tian bishop of the Monophysites, who lived in the tenth century, and who speaks of Basil as the author of a liturgy. There is an abundance of evidence after his time without doubt. But there is an allusion to the use of Basil's liturgy in Egypt (as it seems to me) which is of importance, as coming from a remote country, and a writer who evidently gave the common tradition of his age, rather than any inventions of his own. This is the anonymous

66

Irish writer of about the year 700, published by Spelman from a MS. in the Cottonian library, which was considered by Spelman, Abp. Usher a, Dr. O'Conor, and other critics, to be above eleven hundred years old. This writer, having spoken of the “cursus,” or offices of St. Mark, (founder of the patriarchal see of Alexandria,) adds these words. After Mark, Gregory Nazianzen, whom St. Je"rome affirms to have been his master, and St. Basil, brother of the same St. Gregory; Anthony, Paul, Macarius, or John, and Malchus, chanted according to the order of the Fathers f" I know not how to account for this writer's classing Gregory Nazianzen and Basil amongst those persons who chanted after Mark, or used his offices or liturgy, except by supposing that the liturgies of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil were then used in Egypt, as

66

66

66

b Renaudot. Liturg. tom. i.

p. 170..

p. 176.

c Concilia, tom. i. d Britt. Eccl. Antiq. p. 185. e Rer. Hibern. Scriptores, tom. i. p. cxxxii.

f Beatus Hieronymus adfirmat ipsum cursum qui dicitur præsente tempore Scottorum,

post ipsum Gregorius Nanzenzenus, quem Hieronymus suum magistrum esse adfirmat. Et beatus Basilius frater ipsius sancti Gregorii, Antonius, Paulus, Macharius vel Joannes, et Malchus, secundum ordinem Patrum decantaverunt. Spelman. Concilia, tom. i. p. 177.

they are to this day by the Egyptian Monophysites. What else could have induced him to class Gregory and Basil, who lived in the north of Asia Minor, amongst those who used the Alexandrian offices. which were derived from St. Mark; and to include their names in a list of Egyptian worthies? There can be little doubt also that this writer meant to allude to liturgies used by the orthodox Egyptians. For he would hardly have alluded to the offices or liturgy (two things that he appears to confound) of the heterodox, in the same manner in which he spoke of the offices or "cursus" of St. Mark, which he describes as being not only the original source of Gregory's and Basil's, but of that which was used in his own country. Indeed catholics in those ages did not busy themselves in investigating the ecclesiastical rites and liturgies of the Monophysites. This writer must therefore have alluded to liturgies of Gregory and Basil used by the orthodox Egyptians. And in this case there is every probability that the liturgy of Basil was used in Egypt before the year 451. For after that time the orthodox and heterodox anathematized each other, and held no sort of communion. Whatever they had in common, therefore, they must have derived from a period antecedent to the year 451. Now it seems that they both used Basil's liturgy.

It is highly probable, then, that the Egyptian or Alexandrian text of Basil's liturgy (with the excep

g Mabillon has remarked already, that this author appears to confound the cursus, or offices for the canonical hours with the liturgy or office for the communion; as he speaks

of the hymn "Gloria in excel"sis," the "Tersanctus," &c. as if they occurred in the "cur"sus," while we know that they were used at the communion by the western churches.

tion of a few late additions, which are discerned without difficulty) is older than the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. And here the difficulty occurs with fresh force. How are we to account for the difference between the Constantinopolitan text of Basil's liturgy, and the Alexandrian text which seems to claim so great an antiquity? Which is the true text? Or is neither true? Did the text of Basil suffer some great alterations in both patriarchates within a short period after his time? Or did this alteration take place only in one? To this last question I am prepared to reply in the affirmative.

There is good reason to maintain, that the liturgy of Basil underwent designed alterations when it was introduced into the patriarchate of Alexandria, and that it was suited, as far as was convenient, to the Egyptian or Alexandrian liturgy which had previously been used.

First, it appears probable that the introduction, or preparatory portion of the ancient Egyptian liturgy, was substituted for the corresponding part of Basil's liturgy. The Alexandrian text of Basil's liturgy, as it stands, consists of two parts. The introduction, and the Anaphora or solemn prayer of consecration, &c. This introduction is common to all the Alexandrian or Egyptian liturgies of the Monophysites, and to the Ethiopic', which appears to have been a rite distinct from, and independent of the Alexandrian, even from the time of Athanasius. It was also formerly used in the orthodox Alexandrian liturgy of St. Mark, where distinct traces of

h Renaudot. Liturg. tom. i.

p. 1-13-25.

j See section iv. of this Dissertation.

it are to be found. This introduction, therefore, (at least the chief parts and general design of it,) seems older than the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, since it was common to the orthodox and Monophysites, and may probably have been nearly the same in the time of Athanasius, A. D. 330. If so, Basil's liturgy was adapted to the old Egyptian introduction and this idea is rendered probable by the subsequent practice of almost the whole east in after-ages. For the universal custom seems to have been, to retain always the ancient introduction, and to admit variety only in the Anaphora or canon1.

Secondly, the directions of the deacon in this liturgy of Basil are inserted in places and in language peculiar to the ancient Alexandrian rites, as may easily be seen by collating the Coptic, Ethiopic, and orthodox (i. e. St. Mark's) liturgies with those of the Syrian, Greek, and western churchesTM. Thirdly, a prayer of absolution or benediction is introduced at the close", which is plainly derived from the old Egypian rite, nothing like it appearing any where else. Fourthly, the benediction beginning, "The grace of our Lord," &c. which appears to have prevailed all through the east about the time of Basil, but which seems not to have been used

k Renaudot. tom. i. p. 131 -144. See section iv. for observations on St. Mark's liturgy.

The Syrian Monophysites for nearly forty liturgies have only one introduction. The Copts have only one for their three liturgies. The Ethiopians only one for twelve liturgies. Renaudot. tom. i. p. 172.

m οἱ καθήμενοι ἀνάστητε. Re

naudot. tom. i. p. 13. 28. 45· 153. 516. προσχῶμεν vel “ Re"spondete," p. 65. 29. 101. 516, &c. referred to by Cyril Alexandrinus, and others. See sect. iv. of this Dissertation.

n Renaudot. tom. i. p. 22. 36. 80. 519.

o Theodoret, Epist. ad Joan. Econ. tom. iii. p. 132. ed. Sirmond. 1642. cited in section i. of this Dissertation.

by the Egyptian church P, is omitted. Fifthly, the Egyptian text of Basil's liturgy is shorter than the Constantinopolitan' in the exact places where the ancient Egyptian liturgy was shorter than others; for instance, in the thanksgivings.

It may therefore be considered certain, that the rule of strict conformity to the order and substance of Basil's liturgy was not adhered to by those who introduced it into use in the patriarchate of Alexandria. And if this be the case, the alterations which were made to adapt it to the Egyptian customs may have extended to all the points in which the Alexandrian text differs from the Constantinopolitan. Now, if we bear in mind that there is sufficient evidence that the Constantinopolitan text is genuine, if it be considered alone; and if it appears that the 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

P Renaudot. Liturg. Cyrilli p. 40; Marci p. 144; Canon. Æthiop. p. 513.

a Renaudot. tom. i. p. 13. 64.

r Goar Rituale Græc. p. 165 -168.

s Renaudot. Liturg. Cyrilli p. 46. Marci p. 153, 154. Canon. Æthiop. p. 516. In the