« PoprzedniaDalej »
that the latter part of the quotation, namely, “ Nec “est qui contradicat tibi, cum enim volueris salvas, “et nullus resistit voluntati tuæ,” is not to be found in any liturgy bearing the name of Basil. Several reasons, however, may be assigned for this. First, the copy of Basil's liturgy referred to by Peter the deacon may have contained some prayer or rite introduced by the bishop of some particular church, in which the passage may have occurred, and yet would not be found in the great body of MSS. Secondly, this passage may have occurred in the prayers which were made over the penitents, which have long ceased to exist in Basil's liturgy; and yet we know from the nineteenth canon of the council of Laodicea, commented on by Theodore Balsamon, and from many other sources, that some prayers of the kind were formerly universal in the east. But, thirdly, I cannot help suspecting that this passage did not occur in the liturgy, and that some person may have introduced it here to suit his own purpose. It has been remarked to me by a learned friend, that the passage in question contains “a manifest allusion to Rom. ix. 15—19, and that “ these words do not necessarily convey the doctrine “ of particular election;" yet I do not think it probable that any person who did not hold this doctrine, and that of irresistible grace, would have placed the above passage prominently before the minds of the people by introducing it into the liturgy. The words of St. Paul need explanation, and would be more properly commented upon in a sermon than introduced into a prayer.
At the first glance, the doctrines of irresistible grace and particular election seem to be conveyed
in those words, “cum enim volueris salvas, et nullus resistit voluntati tuæ;" and, taken with the remainder of the quotation made by Peter, they would induce us to think that Basil held those doctrines. This, however, was not the fact. Basil asserted the freedom of the human will, and believed that God desired the salvation of all men'. We do not find sentiments like those which Peter apparently attributes to him, either in those liturgies which bear the name of Basil, or indeed in any Oriental liturgy that I have read. Considering, then, that such expressions as occur in the quotation, would probably have been used in the liturgy only by one who held the doctrines of Augustine, and that Basil did not hold those doctrines ;
I think there is reason to suspect that the above expressions did not occur in Basil's liturgy, but have been introduced by some persons who wished to claim his authority in favour of the doctrines alluded to. We may therefore conclude, that the first half of the quotation made by Peter the deacon is found in the Constantinopolitan text of Basil's liturgy; and that the remainder is probably an interpolation, or, at all events, affords no reason to think that the text has been mutilated. It may perhaps be necessary to remark, that when it is said by Peter in the conclusion, “ docens per hanc precem ;" we are not to infer that the quotation he has made formed one collect of the original liturgy; but that the liturgy itself, which the
See the passages quoted by Refutation of Calvinism ;" bishop Tomline from this Fa- especially those from vol. i. ther in the fifth chapter of his p. 127. 197; vol. ii. p. 78.
Fathers often called precem or evxnv', contained these words.
Considering the Constantinopolitan text alone, therefore, I think there is no reason to dispute the prima facie evidence for its genuineness, which arises from its having been from time immemorial used in the country and language of Basil himself, without any dispute or suspicion ever having arisen on the subject in that part of the church. This text is found alike in all MSS., of whatever age or country, that represent the Constantinopolitan liturgy of Basil. The interpolation and modern additions are easily detected, the variations are naturallyaccounted for. If some parts are doubtful, the greater part is not so.
We find it substantiated by a council of two hundred and twenty-seven eastern bishops, three hundred years after the time of Basil, bishops who lived in the same country, spoke the same language, and ruled the same churches as Basil himself. We receive additional conviction from the quotations of Peter the deacon, who lived little more than a hundred years after the time of Basil.
after the time of Basil. We also know that the Christians, for some time after the death of Basil, alluded but little in their writings to the mode of celebrating the eucharist, being prevented by the law of secrecy; and, therefore, we have altogether as much evidence for the genuinenesss of the text, as could have been expected from ancient
* Ο μεν ιεράρχης ευχήν ex apostolica traditione susceiepàvÉTÈ ToŨ delov Ovolaorn- pimus." Vigil. Rom. in Epipiov teléoas. Dionys. Areop. stola ad Profuturum Bracade Eccl. Hierarchia, c. 3, p. 283, rensem. " Orationem Dominitom.i. edit. Corderii. Qua- cam idcirco mox post precem propter et ipsius canonicæ pre- dicimus.” Gregorii Magni cis textum direximus subter Epist. 64, lib. vii. adjectum, quem (Deo propitio)
writers. Considering all this, I see no sort of reason to doubt that the Constantinopolitan is the genuine text of Basil's liturgy. Certain parts may afford just grounds for discussion, but of the remainder, I think, there can be no just doubt. Supposing, then, that this was the only text in existence, we should have no great difficulty in ascertaining the true text of Basil's liturgy.
It must not be concealed, however, that another text exists. This is the Alexandrian or Egyptian, which can be well ascertained by ancient MSS. and by a comparison of ancient versions in different languages. The Alexandrian liturgy of Basil is found in the Coptic", Greek", and Arabic', languages, and these versions concur in establishing one text. The text thus ascertained is different from that of Constantinople, and the variation is so marked, that it cannot have proceeded merely from the inaccuracy of transcribers, or translators, or any other ordinary
It is true, indeed, that the latter part of this text, or the Anaphora of the liturgy, agrees in order and main substance with the corresponding part of the Constantinopolitan text; so that (though differing materially in expressions and ideas) they are plainly and indisputably derived from the same original form. But the introduction or preparatory part', and the expressions and ideas, are in many respects very dissimilar.
W Translated into Latin by at Augusta Vindelicor. A.D. Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. 1604, and copied into the Bitom. i. p. 1.
bliotheca Patrum. It is of no * E codice regio. Renaudot, value now, since Renaudot has Lit. Oriental. tom. i. p. 57. translated the Coptic, of which
y Translated indifferently it was a version. into Latin by Victor Schialach, 2 Renaudot, tom. i. p. 1a Maronite Syrian, published 13.
To ascertain the antiquity of this Egyptian text requires some trouble. The Coptic version is no doubt very old, for Coptic has not for many centuries been spoken in Egypt, at least not such Coptic as that of the liturgy of Basil; and there is no reason to doubt that this liturgy in Coptic is as old as the Mahommedan invasion of Egypt about A.D. 640, and perhaps even more ancient. The Arabic version cannot have been made till some time after the Arabs conquered Egypt in the seventh century. The Alexandrian text in Greek is probably very old. There is even reason for thinking that it is older than the separation of the orthodox and Monophysites at the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. It does not commemorate any of those persons who lived after the council of Chalcedon, and were accounted to be saints by the Monophysites only, whose names occur abundantly in the Coptic and Arabic versions. It is also probable that the Coptic, and its version the Arabic, were derived from a Greek original; for in both, certain expressions are retained in Greek, chiefly the directions of the deacon to the people. These are of such a simple and ordinary description, being in fact directions to the people to “pray,” or “look towards the east,” or
, “stand up," or bow their heads“, that no reason can be assigned for their use in Greek, except we suppose the liturgy in early times to have been performed in that language, and the people to have been made particularly well acquainted with these directions of the deacon, which it was thought
προσεύξασθε, Renaudot, νοι ανάστητε, ibid. τας κεφαλάς
, . p. 2. στάθητε, p. 13. εις άνα- υμών τω θεώ κλίνατε, p. 21, τολάς βλέπετε, ibid. οι καθήμε- &c. &c.