Palmer: Origines Liturgicæ 04.
Vol. I: Diss. on Primitive Liturgies, Sect. IV.
LITURGY OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF ALEXANDRIA.
THE patriarchal see of Alexandria, founded by the holy evangelist Mark1, has for eleven hundred years been in the possession of the sect of Jacobites, or Monophysites. This sect was originated by Eutyches in the fifth century; and as almost all the Copts, or native Egyptians, speedily embraced his doctrines, the see of Alexandria was soon occupied by Monophysite patriarchs: and although, through the favour of the eastern emperors, the orthodox were generally in possession of that see, the Monophysites preserved an unbroken succession of bishops amongst themselves2, until, in the seventh century, the Mahommedans conquered Egypt from the eastern emperors, and, being received with open arms by the Monophysites, placed their patriarch in possession of the churches at Alexandria and throughout Egypt3. From that period to the present, the Monophysites have held possession of all  the churches of Egypt; and the orthodox, or Melchites, have been at all times a small and unimportant section of the community.
The Egyptian Monophysites use three liturgies, written in the ancient Coptic language, which prevailed in Egypt before, and about the time of, the Mahommedan invasion. These liturgies they ascribe to Basil, (as we have seen in the second section of this Dissertation,) to Gregory Nazianzen, called Theologus, and to Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria4.
It appears probable, that they were not originally written in Coptic, but in Greek. This idea is supported by the occurrence of several Greek phrases in the Coptic liturgies as now extant. These phrases are of such a simple and ordinary nature, being directions to the people to "stand up," "bow their heads," &c.5 that it is impossible to assign any adequate reason for their use in a foreign language, except by supposing that the liturgy was originally in Greek, and that the people were made particularly well acquainted with these formulae, which it was therefore thought inexpedient to alter. The same supposition is confirmed by the knowledge we ‘have that Greek was commonly spoken at Alexandria and in the neighbourhood, when the gospel was first preached in Egypt, and that the Egyptian Fathers generally wrote in Greek; and it is rendered still more probable by the existence of very ancient Greek MSS., which appear to be copies of the  originals from which the Coptic version was made.6 It is very probable, however, if not certain, that the Coptic language, though not employed in divine service in Lower Egypt, was used in Upper Egypt from the time that Christianity penetrated there. It appears that Antony, the great founder of the monastic institute in Egypt, did not understand Greek, neither did many of his most celebrated disciples. Many who lived in the monasteries of Nitria and Scetis, and the Tabennesiotæ in the furthest part of the province, and the ascetics of Antony’s rule in the deserts near the Read sea, only understood the Coptic language, and yet they spent days and nights in psalmody and reading the scriptures. We also find the subscriptions of Egyptian bishops to the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon in Coptic, because they were unacquainted with Greek. How could all these have performed the liturgy and offices of the church, unless the Coptic had been used in divine service in many parts of Egypt?7
It is difficult, if not impossible, to assign the period when the Greek language was completely relinquished by the Copts in the celebration of their liturgy. Renaudot is inclined to ascribe the substitution of the Coptic for the Greek, to Benjamin, patriarch of the Monophysites, who was placed in possession of the see of Alexandria by the Mahommedans.8
That the primitive rite of the church of  Alexandria, is to be, found amongst the liturgies used by the Egyptian Monophysites, will appear probable, when we consider the scrupulous care with which they seem to have preserved ancient customs. In fact, when the division took place at the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, the Monophysites adhered to all ecclesiastical traditions which did not interfere with their own peculiar doctrines, with as much care as the orthodox themselves.
As the Monophysite liturgies, however, differ from each other, it becomes a question, which is to be considered as the best representative of the ancient Alexandrian rite. And here it would seem at the first glance, that the liturgy of Cyril, which bears the name of a patriarch of Alexandria, is more likely to represent the Alexandrian rite, than those of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, who were bishops of cities in Cappadocia. A further light is thrown on this by an actual inspection of the three liturgies. For while Basil’s and Gregory’s liturgies appear to ,be (as they profess) derived from the rite used in Cappadocia and the adjoining countries; the liturgy of Cyril stands distinguished from them all in many remarkable particulars.
These arguments, intended to, shew the probability of. Cyril’s liturgy being the ancient Alexandrian rite, are supported by the tradition of the Egyptians themselves. Abulbircat calls Cyril’s liturgy, "the liturgy of Mark, which Cyril perfected,"9 and this must mean the liturgy of the church of Alexandria founded by St. Mark. In the sixteenth century an ancient monument was published, which gives  force to this tradition. A manuscript of the tenth or eleventh century, written in Greek, was discovered amongst other MSS. of rarity and value in a remote monastery of Calabria, inhabited by the oriental monks of St. Basil. This MS. bears the title of St. Mark’s liturgy,10 was evidently intended for the use of the Alexandrian church11, and is perhaps the only liturgy, except the Ethiopian general canon, which resembles the Coptic liturgy of Cyril in the order of its parts.
