Obrazy na stronie


argument. The other two Liturgies, of Nestorius and Theo- Principal dore, borrow from it not only the Pro-anaphoral portion, but also the whole of the end of the Service from the Communion onwards: shewing that they are subsequent to it in time. But the Liturgy of Nestorius has in the Invocation the characteristic phrase of the Church of Constantinople 'changing them (the elements) by the Holy Spirit,' which could not have been adopted since the schism between the Churches in 431. Hence the Liturgy of Nestorius must be earlier than that date, and a fortiori the Liturgy of SS. Adaeus and Maris

must be older still.

the words

A singular fact is that in this Liturgy the Words of In- Omission of stitution are omitted, and there is a difference of opinion as Institution. to the exact place at which they should be inserted. There is no doubt that they must be supplied somewhere; the evidence of their belonging to the Liturgy is too strong to admit of doubt. For 1. Their presence in the other two Liturgies shews that it would be no peculiarity of the Nestorian body, or East-Syrian Church, to omit them. 2. In fact one of the principal Nestorian writers, Ebedjesus, acknowledges that the words of Christ are essential to consecration. 3. An Anaphora of this Family, of the sixth century, in the British Museum, transcribed by Prof. G. Bickell, has the Words. 4. George of Arbela, another Nestorian Doctor, in the tenth century, mentions them. 5. The Liturgy of Malabar, which, except in certain known particulars, represents this same Liturgy, speaks of the consecration being wrought by the Word of God and the Holy Ghost' (see the passage in Neale and Littledale's Translations of the Primitive Liturgies,' p. 159). 6. We know that the correctors of the Malabar Liturgy at the Synod of Diamper found the Words of Institution in it, for they mention certain additions which they expunged1.


The only question is, Where should they be inserted? For there is no indication given in the text. We have marked the

The substance of the above is taken from Bickell's 'Conspectus rei Syrorum literariae,' pp. 61-65.

At what

point they should be supplied.

Reason of· the omission.

Points men-
tioned by
S. Ephrem

place (below, p. 274) which Prof. Bickell assigns to them. Neale and Littledale (ut supra) place them rather later. The strong argument for deciding with the former, is that thus we are strictly following the analogy of the other two Liturgies, of Nestorius and Theodore, which in other respects are framed on the exact model of this. Both of them have an ascription of praise, or Canon, following the Words of Institution, said by the Priest, expwvws, aloud.

The reason of the omission most probably was, partly the sacredness of the words, and partly that they were well known and were supplied traditionally. The same thing is found in the Gallican Liturgy, the only difference being that there the leading words Qui pridie are generally given.

The exclusion of unbelievers, the Triumphal Hymn, Intercession for the Living and Dead, the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the rite of Consignation (see below, p. 278), are distinctly mentioned by S. Ephrem (Syrus) of Edessa, who died A.D. 378.

§x. The Western Liturgies.

Marked by the number

When we turn from the Eastern to the Western Liturgies we of variables. are at once brought face to face with a striking difference

caused by the enormously increased number of variables that we meet with. As between the two Western families, the Roman and Hispano-Gallican, the difference is only one of degree. Between these two families and those of the East it really amounts to one of kind. It is impossible to print in a few pages, as can be done for the Eastern Liturgies, the whole of the Priest's part, Prayers, Prefaces, etc., with the Rubrics, which we have hitherto understood by the word 'Liturgy,' seeing that every holy day has some special variables of its own, which have to be fitted into a fixed framework. A volume would really be required for each Liturgy, Plan adopted taking the word in this comprehensive sense. What we have


'done here is to reprint just this fixed framework,-i. e. the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass,-giving a few examples, within square brackets, of the variable parts of the service, and

thus shewing how they are to be fitted in in saying the Service. The italicised portions of the Roman order, as given below, are compiled from the Rubrics proper, the Rubricae generales and the Ritus servandus in celebratione missae, which are printed at the beginning of the Missal.

On the arrangement of the Liturgies of Groups IV and V.

the varia

Dr. Daniel's

The arrangement of these four Liturgies is based upon that Reasons for of Dr. Daniel in his 'Codex Liturgicus,' vol. i. pp. 48-113. It tions from has however been carefully revised, and a number of alterations arrangement. have been introduced, both in the arrangements of corresponding parts, and in the language. The alterations in language, in the case of the Roman and Mozarabic, are entirely confined to corrections found necessary on a careful collation with the respective missals. In the case of the Ambrosian and Gallican they arise from our attaching more weight to Le Brun than to Dr. Daniel's authorities. Still, the alterations in the Ambrosian are very slight: in the Gallican they are much more serious. Dr. Daniel's arrangement of the Gallican Liturgy was wholly Especially in taken from Mabillon's classical treatise de Liturgia Gallicana. Liturgy. Since Mabillon's time however a most important document for the reconstruction of the Gallican Liturgy has been discovered, viz. the Expositio brevis1, attributed (rightly or wrongly) to S. Germanus of Paris (A.D. 555–576), but almost certainly of not later date than the seventh century.

the Gallican

phetia,' etc.

The most important result of the discovery of this document The Prowas to clear up a point which had been misunderstood by Mabillon, and which being misunderstood had caused confusion in the arrangement of the earlier parts of the Liturgy. It had always been known that there was a Prophetia in the Liturgy, and a prayer following it called Collectio post prophetiam. Mabillon not unnaturally thought that Prophetia must mean a Lection from the Old Testament, which was known to

1 This document is to be found in Martene and Durand's 'Thesaurus Anecdotorum,' tom. v. p. 91 etc.; or in Martene, 'De Ecclesiae ritibus,' tom. i. p. 167 etc., reprinted in Excerpta Liturgica,' No. III (Messrs. Jas. Parker & Co., Oxford).

Reason for the name.

Connexion with Ephesus.

belong to the Gallican order. Thus however the Collectio post prophetiam was placed between the Old Testament Lection and the Epistle, an unnatural position according to Liturgical analogy. But upon the discovery of the Expositio brevis it was found that Prophetia is the Gallican technical name for the Canticum Zachariae, the Hymn which we commonly call the Benedictus, and which seems to have been said or sung in Gaul at every Mass. The Lection from the Old Testament was called Propheta or Lectio prophetica. The Collectio post prophetiam was now seen to be the 'Collect for the day,' and to precede all three Lections, according to the analogy of the Mozarabic. These corrections have been adopted by Le Brun, and are reproduced below, with some others derived from the same source. It seems strange that Dr. Daniel should have followed Mabillon in these points; where the corrections are certain, and based upon evidence not accessible to that learned scholar, where consequently there is no presumption in differing from his conclusions.

§ xi. On the Hispano-Gallican Family.

We have boldly coined a name for this family of Liturgies, which is by some writers called the Ephesine family, and connected with the Apostle S. John. The name at any rate indicates a certain fact, namely, that the Mozarabic Liturgy of Spain, and the several Uses found current in Gaul during the first eight centuries, are grouped together, as being marked by certain common characteristics. It is beyond the scope of the present work to discuss the arguments which have been adduced for connecting these Liturgies with Ephesus. The student can refer to Palmer's 'Origines,' pp. 106-110, 149–158. We venture to think that the following conclusions may be accepted. Though the development of these Liturgies is independent and indigenous, they present unmistakeable indications of a connexion with the East. There was certainly a very close connexion in the second century between the Church of Lyons, at that time the centre of Gallican Christianity, and Ephesus. There are reasons, arising out of a consideration of

the 19th Canon of the Council of Laodicea, in the fourth century, for thinking that an order of Liturgy, different from the type afterwards current in Asia Minor, and resembling the Gallican in some characteristics, had up to that time prevailed in those western parts of Asia Minor, of which Ephesus was the principal Church. It seems at least en not unreasonable to claim some connexion with Ephesus for this group of Liturgies.

bic and Gal


That the Mozarabic and the Gallican are sister growths, and The Mozaranot derived one from the other, seems indicated by the fact lican are that, though there is an all but exact correspondence in their gies. respective orders, the names of the corresponding parts are different in the two Liturgies, e. g. 'Collectio' passim in the Gallican answers to 'Oratio' in the Mozarabic; Contestatio' in the Gallican to 'Illatio' in the Mozarabic; with several other instances, which may be seen at a glance in the comparative Table (p. xxviii). They were so closely akin in structure that in the middle of the ninth century, fifty years after the Gallican Liturgy had been superseded by the Roman, when Charles the Bald wished to have the Mass celebrated before him according to the Gallican rite, priests were summoned for the purpose from Toledo in Spain, where the Mozarabic was still a living Liturgy.


The following are some of the traces of Oriental affinity Traces of shewn by the Liturgies of this family:-1. The various pro- affinity. clamations by the Deacon, e. g. of silence, and others. 2. The regular reading of a Lection from the Old Testament. 3. The 'Preces' (i. e. probably, a series of Intercessions like the Ectené, or Deacon's Litany, of the Eastern Liturgies), and 'Collectio post Precem,' summing up these Intercessions. 4. The position of the Kiss of Peace early in the service, before the commencement of the Anaphora: whereas the earliest notices of the Roman Use place this ceremony in that Liturgy after the Consecration 1. 5. The Exclamation Sancta Sanctis, found in

1 See the Epistle of Pope Innocent to Decentius of Eugubium (a.d. 416) in Gallandi 'Bibl. Vet. Patt.' viii. p. 586, reprinted in ‘Excerpta Liturgica,' No. III. p. 3.

« PoprzedniaDalej »