CHAPTER XVII.

OF THE USE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN RELIGIOUS WORSHIP.

§ 1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS.'

THE Christian church at first adopted, without essential variation, the Jewish form of worship in the reading of the Scriptures, which, after the Babylonish captivity, constituted an important part of religious service. The books of Moses were divided into fifty-four sections, corresponding to the sabbaths in a year, one being allowed for their intercalated years, in which there might be fifty-four sabbaths. These sections were read successively, one on each sabbath. When a less number of sabbaths occurred in a year, two sections were read together as one on the last sabbath, so that the reading of the whole might be completed every year.

Selections were also made from the historical and prophetical books, which were denominated the prophets. One of these selections was read every sabbath-day in connection with the corresponding portion of the law. This custom originated from the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, who forbade the Jews the reading of their law on the sabbath. They accordingly selected from the prophets certain portions which they read successively, in the place of like portions of the law. And after the persecution, they continued to read both in connection. Paul, at Antioch in Pisidia, stood up to preach after the reading of the law and the prophets. Acts xiii. 15.

The Psalms and other devotional parts of the Scriptures, which with the Jews constituted a third division, were probably not read at all on the sabbath. They were the Psalter of the Jewish synagogue, and were sung or chanted whenever introduced into religious worship.

Justin Martyr is the first who mentions the reading of the Gospels and of the Acts together with the Scriptures of the Old Testament. According to this author, they were read in public assembly

on the sabbath, by a reader appointed for the purpose; and after the reading, an exhortation and exposition was delivered by the minister.

Tertullian also insists upon the reading of the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, as an important part both of public and of private worship.3 He mentions the commentatio literarum divinarum, for the instruction and strengthening of the faithful, as the chief exercise of public worship. In another treatise, the reading of the Scriptures, in connection with the singing of psalms, exhortations, allocutiones, are specified as the several parts of public worship.5

4

Both Tertullian and Cyprian speak of the reader, as an officer in the church, the latter of whom particularly describes the ordination. of two readers to this office."

The Apostolical Constitutions enjoin the reading of the Scriptures as the most important part of public worship. And Origen and Chrysostom insist upon this as the foundation of all correct religious service. To these authorities, again, may be added those of various councils, on the same subject.8

As a general rule, none but the books which were received as canonical were allowed to be read in public worship. The reading of other books in private was recommended for personal edification, but not, like the Scriptures, as being of divine authority. As in different provinces the church was divided in opinion respecting the true character of certain books, so they differed in regard to the propriety of permitting the same to be read in religious worship. The apochryphal books of the Old Testament, and the Antilegomena of the New, were chiefly the subject of dispute. The diligent perusal of the apocryphal books was recommended to catechumens, but their authority was seldom or never allowed in doctrinal discussions. These books were held in higher repute by the church in Africa than by any other.

The controversy relating to the Antilegomena, in a great measure ceased in the fourth century. The authority of the Apocalypse was, however, still controverted; and the churches of Constantinople, Antioch, and others continued to refuse it a place in the sacred canon. Ephraem of Syria, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Leontius of Byzantium, were apparently the first to remove the prejudice against this book."

10

No distinction was made between the books of the Old and New Testament, but both were regarded as of equal authority, and in

religious worship selections from each were read in connection. The selections even in the fourth and fifth century were made by the bishops at pleasure; and on the festivals of the church, particular portions, especially from the New Testament, were read: all which indicates that a uniform order of liturgical worship had not yet been established. While both the Jewish and the Christian sabbath continued to be observed, it was customary on the former occasion to read the Old Testament; and on the latter, the New.12

The controverted portions of Scripture above mentioned, and other religious works, were frequently read in public on certain occasions; such as the Epistles of Peter, the Apocalypse, the Doctrines of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the first epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, the Homilies of the celebrated fathers, Public Symbols and Rules of Faith, and Memoirs of Martyrs and Saints.13

§ 2. OF THE ORDER IN WHICH THE SCRIPTURES WERE READ.

AT first there was no established order for the reading of them. Before the canon of the new Testament was completed, no certain order was practicable. The divisions of the Old Testament by the Jews was not suited to Christian churches. It was accordingly left to the discretion of the bishops to direct the selections to be read, the canons of the church having established the divine authority of the several parts of the New Testament.

