originals from which the Coptic version was made. It is very probable, however, if not certain, that the Coptic language, though not employed in divine service in Lower Egypt, was used in Upper Egypt from the time that Christianity penetrated there. It appears that Antony, the great founder of the monastic institute in Egypt, did not understand Greek ; neither did many of his most celebrated disciples. Many who lived in the monasteries of Nitria and Scetis, and the Tabennesiota in the furthest part of the province, and the ascetics of Antony's rule in the deserts near the Red Sea, only understood the Coptic language, and yet they spent days and nights in psalmody and reading the Scriptures. We also find the subscriptions of Egyptian bishops to the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon in Coptic, because they were unacquainted with Greek. How could all these have performed the liturgy and offices of the church, unless the Coptic had been used in divine service in many parts of Egypts?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to assign the period when the Greek language was completely relinquished by the Copts in the celebration of their liturgy. Renaudot is inclined to ascribe the substitution of the Coptic for the Greek to Benjamin, patriarch of the Monophysites, who was placed in possession of the see of Alexandria by the Mahommedansh.

That the primitive rite of the church of Alexan

f Renaudot, tom. i. p. cv. &c. and p. 57.

g"Quomodo igitur sacra fecissent, officiaque celebrassent, nisi publicus multis in locis

linguæ vulgaris usus in sacris fuisset?" Renaudot, tom. i. p. 205, 206.

h Tom. i. p. lxxxii.

dria is to be found amongst the liturgies used by the Egyptian Monophysites, will appear probable, when we consider the scrupulous care with which they seem to have preserved ancient customs. In fact, when the division took place at the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, the Monophysites adhered to all ecclesiastical traditions which did not interfere with their own peculiar doctrines, with as much care as the orthodox themselves.

As the Monophysite liturgies, however, differ from each other, it becomes a question, which is to be considered as the best representative of the ancient Alexandrian rite. And here it would seem at the first glance, that the liturgy of Cyril, which bears the name of a patriarch of Alexandria, is more likely to represent the Alexandrian rite, than those of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, who were bishops of cities in Cappadocia. A further light is thrown on this by an actual inspection of the three liturgies. For while Basil's and Gregory's liturgies appear to be (as they profess) derived from the rite used in Cappadocia and the adjoining countries; the liturgy of Cyril stands distinguished from them all in many remarkable particulars.

These arguments, intended to shew the probability of Cyril's liturgy being the ancient Alexandrian rite, are supported by the tradition of the Egyptians themselves. Abulbircat calls Cyril's liturgy, "the liturgy of Mark which Cyril perfected," and this must mean the liturgy of the church of Alexandria founded by St. Mark. In the sixteenth century an ancient monument was published, which gives

i "Secunda est liturgia lus." Adulbircat, cited by ReMarci, quam perfecit Cyril- naudot, tom. i. p. 171.

force to this tradition. A manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century, written in Greek, was discovered amongst other MSS. of rarity and value in a remote monastery of Calabria, inhabited by the oriental monks of St. Basil. This MS. bears the title of St Mark's liturgy, was evidently intended for the use of the Alexandrian church', and is perhaps the only liturgy, except the Ethiopian general canon, which resembles the Coptic liturgy of Cyril in the order of its parts.

The difference between St. Mark's liturgy, and that of Cyril Alexandrinus, occurs chiefly in the introductory part. In the Anaphora there is very little difference; and it will appear in the sequel, that the variations in the liturgy of St. Mark are chiefly to be attributed to the dependence of the orthodox, (who used it,) upon the church of Constantinople. But on comparing Cyril's and Mark's

* St. Mark's liturgy was first published at Paris, A. D. 1583, edited by Johan. à S. Andrea. It is found in the Bibliotheca Patrum, in Assemani's Codex Liturgicus, tom. vii. in Fabricius's Codex Apocryph. Nov. Testamenti, tom. iii., and in Renaudot's Liturg. Orient. Collectio, tom. i. p. 131, to which last I refer in this section.

1 In this liturgy there are prayers that the waters of the river (Nile) may be raised to their just measure, p. 148; St. Mark is commemorated as the person who shewed to them the way of salvation, p. 149; and there are prayers for the holy and blessed pope, i. e. the patriarch of Alexandria, p. 151.

