital of the
institution which is followed by the Anamnesis and
oblation (unde et memores), the latter of which runs :

We offer unto thy excellent majesty of thy gifts and
bounties 2 a pure offering 3 , a holy offering, a spotless offer
ing, the holy bread of eternal life and the cup of everlasting
salvation.

1 The words are adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem acceptabilem-
que.

2 For de tuis donis ac datis, cf . St Mark (LE W. 133. 30) o-oi e/c
T&lt;av arwv S&ptov -TrpoeOfjKa/uef, and the words in St Basil and
St Chrysostom (LE W. 329. 6) TO. &lt;rd e/c Ttav awv &lt;roi

B Cf. Mai. i. 11.

ITALY AND ROME 189

(4) The two following prayers (Supra quae and
Supplices te) ask for the acceptance of the gifts, which
are compared to the gifts of Abel and the sacrifices
of Abraham and Melchizedek, and request is made
that they may be carried to the altar on high by the
hands of Thy angel in sight of Thy divine majesty 1 ,
that all who partake of the Body and Blood of
Christ may be filled with all heavenly blessing and
grace.

(5) The commemoration of the dead (Memento
etiam), which follows here in the present Roman
Canon, was, as we have seen, no regular or essential
part of the Sunday Mass at Rome before the ninth
century. "With this omission, the words Nobis quoqw
attach themselves to the preceding prayer and ask
for association in the fellowship of all the saints, in
cluding those whose names are recited 2 .

(6) Attached to the concluding words of the
previous prayer through Jesus Christ our Lord
there is the clause Through Whom, Lord, Thou
dost always create, sanctify, quicken, bless, and bestow
on us all these good things/ followed by the con
cluding doxology.

When we compare these prayers with the general
tenour of the corresponding Greek forms we notice
the following features :

1 With this prayer may be compared the petition in the short
diaconal litany before the bishop s blessing in A . C. (LE W. 23. 15 f.)
wire/0 TOU a&gt; /oou...o7rojs 6 a yafios 0eo 7r/oo&lt;rer)Ta t aiTo...eis TO
etrovpdviov O.UTOV QvtriatTT^piov.

2 On this and the preceding prayer and the parallels with
St Basil see E. Bishop, J. Th. St. xiv. 44 f., 59 f.

190 ITALY AND ROME

(1) There is no clear expression in the Roman
Canon of such ideas as are associated by Cyril of
Jerusalem and Chrysostom with the moment of
consecration, or by the former with the operation
of the Holy Spirit in effecting the consecration of
the elements. The diversity of opinion as to the
question whether the Quam oblationem or the Sup-
plices te is the equivalent of the Invocation in the
Eastern liturgies is one illustration of this 1 .

(2) Again, the Roman Canon contains in its
concluding portion no intercessions for the various
classes of persons who are prayed for at the con
clusion of the Anaphora in the Greek rites connected
with Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople. When
the Memento etiam is left out of consideration, the
prayers from the Quam oblationem onwards are con
cerned with the coming act of communion and the
preparation of the worshippers for it. There is one
indication of this in the words ut nobis corpus et
sanguis fiat/ and it comes to light more clearly in
the concluding portion of the Supplices te and is con
tinued in the Nobis quoque.

(3) The Eucharistic terminology of the Roman
Canon with its twice-repeated reference to corpus et
sanguis Christi marks an advance upon that exhibited
in the de Sacramentis. But in the phrase panem sanc-

1 For this divergence of view see E. Bishop in Connolly s
Narsai, pp. 131 f., 150 f. The later Western view was that the
consecration is effected by the words of institution, and this view
was read into the Roman Canon. But that document points to
a state of things in which this identification had not yet been
made. See further, chs. viii., ix.

ITALY AND ROME 191

traces of another terminology. If we could be sure
that the prayers in the de Sacramentis represented
an older form of the Roman Canon itself, it would
seem that the vaguer words of the former, figura
corporis et sanguinis Christi, originally filled the place
of the more explicit form now found in the Quam
oblationem. This less explicit terminology, which to
some minds will seem jejune and bare, has been
illustrated from North African and Roman writers,
as well as from the later Western Sacramentaries, by
M. Batiffol 1 . It finds frequent expression in the
variable post-communion prayers of the genuinely
Roman Sacramentary, the Gregorian, and such lan
guage was appealed to in the Eucharistic controversies
in the West by Berengar and Ratramn.

(4) It has already been remarked that the con
ception of the sacrifice in the prayers of the de
Sacramentis is mainly eucharistic. The same is
true of the Roman Canon. In the earlier portion
the phrases haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta
sacrificia illibata sacrificium laudis oblatio serui-
tutis nostrae occur. In the oblation after the
Anamnesis we find de tuis donis ac datis hostiam
pur am (a reference to Mai. i. 11), hostiam sanctam,
hostiam immaculatam, while immediately afterwards
in reference to its sacramental character the oblation
is called panem sanctum uitae aeternae et calicem
salutis perpetuae. Still later the offerings are com
pared to the gifts of Abel and the sacrifices of

1 ttudesu. 306 f., 351 f.

192 ITALY AND ROME

Abraham and Melchizedek, and in the Per quern
haec omnia they are referred to as haec bona. This
earlier eucharistic conception is also found in the
super oblata prayers of the Gregorian Sacramentary,
side by side with, and sometimes combined in the
same prayer with, others in which the propitiatory
conception finds expression, though the former class
predominates.

Thus the language of the Roman Canon testifies
to a primitive stage of developement and shews little
trace of the more fully developed ideas current in
Greek circles at the close of the fourth century.

In conclusion a few words may be said about
the divergent usages in the West to which Duchesne 1
and other writers have called attention. We may
notice the following points :

(1) In the missa catechumenorum the prophetic
lesson is alluded to by Ambrose, at Milan, and we
learn from Augustine that it was in use, though not
a fixed custom, in North Africa 2 . It is also a feature
of the Gallican and Mozarabic books.

(2) The position of the recital of the names of
offerers and of the kiss of peace differed in the time
of Pope Innocent at Rome from that of the churches
in Italy to the north of Rome, though with regard to
the kiss of peace the use of Rome accorded with that
of Hippo in North Africa in the time of Augustine 3 .

(3) In some parts of North Africa, as we gather
from Optatus, there was an invocation of the Holy
Spirit in the liturgy. But from the silence of

1 Ckr. Worship, p. 86 f . 2 pp. 144, 157. 3 pp. 152, 155 f.

ITALY AND ROME 193

Augustine it may be inferred that this was not the
case at Hippo, while the evidence of Ambrose for
Milan yields, as we have seen, no certain results.
There is no trace of it at Rome, beyond the very
doubtful reference of Pope Gelasius, which makes no
direct reference to Roman usage 1 .

(4) The blessing by the bishop, with laying on
of hands, before communion finds its earliest attesta
tion in North Africa in the writings of Augustine.
It may be alluded to by Ambrose 2 , and it is found
in Gaul in the time of Caesarius of Aries (t 542 A.D.).
It appears in the Gallican and Mozarabic rites. But
here again Roman evidence is wanting.

With regard to (1), (3), and (4), as well as the
position of the kiss of peace, the non-Roman
Western usages described find parallels in the Greek
rites.

It is possible that the earlier Roman rite in some
of these features agreed more closely with other
Western rites. Thus the prophetic lesson appears
to have fallen out of general use at Rome in the
course of the fifth century 3 . With regard to the
position of the recital of the names of offerers at
Rome it has been suggested 4 that some of the earlier
prayers in the Roman Canon (e.g. Memento domine
and Communicantes) originally preceded the Preface,
and thus the intercessory portions, as was probably
the case originally in the East 5 , and as is the case

1 pp. 150 f., 163, 185. 2 p. 164.

8 Duchesne, Chr. Worship, p. 168.

* Dom Cagin, PaUographie musicale, v. 70 f. 5 p. 212.

194 ITALY AND ROME

in the Galilean and Mozarabic rites, lay outside the
Eucharistic prayer. So too, if we could be sure that
Justin was describing the particular usage of the
Church of Rome, we should have evidence of an
earlier position of the kiss of peace in that Church.
With regard to the other two usages, the Invocation
of the Holy Spirit and the bishop s blessing before
communion, we have no Roman evidence. Indeed
the restricted character of the evidence for these,
e.g. the silence of Augustine as to the former when
compared with its earlier attestation by Optatus,
and the comparative lateness of the evidence for
the latter (the earliest witness for North Africa is
Augustine) suggests that neither practice was early
or native in the West.

The further discussion of these divergent usages
in the West must be left to the following chapter.

CHAPTER VIII

THE DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY
IN EAST AND WEST

IN the present chapter it is proposed briefly to
review the evidence which has been set forth in the
preceding pages and to indicate the main lines along
which the liturgy developed in the period under
discussion.

As we have seen, the early liturgy arose out of
a combination of Jewish and Christian elements.
The thanksgiving over bread and wine which our
Lord pronounced at the Last Supper finds its counter
part in the Jewish forms of blessing used at meals
and in connexion with the more solemn commemora
tions of the Sabbath and great festivals. Into this
setting were introduced the new Christian thoughts
which our Lord associated with the Last Supper, and
which led the early church to observe the breaking
of bread as a memorial of Him and as a means of
communion with Him. Both these elements appear
in the account which St Paul gives of the Eucharist
in his first epistle to the Corinthians. At first these
two parts constituted a unity, but when Christianity

132

196 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

was translated to Gentile surroundings the Jewish
setting speedily disappeared, and the common meal
became separated from the Eucharist proper. This
is the stage exhibited in Justin Martyr s account.
But there still survived the memory of the associa
tions amid which the Eucharist came into being.
The thanksgiving for the creation of the world and
all that is therein for man s sake 1 , perpetuated the
primitive evxapio-ria or giving of thanks at the Last
Supper. Out of this was developed not only the great
Eucharistic prayer of the liturgies with its com
memoration of creation and redemption, but also the
ritual custom of offering the gifts of bread and wine
as an expression of thanksgiving for God s blessings.
We find indications of this in the language of Clement
of Rome and the Didache, and in the more explicit
statements of Irenaeus.

But we also find in the time of Justin, closely
associated with these elements, a preceding service
of the word, consisting of lessons from the Gospels
or prophets, a sermon, and prayers. This again goes
back to the Jewish surroundings of the early church
and was probably modelled to some extent on the
synagogue worship, in which we find (1) prayers,
(2) a lesson from the Law, (3) a lesson from the
prophets, (4) an exposition or homily. The early
Christians had retained their connexion with Judaism
by attending the Temple prayers, and the first mis
sionaries had preached in Jewish synagogues 3 . Hence

1 Justin, Dial. c. Try ph. 41.

2 Acts ii. 46 ; xiii. 14, etc.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 197

it was natural that the organization of their own
worship should take a complexion from their Jewish
surroundings. The fusion of the two elements, the
service of the word and the Eucharist proper, would
naturally take place when the Eucharist became
divorced from the common meal. But the actual
steps in the history of this fusion we cannot trace.
The Didache is silent as to any such preparatory
service. Tertullian, who, as we have seen 1 , describes
a service of a similar character to that with which
we are dealing, also seems to imply that there was
a distinction between this service of the word and
the Eucharist proper, and that the two were not
always conjoined 2 . Nor again is there any reference
to this preparatory service in Cyril of Jerusalem.
This might be explained by the fact that it was
familiar to the catechumens for whom his instructions
were intended. But the evidence of the Peregrinatio
of Etheria shews that at Jerusalem in her time the
liturgy proper was distinguished sharply from other
gatherings and was held in a different church 3 . The
same practice is indicated by Augustine as existing at
Hippo 4 . Lastly, we have the evidence of Socrates
the historian for the fact that at Alexandria in the
fifth century on Wednesdays and Fridays there was
a service consisting of lessons from Scripture, in
struction, and all the other accompaniments of a
synaxis except the celebration of the mysteries 5 .

