the question resolves itself into this: is the ambrosian rite archaic roman, or a much romanized form of the gallican rite? and this question is mixed with that of the provenance of the gallican rite itself. some liturgiologists of a past generation, notably j. m. neale and others from the anglican tradition, referred the hispano-gallican and celtic family of liturgies to an original imported into provence from ephesus in asia minor by st. irenæus, who had received it through st. polycarp from st. john the divine. the name ephesine was applied to this liturgy, and it was sometimes called the liturgy of st. john. the idea was not modern. colman, at the synod of whitby in 664, attributed the celtic rule of easter to st. john, and in the curious little eighth-century treatise already mentioned (in cott. manuscript nero a. ii) one finds: "johannes evangelista primum cursus gallorum decantavit. inde postea beatus policarpus discipulus sci iohannis. inde postea hiereneus qui fuit eps lugdunensis gallei. tertius ipse ipsum cursum decantauerunt [sic] in galleis." the author is not speaking of the liturgy, but of the divine office, but that does not affect the question, and the theory, which had its obvious controversial value, was at one time very popular with anglicans. neale considered that the ambrosian rite was a romanized form of this hispano-gallican - or ephesine rite; he never brought much evidence for this view, being generally contented with stating it and giving a certain number of not very convincing comparisons with the mozarabic rite (essays on liturgiology, ed. 1867, 171-197). but neale greatly exaggerated the romanizing effected by st. charles borromeo, and his essay on the ambrosian liturgy is somewhat out of date, though much of it is of great value as an analysis of the existing rite. w. c. bishop, in his article on the ambrosian breviary (church q., oct., 1886), takes up the same line as neale in claiming a gallican origin for the ambrosian divine office.