ascribed to S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria in this century, which has a remarkable resemblance to, and a yet more remarkable departure from, S. Mark, and may very probably be the real edition of that Saint, respecting whom they say that he "perfected the Liturgy of Mark." Peter Gnapheus, or the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch, c. A.D. 471, added certain words to the Trisagion, a Liturgical Hymn.

§ 44. Fourth century. It must not be supposed that we have given all the allusions, &c., by which the early use of the Liturgy is proved. On the contrary, we have restricted ourselves to mentioning two or three facts in the history of each century, which are quite sufficient to prove the point. The evidence for the use of a Liturgy since the year A.D. 300 is superabundant. Before that time, as might be expected, the items are scarcely so numerous. For the practice of the fourth century two points will suffice. 1. S. Cyril of Jerusalem, about the year 348, delivered a series of "Catechetical Lectures" in the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in that city. The concluding Lecture contains an account of the ceremonies of the Holy Eucharist to which his hearers had been lately admitted, and agrees with the Liturgy of S. James as we have it now, with the exception of some known interpolations. 2. The nineteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea (c. A.D. 365) is concerned with the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and makes certain alterations in the Liturgy used at that time in the Exarchate of Ephesus, approximating it to the Constantinopolitan Rite.

That the Liturgy was in use during this century in the West appears from the allusions in the writings of S. Ambrose, Bp. of Milan; in the far East from S. Ephrem Syrus who lived at Edessa. S. Augustine alludes to the Sursum Corda.

We have now traced the Liturgy as far back as the time of the first Emperor who acknowledged Christianity. Before going further it may be well to notice an assertion sometimes made by Protestant writers. Acknowledging, as the weight of the evidence compels them to do, that the Church of this century resembled, at least in its broad features, the Catholic Churches of to-day, they say that in this fourth century the Church became apostate! That the Church, which while it had been oppressed and in hiding had been pure in doctrine, and simplicity itself as regards worship, so soon as it basked in the sunshine of Imperial favour became forthwith corrupt and superstitious in doctrine and introduced forms and ceremonies into its worship. Now, what

effect the public recognition of Christianity had on the Christian Church this is not the place to inquire, but we venture to assert that the Fathers of Nicæa, who had jeoparded their lives in order to defend "the faith once for all delivered to the Saints," and who opposed the tenets of the Arians because they were new, and suffered all kinds of loss rather than surrender the dignity of their Master's Person, were not the persons to introduce novelties into the Christian Faith.

So that if they publicly taught certain doctrines, wrote elaborate treatises in their defence, suffered from Imperial displeasure on their account, hedged them about with "warning clauses;" if, in short, they proclaimed them "whether men would hear or whether they would forbear," and upheld them "through good report and evil report;" then those doctrines were so held and upheld by them, because they formed part of the deposit.

We have made this digression, because statements like these are so commonly put forward in order to nullify and stifle the value of the evidence of the Church of the Fourth Century, which is explicitly Catholic. Before proceeding to the third century, we will state briefly the points established by the evidence already offered.

1. That the use of a Liturgy was well established by the middle of the fourth century.

2. That the local differences by which Liturgies are distinguished were already in existence, while there was a large portion common to all.

3. That the Liturgies used by different Churches were indigenous to those Churches, and that there was no central authority which could impose its Rite on all.

4. That therefore the identity of the type of service in different Churches, and the marvellous agreement between them all, must be ascribed to Apostolic tradition.

§45. Third century. We have already mentioned that the Liturgy of S. Clement, as it is commonly called, is that of the Apostolic Constitutions. It is found in the Eighth Book. The date of the Constitutions is not, perhaps, absolutely certain, but they are certainly early. Palmer, among others, places them at the end of the third, or beginning of the fourth century. As however the Liturgy is undoubtedly older than the Constitutions, we may safely assert that it represents at least the tradition of the early part of the third century. We may also point out that it is not open to the charge of interpolation, since

it is a literary fragment, and not, so far as we know, the Liturgy actually employed by any Church.

S. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, c. A.D. 252, alludes to the Sursum Corda, the Commemoration of the Living and Departed, &c. There are also allusions in the writings of Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, Origen, Firmilian, &c.

§ 46. Second century. S. Justin Martyr, about the year A.D. 139, addressed his First Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius. In it he gives an account of the mode of celebrating the Holy Eucharist employed by the Church at that time. It has no less than nine points of agreement with the Liturgy given in the Apostolic Constitutions, viz., 1. Lections from Old and New Testaments, 2. Sermon, 3. Prayer for all estates of men, 4. Kiss of Peace, 5. Oblation of the Elements, 6. Thanksgiving (very long), 7. Consecration, 8. Intercession, the people responding " Amen ;" 9. Communion. To which may perhaps be added that S. Justin appears to hint at a penitential discipline like that which we find developed in the Clementine; and that while S. Justin mentions that the Eucharist was conveyed to the absent, the Liturgy directs that after Communion the Deacons are to "take up that which is over and carry them into the Sacristy," probably, though no mention is made of the circumstance, for the same reason.