1 p. 129.

- de Cult. Fern. ii. 11 aut sacrificium offertur, aut dei senuo
administrator.

s p. 83 n. 3. * p. 144. * //. E. v. 22.

198 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

These facts suggest the original distinctness of the
two services, and seem to shew that though their
fusion in some churches took place at an early period,
in others the memory of their original distinctness
survived 1 . To the missa catechumenorum, as the
1 service of the word was called, were admitted not
only catechumens and penitents, but also Jews and
heathen 2 , while the liturgy proper (or missa fidelium)
was carefully guarded from all except the faithful.

With regard to the reading of Scripture and the
psalmody which characterized the former service in
the fourth century we may note first of all that in
both East and West lessons from the Old Testament
as well as from the New Testament were read, while
Augustine tells us that the acts of the martyrs were
read on their days in North Africa 3 . Still earlier,
before the Canon of Scripture became fixed, we find
other books, such as the Epistle of Clement, read
in Church 4 . Originally too the lessons were numer
ous, though in the latter part of the fourth century
they appear to have become restricted to three in
the churches of Antioch, Constantinople, and Milan,
while in North Africa in the time of Augustine
the use of Old Testament lessons does not appear
to have been a fixed custom. At Rome it would
appear that originally, as at Milan, the prophetic

1 See further Cabrol, Les oriyities liturgiques, p. 334 f . ; Woolley,
Lit. of primitive Church,]). 33 f.

2 See can. 84 of the so-called Fourth Council of Carthage (Hefele,
Councils (E. tr.) ii. 417). The Council of Laodicea (can. 6) forbids,
however, heretics to enter the church.

8 p. 144. 4 Euseb., H. E. iv. 23.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 199

lesson was included among those read, though it has
since almost entirely disappeared 1 .

The use of psalms between the lessons is attested
for Syria by the Apostolic Constitutions, for Asia
by the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, and for
North Italy by Ambrose. Augustine speaks of the
psalm sung before the Gospel, in a way which corre
sponds with the later Roman Gradual. Responsorial
singing of the Psalms is attested by Athanasius, the
Apostolic Constitutions, and by Etheria.

At the close of the fourth century we find that a
special ritual was being developed in connexion with
the reading of the Gospel. From the Apostolic Con
stitutions we read that the people stood while it was
read, and from Jerome that lights were used through
out the churches of the East at the Gospel. At
Carthage in the time of Cyprian it was read by a
lector or reader, at Rome in the time of Jerome by
the deacon, at Alexandria in the fifth century by
the archdeacon.

The chief developement in connexion with the
concluding prayers of the missa catechumenorum
arose out of the institution of the catechumenate
and the penitential system of the church. This
gave rise to the elaborate system of prayers and
blessings for each of the classes of persons not per
mitted to be present at the mysteries, which we
find referred to as early as the third century by
Gregory Thaumaturgus in Cappadocia, and which
are more fully described by Chrysostom at Antioch,

1 p. 193.

200 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

and by the author of the Apostolic Constitutions.
Here, as in some other developements, the Church of
Antioch may have led the way, and from Antioch
they spread into Asia (Canons of Laodicea) and into
Cappadocia 1 . In Egypt (Sarapion) they are less
developed, and are represented simply by the prayer
for the catechumens and their benediction 2 .

The changed conditions of Church life which
resulted from the abolition of the penitential system
in the East in the last decade of the fourth century 3
do not appear to have affected for some time the
ceremonies of the dismissals, and, as we have seen 4 ,
there is evidence to shew that the dismissal of the
penitents survived as late as 530 A.D. The same was
the case with the dismissal of the catechumens, where
the forms survived even long after the catechumenate
had ceased to exist. In the West there is no clear
evidence of these developements in our period.

In the portion of the rite preceding the Anaphora
the prayers of the faithful correspond to the prayers
which are found at this point in Justin s account of
the baptismal Eucharist, and to the similar prayers
in which, according to the Ethiopic Church Order,
the newly-baptized were allowed to join with all the
people 5 .

The most characteristic developement in this
connexion was the deacon s litany, with which the

1 The Peregnnatio of Etheria points to a similar system of
dismissals at the daily offices at Jerusalem. See p. 83.

2 p. 64.

3 p. 122. * pp. 122 f. s Homer, p. 155.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 201

Missa fidelium began. As exhibited in the Apostolic
Constitutions and the Antiochene writings of Chry-
sostom, it consisted of a series of biddings by the
deacon (the people probably responding Kyrie eleisori),
completed at the close by the prayer of the bishop.
This developement, like the dismissals in the missa
catechumenvrum, appears to have been due to the
Church of Antioch, and thence it probably passed
into Pontus and to Constantinople. There is no
mention of it in Cyril of Jerusalem, while the liturgy
of Sarapion points to a different use for Egypt, as do
the Canons of Laodicea for Asia.

In North Africa we find in Augustine reference
to c prayers of the faithful or prayers of believers,
which appear to have included biddings by the
bishop, common prayers with proclamation by the
deacon, and concluding prayers (or collects) by
the bishop 1 . As we have seen, this may correspond
to the usage exhibited in the Roman Good Friday
prayers. Of diaconal litanies in the Eastern manner
there is no clear evidence during our period in the
West.

After the prayers there followed in the East the
kiss of peace. This ritual custom took its origin
from the holy kiss or kiss of love 2 which in
Apostolic times was a token of the brotherhood of
Christians. It is referred to in Justin s account
of the Eucharist, where it follows the * common

1 p. 145.

2 See Rom. xvi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; 1 Tkess. v.
26 ; 1 Pet. v. 14.

202 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

prayers. The letter of Innocent to Decentius shews
that early in the fifth century, in the Churches of
Italy to the north of Rome, the kiss of peace was
given before the Canon began, according to Eastern
usage; while in the Roman rite, with which that
of North Africa in the time of Augustine agreed,
it preceded Communion. Its association with the
people s offering would receive support from Mt. v.
23, 24, while its association with the Communion
would emphasize the idea of the Sacrament of Unity.
The custom in accordance with which the people
made their offerings of bread and wine for the Euchar
ist is indicated by Tertullian and Cyprian, as also by
the Canons of the Spanish Council of Elvira early
in the fourth century 1 . It is expressly referred to
by Augustine 2 , and the letter of Pope Innocent to
Decentius shews that it was in existence both at
Rome and in churches of Italy to the north of Rome
early in the fifth century. In the East there is much
less evidence for the practice. The liturgy of Sarapion
contains a prayer for those who have offered, and
the existence of the practice at Alexandria is implied
by Theophilus 3 . For Pontus we have the evidence
of the Second and Third Canonical Epistles of Basil
as late as 375 A.D. 4 It is implied in the Apostolic
Constitutions 5 , but there is no evidence for it in the
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, or Constantinople, so
far as may be gathered from the writings of Cyril
of Jerusalem and Chrysostom. Mr E. Bishop has

1 pp. 137, 177. 2 p. 146. 3 p. 53.

4 p. 117. 5 pp. 102 f.

DEV ELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 203

suggested 1 that the practice was dying out generally
in the East in the course of the fourth century 2 ,
whereas it survived to a much later period in the
West 3 .

As we have seen, the original nucleus round which
the primitive liturgy gathered was the evxapioTia or
thanksgiving, based on the giving of thanks at
the Last Supper. It was in connexion with this
central prayer that the earliest liturgical forms
became fixed. Originally, as we gather from Justin,
though extemporary in character, it followed a fixed
theme and formed one long prayer commemorating
God s work in Creation and Redemption. The litur
gies of Sarapion and the Apostolic Constitutions
illustrate in different ways the manner in which
this theme came to be elaborated. To this thanks
giving was attached a preface (Sursum cor da, etc.),
which assumed at quite an early date a fixed
character. It is found in almost identical words in
Cyprian, the Ethiopic Church Order, Cyril of Jeru
salem, and the Apostolic Constitutions. At what
time the Sanctus was introduced into it, it is difficult
to say. Its absence from the Ethiopic Church Order
suggests that it was of later introduction in some
churches, though it appears to have early attestation
in the West from the Acts of Perpetua. The effect
of its introduction was to break into two parts the

1 Connolly, Narsai, p. 117.

2 It is found in the Testament of our Lord (i. 19, 23) where
directions are given about it.

3 For the people s offering at Milan see Duchesne, Chr. Worship,
p. 204.

204 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

central Eucharistic Prayer. In the liturgy of the
Apostolic Constitutions it divides the commemoration
of Creation and of God s dealings with man under
the Old Covenant from the commemoration of the
Incarnation and Redemption. As found in Sarapion
and the Apostolic Constitutions it had not yet
received the later additions of the Hosanna and
Benedictus which are found in later Eastern rites
(except the Egyptian) and in the Roman rite. The
recital of the institution and the formal commemora
tion of the Passion and Resurrection (the Anamnesis,
as it is technically called) are further elements which
had acquired a fixed place in the Eucharistic prayer
in most churches before the closing years of the fourth
century or the early years of the fifth century. They
are found in the Ethiopic Church Order and the
Apostolic Constitutions. For the words of institu
tion we have at Antioch the testimony of Chrysostom 1 ,
while Basil implies their existence in the churches of
Pontus 8 . The silence of Cyril of Jerusalem as to
this portion of the liturgy is probably accidental,
and the rapid developement of eucharistic beliefs and
liturgical customs in that region renders it improbable
that these elements were wanting in the church of
Jerusalem. For the West we have the testimony
of the prayers in the de Sacramentis, in which the
recital of the institution and a formal Anamnesis
appear. For North African practice we have in
sufficient information to enable us to form a judge
ment. But to this positive evidence there are two

1 p. 94. 2 p. us.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 205

striking exceptions. In Sarapion, though the words
of institution appear, there is no Anamnesis, while
the East Syrian liturgy of Adai and Mari contains
neither words of institution nor Anamnesis. This
may be connected with the particular conceptions of
the Eucharist current in those regions 1 . But though
Sarapion witnesses to the earlier practice of the re
gions connected with Alexandria, the evidence of
Cyril of Alexandria, writing in 430 A.D., suggests
that before that date the liturgy of his church had
conformed to the practice of other Greek churches.

To this Anamnesis, in the liturgical forms in
which it is found (e.g. the Ethiopic Church Order,
the Apostolic Constitutions, the de Sacramentis)
there is attached a solemn oblation of the elements,
which in turn introduces in the Eastern rites the
Invocation. The history of this latter must now be
considered.

The word fo&Xiprts or invocation is used in its
technical liturgical sense to denote a prayer to God
for the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the elements
that they may become the Body and the Blood of
Christ. This use of the term, however, is derived
from the later and more fully developed Eastern
forms of invocation. We must first trace the earlier
stages of its history.

