The religious worship of the primitive Christians was conducted in the same simplicity and freedom which characterized all their ecclesiastical polity. They came together for the worship of God, in the confidence of mutual love, and prayed, and sung, and spoke in the fulness of their hearts. A liturgy and a prescribed form of prayer were alike unknown, and inconsistent with the spirit of their worship.
In the following chapter, it will be my object to establish the following propositions.
I. That the use of forms of prayer is opposed to the spirit of the Christian dispensation.
II. That it is opposed to the example of Christ and of his apostles.
III. That it is unauthorized by the instructions of Christ and the apostles.
IV. That it is contrary to the simplicity and freedom of primitive worship.
V. That it was unknown in the primitive church.
I. The use of forms of prayer is opposed to the spirit of the Christian dispensation.
“The truth,” says Christ, “shall make you free.” One part of this freedom was exemption from the burdensome rites and formalities of the Jewish religion. “The Lord’s [321] free man” was no longer bound to wear that yoke of bondage; but, according to the perfect law of liberty, James 1: 25, 2: 12, was required only to worship God, in spirit and in truth. Paul often reproved Peter, and others for their needless subjection to the bondage of Jewish ritual, which imposed unauthorized burdens upon Christians. Gal. 2: 4 seq. 3: 1 seq. 4: 9 seq. Rom. 10: 4 seq. 14: 5, 6. Col. 2: 16-20. Such was the perfect law of liberty which the religion of Christ gave to his followers. It imposed upon them no cumbersome rites; it required no prescribed forms, with the exception of the simple ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper. It required only the homage of the heart; the worshipping of God in sincerity and in truth. So taught our Saviour and his apostles.
Indications of irregularity and disorder are, indeed, apparent in some of the churches whom Paul addresses; particularly among the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 14: 1 seq. These irregularities, however, he severely rebukes, assuring them that God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, v. 33; i.e., of harmony in sentiment, and in action, as appears from the context. He ends his rebuke by exhorting them to let all things be done decently, and in order; declaring at the same time, that the things which he writes on this subject, are the commandments of God. v. 37. He commends the Colossians, on the other hand, for the good order and propriety which they observed; “joying and beholding their order, and the steadfastness of their faith.” Col. 2: 5.
The freedom of the gospel was not licentiousness. It gave no countenance to disorder and confusion, in the assemblies of the primitive Christians, convened for the worship of God. But it required them to worship him in spirit and in truth; in a confiding, filial, and affectionate spirit. This is that spirit of adoption which was given them, and which, instead of the timid, cowering spirit of a slave, taught them to come with holy boldness to the throne of grace; and in the [322] trustful confidence of a child, to say “Our Father which art in heaven.”
We will not, indeed, assert that the spirit of prayer is incompatible with the use of a prescribed form; but we must feel that the warm and gushing emotions of a pious heart flow not forth in one unvaried channel. Who, in his favored moments of rapt communion, when with unusual fervor of devotion, he draws near to God, and leaning on the bosom of the Father, with all the simplicity of a little child, seeks to give utterance to the prayer of his heart,—who under such circumstances, could breathe to heaven his warm desires through the cold formalities of a prayer-book? When praying in the Holy Ghost, the Spirit itself helping our infirmities, and making intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered, must we, can we, employ any prescribed form of words to express these unutterable things.1 “Prayer by book,” says Bishop Wilkins in his Gift of Prayer, “is commonly of itself something flat and dead; floating for the most part in generalities, and not particular enough for each several occasion. There is not that life an vigor in it to engage the affections, as when it proceedeth immediately from the soul itself, and is the natural expression of those particulars whereof we are most sensible. It is not easy to express what a vast difference a man may find in respect to inward comfort and satisfaction, between those private prayers that are rendered from the affections, and those prescribed forms that we say by rote or read out of a book.” Such a form if not incompatible with such aids of the Spirit, and such promises of his word, must at least be opposed to them. So prayed not our Lord. Such were not the prayers of the disciples. This proposition introduces our second topic of remark.
II. The use of forms of prayer is opposed to the example of Christ and the apostles. [323]
Several of our Lord’s prayers are left on record, all of which plainly arose out of the occasion on which they were offered, and were strictly extemporaneous. So far as his example may be said to bear upon the subject, it is against the use of forms of prayer.
The prayers of the apostles were likewise occasional and extemporaneous. Such was the prayer of the disciples at the election of Matthias, Acts 1: 24; of the church at the release of Peter and John, 4: 24-31; of Peter at the raising to life of Tabitha, 9: 10; of the church for the release of Peter under the persecution of Herod; and of Paul at his final interview with the elders of Ephesus, 20: 36; he kneeled down upon the beach, and prayed as the struggling emotions of his heart allowed him utterance.
It is particularly worthy of remark, that in all the examples of prayer in the new Testament, several of which are recorded apparently entire, there is no similarity of form, or of expression; nor any repetition of a form, with the single exception of the response, Amen, Peace be with you, etc. Even our Lord’s prayer is never repeated on such occasions; nor is there, in all the New Testament, the slightest indications of its use either by the apostles, or by the churches which they established.
The apostles, then, prayed extemporaneously. Their example is in favor of this mode of offering unto God the desires of our soul. Paul often requests the prayers of the churches to whom he writes, in regard to particulars to various, and so minute, as to forbid the supposition that they could have been expressed in a liturgy. The same may be said in regard to his exhortations to prayer, some of which, at least, are generally admitted to have relation particularly to public prayer, 1 Tim. 2: 1 seq. Who, on reading these various exhortations, without any previous opinions or partialities, would ever have been directed by all that the apostle has written, to the use of any form of prayer? [324]
Our Lord’s prayer, itself, is recorded with variations so great, as to forbid the supposition that it was designed to be used as a prescribed form; as the reader must see by a comparison of the parallel passages in the margin.2
So great is the variation in these two forms, that many have supposed they ought to be regarded as two distinct prayers. Such was the opinion of Origen. He notices the different occasions on which the two prayers were offered, and concludes that the resemblance is only such as might be expected from the nature of the subject.3
III. The use of forms of prayer is unauthorized by the instructions of Christ and the apostles.
If any instructions to this effect were given by Christ, they [325] were in connection with the prayer which he taught his disciples. We have, therefore, to examine somewhat in detail, the nature and design of the Lord’s Prayer. The views of the learned respecting the nature of our Lord’s prayer, and the ends designed by it, are arranged by Augusti under three several classes:
1. Those who maintain that Christ offered no prescribed form of prayer, either for his immediate disciples, or for believers of any age; but that he gave this as an example of the filial and reverential spirit in which we should offer our prayers to God, and of the simplicity and brevity which ought to characterize our supplications, in opposition to the vain repetitions of the heathen, and the ostentatious formalities of the Pharisees. It is worthy of remark, that this was originally given immediately after rebuking such hypocritical devotions. Augustine, A.D. 400, expressly declares, that Christ did not teach his disciples what words they should use in prayer; but what things they should pray for, when engaged in silent, mental prayer.4
2. Those who contend that it is a specific and invariable form, to be used by Christians in all ages, like the baptismal formula in Matt. 28: 19, 20; though not to the exclusion of other forms of prayer.
