4th of Kings, the 1st and 2d of the Paralipomena, the 1st and 2d of Ezra [i. e. Ezra and Nehemiah], the book of 150 Pslams, The Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the Book of the 12 Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations and Epistles, Ezekiel, Daniel. And these of the New Testament ; The four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the seven Catholic Epistles, that is, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude ; the fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


CANON XIV. 1. Eulogiæ.] A practice appears to have prevailed in the Primitive Church, of Bishops occasionally sending part of the consecrated elements of the Eucharist to the Bishops of foreign and far distant Churches, for the purpose of testifying their communion with them, as Irenæus, in his Epistle to Victor, Bishop of Rome (ap. Euseb. Hist. lib. v. c. 24.), mentions. Va. lesius and others observe the same in the acts of Lucian the Martyr, and in the Epistle of Paulinus to Severus. This was chiefly, if not solely, done at the Paschal festival, in token of their unity, love, and charity. The Council of Laodicea, however, for some inconveniences attending the practice, absolutely forbade it in this Canon, yet the custom continued in some places for several ages after. When this custom was left off, another was introduced in some places, of sending portions of bread which had been blessed with a different form from that of the Eucharist, and which were called Eulogiæ, consecrated bread, and by the modern Greeks, vicarious gifts, dvridwpa. It is, perhaps, to such gifts that the

Council alludes in the 32d and 37th Canons, where it forbids them to be received from heretics. Bingham, b. xv. c. 4. s. 8.

XVIII. 1. Nones and Vespers.] These were two of the canonical hours of prayer, as they are called, in the Ancient Church, respecting the introduction and observance of which in the public service of the Church, as well as in the private devotions of individuals, and of the various monastic bodies, there are considerable diversities of opinion amongst the learned. Those who wish for information upon the subject may consult Bingham, b. xiii. c. 9. 8. 8., and Palmer's Origines Liturgicæ, vol. i. p. 201, with the authorities referred to in both places.

XIX. For a full account and explanation of all the particulars in this Canon, see Bingham, b. xv.

XXII. 1. Orarium.] The orarium was a scarf or tippet, to be worn upon the shoulders, and might be used by Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, but not by Subdeacons, or any of the inferior orders. The third Council of Braga orders Priests to wear the orarium on both shoulders when they ministered at the Altar. Deacons wore it on the left shoulder only. The word orarium has had various derivations assigned to it, but the most probable. one is from os, oris, the face, and it originally signified a handkerchief to wipe the face, in which sense it is sometimes used by Ambrose and Augustin, as well as by some of the old Roman authors. It is frequently mentioned as a peculiar ornament of the Clergy, but the exact form of it is not known. See Bev. in Can. and Bingham, b. xiii. c. 8. s. 7. By the word Minister in this and other Canons is to be understood a Subdeacon; in the Greek it is impéans.

XLV. 1. Lent.] The ordinary times for public baptism in the Ancient Church were Easter and Pentecost, or rather the whole space of time from Easter to Pentecost inclusive. This Canon, therefore, requires candidates for Baptism to give in their names at the latest in the second week of Lent, that there might be time for the necessary instruction and preparation.

XLIX. 1. Lord's day only.] It is not meant by this Canon that there should be no Communion during Lent excepting on the Sabbath and Lord's day, but only that there should be no consecration of the elements on the other day, on which the com

municants were to partake of the remains of what had been con. secrated on the preceding Saturday or Sunday. This was, therefore, commonly called, as by the Council of Trullo, Can. 52. « The Liturgy of the pre-sanctified gifts.” See Bingham, b. xv. C. 4. s. 12


The collection of Canons commonly called Apostolical is certainly of very great antiquity, though there have been various differences of opinion amongst the learned respecting the date of the collection, the authors of it, and the authority of the Canons contained in it. As regards the date, Turrianus and others would have it that the Canons are the genuine enactments of the Apostles. Daille and others, on the other hand, maintain, that they are the composition of some impostor towards the end of the fifth century. Beveridge, however, in the preface to his annotations upon them in his Synodicon, and more fully in the vindication of his opinion in his Codex Canon. Eccl. Prim. vindicatus et illustratus), shows clearly that both these opinions are equally untenable, and that in all probability they are a collection of Canons enacted in different Synods about the close of the second century, and early part of the third ; that the collection was made soon after that time in its present form, though since interpolated in parts, but that it cannot be ascertained by whom they were collected. This opinion is now generally acquiesced in by the learned. With respect to the authority of the different Canons, some persons are disposed to consider the first fifty as of more

authority than the remainder, and Beveridge himself does not seem to be decidedly against this opinion. There does not however seem to be any sufficient foundation for it. It appears to have originated in the circumstance of the first fifty only having been translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus, and inserted in his collection of Canons about A. D. 500, which collection was used in the Latin Church. The whole eighty-five exist in the contemporary collection of John of Antioch, and were acknowledged and approved as ancient and authoritative by Justinian, who began to reign A. D. 526; and they are received and commented upon by all the Greek writers and commentators without any distinction. There is no apparent break or dissimilarity of style between the two portions ; but what is the most conclusive proof of their unity is, that the references to the Canons both by Fathers and Councils, are made as distinctly and unhesitatingly to the Canons in the latter part of the collection as in the former. Neither does there appear to be any reason for suspecting that the collection or edition of Canons, as we have it, was made by Arians or other heretics. On the contrary, the circumstance of the Arians, in the Council of Antioch, having formed their own Canons upon these, and under cover of them made their attack upon Athanasius and Paul, is a strong argument of their previous reputation and authority in the Church.

. Those who wish to examine the subject more fully will do well to read Beveridge's vindication of them, mentioned above. There is a short but clear summary of the argument in favor of their antiquity, with some excellent remarks upon the illustrations which they contain of the principles and practices of the Primitive Church, in Mr. Newman's Church of the Fathers, chap

« ElőzőTovább »