In the latter part of this century S. Irenæus and Tertullian wrote. The former alludes very precisely to the Invocation of the HOLY GHOST; the latter to the Preface, &c.

We have now traced very hastily, and necessarily very imperfectly, the external historical evidence for the ancient use of a Liturgy. But we are not left to external evidence alone. A great deal of information can be gathered from the Liturgies themselves; oftentimes more reliable than the scanty notices or veiled references contained in the writings of those who used them. One example will show this. The Prayer said before the Little Entrance in S. Mark's Liturgy, alluding to the sending forth of the Apostles, says that our LORD breathed "into their faces." The passage is taken from S. John xx. 22, 23, but no Greek MS. contains such an expression. It does occur however in two Egyptian versions which were made about the second century from Greek originals, and which bear a high character for fidelity. As it dropped out of the Greek MSS. before the fourth century, it is inferred that the particular prayer in which it occurs is earlier than the fourth century.

But before we proceed to deal with the evidence of extreme antiquity which the Liturgies themselves afford, it will not be amiss to see how much we are already in a position to assume. We think it embraces

1. That the Eastern Liturgies had assumed their present form by the middle of the third century, and that manifest interpolations or additions do not vitiate this fact.

2. That at least certain portions of these, and of the Roman, date from the second century.

3. That the germ of the Liturgy, if not something more, is contained in S. Justin Martyr's Apology, A.D. 139.

4. That the outline of the Liturgy is Apostolic.

5. That the earliest known Liturgies are modifications of the primeval structure; while certain portions, as e.g. the Preface, Great Eucharistic Prayer, &c., may date from the Apostolic Age, and, possibly, embody Apostolic language.

We will now note some points in the Liturgies which are indicative of, or not inconsistent with, a claim to high antiquity.

§ 47. Marks of Antiquity in the Liturgies themselves.

The second Introductory Prayer in the Liturgy of S. Mark, that for the King, asks GOD to grant "that he may be peaceably disposed towards us and towards Thy holy Name." This clearly points to a period when persecution was still likely. Dr. Neale's opinion is that it was written " before the beginning of the great Tenth Persecution, during which it would have been differently worded, and after which it would have been inappropriate." The possibility of persecution is also implied in other places.

The Prayer of the (Little) Entrance, as we have already pointed out, quotes a passage which was dropped out of the Greek New Testament before the fourth century.

The Prayer of the Offertory speaks of the chalices. In the Invocation GoD is asked "to send down on these loaves, and on these cups," His HOLY GHOST. This to our thinking points to a high, nay, the highest antiquity, and is quite in keeping with the custom which would, and did, obtain in Apostolic times, of all receiving, and which would necessitate more than one chalice. It is significant that neither the Coptic Liturgies of S. Cyril and S. Basil, nor the Ethiopic Canon, retain the expression, but speak of "this bread" and "this cup."

In the Great Intercession, the proselyte is mentioned after the widow

VOL. XIX.

and orphan. Neale thinks the word is used in the Jewish sense, and that it fixes the date of the Intercession "to a period . . . prior to the destruction of Jerusalem." The passage may, however, only mean stranger, and be an allusion to Deut. x. 18.

A later part of the same Prayer runs thus: "Remember, O LORD, the holy city of CHRIST our GOD, and the reigning city, and this our city." The decided superiority assigned to Jerusalem is very remarkable, when the subordination of Alexandria to Rome is considered, and suggests very strongly that this portion of the Liturgy belongs to a most remote period. It appears to be altered in the Coptic Liturgies of SS. Basil and Cyril, nor can we find it in the Ethiopic Canon.

Turning to the Liturgy of James, we find the following very remarkable rubric respecting the Lections and Sermon, "Then are read consecutively (or at very great length') the sacred oracles of the Old Testament and the Prophets; and the Incarnation of the Son of Man, His Sufferings and Resurrection from the dead, His Ascension into Heaven, and His Second Coming with glory, are set forth. And this is done every day (kao' èkáσтηv) in the holy and Divine Service. And after the reading and teaching, the Deacon says," (here follows the Ektene.) The omission of a Lesson from the New Testament, and the general character of the language, are suggestive of the very earliest times. The Syriac S. James has no lesson from the Old Testament, (a Psalm is sung,) and has the Epistle and Gospel. A comparison of this Rubric with that in the Clementine (which certainly represents the tradition of the third, or even of the second century) would seem to establish the greater antiquity of this former. "And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, and our Epistles and Acts, and the Gospels, let him that hath been elected salute the Church. . . . And after this, let him address to the people words of exhortation." Here there is an express mention of the Gospels. This is not inconsistent with the practice of the Sub-Apostolic Church, since the Gospels are mentioned in S. Justin Martyr's Apology, (c. A.D. 139;) but the absence of mention of such a point as this in S. James points to a still earlier period, i.e. to the Apostolic.

In the Recital of Institution this Liturgy has a very remarkable insertion : Taking bread . . . He gave thanks, and hallowed, and brake, and gave to us His Apostles and Disciples. Likewise also the cup after supper having taken. . . He gave thanks . . . and gave it to us, His Disciples." Dr. Littledale remarks upon it that "it seems