3. Others incline to the opinion, that the prayer is an epitome of the Jewish forms of prayer which were then in use; and that it comprised, in its several parts, the very words with which their prayers began, and which were embodied in one, as a substitute for so many long and unmeaning forms of prayer.
Whatever be the true view of this subject, it is remarkable that our Lord’s prayer was not in use in the age of the apostles. Not the remotest allusion to it occurs in the history of [326] the acts of the apostles, nor in their epistles. It is true, indeed, that the canon of the New Testament was not then established, nor their writings extensively known; but we must suppose that tradition would, at least in some degree, have supplied the place of the gospels. The supposition, that, in all cases of prayer by the disciples and early Christians, the use of this form must be presumed, like that of the baptismal formula, is altogether gratuitous and groundless.
In the apostolical fathers, also, no trace is found of this prayer. Neither Clement, nor Polycarp, nor any father, makes allusion to it, antecedent to Justin Martyr, A.D. 148. And he informs us that in Christian assemblies, the presiding minister offered up prayer and thanksgiving, as he was able, οση δυναμις αυτω, and that thereupon the people answered Amen! This expression, as we shall endeavor to show in another place, means,—as well as he could, or to the best of his ability. It shows that public prayers were not confined to any pre-composed forms. The Lord’s prayer may have been used in connection with these extemporary addresses of the minister; but there is no evidence of such a usage. In describing the ceremony of baptism, Justin speaks of the use which is made of “the name of the universal father,” το του Πατρος των ολων, which is supposed by some to be an allusion to the expression, “our Father which art in heaven.”
Lucian, A.D. 180, in his Philopatris, speaks of the prayer which begins with the Father, ευξη απο Πατρος αρξαμενος, which may possibly be a similar allusion to our Lord’s prayer.
Nothing much more explicit occurs in Irenaeus. He says, however, “Christ has taught us to say in prayer, ‘And forgive us our debts;’ for he is our Father, whose debtors we are, having transgressed his precepts.”5 This passage only shows his acquaintance with the prayer, but proves nothing in relation to the liturgical use of it. The same [327] may be said of Clement of Alexandria, who makes evident allusion to the Lord’s prayer in several passages.6
The Apostolical Constitutions belong to a later age, and cannot, therefore, be introduced as evidence in the question under consideration.
Tertullian, at the close of the second century and beginning of the third, together with Origen, and Cyprian, who lived a few years later, give more authentic notices of the Lord’s prayer.
Tertullian not only quotes the Lord’s prayer in various parts of his writings, but he has left a treatise, “On Prayer,” which consists of an exposition of it, with some remarks appended, concerning the customs observed in prayer. In this treatise, which he is supposed to have written, before he went over to Montanism, i.e., before the year 200, Tertullian represents this prayer, not merely as an exemplar, or pattern of Christian petitions, but as the quintessence and ground of all prayer; and as a summary of the gospel.7 He strongly recommends, however, other prayers, and enumerates the several parts of prayer, such as supplication, entreaty, confession of sin, and then proceeds to show that we may offer other petitions, according to our accidental circumstances and desires, having premised this legitimate and ordinary prayer which is the foundation of all.8
Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, repeats the sentiments of Tertullian, whom he recognizes, to a great extent, as his guide in all points of doctrine. He wrote a treatise on the Lord’s prayer, on nearly the same plan as that of Tertullian. [328] He has less spirit, but is more full than his predecessor; and often explains his obscurities. Cyprian says, that our Lord among other important precepts and instructions, gave us a form of prayer, and taught us for what we should pray. He also styles the prayer, our public and common prayer;9 and urges the use of it by considerations drawn from the nature of prayer, without asserting its liturgical authority or established use.
Origen, contemporary with Cyprian, has a treatise on prayer, in the latter part of which, he comments at length upon the Lord’s prayer. His remarks are extremely discursive, and chiefly of a moral and practical character; so that we derive no satisfactory information from him respecting the liturgical use of this prayer, or of these prayers rather as he regards them. He, however, warns his readers against vain repetitions and improper requests, charging them not to battologize in their prayers;—an error which they could have been in no danger of committing, had they been guided by the dictation of a prayer-book. The explanation which he gives implies the use of extemporaneous prayer.10
It appears from the foregoing authorities, that our Lord’s prayer was never regularly used by the apostles themselves, nor by the churches which they founded, until the close of the second century and beginning of the third. From this time it began to be used, and in the fifth and sixth centuries was a part of the public liturgies of the church.
With reference to the Lord’s prayer we subjoin the following remarks.
1. It is questionable whether the words of this prayer were indited by our Lord himself. If we adopt the theory of many that it is a compend of the customary prayers in the religious [329] service of the Jews, how can it with propriety be affirmed that our Lord gave to his disciples any form of prayer whatever as his own?
2. This appears not to have been given to the disciples as a form of public prayer; but as a specimen of that spirituality and simplicity, which should appear in their devotions, in opposition to the “vain repetitions of the heathen,” and the heartless formalities of the Pharisees. It merely enforces a holy importunity, sincerity and simplicity in private prayer. It was a prayer to be offered in secret, as the context in both instances indicates, Matt. 6: 3-14. Luke 11: 1-13.
3. Our Lord expressly enjoined upon his disciples to offer other petitions, of the highest importance, for which no form is given. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are offered to those who shall ask, while yet no prescribed formula is given, in which to make known our requests for this blessing. Why have we not, therefore, the same authority, even from Christ himself, for extemporaneous as for precomposed prayer? At least we must presume that our Lord had no intention of prescribing the exact model of prayer, while at the same time he taught us to pray, without any form, for the highest blessing which we can receive.