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in the third century, speaks of his predecessor pope Heraclas, παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον. Dionys. Alexandr. ap. Euseb. Hist. lib. vii. c. 7. And from that time to the present, the patriarchs of Alexandria have always been called Pope, a title which the Monophysites as well as orthodox apply to their respective patriarchs. But, indeed, this title was at first common to all bishops; thus Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was addressed by the Roman clergy as "Papa Cyprianus." See abundance of examples and proofs in Bingham's Antiquities, book ii. c. 2, § 7.

liturgies together, their resemblance is found to be most striking; and it is impossible to deny that they have proceeded from one common source, namely, the ancient liturgy of the Egyptian church before the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. For here we have two liturgies agreeing in substance and order, both professing by their titles to be derived from the rites of the Egyptian church; both differing in order from the liturgies of all other churches in the east and west; and used by two bodies of men in Egypt, who have held no communion with each other since the council of Chalcedon.

The existence and use of the liturgy of St. Mark amongst the orthodox of Egypt is proved by the testimony of Mark, orthodox patriarch of Alexandria in the twelfth century, in his Questions to Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch. He inquired "whether the liturgies read in the parts "of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and said to have "been written by James ó adeλpóleos, and by Mark, "are to be received by the holy catholic church, or nom."

66

Theodore Balsamon himself says, in his Commentary on the Thirty-second Canon of the council in Trullo, that the liturgy of St. Mark was for the most part used by the church of Alexandria". It is true, that he mistakes it for the liturgy of James, as appears by the context. But his testimony establishes

m

αἱ περὶ τὰ μέρη τῆς ̓Αλεξανδρείας, καὶ τῶν ̔Ιεροσολύμων ἀναγινωσκόμεναι λειτουργίαι, καὶ λεγόμεναι συγγραφῆναι παρ ρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων ἸακώBoν Tоv ådελpoléov, κaì Máρкov, dεKTαi εioι Ty ȧyią kai kaloλıkŋ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἢ οὔ ; Leunclav. Jus

Gr. Rom. L. V.

η οἱ δὲ ̓Αλεξανδρεῖς λέγουσιν εἶναι (scilicet, liturgiam) καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Μάρκου ̇ ᾗ καὶ χρῶνται ὡς τὰ πολλά. Balsamon in Can. 32. Concil. Trull. Bevereg. Concil. tom. i. p. 193.

the fact, that St. Mark's liturgy was used in the twelfth century by the orthodox of Alexandria, though he was not acquainted with the nature of that liturgy.

The use of this liturgy by the orthodox of Alexandria may be traced further back, I think, by the testimony of the ancient writer of the seventh or eighth century already alluded to. "St. Jerome," he says, "affirms that St. Mark chanted the course

66

66

(or liturgy, as appears by his preceding remarks) "which is now called the Irish course; and after "him Gregory Nazienzen, whom Jerome affirms to "be his master, St. Basil, brother of the same St. Gregory, Anthony, Paul, Macarius or John, and "Malchus chanted according to the order of the "Fathers." Here this author appears plainly to me to refer to the Egyptian liturgies bearing the name of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil, as I have remarked elsewhere. Now, though he speaks of two of the liturgies used by the Monophysites of Egypt, he does not speak of Cyril's, which is the third: but he speaks of St. Mark as being the first institutor of the Egyptian rites. And this seems plainly to refer to the custom of the orthodox Alexandrians, who did not give their liturgy the name of Cyril, (though it was the same as Cyril's Coptic liturgy,) but of St. Mark; preferring the name of its first institutor to that of Cyril, who, according to the

• "Beatus Hieronymus adfirmat, ipsum cursum qui dicitur præsente tempore Scottorum, beatus Marcus decantavit, et post ipsum Gregorius Nanzenzenus, quem Hieronymus suum magistrum esse adfirmat.

Et beatus Basilius frater ipsius sancti Gregorii, Antonius, Paulus, Macharius vel Johannes, et Malchus, secundum ordinem Patrum decantaverunt." Spelman. Concilia, tom. i. p. 177.