« PoprzedniaDalej »
100th of the excerpts of Archbishop Egbert directs:
“Sacerdotes Dei diligenter semper procurent, ut panis,
et vinum, et aqua, sine quibus nequaquam missae celebrantur, pura et munda fiant.”* Still later, among the
canons of Ælfric: “The priest shall purely and care
fully do God's ministries, with clean hands and with
clean heart; and let him see that his oblations be not old-baken, nor ill seen to; and let him always mix water with the wine; because the water betokens the people
for whom He suffered.” And the abbot Ælfric in his
homily upon Easter-day, speaks to the same purpose :
(I quote from the Latin translation;) “Libri sancti
praecipiunt, ut cum vino Eucharistiae immisceatur aqua,
aqua enim significationem habet plebis, et vinum sangui
nis Christi, et hac de causa neutrum horum offeratur
unquam per se, in sacra missa; ut sit Christus cum
nobis, et nos cum Christo, cum membris Caput, et cum
Capite membra.” Once more, from the Anglo-Saxon
Ecclesiastical Institutes: “V. We also command, that
the oblations which, in the holy mystery, ye offer to God," ye either bake yourselves, or your servants before you,
that ye may know that it is cleanly and neatly done;
and the oblations, and the wine, and the water, destined for the offering in the mass-singing, be minded to pre
serve with all cleanness and earnestness, and with fear of God, so that there be no uncleanness or impurity in it ; because no mass-singing may be without those three things, viz. oblations, and wine, and water, as the holy writ says. Be the fear of God with you, and all that ye do, do with much zeal. The wine betokens our Lord's passion, which He suffered for us; the water the people, for whom Christ let His blood be shed.”
* Ibid. p. 111. thol. tom. iii. p. 355. * Ibid. p. 361. * Thorpe. Ancient Laws, &c. * Eccles. Anglic. Windex Ca- vol. ii. p. 405.
In later years, we have an abundance of canons to the same effect. Thus in 1237, among some synodal constitutions it was ordered; “In sacramento sanguinis dominici major pars vini, et modicum aquae ponatur.” Once more, a canon of Richard Bishop of Chichester, A. D. 1246: “Celebret sacerdos cum pane extritico purissimo, et vino in debita quantitate, nullo modo corrupto, et modica aqua, quae a vino penitus absorbeatur.” Lastly let the reader refer to the second of the Cautells of the Mass, printed below, p. 168. “certo sciat se debitas materias habere: hoc est, panem triticeum, et vinum cum aqua modica, etc.”
This observance of mixing water with the wine was continued according to the order of the first book of King Edward. The rubric is ; “Then shall the minister take so much Breade and Wine, as shall suffice for the persons appoynted to receiue the Holy Communion, laiynge the breade upon the corporas, and putting the wine into the Chalice, or els in some faire or conueniente cup, prepared for that use, puttyng therto a little pure and cleane water: And setting both the bread and wyne upon the Alter: then the Prieste shall saye, &c.”
But in the year 1552 this good catholic custom was
made to give way to the fancies of Bucer and others, “the scandal of the Reformation; ”* and from that time to the present the rubric of the English liturgy omits all notice or rule about it. Mr. Palmer in remarking upon the point has said; “Even if we were to admit this custom to be of apostolical antiquity” (what doubt is there about it?) “it is yet not essential to consecration by the admission of Zaccaria and Bona, who say that no one will contend that it is necessary, and that the opinion of theologians is fixed that it is not. But the Church of England has never prohibited this custom, which is primitive and canonical.” Wheatley also argues that it is not essential: “It must be confessed,” he says, “that the mixture has in all ages, been the general practice, and for that reason was enjoined as has been stated above, to be continued in our own Church, by the first reformers. And though in the next review the order for it was omitted, yet the practice of it was continued in the King's chapel royal, all the time that Bishop Andrews was Dean of it: who also in the form that he drew up for the consecration of a church, expressly directs and orders it to be used.” Whatever may have been the cause of laying it aside, since there is no reason for thinking it essential, and since every Church has liberty to determine for herself in things not essential, it: must be an argument sure of a very indiscreet and over hasty zeal to urge the omission of it as a ground of separation.” Both these writers are correct in the conclusions which
* Wilkins. Concilia. tom. i. p. 657.
* Ibid. p. 688.