4. A strict adherence to this form is incompatible with a suitable recognition of Christ as our mediator and intercessor with the Father. “Hitherto,” said our Lord in his last interview with his disciples before he suffered, “ye have asked nothing in my name.” But a new and peculiar dispensation was opening to them, by which they might have “boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” The petitions of that prayer might, indeed, be suitable to the Christian in every age, and in all stages of his spiritual progress; but they are appropriate rather, to those under the law, than to those under grace. They breathe not the peculiar spirit of him who would plead the name of Christ alone, in suing for pardon and acceptance with God. [330]
5. This prayer belongs rather to the economy of the Old than to that of the New Testament. Christ was not yet glorified. The Spirit was not given; neither was the law of ordinances abolished. However useful or important it may have been, in the worship of God under the Old Testament, is it of necessity imposed upon us under that better covenant which God has given; and by which he gives us nearness of access to his throne, without any of the formalities of the ancient Jewish ritual, only requiring us to worship him in spirit and in truth?
6. The variations of phraseology in the forms given by the evangelists, are so great as to forbid the supposition that it is to be regarded as a specific and prescribed form of prayer. The reader has only to notice the two forms of Matthew and Luke, to see that the variations are too numerous and important to justify an adherence to one invariable form of speech. The only form of prayer that can be found in the Scriptures, is recorded on two occasions, with such variations as to exclude the possibility of deriving from either any authorized and unchangeable form. They have that general resemblance, united with circumstantial variations, which might be expected in the prayers of one who was careful only to utter the same sentiments without any studied phraseology or set form of words. They are as various as two extemporaneous prayers might be expected to be, if uttered upon to similar occasions with reference to the same subject.11
IV. The use of forms of prayer is not congenial with the simplicity and freedom of primitive worship. All the early records of antiquity relating to the ecclesiastical polity of the primitive Christians, and to their rights of religious worship, concur in the representation, that they were conducted with the utmost simplicity; and in total contrast, [331] both with the formalities of the ancient Mosaic ritual, and with the various forms of Episcopal worship and government, which were subsequently introduced.12 The men of those days all accounted themselves priests of God; and each, according to his ability, claimed the liberty, not only to teach and to exhort, but even to administer the ordinances. All this is explicitly asserted in the commentary upon Eph. 4: 11, which is ascribed to Hilary of Rome, about A.D. 360. “After churches were everywhere established, and ecclesiastical orders first settled, the policy pursued was different from that which at first prevailed. For, at first, all were accustomed to teach and to baptize, each on every day alike, as he had occasion. Philip sought no particular day or occasion in which to baptize the eunuch, neither did he interpose any season of fasting. Neither did Paul and Silas delay the baptism of the jailor and his house. Peter had the assistance of no deacons, nor did he seek for any particular day, in which to baptize Cornelius and his household. He did not even administer the baptism himself, but entrusted this duty to the brethren, who had come with him from Joppa; as yet there were no deacons, save the seven who had been appointed. That the disciples might increase and multiply, all, in the beginning, were permitted to preach, to baptize, and to expound the Scriptures. But when Christianity became widely extended, small assemblies were formed, and rectors and presidents were appointed; and other offices were instituted in the church. No one presumed without ordination to assume the office of the clergy. The writings of the apostles do not, in all respects, accord with the existing state of things in the church; because these things were written at the time of the first organization of the church.”13
This passage asserts the free and unrestrained liberty which [332] all, at first, enjoyed in instructing and exhorting; and in administering the ordinances and the government of the church.
There is a passage in Tertullian, also, indicative of the same absence of prescribed form and regularity. “After the reading of the Scriptures, psalms are sung, or addresses are made, or prayers are offered.”14 All is unsettled. The exercises are freely varied, according to circumstances. This absence of all established forms, and the universal enjoyment of religious liberty and equality, was, indeed, sometimes misunderstood and abused, as we have seen, even by the churches to whom the apostle writes; and yet it was far from offering any encouragement to the disorders and extravagances of fanaticism. Observe, for example, the following upbraidings of such irregularities by Tertullian: “I must not fail to describe, in this place, the religious deportment of these heretics; how unseemly, how earthly, how carnal; without gravity, without respect, without discipline;—how inconsistent with their religious belief. Especially, it is wholly uncertain who may be a catechumen; who a Christian professor. They all assemble and sit promiscuously as hearers; and pray indiscriminantly. How impudent are the women of these heretics, who presume to teach, to dispute, to exorcise, to practise magic arts upon the sick; and, perhaps even to baptize. Their elections to offices in the church are hasty, inconsiderate, and irregular. At one time they elect neophytes; at another men of the world; and then apostates from us, that they may, at least, gain such by honor, if not by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camps of rebels, where one’s presence is a sure passport to preferment. Accordingly, one is bishop, to-day; to-morrow, another; to-day, a deacon; to-morrow, a reader; and he who is now a presbyter, to-morrow, will be again a layman.”15 [333]
In relation to this passage, which Neander quotes at length, he offers the following remarks; and we commend them to the attentive consideration of the reader. “We here see the operations of two conflicting parties, one of which regards the original organization of the apostolical churches, as a divine institution, and an abiding ordinance in the church, essential to the spread of a pure Christianity. The other, which contends for an unrestrained freedom in all external matters, opposes these views, as foreign to the freedom and simplicity which the spirit of the gospel encourages. It denies that the kingdom of God, itself inward, unseen, can need any outward organization for the support and spread of that kingdom. It contends that all Christians belong to the priesthood; and this it would practically exemplify, by allowing no established distinction between the clergy and the laity; but permitting all, in common, to teach, and to administer the sacraments;—two parties, which we often see opposed to each other, in the subsequent history of the church. One of them lays great stress upon the outward organization of the visible church, by not suitably distinguishing between what may be a divine institution and what a human ordinance; the other, holds the doctrine of an invisible kingdom; but overlooking the necessities of weak minds, which are incapable of forming conceptions of objects so spiritual, rejects with abhorrence all such ordinances.”16
V. The use of forms of prayer was unknown in the primitive church.
The apostolical fathers, Clement and Polycarp, give us no information concerning their modes of worship in the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles. The circumstances of their meeting in secresy, and under cover of the latest hours of the night, together with other inconveniences, must, it should seem, be very unfavorable to the use of a liturgy, [334] or any form of prayer. Tertullian and Eusebius represent the primitive Christians, of whom Pliny speaks, to have come together, ad canendum Christo, to sing praise to Christ.
