and S. Chrysostom's Liturgies, to compare with the Barberini Codex of the same.

Meanwhile however the materials that do exist have probably not been thoroughly worked. It is more than likely that a systematic investigation of the early ecclesiastical writers might render more help than has hitherto been suspected for a comparative treatment of the subject. But then the student must be first of all tolerably familiar not only with the principles of Liturgiology, but with the actual words of the formularies, in order to be able to seize and turn to account the passing hint or veiled reference; for he will find but few direct statements bearing on his subject. Again, the Oriental Liturgies, from a critical study of which great fruit might be expected, need to be examined by persons who are not only competent scholars in their respective languages, but who are also technical Liturgiologists, and these two qualifications have not hitherto been often found combined. A person unacquainted with the technical language of liturgies and the principles of ritual will not be a safe guide, however good a linguist he may be.

For a long time past there has been a very great difficulty, at any rate for young students, in the way of beginning a study of the Liturgies. There is no Handbook or Introduction to the subject, nor has there been even any available edition of the Texts. Dr. Neale's little edition of the five Greek Liturgies, and the translation of the same by Drs. Neale and Littledale, are almost the only books that are not out of print, and that do not consequently command higher prices each year as the demand increases. The Syrian, Coptic, and Ethiopic Liturgies must still be studied in the Latin versions of them given by Renaudot, a costly book: while, as to the Western Liturgies, there is not one book, so far as I know, within the reach of an ordinary student, to which he may turn for information.

The present reprint of texts is an attempt to supply in some measure this desideratum. A glance at the Table of Contents will shew the ground covered by it. The reasons for the choice of the particular Liturgies and for the grouping of them, and an account of the sources of the Texts, will be found in the Introduction. There has been no attempt at a critical handling of the texts, except in two or three isolated places, to which attention is called by a footnote. This is not because I am blind to the need of such a critical revision. It is because such a work would really (as the remarks already made will shew) demand a generation of scholars, and must be done piecemeal. We may hope that before very long a recollation of the earliest MSS. of the Greek Liturgies, at least, may be undertaken, and a critical edition of them founded upon it. But meanwhile it is a step worth taking, though a humble one, to put into an available form for beginners the already existing materials. Lecturers too may find it useful as a textbook for their classes.

With respect to the execution of the work, I would ask the reader to take notice of the following points.

One object which I have set before me has been, by means of uniformity of arrangement and type, to facilitate as far as possible the comparison of different Liturgies. As they have been collected from several different sources, this has sometimes necessitated slight alteration of the original. With very few exceptions, and those I believe always noted, this will be found to be confined to the punctuation and arrangement of type. The texts are transcribed verbally from the authorities indicated but I am responsible for the punctuation, and here and there for the fresh division of paragraphs.

I am also responsible for whatever stands in the margin, and for the footnotes, except some of those to the Armenian Liturgy. Those marked (M) are due to the Rev. S. C. Malan,

who has kindly allowed me to copy them, as well as his version

of that Liturgy.

References to the Psalms are made according to the numbering of our English Bible Version. The beginner may need to be reminded that this is different from that of the LXX. and Vulgate.

The mode adopted of dividing the Liturgies into sections is important, and will be found to facilitate very considerably the comparison of the contents, arrangement, and separate parts of different Liturgies. Each of these sections, i. e. those marked by Roman numerals, may be regarded as (so to speak) a separate act; the contents of each section being more closely connected together than with what precedes or follows. For instance, by the help of this division' the different connexions in which the Lord's Prayer is used in different Liturgies may be readily traced. In the First group of Liturgies, as well as in all those of the West, it is connected with the Great Intercession, and thus with the Great Oblation, being so to speak the crown and summing up of it. In the Second and Third groups it is connected with the Communion, though occupying very different relations with regard to this division of the Service; for in most of the Liturgies it is joined to the preparatory portion, whether the Ritual-preparation (i.e. the Fraction, Commixture, etc.), or the Preparation of the Communicants (i. e. the Prayer of Humble Access); but in the Ethiopic 'Canon Universalis' (as with us) it is joined to the Post-communion.

The letters a, b, c, etc., which are also placed in the margin, are purely arbitrary signs, introduced merely as a convenient mode of referring to particular prayers or rubrics. They have no further significance.

The black type used in the text of the Greek Liturgies is intended to shew the extent of verbal coincidence between the Liturgy and the LXX, or Greek New Testament. No such

plan has been used in the other Eastern Liturgies, because the Latin dress in which they appear is not original, and could not therefore fairly be compared with the Vulgate. Quotations or allusions are here merely indicated by marginal references.

The small capitals used in the margin indicate the more important of the sections, those in fact which are found common to all the chief Liturgies.

The Edition of Renaudot's 'Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio' used has been Leslie's reprint (1847), and to its pages the references are made; but in any case of doubt the original edition has been consulted.

Such questions as, When did the Liturgies begin to assume a fixed form? When, and in what shape, were they first committed to writing? and other cognate points, are beyond the scope of the present work. Important as they are, they do not admit of being discussed shortly. It will be easily seen however that I have assumed an intermediate position between the views of those on the one hand who hold that the Liturgies had assumed a recognised and fixed form so early as to be quoted in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Hebrewsa view as to which I feel bound to express my belief, both on general and on particular grounds (notwithstanding the weight of Dr. Neale's1 opinion to the contrary), that it is untenable 2——

1 Essays in Liturgiology,' pp. 411 seq.

2 It is impossible to discuss adequately so wide a question as this within the limits of a note; but it is only right to indicate some of the grounds of the above conclusion. In the first place, then, it seems scarcely probable; it is, at all events, contrary to such scraps of evidence as remain, and to the traditionary belief; that the Liturgy had assumed a fixed form at so early a date as the time when S. Paul wrote his First Epistle to the Corinthians. The traditionary belief certainly was that the only fixed formula of the Apostles consisted of the Lord's Prayer and the Commemoration of the Passion (including of course the Institution). But, apart from any general considerations, an investigation of the several passages which are common to the New Testament and the Anaphora of S. James' Liturgy (it is this Liturgy for which the claim is advanced) gives a verdict wholly unfavour

and of those on the other who, because there are some palpable interpolations and marks of comparatively late date in some of the Texts, assert broadly that they are all untrustworthy and valueless as evidence. This view I venture to think equally uncritical and groundless with the former. Although no doubt at present there are many points uncertain, I cannot but think that a great many can be ascertained with reasonable certainty; and that a great many more admit of being determined with as much probability as belongs to a large proportion of accepted historical inferences.

able to the priority of the Liturgy. To mention two instances, on the first of which Dr. Neale lays great stress. (a) I Cor. ii. 9, which appears in the Prayer of the Great Oblation (see p. 42, § XIV). In the Epistle the passage is manifestly a quotation, being abruptly introduced, and affording no antecedent for the initial relative, a. In the Liturgy the passage runs smoothly on, naturally following the antecedent daphμara. Therefore, says Dr. Neale, in the Epistle it is manifestly quoted from the Liturgy. But there is another equally possible hypothesis, viz. that both Epistle and Liturgy quote from some third document. Quotations in the Liturgies always, as a matter of course, run on smoothly, interwoven into the context; there is, therefore, no particular weight in this consideration, while there are two fatal facts not noticed by Dr. Neale. These are, first, that the same passage verbatim occurs also in S. Mark's Liturgy (see p. 183, § XI. f), but in a totally different connection, and with a different antecedent supplied to the relative; secondly, that the passage is wanting in the Syriac S. James' Liturgy in the Prayer of the Great Oblation (see p. 70, § X. a), which otherwise corresponds exactly with the Greek formula. This makes it probable that the passage was added to the prayer not earlier than the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). (b) Or, again, if we look at Heb. x. 19, 20 (see p. 39, § X. f), we shall see that in the Epistle there is a twofold application of the word kaτanéтaoμa: but in the Liturgy a still further reference is imported, of which there is no trace in the Epistle, a reference to the veil at that moment being raised from off the Mysteries by the Priest. Is it not more natural to assume that the passage which has the simpler intention is the original, and that which has the more complex is the quotation ?

It is obvious that such a theory as this, in itself antecedently improbable, requires very strong evidence if it is to command assent; but there is not a single alleged quotation which, when closely scrutinized, yields it any real support.