Origins and the Early Church

In an examination of the History of the Prayer Book it is advisable to take a glance at the forms which religions took prior to Christianity.

This is the more necessary, as the criticism of Christian ritual and ceremonial is often put forward, that they are but plagiarisms of pagan worship.

The Bible deals in the main with the Old Covenant with Jews and the New Covenant of Christ with both Jew and Gentile. Nevertheless, in the book of Genesis we find reference to God’s dealing with man in general up to the time of the call of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees, which occurred about 2000 B.C.

Within the last hundred years the records of Mesopotamia and of Egypt have been deciphered, and we are now in possession of a large body of lore possessed by both, which was in existence at the time of Abraham, and therefore some five hundred years before the Pentateuch was written.

These records consist for the most part of odes, or ballads, in which have been embodied in script or writing still more ancient oral legends.

In Mesopotamia the differences which exist between the Sumerian and Babylonian records all point to both having been derived from some common source rather than from each other.

In Egypt the worship of Osiris was gradually ousting that of Ammon Ra, which had itself superseded that of the old Moon gods, in the same way as Bel or Marduk had done in Mesopotamia.

The conflict between good and evil seems undoubtedly to have ever been present in the thoughts of man relating to the Deity; this we find not only in the Book of Genesis, but also in the records to which reference has just been made.

At a cursory glance these records appear to be a mere jumble of ideas pertaining to the worship of some particular image, and that in different places, and at different times, different types of worship were offered to similar images.

But if the whole, of which we have been able to gather any information, be put together and analysed, we find that out of this seeming inchoate mass, the same image or god can be traced as being represented in its sphere, in accordance with three different conceptions.

Such conceptions may be summarized as follows:

(a) Astronomical.—Out of the abyss or, as we should call it, the nebulae, the world and sun and stars were wrenched, and, after natural cataclysms connected with their gradual cooling, the influence of the Sun becomes the predominating factor and they are set in their courses, each being attributed to a separate deity.

So as the Sun overcomes the darkness and brings the state of the world into Order, this was held to be the ‘Way’ in which ‘Light’ prevails over darkness.

Under this guise we find the worship of Marduk or Bel in Babylonia and Osiris in Egypt.

(b) Terrestrial.—The Sun, and in Egypt also the Nile, is the power which protects man from the adversities of Nature—from storms—from the attacks of nocturnal animals—from the dangers of movement by night. Likewise, it is the Sun which causes the fruits of the earth to bring forth increase, and is the cause of fecundity in general.

This we find represented by a conflict with Nature in contests such as Bel and the Dragon, and various episodes of a heroic nature involving ‘Light’ overcoming ‘Darkness’.

(c) Metaphysical.—In the conflict between Good and Evil, Truth and Untruth, examples of this are clear in the Babylonian legend of Marduk overcoming Kingu and taking the Tables of Destinies from him, and in Egypt the legend relating to the ultimate triumph of Osiris over Set. Thus ‘Truth’ overcomes ‘Evil’.

Hence both in Babylonia and Egypt, apart from a nominal polytheism, wherein the old Moon gods became superannuated and the lesser gods have acknowledged his superiority, we find in each case a central figure in a threefold aspect representing the ‘Way’, the ‘Light’, and the ‘Truth’ as having overcome, or overcoming, the ‘Adversity’, the ‘Dark’, and the ‘Evil’.

Wherein, then, lay the error in this worship of a God of Good?

The truth underlying these religions was so adulterated that it was lost sight of altogether, and though among the priests, no doubt, there were some who realized the aim of it all, it was, in fact, completely hidden from the mass of their adherents and had no real influence upon them.

In addition, after the loss of the original true meaning, no doubt the priests evolved a theology to account for the ceremonies and ritual of which they, for the most part, had no longer any real comprehension.

The best example of this is the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

One rubric states that it was found in the reign of Semti or Hesepti, a king of the I Dynasty, circa 3500 B.C., in the foundations of a shrine of Hennu, and another rubric says that the text was cut upon a statue of Menkaura (Mycerinus) a king of the IV Dynasty, circa 3100 B.C.; both long before the date given for the Flood, viz. 2400 B.C.

