« PoprzedniaDalej »
were subject to independent patriarchs. I know not how we are to account for this uniformity of liturgy in any other manner, than by supposing it to have prevailed from the beginning. In fact, we find vivid traces of this liturgy, as used at Antioch, in the second century. The liturgy of Cæsarea may have subsisted as long. In the fourth century the same form appears to have been long used all through the patriarchate of Cæsarea. This (besides being inferred from the fathers of that patriarchate) is to be presumed from the simple fact, that Basil's liturgy was immediately and silently received into use by all the churches of that patriarchate.
The Greek or Constantinopolitan text of Basil's liturgy is found in Goar's "Rituale Græcorum." The text, however, which he has printed is modern. To confirm and ascertain it, we must refer with much trouble to the various readings of MSS. which he has placed at the conclusion of the liturgy. It were to be desired, that some critic versed in ritual studies would give us an edition of Basil's liturgy, drawn from the oldest MS., with various readings at the foot of the page. None of the rubrics are found in the oldest MSS., and it would perhaps be better to explain the rites which they describe in notes, so as not to encumber the text with interpolations. Goar's notes on the liturgy of Basil are few; but as the liturgy of Chrysostom is substantially the same as Basil's, the notes of Goar on the former liturgy may be consulted with satisfaction by those who wish to understand the rites of the latter.
b See section I. of this Dissertation, p. 41, 42. P. 158, &c.
LITURGY OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
THE church of Byzantium, originally subject to the metropolitan of Heraclea, in the Thracian civil diocese, was elevated to dignity and power by means of Constantine the Great, who transferred the seat of empire from old Rome to that city, which thenceforth bore the name of Constantinople, or New Rome. The second general council, held at Constantinople A.D. 381, raised the bishop of that church to a dignity and precedence second only to the Bishop of Old Rome; and he acquired jurisdiction over the entire civil diocese of Thrace, which comprised a large portion of European Turkey. Ere long the patriarch of Constantinople extended his authority over the ancient exarchates or patriarchates of Ephesus and Cæsarea, which were formally placed under his jurisdiction by the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. And the whole of Greece also became subject to him.
Besides the liturgy of Basil which I have noticed in the last section, the churches subject to the
Bingham's Antiq. book ii. c. 17, § 10; book ix. c. 4, § 2.
patriarch of Constantinople have from a remote period used another liturgy, which bears the name of Chrysostom. It must be confessed, that the records of antiquity do not furnish us with many allusions to this appellation of the Constantinopolitan liturgy. A tract ascribed to Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople in the early part of the fifth century, certainly speaks of the liturgy of Chrysostom. But this tract is apparently spurious, since it does not seem to have been referred to before the thirteenth century; and yet, (as I have observed above, p. 19,) its contents are of so interesting a nature, that it must have been noticed before that time, had it been long in existence. It also seems to me that the author of this tract refers to the liturgy of St. James as we now see it, with the voluminous additions made by the orthodox of Jerusalem subsequently to the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451; for he describes the liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom as being much shorter than those of James. And hence I conclude that this author lived considerably after the time of Proclus, for there is not the slightest presumption from any other source that the liturgy of James in the time of Proclus was longer than that of Basil; on the contrary, I am of opinion that it was rather shorter: and a large portion of James's liturgy, as now extant, was certainly added at a period much later than the age of Proclus. Theodore Balsamon speaks of the liturgy of Chrysostom, and Leo Thuscus translated it into Latin for Rainaltus de Monte Catano, about
a Theodor. Balsamon. Respons. ad Marcum Alexandri
num ap. Leunclavii Jus Græco-Rom. lib. v.
A.D. 1180. I have not seen a work of Grancolas, who is said to have collected in it several testimonies to the antiquity of the appellation of this liturgy. But however interesting it might be to prove that Chrysostom had improved or corrected the Constantinopolitan liturgy, we should remember that a public formulary of this kind is of more importance as exhibiting the sentiments of the church, than as containing those of an individual Father; and since we are, at all events, certain that this liturgy has from time immemorial been the peculiar liturgy of the church of Constantinople, we need not perplex ourselves in inquiring whether Chrysostom had any share in its correction or improvement. We should also reflect, that if we cannot ascribe this text to Chrysostom, it may perhaps be much older than his time. Learned men have represented the text of Chrysostom's liturgy as very corrupt and uncertain. Cave observes, that of many editions you find scarcely any which do not differ immensely from each other. Montfaucon remarks, that the text which he copies from Saville's edition, and that given by Morell, differ "toto cœlo." Saville asks, "What have the version of Erasmus and the edition of Morell in common?" Hales of Eton puts the same question, and he also notices several prayers and forms which could not have been so ancient as the time of Chrysostom. In addition, he extracts from the genuine works of Chrysostom several prayers for catechumens, energumens, &c., which, as
b This version is found in the "Liturgia sive Missæ Sanctorum," &c. by F. Claudius de Sainctes, Antwerp, 1560.
Johannes Grancolas, "Les anciennes Liturgies," &c. Paris, 1697, referred to by Zaccaria Bibliotheca Ritualis, tom. i. p. 13.
that Father affirms, were used in the liturgy, but are not found in that bearing his name. And he remarks, that all these things make the liturgy in question apocryphal and doubtful “.
After examining carefully the various editions of Chrysostom's liturgy, I must respectfully but decidedly differ from these learned critics. It is true, that the introductory part of this liturgy has at various times received many additions, and that the rubrics and directions vary in different MSS. But this is of little or no consequence. We know that in primitive times the introduction contained lessons, psalms, a sermon, and prayers for catechumens and penitents, who were all dismissed before the prayer of the faithful. All this we find in the liturgy of Chrysostom, except prayers for penitents, which have been omitted in all liturgies, owing to the extinction of the ancient penitential discipline. But passing over this introductory part, which never contained any of the more important or solemn rites in primitive times, let us turn to the prayers of the faithful which follow, and to the whole mystical liturgy up to the thanksgiving after communion". And I will venture to affirm, from an actual comparison of the different editions of Chrysostom's liturgy, and the various readings of MSS. given by Goar, that the text can be satisfactorily ascertained.
d See Cave, Historia Literaria, tom. i. p. 305, &c. Montfaucon, Oper. Chrysostomi, tom. xii. p. 775.
See Liturg. Chrysostomi ap. Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 70 -84. Compare with this the readings of the Barberini MS.
about nine hundred years old, which Goar has published, p. 99, &c. Goar's edition of Chrysostom's liturgy, with notes, should be studied by any one who wishes to understand the liturgical rites of the Greek church.