The difference between St. Mark’s liturgy and that of Cyril Alexandrinus, occurs chiefly in the introductory part. In the Anaphora there is very little difference: and it will appear in the sequel, that the variations in the liturgy of St. Mark are chiefly to be attributed to the dependence of the orthodox, (who used it,) upon the church of Constantinople. But on comparing Cyril’s and Mark’s  liturgies together, their resemblance is found to be most striking; and it is impossible to deny that they, have proceeded from one common source, namely, the ancient liturgy of the Egyptian church before the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. For here we have two liturgies agreeing in substance and order, both professing by their titles to be derived from the rites of the Egyptian church; both differing in order from the liturgies of all other churches in the east and west; and used by two bodies of men in Egypt, who have held no communion with each other since the council of Chalcedon.
The existence and use of the liturgy of St. Mark amongst the orthodox of Egypt is proved by the testimony of Mark, orthodox patriarch of Alexandria in the twelfth century, in his Questions to Theodore Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch. He inquired "whether the liturgies read in the parts of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and said to have been written by James ho adelphotheos, and by Mark, are to be received by the holy catholic church, or no."12
Theodore Balsamon himself says, in his Commentary on the Thirty-second Canon of the Council in Trullo, that the liturgy of St. Mark was for the most part used by the church of Alexandria.13 It is true, that he mistakes it for the liturgy of James, as appears by the context. But his testimony establishes  the, fact, that St. Mark’s liturgy was used in the twelfth century by the orthodox of Alexandria, though he was not acquainted with the nature of that liturgy.
The use of this liturgy by the orthodox of Alexandria may be traced further back, I think, by the testimony of the ancient writer of the seventh or eighth century already alluded to. "St. Jerome," he says, "affirms that St. Mark chanted the course (or liturgy, as appears by his preceding remarks) which is now called the Irish course; and after him Gregory Nazianzen, whom Jerome affirms to be his master, St. Basil, brother of the same St. Gregory, Antony, Paul, Macarius or John, and Malchus chanted according to the order of the Fathers."14 Here this author appears plainly to me to refer to the Egyptian liturgies bearing the name of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil, as I have remarked elsewhere. Now though he speaks of two of the liturgies used by the Monophysites of Egypt, he does not speak of Cyril’s, which is the third, but he speaks of St. Mark as being the first institutor of the Egyptian rites. And this seems plainly to refer to the custom of the orthodox Alexandrians, who did not give their liturgy the name of Cyril, (though it was the same as Cyril’s Coptic liturgy,) but of St. Mark; preferring the name of its first institutor to that of Cyril, who, according to the  Monophysites, "perfected the liturgy of Mark." We may perhaps regard this testimony as sufficient to shew that a liturgy of the orthodox of Alexandria was called by the name of St. Mark in the seventh century, as we know it was in the twelfth
Now this appellation in itself is a proof that the orthodox Egyptians thought the liturgy to which they gave it, the original liturgy of Alexandria. And the circumstance of the Monophysites calling one of their liturgies by the name of Cyril is a proof that they esteemed it to have been the liturgy of Alexandria. And, as I have said before, Mark’s and Cyril’s liturgies differ from all other liturgies in the world, except the Ethiopic, but agree with each other.
The liturgy of the Ethiopians adds strength to these arguments. Ethiopia was converted to Christianity by Frumentius about A.D. 330, and he was ordained bishop of Ethiopia by the blessed pope Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.15 At the schism in the Alexandrian patriarchate in the time of Dioscorus, and the council of Chalcedon, the Ethiopians followed the example of the Copts, and adhered to the Monophysite patriarch. Of course the origin of the Ethiopic liturgy is to be traced to Alexandria, from whence were derived their Christianity and their ecclesiastical orders. We should expect, then, to find a conformity between the most ancient Ethiopian liturgy and the Alexandrian rite. And the most ancient Ethiopic liturgy agrees exactly in  order and substance with the liturgies of Cyril and Mark, and with no others.16
This Ethiopic liturgy appears plainly to be an independent rite; that is, although it received some additions from the Alexandrian rite in the fifth or sixth centuries, yet it did not receive all the additions that were made to the Alexandrian liturgy. And if so, it is highly improbable that its original order and substance were transposed or relinquished. For had such a transposition or alteration taken place, in order to suit the Alexandrian liturgy, then, surely, parts of that liturgy which were very celebrated and very excellent, would not have been omitted, as we find they are.17 Now, if, on the  hypothesis of Renaudot, Basil’s liturgy had been the original liturgy of Alexandria, then the same order as Basil’s would have originally prevailed in Ethiopia, and then (since the Ethiopian liturgy does not agree with the liturgy of Basil, but with those of Cyril and Mark) they must have altered the substance and order of their ancient liturgy. But if the liturgy of the Ethiopians suffered so material an alteration in order and substance, how highly improbable is it, that they would have omitted to introduce some of the best portions of the liturgies which it was altered to suit.18
If, then, it has appeared that there are strong objections to thinking that the Ethiopian liturgy originally exhibited a different order from what it does now, (although it may have received many additions and interpolations in the course of ages,) if this has appeared, then we must consider it as a proof that the liturgies of Mark and Cyril are, as they profess and appear to be, derived from the ancient Alexandrian rite which prevailed in the time of Athanasius. For these liturgies agree in order and substance with the Ethiopian general canon, which appears to have been an independent rite from its origin, and to have been derived from Alexandria in the time of Athanasius, A.D. 330.