This work in its original form is an account of the steps taken by Osiris to acquire pre-eminence in life after death.

Subsequently copies of it, or of part of it, were made on the inside of mummy cases and enclosed in the mummies themselves, to aid them to attain the Land of the ‘House of Life with Truth’.

Thus the maxims, which ought to have inculcated virtues amongst the living, came to be used merely as charms for the benefit of the dead. To such an extent were moral maxims debased into mechanical charms.

In a similar way at Babylon at a later date the Epic of Gilgamish, the Babylonian legend of the Creation, came to be recited as an incantation against toothache!

Moreover, in addition to these degenerate forms of religion, co-existent with them, there was a definite cult for the appeasing of Evil rather than the placating of the Good, e.g. the worship of the Scorpion God. All of which is summed up by St. Paul in the text: “Held the truth with unrighteousness” (Romans i. 18).

The Devil in this respect has been described as decadence of pure thought and religion.

At the same time it must not be thought that no part of such ancient lore was without value, for we find in the Bible various references to the contrary.

We find reference to the wisdom of Moses, who “was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”, Acts vii. 22; of Solomon, 1 Kings iv. 20; and of Daniel and his books, Daniel ix. 2; and finally, to the attendance and homage of the Wise Men of the East, St. Matthew ii. 1. These last, without doubt, must have represented that remnant who still understood the pure religion revealed to mankind in general, and not only to the Jews in particular, before the time of Abraham.

As though in further confirmation of this, we find that after the worship of the Magi from the East our Lord was taken into Egypt, as it was written, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son” (Hosea xi. 1).

So then it may be inferred that the underlying truths of the religions both of Babylon and of Egypt were in a manner antetypes of the true Christ, who was the true ‘Way’, the true ‘Logos’, and the true ‘Light’ (John iv. 6).

All the foregoing brings out the fact that while the Old Covenant was with the Jews, yet the rest of the world was possessed of germs of truth. Further evidence of this may be gathered from the strivings of the later philosophers, such as Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle amongst the Greeks, Zoroaster among the Chaldeans, and Buddha in the East.

Though we are bound by the argument of St. Paul in 2 Cor. vi., it is not surprising to find that in various points and in various ways similarities both of ideas and of ceremonial are to be found in not only Paganism and Judaism but also in Christianity.

And it may be well argued that where they are so found, so far as Paganism is concerned, they are derived from the original divine worship before it became degenerate. For as Dr. Cory in Ancient Fragments, so long ago as 1832, so tersely says: “I deem that we outstrip not the bounds of true philosophy when we humbly trace in the glorious works of the Almighty a confirmation of his Word”.

Some modern writers, however, seek to deduce such similarities from the direct influence of Babylonian cults upon the writers of the Old Testament.

Going back, then, to Abraham, who was called out of Ur of the Chaldees about 2000 B.C., we now know that this coincides with the commencement of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings, who formed the XIII to XVII Dynasties of Egypt, 2000–1580 B.C. They are believed to have been of Semitic origin.

This would have been an additional reason for Jacob sending to Egypt for corn in the time of famine, and must have rendered the rise of Joseph to power the more easy, as he was of the same race as the king and ruling party in Egypt at that time, whom the records clearly show to have been out of sympathy with the race which they governed.

The exodus of the Jews is now thought to have taken place in either 1588 or 1446 B.C. If it had taken place at the later date it would have been not only under a new king but under a new Dynasty, as that of the new kingdom began in 1580 B.C.

From the discovery of the Telelman Tablets¹ in 1887 it is certain that the Exodus cannot have taken place in 1225 B.C., in the reign of Rameses II. the Great, as had been previously imagined.

It is not necessary here to dwell upon the origin of the Jewish Passover at the time of the Exodus, nor of the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple worship set forth in the Old Testament, beyond drawing attention to the fact that it was all antetypical of the Christ and of the New Covenant (Hebrews ix. and x.).

