for this view are chiefly three: (1) The book is as- cribed to Baruch by its title; (2) it has ahvays been regarded as Baruch's work by tradition; (3) its contents present nothing that would be later than Baruch's time, or tliat should be regarded as foreign to the style and manner of that faithful disciple and secretary of Jeremias. Over against this view, non- Catholics argue: (1) That its ultimate basis is simply the title of the book; (2) that this title itself is not in harmony with the historical and literarj' contents of the work; and (3) that those contents, when im- partially examined, point to a much later compiler than Baruch; in fact some of them go so far as to ascribe the composition of the book to a writer living after a. d. 70. Catholics easily disprove this last date for the Book of Baruch; but they do not so easily dispose of the serious difficulties that have been raised against their own ascription of the whole work to Baruch. Their answers are considered as suffi- cient by Catholic scholars generally. Should any one, however, judge them inadequate, and therefore consider the Book of Baruch as the work of a later editor, the inspired character of the book would still remain, provided this later editor himself be re- garded as inspired in his work of compilation. That the Book of Baruch is "a sacred and canonical" writing has been defined by the Council of Trent; that it has just as much right to be held "inspired of God" as any other book of Holy Writ can readily be shown by a close study of the Canon of the Bible. Its Latin rendering in our Vulgate goes back to the old Latin version anterior to St. Jerome, and is tolerably literal from the Greek text.
II. Baruch, the son of Zachai, who helped to re- build the wall of Jerusalem (II Esd., iii, 20).
III. Baruch, a priest who signed the renewed Covenant after the Exile; perhaps the same as the foregoing (II Esd., x, 6).
IV. Baruch, one of the children of Juda who settled in Jerusalem after the Captivity (II Esd., xi, 5).
Commentaries bv Fritzsche (1851); Reusch (1853): Reuss AND Loch (1870); Trochon (1878); Kneccker (1879); Bi.s- SEL (18S5); Knabenbauer (1891); Reuss (1894); ZOckler (1891).
Introductions of S. Davidson (1863); Vigourovx (1880); Kaulen (1890); Trochon (1890); Cornelv (1897); Gigot (1900).
Fraxcis E. Gigot. Baruch, Apocalypse op. See Apocrypha. Basedow, Johann Bernh-^^rd. See Phil.\nthro-
Basil, Liturgy op S.\int. — Several Oriental litur- gies, or at least several anaphoras, have been attrib- uted to the great St. Basil, Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia from 370 to 379. That St. BasQ composed a liturgy, or rather reformed an existing liturgy, is beyond doubt, since besides the constant tradition of the Byzantine Church there are many testimonies in ancient writings to establish the fact. In a treatise on the tradition of the Divine liturgy attributed to St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434-466), it is stated that when St. Basil noticed the slothfulness and degeneracy of men, how they were wearied by the length of the liturgy, he shortened it in order to cure their sloth (P. ()., LXV, 849). More certain testimony to the existence of a liturgical text which went under the name of St. Basil is given in a letter of Peter the Deacon, one of the Scythian monks sent to Rome to settle certain dogmatic questions. Writing about the year 520 to the African bishops in exile in Sardinia, Peter, an Oriental, mentions a Liturgy of St. Basil, which was known and used throughout the entire East, and even quotes a passage from it: "Hence, also, Blessed Basil, Bishop of Ca!saria, in a prayer of the holy altar, \\-\ih which almost the entire East is familiar, says II.— 21
among other things: Grant us, O Lord, Thy strength and protection; make the evil good and preserve the just in their righteousness. For Thou canst do all things and there is no one who may oppose Thee; for when Thou desirest, Thou savest, and no one re- sists Thy wiU." (P. L., LXV, 449.)
Leontius of Byzantium, WTiting about the middle of the sixth century, censures Theodore of Mopsuestia because he was not content with the liturgies handed down by the Fathers to the churches, but composed a Mass of his own, showing, thereby, no reverence either for that of the Apostles, or for that composed in the same spirit by the great St. Basil (P. G., LXXXVI, 1368). The Quinisext, or Trullan Coun- cil (692), in its thirty-second canon draws an argu- ment from the written liturgy of the archbishop of the church of the Caesareans, St. Basil, whose glory has spread through the whole world (Mansi, Coll. Cone, XI, 958). Finally, in the Barberini library there is a manuscript of the latter part of the eighth, or the early part of the ninth, century which con- tains a Greek liturgy entitled the "Liturgy of St. Basil".
It is not known precisely just what the nature of the Basilian reform was, nor what liturgy served as the basis of the saint's work. Very probably he shortened and changed somewhat the liturgy of his own diocese, which was akin to the Liturgy of St. James. In later times it underwent some develop- ment, so that with our present knowledge of its history it would be almost impossible to reconstruct it as it came from the pen of the Bishop of Ciesarea. According to the tradition of the Greek Orthodox Church, their liturgy is practically the work of St. Basil, due allowance being made for changes and amelioration in the course of time. This is older than either of the other two Byzantine liturgies, and is mentioned under the name of St. Basil in ancient times as if it were then the normal liturgy. Of the anaphoras attributed to St. Basil the Syriac and Armenian are probably derived from the Byzan- tine Greek %vith some modifications. The Abys- .sinian is a translation of the Coptic, while the Coptic, Arabic, and Greek Egj'ptian liturgies are substantially the same. These Egyptian anaphoras of St. Basil are different from the Cajsarean or Byzantine liturgy, and do not possess all the characteristics of the Alexandrian Rite, but appear rather to be modelled on the Syrian tj-pe, so they are probably an importa- tion into Egypt. The Greek Egj-jjtian contains several prayers (identical with those in the Byzantine liturgy) expressly ascribed to St. Basil, and from these it may derive its title.
The Cesarean or Byzantine Liturgy is used in the countries which were evangelized from Constanti- nople, or which came under its influence for any considerable period. It is used, for example, by the Orthodox and Uniat Greek churches in the Orient, as well as by the Greek communities in Italy and Sicily. Translated into the Old Slavonic it is used by (Orthodox and Uniat Catholics in Russia and in some parts of the Austrian Empire; translated into Georgian and Rumanian it is used respectively in Georgia and Rumania. It has also been trans- lated into several other languages and dialects for use in the Russian dependencies and where the Rus- sian Church has missions, as well as into Arabic for use in Syria. Since the Liturgy of St. John Chrysos- tom has become the normal liturgy of the Greek Church, that of St. Basil is now used only on the Sundays of Lent ^\-ith the exception of Palm Sunday, on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, on the vigils of Christmas and of the Epiphany, and on the feast of St. Basil, which in the Greek calendar occurs on the first day of January.
The liturgy may be divided into the Mass of the catechumens and the Mass of the faithful. The first