Much controversy has been excited by the liturgy  of St. Mark. Some persons have thought it genuine, or that it was actually composed by St. Mark;19 others have proved that it contains; many things which could not have been used in the time of that Evangelist; from whence they infer that it is to be regarded as an imposture.20 Controversies, however, on this subject can produce no satisfactory results, from the absence of any sufficient evidence. To prove that St. Mark wrote a liturgy is impossible. It is equally impossible to prove that he did not do so. The objections that have been made to this liturgy only prove that the whole of it is not as old as the apostolic age. But the only really important question, relative to the origin of this liturgy, which admits of a satisfactory decision, is, whether we are to regard it as the ancient liturgy of the church of Alexandria. And if I have succeeded in establishing an affirmative reply to this question, we may be enabled to account for this liturgy obtaining the title of "St. Mark’s;" for it was the liturgy used by St. Mark’s church, and was derived from the instructions which he had first given to that church. In my opinion, this appellation of "St. 11 Mark’s liturgy" began about the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, after Basil had composed his liturgy, which appears to have been the first liturgy that bore the name of any man. Other churches then gave their liturgies the names of their founders. And so the Alexandrians and Egyptians gave theirs the name of "St. Mark’s;"  and they of Jerusalem and Antioch called theirs "St. James’s." And early in the fifth century it appears that Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, perfected and improved the liturgy of Mark, from whence this improved liturgy came to be called by the Monophysites, "St. Cyril’s;" and by the orthodox, "St. Mark’s."
With regard to the liturgy of the Melchites, or orthodox of Alexandria, now known as "St. Mark’s liturgy," I may be permitted to make a few remarks, which will tend to account for the differences that exist between it and the Monophysite Coptic liturgy of Cyril. The liturgy of St. Mark, therefore, is to be regarded as a liturgy used by the orthodox Egyptians after the council of. Chalcedon, A.D. 451, altered and arranged by them to suit the liturgies of Constantinople. Renaudot has not taken this view of St. Mark’s liturgy; but I think it tends to explain several things which he has remarked without accounting for.21 The orthodox of Egypt, after the invasion of the Mahommedans, were a small and persecuted party. For a hundred years they had no patriarch, they could hold no public assemblies, and their clergy were ordained either at Constantinople or Cæsarea. Being thus entirely dependent on the patriarch of Constantinople, it is not unnatural to suppose that they adapted their rites as much as possible to the Constantinopolitan. And we find ultimately, that they. actually received the liturgies of that church, to the exclusion of their own. Let us, then, examine the liturgy which they used after this state of depression, and before  they received the Constantinopolitan liturgies, and ascertain whether there are any traces of an approximation to the Greek rite.22
First the ancient prayers of absolution23 and incense appear to have been amalgamated and formed into the prayer called the "prayer of Introit,"24 to correspond with the Greek prayer of the same title,25 while no such title occurs in the Coptic or Ethiopic liturgies. Secondly, the prayer after St. Paul’s Epistles26 seems to have given way to a "prayer of Trisagios,"27 to correspond with a similar prayer in the Greek,28 while nothing of the kind occurs in the Coptic and Ethiopic. Thirdly, the Gospel is preceded by an offering of incense29 with the same words as are used in the Greek rite,30 while no such words are prescribed in the Coptic and Ethiopic liturgies. Fourthly, the Cherubic hymn, of which there is no mention in the Coptic or Ethiopic rites, is appointed to be sung31 at the same place as in the Greek.32 Fifthly, the kiss of peace precedes the  Creed33 as in the Greek liturgies,34 while in the Coptic and Ethiopic it follows the Creed.35 Sixthly, the prayer of Prothesis, which had probably occurred at first in the beginning of the liturgy, was placed close to the Creed, like the Greek.36 This position of the prayer of Prothesis has been remarked by Renaudot, who seems at a loss to account for this disturbance of the order of the liturgy. Seventhly, in the general prayers, before the commemoration of the Virgin Mary, the anthem Chaire kecharitômenê is introduced.37 Now there is no such anthem in the Coptic and Ethiopic liturgies, and yet it is incredible, that if it had ever been in these, it would have been afterwards omitted. We must therefore look for some foreign authority for the introduction of this anthem into St. Mark’s liturgy. And we find it in the Greek or Constantinopolitan liturgy, where there is always an anthem of the kind in this place,38 and.in the ancient MS. of Crypta Ferrata this very anthem is prescribed both in Basil’s and Chrysostom’s liturgies.39
I have no doubt that other persons may discover more instances of changes made by the orthodox Alexandrians to adapt their liturgy to the Constantinopolitan rite.40 Thus much, however, may suffice to shew, that in places where it varies from the  Coptic liturgy of Cyril, and the Ethiopic general canon, the liturgy of Mark is not to be esteemed the rule by which we are to judge of the ancient Alexandrian rites: though in these very places it often throws great light on the Coptic and Ethiopic liturgies, and affords strong confirmation of their antiquity. So little remains of the history of the orthodox Alexandrians, that it is impossible to determine exactly the time when these alterations were introduced. It must certainly have occurred before the twelfth century, because the MS. of St. Mark’s liturgy is as old as that time. Very probably it took place about the eighth century, when the orthodox had again patriarchs of their own, some of whom might have adapted their liturgy to the rites which had been gradually introduced by priests ordained in Constantinople during a century of persecution and depression. And considering the small number of the orthodox in Egypt, the persecutions which they suffered, and their subsequent adoption of the liturgies used at Constantinople, it may be regarded as wonderful that any monument of their ancient liturgy has survived.