However, in tracing the development of the Christian Liturgy, that employed both in the Temple and in the Jewish Synagogue at the time of Christ have to be borne in mind. This is especially so as we find that the Apostles, not only after the Ascension, but also after the Pentecost, continued in the Temple (Acts ii. 46 and xxi. 26).

From the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 until the embracing of Christianity by Emperor Constantine in A.D. 323, the Christians had no openly recognised places of worship, though their persecution varied in intensity and intolerance from time to time and from place to place.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising to find that the Liturgy was handed down orally and not reduced to writing, so that, apart from references to phrases and passages which were quoted from time to time, the documentary evidence is very meagre.

Further, though the art of writing was well known, it was, in fact, possessed by few, so that not only traditions but the ‘ipsissima verba’ of the Liturgy were handed down orally for a long time before being reduced to writing.

Besides this, there were three important reasons for secrecy:

1. To avoid the implication of the faithful;
2. The desire to withhold information from the ribald opprobrium of uninstructed persons; and
3. To prevent misuse in the suggestions for perverted examination of the faithful.

The most quoted documents during the period of persecution are:

I. The Didaché, or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, circa 80–100.

The latter portion of this document, Chapters 7–15, contains the elements of a primitive Church Order.

Chapter 7 deals with baptism accompanied by fasting:

“Baptize ye in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Also baptism by affusion is recognized:

“But if thou hast not either, pour water thrice upon the head, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Again:

“But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized in the Name of the Lord, for regarding this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 8 deals with fasting:

“But let not your fasts be as the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but fast ye on the fourth day (Wednesday) and on the preparation day (Friday).”

Then come Chapters 9 and 10, which are generally taken as forming definitely part of the Liturgy then existent; though, on the other hand, it has been suggested that it is either a grace before meat or only meant to be a sort of outline as to what was fitting to be included in the pre- and post-communion collects.

Chapter 9 is as follows:

“But as touching the Eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus, first as regards the cup, ‘We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever.’”

“Then as regards the broken bread:

“We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge, which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.”

“But let no one eat or drink of this Eucharist thanksgiving but they that have been baptized into the Name of the Lord, for concerning this also the Lord hath said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”

Chapter 10. “And after ye are satisfied, thus give ye thanks:

“‘We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy Name, which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Thou Almighty Master didst create all things for Thy Name's sake and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment that they might render thanks unto Thee; but didst bestow upon us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son. Before all things we give Thee thanks that Thou art powerful. Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church to deliver it from evil and to perfect it in Thy love and gather it from the four winds, even the Church which Thou hast sanctified, into Thy Kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the glory for ever and ever. May grace come and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If any man is holy let him come; if any man is not let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.’

“But permit the Prophets to offer thanksgiving as much as they desire.”

Chapter 14. The people are enjoined:

“And on the Lord's own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.”

II. The letter of Pliny, Governor of Bithynia, written to the Emperor Trajan in 112. Epp. lib. x. No. 97.

Pliny himself was a pagan and wrote to inquire how he should deal with the Christians in his province.

Pliny stated that he had obtained the information from certain apostates from the Christian faith whom he had examined, which was as follows:

“They asserted that this was the sum and substance of their fault or their error; namely, that they were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a stated day and singing alternately a hymn to Christ as a god, and that they bound themselves by an oath not to the commission of any wicked deed, but that they would abstain from theft and robbery and adultery; that they would not break their word; and that they would not withhold a deposit when reclaimed. This done, it was their practice, so they said, to separate and then to meet again for a meal, which, however, was of the ordinary kind and quite harmless. But even from this they desisted after my edict; in which in pursuance of your commands I had forbidden the existence of clubs.”

III. The Apology of Justin Martyr addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius in 148.

Cap. 65. “But we, after we have thus washed him, who has been convinced, and has assented, lead him to the place where those who are called the brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the illuminated person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss of peace. Bread and a cup of wine mingled with water are then brought to the president of the brethren, and he, taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the Universe, through the Name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks, at considerable length, for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. And, when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their consent by saying ‘Amen’. This word ‘Amen’ answers in the Hebrew language to the Greek γéνοιτο (So be it). And when the president has given thanks and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us ‘deacons’ give each of those present the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and they carry away a portion to those who are not present.”