(1) A thanksgiving 2 over the sacred meal, which
in virtue of this thanksgiving becomes the spiritual

1 For Alexandria see E. Bishop, in Connolly s Narsai,pp. 156 f.
for Eastern Syria, ibid. pp. 147 f.

2 On the words evXoyclv, ev^aptcrTelv, see p. 2.

206 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

food of the faithful, existed from the first. This
thanksgiving did not form merely a part of the
Eucharistic prayer, but was identical with it. The
forms of thanksgiving found in the Didache and
some of those in the Gnostic Acts of John recall, as
we have seen 1 , Jewish forms of grace at meals. As
we have already indicated 2 , Justin s description of
the Eucharist accords with a similar state of things.

(2) From Irenaeus onwards we find the word
eTTiKX^o-t? used in connexion with the consecration
of the elements, while in some Gnostic sources we
find not only a reference to the Invocation, but a
definiteness in its association with the moment of
consecration which goes far beyond Irenaeus and
anticipates later developements in the East 3 . In the
third century we have the evidence of Finnilian of
Caesarea in Cappadocia 4 and of the Didascalia in
Syria 5 for the use of an invocation in the celebration
of the Eucharist. During the fourth century all our
Eastern sources of information, whether in Syria,
Jerusalem, Cappadocia, or Egypt, attest the exist
ence of an invocation of some kind in the liturgy.
Turning to the West we find Optatus in North Africa
referring to the invocation of the Holy Spirit 6 , though
Augustine, writing still later at Hippo, speaks more
vaguely of the bread and wine as consecrated by the
mystic prayer, and elsewhere of their receiving the
benediction of Christ 7 . For Rome we have the refer
ence of Jerome to bishops praying for the advent

i p. 43. 2 pp. 36 f. 8 p. 44.

* p. 119. 5 p. 89. 6 pp. 150 f . 1 p. 150.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 207

of the Lord at the Eucharist 1 . Lastly in the de
Sacramentis we find a prayer parallel to the Quam
oblationem of the Roman Canon, asking GOD to * make
this oblation to us approved, ratified, reasonable, ac
ceptable, because it is the figure of the body and blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ, while the corresponding
prayer in the present Roman Canon in addition asks
GOD to bless (benedictam facere) the oblation, * that
it may become to us the body and blood... of Christ.

But while the evidence for the existence of an
invocation in some form in the liturgy is considerable,
closer examination reveals considerable divergence in
form and contents. Irenaeus refers to the bread
as receiving the Word of GoD 2 / where the operation
of the Logos rather than the Holy Spirit seems to be
in view. Similarly Justin, as we have seen, compares
the operations of the Logos in the Incarnation and in
the Eucharist 3 . This idea is specially characteristic
of Alexandrine writers, and in accordance with it we
find in the liturgy of Sarapion a prayer for the descent
of the Logos instead of the Holy Spirit 4 . Jerome, as
we have seen, speaks of prayer for the advent of the
Lord simply, while the writings of Augustine, the
de Sacramentis, and the Roman Canon are equally
silent as to any reference to the Holy Spirit.

The first clear and undisputed references to the
operation of the Holy Spirit are found in the forms
of invocation in the Ethiopic Church Order and Cyril
of Jerusalem 5 . It appears at Antioch (Chrysostom),

i p. 178. 2 pp. 40 f. p. 36.

4 p. 68. 5 pp. 57, 85.

208 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

and in the Apostolic Constitutions 1 , also in the East
Syrian liturgy of Adai and Mari. At Alexandria
Athanasius exhibits the influence of the same tra
dition as is found in Sarapion, in his association of
the Logos with the Eucharist 2 . But his successors
in the episcopate, Peter, as well as Theophilus, in the
later decades of the fourth century, refer to the invo
cation of the Holy Spirit 3 , from which we may infer
that at Alexandria the older tradition died out in
the latter part of the fourth century and was replaced
by the view generally current in the East at that
time. The writings of the Cappadocian Fathers and
of Chrysostom supply us with no evidence as to the
form of Invocation current in the churches of Pontus
and Constantinople. The former re-echo the Alex
andrine language on the relationship of the Logos to
the Eucharist, but such language cannot be regarded
as witnessing to any local tradition or practice, but
is rather a result of their Origenistic studies 4 . From
the general character of the liturgical developements
in the churches of Pontus and Constantinople, so far
as these have come under our notice in the previous
chapters, and from their correspondence with those of
Antioch, as well as from the evidence of the liturgies
of St Basil and St Chrysostom, we may regard it
as practically certain that in these churches too
the invocation was a prayer for the operation of the
Holy Spirit 5 . When we turn to the West the

i pp. 94, 105. 2 p. 55. 3 p. 55. 4 p. 126.

5 On Basil s use of the word a j/deiie and its parallel with the
dva8elai in the Invocation of Lit. of St Basil see p. 119 n. 2.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 209

evidence is much more meagre. In North Africa
Optatus about 363 A.D. refers to the invocation of the
Holy Spirit, but the silence of Augustine at a consider
ably later period suggests that there was no such
invocation in the church of Hippo. The evidence
of Ambrose is not conclusive as to the form of the
Invocation at Milan 1 , and apart from the uncertain
passage of Gelasius 2 , there is no evidence of it forth
coming from Rome. The character of this evidence
suggests, as we have seen, that the invocation of the
Holy Spirit was not a native or original feature in
the West.

A further difference in the forms of invocation
is apparent when we come to consider their general
tenour and purport. In the Ethiopic Church Order
and in the East Syrian liturgy of Adai and Mari the
Invocation is primarily a request for the divine inter
vention that the blessings of the Sacrament may be
secured to the worshippers. The same statement
holds good of some early Gnostic forms 3 . On the
other hand in Cyril of Jerusalem, Sarapion, and the
Apostolic Constitutions we find an explicit prayer
that through the coming of the Holy Spirit (or
Logos, in Sarapion) the elements may be made, or
become, or be shewn as, the Body and Blood of
Christ 4 .

This latter type of Invocation exhibits greater
developement than that found in the Ethiopic Church
Order and the liturgy of Adai and Mari, and tends

i p. 163. 2 p . 185. 3 p . 43.

4 pp. 85, 68, 105.
S. L. 14

210 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

to emphasize more clearly the idea of the moment
of consecration, an idea which is not raised in the
more immature and na ive conceptions of the other
type. Nor has this more explicit form of invocation
wholly dispossessed the statement of the other idea
in the liturgical forms in which it is found. Thus
the invocation in Sarapion, after praying for the
coming of the Logos, proceeds :

And make all who communicate to receive a medicine
of life for the healing of every sickness and for the
strengthening of all advancement and virtue.

In the Apostolic Constitutions the author appears
to have interpolated into an older form of invocation
resembling that found in the Ethiopic Church Order
an invocation of the later and more explicit type 1 .
The Eastern liturgies still retain this association of a
prayer for the blessings of a good communion with
the more explicit form of invocation 2 . The Supplices
te of the Roman Canon also contains a prayer that all
who by partaking of the altar receive the body and
blood of Christ may be filled with all heavenly
blessing and grace. The Roman Canon in fact con
tains two prayers, each of which has been regarded
in turn by students of liturgy as the equivalent of an
invocation. The earlier (Quam oblationem) precedes
the recital of the Institution and asks somewhat
in the later manner (note however nobis fiat) that
the oblation may become the Body and Blood of
Christ, while the other (Supjrtices te) follows the

1 pp. 105 f.

2 See LEW. 54. 14 f.; 134. 22 f. ; 330. 13 f.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 211

words of institution and Anamnesis, and asks that
the gifts may be * carried to the altar on high and
made available to the worshippers with a view to
their gaining the blessings of communion in the Body
and Blood of Christ. In the corresponding prayers
of the de Sacramentis the purpose of the invocation
is more obscure, as the general ten our of the prayers
seems to emphasize the sacrificial rather than the
sacramental aspect of the rite. The words, however,
fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam...quod figura
est corporis et sanguinis...Christi/ seem to contain an
implied reference to the Communion.

The portions of the liturgy which follow the
Invocation exhibit a corresponding developement to
that which we have found in the Invocation during
the period embraced in this volume. We may notice
the following facts.

(1) In the Ethiopic Church Order all the prayers
which intervene between the Invocation and the
Communion have in view the communicants and
their needs. The general structure of this part of
the liturgy of Sarapion witnesses, as we have seen,
to a similar original character, and it has been con
tended that the same is substantially the case with
the East Syrian Liturgy of Adai and Mari 1 . A
prayer for communicants is found in the Apostolic
Constitutions immediately after the Invocation, and
a similar prayer survives in the Greek rites of

1 The quasi-intercessory portion in LEW. 288. 13 f. may seem
at first sight to be an exception. See p. 128 n. 2, and on the whole
question E. Bishop, /. Th. St. xiv. 30 f.

142

212 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

St James, St Mark, St Basil, and St Chrysostom.
Lastly, the Roman Canon, as Mr E. Bishop has
pointed out 1 , witnesses to a similar train of ideas.
The intercession for the dead (Memento etiam) in the
later portion of the Canon is absent from some early
texts and was not originally a part of the public
Sunday mass. With this omission the concluding
portions of the Canon from the Supplices te onwards
have in view the worshippers, their reception of the
Body and Blood of Christ, and their association in
the fellowship of the Saints.

(2) Such intercessions as were offered for par
ticular classes of persons outside the actual congre
gation during the earlier period of the history of the
liturgy in the East appear to have occurred in the
pre-anaphoral portion of the rite. Thus in Sarapion
there is a series of prayers of an intercessory character
which a rubric directs to be recited before the prayer
of offering (i.e. the anaphora) 2 . This supplies evi
dence for the early Egyptian rite. In the liturgy of
Adai and Mari there are an intercession and diptychs
after the Kiss of peace 3 , though in its present form
it also contains an intercession between the Sanctus
and the Invocation. Similarly in the West in the
time of Pope Innocent the recital of the names of
offerers took place in the churches of Italy to the
north of Rome before the Canon, and this is the
position of the intercessions in the Gallican and

1 J. Th.St. xiv. 45 f., 59 f.

2 The title of the anaphora in Sarapion is ei/xn irpovtyopov.

3 On the order of this part of Lit. of Adai and Mari see Connolly
in J. Th. St. xiii. 592.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 213

Mozarabic rites. At Rome in the time of Pope
Innocent the recital of the names of offerers took
place within the Canon, and this corresponds with
the place of the intercessions in the present Roman
Canon. It has however been contended, as we have
seen 1 , that there has been some transposition of the
prayers in the Roman rite, and that originally Roman
practice agreed with that of other Western churches.

(3) But during the fourth century, and under
the influence of conceptions of the Eucharistic Pre
sence and Sacrifice current in Syria and Jerusalem
and brought to light in the writings of Cyril of
Jerusalem and Chrysostom, we find the practice
of associating intercessions for the living and the
dead with the moments immediately following upon
the consecration. This practice is exhibited in the
liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the
rites of St James 2 , St Basil, and St Chrysostom. It
also explains the intercession for the departed and
the recital of their names in Sarapion, this feature
being, as we have seen, probably an importation from
the practice of the Church of Jerusalem.

(4) The practice of commemorating the names of
particular persons, living or dead, in connexion with
the general intercessions offered in public worship
for various classes of persons, is also attested during
this period. It took different forms in the churches
of the West and the East.

1 See p. 193.

2 On the original position of the diptychs hi Lit. of St James
see Connolly, J. Th. St. xiii. 589, and E. Bishop, ibid. xiv. 24 f.

214 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

In the West, where, as we have seen, the custom
of the people s offering of bread and wine for the
Eucharist was current, the names of offerers were
recited at the altar. "We have allusions to this early
in the fourth century in the Canons of the Council of
Elvira in Spain, and early in the fifth century the
letter of Pope Innocent to Decentius attests the
practice for Italy. As we have seen, there was a
divergence as to the position in the liturgy occupied
by this recital of names, but in either case it pre
ceded the consecration.

