THE LIBERTY OF THE BISHOP TO IMPROVISE PRAYER

IN THE EUCHARIST

BY

R. P. C. HANSON

The earliest clear indication that in the eucharist of the early church the bishop was at liberty to improvise in making the long

prayer (later to be called the anaphora) after the offerings of bread and wine had been brought to him is perhaps to be found in

Justin Martyr's First Apology (67.5). Here, in his description of

the normal Sunday eucharist, Justin says: xat o n?OOea?cc'vs evxàç

dpolmq xat 8?XaetcrTt"ag, ja?7 &vva,ucS dvans'/17r8t, xat o Aa6;

"nev,T?7,usi ?,?ycvv TO Here the phrase 5a?7 8vva,ucs

suggests that the contents and expression of the prayer of the

"president" (who is clearly the bishop) are determined by his

ability. Next, Irenaeus in his Adversus ilaereses (1.7.2) tells us that in his juggling pseudo-eucharist the heretic Marcus ?zo?c?jeca

olvcp x8x?a,uEVa az?oQ?cocov,usvos BVxa(!lC1TÛV, xat ènt E'x-rst'V(OV Toy ?oyov rqq This suggests that the celebrant could

decide the length of the great prayer, unless Marcus arrogated to

himself the right of improvising prayer as well as the right of

producing faked miracles during the eucharist. Not much later

Tertullian says that Christians pray manibus expansis, quia innocuis,

cczpite nudo, quia non erubescimus, denique 8i%e monitore, quia de

pectore oramus ("with hands outstretched because they are innocent, with head uncovered, because we are not ashamed, finally without

a prompter because we pray from the heart"). In official ceremonies

of the Roman religion, a prompter would be employed on public occasions to ensure that the proper formulae were correctly repeated. Tertullian is speaking of praying for the Emperor, and

it seems likely that he is referring to Christian public prayer, i.e.

the celebration of the eucharist, because nobody could imagine that a monitor would be required in private prayer (A pologeticus 30.4). The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus provides very clear

evidence on this point (ed. and tr. G. Dix, 10.4, 5). It tells us:

174

"It is not altbgether necessary for him (i.e. the bishop) to recite

the very same words which we gave before as though studying to

say them by heart (O'.7ro' Qz?j6ovs) in his thanksgiving to God, but

let each one pray according to his own ability. If indeed he is able

to pray suitably with a grand and elevated prayer, this is a good

thing. But if on the other hand he should pray and recite a prayer

according to a fixed form, no one should prevent him. Only let

his prayer be correct and right

Perhaps thirty years later Origen gives us a particularly inter-

esting piece of evidence. In the Conversation with Herczcleides, which

is the report by an eyewitness of a conference between Origen and

some bishops in a town in Arabia, about the year 246, Origen is

reported as describing the right formula for making the offering to God in the eucharist: del 7TeOaTOea' yt'vETat (9eCo ?c?To?pdTopt 61d Ir¡aov Xetar:ov, c`vs 7re0alpo'eOV iiu ]7aTet' Ti¡V OEO'T77Ta a6TOID'

eeip OEOV" Trpooyopd ?ty6<r9co. TOAU71eo'V 1£yew,

evxóp,BVOt E?u,uEVECV Taiç crvv6?jxacs? èàv p,i¡ ybr¡Tat, o'

7leóawnov àvOew7loV ov'bs' 9av,uaoecs nodaco7rov 6VV a 'ATOV (Lev. 19.15). The text then becomes so corrupt as to be incapable of restoration