Cap. 66. “And this food is called among us ‘the Eucharist’, of which no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which we teach are true and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and unto regeneration and who is living as Christ hath enjoined. For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink, but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food, which is blessed by the prayer of the word, which comes from Him, and from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transmutation, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the Apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them, that Jesus took bread and gave thanks and said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’: ‘this is My body’, and after the same manner He took the cup and gave thanks and said ‘This is My blood’, and gave it to them alone. The wicked devils have also imitated this in the mysteries of Mithras commanding the same thing to be done. For you know, or can learn, that bread and a cup of water are employed with certain incantations in the mystic rites which accompany the initiation of a member.”

Cap. 67. “And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy and we always keep together. And we bless the Creator of all things through His Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit for all things wherewith we are supplied. And on the day called Sunday all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place and the memoirs of the Apostles (Gospels) or the writings of the Prophets are read as long as time permits. Then when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers. And as we have said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread and wine and water are brought and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings with all his might [qy. Plene, ‘full voice’, Can. vi. Council of Oxford, 1222] and the people assent ‘Amen’, and there is a distribution to each and a participation in the Eucharistic elements and portions are sent to those not present by the deacons. And the well-to-do and the willing give what each person thinks fit and the collection is deposited with the president, who succours orphans and widows and those who are in want through sickness or any other cause and those who are in prison and the strangers sojourning among us and in a word he takes care of all who are in any need. We all hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in darkness and chaos, made it cosmos, and because Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified Him on the day before the day of Saturn, and on the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, He appeared to His Apostles and disciples and taught them these things which we have submitted to you for your consideration.”

From the foregoing description it would appear that Christian worship was of the simplest description, so much so that it was sometimes advanced as an argument against the sacraments of the Christian Church. But Tertullian, 160–220, at Carthage, claimed that the simplicity was, on the contrary, an argument in its favour.

At the same time the simplicity of the Christian worship, at this period, is apt to be overstated, for its unctions, use of signs of the cross, vigils, and midnight celebration of the Eucharist at Easter, were marks of a more extreme ritual than is in use in some modern forms. In connection with this, reference must be made to the Canons of Hippolytus, A.D. 190–238,¹ in which we find the following reference to vestments:

“As soon as the Bishop wishes to celebrate the mysteries, let the deacons and presbyters come together to him clad in white vestments more beautiful than all the people and as splendid as possible. But good work excels all vestments. Let the readers also have festal garments. . . .” The readers also are to wear festal dresses.

Whether this Canons can really be assigned to Hippolytus or not, it is generally agreed that they are not later than 200–300. This, coupled with the fact that as soon as the Emperor Constantine had accepted Christianity he gave a rich vestment embroidered in gold to the Bishop of Jerusalem, and that the Clementine Liturgy contained in the Apostolic Constitutions prescribes a ‘splendid vestment’ for the Bishop who celebrates, all tend to show that the ritual was not quite so simple in those early days as has sometimes been suggested. Naturally, during the persecutions it could not compare with the gorgeous ceremonial of pagan worship, and in consequence a point was made of its simplicity, but this is not the same as saying that there was no ritual at all.

When we remember the secrecy with which the words of the Liturgy were veiled, and that Sozomen the historian, as late as 400–500, in his ecclesiastical history even refrained from setting out the text of the Nicean Creed, lest it should become known to the uninitiated, it is not to be wondered if the Apologists of the first three centuries said nothing about their ceremonial.

