SUMMARY:
I. Religious history
II. Coptic ecclesiastical literature —III. Coptic versions of the Bible
IV. Theology
V. Liturgy and rite
VI. Art.I. RELIGIOUS HISTORY
Properly speaking, one can speak of a Coptic Church only after the Council of Chalcedon (451). In Monophysitism it also manifested the struggle of the Egyptian people against the foreign Greek element. Yet this national opposition of the Egyptians against the Greeks had already made itself felt earlier; thus, for example, St. Athanasius, in his struggle against Arianism, which was then largely propagated by Greeks, found support among the monks of Upper Egypt, who were the spiritual guides of the Egyptian people. Even the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus, engaged in polemics against the rival see of Constantinople, was aided by the Egyptian monks. This antithesis manifested itself more strongly than ever in the controversy over Monophysitism (v.), which occasioned the rise of the national Egyptian Church, namely the Coptic Church, which separated from the universal Church in order to embrace Monophysitism.Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, had been condemned and deposed by the Council of Chalcedon for his Monophysite errors. The government of Byzantium imposed, against the will of the people and by force, the election of an orthodox bishop, Proterius, who was killed in a popular uprising in 457. In his place the Monophysite Timothy Aelurus was elected, who three years later was exiled to make way for an orthodox bishop, Timothy Salophaciolus. Monophysitism always maintained preponderance in Egypt, despite the fact that the capricious government installed orthodox bishops. The Monophysites called their opponents βασιλισκό (from βασιλεύς), because they were followers of the emperor, a name which survived in the Arabic form *melkites* (Ar. *malakijah*). The strength of the opposition induced the emperor Zeno to make an attempt at reconciliation, practically sacrificing the Council of Chalcedon. Acacius, the Byzantine patriarch, composed an intermediate creedal formula called the *Henotikon*, drawn up in the form of a letter to the Egyptian clergy. On the basis of that formula an agreement was reached and the Monophysite patriarch Peter Mongus was recognized as the sole legitimate head of the Church of Egypt. Even when, at Constantinople, after the death of the emperor Anastasius and the accession to power of Justin (518), the climate became unfavorable to Monophysitism, the heresy retained all its power in Egypt. The imperial government did not dare to impose its will. The leader of Monophysitism in Syria, Severus, bishop of Antioch, took refuge in Egypt. Justinian, however, from 538 onwards began to take energetic measures even against the Egyptian Monophysites. The Alexandrian patriarch Theodosius was taken prisoner to Constantinople. In 550 there was a massacre of Monophysites in Alexandria who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. All the churches were handed over to the orthodox. Officially, only the Melkite hierarchy existed. In fact, however, the people largely recognized the Monophysite episcopate. In the 6th century internal divisions weakened the strength of the Egyptian Monophysites. The radicals (Julianists) fought against the moderates (Severians).
Until the Persian invasion of Egypt (617), orthodoxy officially predominated. The occupiers, however, during the twelve years of their rule, recognized only the Monophysite hierarchy. The attempts then made by the emperor Heraclius to reconcile the Monophysites through Monothelitism (v.) failed to win over the more radical elements. The Monophysite patriarch Benjamin withdrew before the Monothelite Cyrus; but when the Arabs penetrated into Egypt he returned from hiding to the great joy of the population.
CopTi — Coptic priest in liturgical vestments.
The Arabs gave almost all the churches to the Monophysite Copts. Orthodoxy, which had relied on Byzantine officials, collapsed almost entirely. The Arabs at first favored the Copts, who enjoyed freedom of worship and formed within the Muslim state, imbued with Qur’anic ideas, almost a state within a state, with their patriarch as both religious and civil leader, with their own legislation and courts. The Copts retained influence in the civil administration, which the Arabs at first left unchanged. Soon, however, harassment by Muslims began. The social inequality between subject Christians and dominant Muslims, and the heavy taxes levied on Christians, in time led to many apostasies. By the end of the 7th century the "conversions" of Copts to Islam had become so frequent that even the Muslims complained, since in this way tax revenues were lost. In the 9th century Christians were no longer in the majority in Egypt, whereas at the time of the invasion the Copts had numbered six million against a small Arab force. By the 14th century the present proportion had already been reached, namely that the Copts were no longer more than a tenth of the total population. The taxes weighed so heavily on the Copts that more than once they rebelled against the occupiers; this occurred especially in the 8th century. The uprisings were cruelly suppressed. Bloody persecutions also occurred at times, especially under the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim (996–1020) and under the Mamluks in the 14th century. The occasion for these persecutions was usually the resentment of Muslims against Coptic civil officials and against what was alleged to be their excessive influence. Not a few Copts apostatized during these persecutions, but many had the courage to endure death.
