Liturgy

LITURGY

Denotes all the ceremonies in general belonging to divine service. The word comes from the Greek “service, public ministry, ” formed of “public, ” and “work.” In a more restrained signification, liturgy is used among the Romanists to signify the mass, and among us the common prayer. All who have written on liturgies agree, that, in primitive days, divine service was exceedingly simple, clogged with a very few ceremonies, and consisted of but a small number of prayers; but, by degrees, they increased the number of ceremonies, and added new prayers, to make the office look more awful and venerable to the people. At length, things were carried to such a pitch, that a regulation became necessary; and it was found necessary to put the service and the manner of performing it into writing, and this was what they called a liturgy. Liturgies have been different at different times and in different countries. We have the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, of St. Peter, the Armenian liturgy, Gallican liturgy, &c.&c. “

The properties required in a public liturgy, ” says Paley, “are these: it must be compendious; express just conceptions of the divine attributes; recite such wants as a congregation are likely to feel, and no other; and contain as few controverted propositions as possible.” The liturgy of the church of England was composed in the year 1547, and established in the second year of king Edward VI. In the fifth year of this king it was reviewed, because some things were contained in that liturgy which shewed a compliance with the superstition of those times, and some exceptions were taken against it by some learned men at home, and by Calvin abroad. Some alterations were made in it, which consisted in adding the general confession and absolution, and the communion to begin with the ten commandments. The use of oil in confirmation and extreme unction was left out, and also prayers for souls departed, and what related to a belief of Christ’s real presence in the eucharist. This liturgy, so reformed, was established by this acts of the 5th and 6th Edward VI. cap. 1. However, it was abolished by queen Mary, who enacted, that the service should stand as it was most commonly used in the last year of the reign of king Henry VIII.

That of Edward VI. was re-established, with some alterations, by Elizabeth. Some farther alterations were introduced, in consequence of the review of the common prayer book, by order of king James, in the first year of his reign, particularly in the office of private baptism, in several rubrics, and other passages, with the addition of five or six new prayers and thanksgivings, and all that part of the catechism which contains the doctrine of the sacraments. The book of common prayer, so altered, remained in force from the first year of king James to the fourteenth of Charles II. The last review of the liturgy was in the year 1661. Many supplications have been since made for a review, but without success. Bingham’s Orig. Eccl. b. 13; Broughton’s Dict. Bennett, Robinson, and Clarkson, on Liturg. passim; A Letter to a Dissenting Minister on the Expediency of Forms, and Brekell’s Answer; Rogers’s Lectures on the Liturgy of the Church of England; Biddulph’s Essays on the Liturgy: Orton’s Letters, vol. 1: p. 16-24.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

liturgy

(Greek: leitos, public; ergon, work)

A public service or duty. Among the ancient Greeks it designated the duty of an individual to provide, at his own expense, for public games held on religious festivals, to outfit ships for the benefit of the state, etc. In Scripture it is applied to the religious duty to be performed by priests and Levites in the Temple, especially in connection with the Sacrifice. In Christian use it has two senses: in the Eastern Churches it has almost always designated the Eucharistic Sacrifice alone; in the Western Church it designates either the Mass alone, with its accompanying prayers and ceremonies, or the whole collection of official services used in public worship. In this last sense it is equivalent to rite and may be defined as the exercise of public worship according to Church regulation. It comprises then, all those prayers, ceremonies, and functions prescribed by the Church for use in all services performed by an official minister in her name. It includes the celebration of Mass, the administration of the Sacraments (and Sacramentals), the recitation of the Divine Office, and all other functions such as processions and benedictions. It excludes devotions of a private nature such as the recitation of the Rosary.

The origin of Liturgy is to be found in the institution by Christ of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacraments, as well as in His example and precepts concerning the necessity and mode of prayer. While Christ laid down the essentials, He left the development of details to His Church, who carries out this task under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Liturgy has not been the same at all times in the past, nor is it the same everywhere today. Four distinct types are discernible, Antiochene, Alexandrine, Gallican, and Roman, each branching into various derived liturgies, illustrating the ability of the Church, the jealous guardian of the essential elements, to accommodate her public worship, in nonessentials, to circumstances of time, place, and peoples.

The prayer of the Liturgy is admirably adapted to express the fundamental relations that exist between Creator and creature, considering the latter both as an individual and a member of society. Liturgy gives expression in an approved way to the adoration due to God as the Creator and Lord of all, to the thanksgiving due Him for the benefits received. In a more perfect way than is ordinarily possible in private prayers it sends up to God the cry of the human heart for grace and favor, and renders to Him propitiation for sin. In it the interior dispositions of the soul of the Church are beautifully and efficaciously manifested in forms at once approved for their purity of faith and dignified by antiquity. Every act of the Liturgy has its symbolical meaning; there is the spirit of adoration and humility in the genuflections and bows, the spirit of supplication and exultation in the elevation of hands, the spirit of Christian unity in the salutations of the priest to the people, as in Orate Fratres. The vestments used mark out the wearer as the representative of the great High Priest, Christ; their fine texture indicates the solemnity of the occasion, the various colors, white, red, green, violet, and black, signify purity and joy, charity, hope, penance, and mourning respectively. Nothing is vain in the Liturgy, every prayer, action, cere. mony, utensil, and vestment is expressive of some interior virtue possessed by the Mystical Body of Christ, to be striven for by the individual members.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Liturgy

The various Christian liturgies are described each under its own name. (See ALEXANDRINE LITURGY; AMBROSIAN LITURGY; ANTIOCHENE LITURGY; CELTIC RITE; Clementine Liturgy, treated in CLEMENT I; RITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE; GALLICAN RITE; LITURGY OF JERUSALEM; MOZARABIC RITE; SARUM RITE; SYRIAN RITE; SYRO-JACOBITE LITURGY.) In this article they are considered only from the point of view of their relation to one another in the most general sense, and an account is given of what is known about the growth of a fixed liturgy as such in the early Church.

I. DEFINITION

Liturgy (leitourgia) is a Greek composite word meaning originally a public duty, a service to the state undertaken by a citizen. Its elements are leitos (from leos = laos, people) meaning public, and ergo (obsolete in the present stem, used in future erxo, etc.), to do. From this we have leitourgos, “a man who performs a public duty”, “a public servant”, often used as equivalent to the Roman lictor; then leitourgeo, “to do such a duty”, leitourgema, its performance, and leitourgia, the public duty itself. At Athens the leitourgia was the public service performed by the wealthier citizens at their own expense, such as the office of gymnasiarch, who superintended the gymnasium, that of choregus, who paid the singers of a chorus in the theatre, that of the hestiator, who gave a banquet to his tribe, of the trierarchus, who provided a warship for the state. The meaning of the word liturgy is then extended to cover any general service of a public kind. In the Septuagint it (and the verb leitourgeo) is used for the public service of the temple (e. g., Exodus 38:27; 39:12, etc.). Thence it comes to have a religious sense as the function of the priests, the ritual service of the temple (e. g., Joel, i, 9; ii, 17, etc.). In the New Testament this religious meaning has become definitely established. In Luke, i, 23, Zachary goes home when “the days of his liturgy” (ai hemerai tes leitourgias autou) are over. In Heb., viii, 6, the high priest of the New Law “has obtained a better liturgy”, that is a better kind of public religious service than that of the Temple.

So in Christian use liturgy meant the public official service of the Church, that corresponded to the official service of the Temple in the Old Law. We must now distinguish two senses in which the word was and is still commonly used. These two senses often lead to confusion. On the one hand, liturgy often means the whole complex of official services, all the rites, ceremonies, prayers, and sacraments of the Church, as opposed to private devotions. In this sense we speak of the arrangement of all these services in certain set forms (including the canonical hours, administration of sacraments, etc.), used officially by any local church, as the liturgy of such a church — the Liturgy of Antioch, the Roman Liturgy, and so on. So liturgy means rite; we speak indifferently of the Byzantine Rite or the Byzantine Liturgy. In the same sense we distinguish the official services from others by calling them liturgical; those services are liturgical which are contained in any of the official books (see LITURGICAL BOOKS) of a rite. In the Roman Church, for instance, Compline is a liturgical service, the Rosary is not. The other sense of the word liturgy, now the common one in all Eastern Churches, restricts it to the chief official service only — the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, which in our rite we call the Mass. This is now practically the only sense in which leitourgia is used in Greek, or in its derived forms (e. g., Arabic al-liturgiah) by any Eastern Christian. When a Greek speaks of the “Holy Liturgy” he means only the Eucharistic Service. For the sake of clearness it is perhaps better for us too to keep the word to this sense, at any rate in speaking of Eastern ecclesiastical matters; for instance, not to speak of the Byzantine canonical hours as liturgical services. Even in Western Rites the word “official” or “canonical” will do as well as “liturgical” in the general sense, so that we too may use Liturgy only for the Holy Eucharist. It should be noted also that, whereas we may speak of our Mass quite correctly as the Liturgy, we should never use the word Mass for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in any Eastern rite. Mass (missa) is the name for that service in the Latin Rites only. It has never been used either in Latin or Greek for any Eastern rite. Their word, corresponding exactly to our Mass, is Liturgy. The Byzantine Liturgy is the service that corresponds to our Roman Mass; to call it the Byzantine (or, worse still, the Greek) Mass is as wrong as naming any other of their services after ours, as calling their Hesperinos Vespers, or their Orthros Lauds. When people go even as far as calling their books and vestments after ours, saying Missal when they mean Euchologion, alb when they mean sticharion, the confusion becomes hopeless.

II. THE ORIGIN OF THE LITURGY

At the outset of this discussion we are confronted by three of the most difficult questions of Christian archæology, namely: From what date was there a fixed and regulated service such as we can describe as a formal Liturgy? How far was this service uniform in various Churches? How far are we able to reconstruct its forms and arrangement?

With regard to the first question it must be said that an Apostolic Liturgy in the sense of an arrangement of prayers and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the Mass, did not exist. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed by the officiating bishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with no idea of ritual, but simply because they had to he done for convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard, hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actions ceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out of the dress of the first Christians. It follows then of course that, when there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the different Churches.

And yet the whole series of actions and prayers did not depend solely on the improvisation of the celebrating bishop. Whereas at one time scholars were inclined to conceive the services of the first Christians as vague and undefined, recent research shows us a very striking uniformity in certain salient elements of the service at a very early date. The tendency among students now is to admit something very like a regulated Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental outline of the rite of the Holy Eucharist was given by the account of the Last Supper. What our Lord had done then, that same thing He told His followers to do in memory of Him. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the celebrant had not at least done as our Lord did the night before He died. So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus of a Liturgy: bread and wine are brought to the celebrant in vessels (a plate and a cup); he puts them on a table — the altar; standing before it in the natural attitude of prayer he takes them in his hands, gives thanks, as our Lord had done, says again the words of institution, breaks the Bread and gives the consecrated Bread and Wine to the people in communion. The absence of the words of institution in the Nestorian Rite is no argument against the universality of this order. It is a rite that developed quite late; the parent liturgy has the words.

But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms, prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of the synagogue. So we have everywhere this double function; first a synagogue service Christianized, in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung, prayers said by the bishop in the name of all (the people answering “Amen” in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), and homilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by the bishop or priests, just as they had been made in the synagogues by the learned men and elders (e. g., Luke 4:16-27). This is what was known afterwards as the Liturgy of the Catechumens. Then followed the Eucharist, at which only the baptized were present. Two other elements of the service in the earliest time soon disappeared. One was the Love-feast (agape) that came just before the Eucharist; the other was the spiritual exercises, in which people were moved by the Holy Ghost to prophesy, speak in divers tongues, heal the sick by prayer, and so on. This function — to which I Cor., xiv, 1-14, and the Didache, x, 7, etc., refer — obviously opened the way to disorders; from the second century it gradually disappears. The Eucharistic Agape seems to have disappeared at about the same time. The other two functions remained joined, and still exist in the liturgies of all rites. In them the service crystallized into more or less set forms from the beginning. In the first half the alternation of lessons, psalms, collects, and homilies leaves little room for variety. For obvious reasons a lesson from a Gospel was read last, in the place of honour as the fulfilment of all the others; it was preceded by other readings whose number, order, and arrangement varied considerably (see LESSONS IN THE LITURGY). A chant of some kind would very soon accompany the entrance of the clergy and the beginning of the service. We also hear very soon of litanies of intercession said by one person to each clause of which the people answer with some short formula (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY; ALEXANDRINE LITURGY; KYRIE ELEISON). The place and number of the homilies would also vary for a long time. It is in the second part of the service, the Eucharist itself, that we find a very striking crystallization of the forms, and a uniformity even in the first or second century that goes far beyond the mere nucleus described above.