We are left, then, to the conclusion, that the apostolical churches neither used any forms of prayer, nor is such use authorized by divine authority. In this conclusion we are sustained by various considerations, drawn from the foregoing views of the simplicity of primitive worship.
1. The supposition of a form of prayer is opposed to that simplicity, freedom of speech, and absence of all formalities, which characterized the worship of these early Christians.
In nothing, perhaps, was the worship of the Christian religion more strikingly opposed to that of the Jewish, than in these particulars. The one was encumbered with a burdensome ritual, and celebrated, with many imposing formalities, by a priesthood divinely constituted, whose rank, and grades of office, and duties, were defined with great minuteness, and observed with cautious precision. The other prescribed no ritual; designated no unchanging order of the priesthood; but, simply directing that all things should be done decently and in order, permitted all to join in the worship of God, with unrestrained freedom, simplicity, and singleness of heart. The one, requires the worshipper to come with awful reverence; and, standing afar off, to present his offering to the appointed priest, who, alone, is permitted to draw near to God. The other, invites the humble worshipper to draw near in the full assurance of faith; and leaning on the bosom of the Father with the confiding spirit of a little child, to utter his whole heart in the ear of parental love and tenderness. Is it not contrary, then, to the economy of this gracious dispensation, to trammel the spirit of this little child with a studied form of speech; to chill the fervor of his soul by the cold dictations of another; and require him to give utterance to the struggling emotions of his heart, in language, to him, uncongenial? Does it comport with the genius of primitive [335] Christianity, to lay upon the suppliant, in audience with the Father in heaven, the restraints of courtly formalities and the studied proprieties of premeditated prayer? The artlessness and simplicity of primitive worship afford a strong presumption in favor of free, extemporaneous prayer.
2. This presumption is strengthened by the example of Christ and his apostles, all of whose prayers, so far as they are recorded, or the circumstances related under which they were offered, were strictly extemporaneous.
This argument has been already duly considered, and may be dismissed without further expansion in this place.
3. We conclude that no forms of prayer were authorized or required in the apostolical churches, because no instructions to this effect are given either by Christ or the apostles.
The Lord’s prayer, as we have already seen, was not a prescribed form of prayer, neither was it in use in the apostolical churches; nor are any intimations given in the New Testament of any form of prayer, prayer-book, or ritual of any kind, unless the response, to which allusion is made in 1 Cor. 14: 16, be considered as such. Here, then, is a clear omission, and manifestly designed to show that God did not purpose to give any instructions respecting the manner in which we are to offer to him our prayers. This argument from the omissions of Scripture is presented with great force by Archbishop Whately, in support of the opinion which we here offer, and we shall accordingly adopt his language to express it.
After asserting that the sacred writers were supernaturally withheld from recording some things, he adds: “On no supposition, whatever, can we account for the omission, by all of them, of many points which they do omit, and of their scanty and slight mention of others, except by considering them as withheld by the express design and will (whether communicated to each of them or not) of their heavenly Master, restraining them from committing to writing many [336] things which, naturally, some or other of them, at least, would not have failed so to record.
“We seek in vain there for many things which, humanly speaking, we should have most surely calculated on finding. ‘No such thing is to be found in our Scriptures as a Catechism, or regular elementary introduction to the Christian religion; neither do they furnish us with anything of the nature of a systematic creed, set of articles, confession of faith, or by whatever other name one may designate a regular, complete compendium of Christian doctrines: nor again do they supply us with a liturgy for ordinary public worship, or with forms for administering the sacraments, or for conferring holy orders; nor do they even give any precise directions as to these and other ecclesiastical matters;—anything that at all corresponds to a rubric, or set of canons.’
“Now these omissions present a complete moral demonstration that the apostles and their followers must have been supernaturally withheld from recording a great part of the institutions, and regulations, which must, in point of fact, have proceeded from them;—withheld, on purpose that other churches, in other ages and regions, might not be led to consider themselves bound to adhere to several formularies, customs, and rules, that were of local and temporary appointment; but might be left to their own discretion in matters in which it seemed best to divine wisdom that they should be so left.”17
4. No form of prayer, liturgy, or ritual, was recorded or preserved by contemporaries, inspired or uninspired, of the apostles, or by their immediate successors.
This consideration is nearly allied to the former, and is so forcibly urged by Archbishop Whately, that we shall again present the argument in his own words. “It was, indeed, not at all to be expected that the Gospels, the Acts, and those Epistles which have come down to us, should have [337] been, considering the circumstances in which they were written, anything different from what they are: but the question still recurs, why should not the apostles or their followers have also committed to paper, what, we are sure, must have been perpetually in their mouths, regular instructions to catechumens, articles of faith, prayers, and directions as to public worship, and administration of the sacraments? Why did none of them record any of the prayers, of which must have heard so many from an apostle’s mouth, both in the ordinary devotional assemblies, in the administration of the sacraments, an in the ‘laying on of hands,’ by which they themselves had been ordained?”18
The superstitious reverence of the early Christians for such productions as had been obtained from the apostles and their contemporaries, is apparent from the numerous forgeries of epistles, liturgies, etc., which were published under their name. Had any genuine liturgies of the apostolical churches been written, it is inconceivable, that they should all have been lost, and such miserable forgeries as those of James, Peter, Andrew, and Mark, have been substituted in their place. Some discovery must have been made of these, among other religious books and sacred things of the Christians, which in times of persecution were diligently sought out and burned. Strict inquiry was made after such; and their sacred books, and sacramental utensils, their cups, lamps, torches, vestments, and other apparatus of the church were often delivered up, and burnt or destroyed. But there is no instance on record, of any form of prayer, liturgy, or book of divine service having been discovered, in the early persecutions of the church. This fact is so extraordinary, that Bingham, who earnestly contends for the use of liturgies from the beginning, is constrained to admit, that they could not have been committed to writing in the early periods of the church, but must have been preserved by oral tradition, [338] and used “by memory, and made familiar by known and constant practice.”19 The reader has his alternative, between this supposition, and that of no liturgy or prescribed form of prayer in those days of primitive simplicity. Constantine took special care to have fifty copies of the Bible prepared for the use of the churches, and, by a royal commission, entrusted Eusebius, the historian, with the duty of procuring them.20 How is it, that the service-book was entirely omitted in this provision for the worship of God? Plainly because they then used none.