We have direct evidence that there was not only variety but also changes in ritual during this period in a letter, c. 255, by St. Firmilian (Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia) to St. Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage), in which he pointed out that “those who lived at Rome did not observe in all points their original traditions; that it was useless for the Church of Rome to claim Apostolic authority for all its practices, as, for instance, on the question of the proper day for the celebration of Easter;² also with regard to many unspecified points of liturgical arrangements, one way prevailed at Jerusalem, another at Rome. In most provinces there were diversities caused by the varieties of locality and of human nature: but the peace and unity of the Catholic Church were never imperilled by this fact” (Inter Cypriani Ep., Migne iii. 1159).

It can be but a matter of regret that this has not remained true until the present day.

In Apostolic times the feast which our Lord attended on the Vigil of the Passover (John xiii. 1) was originally commemorated by a Love Feast or Agapé of which the Eucharist formed part. This is the inference to be drawn from the narrative of the healing of Eutychus (Acts xxii. 7) and also from the scandals which arose at Corinth through its misuses (1 Cor. xi. 17–20).

In the Didaché (Ch. 9 and 10) the commemoration would seem to be confined to the Feast itself rather than to the Eucharist proper.

Warren points out that:

Though from the time of Pliny and Justin Martyr the Agapé had become separated from the Eucharist, yet at Antioch and Smyrna as late as A.D. 110 they were apparently still celebrated together according to the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.

The Agapé, apart from the Eucharist, seems to have been celebrated in the evening; the Canons of Hippolytus imply that it took place on Sunday evening at the time of the lighting of the Lamps. Tertullian gives a full description of it. Later, in the Didascalia about 250, it is mentioned as merely being provided for widows in want and for the poor out of the offerings of the Church. It seems to have lasted on till the time of Socrates, the historian, about 450, before being discontinued entirely.

The Pascal Supper itself was preceded by a fast from the time of the evening sacrifice, on that day an hour earlier, which was offered at 1.30 p.m. and slain at 2.30 p.m., until the Supper, which was not commenced until dark.

This may have suggested the practice of fasting reception of the Eucharist, which has been observed with rare exceptions from the earliest times. "Let not any of the faithful taste of anything before he has partaken of the mysteries, especially on the days of the holy fast" (Canons of Hippolytus, xxviii.).

As we have seen, the Agapé continued to be celebrated in the evening, but the Eucharist, after the separation, was celebrated in the morning. This is explained by St. Cyprian as follows: "It behoved Christ to offer about eventide that the hour itself of sacrifice might token the setting and evening of the world, as it is written in the Book of Exodus: 'And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill in the evening'. And again in the Psalms: 'Let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice'. But we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning" (Ep. 63).

After the recognition of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine in 323, we have records of various liturgies. As Christianity was more prevalent among the Greek-speaking races than among any other, we will take these first.

But we must premise that at the beginning of this new era, when what had hitherto been kept secret, and transmitted orally alone, was for the first time openly reduced to writing, the custom of 'subordinate' theology arose. By this is meant that an author, whilst basing his writings on that which he had received orally, gave his own composition a title with the name of the person who was supposed to have been the author of the tradition; but whilst doing this it did not prevent him from bringing the document up to date according to his own ideas, nor from incorporating in it references to persons, events, or things which came into existence after the decease of him to whom he ascribed his work.

It is of great importance to bear this in mind, for while various anachronisms may be found in a document, which clearly prove that as it stands it cannot possibly have been written by the person whose name it bears, yet nevertheless, this does not prove that it was not based upon some oral tradition, originated by its putative author.

We have then the following Greek Liturgies:

Though, as might be expected, these liturgies vary considerably in their exact order, form of words and in the rites connected with them, yet the service may be stated broadly to have adopted the outline set out below:

Passing notice must be taken of the other Eastern Liturgies; Warren has a list of about forty-five, which are for the most part orthodox.

The liturgy of Adeus and Maris, founders of the Churches of Edessa and Seleucia, was the chief Nestorian Liturgy.

The Nestorian Heresy consisted of affirming that the Divinity and Humanity of Christ are not only two Natures but also two persons, and of refusing to give the title of Mother of God to the Virgin Mary. Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople, 428–435. They were condemned by the third General Council of Ephesus in 431.