Already in the New Testament — apart from the account of the Last Supper — there are some indexes that point to liturgical forms. There were already readings from the Sacred Books (1 Timothy 4:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; Colossians 4:16), there were sermons (Act., xx, 7), psalms and hymns (1 Corinthians 14:26; Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19). I Tim., ii, 1-3, implies public liturgical prayers for all classes of people. People lifted up their hands at prayers (1 Timothy 2:8), men with uncovered heads (1 Corinthians 11:4), women covered (ibid., 5). There was a kiss of peace (1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians V, 26). There was an offertory of goods for the poor (Romans 15:26; 2 Corinthians 9:13) called by the special name “communion” (koinonia). The people answered “Amen” after prayers (1 Corinthians 14:16). The word Eucharist has already a technical meaning (ibid.). The famous passage, I Cor., xi, 20-9, gives us the outline of the breaking of bread and thanksgiving (Eucharist) that followed the earlier part of the service. Heb., xiii, 10 (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-21), shows that to the first Christians the table of the Eucharist was an altar. After the consecration prayers followed (Acts 2:42). St. Paul “breaks bread” (= the consecration), then communicates, then preaches (Acts 20:11). Acts, ii, 42, gives us an idea of the liturgical Synaxis in order: They “persevere in the teaching of the Apostles” (this implies the readings and homilies), “communicate in the breaking of bread” (consecration and communion) and “in prayers”. So we have already in the New Testament all the essential elements that we find later in the organized liturgies: lessons, psalms, hymns, sermons, prayers, consecration, communion. (For all this see F. Probst: “Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderte”, Tübingen, 1870, c. i; and the texts collected in Cabrol and Leclercq; “Monumenta ecclesiæ liturgica”, I, Paris, 1900, pp. 1-51.) It has been thought that there are in the New Testament even actual formulæ used in the liturgy. The Amen is certainly one. St. Paul’s insistence on the form “For ever and ever, Amen” (eis tous aionas ton aionon amen. — Romans 16:27; Galatians 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:17; cf. Hebrews 13:21; 1 Peter 1:11; 5:11; Revelation 1:6, etc.) seems to argue that it is a liturgical form well known to the Christians whom he addresses, as it was to the Jews. There are other short hymns (Romans 13:11-2; Ephesians 5:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:11-3), which may well be liturgical formulæ.

In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual. But this must be understood. There was certainly no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules. In the first place, no one who speaks continually on the same subjects says new things each time, Modern sermons and modern extempore prayers show how easily a speaker falls into set forms, how constantly he repeats what come to be, at least for him, fixed formulæ. Moreover, the dialogue form of prayer that we find in use in the earliest monuments necessarily supposes some constant arrangement. The people answer and echo what the celebrant and the deacons say with suitable exclamations. They could not do so unless they heard more or less the same prayers each time. They heard from the altar such phrases as: “The Lord be with you”, or “Lift up your hearts”, and it was because they recognized these forms, had heard them often before, that they could answer at once in the way expected.

We find too very early that certain general themes are constant. For instance our Lord had given thanks just before He spoke the words of institution. So it was understood that every celebrant began the prayer of consecration — the Eucharistic prayer — by thanking God for His various mercies. So we find always what we still have in our modern prefaces — a prayer thanking God for certain favours and graces, that are named, just where that preface comes, shortly before the consecration (Justin, “Apol.,” I, xiii, lxv). An intercession for all kinds of people also occurs very early, as we see from references to it (e. g., Justin, “Apol.,” I, xiv, lxv). In this prayer the various classes of people would naturally be named in more or less the same order. A profession of faith would almost inevitably open that part of the service in which only the faithful were allowed to take part (Justin, “Apol.”, I, xiii, lxi). It could not have been long before the archtype of all Christian prayer — the Our Father — was said publicly in the Liturgy. The moments at which these various prayers were said would very soon become fixed, The people expected them at certain points, there was no reason for changing their order, on the contrary to do so would disturb the faithful. One knows too how strong conservative instinct is in any religion, especially in one that, like Christianity, has always looked back with unbounded reverence to the golden age of the first Fathers. So we must conceive the Liturgy of the first two centuries as made up of somewhat free improvisations on fixed themes in a definite order; and we realize too how naturally under these circumstances the very words used would be repeated — at first no doubt only the salient clauses — till they became fixed forms. The ritual, certainly of the simplest kind, would become stereotyped even more easily. The things that had to be done, the bringing up of the bread and wine, the collection of alms and so on, even more than the prayers, would be done always at the same point. A change here would be even more disturbing than a change in the order of the prayers.

A last consideration to be noted is the tendency of new Churches to imitate the customs of the older ones. Each new Christian community was formed by joining itself to the bond already formed. The new converts received their first missionaries, their faith and ideas from a mother Church. These missionaries would naturally celebrate the rites as they had seen them done, or as they had done them themselves in the mother Church. And their converts would imitate them, carry on the same tradition. Intercourse between the local Churches would further accentuate this uniformity among people who were very keenly conscious of forming one body with one Faith, one Baptism, and one Eucharist. It is not then surprising that the allusions to the Liturgy in the first Fathers of various countries, when compared show us a homogeneous rite at any rate in its main outlines, a constant type of service, though it was subject to certain local modifications. It would not be surprising if from this common early Liturgy one uniform type had evolved for the whole Catholic world. We know that that is not the case. The more or less fluid ritual of the first two centuries crystallized into different liturgies in East and West; difference of language, the insistence on one point in one place, the greater importance given to another feature elsewhere, brought about our various rites. But there is an obvious unity underlying all the old rites that goes back to the earliest age. The medieval idea that all are derived from one parent rite is not so absurd, if we remember that the parent was not a written or stereotyped Liturgy, but rather a general type of service.

III. THE LITURGY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES

For the first period we have of course no complete description. We must reconstruct what we can from the allusions to the Holy Eucharist in the Apostolic Fathers and apologists. Justin Martyr alone gives us a fairly complete outline of the rite that he knew. The Eucharist described in the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” (most authorities now put the date of this work at the end of the first century) in some ways lies apart from the general development. We have here still the free “prophesying” (x, 7), the Eucharist is still joined to the Agape (x, 1), the reference to the actual consecration is vague. The likeness between the prayers of thanksgiving (ix-x) and the Jewish forms for blessing bread and wine on the Sabbath (given in the “Berakoth” treatise of the Talmud; cf. Sabatier, “La Didache”, Paris, 1885, p. 99) points obviously to derivation from them. It has been suggested that the rite here described is not our Eucharist at all; others (Paul Drews) think that it is a private Eucharist distinct from the official public rite. On the other hand, it seems clear from the whole account in chapters ix and x that we have here a real Eucharist, and the existence of private celebrations remains to be proved. The most natural explanation is certainly that of a Eucharist of a very archaic nature, not fully described. At any rate we have these liturgical points from the book. The “Our Father” is a recognized formula: it is to be said three times every day (viii, 2-3). The Liturgy is a eucharist and a sacrifice to be celebrated by breaking bread and giving thanks on the “Lord’s Day” by people who have confessed their sins (xiv, 1). Only the baptized are admitted to it (ix, 5). The wine is mentioned first, then the broken bread; each has a formula of giving thanks to God for His revelation in Christ with the conclusion: “To thee be glory forever” (ix, 1, 4). There follows a thanksgiving for various benefits; the creation and our sanctification by Christ are named (x, 1-4); then comes a prayer for the Church ending with the form: “Maranatha. Amen”; in it occurs the form: “Hosanna to the God of David” (x, 5-6).

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written probably between 90 and 100) contains an abundance of liturgical matter, much more than is apparent at the first glance. That the long prayer in chapters lix-lxi is a magnificent example of the kind of prayers said in the liturgy of the first century has always been admitted (e. g., Duchesne, “Origines du Culte”, 49-51); that the letter, especially in this part, is full of liturgical forms is also evident. The writer quotes the Sanctus (Holy, holy, holy Lord of Sabaoth; all creation is full of his glory) from Is., vi, 3, and adds that “we assembled in unity cry (this) as with one mouth” (xxxiv, 7). The end of the long prayer is a doxology invoking Christ and finishing with the form: “now and for generations of generations and for ages of ages. Amen” (lxi, 3). This too is certainly a liturgical formula. There are many others. But we can find more in I Clem. than merely a promiscuous selection of formulæ. A comparison of the text with the first known Liturgy actually written down, that of the “Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions” (written long afterwards, in the fifth century in Syria) reveals a most startling likeness. Not only do the same ideas occur in the same order, but there are whole passages — just those that in I Clem have most the appearance of liturgical formulæ — that recur word for word in the “Apost. Const.”

In the “Apost. Const.” the Eucharistic prayer begins, as in all liturgies, with the dialogue: “Lift up your hearts”, etc. Then, beginning: “It is truly meet and just”, comes a long thanksgiving for various benefits corresponding to what we call the preface. Here occurs a detailed description of the first benefit we owe to God — the creation. The various things created — the heavens and earth, sun, moon and stars, fire and sea, and so on, are enumerated at length (“Apost. Const.”, VIII, xii, 6-27). The prayer ends with the Sanctus. I Clem., xx, contains a prayer echoing the same ideas exactly, in which the very same words constantly occur. The order in which the creatures are mentioned is the same. Again “Apost. Const.”, VIII, xii, 27, introduces the Sanctus in the same way as I Clem., xxxiv, 5-6, where the author actually says he is quoting the Liturgy. This same preface in “Apost. Const.” (loc. cit.), remembering the Patriarchs of the Old Law, names Abel, Cain, Seth, Henoch, Noe, Sodom, Lot, Abraham, Melchisedech, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Josue. The parallel passage in I Clem. (ix xii) names Enoch, Noe, Lot, Sodom, Abraham, Rahab, Josue: we may note at once two other parallels to this list containing again almost the same list of names — Heb., xi, 4-31, and Justin, “Dialogue”, xix, cxi, cxxxi, cxxxviii. The long prayer in I Clem. (lix-lxi) is full of ideas and actual phrases that come again in “Apost. Const.”, VIII. Compare for instance I Clem., lix, 2-4, with “Apost. Const.”, VIII, X, 22-xi, 5 (which is part of the celebrant’s prayer during the litany of the faithful: Brightman, “Eastern Liturgies”, p. 12), and xiii, 10 (prayer during the litany that follows the great intercession. Brightman, p. 24). Other no less striking parallels may be seen in Drews, “Untersuchungen über die sogen. clement. Liturgie,” 14-43. It is not only with the Liturgy of “Apost. Const.” that I Clem. has these extraordinary resemblances. I Clem., lix, 4, echoes exactly the clauses of the celebrant’s prayer during the intercession in the Alexandrine Rite (Greek St. Mark. Brightman, 131). These parallel passages cannot all be mere coincidences (Lightfoot realized this, but suggests no explanation.”The Apostolic Fathers”, London, 1890, I, II, p. 71).

The question then occurs: What is the relation between I Clement and — in the first place — the Liturgy of”Apost. Const.”? The suggestion that first presents itself is that the later document (“Apost. Const.”) is quoting the earlier one (I Clem.). This is Harnack’s view (” Gesch. der altchristl. Litteratur”, I, Leipzig, 1893, pp. 42-43), but it is exceedingly unlikely. In that case the quotations would be more exact, the order of I Clem. would be kept; the prayers in the Liturgy have no appearance of being quotations or conscious compositions of fragments from earlier books; nor, if the “Apost. Const.” were quoting I Clem., would there be reduplications such as we have seen above (VIII, xi, 22-xi, 5, and xiii, 10). Years ago Ferdinand Probst spent a great part of his life in trying to prove that the Liturgy of the “Apostolic Constitutions” was the universal primitive Liturgy of the whole Church. To this endeavour he applied an enormous amount of erudition. In his “Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte” (Tübingen, 1870) and again in his “Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform” (Münster, 1893), he examined a vast number of texts of Fathers, always with a view to find in them allusions to the Liturgy in question. But he overdid his identifications hopelessly. He sees an allusion in every text that vaguely refers to a subject named in the Liturgy. Also his books are very involved and difficult to study. So Probst’s theory fell almost entirely into discredit. His ubiquitous Liturgy was remembered only as the monomania of a very learned man; the rite of the “Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions” was put in what seemed to be its right place, merely as an early form of the Antiochene Liturgy (so Duchesne, “Origines du Culte”, 55-6). Lately, however, there has come again to the fore what may be described as a modified form of Probst’s theory. Ferdinand Kattenbusch (“Das apostolische Symbol”, Tübingen, 1900, II, 347, etc.) thought that after all there might be some foundation for Probst’s idea. Paul Drews (Untersuchungen über die sogen. clementinische Liturgie, Tübingen, 1906) proposes and defends at length what may well be the germ of truth in Probst, namely that there was a certain uniformity of type in the earliest Liturgy in the sense described above, not a uniformity of detail, but one of general outline, of the ideas expressed in the various parts of the service, with a strong tendency to uniformity in certain salient expressions that recurred constantly and became insensibly liturgical formulæ. This type of liturgy (rather than a fixed rite) may be traced back even to the first century. It is seen in Clement of Rome, Justin, etc.; perhaps there are traces of it even in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And of this type we still have a specimen in the “Apostolic Constitutions”. It is not that that rite exactly as it is in the “Constitutions” was used by Clement and Justin. Rather the “Constitutions” give us a much later (fifth century) form of the old Liturgy written down at last in Syria after it had existed for centuries in a more fluid state as an oral tradition. Thus, Clement, writing to the Corinthians (that the letter was actually composed by the Bishop of Rome, as Dionysius of Corinth says in the second century, is now generally admitted. Cf. Bardenhewer, “Gesch. der altkirchl. Litteratur”, Freiburg, 1902, 101-2), uses the language to which he was accustomed in the Liturgy; the letter is full of liturgical ideas and reminiscences. They are found again in the later crystallization of the same rite in the “Apostolic Constitutions”. So that book gives us the best representation of the Liturgy as used in Rome in the first two centuries.

