tions 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". 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 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 Ethi opic 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 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 suits. 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. Markt; 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". 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 s See Liturg. Cyrilli Renaudot. p. 46. 50; Marci 144. 159. Compare Liturg. Æthiop. Renaudot. p. 513. 518. t Zaccaria Biblioth. Ritual. tom. i. p. 10. Sirletus in E pist. ad Joh. à S. Andrea, &c. u Dorschæus Mysaria Mys. sæ, p. 225; Le Nourry App. ad Bibl. Patrum, p. 57. Paris. 1694; Cave Hist. Literar. ; Bona Rer. Lit. lib. i. c. 8, &c. 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. "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." 66 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 Egyp tians 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. 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". First, the ancient prayers of absolution and incense appear to have been amalgamated and formed into the prayer called the "prayer of Introity," to correspond with the Greek prayer of the same title", while no such title occurs in the Coptic or Ethiopic liturgies. Secondly, the prayer after St. Paul's Epi ▾ See his Notes on St. Mark's Liturgy, tom. i. p. 353, &c. w In this comparison it must be remembered, that the liturgy of Cyril must be affixed to the general introduction of placed before the liturgy of x Renaudot. p. 3. 5. z Goar, Rituale Græc. p. 67. εὐχὴ τῆς εἰσόδου τοῦ ἁγίου εὐαγ stles * seems to have given way to a 66 prayer of Trisagios," to correspond with a similar prayer in the Greek, while nothing of the kind occurs in the Coptic and Ethiopic. Thirdly, the Gospel is preceded by an offering of incensed with the same words as are used in the Greek rite, 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 sung at the same place as in the Greek. Fifthly, the kiss of peace precedes the Creed, as in the Greek liturgies, while in the Coptic and Ethiopic it follows the Creedi. 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. 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 Xaïpe KexaρTwμém is introduced'. Now there is no such 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 οἱ τὰ Χερουβίμ μυστικῶς εἰκονίζοντες, &c. Goar, p. 106. g Goar, p. 72. h P. 143. Renaudot. j Renaudot. p. 12. 512, 513. tom. i. k Ibid. p. 143. Compare p. 3. and Goar, Rit. Græc. p. 74, 751 Renaudot. p. 149. |