Alexandrian text differs from it in such a way, that there must have been designed alterations in one or both of these texts: if there be no sort of tradition or reason to think that the Constantinopolitan text has been designedly altered; and, on the other hand, there be reason to think that the Alexandrian has been altered to suit the ancient Egyptian rites: under these circumstances, I think, there can be no reasonable doubt, that the Alexandrian is not to be regarded as the authentic text of Basil's liturgy, but that the Constantinopolitan is. This, it must be repeated, is what we should have expected from the prima facie view of the case. We should have expected, that the text which from time immemorial had been used in the country, the language, the church of Basil, without any doubt or suspicion of its genuineness, would be in fact the most genuine text. And it is this text which I have endeavoured to establish. A difficulty, however, occurs here. How could the liturgy of Basil, if it was thus altered in Egypt, be called the liturgy of Basil any longer? I reply, that it might justly continue to be called so; for it still remained substantially the same liturgy. And the great oriental rite or form of liturgy which was thus for the first time naturalized in Egypt, was immediately derived from the edition of it written and improved by Basil. It was natural too that the name of a Father, so renowned in the Christian church, should be retained to give dignity and acceptance to the new rite. To account for the introduction of this liturgy into Egypt is not difficult. Basil, celebrated in all churches for his zeal for the orthodox faith, was, no doubt, particularly famous in Egypt for being the great founder of the monastic institute in Pontus and the neighbouring provinces. The monastic rule, whether of Anachorites or Coenobites, prevailed sooner and more extensively in Egypt than perhaps any where else. And it was here, and in Syria, that Basil learned the discipline which, on his return, he established in Pontus. It is not wonderful, therefore, that his liturgy should have been gladly received in Egypt. It is, of course, quite uncertain at what exact date this took place, or who was the author of the alterations that were made in Basil's liturgy. But perhaps we should not be much astray if we fixed on Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, in the early part of the fifth century; who is said by the Monophysites of Egypt to have perfected the liturgy of St. Mark, or the ancient Alexandrian liturgy", and whose liturgy, still extant amongst them, is evidently the ancient rite of the church of Alexandria, probably corrected and improved by him. If Cyril effected an improvement in the liturgy of St. Mark, he might well have done the same for the liturgy of Basil. And his remaining works shew him to have been a man well qualified for the task. The Syriac text of Basil's liturgy was the third text which I mentioned at the beginning of this section. It appears to be rarely used by the Syrians, for MSS. of it are very scarce, However, Renaudot saw one very ancient MS. of it. Masius translated this Syriac liturgy of Basil into Latin". On comparing this version with the Constantinopolitan text of Basil's liturgy, I find that, so far from being a different text, it is generally a literal translation, and only varies from the Greek to introduce a few ill-placed interpolations, which any one may detect at a glance; or else to insert prayers and rites literally taken from, or digested according to, the Syriac liturgy of St. James, and all the other liturgies of the Syrian Monophysites. In fact, this Syriac text of Basil's liturgy affords a very strong confirmation of the genuineness of the Constantinopolitan text; and it cannot for an instant claim the authority of an original text. I may therefore conclude, that the Constantinopolitan contains the authentic text of Basil's liturgy. And it were much to be desired that we had a critical edition of it, drawn from ancient MSS. and corrected by the accounts of ecclesiastical writers. Having inquired into the best means of ascertaining the text of Basil's liturgy, let it be our next care to examine briefly the order and substance of the authentic text. The early part of the introduction, up to the dismissal of the catechumens, certainly comprised the reading of Scripture and the bishop's or presbyter's sermon; after which, without doubt, there were prayers for the catechumens, energumens, and penitents, who were successively w His version is found at p. 548, tom. ii. Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. Coll. dismissed. Various rites and prayers are introduced into this part of Basil's liturgy by modern, and even by old MSS., which may reasonably give rise to discussion as to the probability that they were used in the time of Basil. The hymn Trisagios, "Ayios o Θεὸς, ἅγιος ἰσχυρὸς, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, was introduced into the liturgy in the time of the emperor Theodosius the younger, some time after the death of Basil. The prayer of Trisagios must therefore be more recent than the time of Basil. Omitting, however, any further discussion on this introductory part, which would be of little importance, and would take up too much space, let us consider the part which follows the dismissal of those that have no right to communicate. y First, there are three prayers; the two former called " of the faithful,” εὐχαὶ πιστῶν ", the prayers third entitled εὐχὴ προσκομιδής (an intermediate prayer having been inserted considerably after the time of Basil). Then comes the apostolical kiss of peace. The Constantinopolitan Creed, which follows, was inserted after the time of Basil. Here the Anaphora, Prosphora, or solemn prayer, begins with the benediction of "The grace of our Lord"." &c. Then Sursum Corda, &c. The preface or thanks 66 * Goar, Rituale Græc. not. 80, in Liturg. Chrysostomi, p. 126. This must not be confounded with the hymn Tersanctus, beginning, Holy, Holy, Holy," &c. which was never used at any time, or in any office, except in the solemn thanksgiving preceding consecration. On the other hand, the hymn Trisagios was never used in that thanks- VOL. I. F giving. The hymn Tersanctus, sung by all the people. A continuation of thanksgivings. A commemoration of our Saviour's deeds and words at the last supper". The verbal oblation to God of his own creatures of bread and wine'. The invocation of the Holy Ghost to make the elements the body and blood of Christ. Then follow long prayers for the church, for all men, and all things, the Lord's Prayer', the benediction of the people by the bishop or priestTM, the breaking of the bread, the form rà ayia Tois ȧyíois, or "holy things for the holy"," the communion of clergy and laity, and the thanksgiving after communion°. This, then, was the form which prevailed at Cæsarea in Cappadocia during the latter part of the fourth century. And this was the form which was received with such approbation by the catholic churches of the east, that in little more than a hundred years Peter the deacon testified that almost the whole east used it. This was the form which soon prevailed throughout the whole exarchate of Cæsarea, and the patriarchate of Constantinople, where it has remained in use ever since. This was the form which was received by all the patriarchate of Antioch, translated into Coptic, revised by the patriarchs of Alexandria, and admitted into their church, used alike by orthodox and heretics. At this day, after the lapse of near fifteen hundred e P. 165, 166. f P. 166. g P. 166-168. h P. 168. 1 τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν σοι προσ φέροντες, p. 168. JP. 169. Omit the inter polated words of the deacon according to ancient MSS. k P. 170-174. 1 P. 174. m Ibid. n P. 175. 。 Ibid. |