5. The earliest fathers, in defending the usages of the church, and deciding controversies, make no appeal to liturgies, but only to tradition.
“For these, and other rites of a like character,” says Tertullian, in speaking of the ceremonies of baptism and of the Lord’s supper, “for these, if you seek the authority of Scripture, you will find none. Tradition is your authority, confirmed by custom and faithfully observed.”21 But these should have a place in a liturgy. Cyprian advocates the mingling of water with wine, at the Lord’s supper, by an appeal to tradition, without any reference to the liturgy of James.22
Firmilian, his contemporary, admits, that the church at Rome did not strictly observe all things which may have been delivered at the beginning, “so that it was vain even to allege the authority of the apostles.”23
Basil is even more explicit. After mentioning several things which are practised in the church without scriptural authority, such as the sign of the cross, praying towards the [339] east, and the form of invocation in the consecration of the elements, he proceeds to say, “We do not content ourselves with what the apostle or the gospel may have carefully recorded; with these we are not satisfied; but we have much to say before and after the ordinance, derived from instructions which have never been written, as having great efficacy in these mysteries.” Among these unwritten and unauthorized rites, he enumerates afterwards the consecration of the baptismal water. “From what writings, απο ποιων εγγραφων,” he asks, “comes this formulary? They have none; nothing but silent and secret tradition.”24
From the fact, that the appeal is only to tradition, we conclude, with Du Pin and others, that the apostles neither authorized, nor left behind them any prescribed form of worship or liturgy.
6. That simplicity in worship, which continued for some time after the age of the apostles, forbids the supposition of the use of the use of liturgical forms.
We return now to the second and third centuries, and, from the testimonies, particularly of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, we learn, that the worship of the Christian church, at this period, continued to be conducted in primitive simplicity, without agenda, liturgy, or forms of prayer.
Justin Martyr, in his Apology in behalf of the Christian religion, which he presented to the Roman emperor, Antonius Pius, about A.D. 138, or 139,25 gives a detailed account of the prevailing mode of celebrating the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper in the Christian church, in which he repeatedly mentions the prayers which are offered in these solemnities. “After baptizing the believer, and making him one with us, we conduct him to the brethren, as they are called, where they are assembled, fervently to offer their common supplications for themselves, for him who has been illuminated, and [340] for all men everywhere; that we may live worthy of the truth which we have learned, and be found to have kept the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. After prayer, we salute one another with a kiss. After this, bread, and a cup of wine and water are brought to the president, which he takes, and offers up praise and glory to the Father of all things, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and gives thanks that we are accounted worthy of these things. When he has ended the prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people respond, amen! which, in Hebrew, signifies, so may it be.”
The description above given, relates to the celebration of the Lord’s supper when baptism was administered. In the following extract, Justin describes the ordinary celebration of the supper on the Lord’s day. “On the day called Sunday, we all assemble together, both those who reside in the country, and they who dwell in the city, and the commentaries of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has ended, the president, in an address, makes an application, and enforces an imitation of the excellent things which have been read. Then we all stand up together, and offer up our prayers. After our prayers, as I have said, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president, in like manner, offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, οση δυναμις αυτω, and the people respond, saying Amen!26
Justin, according to Eusebius,27 wrote his Apologies at Rome. He was personally acquainted with most of the principal churches in every land. Whether we regard this as descriptive of the usage of the church at Rome, or of the churches generally it is peculiarly gratifying to learn, from a witness so unexceptionable, that the church in his time continued still to worship God in all the simplicity of the [341] primitive disciples. They meet as brethren in Christ; they exchange still the apostolical salutation, the kiss of charity; the Scriptures are read, and the president or pastor makes a familiar address, enforcing the practical duties which have been presented in the reading; a prayer is offered in the consecration of the sacred elements, in which the suppliant prays according to his ability, following only the suggestions of his own heart, without any form; after this, they receive the bread and the wine in remembrance of Christ. All is done in the affectionate confidence, the simplicity, and singleness of heart of the primitive disciples.28
The testimony of Justin, however, is claimed on both sides. The whole controversy hinges on that vexed passage, οση δυναμις αυτω. The congregation all stood up and the president prayed, οση δυναμις αυτω, according to his ability. Some understand by this phrase, that he prayed with as loud a voice as he could; the very mention of which interpretation is its sufficient refutation: cujus mentio est ejus refutatio. Others translate it, with all the ardor and fervency of his soul.
Such are the interpretations of those who contend for the use of a liturgy in the primitive church. On the other hand, Justin is understood to say, that the president prayed as well as he could, to the best of his ability, or as Tertullian says, “ex proprio ingenio.” If this be the true meaning, it leads to the conclusion that the prayers offered on this occasion were strictly extemporaneous. This is the interpretation, not only of non-conformists generally, but of some churchmen. It is the only fair interpretation of the phrase, according to the usus loquendi of this author.
The same expression occurs in other passages of our author, which may serve to illustrate the sense in which he uses this equivocal phrase. “We, who worship the Ruler [342] of the Universe, are not atheists. We affirm, as we are taught, that he has no need of blood, libations, and incense. But, with supplications and thanksgivings, we praise him according to our ability, οση δυναμις, for all which we enjoy, εφ οις προσφερομεθα πασιν, having learned that, worthily to honor him is, not to consume in fire by sacrifice what he has provided for our sustenance, but to bestow it upon ourselves and upon the needy, to show ourselves thankful to him by invocations and hymns for our birth, our health, and all that he has made; and for the vicissitudes of the season.”29
The Catholic and Episcopal rendering of this passage makes the author say, that in all our sufferings, we praise him, οση δυναμις, with the utmost fervency of devotion. This, however, is a mistaken rendering of the verb, προσφερομαι, which, in the middle voice means not to offer in sacrifice, or worship, but to participate, to enjoy. So it is rendered by Scapula, Hedericus, Bretschneider, Passow, etc. The passage relates, not to an act of sacrifice, nor of public worship, as the connection shows, but to deeds of piety towards God, and of benevolence to men, done according to their ability; by which means they offered the best refutation of the groundless calumnies of their enemies, who had charged them with an atheistical neglect of the gods. The declaration is, that for all their blessings they express, according to their ability, thanksgivings to God, and testify their gratitude by deeds of charity to their fellow-men.