In the East the practice of commemorating de
parted saints and praying for the dead in close
connexion with the Eucharistic sacrifice after the
consecration is attested about the middle of the
fourth century by Cyril of Jerusalem, while some
years later the Egyptian liturgy of Sarapion contains
a rubric in the intercession for the dead expressly
mentioning the recitation of the names. With regard
to this practice we may notice the distinction which
Cyril draws between patriarchs, prophets, apostles,
and martyrs, who are commemorated and whose
intercessions are indirectly invoked, and on the
other hand the rest of the dead for whom prayer
is offered 1 .

Of the Western practice referred to above there
appears to be no clear trace in the East during this
period 2 . The custom of reciting the names of

1 Cat. xxiii. 9.

2 In the Testament of our Lord (i. 19) directions are given that
the names of offerers are to be written down with a view to their
being named by way of commemoration when the holy things are

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITUKGY 215

the dead in the intercession after the consecration
seems to have been introduced into the East in the
fourth century. With regard to the West we learn
from Augustine that in the Church of North Africa
there was a recital in the liturgy of the names of
(1) martyrs and sanctimoniales, (2) deceased bishops,
as well as a general commemoration of the dead.
Augustine draws the same distinction between the
martyrs who were not prayed for, and the rest of
the dead for whom prayer was offered, as we find
in Cyril 1 . The same distinction is also found in the
Mozarabic rite 2 . On the other hand in the Gallican
prayers only the ordinary dead are referred to, while
in the Roman Canon it is specifically the names of
saints which are recited, the general commemoration
of the dead (Memento etiam) being, as we have seen,
a later intrusion into the public Sunday Mass. The
conclusion which has been drawn from these facts is
that this divergence of custom in the West with
regard to the recital of names of the dead points
to a later and independent adoption in these regions
of a practice imported or suggested from elsewhere 3 .
As to the place of this commemoration of the
dead in the North African liturgy Augustine gives
us no clear indication. In the Mozarabic rite it is

offered by the bishop. But the liturgy of the Testament makes no
provision for such recital, and it is not easy to say where it could
have come in (see E. Bishop, J. Th. St. xii. 390 n.). Moreover the
uncertainty of the date of the Testament renders its evidence
doubtful for the period under discussion.

1 See pp. 86, 147.

a See the post nomina prayers in Lesly, pp. 27, 345.

E. Bishop in /. Th. St. xii. 392. Cf. ibid. iv. 571 f.

216 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

found before the Preface ; in the Roman rite the
formal commemoration of departed saints (Communi-
cantes) is found within the Canon but before the Quam
oblationtim.

The practice of the recital of names which has
been described above assumed in time a formal
character, and gave rise to what are known as the
diptychs or lists of names of persons recited publicly
in the liturgy. The first clear and explicit mention
of them during our period is in the correspondence of
Cyril of Alexandria with Atticus of Constantinople
about the insertion of the name of Chrysostom in the
diptychs of the dead. From this we learn that they
included both living and dead, and that the diptychs
of the dead included clergy and laity, the names of
the bishops of Constantinople being arranged in con
tinuous order. In the correspondence in question
the practice referred to is that of the churches of
Constantinople and Antioch. In the East Syrian
Church, though the liturgy of Adai and Mari men
tions the book of the living and the dead, it would
appear from the evidence of the Dionysian writings
that originally only the names of the dead were
recited 1 . Lastly, we may notice that the evidence of
Cyril of Jerusalem, Sarapion, and Chrysostom as to
the commemoration of the departed at the close of the
Anaphora corresponds with the position which the
diptychs occupy in the liturgies of St James, St Basil,
and St Chrysostom. In East Syria, where the older
tradition as to the position of the Great Intercession

i See Connolly in /. Th. St. xiii. 592 f.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 217

continued to prevail, unaffected by the new develope-
ments in Greek-speaking lands, the diptychs appear,
as in the liturgy of Adai and Mari, after the Kiss
of peace.

The use of the Lord s Prayer in the liturgy is
attested by Cyril of Jerusalem and probably by
Chrysostom, but it is absent from the Apostolic
Constitutions, and there is no certain evidence for
its use in Egypt in the fourth century. Nor again
is there any explicit mention of it in connexion with
the liturgy in North Africa before Optatus. This
absence of evidence may be partly accidental, but we
must allow for the possibility that its introduction
into the liturgy was only slowly adopted in some
churches.

The allusions found in fourth century writers to
the Fraction have been collected in the preceding
chapters. The question whether it had already
assumed a formal and ritual character, or whether in
the references cited it denotes simply the breaking of
the consecrated bread into pieces before Communion,
must be left undetermined here. Sarapion testifies
to the existence of a prayer of the Fraction,
a feature characteristic of the Egyptian rite. The
Apostolic Constitutions do not refer to the Fraction,
but give a short litany at this point of the service
which may be connected with the Fraction, and
Chrysostom has been thought, though perhaps with
out sufficient reason, to attest the existence of a
similar litany at Antioch 1 .

i p. 95.

218 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

A benediction of the people with laying on of
hands is found in the Ethiopic Church Order, and
after the Fraction in Sarapion. In the correspond
ing place in the Apostolic Constitutions we find at
the close of the short diaconal litany mentioned above,
an injunction by the deacon Let us arise and com
mend ourselves to God through His Christ/ followed
by the bishop s prayer which is in form a preparation
for communion 1 . This benediction is also attested
by Gregory of Nazianzus for Cappadocia. In the
West the evidence for it in this period is slight. It
is not mentioned in any North African writer before
Augustine 2 . There is a possible reference to it by
Ambrose at Milan, but there is no trace of it at
Rome.

In North Africa and at Rome in the fourth
century the Kiss of peace preceded Communion.
The Sancta sanctis with the response * One holy, etc.
is found in the Ethiopic Church Order, in Cyril of
Jerusalem, and in the Apostolic Constitutions, and
Chrysostom attests its existence at Constantinople.
In the Apostolic Constitutions it is followed by the
Gloria inexcelsis, Hosanna, and Benedictus qui venit,
a feature which may be original and point to the
earlier connexion of these words with the moments
before Communion 3 . Their association with the
Sancta sanctis further helps to emphasize the origi
nal purpose of this latter formula as an admonition
preparatory to communion. There is no clear evi
dence for the Sancta sanctis in the West during our

i LEW. 24. 6f. 2 On Optatus, see p. 153. 3 p. 108.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 219

period, nor in any Alexandrine writer before Cyril
of Alexandria, nor is it found in Sarapion. Hence
it was probably a feature of late introduction at
Alexandria.

The words of administration, so far as they are
quoted in the sources for this period, are simple in
character, though there are traces here and there
of expansion. The communion chant is found in
Cyril of Jerusalem and the Apostolic Constitutions,
and is referred to by Augustine, who, however, de
scribes it as of recent origin in North Africa. All three
sources point to the use of Ps. xxxiv. in this connexion.
The Amen, which is the response of communicants on
reception, is referred to by Tertullian, the Acts of
Perpetua, and Augustine. For Italy it is attested by
Jerome and the de Sacramentis, while in the East
it is found in the Ethiopic Church Order 1 , Cyril of
Jerusalem, and the Apostolic Constitutions. Forms
of thanksgiving and a final benediction are provided
in the Ethiopic Church Order, Sarapion, and the
Apostolic Constitutions, and the thanksgiving is
also alluded to by Chrysostom in the East, and by
Augustine in the West. Lastly, a form of dismissal
by the deacon is found in the Ethiopic Church Order,
in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in Chrysostom.

The review which has been given in the preceding
chapters points to the existence, at the close of the
period under discussion, of more or less defined types
of liturgical usage in several of the great centres of
Christendom, Syria, Egypt, North Africa, Rome, and

1 Homer, p. 156.

220 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

North Italy. The chief features of these uses, and their
relations to well-known types of liturgy, have been
indicated in the summaries contained in the several
chapters. Though liturgical forms were still in a more
or less fluid condition, certain well-defined landmarks
are observable. The general order of service had
already in Justin s day assumed some degree of fixity.
In the third century the evidence of Cyprian points
to the fact that certain formulae (the Sursum corda
and response) had become stereotyped, while the
evidence of Cyril of Jerusalem, Sarapion, the Apostolic
Constitutions, and Chrysostom, in the fourth century,
points to the existence of a traditional framework
of the prayers, as in the deacon s litany and the cues
which take up the language of the Sanctus, as well as
in the shorter formulae, such as the salutations and
versicles, and in some quarters the Sancta sanctis
with its response. A similar result is shewn in the
West by the evidence of Augustine. The actual
wording of the officiant s prayers attained fixity more
slowly, but we may notice the appearance in the
North Italian de Sacramentis of a series of prayers
which present a fairly close correspondence in word
ing with those of the Roman Canon. Lastly, we may
notice in the West the attempts which were made on
the one hand by local councils in North Africa to
restrict the free composition of mass-formulae, and
on the other hand the efforts of the occupants of the
See of Rome, as evidenced by the letter of Innocent
to Decentius, to secure conformity among the churches
of Italy with Roman usages.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 221

It is probable that at first each bishop composed
his own book of prayers for his individual use, though
in this task he would be guided increasingly by
traditional usage and the practice of previous bishops
of the see. We have an example of this in the
liturgical prayers of Sarapion. In this respect the
influence exercised by a bishop of great repute, and
the authority of his name, would secure acceptance
for the liturgical usages associated with him. In this
way we may explain the association of the names of
St Basil and St Chrysostom with two of the Eastern
liturgies, and the emergence of certain distinct local
types of liturgy.

A second influence was the prestige and authority
enjoyed by the great churches of Christendom among
surrounding churches. The most conspicuous in
stance of this in the East is the church of Antioch,
which appears to have influenced the liturgical usages
of Pontus, Asia, and Constantinople 1 . Another centre
of influence was Jerusalem, in consequence of the
growth of pilgrimages and the building by Constantine
of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre 2 . It is in these
two regions that we find clearest evidence during the
fourth century of a forward movement in Eucharistic
conceptions and liturgical enrichment, which was
destined to exercise a considerable influence on other
churches.

In the West, as we have seen, the letter of Pope
Innocent to Decentius points to the existence, early

1 pp.111, 114 f.

2 On this see E. Bishop, J. Th. St. xiv. 36 f.

222 DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY

in the fifth century, of certain divergences of rite
in the Churches of Rome and North Italy. With
regard to one of these, the position of the kiss of
peace before communion, the usage of Rome agreed
with that of North Africa in the time of Augustine,
though if Justin can be regarded as a witness to local
Roman usage, it would appear that this divergence
arose later than his time. With regard to the other
divergence of custom mentioned by Innocent, the
position of the -recital of the names of offerers,
reference has been made to the theory that here too
the earlier practice of the Roman church accorded
with that of other Western churches 1 .

But these divergences, which come out especially
in the comparison of the Roman rite with the
Gallican and Mozarabic rites, extend to other features
as well. In some of these (e.g. the phraseology
in which the recital of the institution is introduced 2 ,
the occasional introduction of an invocation of
the Holy Spirit, the bishop s blessing before com
munion) the Gallican use accords with that of
Eastern rites. For the invocation of the Holy Spirit
and the bishop s blessing before communion, Western
evidence during the period under consideration in
this volume is, as we have seen 3 , restricted in
character, and suggests the conclusion that neither
practice was early or native in the West. From the
title of the prayer which follows the recital of the

1 p. 193.

