Billeder på siden

niences which were imagined to arise from the reception of both kinds separately by the laity. The consecrated bread dipped in the cup was then given in a spoon to the laity, and to accomplish this more conveniently, when the bread was broken, some of it was put into the cup, from which the clergy took out with a spoon small particles tinged with the wine; and thus communicated the laity. This account of the origin of the union of the two kinds, serves also to explain why all the bread was not put into the cup . The clergy were still permitted to receive the communion in both kinds separately, because they were too well instructed to permit the sacrament to fall on the ground, or experience any irreverence, and accordingly a portion of bread was reserved for their use which was not put into the сир.

According to the rite of the primitive church ; in the oriental and English churches, the words of institution are repeated aloud to the present day. Asseman very properly admits that this has been the ancient custom of the eastern churches, which was enforced by the decree or injunction of the emperor Justinian in the sixth century h.

Before we proceed to the next section, it will be proper to consider the substance of the primitive liturgies which intervened between the completion of consecration, and the distribution of the elements to the clergy and people. In the liturgies of Antioch, Cæsarea, and Constantinople, the consecration was followed by the general prayers for all men and all things, the Lord's Prayer, and the breaking of bread. In the Roman liturgy the consecration was followed by an oblation of the elements as they were bread and wine, a petition for the departed faithful, a prayer for communion with them, the breaking of bread, and the Lord's prayer. It is probable from the ancient MS. of the liturgy of Milan, published by Muratori', that the Roman liturgy did not originally contain any more at this place than the Alexandrian, which we proceed to consider. After consecration, the Alexandrian liturgy preferred a request, that they who were about to communicate might be partakers of various spiritual benefits. Then the bread was broken, and the Lord's Prayer repeated. All these liturgies terminated before the Lord's Prayer and breaking of the bread with a doxology ascribing glory to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to which all the faithful responded with a loud Amen. This is the Amen of which the apostle Paul speaks in the Epistle to the Corinthians, and to which we find various allusions in the writings of the primitive Fathers. The English canon terminates with the consecration, and it may perhaps be thought too abruptly: but this is merely a matter of taste. However, the people answer at the end of the benediction with that Amen which has been handed down from the apostles themselves. The only point

chians and the Nestorians, as well as the orthodox of the east, have used it all along. See Renaudot Liturg. Oriental. tom. i. p. 261.

8 A portion is reserved by the Monophysites of Antioch, Renaudot, tom. ii. p. 112. See

also almost all the liturgies and places referred to for the breaking of the bread and the

union” of the two kinds.

h Assemani, tom. v. cod. Lit. Præf. p. liv. Menard, Sacramentar. Gregorii, p. 389.

i Muratori Liturg. Rom. tom. i. p. 134

which seems to merit serious consideration with regard to this part of the liturgy, is the omission of the Lord's Prayer. So very general has been the use of the Lord's Prayer between the consecration and communion, that it might appear almost essential to the office; and Gregory the first, patriarch of Rome, has been understood to affirm that the apostles consecrated the elements with no other form i. But it appears plainly that the Lord's Prayer was not universally used at this place in primitive times. The liturgy of the Apostolical Constitutions, though it does not appear to have been used in any particular church, is nevertheless, beyond all doubt, the same liturgy as that of the church of Antioch. It is evidently derived from the same stock. We do not find the Lord's Prayer used after consecration by the liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions k, although we certainly know that this Prayer was used in the liturgy both at Antioch and Jerusalem in the fourth century! Now to suppose that the author of the Apostolical Constitutions would have omitted the Lord's Prayer in this place, if it had been used from time immemorial, is altogether improbable. What conceivable reason could there be for omitting it under such circumstances ? Does not the fact then of his omitting it prove that either it had not been introduced when he wrote, or that it was then known to have been introduced at a period subsequent to the apostolic

j “ Orationem Dominicam idcirco mox post precem dicimus, quia mos apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo orationem oblationis hostiam consecrarent." Greg. Magni

Epist. 64. lib. vii.

k Apost. Const. lib. viii. c. 12. p. 404. ed. Clerici.

Cyril and Chrysostom mention it; see vol. i. p. 33. 36.


age? Either supposition, is I think, enough to shew that the Lord's Prayer was not used in this part of the liturgy of Antioch during the first ages.

I cannot forbear to make a similar remark with regard to the liturgy of Alexandria. In the Ethiopian liturgy, which was derived from the primitive liturgy of Alexandria, the Lord's Prayer does not occur between the consecration and communion m. It may be said in this case as in the last, that no conceivable reason can be assigned for the omission of the Lord's Prayer in this place, if it had been used for any great length of time in the Alexandrian liturgy.

Whether it might have been the Ethiopian or some other church to which Augustine referred, it is certain that he alludes to churches where the Lord's Prayer was not repeated between consecration and communion in the fifth century n. In saying that almost every church used this Prayer in that interval of the liturgy, he evidently implies that there were churches which did not follow the same custom.

However anciently, therefore, the Lord's Prayer has been used in some churches, and however certainly in the fifth century, it was used in almost all; no one can justly say that it is necessary to have it in this place. I am not however contending against the propriety of its use here. No liturgy in existence, except those I have mentioned, is without the Lord's Prayer shortly before communion; and certainly it is a very appropriate place, since

[ocr errors]

m Liturgia Æthiopum Renaudot, tom. i. p. 518.

n See vol. i. p. 138. note u.

“Quam totam petitionem fere omnis ecclesia Dominica oratione concludit.”

the petition, “Give us this day our daily bread," may be mystically understood as a prayer for the bread of the soul then shortly to be received, even as the fathers and doctors of the church have expounded ito.



It is impossible to deny that the English liturgy prescribes a mode of communion perfectly conformable to the practice of the primitive church. Here the bishops, priests, and deacons receive the sacrament in both kinds first, and then the people are communicated in like manner. No one denies that this is the primitive order of delivering the elements. It is also indisputable, that the English custom of delivering to all the people both kinds separately, and not united, is the apostolic method. The same may be said of our custom of delivering the sacrament of the body, which we give into the hands of the faithful. In all this the English church preserves customs whose apostolical antiquity it is in vain to disputeP. In all the eastern churches the sacrament has been given to the laity in both kinds, even to the present day. It is true that they are not given separately, but at the same moment, by means of a particle of bread dipped in the cup?; but this is merely a variety of discipline, which does not in the slightest degree affect the verity of the communion

• Cyprian de Orat. Dominica. Cyril, Hierosolym. Cat. Mystag. v. P Bingham's Antiquities, b. ch.

5. §. 1. 2. 6. Mabillon de Liturgia Gall. lib. i. c. 5.

No. 16. 24, 25. Bona, Rer.
Liturg. lib. ii. c. 17, 18.

q Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 151. Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. tom. i. p. 282.


« ForrigeFortsæt »