« PoprzedniaDalej »
Greek originals, is shewn by similar arguments to those which prove the same fact of the Syriac S. James, especially from the remarkable frequency of Greek words and formulae, not only appointed to be said by Priest or Deacon, but occurring in the responses of the people 1. This could never have arisen if the Coptic were the original form.
There remains the question of the relation of S. Basil's Liturgy to the Greek Liturgy of the same name. In the first place we must remember that, though the Coptic S. Basil is now the chief Liturgy of the Copto-Jacobite Church, it does not follow that it was so in the orthodox Church of Alexandria: in fact the difference between its order, in the most characteristic particular, and that which we know independently to have been the regular order of the Alexandrian Church in the seventh century, is enough to discredit it in this particular. Then further, though the Pro-anaphoral service is now always found prefixed to this Liturgy, and is borrowed from it when either of the other Anaphorae is used, it does not follow that it belonged to it originally. On the contrary, the close agreement of the Pro-anaphoral part of the Ethiopic Liturgy, which was certainly introduced into Ethiopia while the Alexandrian orthodox Church was still in full vigour, shews that it belonged to the old Alexandrian Liturgy, and therefore properly to the one named after S. Cyril or S. Mark.
Then if we take the Anaphora of S. Basil by itself we shall find that it is as similar as possible throughout to the Alexandrian Greek S. Basil (given by Renaudot, vol. i. pp. 6485), and, we compare this Alexandrian Greek S. Basil with the Constantinopolitan S. Basil, we shall find an extremely close resemblance. The chief differences are three, viz. in the Alexandrian Greek Liturgy, first, the Preface is shorter, though of the same character with that of the other, (which is of itself an indication that it is the secondary form), and it is interrupted by the Deacon's Exclamation (a purely Alexandrian characteristic, as
This is unfortunately not shewn in the Latin text printed below from Renaudot; it is fully represented by Mr. Malan in his English translation alluded to above.
we have seen, p. li); secondly, the Intercessions resemble in form the Alexandrian sets of Intercessions, though they occur in the Liturgy in the place corresponding to that which they occupy in the Liturgy of Constantinople; thirdly, the 'Prayer of Absolution to the Father,' another specially Alexandrian feature, is inserted. On the other hand, two of the Prayers, viz. those beginning ó eòs μv (see below, p. 124), and ▲éσπота Κύριε, ὁ Πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν (below, p. 126) are found verbatim in each.
We have already seen that all the Coptic Liturgies, including S. Basil's, are derived from Greek originals; putting then all these considerations together, it does not seem to violate facts, or even probability, if we suppose that the Constantinopolitan form of S. Basil's Liturgy, as it existed in the fourth century, was the original; that it spread from his own Church of Caesarea, till it was adopted throughout the Patriarchate of Constantinople; that it was carried into Egypt, where S. Basil was known from his visit to that country among others, in order to become acquainted with monasticism in its various forms; and where he would be likely to be held in special repute for his devotion to the ascetic life; that when adopted there, it received the particular Alexandrian modifications which we have spoken of, and in particular exchanged its own Proanaphoral portion for that of Alexandria; and thus finally (we cannot tell why, but possibly for the sake of differing from the orthodox Church) was exalted by the Coptic Monophysites into their normal Liturgy.
§ viii. The Ethiopic Liturgies.
The Ethiopic, or Abyssinian, Church is a daughter of the Relations of Church of Alexandria; Christianity having been brought thither sinian by Frumentius about A.D. 330. When the Schism took place in the Alexandrian Patriarchate, in the time of Dioscorus and of the Council of Chalcedon, the Abyssinian Church gave its adherence to the Monophysite Patriarch. This ecclesiastical connexion is still maintained: the Abuna (as the head of the
Abyssinian Church is designated) being always chosen and consecrated by the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Their principal Liturgy, or Canon Universalis, called also the Other autho- Liturgy of All Apostles,' is given below from Renaudot, whose
Latin version was made from the text printed at Rome (1548). There is also an English Translation made by the Rev. J. M. Rodwell (Williams and Norgate, 1864), from the same Edition, and compared with an independent (but recent) MS, now in the British Museum, which may be consulted with advantage. This Liturgy will be found to keep on the whole very close to the Coptic S. Cyril and the Greek S. Mark. It is unique in not having the 'Sursum Corda' with the usual response.
A few remarks are required on the short Antient Ethiopic Liturgy,' which is reprinted from the Commentary of Ludolphus (1691). The chief reason for giving it is because Bunsen, in the third Volume of his 'Analecta Ante-Nicaena,' attaches so much importance to it, unduly, as we venture to think.