2 The Mozavabic formula is in qua node tradebatur, as in the
Greek rites. 3 p. 218.

DEVELOPEMENT OF THE LITURGY 223

institution in Gallican forms, Post pridie, it has been
suggested that here also earlier Gallican usage corre
sponded with that of Rome 1 .

Duchesne 2 accounts for these divergences in the
West by the assumption of Greek influence entering
the West in the latter part of the fourth century by
way of Milan, and he associates the establishment
of the Gallican use with Auxentius, the Arian
bishop of Milan (355 374 A.D.), who was a Cappa-
docian. But this identification is too definite and
local, and does not take account of North African
evidence. The influence of Greek liturgical customs
on the West was probably of a much more subtle
character than this theory of direct introduction
suggests. The growth of pilgrimages to Jerusalem,
and the effect of the Arian controversy, with its
frequent councils and interchange of ideas and visits
between Eastern and Western bishops, would con
tribute to spread a knowledge of the more advanced
teaching and practices of the Greek-speaking East
among Western Christians 3 .

The further question of the extent of the influence
of Western churches on one another in the matter of
liturgical customs is one that cannot easily be dis
cussed and is not so clearly raised by the evidence
which falls within our period.

1 Dom Cagiri, Paleographie musicals, v. 55 f.

2 Chr. Worship, p. 93 f.

3 On the influence of the Holy Places and the services at
Jerusalem on the liturgical year see Cabrol, Les origines liturgiques,
pp. 175 f.

CHAPTER IX

EARLY CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST AS
ILLUSTRATED BY THE HISTORY OF THE
LITURGY

THE earliest references to the Eucharist outside
the New Testament present it in the light of a
Christian thank-offering (cvxapwrria) 1 , in which the
gifts of bread and wine, the first-fruits of the creatures,
are offered in thanksgiving to God. Thus Clement
of Rome speaks of those who have offered the gifts
of the bishop s office 2 , and the author of the Didacke 3
applies the name sacrifice to the rite, while several
early writers (Didacke, Justin, Irenaeus) see in the
prophecy of Malachi i. 11 a reference to the Eucharist.
The significance of this Christian thank-offering
may be illustrated from the language which Irenaeus
and Origen employ with reference to it. The follow
ing passages are typical of the teaching of the former :

Moreover, giving to his disciples counsel to offer first-
fruits to God from his creatures, not as though he was in
need, but in order that they themselves may not be either
unfruitful or unthankful, he took bread which is of the

1 See Hort on the words evyjapwrflv, ev^apKn-ia in ./. Th. St.,
iii. 594 f.

2 ad Cor. 44. 3 c. 14.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 225

creature, and gave thanks, saying, This is my body. And
the cup likewise, which is of our creation, he acknowledged
to be his blood, and taught the new oblation of the new
covenant ; which the Church receives from the Apostles
and offers throughout the whole world to that God who
supplies us with sustenance, as first-fruits of his gifts in
the new covenant 1 .

Moreover we offer to him, not as though he is in need,
but rendering thanks to his dominion, and sanctifying the
creature.... So the Word himself gave the people the com
mand to make offerings, though he did not need them,
that they might learn to serve God 2 .

Elsewhere he brings into connexion with these
gifts the thought of the creative activity of the Word
by which trees bear fruit and fountains flow, and the
earth gives first the blade, then the ear, then the full
corn in the ear 3 .

Similarly Origen, vindicating against Celsus the
Christian view of creation, says :

But we, giving thanks to the Maker of the universe,
eat also bread, which is offered with thanksgiving and
prayer for the things that have been given, which bread
becomes through the prayer a kind of holy body and one
that hallows those who use it with right purpose 4 .

This association with the Eucharist of the offering of
the gifts of bread and wine, as an act of thanksgiving
for God s creation, was a fine Christian instinct, which
brought the commemoration of Christ s redeeming
activity into relation with His creative activity as the
Word, and so gathered up in one act of worship the
whole conception of God s providence and dealing

1 adv. Haer. iv. 17. 4 f. Ibid. iv. 18. 6.

3 Ibid. iv. 18. 4. * c . Cels. viii. 33.

S. L. 15

226 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

with men. It was an outcome of the new life of joy,
which saw in the truth of the Incarnation the con
secration of all nature and all life.

This conception of the Eucharist as a thank-
offering finds full expression in the great Eucharistic
prayer which, as an act of praise for the blessings
of creation and redemption, in its general tenour had
already in the days of Justin taken the form exhibited
in the later liturgies. In the liturgical forms of
the fourth century it finds its fullest and most
systematic developement in the Apostolic Constitu
tions. After the opening dialogue of the Preface with
its invitation to give thanks the celebrant developes
the theme of the thanksgiving, passing in review
God s work in Creation and in the revelation of the
Old Testament, leading up to the Angelic Hymn.
Again the thanksgiving is resumed with the com
memoration of the mystery of man s redemption,
leading up to the recital of the institution at the Last
Supper, in obedience to which the rite is celebrated.
Then follows the formal commemoration of the passion,
death, resurrection, and ascension, in obedience to
the command do this in remembrance of Me, and
the oblation of the bread and the cup, with the
invocation of the Holy Spirit to consecrate them.
Thus the structure of the whole Eucharistic prayer
follows the order of the Creed and is intended to set
forth the successive stages of God s revelation, cul
minating in the work of the Holy Spirit, Whose
intervention is invoked.

The other liturgical forms of the period exhibit a

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 227

less complete developement of these ideas, but the
general tenour is the same. In the Ethiopic Church
Order and the East Syrian liturgy of Adai and Mari
there is only a passing reference to Creation ; the
prayers of Sarapion dwell especially on the thought
of God s revelation through the Word ; while in the
Roman Canon the introduction of variable Prefaces
has affected the form of the prayers at this point.

With regard to the conceptions entertained about
the consecration of the elements and its effects the
review which has been given in the previous chapters
of the developement of the rite points to the following
facts.

(1) In the earliest period of which we have
evidence no attempt was made to formulate a theory
as to the exact form or moment of the consecration
of the elements. The thanksgiving was regarded
as the sanctification of the meal, which in virtue of
this thanksgiving pronounced over it became the
spiritual food of the faithful. This, as we have seen,
is the stage exhibited in the Didache and the Gnostic
Acts of John, while Justin s statement that the food
over which thanks have been given through the prayer
of the Logos... is the flesh and blood of the incarnate
Jesus seems still to move in the same circle of
ideas 1 .

(2) In Justin and Irenaeus we have noticed a
tendency to attribute to the Logos the operative
power by which the elements become the Body
and Blood of Christ. In the Alexandrine writers,

1 pp. 25f.,36. f 44.

152

228 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

Clement, Origen, and Athanasius, the spiritual con
tent of the Eucharist is identified with the Logos,
and this idea finds expression in the Liturgy of
Sarapion, where the Logos is invoked to come upon
the bread that it may become the body of the
Logos 1 .

(3) In some East Syrian writers (e.g. Ephraem)
there are traces of a terminology in which at first
sight the Holy Spirit seems to be in some sense
identified with the content of the Eucharist. But
it seems likely that in such cases the Spirit is an
old and traditional designation of the Second Person
of the Trinity current in East Syria, and that our
Lord Himself is in the Eucharist designated the
Spirit 2 .

(4) Elsewhere, however, especially in Syria and
Palestine, the Eucharist was associated with the
operation of the Third Person of the Trinity. Thus
the Didascalia, as we have seen, speaks of the
Eucharist as received and sanctified through the
Holy Spirit, and associates in the same way prayer
and other acts of devotion with His operation 3 .
But this early and simple reflection of Christian piety
on the ministry of the Holy Spirit in connexion with
the Eucharist is far removed from the very definite
conceptions of the nature of the Holy Spirit s
consecratory power exhibited by Cyril of Jerusalem
in the middle of the fourth century. Here we find
for the first time the statement of the ideas which

1 See E. Bishop in Connolly s Narsai, pp. 155 f.

2 Ibid. pp. 147 f . 3 p. 89.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 229

underlie what is technically called the Epiclesis of
the Eastern liturgies. In Cyril the Invocation is
a prayer to God to send the Holy Spirit upon the
gifts that He may make the bread the body and
the wine the blood of Christ/ and he justifies such
Invocation on the ground that whatsoever the
Holy Spirit touches is sanctified and changed/
How far the growth of a fuller conception of the
work of the Holy Spirit resulting from the con
troversies of the fourth century encouraged this
tendency to emphasize His ministry in the consecration
of the Eucharist it is perhaps hazardous to conjecture,
but the view expressed by Cyril tended more and more
to become the dominant view in the East and, as we
have seen, succeeded in the latter part of the fourth
century in replacing the older tradition at Alexandria 1 .
(5) In the West there is little trace of this
reflection on the operation of the Holy Spirit in the
Eucharist. Cyprian in one passage 2 , where he is
referring to an apostate bishop, asserts that the
oblation cannot be sanctified where the Holy Spirit is
not. But there is no evidence in North African
writers of any developenient of a theory as to the
nature of the Holy Spirit s operation in the Eucharist
such as we find in Cyril of Jerusalem, and though
Optatus supplies evidence that in some parts of
North Africa an invocation of the Holy Spirit was
found in the liturgy in the fourth century, it is
interesting to notice that a later writer, Fulgentius,
in the sixth century, justifies it on grounds which

i p. 55. 2 p. 140.

230 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

move in an entirely different region of thought
from those of Cyril 1 . Augustine is silent as to any
invocation of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy, nor does
he dwell upon His operation in this connexion 2 . The
thoughts of Ambrose on the consecration of the
Eucharist move in a different circle of ideas 3 , and in
the Roman Canon prayer is addressed simply to God.
(6) The position assigned to the words of in
stitution is the next point which claims attention.
Cyril of Jerusalem in his account of the liturgy does
not allude to them, though he had expounded them
in a different connexion elsewhere, and it is evident
from his whole treatment of the liturgy that for him
the operation of the Holy Spirit is the real ground of
the consecration of the elements. The East Syrian
liturgy of Adai and Mari omits the words of in
stitution altogether, while in the Testament of our
Lord the words over the cup are not quoted, but only
referred to indirectly. It would appear that in the
East they were not regarded as a fixed formula of
consecration. In Chrysostom we find in some
passages the consecration attributed to the Holy
Spirit, while elsewhere he seems to assign an

1 See Fulgentius, ad Monim. ii. 9 cum ergo sancti spiritus ad
sanctificandum totius ecclesiae sacrificium postulatur aduentus,
nihil aliud postulari mihi uidetur nisi ut per gratiam spiritalem in
corpore Christi, quod est ecclesia, caritatis unitas iugiter indis-
rnpta seruetur. See further his whole discussion in chs. 6 11 of
the same treatise. Similar ideas are expressed in the context of
the passage in Fragm. xxix. (P. L. Ixv. 791), sanctificat itaque
sacrificium ecclesiae spiritus sanctus.

2 On the passage de Trin. iii. 4, see p. 150, n. 6.
s pp. 161 f.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 231

operative power to the words of institution. His
language in fact shews the transitional character of
the conceptions of the period as to the form of
the consecration of the Eucharist 1 . Gregory of
Nyssa appeals to the words of institution as the
authority and historical warrant for believing that
the elements are changed into the Body and Blood
of Christ 2 . And this appears to be the sense in
which they are used in the Eastern liturgical forms
of this period. They are the justification of the
Church s action in the Eucharist.