One of the gravest evils of the Coptic Church was the simony of the clergy, explicable by the very heavy taxes that weighed upon II. Yet efforts to remedy this were not lacking, as is evident from the decrees of church leaders, for example those of the patriarchs Christodulus (1047–77), Cyril II (1078–92) and Gabriel II (1131–45). In the 12th century a priest named Mark ibn Qanbar (c. 1135–1208) made an attempt at reform, seeking among other things to introduce auricular confession and to suppress circumcision. When his attempts failed, however, he went over to the Melkites. The period of Mamluk domination (from the mid-13th century to the early 16th) was very harsh for the Coptic Church; and so too was the later period of Ottoman Turkish rule, especially because of the cupidity of the pashas. This explains why the Coptic community steadily declined, until in the early 19th century it reached its lowest point: about 100,000 faithful. Finally, the government of Muhammad ‘Ali (1805–49) brought better times and religious freedom to the Copts. In the 19th century the number of Copts increased considerably, also because of population growth. Today they number about 900,000 faithful. At present the situation is characterized above all by the wide gap between progressive laypeople and the high clergy, which is extremely conservative. The divergence began toward the end of the last century, when in 1874 the laity founded an association for the reform of the Church, demanding a share in the direction of schools, the administration of property, and the election of ecclesiastical dignitaries. A “lay council” was formed to support this program. Patriarch Cyril V (1874–1927) opposed it resolutely. The “lay council,” backed by the government, declared the patriarch suspended in 1892; he retired to a monastery and laid an interdict on the city of Cairo. Finally the patriarch, victorious with the support of the people, returned to the city (1893). The “lay council” was suppressed, only to revive in 1922. On the occasion of the election of a new patriarch in 1928 the government interfered, simply appointing more than half of the electors. The difficulties continue to this day.
The internal organization of the Coptic Church differs greatly from that of the “Orthodox” Churches. The patriarch governs the Church under a regime that is properly monarchical, assisted by a council of four bishops whom he himself appoints. There are currently eighteen dioceses in the Coptic Church. About one thousand priests exercise their ministry in sixty dioceses. The clergy are for the most part without scientific training, although there is a seminary in Cairo that is unfortunately strongly influenced by Protestants. In general, too, the entire Coptic Church is markedly affected by this influence. Monasticism, once so flourishing, has today, after thirteen centuries of Muslim oppression, greatly declined. Only a few monasteries remain, with a total of one hundred to one hundred and fifty monks. Even today the Muslim government does little to favor the Copts, who, as Christians, find themselves in a state of inferiority. This explains the painful fact that every year about five hundred Copts convert to Islam.
The Catholic Copts. — Franciscan missionaries, who have been steadily at work in Egypt since the sixteenth century, succeeded in converting a portion of the Monophysite Copts to the Catholic faith. In 1739, for the first time, a bishop—Atanasio of Jerusalem, residing in Cairo—converted to Catholicism and in 1741 was appointed by Benedict XIV as apostolic vicar of the Catholic Copts, who at that time numbered about two thousand. Since he was unable to make up his mind to break with the dissidents, the Holy See instead appointed as his vicar general Giusto Maraghi, a former student of the College of Propaganda (1747). Only in the nineteenth century were the Catholic Copts able to spread with a certain freedom. Leo XIII gave them their own hierarchy in 1895. Four years later a patriarch was also appointed for them, Cyril Macarius, who apostatized in 1908, causing very serious disturbances in the Catholic community. In recent decades, after the First World War, the Catholic Copts have flourished notably. For example, from 1927 to 1937 the number of faithful rose from twenty-nine thousand to forty-seven thousand. Today they number sixty-three thousand, with eighty-five priests and seventy churches. On 9 August 1947 the administrator of the patriarchate was appointed patriarch of Alexandria, and a new diocese was created, that of Assiut, in addition to the diocese of Minia, which had already been founded in 1938.
