and the very anthems of χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη and ἄξιόν ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς are found in the printed copies and MSS. of Chrysostom's liturgy in the same position". There is no trace in any of the liturgies of the Nestorians, or the Monophysites, of any anthem like these; and as we cannot assign any reason why they should have omitted such an anthem, if they had ever used it, we must conclude that these anthems were not used by the eastern churches before the council of Chalcedon, for otherwise we should have met with them in the liturgies of the Monophysites. When these anthems were first used I cannot precisely say. But it certainly is probable that they were devised at Constantinople, since I find that the orthodox churches of Alexandria and Jerusalem both adopted them, and it is more probable that both followed the rite of Constantinople in this respect, than that either originated a custom which was adopted by the church of Constantinople and the other. Fifthly, the anthem ó μovoyevns viòs is sung before the hymn Tersanctus, as it is in the Constantinopolitan liturgy a. Sixthly, one of the MSS. published by Asseman contains a prayer taken from Basil's liturgy; and the other manuscript, whose various readings he has given, also includes the same prayer which likewise occurs in the liturgy of Chrysostoms.

It appears, therefore, that the orthodox of Jerusalem and Palestine did not hesitate to introduce into their own liturgy of St. James several rites and prayers, with or without acknowledgment, from the

z Goar Rituale Græc. p. 78. p.6. Goar Rituale Græc.p.101. b Asseman, p. 74. Goar 163.

103.

liturgies of Constantinople. The first MS. of St. James's liturgy, published by Asseman, enables us to determine the text as it was in the tenth century. It was before this time that the alterations or additions which I have described took place. However, besides the prayers and rites which are in this way accounted for, a large number of others remain, (especially in the introduction of St. James's Greek Liturgy,) which we must refer to the orthodox patriarchs of Jerusalem, between the fifth and tenth centuries, as it is impossible to trace them to a more remote antiquity, and they do not appear in the liturgy of any other church.

These remarks will, I trust, be thought sufficient to shew, that the Greek liturgy of St. James, as now extant, is to be regarded as the old liturgy of the Melchites, or orthodox of the church of Jerusalem and the neighbourhood, some time before the tenth century; and that this liturgy had received many additions from the rites of the church of Constantinople before that time.

Having endeavoured to give a clear idea of the view which we are to take of the liturgy of St. James as now extant, I defer for the present any consideration of the question, whether St. James is to be considered as the originator of this liturgy, for this question will more properly be discussed when I have traced the substance of St. James's liturgy to a period antecedent to the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.

If it appears that the Monophysites and the orthodox, who held no communion from the period of that council, nevertheless had liturgies which were both ascribed to St. James, and which in order, sub

stance, and expressions, were almost exactly the same; we have reason to think that they were derived from the same original, namely, from the liturgy used by all the Christians of Antioch and Jerusalem before the division.

Let us, then, proceed to compare the Monophysite with the orthodox liturgy of St. James. I have observed that the introduction of the Monophysite liturgy is uncertain as regards its text, and that it bears no marks of antiquity. I have also remarked that the introduction of the orthodox liturgy was interpolated from the Greek rite, and some other source, before the tenth century. Omitting, therefore, any comparison of the introductions of these two liturgies, I will compare their Anaphora, or solemn offices, the text of which is well ascertained, and is generally free from interpolations.

These liturgies begin the Anaphora with the benediction, "The love of God, the grace of the "Son, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be “with you all." Then follow the address," Sur

66

sum Corda," &c. and a preface or thanksgiving; then the hymn "Tersanctus," followed by a continuation of thanksgiving; then a commemoration of our Saviour's deeds and words at the last supper, a verbal oblation, and a prayer for the Holy Ghost to sanctify the elements into the sacraments of Christ's body and blood. Whoever compares these parts of the orthodox and Monophysite liturgies together, will be surprised at their minute agreement in sentiments and expressions, when he considers the centuries that have elapsed since the d Liturgia Jacobi Syriacè Liturgia Jacobi Græcè AsseRenaudot, tom. ii. p. 30-34. man, tom. v. p. 32—41.

separation of the orthodox and the Monophysites. After this, the solema prayers for all estates of men and for all things succeed. The order of these prayers is a little different in these two liturgies, but their substance and the words of the petitions generally agree. And it may be remarked, that such prayers as these appear to have been arranged differently in many of the eastern liturgies, being regarded as an accessory part of the liturgy, and admitting of a variety which would have been regarded as unsafe, if it had been introduced into the essential parts of the office. The difference between these prayers, as to expressions, is chiefly caused by a greater fulness and variety of epithet in one than in the other.

After the prayers and commemorations follow a salutation, and a bidding prayer by the deaconf. Then a collect introductory to the Lord's Prayer; then the Lord's Prayer and a benediction. After this comes the form of address, τὰ ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις, the bread is broken with some rites which are not probably of any primitive antiquity, and communion takes place. After which come a prayer of thanksgiving, and a benediction of the people'. The or

thodox liturgy gives these last forms at greater length than the Monophysite.

Whoever compares these venerable monuments will not fail to perceive a great and striking resemblance throughout. He will readily acknowledge their derivation from one common source; and will

* Renaudot, p. 34-38. Asseman, p. 41-48.

f Ibid. p. 38, 39. Asseman, p. 48. 49.

* Ibid. p. 39, 40. Asseman,

P. 49-52.

h Ibid. p. 40-42. Asseman, P. 53-58.

i Ibid. p. 42. Asseman, p. 60-63.

admit that they furnish sufficient means for ascertaining all the substance, and many of the expressions, which were used in the solemn Anaphora of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, before the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.

I have already remarked, that the title of St. James's liturgy is older than the council of Chalcedon; and we may reasonably infer, that the liturgy which bore this title generally in the fifth century, must have been considered at that time to be very ancient; and therefore must really have been long used in the church. Let us, then, advance another step, and inquire whether the Christian writers of the patriarchate of Antioch enable us to trace back the substance and order of St. James's liturgy to a more remote period. In the early part of the fifth century lived Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in the northern part of the patriarchate of Antioch. In a letter to Joannes Economus he speaks of the apostolical benediction, "The grace of our Lord Jesus "Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of "the Holy Spirit be with you all;" and adds, "this "is the beginning of the mystical liturgy in all "churches." When we refer to the Monophysite and orthodox liturgies of St. James, we find both beginning the mystical liturgy, or Anaphora, with this very benedictionk.

Shortly before, probably about the end of the fourth century, Jerome, who also lived within the

j Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν κ. τ. λ. —τοῦτο δὲ ἐν πάσαις ταις ἐκκλησίαις τῆς μυστικῆς ἐστι λειτουργίας προοίμιον. Theodoret. Epist. Joanni Economo, tom.

Paris. 1642.

k Liturgia Jacobi Syr. Renaudot, tom. ii. p. 30. Lit. Jac. Græc. Asseman, tom. v. P. 32.