This is confirmed by the next witness, Justin Martyr. Justin (d. about 164), in his famous account of the Liturgy, describes it as he saw it at Rome (Bardenhewer, op. cit., 206). The often quoted passage is (I Apology): LXV. 1.”We lead him who believes and is joined to us, after we have thus baptized him, to those who are called the brethren, where they gather together to say prayers in common for ourselves, and for him who has been enlightened, and for all who are everywhere. . . . 2. We greet each other with a kiss when the prayers are finished. 3. Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren, and he having received them sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of his Son and the Holy Ghost, and makes a long thanksgiving that we have been made worthy of these things by him; when these prayers and thanksgivings are ended all the people present cry ‘Amen’. . . . 5. And when the president has given thanks (eucharistesantos, already a technical name for the Eucharist) and all the people have answered, those whom we call deacons give the bread and wine and water for which the ‘thanksgiving’ (Eucharist) has been made to be tasted by those who are present, and they carry them to those that are absent. LXVI. This food is called by us the Eucharist” (the well-known passage about the Real Presence follows, with the quotation of the words of Institution). LXVII. 3 “On the day which is called that of the Sun a reunion is made of all those who dwell in the cities and fields; and the commentaries of the Apostles and writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. 4. Then, when the reader has done, the president admonishes us in a speech and excites us to copy these glorious things. 5. Then we all rise and say prayers and, as we have said above, when we have done praying bread is brought up and wine and water; and the president sends up prayers with thanksgiving for the men, and the people acclaim, saying ‘Amen’, and a share of the Eucharist is given to each and is sent to those absent by the deacons.”

This is by far the most complete account of the Eucharistic Service we have from the first three centuries. It will be seen at once that what is described in chapter lxvii precedes the rite of lxv. In lxvii Justin begins his account of the Liturgy and repeats in its place what he had already said above.

Putting it all together we have this scheme of the service: 1. Lessons (lxvii, 3). 2. Sermon by the bishop (lxvii, 4). 3. Prayers for all people (lxvii, 5; lxv, 1). 4. Kiss of peace (lxv, 2). 5. Offertory of bread and wine and water brought up by the deacons (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3). 6. Thanksgiving-prayer by the bishop (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3). 7. Consecration by the words of institution (? lxv, 5; lxvi, 2-3). 8. Intercession for the people (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3). 9. The people end this prayer with Amen. (lxvii, 5; lxv, 3). 10. Communion (lxvii, 5; lxv 5).

This is exactly the order of the Liturgy in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (Brightman, “Eastern Liturgies”, 3-4, 9-12, 13, 14-21, 21-3, 25). Moreover, as in the case of I Clement, there are many passages and phrases in Justin that suggest parallel ones in the “Apost. Const.” — not so much in Justin’s account of the Liturgy (though here too Drews sees such parallels, op. cit., 58-9) as in other works in which Justin, like Clement, may be supposed to be echoing well-known liturgical phrases. Drews prints many such passages side by side with the corresponding ones of the “Apost. Const.”, from which comparison he concludes that Justin knows a dismissal of the catechumens (cf.”I Apol.”, xlix, 5; xiv, 1;xxv, 2,with “Apost.Const.”, VIII, vi, 8; x, 2) and of the Energumens (Dial., xxx; cf.”Apost. Const.”, VIII, vii, 2) corresponding to that in the Liturgy in question. From “I Apol.”, lxv, 1; xvii, 3; xiv, 3; deduces a prayer for all kinds of men (made by the community) of the type of that prayer in “Apost. Const.”, VIII, x.”I Apol.”, xiii, 1-3, lxv, 3; v, 2,and Dial., xli, lxx, cxvii, give us the elements of a preface exactly on the lines of that in “Apost. Const.”‚VIII, xii, 6-27 (see these texts in parallel columns in Drews, “op. cit.”, 59-91).

We have, then, in Clement and Justin the picture of a Liturgy at least remarkably like that of the “Apostolic Constitutions”. Drews adds as striking parallels from Hippolytus (d. 235), “Contra Noetum”, etc. (op. cit., 95-107) and Novatian (third cent.) “De Trinitate” (ibid., 107-22), both Romans, and thinks that this same type of liturgy continues in the known Roman Rite (122-66). That the Liturgy of the “Apostolic Constitutions” as it stands is Antiochene, and is closely connected with the Rite of Jerusalem, is certain. It would seem, then, that it represents one form of a vaguer type of rite that was in its main outline uniform in the first three centuries. The other references to the Liturgy in the first age (Ignatius of Antioch, died about 107, “Eph.”, xiii, xx, “Phil.”, iv, “Rom.”, vii, “Smyrn.”, vii, viii; Irenæus, died 202, “Adv. hær.”, IV, xvii, xviii; V, ii, Clement of Alexandria, died about 215, “Pæd.”, I, vi; II, ii, in P. G., VIII, 301, 410; Origen, d.254, “Contra Cels.”, VIII, xxxiii, “Hom. xix in Lev.”, xviii, 13; “In Matt.”, xi, 14; “In Ioh.”, xiii, 30) repeat the same ideas that we have seen in Clement and Justin, but add little to the picture presented by them (see Cabrol and Leclercq, “Mon. Eccles. Liturg.”, I, passim).

IV. THE PARENT RITES, FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY

From about the fourth century our knowledge of the Liturgy increases enormously. We are no longer dependent on casual references to it: we have definite rites fully developed. The more or less uniform type of Liturgy used everywhere before crystallized into four parent rites from which all others are derived. The four are the old Liturgies of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Gaul. Each is described in a special article. It will be enough here to trace an outline of their general evolution.

The development of these liturgies is very like what happens in the case of languages. From a general uniformity a number of local rites arise with characteristic differences. Then one of these local rites, because of the importance of the place that uses it, spreads, is copied by the cities around, drives out its rivals, and becomes at last the one rite used throughout a more or less extended area. We have then a movement from vague uniformity to diversity and then a return to exact uniformity. Except for the Gallican Rite the reason of the final survival of these liturgies is evident. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the old patriarchal cities. As the other bishops accepted the jurisdiction of these three patriarchs, so did they imitate their services. The Liturgy, as it crystallized in these centres, became the type for the other Churches of their patriarchates. Only Gaul and north-west Europe generally, though part of the Roman Patriarchate, kept its own rite till the seventh and eighth centuries.

Alexandria and Antioch are the starting-points of the two original Eastern rites. The earliest form of the Antiochene Rite is that of the “Apostolic Constitutions” written down in the early fifth century. From what we have said it seems that this rite has best preserved the type of the primitive use. From it is derived the Rite of Jerusalem (till the Council of Chalcedon, 451, Jerusalem was in the Antiochene Patriarchate), which then returned to Antioch and became that of the patriarchate (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY and JERUSALEM, LITURGY of). We have this liturgy (called after St. James) in Greek (Brightman, “Eastern Liturgies”, 31-68) and in Syriac (ibid., 69-110). The Alexandrine Rite differs chiefly in the place of the great intercession (see ALEXANDRINE LITURGY). This too exists in Greek (Brightman, 113-43) and the language of the country, in this case Coptic (ibid., 144-88). In both cases the original form was certainly Greek, but in both the present Greek forms have been considerably influenced by the later Rite of Constantinople. A reconstruction of the original Greek is possible by removing the Byzantine additions and changes, and comparing the Greek and Syriac or Coptic forms. Both these liturgies have given rise to numerous derived forms. The Roman Rite is thought by Duchesne to be connected with Alexandria, the Gallican with Antioch (Origines du Culte, p. 54). But, from what has been said, it seems more correct to connect the Roman Rite with that of Antioch. Besides its derivation from the type represented by the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions there are reasons for supposing a further influence of the Liturgy of St. James at Rome (see CANON OF THE MASS, and Drews, “Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons in der römischen Messe”, Tübingen, 1902). The Gallican Rite is certainly Syrian in its origin. There are also very striking parallels between Antioch and Alexandria, in spite of their different arrangements. It may well be, then, that all four rites are to be considered as modifications of that most ancient use, best preserved at Antioch; so we should reduce Duchesne’s two sources to one, and restore to a great extent Probst’s theory of one original rite — that of the “Apostolic Constitutions”.

In any case the old Roman Rite is not exactly that now used. Our Roman Missal has received considerable additions from Gallican sources. The original rite was simpler, more austere, had practically no ritual beyond the most necessary actions (see Bishop, “The Genius of the Roman Rite” in “Essays on Ceremonial”, edited by Vernon Staley, London, 1904, pp. 283-307). It may be said that our present Roman Liturgy contains all the old nucleus, has lost nothing, but has additional Gallican elements. The original rite may be in part deduced from references to it as early as the fifth century (“Letters of Gelasius I” in Thiel, “Epistolæ Rom. Pontificum”, I, cdlxxxvi, “Innocent I to Decennius of Eugubium”, written in 416, in P. L., XX, 551; Pseudo-Ambrose, “De Sacramentis”, IV, 5, etc.); it is represented by the Leonine and Gelasian “Sacramentaries”, and by the old part of the Gregorian book (see LITURGICAL Books). The Roman Rite was used throughout Central and Southern Italy. The African use was a variant of that of Rome (see Cabrol, “Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne”, s. v. Afrique, Liturgie postnicéenne). In the West, however, the principle that rite should follow patriarchate did not obtain till about the eighth century. The pope was Patriarch of all Western (Latin) Europe, yet the greater part of the West did not use the Roman Rite. The North of Italy whose centre was Milan, Gaul, Germany, Spain, Britain, and Ireland had their own Liturgies. These Liturgies are all modifications of a common type; they may all be classed together as forms of what is known as the Gallican Rite. Where did that rite come from? It is obviously Eastern in its origin: its whole construction has the most remarkable conformity to the Antiochene type, a conformity extending in many parts to the actual text (compare the Milanese litany of intercession quoted by Duchesne, “Origines du Culte”, p. 189, with the corresponding litany in the Antiochene Liturgy; Brightman, pp. 44-5). It used to be said that the Gallican Rite came from Ephesus, brought by the founders of the Church of Lyons, and from Lyons spread throughout North-Western Europe. This theory cannot be maintained. It was not brought to the West till its parent rite was fully developed, had already evolved a complicated ceremonial, such as is inconceivable at the time when the Church of Lyons was founded (second century). It must have been imported about the fourth century, at which time Lyons had lost all importance. Mgr Duchesne therefore suggests Milan as the centre from which it radiated, and the Cappadocian Bishop of Milan, Auxentius (355-74), as the man who introduced this Eastern Rite to the West (Origines du Culte, 86-9). In spreading over Western Europe the rite naturally was modified in various Churches. When we speak of the Gallican Rite we mean a type of liturgy rather than a stereotyped service.

The Milanese Rite still exists, though in the course of time it has become considerably romanized. For Gaul we have the description in two letters of St. Germanus of Paris (d. 576), used by Duchesne “Origines du Culte”, ch. vii: La Messe Gallicane. Original text in P. L., LXXII). Spain kept the Gallican Rite longest; the Mozarabic Liturgy still used at Toledo and Salamanca represents the Spanish use. The British and Irish Liturgies, of which not much is known, were apparently Gallican too (see F. E. Warren, “The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church”, Oxford, 1881; Bäumer, “Das Stowe Missale” in the “Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. theol.”, 1892; and Bannister, “Journal of Theological Studies”, Oct., 1903). From Lindisfarne the Gallican Use spread among the Northern English converted by Irish monks in the sixth and seventh centuries.

V. THE DERIVED LITURGIES

From these four types — of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and the so-called Gallican Rite — all liturgies still used are derived. This does not mean that the actual liturgies we still have under those names are the parents; once more we must conceive the sources as vaguer, they are rather types subject always to local modification, but represented to us now in one form, such as, for instance, the Greek St. James or the Greek St. Mark Liturgy. The Antiochene type, apparently the most archaic, has been also the most prolific of daughter liturgies. Antioch first absorbed the Rite of Jerusalem (St. James), itself derived from the primitive Antiochene use shown in the “Apostolic Constitutions” ( see JERUSALEM, LITURGY OF). In this form it was used throughout the patriarchate till about the thirteenth century (see ANTIOCHENE LITURGY). A local modification was the Use of Cappadocia. About the fourth century the great Byzantine Rite was derived from this (see CONSTANTINOPLE, RITE OF). The Armenian Rite is derived from an early stage of that of Byzantium. The Nestorian Rite is also Antiochene in its origin, whether derived directly from Antioch, or Edessa, or from Byzantium at an early stage. The Liturgy of Malabar is Nestorian. The Maronite Use is that of Antioch considerably romanized. The other Eastern parent rite, of Alexandria, produced the numerous Coptic Liturgies and those of the daughter Church of Abyssinia.