Even as late as the fourth and fifth centuries, instances occur of such appointments by the bishop.' In all matters pertaining to the church, usage has a great influence. The traditions of the apostles, and especially usages established by them, were very carefully observed. Every innovation was regarded with jealousy proportionate to the antiquity of the usage which it would supercede.

The canon of the New Testament was only gradually formed, and some time elapsed before it was completed. In the course of the second century, the four Gospels were received by the church in the form in which we now have them. On the contrary, the gospels of the heretics, as they were called, were rejected. At the close of the present period, (A. D. 254,) the Acts of the Apostles, the Thirteen Epistles of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews-which, however, only one part of the church considered as a work of Paul-and lastly, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter, had

been admitted into the canon. With regard to the canonical authority of the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistles of James, Jude, and Second of Peter, and lastly of the Book of Revelation, the opinions were yet for some time divided. On the other hand, some other writings, which are not now considered as forming a part of the canon, viz. the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas, were held by some (especially Clement and Origen) in equal esteem with the Scriptures, and quoted as such.

"The Synod of Laodicea was held about the middle of the fourth century, between the years 360 and 364. In the fifty-ninth canon it was enacted that no uncanonical book should be used in the churches; and in the sixtieth a list was given of the canonical books. In this list, all the Hebrew writings of the Old Testament are received. The canon of the New Testament is the same as ours, except the Book of Revelation, which, however, was considered genuine, in Egypt, by Athanasius and Cyril."

The earliest division of the New Testament was into the Gospels and the Apostles, corresponding to the law and the prophets of the Jewish Scriptures. This division appears in the writings of Tertullian and Irenæus,2 and must, accordingly, have been anterior to their time. The reading was directed according to this division, one lesson from each being read alternately. Between the reading of these, Psalms were sung, or selections from the Old Testament were read. When there was nothing peculiar to direct the reading, the Scriptures were read consecutively, according to their established order; but this order was interrupted on the festivals of the church and other occasions.3 At Easter, the account of the resurrection was read from each of the evangelists successively. The season of Pentecost, from Easter to Whitsuntide, was set apart for the reading of the Acts of the Apostles.5 The Western church connected with this the reading of the Epistles and of the Apocalypse." During Lent, Genesis was read, and, as early as the third century, the Book of Job was read in Passion-week. In a word, though we have no complete order of the lessons read through the year, it is to be presumed that the reading was directed by an established rule and plan, especially on all the principal festivals and solemnities of the church.

At the close of the lesson, the assembly kneeled and prayed for pardon of the sins of which they might have been guilty in the reading; saying, "Lord have mercy upon us." Instead of this

prayer, however, other forms were frequently used; such as, "Thus saith the Lord," etc. The reading at the burial-service was ended with the exclamation, "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord."

§ 3. OF THE MODE OF DESIGNATING THE DIVISIONS AND LESSONS.

IN many manuscripts, these divisions are denoted by certain. marks, like the masoretic notes in the Hebrew Scriptures. These, however, are not to be regarded as of necessity the most ancient divisions, for none of the manuscripts themselves have, in the opinion of critics, a higher antiquity than the fifth and sixth centuries, and most of them are of an origin much later. But it is worthy of remark that the ancient versions, which date back to a much higher antiquity than any manuscripts now extant, and from which, almost without exception, the lessons were read, are also divided in the same manner. Such for example are the divisions of the Syriac Peshito. From all which, it is probable that these divisions were made as early as the second century. According to this method, the New Testament was divided into two kinds of chapters, some longer and some shorter. The divisions, however, were not uniform in the different churches, and were subject to revision from time to time.1

To prevent misunderstanding, it was customary to refer to texts of Scripture by quoting a few words of the passage in question, or by a description of it, thus: As it is said in the parable of the sower,—or, As it is written in the passage relating to the woman that had an issue, etc.

The division into chapters was singularly indiscreet and injudicious, often sadly interrupting the sense and sundering parts of the text, which ought to be closely united in the same paragraph or verse.* This division was the work of Hugo de Sancto Caro, in the thirteenth century. The New Testament was first divided into verses in the edition of Robert Stephens, A. D. 1551.

§ 4. OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SCRIPTURES WERE READ,

AND OF OTHER EXERCISES IN CONNECTION.

CERTAIN portions of the Scripture, as has been already remarked, were sung, others were recited or read. The Psalms were uniformly

* In the last century, an anonymous writer published the following calculation, similar to that of the Masorites, for the English version of the Bible, under the