Before I state the order and substance of the ancient Alexandrian liturgy, it may be advisable to correct the mistakes of Renaudot as to the monuments which most authentically represent it. Renaudot states that the Anaphoræ of the Coptic liturgy of Basil, and of St. Mark’s, have "the same order, prayers agreeing in the same meaning, similar rites, but a great variety in the expressions."41 It is strange that a man of such learning  and diligence should have such a mistake; but a simple inspection is enough to refute him. The order, is perfectly different. Renaudot indeed remarks elsewhere, that these Anaphorae of Basil and Mark do not agree,42 from whence he infers, that St. Mark’s was not the common canon of the old Alexandrian rite, but belonged to some particular church. And the proof which he brings for Basil’s liturgy having been the canon of the Alexandrian church (at least after the conquest of Egypt by the Mahommedans) is, that it accords with the Ethiopic general canon, which is nothing, but "a liberal version of Basil’s Coptic, liturgy."43 It is scarcely necessary to refute this, because all, that it attempts to prove is, that Basil’s liturgy was chiefly used by the Copts after the Mahommedan invasion. But, the important question is, what liturgy was used during the time of the Christian emperors; which question is not touched by the result of Renaudot’s argument. However, the proof which he brings,  that Basil’s liturgy was chiefly used by the Copts after the Mahommedan invasion, is invalid. For the Ethiopic general canon is not (as he says) a liberal version of Basil’s liturgy, but accords with Cyril’s and Mark’s, as any one may see by an actual comparison.
Let us, then, proceed to examine the chief features of the ancient Alexandrian rite, as depicted in the liturgies of Mark and Cyril, supported by the Ethiopic general canon; omitting, however, any notice of that part of the introduction which preceded the dismissal of the catechumens, because in the most primitive times there was little else contained in it besides the reading of lessons and the sermon.
After the dismissal of the catechumens and some prayers of the faithful,44 the priest and people saluted each other thus, "Peace be with you;" "And with thy spirit."45 Then followed the apostolical kiss of peace. The deacon proclaimed stômen kalôs,46 and the form of "Sursum corda," &c. followed.47 Then began the eucharistia or thanksgiving, in which the great peculiarity of the Egyptian rite becomes immediately visible. All the solemn prayers for men and things, the commemorations of the living and the dead, are inserted in this place,48 after the form "Sursum corda." Then the thanksgiving being resumed again, as it proceeds, the deacon successively commands those who are sitting, to "arise,"49 and "look towards the east."50 The thanksgiving  continues, and the priest mentions the "ten thousand thousand angels and archangels who stand ministering to God,"51 and the two seraphim with six wings, with two of which they veil their face, "on account of the divinity of God invisible and incomprehensible by the mind."52 With these beings the people praise God, saying the hymn Tersanctus.53 The priest implores God to bless with the Holy Spirit the sacrifice and gifts of bread and wine placed before him.54 Then. follow the commemoration of our Lord’s deeds and words at the last supper,55 a verbal commemoration of his death, resurrection,56 &c. the offering of the gifts which God has given us,57 a prayer of humble deprecation,58 and the invocation or prayer to God to send the Holy Ghost, and make the bread and cup the body and blood of Christ, that they may be efficacious for obtaining spiritual benefits for those who are to partake of them.59 Then follow the breaking of the bread,60 the Lord’s Prayer,61 a benediction,62 and the form ta hagia tois hagiois. Then the communion of clergy and laity, which is succeeded by a thanksgiving.
 It will be observed, that the difference between this liturgy and the great oriental liturgy of Antioch, Caesarea, and Constantinople, already described, is in the order of the parts. The general and solemn prayers for men and things occurred in the middle of the Egyptian eucharistia or thanksgiving, and before the hymn Tersanctus. In the oriental liturgy the general prayers are deferred till after the end of the benediction of the gifts. Another peculiarity in this rite was the directions of the deacon to the people during the course of the thanksgiving, to "arise," "look towards the east," and "attend," or "sing" the hymn Tersanctus. Of this there is nothing to be found in any other rite.