In the West the later history of the Liturgy is that of the gradual supplanting of the Gallican by the Roman, which, however, became considerably gallicanized in the process. Since about the sixth century conformity with Rome becomes an ideal in most Western Churches. The old Roman Use is represented by the “Gelasian Sacramentary”. This book came to Gaul in the sixth century, possibly by way of Arles and through the influence of St. Cæsarius of Arles (d. 542-cf. Bäumer, “Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelas.” in the “Histor. Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft”, 1893, 241-301). It then spread throughout Gaul and received Gallican modifications. In some parts it completely supplanted the old Gallican books. Charles the Great (768-814) was anxious for uniformity throughout his kingdom in the Roman use only. He therefore procured from Pope Adrian I (772-795) a copy of the “Roman Sacramentary”. The book sent by the pope was a later form of the Roman Rite (the “Sacramentarium Gregorianum”). Charles imposed this book on all the clergy of his kingdom. But it was not easy to carry out his orders. The people were attached to their own customs. So someone (possibly Alcuin — cf. Bäumer, loc. cit.) added to Adrian’s book a supplement containing selections from both the older Gelasian book and the original Gallican sources. This composition became then the service-book of the Frankish Kingdom and eventually, as we shall see, the Liturgy of the whole Roman Church.

In Spain Bishop Profuturus of Braga wrote in 538 to Pope Vigilius (537-55) asking his advice about certain liturgical matters. The pope’s answer (in Jaffé, “Regest. Rom. Pont.”, no. 907) shows the first influence of the Roman Rite in Spain. In 561 the national Synod of Braga imposed Vigilius’s ritual on all the kingdom of the Suevi. From this time we have the “mixed” Rite (Roman and Gallican) of Spain. Later, when the Visigoths had conquered the Suevi (577-584), the Church of Toledo rejected the Roman elements and insisted on uniformity in the pure Gallican Rite. Nevertheless Roman additions were made later; eventually all Spain accepted the Roman Rite (in the eleventh century) except the one corner, at Toledo and Salamanca, where the mixed (Mozarabic) Rite is still used. The great Church of Milan, apparently the starting-point of the whole Gallican Use, was able to resist the influence of the Roman Liturgy. But here too, in later centuries the local rite became considerably romanized (St. Charles Borromeo, died 1584), so that the present Milanese (Ambrosian) use is only a shadow of the old Gallican Liturgy. In Britain St. Augustine of Canterbury (597-605) naturally brought with him the Roman Liturgy. It received a new impetus from St. Theodore of Canterbury when he came from Rome (668), and gradually drove out the Gallican Use of Lindisfarne.

The English Church was very definitely Roman in its Liturgy. There was even a great enthusiasm for the rite of the mother Church. So Alcuin writes to Eanbald of York in 796: “Let your clergy not fail to study the Roman order; so that, imitating the Head of the Churches of Christ, they may receive the blessing of Peter, prince of the Apostles, whom our Lord Jesus Christ made the chief of his flock”; and again: “Have you not plenty of books written according to the Roman use?” (quoted in Cabrol, “L’Angleterre terre chrétienne avant les Normans”, Paris, 1909, p. 297). Before the Conquest the Roman service-books in England received a few Gallican additions from the old rite of the country (op. cit., 297-298)

So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical. Mr. Edmund Bishop says that its characteristics were “essentially soberness and sense” (” The Genius of the Roman Rite”, p. 307; see the whole essay). Once these additions were accepted at Rome they became part of the (new) Roman Rite and were used as part of that rite everywhere.

When was the older simpler use so enriched? We have two extreme dates. The additions were not made in the eighth century when Pope Adrian sent his “Gregorian Sacramentary” to Charlemagne. The original part of that book (in Muratori’s edition; “Liturgia romana vetus”, II, Venice, 1748) contains still the old Roman Mass. They were made by the eleventh century, as is shown by the “Missale Romanum Lateranense” of that time, edited by Azevedo (Rome, 1752). Dom Suitbert Bäumer suggests that the additions made to Adrian’s book (by Alcuin) in the Frankish Kingdom came back to Rome (after they had become mixed up with the original book) under the influence of the successors of Charlemagne, and there supplanted the older pure form (Ueber das sogen. Sacr. Gelas., ibid.).

VI. LATER MEDIEVAL LITURGIES

We have now arrived at the present state of things. It remains to say a word about the various medieval uses the nature of which has often been misunderstood. Everyone has heard of the old English uses — Sarum, Ebor, etc. People have sometimes tried to set them up in opposition to what they call the “modern” Roman Rite, as witnesses that in some way England was not “Roman” before the Reformation. This idea shows an astonishing ignorance of the rites in question. These medieval uses are in no sense really independent rites . To compare them with the Gallican or Eastern Liturgies is absurd. They are simply cases of what was common all over Europe in the later Middle Ages, namely slight (often very slight) local modifications of the parent Rite of Rome. As there were Sarum and Ebor, so there were Paris, Rouen, Lyons, Cologne, Trier Rites. All these are simply Roman, with a few local peculiarities. They had their own saints’ days, a trifling variety in the Calendar, some extra Epistles, Gospels, sequences, prefaces, certain local (generally more exuberant) details of ritual. In such insignificant details as the sequence of liturgical colours there was diversity in almost every diocese. No doubt, some rites (as the Dominican use, that of Lyons, etc.) have rather more Gallican additions than our normal Roman Liturgy. But the essence of all these late rites, all the parts that really matter (the arrangement, Canon of the Mass and so on) are simply Roman. Indeed they do not differ from the parent rite enough to be called derived properly. Here again the parallel case of languages will make the situation clear. There are really derived languages that are no longer the same language as their source. Italian is derived from Latin, and Italian is not Latin. On the other hand, there are dialectic modifications that do not go far enough to make a derived language. No one would describe the modern Roman dialect as a language derived from Italian; it is simply Italian, with a few slight local modifications. In the same way, there are really new liturgies derived from the old ones. The Byzantine Rite is derived from that of Antioch and is a different rite. But Sarum, Paris, Trier, etc. are simply the Roman Rite, with a few local modifications.

Hence the justification of the abolition of nearly all these local varieties in the sixteenth century. However jealous one may be for the really independent liturgies, however much one would regret to see the abolition of the venerable old rites that share the allegiance of Christendom (an abolition by the way that is not in the least likely ever to take place), at any rate these medieval developments have no special claim to our sympathy. They were only exuberant inflations of the more austere ritual that had better not have been touched. Churches that use the Roman Rite had better use it in a pure form; where the same rite exists at least there uniformity is a reasonable ideal. To conceive these late developments as old compared with the original Roman Liturgy that has now again taken their place, is absurd. It was the novelties that Pius V abolished; his reform was a return to antiquity. In 1570 Pius V published his revised and restored Roman Missal that was to be the only form for all Churches that use the Roman Rite. The restoration of this Missal was on the whole undoubtedly successful; it was all in the direction of eliminating the later inflations, farced Kyries and Glorias, exuberant sequences, and ceremonial that was sometimes almost grotesque. In imposing it the pope made an exception for other uses that had been in possession for at least two centuries. This privilege was not used consistently. Many local uses that had a prescription of at least that time gave way to the authentic Roman Rite; but it saved the Missals of some Churches (Lyons, for instance) and of some religious orders (the Dominicans, Carmelites, Carthusians). What is much more important is that the pope’s exception saved the two remnants of a really independent Rite at Milan and Toledo. Later, in the nineteenth century, there was again a movement in favour of uniformity that abolished a number of surviving local customs in France and Germany, though these affected the Breviary more than the Missal. We are now witnessing a similar movement for uniformity in plainsong (the Vatican edition). The Monastic Rite (used by the Benedictines and Cistercians) is also Roman in its origin. The differences between it and the normal Roman Rite affect chiefly the Divine Office.

VII. TABLE OF LITURGIES

We are now able to draw up a table of all the real liturgies used throughout the Christian world. The various Protestant Prayerbooks, Agendæ, Communion-services, and so on, have of course no place in this scheme, because they all break away altogether from the continuity of liturgical development; they are merely compilations of random selections from any of the old rites imbedded in new structures made by various Reformers.

In the First Three Centuries: —

A fluid rite founded on the account of the Last Supper, combined with a Christianized synagogue service showing, however, a certain uniformity of type and gradually crystallizing into set forms. Of this type we have perhaps a specimen in the Liturgy of the second and eighth books of the “Apostolic Constitutions”.

Since the Fourth Century: —

The original indetermined rite forms into the four great liturgies from which all others are derived These liturgies are:

I ANTIOCH. 1. Pure in the “Apostolic Constitutions” (in Greek). 2. Modified at Jerusalem in the Liturgy of St. James. a. The Greek St. James, used once a year by the Orthodox at Zacynthus and Jerusalem. b. The Syriac St. James, used by the Jacobites and Syrian Uniats. c. The Maronite Rite, used in Syriac. 3. The Chaldean Rite, used by Nestorians and Chaldean Uniats (in Syriac). a. The Malabar Rite, used by Uniats and Schismatics in India (in Syriac). 4. The Byzantine Rite, used by the Orthodox and Byzantine Uniats in various languages. 5. The Armenian Rite, used by Gregorians and Uniats (in Armenian).

II. ALEXANDRIA. 1. a. The Greek Liturgy of St. Mark, no longer used. b. The Coptic Liturgies, used by Uniat and schismatical Copts. 2. The Ethiopic Liturgies, used by the Church of Abyssinia.

III. ROME. 1. The original Roman Rite, not now used. 2. The African Rite, no longer used. 3. The Roman Rite with Gallican additions used (in Latin) by nearly all the Latin Church. 4. Various later modifications of this rite used in the Middle Ages, now (with a few exceptions) abolished.

IV. THE GALLICAN RITE. 1. Used once all over North-Western Europe and in Spain (in Latin). 2. The Ambrosian Rite at Milan. 3. The Mozarabic Rite, used at Toledo and Salamanca.

———————————–

CABROL AND LECLERCQ, Monumenta Ecclesiæ Liturgica. I, Reliquiæ Liturgicæ Vetustissimæ (Paris, 1900-2); BRIGHTMAN, Liturgies Eastern and Western, I. Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896); DANIEL, Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiæ universæ (4 vols., Leipzig, 1847-53); RAUSCHEN, Florilegium Patristicum, VII. Monumenta eucharistica et liturgica vetustissima (Bonn, 1909); FUNK, Patres Apostolici (2 vols., Tübingen, 1901), and Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum (Paderborn, 1905), the quotations in this article are made from these editions; PROBST, Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrh. (Tübingen, 1870); IDEM, Liturgie des vierten Jahr. u. deren Reform (Münster, 1893); DREWS, Untersuchungen über die sogenannte clementin. Liturgie (Tübingen, 1906); DUCHESNE, Origines du Cuite chrét. (Paris, 1898); RAUSCHEN, Eucharistie und Buss-sakrament in den ersten sechs Jahrh. der Kirche (Freiburg, 1908); CABROL, Les Origines liturgiques (Paris, 1906); IDEM, Introduction aux Etudes liturgiques (Paris, 1907). For further bibliography see articles on each liturgy. For liturgical languages, as well as liturgical science, treating of the regulation, history, and dogmatic value of the Liturgy, see RITES.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IXCopyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Liturgy

(Greek ), a function, service, or duty of a public character. These public services or duties among the (reeks were frequently, if not always, connected with religious ideas or ceremonies of some kind, even when the duties themselves were of a secular character those, for instance, which had reference to the supervision of theatrical exhibitions or the presiding in the public assemblies. The religious meaning of the word in such case was not necessarily involved. In Isaiah 7:30 (Sept.), the idea of religious service predominates; in Rom 13:6, that of the secular, as under God; and again, ins. Luk 1:23, and in Heb 10:11, it refers to the priestly function. At a later period we find it used by Eusebius (Life of Constantine, 4:47) in speaking of the work of the Christian ministry. By a very natural process, the word, which thus designated the public function or service performed by the ministry, became restricted in its meaning to the form itself the form of words in which such service was rendered, and thus, certainly before the middle of the fifth century, we find in the Church, in the present sense of the word liturgies, forms for the conducting of public worship and the administration of sacraments.

I. Jewish Liturgies. This subject has, of course, its connection with the question of a similar state of things under the Jewish dispensation. Were there liturgical forms among the Jews, and, if so, to what extent? We find among the Greeks and Romans certain set forms in connection with their sacrifices, passing, it would seem, from mouth to mouth of successive priestly generations, and a usual form of prayer for the civil magistrate (Dllinger’s Heathenism and Judaisnm, 1:221-225); among the sacred books of India, hymns and prayers to be used on stated occasions (Mller’s Chips from a German Workshop, 1:297); and in the Roman and in the Mohammedan worship, formula of a similar character (Lane’s Mod. Egypt. 1:120 sq.). How was it in this matter with the Jews?