In the West there were tendencies at work which
prepared the way for the later Western view that the
words of institution constitute the true form of
consecration. Thus in the third century, while
Cyprian maintained that heretical baptism was
invalid because heretics did not possess the Holy
Spirit and so could not consecrate the waters of
baptism, the Roman Church maintained its validity,
provided that it was administered with a proper
form 3 . Here we find two distinct sacramental theories.
The influence of Augustine s teaching expressed in
the famous saying * Accedit uerbum ad elementum,
et fit sacramentum 4 would tend to give currency to
the latter of the two theories, while the language used

1 Cf. E. Bishop in Connolly s Narsai, p. 143. The sense of
the passage de Prod. lud. i. 6 appears to be that the Lord s words
of institution, though spoken once for all, have an efficacy through
all time, and it is by them that the priest, though only as the
agent of the divine power, operates at every Eucharist.

2 Greg. Nyss., Or. Cat. 37.

3 Cyprian, Ep. Ixx. 1, 2; Ixxiii. 16, 18; Ixxv. 9, 11.

4 in loann. Tract. Ixxx. 3.

232 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

by Ambrose and the author of the de Sacramentis
certainly points to a growing emphasis upon the
words of institution as effecting the consecration 1 .

(7) We can trace during the period under dis
cussion the growth of a more definite and pronounced
terminology to describe the effects of consecration,
and also the developement of the idea of a c moment
of consecration.

In the terms used to denote the Sacrament of the
Eucharist during the first three centuries, side by
side with a simple, unreflective realism which
accepts, but does not go beyond, the words of Christ
1 This is my body, This is my blood, we find
language like that of Tertullian 2 which speaks of the
bread as the figure (figura) of Christ s body, or as
representing (repraesentaf) His very body/ or like
that of Cyprian which speaks of the blood of Christ as
* shewn forth (pstenditur) in the cup 3 . Nor is such
language limited to Tertullian and Cyprian. It
forms the starting-point of Augustine s teaching,
which represents, as we have seen 4 , a more reflective
and developed stage of it. It also appears in the
works of a number of Eastern writers during the
latter part of the third and throughout the fourth
century 5 . Similar language appears in the prayers
of the liturgy of Sarapion which speak of offering
the bread as a likeness (6/Ww//,a) of the body, and
the cup as a * likeness of the blood, while in the
de Sacramentis we find in the prayer corresponding

1 pp. 161 f., 165. a adv. Marc. iii. 19, i. 14. Ep. Ixiii. 2.
4 p. 142. 5 Cp. Batiffol, Etudes n. pp. 203 f.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 233

to the Quam oblationem of the present Roman Canon,
the words make this oblation to us approved,
ratified, reasonable, and acceptable, because it is the
figure (figura) of the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ. Traces of the same terminology
survive in the liturgy of St Basil, where in the words
which introduce the Invocation we find offering the
types (dvTiVvTra) of the holy body and blood of thy
Christ 1 . It would be an exaggeration to say that
where such language is used of the consecrated
elements, it implies a merely figurative or symbolical
view of the sacrament 2 . In some of the passages
adduced the sacramental conception of the Eucharist
is subordinated to the sacrificial conception, and it
is to the elements as offered, rather than as received
in communion, that such language is applied. This
is the case in the liturgical prayers referred to above 3 .
The act of offering is regarded as recalling in type
and symbol the sacrifice of Christ and representing
it by way of commemoration. And side by side with
such language we find the consecrated elements
spoken of freely as the body and the blood of
Christ in accordance with the simple and unreflective
realism of the early period.

But in Cyril of Jerusalem we find the first traces
of a more definite and pronounced terminology 4 .

1 LEW. 329. 23 f.

2 On Tertulliau s use of figura and repraesentare see Leimbach,
Beitrage zur AbendmaJilslehre Tertullians (Gotha, 1874) ; Swete,
/. Th. St. iii. 173; Turner, ibid. vii. 596.

8 Of. also the Didascalia as cited on p. 88.
4 There is an earlier anticipation of it in some of the Gnostics.
See p. 43.

234 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

Side by side with a simple and literal interpretation
of the words of institution, and the use of the words
figure or type (TVTTOS, ai/TiYvrros), we find the word
change (or convert, ^era/Ja AAciv) used to denote
the effect produced upon the elements by consecration.
This change he illustrates from the change of water
into wine at Cana of Galilee 1 , and, as we have seen,
he attributes it to the operation of the Holy Spirit.
From this time the language of conversion came to
be freely applied by Church writers in the East to
the consecration of the elements. In the popular
teaching of Chrysostom at Antioch it found eloquent
expression, and the authority of his name helped
largely to secure for it a hold upon the fervid and
imaginative piety of Syria.

In the West the doctrine of * conversion finds its
first exponent in Ambrose, who here, as in other
respects, interpreted Greek theology to the West. In
North Africa the teaching of Augustine, with its
distinction between the visible sign and the in
visible res of the Sacrament, proved an obstacle to the
reception of the language of conversion. But it is
probable that popular belief in North Africa finds a
truer representative in Optatus. Yet in Optatus
though, as we have seen 2 , there is strong language
suggestive of a localized presence of the Body and
Blood, there is no trace of the terminology which
speaks of a conversion of the elements. Rome on
the other hand, as we gather from the writings of

1 Cat. xxii. 2.

2 p. 142.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 235

Jerome and Ambrosiaster, exhibited the older con
servative tradition represented by Tertullian 1 .

This new terminology, which starts with Cyril
of Jerusalem, finds no expression in the liturgical
formulae of our period. Indeed it is an interesting
fact that with comparatively few exceptions 2 , the
Eastern liturgies have in this respect exhibited a
conservative instinct, while in the West the sporadic
traces of language which speaks of * conversion or
change appear to be mainly connected with
Gallican sources, and were probably due to Greek
influences subsequent to the middle of the fourth
century 3 . The prayers of the de Sacramentis in
the restraint of their language (Figura corporis et
sanguinis panem sanctum et calicem uit(te aeterna?)
reflect the old Roman spirit, and it reappears in the
variable prayers of the Gregorian Sacramentary,
which are similarly marked, as we have seen 4 , by
their reserved language. Yet the indirect influence
of this new developement upon the liturgy was
considerable. To it we may attribute the more
explicit forms of invocation which appear in the
later liturgical prayers (Cyril of Jerusalem, Sarapion,
the Apostolic Constitutions, the Quam oblationem of
the Roman Canon), as compared with the forms found
in the Ethiopic Church Order and the liturgy of Adai
and Mari. The latter pray for the coming of the
Holy Spirit on the oblation that the blessings of the

1 Batiffol, Etudes n. 307 f.

2 For these see LEW. 179. 25 (Coptic) ; 330. 9 (Chrys.) ; 439.
15 (Arm.).

3 See Feltoe in J. Th. St. xi. 575 f. 4 p. 191.

236 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

sacrament may be made available for the com
municants ; the former are explicit prayers that the
elements may become the Body and Blood of Christ.
To the same cause we may attribute the localizing
tendency exhibited in Cyril of Jerusalem and
Chrysostom, which emphasizes the solemnity of the
moments following upon the consecration 1 .

The conceptions of the Eucharistic sacrifice during
this period also underwent a similar developement.
In our earliest sources (Clement, Didache) the sacrifice
is primarily eucharistic, and the same is true of
Irenaeus 2 . In Justin combined with this we have
special emphasis on the memorial of the Passion 3 .
Cyprian is the first definitely to speak of the
Eucharistic sacrifice as an offering of the Body and
Blood of Christ, though side by side with this, we
find him speaking of offering the cup in commemo
ration of the Passion 4 . The liturgical forms of this
period (Ethiopic Church Order, Sarapion, Apostolic
Constitutions, de Sacramentis, Lit. of Adai and Mari)
do not advance beyond the eucharistic and com
memorative aspects in the general tenour of their
language, though in two of them (Sarapion, Apostolic
Constitutions) we find traces of newer influences 5 . In
the Ethiopic Church Order the oblation which follows
the Anamnesis is simple in character. The whole
prayer runs as follows :

Remembering therefore thy death and thy resurrection
we offer to thee the bread and the cup, giving thee thanks

i See below, pp. 238 f. 2 pp. 29 f., 39.

p. 35. * p. 139. 5 p. 213.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 237

that thou hast counted us worthy to stand before thee and
minister unto thee 1 .

The oblation in the Apostolic Constitutions is a
closely related form, with the later touch minister as
priests (uparoW) in place of the simpler Latin
ministrare. Sarapion speaks of * offering the bread
and so making the likeness of the death, offering
the cup and so presenting a likeness of the blood.
In the de Sacramentis, after the Anamnesis, the
oblation is spoken of as this spotless offering, a
reasonable offering, an unbloody offering, the holy
bread and cup of eternal life, and in the prayer for
its acceptance on the altar on high it is compared
to the gifts of Abel, and the sacrifices of Abraham
and Melchizedek.

But in the language of Cyril of Jerusalem and
Chrysostom we find a much more advanced conception.
The Eucharist is the holy and awful sacrifice/ the
sacrifice of propitiation, over which God is intreated
for the common peace of the churches. We offer
Christ sacrificed for our sins, while we propitiate the
loving God on behalf of the living and the dead 2 .
Chrysostom uses similar language and speaks of the
Lord sacrificed and lying before you and the priest
standing over the sacrifice and praying 3 / though
elsewhere he guards against the idea that there is
any repetition of the sacrifice of the Cross. We do
not offer a different sacrifice... but always the same,
or rather we celebrate a memorial of a sacrifice 4 .

1 Hauler s Latin text is translated. 2 Cat. xxiii. 8, 10.

8 de Sacerd. iii. 4. * in Heb. xvii. 3.

238 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

This idea of the Eucharistic sacrifice, in accordance
with which, as a result of consecration, and ante
cedent to communion, the worshippers are brought
into a specially close relation with the Divine Victim,
throws light upon another liturgical developement,
the intercessory prayers at the close of the Anaphora,
and the recital of the names of the dead in close
connexion with the Eucharistic sacrifice. Originally
it seems likely that all the intercessions took place
before the Anaphora began. But the influence of
the newer developements in Eucharistic beliefs and
practices, by defining more clearly the moment of
consecration, and suggesting the thought of a
localized presence of the Divine Victim in the
Church s midst, promoted the tendency to regard the
moments which followed upon the consecration as
specially suitable for intercession. The first reference
to the practice is in Cyril of Jerusalem, who, as we
have seen, speaks of intreating God for the common
peace of the churches over that sacrifice of pro
pitiation/ while he justifies prayers for the departed
at this point of the service on the ground that it will
be a great help to those souls for whom prayer is
offered, while the holy and awful sacrifice lies before
us 1 . Chrysostom, as we have seen, has language to
a similar effect, and speaks of the efficacy of such
intercession, which he compares to the petitions
addressed to an Emperor while seated on his throne,
or to the procuring of the release of captives on the
occasion of an imperial triumph, in each case the

i Cat. xxiii. 9.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 239

particular moment affording the opportunity for
successful pleading 1 . This point of view marks a
new epoch in Eucharistic devotion, and was destined
eventually to produce a type of devotion in which
attention came to be more and more concentrated
upon the moment of consecration and the petitions
addressed to the present Lord 2 , whereas in the
earlier stages represented by the Ethiopic Church
Order, the Roman Canon, and (in the main) Sarapion
and the liturgy of Adai and Mari 3 , the action of the
rite moves steadily forward to, and is concentrated
upon, the approaching communion, without any such
interruption as was created by the interposition of
the intercessions. The former type of devotion,
found in Cyril and Chrysostom, represents the be
ginning of a tendency which reaches its full expression
in later times in both East and West, and which in
its later form has been summed up in the phrase
the devotion of the Mass 4 .

