« PoprzedniaDalej »
attributes to him, among other good works, evɣôv diatágeis, evroσμíai toù Býμatos. (Greg. Naz. Orat. 20, tom. i. p. 340, ed. Paris.) About the year 520 Peter the Deacon, writing to Fulgentius, quotes some words from 'the prayer of the holy altar, which is used throughout almost the whole East,' and which he attributes to S. Basil by name. In 590 Leontius of Byzantium speaks of the 'Liturgy of the Apostles,' and 'that of the great Basil, written in the same spirit:' almost certainly those of S. James and S. Basil. And again about 691, in the thirty-second Canon of the Council in Trullo, the Liturgies of S. James and S. Basil are spoken of by name. This brings us all but down to the time of the Barberini Codex spoken of above. There seems then some ground for attributing at least the main substance and order of S. Basil's Liturgy to himself. We shall have a few words to say later on about the relation of the Coptic S. Basil to this Greek Liturgy of the same
There are no such early notices of the Liturgy of S. Chry- Tract attrisostom. The tract ascribed to Proclus, Patriarch of Constanti- S. Proclus is spurious. nople in the early part of the fifth century, which does mention it by name, must be allowed to be spurious: as also must be the fragmentary 'Commentarius Liturgicus,' attributed to Sophronius of Jerusalem (Patriarch A.D. 629-638) by Cardinal Mai in his 'Spicilegium Romanum,' vol. iv. p. 31, etc., which also speaks of it.
Sv. The Armenian Liturgy.
The Church in Armenia was organized by Gregory the The ArmeIlluminator at the beginning of the fourth century. Gregory and Caewas brought up at Caesarea, and the early relations of the Armenian Church were all with the Exarchate of Caesarea. It would only be likely then that their Liturgy should resemble that of Caesarea, or at least be closely allied to it. An inspection of the Liturgy itself bears out this probability; for, though there are some palpable later alterations, both from Constantinopolitan and from Latin sources, the chief characteristics of the Armenian, and the wording of some of the prayers, tally very closely with corresponding parts of S. Basil's Liturgy.
State of the
For the reprint of the Armenian Liturgy at p. 132, etc., as well as for the substance of these remarks, we are indebted to the translation of the Rev. S. C. Malan (D. Nutt, 1870), who has most kindly permitted the use of his labours.
Though there is but one Liturgy used in Armenia, there seem to be several different versions of it. Not only,' says Mr. Malan, does the orthodox Armenian Liturgy, given by Nerses of Lampron, Archbishop of Taron in the 12th century, differ materially from the one now in use, but of the five copies and translations I have of it, published since 1642, no two are exactly alike in all particulars which one would expect to find identical in the one Liturgy of the same Church.'
The text printed below is a translation of the Liturgy 'printed at Constantinople in 1823 by command of the Bishop of that city and Patriarch or Eparch of Adrianople, with the sanction of Ephrem, Patriarch and Catholicos of Etchmiadzin.' The following editions and translations are referred to in the
Different 1. A Russian translation by the Patriarch Joseph, Prince
Translations. Dolgorucki, and published at St. Petersburg in 1799. This is the original of the English translation made by the Rev. R. W. Blackmore, Rector of Donhead S. Mary, Wilts, and published in Dr. Neale's Introduction to the History of the Holy Eastern Church.'
2. A French translation by Dulaurier (Paris 1859), agreeing mostly with the above Russian work.
3. Armenian only (folio, Rome 1677), containing a few alterations in a Romish sense.
4. Armenian and Italian (8vo. Venice 1837), also Romish.
5. Armenian and Latin (8vo. Rome 1642): 'so much altered to suit the Roman use as to be of no value for comparison.'
It is proper to repeat, with regard to the notes to this Liturgy, that those which have (M) affixed to them are Mr. Malan's own, while for those not so signed the Editor is responsible. The letters N and R in the notes indicate the version of Archbishop Nerses, and the Russian version, noticed above. The words enclosed in square brackets represent the
additions of these versions. A few other similar insertions, which appear in Mr. Malan's edition, but which are due to the Roman reprints, have been omitted.
The ecclesiastical position of the Armenian Church has been already spoken of (p. xviii).
§ vi. The Liturgy of S. Mark.
There is but a single manuscript authority for this Liturgy. Manuscript authority. That is the Codex Rossanensis, the third of those already described in connexion with the Greek S. James. The first edition of it was published at Paris in 1583. It is also given by Renaudot in his first volume. The text is certainly corrupt in several places, and there is no resource, except conjecture, for amending it.
