« PoprzedniaDalej »
of St. Mark. Some persons have thought it genuine, or that it was actually composed by St. Mark'; others have proved that it contains many things which could not have been used in the time of that Evangelist ; from whence they infer that it is to be regarded as an imposture". Controversies, however, on this subject can produce no satisfactory results, from the absence of any sufficient evidence. To prove that St. Mark wrote a liturgy is impossible. It is equally impossible to prove that he did not do so. The objections that have been made to this liturgy only prove that the whole of it is not as old as the apostolic age. But the only really important question, relative to the origin of this liturgy, which admits of a satisfactory decision, is, whether we are to regard it as the ancient liturgy of the church of Alexandria. And if I have succeeded in establishing an affirmative reply to this question, we may be enabled to account for this liturgy obtaining the title of “St. Mark’s ;" for it was the liturgy used by St. Mark's church, and was derived from the instructions which he had first given to that church. In my opinion, this appellation of “St. Mark's liturgy” began about the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, after Basil had composed his liturgy, which appears to have been the first liturgy that bore the name of any man. Other churches then gave their liturgies the names of their founders. And so the Alexandrians and Egyptians gave theirs the name of “St. Mark's;"
t Zaccaria, Biblioth. Ritual. sæ, p. 225 ; Le Nourry, App. tom. i. p. 10. Sirletus in Epist. ad Bibl. Patrum, p. 57. Paris, ad Joh. à S. Andrea, &c. 1694; Cave, Hist. Literar. ;
u Dorschæus, Mysaria Mys- Bona, Rer. Lit. lib. i. c. 8, &c.
and they of Jerusalem and Antioch called theirs “St. James's.” And early in the fifth century it appears that Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, perfected and improved the liturgy of Mark, from whence this improved liturgy came to be called by the Monophysites, “St. Cyril's;” and by the orthodox, “St. Mark's.”
With regard to the liturgy of the Melchites, or orthodox of Alexandria, now known as “St. Mark's liturgy,” I may be permitted to make a few remarks, which will tend to account for the differences that exist between it and the Monophysite Coptic liturgy of Cyril. The liturgy of St. Mark, therefore, is to be regarded as a liturgy used by the orthodox Egyptians after the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, altered and arranged by them to suit the liturgies of Constantinople. Renaudot has not taken this view of St. Mark's liturgy; but I think it tends to explain several things which he has remarked without accounting for". The orthodox of Egypt, after the invasion of the Mahommedans, were a small and persecuted party. For a hundred years they had no patriarch, they could hold no public assemblies, and their clergy were ordained either at Constantinople or Cæsarea. Being thus entirely dependent on the patriarch of Constantinople, it is not unnatural to suppose that they adapted their rites as much as possible to the Constantinopolitan. And we find ultimately, that they actually received the liturgies of that church to the exclusion of their
Let us, then, examine the liturgy which they used after this state of depression, and before
See his Notes on St Mark's Liturgy, tom. i. p. 353, &c.
they received the Constantinopolitan liturgies, and ascertain whether there are any traces of an approximation to the Greek rite w.
First the ancient prayers of absolution and incense appear to have been amalgamated and formed into the prayer called the “prayer of Introit",” to correspond with the Greek prayer of the same title”, while no such title occurs in the Coptic or Ethiopic liturgies. Secondly, the prayer after St. Paul's Epistles seems to have given way to a “prayer of Trisagios "," to correspond with a similar prayer in the Greek", while nothing of the kind occurs in the Coptic and Ethiopic. Thirdly, the Gospel is preceded by an offering of incensed with the same words as are used in the Greek rite®, while no such words are prescribed in the Coptic and Ethiopic liturgies. Fourthly, the Cherubic hymn, of which there is no mention in the Coptic or Ethiopic rites, is appointed to be sung' at the same place as in the Greek Fifthly, the kiss of peace precedes the
w In this comparison it must f Renaudot, p. 141. Renaube remembered, that the li- dot has not sufficiently exturgy of Cyril must be affixed plained the rubric which here to the general introduction of occurs in the liturgy of Mark, the Egyptian liturgy, which is and is as follows: kai talplaced before the liturgy of λουσιν οι Χερουβίμ μυστικώς. Basil, from p. 1 to p. 13. Re- This, he says, means that they naudot, tom. i.