“Having, therefore, exhorted you, οση δυναμις, according to our ability, both by reason, and a visible sign or figure, we know that we shall henceforth be blameless if you do not believe, for we have done what we could for your conversion.”30 He had done what he could; by various signs he had labored according to his ability, to bring them to receive the truth. The exhortation was the free expression of his heart’s desire [343] for their conversion. Can there be any doubt that the phrase denotes the same freedom of expression in prayer? These passages appear to us clearly to illustrate the meaning of the phrase in question as used by our author, and to justify our interpretation.31
If one desires further satisfaction on this point, he has only to turn to the works of Origen, in which this and similar forms of expression are continually occurring, to denote the invention, ability, and powers of the mind. Origen in his reply to the calumnies of Celsus, proposes to refute them, “according to his ability.”32 In his preface, he has apologized for the Christians “as well as he could.”33 These Christians sought, “as much as possible,” to preserve the purity of the church.34 They strove to discover the hidden meaning of God’s word, “according to the best of their abilities.”35 In these instances the reference is not to the fervor of the spirits, the ardor of the mind, but to the exercise of the mental powers. The act performed is done according to the ingenuity, the talents of the agents in each case.
Basil, in giving instructions on how to pray, advises to make choice of scriptural forms of thanksgiving, and when you have praised him thus, according to your ability,οση δυνασαι, exactly equivalent to δυναμις,—then he advises the suppliant to proceed to petitions.36 The Greeks and the Romans pray [344] each in their own language, according to Origen, and each praises God as he is able.37 But enough has been said upon this point, and the reader may safely be left to his own conclusions.
We come next to Tertullian. “We Christians pray with eyes uplifted, with hands outspread, with head uncovered; and, .. without a monitor, because from the heart.”38 Can this be the manner of one praying who has a prayer-book? Clarkson has shown, with his usual clearness, that the heathen worshipped by ritual, .. and rehearsed their prayers from a book; and that Tertullian says this to contrast the Christian mode of worship with these heartless forms. These warm-hearted Christians needed no such promptings to give utterance to their devotions. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Again, “When the sacramental supper is ended, and we have washed our hands, and the candles are lighted, every one is invited to sing unto God, as he is able; either in psalms collected from Holy Scriptures, or composed by himself, de proprio ingenio. And as we began, so we conclude all with prayer.39
From Tertullian we have the earliest information respecting the religious ordinances of the churches in Africa. The reader will not fail to notice, that this church also retains still the simplicity of the apostolical churches, mingled with some Roman customs. The brethren form a similar fraternity. Their religious worship opens with prayer, after which the Scriptures are read, and familiar remarks are offered upon them. Then follows the sacramental supper, or more properly the love-feast of the primitive church, which they begin with prayer. After the supper, any one is invited to offer a [345] sacred song, either from the Scriptures, or indited by himself. And the whole ends with prayer. The entire narrative indicates a free, informal mode of worship, as far removed from that which is directed by the agenda and rituals of liturgical worship as can well be conceived.
In the same connection, Tertullian also forcibly illustrates the sincerity and purity of this primitive worship. Speaking of the subjects of their prayers, he says, “These blessings I cannot persuade myself to ask of any but of him, from whom alone I know that I can obtain them. For he only can bestow them. And to me he has covenanted to grant them. For I am his servant and him only do I serve. For this service I stand exposed to death, while I offer to him the noblest and best sacrifice which he requires,—prayer proceeding from a chaste body, an innocent soul, and a sanctified spirit.”40 Beautiful exemplification of the words of our Lord to the woman of Samaria, “Believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in the mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4: 21, 24.
The authority of Tertullian is against the supposition that the primitive churches used forms of prayer. “We pray,” says he, “without a monitor, because from the heart,” sine monitore quia de pectore. Much ingenuity has been employed to reconcile this expression with the use of a prayer-book, but viewed in connection with the freedom and simplicity in which worship was at that time conducted, its real import is sufficiently obvious. He justifies, indeed, the use of the Lord’s prayer; but seems to intimate that to God alone belongs the right of prescribing forms of prayer. “God alone,” says he, “can teach us how he would be addressed in prayer.” But, he adds, “our Lord, who foresaw the necessities of men, after he had delivered this form of prayer, said, ‘Ask and ye shall receive;’ and there are some things which need to be [346] asked, according to every one’s circumstances; the rightful and ordinary being first used as a foundation, we may lawfully add other occasional desires, and make this the basis of other petitions.”41
From this passage it appears that their manner was, at the beginning of the third century, to repeat the Lord’s prayer as the basis and pattern of all appropriate prayer to God, and then to enlarge in free, unpremeditated supplications, according to their circumstances and desires.
There is another circumstance mentioned above by Tertullian, which shows how far the worship of the primitive Christians was at this time from being confined to the prescribed and unvarying formalities of a ritual. It appears that in their social worship each was invited forth to sing praises to God, either from the holy Scriptures, or “de proprio ingenio,” of his own composing. Grant, if you please, that these sacred songs may have been previously composed by each. They are still his own, and have to the hearer all the novelty and variety of a strictly extemporaneous effusion. So he who leads in prayer, like the one who sings his song, may offer a free prayer which he has previously meditated. But in the opinion of many, such songs may have been offered impromptu, like the songs of Moses and Miriam, and Deborah, Simeon and Anna. Augustine speaks of such songs, and ascribes to divine inspiration the ability to indite them. The improvisatori of the present age are an example of the extent to which such gifts may be cultivated without any supernatural aid.42 If, therefore, such freedom was allowed in their psalmody, much more might it be expected in their prayers.
7. The attitude of the primitive Christians in prayer is against the supposition that they used a prayer-book. What, according to Tertullian and others, was this attitude? It [347] was with arms raised towards heaven, and hands outspread,43 or, it was kneeling and prostrate, with the eyes closed, to shut out from view every object that might divert the mind from its devotions; or, as Origen expresses it, “closing the eyes of his senses, but erecting those of his mind.” Few facts in ancient history are better attested than this. The coins that were struck in honor of Constantine, represented him in the attitude of prayer. But how? not with prayer-book in hand, but, with hands extended, and eyes upturned, as if looking towards heaven, ως ανω βλεπειν δοκειν ανατεταμενος.44
Now all this, if not absolutely incompatible with the use of a liturgy, must be allowed at least to have been a very inconvenient posture, upon the supposition that a liturgy was employed. Can we suppose that this attitude would have been assumed at the beginning in the use of a cumbersome roll?