There was, of course, a ritual of form; but was there with it also a form of words? The reading of the law, although enjoined, could hardly be said to meet this demand. There are, however, special forms in the Pentateuch which are liturgical in the stricter sense of that expression. Some of these have reference to possible contingencies, and would therefore be only occasional in their employment. Instances of this class may be found in the formula (Deu 21:19), where complaint should be made to the elders by parents against a rebellious and incorrigible son. Of similar character is the formula (Deu 25:8-9) connected with the refusal to take the widow of a deceased brother or nearest kinsman, and so perpetuate his name in Israel. Another, again, of the same class, was that appointed to be used by the elders and priests (Deu 21:1-9) of any locality in which the body of a murdered person should be found; and still another, and more of the nature of a stated religious service, was the prescribed declaration and mode of proceeding connected with the going out to battle (Deu 20:1-8). These were occasional and contingent. For some of them there might never be the actual usage, as was probably the case with the first that of the complaint against and the execution of a rebellious son. But there were others of a more stated character, having reference to regularly occurring seasons and ceremonies when they were required to be used. The priestly benediction, repeated, it would seem, upon every special gathering of the people (Num 6:23-27), is an instance of this class. The form of offering of the first-fruits (Deu 26:1-15) is another: in this latter the person making the offering uses the formula, the priest receiving the offering; and still another is the appointed formula of commination by the tribes at Ebal and Gerizim, the Levites repeating the curse, the whole people following with the solemn amen. Distinct, moreover, from these were certain transactions, in which. without any specified form, the official was required to use certain words. The confession by the high-priest of the sins of the people over the head of the scape-goat is one of these; in any such case, a set form, passing from priestly father to son, not improbably came into use. The liturgical use of the Psalms in the Temple worship was, of course, a matter of much later arrangement. The fiftieth chapter of Ecclesiasticus describes an exceptional service, and is, moreover, too indefinite in its language to justify any conclusion as to its liturgical character.

During, this period, however, between the captivity and the times of the New Testament, there comes to view another ecclesiastical development of Judaism which has its connection with this subject that of the worship of the synagogue. This, which in all probability originated during the captivity, and in the effort to supply the want occasioned by the loss of the worship of the Temple, would in many respects be like that Temple worship; in others, and from the necessity of the case, it would be very different. The greatest of these diversities would be in the fact of the necessary presence of the sacrificial and priestly element in the service of the Temple, their absence in that of the synagogue. In the Temple the Levites sang psalms of praise before the altar, and the priests blessed the people. In the synagogue there were prayers connected with the reading of certain specific passages of Scripture, of which are distinctly discernible two “chief groups, around which, as time wore on, an enormous mass of liturgical poetry clustered- the one, the Shelma (‘Hear, Israel,’ etc.), being a collection of the three Biblical pieces (Deu 6:4-9; Deu 11:13-21; Num 15:37-41), expressive of the unity of God and the memory of his government over Israel, strung together without any extraneous addition; the second, the Tephilla, or Prayer, by way of eminence (adopted in the Koran as Salavat, Sur. 2:40; comp. 5:15), consisting of a certain number of supplications, with a hymnal introduction and conclusion, and followed by the priestly blessing. The single portions of this prayer gradually increased to eighteen, and the prayer itself received the name Shemeonezah Esreh (eighteen; afterwards, however, increased to nineteen: the additional one is now twelfth in the prayer, and is against apostates [to Christianity] and heretics [all who refused the Talmud], including consequently the Karaites). The first addition to the Sheest formed the introductory thanksgiving for the renewed (lay (in accordance with the ordinance that every supplication must be preceded by a prayer of thanks) called lozer (Creator of Light, etc.), to which were joined the three Holies (Ophan), and the supplication for spiritual enlightening in the divine law (Ahabah). Between the Shema and the Tephillah was inserted the Geulahl (Liberation), or praise for the miraculous deliverance from Egypt and the constant watchings of providence. A Kaddish (Sanctification or Benediction) and certain psalms seem to have concluded the service of that period. This was the order of the Shaharith, or morning prayer, and very similar to this was the Maarsib, or evening prayer; while in the Minchalh, or afternoon prayer, the Shema was omitted.

On new moons, Sabbath and feast days, the general order was the same as on week days; but since the festive joy was to overrule all individual sorrow and supplication, the intermediate portion of the Tephillah was changed according to the special significance and the memories of the day of the solemnity, and additional prayers were introduced for these extraordinary occasions, corresponding to the additional sacrifice in the Temple, and varying according to the special solemnity of the day (lMusssah, Neilath, etc.)” (Chambers). Compare Etheridge, Introduction to Hebrew Literatures, page 367 sq.; Prideaux, 2:160-170. It is likewise to be noted that in the Temple worship there were occasions and opportunities in which the individual worshipper might confess the plague of his own heart, make individual supplication, or offer individual thanksgiving. Thus it was at the time of the coming of Christ. The Jewish liturgies since then, under the influence of Rabbinism, and in view of the fact that the synagogue, so far as possible, supplies the absence of the Temple, have been very much enlarged, and extend to numberless particularities. It may, in fact, be said that the whole life of the modern Jew is regulated by Rabbinic forms, that there is a rubric for every moment and movement of social as of individual existence. “The first compilation of a liturgy is recorded of Amram Gaon (A.D. 870-880); the first that has survived is that of Saadja Gaon (d. A.D. 942). These early collections of prayers generally contained also compositions from the hand of the compiler, and minor additions, such as ethical tracts, almanacs, etc., and were called Silddurimn (Orders, Rituals), embracing the whole calendar year, week-days and new moons, fasts and festivals. Later, the term was restricted to the week-day ritual, that for the festivals being called Machzor (Cycle). Besides these, we find the Selichoth, or Penitential Prayers; Kinoth, or Elegies; Hoshanahs, or Hosannahs (for the seventh day of the Feast of Tabernacles); and Bakashoth, or Special Supplications, chiefly for private devotion. The Karaites (q.v.), being harshly treated in these liturgies, especially by Saadja, have distinct compilations. The first of these was made by David ben-Hassan about A.D. 960 (compare Rule, Karaites, page 88, 104 sq., 118, 135 sq., 173 note).

The public prayers were for a long time only said by the public reader (Chasan, Sheliach Zibbur ), the people joining in silent responses and amens. These readers by degrees chiefly from the 10th century introduced occasional prayers (Piutim) of their own, over and above those used of yore. The materials were taken from the Halachah as well as the Haggadah (q.v.); religious doctrine, history, saga, angelology, and mysticism, interspersed with Biblical verses, are thus found put together like a mosaic of the most original and fantastic, often grand and brilliant, and often obscure and feeble kind; and the pure Hebrew in manyy eases made room for a corrupt Chaldee. We can only point out here the two chief groups of religious poetry viz. the Arabic on the one hand, and the French-German school on the other. The most eminent representative of the Pajtanic age (ending c. 1100) is Eleazar Biribi Kalir. Among the most celebrated poets in his manner are Meshulam b.- Kalonymos of Lucca, Solomon b.-Jehuda of Babylon, R. Gerson, Elia b.- Menahem of Mans, Benjamin b.-Serach, Jacob Zom Elem, Eliezer b.- Samuel, Kalonymos b.-Moses, Solomon Isaaki. Of exclusively Spanish poets of this period, the most brilliant are Jehuda Halevi Solomon b.- Gabirol, Josef ibn-Abitur, Isaac ibn-Giat, Abraham Abn-Esra, Moses ben- Nachman, etc. When, however, in the beginning of the 13th century, secret doctrine and philosophy, casuistry and dialectics, became the paramount study, the cultivation of the Pint became neglected, and but few, and for the most part insignificant, are the writers of liturgical pieces from this time downwards” (Chambers). Comp. Zunz, Synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, page 59 sq. These liturgies, adopted by the Jews in different countries, were naturally subject to great variation, not only in their order, but also in their contents. Even in our day there exists the greatest variety imaginable in the synagogues of even one and the same country, due, in a measure, also to the influence of the reformatory movements. SEE JUDAISM.

Particularly worthy of note are the rituals of Germany (Poland), of France, Spain, and Portugal (Sefardim), Italy (Rome), the Levant (Romagna), and even of some special towns, like Avignon, Carpentras, Montpellier. The rituals of Barbary (Algiers, Tripoli, Oran, Morocco, etc.) are of Spanish origin. The Judaeo-Chinese liturgy, it may be observed by the way, consists only of pieces from the Bible. Yet, in the main body of their principal prayers, all these liturgies agree. As illustrative of these unessential diversities, we give the prayer of the Shemonah Esreh, which has been added to the number since the destruction of the second Temple, but which now stands as the twelfth, and shows its manifest reference to the followers of the Nazarene: “Let there be no hope to those who apostatize from the true religion; and let heretics, how many soever they be, all perish as in a moment; and let the kingdom of pride be speedily rooted out and broken in our days. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who destroyest the wicked, and bringest down the proud” (Prideaux). “Let slanderers have no hope, and all presumptuous apostates perish as in a moment; and may thine enemies, and those who hate thee, be suddenly cut off; and all those who act wickedly be suddenly broken, consumed, and rooted out; and humble thou them speedily in our days. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who destroyest the enemies and humblest the proud” (Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Prayer-book). That in the German and Polish Jews’ Prayer-book is more brief, and less pointed in its application to apostates, i.e. Jews converted to Christianity. There are translations and commentaries on them in most of the modern languages. In the orthodox congregations, these forms of prayer, whether for the worship of the synagogue or for domestic and private use, are all appointed to be said in Hebrew. One of the best moves in this direction is the effort within the last century to remedy this evil by parallel translations. In this country the service-books in the synagogues are usually of this kind: either the Hebrew on one page and the English on the other, or both in parallel columns on the same page.

II. Early Christian Litiurgies.

1. Their Origin. So far as regards the primitive or apostolic age, the only trace of anything of that kind is the Lord’s Prayer, and the Amen alluded to in 1Co 14:16; this latter an undoubted importation from the synagogue. As, moreover, we find the Master, with the twelve, singing a hymn, one of the psalms probably, on the night of the last supper, it is not improbable that such portions of Old-Testament Scripture, with which the early believers had been already familiar in the synagogue, should have still found favor in the Church. Even in free prayer fragments and sentences of old devotional forms, almost spontaneous through earlier use and sacred association, would naturally find utterance. This, however, would be the exception. Christian prayer, for its own full and peculiar utterance, must find its own peculiar modes of expression; and it would baptize into a new life and meaning and of those familiar expressions, the fragments of an earlier devotion. That men, however, who had been accustomed to liturgical worship under the old system should gradually go into it under the new, is not at all surprising; and to this special inducements before very long were presented. The demand for some form of profession of faith, of a definition of the faith, as dissensions and heresies arose, would be one of these occasions. The form of prayer given by the Master, in its present usage, would become the nucleus of others. The fact, again, that the most solemn act of Christian communion, the Lord’s Supper, involved in the distribution of the elements a form of action, and that this action, in its original institution, had been accompanied by words, would have a like influence. That every thing in this respect, if not purely extemporaneous, was exceedingly simple in the time of Justin Martyr, is very manifest from his own writings. The same remark is applicable to the statement of Pliny (Ep. ad Treaj. in Ep. 10:97).

2. Primitive Type. The earliest form in which liturgical arrangement, to any extent, is found, is that which presents itself in the Apostolical Constitutions. The following is the order of daily service, as given in these Constitutions: After the morning psalm (the sixty-third of our enumeration), prayers were offered for the several classes of catechumens, of persons possessed by evil spirits, and candidates for baptism, for penitents, and for the faithful or communicants, for the peace of the world, and for the whole state of Christ’s Church. This was followed by a short bidding prayer for preservation in the ensuing day, and by the bishop’s commendation or thanksgiving, and by his imposition of hands or benediction. The morning service was much frequented by people of all sorts. The evening service was much the same with that of the morning, except that Psalms 140 (Psalms 141 of the present enumeration) introduced the service, and that a special collect seems to have been used sometimes at the setting up of the lights. SEE SERVICE.

This work, a fabrication by an unknown author, and taking its present form about the close of the third century contains internal evidence (see Schaff, Church History, 1:441) that much of its material belongs to an earlier date. It may be regarded as affording a type of the liturgical worship in use during the latter part of the anteNicene period. Bunsen (Christianity and Mankind, volume 2) has attempted to construct, out of fragments of this and other liturgies, the probable form of worship then prevailing. Krabbe, in his prize essay on this subject, regards the eighth book as of later date than the others. Kurtz, agreeing with Bunsen, substantially finds in this work the earliest extant form of liturgical arrangement, and the type of those of a later period. While, therefore, apocryphal as to its name and claims, yet in the character of its material, in its peculiarity of structure, in the estimation which it enjoyed, and in its influence upon later forms of devotion, it is of great historical significance. Taking it as it comes to our day, the eighth book contains an order of prayer, praise, reading, and sermon, followed by the dismissal successively of the catechumens, the penitents, and the possessed. After this comes the order of the Lord’s Supper for the faithful, beginning with intercessory prayer, this followed by collects and responses, the fraternal kiss, warnings against unworthy reception of communion, with suitable hymns, prayers, and doxologies. Much of this material, as already hinted, is probably of a much earlier date than that of its unknown last compiler. The hymn Gloria in Exselsis may have been the same of which Justin and Pliny speak, or an enlargement of it. This liturgy is remarkable, as contrasted with subsequent liturgies, in that it wants the Lord’s Prayer. The general spirit and tone pervading all its forms afford grateful indication of the interior Christian life of that period.

