« PoprzedniaDalej »
places which might be appealed to in the primitive fathers, I shall add an extract from a rare book, once highly popular in this country, and, in a sense, authorized by the Church of England to be distributed among the people, for their instruction, viz.: “The Ordinarye of a Christen man.” The author is speaking of Almsdeeds. “The xij, maner of almesdede spyrytuell is to offre or to make offrynge to God the fader, the blessyd Jesu cryst his sone, with y” ryght holy sacrament of y” awter; and this almesdede here surmounteth syngulerly in two thynges, all those other good dedes that may be sayd or thought, that is, in dygnyte and in generalyte. —There is the breed and the wyne, flesshe and blode, y" ryght holy refeccyon of crysten soules.” Besides, from allusions which we find frequently in the fathers to a pious opinion which they held, how certain is it that they could not have believed the Blessed Elements to be any longer common bread and wine. S. Chrysostom, for example, “Mn or apro; early 1%;, wnê' 3ri ovo; sat wooiaas' ov yop &s & Aoirz. 3pwasis sis 20s3povo. X opei. Aroxys, Pan Touro voet. AXXo, Gamep xmpo; Tupi rporop. Ango.; ovov arovriz's, ovčev repuga svei durw x2, .30s vows: (ruvøvoirwego) tro, Pavatmpwo. th trou orwootos ovatiz.” Or S. Cyril of Jerusalem, in an explanation of the Lord's Prayer. “Tov «prov nowy row striovanov 30; now a nutpov. 3 aptos évros 6 xoivos, ovz early errovalos. 2pro; 3e évros & 2 yog, emiovarios sarov.-èvros & optos, ovo so; xoVaizv ×ope was sis 24'sépova. ex3xxxerx' 2xx' so worow row row avarzow avo. 330 rai, six weeAssov a woo.to; xx. Juxns.” Or, once more, S. Ambrose: speaking of the manna in the wilderness, as compared with the Eucharist. “Sed tamen panem illum qui man
* Sign. O. 4. b. Edit. Wyn- * Catech. Mystag. V. Opera. kyn de Worde. 4to. 1506. P.329. Eccl. Angl. Vinder. Vol.
* Hom. De poenit. Opera. 3, p. 312. And compare the 6th Tom. 2. p. 413. Ecc. Angl. Winder. Section of the 4th Lecture. Opera. Vol. 3, p. 320. P. 321.
ducaverunt, omnes in deserto mortui sunt: ista autem esca quam accipis, iste panis vivus qui descendit de coelo, vitae aeternae substantiam subministrat; et quicumque hunc manducaverit, non morietur in aeternum: et est corpus Christi. Considera nunc utrum praestantior sit panis Angelorum, an caro Christi, quae utique corpus est vitae. Manna illud e coelo, hoc supra coelum : illud coeli, hoc Domini coelorum: illud corruptioni obnoxium, si in diem alterum servaretur; hoc alienum ab omni corruptione, quod quicumque religiose gustaverit, corruptionem sentire non poterit.” But to return: the Eucharistical rites of the Christian Church in the first centuries being in part, that is all the most solemn and important of them, handed down by tradition only, the earliest written liturgy which we have is the Clementine. It forms a part of the 8th book of the Apostolical Constitutions: a work which most certainly was not compiled by those whose name it bears, viz. of the Apostles;” and therefore labours under all the disadvantages which must attach to writings not genuine. Still the authority of the Constitutions is very great, and will at least reach thus far: that though we might hesitate to insist upon any statement, certainly of
viditur ; inter dentes comprimitur et in ventrem demittitur.” But the Archbishop must not be understood to teach that no effect was the consequence of the consecration of the
* De Mysteriis. Opera. Tom. 2. p. 337. Eccl. Angl. Vinder. Vol. 3, p. 266. My reason for making the above extracts, as the reader will perceive, is because of
the argument upon which the opinion of those fathers rests: for more than a pious opinion it is not, and others did not hold it. In the famous Saxon homily of Archbishop Ælfric, upon Easter-day, is a passage doubtless contradicting it. I take the Latin translation. “Eucharistia est temporalis, non aeterna; corruptibilis, et in varias partes di
Elements; which would have been
belief perhaps also of practice, to be found there only, yet where such statements are confirmed, by incidental allusions, or by direct accounts of the same things in other writers earlier or contemporary, we may then fully rely upon them. We must remember also, that it was not uncommon, for authors and compilers of that age, the third and fourth centuries, to recommend their works by ascribing them to great saints and teachers who were departed. This may have been a practice at all times to be much regretted, and most undoubtedly it is little according to modern opinions: yet it not only is not in itself a condemnation of every fact or doctrine so recommended, but it sprung from a sense of unworthiness and modesty which has long been lost, and was based upon a well-grounded presumption that there existed in the people a reverence for their Fathers, which has well-nigh been lost also. In the Apostolical Constitutions then is the liturgy attributed to him whose name is in the Book of Life, S. Clement.” With respect to his name in particular being attached to it, we may well adopt the words of Zaccaria, in his defence of that given to S. James. “Illud tamen doctissimis criticis lubens concessero, quae Apostolorum nomine circumferuntur liturgiae, eas multo recentiores esse, suisque auctoribus suppositas. At nulla id fraude factam contendo; Jacobum enim, caeterosque Apostolos liturgiam quampiam, seu ordinem precum in sacramentorum administratione, atque Eucharistiae praesertim immolatione servandum constituisse prudens nemo inficiabitur. Quare cum processu temporis aliqua in illis immutari, demi nonnulla, addi alia contigerit, Apostoli, a quo primum liturgia edita fuerit, nomen retentum est tum in tantum auctorem reverentia, tum eorum, Quae
* Brett observes, in his Disser- against its genuineness, than against tation, that the language in which the acknowledged Epistle of St. it is written is no more an argument Clement.