II. THE LITERATURE OF THE COPTIC CHURCH
1. In the Coptic Language
Coptic literature is much less rich, for example, than Syrian literature. It lacks productive strength to a great extent and consists largely of translations from Greek. But in the Coptic language one must distinguish chiefly three dialects of Upper and Middle Egypt: the Sa’idic, that is, the most important one, which eventually supplanted the others; the Aḥmimic; and the Faiyumic; and then the more recent dialect of the Nile Delta, the Bohairic, which became a literary language toward the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century and is today the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. After the thirteenth century almost nothing original was written even in the Bohairic dialect, and from the sixteenth century Coptic became a dead language.Coptic literature was the work of the monks of Upper Egypt. The first Coptic writer was Pachomius (first half of the fourth century). Great services to Coptic letters were rendered by “the White Monastery,” whose second abbot, Shenoute of Atripe (d. 451), was the most important Coptic writer. The earliest known specimen of Coptic prose is a translation of the Bible into Sa’idic made about the middle of the fourth century. Not a few apocryphal books, especially about the life of Christ and the Apostles, were translated into Coptic. The same fate befell a large part of the canonical literature of the early centuries. No other Christian literature has such a high percentage of translations as the properly theological Coptic literature. Before the Council of Chalcedon the great Greek Fathers were translated. Then came the leaders of Monophysitism: Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch. The little that remains original in Coptic literature arose from the needs of monastic life and from apostolic activity. Here must be mentioned the monastic rules of St. Pachomius and his letters; also the rules, discourses, and letters of Shenoute in his struggle against the remnants of paganism and Arianism. As for narrative prose, the lives of the saints and the acts of the martyrs deserve mention, such as the life of Shenoute written by his disciple Besa. In poetry original Coptic works are more numerous. Fragments are preserved of a poetic description of the Passion of Our Lord written in Faiyumic, a work probably intended for liturgical use during Holy Week. Toward the end of the sixteenth century poetry in Sa’idic also flourished, producing among other things a considerable number of Easter hymns and songs in honor of the saints. All the sapiential books and many other biblical subjects were also treated in poetic form.
2. In the Arabic Language
The Arabic literature of the Copts is more extensive and varied than that of other Eastern Christians. Original Arabic literature among the Copts begins in the tenth century and reaches its peak in the thirteenth. Already in the eighth century the Holy Scriptures had been translated at least in part from Coptic into Arabic. Theological literature proper begins with translations. For example, the writings of Shenoute were partially translated into Arabic. The first original Arabic writer of any importance is Severus Abu’l-Bishr ibn al-Muqaffa’, bishop of Ashmunein (tenth century), who wrote among other works a Book of Councils comprising in four chapters a synthesis of the history of Christianity. In the final part he describes the history of the first four councils and their doctrine. In his Book of Exposition, Severus provides the people with religious instruction on the fundamental dogmas of the faith and on the practice of Christian life. Probably toward the end of the twelfth and the beginning of the thirteenth century lived Peter Severus al-Jamil, bishop of Malij, author of the Book of Sunrise, against heresies, and the Book of Demonstration, that is, an apology of Christianity in its Monophysite form. For other dogmatic authors V. below.Canonical literature (v. also CANONICAL COLLECTIONS) is of special importance for the Copts, who, under Muslim domination, had their own courts. A systematic collection of canons, a Nomocanon, was compiled by Michael, bishop of Damietta (d. after 1208). As for historiography, Severus of Ashmunein is important; he wrote a history of the patriarchates (976–1000), which was later continued first up to the twelfth century and afterward up to 1740.
III. THE COPTIC VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
Among the versions of the Bible in Oriental languages, the Coptic versions are of great importance for textual criticism.The surviving documents show that in each of the Coptic dialects known so far (Sa’idic, Bohairic, Aḥmimic, Faiyumic, Memphitic, and Sub-Aḥmimic) there existed versions of the Bible. Unfortunately, these versions have come down to us only in fragmentary form. The greatest number of fragments belongs to the Sa’idic and Bohairic dialects, but what remains of the Aḥmimic and Sub-Aḥmimic dialects is also of great importance.
No positive documents exist to assign a precise starting point to the Coptic versions of the Bible. However, ecclesiastical history testifies that during the 3rd century the Holy Scriptures were widely diffused among the Christians of the entire Nile valley, who were mostly of low social condition and ignorant of the Greek language. Hellenization in Egypt had made less progress in the middle and upper Nile valley, where instead Christianity had flourished greatly, as attested by documents concerning the persecution of Decius. It can therefore be stated with certainty that in the 3rd century the Christians of Egypt used the Bible in local dialects. Indeed, Eusebius, in *Hist. Eccl.*, VI, 1, leads one to believe that such versions must already have existed toward the end of the 2nd century. With regard to the persecution (202–211) of Severus, he affirms that Alexandria was the great arena where the athletes of Christ were brought from all over Egypt and from Thebes; therefore the Christians of Thebes, for the most part ignorant of Greek, must have used at least the principal books of the Bible translated into their dialect. It therefore seems reasonable to hold that the Coptic versions of the Bible, though certainly not completed all at once and simultaneously, but arising gradually as the need for them manifested itself for the use of the faithful, began in the second half of the 2nd century and were then brought to completion during the 3rd century.