3. Classification. This brings us to the particular liturgies which found acceptance and usage in particular communities. One remark in connection with these needs to be made. Whatever may have been the liturgical influences of the synagogue in shaping the worship of the early Church, they had, by this time, been superseded by another of a much more objectionable character, that of the Temple. In other words, the sacerdotal idea of the Christian ministry, and the sacrificial idea of the Lord’s Supper, were making themselves felt, not only in the substance, but in the minutia of form which the liturgies were assuming. Of these liturgies there is to be made the general division of Eastern and Western.

(a.) Liturgies of the Eastern Churches. Chronologically those of the Oriental Church first demand examination.

(1.) The earliest, perhaps, is that of Jerusalem or Antioch, ascribed to the apostle James; the first word in it, a word never used by apostolic men in speaking of the Christian ministry puts the seal of reprobation upon every such claim. The same may be said as to another anachronism, the word applied to the third person of the Trinity. Putting aside, therefore, such claim, as also the stranger notion that the apostle in 1Co 2:9, quotes from this liturgy. rather than that the liturgist quotes from him, we may still recognize in this early form of Christian-worship features of peculiar interest. It is still used on St. James’ day in some of the islands of the Archipelago, and is the pattern of two others, those of Basil and Chrysostom. Portions of it may have existed at an earlier period, but in its present form it dates from the last half of the fourth century. For the distinction between the orthodox Greek and the Monophysite Syrian forms of this liturgy, see Palmer, Origines Liturgicae, volume 1. The latter, the Monophysite form, it is to be observed, is still in use, and in both are portions of the material to be found in that of the Apostolical Constitutions.

(2.) The second of these liturgies is that of the Alexandrian Church, called that of St. Mark, but, quite as clearly as that of St. James, betraying its later origin. In this, as in the other two, there may be materials previously existing; but the probabilities indicate Cyril of Alexandria as the author of it in its present shape. The effort has been made to separate in it the apostolic from the later elements, as is also attempted by Neale with that of St. James. As the object of this effort seems to be to prove the sacerdotal character of apostolic Christianity, so all sacerdotal elements become proof of apostolic authorship. The conclusion is as false as the premise. ‘The special historical interest of this liturgy of St. Mark is its relation to those of the Coptic and Ethiopic churches, of which it forms the main constituent. The remark of Palmer as to its claim to inspired authorship is well worthy of attention. “In my opinion,” says he, “this appellation of St. Mark’s liturgy began about the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, after Basil had composed his liturgy, which was the first that bore the name of any man. Other churches then gave their liturgies the names of their founders, and so the Alexandrians and Egyptians gave hr theirs the name of Mark, while they of Jerusalem and Antioch called theirs St. James’s, and early in the fifth century it appears that Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, perfected and improved the liturgy of St. Mark, from whence this improved liturgy came to be called by the Monophysites St. Cyril’s, and by the orthodox St. Mark’s.” The peculiarity of this last, in Neale’s estimation, is the difference from other liturgies in the position of the great intercession for quick and dead. That such intercession found place in any of them is evidence of their post-apostolic origin.

(3.) The third and last of these liturgies is that of Caesarea or Byzantium, composed probably by Basil of Caesarea, and held to have been recast and enlarged by Chrysostom; but more properly, perhaps, both these are to be regarded as elaborations of that of St. James. They, moreover, have historical and moral significance in the fact that, through the Byzantine Church, they have been received into that of Russia, and are used in its patriarchates, each for special occasions, at the present time. Such additions, of course, have been made as have been rendered necessary through peculiarities of Greek worship, and accumulation of ritualistic minutiae coming into use since these liturgies in their original forms were introduced. They now contain expressions not to be found in the writings of Chrysostom: e.g. the appellation of in other of God, given to the Virgin Mary, which was not heard of until after the third General Council at Ephesus [A.D.431] the body which condemned the doctrines of Nestorius held 24 years after the death of Chrysostom. From these Oriental liturgies have sprung others, variously modified to meet doctrinal and other exigencies. The largest number is from that of Jerusalem, the next from that of Basil. The most important is that of the Armenians, Monophysite, those of the Nestorians, and that of Malabar. For discussion as to the special origin of these subordinate forms, and the principles of classification, see Palmer’s Origines Liturgicae, volume 1; Neale’s Primitive Liturgies; Riddle, Christian Antiquities, book 4, chapter 1, sec. 6.

(b.) Liturgies of the Western Church. In the West liturgical development went on with less rapidity.

(1.) That of the Roman Church, under the influence of the sort of feeling alluded to above in the quotation from Palmer, after it came into use, received the name of Peter, and was traced to his authorship. In point of fact, it probably first assumed definite shape under Leo the Great during the first half of the fifth century, was added to by Gelasius during the latter half of the same century, elaborated again by Gregory the Great not very long after, and through his influence secured its reputation and position. “His Ordo et Canon Missae, making allowance for the unavoidable changes taking place in it during the centuries intervening, was settled under Pius V, 1570, as the Missale Romanortum. It was revised under Clement VII and Urban VIII, and forms at the present time the liturgical text of Romish worship” (Palmer, in Herzog). The Liturgy of Milan seems to have been very much the same as that of Rome prior to the alterations of the latter under Gregory. These differences, at the greatest, were not of an essential character. The question of the independence of the Milanese and the supremacy of the Romans was probably the great issue upon which these differences turned. As nothing less than apostolicity could enable the liturgy of Milan to sustain itself in such a conflict, its origin was traced to Barnabas, and miracles, it was believed, had been wrought for its preservation against the efforts of Gregory and Hadrian to bring it to the form of that of Rome. The severest point of this conflict was doubtless when Charlemagne abolished the Ambrosian Chant throughout the West by the establishment of singing-schools under Roman instructors to teach the Gregorian. The attachment of the people and clergy of Milan, however, to their liturgy could not be overcome, and it is still in their possession. Alexander VI established it expressly as the “Ritus Ambrosianus.” Of even greater interest than the Roman liturgy are the Gallican and the Mozarabic.

(2.) The former of these, the Gallican, claims, and it would seem justly, an antiquity greater than that of Rome. The connection of Gaulish Christianity with that of Asia, whether through the person of Irenaeus or by earlier missionaries, would lead to a liturgical development of an independent character. It was displaced by the Roman liturgy during the Carolingian sera, and for a long time was almost lost sight of and forgotten. It does not seem to have been used or appealed to in the various conflicts of prerogative between the French monarchs and the pope, and no allusion to its existence is made in the Pragmatic Sanction. Public attention was again called to it during the controversies of the 16th century. Interest both of a literary and doctrinal character has been exhibited in connection with this liturgy. But there seems to be but little probability of its restoration to use. While unlike in certain specialities, its differences from the Roman liturgy are, not essential. Like the others preceding, it has been traced to the hand of an apostle to the Church at Lyons, through that of Ephesus, from the apostle John! The apex upon which this inverted historical pyramid rests is the single fact, which has been questioned, that Christianity was introduced into Gaul by missionaries from the Church at Ephesus.

(3.) The Mozarabic, that of the Spanish churches under Arabic dominion, has so many resemblances to the Gallic liturgy that it would seem probable they proceeded from the same source. It is described by Isidore Hispalensis in the 6th century. During the Middle Ages, and in the time of the cardinal Ximenes, it received an addition of several rites. As Spanish territory was reconquered from the Moors, and came more fully under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the papacy in other respects, the effort was made, and eventually succeeded, although at times warmly resisted by the people, to displace the Mozarabie, and introduce the Roman liturgy. In the beginning of the 16th century cardinal Ximenes endowed a college and chapel at Toledo for the celebration of the ancient rites, and this is now, perhaps, the only place in Spain where the primitive liturgy of that country and of Gaul is in some degree observed. The old British liturgy, which was displaced by the Gregorian after the decision of Oswy in 664, seems, like the Mozarabic, to have been essentially the same with the Gallican.

(4.) One other liturgical composition of some interest, dating from the close of the 4th century, is that of the Cathari, published by E. Kunitz (Jena, 1852). It is of interest as giving a more favorable view of the community for which it was composed than had been previously entertained. It is to be remembered in connection with all these liturgies of the West, as already remarked of those of the East, that they are the names of many subordinate offshoots in use and prevalence in different portions of the Church. The discretionary power of the bishops, both at this and at earlier periods, to modify and adapt prevalent liturgies to peculiar exigencies of time and place, naturally produced after a time this kind of diversity. The ecclesiastical confusion of mediaeval times, and clerical ignorance and carelessness, would of course increase it. The traces, however, of the parent stock in any such case would not be difficult of recognition.

4. Structure of Liturgies. The variations of detail which are found in the parent liturgies of the Christian world are all ingrafted on a structural arrangement which they possess in common, much as four buildings might differ in the style and form of their decorations, and yet agree in their plans and elevation, in the position of their several chambers, and in the number of their principal columns.

i. There is invariably a division of the liturgy into three portions the office of the Prothesis, the Pro-Anaphora, and the Anaphora, the latter being the “Canon” of the Western Church, and the office of the Prothesis being a preparatory part of the service corresponding to the “Praeparatio” of the Western Liturgy, and not used at the altar itself. In the Pro- Anaphora the central features are two, viz.:

(1) the reading of holy Scripture, and

(2) the recitation of the Creed. In the Anaphora they are four, viz.:

(1) the Triumphal Hymn, or TRISAGION;

(2) the formula of Consecration;

(3) the Lord’s Prayer; and

(4) the Communion.

These four great acts of praise, benediction, intercession, and communion gather around our Lord’s words of institution and his pattern prayer, which form, in reality, the integral germ of the Christian liturgies. They are also associated with other prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings, by which each is expanded and developed, the whole blending into a comprehensive service, by means of which the worship of the Church ascends on the wings of the eucharistic service, and her strength descends in eucharistic grace. The order in which these different portions of the liturgy are combined in the four ancient parent forms is shown by the following table:

ii. There is also, in the second place, a substantial agreement among all the four great parent liturgies as to the formula of consecration ( SEE CONSECRATION; and comp. Blunt, Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. page 425-426).

iii. Another point in which the four parent liturgies of the Church uniformly agree is in the well-defined sacerdotal character of their language. This is sufficiently illustrated by the preceding comparative view.

iv. The intercessory character of the primitive liturgies is also a very conspicuous feature common to them all. The holy Eucharist is uniformly set forth and used in them as a service offered up to God for the benefit of all classes of Christians, living and departed. “Then,” says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “after the spiritual sacrifice is perfected, the bloodless service upon that altar of propitiation, we entreat God for the common peace of the Church; for the tranquillity of the world; for kings; for soldiers and allies; for the sick; for the afflicted; and, in a word, for all who stand in need of succor we all supplicate and offer this sacrifice. Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, that at their prayers and intervention God would receive our petition. Afterward also on behalf of the holy fathers and bishops who have fallen asleep before us; and, in a word, of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great advantage to the souls for whom the supplication is put up while that holy and most awful sacrifice is presented” (Catech. Lect. 23:9, 10). St. Cyril was speaking thus in Jerusalem, where the liturgy used was that of St. James, and in that liturgy we find a noble intercession exactly answering to the description there given (Neale’s Translation, page 52; Blunt’s Annot. Book of Com. Prayer, page 156). A similar intercession is to be found in the other liturgies, and it is evident that its use was one of the first principles of the Church of that day.

III. Modern Greek and Eastern Liturgies. Three liturgies are in use in the modern Greek or Constantinopolitan Church, viz., those of Basil and of Chrysostom, and the liturgy of the Presanctified. The liturgy bearing the name of Basil is used by the Constantinopolitan Church ten times in the year, viz., on the eve of Christmas Day; on the festival of St. Basil; on the eve of the Feast of Lights, or the Epiphany; on the several Sundays in Lent, except the Sunday before Easter; on the festival of the Virgin Mary; and on Good Friday, and the following day, which is sometimes termed the great Sabbath. The liturgy ascribed to Chrysostom is read on all those days in the year on which the liturgies of Basil and of the Presanctified are not used. The liturgy of the Presanctified is an office for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent, with the elements which had been consecrated on the preceding Sunday. The date of this liturgy is not known, some authors ascribing it to Gregory Thaumaturgus in the third century, while others ascribe it to Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, in the eighth century. These liturgies are used in all those Greek churches which are subject to the patriarch of Constantinople, and in those countries which were originally converted by Greeks, as in Russia, Georgia, Mingrelia, and by the Melchite patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem (King’s Rites of the Greek Church, page 131-134; Richard et Giraud’s Bibliotheque Sacrae, 15:222-224). The Coptic Jacobites, or Christians in Egypt, make use of the Liturgy of Alexandria, which formerly was called indifferently the Liturgy of St. Mark, the reputed founder of the Christian Church at Alexandria, or the Liturgy of St. Cyril, who caused it to be committed to writing. The Egyptians had twelve liturgies,which are still preserveds among the Abyssinians; but the patriarchs commanded that the Egyptian churches should use only three, viz., those of Basil, of Gregory the Theologian, and of Cyril. The earliest liturgies of the Church of Alexandria were written in Greek, which was the vernacular language, until the fourth and fifth centuries; since that time they have been translated into the Coptic and Arabic languages. The Abyssinians or Ethiopians receive the twelve liturgies which were formerly in use among the Coptic Jacobites: they are commonly found in the following order, viz.,

1. The liturgy of St. John the Evangelist.

2. That of the three hundred and eighteen fathers present at the Council of Nice.

3. That of Epiphanius.

4. That of St. James of Sarug or Syrug.

5. That of St. John Chrysostom.

6. That of Jesus Christ.

7. That of the Apostles.

8. That of St. Cyriac.

9. That of St. Gregory.

10. That of their patriarch Dioscurus.

11. That of St. Basil.

12. That of St. Cyril.

The Armenians who were converted to Christianity by Gregory, surnamed the Illuminator, have only one liturgy, which is supposed to be that of the Church of Casarea in Cappadocia, in which city Gregory received his instruction. This liturgy is used on every occasion, even at funerals. The Syrian Catholics and Jacobites have numerous liturgies, bearing the names of St. James, St. Peter, St. John the Evangelist, St. Mark, St. Dionysius, bishop of Athens, St. Xystus, bishop of Rome, of the Twelve Apostles, of St. Ignatius, of St. Julius, bishop of Rome, of St. Eustathius, of St. Chrysostom, of St. Maruthas, etc. Of these, the liturgy of St. James is most highly esteemed, and is the standard to which are referred all the others, which are chiefly used on the festivals of the saints whose names they bear. The Maronites, who inhabit Mount Lebanon, make use of a missal printed at Rome in 1594 in the Chaldeo-Syriac language: it contains thirteen liturgies under the names of St. Xystus, St. John Chrysostom, St. John the Evangelist, St. Peter, St. Dionysius, St. Cyril, St. Matthew, St. John the Patriarch, St. Eustathius, St. Maruthas, St. James the Apostle, St. Mark the Evangelist, and a second liturgy of St. Peter. The Nestorians have three liturgies that of the Twelve Apostles, that of Theodorus, surnamed the Interpreter, and a third under the name of Nestorius. The Indian Christians of St. Thomas are said to make use of the Nestorian liturgies (Richard et Giraud, Bibliothque Sacree, 15:221-227).