ab illo profecta fuerant, atque etiam tum usurpabantur, ratione.”
But, without entering into any unnecessary discussion, it will be sufficient simply to state, that the most probable opinion upon it is this: that although we grant that it was never used exactly in the form in which we now have it in any portion of the Church, (neither indeed does it claim for itself any place or country in particular,) still it is to be looked upon as accurately representing to us the general mode prevalent through the Christian world during the first three centuries, of administering the Supper of the Lord: and it is a most strong argument in its favour, that where the other liturgies, claiming to be primitive, are agreeable to each other, they agree with the Clementine: and that the Clementine contains nothing, either particularly in its arrangement, or generally in its manner of expression, which is not to be found in all the others. The most important omission is, that the Lord's Prayer forms no part of it: but this may, as has been suggested,” have arisen from the negligence of some transcriber in whose copy the first words only might have been written (and those in contraction): or it might be readily allowed never to have been used in this liturgy, because although proper to the Holy Service, yet most certainly it is not essential to the consecration of the Eucharist. Which is clear from the fact that in other ancient liturgies in which it does occur, it is placed after the consecration is completed: and this is what I have already attempted to show was what S. Gregory meant in the passage
* Bibl. Ritualis. Tom. 1. Dis- quod valde probabile est, saltem ut sert. 2. p. lxxxvi. And compare a Patribus secundi vel tertii sãeculi Bona, Rerum Liturg. Lib. 1. viij. usurpata." 4. “Missa Clementis estantiquissima, ejusque testimonio saepius * Brett, Dissertation, p. 204, utar, si non praecise ut ab Apostolis &c. (edit. 1720.) His remarks editae, et a successoribus auctae, should be consulted.
which was before examined, with whom, so explained, agree a number of the earliest writers.” Every other liturgy shews evident marks of the rites and ceremonies which have been added from time to time to the original Form: that Form seems to stand clearest in the Clementine.” How decided is the opinion of a learned writer,” “that if we had the very words in which S. Peter and S. Paul consecrated the Eucharist, it would not differ in substance from that which is contained in this most ancient Liturgy:” and of another also:" “the Eucharistical
* “Hieronymus ait lib. 3. adv. Pelag. “Apostolos quotidie Orationem Dominicam solitos dicere in sacrificio. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus Catech. Mystag. 5. “Post haec inquit, nempe post commemorationem Fidelium Defunctorum, dicinus orationem illam, quam Salvator suis discipulis tradidit.’” Bona. Tom. 3. p. 320. These, and other authorities, Optatus, Augustin, Caesar Arelatensis, S. Ambrose, &c. are cited by most of the ritualists.
Mr. Palmer argues from its omission, the great antiquity of the Clementine Liturgy, speaking of it as a remarkable sign. He says: “Without doubt the Lord's prayer was used between the prayer of the deacon and benediction of the faithful, which precedes the form ra. dyiz, &c. all through the patriarchate of Antioch in the early part of the fourth century. Yet it does not occur in this part of the Clementine Liturgy. Now it is not credible that the author would have omitted this prayer if it had been used long before his time. Yet from the manner and language of Chrysostom and Cyril we perceive
that it must have been used long
* Johnson. Unbl. Sacrifice and Altar unvailed, vol. ii. p. 148.
* Hickes. Christian Priesthood, vol. i. p. 141. (Edit. 1711.) Both these well-known passages are cited very frequently by Brett.