From the above, it is easy to deduce the priority of the Sahidic version over the Bohairic. The Delta was the first region of Egypt to be evangelized, but its population, being strongly Hellenized, could not feel such an urgent need for a version of the Bible in the local dialect; and even if the lower strata of the population, who moreover were largely illiterate, were entirely ignorant of Greek, it was easy for them to have the few indispensable biblical passages explained to them orally in their own language for their catechetical instruction.
In Upper Egypt, on the other hand, where Hellenism had scarcely penetrated and Greek was probably known only to officials and merchants, it was extremely difficult for that population to obtain an easy explanation in their own language of the text of Holy Scripture, hence the necessity of proceeding to translate the Greek text into the local dialect (Sahidic, and other dialects of Middle Egypt soon absorbed by it).
**COPTIC** – Ambo of the Coptic church of el-Mo'allaqah in Cairo.
H. Hyvernat, however (*Etude sur les versions coptes de la Bible*, in *Revue biblique*, 6 [1897], pp. 63–75), maintains the priority of the Bohairic version, considering that the Delta was the first region to receive the Gospel and basing himself on the observation of Lightfoot, confirmed by Sanday (*Appendix ad Novum Testamentum*, app. III, pp. 182 ff.), that the New Testament version in the Bohairic dialect, in its primitive state, presents a purer text without the Western additions that instead appear in the Sahidic version. This observation does not seem to deserve excessive weight, especially in view of the lack of complete critical studies on the Coptic versions of the Bible (*Revue biblique*, 48 [1939], p. 318, beginning of the note signed B. C.). It should also be noted that the Coptic versions, being made as they were for the practical utility of the faithful and not for liturgical or scholarly use, were produced independently of one another for the various dialects, and were based on Greek manuscripts of differing recensions according to the various books; often the version of the same book offers readings that agree now with Greek manuscripts of one recension, now with those of another, now with the Hebrew text; at times particular readings suggest, more than later revisions made on Greek manuscripts of differing recension, a derivation from Greek exemplars that have not come down to us.
In view of such a state of affairs and with critical studies thus far only partial, it seems too hasty to conclude for a priority of the Bohairic version over the Sahidic, thereby flatly rejecting the historical considerations set forth above, as well as any assertion of a general nature.
Indeed, the fact that in the Sahidic versions Greek terms abound where the Bohairic has the corresponding Coptic word argues in favor of the greater antiquity of the Sahidic. For the higher one goes toward the period of Roman domination in Egypt, the more Greek was diffused in the Nile valley and the more the local language absorbed much of its vocabulary. When, on the other hand, in later centuries friction between Egyptians and Byzantines increased and mutual relations became ever rarer, the indigenous language felt ever more strongly the need to replace foreign terms with Coptic equivalents. If therefore the Sahidic translator, unlike the Bohairic translator, did not feel the need to render those Greek terms with Coptic words that his readers could easily understand (cf. F. M. Abel, in *Revue biblique*, 32 [1923], p. 304), this argues in favor of its greater antiquity.
The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Bohairic and Sahidic dialects was edited by G. Horner, *The Coptic Version of the N.T. in the Northern Dialect*, 4 vols., Oxford 1898–1905; id., *The Coptic in the Southern Dialect*, 7 vols., ibid. 1911–24. The Bohairic text alone of this version was reprinted at Cairo in 1934 by the C.
The Old Testament has been edited only in fragmentary form in various works. Cf. A. Vashalde, *Ce qui a été publié des versions coptes de la Bible*, in *Revue biblique*, 28 (1919), pp. 220–43, 513–31; 29 (1920), pp. 91–100, 241–58; 30 (1921), pp. 237–40; 31 (1922), pp. 81–88, 234–58; id., in *Le Musée*, 43 (1930), pp. 409–31; 45 (1932), pp. 117–56; 46 (1933), pp. 299–313; W. Grossouw, in *Studia catholica*, 1932–33, pp. 325–53.