IV. Liturgies of the Churchl of Rome. There are various liturgical books in use in the modern Church of Rome, the greater part of which are common and general to all the members in communion with that Church, while others are permitted to be used only in particular places or by particular monastic orders.

1. The Breviary (Latin breviarium) is the book containing the daily service of the Church of Rome. It is frequently, but erroneously, confounded with Missal and Ritual. The Breviary contains the matins, lauds, etc., with the several variations to be made therein, according to the several days, canonical hours, and the like. It is general, and may be used in every place; but on the model of this have been formed various others, specially appropriated to different religious orders, such as those of the Benedictines, Carthusians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, and other monastic orders. The difference between these books and that which is by way of eminence designated the Roman Breviary, consists chiefly in the number and order of the psalms, hymns, ave-marias, pater-nosters, misereres, etc., etc. Originally the Breviary contained only the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms which were used in the divine offices. To these were subsequently added lessons out of the Scriptures, according to the institutes of the monks, in order to diversify the service of the Church. In the progress of time the legendary lives of the saints, replete with ill- attested facts, were inserted, in compliance with the opinions and superstition of the times. This gave occasion to many revisions and reformations of the Roman Breviary by the councils, particularly of Trent and Cologne, and also by several popes, as Gregory IX, Nicholas III, Pius V, Clement VIII, and Urban VIII; as likewise by some cardinals, especially cardinal Quignon, by whom various extravagances were removed, and the work was brought nearer to the simplicity of the primitive offices. In its present state the Breviary of the Church of Rome consists of the services of matins, lauds, prime, third, sixth, nones, vespers, complines, or the post- communion, that is of seven hours, on account, of the saying of David, Septies in die laudenz dixi “Seven times a day do I praise thee” (Psa 119:164). The obligation of reading this service-book every day, which at first was universal, was by degrees reduced to the beneficiary clergy alone, who are bound to do it on pain of being guilty of mortal sin, and of refunding their revenues in proportion to their delinquencies in discharging this duty. The Roman Breviary is recited in the Latin language throughout the Romish Church, except among the Maronites in Syria, the Armenians, and some other Oriental Christians in communion with that Church, who rehearse it in their vernacular dialects.

2. The Missal, or volume employed in celebrating mass. According to a tradition generally believed by members of the Romish Church, this liturgy owes its origin to St. Peter. The canon of the mass was committed to writing about the middle of the fifth century. Various additions were subsequently made, especially by Gregory the Great, who reduced the whole into better order. This Missal is in general use throughout the Romish Church. SEE MASS.

3. The Ceremoniale contains the various offices peculiar to the pope. It is divided into three books, the first of which treats of the election, consecration, benediction, and coronation of the pope, the canonization of saints, creation of cardinals, the form and manner of holding a council, and the funeral ceremonies on the death of a pope or of a cardinal, besides various public ceremonies to be performed by the pope as a sovereign prince. The second book prescribes what divine offices are to be celebrated by the pope, and on what days; and the third discusses the reverence which is to be shown to popes, cardinals, bishops, and other persons performing sacred duties; the vestments and ornaments of the popes and cardinals when celebrating divine service; the order in which they are severally to be seated in the papal chapel; incensing the altar, etc. The compiler of this liturgical work is not known.

4. The Pontificale describes the various functions which are peculiar to bishops in the Romish Church, such as the conferring of ecclesiastical orders; the pronouncing of benedictions on abbots, abbesses, and nuns; the coronation of sovereigns; the form and manner of consecrating churches, burial-grounds, and the various vessels used in divine service; the public expulsion of penitents from the Church, and reconciling them; the mode of holding a synod; suspending, reconciling, dispensing, deposing, and degrading priests, and of restoring them again to orders; the manner of excommunicating and absolving, etc., etc.

5. The Rituale treats of all those functions which are to be performed by simple priests or the inferior clergy, both in the public service of the Church, and also in the exercise of their private pastoral duties. The Pastorale corresponds with the Rituale, and seems to be only another name for the same book.

V. Continental Reformed or Protestant Liturgies. At the time of the Reformation there were, of necessity, great changes in the matter of public worship. The liturgies in use at its commencement included the prevalent doctrinal system, especially as connected with the Lord’s Supper; and very soon changes were made having in view the repudiation of Romish error, and the adaptation of reformed worship to the restored system of scriptural doctrine. The old forms, moreover, had there been no objection to them doctrinally, were liable to the practical objection that they were locked up from popular use in a dead language. The Reformation, to a very great degree, had opened the ears of the people to the intelligent hearing and reception of Christian doctrine. Its task now was to open their mouths to the intelligent utterance of supplication in other words, to provide forms of worship in the vernacular. This was done very largely by selection and translation from old forms, and, as was necessary, by the preparation of new material. With the English and Lutheran Reformers, the object seems to have been to make as few changes in existing forms as possible. Doubtful expressions, which admitted of a Protestant interpretation, but which, for their own merits, would never have been selected, were thus retained. It is to be said for the Reformers that they seem to have acted in view of the existing circumstances of the communities by which they were surrounded, and from one of them, the most eminent of all, Luther, we have the distinct disavowal of all wish and expectation that his work, in this respect, should be imposed upon other churches or continued in his own any longer than it was found for edification.

a. Lutheran Liturgies. As first among the Reformers we notice these liturgical works of Luther. Different offices were prepared by him, as needed by the churches under his influence, the earliest in 1523, the latest in 1534. These were afterwards collected in a volume, and became a model for others. In his “Order of Service” provision is made for daily worship in a service for morning and evening, and a third might be held if desirable. These services consist of reading the Scriptures, preaching or expounding, with psalms and responsoria, with the addition, for Sundays, of mass or communion. He dwells earnestly, however, upon the idea, already mentioned, that these forms are not to be considered binding otherwise than in their appropriate times and localities. These views and this action of Luther were responded to by similar action on the part of the churches which through him had received the doctrines of the Reformation. These drew up liturgies for themselves, some of them bearing a close resemblance to that of Wittemberg, others differing from it widely; the differences, in one direction, being conditioned by the Zwinglian or Calvinistic element. in the opposite by the Romish. These, in particular localities, have been changed at different times as circumstances seemed to require.

No one Lutheran form has ever been accepted as obligatory upon all Lutheran churches, as is the case with the liturgy of the Church of England in all its dependencies; although it is claimed that there is essential unity an essential unity of life and spirit in all these unessential diversities as to outward form of particular states and churches. The tendency of the Rationalism of the last century was to neglect, to depreciate, and to mutilate the old liturgies, and then to procure changes which would substitute others in their stead. From this, and in connection with another movement, has followed a healthful reaction. This reaction may be seen in its effects upon the two great classes into which Lutheran Germany is now divided. It has controlled to a very great degree the efforts of the Unionists, has given form to the Union liturgy, and it is leading those who are opposed to this movement to a more careful study and diligent use of the older liturgies. The object of this new liturgy, that of the king of Prussia, first published in 1822, revised once or twice since then, is to unite the worship of the members of the Lutheran and Reformed churches in the Prussian dominions. The excitement connected with this movement, in the way of attack and defense, has given a deeper and wider interest to all liturgical questions an interest deeply felt by the Lutheran churches of this country. Here, where the use of such forms is optional, the number of congregations returning to such use is on the increase. SEE LUTHERANISM.

In Sweden, which, although Lutheran, retains the episcopate, and may seem to demand a more special notice, there was published in 1811 a new, revised edition of the Liturgy, prepared at the time of the Reformation. This is divided into chapters, and contains the usual parts of a Church service, with forms for baptism, marriage, etc. In Denmark there is also a regularly constituted liturgy, of Bugenhagen’s, which, besides morning and evening service for Sundays, contains three services for each of the three great festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.

b. Moravian Liturgy. The liturgy of the Moravians, as recipients, through their great leader, of the Augsburg Confession, is not without its interest in this connection. It was first published in 1632. That which has been adopted by the renewed Moravian Church is mainly the work of count Zinzendorf who compiled it chiefly from the services of the Greek and Latin churches, but who also availed himself of the valuable labors of Luther and of the English Reformers. The United Brethren at present make use of a Church litany, introduced into the morning service of every Sunday; a litany for the morning of Easter-day, containing a short but comprehensive confession of faith; two offices for the baptism of adults, and two for the baptism of children: two litanies at burials; and offices for confirmation, the holy communion, and for ordination; the Te Deum, and doxologies adapted to various occasions. All these liturgical forms in use in England are comprised in the new and revised edition of the Liturgy and Hymns for the Use of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren (London, 1849). Other services peculiar to this Church, which are called “liturgies,” consist mainly of a choral, with musical responsoria as a litany. This litany is for Sundays. There is a short prayer of betrothal, a baptismal office, also a form on Easter, used in the church-yards, of expressing their confidence in regard to the brethren departed of the year preceding. The daily service, which is in the evening, is a simple prayer-meeting. In this, as in the Sunday service, the prayers and exhortations are extemporaneous.

c. Calvinistic Liturgies. The liturgy of Calvin, which, like that of Luther, constitutes the type of a class, differs from this latter in two important respects the absence of responsive portions, and the discretion conferred upon the officiator in the performance of public worship. This discretion seems to have been limited, however, to the use of one form of prayer rather than another, given in the Directory. These prayers were read by the pastor from the pulpit. The service began with a general confession, was followed by a psalm, prayer again, sermon, prayer, the Apostles’ Creed, and benediction. Two additional prayers were provided for occasions of communion, one coming before, the other after; also a very long one of deprecation in times of war, calamity, etc. For the administration of the Lord’s Supper there is an exhortation as to its intent “fencing the tables,” as it is called in Scotland. This is followed by the distribution of the elements, with psalms and passages of Scripture appropriate to the occasion. The offices of baptism and marriage are simple, but not discretionary as to their form. In accordance with what seems to be the peculiar Genevan characteristic, they are not wanting in length.

The present liturgy of Geneva is a development of that of Calvin, with certain modifications. It has no responses. Several additional prayers have been added. A distinct service for each day in the week is provided, also for the principal festivals, and for certain special occasions. So also as to the churches in sympathy with the system of Calvin. They have liturgies similar to that of Geneva, although not identical. Such is the case with the churches of Holland and Neufchatel, and the Reformed churches of France. A new edition of the old French Liturgy of 1562 was published in 1826, with additional forms for special occasions. The liturgy of the Church of Scotland is in some respects different. It was drawn up at Frankfort by Knox and others, after the model of Calvin’s, and was first used by Knox in a congregation of English exiles at Geneva. It was afterwards introduced by him into Scotland; its use enjoined in 1564, and such usage was continued until after his death. An edition of this liturgy was published in 1841 by Dr. Cumming. It differs from that of Calvin in that it more clearly leaves to the minister officiating to decide whether he shall use any form of prayer given or one of his own compositions extemporaneously or otherwise. It begins with the confession, as in Calvin’s, and with the same form. This is followed by a psalm, by prayer, the sermon, prayer, psalm, and benediction. The book contains various offices and alternate forms; among other things, an order of excommunication. and a treatise on fasting, with a form of prayer for private houses, and grace before and after meals. The new book of Scotland of 1644 may be regarded as a modification of those of Knox and Calvin. In the Directory of the Westminster Assembly the discretionary power is greatly enlarged. Scriptural lessons are to be read in regular course, the quantity at the discretion of the minister, with liberty, if he see fit, of expounding. Heads of prayer in that before the sermon are prescribed, and rules for the arrangement of the sermon. The Lord’s Prayer is recommended as the most perfect form of devotion. Private and lay baptism are forbidden. The arrangement of the Lord’s table is to be such that communicants may sit about it, and the dead are to be buried without prayer or religious ceremony.

d. Intermediate between these two great families of liturgies, the Lutheran and Calvinistic, are those of the other Reformed churches on the Continent. It may be said, in general, that the German-speaking portion of these churches approach and partake of the Lutheran spirit and forms, and the Swiss of the Calvinistic, though there are individual exceptions. In 1523, the same year with Luther’s work already mentioned, Zwingle and Leo Judah published at Zurich offices for baptism, the Lord’s Supper, marriage, common prayer, and burial. This was followed by a more complete work in 1525, and subsequently by others. Similar works were published at Berne, Schaffhausen, and Basle at a later period. The peculiarity of these, according to Ebrard, quoted in Herzog, “is the liturgical character in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, in which they compare favorably with the Calvinistic liturgies; also the custom of announcing the dead, and the special prayers for the festivals.” The liturgical issues which during this century have agitated the Lutheran Church have extended to those of the Reformed, not, however, to the same extent, nor with results of such decided character.