Let us now compare this liturgy with the writings of the Fathers of the Alexandrian patriarchate, amongst whom the law of secrecy was so carefully attended to, that we have very few memorials of the Egyptian rites amongst them. The dismissal of catechumens is mentioned by Cyril of Alexandria,63 and is alluded to by almost every Egyptian father. Cyril also quotes a passage in the prayer of the faithful.64 He also refers to the salutation of "Peace  be with you," and the reply, and the kiss of peace65; which are likewise mentioned by Isidore of Pelusium,66 and Origen.67 The form stômen kalôs is, apparently referred to by Cyril Alexaridrinus.68 The eucharistia or thanksgiving is mentioned by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria,69 and Origen.70 Athanasius speaks of the prayer for the emperor.71 The commemoration of the departed is mentioned by the Egyptian bishops in their epistle to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople,72 by John Cassian,73  and by Origen, who appears to quote from the liturgy, and his quotations are accordant in meaning and substance with the prayers in the Egyptian liturgies.74
The deacon’s proclamation to "arise" is probably alluded to by Cyril.75 The part of the preface or thanksgiving which speaks of "ten thousand thousand angels." &c. is perhaps referred to by Origen77;  at least, the idea was familiar to him in connection with, this part of the liturgy. The part of the. thanksgiving which speaks of the cherubim covering their faces with their wings on account of the nature of God, is perhaps alluded to by Cyril Alexandrinus,77 and this mystical explanation is given by other Egyptian Fathers. The deacon’s proclamation to "sing" the hymn Tersanctus seems peculiar to the Egyptian Liturgy, and we find an allusion to it in, the writings of Cyril;78 in the same place he seems to notice the hymn Tersanctus, which is also alluded to by Origen.79 The oblation is spoken of by Cyril,80 Athanasius81 and Origen.82 Theophilus of Alexandria,83 Isidore of Pelusium, and perhaps  Origen,85 refer to the invocation of the Holy Ghost. The concluding Amen of the people is mentioned by Athanasius,86 and Dionysius of Alexandria,87 as the breaking of the bread is by Theophilus Alexandrinus88 and others.
I have not the slightest doubt that a more minute examination of the Egyptian Fathers than I have been able to make, would discover many additional proofs and coincidences. What has been done will, perhaps shew, that there is a sufficient confirmation of the general order of the Egyptian liturgy already described, from the writings of the Egyptian Fathers. I have myself observed some other things, which might give confirmation to what has been said. But as they arise chiefly from a conformity of expression and idea on many topics between the Egyptian Fathers and liturgies, the discussion would be too long.
I have, then, shewn that a certain form of liturgy prevailed throughout the patriarchate of Alexandria in the fifth century, from a comparison of the liturgies used by two bodies of men who have held no communion since that time. I have compared the liturgy thus ascertained with the writings of the, Egyptian Fathers of the fifth, fourth, and third centuries; and so far as I can discover from thence, the same order appears to have prevailed from the  earliest period. I have also remarked, that the Ethiopians have probably had the same liturgy, as to order, since the fourth century, when they derived it from Alexandria; and I find that order agreeing with the Alexandrian of the fifth century, already ascertained. In conclusion, then, we can ascertain with considerable certainty the words and expressions of the Alexandrian liturgy before the council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451; and we can trace back its substance and order to a period of far greater antiquity. In fact, there is nothing unreasonable in supposing that the main order and substance of the Alexandrian liturgy, as used in the fifth century, may have been as old as the apostolic age, and derived originally from the instructions and appointment of the blessed Evangelist Mark.
The liturgies of Cyril and Mark are found at p. 38 and 131 of the first volume of Renaudot’s Collection of Oriental Liturgies. The reader, however, should remember, that he must prefix the Introduction, which extends from page l to page 12 of the same volume, in order to complete Cyril’s liturgy. The notes of Renaudot on Cyril’s and Mark’s liturgies are useful. But the chief explanations of Egyptian rites (chiefly those of the Monophysites in latter times) are found in his notes on Basil’s liturgy in the same volume. The Ethiopian liturgy with notes is found at the end of the volume.
1 Euseb. Hist. Ecel. lib. ii. c. 16 et 24.
2 Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alexand. p. 120, &c.
3 Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. Coll. tom. i. p. lxxxii.
4 They use Basil’s liturgy on ,all fast days, Cyril’s in Lent and the month Cohiac, and Gregory’s on feast days. Renaudot, tom. i. p. 171.
5 As stathête, Renaudot, tom. i. p. 13. eis anatolas blepete, ibid. hoi kathêmenoi anastête, ibid. tas kephalas humôn tô theô klinate, p. 21, &c.
6 Renaudot, tom. i. p. cv. &c. and p. 57.
7 "Quomodo igitur sacra fecissent, officiaque celebrassent, nisi publicus multis in locis linguæ vulgaris usus in sacris fuisset?" Renaudot, tom. i. p. 205, 206.
8 Tom. i. p. lxxxii.
9 "Secunda—est liturgia Marci, quam perfecit Cyrillus." Abulbircat cited by Renaudot, tom. i. p. 171.
10 St. Mark’s liturgy was first published at Paris, A.D. 1583, edited by Johan. à S. Andrea. It is found in the Bibliotheca Patrum, in Assemani’s Codex Liturgicus, tom. vii. in Fabricius’s Codex Apocryph. Nov. Testamenti, tom. iii. and in Renaudot’s Liturg. Orient. Collectio, tom. i p. 131. to which last I refer in this section.
11 In this liturgy there are prayers that the waters of the river (Nile) may be raised to their just measure, p. 148; St. Mark is commemorated as the person who shewed to them the way of salvation, p. 149; and there are prayers for the holy and blessed pope, i.e. the patriarch of Alexandria, p. 151.
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in the third century, speaks of his predecessor pope Heraclas, para tou makariou papa hêmôn Hêrakla parelabon. Dionys. Alexandr. ap. Euseb. Hist. lib. vii. c. 7. And from that time to the present, the patriarchs of Alexandria have always been called Pope, a title which the Monophysites as well as orthodox apply to their respective patriarchs. But, indeed, this title was at first common to all bishops; thus Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was addressed by the Roman clergy as "Papa Cyprianus." See abundance of examples and proofs in Bingham’s Antiquities, book ii. c. 2. §, 7.
12 hai peri ta meri tês Alexandreias, kai tôn Hierosolumôn anaginôskomenai leitourgiai, kai legomenai suggpraphênai para tôn hagiôn apostolôn Iakôbou tou adelphotheou, kai Markou, dektai eisi tê hagia kai katholikê ekklêsia ê ou; Leunclav. Jus Gr. Rom. L. V.
13 hoi de Alexandreis legousin eivai (scilicet, liturgiam) kai tou hagiou Markou hê kai chôntai hôs ta polla. Balsamon in Can. 32. Concil. Trull. Bevereg. Concil. p. 193.
14 Beatus Hieronymus adfirmat, ipsum cursum qui dicitur præsente tempore Scottorum, beatus Marcus decantavit, et 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.
15 Socrates, Hist. lib. i. c. 19 Sozomen. lib. ii. c. 24. Theodoret. lib. i. c. 23. Ludolf. Hist. Ethiop. lib. iii. c. 2.
16 I assume that the general canon (as it is called) of the Ethiopians is their oldest liturgy, because it does not appear to bear the name of any apostle or saint, and yet is more used and regarded than any of the others, though they have the names of apostles and famous saints. And the presumption from this is, that they esteem it to be their principal and most ancient liturgy. It occurs in Renaudot, t. i. p. 499, &c.
17 First, in the Ethiopic liturgy the address, "Lift up your hearts," &c. does not occur, as Cassander has observed before me; see his Liturgic. p. 27. This form and the responses which follow are certainly wanting in the Ethiopic liturgy. Yet they are most ancient and most celebrated in the Christian church; and in the fifth century were used, not only at Alexandria, but in all other churches, except that of Ethiopia. Cyprian speaks of these words, and Augustine said; "Every day throughout the whole world the human race reply, that they lift up their hearts unto the Lord." De Ver. Relig. Chrysostom testifies the use of these forms at Antioch; Cyril at Jerusalem; Cæsarius and Eligius in Gaul; finally, in all liturgies, except the Ethiopian, the same words are to be found. Secondly, the Lord’s Prayer does not follow the prayer of consecration in the Ethiopic liturgy. Yet in the fifth century Augustine said, "quam totam petitionem (scil. sanctificationis) fere omnis ecclesia Dominica oratione concludit." Epist. 149. Benedict. edit. num. 16. And without doubt the liturgies prove, that in the fifth century, not only the Egyptian, but every other church, used the Lord’s Prayer at the end of the prayer of consecration or canon. Many Fathers also of the fourth and third centuries mention this; amongst whom Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, and Cyprian, are well known.
18 See Liturg. Cyrilli Renaudot, p. 46. 50; Marci, 144. 159. Compare Liturg. Æthiop. Renaudot, p. 513. 518.
19 Zaccaria, Biblioth. Ritual. tom. i. p. 10. Sirletus in Epist. ad Joh. à S. Andrea, &c.
20 Dorschæus, Mysaria Myssæ, p. 225; Le Nourry, App. ad Bibl. Patrum, p. 57. Paris. 1694; Cave, Hist. Literar.; Bona, Rer. Lit. lib. i. c. 8, &c.
21 See his Notes on St. Mark’s Liturgy, tom. i. p. 353, &c.
22 In this comparison it must be remembered, that the liturgy of Cyril must be affixed to the general introduction of the Egyptian liturgy, which is placed before the liturgy of Basil, from p. 1. to p. 13. Renaudot, tom. i.
23 Renaudot, p. 3. 5.
24 Ibid. p. 135.
25 Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 67. euchê tês eisodou tou hagiou euaggeliou.
26 Renaudot, p. 6.
27 Ibid. p. 136.
28 Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 68. euchê tou trisagiou.
29 Renaudot, p. 137.
30 Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 69.
31 Renaudot, p. 141. Renaudot has not sufficiently explained the rubric which here occurs in the liturgy of Mark, and is as follows: kai phallousin hoi Cheroubim mustikôs. This, he says, means that they are to repeat a prayer beginning hoi Cheroubim, k. t. l. But in truth it plainly refers to the Greek cherubic hymn, which was introduced precisely into this part of the Greek liturgy in the time of the emperor Justin, (see Goar, not. 108. in Liturg. Chrysost.) and which begins hoi ta Cheroubim mustikôs eikonizontes, &c. Goar, p. 106.
32 Goar, p. 72.
33 P. 143. Renaudot.
34 Goar, p. 75.
35 Renaudot, p. 12. 512, 513. tom. i.
36 Ibid. p. 143. Compare p. 3. and Goar, Rit. Græc. p. 74, 75.
37 Renaudot, p. I49.
38 Goar, p. 78.
39 Ibid. p. 103. 178.
40 These will probably be easily traced in the Anaphora, which seems to have been modelled in many respects after the language and manner of the Constantinopolitan liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom.
41 "Superest pars secunda in qua major omnino Marci et Basilii liturgiarum diversitas. Est quidem non in illis modo sed in omnibus antiquis aliis cujuscumque linguae, idem ordo, orationes in eandem sententiam convenientes, ritus similes, sed insignis ex verborum varietate diversitas." Tom. i. p. xciv.