The North African Council of Hippo (can. 23)
in 393 A.D. directed that at the altar the prayer be
always directed to the Father, and this represents
the general tenour of the liturgical prayers of this
period. The nearest approach to later types of
devotion is to be found, as we should expect, in
Chrysostom. Thus he compares the worship of the
Magi with fear and much trembling to the attitude

1 in Act. Ap. xxi. 4 ; cp. in 1 Cor. xli. 4 ; in Phil. iii. 4.

2 Chrys. in Act. Ap. xxi. 4 /ueya Xtj -rtjutj TO oj/o^iao-flfji/ai TOW

irapovTo? (of the martyrs).
8 See pp. 211 f .
&lt; E. Bishop, in /. Th. St. iii. 395.

240 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

of Christians who see Christ not in a manger but
on an altar 1 ; while in another passage 2 , referring to
intercessions for the departed, he speaks of beseeching
the Lamb who is lying on the altar, who took away
the sin of the world/

That this particular side of devotion was not
developed to a greater extent was probably due to the
influence of other conceptions to which expression is
given in the writings and liturgical forms of this
period. The conception of Christ as the high-priest
of our offerings, which is found as early as Clement
of Rome 3 , and in Origen 4 , brought the earthly
oblation of the Church into relation with the priest
hood and intercession of Christ in heaven. The true
priest at every Eucharist was Christ Himself. This
idea is emphasized by Chrysostom, who in language
which represents a different line of thought from that
previously indicated, says * We have our victim in
heaven, our priest in heaven, our sacrifice in heaven 5 /
In the West Ambrose uses similar language. Christ
is the priest at every Eucharist, and He offers
Himself as High-priest that He may forgive our sins,
here in symbol, there in reality, where He pleads
with the Father for us as our advocate 6 /

To the same circle of ideas belongs the lan
guage which is found in the Apostolic Constitutions
about the reception of the Church s gift upon the
heavenly altar/ Thus in the litany in the Apostolic

1 tit 1 Cor. xxiv. 5. a in 1 Cor. xli. 4.

8 ad Cor. 36. 4 de Orat. 10. 5 in Heb. xi. 3.

in Ps. xxxviii. 25 ; de Of. i. 48. 238.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 241

Constitutions, which is probably connected with the
Fraction, we find the petition :

Let us pray for the gift which is offered to the Lord
God, that the good God may, through the mediation of
his Christ, receive it upon his heavenly altar 1 , for a
sweet-smelling savour.

In North Africa Augustine s teaching on the
Eucharistic sacrifice exhibits two features which call
for notice. On the one hand he identifies the
sacrifice of the Church with the self-oblation of the
faithful, who constitute the Body of Christ, and are
offered through the great High-priest, as being the
Body of which He is the Head 2 . On the other hand
he speaks definitely of the Eucharist as * the sacrifice
of the Body and Blood of Christ, and in connexion
with the practice of offering the Eucharist for the
departed, a practice which already in the time of
Tertullian found a place in the North African Church,
he developed a theory of the Eucharistic sacrifice as
propitiatory in character, which is more advanced
than anything of the kind found in the West before
Gregory the Great 3 .

As we have seen 4 , the churches of Antioch and
Jerusalem appear during this period as the centres of
liturgical innovation and developement. A further
indication of this is found in the increasing sense of
mystery and awe with which the Eucharist is invested

1 For the heavenly altar see pp. 21, 41.

2 de Ciuit. Dei x. 6, 20; xxii. 10. Elsewhere he applies
St Paul s language (1 Cor. x. 17) to the communicants. See
Serm. 227 si bene accepistis uos estis quod accepistis. See also
Serm. 272. 3 See p. 143. * p. 221.

S. L. 16

242 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

in the language of Cyril of Jerusalem and Chrysostom.
Thus they refer constantly to the holy and awful
sacrifice/ to that most awful hour in which the
mysteries are celebrated, and to the silence and quiet
attending the moment of consecration. This feature,
which finds expression in the liturgy of St James,
and to a less degree in the liturgies of St Basil and
St Chrysostom, scarcely appears in the liturgical
forms of our period. As Mr E. Bishop has pointed
out 1 , it has only left very slight traces of its presence
in the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions 2 , and it
does not appear in Sarapion, nor in the writings of
the Cappadocian fathers nor in any Western writer.
Outside the circle of its influence we find the more
simple and primitive attitude of mind which dwelt
rather on the aspects of thanksgiving and com
munion.

The question how far this newly developed senti
ment found expression in the withdrawal of the
mysteries from the sight of the faithful during our
period is not easy to determine, owing to the
uncertainty whether many of the references to veils
and curtains in our sources allude to altar veils in the
strict sense of the word. The latter appear to be
referred to by Synesius of Cyrene about 411 A.D. 3 ,
but in East Syria in the time when Narsai s homilies
were written, as also in the time of Dionysius the

1 See Connolly s Narsai, pp. 92 f .

2 LEW. 13. 31 opQoi Trpo? Kvptov fierd (f&gt;6(3ov nal rpofiov
eo-Teores cJ/uei/ Trpo(r&lt;pepeiv. This is the injunction of the deacon
with reference to the people s offering, and precedes the Anaphora.

3 Ep. 67 (ed. Petav. p. 212).

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 243

Areopagite at the close of the fifth century, the
practice does not appear to have been introduced 1 .

From Chrysostom it appears that the practice of
attendance at the Eucharist without communion was
common in his day. His criticism of the practice
shews that the class of persons whom he has in mind
are those who, on the pretext of unworthiness, rarely
communicated, and who from worldly motives were
unwilling to fit themselves to do so. His contention
is that Christians should fit themselves to partake
both in the Sacrifice and in the Communion.
Otherwise they place themselves in the position
of those under penance 2 .

The conception of the Eucharist as a sacrament
of unity and fellowship in the One Body finds
expression in many ways during this period. It is
emphasized by Ignatius repeatedly in view of the
separatist tendencies of his time. He bids the
churches to which he writes break one bread/
gather together as unto one shrine, even God, as
unto one sanctuary, even unto one Jesus Christ.
They are to give heed to keep one Eucharist, for
there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one
cup unto union with His blood. There is one
sanctuary, as there is one bishop. That Eucharist
is to be considered valid (ficfiaici) which is under
the bishop or him to whom he commits it 3 . As
a pledge of communion the Eucharist was sent to

1 See E. Bishop in Connolly s Narsai, pp. 89 f.

2 in Eph. iu. 4.

3 Eph. 20, Magn. 7, Philad. 4, Smyrn. 8.

244 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

distant churches 1 , and Polycarp on his visit to Rome
was allowed by Anicetus to celebrate it there 2 .
Another indication of this corporate spirit is found
in the practice of con-celebration, in accordance
with which the presbyters were closely associated
with the bishop in the celebration of the Eucharist.
There is possibly an allusion to this in the rubric
found in the Ethiopic Church Order 3 , in which the
bishop is directed to lay his hands upon the oblation
with the presbyters and to say the thanksgiving 4 .
The same practice apparently existed at Rome, and
the sending of the ferment urn to the presbyters of
the various city churches of Rome, which is mentioned
by Pope Innocent in his letter to Decentius, was a
survival of this custom 5 .

It was this same sense of fellowship which led to
the practice of sending the Eucharist to absent
members 6 and to the sick 7 . Nor again was death
regarded as severing the fellowship between the
living and the departed members of the church.
The annual commemorations of the natalitia or
* birth-days of the martyrs and the anniversaries of
the dead were accompanied by celebrations of the
Eucharist in the cemeteries 8 .

It is in accordance with this same spirit that we

i Eusebius, H. E. \. 24. 2 Ibid. 3 See p. 61.

4 For the evidence of Sarapion see Wordsworth, Bp Sarapion s
Prayer Book, pp. 24, 86 n. 2.

5 Innocent, Ep. xxv. (ad Decentium) 5.
&lt;3 Justin, Ap. i. 65, 67.

7 Dionysius of Alexandria, Ep. ad Fabian, (ed. Feltoe, pp. 20 f.).

6 See pp. 88, 133 f.

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST 245

find the Eucharist brought into relation with the
duties and obligations of common life, which the
Church sought to sanctify by the participation
of its members in the Bread of Life. Tertullian
speaks of the happiness of that marriage, which is
arranged by the Church and confirmed by the oblation
and sealed by the blessing 1 / It was the same instinct
which led to the practice of allowing the faithful to
take the Eucharist from church and reserve it in
a casket for private reception at home 2 , a custom
which Basil explains as due to the stress of persecu
tion when it was difficult to obtain the services of
a priest, and which, he says, was also observed by
solitaries in the desert who lived at a great distance
from the haunts of men 3 . Nor again did the early
church withhold the privilege of communion from
baptized children. As in the case of adults baptism
was followed by the unction and laying on of hands,
and the baptismal eucharist, so in the case of children
it admitted them to the full privileges of the Church,
including communion. Infant communion is referred

1 ad Uxor. ii. 8.

2 Tert., ad Uxor. ii. 5, de Omt. 19 ; Cyprian, de Lapsis 26 ;
Ambrose, de Excessu fratris Satyri, i. 43; Greg. Naz., O.viii. 18;
Jerome, Ep. cxxv. (ad Rusticum] 20, Ep. xlviii. (ad Pammachium)
15.

8 Ep. 93. For abuses of the custom see Cyprian, de Lapsis 26 ;
Augustine, c. luliani op. imperf. iii. 162, and the instructions in the
Church Orders to partake of the Eucharist before other food in
order to obviate the risk of poison or injury (Cooper-Maclean,
Testament of our Lord, pp. 137, 239). Attempts were being made
to suppress the practice in the latter part of the fourth century,
except in the case of sickness. See the decrees of the Councils of
Saragossa (can. 3), 380 A.D., and Toledo (can. 14), 400 A.D.

163

246 CONCEPTIONS OF THE EUCHARIST

to not only by Cyprian and Augustine in the West,
but also in the Apostolic Constitutions in the East 1 .
In these various ways did the Church seek to
bring the Eucharist into relation with the sanctifica-
tion and spiritual support of all its members, and to
realize the sense of membership in the One Body of
Christ.

1 Cyprian, de Lapsis, 25 ; Augustine, de Pecc. Merit, i. 20 ; A. C.
viii. 12.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

[See also Table of Contents, p. viii.]

Administration, words of 60,
108, 154, 174, 219

Agape 16, 25 f., 31, 33, 130

Albs 51, 90

Almsgiving 19, 35

Altar 51, 90, 133; heavenly
21, 41, 168 f., 171, 189,
240 f.

Altar veils 51, 242

Amen, at the close of Eucha-
ristic prayer 51, 107, 151,
164; of communicants 60,
87 f., 108, 140 n. 7, 141

Anamnesis 54 f., 57, 76-78,
104 f., 110, 127, 140, 204 f.

Anaphora of our Lord, 62

Angel, in Koman Canon
171

Angel of peace 92 f.