We have already spoken of the general close agreement, in Connexion many places even verbal, of this Liturgy with the Coptic S. Cyril; S. Cyril and and we have noticed that the Ethiopic agrees with these two in the characteristic peculiarity assigned by S. James of Edessa in the seventh century to the Alexandrian Liturgy. It is among these three then that we are to look for such differences as should distinguish the Alexandrian from the West-Syrian order. These differences are four in number, viz. (1) the possession of four Lections, all from the New Testament; (2) the position of the Intercessions, in the Preface; (3) the Deacon's exclamation, 'Ye who sit, arise-look to the East,' just as the Preface is resumed after the Intercession; (4) the relative position of the Fraction before the Lord's Prayer. Now the Liturgy With the Liturgy of of S. Mark, as we know it, has Nos. and 3 of these, but not Constantinople. Nos. 1 and 4, instead of which it agrees with the Liturgy of Constantinople. Further, the attempt to assimilate (though clumsily) the 'Prayer of Absolution to the Son' to the Prayer of the Little Entrance (see p. 173), the introduction of the Hymns ὁ Μονογενής and χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, and the Cherubic Hymn, and the particular ritual of the two Entrances, all tell of a period when the see of Constantinople had strong influence wherever this form of S. Mark's Liturgy was used, and that, probably, not earlier than the seventh century. It bears the same relation
Arguments for antiquity.
to the original Alexandrian Liturgy that the existing form of the Greek S. James does to the original Liturgy of West Syria.
At the same time the main part of it must be very antient, as is implied by some readings of quotations from the New Testament, and by expressions in some of the prayers, evidently pointing to a time when persecution was still likely.
The following instance will shew what we mean by an argument for antiquity from a particular reading. In the prayer of the Little Entrance in S. Mark's Liturgy (p. 173), there is incorporated a passage from S. John xX. 22, 23. After the word ἐμφυσήσας occurs the expression εἰς τὰ πρόσωπα avτŵv, a reading which finds a place in no Greek MS. whatsoever. But the two Egyptian Versions of the New Testament, the Memphitic and Thebaic, have the reading. What inference may we draw from this fact? Surely this (bearing in mind the high character which Professor Lightfoot 2 assigns to these Versions for antiquity and faithful rendering of the original), that, when these Versions were made (i. e. probably in the second century), since they were made from Greek originals, there must have existed Greek MSS. of the New Testament containing this reading. Further, since the reading seems to have dropped out of the Greek MSS. before the fourth century, the time of Codd. and B, the Prayer in which it is incorporated must have been composed not later than that time.
The possibility of persecution seems implied in the prayers on p. 172, 177, 181, etc.
§ vii. The Coptic Liturgies.
Reasons for the arrange
We have printed the two Liturgies of S. Cyril and S. Basil ment of these together, on the same plan as the Greek S. Basil and S. ChryLiturgies
sostom, to enable the reader to realise more forcibly that the Pro-anaphoral portion is common to the two, and is used whatever Anaphora may follow it. These two Anaphorae will
1 We may instance the readings εἰς τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν and ἀφίενται (p. 173); and & πapakúfaι for eis à пapak., K.T.λ. (p. 188).
2 See Scrivener's 'Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,' PP. 343, 345.
not however be found to run really parallel with each other, as in the case of the Greek Liturgies. The Liturgy of S. Cyril has the proper Alexandrian order of its parts, that of S. Basil follows the West-Syrian order, placing the Great Intercession after the Consecration. We have already remarked that there is a third Coptic Liturgy, named from S. Gregory. This however follows the type of S. Basil's and needs no special comment here.
The great authority upon this set of Liturgies is Renaudot's Other authofirst Volume, but the student may compare with advantage two independent English Translations of them from other Coptic MSS: viz. one by the Rev. S. C. Malan, from a MS. obtained at Jerusalem, which he believes to be of the thirteenth or fourteenth century, in his 'Original Documents of the Coptic Church,' parts I, V, VI (D. Nutt. 1872-5); the other by the Rev. J. M. Rodwell, from a thirteenth century MS, in 'Occasional Papers of the Eastern Church Association.' No. XII. (Rivingtons, 1870.)
The present Coptic Church is Jacobite (Monophysite). The The Coptic Orthodox Coptic Church is practically extinct, that is to say, nophysite. there is an Orthodox Patriarch1 with three Bishops living at Constantinople, but without any local cure.
The Coptic language is the name of the old Egyptian lan- The Coptic guage as spoken by a Christian people, and includes several and its use. dialects, of which the two chief ones are the Memphitic and Thebaic. At the time of the Mohammedan occupation in the seventh century it was spoken throughout the country, though at Alexandria itself Greek would have been current. By and by it became no longer vernacular, and Arabic took its place. The Liturgies however have always been said in Coptic, only the Lections being read in Arabic. Arabic translations of them have been made, and are often found side by side with the Coptic. The MS. from which Renaudot gives the Greek form of the Coptic S. Basil and S. Gregory was Graeco-Arabic. That the Coptic Liturgies are derived in all three cases from
1 So the Christian Remembrancer,' vol. xlii. p. 234.