8. We have yet to add that the manner in which preconceived prayers began to be used, is decisive against any divine authority for their use. It is an acknowledged historical fact, that in the earliest stages of the Episcopal system, there was no settled and invariable form of prayer. All that was required was, that the prayers should not be unpremeditated, but previously composed and committed to writing. Still they were occasional, and may have had all the variety and adaptation of extempore prayers. This fact strikingly exhibits an intermediate state in the transition of the church from that freedom and absence of forms which characterized her earliest and simplest worship, to the imposing formalities of a later date. But it precludes the supposition that an authorized liturgy could have previously existed.45
9. If it were necessary to multiply arguments on this [348] point we might mention the secret discipline of the church as evidence against the use of a liturgy. This of itself is regarded by Schöne and others, as conclusive on this subject; a written and prescribed liturgy being quite incompatible with these mysteries. Basil refused to give explanations in writing to Miletus, but referred him to Theophrast for verbal information, that so the mysteries might not be divulged by what he would have occasion to write. “Mysteries,” said Origen also, with reference to the same point, “must not be committed to writing.” The sacramental prayers and baptismal rites, which should have a place in a liturgy, were among these profound mysteries. How they could have been kept veiled in such mystery, if recorded in a prayer-book, is past our comprehension.
Basil, of the fourth century, informs us that he pronounced the doxology with varied phraseology—that the baptismal formulary was unrecorded, and that the church had not even a written creed or confession.46 Clarkson has shown by a multitude of citations, that the same is true, of every part of religious worship which a liturgy prescribes. He has also given many instances of occasional prayers, which are inconsistent with the supposition that they were rehearsed from a prayer-book.47
Finally, the origin of these ancient liturgies, and the occasion on which they were prepared, is no recommendation of them.
They had their origin in an ignorant and degenerate age. Palmer ascribes the four original liturgies, in which all others have originated, to the fifth century. He thinks, however, that some expressions in one, may perhaps be traced to the fourth. The utmost that even the credulity of the [349] Oxford Tractarians pretends to claim in favor of their antiquity, is, that “one, that of Basil, may be traced with tolerable certainty to the fourth century, and three others to the middle of the fifth.”48 Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, Basil and Chrysostom, those great luminaries of the church, had passed away, and an age of ignorance and superstition had succeeded. Riddle of Oxford, the faithful chronicler of the church, gives the following sketch of the degeneracy of this age,—the close of the fourth century.
“Superstitious veneration of martyrs and their relics, credulous reliance upon their reputed powers of intercession, reports of miracles and visions at their tombs, and other follies of this kind, form a prominent feature in the religion of the age.
“New Festivals during this century.—Christmas-day, Ascension-day, Whitsunday (in the modern sense).
“Baptismal Rites, Ceremonies, etc.—1. Wax tapers in the hands of the candidates; 2. Use of salt, milk, wine, and honey; 3. Baptisteries; 4. Easter and Whitsuntide, times of baptism; 5. Twofold anointing, before and after baptism; 6. Dominica in Albis.
“The Lord’s Supper, 1. was now commonly called Missa by the Latins; 2. Tables had come into use, and were now called altars; 3. Liturgies used at the celebration of the rite; 4. Elements still administered in both kinds as before; 5. No private masses.
“Rapid progress of church oligarchy, and formation of the patriarchate.”
Again, A.D. 439, “Christian morality declines.—Two distinct codes of morals gradually formed, one for perfect Christians, and another for the more common class of believers;—the former consisting of mysticism and ascetic or overstrained virtue,—the latter in the performance of outward ceremonies and ritual observances. The distinction itself [350] unsound and mischievous; the morality, to a great extent, perverted or fictitious.
“History now records fewer examples of high Christian character than before. Complaints of the fathers, and decrees of councils, lead us to fear that impiety and disorderly conduct prevailed within the borders of the church to a melancholy extent. Superstition makes rapid progress.”49
Out of this age, when nothing was introduced “but corruptions, and the issues thereof; no change made in the current usages, but for the worse; no motions from its primitive posture, but downwards into degeneracy;”—out of this age, proceeded the first liturgy, the offspring of ignorance and superstition!
The clergy had become notoriously ignorant and corrupt, unable suitably to guide the devotions of public worship; and, to assist them in their ignorance and incompetence, liturgies were provided for their use.50 “When, in process of time, the distinguished fathers of the church had passed away, and others, of an inferior standing, arose in their places with less learning and talents for public speaking,—as barbarism and ignorance continued to overspread the Roman empire, and after the secret mysteries of Christianity had been done away, or, at least, had assumed another form of manifestation,—then, the clergy, not being competent themselves to conduct the exercises of religious worship to the edification of the people, saw the necessity of providing themselves with written formulas for their assistance. For this purpose, men were readily found to indite and transcribe them. In this manner, [351] arose its formularies, which are known under the name of liturgies and missals, and which afterwards, in order to give greater authority to them, were ascribed to distinguished men, and even to the apostles themselves, as their authors.”51
Now we seriously ask, Shall superstition, ignorance, and barbarism, rather than God’s own word, teach us how we may most acceptably worship him? Shall we forsake the example of Christ and the apostles, to imitate ignorant men, who first made use of a liturgy, because they were unable, without it, decently to conduct the worship of God?
How forcibly does the formality of such liturgical services contrast with the simplicity and moral efficacy of primitive worship? Christianity ascends the throne, and, in connection with the secular power, gives laws to the state. The government has a monarch at its head; and the church, bishops in close alliance with him. The simple rites of religion, impressive and touching by their simplicity, have given place to an imposing and princely parade in religious worship. Splendid churches are erected. The clergy are decked out with gorgeous vestments, assisted by a numerous train of attendants, and proceed in the worship of God with all the formalities of a prescribed and complicated ritual. Age after age these liturgical forms continue to increase with the superstition and degeneracy of the church, until her service becomes encumbered with an inconceivable mass of missals, breviaries, rituals, pontificals, graduals, antiphonals, psalteries, etc., alike unintelligible and unmeaning.
But the simplicity of primitive Christianity gives it power. It has no cumbersome rites to embarrass the truth of God. Nothing to dazzle the eye, to amuse and occupy the mind that is feeling after God, if haply it may find him. All its solemn, simple rites are in harmony with the simplicity of that system of gospel truth, which is at once the wisdom of [352] God and the power of God, in the conversion of men. They present and easy and natural medium for the communication of religious truth to the soul, and lay the mind open to its quickening power, without the parade of outward forms to hinder its secret influences upon the mind.