VI. Liturgies in the English Language. Previous to the introduction of the Reformation on Anglican ground, the public service of the English churches was, like that of other Western churches, performed in the Latin language. But, though the language was universally Latin, the liturgy itself varied greatly in the different parts of the kingdom. The dioceses of Bangor, Hereford, Lincoln, Sarum, York, and other churches, used liturgies which were commonly designated by the “Uses,” and of these the most celebrated were the Breviary and Missal, etc., secundum usum Sarum, compiled by Osmund, bishop of Salisbury, about the year 1080, and reputed to be executed with such exactness according to the rules of the Romish Church that they were also employed in divine service in many churches on the Continent. They consisted of prayers and offices, some of which had been transmitted from very ancient times, and others were of later origin, accommodated to the Romish religion. Compare Maskell, The Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, according to the Uses of Sarusm, Bangaor York, Hereford, and the Modern Roman Liturgy (London, 1844, 8vo). Also by the same, Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiae Anglican; or, Occasional Offices of the Church of England, according to the Ancient Use of Salisbury; the Prymer in English, and other Prayers and Forms (London, 1846, 3 volumes, 8vo).

The first attempt in England to introduce e the vernacular was made in 1536, when, in pursuance of Henry VIII’s injunctions, the Bible, Paternoster, Creed, and Decalogue were set forth and placed in churches. to be read in English. In 1545 the King’s Primer was published, containing a form of morning and evening prayer in English, besides the Lord’s Prayer, Creed, and Ten Commandments, the Seven Penitential Psalms, Litany, and other devotions, and in 1547, on the accession of Edward VI, archbishop Cranmer, bishop Ridley, and eleven other eminent divines, martyrs, and confessors, were commissioned to draw up a liturgy in the English language “free from those unfounded doctrines and superstitious ceremonies which had disgraced the Latin liturgies;” and this was ratified by act of Parliament in 1548, and published in 1549. This liturgy is commonly known and cited as the First Prayer-Book of Edward VI. In the great body of their work Cranmer and his associates derived their materials from the earlier services which had been in use in England; ” but in the occasional offices they were indebted to the labors of Melancthon and Bucer, and through them to the older liturgy of Nuremberg, which those reformers were instructed to follow” (Dr. Cardwell’s Two Books of Common Prayer, set forth… in the reign of King Edward the Sixth, compared, page 14, Oxford, 1838). In consequence, however, of exceptions being taken at some things in this book, which were thought to savor too much of superstition, it underwent another revision, and was further altered in 1551, when it was again confirmed by Parliament. This edition is usually cited as the Second Prayer-book of Edward VI. it is very nearly the same with that which is at present in use. The two Liturgies, A.D. 1549 and A.D. 1552, with other Documents, set forth by Authority in the Reign of King Edward VI, were very carefully edited for the Parker Society by the Rev. Joseph Ketley, M.A., at the Cambridge University Press, in 1844, in octavo. The two acts of Parliament (2 and 3 Edwiard VI, c. 1, and 5 and 6 Edward VI, c. 1) which had been passed for establishing uniformity of divine service were repealed in the first year of Queen Mary, who restored the Latin liturgies according to the popish forms of worship. On the accession of Elizabeth, however, the Prayer-book was restored, and has been in use ever since. For the later history of the subject, including liturgical books in England, Scotland, and America, SEE COMMON PRAYER.

Among the curiosities of the subject we notice the following:

(a.) Liturgy of the Primitive Episcopal Church. “The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the Use of the Primitives Episcopal Church, revived in England in the Year of our Redemption One thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, together with the Psalter or Psalms of David,” though bearing the imprint of London, was printed at Liverpool, but was never published. It was edited by the Reverend George Montgomery West, M.A., a presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the state and diocese of Ohio, in North America. This volume is of great rarity, not more than five or six copies being found in the libraries of the curious in ecclesiastical matters. The liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the basis of this edition, excepting two or three alterations in the office for the ministration of baptism, and a few verbal alterations to fit it for use in England and in Ireland. “The Primitive Episcopal Church, revived in England in 1831,” had a short existence of little more than twelve months.

(b.) Deistical Liturgy. In 1752 a liturgy was published in Liverpool by some of the Presbyterians, as Antitrinitarians are often called in England, but Christ’s name is hardly mentioned in it, and the third part of the Godhead is not at all recognized in it. It is known also by the name of “Liverpool Liturgy.” In 1776 was published “A Liturgy on the universal Principles of Religion and Morality:” it was compiled by David Williams, with the chimerical design of uniting all parties and persuasions in one. comprehensive form. This liturgy is composed in imitation of the Book of Common Prayer, with responses celebrating the divine perfections and works, with thanksgivings, confessions, and supplications. The principal part of three of the hymns for morning and evening service is selected from the works of Milton and Thomson, though considerable use is made of the language of the Scriptures (see Orton, Letters, 1:80 sq.; Bogue and Bennett, Hist. of the Dissenters, 3:342).

VII. Literature. Of bibliographical treatises on the literature of liturgy we may name Zaccaria, Bibliotheca Ritualis (Rome, 1776-8, 4 volumes, 4to); Guranegera , Institutions Liturgiiues (Paris, 1840-51); Ksecher, Bibliotheca Liturgica, etc., pages 699-866; Liturgies and other Documents of the Ante-Nicene Period (Ante-Nicene Library, Edinb. 1872, 8vo). Special works of note on the subject of liturgy are: J. Goar, , sive Rituacle Grecorum, etc., Gr. and Lat. (Par. 1647; Venice, 1740); Jos. Aloys. Assemani (R.C.), Codex Litur sicus ecclesiae universae…. in quo continentur libri rituales, missales, pontificales, officia, dypticha, etc., ecclesiarum Occidentis et Orientis (published under the auspices of pope Boniface XIV, Rome, 1749-66, 13 volumes); Euseb. Renaudot (R.C.), Liturgiarum Orientalium collectio (Paris, 1716; reprinted in 1847, 2 volumes); L.A. Muratori (R.C.), Liturgia Romana vetus (Venet. 1748, 2 volumes), contains the three Roman sacramentaires of Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory I, also the Missale Gothicum, and a learned introductory dissertation De rebus liturgicis; W. Palmer (Anglican), Origines Liturgicae (Lond. 1832 and 1845, 2 volumes, 8vo) [with special reference to the Anglican liturgy]; Thos. Brett, Collection of the Principal Liturgies used in the Christian Church in the celebration of the Eucharist, particularly the anccient (translated into English), with a Dissertation upon them (London, 1838); W. Trollope (Anglican), The Greek Liturgy of St. James (Edinb. 1848); Daniel (Lutheran, the most learned German liturgist), Codex Liturgicus ecclesiae universae in epitomem redactus (Lips. 1847 sq., 4 volumes; volume 1 contains the Roman, volume 4 the Oriental liturgies); Fr. J. Mone (I.C.), Lateinische u. Griechische Messen aus dem 2ten bis 6ten Jahrhundert (Frankf. a. M. 1850), contains valuable treatises on the Gallican, African, and Roman Mass; J.M. Neale (Anglican, the most learned English ritualist and liturgist), Tetralogia liturgica; sive St. Chrysostom, St. Jacobi, St. Marci divina missae: quibus accedit ordo Mozarabicus (Lond. 1849); the same, The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, or according to the Use of the Churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople (Lond. 1859, folio, in the Greek original; and the same liturgies in an English translation, with an introduction and appendices, also at London, 1859); the same, Hist. of the Holy Eastern Ch. (Lond. 1850-72, 5 volumes, 8vo; Gen.Introd. volume 2); the same, Essays on Liturgioloqgy and Ch. History (Lond. 1863) [this work, dedicated to the metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, is a collection of various learned treatises of the author from the Christian Remembracer, on the Roman and Gallican Breviary, the Church Collects, the Mozarabic and Ambrosian liturgies, liturgical quotations, etc.]; Binterim, Denkwurdigkeiten d. Christ.-Kathol. Kirche, Freeman, Principles of Divine Service (Oxf. 1855, 8vo, enlarged in 1863); Mabillon, De Liturgia Gallicana, etc. (1865), Etheridge, Syrian Ch. Page 188 sq.; Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 284 sq.; and his Manual of Prelacy and Ritualismn (Phila. 1869, 12mo), page 275 sq.; Riddle, Christian Antiquities, page 396 sq., 602 sq.; Siegel, Handb. d. Christl. Kirchl. Alterthmer, 3:202 sq., Augusti, Handb. d. Christl. Archaeol. 1:191 sq.; 2:537 sq.; 3:704 sq., 714 sq.; Blunt, Dict. of Hist. and Doctr. Theol. s.v., and Eadie, Eccles. Diet. s.v.; Bunsen, Christianity and Mankind (Lond. 1854), volume 7, which contains Reliquiae Liturgicae (the Irvingite work); Readings upon the Liturgy and other Divine Offices of the Clurch (London, 1848-54); Hofling, Liturgisches Urkundenbuch (Leipz. 1854); Hefele (C. Jos.), Beitr. zu Kirchengesch. Archaeol. u. Litursgi (Tub. 1864), volume 2; Dollinger, Heathenism and Judaism; Schaff, Ch. Hist. 2, 100; Edinb. Review, 1852 (April): The Round Table, 1867 (August 10); New Englander, 1861 (July), art. 6; Mercersburg Review, 1871 (January). art. 5; Brit. and For. Miss. Rev. 1857 (July). (C.W.)

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Liturgy

denotes all the ceremonies in general belonging to divine service. The word comes from the Greek, , public service, or public ministry; formed of , public, and , work. In a more restrained signification, liturgy is used among the Romanists to signify the mass; and among us the common prayer. All who have written on liturgies agree that, in primitive days, divine service was exceedingly simple, clogged with very few ceremonies, and consisted of but a very small number of prayers; but, by degrees, they increased the number of ceremonies, and added new prayers, to render the office more awful and venerable to the people. At length, things were carried to such a pitch that a regulation became necessary; and it was found needful to put the service, and the manner of performing it, into writing; and this was what they called a liturgy. Liturgies have been different at different times and in different countries. We have the liturgy of St. Chrysostom, of St. Peter, the Armenian liturgy, Gallican liturgy, &c. The properties required in a public liturgy, says Paley, are these: it must be compendious; express just conceptions of the divine attributes; recite such wants as a congregation are likely to feel, and no other; and contain as few controverted propositions as possible. The liturgy of the church of England was composed A.D. 1547, and established in the second year of King Edward VI. In the fifth year of this prince, it was reviewed, because some things were contained in that liturgy which showed a compliance with the superstitions of those times; and exceptions were taken against it by learned men at home, and by Calvin abroad. Some alterations were made in it, which consisted in adding the general confession and absolution, and the communion service, to begin with the commandments. The use of oil in confirmation and extreme unction, was left out, and also prayers for souls departed, and what related to a belief of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. The liturgy, so reformed, was established by the acts of 5th and 6th of Edward VI, chap. 1. However, it was abolished by Queen Mary, who enacted that the service should stand as it was commonly used in the last year of King Henry VIII. That of Edward VI, was reestablished, with some few alterations, by Elizabeth. Some farther alterations were introduced, in consequence of the review of the Common Prayer Book, by order of King James, in the first year of his reign, particularly in the office of private baptism, in several rubrics, and other passages, with the addition of five or six new prayers and thanksgivings, and all that part of the catechism which contains the doctrines of the sacraments. This Book of Common Prayer, so altered, remained in force from the first year of King James to the fourteenth of Charles II. The last review of the liturgy was in the year 1661. It as an invidious cavil, says Dr. Nichols, that our liturgy was compiled out of popish books. Our reformers took nothing from them, but what was taken before from the oldest writers. We have many things out of the Greek liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom; more out of the litanies of Ambrose and Gregory; very much out of the ancient forms of the church dispersed in the works of the fathers, who wrote long before the Roman Breviary, and Canon of the Mass. Our Reformers added many prayers, and thanksgivings, and exhortations, to supply the defect.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary