398 (Sw. 209, 215). Dr. Swainson characterises it as "this most important Liturgy of the Church of Palestine" (p. 206).

A Liturgy of St. Mark, representing the Alexandrian Church, of which that evangelist was the reputed founder, is known to us from a manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century, and some parts of the service have been traced up to the time of St. Clement of Rome, c. A.D. 100 (D.C.A. 1022). It is heard of in connection with St. Mark in 1145, and in connection with Alexandria as well as with St. Mark, early in the thirteenth century (Sw. pp. xxix., xxx.).

The Clementine Liturgy is named after St. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 100), but its ascription to him is baseless. It survives in the eighth book of the Apostolical Constitutions, a work not later, it is thought, than c. A.D. 350. What particular Church this Liturgy represented has not been ascertained; but as a monument of antiquity it is of much value, since the approximate date of its latest portions is known (cf. D.C.A. 1025, 1026). The Apostolical

Constitutions are translated in Clark's Ante-Nicene Library; the Clementine Liturgy may also be seen in Neale and Littledale's volume and in Bingham (Bing. xv. iii.).

The Liturgy of St. Basil. This Father was archbishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, A.D. 370–379. The Liturgy under his name, which is still used in various parts of the East, is first heard of with the Liturgy of St. James, in the council of 692 (vid. supr. p. 11). There are no data for ascertaining what part of the present work came from the hand of St. Basil, nor

has it escaped interpolation in more recent times (Sw. p. 150). Dr. Swainson (p. 75) prints an edition of it from the Barberini manuscript, which dates from the eighth century, and this copy contains (p. 76) our Prayer of St. Chrysostom, i ràs Kowas ταύτας καὶ συμφώνους.

The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom is still in general use in the East, St. Basil's being in that respect its only competitor. That Chrysostom, who was archbishop of Constantinople from 398 to 404, composed any part of this Liturgy there is no proof whatever; nor is it even ascribed to him in the earliest known MS., the Barberini, in the eighth century (Sw. p. 88), though his name is prefixed to two of the prayers in that MS. (Sw. pp. 89, 90). In the next oldest MS. (c. A.D. 1110) Chrysostom's name has been omitted from the two prayers, but it appears in the title itself (Sw. pp. 100, 101), having come to be ascribed to him probably because it was especially the Constantinopolitan Liturgy, used in all the churches of the patriarchate whose early history St. Chrysostom so much adorned.

This instance of the title is only one out of many which could be adduced to show how this Liturgy has grown by interpolations to what it now is. Another is, that the prayer ó ràs κowás, which was absent in the Barberini MS., first begins to occur in the one of A.D. 1110 (Sw. 113).

In quitting the Greek Liturgies we may observe that a comparison of them one with another has suggested to liturgiologists their original derivation from one parent stock, the reproduction of which,

however, would be no easy task (Ham. A. L. Intr. p. xv). Some of their elements have entered the English Communion Service, but the latter has been framed far more on the model of the Western Sacramentaries than on that of the Greek Liturgies.

§ 6. The Latin Sacramentaries. (On the word see § 4.) The Leonine, Gelasian, and the Gregorian, three successive editions of the Roman Sacramentary, are all that we shall need to notice. They may be seen in Muratori's Liturgia Romana Vetus. The Leonine was so named by its discoverer Blanchini, who in 1735 met with a mutilated MS. of it in the Library of Verona, and from internal evidence attributed it to Pope Leo the Great (440-461), with whose works also it is printed (P. L. lv.), but only as "attributed" to him. A full account of it, and of the opinions it has given rise to, may be seen in the preface (Murat. and P. L.), and briefly in D. C. A. pp. 1032, 1829. That Leo was its author is now generally disallowed, but its antiquity as the oldest known Sacramentary is granted. The Veronese MS. has been dated c. A.D. 488. Five of our collects are found here (§ 94).

The Gelasian Sacramentary (Murat. and P. L. lxxiv. 1047), known from a tenth-century MS. discovered in 1680 (D. C. A. 1032, b), is attributed to the pope after whom it is named on strong circumstantial evidence (ib. 1033, a). That Gelasius (A.D. 492-496) did revise or set forth the Roman Sacramentary is inferred from a statement by Walafrid Strabo (ob. c. 849), to the effect that "he is said to have

arranged (ordinâsse) prayers composed by himself and others" (Wal. E. R. cap. 22, in P. L. cxiv. 946 B), coupled with the fact that a Gelasian missal is mentioned as existing in 831 (D. C. A. p. 1830, a). But as it is in the nature of Church services to grow with the times, we are not warranted in supposing that the present Gelasian Sacramentary came from the hand. of Gelasius as it is, or in assigning any prayer in it, because of its appearing there, to the year 494 or 495. In this Sacramentary are found about twenty of our proper Collects (§ 94), and about seven others (S. P. C. K. 86).

The Gregorian Sacramentary is named after Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), among whose works it is printed (P. L. lxxviii.), as well as in Muratori. Gregory's early biographer John the Deacon (Vit. Greg. ii. 17, in P. L. lxxv. 94), states that Gregory, by alterations and additions, but chiefly by expunging, retrenched and shortened the Gelasian service of the mass, and the Gregorian Sacramentary now in our hands is considered to be the result. That any codex, however, exhibiting the genuine work of Gregory has been discovered, or ever will be, Muratori does not believe (Mur. L. R. V. i. 63). About thirty of our proper collects and four others are from this work (§ 94; S.P.C.K. 86). This is no great number from so large a body of devotional matter; but the Sacramentaries as now extant so abound in unwarranted expressions, the intercession of saints being more especially the prominent features, that the occurrence of a prayer harmonising entirely with Scripture and our present forms is comparatively rare.

Then, again, for the purposes of the historical liturgiologist these monuments, from their having grown by a law of continual accretions, are not a little disappointing. Far more satisfactory for historical purposes are the descriptions left by early writers of the Church services of their day; by Justin Martyr, for instance, and others whom we next proceed to notice.

The Eastern Liturgy and that element of the Western Sacramentary which answered to it, namely, the Mass, differed considerably in plan and structure; and notably in this, that while the Eastern service was almost unvarying, the Western (with the exception of most of the Consecration Prayer) varied more or less from day to day. The Greek service was characterised by some very lengthy addresses to God, in strong contrast to most of the Western prayers. In substance one resembled the other in occasional passages, but the differences far outnumbered the resemblances. The Greek Trisagion, for instance, and the Latin Tersanctus, though founded on the same words, deviated widely from one another. One portion, however, in each service, the Consecration Prayer, was substantially the same, but with this important difference, that the invocation of the Holy Spirit invariably occurred in the East and was invariably absent in the West. The English Common Prayer, which has many passages common to both, has (besides the Prayer of St. Chrysostom) extremely little of what is exclusively Greek, although for one brief period (1549-1552) it had, in its Consecration Prayer, the Greek Invocation on the Elements.