1 Comp. Bishop
Hall, in Porter’s Homiletics, p. 294.
| In Matt. 6: 9-13. | In Luke 11: 2-4. |
| ΠΑΤΕΡ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις· αγιασθητω το ονομα σου. |
ΠΑΤΕΡ, αγιασθητω το ονομα σου· |
| Ελθετω η βασιλεια σου· γενηθητω το θελημα σου, ως εν ουρανω, και επι της γης. | ελθετω η βασιλεια σου. |
| Τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον δος ημιν σημερον. | Τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον διδου ημιν το καθ’ ημεραν. |
| Και αφες ημιν τα οφειληματα ημων, ως και ημεις αφιεμεν τοις οφειλεταις ημων. | Και αφες ημιν τας αμαρτιας ημων· και γαρ αυτοι αφιεμεν παντι οφειλοντι ημιν· |
| Και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον, αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου. | και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον. |
The doxology is generally supposed to be spurious; but without noticing the omission of this in Luke, the prayers are as various as they might be expected to be, if delivered extemporaneously on two different occasions, without any intention of offering either as a prescribed form of prayer.
3
Βελτιον η
διαφορους
νομιζεσθαι
τας
προσευχας
κοινα τινα
εχουσης
μερη. Περι
ευχης.—Vol. I. p. 227.
4 Non enim
verba, sed res ipsas eos verbis docuit, quibus et
seipsi commonefaceraent a quo, et quid esset orandum cum in
penetralibus, ut dictum, est mentis orarent.—De
Magistro, c. 2. Vol. I. p. 402.
7 De Oratione, c.
1. pp. 129, 130.
8 Quoniam tamen
Dominus, prospector humanarum necessitatum, seorsum post traditam
orandi disciplinam, “petite,” inquit “et
accipietis;” et sunt, quae petantur pro circumstantia
cujusque, praemissa legitima et ordinaria, oratione quasi
fundamento; accidentum jus est desideriorum jus est superstruendi
extrinsecus petitiones.—De Orat. c. 9.
9 Inter cetera
sua salutaria monita et precepta divina, ... etiam orandi ipse
formam dedid, ... publica est nobis et communis
oratio.—De Oratione, pp. 204-206.
10 De Oratione,
c. 21. p. 230.
11 On this whole
subject, Comp. Augusti, Denkwürdigkeiten, Vol. V. S.
88-134.
12 Comp.
Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, I. S. 91-132.
13 Comment. ad
Eph. 4:11. Ambros. Opera, Vol. III.
14 Jam vero
prout Scripturae leguntur, aut psalmi canuntur, aut adlocutiones
proferuntur, aut petitiones delegantur.—De Anima, c.
9.
15 De
Praescriptionibus Haeret. c. 41.
16
Antagonisticus, pp. 340, 341. 1825.
17 Kingdom of
Christ, pp. 82, 83.
18 Kingdom of
Christ, pp. 252, 253.
20 Euseb. Vit.
Constant. Lib. 4. 36.
21 Harum et
aliarum hujusmodi disciplinarum si legem, expostules
scripturarum, nullam invenies. Traditio tibi praetenditur autrix,
consuetudo confirmatrix, fides observatrix.—De Corona
Mil. c. 4.
23 Ep. ad
Cyprian, inter Ep. Cyp. 75, p. 144.
25 Justin
Martyr, by C. Semisch, Vol. I. p. 72. Trans. Ed. 1843.
26 Apol. 1, 61,
65, 67, pp. 71, 82, 83. See above, 168.
28 Comp.
Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen der Kirch. Gebräuche, 1. S.
102, 103.
31 Comp. King,
in the author’s Antiquities, pp. 213-215. Note.
32
Οση
δυναμις, Lib. 6. § 1.
Vol. I. p. 694, so also, κατα
το δυνατον,
§ 12. p. 638.
33
Κατα την
παρουσαν
δυναμιν, Praef. Lib. contr.
Cel.
34
Οση
δυναμις, Contr. Cel. Lib.
3. Vol. I. p. 482.
35 Lib. 6.
§ 2. p. 630. Comp. also in comment. in Math.
οση
δυναμις, Tom. 17.Vol. III.
p. 809,κατα το
δυνατον, Tom. 16. Vol. III.
p. 735, κατα
δυναμιν, Tom. 17. Vol. III. p.
779, also Vol. IV. p. 6. κατα
την
παρουσαν
δυναμιν, Tom. 17. Vol. III. p.
794.
Since writing the above, Clarkson’s
Discourse on Liturgies has fallen under our notice, in which many
other passages are given from Justin, Origen, Chrysostum, Basil,
etc., all illustrating the same use of the phrase, pp. 68-73,
114-121.
36 Basil, De
Ascet., Vol. II. p. 536.
37
ως
δυναται, Origen, Contra
Cels. Lib. 8. c. 37. p. 769.
38 Illuc sursum
suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite
nudo, quia erubescimus; denique sine monitore, quia de pectore
oramus.—Apol. c. 30.
42 Comp. Walch.
De. Hymn. Eccl. Apost. § 20. Münter, Metr. Offenbar.
Pref.
43 Illuc sursum
suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, etc. Tertul. Apol. c.
30. Comp. De Orat. c. 11. Adv. Marcion, c. 23. Clemens. Alex.
Strom. 7.
44 Eus. Vit.
Const. Lib. c. 15.
45 Comp.
Riddle’s Christ. Antiq. p. 370.
46
Αυτην δε
ομολογιαν
της πιστεως
εις πατερα
και υιον
και αγιον
πνευμα εκ
ποιων
γραμματων
εξομεν.—De Spiritu Sancto,
c. 27. p. 57, comp. p. 55.
48 Tract, No.
63, Vol. I. p. 439.
49
Riddle’s Chronology, A.D. 400, A.D. 439.
50 The reader
will find abundant evidence of this ignorance, in the councils of
this age, and in Blondell, Apologia Hieron., pp. 500, 501,
Clarkson, Discourse on Liturgies, pp. 191-197, and Witsius,
Exercitat. De Oratione, § 30, 31, p. 85. In the council of
Ephesus, in the fifth century, Elias signs his name by the hand
of another, because he could not write his name: eo quod
nesciam literas. So, also, Cajumas: propterea quod literas
ignorem.
51 Geschichtsforschungen, der Kirch. Gebräuche, II. S. 120, 121.