Antioch, influence on liturgi
cal usages of other churches
111, 114 f., 221

Augustine, his theory of sacra
ments 142 f. ; on Eucharistic
sacrifice 143, 241

ad Accedentes 154

ad complendum 154
113

vijvat, dfdSei^ts 85, 105
n. 1, 119
14

avrirvrros 234

85, 105 n. 1

Benedictus qui uenit 61, 107 f.,
188, 204, 218

Biddings by deacon 101, 116;
by bishop 145

Blessing, by bishop before
communion 59, 71, 107, 120,
152 f., 156, 164, 193, 194,
218; of people before dis
missal 59, 71, 109, 219;
of oils etc. 58, 71, 146

Breaking of bread 3, 12 f., 29

Catechumens 49, 52, 53, 115;
prayer of 83, 92, 100, 113,
121. See also Dismissal
Cemeteries, celebrations of

Eucharist in 88, 244
Communion Psalm. See Psalm
Con-celebration 61, 244
Consecration of Eucharist,
form of 227 f. ; attributed to
operation of Holy Spirit 85,
229 ; to words of institution
161 f., 165, 230 f.; moment
of 123 f., 190, 209 f., 238 f.
Creed, in baptismal Eucharist
72 f.

248

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Cyprian, on Eucharistic sacri

fice 138 f.
Cyril of Jerusalem, on Eucha

ristic Presence and Sacrifice

233 f., 237
competentes 100, 160
conficere 177 n. 3
consistentes 115

ol 116
63 f., 71

Deacons, connexion with Eu
charist 35, 39, 57, 102, 142,
176; proclamations by 52,
54, 84, 100, 107, 116, 121,
145. See Bidding. Gospel.
Litany.

Departed, commemoration of
147, 215; prayers for 68, 86,
94, 124, 134, 147, 214 f. ;
Eucharist offered for 88,
134, 137, 241, 244. See
Diptychs. Names, recital of

Diptychs 124 f., 216 f.

Dismissal, of catechumens,
penitents etc. 61, 63, 79, 91,
100, 111, 113, 116, 121 f.,
125, 143 f., 160, 199 f.; of
people 56, 59, 82, 95, 109,
142, 219

Doxology, at close of A-
naphora or Canon 59,
172; after Lord s Prayer,
172 f.

deprecari, deprecatio 145 f.

Ectene. See Litany

Energumens 92, 172; dismis
sal of 91, 100, 116

Epiclesis. See Invocation.

Eucharist, early uses of word
1, 5, 23, 25, 29, 31, 35; a
memorial of the Passion 4,
13f.,42, 50, 139, 233, 236;
celebrated daily 143, 160;
early in the morning 133,

143 ; conveyed to absent 35,
244 ; to sick 51, 244 ; carried
on journeys 164 ; the sacra
ment of unity 243 f. See
Departed. Martyrs. Be-
servation. Sacrifice, fer-
mentum

Eucharistic prayer, the 23 f.,
34, 36 f., 38, 44, 51, 57,
72 f., 93, 103, 110, 118, 138,
196, 203, 226

Eucharistic terminology 170,
172, 190 f., 232 f.
s 40, 43, 206
ii&gt; 2

vxapiOTia 2, 23,
29, 36 f., 43, 196, 224

Fast, before Communion 133,

143
Fraction 48, 56, 60, 70, 95,

107, 120, 151 f., 185, 187,

217 ; litany of 95, 107, 217;

prayer of 70, 217
Fructuosus, St 135
Fulgentius, on invocation of

the Holy Spirit, 229 f.
fermentum 182, 244
jigura 232, 233 n. 3

Gifts, offering of 18, 29, 38,
39, 42, 48, 49, 175, 225.
See also Offering

Good Friday prayers in
Boman rite 135, 145, 201

Gospel, at Eucharist, 52, 82,
91, 100, 113, 116, 121, 131,
144, 160, 174, 176; lights
at 82 f., 199; read by arch
deacon 52, 199 ; bishop 121 ;
deacon 100, 121, 176, 199 ;
priest 100, 121; reader
121, 199; standing at 100,
116, 199

Greek formulae in African
writers 138, 140 f., 157

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

249

Greek liturgical customs, their
influence on the West 223

Haggada 9, 14

Hearers 115, 116

High-priesthood of Christ, in
connexion with Eucharist
20, 240 f.

Holy Spirit, invocation of 55,
77, 85, 94, 105, 126, 150 f.,
156, 163, 185, 192 f., 194,
205, 207 f., 228 f. ; operation
of, in Eucharist 88 f., 119,
228

Hosanna 26, 103, 107 f., 109,
188, 204, 218

Imposition of hands. See
Blessing. -xeipoOfaia.. Lay
ing on of hands

Infant communion 108, 245 f.

Institution, recital of 57, 67,
75, 85, 104, 118, 169, 170,
204 f. ; words of 67, 75, 85,
94, 104, 118, 127, 139, 161,
165, 170, 204 f., 230 f.

Intercessions, before Ana
phora 79, 212 ; after invoca
tion 60, 68, 78 f., 86, 94,
106 f., 123 f., 128, 190,213,
238

Invocation, in Eucharist 40,
42, 43 f., 55, 57 f., 61, 66 f.,
68, 72, 77, 78, 85, 88 f., 94,
105 f., 118, 119 f., 126, 128,
150 f., 178, 205 f. See tirl-
K\rjcris. Holy Spirit. Logos

in mente habere 135

Jerusalem, church of, in
fluence on liturgical cus
toms of other churches 221

Jewish forms of grace at meals
2, 15, 23, 43, 195

Jewish liturgical prayers xi,
xivf., 27, 31

Jewish setting of Eucharist

xv, 2, 42
Jewish synagogue worship,

influence on Christian wor

ship 18, 37, 196

Kiss of peace 18, 34, 38, 48,
49, 56, 84, 101, 102, 113,
117, 141, 152, 155 f., 164,
178 f., 181, 185, 192, 194,
201 f., 218

Kneelers 115, 116

Kneeling in worship 134

KayK\\oi 51

Kr)piry/jia, Kypfoafw 116, 117

Kiy K \is 51, 116

Lattice, or screen of sanctuary
51, 115 f.

Laying on of hands, in bless
ing 59, 61, 113 n. 5, 149,
152 f., 193, 218. See x -

Lections 34, 49, 51 f., 82, 91,

100, 112, 116, 121, 131, 144,

160, 174, 198
Lights, at Gospel 82, 199
Litany 61 f., 92, 102, 111,

113, 200 f.; of Fraction 95,

107
Liturgical developement, cha

racter of xi f.
Liturgical language, influence

of New Testament on 19 f.
Liturgy, meaning of the word

ixf.
Localized conceptions of

Eucharistic Presence 142,

238
Logos (or Word), invocation

of 68, 207; operation in

Eucharist 36, 40 f., 50, 55,

120, 207, 227; spiritual

content of Eucharist 228
Lord s Prayer, in the liturgy

56, 60, 70, 79, 87, 94, 120,

250

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

125, 141, 152, 178, 184, 185,
187, 217
XeiTovpyla ix, 29

Maranatha 27

Marriage, Eucharist celebra
ted in connexion with 245

Martyrs, Acts of, read in
church 144, 198; com
memoration of 86, 94, 123,
124, 134, 215; Eucharist
offered in commemoration
of 133; vigils of 131, 133

Melchizedek 140, 168, 179,
189, 191 f.

Memento etiam, of Roman
Canon 184, 189, 212

Milk and honey, blessing of
146; given to newly bap
tized 60, 72

Mixed chalice 34, 41, 137

missa 82, 160

missa catechumenorum 37, 48,
63, 83 f., 91, 131, 144, 198

missa fidelium 48, 83 f., 198

Names, recital of: the dead
69, 78, 147, 214 f.; deceased
bishops, 147, 215; living
136; martyrs 147, 215;
offerers 176 f., 181 f., 186,
192, 193 f., 214; saints 215.
See Diptychs

Non-communicating attend
ance 243

Novatian 175

natalitia 133, 244
115

Oblation, prayer of 57, 205 ;

presented by deacons 57,

117
Offering of bread and wine by

the people 53, 93, 102 f. ,

117,133, 137,146, 161,177,

202 f.

Offices, day, at Jerusalem 83
Old Testament, lessons from

34, 49, 91, 100, 112, 116,

121, 131, 144, 157, 160, 192,

198 f.

Optatus, on the Eucharist 142
oblatio, oblationes facere 82 n.

3, 137

o/erre, 82 n. 3, 137, 177
51

Pallium 51, 52 n. 4

Paschal ritual, influence on

Eucharist xiv, 9
Passover, connexion of Last

Supper with 5 f.
Pax uobiscum 152, 156, 185
Penitential system, abolition

of 122, 200
Penitentiary 122
Penitents, allowed to be pre

sent at Mass 161, 243. See

also Dismissal
Post-communion prayer, 154,

164
Prayer, extempore at Eucha

rist xii, 25, 28, 38
Prayers of faithful 64, 72, 79,

113, 116, 117, 123, 145, 161,

200, 201. See also Litany
Preface, Eucharistic 50, 57,

75, 78, 84, 93, 137
Psalm, communion 87, 95,

108, 147, 154, 164, 219;

before Gospel (Gradual)

144, 199; at Offertory 147
Psalmodv, in Christian wor

ship 17, 51 f., 100, 113,

116, 132, 160, 199
Psalms, respousorial singing

of 199

prop he ta 160 n. 4
pulpitum 131
irotelv 14, 85, 105 n. 1

, Trpoff&lt;f&gt;wvT)ffis 113

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

251

, oi 100

Quam oblationem, of Roman
Canon 166, 170, 188, 207,
210, 233

Qui pridie, of Roman Canon
169, 188, 222 f.

Reader 34 n. 1, 100, 121, 131,

199
Reservation of Eucharist 134,

142, 164, 245
repraesentare 232, 233 n. 2

Sacrifice, in Eucharist 29 f.,
39, 42, 133; eucharistic 172,
191 f., 225 f., 236; an offer
ing of the Body and Blood
of Christ 133, 139, 143,236;
propitiatory character of

143, 192, 237, 241
Saints, commemoration of 86,

214 f.
Salutation, before Preface 57,

80, 93, 103, 110, 123, 148
Sancta sanctis 50, 56, 59, 61,

70, 95, 107 f., 125, 218 f.
Sanctuary 32, 51, 90, 115
Sanctus 48, 54, 60, 61, 66, 77,

78, 84, 93, 103, 117, 123,

137 f., 150, 161, 177, 188,

203

Secreta 186
Sepulchre, Church of Holy,

at Jerusalem 221
Sermons, several, at Eucharist

82 f., 91 n. 4, 100

Spirit, in East Syrian writers

in connexion with Eucharist

228

Stoles 51
Supplices te, of Roman Canon

169, 171, 189, 190, 210
Sursum corda 57, 84, 93, 103,

123, 137, 149, 203

51
30 n. 3, 82, 90

Table, the holy 90
Tertullian, on Eucharistic

sacrifice 133 ; Eucharistic

terminology of 170, 232,

233 n. 2
Thanksgiving, after recep

tion 59, 71, 95, 109, 154,

219
Throne, of bishop 51, 90, 99 f. ,

116

TJ/TTOS 234

Victorinus, Marius, prayer of
oblation quoted by 176

Vigil 51, 82; Easter 130;
Sunday 33, 83, 130 f . ; of
martyrs 131, 133

Washing of hands (Lavabo)

84, 102
Weepers 115
Word. See Logos
Word, service of the 18, 37 f. ,

131, 196 f.

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS