A DISSERTATION ON PRIMITIVE LITURGIES. INTRODUCTION. IN treating of the liturgy, I would be understood to use the term in that restricted sense which it generally bears in the writings of the ancients; as denoting the service used in the celebration of the eucharist. In the eastern churches, that service. (though sometimes known by other appellations) has long borne the title of the "divine" or "mysti"cal" liturgy. In the west, the eucharistic office has most commonly been called "missa;" but the term liturgy has also been frequently applied to it. The study of ancient liturgies is one, which from various circumstances has made but slow progress. It can hardly be said to have commenced until the sixteenth century, when the liturgies of Basil, Chrysostom, James, Mark, and others of eastern origin, were first printed. Before this time, though some writers commented on the offices of their own churches, they were unable to compare various liturgies together, and thence to elicit the truth. At that period, none of the learned men of Europe, even though profoundly versed in general theology, and in the writings of the Fathers, were able to several different forms of liturgy now in existence, which, as far as we can perceive, have been different from each other from the most remote period. And with regard to the apparent propriety of the Apostles' instituting one liturgy throughout the world, it may be observed, that it is quite sufficient to suppose all liturgies originally agreed, in containing every thing that was necessary for the due celebration of the eucharist; but that they adopted exactly the same order, or received every where the same rites, is a supposition equally unnecessary and groundless. I have not therefore attempted to reduce all the liturgies, and notices of the Fathers, to one common original; but have rather sought for the original liturgies by a reference to acknowledged facts. The following is the course which I have pursued, in endeavouring to ascertain the nature of the primitive liturgies. Considering that the primitive church was divided into great portions, known by the appellations of Patriarchates, Exarchates a, or a As I shall frequently have occasion to make use of these terms in the following work, I will now briefly explain them to the reader. The primitive church was ruled by bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs. The bishop of the chief city in each province was entitled metropolitan or primate, and afterwards archbishop, and had a certain jurisdiction over the bishops of that province. He ordained them-received appeals from them in ecclesiastical affairs-presided in provincial synods of bishops-visited the diocese or Tapoikia of each. See Bingham's Antiquities, &c. book ii. c. 16. The bishop of the metropolis of a civil diocese, which comprised several provinces, was called archbishop, or exarch, and afterwards patriarch; and had much the same sort of jurisdiction over all the metropolitans of that diocese, as each of them had over the bishops of his own province. See Bingham, c. 17. The office of metropolitan is probably as ancient as the apostolic age; that of patriarch is likewise very ancient, though national churches; and that the supreme bishops in these districts (where there were such bishops) had generally sufficient influence in latter ages, to cause their own liturgies to be universally received by their suffragans; I thought it advisable, in the first place, to examine the liturgies of such supreme churches, and inquire whether they appear to be derived from primitive antiquity. If it seem that some other liturgy was used before the existing formulary, I have endeavoured to trace it out. And finally, I have consulted the writings of those Fathers who lived in the immediate neighbourhood, and by means of them endeavoured to ascertain the extent of country through which each liturgy was used, and the antiquity to which we can trace its order and substance. This plan I have followed in all instances, except where there was no supreme church to guide me in the investigation; and I have we do not find it mentioned by that name till the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. However it certainly existed long before that time, as it seems that the bishop of Alexandria had this sort of jurisdiction in the third century. See Bingham, book ii. c. 16. §. 3. In fact, every bishop, as a successor of the apostles, had a certain degree of influence and authority in the whole church; and they who joined to this, the importance which was derived from the dignity, power, and opulence of the metropolitan or capital cities over which they presided, acquired such a degree of weight and influence, that bishops and metro politans voluntarily admitted their jurisdiction. The Roman empire about the time of Constantine was divided into thirteen civil dioceses, each of which was ruled by a governor called exarch, vicar of the empire, or prefect. It does not appear that there was a supreme bishop or patriarch in each of these dioceses. The exarchs or patriarchs of the church in the fourth century, were those of Alexandria, Antioch, Cæsarea, Ephesus, Constantinople, Thessalonica, Rome, Milan, and Carthage. To which were added afterwards Jerusalem and Justiniana. See Bingham, Antiq. book ix. Basnage, Hist. de l'Eglise, tome i. |