Principal editions of fragments:
Sahidic: P. De Lagarde, *Aegyptiaca*, Göttingen 1883; A. Cisca–J. Balestri, *S. Bibliorum fragmenta copto-sahidica Musei Borgiani*, Rome 1885–1904; G. Maspero, *Fragments de la version thébaine de l’A.T.*, in *Mémoires de la Mission archéol. franç. au Caire*, 1892, pp. 1–206; W. Budge, *The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter*, London 1898; H. Thompson, *A Coptic Psalter*, Oxford 1911; W. Budge, *Coptic Biblical Texts*, London 1912; W. H. Worrall, *The Proverbs of Salomon in Sah. Copt.*, Chicago 1931.
Bohairic: H. Tattam, *Duodecim Proph. Min. in lingua aegyptiaca*, Oxford 1836; id., *Prophetae Maiores in dialecto linguae aegyptiaca, memphitica*, ibid. 1852; I. Bardelli, *Daniel copto-memphiticus*, Pisa 1849; M. G. Schwartz, *Quatuor Evangelia*, 2 vols., Leipzig 1846–48; id., *Psalterium in dialectum copticae linguae memphitica translatum*, ibid. 1853; P. De Lagarde, *Der Pentateuch koptisch*, ibid. 1867; A. Bsciai, *Liber Baruc prophetae*, Rome 1870; E. Porcher, *Le livre de Job*, in *PO* 18 (1924); O. H. Burmester and E. Dévaud, *Psalterii versio memphitica e rec. Pauli De Lagarde* (1875), Louvain 1925; id., *Les Proverbes de Salomon. Texte bohaïrique*, Vienna 1930.
Fayyumic: E. Chassinat, *Fragments de manuscrits coptes en dialecte fayoumique*, in *Bulletin de l’Inst. franç. d’arch. or.*, 1902, pp. 171–206; W. Till, *Koptische Chrestomathie für den Fayumischen Dialekt*, Vienna 1930; id., *Wiener Fajjimica*, in *Le Musée*, 49 (1936), pp. 169–217.
Achmimic: P. Lacau, *Textes coptes en dialectes achmique et sahidique réédités* (in *Bull. de l’Inst. franç. d’arch. or.*, 8 [1911], pp. 43–109); C. Wessely, *Duodecim Prophetarum Minorum versionis achmimicae codex Rainerianus*, Leipzig 1915 (with Bohairic, Sahidic, and Latin versions); W. Till, *Die achmimische Version der zwölf kleinen Propheten* (*Coptica*, 4), Copenhagen 1927.
Subachmimic: H. Thompson, *The Gospel of St. John according to the earliest Coptic manuscript*, London 1924.
It has already been noted that there is a lack of comprehensive critical studies on the Coptic versions of the Bible (cf. *Revue biblique*, 48 [1939], p. 318). In general, it can be said that in the Sahidic version the Old Testament is influenced by the so-called "explicit" versions (Isaiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel), Daniel follows Theodotion, and the version of Job has preserved the pure text of the LXX before Origen. The New Testament in the Pauline Epistles follows preferably the manuscripts of the Alexandrian recension, while in the Gospels it agrees preferably with the manuscripts of the Western recension, although at times it has readings perfectly in agreement with the Bohairic version (based on manuscripts of the Alexandrian recension) and at times has readings of its own. In the Bohairic version, the New Testament agrees overall with the oldest Greek manuscripts, despite the additions which criticism considers not to have been part of the primitive text. From what remains of the versions of the Bible in the other dialects, it is not easy to conclude with certainty whether they are entirely independent of one another or derive from the Sahidic version. It is to be hoped that a critical edition, as complete as possible, may see the light of day, which would provide greater certainty and solidity to the related studies of criticism.
**
IV. THEOLOGY
I. General Overview.
The first ecclesiastical writers of the Coptic Church devoted themselves to translating into the national languages, namely first into Sahidic and from the 6th century into Bohairic, the books of Holy Scripture, numerous apocrypha of the Old and New Testaments, and works of the Holy Fathers, notably St. Athanasius, Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, and Severian of Gabala, to whom are added the fathers of Monophysitism, Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch.