(ed. J. Scherer, pp. 126 and 128). But it is clear enough that

Origen is pleading with the bishops present, whose eccentric, if

not heretical, views, had caused Origen's presence at the conference, not to introduce their own peculiar ideas into the prayer which

they make at the eucharist. It is also clear that there were

"conventions" (u£v0qxai ) which the bishop was expected, but was

not compelled, to use in composing his prayer About ten years later, in his De Unitate Ecclesiae (17), Cyprian

denounces schismatics in general and Novatianists in particular because among them the bishop constituere azcdet aliud altare,

precem alteram ;.?licitis vocibus f acere, dominicae hostiae veritatem

per falsa 8acrificid profanare. Prex with Cyprian very often means

the anaphora prayer. Illicitis vocibus is not likely to mean that the

schismatic introduces improvised prayer where fixed liturgical

prayer was proper, but rather it suggests that he introduces into

his prayer as he celebrates his own peculiar views. The letter of

Firmilian, bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea, to Cyprian, a Latin

translation of which appears as no. 75 among the letters of Cyprian,

gives interesting details about a woman in his part of the world

175

who, under the influence of Montanism, made herself a church

leader and even celebrated the eucharist. She was so daring, says Firmilian, ut et invocatione non contemptibili aanctificare se panem et eucharistiam facere simularet et sacriflcium Domino non sine

8acramento solitae praedicationis oOerret, baptizaret quoque multos

usitata et legitima verba interrogationis u8urpan8, ut nihil discrepere ab ecclesiastica regula aideretur (Letter 75.10.5). It seems likely that invocatione non contemptibili refers to the bishop's prayer of

the anaphora, and that this woman could compose a prayer whose

style and content were not discreditable. 8acramentum solitae

pro.edicdtionis then would refer to the homily; and ecclesiastica

reMa would refer, not to the church's rule of faith, but to the

church's custom in baptizing. It is remarkable to find here that

the rite which by this time possesses a complete liturgy is the rite

of baptism, - not of the eucharist (usitata et legitima verba might be translated "customary and orthodox words"). Another letter

of Cyprian's (70.2.1) in discussing the ceremony of function after

baptism uses the phrase creatzcram olei, which suggests the archaic

or elevated language of a fragment of liturgy; it is therefore not

unlikely that a fixed form for administering baptism did exist by the middle of the third century..

"

Finally Dionysius of Alexandria supplies us with a small piece of evidence which may be relevant. In his Examination and Defence written against the imputation of heresy made against him by

Dionysius of Rome, he describes how he ends his prayer in the

eucharist: "In consistency with all these arguments we also, having of course received a formula and rule from the men of old before

us, harmoniously with them, when we end our eucharistic prayer

?poo?optOTOt?Tc? – and here we are formally instructing you - terminate it: To God the Father, and to the Son our Lord Jesus

Christ, with the Holy Spirit, glory and power for ever and ever.

Amen" (Remains b Dionysius of Alexandria, ed. C. L. Feltoe,

p. 198 (Examincation and De f ence 14), quoted from Basil De Spiritu Sancto 29 (73)). The fact that Dionysius emphasizes that he ends

his prayer with a fixed formula may perhaps imply that the rest

of the prayer is not fixed. The ending is perhaps among the

"conventions".

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that at latest from the

176

middle of the second century, and no doubt from the very beginning too, till at earliest the middle of the third century, and

probably till a much later date than that, the celebrant at the

eucharist was at liberty to compose his own anaphora prayer if he

liked, though the Teference from Hippolytus' Apostoli(, Tradition

makes it clear that, at any rate in the third century, he could

use a fixed form if he chose. But if he improvised, he was expected to "keep the conventions". There was a conventional structure

for this prayer. We may guess that this structure included most

of the subjects which later became essential parts of the anaphora, mention of the creation, the redemption, the resurrection and

ascension, and a rehearsal of the words of institution. The early church, in fact, seems to have for a time worked out an attractive

compromise between the use of free prayer and the use of fixed

forms of prayer. This liberty of the bishop to improvise may also, in part at

least, account for the relative scarcity of copies of ancient liturgies. The earliest complete liturgy which survices is the so-called

Clementine Liturgy in the Apostolic Constitutions, which dates from

the second half of the fourth century. Many liturgical fragments and isolated forms dating from an earlier period can be found, but

no complete liturgy. The reason may well be that before the fourth

century there were no complete liturgies, or almost none. Where

it is perfectly legitimate for the celebrant to abandon fixed forms

and, within discreet limits, improvise his own prayer at the most

important part of the service, there is not much point in laboriously

compiling copies of complete liturgies which can be no more than

hypothetical or permissive.

Nottingham, University of Nottingham