* Kemnitius allowed that the mixture was simply indifferent, arguing that it rested, as in fact it does, solely upon the authority and precept of the Church. Exam. Conc. Trident. pars 2. Sess. 22. cap. 7. Luther however went to a greater length, declaring, “meo sensu melius, et tutius foret, aquam
non miscere vino, cum sit merum figmentum humanum, et sinistram, immo pessimam habeat significatiomem.” Contra Henric. 8. But according to Bellarmin, Calvin and his followers expressed, as in other matters so in this, most extreme and rash opinions: affirming that those who mixed water with wine in the Eucharist, were “sacrilegious heretics and blasphemers.” Opera. tom. iii. p. 328.
they arrive at, although it is not quite true that no one has contended for the necessity of the mixture. Every one must remember the differences of the non-jurors
upon this point also among others, to which Wheatley
* Wheatley does not give the rubric or a reference. It is, “Caeteris rebus ordine gestis demum Episcopus ad sacram Mensam redit (sacellanis utrisque aliquantulum
recedentibus) lotisque manibus, pane fracto, vino in Calicem effuso,
et aqua admista, stans ait, Al
mighty God, &c.” Form of Consecration of a Church, p. 42.
alludes in the last sentence of the extract just above : and long before their time, it had formed a subject of controversy in the Church. Much more cautiously and correctly therefore speaks Angelo Rocca: “ Quamvis autem major scholasticorum doctorum pars, hoc est, fere omnes, aquam in calice consecrando, nec de necessitate sacramenti, nec de præcepto juris Divini esse velint, non desunt tamen, qui eam in sacramento calicis de necessitate sàcramenti, ac præcepto Divini juris in calice consecrando miscendam esse opinentur."* Benedict XIV. makes the same admission: but both he and Rocca decide without hesitation that the mixture is mot necessary or essential, resting only upon the precept of the Church :* which as of old in the Church of England might be, or as now, might not be, but removed. In short, those who hold the contrary opinion have been so few, that their opposition to the general agreement and decisions of the whole Church in this matter, serve but to illustrate and to confirm the truth.
* Opera. tom. i. p. 267.
* Opera. tom. ix. p. 115. And so spoke the council of Trent. “ Monet deinde sancta synodus, præceptum esse ab ecclesia sacerdotibus, ut aquam vino in calice offerendo miscerent, etc." Sessio. xxii. cap. 7.
To the same purpose also am earlier authority, Thomas Waldensis ; acknowledging that our Blessed Lord consecrated wine only in the Last Supper, he says: “ A calice tamen illo dominico etiam præsens calix dominicus formam sumit secundum essentiam calicis, a latere autem ejus formam habuit admistionis." Again, soon after: ** Mistio non facit alietatem rei, sed signi, eo quod non facit vel adimit substantiam sacramenti:
a lateris vulnere originem habet mistio calicis, et ad sanctam coenam non recurrunt (patres) pro ejus scienda origine. Certa ratione primo puto miscuisse Apostolos, a quibus primo defluxit de miscendo statutum. Et Paschasius ; Plane aqua in sanguine misceatur. Quare misceatur, dum in natalitio calicis factum fuisse non legimus ? Illa maxime causa est, quia de latere Christi, ubi passio impletur, san- . guis pariter cum aqua manavit. Quod certe mysterium apostoli plene intelligentes, faciendum in calice censuerunt, ut nihil deesset nobis in hoc sacramento ad commemorationem passionis, quod tunc extitit in cruce ad consummationem nostræ redemptionis." De sacramentalibus. iv. 32. fol. 74.
Although we can scarcely go so far as to say that Bellarmin held that the mixture is necessary, still it is not to be denied that he uses language which almost tends to it, and at least he does not so readily admit the statements of other theologians of the Roman church. It must be remembered however that he argues from the supposed fact of the Cup in the Last Supper having been mixed; and only in a subsidiary view regards the mystery of the Water and the Blood which flowed from our Saviour's side. The Cardinal says; “Ecclesia Catholica semper credidit ita necessarium esse aqua vinum misceri in calice, ut non possit sine gravi peccato omitti. Utrum autem sine aqua sacramentum consistere possit, non est adeo certum; communis tamen opinio in partem affirmativam propendet. Quare falso Kemnitius catholicis in commune tribuit, quod asserant, aquam in eucharistia esse de necessitate sacramenti, cum paucissimiid affirment.”" The mixture was always therefore, when rightly considered, looked upon only as having a mystical signification: as the same cautell of the Salisbury missal above cited proceeds to declare, “Apponitur aqua solum ad significandum:” and as very learned writers have argued, some things are necessary in the sacrament ad plenitudinem essentiae, aut efficacia, others only ad plenitudinem significationis. These last are subject to the wisdom and discretion of each particular Church, to be ordered as she may judge most convenient to the necessities of the time: and the church of England having in 1552 been forced to submit to the wishes of those who disliked the mixture, the reviewers of her liturgy in 1662, upon a further consideration, did not think it advisable to restore the practice, ancient and once universal as it was. Certainly it was not imperative upon them to have
* De Sacram. Euch. 4.x. Opera. tom. iii. p. 328.