To arrive at properly theological treatises, one must descend to the 10th century, if we disregard what little has been preserved from the writings of the Monophysite patriarch Timothy Aelurus (d. ca. 477): some passages preserved by his adversaries and his opuscules found by Lebon in Syriac translation. The first Coptic author is the bishop of Ashmunein, Abū 'l-Barakāt Ibn al-Muqaffa' (10th century): according to Abū 'l-Barakāt, he composed 26 works against Muslims, Jews, Melkites, and Nestorians; but of these only two remain: the refutation of Sa‘īd Ibn Batrīq (the Melkite patriarch of Alexandria, Eutychius) and the *Explanation of the Sources of Religion*. Severus paved the way for later theologians: John Ibn Severus, Ibn Kūlāj, Michael the Metropolitan of Damietta, Peter of Maligense in the 12th century, in the following century the three brothers Abū 'l-Faraj, Abū 'l-Faḍā’il, and Abū Isḥāq Ibn al-‘Assāl, and in the 14th century Abū 'l-Ḥājr Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Abū 'l-Barakāt Ibn Kabar, Yaḥyā Ibn Abī Zakariyyā’ known commonly as Ibn Sabā’, whose works are discussed under these headings.
A long period of silence follows. But unlike other Monophysite Churches, the Coptic Church experienced a revival of ecclesiastical literature at the end of the 19th century. To say nothing of the printing of ancient treatises, in this period we find Ibrāhīm Rafa‘ī al-Ṭabī, author of a book on Monophysitism, the monks of the Monastery of Baramous, who in 1894 published a volume against the Uniates, the Qummus (superior) Philotheus Ibrāhīm, author of a catechetical exposition of the faith and a refutation of Catholic doctrine, and Qummus John Salāmī. Following them was Macarius, who, as a Coptic Catholic patriarch, wrote in favor of the Roman faith; after his defection (1908) he composed in 1912 the book *La Constitution divine de l'Église*, published after his death in Bern in 1922.
Apart from this work, all Coptic theological literature has been written in Arabic and favors polemics; polemics, it must be said, calmer when directed against the ruling Muslims, more heated when aimed at the other Christian groups represented in Egypt. Ancient Coptic theology certainly underwent the influence of philosophy but remained independent with regard to dogma. Only in modern times, perhaps because of a stance of strong opposition to Rome, does it tend increasingly to merge with dissident Byzantine theology.
The Coptic Catholic priest Michel Khouzam provided in 1941 a summary of Coptic theological opinions based on the *Illumination of the Intellects* of Ibn al-Ṭayyib and the *Lamp of Darkness* of Abū 'l-Barakāt. The thought of modern Copts has been expounded by R. Strothmann and G. Kopp. We must content ourselves with mentioning some of the more relevant issues.
### 2. *Monophysite Doctrine.* — a) Jesus Christ.
Maillet in 1735 said of the Copts that they are «les plus obstinés dans les erreurs». Certainly they remain most tenaciously attached to the memory of the patriarch Dioscorus, condemned at the Council of Chalcedon together with Eutyches. Nevertheless, we can assert that Coptic Monophysitism has never been the rigid Monophysitism of Eutyches, but mitigated or nominal Monophysitism, commonly called Severianism. This refers, of course, to official Monophysitism, without denying that one or another, mainly among the monks, adhered to real Monophysitism, such as the anchorite Samuel in the 9th century.
But already the patriarch Timothy Aelurus in the second half of the 5th century took a firm stand against Eutyches and taught that in Christ, even after the union, the entire essence or substance of humanity remains, by which the Emmanuel is, according to the flesh, consubstantial with the Virgin Mother of God, although it is not permissible to speak of two natures because this necessarily entails the two persons of Nestorius, given the identity between the concepts of *person* and *singular nature*. This doctrine is repeated in many other places: e.g., in the Paschal epistle of the patriarch Sanutius (9th century) and in another by the patriarch Mena (10th century) which excludes any destruction, mixture, or corruption of the natures united in Christ. The same opinion, as well as the same prejudice against the Chalcedonian formula suspected of Nestorianism, is found at the beginning of our century in the works of the Qummus Philotheus.
b) *The Holy Trinity.* — Ancient authors content themselves with proving, by scriptural arguments—to which they add others of a philosophical nature—the unity of the divine nature and the Trinity of persons. The question so much debated between Byzantines and Latins is foreign to the Copts, who continue to use the Nicene Symbol, where it says only: “(We believe) in the Holy Spirit,” without the addition of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan: “who proceeds from the Father.” The later Copts, however, admit the Photian thesis and adopt the arguments of the Byzantines against the *Filioque*, reported exactly by Philotheus Ibrāhīm and John Salāmī.
