« PoprzedniaDalej »
days; and, as far as it goes, his description agrees exactly with the liturgy of Antioch in after-times. He speaks of the lessons, the sermon, the prayer of the faithful, and the kiss of peace. He mentions the thanksgiving to God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, for the benefits which he has conferred on us. He appears to speak of the words of our Lord. If he does not refer directly to the verbal oblation of bread and wine, he considers an oblation to be made. The invocation of the Holy Ghost is probably to be inferred from his speaking of the bread and wine being sanctified by the prayer".
He mentions prayers made by the priest at this time, besides the prayer of the faithful before the thanksgiving; and he informs us that the people answered Amen at the close of the liturgy. As far as this goes, it gives every reason to say, that the liturgy of Antioch was substantially the same in the
* τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀπομνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσ κεται μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ· εἶτα, παυσαμένου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος, ὁ προεστὼς διὰ λόγου τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν τῆς τῶν καλῶν τούτων μιμήσεως ποιεῖται· ἔπειτα ἀνιστάμεθα κοινῇ πάντες, καὶ εὐχὰς πέμπομεν. Apolog. I. ed. Thirlby, p. 97.
* ἔπειτα προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος. καὶ οὗτος λαβὼν, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων, διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, ἀναπέμπει· καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιώσε
θαι τούτων παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται. Ibid. Ρ. 96.
* τὴν δι' εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ' αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, κ. τ. λ. μ. 96.
2 πάντας οὖν οἳ διὰ τοῦ ὀνό ματος τούτου θυσίας (αὐτῷ προσφέρουσιν) ἃς παρέδωκεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς γίνεσθαι, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, τὰς ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ τῆς γῆς γινομένας ὑπὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν, προλαβὼν ὁ Θεὸς μαρτυρεῖ εὐαρέστους ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ. Justin. Dialog. cum Tryph. pars ii. p. 386, ed. Thirlby. b See note Z.
time of Justin, as it was one or two hundred years afterwards.
In conclusion, I may remark, that there are satisfactory means of ascertaining the order, substance, and generally the expressions, of the solemn liturgy used all through the patriarchate of Antioch and Jerusalem, before the year 451; that the liturgy thus ascertained, coincides with the notices which the Fathers of that country give concerning their liturgy, during the fifth and fourth centuries; that this liturgy was used in the whole patriarchate of Antioch in the fourth century, with little variety; that it prevailed there in the third century, and even in the second. The liturgy of St. James in Greek and Syriac may therefore be considered to be derived from the most primitive times. And should we say, that the same form in its principal features had existed from the time of the Apostles, I think that we should have good reasons for making the assertion. We cannot, however, rely on the expressions of this liturgy as a sure guide to the sentiments of the earliest ages. Unsupported by corroborative testimony, they are of little value beyond the fifth century, and only a certain portion can be corroborated by testimonies of the fourth and third centuries. Nor can we affirm that every part of the substance of the liturgy in the fifth century had existed from the beginning; but we may safely say, that whatever parts of the liturgy had existed from the beginning had likewise existed always in the same order relatively to each other; and this order it is, which essentially and mainly constitutes the identity of liturgies.
I have not as yet considered whether the liturgies
of Antioch and Jerusalem are properly to be ascribed to St. James. It is obvious, from what has been said, that the text of St. James's liturgies in Syriac and Greek are not to be referred to, as immaculate, and free from the additions and alterations of later ages. With regard to the authorship of St. James, I think there is no sufficient proof for it, while there are many things against it. In fact, we cannot trace back the appellation of St. James's liturgy, as given to that of Jerusalem and Antioch, beyond the fifth century. I am persuaded that this appellation began after the time of Basil, exarch of Cæsarea about A.D. 380. He composed, or rather enriched and beautified, the liturgy of his church; and this liturgy, under the name of Basil's liturgy, was soon extensively used in the east. The celebrity of Basil gave lustre to this liturgy, and the church of Jerusalem probably began to affix the name of St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem, to their liturgy, in order that it might not seem inferior to that of their neighbours. The liturgy of Jerusalem being the same as that of Antioch, the title became general throughout the patriarchate of Antioch. Thus, I think, we may account for the origin of this appellation.
LITURGY OF THE EXARCHATE OF CESAREA.
THE exarchate or patriarchate of Cæsarea extended from the Hellespont to the Euphrates; and, with the exception of the proconsular Asia, Phrygia, and some maritime provinces, included the whole territory called Asia Minor. Cæsarea in Cappadocia was the metropolis of this exarchate, which corresponded in extent to the civil diocese of Pontus; and Basil, commonly called "the Great," was consecrated bishop of Cæsarea about A.D. 370. The unanimous voice of antiquity has ascribed to him the composition of a liturgy, and one bearing his name to this day has long been used throughout the whole of Asia Minor.
These facts can be authenticated by sufficient evidence; and I will at once proceed to cite some of the principal authorities which prove the ancient existence and use in the east of a liturgy ascribed to Basil. It must, however, be premised, that from a period antecedent to the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, the patriarch of Constantinople became
Bingham's Antiq. book ii. § 6. Vita Basilii, p. lxxxiv. t. c. 17, § 2. 9, 10; book ix. c. 1, iii. ed. Benedict. Oper. Basilii.
possessed of the jurisdiction which had anciently belonged to the exarch of Cæsarea; and that the liturgy of Basil was (probably at an early period) received by the patriarchs of Constantinople, and the churches under their jurisdiction, so that to the present day it is used by those churches.
The emperor Charles the Bald, in the ninth century, wrote thus to the clergy of Ravenna: "The liturgy was celebrated before us according to "the rite of Constantinople, whose author was "Basil." About the year 691, a council of two hundred and twenty-seven eastern bishops, assembled at Constantinople, confirmed one of their decrees thus; "For-and Basil, archbishop of the church "of Cæsarea, whose glory has pervaded the whole world, delivering to us the mystical liturgy in "writing, appointed", &c." A hundred years before this council, or A. D. 590, Leontius of Byzantium, or Constantinople, in his book against Eutyches and Nestorius, accused Theodore of Mopsuestus thus: "He vainly composed another liturgy, besides that which was delivered by the Fathers to the churches, neither regarding that of the Apostles, nor that of Basil the Great, written in the same spirit. About the year 520, Peter the deacon
b Bingham's Antiq. book ii. c. 17, § 10.
Celebrata etiam sunt coram nobis missarum officia
more Constantinopolitano, auctore Basilio." Carol. Calv. Imper. Epistola ad clerum Ravennat. v. Bona Rer. Lit. lib. i. c. 12.
4 Καὶ γὰρ καὶ Ἰάκωβος—καὶ Βασίλειος ὁ τῆς Καισαρείων ἐκκλησίας ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, οὗ τὸ
KλÉOG KATà πãσAV Tǹv oikovμévny διέδραμεν, ἐγγράφως τὴν μυστι κὴν ἡμῖν ἱερουργίαν παραδεδωKÓTES, OUTW K.T.λ. Can. 32. Concil. Trull. v. Beveregii Synops. tom. i. p. 192. edit. Oxon. 1672.
e "Aliam etiam missam effutivit præter illam, quæ a Patribus tradita est ecclesiis; neque reveritus illam Apostolorum, nec illam magni Basilii,