The Nestorian Liturgies differ in the Anaphora, but the Ordinary of the Mass is the same in all.

Having considered the general outline of the Liturgy in the East soon after the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire, we must now consider the source from which this ritual was evolved.

This is a matter of great obscurity: in so far as it is directly of Jewish origin, is it taken from the worship in the Temple or in the Synagogue?

To deal with the latter first, it is not known when the synagogues were first introduced; they were the village halls or places of assembly, and were used for other purposes as well as for religious exercises. No complete record exists of what their religious services consisted in at the time of our Lord. The Talmud, the earliest Jewish record of these services, does not go back to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, but only records the services which took place in the Jewish synagogues after the Temple Worship had ceased.

So far as can be gathered it consisted of: Introductory benedictions. Reading of the Law of the Pentateuch, when the people stood up. Reading of the Prophets. Discourse founded on them. Blessing.

The expressions, 'Hallowed be Thy Name' and 'Thy Kingdom come', in our Lord's Prayer are traceable to the Kadish, one of the prayers in use in the synagogue. Likewise, the 'Preface' in the Liturgy is obviously taken from the introduction to the great Hallel Psalms 113 and 114, which formed part of the service of the Pascal Supper.

The shape of the synagogue seems to have been copied in the design of the churches. The synagogue was built so that the people faced Jerusalem, i.e. in Europe towards the East. The entrance was at the other end. At the East end, elevated on steps, was an ark covered by a canopy; this contained the sacred writings or scrolls. There was a desk for the leader of the worship, in front of the ark, opposite whom sat the elders of the synagogue. A rostrum, or bema, in the centre of the building, was the elevated pulpit from which the lessons were read, and from which the discourses were given. A light was kept burning in front of the ark (Ex. xxvii. 20).

The Apostolic Constitutions [Book II.] contains long directions as to formation and seating of a church like a ship or ark (of safety). From these services may be derived: Eastward position. Standing at the Gospel. Benedictions at the Lections. Little Entrance. (Procession of the roll of the law to the bema.) Dedication of churches.

The use of bells, colours, vestments, and bowing to the altar were no doubt taken from the Temple worship. Some writers have sought to show that the whole of the Christian worship is based on the Jewish ritual, and others have suggested that the Greek Eleusian mysteries were largely the source from which they were derived, or even directly from the Egyptian rites.

It is not likely that the Jews borrowed from the Christian ceremonial in after years, but the probability is all the other way. At the same time there is no reason to suppose that both the Jewish and the Pagan ceremonials did not have some similarities, so that it is impossible definitively to trace the exact source from which the Christian rites and ceremonies sprang.

As regards the liturgy in North Africa, we have no formal documentary evidence, and the most that we can obtain are in fragmentary references in the writings of Tertullian, 160–220, Cyprian, 200–258, Optatus, circa 363, and St. Augustine of Hippo, 395–430.

Tertullian's 'Apology' describes a Service of the Word at which prayers and intercessions were offered and the Scriptures read and exhortations given. He also gives a full description of the Agapé. In his treatise on the Soul there is an account of a Vigil service consisting of Lessons, Psalms, addresses and prayers.

In his work on Prayer reference is made to intercessions for persecutors, the dead, the sick, the possessed, and prisoners, like the Bidding prayers. References are also made in his works to Masses said for the Dead, and the Kiss of Peace. Reservation of the Eucharist is recognized and kneeling in worship from Easter to Pentecost is forbidden.

From Cyprian we find references to the Preface, Sursum Corda, and Sanctus; Eucharistic Thanksgiving and Consecration of the gifts. He gives a clear indication that in his time the mysteries were guarded from all but the faithful.

From St. Augustine's sermons we have more detailed references to the liturgy, which enable us to reconstruct it as follows:

In general, the liturgy shows a special similarity to that of Rome, with: position of the Kiss of Peace before the Communion and not at the Offertory; the Salutation Pax Vobiscum / Et cum spiritu tuo, before the Kiss of peace, Deo gratias; and Acts of Perpetua.