c) *The Sacraments.* — In this field, a specifically Coptic controversy over auricular confession, which arose in the 12th century, is noteworthy. The persecutions afflicting the Church of Egypt at that time made it so difficult to find priests or hieromonks that the abuse of the so-called *confession above the censer* was introduced, without the sins being manifested. The priest Mark Ibn Qanbar opposed this custom, which found a very strong defender in the metropolitan of Damietta Michael and in the patriarchs John V (1146–67) and Mark III (1167–1180). But already in the 13th and 14th centuries, the authors are not in agreement; while Abū ’l-Barakāt still favors the Coptic usage, Abū Ishāq Ibn al-Assāl and Ibn Sabbā’ defend the necessity of auricular confession, which eventually prevailed, to the extent that modern Copts no longer retain even a distant echo of the ancient disputes within their Church.
d) *Roman Primacy.* — The ancient Copts had no difficulty in admitting the primacy of St. Peter. Ibn Sabbā’, to cite but one, writes: “Our fathers the Apostles were built upon the rock, which is Peter, universal head”; words so clear that the recent editor Marcos Guirguis felt obliged to change them to: “Christ built the Church upon the rock of the confession of the holy Apostles.” But when it comes to the primacy of the Roman pontiff, we find no explicit witnesses; unless we wish to take as an expression of Coptic sentiment the words with which the abbot Andrew, head of the Coptic delegation, greeted the Council of Florence: “You are [he speaks to Eugenius IV] God on earth, and Christ’s faithful vicar; you are the successor of Peter and the father, head, and teacher of the universal Church.” If this declaration seems dictated by the circumstances of the council, it cannot, however, be denied that the Copts have maintained the so-called Nicene-Arabic canons, one of which, the 44th, explicitly teaches the Roman primacy.
This was the ancient position. Modern Copts reject any primacy, whether of the Roman pontiff or of St. Peter, following the example of Byzantine writers, whose influence is evident in the treatise of Philotheus Ibrāhīm against Catholics.
V. LITURGY AND RITE
The Coptic rite, also called Alexandrian or Egyptian, is the Greek-language rite born in Egypt and particularly in Alexandria, which, translated into Coptic, became in the 5th century, after the Council of Chalcedon, the proper liturgy of the Monophysite Church of Alexandria; the rite of the faithful who remained Orthodox became Byzantinized. It is followed today by the Monophysites of Egypt and by those who have united with the Catholic Church; it exerted a decisive influence on the Ethiopian rite. From the Greek were translated into Coptic the anaphora of St. Mark, of Alexandrian origin, which took the name of St. Cyril; that of St. Basil, which became the normal anaphora; and that of St. Gregory Nazianzen, who directed all his prayers to Jesus Christ. The last two, coming from Asia Minor, differ from the first in the placement of the intercessory orations. We also have the Greek originals of the Divine Office and of several troparia, and in many ceremonies a notable series of formulas are preserved in Greek, such as the *Kyrie eleison* in the Latin rite.To the early period of the Monophysite Church generally belong works, or more often fragments of liturgical works, written in the Sahidic dialect. We note the fragments of anaphoras translated by H. Hyvernat (*Fragmente der alt-koptischen Liturgie*, in Röm. Quartalschrift, 1 [1887], pp. 330–45; 2 [1888], pp. 20–26) and partly incorporated into the Syrian anaphoras of Timothy and Severus of Antioch; then the anaphora of St. Matthew edited by A. M. Kropp and others noted by A. Baumstark and L. Th. Lefort; a Mass of the 6th century preserved with the baptismal rite in the Arabic *Testamentum Domini*; finally, various blessings, such as those of water on Epiphany. A unification of the Coptic rite occurred around the 9th century because the liturgical monasteries derived almost exclusively from the monastery of St. Macarius of Wadi en-Natrūn, and because the patriarch of Alexandria was regularly elected from among the monks of this monastery; thus it is explained why the Bohairic dialect, native to this region, became the sole liturgical language. Around the middle of the 12th century, a priest, Mark Ibn Qanbar, endeavored to reform the Church by recalling the faithful to the practice of auricular confession, frequent communion, and other religious observances; the hierarchy opposed the movement, and he himself passed over to the Melkite Church. To the same century belongs the patriarch Gabriel II, a reformer and moderator of certain ceremonies. Another patriarch, Gabriel, in the 14th century, gave the definitive redaction of the Ritual. The state of the liturgy in that century is actively attested by the *Lampada delle tenebre* of Abū ’l-Barakāt ibn Kubr, of which L. Villecourt published long extracts (*Les observances liturgiques et la discipline du jeûne dans l'Eglise copte*, in *Le Musée* 36 [1923], pp. 249–92; 37 [1924], pp. 201–80; 38 [1925], pp. 261–30). For the 17th century, one will profitably consult Abudacnus, a Copt who describes the faith and rites of his people (*Historia jacobitarum seu Coptorum*, 1675), and J. M. Vansleb, an observant but not always well-prepared traveler (*Histoire de l'Eglise d'Alexandrie*, Paris 1677). In the following century, Coptic liturgical books were published in Rome by R. Tuki: Missal (1736); Breviary (1750); Pontifical and Euchologion (1761–62); Ritual (1763); Theotokia (1764). From the end of the 19th century onward, both dissidents and Catholics have produced editions—sometimes lavish—of their liturgical books.
