Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

point out their unscriptural character, and false foundation, than to inculcate the truths which I have spoken of above. If those truths are held also by the Church of Rome, shall that be a just reason for our rejecting them? shall we regard them, upon that ground, even with suspicion? We do not argue so in many other cases, why then in this? There have been in former times men to whom the very sound of Rome brought tidings of nothing but what was to be abhorred, and they repudiated first one part of her creed, and then another, first one observance and then another, for the single and to them sufficient reason, that so it was believed and done at Rome: until they left to themselves little of Christianity but the name and all that was vital had been given up. Not so has the Church of England taught her children: she has rejected the errors of the Church of Rome, but the act of separation was not hers at the first, (we trust, therefore, not the punishment,) and she has never been stripped, although they may have been obscured, of the marks and tokens which distinguish her as a true portion of the Holy Catholic Church.

To return to our more immediate subject, the ancient and modern Liturgies of the Church of England. None would wish to see restored the trifling observances and the doubtful rites which the rubrics of the old services enjoin. Writers of the Roman Church have made many objections against our present Form, several of which are unfounded, or may be advanced equally against their own, or relate to things which very few would seriously complain of. A collection of these are to be found in Mr. Palmer's book which I have already referred

to," and among the latter class are such as, that particular prayers and ejaculations, anointings, exorcisms, &c. have been omitted. These may safely be left without more remark, and there are very few who will not justly decide that they are as far as possible from necessary, being mere additions or alterations of late ages, from which the earlier Liturgies are free. But it is our duty to retort the charge, and express our dislike to much still retained in the present Roman Liturgy, but which we have not in our own. The prayers and order of the old Forms are derived from remote antiquity; many of the Rubrics are comparatively modern and superstitious. No one can read the Uses which are reprinted in this Volume, without acknowledging the truth of this. There are directions "for so many crossings, so many various gestures, that the Priest should at one time stand, at another bow, at another kneel," without a reasonable cause; "that now he should look up, then down, now regard the Altar, then the people, kiss the book of the Gospels, or the deacon, or subdeacon, at one time take the paten between his finger and middle finger, at another hold it in a different way:" all these are rules, which whilst we carefully boast not too boldly of our liberty, we may rejoice that we are free from.

These are not, however, after all, matters of vital consequence but besides them are considerations of a very serious character. Simply to name them, will be sufficient. The great error of Transubstantiation brought with it additional directions to bow down and after consecration adore the Host: then expose it to the people,

"Origines Liturgicæ. Vol. ii. p. 9-18.

who should adore likewise. And in this, the highest service of the Church of Christ, who is there but must feel it to be a profanation to speak of the merits of the Saints?

I

There is one ceremony commanded in the old Books to be observed, not in like manner to be condemned, and which seems to me to call for a brief remark. mean, the use of the sign of the Cross. The multitude of crossings in the old Canons may very rightly have been discontinued, and yet to give no direction anywhere throughout for the use of that Holy Sign may be equally far from accordant with primitive usage. I would here quote the words of a Ritualist of great authority among us, whose work is generally recommended to the attentive study of all candidates for Orders.

He says: "I do not know that there is an ancient Liturgy in being, but what shews that this sign was always made use of in some part or other of the office of Communion. A number of crossings renders the service theatrical: but one or two we always find: so much having been thought proper upon this solemn occasion, to testify that we are not ashamed of the Cross of Christ, and that the solemn service we are then about is performed in honour of a crucified Saviour. And therefore as the Church of England has thought fit to retain this ceremony in the ministration of one of her Sacraments, I see not why she should lay it aside in the ministration of the other. For that may very well be applied to it in the ministration of the Eucharist, which the Church herself has declared of the Cross in Baptism: viz. that it was held in the primitive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one consent and great applause at what time, if any had opposed themselves

72

against it they would certainly have been censured as enemies of the name of the Cross, and consequently of Christ's merits, the sign whereof they could no better endure." How common the use of this sign anciently was, is clear from Tertullian, in the often quoted passage, "Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnem aditum et exitum, ad vestitum, ad calciatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quacunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus. The reader will see that the use of the sign of the Cross is enjoined in the first Book of King Edward.

9973

There never, however, has been any question of necessity as regards the ceremony of the use of the sign of the Cross: but not so with respect to another, the mixing of water with the wine. The Epistle of S. Cyprian upon this subject is well known: and in short, from the earliest times of which any account has come down to us, there is an uniform and concurrent testimony that such was the observance. Here again the first Book of King Edward follows primitive practice. 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, putting therto a little pure and cleane water: And setting both the bread and wyne upon the Alter: then the Prieste shall saye, &c."

This good Catholic custom was made to give way in 1552 to the fancies of Bucer and others, "the scandal

72 Wheatley. Rational Illustration, &c. p. 293.
73 Tert. de Corona. Edit. Rigalt. p. 102.

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.74 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." Surely also there can be little doubt, but that a return to a long established and uniform observance, to which no reasonable objection

74 Wheatley does not give the rubric or a reference. It is, "Cæteris 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, Almighty God, &c." Form of Consecration of a Church, p. 42.

« PoprzedniaDalej »