From the time of Justin Martyr, circa 160, until that of St. Jerome, 386, we have no records at all. St. Jerome only mentions the reading of the Gospel by the Deacon and the recitation of the names of those who made the offerings. He mentions as included in the Liturgy the Sanctus — Prayer of Consecration — Use of the Lord's Prayer preceded by the prologue, 'Audemus Dicere'— the Kiss of Peace, 'in the midst of the sacred feast,' by this probably meaning before the Communion, as is now the case in the Roman rite, instead of before the Preface as in the Eastern Liturgies.

The general outline, which may be compared with that of the Eastern Churches, may be shortly stated as follows:

We have now traced in outline the development of the Christian Liturgy both in the East and in Rome and North Africa. But in order to grasp the meaning of these various forms, it is necessary to take into consideration the various points of view and the different attitudes of mind adopted in relation to the foundation of such Liturgy; in short, we must examine what is known as the 'Concept of the Eucharist'.

As we have seen in Chapter IV., the Agapé had become separated from the Eucharist by the time of Tertullian in 160. As the Eucharist came to be separated from the Agapé, so the more intensely Jewish element in the Commemoration, wherein all that pertained to the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Old Testament as to the coming of the Messiah had been specially stressed, became lessened; and the Commemoration of the Passion, or the Anamnesis, as it is called, was held more in mind. Thus the terms used by Our Lord with reference to the bread and wine were emphasized as relating to His Passion rather than as relating to His fellowship in partaking of the Supper itself.

Hence it followed that whilst the mystery remained sacramental of the New Covenant, the sacrificial element of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant became the predominant aspect. And further, that as there were sacrifices of bulls and of rams by way of antetype under the Old Covenant, so under the New Covenant there are sacrifices by way of prototype of oblations of the memorial of His Passion, accompanied by praise and thanksgiving (1 Cor. xi. 26).

The term 'spiritual content' is used to denote the Divine operative power which affects the Eucharist. In Justin, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, and Ambrose the 'spiritual content' is identified with the Logos. In Syria, Palestine, and at Byzantium the Eucharist was associated with the operation of the Holy Ghost, and God was invoked to send down His Holy Spirit upon the gifts "that he may make the bread the body and the wine the blood of Christ". This is known as the Epiklesis.

St. Basil, 379, says: "Which of the Saints has left us, in writing, the words of invocation at the Consecration of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not content with those mentioned by the Apostle or the Gospel, but we also say some words before them and after them as being of great force for the purpose of the Sacrament, which we have received from unwritten tradition."1

We must now proceed to examine the administration of the early Church. This seems clearly to have been based upon an analogy with the rulers of the Jewish Synagogue.

In the East, since the time of Alexander the Great, 322 B.C., Jewish colonies had had a special position within the Empire: these colonists were treated as non-citizens with special privileges. They had their own government, both administrative and judicial, and were exempted from military service and from working on their Sabbath.

The rulers of the synagogues varied in number in different places, as we read of one in Luke xii. 13 and again of rulers in Mark v. 22. They were divided into different grades, the lowest of which was the deacon, to whom was confided the temporal affairs (cf. Acts vi. 3). We have the priest and the Bishop; but in the writings of the early fathers we find some twelve different names for the Bishop, seven different names for the priest, and three different names for the deacon. These all recognized the supreme authority of the Apostles.

After the close of the Apostolic era each community was left to itself, and it was generally recognized that the head of each city should be a Bishop. The extent of his jurisdiction was easily settled: the Jewish colonies had been confined to towns, therefore as Christianity spread into the country districts the Bishops naturally assumed that jurisdiction which was coterminous with the existing civil power, and which was clearly defined by the Roman Census.

The influence of Jerusalem, which might be thought to have become predominant as the birthplace of Christianity, in fact ceased to be more than a name after its destruction by Titus in A.D. 70. Rome, on the other hand, the capital of the world and the scene of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and Paul, naturally was the centre to which missionaries, prophets, doctors, and pilgrims alike gravitated, and to the Bishop there they naturally turned to settle their differences.