Ludolphus gives an account of 'The Apostolical Ordinances ' from an important MS. in the Vatican Library, of which a partial transcript had been sent to him. The full transcript stops at the twenty-third section, or paragraph; after that merely giving the titles. The MS. was given by King ZeraJacob, in the middle of the 15th century, to some Monks who were going to Jerusalem. Its age is not stated. The Liturgy in question occurs in § xxi. which is headed, 'De ordinatione Episcoporum et ritu Eucharistiae,' and Bunsen, who speaks of the Clementine Liturgy as 'the work of a learned falsifier of old texts' ('Anal. Ante-Nic.', p. 34), eagerly accepts this Liturgy as without doubt a genuine specimen of the Liturgy of the middle of the second century. His reasons appear to be partly, that it can be made to give some support to his theory of the Eucharistic sacrifice, viz. that though the Holy Spirit could be called down not only upon the people but also upon the gifts,' 'the blessing would be directed pre-eminently towards the people, as a Benediction. They were the spiritual real victim, which was to be blessed and sealed' (p. 15). Partly too he rests upon its 'Apostolic beauty and simplicity' (p. 21).
The Apostolical Ordinances.
Bunsen's estimate of it.
But there are some strong objections to assigning a date thus Difficulties.
First, these Ethiopic Apostolical ordinances run closely A later Canon probably parallel with the Coptic Apostolical Constitutions (translated by gives the regular form Dr. Tattam for the Oriental Translation Fund, 1848), though of Liturgy. the two sets are divided differently; § 31 of the Coptic Constitutions answering to § xxi. of the Ethiopic (Ludolphus). Now it is remarkable that in two places in this section, where the Coptic simply gives directions for a prayer to be used, the Ethiopic recension gives the formula to be used, viz. the actual Consecration-Prayer to be said over the new Bishop, and this form of Liturgy, which he is to say immediately upon his consecration. It is evidently then a characteristic of the Ethiopic recension to fill in these formulae. But, if we go a little further on, we find that § lii. of the Ethiopic bears the title, De ordinatione Episcoporum et ritu Eucharistiae: and we might expect it to correspond to the Coptic, §§ 65, 66, which treat of the ordination of Bishops, and give a description of the Eucharistic service. This description in the Coptic almost exactly resembles the rubrics (the actual forms of prayer being omitted) of the Clementine Liturgy from the Greek Apostolical Constitutions. We might then fairly expect to find, if we had the Ethiopic § lii. in extenso, that it supplied the formulae, and so presented the regular type of the Eucharistic service, probably not unlike the Clementine.
But there are these further direct objections.
1. So far from agreeing with Justin Martyr's account of Justin Marthe Liturgy of the Second Century, as Bunsen attempts to make out that it does, it presents several striking points of difference (see p. xl). To mention only one, the Preface is very short, whereas Justin says it was ènì noλú.
2. Another difficulty, and a grave one, is the entire absence Absence of of Intercession. Seeing that the use of Intercession in con- element. nexion with the Eucharist depends upon Apostolic injunction (1 Tim. ii. 1), and the universal voice of antiquity testifies to its being an essential part of the Eucharistic service: it is difficult to accept as a specimen of Apostolic beauty a
Allusion to Nestorian heresy.
form of Liturgy in which this essential element finds no place.
3. It has been remarked (Probst, 'Lit. der drei ersten christlichen Jahrh.' p. 239 n.) that the expressions in the Preface, Et misisti eum de caelo in uterum Virginis. Caro factus est, et gestatus fuit in ventre ejus, savours of a time later than Nestorius.
Six. The Liturgies of Eastern Syria.
We prefer to call this Family by this name rather than to designate it as, Nestorian, because it seems to have been a real local development; and at any rate, in the chief Liturgy, which we have printed below, there is no trace of Nestorianism. Dr. Badger's There is an English translation of the three Nestorian Liturgies,
made from originals actually in use among these Assyrian Christians, by Rev. G. P. Badger, the learned author of the 'Nestorians and their Rituals,' in No. xvii of 'Occasional Papers of the Eastern Church Association.' It is prefaced by a short Introduction containing many interesting details. His, as well as Renaudot's, manuscripts are recent.
The Nestorians are sometimes spoken of as 'Chaldeans: but this designation, according to Dr. Badger (see 'Occasional Paper,' as above, Introduction, p. xi; and Nestorians and their Rituals,' vol. i. pp. 177–181), properly belongs to those of them who are in communion with the Roman Church, and whose Liturgy and Ritual have been assimilated to the Roman in several particulars, as e. g. in the Formula of Consecration; in the mode of Elevation, of Communion and of the disposal of the remains of the consecrated Elements; in the use of unleavened bread, etc.
Early date of the
These reasons, coupled with other obvious deficiencies, such as the very imperfect form of the Words of Institution, suggest that it was not intended for more than the outline of a service, and that a special one: and that we cannot argue from it as if it had ever been the normal Liturgy of a Church, or of a period.
The early date to which the Liturgy of SS. Adaeus and Maris may be assigned is thought to be proved by this