42 "Secunda. pars—non est eadem, neque convenit nisi eâ quam diximus generali confomitate rituum et sententiarum, cum prima et praecipua Coptica, quæ est Basilii. Ex eâ igitur ratione illam (Marci) qualis Græce edita est, non esse canonem, ut uno verbo vocare possumus, communem veteris Alexandrini ritus intelligimus, sed singularem," &c. p. xcvi.
43 "Fieri enim facile potuit ut ex magno illo ecclesiarum numero quæ Alexandrino patriarchæ suberant, nonnullæ eadem (Marci) frequentius uterentur, quamvis major earum pars Basilianâ—uti solerat, saltem a capita a Mahumedanis Ægypto. Ita enim rem se habere demonstrat Æthiopum—disciplina. Canon enim generalis Æthiopum qui communem liturgiæ formam continet, Basilianæ Liturgiæ Copticæ quædam liberior versio est," p. xcvi.
44 Renaudot, tom. i. p. 10–12. 139, 140. 511–513.
45 P. 12. 60. 141.
46 64. 98.
47 P. 40. 144.
48 P. 41–45. 146–153. 514–516.
49 P. 45. 153. 516.
50 P. 46. 153. 516.
51 P. 46. 154. 516.
52 P. 46.
53 P. 46. 154. 516.
54 P. 46. 155. It is not found in the Æthiopic, and perhaps did not originally occur in this part of the Alexandrian liturgy.
55 P. 46, 47. 155. 517.
56 P. 47. 156. 517.
57 P 47. 157. 517.
58 P. 47, 48. This does not occur in St. Mark’s or the Æthiopic liturgy, and is therefore of doubtful antiquity.
59 P. 49. 158. 517.
60 P. 49. 518. Mark’s liturgy defers the breaking of bread till after the Lord’s Prayer, in imitation of the Greek rite. Compare Goar, Rit. Græc. p. 80. 81.
61 P. 50. 159.
62 P. 22. 519. In the liturgy of St. Mark it is omitted, to suit the Greek rite; and another benediction more like the Greek is introduced.
63 Ho katêcoumenos—kai tois teleiois sunantheis tên ainesin, tôn eti mustikôterôn apophoita, kai thusias eirgetai tês epi Christô. Cyril Alex. de Adorat. in Spir. et Veritat. lib. xii. p. 445. tom. i. Paris. 1638.
64 Dedidagmetha de kai legein ev proseuchais; Kurie ho Theos hêmôn eirênês dos humin, panta gar hapedôkas humin. Cyril. Alex. Epist. ad Joan. Antioch. tom. v. pars ii. p. 105. Epistolaruni. In the Greek text of the Alexandrian prayer of the faithful we find these words, Basileus tês eirênês tên sên eirênên dos humin, panta gar apedôkas hêmin. Renaudot, tom. i. p. 59. In the Coptic we find the same, "O Rex pacis, da nobis pacem tuam, qui omnia dedisti nobis," p. 10. In the Ethiopic the same words occur, p. 511.
65 Speaking of our Saviour’s saying, eirênê humin. he says, toigar toi kai en tais hagiais malista sunodois, êtoi sunaxesi, par’ autas tou mustêriou tas archas touto de hêmeis allêlois phanen. Cyril. Alex. com. in Joh. c. 20. lib. xii. tom. iv. p. 1093. Paris. 1638.
66 "Pacem Sacerdos ex cathedræ fastigio ecclesiæ pronunciat, Dominum scilicet imitans cathedram assumentem, cum pacem suam discipulis relinqueret, et daret. Illud autem quod a plebe responditur, ‘Et cum spiritu tuo,’ hanc habet sententiam," &c. Isidor. Pelus. Epistol. lib. i. ep. 122. p. 38. edit. Paris, 1638.
67 In Ruffinus’s translation of Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, we find mention made of the osculum; but Rufinus has evidently used post instead of ante, in order to suit the liturgy of Italy. "Ex hoc sermone (‘salutate invicem in osculo sancto’) aliisque nonnullis similibus, mos ecclessiis traditus est ut post (lege ante) orationes osculo se invicem suscipiant fratres." Origen. lib. x. in Rom. xvi. 16. tom. iv. ed. Bened. p. 683.
68 Speaking of the deacon’s office, he says, ê ouk autoi prostattousi diakekragotes en ekklêsiais—en kosmô men estanai; Ador. in Spir. et Verit. p. 454. tom i. lib. xiii.
69 Dionysius objected to rebaptizing a certain man thus, eucharistias gar epakousanta, kai sunepiphthegxamenon ta Amên, kai trapezê parastanta, kai cheiras eis eis hupodochên tês hagias trophês proteinanta; kai tautên katadexamenon, kai tou sômatos kai tou himatos tou Kuriou hêmôn Iêsou Christou metaschonta hikanô chronô ouk an ex huparchês anaskeuazein eti tolmêsaimi. Dionys. Alex. ad Xystum Rom. ap. Euseb. lib. vii. c. 9.
70 Hêmeis de tô tou pantos dêmiourgô eucharistountes, kai tous met’ eucharistias kai euchês tês epi tois dotheisi prosagomenous artous esthiomen. Orig. adv. Cels. lib. viii. tom i. p. 766.