are to repeat a prayer begin* Renaudot, p. 3. 5. ning οι Χερουβίμ, κ. τ. λ. But y Ibid. p. 135.
in truth it plainly refers to the 2 Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 67. Greek cherubic hymn, which ευχή της εισόδου του αγίου was introduced precisely into ευαγγελίου.
this part of the Greek liturgy a Renaudot, p. 6.
in the time of the emperor b Ibid. p. 136.
Justin, (see Goar, not. 108, in c Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 68. Liturg. Chrysost.) and which ευχή του τρισαγίου.
begins oί τα Χερουβίμ μυστικώς .
£ikovi Govtes, &c. Goar, p. 106. Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 69. & Goar, p. 72.
Creed", as in the Greek liturgies', while in the Coptic and Ethiopic it follows the Creed). Sixthly the prayer of Prothesis, which had probably occurred at first in the beginning of the liturgy, was placed close to the Creed, like the Greek". This position of the prayer of Prothesis has been remarked by Renaudot, who seems at a loss to account for this disturbance of the order of the liturgy. Seventhly, in the general prayers, before the commemoration of the Virgin Mary, the anthem Xaipe kexapıtwuévn is introduced! Now there is no such anthem in the Coptic and Ethiopic liturgies, and yet it is incredible, that if it had ever been in these, it would have been afterwards omitted. We must therefore look for some foreign authority for the introduction of this anthem into St. Mark's liturgy. And we find it in the Greek or Constantinopolitan liturgy, where there is always an anthem of the kind in this place", and in the ancient MS. of Crypta Ferrata this very anthem is prescribed botlı in Basil's and Chrysostom's liturgies".
I have no doubt that other persons may discover more instances of changes made by the orthodox Alexandrians to adapt their liturgy to the Constantinopolitan riteo. Thus much, however, may suffice to shew, that in places where it varies from the
h P. 143. Renaudot.
n Ibid. p. 103. 178. i Goar, p. 75.
• These will probably be · Renaudot, p. 12. 512, 513, easily traced in the Anaphora,
which seems to have been mo* Ibid. p. 143. Compare p. 3, delled in many respects after and Goar, Rit. Græc. p. 74, the language and manner of 75.
the Constantinopolitan litur1 Renaudot, p. 149. gies of Basil and Chrysostom. m Goar, p. 78.
Coptic liturgy of Cyril, and the Ethiopic general canon, the liturgy of Mark is not to be esteemed the rule by which we are to judge of the ancient Alexandrian rites : though in these very places it often throws great light on the Coptic and Ethiopic liturgies, and affords strong confirmation of their antiquity. So little remains of the history of the orthodox Alexandrians, that it is impossible to determine exactly the time when these alterations were introduced. It must certainly have occurred before the twelfth century, because the MS. of St. Mark's liturgy is as old as that time. Very probably it took place about the eighth century, when the orthodox had again patriarchs of their own, some of whom might have adapted their liturgy to the rites which had been gradually introduced by priests ordained in Constantinople during a century of persecution and depression. And considering the small number of the orthodox in Egypt, the persecutions which they suffered, and their subsequent adoption of the liturgies used at Constantinople, it may be regarded as wonderful that any monument of their ancient liturgy has survived.
Before I state the order and substance of the ancient Alexandrian liturgy, it may be advisable to correct the mistakes of Renaudot as to the monuments which most authentically represent it.
Renaudot states that the Anaphoræ of the Coptic liturgy of Basil, and of St. Mark's, have “the same
order, prayers agreeing in the same meaning, “ similar rites, but a great variety in the expres“sions.” It is strange that a man of such learn
P “Superest pars secunda Basilii liturgiarum diversitas. in qua major omnino Marci et Est quidem non in illis modo