3. Language
The Alexandrian liturgy first used the Greek language; soon, for the readings, and in the 5th century for the rest, it was performed in Coptic, predominantly in the Sahidic dialect, which in the 9th century gave way almost entirely to the Bohairic dialect. But already after the Arab invasion (7th century), the people increasingly forgot their native tongue; in the 13th century almost nothing new was written in Bohairic, and in the 16th century the Coptic language disappeared from ordinary life. Even in the liturgy, Arabic prevailed, and today the liturgical books present a bilingual text, Coptic and Arabic, interspersed here and there with Greek formulas, vestiges of the original language.4. Mass
The part preceding the lessons is very developed: it includes, besides the preparation of the oblata, also the *Osservatorio* which will not be repeated after the Gospel. At the altar the priest, among the loaves presented to him, chooses one, takes it in his hand, wraps it in a cloth and makes his commemorations; then, holding it above his head and preceded by the deacon who holds the cruet of wine, he makes a solemn procession with the clergy around the altar; he places the bread on the paten and, having put the wine and water into the chalice, he says among other prayers also that of the *Osservatorio* and covers the oblata. A particular ceremony of the Egyptian rite follows, an absolution recited by the assisting priest: “… may your servants of this sacrifice, the priest, the deacon, the clergy, all the people and my unworthiness be absolved from their sins through the work (lit. *per la bocca*) of the Most Holy Trinity, of the Church one, holy, catholic, apostolic, of the twelve Apostles… (other saints are named), of the Pope, of our bishop and through the work of my unworthiness…” The incensation of the altar, the sanctuary and the church concludes this first part of the Mass. The second part includes, besides the chants, four lessons all taken from the New Testament: St. Paul, the Catholic Epistles, the Acts and the Gospel; they are read first in Coptic and then in Arabic.In the prayer after the Gospel there is a mention of the catechumens, proof that formerly the Mass of the catechumens ended here. The Mass of the faithful, as in ancient times, begins with the great litany which contains here the very appropriate petition for the increase of the waters of the Nile. Then the priest recites the prayer of the veil, thus showing that in ancient times at that moment he approached the altar to perform the *Osservatorio*; the same is revealed by the three solemn prayers, particular to the Egyptian rite; they are petitions for the peace of the Church, for the hierarchy and for the community of the faithful; from the ancient *Osservatorio* there remains at that moment the incensation, and, after the recitation of the Creed, the lavabo. When the deacon invites the faithful to give one another the peace, they clasp hands with one another, and then each kisses his own hand. After an admonition by the deacon, the priest begins the great Eucharistic prayer. It is interrupted, in the anaphora of St. Cyril, by the prayer of intercession which is said in the other two, as in the Byzantine, Armenian and Syriac rites, after the epiclesis. At the moment of the consecration the priest’s words are underscored by the people’s exclamations of faith: “Priest: He took the bread in His immaculate hands — People: Amen; — Priest: and He blessed it — People: Amen; — Priest: and He sanctified it — People: Amen, Amen, Amen. We believe, and we confess, we glorify — Priest: This is My Body… — People: We believe that it is truly so.” The same dialogue is repeated at the consecration of the wine. And the prayers of the anaphora follow: the anamnesis, the epiclesis, the intercession of the saints (except in the anaphora of St. Cyril) for the living and the dead, the concluding doxology. The fraction of the consecrated bread, as performed by the dissidents, is a very complicated ceremony. The people recite the Our Father, receive another absolution and, after the Elevation with the *Sancta sanctis*, the announcement and the administration, they solemnly profess their faith in the Eucharist. Communion is given by the dissidents first with the bread and then with the chalice, by Catholics only with the bread. With the thanksgiving, the blessing and the Our Father which the whole people recite with hands raised to heaven, the rites of the holy sacrifice come to an end.