71 Su de theophilestate basileu pou tous laous ev êtheles ekteinai tas cheiras kai euxasthai peri sou; Athanas. Apol. ad Imp. Constant. cap. 16. p. 304. tom. i. ed. Paris. 1698.
72 "Etiam in venerabili diptycho, in quo piæ memoriæ transitum ad coelos habentium episcopum vocabula continentur, quæ tempore sanctorum mysteriorum secundum sanctas regulas religuntur, posuit et Dioscori nomen." Epist. Ægypt. Episcop. ad Anatol. Constant. cited in Cassian’s Works, p. 333.
73 "Quamobrem—vix a presbytero abbati Paphnutio potuit obtineri ut non inter Biothanatos (i. e. suicidos) reputatus, etiam rnemoria et oblatione pausantium judicaretur indignus." Cass. Collat. 2. c. 2. p. 332. Oper. Atrebat. 1628.
74 Pollakis en tais euchais legomen Thee pantokrator tên merida hêmin meta tôn prophêtôn dos, tên merida hêmin meta apostolôn tou Christou sou dos, hina eurethômen kai met’ autou tou istou. He immediately afterwards amends the expression thus, dos moi merida meta tôn prophetôn—dos moi merida met tôn apostolôn. Orig. Hom. xiv. in Jeremiam, (olim xi.) p. 217, 218. tom. iii. ed. Benedict. In the liturgy of Mark we find, Kurie Thee pater pantokrator, p. 144; and having spoken of patriarchôn, prophêtôn, apostolôn, &c. the liturgy proceeds thus, dos hêmin merida kai klêron echein meta pantôn tôn hagiôn sou, p. 150. Renaudot. See nearly the same in the liturgy of Cyril, p. 40–42. probably a little altered and added to after the time of Augustine, who first objected to the primitive custom of praying for the martyrs and saints. Another petition is found in the Alexandrian liturgy which, agrees, in sense. with Origen’s quotation, at p. 6. of Basil’s Coptic liturgy. See Renaudot, tom. i.
75 ê ouk autoi prostattousi diakekragotes en ekklêsias; Cyril. Alex. de Ador. in Spir. et Verit,. lib. xiii. P. 454. tom. i.
76 Having spoken of the oblations made to the true God and not to daemons, he adds, ei de kai plêthos pothoumen ôn philanthrôpôn tugchanein theloumen, panthanomen hoti chiliai chiliades pareeistêkeisan autô kai muriai muriades eleitourgouv autô; haitines, ôs suggeneis kai philous tous mimoumenous tên eis Thean autôn eusebeian horôntes, &c. See the whole context. Orig. adv. Celsum, lib. viii., p. 760, tom. i. ed. Benedict.
77 Sumbolon de to, tais pteruxi katakaluptein ta Serapheim to te prosôpon ka tous podas, metasthai de tais dusin, tou mê dunasthai tinas ê archên ê telos horan evvoiôn ê logôn tôn peri Theou. Cyril. A1ex. Com. in Esaiam, lib. i. orat. 4. p. 103. tom. ii.
78 The deacon’s office he says is to proclaim pote men, humnologein hoti prosêkei laois. De Ador. in Spir. et Ver. p. 454. tom. i. This seems to refer to the forms proschômen or "Respondete." Renaudot, tom. i. p. 65, 29, 101, 516. The hymn alluded to by Cyril was probably the hymn Tersanctus.
79 Probably alluded to in the words tous mimoumenous cited above, from lib. viii. adv. Celsum. For Christians imitated the angels in singing the hymn Tersanctus.
80 ho katêchoumenos—thusias eirgetai tês epi Christô. See note 63, page 100.
81 ê pôs te hen prosphoran prokeisthai, endon ontôn tôn katêchoumenôn, ei gar edon êsan hoi katêchoumenoi, oupô hen ho kaipos tês prosphoras. Athanas. Apol. cont. Arian. p. 148. tom. i. ed. Benedict.
82 kai tous met’ eucharistias kai euchês tês epi tois dotheisi prosagoumenous artous esthiomen, sôma genomenous dia tên euchên hagion ti kai hagiazon tous meta hugious protheseôs autô chrômenous. Adv. Celsum, lib. viii.. p. 766. tom. i.
83 Speaking of Origen he accuses him thus: "Non recogitat panem Dominicum quo Salvatoris corpus ostenditur, et quem frangimus in sanctificationem nostri, et sacrum calicem, quoæ in mensa ecclesiæ, et utique in anima sunt, per invocationem et adventum Sancti Spiritus sanctificari." Theoph. Alex. Liber Paschal. I.
84 mê hubrize tên theian leitourgian, mê atimaze tên tô karpôn eulogian—allamemnêmenos hôs haima Christou tên toutou aparchên to theion ergazetai pneuma houtôs autô kechrêso. Lib. i. Epist. 313.
85 When he says, sôma genomenous dia tên euchên. Lib. viii. adv. Cels. cited above.
86 ti ean tosoutôn lalôn sunelthontôn mia genêtai phônê, legontôn tô eô ti Amên?
Apolog. ad Imper. Constant. c. 16. p. 305. tom. i.
87 In the passage quoted in note 69, page 101.
88 In the passage quoted above in note 83 p. 103. from the Lib. Pasch. I.